Meeting Public Safety and Justice Subcommittee-12/4/2024 complete
2024-12-04 · Public Safety and Justice Subcommittee
Public Safety and Justice Subcommittee
Item text
Summary
This item transmits the minutes of the Formal Meeting of May 15, 2024, for review,
correction and/or approval by the City Council.
The minutes are available for review in the City Clerk Department, 200 W. Washington
Street, 15th Floor.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Summary
This item transmits the minutes of the Special Meeting of May 15, 2024, for review,
correction and/or approval by the City Council.
The minutes are available for review in the City Clerk Department, 200 W. Washington
Street, 15th Floor.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
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.
ATTACHMENT A
To: City Council Date: December 4, 2024
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:
Estrella Village Planning Committee
Councilman Carlos Galindo-Elvira recommends the following for appointment:
Dustin Thrower
Mr. Thrower is the Lead Pastor at Village Hope Church and a resident of District 7. He
fills a vacancy for a term to expire November 19, 2026.
Laveen Village Planning Committee
I recommend the following for appointment:
Michael Doromal
Mr. Doromal is the CEO of LJSM Corporation and a resident of District 7. He replaces
Gary Flunoy for a term to expire November 19, 2025.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request for a Series 15 - Special Event liquor license for the temporary sale of all
liquors.
Summary
Applicant
Josephine Mannino
Location
6161 E. Mayo Boulevard
Council District: 2
Function
Reception
Date(s) - Time(s) / Expected Attendance
February 15, 2025 - 5 p.m. to 9 p.m. / 200 attendees
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 306978.
Summary
Applicant
Tyler Smith, Agent
License Type
Series 7 - Beer and Wine Bar
Location
3321 E. Bell Road, Ste. B-05
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 2
This request is for an ownership and location transfer of a liquor license for a beer and
wine bar. This location is currently licensed for liquor sales with a Series 3 -
Microbrewery, liquor license and does not have an interim permit.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is December 4, 2024.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
The ownership of this business has an interest in other active liquor license(s) in the
State of Arizona. This information is listed below and includes liquor license violations
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.
Kitsune Brewing Company (Series 3)
3321 E. Bell Road, Ste. B-05, Phoenix
Calls for police service: 8
Liquor license violations: None
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“I currently have a series 3 license with no strikes or penalties against me.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“We have created a community that enjoys coming to the space as well as we give
back to the community in the form of food and school supplies drive.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Attachment - Kitsune Brewing Company - Data
Attachment - Kitsune Brewing Company - Map
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Liquor License Data: KITSUNE BREWING COMPANY
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Microbrewery 3 1 1
Bar 6 2 2
Liquor Store 9 6 4
Beer and Wine Store 10 6 2
Restaurant 12 14 5
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 64.2 85.21 103.5
Violent Crimes 12.31 19.58 14.86
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 43 85
Total Violations 74 173
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1033031 1578 87 10 14
1033032 1103 78 9 18
1033033 1037 75 23 0
1033041 1926 47 13 34
1033042 1219 2 16 38
6195003 2362 65 14 8
6196001 2094 72 11 3
Average 0 61 13 19
Liquor License Map: KITSUNE BREWING COMPANY
3321 E BELL RD
Ü
Date:11/18/2024
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi
City Clerk Department
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 309564.
Summary
Applicant
Briana Naegeli, Agent
License Type
Series 11 - Hotel
Location
5665 E. Mayo Boulevard
Zoning Classification: CP/BP DRSP
Council District: 2
This request is for a new liquor license for a hotel. This location is currently licensed for
liquor sales with a Series 7 - Beer and Wine Bar, liquor license and does not have an
interim permit. This location requires a Use Permit to allow outdoor entertainment.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is December 7, 2024.
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 the location, there shall be a rebuttable preseumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
The ownership of this business has an interest in other active liquor license(s) in the
State of Arizona. This information is listed below and includes: information about any
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:
Residence Inn by Marriott (Series 7)
510 S. Forest Avenue, Tempe
Calls for police service: N/A - not in Phoenix
Liquor license violations: None
Residence Inn by Marriott (Series 7)
5665 E. Mayo Boulevard, Phoenix
Calls for police service: 24
Liquor license violations: None
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“Applicant is an experienced licensee committed to upholding the highest standards to
maintain 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:
“Residence Inn by Marriott has been a popular hotel in Phoenix for many years. In
addition to the hotel's standard amenities. Applicant would like to offer guests 21 and
over the opportunity to enjoy beer, wine an spirits as an incident to their story."
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 Ordinance.
Attachments
Attachment - Residence Inn by Marriott - Data
Attachment - Residence Inn by Marriott - Map
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Liquor License Data: RESIDENCE INN BY MARRIOTT
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Bar 6 4 0
Beer and Wine Bar 7 4 1
Beer and Wine Store 10 1 0
Restaurant 12 10 0
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 64.2 9.15 11.88
Violent Crimes 12.31 1.08 1.69
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 43 0
Total Violations 74 0
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
6152001 1993 8 29 12
6152002 2127 70 10 4
Average 0 61 13 19
Liquor License Map: RESIDENCE INN BY MARRIOTT
5665 E MAYO BLVD
Date: 11/22/2024
Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi
City Clerk Department
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
District 3
Request for a Series 15 - Special Event liquor license for the temporary sale of all
liquors.
Summary
Applicant
Sargon Yaro
Location
1915 W. Thunderbird Road
Council District: 3
Function
Dinner and Dance
Date(s) - Time(s) / Expected Attendance
December 31, 2024 - 8 p.m. to 2 a.m. / 400 attendees
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 310070.
Summary
Applicant
Drew Pool, Agent
License Type
Series 3 - Microbrewery
Location
12650 N. Tatum Boulevard, Ste. 100
Zoning Classification: C-2 H-R DNS/WVR SP PCD
Council District: 3
This request is for a new liquor license for a microbrewery. This location was not
previously licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim permit. This business
is currently under construction with plans to open in February 2025.
The 60-day limit for processing this application was November 30, 2024. However, the
applicant submitted a written request for more time.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
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.
Wren House Brewing Company (Series 3)
2125 N. 24th Street, Phoenix
Calls for police service: 1
Liquor license violations: None
Wren House Brewing Co (Series 3)
6396 Lear Lane, Prescott
Calls for police service: N/A - not in Phoenix
Liquor license violations: None
Sudhalle Taphouse (Series 12)
4025 E. Chandler Boulevard, Ste. 1 & 2, Phoenix
Calls for police service: 56
Liquor license violations: In September 2024, a fine for $1,500 was paid for allowing
alcohol to be removed from the premises.
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“We have a 10 year brewery that has contributed to our local community with no
negative marks on our record.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“Continued contribution to local communities, charities, employment opportunities."
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
Attachment - Wren House Brewing Co - Data
Attachment - Wren House Brewing Co - Map
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Liquor License Data: WREN HOUSE BREWING CO
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Bar 6 2 1
Beer and Wine Bar 7 1 1
Liquor Store 9 4 3
Beer and Wine Store 10 7 5
Hotel 11 1 0
Restaurant 12 23 20
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 64.2 100.13 215.18
Violent Crimes 12.31 7.59 14.64
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 43 36
Total Violations 74 52
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1032051 1834 100 6 0
1032052 1192 82 0 16
1032082 1548 38 36 18
1032091 804 74 0 24
1032101 872 20 20 12
1032102 1681 32 14 19
1032105 468 0 19 22
1032106 886 23 22 7
Average 0 61 13 19
Liquor License Map: WREN HOUSE BREWING CO
12650 N TATUM BLVD
Ü
Date:11/20/2024
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi
City Clerk Department
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 310333.
Summary
Applicant
Xingjiang Zhao, Agent
License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant
Location
4402 N. 7th Avenue
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 4
This request is for a new liquor license for a restaurant. This location was previously
licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim permit.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is December 15, 2024.
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.
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 been managing restaurants for more than 20 years. I have completed the
training coursed required by law. I have had the basic knowledge of the laws and liquor
products for serving liquor in a restaurant..”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“providing liquor options will serve our customers better."
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Attachment - Szechwan Kitchen - Data
Attachment - Szechwan Kitchen - Map
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Liquor License Data: SZECHWAN KITCHEN
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Bar 6 12 7
Beer and Wine Bar 7 10 0
Liquor Store 9 6 0
Beer and Wine Store 10 8 4
Hotel 11 1 0
Restaurant 12 36 10
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 64.2 231.39 192.88
Violent Crimes 12.31 43.68 38.53
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 43 95
Total Violations 74 169
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1088021 1456 23 32 31
1089011 988 36 15 30
1089012 1297 31 23 54
1089013 956 82 4 8
1089022 1250 42 26 22
1089023 1072 28 3 47
1089024 1278 46 9 21
1104001 1724 53 6 33
1105011 551 49 20 14
1105012 1249 13 23 11
1171001 2126 10 15 10
1171002 703 57 27 12
Average 0 61 13 19
Liquor License Map: SZECHWAN KITCHEN
4402 N 7TH AVE
Date: 11/22/2024
Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi
City Clerk Department
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 310116.
Summary
Applicant
Jose Diaz, Agent
License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant
Location
2624 W. Bethany Home Road
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 5
This request is for a new liquor license for a restaurant. This location was previously
licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim permit.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is December 4, 2024.
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.
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 owner of Mariscos y Sushi El Kora has proudly operated another family-owned
restaurant in the City of Phoenix serving Kora-style fresh seafood and Japanese style
sushi since 2017, which consistently receives primarily "A" ratings from the Health
Department. They remain committed to upholding the highest standards for their
business and providing a safe and enjoyable experience for all customers at this
second establishment.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“Mariscos y Sushi El Kora desires to provide Phoenix residents and out-of-town
visitors with a unique dining destination, including alcoholic and non-alcoholic
beverage options, which most diners require as part of their full restaurant dining
experience. The added City tax revenue brought by the sale of alcoholic beverages will
further enhance our quality of life in Phoenix.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Attachment - Mariscos Y Sushi El Kora - Data
Attachment - Mariscos Y Sushi El Kora - Map
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Liquor License Data: MARISCOS Y SUSHI EL KORA
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Bar 6 5 2
Liquor Store 9 5 3
Beer and Wine Store 10 13 7
Hotel 11 1 0
Restaurant 12 9 1
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 64.2 261.67 274.84
Violent Crimes 12.31 61.88 82.8
*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 43 157
Total Violations 74 302
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1068012 1670 5 28 55
1068013 1083 30 20 33
1068022 1105 85 21 1
1069001 1043 81 11 4
1069002 2629 71 5 22
1072022 2085 62 5 22
1073001 2203 79 3 6
1073004 2614 23 5 31
Average 0 61 13 19
Liquor License Map: MARISCOS Y SUSHI EL KORA
2624 W BETHANY HOME RD
Ü
Date: 10/21/2024
0 0.17 0.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
Miles
City Clerk Department 45
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request for a Series 15 - Special Event liquor license for the temporary sale of all
liquors.
Summary
Applicant
Aristotelis Evripidou
Location
1973 E. Maryland Avenue
Council District: 6
Function
Dinner and Dance
Date(s) - Time(s) / Expected Attendance
March 1, 2025 - 6 p.m. to 11:59 p.m. / 150 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.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 308062.
Summary
Applicant
Holly Hutton, Agent
License Type
Series 10 - Beer and Wine Store
Location
1215 E. Missouri Avenue, Ste. 1
Zoning Classification: C-1
Council District: 6
This request is for a new liquor license for a specialty market. This location was not
previously licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim permit. This location
requires a Use Permit to allow packaged liquor sales.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is December 9, 2024.
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.
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 run a successful business for the last several years in the Phoenix Metro area
and have lived in the community all my life. Reliability is a key factor in my daily living.
Community, Health and well being is very important.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“Having a small store in the area that does not have this kind of establishment for local
residents will improve foot traffic and sales for other businesses in the area.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application noting the applicant must resolve any
pending City of Phoenix building and zoning requirements, and be in compliance with
the City of Phoenix Code and Ordinances.
Attachments
Attachment - Charcuterie Creative - Data
Attachment - Charcuterie Creative - Map
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Liquor License Data: CHARCUTERIE CREATIVE
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Microbrewery 3 1 0
Wholesaler 4 2 0
Bar 6 7 0
Beer and Wine Bar 7 7 0
Liquor Store 9 6 0
Beer and Wine Store 10 12 1
Restaurant 12 48 2
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 64.2 182.21 106.47
Violent Crimes 12.31 20.99 11.99
*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 43 35
Total Violations 74 61
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1076011 319 65 16 46
1076012 904 38 24 23
1076013 1748 38 8 17
1076021 1311 82 0 6
1076022 1734 54 18 3
1077003 457 26 26 16
1077004 526 77 27 21
1086021 790 37 38 22
1086024 1171 24 9 12
Average 0 61 13 19
Liquor License Map: CHARCUTERIE CREATIVE
1215 E MISSOURI AVE
Date: 11/21/2024
Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi
City Clerk Department
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 307440.
Summary
Applicant
Mark Tarbell, Agent
License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant
Location
3200 E. Camelback Road, Level 1
Zoning Classification: C-O
Council District: 6
This request is for a new liquor license for a restaurant. This location was not
previously licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim permit. This location
requires a Use Permit to allow the sale of alcoholic beverages.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is December 4, 2024.
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 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.
Tarbell's (Series 12)
3213 E. Camelback Road, Phoenix
Calls for police service: 1
Liquor license violations: None
Tavern & Wine Store (Series 6)
3205 & 3209 E. Camelback Road, Phoenix
Calls for police service: 5
Liquor license violations: None
Wine Store (Series 10S)
3209 E. Camelback Road, Phoenix
Calls for police service: 2
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 have held several liquor licenses in Phoenix for 30 years, without incident, including:
Tarbell's - #12071531, Tavern & Wine Store - #06070233, Wine Store - #10076433,
Wine Store Sampling - #105076433.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“My businesses present high-end environments with community and social value to
patrons of an affluent and educated demographic."
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
Attachment - Cultivate - Data
Attachment - Cultivate - Map
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Liquor License Data: CULTIVATE
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Bar 6 5 2
Beer and Wine Bar 7 1 0
Liquor Store 9 2 1
Beer and Wine Store 10 2 1
Hotel 11 2 0
Restaurant 12 29 7
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 64.2 67.27 74.84
Violent Crimes 12.31 5.38 4.35
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 43 18
Total Violations 74 26
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1051033 1364 100 22 0
1078001 542 96 53 2
1078002 1477 63 28 5
1083011 1100 89 14 0
1083012 1221 72 5 1
1083013 982 75 18 1
1084004 1641 65 7 19
Average 0 61 13 19
Liquor License Map: CULTIVATE
3200 E CAMELBACK RD
Ü
Date:11/19/2024
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi
City Clerk Department
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 309654.
Summary
Applicant
Juanita Esparza, Agent
License Type
Series 7 - Beer and Wine Bar
Location
3180 E. Indian School Road
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 6
This request is for a new liquor license for a beer and wine bar. This location was not
previously licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim permit.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is December 8, 2024
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.
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 owner of Element Nail Bar-Arcadia, LLC are committed to upholding the highest
standards for "it's business practices & employees. Ms. Le has been trained in the
techniques of legal & responsibility & has taken the title IV liquor training course along
with the manager's. Ms. Le will oversee all employees & will provide a safe experience
for all employees and patrons.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“Ms. Le of Element Nail Bar-Arcadia, LLC wish to provide the service of beer & wine
while in a relaxing environment with the service of an beer or wine beverage at the
request of any patron over the age of 21 years. In addition Ms. Le will responsibly
adhere to all state and federal tax laws & maintain a strict adherence to the security
requirements of the city and state.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Attachment - Element Nail Bar - Data
Attachment - Element Nail Bar - Map
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Liquor License Data: ELEMENT NAIL BAR
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Bar 6 7 1
Beer and Wine Bar 7 3 1
Liquor Store 9 4 0
Beer and Wine Store 10 9 4
Restaurant 12 30 12
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 64.2 123.69 148.61
Violent Crimes 12.31 19.26 24.41
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 43 24
Total Violations 73 39
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1083012 1221 72 5 1
1083021 1229 70 16 3
1084001 718 2 38 46
1084002 673 72 16 3
1084004 1641 65 7 19
1084005 422 16 37 13
1108011 1736 56 27 40
1108012 1115 19 30 33
1108013 1077 47 26 14
1109011 665 96 10 13
Average 0 61 13 19
Liquor License Map: ELEMENT NAIL BAR
3180 E INDIAN SCHOOL RD
Ü
Date: 10/11/2024
0 0.17 0.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
Miles
City Clerk Department 62
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request for a Series 15 - Special Event liquor license for the temporary sale of all
liquors.
Summary
Applicant
Carlos Montufar
Location
147 E. Adams Street
Council District: 7
Function
Performance
Date(s) - Time(s) / Expected Attendance
December 14, 2024 - 6:30 p.m. to 10 p.m. / 85 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.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 308276.
Summary
Applicant
Jeffrey Miller, Agent
License Type
Series 4 - Wholesaler
Location
5302 W. Buckeye Road
Zoning Classification: A-1
Council District: 7
This request is for a new liquor license for a wholesaler. 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 December 6, 2024.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, consideration may only be given 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
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“We have been successfully operating our business at another location for several
years. We will continue to abide by Title 4 liquor laws.”
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.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 309329.
Summary
Applicant
Victor Flores, Agent
License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant
Location
7415 W. Thomas Road
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 7
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 December 4, 2024.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, consideration may 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
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“I, Victor G Flores, have been in business since August 2005 to current day. I have
never had any violations towards my license and since I took over this business. My
son, Victor J Flores, has been helping me run the business together since 2017. He
started in the kitchen and gradually started running the register and helping me run the
entire business. I decided it was time for him to inherit 50% of the business. That is
why we are applying for this liquor license. We will continue to run this business the
same way that we have been running since 2005 to current day.”
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.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 310495.
Summary
Applicant
Amarjit Singh, Agent
License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant
Location
3911 E. Thomas Road, Ste. F5
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.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is December 10, 2024.
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.
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 had opened and ran a restaurant for 11 years. I have been successfully running a
gas station for the last 18 years and just purchased 2 other businesses in the last two
years. I am well aware of liquor laws for on premises, as well as off premises.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“Although there are few Mexican food restaurants around the neighbourhood, there is
not any good sit down restaurant where a family can enjoy authentic Mexican food with
some alcholic drinks we really believe that our restaurant will bring joy to the
community.”
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
Attachment - Bravo Taco's - Data
Attachment - Bravo Taco's - Map
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Liquor License Data: BRAVO TACO'S
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Microbrewery 3 1 1
Bar 6 7 3
Beer and Wine Bar 7 2 1
Liquor Store 9 6 1
Beer and Wine Store 10 11 4
Restaurant 12 14 6
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 64.2 254.14 418.47
Violent Crimes 12.31 34.66 40.65
*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 43 54
Total Violations 74 104
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1109012 2669 23 19 27
1109021 2609 33 21 40
1109022 2224 39 7 18
1110003 1587 64 17 24
1113002 930 52 7 20
1114011 2444 62 7 27
1114021 1986 38 14 27
1114022 2120 45 17 31
Average 0 61 13 19
Liquor License Map: BRAVO TACO'S
3911 E THOMAS RD
Date: 11/21/2024
Ü
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 311024.
Summary
Applicant
Akash Thathi, Agent
License Type
Series 10 - Beer and Wine Store
Location
102 S. 24th Street
Zoning Classification: C-3
Council District: 8
This request is for a new liquor license for a convenience store that sells gas. This
location was not previously licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim
permit. This location requires a Use Permit to allow package liquor sales and a
variance to allow a drive-through.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is December 14, 2024.
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.
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“I am qualified to hold a liquor license due to my extensive experience managing
licensed premises responsibly. With 8 other licensed locations and no liquor violations,
we have consistently demonstrated our commitment to following regulations and
ensuring compliance. Our proven track record reflects our reliability and capability to
manage the sale of alcoholic beverages safely and in the best interest of the
community.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“The issuance of the liquor license will serve public convenience by allowing our gas
station to offer beer and wine, providing customers with an additional service while
meeting local demand. It will enhance the convenience for travelers and residents who
wish to purchase these beverages without needing to visit multiple or far away
locations, thereby serving the best interest of the community.”
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
Attachment - Kwik 102 - Data
Attachment - Kwik 102 - Map
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Liquor License Data: KWIK 102
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Microbrewery 3 1 0
Bar 6 2 1
Conveyance 8 1 0
Liquor Store 9 2 1
Beer and Wine Store 10 11 3
Restaurant 12 1 1
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 64.2 97.02 90.33
Violent Crimes 12.31 46.92 59.76
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 43 58
Total Violations 74 126
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1133003 901 22 23 72
1134001 589 0 0 100
1138012 834 21 19 47
1138021 0 0 0 0
1139001 1126 20 18 81
Average 0 61 13 19
Liquor License Map: KWIK 102
102 S 24TH ST
Ü
Date:11/20/2024
0 0.170.35 0.7 1.05 1.4
mi
City Clerk Department
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
For $50,000 in payment authority for a new contract, entered on or about November
20, 2024, for a term of three-years, with two one-year renewal options for scheduled
fine artwork dusting and cleaning services for the Aviation Department. The contract
will provide scheduled services for four large-scale public artwork pieces located
throughout Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport and the Phoenix Sky Train
Station.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Doctors, LLC
For $187,000 in payment authority for two new contracts, entered on or about
December 16, 2024, for a term of five years for sign fabrication equipment for the
Aviation, Phoenix Convention Center, and Street Transportation departments. These
contracts will provide inspection, repair and maintenance services on an as-needed
basis for the upkeep of sign fabrication equipment that is essential to daily operations
in multiple City departments.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
For $210,000 in payment authority for two new contracts, entered on or about
December 9, 2024, for a term of three years, with two one-year options for the
Backyard Garden Program for the Office of Environmental Programs. These contracts
will provide participating residents with a garden system and training that empowers
them to grow healthy food in their own backyards. The Backyard Garden Program has
been instrumental in expanding residents' access to healthy food, enhancing health,
promoting physical activity, and decreasing food insecurity.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
For $160,000 in payment authority for a new contract, entered on or about December
31, 2024 for a term of five years for the purchase of Fluke Versiv Kit Analyzers, support
plans, and accessories to test the integrity of network communications for the Water
Services Department. Fluke Versiv Kit Analyzers are utilized by all water, wastewater,
and remote locations to ensure that the departments meet the regulatory performance
requirements.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
To make payment of up to $205,000 in settlement of claim(s) in Mariposa Landscape
Arizona v. City of Phoenix, CV2023-052523, 22-1127-001, GL, for the Finance
Department pursuant to Phoenix City Code Chapter 42. This is a settlement of a claim
involving the Water Services Department that occurred on April 3, 2023.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
To make payment of up to $100,000 in settlement of claim(s) in Meza-Martinez v. City
of Phoenix, CV2023-008847, 22-0784-002, AU, BI, for the Finance Department
pursuant to Phoenix City Code Chapter 42. This is a settlement of a claim involving the
Public Works Department that occurred on August 30, 2022.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
51469) - Districts 2 & 3
Request for the City Council to accept and dedicate deeds for roadway purposes;
further ordering the ordinance recorded. Legal descriptions to be recorded via
separate recording instrument.
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.
Deed (a)
MCR: 20240564831
Applicant and Grantee: Temple Chai Association; its successor and assigns
Date: October 23, 2024
Purpose: Roadway
Location: 6001 E. Bell Road
APN: 215-39-001C
File: 240060
Council District: 2
Deed (b)
MCR: 20240578955
Applicant and Grantee: Cactus Investments Park, LLC; its successor and assigns
Date: October 29, 2024
Purpose: Roadway
Location: 1920 W. Thunderbird Road
APN: 208-15-003N
File: 240061
Council District: 3
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Planning and
Development and Finance departments.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
District 8
Request for the City Council to accept an easement for drainage purposes; further
ordering the ordinance recorded. Legal descriptions are recorded via separate
recording instrument.
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)
MCR: 20240578953
Applicant and Grantee: Cesar E. Salas; its successor and assigns
Date: October 29, 2024
Purpose: Drainage
Location: 9822 S. 19th Avenue
APN: 300-16-009V
File: 240085
Council District: 8
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Planning and
Development and Finance departments.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Award (Ordinance S-51465) - Citywide
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
CDW Government, LLC and Insight Public Sector, Inc. to provide software, volume
licenses and enterprise licenses for departments Citywide. Further request to authorize
the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The total value of the
contract will not exceed $210,000,000. Further request an exception to the indemnity
and assumption of liability provisions of the Phoenix City Code Section 42-18.
Summary
This contract will provide access to a wide variety of commercial off-the-shelf software
(COTS) and software as a service (SaaS) and related services across departments
Citywide. In managing its extensive information technology infrastructure, the City
relies on software solutions across various departments. To streamline procurement
and maximize benefits, the City engages with software value-added resellers (SVAR).
These contracts not only provide cost savings through volume discounts, but also offer
additional advantages, including access to evaluation copies, product comparisons,
and tailored recommendations. By leveraging the SVAR, the City ensures software
acquisition while bolstering its technological capabilities for effective public service
delivery.
The City intends to adopt multiple SVAR cooperative contracts and will request Council
approval once the City receives signed cooperative purchasing agreements from the
vendors.
Procurement Information
In accordance with Administrative Regulation 3.10, standard competition was waived
as a result of an approved Determination Memo based on the following reason:
Special Circumstances Alternative Competition. Central Procurement, with support
from the Information Technology Services, researched various local and nationwide
cooperative agreements. They have determined that the State of Arizona's cooperative
contracts are most aligned with the City's technology requirements and offer the best
pricing on essential products.
Contract Term
The contract term will expire April 23, 2027, with two one-year options to extend.
Financial Impact
The aggregate contract value will not exceed $210,000,000 for the aggregate term.
Funding is available in the various departments' operating budgets.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Jeffrey Barton and the Finance Department.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Contract Vendors - RFP PS 24-0228 - Request for Award (Ordinance S-51468) -
Citywide
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
NV5 Consultants, Inc. to provide third-party consulting and act as Owner
Representative for Energy Performance Contracts with Job Order Contract Vendors.
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
The City recently selected five Energy Service Companies (ESCOs) under the Job
Order Contracting program to install energy efficiency measures on a large number of
City facilities. The Owner Representative will act as Project Facilitator, and the
services provided will include ESCO reviews, project development, project
implementation and construction, post-completion performance, and subsequent
Measurement and Verification (M&V) reviews.
Procurement Information
A Request for Proposal was processed in accordance with City of Phoenix
Administrative Regulation 3.10.
Four vendors submitted proposals deemed responsive and responsible. An evaluation
committee of City staff evaluated those offers based on the following criteria with a
maximum possible point total of 1,000 including:
· Qualifications, Experience and References (0-400 points)
· Method of Approach (0-400 points)
· Price (0-200 points)
After reaching consensus, the evaluation committee recommends award to the
following vendor:
NV5 Consultants, Inc.,
Contract Term
The contract will begin on or about December 4, 2024, for a five-year term with no
options to extend.
Financial Impact
The aggregate contract value will not exceed $400,000. Funding is available in the
Office of Sustainability's operating budget.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the Office of
Sustainability.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Amendment (Ordinance S-51483) - Citywide
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute amendment to
Contract 138020 with Riskonnect Clearsight, LLC 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 Ordinances S-40639, S-43822,
S-48345, and S-49509.
Summary
This contract provides the Risk Management division of the Finance Department, a
web-based risk management information system with secure data storage, client
service and system maintenance and includes a key bill-payment interface that is
linked to the Law Department's information system and a jointly developed transaction
interface with SAP.
This item has been reviewed and approved by the Information Technology Services
Department.
Contract Term
Upon approval the contract will be extended through March 31, 2026.
Financial Impact
The aggregate value of the contract will not exceed $1,715,000 and no additional
funds are needed.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council previously reviewed this request:
· Risk Management Information System and Ancillary Services Contract 138020
(Ordinance S-40639) on March 19, 2014;
· Risk Management Information System and Ancillary Services Contract 138020
(Ordinance S-43822) on Aug. 30, 2017;
· Risk Management Information System and Ancillary Services Contract 138020
(Ordinance S-48345) on Feb. 16, 2022;
· Risk Management Information System and Ancillary Services Contract 138020
(Ordinance S-49509) on March 22, 2023.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Jeffrey Barton and the Finance Department.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Vehicle Wash Services (Ordinance S-51492) - Citywide
Request to authorize the City Manager or his designee to enter into a Letter of
Agreement with Circle K Stores Inc., the successor in interest to True Blue Car Wash
LLC dba Clean Freak Car Wash in relation to Contract 150872, to continue to provide
vehicle wash services for citywide use. Further request to continue using funds
available from prior Council approval in relation to Contract 150872. Further request
additional expenditures not to exceed $101,000. And further request to authorize the
City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item.
Summary
The purpose of this Letter of Agreement is to continue to provide vehicle wash services
to City departments. Vehicle wash services are necessary to clean City cars, trucks,
SUV's, cargo and passenger vans, Police mobile command and specialty vehicles.
Services include both automated and hand wash services. The City provided consent
for the original contract to be assigned from True Blue Car Wash LLC dba Clean Freak
Car Wash to Circle K Stores Inc.
Contract Term
The term of the Letter of Agreement will begin on or about December 4, 2024 and
expire on December 4, 2025.
Financial Impact
Upon approval of $101,000 in additional funds, the revised aggregate value of the
contract will not exceed $1,131,000. Funds are available in the various departments'
budgets.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council previously reviewed this request:
· Vehicle Wash Services - Requirements Contract - IFB 19-141 (Ordinance S-45954)
on August 28, 2019.
· Vehicle Wash Services - Requirements Contract - IFB 19-141 (Ordinance S-47257)
on Jan. 20, 2021.
· Vehicle Wash Services - Requirements Contract - IFB 19-141 (Ordinance S-50551)
on Feb. 7, 2024.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Jeffrey Barton and the Finance Department.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Contract - RFP 19-003 - Amendment (Ordinance S-51477) - Citywide
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute amendment to
Contract 150305 with Code Publishing Company, LLC for an assignment from Code
Publishing Company, LLC to ICC Codification, Inc dba General Code, LLC. Further
request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. No
additional funds are needed, request to continue using Ordinances S-45819 and S-
51049-0013.
Summary
This contract will provide continual updates of the existing City Charter, City Code, and
Zoning Ordinance in web and print/paper formats. This contract also provides a web
version of the City Charter, City Code, and Zoning Ordinance in a public-facing
website, that is free of charge to the public and City staff.
Contract Term
The contract term remains unchanged, ending on June 30, 2025.
Financial Impact
The aggregate value of the contract will not exceed $140,000 and no additional funds
are needed.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council previously reviewed this request:
· Publication of the City Charter, Code and Zoning Ordinance - Requirements
Contract 150305 (Ordinance S-45819) on June 19, 2019;
· Publication of the City Charter, Code and Zoning Ordinance - Requirements
Contract 150305 (Ordinance S-51049-0013) on June 26, 2024.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Jeffrey Barton and the Law Department.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Funding to Purchase Computer Hardware (Ordinance S-51484) - Citywide
Request authorization for the Phoenix Municipal Court to apply for grant funding in an
amount not to exceed $145,000 from the Arizona Supreme Court administered Judicial
Collection Enhancement Fund (JCEF) to purchase computers and related hardware.
Further request authorization for the City Treasurer to accept, and for the City
Controller to disburse, all funds related to this item.
Summary
Phoenix Municipal Court will use these funds to replace aging desktop computers,
laptops, and related hardware, and replenish its stock of spare computers and
hardware. The purchase of additional hardware, and replacement of existing
hardware, will help the Court support expanded business needs, ensure the reliability
of the Court's business systems, minimize potential hardware failure, and support
Windows 11 hardware requirements.
Financial Impact
Funds will be made available in the Phoenix Municipal Court local JCEF account. The
Phoenix Municipal Court must submit a funding plan and application to the Arizona
Supreme Court Administrative Office of the Courts to secure approval for utilization of
JCEF funds pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes Section 12-113. No General Fund
dollars will be used.
Responsible Department
The item is recommended by Chief Presiding Judge B. Don Taylor III and Deputy City
Manager Gina Montes.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
51481) - Citywide
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to transfer retirement funds for
Lucas Coleman in the amount of $37,345.98 to the Arizona State Retirement System.
Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse the funds.
Summary
Pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes, Sections 38-730 and 38-322, retirement service
credits for former members of the City of Phoenix Employees' Retirement System
(COPERS) may be transferred to the Arizona State Retirement System upon approval
by the City Council. The following former City of Phoenix employee has requested
transfer of the balance of her credited service:
Coleman, Lucas: $37,345.98
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
This item was approved by the COPERS Board at the November 7, 2024 meeting.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Inger Erickson and the Retirement
Office.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
51482) - Citywide
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to transfer retirement funds for
Tara Zuckerbrow in the amount of $144,191.13 to the Arizona State Retirement
System. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse the funds.
Summary
Pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes, Sections 38-730 and 38-322, retirement service
credits for former members of the City of Phoenix Employees' Retirement System
(COPERS) may be transferred to the Arizona State Retirement System upon approval
by the City Council. The following former City of Phoenix employee has requested
transfer of the balance of her credited service:
Zuckerbrow, Tara: $144,191.13
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
This item was approved by the COPERS Board at the November 7, 2024 meeting.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Inger Erickson and the Retirement
Office.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Development Project (Ordinance S-51498) - District 8
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an Affordable
Housing Loan Program agreement for up to $3,015,746 in federal U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) HOME Investment Partnerships American
Rescue Plan (HOME-ARP) program funds with Senior Bridge, LLC, or a City-approved
nominee, for the Senior Bridge affordable housing development project, and to take all
actions and execute all documents to complete the loan. Authorization is also
requested for the City Controller to disburse the funds for the life of the contract. There
is no impact to the General Fund.
Summary
On June 6, 2024, the Housing Department issued a HOME-ARP Notice of Funding
Opportunity (NOFO) for Non-Congregate Shelter and Rental Housing acquisition,
rehabilitation and/or new construction projects to reduce homelessness and increase
housing stability. A NOFO Pre-Submittal Workshop was held on July 11, 2024.
Applications were due on August 30, 2024.
Procurement Information
Three proposals for Rental Housing acquisition were received and reviewed by an
evaluation committee comprised of City staff members representing various
departments. The proposals were evaluated on a 1,000-point scale based on the
following criteria: Operations; How Well the Project Addressed the Strategies to
Address Homelessness Plan; Organization Capacity; and Project Readiness. The
following were recommended for funding:
· St. Catherine Manor (Housing for Hope, LLC/Catholic Charities) - 870 points
· Tanner Thomas Village (Tanner Community Development) - 803 points
· Senior Bridge (Steel+Spark) - 790 points
Senior Bridge, located at 2853 E. Van Buren Street (District 8), consists of 65
permanent supportive housing units for previously homeless seniors entering from
Senior Bridge’s on-site transitional housing units. The 65 permanent supportive
housing units will serve seniors with Area Median Income (AMI) levels at or below 30
percent. Residents will receive supportive services from Mercy House and will include
support from a Housing Navigator to formulate an Individualized Housing Stabilization
Plan addressing areas such as financial management, employment, life skills, sobriety,
physical and mental health, etc. Additional project funding in the following amounts
have been secured by the developer:
· Arizona Department of Housing - $7,100,000
· BloomSpot, LLC - $1,950,000
· City of Phoenix - $750,000
Project awards are contingent on full underwriting, environmental release of funds,
commitments of other financing, and availability of federal funds. The overall loan
structure will be consistent with the terms listed in the NOFO and HOME-ARP
Program requirements.
Financial Impact
There is no impact to the General Fund. HOME-ARP is a federally funded program.
Funding for this NOFO is made available from HOME-ARP funds. Funding is budgeted
in the Housing Department’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget. Loan
execution is anticipated for Fiscal Year 2024-25, and the loan will be paid to the
developer during the construction period.
Public Outreach
As part of the HOME-ARP Allocation Plan process, HUD required extensive public
outreach to formulate the plan. Housing staff conducted six virtual listening sessions
for community stakeholders and interviewed numerous service agencies and housing
providers directly. More than 66 agencies participated in interviews and listening
sessions during this process. This public input was used to draft the HOME-ARP
Allocation Plan and inform the design of the NOFO to address the most critical needs
of the community.
As part of the formal adoption process, the HOME-ARP Allocation Plan was made
public and provided for a 15-day public comment period. The City of Phoenix
published a 15-day comment period and public hearing notice in the Arizona Republic
on August 29, 2022. A virtual public hearing was held to provide an opportunity for
public comment on September 12, 2022. The public comment period was open from
September 13 to September 27, 2022. City Council approved the HOME-ARP
Allocation Plan on November 16, 2022. The HOME-ARP Allocation Plan was approved
by HUD on February 6, 2023.
Location
2853 E. Van Buren Street
Council District: 8
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Gina Montes and the Housing
Department.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Development Project (Ordinance S-51499) - District 8
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an Affordable
Housing Loan Program agreement for up to $3,038,203 in federal U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) HOME Investment Partnerships American
Rescue Plan (HOME-ARP) program funds with Housing for Hope, LLC, or a City-
approved nominee, for the St. Catherine Manor affordable housing development
project, and to take all actions and execute all documents to complete the loan.
Authorization is also requested for the City Controller to disburse the funds for the life
of the contract. There is no impact to the General Fund.
Summary
On June 6, 2024, the Housing Department issued a HOME-ARP Notice of Funding
Opportunity (NOFO) for Non-Congregate Shelter and Rental Housing acquisition,
rehabilitation and/or new construction projects to reduce homelessness and increase
housing stability. A NOFO Pre-Submittal Workshop was held on July 11, 2024.
Applications were due on August 30, 2024.
Procurement Information
Three proposals for Rental Housing acquisition were received and reviewed by an
evaluation committee comprised of City staff members representing various
departments. The proposals were evaluated on a 1,000-point scale based on the
following criteria: Operations; How Well the Project Addressed the Strategies to
Address Homelessness Plan; Organization Capacity; and Project Readiness. The
following were recommended for funding:
· St. Catherine Manor (Housing for Hope, LLC/Catholic Charities) - 870 points
· Tanner Thomas Village (Tanner Community Development) - 803 points
· Senior Bridge (Steel+Spark) - 790 points
St. Catherine Manor, located at 1431 E. Southern Avenue (District 8), consists of 11
permanent supportive housing units for previously homeless seniors. Eight of the 11
units will be targeted for seniors with Area Median Income (AMI) levels of less than 30
percent, and three of the 11 units will be targeted for seniors with AMI levels of less
than 60 percent. Residents will receive supportive services from the Rio Vista Center,
a partnership formed with Catholic Charities, where food, clothing, furnishings, health
care, and other community program referrals will be provided, as well as opportunities
to participate in social activities at the community center. Housing for Hope, LLC will
cover additional construction and project costs not provided by HOME-ARP funding.
Project awards are contingent on full underwriting, environmental release of funds,
commitments of other financing, and availability of federal funds. The overall loan
structure will be consistent with the terms listed in the NOFO and HOME-ARP
Program requirements.
Financial Impact
There is no impact to the General Fund. HOME-ARP is a federally funded program.
Funding for this NOFO is made available from HOME-ARP funds. Funding is budgeted
in the Housing Department’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget. Loan
execution is anticipated for Fiscal Year 2024-25, and the loan will be paid to the
developer during the construction period.
Public Outreach
As part of the HOME-ARP Allocation Plan process, HUD required extensive public
outreach to formulate the plan. Housing staff conducted six virtual listening sessions
for community stakeholders and interviewed numerous service agencies and housing
providers directly. More than 66 agencies participated in interviews and listening
sessions during this process. This public input was used to draft the HOME-ARP
Allocation Plan and inform the design of the NOFO to address the most critical needs
of the community.
As part of the formal adoption process, the HOME-ARP Allocation Plan was made
public and provided for a 15-day public comment period. The City of Phoenix
published a 15-day comment period and public hearing notice in the Arizona Republic
on August 29, 2022. A virtual public hearing was held to provide an opportunity for
public comment on September 12, 2022. The public comment period was open from
September 13 to September 27, 2022. City Council approved the HOME-ARP
Allocation Plan on November 16, 2022. The HOME-ARP Allocation Plan was approved
by HUD on February 6, 2023.
Location
1431 E. Southern Avenue
Council District: 8
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Gina Montes and the Housing
Department.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Development Project (Ordinance S-51500) - District 8
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an Affordable
Housing Loan Program agreement for up to $2,365,349 in federal U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) HOME Investment Partnerships American
Rescue Plan (HOME-ARP) program funds with Tanner Community Development, or a
City-approved nominee, for the Tanner Thomas Village affordable housing
development project, and to take all actions and execute all documents to complete
the loan. Authorization is also requested for the City Controller to disburse the funds
for the life of the contract. There is no impact to the General Fund.
Summary
On June 6, 2024, the Housing Department issued a HOME-ARP Notice of Funding
Opportunity (NOFO) for Non-Congregate Shelter and Rental Housing acquisition,
rehabilitation and/or new construction projects to reduce homelessness and increase
housing stability. A NOFO Pre-Submittal Workshop was held on July 11, 2024.
Applications were due on August 30, 2024.
Procurement Information
Three proposals for Rental Housing acquisition were received and reviewed by an
evaluation committee comprised of City staff members representing various
departments. The proposals were evaluated on a 1,000-point scale based on the
following criteria: Operations; How Well the Project Addressed the Strategies to
Address Homelessness Plan; Organization Capacity; and Project Readiness. The
following were recommended for funding:
· St. Catherine Manor (Housing for Hope, LLC/Catholic Charities) - 870 points
· Tanner Thomas Village (Tanner Community Development) - 803 points
· Senior Bridge (Steel+Spark) - 790 points
Tanner Thomas Village, located at 1803 E. Broadway Road (District 8), consists of 37
permanent supportive housing units for previously homeless veterans. The 37
permanent supportive housing units will serve veterans with Area Median Income
(AMI) levels at or below 30 percent. Residents will receive supportive services through
Tanner Community Development’s on-site Community Resource Center where health
care navigation and equity, supplemental nutrition support, human and social services,
economic self-sufficiency, and workforce development services will be provided.
Additional project funding in the following amounts have been secured by the
developer:
· HUD Economic Development Initiative - $2,883,950
· State of Arizona Governor’s Office - $271,851
Project awards are contingent on full underwriting, environmental release of funds,
commitments of other financing, and availability of federal funds. The overall loan
structure will be consistent with the terms listed in the NOFO and HOME-ARP
Program requirements.
Financial Impact
There is no impact to the General Fund. HOME-ARP is a federally funded program.
Funding for this NOFO is made available from HOME-ARP funds. Funding is budgeted
in the Housing Department’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget. Loan
execution is anticipated for Fiscal Year 2024-25, and the loan will be paid to the
developer during the construction period.
Public Outreach
As part of the HOME-ARP Allocation Plan process, HUD required extensive public
outreach to formulate the plan. Housing staff conducted six virtual listening sessions
for community stakeholders and interviewed numerous service agencies and housing
providers directly. More than 66 agencies participated in interviews and listening
sessions during this process. This public input was used to draft the HOME-ARP
Allocation Plan and inform the design of the NOFO to address the most critical needs
of the community.
As part of the formal adoption process, the HOME-ARP Allocation Plan was made
public and provided for a 15-day public comment period. The City of Phoenix
published a 15-day comment period and public hearing notice in the Arizona Republic
on August 29, 2022. A virtual public hearing was held to provide an opportunity for
public comment on September 12, 2022. The public comment period was open from
September 13 to September 27, 2022. City Council approved the HOME-ARP
Allocation Plan on November 16, 2022. The HOME-ARP Allocation Plan was approved
by HUD on February 6, 2023.
Location
1803 E. Broadway Road
Council District: 8
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Gina Montes and the Housing
Department.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
(Ordinance S-51464) - Citywide
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute amendment to
extend Contract 155846 with Partnership for Economic Innovation (PEI) and add
additional funds. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds
related to this item. The additional expenditures will not exceed $600,000. There is no
impact to the General Fund. Funding is available through the City's allocation of
American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding received from the federal government.
Summary
The Business and Workforce Development Division of the City's Human Services
Department requires funding to cover additional costs for Contract 155846. This
contract provides administrative and customer support services to City programs. This
funding will be used to support individuals enrolled in the ARPA programs at one of 10
Maricopa Community Colleges.
The additional costs cover two main components:
· Stipends for eligible individuals enrolled in ARPA programs at Maricopa Community
Colleges.
· Administrative costs associated with disbursing these stipends.
Additionally, the City is requesting to exercise the second of the two optional one-year
renewals.
Contract Term
Upon approval, the contract will be extended through February 6, 2026.
Financial Impact
Upon approval of $600,000 in additional funds, the revised total value of the contract
will not exceed $18,000,000. There is no impact to the General Fund as funding is
available through the City's allocation of the ARPA funding received from the federal
government.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council previously reviewed this request:
· Financial Community Assistance Services Contract 155846 Ordinance S-48212 on
December 15, 2021.
· Financial Community Assistance Services amendment to Contract 155846
Ordinance S-50524 on January 24, 2024.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Gina Montes and the Human Services
Department.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
-51478) - Districts 1, 3, 4, 5, 7 & 8
Request authorization for the City Manager, or his designee, to amend Ordinance S-
50092 to increase funding for Contract 159170, Bobby Yang, DDS, LLC, up to
$130,000, for a new total not to exceed amount of $380,000. Further request to
authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. There is no
impact to the General Fund as funding is provided by the Department of Health and
Human Services, Head Start Birth to Five grant.
Summary
On August 8, 2023, City Council approved Ordinance S-50092 to enter into an
agreement with Bobby Yang, DDS, LLC, in an amount not to exceed $250,000 to
provide dental services to the Head Start Birth to Five Program participants. The
agreement began on or about September 1, 2023, and ends on August 30, 2028.
The Human Services Department is seeking approval for additional funding to cover
the increased costs of dental services.
Contract Term
The contract term remains unchanged, ending on August 30, 2028.
Financial Impact
The new total contract value will not exceed $380,000. There is no impact to the
General Fund.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
· City Council approved Ordinance S-50092 on August 8, 2023.
· This item was reviewed by the Head Start Policy Council on November 18, 2024.
Location
· Bobby Yang, DDS, LLC: 1515 E. Bethany Home Road, Suite 140
· Bobby Yang, DDS, LLC: 19636 N. 27th Avenue, Suite 403
· Bobby Yang, DDS, LLC: 9305 W. Thomas Road, Suite 580
Council Districts: 1, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Gina Montes and the Human Services
Department.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request authorization for the City Manager, or his designee, to approve an Eviction
Legal Services Qualified Vendor List (QVL) and to enter into contracts with eligible
contractors to provide legal assistance, advocacy, mediation, representation, and other
legal services to Phoenix residents facing an eviction crisis and to take any other
action necessary or appropriate to accomplish the purposes of this item. Further
request authorization for the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item.
The aggregate value of the contracts will not exceed $1,263,032 over the life of the
QVL.
Summary
The City of Phoenix continues to see increasing numbers of individuals and families
being evicted from their homes due to inability to pay rent and utilities, loss of income
and employment, and other imminent crisis impacting their housing stability. The City
of Phoenix Human Services Department (HSD) aims to provide access to no cost
eviction legal services to include assistance with resolving evictions both in and
outside the courtroom. The QVL is meant to identify providers that will assist
individuals or families facing eviction, who otherwise cannot afford or arrange for these
legal services.
Procurement Information
A Request for Qualifications (RFQu) solicitation was conducted in accordance with City
of Phoenix Administrative Regulation 3.10 on September 19, 2024. A second
solicitation will be released at a future date to identify additional contractors for the
QVL.
One proposal was received on November 4, 2024, and was deemed responsive and
responsible to the solicitation requirements. HSD program staff evaluated the offer
using a pass/fail evaluation matrix and the following criteria:
· Project Overview.
· Approach and Methodology.
· Experience and Expertise.
· Marketing and Outreach.
· Operating Budget.
After reaching consensus, the evaluation committee recommends award to the
following offeror:
· Community Legal Services (CLS)
Contract Term
Contracts will begin effective January 1, 2025, for a six-month term with four one-year
options to extend.
Financial Impact
The aggregate value of all contracts will not exceed $1,263,032. Funding is available
through the American Rescue Plan Act.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Gina Montes and the Human Services
Department.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Fresco Emergency Shelter Operations (Ordinance S-51489) - District 8 &
Citywide
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to amend Contract 157666
with Community Bridges, Inc. (CBI) and add up to $2.8 million in funding for a new
total not to exceed amount of $15.9 million and to extend the term of the contract
through June 30, 2025. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all
funds related to this item. There is no impact to the General Fund. Funding is available
through the City’s allocation of American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding received
from the federal government.
Summary
CBI provides bridge housing and supportive services to individuals experiencing
homelessness at 2425 S. 24th Street where it operates 117 units of non-congregate
emergency shelter for adults experiencing homelessness. Shelter services are
provided at this site to individuals experiencing homelessness as CBI moves
individuals to either housing or appropriate services with the goal of ending their
homelessness. Supportive services are also provided to support long-term success in
retaining housing. CBI provides, or connects participants to the following supportive
services, among others as needed:
· Education Services.
· Employment Assistance.
· Housing/Counseling Services.
· Mental Health Services.
· Substance Use Treatment.
· Laundry, clothing and hygiene supplies.
· Support case conferencing and coordination with providers to connect individuals to
services and housing.
Approval of this item will allow continued operations at the Rio Fresco emergency
shelter through June 30, 2025.
Contract Term
Upon approval, the new term of the agreement will be extended through June 30,
2025. The current contract term expires December 30, 2024.
Financial Impact
The value of the contract will increase by a maximum of $2.8 million and expenditures
will not exceed $15.9 million. There is no impact to the General Fund. Funding is
available from ARPA.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
· On August 2, 2022, City Council approved Contract 157666 with Ordinance S-
48895.
· On December 6, 2023, City Council approved additional funding to Contract 157666
with Ordinance S-50360.
· On March 20, 2024, City Council approved a change in funding source to Contract
157666 with Ordinance S-50692.
Location
2425 S. 24th Street
Council District: 8 and Citywide
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Gina Montes and the Human Services
Department.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request for Award (Ordinance S-51473) - Citywide
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
Innovative Interfaces, Inc. to provide integrated library system software and
maintenance for the Phoenix Public Library Department. Further request an exception
to the indemnity and assumption of liability provisions of Phoenix City Code 42-18.
Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this
item. The total value of the contract will not exceed $4,012,000.
Summary
This contract will provide an Integrated Library System, and associated maintenance,
which is required to manage the many business processes necessary for a large urban
public library so that it can provide effective services to its customers. The Polaris
Integrated Library System (Polaris) is the Phoenix Public Library Department's primary
business application and enterprise resource planning system, it is used to track items
owned, ordering, billing, and customers who have borrowed materials. It consists of
several modules, including acquisitions (ordering and receiving books and other
materials), cataloging (classifying and indexing materials), circulation (lending
materials to customers and receiving them back), serials (tracking magazine, journal,
and newspaper holdings), financial system (tracking customer fees owed, generating
reminders, and billing notices), statistical reports, and a public access catalog that
customers can use to search for materials.
This item has been reviewed and approved by the Information Technology Services
Department.
Procurement Information
In accordance with Administrative Regulation 3.10, standard competition was waived
as a result of an approved Determination Memo based on the following reason:
Special Circumstances Without Competition. The Phoenix Public Library has utilized
the Polaris Integrated Library System, provided by Innovative Interfaces, Inc., since
2009. Polaris has proven itself capable of meeting the demands placed upon it. Library
staff are well trained in its use. The continuing use of Polaris avoids the need for a
costly and needless migration to an alternative Integrated Library System in favor of
retaining a system that Library staff and the public are familiar, and satisfied with.
Contract Term
The contract will begin on or about January 1, 2025, for a five-year term with no
options to extend.
Financial Impact
The aggregate contract value for will not exceed $4,012,000 for the five-year
aggregate term.
Funding is available in the Phoenix Public Library Department's budget.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Inger Erickson and the Library
Department.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Contract for Online Access Electronic Books with Skillsoft (US), LLC (Ordinance
S-51488) - Citywide
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into Letter of
Agreement with Skillsoft (US), LLC and allow additional expenditures of $15,250 to
continue to provide Online Access Electronic Books to the Library Department. Further
request to continue using Ordinance S-43087 and to authorize the City Controller to
disburse all funds related to this item. The revised total value will not exceed $408,911.
Summary
The purpose of this Letter of Agreement is to continue to provide Online Access
Electronic Books to the Library Department. The Phoenix Public Library provides
library cardholders with unlimited, simultaneous access to thousands of electronic
books focusing on topics related to business, professional development, human
resources, information technology, as well as thousands of "best in class" books,
research reports, book summaries and best practices. These books have historically
been a popular resource for the customers of Phoenix Public Library to develop skills
in a variety of topics including but not limited to computer programming, forming a new
business, customer service, using social media to market oneself, project
management, and software and web design. The Letter of Agreement is necessary to
maintain access to this valuable community resource through August 30, 2025.
This item has been reviewed and approved by the Information Technology Services
Department.
Contract Term
The term of the Letter of Agreement will begin on or about December 4, 2024, and
expire on August 30, 2025.
Financial Impact
Upon approval of $15,250 in additional funds, the revised aggregate value of the
contract will not exceed $408,911. Funds are available in the Library Department’s
budget.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council previously reviewed this request:
· Online Access Electronic Books Contract 144194 (Ordinance S-43087) on
December 14, 2016;
· Online Access Electronic Books Contract 144194 (Ordinance S-47792) on July 1,
2021;
· Online Access Electronic Books Contract 144194 (Ordinance S-48830) on July 1,
2022;
· Online Access Electronic Books Contract 144194 (Ordinance S-50340) on
November 15, 2023.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Inger Erickson and the Library
Department.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Plan 2025-29, Annual Action Plan 2025-26, Citizen Participation Plan Update, and
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Study (Ordinance S-51494) -
Citywide
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
Civitas, LLC to provide consulting services for the development of the 2025-29
Consolidated Plan, the 2025-26 Annual Action Plan, Citizen Participation Plan Update,
and Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Study. Further request
authorization for the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item.
Summary
The 2025-29 Consolidated Plan will contain the requirements for the U.S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) programs that provide critical funds to
address housing and community development needs to entitlement cities like Phoenix
each year. The four programs highlighted in the Consolidated Plan are: Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) Program,
Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG), and Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS
(HOPWA).
The hired consultant will ensure crucial housing and community development needs
are identified through comprehensive research, planning and public input. During the
development of the Consolidated Plan, residents and community leaders will have the
opportunity to offer input on housing, homelessness, social services, and community
development needs for the five-year planning period. This information, along with other
assessments, will form the basis of the five-year Consolidated Plan.
The 2025-26 Annual Action plan will describe how funds will be used to address the
priorities and achieve the goals outlined in the first year of the five-year Consolidated
Plan, while the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Study will help identify
obstacles to fair housing.
Draft versions of the Consolidated Plan, the Annual Action Plan, Citizen Participation
Plan updates, and Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice Study will be
shared for a 30-day public comment period to solicit input on the draft document.
Council will be asked to review and approve the draft Consolidated Plan, Annual Action
Plan, Citizen Participation Plan updates, and Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing
Choice Study to submit to HUD by May 15, 2025.
Procurement Information
A Request for Proposals was issued on October 17 for a consultant to perform the
Consolidated Plan activities. The solicitation closed on November 4 with two proposals
received by the deadline. One proposal was deemed non-responsive by the
Procurement Officer. The remaining proposal, submitted by Civitas, LLC, meets the
solicitation requirements and is recommended for contract award.
Contract Term
The contract term will be one year, with two, one-year options to renew, and will be
effective on or about January 1, 2025.
Financial Impact
The aggregate value of the contract will not exceed $250,000. HUD CDBG funds will
be utilized, and there is no impact to the General Fund.
Public Outreach
Federally required citizen participation requirements will be met and will be posted to
www.phoenix.gov/yourvoice as the central source of information for the public.
Postings may include surveys, plans, videos, fact sheets, FAQs, and a calendar of
events. Additionally, the following outreach requirements will also be incorporated into
the citizen participation process:
· Special effort to include members of minority, immigrant, disabled communities,
residents of public and assisted housing, and non-profits.
· Communication in multiple languages and formats.
· Public Engagement Sessions; Individual/group stakeholder interviews.
· Social media, City newsletters, press releases, and neighborhood events.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Alan Stephenson and Gina Montes,
the Neighborhood Services and Housing departments, and the Office of Homeless
Solutions.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Technical Assistance (Ordinance S-51485) - Citywide
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to extend Contract 153515
with HUUB LLC to continue economic development technical assistance services
through PHXbizConnect and utilize $302,900 in Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) funding to provide those services to microenterprise owners and
entrepreneurs with low-and-moderate incomes located in the City of Phoenix. Further
request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item.
Funding will not exceed $302,900 and is available from the Neighborhood Services
Department's (NSD) CDBG entitlement funds. There is no impact to the General Fund.
Summary
Since May 2020, City Council has utilized federal Coronavirus Relief Funds and
Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds to assist Phoenix small
businesses with pandemic recovery efforts. As part of those efforts, the City partnered
with HUUB LLC to provide economic development technical assistance services
through the PHXbizConnect software platform. The technical assistance program
included free, one-on-one consulting from business advisors. Since 2021, HUUB
LLC's technical assistance program has helped over 200 businesses with over 1,300
hours of consulting services.
Historically, NSD operated a similar Management Technical Assistance (MTA) program
for microenterprises, small business owners and entrepreneurs, which also provided
free consulting services with business advisors. NSD's MTA program was funded with
CDBG from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. During the
same time period, NSD's MTA program has helped 40 businesses with over 980 hours
of consulting services. Over the last several years, NSD's MTA program has
underperformed compared to HUUB LLC's technical assistance program.
Utilizing HUUB LLC's PHXbizConnect software platform for management technical
assistance has significant advantages over NSD's internally-operated, manual
program. The software platform reduces intimidating paperwork, provides a
streamlined process with greater self determination to businesses, collects a greater
amount of data for economic development program administrators, and produces more
results.
The Coronavirus recovery funds dedicated to support HUUB LLC's technical
assistance program are expiring at the end of the 2024 calendar year. NSD is willing to
extend the contract with HUUB LLC and fund a management technical assistance
program through the PHXbizConnect platform. The extension will ensure effective
management technical assistance continues to be available to microenterprises and
entrepreneurs with low-and-moderate incomes located in the City of Phoenix.
Additionally, HUUB LLC is willing to provide the services as a subrecipient of federal
funds and ensure the program meets all CDBG requirements.
Contract Term
If approved, the proposed extension would begin on January 1, 2025, with a term of
one year.
Financial Impact
Funding to extend the contract for twelve months will not exceed $302,900. If this
extension is approved, the aggregate value of this contract will not exceed $1,353,400.
There is no impact to the General Fund. Funding is available from the Neighborhood
Services Department's CDBG entitlement funds.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
At the May 5, 2020, City Council Policy meeting, City Council allocated funding to
create a tool that would connect small businesses to resources during the COVID
pandemic. On November 4, 2020, City Council authorized Contract 153515. City
Council authorized subsequent contract extensions on July 1, 2021, May 25, 2022,
April 5, 2023, and June 12, 2024.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers John Chan and Alan Stephenson and
the Community and Economic Development and Neighborhood Services departments.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
51497) - Citywide
Request City Council authorization to appropriate up to $3 million from the
Neighborhood Block Watch Fund. Further request the appropriation of up to $3 million
from the Block Watch Fund to be allocated to provide additional funding in support of
the Gated Alley Program.
Summary
Funding for the Neighborhood Block Watch Grant Program (NBWGP) primarily comes
from an increase in sales tax revenues that was adopted by the special election held
on October 5, 1993. The NBWGP Fund is a portion of the Neighborhood Protection
Fund, also referred to as Proposition 301, which is used to account for funds
generated by the 0.1 percent increase in the sales tax approved by voters. The funds
are to be used for the expansion of Police, Fire, and Block Watch programs. The
breakdown of funding is as follows: Police 70 percent, Fire 25 percent and Block
Watch 5 percent. Guidelines for projects supported by the Phoenix Block Watch Fund
include programs to:
· Detect, deter and delay crime.
· Improve the quality-of-life within neighborhoods by educating individuals to work
together to solve crime problems.
· Encourage citizens to have pride in their neighborhoods and prevent crime.
· Motivate citizens toward common neighborhood crime prevention goals.
· Coordinate pertinent crime prevention neighborhood/community meetings.
· Teach crime prevention techniques.
At the end of Fiscal Year 2023-24, the fund had an available balance of $10.8 million.
The sales tax revenue is estimated to be approximately $2.8 million in Fiscal Year (FY)
2024-25. The current approved ongoing grant award is $2 million per year. The fund
balance is able to support the annual award total as well as other public safety needs,
such as the proposed support of the gated alley program.
Gated Alley Program
The Gated Alley Program was initially piloted in 2017 to provide a new approach to
deterring illegal dumping, graffiti and criminal activity in residential alleys. Since 2017,
the popularity and resident demand for gated alleys has grown significantly. One
reason for the demand is the increase in the perceived safety and reduction in illegal
activities experienced by residents. This perceived reduction in crime enabled the
Gated Alley Program to be considered an eligible use of Block Watch Funds. On
March 18, 2020, the Phoenix City Council approved using $400,000 in Block Watch
Funds to support the Gated Alley Program. The funds were used to obtain necessary
permitting and for the construction and installation of gates at the end of alleys for up
to 10 alley segments in each Council District. Since the initial pilot, the program has
continued to grow in popularity and the community's demand to install additional gates
continues to increase.
Through a coordinated, multi-departmental effort, staff were able to prioritize potential
alley segments in each Police Precinct, with Neighborhood Services (NSD) and Public
Works staff providing further review of the identified alley segments for eligibility based
on alley layout and access requirements. The $750,000 of NBWGP funds allowed for
an additional 65 alley segments (157 gates) to be gated through the GAP. In total,
NSD installed 368 gates in 156 alley segments with funding from the General Fund,
Current funding, $852,000 from the General Fund, would allow for an estimated 77
segments (154 gates) for FY 2024-25. As of October 22, 2024, GAP has already
received 130 requests. On average, the program receives 15 new requests each
month. Should that pace continue, an estimated 120 additional requests are expected
by June 30, 2025. Additionally, NSD is partnering with Public Works to offer to relocate
solid waste services from alley to curbside, as requested by residents. As part of
Public Works’ process, a survey is conducted to evaluate residents’ interest in solid
waste services relocation. New survey language is being piloted to also gauge
residents’ interest in gating their alleys after their solid waste services are relocated.
Public Works may complete up to 100 surveys in a year, with the anticipation that most
residents will be in favor of gating their alleys as well. Based on these projections,
NSD estimates the total number of requests could exceed 300 for the year.
The additional $3 million in Neighborhood Block Watch Program funds would allow
NSD to gate approximately 240 additional alley segments over two years. In addition,
a portion of the funds would be used to purchase the unanticipated 90-gallon solid
waste containers necessary to relocate services curbside as part of the GAP process,
as well as signage to deter illegal activity in alleys and surrounding neighborhoods.
Gated Culvert (Wash) Program
As of September 30, 2024, Street Transportation staff have successfully installed
gates at 11 locations. These locations were identified by members of the PSJ
subcommittee and from CARES cases. The completed locations include:
· 16th Street and Greenway Parkway
· 20th Street and Greenway Parkway
· 31st Avenue and Deer Valley Road
· 41st Place and Thunderbird Road
· 35th Avenue and Mohawk Lane
· 3rd Avenue and Greenway Parkway
· Greenway Parkway and Beck Lane
· 901 West Phelps Road
· 10th Avenue and Moonlight Park
· 11th Avenue and Sandra Terrace
· 19th Avenue and Greenway Road
Staff has identified nine more sites for culvert gate installation within the Laveen Area
Conveyance Channel (LACC) and one location at 7th Street and Greenway Parkway.
Staff will coordinate with the selected vendor to complete gate installations as soon as
possible, targeting a completion date of January 31, 2025. Even with the additional
nine locations, there will be approximately $750,000 in savings from the previous block
watch allocation.
Recommendations
Staff requests the City Council authorize an appropriation of $3 million from the Block
Watch Fund. The $3 million in Neighborhood Block Watch Program funds would be
allocated to the Gated Alley Program (GAP) over two years to address safety issues in
alleys and meet the requests for gated alleys from residents, city staff and public
safety personnel. These funds will also help offset the initial cost to Public Works for
new solid waste containers for curbside service, and to provide signage to deter illegal
activity in neighborhoods. With City Council approval, staff anticipates using the
funding to install additional gates over the next 24 months with projected completion by
December 2026.
Staff further requests the City Council reallocate savings of approximately $750,000
from the Gated Culvert (Wash) Program to the maintenance of the washes and
adjacent areas. The additional resources for enhanced maintenance and cleaning will
assist in addressing illegal dumping and criminal activities occurring in or around the
washes. Maintenance is necessary to ensure that debris does not obstruct water flow
during storm events and to prevent overgrown vegetation and trash that may pose fire
hazards.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays, Deputy City Managers
Alan Stephenson and Inger Erickson, the Police, Neighborhood Services and Street
Transportation departments.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request the City Manager, or his designee, to amend the artist contract with
WOWHAUS in an amount not exceeding $75,000 for the design, fabrication, and
installation of artwork for the Lone Mountain Park Public Art Project.
Summary
The Fiscal Year 2024-29 Public Art Plan includes funding for artwork located at Lone
Mountain Park, a 39.5-acre undeveloped land located at 56th Street and Montgomery
Road (56th Street south of Lone Mountain Road).
The original artist contract for the Lone Mountain Park Public Art Project was approved
in the amount of $450,000 by the Phoenix Arts and Culture Commission on January 9,
2024, and by the City Council on March 6, 2024 (Ordinance S-50641).
The team of Ene Osteraas-Constable and Scott Constable (WOWHAUS) has
completed the design of the integrated, functional artwork for the park; however,
increased material and construction costs have impacted the overall park construction
budget and the artwork fabrication and installation costs.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The Phoenix Arts and Culture Commission reviewed and recommended this item for
approval on October 8, 2024, by a vote of 10-0.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Inger Erickson and the Office of Arts
and Culture.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
(Ordinance S-51463) - District 8
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to apply for, accept, and, if
awarded, enter into an agreement for up to $250,000 for the Institute of Museum and
Library Services (IMLS) Museums for America Grant Program. Further authorize the
City Treasurer to accept and the City Controller to disburse the funds for purposes of
this ordinance. The grant funds would be used by the Office of Arts and Culture to
support the S'edav Va’aki Museum.
Summary
The Museums for America Grant Program supports museums of all sizes and
disciplines in strategic, project-based efforts to serve the public through exhibitions,
educational/interpretive programs, digital learning resources, professional
development, community debate and dialogue, audience-focused studies, and/or
collections management, curation, care, and conservation.
If awarded, the grant funds will be used to install elements of a new long-term exhibit
in the Museum’s main gallery. Funding has already been secured for Fiscal Year 2024-
25 from the Gila River Indian Community ($149,000) and the Salt River Pima Maricopa
Indian Community ($164,000) 12 percent Gaming Grants for content development and
renovation needs, respectively. The IMLS funds will enable Museum staff to purchase
a new gallery lighting system, new object cases, and exhibit text panels for this project.
Financial Impact
The Institute of Museum and Library Services requires a cost share of non-Federal
funds and/or in-kind contributions (such as staff time) in an amount that is equal to or
greater than the amount of the Federal award. With the grants already secured, and
staff time for this implementation, there will be no impact to the General Fund.
Location
4619 E. Washington Street
Council District: 8
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Inger Erickson and the Office of Arts
and Culture.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Contract COOP 24-0382 - Request for Award (Ordinance S-51461) - Citywide
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
West Coast Arborists, Inc., to provide a tree inventory system, tree pruning, tree
removal, and related services throughout the City for the Parks and Recreation
Department. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds
related to this item. The total value of this contract will not exceed $600,000.
Summary
This contract, funded by the Parks and Recreation and Street Transportation
departments, will create an inventory and assessment of the City's approximately
106,000 trees. This assessment will include the location, species, health and size of
trees maintained by the City, covering areas such as rights-of-way, street medians, and
all City-maintained parks and facilities. The current inventory system is outdated and
needs to be updated. The new tree inventory system will allow the department and the
Office of Heat Response and Mitigation to track all the trees on City property and will
support the City of Phoenix proposed Shade Phoenix Plan. The new tree inventory
system will provide an up-to-date view of the health of the urban forest on City
properties, which will enable more accurate monitoring, management of tree
conditions, and support proactive maintenance efforts.
The contract will also allow staff to request a wide variety of services, including tree
pruning, planting, and other related services as needed at the City-maintained golf
courses.
This item has been reviewed and approved by the Information Technology Services
Department.
Procurement Information
In accordance with Administrative Regulation 3.10, standard competition was waived
as a result of an approved Determination Memo based on the following reason:
Special Circumstances Alternative Competition. The City of Mesa cooperative contract
was the most favorable, as it provided the most comprehensive list of services.
Contract Term
The contract will begin on or about December 4, 2024, and expire on January 31,
2027, with a one-year option to extend.
Financial Impact
The aggregate contract value will not exceed $600,000. Funding is available in the
Parks and Recreation and Street Transportation departments' budgets.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers John Chan and Inger Erickson, and
the Parks and Recreation and Street Transportation departments.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
S-51466) - Citywide
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee to allow additional
expenditures under Contract 155258 with Sierra Signs and Services, Inc. for the
purchase of fabrication and installation of park signs 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 $250,000.
Summary
This contract provides the Parks and Recreation Department with fabrication and
installation of park signs for a variety of projects such as the display of park rules,
building signage and other visual aids for the public. This signage displays information
to City park and facility guests to allow a safe and welcoming environment.
Contract Term
The contract term remains unchanged, ending on September 30, 2026.
Financial Impact
Upon approval of $250,000 in additional funds, the revised aggregate value of the
contract will not exceed $850,000. Funds are available in the Parks and Recreation
Department’s budget.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council previously reviewed this request:
· Fabrication and Installation of Park Signs Contract 155258 (Ordinance S-47951) on
September 15, 2021.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager John Chan and the Parks and
Recreation Department.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
- Award Recommendation (Ordinance S-51480) - Citywide
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into three contracts
with Velociti Services, CCS Facility Services - Arizona, Inc. and Verde Clean, LLC to
provide custodial services to the Parks and Recreation, Human Services and Phoenix
Arts and Culture departments. Further request to authorize the City Controller to
disburse all funds related to this item. The total aggregate amount of the contracts will
not exceed $7,000,000.
Summary
These contracts will provide custodial services, including labor, cleaning supplies,
materials, equipment, tools, vehicles and supervision necessary to clean various Parks
and Recreation Department facilities including, but not limited to: select community
centers, Steele Indian School Memorial Hall, and Encanto Park Clubhouse. In addition,
the contracts will support adjacent or connecting Human Services Department Senior
Centers and the S'edav Va'aki Museum for Phoenix Arts and Culture.
Procurement Information
A Request for Proposals was completed in accordance with City of Phoenix
Administrative Regulation 3.10. Ten offers were received as responsive and
responsible based on the minimum qualifications of the solicitation requirements.
The proposals were evaluated and scored by a five-member panel evaluation
committee. The proposals were evaluated based on the following criteria (1,000 points
possible):
· Method of Approach: 300 points
· Qualifications and Experience: 200 points
· Approach to Safety and Staff Training: 150 points
· Financial Capacity and Longevity: 150 points
· Price: 200 points
The award recommendation for Velociti Services, CCS Facility Services - Arizona, Inc.
and Verde Clean, LLC was based on the following consensus scoring:
· Velociti Services: 955
· CCS Facility Services - Arizona, Inc.: 955
· Verde Clean, LLC: 930
· Kleen Tech Services, LLC: 830
· Universal Building Maintenance, LLC DBA Allied Universal Janitorial Service: 820
· BIO-Janitorial Service, Inc.: 785
· UBM Enterprise, Inc.: 780
· United Maintenance Company, Inc.: 700
· EcoBrite Services, LLC: 675
· Pegasus Building Services Company, Inc.: 545
Contract Term
The contracts will begin on or about December 1, 2024, for a total five-year term with
no options to extend.
Financial Impact
The total combined aggregate value of the contracts will not exceed $7,000,000 for
the five-year contract term.
Funding is available in the Parks and Recreation, Human Services, and Phoenix Arts
and Culture departments' budgets.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers John Chan, Gina Montes and Inger
Erickson, the Parks and Recreation and Human Services departments, and Office of
Arts and Culture.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Series 2024 (Resolution 22267) - District 2
Requests City Council approval for the issuance of Lease Revenue Bonds
(Mayo/Brooks Rehabilitation Facility Project), Series 2024, to be issued in one or more
tax-exempt and/or taxable series, in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed
$125,000,000.
Summary
Request City Council adoption of a Resolution (Attachment A) granting approval of
the proceedings under which The Industrial Development Authority of the City of
Phoenix, Arizona (the “Phoenix IDA”) has previously resolved to issue up to
$125,000,000 of Lease Revenue Bonds (the “Revenue Bonds”), Series 2024 for use
by PAFAF I Phoenix LLC (the “Borrower”), a Delaware limited liability company, to:
a. Finance, refinance and/or reimburse a portion of the cost of the development,
acquisition, construction and equipping of a 60-bed healthcare facility (the
“Facility”);
b. Fund reserves for capitalized interest, working capital and debt service, as required;
and
c. Pay costs of issuance and other related transaction costs in connection with the
issuance of the Bonds.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The Phoenix City Council previously approved on September 4, 2024.
The Phoenix IDA Board has previously resolved to issue the Revenue Bonds at its
meeting held on November 14, 2024.
Location
The Facility is to be located adjacent to the Discovery Oasis Campus on the west side
of 64th Street, approximately one quarter mile south of the Mayo Boulevard and 64th
Street intersection in Phoenix, AZ.
Council District: 2
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer.
Attachment A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL, ADOPTED
RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION _____
A RESOLUTION GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF THE
ISSUANCE OF AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED
$125,000,000 PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF LEASE REVENUE
BONDS (MAYO/BROOKS REHABILITATION FACILITY
PROJECT), SERIES 2024, OF THE INDUSTRIAL
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX,
ARIZONA
_______________
WHEREAS, The Industrial Development Authority of the City of Phoenix,
Arizona (the “Issuer”), is a nonprofit corporation designated a political subdivision of the
State of Arizona (the “State”) incorporated with the approval of the City of Phoenix,
Arizona (the “City”); and
WHEREAS, Title 35, Chapter 5, of the Arizona Revised Statutes, Section
35-701 et seq., as amended (the “Act”), authorizes the Issuer to issue revenue bonds for
the purposes set forth in the Act, including the making of secured and unsecured loans
to finance or refinance the acquisition, construction, improvement, equipping or operation
of a “project” (as defined in the Act) whenever the Board of Directors of the Issuer finds
such loans to further advance the interests of the Issuer or the public interest, and to
refund outstanding obligations incurred by an enterprise to finance the costs of a “project”
when the Board of Directors of the Issuer finds such loans to be in furtherance of the
purposes of the Authority or in the public interest; and
WHEREAS, PAFAF I Phoenix LLC, a Delaware limited liability company
(the “Borrower”), whose sole member is Pan-American Financial Assistance Foundation,
Inc., a Delaware nonprofit corporation and an exempt organization described under
125673931.3
Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), has
requested that the Issuer issue its Lease Revenue Bonds (Mayo/Brooks Rehabilitation
Facility Project), Series 2024 (the “Bonds”), in one or more series on a tax-exempt or
taxable basis, pursuant to a Financing Agreement (the “Financing Agreement”), between
the Issuer and the Borrower, pursuant to which the Issuer will loan the proceeds of the
Bonds to the Borrower (the “Loan”), for purposes of: (a) financing, refinancing and/or
reimbursing a portion of the cost of the development, acquisition, construction and
equipping of a 60-bed healthcare facility to be located adjacent to the Discovery Oasis
Campus on the west side of 64th Street, approximately one quarter mile south of the
Mayo Boulevard and 64th Street intersection in Phoenix, Arizona (the “Facility”); (b)
funding reserves for capitalized interest, working capital and debt service, as required;
and (c) paying costs of issuance and other related transaction costs in connection with
the issuance of the Bonds (collectively, the “Project”), all in accordance with the Act; and
WHEREAS, the Facility will be leased to and operated by Brooks West
Rehab Services, Inc., an Arizona nonprofit corporation and an exempt organization
described under the Code, or one or more of its affiliates (the “Lessee”), pursuant to a
Residual Ownership SubleaseSM Agreement to be entered into between the Borrower and
the Lessee; and
WHEREAS, the Issuer, by Resolution 2024-__, duly adopted by the Board
of Directors of the Issuer at a lawful meeting called and held on November 14, 2024,
granted approval of the issuance and sale of the Bonds in an aggregate principal amount
not to exceed $125,000,000; and
WHEREAS, Section 35-721(B) of the Act provides that the proceedings of
the Issuer under which the Bonds are to be issued require the approval of the Council of
2 Resolution No. _____
125673931.3
the City; and
WHEREAS, Section 147(f) of the Code requires that an “applicable elected
representative” (as that term is defined in the Code) approve the issuance of the Bonds
and the plan of finance for the Project following a public hearing, which public hearing
was held by the Issuer on August 16, 2024 at 10:00 a.m. at the offices of the Issuer; and
WHEREAS, information regarding the Project to be financed with the
proceeds of the Bonds has been presented to the Council of the City; and
WHEREAS, it is intended that this Resolution shall constitute approval by
the Council of the City pursuant to Section 35-721(B) of the Act and of the “applicable
elected representative” as defined in Section 147(f) of the Code with respect to the Bonds.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA as follows:
SECTION 1. The proceedings of the Issuer under which the Bonds are to
be issued are hereby approved.
SECTION 2. The issuance of the Bonds and the plan of finance for the
Project are hereby approved for purposes of Section 147(f) of the Code.
SECTION 3. Resolution 22242 adopted by the Council of the City of
Phoenix, Arizona on September 4, 2024, is hereby repealed in its entirety.
SECTION 4. Notice of Arizona Revised Statutes Section 38-511 is hereby
given. The provisions of that statute are by this reference incorporated herein to the
extent of their applicability to matters contained herein.
3 Resolution No. _____
125673931.3
PASSED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA this
___ day of December, 2024.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Acting City Attorney
REVIEWED BY:
City Manager
4 Resolution No. _____
125673931.3
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Amendment (Ordinance S-51471) - District 8
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
Contract No. 156328 with Musgrove Enterprises, LLC to modify the scope of work to
allow the Aviation Department to utilize this Street Transportation Department contract.
Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this
item. The additional expenditures will be up to $30,000.
Summary
Use of the Contract will provide the Aviation Department with the necessary supplies
for staff to operate tank sprayers and applicators that are used for applying sealant
material on airport roadways, taxiways, and airfields. The seal coat material is a
protective layer to asphalt surfaces that extends the lifespan of the asphalt by keeping
out water, chemicals, and other harmful materials that can damage the surface over
time.
Contract Term
The Contract term remains unchanged and will expire on May 31, 2027.
Financial Impact
Upon approval of $30,000 in additional funds, the revised aggregate value of the
Contract will be up to $93,000. Funds are available in the Aviation Department’s
budget.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council previously reviewed this request:
· Seal Coat Program Parts and Supplies Requirement Contract No. 156328
(Ordinance S-48613) on May 11, 2022.
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.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
51472) - Districts 1, 8 & Out of City
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
Visual Nature Images, Inc. dba Mark Skalny Photography to provide photography
services for the Aviation Department. Further request to authorize the City Controller to
disburse all funds related to this item.
Summary
This contract will provide photography services for the Aviation Department. The
services will ensure that the Aviation Department has the ability to meet multiple
requests from magazines and other professional publications to capture high-quality
photos for press releases, public relation campaigns, airport websites, and other public
relations initiatives at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport, Phoenix Deer Valley
Airport, and Phoenix Goodyear Airport.
Procurement Information
A Request for Proposals was processed in accordance with City of Phoenix
Administrative Regulation 3.10.
Four vendors submitted proposals that were deemed responsive and responsible. An
evaluation committee evaluated the proposals based on criteria that included work
samples, qualifications, experience, and proposed fees.
The evaluation committee recommends contract award to Visual Nature Images, Inc.
dba Mark Skalny Photography
Contract Term
The term of the contract will begin on or about Jan. 15, 2025, for an initial three-year
term with two one-year options to extend the term for a total five-year term of the
contract.
Financial Impact
The aggregate contract value will be up to $250,000 over the five-year term of the
contract.
Funding is available in the Aviation Department's operating budget.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The Phoenix Aviation Advisory Board recommended this item for approval on Oct. 17,
2024, by a vote of 5-0.
Location
· Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport, 2485 E. Buckeye Road
· Phoenix Deer Valley Airport, 702 W. Deer Valley Road
· Phoenix Goodyear Airport, 1658 S. Litchfield Road, Goodyear, AZ.
Council Districts: 1, 8, and Out of City
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the Aviation
Department.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
008 - Amendment (Ordinance S-51490) - District 8
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
Contract No. 149845 (Contract) with Daifuku Services America Corporation to extend
the term of the Contract and add additional expenditures. Further request to authorize
the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The additional
expenditures will be up to $2,838,878.
Summary
The Contract provides operation, maintenance, and repair services for the baggage
handling system at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport (PHX), which is critical to
PHX operations to ensure all checked baggage are efficiently and securely processed
and arrive at the airline's designated bag makeup location.
On Feb. 26, 2024, a Request for Proposal (RFP 24-0156) was issued for Baggage
Handling Systems - Operations, Maintenance, Repair, and Controls System Design,
Programming and Integration Services. Two proposals were received and evaluated
by the evaluation panel. The Public Notice of Award Recommendation was posted on
Aug. 15, 2024. In response to the notice, the Aviation Department has received several
public records requests and communications from the proposers that have required
responses, research, and other actions, which resulted in delays in the procurement
process. A protest to the Award Recommendation was received on Nov. 7, 2024. An
extension is essential to allow sufficient time to address the protest and to facilitate a
seamless transition for award of the new contract while continuing to maintain these
critical services.
Contract Term
The term of the Contract will be extended through Oct. 31, 2025.
Financial Impact
A total of $2,838,878 in additional funds for a total Contract value up to $19,338,878
through Oct. 31, 2025. Funds are available in the Aviation Department’s budget.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council previously reviewed this request:
· Baggage Handling System Operation, Maintenance and Repair Services - RFP 19-
008 (Ordinance S-45631) on May 15, 2019;
· Baggage Handling System Operation, Maintenance and Repair Services - RFP 19-
008 - Amendment (Ordinance S-50390) on Dec. 6, 2023;
· Baggage Handling System Operation, Maintenance and Repair Services - RFP 19-
008 - Amendment (Ordinance S-50997) on June 12, 2024.
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.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Phoenix and Tempe Regarding Noise Mitigation Flight Procedures (Ordinance S-
51493) - District 8
Request authorization to settle the litigation between the City of Phoenix and the City
of Tempe over the obligations in the 1994 Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA)
between the City of Phoenix and the City of Tempe, and further request authorization
to execute an amendment to the IGA to clarify certain obligations under the IGA.
Summary
The City of Tempe and the City of Phoenix recognize that Phoenix Sky Harbor
International Airport and accompanying commercial passenger traffic are a key part of
the local economies of the respective cities as well as the region.
Therefore, the parties chose to work in the spirit of cooperation to resolve the litigation
and protect the airport while preserving the economic vitality of both cities. To that end,
this amendment will allow the City of Tempe and the City of Phoenix to work
collaboratively to address noise concerns and ensure transparent communication with
residents. Both cities strive to uphold a balanced approach to community well-being
and airport operations.
The amendment will include the following terms and conditions:
For all Tempe land in the 65 DNL contour (the high noise area)
· No single-family residential;
· Avigation easements / release of liability;
· Noise disclosures to warn residents of their exposure to high noise;
· No obstructions (FAA 7460 Approval);
· Support to address identified hazards to navigation;
· Tempe will not oppose, in any proceeding, Phoenix’s Comprehensive Asset
Management Plan projects;
· Tempe understands Phoenix will continue to formally object to any incompatible use
proposed in Tempe.
On Tempe-owned land in the 65 DNL contour, if Tempe allows residential, then Tempe
will:
· Restrict all multi-family residential to lease only;
· Indemnify and defend Phoenix for any complaints about noise, vibrations,
emissions or other disturbances;
· Require noise insulation;
· Ensure all stipulations and restrictions to run with the land;
· Agrees restrictions will apply to any land acquired by Tempe, except to the extent
the land is already developed, or the land is one of the already entitled properties
identified in the amendment and purchased through a GPLET deal.
For Privately-Held Parcels in the 65 DNL contour, Tempe agrees:
· No new residential except for parcels identified in the amendment;
· To notify the Aviation Department of applications to pursue new or intensified
residential;
· Submit a staff recommendation of disapproval on any such application;
· If the Tempe City Council still approves residential on any of the identified parcels,
Tempe will stipulate landowner to noise insulate (NLR 25db) and equally share in
legal defense fees should Phoenix receive a claim related to noise, vibrations, or
emissions.
Phoenix agrees:
· That both parties will dismiss their claims with each party bearing its own legal fees;
· To waive claims under the IGA for any past actions related to the IGA;
· To conduct periodic 65 DNL contour updates and enhance collaboration on noise
issues;
· That it will not treat itself differently than Tempe regarding land uses in the 65 DNL
contour;
· That it understands Tempe reserves its right to object to any proposed 4th runway.
Contract Term
The term of the IGA is 50 years, anticipated to end in 2044.
Financial Impact
There is no financial impact.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The Phoenix City Council adopted the IGA on August 31, 1994, and the agreement
was fully executed on September 2, 1994.
Location
Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport, 2485 E. Buckeye Road
Council District: 8
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Attorney Julie Kriegh and Deputy City Manager Mario
Paniagua and the Law and Aviation departments.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
(Ordinance S-51491) - District 7
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to implement the Durango
Street route modification on Route 27 (27th Avenue). If approved, the modification will
begin in January 2025 for a duration of one year.
Summary
The Public Transit Department received community input to evaluate adding bus
service on Durango Street between 27th and 35th avenues to service the juvenile
court and surrounding Maricopa County buildings and resources.
The deviation of Route 27 to Durango Street will be for a period of one year, during
which time staff will evaluate ridership and service efficiency to determine the potential
of making the routing permanent.
Route 27 service operates seven days a week with a base frequency of every 30
minutes and peak-hour frequency on weekdays at every 15 minutes. An illustration of
the existing and proposed routing is in Attachment A.
Financial Impact
The inclusion of Durango Street between 27th and 35th avenues is estimated to cost
$729,000 annually. American Rescue Plan Act funding of $500,000 will support the
route modification for one year, during which time Phoenix will work with Maricopa
County on a longer-term funding strategy, if the service proves successful. Public
Transit Department funds will also be utilized to fund $229,000 of the cost.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
This item was recommended for approval at the Transportation, Infrastructure and
Planning Subcommittee on November 20, 2024, by a vote of 3-0.
Location
Durango Street between 27th and 35th avenues
Council District: 7
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the Public Transit
Department.
ATTACHMENT A
Route 27 map of current and proposed route.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request for Award (Ordinance S-51459) - District 7
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
WeCare Denali, LLC to provide operation of the 27th Avenue Compost Facility and
marketing of the finished compost for the Public Works Department. Further request to
authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The total value of
the contract will not exceed $28,600,000.
Summary
The Contractor's obligation will be to operate the City's 27th Avenue Compost Facility.
This includes processing the organics to meet composting market specifications and
creating economic value by marketing, selling, and transporting the finished compost
regionally. The facility can process up to 55,000 tons of organics per year that includes
the yard trimmings delivered to the City's transfer stations from Phoenix residents and
landscapers. The facility also processes food scraps delivered from other city
departments, WeCare Denali, and City-sponsored mega zero waste events, including
the Super Bowl and Men's College Basketball Final Four. Over the term of the
agreement, the contractor will invest $8,000,000 in equipment upgrades and will
partner with the city on other site upgrades as needed. The Contractor will also
maintain the compost facility, including all mobile and stationary equipment, provide
staffing, materials, supplies, and equipment required for composting operations and to
maintain compliance with environmental regulations.
Procurement Information
A Request for Proposal was processed in accordance with City of Phoenix
Administrative Regulation 3.10. One vendor submitted proposals deemed responsive
and responsible. An evaluation committee consisting of representatives from the Public
Works Department, Fire Department and City of Mesa evaluated the offer based on
the criteria established in the RFP.
After reaching consensus, the evaluation committee recommends award to the
following vendor: WeCare Denali, LLC.
Contract Term
The contract will begin on or about March 1, 2025 for an initial seven-year term with
three one-year options to extend.
Financial Impact
The estimated operating cost over the 10-year contract is approximately $28,600,000
based on a forecasted processing rate, which includes consumer price index
adjustments. The estimated operating cost also includes funding for potential cost-
sharing projects for facility upgrades over the term of the contract.
Funding is available in the Public Works Department's budget.
Location
27th Avenue Compost Facility
3060 S 27th Avenue
Council District: 7
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the Public Works
Department.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
- 25-SWDD-025 - Request for Award (Ordinance S-51495) - Citywide
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
Southwestern Scale Company, Inc to provide maintenance, replacement and repair of
truck, cylinder and other industrial scales used by the Public Works and Water
Services departments. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all
funds related to this item. The total value of the contract will not exceed $829,825.
Summary
The Public Works and Water Services departments use this contract to maintain,
repair, calibrate and replace the scales for the City's North Gateway Transfer Station,
27th Avenue Transfer Station, State Route 85 Landfill, wastewater treatment plants,
wastewater collection and water treatment plants. Calibrated and functional scales are
imperative to operations as all transactions must be weighed to ensure proper billing is
conducted. Accurate and operational scales are also necessary for regulatory
compliance.
Procurement Information
An Invitation for Bid was processed in accordance with City of Phoenix Administrative
Regulation 3.10. One vendor submitted a bid deemed to be responsive to posted
specifications 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
Southwestern Scale Company, Inc.
Contract Term
The contract will begin on or about December 4, 2024, for a three-year term with two
one-year options to extend.
Financial Impact
The aggregate contract value will not exceed $829,825.
Funding is available in the Water Services and Public Works departments' budgets.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Ginger Spencer and Mario Paniagua,
and the Water Services and Public Works departments.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Phoenix to Accept and Process Recyclable Materials (Ordinance S-51496) -
Districts 2 & 7
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with Allied Waste Transportation, Inc. dba Republic Services of Phoenix (Republic
Services) to accept and process recyclable materials collected by Republic Services
and delivered to the City of Phoenix's Material Recovery Facilities (MRFs). Additionally,
request the City Council to grant an exception pursuant to Phoenix City Code Section
42-20(B) to authorize inclusion of mutual indemnification language that otherwise
would be prohibited by Phoenix City Code Section 42-18(A) and (B). Further request to
authorize the City Treasurer to accept, and for the City Controller to disburse, all funds
related to this item.
Summary
Republic Services has requested to enter into an agreement with the City of Phoenix
to accept and process its recyclable material. The City of Phoenix can accept these
materials with terms to address changing market conditions, resulting in lower
commodity prices and increased processing costs from contamination in the
recyclables. This agreement will authorize the City of Phoenix to charge a processing
fee to Republic Services for recycling tonnage processed at the City MRFs, which is
designed to ensure all costs associated with processing recyclables are recovered by
the fee. The terms of this Agreement include:
· In a market with low recycling commodity prices, the City of Phoenix will charge a
processing fee to Republic Services, and no revenue share to Republic Services
will be available.
· In a market with high recycling commodity prices, Republic Services will pay a
processing fee and will receive 50 percent of the net revenue share and the City of
Phoenix will receive the remaining 50 percent.
Annually, Republic Services will deliver up to 10,000 tons of recyclable materials to
Contract Term
The one-year term of this agreement will begin on or about December 4, 2024, and
conclude on or about December 3, 2025. Provisions of the agreement include four,
one-year options to extend the agreement.
Financial Impact
Republic Services will be paying Phoenix to accept recyclables to cover all expenses
associated with proper handling of the materials. If recycle market prices increase
during the term of the agreement, Phoenix and Republic Services would share the
additional revenue at a 50/50 split.
Funding for the revenue share payments to Republic Services are available in the
Public Works Department's budget.
Location
North Gateway Material Recovery Facility, 30205 N. Black Canyon Highway
27th Avenue Material Recovery Facility, 3060 S. 27th Avenue
Council Districts: 2 and 7
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the Public Works
Department.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request for Award (Ordinance S-51475) - Citywide
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into contracts with
GrayMar Environmental Services, Inc., Pacific West, LLC and Patriot Environmental
Services, Incorporated, to provide cleanup, removal, transport and disposal of
hazardous and non-hazardous liquids and solids in both emergency and non
emergency situations for the Public Works 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 $1,265,369.56.
Summary
This contract will provide services necessary to preserve the health and safety of the
public. The vendors will assume the responsibility of legal, safe handling, removal and
transportation services in accordance with local, state and federal regulations. Due to
the specialized training and equipment necessary to provide these services, Public
Works Department has consistently utilized outside vendors.
Procurement Information
An Invitation for Bid was processed in accordance with City of Phoenix Administrative
Regulation 3.10. Six vendors submitted bids deemed to be responsive to posted
specifications and responsible to provide the required goods and services. Following
an evaluation based on price, the procurement officer recommends award to the
following vendors:
Selected Bidders
Pacific West, LLC - $2,049.62
GrayMar Environmental Services, Inc., - $2,070.00
Patriot Environmental Services, Incorporated - $2,763.22
Contract Term
The contracts will begin on or about January 1, 2025, for a three-year term with two
one-year options to extend.
Financial Impact
The aggregate contracts value will not exceed $1,265,369.56. Funding is available in
the Public Works Department's budget.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the Public Works
Department.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Maricopa County Department of Transportation Cooperative Contracts - 230200 -
Amendment to Ordinance S-50540 (Ordinance S-51474) - Citywide
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
Ordinance S-50540 to revise the terms of the contracts to expire on October 31, 2029,
with a one-year option to extend, for the purchase of Intelligent Transportation System
(ITS) Devices and Communication equipment for the Street Transportation
Department. There are no additional expenditures included in this amendment.
Summary
The purpose of this amendment is to revise the terms of the 13 contracts from the
original award that was authorized by Council, which listed contract terms to begin on
or about February 15, 2024 for one-year terms with five one-year options to extend,
rather than five-year contract terms with one-year options to extend for the
Cooperative Contract the City adopted in connection with the Maricopa County
Department of Transportation.
These contracts provide ITS equipment, supplies, and training necessary for the Street
Transportation Department's Traffic Signal Shop to perform core functions such as
maintaining the Citywide infrastructure of over 1,138 signalized intersections and
continually adapt to the changing technology of the traveling public as it pertains to the
traffic signal systems.
Contract Term
The amended terms of the contracts will be five years, expiring on October 31, 2029,
with a one-year option to extend.
Financial Impact
The aggregate value of the contracts will not change from the original value, which
does not exceed $12 million, and no additional funds are needed for this amendment.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council previously approved 13 contracts, as listed in Attachment A,
(Ordinance S-50540) on February 7, 2024.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Inger Erickson and the Street
Transportation Department.
ATTACHMENT A
Contractors Listed Alphabetically
AM Signal, LLC
Applied Information, Inc.
Clark Electric Sales, Inc.
Contractors West, Inc.
Enterprise Networks Solutions
GridMatrix, Inc.
ITS Plus, Inc.
L4 Technologies, LLC
NoTraffic U.S. Inc
Rhythm Engineering, LLC
Sierra Transportation & Technologies
Summit Traffic Solutions
Western Systems Inc
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Channel Bicycle Underpass (Ordinance S-51479) - District 6
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into land use licenses
with Salt River Project for the continued use and maintenance of a bicycle underpass
under the Arizona Canal at 24th Street. Further request the City Council to grant an
exception pursuant to Phoenix City Code 42-20 to authorize inclusion in the
documents pertaining to this transaction of indemnification and assumption of liability
provisions that otherwise would be prohibited by Phoenix City Code 42-18.
Summary
This Salt River Project (SRP) Land Licenses are for renewals of existing Licenses that
were entered into for work associated with a pedestrian crossing over the Grand Canal
and allowed the City to construct, maintain, and utilize a bicycle underpass within USA
Fee Property. The original licenses were executed on December 31, 1999 and expires
on November 30, 2024.
Contract Term
The term of the new license shall be for 10 years beginning January 1, 2025, and
ending December 31, 2034. The licenses may be renewed upon written agreement by
the parties.
Financial Impact
There is no financial impact to the City of Phoenix for these licenses.
Location
24th Street and Arizona Canal
Council District: 6
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Inger Erickson, the Street
Transportation Department and the City Engineer.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
51487) - Citywide
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into separate
agreements with the 55 consultants in Attachment A, to provide Engineering On-Call
services citywide for calendar years 2025 to 2027. Further request to authorize
execution of amendments to the agreements as necessary within the Council-
approved expenditure authority as provided below, and for the City Controller to
disburse all funds related to this item. The total fee for services will not exceed $82.5
million.
Additionally, request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to take all action
as may be necessary or appropriate and to execute all design and construction
agreements, licenses, permits, and requests for utility services relating to the
development, design, and construction of the project. Such utility services include, but
are not limited to: electrical, water, sewer, natural gas, telecommunications, cable
television, railroads and other modes of transportation. Further request the City
Council to grant an exception pursuant to Phoenix City Code 42-20 to authorize
inclusion in the documents pertaining to this transaction of indemnification and
assumption of liability provisions that otherwise should be prohibited by Phoenix City
Code 42-18. This authorization excludes any transaction involving an interest in real
property.
Summary
The On-Call consultants will be responsible for providing On-Call Engineering services
citywide that include, but are not limited to: studies, plan review, special inspections,
programming, master plans, design, construction document development (plans,
specifications and cost estimates), and construction administration and inspection
services.
Procurement Information
The selections were made using a qualifications-based selection process set forth in
Section 34-604 of the Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.). In accordance with A.R.S.
Section 34-604(H), the City may not publicly release information on proposals
received, or the scoring results, until an agreement is awarded. 93 firms submitted
proposals and are listed in Attachment A.
Contract Term
The term of each agreement is up to three years or up to $1.5 million, whichever
occurs first. 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 values for each of the On-Call consultants will not exceed $1.5 million,
including all subconsultant and reimbursable costs. The total fee for all services will not
exceed $82.5 million.
Funding is available in the Citywide departments' Capital Improvement Program and
Operating budgets. The Budget and Research Department will review and approve
funding availability prior to issuance of any On-Call task order of $100,000 or more.
Payments may be made up to agreement limits for all rendered agreement services,
which may extend past the agreement termination.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Inger Erickson and the City Engineer.
ATTACHMENT A
Selected Firms By Category
Complete Streets ‐ Three (3) Firms Selected
1. ALTA PLANNING + DESIGN, INC.
2. GHD INC.
3. HARRINGTON PLANNING & DESIGN, LLC
Construc on Project Management ‐ Three (3) Firms Selected
1. HILL INTERNATIONAL, INC.
2. KITCHELL/CEM, INC.
3. RIDER LEVETT BUCKNALL LTD
Data Science ‐ One (1) Firm Selected
1. STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES INC.
Electrical ‐ Two (2) Firms Selected
1. LSW ENGINEERS ARIZONA, INCORPORATED
2. C R ENGINEERS, INC.
Energy ‐ Two (2) Firms Selected
1. AFFILIATED ENGINEERS, INC.
2. WRIGHT ENGINEERING CORPORATION
Fire Life Safety ‐ One (1) Firm Selected
1. COFFMAN ENGINEERS, INC.
Floodplain Mi ga on ‐ Two (2) Firms Selected
1. JE FULLER/HYDROLOGY AND GEOMORPHOLOGY, INC.
2. Ardurra Group, Inc.
General Civil ‐ Thirteen (13) Firms Selected
1. T.Y. LIN INTERNATIONAL, INC.
2. KIMLEY‐HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
3. WILSON & COMPANY, INC., ENGINEERS AND ARCHITECTS
4. AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC.
5. ENTELLUS, INC.
6. WSP USA, INC.
7. J2 ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN, L.L.C.
8. STRAND ASSOCIATES, INC.
9. TRACE CONSULTING, LLC
10. DIBBLE & ASSOCIATES CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.
11. PARSONS TRANSPORTATION GROUP INC.
12. OLSSON, INC.
13. HUIT‐ZOLLARS, INC.
Green Stormwater ‐ Two (2) Firms Selected
1. TERRACON CONSULTANTS, INC.
2. Werk, LLC
Landscape Architecture ‐ Three (3) Firms Selected
1. Coe and Van Loo L.C.C.
2. DIG STUDIO, INC.
3. Thomas+Crowley LLC
Mechanical/Plumbing ‐ Two (2) Firms Selected
1. GLHN ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS, INC.
2. PEARSON ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INCORPORATED
Public Informa on ‐ Two (2) Firms Selected
1. YOUR PROJECT MARKETING & OUTREACH, LLC
2. Avenue Consultants, Inc.
Structural ‐ Three (3) Firms Selected
1. ETHOS ENGINEERING, L.L.C.
2. JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC.
3. CARUSO TURLEY SCOTT, INC.
Survey ‐ Two (2) Firms Selected
1. WOOD, PATEL & ASSOCIATES, INC.
2. AZTEC Engineering Group Inc.
Traffic Engineering ‐ Three (3) Firms Selected
1. BURGESS & NIPLE, INC.
2. Y2K ENGINEERING, LLC.
3. KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Water/Wastewater ‐ Eleven (11) Firms Selected
1. WILSON ENGINEERS, LLC
2. CAROLLO ENGINEERS, INC.
3. BLACK & VEATCH CORPORATION
4. BROWN AND CALDWELL, INC.
5. ARCADIS U.S., INC.
6. HAZEN AND SAWYER, P.C.
7. EIC ENGINEERS, L.L.C.
8. OZ ENGINEERING, LLC
9. CONSOR North America, Inc.
10. HDR ENGINEERING, INC.
11. WATER WORK ENGINEERS, LLC
Addi onal Proposals
56. JENSEN HUGHES, INC.
57. TRISTAR ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT, INC.
58. IMEG Consultants Corp.
59. GUNN COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
60. WHPACIFIC, INC.
61. CIVTECH INC.
62. SUSTAINABILITY ENGINEERING GROUP LLC
63. Y .S. MANTRI & ASSOCIATES LLC
64. SUNRISE ENGINEERING, LLC
65. ADVANCE STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING, INC.
66. MEYER, BORGMAN & JOHNSON, INC.
67. MARTIN, WHITE & GRIFFIS, STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS, INC.
68. LEE ENGINEERING, L.L.C.
69. STANLEY CONSULTANTS, INC.
70. CIVIL & ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
71. SOUTHWEST TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, LLC
72. OMB ELECTRICAL ENGINEERS, INC.
73. PK ASSOCIATES, LLC
74. SPECTRUM ENGINEERS, INC.
75. LLOYD CONSULTING GROUP, LLC
76. HENDERSON ENGINEERS INCORPORATED
77. ATL, INC. (DBA CMT TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC.)
78. ENGINEERING ALLIANCE, INC.
79. GREENLIGHT TRAFFIC ENGINEERING, LLC
80. CONSULTANT ENGINEERING, INC.
81. RICK, COLLAR & WAGONER ENGINEERING, INC.
82. WEST CONSULTANTS, INC.
83. SMITHGROUP, INC.
84. CDM SMITH INC.
85. ENERGY SYSTEMS DESIGN, INC.
86. NARASIMHAN CONSULTING SERVICES INC.
87. LOKAHI, LLC
88. SAZAN GROUP INC.
89. FEHR & PEERS, INC.
90. VALENTINE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERS, LLC
91. ALTA SURVEY, LLC
92. QUANTUM ENGINEERING, INC.
93. S&F LAND SERVICES, LLC
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
at Risk Services - WS85050019 (Ordinance S-51458) - Out of City
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with MGC Contractors, Inc. to provide Construction Manager at Risk Preconstruction
and Construction Services for the 64th Street Reservoir No. 2 (1-ES1-2) Liner
Replacement project. Further request to authorize execution of amendments to the
agreement as necessary within the Council-approved expenditure authority as
provided below, and for the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item.
The fee for services will not exceed $14 million.
Summary
The purpose of this project is to provide construction services for a liner replacement
of a 20 million gallon (MG) reservoir, full columns rehabilitation and structural repairs,
replacement of 500 roof clips, and repair minor cracks and miscellaneous repairs.
MGC Contractors, Inc. will begin in an agency support role for Construction Manager
At Risk Preconstruction Services. MGC Contractors, Inc. will assume the risk of
delivering the project through a Guaranteed Maximum Price agreement.
MGC Contractors, Inc.’s Preconstruction Services include, but are not limited to:
providing detailed cost estimating and knowledge of marketplace conditions, project
planning and scheduling, construction phasing and scheduling that will minimize
interruption to City operations, providing alternate systems evaluation and
constructability studies, advising City on ways to gain efficiencies in project delivery,
providing long-lead procurement studies and initiating procurement of long-lead items,
assisting in the permitting processes, and participating with the City in a process to
establish a Small Business Enterprise (SBE) goal for the project.
MGC Contractors, Inc.’s initial Construction Services will include preparation of a
Guaranteed Maximum Price proposal provided under the agreement. MGC
Contractors, Inc. will be responsible for construction means and methods related to the
project and fulfilling the SBE program requirements. MGC Contractors, Inc. will be
required to solicit bids from prequalified subcontractors and to perform the work using
the City’s subcontractor selection process. MGC Contractors, Inc. may also compete
to self-perform limited amounts of work.
MGC Contractors, Inc.’s additional Construction Services include liner replacement,
full columns rehabilitation and structural repairs, replacement of 500 roof clips, minor
cracks and miscellaneous repairs, selecting subcontractors and suppliers for this
project, preparing a Guaranteed Maximum Price proposal that meets the approval of
the City, coordinating with various City of Phoenix departments, other agencies and
utility companies, arranging for procurement of materials and equipment, scheduling
and managing site operations, providing quality controls, bidding, awarding, and
managing all construction related contracts while meeting City Bid Requirements
including the local and SBE participation goal, and maintaining a safe work site for all
project participants.
Procurement Information
The selection was made using a qualifications-based selection process set forth in
Section 34-603 of the Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.). In accordance with A.R.S.
Section 34-603(H), the City may not publicly release information on proposals received
or the scoring results until an agreement is awarded. One firm submitted proposals
and is listed below.
Selected Firm
Rank 1: MGC Contractors, 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 MGC Contractors, Inc. will not exceed $14 million, including
all subcontractor and reimbursable costs.
Funding is available in the Water Services Department's Capital Improvement Program
budget. The Budget and Research Department will separately review and approve
funding availability prior to execution of any amendments. Payments may be made up
to agreement limits for all rendered agreement services, which may extend past the
agreement termination.
Location
General Location: 64th Street and E. Thomas Road
Council District: Out of City
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Ginger Spencer and Inger Erickson,
the Water Services Department and the City Engineer.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Services - WS90501000 (Ordinance S-51460) - District 7
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with Achen-Gardner Construction, L.L.C. to provide Construction Manager at Risk
Preconstruction and Construction Services for Lift Station 43 Force Main Rehabilitation
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 $7.6 million.
Summary
The purpose of this project is to rehabilitate the force mains associated with Lift Station
43. The force mains convey wastewater flows from the lift station.
Achen-Gardner Construction, L.L.C. will begin in an agency support role for
Construction Manager At Risk Preconstruction Services. Achen-Gardner Construction,
L.L.C. will assume the risk of delivering the project through a Guaranteed Maximum
Price agreement.
Achen-Gardner Construction, L.L.C.’s Preconstruction Services include, but are not
limited to: providing detailed cost estimating and knowledge of marketplace conditions,
providing project planning and scheduling, providing 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 for long-lead items,
assist in the permitting processes, and participate with the City in a process to set a
goal for Small Business Goal (SBE) for the project.
Achen-Gardner Construction, L.L.C.’s initial Construction Services will include
preparation of a Guaranteed Maximum Price proposal provided under the agreement.
Achen-Gardner Construction, L.L.C. will be responsible for construction means and
methods related to the project and fulfilling the SBE program requirements. Achen-
Gardner Construction, L.L.C. will be required to solicit bids from pre qualified
subcontractors and to perform the work using the City’s subcontractor selection
process. Achen-Gardner Construction, L.L.C. may also compete to self-perform limited
amounts of work.
Achen-Gardner Construction, L.L.C.’s additional Construction Services include:
construct wastewater infrastructure for Lift Station 43 Force Main Rehabilitation,
prepare a Guaranteed Maximum Price proposal that meets the approval of the City,
coordinate with various City of Phoenix departments, other agencies, and utility
companies, arrange for procurement of materials and equipment, schedule and
manage site operations, bid, award, and manage all construction related contracts
while meeting City bid requirements including the local and SBE participation goal,
provide quality controls, bond and insure the construction, address all federal, state
and local permitting requirements, and maintain a safe work site for all project
participants.
Procurement Information
The selection was made using a qualifications-based selection process set forth in
Section 34-603 of the Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.). In accordance with A.R.S.
Section 34-603(H), the City may not publicly release information on proposals received
or the scoring results until an agreement is awarded. Four firms submitted proposals
and are listed below.
Selected Firm
Rank 1: Achen-Gardner Construction, L.L.C.
Additional Proposers
Rank 2: B&F Contracting, Inc.
Rank 3: TF Contracting Services LLC
Rank 4: Hensel Phelps Construction Co
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 Achen-Gardner Construction, L.L.C. will not exceed $7.6
million, including all subcontractor and reimbursable costs.
Funding is available in the Water Services Department's Capital Improvement Program
budget. The Budget and Research Department will separately review and approve
funding availability prior to execution of any amendments. Payments may be made up
to agreement limits for all rendered agreement services, which may extend past the
agreement termination.
Location
General Location: S. 75th Avenue and W. Vineyard Road
Council District: 7
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Ginger Spencer and Inger Erickson,
the Water Services Department and the City Engineer.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Award (Ordinance S-51462) - Citywide
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into agreement with
Environmental Resource Associates, Inc. to provide proficiency testing of water
samples for the Water Services 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 $150,000.
Summary
This agreement will provide the Water Services Department with the ability to procure
proficiency testing and analysis of drinking water and wastewater samples. The
proficiency testing is performed as needed by the compliance laboratory for the
Discharge Monitoring Report - Quality Assurance study for the City of Phoenix's
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System and Arizona Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System permits.
Procurement Information
The recommendation was made using an Invitation for Bid procurement process in
accordance with City of Phoenix Administrative Regulation 3.10.
Three Vendors submitted bids and are listed below; all bids except one were found
responsive and responsible. Following an evaluation based on price, the procurement
officer recommends award to the following vendor:
Selected Bidder
Environmental Resource Associates, Inc.
Additional Bidders
Advanced Analytical Solutions, LLC.
Phenova, Inc.
Contract Term
The contract will begin on or about March 1, 2025, for a five-year term with no options
to extend.
Financial Impact
The aggregate contract value will not exceed $150,000.
Funding is available in the Water Services Department Operating Budget.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Water
Services Department.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
(Ordinance S-51467) - Citywide
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
Cupps Industrial Supply, Inc. to provide gaskets and o' rings for the Water Services
Department. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds
related to this item. The total value of the contract will not exceed $410,000.
Summary
This agreement will provide various size gaskets and o' rings to be used in the City's
Water Production, Wastewater Collection, and Wastewater Treatment systems on an
as-needed basis. This agreement will allow the Water Services Department to
purchase customized gaskets and o' rings when needed to ensure continued
compliance with American National Standards Institute guidelines.
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 posted specifications 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
Cupps Industrial Supply, Inc.: $63,008.27
Contract Term
The contract will begin on or about December 31, 2024, for a five-year term with no
options to extend.
Financial Impact
The aggregate contract value will not exceed $410,000.
Funding is available in the Water Services Department Operating budget.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Water
Services Department.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Citywide
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
SW Services, LLC to provide debris caps, on an as needed basis, for the Water
Services Department. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all
funds related to this item. The total value of the contract will not exceed $3,800,000.
Summary
This agreement will provide the Water Services Department (WSD) with the supply of
debris caps that comply with Maricopa Association of Governments' requirements. The
debris caps are utilized to prevent material such as dirt, dust, and sand from passing
into the water valve housing throughout the water services infrastructure.
Procurement Information
An Invitation for Bid procurement was processed in accordance with City of Phoenix
Administrative Regulation 3.10.
Two vendors submitted bids deemed to be responsive to posted specifications 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
SW Services, LLC: $72,600 (annual)
Contract Term
The contract will begin on or about December 31, 2024, for a five-year term with no
options to extend.
Financial Impact
The aggregate contract value will not exceed $3,800,000.
Funding is available in the Water Services Department Operating and Capital
Improvement Program budgets.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Water
Services Department.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Approximately 1,000 Feet South of the Southwest Corner of the 29th Avenue
Alignment and Dove Valley Road (Ordinance G-7326) - District 2
Request to amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section 601, the Zoning Map of the
PCD NBCOD (Approved C-2/CP M-R PCD NBCOD) (Planned Community District,
North Black Canyon Overlay District, Approved Intermediate Commercial or
Commerce Park District, Mid-Rise District, Planned Community District, North Black
Canyon Overlay District) and FH PCD NBCOD (Flood Hazard and Erosion
Management District, Planned Community District, North Black Canyon Overlay
District) to C-2 HGT/WVR DNS/WVR NBCOD (Intermediate Commercial, Height
Waiver, Density Waiver, North Black Canyon Overlay District) and FH NBCOD (Flood
Hazard and Erosion Management District, North Black Canyon Overlay District) to
allow multifamily residential.
Summary
Current Zoning: PCD NBCOD (Approved C-2/CP M-R PCD NBCOD) (7.29 acres) and
FH PCD NBCOD (12.76 acres)
Proposed Zoning: C-2 HGT/WVR DNS/WVR NBCOD (11.79 acres) and FH NBCOD
(8.26 acres)
Acreage: 20.05
Proposal: Multifamily residential
Owner: North Gateway Core Acreage Investors, LLC
Applicant: Trumont Group c/o Shane Essert
Representative: Alan Beaudoin, Norris Design
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Action: The North Gateway Village Planning Committee heard this item on
October 10, 2024, and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, by a
vote of 8-0.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this item on November 7, 2024, and
recommended approval, per the North Gateway Village Planning Committee
recommendation, by a vote of 9-0.
Location
Approximately 1,000 feet south of the southwest corner of the 29th Avenue alignment
and Dove Valley Road
Council District: 2
Parcel Address: 32600 and 32620 N. 29th Avenue
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Planning and
Development Department.
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-27-24-2) FROM PCD NBCOD (APPROVED C-
2/CP M-R PCD NBCOD) (PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT,
NORTH BLACK CANYON OVERLAY DISTRICT, APPROVED
INTERMEDIATE COMMERCIAL OR COMMERCE PARK
DISTRICT, MID-RISE DISTRICT, PLANNED COMMUNITY
DISTRICT, NORTH BLACK CANYON OVERLAY DISTRICT) AND
FH PCD NBCOD (FLOOD HAZARD AND EROSION
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT,
NORTH BLACK CANYON OVERLAY DISTRICT) TO C-2
HGT/WVR DNS/WVR NBCOD (INTERMEDIATE COMMERCIAL,
HEIGHT WAIVER, DENSITY WAIVER, NORTH BLACK CANYON
OVERLAY DISTRICT) AND FH NBCOD (FLOOD HAZARD AND
EROSION MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, NORTH BLACK CANYON
OVERLAY DISTRICT).
____________
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as
follows:
SECTION 1. The zoning of a 20.05-acre property located approximately
1,000 feet south of the southwest corner of the 29th Avenue alignment and Dove Valley
Road in a portion of Section 14, Township 5 North, Range 2 East, as described more
specifically in Exhibit “A,” is hereby changed from 7.29 acres of “PCD NBCOD
(Approved C-2/CP M-R PCD NBCOD)” (Planned Community District, North Black
Canyon Overlay District, Approved Intermediate Commercial or Commerce Park
District, Mid-Rise District, Planned Community District, North Black Canyon Overlay
District) and 12.76 acres of “FH PCD NBCOD” (Flood Hazard and Erosion Management
District, Planned Community District, North Black Canyon Overlay District) to 11.79
acres of “C-2 HGT/WVR DNS/WVR NBCOD” (Intermediate Commercial, Height Waiver,
Density Waiver, North Black Canyon Overlay District) and 8.26 acres of “FH NBCOD”
(Flood Hazard and Erosion Management District, North Black Canyon Overlay District)
SECTION 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to
modify the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix to reflect this use district classification
change as shown in Exhibit “B.”
SECTION 3. Due to the site’s specific physical conditions and the use
district applied for by the applicant, this rezoning is subject to the following stipulations,
violation of which shall be treated in the same manner as a violation of the City of
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance:
1. The development for the east parcel (adjacent to 29th Avenue), as depicted on
the site plan date stamped September 24, 2024, shall be in general
conformance with the site plan date stamped September 24, 2024, as modified
by the following stipulations and as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
2. The development for the east parcel (adjacent to 29th Avenue) as depicted on
the site plan date stamped September 24, 2024, shall be in general
conformance with the elevations date stamped April 10, 2024, with specific
regard to the colors and materials being muted and blending, rather than
contrasting strongly, with the surrounding desert environment, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department.
3. The conceptual site plan and elevations for the 3.18-acre west parcel (west of
Skunk Creek Wash), as depicted on the site plan date stamped September 24,
2024, shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Hearing Officer through
the public hearing process for stipulation modification prior to preliminary site
plan approval, with specific regard to the inclusion of the items below. This is a
legislative review for conceptual purposes only. Specific development
standards and requirements may be determined by the Planning Hearing
Officer and the Planning and Development Department.
a. Buildings fronting Skunk Creek Wash, with a minimum building frontage
of 50% and a maximum building setback of 30 feet, measured from the
east side of the multi-use trail easement.
b. Buildings fronting any adjacent street, with a minimum building frontage
of 60% and a maximum building setback of 30 feet.
c. A minimum of two east-west, minimum 5-foot-wide, pedestrian
walkways connecting the multi-use trail along Skunk Creek Wash to the
west portion of the site, to eventually connect to the 32nd Avenue
alignment.
d. Colors being muted and blending, rather than contrasting strongly, with
the surrounding desert environment.
4. Multifamily residential development shall utilize the R-5 Planned Residential
Development option.
5. A minimum of 10% of the gross site area of each parcel (east and west of
Skunk Creek Wash) separately shall be retained as common area, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
6. Surface parking for the east parcel (adjacent to 29th Avenue), as depicted on
the site plan date stamped September 24, 2024, shall be setback a minimum of
50 feet from the western limits of the development along Skunk Creek Wash,
as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
7. Surface parking for the west parcel (west of Skunk Creek Wash), as depicted
on the site plan date stamped September 24, 2024, shall be setback a
minimum of 50 feet from the eastern limits of the development along Skunk
Creek Wash, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
8. A 25-foot-wide shared-use path easement (SUPE) shall be dedicated along the
east bank of Skunk Creek Wash aligned with the limits of development, east of
the Floodway Zone AE boundary, and a minimum 10-foot-wide shared-use
path (SUP) shall be constructed within the easement, in accordance with the
MAG supplemental detail and as approved or modified by the Planning and
Development Department.
9. A 25-foot-wide multi-use trail easement (MUTE) shall be dedicated along the
west bank of Skunk Creek Wash aligned with the limits of development, west of
the Floodway Zone AE boundary, and a minimum 10-foot-wide multi-use trail
(MUT) shall be constructed within the easement, in accordance with the MAG
supplemental detail and as approved or modified by the Planning and
Development Department.
10. A minimum landscape setback of 10 feet shall be provided between both the
shared-use path (SUP) and multi-use-trail (MUT) along Skunk Creek Wash and
any adjacent fencing or buildings, planted with minimum 2-inch caliper, single-
trunk, large canopy, shade trees, planted 20 feet on center or in equivalent
groupings, and shrubs, accents, and vegetative groundcovers to achieve a
minimum of 50% live coverage, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
11. The landscape setbacks shall be planted with minimum 2-inch caliper, large
canopy, shade trees, planted 20 feet on center or in equivalent groupings, and
shrubs, accents, and vegetative groundcovers to achieve a minimum of 50%
live coverage, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
12. A minimum of 25% of the surface parking areas for each parcel separately
(east and west of Skunk Creek Wash) shall be shaded, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department. Shade may be achieved by structures
or by minimum 2-inch caliper, single-trunk, large canopy, shade trees, or a
combination thereof.
13. A minimum of 10% of the required shrubs for each parcel separately (east and
west of Skunk Creek Wash), shall be a milkweed or other native nectar
species, and shall be planted in groups of three or more, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
14. Where pedestrian walkways cross a vehicular path, the pathway shall be
constructed of decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or other
pavement treatments that visually contrasts parking and drive aisle surfaces,
as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
15. The development for the east parcel (adjacent to 29th Avenue), as depicted on
the site plan date stamped September 24, 2024, shall provide a minimum of
two east-west, minimum 5-foot-wide, pedestrian walkways connecting 29th
Avenue to the shared-use path along Skunk Creek Wash, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
16. The development for the east parcel (adjacent to 29th Avenue), as depicted on
the site plan date stamped September 24, 2024, shall include building frontage
as described below, in order to promote a walkable pedestrian realm per the
North Gateway Village Core Plan, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
a. Buildings fronting onto 29th Avenue, with a minimum building frontage
of 60%, and a maximum building setback of 30 feet.
b. Buildings fronting onto Skunk Creek Wash, with a minimum building
frontage of 50%, and a maximum building setback of 30 feet (measured
from the west side of the shared-use path easement).
17. All buildings along the Skunk Creek Wash frontage, 29th Avenue frontage, and
any adjacent street frontage shall comply with one frontage type for each
frontage, per Table 1305.1 of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, and shall comply
with Section 1305.C.2 for purposes of the frontage types, in order to promote
the goals, policies and recommendations of the North Gateway Village Core
Plan, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
18. All bicycle infrastructure, pedestrian pathways (including sidewalks) and trails
shall be shaded by a structure, landscaping, or a combination of the two to
provide a minimum of 75% shade, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
19. Secured bicycle parking shall be provided for each parcel separately (east and
west of Skunk Creek Wash) at a minimum rate of 0.25 spaces per unit. Guest
bicycle parking shall be provided for each parcel separately (east and west of
Skunk Creek Wash) at a minimum rate of 0.05 spaces per unit. Guest bicycle
parking shall be provided through Inverted U and/or artistic racks located in
open space and amenity areas and installed per the requirements of Section
1307.H. of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance. Artistic racks shall adhere to the
Master Plan.
20. A bicycle repair station (“fix it station”) shall be provided and maintained on site
for each parcel separately (east and west of Skunk Creek Wash). The bicycle
repair stations (“fix it stations”) shall be provided in an area of high visibility and
separated from vehicular maneuvering areas, where applicable. The repair
station shall include, but not be limited to, standard repair tools affixed to the
station, a tire gauge and pump affixed to the base of the station or the ground,
and a bicycle repair stand which allows pedals and wheels to spin freely while
making adjustments to the bike.
21. A minimum of 10% of the required bicycle parking spaces for each parcel
separately (east and west of Skunk Creek Wash) shall include standard
electrical receptacles for electric bicycle charging capabilities, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department.
22. A minimum of 2% of the required parking spaces for each parcel separately
(east and west of Skunk Creek Wash) shall include Electric Vehicle (EV)
Installed Infrastructure and a minimum of 8% of the required parking spaces for
each parcel separately (east and west of Skunk Creek Wash) shall include EV
Capable spaces, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
23. A minimum of two green stormwater infrastructure (GSI) elements for
stormwater management shall be implemented for each parcel separately (east
and west of Skunk Creek Wash), as approved or modified by the Planning and
Development and/or Street Transportation departments. This includes but is
not limited to stormwater harvesting basins, bioswales, permeable pavement,
etc., per the Greater Phoenix Metro Green Infrastructure and Low Impact
Development Details for Alternative Stormwater Management.
24. Only landscape materials listed in Appendix A of the North Black Canyon
Overlay District (Section 654 of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance) shall be
utilized, as approved or modified by the Planning and Development
Department.
25. Natural turf shall only be utilized in required retention areas (bottom of basin,
and only allowed on slopes if required for slope stabilization) and functional turf
areas in common areas, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
26. Pressure regulating sprinkler heads and drip lines shall be utilized in any turf
areas to reduce water waste.
27. Landscaping shall be maintained by permanent and automatic/water efficient
WaterSense labeled irrigation controllers (or similar smart controller) to
minimize maintenance and irrigation water consumption for all on and offsite
landscape irrigation.
28. A leak detection device shall be installed for the irrigation system of landscape
areas larger than 10,000 square feet.
29. The FH-zoned portion of the site shall be preserved as permanent undisturbed
open space and shall be dedicated to the City as Sonoran Preserve, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department and the Parks and
Recreation Department.
30. This parcel is in a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) called Zone AE & AE
(Floodway), on panel 0845 L of the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) revised
October 16, 2013. The following requirements shall apply, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department:
a. The Architect and Engineer are required to show the floodplain boundary
limits on the Site Plan and Grading and Drainage Plan and ensure that
impacts to the proposed facilities have been considered, following the
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Regulations (44 CFR
Paragraph 60.3). This includes, but not limited to provisions in the latest
versions of the Floodplain Ordinance of the Phoenix City Code.
b. A copy of the Grading and Drainage Plan shall be submitted to the
Floodplain Management section of the Office of the City Engineer for
review and approval of Floodplain requirements.
c. The developer shall provide a FEMA approved CLOMR-F or CLOMR
prior to issuance of a Grading and Drainage permit.
d. A LOMR application shall be submitted to the Floodplain Management
section of the Office of the City Engineer for review and approval prior to
issuance of vertical construction permits.
31. A minimum 5-foot-wide detached sidewalk separated by a minimum 10-foot-
wide landscape strip located between the back of curb and sidewalk shall be
constructed on the west side of 29th Avenue, adjacent to the development,
planted to the following standards and maintained with a watering system, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
a. Minimum 2-inch caliper, single-trunk, large canopy, shade trees, planted
20 feet on center, or in equivalent groupings.
b. Shrubs, accents, and vegetative groundcovers with a maximum mature
height of two feet to achieve a minimum of 75% live coverage.
Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on an alternative design solution consistent with a
pedestrian environment.
32. Right-of-way shall be dedicated and constructed to connect to two existing
public streets, specifically to Dove Valley Road, Sonoran Desert Drive, and/or
North Valley Parkway, as required by the North Gateway Core Master Street
Plan and as approved by the Street Transportation Department.
33. Twenty-ninth Avenue shall be dedicated and constructed to the special CM
cross section, as required by the North Gateway Core Master Street Plan.
34. A minimum of three enhanced pedestrian connections shall be provided on the
western site boundary of the eastern parcel, as depicted on the site plan date
stamped September 24, 2024, to allow for direct pedestrian access to the
adjacent Skunk Creek Wash shared-use path. The developer shall construct an
8-foot-wide shaded pedestrian pathway consisting of decorative material such
as brick, pavers, or an alternative material, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
35. All streets within and adjacent to the development shall be constructed 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.
36. 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.
37. Prior to final 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 December,
2024.
________________________________
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 (6 Pages)
B – Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR Z-27-24-2
C-2 HGT/WVR DNS/WVR NBCOD:
A PORTION OF THAT PARCEL DESCRIBED IN QUIT CLAIM DEED RECORDED IN
2023-0271092, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, LOCATED
IN THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH, RANGE 2
EAST OF THE GILA AND SALT RIVER BASE AND MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY
ARIZONA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT A HALF-INCH REBAR WITH NO IDENTIFICATION MARKING THE
NORTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 14 FROM WHICH A HALF-INCH
REBAR WITH YELLOW PLASTIC CAP STAMPED "RLS 21081" MARKING THE
CENTER OF SAID SECTION 14 BEARS SOUTH 00 DEGREES 15 MINUTES 24
SECONDS EAST 2644.26 FEET, SAID DESCRIBED LINE BEING THE BASIS OF
BEARINGS OF THIS DESCRIPTION;
THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 15 MINUTES 24 SECONDS EAST 991.60 FEET
ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 14
TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THAT PARCEL DESCRIBED IN QUIT CLAIM
DEED RECORDED IN 2023-0271092, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF MARICOPA COUNTY
ARIZONA, BEING MARKED BY A HALF-INCH REBAR WITH YELLOW PLASTIC CAP
STAMPED "LS 26404," AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 35 MINUTES 14 SECONDS EAST 200.36 FEET
ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID PARCEL;
THENCE SOUTH 06 DEGREES 52 MINUTES 31 SECONDS EAST 25.90 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 08 DEGREES 03 MINUTES 04 SECONDS EAST 36.17 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 06 DEGREES 08 MINUTES 37 SECONDS EAST 35.68 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 08 DEGREES 05 MINUTES 58 SECONDS EAST 40.35 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 14 DEGREES 06 MINUTES 05 SECONDS EAST 35.15 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 04 DEGREES 16 MINUTES 04 SECONDS EAST 20.14 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 02 DEGREES 11 MINUTES 16 SECONDS EAST 24.85 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 02 DEGREES 26 MINUTES 25 SECONDS EAST 36.04 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 01 DEGREES 53 MINUTES 15 SECONDS EAST 33.09 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 03 DEGREES 28 MINUTES 54 SECONDS EAST 12.98 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 09 DEGREES 20 MINUTES 37 SECONDS WEST 15.24 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 08 DEGREES 49 MINUTES 40 SECONDS WEST 31.50 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 12 DEGREES 08 MINUTES 01 SECONDS WEST 31.49 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 12 DEGREES 48 MINUTES 18 SECONDS WEST 29.29 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 18 DEGREES 56 MINUTES 29 SECONDS WEST 35.81 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 08 DEGREES 25 MINUTES 40 SECONDS WEST 8.01 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 10 DEGREES 54 MINUTES 04 SECONDS EAST 8.70 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 04 DEGREES 15 MINUTES 58 SECONDS WEST 99.97 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 10 DEGREES 36 MINUTES 28 SECONDS WEST 60.09 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 32 DEGREES 01 MINUTES 35 SECONDS WEST 57.68 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 36 MINUTES 57 SECONDS WEST 148.83 FEET
ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID PARCEL
BEING MARKED BY A HALF-INCH REBAR WITH ILLEGIBLE YELLOW PLASTIC CAP
AND TAG STAMPED "KLEIN 42137";
THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 15 MINUTES 24 SECONDS WEST 661.06 FEET TO
THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
COMPRISING 137,067 SQUARE FEET MORE OR LESS.
AND
A PORTION OF THAT PARCEL DESCRIBED IN QUIT CLAIM DEED RECORDED IN
2023-0271092, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, LOCATED
IN THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH, RANGE 2
EAST OF THE GILA AND SALT RIVER BASE AND MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY
ARIZONA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT A HALF-INCH REBAR WITH NO IDENTIFICATION MARKING THE
NORTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 14 FROM WHICH A HALF-INCH
REBAR WITH YELLOW PLASTIC CAP STAMPED "RLS 21081" MARKING THE
CENTER OF SAID SECTION 14 BEARS SOUTH 00 DEGREES 15 MINUTES 24
SECONDS EAST 2644.26 FEET, SAID DESCRIBED LINE BEING THE BASIS OF
BEARINGS OF THIS DESCRIPTION;
THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 15 MINUTES 24 SECONDS EAST 991.60 FEET
ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 14
TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THAT PARCEL DESCRIBED IN QUIT CLAIM
DEED RECORDED IN 2023-0271092, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF MARICOPA COUNTY
ARIZONA, BEING MARKED BY A HALF-INCH REBAR WITH YELLOW PLASTIC CAP
STAMPED "LS 26404";
THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 35 MINUTES 14 SECONDS EAST 681.88 FEET
ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID PARCEL TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 89 DEGREES 35 MINUTES 14 SECONDS EAST
637.88 FEET ALONG SAID NORTH LINE TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID
PARCEL BEING MARKED BY A HALF-INCH REBAR WITH ALUMINUM CAP
STAMPED "KLEIN 42137";
THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 15 MINUTES 13 SECONDS EAST 661.72 FEET
ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID PARCEL TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID
PARCEL BEING MARKED BY A HALF-INCH REBAR WITH ALUMINUM CAP
STAMPED "KLEIN 42137";
THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 36 MINUTES 57 SECONDS WEST 696.72 FEET
ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID PARCEL;
THENCE NORTH 28 DEGREES 23 MINUTES 30 SECONDS EAST 8.59 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 37 DEGREES 16 MINUTES 05 SECONDS EAST 20.14 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 49 DEGREES 36 MINUTES 08 SECONDS EAST 33.55 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 62 DEGREES 26 MINUTES 19 SECONDS EAST 21.21 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 27 DEGREES 00 MINUTES 29 SECONDS EAST 35.57 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 11 DEGREES 17 MINUTES 06 SECONDS EAST 34.37 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 01 DEGREES 48 MINUTES 47 SECONDS WEST 25.70 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 10 DEGREES 30 MINUTES 19 SECONDS EAST 25.18 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 24 DEGREES 59 MINUTES 16 SECONDS EAST 14.61 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 43 DEGREES 47 MINUTES 52 SECONDS EAST 16.50 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 57 DEGREES 18 MINUTES 08 SECONDS EAST 18.82 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 54 DEGREES 03 MINUTES 00 SECONDS EAST 37.50 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 45 DEGREES 27 MINUTES 33 SECONDS EAST 37.10 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 13 DEGREES 49 MINUTES 46 SECONDS EAST 56.36 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 15 DEGREES 33 MINUTES 11 SECONDS EAST 31.66 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 08 DEGREES 13 MINUTES 48 SECONDS WEST 77.84 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 15 DEGREES 34 MINUTES 55 SECONDS WEST 42.15 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 28 DEGREES 55 MINUTES 55 SECONDS WEST 35.19 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 24 DEGREES 55 MINUTES 01 SECONDS WEST 19.83 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 27 DEGREES 05 MINUTES 42 SECONDS WEST 43.22 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 27 DEGREES 37 MINUTES 48 SECONDS WEST 40.65 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 29 DEGREES 08 MINUTES 02 SECONDS WEST 34.28 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 30 DEGREES 55 MINUTES 52 SECONDS WEST 28.15 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 43 DEGREES 42 MINUTES 55 SECONDS WEST 37.67 FEET TO
THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
COMPRISING 375,314 SQUARE FEET MORE OR LESS.
FH NBCOD:
A PORTION OF THAT PARCEL DESCRIBED IN QUIT CLAIM DEED RECORDED IN
2023-0271092, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, LOCATED
IN THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 5 NORTH, RANGE 2
EAST OF THE GILA AND SALT RIVER BASE AND MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY
ARIZONA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT A HALF-INCH REBAR WITH NO IDENTIFICATION MARKING THE
NORTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 14 FROM WHICH A HALF-INCH
REBAR WITH YELLOW PLASTIC CAP STAMPED "RLS 21081" MARKING THE
CENTER OF SAID SECTION 14 BEARS SOUTH 00 DEGREES 15 MINUTES 24
SECONDS EAST 2644.26 FEET, SAID DESCRIBED LINE BEING THE BASIS OF
BEARINGS OF THIS DESCRIPTION;
THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 15 MINUTES 24 SECONDS EAST 991.60 FEET
ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 14
TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THAT PARCEL DESCRIBED IN QUIT CLAIM
DEED RECORDED IN 2023-0271092, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF MARICOPA COUNTY
ARIZONA, BEING MARKED BY A HALF-INCH REBAR WITH YELLOW PLASTIC CAP
STAMPED "LS 26404";
THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 35 MINUTES 14 SECONDS EAST 200.36 FEET
ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID PARCEL TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE CONTINUING NORTH 89 DEGREES 35 MINUTES 14 SECONDS EAST
481.53 FEET ALONG SAID NORTH LINE;
THENCE SOUTH 43 DEGREES 42 MINUTES 55 SECONDS EAST 37.67 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 30 DEGREES 55 MINUTES 52 SECONDS EAST 28.15 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 29 DEGREES 08 MINUTES 02 SECONDS EAST 34.28 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 27 DEGREES 37 MINUTES 48 SECONDS EAST 40.65 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 27 DEGREES 05 MINUTES 42 SECONDS EAST 43.22 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 24 DEGREES 55 MINUTES 01 SECONDS EAST 19.83 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 28 DEGREES 55 MINUTES 55 SECONDS EAST 35.19 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 15 DEGREES 34 MINUTES 55 SECONDS EAST 42.15 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 08 DEGREES 13 MINUTES 48 SECONDS EAST 77.84 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 15 DEGREES 33 MINUTES 11 SECONDS WEST 31.66 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 13 DEGREES 49 MINUTES 46 SECONDS WEST 56.36 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 45 DEGREES 27 MINUTES 33 SECONDS WEST 37.10 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 54 DEGREES 03 MINUTES 00 SECONDS WEST 37.50 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 57 DEGREES 18 MINUTES 08 SECONDS WEST 18.82 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 43 DEGREES 47 MINUTES 52 SECONDS WEST 16.50 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 24 DEGREES 59 MINUTES 16 SECONDS WEST 14.61 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 10 DEGREES 30 MINUTES 19 SECONDS WEST 25.18 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 01 DEGREES 48 MINUTES 47 SECONDS EAST 25.70 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 11 DEGREES 17 MINUTES 06 SECONDS WEST 34.37 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 27 DEGREES 00 MINUTES 29 SECONDS WEST 35.57 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 62 DEGREES 26 MINUTES 19 SECONDS WEST 21.21 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 49 DEGREES 36 MINUTES 08 SECONDS WEST 33.55 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 37 DEGREES 16 MINUTES 05 SECONDS WEST 20.14 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 28 DEGREES 23 MINUTES 30 SECONDS WEST 8.59 FEET TO A
POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID PARCEL;
THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 36 MINUTES 57 SECONDS WEST 474.17 FEET
ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE;
THENCE NORTH 32 DEGREES 01 MINUTES 35 SECONDS EAST 57.68 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 10 DEGREES 36 MINUTES 28 SECONDS EAST 60.09 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 04 DEGREES 15 MINUTES 58 SECONDS EAST 99.97 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 10 DEGREES 54 MINUTES 04 SECONDS WEST 8.70 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 08 DEGREES 25 MINUTES 40 SECONDS EAST 8.01 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 18 DEGREES 56 MINUTES 29 SECONDS EAST 35.81 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 12 DEGREES 48 MINUTES 18 SECONDS EAST 29.29 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 12 DEGREES 08 MINUTES 01 SECONDS EAST 31.49 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 08 DEGREES 49 MINUTES 40 SECONDS EAST 31.50 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 09 DEGREES 20 MINUTES 37 SECONDS EAST 15.24 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 03 DEGREES 28 MINUTES 54 SECONDS WEST 12.98 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 01 DEGREES 53 MINUTES 15 SECONDS WEST 33.09 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 02 DEGREES 26 MINUTES 25 SECONDS WEST 36.04 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 02 DEGREES 11 MINUTES 16 SECONDS WEST 24.85 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 04 DEGREES 16 MINUTES 04 SECONDS WEST 20.14 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 14 DEGREES 06 MINUTES 05 SECONDS WEST 35.15 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 08 DEGREES 05 MINUTES 58 SECONDS WEST 40.35 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 06 DEGREES 08 MINUTES 37 SECONDS WEST 35.68 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 08 DEGREES 03 MINUTES 04 SECONDS WEST 36.17 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 06 DEGREES 52 MINUTES 31 SECONDS WEST 25.90 FEET TO
THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
COMPRISING 360,489 SQUARE FEET MORE OR LESS.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Approximately 170 Feet East of the Northeast Corner of 13th Avenue and Peoria
Avenue (Ordinance G-7329) - District 3
Request to amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section 601, the Zoning Map of the
R-3 (Multifamily Residence District) to R-3 Hillside DNS/WVR (Multifamily Residence
District, Hillside Density Waiver) for a Hillside Density Waiver for single-family
residential.
Summary
Current Zoning: R-3 (Multifamily Residence District)
Proposed Zoning: R-3 Hillside DNS/WVR
Acreage: 1.26
Proposal: Hillside density waiver for single-family residential
Owner: Empire J Properties, LLC
Applicant: Ty Utton, Rose Law Group, PC
Representative: Jon Gillespie, Rose Law Group, PC
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Action: The North Mountain Village Planning Committee heard this item on
October 16, 2024, and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, with a
modification, by a vote of 13-0.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this item on November 7, 2024, and
recommended approval, per the North Mountain Village Planning Committee, by a
vote of 9-0.
Location
Approximately 170 feet east of the northeast corner of 13th Avenue and Peoria Avenue
Council District: 3
Parcel Address: 1226 W. Peoria Avenue
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Planning and
Development Department.
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 (Z-85-24-3) FROM R-3 (MULTIFAMILY RESIDENCE
DISTRICT) TO R-3 HILLSIDE DNS/WVR (MULTIFAMILY
RESIDENCE DISTRICT, HILLSIDE DENSITY WAIVER).
____________
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as
follows:
SECTION 1. The zoning of a 1.26-acre site located approximately 170 feet
east of the northeast corner of 13th Avenue and Peoria Avenue in a portion of Section
19, Township 3 North, Range 3 East, as described more specifically in Exhibit “A,” is
hereby changed from “R-3” (Multifamily Residence District) to “R-3 Hillside DNS/WVR”
(Multifamily Residence District, Hillside Density Waiver).
SECTION 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to
modify the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix to reflect this use district classification
change as shown in Exhibit “B.”
SECTION 3. Due to the site’s specific physical conditions and the use
district applied for by the applicant, this rezoning is subject to the following stipulations,
violation of which shall be treated in the same manner as a violation of the City of
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance:
1. The development shall be limited to a maximum of four units.
2. All landscape setbacks shall be planted with minimum 2-inch caliper, large
canopy, drought-tolerant trees, 20 feet on center, or in equivalent groupings,
with five 5-gallon shrubs per tree, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department. Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work
with the Planning and Development Department on alternative design solutions
consistent with a pedestrian environment for installing the required plants.
3. The sidewalk along Peoria Avenue shall be a minimum of 5 feet in width and
detached with a minimum 5-foot-wide landscape strip located between the
sidewalk and back of curb and planted to the following standards, as approved
by the Planning and Development Department.
a. Minimum 2-inch caliper, single-trunk, large canopy, drought-tolerant,
shade trees planted 20 feet on center, or in equivalent groupings.
b. Drought tolerant vegetation to achieve a minimum of 75% live coverage.
Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on alternative design solutions consistent with a
pedestrian environment for installing the required plants.
4. No structure shall be built above the 15% slope line per the approved Slope
Analysis, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
5. The materials, colors, textures and finishes of all structures (including
architectural elements, walls, fences and retaining walls) shall match and blend
with the adjacent surrounding undisturbed area, as approved by the Planning
and Development Department.
6. All disturbed areas not covered by structures or paving must be revegetated
with plant species from the Sonoran Desert Plant List that exists in the adjacent
undisturbed area, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
7. Only landscape materials listed the Approved Plant Species List for Sonoran
Preserve Edge Treatment Guidelines (Section 507 TAB II of the Zoning
Ordinance) shall be utilized within the landscape areas and improved common
areas, as approved or modified by the Planning and Development Department.
8. Natural turf shall not be utilized on individual single-family lots (including the
side and rear yards). This restriction shall be included in the Covenants,
Conditions, and Restrictions for the subdivision.
9. A minimum of one green stormwater infrastructure (GSI) elements for
stormwater management shall be implemented, as approved or modified by the
Planning and Development and/or Street Transportation departments. This
includes but is not limited to stormwater harvesting basins, bioswales,
permeable pavement, etc., per the Greater Phoenix Metro Green Infrastructure
and Low Impact Development Details for Alternative Stormwater Management.
10. Participation in the City of Phoenix Homeowner’s Association Water Efficiency
Program shall be incorporated into to Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions
for the subdivision, prior to final site plan approval.
11. Swimming pools on individual single-family lots shall be limited to 600 square
feet in size.
12. A minimum 40 feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated and constructed for the
north side of Peoria Avenue.
13. All streets within and adjacent to the development shall be constructed 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
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 final 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 December,
2024.
________________________________
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)
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR Z-85-24-3
LOT 1:
THE WEST HALF OF THE EAST HALF OF THE WEST HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST
QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF
SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST OF THE GILA AND SALT
RIVER BASE AND MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA;
EXCEPT THE SOUTH 33 FEET FOR ROAD;
AND EXCEPT THE NORTH HALF.
LOT 2:
THE EAST HALF OF THE EAST HALF OF THE WEST HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST
QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF
SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST OF THE GILA AND SALT
RIVER BASE AND MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA;
EXCEPT THE SOUTH 33 FEET FOR ROAD;
AND EXCEPT THE NORTH HALF.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Approximately 280 Feet North of the Northeast Corner of 13th Place and
Cinnabar Avenue (Ordinance G-7327) - District 3
Request to amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section 601, the Zoning Map of the
R-3 (Multifamily Residence District) to R-3 HP (Multifamily Residence District, Historic
Preservation Overlay) to allow for a Historic Preservation Overlay for the Thompson
Rock Garden.
Summary
Current Zoning: R-3
Proposed Zoning: R-3 HP
Acreage: 0.22
Proposal: Historic Preservation Overlay for the Thompson Rock Garden
Owner: Mosaic Trust c/o Marion Frances
Applicant: City of Phoenix, Historic Preservation Commission
Representative: Kevin Weight, City of Phoenix, Planning and Development
Department, Historic Preservation Office
Staff Recommendation: Approval.
HPC Action: The Historic Preservation Commission heard this item on September 16,
2024, and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, by a vote of 7-0.
VPC Action: The North Mountain Village Planning Committee heard this item on
October 16, 2024, and recommended approval, per staff recommendation, by a vote of
13-0.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this item on November 7, 2024, and
recommended approval, per the Historic Preservation Commission and North
Mountain Village Planning Committee recommendations, by a vote of 9-0.
Location
Approximately 280 feet north of the northeast corner of 13th Place and Cinnabar
Avenue
Council District: 3
Parcel Address: 10023 N. 13th Place
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Planning and
Development Department.
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-94-24-3) FROM R-3 (MULTIFAMILY
RESIDENCE DISTRICT) TO R-3 HP (MULTIFAMILY RESIDENCE
DISTRICT, HISTORIC PRESERVATION OVERLAY).
____________
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as
follows:
SECTION 1. The zoning of a 0.22 acre site located approximately 280 feet
north of the northeast corner of 13th Place and Cinnabar Avenue in a portion of Section
28, Township 3 North, Range 3 East, as described more specifically in Exhibit “A,” is
hereby changed from “R-3” (Multifamily Residence District) to “R-3 HP” (Multifamily
Residence District, Historic Preservation Overlay).
SECTION 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to
modify the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix to reflect this use district classification
change as shown in Exhibit “B.”
SECTION 3. 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 December,
2024.
________________________________
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)
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR Z-94-24-3
Within a portion of Section 28, Township 3 North, Range 3 East of the Gila and Salt
River Base and Meridian, Maricopa County, Arizona, being more particularly described
as follows:
Lot 26, NICHOLS PLACE, according to the plat of record in the office of the County
Recorder of Maricopa County, Arizona, in Book 38 of Maps, page 23.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Northwest Corner of 15th Avenue and South Mountain Avenue (Ordinance G-
7328) - District 8
Request to amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section 601, the Zoning Map of the
S-1 (Ranch or Farm Residence) and S-2 (Ranch or Farm Commercial) to S-1 HP
(Ranch or Farm Residence, Historic Preservation Overlay) and S-2 HP (Ranch or
Farm Commercial, Historic Preservation Overlay) to allow for a Historic Preservation
Overlay for the Mission Revival Residence.
Summary
Current Zoning: S-1 (0.23-acres) and S-2 (3.29 acres)
Proposed Zoning: S-1 HP (0.23-acres) and S-2 HP (3.29 acres)
Acreage: 3.52 acres
Proposal: Historic Preservation Overlay for the Mission Revival Residence
Owner: Tonya Sevilla and Miguel Sevilla
Applicant/Representative: Kevin Weight, City of Phoenix, Planning and Development
Department
Staff Recommendation: Approval.
HPC Action: The Historic Preservation Commission heard this case on September 16,
2024, and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, by a vote of 6-0.
VPC Action: The South Mountain Village Planning Committee heard this case on
October 8, 2024, and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, by a vote
of 12-0.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this case on November 7, 2024, and
recommended approval, per the South Mountain Village Planning Committee
recommendation, by a vote of 9-0.
Location
Northwest corner of 15th Avenue and South Mountain Avenue
Council District: 8
Parcel Address: 8252 S. 15th Avenue
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Planning and
Development Department.
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-93-24-8) FROM S-1 (RANCH OR FARM
RESIDENCE) AND S-2 (RANCH OR FARM COMMERCIAL) TO S-
1 HP (RANCH OR FARM RESIDENCE, HISTORIC
PRESERVATION OVERLAY) AND S-2 HP (RANCH OR FARM
COMMERCIAL, HISTORIC PRESERVATION OVERLAY).
____________
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as
follows:
SECTION 1. The zoning of a 3.52-acre site at the northwest corner of 15th
Avenue and South Mountain Avenue in a portion of Section 6, Township 1 South,
Range 3 East, as described more specifically in Exhibit “A,” is hereby changed from “S-
1” (Ranch or Farm Residence) and “S-2” (Ranch or Farm Commercial) to “S-1 HP”
(Ranch or Farm Residence, Historic Preservation Overlay) and “S-2 HP” (Ranch or
Farm Commercial, Historic Preservation Overlay).
SECTION 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to
modify the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix to reflect this use district classification
change as shown in Exhibit “B.”
SECTION 3. 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 December,
2024.
________________________________
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)
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR Z-93-24-8
THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THE CITY OF
PHOENIX IN THE COUNTY OF MARICOPA, STATE OF ARIZONA, AND IS
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
The Southeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of the Northwest quarter (Part of Farm
Unit D) of Section 6, Township 1 South, Range 3 East of the Gila and Salt River Base
and Meridian, Maricopa County, Arizona;
EXCEPT the North 341 feet; AND
EXCEPT the West 226 feet; AND
EXCEPT the South 30 feet of the East 157 feet; AND
EXCEPT Beginning at the Northeast corner of the South 30 of said Northwest quarter;
Thence Westerly along the North line of said South 30 feet to a distance of 8 feet;
Thence Northeast to a point on the East line of said Northwest quarter, which is 8 feet
North of the Point of Beginning; Thence to the Point of Beginning; AND
EXCEPT Parcel A described below,
Parcel A
The North 10 feet of the South 30 feet of the Southeast quarter of the Southeast quarter
of said Northwest quarter;
Together with that part of said Southeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of said
Northwest quarter described as follows;
Commencing at the Northeast corner of said South 30 feet, herein designated as Point
A;
Thence Westerly along the North line of said South 30 feet a distance of 8 feet to the
TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
Thence continuing Westerly along said North line to a point that is 11 feet Westerly of
said Point A;
Thence Northeasterly to a point of the East line of said Northwest quarter that is 11 feet
Northerly of said Point A;
Thence Southerly along said East line to a point that is 8 feet Northerly of said Point A;
Thence Southwesterly to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
EXCEPT the West 226 feet; AND EXCEPT the East 157 feet.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
7330) - Districts 4, 7 & 8
Request to hold a public hearing on a proposed text amendment Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
and to request City Council approval per the Planning Commission
recommendation which amends the following sections of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance, as follows: 1) Revise and clarify provisions in Chapters 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7
regarding definitions; variance and Design Review appeal processes, and to
address how other sections interact with Chapter 12 (Downtown Code): Section
201 (Rules of Construction), Section 202 (Definitions), Section 307.A (Authority and
duties of the Zoning Administrator), Section 507 (Development Review Approval),
Section 669 (Arts, Culture, and Small Business Overlay District), Section 702 (Off-
Street Parking and Loading), and Section 703 (Landscaping, Fences and Walls); 2)
add a new Section 312 to Chapter 3 to create the Technical Appeals Committee;
and 3) repeal and replace Chapter 12 (Downtown Code) with revised and clarified
text.
Summary
The intent of the proposed text amendment is to update development requirements,
fix process issues, eliminate ordinance conflicts, and clarify the language of the
Downtown Code, while still implementing the vision of the Downtown Phoenix
Urban Form Project (DPUFP). It does so by amending related sections of the
Zoning Ordinance to work better with Chapter 12, as well as rewriting Chapter 12
entirely (based upon the existing language and format) for ease of understanding
and layout. No changes to property entitlements (i.e. height, density, lot coverage)
have been proposed with this text amendment, except for the correction of some
identified errors and typos. However, some development standards and
sustainability bonus points have been revised not only to eliminate conflicts and
confusion, but also to better implement the pedestrian-oriented environment
envisioned by the DPUFP. The proposed text amendment also creates a new
Technical Appeal process for certain technical requirements, and clarifies and
revises existing appeal processes with the goal of eliminating instances when
requesting a modification to a single requirement that requires two separate and
unrelated appeal processes as detailed in the Staff Report and Addendum A Staff
Report (Attachments B and C).
Applicant: City of Phoenix, Planning Commission
Representative: City of Phoenix, Planning and Development Department
Staff Recommendation: Approval of Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8 as shown in Exhibits A and B
of the Addendum A Staff Report (Attachment C).
VPC Info: The Encanto Village Planning Committee heard this item on August 5,
2024, for information only and the Central City Village Planning Committee heard
this item on August 12, 2024, for information only (Attachment D).
VPC Action: The Encanto Village Planning Committee heard this item on
September 9, 2024, and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, by
a vote of 9-1. The Central City Village Planning Committee heard this item on
September 9, 2024, and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, by
a vote of 12-0 (Attachment D).
PC Info: The Planning Commission heard this item on September 5, 2024, for
information only.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this item on October 10, 2024, and
continued the item to November 7, 2024, by a vote of 4-3. The Planning
Commission heard this item on November 7, 2024, and recommended approval,
per the staff recommendation in the Addendum A Staff Report, by a vote of 9-0 (
Attachment E).
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Planning
and Development Department.
ATTACHMENT A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE G-XXXX
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING PORTIONS OF THE CODE OF THE
CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA, PART II, CHAPTER 41, THE
ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX BY AMENDING
SECTION 201 (RULES OF CONSTRUCTION), SECTION 202
(DEFINITIONS), SECTION 307.A (AUTHORITY AND DUTIES OF
THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR), SECTION 507 (DEVELOPMENT
REVIEW APPROVAL), SECTION 669 (ARTS, CULTURE, AND
SMALL BUSINESS OVERLAY DISTRICT), SECTION 702 (OFF-
AF
STREET PARKING AND LOADING), AND SECTION 703
(LANDSCAPING, FENCES, AND WALLS); ADDING A NEW
SECTION 312 (TECHNICAL APPEALS COMMITTEE); AND
REPEALING CHAPTER 12 (DOWNTOWN CODE) AND ADOPTING
A NEW CHAPTER 12 (DOWNTOWN CODE), IN ORDER TO
UPDATE AND CLARIFY THE PROVISIONS OF THE DOWNTOWN
T
CODE, INCLUDING HOW IT RELATES TO OTHER PROVISIONS
OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as
follows:
R SECTION 1: Chapter 2, Section 201 (Rules of Construction), is hereby amended
to read as follows:
For the purpose of this ZONING Ordinance, certain terms and words are hereby defined
D
as follows: Words used in the present tense include the future, words in the singular
include the plural, and words in the plural include the singular; the word "shall" is
mandatory and not permissive; the word "person" includes individuals, partnerships,
corporations, clubs, or associations. The following words or terms, when applied in this
ZONING Ordinance shall carry full force when used interchangeably: lot, plot, parcel, or
premises, used, arranged, occupied or maintained; sold or dispensed, construct,
reconstruct, erect, alter (structurally or otherwise), but not the term maintenance. The
terms "City" and "County" shall mean the City of Phoenix and County of Maricopa,
respectively; "Board" shall mean Board of Adjustment; "Commission" shall mean City
1 Ordinance G-####
Planning Commission; "Council" shall mean City Council.; “PDD” SHALL MEAN
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
***
SECTION 2: Chapter 2, Section 202 (Definitions), is hereby amended to add new
definitions and revise existing as follows:
Alley, Buffer: An alley that is adjacent to a single-family residential use as identified on
Map 1202.F, and in Sections 1207.O and P. AN ALLEY ABUTTING BOTH SINGLE-
FAMILY AND COMMERCIAL USES, DESIGNATED ON THE REGULATING MAPS IN
CHAPTER 12 (DOWNTOWN CODE).
***
CITY MANAGER’S REPRESENTATIVE (CMR): SEE SECTION 32-3 OF THE CITY
CODE.
AF ***
FRONTAGE ZONE: THE PORTION OF A LOT OR PARCEL LOCATED DIRECTLY
ADJACENT TO A STREET, OF A DEPTH REQUIRED BY THE APPLICABLE ZONING
DISTRICT AND/OR CHARACTER AREA.
T ***
Off-Street Loading Spaces: An on site space for the standing, loading, and unloading of
vehicles.
***
Off-Street Passenger Loading: The provision of space off the street and adjacent to a
building entrance for the loading and unloading of automobile passengers. The design of
such space shall be subject to the approval of the Street Transportation Department.
R ***
SERVICE/GOODS LOADING SPACE: A DESIGNATED AREA WHICH IS PROVIDED
FOR THE LOADING AND UNLOADING OF GOODS AND SERVICES FOR
BUSINESSES AND COMMERCIAL USERS.
***
D
Street, Front: A street identified by an area plan towards which the front of buildings are
oriented to minimize driveway cuts. If no area plan is adopted, all single-frontage lots
adjoining a front street must orient the front of the building to the front street. For multi-
frontage lots, the street with the most pedestrian activity is the front street. When lots
adjoin two or more streets with an equal amount of pedestrian activity, both are front
streets. Front streets are not necessarily the street adjoining the lot front.
***
Street, Pedestrian: Sidewalk, landscape, driveway and buildings are designed to create a
safe, pleasant and enjoyable experience for pedestrians. Building openings are oriented
toward the street and vehicular conflicts with pedestrians are minimized. Designated on
2 Ordinance G-####
Map 1202.E and individual character areas in Chapter 12. A STREET DESIGNATED ON
THE REGULATING MAPS IN CHAPTER 12 (DOWNTOWN CODE), WHICH IS
SUBJECT TO DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND VEHICULAR RESTRICTIONS
INTENDED TO ENHANCE THE PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT.
***
Street, Side: A street identified by an area plan towards which the side of buildings are
oriented. If no area plan is adopted, the street with the least amount of pedestrian activity
is the side street for multi-frontage lots. Side streets are not necessarily the street
adjoining the lot side. A STREET DESIGNATED ON THE REGULATING MAPS IN
CHAPTER 12 (DOWNTOWN CODE), WHICH PERMITS A MIX OF USES AND TYPES
OF ACCESS, SUCH AS (BUT NOT LIMITED TO) PEDESTRIAN, VEHICULAR,
SERVICE, AND LOADING ACCESS.
AF
STREETSCAPE: THE LANDSCAPE, SHADE, STREET IMPROVEMENTS, SIDEWALK,
AND OTHER AMENITIES PROVIDED DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO A STREET.
Streetscape Zone: The area located behind the right-of-way curb that has either
landscaping per Section 1207 or public amenities (such as seating, artwork). THE
T
PORTION OF A DEDICATED STREET PROVIDING STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS
AND LOCATED BETWEEN THE BACK OF CURB AND THE FRONTAGE PROPERTY
LINE. THE STREETSCAPE ZONE MAY ALSO INCLUDE A PORTION OF ABUTTING
PRIVATE PROPERTY, PER THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTERS 12 AND 13.
***
SECTION 3: Chapter 3, Section 307.A (Authority and duties of the Zoning
R
Administrator) is hereby amended to provide the Design Review Committee the
authority to review and make recommendations regarding variance applications within
D
Downtown, as follows:
A.
***
Authority and duties of the Zoning Administrator. There is hereby created in
the City Planning and Development Department a Zoning Administrator. The
Zoning Administrator shall be appointed by the Planning and Development Director
and shall be under his THEIR direction. The Zoning Administrator may appoint
Deputy Zoning Administrators to perform the functions of the Zoning Administrator
and to act under his THEIR direction. The Zoning Administrator shall:
3 Ordinance G-####
***
9. Authorize upon application and hearing such variance from the terms of this
ZONING Ordinance as will not be contrary to the public interest, when owing
to special conditions, a literal enforcement of any provisions of the ordinance
would result in unnecessary property hardship.
A variance shall not be authorized unless the Zoning Administrator shall find
upon sufficient evidence:
a. That there are special circumstances or conditions applying to the
land, building, or use referred to in the application and which do not
apply to other properties in the district; and
AF
b. That such special circumstances were not created by the owner or
applicant; and
c. That the authorizing of the variance is necessary for the preservation
and enjoyment of substantial property rights; and
d.
e.
T
That the authorizing of the application will not be materially
detrimental to persons residing or working in the vicinity, to adjacent
property, to the neighborhood, or to the public welfare in general.
THAT WHEN A VARIANCE IS REQUESTED FOR A PROPERTY
SUBJECT TO THE DOWNTOWN CODE (CHAPTER 12), THE
R DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE SHALL FIRST REVIEW AND
PROVIDE A WRITTEN RECOMMENDATION REGARDING THE
VARIANCE REQUEST, AS REQUIRED IN SECTION 1224.C.
***
D SECTION 4: Chapter 3 is hereby amended to add Section 312 (Technical
Appeals Committee) to establish a technical review committee to review and decide
technical appeals, as follows:
SECTION 312. TECHNICAL APPEALS COMMITTEE
4 Ordinance G-####
A. POWERS AND DUTIES. THE TECHNICAL APPEALS COMMITTEE (TAC) SHALL
HAVE THE POWER AND DUTY UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THESE
REGULATIONS TO HEAR SPECIFIC ITEMS APPEALED BY THE APPLICANT
CONTESTING A DECISION ON A TECHNICAL ITEM OR INFRASTRUCTURE
REQUIREMENT IMPOSED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT, OR A DEVELOPMENT REGULATION INDICATED AS (T) IN
SECTION 507 TAB A AND ALL OTHER ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS
(INCLUDING OVERLAYS) WHICH USE (T) TO INDICATE TECHNICAL ITEMS.
B. MEMBERSHIP. THE TECHNICAL APPEALS COMMITTEE SHALL CONSIST OF
THE SAME MEMBERS AS THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE AS SET FORTH IN
CHAPTER 32 OF THE CITY CODE. THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DIRECTOR IS AUTHORIZED TO APPOINT AND REMOVE ANY MEMBER AT
AF
ANY TIME, WITH OR WITHOUT CAUSE, AND MAY ALSO APPOINT
ADDITIONAL TECHNICAL CITY STAFF TO THE TAC, SUCH AS LANDSCAPE,
FIRE PREVENTION/LIFE SAFETY, WATER/SEWER, AND BUILDING SAFETY.
SECTION 5: Chapter 5, Section 507 (Development Review Approval) is hereby
T
amended to clarify applicability of development review procedures and appeals, and
revise the Technical Appeal process, as follows:
B. Applicability.
***
R1. Development review applies to all public and private facilities in residential,
commercial and industrial developments in the City in all zoning districts.
The only complete exceptions to compliance with this section are as follows:
a. Single-family and duplex dwelling units constructed prior to May 1,
D 1998;
b. a. Interior tenant alterations or improvements which do not affect
parking requirements or exterior building appearance;
c. b. Nonstructural remodeling of facade treatment (SUCH AS PAINT);
d. c. Sign permits for properties not otherwise subject to development
review;
5 Ordinance G-####
e. Development submitted for site plan approval prior to the effective
date of this section.
2. Exterior structural remodeling or / new BUILDING facade treatment, to
buildings AND/OR MODIFICATIONS TO EXISTING SITE IMPROVEMENTS
(DRIVEWAYS, PARKING, SITE WALLS, LANDSCAPE, DRAINAGE
FACILITIES, OR SIMILAR), OR PROPERTIES WITH ADDITIONS
(INCLUDING NEW ACCESSORY STRUCTURES) OF UP TO 2000
SQUARE FEET, without additional square footage is ARE subject to
development review approval as follows:
a. For properties located within the boundary of the Downtown Code,
the following shall apply: COMPLIANCE WITH DEVELOPMENT
AF
REGULATIONS APPLICABLE ONLY TO THE EXTERIOR PORTION
OF THE BUILDING AND/OR SITE IMPROVEMENTS BEING
MODIFIED, UNLESS OTHERWISE STIPULATED WITH A
REZONING OR ZONING ADJUSTMENT ACTION.
T
(1)
(2)
Compliance with the development standards, design standards
and design guidelines of Chapter 12 only for that exterior
portion of the building being modified.
Provision of landscaping in accordance with adopted
streetscape designs unless prohibitive because of existing
public utilities.
R b. Reserved. FOR SITES SUBJECT TO THE DOWNTOWN CODE
(CHAPTER 12) OR WALKABLE URBAN CODE (CHAPTER 13),
PROVISION OF SHADE, LANDSCAPING AND SIDEWALKS IN
ACCORDANCE WITH ADOPTED STREETSCAPE STANDARDS.
D
3.
UNLESS PROHIBITIVE BECAUSE OF EXISTING PUBLIC
UTILITIES OR OTHER EXISTING SITE CONSTRAINTS, AS
APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT.
Additions to buildings are subject to development review approval as
follows: CHANGE OF USE OR OCCUPANCY TYPE, OR INTERIOR
STRUCTURAL REMODELING (“TENANT IMPROVEMENTS”), WITH OR
WITHOUT ADDITIONAL SQUARE FOOTAGE, ARE SUBJECT TO THE
FOLLOWING:
6 Ordinance G-####
a. An addition of two thousand square feet or less to an existing building
may be required to submit a site plan to the Department of Planning
and Development but shall not be subject to the design review
principles and guidelines set forth in Tab A of Section 507 if the
impacts of the addition are not significant, with the exception that new
structures or additions of 500 square feet or greater on properties
located within the boundary of the Downtown Code shall be required
to meet the shading requirements in Section 1207.D. The Department
of Planning and Development shall determine the significance of an
addition’s impacts on adjacent properties based on noise, odor,
lighting, glare, vibration, visibility from a public street, and removal of
site amenities which are included in a design review principle or
AF
guideline. Surface parking as a primary use is subject to the
provisions of development review if the use is determined to have
impact on adjacent uses or visibility from a public street as
determined by the Department of Planning and Development.
COMPLIANCE WITH CURRENT STANDARDS FOR REQUIRED
b.
T
AUTOMOBILE AND BICYCLE PARKING.
When an addition of two thousand square feet or less to an existing
building is determined by the Department of Planning and
Development as having significant impacts, as described above, the
addition shall be subject to full development review including the
design review principles and guidelines. SPECIFIC
R
c.
REQUIREMENTS RELATED TO THE USE OR OCCUPANCY AS
OTHERWISE INDICATED IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
When additions to a property after the effective date of this ordinance
total more than two thousand square feet, the property shall be
D subject to full development review including the design review
principles and guidelines. REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 507.B.2 IF
EXTERIOR REMODELING AND/OR ADDITIONS UNDER 2000 SF
ARE ALSO INCLUDED.
7 Ordinance G-####
4. PROPERTIES WITH ADDITIONS OF 2000 SQUARE FEET OR LARGER,
VACANT PROPERTIES, AND/OR PROPERTIES UNDERGOING FULL
DEMOLITION AND REDEVELOPMENT ARE SUBJECT TO FULL
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW, INCLUDING ALL APPLICABLE DESIGN
REVIEW PRINCIPLES AND GUIDELINES, UNLESS STATED
OTHERWISE WITHIN THIS ZONING ORDINANCE.
4. 5. Subdivision plats are processed in accordance with Chapter 32 of the City
Code. Preliminary subdivision plats have the additional requirement to be
reviewed and approved in accordance with the provisions of this section for
context plan and the design review guidelines for subdivisions of Section
507 Tab A (DESIGN REVIEW) AND ALL OTHER CODES AND POLICIES
TO WHICH SUBDIVISIONS ARE SUBJECT.II.C, "Subdivision design."
5. 6.
AF
DEVELOPMENT WHICH EXISTED AT THE TIME OF ANNEXATION, OR
FOR WHICH ALL REQUIRED PERMITS WERE ISSUED BY THE CITY, IS
ASSUMED TO HAVE A VALID DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PLAN, EVEN IF
NO APPROVED SITE PLAN EXISTS. A SITE PLAN MAY BE REQUIRED
T
BASED ON THE SCOPE OF ANY PROPOSED REMODEL, REVISION,
ADDITION, OR REDEVELOPMENT.
Existing legally constructed development with or without an approved site
plan as of the date of this Ordinance is assumed to have a valid
development review plan. Any site plans which received preliminary or final
approval from the Department of Planning and Development prior to the
enactment of this section shall remain and continue in full force and effect
R
6. 7.
until such time as the plan is amended or its approval expires.
Implementation of single-family design review shall begin on May 1, 1998,
for all subdivision applications which have not obtained preliminary
development review approval. Any site plans or subdivision plats which
D received preliminary or final approval from the Department of Planning and
Development prior to the enactment of this section shall remain and
continue in full force and effect until such time as the plan is amended or its
approval expires.
ADAPTIVE REUSE. DEVELOPMENT QUALIFYING AS ADAPTIVE
REUSE MAY BE GRANTED FULL OR PARTIAL ADMINISTRATIVE
RELIEF FROM ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS IN
ACCORDANCE WITH POLICIES ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL. IN SUCH
CASES, THE RELIEF PROVIDED SHALL BE NOTED ON THE SITE PLAN,
OR THE CONSTRUCTION PLANS IF NO SITE PLAN IS REQUIRED.
8 Ordinance G-####
C. Design Review Principles and Guidelines. Design review principles, and
guidelines are listed in Tab A and other sections of this THE ZONING Ordinance.
The principles reflect desired goals and policies for the City. The guidelines indicate
specific implementation standards. The guidelines consist of requirements,
presumptions and considerations.
1. Requirements (R). Requirements (R) are guidelines contained in this and
other sections of the Zoning Ordinance and specific plans. Requirements
are not permissive in that they contain language that is not discretionary,
such as "shall," "must" and "will." Requirements must be satisfied by any
plan prior to design review approval. If a requirement cannot be satisfied, an
applicant may seek relief through the variance process with the exception
AF
that those requirements followed by an asterisk (R*) are appealable to the
Design Review Committee due to their design-related nature.
2. Presumptions (P). Most of the guidelines are presumptions (P). A guideline
that is a presumption normally will contain the word "should." A plan
T
submitted for design review is incomplete if it does not demonstrate that the
presumptive elements have been in some way incorporated or overcome.
a. Overcoming a presumption. A presumption that may be unsuitable for
a given project may be waived if an applicant can demonstrate to the
Planning and Development Department that there is a good reason
why the presumption is inappropriate, unless the property is located
R within the boundary of the Downtown Code. The Planning and
Development Department may approve an alternative that achieves
the intent of the presumption.
Appropriate reasons for overcoming a presumption include:
D (1)
(2)
Demonstrating that in this instance the underlying design
principles will not be furthered by the application of the
presumption;
Showing that another design principle is enhanced by not
applying the presumption;
(3) Demonstrating an alternative method for achieving the intent of
the presumption;
9 Ordinance G-####
(4) Explaining the unique site factors that make the presumption
unworkable such as lot size and shape, slope, natural
vegetation, drainage, and characteristics of adjacent
development which are identified through their use of
materials, colors, building mass and form, and landscaping.
Increase in the cost of development is not an acceptable reason to
waive a guideline or determine that a guideline is inappropriate.
b. Appeals. In the event that a presumption is not incorporated or
overcome, AS DETERMINED BY PDD STAFF, or if the property is
located within the boundary of the Downtown Code an appeal may be
AF
filed by the applicant with the Design Review Committee. Appeals to
presumptions (P) and requirements followed by an asterisk (R*)
located in Tab A.II.C, "Subdivision design," shall be heard by the
Design Review Committee. THE APPLICANT MAY FILE AN APPEAL
TO BE HEARD BY THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE PER
c.
T
SECTION 507.G.
Purpose and intent of single-family design guidelines.
Notwithstanding the above, there are differences in the application of
design guidelines for single-family development. In the R1-10 through
R-5 zoning districts, the conventional development option establishes
the baseline development conditions for single-family detached
R development. Deviations from these standards for the entire
subdivision will require application of the planned residential
development (PRD) option and the associated design guidelines
found in subsection 507 Tab A.II.C. When applying these guidelines,
staff will consider the unique conditions of each site, such as context
D area, lot size and shape, slope, natural vegetation, and drainage. In
addition, staff will strive to ensure that affordable housing
opportunities are not precluded. The PRD option is intended to
encourage quality and creative design solutions through the use of
flexible development standards. This design review structure is
intended to foster a dialogue between staff and the applicant which
facilitates creative responses to unique site conditions while being
mindful of housing affordability.
10 Ordinance G-####
3. TECHNICAL ITEMS (T). DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS INDICATED BY
(T) WITHIN THIS AND OTHER SECTIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE
ARE CONSIDERED TECHNICAL ITEMS. TECHNICAL ITEMS MAY BE
APPEALED THROUGH THE TECHNICAL APPEAL PROCESS SPECIFIED
IN SECTION 507.H.
3. 4. Considerations (C). Design guidelines listed in the adopted design review
guidelines as considerations (C) are issues and concepts that an applicant
should consider in preparing a plan. Their omission is not grounds for
rejecting a plan, but their inclusion or recognition is encouraged and may
assist in overcoming certain presumptions and in gaining acceptance for a
plan.
AF
5. ITEMS WITHIN SECTION 507 TAB A AND OTHER SECTIONS OF THE
ZONING ORDINANCE WHICH ARE NOT QUALIFIED BY AN (R), (R*), (P),
(T) OR (C) SHALL BE TREATED AS REQUIREMENTS (R), UNLESS
EXPLICITLY STATED OTHERWISE.
D.
T
Process. The development review process includes the following steps:
1.
2.
Pre-application conference with the Planning and Development Department
staff (see subsection E);
Preliminary review (see subsection F);
R a.
b.
Submittal of design DEVELOPMENT review documents by the
applicant/property owner;
Routing of documents to various departments and agencies for
comment where needed;
D 3.
c.
d.
Staff review and consolidation of comments;
Preliminary design review meeting with applicant and any interested
citizen where needed;
Consideration of any DESIGN REVIEW appeals (see subsection G);
4. Review CONSIDERATION of ANY technical APPEALS documents (see
subsection H);
11 Ordinance G-####
5. Final document submittal responding to staff comments (see subsection I);
6. Final approval of development review documents (see subsection J);
7. Building permit issuance (see subsection J);
8. Site inspection and issuance of certificate of occupancy (see subsection J);
9. Follow-up inspection (see subsection J).
***
G. Design Alternatives and Sustainability Bonus Appeals. A design alternative or
AF
sustainability bonus appeal is a deviation from the prescribed standards and design
guidelines. Design alternatives and sustainability bonus appeals apply to properties
within the boundary of the Downtown Code, which would result in a furtherance of
the goals and policies of the Downtown Phoenix Plan and the specific intent of the
subject character area as approved by the DRC. Design alternatives apply to
T
properties with Walkable Urban Code zoning, which would result in a furtherance of
the goals and policies of Transit Oriented Policy Plans or other relevant policy
plans.
1. Each design alternative application shall include, at a minimum, the
following:
R a.
b.
A Certificate of Appropriateness or Certificate of No Effect must be
obtained in advance of filing for any property with a Historic
Preservation (HP) zoning designation;
A listing of the standard(s) or guideline(s) that are the subject of the
D c.
proposed design alternative;
A narrative statement describing the justification for the design
alternative and the manner in which the proposed design alternative
would result in a furtherance of the goals and policies of the
Downtown Phoenix Plan, Transit Oriented Policy Plans, or other
relevant policy plans and would satisfy the findings required for
approval;
d. Site plan;
12 Ordinance G-####
e. Building elevations;
f. Context plan;
g. Landscaping and shading plan;
h. List of property owners located within 150 feet of the subject property
as supplied by the Maricopa County Assessor’s Office; and
i. Such other information as may be required by the Planning and
Development Director or DRC.
AF
2. Each sustainability bonus appeal application shall include, at a minimum,
the following:
a. A listing of the credits that are being utilized and any support
documentation (to be sealed by a licensed professional).
b.
c.
d.
T
Site plan;
Building elevations;
Context plan;
R e. A narrative statement describing any deviation from the prescribed
credit(s) that indicates how the proposed standard is furthering the
goals and policies of the Downtown Phoenix Plan and making a
quantifiable improvement in the performance of the building(s);
D f.
g.
List of property owners located within 150 feet of the subject property
as supplied by the Maricopa County Assessor’s Office;
Such other information as may be required by the Planning and
Development Director or DRC.
13 Ordinance G-####
3. Within 15 calendar days of the date of filing a design alternative or
sustainability bonus appeal application, the applicant shall mail a notice by
first class mail to all property owners within 150 feet of the subject site
explaining the request and providing the date, time and location of the DRC
meeting at which the application will be reviewed.
4. In order to approve a design alternative, the DRC must make findings as
follows:
a. That the project is consistent with the intent stated for the subject
character area in the Downtown Code;
b. That the project demonstrates design excellence by addressing at
AF
least two of the following:
(1) Design innovation and the imaginative use of space, form and
materials.
T Permeability and connectivity which enables people to move
within, around and through the project with ease.
The project improves safety and security by introducing human
activity to the public realm with active building frontages onto
streets and other public spaces, and enables "eyes on the
street."
R The project incorporates materials and design which enhance
thermal comfort.
Modifications from prescribed standards as per Section 1313;
D c.
and
That the project demonstrates design excellence by addressing
design alternatives that demonstrate conformance with the intent of
the Walkable Urban Code as set forth in Section 1301.B and in
general conformance with the policies contained within the Transit
Oriented Policy Plans or other relevant policy plans. The
modifications must meet the standards set forth in Section 1313.
14 Ordinance G-####
5. In order to approve a sustainability bonus appeal, the DRC must make
findings as follows:
a. That the project is consistent with the intent stated for the subject
character area;
b. That the project is improving the overall performance of the
building(s) through generally accepted building and design standards
and innovation; and
c. The increased entitlements are consistent with the improved
performance of the building(s).
AF
6. In approving a design alternative or sustainability bonus appeal, the DRC
may impose any reasonable conditions to ensure that the approval complies
with the findings required above.
7. A design alternative or sustainability bonus appeal application will be
8.
T
reviewed at a public meeting within 30 calendar days from the date of
submission of the application. Any person invited to the review of the
preliminary report with the applicant shall be informed by the Planning and
Development Department of the date, time and location of the meeting.
A decision on the design alternative or sustainability bonus appeal
application will be made by the DRC on the date of the public meeting
G. R unless continued at the discretion of the Committee and a certificate of
approval shall be transmitted to the applicant in writing.
DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS
D 1. THE PROPERTY OWNER OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE MAY
APPEAL A DEPARTMENT DECISION ON A DESIGN REVIEW ITEM TO
THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE, WHO SHALL HEAR THE APPEAL
PER SECTION 309, AS FOLLOWS:
a. AN ACTION OR DECISION OF THE PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT IMPOSING CONDITIONS IN
ACCORDANCE WITH:
15 Ordinance G-####
(1) DESIGN REVIEW PRESUMPTIONS, WHICH ARE
TYPICALLY INDICATED AS (P); OR
(2) OTHER PRESUMPTIVE STANDARDS OR CRITERIA
INDICATED BY THE WORD “SHOULD”.
b. A DESIGN REVIEW REQUIREMENT INDICATED WITH AN (R*).
c. AN ACTION OR DECISION OF THE PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT IMPOSING CONDITIONS IN
ACCORDANCE WITH URBAN DESIGN PRINCIPLES, ADOPTED
DESIGN REVIEW POLICIES, OR DESIGN DECISIONS WHICH
ARE IMPOSED TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY
AF
AND WELFARE.
d. A DESIGN ALTERNATIVE APPEAL, AS PROVIDED IN THE
DOWNTOWN CODE, CHAPTER 12, OR IN THE WALKABLE
URBAN CODE, CHAPTER 13.
2.
e.
T
A SUSTAINABILITY BONUS APPEAL, AS PROVIDED IN THE
DOWNTOWN CODE, CHAPTER 12.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE HEARING PROCESS. AN APPEAL TO
THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MUST BE SUBMITTED NO LATER
THAN 30 CALENDAR DAYS AFTER A DECISION HAS BEEN ISSUED BY
R THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REGARDING THE
SUBJECT DESIGN REVIEW ITEM.
a. APPEALS SHALL BE IN WRITING ON A FORM PROVIDED BY
THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AND SHALL
D b.
INCLUDE ONLY THOSE ITEMS APPEALABLE TO THE DESIGN
REVIEW COMMITTEE.
AN APPEAL SUBMITTAL MUST BE COMPLETE BASED UPON
THE REQUEST AND REQUIREMENTS ON THE SUBMITTAL
CHECKLIST BEFORE IT IS SCHEDULED FOR A HEARING.
STAFF WILL REVIEW THE SUBMITTAL FOR COMPLETENESS
AND PROVIDE A WRITTEN LIST OF ANY DEFICIENCIES TO THE
APPLICANT WITHIN 15 CALENDAR DAYS OF RECEIPT OF THE
SUBMITTAL.
16 Ordinance G-####
c. ONCE DETERMINED TO BE COMPLETE, AN APPEAL WILL BE
SCHEDULED FOR THE NEXT DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
HEARING, BUT NO SOONER THAN 15 CALENDAR DAYS FROM
STAFF DETERMINATION THAT THE SUBMITTAL IS COMPLETE.
BY MUTUAL CONSENT OF PDD STAFF AND THE APPLICANT,
THE APPEAL MAY BE SCHEDULED FOR A LATER DRC
HEARING.
d. NO LATER THAN 15 CALENDAR DAYS PRIOR TO THE
SCHEDULED DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE HEARING, THE
APPLICANT SHALL MAIL A NOTICE TO ALL PROPERTY
OWNERS AND REGISTERED NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS
AF
WITHIN 150 FEET OF THE SUBJECT SITE EXPLAINING THE
REQUEST AND PROVIDING THE DATE, TIME AND LOCATION OF
THE DRC MEETING AT WHICH THE APPLICATION WILL BE
REVIEWED.
e.
f.
T
ANY PERSON WHO HAS BEEN OR WILL BE INVITED TO THE
PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN REVIEW MEETING WITH THE
APPLICANT SHALL BE INFORMED BY THE PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OF THE DATE, TIME AND
LOCATION OF DRC APPEAL HEARING.
IN APPROVING AN APPEAL, THE DRC MAY IMPOSE ANY
R g.
REASONABLE CONDITIONS TO ENSURE THAT THE APPROVAL
COMPLIES WITH ANY FINDINGS REQUIRED.
A DECISION ON THE APPEAL WILL BE MADE BY THE DESIGN
REVIEW COMMITTEE ON THE DATE OF THE HEARING UNLESS
D h.
CONTINUED TO A FUTURE DRC HEARING AT THE DISCRETION
OF THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE. THE DECISION SHALL
BE TRANSMITTED BY PDD STAFF TO THE APPLICANT IN
WRITING WITHIN 15 CALENDAR DAYS OF THE DECISION.
THE DECISION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE IS FINAL
AND NON-APPEALABLE.
H. Appeals. There are two distinct categories of review standards, design and
technical:
17 Ordinance G-####
1. Appeal of design review decisions. An action or decision of the Planning
and Development Department imposing conditions in accordance with
presumptive design review guidelines, urban design principles, or design
decisions which are imposed to protect the public health, safety and welfare
may be appealed to the Design Review Committee within 15 calendar days
from the date of the staff’s preliminary review decision. The Planning and
Development Department will submit any background material regarding the
appeal to the Design Review Committee within two working days prior to the
hearing date.
a. Appeals shall be in writing on a form provided by the Planning and
Development Department and shall include only those items being
AF
appealed.
b. An appeal will be heard within 30 calendar days from the date of
submission of an appeal. Any person invited to the review of the
preliminary report with the applicant shall be informed by the
c.
T
Planning and Development Department of the date, time and location
of appeal hearing.
A decision on the appeal will be made by the Design Review
Committee on the date of the hearing unless continued at the
discretion of the Committee and shall be transmitted to the applicant
in writing. The decision of the Design Review Committee shall be
R
2.
final.
Appeal of technical requirements. An action or decision of the Planning
and Development Department which results from a non-design-related issue
may be appealed within 15 calendar days to the City Manager’s
D representative. The Planning and Development Department will submit any
background material regarding the appeal to the City Manager’s
representative within two working days prior to the hearing date.
a. Appeals shall be in writing on a form provided by the Planning and
Development Department and shall include only those items being
appealed.
18 Ordinance G-####
b. An appeal will be heard within 15 calendar days from the date of
submission of an appeal. Any person invited to the review of the
preliminary report with the applicant shall be informed by the
Planning and Development Department of the date, time and location
of appeal hearing.
c. A decision on the appeal will be made by the City Manager’s
representative within five calendar days from the date of the hearing
and transmitted to the applicant and interested parties in writing.
d. Appeal to Development Advisory Board. An appeal of the decision of
the City Manager’s representative may be made to the Development
Advisory Board within 15 calendar days after the date of the decision.
AF
Appeals shall be in writing on a form provided by the Planning and
Development Department and shall include only those items not
agreed upon. Within 30 calendar days after service of the "notice of
appeal," the Planning and Development Department shall transmit to
the Development Advisory Board and to the Law Department a
e.
T
transcript, with exhibits, of the City Manager’s representative’s
hearing. The Development Advisory Board shall review the transcript
and exhibits and may, at their discretion, hear further oral arguments
and receive written briefs from both the applicant and the Law
Department.
Development Advisory Board action. The Development Advisory
R Board may:
(1)
(2)
Affirm the decision of the City Manager’s representative;
Remand the matter for further proceedings before the City
D (3)
Manager’s representative; or
Reverse or modify the City Manager’s representative’s
decision.
The decision of the Development Advisory Board is final.
H. TECHNICAL APPEALS
19 Ordinance G-####
1. THE PROPERTY OWNER OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE MAY
APPEAL A DEPARTMENT DECISION REGARDING A TECHNICAL ITEM,
AN INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIREMENT IMPOSED BY THE
DEPARTMENT, OR AN ITEM INDICATED AS (T) IN SECTION 507 TAB A,
CHAPTER 12 AND OTHER SECTIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE
TO THE TECHNICAL APPEALS COMMITTEE (TAC) PER SECTION 312,
AS FOLLOWS:
a. ANY APPEAL SHALL BE FILED NO LATER THAN 15 CALENDAR
DAYS FOLLOWING A DECISION OF THE PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
b. THE TAC MAY GRANT AN APPEAL IF THE APPELLANT CAN
AF
DEMONSTRATE THAT THERE EXISTS EXTRAORDINARY
CONDITIONS OF TOPOGRAPHY, LAND OWNERSHIP, OR
ADJACENT DEVELOPMENT, OR OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES NOT
PROVIDED FOR IN THESE REGULATIONS. THE TAC MAY
MODIFY THE REQUIREMENT(S) IN SUCH A MANNER AND TO
T
SUCH EXTENT AS MAY BE APPROPRIATE TO THE PUBLIC
INTEREST SOUGHT TO BE PROTECTED BY THE
REQUIREMENT(S) REQUESTED TO BE MODIFIED. IN
MODIFYING THE REQIREMENT(S), THE TAC MAY MAKE SUCH
ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS AS APPEAR NECESSARY TO
SUBSTANTIALLY SECURE THE OBJECTIVES OF THE MODIFIED
REQUIREMENT(S).
R c. IN ADDITION TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF H.1.b, REQUESTS
FOR TECHNICAL APPEALS ARISING FROM DEVELOPMENTS
SUBJECT TO THE DOWNTOWN CODE (CHAPTER 12),
WALKABLE URBAN CODE (CHAPTER 13) AND ANY OTHER
D AREA-SPECIFIC TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE
APPROVED ONLY IF THE MODIFICATION IS CONSISTENT WITH
ANY STATED RATIONALE, GOAL, OR INTENT SPECIFIC TO THE
CHARACTER AREA AND APPLICABLE STREETSCAPE
STANDARDS. THE TAC MAY IMPOSE STIPULATIONS TO
ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH SUCH RATIONALE, GOAL OR
INTENT WHEN APPROVING A TECHNICAL APPEAL.
20 Ordinance G-####
2. APPLICATION. TECHNICAL APPEALS SHALL BE FILED IN WRITING
ON A FORM PROVIDED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT, AS FOLLOWS:
a. THE REQUEST SHALL ADDRESS ONLY THOSE ITEMS BEING
APPEALED.
b. THE REQUEST SHALL INCLUDE TECHNICAL INFORMATION
AND A NARRATIVE RELATED TO THE APPEAL, CLEARLY
EXPLAINING WHY THE PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE IS
EQUIVALENT TO OR BETTER THAN THE TECHNICAL ITEM
BEING APPEALED.
AF
3. THE TAC WILL CONDUCT A REVIEW OF THE APPEAL AT THEIR FIRST
REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING FOLLOWING A COMPLETE
SUBMITTAL.
a. THE TAC MAY CHOOSE TO DEFER ACTION ON THE APPEAL
b.
T
AND INSTEAD SEND THE APPEAL REQUEST DIRECTLY TO THE
CITY MANAGER’S REPRESENTATIVE (CMR) FOR HEARING, AS
OUTLINED BELOW.
THE TAC MAY CHOOSE TO REQUEST ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION PRIOR TO RENDERING A DECISION.
R
4. THE TAC SHALL TAKE ONE OF FIVE ACTIONS ON THE APPEAL:
APPROVE, APPROVE WITH STIPULATIONS, DENY, FORWARD FOR
CMR HEARING WITHOUT RECOMMENDATION, OR CONTINUE TO A
SUBSEQUENT TAC MEETING IF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IS
REQUIRED FOR REVIEW BEFORE RENDERING A DECISION.
D
5.
6.
A DECISION OF THE TAC SHALL BE CONSIDERED FINAL IF NOT
APPEALED TO THE CMR WITHIN 15 CALENDAR DAYS OF THE
DECISION.
CITY MANAGER’S REPRESENTATIVE APPEAL HEARING. A
DECISION OF THE TAC MAY BE APPEALED TO THE CMR BY THE
PROPERTY OWNER OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE WITHIN 15
CALENDAR DAYS.
21 Ordinance G-####
a. SCHEDULING OF CMR HEARING. A TECHNICAL APPEAL WILL
BE HEARD BY THE CMR WITHIN 30 CALENDAR DAYS FROM
THE DATE OF FORWARDING FROM TAC. THE APPLICANT
SHALL BE NOTIFIED IN WRITING OF THE DATE OF THE CMR
HEARING NO LATER THAN SEVEN CALENDAR DAYS PRIOR TO
THE HEARING.
b. CITY MANAGER’S REPRESENTATIVE’S DECISION. A DECISION
ON THE APPEAL WILL BE MADE BY THE CMR AT THE HEARING.
THE CMR SHALL TAKE ONE OF FIVE ACTIONS ON THE APPEAL:
APPROVE, APPROVE WITH STIPULATIONS, DENY, CONTINUE
TO A SUBSEQUENT CMR HEARING FOR FURTHER
CONSIDERATION, OR ISSUE A RULING AT A LATER DATE IN
AF
ORDER TO FIRST SEEK ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND/OR
PROFESSIONAL ADVICE. THE FINAL CMR DECISION SHALL BE
TRANSMITTED IN WRITING TO THE APPLICANT AND ANY
INTERESTED PARTIES WHO WERE IN ATTENDANCE AT THE
HEARING.
7.
T
APPEAL TO DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARD. AN APPEAL OF THE
DECISION OF THE CMR MAY BE MADE TO THE DEVELOPMENT
ADVISORY BOARD, AS ESTABLISHED UNDER CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE
IX OF THE CITY CODE. NOTWITHSTANDING THE PROCESS
OUTLINED IN CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE IX, SECTION 2-172, AN APPEAL
UNDER THIS PROVISION MUST BE FILED WITHIN 15 CALENDAR DAYS
R OF THE DATE OF THE CMR DECISION.
***
SECTION 6: Chapter 6, Section 669 (Arts, Culture, and Small Business Overlay
D
District), is hereby amended to clarify how the overlay regulations interact with the
provisions of Chapter 12, as follows:
***
22 Ordinance G-####
B. Applicability. The Arts, Culture and Small Business Overlay may be applied to
land bounded by Interstate 10 Inner Loop (Papago Freeway) on the north, 20th
Street to the east, Buckeye Road to the south and 19th Avenue to the west. The
application of the overlay on specific parcels will occur subject to approval by City
Council through the rezoning process in accordance with zoning map amendment
section of the Zoning Ordinance. The regulations governing the uses of land and
structures shall be as set forth in the underlying zoning districts or other overlay
districts, except as expressly modified by the following regulations and as regulated
by other provisions of City Code. Where there is a conflict with other Zoning
Ordinance provisions, the more permissive shall apply.
1. FOR PROPERTIES NOT ZONED DOWNTOWN CODE (DTC), THE
APPLICATION OF THE OVERLAY ON SPECIFIC PARCELS WILL OCCUR
AF
SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY CITY COUNCIL THROUGH THE
REZONING PROCESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 506.B. THE
REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE USES OF LAND AND STRUCTURES
SHALL BE AS SET FORTH IN THE UNDERLYING ZONING DISTRICTS
OR OTHER OVERLAY DISTRICTS, EXCEPT AS EXPRESSLY MODIFIED
2.
T
BY THE FOLLOWING REGULATIONS AND AS REGULATED BY OTHER
PROVISIONS OF CITY CODE. WHERE THERE IS A CONFLICT WITH
OTHER ZONING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS, THE MORE PERMISSIVE
SHALL APPLY.
FOR PROPERTIES ZONED DOWNTOWN CODE (DTC), APPLICATION
OF THE ARTS, CULTURE, AND SMALL BUSINESS AREA
R DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ON AFFECTED PROPERTIES SHALL
BE AS SPECIFIED BY SECTION 1207.M.
***
D
23 Ordinance G-####
SECTION 7: Chapter 7, Section 702 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) is hereby
amended to correct a numbering error for Section 702.B (Off-Street Loading Spaces)
which immediately follows Section 702.G, and to make other minor changes to terms
used, as follows:
***
B.H. Off-Street SERVICE/GOODS Loading Spaces.
1. General provisions, requirements for space size. Off-street
SERVICE/GOODS loading spaces shall be not less than ten (10) feet in
AF
width and thirty (30) feet in length, exclusive of access aisles and
maneuvering space.
2. Off-Street SERVICE/GOODS loading spaces required. The following
shall apply to all developments, except for single family developments
T
and vehicular parking areas.
a.
b.
Commercial developments (excluding office) less than 60 feet in
height and industrial developments, shall provide the following
off-street SERVICE/GOODS loading spaces:
***
Office development less than 60 feet in height shall provide the
R c.
following off-street SERVICE/GOODS loading spaces:
***
Multi-family residential development shall provide the following
off-street SERVICE/GOODS loading spaces:
***
D d. Commercial or office developments (excluding multi-family) over
60 feet in height and all hotel or resort developments shall
provide the following off-street SERVICE/GOODS loading
spaces:
***
24 Ordinance G-####
3. The off-street loading facilities required shall in all cases be on the same
lot or parcel of land as the structure they are intended to serve.
SERVICE/GOODS LOADING SPACES SHALL BE LOCATED ON-SITE
UNLESS SPECIFICALLY PERMITTED ELSEWHERE BY THE ZONING
ORDINANCE. In no case shall the required off-street loading space be
part of the area USED to satisfy the off-street parking requirements of
this Ordinance.
***
SECTION 8: Chapter 7, Section 703 (Landscaping, Fences and Walls) is hereby
amended to correct a provision regarding when a Certificate of No Effect or Certificate
of Appropriateness is required for a wall/fence, as follows:
A.
AF
Height of Fences and Retaining Walls.
2.
***
The following shall apply to all residence districts:
a.
TFor lots fronting on a public street, private accessway or private
drive, no fence or freestanding wall (not supporting a building or
structure) within or bounding the required front yard, shall
exceed a height of 40 inches, provided:
(1) For properties located within an Historic Preservation
R (HP) Overlay District, fences or freestanding walls in the
front yard, meaning the space between the structure and
the street right-of-way line, may not exceed a maximum
height of three (3) feet, and are conditioned upon
obtaining a certificate of appropriateness or no effect in
D accordance with Section 812 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance. This height limitation extends to a point three
(3) feet beyond the front corner(s) of the primary
structure.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION DESIGNATED
PROPERTIES. FOR PROPERTIES DESIGNATED HP
AND HP-L, FENCES OR FREESTANDING WALLS IN
THE FRONT YARD (THE AREA BETWEEN THE
STRUCTURE AND THE STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY
LINE) SHALL NOT EXCEED A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF
25 Ordinance G-####
THREE FEET. THIS HEIGHT LIMITATION EXTENDS
THREE FEET BACK FROM THE FRONT FAÇADE
INTO THE SIDE YARD(S).
***
SECTION 9: Chapter 12 (Downtown Code) of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of
Phoenix, is hereby repealed.
SECTION 10: A new Chapter 12 (Downtown Code) of the Zoning Ordinance of
the City of Phoenix, is hereby adopted as shown in Exhibit “A” which is attached to this
Ordinance and declared a part hereof.
AF
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 4th day of December, 2024.
________________________________
T
MAYOR
ATTEST:
R
____________________________City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
D
____________________________City Attorney
REVIEWED BY:
____________________________City Manager
Attachments:
Exhibit A (161 pages)
26 Ordinance G-####
EXHIBIT A
Chapter 12
DOWNTOWN CODE
Section 1201. Code Administration.
Section 1202. Regulating Maps.
Section 1203. Land Use Matrix.
Section 1204. Streetscape and Frontage Zones.
Section 1205. Frontage Elements.
Section 1206. Parking, Loading, and Vehicular Access.
Section 1207.
Section 1208.
Section 1209.
AF
General Development Regulations.
Biomed.
Business Core.
Section 1210.
Section 1211.
Section 1212.
Section 1213.
Section 1214.
Section 1215.
T
Central Park.
Commercial Corridors.
Downtown Gateway.
East Evergreen.
Evans Churchill East.
Evans Churchill West.
R
Section 1216.
Section 1217.
Section 1218.
McDowell Corridor.
Roosevelt East.
Roosevelt North.
D
Section 1219.
Section 1220.
Section 1221.
Section 1222.
Section 1223.
Section 1224.
Roosevelt South.
Townsend Park.
Van Buren.
Warehouse.
Sustainability Bonus Points.
Appeals.
Exhibit A 1 Ordinance G-####
Section 1201. Code Administration.
A. Purpose and Intent. The purpose of the Downtown Code is to implement the vision, goals
and policies of the Downtown Phoenix Plan and provide the physical environment necessary
to create a pedestrian-oriented, dynamic urban center with an authentic sense of place. The
intent of the Downtown Code is to address design that impacts the public realm by
establishing standards and guidelines that will allow projects to develop over time in a scale
and character consistent with the Downtown Phoenix Plan and with the vision and goals of
PlanPHX.
B. Applicability. The Downtown Code applies to all land uses, subdivisions, and development
within the boundary specifically identified in Section 1202.A and generally bounded by
McDowell Road on the north, 7th Street on the east, Buckeye Road on the south, and 7th
Avenue on the west. This boundary shall be hereafter known as “Downtown”. The
“Downtown Code” may be abbreviated as “DTC”.
AF
1. Historic Preservation. Properties with Historic Preservation (HP) zoning are subject to
the provisions of Chapter 8, Historic Preservation, of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance in
addition to the provisions of Chapter 12, Downtown Code. In the event of a conflict
between the provisions of Chapter 8 and Chapter 12, the provisions of Chapter 8 shall
T
prevail.
2. If a conflict occurs between requirements of the Downtown Code and other provisions
the City of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance (not including Chapter 8), the requirements of the
Downtown Code shall prevail.
3. Development review of sites located within Downtown shall be in conformance with the
provisions of Section 507.B, unless specifically stated otherwise within this Chapter.
R
C. Approval Requirements. Each structure and land use shall be established, constructed,
reconstructed, enlarged, altered, moved or replaced in compliance with the following
requirements:
1. The land use or function must be allowed by the Use Matrix in the Character Area
D where the site is located, unless subject to the provisions of Chapter 9,
Nonconformities.
2. Development review approval shall be obtained in accordance with the procedures
outlined in Section 507, Development Review Approval.
3. Guidelines, standards, and requirements in this Chapter indicated with the markers (R),
(R*), (P), (T), and (C) shall be applied and enforced in the same manner as indicated in
Section 507. Items not indicated with an (R), (R*), (P), (T), and (C) shall be treated as
(R).
Exhibit A 2 Ordinance G-####
Section 1202. Regulating Maps.
A. Character Areas. This map designates the Character Area boundaries for the Downtown
Code:
AF
T
R
D
Exhibit A 3 Ordinance G-####
B. Maximum Building Height. This map designates maximum building heights within
Downtown.
1. The height limits shown on the following map are the base requirements and do not
include any height bonuses which may be allowed per other sections of this Chapter.
Additional setbacks may apply at the boundary between different height zones, per
Section 1207.E.
2. No building height may exceed the Airport Height Limits provided in Chapter 4, Article
XIII of the Phoenix City Code.
AF
T
R
D
Exhibit A 4 Ordinance G-####
C. Maximum Density. This map designates maximum density limits within Downtown.
1. The density limits shown on the following map are the base requirements and do not
include any density bonuses which may be allowed per other sections of this Chapter.
AF
T
R
D
Exhibit A 5 Ordinance G-####
D. Pedestrian Streets, Side Streets, and Enhanced Corners. This map designates the
streets within Downtown that are either Pedestrian or Side Streets, as referenced elsewhere
within this Chapter. The map also designates Enhanced Corner locations as referenced
elsewhere in this Chapter. Public streets not designated on this map shall be considered
Pedestrian Streets.
AF
T
R
D
Exhibit A 6 Ordinance G-####
E. Buffer Alleys. This map designates Buffer Alleys for which abutting properties must
conform to the requirements outlined elsewhere in this Chapter.
AF
T
R
D
Exhibit A 7 Ordinance G-####
F. Arts, Culture and Small Business Area. This map designates the Arts, Culture, and Small
Business Area referenced elsewhere in this Chapter:
AF
T
R
D
Exhibit A 8 Ordinance G-####
Section 1203. Land Use Matrix.
A. Applicability. The Land Use Matrix regulates all permitted uses within Downtown.
B. Use Regulations. The regulations governing the uses of land and structures shall be set
forth in the Land Use Matrix, Section 1203.C, and Land Use Conditions in Section 1203.D:
1. Any use not specifically listed in the Land Use Matrix shall not be permitted.
2. All uses indicated with “p” are permitted with the applicable Character Area.
3. All uses indicated with “pc” are permitted with conditions within the applicable Character
Area. The conditions are described in Section 1203.D, Land Use Conditions, by the
associated condition number (e.g. “pc15” is described under Section 1203.D.15).
AF
4. All uses indicated with “up” are permitted within the applicable Character Area only upon
approval of a Use Permit per Section 307.A.7.
5. All uses indicated with “sp” are permitted within the applicable Character Area only upon
approval of a Special Permit per Section 504.1.
T
6. All uses indicated with “np” are not permitted within the applicable Character Area.
C. Land Use Matrix.
R
D
Exhibit A 9 Ordinance G-####
LAND USE CATEGORIES CHARACTER AREAS
ACTIVE USE BioMed Central Park Van Buren Warehouse
Business Core East Evergreen Roosevelt East Roosevelt North Roosevelt South Townsend Park
Commercial Corridors Downtown Gateway Evans Churchill East Evans Churchill West McDowell Corridor
RESIDENTIAL USES
D
sp, sp, up,
pc1, pc1, pc1, pc1,
Boarding House pc1 pc1 pc1, pc1 pc1 pc1 pc1 pc1, pc1, pc1 pc1
13 13 13 13
13 13 13
Community Residence
Home
pc29 pc29
R pc29 pc29 pc29 pc29 pc29 pc29 pc29 pc29 pc29 pc29 pc29 pc29 pc29
Dwelling Unit, Multi‐
p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p
Family
Dwelling Unit, Single‐
Family, Detached
np np p p np p p p p p p p p p np
(including Duplex and
Triplex uses)
Dwelling Unit, Single‐
np np p p np p p p p p p p p p np
Family Attached
AF
sp, sp, up,
pc1, pc1, pc1, pc1,
Group Home pc1 pc1 pc1, pc1 pc1 pc1 pc1 pc1, pc1, pc1 pc1
13 13 13 13
13 13 13
Group Foster Home p p up p p p p p p p up up p p p
Live‐Work x p p
pc11,
p p
T p p p p p np p p p p
Exhibit A 10 Ordinance G-####
LAND USE CATEGORIES CHARACTER AREAS
ACTIVE USE BioMed Central Park Van Buren Warehouse
Business Core East Evergreen Roosevelt East Roosevelt North Roosevelt South Townsend Park
Commercial Corridors Downtown Gateway Evans Churchill East Evans Churchill West McDowell Corridor
Subdivision, Single‐Family
np np pc27 pc27 np pc27 pc27 pc27 pc27 pc27 pc27 pc27 pc27 pc27 np
Infill
Accessory to Residential Uses Only:
D
Accessory Dwelling
(ac) np np pc31 pc31 np pc31 pc31 pc31 pc31 pc31 pc31 pc31 pc31 pc31 np
Unit
(ac) Home Occupations pc32 pc32 pc32 pc32 pc32 pc32 pc32 pc32 pc32 pc32 pc32 pc32 pc32 pc32 pc32
ASSEMBLY USES
R
Assembly, General x p p np p p up p p p up np np p p p
Day Care (Adult Day Care
pc13, pc13, pc13, pc13,
Center and Child Care), x p p p p p p p p p p p
15 15 15 15
Nursery School
Religious Assembly x p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p
School x p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p
School, Commercial x p p np p p p p p p up np up p p p
GENERAL RETAIL SALES AND RELATED SERVICE USES
AF
pc4, pc4,
pc4, pc4,
Artist Studio/Gallery x p p p p* p* p* p 6, np 6, p p p
6, 17 6, 17
17* 17*
Bakery x p p np p p up p p p p np up p p p
Commercial Recreation
Farmers Market
x
x
p
pc26
p
pc26
np
np
p
pc26
p
T
pc26
np
pc26
p
pc26
p
pc26
p
pc26
p
pc26
np
np
np
pc26
p
pc26
p
pc26
p
pc26
Exhibit A 11 Ordinance G-####
LAND USE CATEGORIES CHARACTER AREAS
ACTIVE USE BioMed Central Park Van Buren Warehouse
Business Core East Evergreen Roosevelt East Roosevelt North Roosevelt South Townsend Park
Commercial Corridors Downtown Gateway Evans Churchill East Evans Churchill West McDowell Corridor
Garden Center, Plant
x np np np p p p p p p p np p p p p
Nursery
Pawn Shop x
D
up np np up up np up up up up np np up up up
Pet Care Facility x up up np up up up up up up up np np up up up
Pet Day Care Facility x up np np p p np p p p up np np p p p
Pet Grooming x up np np p p np p p p up np np p p p
Retail Sales
Second Hand/Used
x p p
R np pc10
pc10,
p pc7
pc7,
pc9
pc9,
pc10
pc10,
pc10
pc10,
pc9
pc9,
np pc9
pc9,
pc8
pc8,
p p
x pc21 pc21 np pc21 np pc21 pc21
Merchandise Sales 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21
FOOD SERVICE AND ENTERTAINMENT
Bar x up p np up up up up up up up np up up up p
Outdoor Liquor
(ac) x up up np up up up up up up up np up up up up
Service
Liquor, Retail Sales x up up np up up np up up up up np np up up up
Dance Hall x np up np np np np np np np np np np np up up
AF
Restaurant x p p np p* p* pc7 p* p* p p* np pc2* p p p
Brew Pub, Microbrewery,
x up24 up24 np up24 up24 up24 up24 up24 up24 up24 np up24 up24 up24 p24
Winery
Accessory Only To Restaurant/Brew Pub/Microbrewery/Winery:
(ac)
Outdoor Liquor
Service
x up p np up up
T up up up up up np up up up p
Exhibit A 12 Ordinance G-####
LAND USE CATEGORIES CHARACTER AREAS
ACTIVE USE BioMed Central Park Van Buren Warehouse
Business Core East Evergreen Roosevelt East Roosevelt North Roosevelt South Townsend Park
Commercial Corridors Downtown Gateway Evans Churchill East Evans Churchill West McDowell Corridor
pc4,
(ac) Outdoor Cooking x up np up up np up up up up np np up up up
(ac) Outdoor Dining x
D
p
p np pc3* p* np p* p* p p* np pc3* p pc3 p
(ac) Patron Dancing x p p np p p np p p p p np np p p p
LODGING
Bed and Breakfast x p p up p p p p p p p np p p p p
Hotel/Motel x
HEALTH AND SUPPORT SERVICES
p p
R np p p p p p p p np up p p p
Clinic, Medical or Dental x p p np p p p p p p up np up p p p
Community Residence
x p p sp p p p p p p p sp up p p p
Center
Hospice x p p sp p p p p p p p sp up p p p
Hospital x p p np p p up p p p p np up p p p
Laboratory, Medical,
p p np up p up p p up up np up up up up
Dental or Clinical
AF
Laboratory, Research p p np up up up up up up up np up up up p
Medical or Dental Office x p p np p p p p p p p np p p p p
Nursing Home or Assisted
x p p sp p p p p p p p sp up p p p
Living Center
Veterinary Office x
INDUSTRIAL AND MANUFACTURING USES
p p np p p
T p p p p p np up p p p
Exhibit A 13 Ordinance G-####
LAND USE CATEGORIES CHARACTER AREAS
ACTIVE USE BioMed Central Park Van Buren Warehouse
Business Core East Evergreen Roosevelt East Roosevelt North Roosevelt South Townsend Park
Commercial Corridors Downtown Gateway Evans Churchill East Evans Churchill West McDowell Corridor
Building Materials np np np np np np np np np np np np np up p
Contractor’s Yards
Manufacturing ‐ Artisan
D
np
np
up
np
np
np
np
p
np
np
np
np
np
np
np
np
np
np
np
np
np
np
np
np
np
np
up
p
up
p
Manufacturing ‐ Light np np np p np np np np np np np np np p p
Manufacturing ‐ General np np np np np np np np np np np np np np p
Manufacturing ‐ Heavy np np np np np np np np np np np np np np np
OFFICE AND PROFESSIONAL USES
R
Financial institutions x p p np p p up p p p p np up p p p
General Office x p p np p p p p p p p np up p p p
Professional Office x p p np p p p p p p p pc19 p p p p
pc4, pc4, pc4, pc4, pc4, pc4, pc4, pc4,
Appliance Repair x np np np np np p p
6, 17 6, 17 6, 17 6, 17 6, 17 6, 17 6, 17 6, 17
Business Services x p p np p p np p p p p np np p p p
Personal Services x p p np p p np p p p p np p p p p
Tattoo/Body‐Piercing
AF
x p p np p p np p p p sp np np np p p
Studio
STORAGE AND WHOLESALING USES
Self Service Storage
sp np np p sp np np sp sp sp np np np p p
Facility
Storage/Warehousing
(indoor)
np np np sp np
T np np np np np np np np sp sp
Exhibit A 14 Ordinance G-####
LAND USE CATEGORIES CHARACTER AREAS
ACTIVE USE BioMed Central Park Van Buren Warehouse
Business Core East Evergreen Roosevelt East Roosevelt North Roosevelt South Townsend Park
Commercial Corridors Downtown Gateway Evans Churchill East Evans Churchill West McDowell Corridor
Wholesale Sales np np np up np np np np np np np np np up up
UTILITY AND TRANSPORTATION USES
Motor Vehicle Rentals x up
D pc12 np up pc12 np sp sp sp sp np np sp up up
Motor Vehicle Sales
x sp pc12 np pc12 pc12 np sp sp sp sp np np sp pc12 pc12
(New) and Leasing
Motor Vehicle Service
Station, Fuel Sales
x np sp
R np up19 np np np np up19 np np np np sp np
Motor Vehicle Service
x np np np np np np np np np np np np np sp np
and Repair, Minor
Motor Vehicle Washing np np np np np np np np np np np np np np np
Bus Terminal np sp np np np np np np np np np np np np sp
Public Utility Buildings
pc28 pc28 pc28 pc28 pc28 pc28 pc28 pc28 pc28 pc28 pc28 pc28 pc28 pc28 pc28
and Facilities
ACCESSORY USES AND FACILITIES
Accessory Structure (not
AF
np np p p np p p p p p p p p p np
ADU)
Adult Day Care Home up p up p p p p p p p up p p p p
Dependent Care Facility up p up p p pc14 p p p p up pc14 p p p
pc19, pc19,
Drive‐Through
Helistop/Heliport
np
sp
np
sp
np
np
sp
np
sp
T np
np
np
np
np
sp
sp
np
sp
np
np
np
np
np
np
np
sp
np
sp
Exhibit A 15 Ordinance G-####
LAND USE CATEGORIES CHARACTER AREAS
ACTIVE USE BioMed Central Park Van Buren Warehouse
Business Core East Evergreen Roosevelt East Roosevelt North Roosevelt South Townsend Park
Commercial Corridors Downtown Gateway Evans Churchill East Evans Churchill West McDowell Corridor
Home Occupation as per
p p p p* p* p* p* p* p* p* p p* p p p
Section 608.E.27
Outdoor Crafting of Art
D
up up up p22* up* up p22* p22* p22 p22* up np up up p22
Outdoor Display/Sales x up up np p up up up up up up np up up p p
Outdoor Storage np np np p np np np np np np np np np p p
pc5, pc5, pc5,
Outdoor Entertainment x up
pc4,
16,
R np up*
16,
18,
up
16,
18,
16,
18,
up up* np up* up
pc4,
16,
pc4,
16,
23* 23* 23*
Pocket Shelter (Accessory
pc13, pc13, pc13, pc13, pc13, pc13, pc13, pc13, pc13, pc13, pc13, pc13, pc13, pc13, pc13,
to Religious Assembly
25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25
Only)
Repair and/or Storage
Facilities (Accessory to
up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up
Public Utility Building and
Facilities Only)
AF
Storage np np np p np np np np np np np np np p p
Valet Parking pc30 pc30 pc30 pc30 pc30 pc30 pc30 pc30 pc30 pc30 pc30 pc30 pc30 pc30 pc30
LOCAL FOOD PRODUCTION
Community Garden up up up up up up up up up up np up up up up
Home Produce Stand x np np up np np
T up np np np np np up np np up
Exhibit A 16 Ordinance G-####
LAND USE CATEGORIES CHARACTER AREAS
ACTIVE USE BioMed Central Park Van Buren Warehouse
Business Core East Evergreen Roosevelt East Roosevelt North Roosevelt South Townsend Park
Commercial Corridors Downtown Gateway Evans Churchill East Evans Churchill West McDowell Corridor
INTERIM USES
Interim Vacant Land Uses
Environmental
D
p p p p p p p p p p up p up p p
up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up
Remediation
Surface parking up up np np up np up up np up np np np up up
Civic Event p p np np np np np np np np np np np np p
R
LAND USE KEY: p=permitted use, pc=permitted with conditions (see numbered footnote for conditions), up=use permit, sp=special permit, np=not permitted
* = For properties within the Arts, Culture, and Small Business Area (see map in Section 1202.G), please refer to the additional regulations outlined in Section
1207.C. If a regulation of Section 1207.C conflicts with the provisions of this Land Use Matrix, the more permissive regulation shall apply.
Note: Alcohol sales and service on properties within an Entertainment District designated by the City Council pursuant to Section 4-207, Arizona Revised Statutes,
must also comply with Section 307(A)(17) of the Zoning Ordinance.
AF
T
Exhibit A 17 Ordinance G-####
D. Land Use Conditions. The following shall apply to uses that are permitted with conditions
(pc) as indicated with a number that corresponds with the Land Use Matrix in Section
1203.C:
Spacing:
1. No use shall be located on a lot with a property line within 1,320 feet of the same type of
use as measured in a straight line in any direction of the lot line of another such use.
Separation:
2. The use shall not be located within 50 feet of a Buffer Alley as measured from the
exterior walls of a building or portion thereof in which the use is conducted to the right-of-
way line of the Buffer Alley.
3. The use shall not be located within 25 feet of a Buffer Alley as measured from the
portion of the property on which the use is conducted to the right-of-way line of the
Buffer Alley.
Environmental Quality:
4. Noise, odor, dust, gas, heat, smoke, glare or vibration shall not be emitted at any time by
the use that exceeds the general or ambient level by uses immediately off site as
compared at the parcel boundary.
5. No amplified music or loudspeakers may be used outside after 8:00 p.m. on Sundays
and after 10:00 p.m. on Fridays and Saturdays, unless a use permit is obtained.
6. The noise level, measured at any point on the received property, shall not exceed 55
dBa unless a use permit is obtained. An occurrence where the sound level increases up
to 60 dBa for five continuous seconds or less shall not be deemed a violation of this
section as long as there are no more than five occurrences within an hour-long interval.
Maximum Size:
7. The use shall not exceed 2,500 square feet of building area.
8. The use shall not exceed 5,000 square feet of building area per tenant, unless a use
permit is obtained.
9. The use shall not exceed 10,000 square feet of building area, unless a use permit is
obtained.
10. The use shall not exceed 25,000 square feet of lot area.
11. The use shall not exceed 25 percent of the total under roof area, unless a use permit is
obtained to enlarge to a maximum of 50 percent of the total under roof area.
Exhibit A 18 Ordinance G-####
12. The use shall not include more than ten display vehicles.
Maximum Persons:
13. The use may not be conducted for more than ten persons.
14. The use may not be conducted for more than 12 persons.
15. The use may not employ more than one nonresident person.
Hours of Operation:
16. The use is limited to Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays only, unless a use permit is
obtained for other days of the week.
17. The use may not be conducted between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m., unless a
use permit is obtained to extend the hours.
18. The use may only be conducted between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 12:00 midnight on
Fridays and Saturdays and between 10:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on Sundays, unless a
use permit is obtained to extend the hours.
Location:
19. The use may only occur on a site that is adjoining an arterial street which is not a light-
rail street.
20. Drive-through windows shall not be located within a Frontage Zone, nor drive-through
queuing lanes, which also must be screened from the view from the right-of-way unless
approval is obtained from the Design Review Committee.
21. Used/second hand merchandise cannot be received or processed at a site in Downtown
for sale at another site. No outdoor sales or displays allowed.
22. Outdoor crafting of art subject to the following:
a. Must be associated with an enclosed business when the subject parcel abuts an
arterial or collector street.
b. Storage of materials associated with the crafting area shall not exceed eight feet in
height and shall be limited to the rear or side yard.
c. Storage area shall be fully screened with a solid wall or landscaping.
d. Storage of materials associated with the crafting area exceeding eight feet in height
shall be subject to obtaining a use permit in accordance with the provisions of the
Zoning Administrator section of the Zoning Ordinance.
Exhibit A 19 Ordinance G-####
23. Outdoor entertainment, subject to the following:
a. Outdoor event or performances are open to the public.
b. The outdoor event or performance must be presented by an existing business on the
property.
c. The business’s regularly stocked items may be displayed outdoors and be available
for purchase during the event or performance. Payment for all items shall occur
indoors. No other items may be displayed for sale outdoors during the event or
performance.
24. The facility shall be licensed by the State as a producer, domestic microbrewery or
domestic farm winery.
25. Drug, alcohol, other substance abuse or mental health rehabilitation programs shall not
be allowed as part of the shelter services.
26. Farmers markets, subject to the following:
a. Obtaining an administrative temporary use permit (ATUP) in accordance with the
provisions of Section 708 if no food or beverage is dispensed from a vehicle.
b. Obtaining a use permit in accordance with the provisions of Section 307 if food or
beverage is dispensed from a vehicle.
c. On-site operational conditions and improvements may be stipulated as a condition of
an ATUP or use permit approval.
27. Single-family infill subdivision, per Section 608.F.6 and Section 614, Table 614.B, except
as modified below:
a. Historic Preservation designated properties or properties in historic districts cannot
use the single-family infill development option.
b. Maximum height: as per height map, Section 1202.B.
c. Maximum density: as per density map, Section 1202.C.
d. Maximum lot coverage: 100 percent per townhome lot; overall subdivision lot
coverage per applicable Character Area.
Exhibit A 20 Ordinance G-####
e. Frontage Requirements: as per the applicable Character Area; or if lots front on a
something other than a Frontage Zone, per the regulations of Section 608.F.6 and
Section 614, Table B, Column D.
f. Setbacks:
(1) Perimeter setbacks (interior and street frontage): per the applicable Character
Area; or if lots front on a dedicated alley with no Frontage Zone, minimum 10 feet
setback.
(2) Individual lot front (not on a perimeter): 0 feet.
(3) Individual lot side and rear: 0 feet or the required perimeter setback, whichever
is greater.
g. Allowed uses: single-family attached dwelling units and home occupations per
Section 608, except that units fronting a perimeter street (not an alley) may have
additional uses as permitted per the applicable Character Area. Single-family
detached units are permitted for no more than 20% of the units in an SFI
development to allow for variety and efficiency of design.
h. Parking and loading: per Section 1206, except that one space per dwelling unit is
required to be covered.
i. Design: units adjacent to perimeter streets shall provide primary entrances facing
and accessible from the street. No garages or carports are allowed to face perimeter
streets. (R*)
j. All subdivisions must comply with the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance
(Chapter 32 of the City Code), as may be modified by the Subdivision Committee to
further the goals of this Chapter and the applicable Character Area.
28. Public utility buildings and facilities shall be fully screened and subject to the following:
a. Mixed use opportunities should be prioritized for locating utility buildings and
facilities. The applicant shall submit a written analysis to the Planning and
Development Director or his/her designee of possible mixed use opportunities to
allow for an integrated development project that minimizes the visual impact of the
proposed utility. (R*)
b. All public utility buildings and facilities subject to the provisions of this land use
condition shall be reviewed and acted upon by the Design Review Committee as a
Design Alternative Appeal, per the provisions of Section 1224.A.
c. The applicant must hold a public neighborhood meeting and send written notification
of the public neighborhood meeting and the DRC hearing date to real property
Exhibit A 21 Ordinance G-####
owners and to neighborhood associations registered with the City pursuant to the
DRC process handout.
d. The use cannot be located on a light rail street or adjoining Hance Park, or only
separated by a street from Hance Park, unless the mixed use opportunity outlined in
Section 1203.D.28.a is satisfied.
e. For the required street frontage(s), the Design Review Committee (DRC) may
approve one of the following:
(1) A wall designed to mimic the frontage type which meets the intent of both the
applicable character area and the streetscape standards, and that appears to be
a conforming building as viewed from street.
(2) A creative use or frontage design alternative that surrounds the public utility
building and facilities, as determined by the DRC as appropriate for scale of the
area.
(3) A micro-park, which shall include at least three of the following elements, as
indicated below, and as determined by the DRC as appropriate for scale of the
area:
A minimum of two of the following installations:
(a) Recreational amenities such as but not limited to a single basketball hoop,
swing, and/or climbing equipment.
(b) Landscape areas designed to create outdoor rooms or useful spaces, which
may include extensive hardscape, decorative paving and/or artificial turf.
(c) Shade trees or shade structures.
(d) Lighting and seating designed to discourage camping.
In addition, a minimum of one of the following more significant scale installations:
(e) A local public art component and/or wall displays for local public arts
organizations.
(f) An educational component that describes the history or setting.
(g) Facilities for pop-up retail, restaurant, farmers markets, and/or public events,
which may include programming that changes seasonally, if permitted in the
character area.
(h) Facilities for pets, which may include water sources, enclosures for off-leash
activity, and stations for pet washing.
f. When considering an alternative frontage proposal in accordance with Section
1203.D.28.e, the DRC is authorized to provide relief from other Frontage and
Streetscape Zone regulations, including those indicated as (R).
Exhibit A 22 Ordinance G-####
Dispersal and Establishment of a Registered Use:
29. Community residence homes, subject to the following:
a. The home has no more than five residents, not including staff (unless permitted by
Section 36-582(A), Arizona Revised Statutes); or
b. For a home with six to ten residents, not including staff, the following conditions shall
apply:
(1) Such home shall be registered with, and administratively verified by, the Planning
and Development Department Director’s designee as to compliance with the
standards of this section as provided in Section 701.
(2) No community residence home shall be located on a lot with a property line
within 1,320 feet, measured in a straight line in any direction, of the lot line of
another community residence home that has been registered with six to ten
residents.
(3) Disability accommodation from the spacing requirement may be requested by an
applicant per Section 701.E.3.
Accessory Uses:
30. Valet Parking, subject to the following:
a. Valet parking is permitted by right if accessory to a permitted use or a use permitted
with conditions, so long as all of the conditions are complied with. For primary uses
subject to approval through a use permit or special permit, valet parking is permitted
as an accessory use only if the valet parking is specifically approved as part of the
use permit or special permit.
b. Valet parking spaces for a use located on a different site than for which the parking is
to be provided is allowed only if the following three conditions are met:
(1) Both the site where the parking is to be located, and the site for which the
parking is provided, are allowed the use(s) for which the parking is to be
provided. For sites with uses permitted by use permit or special permit,
compliance with Section 1203.D.30.a is required.
(2) The site on which the valet parking is to be provided also has a primary use, or is
otherwise permitted to have valet parking.
(3) The site where the valet parking is to be located has provided parking spaces in
excess of any required minimum parking for the subject site. This provision does
Exhibit A 23 Ordinance G-####
not grant permission to provide more parking spaces than the maximum parking
spaces allowed for uses located on the site.
c. Valet parking facilities, when provided, must comply with the additional development
regulations of Section 1206.G.
31. Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). Two ADUs are permitted on a lot which has only one
other single-family detached dwelling unit. A third ADU is permitted only when at least
one ADU qualifies as low-income housing and the net lot size is a minimum of 43,560
square feet.
32. Home Occupations, subject to the provisions of Section 608.E.27. Properties subject to
the provisions of Arts, Culture, and Small Business Area have additional permissions, as
outlined in Section 1207.M.
Exhibit A 24 Ordinance G-####
Section 1204. Streetscape and Frontage Zones.
A. Applicability.
1. Streetscape Zone. This is the area located between the curb and the property line
located within a dedicated street, of a minimum depth as stated in the Frontage and
Streetscape Zone Matrix for each individual Character Area.
a. The minimum depth required is inclusive of sidewalk provided within the Streetscape
Zone.
2. Frontage Zone. This is the portion of a private lot or parcel located directly adjacent to
a Streetscape Zone, of a depth as stated in the Frontage and Streetscape Zone Matrix
for each individual Character Area.
a. The depth of the Frontage Zone is measured from and perpendicular to the property
line abutting the street.
b. If the Street Transportation Department allows a sidewalk easement to be dedicated
in lieu of required ROW based upon the adopted Street Classification Map, and/or a
public utility easement is dedicated, the Frontage Zone depth shall be measured
from the back of the easement. If both easements are dedicated over the same area,
the setback shall be from the larger easement.
c. Frontage Zones and associated development regulations apply only to the first 25
feet of the development as measured vertically above the finished grade.
d. Frontage Zones do not apply where parcels abut dedicated alleys.
3. Combined Dimensions of Streetscape Zone and Frontage Zone.
a. In cases where the existing Streetscape Zone does not meet the minimum depth
required, the Frontage Zone depth shall be increased by the same amount as the
deficiency in the Streetscape Zone depth, unless the Streetscape Zone can be
brought into compliance within the existing ROW, or by dedication of additional
ROW as approved by the Street Transportation Department.
b. When the minimum Frontage Zone depth is 15 feet or greater, Planning and
Development staff have the authority to reduce the Frontage Zone depth by up to 5
feet so long as the Streetscape Zone is increased by the same amount.
c. Additional easement dedications may be required if public sidewalks, public
utilities, or other public amenities are provided within the Frontage Zone. (T)
Exhibit A 25 Ordinance G-####
Figure 1204.1 Non-Residential Streetscape and Frontage Zone (example)
Figure 1204.2 Residential Streetscape and Frontage Zone (example)
Exhibit A 26 Ordinance G-####
B. Streetscape Zone Standards.
1. Intent. The Streetscape Zone is the public realm, and the area from which the public
may access private properties via multiple transportation modes.
a. Along Pedestrian Streets, the Streetscape Zone area should be designed primarily
for pedestrians, providing shade, easy access to building entrances, and
complementary landscaping.
b. Along Side Streets, the Streetscape Zone area is expected to have automobile
access, parking and loading access, as well as service areas adjoining them, while
still serving pedestrians.
2. Structures and Projections within the Streetscape Zone. Structures shall not be
constructed or provided within the Streetscape Zone, except where specifically permitted
within this Chapter. Any allowed structural projections into public rights-of-way may only
be installed upon issuance of an encroachment permit as administered by the City of
Phoenix, and if applicable, approval from affected public utility companies. (T)
a. Cantilevered structural shade elements projecting from the building are not subject to
minimum setback requirements and are allowed to project into the public right-of-way
(with approval of an encroachment permit) so long as the structures do not preclude
the installation of required street trees. The shade elements shall be removable,
unless otherwise approved in writing by all affected City departments and utilities. (T)
b. Stairs/steps/accessible ramps to building entrances (other than those required for
public street crossings or existing grade differentials within the public right-of-way)
are not permitted within the Streetscape Zone. Retaining walls within the
Streetscape Zone are regulated by Section 1204.D. (T)
c. Transformers and other mechanical equipment are not permitted to be located within
the Streetscape Zone. (T)
3. Uses permitted within the Streetscape Zone. No uses are permitted with the
Streetscape Zone unless specifically permitted by other provisions of this Chapter, with
the following exceptions:
a. Development regulations for uses permitted within the Streetscape Zone shall be the
same as those provided for the adjacent Frontage Zone, unless specific regulations
for the use or structure located within the Streetscape Zone are provided elsewhere
within this Chapter.
b. Uses which are permitted by right or with conditions for a site per Section 1203, Land
Use Matrix, that are not specifically permitted to be conducted within the right-of-way
per other provisions of this Chapter, may be permitted within the right-of-way
adjacent to the site with the issuance of an encroachment permit approved by the
Street Transportation Department, if the following are complied with:
Exhibit A 27 Ordinance G-####
(1) The use of the right-of-way does not preclude compliance with all other
regulations regarding the Streetscape Zone, including but not limited to the
minimum sidewalk width, and
(2) The proposed use complies with the development regulations required of the use
when located within the adjacent Frontage Zone.
(3) The Street Transportation Department has no other objections to or conflicts with
the request.
c. Uses which are permitted with approval of a use permit or special permit for a site
per Section 1203, Land Use Matrix, that are not specifically permitted to be
conducted within the right-of-way per other provisions of this Chapter, may be
permitted within the right-of-way adjacent to the site with the issuance of an
encroachment permit approved by the Street Transportation Department if the
following are complied with:
(1) The use of the right-of-way does not preclude compliance with all other
regulations regarding the Streetscape Zone, including but not limited to the
minimum sidewalk width, and
(2) The use of the right-of-way is specifically shown and reviewed as part of the use
permit or special permit approval.
(3) The Street Transportation Department has no other objections to or conflicts with
the request.
4. Private pedestrian and bicycle amenities being provided for residents or on-site users
should not be located within the public right-of-way. (P)
Rationale: Non-structural amenities (such as benches, lit bollards, bicycle racks, or
public art) should not cause obstructions to pedestrian routes, prevent proper installation
or clearances for required landscape, or private utility lines in the Streetscape Zone.
Amenities should instead be provided within the Frontage Zone whenever possible. This
does not apply to amenities specifically provided for public use.
5. In the Roosevelt North, Roosevelt South, and Roosevelt East character areas, where
there is an existing Streetscape Zone larger than required by the applicable Character
Area, a private development shall not reduce the Streetscape Zone by moving the curb
and widening the street to provide new on-street parking, loading, or drop off areas: (R*)
Rationale: The Roosevelt Character areas retain a significant number of historic single-
family homes, and many blocks have large areas between the curb and the sidewalk
historically used for landscaping. These areas should not be reduced for vehicle parking,
passenger loading, or good/services loading, unless approved by both Street
Transportation and the Design Review Committee.
6. On-Street Parking. When on-street parking is provided abutting a site, a minimum 4-foot
wide concrete walkway may be provided adjacent to the raised curb in addition to the
required sidewalk, so long as it does not preclude installation of required street trees.
The walkway shall provide paved connections at reasonable intervals to the public
sidewalk, and be constructed to the same standards as the public sidewalk. (T)
Exhibit A 28 Ordinance G-####
Rationale: Persons exiting a car parked adjacent to a curb should not have to step into
a landscape or other areas unsuitable for pedestrians.
7. Sidewalks.
a. Location. The required public sidewalk shall be located within the Streetscape Zone,
subject to the following:
(1) On a Side Street, the sidewalk may be attached to the curb, unless it is a
designated Arterial Street. (T)
(2) On a Pedestrian Street, the sidewalk shall be detached from the curb and the
required street trees located between the curb and sidewalk, unless a Technical
Appeal is approved to allow an attached sidewalk when abutting on-street
parking. (T)
(3) When a required sidewalk is approved to be attached to the curb, the sidewalk
shall be a minimum of 8 feet wide, regardless of the Character Area requirement.
(T)
b. Elevation. The required public sidewalk should be constructed no higher than six
inches above the immediately adjacent street top of curb. Additional elevation may
be permitted without a Technical Appeal when the area between the back of curb
and sidewalk has a slope no steeper than 10:1 and no retaining walls are provided.
(T)
Rationale: Most of the sidewalks in Downtown are existing and historic. Sidewalks
reconstructed higher than 6” above the adjacent top of curb can make access from
on-street parking difficult; can provide challenges with ADA compliance; can cause
steep slopes within adjacent landscape areas which encourage erosion and
discourage the growth of plants and trees; and can interrupt the visual and historic
continuity of the neighborhood. If the finished floor of the building(s) are higher than
six inches above the top of curb, ramps and/or steps should be provided from the
sidewalk to the building entries, rather than raising the sidewalk, unless it can be
done in a very gradual manner.
c. Planning and Development staff may allow a decrease in the minimum required
sidewalk width of up to one foot in the case of conflicts with existing utilities other
existing obstacles which cannot otherwise be avoided. (T)
d. The required sidewalk shall be clear of all obstacles for the full minimum required
sidewalk width. Approved amenities and landscaping (including tree grates) shall
only be allowed within portions of the sidewalk wider than the minimum required. (T)
e. Sidewalks located within the public right-of-way shall be constructed using materials
and methods approved by the Street Transportation Department. (T)
Exhibit A 29 Ordinance G-####
f. Where setback sidewalks exist on a block face where there is an HP designated
property, the sidewalk should remain within the historic alignment for that block face
and not be offset by more than one foot. (P)
Rationale: Historic streetscapes are generally defined by a consistent sidewalk and
landscape area along a single block face. These streetscapes are an important part
of the Downtown Phoenix character and should be maintained whenever possible.
g. The required sidewalk should not have jogs and offsets, and should be in a straight
line unless navigation around existing conflicts in the Streetscape Zone is
unavoidable. (P)
Rationale: Pedestrians of all capabilities should be able to navigate sidewalks easily
and not have unnecessary diversions around landscape, amenities, transformers, or
similar potential obstructions.
C. Frontage Zone Standards.
1. Intent. The Frontage Zone is the interface between the public and the private realm,
and the area where public amenities (including but not limited to pedestrian and bicycle
amenities, outdoor dining, public courtyards, public art, etc.) should be located.
2. Structures within the Frontage Zone. Structures shall not be constructed within the
Frontage Zone, except where specifically permitted by this Chapter.
a. For wall/fence requirements, refer to Section 1207.D and any applicable Frontage
Element regulations.
b. For retaining wall requirements, refer to Section 1204.D and any applicable Frontage
Element regulations.
3. Amenities and Projections within the Frontage Zone. The following items may
project or be constructed within the Frontage Zone, but no closer than the minimum
setback as stated in the Frontage and Streetscape Zone Matrix for each individual
Character Area, unless specifically permitted elsewhere in this Chapter: (R*)
a. Frontage Elements, as allowed by the Character Area.
b. Exterior stairwells constructed as part of the building and not part of the hardscape.
c. Parking spaces within structured parking and/or located internal to the building and
screened from view of the Frontage Zone.
The following items are permitted anywhere within the Frontage Zone and are not
required to meet minimum setbacks, so long as they do not preclude installation of
required street trees and shading requirements:
d. Outdoor dining patio or bar area, covered or open (if a permitted use).
Exhibit A 30 Ordinance G-####
e. Bicycle parking and amenities.
f. Pedestrian amenities.
g. Exterior art installations.
h. Passenger loading zones.
i. Valet parking facilities, subject to the provisions of Section 1206.G.
j. Drainage facilities.
k. Mechanical equipment/systems, so long as a minimum 5 feet separation from the
public sidewalk is provided.
l. Basements/utility vaults.
m. Cantilevered awnings/shade structures.
n. ADA ramps/pathways.
4. Minimum Building Frontage Requirements.
a. The length of each building façade constructed within or abutting the Frontage Zone
shall be no less than required by the Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix for the
applicable Character Area and street section, unless otherwise approved by the DRC
as a Design Alternative per Section 1224.A.
b. The minimum building frontage requirement shall be calculated as a percentage of
the length of the frontage property line, and the façade shall be measured by a line
parallel with the frontage property line. For the purposes of this calculation only, the
following may be subtracted from the length of the frontage property line:
(1) The width of driveways at the frontage property line, so long as the driveways are
otherwise compliant with this Chapter.
(2) The portion of required visibility triangles which are deeper than the applicable
Frontage Zone depth.
c. All portions of the building façade abutting or located within the Frontage Zone,
including Frontage Elements, may be used to calculate the required minimum
building frontage. Certain Frontage Elements may provide additional flexibility in
calculating the required minimum building frontage, as stated elsewhere in this
Chapter.
d. Underground structures cannot be counted toward meeting minimum building
frontage requirements.
Exhibit A 31 Ordinance G-####
5. Hardscape Guidelines—Frontage Zones.
a. Alternative paving materials should be used when possible within the Frontage Zone
to reduce the urban heat island effect, and to allow natural drainage and filtration. (T)
b. Permeable paving, porous concrete or similar material should be installed adjacent
to tree wells. The design should ensure adequate watering and root growth. (T)
c. Alternative materials such as brick pavers, permeable concrete pavers, granite and
flagstone should be encouraged on private walkways and patio/gathering areas. (T)
D. Grading and Drainage Requirements—Streetscape and Frontage Zones.
1. The maximum slope of any landscape or non-hardscape area located within the
Streetscape Zone is 10:1. (T)
2. The maximum grade differential of the Frontage Zone from the adjacent Streetscape
Zone is 30 inches, unless specifically permitted elsewhere in this Chapter. (T)
3. Retaining walls are not allowed within the Streetscape Zone. (T)
4. Retaining walls up to 36 inches in height are allowed within the Frontage Zone, unless
greater height is specifically permitted elsewhere in this Chapter. (T)
5. If the required finished floor elevation is at a height which will require stairs or ADA
ramps to connect building entries with the sidewalk, or will require a retaining wall
exceeding heights permitted for Streetscape and Frontage Zones, the depth of the
Frontage Zone may be increased to the depth required to avoid steps or ramps (if
desired). (T)
E. Design Requirements—Frontage Zones.
1. Along Pedestrian Streets, buildings facades facing Frontage Zones shall incorporate at
least one of the Frontage Elements allowed by the applicable Character Area into the
façade for a minimum of 75% of the required building frontage for each Frontage Zone,
unless a Design Alternative is approved by the Design Review Committee per Section
1224.A. (R*)
2. Along Side Streets, buildings facades facing Frontage Zones should incorporate at least
one of the Frontage Elements allowed by the applicable Character Area into the façade
for a minimum of 50% of the required building frontage for each Frontage Zone. (P)
Rationale: Appropriate Frontage Elements for have been determined through extensive
staff analysis and community input for each Character Area, as well as the specific
streets within each area. Facades located along designated Side Streets may be
granted additional flexibility in application of this design requirement.
Exhibit A 32 Ordinance G-####
3. The portion of a building facade adjacent to a Frontage Zone which does not comply
with a Frontage Element design should have a level of trim and finish compatible with
the quality and design of the remainder of the Frontage Zone façade(s). (P)
Rationale: The portion of facades not required to meet the minimum building frontage,
or the portion which does project into the Frontage Zone should still consist of high
quality materials, and be integrated with the design of the remainder of the façade.
Unfinished surfaces and blank walls should not be provided where visible from a
Frontage Zone.
4. The areas of a Frontage Zone not adjacent to or occupied by Frontage Elements shall
be improved as follows:
a. Landscape shall be provided in accordance with Section 1204.G. (T)
b. Seating should be provided. Seating may consist of installed benches or removable
furniture. This shall not apply within the Roosevelt North, Roosevelt South, and East
Evergreen character areas. (P)
Rationale: Character areas consisting mainly of traditional single-family homes and
historic designations should maintain the residential character of private front yards
when possible.
c. Other features which attract and engage pedestrians should be provided, such as
(but not limited to) bicycle parking and amenities, exterior art installations, additional
structural shade, etc. (P)
Rationale: the area of a Frontage Zone not adjacent to a Frontage Element, where
conflicts with primary entrances are less likely to occur, should have other features
which encourage use by pedestrians and cyclists.
5. Building entrances shall face toward the street in order to meet the intent of activating
the public realm. Entrances from a permitted Frontage Element (such as Forecourt,
Patio, Porch, or Stoop/Doorwell) are exempt from this requirement. (R*)
6. Public building entrances, residential patios/porches, windows, storefronts, outdoor
dining, public gathering areas, exterior art installations, and other similar features should
be located adjacent to Pedestrian Streets. (P)
Rationale: On Pedestrian Streets, adjacent structures should be designed to provide
easy and obvious pedestrian access to the buildings, to encourage pedestrian use.
7. All on-site mechanical equipment, transformers, utility equipment, trash/recycling
receptacles, or similar must be fully screened from view from the Streetscape Zone.
Screening may consist of the following: (P)
a. Green screen.
Exhibit A 33 Ordinance G-####
b. Dense landscaping which provides screening starting from the time of initial
installation.
c. Decorative walls or fences up to 40 inches in height if within the minimum setback
area, or 72” if behind the minimum setback.
d. Underground utility vaults.
e. Along Side Streets only: decorative walls or fences up to 8 feet in height if located at
or beyond the minimum setback.
Rationale: The Streetscape environment should be aesthetically pleasing, and service
equipment/areas should be screened from view whenever possible. If it is simply not
possible, the visual impact should be mitigated by disguising equipment with paint or
other treatments as approved by PDD and any affected utility company.
8. Along Pedestrian Streets, all windows and doors counting toward required glazing
should allow a minimum of 75% of the visible light (as specified by the manufacturer) to
be visible on either side of the window. (P)
9. Along Pedestrian Streets, commercial suites with windows or entrances to Frontage
Zones should be constructed so that a public area of the suite (lobby, reception area,
dining area, or similar) is adjacent to the Frontage Zone. Storage areas, private offices,
kitchens, or other areas restricted to the public/customer use shall not be located
adjacent to doors or windows facing a Pedestrian Street. (P)
Rationale for E.8 and E.9: Frontage Zones along Pedestrian Streets should attract,
engage, and interest pedestrians at the street level and encourage patronage of the
businesses. Opaque or translucent/frosted windows, or views into employee or storage
areas do not meet this intent.
10. Building facades abutting or within a Frontage Zone should be designed to provide a
sense of human scale at the ground level by providing a clear architectural distinction
between the Frontage Zone and all additional stories. (P)
Rationale: Large buildings should provide a transition to a pedestrian scale to make
such areas feel comfortable for pedestrians, without causing a feeling of walking up to
the base of a tall “cliff”.
11. Roof drains shall not be designed to drain across public sidewalks or other pedestrian
walkways. (T)
F. Shade Standards—Streetscape and Frontage Zones.
1. Public and private pedestrian walkways should be shaded (minimum 75 percent at
maturity) for the health, safety, and welfare of pedestrians and to encourage use. (P)
Exhibit A 34 Ordinance G-####
2. All Streetscape and Frontage Zones should be shaded (50% at maturity) for the health,
safety, and welfare of pedestrians and to encourage use. (P)
Rationale for F.1 and F.2: The design of pedestrian routes and gathering areas, such as
public sidewalks, private walkways, courtyards, plazas, and transit stops, should be
designed with appropriate shading for the health, safety, and welfare of pedestrians and
to mitigate the heat island effect to enhance the pedestrian environment.
3. Shade calculations shall be based on shade cast at the summer solstice at 12:00 noon.
(T)
4. Shade cast from required shade trees, structural shade (canopies/awnings), or shade
cast from a building may be used to comply with the shade requirements of this section.
G. Landscape Requirements—Streetscape and Frontage Zones.
1. Landscape shall be provided, subject to the following:
a. Where there is an existing established streetscape theme, including street trees,
additional trees shall be provided to replace removed or destroyed trees, and/or to
comply with shade requirements. In such cases, the trees shall be of like kind and
size to those provided with the existing streetscape, as approved by the PDD
Landscape Architect. (T)
b. Trees shall be provided for the full length of the Streetscape Zone at a minimum rate
of 20 feet on center, or equivalent groupings as approved by the PDD Landscape
Architect (T).
(1) This requirement does not apply to properties with a maximum of two dwelling
units and no other primary uses.
(2) Trees provided within the Streetscape Zone may be used to comply with the
shade requirements of Section 1204.F.
(3) All trees planted to meet this requirement must be selected from the Tree
Species Matrix, Section 1204.G.5, and allowed for use in the Streetscape Zone,
or match the existing streetscape trees adjacent to the site.
(4) If existing utility conflicts prevent the installation of trees within both the
Streetscape Zone and the Frontage Zone, architecturally or artistically integrated
structural shade may be requested for approval by filing a Technical Appeal.
c. If necessary to avoid existing utility conflicts, required street trees may be provided
within the Frontage Zone within 5 feet of the sidewalk, as approved by PDD. (T)
d. Trees shall be provided within a minimum 5 feet wide landscape area, unless tree
wells (or equivalent) are provided outside of the required minimum sidewalk width to
avoid conflicts with existing utilities or other existing street improvements. (T)
Exhibit A 35 Ordinance G-####
e. When two rows of trees are provided either side of the public sidewalk, the minimum
planting area for each row should be 5’ wide, unless tree wells are approved by the
PDD Landscape Architect (T).
f. Where hardscape is not necessary for pedestrian connections to amenities, drop
off/pickup zones, on-street parking, or similar, shrubs or groundcovers shall be
installed in addition to trees to provide 75% live coverage. This percentage may be
reduced to 50% if bioswales are approved for use within the Streetscape Zone. (T)
g. Unless prohibited by law, palm trees may be installed in the Streetscape Zone in
areas where palm trees have historically been provided in the ROW, in addition to
any required shade trees. Palm trees should be of the same type as existing historic
palm trees and planted in a similar manner/rate as existing on the same block face.
(T)
h. In areas where turf has historically been provided within the Streetscape Zone, turf
may be provided unless otherwise prohibited for use within the ROW by law.
Alternatively, low growing, drought-tolerant green ground covers may instead be
provided, as approved by the PDD Landscape Architect. (T)
i. Artificial turf is not permitted for use within public rights-of-way, and may not be used
to comply with any on-site landscape requirements. It may be used for outdoor
amenity areas which are not required to be landscaped. (T)
2. Tree wells, if permitted, shall be a minimum five feet by five feet, or a two-foot six-inch
radius from the base of the tree. (T)
a. A minimum two inches of decomposed granite, nitrogen stabilized mulch or similar
material shall be installed atop the soil and below the tree grates. (T)
b. The landscape plans shall demonstrate that the soil volume to be provided for each
tree is sufficient for the healthy and successful maturity of type of tree chosen, as
approved by the PDD Landscape Architect. (T)
3. All landscape areas located within the Streetscape Zone shall not exceed a 10:1 slope.
(T)
4. New underground utility lines or equipment should not be installed where street trees are
required unless other options are not technically feasible, as approved through a
Technical Appeal. (T)
Rationale: The Streetscape and Frontage Zones should provide a pleasant and
comfortable pedestrian experience, of which landscape and shade are of great
importance. If a technical appeal is approved because there is no other technically
feasible option, the appeal should address how required landscape and shade
requirements will still be met.
Exhibit A 36 Ordinance G-####
5. Tree Species Matrix. The following is a list of shade trees permitted for use within
Streetscape and Frontage Zones, as indicated below. Additional tree types may be
requested for approval by filing a Technical Appeal. All trees used within public rights-
of-way must be low-water use/drought-tolerant as approved by the Arizona Department
of Water Resources. (T)
Tree Species Matrix (Streetscape and Frontage Zones)
Allowed locations
Botanical Name Common Name Public right of
Private property
way (Streetscape
(Frontage Zone)
Zone)
Parkinsonia florida Blue Palo Verde Yes Yes
Pistacia chinensis
Chinese Pistache Yes Yes
(+ hybrids)
Chilopsis linearis Desert Willow Yes Yes
Evergreen Elm,
Ulmus parvifolia
Chinese Evergreen Yes Yes
'Sempervirens'
Elm
Quercus virginiana Heritage Live Oak Yes Yes
Gleditsia triacanthos Honey Locust
Yes Yes
(thornless) (thornless)
Olneya tesota Ironwood Yes Yes
Prosopis spp. Mesquite
Yes Yes
(thornless) (thornless hybrids)
Olea europaea Olive
Yes Yes
(fruitless) (fruitless hybrids)
Sissoo Tree,
Dalbergia sissoo Yes Yes
Indian Rosewood
Fraxinus velutina Arizona Ash
No Yes
(+ hybrids) (varieties)
Acacia farnesiana
Sweet Acacia No Yes
(Acacia smallii)
Exhibit A 37 Ordinance G-####
Section 1205. Frontage Elements.
The following Frontage elements consist of architectural features, designs, and amenities which
may project within the Frontage Zone, though no closer than the required minimum setback
unless specifically permitted by this Chapter. Please see the Frontage and Streetscape Zone
Matrix for each Character Area for applicable standards, in addition to the Streetscape and
Frontage Zone standards of Section 1204.
A. Active Front Yard (AFY). An Active Front Yard is a frontage element intended for use on
blocks with a high percentage of existing and/or historic single-family or duplex style
residential structures. AFY is not permitted for use on sites with primary uses which are
non-residential, or on residential lots with more than two dwelling units (not including ADUs).
(R*)
1. For sites with HP zoning or designation, both the building elevations and improvements
in the Frontage Zone shall be constructed as approved by Historic Preservation.
2. For sites not zoned or designated HP, buildings and improvements shall be installed in
conformance with Section 507 Tab A II.C.8.5 (Individual Unit Design Standards). If any
of the requirements of Section 507 Tab A II.C.8.5 conflict with provisions of the
Downtown Code, Section 507 Tab A II.C.8.5 requirements shall prevail.
3. Minimum building frontages stated in the Streetscape and Frontage Matrix for each
Character Area do not apply when implementing Active Front Yard standards as a
Frontage Element.
B. Patio (PA). A Patio (previously known as a
“Dooryard”) is a residential frontage element which
incorporates a private outdoor space for each dwelling
unit, and is surrounded by a fence or wall to provide a
separation of the private realm from the adjacent
streetscape.
1. A permanent hardscaped or landscaped area shall
be provided in accordance with the following
standards:
a. Minimum depth: 8 feet. (R*)
b. Minimum area: 64 square feet. (R*)
c. Maximum grade differential: 30 inches above adjacent Streetscape grade. (T)
d. Placement: Adjacent to the individual dwelling unit entry. (R*)
e. Hardscape shall consist of concrete slab, pavers, open grid pavers, wood decking (if
elevated) or equivalent alternative. (T)
2. Pedestrian access. An opening in the wall/fence, or stairs to the elevated area, shall be
provided for a pedestrian connection to the adjacent streetscape from each Patio. (R*)
3. Separation of public and private realm:
Exhibit A 38 Ordinance G-####
a. A wall/fence of at least 40 inches in height shall be provided around each Patio, up to
a maximum of 72 inches in height as measured from the adjacent streetscape grade.
This maximum height applies only to walls abutting patios and not to other walls
located in the Frontage Zone.
b. The portion of walls or fences above 40 inches in height shall consist of view fencing,
as approved by Planning and Development.
c. Screen walls/fences may be constructed on top of permitted retaining walls, but the
combined height of the retaining wall and screen wall/fence may not exceed 72
inches as measured from the adjacent streetscape grade.
4. Shade. Each Patio shall have a minimum of 50% shade provided either by landscaping
or permanent structural shade. (T)
C. Stoop/Door Well (SD). A Stoop/Door Well is a type
of facade that provides an entryway that is elevated
(Stoop) or depressed (Door Well) to provide
differentiation from the adjacent streetscape. A
Stoop/Door Well is constructed as an integral part of
the building, rather than as a courtyard or patio. It
may or may not have structural shade.
1. A landing area shall be provided for each
Stoop/Door Well in accordance with the following
standards:
a. Minimum depth: 6 feet. (R*)
b. Minimum area: 36 square feet (R*)
c. Maximum grade differential: 60 inches above or below adjacent Streetscape grade.
Retaining walls of up to 66 inches in height may be permitted within the Frontage
Zone when necessary for this Frontage element. (T)
d. Placement: Adjacent to a primary entrance. (R*)
e. Walls/fences, if provided, shall not exceed 40” in height.
2. Pedestrian access. A pedestrian connection to the adjacent Streetscape Zone from each
Stoop/Door Well shall be provided. (R*)
3. Minimum building frontage requirements. If a Stoop/Doorwell is deeper than the
applicable Frontage Zone depth for that street and Character Area, the width of the
Stoop/Doorwell shall still count towards the minimum building frontage requirement(s),
so long as the front (street side) of the Stoop/Doorwell is located within or abutting the
Frontage Zone. (R*)
Exhibit A 39 Ordinance G-####
D. Porch (PO). A Porch frontage element consists of a
covered structure that is often elevated above street
grade, sheltering an outdoor area deep enough to
ensure usability. A Porch is larger than a Stoop and
is structurally shaded for its entirety. A Porch
provides a transition between the public and private
realm, and creates opportunity for interaction
between neighbors.
1. Each Porch shall meet the following
requirements:
a. Minimum depth: 8 feet. (R*)
b. Minimum area: 96 square feet. (R*)
c. Maximum grade differential: 60 inches above the adjacent Streetscape grade. (R*)
d. Placement: Adjacent to a primary entrance. (R*)
e. Each Porch shall have 100% structural shading. (R*)
f.Porch floor shall consist concrete, stone, metal, wood decking, or equivalent
alternative suitable for outdoor flooring. (T)
g. Walls/fences, if provided, shall not exceed 40” in height.
2. Pedestrian access. A pedestrian connection to the adjacent Streetscape Zone from each
Porch shall be provided. (R*)
3. Minimum building frontage requirements. If a Porch is deeper than the applicable
Frontage Zone depth for that street and Character Area, the width of the Porch shall still
count towards the minimum building frontage requirement(s), so long as the front (street
side) of the Porch is located within or abutting the Frontage Zone. (R*)
E. Common Entry (CE). A Common Entry is a building façade
design element which includes ground floor entrance(s) to a
shared lobby/hallway, which in turns provides direct access
to residential units and/or office suites on all floors. This
frontage element is generally not intended for use with
frontages consisting primarily of retail suites. Elevations
should include a large number of transparent windows and
frequent building entrances to create visual interest from the
adjacent public sidewalk, though to a lesser extent than
Storefront. This frontage element should also include
cantilevered canopies or awnings.
1. Primary entrance requirements.
a. A minimum of one primary entrance leading to a shared lobby/hallway is required
from each frontage on a Pedestrian Street. For sites located at an Enhanced
Corner, the corner building entry may serve as the required primary entrance for both
street frontages. (R*)
Exhibit A 40 Ordinance G-####
b. Additional primary entrances are required on each Pedestrian Street frontage at the
rate of one per 100 feet of building frontage. Each additional primary entrance
(beyond the minimum one per street frontage) may provide access to either a shared
lobby/hallway or an individual commercial/office suite. (R*)
c. Stoops or doorwells may be provided as part of any Common Entry frontage, even if
Stoop/Doorwell is not a permitted Frontage Element per the applicable Streetscape
and Frontage Zone Matrix, so long as they comply with all Stoop/Doorwell
development standards.
2. Glazing requirements:
a. Location: The area between 3 feet and 8 feet above the adjacent sidewalk grade.
b. Minimum amount: 50% of each required building frontage, which may include
primary entrances if the doors are glass and meet visibility requirements. (R*)
c. Glazing requirements shall be calculated as a percentage of the Common Entry
frontage element length.
d. Glazing shall allow a minimum of 75% of the visible light (as specified by the
manufacturer) to be visible on either side of the window. This includes the doors for
any primary entrances located within the Common Entry frontage element. (R*)
3. Shade Requirements. A cantilevered canopy, fixed awning, or retractable awning shall
be provided along each Common Entry frontage element, in accordance with Section
1204.B.2, and the following:
a. Minimum depth: 5 feet. (R*)
b. Minimum length: 50% of the Common Entry frontage element length.
c. Minimum clear height: 10 feet, if not required greater clearance per Section
1204.B.2. (T)
4. Walls/Fencing.
a. Retaining walls may be provided as otherwise permitted by this Chapter. A
railing/view fence is permitted on top of a retaining wall to a height of 40” if required
for pedestrian safety due to the grade differential.
F. Forecourt (FC). A Forecourt is a pedestrian-oriented
design element, where a courtyard that is open to the
sky and the street (or two streets if located on a
corner) is provided. The Forecourt may be used as an
entry area and shared garden space for residential
uses, or as additional shopping, seating, or gathering
areas adjacent to and accessible from the street for
commercial uses. Art installations and other
pedestrian amenities are also appropriate uses within
a Forecourt.
Exhibit A 41 Ordinance G-####
1. Mechanical equipment, transformers, trash and recycling containers, and vehicular uses
are not permitted within a Forecourt.
2. Minimum building frontage requirements. If a Forecourt is deeper than the applicable
Frontage Zone depth for that street and Character Area, the width of the Forecourt shall
still count towards the minimum building frontage requirement(s), so long as compliance
with other Streetscape and Frontage Zone requirements (including but not limited to
slopes, landscaping, and amenities) is demonstrated.
3. Minimum glazing: 50% of the area measured between 3 and 8 feet above grade for the
portion of the building façade abutting each Forecourt. (R*)
4. A Forecourt should be a minimum 500 square feet in size, with a minimum street
frontage of 20 feet. (P)
Rationale: A forecourt needs to be of a minimum size to encourage gathering, while
also having a large enough frontage to encourage pedestrians to enter and create a
successful transition between the public and private realm.
5. Accessibility. Forecourts shall have a slope not exceeding 2%, except for approved
ADA ramps, and be grade-separated by no more than 24 inches above or below the
abutting Streetscape Zone(s). (T)
6. Pedestrian access. A minimum of one pedestrian connection to each Streetscape Zone
abutting the Forecourt shall be provided. (R*)
7. Primary entrance requirements.
a. Residential uses. At least one residential unit shall have a primary entrance from a
Forecourt, unless a primary entrance is provided which leads to a lobby or hall which
provides direct access to the abutting unit(s). (R*)
b. Commercial uses. Each ground floor commercial suite abutting a Forecourt shall
provide a primary entrance into the Forecourt, unless a primary entrance is provided
which leads to a lobby or hall which provides direct access to the abutting suite(s).
(R*)
8. Walls/Fences/Public Access. A Forecourt is a quasi-public area which is an extension of
the public realm. No walls or fences are permitted within or abutting a Forecourt, except
as follows:
a. Walls or fences not exceeding 40” in height.
b. Retaining walls, as otherwise permitted by this Chapter. A railing/view fence is
permitted on top of a retaining wall to a height of 40” if required for pedestrian safety
due to the grade differential.
c. View fencing (no solid/opaque portions) surrounding areas approved for outdoor
dining or outdoor alcohol consumption may be provided up to a height of 72” above
the forecourt grade.
Exhibit A 42 Ordinance G-####
d. Walls/fencing separating private residential patios which front on a Forecourt may be
provided up to a height of 72” above the grade of the forecourt, so long as all
portions of the wall/fence above 40” consists of view fencing, as approved by
Planning and Development.
9. Shade Requirements. A minimum of 50% of each Forecourt should be shaded with
landscape and/or structural shade.(P)
Rationale: Shade is needed in the hotter months to encourage users to gather in the
area.
G. Storefront (S). A Storefront is a building façade
design element which includes a ground floor elevation
with a large number of transparent windows and
frequent building entrances to create visual interest
from the adjacent public sidewalk. This frontage
element is traditionally used for retail, live/work, and
other nonresidential active uses and should include
cantilevered canopies or awnings.
1. Minimum building frontage requirements. If a
portion of the Frontage Zone occupied by outdoor
dining or outdoor liquor service is deeper than the
applicable Frontage Zone depth for that street and Character Area, the width of the
outdoor dining/liquor service area shall still count towards the minimum building frontage
requirement(s), so long as compliance with other Streetscape and Frontage Zone
requirements (including but not limited to slopes, landscaping, and amenities) is
demonstrated.
2. Primary entrance requirements.
a. Each ground floor commercial suite located within a Storefront frontage element shall
provide a primary entrance on the street side that directly connects to the street. A
suite which abuts a corner may meet this requirement for both street frontages by
providing a single primary entrance at the corner. (R*)
b. A Recessed Display Entry may be included as part of a Storefront frontage element.
3. Glazing requirements:
a. Location: The area between 3 feet and 8 feet above the adjacent sidewalk grade.
b. Minimum amount: Per the table below. (R*)
Number of primary entrances* within Glazing Requirement:
Storefront frontage element:
One: 75%
Two: 70%
Exhibit A 43 Ordinance G-####
Three: 65%
Four or more: 60%
*A primary entrance may consist of more than one door. Doors must be
separated by at least 20 feet to be considered as a separate primary entrance.
c. Glazing requirements shall be calculated as a percentage of the Storefront frontage
element length.
4. Shade Requirements. A cantilevered canopy, fixed awning, or retractable awning shall
be provided along each Storefront frontage element, in accordance with Section
1204.B.2, and the following:
a. Minimum depth: 5 feet. (R*)
b. Minimum length: 75% of the Storefront frontage element length. (R*)
c. Minimum clear height: 10 feet, if not required greater clearance per Section
1204.B.2. (T)
5. No fencing is permitted within the Streetscape or Frontage Zones adjacent to a
Storefront frontage element, except as follows:
a. Retaining walls may be provided as otherwise permitted by this Chapter. A
railing/view fence is permitted on top of a retaining wall to a height of 40” if required
for pedestrian safety due to the grade differential. (R*)
H. Gallery/Arcade (GA). A
Gallery or an Arcade is a
building façade design
element where significant
and continuous structural
shade is provided for
pedestrians, often over the
actual public sidewalk.
Similar to the Storefront
frontage element, a large
number of transparent
windows and frequent
building entrances should be Gallery Arcade
provided to create visual
interest from the adjacent public sidewalk. This frontage element is traditionally used for
retail, office, and other nonresidential active uses.
1. Minimum setback requirements. A Gallery/Arcade may project into the Frontage Zone to
the property line and is not required to meet minimum setbacks as stated in the
applicable Character Area so long as compliance with other Streetscape and Frontage
Zone requirements (including but not limited to slopes, landscaping, and amenities) is
demonstrated. (R*)
Exhibit A 44 Ordinance G-####
2. Minimum dimensions. All portions of a Gallery/Arcade frontage element shall comply
with the following:
a. Minimum depth: 10 feet. (R*)
b. Maximum depth: 30 feet. No maximum for the portion of a Gallery/Arcade is being
used for outdoor dining, outdoor liquor service, or a public gathering space. (R*)
c. Minimum spacing between columns/supports: 10 feet as measured parallel to the
street. (R*)
d. Minimum clear height: 10 feet as measured from finished grade. (R*)
e. Maximum clear height: 25 feet as measured from finished grade. (R*)
3. Pedestrian use. All portions of a Gallery/Arcade frontage element shall have a walkway
provided for pedestrians. The walkway may serve as the actual public sidewalk, if
public easements are dedicated, or it may be provided in addition to the public sidewalk
located within the Streetscape Zone so long as the area under the Gallery/Arcade is also
open for pedestrian use.
a. Public sidewalk easement dedications shall be no less than the required sidewalk
width for the applicable Character Area. (T)
b. Outdoor uses (dining, alcohol consumption, or similar), if permitted by the Character
Area, may be provided within a Gallery/Arcade, so long as the greater of 5’, or the
minimum public sidewalk width (if there is no other public sidewalk) is left
unobstructed for use as a pedestrian walkway. (R*)
4. Primary entrance requirements.
a. Each Gallery/Arcade frontage element shall provide a minimum of one primary
entrance on the street side that directly connects to the street. A single primary
entrance provided at the corner of a building at a street intersection complies this
requirement for both street frontages. (R*)
b. A Recessed Display Entry may be included as part of a Gallery/Arcade frontage
element.
5. Glazing requirements:
a. Location: The area between 3 feet and 8 feet above the adjacent sidewalk grade for
the portion of the building that is a Gallery/Arcade Frontage Element. (R*)
b. Minimum amount: Per the table below. (R*)
Number of primary entrances* within Glazing Requirement:
Gallery/Arcade frontage element:
One: 75%
Two: 70%
Three: 65%
Four or more: 60%
*A primary entrance may consist of more than one door. Doors must be
separated by at least 20 feet to be considered as a separate primary entrance.
Exhibit A 45 Ordinance G-####
c. Glazing requirements shall be calculated as a percentage of the Gallery/Arcade
frontage element length.
6. Walls/Fencing.
a. No walls or fences are permitted in the Frontage Zone adjacent to a Gallery/Arcade
frontage element which separates the Gallery/Arcade from the Frontage Zone.
b. Walls and fences within a Gallery/Arcade may be provided to separate outdoor
dining or other permitted outdoor uses from the public walkway, if compliance with
both of the following is demonstrated:
(1) A minimum 5 foot walkway clearance (or the minimum sidewalk width, if the
public sidewalk has been located within the Gallery/Arcade) is maintained.
(2) View fencing (no solid/opaque portions) may be provided up to a height of 72
inches above the Gallery/Arcade grade.
I. Recessed Display Entry. A Recessed Display
Entry is not a separate frontage element; rather it is
a feature which may be included as part of a
Common Entry, Storefront or Gallery/Arcade
frontage element. The characteristics of a
Recessed Display Entry are as follows:
1. Consists of a primary entrance to a public space
(retail, restaurant, lobby/reception, etc.) recessed
from the façade of the building, and is shaded by
the upper portion of the building.
2. Minimum depth to primary entrance: 5 feet. (R*).
3. Maximum depth to primary entrance: 25 feet.
(R*)
4. Minimum clear height: 8 feet on private property; 10 feet if permitted to project within
public ROW or into a public sidewalk easement. (T)
5. Glazing provided within the Recessed Display Entry counts toward the minimum
required glazing for the associated Frontage Element.
6. Shade provided by a Recessed Display Entry counts towards the minimum requirement
for the associated Frontage Element.
7. No portion of a Recessed Display Entry may be fenced off, unless included as a part of
an outdoor dining/bar/patio which is otherwise allowed.
Exhibit A 46 Ordinance G-####
8. If a Recessed Display Entry is deeper than the applicable Frontage Zone depth for that
street and Character Area, the width of the Recessed Display Entry shall still count
towards the minimum building frontage requirement(s), so long as compliance with other
Streetscape and Frontage Zone requirements (including but not limited to slopes,
landscaping, and amenities) is demonstrated.
J. Grand Entry (GR). A Grand Entry is
a building façade design element
which includes the most important
pedestrian entrance to the building,
indicated by significant architectural
features and windows which may be
provided more for visual impact than
actual need. A Grand Entry should
also incorporate significant public
gathering space(s), pedestrian
amenities, and art. A Grand Entry
may also incorporate vehicular
passenger loading and valet functions, including a porte-cochere, if the proposed use allows
it. A Grand Entry would typically be used in conjunction with hotels, government buildings,
educational institutions, hospitals, large office buildings, large residential and mixed-use
buildings, and large assembly uses.
1. Applicability. A Grand Entry frontage element may be provided for the following uses if
also permitted by the Frontage and Streetscape Zone Matrix for the applicable Character
Area: (R*)
a. Hotels.
b. Government buildings.
c. Schools/educational institutions.
d. Hospitals.
e. Office, retail, assembly, and mixed use buildings 100,000 square feet (gross) or
larger.
f. Residential buildings with at least 100,000 square feet (gross) or 100 dwelling units.
Exhibit A 47 Ordinance G-####
2. Main Entrance. A Grand Entry frontage element must serve as the main and most
prominent entrance to the building for pedestrians. At least one primary entrance shall
be provided which leads to a lobby or other internal gathering area which provides
access to any ground-level suites and upper stories. (R*)
3. Architecture. A Grand Entry should consist of architectural features which are prominent
and intended to attract users to the main entry. These features may extend above the
height of the Frontage Zone. Examples are: porticos/columns, large sets of steps;
significant structural shade; extensive and imaginative use of colors, textures, windows,
and/or lighting; prominent exterior works of art; and monuments. Signage may also
contribute if otherwise in compliance with applicable sign regulations. (R*)
4. Pedestrian Accessibility. Pedestrian access to the primary entrance must be visually
obvious, preferably by use of materials and colors. The access route should be greater
in width than any minimum required for ADA accessibility and commensurate in scale
with the architectural features of the Grand Entry. Pedestrian routes may cross
vehicular areas but must otherwise be segregated from vehicular traffic. (R*)
5. Passenger Loading. A passenger loading zone, including a porte-cochere, may be part
of a Grand Entry and located within the Frontage Zone if it complies with all of the
following: (R*)
a. It does not preclude installation of required Streetscape and Frontage Zone
improvements, including trees; and
b. It allows for the most intuitive and direct pedestrian access to the primary entrance
from the Streetscape Zone.
6. Valet Parking. A valet parking station and valet parking zone, including a porte-cochere,
may be incorporated within a Grand Entry if it complies with all of the following: (R*)
(1) It is a permitted accessory use per the Land Use Matrix;
(2) It is constructed in accordance with Section 1206.G.
(3) It does not preclude installation of required Streetscape and Frontage Zone
improvements, including trees; and
(4) It allows for the most intuitive and direct pedestrian access to the primary
entrance from the Streetscape Zone.
7. Trash and recycling containers, service areas, and commercial loading areas are not
permitted to be incorporated within a Grand Entry, or within the adjacent Streetscape or
Frontage Zones. Mechanical equipment and transformers/utility equipment may be
provided only if located within a building or subterranean ground vault. (R*)
8. Minimum building frontage requirements. If a Grand Entry incorporates pedestrian
plazas, outdoor dining, outdoor liquor service, or other improved public gathering areas
which are deeper than the applicable Frontage Zone depth for that street and Character
Area, the width of the gathering areas shall still count towards the minimum building
frontage requirement(s), so long as compliance with other Streetscape and Frontage
Exhibit A 48 Ordinance G-####
Zone requirements (including but not limited to slopes, landscaping, and amenities) is
demonstrated. (R*)
Exhibit A 49 Ordinance G-####
Section 1206. Parking, Loading, and Vehicular Access
A. Applicability. All provisions of Section 702, “Off-Street Parking and Loading” apply to
properties located within Downtown, unless specifically modified by this Chapter.
1. For additional Buffer Alley regulations, see Section 1207.L.
2. For additional Arts, Culture, Small Business Area regulations, see Section 1207.M.
B. Automobile Parking Requirements. Parking for automobiles shall be provided as follows:
1. Residential units.
a. Minimum: 1 space per dwelling unit.
b. Maximum: 2 spaces per dwelling unit, plus 1 space per 1,000 sf of gross square
footage for leasing/residential management office and Shared Amenity Areas.
2. Non-residential uses.
a. Minimum: 1 space per 1,000 square feet of gross building square footage, except in
the Business Core and Warehouse character areas, where no minimum parking is
required.
b. Maximum: 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross building square footage.
3. Parking reductions identified in Section 702.E are not applicable within Downtown.
However, parking reductions and other modifications may be earned by the application
of sustainability bonus points, per the provisions of Section 1223.
4. Location of automobile parking.
a. Lots having only one or two dwelling units (no mixed uses): required spaces may not
be provided within any Frontage Zone. An on-site driveway leading to designated
parking spaces may be provided within a Frontage Zone if not in excess of 18 feet
wide and if otherwise permitted by this Chapter. (R*)
b. Multi-family, mixed use, and non-residential developments: no surface parking is
allowed within any Frontage Zone. Drive aisles may cross a Frontage Zone when
access from the adjacent street is otherwise permitted. (R*)
c. Parking located within structures, including underground parking, is subject to the
requirements of Section 1207.J.
d. Off-site parking. Off-site parking not located within a public right-of-way may account
for up to 50% of the required automobile parking, with approval of a use permit and
compliance with all the provisions of Section 702.E.9.
Exhibit A 50 Ordinance G-####
C. Maneuvering. All maneuvering for automobile parking spaces, passenger loading, and
service/goods loading shall be provided on-site, subject to the following:
1. Maneuvering within a public right of-way shall be allowed as follows:
a. Maneuvering within a public alley is permitted by right if the alley is a minimum 20
feet wide, and then only if access to the alley is permitted per other City regulations;
or
b. Maneuvering in public right-of-way may be permitted with approval of a Technical
Appeal which demonstrates that adequate space is being provided for the safe
maneuvering of vehicles within the right-of-way. Additional requirements, such as
but not limited to dedications, pavement widening, and/or removal of utility poles may
be stipulated as part of the Technical Appeal approval. (T)
D. Electric Vehicle Charging. The following development regulations apply to electric vehicle
charging (EVC) spaces provided within parking areas within Downtown:
1. EVC spaces may be counted as part of the required minimum number parking spaces.
(R)
2. EVC spaces shall not be counted as part of required maximum number of parking
spaces. (R)
3. All EVC spaces, charging stations, and associated transformers or other mechanical
equipment, shall be provided on site and not in any required landscape setback,
required landscape area, or Frontage Zone. (R)(R*)
E. Bicycle Parking. Parking and amenities for bicycles shall be provided as follows:
1. Multi-family residential development shall provide shared bicycle parking at the rate of
0.25 space per dwelling unit, with a maximum requirement of 50 spaces.
2. All nonresidential uses over 5,000 gross square feet shall provide 1 bicycle space per 25
vehicle parking spaces provided or portion thereof, with a maximum requirement of 25
spaces.
3. All nonresidential uses 100,000 gross square feet or larger shall provide 1 bicycle space
per 25 vehicle parking spaces or portion thereof, with a maximum requirement of 50
spaces. In addition, a minimum of 2 shower stalls and 10 personal lockers that are
available for use by the building’s occupants shall be provided.
4. Restaurants and bars totaling less than 5,000 gross square feet on one site shall provide
a minimum of 4 bicycle spaces in the Frontage Zone. If automobile parking spaces are
provided, 1 additional bicycle space for every 25 vehicle parking spaces as required for
the restaurant and bar uses shall be provided.
5. Bicycle parking shall not be located within a required public sidewalk or accessible route.
Exhibit A 51 Ordinance G-####
F. Service/Goods Loading Areas. The following requirements apply to short-term loading
and unloading of service vehicles with goods or equipment.
1. On-site loading shall be required for all developments per the following table:
Required Loading and Service Bays
Use Gross square footage of buildings (per site)
25,000 – > 40,000 – > 160,000 – > 320,000 – > 500,000
40,000 sf 160,000 sf 320,000 sf 500,000 sf sf
Multi-Family 0 1 per 150 dwelling units or portion thereof
Residential
Lodging 0 1 per each 300 rooms or portion thereof
Retail, 0 1 2 3 4 + 1 per
Commercial, additional
and Office 180,000 sf
Uses above
500,000
Industrial, 1 2 3 4 5 + 1 per
Manufacturing, additional
Storage, and 180,000 sf
Wholesaling above
Uses 500,000
Mixed-use developments shall provide the required loading spaces per each use
category shown in the table above.
2. Loading bays shall be a minimum of 10 feet in width and 30 feet in length. (T)
3. Location of Service/Goods Loading Areas.
a. Service/goods loading areas may not be located within a Frontage Zone adjacent to
a Pedestrian Street. (R*)
b. Service/goods loading areas may not be located within a public street right-of-way
unless compliance with all of the following occurs: (R)
(1) An encroachment permit has been obtained from the Street Transportation
Department for the design and/or structures provided as part of the loading area
(dock, loading ramp, etc.).
(2) The loading area does not reduce the required Streetscape Zone and does not
preclude the provision of required street trees and shading requirements.
(3) The loading area does not interrupt the required public sidewalk or other
dedicated pedestrian walkways.
(4) The loading area does not interrupt a designated bicycle lane.
Exhibit A 52 Ordinance G-####
(5) Compliance with Section 1204.B.5 regarding historic curb locations is
demonstrated.
c. Service entrances, loading areas, and trash/recycling pickup should be located
internal to the site or building, or adjacent to a Side Street or alley whenever
possible. (P)
Rationale: Pedestrian Streets should create a safe, secure, and welcoming
atmosphere for pedestrians, and should not have uses or functions which discourage
pedestrian use. Noxious uses and conflicts with service vehicles should be
minimized along Pedestrian Streets. Side Streets and alleys (which are not
designated Buffer Alleys) are preferred access points for service and delivery
functions.
G. Valet Parking. The requirements of this Section apply only for sites which are allowed valet
parking as an accessory use per Section 1203.D.30.
1. Location of Valet Parking Facilities.
a. A valet transfer zone (where vehicles are dropped off and picked up) should be
located internally to the building whenever possible. (P)
Rationale: Views of standing automobiles, and conflicts with pedestrians, should be
minimized.
b. A valet transfer zone may be provided within a Frontage Zone adjacent to a Side
Street, so long as it does not preclude compliance with other Streetscape and
Frontage Zone standards, including driveway access and placement. A valet
transfer zone may be combined with a service/goods loading area when located
adjacent to a Side Street. (R*)
c. A valet transfer zone may be provided within a Frontage Zone adjacent to a
Pedestrian Street, subject to the following: (R*)
(1) Compliance with the driveway and vehicular access regulations of Section
1206.H is demonstrated.
(2) Compliance with other applicable Frontage Zone and Streetscape Zone
requirements for Pedestrian Streets (including shading, provision of street trees,
and minimum building frontage) is demonstrated.
(3) Valet facilities may not be located within the minimum street setback area.
d. Valet parking spaces (where cars are parked after being dropped off) may be located
off-site if in accordance with the provisions of Section 1203.D.
e. A valet transfer zone should have primary access from a street, rather than an alley.
(P)
Exhibit A 53 Ordinance G-####
Rationale: Whenever possible, vehicles should be dropped off and picked up from
a more intuitive location associated with the street address, particularly if the
parking is for patrons and visitors, rather than occupants of the building or site.
f. Valet parking facilities, including the valet transfer station, valet transfer zone, and
valet parking spaces, may not be located within a public right-of-way unless
compliance with all of the following occurs: (R)
(1) An encroachment permit has been obtained from the Street Transportation
Department for the Valet Parking Facilities.
(2) The Valet Parking Facilities do not reduce the required Streetscape Zone and do
not preclude the provision of required street trees and shading requirements.
(3) The Valet Parking Facilities do not interrupt the required public sidewalk or other
dedicated pedestrian walkways.
(4) The Valet Parking Facilities does not interrupt a designated bicycle lane.
(5) Compliance with Section 1204.B.5 regarding historic curb locations is
demonstrated.
g. Public right-of-way may be used to move vehicles between the valet transfer zone
and the valet parking spaces, if the valet parking spaces are located on a different
property, as otherwise permitted by this Chapter.
2. Design requirements for valet parking facilities.
a. A valet transfer zone shall comply with the following: (T)
(1) A minimum length of 60 feet.
(2) A minimum width of 10 feet.
(3) A maximum width of 16 feet.
b. A valet transfer zone must include an accessible vehicle pull-up space constructed in
accordance with federal requirements. (T)
c. A valet transfer zone shall not be used all or in part for any vehicle parking. Short
term vehicle standing of up to 30 minutes is permitted during hours of operation of
the valet parking facilities. (T)
H. General Driveway and Access Regulations. This section regulates driveways and
access from streets to private property. Access from any street to a property must be in
compliance with the provisions of this Section.
1. Properties with HP designation. Driveways for properties with HP zoning or designation
may be located, designed, constructed, or reconstructed in a historic manner and
dimensions as approved in writing by the Historic Preservation Officer.
2. Arterial Streets.
Exhibit A 54 Ordinance G-####
a. Access for automobile parking, valet parking facilities, passenger loading zones, and
Service/Goods Loading Areas is permitted from the following arterial Pedestrian
Streets, regardless of other site frontages or regulations of this Chapter:
(1) 7th Street
(2) 7th Avenue
(3) McDowell Road
(4) Van Buren Street
(5) Buckeye Road
b. Maximum driveway width: 40 feet, or wider as approved by Street Transportation
when requiring islands for restricted turns. (T)
c. All other provisions for Pedestrian Streets apply.
3. Pedestrian Streets. Driveways and access to private property from Pedestrian Streets
are subject to the following:
a. Automobile Parking. Access is permitted from a Pedestrian Street only when one of
the following applies: (R*)
(1) The development site has no other frontage on an alley or side street; or
(2) The parking area has at least one additional access point from an alley or side
street.
b. Service/Goods Loading Areas are not permitted access from a Pedestrian Street
unless the loading area is located completely within the building; within a parking
garage, or screened from view from the street. Screening may consist of the
following: (R*)
(1) Green screen.
(2) Dense landscaping which provides screening starting from the time of initial
installation.
(3) Underground utility vaults.
(4) Buildings.
c. Passenger loading zones are permitted access from a Pedestrian Street.
d. Maximum driveway width: 30 feet. When a site has only Pedestrian Street
frontages, additional width may be granted through approval of a Technical Appeal
(T).
e. Minimum separation between driveways: 30 feet. (T)
(1) Properties which have a maximum of two dwelling units (no mixed primary uses)
have no minimum separation except as may be required by City policies for
safety and visibility. (T)
Exhibit A 55 Ordinance G-####
(2) Other City policies and ordinances regulating the design of driveways, including
but not limited to required visibility, restricted turn movements, and distances
from intersections may require a greater separation than 30 feet. (T)
4. Side Streets. Driveways and access to private property from Side Streets are subject to
the following:
a. Access for all types of vehicular uses is permitted from a Side Street.
b. Maximum driveway width: 40 feet. (T)
c. Minimum separation between driveways: 20 feet. (R*)
(1) Properties which have a maximum of two dwelling units (no mixed primary uses)
have no minimum separation except as may be required by City policies for
safety and visibility. (T)
(2) Other City policies and ordinances regulating the design of driveways, including
but not limited to: required visibility, restricted turn movements, and distances
from intersections may require a greater separation than 20 feet. (T)
5. Alleys. Driveways and access to private property from alleys are subject to the
following:
a. Access is not permitted from a Buffer Alley, unless in compliance with Section
1207.L. (R)
b. Automobile Parking. Access is permitted from an alley, subject to the following:
(1) The alley pavement must be (or be widened to) a minimum 20 feet wide and
unobstructed for the length of the property; (T)
(2) If the parking area has more than 100 spaces, the alley pavement is a minimum
20’ wide and unobstructed for the full length of the block, unless otherwise
approved through a Technical Appeal. (T)
c. Passenger loading zones should not have primary access provided from an alley. (P)
Rationale: Rideshare and personal delivery vehicles should be able to access a
development from a more intuitive location associated with the street address.
d. Maximum driveway width: as determined by PDD and Street Transportation for
safety and visibility. (T)
e. Minimum separation between driveways: as determined by PDD and Street
Transportation for safety and visibility. (T)
I. Driveway Design Guidelines.
Exhibit A 56 Ordinance G-####
1. Appropriate visibility triangles and/or lines of sight shall be provided for driveways. The
visibility triangles shall provide for visibility of pedestrians on the public sidewalk, as well
as vehicles in the street. (T)
Rationale: Vehicles exiting from a site or parking garage should be able to see cars on
the street, as well as pedestrians on the sidewalk (and vice versa). Alternatives, such as
mirrors, pedestrian safety signage, etc. may be approved as part of a Technical Appeal
when standard visibility requirements cannot be met.
2. Specialty paving, striping, bollards, or similar as approved by PDD staff should be
provided where a driveway crosses a sidewalk. (P)
Rationale: Where vehicular routes interface with pedestrian routes, warnings to both the
vehicles and the pedestrians should be visually indicated.
3. Shared access and driveways serving more than one development should be provided
whenever possible. (P)
Rationale: The number of driveways crossing sidewalks and bicycle routes should be
minimized to avoid conflicts and collisions. However, consideration and flexibility should
be applied when a primarily residential development is adjacent to a non-residential
development.
Exhibit A 57 Ordinance G-####
Section 1207. General Development Regulations.
A. Applicability. This section contains development regulations specific to Downtown. If a
conflict occurs between any specific Character Area regulations and the regulations of this
Section, the Character Area regulations shall apply.
B. Historic Preservation Development Regulations. Structures with historic preservation
designation are considered to be conforming and may be maintained, restored and/or rebuilt
at each structure’s historic setbacks and height subject to the provisions of Chapter 8,
Historic Preservation.
C. Projections.
1. Projections within the Streetscape Zone are regulated by Section 1204.B.2.
2. Projections within the Frontage Zone are regulated by Section 1204.C.3.
3. Projections within required yards adjacent to interior lot lines are not permitted, except
as follows: (R)
a. Roof overhangs, but not including covered porches, patios, or carports, are permitted
so long as no portion of the overhang is closer than 2 feet from the property line.
b. Other projections, when explicitly allowed by other sections of this Chapter.
D. Wall/Fence Requirements.
1. Historic Preservation designated properties. For residential properties designated
HP and HP-L, fences or freestanding walls in the front yard (the area between the
structure and the street right-of-way line) may not exceed a maximum height of three
feet. This height limitation extends three feet back from the front façade into the side
yard(s).
2. Within Frontage Zones, the following apply:
a. Walls/fences are limited to 40 inches in height, except as may be specifically
modified by other provisions of this Chapter. (R*)
b. Within a Frontage Zone which abuts a side property line (e.g. a “street side”), a wall
or fence up to 6 feet tall may be permitted if all of the following also apply: (R)
(1) The wall encloses a private residential side yard and/or rear yard on a lot with no
more than two dwelling units (and no other primary uses).
(2) No structure on the property exceeds two stories and 30 feet in height.
(3) No portions of the wall over 40 inches in height are located within a Frontage
Zone applicable to any other street frontage.
Exhibit A 58 Ordinance G-####
(4) No portions of the wall over 40 inches in height (36 inches if in an HP Overlay)
are located closer than 3 feet behind the front façade of the structure.
3. Walls/fences provided for screening of mechanical equipment shall comply with the
provisions of Section 1204.E.7.
4. Walls located adjacent to interior property lines or other locations outside of the Frontage
Zones shall comply with the regulations stated in the applicable Character Area.
5. Retaining walls located within Streetscape and Frontage Zones are regulated by Section
1204.D.
E. Height Transition Standards. For all new development adjacent to lots located in a lower
height zone, a stepback shall be provided to compensate for disproportionate height
disparities. This additional stepback provides for building separation and circulation of air
and light in a dense urban fabric.
1. Along an interior property line or a designated Buffer Alley which separates properties of
two different height zones, the minimum required setback shall be increased by 10 feet
for all portions of the building taller than the maximum height of the adjacent (lower)
height zone. (R)
Example: a building located on a property with a maximum height of 140 feet and a 10
feet minimum interior setback, sharing a property line with a property with a 65 feet
maximum height, has a 20 feet setback required for all portions of the building taller than
65 feet. The portions of the building less than 65 feet tall may be located at the standard
10 feet setback from the property line.
2. A stepback shall not be required in the following circumstances unless specifically
required by the applicable Character Area standards:
a. The proposed building is no more than 20 feet taller than the maximum permitted
height of the adjacent height zone.
b. The proposed building is adjacent to a height zone with a maximum permitted height
of 65 feet or greater.
3. The proposed building should respect the scale of existing buildings located on adjacent
properties and serve as an orderly transition to a different scale. Stepbacks, changes in
massing, or changes in materials and color starting at the height of the adjacent existing
building are highly encouraged. (P)
Rationale: Building heights with a vastly different scale than those on adjacent parcels
should have a transition in scale to reduce and mitigate potential impacts.
F. Landscape Standards. Landscape shall be provided in accordance with the following:
Exhibit A 59 Ordinance G-####
1. Landscape requirements of Section 703.E, as well as Section 507 Tab A, apply unless
specifically modified by this section or other provisions of this Chapter.
a. See Section 1207.M for special regulations applicable to the Arts, Culture, Small
Business Area.
2. Landscape within the Streetscape and Frontage Zones shall comply with the
requirements of Section 1204.G.
3. Landscape shall be provided for surface parking areas as follows:
Surface Parking—Landscape Standards
Interior surface area (exclusive of
perimeter landscaping and all Minimum 10% (R*)
required setbacks)
At ends of each row of parking and
Landscaped planters
approximately every 110 feet (P)
Minimum 5 feet wide (inside curb
Landscaped planters, single row of
measurement) for full depth of parking space.
parking
(T)
Minimum 5 feet wide (inside curb
Landscaped planters, double row of
measurement) for full depth of both parking
parking
spaces. (T)
As needed to meet 10% minimum requirement,
Additional parking lot landscape
evenly distributed throughout the entire parking
areas
lot. (P)
Minimum requirement: one per 100 sf of
landscape area (T)
Planter (single space depth): one tree. (P)
Required trees
Planter (double space depth): two trees (P)
All other areas: 20 feet on center or equivalent
groupings (P).
Minimum 2-inch caliper (60% of trees) (T)
Required tree sizes:
Minimum 1-inch caliper (40% of trees) (T)
Required shrubs: Minimum 5 shrubs per tree. (P)
Required shrub size: Minimum 5-gallon. (T)
Rationale: Parking lot landscaping and shade should be provided in a similar manner as
required for other commercial areas outside of Downtown. However, flexibility can be
exercised regarding installation of landscape materials in order to address on-site
conflicts, such as lighting, mechanical equipment, sight lines, required pedestrian
walkways, or similar. Requests to provide smaller than required planting areas, trees, or
shrubs may only be approved through a Technical Appeal.
Exhibit A 60 Ordinance G-####
4. All on-site pedestrian walkways shall be 75% shaded by trees and/or structural shade.
(R*)
5. All remaining areas of a site which are not Frontage or Streetscape Zones, surface
parking, pedestrian walkways, or amenities specifically permitted by PDD which do not
typically include shade (i.e. pools and pool decks), must be landscaped to provide 50%
shade. Properties having only residential uses, not exceeding two dwelling units, are
exempt from this requirement. (R*)
G. Multifamily Development Design Requirements.
1. The provisions of this section apply to all sites which include five or more dwelling units.
The provisions of Section 703.B, Landscaping and Open Areas in Multiple-Family
Development, do not apply to properties located within Downtown. (R*)
2. Where dwelling units are provided at the ground level adjacent to a Pedestrian Street, an
appropriate residential Frontage Element (such as Patio, Stoop/Doorwell, Porch, or
Forecourt) should be utilized to allow for individual dwelling unit access to the street. (P)
Rationale: Individual entrances promote more “eyes on the street”, due to greater use
of patios and other outdoor areas. Individual entrances also encourage pedestrian use
by creating more interest, as well as a feeling of smaller-scale design.
3. Shared Amenity Areas for the residents of multi-family dwelling units shall be provided
on-site, as follows:
a. The minimum Shared Amenity Area provided shall be per the following table (R*):
Exhibit A 61 Ordinance G-####
Minimum Shared Amenity Areas for Sites with Multifamily Dwellings
Up to 100 units None required.
101-300 units Minimum 2500 square feet
301+ units Minimum 5000 square feet
b. Shared Amenity Areas shall consist of the following types of spaces (R*):
(1) On-site open space provided in accordance with the provisions of Section
1207.H.
(2) Roof-top decks which are occupiable and do not exceed height requirements for
the applicable Character Area.
(3) Conditioned suites with amenities/shops/services.
c. All areas used to count toward the minimum Shared Amenity Area requirements
must be accessible to all users, in accordance with FHA and ADA standards. (T)
d. Uses open to the public, such as retail stores, restaurants, commercial gyms, bars,
etc. may be used to meet no more than 50% of the Shared Amenity Area
requirement. (R)
e. A minimum of two of the following amenities shall be provided within the Shared
Amenity Areas (P):
(1) Swimming pool and/or hot tub.
(2) Fitness center/sport court or facility.
(3) Tot lot/playground.
(4) Barbecue/picnic/common kitchen area.
(5) Gathering area with focal feature (fountain, firepit/fireplace, television, game
tables, kitchen etc.)
(6) Pet exercise area.
Exhibit A 62 Ordinance G-####
Rationale: Shared Amenity Areas should include a variety of amenities which may
be used by multiple residents, but are not shared with non-residents (such as an on-
site store, restaurant, or bar). Staff may approve additional types of amenities similar
to those listed above and meeting this intent. Two separate amenities in the same
category may also be approved.
H. Open Space Development Regulations. Open space, when provided for sustainability
bonus credits per Section 1223 or as part of a multi-family Shared Amenity Area
requirement, shall comply with the following:
1. Open Space shall be provided at ground level. Roof tops, areas inside structures, or
areas placed underground cannot be counted as open space. Outdoor areas provided
under a building overhang are permitted so long as they are fully open to at least one
Frontage Zone. (R*)
2. Each Open Space area shall abut and include a Frontage Zone. The area of the
Frontage Zone may be included in the minimum area and dimensions required for
qualifying Open Space areas. (R*)
3. Each Open Space area shall be a minimum of 500 square feet with a minimum
dimension of 20 feet in any direction. (R*)
4. All Open Space areas are subject to the design requirements for Frontage Zones, with
the following modifications: (R*)
a. No automobile uses (parking, loading, etc.) of any type may be provided within an
Open Space area.
b. Open Space areas with a dedicated public access easement may not be fenced or
walled off from the street except for low walls not exceeding 40 inches in height,
unless the height of the wall is further restricted by the Frontage Zone or Frontage
Element requirements.
I. Enhanced Corner Requirements. Developments located on Enhanced Corners (per map
in Section 1202.D) should be integrated with and oriented toward the corner, as follows:
1. A primary entrance that faces both streets and that serves as a main entry for the
building shall be provided at each Enhanced Corner. An entrance to a single
commercial suite or residence does not meet this requirement. (R*)
2. Additional building articulation, architectural features, signage, pedestrian amenities,
and/or art that emphasizes the corner and draws attention to the Enhanced Corner entry
of the building shall be provided. (P)
Rationale: An Enhanced Corner should be visually obvious and comfortable for
pedestrians to use as the building’s primary entrance.
Exhibit A 63 Ordinance G-####
3. If an Enhanced Corner entry plaza is provided which is deeper than the applicable
Frontage Zone depth(s), the building frontage along the corner entry plaza shall still
count towards the minimum building frontage requirement(s), so long as compliance with
other Streetscape and Frontage Zone requirements (including but not limited to slopes,
landscaping, and amenities) is demonstrated. (R*)
J. Structured Parking/Parking Garage Design Guidelines.
1. Where parking structures are visible from a street or neighboring property, they should
utilize approved Frontage Elements, art/murals, decorative materials, imaginative use of
colors and patterns, and/or permitted signage to fully screen vehicles from view and to
create interest at the ground level. (P)
Rationale: Parking structures, particularly ones with exterior unfinished concrete
masonry or panels, do not engage or create interest for pedestrians. The side of a
parking garage should never appear to be “blank”.
2. Parking structures shall be designed so that light from vehicle headlights, when parked
head-in in a parking space, is fully screened from view from all perimeter streets. (R*)
3. Parking structures should be integrated with the form and materials of the main site
structures, or the scale, form, color and materials of the immediately adjacent area. (P)
Rationale: Parking structures should not be a dominant feature of the building design,
and creative solutions should be integrated and/or complement the design elements of
other buildings on site or within the surrounding context area.
4. Rooftop lighting on a parking garage should be set back a minimum of 25 feet from the
perimeter of the rooftop parking structure and be mounted no higher than 12 feet above
the roof deck. (P)
Rationale: The direct source of light should not be visible from lower levels or adjacent
uses.
5. There should be a convenient, clear, safe and efficient internal circulation system within
the parking structure for both vehicular and pedestrian traffic including appropriate
signage and placement of pedestrian circulation cores (elevators and stairs). Pedestrian
routes should always be separated from vehicular traffic, except where required
crossings can be provided safely. (T)
6. Pedestrian entrances to parking garages should be separate from vehicular entrances.
(P)
7. Garage openings should be enhanced with specialty lighting, artwork, or materials to
visually notify vehicle drivers that pedestrians may be crossing, and vice versa. (P)
Rationale for J.7 and J.8: Safety at pedestrian and vehicular crossings should be
addressed with design.
Exhibit A 64 Ordinance G-####
8. Underground parking may extend to a height of five feet above finished grade, provided
that the garage perimeter wall does cause the Frontage Element assigned to that portion
of the building façade to become non-compliant with other required development
standards. (R*)
K. General Design Guidelines.
1. All building facades adjacent to interior property lines (i.e. not abutting or within a
Frontage Zone) should have a level of trim and finish equivalent with and
complementary to the Frontage Zone façade(s). (P)
Rationale: Most buildings within Downtown are of heights that they are visible from quite
a distance. Facades visible from the street or other properties should be of a quality
similar to that required for facades facing streets, and should never appear to be
unfinished or “blank”.
2. All buildings over 10 stories tall should be designed with a base that is visually
differentiated from the remainder of the building. The base may be between one and
four stories in height. (P)
Rationale: All buildings should be scaled at the base to relate and connect to pedestrian
uses.
3. Windows and balconies in near proximity that face each other should receive special
design treatment to increase privacy for existing adjacent residential uses by providing
one (or a combination) of the following, or similar as approved by PDD staff: (P)
a. Louvers;
b. Privacy screens;
c. Windows that start a minimum of six feet above respective finished floor;
d. Frosted or tinted window treatments.
Rationale: Existing residential units close enough to be impacted by new development
should be able to maintain their level of existing privacy. Incorporating methods of
screening with windows and balconies on new development can help provide the means
for maintaining this privacy.
4. Natural surveillance should be maximized in project design to encourage easy
observation of people and property near entryways, pathways, public spaces and
parking areas. (P)
Rationale: Safety and security for pedestrians should be addressed by design. Hidden
and obscures spaces can encourage illicit activity.
5. Building accents should be expressed through differing materials or architectural
detailing rather than applied finishes such as paint, graphics, or forms of plastic or metal
panels. (P)
Exhibit A 65 Ordinance G-####
Rationale: Building accents and detailing should be high quality and durability and not of
materials which can fade or deteriorate over time.
6. Architectural details such as exterior finish materials, architectural lighting and signage,
grilles, railings, downspouts, window and entry trim and moldings, shadow patterns and
exterior lighting should contribute to creating a coherent architectural concept. (P)
Rationale: While buildings should not appear too monolithic or monotonous, they should
also not appear to be an assemblage of many materials or designs without a common
theme.
7. Architectural elements. Accent materials and building design should contribute to
creating a coherent architectural concept that is consistent with the surrounding design
of the area. (e.g. architectural lighting and signage, grilles, railings, downspouts, window
and entry trim and moldings, shadow patterns and exterior lighting). (P)
Rationale: Character Areas were created to acknowledge the unique characteristics of
each area. New development and redevelopment should reflect the existing character by
use of similar and complementary architectural styles and accents.
8. Building materials. Materials from adjacent or nearby buildings should be incorporated to
help strengthen the character of the area. (e.g. doors, windows, pilasters, cornices,
arches and lintels) They should be articulated and expressed in a manner that is in
context with surrounding buildings. (P)
Rationale: Character Areas were created to acknowledge the unique characteristics of
each area. New development and redevelopment should reflect the existing character by
use of similar and complementary building materials.
9. Architecture and applied treatments that express corporate identity should be de-
emphasized. The building should be a unique structure that complements and blends
with the surrounding context. (P)
Rationale: Corporate identity may be utilized to create a unique identity that can be
recognized. However, the overall architectural theme should be the predominant feature
of the building.
10. All electric lines 12 KV and smaller, communications and cable television lines, and all
on-premise wiring shall be placed underground in developments where visible from
streets or adjoining properties. (T)
Rationale: Overhead utility lines are in many cases visually objectionable; can cause
issues with proximity to balconies; can obstruct direct pedestrian and vehicular routes and
visibility; and can restrict the ability to install required trees and other shading methods.
11. Freestanding detached monument signage should be integrated with the building
architecture. (P)
Exhibit A 66 Ordinance G-####
Rationale: Monument signs should incorporate elements of the building architecture
through use of similar colors, materials, and/or forms.
L. Buffer Alley Development Regulations. The following regulations shall apply to properties
adjacent to Buffer Alleys identified in Section 1202.E, in addition to any other requirements
of the Downtown Code:
1. Access to and vehicular maneuvering within a Buffer Alley is not permitted, except for
developments meeting at least one of the following criteria: (R)
a. Abutting properties that currently have legally established access to the Buffer Alley
and are not subject to the applicability requirements of Sections 507.B.2 or 507.B.3.
b. Abutting properties on which there are no more than two dwelling units and no other
primary uses.
c. Abutting subdivisions developed in accordance with Section 1203.D.27.
2. If non-residential loading or service areas (including for trash/recycling collection) have
established legal access from a Buffer Alley, loading, pickup and deliveries shall be
prohibited between 9:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m., unless a use permit is obtained. This
restriction shall be prominently posted on signs on the building adjacent to the service
area, as well as at the entrance to the property from the Buffer Alley. (R)
3. A stepback equal to the minimum required building setback, plus 10 feet, is required for
all portions of buildings taller than 30 feet when adjacent to a Buffer Alley. Additional
stepbacks may be required by Section 1207.E. (R)
4. For non-single-family developments, a minimum five-foot wide landscape area and
minimum 6-foot high solid wall on the alley side of the landscape area must be provided
along the property line abutting a Buffer Alley. The wall must be consistent with the
material, design and character of the primary building. (R)
5. All new mechanical equipment, including roof mounted equipment, must be fully
screened from view from a Buffer Alley. Solar panels and/or solar water heaters are
exempt from this requirement. (R)
6. All trash/recycling containers must be fully screened from view from a Buffer Alley,
unless alley collection services are provided by the City of Phoenix. (R)
7. Parking lot and security lighting, including building-mounted lighting, shall not exceed 15
feet in height, including lamp, pole, and base, for properties abutting a Buffer Alley.
Light fixtures fully screened by a building or other structure, and not visible from the
Buffer Alley, are exempt from this requirement. (R)
Exhibit A 67 Ordinance G-####
8. Decorative lighting (including but not limited to illuminative gases, fiber optics, or LED
fixtures) and lighted signage shall not be installed where visible from an adjacent Buffer
Alley. (R)
9. Windows, balconies, and rooftop decks on properties abutting a Buffer Alley should be
designed to protect the existing privacy of adjacent single-family residential uses. (P)
Rationale: These building features should ideally be oriented away from the Buffer
Alley. However, if provided, they should be mitigated with things like louvers, screening,
frosted/tinted window treatments, and relative window height (i.e. at least 6 feet above
the floor).
M. Arts, Culture, Small Business Area Development Regulations.
1. Applicability. The area indicated on the Arts, Culture, Small Business Area Map in
Section 1202.F is subject to the following regulations. In the event of a conflict with other
provisions of this Chapter, the more permissive regulation shall apply. The
development regulations of Section 669 (Arts, Culture, and Overlay District (ACOD) do
not apply to properties zoned Downtown Code.
2. Intent. The Arts, Culture and Small Business Overlay is intended to allow greater
flexibility in land uses and standards that will contribute to the vitality of Downtown and
will enhance community events.
3. Outdoor public events and performances. Outdoor events or performances that are open
to the public and that feature visual art, music, dance, theater, performance art, science,
design or cultural heritage are permitted, subject to the following: (R)
a. The outdoor event or performance must be staffed by an employee of an existing
business on the property and must comply with all applicable codes and ordinances.
b. The business’ items that are available for purchase during normal business hours
may be displayed outdoors and be available for purchase during the event or
performance. Payment for all items shall occur indoors. No other items may be
displayed for sale outdoors during the event or performance.
c. Outdoor events or performances are limited to Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays only.
d. Friday and Saturday events or performances shall be limited to the hours between
10:00 a.m. and 12:00 a.m. No amplified music or loudspeakers may be used outside
after 10:00 p.m.
e. Sunday outdoor events or performances shall be limited to the hours between 10:00
a.m. and 10:00 p.m. No amplified music or loudspeakers may be used after 8:00
p.m.
Exhibit A 68 Ordinance G-####
f. Hours and days of outdoor events or performances may be extended subject to
obtaining a use permit in accordance with the standards and procedures of the
Zoning Administrator section of the Zoning Ordinance.
g. Outdoor events or performances in Downtown shall be a minimum of 300 feet from
an adjacent Character Area that is not included in the Arts, Culture, and Small
Business Area depicted on the map in Section 1202.F and from any single-family
zoning district outside of Downtown.
4. Accessory uses.
a. Home occupations are permitted subject to the following:
(1) Employees are permitted, subject to obtaining a use permit in accordance with
the provisions of Section 307.A.7.
(2) No more than 50 percent of the dwelling unit may be used for any home
occupation.
b. The following accessory uses are permitted:
(1) Outdoor dining as accessory to a restaurant is permitted subject to the following:
(a) The outdoor dining area shall be a minimum of 30 feet from the boundary of
an adjacent Character Area not included in the Arts, Culture, and Small
Business Area depicted in Section 1202.F and from any single-family zoning
district outside of Downtown.
(b) The outdoor dining area and accessory public space shall be clearly
delineated by a minimum three-foot-high continuous fence, wall or planter.
(c) The outdoor dining area shall not be more than 25 percent of the primary
building’s ground level gross floor area. The outdoor dining area may exceed
25 percent to a maximum of 50 percent subject to obtaining a use permit.
(d) Hours of operation for outdoor dining area shall not extend beyond restaurant
hours of operation.
(e) The outdoor dining area shall not restrict or impede accessible access to the
building or the parking area.
(2) Outdoor crafting of art associated with the business inside the building when the
subject parcel abuts an arterial or collector street is permitted and subject to the
following:
(a) Storage of materials associated with the crafting area shall not exceed eight
feet in height and be limited to the rear and side yard.
(b) Storage area shall be fully screened with a solid wall or landscaping.
(c) Storage of materials associated with the crafting area exceeding eight feet in
height shall be subject to obtaining a use permit.
5. Signs.
Exhibit A 69 Ordinance G-####
a. A-frame signs are permitted on private property, subject to the following: (R)
(1) No off-site advertising is permitted.
(2) A maximum of one A-frame sign is permitted per 25 feet of street frontage.
(3) A maximum of six square feet of signage per side of the A-frame sign is
permitted.
(4) There shall be a maximum height of three feet from natural grade.
(5) All signs shall be removed daily at the close of business or event.
b. Shingle signs are permitted subject to the following: (R)
(1) A maximum of one sign is permitted for each business per facade if access to
business is available from that facade.
(2) A minimum clearance of eight feet from finished grade to the bottom of the sign
shall be provided.
(3) A maximum of five square feet in area shall be permitted per side.
(4) No backlit or cabinet signs are permitted.
c. Wall and window signs are permitted for structures existing as of May 2, 2008, as
follows: (R)
(1) Wall signs.
(a) The maximum square footage permitted per Section 705.D may be increased
by 25 percent.
(b) The maximum square footage permitted may be increased by an additional
ten percent if graphics comprise a minimum of ten percent of the overall
square footage of the sign.
(2) Window signs. The total area of such signs shall not exceed 40 percent of each
window area located on the ground floor of the building.
6. Parking, yard and area requirements for nonresidential uses or mixed uses containing
nonresidential uses.
a. For parking, yard and area requirements for structures existing as of May 1, 2008:
(R)
(1) Regardless of change of use or occupancy no additional parking or landscaping
shall be required.
Exhibit A 70 Ordinance G-####
(2) Structures may be increased a total of either 500 gross square feet or 25 percent
of the existing structure, whichever is greater, without requiring additional parking
or landscaping.
(3) Building additions may exceed the lot coverage of the underlying zoning district
by 25 percent, excluding those with Historic Preservation Overlays.
(4) Interior setbacks may be reduced by a maximum of 25 percent of that required
by the underlying zoning requirements, excluding those with Historic
Preservation Overlays.
b. Outdoor dining that does not exceed 25 percent of the primary building’s ground
level gross floor area shall not require any additional parking. The outdoor dining
area may exceed 25 percent to a maximum of 50 percent subject to obtaining a use
permit.
c. Unless subject to Buffer Alley regulations (Section 1207.L), vehicles are permitted to
maneuver in the alley when dustproofing/paving, adequate maneuvering space, and
visibility are approved by the Planning and Development Department.
d. Unless subject to Buffer Alley regulations (Section 1207.L), when vehicular access to
the site is provided from an alley, no landscape setback is required adjacent to the
alley.
N. Taylor Street Pedestrian Paseo Regulations.
1. Intent. The Taylor Street Paseo is intended to primarily serve pedestrians, connecting
the Van Buren Character Area to the commercial, educational, and cultural resources
and institutions located in the central portion of Downtown (generally east of First
Avenue). The Paseo will provide a mid-block east-west route alternative located
generally along the alignment of Taylor Street, to help mitigate the unusually long block
lengths between Fillmore and Van Buren Streets.
2. Applicability. The properties abutting the alignment indicated on the map below are
subject to the following special development regulations:
Exhibit A 71 Ordinance G-####
3. Easement dedication. Properties abutting the Paseo alignment are required to
dedicate a public pedestrian easement (hereafter referred to as "Paseo") per the
alignment as shown on the map provided in this Section.
a. The minimum width of the Paseo, and the public pedestrian easement to be
dedicated at the time of development is 20 feet, subject to the following:
(1) Where the Paseo runs between different properties, the dedication may be split
between the properties so long as the Paseo dedications from all properties are
made concurrently.
(2) If the Paseo is dedicated within or abutting a public street, the public pedestrian
easement dedication within the adjacent Frontage Zone shall be wide enough to
provide a minimum of 20 feet from back of curb to back of easement.
b. The Paseo may be provided as a pedestrian-only corridor between private lots, or
within and/or adjacent to a public street, so long as it is in compliance with all of the
applicable design standards and guidelines provided below.
Exhibit A 72 Ordinance G-####
4. Deviation from approved alignment. The alignment of the Paseo may be deviated by
up to 50 feet either north or south of the approved alignment under the following
conditions:
a. The deviation should not result in a misalignment of more than 90 feet.
b. A north or south connector Paseo, designed in accordance with this section, should
be provided on site when a deviation results in more than 20 feet of misalignment
within the block.
c. The revised easement location shall be dedicated prior to final site plan approval.
d. The deviated alignment can be used in place of the approved alignment. For sites
with an optional alignment two easements are not required.
5. Paseo Streetscape and Frontage Zone standards
a. Streetscape and Frontage Zone standards apply as stated in the applicable
Character Area Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix.
b. Streetscape Zone development regulations, per Section 1204, apply when the Paseo
is located within or abutting a dedicated street.
c. Frontage Zone development regulations, per Section 1204, apply within the portion
of the Paseo located on private property unless such regulations conflict with other
regulations specific to development of the Paseo stated in this Section.
d. If the Paseo is provided within or adjacent to a public street, the street should be
designed with on-street parking adjacent to the Paseo. (P)
Rationale: On-street parking provides a buffer from through traffic lanes, as well as
creating an environment encouraging the use of the Paseo as the main access point
to residential units or commercial suites fronting the Paseo.
e. A minimum of 50% of the ground floor abutting the Paseo should consist of active
uses and/or residential uses providing primary entrances from the Paseo. (P)
f. Each ground floor commercial suite adjacent to the Paseo should provide a primary
entrance to the Paseo. (P)
Rationale for e and f: The Paseo should attract pedestrians and be a safe place for
persons to walk and gather.
6. Paseo Design Regulations
a. An ADA compliant sidewalk a minimum of 8 feet in width and clear of obstructions
shall be provided within the Paseo. (T)
Exhibit A 73 Ordinance G-####
b. The Paseo should be a straight as possible and avoid meanders. (T)
c. The Paseo sidewalk should be a minimum of 75% shaded. If trees are used to
provide shade, the percent shading shall be calculated based upon tree canopy at
maturity. Structural shade may also be used to comply with the shading
requirement. (P)
d. Decorative paving (e.g. pavers, permeable pavement, colored and textured concrete)
should be provided within the Paseo when located on private property. (P)
e. The Paseo should be clearly separated from vehicular maneuvering areas. (T)
f. Automobile access to on-site parking areas or garages should not cross the Paseo,
unless the Paseo is located within or abutting a dedicated street. At all such
crossings, a crosswalk a minimum of 20 feet wide consisting of paint or contrasting
pavement should be provided. (T)
g. A minimum 15-foot by 15-foot visibility triangle should be provided at any intersection
with the Paseo and on-site vehicular traffic lanes. (T)
h. Paseo segments that cross surface parking areas should be designed with the
following elements: (P)
(1) A minimum 8-foot wide grade separated walkway.
(2) A minimum of 6-foot wide landscape strips on each side of walkway (or 12 feet
on one side).
i. The following lighting treatment should be provided within the Paseo: (P)
(1) 15-foot maximum height of lighting fixtures. When adjacent to a street, taller
streetlights may be provided in addition to the pedestrian-level lighting.
(2) A minimum of one foot-candle illumination should be maintained over the Paseo
sidewalk.
(3) Uniform lighting should be placed along entire Paseo, avoiding bright high glare
areas and low visibility dark areas.
(4) Lighting within the Paseo should be illuminated from dusk until dawn.
j. One of the following identifying markers should be provided at each street entrance
to the Paseo: (P)
(1) Bollard path light.
(2) Public art.
Exhibit A 74 Ordinance G-####
(3) Decorative directional signage.
k. Temporary security gating—In the event that a block’s Paseo is not fully developed,
and the Paseo is not located along a dedicated street, temporary removable fencing
may be erected at the entrances to the Paseo under the following conditions: (P)
(1) A pedestrian gate is provided that is unlocked during business hours.
(2) A revocable permit is obtained.
(3) The fencing is removed upon completion of the block’s Paseo.
Rationale for a through k: the design of the Paseo should encourage use by
pedestrians. Safety, security, and accessibility should work into all design elements,
as well as uses which engage and attract pedestrians.
O. Lot Coverage. When 100% lot coverage is permitted by right, or obtained by sustainability
bonus points, the following apply: (R*)
1. Interior property line setbacks may be reduced or eliminated.
2. Frontage Zone depths and minimum street building setbacks may be reduced as
approved by the Design Review Committee per Section 1224.A.
Exhibit A 75 Ordinance G-####
Section 1208. Biomed.
A. Intent. The Biomed character area, which is home to the biomedical campus, should be a
lively urban district with medical workers, researchers, and students. Restaurants and shops
on Garfield Street, Roosevelt Row, and Arizona Center are all located within a short walk
and development should be designed to reinforce pedestrian convenience to these areas
through a consistent pattern of shaded sidewalks. Small plazas and courtyards are
encouraged to be located along streets, typically near building entrances, providing
gathering places and "cool pockets" on hot days. Landscaped courtyards interior to the
campus should serve as mid-block pedestrian connections. Views of the landscaped
courtyards should be visible from the street, enriching the street environment.
B. Development Regulations. The following development regulations apply to properties
located with the Biomed character area. Where a “bonus” is indicated, the development
regulation may be modified within the range stated when sustainability bonus points are
earned per Section 1223, as approved by PDD staff or the Design Review Committee.
1. Maximum height: Governed by the height map, Section 1202.B, and height transition
standards of Section 1207.E.
a. Bonus: None.
2. Maximum density: Governed by the density map, Section 1202.C.
a. Bonus: Maximum 50% increase.
3. Maximum lot coverage: No maximum.
a. Bonus: None.
4. Minimum setbacks from interior property lines: None.
5. Required parking: Governed by Section 1206.
a. Bonus:
(1) Increase: Maximum 50%.
(2) Decrease: Maximum 100%.
6. Walls/Fences.
a. Frontage Zones: Per the provisions of Section 1207.D.
b. Interior property lines: Maximum wall height is the same as the maximum permitted
building height(s) for the property.
7. Signage. Signage is subject to the regulations of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Section
705, Table D-1, Commercial/Industrial Right-of-Way Low Volume Street Standards.
Exhibit A 76 Ordinance G-####
C. Streetscape and Frontage Zone Development Regulations. The following development
regulations apply to properties which abut the street sections indicated. All regulations in
the table are appealable to the Design Review Committee under the provisions of Section
1224 and considered as R*.
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix--Biomed
Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Minimum Frontage Zone
Street Section Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Setback Depth
Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
Garfield Street 5' 25’ 50% ALL 5' 20’
4th St. to 6th St.
McKinley Street 5' 25’ 50% ALL 5' 20’
4th St. to 7th St.
Pierce Street 5' 25’ 50% ALL 5' 15’
4th St. to 7th St.
Fillmore Street 5' 25’ 50% ALL 5' 15’
5th St. to 7th St.
Van Buren Street 0' 20’ 75% ALL 6' 12’
5th St. to 9th St.
4th Street 5' 20’ 75% SD, PO, S, 6' 14’
Garfield St. to Fillmore GA, FC
St.
5th Street 0' 20’ 75% S, GA, FC 10' 20’
Garfield St. to Fillmore
St.
5th Street 0' 20’ 75% S, GA 10' 20'
Fillmore St. to Monroe
St.
6th Street 5' 25’ 75% SD, PO, S, 10' 20’
Garfield St. to Fillmore GA, FC
St.
7th Street 0' 20’ 75% ALL 5' 15’
McKinley St. to Monroe
St.
Exhibit A 77 Ordinance G-####
(AFY) Active Front Yard, (PA) Patio, (SD) Stoop/Door Well, (PO) Porch, (CE) Common
Entry, (FC) Forecourt, (S) Storefront, (GA) Gallery/Arcade, (GR) Grand Entry, (ALL) All
Frontage Elements
Exhibit A 78 Ordinance G-####
Section 1209. Business Core.
A. Intent. The Business Core character area should function as a strong regional center for
employment, entertainment, conventions, tourism, and cultural institutions, drawing visitors
from around the country and attracting residents from throughout the region. The greatest
development intensity within the region should be located within this character area. New
development should be innovative and incorporate small public spaces that promote
pedestrian movement and comfort. The Business Core should have vibrant pedestrian
activity and be served frequently by multiple modes of high quality public transit.
B. Development Regulations. The following development regulations apply to properties
located with the Business Core character area. Where a “bonus” is indicated, the
development regulation may be modified within the range stated when sustainability bonus
points are earned per Section 1223, as approved by PDD staff or the Design Review
Committee, unless stated otherwise.
1. Maximum height: Governed by the height map, Section 1202.B, and height transition
standards of Section 1207.E.
a. Bonus (north of Madison Street): None.
b. Bonus (south of Madison Street, within the 80 feet base height category only):
Maximum height of 140 feet shall be permitted only with dedication of a 30-year
conservation easement over an existing building designated HP or HP-L, as
approved by HP. The property with the conservation easement must be located
between Madison Street and Lincoln Street, and within either the Business Core or
Warehouse character areas. Sustainability bonus points cannot be used to obtain
this height bonus.
2. Maximum density: Governed by the density map, Section 1202.C.
a. Bonus: None.
3. Maximum lot coverage: No maximum.
a. Bonus: None.
4. Minimum setbacks from interior property lines: None.
5. Required parking:
a. Minimum:
(1) Residential uses: governed by Section 1206.
(2) Non-residential uses: None.
b. Maximum: Governed by Section 1206.
Exhibit A 79 Ordinance G-####
c. Bonus:
(1) Increase: Maximum 100%
(2) Decrease: Maximum 100%.
6. Walls/Fences.
a. Frontage Zones: Per the provisions of Section 1207.D.
b. Interior property lines: Maximum wall height is the same as the maximum permitted
building height(s) for the property.
7. Taylor Street Paseo. Certain properties within the Business Core are subject to the
additional development regulations of the Taylor Street Paseo, Section 1207.N. The
affected properties are shown on the map provided within that Section.
C. Streetscape and Frontage Zone Development Regulations. The following development
regulations apply to properties which abut the street sections indicated. All regulations in
the table are appealable to the Design Review Committee under the provisions of Section
1224 and considered as R*.
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix—Business Core
Frontage Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Minimum
Street Section Zone Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Setback
Depth Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
Fillmore Street 5' 25’ Minimum ALL 5' 11'
3rd Ave. to 5th St. 50%
Taylor Street Paseo 0’ 20’ Minimum SD, PO, S, 8’ 13’, or 0’
7th Ave. to 3rd Ave. 75% GA, CE when not
located within
or adjacent to
a dedicated
street
Taylor Street 5' 20' Minimum S, GA, GR 8' 14'
1st St. to 3rd St. 75%
Polk Street 0' 20’ Minimum S, GA, GR 8' 14'
Central Ave. to 2nd St. 75%
Van Buren Street 0' 20’ Minimum S, GA, GR 8' 14'
3rd Ave. to 5th St. 75%
Exhibit A 80 Ordinance G-####
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix—Business Core
Frontage Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Minimum
Street Section Zone Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Setback
Depth Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
Monroe Street 0' 20' Minimum S, GA, GR 10' 16'
5th Ave. to 5th St. 75%
Adams Street 0' 20' Minimum ALL 5' 13'
8th Ave. to 7th Ave. 75%
Adams Street 0' 20' Minimum S, GA, CE, 8' 14'
7th Ave. to 3rd Ave. 75% GR
Adams Street 0' 20' Minimum S, GA, CE, 10' 16'
3rd Ave. to 2nd St. 75% GR
Washington Street 0' 20' Minimum S, GA, CE, 10' 16'
8th Ave. to 2nd St. 75% GR
Washington Street 0' 20' Minimum S, GA, CE, 8' 14'
2nd St. to 7th St. 75% GR
Jefferson Street 0' 20' Minimum S, GA, CE, 8' 14'
8th Ave. to 3rd Ave. 75% GR
Jefferson Street 0' 20' Minimum S, GA, CE, 10' 16'
3rd Ave. to 5th St. 75% GR
Jefferson Street 0' 20' Minimum S, GA, CE, 8' 14'
5th St. to 7th St. 75% GR
Madison Street 0' 20' Minimum S, GA, CE, 8' 14'
8th Ave. to 7th Ave. 75% GR
Madison Street 0' 20' Minimum S, GA, CE, 8' 14'
5th Ave. to 1st St. 75% GR
Jackson Street 0' 20' Minimum S, GA, CE, 8' 14'
7th Ave. to 5th Ave. 75% GR
Jackson Street 0' 20' Minimum S, GA, CE, 8' 14'
4th Ave. to 1st Ave. 75% GR
Exhibit A 81 Ordinance G-####
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix—Business Core
Frontage Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Minimum
Street Section Zone Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Setback
Depth Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
Jackson Street 0' 20' Minimum S, GA, CE, 10' 16'
1st St. to 4th St. 75% GR
Buchanan Street 5' 25' Minimum SD, PA, PO, 8' 14’
4th St. to 7th St. 75% S, GA
Lincoln Street 5' 25' Minimum SD, PA, PO, 8' 14'
4th St. to 7th St. 75% S, GA
8th Avenue 5' 23' Minimum S, GA, GR 8' 14'
Adams St. to Madison 75%
St.
7th Avenue 5' 25' Minimum S, GA, GR 6' 14'
Adams St. to Jefferson 75%
St.
7th Avenue None None None ALL 6' 14'
Jefferson St. to Harrison Required Required Required
St. alignment
6th Avenue 5' 25' Minimum S, GA, GR 8' 14'
Adams St. to 50%
Washington St.
5th Avenue 5' 25' Minimum SD, PA, PO, 5' 10'
Monroe St. to 75% S, GA
Washington St.
5th Avenue 5' 25' Minimum ALL 8' West 14' West
Jefferson St. to Harrison 50%
5' East 10' East
St. alignment
4th Avenue 5' 25' Minimum ALL 8' 14'
Monroe St. to 50%
Washington St.
Exhibit A 82 Ordinance G-####
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix—Business Core
Frontage Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Minimum
Street Section Zone Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Setback
Depth Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
4th Avenue 5' 25' Minimum SD, PA, PO, 10' 16'
Washington St. to 75% S, GA
Jackson St.
3rd Avenue 5' 25' Minimum ALL 8' 14'
Fillmore St. to Van 75%
Buren St.
3rd Avenue 5' 25' Minimum ALL 8' 14'
Van Buren St. to 50%
Washington St.
3rd Avenue 5' 25' Minimum S, GA, GR 8' 14'
Washington St. to 75%
Jackson St.
2nd Avenue 5' 25' Minimum ALL Per plans approved by Street
Fillmore St. to Monroe 75% Transportation Department.
St.
2nd Avenue 5' 25' Minimum ALL 10' 16'
Monroe St. to Adams 75%
St.
1st Avenue 5' 25' Minimum S, GA, GR 8' 14'
Fillmore St. to Madison 75%
St.
1st Avenue None None None ALL Per plans approved by Street
Madison St. to Jackson Required Required Required Transportation Department.
St.
Central Avenue 5' 25' Minimum S, GA, GR 10' 16'
Fillmore St. to Madison 75%
St.
1st Street 5' 25' Minimum S, GA, GR 10' 16'
Fillmore St. to Jackson 75%
St.
Exhibit A 83 Ordinance G-####
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix—Business Core
Frontage Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Minimum
Street Section Zone Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Setback
Depth Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
2nd Street 5' 25' Minimum S, GA, GR 10' 16'
Fillmore St. to Jefferson 75%
St.
3rd Street 5' 25' Minimum S, GA, GR 10' 16'
Fillmore St. to Jackson 75%
St.
4th Street 5' 25' Minimum S, GA, GR 5' 10'
Jefferson St. to Jackson 75%
St.
4th Street 5' 25' Minimum SD, PA, PO, 8' 14'
Jackson St. to Lincoln 75% S, GA
St.
5th Street 5' 25' Minimum SD, PA, PO, 8' 14'
Fillmore St. to Van 75% S, GA
Buren St.
5th Street 5' 25' Minimum S, GA, GR 8' 14'
Van Buren St. to 50%
Jefferson St.
5th Street 5' 25' Minimum ALL 8' 14'
Buchanan St. to Lincoln 50%
St.
6th Street 5' 25' Minimum ALL 8' 14'
Buchanan St. to Lincoln 50%
St.
7th Street 5' 25' Minimum S, GA, GR 8' 14'
Monroe St. to Jefferson 75%
St.
7th Street None None None ALL 8' 14'
Jefferson St. to Lincoln Required Required Required
St.
Exhibit A 84 Ordinance G-####
(AFY) Active Front Yard, (PA) Patio, (SD) Stoop/Door Well, (PO) Porch, (CE) Common
Entry, (FC) Forecourt, (S) Storefront, (GA) Gallery/Arcade, (GR) Grand Entry, (ALL) All
Frontage Elements
D. Signage Regulations.
1. Signage in the Business Core Character Area shall be governed by the regulations
applicable to signs for commercial land use as established in Section 705. Signs not
visible beyond the boundaries of the lot or parcel upon which they are situated or from
any public thoroughfare are not regulated as signs.
a. Signs projecting more than six inches from the front of buildings over the public right-
of-way shall be perpendicular to the street (i.e., 90-degree angle), with a maximum of
one sign per entrance. All signs that extend into or over the public right-of-way shall
be permitted only upon issuance of a revocable permit as administered by the City of
Phoenix. Each sign shall:
(1) Identify only one on-site business.
(2) Provide a minimum eight-foot head clearance. Existing signs with a minimum of
seven feet six inches clearance may remain.
(3) Project no more than three feet into the public right-of-way.
(4) Be indirectly illuminated from a shielded light source (i.e., not backlit or "cabinet"
sign).
b. Awning signs shall be permitted by right. Awning signs shall have letters no more
than ten inches in height.
c. Signs painted on the building surface or letters mounted directly to the building
surface shall:
(1) Be a maximum of one square foot of signage for each lineal foot of building
elevation to a maximum of 100 square feet.
(2) Be at least half the vertical height of the letters to a building corner (vertical edge)
or to a roofline.
2. Signage may be increased by up to 25 percent by submitting a comprehensive sign plan
as provided in the Phoenix Sign Code, Section 705.E.
3. The foregoing requirements shall not apply to signs exceeding 56 feet in height
approved through a comprehensive sign plan and subject to the requirements of Section
705.D.3.i of the Zoning Ordinance.
Exhibit A 85 Ordinance G-####
4. Window signs fronting the public right-of-way shall not exceed a total of more than 20
percent of the window panel area.
5. Second-story or basement business fronting the public right-of-way may only use a sign
in a second-story window or use a wall sign. Awning signs shall not be permitted on
second-story windows.
6. Corner buildings shall be allowed signage on each street frontage.
7. Freestanding or ground signs may be allowed to a maximum of 40 square feet in area if
the primary building is set back 15 or more feet from the property line for more than 50
percent of the street frontage. Said sign shall be a maximum of three feet in height.
Signs may be up to 20 feet in height and 100 square feet in area if a comprehensive sign
plan is approved and if the project covers a full block or more.
8. Directional signs for accessory parking will be allowed to a maximum of six square feet
per sign per driveway entrance. Said sign shall be a maximum of three feet in height. No
more than 25 percent of the area may be devoted to business identification.
9. The provisions of Section 705.C.6.d (illuminated sign spacing from residential use) shall
not apply within the Business Core Character Area.
10. Signs, banners, balloons, flags, guidons, and similar devices may be erected subject to
a use permit in conjunction with special promotional events to be held within Downtown
of a civic or commercial nature. No more than 25 percent of the area may be devoted to
corporate sponsorship identity. Findings of approval of the use permit shall include:
a. The signs and other displays are appropriate in scale, composition, and manner of
display with surrounding development.
b. When two or more adjoining establishments are to participate equally in the event, a
single request for a use permit may be filed.
11. For master planned developments covering one or more downtown blocks (300 feet by
300 feet minimum), signs, banners, and flags may be erected subject to a use permit in
compliance with a comprehensive sign plan. Findings of approval of the use permit shall
include:
a. The signs and other displays are appropriate in scale, composition, and manner of
display with surrounding development.
b. The signs, banners, and flags are mounted and secured so as not to pose a
distraction or hazard to vehicles or pedestrians.
c. The signs and other displays shall include only logos, graphics and project name of
the master planned development.
Exhibit A 86 Ordinance G-####
12. Wall signs on buildings in a designated historic preservation zoning district exceeding
the applicable size regulations may be allowed by the Historic Preservation Commission
in accordance with the procedure set forth in Section 812.C.3 and upon the additional
finding that the proposed signage replicates the size, shape, and placement of the
original wall signage.
13. The following signs are prohibited:
a. Signs placed above or on top of any portion of the roof or front parapet.
b. Signs advertising goods or services not provided on the premises.
c. Signs utilizing moving, flashing, or rotating lights or mechanisms, except as provided
by a use permit.
14. For master planned developments covering contiguous area of at least ten acres, signs,
including those signs, banners, and flags otherwise prohibited by Sections 1209.D.10
and 13, may be erected subject to approval of a Master Planned Development Sign Plan
and related detailed project sign plans in accordance with the provisions of this section.
In recognition of design that contributes to and furthers the goals of the Downtown
Phoenix Plan, the City may approve a Master Planned Development Sign Plan to allow
larger and taller signs than are otherwise allowed within Downtown.
a. Sign types. In addition to other signs permitted in the Business Core Character Area
and those signs, banners, and flags otherwise prohibited by Sections 1209.D.10 and
13, the following sign types shall be permitted in a Master Planned Development
Sign Plan: aerial view signs, animated signs, architectural ledge signs, awning signs,
electronic message display signs, inflatable signs, kinetic signs, projected image
signs, projecting signs, roof signs, supergraphic 0signs, and wayfinding signs.
b. Master Planned Development Sign Plan application. A Master Planned Development
Sign Plan application shall include the following elements:
(1) Site plans, building elevations, or photographs, and design guidelines for each
type of sign to be permitted within the boundaries of the master planned
development. These plans and elevations/photographs shall indicate orientation,
size, location and method of installation of signs, including delineating on the site
plan the locations and orientation of ground-mounted signs and delineating on
the elevations/photographs the area in which building/structure mounted signs
will be contained. Design guidelines shall address, at a minimum, architectural
compatibility with primary structures within the master planned development.
(2) Context plan. The context plan shall include an aerial photograph of the master
planned development and the surrounding area with notations of the current land
use of parcels within the development and within 150 feet of the perimeter of the
development. The context plan shall also include photographs taken looking
outward from the perimeter of the master planned development at 100-foot
intervals for the entire boundary of the development.
Exhibit A 87 Ordinance G-####
(3) Standards. The standards and restrictions for each sign type shall include, but
not be limited to size, height, illumination, and durability of materials. The
standards shall also include calculations showing the maximum sign area
permitted per building face. In no case shall the standards exceed the following
limitations:
(a) Ground signs. Ground signs, which may be multi-faced, shall not exceed 50
feet in height and no single face shall exceed 600 square feet. The overall
height of ground signs, including sign embellishments, shall not exceed 67
percent of the height of the closest building.
(b) Building mounted signs. Aggregate area for building mounted signs shall not
exceed 100 percent of the facade to which the signs are attached, including
the building roof. Building mounted signs shall not project more than 20 feet
above the parapet or from the face of the building.
(c) Illumination. Signs facing or oriented to an existing residential use or structure
that has obtained a certificate of occupancy for residential use and located
closer than 60 feet to such residential use or structure shall not be illuminated
between midnight and sunrise.
(d) Temporary signs. Temporary signs shall be allowed at the same sizes and
heights as permanent signs. Temporary signs/graphics shall be allowed to
cover 100 percent of construction fencing and barricades.
(4) Narrative. A written narrative shall discuss the purpose and intent of the Master
Planned Development Sign Plan and its consistency with the Downtown Phoenix
Plan. The narrative shall also address the quantity and durability/anticipated
lifespan of the proposed sign materials.
(5) Architectural lighting. A Master Planned Development Sign Plan may include
provisions regarding architectural lighting, that shall be exempt from calculation
as sign area. Architectural lighting shall not include text, logos, messages, or
images of any kind. Architectural lighting shall not flash, blink, scroll, move or
stream.
c. Approval of a Master Planned Development Sign Plan. An application for a Master
Planned Development Sign Plan shall be submitted to the Planning and
Development Director or designee for review and approval. The Planning and
Development Director or designee shall approve, approve with conditions or deny
such application within 15 working days of receipt of the application. The Planning
and Development Director or designee shall approve such application only if the
following findings are made:
(1) The signs, banners, flags and architectural lighting are mounted and secured so
as to not pose a distraction or hazard to vehicles and pedestrians.
(2) The signs and architectural lighting are appropriate in scale, composition, and
manner of display with surrounding development.
Exhibit A 88 Ordinance G-####
(3) The signs and architectural lighting conform to the vision, goals and policies of
the Downtown Phoenix Plan.
d. Detailed project sign plan application. An application for approval of a detailed
project sign plan for a development within the boundaries of an approved Master
Planned Development Sign Plan shall include the following documents or graphics:
(1) Site plans, building elevations or photo simulations that show the placement of
the signs and architectural lighting within the master planned development and
on the specific building, structure or site.
(2) Graphic rendering of the signs depicting their lettering, illumination, color, shape,
area, and height.
(3) Details regarding any proposed animation or changeable messages, including
duration of each message and intensity of illumination.
(4) Proposed hours for illumination of the signs.
(5) A written narrative discussing the detailed project sign plan’s consistency with the
Master Planned Development Sign Plan.
e. Approval of detailed project sign plans. An application for a detailed project sign plan
shall be submitted to the Planning and Development Director or designee for review
for conformance with the standards, restrictions and guidelines of the Master
Planned Development Sign Plan. The Planning and Development Director or
designee shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny a detailed project sign plan
application within 15 working days of receipt of the application. The Planning and
Development Director or designee shall approve such application only if the
applicant demonstrates the following:
(1) The size and location of the signs, banners, flags or architectural lighting are
allowed under the standards of the Master Development Sign Plan.
(2) The scale, composition and manner of display of the signs, banners, flags or
architectural lighting conform to the standards and guidelines of the Master
Development Sign Plan.
(3) The type and hours of illumination and animation conform to the standards of the
Master Development Sign Plan.
(4) The durability of the materials proposed for the signs, banners, flags or
architectural lighting is appropriate for the intended lifespan of the signs, banners,
flags or architectural lighting.
f. Appeals. An applicant may appeal the decision of the Planning and Development
Director or designee regarding a Master Planned Development Sign Plan within five
working days of the decision. Appeals shall be considered by the Zoning Adjustment
Exhibit A 89 Ordinance G-####
Hearing Officer through the use permit process in accordance with the provisions of
Section 307 on the next available agenda. In addition to the standards of Section
307, the Zoning Adjustment Hearing Officer shall review the decision with the
standards for approval established in Section 1209.D.10.e.
g. Amendment. Any proposal to exceed the standards and restrictions established in a
Master Planned Development Sign Plan shall require amendment through the
process required for initial application and approval of a Master Planned
Development Sign Plan.
h. Specific signs. Requests for approval of specific, individual signs with a master
planned development may be included in an application for either a Master Planned
Development Sign Plan or a detailed project sign plan. Such signs shall not be
installed or erected before issuance of a sign permit from the Planning and
Development Department. If a specific, individual sign within the boundary of a
Master Planned Development Sign Plan is not included in either the Master Planned
Development Sign Plan or a detailed project sign plan, an application for such sign
shall be submitted to the Planning and Development Department for review for
conformance with the applicable sign plan and shall not be installed or erected
before issuance of a sign permit from the Planning and Development Department.
15. For master planned developments for sports, entertainment or concert venues with a
minimum of 4,000 seats, signs, including those signs, banners, and flags otherwise
prohibited by Sections 1209.D.10 and 13, may be erected subject to approval of a
Master Planned Development Sign Plan. The City may approve a Master Planned
Development Sign Plan to allow signs that are larger and taller than are otherwise
allowed within the Business Core Character Area within Downtown. All signage
permitted under this section shall be reviewed and approved in accordance with the
following:
a. Sign types. In addition to other signs permitted in the Business Core Character Area,
the following sign types shall be permitted in a master planned development: aerial
view signs, animated signs, architectural ledge signs, awning signs, electronic
message display signs, inflatable signs, kinetic signs, projected image signs,
projecting signs, roof signs, supergraphics signs, and wayfinding signs.
b. Master Planned Development Sign Plan application. An application for a Master
Planned Development Sign Plan shall be submitted to the Planning and
Development Director or designee for review and approval. A Master Planned
Development Sign Plan application shall include the following:
(1) Design guidelines. Site plans, building elevations, or photographs, and design
guidelines for each type of sign to be permitted within the boundaries of the
master planned development. These plans and elevations/photographs shall
indicate orientation, size, location and method of installation of the sign. This
shall include delineating on the site plan the locations and orientation of ground-
mounted signs and delineating on the elevations/photographs the area in which
building/structure mounted signs will be contained. Design guidelines shall
Exhibit A 90 Ordinance G-####
address, at a minimum, architectural compatibility with primary structures within
the master planned development.
(2) Context plan. The context plan shall include an aerial photograph of the master
planned development and the surrounding area with notations of the current land
use of parcels within the development and within 150 feet of the perimeter of the
development. The context plan shall also include photographs taken looking
outward from the perimeter of the master planned development at 100-foot
intervals for the entire boundary of the development.
(3) Standards. The standards and restrictions for each sign type shall include, but
not be limited to size, height, illumination, and durability of materials. The
standards shall also include calculations showing the maximum sign area
permitted per building face. In no case shall the standards exceed the following
limitations:
(a) Building mounted signs. Aggregate area for building mounted signs shall not
exceed 25 percent on one elevation facing an arterial street and 10 percent
on the other elevations, with the ability to transfer up to five percent from the
arterial elevation to one other elevation. Building mounted signs shall not
project more than 20 feet above the parapet or from the face of the building. If
the sign is placed at an angle to the building elevation, the applicant must
specify to which elevation the sign area will be counted.
(b) Supergraphics. Supergraphics signs not to exceed 300 square feet or five
percent of building elevation whichever is less.
(c) Illumination. Signs facing or oriented to an existing residential use or structure
that has obtained a certificate of occupancy for residential use and located
closer than 60 feet to such residential use or structure shall not be illuminated
between midnight and sunrise.
(d) Temporary signs. Temporary signs may be allowed at the same sizes and
heights as permanent signs. Temporary signs or graphics shall be allowed to
cover 100 percent of construction fencing and barricades.
(4) Narrative. A written narrative shall discuss the purpose and intent of the Master
Planned Development Sign Plan and its consistency with the Downtown Phoenix
Plan. The narrative shall also address the quantity and durability or anticipated
lifespan of the proposed sign materials.
(5) Architectural lighting. A Master Planned Development Sign Plan may include
provisions regarding architectural lighting, that shall be exempt from calculation
as sign area. Architectural lighting shall not include text, logos, messages, or
images of any kind. Architectural lighting shall not flash, blink, scroll, move, or
stream.
c. Approval of a Master Planned Development Sign Plan. The Planning and
Development Director or designee shall approve, approve with conditions or deny
such application. The Planning and Development Director or designee shall approve
such application in writing only if the following findings are made:
Exhibit A 91 Ordinance G-####
(1) The signs, banners, flags and architectural lighting are mounted, secured, and
operated so as to not pose a nuisance.
(2) The signs and architectural lighting are appropriate in scale, composition, and
manner of display with surrounding development.
(3) The signs and architectural lighting are consistent with the vision, goals and
policies of the Downtown Phoenix Plan dated December 14, 2004.
d. Appeals. An applicant may appeal the decision of the Planning and Development
Director or designee regarding the Master Planned Development Sign Plan within
five working days of the decision. Appeals shall be considered by the Zoning
Adjustment Hearing Officer through the use permit process in accordance with the
provisions of Section 307 on the next available agenda. In addition to the standards
of Section 307, the Zoning Adjustment Hearing Officer shall review the decision with
the standards for approval established in Section 1209.D.15.c.
e. Amendment. Any proposal to exceed the standards and restrictions established in a
Master Planned Development Sign Plan shall require amendment through the
process required for initial application and approval of a Master Planned
Development Sign Plan.
16. Signage may be increased by up to 25 percent if a comprehensive sign plan is approved
as provided in Section 705.E of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance.
Exhibit A 92 Ordinance G-####
Section 1210. Central Park.
A. Intent. Central Park has a strong historic single-family form and scale that should be
preserved as this area redevelops. A seamless integration of new buildings within the
existing fabric should be promoted. Mixed uses, home offices and workshops are allowed in
the primary structure and in appropriately scaled accessory buildings. Landscaping is
residential in character with front yards separating the building from the sidewalk. Sidewalks
are shaded by trees in parkway strips. Parking should be on the street and within detached
garages behind the primary structure.
B. Development Regulations. The following development regulations apply to properties
located with the Central Park character area. Where a “bonus” is indicated, the
development regulation may be modified within the range stated when sustainability bonus
points are earned per Section 1223, as approved by PDD staff or the Design Review
Committee.
1. Maximum height:
a. Main building: Governed by the height map, Section 1202.B, and height transition
standards of Section 1207.E.
b. Accessory structures, including Accessory Dwelling Units: 30 feet.
c. Bonus: None.
2. Maximum density: Governed by the density map, Section 1202.C.
a. Bonus: Maximum 50% increase.
3. Maximum lot coverage: 50%.
a. Bonus: None.
b. Additional lot coverage of 10% (total 60%) is allowed for accessory structures.
4. Minimum setbacks from interior property lines.
a. Primary building:
(1) Side: 5 feet.
(2) Rear: 40 feet.
b. Accessory structures:
(1) Side: 3 feet.
(2) Rear: 5 feet, which may be reduced to 0 feet when abutting a fully dedicated
alley which is not a designated Buffer Alley per Section 1202.E.
Exhibit A 93 Ordinance G-####
5. Required parking: Governed by Section 1206.
a. Bonus:
(1) Increase: Maximum 50%.
(2) Decrease: Maximum 50%.
6. Walls/Fences.
a. Frontage Zones: Per the provisions of Section 1207.D.
(1) Walls/fences taller than 40 inches may not be provided closer to the street than
the front façade of the structure. This provision does not apply to street side
yards.
b. Interior property lines: Maximum height of 6 feet.
7. Signage. Signage is subject to the regulations of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Section
705, Table D-1, Nonresidential Activity in a Residential District Right-of-Way Standards.
C. Streetscape and Frontage Zone Development Regulations. The following development
regulations apply to properties which abut the street sections indicated. All regulations in
the table are appealable to the Design Review Committee under the provisions of Section
1224 and considered as R*.
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix—Central Park
Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Minimum Frontage
Street Section Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Setback Zone Depth
Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
Tonto Street 5' 25' Minimum AFY, SD, PA, 5' 12'
Alley west of 1st St. 50% PO
to 4th St.
Hadley Street 5' 25' Minimum AFY, SD, PA, 5' 12'
Alley west of 1st St. 50% PO
to 1st St.
Hadley Street 15' 25' Minimum AFY, SD, PA, 5' 12'
1st St. to 2nd St. 50% PO
Hadley Street 5' 25' Minimum AFY, SD, PA, 5' 12'
2nd St. to 4th St. 50% PO, CE, S
1st Street 15' 25' Minimum AFY, SD, PA, 5' 12'
50% PO, S
Exhibit A 94 Ordinance G-####
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix—Central Park
Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Minimum Frontage
Street Section Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Setback Zone Depth
Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
South of Grant St. to
north of Buckeye Rd.
2nd Street 15' 25' Minimum AFY, SD, PA, 5' 12'
South of Grant St. to 50% PO
north of Buckeye Rd.
3rd Street 15' 25' Minimum AFY, SD, PA, 5' 20'
South of Grant St. to 50% PO
north of Hadley St.
4th Street 15' 25' Minimum AFY, SD, PA, 5' 12’
South of Grant St. to 50% PO
Hadley St.
(AFY) Active Front Yard, (PA) Patio, (SD) Stoop/Door Well, (PO) Porch, (CE) Common
Entry, (FC) Forecourt, (S) Storefront, (GA) Gallery/Arcade, (GR) Grand Entry, (ALL) All
Frontage Elements
Exhibit A 95 Ordinance G-####
Section 1211. Commercial Corridors.
A. Intent. The commercial corridors should become attractive gateways into downtown. New
wider and shaded sidewalks should provide safety and comfort, making it easier for
pedestrians and transit riders to access services in the corridor. New mixed-use
developments are envisioned to line 7th Avenue, with small restaurants, retail and other
businesses serving the surrounding neighborhoods. Along Central Avenue, a street wall
should be established that frames the street to create a gateway entrance into Downtown
from the south.
B. Development Regulations. The following development regulations apply to properties
located with the Commercial Corridors character area. Where a “bonus” is indicated, the
development regulation may be modified within the range stated when sustainability bonus
points are earned per Section 1223, as approved by PDD staff or the Design Review
Committee.
1. Maximum height:
a. Main building: Governed by the height map, Section 1202.B, and height transition
standards of Section 1207.E.
b. Accessory structures, including Accessory Dwelling Units: 20 feet.
c. Bonus: None.
2. Maximum density: Governed by the density map, Section 1202.C.
a. Bonus: None.
3. Maximum lot coverage: 50%.
a. Bonus: Maximum 85% lot coverage.
b. Additional lot coverage of 10% (total 60%) is allowed for an ADU.
4. Minimum setbacks from interior property lines:
a. Primary building:
(1) Side: 5 feet.
(2) Rear: 15 feet, which may be reduced to 0 feet when abutting a fully dedicated
alley which is not a designated Buffer Alley.
5. Required parking: Governed by Section 1206.
a. Bonus:
(1) Increase: Maximum 50%.
Exhibit A 96 Ordinance G-####
(2) Decrease: Maximum 50%.
6. Walls/Fences.
a. Frontage Zones: Per the provisions of Section 1207.D.
b. Interior property lines: Maximum height of 6 feet.
7. Signage. Signage is subject to the regulations of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Section
705, Table D-1, Commercial/Industrial Right-of-Way Low Volume Street Standards.
C. Streetscape and Frontage Zone Development Regulations. The following development
regulations apply to properties which abut the street sections indicated. All regulations in
the table are appealable to the Design Review Committee under the provisions of Section
1224 and considered as R*.
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix—Commercial Corridors
Minimu
Minimum Minimum Minimum
Frontage Allowed Frontage m
Street Section Building Building Streetscape
Zone Depth Elements Sidewalk
Setback Frontage Zone Depth
Width
7th Avenue Corridor
7th Avenue 5' 25' Minimum 50% ALL 6' 12'
Alley north of
Roosevelt St. to
Fillmore St.
Roosevelt Street 5' 25' Minimum 50% AFY, SD, PA, PO, 5' 11'
Alley west of 7th S, GA
Ave. to alley east of
7th Ave.
McKinley Street 5' 25' Minimum 50% AFY, SD, PA, PO, 5' 10' west of 7th
Alley west of 7th S, GA Ave.
Ave. to alley east of
7th Ave. 14' east of 7th
Ave.
Pierce Street 5' 25' Minimum 50% AFY, SD, PA, PO, 5' 10'
Alley west of 7th S, GA
Ave. to 7th Ave.
Fillmore Street 5' 25' Minimum 50% AFY, SD, PA, PO, 5' 12'
Alley west of 7th S, GA
Ave. to alley east of
7th Ave.
Central Avenue South Corridor
Exhibit A 97 Ordinance G-####
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix—Commercial Corridors
Minimu
Minimum Minimum Minimum
Frontage Allowed Frontage m
Street Section Building Building Streetscape
Zone Depth Elements Sidewalk
Setback Frontage Zone Depth
Width
Central Avenue 0' 20' Minimum 50% S, GA, SD, PO,CE 5' 11'
Grant St. to Hadley
St.
Central Avenue 0' 20' Minimum 50% S, GA, SD, PO, CE 5' 10'
Hadley St. to
Buckeye Rd.
Grant Street 5' 25' Minimum 50% SD, PA, PO, S, GA 5' 15'
2nd Ave. to 2nd St.
Sherman Street 5' 25' Minimum 50% SD, PA, PO, S, GA 5' 11'
2nd Ave. to 1st Ave.
crossover
Hadley Street 5' 25' Minimum 50% SD, PA, PO, S, GA 5' 12'
1st Ave. to alley east
of Central Ave.
Tonto Street 5' 25' Minimum 50% SD, PA, PO, S, GA 5' 12'
1st Ave. to alley east
of Central Ave.
Buckeye Road 0' 20' Minimum 50% S, GA 5' 12'
Alley west of Central
Ave. to 3rd St.
Buckeye Road 0' 20' Minimum 50% S, GA 7' 12’
Alley west of 3rd St.
to 4th St.
2nd Avenue 0' 20' Minimum 50% ALL 5' 10'
Grant St. to
Sherman St.
1st Avenue 0' 20’ Minimum 50% S, GA 5' 19'
Grant St. to
Sherman St.
1st Avenue 5' 25' Minimum 50% AFY, SD, PA, PO, 5' 18'
Hadley St. to Tonto S, GA
St.
1st Street 15' 25' Minimum 50% AFY, SD, PA, PO, 5' 12'
South of Grant St. S, GA
Exhibit A 98 Ordinance G-####
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix—Commercial Corridors
Minimu
Minimum Minimum Minimum
Frontage Allowed Frontage m
Street Section Building Building Streetscape
Zone Depth Elements Sidewalk
Setback Frontage Zone Depth
Width
1st Street 10' 20' Minimum 50% AFY, SD, PA, PO, 5' 12'
Adjacent to Buckeye S, GA
Rd.
2nd Street 15' 25' Minimum 50% AFY, SD, PA, PO 5' 12'
South of Grant St.
2nd Street 10' 20' Minimum 50% AFY, SD, PA, PO, 5' 12'
Adjacent to Buckeye S, GA
Rd.
3rd Street 10' 20' Minimum 50% AFY, SD, PA, PO, 5' 20'
Tonto St. to Buckeye S, GA
Rd.
4th Street 10' 20' Minimum 50% AFY, SD, PA, PO, 5' 10'
Tonto St. to Buckeye S, GA
Rd.
(AFY) Active Front Yard, (PA) Patio, (SD) Stoop/Door Well, (PO) Porch, (CE) Common
Entry, (FC) Forecourt, (S) Storefront, (GA) Gallery/Arcade, (GR) Grand Entry, (ALL) All
Frontage Elements
Exhibit A 99 Ordinance G-####
Section 1212. Downtown Gateway.
A. Intent. The Downtown Gateway should be a high-density, vibrant corridor with a mix of
residential and commercial development designed for transit riders. Restaurants with
outdoor dining, and commercial and retail uses should be placed along the street to invite
pedestrian exploration. Streetscape improvements throughout the area should be
encouraged to make light rail accessible and vibrant.
B. Development Standards. The following development regulations apply to properties
located with the Downtown Gateway character area. Where a “bonus” is indicated, the
development regulation may be modified within the range stated when sustainability bonus
points are earned per Section 1223, as approved by PDD staff or the Design Review
Committee.
1. Maximum height:
a. Main building: Governed by the height map, Section 1202.B, and height transition
standards of Section 1207.E.
b. Bonus: None, except north of Garfield Street, McKinley Street and south of Portland
Street where a 30% bonus is allowed.
2. Maximum density: Governed by the density map, Section 1202.C.
a. Bonus: Maximum 50% increase.
3. Maximum lot coverage: 100%.
a. Bonus: None.
4. Minimum setbacks from interior property lines: None.
5. Required parking: Governed by Section 1206.
a. Bonus:
(1) Increase: Maximum 50%.
(2) Decrease: Maximum 100%.
6. Walls/Fences.
a. Frontage Zones: Per the provisions of Section 1207.D.
b. Interior property lines:
(1) When a fully dedicated alley is present, view fencing shall be provided for all
portions of walls above 40 inches in height.
Exhibit A 100 Ordinance G-####
(2) When not adjacent to an alley, maximum wall height is the same as the
maximum permitted building height(s) for the property.
7. Signage. Signage is subject to the regulations of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Section
705, Table D-1, Nonresidential Activity in a Residential District Right-of-Way Standards.
C. Streetscape and Frontage Zone Development Regulations. The following development
regulations apply to properties which abut the street sections indicated. All regulations in
the table are appealable to the Design Review Committee under the provisions of Section
1224 and considered as R*.
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix—Downtown Gateway
Minimum Frontage Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Street Section Building Zone Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Setback Depth Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
Coronado Road 0' 20' Minimum 75% SD, PA, 8' 16'
Central Ave. to PO, S, GA
Alvarado Rd.
McDowell Road 0' 20' Minimum 75% SD, PA, 8' 16'
1st Ave. to Alvarado PO, S, GA,
Rd. GR
Lynwood Street 0' 20' Minimum 75% SD, PA, 8' 16'
West of Central Ave. PO, S, GA
to Central Ave.
Willetta Street 0' 20' Minimum 50% ALL 8' 16'
Central Ave. to 1st
St.
Culver Street 0' 20' Minimum 50% ALL 8' 16'
West of Central Ave.
to Central Ave.
Roosevelt Street 0' 20' Minimum 75% SD, PA, 8' 16'
Alley west of 1st PO, S, GA
Ave. to alley east of
Central Ave.
Portland Street 0' 20' Minimum 75% SD, PA, 8' 16'
West of Central Ave. PO, S, GA
to Central Ave.
Exhibit A 101 Ordinance G-####
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix—Downtown Gateway
Minimum Frontage Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Street Section Building Zone Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Setback Depth Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
Portland Street 0' 20' Minimum 50% ALL 8' 16'
Central Ave. to alley
east of Central Ave.
Garfield Street 0' 20' Minimum 50% ALL 8' 16'
Central Ave. to alley
east of Central Ave.
McKinley Street 0' 20' Minimum 50% ALL 8' 16'
Alley west of 1st
Ave. to alley east of
Central Ave.
Pierce Street 0' 20' Minimum 50% ALL 8' 16'
Central Ave. to alley
east of Central Ave.
Fillmore Street 0' 20' Minimum 50% ALL 8' 16'
Alley west of 1st
Ave. to alley east of
Central Ave.
1st Avenue 5' 25' N/A SD, PO 8' 16'
Alley north of
Almeria Rd. to
McDowell Rd.
1st Avenue 0' 20' Minimum 75% ALL 8' 16'
Roosevelt St. to
McKinley St.
1st Avenue 0' 20' Minimum 75% ALL 8' 16'
McKinley St. to
Fillmore St.
Central Avenue 0', unless more 20' Minimum 75% ALL per adopted per adopted
Coronado Rd. to needed to Central Central
Culver St. comply with Avenue Avenue
Central Avenue
Exhibit A 102 Ordinance G-####
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix—Downtown Gateway
Minimum Frontage Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Street Section Building Zone Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Setback Depth Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
Development Development Development
Standards Standards Standards
Central Avenue 0' 20' Minimum 75% ALL 8' 16'
Culver St. to
Roosevelt St.
Central Avenue 0' 20' Minimum 75% ALL 8' 16'
Roosevelt St. to
Fillmore St.
Alvarado Road 5’ 20’ 50% SD, PA, 8' 16'
Coronado Rd. to PO, S, GA
McDowell Rd.
1st St. 0' 20' Minimum 75% SD, PA, S 8' 16'
McDowell Rd. to
Willetta St. (Cancer
Survivor Park)
(AFY) Active Front Yard, (PA) Patio, (SD) Stoop/Door Well, (PO) Porch, (CE) Common
Entry, (FC) Forecourt, (S) Storefront, (GA) Gallery/Arcade, (GR) Grand Entry, (ALL) All
Frontage Elements
Exhibit A 103 Ordinance G-####
Section 1213. East Evergreen.
A. Intent. The East Evergreen Character Area centers on its incorporation of a historic
residential district along with residential offices and newer mixed-use/mid-rise
developments. New developments should be compatible with the size of existing buildings,
providing an alternative to high-rise housing and offices downtown. New mixed-use projects
should be integrated with the historic character of the area by preserving the existing
planting strips, palm trees, and landscaped yards on sites within or adjacent to the Historic
District. Streets and pedestrian corridors should be inviting and conveniently link the
neighborhood to services, parks, cultural facilities and public transportation.
B. Development Standards. The following development regulations apply to properties
located with the East Evergreen character area. Where a “bonus” is indicated, the
development regulation may be modified within the range stated when sustainability bonus
points are earned per Section 1223, as approved by PDD staff or the Design Review
Committee.
1. Maximum height:
a. Main building: Governed by the height map, Section 1202.B, and height transition
standards of Section 1207.E.
b. Accessory structures, including Accessory Dwelling Units: 30 feet.
c. Bonus: None.
2. Maximum density: Governed by the density map, Section 1202.C.
a. Bonus: None.
3. Maximum lot coverage: 50%.
a. Additional lot coverage of 10% (total 60%) is allowed for accessory structures.
b. Additional bonus: None.
4. Minimum setbacks from interior property lines.
a. Primary building:
(1) Sides: 3 feet; combined total of 10 feet required.
(2) Rear: 10 feet.
b. Accessory buildings:
(1) Side: 3 feet.
(2) Rear: 0 feet.
Exhibit A 104 Ordinance G-####
5. Required parking: governed by Section 1206.
a. Bonus: None.
6. Walls/Fences.
a. Frontage Zones: Per the provisions of Section 1207.D.
b. Interior property lines: Maximum height of 6 feet.
7. Signage. Signage is subject to the regulations of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Section
705, Table D-1, Commercial/Industrial Right-of-Way Low Volume Street Standards.
C. Streetscape and Frontage Zone Development Regulations. The following development
regulations apply to properties which abut the street sections indicated. All regulations in
the table are appealable to the Design Review Committee under the provisions of Section
1224 and considered as R*.
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix—East Evergreen
Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Street Minimum Frontage
Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Section Setback Zone Depth
Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
Lynwood 15' 30' Minimum AFY, SD, PA, 5' 10' North
Street 50% PO 9' South
West of 7th
St. to 4th St.
Willetta Street 15' 30' Minimum AFY, SD, PA, 5' 19'
West of 7th 50% PO
St. to east of
3rd St.
5th Street 5' 20' Minimum AFY, SD, PA, 5' 19'
South of 50% PO
McDowell Rd.
to Interstate
10 Freeway
(AFY) Active Front Yard, (PA) Patio, (SD) Stoop/Door Well, (PO) Porch, (CE) Common
Entry, (FC) Forecourt, (S) Storefront, (GA) Gallery/Arcade, (GR) Grand Entry, (ALL) All
Frontage Elements
A. Additional Design Regulations—East Evergreen.
Exhibit A 105 Ordinance G-####
1. Building materials. Primary buildings should incorporate a minimum 25 percent of
brick, brick veneer, or decorative masonry on every facade visible from the exterior. (P)
2. Window design. Window format should be square or rectangular and similar to existing
historic buildings. Window openings should be recessed or articulated, particularly at the
ground level. (P)
3. Roof forms. Buildings should incorporate one or more of the following roof forms:
gable (including clipped, and with parapets), hip, and flat with parapets. (P)
Rationale for D.1 through D.3: Building materials, building design, and building accents
should be inspired by the context of the area and create a coherent architectural concept
that is consistent with and strengthens the historic character of East Evergreen, preferably
by using historic materials and design elements already found within the Character Area.
Exhibit A 106 Ordinance G-####
Section 1214. Evans Churchill East.
A. Intent. The primary intent of the Evans Churchill East Character Area is to be a continuously
evolving arts-oriented mixed-use community. Home to unique art galleries and trendy
restaurants, the existing character consisting of arts-oriented uses coupled with various
small businesses should be preserved and additional developments should be consistent
with this character. New mixed-use development shares space with old bungalows and
historic homes, and new live-work units provide additional commercial spaces to cater to the
needs of artists. New pedestrian corridors create connectivity to surrounding destinations,
such as the downtown ASU campus to the south and Hance Park to the north, while new
open spaces will be added to serve the increasing number of new residents and create
opportunities for public gatherings and art display.
B. Development Regulations. The following development regulations apply to properties
located with the Evans Churchill East character area. Where a “bonus” is indicated, the
development regulation may be modified within the range stated when sustainability bonus
points are earned per Section 1223, as approved by PDD staff or the Design Review
Committee.
1. Maximum height:
a. Main building: Governed by the height map, Section 1202.B, and height transition
standards of Section 1207.E.
b. Bonus north of Garfield Street: None.
c. Bonus south of Garfield Street: 10% maximum increase.
2. Maximum density: Governed by the density map, Section 1202.C.
a. Bonus: Maximum 50% increase.
3. Maximum lot coverage:
a. North of Garfield Street: 50%.
b. South of Garfield Street: 90%.
c. Bonus (both areas): Maximum 100% lot coverage.
4. Minimum setbacks from interior property lines:
a. Primary building:
(1) Side: 5 feet.
(2) Rear: 15 feet, which may be reduced to 0 feet when abutting a fully dedicated
alley which is not a designated Buffer Alley per Section 1202.E.
Exhibit A 107 Ordinance G-####
5. Required parking: governed by Section 1206.
a. Bonus:
(1) Increase: Maximum 100%.
(2) Decrease: Maximum 100%.
6. Walls/Fences.
a. Frontage Zones: Per the provisions of Section 1207.D.
b. Interior property lines: Maximum height of 6 feet.
7. Signage. Signage is subject to the regulations of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Section
705, Table D-1, Commercial/Industrial Right-of-Way Low Volume Street Standards
C. Streetscape and Frontage Zone Development Regulations. The following development
regulations apply to properties which abut the street sections indicated. All regulations in
the table are appealable to the Design Review Committee under the provisions of Section
1224 and considered as R*.
Frontage and Streetscape Zone Matrix—Evans Churchill East
Minimum Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Street Frontage
Building Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Section Zone Depth
Setback Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
Moreland 10' 30' Minimum 75% AFY, SD, PA, 5' 20'
Street PO, FC
3rd St. to
7th St.
Portland 10' 30' Minimum 75% AFY, SD, PA, 5' 20'
Street PO, FC
3rd St. to
7th St.
Roosevelt 5' 30' Minimum 75% SD, PA, PO, S, 7' 17'
Street GA
3rd St. to
7th St.
Garfield 5' 30' Minimum 50% ALL 5' 20'
Street
4th St. to
6th St.
Exhibit A 108 Ordinance G-####
Frontage and Streetscape Zone Matrix—Evans Churchill East
Minimum Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Street Frontage
Building Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Section Zone Depth
Setback Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
Garfield 5' 30' Minimum 50% ALL 5' 12'
Street
6th St. to
7th St.
McKinley 5' 30' Minimum 50% ALL 5' 20'
Street
6th St. to
7th St.
3rd Street 5' 30' Minimum 75% ALL 5' 17'
North of
Moreland
St. to
Portland
St.
3rd Street 5' 30' Minimum 75% ALL 5' 15'
Portland
St. to
Roosevelt
St.
4th Street 5' 30' Minimum 75% AFY, SD, PA, 5' 15'
Roosevelt S
St. to
Garfield St.
5th Street 5' 30' Minimum 75% AFY, SD, PA, 5' 20'
Moreland S
St. to
Roosevelt
St.
5th Street 5' 30' Minimum 75% AFY, SD, PA, 5' 20'
Roosevelt S
St. to
Garfield St.
Exhibit A 109 Ordinance G-####
Frontage and Streetscape Zone Matrix—Evans Churchill East
Minimum Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Street Frontage
Building Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Section Zone Depth
Setback Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
6th Street 5' 30' Minimum 75% SD, PA, S, GA 5' 20'
Roosevelt
St. to
Garfield St.
7th Street 0' 20' Minimum 75% ALL 8' 16'
Moreland
St. to
McKinley
St.
(AFY) Active Front Yard, (PA) Patio, (SD) Stoop/Door Well, (PO) Porch, (CE) Common
Entry, (FC) Forecourt, (S) Storefront, (GA) Gallery/Arcade, (GR) Grand Entry, (ALL) All
Frontage Elements
Exhibit A 110 Ordinance G-####
Section 1215. Evans Churchill West.
A. Intent. The primary intent of the Evans Churchill West Character Area is to serve as a transition
between the mixed-use neighborhoods to the north and east, the Downtown Gateway Corridor to
the west, and the Biomed Cluster to the south. Ideally the area should embrace architecturally
innovative high-density residential buildings and offer a dynamic mix of commercial and retail
uses. It is the home of the downtown public market and will develop into a destination for retail,
restaurants and nightlife. Adjacency to major destinations creates the potential for this area to
serve as a major pedestrian thoroughfare. New developments should reflect the innovation of
the area and incorporate shade structures and landscaping to create comfortable and inviting
pedestrian thoroughfares. Outdoor dining and retail shops will enhance the pedestrian
experience and encourage exploration and patronage. Buildings oriented to the street with
ample sidewalk space allow for pedestrian amenities in addition to the tree-shaded sidewalks in
parkway-like strips.
B. Development Regulations. The following development regulations apply to properties
located with the Evans Churchill West character area. Where a “bonus” is indicated, the
development regulation may be modified within the range stated when sustainability bonus
points are earned per Section 1223, as approved by PDD staff or the Design Review
Committee.
1. Maximum height:
a. Main building: Governed by the height map, Section 1202.B, and height transition
standards of Section 1207.E.
b. Bonus: For properties located between Pierce Street and Fillmore Street, a
maximum additional 100-foot height bonus (in addition to the height permitted per
Section 1202.B) may be permitted through a Sustainability Bonus approved by the
Design Review Committee per Section 1224.
2. Maximum density: Governed by the density map, Section 1202.C.
a. Bonus: Maximum 100% increase.
3. Maximum lot coverage: 75%.
a. Bonus: Maximum 100% lot coverage.
4. Minimum setbacks from interior property lines: None.
5. Required parking: Governed by Section 1206.
a. Bonus:
(1) Increase: Maximum 100%.
(2) Decrease: Maximum 100%.
6. Walls/Fences.
Exhibit A 111 Ordinance G-####
a. Frontage Zones: Per the provisions of Section 1207.D.
b. Interior property lines: Maximum wall height is the same as the maximum permitted
building height(s) for the property.
7. Signage. Signage is subject to the regulations of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Section
705, Table D-1, Commercial/Industrial Right-of-Way Low Volume Street Standards
C. Streetscape and Frontage Zone Development Regulations. The following development
regulations apply to properties which abut the street sections indicated. All regulations in
the table are appealable to the Design Review Committee under the provisions of Section
1224 and considered as R*.
Frontage and Streetscape Zone Matrix—Evans Churchill West
Minimum Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Street Frontage
Building Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Section Zone Depth
Setback Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
Moreland 5' 30' Minimum 50% SD, PA, CE, S, 5' 20'
Street GA
1st St. to
3rd St.
Portland 5' 30' Minimum 50% SD, PA, PO, 5' 20'
Street CE, S, GA
Alley east
of Central
Ave. to 3rd
St.
Roosevelt 5' 30' Minimum 75% SD, PA, PO, S, 12' 18'
Street GA
Alley east
of Central
Ave. to 4th
St.
Garfield 5' 30' Minimum 50% SD, PA, PO, S, 5' 20'
Street GA
Alley east
of Central
Ave. to 4th
St.
Exhibit A 112 Ordinance G-####
Frontage and Streetscape Zone Matrix—Evans Churchill West
Minimum Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Street Frontage
Building Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Section Zone Depth
Setback Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
McKinley 5' 30' Minimum 50% SD, PA, PO, S, 5' 20'
Street GA
Alley east
of Central
Ave. to 4th
St.
Pierce 5' 30' Minimum 50% SD, PA, PO, S, 5' 20'
Street GA
Alley east
of Central
Ave. to 2nd
St. and 3rd
St. to 4th
St.
Fillmore 5' 30' Minimum 50% PA, S, GA, CE 8' 14'
Street
Alley east
of Central
Ave. to 1st
St.
Fillmore 5' 30' Minimum 50% PA, S, GA, CE 5' 15'
Street
1st St. to
2nd St.
Fillmore 5' 30' Minimum 50% PA, S, GA, CE 5' North 10' North
Street 8' South 15' South
2nd St. to
3rd St.
Fillmore 5' 30' Minimum 50% PA, S, GA, CE 8' North 15’
Street 5' South
3rd St. to
5th St.
Exhibit A 113 Ordinance G-####
Frontage and Streetscape Zone Matrix—Evans Churchill West
Minimum Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Street Frontage
Building Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Section Zone Depth
Setback Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
1st Street 0' 20' Minimum 75% SD, PA, PO, S, Per plans approved by Street
Moreland GA Transportation Department.
St. to
Fillmore St.
2nd Street 0' 20' Minimum 75% SD, PA, PO, S, 5' 20'
Moreland GA
St. to
McKinley
St.
2nd Street 0' 20' Minimum 75% SD, PA, PO, S, 5' 15' East
McKinley GA 25' West
St. to
Fillmore St.
3rd Street 5' 30' Minimum 75% SD, PA, PO, S, 5' 15'
Moreland GA
St. to
Portland
St.
3rd Street 5' 30' Minimum 75% SD, PA, PO, S, 5' 20' East
Portland GA 10' West
St. to alley
north of
Roosevelt
St.
3rd Street 5' 30' Minimum 75% SD, PA, PO, S, 5' 10'
Alley north GA
of
Roosevelt
St. to
Roosevelt
St.
3rd Street 5' 30' Minimum 75% SD, PA, PO, S, 5' 15'
GA, CE
Exhibit A 114 Ordinance G-####
Frontage and Streetscape Zone Matrix—Evans Churchill West
Minimum Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Street Frontage
Building Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Section Zone Depth
Setback Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
Roosevelt
St. to
Fillmore St.
4th Street 5' 30' Minimum 75% SD, PA, PO, S, 5' 15'
Roosevelt GA, CE
St. to
Fillmore St.
(AFY) Active Front Yard, (PA) Patio, (SD) Stoop/Door Well, (PO) Porch, (CE) Common
Entry, (FC) Forecourt, (S) Storefront, (GA) Gallery/Arcade, (GR) Grand Entry, (ALL) All
Frontage Elements
Exhibit A 115 Ordinance G-####
Section 1216. McDowell Corridor.
A. Intent. The McDowell Corridor should create an attractive, pedestrian-oriented mixed-use
street as a gateway to the historic neighborhoods and Downtown Phoenix. The mixture of
professional offices and retail establishments should become more urban and pedestrian
oriented. New structures should be built closer to the street and parking should be located
behind buildings.
B. Development Regulations. The following development regulations apply to properties
located with the McDowell Corridor character area. Where a “bonus” is indicated, the
development regulation may be modified within the range stated when sustainability bonus
points are earned per Section 1223, as approved by PDD staff or the Design Review
Committee.
1. Maximum height:
a. Main building: Governed by the height map, Section 1202.B, and height transition
standards of Section 1207.E.
b. Bonus: None.
2. Maximum density: Governed by the density map, Section 1202.C.
a. Bonus: Maximum 50% increase.
3. Maximum lot coverage: 50%.
a. Bonus: Maximum 85% lot coverage.
4. Minimum setbacks from interior property lines:
a. Primary building:
(1) Side: 5 feet.
(2) Rear: 15 feet.
5. Required parking: governed by Section 1206.
a. Bonus:
(1) Increase: Maximum 50%.
(2) Decrease: Maximum 25%.
6. Walls/Fences.
a. Frontage Zones: Per the provisions of Section 1207.D.
b. Interior property lines: Maximum height of 6 feet.
Exhibit A 116 Ordinance G-####
7. Signage. Signage is subject to the regulations of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Section
705, Table D-1, Commercial/Industrial Right-of-Way Low Volume Street Standards
C. Streetscape and Frontage Zone Development Regulations. The following development
regulations apply to properties which abut the street sections indicated. All regulations in
the table are appealable to the Design Review Committee under the provisions of Section
1224 and considered as R*.
Frontage and Streetscape Zone Matrix—McDowell Corridor
Minimum Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Street Frontage
Building Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Section Zone Depth
Setback Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
McDowell 10’, or 0’ if a 20' Minimum 75% S, SD, PO, GA 5' 15’
Road minimum 50’
West of 7th ROW is
Ave. to dedicated for
east of 1st the half street
Ave.
McDowell 10’, or 0’ if a 20' Minimum 75% S, GA 6' 16'
Road minimum 50’
3rd St. to ROW is
7th St. dedicated for
the half street
Lynwood 15' 30' Minimum 50% AFY, SD, PA, 5' 15'
Street PO
East of 7th
Ave. (north
side only)
Lynwood 15' 30' Minimum 75% AFY, SD, PA, 5' 15'
Street PO
5th St. to
west of 7th
St.
7th Avenue 0’ 20' Minimum 75% S, GA, CE 7' 17’
Alley north
of
McDowell
to Lynwood
St.
Exhibit A 117 Ordinance G-####
Frontage and Streetscape Zone Matrix—McDowell Corridor
Minimum Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Street Frontage
Building Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Section Zone Depth
Setback Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
5th Avenue 5' 30' Minimum 50% SD, S, PO 5' 16'
Alley north
of
McDowell
Rd. to alley
south of
McDowell
Rd.
3rd Avenue 5' 30' Minimum 75% SD, S, PA, PO 5' North of
Alley north McDowell:
of 10’
McDowell South of
Rd. to alley McDowell:
south of as
McDowell established
Rd.
3rd Street 5' 30' Minimum 50% SD, S, GA, PA, 6' 16’
Alley north PO, CE
of
McDowell
Rd. to alley
south of
McDowell
Rd.
5th Street 5' 30' Minimum 50% SD, S, PO 5' 15'
McDowell
Rd. to
Lynwood
St.
7th Street 0' 20' Minimum 50% ALL 6' 16', or as
Alley north may be
of required by
McDowell ADOT
to adjacent to
Exhibit A 118 Ordinance G-####
Frontage and Streetscape Zone Matrix—McDowell Corridor
Minimum Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Street Frontage
Building Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Section Zone Depth
Setback Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
Moreland freeway
St. ramps
(AFY) Active Front Yard, (PA) Patio, (SD) Stoop/Door Well, (PO) Porch, (CE) Common
Entry, (FC) Forecourt, (S) Storefront, (GA) Gallery/Arcade, (GR) Grand Entry, (ALL) All
Frontage Elements
Exhibit A 119 Ordinance G-####
Section 1217. Roosevelt East.
A. Intent. The Roosevelt East Character Area is comprised of a mixture of historic buildings with
larger blocks of land with high-rise entitlements. The area will serve as a transition zone from the
smaller scale Roosevelt South and Roosevelt North Character Areas to the Downtown Gateway
Character Area located to the east along the light rail.
B. Development Regulations. The following development regulations apply to properties
located with the Roosevelt East character area. Where a “bonus” is indicated, the
development regulation may be modified within the range stated when sustainability bonus
points are earned per Section 1223, as approved by PDD staff or the Design Review
Committee.
1. Maximum height:
a. Main building: Governed by the height map, Section 1202.B, and height transition
standards of Section 1207.E.
(1) Bonus: Maximum 25%.
b. Accessory structures, including Accessory Dwelling Units: 30 feet.
2. Maximum density: Governed by the density map, Section 1202.C.
a. Bonus: Maximum 100% increase.
3. Maximum lot coverage: 75%.
a. Bonus: Maximum 100% lot coverage.
4. Minimum setbacks from interior property lines.
a. Primary building:
(1) Side abutting HP-zoned lot: 10 feet.
(2) Side abutting lot not zoned HP: 0 feet.
(3) Rear: 0 feet.
b. Accessory buildings:
(1) Side: 3 feet.
(2) Rear: 0 feet.
5. Required parking: governed by Section 1206.
a. Bonus:
(1) Increase: Maximum 50%.
Exhibit A 120 Ordinance G-####
(2) Decrease: Maximum 100%.
6. Walls/Fences.
a. Frontage Zones: Per the provisions of Section 1207.D.
b. Interior property lines: Maximum height of 6 feet.
7. Signage. Signage is subject to the regulations of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Section
705, Table D-1, Nonresidential Activity in a Residential District Right-of-Way Standards.
8. Street trees.
a. Shade trees, when provided in the Streetscape Zone, shall be Arizona ash or evergreen
elm trees. (T)
b. Palm trees, on blocks where they have existed historically, shall be installed in the
Streetscape Zone in addition to any required shade trees, unless prohibited by law.
Palm trees should be of the same type as existing historic palm trees, and planted in a
similar manner/rate as existing on the same block face. (T)
C. Streetscape and Frontage Zone Development Regulations. The following development
regulations apply to properties which abut the street sections indicated. All regulations in
the table are appealable to the Design Review Committee under the provisions of Section
1224 and considered as R*.
Frontage and Streetscape Zone Matrix—Roosevelt East
Minimum Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Street Frontage
Building Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Section Zone Depth
Setback Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
Portland 0' 20' Minimum SD, S, PO, As As
Street 75% GA, CE Established Established
3rd Ave. to
west of
Central Ave.
Roosevelt 0' 20' Minimum SD, S, PO, As As
Street 75% GA Established Established
3rd Ave. to
1st Ave.
McKinley 0' 25' Minimum SD, PA, PO 5' 15'
Street 50%
Exhibit A 121 Ordinance G-####
Frontage and Streetscape Zone Matrix—Roosevelt East
Minimum Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Street Frontage
Building Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Section Zone Depth
Setback Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
3rd Ave. to
alley west of
1st Ave.
Fillmore 0' 25' Minimum SD, PA, PO, 5' 15' North Side
Street 50% GA, CE 21' South
3rd Ave. to Side
alley west of
1st Ave.
2nd Avenue 0' 25' Minimum SD, S, PO, 6' 16'
Portland St. 75% CE
to Roosevelt
St.
2nd Avenue 20' 30' Minimum AFY, SD, As As
Roosevelt 50% PA, S, PO, Established Established
St. to FC, CE
McKinley St.
2nd Avenue 10' 30' Minimum AFY, SD, S, As As
McKinley St. 75% PO, FC Established Established
to Fillmore
St.
3rd Avenue 0' 25' Minimum SD, PA, PO, 6' As
Latham St. 50% S Established
to Roosevelt
St.
3rd Avenue 20' 30' Minimum AFY, SD, S, 6' 20'
Roosevelt 50% PO, FC
St. to
McKinley St.
3rd Avenue 10' 30' Minimum AFY, SD, S, 6' 20'
McKinley St. 50% PO, FC
to Fillmore
St.
Exhibit A 122 Ordinance G-####
(AFY) Active Front Yard, (PA) Patio, (SD) Stoop/Door Well, (PO) Porch, (CE) Common
Entry, (FC) Forecourt, (S) Storefront, (GA) Gallery/Arcade, (GR) Grand Entry, (ALL) All
Frontage Elements
A. Additional Design Regulations—Roosevelt East.
1. Building materials. Primary buildings should incorporate a minimum 25 percent of
brick, brick veneer, or decorative masonry on every facade visible from the exterior. (P)
Rationale: Building materials, building design, and building accents should be inspired
by the context of the area and create a coherent architectural concept that is consistent
with and strengthens the historic character of Roosevelt East, preferably by using
historic materials and design elements already found within the Character Area.
Exhibit A 123 Ordinance G-####
Section 1218. Roosevelt North.
B. Intent. Roosevelt North is part of the Roosevelt Historic District and it is comprised of traditional
historic single-family homes. Typically the lots have large front yard setbacks with porches, lush
landscaping and turf. Properties generally have carriage houses or garages in the backyard that
are accessed from the alley or the front yard by a porte-cochere. In Roosevelt North the design
and pattern of single-family development is critical to maintaining its strong character and
preserving the existing buildings. The large number of historic properties creates a unique
character and design that should be preserved. Properties with HP zoning should refer to
Chapter 8, Historic Preservation, of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance for specific requirements
associated with historic designation.
C. Development Regulations. The following development regulations apply to properties
located with the Roosevelt North character area. Where a “bonus” is indicated, the
development regulation may be modified within the range stated when sustainability bonus
points are earned per Section 1223, as approved by PDD staff or the Design Review
Committee.
1. Maximum height:
a. Main building: Governed by the height map, Section 1202.B, and height transition
standards of Section 1207.E.
(1) Bonus: None.
b. Accessory structures, including Accessory Dwelling Units: 30 feet.
2. Maximum density: Governed by the density map, Section 1202.C.
a. Bonus: None.
3. Maximum lot coverage: 40%
a. Additional lot coverage of 15% (total 55%) is allowed for accessory structures.
b. Additional bonus: None.
4. Minimum setbacks from interior property lines.
a. Primary building:
(1) Sides: 3 feet; 10 feet combined total minimum.
(2) Rear: 10 feet.
b. Accessory structures:
(1) Side: 3 feet.
(2) Rear: 0 feet.
Exhibit A 124 Ordinance G-####
5. Required parking: Governed by Section 1206.
a. Bonus: None.
6. Walls/Fences.
a. Frontage Zones: Per the provisions of Section 1207.D.
b. Interior property lines: Maximum height of 6 feet.
7. Signage. Signage is subject to the regulations of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Section
705, Table D-1, Nonresidential Activity in a Residential District Right-of-Way Standards.
8. Street trees.
a. Shade trees, when provided in the Streetscape Zone, shall be Arizona ash or evergreen
elm trees. (T)
b. Palm trees, on blocks where they have existed historically, shall be installed in the
Streetscape Zone in addition to any required shade trees, unless prohibited by law.
Palm trees should be of the same type as existing historic palm trees, and planted in a
similar manner/rate as existing on the same block face. (T)
D. Streetscape and Frontage Zone Development Regulations. The following development
regulations apply to properties which abut the street sections indicated. All regulations in
the table are appealable to the Design Review Committee under the provisions of Section
1224 and considered as R*.
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix—Roosevelt North
Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Street Minimum Frontage
Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Section Setback Zone Depth
Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
Portland 20' 30' None AFY 5' 10'
Street
7th Ave. to
3rd Ave.
Latham 20' 30' None AFY 5' 7'5"
Street
5th Ave. to
3rd Ave.
Culver 20' 30' None AFY 5' 10'
Street
Exhibit A 125 Ordinance G-####
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix—Roosevelt North
Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Street Minimum Frontage
Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Section Setback Zone Depth
Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
7th Ave. to
300' west
of Central
Ave.
Willetta 20' 30' None AFY 5' 10'
Street
7th Ave. to
alley west
of Central
Ave.
Lynwood 20' 30' None AFY 5' 10'
Street
7th Ave. to
alley west
of Central
Ave.
7th Avenue 20' 30' None AFY 6' None
Lynwood Required
St. to alley
south of
Portland
St.
5th Avenue 10' 25' None AFY, SY 5' 10'
Alley north
of
Roosevelt
St. to alley
north of
Lynwood
St.
3rd Avenue 10' 25' None AFY, SY 5' 10'
Alley north
of
Roosevelt
Exhibit A 126 Ordinance G-####
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix—Roosevelt North
Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Street Minimum Frontage
Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Section Setback Zone Depth
Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
St. to
Culver St.
3rd Avenue 10' 25' None AFY, SY 5' 6'
Culver
Street to
alley north
of Lynwood
St.
(AFY) Active Front Yard, (PA) Patio, (SD) Stoop/Door Well, (PO) Porch, (CE) Common
Entry, (FC) Forecourt, (S) Storefront, (GA) Gallery/Arcade, (GR) Grand Entry, (ALL) All
Frontage Elements
(Ord. No. G-5480, 2010; Ord. No. G-5777, 2013; Ord. No. G-6409, 2018)
E. Additional Design Regulations—Roosevelt North.
1. Building materials. Primary buildings should incorporate a minimum 25 percent of
brick, brick veneer, or decorative masonry on every facade visible from the exterior. (P)
2. Window design. Window format should be square or rectangular and similar to existing
historic buildings. Window openings should be recessed or articulated, particularly at the
ground level. (P)
3. Roof forms. Buildings should incorporate one or more of the following roof forms:
gable (including clipped, and with parapets), hip, and flat with parapets. Mansard roof
forms are prohibited. (R*)
Rationale for D.1 through D.3: Building materials, building design, and building accents
should be inspired by the context of the area and create a coherent architectural concept
that is consistent with and strengthens the historic character of Roosevelt North, preferably
by using historic materials and design elements already found within the Character Area.
Exhibit A 127 Ordinance G-####
Section 1219. Roosevelt South.
B. Intent. Roosevelt South will be the gateway to historic Roosevelt North, and an oasis for
pedestrians from adjacent high-rise and high-density areas. While the neighborhood will
retain its residential character, it will become a mixed-use neighborhood. Adaptive re-use of
older and historic homes will provide distinctive shopping and dining along tree-lined streets
creating a highly desirable, walkable neighborhood.
C. Development Regulations. The following development regulations apply to properties
located with the Roosevelt South character area. Where a “bonus” is indicated, the
development regulation may be modified within the range stated when sustainability bonus
points are earned per Section 1223, as approved by PDD staff or the Design Review
Committee.
1. Maximum height:
a. Main building: Governed by the height map, Section 1202.B, and height transition
standards of Section 1207.E.
(1) Bonus: None.
b. Accessory structures, including Accessory Dwelling Units: 30 feet.
2. Maximum density: Governed by the density map, Section 1202.C.
a. Bonus: 100%.
3. Maximum lot coverage: 50%.
a. Additional lot coverage of 10% (total 60%) is allowed for accessory structures.
b. Bonus: Maximum 75% lot coverage.
4. Minimum setbacks from interior property lines.
a. Primary building:
(1) Side abutting HP-zoned lot: 10 feet.
(2) Side(s) abutting lot not zoned HP: 3 feet; 10 feet combined total minimum.
(3) Rear: 0 feet.
b. Accessory structures:
(1) Side: 3 feet.
(2) Rear: 0 feet.
5. Required parking: Governed by Section 1206.
Exhibit A 128 Ordinance G-####
a. Bonus:
(1) Increase: Maximum 50%.
(2) Decrease: Maximum 50%.
6. Walls/Fences.
a. Frontage Zones: Per the provisions of Section 1207.D.
b. Interior property lines: Maximum height of 6 feet.
7. Signage. Signage is subject to the regulations of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Section
705, Table D-1, Nonresidential Activity in a Residential District Right-of-Way Standards.
8. Street trees.
a. Shade trees, when provided in the Streetscape Zone, shall be Arizona ash or evergreen
elm trees. (T)
b. Palm trees, on blocks where they have existed historically, shall be installed in the
Streetscape Zone in addition to any required shade trees, unless prohibited by law.
Palm trees should be of the same type as existing historic palm trees and planted in a
similar manner/rate as existing on the same block face. (T)
D. Streetscape and Frontage Zone Development Regulations. The following development
regulations apply to properties which abut the street sections indicated. All regulations in
the table are appealable to the Design Review Committee under the provisions of Section
1224 and considered as R*.
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix—Roosevelt South
Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Street Minimum Frontage
Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Section Setback Zone Depth
Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
Roosevelt 10' 30' Minimum 75% AFY, SD, PO, 5' 6'
Street PA, S
Alley west of
6th Ave. to
3rd Ave.
McKinley 10' 30' Minimum 50% ALL 5' 10'
Street
Alley west of
6th Ave. to
3rd Ave.
Exhibit A 129 Ordinance G-####
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix—Roosevelt South
Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Street Minimum Frontage
Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Section Setback Zone Depth
Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
Fillmore 10' 30' Minimum 50% ALL 5' 7'5"
Street
Alley west of
6th Ave. to
3rd Ave.
6th Avenue 20' 30' Minimum 50% AFY, SD, PA, 5' 6'
Roosevelt St. PO, FC, S
to Fillmore St.
5th Avenue 20' 30' Minimum 50% AFY, SD, PA, 5' 14'
Roosevelt St. PO, FC, S
to Fillmore St.
4th Avenue 20' 30' Minimum 50% AFY, SD, PA, 5' 15'
Roosevelt St. PO, FC, S
to Fillmore St.
3rd Avenue 20' 30' Minimum 50% AFY, SD, PA, 5' 15'
Roosevelt St. PO, FC, S
to Fillmore St.
(AFY) Active Front Yard, (PA) Patio, (SD) Stoop/Door Well, (PO) Porch, (CE) Common
Entry, (FC) Forecourt, (S) Storefront, (GA) Gallery/Arcade, (GR) Grand Entry, (ALL) All
Frontage Elements
(Ord. No. G-5480, 2010; Ord. No. G-5777, 2013; Ord. No. G-6409, 2018)
E. Additional Design Regulations—Roosevelt South.
1. Building materials. Primary buildings should incorporate a minimum 25 percent of
brick, brick veneer, or decorative masonry on every facade visible from the exterior. (P)
2. Window design. Window format should be square or rectangular and similar to existing
historic buildings. Window openings should be recessed or articulated, particularly at the
ground level. (P)
3. Roof forms. Buildings should incorporate one or more of the following roof forms:
gable (including clipped, and with parapets), hip, and flat with parapets. Mansard roof
forms are prohibited. (R*)
Exhibit A 130 Ordinance G-####
Rationale for D.1 through D.3: Building materials, building design, and building accents
should be inspired by the context of the area and create a coherent architectural concept
that is consistent with and strengthens the historic character of Roosevelt South, preferably
by using historic materials and design elements already found within the Character Area.
Exhibit A 131 Ordinance G-####
Section 1220. Townsend Park.
A. Intent. The primary intent of the Townsend Park Character Area is to transition between the
mixed-use neighborhoods to the east, the McDowell Corridor to the north and the Downtown
Gateway to the west. The area’s special potential to connect these diverse adjacent areas can
be realized through incorporating mixed-use/mid-rise developments that focus on office and
cultural facilities. Given the proximity to the City’s largest public library and the light rail corridor,
a cultural focus in any new development is essential. As with any heavily accessed cultural area,
the streetscape should contain inviting and comfortable parkway strips that offer easy links to
nearby cultural facilities, parks and public transportation.
B. Development Regulations. The following development regulations apply to properties located
with the Townsend Park character area. Where a “bonus” is indicated, the development
regulation may be modified within the range stated when sustainability bonus points are earned
per Section 1223, as approved by PDD staff or the Design Review Committee.
1. Maximum height:
a. Main building: Governed by the height map, Section 1202.B, and height transition
standards of Section 1207.E.
(1) Bonus: Maximum 30%.
b. Accessory structures, including Accessory Dwelling Units: 30 feet.
2. Maximum density: Governed by the density map, Section 1202.C.
a. Bonus: 100%.
3. Maximum lot coverage: 75%.
a. Bonus: Maximum 100% lot coverage.
b. Accessory buildings may not exceed 25% of the net lot area. This coverage is
included within the overall permitted lot coverage.
4. Minimum setbacks from interior property lines:
a. Primary building: 0 feet.
b. Accessory structures:
(1) Side: 3 feet.
(2) Rear: 5 feet, which may be reduced to 0 feet when abutting a fully dedicated
alley which is not a designated Buffer Alley per Section 1202.E.
5. Required parking: governed by Section 1206.
a. Bonus:
Exhibit A 132 Ordinance G-####
(1) Increase: Maximum 50%.
(2) Decrease: Maximum 100%.
6. Walls/Fences.
a. Frontage Zones: Per the provisions of Section 1207.D.
b. Interior property lines: Maximum height of 6 feet.
7. Signage. Signage subject to the regulations of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Section 705,
Table D-1, Commercial/Industrial Right-of-Way Low Volume Street Standards.
C. Streetscape and Frontage Zone Development Regulations. The following development
regulations apply to properties which abut the street sections indicated. All regulations in
the table are appealable to the Design Review Committee under the provisions of Section
1224 and considered as R*.
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix—Townsend Park
Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Street Minimum Frontage
Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Section Setback Zone Depth
Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
McDowell 0' 20’ Minimum 75% S, GA, CE 5' 5’
Road
1st St. to east
of 3rd St.
Willetta Street 0' 25' Minimum 50% ALL 5' 15'
1st St. to 3rd
St.
Culver Street 0' 25' Minimum 50% ALL 5' 15'
1st St. to 2nd
St.
Moreland 0' 25' Minimum 50% ALL 5' 15'
Street
1st St. to 3rd
St.
1st Street 0' 25' Minimum 75% S, SD, PA, 5' East 6' East
McDowell Rd. PO, GA 7' West West—None
to Willetta St. Required
Exhibit A 133 Ordinance G-####
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix—Townsend Park
Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Street Minimum Frontage
Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Section Setback Zone Depth
Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
2nd Street 0' 25' Minimum 75% S, SD, PA, 5' 25'
McDowell Rd. PO, GA
to Culver St.
3rd Street 5' 30' Minimum 75% S, SD, PA, 5' 15'
McDowell Rd. PO, GA
to Moreland
St.
(AFY) Active Front Yard, (PA) Patio, (SD) Stoop/Door Well, (PO) Porch, (CE) Common
Entry, (FC) Forecourt, (S) Storefront, (GA) Gallery/Arcade, (GR) Grand Entry, (ALL) All
Frontage Elements
Exhibit A 134 Ordinance G-####
Section 1221. Van Buren.
A. Intent. The intent of the Van Buren Character Area is to establish a dense, vibrant, urban
mixed-use area that is a center for commerce and high-rise urban living. This area
comprises some of the tallest height entitlements within the City. The close proximity to
government buildings and commercial offices makes this an ideal location for future hotels
and iconic residential buildings with a strong urban focus. The active streetscape will
connect the primarily residential neighborhoods to the north with the amenities and services
provided within the Business Core and Van Buren Character Areas.
B. Development Regulations. The following development regulations apply to properties
located with the Van Buren character area. Where a “bonus” is indicated, the development
regulation may be modified within the range stated when sustainability bonus points are
earned per Section 1223, as approved by PDD staff or the Design Review Committee.
1. Maximum height.
a. Main building: Governed by the height map, Section 1202.B, and height transition
standards of Section 1207.E.
(1) Bonus: None.
b. Accessory structures, including Accessory Dwelling Units: 30 feet.
2. Maximum density: Governed by the density map, Section 1202.C.
a. Bonus: Maximum 50% increase.
b. For properties which dedicate the Taylor Street Paseo, see below.
3. Maximum lot coverage: 55%.
a. Bonus: Maximum 100% lot coverage.
b. Accessory structures: Maximum 25% total lot coverage. This amount is included in
the overall allowed lot coverage.
c. For properties which dedicate the Taylor Street Paseo, see below.
4. Minimum setbacks from interior property lines.
a. Primary building: 10 feet. No setback required if property line abuts an alley which is
not a Buffer Alley.
b. Accessory structures: None.
5. Required parking: Governed by Section 1206.
Exhibit A 135 Ordinance G-####
a. Bonus:
(1) Increase: Maximum 50%.
(2) Decrease: Maximum 100%.
6. Walls/Fences.
a. Frontage Zones: Per the provisions of Section 1207.D.
b. Interior property lines: Maximum height of 6 feet.
(1) When a fully dedicated alley is present view fencing shall be provided above 40
inches in height.
7. Signage. Signage subject to the regulations of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Section 705,
Table D-1, Commercial/Industrial Right-of-Way Low Volume Street Standards.
8. Taylor Street Paseo. Certain properties within Van Buren are subject to the additional
development regulations of the Taylor Street Paseo, Section 1207.N., in addition to the
modified standards stated above. The affected properties are shown on the map
provided within that Section.
a. For properties that dedicate the Taylor Street Paseo, lot coverage and density are
not restricted.
b. For properties formerly required to dedicate the Taylor Street Paseo prior to the
Paseo realignment, lot coverage and density are not restricted if all of the following
amenities are provided within the property frontage:
(1) A minimum 8-foot-wide sidewalk is provided for the length of the property.
(2) Two separate rows of shade trees along the public sidewalk, planted along each
side of the public sidewalk.
(3) Open space at the ground level on private property (minimum 500 square feet
and not less than 10 feet wide any direction), with a public access easement
dedicated over all portions of the open space area.
(4) A minimum of three pedestrian amenities within the open space, such as: lit
bollards, waste receptacles (recycling and trash), clocks, way finding signs,
benches, drinking fountains and decorative pedestrian lighting not higher than 15
feet.
C. Streetscape and Frontage Zone Development Regulations. The following development
regulations apply to properties which abut the street sections indicated. All regulations in
the table are appealable to the Design Review Committee under the provisions of Section
1224 and considered as R*.
Exhibit A 136 Ordinance G-####
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix—Van Buren
Frontage Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Minimum
Street Section Zone Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Setback
Depth Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
Fillmore Street 0' 20' Minimum 50% ALL 5' 7'
Alley west of 7th
Ave. to 7th Ave.
Fillmore Street 0' 20' Minimum 50% ALL 5' 10'
7th Ave. to 3rd Ave.
Taylor Street Paseo 0’ 20’ Minimum 75% SD, PO, S, 8’ 13’, or 0’
7th Ave. to 3rd Ave. GA, CE when not
located within
or adjacent to
a dedicated
street
Van Buren Street 0' 20' Minimum 75% S, GA, CE, 5' 5'
7th Ave. to 3rd Ave. GR
Woodland Avenue 12' 30' Minimum 75% AFY, SD, 5' 10'
9th Ave. to alley PA, PO, S
west of 9th Ave.
Monroe Street 0' 20' Minimum 75% SD, PA, 8' 10'
7th Ave. to 3rd Ave. PO, S
Adams Street 0' 20' Minimum 75% SD, PA, 5' 10'
4th Ave. to 7th Ave. PO, S, GA
Adams Street 0' 20' Minimum 75% SD, PA, 8' 5'
7th Ave. to 5th Ave. PO, S, GA
9th Avenue 0' 20' Minimum 50% ALL 5' 20'
Van Buren St. to
Adams St.
7th Avenue 0' 20' Minimum 75% ALL 7' 7'
Fillmore St. to
Adams St.
Exhibit A 137 Ordinance G-####
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix—Van Buren
Frontage Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Minimum
Street Section Zone Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Setback
Depth Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
6th Avenue 0' 20' Minimum 50% SD, PA, East 5' East 8'
Fillmore St. to Van PO, S, GA West 5' West 5'
Buren St.
6th Avenue 0' 20' Minimum 75% ALL East 5' East 5'
Van Buren St. to West 5' West 8'
Adams St.
5th Avenue 0' 20' Minimum 50% SD, PA, 5' 10'
Fillmore St. to Van PO, S, GA
Buren St.
5th Avenue 0' 20' Minimum 75% ALL 7' 7'
Van Buren St. to
Adams St.
4th Avenue 0' 20' Minimum 50% SD, PA, 5' 15'
Fillmore St. to Van PO, S, GA
Buren St.
4th Avenue 0' 20' Minimum 75% ALL 7' 7'
Van Buren St. to
Monroe St.
3rd Avenue 0' 20' Minimum 50% SD, PA, 5' 10'
Fillmore St. to Van PO, S, GA
Buren St.
3rd Avenue 0' 20' Minimum 75% ALL 5' 5'
Van Buren St. to
Monroe St.
Taylor Street Paseo 0' 20' Minimum 65% SD, PO, S, See Paseo See Paseo
7th Ave. to 3rd Ave. FC, GA Guidelines Guidelines
(AFY) Active Front Yard, (PA) Patio, (SD) Stoop/Door Well, (PO) Porch, (CE) Common
Entry, (FC) Forecourt, (S) Storefront, (GA) Gallery/Arcade, (GR) Grand Entry, (ALL) All
Frontage Elements
Exhibit A 138 Ordinance G-####
Section 1222. Warehouse.
A. Intent. The Warehouse Character Area is a unique urban neighborhood that offers a blend of
old railroad charm and modern urban living. The unique old warehouse buildings provide design
inspiration for the design of new buildings that complement the existing character. This area has
unique sports and entertainment venues, in addition to dining and shopping opportunities that
serve the entire region. This area should provide people with the ability to enjoy the character
and authenticity of the area while being close to transit and the heart of the City.
B. Development Regulations. The following development regulations apply to properties
located with the Warehouse character area. Where a “bonus” is indicated, the development
regulation may be modified within the range stated when sustainability bonus points are
earned per Section 1223, as approved by PDD staff or the Design Review Committee,
unless stated otherwise.
1. Maximum height: Governed by the height map, Section 1202.B, and height transition
standards of Section 1207.E.
a. Bonus (north of Lincoln Street, within the 80 feet base height category only):
maximum height of 140 feet shall be permitted only with dedication of a 30-year
conservation easement over an existing building designated HP or HP-L, as
approved by HP. The property with the conservation easement must be located
between Madison Street and Lincoln Street, and within either the Business Core or
Warehouse character areas. Sustainability bonus points cannot be used to obtain
this height bonus.
b. Bonus (elsewhere within Character Area): 50%. Exception: any property within a
base height category of 150 feet or greater shall not be permitted a height bonus,
due to Airport Downtown Zone height limits.
c. Additional height restrictions apply for properties subject to Section 1222.B.4.
2. Maximum density: Governed by the density map, Section 1202.C.
a. Bonus: Maximum 100% increase.
3. Maximum lot coverage: 100%.
a. Bonus: None.
4. Minimum setbacks from interior property lines:
a. For sites not abutting a property located within the Central Park Character Area: 0
feet.
b. For sites abutting a property located within the Central Park Character Area (not
including properties separated by a fully dedicated alley or street), the following
regulations apply:
Exhibit A 139 Ordinance G-####
(1) Side or rear lot line: Minimum 20-foot building setback, including a ten-foot
landscape setback. The landscape setback shall be measured from the property
line.
(2) The building shall not exceed 40 feet in height when located between 20 and 30
feet of the side or rear property line.
(3) A stepback shall be required unless the proposed new development is located ten or
more feet beyond the required setback line. A minimum stepback of ten feet in depth
for the length/width of the building that is adjacent to the Central Park Character Area
is required. The stepback shall be measured from the required side or rear yard
setback line.
5. Required parking:
a. Minimum:
(1) Residential uses: Governed by Section 1206.
(2) Non-residential uses: None.
d. Maximum: Governed by Section 1206.
e. Bonus:
Exhibit A 140 Ordinance G-####
(1) Increase: Maximum 100%.
(2) Decrease: Maximum 100%.
6. Walls/Fences.
a. Frontage Zones: Per the provisions of Section 1207.D.
b. Interior property lines: Maximum height of 8 feet.
7. Signage. Signage in the Warehouse Character Area shall be governed by the
regulations applicable to signs in the commercial districts of Section 705 of the Phoenix
Zoning Ordinance.
a. Signs projecting from the front of buildings shall be perpendicular to the street (i.e.,
90-degree angle), with a maximum of one sign per entrance. All signs that extend
into or over the public right-of-way shall require a revocable permit administered by
the City of Phoenix prior to issuance of the sign permit. Each sign shall:
(1) Identify only one on-site business.
(2) Provide a minimum eight-foot clearance.
(3) Project no more than three feet into the public right-of-way.
(4) Be indirectly illuminated from a shielded light source (i.e., not backlit or cabinet sign).
b. Awning signs shall be permitted by right. Awning signs shall have letters no more
than ten inches in height.
c. Signs painted on the building surface or letters mounted directly to the building surface
should:
(1) Be a maximum of one square foot of signage for each lineal foot of building
elevation to a maximum of 100 square feet. May have minimum of 40 square
feet.
(2) Be at least half the vertical height of the letters to a building corner (vertical edge) or
to a roofline.
d. Windows visible from the public right-of-way shall not exceed a maximum of 20
percent of the windowpane area.
e. Second-story businesses may only use a sign in a second-story window, or use a wall
sign. Awning signs shall not be permitted on second-story windows.
f. Corner buildings shall be allowed signage on each street frontage.
g. Directional signs for accessory parking will be allowed to a maximum of six square feet
per sign per driveway entrance. The maximum height of said directional signs is three
feet. No more than 25 percent of the area may be devoted to business identification.
Exhibit A 141 Ordinance G-####
h. The provisions of Section 705.C.6.d shall not apply within the Warehouse Character
Area.
i. Signs, banners, balloons, flags, guidons, and similar advertising devices otherwise
prohibited by Section 705.C.2.a, b and c may be erected subject to a use permit in
conjunction with special promotional events of a civic or commercial nature. No more
than 25 percent of the area may be devoted to corporate sponsorship identification. In
addition to the standards enumerated in Section 705.F, findings of approval of the use
permit shall include:
(1) The signs and other displays are appropriate in scale, composition, and manner
of display with surrounding development.
(2) When adjoining establishments participate in an event, a single request for a use
permit may be filed.
j. Wall signs on buildings designated Historic Preservation (HP) exceeding the applicable
size or area regulations may be allowed by the Historic Preservation Commission in
accordance with the procedure set forth in Section 812.C.3 and upon the additional
finding that the proposed signage replicates the size, shape, and placement of the
original wall signage.
k. The following signs are prohibited:
(1) Those placed above or on top of any portion of the roof or front parapet or facade.
(2) Signs utilizing moving, flashing, or rotating lights or mechanisms, except as provided
by a use permit.
(3) Freestanding signs or ground signs.
l. Signage may be increased by up to 25 percent by submitting a comprehensive sign plan
as provided in Section 705.E of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance.
C. Streetscape and Frontage Zone Development Regulations. The following development
regulations apply to properties which abut the street sections indicated. All regulations in
the table are appealable to the Design Review Committee under the provisions of Section
1224 and considered as R*.
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix—Warehouse
Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Street Minimum Frontage
Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Section Setback Zone Depth
Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
7th Avenue 0’ 20’ None ALL 5' 10’
South of the
train tracks
to Grant St.
7th Avenue 0' 20’ Minimum 75% S, GA, SD, CE 5' 10’
Exhibit A 142 Ordinance G-####
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix—Warehouse
Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Street Minimum Frontage
Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Section Setback Zone Depth
Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
Grant St. to
Sherman
St.
6th Avenue 0' 20' Minimum 50% ALL 5' 12'
Sherman
St. to Grant
St.
5th Avenue 0' 20' Minimum 75% S 5' 12'
Alley south
of Jackson
St. to
Madison St.
4th Avenue 0' 20' Minimum 50% ALL 5' 12'
Sherman
St. to Grant
St.
4th Avenue 0' 20' Minimum 50% ALL 5' 19'
Grant St. to
Lincoln St.
4th Avenue 0' 20' Minimum 75% S 5' 12'
Alley south
of Jackson
St. to
Madison St.
3rd Avenue 0' 20' Minimum 75% S 5' 20'
Grant St. to
Jackson St.
2nd Avenue 0' 20' Minimum 50% ALL 5' 23'
Grant St. to
Lincoln St.
2nd Avenue 0' 20' Minimum 50% S 5' 10'
Exhibit A 143 Ordinance G-####
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix—Warehouse
Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Street Minimum Frontage
Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Section Setback Zone Depth
Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
Buchanan
St. to
Jackson St.
1st Avenue 0' 20' Minimum 75% S 10' 15'
Grant St. to
Madison St.
Central 0' 20' Minimum 75% S, GA, SD, CE 8' 15'
Avenue
Grant St. to
Madison St.
1st Street 0' 20' Minimum 50% ALL 5' 15'
Grant St. to
Buchanan
St.
1st Street 0' 20' Minimum 50% ALL 6' 20'
Buchanan
St. to
Madison St.
2nd Street 0' 20' Minimum 50% ALL 6' 20'
Lincoln St.
to alley
south of
Jackson St.
3rd Street 0' 20' Minimum 75% AFY, SD, PA, 6' 20'
South of PO, S
Grant St. to
Grant St.
3rd Street 0' 20' Minimum 75% S 6' 14'
Grant St.
south to
Railroad
Row
Exhibit A 144 Ordinance G-####
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix—Warehouse
Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Street Minimum Frontage
Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Section Setback Zone Depth
Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
4th Street 0' 20’ Minimum 75% SD, PA, S 5' 10’
Grant St.
south to
Character
Area
boundary
5th Street 0' 20’ Minimum 50% ALL 6' 14'
Grant St. to
Lincoln St.
6th Street 0' 20’ Minimum 50% ALL 8' 13'
Lincoln St.
to
Buchanan
St.
7th Street 0' 20’ Minimum 75% ALL 6' 14'
Lincoln St.
to south of
Grant St.
Madison 0' 20’ Minimum 75% SD, PA, S 5' 12'
Street
5th Ave. to
4th Ave.
Madison 0' 20’ Minimum 75% SD, PA, S 5' 12'
Street
1st Ave. to
1st St.
Jackson 0' 20’ Minimum 75% S 8' As
Street Established
5th Ave. to with Tree
1st St. Wells(1)
Buchanan 0' 20’ Minimum 75% SD, PA, S 7' 12'
Street
Exhibit A 145 Ordinance G-####
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix—Warehouse
Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Street Minimum Frontage
Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Section Setback Zone Depth
Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
3rd Ave. to
3rd St.
Lincoln 0' 20’ Minimum 75% SD, PA, S 7' 12'
Street
7th Ave. to
7th St.
Grant 0' 20’ Minimum 50% ALL 5' 19'
Street
6th Ave. to
2nd St.
3rd St. to
7th St.
Grant 0' 20’ Minimum 75% SD, PA, S 5' 19'
Street
2nd St. to
3rd St.
Sherman 0' 20’ Minimum 75% SD, PA, S 8' 14'
Street
7th Ave. to
4th Ave.
(AFY) Active Front Yard, (PA) Patio, (SD) Stoop/Door Well, (PO) Porch, (CE) Common
Entry, (FC) Forecourt, (S) Storefront, (GA) Gallery/Arcade, (GR) Grand Entry, (ALL) All
Frontage Elements
D. Additional Design Regulations--Warehouse.
1. New construction from finished grade to 65 feet in height shall use concrete, brick or other
quality exterior-facing materials found on the structures in the Warehouse Character Area
that have been determined to have character value, such as load bearing walls (brick or
block) and concrete post-and-beam structural systems. (P)
2. Brick veneer and brick tile applications, when used, should give the appearance of structural
brick by using wraparound corner and bullnose pieces to minimize a veneer appearance. (P)
Exhibit A 146 Ordinance G-####
3. Stucco should not be used as a new element on an existing building. For new construction,
stucco finishes should be limited to no more than 25 percent of all facades, and located
where least visible from Streetscape Zones. (P)
Rationale for D.1 – D.3: The Warehouse Character Area has a unique and historic
architectural context which current development should mimic or complement.
4. The following design elements are only permitted for use within the Warehouse Character
area if approved by the Design Review Committee as a Design Alternative per Section 1224
(R*):
a. Metal or wood siding.
b. Parabolic arches and other nongeometric forms.
c. Backlit awnings or panels.
d. Plastic and acrylic components used in awnings and other accessories.
e. Steeply pitched roofs (greater than 30 degrees) including mansard roof forms.
f. Curtain-wall facades.
Exhibit A 147 Ordinance G-####
Section 1223. Sustainability Bonus.
A. Applicability. The Sustainability Bonus system is designed to provide additional
entitlements to developments that exhibit enhanced and/or environmentally friendly design,
or other performance elements as outlined in this Section or as approved by the Design
Review Committee.
1. A Sustainability Bonus may only be awarded when allowed by the applicable Character Area
development regulations.
2. Sustainability Bonus credits (as detailed in Section 1223.C) earned shall only apply to one
category of bonus. If multiple bonuses are desired for one development (such as one for
height increase, and another for parking increase), each bonus must earn the required bonus
credits separately, unless specifically stated otherwise in this Chapter.
3. All items or improvements which are provided specifically to obtain a Sustainability Bonus
shall be located on site, and not in public right-of-way, unless approved as a Technical
Appeal demonstrating that all required Streetscape improvements, including shade,
landscape, and minimum sidewalk width, will still be provided.
B. Credit Categories.
1. Height Increase. The allowed bonus is an increase in height calculated as a percentage
of the base maximum height permitted per Section 1202.B. However, no building height
may exceed the Airport Height Limits provided in Chapter 4, Article XIII of the Phoenix
City Code.
Height Increase
Minimum Credits Required Allowed Bonus
70 50%
60 40%
50 30%
40 20%
30 10%
20 5%
2. Density Increase. The allowed bonus is an increase in the number residential units
calculated as a percentage of the base maximum units permitted per Section 1202.C:
Exhibit A 148 Ordinance G-####
Density Increase
Minimum Credits Required Allowed Bonus
70 100%
60 80%
50 60%
40 40%
30 25%
20 10%
3. Increase of Lot Coverage. The allowed bonus is the amount of additional lot coverage
allowed in addition to the lot coverage permitted by the applicable Character Area; e.g. a
development earning 20 bonus credits is allowed an additional 10% lot coverage.
Increase of Lot Coverage
Minimum Credits Required Allowed Bonus
50 50%
40 25%
30 15%
20 10%
10 5%
Exhibit A 149 Ordinance G-####
4. Increase of Maximum Parking. The allowed bonus is an increase calculated as a
percentage of the maximum parking allowed per Section 1206.
Increase of Maximum Parking
Minimum Credits Required Allowed Bonus
50 100%
40 75%
30 50%
20 25%
10 15%
5 10%
5. Decrease in Minimum Parking. The allowed bonus is a decrease calculated as a
percentage of the minimum parking required per Section 1206.
Decrease of
Minimum Credits Required Allowed Bonus
25 100%
20 75%
15 50%
10 25%
5 10%
Exhibit A 150 Ordinance G-####
C. Sustainability Bonus Credit Matrix.
POSSIBLE
CREDIT DESCRIPTION AND QUALIFIERS OPTIONS
CREDITS
1. Provide a vertical mixed-use development 25% of gross ground 5
which incorporates commercial suites at the area of building
ground level intended for patronage by the
50% + of gross ground 10
general public, and not associated with the
floor area of building
operation of the overall development. Each
suite shall have a primary entrance from the
Frontage/Streetscape zone.
2. Provide pedestrian amenities within the 3 Different Types of 5
Frontage Zone (or Streetscape Zone if Amenities
approved through a Technical Appeal and
6+ Different Types of 10
Street Transportation) such as: lit bollards,
Amenities
waste receptacles (recycling and trash),
clocks, way finding signs, benches, drinking
fountains and decorative pedestrian lighting
not higher than 15 feet. (Must be in addition
to any required amenities.)
3. Provide outdoor dining within the Frontage Minimum 400 sf 5
Zone. Also applies to outdoor dining
800+ sf 10
provided within a Forecourt or a
Gallery/Arcade, but only if the minimum
sidewalk width required by the Character
Area is maintained.
4. Provide additional bicycle amenities (beyond any required), as follows in 4a and 4b:
4a. For any use type, provide additional Secured parking room for 5
amenities such as a secured bicycle parking minimum 50% required
room; bicycle lockers, tire air-up facilities, bicycle parking
and/or bicycle maintenance area or room.
Bicycle lockers for 5
minimum 50% required
bicycle parking
Exhibit A 151 Ordinance G-####
POSSIBLE
CREDIT DESCRIPTION AND QUALIFIERS OPTIONS
CREDITS
Tire air-up facility or 3 (each)
bicycle maintenance
area/room
4b. For non-residential uses, provide showers Shower 4 (each);
and/or personal lockers within changing maximum 20
rooms for use by the building’s tenants. points
Personal lockers in 3 points for each 5
changing room lockers, maximum
15 points
5. Provide a public art installation within or on Art installation (as 5 points per
the building abutting a Frontage Zone. approved by PDD) installation
6. Provide on-site permeable paving, structured minimum 250 sf area 2
soil/grass, open grid paving or similar
>250 sf to 500sf area 4
material which allows for water to permeate
the surface to promote natural drainage and >500 sf to 1000 sf area 8
filtration. The areas provided may include on-
site pedestrian walkways, private >1000 sf area 15
driveways/aisles and parking stalls, but shall
not include loading areas or hardscape
located within public ROW.
7. Utilize non-potable gray water and/or Either gray water or 3
rainwater to supplement required landscape rainwater harvesting
irrigation water. system provided
Both systems provided 6
(may be combined)
8. Outperform the currently adopted energy 5%—9% 5
code standard by the following percentages,
10%—14% 10
measured by the percent (%) over required
energy code standard. 15%+ 15
Exhibit A 152 Ordinance G-####
POSSIBLE
CREDIT DESCRIPTION AND QUALIFIERS OPTIONS
CREDITS
9. Provide on-site renewable energy for the 1 point for each %
entire building’s electricity from renewable of building energy
sources, like wind, solar, geothermal, usage being
biomass or any similar source that is provided
renewable. Based on the load of the service
and the percent of load being provided by a
renewable source.
10. Provide a renewable energy purchasing 10%—35% 5
agreement for the entire building for a
35%+ 10
minimum 5 years, which runs with the
property and applies to the entire building(s).
This agreement shall be recorded and
submitted with the final site plan. Measured
by percent (%) of power purchased to meet
the energy demand for the building.
11. Provide a minimum 8 foot wide public 5 per street
sidewalk for the length of the property frontage
frontage (applicable only when the required
minimum width is less than 8 feet).
12. Provide two separate rows of shade trees Second row trees 10 per street
along the public sidewalk, planted along each matching Streetscape frontage
side of the public sidewalk. minimum requirements
13. Provide a minimum 30-year historic Easement provided on a 20
preservation conservation easement for the property located within
original footprint of a building on a property Downtown
designated HP or HP-L, as approved by the
Easement provided on a 10 (in addition to
Historic Preservation Officer.
property located within the base 20 points)
same Character Area as
development
Exhibit A 153 Ordinance G-####
POSSIBLE
CREDIT DESCRIPTION AND QUALIFIERS OPTIONS
CREDITS
14. Rehabilitate a structure (including building 30
stabilization) on a property zoned HP or HP-L
located within Downtown, as approved by the
Historic Preservation Officer.
15. Provide open space at the ground level on Provide at least 5% of 5
private property (minimum 500 sf and not the gross site area.
less than 10 feet wide any direction), as
Provide at least 10% of 10
follows:
the gross site area.
Dedicate a public access 10 additional
easement over the full
open space area used to
qualify for bonus
16. Provide affordable housing units in the 10%—24% 10
percentage shown with a deed restriction to
25%—49% 15
ensure affordability for a minimum duration
commensurate with the project funding 50%+ 20
agreement, as approved by the Phoenix
Housing Department.
17. Provide solar panels on the roof of the At least 25% of the total 5
building(s), as follows: roof area, up to 50%
More than 50% up to 10
75% of the total roof area
More than 75% of the 15
total roof area
18. Provide electric vehicle charging spaces For use by building 2 per EVC space
with installed electric vehicle charging owners or tenants only
stations (maximum 30 points total).
For use by building 4 per EVC space
visitors and/or general
public
Exhibit A 154 Ordinance G-####
POSSIBLE
CREDIT DESCRIPTION AND QUALIFIERS OPTIONS
CREDITS
19. Provide below grade and/or lower level No parking provided 10
parking areas only. above the ground floor
(not applicable if no parking provided). level
All parking* provided 20
*not including required ADA spaces
below finished grade
20. Provide shade for a minimum of 50% of all 5
occupiable roof areas.
Exhibit A 155 Ordinance G-####
Section 1224. Appeals.
A. Design Alternative Appeals. A Design Alternative appeal is a requested deviation from
development regulations indicated with (R*), or an appeal of a decision by the Planning and
Development Department regarding compliance with a presumption (P). Approval of a
Design Alternative appeal shall result in a furtherance of the goals and policies of the
Downtown Phoenix Plan and the specific intent of the subject Character Area, as approved
by the DRC, as follows:
1. A Design Alternative appeal shall be reviewed and acted upon by the Design Review
Committee (DRC) in accordance with the procedural requirements of Section 507.G.
2. The DRC may approve substitute methods of meeting the intent of development
regulations as part of a Design Alternative appeal.
3. The DRC may impose conditions or stipulations with an approval of a Design Alternative
appeal.
4. When considering a proposed Design Alternative for the required frontage type/design,
the DRC is authorized to provide relief from other related Zoning Ordinance standards
and regulations indicated with (P), (R*), and (R), but not items indicated with (T).
“Related” in this context means that relief from an item indicated by (P), (R*), or (R) is
necessary to approve the proposed design alternative.
5. Each Design Alternative appeal application shall include, at a minimum, the following:
a. For properties with a Historic Preservation (HP) designation, a Certificate of
Appropriateness or Certificate of No Effect must be obtained in advance of filing the
appeal and a copy submitted with the appeal application;
b. A listing of each of the development regulations that are the subject of the proposed
Design Alternative, including all additional items indicated with (P), (R*) and (R)
which also require relief to attain the proposed Design Alternative;
c. A narrative statement describing the justification for the Design Alternative and the
manner in which the proposed Design Alternative would result in a furtherance of the
goals and policies of the applicable Character Area, and would satisfy the findings
required for approval;
d. Site plan;
e. Building elevations;
f. Context plan (per Section 507.E);
g. Landscaping and shading plan;
Exhibit A 156 Ordinance G-####
h. List of property owners located within 150 feet of the subject property as supplied by
the Maricopa County Assessor’s Office; and
i. Such other information as may be required by the Planning and Development
Director or the DRC.
6. In order to approve a Design Alternative appeal, the DRC must make findings as follows:
a. That the project is consistent with the intent, goals, and polices stated for the
applicable Character Area; and
b. That the project demonstrates design excellence by addressing at least two of the
following:
(1) Design innovation and the imaginative use of space, forms, and materials.
(2) Permeability and connectivity which enables people to move within, around and
through the project with ease.
(3) That the design alternative would improve safety and security by introducing
human activity to the public realm with active building frontages onto streets and
other public spaces, and enable "eyes on the street."
(4) The design alternative will incorporate materials and design which enhance
thermal comfort.
B. Sustainability Bonus Appeals. An applicant may appeal a decision of the Planning and
Development Department regarding Sustainability Bonus credits, as outlined in Section
1223, to the Design Review Committee, as follows:
1. A Sustainability Bonus appeal shall be reviewed and acted upon by the Design Review
Committee (DRC) in accordance with the procedural requirements of Section 507.G.
2. The DRC may approve substitute methods of meeting the intent of specific bonus credits
as part of a Sustainability Bonus appeal.
3. The DRC may impose conditions or stipulations with an approval of a Sustainability
Bonus appeal.
4. Each Design Alternative appeal application shall include, at a minimum, the following:
a. A listing of the credits that are being utilized and any supporting documentation (to
be sealed by a licensed professional);
b. Site plan;
c. Building elevations;
d. Context plan (per Section 507.E);
Exhibit A 157 Ordinance G-####
e. A narrative statement describing any deviation from the prescribed bonus credit(s)
that indicates how the proposed standard is furthering the goals and policies of the
Downtown Phoenix Plan and making a quantifiable improvement in the performance
of the building(s);
f. List of property owners located within 150 feet of the subject property as supplied by
the Maricopa County Assessor’s Office;
g. Such other information as may be required by the Planning and Development
Director or DRC.
5. In order to approve a Sustainability Bonus Appeal, the DRC must make findings as
follows:
a. That the project is consistent with the intent, goals, and polices stated for the
applicable Character Area; and
b. That the project is improving the overall performance of the building(s) through
generally accepted building and design standards and innovation; and
c. That the increased entitlements are consistent with the improved performance of the
building(s).
C. Variances/Zoning Adjustment. A variance is a requested deviation from a development
regulation designated as a requirement, or (R), and shall comply with the provisions of
Section 307.A.9, in addition to the following:
1. Any variance/zoning adjustment request within Downtown must be formally reviewed by
the Design Review Committee prior to processing of the variance request, unless the
request is not design-related, as determined by the Design Advisor, or is regarding a
sign regulation. The formal review shall be through the same public hearing process as
indicated in Section 1224.B, except that the Design Review Committee shall, instead of
making findings and a decision, provide a written recommendation to the Zoning
Administrator regarding the variance request. The written recommendation shall, at a
minimum, address the following items:
a. Whether the request is consistent with the intent, goals, and polices stated for the
applicable Character Area; and
b. Whether the request is consistent with the intended Streetscape design and shade
requirements for the applicable Streetscape and Frontage Zones.
2. The applicant shall provide a written narrative for the DRC to review and address as part
of its written recommendation regarding the variance request. The narrative shall, at a
minimum, include the following items:
a. How much relief has, or could be obtained through application of a Sustainability
Bonus;
Exhibit A 158 Ordinance G-####
b. A written explanation why a Sustainability Bonus cannot be applied or obtain the
relief desired by the variance request; and
c. A written explanation of how the development and the variance request is consistent
with the intent, goals, and polices stated for the applicable Character Area.
***
Exhibit A 159 Ordinance G-####
ATTACHMENT B
Staff Report
Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment
Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Application No Z-TA-5-22-7-8: Amend the following sections of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance, as follows:
1. Revise and clarify provisions in Chapters 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 regarding definitions;
variance and Design Review appeal processes, and to address how other sections
interact with Chapter 12 (Downtown Code):
Section 201 (Rules of Construction), Section 202 (Definitions), Section 307.A
(Authority and duties of the Zoning Administrator), Section 507 (Development
Review Approval), Section 669 (Arts, Culture, and Small Business Overlay District),
Section 702 (Off-Street Parking and Loading), and Section 703 (Landscaping,
Fences and Walls).
2. Add a new Section 312 to Chapter 3 to create the Technical Appeals Committee.
3. Repeal and replace Chapter 12 (Downtown Code) with revised and clarified text.
Staff recommendation: Staff recommends approval of Z-TA-5-22-7-8 as shown in the
proposed text in Exhibits A and B.
BACKGROUND
In 2010, City Council approved the Downtown Code (Chapter 12 of the Zoning
Ordinance) as the City’s first form-based code, which was a strategy of the 2008
Downtown Phoenix Urban Form Project (DPUFP). The goal of the DPUFP was
“implementation of the community vision for an active, pedestrian-oriented and
sustainable Downtown.”
The original version of the Downtown Code (DTC) was created as a separate Chapter
12 of the Zoning Ordinance, which caused some challenges in understanding the
Downtown Code’s relationship with other provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. Several
text amendments to better integrate Chapter 12 within the Zoning Ordinance have been
adopted since 2010, the most extensive ones being Z-TA-3-12 (Ordinance G-5777,
2013) and Z-TA-10-13 (Ordinance G-6409, 2018).
Staff Report: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 2
In the 14 years since the original adoption of the Downtown Code, staff and various
stakeholders (property owners, developers, residents) have identified challenges with
requirements, processes, and conflicts with other portions of the Zoning Ordinance--
many of which still exist. This text amendment seeks to address and remedy these
challenges.
PURPOSE
The intent of the proposed text amendment is to update development requirements, fix
process issues, eliminate ordinance conflicts, and clarify the language of the Downtown
Code, while still implementing the vision of the Downtown Phoenix Urban Form Project.
It does so by amending related sections of the Zoning Ordinance to work better with
Chapter 12, as well as rewriting Chapter 12 entirely (based upon the existing language
and format) for ease of understanding and layout. No changes to property entitlements
(i.e. height, density, lot coverage) have been proposed with this text amendment, except
for the correction of some identified errors and typos. However, some development
standards and sustainability bonus points have been revised not only to eliminate
conflicts and confusion, but also to better implement the pedestrian-oriented
environment envisioned by the DPUFP. The proposed text amendment also creates a
new Technical Appeal process for certain technical requirements, and clarifies and
revises existing appeal processes with the goal of eliminating instances when
requesting a modification to a single requirement that requires two separate and
unrelated appeal processes.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED TEXT
The proposed text amendment includes four main components: 1) clarification and
revision of appeal processes; 2) redirecting focus on the pedestrian environment,
specifically the Streetscape and Frontage zones, with clarifications and revisions to
development standards and use of right-of-way, 3) revising other standards of Chapter
12 to address feedback received and clarify intent, and 4) making Chapter 12 easier to
use and implement through grammatical and format revisions, as follows:
1. Clarification and Revision of Appeal Processes:
The existing version of the Downtown Code has two appeal processes: zoning
adjustment (“variance”, through public hearings), and Design Review Committee
(“DRC”, through public hearings). The primary difference between the two is the
basis of the appeal request: property hardship, or design conflict, respectively.
However, many of the modifications requested using the current DTC language
requires both a variance AND DRC approval—simply because of the way the DTC is
written. This is awkward for both hearing bodies as well as the applicants.
In addition, many of the requirements of the DTC are technical requirements, for
which safety or performance is the actual concern, rather than a hardship or design
intent. Requirements such as driveway visibility triangles, sidewalk construction
Staff Report: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 3
materials, pavement slopes, and existing utility conflicts generally require technical
solutions for which neither the variance hearing officer nor the DRC are an
appropriate review body.
Clarification of Appeal Routes
The proposed text amendment now clearly states the appeal route that applies to
each regulation. It does so by utilizing the method established in Section 507.C,
Design Review Principles and Guidelines. This method, established in 1998,
indicates the type of application and appeal route, as follows:
Items indicated with:
(R) = Requirement, for which a hardship must be shown, zoning adjustment
(variance) is required.
(R*) = Requirement which is design-centric, for which a DRC appeal hearing is
required.
(P) = Presumption, for which some staff flexibility is permitted, but for which a
DRC appeal hearing is required after staff negotiation.
(C) = Consideration. No appeal route because these are requests, not
requirements.
(T) = Technical Appeal (new per this proposed text amendment). A safety
or performance issue to be reviewed by technical staff through the
Technical Appeal process to work out an acceptable alternative or
solution.
Any items not indicated in Chapter 12 with any of the above indicators is considered
an (R) by default (requiring hardship/zoning adjustment).
Technical Appeals Committee
This text amendment adds a new indicator, (T), which means the item may be
modified through the Technical Appeal process, the first step of which is
consideration by the new Technical Appeals Committee (TAC). The Technical
Appeal process and TAC are both modeled on the existing Subdivision Committee,
authorized per Chapter 32 of the City Code, and expected to function as one and the
same appeal route and hearing body. This route is further appealable to the City
Manager’s Representative (CMR), and finally to the Development Advisory Board
(DAB), through processes already established in the City Code.
Zoning Adjustment (Variance) vs. Design Review Committee
The proposed revisions to Chapter 12 clearly indicate which items are appealable as
a variance hearing, or a DRC hearing. Variances are primarily for numeric items for
which relief is sought, but without necessarily having an alternative (reduced
setback, reduced sidewalk widths, etc.). The Zoning Adjustment Hearing Officer
must find that a property hardship is present in order to approve a requested
variance. A DRC hearing is required for items for which there is no need to
Staff Report: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 4
demonstrate a hardship, but there is a need to provide a design alternative to
address the design guideline for which relief is requested (frontage element design
standards for doors and windows, building materials, amount of shade, etc.). The
DRC must find that the proposed design meets the intent of the actual design
regulations while also furthering the goal of a pedestrian-oriented environment, while
also finding that the proposed design alternative will also be complementary to the
Character Area.
Chapter 12 has been rewritten so that no item will require both a variance and DRC
appeal. The existing version has instances where a regulation is written several
times, with different appeal routes identified, or items which cannot be asked for
separately, such as an alternative frontage type (DRC appeal) which also exceeds
the maximum setback (variance). In the example provided, the DRC now has the
authority to alter setbacks if requested as part of an approval of an alternative
frontage design for a building, so an additional variance hearing would not be
required.
One other important proposed change is the requirement for the applicant to first
submit a variance request to the DRC for review and recommendation to the zoning
adjustment hearing officer, prior to a variance hearing. The reason for this
requirement is to allow the DRC to provide information on how the requested relief
may or may not affect other design requirements, and how strongly the DRC feels
about the request. The zoning adjustment hearing officer would not be bound by a
DRC recommendation and would decide how to respond to the DRC’s
recommendation as part of the variance hearing process.
2. Focus on Pedestrian Environment/Streetscape and Frontage Zones
As stated earlier, the goal of the DPUFP was “implementation of the community
vision for an active, pedestrian-oriented and sustainable Downtown.” Stakeholders
have provided much feedback regarding DTC development, and have identified
areas where they feel that the existing code does not address items identified in the
DPUFP, or that are not written in a manner which correctly implements such items.
For that reason, Section 1204 has been proposed to be added to compile all of the
Streetscape Zone (public right-of-way) and Frontage Zone (private property abutting
streets) requirements into one section. Some of the regulations were moved from
existing sections of Chapter 12; some have moved and been rewritten for clarity;
and some have been added or revised based on feedback from stakeholders,
including staff.
The proposed text amendment also clarifies that the Streetscape Zone exists inside
the public right-of-way and is the area between the curb and the private property
line. It also establishes a new zone, the Frontage Zone, which is the portion of
private property directly adjacent to the Streetscape Zone and the portion which
Staff Report: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 5
should be designed to encourage pedestrian use and interactions. The concept of
the Frontage Zone comes through in the existing text of the DTC, however the
provisions are now compiled in a more coherent and identifiable manner.
The following illustrations show how the Streetscape and Frontage Zones would be
applied:
Non-Residential Uses (typical)
P/L Residential Uses (typical) P/L
P/L P/L
Staff Report: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 6
The Frontage Zone replaces the “Maximum Setback” requirement in the DTC
Character Area matrices, which clears up a long-standing confusion in the existing
version of the DTC. Feedback from project reviewers and other stakeholders
generally indicates that the maximum setback forces too much into too small of an
area (stairs/steps, ramps, awnings, transformers), and does not allow enough room
for the outdoor uses encouraged by the DPUFP and other sections of Chapter 12.
The Frontage Zone has been created by adding 15 feet to most of the maximum
setback requirements (less for some blocks with already deep maximum setbacks),
but still allows building frontages to project into the Frontage Zone. However, it
greatly eases the restrictions on stairs/steps, ramps, retaining walls, and allows
more room in front of the building for active uses such as outdoor dining and public
gathering areas. Surface parking is still prohibited in all Frontage Zones, though the
requirement has been relocated to Section 1204 from Section 1206.
Frontage Elements vs. Frontage Types
The “Frontage Types” in the existing text have been renamed “Frontage Elements”
and are addressed in Section 1205. Generally, the Frontage Elements remain the
same except for clarified language and illustrations, with the following notable
changes:
• Rename of “Dooryard” to “Patio” (consistent with the term in Chapter 13,
Walkable Urban Code).
• Addition of “Grand Entry” as a new Frontage Element, to address larger
developments with public or semi-public components (such as hotels,
hospitals, large office buildings, government offices, and public assembly
halls) which are difficult to design using any of the existing Frontage Types.
Phoenix Convention Center (example of possible Grand Entry)
Staff Report: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 7
• Addition of “Recessed Display Entry” as an entrance feature which can be
used in conjunction with other Frontage Elements.
Example of Recessed Display Entry
• Revised language also fixes many conflicts about the permitted heights and
locations of walls and fences in the Frontage Zone by clarifying that Section
1207.D regulates walls and fences, except for any modifications stated as
part of a Frontage Element.
Sidewalks
Various regulations regarding public sidewalks have been revised or added. Of
particular note:
• Sidewalks are proposed to be limited to a 6-inch elevation difference from
curb, and/or 10:1 maximum slope between the curb and sidewalk.
Development has occurred which has raised sidewalks in an almost “roller
coaster” manner, in order to bring the public sidewalk up to building exits.
This not only looks odd, but is difficult for pedestrians, particularly those with
physical challenges. Combined with the revised regulations for Frontage
Zones, which are proposed to allow more room for stairs, steps, and ramps
before reaching the maximum setback, this regulation helps keep existing
historic sidewalks in place; provide landscape areas which are more likely to
support live trees and plants; allow easier access from the curb to sidewalk
from on-street parking spaces; allow easier access to parking meters; and
prevent the need for railings in the right of way next to steep drop-offs.
Staff Report: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 8
• Design presumptions have been proposed to be added which would require
sidewalks to have fewer obstacles, jogs, and offsets, especially with respect
to designated historic areas where the sidewalk and streetscape contribute
strongly to the Character Area.
3. Other revised development regulations:
Other notable proposed revisions to development regulations are as follows:
Tree Species Matrix
• Revises the Tree Species Matrix, focusing on the shade trees required within
the Streetscape and Frontage Zone.
• A species not in the matrix could be approved through the Technical Appeal
process, which would involve review and approval by the TAC, including the
PDD Landscape Architect.
Parking, Loading, and Vehicular Access Regulations
• Bicycle parking requirements have been made consistent with standards
applied in the Walkable Urban Code (Chapter 13), and moved to Section
1206, together with automobile parking and other transportation and access
regulations.
• Driveway standards have been updated to reflect actual practices while still
prioritizing the pedestrian environment. While the existing version of the DTC
appeared to almost prohibit driveways on designated Pedestrian Streets, this
was not a standard which could actually support development or meet
nonconforming rights, particularly when the site has existing driveways which
are allowed to remain. The City’s position historically has been that
driveways which were already existing could remain in use. The proposed
text is somewhat more flexible in allowing driveways on Pedestrian Streets,
however, additional protections for driveway spacing, pedestrian visibility,
pedestrian refuges, and driveway sizing/control for higher traffic streets have
also been proposed.
• Maneuvering into parking spaces from the public right-of-way has been
proposed to be permitted for alleys at least 20’ wide, or upon approval of a
Technical Appeal which demonstrates that the proposal is both possible and
safe.
• Passenger Loading Zones, for use by rideshare, delivery vehicles, and private
passenger pick up and dropoff, have been proposed as a use permitted within
the Frontage Zone.
• Valet Parking has been proposed as an accessory use in the Land Use Matrix
together with associated development standards proposed in Section 1206.
The proposed standards are based upon Federal ADA regulations, as well as
typical valet parking development standards imposed by neighboring
jurisdictions.
Staff Report: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 9
Historic Preservation
The relationship between HP and HP-L designated properties and the regulations of
the Downtown Code has been revised and clarified, in all cases to strengthen
Historic Preservation’s role in approving development on designated historic
properties. Examples are:
• Clarifying in Section 1201 that the provisions of Chapter 8, Historic Preservation,
supersede any requirements of Chapter 12, Downtown Code, if they conflict.
• Clarifying that the Active Front Yard Frontage Element, used primarily for blocks
having historic single-family homes, may be modified as approved through the
HP review processes outlined in Chapter 8.
• Requiring sidewalks to remain in historic locations and elevations, with certain
limited flexibility of application by staff.
• Clarifying how height bonuses may be earned in parts of the Business Core and
Warehouse Character Areas through rehabilitation of a historic structure.
• Clarifying how sustainability bonus points may be earned for both preservation
and rehabilitation of a designated historic structure.
Taylor Street Paseo
The Taylor Street Paseo is a pedestrian corridor whose route between 7th Avenue
and 1st Avenue, roughly in the Taylor Street alignment between Fillmore and Van
Buren Streets, was established with the original adoption of the Downtown Code.
Below is the existing Taylor Street Paseo map, which does not show revisions
between 6th Avenue and 4th Avenue already officially made per provisions of Chapter
12, nor areas being used informally by pedestrians as Paseo connectors:
Staff Report: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 10
The map below is the proposed revised map of the Taylor Street Paseo, and also
identifies properties within the Van Buren Character Area which were formerly
subject to the requirements of the Paseo. Provisions to grant the additional density
and lot coverage bonuses to the properties formerly subject to the Paseo regulations
have been proposed in the revised Section 1221.B.8. The provisions require
expansion of the public sidewalk and additional landscape and shading along street
frontages.
Additionally, the Taylor Street Paseo development regulations have been compiled
in Section 1207.N, instead of being repeated (not always with consistent language)
in both the Van Buren and Business Core Character Area regulations.
4. Grammatical and Format Revisions to Chapter 12
All of Chapter 12 was rewritten to create a more intuitive structure, provide better
cross-references, use simpler and more consistent grammar, eliminate conflicts, and
remove duplication of requirements. Examples are as follows:
• Clarifying the proportional application of the Downtown Code by referencing
Section 507.B, which also was revised for clarity.
Staff Report: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 11
• Revising all of the Regulating Maps to show the existing and future Light Rail
lines and remove any streets or alleys which have been abandoned.
• Revising the maximum height map to correct the permitted height on two
properties, as researched by staff and approved by the City Attorney’s office.
• Moving the Land Use Matrix to Section 1203, which was “Reserved”, from
Section 1204.
• Revising the Land Use Matrix in Section 1203 to better organize accessory
uses, and to provide the conditions of approval after the Land Use Matrix
table, instead of prior to it.
• Creating a new Section 1204 which addresses all Streetscape and Frontage
Zone development standards.
• Revising all of the formatting in the Character Areas to read more clearly, as
well as moving some of the common design elements to Section 1207,
General Development Regulations.
• Revising all of the Streetscape and Frontage Zone standards in each
Character Area matrix to show Frontage Zone standards, add Grand Entry
Frontage Element permissions (along larger streets with existing commercial
development standards), and to revise the Streetscape Zone dimensions to
include the required sidewalk width.
• Revising Section 1221, Sustainability Bonus, to reformat the table of
Sustainability Bonus Credits with numbers so that they may be referenced, in
addition to clarifying language where there is existing confusion regarding
implementation.
• Adding new Sustainability Bonus Credit qualifiers such as: providing a double
row of shade trees, and providing below grade structured parking.
• Revising Section 1224, Appeals, to outline the revised zoning adjustment
(variance) process with the required DRC recommendation.
• Revising the language regarding DRC appeal hearings to clarify submittal
requirements, timeframes, and process.
• Revising the permissions granted to the DRC to remove the 35% restriction
(most design items are not numerically measurable) and to grant the ability to
allow modifications to items otherwise needing a variance, but only when part
of a submitted Design Alternative Appeal.
Conclusion:
This proposed text amendment is quite extensive due to the many items identified by
stakeholders needing clarification, revisions, or codification of standards in practice but
not included in the current version of the Downtown Code. The intent of this
amendment is to streamline Downtown development while still implementing the
pedestrian-oriented vision of the Downtown Phoenix Urban Form Project.
Staff recommends approval of the changes to the Zoning Ordinance as proposed in
Exhibits A and B.
Staff Report: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 12
Writer
C. DePerro
July 26, 2024
Exhibits
A. Proposed Revisions to Chapters 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 (legislative edit).
B. Proposed Chapter 12 (as completely rewritten for replacement of the existing
Chapter 12)
EXHIBIT A
Text Amendment Z-TA-5-22-7-8
Downtown Code Updates (not including revised Chapter 12)
Proposed Language:
Section 201. Rules of Construction.
Amend Chapter 2, Section 201 (Rules of Construction) to add term “PDD”:
For the purpose of this ZONING Ordinance, certain terms and words are hereby defined
as follows: Words used in the present tense include the future, words in the singular
include the plural, and words in the plural include the singular; the word "shall" is
mandatory and not permissive; the word "person" includes individuals, partnerships,
corporations, clubs, or associations. The following words or terms, when applied in this
ZONING Ordinance shall carry full force when used interchangeably: lot, plot, parcel, or
premises, used, arranged, occupied or maintained; sold or dispensed, construct,
reconstruct, erect, alter (structurally or otherwise), but not the term maintenance. The
terms "City" and "County" shall mean the City of Phoenix and County of Maricopa,
respectively; "Board" shall mean Board of Adjustment; "Commission" shall mean City
Planning Commission; "Council" shall mean City Council.; “PDD” SHALL MEAN
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
***
Section 202. Definitions.
Amend Chapter 2, Section 202 (Definitions) to add and/or modify definitions as
follows:
***
Alley, Buffer: An alley that is adjacent to a single-family residential use as identified on
Map 1202.F, and in Sections 1207.O and P. AN ALLEY ABUTTING BOTH SINGLE-
FAMILY AND COMMERCIAL USES, DESIGNATED ON THE REGULATING MAPS IN
CHAPTER 12 (DOWNTOWN CODE).
***
CITY MANAGER’S REPRESENTATIVE (CMR): SEE SECTION 32-3 OF THE CITY
CODE.
FRONTAGE ZONE: THE PORTION OF A LOT OR PARCEL LOCATED DIRECTLY
ADJACENT TO A STREET, OF A DEPTH REQUIRED BY THE APPLICABLE ZONING
DISTRICT AND/OR CHARACTER AREA.
***
Off-Street Loading Spaces: An on site space for the standing, loading, and unloading of
vehicles.
***
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 14
Off-Street Passenger Loading: The provision of space off the street and adjacent to a
building entrance for the loading and unloading of automobile passengers. The design of
such space shall be subject to the approval of the Street Transportation Department.
***
SERVICE/GOODS LOADING SPACE: A DESIGNATED AREA WHICH IS PROVIDED
FOR THE LOADING AND UNLOADING OF GOODS AND SERVICES FOR
BUSINESSES AND COMMERCIAL USERS.
Street, Front: A street identified by an area plan towards which the front of buildings are
oriented to minimize driveway cuts. If no area plan is adopted, all single-frontage lots
adjoining a front street must orient the front of the building to the front street. For multi-
frontage lots, the street with the most pedestrian activity is the front street. When lots
adjoin two or more streets with an equal amount of pedestrian activity, both are front
streets. Front streets are not necessarily the street adjoining the lot front.
***
Street, Pedestrian: Sidewalk, landscape, driveway and buildings are designed to create a
safe, pleasant and enjoyable experience for pedestrians. Building openings are oriented
toward the street and vehicular conflicts with pedestrians are minimized. Designated on
Map 1202.E and individual character areas in Chapter 12. A STREET DESIGNATED ON
THE REGULATING MAPS IN CHAPTER 12 (DOWNTOWN CODE), WHICH IS
SUBJECT TO DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND VEHICULAR RESTRICTIONS
INTENDED TO ENHANCE THE PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT.
***
Street, Side: A street identified by an area plan towards which the side of buildings are
oriented. If no area plan is adopted, the street with the least amount of pedestrian activity
is the side street for multi-frontage lots. Side streets are not necessarily the street
adjoining the lot side. A STREET DESIGNATED ON THE REGULATING MAPS IN
CHAPTER 12 (DOWNTOWN CODE), WHICH PERMITS A MIX OF USES AND TYPES
OF ACCESS, SUCH AS (BUT NOT LIMITED TO) PEDESTRIAN, VEHICULAR,
SERVICE, AND LOADING ACCESS.
***
STREETSCAPE: THE LANDSCAPE, SHADE, STREET IMPROVEMENTS, SIDEWALK,
AND OTHER AMENITIES PROVIDED DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO A STREET.
***
Streetscape Zone: The area located behind the right-of-way curb that has either
landscaping per Section 1207 or public amenities (such as seating, artwork). THE
PORTION OF A DEDICATED STREET PROVIDING STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS
AND LOCATED BETWEEN THE BACK OF CURB AND THE FRONTAGE PROPERTY
LINE. THE STREETSCAPE ZONE MAY ALSO INCLUDE A PORTION OF ABUTTING
PRIVATE PROPERTY, PER THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTERS 12 AND 13.
***
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 15
Section 307.A. Authority and duties of the Zoning Administrator
Amend Chapter 3, Section 307.A (Authority and duties of the Zoning Administrator)
to add a requirement for the Design Review Committee to review and make a
recommendation for variance applications within Downtown, as follows:
A. Authority and duties of the Zoning Administrator. There is hereby created in
the City Planning and Development Department a Zoning Administrator. The
Zoning Administrator shall be appointed by the Planning and Development Director
and shall be under his THEIR direction. The Zoning Administrator may appoint
Deputy Zoning Administrators to perform the functions of the Zoning Administrator
and to act under his THEIR direction. The Zoning Administrator shall:
***
9. Authorize upon application and hearing such variance from the terms of this
ZONING Ordinance as will not be contrary to the public interest, when owing
to special conditions, a literal enforcement of any provisions of the ordinance
would result in unnecessary property hardship.
A variance shall not be authorized unless the Zoning Administrator shall find
upon sufficient evidence:
a. That there are special circumstances or conditions applying to the
land, building, or use referred to in the application and which do not
apply to other properties in the district; and
b. That such special circumstances were not created by the owner or
applicant; and
c. That the authorizing of the variance is necessary for the preservation
and enjoyment of substantial property rights; and
d. That the authorizing of the application will not be materially
detrimental to persons residing or working in the vicinity, to adjacent
property, to the neighborhood, or to the public welfare in general.
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 16
e. THAT WHEN A VARIANCE IS REQUESTED FOR A PROPERTY
SUBJECT TO THE DOWNTOWN CODE (CHAPTER 12), THE
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MUST FIRST REVIEW AND
PROVIDE A WRITTEN RECOMMENDATION REGARDING THE
VARIANCE REQUEST, AS FURTHER REFERENCED IN SECTION
1224.C.
***
Section 312. Technical Appeals Committee.
Amend Chapter 3 to add a new Section 312 (Technical Appeals Committee) to
establish a technical review committee to review and decide technical appeals:
SECTION 312. TECHNICAL APPEALS COMMITTEE
A. POWERS AND DUTIES. THE TECHNICAL APPEALS COMMITTEE (TAC) SHALL
HAVE THE POWER AND DUTY UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THESE
REGULATIONS TO HEAR SPECIFIC ITEMS APPEALED BY THE APPLICANT
CONTESTING A DECISION ON A TECHNICAL ITEM OR INFRASTRUCTURE
REQUIREMENT IMPOSED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT, OR A DEVELOPMENT REGULATION INDICATED AS (T) IN
SECTION 507 TAB A AND ALL OTHER ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS
(INCLUDING OVERLAYS) WHICH USE (T) TO INDICATE TECHNICAL ITEMS.
B. MEMBERSHIP. THE TECHNICAL APPEALS COMMITTEE SHALL CONSIST OF
THE SAME MEMBERS AS THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE AS SET FORTH IN
CHAPTER 32 OF THE CITY CODE. THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DIRECTOR IS AUTHORIZED TO APPOINT AND REMOVE ANY MEMBER AT
ANY TIME, WITH OR WITHOUT CAUSE, AND MAY ALSO APPOINT
ADDITIONAL TECHNICAL CITY STAFF TO THE TAC, SUCH AS LANDSCAPE,
FIRE PREVENTION/LIFE SAFETY, WATER/SEWER, AND BUILDING SAFETY.
Section 507. Development Review Approval
Amend Chapter 5, Section 507 (Development Review Approval) as follows:
***
B. Applicability.
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 17
1. Development review applies to all public and private facilities in residential,
commercial and industrial developments in the City in all zoning districts.
The only complete exceptions to compliance with this section are as follows:
a. Single-family and duplex dwelling units constructed prior to May 1,
1998;
b. a. Interior tenant alterations or improvements which do not affect
parking requirements or exterior building appearance;
c. b. Nonstructural remodeling of facade treatment (SUCH AS PAINT);
d. c. Sign permits for properties not otherwise subject to development
review;
e. Development submitted for site plan approval prior to the effective
date of this section.
2. Exterior structural remodeling or / new BUILDING facade treatment, to
buildings AND/OR MODIFICATIONS TO EXISTING SITE IMPROVEMENTS
(DRIVEWAYS, PARKING, SITE WALLS, LANDSCAPE, DRAINAGE
FACILITIES, OR SIMILAR), OR PROPERTIES WITH ADDITIONS
(INCLUDING NEW ACCESSORY STRUCTURES) OF UP TO 2000
SQUARE FEET, without additional square footage is ARE subject to
development review approval as follows:
a. For properties located within the boundary of the Downtown Code,
the following shall apply: COMPLIANCE WITH DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS APPLICABLE ONLY TO THE EXTERIOR PORTION
OF THE BUILDING AND/OR SITE IMPROVEMENTS BEING
MODIFIED, UNLESS OTHERWISE STIPULATED WITH A
REZONING OR ZONING ADJUSTMENT ACTION.
(1) Compliance with the development standards, design standards
and design guidelines of Chapter 12 only for that exterior
portion of the building being modified.
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 18
(2) Provision of landscaping in accordance with adopted
streetscape designs unless prohibitive because of existing
public utilities.
b. Reserved. FOR SITES SUBJECT TO THE DOWNTOWN CODE
(CHAPTER 12) OR WALKABLE URBAN CODE (CHAPTER 13),
PROVISION OF SHADE, LANDSCAPING AND SIDEWALKS IN
ACCORDANCE WITH ADOPTED STREETSCAPE STANDARDS.
UNLESS PROHIBITIVE BECAUSE OF EXISTING PUBLIC
UTILITIES OR OTHER EXISTING SITE CONSTRAINTS, AS
APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT.
3. Additions to buildings are subject to development review approval as
follows: CHANGE OF USE OR OCCUPANCY TYPE, OR INTERIOR
STRUCTURAL REMODELING (“TENANT IMPROVEMENTS”), WITH OR
WITHOUT ADDITIONAL SQUARE FOOTAGE, ARE SUBJECT TO THE
FOLLOWING:
a. An addition of two thousand square feet or less to an existing building
may be required to submit a site plan to the Department of Planning
and Development but shall not be subject to the design review
principles and guidelines set forth in Tab A of Section 507 if the
impacts of the addition are not significant, with the exception that new
structures or additions of 500 square feet or greater on properties
located within the boundary of the Downtown Code shall be required
to meet the shading requirements in Section 1207.D. The Department
of Planning and Development shall determine the significance of an
addition’s impacts on adjacent properties based on noise, odor,
lighting, glare, vibration, visibility from a public street, and removal of
site amenities which are included in a design review principle or
guideline. Surface parking as a primary use is subject to the
provisions of development review if the use is determined to have
impact on adjacent uses or visibility from a public street as
determined by the Department of Planning and Development.
COMPLIANCE WITH CURRENT STANDARDS FOR REQUIRED
AUTOMOBILE AND BICYCLE PARKING.
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 19
b. When an addition of two thousand square feet or less to an existing
building is determined by the Department of Planning and
Development as having significant impacts, as described above, the
addition shall be subject to full development review including the
design review principles and guidelines. SPECIFIC
REQUIREMENTS RELATED TO THE USE OR OCCUPANCY AS
OTHERWISE INDICATED IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
c. When additions to a property after the effective date of this ordinance
total more than two thousand square feet, the property shall be
subject to full development review including the design review
principles and guidelines. REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 507.B.2 IF
EXTERIOR REMODELING AND/OR ADDITIONS UNDER 2000 SF
ARE ALSO INCLUDED.
4. PROPERTIES WITH ADDITIONS OF 2000 SQUARE FEET OR LARGER,
VACANT PROPERTIES, AND/OR PROPERTIES UNDERGOING FULL
DEMOLITION AND REDEVELOPMENT ARE SUBJECT TO FULL
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW, INCLUDING ALL APPLICABLE DESIGN
REVIEW PRINCIPLES AND GUIDELINES, UNLESS STATED
OTHERWISE WITHIN THIS ZONING ORDINANCE.
4. 5. Subdivision plats are processed in accordance with Chapter 32 of the City
Code. Preliminary subdivision plats have the additional requirement to be
reviewed and approved in accordance with the provisions of this section for
context plan and the design review guidelines for subdivisions of Section
507 Tab A (DESIGN REVIEW) AND ALL OTHER CODES AND POLICIES
TO WHICH SUBDIVISIONS ARE SUBJECT.II.C, "Subdivision design."
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 20
5. 6. DEVELOPMENT WHICH EXISTED AT THE TIME OF ANNEXATION, OR
FOR WHICH ALL REQUIRED PERMITS WERE ISSUED BY THE CITY, IS
ASSUMED TO HAVE A VALID DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PLAN, EVEN IF
NO APPROVED SITE PLAN EXISTS. A SITE PLAN MAY BE REQUIRED
BASED ON THE SCOPE OF ANY PROPOSED REMODEL, REVISION,
ADDITION, OR REDEVELOPMENT.
Existing legally constructed development with or without an approved site
plan as of the date of this Ordinance is assumed to have a valid
development review plan. Any site plans which received preliminary or final
approval from the Department of Planning and Development prior to the
enactment of this section shall remain and continue in full force and effect
until such time as the plan is amended or its approval expires.
6. 7. Implementation of single-family design review shall begin on May 1, 1998,
for all subdivision applications which have not obtained preliminary
development review approval. Any site plans or subdivision plats which
received preliminary or final approval from the Department of Planning and
Development prior to the enactment of this section shall remain and
continue in full force and effect until such time as the plan is amended or its
approval expires.
ADAPTIVE REUSE. DEVELOPMENT QUALIFYING AS ADAPTIVE
REUSE MAY BE GRANTED FULL OR PARTIAL ADMINISTRATIVE
RELIEF FROM ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS IN
ACCORDANCE WITH POLICIES ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL. IN SUCH
CASES, THE RELIEF PROVIDED SHALL BE NOTED ON THE SITE PLAN,
OR THE CONSTRUCTION PLANS IF NO SITE PLAN IS REQUIRED.
***
C. Design Review Principles and Guidelines. Design review principles, and
guidelines are listed in Tab A and other sections of this THE ZONING Ordinance.
The principles reflect desired goals and policies for the City. The guidelines indicate
specific implementation standards. The guidelines consist of requirements,
presumptions and considerations.
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 21
1. Requirements (R). Requirements (R) are guidelines contained in this and
other sections of the Zoning Ordinance and specific plans. Requirements
are not permissive in that they contain language that is not discretionary,
such as "shall," "must" and "will." Requirements must be satisfied by any
plan prior to design review approval. If a requirement cannot be satisfied, an
applicant may seek relief through the variance process with the exception
that those requirements followed by an asterisk (R*) are appealable to the
Design Review Committee due to their design-related nature.
2. Presumptions (P). Most of the guidelines are presumptions (P). A guideline
that is a presumption normally will contain the word "should." A plan
submitted for design review is incomplete if it does not demonstrate that the
presumptive elements have been in some way incorporated or overcome.
a. Overcoming a presumption. A presumption that may be unsuitable for
a given project may be waived if an applicant can demonstrate to the
Planning and Development Department that there is a good reason
why the presumption is inappropriate, unless the property is located
within the boundary of the Downtown Code. The Planning and
Development Department may approve an alternative that achieves
the intent of the presumption.
Appropriate reasons for overcoming a presumption include:
(1) Demonstrating that in this instance the underlying design
principles will not be furthered by the application of the
presumption;
(2) Showing that another design principle is enhanced by not
applying the presumption;
(3) Demonstrating an alternative method for achieving the intent of
the presumption;
(4) Explaining the unique site factors that make the presumption
unworkable such as lot size and shape, slope, natural
vegetation, drainage, and characteristics of adjacent
development which are identified through their use of
materials, colors, building mass and form, and landscaping.
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 22
Increase in the cost of development is not an acceptable reason to
waive a guideline or determine that a guideline is inappropriate.
b. Appeals. In the event that a presumption is not incorporated or
overcome, AS DETERMINED BY PDD STAFF, or if the property is
located within the boundary of the Downtown Code an appeal may be
filed by the applicant with the Design Review Committee. Appeals to
presumptions (P) and requirements followed by an asterisk (R*)
located in Tab A.II.C, "Subdivision design," shall be heard by the
Design Review Committee. THE APPLICANT MAY FILE AN APPEAL
TO BE HEARD BY THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE PER
SECTION 507.G.
c. Purpose and intent of single-family design guidelines.
Notwithstanding the above, there are differences in the application of
design guidelines for single-family development. In the R1-10 through
R-5 zoning districts, the conventional development option establishes
the baseline development conditions for single-family detached
development. Deviations from these standards for the entire
subdivision will require application of the planned residential
development (PRD) option and the associated design guidelines
found in subsection 507 Tab A.II.C. When applying these guidelines,
staff will consider the unique conditions of each site, such as context
area, lot size and shape, slope, natural vegetation, and drainage. In
addition, staff will strive to ensure that affordable housing
opportunities are not precluded. The PRD option is intended to
encourage quality and creative design solutions through the use of
flexible development standards. This design review structure is
intended to foster a dialogue between staff and the applicant which
facilitates creative responses to unique site conditions while being
mindful of housing affordability.
3. TECHNICAL ITEMS (T). DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS INDICATED BY
(T) WITHIN THIS AND OTHER SECTIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE
ARE CONSIDERED TECHNICAL ITEMS. TECHNICAL ITEMS MAY BE
APPEALED THROUGH THE TECHNICAL APPEAL PROCESS SPECIFIED
IN SECTION 507.H.
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 23
3. 4. Considerations (C). Design guidelines listed in the adopted design review
guidelines as considerations (C) are issues and concepts that an applicant
should consider in preparing a plan. Their omission is not grounds for
rejecting a plan, but their inclusion or recognition is encouraged and may
assist in overcoming certain presumptions and in gaining acceptance for a
plan.
5. ITEMS WITHIN SECTION 507 TAB A AND OTHER SECTIONS OF THE
ZONING ORDINANCE WHICH ARE NOT QUALIFIED BY AN (R), (R*), (P),
(T) OR (C) SHALL BE TREATED AS REQUIREMENTS (R), UNLESS
EXPLICITLY STATED OTHERWISE.
D. Process. The development review process includes the following steps:
1. Pre-application conference with the Planning and Development Department
staff (see subsection E);
2. Preliminary review (see subsection F);
a. Submittal of design DEVELOPMENT review documents by the
applicant/property owner;
b. Routing of documents to various departments and agencies for
comment where needed;
c. Staff review and consolidation of comments;
d. Preliminary design review meeting with applicant and any interested
citizen where needed;
3. Consideration of any DESIGN REVIEW appeals (see subsection G);
4. Review CONSIDERATION of ANY technical APPEALS documents (see
subsection H);
5. Final document submittal responding to staff comments (see subsection I);
6. Final approval of development review documents (see subsection J);
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 24
7. Building permit issuance (see subsection J);
8. Site inspection and issuance of certificate of occupancy (see subsection J);
9. Follow-up inspection (see subsection J).
***
G. Design Alternatives and Sustainability Bonus Appeals. A design alternative or
sustainability bonus appeal is a deviation from the prescribed standards and design
guidelines. Design alternatives and sustainability bonus appeals apply to properties
within the boundary of the Downtown Code, which would result in a furtherance of
the goals and policies of the Downtown Phoenix Plan and the specific intent of the
subject character area as approved by the DRC. Design alternatives apply to
properties with Walkable Urban Code zoning, which would result in a furtherance of
the goals and policies of Transit Oriented Policy Plans or other relevant policy
plans.
1. Each design alternative application shall include, at a minimum, the
following:
a. A Certificate of Appropriateness or Certificate of No Effect must be
obtained in advance of filing for any property with a Historic
Preservation (HP) zoning designation;
b. A listing of the standard(s) or guideline(s) that are the subject of the
proposed design alternative;
c. A narrative statement describing the justification for the design
alternative and the manner in which the proposed design alternative
would result in a furtherance of the goals and policies of the
Downtown Phoenix Plan, Transit Oriented Policy Plans, or other
relevant policy plans and would satisfy the findings required for
approval;
d. Site plan;
e. Building elevations;
f. Context plan;
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 25
g. Landscaping and shading plan;
h. List of property owners located within 150 feet of the subject property
as supplied by the Maricopa County Assessor’s Office; and
i. Such other information as may be required by the Planning and
Development Director or DRC.
2. Each sustainability bonus appeal application shall include, at a minimum,
the following:
a. A listing of the credits that are being utilized and any support
documentation (to be sealed by a licensed professional).
b. Site plan;
c. Building elevations;
d. Context plan;
e. A narrative statement describing any deviation from the prescribed
credit(s) that indicates how the proposed standard is furthering the
goals and policies of the Downtown Phoenix Plan and making a
quantifiable improvement in the performance of the building(s);
f. List of property owners located within 150 feet of the subject property
as supplied by the Maricopa County Assessor’s Office;
g. Such other information as may be required by the Planning and
Development Director or DRC.
3. Within 15 calendar days of the date of filing a design alternative or
sustainability bonus appeal application, the applicant shall mail a notice by
first class mail to all property owners within 150 feet of the subject site
explaining the request and providing the date, time and location of the DRC
meeting at which the application will be reviewed.
4. In order to approve a design alternative, the DRC must make findings as
follows:
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 26
a. That the project is consistent with the intent stated for the subject
character area in the Downtown Code;
b. That the project demonstrates design excellence by addressing at
least two of the following:
(1) Design innovation and the imaginative use of space, form and
materials.
Permeability and connectivity which enables people to move
within, around and through the project with ease.
The project improves safety and security by introducing human
activity to the public realm with active building frontages onto
streets and other public spaces, and enables "eyes on the
street."
The project incorporates materials and design which enhance
thermal comfort.
Modifications from prescribed standards as per Section 1313;
and
c. That the project demonstrates design excellence by addressing
design alternatives that demonstrate conformance with the intent of
the Walkable Urban Code as set forth in Section 1301.B and in
general conformance with the policies contained within the Transit
Oriented Policy Plans or other relevant policy plans. The
modifications must meet the standards set forth in Section 1313.
5. In order to approve a sustainability bonus appeal, the DRC must make
findings as follows:
a. That the project is consistent with the intent stated for the subject
character area;
b. That the project is improving the overall performance of the
building(s) through generally accepted building and design standards
and innovation; and
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 27
c. The increased entitlements are consistent with the improved
performance of the building(s).
6. In approving a design alternative or sustainability bonus appeal, the DRC
may impose any reasonable conditions to ensure that the approval complies
with the findings required above.
7. A design alternative or sustainability bonus appeal application will be
reviewed at a public meeting within 30 calendar days from the date of
submission of the application. Any person invited to the review of the
preliminary report with the applicant shall be informed by the Planning and
Development Department of the date, time and location of the meeting.
8. A decision on the design alternative or sustainability bonus appeal
application will be made by the DRC on the date of the public meeting
unless continued at the discretion of the Committee and a certificate of
approval shall be transmitted to the applicant in writing.
G. DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS
1. THE PROPERTY OWNER OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE MAY
APPEAL A DEPARTMENT DECISION ON A DESIGN REVIEW ITEM TO
THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE, WHO SHALL HEAR THE APPEAL
PER SECTION 309, AS FOLLOWS:
a. AN ACTION OR DECISION OF THE PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT IMPOSING CONDITIONS IN
ACCORDANCE WITH:
(1) DESIGN REVIEW PRESUMPTIONS, WHICH ARE
TYPICALLY INDICATED AS (P); OR
(2) OTHER PRESUMPTIVE STANDARDS OR CRITERIA
INDICATED BY THE WORD “SHOULD”.
b. A DESIGN REVIEW REQUIREMENT INDICATED WITH AN (R*).
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 28
c. AN ACTION OR DECISION OF THE PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT IMPOSING CONDITIONS IN
ACCORDANCE WITH URBAN DESIGN PRINCIPLES, ADOPTED
DESIGN REVIEW POLICIES, OR DESIGN DECISIONS WHICH
ARE IMPOSED TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY
AND WELFARE.
d. A DESIGN ALTERNATIVE APPEAL, AS PROVIDED IN THE
DOWNTOWN CODE, CHAPTER 12, OR IN THE WALKABLE
URBAN CODE, CHAPTER 13.
e. A SUSTAINABILITY BONUS APPEAL, AS PROVIDED IN THE
DOWNTOWN CODE, CHAPTER 12.
2. DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE HEARING PROCESS. AN APPEAL TO
THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MUST BE SUBMITTED NO LATER
THAN 30 CALENDAR DAYS AFTER A DECISION HAS BEEN ISSUED BY
THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REGARDING THE
SUBJECT DESIGN REVIEW ITEM.
a. APPEALS SHALL BE IN WRITING ON A FORM PROVIDED BY
THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AND SHALL
INCLUDE ONLY THOSE ITEMS APPEALABLE TO THE DESIGN
REVIEW COMMITTEE.
b. AN APPEAL SUBMITTAL MUST BE COMPLETE BASED UPON
THE REQUEST AND REQUIREMENTS ON THE SUBMITTAL
CHECKLIST BEFORE IT IS SCHEDULED FOR A HEARING.
STAFF WILL REVIEW THE SUBMITTAL FOR COMPLETENESS
AND PROVIDE A WRITTEN LIST OF ANY DEFICIENCIES TO THE
APPLICANT WITHIN 15 CALENDAR DAYS OF RECEIPT OF THE
SUBMITTAL.
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 29
c. ONCE DETERMINED TO BE COMPLETE, AN APPEAL WILL BE
SCHEDULED FOR THE NEXT DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
HEARING, BUT NO SOONER THAN 15 CALENDAR DAYS FROM
STAFF DETERMINATION THAT THE SUBMITTAL IS COMPLETE.
BY MUTUAL CONSENT OF PDD STAFF AND THE APPLICANT,
THE APPEAL MAY BE SCHEDULED FOR A LATER DRC
HEARING.
d. NO LATER THAN 15 CALENDAR DAYS PRIOR TO THE
SCHEDULED DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE HEARING, THE
APPLICANT SHALL MAIL A NOTICE TO ALL PROPERTY
OWNERS AND REGISTERED NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS
WITHIN 150 FEET OF THE SUBJECT SITE EXPLAINING THE
REQUEST AND PROVIDING THE DATE, TIME AND LOCATION OF
THE DRC MEETING AT WHICH THE APPLICATION WILL BE
REVIEWED.***
e. ANY PERSON WHO HAS BEEN OR WILL BE INVITED TO THE
PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN REVIEW MEETING WITH THE
APPLICANT SHALL BE INFORMED BY THE PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OF THE DATE, TIME AND
LOCATION OF DRC APPEAL HEARING.
f. IN APPROVING AN APPEAL, THE DRC MAY IMPOSE ANY
REASONABLE CONDITIONS TO ENSURE THAT THE APPROVAL
COMPLIES WITH ANY FINDINGS REQUIRED.
g. A DECISION ON THE APPEAL WILL BE MADE BY THE DESIGN
REVIEW COMMITTEE ON THE DATE OF THE HEARING UNLESS
CONTINUED TO A FUTURE DRC HEARING AT THE DISCRETION
OF THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE. THE DECISION SHALL
BE TRANSMITTED BY PDD STAFF TO THE APPLICANT IN
WRITING WITHIN 15 CALENDAR DAYS OF THE DECISION.
h. THE DECISION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE IS FINAL
AND NON-APPEALABLE.
H. Appeals. There are two distinct categories of review standards, design and
technical:
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 30
1. Appeal of design review decisions. An action or decision of the Planning
and Development Department imposing conditions in accordance with
presumptive design review guidelines, urban design principles, or design
decisions which are imposed to protect the public health, safety and welfare
may be appealed to the Design Review Committee within 15 calendar days
from the date of the staff’s preliminary review decision. The Planning and
Development Department will submit any background material regarding the
appeal to the Design Review Committee within two working days prior to the
hearing date.
a. Appeals shall be in writing on a form provided by the Planning and
Development Department and shall include only those items being
appealed.
b. An appeal will be heard within 30 calendar days from the date of
submission of an appeal. Any person invited to the review of the
preliminary report with the applicant shall be informed by the
Planning and Development Department of the date, time and location
of appeal hearing.
c. A decision on the appeal will be made by the Design Review
Committee on the date of the hearing unless continued at the
discretion of the Committee and shall be transmitted to the applicant
in writing. The decision of the Design Review Committee shall be
final.
2. Appeal of technical requirements. An action or decision of the Planning
and Development Department which results from a non-design-related issue
may be appealed within 15 calendar days to the City Manager’s
representative. The Planning and Development Department will submit any
background material regarding the appeal to the City Manager’s
representative within two working days prior to the hearing date.
a. Appeals shall be in writing on a form provided by the Planning and
Development Department and shall include only those items being
appealed.
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 31
b. An appeal will be heard within 15 calendar days from the date of
submission of an appeal. Any person invited to the review of the
preliminary report with the applicant shall be informed by the
Planning and Development Department of the date, time and location
of appeal hearing.
c. A decision on the appeal will be made by the City Manager’s
representative within five calendar days from the date of the hearing
and transmitted to the applicant and interested parties in writing.
d. Appeal to Development Advisory Board. An appeal of the decision of
the City Manager’s representative may be made to the Development
Advisory Board within 15 calendar days after the date of the decision.
Appeals shall be in writing on a form provided by the Planning and
Development Department and shall include only those items not
agreed upon. Within 30 calendar days after service of the "notice of
appeal," the Planning and Development Department shall transmit to
the Development Advisory Board and to the Law Department a
transcript, with exhibits, of the City Manager’s representative’s
hearing. The Development Advisory Board shall review the transcript
and exhibits and may, at their discretion, hear further oral arguments
and receive written briefs from both the applicant and the Law
Department.
e. Development Advisory Board action. The Development Advisory
Board may:
(1) Affirm the decision of the City Manager’s representative;
(2) Remand the matter for further proceedings before the City
Manager’s representative; or
(3) Reverse or modify the City Manager’s representative’s
decision.
The decision of the Development Advisory Board is final.
H. TECHNICAL APPEALS
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 32
1. THE PROPERTY OWNER OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE MAY
APPEAL A DEPARTMENT DECISION REGARDING A TECHNICAL ITEM,
AN INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIREMENT IMPOSED BY THE
DEPARTMENT, OR AN ITEM INDICATED AS (T) IN SECTION 507 TAB A,
CHAPTER 12 AND OTHER SECTIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE
TO THE TECHNICAL APPEALS COMMITTEE (TAC) PER SECTION 312,
AS FOLLOWS:
a. ANY APPEAL SHALL BE FILED NO LATER THAN 15 CALENDAR
DAYS FOLLOWING A DECISION OF THE PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
b. THE TAC MAY GRANT AN APPEAL IF THE APPELLANT CAN
DEMONSTRATE THAT THERE EXISTS EXTRAORDINARY
CONDITIONS OF TOPOGRAPHY, LAND OWNERSHIP, OR
ADJACENT DEVELOPMENT, OR OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES NOT
PROVIDED FOR IN THESE REGULATIONS. THE TAC MAY
MODIFY THE REQUIREMENT(S) IN SUCH A MANNER AND TO
SUCH EXTENT AS MAY BE APPROPRIATE TO THE PUBLIC
INTEREST SOUGHT TO BE PROTECTED BY THE
REQUIREMENT(S) REQUESTED TO BE MODIFIED. IN
MODIFYING THE REQIREMENT(S), THE TAC MAY MAKE SUCH
ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS AS APPEAR NECESSARY TO
SUBSTANTIALLY SECURE THE OBJECTIVES OF THE MODIFIED
REQUIREMENT(S).
c. IN ADDITION TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF H.1.B, REQUESTS
FOR TECHNICAL APPEALS ARISING FROM DEVELOPMENTS
SUBJECT TO THE DOWNTOWN CODE (CHAPTER 12),
WALKABLE URBAN CODE (CHAPTER 13) AND ANY OTHER
AREA-SPECIFIC TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE
APPROVED ONLY IF THE MODIFICATION IS CONSISTENT WITH
ANY STATED RATIONALE, GOAL, OR INTENT SPECIFIC TO THE
CHARACTER AREA AND APPLICABLE STREETSCAPE
STANDARDS. THE TAC MAY IMPOSE STIPULATIONS TO
ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH SUCH RATIONALE, GOAL OR
INTENT WHEN APPROVING A TECHNICAL APPEAL.
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 33
2. APPLICATION. TECHNICAL APPEALS SHALL BE FILED IN WRITING
ON A FORM PROVIDED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT, AS FOLLOWS:
a. THE REQUEST SHALL ADDRESS ONLY THOSE ITEMS BEING
APPEALED.
b. THE REQUEST SHALL INCLUDE TECHNICAL INFORMATION
AND A NARRATIVE RELATED TO THE APPEAL, CLEARLY
EXPLAINING WHY THE PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE IS
EQUIVALENT TO OR BETTER THAN THE TECHNICAL ITEM
BEING APPEALED.
3. THE TAC WILL CONDUCT A REVIEW OF THE APPEAL AT THEIR FIRST
REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING FOLLOWING A COMPLETE
SUBMITTAL.
a. THE TAC MAY CHOOSE TO DEFER ACTION ON THE APPEAL
AND INSTEAD SEND THE APPEAL REQUEST DIRECTLY TO THE
CITY MANAGER’S REPRESENTATIVE (CMR) FOR HEARING, AS
OUTLINED BELOW.
b. THE TAC MAY CHOOSE TO REQUEST ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION PRIOR TO RENDERING A DECISION.
4. THE TAC SHALL TAKE ONE OF FIVE ACTIONS ON THE APPEAL:
APPROVE, APPROVE WITH STIPULATIONS, DENY, FORWARD FOR
CMR HEARING WITHOUT RECOMMENDATION, OR CONTINUE TO A
SUBSEQUENT TAC MEETING IF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IS
REQUIRED FOR REVIEW BEFORE RENDERING A DECISION.
5. A DECISION OF THE TAC SHALL BE CONSIDERED FINAL IF NOT
APPEALED TO THE CMR WITHIN 15 CALENDAR DAYS OF THE
DECISION.
6. CITY MANAGER’S REPRESENTATIVE APPEAL HEARING. A
DECISION OF THE TAC MAY BE APPEALED TO THE CMR BY THE
PROPERTY OWNER OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE WITHIN 15
CALENDAR DAYS.
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 34
a. SCHEDULING OF CMR HEARING. A TECHNICAL APPEAL WILL
BE HEARD BY THE CMR WITHIN 30 CALENDAR DAYS FROM
THE DATE OF FORWARDING FROM TAC. THE APPLICANT
SHALL BE NOTIFIED IN WRITING OF THE DATE OF THE CMR
HEARING NO LATER THAN SEVEN CALENDAR DAYS PRIOR TO
THE HEARING.
***
b. CITY MANAGER’S REPRESENTATIVE’S DECISION. A DECISION
ON THE APPEAL WILL BE MADE BY THE CMR AT THE HEARING.
THE CMR SHALL TAKE ONE OF FIVE ACTIONS ON THE APPEAL:
APPROVE, APPROVE WITH STIPULATIONS, DENY, CONTINUE
TO A SUBSEQUENT CMR HEARING FOR FURTHER
CONSIDERATION, OR ISSUE A RULING AT A LATER DATE IN
ORDER TO FIRST SEEK ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND/OR
PROFESSIONAL ADVICE. THE FINAL CMR DECISION SHALL BE
TRANSMITTED IN WRITING TO THE APPLICANT AND ANY
INTERESTED PARTIES WHO WERE IN ATTENDANCE AT THE
HEARING.
7. APPEAL TO DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARD. AN APPEAL OF THE
DECISION OF THE CMR MAY BE MADE TO THE DEVELOPMENT
ADVISORY BOARD, AS ESTABLISHED UNDER CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE
IX OF THE CITY CODE. NOTWITHSTANDING THE PROCESS
OUTLINED IN CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE IX, SECTION 2-172, AN APPEAL
UNDER THIS PROVISION MUST BE FILED WITHIN 15 CALENDAR DAYS
OF THE DATE OF THE CMR DECISION.
***
Section 669. Arts, Culture, and Small Business Overlay (ACOD) District
Amend Chapter 6, Section 669 (Arts, Culture, and Small Business Overlay District)
as follows:
***
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 35
B. Applicability. The Arts, Culture and Small Business Overlay may be applied to
land bounded by Interstate 10 Inner Loop (Papago Freeway) on the north, 20th
Street to the east, Buckeye Road to the south and 19th Avenue to the west. The
application of the overlay on specific parcels will occur subject to approval by City
Council through the rezoning process in accordance with zoning map amendment
section of the Zoning Ordinance. The regulations governing the uses of land and
structures shall be as set forth in the underlying zoning districts or other overlay
districts, except as expressly modified by the following regulations and as regulated
by other provisions of City Code. Where there is a conflict with other Zoning
Ordinance provisions, the more permissive shall apply.
1. FOR PROPERTIES NOT ZONED DOWNTOWN CODE (DTC), THE
APPLICATION OF THE OVERLAY ON SPECIFIC PARCELS WILL OCCUR
SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY CITY COUNCIL THROUGH THE
REZONING PROCESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 506.B. THE
REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE USES OF LAND AND STRUCTURES
SHALL BE AS SET FORTH IN THE UNDERLYING ZONING DISTRICTS
OR OTHER OVERLAY DISTRICTS, EXCEPT AS EXPRESSLY MODIFIED
BY THE FOLLOWING REGULATIONS AND AS REGULATED BY OTHER
PROVISIONS OF CITY CODE. WHERE THERE IS A CONFLICT WITH
OTHER ZONING ORDINANCE PROVISIONS, THE MORE PERMISSIVE
SHALL APPLY.
2. FOR PROPERTIES ZONED DOWNTOWN CODE (DTC), APPLICATION
OF THE ARTS, CULTURE, AND SMALL BUSINESS AREA
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ON AFFECTED PROPERTIES SHALL
BE AS SPECIFIED BY SECTION 1207.M.
***
Section 702. Off-Street Parking and Loading
Amend Chapter 7, Section 702 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) to correct a
numbering error for Section 702.B (Off-Street Loading Spaces), which
immediately follows Section 702.G, and to make other minor changes to terms
used.
B.H. Off-Street SERVICE/GOODS Loading Spaces.
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 36
1. General provisions, requirements for space size. Off-street
SERVICE/GOODS loading spaces shall be not less than ten (10) feet in
width and thirty (30) feet in length, exclusive of access aisles and
maneuvering space.
2. Off-Street SERVICE/GOODS loading spaces required. The following
shall apply to all developments, except for single family developments
and vehicular parking areas.
a. Commercial developments (excluding office) less than 60 feet in
height and industrial developments, shall provide the following
off-street SERVICE/GOODS loading spaces:
***
b. Office development less than 60 feet in height shall provide the
following off-street SERVICE/GOODS loading spaces:
***
c. Multi-family residential development shall provide the following
off-street SERVICE/GOODS loading spaces:
***
d. Commercial or office developments (excluding multi-family) over
60 feet in height and all hotel or resort developments shall
provide the following off-street SERVICE/GOODS loading
spaces:
3. The off-street loading facilities required shall in all cases be on the same
lot or parcel of land as the structure they are intended to serve.
SERVICE/GOODS LOADING SPACES SHALL BE LOCATED ON-SITE
UNLESS SPECIFICALLY PERMITTED ELSEWHERE BY THE ZONING
ORDINANCE. In no case shall the required off-street loading space be
part of the area USED to satisfy the off-street parking requirements of
this Ordinance.
***
Section 703. Landscaping, Fences and Walls.
Amend Chapter 7, Section 703 (Landscaping, Fences and Walls) to correct a
provision regarding when a Certificate of No Effect or Certificate of
Appropriateness is required for a wall/fence.
A. Height of Fences and Retaining Walls.
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 37
***
2. The following shall apply to all residence districts:
a. For lots fronting on a public street, private accessway or private
drive, no fence or freestanding wall (not supporting a building or
structure) within or bounding the required front yard, shall
exceed a height of 40 inches, provided:
(1) For properties located within an Historic Preservation
(HP) Overlay District, fences or freestanding walls in the
front yard, meaning the space between the structure and
the street right-of-way line, may not exceed a maximum
height of three (3) feet, and are conditioned upon
obtaining a certificate of appropriateness or no effect in
accordance with Section 812 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance. This height limitation extends to a point three
(3) feet beyond the front corner(s) of the primary
structure.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION DESIGNATED PROPERTIES.
FOR PROPERTIES DESIGNATED HP AND HP-L, FENCES
OR FREESTANDING WALLS IN THE FRONT YARD (THE
AREA BETWEEN THE STRUCTURE AND THE STREET
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE) SHALL NOT EXCEED A MAXIMUM
HEIGHT OF THREE FEET. THIS HEIGHT LIMITATION
EXTENDS THREE FEET BACK FROM THE FRONT
FAÇADE INTO THE SIDE YARD(S).
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 38
EXHIBIT B
Chapter 12
DOWNTOWN CODE
Section 1201. Code Administration.
Section 1202. Regulating Maps.
Section 1203. Land Use Matrix.
Section 1204. Streetscape and Frontage Zones.
Section 1205. Frontage Elements.
Section 1206. Parking, Loading, and Vehicular Access.
Section 1207. General Development Regulations.
Section 1208. Biomed.
Section 1209. Business Core.
Section 1210. Central Park.
Section 1211. Commercial Corridors.
Section 1212. Downtown Gateway.
Section 1213. East Evergreen.
Section 1214. Evans Churchill East.
Section 1215. Evans Churchill West.
Section 1216. McDowell Corridor.
Section 1217. Roosevelt East.
Section 1218. Roosevelt North.
Section 1219. Roosevelt South.
Section 1220. Townsend Park.
Section 1221. Van Buren.
Section 1222. Warehouse.
Section 1223. Sustainability Bonus Points.
Section 1224. Appeals.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 39
Section 1201. Code Administration.
A. Purpose and Intent. The purpose of the Downtown Code is to implement the vision, goals
and policies of the Downtown Phoenix Plan and provide the physical environment necessary
to create a pedestrian-oriented, dynamic urban center with an authentic sense of place. The
intent of the Downtown Code is to address design that impacts the public realm by
establishing standards and guidelines that will allow projects to develop over time in a scale
and character consistent with the Downtown Phoenix Plan and with the vision and goals of
PlanPHX.
B. Applicability. The Downtown Code applies to all land uses, subdivisions, and development
within the boundary specifically identified in Section 1202.A and generally bounded by
McDowell Road on the north, 7th Street on the east, Buckeye Road on the south, and 7th
Avenue on the west. This boundary shall be hereafter known as “Downtown”. The
“Downtown Code” may be abbreviated as “DTC”.
1. Historic Preservation. Properties with Historic Preservation (HP) zoning are subject to
the provisions of Chapter 8, Historic Preservation, of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance in
addition to the provisions of Chapter 12, Downtown Code. In the event of a conflict
between the provisions of Chapter 8 and Chapter 12, the provisions of Chapter 8 shall
prevail.
2. If a conflict occurs between requirements of the Downtown Code and other provisions
the City of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance (not including Chapter 8), the requirements of the
Downtown Code shall prevail.
3. Development review of sites located within Downtown shall be in conformance with the
provisions of Section 507.B, unless specifically stated otherwise within this Chapter.
C. Approval Requirements. Each structure and land use shall be established, constructed,
reconstructed, enlarged, altered, moved or replaced in compliance with the following
requirements:
1. The land use or function must be allowed by the Use Matrix in the Character Area where
the site is located, unless subject to the provisions of Chapter 9, Nonconformities.
2. Development review approval shall be obtained in accordance with the procedures
outlined in Section 507, Development Review Approval.
3. Guidelines, standards, and requirements in this Chapter indicated with the markers (R),
(R*), (P), (T), and (C) shall be applied and enforced in the same manner as indicated in
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 40
Section 507. Items not indicated with an (R), (R*), (P), (T), and (C) shall be treated as
(R).
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 41
Section 1202. Regulating Maps.
A. Character Areas. This map designates the Character Area boundaries for the Downtown
Code:
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 42
B. Maximum Building Height. This map designates maximum building heights within
Downtown.
1. The height limits shown on the following map are the base requirements and do not
include any height bonuses which may be allowed per other sections of this Chapter.
Additional setbacks may apply at the boundary between different height zones, per
Section 1207.E.
2. No building height may exceed the Airport Height Limits provided in Chapter 4, Article
XIII of the Phoenix City Code.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 43
C. Maximum Density. This map designates maximum density limits within Downtown.
1. The density limits shown on the following map are the base requirements and do not
include any density bonuses which may be allowed per other sections of this Chapter.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 44
D. Pedestrian Streets, Side Streets, and Enhanced Corners. This map designates the
streets within Downtown that are either Pedestrian or Side Streets, as referenced elsewhere
within this Chapter. The map also designates Enhanced Corner locations as referenced
elsewhere in this Chapter. Public streets not designated on this map shall be considered
Pedestrian Streets.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 45
E. Buffer Alleys. This map designates Buffer Alleys for which abutting properties must
conform to the requirements outlined elsewhere in this Chapter.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 46
F. Arts, Culture and Small Business Area. This map designates the Arts, Culture, and Small
Business Area referenced elsewhere in this Chapter:
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 47
Section 1203. Land Use Matrix.
A. Applicability. The Land Use Matrix regulates all permitted uses within Downtown.
B. Use Regulations. The regulations governing the uses of land and structures shall be set
forth in the Land Use Matrix, Section 1203.C, and Land Use Conditions in Section 1203.D:
1. Any use not specifically listed in the Land Use Matrix shall not be permitted.
2. All uses indicated with “p” are permitted with the applicable Character Area.
3. All uses indicated with “pc” are permitted with conditions within the applicable Character
Area. The conditions are described in Section 1203.D, Land Use Conditions, by the
associated condition number (e.g. “pc15” is described under Section 1203.D.15).
4. All uses indicated with “up” are permitted within the applicable Character Area only upon
approval of a Use Permit per Section 307.A.7.
5. All uses indicated with “sp” are permitted within the applicable Character Area only upon
approval of a Special Permit per Section 504.1.
6. All uses indicated with “np” are not permitted within the applicable Character Area.
C. Land Use Matrix.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 48
LAND USE CATEGORIES CHARACTER AREAS
Evans Evans
ACTIVE Central Commercial Dntn East McDowell Roosevelt Roosevelt Roosevelt Townsend Van
BioMed BC Churchill Churchill Warehouse
USE Park Corridors Gateway Evergreen Corridor East North South Park Buren
East West
RESIDENTIAL USES
Boarding House pc1 pc1 sp, pc1, pc1, 13 pc1 pc1 pc1 pc1 pc1, 13 pc1, 13 sp, pc1, up, pc1, 13 pc1, 13 pc1 pc1
13 13
Community Residence Home pc29 pc29 pc29 pc29 pc29 pc29 pc29 pc29 pc29 pc29 pc29 pc29 pc29 pc29 pc29
Dwelling Unit, Multi-Family p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p
Dwelling Unit, Single-Family, np np p p np p p p p p p p p p np
Detached (including Duplex and
Triplex uses)
Dwelling Unit, Single-Family np np p p np p p p p p p p p p np
Attached
Group Home pc1 pc1 sp, pc1, pc1, 13 pc1 pc1 pc1 pc1 pc1, 13 pc1, 13 sp, pc1, up, pc1, 13 pc1, 13 pc1 pc1
13 13
Group Foster Home p p up p p p p p p p up up p p p
Live-Work x p p pc11, 15 p p p p p p p np p p p p
Subdivision, Single-Family Infill np np pc27 pc27 np pc27 pc27 pc27 pc27 pc27 pc27 pc27 pc27 pc27 np
Accessory to Residential Uses Only:
Accessory Dwelling Unit np np pc31 pc31 np pc31 pc31 pc31 pc31 pc31 pc31 pc31 pc31 pc31 np
Home Occupations pc32 pc32 pc32 pc32 pc32 pc32 pc32 pc32 pc32 pc32 pc32 pc32 pc32 pc32 pc32
ASSEMBLY USES
Assembly, General x p p np p p up p p p up np np p p p
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 49
LAND USE CATEGORIES CHARACTER AREAS
Evans Evans
ACTIVE Central Commercial Dntn East McDowell Roosevelt Roosevelt Roosevelt Townsend Van
BioMed BC Churchill Churchill Warehouse
USE Park Corridors Gateway Evergreen Corridor East North South Park Buren
East West
Day Care (Adult Day Care Center x p p pc13, 15 p p pc13, 15 p p p p pc13, 15 pc13, 15 p p p
and Child Care), Nursery School
Religious Assembly x p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p
School x p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p
School, Commercial x p p np p p p p p p up np up p p p
GENERAL RETAIL SALES AND RELATED SERVICE USES
Artist Studio/Gallery x p p pc4, 6, p p* pc4, 6, 17 p* p* p pc4, 6, 17* np pc4, 6, 17* p p p
Bakery x p p np p p up p p p p np up p p p
Commercial Recreation x p p np p p np p p p p np np p p p
Farmers Market x pc26 pc26 np pc26 pc26 pc26 pc26 pc26 pc26 pc26 np pc26 pc26 pc26 pc26
Garden Center, Plant Nursery x np np np p p p p p p p np p p p p
Pawn Shop x up np np up up np up up up up np np up up up
Pet Care Facility x up up np up up up up up up up np np up up up
Pet Day Care Facility x up np np p p np p p p up np np p p p
Pet Grooming x up np np p p np p p p up np np p p p
Retail Sales x p p np pc10 p pc7 pc9 pc10 pc10 pc9 np pc9 pc8 p p
Second Hand/Used Merchandise x pc21 pc21 np pc10, 21 pc21 pc7, 21 pc9, 21 pc10, 21 pc10, 21 pc9, 21 np pc9, 21 pc8, 21 pc21 pc21
Sales
FOOD SERVICE AND ENTERTAINMENT
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 50
LAND USE CATEGORIES CHARACTER AREAS
Evans Evans
ACTIVE Central Commercial Dntn East McDowell Roosevelt Roosevelt Roosevelt Townsend Van
BioMed BC Churchill Churchill Warehouse
USE Park Corridors Gateway Evergreen Corridor East North South Park Buren
East West
Bar x up p np up up up up up up up np up up up p
(ac) Outdoor Liquor Service x up up np up up up up up up up np up up up up
Liquor, Retail Sales x up up np up up np up up up up np np up up up
Dance Hall x np up np np np np np np np np np np np up up
Restaurant x p p np p* p* pc7 p* p* p p* np pc2* p p p
Brew Pub, Microbrewery, Winery x up24 up24 np up24 up24 up24 up24 up24 up24 up24 np up24 up24 up24 p24
Accessory Only To Restaurant/Brew Pub/Microbrewery/Winery:
(ac) Outdoor Liquor Service x up p np up up up up up up up np up up up p
(ac) Outdoor Cooking x up pc4, 16 np up up np up up up up np np up up up
(ac) Outdoor Dining x p p np pc3* p* np p* p* p p* np pc3* p pc3 p
(ac) Patron Dancing x p p np p p np p p p p np np p p p
LODGING
Bed and Breakfast x p p up p p p p p p p np p p p p
Hotel/Motel x p p np p p p p p p p np up p p p
HEALTH AND SUPPORT SERVICES
Clinic, Medical or Dental x p p np p p p p p p up np up p p p
Community Residence Center x p p sp p p p p p p p sp up p p p
Hospice x p p sp p p p p p p p sp up p p p
Hospital x p p np p p up p p p p np up p p p
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 51
LAND USE CATEGORIES CHARACTER AREAS
Evans Evans
ACTIVE Central Commercial Dntn East McDowell Roosevelt Roosevelt Roosevelt Townsend Van
BioMed BC Churchill Churchill Warehouse
USE Park Corridors Gateway Evergreen Corridor East North South Park Buren
East West
Laboratory, Medical, Dental or p p np up p up p p up up np up up up up
Clinical
Laboratory, Research p p np up up up up up up up np up up up p
Medical or Dental Office x p p np p p p p p p p np p p p p
Nursing Home or Assisted Living x p p sp p p p p p p p sp up p p p
Center
Veterinary Office x p p np p p p p p p p np up p p p
INDUSTRIAL AND MANUFACTURING USES
Building Materials np np np np np np np np np np np np np up p
Contractor’s Yards np up np np np np np np np np np np np up up
Manufacturing - Artisan np np np p np np np np np np np np np p p
Manufacturing - Light np np np p np np np np np np np np np p p
Manufacturing - General np np np np np np np np np np np np np np p
Manufacturing - Heavy np np np np np np np np np np np np np np np
OFFICE AND PROFESSIONAL USES
Financial institutions x p p np p p up p p p p np up p p p
General Office x p p np p p p p p p p np up p p p
Professional Office x p p np p p p p p p p pc19 p p p p
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 52
SERVICES
Appliance Repair x pc4, 6, np np pc4, 6, 17 pc4, 6, np pc4, 6, pc4, 6, pc4, 6, 17 pc4, 6, 17 np np pc4, 6, 17 p p
17 17 17 17
Business Services x p p np p p np p p p p np np p p p
Personal Services x p p np p p np p p p p np p p p p
Tattoo/Body-Piercing Studio x p p np p p np p p p sp np np np p p
STORAGE AND WHOLESALING USES
Self Service Storage Facility sp np np p sp np np sp sp sp np np np p p
Storage/Warehousing (indoor) np np np sp np np np np np np np np np sp sp
Wholesale Sales np np np up np np np np np np np np np up up
UTILITY AND TRANSPORTATION USES
Motor Vehicle Rentals x up pc12 np up pc12 np sp sp sp sp np np sp up up
Motor Vehicle Sales (New) and x sp pc12 np pc12 pc12 np sp sp sp sp np np sp pc12 pc12
Leasing
Motor Vehicle Service Station, x np sp np up19 np np np np up19 np np np np sp np
Fuel Sales
Motor Vehicle Service and Repair, x np np np np np np np np np np np np np sp np
Minor
Motor Vehicle Washing np np np np np np np np np np np np np np np
Bus Terminal np sp np np np np np np np np np np np np sp
Public Utility Buildings and pc28 pc28 pc28 pc28 pc28 pc28 pc28 pc28 pc28 pc28 pc28 pc28 pc28 pc28 pc28
Facilities
ACCESSORY USES AND FACILITIES
Accessory Structure (not ADU) np np p p np p p p p p p p p p np
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 53
Adult Day Care Home up p up p p p p p p p up p p p p
Dependent Care Facility up p up p p pc14 p p p p up pc14 p p p
Drive-Through np np np pc19, 20 np np np np pc19, 20 np np np np np np
Helistop/Heliport sp sp np sp sp np np sp sp sp np np np sp sp
Home Occupation as per Section p p p p* p* p* p* p* p* p* p p* p p p
608.E.27
Outdoor Crafting of Art up up up p22* up* up p22* p22* p22 p22* up np up up p22
Outdoor Display/Sales x up up np p up up up up up up np up up p p
Outdoor Storage np np np p np np np np np np np np np p p
Outdoor Entertainment x up pc4, np up* pc5, 16, up pc5, 16, pc5, 16, up up* np up* up pc4, 16, pc4, 16, 23
16, 23 18, 23* 18, 23* 18, 23* 23
Pocket Shelter (Accessory to pc13, 25 pc13, pc13, 25 pc13, 25 pc13, 25 pc13, 25 pc13, 25 pc13, 25 pc13, 25 pc13, 25 pc13, 25 pc13, 25 pc13, 25 pc13, pc13, 25
Religious Assembly Only) 25 25
Repair and/or Storage Facilities up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up
(Accessory to Public Utility
Building and Facilities Only)
Storage np np np p np np np np np np np np np p p
Valet Parking pc30 pc30 pc30 pc30 pc30 pc30 pc30 pc30 pc30 pc30 pc30 pc30 pc30 pc30 pc30
Local Food Production
Community Garden up up up up up up up up up up np up up up up
Home Produce Stand x np np up np np up np np np np np up np np up
Interim Uses
Interim Vacant Land Uses p p p p p p p p p p up p up p p
Environmental Remediation up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 54
Surface parking up up np np up np up up np up np np np up up
Civic Event p p np np np np np np np np np np np np p
LAND USE KEY: p=permitted use, pc=permitted with conditions (see numbered footnote for conditions), up=use permit, sp=special permit,
np=not permitted
* = For properties within the Arts, Culture, and Small Business Area (see map in Section 1202.G), please refer to the additional regulations
outlined in Section 1207.C. If a regulation of Section 1207.C conflicts with the provisions of this Land Use Matrix, the more permissive regulation
shall apply.
Note: Alcohol sales and service on properties within an Entertainment District designated by the City Council pursuant to Section 4-207, Arizona
Revised Statutes, must also comply with Section 307(A)(17) of the Zoning Ordinance.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 55
D. Land Use Conditions. The following shall apply to uses that are permitted with conditions
(pc) as indicated with a number that corresponds with the Land Use Matrix in Section
1203.C:
Spacing:
1. No use shall be located on a lot with a property line within 1,320 feet of the same type of
use as measured in a straight line in any direction of the lot line of another such use.
Separation:
2. The use shall not be located within 50 feet of a Buffer Alley as measured from the
exterior walls of a building or portion thereof in which the use is conducted to the right-of-
way line of the Buffer Alley.
3. The use shall not be located within 25 feet of a Buffer Alley as measured from the
portion of the property on which the use is conducted to the right-of-way line of the
Buffer Alley.
Environmental Quality:
4. Noise, odor, dust, gas, heat, smoke, glare or vibration shall not be emitted at any time by
the use that exceeds the general or ambient level by uses immediately off site as
compared at the parcel boundary.
5. No amplified music or loudspeakers may be used outside after 8:00 p.m. on Sundays
and after 10:00 p.m. on Fridays and Saturdays, unless a use permit is obtained.
6. The noise level, measured at any point on the received property, shall not exceed 55
dBa unless a use permit is obtained. An occurrence where the sound level increases up
to 60 dBa for five continuous seconds or less shall not be deemed a violation of this
section as long as there are no more than five occurrences within an hour-long interval.
Maximum Size:
7. The use shall not exceed 2,500 square feet of building area.
8. The use shall not exceed 5,000 square feet of building area per tenant, unless a use
permit is obtained.
9. The use shall not exceed 10,000 square feet of building area, unless a use permit is
obtained.
10. The use shall not exceed 25,000 square feet of lot area.
11. The use shall not exceed 25 percent of the total under roof area, unless a use permit is
obtained to enlarge to a maximum of 50 percent of the total under roof area.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 56
12. The use shall not include more than ten display vehicles.
Maximum Persons:
13. The use may not be conducted for more than ten persons.
14. The use may not be conducted for more than 12 persons.
15. The use may not employ more than one nonresident person.
Hours of Operation:
16. The use is limited to Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays only.
17. The use may not be conducted between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.
18. The use may only be conducted between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 12:00 midnight on
Fridays and Saturdays and between 10:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on Sundays, unless a
use permit is obtained to extend the hours.
Location:
19. The use may only occur on a site that is adjoining an arterial street which is not a light-
rail street.
20. Drive-through windows shall not be located within a Frontage Zone, nor drive-through
queuing lanes, which also must be screened from the view from the right-of-way unless
approval is obtained from the Design Review Committee.
21. Used/second hand merchandise cannot be received or processed at a site in Downtown
for sale at another site. No outdoor sales or displays allowed.
22. Outdoor crafting of art subject to the following:
a. Must be associated with an enclosed business when the subject parcel abuts an
arterial or collector street.
b. Storage of materials associated with the crafting area shall not exceed eight feet in
height and shall be limited to the rear or side yard.
c. Storage area shall be fully screened with a solid wall or landscaping.
d. Storage of materials associated with the crafting area exceeding eight feet in height
shall be subject to obtaining a use permit in accordance with the provisions of the
Zoning Administrator section of the Zoning Ordinance.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 57
23. Outdoor entertainment, subject to the following:
a. Outdoor event or performances are open to the public.
b. The outdoor event or performance must be presented by an existing business on the
property.
c. The business’s regularly stocked items may be displayed outdoors and be available
for purchase during the event or performance. Payment for all items shall occur
indoors. No other items may be displayed for sale outdoors during the event or
performance.
24. The facility shall be licensed by the State as a producer, domestic microbrewery or
domestic farm winery.
25. Drug, alcohol, other substance abuse or mental health rehabilitation programs shall not
be allowed as part of the shelter services.
26. Farmers markets, subject to the following:
a. Obtaining an administrative temporary use permit (ATUP) in accordance with the
provisions of Section 708 if no food or beverage is dispensed from a vehicle.
b. Obtaining a use permit in accordance with the provisions of Section 307 if food or
beverage is dispensed from a vehicle.
c. On-site operational conditions and improvements may be stipulated as a condition of
an ATUP or use permit approval.
27. Single-family infill subdivision, per Section 608.F.6 and Section 614, Table 614.B, except
as modified below:
a. Historic Preservation designated properties or properties in historic districts cannot
use the single-family infill development option.
b. Maximum height: as per height map, Section 1202.B.
c. Maximum density: as per density map, Section 1202.C.
d. Maximum lot coverage: 100 percent per townhome lot; overall subdivision lot
coverage per applicable Character Area.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 58
e. Frontage Requirements: as per the applicable Character Area; or if lots front on a
something other than a Frontage Zone, per the regulations of Section 608.F.6 and
Section 614, Table B, Column D.
f. Setbacks:
(1) Perimeter setbacks (interior and street frontage): per the applicable Character
Area; or if lots front on a dedicated alley with no Frontage Zone, minimum 10 feet
setback.
(2) Individual lot front (not on a perimeter): 0 feet.
(3) Individual lot side and rear: 0 feet or the required perimeter setback, whichever
is greater.
g. Allowed uses: single-family attached dwelling units and home occupations per
Section 608, except that units fronting a perimeter street (not an alley) may have
additional uses as permitted per the applicable Character Area. Single-family
detached units are permitted for no more than 20% of the units in an SFI
development to allow for variety and efficiency of design.
h. Parking and loading: per Section 1206, except that one space per dwelling unit is
required to be covered.
i. Design: units adjacent to perimeter streets shall provide primary entrances facing
and accessible from the street. No garages or carports are allowed to face perimeter
streets. (R*)
j. All subdivisions must comply with the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance
(Chapter 32 of the City Code), as may be modified by the Subdivision Committee to
further the goals of this Chapter and the applicable Character Area.
28. Public utility buildings and facilities shall be fully screened and subject to the following:
a. Mixed use opportunities should be prioritized for locating utility buildings and
facilities. The applicant shall submit a written analysis to the Planning and
Development Director or his/her designee of possible mixed use opportunities to
allow for an integrated development project that minimizes the visual impact of the
proposed utility. (R*)
b. All public utility buildings and facilities subject to the provisions of this land use
condition shall be reviewed and acted upon by the Design Review Committee as a
Design Alternative Appeal, per the provisions of Section 1224.A.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 59
c. The applicant must hold a public neighborhood meeting and send written notification
of the public neighborhood meeting and the DRC hearing date to real property
owners and to neighborhood associations registered with the City pursuant to the
DRC process handout.
d. The use cannot be located on a light rail street or adjoining Hance Park, or only
separated by a street from Hance Park, unless the mixed use opportunity outlined in
Section 1203.D.28.a is satisfied.
e. For the required street frontage(s), the Design Review Committee (DRC) may
approve one of the following:
(1) A wall designed to mimic the frontage type which meets the intent of both the
applicable character area and the streetscape standards, and that appears to be
a conforming building as viewed from street.
(2) A creative use or frontage design alternative that surrounds the public utility
building and facilities, as determined by the DRC as appropriate for scale of the
area.
(3) A micro-park, which shall include at least three of the following elements, as
indicated below, and as determined by the DRC as appropriate for scale of the
area:
A minimum of two of the following installations:
(a) Recreational amenities such as but not limited to a single basketball hoop,
swing, and/or climbing equipment.
(b) Landscape areas designed to create outdoor rooms or useful spaces, which
may include extensive hardscape, decorative paving and/or artificial turf.
(c) Shade trees or shade structures.
(d) Lighting and seating designed to discourage camping.
In addition, a minimum of one of the following more significant scale installations:
(e) A local public art component and/or wall displays for local public arts
organizations.
(f) An educational component that describes the history or setting.
(g) Facilities for pop-up retail, restaurant, farmers markets, and/or public events,
which may include programming that changes seasonally, if permitted in the
character area.
(h) Facilities for pets, which may include water sources, enclosures for off-leash
activity, and stations for pet washing.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 60
f. When considering an alternative frontage proposal in accordance with Section
1203.D.28.e, the DRC is authorized to provide relief from other Frontage and
Streetscape Zone regulations, including those indicated as (R).
Dispersal and Establishment of a Registered Use:
29. Community residence homes, subject to the following:
a. The home has no more than five residents, not including staff (unless permitted by
Section 36-582(A), Arizona Revised Statutes); or
b. For a home with six to ten residents, not including staff, the following conditions shall
apply:
(1) Such home shall be registered with, and administratively verified by, the Planning
and Development Department Director’s designee as to compliance with the
standards of this section as provided in Section 701.
(2) No community residence home shall be located on a lot with a property line
within 1,320 feet, measured in a straight line in any direction, of the lot line of
another community residence home that has been registered with six to ten
residents.
(3) Disability accommodation from the spacing requirement may be requested by an
applicant per Section 701.E.3.
Accessory Uses:
30. Valet Parking, subject to the following:
a. Valet parking is permitted by right if accessory to a permitted use or a use permitted
with conditions, so long as all of the conditions are complied with. For primary uses
subject to approval through a use permit or special permit, valet parking is permitted
as an accessory use only if the valet parking is specifically approved as part of the
use permit or special permit.
b. Valet parking spaces for a use located on a different site than for which the parking is
to be provided is allowed only if the following three conditions are met:
(1) Both the site where the parking is to be located, and the site for which the
parking is provided, are allowed the use(s) for which the parking is to be
provided. For sites with uses permitted by use permit or special permit,
compliance with Section 1203.D.30.a is required.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 61
(2) The site on which the valet parking is to be provided also has a primary use, or is
otherwise permitted to have valet parking.
(3) The site where the valet parking is to be located has provided parking spaces in
excess of any required minimum parking for the subject site. This provision does
not grant permission to provide more parking spaces than the maximum parking
spaces allowed for uses located on the site.
c. Valet parking facilities, when provided, must comply with the additional development
regulations of Section 1206.G.
31. Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). Two ADUs are permitted on a lot which has only one
other single-family detached dwelling unit. A third ADU is permitted only when at least
one ADU qualifies as low-income housing and the net lot size is a minimum of 43,560
square feet.
32. Home Occupations, subject to the provisions of Section 608.E.27. Properties subject to
the provisions of Arts, Culture, and Small Business Area have additional permissions, as
outlined in Section 1207.M.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 62
Section 1204. Streetscape and Frontage Zones.
A. Applicability.
1. Streetscape Zone. This is the area located between the curb and the property line
located within a dedicated street, of a minimum depth as stated in the Frontage and
Streetscape Zone Matrix for each individual Character Area.
a. The minimum depth required is inclusive of sidewalk provided within the Streetscape
Zone.
2. Frontage Zone. This is the portion of a private lot or parcel located directly adjacent to
a Streetscape Zone, of a depth as stated in the Frontage and Streetscape Zone Matrix
for each individual Character Area.
a. The depth of the Frontage Zone is measured from and perpendicular to the property
line abutting the street.
b. If the Street Transportation Department allows a sidewalk easement to be dedicated
in lieu of required ROW based upon the adopted Street Classification Map, and/or a
public utility easement is dedicated, the Frontage Zone depth shall be measured
from the back of the easement. If both easements are dedicated over the same area,
the setback shall be from the larger easement.
c. Frontage Zones and associated development regulations apply only to the first 25
feet of the development as measured vertically above the finished grade.
d. Frontage Zones do not apply where parcels abut dedicated alleys.
3. Combined Dimensions of Streetscape Zone and Frontage Zone.
a. In cases where the existing Streetscape Zone does not meet the minimum depth
required, the Frontage Zone depth shall be increased by the same amount as the
deficiency in the Streetscape Zone depth, unless the Streetscape Zone can be
brought into compliance within the existing ROW, or by dedication of additional
ROW as approved by the Street Transportation Department.
b. When the minimum Frontage Zone depth is 15 feet or greater, Planning and
Development staff have the authority to reduce the Frontage Zone depth by up to 5
feet so long as the Streetscape Zone is increased by the same amount.
c. Additional easement dedications may be required if public sidewalks, public
utilities, or other public amenities are provided within the Frontage Zone. (T)
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 63
Figure 1204.1 Non-Residential Streetscape and Frontage Zone (example)
Figure 1204.2 Residential Streetscape and Frontage Zone (example)
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 64
B. Streetscape Zone Standards.
1. Intent. The Streetscape Zone is the public realm, and the area from which the public
may access private properties via multiple transportation modes.
a. Along Pedestrian Streets, the Streetscape Zone area should be designed primarily
for pedestrians, providing shade, easy access to building entrances, and
complementary landscaping.
b. Along Side Streets, the Streetscape Zone area is expected to have automobile
access, parking and loading access, as well as service areas adjoining them, while
still serving pedestrians.
2. Structures and Projections within the Streetscape Zone. Structures shall not be
constructed or provided within the Streetscape Zone, except where specifically permitted
within this Chapter. Any allowed structural projections into public rights-of-way may only
be installed upon issuance of an encroachment permit as administered by the City of
Phoenix, and if applicable, approval from affected public utility companies. (T)
a. Cantilevered structural shade elements projecting from the building are not subject to
minimum setback requirements and are allowed to project into the public right-of-way
(with approval of an encroachment permit) so long as the structures do not preclude
the installation of required street trees. The shade elements shall be removable,
unless otherwise approved in writing by all affected City departments and utilities. (T)
b. Stairs/steps/accessible ramps to building entrances (other than those required for
public street crossings or existing grade differentials within the public right-of-way)
are not permitted within the Streetscape Zone. Retaining walls within the
Streetscape Zone are regulated by Section 1204.D. (T)
c. Transformers and other mechanical equipment are not permitted to be located within
the Streetscape Zone. (T)
3. Uses permitted within the Streetscape Zone. No uses are permitted with the
Streetscape Zone unless specifically permitted by other provisions of this Chapter, with
the following exceptions:
a. Development regulations for uses permitted within the Streetscape Zone shall be the
same as those provided for the adjacent Frontage Zone, unless specific regulations
for the use or structure located within the Streetscape Zone are provided elsewhere
within this Chapter.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 65
b. Uses which are permitted by right or with conditions for a site per Section 1203, Land
Use Matrix, that are not specifically permitted to be conducted within the right-of-way
per other provisions of this Chapter, may be permitted within the right-of-way
adjacent to the site with the issuance of an encroachment permit approved by the
Street Transportation Department, if the following are complied with:
(1) The use of the right-of-way does not preclude compliance with all other
regulations regarding the Streetscape Zone, including but not limited to the
minimum sidewalk width, and
(2) The proposed use complies with the development regulations required of the use
when located within the adjacent Frontage Zone.
(3) The Street Transportation Department has no other objections to or conflicts with
the request.
c. Uses which are permitted with approval of a use permit or special permit for a site
per Section 1203, Land Use Matrix, that are not specifically permitted to be
conducted within the right-of-way per other provisions of this Chapter, may be
permitted within the right-of-way adjacent to the site with the issuance of an
encroachment permit approved by the Street Transportation Department if the
following are complied with:
(1) The use of the right-of-way does not preclude compliance with all other
regulations regarding the Streetscape Zone, including but not limited to the
minimum sidewalk width, and
(2) The use of the right-of-way is specifically shown and reviewed as part of the use
permit or special permit approval.
(3) The Street Transportation Department has no other objections to or conflicts with
the request.
4. Private pedestrian and bicycle amenities being provided for residents or on-site users
should not be located within the public right-of-way. (P)
Rationale: Non-structural amenities (such as benches, lit bollards, bicycle racks, or
public art) should not cause obstructions to pedestrian routes, prevent proper installation
or clearances for required landscape, or private utility lines in the Streetscape Zone.
Amenities should instead be provided within the Frontage Zone whenever possible. This
does not apply to amenities specifically provided for public use.
5. In the Roosevelt North, Roosevelt South, and Roosevelt East character areas, where
there is an existing Streetscape Zone larger than required by the applicable Character
Area, a private development shall not reduce the Streetscape Zone by moving the curb
and widening the street to provide new on-street parking, loading, or drop off areas: (R*)
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 66
Rationale: The Roosevelt Character areas retain a significant number of historic single-
family homes, and many blocks have large areas between the curb and the sidewalk
historically used for landscaping. These areas should not be reduced for vehicle parking,
passenger loading, or good/services loading, unless approved by both Street
Transportation and the Design Review Committee.
6. On-Street Parking. When on-street parking is provided abutting a site, a minimum 4-foot
wide concrete walkway may be provided adjacent to the raised curb in addition to the
required sidewalk, so long as it does not preclude installation of required street trees.
The walkway shall provide paved connections at reasonable intervals to the public
sidewalk, and be constructed to the same standards as the public sidewalk. (T)
Rationale: Persons exiting a car parked adjacent to a curb should not have to step into
a landscape or other areas unsuitable for pedestrians.
7. Sidewalks.
a. Location. The required public sidewalk shall be located within the Streetscape Zone,
subject to the following:
(1) On a Side Street, the sidewalk may be attached to the curb, unless it is a
designated Arterial Street. (T)
(2) On a Pedestrian Street, the sidewalk shall be detached from the curb and the
required street trees located between the curb and sidewalk, unless a Technical
Appeal is approved to allow an attached sidewalk when abutting on-street
parking. (T)
(3) When a required sidewalk is approved to be attached to the curb, the sidewalk
shall be a minimum of 8 feet wide, regardless of the Character Area requirement.
(T)
b. Elevation. The required public sidewalk should be constructed no higher than six
inches above the immediately adjacent street top of curb. Additional elevation may
be permitted without a Technical Appeal when the area between the back of curb
and sidewalk has a slope no steeper than 10:1 and no retaining walls are provided.
(T)
Rationale: Most of the sidewalks in Downtown are existing and historic. Sidewalks
reconstructed higher than 6” above the adjacent top of curb can make access from
on-street parking difficult; can provide challenges with ADA compliance; can cause
steep slopes within adjacent landscape areas which encourage erosion and
discourage the growth of plants and trees; and can interrupt the visual and historic
continuity of the neighborhood. If the finished floor of the building(s) are higher than
six inches above the top of curb, ramps and/or steps should be provided from the
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 67
sidewalk to the building entries, rather than raising the sidewalk, unless it can be
done in a very gradual manner.
c. Planning and Development staff may allow a decrease in the minimum required
sidewalk width of up to one foot in the case of conflicts with existing utilities other
existing obstacles which cannot otherwise be avoided. (T)
d. The required sidewalk shall be clear of all obstacles for the full minimum required
sidewalk width. Approved amenities and landscaping (including tree grates) shall
only be allowed within portions of the sidewalk wider than the minimum required. (T)
e. Sidewalks located within the public right-of-way shall be constructed using materials
and methods approved by the Street Transportation Department. (T)
f. Where setback sidewalks exist on a block face where there is an HP designated
property, the sidewalk should remain within the historic alignment for that block face
and not be offset by more than one foot. (P)
Rationale: Historic streetscapes are generally defined by a consistent sidewalk and
landscape area along a single block face. These streetscapes are an important part
of the Downtown Phoenix character and should be maintained whenever possible.
g. The required sidewalk should not have jogs and offsets, and should be in a straight
line unless navigation around existing conflicts in the Streetscape Zone is
unavoidable. (P)
Rationale: Pedestrians of all capabilities should be able to navigate sidewalks easily
and not have unnecessary diversions around landscape, amenities, transformers, or
similar potential obstructions.
C. Frontage Zone Standards.
1. Intent. The Frontage Zone is the interface between the public and the private realm,
and the area where public amenities (including but not limited to pedestrian and bicycle
amenities, outdoor dining, public courtyards, public art, etc.) should be located.
2. Structures within the Frontage Zone. Structures shall not be constructed within the
Frontage Zone, except where specifically permitted by this Chapter.
a. For wall/fence requirements, refer to Section 1207.D and any applicable Frontage
Element regulations.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 68
b. For retaining wall requirements, refer to Section 1204.D and any applicable Frontage
Element regulations.
3. Amenities and Projections within the Frontage Zone. The following items may
project or be constructed within the Frontage Zone, but no closer than the minimum
setback as stated in the Frontage and Streetscape Zone Matrix for each individual
Character Area, unless specifically permitted elsewhere in this Chapter: (R*)
a. Frontage Elements, as allowed by the Character Area.
b. Exterior stairwells constructed as part of the building and not part of the hardscape.
The following items are permitted anywhere within the Frontage Zone and are not
required to meet minimum setbacks, so long as they do not preclude installation of
required street trees and shading requirements:
c. Outdoor dining patio or bar area, covered or open (if a permitted use).
d. Bicycle parking and amenities.
e. Pedestrian amenities.
f. Exterior art installations.
g. Passenger loading zones.
h. Valet parking facilities, subject to the provisions of Section 1206.G.
i. Drainage facilities.
j. Mechanical equipment/systems, so long as a minimum 5 feet separation from the
public sidewalk is provided.
k. Basements/utility vaults.
l. Parking spaces within structured parking and/or located internal to the building and
screened from view of the Frontage Zone.
m. Cantilevered awnings/shade structures.
n. ADA ramps/pathways.
4. Minimum Building Frontage Requirements.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 69
a. The length of each building façade constructed within or abutting the Frontage Zone
shall be no less than required by the Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix for the
applicable Character Area and street section, unless otherwise approved by the DRC
as a Design Alternative per Section 1224.A.
b. The minimum building frontage requirement shall be calculated as a percentage of
the length of the frontage property line, and the façade shall be measured by a line
parallel with the frontage property line. For the purposes of this calculation only, the
following may be subtracted from the length of the frontage property line:
(1) The width of driveways at the frontage property line, so long as the driveways are
otherwise compliant with this Chapter.
(2) The portion of required visibility triangles which are deeper than the applicable
Frontage Zone depth.
c. All portions of the building façade abutting or located within the Frontage Zone,
including Frontage Elements, may be used to calculate the required minimum
building frontage. Certain Frontage Elements may provide additional flexibility in
calculating the required minimum building frontage, as stated elsewhere in this
Chapter.
d. Underground structures cannot be counted toward meeting minimum building
frontage requirements.
5. Hardscape Guidelines—Frontage Zones.
a. Alternative paving materials should be used when possible within the Frontage Zone
to reduce the urban heat island effect, and to allow natural drainage and filtration. (T)
b. Permeable paving, porous concrete or similar material should be installed adjacent
to tree wells. The design should ensure adequate watering and root growth. (T)
c. Alternative materials such as brick pavers, permeable concrete pavers, granite and
flagstone should be encouraged on private walkways and patio/gathering areas. (T)
D. Grading and Drainage Requirements—Streetscape and Frontage Zones.
1. The maximum slope of any landscape or non-hardscape area located within the
Streetscape Zone is 10:1. (T)
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 70
2. The maximum grade differential of the Frontage Zone from the adjacent Streetscape
Zone is 30 inches, unless specifically permitted elsewhere in this Chapter. (T)
3. Retaining walls are not allowed within the Streetscape Zone. (T)
4. Retaining walls up to 36 inches in height are allowed within the Frontage Zone, unless
greater height is specifically permitted elsewhere in this Chapter. (T)
5. If the required finished floor elevation is at a height which will require stairs or ADA
ramps to connect building entries with the sidewalk, or will require a retaining wall
exceeding heights permitted for Streetscape and Frontage Zones, the depth of the
Frontage Zone may be increased to the depth required to avoid steps or ramps (if
desired). (T)
E. Design Requirements—Frontage Zones.
1. Along Pedestrian Streets, buildings facades facing Frontage Zones shall incorporate at
least one of the Frontage Elements allowed by the applicable Character Area into the
façade for a minimum of 75% of the required building frontage for each Frontage Zone,
unless a Design Alternative is approved by the Design Review Committee per Section
1224.A. (R*)
2. Along Side Streets, buildings facades facing Frontage Zones should incorporate at least
one of the Frontage Elements allowed by the applicable Character Area into the façade
for a minimum of 50% of the required building frontage for each Frontage Zone. (P)
Rationale: Appropriate Frontage Elements for have been determined through extensive
staff analysis and community input for each Character Area, as well as the specific
streets within each area. Facades located along designated Side Streets may be
granted additional flexibility in application of this design requirement.
3. The portion of a building facade adjacent to a Frontage Zone which does not comply
with a Frontage Element design should have a level of trim and finish compatible with
the quality and design of the remainder of the Frontage Zone façade(s). (P)
Rationale: The portion of facades not required to meet the minimum building frontage,
or the portion which does project into the Frontage Zone should still consist of high
quality materials, and be integrated with the design of the remainder of the façade.
Unfinished surfaces and blank walls should not be provided where visible from a
Frontage Zone.
4. The areas of a Frontage Zone not adjacent to or occupied by Frontage Elements shall
be improved as follows:
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 71
a. Landscape shall be provided in accordance with Section 1204.G. (T)
b. Seating should be provided. Seating may consist of installed benches or removable
furniture. This shall not apply within the Roosevelt North, Roosevelt South, and East
Evergreen character areas. (P)
Rationale: Character areas consisting mainly of traditional single-family homes and
historic designations should maintain the residential character of private front yards
when possible.
c. Other features which attract and engage pedestrians should be provided, such as
(but not limited to) bicycle parking and amenities, exterior art installations, additional
structural shade, etc. (P)
Rationale: the area of a Frontage Zone not adjacent to a Frontage Element, where
conflicts with primary entrances are less likely to occur, should have other features
which encourage use by pedestrians and cyclists.
5. Building entrances shall face toward the street in order to meet the intent of activating
the public realm. Entrances from a permitted Frontage Element (such as Forecourt,
Patio, Porch, or Stoop/Doorwell) are exempt from this requirement. (R*)
6. Public building entrances, residential patios/porches, windows, storefronts, outdoor
dining, public gathering areas, exterior art installations, and other similar features should
be located adjacent to Pedestrian Streets. (P)
Rationale: On Pedestrian Streets, adjacent structures should be designed to provide
easy and obvious pedestrian access to the buildings, to encourage pedestrian use.
7. All on-site mechanical equipment, transformers, utility equipment, trash/recycling
receptacles, or similar must be fully screened from view from the Streetscape Zone.
Screening may consist of the following: (P)
a. Green screen.
b. Dense landscaping which provides screening starting from the time of initial
installation.
c. Decorative walls or fences up to 40 inches in height if within the minimum setback
area, or 72” if behind the minimum setback.
d. Underground utility vaults.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 72
e. Along Side Streets only: decorative walls or fences up to 8 feet in height if located at
or beyond the minimum setback.
Rationale: The Streetscape environment should be aesthetically pleasing, and service
equipment/areas should be screened from view whenever possible. If it is simply not
possible, the visual impact should be mitigated by disguising equipment with paint or
other treatments as approved by PDD and any affected utility company.
8. Along Pedestrian Streets, all windows and doors counting toward required glazing
should allow a minimum of 75% of the visible light (as specified by the manufacturer) to
be visible on either side of the window. (P)
9. Along Pedestrian Streets, commercial suites with windows or entrances to Frontage
Zones should be constructed so that a public area of the suite (lobby, reception area,
dining area, or similar) is adjacent to the Frontage Zone. Storage areas, private offices,
kitchens, or other areas restricted to the public/customer use shall not be located
adjacent to doors or windows facing a Pedestrian Street. (P)
Rationale for E.8 and E.9: Frontage Zones along Pedestrian Streets should attract,
engage, and interest pedestrians at the street level and encourage patronage of the
businesses. Opaque or translucent/frosted windows, or views into employee or storage
areas do not meet this intent.
10. Building facades abutting or within a Frontage Zone should be designed to provide a
sense of human scale at the ground level by providing a clear architectural distinction
between the Frontage Zone and all additional stories. (P)
Rationale: Large buildings should provide a transition to a pedestrian scale to make
such areas feel comfortable for pedestrians, without causing a feeling of walking up to
the base of a tall “cliff”.
11. Roof drains shall not be designed to drain across public sidewalks or other pedestrian
walkways. (T)
F. Shade Standards—Streetscape and Frontage Zones.
1. Public and private pedestrian walkways should be shaded (minimum 75 percent at
maturity) for the health, safety, and welfare of pedestrians and to encourage use. (P)
2. All Streetscape and Frontage Zones should be shaded (50% at maturity) for the health,
safety, and welfare of pedestrians and to encourage use. (P)
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 73
Rationale for F.1 and F.2: The design of pedestrian routes and gathering areas, such as
public sidewalks, private walkways, courtyards, plazas, and transit stops, should be
designed with appropriate shading for the health, safety, and welfare of pedestrians and
to mitigate the heat island effect to enhance the pedestrian environment.
3. Shade calculations shall be based on shade cast at the summer solstice at 12:00 noon.
(T)
4. Shade cast from required shade trees, structural shade (canopies/awnings), or shade
cast from a building may be used to comply with the shade requirements of this section.
G. Landscape Requirements—Streetscape and Frontage Zones.
1. Landscape shall be provided, subject to the following:
a. Where there is an existing established streetscape theme, including street trees,
additional trees shall be provided to replace removed or destroyed trees, and/or to
comply with shade requirements. In such cases, the trees shall be of like kind and
size to those provided with the existing streetscape, as approved by the PDD
Landscape Architect. (T)
b. Trees shall be provided for the full length of the Streetscape Zone at a minimum rate
of 20 feet on center, or equivalent groupings as approved by the PDD Landscape
Architect (T).
(1) This requirement does not apply to properties with a maximum of two dwelling
units and no other primary uses.
(2) Trees provided within the Streetscape Zone may be used to comply with the
shade requirements of Section 1204.F.
(3) All trees planted to meet this requirement must be selected from the Tree
Species Matrix, Section 1204.G.5, and allowed for use in the Streetscape Zone,
or match the existing streetscape trees adjacent to the site.
(4) If existing utility conflicts prevent the installation of trees within both the
Streetscape Zone and the Frontage Zone, architecturally or artistically integrated
structural shade may be requested for approval by filing a Technical Appeal.
c. If necessary to avoid existing utility conflicts, required street trees may be provided
within the Frontage Zone within 5 feet of the sidewalk, as approved by PDD. (T)
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 74
d. Trees shall be provided within a minimum 5 feet wide landscape area, unless tree
wells (or equivalent) are provided outside of the required minimum sidewalk width to
avoid conflicts with existing utilities or other existing street improvements. (T)
e. When two rows of trees are provided either side of the public sidewalk, the minimum
planting area for each row should be 5’ wide, unless tree wells are approved by the
PDD Landscape Architect (T).
f. Where hardscape is not necessary for pedestrian connections to amenities, drop
off/pickup zones, on-street parking, or similar, shrubs or groundcovers shall be
installed in addition to trees to provide 75% live coverage. This percentage may be
reduced to 50% if bioswales are approved for use within the Streetscape Zone. (T)
g. Unless prohibited by law, palm trees may be installed in the Streetscape Zone in
areas where palm trees have historically been provided in the ROW, in addition to
any required shade trees. Palm trees should be of the same type as existing historic
palm trees and planted in a similar manner/rate as existing on the same block face.
(T)
h. In areas where turf has historically been provided within the Streetscape Zone, turf
may be provided unless otherwise prohibited for use within the ROW by law.
Alternatively, low growing, drought-tolerant green ground covers may instead be
provided, as approved by the PDD Landscape Architect. (T)
i. Artificial turf is not permitted for use within public rights-of-way, and may not be used
to comply with any on-site landscape requirements. It may be used for outdoor
amenity areas which are not required to be landscaped. (T)
2. Tree wells, if permitted, shall be a minimum five feet by five feet, or a two-foot six-inch
radius from the base of the tree. (T)
a. A minimum two inches of decomposed granite, nitrogen stabilized mulch or similar
material shall be installed atop the soil and below the tree grates. (T)
b. The landscape plans shall demonstrate that the soil volume to be provided for each
tree is sufficient for the healthy and successful maturity of type of tree chosen, as
approved by the PDD Landscape Architect. (T)
3. All landscape areas located within the Streetscape Zone shall not exceed a 10:1 slope.
(T)
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 75
4. New underground utility lines or equipment should not be installed where street trees are
required unless other options are not technically feasible, as approved through a
Technical Appeal. (T)
Rationale: The Streetscape and Frontage Zones should provide a pleasant and
comfortable pedestrian experience, of which landscape and shade are of great
importance. If a technical appeal is approved because there is no other technically
feasible option, the appeal should address how required landscape and shade
requirements will still be met.
5. Tree Species Matrix. The following is a list of shade trees permitted for use within
Streetscape and Frontage Zones, as indicated below. Additional tree types may be
requested for approval by filing a Technical Appeal. All trees used within public rights-
of-way must be low-water use/drought-tolerant as approved by the Arizona Department
of Water Resources. (T)
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 76
Tree Species Matrix (Streetscape and Frontage Zones)
Allowed locations
Botanical Name Common Name Public right of
Private property
way (Streetscape
(Frontage Zone)
Zone)
Parkinsonia florida Blue Palo Verde Yes Yes
Pistacia chinensis
Chinese Pistache Yes Yes
(+ hybrids)
Chilopsis linearis Desert Willow Yes Yes
Evergreen Elm,
Ulmus parvifolia
Chinese Evergreen Yes Yes
'Sempervirens'
Elm
Quercus virginiana Heritage Live Oak Yes Yes
Gleditsia triacanthos Honey Locust
Yes Yes
(thornless) (thornless)
Olneya tesota Ironwood Yes Yes
Prosopis spp. Mesquite
Yes Yes
(thornless) (thornless hybrids)
Olea europaea Olive
Yes Yes
(fruitless) (fruitless hybrids)
Sissoo Tree,
Dalbergia sissoo Yes Yes
Indian Rosewood
Fraxinus velutina Arizona Ash
No Yes
(+ hybrids) (varieties)
Acacia farnesiana
Sweet Acacia No Yes
(Acacia smallii)
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 77
Section 1205. Frontage Elements.
The following Frontage elements consist of architectural features, designs, and amenities which
may project within the Frontage Zone, though no closer than the required minimum setback
unless specifically permitted by this Chapter. Please see the Frontage and Streetscape Zone
Matrix for each Character Area for applicable standards, in addition to the Streetscape and
Frontage Zone standards of Section 1204.
A. Active Front Yard (AFY). An Active Front Yard is a frontage element intended for use on
blocks with a high percentage of existing and/or historic single-family or duplex style
residential structures. AFY is not permitted for use on sites with primary uses which are
non-residential, or on residential lots with more than two dwelling units (not including ADUs).
(R*)
1. For sites with HP zoning or designation, both the building elevations and improvements
in the Frontage Zone shall be constructed as approved by Historic Preservation.
2. For sites not zoned or designated HP, buildings and improvements shall be installed in
conformance with Section 507 Tab A II.C.8.5 (Individual Unit Design Standards). If any
of the requirements of Section 507 Tab A II.C.8.5 conflict with provisions of the
Downtown Code, Section 507 Tab A II.C.8.5 requirements shall prevail.
3. Minimum building frontages stated in the Streetscape and Frontage Matrix for each
Character Area do not apply when implementing Active Front Yard standards as a
Frontage Element.
B. Patio (PA). A Patio (previously known as a
“Dooryard”) is a residential frontage element which
incorporates a private outdoor space for each dwelling
unit, and is surrounded by a fence or wall to provide a
separation of the private realm from the adjacent
streetscape.
1. A permanent hardscaped or landscaped area shall
be provided in accordance with the following
standards:
a. Minimum depth: 8 feet. (R*)
b. Minimum area: 64 square feet. (R*)
c. Maximum grade differential: 30 inches above adjacent Streetscape grade. (T)
d. Placement: Adjacent to the individual dwelling unit entry. (R*)
e. Hardscape shall consist of concrete slab, pavers, open grid pavers, wood decking (if
elevated) or equivalent alternative. (T)
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 78
2. Pedestrian access. An opening in the wall/fence, or stairs to the elevated area, shall be
provided for a pedestrian connection to the adjacent streetscape from each Patio. (R*)
3. Separation of public and private realm:
a. A wall/fence of at least 40 inches in height shall be provided around each Patio, up to
a maximum of 72 inches in height as measured from the adjacent streetscape grade.
This maximum height applies only to walls abutting patios and not to other walls
located in the Frontage Zone.
b. The portion of walls or fences above 40 inches in height shall consist of view fencing,
as approved by Planning and Development.
c. Screen walls/fences may be constructed on top of permitted retaining walls, but the
combined height of the retaining wall and screen wall/fence may not exceed 72
inches as measured from the adjacent streetscape grade.
4. Shade. Each Patio shall have a minimum of 50% shade provided either by landscaping
or permanent structural shade. (T)
C. Stoop/Door Well (SD). A Stoop/Door Well is a type
of facade that provides an entryway that is elevated
(Stoop) or depressed (Door Well) to provide
differentiation from the adjacent streetscape. A
Stoop/Door Well is constructed as an integral part of
the building, rather than as a courtyard or patio. It
may or may not have structural shade.
1. A landing area shall be provided for each
Stoop/Door Well in accordance with the following
standards:
a. Minimum depth: 6 feet. (R*)
b. Minimum area: 36 square feet (R*)
c. Maximum grade differential: 60 inches above or below adjacent Streetscape grade.
Retaining walls of up to 66 inches in height may be permitted within the Frontage
Zone when necessary for this Frontage element. (T)
d. Placement: Adjacent to a primary entrance. (R*)
e. Walls/fences, if provided, shall not exceed 40” in height.
2. Pedestrian access. A pedestrian connection to the adjacent Streetscape Zone from each
Stoop/Door Well shall be provided. (R*)
3. Minimum building frontage requirements. If a Stoop/Doorwell is deeper than the
applicable Frontage Zone depth for that street and Character Area, the width of the
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 79
Stoop/Doorwell shall still count towards the minimum building frontage requirement(s),
so long as the front (street side) of the Stoop/Doorwell is located within or abutting the
Frontage Zone. (R*)
D. Porch (PO). A Porch frontage element consists of a
covered structure that is often elevated above street
grade, sheltering an outdoor area deep enough to
ensure usability. A Porch is larger than a Stoop and
is structurally shaded for its entirety. A Porch
provides a transition between the public and private
realm, and creates opportunity for interaction
between neighbors.
1. Each Porch shall meet the following
requirements:
a. Minimum depth: 8 feet. (R*)
b. Minimum area: 96 square feet. (R*)
c. Maximum grade differential: 60 inches above the adjacent Streetscape grade. (R*)
d. Placement: Adjacent to a primary entrance. (R*)
e. Each Porch shall have 100% structural shading. (R*)
f. Porch floor shall consist concrete, stone, metal, wood decking, or equivalent
alternative suitable for outdoor flooring. (T)
g. Walls/fences, if provided, shall not exceed 40” in height.
2. Pedestrian access. A pedestrian connection to the adjacent Streetscape Zone from each
Porch shall be provided. (R*)
3. Minimum building frontage requirements. If a Porch is deeper than the applicable
Frontage Zone depth for that street and Character Area, the width of the Porch shall still
count towards the minimum building frontage requirement(s), so long as the front (street
side) of the Porch is located within or abutting the Frontage Zone. (R*)
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 80
E. Common Entry (CE). A Common Entry is a building façade
design element which includes ground floor entrance(s) to a
shared lobby/hallway, which in turns provides direct access
to residential units and/or office suites on all floors. This
frontage element is generally not intended for use with
frontages consisting primarily of retail suites. Elevations
should include a large number of transparent windows and
frequent building entrances to create visual interest from the
adjacent public sidewalk, though to a lesser extent than
Storefront. This frontage element should also include
cantilevered canopies or awnings.
1. Primary entrance requirements.
a. A minimum of one primary entrance leading to a shared lobby/hallway is required
from each frontage on a Pedestrian Street. For sites located at an Enhanced
Corner, the corner building entry may serve as the required primary entrance for both
street frontages. (R*)
b. Additional primary entrances are required on each Pedestrian Street frontage at the
rate of one per 100 feet of building frontage. Each additional primary entrance
(beyond the minimum one per street frontage) may provide access to either a shared
lobby/hallway or an individual commercial/office suite. (R*)
c. Stoops or doorwells may be provided as part of any Common Entry frontage, even if
Stoop/Doorwell is not a permitted Frontage Element per the applicable Streetscape
and Frontage Zone Matrix, so long as they comply with all Stoop/Doorwell
development standards.
2. Glazing requirements:
a. Location: The area between 3 feet and 8 feet above the adjacent sidewalk grade.
b. Minimum amount: 50% of each required building frontage, which may include
primary entrances if the doors are glass and meet visibility requirements. (R*)
c. Glazing requirements shall be calculated as a percentage of the Common Entry
frontage element length.
d. Glazing shall allow a minimum of 75% of the visible light (as specified by the
manufacturer) to be visible on either side of the window. This includes the doors for
any primary entrances located within the Common Entry frontage element. (R*)
3. Shade Requirements. A cantilevered canopy, fixed awning, or retractable awning shall
be provided along each Common Entry frontage element, in accordance with Section
1204.B.2, and the following:
a. Minimum depth: 5 feet. (R*)
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 81
b. Minimum length: 50% of the Common Entry frontage element length.
c. Minimum clear height: 10 feet, if not required greater clearance per Section
1204.B.2. (T)
4. Walls/Fencing.
a. Retaining walls may be provided as otherwise permitted by this Chapter. A
railing/view fence is permitted on top of a retaining wall to a height of 40” if required
for pedestrian safety due to the grade differential.
F. Forecourt (FC). A Forecourt is a pedestrian-oriented
design element, where a courtyard that is open to the
sky and the street (or two streets if located on a
corner) is provided. The Forecourt may be used as an
entry area and shared garden space for residential
uses, or as additional shopping, seating, or gathering
areas adjacent to and accessible from the street for
commercial uses. Art installations and other
pedestrian amenities are also appropriate uses within
a Forecourt.
1. Mechanical equipment, transformers, trash and
recycling containers, and vehicular uses are not permitted within a Forecourt.
2. Minimum building frontage requirements. If a Forecourt is deeper than the applicable
Frontage Zone depth for that street and Character Area, the width of the Forecourt shall
still count towards the minimum building frontage requirement(s), so long as compliance
with other Streetscape and Frontage Zone requirements (including but not limited to
slopes, landscaping, and amenities) is demonstrated.
3. Minimum glazing: 50% of the area measured between 3 and 8 feet above grade for the
portion of the building façade abutting each Forecourt. (R*)
4. A Forecourt should be a minimum 500 square feet in size, with a minimum street
frontage of 20 feet. (P)
Rationale: A forecourt needs to be of a minimum size to encourage gathering, while
also having a large enough frontage to encourage pedestrians to enter and create a
successful transition between the public and private realm.
5. Accessibility. Forecourts shall have a slope not exceeding 2%, except for approved
ADA ramps, and be grade-separated by no more than 24 inches above or below the
abutting Streetscape Zone(s). (T)
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 82
6. Pedestrian access. A minimum of one pedestrian connection to each Streetscape Zone
abutting the Forecourt shall be provided. (R*)
7. Primary entrance requirements.
a. Residential uses. At least one residential unit shall have a primary entrance from a
Forecourt, unless a primary entrance is provided which leads to a lobby or hall which
provides direct access to the abutting unit(s). (R*)
b. Commercial uses. Each ground floor commercial suite abutting a Forecourt shall
provide a primary entrance into the Forecourt, unless a primary entrance is provided
which leads to a lobby or hall which provides direct access to the abutting suite(s).
(R*)
8. Walls/Fences/Public Access. A Forecourt is a quasi-public area which is an extension of
the public realm. No walls or fences are permitted within or abutting a Forecourt, except
as follows:
a. Walls or fences not exceeding 40” in height.
b. Retaining walls, as otherwise permitted by this Chapter. A railing/view fence is
permitted on top of a retaining wall to a height of 40” if required for pedestrian safety
due to the grade differential.
c. View fencing (no solid/opaque portions) surrounding areas approved for outdoor
dining or outdoor alcohol consumption may be provided up to a height of 72” above
the forecourt grade.
d. Walls/fencing separating private residential patios which front on a Forecourt may be
provided up to a height of 72” above the grade of the forecourt, so long as all
portions of the wall/fence above 40” consists of view fencing, as approved by
Planning and Development.
9. Shade Requirements. A minimum of 50% of each Forecourt should be shaded with
landscape and/or structural shade.(P)
Rationale: Shade is needed in the hotter months to encourage users to gather in the
area.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 83
G. Storefront (S). A Storefront is a building façade
design element which includes a ground floor elevation
with a large number of transparent windows and
frequent building entrances to create visual interest
from the adjacent public sidewalk. This frontage
element is traditionally used for retail, live/work, and
other nonresidential active uses and should include
cantilevered canopies or awnings.
1. Minimum building frontage requirements. If a
portion of the Frontage Zone occupied by outdoor
dining or outdoor liquor service is deeper than the applicable Frontage Zone depth for
that street and Character Area, the width of the outdoor dining/liquor service area shall
still count towards the minimum building frontage requirement(s), so long as compliance
with other Streetscape and Frontage Zone requirements (including but not limited to
slopes, landscaping, and amenities) is demonstrated.
2. Primary entrance requirements.
a. Each ground floor commercial suite located within a Storefront frontage element shall
provide a primary entrance on the street side that directly connects to the street. A
suite which abuts a corner may meet this requirement for both street frontages by
providing a single primary entrance at the corner. (R*)
b. A Recessed Display Entry may be included as part of a Storefront frontage element.
3. Glazing requirements:
a. Location: The area between 3 feet and 8 feet above the adjacent sidewalk grade.
b. Minimum amount: Per the table below. (R*)
Number of primary entrances* within Glazing Requirement:
Storefront frontage element:
One: 75%
Two: 70%
Three: 65%
Four or more: 60%
*A primary entrance may consist of more than one door. Doors must be
separated by at least 20 feet to be considered as a separate primary entrance.
c. Glazing requirements shall be calculated as a percentage of the Storefront frontage
element length.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 84
4. Shade Requirements. A cantilevered canopy, fixed awning, or retractable awning shall
be provided along each Storefront frontage element, in accordance with Section
1204.B.2, and the following:
a. Minimum depth: 5 feet. (R*)
b. Minimum length: 75% of the Storefront frontage element length. (R*)
c. Minimum clear height: 10 feet, if not required greater clearance per Section
1204.B.2. (T)
5. No fencing is permitted within the Streetscape or Frontage Zones adjacent to a
Storefront frontage element, except as follows:
a. Retaining walls may be provided as otherwise permitted by this Chapter. A
railing/view fence is permitted on top of a retaining wall to a height of 40” if required
for pedestrian safety due to the grade differential. (R*)
H. Gallery/Arcade (GA). A
Gallery or an Arcade is a
building façade design
element where significant
and continuous structural
shade is provided for
pedestrians, often over the
actual public sidewalk.
Similar to the Storefront
frontage element, a large
number of transparent
Gallery Arcade
windows and frequent
building entrances should be provided to create visual interest from the adjacent public
sidewalk. This frontage element is traditionally used for retail, office, and other
nonresidential active uses.
1. Minimum setback requirements. A Gallery/Arcade may project into the Frontage Zone to
the property line and is not required to meet minimum setbacks as stated in the
applicable Character Area so long as compliance with other Streetscape and Frontage
Zone requirements (including but not limited to slopes, landscaping, and amenities) is
demonstrated. (R*)
2. Minimum dimensions. All portions of a Gallery/Arcade frontage element shall comply
with the following:
a. Minimum depth: 10 feet. (R*)
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 85
b. Maximum depth: 30 feet. No maximum for the portion of a Gallery/Arcade is being
used for outdoor dining, outdoor liquor service, or a public gathering space. (R*)
c. Minimum spacing between columns/supports: 10 feet as measured parallel to the
street. (R*)
d. Minimum clear height: 10 feet as measured from finished grade. (R*)
e. Maximum clear height: 25 feet as measured from finished grade. (R*)
3. Pedestrian use. All portions of a Gallery/Arcade frontage element shall have a walkway
provided for pedestrians. The walkway may serve as the actual public sidewalk, if
public easements are dedicated, or it may be provided in addition to the public sidewalk
located within the Streetscape Zone so long as the area under the Gallery/Arcade is also
open for pedestrian use.
a. Public sidewalk easement dedications shall be no less than the required sidewalk
width for the applicable Character Area. (T)
b. Outdoor uses (dining, alcohol consumption, or similar), if permitted by the Character
Area, may be provided within a Gallery/Arcade, so long as the greater of 5’, or the
minimum public sidewalk width (if there is no other public sidewalk) is left
unobstructed for use as a pedestrian walkway. (R*)
4. Primary entrance requirements.
a. Each Gallery/Arcade frontage element shall provide a minimum of one primary
entrance on the street side that directly connects to the street. A single primary
entrance provided at the corner of a building at a street intersection complies this
requirement for both street frontages. (R*)
b. A Recessed Display Entry may be included as part of a Gallery/Arcade frontage
element.
5. Glazing requirements:
a. Location: The area between 3 feet and 8 feet above the adjacent sidewalk grade for
the portion of the building that is a Gallery/Arcade Frontage Element. (R*)
b. Minimum amount: Per the table below. (R*)
Number of primary entrances* within Glazing Requirement:
Gallery/Arcade frontage element:
One: 75%
Two: 70%
Three: 65%
Four or more: 60%
*A primary entrance may consist of more than one door. Doors must be
separated by at least 20 feet to be considered as a separate primary entrance.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 86
c. Glazing requirements shall be calculated as a percentage of the Gallery/Arcade
frontage element length.
6. Walls/Fencing.
a. No walls or fences are permitted in the Frontage Zone adjacent to a Gallery/Arcade
frontage element which separates the Gallery/Arcade from the Frontage Zone.
b. Walls and fences within a Gallery/Arcade may be provided to separate outdoor
dining or other permitted outdoor uses from the public walkway, if compliance with
both of the following is demonstrated:
(1) A minimum 5 foot walkway clearance (or the minimum sidewalk width, if the
public sidewalk has been located within the Gallery/Arcade) is maintained.
(2) View fencing (no solid/opaque portions) may be provided up to a height of 72
inches above the Gallery/Arcade grade.
I. Recessed Display Entry. A Recessed Display
Entry is not a separate frontage element; rather it is
a feature which may be included as part of a
Common Entry, Storefront or Gallery/Arcade
frontage element. The characteristics of a
Recessed Display Entry are as follows:
1. Consists of a primary entrance to a public space
(retail, restaurant, lobby/reception, etc.) recessed
from the façade of the building, and is shaded by
the upper portion of the building.
2. Minimum depth to primary entrance: 5 feet. (R*).
3. Maximum depth to primary entrance: 25 feet. (R*)
4. Minimum clear height: 8 feet on private property; 10 feet if permitted to project within
public ROW or into a public sidewalk easement. (T)
5. Glazing provided within the Recessed Display Entry counts toward the minimum
required glazing for the associated Frontage Element.
6. Shade provided by a Recessed Display Entry counts towards the minimum requirement
for the associated Frontage Element.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 87
7. No portion of a Recessed Display Entry may be fenced off, unless included as a part of
an outdoor dining/bar/patio which is otherwise allowed.
8. If a Recessed Display Entry is deeper than the applicable Frontage Zone depth for that
street and Character Area, the width of the Recessed Display Entry shall still count
towards the minimum building frontage requirement(s), so long as compliance with other
Streetscape and Frontage Zone requirements (including but not limited to slopes,
landscaping, and amenities) is demonstrated.
J. Grand Entry (GR). A Grand Entry is
a building façade design element
which includes the most important
pedestrian entrance to the building,
indicated by significant architectural
features and windows which may be
provided more for visual impact than
actual need. A Grand Entry should
also incorporate significant public
gathering space(s), pedestrian
amenities, and art. A Grand Entry may also incorporate vehicular passenger loading and
valet functions, including a porte-cochere, if the proposed use allows it. A Grand Entry
would typically be used in conjunction with hotels, government buildings, educational
institutions, hospitals, large office buildings, large residential and mixed-use buildings, and
large assembly uses.
1. Applicability. A Grand Entry frontage element may be provided for the following uses if
also permitted by the Frontage and Streetscape Zone Matrix for the applicable Character
Area: (R*)
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 88
a. Hotels.
b. Government buildings.
c. Schools/educational institutions.
d. Hospitals.
e. Office, retail, assembly, and mixed use buildings 100,000 square feet (gross) or
larger.
f. Residential buildings with at least 100,000 square feet (gross) or 100 dwelling units.
2. Main Entrance. A Grand Entry frontage element must serve as the main and most
prominent entrance to the building for pedestrians. At least one primary entrance shall
be provided which leads to a lobby or other internal gathering area which provides
access to any ground-level suites and upper stories. (R*)
3. Architecture. A Grand Entry should consist of architectural features which are prominent
and intended to attract users to the main entry. These features may extend above the
height of the Frontage Zone. Examples are: porticos/columns, large sets of steps;
significant structural shade; extensive and imaginative use of colors, textures, windows,
and/or lighting; prominent exterior works of art; and monuments. Signage may also
contribute if otherwise in compliance with applicable sign regulations. (R*)
4. Pedestrian Accessibility. Pedestrian access to the primary entrance must be visually
obvious, preferably by use of materials and colors. The access route should be greater
in width than any minimum required for ADA accessibility and commensurate in scale
with the architectural features of the Grand Entry. Pedestrian routes may cross
vehicular areas but must otherwise be segregated from vehicular traffic. (R*)
5. Passenger Loading. A passenger loading zone, including a porte-cochere, may be part
of a Grand Entry and located within the Frontage Zone if it complies with all of the
following: (R*)
a. It does not preclude installation of required Streetscape and Frontage Zone
improvements, including trees; and
b. It allows for the most intuitive and direct pedestrian access to the primary entrance
from the Streetscape Zone.
6. Valet Parking. A valet parking station and valet parking zone, including a porte-cochere,
may be incorporated within a Grand Entry if it complies with all of the following: (R*)
(1) It is a permitted accessory use per the Land Use Matrix;
(2) It is constructed in accordance with Section 1206.G.
(3) It does not preclude installation of required Streetscape and Frontage Zone
improvements, including trees; and
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 89
(4) It allows for the most intuitive and direct pedestrian access to the primary
entrance from the Streetscape Zone.
7. Trash and recycling containers, service areas, and commercial loading areas are not
permitted to be incorporated within a Grand Entry, or within the adjacent Streetscape or
Frontage Zones. Mechanical equipment and transformers/utility equipment may be
provided only if located within a building or subterranean ground vault. (R*)
8. Minimum building frontage requirements. If a Grand Entry incorporates pedestrian
plazas, outdoor dining, outdoor liquor service, or other improved public gathering areas
which are deeper than the applicable Frontage Zone depth for that street and Character
Area, the width of the gathering areas shall still count towards the minimum building
frontage requirement(s), so long as compliance with other Streetscape and Frontage
Zone requirements (including but not limited to slopes, landscaping, and amenities) is
demonstrated. (R*)
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 90
Section 1206. Parking, Loading, and Vehicular Access
A. Applicability. All provisions of Section 702, “Off-Street Parking and Loading” apply to
properties located within Downtown, unless specifically modified by this Chapter.
1. For additional Buffer Alley regulations, see Section 1207.L.
2. For additional Arts, Culture, Small Business Area regulations, see Section 1207.M.
B. Automobile Parking Requirements. Parking for automobiles shall be provided as follows:
1. Residential units.
a. Minimum: 1 space per dwelling unit.
b. Maximum: 2 spaces per dwelling unit, plus 1 space per 1,000 sf of gross square
footage for leasing/residential management office and Shared Amenity Areas.
2. Non-residential uses.
a. Minimum: 1 space per 1,000 square feet of gross building square footage, except in
the Business Core and Warehouse character areas, where no minimum parking is
required.
b. Maximum: 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross building square footage.
3. Parking reductions identified in Section 702.E are not applicable within Downtown.
However, parking reductions and other modifications may be earned by the application
of sustainability bonus points, per the provisions of Section 1223.
4. Location of automobile parking.
a. Lots having only one or two dwelling units (no mixed uses): required spaces may not
be provided within any Frontage Zone. An on-site driveway leading to designated
parking spaces may be provided within a Frontage Zone if not in excess of 18 feet
wide and if otherwise permitted by this Chapter. (R*)
b. Multi-family, mixed use, and non-residential developments: no surface parking is
allowed within any Frontage Zone. Drive aisles may cross a Frontage Zone when
access from the adjacent street is otherwise permitted. (R*)
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 91
c. Parking located within structures, including underground parking, is subject to the
requirements of Section 1207.J.
d. Off-site parking. Off-site parking not located within a public right-of-way may account
for up to 50% of the required automobile parking, with approval of a use permit and
compliance with all the provisions of Section 702.E.9.
C. Maneuvering. All maneuvering for automobile parking spaces, passenger loading, and
service/goods loading shall be provided on-site, subject to the following:
1. Maneuvering within a public right of-way shall be allowed as follows:
a. Maneuvering within a public alley is permitted by right if the alley is a minimum 20
feet wide, and then only if access to the alley is permitted per other City regulations;
or
b. Maneuvering in public right-of-way may be permitted with approval of a Technical
Appeal which demonstrates that adequate space is being provided for the safe
maneuvering of vehicles within the right-of-way. Additional requirements, such as
but not limited to dedications, pavement widening, and/or removal of utility poles may
be stipulated as part of the Technical Appeal approval. (T)
D. Electric Vehicle Charging. The following development regulations apply to electric vehicle
charging (EVC) spaces provided within parking areas within Downtown:
1. EVC spaces may be counted as part of the required minimum number parking spaces.
(R)
2. EVC spaces shall not be counted as part of required maximum number of parking
spaces. (R)
3. All EVC spaces, charging stations, and associated transformers or other mechanical
equipment, shall be provided on site and not in any required landscape setback,
required landscape area, or Frontage Zone. (R)
E. Bicycle Parking. Parking and amenities for bicycles shall be provided as follows:
1. Multi-family residential development shall provide shared bicycle parking at the rate of
0.25 space per dwelling unit, with a maximum requirement of 50 spaces.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 92
2. All nonresidential uses over 5,000 gross square feet shall provide 1 bicycle space per 25
vehicle parking spaces provided or portion thereof, with a maximum requirement of 25
spaces.
3. All nonresidential uses 100,000 gross square feet or larger shall provide 1 bicycle space
per 25 vehicle parking spaces or portion thereof, with a maximum requirement of 50
spaces. In addition, a minimum of 2 shower stalls and 10 personal lockers that are
available for use by the building’s occupants shall be provided.
4. Restaurants and bars totaling less than 5,000 gross square feet on one site shall provide
a minimum of 4 bicycle spaces in the Frontage Zone. If automobile parking spaces are
provided, 1 additional bicycle space for every 25 vehicle parking spaces as required for
the restaurant and bar uses shall be provided.
5. Bicycle parking shall not be located within a required public sidewalk or accessible route.
F. Service/Goods Loading Areas. The following requirements apply to short-term loading
and unloading of service vehicles with goods or equipment.
1. On-site loading shall be required for all developments per the following table:
Required Loading and Service Bays
Use Gross square footage of buildings (per site)
25,000 – > 40,000 – > 160,000 – > 320,000 – > 500,000
40,000 sf 160,000 sf 320,000 sf 500,000 sf sf
Multi-Family 0 1 per 150 dwelling units or portion thereof
Residential
Lodging 0 1 per each 300 rooms or portion thereof
Retail, 0 1 2 3 4 + 1 per
Commercial, additional
and Office 180,000 sf
Uses above
500,000
Industrial, 1 2 3 4 5 + 1 per
Manufacturing, additional
Storage, and 180,000 sf
Wholesaling above
Uses 500,000
Mixed-use developments shall provide the required loading spaces per each use
category shown in the table above.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 93
2. Loading bays shall be a minimum of 10 feet in width and 30 feet in length. (T)
3. Location of Service/Goods Loading Areas.
a. Service/goods loading areas may not be located within a Frontage Zone adjacent to
a Pedestrian Street. (R*)
b. Service/goods loading areas may not be located within a public street right-of-way
unless compliance with all of the following occurs: (R)
(1) An encroachment permit has been obtained from the Street Transportation
Department for the design and/or structures provided as part of the loading area
(dock, loading ramp, etc.).
(2) The loading area does not reduce the required Streetscape Zone and does not
preclude the provision of required street trees and shading requirements.
(3) The loading area does not interrupt the required public sidewalk or other
dedicated pedestrian walkways.
(4) The loading area does not interrupt a designated bicycle lane.
(5) Compliance with Section 1204.B.5 regarding historic curb locations is
demonstrated.
c. Service entrances, loading areas, and trash/recycling pickup should be located
internal to the site or building, or adjacent to a Side Street or alley whenever
possible. (P)
Rationale: Pedestrian Streets should create a safe, secure, and welcoming
atmosphere for pedestrians, and should not have uses or functions which discourage
pedestrian use. Noxious uses and conflicts with service vehicles should be
minimized along Pedestrian Streets. Side Streets and alleys (which are not
designated Buffer Alleys) are preferred access points for service and delivery
functions.
G. Valet Parking. The requirements of this Section apply only for sites which are allowed valet
parking as an accessory use per Section 1203.D.30.
1. Location of Valet Parking Facilities.
a. A valet transfer zone (where vehicles are dropped off and picked up) should be
located internally to the building whenever possible. (P)
Rationale: Views of standing automobiles, and conflicts with pedestrians, should be
minimized.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 94
b. A valet transfer zone may be provided within a Frontage Zone adjacent to a Side
Street, so long as it does not preclude compliance with other Streetscape and
Frontage Zone standards, including driveway access and placement. A valet
transfer zone may be combined with a service/goods loading area when located
adjacent to a Side Street. (R*)
c. A valet transfer zone may be provided within a Frontage Zone adjacent to a
Pedestrian Street, subject to the following: (R*)
(1) Compliance with the driveway and vehicular access regulations of Section
1206.H is demonstrated.
(2) Compliance with other applicable Frontage Zone and Streetscape Zone
requirements for Pedestrian Streets (including shading, provision of street trees,
and minimum building frontage) is demonstrated.
(3) Valet facilities may not be located within the minimum street setback area.
d. Valet parking spaces (where cars are parked after being dropped off) may be located
off-site if in accordance with the provisions of Section 1203.D.
e. A valet transfer zone should have primary access from a street, rather than an alley.
(P)
Rationale: Whenever possible, vehicles should be dropped off and picked up from
a more intuitive location associated with the street address, particularly if the
parking is for patrons and visitors, rather than occupants of the building or site.
f. Valet parking facilities, including the valet transfer station, valet transfer zone, and
valet parking spaces, may not be located within a public right-of-way unless
compliance with all of the following occurs: (R)
(1) An encroachment permit has been obtained from the Street Transportation
Department for the Valet Parking Facilities.
(2) The Valet Parking Facilities do not reduce the required Streetscape Zone and do
not preclude the provision of required street trees and shading requirements.
(3) The Valet Parking Facilities do not interrupt the required public sidewalk or other
dedicated pedestrian walkways.
(4) The Valet Parking Facilities does not interrupt a designated bicycle lane.
(5) Compliance with Section 1204.B.5 regarding historic curb locations is
demonstrated.
g. Public right-of-way may be used to move vehicles between the valet transfer zone
and the valet parking spaces, if the valet parking spaces are located on a different
property, as otherwise permitted by this Chapter.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 95
2. Design requirements for valet parking facilities.
a. A valet transfer zone shall comply with the following: (T)
(1) A minimum length of 60 feet.
(2) A minimum width of 10 feet.
(3) A maximum width of 16 feet.
b. A valet transfer zone must include an accessible vehicle pull-up space constructed in
accordance with federal requirements.
c. A valet transfer zone shall not be used all or in part for any vehicle parking. Short
term vehicle standing of up to 30 minutes is permitted during hours of operation of
the valet parking facilities. (R)
H. General Driveway and Access Regulations. This section regulates driveways and
access from streets to private property. Access from any street to a property must be in
compliance with the provisions of this Section.
1. Properties with HP designation. Driveways for properties with HP zoning or designation
may be located, designed, constructed, or reconstructed in a historic manner and
dimensions as approved in writing by the Historic Preservation Officer.
2. Arterial Streets.
a. Access for automobile parking, valet parking facilities, passenger loading zones, and
Service/Goods Loading Areas is permitted from the following arterial Pedestrian
Streets, regardless of other site frontages or regulations of this Chapter:
(1) 7th Street
(2) 7th Avenue
(3) McDowell Road
(4) Van Buren Street
(5) Buckeye Road
b. Maximum driveway width: 40 feet, or wider as approved by Street Transportation
when requiring islands for restricted turns. (T)
c. All other provisions for Pedestrian Streets apply.
3. Pedestrian Streets. Driveways and access to private property from Pedestrian Streets
are subject to the following:
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 96
a. Automobile Parking. Access is permitted from a Pedestrian Street only when one of
the following applies: (R*)
(1) The development site has no other frontage on an alley or side street; or
(2) The parking area has at least one additional access point from an alley or side
street.
b. Service/Goods Loading Areas are not permitted access from a Pedestrian Street
unless the loading area is located completely within the building; within a parking
garage, or screened from view from the street. Screening may consist of the
following: (R*)
(1) Green screen.
(2) Dense landscaping which provides screening starting from the time of initial
installation.
(3) Underground utility vaults.
(4) Buildings.
c. Passenger loading zones are permitted access from a Pedestrian Street.
d. Maximum driveway width: 30 feet. When a site has only Pedestrian Street
frontages, additional width may be granted through approval of a Technical Appeal
(T).
e. Minimum separation between driveways: 30 feet. (T)
(1) Properties which have a maximum of two dwelling units (no mixed primary uses)
have no minimum separation except as may be required by City policies for
safety and visibility. (T)
(2) Other City policies and ordinances regulating the design of driveways, including
but not limited to required visibility, restricted turn movements, and distances
from intersections may require a greater separation than 30 feet. (T)
4. Side Streets. Driveways and access to private property from Side Streets are subject to
the following:
a. Access for all types of vehicular uses is permitted from a Side Street.
b. Maximum driveway width: 40 feet. (T)
c. Minimum separation between driveways: 20 feet. (R*)
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 97
(1) Properties which have a maximum of two dwelling units (no mixed primary uses)
have no minimum separation except as may be required by City policies for
safety and visibility. (T)
(2) Other City policies and ordinances regulating the design of driveways, including
but not limited to: required visibility, restricted turn movements, and distances
from intersections may require a greater separation than 20 feet. (T)
5. Alleys. Driveways and access to private property from alleys are subject to the
following:
a. Access is not permitted from a Buffer Alley, unless in compliance with Section
1207.L. (R)
b. Automobile Parking. Access is permitted from an alley, subject to the following:
(1) The alley pavement must be (or be widened to) a minimum 20 feet wide and
unobstructed for the length of the property; (T)
(2) If the parking area has more than 100 spaces, the alley pavement is a minimum
20’ wide and unobstructed for the full length of the block, unless otherwise
approved through a Technical Appeal. (T)
c. Passenger loading zones should not have primary access provided from an alley. (P)
Rationale: Rideshare and personal delivery vehicles should be able to access a
development from a more intuitive location associated with the street address.
d. Maximum driveway width: as determined by PDD and Street Transportation for
safety and visibility. (T)
e. Minimum separation between driveways: as determined by PDD and Street
Transportation for safety and visibility. (T)
I. Driveway Design Guidelines.
1. Appropriate visibility triangles and/or lines of sight shall be provided for driveways. The
visibility triangles shall provide for visibility of pedestrians on the public sidewalk, as well
as vehicles in the street. (T)
Rationale: Vehicles exiting from a site or parking garage should be able to see cars on
the street, as well as pedestrians on the sidewalk (and vice versa). Alternatives, such as
mirrors, pedestrian safety signage, etc. may be approved as part of a Technical Appeal
when standard visibility requirements cannot be met.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 98
2. Specialty paving, striping, bollards, or similar as approved by PDD staff should be
provided where a driveway crosses a sidewalk. (P)
Rationale: Where vehicular routes interface with pedestrian routes, warnings to both the
vehicles and the pedestrians should be visually indicated.
3. Shared access and driveways serving more than one development should be provided
whenever possible. (P)
Rationale: The number of driveways crossing sidewalks and bicycle routes should be
minimized to avoid conflicts and collisions. However, consideration and flexibility should
be applied when a primarily residential development is adjacent to a non-residential
development.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 99
Section 1207. General Development Regulations.
A. Applicability. This section contains development regulations specific to Downtown. If a
conflict occurs between any specific Character Area regulations and the regulations of this
Section, the Character Area regulations shall apply.
B. Historic Preservation Development Regulations. Structures with historic preservation
designation are considered to be conforming and may be maintained, restored and/or rebuilt
at each structure’s historic setbacks and height subject to the provisions of Chapter 8,
Historic Preservation.
C. Projections.
1. Projections within the Streetscape Zone are regulated by Section 1204.B.2.
2. Projections within the Frontage Zone are regulated by Section 1204.C.3.
3. Projections within required yards adjacent to interior lot lines are not permitted, except
as follows: (R)
a. Roof overhangs, but not including covered porches, patios, or carports, are permitted
so long as no portion of the overhang is closer than 2 feet from the property line.
b. Other projections, when explicitly allowed by other sections of this Chapter.
D. Wall/Fence Requirements.
1. Historic Preservation designated properties. For residential properties designated
HP and HP-L, fences or freestanding walls in the front yard (the area between the
structure and the street right-of-way line) may not exceed a maximum height of three
feet. This height limitation extends three feet back from the front façade into the side
yard(s).
2. Within Frontage Zones, the following apply:
a. Walls/fences are limited to 40 inches in height, except as may be specifically
modified by other provisions of this Chapter. (R*)
b. Within a Frontage Zone which abuts a side property line (e.g. a “street side”), a wall
or fence up to 6 feet tall may be permitted if all of the following also apply: (R)
(1) The wall encloses a private residential side yard and/or rear yard on a lot with no
more than two dwelling units (and no other primary uses).
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 100
(2) No structure on the property exceeds two stories and 30 feet in height.
(3) No portions of the wall over 40 inches in height are located within a Frontage
Zone applicable to any other street frontage.
(4) No portions of the wall over 40 inches in height (36 inches if in an HP Overlay)
are located closer than 3 feet behind the front façade of the structure.
3. Walls/fences provided for screening of mechanical equipment shall comply with the
provisions of Section 1204.E.7.
4. Walls located adjacent to interior property lines or other locations outside of the Frontage
Zones shall comply with the regulations stated in the applicable Character Area.
5. Retaining walls located within Streetscape and Frontage Zones are regulated by Section
1204.D.
E. Height Transition Standards. For all new development adjacent to lots located in a lower
height zone, a stepback shall be provided to compensate for disproportionate height
disparities. This additional stepback provides for building separation and circulation of air
and light in a dense urban fabric.
1. Along an interior property line or a designated Buffer Alley which separates properties of
two different height zones, the minimum required setback shall be increased by 10 feet
for all portions of the building taller than the maximum height of the adjacent (lower)
height zone. (R)
Example: a building located on a property with a maximum height of 140 feet and a 10
feet minimum interior setback, sharing a property line with a property with a 65 feet
maximum height, has a 20 feet setback required for all portions of the building taller than
65 feet. The portions of the building less than 65 feet tall may be located at the standard
10 feet setback from the property line.
2. A stepback shall not be required in the following circumstances unless specifically
required by the applicable Character Area standards:
a. The proposed building is no more than 20 feet taller than the maximum permitted
height of the adjacent height zone.
b. The proposed building is adjacent to a height zone with a maximum permitted height
of 65 feet or greater.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 101
3. The proposed building should respect the scale of existing buildings located on adjacent
properties and serve as an orderly transition to a different scale. Stepbacks, changes in
massing, or changes in materials and color starting at the height of the adjacent existing
building are highly encouraged. (P)
Rationale: Building heights with a vastly different scale than those on adjacent parcels
should have a transition in scale to reduce and mitigate potential impacts.
F. Landscape Standards. Landscape shall be provided in accordance with the following:
1. Landscape requirements of Section 703.E, as well as Section 507 Tab A, apply unless
specifically modified by this section or other provisions of this Chapter.
a. See Section 1207.M for special regulations applicable to the Arts, Culture, Small
Business Area.
2. Landscape within the Streetscape and Frontage Zones shall comply with the
requirements of Section 1204.G.
3. Landscape shall be provided for surface parking areas as follows:
Surface Parking—Landscape Standards
Interior surface area (exclusive of
perimeter landscaping and all Minimum 10% (R*)
required setbacks)
At ends of each row of parking and
Landscaped planters
approximately every 110 feet (P)
Minimum 5 feet wide (inside curb
Landscaped planters, single row of
measurement) for full depth of parking space.
parking
(T)
Minimum 5 feet wide (inside curb
Landscaped planters, double row of
measurement) for full depth of both parking
parking
spaces. (T)
As needed to meet 10% minimum requirement,
Additional parking lot landscape
evenly distributed throughout the entire parking
areas
lot. (P)
Minimum requirement: one per 100 sf of
landscape area (T)
Planter (single space depth): one tree. (P)
Required trees
Planter (double space depth): two trees (P)
All other areas: 20 feet on center or equivalent
groupings (P).
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 102
Minimum 2-inch caliper (60% of trees) (T)
Required tree sizes:
Minimum 1-inch caliper (40% of trees) (T)
Required shrubs: Minimum 5 shrubs per tree. (P)
Required shrub size: Minimum 5-gallon. (T)
Rationale: Parking lot landscaping and shade should be provided in a similar manner as
required for other commercial areas outside of Downtown. However, flexibility can be
exercised regarding installation of landscape materials in order to address on-site
conflicts, such as lighting, mechanical equipment, sight lines, required pedestrian
walkways, or similar. Requests to provide smaller than required planting areas, trees, or
shrubs may only be approved through a Technical Appeal.
4. All on-site pedestrian walkways shall be 75% shaded by trees and/or structural shade.
(R*)
5. All remaining areas of a site which are not Frontage or Streetscape Zones, surface
parking, pedestrian walkways, or amenities specifically permitted by PDD which do not
typically include shade (i.e. pools and pool decks), must be landscaped to provide 50%
shade. Properties having only residential uses, not exceeding two dwelling units, are
exempt from this requirement. (R*)
G. Multifamily Development Design Requirements.
1. The provisions of this section apply to all sites which include five or more dwelling units.
The provisions of Section 703.B, Landscaping and Open Areas in Multiple-Family
Development, do not apply to properties located within Downtown. (R*)
2. Where dwelling units are provided at the ground level adjacent to a Pedestrian Street, an
appropriate residential Frontage Element (such as Patio, Stoop/Doorwell, Porch, or
Forecourt) should be utilized to allow for individual dwelling unit access to the street. (P)
Rationale: Individual entrances promote more “eyes on the street”, due to greater use
of patios and other outdoor areas. Individual entrances also encourage pedestrian use
by creating more interest, as well as a feeling of smaller-scale design.
3. Shared Amenity Areas for the residents of multi-family dwelling units shall be provided
on-site, as follows:
a. The minimum Shared Amenity Area provided shall be per the following table (R*):
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 103
Minimum Shared Amenity Areas for Sites with Multifamily Dwellings
Up to 100 units None required.
101-300 units Minimum 2500 square feet
301+ units Minimum 5000 square feet
b. Shared Amenity Areas shall consist of the following types of spaces (R*):
(1) On-site open space provided in accordance with the provisions of Section
1207.H.
(2) Roof-top decks which are occupiable and do not exceed height requirements for
the applicable Character Area.
(3) Conditioned suites with amenities/shops/services.
c. All areas used to count toward the minimum Shared Amenity Area requirements
must be accessible to all users, in accordance with FHA and ADA standards. (R)
d. Uses open to the public, such as retail stores, restaurants, commercial gyms, bars,
etc. may be used to meet no more than 50% of the Shared Amenity Area
requirement. (R)
e. A minimum of two of the following amenities shall be provided within the Shared
Amenity Areas (P):
(1) Swimming pool and/or hot tub.
(2) Fitness center/sport court or facility.
(3) Tot lot/playground.
(4) Barbecue/picnic/common kitchen area.
(5) Gathering area with focal feature (fountain, firepit/fireplace, television, game
tables, kitchen etc.)
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 104
(6) Pet exercise area.
Rationale: Shared Amenity Areas should include a variety of amenities which may
be used by multiple residents, but are not shared with non-residents (such as an on-
site store, restaurant, or bar). Staff may approve additional types of amenities similar
to those listed above and meeting this intent. Two separate amenities in the same
category may also be approved.
H. Open Space Development Regulations. Open space, when provided for sustainability
bonus credits per Section 1223 or as part of a multi-family Shared Amenity Area
requirement, shall comply with the following:
1. Open Space shall be provided at ground level. Roof tops, areas inside structures, or
areas placed underground cannot be counted as open space. Outdoor areas provided
under a building overhang are permitted so long as they are fully open to at least one
Frontage Zone. (R*)
2. Each Open Space area shall abut and include a Frontage Zone. The area of the
Frontage Zone may be included in the minimum area and dimensions required for
qualifying Open Space areas. (R*)
3. Each Open Space area shall be a minimum of 500 square feet with a minimum
dimension of 20 feet in any direction. (R*)
4. All Open Space areas are subject to the design requirements for Frontage Zones, with
the following modifications: (R*)
a. No automobile uses (parking, loading, etc.) of any type may be provided within an
Open Space area.
b. Open Space areas with a dedicated public access easement may not be fenced or
walled off from the street except for low walls not exceeding 40 inches in height,
unless the height of the wall is further restricted by the Frontage Zone or Frontage
Element requirements.
I. Enhanced Corner Requirements. Developments located on Enhanced Corners (per map
in Section 1202.D) should be integrated with and oriented toward the corner, as follows:
1. A primary entrance that faces both streets and that serves as a main entry for the
building shall be provided at each Enhanced Corner. An entrance to a single
commercial suite or residence does not meet this requirement. (R*)
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 105
2. Additional building articulation, architectural features, signage, pedestrian amenities,
and/or art that emphasizes the corner and draws attention to the Enhanced Corner entry
of the building shall be provided. (P)
Rationale: An Enhanced Corner should be visually obvious and comfortable for
pedestrians to use as the building’s primary entrance.
3. If an Enhanced Corner entry plaza is provided which is deeper than the applicable
Frontage Zone depth(s), the building frontage along the corner entry plaza shall still
count towards the minimum building frontage requirement(s), so long as compliance with
other Streetscape and Frontage Zone requirements (including but not limited to slopes,
landscaping, and amenities) is demonstrated. (R*)
J. Structured Parking/Parking Garage Design Guidelines.
1. Where parking structures are visible from a street or neighboring property, they should
utilize approved Frontage Elements, art/murals, decorative materials, imaginative use of
colors and patterns, and/or permitted signage to fully screen vehicles from view and to
create interest at the ground level. (P)
Rationale: Parking structures, particularly ones with exterior unfinished concrete
masonry or panels, do not engage or create interest for pedestrians. The side of a
parking garage should never appear to be “blank”.
2. Parking structures shall be designed so that light from vehicle headlights, when parked
head-in in a parking space, is fully screened from view from all perimeter streets. (R*)
3. Parking structures should be integrated with the form and materials of the main site
structures, or the scale, form, color and materials of the immediately adjacent area. (P)
Rationale: Parking structures should not be a dominant feature of the building design,
and creative solutions should be integrated and/or complement the design elements of
other buildings on site or within the surrounding context area.
4. Rooftop lighting on a parking garage should be set back a minimum of 25 feet from the
perimeter of the rooftop parking structure and be mounted no higher than 12 feet above
the roof deck. (P)
Rationale: The direct source of light should not be visible from lower levels or adjacent
uses.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 106
5. There should be a convenient, clear, safe and efficient internal circulation system within
the parking structure for both vehicular and pedestrian traffic including appropriate
signage and placement of pedestrian circulation cores (elevators and stairs). Pedestrian
routes should always be separated from vehicular traffic, except where required
crossings can be provided safely. (T)
6. Pedestrian entrances to parking garages should be separate from vehicular entrances.
(P)
7. Garage openings should be enhanced with specialty lighting, artwork, or materials to
visually notify vehicle drivers that pedestrians may be crossing, and vice versa. (P)
Rationale for J.7 and J.8: Safety at pedestrian and vehicular crossings should be
addressed with design.
8. Underground parking may extend to a height of five feet above finished grade, provided
that the garage perimeter wall does cause the Frontage Element assigned to that portion
of the building façade to become non-compliant with other required development
standards. (R*)
K. General Design Guidelines.
1. All building facades adjacent to interior property lines (i.e. not abutting or within a
Frontage Zone) should have a level of trim and finish equivalent with and
complementary to the Frontage Zone façade(s). (P)
Rationale: Most buildings within Downtown are of heights that they are visible from quite
a distance. Facades visible from the street or other properties should be of a quality
similar to that required for facades facing streets, and should never appear to be
unfinished or “blank”.
2. All buildings over 10 stories tall should be designed with a base that is visually
differentiated from the remainder of the building. The base may be between one and
four stories in height. (P)
Rationale: All buildings should be scaled at the base to relate and connect to pedestrian
uses.
3. Windows and balconies in near proximity that face each other should receive special
design treatment to increase privacy for existing adjacent residential uses by providing
one (or a combination) of the following, or similar as approved by PDD staff: (P)
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 107
a. Louvers;
b. Privacy screens;
c. Windows that start a minimum of six feet above respective finished floor;
d. Frosted or tinted window treatments.
Rationale: Existing residential units close enough to be impacted by new development
should be able to maintain their level of existing privacy. Incorporating methods of
screening with windows and balconies on new development can help provide the means
for maintaining this privacy.
4. Natural surveillance should be maximized in project design to encourage easy
observation of people and property near entryways, pathways, public spaces and
parking areas. (P)
Rationale: Safety and security for pedestrians should be addressed by design. Hidden
and obscures spaces can encourage illicit activity.
5. Building accents should be expressed through differing materials or architectural
detailing rather than applied finishes such as paint, graphics, or forms of plastic or metal
panels. (P)
Rationale: Building accents and detailing should be high quality and durability and not of
materials which can fade or deteriorate over time.
6. Architectural details such as exterior finish materials, architectural lighting and signage,
grilles, railings, downspouts, window and entry trim and moldings, shadow patterns and
exterior lighting should contribute to creating a coherent architectural concept. (P)
Rationale: While buildings should not appear too monolithic or monotonous, they should
also not appear to be an assemblage of many materials or designs without a common
theme.
7. Architectural elements. Accent materials and building design should contribute to
creating a coherent architectural concept that is consistent with the surrounding design
of the area. (e.g. architectural lighting and signage, grilles, railings, downspouts, window
and entry trim and moldings, shadow patterns and exterior lighting). (P)
Rationale: Character Areas were created to acknowledge the unique characteristics of
each area. New development and redevelopment should reflect the existing character by
use of similar and complementary architectural styles and accents.
8. Building materials. Materials from adjacent or nearby buildings should be incorporated to
help strengthen the character of the area. (e.g. doors, windows, pilasters, cornices,
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 108
arches and lintels) They should be articulated and expressed in a manner that is in
context with surrounding buildings. (P)
Rationale: Character Areas were created to acknowledge the unique characteristics of
each area. New development and redevelopment should reflect the existing character by
use of similar and complementary building materials.
9. Architecture and applied treatments that express corporate identity should be de-
emphasized. The building should be a unique structure that complements and blends
with the surrounding context. (P)
Rationale: Corporate identity may be utilized to create a unique identity that can be
recognized. However, the overall architectural theme should be the predominant feature
of the building.
10. All electric lines 12 KV and smaller, communications and cable television lines, and all
on-premise wiring shall be placed underground in developments where visible from
streets or adjoining properties. (T)
Rationale: Overhead utility lines are in many cases visually objectionable; can cause
issues with proximity to balconies; can obstruct direct pedestrian and vehicular routes and
visibility; and can restrict the ability to install required trees and other shading methods.
11. Freestanding detached monument signage should be integrated with the building
architecture. (P)
Rationale: Monument signs should incorporate elements of the building architecture
through use of similar colors, materials, and/or forms.
L. Buffer Alley Development Regulations. The following regulations shall apply to properties
adjacent to Buffer Alleys identified in Section 1202.E, in addition to any other requirements
of the Downtown Code:
1. Access to and vehicular maneuvering within a Buffer Alley is not permitted, except for
developments meeting at least one of the following criteria: (R)
a. Abutting properties that currently have legally established access to the Buffer Alley
and are not subject to the applicability requirements of Sections 507.B.2 or 507.B.3.
b. Abutting properties on which there are no more than two dwelling units and no other
primary uses.
c. Abutting subdivisions developed in accordance with Section 1203.D.27.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 109
2. If non-residential loading or service areas (including for trash/recycling collection) have
established legal access from a Buffer Alley, loading, pickup and deliveries shall be
prohibited between 9:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. This restriction shall be prominently posted
on signs on the building adjacent to the service area, as well as at the entrance to the
property from the Buffer Alley. (R)
3. A stepback equal to the minimum required building setback, plus 10 feet, is required for
all portions of buildings taller than 30 feet when adjacent to a Buffer Alley. Additional
stepbacks may be required by Section 1207.E. (R)
4. For non-single-family developments, a minimum five-foot wide landscape area and
minimum 6-foot high solid wall on the alley side of the landscape area must be provided
along the property line abutting a Buffer Alley. The wall must be consistent with the
material, design and character of the primary building. (R)
5. All new mechanical equipment, including roof mounted equipment, must be fully
screened from view from a Buffer Alley. Solar panels and/or solar water heaters are
exempt from this requirement. (R)
6. All trash/recycling containers must be fully screened from view from a Buffer Alley,
unless alley collection services are provided by the City of Phoenix. (R)
7. Parking lot and security lighting, including building-mounted lighting, shall not exceed 15
feet in height, including lamp, pole, and base, for properties abutting a Buffer Alley.
Light fixtures fully screened by a building or other structure, and not visible from the
Buffer Alley, are exempt from this requirement. (R)
8. Decorative lighting (including but not limited to illuminative gases, fiber optics, or LED
fixtures) and lighted signage shall not be installed where visible from an adjacent Buffer
Alley. (R)
9. Windows, balconies, and rooftop decks on properties abutting a Buffer Alley should be
designed to protect the existing privacy of adjacent single-family residential uses. (P)
Rationale: These building features should ideally be oriented away from the Buffer
Alley. However, if provided, they should be mitigated with things like louvers, screening,
frosted/tinted window treatments, and relative window height (i.e. at least 6 feet above
the floor).
M. Arts, Culture, Small Business Area Development Regulations.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 110
1. Applicability. The area indicated on the Arts, Culture, Small Business Area Map in
Section 1202.F is subject to the following regulations. In the event of a conflict with other
provisions of this Chapter, the more permissive regulation shall apply. The
development regulations of Section 669 (Arts, Culture, and Overlay District (ACOD) do
not apply to properties zoned Downtown Code.
2. Intent. The Arts, Culture and Small Business Overlay is intended to allow greater
flexibility in land uses and standards that will contribute to the vitality of Downtown and
will enhance community events.
3. Outdoor public events and performances. Outdoor events or performances that are open
to the public and that feature visual art, music, dance, theater, performance art, science,
design or cultural heritage are permitted, subject to the following: (R)
a. The outdoor event or performance must be staffed by an employee of an existing
business on the property and must comply with all applicable codes and ordinances.
b. The business’ items that are available for purchase during normal business hours
may be displayed outdoors and be available for purchase during the event or
performance. Payment for all items shall occur indoors. No other items may be
displayed for sale outdoors during the event or performance.
c. Outdoor events or performances are limited to Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays only.
d. Friday and Saturday events or performances shall be limited to the hours between
10:00 a.m. and 12:00 a.m. No amplified music or loudspeakers may be used outside
after 10:00 p.m.
e. Sunday outdoor events or performances shall be limited to the hours between 10:00
a.m. and 10:00 p.m. No amplified music or loudspeakers may be used after 8:00
p.m.
f. Hours and days of outdoor events or performances may be extended subject to
obtaining a use permit in accordance with the standards and procedures of the
Zoning Administrator section of the Zoning Ordinance.
g. Outdoor events or performances in Downtown shall be a minimum of 300 feet from
an adjacent Character Area that is not included in the Arts, Culture, and Small
Business Area depicted on the map in Section 1202.F and from any single-family
zoning district outside of Downtown.
4. Accessory uses.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 111
a. Home occupations are permitted subject to the following:
(1) Employees are permitted, subject to obtaining a use permit in accordance with
the provisions of Section 307.A.7.
(2) No more than 50 percent of the dwelling unit may be used for any home
occupation.
b. The following accessory uses are permitted:
(1) Outdoor dining as accessory to a restaurant is permitted subject to the following:
(a) The outdoor dining area shall be a minimum of 30 feet from the boundary of
an adjacent Character Area not included in the Arts, Culture, and Small
Business Area depicted in Section 1202.F and from any single-family zoning
district outside of Downtown.
(b) The outdoor dining area and accessory public space shall be clearly
delineated by a minimum three-foot-high continuous fence, wall or planter.
(c) The outdoor dining area shall not be more than 25 percent of the primary
building’s ground level gross floor area. The outdoor dining area may exceed
25 percent to a maximum of 50 percent subject to obtaining a use permit.
(d) Hours of operation for outdoor dining area shall not extend beyond restaurant
hours of operation.
(e) The outdoor dining area shall not restrict or impede accessible access to the
building or the parking area.
(2) Outdoor crafting of art associated with the business inside the building when the
subject parcel abuts an arterial or collector street is permitted and subject to the
following:
(a) Storage of materials associated with the crafting area shall not exceed eight
feet in height and be limited to the rear and side yard.
(b) Storage area shall be fully screened with a solid wall or landscaping.
(c) Storage of materials associated with the crafting area exceeding eight feet in
height shall be subject to obtaining a use permit.
5. Signs.
a. A-frame signs are permitted on private property, subject to the following: (R)
(1) No off-site advertising is permitted.
(2) A maximum of one A-frame sign is permitted per 25 feet of street frontage.
(3) A maximum of six square feet of signage per side of the A-frame sign is
permitted.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 112
(4) There shall be a maximum height of three feet from natural grade.
(5) All signs shall be removed daily at the close of business or event.
b. Shingle signs are permitted subject to the following: (R)
(1) A maximum of one sign is permitted for each business per facade if access to
business is available from that facade.
(2) A minimum clearance of eight feet from finished grade to the bottom of the sign
shall be provided.
(3) A maximum of five square feet in area shall be permitted per side.
(4) No backlit or cabinet signs are permitted.
c. Wall and window signs are permitted for structures existing as of May 2, 2008, as
follows: (R)
(1) Wall signs.
(a) The maximum square footage permitted per Section 705.D may be increased
by 25 percent.
(b) The maximum square footage permitted may be increased by an additional
ten percent if graphics comprise a minimum of ten percent of the overall
square footage of the sign.
(2) Window signs. The total area of such signs shall not exceed 40 percent of each
window area located on the ground floor of the building.
6. Parking, yard and area requirements for nonresidential uses or mixed uses containing
nonresidential uses.
a. For parking, yard and area requirements for structures existing as of May 1, 2008:
(R)
(1) Regardless of change of use or occupancy no additional parking or landscaping
shall be required.
(2) Structures may be increased a total of either 500 gross square feet or 25 percent
of the existing structure, whichever is greater, without requiring additional parking
or landscaping.
(3) Building additions may exceed the lot coverage of the underlying zoning district
by 25 percent, excluding those with Historic Preservation Overlays.
(4) Interior setbacks may be reduced by a maximum of 25 percent of that required
by the underlying zoning requirements, excluding those with Historic
Preservation Overlays.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 113
b. Outdoor dining that does not exceed 25 percent of the primary building’s ground
level gross floor area shall not require any additional parking. The outdoor dining
area may exceed 25 percent to a maximum of 50 percent subject to obtaining a use
permit.
c. Unless subject to Buffer Alley regulations (Section 1207.L), vehicles are permitted to
maneuver in the alley when dustproofing/paving, adequate maneuvering space, and
visibility are approved by the Planning and Development Department.
d. Unless subject to Buffer Alley regulations (Section 1207.L), when vehicular access to
the site is provided from an alley, no landscape setback is required adjacent to the
alley.
N. Taylor Street Pedestrian Paseo Regulations.
1. Intent. The Taylor Street Paseo is intended to primarily serve pedestrians, connecting
the Van Buren Character Area to the commercial, educational, and cultural resources
and institutions located in the central portion of Downtown (generally east of First
Avenue). The Paseo will provide a mid-block east-west route alternative located
generally along the alignment of Taylor Street, to help mitigate the unusually long block
lengths between Fillmore and Van Buren Streets.
2. Applicability. The properties abutting the alignment indicated on the map below are
subject to the following special development regulations:
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 114
3. Easement dedication. Properties abutting the Paseo alignment are required to
dedicate a public pedestrian easement (hereafter referred to as "Paseo") per the
alignment as shown on the map provided in this Section.
a. The minimum width of the Paseo, and the public pedestrian easement to be
dedicated at the time of development is 20 feet, subject to the following:
(1) Where the Paseo runs between different properties, the dedication may be split
between the properties so long as the Paseo dedications from all properties are
made concurrently.
(2) If the Paseo is dedicated within or abutting a public street, the public pedestrian
easement dedication within the adjacent Frontage Zone shall be wide enough to
provide a minimum of 20 feet from back of curb to back of easement.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 115
b. The Paseo may be provided as a pedestrian-only corridor between private lots, or
within and/or adjacent to a public street, so long as it is in compliance with all of the
applicable design standards and guidelines provided below.
4. Deviation from approved alignment. The alignment of the Paseo may be deviated by
up to 50 feet either north or south of the approved alignment under the following
conditions:
a. The deviation should not result in a misalignment of more than 90 feet.
b. A north or south connector Paseo, designed in accordance with this section, should
be provided on site when a deviation results in more than 20 feet of misalignment
within the block.
c. The revised easement location shall be dedicated prior to final site plan approval.
d. The deviated alignment can be used in place of the approved alignment. For sites
with an optional alignment two easements are not required.
5. Paseo Streetscape and Frontage Zone standards
a. Streetscape and Frontage Zone standards apply as stated in the applicable
Character Area Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix.
b. Streetscape Zone development regulations, per Section 1204, apply when the Paseo
is located within or abutting a dedicated street.
c. Frontage Zone development regulations, per Section 1204, apply within the portion
of the Paseo located on private property unless such regulations conflict with other
regulations specific to development of the Paseo stated in this Section.
d. If the Paseo is provided within or adjacent to a public street, the street should be
designed with on-street parking adjacent to the Paseo. (P)
Rationale: On-street parking provides a buffer from through traffic lanes, as well as
creating an environment encouraging the use of the Paseo as the main access point
to residential units or commercial suites fronting the Paseo.
e. A minimum of 50% of the ground floor abutting the Paseo should consist of active
uses and/or residential uses providing primary entrances from the Paseo. (P)
f. Each ground floor commercial suite adjacent to the Paseo should provide a primary
entrance to the Paseo. (P)
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 116
Rationale for e and f: The Paseo should attract pedestrians and be a safe place for
persons to walk and gather.
6. Paseo Design Regulations
a. An ADA compliant sidewalk a minimum of 8 feet in width and clear of obstructions
shall be provided within the Paseo. (T)
b. The Paseo should be a straight as possible and avoid meanders. (T)
c. The Paseo sidewalk should be a minimum of 75% shaded. If trees are used to
provide shade, the percent shading shall be calculated based upon tree canopy at
maturity. Structural shade may also be used to comply with the shading
requirement. (P)
d. Decorative paving (e.g. pavers, permeable pavement, colored and textured concrete)
should be provided within the Paseo when located on private property. (P)
e. The Paseo should be clearly separated from vehicular maneuvering areas. (T)
f. Automobile access to on-site parking areas or garages should not cross the Paseo,
unless the Paseo is located within or abutting a dedicated street. At all such
crossings, a crosswalk a minimum of 20 feet wide consisting of paint or contrasting
pavement should be provided. (T)
g. A minimum 15-foot by 15-foot visibility triangle should be provided at any intersection
with the Paseo and on-site vehicular traffic lanes. (T)
h. Paseo segments that cross surface parking areas should be designed with the
following elements: (P)
(1) A minimum 8-foot wide grade separated walkway.
(2) A minimum of 6-foot wide landscape strips on each side of walkway (or 12 feet
on one side).
i. The following lighting treatment should be provided within the Paseo: (P)
(1) 15-foot maximum height of lighting fixtures. When adjacent to a street, taller
streetlights may be provided in addition to the pedestrian-level lighting.
(2) A minimum of one foot-candle illumination should be maintained over the Paseo
sidewalk.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 117
(3) Uniform lighting should be placed along entire Paseo, avoiding bright high glare
areas and low visibility dark areas.
(4) Lighting within the Paseo should be illuminated from dusk until dawn.
j. One of the following identifying markers should be provided at each street entrance
to the Paseo: (P)
(1) Bollard path light.
(2) Public art.
(3) Decorative directional signage.
k. Temporary security gating—In the event that a block’s Paseo is not fully developed,
and the Paseo is not located along a dedicated street, temporary removable fencing
may be erected at the entrances to the Paseo under the following conditions: (P)
(1) A pedestrian gate is provided that is unlocked during business hours.
(2) A revocable permit is obtained.
(3) The fencing is removed upon completion of the block’s Paseo.
Rationale for a through k: the design of the Paseo should encourage use by
pedestrians. Safety, security, and accessibility should work into all design elements,
as well as uses which engage and attract pedestrians.
O. Lot Coverage. When 100% lot coverage is permitted by right, or obtained by sustainability
bonus points, the following apply: (R*)
1. Interior property line setbacks may be reduced or eliminated.
2. Frontage Zone depths and minimum street building setbacks may be reduced as
approved by the Design Review Committee per Section 1224.A.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 118
Section 1208. Biomed.
A. Intent. The Biomed character area, which is home to the biomedical campus, should be a
lively urban district with medical workers, researchers, and students. Restaurants and shops
on Garfield Street, Roosevelt Row, and Arizona Center are all located within a short walk
and development should be designed to reinforce pedestrian convenience to these areas
through a consistent pattern of shaded sidewalks. Small plazas and courtyards are
encouraged to be located along streets, typically near building entrances, providing
gathering places and "cool pockets" on hot days. Landscaped courtyards interior to the
campus should serve as mid-block pedestrian connections. Views of the landscaped
courtyards should be visible from the street, enriching the street environment.
B. Development Regulations. The following development regulations apply to properties
located with the Biomed character area. Where a “bonus” is indicated, the development
regulation may be modified within the range stated when sustainability bonus points are
earned per Section 1223, as approved by PDD staff or the Design Review Committee.
1. Maximum height: governed by the height map, Section 1202.B, and height transition
standards of Section 1207.E.
a. Bonus: none.
2. Maximum density: governed by the density map, Section 1202.C.
a. Bonus: maximum 50% increase.
3. Maximum lot coverage: no maximum.
a. Bonus: none.
4. Minimum setbacks from interior property lines: none.
5. Required parking: governed by Section 1206.
a. Bonus:
(1) Increase: maximum 50%.
(2) Decrease: maximum 100%.
6. Walls/Fences.
a. Frontage Zones: per the provisions of Section 1207.D.
b. Interior property lines: maximum wall height is the same as the maximum permitted
building height(s) for the property.
7. Signage. Signage is subject to the regulations of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Section
705, Table D-1, Commercial/Industrial Right-of-Way Low Volume Street Standards.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 119
C. Streetscape and Frontage Zone Development Regulations. The following development
regulations apply to properties which abut the street sections indicated. All regulations in
the table are appealable to the Design Review Committee under the provisions of Section
1224 and considered as R*.
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix--Biomed
Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Minimum Frontage Zone
Street Section Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Setback Depth
Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
Garfield Street 5' 25’ 50% ALL 5' 20’
4th St. to 6th St.
McKinley Street 5' 25’ 50% ALL 5' 20’
4th St. to 7th St.
Pierce Street 5' 25’ 50% ALL 5' 15’
4th St. to 7th St.
Fillmore Street 5' 25’ 50% ALL 5' 15’
5th St. to 7th St.
Van Buren Street 0' 20’ 75% ALL 6' 12’
5th St. to 9th St.
4th Street 5' 20’ 75% SD, PO, S, 6' 14’
Garfield St. to Fillmore GA, FC
St.
5th Street 0' 20’ 75% S, GA, FC 10' 20’
Garfield St. to Fillmore
St.
5th Street 0' 20’ 75% S, GA 10' 20'
Fillmore St. to Monroe
St.
6th Street 5' 25’ 75% SD, PO, S, 10' 20’
Garfield St. to Fillmore GA, FC
St.
7th Street 0' 20’ 75% ALL 5' 15’
McKinley St. to Monroe
St.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 120
(AFY) Active Front Yard, (PA) Patio, (SD) Stoop/Door Well, (PO) Porch, (CE) Common
Entry, (FC) Forecourt, (S) Storefront, (GA) Gallery/Arcade, (GR) Grand Entry, (ALL) All
Frontage Elements
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 121
Section 1209. Business Core.
A. Intent. The Business Core character area should function as a strong regional center for
employment, entertainment, conventions, tourism, and cultural institutions, drawing visitors
from around the country and attracting residents from throughout the region. The greatest
development intensity within the region should be located within this character area. New
development should be innovative and incorporate small public spaces that promote
pedestrian movement and comfort. The Business Core should have vibrant pedestrian
activity and be served frequently by multiple modes of high quality public transit.
B. Development Regulations. The following development regulations apply to properties
located with the Business Core character area. Where a “bonus” is indicated, the
development regulation may be modified within the range stated when sustainability bonus
points are earned per Section 1223, as approved by PDD staff or the Design Review
Committee, unless stated otherwise.
1. Maximum height: governed by the height map, Section 1202.B, and height transition
standards of Section 1207.E.
a. Bonus (north of Madison Street): none.
b. Bonus (south of Madison Street, within the 80 feet base height category only):
maximum height of 140 feet shall be permitted only with dedication of a 30-year
conservation easement over an existing building designated HP or HP-L, as
approved by HP. The property with the conservation easement must be located
between Madison Street and Lincoln Street, and within either the Business Core or
Warehouse character areas. Sustainability bonus points cannot be used to obtain
this height bonus.
2. Maximum density: governed by the density map, Section 1202.C.
a. Bonus: none.
3. Maximum lot coverage: no maximum.
a. Bonus: none.
4. Minimum setbacks from interior property lines: none.
5. Required parking:
a. Minimum:
(1) Residential uses: governed by Section 1206.
(2) Non-residential uses: none.
b. Maximum: governed by Section 1206.
c. Bonus:
(1) Increase: maximum 100%
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 122
(2) Decrease: maximum 100%.
6. Walls/Fences.
a. Frontage Zones: per the provisions of Section 1207.D.
b. Interior property lines: maximum wall height is the same as the maximum permitted
building height(s) for the property.
7. Taylor Street Paseo. Certain properties within the Business Core are subject to the
additional development regulations of the Taylor Street Paseo, Section 1207.N. The
affected properties are shown on the map provided within that Section.
C. Streetscape and Frontage Zone Development Regulations. The following development
regulations apply to properties which abut the street sections indicated. All regulations in
the table are appealable to the Design Review Committee under the provisions of Section
1224 and considered as R*.
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix—Business Core
Frontage Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Minimum
Street Section Zone Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Setback
Depth Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
Fillmore Street 5' 25’ Minimum ALL 5' 11'
3rd Ave. to 5th St. 50%
Taylor Street Paseo 0’ 20’ Minimum SD, PO, S, 8’ 13’, or 0’
7th Ave. to 3rd Ave. 75% GA, CE when not
located within
or adjacent to
a dedicated
street
Taylor Street 5' 20' Minimum S, GA, GR 8' 14'
1st St. to 3rd St. 75%
Polk Street 0' 20’ Minimum S, GA, GR 8' 14'
Central Ave. to 2nd St. 75%
Van Buren Street 0' 20’ Minimum S, GA, GR 8' 14'
3rd Ave. to 5th St. 75%
Monroe Street 0' 20' Minimum S, GA, GR 10' 16'
5th Ave. to 5th St. 75%
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 123
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix—Business Core
Frontage Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Minimum
Street Section Zone Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Setback
Depth Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
Adams Street 0' 20' Minimum ALL 5' 13'
8th Ave. to 7th Ave. 75%
Adams Street 0' 20' Minimum S, GA, CE, 8' 14'
7th Ave. to 3rd Ave. 75% GR
Adams Street 0' 20' Minimum S, GA, CE, 10' 16'
3rd Ave. to 2nd St. 75% GR
Washington Street 0' 20' Minimum S, GA, CE, 10' 16'
8th Ave. to 2nd St. 75% GR
Washington Street 0' 20' Minimum S, GA, CE, 8' 14'
2nd St. to 7th St. 75% GR
Jefferson Street 0' 20' Minimum S, GA, CE, 8' 14'
8th Ave. to 3rd Ave. 75% GR
Jefferson Street 0' 20' Minimum S, GA, CE, 10' 16'
3rd Ave. to 5th St. 75% GR
Jefferson Street 0' 20' Minimum S, GA, CE, 8' 14'
5th St. to 7th St. 75% GR
Madison Street 0' 20' Minimum S, GA, CE, 8' 14'
8th Ave. to 7th Ave. 75% GR
Madison Street 0' 20' Minimum S, GA, CE, 8' 14'
5th Ave. to 1st St. 75% GR
Jackson Street 0' 20' Minimum S, GA, CE, 8' 14'
7th Ave. to 5th Ave. 75% GR
Jackson Street 0' 20' Minimum S, GA, CE, 8' 14'
4th Ave. to 1st Ave. 75% GR
Jackson Street 0' 20' Minimum S, GA, CE, 10' 16'
1st St. to 4th St. 75% GR
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 124
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix—Business Core
Frontage Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Minimum
Street Section Zone Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Setback
Depth Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
Buchanan Street 5' 25' Minimum SD, PA, PO, 8' 14’
4th St. to 7th St. 75% S, GA
Lincoln Street 5' 25' Minimum SD, PA, PO, 8' 14'
4th St. to 7th St. 75% S, GA
8th Avenue 5' 23' Minimum S, GA, GR 8' 14'
Adams St. to Madison 75%
St.
7th Avenue 5' 25' Minimum S, GA, GR 6' 14'
Adams St. to Jefferson 75%
St.
7th Avenue None None None ALL 6' 14'
Jefferson St. to Harrison Required Required Required
St. alignment
6th Avenue 5' 25' Minimum S, GA, GR 8' 14'
Adams St. to 50%
Washington St.
5th Avenue 5' 25' Minimum SD, PA, PO, 5' 10'
Monroe St. to 75% S, GA
Washington St.
5th Avenue 5' 25' Minimum ALL 8' West 14' West
Jefferson St. to Harrison 50%
5' East 10' East
St. alignment
4th Avenue 5' 25' Minimum ALL 8' 14'
Monroe St. to 50%
Washington St.
4th Avenue 5' 25' Minimum SD, PA, PO, 10' 16'
Washington St. to 75% S, GA
Jackson St.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 125
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix—Business Core
Frontage Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Minimum
Street Section Zone Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Setback
Depth Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
3rd Avenue 5' 25' Minimum ALL 8' 14'
Fillmore St. to Van 75%
Buren St.
3rd Avenue 5' 25' Minimum ALL 8' 14'
Van Buren St. to 50%
Washington St.
3rd Avenue 5' 25' Minimum S, GA, GR 8' 14'
Washington St. to 75%
Jackson St.
2nd Avenue 5' 25' Minimum ALL Per plans approved by Street
Fillmore St. to Monroe 75% Transportation Department.
St.
2nd Avenue 5' 25' Minimum ALL 10' 16'
Monroe St. to Adams 75%
St.
1st Avenue 5' 25' Minimum S, GA, GR 8' 14'
Fillmore St. to Madison 75%
St.
1st Avenue None None None ALL Per plans approved by Street
Madison St. to Jackson Required Required Required Transportation Department.
St.
Central Avenue 5' 25' Minimum S, GA, GR 10' 16'
Fillmore St. to Madison 75%
St.
1st Street 5' 25' Minimum S, GA, GR 10' 16'
Fillmore St. to Jackson 75%
St.
2nd Street 5' 25' Minimum S, GA, GR 10' 16'
Fillmore St. to Jefferson 75%
St.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 126
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix—Business Core
Frontage Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Minimum
Street Section Zone Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Setback
Depth Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
3rd Street 5' 25' Minimum S, GA, GR 10' 16'
Fillmore St. to Jackson 75%
St.
4th Street 5' 25' Minimum S, GA, GR 5' 10'
Jefferson St. to Jackson 75%
St.
4th Street 5' 25' Minimum SD, PA, PO, 8' 14'
Jackson St. to Lincoln 75% S, GA
St.
5th Street 5' 25' Minimum SD, PA, PO, 8' 14'
Fillmore St. to Van 75% S, GA
Buren St.
5th Street 5' 25' Minimum S, GA, GR 8' 14'
Van Buren St. to 50%
Jefferson St.
5th Street 5' 25' Minimum ALL 8' 14'
Buchanan St. to Lincoln 50%
St.
6th Street 5' 25' Minimum ALL 8' 14'
Buchanan St. to Lincoln 50%
St.
7th Street 5' 25' Minimum S, GA, GR 8' 14'
Monroe St. to Jefferson 75%
St.
7th Street None None None ALL 8' 14'
Jefferson St. to Lincoln Required Required Required
St.
(AFY) Active Front Yard, (PA) Patio, (SD) Stoop/Door Well, (PO) Porch, (CE) Common
Entry, (FC) Forecourt, (S) Storefront, (GA) Gallery/Arcade, (GR) Grand Entry, (ALL) All
Frontage Elements
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 127
D. Signage Regulations.
1. Signage in the Business Core Character Area shall be governed by the regulations
applicable to signs for commercial land use as established in Section 705. Signs not
visible beyond the boundaries of the lot or parcel upon which they are situated or from
any public thoroughfare are not regulated as signs.
a. Signs projecting more than six inches from the front of buildings over the public right-
of-way shall be perpendicular to the street (i.e., 90-degree angle), with a maximum of
one sign per entrance. All signs that extend into or over the public right-of-way shall
be permitted only upon issuance of a revocable permit as administered by the City of
Phoenix. Each sign shall:
(1) Identify only one on-site business.
(2) Provide a minimum eight-foot head clearance. Existing signs with a minimum of
seven feet six inches clearance may remain.
(3) Project no more than three feet into the public right-of-way.
(4) Be indirectly illuminated from a shielded light source (i.e., not backlit or "cabinet"
sign).
b. Awning signs shall be permitted by right. Awning signs shall have letters no more
than ten inches in height.
c. Signs painted on the building surface or letters mounted directly to the building
surface shall:
(1) Be a maximum of one square foot of signage for each lineal foot of building
elevation to a maximum of 100 square feet.
(2) Be at least half the vertical height of the letters to a building corner (vertical edge)
or to a roofline.
2. Signage may be increased by up to 25 percent by submitting a comprehensive sign plan
as provided in the Phoenix Sign Code, Section 705.E.
3. The foregoing requirements shall not apply to signs exceeding 56 feet in height
approved through a comprehensive sign plan and subject to the requirements of Section
705.D.3.i of the Zoning Ordinance.
4. Window signs fronting the public right-of-way shall not exceed a total of more than 20
percent of the window panel area.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 128
5. Second-story or basement business fronting the public right-of-way may only use a sign
in a second-story window or use a wall sign. Awning signs shall not be permitted on
second-story windows.
6. Corner buildings shall be allowed signage on each street frontage.
7. Freestanding or ground signs may be allowed to a maximum of 40 square feet in area if
the primary building is set back 15 or more feet from the property line for more than 50
percent of the street frontage. Said sign shall be a maximum of three feet in height.
Signs may be up to 20 feet in height and 100 square feet in area if a comprehensive sign
plan is approved and if the project covers a full block or more.
8. Directional signs for accessory parking will be allowed to a maximum of six square feet
per sign per driveway entrance. Said sign shall be a maximum of three feet in height. No
more than 25 percent of the area may be devoted to business identification.
9. The provisions of Section 705.C.6.d (illuminated sign spacing from residential use) shall
not apply within the Business Core Character Area.
10. Signs, banners, balloons, flags, guidons, and similar devices may be erected subject to
a use permit in conjunction with special promotional events to be held within Downtown
of a civic or commercial nature. No more than 25 percent of the area may be devoted to
corporate sponsorship identity. Findings of approval of the use permit shall include:
a. The signs and other displays are appropriate in scale, composition, and manner of
display with surrounding development.
b. When two or more adjoining establishments are to participate equally in the event, a
single request for a use permit may be filed.
11. For master planned developments covering one or more downtown blocks (300 feet by
300 feet minimum), signs, banners, and flags may be erected subject to a use permit in
compliance with a comprehensive sign plan. Findings of approval of the use permit shall
include:
a. The signs and other displays are appropriate in scale, composition, and manner of
display with surrounding development.
b. The signs, banners, and flags are mounted and secured so as not to pose a
distraction or hazard to vehicles or pedestrians.
c. The signs and other displays shall include only logos, graphics and project name of
the master planned development.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 129
12. Wall signs on buildings in a designated historic preservation zoning district exceeding
the applicable size regulations may be allowed by the Historic Preservation Commission
in accordance with the procedure set forth in Section 812.C.3 and upon the additional
finding that the proposed signage replicates the size, shape, and placement of the
original wall signage.
13. The following signs are prohibited:
a. Signs placed above or on top of any portion of the roof or front parapet.
b. Signs advertising goods or services not provided on the premises.
c. Signs utilizing moving, flashing, or rotating lights or mechanisms, except as provided
by a use permit.
14. For master planned developments covering contiguous area of at least ten acres, signs,
including those signs, banners, and flags otherwise prohibited by Sections 1209.D.10
and 13, may be erected subject to approval of a Master Planned Development Sign Plan
and related detailed project sign plans in accordance with the provisions of this section.
In recognition of design that contributes to and furthers the goals of the Downtown
Phoenix Plan, the City may approve a Master Planned Development Sign Plan to allow
larger and taller signs than are otherwise allowed within Downtown.
a. Sign types. In addition to other signs permitted in the Business Core Character Area
and those signs, banners, and flags otherwise prohibited by Sections 1209.D.10 and
13, the following sign types shall be permitted in a Master Planned Development
Sign Plan: aerial view signs, animated signs, architectural ledge signs, awning signs,
electronic message display signs, inflatable signs, kinetic signs, projected image
signs, projecting signs, roof signs, supergraphic 0signs, and wayfinding signs.
b. Master Planned Development Sign Plan application. A Master Planned Development
Sign Plan application shall include the following elements:
(1) Site plans, building elevations, or photographs, and design guidelines for each
type of sign to be permitted within the boundaries of the master planned
development. These plans and elevations/photographs shall indicate orientation,
size, location and method of installation of signs, including delineating on the site
plan the locations and orientation of ground-mounted signs and delineating on
the elevations/photographs the area in which building/structure mounted signs
will be contained. Design guidelines shall address, at a minimum, architectural
compatibility with primary structures within the master planned development.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 130
(2) Context plan. The context plan shall include an aerial photograph of the master
planned development and the surrounding area with notations of the current land
use of parcels within the development and within 150 feet of the perimeter of the
development. The context plan shall also include photographs taken looking
outward from the perimeter of the master planned development at 100-foot
intervals for the entire boundary of the development.
(3) Standards. The standards and restrictions for each sign type shall include, but
not be limited to size, height, illumination, and durability of materials. The
standards shall also include calculations showing the maximum sign area
permitted per building face. In no case shall the standards exceed the following
limitations:
(a) Ground signs. Ground signs, which may be multi-faced, shall not exceed 50
feet in height and no single face shall exceed 600 square feet. The overall
height of ground signs, including sign embellishments, shall not exceed 67
percent of the height of the closest building.
(b) Building mounted signs. Aggregate area for building mounted signs shall not
exceed 100 percent of the facade to which the signs are attached, including
the building roof. Building mounted signs shall not project more than 20 feet
above the parapet or from the face of the building.
(c) Illumination. Signs facing or oriented to an existing residential use or structure
that has obtained a certificate of occupancy for residential use and located
closer than 60 feet to such residential use or structure shall not be illuminated
between midnight and sunrise.
(d) Temporary signs. Temporary signs shall be allowed at the same sizes and
heights as permanent signs. Temporary signs/graphics shall be allowed to
cover 100 percent of construction fencing and barricades.
(4) Narrative. A written narrative shall discuss the purpose and intent of the Master
Planned Development Sign Plan and its consistency with the Downtown Phoenix
Plan. The narrative shall also address the quantity and durability/anticipated
lifespan of the proposed sign materials.
(5) Architectural lighting. A Master Planned Development Sign Plan may include
provisions regarding architectural lighting, that shall be exempt from calculation
as sign area. Architectural lighting shall not include text, logos, messages, or
images of any kind. Architectural lighting shall not flash, blink, scroll, move or
stream.
c. Approval of a Master Planned Development Sign Plan. An application for a Master
Planned Development Sign Plan shall be submitted to the Planning and
Development Director or designee for review and approval. The Planning and
Development Director or designee shall approve, approve with conditions or deny
such application within 15 working days of receipt of the application. The Planning
and Development Director or designee shall approve such application only if the
following findings are made:
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 131
(1) The signs, banners, flags and architectural lighting are mounted and secured so
as to not pose a distraction or hazard to vehicles and pedestrians.
(2) The signs and architectural lighting are appropriate in scale, composition, and
manner of display with surrounding development.
(3) The signs and architectural lighting conform to the vision, goals and policies of
the Downtown Phoenix Plan.
d. Detailed project sign plan application. An application for approval of a detailed
project sign plan for a development within the boundaries of an approved Master
Planned Development Sign Plan shall include the following documents or graphics:
(1) Site plans, building elevations or photo simulations that show the placement of
the signs and architectural lighting within the master planned development and
on the specific building, structure or site.
(2) Graphic rendering of the signs depicting their lettering, illumination, color, shape,
area, and height.
(3) Details regarding any proposed animation or changeable messages, including
duration of each message and intensity of illumination.
(4) Proposed hours for illumination of the signs.
(5) A written narrative discussing the detailed project sign plan’s consistency with the
Master Planned Development Sign Plan.
e. Approval of detailed project sign plans. An application for a detailed project sign plan
shall be submitted to the Planning and Development Director or designee for review
for conformance with the standards, restrictions and guidelines of the Master
Planned Development Sign Plan. The Planning and Development Director or
designee shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny a detailed project sign plan
application within 15 working days of receipt of the application. The Planning and
Development Director or designee shall approve such application only if the
applicant demonstrates the following:
(1) The size and location of the signs, banners, flags or architectural lighting are
allowed under the standards of the Master Development Sign Plan.
(2) The scale, composition and manner of display of the signs, banners, flags or
architectural lighting conform to the standards and guidelines of the Master
Development Sign Plan.
(3) The type and hours of illumination and animation conform to the standards of the
Master Development Sign Plan.
(4) The durability of the materials proposed for the signs, banners, flags or
architectural lighting is appropriate for the intended lifespan of the signs, banners,
flags or architectural lighting.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 132
f. Appeals. An applicant may appeal the decision of the Planning and Development
Director or designee regarding a Master Planned Development Sign Plan within five
working days of the decision. Appeals shall be considered by the Zoning Adjustment
Hearing Officer through the use permit process in accordance with the provisions of
Section 307 on the next available agenda. In addition to the standards of Section
307, the Zoning Adjustment Hearing Officer shall review the decision with the
standards for approval established in Section 1209.D.10.e.
g. Amendment. Any proposal to exceed the standards and restrictions established in a
Master Planned Development Sign Plan shall require amendment through the
process required for initial application and approval of a Master Planned
Development Sign Plan.
h. Specific signs. Requests for approval of specific, individual signs with a master
planned development may be included in an application for either a Master Planned
Development Sign Plan or a detailed project sign plan. Such signs shall not be
installed or erected before issuance of a sign permit from the Planning and
Development Department. If a specific, individual sign within the boundary of a
Master Planned Development Sign Plan is not included in either the Master Planned
Development Sign Plan or a detailed project sign plan, an application for such sign
shall be submitted to the Planning and Development Department for review for
conformance with the applicable sign plan and shall not be installed or erected
before issuance of a sign permit from the Planning and Development Department.
15. For master planned developments for sports, entertainment or concert venues with a
minimum of 4,000 seats, signs, including those signs, banners, and flags otherwise
prohibited by Sections 1209.D.10 and 13, may be erected subject to approval of a
Master Planned Development Sign Plan. The City may approve a Master Planned
Development Sign Plan to allow signs that are larger and taller than are otherwise
allowed within the Business Core Character Area within Downtown. All signage
permitted under this section shall be reviewed and approved in accordance with the
following:
a. Sign types. In addition to other signs permitted in the Business Core Character Area,
the following sign types shall be permitted in a master planned development: aerial
view signs, animated signs, architectural ledge signs, awning signs, electronic
message display signs, inflatable signs, kinetic signs, projected image signs,
projecting signs, roof signs, supergraphics signs, and wayfinding signs.
b. Master Planned Development Sign Plan application. An application for a Master
Planned Development Sign Plan shall be submitted to the Planning and
Development Director or designee for review and approval. A Master Planned
Development Sign Plan application shall include the following:
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 133
(1) Design guidelines. Site plans, building elevations, or photographs, and design
guidelines for each type of sign to be permitted within the boundaries of the
master planned development. These plans and elevations/photographs shall
indicate orientation, size, location and method of installation of the sign. This
shall include delineating on the site plan the locations and orientation of ground-
mounted signs and delineating on the elevations/photographs the area in which
building/structure mounted signs will be contained. Design guidelines shall
address, at a minimum, architectural compatibility with primary structures within
the master planned development.
(2) Context plan. The context plan shall include an aerial photograph of the master
planned development and the surrounding area with notations of the current land
use of parcels within the development and within 150 feet of the perimeter of the
development. The context plan shall also include photographs taken looking
outward from the perimeter of the master planned development at 100-foot
intervals for the entire boundary of the development.
(3) Standards. The standards and restrictions for each sign type shall include, but
not be limited to size, height, illumination, and durability of materials. The
standards shall also include calculations showing the maximum sign area
permitted per building face. In no case shall the standards exceed the following
limitations:
(a) Building mounted signs. Aggregate area for building mounted signs shall not
exceed 25 percent on one elevation facing an arterial street and 10 percent
on the other elevations, with the ability to transfer up to five percent from the
arterial elevation to one other elevation. Building mounted signs shall not
project more than 20 feet above the parapet or from the face of the building. If
the sign is placed at an angle to the building elevation, the applicant must
specify to which elevation the sign area will be counted.
(b) Supergraphics. Supergraphics signs not to exceed 300 square feet or five
percent of building elevation whichever is less.
(c) Illumination. Signs facing or oriented to an existing residential use or structure
that has obtained a certificate of occupancy for residential use and located
closer than 60 feet to such residential use or structure shall not be illuminated
between midnight and sunrise.
(d) Temporary signs. Temporary signs may be allowed at the same sizes and
heights as permanent signs. Temporary signs or graphics shall be allowed to
cover 100 percent of construction fencing and barricades.
(4) Narrative. A written narrative shall discuss the purpose and intent of the Master
Planned Development Sign Plan and its consistency with the Downtown Phoenix
Plan. The narrative shall also address the quantity and durability or anticipated
lifespan of the proposed sign materials.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 134
(5) Architectural lighting. A Master Planned Development Sign Plan may include
provisions regarding architectural lighting, that shall be exempt from calculation
as sign area. Architectural lighting shall not include text, logos, messages, or
images of any kind. Architectural lighting shall not flash, blink, scroll, move, or
stream.
c. Approval of a Master Planned Development Sign Plan. The Planning and
Development Director or designee shall approve, approve with conditions or deny
such application. The Planning and Development Director or designee shall approve
such application in writing only if the following findings are made:
(1) The signs, banners, flags and architectural lighting are mounted, secured, and
operated so as to not pose a nuisance.
(2) The signs and architectural lighting are appropriate in scale, composition, and
manner of display with surrounding development.
(3) The signs and architectural lighting are consistent with the vision, goals and
policies of the Downtown Phoenix Plan dated December 14, 2004.
d. Appeals. An applicant may appeal the decision of the Planning and Development
Director or designee regarding the Master Planned Development Sign Plan within
five working days of the decision. Appeals shall be considered by the Zoning
Adjustment Hearing Officer through the use permit process in accordance with the
provisions of Section 307 on the next available agenda. In addition to the standards
of Section 307, the Zoning Adjustment Hearing Officer shall review the decision with
the standards for approval established in Section 1209.D.15.c.
e. Amendment. Any proposal to exceed the standards and restrictions established in a
Master Planned Development Sign Plan shall require amendment through the
process required for initial application and approval of a Master Planned
Development Sign Plan.
16. Signage may be increased by up to 25 percent if a comprehensive sign plan is approved
as provided in Section 705.E of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 135
Section 1210. Central Park.
A. Intent. Central Park has a strong historic single-family form and scale that should be
preserved as this area redevelops. A seamless integration of new buildings within the
existing fabric should be promoted. Mixed uses, home offices and workshops are allowed in
the primary structure and in appropriately scaled accessory buildings. Landscaping is
residential in character with front yards separating the building from the sidewalk. Sidewalks
are shaded by trees in parkway strips. Parking should be on the street and within detached
garages behind the primary structure.
B. Development Regulations. The following development regulations apply to properties
located with the Central Park character area. Where a “bonus” is indicated, the
development regulation may be modified within the range stated when sustainability bonus
points are earned per Section 1223, as approved by PDD staff or the Design Review
Committee.
1. Maximum height:
a. Main building: governed by the height map, Section 1202.B, and height transition
standards of Section 1207.E.
b. Accessory structures, including Accessory Dwelling Units: 30 feet.
c. Bonus: none.
2. Maximum density: governed by the density map, Section 1202.C.
a. Bonus: maximum 50% increase.
3. Maximum lot coverage: 50%.
a. Bonus: none.
b. Additional lot coverage of 10% (total 60%) is allowed for accessory structures.
4. Minimum setbacks from interior property lines.
a. Primary building:
(1) Side: 5 feet.
(2) Rear: 40 feet.
b. Accessory structures:
(1) Side: 3 feet.
(2) Rear: 5 feet, which may be reduced to 0 feet when abutting a fully dedicated
alley which is not a designated Buffer Alley per Section 1202.E.
5. Required parking: governed by Section 1206.
a. Bonus:
(1) Increase: maximum 50%
(2) Decrease: maximum 50%.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 136
6. Walls/Fences.
a. Frontage Zones: per the provisions of Section 1207.D.
(1) Walls/fences taller than 40 inches may not be provided closer to the street than
the front façade of the structure. This provision does not apply to street side
yards.
b. Interior property lines: maximum height of 6 feet.
7. Signage. Signage is subject to the regulations of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Section
705, Table D-1, Nonresidential Activity in a Residential District Right-of-Way Standards.
C. Streetscape and Frontage Zone Development Regulations. The following development
regulations apply to properties which abut the street sections indicated. All regulations in
the table are appealable to the Design Review Committee under the provisions of Section
1224 and considered as R*.
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix—Central Park
Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Minimum Frontage
Street Section Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Setback Zone Depth
Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
Tonto Street 5' 25' Minimum AFY, SD, PA, 5' 12'
Alley west of 1st St. 50% PO
to 4th St.
Hadley Street 5' 25' Minimum AFY, SD, PA, 5' 12'
Alley west of 1st St. 50% PO
to 1st St.
Hadley Street 15' 25' Minimum AFY, SD, PA, 5' 12'
1st St. to 2nd St. 50% PO
Hadley Street 5' 25' Minimum AFY, SD, PA, 5' 12'
2nd St. to 4th St. 50% PO, CE, S
1st Street 15' 25' Minimum AFY, SD, PA, 5' 12'
South of Grant St. to 50% PO, S
north of Buckeye Rd.
2nd Street 15' 25' Minimum AFY, SD, PA, 5' 12'
South of Grant St. to 50% PO
north of Buckeye Rd.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 137
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix—Central Park
Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Minimum Frontage
Street Section Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Setback Zone Depth
Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
3rd Street 15' 25' Minimum AFY, SD, PA, 5' 20'
South of Grant St. to 50% PO
north of Hadley St.
4th Street 15' 25' Minimum AFY, SD, PA, 5' 12’
South of Grant St. to 50% PO
Hadley St.
(AFY) Active Front Yard, (PA) Patio, (SD) Stoop/Door Well, (PO) Porch, (CE) Common
Entry, (FC) Forecourt, (S) Storefront, (GA) Gallery/Arcade, (GR) Grand Entry, (ALL) All
Frontage Elements
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 138
Section 1211. Commercial Corridors.
A. Intent. The commercial corridors should become attractive gateways into downtown. New
wider and shaded sidewalks should provide safety and comfort, making it easier for
pedestrians and transit riders to access services in the corridor. New mixed-use
developments are envisioned to line 7th Avenue, with small restaurants, retail and other
businesses serving the surrounding neighborhoods. Along Central Avenue, a street wall
should be established that frames the street to create a gateway entrance into Downtown
from the south.
B. Development Regulations. The following development regulations apply to properties
located with the Commercial Corridors character area. Where a “bonus” is indicated, the
development regulation may be modified within the range stated when sustainability bonus
points are earned per Section 1223, as approved by PDD staff or the Design Review
Committee.
1. Maximum height:
a. Main building: governed by the height map, Section 1202.B, and height transition
standards of Section 1207.E.
b. Accessory structures, including Accessory Dwelling Units: 20 feet.
c. Bonus: none.
2. Maximum density: governed by the density map, Section 1202.C.
a. Bonus: none.
3. Maximum lot coverage: 50%
a. Bonus: maximum 85% lot coverage.
b. Additional lot coverage of 10% (total 60%) is allowed for an ADU.
4. Minimum setbacks from interior property lines:
a. Primary building:
(1) Side: 5 feet.
(2) Rear: 15 feet, which may be reduced to 0 feet when abutting a fully dedicated
alley which is not a designated Buffer Alley.
5. Required parking: governed by Section 1206.
a. Bonus:
(1) Increase: maximum 50%
(2) Decrease: maximum 50%.
6. Walls/Fences.
a. Frontage Zones: per the provisions of Section 1207.D.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 139
b. Interior property lines: maximum height of 6 feet.
7. Signage. Signage is subject to the regulations of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Section
705, Table D-1, Commercial/Industrial Right-of-Way Low Volume Street Standards.
C. Streetscape and Frontage Zone Development Regulations. The following development
regulations apply to properties which abut the street sections indicated. All regulations in
the table are appealable to the Design Review Committee under the provisions of Section
1224 and considered as R*.
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix—Commercial Corridors
Minimu
Minimum Minimum Minimum
Frontage Allowed Frontage m
Street Section Building Building Streetscape
Zone Depth Elements Sidewalk
Setback Frontage Zone Depth
Width
7th Avenue Corridor
7th Avenue 5' 25' Minimum 50% ALL 6' 12'
Alley north of
Roosevelt St. to
Fillmore St.
Roosevelt Street 5' 25' Minimum 50% AFY, SD, PA, PO, 5' 11'
Alley west of 7th S, GA
Ave. to alley east of
7th Ave.
McKinley Street 5' 25' Minimum 50% AFY, SD, PA, PO, 5' 10' west of 7th
Alley west of 7th S, GA Ave.
Ave. to alley east of
7th Ave. 14' east of 7th
Ave.
Pierce Street 5' 25' Minimum 50% AFY, SD, PA, PO, 5' 10'
Alley west of 7th S, GA
Ave. to 7th Ave.
Fillmore Street 5' 25' Minimum 50% AFY, SD, PA, PO, 5' 12'
Alley west of 7th S, GA
Ave. to alley east of
7th Ave.
Central Avenue South Corridor
Central Avenue 0' 20' Minimum 50% S, GA, SD, PO,CE 5' 11'
Grant St. to Hadley
St.
Central Avenue 0' 20' Minimum 50% S, GA, SD, PO, CE 5' 10'
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 140
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix—Commercial Corridors
Minimu
Minimum Minimum Minimum
Frontage Allowed Frontage m
Street Section Building Building Streetscape
Zone Depth Elements Sidewalk
Setback Frontage Zone Depth
Width
Hadley St. to
Buckeye Rd.
Grant Street 5' 25' Minimum 50% SD, PA, PO, S, GA 5' 15'
2nd Ave. to 2nd St.
Sherman Street 5' 25' Minimum 50% SD, PA, PO, S, GA 5' 11'
2nd Ave. to 1st Ave.
crossover
Hadley Street 5' 25' Minimum 50% SD, PA, PO, S, GA 5' 12'
1st Ave. to alley east
of Central Ave.
Tonto Street 5' 25' Minimum 50% SD, PA, PO, S, GA 5' 12'
1st Ave. to alley east
of Central Ave.
Buckeye Road 0' 20' Minimum 50% S, GA 5' 12'
Alley west of Central
Ave. to 3rd St.
Buckeye Road 0' 20' Minimum 50% S, GA 7' 12’
Alley west of 3rd St.
to 4th St.
2nd Avenue 0' 20' Minimum 50% ALL 5' 10'
Grant St. to
Sherman St.
1st Avenue 0' 20’ Minimum 50% S, GA 5' 19'
Grant St. to
Sherman St.
1st Avenue 5' 25' Minimum 50% AFY, SD, PA, PO, 5' 18'
Hadley St. to Tonto S, GA
St.
1st Street 15' 25' Minimum 50% AFY, SD, PA, PO, 5' 12'
South of Grant St. S, GA
1st Street 10' 20' Minimum 50% AFY, SD, PA, PO, 5' 12'
Adjacent to Buckeye S, GA
Rd.
2nd Street 15' 25' Minimum 50% AFY, SD, PA, PO 5' 12'
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 141
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix—Commercial Corridors
Minimu
Minimum Minimum Minimum
Frontage Allowed Frontage m
Street Section Building Building Streetscape
Zone Depth Elements Sidewalk
Setback Frontage Zone Depth
Width
South of Grant St.
2nd Street 10' 20' Minimum 50% AFY, SD, PA, PO, 5' 12'
Adjacent to Buckeye S, GA
Rd.
3rd Street 10' 20' Minimum 50% AFY, SD, PA, PO, 5' 20'
Tonto St. to Buckeye S, GA
Rd.
4th Street 10' 20' Minimum 50% AFY, SD, PA, PO, 5' 10'
Tonto St. to Buckeye S, GA
Rd.
(AFY) Active Front Yard, (PA) Patio, (SD) Stoop/Door Well, (PO) Porch, (CE) Common
Entry, (FC) Forecourt, (S) Storefront, (GA) Gallery/Arcade, (GR) Grand Entry, (ALL) All
Frontage Elements
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 142
Section 1212. Downtown Gateway.
A. Intent. The Downtown Gateway should be a high-density, vibrant corridor with a mix of
residential and commercial development designed for transit riders. Restaurants with
outdoor dining, and commercial and retail uses should be placed along the street to invite
pedestrian exploration. Streetscape improvements throughout the area should be
encouraged to make light rail accessible and vibrant.
B. Development Standards. The following development regulations apply to properties
located with the Downtown Gateway character area. Where a “bonus” is indicated, the
development regulation may be modified within the range stated when sustainability bonus
points are earned per Section 1223, as approved by PDD staff or the Design Review
Committee.
1. Maximum height:
a. Main building: governed by the height map, Section 1202.B, and height transition
standards of Section 1207.E.
b. Bonus: none, except north of Garfield Street,McKinley Street and south of Portland
Street where a 30% bonus is allowed.
2. Maximum density: governed by the density map, Section 1202.C.
a. Bonus: maximum 50% increase.
3. Maximum lot coverage: 100%.
a. Bonus: none.
4. Minimum setbacks from interior property lines: none.
5. Required parking: governed by Section 1206.
b. Bonus:
(1) Increase: maximum 50%
(2) Decrease: maximum 100%.
6. Walls/Fences.
a. Frontage Zones: per the provisions of Section 1207.D.
b. Interior property lines:
(1) When a fully dedicated alley is present, view fencing shall be provided for all
portions of walls above 40” in height.
(2) When not adjacent to an alley, maximum wall height is the same as the
maximum permitted building height(s) for the property.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 143
7. Signage. Signage is subject to the regulations of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Section
705, Table D-1, Nonresidential Activity in a Residential District Right-of-Way Standards.
C. Streetscape and Frontage Zone Development Regulations. The following development
regulations apply to properties which abut the street sections indicated. All regulations in
the table are appealable to the Design Review Committee under the provisions of Section
1224 and considered as R*.
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix—Downtown Gateway
Minimum Frontage Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Street Section Building Zone Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Setback Depth Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
Coronado Road 0' 20' Minimum 75% SD, PA, 8' 16'
Central Ave. to PO, S, GA
Alvarado Rd.
McDowell Road 0' 20' Minimum 75% SD, PA, 8' 16'
1st Ave. to Alvarado PO, S, GA,
Rd. GR
Lynwood Street 0' 20' Minimum 75% SD, PA, 8' 16'
West of Central Ave. PO, S, GA
to Central Ave.
Willetta Street 0' 20' Minimum 50% ALL 8' 16'
Central Ave. to 1st
St.
Culver Street 0' 20' Minimum 50% ALL 8' 16'
West of Central Ave.
to Central Ave.
Roosevelt Street 0' 20' Minimum 75% SD, PA, 8' 16'
Alley west of 1st PO, S, GA
Ave. to alley east of
Central Ave.
Portland Street 0' 20' Minimum 75% SD, PA, 8' 16'
West of Central Ave. PO, S, GA
to Central Ave.
Portland Street 0' 20' Minimum 50% ALL 8' 16'
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 144
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix—Downtown Gateway
Minimum Frontage Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Street Section Building Zone Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Setback Depth Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
Central Ave. to alley
east of Central Ave.
Garfield Street 0' 20' Minimum 50% ALL 8' 16'
Central Ave. to alley
east of Central Ave.
McKinley Street 0' 20' Minimum 50% ALL 8' 16'
Alley west of 1st
Ave. to alley east of
Central Ave.
Pierce Street 0' 20' Minimum 50% ALL 8' 16'
Central Ave. to alley
east of Central Ave.
Fillmore Street 0' 20' Minimum 50% ALL 8' 16'
Alley west of 1st
Ave. to alley east of
Central Ave.
1st Avenue 5' 25' N/A SD, PO 8' 16'
Alley north of
Almeria Rd. to
McDowell Rd.
1st Avenue 0' 20' Minimum 75% ALL 8' 16'
Roosevelt St. to
McKinley St.
1st Avenue 0' 20' Minimum 75% ALL 8' 16'
McKinley St. to
Fillmore St.
Central Avenue 0', unless more 20' Minimum 75% ALL per adopted per adopted
Coronado Rd. to needed to Central Central
Culver St. comply with Avenue Avenue
Central Avenue Development Development
Development Standards Standards
Standards
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 145
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix—Downtown Gateway
Minimum Frontage Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Street Section Building Zone Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Setback Depth Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
Central Avenue 0' 20' Minimum 75% ALL 8' 16'
Culver St. to
Roosevelt St.
Central Avenue 0' 20' Minimum 75% ALL 8' 16'
Roosevelt St. to
Fillmore St.
Alvarado Road 5’ 20’ 50% SD, PA, 8' 16'
Coronado Rd. to PO, S, GA
McDowell Rd.
1st St. 0' 20' Minimum 75% SD, PA, S 8' 16'
McDowell Rd. to
Willetta St. (Cancer
Survivor Park)
(AFY) Active Front Yard, (PA) Patio, (SD) Stoop/Door Well, (PO) Porch, (CE) Common
Entry, (FC) Forecourt, (S) Storefront, (GA) Gallery/Arcade, (GR) Grand Entry, (ALL) All
Frontage Elements
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 146
Section 1213. East Evergreen.
A. Intent. The East Evergreen Character Area centers on its incorporation of a historic
residential district along with residential offices and newer mixed-use/mid-rise
developments. New developments should be compatible with the size of existing buildings,
providing an alternative to high-rise housing and offices downtown. New mixed-use projects
should be integrated with the historic character of the area by preserving the existing
planting strips, palm trees, and landscaped yards on sites within or adjacent to the Historic
District. Streets and pedestrian corridors should be inviting and conveniently link the
neighborhood to services, parks, cultural facilities and public transportation.
B. Development Standards. The following development regulations apply to properties
located with the East Evergreen character area. Where a “bonus” is indicated, the
development regulation may be modified within the range stated when sustainability bonus
points are earned per Section 1223, as approved by PDD staff or the Design Review
Committee.
1. Maximum height:
a. Main building: governed by the height map, Section 1202.B, and height transition
standards of Section 1207.E.
b. Accessory structures, including Accessory Dwelling Units: 30 feet.
c. Bonus: none.
2. Maximum density: governed by the density map, Section 1202.C.
a. Bonus: none.
3. Maximum lot coverage: 50%.
a. Additional lot coverage of 10% (total 60%) is allowed for accessory structures.
b. Additional bonus: none.
4. Minimum setbacks from interior property lines.
a. Primary building:
(1) Sides: 3 feet; combined total of 10 feet required.
(2) Rear: 10 feet.
b. Accessory buildings:
(1) Side: 3 feet.
(2) Rear: 0 feet.
5. Required parking: governed by Section 1206.
a. Bonus: none.
6. Walls/Fences.
a. Frontage Zones: per the provisions of Section 1207.D.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 147
b. Interior property lines: maximum height of 6 feet.
7. Signage. Signage is subject to the regulations of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Section
705, Table D-1, Commercial/Industrial Right-of-Way Low Volume Street Standards.
C. Streetscape and Frontage Zone Development Regulations. The following development
regulations apply to properties which abut the street sections indicated. All regulations in
the table are appealable to the Design Review Committee under the provisions of Section
1224 and considered as R*.
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix—East Evergreen
Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Street Minimum Frontage
Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Section Setback Zone Depth
Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
Lynwood 15' 30' Minimum AFY, SD, PA, 5' 10' North
Street 50% PO 9' South
West of 7th
St. to 4th St.
Willetta Street 15' 30' Minimum AFY, SD, PA, 5' 19'
West of 7th 50% PO
St. to east of
3rd St.
5th Street 5' 20' Minimum AFY, SD, PA, 5' 19'
South of 50% PO
McDowell Rd.
to Interstate
10 Freeway
(AFY) Active Front Yard, (PA) Patio, (SD) Stoop/Door Well, (PO) Porch, (CE) Common
Entry, (FC) Forecourt, (S) Storefront, (GA) Gallery/Arcade, (GR) Grand Entry, (ALL) All
Frontage Elements
A. Additional Design Regulations—East Evergreen.
1. Building materials. Primary buildings should incorporate a minimum 25 percent of
brick, brick veneer, or decorative masonry on every facade visible from the exterior. (P)
2. Window design. Window format should be square or rectangular and similar to existing
historic buildings. Window openings should be recessed or articulated, particularly at the
ground level. (P)
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 148
3. Roof forms. Buildings should incorporate one or more of the following roof forms:
gable (including clipped, and with parapets), hip, and flat with parapets. (P)
Rationale for D.1 through D.3: Building materials, building design, and building accents
should be inspired by the context of the area and create a coherent architectural concept
that is consistent with and strengthens the historic character of East Evergreen, preferably
by using historic materials and design elements already found within the Character Area.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 149
Section 1214. Evans Churchill East.
A. Intent. The primary intent of the Evans Churchill East Character Area is to be a continuously
evolving arts-oriented mixed-use community. Home to unique art galleries and trendy
restaurants, the existing character consisting of arts-oriented uses coupled with various
small businesses should be preserved and additional developments should be consistent
with this character. New mixed-use development shares space with old bungalows and
historic homes, and new live-work units provide additional commercial spaces to cater to the
needs of artists. New pedestrian corridors create connectivity to surrounding destinations,
such as the downtown ASU campus to the south and Hance Park to the north, while new
open spaces will be added to serve the increasing number of new residents and create
opportunities for public gatherings and art display.
B. Development Regulations. The following development regulations apply to properties
located with the Evans Churchill East character area. Where a “bonus” is indicated, the
development regulation may be modified within the range stated when sustainability bonus
points are earned per Section 1223, as approved by PDD staff or the Design Review
Committee.
1. Maximum height:
a. Main building: governed by the height map, Section 1202.B, and height transition
standards of Section 1207.E.
b. Bonus north of Garfield Street: none.
c. Bonus south of Garfield Street: 10% maximum increase.
2. Maximum density: governed by the density map, Section 1202.C.
a. Bonus: maximum 50% increase.
3. Maximum lot coverage:
a. North of Garfield Street: 50%.
b. South of Garfield Street: 90%
c. Bonus (both areas): maximum 100% lot coverage.
4. Minimum setbacks from interior property lines:
a. Primary building:
(1) Side: 5 feet.
(2) Rear: 15 feet, which may be reduced to 0 feet when abutting a fully dedicated
alley which is not a designated Buffer Alley per Section 1202.E.
5. Required parking: governed by Section 1206.
a. Bonus:
(1) Increase: maximum 100%
(2) Decrease: maximum 100%.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 150
6. Walls/Fences.
a. Frontage Zones: per the provisions of Section 1207.D.
b. Interior property lines: maximum height of 6 feet.
7. Signage. Signage is subject to the regulations of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Section
705, Table D-1, Commercial/Industrial Right-of-Way Low Volume Street Standards
C. Streetscape and Frontage Zone Development Regulations. The following development
regulations apply to properties which abut the street sections indicated. All regulations in
the table are appealable to the Design Review Committee under the provisions of Section
1224 and considered as R*.
Frontage and Streetscape Zone Matrix—Evans Churchill East
Minimum Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Street Frontage
Building Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Section Zone Depth
Setback Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
Moreland 10' 30' Minimum 75% AFY, SD, PA, 5' 20'
Street PO, FC
3rd St. to
7th St.
Portland 10' 30' Minimum 75% AFY, SD, PA, 5' 20'
Street PO, FC
3rd St. to
7th St.
Roosevelt 5' 30' Minimum 75% SD, PA, PO, S, 7' 17'
Street GA
3rd St. to
7th St.
Garfield 5' 30' Minimum 50% ALL 5' 20'
Street
4th St. to
6th St.
Garfield 5' 30' Minimum 50% ALL 5' 12'
Street
6th St. to
7th St.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 151
Frontage and Streetscape Zone Matrix—Evans Churchill East
Minimum Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Street Frontage
Building Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Section Zone Depth
Setback Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
McKinley 5' 30' Minimum 50% ALL 5' 20'
Street
6th St. to
7th St.
3rd Street 5' 30' Minimum 75% ALL 5' 17'
North of
Moreland
St. to
Portland
St.
3rd Street 5' 30' Minimum 75% ALL 5' 15'
Portland
St. to
Roosevelt
St.
4th Street 5' 30' Minimum 75% AFY, SD, PA, 5' 15'
Roosevelt S
St. to
Garfield St.
5th Street 5' 30' Minimum 75% AFY, SD, PA, 5' 20'
Moreland S
St. to
Roosevelt
St.
5th Street 5' 30' Minimum 75% AFY, SD, PA, 5' 20'
Roosevelt S
St. to
Garfield St.
6th Street 5' 30' Minimum 75% SD, PA, S, GA 5' 20'
Roosevelt
St. to
Garfield St.
7th Street 0' 20' Minimum 75% ALL 8' 16'
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 152
Frontage and Streetscape Zone Matrix—Evans Churchill East
Minimum Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Street Frontage
Building Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Section Zone Depth
Setback Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
Moreland
St. to
McKinley
St.
(AFY) Active Front Yard, (PA) Patio, (SD) Stoop/Door Well, (PO) Porch, (CE) Common
Entry, (FC) Forecourt, (S) Storefront, (GA) Gallery/Arcade, (GR) Grand Entry, (ALL) All
Frontage Elements
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 153
Section 1215. Evans Churchill West.
A. Intent. The primary intent of the Evans Churchill West Character Area is to serve as a transition
between the mixed-use neighborhoods to the north and east, the Downtown Gateway Corridor to
the west, and the Biomed Cluster to the south. Ideally the area should embrace architecturally
innovative high-density residential buildings and offer a dynamic mix of commercial and retail
uses. It is the home of the downtown public market and will develop into a destination for retail,
restaurants and nightlife. Adjacency to major destinations creates the potential for this area to
serve as a major pedestrian thoroughfare. New developments should reflect the innovation of
the area and incorporate shade structures and landscaping to create comfortable and inviting
pedestrian thoroughfares. Outdoor dining and retail shops will enhance the pedestrian
experience and encourage exploration and patronage. Buildings oriented to the street with
ample sidewalk space allow for pedestrian amenities in addition to the tree-shaded sidewalks in
parkway-like strips.
B. Development Regulations. The following development regulations apply to properties
located with the Evans Churchill West character area. Where a “bonus” is indicated, the
development regulation may be modified within the range stated when sustainability bonus
points are earned per Section 1223, as approved by PDD staff or the Design Review
Committee.
1. Maximum height:
a. Main building: governed by the height map, Section 1202.B, and height transition
standards of Section 1207.E.
b. Bonus: for properties located between Pierce Street and Fillmore Street, a maximum
additional 100-foot height bonus (in addition to the height permitted per Section
1202.B) may be permitted through a Sustainability Bonus approved by the Design
Review Committee per Section 1224.
2. Maximum density: governed by the density map, Section 1202.C.
a. Bonus: maximum 100% increase.
3. Maximum lot coverage: 75%
a. Bonus: maximum 100% lot coverage.
4. Minimum setbacks from interior property lines: none.
5. Required parking: governed by Section 1206.
a. Bonus:
(1) Increase: maximum 100%
(2) Decrease: maximum 100%.
6. Walls/Fences.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 154
a. Frontage Zones: per the provisions of Section 1207.D.
b. Interior property lines: maximum wall height is the same as the maximum permitted
building height(s) for the property.
7. Signage. Signage is subject to the regulations of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Section
705, Table D-1, Commercial/Industrial Right-of-Way Low Volume Street Standards
C. Streetscape and Frontage Zone Development Regulations. The following development
regulations apply to properties which abut the street sections indicated. All regulations in
the table are appealable to the Design Review Committee under the provisions of Section
1224 and considered as R*.
Frontage and Streetscape Zone Matrix—Evans Churchill West
Minimum Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Street Frontage
Building Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Section Zone Depth
Setback Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
Moreland 5' 30' Minimum 50% SD, PA, CE, S, 5' 20'
Street GA
1st St. to
3rd St.
Portland 5' 30' Minimum 50% SD, PA, PO, 5' 20'
Street CE, S, GA
Alley east
of Central
Ave. to 3rd
St.
Roosevelt 5' 30' Minimum 75% SD, PA, PO, S, 12' 18'
Street GA
Alley east
of Central
Ave. to 4th
St.
Garfield 5' 30' Minimum 50% SD, PA, PO, S, 5' 20'
Street GA
Alley east
of Central
Ave. to 4th
St.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 155
Frontage and Streetscape Zone Matrix—Evans Churchill West
Minimum Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Street Frontage
Building Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Section Zone Depth
Setback Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
McKinley 5' 30' Minimum 50% SD, PA, PO, S, 5' 20'
Street GA
Alley east
of Central
Ave. to 4th
St.
Pierce 5' 30' Minimum 50% SD, PA, PO, S, 5' 20'
Street GA
Alley east
of Central
Ave. to 2nd
St. and 3rd
St. to 4th
St.
Fillmore 5' 30' Minimum 50% PA, S, GA, CE 8' 14'
Street
Alley east
of Central
Ave. to 1st
St.
Fillmore 5' 30' Minimum 50% PA, S, GA, CE 5' 15'
Street
1st St. to
2nd St.
Fillmore 5' 30' Minimum 50% PA, S, GA, CE 5' North 10' North
Street 8' South 15' South
2nd St. to
3rd St.
Fillmore 5' 30' Minimum 50% PA, S, GA, CE 8' North 15’
Street 5' South
3rd St. to
5th St.
1st Street 0' 20' Minimum 75% SD, PA, PO, S, Per plans approved by Street
GA Transportation Department.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 156
Frontage and Streetscape Zone Matrix—Evans Churchill West
Minimum Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Street Frontage
Building Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Section Zone Depth
Setback Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
Moreland
St. to
Fillmore St.
2nd Street 0' 20' Minimum 75% SD, PA, PO, S, 5' 20'
Moreland GA
St. to
McKinley
St.
2nd Street 0' 20' Minimum 75% SD, PA, PO, S, 5' 15' East
McKinley GA 25' West
St. to
Fillmore St.
3rd Street 5' 30' Minimum 75% SD, PA, PO, S, 5' 15'
Moreland GA
St. to
Portland
St.
3rd Street 5' 30' Minimum 75% SD, PA, PO, S, 5' 20' East
Portland GA 10' West
St. to alley
north of
Roosevelt
St.
3rd Street 5' 30' Minimum 75% SD, PA, PO, S, 5' 10'
Alley north GA
of
Roosevelt
St. to
Roosevelt
St.
3rd Street 5' 30' Minimum 75% SD, PA, PO, S, 5' 15'
Roosevelt GA, CE
St. to
Fillmore St.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 157
Frontage and Streetscape Zone Matrix—Evans Churchill West
Minimum Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Street Frontage
Building Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Section Zone Depth
Setback Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
4th Street 5' 30' Minimum 75% SD, PA, PO, S, 5' 15'
Roosevelt GA, CE
St. to
Fillmore St.
(AFY) Active Front Yard, (PA) Patio, (SD) Stoop/Door Well, (PO) Porch, (CE) Common
Entry, (FC) Forecourt, (S) Storefront, (GA) Gallery/Arcade, (GR) Grand Entry, (ALL) All
Frontage Elements
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 158
Section 1216. McDowell Corridor.
A. Intent. The McDowell Corridor should create an attractive, pedestrian-oriented mixed-use
street as a gateway to the historic neighborhoods and Downtown Phoenix. The mixture of
professional offices and retail establishments should become more urban and pedestrian
oriented. New structures should be built closer to the street and parking should be located
behind buildings.
B. Development Regulations. The following development regulations apply to properties
located with the McDowell Corridor character area. Where a “bonus” is indicated, the
development regulation may be modified within the range stated when sustainability bonus
points are earned per Section 1223, as approved by PDD staff or the Design Review
Committee.
1. Maximum height:
a. Main building: governed by the height map, Section 1202.B, and height transition
standards of Section 1207.E.
b. Bonus: none.
2. Maximum density: governed by the density map, Section 1202.C.
a. Bonus: maximum 50% increase.
3. Maximum lot coverage: 50%
a. Bonus: maximum 85% lot coverage.
4. Minimum setbacks from interior property lines:
a. Primary building:
(1) Side: 5 feet.
(2) Rear: 15 feet.
5. Required parking: governed by Section 1206.
a. Bonus:
(1) Increase: maximum 50%
(2) Decrease: maximum 25%.
6. Walls/Fences.
a. Frontage Zones: per the provisions of Section 1207.D.
b. Interior property lines: maximum height of 6 feet.
7. Signage. Signage is subject to the regulations of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Section
705, Table D-1, Commercial/Industrial Right-of-Way Low Volume Street Standards
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 159
C. Streetscape and Frontage Zone Development Regulations. The following development
regulations apply to properties which abut the street sections indicated. All regulations in
the table are appealable to the Design Review Committee under the provisions of Section
1224 and considered as R*.
Frontage and Streetscape Zone Matrix—McDowell Corridor
Minimum Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Street Frontage
Building Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Section Zone Depth
Setback Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
McDowell 10’, or 0’ if a 20' Minimum 75% S, SD, PO, GA 5' 15’
Road minimum 50’
West of 7th ROW is
Ave. to dedicated for
east of 1st the half street
Ave.
McDowell 10’, or 0’ if a 20' Minimum 75% S, GA 6' 16'
Road minimum 50’
3rd St. to ROW is
7th St. dedicated for
the half street
Lynwood 15' 30' Minimum 50% AFY, SD, PA, 5' 15'
Street PO
East of 7th
Ave. (north
side only)
Lynwood 15' 30' Minimum 75% AFY, SD, PA, 5' 15'
Street PO
5th St. to
west of 7th
St.
7th Avenue 0’ 20' Minimum 75% S, GA, CE 7' 17’
Alley north
of
McDowell
to Lynwood
St.
5th Avenue 5' 30' Minimum 50% SD, S, PO 5' 16'
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 160
Frontage and Streetscape Zone Matrix—McDowell Corridor
Minimum Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Street Frontage
Building Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Section Zone Depth
Setback Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
Alley north
of
McDowell
Rd. to alley
south of
McDowell
Rd.
3rd Avenue 5' 30' Minimum 75% SD, S, PA, PO 5' North of
Alley north McDowell:
of 10’
McDowell South of
Rd. to alley McDowell:
south of as
McDowell established
Rd.
3rd Street 5' 30' Minimum 50% SD, S, GA, PA, 6' 16’
Alley north PO, CE
of
McDowell
Rd. to alley
south of
McDowell
Rd.
5th Street 5' 30' Minimum 50% SD, S, PO 5' 15'
McDowell
Rd. to
Lynwood
St.
7th Street 0' 20' Minimum 50% ALL 6' 16', or as
Alley north may be
of required by
McDowell ADOT
to adjacent to
Moreland freeway
St. ramps
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 161
(AFY) Active Front Yard, (PA) Patio, (SD) Stoop/Door Well, (PO) Porch, (CE) Common
Entry, (FC) Forecourt, (S) Storefront, (GA) Gallery/Arcade, (GR) Grand Entry, (ALL) All
Frontage Elements
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 162
Section 1217. Roosevelt East.
A. Intent. The Roosevelt East Character Area is comprised of a mixture of historic buildings with
larger blocks of land with high-rise entitlements. The area will serve as a transition zone from the
smaller scale Roosevelt South and Roosevelt North Character Areas to the Downtown Gateway
Character Area located to the east along the light rail.
B. Development Regulations. The following development regulations apply to properties
located with the Roosevelt East character area. Where a “bonus” is indicated, the
development regulation may be modified within the range stated when sustainability bonus
points are earned per Section 1223, as approved by PDD staff or the Design Review
Committee.
1. Maximum height:
a. Main building: governed by the height map, Section 1202.B, and height transition
standards of Section 1207.E.
(1) Bonus: maximum 25%.
b. Accessory structures, including Accessory Dwelling Units: 30 feet.
2. Maximum density: governed by the density map, Section 1202.C.
a. Bonus: maximum 100% increase.
3. Maximum lot coverage: 75%
a. Bonus: maximum 100% lot coverage.
4. Minimum setbacks from interior property lines.
a. Primary building:
(1) Side abutting HP-zoned lot: 10 feet.
(2) Side abutting lot not zoned HP: 0 feet.
(3) Rear: 0 feet.
b. Accessory buildings:
(1) Side: 3 feet.
(2) Rear: 0 feet.
5. Required parking: governed by Section 1206.
a. Bonus:
(1) Increase: maximum 50%
(2) Decrease: maximum 100%.
6. Walls/Fences.
a. Frontage Zones: per the provisions of Section 1207.D.
b. Interior property lines: maximum height of 6 feet.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 163
7. Signage. Signage is subject to the regulations of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Section
705, Table D-1, Nonresidential Activity in a Residential District Right-of-Way Standards.
8. Street trees.
a. Shade trees, when provided in the Streetscape Zone, shall be Arizona ash or evergreen
elm trees. (T)
b. Palm trees, on blocks where they have existed historically, shall be installed in the
Streetscape Zone in addition to any required shade trees, unless prohibited by law.
Palm trees should be of the same type as existing historic palm trees, and planted in a
similar manner/rate as existing on the same block face. (T)
C. Streetscape and Frontage Zone Development Regulations. The following development
regulations apply to properties which abut the street sections indicated. All regulations in
the table are appealable to the Design Review Committee under the provisions of Section
1224 and considered as R*.
Frontage and Streetscape Zone Matrix—Roosevelt East
Minimum Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Street Frontage
Building Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Section Zone Depth
Setback Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
Portland 0' 20' Minimum SD, S, PO, As As
Street 75% GA, CE Established Established
3rd Ave. to
west of
Central Ave.
Roosevelt 0' 20' Minimum SD, S, PO, As As
Street 75% GA Established Established
3rd Ave. to
1st Ave.
McKinley 0' 25' Minimum SD, PA, PO 5' 15'
Street 50%
3rd Ave. to
alley west of
1st Ave.
Fillmore 0' 25' Minimum SD, PA, PO, 5' 15' North Side
Street 50% GA, CE 21' South
3rd Ave. to Side
alley west of
1st Ave.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 164
Frontage and Streetscape Zone Matrix—Roosevelt East
Minimum Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Street Frontage
Building Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Section Zone Depth
Setback Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
2nd Avenue 0' 25' Minimum SD, S, PO, 6' 16'
Portland St. 75% CE
to Roosevelt
St.
2nd Avenue 20' 30' Minimum AFY, SD, As As
Roosevelt 50% PA, S, PO, Established Established
St. to FC, CE
McKinley St.
2nd Avenue 10' 30' Minimum AFY, SD, S, As As
McKinley St. 75% PO, FC Established Established
to Fillmore
St.
3rd Avenue 0' 25' Minimum SD, PA, PO, 6' As
Latham St. 50% S Established
to Roosevelt
St.
3rd Avenue 20' 30' Minimum AFY, SD, S, 6' 20'
Roosevelt 50% PO, FC
St. to
McKinley St.
3rd Avenue 10' 30' Minimum AFY, SD, S, 6' 20'
McKinley St. 50% PO, FC
to Fillmore
St.
(AFY) Active Front Yard, (PA) Patio, (SD) Stoop/Door Well, (PO) Porch, (CE) Common
Entry, (FC) Forecourt, (S) Storefront, (GA) Gallery/Arcade, (GR) Grand Entry, (ALL) All
Frontage Elements
A. Additional Design Regulations—Roosevelt East.
1. Building materials. Primary buildings should incorporate a minimum 25 percent of
brick, brick veneer, or decorative masonry on every facade visible from the exterior. (P)
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 165
Rationale: Building materials, building design, and building accents should be inspired
by the context of the area and create a coherent architectural concept that is consistent
with and strengthens the historic character of Roosevelt East, preferably by using
historic materials and design elements already found within the Character Area.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 166
Section 1218. Roosevelt North.
B. Intent. Roosevelt North is part of the Roosevelt Historic District and it is comprised of traditional
historic single-family homes. Typically the lots have large front yard setbacks with porches, lush
landscaping and turf. Properties generally have carriage houses or garages in the backyard that
are accessed from the alley or the front yard by a porte-cochere. In Roosevelt North the design
and pattern of single-family development is critical to maintaining its strong character and
preserving the existing buildings. The large number of historic properties creates a unique
character and design that should be preserved. Properties with HP zoning should refer to
Chapter 8, Historic Preservation, of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance for specific requirements
associated with historic designation.
C. Development Regulations. The following development regulations apply to properties
located with the Roosevelt North character area. Where a “bonus” is indicated, the
development regulation may be modified within the range stated when sustainability bonus
points are earned per Section 1223, as approved by PDD staff or the Design Review
Committee.
1. Maximum height:
a. Main building: governed by the height map, Section 1202.B, and height transition
standards of Section 1207.E.
(1) Bonus: none.
b. Accessory structures, including Accessory Dwelling Units: 30 feet.
2. Maximum density: governed by the density map, Section 1202.C.
a. Bonus: none.
3. Maximum lot coverage: 40%
a. Additional lot coverage of 15% (total 55%) is allowed for accessory structures.
b. Additional bonus: none.
4. Minimum setbacks from interior property lines.
a. Primary building:
(1) Sides: 3 feet; 10 feet combined total minimum.
(2) Rear: 10 feet.
b. Accessory structures:
(1) Side: 3 feet.
(2) Rear: 0 feet.
5. Required parking: governed by Section 1206.
a. Bonus: none.
6. Walls/Fences.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 167
a. Frontage Zones: per the provisions of Section 1207.D.
b. Interior property lines: maximum height of 6 feet.
7. Signage. Signage is subject to the regulations of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Section
705, Table D-1, Nonresidential Activity in a Residential District Right-of-Way Standards.
8. Street trees.
a. Shade trees, when provided in the Streetscape Zone, shall be Arizona ash or evergreen
elm trees. (T)
b. Palm trees, on blocks where they have existed historically, shall be installed in the
Streetscape Zone in addition to any required shade trees, unless prohibited by law.
Palm trees should be of the same type as existing historic palm trees, and planted in a
similar manner/rate as existing on the same block face. (T)
D. Streetscape and Frontage Zone Development Regulations. The following development
regulations apply to properties which abut the street sections indicated. All regulations in
the table are appealable to the Design Review Committee under the provisions of Section
1224 and considered as R*.
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix—Roosevelt North
Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Street Minimum Frontage
Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Section Setback Zone Depth
Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
Portland 20' 30' None AFY 5' 10'
Street
7th Ave. to
3rd Ave.
Latham 20' 30' None AFY 5' 7'5"
Street
5th Ave. to
3rd Ave.
Culver 20' 30' None AFY 5' 10'
Street
7th Ave. to
300' west
of Central
Ave.
Willetta 20' 30' None AFY 5' 10'
Street
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 168
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix—Roosevelt North
Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Street Minimum Frontage
Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Section Setback Zone Depth
Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
7th Ave. to
alley west
of Central
Ave.
Lynwood 20' 30' None AFY 5' 10'
Street
7th Ave. to
alley west
of Central
Ave.
7th Avenue 20' 30' None AFY 6' None
Lynwood Required
St. to alley
south of
Portland
St.
5th Avenue 10' 25' None AFY, SY 5' 10'
Alley north
of
Roosevelt
St. to alley
north of
Lynwood
St.
3rd Avenue 10' 25' None AFY, SY 5' 10'
Alley north
of
Roosevelt
St. to
Culver St.
3rd Avenue 10' 25' None AFY, SY 5' 6'
Culver
Street to
alley north
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 169
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix—Roosevelt North
Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Street Minimum Frontage
Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Section Setback Zone Depth
Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
of Lynwood
St.
(AFY) Active Front Yard, (PA) Patio, (SD) Stoop/Door Well, (PO) Porch, (CE) Common
Entry, (FC) Forecourt, (S) Storefront, (GA) Gallery/Arcade, (GR) Grand Entry, (ALL) All
Frontage Elements
(Ord. No. G-5480, 2010; Ord. No. G-5777, 2013; Ord. No. G-6409, 2018)
E. Additional Design Regulations—Roosevelt North.
1. Building materials. Primary buildings should incorporate a minimum 25 percent of
brick, brick veneer, or decorative masonry on every facade visible from the exterior. (P)
2. Window design. Window format should be square or rectangular and similar to existing
historic buildings. Window openings should be recessed or articulated, particularly at the
ground level. (P)
3. Roof forms. Buildings should incorporate one or more of the following roof forms:
gable (including clipped, and with parapets), hip, and flat with parapets. Mansard roof
forms are prohibited. (R*)
Rationale for D.1 through D.3: Building materials, building design, and building accents
should be inspired by the context of the area and create a coherent architectural concept
that is consistent with and strengthens the historic character of Roosevelt North, preferably
by using historic materials and design elements already found within the Character Area.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 170
Section 1219. Roosevelt South.
B. Intent. Roosevelt South will be the gateway to historic Roosevelt North, and an oasis for
pedestrians from adjacent high-rise and high-density areas. While the neighborhood will
retain its residential character, it will become a mixed-use neighborhood. Adaptive re-use of
older and historic homes will provide distinctive shopping and dining along tree-lined streets
creating a highly desirable, walkable neighborhood.
C. Development Regulations. The following development regulations apply to properties
located with the Roosevelt South character area. Where a “bonus” is indicated, the
development regulation may be modified within the range stated when sustainability bonus
points are earned per Section 1223, as approved by PDD staff or the Design Review
Committee.
1. Maximum height:
a. Main building: governed by the height map, Section 1202.B, and height transition
standards of Section 1207.E.
(1) Bonus: none.
b. Accessory structures, including Accessory Dwelling Units: 30 feet.
2. Maximum density: governed by the density map, Section 1202.C.
a. Bonus: 100%
3. Maximum lot coverage: 50%
a. Additional lot coverage of 10% (total 60%) is allowed for accessory structures.
b. Bonus: maximum 75% lot coverage.
4. Minimum setbacks from interior property lines.
a. Primary building:
(1) Side abutting HP-zoned lot: 10 feet.
(2) Side(s) abutting lot not zoned HP: 3 feet; 10 feet combined total minimum
(3) Rear: 0 feet.
b. Accessory structures:
(1) Side: 3 feet.
(2) Rear: 0 feet.
5. Required parking: governed by Section 1206.
a. Bonus:
(1) Increase: maximum 50%
(2) Decrease: maximum 50%.
6. Walls/Fences.
a. Frontage Zones: per the provisions of Section 1207.D.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 171
b. Interior property lines: maximum height of 6 feet.
7. Signage. Signage is subject to the regulations of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Section
705, Table D-1, Nonresidential Activity in a Residential District Right-of-Way Standards.
8. Street trees.
a. Shade trees, when provided in the Streetscape Zone, shall be Arizona ash or evergreen
elm trees. (T)
b. Palm trees, on blocks where they have existed historically, shall be installed in the
Streetscape Zone in addition to any required shade trees, unless prohibited by law.
Palm trees should be of the same type as existing historic palm trees and planted in a
similar manner/rate as existing on the same block face. (T)
D. Streetscape and Frontage Zone Development Regulations. The following development
regulations apply to properties which abut the street sections indicated. All regulations in
the table are appealable to the Design Review Committee under the provisions of Section
1224 and considered as R*.
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix—Roosevelt South
Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Street Minimum Frontage
Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Section Setback Zone Depth
Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
Roosevelt 10' 30' Minimum 75% AFY, SD, PO, 5' 6'
Street PA, S
Alley west of
6th Ave. to
3rd Ave.
McKinley 10' 30' Minimum 50% ALL 5' 10'
Street
Alley west of
6th Ave. to
3rd Ave.
Fillmore 10' 30' Minimum 50% ALL 5' 7'5"
Street
Alley west of
6th Ave. to
3rd Ave.
6th Avenue 20' 30' Minimum 50% AFY, SD, PA, 5' 6'
Roosevelt St. PO, FC, S
to Fillmore St.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 172
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix—Roosevelt South
Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Street Minimum Frontage
Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Section Setback Zone Depth
Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
5th Avenue 20' 30' Minimum 50% AFY, SD, PA, 5' 14'
Roosevelt St. PO, FC, S
to Fillmore St.
4th Avenue 20' 30' Minimum 50% AFY, SD, PA, 5' 15'
Roosevelt St. PO, FC, S
to Fillmore St.
3rd Avenue 20' 30' Minimum 50% AFY, SD, PA, 5' 15'
Roosevelt St. PO, FC, S
to Fillmore St.
(AFY) Active Front Yard, (PA) Patio, (SD) Stoop/Door Well, (PO) Porch, (CE) Common
Entry, (FC) Forecourt, (S) Storefront, (GA) Gallery/Arcade, (GR) Grand Entry, (ALL) All
Frontage Elements
(Ord. No. G-5480, 2010; Ord. No. G-5777, 2013; Ord. No. G-6409, 2018)
E. Additional Design Regulations—Roosevelt South.
4. Building materials. Primary buildings should incorporate a minimum 25 percent of
brick, brick veneer, or decorative masonry on every facade visible from the exterior. (P)
5. Window design. Window format should be square or rectangular and similar to existing
historic buildings. Window openings should be recessed or articulated, particularly at the
ground level. (P)
6. Roof forms. Buildings should incorporate one or more of the following roof forms:
gable (including clipped, and with parapets), hip, and flat with parapets. Mansard roof
forms are prohibited. (R*)
Rationale for D.1 through D.3: Building materials, building design, and building accents
should be inspired by the context of the area and create a coherent architectural concept
that is consistent with and strengthens the historic character of Roosevelt South, preferably
by using historic materials and design elements already found within the Character Area.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 173
Section 1220. Townsend Park.
A. Intent. The primary intent of the Townsend Park Character Area is to transition between the
mixed-use neighborhoods to the east, the McDowell Corridor to the north and the Downtown
Gateway to the west. The area’s special potential to connect these diverse adjacent areas can
be realized through incorporating mixed-use/mid-rise developments that focus on office and
cultural facilities. Given the proximity to the City’s largest public library and the light rail corridor,
a cultural focus in any new development is essential. As with any heavily accessed cultural area,
the streetscape should contain inviting and comfortable parkway strips that offer easy links to
nearby cultural facilities, parks and public transportation.
B. Development Regulations. The following development regulations apply to properties located
with the Townsend Park character area. Where a “bonus” is indicated, the development
regulation may be modified within the range stated when sustainability bonus points are earned
per Section 1223, as approved by PDD staff or the Design Review Committee.
1. Maximum height:
a. Main building: governed by the height map, Section 1202.B, and height transition
standards of Section 1207.E.
(1) Bonus: maximum 30%.
b. Accessory structures, including Accessory Dwelling Units: 30 feet.
2. Maximum density: governed by the density map, Section 1202.C.
a. Bonus: 100%
3. Maximum lot coverage: 75%
a. Bonus: maximum 100% lot coverage.
b. Accessory buildings may not exceed 25% of the net lot area. This coverage is
included within the overall permitted lot coverage.
4. Minimum setbacks from interior property lines:
a. Primary building: 0 feet.
b. Accessory structures:
(1) Side: 3 feet.
(2) Rear: 5 feet, which may be reduced to 0 feet when abutting a fully dedicated
alley which is not a designated Buffer Alley per Section 1202.E.
5. Required parking: governed by Section 1206.
a. Bonus:
(1) Increase: maximum 50%
(2) Decrease: maximum 100%.
6. Walls/Fences.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 174
a. Frontage Zones: per the provisions of Section 1207.D.
b. Interior property lines: maximum height of 6 feet.
7. Signage. Signage subject to the regulations of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Section 705,
Table D-1, Commercial/Industrial Right-of-Way Low Volume Street Standards.
C. Streetscape and Frontage Zone Development Regulations. The following development
regulations apply to properties which abut the street sections indicated. All regulations in
the table are appealable to the Design Review Committee under the provisions of Section
1224 and considered as R*.
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix—Townsend Park
Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Street Minimum Frontage
Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Section Setback Zone Depth
Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
McDowell 0' 20’ Minimum 75% S, GA, CE 5' 5’
Road
1st St. to east
of 3rd St.
Willetta Street 0' 25' Minimum 50% ALL 5' 15'
1st St. to 3rd
St.
Culver Street 0' 25' Minimum 50% ALL 5' 15'
1st St. to 2nd
St.
Moreland 0' 25' Minimum 50% ALL 5' 15'
Street
1st St. to 3rd
St.
1st Street 0' 25' Minimum 75% S, SD, PA, 5' East 6' East
McDowell Rd. PO, GA 7' West West—None
to Willetta St. Required
2nd Street 0' 25' Minimum 75% S, SD, PA, 5' 25'
McDowell Rd. PO, GA
to Culver St.
3rd Street 5' 30' Minimum 75% S, SD, PA, 5' 15'
PO, GA
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 175
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix—Townsend Park
Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Street Minimum Frontage
Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Section Setback Zone Depth
Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
McDowell Rd.
to Moreland
St.
(AFY) Active Front Yard, (PA) Patio, (SD) Stoop/Door Well, (PO) Porch, (CE) Common
Entry, (FC) Forecourt, (S) Storefront, (GA) Gallery/Arcade, (GR) Grand Entry, (ALL) All
Frontage Elements
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 176
Section 1221. Van Buren.
A. Intent. The intent of the Van Buren Character Area is to establish a dense, vibrant, urban
mixed-use area that is a center for commerce and high-rise urban living. This area
comprises some of the tallest height entitlements within the City. The close proximity to
government buildings and commercial offices makes this an ideal location for future hotels
and iconic residential buildings with a strong urban focus. The active streetscape will
connect the primarily residential neighborhoods to the north with the amenities and services
provided within the Business Core and Van Buren Character Areas.
B. Development Regulations. The following development regulations apply to properties
located with the Van Buren character area. Where a “bonus” is indicated, the development
regulation may be modified within the range stated when sustainability bonus points are
earned per Section 1223, as approved by PDD staff or the Design Review Committee.
1. Maximum height.
a. Main building: governed by the height map, Section 1202.B, and height transition
standards of Section 1207.E.
(1) Bonus: none.
b. Accessory structures, including Accessory Dwelling Units: 30 feet.
2. Maximum density: governed by the density map, Section 1202.C.
a. Bonus: Maximum 50% increase.
b. For properties which dedicate the Taylor Street Paseo, see below.
3. Maximum lot coverage: 55%.
a. Bonus: maximum 100% lot coverage.
b. Accessory structures: maximum 25% total lot coverage. This amount is included in
the overall allowed lot coverage.
c. For properties which dedicate the Taylor Street Paseo, see below.
4. Minimum setbacks from interior property lines.
a. Primary building: 10 feet. No setback required if property line abuts an alley which
is not a Buffer Alley.
b. Accessory structures: None.
5. Required parking: governed by Section 1206.
a. Bonus:
(1) Increase: maximum 50%
(2) Decrease: maximum 100%.
6. Walls/Fences.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 177
a. Frontage Zones: per the provisions of Section 1207.D.
b. Interior property lines: maximum height of 6 feet.
(1) When a fully dedicated alley is present view fencing shall be provided above 40
inches in height.
7. Signage. Signage subject to the regulations of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Section 705,
Table D-1, Commercial/Industrial Right-of-Way Low Volume Street Standards.
8. Taylor Street Paseo. Certain properties within Van Buren are subject to the additional
development regulations of the Taylor Street Paseo, Section 1207.N., in addition to the
modified standards stated above. The affected properties are shown on the map
provided within that Section.
a. For properties that dedicate the Taylor Street Paseo, lot coverage and density are
not restricted.
b. For properties formerly required to dedicate the Taylor Street Paseo prior to the
Paseo realignment, lot coverage and density are not restricted if all of the following
amenities are provided within the property frontage:
(1) A minimum 8 foot wide sidewalk is provided for the length of the property.
(2) Two separate rows of shade trees along the public sidewalk, planted along each
side of the public sidewalk.
(3) Open space at the ground level on private property (minimum 500 square feet
and not less than 10 feet wide any direction), with a public access easement
dedicated over all portions of the open space area.
(4) A minimum of three pedestrian amenities within the open space, such as: lit
bollards, waste receptacles (recycling and trash), clocks, way finding signs,
benches, drinking fountains and decorative pedestrian lighting not higher than 15
feet.
C. Streetscape and Frontage Zone Development Regulations. The following development
regulations apply to properties which abut the street sections indicated. All regulations in
the table are appealable to the Design Review Committee under the provisions of Section
1224 and considered as R*.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 178
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix—Van Buren
Frontage Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Minimum
Street Section Zone Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Setback
Depth Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
Fillmore Street 0' 20' Minimum 50% ALL 5' 7'
Alley west of 7th
Ave. to 7th Ave.
Fillmore Street 0' 20' Minimum 50% ALL 5' 10'
7th Ave. to 3rd Ave.
Taylor Street Paseo 0’ 20’ Minimum 75% SD, PO, S, 8’ 13’, or 0’
7th Ave. to 3rd Ave. GA, CE when not
located within
or adjacent to
a dedicated
street
Van Buren Street 0' 20' Minimum 75% S, GA, CE, 5' 5'
7th Ave. to 3rd Ave. GR
Woodland Avenue 12' 30' Minimum 75% AFY, SD, 5' 10'
9th Ave. to alley PA, PO, S
west of 9th Ave.
Monroe Street 0' 20' Minimum 75% SD, PA, 8' 10'
7th Ave. to 3rd Ave. PO, S
Adams Street 0' 20' Minimum 75% SD, PA, 5' 10'
4th Ave. to 7th Ave. PO, S, GA
Adams Street 0' 20' Minimum 75% SD, PA, 8' 5'
7th Ave. to 5th Ave. PO, S, GA
9th Avenue 0' 20' Minimum 50% ALL 5' 20'
Van Buren St. to
Adams St.
7th Avenue 0' 20' Minimum 75% ALL 7' 7'
Fillmore St. to
Adams St.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 179
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix—Van Buren
Frontage Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Minimum
Street Section Zone Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Setback
Depth Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
6th Avenue 0' 20' Minimum 50% SD, PA, East 5' East 8'
Fillmore St. to Van PO, S, GA West 5' West 5'
Buren St.
6th Avenue 0' 20' Minimum 75% ALL East 5' East 5'
Van Buren St. to West 5' West 8'
Adams St.
5th Avenue 0' 20' Minimum 50% SD, PA, 5' 10'
Fillmore St. to Van PO, S, GA
Buren St.
5th Avenue 0' 20' Minimum 75% ALL 7' 7'
Van Buren St. to
Adams St.
4th Avenue 0' 20' Minimum 50% SD, PA, 5' 15'
Fillmore St. to Van PO, S, GA
Buren St.
4th Avenue 0' 20' Minimum 75% ALL 7' 7'
Van Buren St. to
Monroe St.
3rd Avenue 0' 20' Minimum 50% SD, PA, 5' 10'
Fillmore St. to Van PO, S, GA
Buren St.
3rd Avenue 0' 20' Minimum 75% ALL 5' 5'
Van Buren St. to
Monroe St.
Taylor Street Paseo 0' 20' Minimum 65% SD, PO, S, See Paseo See Paseo
7th Ave. to 3rd Ave. FC, GA Guidelines Guidelines
(AFY) Active Front Yard, (PA) Patio, (SD) Stoop/Door Well, (PO) Porch, (CE) Common
Entry, (FC) Forecourt, (S) Storefront, (GA) Gallery/Arcade, (GR) Grand Entry, (ALL) All
Frontage Elements
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 180
Section 1222. Warehouse.
A. Intent. The Warehouse Character Area is a unique urban neighborhood that offers a blend of
old railroad charm and modern urban living. The unique old warehouse buildings provide design
inspiration for the design of new buildings that complement the existing character. This area has
unique sports and entertainment venues, in addition to dining and shopping opportunities that
serve the entire region. This area should provide people with the ability to enjoy the character
and authenticity of the area while being close to transit and the heart of the City.
B. Development Regulations. The following development regulations apply to properties
located with the Warehouse character area. Where a “bonus” is indicated, the development
regulation may be modified within the range stated when sustainability bonus points are
earned per Section 1223, as approved by PDD staff or the Design Review Committee,
unless stated otherwise.
1. Maximum height: governed by the height map, Section 1202.B, and height transition
standards of Section 1207.E.
a. Bonus (north of Lincoln Street, within the 80 feet base height category only):
maximum height of 140 feet shall be permitted only with dedication of a 30-year
conservation easement over an existing building designated HP or HP-L, as
approved by HP. The property with the conservation easement must be located
between Madison Street and Lincoln Street, and within either the Business Core or
Warehouse character areas. Sustainability bonus points cannot be used to obtain
this height bonus.
b. Bonus (elsewhere within Character Area): 50%. Exception: any property within a
base height category of 150 feet or greater shall not be permitted a height bonus,
due to Airport Downtown Zone height limits.
c. Additional height restrictions apply for properties subject to Section 1222.B.4.
2. Maximum density: governed by the density map, Section 1202.C.
a. Bonus: Maximum 100% increase.
3. Maximum lot coverage: 100%.
a. Bonus: none.
4. Minimum setbacks from interior property lines:
a. For sites not abutting a property located within the Central Park Character Area: 0
feet.
b. For sites abutting a property located within the Central Park Character Area (not
including properties separated by a fully dedicated alley or street), the following
regulations apply:
(1) Side or rear lot line: Minimum 20-foot building setback, including a ten-foot
landscape setback. The landscape setback shall be measured from the property
line.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 181
(2) The building shall not exceed 40 feet in height when located between 20 and 30
feet of the side or rear property line.
(3) A stepback shall be required unless the proposed new development is located ten or
more feet beyond the required setback line. A minimum stepback of ten feet in depth
for the length/width of the building that is adjacent to the Central Park Character Area
is required. The stepback shall be measured from the required side or rear yard
setback line.
5. Required parking:
a. Minimum:
(1) Residential uses: governed by Section 1206.
(2) Non-residential uses: none.
d. Maximum: governed by Section 1206.
e. Bonus:
(1) Increase: maximum 100%.
(2) Decrease: maximum 100%.
6. Walls/Fences.
a. Frontage Zones: per the provisions of Section 1207.D.
b. Interior property lines: maximum height of 8 feet.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 182
7. Signage. Signage in the Warehouse Character Area shall be governed by the
regulations applicable to signs in the commercial districts of Section 705 of the Phoenix
Zoning Ordinance.
a. Signs projecting from the front of buildings shall be perpendicular to the street (i.e.,
90-degree angle), with a maximum of one sign per entrance. All signs that extend
into or over the public right-of-way shall require a revocable permit administered by
the City of Phoenix prior to issuance of the sign permit. Each sign shall:
(1) Identify only one on-site business.
(2) Provide a minimum eight-foot clearance.
(3) Project no more than three feet into the public right-of-way.
(4) Be indirectly illuminated from a shielded light source (i.e., not backlit or cabinet sign).
b. Awning signs shall be permitted by right. Awning signs shall have letters no more
than ten inches in height.
c. Signs painted on the building surface or letters mounted directly to the building surface
should:
(1) Be a maximum of one square foot of signage for each lineal foot of building
elevation to a maximum of 100 square feet. May have minimum of 40 square
feet.
(2) Be at least half the vertical height of the letters to a building corner (vertical edge) or
to a roofline.
d. Windows visible from the public right-of-way shall not exceed a maximum of 20
percent of the windowpane area.
e. Second-story businesses may only use a sign in a second-story window, or use a wall
sign. Awning signs shall not be permitted on second-story windows.
f. Corner buildings shall be allowed signage on each street frontage.
g. Directional signs for accessory parking will be allowed to a maximum of six square feet
per sign per driveway entrance. The maximum height of said directional signs is three
feet. No more than 25 percent of the area may be devoted to business identification.
h. The provisions of Section 705.C.6.d shall not apply within the Warehouse Character
Area.
i. Signs, banners, balloons, flags, guidons, and similar advertising devices otherwise
prohibited by Section 705.C.2.a, b and c may be erected subject to a use permit in
conjunction with special promotional events of a civic or commercial nature. No more
than 25 percent of the area may be devoted to corporate sponsorship identification. In
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 183
addition to the standards enumerated in Section 705.F, findings of approval of the use
permit shall include:
(1) The signs and other displays are appropriate in scale, composition, and manner
of display with surrounding development.
(2) When adjoining establishments participate in an event, a single request for a use
permit may be filed.
j. Wall signs on buildings designated Historic Preservation (HP) exceeding the applicable
size or area regulations may be allowed by the Historic Preservation Commission in
accordance with the procedure set forth in Section 812.C.3 and upon the additional
finding that the proposed signage replicates the size, shape, and placement of the
original wall signage.
k. The following signs are prohibited:
(1) Those placed above or on top of any portion of the roof or front parapet or facade.
(2) Signs utilizing moving, flashing, or rotating lights or mechanisms, except as provided
by a use permit.
(3) Freestanding signs or ground signs.
l. Signage may be increased by up to 25 percent by submitting a comprehensive sign plan
as provided in Section 705.E of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance.
C. Streetscape and Frontage Zone Development Regulations. The following development
regulations apply to properties which abut the street sections indicated. All regulations in
the table are appealable to the Design Review Committee under the provisions of Section
1224 and considered as R*.
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix—Warehouse
Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Street Minimum Frontage
Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Section Setback Zone Depth
Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
7th Avenue 0’ 20’ None ALL 5' 10’
South of the
train tracks
to Grant St.
7th Avenue 0' 20’ Minimum 75% S, GA, SD, CE 5' 10’
Grant St. to
Sherman
St.
6th Avenue 0' 20' Minimum 50% ALL 5' 12'
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 184
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix—Warehouse
Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Street Minimum Frontage
Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Section Setback Zone Depth
Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
Sherman
St. to Grant
St.
5th Avenue 0' 20' Minimum 75% S 5' 12'
Alley south
of Jackson
St. to
Madison St.
4th Avenue 0' 20' Minimum 50% ALL 5' 12'
Sherman
St. to Grant
St.
4th Avenue 0' 20' Minimum 50% ALL 5' 19'
Grant St. to
Lincoln St.
4th Avenue 0' 20' Minimum 75% S 5' 12'
Alley south
of Jackson
St. to
Madison St.
3rd Avenue 0' 20' Minimum 75% S 5' 20'
Grant St. to
Jackson St.
2nd Avenue 0' 20' Minimum 50% ALL 5' 23'
Grant St. to
Lincoln St.
2nd Avenue 0' 20' Minimum 50% S 5' 10'
Buchanan
St. to
Jackson St.
1st Avenue 0' 20' Minimum 75% S 10' 15'
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 185
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix—Warehouse
Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Street Minimum Frontage
Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Section Setback Zone Depth
Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
Grant St. to
Madison St.
Central 0' 20' Minimum 75% S, GA, SD, CE 8' 15'
Avenue
Grant St. to
Madison St.
1st Street 0' 20' Minimum 50% ALL 5' 15'
Grant St. to
Buchanan
St.
1st Street 0' 20' Minimum 50% ALL 6' 20'
Buchanan
St. to
Madison St.
2nd Street 0' 20' Minimum 50% ALL 6' 20'
Lincoln St.
to alley
south of
Jackson St.
3rd Street 0' 20' Minimum 75% AFY, SD, PA, 6' 20'
South of PO, S
Grant St. to
Grant St.
3rd Street 0' 20' Minimum 75% S 6' 14'
Grant St.
south to
Railroad
Row
4th Street 0' 20’ Minimum 75% SD, PA, S 5' 10’
Grant St.
south to
Character
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 186
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix—Warehouse
Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Street Minimum Frontage
Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Section Setback Zone Depth
Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
Area
boundary
5th Street 0' 20’ Minimum 50% ALL 6' 14'
Grant St. to
Lincoln St.
6th Street 0' 20’ Minimum 50% ALL 8' 13'
Lincoln St.
to
Buchanan
St.
7th Street 0' 20’ Minimum 75% ALL 6' 14'
Lincoln St.
to south of
Grant St.
Madison 0' 20’ Minimum 75% SD, PA, S 5' 12'
Street
5th Ave. to
4th Ave.
Madison 0' 20’ Minimum 75% SD, PA, S 5' 12'
Street
1st Ave. to
1st St.
Jackson 0' 20’ Minimum 75% S 8' As
Street Established
5th Ave. to with Tree
1st St. Wells(1)
Buchanan 0' 20’ Minimum 75% SD, PA, S 7' 12'
Street
3rd Ave. to
3rd St.
Lincoln 0' 20’ Minimum 75% SD, PA, S 7' 12'
Street
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 187
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix—Warehouse
Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Street Minimum Frontage
Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Section Setback Zone Depth
Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
7th Ave. to
7th St.
Grant 0' 20’ Minimum 50% ALL 5' 19'
Street
6th Ave. to
2nd St.
3rd St. to
7th St.
Grant 0' 20’ Minimum 75% SD, PA, S 5' 19'
Street
2nd St. to
3rd St.
Sherman 0' 20’ Minimum 75% SD, PA, S 8' 14'
Street
7th Ave. to
4th Ave.
(AFY) Active Front Yard, (PA) Patio, (SD) Stoop/Door Well, (PO) Porch, (CE) Common
Entry, (FC) Forecourt, (S) Storefront, (GA) Gallery/Arcade, (GR) Grand Entry, (ALL) All
Frontage Elements
D. Additional Design Regulations--Warehouse.
1. New construction from finished grade to 65 feet in height shall use concrete, brick or other
quality exterior-facing materials found on the structures in the Warehouse Character Area
that have been determined to have character value, such as load bearing walls (brick or
block) and concrete post-and-beam structural systems. (P)
2. Brick veneer and brick tile applications, when used, should give the appearance of structural
brick by using wraparound corner and bullnose pieces to minimize a veneer appearance. (P)
3. Stucco should not be used as a new element on an existing building. For new construction,
stucco finishes should be limited to no more than 25 percent of all facades, and located
where least visible from Streetscape Zones. (P)
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 188
Rationale for D.1 – D.3: The Warehouse Character Area has a unique and historic
architectural context which current development should mimic or complement.
4. The following design elements are only permitted for use within the Warehouse Character
area if approved by the Design Review Committee as a Design Alternative per Section 1224
(R*):
a. Metal or wood siding.
b. Parabolic arches and other nongeometric forms.
c. Backlit awnings or panels.
d. Plastic and acrylic components used in awnings and other accessories.
e. Steeply pitched roofs (greater than 30 degrees) including mansard roof forms.
f. Curtain-wall facades.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 189
Section 1223. Sustainability Bonus.
A. Applicability. The Sustainability Bonus system is designed to provide additional
entitlements to developments that exhibit enhanced and/or environmentally friendly design,
or other performance elements as outlined in this Section or as approved by the Design
Review Committee.
1. A Sustainability Bonus may only be awarded when allowed by the applicable Character Area
development regulations.
2. Sustainability Bonus credits (as detailed in Section 1223.C) earned shall only apply to one
category of bonus. If multiple bonuses are desired for one development (such as one for
height increase, and another for parking increase), each bonus must earn the required bonus
credits separately, unless specifically stated otherwise in this Chapter.
3. All items or improvements which are provided specifically to obtain a Sustainability Bonus
shall be located on site, and not in public right-of-way, unless approved as a Technical
Appeal demonstrating that all required Streetscape improvements, including shade,
landscape, and minimum sidewalk width, will still be provided.
B. Credit Categories.
1. Height Increase. The allowed bonus is an increase in height calculated as a percentage
of the base maximum height permitted per Section 1202.B. However, no building height
may exceed the Airport Height Limits provided in Chapter 4, Article XIII of the Phoenix
City Code.
Height Increase
Minimum Credits Required Allowed Bonus
70 50%
60 40%
50 30%
40 20%
30 10%
20 5%
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 190
2. Density Increase. The allowed bonus is an increase in the number residential units
calculated as a percentage of the base maximum units permitted per Section 1202.C:
Density Increase
Minimum Credits Required Allowed Bonus
70 100%
60 80%
50 60%
40 40%
30 25%
20 10%
3. Increase of Lot Coverage. The allowed bonus is the amount of additional lot coverage
allowed in addition to the lot coverage permitted by the applicable Character Area; e.g. a
development earning 20 bonus credits is allowed an additional 10% lot coverage.
Increase of Lot Coverage
Minimum Credits Required Allowed Bonus
50 50%
40 25%
30 15%
20 10%
10 5%
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 191
4. Increase of Maximum Parking. The allowed bonus is an increase calculated as a
percentage of the maximum parking allowed per Section 1206.
Increase of Maximum Parking
Minimum Credits Required Allowed Bonus
50 100%
40 75%
30 50%
20 25%
10 15%
5 10%
5. Decrease in Minimum Parking. The allowed bonus is a decrease calculated as a
percentage of the minimum parking required per Section 1206.
Decrease of
Minimum Credits Required Allowed Bonus
25 100%
20 75%
15 50%
10 25%
5 10%
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 192
C. Sustainability Bonus Credit Matrix.
POSSIBLE
CREDIT DESCRIPTION AND QUALIFIERS OPTIONS
CREDITS
1. Provide a vertical mixed-use development 25% of gross ground 5
which incorporates commercial suites at the area of building
ground level intended for patronage by the
50% + of gross ground 10
general public, and not associated with the
floor area of building
operation of the overall development. Each
suite shall have a primary entrance from the
Frontage/Streetscape zone.
2. Provide pedestrian amenities within the 3 Different Types of 5
Frontage Zone (or Streetscape Zone if Amenities
approved through a Technical Appeal and
6+ Different Types of 10
Street Transportation) such as: lit bollards,
Amenities
waste receptacles (recycling and trash),
clocks, way finding signs, benches, drinking
fountains and decorative pedestrian lighting
not higher than 15 feet. (Must be in addition
to any required amenities.)
3. Provide outdoor dining within the Frontage Minimum 400 sf 5
Zone. Also applies to outdoor dining
800+ sf 10
provided within a Forecourt or a
Gallery/Arcade, but only if the minimum
sidewalk width required by the Character
Area is maintained.
4. Provide additional bicycle amenities (beyond any required), as follows in 4a and 4b:
4a. For any use type, provide additional Secured parking room for 5
amenities such as a secured bicycle parking minimum 50% required
room; bicycle lockers, tire air-up facilities, bicycle parking
and/or bicycle maintenance area or room.
Bicycle lockers for 5
minimum 50% required
bicycle parking
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 193
POSSIBLE
CREDIT DESCRIPTION AND QUALIFIERS OPTIONS
CREDITS
Tire air up facility or 3 (each)
bicycle maintenance
area/room
4b. For non-residential uses, provide showers Shower 4 (each);
and/or personal lockers within changing maximum 20
rooms for use by the building’s tenants. points
Personal lockers in 3 points for each 5
changing room lockers, maximum
15 points
5. Provide a public art installation within or on Art installation (as 5 points per
the building abutting a Frontage Zone. approved by PDD) installation
6. Provide on-site permeable paving, structured minimum 250 sf area 2
soil/grass, open grid paving or similar
>250 sf to 500sf area 4
material which allows for water to permeate
the surface to promote natural drainage and >500 sf to 1000 sf area 8
filtration. The areas provided may include on-
site pedestrian walkways, private >1000 sf area 15
driveways/aisles and parking stalls, but shall
not include loading areas or hardscape
located within public ROW.
7. Utilize non-potable gray water and/or Either gray water or 3
rainwater to supplement required landscape rainwater harvesting
irrigation water. system provided
Both systems provided 6
(may be combined)
8. Outperform the currently adopted energy 5%—9% 5
code standard by the following percentages,
10%—14% 10
measured by the percent (%) over required
energy code standard. 15%+ 15
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 194
POSSIBLE
CREDIT DESCRIPTION AND QUALIFIERS OPTIONS
CREDITS
9. Provide on-site renewable energy for the 1 point for each %
entire building’s electricity from renewable of building energy
sources, like wind, solar, geothermal, usage being
biomass or any similar source that is provided
renewable. Based on the load of the service
and the percent of load being provided by a
renewable source.
10. Provide a renewable energy purchasing 10%—35% 5
agreement for the entire building for a
35%+ 10
minimum 5 years, which runs with the
property and applies to the entire building(s).
This agreement shall be recorded and
submitted with the final site plan. Measured
by percent (%) of power purchased to meet
the energy demand for the building.
11. Provide a minimum 8 foot wide public 5 per street
sidewalk for the length of the property frontage
frontage (applicable only when the required
minimum width is less than 8 feet).
12. Provide two separate rows of shade trees Second row trees 10 per street
along the public sidewalk, planted along each matching Streetscape frontage
side of the public sidewalk. minimum requirements
13. Provide a minimum 30-year historic Easement provided on a 20
preservation conservation easement for the property located within
original footprint of a building on a property Downtown
designated HP or HP-L, as approved by the
Easement provided on a 10 (in addition to
Historic Preservation Officer.
property located within the base 20 points)
same Character Area as
development
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 195
POSSIBLE
CREDIT DESCRIPTION AND QUALIFIERS OPTIONS
CREDITS
14. Rehabilitate a structure (including building 30
stabilization) on a property zoned HP or HP-L
located within Downtown, as approved by the
Historic Preservation Officer.
15. Provide open space at the ground level on Provide at least 5% of 5
private property (minimum 500 sf and not the gross site area.
less than 10 feet wide any direction), as
Provide at least 10% of 10
follows:
the gross site area.
Dedicate a public access 10 additional
easement over the full
open space area used to
qualify for bonus
16. Provide affordable housing units in the 10%—24% 10
percentage shown with a deed restriction to
25%—49% 15
ensure affordability for a minimum duration
commensurate with the project funding 50%+ 20
agreement, as approved by the Phoenix
Housing Department.
17. Provide solar panels on the roof of the At least 25% of the total 5
building(s), as follows: roof area, up to 50%
More than 50% up to 10
75% of the total roof area
More than 75% of the 15
total roof area
18. Provide electric vehicle charging spaces For use by building 2 per EVC space
with installed electric vehicle charging owners or tenants only
stations (maximum 30 points total).
For use by building 4 per EVC space
visitors and/or general
public
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 196
POSSIBLE
CREDIT DESCRIPTION AND QUALIFIERS OPTIONS
CREDITS
19. Provide below grade and/or lower level No parking provided 10
parking areas only. above the ground floor
(not applicable if no parking provided). level
All parking* provided 20
*not including required ADA spaces
below finished grade
20. Provide shade for a minimum of 50% of all 5
occupiable roof areas.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 197
Section 1224. Appeals.
A. Design Alternative Appeals. A Design Alternative appeal is a requested deviation from
development regulations indicated with (R*), or an appeal of a decision by the Planning and
Development Department regarding compliance with a presumption (P). Approval of a
Design Alternative appeal shall result in a furtherance of the goals and policies of the
Downtown Phoenix Plan and the specific intent of the subject Character Area, as approved
by the DRC, as follows:
1. A Design Alternative appeal shall be reviewed and acted upon by the Design Review
Committee (DRC) in accordance with the procedural requirements of Section 507.G.
2. The DRC may approve substitute methods of meeting the intent of development
regulations as part of a Design Alternative appeal.
3. The DRC may impose conditions or stipulations with an approval of a Design Alternative
appeal.
4. When considering a proposed Design Alternative for the required frontage type/design,
the DRC is authorized to provide relief from other related Zoning Ordinance standards
and regulations indicated with (P), (R*), and (R), but not items indicated with (T).
5. Each Design Alternative appeal application shall include, at a minimum, the following:
a. For properties with a Historic Preservation (HP) designation, a Certificate of
Appropriateness or Certificate of No Effect must be obtained in advance of filing the
appeal and a copy submitted with the appeal application.
b. A listing of each of the development regulations that are the subject of the proposed
Design Alternative, including all additional items indicated with (P), (R*) and (R)
which also require relief to attain the proposed Design Alternative;
c. A narrative statement describing the justification for the Design Alternative and the
manner in which the proposed Design Alternative would result in a furtherance of the
goals and policies of the applicable Character Area, and would satisfy the findings
required for approval;
d. Site plan;
e. Building elevations;
f. Context plan (per Section 507.E);
g. Landscaping and shading plan;
h. List of property owners located within 150 feet of the subject property as supplied by
the Maricopa County Assessor’s Office; and
i. Such other information as may be required by the Planning and Development
Director or the DRC.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 198
6. In order to approve a Design Alternative appeal, the DRC must make findings as follows:
a. That the project is consistent with the intent, goals, and polices stated for the
applicable Character Area; and
b. That the project demonstrates design excellence by addressing at least two of the
following:
(1) Design innovation and the imaginative use of space, forms, and materials.
(2) Permeability and connectivity which enables people to move within, around and
through the project with ease.
(3) That the design alternative would improve safety and security by introducing
human activity to the public realm with active building frontages onto streets and
other public spaces, and enable "eyes on the street."
(4) The design alternative will incorporate materials and design which enhance
thermal comfort.
B. Sustainability Bonus Appeals. An applicant may file a request for the Design Review
Committee to appeal a decision of the Planning and Development Department regarding
Sustainability Bonus credits, as outlined in Section 1223.
1. A Sustainability Bonus appeal shall be reviewed and acted upon by the Design Review
Committee (DRC) in accordance with the procedural requirements of Section 507.G.
2. The DRC may approve substitute methods of meeting the intent of specific bonus credits
as part of a Sustainability Bonus appeal.
3. The DRC may impose conditions or stipulations with an approval of a Sustainability
Bonus appeal.
4. Each Design Alternative appeal application shall include, at a minimum, the following:
a. A listing of the credits that are being utilized and any support documentation (to be
sealed by a licensed professional).
b. Site plan;
c. Building elevations;
d. Context plan (per Section 507.E);
e. A narrative statement describing any deviation from the prescribed bonus credit(s)
that indicates how the proposed standard is furthering the goals and policies of the
Downtown Phoenix Plan and making a quantifiable improvement in the performance
of the building(s);
f. List of property owners located within 150 feet of the subject property as supplied by
the Maricopa County Assessor’s Office;
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 199
g. Such other information as may be required by the Planning and Development
Director or DRC.
5. In order to approve a Sustainability Bonus Appeal, the DRC must make findings as
follows:
a. That the project is consistent with the intent, goals, and polices stated for the
applicable Character Area; and
b. That the project is improving the overall performance of the building(s) through
generally accepted building and design standards and innovation; and
c. That the increased entitlements are consistent with the improved performance of the
building(s).
C. Variances/Zoning Adjustment. A variance is a requested deviation from a development
regulation designated as a requirement, or (R), and shall comply with the provisions of
Section 307.A.9, in addition to the following:
1. Any variance/zoning adjustment request within Downtown must be formally reviewed by
the Design Review Committee prior to processing of the variance request. The formal
review shall be through the same public hearing process as indicated in Section 1224.B,
except that the Design Review Committee shall, instead of making findings and a
decision, provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Administrator regarding the
variance request. The written recommendation shall, at a minimum, address the
following items:
a. Whether the request is consistent with the intent, goals, and polices stated for the
applicable Character Area; and
b. Whether the request is consistent with the intended Streetscape design and shade
requirements for the applicable Streetscape and Frontage Zones.
2. The applicant shall provide a written narrative for the DRC to review and address as part
of its written recommendation regarding the variance request. The narrative shall, at a
minimum, include the following items:
a. How much relief has, or could be obtained through application of a Sustainability
Bonus;
b. A written explanation why a Sustainability Bonus cannot be applied or obtain the
relief desired by the variance request; and
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-7-8
July 26, 2024
Page 200
c. A written explanation of how the development and the variance request is consistent
with the intent, goals, and polices stated for the applicable Character Area.
************************* END ***************************
ATTACHMENT C
ADDENDUM A
Staff Report
Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment
Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Application No. Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8: Amend the following sections of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, as
follows:
1. Revise and clarify provisions in Chapters 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 regarding definitions; variance and
Design Review appeal processes, and to address how other sections interact with Chapter 12
(Downtown Code):
Section 201 (Rules of Construction), Section 202 (Definitions), Section 307.A (Authority and
duties of the Zoning Administrator), Section 507 (Development Review Approval), Section 669
(Arts, Culture, and Small Business Overlay District), Section 702 (Off-Street Parking and
Loading), and Section 703 (Landscaping, Fences and Walls).
2. Add a new Section 312 to Chapter 3 to create the Technical Appeals Committee.
3. Repeal and replace Chapter 12 (Downtown Code) with revised and clarified text.
Staff recommendation: Staff recommends approval of Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8 as shown in the proposed
text in Exhibits A and B.
Reason for Addendum
The purpose of this Addendum is to address minor revisions to the recommended text
in Exhibits A and B. Upon additional review of the proposed text revisions, staff identified a few
necessary clarifications from questions posed at the stakeholder briefing meetings, as well as from
the Encanto and Central City Village Planning Committees. Below is a summary of the proposed
revisions to the text amendment which are denoted as BOLD/UNDERLINED text in Exhibits A and B
dated September 3, 2024.
Proposed Changes
Following the stakeholder and VPC meetings, staff proposes that the following changes be made to
the proposed language for Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8, as follows:
A. Revise 307.A.9.e to revise wording to clarify that the written recommendation by the Design
Review Committee is required when stated in Section 1224.C:
Addendum A to the Staff Report for Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 2
e. THAT WHEN A VARIANCE IS REQUESTED FOR A PROPERTY
SUBJECT TO THE DOWNTOWN CODE (CHAPTER 12), THE DESIGN
REVIEW COMMITTEE MUST SHALL FIRST REVIEW AND PROVIDE A
WRITTEN RECOMMENDATION REGARDING THE VARIANCE
REQUEST, AS FURTHER REFERENCED REQUIRED IN SECTION
1224.C.
B. Revise Sections 1203.D.16 and 1203.D.17 to allow for variation in hours of operation through the
Use Permit process:
1. The use is limited to Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays only, UNLESS A USE PERMIT IS
OBTAINED FOR OTHER DAYS OF THE WEEK.
2. The use may not be conducted between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m., UNLESS A
USE PERMIT IS OBTAINED TO EXTEND THE HOURS.
C. Revise Section 1207.L.2 to allow for variation in hours of loading through the Use Permit process:
2. If non-residential loading or service areas (including for trash/recycling collection) have
established legal access from a Buffer Alley, loading, pickup and deliveries shall be prohibited
between 9:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m., UNLESS A USE PERMIT IS OBTAINED. This restriction
shall be prominently posted on signs on the building adjacent to the service area, as well as at
the entrance to the property from the Buffer Alley. (R)
D. Revise Section 1224.A.4 to clarify what the term “related” means regarding a variance requested
in conjunction with a Design Alternative:
2. When considering a proposed Design Alternative for the required frontage type/design, the
DRC is authorized to provide relief from other related Zoning Ordinance standards and
regulations indicated with (P), (R*), and (R), but not items indicated with (T). “RELATED” IN
THIS CONTEXT MEANS THAT RELIEF FROM AN ITEM INDICATED BY (P), (R*), OR (R)
IS NECESSARY TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED DESIGN ALTERNATIVE.
E. Revise Section 1224.B to clarify a confusing sentence structure:
B. Sustainability Bonus Appeals. An applicant may file a request for the Design Review
Committee to appeal a decision of the Planning and Development Department regarding
Sustainability Bonus credits, as outlined in Section 1223.,TO THE DESIGN REVIEW
COMMITTEE, AS FOLLOWS:
F. Revise Section 1224.C.1 to add the provision for the Design Advisor to exempt variance requests
from DRC review if not design-related, in addition to sign regulations:
1. Any variance/zoning adjustment request within Downtown must be formally reviewed by the
Design Review Committee prior to processing of the variance request, UNLESS THE
Addendum A to the Staff Report for Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 3
REQUEST IS NOT DESIGN-RELATED, AS DETERMINED BY THE DESIGN ADVISOR, OR
IS REGARDING A SIGN REGULATION. The formal review shall be through the same public
hearing process as indicated in Section 1224.B, except that the Design Review Committee
shall, instead of making findings and a decision, provide a written recommendation to the
Zoning Administrator regarding the variance request. The written recommendation shall, at a
minimum, address the following items:
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 4
EXHIBIT A
Text Amendment Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
Downtown Code Updates (not including revised Chapter 12)
Proposed Language:
Section 201. Rules of Construction.
Amend Chapter 2, Section 201 (Rules of Construction) to add term “PDD”:
For the purpose of this ZONING Ordinance, certain terms and words are hereby defined as
follows: Words used in the present tense include the future, words in the singular include the
plural, and words in the plural include the singular; the word "shall" is mandatory and not
permissive; the word "person" includes individuals, partnerships, corporations, clubs, or
associations. The following words or terms, when applied in this ZONING Ordinance shall carry
full force when used interchangeably: lot, plot, parcel, or premises, used, arranged, occupied or
maintained; sold or dispensed, construct, reconstruct, erect, alter (structurally or otherwise), but
not the term maintenance. The terms "City" and "County" shall mean the City of Phoenix and
County of Maricopa, respectively; "Board" shall mean Board of Adjustment; "Commission" shall
mean City Planning Commission; "Council" shall mean City Council.; “PDD” SHALL MEAN
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
***
Section 202. Definitions.
Amend Chapter 2, Section 202 (Definitions) to add and/or modify definitions as follows:
***
Alley, Buffer: An alley that is adjacent to a single-family residential use as identified on Map
1202.F, and in Sections 1207.O and P. AN ALLEY ABUTTING BOTH SINGLE-FAMILY AND
COMMERCIAL USES, DESIGNATED ON THE REGULATING MAPS IN CHAPTER 12
(DOWNTOWN CODE).
***
CITY MANAGER’S REPRESENTATIVE (CMR): SEE SECTION 32-3 OF THE CITY CODE.
FRONTAGE ZONE: THE PORTION OF A LOT OR PARCEL LOCATED DIRECTLY ADJACENT
TO A STREET, OF A DEPTH REQUIRED BY THE APPLICABLE ZONING DISTRICT AND/OR
CHARACTER AREA.
***
Off-Street Loading Spaces: An on site space for the standing, loading, and unloading of vehicles.
***
Off-Street Passenger Loading: The provision of space off the street and adjacent to a building
entrance for the loading and unloading of automobile passengers. The design of such space shall
be subject to the approval of the Street Transportation Department.
***
SERVICE/GOODS LOADING SPACE: A DESIGNATED AREA WHICH IS PROVIDED FOR THE
LOADING AND UNLOADING OF GOODS AND SERVICES FOR BUSINESSES AND
COMMERCIAL USERS.
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 5
Street, Front: A street identified by an area plan towards which the front of buildings are oriented
to minimize driveway cuts. If no area plan is adopted, all single-frontage lots adjoining a front
street must orient the front of the building to the front street. For multi-frontage lots, the street with
the most pedestrian activity is the front street. When lots adjoin two or more streets with an equal
amount of pedestrian activity, both are front streets. Front streets are not necessarily the street
adjoining the lot front.
***
Street, Pedestrian: Sidewalk, landscape, driveway and buildings are designed to create a safe,
pleasant and enjoyable experience for pedestrians. Building openings are oriented toward the
street and vehicular conflicts with pedestrians are minimized. Designated on Map 1202.E and
individual character areas in Chapter 12. A STREET DESIGNATED ON THE REGULATING
MAPS IN CHAPTER 12 (DOWNTOWN CODE), WHICH IS SUBJECT TO DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS AND VEHICULAR RESTRICTIONS INTENDED TO ENHANCE THE
PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT.
***
Street, Side: A street identified by an area plan towards which the side of buildings are oriented. If
no area plan is adopted, the street with the least amount of pedestrian activity is the side street for
multi-frontage lots. Side streets are not necessarily the street adjoining the lot side. A STREET
DESIGNATED ON THE REGULATING MAPS IN CHAPTER 12 (DOWNTOWN CODE), WHICH
PERMITS A MIX OF USES AND TYPES OF ACCESS, SUCH AS (BUT NOT LIMITED TO)
PEDESTRIAN, VEHICULAR, SERVICE, AND LOADING ACCESS.
***
STREETSCAPE: THE LANDSCAPE, SHADE, STREET IMPROVEMENTS, SIDEWALK, AND
OTHER AMENITIES PROVIDED DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO A STREET.
***
Streetscape Zone: The area located behind the right-of-way curb that has either landscaping per
Section 1207 or public amenities (such as seating, artwork). THE PORTION OF A DEDICATED
STREET PROVIDING STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS AND LOCATED BETWEEN THE
BACK OF CURB AND THE FRONTAGE PROPERTY LINE. THE STREETSCAPE ZONE MAY
ALSO INCLUDE A PORTION OF ABUTTING PRIVATE PROPERTY, PER THE PROVISIONS OF
CHAPTERS 12 AND 13.
***
Section 307.A. Authority and duties of the Zoning Administrator
Amend Chapter 3, Section 307.A (Authority and duties of the Zoning Administrator) to add
a requirement for the Design Review Committee to review and make a recommendation for
variance applications within Downtown, as follows:
A. Authority and duties of the Zoning Administrator. There is hereby created in the City
Planning and Development Department a Zoning Administrator. The Zoning Administrator
shall be appointed by the Planning and Development Director and shall be under his
THEIR direction. The Zoning Administrator may appoint Deputy Zoning Administrators to
perform the functions of the Zoning Administrator and to act under his THEIR direction.
The Zoning Administrator shall:
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 6
***
9. Authorize upon application and hearing such variance from the terms of this
ZONING Ordinance as will not be contrary to the public interest, when owing to
special conditions, a literal enforcement of any provisions of the ordinance would
result in unnecessary property hardship.
A variance shall not be authorized unless the Zoning Administrator shall find upon
sufficient evidence:
a. That there are special circumstances or conditions applying to the land,
building, or use referred to in the application and which do not apply to other
properties in the district; and
b. That such special circumstances were not created by the owner or
applicant; and
c. That the authorizing of the variance is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of substantial property rights; and
d. That the authorizing of the application will not be materially detrimental to
persons residing or working in the vicinity, to adjacent property, to the
neighborhood, or to the public welfare in general.
e. THAT WHEN A VARIANCE IS REQUESTED FOR A PROPERTY
SUBJECT TO THE DOWNTOWN CODE (CHAPTER 12), THE DESIGN
REVIEW COMMITTEE MUST SHALL FIRST REVIEW AND PROVIDE A
WRITTEN RECOMMENDATION REGARDING THE VARIANCE
REQUEST, AS FURTHER REFERENCED REQUIRED IN SECTION
1224.C.
***
Section 312. Technical Appeals Committee.
Amend Chapter 3 to add a new Section 312 (Technical Appeals Committee) to establish a
technical review committee to review and decide technical appeals:
SECTION 312. TECHNICAL APPEALS COMMITTEE
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 7
A. POWERS AND DUTIES. THE TECHNICAL APPEALS COMMITTEE (TAC) SHALL HAVE
THE POWER AND DUTY UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THESE REGULATIONS TO
HEAR SPECIFIC ITEMS APPEALED BY THE APPLICANT CONTESTING A DECISION
ON A TECHNICAL ITEM OR INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIREMENT IMPOSED BY THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, OR A DEVELOPMENT REGULATION
INDICATED AS (T) IN SECTION 507 TAB A AND ALL OTHER ZONING ORDINANCE
REQUIREMENTS (INCLUDING OVERLAYS) WHICH USE (T) TO INDICATE
TECHNICAL ITEMS.
B. MEMBERSHIP. THE TECHNICAL APPEALS COMMITTEE SHALL CONSIST OF THE
SAME MEMBERS AS THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE AS SET FORTH IN CHAPTER
32 OF THE CITY CODE. THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR IS
AUTHORIZED TO APPOINT AND REMOVE ANY MEMBER AT ANY TIME, WITH OR
WITHOUT CAUSE, AND MAY ALSO APPOINT ADDITIONAL TECHNICAL CITY STAFF
TO THE TAC, SUCH AS LANDSCAPE, FIRE PREVENTION/LIFE SAFETY,
WATER/SEWER, AND BUILDING SAFETY.
Section 507. Development Review Approval
Amend Chapter 5, Section 507 (Development Review Approval) as follows:
***
B. Applicability.
1. Development review applies to all public and private facilities in residential,
commercial and industrial developments in the City in all zoning districts. The only
complete exceptions to compliance with this section are as follows:
a. Single-family and duplex dwelling units constructed prior to May 1, 1998;
b. a. Interior tenant alterations or improvements which do not affect parking
requirements or exterior building appearance;
c. b. Nonstructural remodeling of facade treatment (SUCH AS PAINT);
d. c. Sign permits for properties not otherwise subject to development review;
e. Development submitted for site plan approval prior to the effective date of
this section.
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 8
2. Exterior structural remodeling or / new BUILDING facade treatment, to buildings
AND/OR MODIFICATIONS TO EXISTING SITE IMPROVEMENTS (DRIVEWAYS,
PARKING, SITE WALLS, LANDSCAPE, DRAINAGE FACILITIES, OR SIMILAR),
OR PROPERTIES WITH ADDITIONS (INCLUDING NEW ACCESSORY
STRUCTURES) OF UP TO 2000 SQUARE FEET, without additional square
footage is ARE subject to development review approval as follows:
a. For properties located within the boundary of the Downtown Code, the
following shall apply: COMPLIANCE WITH DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS APPLICABLE ONLY TO THE EXTERIOR PORTION OF
THE BUILDING AND/OR SITE IMPROVEMENTS BEING MODIFIED,
UNLESS OTHERWISE STIPULATED WITH A REZONING OR ZONING
ADJUSTMENT ACTION.
(1) Compliance with the development standards, design standards and
design guidelines of Chapter 12 only for that exterior portion of the
building being modified.
(2) Provision of landscaping in accordance with adopted streetscape
designs unless prohibitive because of existing public utilities.
b. Reserved. FOR SITES SUBJECT TO THE DOWNTOWN CODE
(CHAPTER 12) OR WALKABLE URBAN CODE (CHAPTER 13),
PROVISION OF SHADE, LANDSCAPING AND SIDEWALKS IN
ACCORDANCE WITH ADOPTED STREETSCAPE STANDARDS. UNLESS
PROHIBITIVE BECAUSE OF EXISTING PUBLIC UTILITIES OR OTHER
EXISTING SITE CONSTRAINTS, AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING
AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
3. Additions to buildings are subject to development review approval as follows:
CHANGE OF USE OR OCCUPANCY TYPE, OR INTERIOR STRUCTURAL
REMODELING (“TENANT IMPROVEMENTS”), WITH OR WITHOUT ADDITIONAL
SQUARE FOOTAGE, ARE SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING:
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 9
a. An addition of two thousand square feet or less to an existing building may
be required to submit a site plan to the Department of Planning and
Development but shall not be subject to the design review principles and
guidelines set forth in Tab A of Section 507 if the impacts of the addition are
not significant, with the exception that new structures or additions of 500
square feet or greater on properties located within the boundary of the
Downtown Code shall be required to meet the shading requirements in
Section 1207.D. The Department of Planning and Development shall
determine the significance of an addition’s impacts on adjacent properties
based on noise, odor, lighting, glare, vibration, visibility from a public street,
and removal of site amenities which are included in a design review
principle or guideline. Surface parking as a primary use is subject to the
provisions of development review if the use is determined to have impact on
adjacent uses or visibility from a public street as determined by the
Department of Planning and Development.
COMPLIANCE WITH CURRENT STANDARDS FOR REQUIRED
AUTOMOBILE AND BICYCLE PARKING.
b. When an addition of two thousand square feet or less to an existing building
is determined by the Department of Planning and Development as having
significant impacts, as described above, the addition shall be subject to full
development review including the design review principles and guidelines.
SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS RELATED TO THE USE OR OCCUPANCY
AS OTHERWISE INDICATED IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
c. When additions to a property after the effective date of this ordinance total
more than two thousand square feet, the property shall be subject to full
development review including the design review principles and guidelines.
REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 507.B.2 IF EXTERIOR REMODELING
AND/OR ADDITIONS UNDER 2000 SF ARE ALSO INCLUDED.
4. PROPERTIES WITH ADDITIONS OF 2000 SQUARE FEET OR LARGER,
VACANT PROPERTIES, AND/OR PROPERTIES UNDERGOING FULL
DEMOLITION AND REDEVELOPMENT ARE SUBJECT TO FULL
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW, INCLUDING ALL APPLICABLE DESIGN REVIEW
PRINCIPLES AND GUIDELINES, UNLESS STATED OTHERWISE WITHIN THIS
ZONING ORDINANCE.
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 10
4. 5. Subdivision plats are processed in accordance with Chapter 32 of the City Code.
Preliminary subdivision plats have the additional requirement to be reviewed and
approved in accordance with the provisions of this section for context plan and the
design review guidelines for subdivisions of Section 507 Tab A (DESIGN REVIEW)
AND ALL OTHER CODES AND POLICIES TO WHICH SUBDIVISIONS ARE
SUBJECT.II.C, "Subdivision design."
5. 6. DEVELOPMENT WHICH EXISTED AT THE TIME OF ANNEXATION, OR FOR
WHICH ALL REQUIRED PERMITS WERE ISSUED BY THE CITY, IS ASSUMED
TO HAVE A VALID DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PLAN, EVEN IF NO APPROVED
SITE PLAN EXISTS. A SITE PLAN MAY BE REQUIRED BASED ON THE SCOPE
OF ANY PROPOSED REMODEL, REVISION, ADDITION, OR
REDEVELOPMENT.
Existing legally constructed development with or without an approved site plan as
of the date of this Ordinance is assumed to have a valid development review plan.
Any site plans which received preliminary or final approval from the Department of
Planning and Development prior to the enactment of this section shall remain and
continue in full force and effect until such time as the plan is amended or its
approval expires.
6. 7. Implementation of single-family design review shall begin on May 1, 1998, for all
subdivision applications which have not obtained preliminary development review
approval. Any site plans or subdivision plats which received preliminary or final
approval from the Department of Planning and Development prior to the enactment
of this section shall remain and continue in full force and effect until such time as
the plan is amended or its approval expires.
ADAPTIVE REUSE. DEVELOPMENT QUALIFYING AS ADAPTIVE REUSE MAY
BE GRANTED FULL OR PARTIAL ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF FROM ZONING
ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH POLICIES ADOPTED
BY CITY COUNCIL. IN SUCH CASES, THE RELIEF PROVIDED SHALL BE
NOTED ON THE SITE PLAN, OR THE CONSTRUCTION PLANS IF NO SITE
PLAN IS REQUIRED.
***
C. Design Review Principles and Guidelines. Design review principles, and guidelines are
listed in Tab A and other sections of this THE ZONING Ordinance. The principles reflect
desired goals and policies for the City. The guidelines indicate specific implementation
standards. The guidelines consist of requirements, presumptions and considerations.
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 11
1. Requirements (R). Requirements (R) are guidelines contained in this and other
sections of the Zoning Ordinance and specific plans. Requirements are not
permissive in that they contain language that is not discretionary, such as "shall,"
"must" and "will." Requirements must be satisfied by any plan prior to design review
approval. If a requirement cannot be satisfied, an applicant may seek relief through
the variance process with the exception that those requirements followed by an
asterisk (R*) are appealable to the Design Review Committee due to their design-
related nature.
2. Presumptions (P). Most of the guidelines are presumptions (P). A guideline that is
a presumption normally will contain the word "should." A plan submitted for design
review is incomplete if it does not demonstrate that the presumptive elements have
been in some way incorporated or overcome.
a. Overcoming a presumption. A presumption that may be unsuitable for a
given project may be waived if an applicant can demonstrate to the
Planning and Development Department that there is a good reason why the
presumption is inappropriate, unless the property is located within the
boundary of the Downtown Code. The Planning and Development
Department may approve an alternative that achieves the intent of the
presumption.
Appropriate reasons for overcoming a presumption include:
(1) Demonstrating that in this instance the underlying design principles
will not be furthered by the application of the presumption;
(2) Showing that another design principle is enhanced by not applying
the presumption;
(3) Demonstrating an alternative method for achieving the intent of the
presumption;
(4) Explaining the unique site factors that make the presumption
unworkable such as lot size and shape, slope, natural vegetation,
drainage, and characteristics of adjacent development which are
identified through their use of materials, colors, building mass and
form, and landscaping.
Increase in the cost of development is not an acceptable reason to waive a
guideline or determine that a guideline is inappropriate.
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 12
b. Appeals. In the event that a presumption is not incorporated or overcome,
AS DETERMINED BY PDD STAFF, or if the property is located within the
boundary of the Downtown Code an appeal may be filed by the applicant
with the Design Review Committee. Appeals to presumptions (P) and
requirements followed by an asterisk (R*) located in Tab A.II.C, "Subdivision
design," shall be heard by the Design Review Committee. THE APPLICANT
MAY FILE AN APPEAL TO BE HEARD BY THE DESIGN REVIEW
COMMITTEE PER SECTION 507.G.
c. Purpose and intent of single-family design guidelines. Notwithstanding the
above, there are differences in the application of design guidelines for
single-family development. In the R1-10 through R-5 zoning districts, the
conventional development option establishes the baseline development
conditions for single-family detached development. Deviations from these
standards for the entire subdivision will require application of the planned
residential development (PRD) option and the associated design guidelines
found in subsection 507 Tab A.II.C. When applying these guidelines, staff
will consider the unique conditions of each site, such as context area, lot
size and shape, slope, natural vegetation, and drainage. In addition, staff
will strive to ensure that affordable housing opportunities are not precluded.
The PRD option is intended to encourage quality and creative design
solutions through the use of flexible development standards. This design
review structure is intended to foster a dialogue between staff and the
applicant which facilitates creative responses to unique site conditions while
being mindful of housing affordability.
3. TECHNICAL ITEMS (T). DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS INDICATED BY (T)
WITHIN THIS AND OTHER SECTIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE ARE
CONSIDERED TECHNICAL ITEMS. TECHNICAL ITEMS MAY BE APPEALED
THROUGH THE TECHNICAL APPEAL PROCESS SPECIFIED IN SECTION
507.H.
3. 4. Considerations (C). Design guidelines listed in the adopted design review
guidelines as considerations (C) are issues and concepts that an applicant should
consider in preparing a plan. Their omission is not grounds for rejecting a plan, but
their inclusion or recognition is encouraged and may assist in overcoming certain
presumptions and in gaining acceptance for a plan.
5. ITEMS WITHIN SECTION 507 TAB A AND OTHER SECTIONS OF THE ZONING
ORDINANCE WHICH ARE NOT QUALIFIED BY AN (R), (R*), (P), (T) OR (C)
SHALL BE TREATED AS REQUIREMENTS (R), UNLESS EXPLICITLY STATED
OTHERWISE.
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 13
D. Process. The development review process includes the following steps:
1. Pre-application conference with the Planning and Development Department staff
(see subsection E);
2. Preliminary review (see subsection F);
a. Submittal of design DEVELOPMENT review documents by the
applicant/property owner;
b. Routing of documents to various departments and agencies for comment
where needed;
c. Staff review and consolidation of comments;
d. Preliminary design review meeting with applicant and any interested citizen
where needed;
3. Consideration of any DESIGN REVIEW appeals (see subsection G);
4. Review CONSIDERATION of ANY technical APPEALS documents (see subsection
H);
5. Final document submittal responding to staff comments (see subsection I);
6. Final approval of development review documents (see subsection J);
7. Building permit issuance (see subsection J);
8. Site inspection and issuance of certificate of occupancy (see subsection J);
9. Follow-up inspection (see subsection J).
***
G. Design Alternatives and Sustainability Bonus Appeals. A design alternative or
sustainability bonus appeal is a deviation from the prescribed standards and design
guidelines. Design alternatives and sustainability bonus appeals apply to properties within
the boundary of the Downtown Code, which would result in a furtherance of the goals and
policies of the Downtown Phoenix Plan and the specific intent of the subject character area
as approved by the DRC. Design alternatives apply to properties with Walkable Urban
Code zoning, which would result in a furtherance of the goals and policies of Transit
Oriented Policy Plans or other relevant policy plans.
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 14
1. Each design alternative application shall include, at a minimum, the following:
a. A Certificate of Appropriateness or Certificate of No Effect must be obtained
in advance of filing for any property with a Historic Preservation (HP) zoning
designation;
b. A listing of the standard(s) or guideline(s) that are the subject of the
proposed design alternative;
c. A narrative statement describing the justification for the design alternative
and the manner in which the proposed design alternative would result in a
furtherance of the goals and policies of the Downtown Phoenix Plan, Transit
Oriented Policy Plans, or other relevant policy plans and would satisfy the
findings required for approval;
d. Site plan;
e. Building elevations;
f. Context plan;
g. Landscaping and shading plan;
h. List of property owners located within 150 feet of the subject property as
supplied by the Maricopa County Assessor’s Office; and
i. Such other information as may be required by the Planning and
Development Director or DRC.
2. Each sustainability bonus appeal application shall include, at a minimum, the
following:
a. A listing of the credits that are being utilized and any support documentation
(to be sealed by a licensed professional).
b. Site plan;
c. Building elevations;
d. Context plan;
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 15
e. A narrative statement describing any deviation from the prescribed credit(s)
that indicates how the proposed standard is furthering the goals and policies
of the Downtown Phoenix Plan and making a quantifiable improvement in
the performance of the building(s);
f. List of property owners located within 150 feet of the subject property as
supplied by the Maricopa County Assessor’s Office;
g. Such other information as may be required by the Planning and
Development Director or DRC.
3. Within 15 calendar days of the date of filing a design alternative or sustainability
bonus appeal application, the applicant shall mail a notice by first class mail to all
property owners within 150 feet of the subject site explaining the request and
providing the date, time and location of the DRC meeting at which the application
will be reviewed.
4. In order to approve a design alternative, the DRC must make findings as follows:
a. That the project is consistent with the intent stated for the subject character
area in the Downtown Code;
b. That the project demonstrates design excellence by addressing at least two
of the following:
(1) Design innovation and the imaginative use of space, form and
materials.
Permeability and connectivity which enables people to move within,
around and through the project with ease.
The project improves safety and security by introducing human
activity to the public realm with active building frontages onto streets
and other public spaces, and enables "eyes on the street."
The project incorporates materials and design which enhance
thermal comfort.
Modifications from prescribed standards as per Section 1313; and
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 16
c. That the project demonstrates design excellence by addressing design
alternatives that demonstrate conformance with the intent of the Walkable
Urban Code as set forth in Section 1301.B and in general conformance with
the policies contained within the Transit Oriented Policy Plans or other
relevant policy plans. The modifications must meet the standards set forth in
Section 1313.
5. In order to approve a sustainability bonus appeal, the DRC must make findings as
follows:
a. That the project is consistent with the intent stated for the subject character
area;
b. That the project is improving the overall performance of the building(s)
through generally accepted building and design standards and innovation;
and
c. The increased entitlements are consistent with the improved performance of
the building(s).
6. In approving a design alternative or sustainability bonus appeal, the DRC may
impose any reasonable conditions to ensure that the approval complies with the
findings required above.
7. A design alternative or sustainability bonus appeal application will be reviewed at a
public meeting within 30 calendar days from the date of submission of the
application. Any person invited to the review of the preliminary report with the
applicant shall be informed by the Planning and Development Department of the
date, time and location of the meeting.
8. A decision on the design alternative or sustainability bonus appeal application will
be made by the DRC on the date of the public meeting unless continued at the
discretion of the Committee and a certificate of approval shall be transmitted to the
applicant in writing.
G. DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS
1. THE PROPERTY OWNER OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE MAY APPEAL
A DEPARTMENT DECISION ON A DESIGN REVIEW ITEM TO THE DESIGN
REVIEW COMMITTEE, WHO SHALL HEAR THE APPEAL PER SECTION 309,
AS FOLLOWS:
a. AN ACTION OR DECISION OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT IMPOSING CONDITIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH:
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 17
(1) DESIGN REVIEW PRESUMPTIONS, WHICH ARE TYPICALLY
INDICATED AS (P); OR
(2) OTHER PRESUMPTIVE STANDARDS OR CRITERIA INDICATED
BY THE WORD “SHOULD”.
b. A DESIGN REVIEW REQUIREMENT INDICATED WITH AN (R*).
c. AN ACTION OR DECISION OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT IMPOSING CONDITIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH
URBAN DESIGN PRINCIPLES, ADOPTED DESIGN REVIEW POLICIES,
OR DESIGN DECISIONS WHICH ARE IMPOSED TO PROTECT THE
PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE.
d. A DESIGN ALTERNATIVE APPEAL, AS PROVIDED IN THE DOWNTOWN
CODE, CHAPTER 12, OR IN THE WALKABLE URBAN CODE, CHAPTER
13.
e. A SUSTAINABILITY BONUS APPEAL, AS PROVIDED IN THE
DOWNTOWN CODE, CHAPTER 12.
2. DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE HEARING PROCESS. AN APPEAL TO THE
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MUST BE SUBMITTED NO LATER THAN 30
CALENDAR DAYS AFTER A DECISION HAS BEEN ISSUED BY THE PLANNING
AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REGARDING THE SUBJECT DESIGN
REVIEW ITEM.
a. APPEALS SHALL BE IN WRITING ON A FORM PROVIDED BY THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AND SHALL INCLUDE
ONLY THOSE ITEMS APPEALABLE TO THE DESIGN REVIEW
COMMITTEE.
b. AN APPEAL SUBMITTAL MUST BE COMPLETE BASED UPON THE
REQUEST AND REQUIREMENTS ON THE SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST
BEFORE IT IS SCHEDULED FOR A HEARING. STAFF WILL REVIEW
THE SUBMITTAL FOR COMPLETENESS AND PROVIDE A WRITTEN
LIST OF ANY DEFICIENCIES TO THE APPLICANT WITHIN 15
CALENDAR DAYS OF RECEIPT OF THE SUBMITTAL.
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 18
c. ONCE DETERMINED TO BE COMPLETE, AN APPEAL WILL BE
SCHEDULED FOR THE NEXT DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE HEARING,
BUT NO SOONER THAN 15 CALENDAR DAYS FROM STAFF
DETERMINATION THAT THE SUBMITTAL IS COMPLETE. BY MUTUAL
CONSENT OF PDD STAFF AND THE APPLICANT, THE APPEAL MAY
BE SCHEDULED FOR A LATER DRC HEARING.
d. NO LATER THAN 15 CALENDAR DAYS PRIOR TO THE SCHEDULED
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE HEARING, THE APPLICANT SHALL
MAIL A NOTICE TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS AND REGISTERED
NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS WITHIN 150 FEET OF THE SUBJECT
SITE EXPLAINING THE REQUEST AND PROVIDING THE DATE, TIME
AND LOCATION OF THE DRC MEETING AT WHICH THE APPLICATION
WILL BE REVIEWED.***
e. ANY PERSON WHO HAS BEEN OR WILL BE INVITED TO THE
PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN REVIEW MEETING WITH THE APPLICANT
SHALL BE INFORMED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT OF THE DATE, TIME AND LOCATION OF DRC APPEAL
HEARING.
f. IN APPROVING AN APPEAL, THE DRC MAY IMPOSE ANY
REASONABLE CONDITIONS TO ENSURE THAT THE APPROVAL
COMPLIES WITH ANY FINDINGS REQUIRED.
g. A DECISION ON THE APPEAL WILL BE MADE BY THE DESIGN
REVIEW COMMITTEE ON THE DATE OF THE HEARING UNLESS
CONTINUED TO A FUTURE DRC HEARING AT THE DISCRETION OF
THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE. THE DECISION SHALL BE
TRANSMITTED BY PDD STAFF TO THE APPLICANT IN WRITING
WITHIN 15 CALENDAR DAYS OF THE DECISION.
h. THE DECISION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE IS FINAL AND
NON-APPEALABLE.
H. Appeals. There are two distinct categories of review standards, design and technical:
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 19
1. Appeal of design review decisions. An action or decision of the Planning and
Development Department imposing conditions in accordance with presumptive
design review guidelines, urban design principles, or design decisions which are
imposed to protect the public health, safety and welfare may be appealed to the
Design Review Committee within 15 calendar days from the date of the staff’s
preliminary review decision. The Planning and Development Department will
submit any background material regarding the appeal to the Design Review
Committee within two working days prior to the hearing date.
a. Appeals shall be in writing on a form provided by the Planning and
Development Department and shall include only those items being
appealed.
b. An appeal will be heard within 30 calendar days from the date of
submission of an appeal. Any person invited to the review of the preliminary
report with the applicant shall be informed by the Planning and
Development Department of the date, time and location of appeal hearing.
c. A decision on the appeal will be made by the Design Review Committee on
the date of the hearing unless continued at the discretion of the Committee
and shall be transmitted to the applicant in writing. The decision of the
Design Review Committee shall be final.
2. Appeal of technical requirements. An action or decision of the Planning and
Development Department which results from a non-design-related issue may be
appealed within 15 calendar days to the City Manager’s representative. The
Planning and Development Department will submit any background material
regarding the appeal to the City Manager’s representative within two working days
prior to the hearing date.
a. Appeals shall be in writing on a form provided by the Planning and
Development Department and shall include only those items being
appealed.
b. An appeal will be heard within 15 calendar days from the date of
submission of an appeal. Any person invited to the review of the preliminary
report with the applicant shall be informed by the Planning and
Development Department of the date, time and location of appeal hearing.
c. A decision on the appeal will be made by the City Manager’s representative
within five calendar days from the date of the hearing and transmitted to the
applicant and interested parties in writing.
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 20
d. Appeal to Development Advisory Board. An appeal of the decision of the
City Manager’s representative may be made to the Development Advisory
Board within 15 calendar days after the date of the decision. Appeals shall
be in writing on a form provided by the Planning and Development
Department and shall include only those items not agreed upon. Within 30
calendar days after service of the "notice of appeal," the Planning and
Development Department shall transmit to the Development Advisory
Board and to the Law Department a transcript, with exhibits, of the City
Manager’s representative’s hearing. The Development Advisory Board shall
review the transcript and exhibits and may, at their discretion, hear further
oral arguments and receive written briefs from both the applicant and the
Law Department.
e. Development Advisory Board action. The Development Advisory Board
may:
(1) Affirm the decision of the City Manager’s representative;
(2) Remand the matter for further proceedings before the City
Manager’s representative; or
(3) Reverse or modify the City Manager’s representative’s decision.
The decision of the Development Advisory Board is final.
H. TECHNICAL APPEALS
1. THE PROPERTY OWNER OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE MAY APPEAL
A DEPARTMENT DECISION REGARDING A TECHNICAL ITEM, AN
INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIREMENT IMPOSED BY THE DEPARTMENT, OR AN
ITEM INDICATED AS (T) IN SECTION 507 TAB A, CHAPTER 12 AND OTHER
SECTIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO THE TECHNICAL APPEALS
COMMITTEE (TAC) PER SECTION 312, AS FOLLOWS:
a. ANY APPEAL SHALL BE FILED NO LATER THAN 15 CALENDAR DAYS
FOLLOWING A DECISION OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT.
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 21
b. THE TAC MAY GRANT AN APPEAL IF THE APPELLANT CAN
DEMONSTRATE THAT THERE EXISTS EXTRAORDINARY CONDITIONS
OF TOPOGRAPHY, LAND OWNERSHIP, OR ADJACENT
DEVELOPMENT, OR OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES NOT PROVIDED FOR
IN THESE REGULATIONS. THE TAC MAY MODIFY THE
REQUIREMENT(S) IN SUCH A MANNER AND TO SUCH EXTENT AS
MAY BE APPROPRIATE TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST SOUGHT TO BE
PROTECTED BY THE REQUIREMENT(S) REQUESTED TO BE
MODIFIED. IN MODIFYING THE REQIREMENT(S), THE TAC MAY MAKE
SUCH ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS AS APPEAR NECESSARY TO
SUBSTANTIALLY SECURE THE OBJECTIVES OF THE MODIFIED
REQUIREMENT(S).
c. IN ADDITION TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF H.1.B, REQUESTS FOR
TECHNICAL APPEALS ARISING FROM DEVELOPMENTS SUBJECT TO
THE DOWNTOWN CODE (CHAPTER 12), WALKABLE URBAN CODE
(CHAPTER 13) AND ANY OTHER AREA-SPECIFIC TECHNICAL
REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE APPROVED ONLY IF THE MODIFICATION
IS CONSISTENT WITH ANY STATED RATIONALE, GOAL, OR INTENT
SPECIFIC TO THE CHARACTER AREA AND APPLICABLE
STREETSCAPE STANDARDS. THE TAC MAY IMPOSE STIPULATIONS
TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH SUCH RATIONALE, GOAL OR
INTENT WHEN APPROVING A TECHNICAL APPEAL.
2. APPLICATION. TECHNICAL APPEALS SHALL BE FILED IN WRITING ON A
FORM PROVIDED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
AS FOLLOWS:
a. THE REQUEST SHALL ADDRESS ONLY THOSE ITEMS BEING
APPEALED.
b. THE REQUEST SHALL INCLUDE TECHNICAL INFORMATION AND A
NARRATIVE RELATED TO THE APPEAL, CLEARLY EXPLAINING WHY
THE PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE IS EQUIVALENT TO OR BETTER
THAN THE TECHNICAL ITEM BEING APPEALED.
3. THE TAC WILL CONDUCT A REVIEW OF THE APPEAL AT THEIR FIRST
REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING FOLLOWING A COMPLETE SUBMITTAL.
a. THE TAC MAY CHOOSE TO DEFER ACTION ON THE APPEAL AND
INSTEAD SEND THE APPEAL REQUEST DIRECTLY TO THE CITY
MANAGER’S REPRESENTATIVE (CMR) FOR HEARING, AS OUTLINED
BELOW.
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 22
b. THE TAC MAY CHOOSE TO REQUEST ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
PRIOR TO RENDERING A DECISION.
4. THE TAC SHALL TAKE ONE OF FIVE ACTIONS ON THE APPEAL: APPROVE,
APPROVE WITH STIPULATIONS, DENY, FORWARD FOR CMR HEARING
WITHOUT RECOMMENDATION, OR CONTINUE TO A SUBSEQUENT TAC
MEETING IF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IS REQUIRED FOR REVIEW
BEFORE RENDERING A DECISION.
5. A DECISION OF THE TAC SHALL BE CONSIDERED FINAL IF NOT APPEALED
TO THE CMR WITHIN 15 CALENDAR DAYS OF THE DECISION.
6. CITY MANAGER’S REPRESENTATIVE APPEAL HEARING. A DECISION OF
THE TAC MAY BE APPEALED TO THE CMR BY THE PROPERTY OWNER OR
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE WITHIN 15 CALENDAR DAYS.
a. SCHEDULING OF CMR HEARING. A TECHNICAL APPEAL WILL BE
HEARD BY THE CMR WITHIN 30 CALENDAR DAYS FROM THE DATE
OF FORWARDING FROM TAC. THE APPLICANT SHALL BE NOTIFIED
IN WRITING OF THE DATE OF THE CMR HEARING NO LATER THAN
SEVEN CALENDAR DAYS PRIOR TO THE HEARING.
***
b. CITY MANAGER’S REPRESENTATIVE’S DECISION. A DECISION ON
THE APPEAL WILL BE MADE BY THE CMR AT THE HEARING. THE
CMR SHALL TAKE ONE OF FIVE ACTIONS ON THE APPEAL:
APPROVE, APPROVE WITH STIPULATIONS, DENY, CONTINUE TO A
SUBSEQUENT CMR HEARING FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION, OR
ISSUE A RULING AT A LATER DATE IN ORDER TO FIRST SEEK
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND/OR PROFESSIONAL ADVICE. THE
FINAL CMR DECISION SHALL BE TRANSMITTED IN WRITING TO THE
APPLICANT AND ANY INTERESTED PARTIES WHO WERE IN
ATTENDANCE AT THE HEARING.
7. APPEAL TO DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARD. AN APPEAL OF THE
DECISION OF THE CMR MAY BE MADE TO THE DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY
BOARD, AS ESTABLISHED UNDER CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE IX OF THE CITY
CODE. NOTWITHSTANDING THE PROCESS OUTLINED IN CHAPTER 2,
ARTICLE IX, SECTION 2-172, AN APPEAL UNDER THIS PROVISION MUST BE
FILED WITHIN 15 CALENDAR DAYS OF THE DATE OF THE CMR DECISION.
***
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 23
Section 669. Arts, Culture, and Small Business Overlay (ACOD) District
Amend Chapter 6, Section 669 (Arts, Culture, and Small Business Overlay District) as
follows:
***
B. Applicability. The Arts, Culture and Small Business Overlay may be applied to land
bounded by Interstate 10 Inner Loop (Papago Freeway) on the north, 20th Street to the
east, Buckeye Road to the south and 19th Avenue to the west. The application of the
overlay on specific parcels will occur subject to approval by City Council through the
rezoning process in accordance with zoning map amendment section of the Zoning
Ordinance. The regulations governing the uses of land and structures shall be as set forth
in the underlying zoning districts or other overlay districts, except as expressly modified by
the following regulations and as regulated by other provisions of City Code. Where there is
a conflict with other Zoning Ordinance provisions, the more permissive shall apply.
1. FOR PROPERTIES NOT ZONED DOWNTOWN CODE (DTC), THE
APPLICATION OF THE OVERLAY ON SPECIFIC PARCELS WILL OCCUR
SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY CITY COUNCIL THROUGH THE REZONING
PROCESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 506.B. THE REGULATIONS
GOVERNING THE USES OF LAND AND STRUCTURES SHALL BE AS SET
FORTH IN THE UNDERLYING ZONING DISTRICTS OR OTHER OVERLAY
DISTRICTS, EXCEPT AS EXPRESSLY MODIFIED BY THE FOLLOWING
REGULATIONS AND AS REGULATED BY OTHER PROVISIONS OF CITY
CODE. WHERE THERE IS A CONFLICT WITH OTHER ZONING ORDINANCE
PROVISIONS, THE MORE PERMISSIVE SHALL APPLY.
2. FOR PROPERTIES ZONED DOWNTOWN CODE (DTC), APPLICATION OF THE
ARTS, CULTURE, AND SMALL BUSINESS AREA DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS ON AFFECTED PROPERTIES SHALL BE AS SPECIFIED BY
SECTION 1207.M.
***
Section 702. Off-Street Parking and Loading
Amend Chapter 7, Section 702 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) to correct a numbering
error for Section 702.B (Off-Street Loading Spaces), which immediately follows Section
702.G, and to make other minor changes to terms used.
B.H. Off-Street SERVICE/GOODS Loading Spaces.
1. General provisions, requirements for space size. Off-street
SERVICE/GOODS loading spaces shall be not less than ten (10) feet in width
and thirty (30) feet in length, exclusive of access aisles and maneuvering
space.
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 24
2. Off-Street SERVICE/GOODS loading spaces required. The following shall
apply to all developments, except for single family developments and vehicular
parking areas.
a. Commercial developments (excluding office) less than 60 feet in
height and industrial developments, shall provide the following off-
street SERVICE/GOODS loading spaces:
***
b. Office development less than 60 feet in height shall provide the
following off-street SERVICE/GOODS loading spaces:
***
c. Multi-family residential development shall provide the following off-
street SERVICE/GOODS loading spaces:
***
d. Commercial or office developments (excluding multi-family) over 60
feet in height and all hotel or resort developments shall provide the
following off-street SERVICE/GOODS loading spaces:
3. The off-street loading facilities required shall in all cases be on the same lot or
parcel of land as the structure they are intended to serve. SERVICE/GOODS
LOADING SPACES SHALL BE LOCATED ON-SITE UNLESS SPECIFICALLY
PERMITTED ELSEWHERE BY THE ZONING ORDINANCE. In no case shall
the required off-street loading space be part of the area USED to satisfy the
off-street parking requirements of this Ordinance.
***
Section 703. Landscaping, Fences and Walls.
Amend Chapter 7, Section 703 (Landscaping, Fences and Walls) to correct a provision
regarding when a Certificate of No Effect or Certificate of Appropriateness is required
for a wall/fence.
A. Height of Fences and Retaining Walls.
***
2. The following shall apply to all residence districts:
a. For lots fronting on a public street, private accessway or private drive,
no fence or freestanding wall (not supporting a building or structure)
within or bounding the required front yard, shall exceed a height of 40
inches, provided:
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 25
(1) For properties located within an Historic Preservation (HP)
Overlay District, fences or freestanding walls in the front yard,
meaning the space between the structure and the street right-
of-way line, may not exceed a maximum height of three (3)
feet, and are conditioned upon obtaining a certificate of
appropriateness or no effect in accordance with Section 812
of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance. This height limitation
extends to a point three (3) feet beyond the front corner(s) of
the primary structure.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION DESIGNATED PROPERTIES.
FOR PROPERTIES DESIGNATED HP AND HP-L, FENCES
OR FREESTANDING WALLS IN THE FRONT YARD (THE
AREA BETWEEN THE STRUCTURE AND THE STREET
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE) SHALL NOT EXCEED A MAXIMUM
HEIGHT OF THREE FEET. THIS HEIGHT LIMITATION
EXTENDS THREE FEET BACK FROM THE FRONT
FAÇADE INTO THE SIDE YARD(S).
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 26
EXHIBIT B
Chapter 12
DOWNTOWN CODE
Section 1201. Code Administration.
Section 1202. Regulating Maps.
Section 1203. Land Use Matrix.
Section 1204. Streetscape and Frontage Zones.
Section 1205. Frontage Elements.
Section 1206. Parking, Loading, and Vehicular Access.
Section 1207. General Development Regulations.
Section 1208. Biomed.
Section 1209. Business Core.
Section 1210. Central Park.
Section 1211. Commercial Corridors.
Section 1212. Downtown Gateway.
Section 1213. East Evergreen.
Section 1214. Evans Churchill East.
Section 1215. Evans Churchill West.
Section 1216. McDowell Corridor.
Section 1217. Roosevelt East.
Section 1218. Roosevelt North.
Section 1219. Roosevelt South.
Section 1220. Townsend Park.
Section 1221. Van Buren.
Section 1222. Warehouse.
Section 1223. Sustainability Bonus Points.
Section 1224. Appeals.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 27
Section 1201. Code Administration.
A. Purpose and Intent. The purpose of the Downtown Code is to implement the vision, goals
and policies of the Downtown Phoenix Plan and provide the physical environment necessary
to create a pedestrian-oriented, dynamic urban center with an authentic sense of place. The
intent of the Downtown Code is to address design that impacts the public realm by
establishing standards and guidelines that will allow projects to develop over time in a scale
and character consistent with the Downtown Phoenix Plan and with the vision and goals of
PlanPHX.
B. Applicability. The Downtown Code applies to all land uses, subdivisions, and development
within the boundary specifically identified in Section 1202.A and generally bounded by
McDowell Road on the north, 7th Street on the east, Buckeye Road on the south, and 7th
Avenue on the west. This boundary shall be hereafter known as “Downtown”. The
“Downtown Code” may be abbreviated as “DTC”.
1. Historic Preservation. Properties with Historic Preservation (HP) zoning are subject to
the provisions of Chapter 8, Historic Preservation, of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance in
addition to the provisions of Chapter 12, Downtown Code. In the event of a conflict
between the provisions of Chapter 8 and Chapter 12, the provisions of Chapter 8 shall
prevail.
2. If a conflict occurs between requirements of the Downtown Code and other provisions
the City of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance (not including Chapter 8), the requirements of the
Downtown Code shall prevail.
3. Development review of sites located within Downtown shall be in conformance with the
provisions of Section 507.B, unless specifically stated otherwise within this Chapter.
C. Approval Requirements. Each structure and land use shall be established, constructed,
reconstructed, enlarged, altered, moved or replaced in compliance with the following
requirements:
1. The land use or function must be allowed by the Use Matrix in the Character Area where
the site is located, unless subject to the provisions of Chapter 9, Nonconformities.
2. Development review approval shall be obtained in accordance with the procedures
outlined in Section 507, Development Review Approval.
3. Guidelines, standards, and requirements in this Chapter indicated with the markers (R),
(R*), (P), (T), and (C) shall be applied and enforced in the same manner as indicated in
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 28
Section 507. Items not indicated with an (R), (R*), (P), (T), and (C) shall be treated as
(R).
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 29
Section 1202. Regulating Maps.
A. Character Areas. This map designates the Character Area boundaries for the Downtown
Code:
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 30
B. Maximum Building Height. This map designates maximum building heights within
Downtown.
1. The height limits shown on the following map are the base requirements and do not
include any height bonuses which may be allowed per other sections of this Chapter.
Additional setbacks may apply at the boundary between different height zones, per
Section 1207.E.
2. No building height may exceed the Airport Height Limits provided in Chapter 4, Article
XIII of the Phoenix City Code.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 31
C. Maximum Density. This map designates maximum density limits within Downtown.
1. The density limits shown on the following map are the base requirements and do not
include any density bonuses which may be allowed per other sections of this Chapter.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 32
D. Pedestrian Streets, Side Streets, and Enhanced Corners. This map designates the
streets within Downtown that are either Pedestrian or Side Streets, as referenced elsewhere
within this Chapter. The map also designates Enhanced Corner locations as referenced
elsewhere in this Chapter. Public streets not designated on this map shall be considered
Pedestrian Streets.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 33
E. Buffer Alleys. This map designates Buffer Alleys for which abutting properties must
conform to the requirements outlined elsewhere in this Chapter.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 34
F. Arts, Culture and Small Business Area. This map designates the Arts, Culture, and Small
Business Area referenced elsewhere in this Chapter:
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 35
Section 1203. Land Use Matrix.
A. Applicability. The Land Use Matrix regulates all permitted uses within Downtown.
B. Use Regulations. The regulations governing the uses of land and structures shall be set
forth in the Land Use Matrix, Section 1203.C, and Land Use Conditions in Section 1203.D:
1. Any use not specifically listed in the Land Use Matrix shall not be permitted.
2. All uses indicated with “p” are permitted with the applicable Character Area.
3. All uses indicated with “pc” are permitted with conditions within the applicable Character
Area. The conditions are described in Section 1203.D, Land Use Conditions, by the
associated condition number (e.g. “pc15” is described under Section 1203.D.15).
4. All uses indicated with “up” are permitted within the applicable Character Area only upon
approval of a Use Permit per Section 307.A.7.
5. All uses indicated with “sp” are permitted within the applicable Character Area only upon
approval of a Special Permit per Section 504.1.
6. All uses indicated with “np” are not permitted within the applicable Character Area.
C. Land Use Matrix.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 36
LAND USE CATEGORIES CHARACTER AREAS
Evans Evans
ACTIVE Central Commercial Dntn East McDowell Roosevelt Roosevelt Roosevelt Townsend Van
BioMed BC Churchill Churchill Warehouse
USE Park Corridors Gateway Evergreen Corridor East North South Park Buren
East West
RESIDENTIAL USES
Boarding House pc1 pc1 sp, pc1, pc1, 13 pc1 pc1 pc1 pc1 pc1, 13 pc1, 13 sp, pc1, up, pc1, 13 pc1, 13 pc1 pc1
13 13
Community Residence Home pc29 pc29 pc29 pc29 pc29 pc29 pc29 pc29 pc29 pc29 pc29 pc29 pc29 pc29 pc29
Dwelling Unit, Multi-Family p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p
Dwelling Unit, Single-Family, np np p p np p p p p p p p p p np
Detached (including Duplex and
Triplex uses)
Dwelling Unit, Single-Family np np p p np p p p p p p p p p np
Attached
Group Home pc1 pc1 sp, pc1, pc1, 13 pc1 pc1 pc1 pc1 pc1, 13 pc1, 13 sp, pc1, up, pc1, 13 pc1, 13 pc1 pc1
13 13
Group Foster Home p p up p p p p p p p up up p p p
Live-Work x p p pc11, 15 p p p p p p p np p p p p
Subdivision, Single-Family Infill np np pc27 pc27 np pc27 pc27 pc27 pc27 pc27 pc27 pc27 pc27 pc27 np
Accessory to Residential Uses Only:
Accessory Dwelling Unit np np pc31 pc31 np pc31 pc31 pc31 pc31 pc31 pc31 pc31 pc31 pc31 np
Home Occupations pc32 pc32 pc32 pc32 pc32 pc32 pc32 pc32 pc32 pc32 pc32 pc32 pc32 pc32 pc32
ASSEMBLY USES
Assembly, General x p p np p p up p p p up np np p p p
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 37
LAND USE CATEGORIES CHARACTER AREAS
Evans Evans
ACTIVE Central Commercial Dntn East McDowell Roosevelt Roosevelt Roosevelt Townsend Van
BioMed BC Churchill Churchill Warehouse
USE Park Corridors Gateway Evergreen Corridor East North South Park Buren
East West
Day Care (Adult Day Care Center x p p pc13, 15 p p pc13, 15 p p p p pc13, 15 pc13, 15 p p p
and Child Care), Nursery School
Religious Assembly x p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p
School x p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p
School, Commercial x p p np p p p p p p up np up p p p
GENERAL RETAIL SALES AND RELATED SERVICE USES
Artist Studio/Gallery x p p pc4, 6, p p* pc4, 6, 17 p* p* p pc4, 6, 17* np pc4, 6, 17* p p p
Bakery x p p np p p up p p p p np up p p p
Commercial Recreation x p p np p p np p p p p np np p p p
Farmers Market x pc26 pc26 np pc26 pc26 pc26 pc26 pc26 pc26 pc26 np pc26 pc26 pc26 pc26
Garden Center, Plant Nursery x np np np p p p p p p p np p p p p
Pawn Shop x up np np up up np up up up up np np up up up
Pet Care Facility x up up np up up up up up up up np np up up up
Pet Day Care Facility x up np np p p np p p p up np np p p p
Pet Grooming x up np np p p np p p p up np np p p p
Retail Sales x p p np pc10 p pc7 pc9 pc10 pc10 pc9 np pc9 pc8 p p
Second Hand/Used Merchandise x pc21 pc21 np pc10, 21 pc21 pc7, 21 pc9, 21 pc10, 21 pc10, 21 pc9, 21 np pc9, 21 pc8, 21 pc21 pc21
Sales
FOOD SERVICE AND ENTERTAINMENT
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 38
LAND USE CATEGORIES CHARACTER AREAS
Evans Evans
ACTIVE Central Commercial Dntn East McDowell Roosevelt Roosevelt Roosevelt Townsend Van
BioMed BC Churchill Churchill Warehouse
USE Park Corridors Gateway Evergreen Corridor East North South Park Buren
East West
Bar x up p np up up up up up up up np up up up p
(ac) Outdoor Liquor Service x up up np up up up up up up up np up up up up
Liquor, Retail Sales x up up np up up np up up up up np np up up up
Dance Hall x np up np np np np np np np np np np np up up
Restaurant x p p np p* p* pc7 p* p* p p* np pc2* p p p
Brew Pub, Microbrewery, Winery x up24 up24 np up24 up24 up24 up24 up24 up24 up24 np up24 up24 up24 p24
Accessory Only To Restaurant/Brew Pub/Microbrewery/Winery:
(ac) Outdoor Liquor Service x up p np up up up up up up up np up up up p
(ac) Outdoor Cooking x up pc4, 16 np up up np up up up up np np up up up
(ac) Outdoor Dining x p p np pc3* p* np p* p* p p* np pc3* p pc3 p
(ac) Patron Dancing x p p np p p np p p p p np np p p p
LODGING
Bed and Breakfast x p p up p p p p p p p np p p p p
Hotel/Motel x p p np p p p p p p p np up p p p
HEALTH AND SUPPORT SERVICES
Clinic, Medical or Dental x p p np p p p p p p up np up p p p
Community Residence Center x p p sp p p p p p p p sp up p p p
Hospice x p p sp p p p p p p p sp up p p p
Hospital x p p np p p up p p p p np up p p p
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 39
LAND USE CATEGORIES CHARACTER AREAS
Evans Evans
ACTIVE Central Commercial Dntn East McDowell Roosevelt Roosevelt Roosevelt Townsend Van
BioMed BC Churchill Churchill Warehouse
USE Park Corridors Gateway Evergreen Corridor East North South Park Buren
East West
Laboratory, Medical, Dental or p p np up p up p p up up np up up up up
Clinical
Laboratory, Research p p np up up up up up up up np up up up p
Medical or Dental Office x p p np p p p p p p p np p p p p
Nursing Home or Assisted Living x p p sp p p p p p p p sp up p p p
Center
Veterinary Office x p p np p p p p p p p np up p p p
INDUSTRIAL AND MANUFACTURING USES
Building Materials np np np np np np np np np np np np np up p
Contractor’s Yards np up np np np np np np np np np np np up up
Manufacturing - Artisan np np np p np np np np np np np np np p p
Manufacturing - Light np np np p np np np np np np np np np p p
Manufacturing - General np np np np np np np np np np np np np np p
Manufacturing - Heavy np np np np np np np np np np np np np np np
OFFICE AND PROFESSIONAL USES
Financial institutions x p p np p p up p p p p np up p p p
General Office x p p np p p p p p p p np up p p p
Professional Office x p p np p p p p p p p pc19 p p p p
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 40
SERVICES
Appliance Repair x pc4, 6, np np pc4, 6, 17 pc4, 6, np pc4, 6, pc4, 6, pc4, 6, 17 pc4, 6, 17 np np pc4, 6, 17 p p
17 17 17 17
Business Services x p p np p p np p p p p np np p p p
Personal Services x p p np p p np p p p p np p p p p
Tattoo/Body-Piercing Studio x p p np p p np p p p sp np np np p p
STORAGE AND WHOLESALING USES
Self Service Storage Facility sp np np p sp np np sp sp sp np np np p p
Storage/Warehousing (indoor) np np np sp np np np np np np np np np sp sp
Wholesale Sales np np np up np np np np np np np np np up up
UTILITY AND TRANSPORTATION USES
Motor Vehicle Rentals x up pc12 np up pc12 np sp sp sp sp np np sp up up
Motor Vehicle Sales (New) and x sp pc12 np pc12 pc12 np sp sp sp sp np np sp pc12 pc12
Leasing
Motor Vehicle Service Station, x np sp np up19 np np np np up19 np np np np sp np
Fuel Sales
Motor Vehicle Service and Repair, x np np np np np np np np np np np np np sp np
Minor
Motor Vehicle Washing np np np np np np np np np np np np np np np
Bus Terminal np sp np np np np np np np np np np np np sp
Public Utility Buildings and pc28 pc28 pc28 pc28 pc28 pc28 pc28 pc28 pc28 pc28 pc28 pc28 pc28 pc28 pc28
Facilities
ACCESSORY USES AND FACILITIES
Accessory Structure (not ADU) np np p p np p p p p p p p p p np
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 41
Adult Day Care Home up p up p p p p p p p up p p p p
Dependent Care Facility up p up p p pc14 p p p p up pc14 p p p
Drive-Through np np np pc19, 20 np np np np pc19, 20 np np np np np np
Helistop/Heliport sp sp np sp sp np np sp sp sp np np np sp sp
Home Occupation as per Section p p p p* p* p* p* p* p* p* p p* p p p
608.E.27
Outdoor Crafting of Art up up up p22* up* up p22* p22* p22 p22* up np up up p22
Outdoor Display/Sales x up up np p up up up up up up np up up p p
Outdoor Storage np np np p np np np np np np np np np p p
Outdoor Entertainment x up pc4, np up* pc5, 16, up pc5, 16, pc5, 16, up up* np up* up pc4, 16, pc4, 16, 23
16, 23 18, 23* 18, 23* 18, 23* 23
Pocket Shelter (Accessory to pc13, 25 pc13, pc13, 25 pc13, 25 pc13, 25 pc13, 25 pc13, 25 pc13, 25 pc13, 25 pc13, 25 pc13, 25 pc13, 25 pc13, 25 pc13, pc13, 25
Religious Assembly Only) 25 25
Repair and/or Storage Facilities up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up
(Accessory to Public Utility
Building and Facilities Only)
Storage np np np p np np np np np np np np np p p
Valet Parking pc30 pc30 pc30 pc30 pc30 pc30 pc30 pc30 pc30 pc30 pc30 pc30 pc30 pc30 pc30
Local Food Production
Community Garden up up up up up up up up up up np up up up up
Home Produce Stand x np np up np np up np np np np np up np np up
Interim Uses
Interim Vacant Land Uses p p p p p p p p p p up p up p p
Environmental Remediation up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 42
Surface parking up up np np up np up up np up np np np up up
Civic Event p p np np np np np np np np np np np np p
LAND USE KEY: p=permitted use, pc=permitted with conditions (see numbered footnote for conditions), up=use permit, sp=special permit,
np=not permitted
* = For properties within the Arts, Culture, and Small Business Area (see map in Section 1202.G), please refer to the additional regulations
outlined in Section 1207.C. If a regulation of Section 1207.C conflicts with the provisions of this Land Use Matrix, the more permissive regulation
shall apply.
Note: Alcohol sales and service on properties within an Entertainment District designated by the City Council pursuant to Section 4-207, Arizona
Revised Statutes, must also comply with Section 307(A)(17) of the Zoning Ordinance.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 43
D. Land Use Conditions. The following shall apply to uses that are permitted with conditions
(pc) as indicated with a number that corresponds with the Land Use Matrix in Section
1203.C:
Spacing:
1. No use shall be located on a lot with a property line within 1,320 feet of the same type of
use as measured in a straight line in any direction of the lot line of another such use.
Separation:
2. The use shall not be located within 50 feet of a Buffer Alley as measured from the
exterior walls of a building or portion thereof in which the use is conducted to the right-of-
way line of the Buffer Alley.
3. The use shall not be located within 25 feet of a Buffer Alley as measured from the
portion of the property on which the use is conducted to the right-of-way line of the
Buffer Alley.
Environmental Quality:
4. Noise, odor, dust, gas, heat, smoke, glare or vibration shall not be emitted at any time by
the use that exceeds the general or ambient level by uses immediately off site as
compared at the parcel boundary.
5. No amplified music or loudspeakers may be used outside after 8:00 p.m. on Sundays
and after 10:00 p.m. on Fridays and Saturdays, unless a use permit is obtained.
6. The noise level, measured at any point on the received property, shall not exceed 55
dBa unless a use permit is obtained. An occurrence where the sound level increases up
to 60 dBa for five continuous seconds or less shall not be deemed a violation of this
section as long as there are no more than five occurrences within an hour-long interval.
Maximum Size:
7. The use shall not exceed 2,500 square feet of building area.
8. The use shall not exceed 5,000 square feet of building area per tenant, unless a use
permit is obtained.
9. The use shall not exceed 10,000 square feet of building area, unless a use permit is
obtained.
10. The use shall not exceed 25,000 square feet of lot area.
11. The use shall not exceed 25 percent of the total under roof area, unless a use permit is
obtained to enlarge to a maximum of 50 percent of the total under roof area.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 44
12. The use shall not include more than ten display vehicles.
Maximum Persons:
13. The use may not be conducted for more than ten persons.
14. The use may not be conducted for more than 12 persons.
15. The use may not employ more than one nonresident person.
Hours of Operation:
16. The use is limited to Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays only, UNLESS A USE PERMIT IS
OBTAINED FOR OTHER DAYS OF THE WEEK.
17. The use may not be conducted between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.,
UNLESS A USE PERMIT IS OBTAINED TO EXTEND THE HOURS.
18. The use may only be conducted between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 12:00 midnight on
Fridays and Saturdays and between 10:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on Sundays, unless a
use permit is obtained to extend the hours.
Location:
19. The use may only occur on a site that is adjoining an arterial street which is not a light-
rail street.
20. Drive-through windows shall not be located within a Frontage Zone, nor drive-through
queuing lanes, which also must be screened from the view from the right-of-way unless
approval is obtained from the Design Review Committee.
21. Used/second hand merchandise cannot be received or processed at a site in Downtown
for sale at another site. No outdoor sales or displays allowed.
22. Outdoor crafting of art subject to the following:
a. Must be associated with an enclosed business when the subject parcel abuts an
arterial or collector street.
b. Storage of materials associated with the crafting area shall not exceed eight feet in
height and shall be limited to the rear or side yard.
c. Storage area shall be fully screened with a solid wall or landscaping.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 45
d. Storage of materials associated with the crafting area exceeding eight feet in height
shall be subject to obtaining a use permit in accordance with the provisions of the
Zoning Administrator section of the Zoning Ordinance.
23. Outdoor entertainment, subject to the following:
a. Outdoor event or performances are open to the public.
b. The outdoor event or performance must be presented by an existing business on the
property.
c. The business’s regularly stocked items may be displayed outdoors and be available
for purchase during the event or performance. Payment for all items shall occur
indoors. No other items may be displayed for sale outdoors during the event or
performance.
24. The facility shall be licensed by the State as a producer, domestic microbrewery or
domestic farm winery.
25. Drug, alcohol, other substance abuse or mental health rehabilitation programs shall not
be allowed as part of the shelter services.
26. Farmers markets, subject to the following:
a. Obtaining an administrative temporary use permit (ATUP) in accordance with the
provisions of Section 708 if no food or beverage is dispensed from a vehicle.
b. Obtaining a use permit in accordance with the provisions of Section 307 if food or
beverage is dispensed from a vehicle.
c. On-site operational conditions and improvements may be stipulated as a condition of
an ATUP or use permit approval.
27. Single-family infill subdivision, per Section 608.F.6 and Section 614, Table 614.B, except
as modified below:
a. Historic Preservation designated properties or properties in historic districts cannot
use the single-family infill development option.
b. Maximum height: as per height map, Section 1202.B.
c. Maximum density: as per density map, Section 1202.C.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 46
d. Maximum lot coverage: 100 percent per townhome lot; overall subdivision lot
coverage per applicable Character Area.
e. Frontage Requirements: as per the applicable Character Area; or if lots front on a
something other than a Frontage Zone, per the regulations of Section 608.F.6 and
Section 614, Table B, Column D.
f. Setbacks:
(1) Perimeter setbacks (interior and street frontage): per the applicable Character
Area; or if lots front on a dedicated alley with no Frontage Zone, minimum 10 feet
setback.
(2) Individual lot front (not on a perimeter): 0 feet.
(3) Individual lot side and rear: 0 feet or the required perimeter setback, whichever
is greater.
g. Allowed uses: single-family attached dwelling units and home occupations per
Section 608, except that units fronting a perimeter street (not an alley) may have
additional uses as permitted per the applicable Character Area. Single-family
detached units are permitted for no more than 20% of the units in an SFI
development to allow for variety and efficiency of design.
h. Parking and loading: per Section 1206, except that one space per dwelling unit is
required to be covered.
i. Design: units adjacent to perimeter streets shall provide primary entrances facing
and accessible from the street. No garages or carports are allowed to face perimeter
streets. (R*)
j. All subdivisions must comply with the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance
(Chapter 32 of the City Code), as may be modified by the Subdivision Committee to
further the goals of this Chapter and the applicable Character Area.
28. Public utility buildings and facilities shall be fully screened and subject to the following:
a. Mixed use opportunities should be prioritized for locating utility buildings and
facilities. The applicant shall submit a written analysis to the Planning and
Development Director or his/her designee of possible mixed use opportunities to
allow for an integrated development project that minimizes the visual impact of the
proposed utility. (R*)
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 47
b. All public utility buildings and facilities subject to the provisions of this land use
condition shall be reviewed and acted upon by the Design Review Committee as a
Design Alternative Appeal, per the provisions of Section 1224.A.
c. The applicant must hold a public neighborhood meeting and send written notification
of the public neighborhood meeting and the DRC hearing date to real property
owners and to neighborhood associations registered with the City pursuant to the
DRC process handout.
d. The use cannot be located on a light rail street or adjoining Hance Park, or only
separated by a street from Hance Park, unless the mixed use opportunity outlined in
Section 1203.D.28.a is satisfied.
e. For the required street frontage(s), the Design Review Committee (DRC) may
approve one of the following:
(1) A wall designed to mimic the frontage type which meets the intent of both the
applicable character area and the streetscape standards, and that appears to be
a conforming building as viewed from street.
(2) A creative use or frontage design alternative that surrounds the public utility
building and facilities, as determined by the DRC as appropriate for scale of the
area.
(3) A micro-park, which shall include at least three of the following elements, as
indicated below, and as determined by the DRC as appropriate for scale of the
area:
A minimum of two of the following installations:
(a) Recreational amenities such as but not limited to a single basketball hoop,
swing, and/or climbing equipment.
(b) Landscape areas designed to create outdoor rooms or useful spaces, which
may include extensive hardscape, decorative paving and/or artificial turf.
(c) Shade trees or shade structures.
(d) Lighting and seating designed to discourage camping.
In addition, a minimum of one of the following more significant scale installations:
(e) A local public art component and/or wall displays for local public arts
organizations.
(f) An educational component that describes the history or setting.
(g) Facilities for pop-up retail, restaurant, farmers markets, and/or public events,
which may include programming that changes seasonally, if permitted in the
character area.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 48
(h) Facilities for pets, which may include water sources, enclosures for off-leash
activity, and stations for pet washing.
f. When considering an alternative frontage proposal in accordance with Section
1203.D.28.e, the DRC is authorized to provide relief from other Frontage and
Streetscape Zone regulations, including those indicated as (R).
Dispersal and Establishment of a Registered Use:
29. Community residence homes, subject to the following:
a. The home has no more than five residents, not including staff (unless permitted by
Section 36-582(A), Arizona Revised Statutes); or
b. For a home with six to ten residents, not including staff, the following conditions shall
apply:
(1) Such home shall be registered with, and administratively verified by, the Planning
and Development Department Director’s designee as to compliance with the
standards of this section as provided in Section 701.
(2) No community residence home shall be located on a lot with a property line
within 1,320 feet, measured in a straight line in any direction, of the lot line of
another community residence home that has been registered with six to ten
residents.
(3) Disability accommodation from the spacing requirement may be requested by an
applicant per Section 701.E.3.
Accessory Uses:
30. Valet Parking, subject to the following:
a. Valet parking is permitted by right if accessory to a permitted use or a use permitted
with conditions, so long as all of the conditions are complied with. For primary uses
subject to approval through a use permit or special permit, valet parking is permitted
as an accessory use only if the valet parking is specifically approved as part of the
use permit or special permit.
b. Valet parking spaces for a use located on a different site than for which the parking is
to be provided is allowed only if the following three conditions are met:
(1) Both the site where the parking is to be located, and the site for which the
parking is provided, are allowed the use(s) for which the parking is to be
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 49
provided. For sites with uses permitted by use permit or special permit,
compliance with Section 1203.D.30.a is required.
(2) The site on which the valet parking is to be provided also has a primary use, or is
otherwise permitted to have valet parking.
(3) The site where the valet parking is to be located has provided parking spaces in
excess of any required minimum parking for the subject site. This provision does
not grant permission to provide more parking spaces than the maximum parking
spaces allowed for uses located on the site.
c. Valet parking facilities, when provided, must comply with the additional development
regulations of Section 1206.G.
31. Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). Two ADUs are permitted on a lot which has only one
other single-family detached dwelling unit. A third ADU is permitted only when at least
one ADU qualifies as low-income housing and the net lot size is a minimum of 43,560
square feet.
32. Home Occupations, subject to the provisions of Section 608.E.27. Properties subject to
the provisions of Arts, Culture, and Small Business Area have additional permissions, as
outlined in Section 1207.M.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 50
Section 1204. Streetscape and Frontage Zones.
A. Applicability.
1. Streetscape Zone. This is the area located between the curb and the property line
located within a dedicated street, of a minimum depth as stated in the Frontage and
Streetscape Zone Matrix for each individual Character Area.
a. The minimum depth required is inclusive of sidewalk provided within the Streetscape
Zone.
2. Frontage Zone. This is the portion of a private lot or parcel located directly adjacent to
a Streetscape Zone, of a depth as stated in the Frontage and Streetscape Zone Matrix
for each individual Character Area.
a. The depth of the Frontage Zone is measured from and perpendicular to the property
line abutting the street.
b. If the Street Transportation Department allows a sidewalk easement to be dedicated
in lieu of required ROW based upon the adopted Street Classification Map, and/or a
public utility easement is dedicated, the Frontage Zone depth shall be measured
from the back of the easement. If both easements are dedicated over the same area,
the setback shall be from the larger easement.
c. Frontage Zones and associated development regulations apply only to the first 25
feet of the development as measured vertically above the finished grade.
d. Frontage Zones do not apply where parcels abut dedicated alleys.
3. Combined Dimensions of Streetscape Zone and Frontage Zone.
a. In cases where the existing Streetscape Zone does not meet the minimum depth
required, the Frontage Zone depth shall be increased by the same amount as the
deficiency in the Streetscape Zone depth, unless the Streetscape Zone can be
brought into compliance within the existing ROW, or by dedication of additional
ROW as approved by the Street Transportation Department.
b. When the minimum Frontage Zone depth is 15 feet or greater, Planning and
Development staff have the authority to reduce the Frontage Zone depth by up to 5
feet so long as the Streetscape Zone is increased by the same amount.
c. Additional easement dedications may be required if public sidewalks, public
utilities, or other public amenities are provided within the Frontage Zone. (T)
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 51
Figure 1204.1 Non-Residential Streetscape and Frontage Zone (example)
Figure 1204.2 Residential Streetscape and Frontage Zone (example)
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 52
B. Streetscape Zone Standards.
1. Intent. The Streetscape Zone is the public realm, and the area from which the public
may access private properties via multiple transportation modes.
a. Along Pedestrian Streets, the Streetscape Zone area should be designed primarily
for pedestrians, providing shade, easy access to building entrances, and
complementary landscaping.
b. Along Side Streets, the Streetscape Zone area is expected to have automobile
access, parking and loading access, as well as service areas adjoining them, while
still serving pedestrians.
2. Structures and Projections within the Streetscape Zone. Structures shall not be
constructed or provided within the Streetscape Zone, except where specifically permitted
within this Chapter. Any allowed structural projections into public rights-of-way may only
be installed upon issuance of an encroachment permit as administered by the City of
Phoenix, and if applicable, approval from affected public utility companies. (T)
a. Cantilevered structural shade elements projecting from the building are not subject to
minimum setback requirements and are allowed to project into the public right-of-way
(with approval of an encroachment permit) so long as the structures do not preclude
the installation of required street trees. The shade elements shall be removable,
unless otherwise approved in writing by all affected City departments and utilities. (T)
b. Stairs/steps/accessible ramps to building entrances (other than those required for
public street crossings or existing grade differentials within the public right-of-way)
are not permitted within the Streetscape Zone. Retaining walls within the
Streetscape Zone are regulated by Section 1204.D. (T)
c. Transformers and other mechanical equipment are not permitted to be located within
the Streetscape Zone. (T)
3. Uses permitted within the Streetscape Zone. No uses are permitted with the
Streetscape Zone unless specifically permitted by other provisions of this Chapter, with
the following exceptions:
a. Development regulations for uses permitted within the Streetscape Zone shall be the
same as those provided for the adjacent Frontage Zone, unless specific regulations
for the use or structure located within the Streetscape Zone are provided elsewhere
within this Chapter.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 53
b. Uses which are permitted by right or with conditions for a site per Section 1203, Land
Use Matrix, that are not specifically permitted to be conducted within the right-of-way
per other provisions of this Chapter, may be permitted within the right-of-way
adjacent to the site with the issuance of an encroachment permit approved by the
Street Transportation Department, if the following are complied with:
(1) The use of the right-of-way does not preclude compliance with all other
regulations regarding the Streetscape Zone, including but not limited to the
minimum sidewalk width, and
(2) The proposed use complies with the development regulations required of the use
when located within the adjacent Frontage Zone.
(3) The Street Transportation Department has no other objections to or conflicts with
the request.
c. Uses which are permitted with approval of a use permit or special permit for a site
per Section 1203, Land Use Matrix, that are not specifically permitted to be
conducted within the right-of-way per other provisions of this Chapter, may be
permitted within the right-of-way adjacent to the site with the issuance of an
encroachment permit approved by the Street Transportation Department if the
following are complied with:
(1) The use of the right-of-way does not preclude compliance with all other
regulations regarding the Streetscape Zone, including but not limited to the
minimum sidewalk width, and
(2) The use of the right-of-way is specifically shown and reviewed as part of the use
permit or special permit approval.
(3) The Street Transportation Department has no other objections to or conflicts with
the request.
4. Private pedestrian and bicycle amenities being provided for residents or on-site users
should not be located within the public right-of-way. (P)
Rationale: Non-structural amenities (such as benches, lit bollards, bicycle racks, or
public art) should not cause obstructions to pedestrian routes, prevent proper installation
or clearances for required landscape, or private utility lines in the Streetscape Zone.
Amenities should instead be provided within the Frontage Zone whenever possible. This
does not apply to amenities specifically provided for public use.
5. In the Roosevelt North, Roosevelt South, and Roosevelt East character areas, where
there is an existing Streetscape Zone larger than required by the applicable Character
Area, a private development shall not reduce the Streetscape Zone by moving the curb
and widening the street to provide new on-street parking, loading, or drop off areas: (R*)
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 54
Rationale: The Roosevelt Character areas retain a significant number of historic single-
family homes, and many blocks have large areas between the curb and the sidewalk
historically used for landscaping. These areas should not be reduced for vehicle parking,
passenger loading, or good/services loading, unless approved by both Street
Transportation and the Design Review Committee.
6. On-Street Parking. When on-street parking is provided abutting a site, a minimum 4-foot
wide concrete walkway may be provided adjacent to the raised curb in addition to the
required sidewalk, so long as it does not preclude installation of required street trees.
The walkway shall provide paved connections at reasonable intervals to the public
sidewalk, and be constructed to the same standards as the public sidewalk. (T)
Rationale: Persons exiting a car parked adjacent to a curb should not have to step into
a landscape or other areas unsuitable for pedestrians.
7. Sidewalks.
a. Location. The required public sidewalk shall be located within the Streetscape Zone,
subject to the following:
(1) On a Side Street, the sidewalk may be attached to the curb, unless it is a
designated Arterial Street. (T)
(2) On a Pedestrian Street, the sidewalk shall be detached from the curb and the
required street trees located between the curb and sidewalk, unless a Technical
Appeal is approved to allow an attached sidewalk when abutting on-street
parking. (T)
(3) When a required sidewalk is approved to be attached to the curb, the sidewalk
shall be a minimum of 8 feet wide, regardless of the Character Area requirement.
(T)
b. Elevation. The required public sidewalk should be constructed no higher than six
inches above the immediately adjacent street top of curb. Additional elevation may
be permitted without a Technical Appeal when the area between the back of curb
and sidewalk has a slope no steeper than 10:1 and no retaining walls are provided.
(T)
Rationale: Most of the sidewalks in Downtown are existing and historic. Sidewalks
reconstructed higher than 6” above the adjacent top of curb can make access from
on-street parking difficult; can provide challenges with ADA compliance; can cause
steep slopes within adjacent landscape areas which encourage erosion and
discourage the growth of plants and trees; and can interrupt the visual and historic
continuity of the neighborhood. If the finished floor of the building(s) are higher than
six inches above the top of curb, ramps and/or steps should be provided from the
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 55
sidewalk to the building entries, rather than raising the sidewalk, unless it can be
done in a very gradual manner.
c. Planning and Development staff may allow a decrease in the minimum required
sidewalk width of up to one foot in the case of conflicts with existing utilities other
existing obstacles which cannot otherwise be avoided. (T)
d. The required sidewalk shall be clear of all obstacles for the full minimum required
sidewalk width. Approved amenities and landscaping (including tree grates) shall
only be allowed within portions of the sidewalk wider than the minimum required. (T)
e. Sidewalks located within the public right-of-way shall be constructed using materials
and methods approved by the Street Transportation Department. (T)
f. Where setback sidewalks exist on a block face where there is an HP designated
property, the sidewalk should remain within the historic alignment for that block face
and not be offset by more than one foot. (P)
Rationale: Historic streetscapes are generally defined by a consistent sidewalk and
landscape area along a single block face. These streetscapes are an important part
of the Downtown Phoenix character and should be maintained whenever possible.
g. The required sidewalk should not have jogs and offsets, and should be in a straight
line unless navigation around existing conflicts in the Streetscape Zone is
unavoidable. (P)
Rationale: Pedestrians of all capabilities should be able to navigate sidewalks easily
and not have unnecessary diversions around landscape, amenities, transformers, or
similar potential obstructions.
C. Frontage Zone Standards.
1. Intent. The Frontage Zone is the interface between the public and the private realm,
and the area where public amenities (including but not limited to pedestrian and bicycle
amenities, outdoor dining, public courtyards, public art, etc.) should be located.
2. Structures within the Frontage Zone. Structures shall not be constructed within the
Frontage Zone, except where specifically permitted by this Chapter.
a. For wall/fence requirements, refer to Section 1207.D and any applicable Frontage
Element regulations.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 56
b. For retaining wall requirements, refer to Section 1204.D and any applicable Frontage
Element regulations.
3. Amenities and Projections within the Frontage Zone. The following items may
project or be constructed within the Frontage Zone, but no closer than the minimum
setback as stated in the Frontage and Streetscape Zone Matrix for each individual
Character Area, unless specifically permitted elsewhere in this Chapter: (R*)
a. Frontage Elements, as allowed by the Character Area.
b. Exterior stairwells constructed as part of the building and not part of the hardscape.
c. Parking spaces within structured parking and/or located internal to the building and
screened from view of the Frontage Zone.
The following items are permitted anywhere within the Frontage Zone and are not
required to meet minimum setbacks, so long as they do not preclude installation of
required street trees and shading requirements:
d. Outdoor dining patio or bar area, covered or open (if a permitted use).
e. Bicycle parking and amenities.
f. Pedestrian amenities.
g. Exterior art installations.
h. Passenger loading zones.
i. Valet parking facilities, subject to the provisions of Section 1206.G.
j. Drainage facilities.
k. Mechanical equipment/systems, so long as a minimum 5 feet separation from the
public sidewalk is provided.
l. Basements/utility vaults.
m. Cantilevered awnings/shade structures.
n. ADA ramps/pathways.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 57
4. Minimum Building Frontage Requirements.
a. The length of each building façade constructed within or abutting the Frontage Zone
shall be no less than required by the Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix for the
applicable Character Area and street section, unless otherwise approved by the DRC
as a Design Alternative per Section 1224.A.
b. The minimum building frontage requirement shall be calculated as a percentage of
the length of the frontage property line, and the façade shall be measured by a line
parallel with the frontage property line. For the purposes of this calculation only, the
following may be subtracted from the length of the frontage property line:
(1) The width of driveways at the frontage property line, so long as the driveways are
otherwise compliant with this Chapter.
(2) The portion of required visibility triangles which are deeper than the applicable
Frontage Zone depth.
c. All portions of the building façade abutting or located within the Frontage Zone,
including Frontage Elements, may be used to calculate the required minimum
building frontage. Certain Frontage Elements may provide additional flexibility in
calculating the required minimum building frontage, as stated elsewhere in this
Chapter.
d. Underground structures cannot be counted toward meeting minimum building
frontage requirements.
5. Hardscape Guidelines—Frontage Zones.
a. Alternative paving materials should be used when possible within the Frontage Zone
to reduce the urban heat island effect, and to allow natural drainage and filtration. (T)
b. Permeable paving, porous concrete or similar material should be installed adjacent
to tree wells. The design should ensure adequate watering and root growth. (T)
c. Alternative materials such as brick pavers, permeable concrete pavers, granite and
flagstone should be encouraged on private walkways and patio/gathering areas. (T)
D. Grading and Drainage Requirements—Streetscape and Frontage Zones.
1. The maximum slope of any landscape or non-hardscape area located within the
Streetscape Zone is 10:1. (T)
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 58
2. The maximum grade differential of the Frontage Zone from the adjacent Streetscape
Zone is 30 inches, unless specifically permitted elsewhere in this Chapter. (T)
3. Retaining walls are not allowed within the Streetscape Zone. (T)
4. Retaining walls up to 36 inches in height are allowed within the Frontage Zone, unless
greater height is specifically permitted elsewhere in this Chapter. (T)
5. If the required finished floor elevation is at a height which will require stairs or ADA
ramps to connect building entries with the sidewalk, or will require a retaining wall
exceeding heights permitted for Streetscape and Frontage Zones, the depth of the
Frontage Zone may be increased to the depth required to avoid steps or ramps (if
desired). (T)
E. Design Requirements—Frontage Zones.
1. Along Pedestrian Streets, buildings facades facing Frontage Zones shall incorporate at
least one of the Frontage Elements allowed by the applicable Character Area into the
façade for a minimum of 75% of the required building frontage for each Frontage Zone,
unless a Design Alternative is approved by the Design Review Committee per Section
1224.A. (R*)
2. Along Side Streets, buildings facades facing Frontage Zones should incorporate at least
one of the Frontage Elements allowed by the applicable Character Area into the façade
for a minimum of 50% of the required building frontage for each Frontage Zone. (P)
Rationale: Appropriate Frontage Elements for have been determined through extensive
staff analysis and community input for each Character Area, as well as the specific
streets within each area. Facades located along designated Side Streets may be
granted additional flexibility in application of this design requirement.
3. The portion of a building facade adjacent to a Frontage Zone which does not comply
with a Frontage Element design should have a level of trim and finish compatible with
the quality and design of the remainder of the Frontage Zone façade(s). (P)
Rationale: The portion of facades not required to meet the minimum building frontage,
or the portion which does project into the Frontage Zone should still consist of high
quality materials, and be integrated with the design of the remainder of the façade.
Unfinished surfaces and blank walls should not be provided where visible from a
Frontage Zone.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 59
4. The areas of a Frontage Zone not adjacent to or occupied by Frontage Elements shall
be improved as follows:
a. Landscape shall be provided in accordance with Section 1204.G. (T)
b. Seating should be provided. Seating may consist of installed benches or removable
furniture. This shall not apply within the Roosevelt North, Roosevelt South, and East
Evergreen character areas. (P)
Rationale: Character areas consisting mainly of traditional single-family homes and
historic designations should maintain the residential character of private front yards
when possible.
c. Other features which attract and engage pedestrians should be provided, such as
(but not limited to) bicycle parking and amenities, exterior art installations, additional
structural shade, etc. (P)
Rationale: the area of a Frontage Zone not adjacent to a Frontage Element, where
conflicts with primary entrances are less likely to occur, should have other features
which encourage use by pedestrians and cyclists.
5. Building entrances shall face toward the street in order to meet the intent of activating
the public realm. Entrances from a permitted Frontage Element (such as Forecourt,
Patio, Porch, or Stoop/Doorwell) are exempt from this requirement. (R*)
6. Public building entrances, residential patios/porches, windows, storefronts, outdoor
dining, public gathering areas, exterior art installations, and other similar features should
be located adjacent to Pedestrian Streets. (P)
Rationale: On Pedestrian Streets, adjacent structures should be designed to provide
easy and obvious pedestrian access to the buildings, to encourage pedestrian use.
7. All on-site mechanical equipment, transformers, utility equipment, trash/recycling
receptacles, or similar must be fully screened from view from the Streetscape Zone.
Screening may consist of the following: (P)
a. Green screen.
b. Dense landscaping which provides screening starting from the time of initial
installation.
c. Decorative walls or fences up to 40 inches in height if within the minimum setback
area, or 72” if behind the minimum setback.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 60
d. Underground utility vaults.
e. Along Side Streets only: decorative walls or fences up to 8 feet in height if located at
or beyond the minimum setback.
Rationale: The Streetscape environment should be aesthetically pleasing, and service
equipment/areas should be screened from view whenever possible. If it is simply not
possible, the visual impact should be mitigated by disguising equipment with paint or
other treatments as approved by PDD and any affected utility company.
8. Along Pedestrian Streets, all windows and doors counting toward required glazing
should allow a minimum of 75% of the visible light (as specified by the manufacturer) to
be visible on either side of the window. (P)
9. Along Pedestrian Streets, commercial suites with windows or entrances to Frontage
Zones should be constructed so that a public area of the suite (lobby, reception area,
dining area, or similar) is adjacent to the Frontage Zone. Storage areas, private offices,
kitchens, or other areas restricted to the public/customer use shall not be located
adjacent to doors or windows facing a Pedestrian Street. (P)
Rationale for E.8 and E.9: Frontage Zones along Pedestrian Streets should attract,
engage, and interest pedestrians at the street level and encourage patronage of the
businesses. Opaque or translucent/frosted windows, or views into employee or storage
areas do not meet this intent.
10. Building facades abutting or within a Frontage Zone should be designed to provide a
sense of human scale at the ground level by providing a clear architectural distinction
between the Frontage Zone and all additional stories. (P)
Rationale: Large buildings should provide a transition to a pedestrian scale to make
such areas feel comfortable for pedestrians, without causing a feeling of walking up to
the base of a tall “cliff”.
11. Roof drains shall not be designed to drain across public sidewalks or other pedestrian
walkways. (T)
F. Shade Standards—Streetscape and Frontage Zones.
1. Public and private pedestrian walkways should be shaded (minimum 75 percent at
maturity) for the health, safety, and welfare of pedestrians and to encourage use. (P)
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 61
2. All Streetscape and Frontage Zones should be shaded (50% at maturity) for the health,
safety, and welfare of pedestrians and to encourage use. (P)
Rationale for F.1 and F.2: The design of pedestrian routes and gathering areas, such as
public sidewalks, private walkways, courtyards, plazas, and transit stops, should be
designed with appropriate shading for the health, safety, and welfare of pedestrians and
to mitigate the heat island effect to enhance the pedestrian environment.
3. Shade calculations shall be based on shade cast at the summer solstice at 12:00 noon.
(T)
4. Shade cast from required shade trees, structural shade (canopies/awnings), or shade
cast from a building may be used to comply with the shade requirements of this section.
G. Landscape Requirements—Streetscape and Frontage Zones.
1. Landscape shall be provided, subject to the following:
a. Where there is an existing established streetscape theme, including street trees,
additional trees shall be provided to replace removed or destroyed trees, and/or to
comply with shade requirements. In such cases, the trees shall be of like kind and
size to those provided with the existing streetscape, as approved by the PDD
Landscape Architect. (T)
b. Trees shall be provided for the full length of the Streetscape Zone at a minimum rate
of 20 feet on center, or equivalent groupings as approved by the PDD Landscape
Architect (T).
(1) This requirement does not apply to properties with a maximum of two dwelling
units and no other primary uses.
(2) Trees provided within the Streetscape Zone may be used to comply with the
shade requirements of Section 1204.F.
(3) All trees planted to meet this requirement must be selected from the Tree
Species Matrix, Section 1204.G.5, and allowed for use in the Streetscape Zone,
or match the existing streetscape trees adjacent to the site.
(4) If existing utility conflicts prevent the installation of trees within both the
Streetscape Zone and the Frontage Zone, architecturally or artistically integrated
structural shade may be requested for approval by filing a Technical Appeal.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 62
c. If necessary to avoid existing utility conflicts, required street trees may be provided
within the Frontage Zone within 5 feet of the sidewalk, as approved by PDD. (T)
d. Trees shall be provided within a minimum 5 feet wide landscape area, unless tree
wells (or equivalent) are provided outside of the required minimum sidewalk width to
avoid conflicts with existing utilities or other existing street improvements. (T)
e. When two rows of trees are provided either side of the public sidewalk, the minimum
planting area for each row should be 5’ wide, unless tree wells are approved by the
PDD Landscape Architect (T).
f. Where hardscape is not necessary for pedestrian connections to amenities, drop
off/pickup zones, on-street parking, or similar, shrubs or groundcovers shall be
installed in addition to trees to provide 75% live coverage. This percentage may be
reduced to 50% if bioswales are approved for use within the Streetscape Zone. (T)
g. Unless prohibited by law, palm trees may be installed in the Streetscape Zone in
areas where palm trees have historically been provided in the ROW, in addition to
any required shade trees. Palm trees should be of the same type as existing historic
palm trees and planted in a similar manner/rate as existing on the same block face.
(T)
h. In areas where turf has historically been provided within the Streetscape Zone, turf
may be provided unless otherwise prohibited for use within the ROW by law.
Alternatively, low growing, drought-tolerant green ground covers may instead be
provided, as approved by the PDD Landscape Architect. (T)
i. Artificial turf is not permitted for use within public rights-of-way, and may not be used
to comply with any on-site landscape requirements. It may be used for outdoor
amenity areas which are not required to be landscaped. (T)
2. Tree wells, if permitted, shall be a minimum five feet by five feet, or a two-foot six-inch
radius from the base of the tree. (T)
a. A minimum two inches of decomposed granite, nitrogen stabilized mulch or similar
material shall be installed atop the soil and below the tree grates. (T)
b. The landscape plans shall demonstrate that the soil volume to be provided for each
tree is sufficient for the healthy and successful maturity of type of tree chosen, as
approved by the PDD Landscape Architect. (T)
3. All landscape areas located within the Streetscape Zone shall not exceed a 10:1 slope.
(T)
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 63
4. New underground utility lines or equipment should not be installed where street trees are
required unless other options are not technically feasible, as approved through a
Technical Appeal. (T)
Rationale: The Streetscape and Frontage Zones should provide a pleasant and
comfortable pedestrian experience, of which landscape and shade are of great
importance. If a technical appeal is approved because there is no other technically
feasible option, the appeal should address how required landscape and shade
requirements will still be met.
5. Tree Species Matrix. The following is a list of shade trees permitted for use within
Streetscape and Frontage Zones, as indicated below. Additional tree types may be
requested for approval by filing a Technical Appeal. All trees used within public rights-
of-way must be low-water use/drought-tolerant as approved by the Arizona Department
of Water Resources. (T)
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 64
Tree Species Matrix (Streetscape and Frontage Zones)
Allowed locations
Botanical Name Common Name Public right of
Private property
way (Streetscape
(Frontage Zone)
Zone)
Parkinsonia florida Blue Palo Verde Yes Yes
Pistacia chinensis
Chinese Pistache Yes Yes
(+ hybrids)
Chilopsis linearis Desert Willow Yes Yes
Evergreen Elm,
Ulmus parvifolia
Chinese Evergreen Yes Yes
'Sempervirens'
Elm
Quercus virginiana Heritage Live Oak Yes Yes
Gleditsia triacanthos Honey Locust
Yes Yes
(thornless) (thornless)
Olneya tesota Ironwood Yes Yes
Prosopis spp. Mesquite
Yes Yes
(thornless) (thornless hybrids)
Olea europaea Olive
Yes Yes
(fruitless) (fruitless hybrids)
Sissoo Tree,
Dalbergia sissoo Yes Yes
Indian Rosewood
Fraxinus velutina Arizona Ash
No Yes
(+ hybrids) (varieties)
Acacia farnesiana
Sweet Acacia No Yes
(Acacia smallii)
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 65
Section 1205. Frontage Elements.
The following Frontage elements consist of architectural features, designs, and amenities which
may project within the Frontage Zone, though no closer than the required minimum setback
unless specifically permitted by this Chapter. Please see the Frontage and Streetscape Zone
Matrix for each Character Area for applicable standards, in addition to the Streetscape and
Frontage Zone standards of Section 1204.
A. Active Front Yard (AFY). An Active Front Yard is a frontage element intended for use on
blocks with a high percentage of existing and/or historic single-family or duplex style
residential structures. AFY is not permitted for use on sites with primary uses which are
non-residential, or on residential lots with more than two dwelling units (not including ADUs).
(R*)
1. For sites with HP zoning or designation, both the building elevations and improvements
in the Frontage Zone shall be constructed as approved by Historic Preservation.
2. For sites not zoned or designated HP, buildings and improvements shall be installed in
conformance with Section 507 Tab A II.C.8.5 (Individual Unit Design Standards). If any
of the requirements of Section 507 Tab A II.C.8.5 conflict with provisions of the
Downtown Code, Section 507 Tab A II.C.8.5 requirements shall prevail.
3. Minimum building frontages stated in the Streetscape and Frontage Matrix for each
Character Area do not apply when implementing Active Front Yard standards as a
Frontage Element.
B. Patio (PA). A Patio (previously known as a
“Dooryard”) is a residential frontage element which
incorporates a private outdoor space for each dwelling
unit, and is surrounded by a fence or wall to provide a
separation of the private realm from the adjacent
streetscape.
1. A permanent hardscaped or landscaped area shall
be provided in accordance with the following
standards:
a. Minimum depth: 8 feet. (R*)
b. Minimum area: 64 square feet. (R*)
c. Maximum grade differential: 30 inches above adjacent Streetscape grade. (T)
d. Placement: Adjacent to the individual dwelling unit entry. (R*)
e. Hardscape shall consist of concrete slab, pavers, open grid pavers, wood decking (if
elevated) or equivalent alternative. (T)
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 66
2. Pedestrian access. An opening in the wall/fence, or stairs to the elevated area, shall be
provided for a pedestrian connection to the adjacent streetscape from each Patio. (R*)
3. Separation of public and private realm:
a. A wall/fence of at least 40 inches in height shall be provided around each Patio, up to
a maximum of 72 inches in height as measured from the adjacent streetscape grade.
This maximum height applies only to walls abutting patios and not to other walls
located in the Frontage Zone.
b. The portion of walls or fences above 40 inches in height shall consist of view fencing,
as approved by Planning and Development.
c. Screen walls/fences may be constructed on top of permitted retaining walls, but the
combined height of the retaining wall and screen wall/fence may not exceed 72
inches as measured from the adjacent streetscape grade.
4. Shade. Each Patio shall have a minimum of 50% shade provided either by landscaping
or permanent structural shade. (T)
C. Stoop/Door Well (SD). A Stoop/Door Well is a type
of facade that provides an entryway that is elevated
(Stoop) or depressed (Door Well) to provide
differentiation from the adjacent streetscape. A
Stoop/Door Well is constructed as an integral part of
the building, rather than as a courtyard or patio. It
may or may not have structural shade.
1. A landing area shall be provided for each
Stoop/Door Well in accordance with the following
standards:
a. Minimum depth: 6 feet. (R*)
b. Minimum area: 36 square feet (R*)
c. Maximum grade differential: 60 inches above or below adjacent Streetscape grade.
Retaining walls of up to 66 inches in height may be permitted within the Frontage
Zone when necessary for this Frontage element. (T)
d. Placement: Adjacent to a primary entrance. (R*)
e. Walls/fences, if provided, shall not exceed 40” in height.
2. Pedestrian access. A pedestrian connection to the adjacent Streetscape Zone from each
Stoop/Door Well shall be provided. (R*)
3. Minimum building frontage requirements. If a Stoop/Doorwell is deeper than the
applicable Frontage Zone depth for that street and Character Area, the width of the
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 67
Stoop/Doorwell shall still count towards the minimum building frontage requirement(s),
so long as the front (street side) of the Stoop/Doorwell is located within or abutting the
Frontage Zone. (R*)
D. Porch (PO). A Porch frontage element consists of a
covered structure that is often elevated above street
grade, sheltering an outdoor area deep enough to
ensure usability. A Porch is larger than a Stoop and
is structurally shaded for its entirety. A Porch
provides a transition between the public and private
realm, and creates opportunity for interaction
between neighbors.
1. Each Porch shall meet the following
requirements:
a. Minimum depth: 8 feet. (R*)
b. Minimum area: 96 square feet. (R*)
c. Maximum grade differential: 60 inches above the adjacent Streetscape grade. (R*)
d. Placement: Adjacent to a primary entrance. (R*)
e. Each Porch shall have 100% structural shading. (R*)
f. Porch floor shall consist concrete, stone, metal, wood decking, or equivalent
alternative suitable for outdoor flooring. (T)
g. Walls/fences, if provided, shall not exceed 40” in height.
2. Pedestrian access. A pedestrian connection to the adjacent Streetscape Zone from each
Porch shall be provided. (R*)
3. Minimum building frontage requirements. If a Porch is deeper than the applicable
Frontage Zone depth for that street and Character Area, the width of the Porch shall still
count towards the minimum building frontage requirement(s), so long as the front (street
side) of the Porch is located within or abutting the Frontage Zone. (R*)
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 68
E. Common Entry (CE). A Common Entry is a building façade
design element which includes ground floor entrance(s) to a
shared lobby/hallway, which in turns provides direct access
to residential units and/or office suites on all floors. This
frontage element is generally not intended for use with
frontages consisting primarily of retail suites. Elevations
should include a large number of transparent windows and
frequent building entrances to create visual interest from the
adjacent public sidewalk, though to a lesser extent than
Storefront. This frontage element should also include
cantilevered canopies or awnings.
1. Primary entrance requirements.
a. A minimum of one primary entrance leading to a shared lobby/hallway is required
from each frontage on a Pedestrian Street. For sites located at an Enhanced
Corner, the corner building entry may serve as the required primary entrance for both
street frontages. (R*)
b. Additional primary entrances are required on each Pedestrian Street frontage at the
rate of one per 100 feet of building frontage. Each additional primary entrance
(beyond the minimum one per street frontage) may provide access to either a shared
lobby/hallway or an individual commercial/office suite. (R*)
c. Stoops or doorwells may be provided as part of any Common Entry frontage, even if
Stoop/Doorwell is not a permitted Frontage Element per the applicable Streetscape
and Frontage Zone Matrix, so long as they comply with all Stoop/Doorwell
development standards.
2. Glazing requirements:
a. Location: The area between 3 feet and 8 feet above the adjacent sidewalk grade.
b. Minimum amount: 50% of each required building frontage, which may include
primary entrances if the doors are glass and meet visibility requirements. (R*)
c. Glazing requirements shall be calculated as a percentage of the Common Entry
frontage element length.
d. Glazing shall allow a minimum of 75% of the visible light (as specified by the
manufacturer) to be visible on either side of the window. This includes the doors for
any primary entrances located within the Common Entry frontage element. (R*)
3. Shade Requirements. A cantilevered canopy, fixed awning, or retractable awning shall
be provided along each Common Entry frontage element, in accordance with Section
1204.B.2, and the following:
a. Minimum depth: 5 feet. (R*)
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 69
b. Minimum length: 50% of the Common Entry frontage element length.
c. Minimum clear height: 10 feet, if not required greater clearance per Section
1204.B.2. (T)
4. Walls/Fencing.
a. Retaining walls may be provided as otherwise permitted by this Chapter. A
railing/view fence is permitted on top of a retaining wall to a height of 40” if required
for pedestrian safety due to the grade differential.
F. Forecourt (FC). A Forecourt is a pedestrian-oriented
design element, where a courtyard that is open to the
sky and the street (or two streets if located on a
corner) is provided. The Forecourt may be used as an
entry area and shared garden space for residential
uses, or as additional shopping, seating, or gathering
areas adjacent to and accessible from the street for
commercial uses. Art installations and other
pedestrian amenities are also appropriate uses within
a Forecourt.
1. Mechanical equipment, transformers, trash and
recycling containers, and vehicular uses are not permitted within a Forecourt.
2. Minimum building frontage requirements. If a Forecourt is deeper than the applicable
Frontage Zone depth for that street and Character Area, the width of the Forecourt shall
still count towards the minimum building frontage requirement(s), so long as compliance
with other Streetscape and Frontage Zone requirements (including but not limited to
slopes, landscaping, and amenities) is demonstrated.
3. Minimum glazing: 50% of the area measured between 3 and 8 feet above grade for the
portion of the building façade abutting each Forecourt. (R*)
4. A Forecourt should be a minimum 500 square feet in size, with a minimum street
frontage of 20 feet. (P)
Rationale: A forecourt needs to be of a minimum size to encourage gathering, while
also having a large enough frontage to encourage pedestrians to enter and create a
successful transition between the public and private realm.
5. Accessibility. Forecourts shall have a slope not exceeding 2%, except for approved
ADA ramps, and be grade-separated by no more than 24 inches above or below the
abutting Streetscape Zone(s). (T)
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 70
6. Pedestrian access. A minimum of one pedestrian connection to each Streetscape Zone
abutting the Forecourt shall be provided. (R*)
7. Primary entrance requirements.
a. Residential uses. At least one residential unit shall have a primary entrance from a
Forecourt, unless a primary entrance is provided which leads to a lobby or hall which
provides direct access to the abutting unit(s). (R*)
b. Commercial uses. Each ground floor commercial suite abutting a Forecourt shall
provide a primary entrance into the Forecourt, unless a primary entrance is provided
which leads to a lobby or hall which provides direct access to the abutting suite(s).
(R*)
8. Walls/Fences/Public Access. A Forecourt is a quasi-public area which is an extension of
the public realm. No walls or fences are permitted within or abutting a Forecourt, except
as follows:
a. Walls or fences not exceeding 40” in height.
b. Retaining walls, as otherwise permitted by this Chapter. A railing/view fence is
permitted on top of a retaining wall to a height of 40” if required for pedestrian safety
due to the grade differential.
c. View fencing (no solid/opaque portions) surrounding areas approved for outdoor
dining or outdoor alcohol consumption may be provided up to a height of 72” above
the forecourt grade.
d. Walls/fencing separating private residential patios which front on a Forecourt may be
provided up to a height of 72” above the grade of the forecourt, so long as all
portions of the wall/fence above 40” consists of view fencing, as approved by
Planning and Development.
9. Shade Requirements. A minimum of 50% of each Forecourt should be shaded with
landscape and/or structural shade.(P)
Rationale: Shade is needed in the hotter months to encourage users to gather in the
area.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 71
G. Storefront (S). A Storefront is a building façade
design element which includes a ground floor elevation
with a large number of transparent windows and
frequent building entrances to create visual interest
from the adjacent public sidewalk. This frontage
element is traditionally used for retail, live/work, and
other nonresidential active uses and should include
cantilevered canopies or awnings.
1. Minimum building frontage requirements. If a
portion of the Frontage Zone occupied by outdoor
dining or outdoor liquor service is deeper than the applicable Frontage Zone depth for
that street and Character Area, the width of the outdoor dining/liquor service area shall
still count towards the minimum building frontage requirement(s), so long as compliance
with other Streetscape and Frontage Zone requirements (including but not limited to
slopes, landscaping, and amenities) is demonstrated.
2. Primary entrance requirements.
a. Each ground floor commercial suite located within a Storefront frontage element shall
provide a primary entrance on the street side that directly connects to the street. A
suite which abuts a corner may meet this requirement for both street frontages by
providing a single primary entrance at the corner. (R*)
b. A Recessed Display Entry may be included as part of a Storefront frontage element.
3. Glazing requirements:
a. Location: The area between 3 feet and 8 feet above the adjacent sidewalk grade.
b. Minimum amount: Per the table below. (R*)
Number of primary entrances* within Glazing Requirement:
Storefront frontage element:
One: 75%
Two: 70%
Three: 65%
Four or more: 60%
*A primary entrance may consist of more than one door. Doors must be
separated by at least 20 feet to be considered as a separate primary entrance.
c. Glazing requirements shall be calculated as a percentage of the Storefront frontage
element length.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 72
4. Shade Requirements. A cantilevered canopy, fixed awning, or retractable awning shall
be provided along each Storefront frontage element, in accordance with Section
1204.B.2, and the following:
a. Minimum depth: 5 feet. (R*)
b. Minimum length: 75% of the Storefront frontage element length. (R*)
c. Minimum clear height: 10 feet, if not required greater clearance per Section
1204.B.2. (T)
5. No fencing is permitted within the Streetscape or Frontage Zones adjacent to a
Storefront frontage element, except as follows:
a. Retaining walls may be provided as otherwise permitted by this Chapter. A
railing/view fence is permitted on top of a retaining wall to a height of 40” if required
for pedestrian safety due to the grade differential. (R*)
H. Gallery/Arcade (GA). A
Gallery or an Arcade is a
building façade design
element where significant
and continuous structural
shade is provided for
pedestrians, often over the
actual public sidewalk.
Similar to the Storefront
frontage element, a large
number of transparent
Gallery Arcade
windows and frequent
building entrances should be provided to create visual interest from the adjacent public
sidewalk. This frontage element is traditionally used for retail, office, and other
nonresidential active uses.
1. Minimum setback requirements. A Gallery/Arcade may project into the Frontage Zone to
the property line and is not required to meet minimum setbacks as stated in the
applicable Character Area so long as compliance with other Streetscape and Frontage
Zone requirements (including but not limited to slopes, landscaping, and amenities) is
demonstrated. (R*)
2. Minimum dimensions. All portions of a Gallery/Arcade frontage element shall comply
with the following:
a. Minimum depth: 10 feet. (R*)
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 73
b. Maximum depth: 30 feet. No maximum for the portion of a Gallery/Arcade is being
used for outdoor dining, outdoor liquor service, or a public gathering space. (R*)
c. Minimum spacing between columns/supports: 10 feet as measured parallel to the
street. (R*)
d. Minimum clear height: 10 feet as measured from finished grade. (R*)
e. Maximum clear height: 25 feet as measured from finished grade. (R*)
3. Pedestrian use. All portions of a Gallery/Arcade frontage element shall have a walkway
provided for pedestrians. The walkway may serve as the actual public sidewalk, if
public easements are dedicated, or it may be provided in addition to the public sidewalk
located within the Streetscape Zone so long as the area under the Gallery/Arcade is also
open for pedestrian use.
a. Public sidewalk easement dedications shall be no less than the required sidewalk
width for the applicable Character Area. (T)
b. Outdoor uses (dining, alcohol consumption, or similar), if permitted by the Character
Area, may be provided within a Gallery/Arcade, so long as the greater of 5’, or the
minimum public sidewalk width (if there is no other public sidewalk) is left
unobstructed for use as a pedestrian walkway. (R*)
4. Primary entrance requirements.
a. Each Gallery/Arcade frontage element shall provide a minimum of one primary
entrance on the street side that directly connects to the street. A single primary
entrance provided at the corner of a building at a street intersection complies this
requirement for both street frontages. (R*)
b. A Recessed Display Entry may be included as part of a Gallery/Arcade frontage
element.
5. Glazing requirements:
a. Location: The area between 3 feet and 8 feet above the adjacent sidewalk grade for
the portion of the building that is a Gallery/Arcade Frontage Element. (R*)
b. Minimum amount: Per the table below. (R*)
Number of primary entrances* within Glazing Requirement:
Gallery/Arcade frontage element:
One: 75%
Two: 70%
Three: 65%
Four or more: 60%
*A primary entrance may consist of more than one door. Doors must be
separated by at least 20 feet to be considered as a separate primary entrance.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 74
c. Glazing requirements shall be calculated as a percentage of the Gallery/Arcade
frontage element length.
6. Walls/Fencing.
a. No walls or fences are permitted in the Frontage Zone adjacent to a Gallery/Arcade
frontage element which separates the Gallery/Arcade from the Frontage Zone.
b. Walls and fences within a Gallery/Arcade may be provided to separate outdoor
dining or other permitted outdoor uses from the public walkway, if compliance with
both of the following is demonstrated:
(1) A minimum 5 foot walkway clearance (or the minimum sidewalk width, if the
public sidewalk has been located within the Gallery/Arcade) is maintained.
(2) View fencing (no solid/opaque portions) may be provided up to a height of 72
inches above the Gallery/Arcade grade.
I. Recessed Display Entry. A Recessed Display
Entry is not a separate frontage element; rather it is
a feature which may be included as part of a
Common Entry, Storefront or Gallery/Arcade
frontage element. The characteristics of a
Recessed Display Entry are as follows:
1. Consists of a primary entrance to a public space
(retail, restaurant, lobby/reception, etc.) recessed
from the façade of the building, and is shaded by
the upper portion of the building.
2. Minimum depth to primary entrance: 5 feet. (R*).
3. Maximum depth to primary entrance: 25 feet. (R*)
4. Minimum clear height: 8 feet on private property; 10 feet if permitted to project within
public ROW or into a public sidewalk easement. (T)
5. Glazing provided within the Recessed Display Entry counts toward the minimum
required glazing for the associated Frontage Element.
6. Shade provided by a Recessed Display Entry counts towards the minimum requirement
for the associated Frontage Element.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 75
7. No portion of a Recessed Display Entry may be fenced off, unless included as a part of
an outdoor dining/bar/patio which is otherwise allowed.
8. If a Recessed Display Entry is deeper than the applicable Frontage Zone depth for that
street and Character Area, the width of the Recessed Display Entry shall still count
towards the minimum building frontage requirement(s), so long as compliance with other
Streetscape and Frontage Zone requirements (including but not limited to slopes,
landscaping, and amenities) is demonstrated.
J. Grand Entry (GR). A Grand Entry is
a building façade design element
which includes the most important
pedestrian entrance to the building,
indicated by significant architectural
features and windows which may be
provided more for visual impact than
actual need. A Grand Entry should
also incorporate significant public
gathering space(s), pedestrian
amenities, and art. A Grand Entry may also incorporate vehicular passenger loading and
valet functions, including a porte-cochere, if the proposed use allows it. A Grand Entry
would typically be used in conjunction with hotels, government buildings, educational
institutions, hospitals, large office buildings, large residential and mixed-use buildings, and
large assembly uses.
1. Applicability. A Grand Entry frontage element may be provided for the following uses if
also permitted by the Frontage and Streetscape Zone Matrix for the applicable Character
Area: (R*)
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 76
a. Hotels.
b. Government buildings.
c. Schools/educational institutions.
d. Hospitals.
e. Office, retail, assembly, and mixed use buildings 100,000 square feet (gross) or
larger.
f. Residential buildings with at least 100,000 square feet (gross) or 100 dwelling units.
2. Main Entrance. A Grand Entry frontage element must serve as the main and most
prominent entrance to the building for pedestrians. At least one primary entrance shall
be provided which leads to a lobby or other internal gathering area which provides
access to any ground-level suites and upper stories. (R*)
3. Architecture. A Grand Entry should consist of architectural features which are prominent
and intended to attract users to the main entry. These features may extend above the
height of the Frontage Zone. Examples are: porticos/columns, large sets of steps;
significant structural shade; extensive and imaginative use of colors, textures, windows,
and/or lighting; prominent exterior works of art; and monuments. Signage may also
contribute if otherwise in compliance with applicable sign regulations. (R*)
4. Pedestrian Accessibility. Pedestrian access to the primary entrance must be visually
obvious, preferably by use of materials and colors. The access route should be greater
in width than any minimum required for ADA accessibility and commensurate in scale
with the architectural features of the Grand Entry. Pedestrian routes may cross
vehicular areas but must otherwise be segregated from vehicular traffic. (R*)
5. Passenger Loading. A passenger loading zone, including a porte-cochere, may be part
of a Grand Entry and located within the Frontage Zone if it complies with all of the
following: (R*)
a. It does not preclude installation of required Streetscape and Frontage Zone
improvements, including trees; and
b. It allows for the most intuitive and direct pedestrian access to the primary entrance
from the Streetscape Zone.
6. Valet Parking. A valet parking station and valet parking zone, including a porte-cochere,
may be incorporated within a Grand Entry if it complies with all of the following: (R*)
(1) It is a permitted accessory use per the Land Use Matrix;
(2) It is constructed in accordance with Section 1206.G.
(3) It does not preclude installation of required Streetscape and Frontage Zone
improvements, including trees; and
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 77
(4) It allows for the most intuitive and direct pedestrian access to the primary
entrance from the Streetscape Zone.
7. Trash and recycling containers, service areas, and commercial loading areas are not
permitted to be incorporated within a Grand Entry, or within the adjacent Streetscape or
Frontage Zones. Mechanical equipment and transformers/utility equipment may be
provided only if located within a building or subterranean ground vault. (R*)
8. Minimum building frontage requirements. If a Grand Entry incorporates pedestrian
plazas, outdoor dining, outdoor liquor service, or other improved public gathering areas
which are deeper than the applicable Frontage Zone depth for that street and Character
Area, the width of the gathering areas shall still count towards the minimum building
frontage requirement(s), so long as compliance with other Streetscape and Frontage
Zone requirements (including but not limited to slopes, landscaping, and amenities) is
demonstrated. (R*)
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 78
Section 1206. Parking, Loading, and Vehicular Access
A. Applicability. All provisions of Section 702, “Off-Street Parking and Loading” apply to
properties located within Downtown, unless specifically modified by this Chapter.
1. For additional Buffer Alley regulations, see Section 1207.L.
2. For additional Arts, Culture, Small Business Area regulations, see Section 1207.M.
B. Automobile Parking Requirements. Parking for automobiles shall be provided as follows:
1. Residential units.
a. Minimum: 1 space per dwelling unit.
b. Maximum: 2 spaces per dwelling unit, plus 1 space per 1,000 sf of gross square
footage for leasing/residential management office and Shared Amenity Areas.
2. Non-residential uses.
a. Minimum: 1 space per 1,000 square feet of gross building square footage, except in
the Business Core and Warehouse character areas, where no minimum parking is
required.
b. Maximum: 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross building square footage.
3. Parking reductions identified in Section 702.E are not applicable within Downtown.
However, parking reductions and other modifications may be earned by the application
of sustainability bonus points, per the provisions of Section 1223.
4. Location of automobile parking.
a. Lots having only one or two dwelling units (no mixed uses): required spaces may not
be provided within any Frontage Zone. An on-site driveway leading to designated
parking spaces may be provided within a Frontage Zone if not in excess of 18 feet
wide and if otherwise permitted by this Chapter. (R*)
b. Multi-family, mixed use, and non-residential developments: no surface parking is
allowed within any Frontage Zone. Drive aisles may cross a Frontage Zone when
access from the adjacent street is otherwise permitted. (R*)
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 79
c. Parking located within structures, including underground parking, is subject to the
requirements of Section 1207.J.
d. Off-site parking. Off-site parking not located within a public right-of-way may account
for up to 50% of the required automobile parking, with approval of a use permit and
compliance with all the provisions of Section 702.E.9.
C. Maneuvering. All maneuvering for automobile parking spaces, passenger loading, and
service/goods loading shall be provided on-site, subject to the following:
1. Maneuvering within a public right of-way shall be allowed as follows:
a. Maneuvering within a public alley is permitted by right if the alley is a minimum 20
feet wide, and then only if access to the alley is permitted per other City regulations;
or
b. Maneuvering in public right-of-way may be permitted with approval of a Technical
Appeal which demonstrates that adequate space is being provided for the safe
maneuvering of vehicles within the right-of-way. Additional requirements, such as
but not limited to dedications, pavement widening, and/or removal of utility poles may
be stipulated as part of the Technical Appeal approval. (T)
D. Electric Vehicle Charging. The following development regulations apply to electric vehicle
charging (EVC) spaces provided within parking areas within Downtown:
1. EVC spaces may be counted as part of the required minimum number parking spaces.
(R)
2. EVC spaces shall not be counted as part of required maximum number of parking
spaces. (R)
3. All EVC spaces, charging stations, and associated transformers or other mechanical
equipment, shall be provided on site and not in any required landscape setback,
required landscape area, or Frontage Zone. (R)(R*)
E. Bicycle Parking. Parking and amenities for bicycles shall be provided as follows:
1. Multi-family residential development shall provide shared bicycle parking at the rate of
0.25 space per dwelling unit, with a maximum requirement of 50 spaces.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 80
2. All nonresidential uses over 5,000 gross square feet shall provide 1 bicycle space per 25
vehicle parking spaces provided or portion thereof, with a maximum requirement of 25
spaces.
3. All nonresidential uses 100,000 gross square feet or larger shall provide 1 bicycle space
per 25 vehicle parking spaces or portion thereof, with a maximum requirement of 50
spaces. In addition, a minimum of 2 shower stalls and 10 personal lockers that are
available for use by the building’s occupants shall be provided.
4. Restaurants and bars totaling less than 5,000 gross square feet on one site shall provide
a minimum of 4 bicycle spaces in the Frontage Zone. If automobile parking spaces are
provided, 1 additional bicycle space for every 25 vehicle parking spaces as required for
the restaurant and bar uses shall be provided.
5. Bicycle parking shall not be located within a required public sidewalk or accessible route.
F. Service/Goods Loading Areas. The following requirements apply to short-term loading
and unloading of service vehicles with goods or equipment.
1. On-site loading shall be required for all developments per the following table:
Required Loading and Service Bays
Use Gross square footage of buildings (per site)
25,000 – > 40,000 – > 160,000 – > 320,000 – > 500,000
40,000 sf 160,000 sf 320,000 sf 500,000 sf sf
Multi-Family 0 1 per 150 dwelling units or portion thereof
Residential
Lodging 0 1 per each 300 rooms or portion thereof
Retail, 0 1 2 3 4 + 1 per
Commercial, additional
and Office 180,000 sf
Uses above
500,000
Industrial, 1 2 3 4 5 + 1 per
Manufacturing, additional
Storage, and 180,000 sf
Wholesaling above
Uses 500,000
Mixed-use developments shall provide the required loading spaces per each use
category shown in the table above.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 81
2. Loading bays shall be a minimum of 10 feet in width and 30 feet in length. (T)
3. Location of Service/Goods Loading Areas.
a. Service/goods loading areas may not be located within a Frontage Zone adjacent to
a Pedestrian Street. (R*)
b. Service/goods loading areas may not be located within a public street right-of-way
unless compliance with all of the following occurs: (R)
(1) An encroachment permit has been obtained from the Street Transportation
Department for the design and/or structures provided as part of the loading area
(dock, loading ramp, etc.).
(2) The loading area does not reduce the required Streetscape Zone and does not
preclude the provision of required street trees and shading requirements.
(3) The loading area does not interrupt the required public sidewalk or other
dedicated pedestrian walkways.
(4) The loading area does not interrupt a designated bicycle lane.
(5) Compliance with Section 1204.B.5 regarding historic curb locations is
demonstrated.
c. Service entrances, loading areas, and trash/recycling pickup should be located
internal to the site or building, or adjacent to a Side Street or alley whenever
possible. (P)
Rationale: Pedestrian Streets should create a safe, secure, and welcoming
atmosphere for pedestrians, and should not have uses or functions which discourage
pedestrian use. Noxious uses and conflicts with service vehicles should be
minimized along Pedestrian Streets. Side Streets and alleys (which are not
designated Buffer Alleys) are preferred access points for service and delivery
functions.
G. Valet Parking. The requirements of this Section apply only for sites which are allowed valet
parking as an accessory use per Section 1203.D.30.
1. Location of Valet Parking Facilities.
a. A valet transfer zone (where vehicles are dropped off and picked up) should be
located internally to the building whenever possible. (P)
Rationale: Views of standing automobiles, and conflicts with pedestrians, should be
minimized.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 82
b. A valet transfer zone may be provided within a Frontage Zone adjacent to a Side
Street, so long as it does not preclude compliance with other Streetscape and
Frontage Zone standards, including driveway access and placement. A valet
transfer zone may be combined with a service/goods loading area when located
adjacent to a Side Street. (R*)
c. A valet transfer zone may be provided within a Frontage Zone adjacent to a
Pedestrian Street, subject to the following: (R*)
(1) Compliance with the driveway and vehicular access regulations of Section
1206.H is demonstrated.
(2) Compliance with other applicable Frontage Zone and Streetscape Zone
requirements for Pedestrian Streets (including shading, provision of street trees,
and minimum building frontage) is demonstrated.
(3) Valet facilities may not be located within the minimum street setback area.
d. Valet parking spaces (where cars are parked after being dropped off) may be located
off-site if in accordance with the provisions of Section 1203.D.
e. A valet transfer zone should have primary access from a street, rather than an alley.
(P)
Rationale: Whenever possible, vehicles should be dropped off and picked up from
a more intuitive location associated with the street address, particularly if the
parking is for patrons and visitors, rather than occupants of the building or site.
f. Valet parking facilities, including the valet transfer station, valet transfer zone, and
valet parking spaces, may not be located within a public right-of-way unless
compliance with all of the following occurs: (R)
(1) An encroachment permit has been obtained from the Street Transportation
Department for the Valet Parking Facilities.
(2) The Valet Parking Facilities do not reduce the required Streetscape Zone and do
not preclude the provision of required street trees and shading requirements.
(3) The Valet Parking Facilities do not interrupt the required public sidewalk or other
dedicated pedestrian walkways.
(4) The Valet Parking Facilities does not interrupt a designated bicycle lane.
(5) Compliance with Section 1204.B.5 regarding historic curb locations is
demonstrated.
g. Public right-of-way may be used to move vehicles between the valet transfer zone
and the valet parking spaces, if the valet parking spaces are located on a different
property, as otherwise permitted by this Chapter.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 83
2. Design requirements for valet parking facilities.
a. A valet transfer zone shall comply with the following: (T)
(1) A minimum length of 60 feet.
(2) A minimum width of 10 feet.
(3) A maximum width of 16 feet.
b. A valet transfer zone must include an accessible vehicle pull-up space constructed in
accordance with federal requirements. (T)
c. A valet transfer zone shall not be used all or in part for any vehicle parking. Short
term vehicle standing of up to 30 minutes is permitted during hours of operation of
the valet parking facilities. (T)
H. General Driveway and Access Regulations. This section regulates driveways and
access from streets to private property. Access from any street to a property must be in
compliance with the provisions of this Section.
1. Properties with HP designation. Driveways for properties with HP zoning or designation
may be located, designed, constructed, or reconstructed in a historic manner and
dimensions as approved in writing by the Historic Preservation Officer.
2. Arterial Streets.
a. Access for automobile parking, valet parking facilities, passenger loading zones, and
Service/Goods Loading Areas is permitted from the following arterial Pedestrian
Streets, regardless of other site frontages or regulations of this Chapter:
(1) 7th Street
(2) 7th Avenue
(3) McDowell Road
(4) Van Buren Street
(5) Buckeye Road
b. Maximum driveway width: 40 feet, or wider as approved by Street Transportation
when requiring islands for restricted turns. (T)
c. All other provisions for Pedestrian Streets apply.
3. Pedestrian Streets. Driveways and access to private property from Pedestrian Streets
are subject to the following:
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 84
a. Automobile Parking. Access is permitted from a Pedestrian Street only when one of
the following applies: (R*)
(1) The development site has no other frontage on an alley or side street; or
(2) The parking area has at least one additional access point from an alley or side
street.
b. Service/Goods Loading Areas are not permitted access from a Pedestrian Street
unless the loading area is located completely within the building; within a parking
garage, or screened from view from the street. Screening may consist of the
following: (R*)
(1) Green screen.
(2) Dense landscaping which provides screening starting from the time of initial
installation.
(3) Underground utility vaults.
(4) Buildings.
c. Passenger loading zones are permitted access from a Pedestrian Street.
d. Maximum driveway width: 30 feet. When a site has only Pedestrian Street
frontages, additional width may be granted through approval of a Technical Appeal
(T).
e. Minimum separation between driveways: 30 feet. (T)
(1) Properties which have a maximum of two dwelling units (no mixed primary uses)
have no minimum separation except as may be required by City policies for
safety and visibility. (T)
(2) Other City policies and ordinances regulating the design of driveways, including
but not limited to required visibility, restricted turn movements, and distances
from intersections may require a greater separation than 30 feet. (T)
4. Side Streets. Driveways and access to private property from Side Streets are subject to
the following:
a. Access for all types of vehicular uses is permitted from a Side Street.
b. Maximum driveway width: 40 feet. (T)
c. Minimum separation between driveways: 20 feet. (R*)
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 85
(1) Properties which have a maximum of two dwelling units (no mixed primary uses)
have no minimum separation except as may be required by City policies for
safety and visibility. (T)
(2) Other City policies and ordinances regulating the design of driveways, including
but not limited to: required visibility, restricted turn movements, and distances
from intersections may require a greater separation than 20 feet. (T)
5. Alleys. Driveways and access to private property from alleys are subject to the
following:
a. Access is not permitted from a Buffer Alley, unless in compliance with Section
1207.L. (R)
b. Automobile Parking. Access is permitted from an alley, subject to the following:
(1) The alley pavement must be (or be widened to) a minimum 20 feet wide and
unobstructed for the length of the property; (T)
(2) If the parking area has more than 100 spaces, the alley pavement is a minimum
20’ wide and unobstructed for the full length of the block, unless otherwise
approved through a Technical Appeal. (T)
c. Passenger loading zones should not have primary access provided from an alley. (P)
Rationale: Rideshare and personal delivery vehicles should be able to access a
development from a more intuitive location associated with the street address.
d. Maximum driveway width: as determined by PDD and Street Transportation for
safety and visibility. (T)
e. Minimum separation between driveways: as determined by PDD and Street
Transportation for safety and visibility. (T)
I. Driveway Design Guidelines.
1. Appropriate visibility triangles and/or lines of sight shall be provided for driveways. The
visibility triangles shall provide for visibility of pedestrians on the public sidewalk, as well
as vehicles in the street. (T)
Rationale: Vehicles exiting from a site or parking garage should be able to see cars on
the street, as well as pedestrians on the sidewalk (and vice versa). Alternatives, such as
mirrors, pedestrian safety signage, etc. may be approved as part of a Technical Appeal
when standard visibility requirements cannot be met.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 86
2. Specialty paving, striping, bollards, or similar as approved by PDD staff should be
provided where a driveway crosses a sidewalk. (P)
Rationale: Where vehicular routes interface with pedestrian routes, warnings to both the
vehicles and the pedestrians should be visually indicated.
3. Shared access and driveways serving more than one development should be provided
whenever possible. (P)
Rationale: The number of driveways crossing sidewalks and bicycle routes should be
minimized to avoid conflicts and collisions. However, consideration and flexibility should
be applied when a primarily residential development is adjacent to a non-residential
development.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 87
Section 1207. General Development Regulations.
A. Applicability. This section contains development regulations specific to Downtown. If a
conflict occurs between any specific Character Area regulations and the regulations of this
Section, the Character Area regulations shall apply.
B. Historic Preservation Development Regulations. Structures with historic preservation
designation are considered to be conforming and may be maintained, restored and/or rebuilt
at each structure’s historic setbacks and height subject to the provisions of Chapter 8,
Historic Preservation.
C. Projections.
1. Projections within the Streetscape Zone are regulated by Section 1204.B.2.
2. Projections within the Frontage Zone are regulated by Section 1204.C.3.
3. Projections within required yards adjacent to interior lot lines are not permitted, except
as follows: (R)
a. Roof overhangs, but not including covered porches, patios, or carports, are permitted
so long as no portion of the overhang is closer than 2 feet from the property line.
b. Other projections, when explicitly allowed by other sections of this Chapter.
D. Wall/Fence Requirements.
1. Historic Preservation designated properties. For residential properties designated
HP and HP-L, fences or freestanding walls in the front yard (the area between the
structure and the street right-of-way line) may not exceed a maximum height of three
feet. This height limitation extends three feet back from the front façade into the side
yard(s).
2. Within Frontage Zones, the following apply:
a. Walls/fences are limited to 40 inches in height, except as may be specifically
modified by other provisions of this Chapter. (R*)
b. Within a Frontage Zone which abuts a side property line (e.g. a “street side”), a wall
or fence up to 6 feet tall may be permitted if all of the following also apply: (R)
(1) The wall encloses a private residential side yard and/or rear yard on a lot with no
more than two dwelling units (and no other primary uses).
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 88
(2) No structure on the property exceeds two stories and 30 feet in height.
(3) No portions of the wall over 40 inches in height are located within a Frontage
Zone applicable to any other street frontage.
(4) No portions of the wall over 40 inches in height (36 inches if in an HP Overlay)
are located closer than 3 feet behind the front façade of the structure.
3. Walls/fences provided for screening of mechanical equipment shall comply with the
provisions of Section 1204.E.7.
4. Walls located adjacent to interior property lines or other locations outside of the Frontage
Zones shall comply with the regulations stated in the applicable Character Area.
5. Retaining walls located within Streetscape and Frontage Zones are regulated by Section
1204.D.
E. Height Transition Standards. For all new development adjacent to lots located in a lower
height zone, a stepback shall be provided to compensate for disproportionate height
disparities. This additional stepback provides for building separation and circulation of air
and light in a dense urban fabric.
1. Along an interior property line or a designated Buffer Alley which separates properties of
two different height zones, the minimum required setback shall be increased by 10 feet
for all portions of the building taller than the maximum height of the adjacent (lower)
height zone. (R)
Example: a building located on a property with a maximum height of 140 feet and a 10
feet minimum interior setback, sharing a property line with a property with a 65 feet
maximum height, has a 20 feet setback required for all portions of the building taller than
65 feet. The portions of the building less than 65 feet tall may be located at the standard
10 feet setback from the property line.
2. A stepback shall not be required in the following circumstances unless specifically
required by the applicable Character Area standards:
a. The proposed building is no more than 20 feet taller than the maximum permitted
height of the adjacent height zone.
b. The proposed building is adjacent to a height zone with a maximum permitted height
of 65 feet or greater.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 89
3. The proposed building should respect the scale of existing buildings located on adjacent
properties and serve as an orderly transition to a different scale. Stepbacks, changes in
massing, or changes in materials and color starting at the height of the adjacent existing
building are highly encouraged. (P)
Rationale: Building heights with a vastly different scale than those on adjacent parcels
should have a transition in scale to reduce and mitigate potential impacts.
F. Landscape Standards. Landscape shall be provided in accordance with the following:
1. Landscape requirements of Section 703.E, as well as Section 507 Tab A, apply unless
specifically modified by this section or other provisions of this Chapter.
a. See Section 1207.M for special regulations applicable to the Arts, Culture, Small
Business Area.
2. Landscape within the Streetscape and Frontage Zones shall comply with the
requirements of Section 1204.G.
3. Landscape shall be provided for surface parking areas as follows:
Surface Parking—Landscape Standards
Interior surface area (exclusive of
perimeter landscaping and all Minimum 10% (R*)
required setbacks)
At ends of each row of parking and
Landscaped planters
approximately every 110 feet (P)
Minimum 5 feet wide (inside curb
Landscaped planters, single row of
measurement) for full depth of parking space.
parking
(T)
Minimum 5 feet wide (inside curb
Landscaped planters, double row of
measurement) for full depth of both parking
parking
spaces. (T)
As needed to meet 10% minimum requirement,
Additional parking lot landscape
evenly distributed throughout the entire parking
areas
lot. (P)
Minimum requirement: one per 100 sf of
landscape area (T)
Planter (single space depth): one tree. (P)
Required trees
Planter (double space depth): two trees (P)
All other areas: 20 feet on center or equivalent
groupings (P).
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 90
Minimum 2-inch caliper (60% of trees) (T)
Required tree sizes:
Minimum 1-inch caliper (40% of trees) (T)
Required shrubs: Minimum 5 shrubs per tree. (P)
Required shrub size: Minimum 5-gallon. (T)
Rationale: Parking lot landscaping and shade should be provided in a similar manner as
required for other commercial areas outside of Downtown. However, flexibility can be
exercised regarding installation of landscape materials in order to address on-site
conflicts, such as lighting, mechanical equipment, sight lines, required pedestrian
walkways, or similar. Requests to provide smaller than required planting areas, trees, or
shrubs may only be approved through a Technical Appeal.
4. All on-site pedestrian walkways shall be 75% shaded by trees and/or structural shade.
(R*)
5. All remaining areas of a site which are not Frontage or Streetscape Zones, surface
parking, pedestrian walkways, or amenities specifically permitted by PDD which do not
typically include shade (i.e. pools and pool decks), must be landscaped to provide 50%
shade. Properties having only residential uses, not exceeding two dwelling units, are
exempt from this requirement. (R*)
G. Multifamily Development Design Requirements.
1. The provisions of this section apply to all sites which include five or more dwelling units.
The provisions of Section 703.B, Landscaping and Open Areas in Multiple-Family
Development, do not apply to properties located within Downtown. (R*)
2. Where dwelling units are provided at the ground level adjacent to a Pedestrian Street, an
appropriate residential Frontage Element (such as Patio, Stoop/Doorwell, Porch, or
Forecourt) should be utilized to allow for individual dwelling unit access to the street. (P)
Rationale: Individual entrances promote more “eyes on the street”, due to greater use
of patios and other outdoor areas. Individual entrances also encourage pedestrian use
by creating more interest, as well as a feeling of smaller-scale design.
3. Shared Amenity Areas for the residents of multi-family dwelling units shall be provided
on-site, as follows:
a. The minimum Shared Amenity Area provided shall be per the following table (R*):
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 91
Minimum Shared Amenity Areas for Sites with Multifamily Dwellings
Up to 100 units None required.
101-300 units Minimum 2500 square feet
301+ units Minimum 5000 square feet
b. Shared Amenity Areas shall consist of the following types of spaces (R*):
(1) On-site open space provided in accordance with the provisions of Section
1207.H.
(2) Roof-top decks which are occupiable and do not exceed height requirements for
the applicable Character Area.
(3) Conditioned suites with amenities/shops/services.
c. All areas used to count toward the minimum Shared Amenity Area requirements
must be accessible to all users, in accordance with FHA and ADA standards. (T)
d. Uses open to the public, such as retail stores, restaurants, commercial gyms, bars,
etc. may be used to meet no more than 50% of the Shared Amenity Area
requirement. (R)
e. A minimum of two of the following amenities shall be provided within the Shared
Amenity Areas (P):
(1) Swimming pool and/or hot tub.
(2) Fitness center/sport court or facility.
(3) Tot lot/playground.
(4) Barbecue/picnic/common kitchen area.
(5) Gathering area with focal feature (fountain, firepit/fireplace, television, game
tables, kitchen etc.)
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 92
(6) Pet exercise area.
Rationale: Shared Amenity Areas should include a variety of amenities which may
be used by multiple residents, but are not shared with non-residents (such as an on-
site store, restaurant, or bar). Staff may approve additional types of amenities similar
to those listed above and meeting this intent. Two separate amenities in the same
category may also be approved.
H. Open Space Development Regulations. Open space, when provided for sustainability
bonus credits per Section 1223 or as part of a multi-family Shared Amenity Area
requirement, shall comply with the following:
1. Open Space shall be provided at ground level. Roof tops, areas inside structures, or
areas placed underground cannot be counted as open space. Outdoor areas provided
under a building overhang are permitted so long as they are fully open to at least one
Frontage Zone. (R*)
2. Each Open Space area shall abut and include a Frontage Zone. The area of the
Frontage Zone may be included in the minimum area and dimensions required for
qualifying Open Space areas. (R*)
3. Each Open Space area shall be a minimum of 500 square feet with a minimum
dimension of 20 feet in any direction. (R*)
4. All Open Space areas are subject to the design requirements for Frontage Zones, with
the following modifications: (R*)
a. No automobile uses (parking, loading, etc.) of any type may be provided within an
Open Space area.
b. Open Space areas with a dedicated public access easement may not be fenced or
walled off from the street except for low walls not exceeding 40 inches in height,
unless the height of the wall is further restricted by the Frontage Zone or Frontage
Element requirements.
I. Enhanced Corner Requirements. Developments located on Enhanced Corners (per map
in Section 1202.D) should be integrated with and oriented toward the corner, as follows:
1. A primary entrance that faces both streets and that serves as a main entry for the
building shall be provided at each Enhanced Corner. An entrance to a single
commercial suite or residence does not meet this requirement. (R*)
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 93
2. Additional building articulation, architectural features, signage, pedestrian amenities,
and/or art that emphasizes the corner and draws attention to the Enhanced Corner entry
of the building shall be provided. (P)
Rationale: An Enhanced Corner should be visually obvious and comfortable for
pedestrians to use as the building’s primary entrance.
3. If an Enhanced Corner entry plaza is provided which is deeper than the applicable
Frontage Zone depth(s), the building frontage along the corner entry plaza shall still
count towards the minimum building frontage requirement(s), so long as compliance with
other Streetscape and Frontage Zone requirements (including but not limited to slopes,
landscaping, and amenities) is demonstrated. (R*)
J. Structured Parking/Parking Garage Design Guidelines.
1. Where parking structures are visible from a street or neighboring property, they should
utilize approved Frontage Elements, art/murals, decorative materials, imaginative use of
colors and patterns, and/or permitted signage to fully screen vehicles from view and to
create interest at the ground level. (P)
Rationale: Parking structures, particularly ones with exterior unfinished concrete
masonry or panels, do not engage or create interest for pedestrians. The side of a
parking garage should never appear to be “blank”.
2. Parking structures shall be designed so that light from vehicle headlights, when parked
head-in in a parking space, is fully screened from view from all perimeter streets. (R*)
3. Parking structures should be integrated with the form and materials of the main site
structures, or the scale, form, color and materials of the immediately adjacent area. (P)
Rationale: Parking structures should not be a dominant feature of the building design,
and creative solutions should be integrated and/or complement the design elements of
other buildings on site or within the surrounding context area.
4. Rooftop lighting on a parking garage should be set back a minimum of 25 feet from the
perimeter of the rooftop parking structure and be mounted no higher than 12 feet above
the roof deck. (P)
Rationale: The direct source of light should not be visible from lower levels or adjacent
uses.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 94
5. There should be a convenient, clear, safe and efficient internal circulation system within
the parking structure for both vehicular and pedestrian traffic including appropriate
signage and placement of pedestrian circulation cores (elevators and stairs). Pedestrian
routes should always be separated from vehicular traffic, except where required
crossings can be provided safely. (T)
6. Pedestrian entrances to parking garages should be separate from vehicular entrances.
(P)
7. Garage openings should be enhanced with specialty lighting, artwork, or materials to
visually notify vehicle drivers that pedestrians may be crossing, and vice versa. (P)
Rationale for J.7 and J.8: Safety at pedestrian and vehicular crossings should be
addressed with design.
8. Underground parking may extend to a height of five feet above finished grade, provided
that the garage perimeter wall does cause the Frontage Element assigned to that portion
of the building façade to become non-compliant with other required development
standards. (R*)
K. General Design Guidelines.
1. All building facades adjacent to interior property lines (i.e. not abutting or within a
Frontage Zone) should have a level of trim and finish equivalent with and
complementary to the Frontage Zone façade(s). (P)
Rationale: Most buildings within Downtown are of heights that they are visible from quite
a distance. Facades visible from the street or other properties should be of a quality
similar to that required for facades facing streets, and should never appear to be
unfinished or “blank”.
2. All buildings over 10 stories tall should be designed with a base that is visually
differentiated from the remainder of the building. The base may be between one and
four stories in height. (P)
Rationale: All buildings should be scaled at the base to relate and connect to pedestrian
uses.
3. Windows and balconies in near proximity that face each other should receive special
design treatment to increase privacy for existing adjacent residential uses by providing
one (or a combination) of the following, or similar as approved by PDD staff: (P)
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 95
a. Louvers;
b. Privacy screens;
c. Windows that start a minimum of six feet above respective finished floor;
d. Frosted or tinted window treatments.
Rationale: Existing residential units close enough to be impacted by new development
should be able to maintain their level of existing privacy. Incorporating methods of
screening with windows and balconies on new development can help provide the means
for maintaining this privacy.
4. Natural surveillance should be maximized in project design to encourage easy
observation of people and property near entryways, pathways, public spaces and
parking areas. (P)
Rationale: Safety and security for pedestrians should be addressed by design. Hidden
and obscures spaces can encourage illicit activity.
5. Building accents should be expressed through differing materials or architectural
detailing rather than applied finishes such as paint, graphics, or forms of plastic or metal
panels. (P)
Rationale: Building accents and detailing should be high quality and durability and not of
materials which can fade or deteriorate over time.
6. Architectural details such as exterior finish materials, architectural lighting and signage,
grilles, railings, downspouts, window and entry trim and moldings, shadow patterns and
exterior lighting should contribute to creating a coherent architectural concept. (P)
Rationale: While buildings should not appear too monolithic or monotonous, they should
also not appear to be an assemblage of many materials or designs without a common
theme.
7. Architectural elements. Accent materials and building design should contribute to
creating a coherent architectural concept that is consistent with the surrounding design
of the area. (e.g. architectural lighting and signage, grilles, railings, downspouts, window
and entry trim and moldings, shadow patterns and exterior lighting). (P)
Rationale: Character Areas were created to acknowledge the unique characteristics of
each area. New development and redevelopment should reflect the existing character by
use of similar and complementary architectural styles and accents.
8. Building materials. Materials from adjacent or nearby buildings should be incorporated to
help strengthen the character of the area. (e.g. doors, windows, pilasters, cornices,
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 96
arches and lintels) They should be articulated and expressed in a manner that is in
context with surrounding buildings. (P)
Rationale: Character Areas were created to acknowledge the unique characteristics of
each area. New development and redevelopment should reflect the existing character by
use of similar and complementary building materials.
9. Architecture and applied treatments that express corporate identity should be de-
emphasized. The building should be a unique structure that complements and blends
with the surrounding context. (P)
Rationale: Corporate identity may be utilized to create a unique identity that can be
recognized. However, the overall architectural theme should be the predominant feature
of the building.
10. All electric lines 12 KV and smaller, communications and cable television lines, and all
on-premise wiring shall be placed underground in developments where visible from
streets or adjoining properties. (T)
Rationale: Overhead utility lines are in many cases visually objectionable; can cause
issues with proximity to balconies; can obstruct direct pedestrian and vehicular routes and
visibility; and can restrict the ability to install required trees and other shading methods.
11. Freestanding detached monument signage should be integrated with the building
architecture. (P)
Rationale: Monument signs should incorporate elements of the building architecture
through use of similar colors, materials, and/or forms.
L. Buffer Alley Development Regulations. The following regulations shall apply to properties
adjacent to Buffer Alleys identified in Section 1202.E, in addition to any other requirements
of the Downtown Code:
1. Access to and vehicular maneuvering within a Buffer Alley is not permitted, except for
developments meeting at least one of the following criteria: (R)
a. Abutting properties that currently have legally established access to the Buffer Alley
and are not subject to the applicability requirements of Sections 507.B.2 or 507.B.3.
b. Abutting properties on which there are no more than two dwelling units and no other
primary uses.
c. Abutting subdivisions developed in accordance with Section 1203.D.27.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 97
2. If non-residential loading or service areas (including for trash/recycling collection) have
established legal access from a Buffer Alley, loading, pickup and deliveries shall be
prohibited between 9:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m., UNLESS A USE PERMIT IS OBTAINED.
This restriction shall be prominently posted on signs on the building adjacent to the
service area, as well as at the entrance to the property from the Buffer Alley. (R)
3. A stepback equal to the minimum required building setback, plus 10 feet, is required for
all portions of buildings taller than 30 feet when adjacent to a Buffer Alley. Additional
stepbacks may be required by Section 1207.E. (R)
4. For non-single-family developments, a minimum five-foot wide landscape area and
minimum 6-foot high solid wall on the alley side of the landscape area must be provided
along the property line abutting a Buffer Alley. The wall must be consistent with the
material, design and character of the primary building. (R)
5. All new mechanical equipment, including roof mounted equipment, must be fully
screened from view from a Buffer Alley. Solar panels and/or solar water heaters are
exempt from this requirement. (R)
6. All trash/recycling containers must be fully screened from view from a Buffer Alley,
unless alley collection services are provided by the City of Phoenix. (R)
7. Parking lot and security lighting, including building-mounted lighting, shall not exceed 15
feet in height, including lamp, pole, and base, for properties abutting a Buffer Alley.
Light fixtures fully screened by a building or other structure, and not visible from the
Buffer Alley, are exempt from this requirement. (R)
8. Decorative lighting (including but not limited to illuminative gases, fiber optics, or LED
fixtures) and lighted signage shall not be installed where visible from an adjacent Buffer
Alley. (R)
9. Windows, balconies, and rooftop decks on properties abutting a Buffer Alley should be
designed to protect the existing privacy of adjacent single-family residential uses. (P)
Rationale: These building features should ideally be oriented away from the Buffer
Alley. However, if provided, they should be mitigated with things like louvers, screening,
frosted/tinted window treatments, and relative window height (i.e. at least 6 feet above
the floor).
M. Arts, Culture, Small Business Area Development Regulations.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 98
1. Applicability. The area indicated on the Arts, Culture, Small Business Area Map in
Section 1202.F is subject to the following regulations. In the event of a conflict with other
provisions of this Chapter, the more permissive regulation shall apply. The
development regulations of Section 669 (Arts, Culture, and Overlay District (ACOD) do
not apply to properties zoned Downtown Code.
2. Intent. The Arts, Culture and Small Business Overlay is intended to allow greater
flexibility in land uses and standards that will contribute to the vitality of Downtown and
will enhance community events.
3. Outdoor public events and performances. Outdoor events or performances that are open
to the public and that feature visual art, music, dance, theater, performance art, science,
design or cultural heritage are permitted, subject to the following: (R)
a. The outdoor event or performance must be staffed by an employee of an existing
business on the property and must comply with all applicable codes and ordinances.
b. The business’ items that are available for purchase during normal business hours
may be displayed outdoors and be available for purchase during the event or
performance. Payment for all items shall occur indoors. No other items may be
displayed for sale outdoors during the event or performance.
c. Outdoor events or performances are limited to Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays only.
d. Friday and Saturday events or performances shall be limited to the hours between
10:00 a.m. and 12:00 a.m. No amplified music or loudspeakers may be used outside
after 10:00 p.m.
e. Sunday outdoor events or performances shall be limited to the hours between 10:00
a.m. and 10:00 p.m. No amplified music or loudspeakers may be used after 8:00
p.m.
f. Hours and days of outdoor events or performances may be extended subject to
obtaining a use permit in accordance with the standards and procedures of the
Zoning Administrator section of the Zoning Ordinance.
g. Outdoor events or performances in Downtown shall be a minimum of 300 feet from
an adjacent Character Area that is not included in the Arts, Culture, and Small
Business Area depicted on the map in Section 1202.F and from any single-family
zoning district outside of Downtown.
4. Accessory uses.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 99
a. Home occupations are permitted subject to the following:
(1) Employees are permitted, subject to obtaining a use permit in accordance with
the provisions of Section 307.A.7.
(2) No more than 50 percent of the dwelling unit may be used for any home
occupation.
b. The following accessory uses are permitted:
(1) Outdoor dining as accessory to a restaurant is permitted subject to the following:
(a) The outdoor dining area shall be a minimum of 30 feet from the boundary of
an adjacent Character Area not included in the Arts, Culture, and Small
Business Area depicted in Section 1202.F and from any single-family zoning
district outside of Downtown.
(b) The outdoor dining area and accessory public space shall be clearly
delineated by a minimum three-foot-high continuous fence, wall or planter.
(c) The outdoor dining area shall not be more than 25 percent of the primary
building’s ground level gross floor area. The outdoor dining area may exceed
25 percent to a maximum of 50 percent subject to obtaining a use permit.
(d) Hours of operation for outdoor dining area shall not extend beyond restaurant
hours of operation.
(e) The outdoor dining area shall not restrict or impede accessible access to the
building or the parking area.
(2) Outdoor crafting of art associated with the business inside the building when the
subject parcel abuts an arterial or collector street is permitted and subject to the
following:
(a) Storage of materials associated with the crafting area shall not exceed eight
feet in height and be limited to the rear and side yard.
(b) Storage area shall be fully screened with a solid wall or landscaping.
(c) Storage of materials associated with the crafting area exceeding eight feet in
height shall be subject to obtaining a use permit.
5. Signs.
a. A-frame signs are permitted on private property, subject to the following: (R)
(1) No off-site advertising is permitted.
(2) A maximum of one A-frame sign is permitted per 25 feet of street frontage.
(3) A maximum of six square feet of signage per side of the A-frame sign is
permitted.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 100
(4) There shall be a maximum height of three feet from natural grade.
(5) All signs shall be removed daily at the close of business or event.
b. Shingle signs are permitted subject to the following: (R)
(1) A maximum of one sign is permitted for each business per facade if access to
business is available from that facade.
(2) A minimum clearance of eight feet from finished grade to the bottom of the sign
shall be provided.
(3) A maximum of five square feet in area shall be permitted per side.
(4) No backlit or cabinet signs are permitted.
c. Wall and window signs are permitted for structures existing as of May 2, 2008, as
follows: (R)
(1) Wall signs.
(a) The maximum square footage permitted per Section 705.D may be increased
by 25 percent.
(b) The maximum square footage permitted may be increased by an additional
ten percent if graphics comprise a minimum of ten percent of the overall
square footage of the sign.
(2) Window signs. The total area of such signs shall not exceed 40 percent of each
window area located on the ground floor of the building.
6. Parking, yard and area requirements for nonresidential uses or mixed uses containing
nonresidential uses.
a. For parking, yard and area requirements for structures existing as of May 1, 2008:
(R)
(1) Regardless of change of use or occupancy no additional parking or landscaping
shall be required.
(2) Structures may be increased a total of either 500 gross square feet or 25 percent
of the existing structure, whichever is greater, without requiring additional parking
or landscaping.
(3) Building additions may exceed the lot coverage of the underlying zoning district
by 25 percent, excluding those with Historic Preservation Overlays.
(4) Interior setbacks may be reduced by a maximum of 25 percent of that required
by the underlying zoning requirements, excluding those with Historic
Preservation Overlays.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 101
b. Outdoor dining that does not exceed 25 percent of the primary building’s ground
level gross floor area shall not require any additional parking. The outdoor dining
area may exceed 25 percent to a maximum of 50 percent subject to obtaining a use
permit.
c. Unless subject to Buffer Alley regulations (Section 1207.L), vehicles are permitted to
maneuver in the alley when dustproofing/paving, adequate maneuvering space, and
visibility are approved by the Planning and Development Department.
d. Unless subject to Buffer Alley regulations (Section 1207.L), when vehicular access to
the site is provided from an alley, no landscape setback is required adjacent to the
alley.
N. Taylor Street Pedestrian Paseo Regulations.
1. Intent. The Taylor Street Paseo is intended to primarily serve pedestrians, connecting
the Van Buren Character Area to the commercial, educational, and cultural resources
and institutions located in the central portion of Downtown (generally east of First
Avenue). The Paseo will provide a mid-block east-west route alternative located
generally along the alignment of Taylor Street, to help mitigate the unusually long block
lengths between Fillmore and Van Buren Streets.
2. Applicability. The properties abutting the alignment indicated on the map below are
subject to the following special development regulations:
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 102
3. Easement dedication. Properties abutting the Paseo alignment are required to
dedicate a public pedestrian easement (hereafter referred to as "Paseo") per the
alignment as shown on the map provided in this Section.
a. The minimum width of the Paseo, and the public pedestrian easement to be
dedicated at the time of development is 20 feet, subject to the following:
(1) Where the Paseo runs between different properties, the dedication may be split
between the properties so long as the Paseo dedications from all properties are
made concurrently.
(2) If the Paseo is dedicated within or abutting a public street, the public pedestrian
easement dedication within the adjacent Frontage Zone shall be wide enough to
provide a minimum of 20 feet from back of curb to back of easement.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 103
b. The Paseo may be provided as a pedestrian-only corridor between private lots, or
within and/or adjacent to a public street, so long as it is in compliance with all of the
applicable design standards and guidelines provided below.
4. Deviation from approved alignment. The alignment of the Paseo may be deviated by
up to 50 feet either north or south of the approved alignment under the following
conditions:
a. The deviation should not result in a misalignment of more than 90 feet.
b. A north or south connector Paseo, designed in accordance with this section, should
be provided on site when a deviation results in more than 20 feet of misalignment
within the block.
c. The revised easement location shall be dedicated prior to final site plan approval.
d. The deviated alignment can be used in place of the approved alignment. For sites
with an optional alignment two easements are not required.
5. Paseo Streetscape and Frontage Zone standards
a. Streetscape and Frontage Zone standards apply as stated in the applicable
Character Area Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix.
b. Streetscape Zone development regulations, per Section 1204, apply when the Paseo
is located within or abutting a dedicated street.
c. Frontage Zone development regulations, per Section 1204, apply within the portion
of the Paseo located on private property unless such regulations conflict with other
regulations specific to development of the Paseo stated in this Section.
d. If the Paseo is provided within or adjacent to a public street, the street should be
designed with on-street parking adjacent to the Paseo. (P)
Rationale: On-street parking provides a buffer from through traffic lanes, as well as
creating an environment encouraging the use of the Paseo as the main access point
to residential units or commercial suites fronting the Paseo.
e. A minimum of 50% of the ground floor abutting the Paseo should consist of active
uses and/or residential uses providing primary entrances from the Paseo. (P)
f. Each ground floor commercial suite adjacent to the Paseo should provide a primary
entrance to the Paseo. (P)
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 104
Rationale for e and f: The Paseo should attract pedestrians and be a safe place for
persons to walk and gather.
6. Paseo Design Regulations
a. An ADA compliant sidewalk a minimum of 8 feet in width and clear of obstructions
shall be provided within the Paseo. (T)
b. The Paseo should be a straight as possible and avoid meanders. (T)
c. The Paseo sidewalk should be a minimum of 75% shaded. If trees are used to
provide shade, the percent shading shall be calculated based upon tree canopy at
maturity. Structural shade may also be used to comply with the shading
requirement. (P)
d. Decorative paving (e.g. pavers, permeable pavement, colored and textured concrete)
should be provided within the Paseo when located on private property. (P)
e. The Paseo should be clearly separated from vehicular maneuvering areas. (T)
f. Automobile access to on-site parking areas or garages should not cross the Paseo,
unless the Paseo is located within or abutting a dedicated street. At all such
crossings, a crosswalk a minimum of 20 feet wide consisting of paint or contrasting
pavement should be provided. (T)
g. A minimum 15-foot by 15-foot visibility triangle should be provided at any intersection
with the Paseo and on-site vehicular traffic lanes. (T)
h. Paseo segments that cross surface parking areas should be designed with the
following elements: (P)
(1) A minimum 8-foot wide grade separated walkway.
(2) A minimum of 6-foot wide landscape strips on each side of walkway (or 12 feet
on one side).
i. The following lighting treatment should be provided within the Paseo: (P)
(1) 15-foot maximum height of lighting fixtures. When adjacent to a street, taller
streetlights may be provided in addition to the pedestrian-level lighting.
(2) A minimum of one foot-candle illumination should be maintained over the Paseo
sidewalk.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 105
(3) Uniform lighting should be placed along entire Paseo, avoiding bright high glare
areas and low visibility dark areas.
(4) Lighting within the Paseo should be illuminated from dusk until dawn.
j. One of the following identifying markers should be provided at each street entrance
to the Paseo: (P)
(1) Bollard path light.
(2) Public art.
(3) Decorative directional signage.
k. Temporary security gating—In the event that a block’s Paseo is not fully developed,
and the Paseo is not located along a dedicated street, temporary removable fencing
may be erected at the entrances to the Paseo under the following conditions: (P)
(1) A pedestrian gate is provided that is unlocked during business hours.
(2) A revocable permit is obtained.
(3) The fencing is removed upon completion of the block’s Paseo.
Rationale for a through k: the design of the Paseo should encourage use by
pedestrians. Safety, security, and accessibility should work into all design elements,
as well as uses which engage and attract pedestrians.
O. Lot Coverage. When 100% lot coverage is permitted by right, or obtained by sustainability
bonus points, the following apply: (R*)
1. Interior property line setbacks may be reduced or eliminated.
2. Frontage Zone depths and minimum street building setbacks may be reduced as
approved by the Design Review Committee per Section 1224.A.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 106
Section 1208. Biomed.
A. Intent. The Biomed character area, which is home to the biomedical campus, should be a
lively urban district with medical workers, researchers, and students. Restaurants and shops
on Garfield Street, Roosevelt Row, and Arizona Center are all located within a short walk
and development should be designed to reinforce pedestrian convenience to these areas
through a consistent pattern of shaded sidewalks. Small plazas and courtyards are
encouraged to be located along streets, typically near building entrances, providing
gathering places and "cool pockets" on hot days. Landscaped courtyards interior to the
campus should serve as mid-block pedestrian connections. Views of the landscaped
courtyards should be visible from the street, enriching the street environment.
B. Development Regulations. The following development regulations apply to properties
located with the Biomed character area. Where a “bonus” is indicated, the development
regulation may be modified within the range stated when sustainability bonus points are
earned per Section 1223, as approved by PDD staff or the Design Review Committee.
1. Maximum height: governed by the height map, Section 1202.B, and height transition
standards of Section 1207.E.
a. Bonus: none.
2. Maximum density: governed by the density map, Section 1202.C.
a. Bonus: maximum 50% increase.
3. Maximum lot coverage: no maximum.
a. Bonus: none.
4. Minimum setbacks from interior property lines: none.
5. Required parking: governed by Section 1206.
a. Bonus:
(1) Increase: maximum 50%.
(2) Decrease: maximum 100%.
6. Walls/Fences.
a. Frontage Zones: per the provisions of Section 1207.D.
b. Interior property lines: maximum wall height is the same as the maximum permitted
building height(s) for the property.
7. Signage. Signage is subject to the regulations of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Section
705, Table D-1, Commercial/Industrial Right-of-Way Low Volume Street Standards.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 107
C. Streetscape and Frontage Zone Development Regulations. The following development
regulations apply to properties which abut the street sections indicated. All regulations in
the table are appealable to the Design Review Committee under the provisions of Section
1224 and considered as R*.
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix--Biomed
Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Minimum Frontage Zone
Street Section Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Setback Depth
Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
Garfield Street 5' 25’ 50% ALL 5' 20’
4th St. to 6th St.
McKinley Street 5' 25’ 50% ALL 5' 20’
4th St. to 7th St.
Pierce Street 5' 25’ 50% ALL 5' 15’
4th St. to 7th St.
Fillmore Street 5' 25’ 50% ALL 5' 15’
5th St. to 7th St.
Van Buren Street 0' 20’ 75% ALL 6' 12’
5th St. to 9th St.
4th Street 5' 20’ 75% SD, PO, S, 6' 14’
Garfield St. to Fillmore GA, FC
St.
5th Street 0' 20’ 75% S, GA, FC 10' 20’
Garfield St. to Fillmore
St.
5th Street 0' 20’ 75% S, GA 10' 20'
Fillmore St. to Monroe
St.
6th Street 5' 25’ 75% SD, PO, S, 10' 20’
Garfield St. to Fillmore GA, FC
St.
7th Street 0' 20’ 75% ALL 5' 15’
McKinley St. to Monroe
St.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 108
(AFY) Active Front Yard, (PA) Patio, (SD) Stoop/Door Well, (PO) Porch, (CE) Common
Entry, (FC) Forecourt, (S) Storefront, (GA) Gallery/Arcade, (GR) Grand Entry, (ALL) All
Frontage Elements
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 109
Section 1209. Business Core.
A. Intent. The Business Core character area should function as a strong regional center for
employment, entertainment, conventions, tourism, and cultural institutions, drawing visitors
from around the country and attracting residents from throughout the region. The greatest
development intensity within the region should be located within this character area. New
development should be innovative and incorporate small public spaces that promote
pedestrian movement and comfort. The Business Core should have vibrant pedestrian
activity and be served frequently by multiple modes of high quality public transit.
B. Development Regulations. The following development regulations apply to properties
located with the Business Core character area. Where a “bonus” is indicated, the
development regulation may be modified within the range stated when sustainability bonus
points are earned per Section 1223, as approved by PDD staff or the Design Review
Committee, unless stated otherwise.
1. Maximum height: governed by the height map, Section 1202.B, and height transition
standards of Section 1207.E.
a. Bonus (north of Madison Street): none.
b. Bonus (south of Madison Street, within the 80 feet base height category only):
maximum height of 140 feet shall be permitted only with dedication of a 30-year
conservation easement over an existing building designated HP or HP-L, as
approved by HP. The property with the conservation easement must be located
between Madison Street and Lincoln Street, and within either the Business Core or
Warehouse character areas. Sustainability bonus points cannot be used to obtain
this height bonus.
2. Maximum density: governed by the density map, Section 1202.C.
a. Bonus: none.
3. Maximum lot coverage: no maximum.
a. Bonus: none.
4. Minimum setbacks from interior property lines: none.
5. Required parking:
a. Minimum:
(1) Residential uses: governed by Section 1206.
(2) Non-residential uses: none.
b. Maximum: governed by Section 1206.
c. Bonus:
(1) Increase: maximum 100%
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 110
(2) Decrease: maximum 100%.
6. Walls/Fences.
a. Frontage Zones: per the provisions of Section 1207.D.
b. Interior property lines: maximum wall height is the same as the maximum permitted
building height(s) for the property.
7. Taylor Street Paseo. Certain properties within the Business Core are subject to the
additional development regulations of the Taylor Street Paseo, Section 1207.N. The
affected properties are shown on the map provided within that Section.
C. Streetscape and Frontage Zone Development Regulations. The following development
regulations apply to properties which abut the street sections indicated. All regulations in
the table are appealable to the Design Review Committee under the provisions of Section
1224 and considered as R*.
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix—Business Core
Frontage Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Minimum
Street Section Zone Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Setback
Depth Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
Fillmore Street 5' 25’ Minimum ALL 5' 11'
3rd Ave. to 5th St. 50%
Taylor Street Paseo 0’ 20’ Minimum SD, PO, S, 8’ 13’, or 0’
7th Ave. to 3rd Ave. 75% GA, CE when not
located within
or adjacent to
a dedicated
street
Taylor Street 5' 20' Minimum S, GA, GR 8' 14'
1st St. to 3rd St. 75%
Polk Street 0' 20’ Minimum S, GA, GR 8' 14'
Central Ave. to 2nd St. 75%
Van Buren Street 0' 20’ Minimum S, GA, GR 8' 14'
3rd Ave. to 5th St. 75%
Monroe Street 0' 20' Minimum S, GA, GR 10' 16'
5th Ave. to 5th St. 75%
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 111
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix—Business Core
Frontage Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Minimum
Street Section Zone Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Setback
Depth Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
Adams Street 0' 20' Minimum ALL 5' 13'
8th Ave. to 7th Ave. 75%
Adams Street 0' 20' Minimum S, GA, CE, 8' 14'
7th Ave. to 3rd Ave. 75% GR
Adams Street 0' 20' Minimum S, GA, CE, 10' 16'
3rd Ave. to 2nd St. 75% GR
Washington Street 0' 20' Minimum S, GA, CE, 10' 16'
8th Ave. to 2nd St. 75% GR
Washington Street 0' 20' Minimum S, GA, CE, 8' 14'
2nd St. to 7th St. 75% GR
Jefferson Street 0' 20' Minimum S, GA, CE, 8' 14'
8th Ave. to 3rd Ave. 75% GR
Jefferson Street 0' 20' Minimum S, GA, CE, 10' 16'
3rd Ave. to 5th St. 75% GR
Jefferson Street 0' 20' Minimum S, GA, CE, 8' 14'
5th St. to 7th St. 75% GR
Madison Street 0' 20' Minimum S, GA, CE, 8' 14'
8th Ave. to 7th Ave. 75% GR
Madison Street 0' 20' Minimum S, GA, CE, 8' 14'
5th Ave. to 1st St. 75% GR
Jackson Street 0' 20' Minimum S, GA, CE, 8' 14'
7th Ave. to 5th Ave. 75% GR
Jackson Street 0' 20' Minimum S, GA, CE, 8' 14'
4th Ave. to 1st Ave. 75% GR
Jackson Street 0' 20' Minimum S, GA, CE, 10' 16'
1st St. to 4th St. 75% GR
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 112
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix—Business Core
Frontage Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Minimum
Street Section Zone Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Setback
Depth Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
Buchanan Street 5' 25' Minimum SD, PA, PO, 8' 14’
4th St. to 7th St. 75% S, GA
Lincoln Street 5' 25' Minimum SD, PA, PO, 8' 14'
4th St. to 7th St. 75% S, GA
8th Avenue 5' 23' Minimum S, GA, GR 8' 14'
Adams St. to Madison 75%
St.
7th Avenue 5' 25' Minimum S, GA, GR 6' 14'
Adams St. to Jefferson 75%
St.
7th Avenue None None None ALL 6' 14'
Jefferson St. to Harrison Required Required Required
St. alignment
6th Avenue 5' 25' Minimum S, GA, GR 8' 14'
Adams St. to 50%
Washington St.
5th Avenue 5' 25' Minimum SD, PA, PO, 5' 10'
Monroe St. to 75% S, GA
Washington St.
5th Avenue 5' 25' Minimum ALL 8' West 14' West
Jefferson St. to Harrison 50%
5' East 10' East
St. alignment
4th Avenue 5' 25' Minimum ALL 8' 14'
Monroe St. to 50%
Washington St.
4th Avenue 5' 25' Minimum SD, PA, PO, 10' 16'
Washington St. to 75% S, GA
Jackson St.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 113
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix—Business Core
Frontage Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Minimum
Street Section Zone Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Setback
Depth Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
3rd Avenue 5' 25' Minimum ALL 8' 14'
Fillmore St. to Van 75%
Buren St.
3rd Avenue 5' 25' Minimum ALL 8' 14'
Van Buren St. to 50%
Washington St.
3rd Avenue 5' 25' Minimum S, GA, GR 8' 14'
Washington St. to 75%
Jackson St.
2nd Avenue 5' 25' Minimum ALL Per plans approved by Street
Fillmore St. to Monroe 75% Transportation Department.
St.
2nd Avenue 5' 25' Minimum ALL 10' 16'
Monroe St. to Adams 75%
St.
1st Avenue 5' 25' Minimum S, GA, GR 8' 14'
Fillmore St. to Madison 75%
St.
1st Avenue None None None ALL Per plans approved by Street
Madison St. to Jackson Required Required Required Transportation Department.
St.
Central Avenue 5' 25' Minimum S, GA, GR 10' 16'
Fillmore St. to Madison 75%
St.
1st Street 5' 25' Minimum S, GA, GR 10' 16'
Fillmore St. to Jackson 75%
St.
2nd Street 5' 25' Minimum S, GA, GR 10' 16'
Fillmore St. to Jefferson 75%
St.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 114
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix—Business Core
Frontage Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Minimum
Street Section Zone Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Setback
Depth Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
3rd Street 5' 25' Minimum S, GA, GR 10' 16'
Fillmore St. to Jackson 75%
St.
4th Street 5' 25' Minimum S, GA, GR 5' 10'
Jefferson St. to Jackson 75%
St.
4th Street 5' 25' Minimum SD, PA, PO, 8' 14'
Jackson St. to Lincoln 75% S, GA
St.
5th Street 5' 25' Minimum SD, PA, PO, 8' 14'
Fillmore St. to Van 75% S, GA
Buren St.
5th Street 5' 25' Minimum S, GA, GR 8' 14'
Van Buren St. to 50%
Jefferson St.
5th Street 5' 25' Minimum ALL 8' 14'
Buchanan St. to Lincoln 50%
St.
6th Street 5' 25' Minimum ALL 8' 14'
Buchanan St. to Lincoln 50%
St.
7th Street 5' 25' Minimum S, GA, GR 8' 14'
Monroe St. to Jefferson 75%
St.
7th Street None None None ALL 8' 14'
Jefferson St. to Lincoln Required Required Required
St.
(AFY) Active Front Yard, (PA) Patio, (SD) Stoop/Door Well, (PO) Porch, (CE) Common
Entry, (FC) Forecourt, (S) Storefront, (GA) Gallery/Arcade, (GR) Grand Entry, (ALL) All
Frontage Elements
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 115
D. Signage Regulations.
1. Signage in the Business Core Character Area shall be governed by the regulations
applicable to signs for commercial land use as established in Section 705. Signs not
visible beyond the boundaries of the lot or parcel upon which they are situated or from
any public thoroughfare are not regulated as signs.
a. Signs projecting more than six inches from the front of buildings over the public right-
of-way shall be perpendicular to the street (i.e., 90-degree angle), with a maximum of
one sign per entrance. All signs that extend into or over the public right-of-way shall
be permitted only upon issuance of a revocable permit as administered by the City of
Phoenix. Each sign shall:
(1) Identify only one on-site business.
(2) Provide a minimum eight-foot head clearance. Existing signs with a minimum of
seven feet six inches clearance may remain.
(3) Project no more than three feet into the public right-of-way.
(4) Be indirectly illuminated from a shielded light source (i.e., not backlit or "cabinet"
sign).
b. Awning signs shall be permitted by right. Awning signs shall have letters no more
than ten inches in height.
c. Signs painted on the building surface or letters mounted directly to the building
surface shall:
(1) Be a maximum of one square foot of signage for each lineal foot of building
elevation to a maximum of 100 square feet.
(2) Be at least half the vertical height of the letters to a building corner (vertical edge)
or to a roofline.
2. Signage may be increased by up to 25 percent by submitting a comprehensive sign plan
as provided in the Phoenix Sign Code, Section 705.E.
3. The foregoing requirements shall not apply to signs exceeding 56 feet in height
approved through a comprehensive sign plan and subject to the requirements of Section
705.D.3.i of the Zoning Ordinance.
4. Window signs fronting the public right-of-way shall not exceed a total of more than 20
percent of the window panel area.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 116
5. Second-story or basement business fronting the public right-of-way may only use a sign
in a second-story window or use a wall sign. Awning signs shall not be permitted on
second-story windows.
6. Corner buildings shall be allowed signage on each street frontage.
7. Freestanding or ground signs may be allowed to a maximum of 40 square feet in area if
the primary building is set back 15 or more feet from the property line for more than 50
percent of the street frontage. Said sign shall be a maximum of three feet in height.
Signs may be up to 20 feet in height and 100 square feet in area if a comprehensive sign
plan is approved and if the project covers a full block or more.
8. Directional signs for accessory parking will be allowed to a maximum of six square feet
per sign per driveway entrance. Said sign shall be a maximum of three feet in height. No
more than 25 percent of the area may be devoted to business identification.
9. The provisions of Section 705.C.6.d (illuminated sign spacing from residential use) shall
not apply within the Business Core Character Area.
10. Signs, banners, balloons, flags, guidons, and similar devices may be erected subject to
a use permit in conjunction with special promotional events to be held within Downtown
of a civic or commercial nature. No more than 25 percent of the area may be devoted to
corporate sponsorship identity. Findings of approval of the use permit shall include:
a. The signs and other displays are appropriate in scale, composition, and manner of
display with surrounding development.
b. When two or more adjoining establishments are to participate equally in the event, a
single request for a use permit may be filed.
11. For master planned developments covering one or more downtown blocks (300 feet by
300 feet minimum), signs, banners, and flags may be erected subject to a use permit in
compliance with a comprehensive sign plan. Findings of approval of the use permit shall
include:
a. The signs and other displays are appropriate in scale, composition, and manner of
display with surrounding development.
b. The signs, banners, and flags are mounted and secured so as not to pose a
distraction or hazard to vehicles or pedestrians.
c. The signs and other displays shall include only logos, graphics and project name of
the master planned development.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 117
12. Wall signs on buildings in a designated historic preservation zoning district exceeding
the applicable size regulations may be allowed by the Historic Preservation Commission
in accordance with the procedure set forth in Section 812.C.3 and upon the additional
finding that the proposed signage replicates the size, shape, and placement of the
original wall signage.
13. The following signs are prohibited:
a. Signs placed above or on top of any portion of the roof or front parapet.
b. Signs advertising goods or services not provided on the premises.
c. Signs utilizing moving, flashing, or rotating lights or mechanisms, except as provided
by a use permit.
14. For master planned developments covering contiguous area of at least ten acres, signs,
including those signs, banners, and flags otherwise prohibited by Sections 1209.D.10
and 13, may be erected subject to approval of a Master Planned Development Sign Plan
and related detailed project sign plans in accordance with the provisions of this section.
In recognition of design that contributes to and furthers the goals of the Downtown
Phoenix Plan, the City may approve a Master Planned Development Sign Plan to allow
larger and taller signs than are otherwise allowed within Downtown.
a. Sign types. In addition to other signs permitted in the Business Core Character Area
and those signs, banners, and flags otherwise prohibited by Sections 1209.D.10 and
13, the following sign types shall be permitted in a Master Planned Development
Sign Plan: aerial view signs, animated signs, architectural ledge signs, awning signs,
electronic message display signs, inflatable signs, kinetic signs, projected image
signs, projecting signs, roof signs, supergraphic 0signs, and wayfinding signs.
b. Master Planned Development Sign Plan application. A Master Planned Development
Sign Plan application shall include the following elements:
(1) Site plans, building elevations, or photographs, and design guidelines for each
type of sign to be permitted within the boundaries of the master planned
development. These plans and elevations/photographs shall indicate orientation,
size, location and method of installation of signs, including delineating on the site
plan the locations and orientation of ground-mounted signs and delineating on
the elevations/photographs the area in which building/structure mounted signs
will be contained. Design guidelines shall address, at a minimum, architectural
compatibility with primary structures within the master planned development.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 118
(2) Context plan. The context plan shall include an aerial photograph of the master
planned development and the surrounding area with notations of the current land
use of parcels within the development and within 150 feet of the perimeter of the
development. The context plan shall also include photographs taken looking
outward from the perimeter of the master planned development at 100-foot
intervals for the entire boundary of the development.
(3) Standards. The standards and restrictions for each sign type shall include, but
not be limited to size, height, illumination, and durability of materials. The
standards shall also include calculations showing the maximum sign area
permitted per building face. In no case shall the standards exceed the following
limitations:
(a) Ground signs. Ground signs, which may be multi-faced, shall not exceed 50
feet in height and no single face shall exceed 600 square feet. The overall
height of ground signs, including sign embellishments, shall not exceed 67
percent of the height of the closest building.
(b) Building mounted signs. Aggregate area for building mounted signs shall not
exceed 100 percent of the facade to which the signs are attached, including
the building roof. Building mounted signs shall not project more than 20 feet
above the parapet or from the face of the building.
(c) Illumination. Signs facing or oriented to an existing residential use or structure
that has obtained a certificate of occupancy for residential use and located
closer than 60 feet to such residential use or structure shall not be illuminated
between midnight and sunrise.
(d) Temporary signs. Temporary signs shall be allowed at the same sizes and
heights as permanent signs. Temporary signs/graphics shall be allowed to
cover 100 percent of construction fencing and barricades.
(4) Narrative. A written narrative shall discuss the purpose and intent of the Master
Planned Development Sign Plan and its consistency with the Downtown Phoenix
Plan. The narrative shall also address the quantity and durability/anticipated
lifespan of the proposed sign materials.
(5) Architectural lighting. A Master Planned Development Sign Plan may include
provisions regarding architectural lighting, that shall be exempt from calculation
as sign area. Architectural lighting shall not include text, logos, messages, or
images of any kind. Architectural lighting shall not flash, blink, scroll, move or
stream.
c. Approval of a Master Planned Development Sign Plan. An application for a Master
Planned Development Sign Plan shall be submitted to the Planning and
Development Director or designee for review and approval. The Planning and
Development Director or designee shall approve, approve with conditions or deny
such application within 15 working days of receipt of the application. The Planning
and Development Director or designee shall approve such application only if the
following findings are made:
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 119
(1) The signs, banners, flags and architectural lighting are mounted and secured so
as to not pose a distraction or hazard to vehicles and pedestrians.
(2) The signs and architectural lighting are appropriate in scale, composition, and
manner of display with surrounding development.
(3) The signs and architectural lighting conform to the vision, goals and policies of
the Downtown Phoenix Plan.
d. Detailed project sign plan application. An application for approval of a detailed
project sign plan for a development within the boundaries of an approved Master
Planned Development Sign Plan shall include the following documents or graphics:
(1) Site plans, building elevations or photo simulations that show the placement of
the signs and architectural lighting within the master planned development and
on the specific building, structure or site.
(2) Graphic rendering of the signs depicting their lettering, illumination, color, shape,
area, and height.
(3) Details regarding any proposed animation or changeable messages, including
duration of each message and intensity of illumination.
(4) Proposed hours for illumination of the signs.
(5) A written narrative discussing the detailed project sign plan’s consistency with the
Master Planned Development Sign Plan.
e. Approval of detailed project sign plans. An application for a detailed project sign plan
shall be submitted to the Planning and Development Director or designee for review
for conformance with the standards, restrictions and guidelines of the Master
Planned Development Sign Plan. The Planning and Development Director or
designee shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny a detailed project sign plan
application within 15 working days of receipt of the application. The Planning and
Development Director or designee shall approve such application only if the
applicant demonstrates the following:
(1) The size and location of the signs, banners, flags or architectural lighting are
allowed under the standards of the Master Development Sign Plan.
(2) The scale, composition and manner of display of the signs, banners, flags or
architectural lighting conform to the standards and guidelines of the Master
Development Sign Plan.
(3) The type and hours of illumination and animation conform to the standards of the
Master Development Sign Plan.
(4) The durability of the materials proposed for the signs, banners, flags or
architectural lighting is appropriate for the intended lifespan of the signs, banners,
flags or architectural lighting.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 120
f. Appeals. An applicant may appeal the decision of the Planning and Development
Director or designee regarding a Master Planned Development Sign Plan within five
working days of the decision. Appeals shall be considered by the Zoning Adjustment
Hearing Officer through the use permit process in accordance with the provisions of
Section 307 on the next available agenda. In addition to the standards of Section
307, the Zoning Adjustment Hearing Officer shall review the decision with the
standards for approval established in Section 1209.D.10.e.
g. Amendment. Any proposal to exceed the standards and restrictions established in a
Master Planned Development Sign Plan shall require amendment through the
process required for initial application and approval of a Master Planned
Development Sign Plan.
h. Specific signs. Requests for approval of specific, individual signs with a master
planned development may be included in an application for either a Master Planned
Development Sign Plan or a detailed project sign plan. Such signs shall not be
installed or erected before issuance of a sign permit from the Planning and
Development Department. If a specific, individual sign within the boundary of a
Master Planned Development Sign Plan is not included in either the Master Planned
Development Sign Plan or a detailed project sign plan, an application for such sign
shall be submitted to the Planning and Development Department for review for
conformance with the applicable sign plan and shall not be installed or erected
before issuance of a sign permit from the Planning and Development Department.
15. For master planned developments for sports, entertainment or concert venues with a
minimum of 4,000 seats, signs, including those signs, banners, and flags otherwise
prohibited by Sections 1209.D.10 and 13, may be erected subject to approval of a
Master Planned Development Sign Plan. The City may approve a Master Planned
Development Sign Plan to allow signs that are larger and taller than are otherwise
allowed within the Business Core Character Area within Downtown. All signage
permitted under this section shall be reviewed and approved in accordance with the
following:
a. Sign types. In addition to other signs permitted in the Business Core Character Area,
the following sign types shall be permitted in a master planned development: aerial
view signs, animated signs, architectural ledge signs, awning signs, electronic
message display signs, inflatable signs, kinetic signs, projected image signs,
projecting signs, roof signs, supergraphics signs, and wayfinding signs.
b. Master Planned Development Sign Plan application. An application for a Master
Planned Development Sign Plan shall be submitted to the Planning and
Development Director or designee for review and approval. A Master Planned
Development Sign Plan application shall include the following:
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 121
(1) Design guidelines. Site plans, building elevations, or photographs, and design
guidelines for each type of sign to be permitted within the boundaries of the
master planned development. These plans and elevations/photographs shall
indicate orientation, size, location and method of installation of the sign. This
shall include delineating on the site plan the locations and orientation of ground-
mounted signs and delineating on the elevations/photographs the area in which
building/structure mounted signs will be contained. Design guidelines shall
address, at a minimum, architectural compatibility with primary structures within
the master planned development.
(2) Context plan. The context plan shall include an aerial photograph of the master
planned development and the surrounding area with notations of the current land
use of parcels within the development and within 150 feet of the perimeter of the
development. The context plan shall also include photographs taken looking
outward from the perimeter of the master planned development at 100-foot
intervals for the entire boundary of the development.
(3) Standards. The standards and restrictions for each sign type shall include, but
not be limited to size, height, illumination, and durability of materials. The
standards shall also include calculations showing the maximum sign area
permitted per building face. In no case shall the standards exceed the following
limitations:
(a) Building mounted signs. Aggregate area for building mounted signs shall not
exceed 25 percent on one elevation facing an arterial street and 10 percent
on the other elevations, with the ability to transfer up to five percent from the
arterial elevation to one other elevation. Building mounted signs shall not
project more than 20 feet above the parapet or from the face of the building. If
the sign is placed at an angle to the building elevation, the applicant must
specify to which elevation the sign area will be counted.
(b) Supergraphics. Supergraphics signs not to exceed 300 square feet or five
percent of building elevation whichever is less.
(c) Illumination. Signs facing or oriented to an existing residential use or structure
that has obtained a certificate of occupancy for residential use and located
closer than 60 feet to such residential use or structure shall not be illuminated
between midnight and sunrise.
(d) Temporary signs. Temporary signs may be allowed at the same sizes and
heights as permanent signs. Temporary signs or graphics shall be allowed to
cover 100 percent of construction fencing and barricades.
(4) Narrative. A written narrative shall discuss the purpose and intent of the Master
Planned Development Sign Plan and its consistency with the Downtown Phoenix
Plan. The narrative shall also address the quantity and durability or anticipated
lifespan of the proposed sign materials.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 122
(5) Architectural lighting. A Master Planned Development Sign Plan may include
provisions regarding architectural lighting, that shall be exempt from calculation
as sign area. Architectural lighting shall not include text, logos, messages, or
images of any kind. Architectural lighting shall not flash, blink, scroll, move, or
stream.
c. Approval of a Master Planned Development Sign Plan. The Planning and
Development Director or designee shall approve, approve with conditions or deny
such application. The Planning and Development Director or designee shall approve
such application in writing only if the following findings are made:
(1) The signs, banners, flags and architectural lighting are mounted, secured, and
operated so as to not pose a nuisance.
(2) The signs and architectural lighting are appropriate in scale, composition, and
manner of display with surrounding development.
(3) The signs and architectural lighting are consistent with the vision, goals and
policies of the Downtown Phoenix Plan dated December 14, 2004.
d. Appeals. An applicant may appeal the decision of the Planning and Development
Director or designee regarding the Master Planned Development Sign Plan within
five working days of the decision. Appeals shall be considered by the Zoning
Adjustment Hearing Officer through the use permit process in accordance with the
provisions of Section 307 on the next available agenda. In addition to the standards
of Section 307, the Zoning Adjustment Hearing Officer shall review the decision with
the standards for approval established in Section 1209.D.15.c.
e. Amendment. Any proposal to exceed the standards and restrictions established in a
Master Planned Development Sign Plan shall require amendment through the
process required for initial application and approval of a Master Planned
Development Sign Plan.
16. Signage may be increased by up to 25 percent if a comprehensive sign plan is approved
as provided in Section 705.E of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 123
Section 1210. Central Park.
A. Intent. Central Park has a strong historic single-family form and scale that should be
preserved as this area redevelops. A seamless integration of new buildings within the
existing fabric should be promoted. Mixed uses, home offices and workshops are allowed in
the primary structure and in appropriately scaled accessory buildings. Landscaping is
residential in character with front yards separating the building from the sidewalk. Sidewalks
are shaded by trees in parkway strips. Parking should be on the street and within detached
garages behind the primary structure.
B. Development Regulations. The following development regulations apply to properties
located with the Central Park character area. Where a “bonus” is indicated, the
development regulation may be modified within the range stated when sustainability bonus
points are earned per Section 1223, as approved by PDD staff or the Design Review
Committee.
1. Maximum height:
a. Main building: governed by the height map, Section 1202.B, and height transition
standards of Section 1207.E.
b. Accessory structures, including Accessory Dwelling Units: 30 feet.
c. Bonus: none.
2. Maximum density: governed by the density map, Section 1202.C.
a. Bonus: maximum 50% increase.
3. Maximum lot coverage: 50%.
a. Bonus: none.
b. Additional lot coverage of 10% (total 60%) is allowed for accessory structures.
4. Minimum setbacks from interior property lines.
a. Primary building:
(1) Side: 5 feet.
(2) Rear: 40 feet.
b. Accessory structures:
(1) Side: 3 feet.
(2) Rear: 5 feet, which may be reduced to 0 feet when abutting a fully dedicated
alley which is not a designated Buffer Alley per Section 1202.E.
5. Required parking: governed by Section 1206.
a. Bonus:
(1) Increase: maximum 50%
(2) Decrease: maximum 50%.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 124
6. Walls/Fences.
a. Frontage Zones: per the provisions of Section 1207.D.
(1) Walls/fences taller than 40 inches may not be provided closer to the street than
the front façade of the structure. This provision does not apply to street side
yards.
b. Interior property lines: maximum height of 6 feet.
7. Signage. Signage is subject to the regulations of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Section
705, Table D-1, Nonresidential Activity in a Residential District Right-of-Way Standards.
C. Streetscape and Frontage Zone Development Regulations. The following development
regulations apply to properties which abut the street sections indicated. All regulations in
the table are appealable to the Design Review Committee under the provisions of Section
1224 and considered as R*.
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix—Central Park
Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Minimum Frontage
Street Section Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Setback Zone Depth
Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
Tonto Street 5' 25' Minimum AFY, SD, PA, 5' 12'
Alley west of 1st St. 50% PO
to 4th St.
Hadley Street 5' 25' Minimum AFY, SD, PA, 5' 12'
Alley west of 1st St. 50% PO
to 1st St.
Hadley Street 15' 25' Minimum AFY, SD, PA, 5' 12'
1st St. to 2nd St. 50% PO
Hadley Street 5' 25' Minimum AFY, SD, PA, 5' 12'
2nd St. to 4th St. 50% PO, CE, S
1st Street 15' 25' Minimum AFY, SD, PA, 5' 12'
South of Grant St. to 50% PO, S
north of Buckeye Rd.
2nd Street 15' 25' Minimum AFY, SD, PA, 5' 12'
South of Grant St. to 50% PO
north of Buckeye Rd.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 125
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix—Central Park
Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Minimum Frontage
Street Section Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Setback Zone Depth
Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
3rd Street 15' 25' Minimum AFY, SD, PA, 5' 20'
South of Grant St. to 50% PO
north of Hadley St.
4th Street 15' 25' Minimum AFY, SD, PA, 5' 12’
South of Grant St. to 50% PO
Hadley St.
(AFY) Active Front Yard, (PA) Patio, (SD) Stoop/Door Well, (PO) Porch, (CE) Common
Entry, (FC) Forecourt, (S) Storefront, (GA) Gallery/Arcade, (GR) Grand Entry, (ALL) All
Frontage Elements
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 126
Section 1211. Commercial Corridors.
A. Intent. The commercial corridors should become attractive gateways into downtown. New
wider and shaded sidewalks should provide safety and comfort, making it easier for
pedestrians and transit riders to access services in the corridor. New mixed-use
developments are envisioned to line 7th Avenue, with small restaurants, retail and other
businesses serving the surrounding neighborhoods. Along Central Avenue, a street wall
should be established that frames the street to create a gateway entrance into Downtown
from the south.
B. Development Regulations. The following development regulations apply to properties
located with the Commercial Corridors character area. Where a “bonus” is indicated, the
development regulation may be modified within the range stated when sustainability bonus
points are earned per Section 1223, as approved by PDD staff or the Design Review
Committee.
1. Maximum height:
a. Main building: governed by the height map, Section 1202.B, and height transition
standards of Section 1207.E.
b. Accessory structures, including Accessory Dwelling Units: 20 feet.
c. Bonus: none.
2. Maximum density: governed by the density map, Section 1202.C.
a. Bonus: none.
3. Maximum lot coverage: 50%
a. Bonus: maximum 85% lot coverage.
b. Additional lot coverage of 10% (total 60%) is allowed for an ADU.
4. Minimum setbacks from interior property lines:
a. Primary building:
(1) Side: 5 feet.
(2) Rear: 15 feet, which may be reduced to 0 feet when abutting a fully dedicated
alley which is not a designated Buffer Alley.
5. Required parking: governed by Section 1206.
a. Bonus:
(1) Increase: maximum 50%
(2) Decrease: maximum 50%.
6. Walls/Fences.
a. Frontage Zones: per the provisions of Section 1207.D.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 127
b. Interior property lines: maximum height of 6 feet.
7. Signage. Signage is subject to the regulations of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Section
705, Table D-1, Commercial/Industrial Right-of-Way Low Volume Street Standards.
C. Streetscape and Frontage Zone Development Regulations. The following development
regulations apply to properties which abut the street sections indicated. All regulations in
the table are appealable to the Design Review Committee under the provisions of Section
1224 and considered as R*.
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix—Commercial Corridors
Minimu
Minimum Minimum Minimum
Frontage Allowed Frontage m
Street Section Building Building Streetscape
Zone Depth Elements Sidewalk
Setback Frontage Zone Depth
Width
7th Avenue Corridor
7th Avenue 5' 25' Minimum 50% ALL 6' 12'
Alley north of
Roosevelt St. to
Fillmore St.
Roosevelt Street 5' 25' Minimum 50% AFY, SD, PA, PO, 5' 11'
Alley west of 7th S, GA
Ave. to alley east of
7th Ave.
McKinley Street 5' 25' Minimum 50% AFY, SD, PA, PO, 5' 10' west of 7th
Alley west of 7th S, GA Ave.
Ave. to alley east of
7th Ave. 14' east of 7th
Ave.
Pierce Street 5' 25' Minimum 50% AFY, SD, PA, PO, 5' 10'
Alley west of 7th S, GA
Ave. to 7th Ave.
Fillmore Street 5' 25' Minimum 50% AFY, SD, PA, PO, 5' 12'
Alley west of 7th S, GA
Ave. to alley east of
7th Ave.
Central Avenue South Corridor
Central Avenue 0' 20' Minimum 50% S, GA, SD, PO,CE 5' 11'
Grant St. to Hadley
St.
Central Avenue 0' 20' Minimum 50% S, GA, SD, PO, CE 5' 10'
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 128
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix—Commercial Corridors
Minimu
Minimum Minimum Minimum
Frontage Allowed Frontage m
Street Section Building Building Streetscape
Zone Depth Elements Sidewalk
Setback Frontage Zone Depth
Width
Hadley St. to
Buckeye Rd.
Grant Street 5' 25' Minimum 50% SD, PA, PO, S, GA 5' 15'
2nd Ave. to 2nd St.
Sherman Street 5' 25' Minimum 50% SD, PA, PO, S, GA 5' 11'
2nd Ave. to 1st Ave.
crossover
Hadley Street 5' 25' Minimum 50% SD, PA, PO, S, GA 5' 12'
1st Ave. to alley east
of Central Ave.
Tonto Street 5' 25' Minimum 50% SD, PA, PO, S, GA 5' 12'
1st Ave. to alley east
of Central Ave.
Buckeye Road 0' 20' Minimum 50% S, GA 5' 12'
Alley west of Central
Ave. to 3rd St.
Buckeye Road 0' 20' Minimum 50% S, GA 7' 12’
Alley west of 3rd St.
to 4th St.
2nd Avenue 0' 20' Minimum 50% ALL 5' 10'
Grant St. to
Sherman St.
1st Avenue 0' 20’ Minimum 50% S, GA 5' 19'
Grant St. to
Sherman St.
1st Avenue 5' 25' Minimum 50% AFY, SD, PA, PO, 5' 18'
Hadley St. to Tonto S, GA
St.
1st Street 15' 25' Minimum 50% AFY, SD, PA, PO, 5' 12'
South of Grant St. S, GA
1st Street 10' 20' Minimum 50% AFY, SD, PA, PO, 5' 12'
Adjacent to Buckeye S, GA
Rd.
2nd Street 15' 25' Minimum 50% AFY, SD, PA, PO 5' 12'
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 129
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix—Commercial Corridors
Minimu
Minimum Minimum Minimum
Frontage Allowed Frontage m
Street Section Building Building Streetscape
Zone Depth Elements Sidewalk
Setback Frontage Zone Depth
Width
South of Grant St.
2nd Street 10' 20' Minimum 50% AFY, SD, PA, PO, 5' 12'
Adjacent to Buckeye S, GA
Rd.
3rd Street 10' 20' Minimum 50% AFY, SD, PA, PO, 5' 20'
Tonto St. to Buckeye S, GA
Rd.
4th Street 10' 20' Minimum 50% AFY, SD, PA, PO, 5' 10'
Tonto St. to Buckeye S, GA
Rd.
(AFY) Active Front Yard, (PA) Patio, (SD) Stoop/Door Well, (PO) Porch, (CE) Common
Entry, (FC) Forecourt, (S) Storefront, (GA) Gallery/Arcade, (GR) Grand Entry, (ALL) All
Frontage Elements
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 130
Section 1212. Downtown Gateway.
A. Intent. The Downtown Gateway should be a high-density, vibrant corridor with a mix of
residential and commercial development designed for transit riders. Restaurants with
outdoor dining, and commercial and retail uses should be placed along the street to invite
pedestrian exploration. Streetscape improvements throughout the area should be
encouraged to make light rail accessible and vibrant.
B. Development Standards. The following development regulations apply to properties
located with the Downtown Gateway character area. Where a “bonus” is indicated, the
development regulation may be modified within the range stated when sustainability bonus
points are earned per Section 1223, as approved by PDD staff or the Design Review
Committee.
1. Maximum height:
a. Main building: governed by the height map, Section 1202.B, and height transition
standards of Section 1207.E.
b. Bonus: none, except north of Garfield Street,McKinley Street and south of Portland
Street where a 30% bonus is allowed.
2. Maximum density: governed by the density map, Section 1202.C.
a. Bonus: maximum 50% increase.
3. Maximum lot coverage: 100%.
a. Bonus: none.
4. Minimum setbacks from interior property lines: none.
5. Required parking: governed by Section 1206.
b. Bonus:
(1) Increase: maximum 50%
(2) Decrease: maximum 100%.
6. Walls/Fences.
a. Frontage Zones: per the provisions of Section 1207.D.
b. Interior property lines:
(1) When a fully dedicated alley is present, view fencing shall be provided for all
portions of walls above 40” in height.
(2) When not adjacent to an alley, maximum wall height is the same as the
maximum permitted building height(s) for the property.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 131
7. Signage. Signage is subject to the regulations of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Section
705, Table D-1, Nonresidential Activity in a Residential District Right-of-Way Standards.
C. Streetscape and Frontage Zone Development Regulations. The following development
regulations apply to properties which abut the street sections indicated. All regulations in
the table are appealable to the Design Review Committee under the provisions of Section
1224 and considered as R*.
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix—Downtown Gateway
Minimum Frontage Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Street Section Building Zone Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Setback Depth Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
Coronado Road 0' 20' Minimum 75% SD, PA, 8' 16'
Central Ave. to PO, S, GA
Alvarado Rd.
McDowell Road 0' 20' Minimum 75% SD, PA, 8' 16'
1st Ave. to Alvarado PO, S, GA,
Rd. GR
Lynwood Street 0' 20' Minimum 75% SD, PA, 8' 16'
West of Central Ave. PO, S, GA
to Central Ave.
Willetta Street 0' 20' Minimum 50% ALL 8' 16'
Central Ave. to 1st
St.
Culver Street 0' 20' Minimum 50% ALL 8' 16'
West of Central Ave.
to Central Ave.
Roosevelt Street 0' 20' Minimum 75% SD, PA, 8' 16'
Alley west of 1st PO, S, GA
Ave. to alley east of
Central Ave.
Portland Street 0' 20' Minimum 75% SD, PA, 8' 16'
West of Central Ave. PO, S, GA
to Central Ave.
Portland Street 0' 20' Minimum 50% ALL 8' 16'
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 132
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix—Downtown Gateway
Minimum Frontage Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Street Section Building Zone Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Setback Depth Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
Central Ave. to alley
east of Central Ave.
Garfield Street 0' 20' Minimum 50% ALL 8' 16'
Central Ave. to alley
east of Central Ave.
McKinley Street 0' 20' Minimum 50% ALL 8' 16'
Alley west of 1st
Ave. to alley east of
Central Ave.
Pierce Street 0' 20' Minimum 50% ALL 8' 16'
Central Ave. to alley
east of Central Ave.
Fillmore Street 0' 20' Minimum 50% ALL 8' 16'
Alley west of 1st
Ave. to alley east of
Central Ave.
1st Avenue 5' 25' N/A SD, PO 8' 16'
Alley north of
Almeria Rd. to
McDowell Rd.
1st Avenue 0' 20' Minimum 75% ALL 8' 16'
Roosevelt St. to
McKinley St.
1st Avenue 0' 20' Minimum 75% ALL 8' 16'
McKinley St. to
Fillmore St.
Central Avenue 0', unless more 20' Minimum 75% ALL per adopted per adopted
Coronado Rd. to needed to Central Central
Culver St. comply with Avenue Avenue
Central Avenue Development Development
Development Standards Standards
Standards
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 133
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix—Downtown Gateway
Minimum Frontage Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Street Section Building Zone Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Setback Depth Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
Central Avenue 0' 20' Minimum 75% ALL 8' 16'
Culver St. to
Roosevelt St.
Central Avenue 0' 20' Minimum 75% ALL 8' 16'
Roosevelt St. to
Fillmore St.
Alvarado Road 5’ 20’ 50% SD, PA, 8' 16'
Coronado Rd. to PO, S, GA
McDowell Rd.
1st St. 0' 20' Minimum 75% SD, PA, S 8' 16'
McDowell Rd. to
Willetta St. (Cancer
Survivor Park)
(AFY) Active Front Yard, (PA) Patio, (SD) Stoop/Door Well, (PO) Porch, (CE) Common
Entry, (FC) Forecourt, (S) Storefront, (GA) Gallery/Arcade, (GR) Grand Entry, (ALL) All
Frontage Elements
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 134
Section 1213. East Evergreen.
A. Intent. The East Evergreen Character Area centers on its incorporation of a historic
residential district along with residential offices and newer mixed-use/mid-rise
developments. New developments should be compatible with the size of existing buildings,
providing an alternative to high-rise housing and offices downtown. New mixed-use projects
should be integrated with the historic character of the area by preserving the existing
planting strips, palm trees, and landscaped yards on sites within or adjacent to the Historic
District. Streets and pedestrian corridors should be inviting and conveniently link the
neighborhood to services, parks, cultural facilities and public transportation.
B. Development Standards. The following development regulations apply to properties
located with the East Evergreen character area. Where a “bonus” is indicated, the
development regulation may be modified within the range stated when sustainability bonus
points are earned per Section 1223, as approved by PDD staff or the Design Review
Committee.
1. Maximum height:
a. Main building: governed by the height map, Section 1202.B, and height transition
standards of Section 1207.E.
b. Accessory structures, including Accessory Dwelling Units: 30 feet.
c. Bonus: none.
2. Maximum density: governed by the density map, Section 1202.C.
a. Bonus: none.
3. Maximum lot coverage: 50%.
a. Additional lot coverage of 10% (total 60%) is allowed for accessory structures.
b. Additional bonus: none.
4. Minimum setbacks from interior property lines.
a. Primary building:
(1) Sides: 3 feet; combined total of 10 feet required.
(2) Rear: 10 feet.
b. Accessory buildings:
(1) Side: 3 feet.
(2) Rear: 0 feet.
5. Required parking: governed by Section 1206.
a. Bonus: none.
6. Walls/Fences.
a. Frontage Zones: per the provisions of Section 1207.D.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 135
b. Interior property lines: maximum height of 6 feet.
7. Signage. Signage is subject to the regulations of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Section
705, Table D-1, Commercial/Industrial Right-of-Way Low Volume Street Standards.
C. Streetscape and Frontage Zone Development Regulations. The following development
regulations apply to properties which abut the street sections indicated. All regulations in
the table are appealable to the Design Review Committee under the provisions of Section
1224 and considered as R*.
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix—East Evergreen
Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Street Minimum Frontage
Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Section Setback Zone Depth
Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
Lynwood 15' 30' Minimum AFY, SD, PA, 5' 10' North
Street 50% PO 9' South
West of 7th
St. to 4th St.
Willetta Street 15' 30' Minimum AFY, SD, PA, 5' 19'
West of 7th 50% PO
St. to east of
3rd St.
5th Street 5' 20' Minimum AFY, SD, PA, 5' 19'
South of 50% PO
McDowell Rd.
to Interstate
10 Freeway
(AFY) Active Front Yard, (PA) Patio, (SD) Stoop/Door Well, (PO) Porch, (CE) Common
Entry, (FC) Forecourt, (S) Storefront, (GA) Gallery/Arcade, (GR) Grand Entry, (ALL) All
Frontage Elements
A. Additional Design Regulations—East Evergreen.
1. Building materials. Primary buildings should incorporate a minimum 25 percent of
brick, brick veneer, or decorative masonry on every facade visible from the exterior. (P)
2. Window design. Window format should be square or rectangular and similar to existing
historic buildings. Window openings should be recessed or articulated, particularly at the
ground level. (P)
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 136
3. Roof forms. Buildings should incorporate one or more of the following roof forms:
gable (including clipped, and with parapets), hip, and flat with parapets. (P)
Rationale for D.1 through D.3: Building materials, building design, and building accents
should be inspired by the context of the area and create a coherent architectural concept
that is consistent with and strengthens the historic character of East Evergreen, preferably
by using historic materials and design elements already found within the Character Area.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 137
Section 1214. Evans Churchill East.
A. Intent. The primary intent of the Evans Churchill East Character Area is to be a continuously
evolving arts-oriented mixed-use community. Home to unique art galleries and trendy
restaurants, the existing character consisting of arts-oriented uses coupled with various
small businesses should be preserved and additional developments should be consistent
with this character. New mixed-use development shares space with old bungalows and
historic homes, and new live-work units provide additional commercial spaces to cater to the
needs of artists. New pedestrian corridors create connectivity to surrounding destinations,
such as the downtown ASU campus to the south and Hance Park to the north, while new
open spaces will be added to serve the increasing number of new residents and create
opportunities for public gatherings and art display.
B. Development Regulations. The following development regulations apply to properties
located with the Evans Churchill East character area. Where a “bonus” is indicated, the
development regulation may be modified within the range stated when sustainability bonus
points are earned per Section 1223, as approved by PDD staff or the Design Review
Committee.
1. Maximum height:
a. Main building: governed by the height map, Section 1202.B, and height transition
standards of Section 1207.E.
b. Bonus north of Garfield Street: none.
c. Bonus south of Garfield Street: 10% maximum increase.
2. Maximum density: governed by the density map, Section 1202.C.
a. Bonus: maximum 50% increase.
3. Maximum lot coverage:
a. North of Garfield Street: 50%.
b. South of Garfield Street: 90%
c. Bonus (both areas): maximum 100% lot coverage.
4. Minimum setbacks from interior property lines:
a. Primary building:
(1) Side: 5 feet.
(2) Rear: 15 feet, which may be reduced to 0 feet when abutting a fully dedicated
alley which is not a designated Buffer Alley per Section 1202.E.
5. Required parking: governed by Section 1206.
a. Bonus:
(1) Increase: maximum 100%
(2) Decrease: maximum 100%.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 138
6. Walls/Fences.
a. Frontage Zones: per the provisions of Section 1207.D.
b. Interior property lines: maximum height of 6 feet.
7. Signage. Signage is subject to the regulations of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Section
705, Table D-1, Commercial/Industrial Right-of-Way Low Volume Street Standards
C. Streetscape and Frontage Zone Development Regulations. The following development
regulations apply to properties which abut the street sections indicated. All regulations in
the table are appealable to the Design Review Committee under the provisions of Section
1224 and considered as R*.
Frontage and Streetscape Zone Matrix—Evans Churchill East
Minimum Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Street Frontage
Building Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Section Zone Depth
Setback Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
Moreland 10' 30' Minimum 75% AFY, SD, PA, 5' 20'
Street PO, FC
3rd St. to
7th St.
Portland 10' 30' Minimum 75% AFY, SD, PA, 5' 20'
Street PO, FC
3rd St. to
7th St.
Roosevelt 5' 30' Minimum 75% SD, PA, PO, S, 7' 17'
Street GA
3rd St. to
7th St.
Garfield 5' 30' Minimum 50% ALL 5' 20'
Street
4th St. to
6th St.
Garfield 5' 30' Minimum 50% ALL 5' 12'
Street
6th St. to
7th St.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 139
Frontage and Streetscape Zone Matrix—Evans Churchill East
Minimum Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Street Frontage
Building Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Section Zone Depth
Setback Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
McKinley 5' 30' Minimum 50% ALL 5' 20'
Street
6th St. to
7th St.
3rd Street 5' 30' Minimum 75% ALL 5' 17'
North of
Moreland
St. to
Portland
St.
3rd Street 5' 30' Minimum 75% ALL 5' 15'
Portland
St. to
Roosevelt
St.
4th Street 5' 30' Minimum 75% AFY, SD, PA, 5' 15'
Roosevelt S
St. to
Garfield St.
5th Street 5' 30' Minimum 75% AFY, SD, PA, 5' 20'
Moreland S
St. to
Roosevelt
St.
5th Street 5' 30' Minimum 75% AFY, SD, PA, 5' 20'
Roosevelt S
St. to
Garfield St.
6th Street 5' 30' Minimum 75% SD, PA, S, GA 5' 20'
Roosevelt
St. to
Garfield St.
7th Street 0' 20' Minimum 75% ALL 8' 16'
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 140
Frontage and Streetscape Zone Matrix—Evans Churchill East
Minimum Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Street Frontage
Building Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Section Zone Depth
Setback Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
Moreland
St. to
McKinley
St.
(AFY) Active Front Yard, (PA) Patio, (SD) Stoop/Door Well, (PO) Porch, (CE) Common
Entry, (FC) Forecourt, (S) Storefront, (GA) Gallery/Arcade, (GR) Grand Entry, (ALL) All
Frontage Elements
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 141
Section 1215. Evans Churchill West.
A. Intent. The primary intent of the Evans Churchill West Character Area is to serve as a transition
between the mixed-use neighborhoods to the north and east, the Downtown Gateway Corridor to
the west, and the Biomed Cluster to the south. Ideally the area should embrace architecturally
innovative high-density residential buildings and offer a dynamic mix of commercial and retail
uses. It is the home of the downtown public market and will develop into a destination for retail,
restaurants and nightlife. Adjacency to major destinations creates the potential for this area to
serve as a major pedestrian thoroughfare. New developments should reflect the innovation of
the area and incorporate shade structures and landscaping to create comfortable and inviting
pedestrian thoroughfares. Outdoor dining and retail shops will enhance the pedestrian
experience and encourage exploration and patronage. Buildings oriented to the street with
ample sidewalk space allow for pedestrian amenities in addition to the tree-shaded sidewalks in
parkway-like strips.
B. Development Regulations. The following development regulations apply to properties
located with the Evans Churchill West character area. Where a “bonus” is indicated, the
development regulation may be modified within the range stated when sustainability bonus
points are earned per Section 1223, as approved by PDD staff or the Design Review
Committee.
1. Maximum height:
a. Main building: governed by the height map, Section 1202.B, and height transition
standards of Section 1207.E.
b. Bonus: for properties located between Pierce Street and Fillmore Street, a maximum
additional 100-foot height bonus (in addition to the height permitted per Section
1202.B) may be permitted through a Sustainability Bonus approved by the Design
Review Committee per Section 1224.
2. Maximum density: governed by the density map, Section 1202.C.
a. Bonus: maximum 100% increase.
3. Maximum lot coverage: 75%
a. Bonus: maximum 100% lot coverage.
4. Minimum setbacks from interior property lines: none.
5. Required parking: governed by Section 1206.
a. Bonus:
(1) Increase: maximum 100%
(2) Decrease: maximum 100%.
6. Walls/Fences.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 142
a. Frontage Zones: per the provisions of Section 1207.D.
b. Interior property lines: maximum wall height is the same as the maximum permitted
building height(s) for the property.
7. Signage. Signage is subject to the regulations of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Section
705, Table D-1, Commercial/Industrial Right-of-Way Low Volume Street Standards
C. Streetscape and Frontage Zone Development Regulations. The following development
regulations apply to properties which abut the street sections indicated. All regulations in
the table are appealable to the Design Review Committee under the provisions of Section
1224 and considered as R*.
Frontage and Streetscape Zone Matrix—Evans Churchill West
Minimum Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Street Frontage
Building Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Section Zone Depth
Setback Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
Moreland 5' 30' Minimum 50% SD, PA, CE, S, 5' 20'
Street GA
1st St. to
3rd St.
Portland 5' 30' Minimum 50% SD, PA, PO, 5' 20'
Street CE, S, GA
Alley east
of Central
Ave. to 3rd
St.
Roosevelt 5' 30' Minimum 75% SD, PA, PO, S, 12' 18'
Street GA
Alley east
of Central
Ave. to 4th
St.
Garfield 5' 30' Minimum 50% SD, PA, PO, S, 5' 20'
Street GA
Alley east
of Central
Ave. to 4th
St.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 143
Frontage and Streetscape Zone Matrix—Evans Churchill West
Minimum Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Street Frontage
Building Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Section Zone Depth
Setback Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
McKinley 5' 30' Minimum 50% SD, PA, PO, S, 5' 20'
Street GA
Alley east
of Central
Ave. to 4th
St.
Pierce 5' 30' Minimum 50% SD, PA, PO, S, 5' 20'
Street GA
Alley east
of Central
Ave. to 2nd
St. and 3rd
St. to 4th
St.
Fillmore 5' 30' Minimum 50% PA, S, GA, CE 8' 14'
Street
Alley east
of Central
Ave. to 1st
St.
Fillmore 5' 30' Minimum 50% PA, S, GA, CE 5' 15'
Street
1st St. to
2nd St.
Fillmore 5' 30' Minimum 50% PA, S, GA, CE 5' North 10' North
Street 8' South 15' South
2nd St. to
3rd St.
Fillmore 5' 30' Minimum 50% PA, S, GA, CE 8' North 15’
Street 5' South
3rd St. to
5th St.
1st Street 0' 20' Minimum 75% SD, PA, PO, S, Per plans approved by Street
GA Transportation Department.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 144
Frontage and Streetscape Zone Matrix—Evans Churchill West
Minimum Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Street Frontage
Building Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Section Zone Depth
Setback Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
Moreland
St. to
Fillmore St.
2nd Street 0' 20' Minimum 75% SD, PA, PO, S, 5' 20'
Moreland GA
St. to
McKinley
St.
2nd Street 0' 20' Minimum 75% SD, PA, PO, S, 5' 15' East
McKinley GA 25' West
St. to
Fillmore St.
3rd Street 5' 30' Minimum 75% SD, PA, PO, S, 5' 15'
Moreland GA
St. to
Portland
St.
3rd Street 5' 30' Minimum 75% SD, PA, PO, S, 5' 20' East
Portland GA 10' West
St. to alley
north of
Roosevelt
St.
3rd Street 5' 30' Minimum 75% SD, PA, PO, S, 5' 10'
Alley north GA
of
Roosevelt
St. to
Roosevelt
St.
3rd Street 5' 30' Minimum 75% SD, PA, PO, S, 5' 15'
Roosevelt GA, CE
St. to
Fillmore St.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 145
Frontage and Streetscape Zone Matrix—Evans Churchill West
Minimum Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Street Frontage
Building Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Section Zone Depth
Setback Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
4th Street 5' 30' Minimum 75% SD, PA, PO, S, 5' 15'
Roosevelt GA, CE
St. to
Fillmore St.
(AFY) Active Front Yard, (PA) Patio, (SD) Stoop/Door Well, (PO) Porch, (CE) Common
Entry, (FC) Forecourt, (S) Storefront, (GA) Gallery/Arcade, (GR) Grand Entry, (ALL) All
Frontage Elements
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 146
Section 1216. McDowell Corridor.
A. Intent. The McDowell Corridor should create an attractive, pedestrian-oriented mixed-use
street as a gateway to the historic neighborhoods and Downtown Phoenix. The mixture of
professional offices and retail establishments should become more urban and pedestrian
oriented. New structures should be built closer to the street and parking should be located
behind buildings.
B. Development Regulations. The following development regulations apply to properties
located with the McDowell Corridor character area. Where a “bonus” is indicated, the
development regulation may be modified within the range stated when sustainability bonus
points are earned per Section 1223, as approved by PDD staff or the Design Review
Committee.
1. Maximum height:
a. Main building: governed by the height map, Section 1202.B, and height transition
standards of Section 1207.E.
b. Bonus: none.
2. Maximum density: governed by the density map, Section 1202.C.
a. Bonus: maximum 50% increase.
3. Maximum lot coverage: 50%
a. Bonus: maximum 85% lot coverage.
4. Minimum setbacks from interior property lines:
a. Primary building:
(1) Side: 5 feet.
(2) Rear: 15 feet.
5. Required parking: governed by Section 1206.
a. Bonus:
(1) Increase: maximum 50%
(2) Decrease: maximum 25%.
6. Walls/Fences.
a. Frontage Zones: per the provisions of Section 1207.D.
b. Interior property lines: maximum height of 6 feet.
7. Signage. Signage is subject to the regulations of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Section
705, Table D-1, Commercial/Industrial Right-of-Way Low Volume Street Standards
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 147
C. Streetscape and Frontage Zone Development Regulations. The following development
regulations apply to properties which abut the street sections indicated. All regulations in
the table are appealable to the Design Review Committee under the provisions of Section
1224 and considered as R*.
Frontage and Streetscape Zone Matrix—McDowell Corridor
Minimum Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Street Frontage
Building Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Section Zone Depth
Setback Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
McDowell 10’, or 0’ if a 20' Minimum 75% S, SD, PO, GA 5' 15’
Road minimum 50’
West of 7th ROW is
Ave. to dedicated for
east of 1st the half street
Ave.
McDowell 10’, or 0’ if a 20' Minimum 75% S, GA 6' 16'
Road minimum 50’
3rd St. to ROW is
7th St. dedicated for
the half street
Lynwood 15' 30' Minimum 50% AFY, SD, PA, 5' 15'
Street PO
East of 7th
Ave. (north
side only)
Lynwood 15' 30' Minimum 75% AFY, SD, PA, 5' 15'
Street PO
5th St. to
west of 7th
St.
7th Avenue 0’ 20' Minimum 75% S, GA, CE 7' 17’
Alley north
of
McDowell
to Lynwood
St.
5th Avenue 5' 30' Minimum 50% SD, S, PO 5' 16'
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 148
Frontage and Streetscape Zone Matrix—McDowell Corridor
Minimum Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Street Frontage
Building Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Section Zone Depth
Setback Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
Alley north
of
McDowell
Rd. to alley
south of
McDowell
Rd.
3rd Avenue 5' 30' Minimum 75% SD, S, PA, PO 5' North of
Alley north McDowell:
of 10’
McDowell South of
Rd. to alley McDowell:
south of as
McDowell established
Rd.
3rd Street 5' 30' Minimum 50% SD, S, GA, PA, 6' 16’
Alley north PO, CE
of
McDowell
Rd. to alley
south of
McDowell
Rd.
5th Street 5' 30' Minimum 50% SD, S, PO 5' 15'
McDowell
Rd. to
Lynwood
St.
7th Street 0' 20' Minimum 50% ALL 6' 16', or as
Alley north may be
of required by
McDowell ADOT
to adjacent to
Moreland freeway
St. ramps
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 149
(AFY) Active Front Yard, (PA) Patio, (SD) Stoop/Door Well, (PO) Porch, (CE) Common
Entry, (FC) Forecourt, (S) Storefront, (GA) Gallery/Arcade, (GR) Grand Entry, (ALL) All
Frontage Elements
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 150
Section 1217. Roosevelt East.
A. Intent. The Roosevelt East Character Area is comprised of a mixture of historic buildings with
larger blocks of land with high-rise entitlements. The area will serve as a transition zone from the
smaller scale Roosevelt South and Roosevelt North Character Areas to the Downtown Gateway
Character Area located to the east along the light rail.
B. Development Regulations. The following development regulations apply to properties
located with the Roosevelt East character area. Where a “bonus” is indicated, the
development regulation may be modified within the range stated when sustainability bonus
points are earned per Section 1223, as approved by PDD staff or the Design Review
Committee.
1. Maximum height:
a. Main building: governed by the height map, Section 1202.B, and height transition
standards of Section 1207.E.
(1) Bonus: maximum 25%.
b. Accessory structures, including Accessory Dwelling Units: 30 feet.
2. Maximum density: governed by the density map, Section 1202.C.
a. Bonus: maximum 100% increase.
3. Maximum lot coverage: 75%
a. Bonus: maximum 100% lot coverage.
4. Minimum setbacks from interior property lines.
a. Primary building:
(1) Side abutting HP-zoned lot: 10 feet.
(2) Side abutting lot not zoned HP: 0 feet.
(3) Rear: 0 feet.
b. Accessory buildings:
(1) Side: 3 feet.
(2) Rear: 0 feet.
5. Required parking: governed by Section 1206.
a. Bonus:
(1) Increase: maximum 50%
(2) Decrease: maximum 100%.
6. Walls/Fences.
a. Frontage Zones: per the provisions of Section 1207.D.
b. Interior property lines: maximum height of 6 feet.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 151
7. Signage. Signage is subject to the regulations of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Section
705, Table D-1, Nonresidential Activity in a Residential District Right-of-Way Standards.
8. Street trees.
a. Shade trees, when provided in the Streetscape Zone, shall be Arizona ash or evergreen
elm trees. (T)
b. Palm trees, on blocks where they have existed historically, shall be installed in the
Streetscape Zone in addition to any required shade trees, unless prohibited by law.
Palm trees should be of the same type as existing historic palm trees, and planted in a
similar manner/rate as existing on the same block face. (T)
C. Streetscape and Frontage Zone Development Regulations. The following development
regulations apply to properties which abut the street sections indicated. All regulations in
the table are appealable to the Design Review Committee under the provisions of Section
1224 and considered as R*.
Frontage and Streetscape Zone Matrix—Roosevelt East
Minimum Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Street Frontage
Building Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Section Zone Depth
Setback Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
Portland 0' 20' Minimum SD, S, PO, As As
Street 75% GA, CE Established Established
3rd Ave. to
west of
Central Ave.
Roosevelt 0' 20' Minimum SD, S, PO, As As
Street 75% GA Established Established
3rd Ave. to
1st Ave.
McKinley 0' 25' Minimum SD, PA, PO 5' 15'
Street 50%
3rd Ave. to
alley west of
1st Ave.
Fillmore 0' 25' Minimum SD, PA, PO, 5' 15' North Side
Street 50% GA, CE 21' South
3rd Ave. to Side
alley west of
1st Ave.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 152
Frontage and Streetscape Zone Matrix—Roosevelt East
Minimum Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Street Frontage
Building Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Section Zone Depth
Setback Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
2nd Avenue 0' 25' Minimum SD, S, PO, 6' 16'
Portland St. 75% CE
to Roosevelt
St.
2nd Avenue 20' 30' Minimum AFY, SD, As As
Roosevelt 50% PA, S, PO, Established Established
St. to FC, CE
McKinley St.
2nd Avenue 10' 30' Minimum AFY, SD, S, As As
McKinley St. 75% PO, FC Established Established
to Fillmore
St.
3rd Avenue 0' 25' Minimum SD, PA, PO, 6' As
Latham St. 50% S Established
to Roosevelt
St.
3rd Avenue 20' 30' Minimum AFY, SD, S, 6' 20'
Roosevelt 50% PO, FC
St. to
McKinley St.
3rd Avenue 10' 30' Minimum AFY, SD, S, 6' 20'
McKinley St. 50% PO, FC
to Fillmore
St.
(AFY) Active Front Yard, (PA) Patio, (SD) Stoop/Door Well, (PO) Porch, (CE) Common
Entry, (FC) Forecourt, (S) Storefront, (GA) Gallery/Arcade, (GR) Grand Entry, (ALL) All
Frontage Elements
A. Additional Design Regulations—Roosevelt East.
1. Building materials. Primary buildings should incorporate a minimum 25 percent of
brick, brick veneer, or decorative masonry on every facade visible from the exterior. (P)
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 153
Rationale: Building materials, building design, and building accents should be inspired
by the context of the area and create a coherent architectural concept that is consistent
with and strengthens the historic character of Roosevelt East, preferably by using
historic materials and design elements already found within the Character Area.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 154
Section 1218. Roosevelt North.
B. Intent. Roosevelt North is part of the Roosevelt Historic District and it is comprised of traditional
historic single-family homes. Typically the lots have large front yard setbacks with porches, lush
landscaping and turf. Properties generally have carriage houses or garages in the backyard that
are accessed from the alley or the front yard by a porte-cochere. In Roosevelt North the design
and pattern of single-family development is critical to maintaining its strong character and
preserving the existing buildings. The large number of historic properties creates a unique
character and design that should be preserved. Properties with HP zoning should refer to
Chapter 8, Historic Preservation, of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance for specific requirements
associated with historic designation.
C. Development Regulations. The following development regulations apply to properties
located with the Roosevelt North character area. Where a “bonus” is indicated, the
development regulation may be modified within the range stated when sustainability bonus
points are earned per Section 1223, as approved by PDD staff or the Design Review
Committee.
1. Maximum height:
a. Main building: governed by the height map, Section 1202.B, and height transition
standards of Section 1207.E.
(1) Bonus: none.
b. Accessory structures, including Accessory Dwelling Units: 30 feet.
2. Maximum density: governed by the density map, Section 1202.C.
a. Bonus: none.
3. Maximum lot coverage: 40%
a. Additional lot coverage of 15% (total 55%) is allowed for accessory structures.
b. Additional bonus: none.
4. Minimum setbacks from interior property lines.
a. Primary building:
(1) Sides: 3 feet; 10 feet combined total minimum.
(2) Rear: 10 feet.
b. Accessory structures:
(1) Side: 3 feet.
(2) Rear: 0 feet.
5. Required parking: governed by Section 1206.
a. Bonus: none.
6. Walls/Fences.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 155
a. Frontage Zones: per the provisions of Section 1207.D.
b. Interior property lines: maximum height of 6 feet.
7. Signage. Signage is subject to the regulations of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Section
705, Table D-1, Nonresidential Activity in a Residential District Right-of-Way Standards.
8. Street trees.
a. Shade trees, when provided in the Streetscape Zone, shall be Arizona ash or evergreen
elm trees. (T)
b. Palm trees, on blocks where they have existed historically, shall be installed in the
Streetscape Zone in addition to any required shade trees, unless prohibited by law.
Palm trees should be of the same type as existing historic palm trees, and planted in a
similar manner/rate as existing on the same block face. (T)
D. Streetscape and Frontage Zone Development Regulations. The following development
regulations apply to properties which abut the street sections indicated. All regulations in
the table are appealable to the Design Review Committee under the provisions of Section
1224 and considered as R*.
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix—Roosevelt North
Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Street Minimum Frontage
Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Section Setback Zone Depth
Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
Portland 20' 30' None AFY 5' 10'
Street
7th Ave. to
3rd Ave.
Latham 20' 30' None AFY 5' 7'5"
Street
5th Ave. to
3rd Ave.
Culver 20' 30' None AFY 5' 10'
Street
7th Ave. to
300' west
of Central
Ave.
Willetta 20' 30' None AFY 5' 10'
Street
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 156
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix—Roosevelt North
Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Street Minimum Frontage
Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Section Setback Zone Depth
Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
7th Ave. to
alley west
of Central
Ave.
Lynwood 20' 30' None AFY 5' 10'
Street
7th Ave. to
alley west
of Central
Ave.
7th Avenue 20' 30' None AFY 6' None
Lynwood Required
St. to alley
south of
Portland
St.
5th Avenue 10' 25' None AFY, SY 5' 10'
Alley north
of
Roosevelt
St. to alley
north of
Lynwood
St.
3rd Avenue 10' 25' None AFY, SY 5' 10'
Alley north
of
Roosevelt
St. to
Culver St.
3rd Avenue 10' 25' None AFY, SY 5' 6'
Culver
Street to
alley north
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 157
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix—Roosevelt North
Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Street Minimum Frontage
Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Section Setback Zone Depth
Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
of Lynwood
St.
(AFY) Active Front Yard, (PA) Patio, (SD) Stoop/Door Well, (PO) Porch, (CE) Common
Entry, (FC) Forecourt, (S) Storefront, (GA) Gallery/Arcade, (GR) Grand Entry, (ALL) All
Frontage Elements
(Ord. No. G-5480, 2010; Ord. No. G-5777, 2013; Ord. No. G-6409, 2018)
E. Additional Design Regulations—Roosevelt North.
1. Building materials. Primary buildings should incorporate a minimum 25 percent of
brick, brick veneer, or decorative masonry on every facade visible from the exterior. (P)
2. Window design. Window format should be square or rectangular and similar to existing
historic buildings. Window openings should be recessed or articulated, particularly at the
ground level. (P)
3. Roof forms. Buildings should incorporate one or more of the following roof forms:
gable (including clipped, and with parapets), hip, and flat with parapets. Mansard roof
forms are prohibited. (R*)
Rationale for D.1 through D.3: Building materials, building design, and building accents
should be inspired by the context of the area and create a coherent architectural concept
that is consistent with and strengthens the historic character of Roosevelt North, preferably
by using historic materials and design elements already found within the Character Area.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 158
Section 1219. Roosevelt South.
B. Intent. Roosevelt South will be the gateway to historic Roosevelt North, and an oasis for
pedestrians from adjacent high-rise and high-density areas. While the neighborhood will
retain its residential character, it will become a mixed-use neighborhood. Adaptive re-use of
older and historic homes will provide distinctive shopping and dining along tree-lined streets
creating a highly desirable, walkable neighborhood.
C. Development Regulations. The following development regulations apply to properties
located with the Roosevelt South character area. Where a “bonus” is indicated, the
development regulation may be modified within the range stated when sustainability bonus
points are earned per Section 1223, as approved by PDD staff or the Design Review
Committee.
1. Maximum height:
a. Main building: governed by the height map, Section 1202.B, and height transition
standards of Section 1207.E.
(1) Bonus: none.
b. Accessory structures, including Accessory Dwelling Units: 30 feet.
2. Maximum density: governed by the density map, Section 1202.C.
a. Bonus: 100%
3. Maximum lot coverage: 50%
a. Additional lot coverage of 10% (total 60%) is allowed for accessory structures.
b. Bonus: maximum 75% lot coverage.
4. Minimum setbacks from interior property lines.
a. Primary building:
(1) Side abutting HP-zoned lot: 10 feet.
(2) Side(s) abutting lot not zoned HP: 3 feet; 10 feet combined total minimum
(3) Rear: 0 feet.
b. Accessory structures:
(1) Side: 3 feet.
(2) Rear: 0 feet.
5. Required parking: governed by Section 1206.
a. Bonus:
(1) Increase: maximum 50%
(2) Decrease: maximum 50%.
6. Walls/Fences.
a. Frontage Zones: per the provisions of Section 1207.D.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 159
b. Interior property lines: maximum height of 6 feet.
7. Signage. Signage is subject to the regulations of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Section
705, Table D-1, Nonresidential Activity in a Residential District Right-of-Way Standards.
8. Street trees.
a. Shade trees, when provided in the Streetscape Zone, shall be Arizona ash or evergreen
elm trees. (T)
b. Palm trees, on blocks where they have existed historically, shall be installed in the
Streetscape Zone in addition to any required shade trees, unless prohibited by law.
Palm trees should be of the same type as existing historic palm trees and planted in a
similar manner/rate as existing on the same block face. (T)
D. Streetscape and Frontage Zone Development Regulations. The following development
regulations apply to properties which abut the street sections indicated. All regulations in
the table are appealable to the Design Review Committee under the provisions of Section
1224 and considered as R*.
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix—Roosevelt South
Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Street Minimum Frontage
Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Section Setback Zone Depth
Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
Roosevelt 10' 30' Minimum 75% AFY, SD, PO, 5' 6'
Street PA, S
Alley west of
6th Ave. to
3rd Ave.
McKinley 10' 30' Minimum 50% ALL 5' 10'
Street
Alley west of
6th Ave. to
3rd Ave.
Fillmore 10' 30' Minimum 50% ALL 5' 7'5"
Street
Alley west of
6th Ave. to
3rd Ave.
6th Avenue 20' 30' Minimum 50% AFY, SD, PA, 5' 6'
Roosevelt St. PO, FC, S
to Fillmore St.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 160
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix—Roosevelt South
Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Street Minimum Frontage
Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Section Setback Zone Depth
Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
5th Avenue 20' 30' Minimum 50% AFY, SD, PA, 5' 14'
Roosevelt St. PO, FC, S
to Fillmore St.
4th Avenue 20' 30' Minimum 50% AFY, SD, PA, 5' 15'
Roosevelt St. PO, FC, S
to Fillmore St.
3rd Avenue 20' 30' Minimum 50% AFY, SD, PA, 5' 15'
Roosevelt St. PO, FC, S
to Fillmore St.
(AFY) Active Front Yard, (PA) Patio, (SD) Stoop/Door Well, (PO) Porch, (CE) Common
Entry, (FC) Forecourt, (S) Storefront, (GA) Gallery/Arcade, (GR) Grand Entry, (ALL) All
Frontage Elements
(Ord. No. G-5480, 2010; Ord. No. G-5777, 2013; Ord. No. G-6409, 2018)
E. Additional Design Regulations—Roosevelt South.
4. Building materials. Primary buildings should incorporate a minimum 25 percent of
brick, brick veneer, or decorative masonry on every facade visible from the exterior. (P)
5. Window design. Window format should be square or rectangular and similar to existing
historic buildings. Window openings should be recessed or articulated, particularly at the
ground level. (P)
6. Roof forms. Buildings should incorporate one or more of the following roof forms:
gable (including clipped, and with parapets), hip, and flat with parapets. Mansard roof
forms are prohibited. (R*)
Rationale for D.1 through D.3: Building materials, building design, and building accents
should be inspired by the context of the area and create a coherent architectural concept
that is consistent with and strengthens the historic character of Roosevelt South, preferably
by using historic materials and design elements already found within the Character Area.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 161
Section 1220. Townsend Park.
A. Intent. The primary intent of the Townsend Park Character Area is to transition between the
mixed-use neighborhoods to the east, the McDowell Corridor to the north and the Downtown
Gateway to the west. The area’s special potential to connect these diverse adjacent areas can
be realized through incorporating mixed-use/mid-rise developments that focus on office and
cultural facilities. Given the proximity to the City’s largest public library and the light rail corridor,
a cultural focus in any new development is essential. As with any heavily accessed cultural area,
the streetscape should contain inviting and comfortable parkway strips that offer easy links to
nearby cultural facilities, parks and public transportation.
B. Development Regulations. The following development regulations apply to properties located
with the Townsend Park character area. Where a “bonus” is indicated, the development
regulation may be modified within the range stated when sustainability bonus points are earned
per Section 1223, as approved by PDD staff or the Design Review Committee.
1. Maximum height:
a. Main building: governed by the height map, Section 1202.B, and height transition
standards of Section 1207.E.
(1) Bonus: maximum 30%.
b. Accessory structures, including Accessory Dwelling Units: 30 feet.
2. Maximum density: governed by the density map, Section 1202.C.
a. Bonus: 100%
3. Maximum lot coverage: 75%
a. Bonus: maximum 100% lot coverage.
b. Accessory buildings may not exceed 25% of the net lot area. This coverage is
included within the overall permitted lot coverage.
4. Minimum setbacks from interior property lines:
a. Primary building: 0 feet.
b. Accessory structures:
(1) Side: 3 feet.
(2) Rear: 5 feet, which may be reduced to 0 feet when abutting a fully dedicated
alley which is not a designated Buffer Alley per Section 1202.E.
5. Required parking: governed by Section 1206.
a. Bonus:
(1) Increase: maximum 50%
(2) Decrease: maximum 100%.
6. Walls/Fences.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 162
a. Frontage Zones: per the provisions of Section 1207.D.
b. Interior property lines: maximum height of 6 feet.
7. Signage. Signage subject to the regulations of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Section 705,
Table D-1, Commercial/Industrial Right-of-Way Low Volume Street Standards.
C. Streetscape and Frontage Zone Development Regulations. The following development
regulations apply to properties which abut the street sections indicated. All regulations in
the table are appealable to the Design Review Committee under the provisions of Section
1224 and considered as R*.
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix—Townsend Park
Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Street Minimum Frontage
Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Section Setback Zone Depth
Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
McDowell 0' 20’ Minimum 75% S, GA, CE 5' 5’
Road
1st St. to east
of 3rd St.
Willetta Street 0' 25' Minimum 50% ALL 5' 15'
1st St. to 3rd
St.
Culver Street 0' 25' Minimum 50% ALL 5' 15'
1st St. to 2nd
St.
Moreland 0' 25' Minimum 50% ALL 5' 15'
Street
1st St. to 3rd
St.
1st Street 0' 25' Minimum 75% S, SD, PA, 5' East 6' East
McDowell Rd. PO, GA 7' West West—None
to Willetta St. Required
2nd Street 0' 25' Minimum 75% S, SD, PA, 5' 25'
McDowell Rd. PO, GA
to Culver St.
3rd Street 5' 30' Minimum 75% S, SD, PA, 5' 15'
PO, GA
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 163
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix—Townsend Park
Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Street Minimum Frontage
Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Section Setback Zone Depth
Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
McDowell Rd.
to Moreland
St.
(AFY) Active Front Yard, (PA) Patio, (SD) Stoop/Door Well, (PO) Porch, (CE) Common
Entry, (FC) Forecourt, (S) Storefront, (GA) Gallery/Arcade, (GR) Grand Entry, (ALL) All
Frontage Elements
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 164
Section 1221. Van Buren.
A. Intent. The intent of the Van Buren Character Area is to establish a dense, vibrant, urban
mixed-use area that is a center for commerce and high-rise urban living. This area
comprises some of the tallest height entitlements within the City. The close proximity to
government buildings and commercial offices makes this an ideal location for future hotels
and iconic residential buildings with a strong urban focus. The active streetscape will
connect the primarily residential neighborhoods to the north with the amenities and services
provided within the Business Core and Van Buren Character Areas.
B. Development Regulations. The following development regulations apply to properties
located with the Van Buren character area. Where a “bonus” is indicated, the development
regulation may be modified within the range stated when sustainability bonus points are
earned per Section 1223, as approved by PDD staff or the Design Review Committee.
1. Maximum height.
a. Main building: governed by the height map, Section 1202.B, and height transition
standards of Section 1207.E.
(1) Bonus: none.
b. Accessory structures, including Accessory Dwelling Units: 30 feet.
2. Maximum density: governed by the density map, Section 1202.C.
a. Bonus: Maximum 50% increase.
b. For properties which dedicate the Taylor Street Paseo, see below.
3. Maximum lot coverage: 55%.
a. Bonus: maximum 100% lot coverage.
b. Accessory structures: maximum 25% total lot coverage. This amount is included in
the overall allowed lot coverage.
c. For properties which dedicate the Taylor Street Paseo, see below.
4. Minimum setbacks from interior property lines.
a. Primary building: 10 feet. No setback required if property line abuts an alley which
is not a Buffer Alley.
b. Accessory structures: None.
5. Required parking: governed by Section 1206.
a. Bonus:
(1) Increase: maximum 50%
(2) Decrease: maximum 100%.
6. Walls/Fences.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 165
a. Frontage Zones: per the provisions of Section 1207.D.
b. Interior property lines: maximum height of 6 feet.
(1) When a fully dedicated alley is present view fencing shall be provided above 40
inches in height.
7. Signage. Signage subject to the regulations of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Section 705,
Table D-1, Commercial/Industrial Right-of-Way Low Volume Street Standards.
8. Taylor Street Paseo. Certain properties within Van Buren are subject to the additional
development regulations of the Taylor Street Paseo, Section 1207.N., in addition to the
modified standards stated above. The affected properties are shown on the map
provided within that Section.
a. For properties that dedicate the Taylor Street Paseo, lot coverage and density are
not restricted.
b. For properties formerly required to dedicate the Taylor Street Paseo prior to the
Paseo realignment, lot coverage and density are not restricted if all of the following
amenities are provided within the property frontage:
(1) A minimum 8 foot wide sidewalk is provided for the length of the property.
(2) Two separate rows of shade trees along the public sidewalk, planted along each
side of the public sidewalk.
(3) Open space at the ground level on private property (minimum 500 square feet
and not less than 10 feet wide any direction), with a public access easement
dedicated over all portions of the open space area.
(4) A minimum of three pedestrian amenities within the open space, such as: lit
bollards, waste receptacles (recycling and trash), clocks, way finding signs,
benches, drinking fountains and decorative pedestrian lighting not higher than 15
feet.
C. Streetscape and Frontage Zone Development Regulations. The following development
regulations apply to properties which abut the street sections indicated. All regulations in
the table are appealable to the Design Review Committee under the provisions of Section
1224 and considered as R*.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 166
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix—Van Buren
Frontage Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Minimum
Street Section Zone Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Setback
Depth Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
Fillmore Street 0' 20' Minimum 50% ALL 5' 7'
Alley west of 7th
Ave. to 7th Ave.
Fillmore Street 0' 20' Minimum 50% ALL 5' 10'
7th Ave. to 3rd Ave.
Taylor Street Paseo 0’ 20’ Minimum 75% SD, PO, S, 8’ 13’, or 0’
7th Ave. to 3rd Ave. GA, CE when not
located within
or adjacent to
a dedicated
street
Van Buren Street 0' 20' Minimum 75% S, GA, CE, 5' 5'
7th Ave. to 3rd Ave. GR
Woodland Avenue 12' 30' Minimum 75% AFY, SD, 5' 10'
9th Ave. to alley PA, PO, S
west of 9th Ave.
Monroe Street 0' 20' Minimum 75% SD, PA, 8' 10'
7th Ave. to 3rd Ave. PO, S
Adams Street 0' 20' Minimum 75% SD, PA, 5' 10'
4th Ave. to 7th Ave. PO, S, GA
Adams Street 0' 20' Minimum 75% SD, PA, 8' 5'
7th Ave. to 5th Ave. PO, S, GA
9th Avenue 0' 20' Minimum 50% ALL 5' 20'
Van Buren St. to
Adams St.
7th Avenue 0' 20' Minimum 75% ALL 7' 7'
Fillmore St. to
Adams St.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 167
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix—Van Buren
Frontage Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Minimum
Street Section Zone Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Setback
Depth Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
6th Avenue 0' 20' Minimum 50% SD, PA, East 5' East 8'
Fillmore St. to Van PO, S, GA West 5' West 5'
Buren St.
6th Avenue 0' 20' Minimum 75% ALL East 5' East 5'
Van Buren St. to West 5' West 8'
Adams St.
5th Avenue 0' 20' Minimum 50% SD, PA, 5' 10'
Fillmore St. to Van PO, S, GA
Buren St.
5th Avenue 0' 20' Minimum 75% ALL 7' 7'
Van Buren St. to
Adams St.
4th Avenue 0' 20' Minimum 50% SD, PA, 5' 15'
Fillmore St. to Van PO, S, GA
Buren St.
4th Avenue 0' 20' Minimum 75% ALL 7' 7'
Van Buren St. to
Monroe St.
3rd Avenue 0' 20' Minimum 50% SD, PA, 5' 10'
Fillmore St. to Van PO, S, GA
Buren St.
3rd Avenue 0' 20' Minimum 75% ALL 5' 5'
Van Buren St. to
Monroe St.
Taylor Street Paseo 0' 20' Minimum 65% SD, PO, S, See Paseo See Paseo
7th Ave. to 3rd Ave. FC, GA Guidelines Guidelines
(AFY) Active Front Yard, (PA) Patio, (SD) Stoop/Door Well, (PO) Porch, (CE) Common
Entry, (FC) Forecourt, (S) Storefront, (GA) Gallery/Arcade, (GR) Grand Entry, (ALL) All
Frontage Elements
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 168
Section 1222. Warehouse.
A. Intent. The Warehouse Character Area is a unique urban neighborhood that offers a blend of
old railroad charm and modern urban living. The unique old warehouse buildings provide design
inspiration for the design of new buildings that complement the existing character. This area has
unique sports and entertainment venues, in addition to dining and shopping opportunities that
serve the entire region. This area should provide people with the ability to enjoy the character
and authenticity of the area while being close to transit and the heart of the City.
B. Development Regulations. The following development regulations apply to properties
located with the Warehouse character area. Where a “bonus” is indicated, the development
regulation may be modified within the range stated when sustainability bonus points are
earned per Section 1223, as approved by PDD staff or the Design Review Committee,
unless stated otherwise.
1. Maximum height: governed by the height map, Section 1202.B, and height transition
standards of Section 1207.E.
a. Bonus (north of Lincoln Street, within the 80 feet base height category only):
maximum height of 140 feet shall be permitted only with dedication of a 30-year
conservation easement over an existing building designated HP or HP-L, as
approved by HP. The property with the conservation easement must be located
between Madison Street and Lincoln Street, and within either the Business Core or
Warehouse character areas. Sustainability bonus points cannot be used to obtain
this height bonus.
b. Bonus (elsewhere within Character Area): 50%. Exception: any property within a
base height category of 150 feet or greater shall not be permitted a height bonus,
due to Airport Downtown Zone height limits.
c. Additional height restrictions apply for properties subject to Section 1222.B.4.
2. Maximum density: governed by the density map, Section 1202.C.
a. Bonus: Maximum 100% increase.
3. Maximum lot coverage: 100%.
a. Bonus: none.
4. Minimum setbacks from interior property lines:
a. For sites not abutting a property located within the Central Park Character Area: 0
feet.
b. For sites abutting a property located within the Central Park Character Area (not
including properties separated by a fully dedicated alley or street), the following
regulations apply:
(1) Side or rear lot line: Minimum 20-foot building setback, including a ten-foot
landscape setback. The landscape setback shall be measured from the property
line.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 169
(2) The building shall not exceed 40 feet in height when located between 20 and 30
feet of the side or rear property line.
(3) A stepback shall be required unless the proposed new development is located ten or
more feet beyond the required setback line. A minimum stepback of ten feet in depth
for the length/width of the building that is adjacent to the Central Park Character Area
is required. The stepback shall be measured from the required side or rear yard
setback line.
5. Required parking:
a. Minimum:
(1) Residential uses: governed by Section 1206.
(2) Non-residential uses: none.
d. Maximum: governed by Section 1206.
e. Bonus:
(1) Increase: maximum 100%.
(2) Decrease: maximum 100%.
6. Walls/Fences.
a. Frontage Zones: per the provisions of Section 1207.D.
b. Interior property lines: maximum height of 8 feet.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 170
7. Signage. Signage in the Warehouse Character Area shall be governed by the
regulations applicable to signs in the commercial districts of Section 705 of the Phoenix
Zoning Ordinance.
a. Signs projecting from the front of buildings shall be perpendicular to the street (i.e.,
90-degree angle), with a maximum of one sign per entrance. All signs that extend
into or over the public right-of-way shall require a revocable permit administered by
the City of Phoenix prior to issuance of the sign permit. Each sign shall:
(1) Identify only one on-site business.
(2) Provide a minimum eight-foot clearance.
(3) Project no more than three feet into the public right-of-way.
(4) Be indirectly illuminated from a shielded light source (i.e., not backlit or cabinet sign).
b. Awning signs shall be permitted by right. Awning signs shall have letters no more
than ten inches in height.
c. Signs painted on the building surface or letters mounted directly to the building surface
should:
(1) Be a maximum of one square foot of signage for each lineal foot of building
elevation to a maximum of 100 square feet. May have minimum of 40 square
feet.
(2) Be at least half the vertical height of the letters to a building corner (vertical edge) or
to a roofline.
d. Windows visible from the public right-of-way shall not exceed a maximum of 20
percent of the windowpane area.
e. Second-story businesses may only use a sign in a second-story window, or use a wall
sign. Awning signs shall not be permitted on second-story windows.
f. Corner buildings shall be allowed signage on each street frontage.
g. Directional signs for accessory parking will be allowed to a maximum of six square feet
per sign per driveway entrance. The maximum height of said directional signs is three
feet. No more than 25 percent of the area may be devoted to business identification.
h. The provisions of Section 705.C.6.d shall not apply within the Warehouse Character
Area.
i. Signs, banners, balloons, flags, guidons, and similar advertising devices otherwise
prohibited by Section 705.C.2.a, b and c may be erected subject to a use permit in
conjunction with special promotional events of a civic or commercial nature. No more
than 25 percent of the area may be devoted to corporate sponsorship identification. In
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 171
addition to the standards enumerated in Section 705.F, findings of approval of the use
permit shall include:
(1) The signs and other displays are appropriate in scale, composition, and manner
of display with surrounding development.
(2) When adjoining establishments participate in an event, a single request for a use
permit may be filed.
j. Wall signs on buildings designated Historic Preservation (HP) exceeding the applicable
size or area regulations may be allowed by the Historic Preservation Commission in
accordance with the procedure set forth in Section 812.C.3 and upon the additional
finding that the proposed signage replicates the size, shape, and placement of the
original wall signage.
k. The following signs are prohibited:
(1) Those placed above or on top of any portion of the roof or front parapet or facade.
(2) Signs utilizing moving, flashing, or rotating lights or mechanisms, except as provided
by a use permit.
(3) Freestanding signs or ground signs.
l. Signage may be increased by up to 25 percent by submitting a comprehensive sign plan
as provided in Section 705.E of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance.
C. Streetscape and Frontage Zone Development Regulations. The following development
regulations apply to properties which abut the street sections indicated. All regulations in
the table are appealable to the Design Review Committee under the provisions of Section
1224 and considered as R*.
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix—Warehouse
Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Street Minimum Frontage
Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Section Setback Zone Depth
Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
7th Avenue 0’ 20’ None ALL 5' 10’
South of the
train tracks
to Grant St.
7th Avenue 0' 20’ Minimum 75% S, GA, SD, CE 5' 10’
Grant St. to
Sherman
St.
6th Avenue 0' 20' Minimum 50% ALL 5' 12'
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 172
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix—Warehouse
Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Street Minimum Frontage
Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Section Setback Zone Depth
Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
Sherman
St. to Grant
St.
5th Avenue 0' 20' Minimum 75% S 5' 12'
Alley south
of Jackson
St. to
Madison St.
4th Avenue 0' 20' Minimum 50% ALL 5' 12'
Sherman
St. to Grant
St.
4th Avenue 0' 20' Minimum 50% ALL 5' 19'
Grant St. to
Lincoln St.
4th Avenue 0' 20' Minimum 75% S 5' 12'
Alley south
of Jackson
St. to
Madison St.
3rd Avenue 0' 20' Minimum 75% S 5' 20'
Grant St. to
Jackson St.
2nd Avenue 0' 20' Minimum 50% ALL 5' 23'
Grant St. to
Lincoln St.
2nd Avenue 0' 20' Minimum 50% S 5' 10'
Buchanan
St. to
Jackson St.
1st Avenue 0' 20' Minimum 75% S 10' 15'
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 173
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix—Warehouse
Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Street Minimum Frontage
Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Section Setback Zone Depth
Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
Grant St. to
Madison St.
Central 0' 20' Minimum 75% S, GA, SD, CE 8' 15'
Avenue
Grant St. to
Madison St.
1st Street 0' 20' Minimum 50% ALL 5' 15'
Grant St. to
Buchanan
St.
1st Street 0' 20' Minimum 50% ALL 6' 20'
Buchanan
St. to
Madison St.
2nd Street 0' 20' Minimum 50% ALL 6' 20'
Lincoln St.
to alley
south of
Jackson St.
3rd Street 0' 20' Minimum 75% AFY, SD, PA, 6' 20'
South of PO, S
Grant St. to
Grant St.
3rd Street 0' 20' Minimum 75% S 6' 14'
Grant St.
south to
Railroad
Row
4th Street 0' 20’ Minimum 75% SD, PA, S 5' 10’
Grant St.
south to
Character
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 174
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix—Warehouse
Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Street Minimum Frontage
Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Section Setback Zone Depth
Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
Area
boundary
5th Street 0' 20’ Minimum 50% ALL 6' 14'
Grant St. to
Lincoln St.
6th Street 0' 20’ Minimum 50% ALL 8' 13'
Lincoln St.
to
Buchanan
St.
7th Street 0' 20’ Minimum 75% ALL 6' 14'
Lincoln St.
to south of
Grant St.
Madison 0' 20’ Minimum 75% SD, PA, S 5' 12'
Street
5th Ave. to
4th Ave.
Madison 0' 20’ Minimum 75% SD, PA, S 5' 12'
Street
1st Ave. to
1st St.
Jackson 0' 20’ Minimum 75% S 8' As
Street Established
5th Ave. to with Tree
1st St. Wells(1)
Buchanan 0' 20’ Minimum 75% SD, PA, S 7' 12'
Street
3rd Ave. to
3rd St.
Lincoln 0' 20’ Minimum 75% SD, PA, S 7' 12'
Street
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 175
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix—Warehouse
Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Street Minimum Frontage
Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Section Setback Zone Depth
Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
7th Ave. to
7th St.
Grant 0' 20’ Minimum 50% ALL 5' 19'
Street
6th Ave. to
2nd St.
3rd St. to
7th St.
Grant 0' 20’ Minimum 75% SD, PA, S 5' 19'
Street
2nd St. to
3rd St.
Sherman 0' 20’ Minimum 75% SD, PA, S 8' 14'
Street
7th Ave. to
4th Ave.
(AFY) Active Front Yard, (PA) Patio, (SD) Stoop/Door Well, (PO) Porch, (CE) Common
Entry, (FC) Forecourt, (S) Storefront, (GA) Gallery/Arcade, (GR) Grand Entry, (ALL) All
Frontage Elements
D. Additional Design Regulations--Warehouse.
1. New construction from finished grade to 65 feet in height shall use concrete, brick or other
quality exterior-facing materials found on the structures in the Warehouse Character Area
that have been determined to have character value, such as load bearing walls (brick or
block) and concrete post-and-beam structural systems. (P)
2. Brick veneer and brick tile applications, when used, should give the appearance of structural
brick by using wraparound corner and bullnose pieces to minimize a veneer appearance. (P)
3. Stucco should not be used as a new element on an existing building. For new construction,
stucco finishes should be limited to no more than 25 percent of all facades, and located
where least visible from Streetscape Zones. (P)
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 176
Rationale for D.1 – D.3: The Warehouse Character Area has a unique and historic
architectural context which current development should mimic or complement.
4. The following design elements are only permitted for use within the Warehouse Character
area if approved by the Design Review Committee as a Design Alternative per Section 1224
(R*):
a. Metal or wood siding.
b. Parabolic arches and other nongeometric forms.
c. Backlit awnings or panels.
d. Plastic and acrylic components used in awnings and other accessories.
e. Steeply pitched roofs (greater than 30 degrees) including mansard roof forms.
f. Curtain-wall facades.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 177
Section 1223. Sustainability Bonus.
A. Applicability. The Sustainability Bonus system is designed to provide additional
entitlements to developments that exhibit enhanced and/or environmentally friendly design,
or other performance elements as outlined in this Section or as approved by the Design
Review Committee.
1. A Sustainability Bonus may only be awarded when allowed by the applicable Character Area
development regulations.
2. Sustainability Bonus credits (as detailed in Section 1223.C) earned shall only apply to one
category of bonus. If multiple bonuses are desired for one development (such as one for
height increase, and another for parking increase), each bonus must earn the required bonus
credits separately, unless specifically stated otherwise in this Chapter.
3. All items or improvements which are provided specifically to obtain a Sustainability Bonus
shall be located on site, and not in public right-of-way, unless approved as a Technical
Appeal demonstrating that all required Streetscape improvements, including shade,
landscape, and minimum sidewalk width, will still be provided.
B. Credit Categories.
1. Height Increase. The allowed bonus is an increase in height calculated as a percentage
of the base maximum height permitted per Section 1202.B. However, no building height
may exceed the Airport Height Limits provided in Chapter 4, Article XIII of the Phoenix
City Code.
Height Increase
Minimum Credits Required Allowed Bonus
70 50%
60 40%
50 30%
40 20%
30 10%
20 5%
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 178
2. Density Increase. The allowed bonus is an increase in the number residential units
calculated as a percentage of the base maximum units permitted per Section 1202.C:
Density Increase
Minimum Credits Required Allowed Bonus
70 100%
60 80%
50 60%
40 40%
30 25%
20 10%
3. Increase of Lot Coverage. The allowed bonus is the amount of additional lot coverage
allowed in addition to the lot coverage permitted by the applicable Character Area; e.g. a
development earning 20 bonus credits is allowed an additional 10% lot coverage.
Increase of Lot Coverage
Minimum Credits Required Allowed Bonus
50 50%
40 25%
30 15%
20 10%
10 5%
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 179
4. Increase of Maximum Parking. The allowed bonus is an increase calculated as a
percentage of the maximum parking allowed per Section 1206.
Increase of Maximum Parking
Minimum Credits Required Allowed Bonus
50 100%
40 75%
30 50%
20 25%
10 15%
5 10%
5. Decrease in Minimum Parking. The allowed bonus is a decrease calculated as a
percentage of the minimum parking required per Section 1206.
Decrease of
Minimum Credits Required Allowed Bonus
25 100%
20 75%
15 50%
10 25%
5 10%
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 180
C. Sustainability Bonus Credit Matrix.
POSSIBLE
CREDIT DESCRIPTION AND QUALIFIERS OPTIONS
CREDITS
1. Provide a vertical mixed-use development 25% of gross ground 5
which incorporates commercial suites at the area of building
ground level intended for patronage by the
50% + of gross ground 10
general public, and not associated with the
floor area of building
operation of the overall development. Each
suite shall have a primary entrance from the
Frontage/Streetscape zone.
2. Provide pedestrian amenities within the 3 Different Types of 5
Frontage Zone (or Streetscape Zone if Amenities
approved through a Technical Appeal and
6+ Different Types of 10
Street Transportation) such as: lit bollards,
Amenities
waste receptacles (recycling and trash),
clocks, way finding signs, benches, drinking
fountains and decorative pedestrian lighting
not higher than 15 feet. (Must be in addition
to any required amenities.)
3. Provide outdoor dining within the Frontage Minimum 400 sf 5
Zone. Also applies to outdoor dining
800+ sf 10
provided within a Forecourt or a
Gallery/Arcade, but only if the minimum
sidewalk width required by the Character
Area is maintained.
4. Provide additional bicycle amenities (beyond any required), as follows in 4a and 4b:
4a. For any use type, provide additional Secured parking room for 5
amenities such as a secured bicycle parking minimum 50% required
room; bicycle lockers, tire air-up facilities, bicycle parking
and/or bicycle maintenance area or room.
Bicycle lockers for 5
minimum 50% required
bicycle parking
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 181
POSSIBLE
CREDIT DESCRIPTION AND QUALIFIERS OPTIONS
CREDITS
Tire air-up facility or 3 (each)
bicycle maintenance
area/room
4b. For non-residential uses, provide showers Shower 4 (each);
and/or personal lockers within changing maximum 20
rooms for use by the building’s tenants. points
Personal lockers in 3 points for each 5
changing room lockers, maximum
15 points
5. Provide a public art installation within or on Art installation (as 5 points per
the building abutting a Frontage Zone. approved by PDD) installation
6. Provide on-site permeable paving, structured minimum 250 sf area 2
soil/grass, open grid paving or similar
>250 sf to 500sf area 4
material which allows for water to permeate
the surface to promote natural drainage and >500 sf to 1000 sf area 8
filtration. The areas provided may include on-
site pedestrian walkways, private >1000 sf area 15
driveways/aisles and parking stalls, but shall
not include loading areas or hardscape
located within public ROW.
7. Utilize non-potable gray water and/or Either gray water or 3
rainwater to supplement required landscape rainwater harvesting
irrigation water. system provided
Both systems provided 6
(may be combined)
8. Outperform the currently adopted energy 5%—9% 5
code standard by the following percentages,
10%—14% 10
measured by the percent (%) over required
energy code standard. 15%+ 15
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 182
POSSIBLE
CREDIT DESCRIPTION AND QUALIFIERS OPTIONS
CREDITS
9. Provide on-site renewable energy for the 1 point for each %
entire building’s electricity from renewable of building energy
sources, like wind, solar, geothermal, usage being
biomass or any similar source that is provided
renewable. Based on the load of the service
and the percent of load being provided by a
renewable source.
10. Provide a renewable energy purchasing 10%—35% 5
agreement for the entire building for a
35%+ 10
minimum 5 years, which runs with the
property and applies to the entire building(s).
This agreement shall be recorded and
submitted with the final site plan. Measured
by percent (%) of power purchased to meet
the energy demand for the building.
11. Provide a minimum 8 foot wide public 5 per street
sidewalk for the length of the property frontage
frontage (applicable only when the required
minimum width is less than 8 feet).
12. Provide two separate rows of shade trees Second row trees 10 per street
along the public sidewalk, planted along each matching Streetscape frontage
side of the public sidewalk. minimum requirements
13. Provide a minimum 30-year historic Easement provided on a 20
preservation conservation easement for the property located within
original footprint of a building on a property Downtown
designated HP or HP-L, as approved by the
Easement provided on a 10 (in addition to
Historic Preservation Officer.
property located within the base 20 points)
same Character Area as
development
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 183
POSSIBLE
CREDIT DESCRIPTION AND QUALIFIERS OPTIONS
CREDITS
14. Rehabilitate a structure (including building 30
stabilization) on a property zoned HP or HP-L
located within Downtown, as approved by the
Historic Preservation Officer.
15. Provide open space at the ground level on Provide at least 5% of 5
private property (minimum 500 sf and not the gross site area.
less than 10 feet wide any direction), as
Provide at least 10% of 10
follows:
the gross site area.
Dedicate a public access 10 additional
easement over the full
open space area used to
qualify for bonus
16. Provide affordable housing units in the 10%—24% 10
percentage shown with a deed restriction to
25%—49% 15
ensure affordability for a minimum duration
commensurate with the project funding 50%+ 20
agreement, as approved by the Phoenix
Housing Department.
17. Provide solar panels on the roof of the At least 25% of the total 5
building(s), as follows: roof area, up to 50%
More than 50% up to 10
75% of the total roof area
More than 75% of the 15
total roof area
18. Provide electric vehicle charging spaces For use by building 2 per EVC space
with installed electric vehicle charging owners or tenants only
stations (maximum 30 points total).
For use by building 4 per EVC space
visitors and/or general
public
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 184
POSSIBLE
CREDIT DESCRIPTION AND QUALIFIERS OPTIONS
CREDITS
19. Provide below grade and/or lower level No parking provided 10
parking areas only. above the ground floor
(not applicable if no parking provided). level
All parking* provided 20
*not including required ADA spaces
below finished grade
20. Provide shade for a minimum of 50% of all 5
occupiable roof areas.
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 185
Section 1224. Appeals.
A. Design Alternative Appeals. A Design Alternative appeal is a requested deviation from
development regulations indicated with (R*), or an appeal of a decision by the Planning and
Development Department regarding compliance with a presumption (P). Approval of a
Design Alternative appeal shall result in a furtherance of the goals and policies of the
Downtown Phoenix Plan and the specific intent of the subject Character Area, as approved
by the DRC, as follows:
1. A Design Alternative appeal shall be reviewed and acted upon by the Design Review
Committee (DRC) in accordance with the procedural requirements of Section 507.G.
2. The DRC may approve substitute methods of meeting the intent of development
regulations as part of a Design Alternative appeal.
3. The DRC may impose conditions or stipulations with an approval of a Design Alternative
appeal.
4. When considering a proposed Design Alternative for the required frontage type/design,
the DRC is authorized to provide relief from other related Zoning Ordinance standards
and regulations indicated with (P), (R*), and (R), but not items indicated with (T).
“RELATED” IN THIS CONTEXT MEANS THAT RELIEF FROM AN ITEM INDICATED
BY (P), (R*), OR (R) IS NECESSARY TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED DESIGN
ALTERNATIVE.
5. Each Design Alternative appeal application shall include, at a minimum, the following:
a. For properties with a Historic Preservation (HP) designation, a Certificate of
Appropriateness or Certificate of No Effect must be obtained in advance of filing the
appeal and a copy submitted with the appeal application;
b. A listing of each of the development regulations that are the subject of the proposed
Design Alternative, including all additional items indicated with (P), (R*) and (R)
which also require relief to attain the proposed Design Alternative;
c. A narrative statement describing the justification for the Design Alternative and the
manner in which the proposed Design Alternative would result in a furtherance of the
goals and policies of the applicable Character Area, and would satisfy the findings
required for approval;
d. Site plan;
e. Building elevations;
f. Context plan (per Section 507.E);
g. Landscaping and shading plan;
h. List of property owners located within 150 feet of the subject property as supplied by
the Maricopa County Assessor’s Office; and
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 186
i. Such other information as may be required by the Planning and Development
Director or the DRC.
6. In order to approve a Design Alternative appeal, the DRC must make findings as follows:
a. That the project is consistent with the intent, goals, and polices stated for the
applicable Character Area; and
b. That the project demonstrates design excellence by addressing at least two of the
following:
(1) Design innovation and the imaginative use of space, forms, and materials.
(2) Permeability and connectivity which enables people to move within, around and
through the project with ease.
(3) That the design alternative would improve safety and security by introducing
human activity to the public realm with active building frontages onto streets and
other public spaces, and enable "eyes on the street."
(4) The design alternative will incorporate materials and design which enhance
thermal comfort.
B. Sustainability Bonus Appeals. An applicant may file a request for the Design Review
Committee to appeal a decision of the Planning and Development Department regarding
Sustainability Bonus credits, as outlined in Section 1223.,TO THE DESIGN REVIEW
COMMITTEE, AS FOLLOWS:
1. A Sustainability Bonus appeal shall be reviewed and acted upon by the Design Review
Committee (DRC) in accordance with the procedural requirements of Section 507.G.
2. The DRC may approve substitute methods of meeting the intent of specific bonus credits
as part of a Sustainability Bonus appeal.
3. The DRC may impose conditions or stipulations with an approval of a Sustainability
Bonus appeal.
4. Each Design Alternative appeal application shall include, at a minimum, the following:
a. A listing of the credits that are being utilized and any supportING documentation (to
be sealed by a licensed professional);
b. Site plan;
c. Building elevations;
d. Context plan (per Section 507.E);
e. A narrative statement describing any deviation from the prescribed bonus credit(s)
that indicates how the proposed standard is furthering the goals and policies of the
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 187
Downtown Phoenix Plan and making a quantifiable improvement in the performance
of the building(s);
f. List of property owners located within 150 feet of the subject property as supplied by
the Maricopa County Assessor’s Office;
g. Such other information as may be required by the Planning and Development
Director or DRC.
5. In order to approve a Sustainability Bonus Appeal, the DRC must make findings as
follows:
a. That the project is consistent with the intent, goals, and polices stated for the
applicable Character Area; and
b. That the project is improving the overall performance of the building(s) through
generally accepted building and design standards and innovation; and
c. That the increased entitlements are consistent with the improved performance of the
building(s).
C. Variances/Zoning Adjustment. A variance is a requested deviation from a development
regulation designated as a requirement, or (R), and shall comply with the provisions of
Section 307.A.9, in addition to the following:
1. Any variance/zoning adjustment request within Downtown must be formally reviewed by
the Design Review Committee prior to processing of the variance request, UNLESS
THE REQUEST IS NOT DESIGN-RELATED, AS DETERMINED BY THE DESIGN
ADVISOR, OR IS REGARDING A SIGN REGULATION. The formal review shall be
through the same public hearing process as indicated in Section 1224.B, except that the
Design Review Committee shall, instead of making findings and a decision, provide a
written recommendation to the Zoning Administrator regarding the variance request.
The written recommendation shall, at a minimum, address the following items:
a. Whether the request is consistent with the intent, goals, and polices stated for the
applicable Character Area; and
b. Whether the request is consistent with the intended Streetscape design and shade
requirements for the applicable Streetscape and Frontage Zones.
2. The applicant shall provide a written narrative for the DRC to review and address as part
of its written recommendation regarding the variance request. The narrative shall, at a
minimum, include the following items:
Exhibit B: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 3, 2024
Page 188
a. How much relief has, or could be obtained through application of a Sustainability
Bonus;
b. A written explanation why a Sustainability Bonus cannot be applied or obtain the
relief desired by the variance request; and
c. A written explanation of how the development and the variance request is consistent
with the intent, goals, and polices stated for the applicable Character Area.
************************* END ***************************
ATTACHMENT D
Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8 Downtown Code
Village Planning Committee Summary Results
Information Only Recommendation
Village Recommendations Vote
Date Date
Central City 8/12/2024 9/9/2024 Approval, per the staff recommendation 12-0
Encanto 8/5/2024 9/9/2024 Approval, per the staff recommendation 9-1
Updated : 8/11/2023
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
INFORMATION ONLY
Date of VPC Meeting August 12, 2024
Request Add a new Section 312 and amend the following
sections of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance to revise
and clarify definitions, and variance and Design
Review appeal processes and to clarify how other
sections interact with Chapter 12 (Downtown Code):
Section 201 (Rules of Construction), Section 202
(Definitions), Section 307.A (Authority and duties of the
Zoning Administrator), Section 507 (Development
Review Approval), Section 669 (Arts, Culture, and
Small Business Overlay District), Section 702 (Off-
Street Parking and Loading), and Section 703
(Landscaping, Fences and Walls), Chapter 12
(Downtown Code)
VPC DISCUSSION:
No members of the public registered to speak on this item.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Christopher DePerro, staff, provided a presentation about the proposed amendments
to the Downtown Code, highlighting the revisions to the appeals processes, frontage
and streetscape zones, the Taylor Street Paseo, and clarifications about issues in the
right-of-way, further reviewing the timeline for the text amendment.
QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE
Committee Member Sonoskey asked about variances and if adding DRC review will
make it take longer to get a variance. Mr. DePerro replied that a lot of other changes to
the DTC will make variances necessary less often and that in some cases a variance
can be obtained in conjunction with the DRC review.
Mr. Sonoskey asked if valet parking is currently allowed in the DTC. Mr. DePerro
replied that the text doesn’t currently say whether it’s allowed and that the proposed
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Central City Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
August 12, 2024
text requires Street Transportation Department approval for valet parking within the
right-of-way.
Vice Chair Gaughan asked how long this revision has been in the works. Mr. DePerro
replied that it has been since 2021.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 799
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
INFORMATION ONLY
Date of VPC Meeting August 5, 2024
Request Add a new Section 312 and amend the following
sections of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance to revise
and clarify definitions, and variance and Design
Review appeal processes and to clarify how other
sections interact with Chapter 12 (Downtown Code):
Section 201 (Rules of Construction), Section 202
(Definitions), Section 307.A (Authority and duties of the
Zoning Administrator), Section 507 (Development
Review Approval), Section 669 (Arts, Culture, and
Small Business Overlay District), Section 702 (Off-
Street Parking and Loading), and Section 703
(Landscaping, Fences and Walls), Chapter 12
(Downtown Code)
VPC DISCUSSION:
No members of the public registered to speak on this item.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Chris DePerro introduced himself and stated that changes to the Downtown Code have
been in development for some time and there is a portion that is within the Encanto
Village. Mr. DePerro stated the downtown area is between 7th Street and 7th Avenue
extending to Buckeye Road to the south. Mr. DePerro stated that one of the reasons for
changes was due to unclear language and over the years other changes were not made
to update different provisions, tables and there was the intent to have a more traditional
downtown code. Mr. DePerro stated that one of the big changes is clarification to the
appeal process that was discovered when addressing large projects. Mr. DePerro said
they also updated development requirements to be consistent and there were revisions
to format, terminology, and grammar to have better interactivity with the rest of the
ordinance. Mr. DePerro stated that what has not changed are the existing entitlements,
the street classifications and character areas. Mr. DePerro said that one update that
Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
was made was the inclusion of a parcel at the corner of 7th Avenue and Lynwood Street
which was added back in to provide full coverage for the area. Mr. DePerro said no
changes were made to permitted land uses with exception of one interpretation that was
in error which was adjusted, and valet parking was added to the development
standards. Mr. DePerro stated that Chapter 12 has been rewritten in the style of Section
507, Tab A and includes a reference to variance requirements and presumptions and
technical appeals. Mr. DePerro said that performance standards can be evaluated by
technical staff to evaluate the situation but does not go to a public hearing but can be
appealed to the City Manager’s representative. Mr. DePerro stated that variance relief
would be maintained as required by state law. Mr. DePerro stated that what has been
added is a process for design related items to go to the Design Review Committee for a
recommendation addressing how the requirement items are met. Mr. DePerro stated
that provisions were added for some items that are not design related that would be
addressed by a design advisor. Mr. DePerro stated the 35 percent limitation on relief
was removed and allowed for adjustments for alternative designs like storefront when
they did not meet all the specific details. Mr. DePerro discussed the changes to
frontages and streetscape zone to put more focus on the ground level environment for
shade and landscaping. Mr. DePerro stated that provisions were added for sidewalks,
bicycle parking, and amenities that match the WU (Walkable Urban) Code to be
consistent. Mr. DePerro stated ride share and delivery space were added, and
commercial loading remains to be kept off the street. Mr. DePerro discussed the
streetscape zone that would include the minimum sidewalk and landscape setback. Mr.
DePerro discussed the frontage setback zone and adjustments to the maximum
setbacks to allow full use of the property as well as projections. Mr. DePerro displayed
examples of commercial mixed-use frontages and residential frontages and how they
will be expected to be developed in the future. Mr. DePerro discussed how public art
would be utilized and placed in designated areas and corridors for display. Mr. DePerro
stated that with the updates there would be new terminology, some terms would be
updated to be consistent with the Zoning Ordinance to clearly express what is allowed
with what is permitted. Mr. DePerro stated that certain terms like door yard, grand entry
and traditional entry were updated to adapt to the WU Code and to be more functional
options. Mr. DePerro stated that adjustments were added for windows, glazing and
setbacks to encourage frontage options. Mr. DePerro discussed the Taylor Street
Paseo which was updated to include portions of the character area and match the
intended areas that were originally planned for. Mr. DePerro stated the Paseo would be
preserved and there would be development incentives. Mr. DePerro stated that in
making changes they evaluated streets and right of ways and driveways to maintain
pedestrian activity and passenger loading. Mr. DePerro stated that the updates include
provisions for valet parking that can be utilized across the street, but no new or
additional parking is granted. Mr. DePerro stated that with adjusting the right of way
allowances it still allows the Street Transportation Department to have flexibility and
Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
does not override their role. Mr. DePerro discussed Historic Preservation and the
general provisions of Chapter 12 and there would be no changes in preserving the
existing developments. Mr. DePerro stated features such as height bonuses and
corporate areas have been clarified when being rehabilitated. Mr. DePerro stated the
availability of sustainability bonus points for reduced parking, additional lot coverage
and the work with preservation and historical structures. Mr. DePerro stated the timeline
for the proposed changes which began in 2022 and they have made the changes which
are being presented. Mr. DePerro stated that the proposed changes will affect the
Encanto Village and the Central City Village.
QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE
Committee Member Procaccini asked when there is a historic designation does it
have to be nationally registered. Mr. DePerro responded this is addressed in Chapter 8
of the Ordinance when a site or building is designated HP (Historic Preservation) it is
consider historic by City designation. Committee Member Procaccini asked if a site
would be federally designated for preservation. Mr. DePerro stated he would check with
the City’s Historic Preservation Department for clarification.
Committee Member Warnicke stated there were changes made to the tree matrix and
landscaping, but caliper size was not mentioned. Mr. DePerro responded that this was
not addressed but there are installation requirements for tree size.
Chair Wagner stated the proposed changes will have a greater impact on Central City
with some limited application on the southern boundary of the Encanto Village. Chair
Wagner asked about the Design Review Committee and their decision that is final and
non-appealable, noting that from the Village they address design questions without
sufficient design details. Chair Wagner asked why there was a decision to grant power
to a few people on a committee rather than a more public process. Mr. DePerro
responded that the Design Review Committee was established with the original
Downtown Code, and the committee was the final decision maker. Mr. DePerro stated
that other options were considered for appeals that include a Design Advisor with a
different board and at this time the updates are a major clarification of items that have
been in practice for the last ten years and the focus has been on codification for clarity.
Chair Wagner asked if staff could obtain the minutes from the Central City Village
Planning Committee Meeting. Chair Wagner stated that it would be helpful to get
information from the Central City Village perspective as well as seeing how the outreach
was conducted. Mr. DePerro responded that they worked with the Downtown Phoenix
Partnership, the Phoenix Community Alliance, the Rosevelt Action Association, and
there was a work group that reviewed the language. Mr. DePerro stated that there will
be additional presentations made to other groups. Chair Wagner asked if the City is
currently rewriting other parts of the ordinance, to get a heads up on future changes. Mr.
DePerro responded that there will be some upcoming changes based on the state
Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
mandated requirements including revision to ADU’s. Mr. DePerro stated they will be
making some revisions to Adaptive Reuse as a follow up to SB 2297. Mr. DePerro
stated there are many provisions that have to be updated but there is no immediate
hurry, but they will be in progress.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
FLOOR/PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED: COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
None.
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
Date of VPC Meeting September 9, 2024
Request Add a new Section 312 and amend the following
sections of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance to revise
and clarify definitions, and variance and Design
Review appeal processes and to clarify how other
sections interact with Chapter 12 (Downtown Code):
Section 201 (Rules of Construction), Section 202
(Definitions), Section 307.A (Authority and duties of the
Zoning Administrator), Section 507 (Development
Review Approval), Section 669 (Arts, Culture, and
Small Business Overlay District), Section 702 (Off-
Street Parking and Loading), and Section 703
(Landscaping, Fences and Walls), Chapter 12
(Downtown Code)
VPC Recommendation Approval, per the staff recommendation
VPC Vote 12-0
VPC DISCUSSION:
No members of the public registered to speak on this item.
Committee Member Nervis joined the meeting during this item and Committee Member
Burton declared a conflict of interest on this item, bringing quorum to 12 members.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Christopher DePerro, staff, provided a presentation about the proposed amendments
to the Downtown Code, highlighting the revisions to the appeals processes, frontage
and streetscape zones, the Taylor Street Paseo, and clarifications about issues in the
right-of-way, further reviewing the timeline for the text amendment.
QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE
Committee Member Olivas asked if there were any provisions in the proposal that
have had opposition. Mr. DePerro stated that the proposal has been designed to
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Central City Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
September 9, 2024
respond to comments from the community, highlighting the addition of a maximum
grade for sidewalks.
Committee Member Martinez asked about the outreach conducted for this proposal.
Mr. DePerro reviewed the process of conducting outreach to several organizations.
Chair O’Grady asked about the tree species matrix. Mr. DePerro described the
purpose and history of the tree species matrix and the proposed text to allow
alternatives to be approved administratively.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
Committee Member Olivas asked if this has gone to any other VPCs. Mr. Hales
responded that the item is being heard at Encanto tonight.
MOTION
Vice Chair Gaughan made a motion to recommend approval of Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8 per
the staff recommendation. Rachel Frazier Johnson seconded the motion.
VOTE
12-0; Motion to recommend approval of Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8 per the staff recommendation
passed; Committee Members Ban, Burns, Greenman, R. Johnson, Martinez, Nervis,
Olivas, Sonoskey, Starks, Vargas, Gaughan, and O’Grady in favor.
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:
None.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 805
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
Date of VPC Meeting September 9, 2024
Request Add a new Section 312 and amend the following
sections of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance to revise
and clarify definitions, and variance and Design
Review appeal processes and to clarify how other
sections interact with Chapter 12 (Downtown Code):
Section 201 (Rules of Construction), Section 202
(Definitions), Section 307.A (Authority and duties of the
Zoning Administrator), Section 507 (Development
Review Approval), Section 669 (Arts, Culture, and
Small Business Overlay District), Section 702 (Off-
Street Parking and Loading), and Section 703
(Landscaping, Fences and Walls), Chapter 12
(Downtown Code)
VPC Recommendation Approval, per the staff recommendation
VPC Vote 9-1
VPC DISCUSSION:
No members of the public registered to speak on this item.
Committee Member Kleinman left the meeting room during this item, bringing quorum to
10 members.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Tricia Gomes, Planning and Development Department Deputy Director, introduced
herself and provided a recap of the changes, explaining the updates aim to improve
clarity, address contradictions, and simplify the language of the Downtown Code. Ms.
Gomes stated the revisions focus on several key areas including appeals, an analysis of
the pedestrian environment to improve shade, development regulations and some
updated language and grammar. Ms. Gomes stated what is not changing are existing
entitlements, pedestrian side streets, buffer alleys and character areas with one
exception at the corner of Lynwood Street and 7th Avenue which had a unique update.
Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
Ms. Gomes stated that the changes to the land use portions were interpretations for
valet parking as an accessory use. Ms. Gomes stated that Chapter 12 was reevaluated
and rewritten addressing technical appeals and design related variances and to address
how other sections would interact with the changes. Ms. Gomes discussed the letters
associated to the designations for the type of appeal and rationale behind them
including T (Technical Appeal), R (Variance), R* (Design Review Committee) and P
(Staff Discretion). Ms. Gomes stated that the Technical Appeal Committee is a newly
added requirement and will address safety or performance standards and will be
appealable to the City Manager (CMR) or the Design Advisory Board (DAB). Ms.
Gomes said that design related variances will be reviewed by the Design Review
Committee (DRC) for recommendations, allowing flexibility in design without requiring a
variance for a minor adjustment. Ms. Gomes noted that the appeals for variances are
handled by the Board of Adjustment or Superior Court focusing on hardship or unique
circumstances. Ms. Gomes stated that design related items would be routed to the DRC
for recommendation prior to a hearing. Ms. Gomes discussed the DRC public hearing,
the removal of 35 percent limitation on relief, requests made with a design alternative
and a new role of providing recommendations for design related variances. Ms. Gomes
said frontages and streetscapes were addressed to include a minimum sidewalk width
and setbacks were increased 10-15 feet and projections were added within frontage
zones. Ms. Gomes stated the Grand Entry was added to allow prominent and large-
scale developments such as hotels and this element is intended to create significant
and welcoming entryways for high-traffic areas. Ms. Gomes discussed the Taylor Street
Paseo which is now included and updated in the maps and provisions for paseo lines to
connect parcel areas. Ms. Gomes said the new alignments and approved locations
have been codified and allow incentives for properties along existing lines to provide
advanced frontages if desired. Ms. Gomes discussed revisions to address vehicular
access and driveway separation, providing greater flexibility while recognizing existing
rights. Ms. Gomes stated this update aims to balance pedestrian needs with vehicular
access requirements. Ms. Gomes stated that all the revisions regarding Historic
Preservation have been revised to clarify the significance of historic designations noting
the Chapter 8 (Historic Preservation) remains prominent in development actions. Ms.
Gomes stated the changes provide clarity on Warehouse and Business Core Character
Areas and outline the Sustainability Bonus Points for historic structure preservation and
rehabilitation. Ms. Gomes thanked the Committee and noted staff recommends
approval and asked the committee for their support noting Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8 will be heard
by the Planning Commission in October.
Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE
Committee Member Mahrle asked if the appeals apply only to the DTC or does it apply
to any place in the City. Ms. Gomes responded that with the appeal structure it is for
the whole city but items identified by the T designation only exist in the downtown area.
Committee Member Warnicke commented that the larger caliper trees from the WU
Code should be applied to the revisions.
Chair Wagner reiterated that the DTC extends only to the most southern portion of the
Encanto Village and includes the Central City Village.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
FLOOR/PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED: COMMITTEE DISCUSSION, AND VOTE
MOTION:
Committee Member Jayson Matthews motioned to recommend approval of Z-TA-5-
22-4-7-8 per the staff recommendation.
Committee Member Steve Procaccini seconded the motion.
VOTE:
9-1; motion to approve Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8 per the staff recommendation passes with
Committee Members Carranza, Doescher, George, Jewett, Mahrle, Matthews,
Procaccini, Montaño Searles and Chair Wagner in support and Committee Member
Warnicke opposed.
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:
No comments.
ATTACHMENT E
REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
November 7, 2024
ITEM NO: 3
DISTRICT NO.: 4, 7, and 8
SUBJECT:
Application #: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8 (Continued from October 10, 2024)
Proposal: Amend the following sections of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, as follows:
1. Revise and clarify provisions in Chapters 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7
regarding definitions; variance and Design Review appeal
processes, and to address how other sections interact with
Chapter 12(Downtown Code): Section 201 (Rules of
Construction), Section 202 (Definitions), Section 307.A (Authority
and duties of the Zoning Administrator), Section 507
(Development Review Approval), Section 669 (Arts, Culture, and
Small Business Overlay District), Section 702 (Off-Street Parking
and Loading), and Section 703 (Landscaping, Fences and Walls).
2. Add a new Section 312 to Chapter 3 to create the Technical
Appeals Committee.
3. Repeal and replace Chapter 12 (Downtown Code) with revised
and clarified text.
Applicant: City of Phoenix, Planning Commission
Representative: City of Phoenix, Planning and Development Department
ACTIONS:
Staff Recommendation: Approval, as shown in Exhibits A and B in the Addendum A Staff
Report.
Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
Central City 8/12/2024 Information only.
Encanto 8/5/2024 Information only.
Central City 9/9/2024 Approval, per the staff recommendation. Vote: 12-0.
Encanto 9/9/2024 Approval, per the staff recommendation. Vote: 9-1.
Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval, per the staff recommendation in the
Addendum A Staff Report.
Motion Discussion:
There was discussion regarding the questions posed by Commissioner Boyd at the October 10,
2024 Planning Commission Hearing regarding possible prohibition of particular land uses.
Daniel Inglese from the Law Department and Tricia Gomes, Planning and Development
Department Deputy Director, confirmed for the Commission that the notification requirements for
the case would be different if there are proposed land use changes, and those requirements
had not been met for the current proposal. Further changes to allowed land uses could be
addressed in a later Text Amendment.
Motion details: Commissioner Boyd made a MOTION to approve Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8, per the staff
recommendation in the Addendum A Staff Report.
Maker: Boyd
Second: Jaramillo
Vote: 9-0
Absent: None
Opposition Present: No
Findings: This proposed text amendment is quite extensive due to the many items identified by
stakeholders needing clarification, revisions, or codification of standards in practice but not
included in the current version of the Downtown Code. The intent of this amendment is to
streamline Downtown development while still implementing the pedestrian-oriented vision of the
Downtown Phoenix Urban Form Project.
Proposed Language:
Section 202. Definitions.
Amend Chapter 2, Section 202 (Definitions) to add and/or modify definitions as follows:
***
Alley, Buffer: An alley that is adjacent to a single-family residential use as identified on Map
1202.F, and in Sections 1207.O and P. AN ALLEY ABUTTING BOTH SINGLE-FAMILY AND
COMMERCIAL USES, DESIGNATED ON THE REGULATING MAPS IN CHAPTER 12
(DOWNTOWN CODE).
***
CITY MANAGER’S REPRESENTATIVE (CMR): SEE SECTION 32-3 OF THE CITY CODE.
***
FRONTAGE ZONE: THE PORTION OF A LOT OR PARCEL LOCATED DIRECTLY ADJACENT
TO A STREET, OF A DEPTH REQUIRED BY THE APPLICABLE ZONING DISTRICT AND/OR
CHARACTER AREA.
***
Off-Street Loading Spaces: An on site space for the standing, loading, and unloading of vehicles.
***
Off-Street Passenger Loading: The provision of space off the street and adjacent to a building
entrance for the loading and unloading of automobile passengers. The design of such space shall
be subject to the approval of the Street Transportation Department.
***
SERVICE/GOODS LOADING SPACE: A DESIGNATED AREA WHICH IS PROVIDED FOR THE
LOADING AND UNLOADING OF GOODS AND SERVICES FOR BUSINESSES AND
COMMERCIAL USERS.
***
Street, Front: A street identified by an area plan towards which the front of buildings are oriented
to minimize driveway cuts. If no area plan is adopted, all single-frontage lots adjoining a front
street must orient the front of the building to the front street. For multi-frontage lots, the street with
the most pedestrian activity is the front street. When lots adjoin two or more streets with an equal
amount of pedestrian activity, both are front streets. Front streets are not necessarily the street
adjoining the lot front.
***
Street, Pedestrian: Sidewalk, landscape, driveway and buildings are designed to create a safe,
pleasant and enjoyable experience for pedestrians. Building openings are oriented toward the
street and vehicular conflicts with pedestrians are minimized. Designated on Map 1202.E and
individual character areas in Chapter 12. A STREET DESIGNATED ON THE REGULATING
MAPS IN CHAPTER 12 (DOWNTOWN CODE), WHICH IS SUBJECT TO DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS AND VEHICULAR RESTRICTIONS INTENDED TO ENHANCE THE
PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT.
***
Street, Side: A street identified by an area plan towards which the side of buildings are oriented. If
no area plan is adopted, the street with the least amount of pedestrian activity is the side street for
multi-frontage lots. Side streets are not necessarily the street adjoining the lot side. A STREET
DESIGNATED ON THE REGULATING MAPS IN CHAPTER 12 (DOWNTOWN CODE), WHICH
PERMITS A MIX OF USES AND TYPES OF ACCESS, SUCH AS (BUT NOT LIMITED TO)
PEDESTRIAN, VEHICULAR, SERVICE, AND LOADING ACCESS.
STREETSCAPE: THE LANDSCAPE, SHADE, STREET IMPROVEMENTS, SIDEWALK, AND
OTHER AMENITIES PROVIDED DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO A STREET.
Streetscape Zone: The area located behind the right-of-way curb that has either landscaping per
Section 1207 or public amenities (such as seating, artwork). THE PORTION OF A DEDICATED
STREET PROVIDING STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS AND LOCATED BETWEEN THE
BACK OF CURB AND THE FRONTAGE PROPERTY LINE. THE STREETSCAPE ZONE MAY
ALSO INCLUDE A PORTION OF ABUTTING PRIVATE PROPERTY, PER THE PROVISIONS OF
CHAPTERS 12 AND 13.
***
Section 307.A. Authority and duties of the Zoning Administrator
Amend Chapter 3, Section 307.A (Authority and duties of the Zoning Administrator) to add
a requirement for the Design Review Committee to review and make a recommendation for
variance applications within Downtown, as follows:
A. Authority and duties of the Zoning Administrator. There is hereby created in the City
Planning and Development Department a Zoning Administrator. The Zoning Administrator
shall be appointed by the Planning and Development Director and shall be under his
THEIR direction. The Zoning Administrator may appoint Deputy Zoning Administrators to
perform the functions of the Zoning Administrator and to act under his THEIR direction.
The Zoning Administrator shall:
***
9. Authorize upon application and hearing such variance from the terms of this
ZONING Ordinance as will not be contrary to the public interest, when owing to
special conditions, a literal enforcement of any provisions of the ordinance would
result in unnecessary property hardship.
A variance shall not be authorized unless the Zoning Administrator shall find upon
sufficient evidence:
a. That there are special circumstances or conditions applying to the land,
building, or use referred to in the application and which do not apply to other
properties in the district; and
b. That such special circumstances were not created by the owner or
applicant; and
c. That the authorizing of the variance is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of substantial property rights; and
d. That the authorizing of the application will not be materially detrimental to
persons residing or working in the vicinity, to adjacent property, to the
neighborhood, or to the public welfare in general.
e. THAT WHEN A VARIANCE IS REQUESTED FOR A PROPERTY
SUBJECT TO THE DOWNTOWN CODE (CHAPTER 12), THE DESIGN
REVIEW COMMITTEE MUST SHALL FIRST REVIEW AND PROVIDE A
WRITTEN RECOMMENDATION REGARDING THE VARIANCE
REQUEST, AS FURTHER REFERENCED REQUIRED IN SECTION
1224.C.
***
n 312. Technical Appeals Committee.
Amend Chapter 3 to add a new Section 312 (Technical Appeals Committee) to establish a
technical review committee to review and decide technical appeals:
SECTION 312. TECHNICAL APPEALS COMMITTEE
A. POWERS AND DUTIES. THE TECHNICAL APPEALS COMMITTEE (TAC) SHALL HAVE
THE POWER AND DUTY UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THESE REGULATIONS TO
HEAR SPECIFIC ITEMS APPEALED BY THE APPLICANT CONTESTING A DECISION
ON A TECHNICAL ITEM OR INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIREMENT IMPOSED BY THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, OR A DEVELOPMENT REGULATION
INDICATED AS (T) IN SECTION 507 TAB A AND ALL OTHER ZONING ORDINANCE
REQUIREMENTS (INCLUDING OVERLAYS) WHICH USE (T) TO INDICATE
TECHNICAL ITEMS.
B. MEMBERSHIP. THE TECHNICAL APPEALS COMMITTEE SHALL CONSIST OF THE
SAME MEMBERS AS THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE AS SET FORTH IN CHAPTER
32 OF THE CITY CODE. THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR IS
AUTHORIZED TO APPOINT AND REMOVE ANY MEMBER AT ANY TIME, WITH OR
WITHOUT CAUSE, AND MAY ALSO APPOINT ADDITIONAL TECHNICAL CITY STAFF
TO THE TAC, SUCH AS LANDSCAPE, FIRE PREVENTION/LIFE SAFETY,
WATER/SEWER, AND BUILDING SAFETY.
Section 507. Development Review Approval
Amend Chapter 5, Section 507 (Development Review Approval) as follows:
***
B. Applicability.
1. Development review applies to all public and private facilities in residential,
commercial and industrial developments in the City in all zoning districts. The only
complete exceptions to compliance with this section are as follows:
a. Single-family and duplex dwelling units constructed prior to May 1, 1998;
b. a. Interior tenant alterations or improvements which do not affect parking
requirements or exterior building appearance;
c. b. Nonstructural remodeling of facade treatment (SUCH AS PAINT);
d. c. Sign permits for properties not otherwise subject to development review;
e. Development submitted for site plan approval prior to the effective date of
this section.
2. Exterior structural remodeling or / new BUILDING facade treatment, to buildings
AND/OR MODIFICATIONS TO EXISTING SITE IMPROVEMENTS (DRIVEWAYS,
PARKING, SITE WALLS, LANDSCAPE, DRAINAGE FACILITIES, OR SIMILAR),
OR PROPERTIES WITH ADDITIONS (INCLUDING NEW ACCESSORY
STRUCTURES) OF UP TO 2000 SQUARE FEET, without additional square
footage is ARE subject to development review approval as follows:
a. For properties located within the boundary of the Downtown Code, the
following shall apply: COMPLIANCE WITH DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS APPLICABLE ONLY TO THE EXTERIOR PORTION OF
THE BUILDING AND/OR SITE IMPROVEMENTS BEING MODIFIED,
UNLESS OTHERWISE STIPULATED WITH A REZONING OR ZONING
ADJUSTMENT ACTION.
(1) Compliance with the development standards, design standards and
design guidelines of Chapter 12 only for that exterior portion of the
building being modified.
(2) Provision of landscaping in accordance with adopted streetscape
designs unless prohibitive because of existing public utilities.
b. Reserved. FOR SITES SUBJECT TO THE DOWNTOWN CODE
(CHAPTER 12) OR WALKABLE URBAN CODE (CHAPTER 13),
PROVISION OF SHADE, LANDSCAPING AND SIDEWALKS IN
ACCORDANCE WITH ADOPTED STREETSCAPE STANDARDS. UNLESS
PROHIBITIVE BECAUSE OF EXISTING PUBLIC UTILITIES OR OTHER
EXISTING SITE CONSTRAINTS, AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING
AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
3. Additions to buildings are subject to development review approval as follows:
CHANGE OF USE OR OCCUPANCY TYPE, OR INTERIOR STRUCTURAL
REMODELING (“TENANT IMPROVEMENTS”), WITH OR WITHOUT ADDITIONAL
SQUARE FOOTAGE, ARE SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING:
a. An addition of two thousand square feet or less to an existing building may
be required to submit a site plan to the Department of Planning and
Development but shall not be subject to the design review principles and
guidelines set forth in Tab A of Section 507 if the impacts of the addition are
not significant, with the exception that new structures or additions of 500
square feet or greater on properties located within the boundary of the
Downtown Code shall be required to meet the shading requirements in
Section 1207.D. The Department of Planning and Development shall
determine the significance of an addition’s impacts on adjacent properties
based on noise, odor, lighting, glare, vibration, visibility from a public street,
and removal of site amenities which are included in a design review
principle or guideline. Surface parking as a primary use is subject to the
provisions of development review if the use is determined to have impact on
adjacent uses or visibility from a public street as determined by the
Department of Planning and Development.
COMPLIANCE WITH CURRENT STANDARDS FOR REQUIRED
AUTOMOBILE AND BICYCLE PARKING.
b. When an addition of two thousand square feet or less to an existing building
is determined by the Department of Planning and Development as having
significant impacts, as described above, the addition shall be subject to full
development review including the design review principles and guidelines.
SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS RELATED TO THE USE OR OCCUPANCY
AS OTHERWISE INDICATED IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
c. When additions to a property after the effective date of this ordinance total
more than two thousand square feet, the property shall be subject to full
development review including the design review principles and guidelines.
REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 507.B.2 IF EXTERIOR REMODELING
AND/OR ADDITIONS UNDER 2000 SF ARE ALSO INCLUDED.
4. PROPERTIES WITH ADDITIONS OF 2000 SQUARE FEET OR LARGER,
VACANT PROPERTIES, AND/OR PROPERTIES UNDERGOING FULL
DEMOLITION AND REDEVELOPMENT ARE SUBJECT TO FULL
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW, INCLUDING ALL APPLICABLE DESIGN REVIEW
PRINCIPLES AND GUIDELINES, UNLESS STATED OTHERWISE WITHIN THIS
ZONING ORDINANCE.
4. 5. Subdivision plats are processed in accordance with Chapter 32 of the City Code.
Preliminary subdivision plats have the additional requirement to be reviewed and
approved in accordance with the provisions of this section for context plan and the
design review guidelines for subdivisions of Section 507 Tab A (DESIGN REVIEW)
AND ALL OTHER CODES AND POLICIES TO WHICH SUBDIVISIONS ARE
SUBJECT.II.C, "Subdivision design."
5. 6. DEVELOPMENT WHICH EXISTED AT THE TIME OF ANNEXATION, OR FOR
WHICH ALL REQUIRED PERMITS WERE ISSUED BY THE CITY, IS ASSUMED
TO HAVE A VALID DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PLAN, EVEN IF NO APPROVED
SITE PLAN EXISTS. A SITE PLAN MAY BE REQUIRED BASED ON THE SCOPE
OF ANY PROPOSED REMODEL, REVISION, ADDITION, OR
REDEVELOPMENT.
Existing legally constructed development with or without an approved site plan as
of the date of this Ordinance is assumed to have a valid development review plan.
Any site plans which received preliminary or final approval from the Department of
Planning and Development prior to the enactment of this section shall remain and
continue in full force and effect until such time as the plan is amended or its
approval expires.
6. 7. Implementation of single-family design review shall begin on May 1, 1998, for all
subdivision applications which have not obtained preliminary development review
approval. Any site plans or subdivision plats which received preliminary or final
approval from the Department of Planning and Development prior to the enactment
of this section shall remain and continue in full force and effect until such time as
the plan is amended or its approval expires.
ADAPTIVE REUSE. DEVELOPMENT QUALIFYING AS ADAPTIVE REUSE MAY
BE GRANTED FULL OR PARTIAL ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF FROM ZONING
ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH POLICIES ADOPTED
BY CITY COUNCIL. IN SUCH CASES, THE RELIEF PROVIDED SHALL BE
NOTED ON THE SITE PLAN, OR THE CONSTRUCTION PLANS IF NO SITE
PLAN IS REQUIRED.
***
C. Design Review Principles and Guidelines. Design review principles, and guidelines are
listed in Tab A and other sections of this THE ZONING Ordinance. The principles reflect
desired goals and policies for the City. The guidelines indicate specific implementation
standards. The guidelines consist of requirements, presumptions and considerations.
1. Requirements (R). Requirements (R) are guidelines contained in this and other
sections of the Zoning Ordinance and specific plans. Requirements are not
permissive in that they contain language that is not discretionary, such as "shall,"
"must" and "will." Requirements must be satisfied by any plan prior to design review
approval. If a requirement cannot be satisfied, an applicant may seek relief through
the variance process with the exception that those requirements followed by an
asterisk (R*) are appealable to the Design Review Committee due to their design-
related nature.
2. Presumptions (P). Most of the guidelines are presumptions (P). A guideline that is
a presumption normally will contain the word "should." A plan submitted for design
review is incomplete if it does not demonstrate that the presumptive elements have
been in some way incorporated or overcome.
a. Overcoming a presumption. A presumption that may be unsuitable for a
given project may be waived if an applicant can demonstrate to the
Planning and Development Department that there is a good reason why the
presumption is inappropriate, unless the property is located within the
boundary of the Downtown Code. The Planning and Development
Department may approve an alternative that achieves the intent of the
presumption.
Appropriate reasons for overcoming a presumption include:
(1) Demonstrating that in this instance the underlying design principles
will not be furthered by the application of the presumption;
(2) Showing that another design principle is enhanced by not applying
the presumption;
(3) Demonstrating an alternative method for achieving the intent of the
presumption;
(4) Explaining the unique site factors that make the presumption
unworkable such as lot size and shape, slope, natural vegetation,
drainage, and characteristics of adjacent development which are
identified through their use of materials, colors, building mass and
form, and landscaping.
Increase in the cost of development is not an acceptable reason to waive a
guideline or determine that a guideline is inappropriate.
b. Appeals. In the event that a presumption is not incorporated or overcome,
AS DETERMINED BY PDD STAFF, or if the property is located within the
boundary of the Downtown Code an appeal may be filed by the applicant
with the Design Review Committee. Appeals to presumptions (P) and
requirements followed by an asterisk (R*) located in Tab A.II.C, "Subdivision
design," shall be heard by the Design Review Committee. THE APPLICANT
MAY FILE AN APPEAL TO BE HEARD BY THE DESIGN REVIEW
COMMITTEE PER SECTION 507.G.
c. Purpose and intent of single-family design guidelines. Notwithstanding the
above, there are differences in the application of design guidelines for
single-family development. In the R1-10 through R-5 zoning districts, the
conventional development option establishes the baseline development
conditions for single-family detached development. Deviations from these
standards for the entire subdivision will require application of the planned
residential development (PRD) option and the associated design guidelines
found in subsection 507 Tab A.II.C. When applying these guidelines, staff
will consider the unique conditions of each site, such as context area, lot
size and shape, slope, natural vegetation, and drainage. In addition, staff
will strive to ensure that affordable housing opportunities are not precluded.
The PRD option is intended to encourage quality and creative design
solutions through the use of flexible development standards. This design
review structure is intended to foster a dialogue between staff and the
applicant which facilitates creative responses to unique site conditions while
being mindful of housing affordability.
3. TECHNICAL ITEMS (T). DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS INDICATED BY (T)
WITHIN THIS AND OTHER SECTIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE ARE
CONSIDERED TECHNICAL ITEMS. TECHNICAL ITEMS MAY BE APPEALED
THROUGH THE TECHNICAL APPEAL PROCESS SPECIFIED IN SECTION
507.H.
3. 4. Considerations (C). Design guidelines listed in the adopted design review
guidelines as considerations (C) are issues and concepts that an applicant should
consider in preparing a plan. Their omission is not grounds for rejecting a plan, but
their inclusion or recognition is encouraged and may assist in overcoming certain
presumptions and in gaining acceptance for a plan.
5. ITEMS WITHIN SECTION 507 TAB A AND OTHER SECTIONS OF THE ZONING
ORDINANCE WHICH ARE NOT QUALIFIED BY AN (R), (R*), (P), (T) OR (C)
SHALL BE TREATED AS REQUIREMENTS (R), UNLESS EXPLICITLY STATED
OTHERWISE.
D. Process. The development review process includes the following steps:
1. Pre-application conference with the Planning and Development Department staff
(see subsection E);
2. Preliminary review (see subsection F);
a. Submittal of design DEVELOPMENT review documents by the
applicant/property owner;
b. Routing of documents to various departments and agencies for comment
where needed;
c. Staff review and consolidation of comments;
d. Preliminary design review meeting with applicant and any interested citizen
where needed;
3. Consideration of any DESIGN REVIEW appeals (see subsection G);
4. Review CONSIDERATION of ANY technical APPEALS documents (see subsection
H);
5. Final document submittal responding to staff comments (see subsection I);
6. Final approval of development review documents (see subsection J);
7. Building permit issuance (see subsection J);
8. Site inspection and issuance of certificate of occupancy (see subsection J);
9. Follow-up inspection (see subsection J).
***
G. Design Alternatives and Sustainability Bonus Appeals. A design alternative or
sustainability bonus appeal is a deviation from the prescribed standards and design
guidelines. Design alternatives and sustainability bonus appeals apply to properties within
the boundary of the Downtown Code, which would result in a furtherance of the goals and
policies of the Downtown Phoenix Plan and the specific intent of the subject character area
as approved by the DRC. Design alternatives apply to properties with Walkable Urban
Code zoning, which would result in a furtherance of the goals and policies of Transit
Oriented Policy Plans or other relevant policy plans.
1. Each design alternative application shall include, at a minimum, the following:
a. A Certificate of Appropriateness or Certificate of No Effect must be obtained
in advance of filing for any property with a Historic Preservation (HP) zoning
designation;
b. A listing of the standard(s) or guideline(s) that are the subject of the
proposed design alternative;
c. A narrative statement describing the justification for the design alternative
and the manner in which the proposed design alternative would result in a
furtherance of the goals and policies of the Downtown Phoenix Plan, Transit
Oriented Policy Plans, or other relevant policy plans and would satisfy the
findings required for approval;
d. Site plan;
e. Building elevations;
f. Context plan;
g. Landscaping and shading plan;
h. List of property owners located within 150 feet of the subject property as
supplied by the Maricopa County Assessor’s Office; and
i. Such other information as may be required by the Planning and
Development Director or DRC.
2. Each sustainability bonus appeal application shall include, at a minimum, the
following:
a. A listing of the credits that are being utilized and any support documentation
(to be sealed by a licensed professional).
b. Site plan;
c. Building elevations;
d. Context plan;
e. A narrative statement describing any deviation from the prescribed credit(s)
that indicates how the proposed standard is furthering the goals and policies
of the Downtown Phoenix Plan and making a quantifiable improvement in
the performance of the building(s);
f. List of property owners located within 150 feet of the subject property as
supplied by the Maricopa County Assessor’s Office;
g. Such other information as may be required by the Planning and
Development Director or DRC.
3. Within 15 calendar days of the date of filing a design alternative or sustainability
bonus appeal application, the applicant shall mail a notice by first class mail to all
property owners within 150 feet of the subject site explaining the request and
providing the date, time and location of the DRC meeting at which the application
will be reviewed.
4. In order to approve a design alternative, the DRC must make findings as follows:
a. That the project is consistent with the intent stated for the subject character
area in the Downtown Code;
b. That the project demonstrates design excellence by addressing at least two
of the following:
(1) Design innovation and the imaginative use of space, form and
materials.
Permeability and connectivity which enables people to move within,
around and through the project with ease.
The project improves safety and security by introducing human
activity to the public realm with active building frontages onto streets
and other public spaces, and enables "eyes on the street."
The project incorporates materials and design which enhance
thermal comfort.
Modifications from prescribed standards as per Section 1313; and
c. That the project demonstrates design excellence by addressing design
alternatives that demonstrate conformance with the intent of the Walkable
Urban Code as set forth in Section 1301.B and in general conformance with
the policies contained within the Transit Oriented Policy Plans or other
relevant policy plans. The modifications must meet the standards set forth in
Section 1313.
5. In order to approve a sustainability bonus appeal, the DRC must make findings as
follows:
a. That the project is consistent with the intent stated for the subject character
area;
b. That the project is improving the overall performance of the building(s)
through generally accepted building and design standards and innovation;
and
c. The increased entitlements are consistent with the improved performance of
the building(s).
6. In approving a design alternative or sustainability bonus appeal, the DRC may
impose any reasonable conditions to ensure that the approval complies with the
findings required above.
7. A design alternative or sustainability bonus appeal application will be reviewed at a
public meeting within 30 calendar days from the date of submission of the
application. Any person invited to the review of the preliminary report with the
applicant shall be informed by the Planning and Development Department of the
date, time and location of the meeting.
8. A decision on the design alternative or sustainability bonus appeal application will
be made by the DRC on the date of the public meeting unless continued at the
discretion of the Committee and a certificate of approval shall be transmitted to the
applicant in writing.
G. DESIGN REVIEW APPEALS
1. THE PROPERTY OWNER OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE MAY APPEAL
A DEPARTMENT DECISION ON A DESIGN REVIEW ITEM TO THE DESIGN
REVIEW COMMITTEE, WHO SHALL HEAR THE APPEAL PER SECTION 309,
AS FOLLOWS:
a. AN ACTION OR DECISION OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT IMPOSING CONDITIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH:
(1) DESIGN REVIEW PRESUMPTIONS, WHICH ARE TYPICALLY
INDICATED AS (P); OR
(2) OTHER PRESUMPTIVE STANDARDS OR CRITERIA INDICATED
BY THE WORD “SHOULD”.
b. A DESIGN REVIEW REQUIREMENT INDICATED WITH AN (R*).
c. AN ACTION OR DECISION OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT IMPOSING CONDITIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH
URBAN DESIGN PRINCIPLES, ADOPTED DESIGN REVIEW POLICIES,
OR DESIGN DECISIONS WHICH ARE IMPOSED TO PROTECT THE
PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE.
d. A DESIGN ALTERNATIVE APPEAL, AS PROVIDED IN THE DOWNTOWN
CODE, CHAPTER 12, OR IN THE WALKABLE URBAN CODE, CHAPTER
13.
e. A SUSTAINABILITY BONUS APPEAL, AS PROVIDED IN THE
DOWNTOWN CODE, CHAPTER 12.
2. DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE HEARING PROCESS. AN APPEAL TO THE
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MUST BE SUBMITTED NO LATER THAN 30
CALENDAR DAYS AFTER A DECISION HAS BEEN ISSUED BY THE PLANNING
AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REGARDING THE SUBJECT DESIGN
REVIEW ITEM.
a. APPEALS SHALL BE IN WRITING ON A FORM PROVIDED BY THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AND SHALL INCLUDE
ONLY THOSE ITEMS APPEALABLE TO THE DESIGN REVIEW
COMMITTEE.
b. AN APPEAL SUBMITTAL MUST BE COMPLETE BASED UPON THE
REQUEST AND REQUIREMENTS ON THE SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST
BEFORE IT IS SCHEDULED FOR A HEARING. STAFF WILL REVIEW
THE SUBMITTAL FOR COMPLETENESS AND PROVIDE A WRITTEN
LIST OF ANY DEFICIENCIES TO THE APPLICANT WITHIN 15
CALENDAR DAYS OF RECEIPT OF THE SUBMITTAL.
c. ONCE DETERMINED TO BE COMPLETE, AN APPEAL WILL BE
SCHEDULED FOR THE NEXT DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE HEARING,
BUT NO SOONER THAN 15 CALENDAR DAYS FROM STAFF
DETERMINATION THAT THE SUBMITTAL IS COMPLETE. BY MUTUAL
CONSENT OF PDD STAFF AND THE APPLICANT, THE APPEAL MAY
BE SCHEDULED FOR A LATER DRC HEARING.
d. NO LATER THAN 15 CALENDAR DAYS PRIOR TO THE SCHEDULED
DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE HEARING, THE APPLICANT SHALL
MAIL A NOTICE TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS AND REGISTERED
NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS WITHIN 150 FEET OF THE SUBJECT
SITE EXPLAINING THE REQUEST AND PROVIDING THE DATE, TIME
AND LOCATION OF THE DRC MEETING AT WHICH THE APPLICATION
WILL BE REVIEWED.
e. ANY PERSON WHO HAS BEEN OR WILL BE INVITED TO THE
PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN REVIEW MEETING WITH THE APPLICANT
SHALL BE INFORMED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT OF THE DATE, TIME AND LOCATION OF DRC APPEAL
HEARING.
f. IN APPROVING AN APPEAL, THE DRC MAY IMPOSE ANY
REASONABLE CONDITIONS TO ENSURE THAT THE APPROVAL
COMPLIES WITH ANY FINDINGS REQUIRED.
g. A DECISION ON THE APPEAL WILL BE MADE BY THE DESIGN
REVIEW COMMITTEE ON THE DATE OF THE HEARING UNLESS
CONTINUED TO A FUTURE DRC HEARING AT THE DISCRETION OF
THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE. THE DECISION SHALL BE
TRANSMITTED BY PDD STAFF TO THE APPLICANT IN WRITING
WITHIN 15 CALENDAR DAYS OF THE DECISION.
h. THE DECISION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE IS FINAL AND
NON-APPEALABLE.
H. Appeals. There are two distinct categories of review standards, design and technical:
1. Appeal of design review decisions. An action or decision of the Planning and
Development Department imposing conditions in accordance with presumptive
design review guidelines, urban design principles, or design decisions which are
imposed to protect the public health, safety and welfare may be appealed to the
Design Review Committee within 15 calendar days from the date of the staff’s
preliminary review decision. The Planning and Development Department will
submit any background material regarding the appeal to the Design Review
Committee within two working days prior to the hearing date.
a. Appeals shall be in writing on a form provided by the Planning and
Development Department and shall include only those items being
appealed.
b. An appeal will be heard within 30 calendar days from the date of
submission of an appeal. Any person invited to the review of the preliminary
report with the applicant shall be informed by the Planning and
Development Department of the date, time and location of appeal hearing.
c. A decision on the appeal will be made by the Design Review Committee on
the date of the hearing unless continued at the discretion of the Committee
and shall be transmitted to the applicant in writing. The decision of the
Design Review Committee shall be final.
2. Appeal of technical requirements. An action or decision of the Planning and
Development Department which results from a non-design-related issue may be
appealed within 15 calendar days to the City Manager’s representative. The
Planning and Development Department will submit any background material
regarding the appeal to the City Manager’s representative within two working days
prior to the hearing date.
a. Appeals shall be in writing on a form provided by the Planning and
Development Department and shall include only those items being
appealed.
b. An appeal will be heard within 15 calendar days from the date of
submission of an appeal. Any person invited to the review of the preliminary
report with the applicant shall be informed by the Planning and
Development Department of the date, time and location of appeal hearing.
c. A decision on the appeal will be made by the City Manager’s representative
within five calendar days from the date of the hearing and transmitted to the
applicant and interested parties in writing.
d. Appeal to Development Advisory Board. An appeal of the decision of the
City Manager’s representative may be made to the Development Advisory
Board within 15 calendar days after the date of the decision. Appeals shall
be in writing on a form provided by the Planning and Development
Department and shall include only those items not agreed upon. Within 30
calendar days after service of the "notice of appeal," the Planning and
Development Department shall transmit to the Development Advisory
Board and to the Law Department a transcript, with exhibits, of the City
Manager’s representative’s hearing. The Development Advisory Board shall
review the transcript and exhibits and may, at their discretion, hear further
oral arguments and receive written briefs from both the applicant and the
Law Department.
e. Development Advisory Board action. The Development Advisory Board
may:
(1) Affirm the decision of the City Manager’s representative;
(2) Remand the matter for further proceedings before the City
Manager’s representative; or
(3) Reverse or modify the City Manager’s representative’s decision.
The decision of the Development Advisory Board is final.
H. TECHNICAL APPEALS
1. THE PROPERTY OWNER OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE MAY APPEAL
A DEPARTMENT DECISION REGARDING A TECHNICAL ITEM, AN
INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIREMENT IMPOSED BY THE DEPARTMENT, OR AN
ITEM INDICATED AS (T) IN SECTION 507 TAB A, CHAPTER 12 AND OTHER
SECTIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO THE TECHNICAL APPEALS
COMMITTEE (TAC) PER SECTION 312, AS FOLLOWS:
a. ANY APPEAL SHALL BE FILED NO LATER THAN 15 CALENDAR DAYS
FOLLOWING A DECISION OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT.
b. THE TAC MAY GRANT AN APPEAL IF THE APPELLANT CAN
DEMONSTRATE THAT THERE EXISTS EXTRAORDINARY CONDITIONS
OF TOPOGRAPHY, LAND OWNERSHIP, OR ADJACENT
DEVELOPMENT, OR OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES NOT PROVIDED FOR
IN THESE REGULATIONS. THE TAC MAY MODIFY THE
REQUIREMENT(S) IN SUCH A MANNER AND TO SUCH EXTENT AS
MAY BE APPROPRIATE TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST SOUGHT TO BE
PROTECTED BY THE REQUIREMENT(S) REQUESTED TO BE
MODIFIED. IN MODIFYING THE REQIREMENT(S), THE TAC MAY MAKE
SUCH ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS AS APPEAR NECESSARY TO
SUBSTANTIALLY SECURE THE OBJECTIVES OF THE MODIFIED
REQUIREMENT(S).
c. IN ADDITION TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF H.1.B, REQUESTS FOR
TECHNICAL APPEALS ARISING FROM DEVELOPMENTS SUBJECT TO
THE DOWNTOWN CODE (CHAPTER 12), WALKABLE URBAN CODE
(CHAPTER 13) AND ANY OTHER AREA-SPECIFIC TECHNICAL
REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE APPROVED ONLY IF THE MODIFICATION
IS CONSISTENT WITH ANY STATED RATIONALE, GOAL, OR INTENT
SPECIFIC TO THE CHARACTER AREA AND APPLICABLE
STREETSCAPE STANDARDS. THE TAC MAY IMPOSE STIPULATIONS
TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH SUCH RATIONALE, GOAL OR
INTENT WHEN APPROVING A TECHNICAL APPEAL.
2. APPLICATION. TECHNICAL APPEALS SHALL BE FILED IN WRITING ON A
FORM PROVIDED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
AS FOLLOWS:
a. THE REQUEST SHALL ADDRESS ONLY THOSE ITEMS BEING
APPEALED.
b. THE REQUEST SHALL INCLUDE TECHNICAL INFORMATION AND A
NARRATIVE RELATED TO THE APPEAL, CLEARLY EXPLAINING WHY
THE PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE IS EQUIVALENT TO OR BETTER
THAN THE TECHNICAL ITEM BEING APPEALED.
3. THE TAC WILL CONDUCT A REVIEW OF THE APPEAL AT THEIR FIRST
REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING FOLLOWING A COMPLETE SUBMITTAL.
a. THE TAC MAY CHOOSE TO DEFER ACTION ON THE APPEAL AND
INSTEAD SEND THE APPEAL REQUEST DIRECTLY TO THE CITY
MANAGER’S REPRESENTATIVE (CMR) FOR HEARING, AS OUTLINED
BELOW.
b. THE TAC MAY CHOOSE TO REQUEST ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
PRIOR TO RENDERING A DECISION.
4. THE TAC SHALL TAKE ONE OF FIVE ACTIONS ON THE APPEAL: APPROVE,
APPROVE WITH STIPULATIONS, DENY, FORWARD FOR CMR HEARING
WITHOUT RECOMMENDATION, OR CONTINUE TO A SUBSEQUENT TAC
MEETING IF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IS REQUIRED FOR REVIEW
BEFORE RENDERING A DECISION.
5. A DECISION OF THE TAC SHALL BE CONSIDERED FINAL IF NOT APPEALED
TO THE CMR WITHIN 15 CALENDAR DAYS OF THE DECISION.
6. CITY MANAGER’S REPRESENTATIVE APPEAL HEARING. A DECISION OF
THE TAC MAY BE APPEALED TO THE CMR BY THE PROPERTY OWNER OR
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE WITHIN 15 CALENDAR DAYS.
a. SCHEDULING OF CMR HEARING. A TECHNICAL APPEAL WILL BE
HEARD BY THE CMR WITHIN 30 CALENDAR DAYS FROM THE DATE
OF FORWARDING FROM TAC. THE APPLICANT SHALL BE NOTIFIED
IN WRITING OF THE DATE OF THE CMR HEARING NO LATER THAN
SEVEN CALENDAR DAYS PRIOR TO THE HEARING.
b. CITY MANAGER’S REPRESENTATIVE’S DECISION. A DECISION ON
THE APPEAL WILL BE MADE BY THE CMR AT THE HEARING. THE
CMR SHALL TAKE ONE OF FIVE ACTIONS ON THE APPEAL:
APPROVE, APPROVE WITH STIPULATIONS, DENY, CONTINUE TO A
SUBSEQUENT CMR HEARING FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION, OR
ISSUE A RULING AT A LATER DATE IN ORDER TO FIRST SEEK
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND/OR PROFESSIONAL ADVICE. THE
FINAL CMR DECISION SHALL BE TRANSMITTED IN WRITING TO THE
APPLICANT AND ANY INTERESTED PARTIES WHO WERE IN
ATTENDANCE AT THE HEARING.
7. APPEAL TO DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARD. AN APPEAL OF THE
DECISION OF THE CMR MAY BE MADE TO THE DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY
BOARD, AS ESTABLISHED UNDER CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE IX OF THE CITY
CODE. NOTWITHSTANDING THE PROCESS OUTLINED IN CHAPTER 2,
ARTICLE IX, SECTION 2-172, AN APPEAL UNDER THIS PROVISION MUST BE
FILED WITHIN 15 CALENDAR DAYS OF THE DATE OF THE CMR DECISION.
***
lay (ACOD) District
Amend Chapter 6, Section 669 (Arts, Culture, and Small Business Overlay District) as
follows:
***
B. Applicability. The Arts, Culture and Small Business Overlay may be applied to land
bounded by Interstate 10 Inner Loop (Papago Freeway) on the north, 20th Street to the
east, Buckeye Road to the south and 19th Avenue to the west. The application of the
overlay on specific parcels will occur subject to approval by City Council through the
rezoning process in accordance with zoning map amendment section of the Zoning
Ordinance. The regulations governing the uses of land and structures shall be as set forth
in the underlying zoning districts or other overlay districts, except as expressly modified by
the following regulations and as regulated by other provisions of City Code. Where there is
a conflict with other Zoning Ordinance provisions, the more permissive shall apply.
1. FOR PROPERTIES NOT ZONED DOWNTOWN CODE (DTC), THE
APPLICATION OF THE OVERLAY ON SPECIFIC PARCELS WILL OCCUR
SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY CITY COUNCIL THROUGH THE REZONING
PROCESS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 506.B. THE REGULATIONS
GOVERNING THE USES OF LAND AND STRUCTURES SHALL BE AS SET
FORTH IN THE UNDERLYING ZONING DISTRICTS OR OTHER OVERLAY
DISTRICTS, EXCEPT AS EXPRESSLY MODIFIED BY THE FOLLOWING
REGULATIONS AND AS REGULATED BY OTHER PROVISIONS OF CITY
CODE. WHERE THERE IS A CONFLICT WITH OTHER ZONING ORDINANCE
PROVISIONS, THE MORE PERMISSIVE SHALL APPLY.
2. FOR PROPERTIES ZONED DOWNTOWN CODE (DTC), APPLICATION OF THE
ARTS, CULTURE, AND SMALL BUSINESS AREA DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS ON AFFECTED PROPERTIES SHALL BE AS SPECIFIED BY
SECTION 1207.M.
***
Section 702. Off-Street Parking and Loading
Amend Chapter 7, Section 702 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) to correct a numbering error
for Section 702.B (Off-Street Loading Spaces), which immediately follows Section 702.G, and
to make other minor changes to terms used.
B.H. Off-Street SERVICE/GOODS Loading Spaces.
1. General provisions, requirements for space size. Off-street SERVICE/GOODS
loading spaces shall be not less than ten (10) feet in width and thirty (30) feet
in length, exclusive of access aisles and maneuvering space.
2. Off-Street SERVICE/GOODS loading spaces required. The following shall
apply to all developments, except for single family developments and vehicular
parking areas.
a. Commercial developments (excluding office) less than 60 feet in
height and industrial developments, shall provide the following off-
street SERVICE/GOODS loading spaces:
***
b. Office development less than 60 feet in height shall provide the
following off-street SERVICE/GOODS loading spaces:
***
c. Multi-family residential development shall provide the following off-
street SERVICE/GOODS loading spaces:
***
d. Commercial or office developments (excluding multi-family) over 60
feet in height and all hotel or resort developments shall provide the
following off-street SERVICE/GOODS loading spaces:
***
3. The off-street loading facilities required shall in all cases be on the same lot or
parcel of land as the structure they are intended to serve. SERVICE/GOODS
LOADING SPACES SHALL BE LOCATED ON-SITE UNLESS SPECIFICALLY
PERMITTED ELSEWHERE BY THE ZONING ORDINANCE. In no case shall
the required off-street loading space be part of the area USED to satisfy the
off-street parking requirements of this Ordinance.
***
Walls.
Amend Chapter 7, Section 703 (Landscaping, Fences and Walls) to correct a provision
regarding when a Certificate of No Effect or Certificate of Appropriateness is required for a
wall/fence.
A. Height of Fences and Retaining Walls.
***
2. The following shall apply to all residence districts:
a. For lots fronting on a public street, private accessway or private drive,
no fence or freestanding wall (not supporting a building or structure)
within or bounding the required front yard, shall exceed a height of 40
inches, provided:
(1) For properties located within an Historic Preservation (HP)
Overlay District, fences or freestanding walls in the front yard,
meaning the space between the structure and the street right-
of-way line, may not exceed a maximum height of three (3)
feet, and are conditioned upon obtaining a certificate of
appropriateness or no effect in accordance with Section 812
of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance. This height limitation
extends to a point three (3) feet beyond the front corner(s) of
the primary structure.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION DESIGNATED PROPERTIES.
FOR PROPERTIES DESIGNATED HP AND HP-L, FENCES
OR FREESTANDING WALLS IN THE FRONT YARD (THE
AREA BETWEEN THE STRUCTURE AND THE STREET
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE) SHALL NOT EXCEED A MAXIMUM
HEIGHT OF THREE FEET. THIS HEIGHT LIMITATION
EXTENDS THREE FEET BACK FROM THE FRONT
FAÇADE INTO THE SIDE YARD(S).
Repeal Chapter 12, and replace with a new and revised Chapter 12, as follows:
Chapter 12
DOWNTOWN CODE
Section 1201. Code Administration.
Section 1202. Regulating Maps.
Section 1203. Land Use Matrix.
Section 1204. Streetscape and Frontage Zones.
Section 1205. Frontage Elements.
Section 1206. Parking, Loading, and Vehicular Access.
Section 1207. General Development Regulations.
Section 1208. Biomed.
Section 1209. Business Core.
Section 1210. Central Park.
Section 1211. Commercial Corridors.
Section 1212. Downtown Gateway.
Section 1213. East Evergreen.
Section 1214. Evans Churchill East.
Section 1215. Evans Churchill West.
Section 1216. McDowell Corridor.
Section 1217. Roosevelt East.
Section 1218. Roosevelt North.
Section 1219. Roosevelt South.
Section 1220. Townsend Park.
Section 1221. Van Buren.
Section 1222. Warehouse.
Section 1223. Sustainability Bonus Points.
Section 1224. Appeals.
Section 1201. Code Administration.
A. Purpose and Intent. The purpose of the Downtown Code is to implement the vision, goals
and policies of the Downtown Phoenix Plan and provide the physical environment necessary
to create a pedestrian-oriented, dynamic urban center with an authentic sense of place. The
intent of the Downtown Code is to address design that impacts the public realm by
establishing standards and guidelines that will allow projects to develop over time in a scale
and character consistent with the Downtown Phoenix Plan and with the vision and goals of
PlanPHX.
B. Applicability. The Downtown Code applies to all land uses, subdivisions, and development
within the boundary specifically identified in Section 1202.A and generally bounded by
McDowell Road on the north, 7th Street on the east, Buckeye Road on the south, and 7th
Avenue on the west. This boundary shall be hereafter known as “Downtown”. The
“Downtown Code” may be abbreviated as “DTC”.
1. Historic Preservation. Properties with Historic Preservation (HP) zoning are subject to
the provisions of Chapter 8, Historic Preservation, of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance in
addition to the provisions of Chapter 12, Downtown Code. In the event of a conflict
between the provisions of Chapter 8 and Chapter 12, the provisions of Chapter 8 shall
prevail.
2. If a conflict occurs between requirements of the Downtown Code and other provisions
the City of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance (not including Chapter 8), the requirements of the
Downtown Code shall prevail.
3. Development review of sites located within Downtown shall be in conformance with the
provisions of Section 507.B, unless specifically stated otherwise within this Chapter.
C. Approval Requirements. Each structure and land use shall be established, constructed,
reconstructed, enlarged, altered, moved or replaced in compliance with the following
requirements:
1. The land use or function must be allowed by the Use Matrix in the Character Area
where the site is located, unless subject to the provisions of Chapter 9,
Nonconformities.
2. Development review approval shall be obtained in accordance with the procedures
outlined in Section 507, Development Review Approval.
3. Guidelines, standards, and requirements in this Chapter indicated with the markers (R),
(R*), (P), (T), and (C) shall be applied and enforced in the same manner as indicated in
Section 507. Items not indicated with an (R), (R*), (P), (T), and (C) shall be treated as
(R).
Section 1202. Regulating Maps.
A. Character Areas. This map designates the Character Area boundaries for the Downtown
Code:
B. Maximum Building Height. This map designates maximum building heights within
Downtown.
1. The height limits shown on the following map are the base requirements and do not
include any height bonuses which may be allowed per other sections of this Chapter.
Additional setbacks may apply at the boundary between different height zones, per
Section 1207.E.
2. No building height may exceed the Airport Height Limits provided in Chapter 4, Article
XIII of the Phoenix City Code.
C. Maximum Density. This map designates maximum density limits within Downtown.
1. The density limits shown on the following map are the base requirements and do not
include any density bonuses which may be allowed per other sections of this Chapter.
D. Pedestrian Streets, Side Streets, and Enhanced Corners. This map designates the
streets within Downtown that are either Pedestrian or Side Streets, as referenced elsewhere
within this Chapter. The map also designates Enhanced Corner locations as referenced
elsewhere in this Chapter. Public streets not designated on this map shall be considered
Pedestrian Streets.
E. Buffer Alleys. This map designates Buffer Alleys for which abutting properties must
conform to the requirements outlined elsewhere in this Chapter.
F. Arts, Culture and Small Business Area. This map designates the Arts, Culture, and Small
Business Area referenced elsewhere in this Chapter:
Section 1203. Land Use Matrix.
A. Applicability. The Land Use Matrix regulates all permitted uses within Downtown.
B. Use Regulations. The regulations governing the uses of land and structures shall be set
forth in the Land Use Matrix, Section 1203.C, and Land Use Conditions in Section 1203.D:
1. Any use not specifically listed in the Land Use Matrix shall not be permitted.
2. All uses indicated with “p” are permitted with the applicable Character Area.
3. All uses indicated with “pc” are permitted with conditions within the applicable Character
Area. The conditions are described in Section 1203.D, Land Use Conditions, by the
associated condition number (e.g. “pc15” is described under Section 1203.D.15).
4. All uses indicated with “up” are permitted within the applicable Character Area only upon
approval of a Use Permit per Section 307.A.7.
5. All uses indicated with “sp” are permitted within the applicable Character Area only upon
approval of a Special Permit per Section 504.1.
6. All uses indicated with “np” are not permitted within the applicable Character Area.
C. Land Use Matrix.
LAND USE CATEGORIES CHARACTER AREAS
Evans Evans
ACTIVE Central Commercial Dntn East McDowell Roosevelt Roosevelt Roosevelt Townsend Van
BioMed BC Churchill Churchill Warehouse
USE Park Corridors Gateway Evergreen Corridor East North South Park Buren
East West
RESIDENTIAL USES
Boarding House pc1 pc1 sp, pc1, pc1, 13 pc1 pc1 pc1 pc1 pc1, 13 pc1, 13 sp, pc1, up, pc1, 13 pc1, 13 pc1 pc1
13 13
Community Residence Home pc29 pc29 pc29 pc29 pc29 pc29 pc29 pc29 pc29 pc29 pc29 pc29 pc29 pc29 pc29
Dwelling Unit, Multi-Family p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p
Dwelling Unit, Single-Family, np np p p np p p p p p p p p p np
Detached (including Duplex and
Triplex uses)
Dwelling Unit, Single-Family np np p p np p p p p p p p p p np
Attached
Group Home pc1 pc1 sp, pc1, pc1, 13 pc1 pc1 pc1 pc1 pc1, 13 pc1, 13 sp, pc1, up, pc1, 13 pc1, 13 pc1 pc1
13 13
Group Foster Home p p up p p p p p p p up up p p p
Live-Work x p p pc11, 15 p p p p p p p np p p p p
Subdivision, Single-Family Infill np np pc27 pc27 np pc27 pc27 pc27 pc27 pc27 pc27 pc27 pc27 pc27 np
Accessory to Residential Uses Only:
Accessory Dwelling Unit np np pc31 pc31 np pc31 pc31 pc31 pc31 pc31 pc31 pc31 pc31 pc31 np
Home Occupations pc32 pc32 pc32 pc32 pc32 pc32 pc32 pc32 pc32 pc32 pc32 pc32 pc32 pc32 pc32
ASSEMBLY USES
Assembly, General x p p np p p up p p p up np np p p p
Day Care (Adult Day Care Center x p p pc13, 15 p p pc13, 15 p p p p pc13, 15 pc13, 15 p p p
and Child Care), Nursery School
LAND USE CATEGORIES CHARACTER AREAS
Evans Evans
ACTIVE Central Commercial Dntn East McDowell Roosevelt Roosevelt Roosevelt Townsend Van
BioMed BC Churchill Churchill Warehouse
USE Park Corridors Gateway Evergreen Corridor East North South Park Buren
East West
Religious Assembly x p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p
School x p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p
School, Commercial x p p np p p p p p p up np up p p p
GENERAL RETAIL SALES AND RELATED SERVICE USES
Artist Studio/Gallery x p p pc4, 6, p p* pc4, 6, 17 p* p* p pc4, 6, 17* np pc4, 6, 17* p p p
Bakery x p p np p p up p p p p np up p p p
Commercial Recreation x p p np p p np p p p p np np p p p
Farmers Market x pc26 pc26 np pc26 pc26 pc26 pc26 pc26 pc26 pc26 np pc26 pc26 pc26 pc26
Garden Center, Plant Nursery x np np np p p p p p p p np p p p p
Pawn Shop x up np np up up np up up up up np np up up up
Pet Care Facility x up up np up up up up up up up np np up up up
Pet Day Care Facility x up np np p p np p p p up np np p p p
Pet Grooming x up np np p p np p p p up np np p p p
Retail Sales x p p np pc10 p pc7 pc9 pc10 pc10 pc9 np pc9 pc8 p p
Second Hand/Used Merchandise x pc21 pc21 np pc10, 21 pc21 pc7, 21 pc9, 21 pc10, 21 pc10, 21 pc9, 21 np pc9, 21 pc8, 21 pc21 pc21
Sales
FOOD SERVICE AND ENTERTAINMENT
Bar x up p np up up up up up up up np up up up p
(ac) Outdoor Liquor Service x up up np up up up up up up up np up up up up
Liquor, Retail Sales x up up np up up np up up up up np np up up up
LAND USE CATEGORIES CHARACTER AREAS
Evans Evans
ACTIVE Central Commercial Dntn East McDowell Roosevelt Roosevelt Roosevelt Townsend Van
BioMed BC Churchill Churchill Warehouse
USE Park Corridors Gateway Evergreen Corridor East North South Park Buren
East West
Dance Hall x np up np np np np np np np np np np np up up
Restaurant x p p np p* p* pc7 p* p* p p* np pc2* p p p
Brew Pub, Microbrewery, Winery x up24 up24 np up24 up24 up24 up24 up24 up24 up24 np up24 up24 up24 p24
Accessory Only To Restaurant/Brew Pub/Microbrewery/Winery:
(ac) Outdoor Liquor Service x up p np up up up up up up up np up up up p
(ac) Outdoor Cooking x up pc4, 16 np up up np up up up up np np up up up
(ac) Outdoor Dining x p p np pc3* p* np p* p* p p* np pc3* p pc3 p
(ac) Patron Dancing x p p np p p np p p p p np np p p p
LODGING
Bed and Breakfast x p p up p p p p p p p np p p p p
Hotel/Motel x p p np p p p p p p p np up p p p
HEALTH AND SUPPORT SERVICES
Clinic, Medical or Dental x p p np p p p p p p up np up p p p
Community Residence Center x p p sp p p p p p p p sp up p p p
Hospice x p p sp p p p p p p p sp up p p p
Hospital x p p np p p up p p p p np up p p p
Laboratory, Medical, Dental or p p np up p up p p up up np up up up up
Clinical
Laboratory, Research p p np up up up up up up up np up up up p
Medical or Dental Office x p p np p p p p p p p np p p p p
LAND USE CATEGORIES CHARACTER AREAS
Evans Evans
ACTIVE Central Commercial Dntn East McDowell Roosevelt Roosevelt Roosevelt Townsend Van
BioMed BC Churchill Churchill Warehouse
USE Park Corridors Gateway Evergreen Corridor East North South Park Buren
East West
Nursing Home or Assisted Living x p p sp p p p p p p p sp up p p p
Center
Veterinary Office x p p np p p p p p p p np up p p p
INDUSTRIAL AND MANUFACTURING USES
Building Materials np np np np np np np np np np np np np up p
Contractor’s Yards np up np np np np np np np np np np np up up
Manufacturing - Artisan np np np p np np np np np np np np np p p
Manufacturing - Light np np np p np np np np np np np np np p p
Manufacturing - General np np np np np np np np np np np np np np p
Manufacturing - Heavy np np np np np np np np np np np np np np np
OFFICE AND PROFESSIONAL USES
Financial institutions x p p np p p up p p p p np up p p p
General Office x p p np p p p p p p p np up p p p
Professional Office x p p np p p p p p p p pc19 p p p p
SERVICES
Appliance Repair x pc4, 6, np np pc4, 6, 17 pc4, 6, np pc4, 6, pc4, 6, pc4, 6, 17 pc4, 6, 17 np np pc4, 6, 17 p p
17 17 17 17
Business Services x p p np p p np p p p p np np p p p
Personal Services x p p np p p np p p p p np p p p p
Tattoo/Body-Piercing Studio x p p np p p np p p p sp np np np p p
STORAGE AND WHOLESALING USES
Self Service Storage Facility sp np np p sp np np sp sp sp np np np p p
Storage/Warehousing (indoor) np np np sp np np np np np np np np np sp sp
Wholesale Sales np np np up np np np np np np np np np up up
UTILITY AND TRANSPORTATION USES
Motor Vehicle Rentals x up pc12 np up pc12 np sp sp sp sp np np sp up up
Motor Vehicle Sales (New) and x sp pc12 np pc12 pc12 np sp sp sp sp np np sp pc12 pc12
Leasing
Motor Vehicle Service Station, x np sp np up19 np np np np up19 np np np np sp np
Fuel Sales
Motor Vehicle Service and Repair, x np np np np np np np np np np np np np sp np
Minor
Motor Vehicle Washing np np np np np np np np np np np np np np np
Bus Terminal np sp np np np np np np np np np np np np sp
Public Utility Buildings and pc28 pc28 pc28 pc28 pc28 pc28 pc28 pc28 pc28 pc28 pc28 pc28 pc28 pc28 pc28
Facilities
ACCESSORY USES AND FACILITIES
Accessory Structure (not ADU) np np p p np p p p p p p p p p np
Adult Day Care Home up p up p p p p p p p up p p p p
Dependent Care Facility up p up p p pc14 p p p p up pc14 p p p
Drive-Through np np np pc19, 20 np np np np pc19, 20 np np np np np np
Helistop/Heliport sp sp np sp sp np np sp sp sp np np np sp sp
Home Occupation as per Section p p p p* p* p* p* p* p* p* p p* p p p
608.E.27
Outdoor Crafting of Art up up up p22* up* up p22* p22* p22 p22* up np up up p22
Outdoor Display/Sales x up up np p up up up up up up np up up p p
Outdoor Storage np np np p np np np np np np np np np p p
Outdoor Entertainment x up pc4, np up* pc5, 16, up pc5, 16, pc5, 16, up up* np up* up pc4, 16, pc4, 16, 23
16, 23 18, 23* 18, 23* 18, 23* 23
Pocket Shelter (Accessory to pc13, 25 pc13, pc13, 25 pc13, 25 pc13, 25 pc13, 25 pc13, 25 pc13, 25 pc13, 25 pc13, 25 pc13, 25 pc13, 25 pc13, 25 pc13, pc13, 25
Religious Assembly Only) 25 25
Repair and/or Storage Facilities up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up
(Accessory to Public Utility
Building and Facilities Only)
Storage np np np p np np np np np np np np np p p
Valet Parking pc30 pc30 pc30 pc30 pc30 pc30 pc30 pc30 pc30 pc30 pc30 pc30 pc30 pc30 pc30
Local Food Production
Community Garden up up up up up up up up up up np up up up up
Home Produce Stand x np np up np np up np np np np np up np np up
Interim Uses
Interim Vacant Land Uses p p p p p p p p p p up p up p p
Environmental Remediation up up up up up up up up up up up up up up up
Surface parking up up np np up np up up np up np np np up up
Civic Event p p np np np np np np np np np np np np p
LAND USE KEY: p=permitted use, pc=permitted with conditions (see numbered footnote for conditions), up=use permit, sp=special permit,
np=not permitted
* = For properties within the Arts, Culture, and Small Business Area (see map in Section 1202.G), please refer to the additional regulations
outlined in Section 1207.C. If a regulation of Section 1207.C conflicts with the provisions of this Land Use Matrix, the more permissive regulation
shall apply.
Note: Alcohol sales and service on properties within an Entertainment District designated by the City Council pursuant to Section 4-207, Arizona
Revised Statutes, must also comply with Section 307(A)(17) of the Zoning Ordinance.
D. Land Use Conditions. The following shall apply to uses that are permitted with conditions
(pc) as indicated with a number that corresponds with the Land Use Matrix in Section
1203.C:
Spacing:
1. No use shall be located on a lot with a property line within 1,320 feet of the same type of
use as measured in a straight line in any direction of the lot line of another such use.
Separation:
2. The use shall not be located within 50 feet of a Buffer Alley as measured from the
exterior walls of a building or portion thereof in which the use is conducted to the right-of-
way line of the Buffer Alley.
3. The use shall not be located within 25 feet of a Buffer Alley as measured from the
portion of the property on which the use is conducted to the right-of-way line of the
Buffer Alley.
Environmental Quality:
4. Noise, odor, dust, gas, heat, smoke, glare or vibration shall not be emitted at any time by
the use that exceeds the general or ambient level by uses immediately off site as
compared at the parcel boundary.
5. No amplified music or loudspeakers may be used outside after 8:00 p.m. on Sundays
and after 10:00 p.m. on Fridays and Saturdays, unless a use permit is obtained.
6. The noise level, measured at any point on the received property, shall not exceed 55
dBa unless a use permit is obtained. An occurrence where the sound level increases up
to 60 dBa for five continuous seconds or less shall not be deemed a violation of this
section as long as there are no more than five occurrences within an hour-long interval.
Maximum Size:
7. The use shall not exceed 2,500 square feet of building area.
8. The use shall not exceed 5,000 square feet of building area per tenant, unless a use
permit is obtained.
9. The use shall not exceed 10,000 square feet of building area, unless a use permit is
obtained.
10. The use shall not exceed 25,000 square feet of lot area.
11. The use shall not exceed 25 percent of the total under roof area, unless a use permit is
obtained to enlarge to a maximum of 50 percent of the total under roof area.
12. The use shall not include more than ten display vehicles.
Maximum Persons:
13. The use may not be conducted for more than ten persons.
14. The use may not be conducted for more than 12 persons.
15. The use may not employ more than one nonresident person.
Hours of Operation:
16. The use is limited to Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays only, UNLESS A USE PERMIT IS
OBTAINED FOR OTHER DAYS OF THE WEEK.
17. The use may not be conducted between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.,
UNLESS A USE PERMIT IS OBTAINED TO EXTEND THE HOURS.
18. The use may only be conducted between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 12:00 midnight on
Fridays and Saturdays and between 10:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on Sundays, unless a
use permit is obtained to extend the hours.
Location:
19. The use may only occur on a site that is adjoining an arterial street which is not a light-
rail street.
20. Drive-through windows shall not be located within a Frontage Zone, nor drive-through
queuing lanes, which also must be screened from the view from the right-of-way unless
approval is obtained from the Design Review Committee.
21. Used/second hand merchandise cannot be received or processed at a site in Downtown
for sale at another site. No outdoor sales or displays allowed.
22. Outdoor crafting of art subject to the following:
a. Must be associated with an enclosed business when the subject parcel abuts an
arterial or collector street.
b. Storage of materials associated with the crafting area shall not exceed eight feet in
height and shall be limited to the rear or side yard.
c. Storage area shall be fully screened with a solid wall or landscaping.
d. Storage of materials associated with the crafting area exceeding eight feet in height
shall be subject to obtaining a use permit in accordance with the provisions of the
Zoning Administrator section of the Zoning Ordinance.
23. Outdoor entertainment, subject to the following:
a. Outdoor event or performances are open to the public.
b. The outdoor event or performance must be presented by an existing business on the
property.
c. The business’s regularly stocked items may be displayed outdoors and be available
for purchase during the event or performance. Payment for all items shall occur
indoors. No other items may be displayed for sale outdoors during the event or
performance.
24. The facility shall be licensed by the State as a producer, domestic microbrewery or
domestic farm winery.
25. Drug, alcohol, other substance abuse or mental health rehabilitation programs shall not
be allowed as part of the shelter services.
26. Farmers markets, subject to the following:
a. Obtaining an administrative temporary use permit (ATUP) in accordance with the
provisions of Section 708 if no food or beverage is dispensed from a vehicle.
b. Obtaining a use permit in accordance with the provisions of Section 307 if food or
beverage is dispensed from a vehicle.
c. On-site operational conditions and improvements may be stipulated as a condition of
an ATUP or use permit approval.
27. Single-family infill subdivision, per Section 608.F.6 and Section 614, Table 614.B, except
as modified below:
a. Historic Preservation designated properties or properties in historic districts cannot
use the single-family infill development option.
b. Maximum height: as per height map, Section 1202.B.
c. Maximum density: as per density map, Section 1202.C.
d. Maximum lot coverage: 100 percent per townhome lot; overall subdivision lot
coverage per applicable Character Area.
e. Frontage Requirements: as per the applicable Character Area; or if lots front on a
something other than a Frontage Zone, per the regulations of Section 608.F.6 and
Section 614, Table B, Column D.
f. Setbacks:
(1) Perimeter setbacks (interior and street frontage): per the applicable Character
Area; or if lots front on a dedicated alley with no Frontage Zone, minimum 10 feet
setback.
(2) Individual lot front (not on a perimeter): 0 feet.
(3) Individual lot side and rear: 0 feet or the required perimeter setback, whichever
is greater.
g. Allowed uses: single-family attached dwelling units and home occupations per
Section 608, except that units fronting a perimeter street (not an alley) may have
additional uses as permitted per the applicable Character Area. Single-family
detached units are permitted for no more than 20% of the units in an SFI
development to allow for variety and efficiency of design.
h. Parking and loading: per Section 1206, except that one space per dwelling unit is
required to be covered.
i. Design: units adjacent to perimeter streets shall provide primary entrances facing
and accessible from the street. No garages or carports are allowed to face perimeter
streets. (R*)
j. All subdivisions must comply with the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance
(Chapter 32 of the City Code), as may be modified by the Subdivision Committee to
further the goals of this Chapter and the applicable Character Area.
28. Public utility buildings and facilities shall be fully screened and subject to the following:
a. Mixed use opportunities should be prioritized for locating utility buildings and
facilities. The applicant shall submit a written analysis to the Planning and
Development Director or his/her designee of possible mixed use opportunities to
allow for an integrated development project that minimizes the visual impact of the
proposed utility. (R*)
b. All public utility buildings and facilities subject to the provisions of this land use
condition shall be reviewed and acted upon by the Design Review Committee as a
Design Alternative Appeal, per the provisions of Section 1224.A.
c. The applicant must hold a public neighborhood meeting and send written notification
of the public neighborhood meeting and the DRC hearing date to real property
owners and to neighborhood associations registered with the City pursuant to the
DRC process handout.
d. The use cannot be located on a light rail street or adjoining Hance Park, or only
separated by a street from Hance Park, unless the mixed use opportunity outlined in
Section 1203.D.28.a is satisfied.
e. For the required street frontage(s), the Design Review Committee (DRC) may
approve one of the following:
(1) A wall designed to mimic the frontage type which meets the intent of both the
applicable character area and the streetscape standards, and that appears to be
a conforming building as viewed from street.
(2) A creative use or frontage design alternative that surrounds the public utility
building and facilities, as determined by the DRC as appropriate for scale of the
area.
(3) A micro-park, which shall include at least three of the following elements, as
indicated below, and as determined by the DRC as appropriate for scale of the
area:
A minimum of two of the following installations:
(a) Recreational amenities such as but not limited to a single basketball hoop,
swing, and/or climbing equipment.
(b) Landscape areas designed to create outdoor rooms or useful spaces, which
may include extensive hardscape, decorative paving and/or artificial turf.
(c) Shade trees or shade structures.
(d) Lighting and seating designed to discourage camping.
In addition, a minimum of one of the following more significant scale installations:
(e) A local public art component and/or wall displays for local public arts
organizations.
(f) An educational component that describes the history or setting.
(g) Facilities for pop-up retail, restaurant, farmers markets, and/or public events,
which may include programming that changes seasonally, if permitted in the
character area.
(h) Facilities for pets, which may include water sources, enclosures for off-leash
activity, and stations for pet washing.
f. When considering an alternative frontage proposal in accordance with Section
1203.D.28.e, the DRC is authorized to provide relief from other Frontage and
Streetscape Zone regulations, including those indicated as (R).
Dispersal and Establishment of a Registered Use:
29. Community residence homes, subject to the following:
a. The home has no more than five residents, not including staff (unless permitted by
Section 36-582(A), Arizona Revised Statutes); or
b. For a home with six to ten residents, not including staff, the following conditions shall
apply:
(1) Such home shall be registered with, and administratively verified by, the Planning
and Development Department Director’s designee as to compliance with the
standards of this section as provided in Section 701.
(2) No community residence home shall be located on a lot with a property line
within 1,320 feet, measured in a straight line in any direction, of the lot line of
another community residence home that has been registered with six to ten
residents.
(3) Disability accommodation from the spacing requirement may be requested by an
applicant per Section 701.E.3.
Accessory Uses:
30. Valet Parking, subject to the following:
a. Valet parking is permitted by right if accessory to a permitted use or a use permitted
with conditions, so long as all of the conditions are complied with. For primary uses
subject to approval through a use permit or special permit, valet parking is permitted
as an accessory use only if the valet parking is specifically approved as part of the
use permit or special permit.
b. Valet parking spaces for a use located on a different site than for which the parking is
to be provided is allowed only if the following three conditions are met:
(1) Both the site where the parking is to be located, and the site for which the
parking is provided, are allowed the use(s) for which the parking is to be
provided. For sites with uses permitted by use permit or special permit,
compliance with Section 1203.D.30.a is required.
(2) The site on which the valet parking is to be provided also has a primary use, or is
otherwise permitted to have valet parking.
(3) The site where the valet parking is to be located has provided parking spaces in
excess of any required minimum parking for the subject site. This provision does
not grant permission to provide more parking spaces than the maximum parking
spaces allowed for uses located on the site.
c. Valet parking facilities, when provided, must comply with the additional development
regulations of Section 1206.G.
31. Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). Two ADUs are permitted on a lot which has only one
other single-family detached dwelling unit. A third ADU is permitted only when at least
one ADU qualifies as low-income housing and the net lot size is a minimum of 43,560
square feet.
32. Home Occupations, subject to the provisions of Section 608.E.27. Properties subject to
the provisions of Arts, Culture, and Small Business Area have additional permissions, as
outlined in Section 1207.M.
Section 1204. Streetscape and Frontage Zones.
A. Applicability.
1. Streetscape Zone. This is the area located between the curb and the property line
located within a dedicated street, of a minimum depth as stated in the Frontage and
Streetscape Zone Matrix for each individual Character Area.
a. The minimum depth required is inclusive of sidewalk provided within the Streetscape
Zone.
2. Frontage Zone. This is the portion of a private lot or parcel located directly adjacent to
a Streetscape Zone, of a depth as stated in the Frontage and Streetscape Zone Matrix
for each individual Character Area.
a. The depth of the Frontage Zone is measured from and perpendicular to the property
line abutting the street.
b. If the Street Transportation Department allows a sidewalk easement to be dedicated
in lieu of required ROW based upon the adopted Street Classification Map, and/or a
public utility easement is dedicated, the Frontage Zone depth shall be measured
from the back of the easement. If both easements are dedicated over the same area,
the setback shall be from the larger easement.
c. Frontage Zones and associated development regulations apply only to the first 25
feet of the development as measured vertically above the finished grade.
d. Frontage Zones do not apply where parcels abut dedicated alleys.
3. Combined Dimensions of Streetscape Zone and Frontage Zone.
a. In cases where the existing Streetscape Zone does not meet the minimum depth
required, the Frontage Zone depth shall be increased by the same amount as the
deficiency in the Streetscape Zone depth, unless the Streetscape Zone can be
brought into compliance within the existing ROW, or by dedication of additional
ROW as approved by the Street Transportation Department.
b. When the minimum Frontage Zone depth is 15 feet or greater, Planning and
Development staff have the authority to reduce the Frontage Zone depth by up to 5
feet so long as the Streetscape Zone is increased by the same amount.
c. Additional easement dedications may be required if public sidewalks, public
utilities, or other public amenities are provided within the Frontage Zone. (T)
Figure 1204.1 Non-Residential Streetscape and Frontage Zone (example)
Figure 1204.2 Residential Streetscape and Frontage Zone (example)
B. Streetscape Zone Standards.
1. Intent. The Streetscape Zone is the public realm, and the area from which the public
may access private properties via multiple transportation modes.
a. Along Pedestrian Streets, the Streetscape Zone area should be designed primarily
for pedestrians, providing shade, easy access to building entrances, and
complementary landscaping.
b. Along Side Streets, the Streetscape Zone area is expected to have automobile
access, parking and loading access, as well as service areas adjoining them, while
still serving pedestrians.
2. Structures and Projections within the Streetscape Zone. Structures shall not be
constructed or provided within the Streetscape Zone, except where specifically permitted
within this Chapter. Any allowed structural projections into public rights-of-way may only
be installed upon issuance of an encroachment permit as administered by the City of
Phoenix, and if applicable, approval from affected public utility companies. (T)
a. Cantilevered structural shade elements projecting from the building are not subject to
minimum setback requirements and are allowed to project into the public right-of-way
(with approval of an encroachment permit) so long as the structures do not preclude
the installation of required street trees. The shade elements shall be removable,
unless otherwise approved in writing by all affected City departments and utilities. (T)
b. Stairs/steps/accessible ramps to building entrances (other than those required for
public street crossings or existing grade differentials within the public right-of-way)
are not permitted within the Streetscape Zone. Retaining walls within the
Streetscape Zone are regulated by Section 1204.D. (T)
c. Transformers and other mechanical equipment are not permitted to be located within
the Streetscape Zone. (T)
3. Uses permitted within the Streetscape Zone. No uses are permitted with the
Streetscape Zone unless specifically permitted by other provisions of this Chapter, with
the following exceptions:
a. Development regulations for uses permitted within the Streetscape Zone shall be the
same as those provided for the adjacent Frontage Zone, unless specific regulations
for the use or structure located within the Streetscape Zone are provided elsewhere
within this Chapter.
b. Uses which are permitted by right or with conditions for a site per Section 1203, Land
Use Matrix, that are not specifically permitted to be conducted within the right-of-way
per other provisions of this Chapter, may be permitted within the right-of-way
adjacent to the site with the issuance of an encroachment permit approved by the
Street Transportation Department, if the following are complied with:
(1) The use of the right-of-way does not preclude compliance with all other
regulations regarding the Streetscape Zone, including but not limited to the
minimum sidewalk width, and
(2) The proposed use complies with the development regulations required of the use
when located within the adjacent Frontage Zone.
(3) The Street Transportation Department has no other objections to or conflicts with
the request.
c. Uses which are permitted with approval of a use permit or special permit for a site
per Section 1203, Land Use Matrix, that are not specifically permitted to be
conducted within the right-of-way per other provisions of this Chapter, may be
permitted within the right-of-way adjacent to the site with the issuance of an
encroachment permit approved by the Street Transportation Department if the
following are complied with:
(1) The use of the right-of-way does not preclude compliance with all other
regulations regarding the Streetscape Zone, including but not limited to the
minimum sidewalk width, and
(2) The use of the right-of-way is specifically shown and reviewed as part of the use
permit or special permit approval.
(3) The Street Transportation Department has no other objections to or conflicts with
the request.
4. Private pedestrian and bicycle amenities being provided for residents or on-site users
should not be located within the public right-of-way. (P)
Rationale: Non-structural amenities (such as benches, lit bollards, bicycle racks, or
public art) should not cause obstructions to pedestrian routes, prevent proper installation
or clearances for required landscape, or private utility lines in the Streetscape Zone.
Amenities should instead be provided within the Frontage Zone whenever possible. This
does not apply to amenities specifically provided for public use.
5. In the Roosevelt North, Roosevelt South, and Roosevelt East character areas, where
there is an existing Streetscape Zone larger than required by the applicable Character
Area, a private development shall not reduce the Streetscape Zone by moving the curb
and widening the street to provide new on-street parking, loading, or drop off areas: (R*)
Rationale: The Roosevelt Character areas retain a significant number of historic single-
family homes, and many blocks have large areas between the curb and the sidewalk
historically used for landscaping. These areas should not be reduced for vehicle parking,
passenger loading, or good/services loading, unless approved by both Street
Transportation and the Design Review Committee.
6. On-Street Parking. When on-street parking is provided abutting a site, a minimum 4-foot
wide concrete walkway may be provided adjacent to the raised curb in addition to the
required sidewalk, so long as it does not preclude installation of required street trees.
The walkway shall provide paved connections at reasonable intervals to the public
sidewalk, and be constructed to the same standards as the public sidewalk. (T)
Rationale: Persons exiting a car parked adjacent to a curb should not have to step into
a landscape or other areas unsuitable for pedestrians.
7. Sidewalks.
a. Location. The required public sidewalk shall be located within the Streetscape Zone,
subject to the following:
(1) On a Side Street, the sidewalk may be attached to the curb, unless it is a
designated Arterial Street. (T)
(2) On a Pedestrian Street, the sidewalk shall be detached from the curb and the
required street trees located between the curb and sidewalk, unless a Technical
Appeal is approved to allow an attached sidewalk when abutting on-street
parking. (T)
(3) When a required sidewalk is approved to be attached to the curb, the sidewalk
shall be a minimum of 8 feet wide, regardless of the Character Area requirement.
(T)
b. Elevation. The required public sidewalk should be constructed no higher than six
inches above the immediately adjacent street top of curb. Additional elevation may
be permitted without a Technical Appeal when the area between the back of curb
and sidewalk has a slope no steeper than 10:1 and no retaining walls are provided.
(T)
Rationale: Most of the sidewalks in Downtown are existing and historic. Sidewalks
reconstructed higher than 6” above the adjacent top of curb can make access from
on-street parking difficult; can provide challenges with ADA compliance; can cause
steep slopes within adjacent landscape areas which encourage erosion and
discourage the growth of plants and trees; and can interrupt the visual and historic
continuity of the neighborhood. If the finished floor of the building(s) are higher than
six inches above the top of curb, ramps and/or steps should be provided from the
sidewalk to the building entries, rather than raising the sidewalk, unless it can be
done in a very gradual manner.
c. Planning and Development staff may allow a decrease in the minimum required
sidewalk width of up to one foot in the case of conflicts with existing utilities other
existing obstacles which cannot otherwise be avoided. (T)
d. The required sidewalk shall be clear of all obstacles for the full minimum required
sidewalk width. Approved amenities and landscaping (including tree grates) shall
only be allowed within portions of the sidewalk wider than the minimum required. (T)
e. Sidewalks located within the public right-of-way shall be constructed using materials
and methods approved by the Street Transportation Department. (T)
f. Where setback sidewalks exist on a block face where there is an HP designated
property, the sidewalk should remain within the historic alignment for that block face
and not be offset by more than one foot. (P)
Rationale: Historic streetscapes are generally defined by a consistent sidewalk and
landscape area along a single block face. These streetscapes are an important part
of the Downtown Phoenix character and should be maintained whenever possible.
g. The required sidewalk should not have jogs and offsets, and should be in a straight
line unless navigation around existing conflicts in the Streetscape Zone is
unavoidable. (P)
Rationale: Pedestrians of all capabilities should be able to navigate sidewalks easily
and not have unnecessary diversions around landscape, amenities, transformers, or
similar potential obstructions.
C. Frontage Zone Standards.
1. Intent. The Frontage Zone is the interface between the public and the private realm,
and the area where public amenities (including but not limited to pedestrian and bicycle
amenities, outdoor dining, public courtyards, public art, etc.) should be located.
2. Structures within the Frontage Zone. Structures shall not be constructed within the
Frontage Zone, except where specifically permitted by this Chapter.
a. For wall/fence requirements, refer to Section 1207.D and any applicable Frontage
Element regulations.
b. For retaining wall requirements, refer to Section 1204.D and any applicable Frontage
Element regulations.
3. Amenities and Projections within the Frontage Zone. The following items may
project or be constructed within the Frontage Zone, but no closer than the minimum
setback as stated in the Frontage and Streetscape Zone Matrix for each individual
Character Area, unless specifically permitted elsewhere in this Chapter: (R*)
a. Frontage Elements, as allowed by the Character Area.
b. Exterior stairwells constructed as part of the building and not part of the hardscape.
c. Parking spaces within structured parking and/or located internal to the building and
screened from view of the Frontage Zone.
The following items are permitted anywhere within the Frontage Zone and are not
required to meet minimum setbacks, so long as they do not preclude installation of
required street trees and shading requirements:
d. Outdoor dining patio or bar area, covered or open (if a permitted use).
e. Bicycle parking and amenities.
f. Pedestrian amenities.
g. Exterior art installations.
h. Passenger loading zones.
i. Valet parking facilities, subject to the provisions of Section 1206.G.
j. Drainage facilities.
k. Mechanical equipment/systems, so long as a minimum 5 feet separation from the
public sidewalk is provided.
l. Basements/utility vaults.
m. Cantilevered awnings/shade structures.
n. ADA ramps/pathways.
4. Minimum Building Frontage Requirements.
a. The length of each building façade constructed within or abutting the Frontage Zone
shall be no less than required by the Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix for the
applicable Character Area and street section, unless otherwise approved by the DRC
as a Design Alternative per Section 1224.A.
b. The minimum building frontage requirement shall be calculated as a percentage of
the length of the frontage property line, and the façade shall be measured by a line
parallel with the frontage property line. For the purposes of this calculation only, the
following may be subtracted from the length of the frontage property line:
(1) The width of driveways at the frontage property line, so long as the driveways are
otherwise compliant with this Chapter.
(2) The portion of required visibility triangles which are deeper than the applicable
Frontage Zone depth.
c. All portions of the building façade abutting or located within the Frontage Zone,
including Frontage Elements, may be used to calculate the required minimum
building frontage. Certain Frontage Elements may provide additional flexibility in
calculating the required minimum building frontage, as stated elsewhere in this
Chapter.
d. Underground structures cannot be counted toward meeting minimum building
frontage requirements.
5. Hardscape Guidelines—Frontage Zones.
a. Alternative paving materials should be used when possible within the Frontage Zone
to reduce the urban heat island effect, and to allow natural drainage and filtration. (T)
b. Permeable paving, porous concrete or similar material should be installed adjacent
to tree wells. The design should ensure adequate watering and root growth. (T)
c. Alternative materials such as brick pavers, permeable concrete pavers, granite and
flagstone should be encouraged on private walkways and patio/gathering areas. (T)
D. Grading and Drainage Requirements—Streetscape and Frontage Zones.
1. The maximum slope of any landscape or non-hardscape area located within the
Streetscape Zone is 10:1. (T)
2. The maximum grade differential of the Frontage Zone from the adjacent Streetscape
Zone is 30 inches, unless specifically permitted elsewhere in this Chapter. (T)
3. Retaining walls are not allowed within the Streetscape Zone. (T)
4. Retaining walls up to 36 inches in height are allowed within the Frontage Zone, unless
greater height is specifically permitted elsewhere in this Chapter. (T)
5. If the required finished floor elevation is at a height which will require stairs or ADA
ramps to connect building entries with the sidewalk, or will require a retaining wall
exceeding heights permitted for Streetscape and Frontage Zones, the depth of the
Frontage Zone may be increased to the depth required to avoid steps or ramps (if
desired). (T)
E. Design Requirements—Frontage Zones.
1. Along Pedestrian Streets, buildings facades facing Frontage Zones shall incorporate at
least one of the Frontage Elements allowed by the applicable Character Area into the
façade for a minimum of 75% of the required building frontage for each Frontage Zone,
unless a Design Alternative is approved by the Design Review Committee per Section
1224.A. (R*)
2. Along Side Streets, buildings facades facing Frontage Zones should incorporate at least
one of the Frontage Elements allowed by the applicable Character Area into the façade
for a minimum of 50% of the required building frontage for each Frontage Zone. (P)
Rationale: Appropriate Frontage Elements for have been determined through extensive
staff analysis and community input for each Character Area, as well as the specific
streets within each area. Facades located along designated Side Streets may be
granted additional flexibility in application of this design requirement.
3. The portion of a building facade adjacent to a Frontage Zone which does not comply
with a Frontage Element design should have a level of trim and finish compatible with
the quality and design of the remainder of the Frontage Zone façade(s). (P)
Rationale: The portion of facades not required to meet the minimum building frontage, or
the portion which does project into the Frontage Zone should still consist of high quality
materials, and be integrated with the design of the remainder of the façade. Unfinished
surfaces and blank walls should not be provided where visible from a Frontage Zone.
4. The areas of a Frontage Zone not adjacent to or occupied by Frontage Elements shall
be improved as follows:
a. Landscape shall be provided in accordance with Section 1204.G. (T)
b. Seating should be provided. Seating may consist of installed benches or removable
furniture. This shall not apply within the Roosevelt North, Roosevelt South, and East
Evergreen character areas. (P)
Rationale: Character areas consisting mainly of traditional single-family homes and
historic designations should maintain the residential character of private front yards
when possible.
c. Other features which attract and engage pedestrians should be provided, such as
(but not limited to) bicycle parking and amenities, exterior art installations, additional
structural shade, etc. (P)
Rationale: Tthe area of a Frontage Zone not adjacent to a Frontage Element, where
conflicts with primary entrances are less likely to occur, should have other features
which encourage use by pedestrians and cyclists.
5. Building entrances shall face toward the street in order to meet the intent of activating
the public realm. Entrances from a permitted Frontage Element (such as Forecourt,
Patio, Porch, or Stoop/Doorwell) are exempt from this requirement. (R*)
6. Public building entrances, residential patios/porches, windows, storefronts, outdoor
dining, public gathering areas, exterior art installations, and other similar features should
be located adjacent to Pedestrian Streets. (P)
Rationale: On Pedestrian Streets, adjacent structures should be designed to provide
easy and obvious pedestrian access to the buildings, to encourage pedestrian use.
7. All on-site mechanical equipment, transformers, utility equipment, trash/recycling
receptacles, or similar must be fully screened from view from the Streetscape Zone.
Screening may consist of the following: (P)
a. Green screen.
b. Dense landscaping which provides screening starting from the time of initial
installation.
c. Decorative walls or fences up to 40 inches in height if within the minimum setback
area, or 72” if behind the minimum setback.
d. Underground utility vaults.
e. Along Side Streets only: decorative walls or fences up to 8 feet in height if located at
or beyond the minimum setback.
Rationale: The Streetscape environment should be aesthetically pleasing, and service
equipment/areas should be screened from view whenever possible. If it is simply not
possible, the visual impact should be mitigated by disguising equipment with paint or
other treatments as approved by PDD and any affected utility company.
8. Along Pedestrian Streets, all windows and doors counting toward required glazing
should allow a minimum of 75% of the visible light (as specified by the manufacturer) to
be visible on either side of the window. (P)
9. Along Pedestrian Streets, commercial suites with windows or entrances to Frontage
Zones should be constructed so that a public area of the suite (lobby, reception area,
dining area, or similar) is adjacent to the Frontage Zone. Storage areas, private offices,
kitchens, or other areas restricted to the public/customer use shall not be located
adjacent to doors or windows facing a Pedestrian Street. (P)
Rationale for E.8 and E.9: Frontage Zones along Pedestrian Streets should attract,
engage, and interest pedestrians at the street level and encourage patronage of the
businesses. Opaque or translucent/frosted windows, or views into employee or storage
areas do not meet this intent.
10. Building facades abutting or within a Frontage Zone should be designed to provide a
sense of human scale at the ground level by providing a clear architectural distinction
between the Frontage Zone and all additional stories. (P)
Rationale: Large buildings should provide a transition to a pedestrian scale to make such
areas feel comfortable for pedestrians, without causing a feeling of walking up to the
base of a tall “cliff”.
11. Roof drains shall not be designed to drain across public sidewalks or other pedestrian
walkways. (T)
F. Shade Standards—Streetscape and Frontage Zones.
1. Public and private pedestrian walkways should be shaded (minimum 75 percent at
maturity) for the health, safety, and welfare of pedestrians and to encourage use. (P)
2. All Streetscape and Frontage Zones should be shaded (50% at maturity) for the health,
safety, and welfare of pedestrians and to encourage use. (P)
Rationale for F.1 and F.2: The design of pedestrian routes and gathering areas, such as
public sidewalks, private walkways, courtyards, plazas, and transit stops, should be
designed with appropriate shading for the health, safety, and welfare of pedestrians and
to mitigate the heat island effect to enhance the pedestrian environment.
3. Shade calculations shall be based on shade cast at the summer solstice at 12:00 noon.
(T)
4. Shade cast from required shade trees, structural shade (canopies/awnings), or shade
cast from a building may be used to comply with the shade requirements of this section.
G. Landscape Requirements—Streetscape and Frontage Zones.
1. Landscape shall be provided, subject to the following:
a. Where there is an existing established streetscape theme, including street trees,
additional trees shall be provided to replace removed or destroyed trees, and/or to
comply with shade requirements. In such cases, the trees shall be of like kind and
size to those provided with the existing streetscape, as approved by the PDD
Landscape Architect. (T)
b. Trees shall be provided for the full length of the Streetscape Zone at a minimum rate
of 20 feet on center, or equivalent groupings as approved by the PDD Landscape
Architect (T).
(1) This requirement does not apply to properties with a maximum of two dwelling
units and no other primary uses.
(2) Trees provided within the Streetscape Zone may be used to comply with the
shade requirements of Section 1204.F.
(3) All trees planted to meet this requirement must be selected from the Tree
Species Matrix, Section 1204.G.5, and allowed for use in the Streetscape Zone,
or match the existing streetscape trees adjacent to the site.
(4) If existing utility conflicts prevent the installation of trees within both the
Streetscape Zone and the Frontage Zone, architecturally or artistically integrated
structural shade may be requested for approval by filing a Technical Appeal.
c. If necessary to avoid existing utility conflicts, required street trees may be provided
within the Frontage Zone within 5 feet of the sidewalk, as approved by PDD. (T)
d. Trees shall be provided within a minimum 5 feet wide landscape area, unless tree
wells (or equivalent) are provided outside of the required minimum sidewalk width to
avoid conflicts with existing utilities or other existing street improvements. (T)
e. When two rows of trees are provided either side of the public sidewalk, the minimum
planting area for each row should be 5’ wide, unless tree wells are approved by the
PDD Landscape Architect (T).
f. Where hardscape is not necessary for pedestrian connections to amenities, drop
off/pickup zones, on-street parking, or similar, shrubs or groundcovers shall be
installed in addition to trees to provide 75% live coverage. This percentage may be
reduced to 50% if bioswales are approved for use within the Streetscape Zone. (T)
g. Unless prohibited by law, palm trees may be installed in the Streetscape Zone in
areas where palm trees have historically been provided in the ROW, in addition to
any required shade trees. Palm trees should be of the same type as existing historic
palm trees and planted in a similar manner/rate as existing on the same block face.
(T)
h. In areas where turf has historically been provided within the Streetscape Zone, turf
may be provided unless otherwise prohibited for use within the ROW by law.
Alternatively, low growing, drought-tolerant green ground covers may instead be
provided, as approved by the PDD Landscape Architect. (T)
i. Artificial turf is not permitted for use within public rights-of-way, and may not be used
to comply with any on-site landscape requirements. It may be used for outdoor
amenity areas which are not required to be landscaped. (T)
2. Tree wells, if permitted, shall be a minimum five feet by five feet, or a two-foot six-inch
radius from the base of the tree. (T)
a. A minimum two inches of decomposed granite, nitrogen stabilized mulch or similar
material shall be installed atop the soil and below the tree grates. (T)
b. The landscape plans shall demonstrate that the soil volume to be provided for each
tree is sufficient for the healthy and successful maturity of type of tree chosen, as
approved by the PDD Landscape Architect. (T)
3. All landscape areas located within the Streetscape Zone shall not exceed a 10:1 slope.
(T)
4. New underground utility lines or equipment should not be installed where street trees are
required unless other options are not technically feasible, as approved through a
Technical Appeal. (T)
Rationale: The Streetscape and Frontage Zones should provide a pleasant and
comfortable pedestrian experience, of which landscape and shade are of great
importance. If a technical appeal is approved because there is no other technically
feasible option, the appeal should address how required landscape and shade
requirements will still be met.
5. Tree Species Matrix. The following is a list of shade trees permitted for use within
Streetscape and Frontage Zones, as indicated below. Additional tree types may be
requested for approval by filing a Technical Appeal. All trees used within public rights-of-
way must be low-water use/drought-tolerant as approved by the Arizona Department of
Water Resources. (T)
Tree Species Matrix (Streetscape and Frontage Zones)
Allowed locations
Botanical Name Common Name Public right of
Private property
way (Streetscape
(Frontage Zone)
Zone)
Parkinsonia florida Blue Palo Verde Yes Yes
Pistacia chinensis
Chinese Pistache Yes Yes
(+ hybrids)
Chilopsis linearis Desert Willow Yes Yes
Evergreen Elm,
Ulmus parvifolia
Chinese Evergreen Yes Yes
'Sempervirens'
Elm
Quercus virginiana Heritage Live Oak Yes Yes
Gleditsia triacanthos Honey Locust
Yes Yes
(thornless) (thornless)
Olneya tesota Ironwood Yes Yes
Prosopis spp. Mesquite
Yes Yes
(thornless) (thornless hybrids)
Olea europaea Olive
Yes Yes
(fruitless) (fruitless hybrids)
Sissoo Tree,
Dalbergia sissoo Yes Yes
Indian Rosewood
Fraxinus velutina Arizona Ash
No Yes
(+ hybrids) (varieties)
Acacia farnesiana
Sweet Acacia No Yes
(Acacia smallii)
Section 1205. Frontage Elements.
The following Frontage elements consist of architectural features, designs, and amenities which
may project within the Frontage Zone, though no closer than the required minimum setback
unless specifically permitted by this Chapter. Please see the Frontage and Streetscape Zone
Matrix for each Character Area for applicable standards, in addition to the Streetscape and
Frontage Zone standards of Section 1204.
A. Active Front Yard (AFY). An Active Front Yard is a frontage element intended for use on
blocks with a high percentage of existing and/or historic single-family or duplex style
residential structures. AFY is not permitted for use on sites with primary uses which are
non-residential, or on residential lots with more than two dwelling units (not including ADUs).
(R*)
1. For sites with HP zoning or designation, both the building elevations and improvements
in the Frontage Zone shall be constructed as approved by Historic Preservation.
2. For sites not zoned or designated HP, buildings and improvements shall be installed in
conformance with Section 507 Tab A II.C.8.5 (Individual Unit Design Standards). If any
of the requirements of Section 507 Tab A II.C.8.5 conflict with provisions of the
Downtown Code, Section 507 Tab A II.C.8.5 requirements shall prevail.
3. Minimum building frontages stated in the Streetscape and Frontage Matrix for each
Character Area do not apply when implementing Active Front Yard standards as a
Frontage Element.
B. Patio (PA). A Patio (previously known as a
“Dooryard”) is a residential frontage element which
incorporates a private outdoor space for each dwelling
unit, and is surrounded by a fence or wall to provide a
separation of the private realm from the adjacent
streetscape.
1. A permanent hardscaped or landscaped area shall
be provided in accordance with the following
standards:
a. Minimum depth: 8 feet. (R*)
b. Minimum area: 64 square feet. (R*)
c. Maximum grade differential: 30 inches above adjacent Streetscape grade. (T)
d. Placement: Adjacent to the individual dwelling unit entry. (R*)
e. Hardscape shall consist of concrete slab, pavers, open grid pavers, wood decking (if
elevated) or equivalent alternative. (T)
2. Pedestrian access. An opening in the wall/fence, or stairs to the elevated area, shall be
provided for a pedestrian connection to the adjacent streetscape from each Patio. (R*)
3. Separation of public and private realm:
a. A wall/fence of at least 40 inches in height shall be provided around each Patio, up to
a maximum of 72 inches in height as measured from the adjacent streetscape grade.
This maximum height applies only to walls abutting patios and not to other walls
located in the Frontage Zone.
b. The portion of walls or fences above 40 inches in height shall consist of view fencing,
as approved by Planning and Development.
c. Screen walls/fences may be constructed on top of permitted retaining walls, but the
combined height of the retaining wall and screen wall/fence may not exceed 72
inches as measured from the adjacent streetscape grade.
4. Shade. Each Patio shall have a minimum of 50% shade provided either by landscaping
or permanent structural shade. (T)
C. Stoop/Door Well (SD). A Stoop/Door Well is a type
of facade that provides an entryway that is elevated
(Stoop) or depressed (Door Well) to provide
differentiation from the adjacent streetscape. A
Stoop/Door Well is constructed as an integral part of
the building, rather than as a courtyard or patio. It
may or may not have structural shade.
1. A landing area shall be provided for each
Stoop/Door Well in accordance with the following
standards:
a. Minimum depth: 6 feet. (R*)
b. Minimum area: 36 square feet (R*)
c. Maximum grade differential: 60 inches above or below adjacent Streetscape grade.
Retaining walls of up to 66 inches in height may be permitted within the Frontage
Zone when necessary for this Frontage element. (T)
d. Placement: Adjacent to a primary entrance. (R*)
e. Walls/fences, if provided, shall not exceed 40 inches in height.
2. Pedestrian access. A pedestrian connection to the adjacent Streetscape Zone from
each Stoop/Door Well shall be provided. (R*)
3. Minimum building frontage requirements. If a Stoop/Doorwell is deeper than the
applicable Frontage Zone depth for that street and Character Area, the width of the
Stoop/Doorwell shall still count towards the minimum building frontage requirement(s),
so long as the front (street side) of the Stoop/Doorwell is located within or abutting the
Frontage Zone. (R*)
D. Porch (PO). A Porch frontage element consists of a
covered structure that is often elevated above street
grade, sheltering an outdoor area deep enough to
ensure usability. A Porch is larger than a Stoop and
is structurally shaded for its entirety. A Porch
provides a transition between the public and private
realm, and creates opportunity for interaction
between neighbors.
1. Each Porch shall meet the following
requirements:
a. Minimum depth: 8 feet. (R*)
b. Minimum area: 96 square feet. (R*)
c. Maximum grade differential: 60 inches above the adjacent Streetscape grade. (R*)
d. Placement: Adjacent to a primary entrance. (R*)
e. Each Porch shall have 100% structural shading. (R*)
f. Porch floor shall consist concrete, stone, metal, wood decking, or equivalent
alternative suitable for outdoor flooring. (T)
g. Walls/fences, if provided, shall not exceed 40 inches in height.
2. Pedestrian access. A pedestrian connection to the adjacent Streetscape Zone from
each Porch shall be provided. (R*)
3. Minimum building frontage requirements. If a Porch is deeper than the applicable
Frontage Zone depth for that street and Character Area, the width of the Porch shall still
count towards the minimum building frontage requirement(s), so long as the front (street
side) of the Porch is located within or abutting the Frontage Zone. (R*)
E. Common Entry (CE). A Common Entry is a building façade
design element which includes ground floor entrance(s) to a
shared lobby/hallway, which in turns provides direct access
to residential units and/or office suites on all floors. This
frontage element is generally not intended for use with
frontages consisting primarily of retail suites. Elevations
should include a large number of transparent windows and
frequent building entrances to create visual interest from the
adjacent public sidewalk, though to a lesser extent than
Storefront. This frontage element should also include
cantilevered canopies or awnings.
1. Primary entrance requirements.
a. A minimum of one primary entrance leading to a shared lobby/hallway is required
from each frontage on a Pedestrian Street. For sites located at an Enhanced Corner,
the corner building entry may serve as the required primary entrance for both street
frontages. (R*)
b. Additional primary entrances are required on each Pedestrian Street frontage at the
rate of one per 100 feet of building frontage. Each additional primary entrance
(beyond the minimum one per street frontage) may provide access to either a shared
lobby/hallway or an individual commercial/office suite. (R*)
c. Stoops or doorwells may be provided as part of any Common Entry frontage, even if
Stoop/Doorwell is not a permitted Frontage Element per the applicable Streetscape
and Frontage Zone Matrix, so long as they comply with all Stoop/Doorwell
development standards.
2. Glazing requirements:
a. Location: The area between 3 feet and 8 feet above the adjacent sidewalk grade.
b. Minimum amount: 50% of each required building frontage, which may include
primary entrances if the doors are glass and meet visibility requirements. (R*)
c. Glazing requirements shall be calculated as a percentage of the Common Entry
frontage element length.
d. Glazing shall allow a minimum of 75% of the visible light (as specified by the
manufacturer) to be visible on either side of the window. This includes the doors for
any primary entrances located within the Common Entry frontage element. (R*)
3. Shade Requirements. A cantilevered canopy, fixed awning, or retractable awning shall
be provided along each Common Entry frontage element, in accordance with Section
1204.B.2, and the following:
a. Minimum depth: 5 feet. (R*)
b. Minimum length: 50% of the Common Entry frontage element length.
c. Minimum clear height: 10 feet, if not required greater clearance per Section
1204.B.2. (T)
4. Walls/Fencing.
a. Retaining walls may be provided as otherwise permitted by this Chapter. A
railing/view fence is permitted on top of a retaining wall to a height of 40 inches if
required for pedestrian safety due to the grade differential.
F. Forecourt (FC). A Forecourt is a pedestrian-oriented
design element, where a courtyard that is open to the
sky and the street (or two streets if located on a
corner) is provided. The Forecourt may be used as an
entry area and shared garden space for residential
uses, or as additional shopping, seating, or gathering
areas adjacent to and accessible from the street for
commercial uses. Art installations and other
pedestrian amenities are also appropriate uses within
a Forecourt.
1. Mechanical equipment, transformers, trash and
recycling containers, and vehicular uses are not
permitted within a Forecourt.
2. Minimum building frontage requirements. If a Forecourt is deeper than the applicable
Frontage Zone depth for that street and Character Area, the width of the Forecourt shall
still count towards the minimum building frontage requirement(s), so long as compliance
with other Streetscape and Frontage Zone requirements (including but not limited to
slopes, landscaping, and amenities) is demonstrated.
3. Minimum glazing: 50% of the area measured between 3 and 8 feet above grade for the
portion of the building façade abutting each Forecourt. (R*)
4. A Forecourt should be a minimum 500 square feet in size, with a minimum street
frontage of 20 feet. (P)
Rationale: A forecourt needs to be of a minimum size to encourage gathering, while
also having a large enough frontage to encourage pedestrians to enter and create a
successful transition between the public and private realm.
5. Accessibility. Forecourts shall have a slope not exceeding 2%, except for approved
ADA ramps, and be grade-separated by no more than 24 inches above or below the
abutting Streetscape Zone(s). (T)
6. Pedestrian access. A minimum of one pedestrian connection to each Streetscape Zone
abutting the Forecourt shall be provided. (R*)
7. Primary entrance requirements.
a. Residential uses. At least one residential unit shall have a primary entrance from a
Forecourt, unless a primary entrance is provided which leads to a lobby or hall which
provides direct access to the abutting unit(s). (R*)
b. Commercial uses. Each ground floor commercial suite abutting a Forecourt shall
provide a primary entrance into the Forecourt, unless a primary entrance is provided
which leads to a lobby or hall which provides direct access to the abutting suite(s).
(R*)
8. Walls/Fences/Public Access. A Forecourt is a quasi-public area which is an extension of
the public realm. No walls or fences are permitted within or abutting a Forecourt, except
as follows:
a. Walls or fences not exceeding 40 inches in height.
b. Retaining walls, as otherwise permitted by this Chapter. A railing/view fence is
permitted on top of a retaining wall to a height of 40 inches if required for pedestrian
safety due to the grade differential.
c. View fencing (no solid/opaque portions) surrounding areas approved for outdoor
dining or outdoor alcohol consumption may be provided up to a height of 72 inches
above the forecourt grade.
d. Walls/fencing separating private residential patios which front on a Forecourt may be
provided up to a height of 72 inches above the grade of the forecourt, so long as all
portions of the wall/fence above 40 inches consists of view fencing, as approved by
Planning and Development.
9. Shade Requirements. A minimum of 50% of each Forecourt should be shaded with
landscape and/or structural shade. (P)
Rationale: Shade is needed in the hotter months to encourage users to gather in the
area.
G. Storefront (S). A Storefront is a building façade
design element which includes a ground floor elevation
with a large number of transparent windows and
frequent building entrances to create visual interest
from the adjacent public sidewalk. This frontage
element is traditionally used for retail, live/work, and
other nonresidential active uses and should include
cantilevered canopies or awnings.
1. Minimum building frontage requirements. If a
portion of the Frontage Zone occupied by outdoor
dining or outdoor liquor service is deeper than the
applicable Frontage Zone depth for that street and Character Area, the width of the
outdoor dining/liquor service area shall still count towards the minimum building frontage
requirement(s), so long as compliance with other Streetscape and Frontage Zone
requirements (including but not limited to slopes, landscaping, and amenities) is
demonstrated.
2. Primary entrance requirements.
a. Each ground floor commercial suite located within a Storefront frontage element shall
provide a primary entrance on the street side that directly connects to the street. A
suite which abuts a corner may meet this requirement for both street frontages by
providing a single primary entrance at the corner. (R*)
b. A Recessed Display Entry may be included as part of a Storefront frontage element.
3. Glazing requirements:
a. Location: The area between 3 feet and 8 feet above the adjacent sidewalk grade.
b. Minimum amount: Per the table below. (R*)
Number of primary entrances* within Glazing Requirement:
Storefront frontage element:
One: 75%
Two: 70%
Three: 65%
Four or more: 60%
*A primary entrance may consist of more than one door. Doors must be
separated by at least 20 feet to be considered as a separate primary entrance.
c. Glazing requirements shall be calculated as a percentage of the Storefront frontage
element length.
4. Shade Requirements. A cantilevered canopy, fixed awning, or retractable awning shall
be provided along each Storefront frontage element, in accordance with Section
1204.B.2, and the following:
a. Minimum depth: 5 feet. (R*)
b. Minimum length: 75% of the Storefront frontage element length. (R*)
c. Minimum clear height: 10 feet, if not required greater clearance per Section
1204.B.2. (T)
5. No fencing is permitted within the Streetscape or Frontage Zones adjacent to a
Storefront frontage element, except as follows:
a. Retaining walls may be provided as otherwise permitted by this Chapter. A
railing/view fence is permitted on top of a retaining wall to a height of 40 inches if
required for pedestrian safety due to the grade differential. (R*)
H. Gallery/Arcade (GA). A
Gallery or an Arcade is a
building façade design
element where significant
and continuous structural
shade is provided for
pedestrians, often over the
actual public sidewalk.
Similar to the Storefront
frontage element, a large
number of transparent
windows and frequent
building entrances should be Gallery Arcade
provided to create visual
interest from the adjacent public sidewalk. This frontage element is traditionally used for
retail, office, and other nonresidential active uses.
1. Minimum setback requirements. A Gallery/Arcade may project into the Frontage Zone to
the property line and is not required to meet minimum setbacks as stated in the
applicable Character Area so long as compliance with other Streetscape and Frontage
Zone requirements (including but not limited to slopes, landscaping, and amenities) is
demonstrated. (R*)
2. Minimum dimensions. All portions of a Gallery/Arcade frontage element shall comply
with the following:
a. Minimum depth: 10 feet. (R*)
b. Maximum depth: 30 feet. No maximum for the portion of a Gallery/Arcade is being
used for outdoor dining, outdoor liquor service, or a public gathering space. (R*)
c. Minimum spacing between columns/supports: 10 feet as measured parallel to the
street. (R*)
d. Minimum clear height: 10 feet as measured from finished grade. (R*)
e. Maximum clear height: 25 feet as measured from finished grade. (R*)
3. Pedestrian use. All portions of a Gallery/Arcade frontage element shall have a walkway
provided for pedestrians. The walkway may serve as the actual public sidewalk, if public
easements are dedicated, or it may be provided in addition to the public sidewalk located
within the Streetscape Zone so long as the area under the Gallery/Arcade is also open
for pedestrian use.
a. Public sidewalk easement dedications shall be no less than the required sidewalk
width for the applicable Character Area. (T)
b. Outdoor uses (dining, alcohol consumption, or similar), if permitted by the Character
Area, may be provided within a Gallery/Arcade, so long as the greater of 5 feet, or
the minimum public sidewalk width (if there is no other public sidewalk) is left
unobstructed for use as a pedestrian walkway. (R*)
4. Primary entrance requirements.
a. Each Gallery/Arcade frontage element shall provide a minimum of one primary
entrance on the street side that directly connects to the street. A single primary
entrance provided at the corner of a building at a street intersection complies this
requirement for both street frontages. (R*)
b. A Recessed Display Entry may be included as part of a Gallery/Arcade frontage
element.
5. Glazing requirements:
a. Location: The area between 3 feet and 8 feet above the adjacent sidewalk grade for
the portion of the building that is a Gallery/Arcade Frontage Element. (R*)
b. Minimum amount: Per the table below. (R*)
Number of primary entrances* within Glazing Requirement:
Gallery/Arcade frontage element:
One: 75%
Two: 70%
Three: 65%
Four or more: 60%
*A primary entrance may consist of more than one door. Doors must be
separated by at least 20 feet to be considered as a separate primary entrance.
c. Glazing requirements shall be calculated as a percentage of the Gallery/Arcade
frontage element length.
6. Walls/Fencing.
a. No walls or fences are permitted in the Frontage Zone adjacent to a Gallery/Arcade
frontage element which separates the Gallery/Arcade from the Frontage Zone.
b. Walls and fences within a Gallery/Arcade may be provided to separate outdoor
dining or other permitted outdoor uses from the public walkway, if compliance with
both of the following is demonstrated:
(1) A minimum 5-foot walkway clearance (or the minimum sidewalk width, if the
public sidewalk has been located within the Gallery/Arcade) is maintained.
(2) View fencing (no solid/opaque portions) may be provided up to a height of 72
inches above the Gallery/Arcade grade.
I. Recessed Display Entry. A Recessed Display
Entry is not a separate frontage element; rather it is
a feature which may be included as part of a
Common Entry, Storefront or Gallery/Arcade
frontage element. The characteristics of a
Recessed Display Entry are as follows:
1. Consists of a primary entrance to a public space
(retail, restaurant, lobby/reception, etc.) recessed
from the façade of the building, and is shaded by
the upper portion of the building.
2. Minimum depth to primary entrance: 5 feet. (R*).
3. Maximum depth to primary entrance: 25 feet.
(R*)
4. Minimum clear height: 8 feet on private property; 10 feet if permitted to project within
public ROW or into a public sidewalk easement. (T)
5. Glazing provided within the Recessed Display Entry counts toward the minimum
required glazing for the associated Frontage Element.
6. Shade provided by a Recessed Display Entry counts towards the minimum requirement
for the associated Frontage Element.
7. No portion of a Recessed Display Entry may be fenced off, unless included as a part of
an outdoor dining/bar/patio which is otherwise allowed.
8. If a Recessed Display Entry is deeper than the applicable Frontage Zone depth for that
street and Character Area, the width of the Recessed Display Entry shall still count
towards the minimum building frontage requirement(s), so long as compliance with other
Streetscape and Frontage Zone requirements (including but not limited to slopes,
landscaping, and amenities) is demonstrated.
J. Grand Entry (GR). A Grand Entry is
a building façade design element
which includes the most important
pedestrian entrance to the building,
indicated by significant architectural
features and windows which may be
provided more for visual impact than
actual need. A Grand Entry should
also incorporate significant public
gathering space(s), pedestrian
amenities, and art. A Grand Entry
may also incorporate vehicular
passenger loading and valet functions, including a porte-cochere, if the proposed use allows
it. A Grand Entry would typically be used in conjunction with hotels, government buildings,
educational institutions, hospitals, large office buildings, large residential and mixed-use
buildings, and large assembly uses.
1. Applicability. A Grand Entry frontage element may be provided for the following uses if
also permitted by the Frontage and Streetscape Zone Matrix for the applicable Character
Area: (R*)
a. Hotels.
b. Government buildings.
c. Schools/educational institutions.
d. Hospitals.
e. Office, retail, assembly, and mixed use buildings 100,000 square feet (gross) or
larger.
f. Residential buildings with at least 100,000 square feet (gross) or 100 dwelling units.
2. Main Entrance. A Grand Entry frontage element must serve as the main and most
prominent entrance to the building for pedestrians. At least one primary entrance shall
be provided which leads to a lobby or other internal gathering area which provides
access to any ground-level suites and upper stories. (R*)
3. Architecture. A Grand Entry should consist of architectural features which are prominent
and intended to attract users to the main entry. These features may extend above the
height of the Frontage Zone. Examples are: porticos/columns, large sets of steps;
significant structural shade; extensive and imaginative use of colors, textures, windows,
and/or lighting; prominent exterior works of art; and monuments. Signage may also
contribute if otherwise in compliance with applicable sign regulations. (R*)
4. Pedestrian Accessibility. Pedestrian access to the primary entrance must be visually
obvious, preferably by use of materials and colors. The access route should be greater
in width than any minimum required for ADA accessibility and commensurate in scale
with the architectural features of the Grand Entry. Pedestrian routes may cross
vehicular areas but must otherwise be segregated from vehicular traffic. (R*)
5. Passenger Loading. A passenger loading zone, including a porte-cochere, may be part
of a Grand Entry and located within the Frontage Zone if it complies with all of the
following: (R*)
a. It does not preclude installation of required Streetscape and Frontage Zone
improvements, including trees; and
b. It allows for the most intuitive and direct pedestrian access to the primary entrance
from the Streetscape Zone.
6. Valet Parking. A valet parking station and valet parking zone, including a porte-cochere,
may be incorporated within a Grand Entry if it complies with all of the following: (R*)
(1) It is a permitted accessory use per the Land Use Matrix;
(2) It is constructed in accordance with Section 1206.G.
(3) It does not preclude installation of required Streetscape and Frontage Zone
improvements, including trees; and
(4) It allows for the most intuitive and direct pedestrian access to the primary
entrance from the Streetscape Zone.
7. Trash and recycling containers, service areas, and commercial loading areas are not
permitted to be incorporated within a Grand Entry, or within the adjacent Streetscape or
Frontage Zones. Mechanical equipment and transformers/utility equipment may be
provided only if located within a building or subterranean ground vault. (R*)
8. Minimum building frontage requirements. If a Grand Entry incorporates pedestrian
plazas, outdoor dining, outdoor liquor service, or other improved public gathering areas
which are deeper than the applicable Frontage Zone depth for that street and Character
Area, the width of the gathering areas shall still count towards the minimum building
frontage requirement(s), so long as compliance with other Streetscape and Frontage
Zone requirements (including but not limited to slopes, landscaping, and amenities) is
demonstrated. (R*)
Section 1206. Parking, Loading, and Vehicular Access
A. Applicability. All provisions of Section 702, “Off-Street Parking and Loading” apply to
properties located within Downtown, unless specifically modified by this Chapter.
1. For additional Buffer Alley regulations, see Section 1207.L.
2. For additional Arts, Culture, Small Business Area regulations, see Section 1207.M.
B. Automobile Parking Requirements. Parking for automobiles shall be provided as follows:
1. Residential units.
a. Minimum: 1 space per dwelling unit.
b. Maximum: 2 spaces per dwelling unit, plus 1 space per 1,000 sf of gross square
footage for leasing/residential management office and Shared Amenity Areas.
2. Non-residential uses.
a. Minimum: 1 space per 1,000 square feet of gross building square footage, except in
the Business Core and Warehouse character areas, where no minimum parking is
required.
b. Maximum: 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross building square footage.
3. Parking reductions identified in Section 702.E are not applicable within Downtown.
However, parking reductions and other modifications may be earned by the application
of sustainability bonus points, per the provisions of Section 1223.
4. Location of automobile parking.
a. Lots having only one or two dwelling units (no mixed uses): required spaces may not
be provided within any Frontage Zone. An on-site driveway leading to designated
parking spaces may be provided within a Frontage Zone if not in excess of 18 feet
wide and if otherwise permitted by this Chapter. (R*)
b. Multi-family, mixed use, and non-residential developments: no surface parking is
allowed within any Frontage Zone. Drive aisles may cross a Frontage Zone when
access from the adjacent street is otherwise permitted. (R*)
c. Parking located within structures, including underground parking, is subject to the
requirements of Section 1207.J.
d. Off-site parking. Off-site parking not located within a public right-of-way may account
for up to 50% of the required automobile parking, with approval of a use permit and
compliance with all the provisions of Section 702.E.9.
C. Maneuvering. All maneuvering for automobile parking spaces, passenger loading, and
service/goods loading shall be provided on-site, subject to the following:
1. Maneuvering within a public right of-way shall be allowed as follows:
a. Maneuvering within a public alley is permitted by right if the alley is a minimum 20
feet wide, and then only if access to the alley is permitted per other City regulations;
or
b. Maneuvering in public right-of-way may be permitted with approval of a Technical
Appeal which demonstrates that adequate space is being provided for the safe
maneuvering of vehicles within the right-of-way. Additional requirements, such as
but not limited to dedications, pavement widening, and/or removal of utility poles may
be stipulated as part of the Technical Appeal approval. (T)
D. Electric Vehicle Charging. The following development regulations apply to electric vehicle
charging (EVC) spaces provided within parking areas within Downtown:
1. EVC spaces may be counted as part of the required minimum number parking spaces.
(R)
2. EVC spaces shall not be counted as part of required maximum number of parking
spaces. (R)
3. All EVC spaces, charging stations, and associated transformers or other mechanical
equipment, shall be provided on site and not in any required landscape setback,
required landscape area, or Frontage Zone. (R)(R*)
E. Bicycle Parking. Parking and amenities for bicycles shall be provided as follows:
1. Multi-family residential development shall provide shared bicycle parking at the rate of
0.25 space per dwelling unit, with a maximum requirement of 50 spaces.
2. All nonresidential uses over 5,000 gross square feet shall provide 1 bicycle space per 25
vehicle parking spaces provided or portion thereof, with a maximum requirement of 25
spaces.
3. All nonresidential uses 100,000 gross square feet or larger shall provide 1 bicycle space
per 25 vehicle parking spaces or portion thereof, with a maximum requirement of 50
spaces. In addition, a minimum of 2 shower stalls and 10 personal lockers that are
available for use by the building’s occupants shall be provided.
4. Restaurants and bars totaling less than 5,000 gross square feet on one site shall provide
a minimum of 4 bicycle spaces in the Frontage Zone. If automobile parking spaces are
provided, 1 additional bicycle space for every 25 vehicle parking spaces as required for
the restaurant and bar uses shall be provided.
5. Bicycle parking shall not be located within a required public sidewalk or accessible route.
F. Service/Goods Loading Areas. The following requirements apply to short-term loading
and unloading of service vehicles with goods or equipment.
1. On-site loading shall be required for all developments per the following table:
Required Loading and Service Bays
Use Gross square footage of buildings (per site)
25,000 – > 40,000 – > 160,000 – > 320,000 – > 500,000
40,000 sf 160,000 sf 320,000 sf 500,000 sf sf
Multi-Family 0 1 per 150 dwelling units or portion thereof
Residential
Lodging 0 1 per each 300 rooms or portion thereof
Retail, 0 1 2 3 4 + 1 per
Commercial, additional
and Office 180,000 sf
Uses above
500,000
Industrial, 1 2 3 4 5 + 1 per
Manufacturing, additional
Storage, and 180,000 sf
Wholesaling above
Uses 500,000
Mixed-use developments shall provide the required loading spaces per each use
category shown in the table above.
2. Loading bays shall be a minimum of 10 feet in width and 30 feet in length. (T)
3. Location of Service/Goods Loading Areas.
a. Service/goods loading areas may not be located within a Frontage Zone adjacent to
a Pedestrian Street. (R*)
b. Service/goods loading areas may not be located within a public street right-of-way
unless compliance with all of the following occurs: (R)
(1) An encroachment permit has been obtained from the Street Transportation
Department for the design and/or structures provided as part of the loading area
(dock, loading ramp, etc.).
(2) The loading area does not reduce the required Streetscape Zone and does not
preclude the provision of required street trees and shading requirements.
(3) The loading area does not interrupt the required public sidewalk or other
dedicated pedestrian walkways.
(4) The loading area does not interrupt a designated bicycle lane.
(5) Compliance with Section 1204.B.5 regarding historic curb locations is
demonstrated.
c. Service entrances, loading areas, and trash/recycling pickup should be located
internal to the site or building, or adjacent to a Side Street or alley whenever
possible. (P)
Rationale: Pedestrian Streets should create a safe, secure, and welcoming
atmosphere for pedestrians, and should not have uses or functions which discourage
pedestrian use. Noxious uses and conflicts with service vehicles should be
minimized along Pedestrian Streets. Side Streets and alleys (which are not
designated Buffer Alleys) are preferred access points for service and delivery
functions.
G. Valet Parking. The requirements of this Section apply only for sites which are allowed valet
parking as an accessory use per Section 1203.D.30.
1. Location of Valet Parking Facilities.
a. A valet transfer zone (where vehicles are dropped off and picked up) should be
located internally to the building whenever possible. (P)
Rationale: Views of standing automobiles, and conflicts with pedestrians, should be
minimized.
b. A valet transfer zone may be provided within a Frontage Zone adjacent to a Side
Street, so long as it does not preclude compliance with other Streetscape and
Frontage Zone standards, including driveway access and placement. A valet
transfer zone may be combined with a service/goods loading area when located
adjacent to a Side Street. (R*)
c. A valet transfer zone may be provided within a Frontage Zone adjacent to a
Pedestrian Street, subject to the following: (R*)
(1) Compliance with the driveway and vehicular access regulations of Section
1206.H is demonstrated.
(2) Compliance with other applicable Frontage Zone and Streetscape Zone
requirements for Pedestrian Streets (including shading, provision of street trees,
and minimum building frontage) is demonstrated.
(3) Valet facilities may not be located within the minimum street setback area.
d. Valet parking spaces (where cars are parked after being dropped off) may be located
off-site if in accordance with the provisions of Section 1203.D.
e. A valet transfer zone should have primary access from a street, rather than an alley.
(P)
Rationale: Whenever possible, vehicles should be dropped off and picked up from a
more intuitive location associated with the street address, particularly if the parking
is for patrons and visitors, rather than occupants of the building or site.
f. Valet parking facilities, including the valet transfer station, valet transfer zone, and
valet parking spaces, may not be located within a public right-of-way unless
compliance with all of the following occurs: (R)
(1) An encroachment permit has been obtained from the Street Transportation
Department for the Valet Parking Facilities.
(2) The Valet Parking Facilities do not reduce the required Streetscape Zone and do
not preclude the provision of required street trees and shading requirements.
(3) The Valet Parking Facilities do not interrupt the required public sidewalk or other
dedicated pedestrian walkways.
(4) The Valet Parking Facilities does not interrupt a designated bicycle lane.
(5) Compliance with Section 1204.B.5 regarding historic curb locations is
demonstrated.
g. Public right-of-way may be used to move vehicles between the valet transfer zone
and the valet parking spaces, if the valet parking spaces are located on a different
property, as otherwise permitted by this Chapter.
2. Design requirements for valet parking facilities.
a. A valet transfer zone shall comply with the following: (T)
(1) A minimum length of 60 feet.
(2) A minimum width of 10 feet.
(3) A maximum width of 16 feet.
b. A valet transfer zone must include an accessible vehicle pull-up space constructed in
accordance with federal requirements. (T)
c. A valet transfer zone shall not be used all or in part for any vehicle parking. Short
term vehicle standing of up to 30 minutes is permitted during hours of operation of
the valet parking facilities. (T)
H. General Driveway and Access Regulations. This section regulates driveways and access
from streets to private property. Access from any street to a property must be in compliance
with the provisions of this Section.
1. Properties with HP designation. Driveways for properties with HP zoning or designation
may be located, designed, constructed, or reconstructed in a historic manner and
dimensions as approved in writing by the Historic Preservation Officer.
2. Arterial Streets.
a. Access for automobile parking, valet parking facilities, passenger loading zones, and
Service/Goods Loading Areas is permitted from the following arterial Pedestrian
Streets, regardless of other site frontages or regulations of this Chapter:
(1) 7th Street
(2) 7th Avenue
(3) McDowell Road
(4) Van Buren Street
(5) Buckeye Road
b. Maximum driveway width: 40 feet, or wider as approved by Street Transportation
when requiring islands for restricted turns. (T)
c. All other provisions for Pedestrian Streets apply.
3. Pedestrian Streets. Driveways and access to private property from Pedestrian Streets
are subject to the following:
a. Automobile Parking. Access is permitted from a Pedestrian Street only when one of
the following applies: (R*)
(1) The development site has no other frontage on an alley or side street; or
(2) The parking area has at least one additional access point from an alley or side
street.
b. Service/Goods Loading Areas are not permitted access from a Pedestrian Street
unless the loading area is located completely within the building; within a parking
garage, or screened from view from the street. Screening may consist of the
following: (R*)
(1) Green screen.
(2) Dense landscaping which provides screening starting from the time of initial
installation.
(3) Underground utility vaults.
(4) Buildings.
c. Passenger loading zones are permitted access from a Pedestrian Street.
d. Maximum driveway width: 30 feet. When a site has only Pedestrian Street
frontages, additional width may be granted through approval of a Technical Appeal
(T).
e. Minimum separation between driveways: 30 feet. (T)
(1) Properties which have a maximum of two dwelling units (no mixed primary uses)
have no minimum separation except as may be required by City policies for
safety and visibility. (T)
(2) Other City policies and ordinances regulating the design of driveways, including
but not limited to required visibility, restricted turn movements, and distances
from intersections may require a greater separation than 30 feet. (T)
4. Side Streets. Driveways and access to private property from Side Streets are subject to
the following:
a. Access for all types of vehicular uses is permitted from a Side Street.
b. Maximum driveway width: 40 feet. (T)
c. Minimum separation between driveways: 20 feet. (R*)
(1) Properties which have a maximum of two dwelling units (no mixed primary uses)
have no minimum separation except as may be required by City policies for
safety and visibility. (T)
(2) Other City policies and ordinances regulating the design of driveways, including
but not limited to: required visibility, restricted turn movements, and distances
from intersections may require a greater separation than 20 feet. (T)
5. Alleys. Driveways and access to private property from alleys are subject to the
following:
a. Access is not permitted from a Buffer Alley, unless in compliance with Section
1207.L. (R)
b. Automobile Parking. Access is permitted from an alley, subject to the following:
(1) The alley pavement must be (or be widened to) a minimum 20 feet wide and
unobstructed for the length of the property; (T)
(2) If the parking area has more than 100 spaces, the alley pavement is a minimum
20’ wide and unobstructed for the full length of the block, unless otherwise
approved through a Technical Appeal. (T)
c. Passenger loading zones should not have primary access provided from an alley. (P)
Rationale: Rideshare and personal delivery vehicles should be able to access a
development from a more intuitive location associated with the street address.
d. Maximum driveway width: as determined by PDD and Street Transportation for
safety and visibility. (T)
e. Minimum separation between driveways: as determined by PDD and Street
Transportation for safety and visibility. (T)
I. Driveway Design Guidelines.
1. Appropriate visibility triangles and/or lines of sight shall be provided for driveways. The
visibility triangles shall provide for visibility of pedestrians on the public sidewalk, as well
as vehicles in the street. (T)
Rationale: Vehicles exiting from a site or parking garage should be able to see cars on
the street, as well as pedestrians on the sidewalk (and vice versa). Alternatives, such as
mirrors, pedestrian safety signage, etc. may be approved as part of a Technical Appeal
when standard visibility requirements cannot be met.
2. Specialty paving, striping, bollards, or similar as approved by PDD staff should be
provided where a driveway crosses a sidewalk. (P)
Rationale: Where vehicular routes interface with pedestrian routes, warnings to both the
vehicles and the pedestrians should be visually indicated.
3. Shared access and driveways serving more than one development should be provided
whenever possible. (P)
Rationale: The number of driveways crossing sidewalks and bicycle routes should be
minimized to avoid conflicts and collisions. However, consideration and flexibility should
be applied when a primarily residential development is adjacent to a non-residential
development.
Section 1207. General Development Regulations.
A. Applicability. This section contains development regulations specific to Downtown. If a
conflict occurs between any specific Character Area regulations and the regulations of this
Section, the Character Area regulations shall apply.
B. Historic Preservation Development Regulations. Structures with historic preservation
designation are considered to be conforming and may be maintained, restored and/or rebuilt
at each structure’s historic setbacks and height subject to the provisions of Chapter 8,
Historic Preservation.
C. Projections.
1. Projections within the Streetscape Zone are regulated by Section 1204.B.2.
2. Projections within the Frontage Zone are regulated by Section 1204.C.3.
3. Projections within required yards adjacent to interior lot lines are not permitted, except
as follows: (R)
a. Roof overhangs, but not including covered porches, patios, or carports, are permitted
so long as no portion of the overhang is closer than 2 feet from the property line.
b. Other projections, when explicitly allowed by other sections of this Chapter.
D. Wall/Fence Requirements.
1. Historic Preservation designated properties. For residential properties designated
HP and HP-L, fences or freestanding walls in the front yard (the area between the
structure and the street right-of-way line) may not exceed a maximum height of three
feet. This height limitation extends three feet back from the front façade into the side
yard(s).
2. Within Frontage Zones, the following apply:
a. Walls/fences are limited to 40 inches in height, except as may be specifically
modified by other provisions of this Chapter. (R*)
b. Within a Frontage Zone which abuts a side property line (e.g. a “street side”), a wall
or fence up to 6 feet tall may be permitted if all of the following also apply: (R)
(1) The wall encloses a private residential side yard and/or rear yard on a lot with no
more than two dwelling units (and no other primary uses).
(2) No structure on the property exceeds two stories and 30 feet in height.
(3) No portions of the wall over 40 inches in height are located within a Frontage
Zone applicable to any other street frontage.
(4) No portions of the wall over 40 inches in height (36 inches if in an HP Overlay)
are located closer than 3 feet behind the front façade of the structure.
3. Walls/fences provided for screening of mechanical equipment shall comply with the
provisions of Section 1204.E.7.
4. Walls located adjacent to interior property lines or other locations outside of the Frontage
Zones shall comply with the regulations stated in the applicable Character Area.
5. Retaining walls located within Streetscape and Frontage Zones are regulated by Section
1204.D.
E. Height Transition Standards. For all new development adjacent to lots located in a lower
height zone, a stepback shall be provided to compensate for disproportionate height
disparities. This additional stepback provides for building separation and circulation of air
and light in a dense urban fabric.
1. Along an interior property line or a designated Buffer Alley which separates properties of
two different height zones, the minimum required setback shall be increased by 10 feet
for all portions of the building taller than the maximum height of the adjacent (lower)
height zone. (R)
Example: A building located on a property with a maximum height of 140 feet and a 10
feet minimum interior setback, sharing a property line with a property with a 65 feet
maximum height, has a 20 feet setback required for all portions of the building taller than
65 feet. The portions of the building less than 65 feet tall may be located at the standard
10 feet setback from the property line.
2. A stepback shall not be required in the following circumstances unless specifically
required by the applicable Character Area standards:
a. The proposed building is no more than 20 feet taller than the maximum permitted
height of the adjacent height zone.
b. The proposed building is adjacent to a height zone with a maximum permitted height
of 65 feet or greater.
3. The proposed building should respect the scale of existing buildings located on adjacent
properties and serve as an orderly transition to a different scale. Stepbacks, changes in
massing, or changes in materials and color starting at the height of the adjacent existing
building are highly encouraged. (P)
Rationale: Building heights with a vastly different scale than those on adjacent parcels
should have a transition in scale to reduce and mitigate potential impacts.
F. Landscape Standards. Landscape shall be provided in accordance with the following:
1. Landscape requirements of Section 703.E, as well as Section 507 Tab A, apply unless
specifically modified by this section or other provisions of this Chapter.
a. See Section 1207.M for special regulations applicable to the Arts, Culture, Small
Business Area.
2. Landscape within the Streetscape and Frontage Zones shall comply with the
requirements of Section 1204.G.
3. Landscape shall be provided for surface parking areas as follows:
Surface Parking—Landscape Standards
Interior surface area (exclusive of
perimeter landscaping and all Minimum 10% (R*)
required setbacks)
At ends of each row of parking and
Landscaped planters
approximately every 110 feet (P)
Minimum 5 feet wide (inside curb
Landscaped planters, single row of
measurement) for full depth of parking space.
parking
(T)
Minimum 5 feet wide (inside curb
Landscaped planters, double row of
measurement) for full depth of both parking
parking
spaces. (T)
As needed to meet 10% minimum requirement,
Additional parking lot landscape
evenly distributed throughout the entire parking
areas
lot. (P)
Minimum requirement: one per 100 sf of
landscape area (T)
Planter (single space depth): one tree. (P)
Required trees
Planter (double space depth): two trees (P)
All other areas: 20 feet on center or equivalent
groupings (P).
Minimum 2-inch caliper (60% of trees) (T)
Required tree sizes:
Minimum 1-inch caliper (40% of trees) (T)
Required shrubs: Minimum 5 shrubs per tree. (P)
Required shrub size: Minimum 5-gallon. (T)
Rationale: Parking lot landscaping and shade should be provided in a similar manner as
required for other commercial areas outside of Downtown. However, flexibility can be
exercised regarding installation of landscape materials in order to address on-site
conflicts, such as lighting, mechanical equipment, sight lines, required pedestrian
walkways, or similar. Requests to provide smaller than required planting areas, trees, or
shrubs may only be approved through a Technical Appeal.
4. All on-site pedestrian walkways shall be 75% shaded by trees and/or structural shade.
(R*)
5. All remaining areas of a site which are not Frontage or Streetscape Zones, surface
parking, pedestrian walkways, or amenities specifically permitted by PDD which do not
typically include shade (i.e. pools and pool decks), must be landscaped to provide 50%
shade. Properties having only residential uses, not exceeding two dwelling units, are
exempt from this requirement. (R*)
G. Multi-Family Development Design Requirements.
1. The provisions of this section apply to all sites which include five or more dwelling units.
The provisions of Section 703.B, Landscaping and Open Areas in Multiple-Family
Development, do not apply to properties located within Downtown. (R*)
2. Where dwelling units are provided at the ground level adjacent to a Pedestrian Street, an
appropriate residential Frontage Element (such as Patio, Stoop/Doorwell, Porch, or
Forecourt) should be utilized to allow for individual dwelling unit access to the street. (P)
Rationale: Individual entrances promote more “eyes on the street”, due to greater use of
patios and other outdoor areas. Individual entrances also encourage pedestrian use by
creating more interest, as well as a feeling of smaller-scale design.
3. Shared Amenity Areas for the residents of multi-family dwelling units shall be provided
on-site, as follows:
a. The minimum Shared Amenity Area provided shall be per the following table (R*):
Minimum Shared Amenity Areas for Sites with Multi-Family Dwellings
Up to 100 units None required.
101-300 units Minimum 2500 square feet
301+ units Minimum 5000 square feet
b. Shared Amenity Areas shall consist of the following types of spaces (R*):
(1) On-site open space provided in accordance with the provisions of Section
1207.H.
(2) Roof-top decks which are occupiable and do not exceed height requirements for
the applicable Character Area.
(3) Conditioned suites with amenities/shops/services.
c. All areas used to count toward the minimum Shared Amenity Area requirements
must be accessible to all users, in accordance with FHA and ADA standards. (T)
d. Uses open to the public, such as retail stores, restaurants, commercial gyms, bars,
etc. may be used to meet no more than 50% of the Shared Amenity Area
requirement. (R)
e. A minimum of two of the following amenities shall be provided within the Shared
Amenity Areas (P):
(1) Swimming pool and/or hot tub.
(2) Fitness center/sport court or facility.
(3) Tot lot/playground.
(4) Barbecue/picnic/common kitchen area.
(5) Gathering area with focal feature (fountain, firepit/fireplace, television, game
tables, kitchen etc.)
(6) Pet exercise area.
Rationale: Shared Amenity Areas should include a variety of amenities which may be
used by multiple residents, but are not shared with non-residents (such as an on-site
store, restaurant, or bar). Staff may approve additional types of amenities similar to
those listed above and meeting this intent. Two separate amenities in the same
category may also be approved.
H. Open Space Development Regulations. Open space, when provided for sustainability
bonus credits per Section 1223 or as part of a multi-family Shared Amenity Area
requirement, shall comply with the following:
1. Open Space shall be provided at ground level. Roof tops, areas inside structures, or
areas placed underground cannot be counted as open space. Outdoor areas provided
under a building overhang are permitted so long as they are fully open to at least one
Frontage Zone. (R*)
2. Each Open Space area shall abut and include a Frontage Zone. The area of the
Frontage Zone may be included in the minimum area and dimensions required for
qualifying Open Space areas. (R*)
3. Each Open Space area shall be a minimum of 500 square feet with a minimum
dimension of 20 feet in any direction. (R*)
4. All Open Space areas are subject to the design requirements for Frontage Zones, with
the following modifications: (R*)
a. No automobile uses (parking, loading, etc.) of any type may be provided within an
Open Space area.
b. Open Space areas with a dedicated public access easement may not be fenced or
walled off from the street except for low walls not exceeding 40 inches in height,
unless the height of the wall is further restricted by the Frontage Zone or Frontage
Element requirements.
I. Enhanced Corner Requirements. Developments located on Enhanced Corners (per map
in Section 1202.D) should be integrated with and oriented toward the corner, as follows:
1. A primary entrance that faces both streets and that serves as a main entry for the
building shall be provided at each Enhanced Corner. An entrance to a single
commercial suite or residence does not meet this requirement. (R*)
2. Additional building articulation, architectural features, signage, pedestrian amenities,
and/or art that emphasizes the corner and draws attention to the Enhanced Corner entry
of the building shall be provided. (P)
Rationale: An Enhanced Corner should be visually obvious and comfortable for
pedestrians to use as the building’s primary entrance.
3. If an Enhanced Corner entry plaza is provided which is deeper than the applicable
Frontage Zone depth(s), the building frontage along the corner entry plaza shall still
count towards the minimum building frontage requirement(s), so long as compliance with
other Streetscape and Frontage Zone requirements (including but not limited to slopes,
landscaping, and amenities) is demonstrated. (R*)
J. Structured Parking/Parking Garage Design Guidelines.
1. Where parking structures are visible from a street or neighboring property, they should
utilize approved Frontage Elements, art/murals, decorative materials, imaginative use of
colors and patterns, and/or permitted signage to fully screen vehicles from view and to
create interest at the ground level. (P)
Rationale: Parking structures, particularly ones with exterior unfinished concrete
masonry or panels, do not engage or create interest for pedestrians. The side of a
parking garage should never appear to be “blank”.
2. Parking structures shall be designed so that light from vehicle headlights, when parked
head-in in a parking space, is fully screened from view from all perimeter streets. (R*)
3. Parking structures should be integrated with the form and materials of the main site
structures, or the scale, form, color and materials of the immediately adjacent area. (P)
Rationale: Parking structures should not be a dominant feature of the building design,
and creative solutions should be integrated and/or complement the design elements of
other buildings on site or within the surrounding context area.
4. Rooftop lighting on a parking garage should be set back a minimum of 25 feet from the
perimeter of the rooftop parking structure and be mounted no higher than 12 feet above
the roof deck. (P)
Rationale: The direct source of light should not be visible from lower levels or adjacent
uses.
5. There should be a convenient, clear, safe and efficient internal circulation system within
the parking structure for both vehicular and pedestrian traffic including appropriate
signage and placement of pedestrian circulation cores (elevators and stairs). Pedestrian
routes should always be separated from vehicular traffic, except where required
crossings can be provided safely. (T)
6. Pedestrian entrances to parking garages should be separate from vehicular entrances.
(P)
7. Garage openings should be enhanced with specialty lighting, artwork, or materials to
visually notify vehicle drivers that pedestrians may be crossing, and vice versa. (P)
Rationale for J.7 and J.8: Safety at pedestrian and vehicular crossings should be
addressed with design.
8. Underground parking may extend to a height of five feet above finished grade, provided
that the garage perimeter wall does cause the Frontage Element assigned to that portion
of the building façade to become non-compliant with other required development
standards. (R*)
K. General Design Guidelines.
1. All building facades adjacent to interior property lines (i.e. not abutting or within a
Frontage Zone) should have a level of trim and finish equivalent with and
complementary to the Frontage Zone façade(s). (P)
Rationale: Most buildings within Downtown are of heights that they are visible from quite
a distance. Facades visible from the street or other properties should be of a quality
similar to that required for facades facing streets, and should never appear to be
unfinished or “blank”.
2. All buildings over 10 stories tall should be designed with a base that is visually
differentiated from the remainder of the building. The base may be between one and four
stories in height. (P)
Rationale: All buildings should be scaled at the base to relate and connect to pedestrian
uses.
3. Windows and balconies in near proximity that face each other should receive special
design treatment to increase privacy for existing adjacent residential uses by providing
one (or a combination) of the following, or similar as approved by PDD staff: (P)
a. Louvers;
b. Privacy screens;
c. Windows that start a minimum of six feet above respective finished floor;
d. Frosted or tinted window treatments.
Rationale: Existing residential units close enough to be impacted by new development
should be able to maintain their level of existing privacy. Incorporating methods of
screening with windows and balconies on new development can help provide the means
for maintaining this privacy.
4. Natural surveillance should be maximized in project design to encourage easy
observation of people and property near entryways, pathways, public spaces and
parking areas. (P)
Rationale: Safety and security for pedestrians should be addressed by design. Hidden
and obscures spaces can encourage illicit activity.
5. Building accents should be expressed through differing materials or architectural
detailing rather than applied finishes such as paint, graphics, or forms of plastic or metal
panels. (P)
Rationale: Building accents and detailing should be high quality and durability and not of
materials which can fade or deteriorate over time.
6. Architectural details such as exterior finish materials, architectural lighting and signage,
grilles, railings, downspouts, window and entry trim and moldings, shadow patterns and
exterior lighting should contribute to creating a coherent architectural concept. (P)
Rationale: While buildings should not appear too monolithic or monotonous, they should
also not appear to be an assemblage of many materials or designs without a common
theme.
7. Architectural elements. Accent materials and building design should contribute to
creating a coherent architectural concept that is consistent with the surrounding design
of the area. (e.g. architectural lighting and signage, grilles, railings, downspouts, window
and entry trim and moldings, shadow patterns and exterior lighting). (P)
Rationale: Character Areas were created to acknowledge the unique characteristics of
each area. New development and redevelopment should reflect the existing character by
use of similar and complementary architectural styles and accents.
8. Building materials. Materials from adjacent or nearby buildings should be incorporated
to help strengthen the character of the area. (e.g. doors, windows, pilasters, cornices,
arches and lintels) They should be articulated and expressed in a manner that is in
context with surrounding buildings. (P)
Rationale: Character Areas were created to acknowledge the unique characteristics of
each area. New development and redevelopment should reflect the existing character by
use of similar and complementary building materials.
9. Architecture and applied treatments that express corporate identity should be de-
emphasized. The building should be a unique structure that complements and blends
with the surrounding context. (P)
Rationale: Corporate identity may be utilized to create a unique identity that can be
recognized. However, the overall architectural theme should be the predominant feature
of the building.
10. All electric lines 12 KV and smaller, communications and cable television lines, and all
on-premise wiring shall be placed underground in developments where visible from
streets or adjoining properties. (T)
Rationale: Overhead utility lines are in many cases visually objectionable; can cause
issues with proximity to balconies; can obstruct direct pedestrian and vehicular routes and
visibility; and can restrict the ability to install required trees and other shading methods.
11. Freestanding detached monument signage should be integrated with the building
architecture. (P)
Rationale: Monument signs should incorporate elements of the building architecture
through use of similar colors, materials, and/or forms.
L. Buffer Alley Development Regulations. The following regulations shall apply to properties
adjacent to Buffer Alleys identified in Section 1202.E, in addition to any other requirements
of the Downtown Code:
1. Access to and vehicular maneuvering within a Buffer Alley is not permitted, except for
developments meeting at least one of the following criteria: (R)
a. Abutting properties that currently have legally established access to the Buffer Alley
and are not subject to the applicability requirements of Sections 507.B.2 or 507.B.3.
b. Abutting properties on which there are no more than two dwelling units and no other
primary uses.
c. Abutting subdivisions developed in accordance with Section 1203.D.27.
2. If non-residential loading or service areas (including for trash/recycling collection) have
established legal access from a Buffer Alley, loading, pickup and deliveries shall be
prohibited between 9:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m., UNLESS A USE PERMIT IS OBTAINED.
This restriction shall be prominently posted on signs on the building adjacent to the
service area, as well as at the entrance to the property from the Buffer Alley. (R)
3. A stepback equal to the minimum required building setback, plus 10 feet, is required for
all portions of buildings taller than 30 feet when adjacent to a Buffer Alley. Additional
stepbacks may be required by Section 1207.E. (R)
4. For non-single-family developments, a minimum five-foot wide landscape area and
minimum 6-foot high solid wall on the alley side of the landscape area must be provided
along the property line abutting a Buffer Alley. The wall must be consistent with the
material, design and character of the primary building. (R)
5. All new mechanical equipment, including roof mounted equipment, must be fully
screened from view from a Buffer Alley. Solar panels and/or solar water heaters are
exempt from this requirement. (R)
6. All trash/recycling containers must be fully screened from view from a Buffer Alley,
unless alley collection services are provided by the City of Phoenix. (R)
7. Parking lot and security lighting, including building-mounted lighting, shall not exceed 15
feet in height, including lamp, pole, and base, for properties abutting a Buffer Alley.
Light fixtures fully screened by a building or other structure, and not visible from the
Buffer Alley, are exempt from this requirement. (R)
8. Decorative lighting (including but not limited to illuminative gases, fiber optics, or LED
fixtures) and lighted signage shall not be installed where visible from an adjacent Buffer
Alley. (R)
9. Windows, balconies, and rooftop decks on properties abutting a Buffer Alley should be
designed to protect the existing privacy of adjacent single-family residential uses. (P)
Rationale: These building features should ideally be oriented away from the Buffer Alley.
However, if provided, they should be mitigated with things like louvers, screening,
frosted/tinted window treatments, and relative window height (i.e. at least 6 feet above
the floor).
M. Arts, Culture, Small Business Area Development Regulations.
1. Applicability. The area indicated on the Arts, Culture, Small Business Area Map in
Section 1202.F is subject to the following regulations. In the event of a conflict with other
provisions of this Chapter, the more permissive regulation shall apply. The
development regulations of Section 669 (Arts, Culture, and Overlay District (ACOD) do
not apply to properties zoned Downtown Code.
2. Intent. The Arts, Culture and Small Business Overlay is intended to allow greater
flexibility in land uses and standards that will contribute to the vitality of Downtown and
will enhance community events.
3. Outdoor public events and performances. Outdoor events or performances that are open
to the public and that feature visual art, music, dance, theater, performance art, science,
design or cultural heritage are permitted, subject to the following: (R)
a. The outdoor event or performance must be staffed by an employee of an existing
business on the property and must comply with all applicable codes and ordinances.
b. The business’ items that are available for purchase during normal business hours
may be displayed outdoors and be available for purchase during the event or
performance. Payment for all items shall occur indoors. No other items may be
displayed for sale outdoors during the event or performance.
c. Outdoor events or performances are limited to Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays only.
d. Friday and Saturday events or performances shall be limited to the hours between
10:00 a.m. and 12:00 a.m. No amplified music or loudspeakers may be used outside
after 10:00 p.m.
e. Sunday outdoor events or performances shall be limited to the hours between 10:00
a.m. and 10:00 p.m. No amplified music or loudspeakers may be used after 8:00
p.m.
f. Hours and days of outdoor events or performances may be extended subject to
obtaining a use permit in accordance with the standards and procedures of the
Zoning Administrator section of the Zoning Ordinance.
g. Outdoor events or performances in Downtown shall be a minimum of 300 feet from
an adjacent Character Area that is not included in the Arts, Culture, and Small
Business Area depicted on the map in Section 1202.F and from any single-family
zoning district outside of Downtown.
4. Accessory uses.
a. Home occupations are permitted subject to the following:
(1) Employees are permitted, subject to obtaining a use permit in accordance with
the provisions of Section 307.A.7.
(2) No more than 50 percent of the dwelling unit may be used for any home
occupation.
b. The following accessory uses are permitted:
(1) Outdoor dining as accessory to a restaurant is permitted subject to the following:
(a) The outdoor dining area shall be a minimum of 30 feet from the boundary of
an adjacent Character Area not included in the Arts, Culture, and Small
Business Area depicted in Section 1202.F and from any single-family zoning
district outside of Downtown.
(b) The outdoor dining area and accessory public space shall be clearly
delineated by a minimum three-foot-high continuous fence, wall or planter.
(c) The outdoor dining area shall not be more than 25 percent of the primary
building’s ground level gross floor area. The outdoor dining area may exceed
25 percent to a maximum of 50 percent subject to obtaining a use permit.
(d) Hours of operation for outdoor dining area shall not extend beyond restaurant
hours of operation.
(e) The outdoor dining area shall not restrict or impede accessible access to the
building or the parking area.
(2) Outdoor crafting of art associated with the business inside the building when the
subject parcel abuts an arterial or collector street is permitted and subject to the
following:
(a) Storage of materials associated with the crafting area shall not exceed eight
feet in height and be limited to the rear and side yard.
(b) Storage area shall be fully screened with a solid wall or landscaping.
(c) Storage of materials associated with the crafting area exceeding eight feet in
height shall be subject to obtaining a use permit.
5. Signs.
a. A-frame signs are permitted on private property, subject to the following: (R)
(1) No off-site advertising is permitted.
(2) A maximum of one A-frame sign is permitted per 25 feet of street frontage.
(3) A maximum of six square feet of signage per side of the A-frame sign is
permitted.
(4) There shall be a maximum height of three feet from natural grade.
(5) All signs shall be removed daily at the close of business or event.
b. Shingle signs are permitted subject to the following: (R)
(1) A maximum of one sign is permitted for each business per facade if access to
business is available from that facade.
(2) A minimum clearance of eight feet from finished grade to the bottom of the sign
shall be provided.
(3) A maximum of five square feet in area shall be permitted per side.
(4) No backlit or cabinet signs are permitted.
c. Wall and window signs are permitted for structures existing as of May 2, 2008, as
follows: (R)
(1) Wall signs.
(a) The maximum square footage permitted per Section 705.D may be increased
by 25 percent.
(b) The maximum square footage permitted may be increased by an additional
ten percent if graphics comprise a minimum of ten percent of the overall
square footage of the sign.
(2) Window signs. The total area of such signs shall not exceed 40 percent of each
window area located on the ground floor of the building.
6. Parking, yard and area requirements for nonresidential uses or mixed uses containing
nonresidential uses.
a. For parking, yard and area requirements for structures existing as of May 1, 2008:
(R)
(1) Regardless of change of use or occupancy no additional parking or landscaping
shall be required.
(2) Structures may be increased a total of either 500 gross square feet or 25 percent
of the existing structure, whichever is greater, without requiring additional parking
or landscaping.
(3) Building additions may exceed the lot coverage of the underlying zoning district
by 25 percent, excluding those with Historic Preservation Overlays.
(4) Interior setbacks may be reduced by a maximum of 25 percent of that required
by the underlying zoning requirements, excluding those with Historic
Preservation Overlays.
b. Outdoor dining that does not exceed 25 percent of the primary building’s ground
level gross floor area shall not require any additional parking. The outdoor dining
area may exceed 25 percent to a maximum of 50 percent subject to obtaining a use
permit.
c. Unless subject to Buffer Alley regulations (Section 1207.L), vehicles are permitted to
maneuver in the alley when dustproofing/paving, adequate maneuvering space, and
visibility are approved by the Planning and Development Department.
d. Unless subject to Buffer Alley regulations (Section 1207.L), when vehicular access to
the site is provided from an alley, no landscape setback is required adjacent to the
alley.
N. Taylor Street Pedestrian Paseo Regulations.
1. Intent. The Taylor Street Paseo is intended to primarily serve pedestrians, connecting
the Van Buren Character Area to the commercial, educational, and cultural resources
and institutions located in the central portion of Downtown (generally east of First
Avenue). The Paseo will provide a mid-block east-west route alternative located
generally along the alignment of Taylor Street, to help mitigate the unusually long block
lengths between Fillmore and Van Buren Streets.
2. Applicability. The properties abutting the alignment indicated on the map below are
subject to the following special development regulations:
3. Easement dedication. Properties abutting the Paseo alignment are required to
dedicate a public pedestrian easement (hereafter referred to as "Paseo") per the
alignment as shown on the map provided in this Section.
a. The minimum width of the Paseo, and the public pedestrian easement to be
dedicated at the time of development is 20 feet, subject to the following:
(1) Where the Paseo runs between different properties, the dedication may be split
between the properties so long as the Paseo dedications from all properties are
made concurrently.
(2) If the Paseo is dedicated within or abutting a public street, the public pedestrian
easement dedication within the adjacent Frontage Zone shall be wide enough to
provide a minimum of 20 feet from back of curb to back of easement.
b. The Paseo may be provided as a pedestrian-only corridor between private lots, or
within and/or adjacent to a public street, so long as it is in compliance with all of the
applicable design standards and guidelines provided below.
4. Deviation from approved alignment. The alignment of the Paseo may be deviated by
up to 50 feet either north or south of the approved alignment under the following
conditions:
a. The deviation should not result in a misalignment of more than 90 feet.
b. A north or south connector Paseo, designed in accordance with this section, should
be provided on site when a deviation results in more than 20 feet of misalignment
within the block.
c. The revised easement location shall be dedicated prior to final site plan approval.
d. The deviated alignment can be used in place of the approved alignment. For sites
with an optional alignment two easements are not required.
5. Paseo Streetscape and Frontage Zone standards
a. Streetscape and Frontage Zone standards apply as stated in the applicable
Character Area Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix.
b. Streetscape Zone development regulations, per Section 1204, apply when the Paseo
is located within or abutting a dedicated street.
c. Frontage Zone development regulations, per Section 1204, apply within the portion
of the Paseo located on private property unless such regulations conflict with other
regulations specific to development of the Paseo stated in this Section.
d. If the Paseo is provided within or adjacent to a public street, the street should be
designed with on-street parking adjacent to the Paseo. (P)
Rationale: On-street parking provides a buffer from through traffic lanes, as well as
creating an environment encouraging the use of the Paseo as the main access point
to residential units or commercial suites fronting the Paseo.
e. A minimum of 50% of the ground floor abutting the Paseo should consist of active
uses and/or residential uses providing primary entrances from the Paseo. (P)
f. Each ground floor commercial suite adjacent to the Paseo should provide a primary
entrance to the Paseo. (P)
Rationale for e and f: The Paseo should attract pedestrians and be a safe place for
persons to walk and gather.
6. Paseo Design Regulations
a. An ADA compliant sidewalk a minimum of 8 feet in width and clear of obstructions
shall be provided within the Paseo. (T)
b. The Paseo should be a straight as possible and avoid meanders. (T)
c. The Paseo sidewalk should be a minimum of 75% shaded. If trees are used to
provide shade, the percent shading shall be calculated based upon tree canopy at
maturity. Structural shade may also be used to comply with the shading
requirement. (P)
d. Decorative paving (e.g. pavers, permeable pavement, colored and textured concrete)
should be provided within the Paseo when located on private property. (P)
e. The Paseo should be clearly separated from vehicular maneuvering areas. (T)
f. Automobile access to on-site parking areas or garages should not cross the Paseo,
unless the Paseo is located within or abutting a dedicated street. At all such
crossings, a crosswalk a minimum of 20 feet wide consisting of paint or contrasting
pavement should be provided. (T)
g. A minimum 15-foot by 15-foot visibility triangle should be provided at any intersection
with the Paseo and on-site vehicular traffic lanes. (T)
h. Paseo segments that cross surface parking areas should be designed with the
following elements: (P)
(1) A minimum 8-foot wide grade separated walkway.
(2) A minimum of 6-foot wide landscape strips on each side of walkway (or 12 feet
on one side).
i. The following lighting treatment should be provided within the Paseo: (P)
(1) 15-foot maximum height of lighting fixtures. When adjacent to a street, taller
streetlights may be provided in addition to the pedestrian-level lighting.
(2) A minimum of one foot-candle illumination should be maintained over the Paseo
sidewalk.
(3) Uniform lighting should be placed along entire Paseo, avoiding bright high glare
areas and low visibility dark areas.
(4) Lighting within the Paseo should be illuminated from dusk until dawn.
j. One of the following identifying markers should be provided at each street entrance
to the Paseo: (P)
(1) Bollard path light.
(2) Public art.
(3) Decorative directional signage.
k. Temporary security gating—In the event that a block’s Paseo is not fully developed,
and the Paseo is not located along a dedicated street, temporary removable fencing
may be erected at the entrances to the Paseo under the following conditions: (P)
(1) A pedestrian gate is provided that is unlocked during business hours.
(2) A revocable permit is obtained.
(3) The fencing is removed upon completion of the block’s Paseo.
Rationale for a through k: The design of the Paseo should encourage use by
pedestrians. Safety, security, and accessibility should work into all design elements,
as well as uses which engage and attract pedestrians.
O. Lot Coverage. When 100% lot coverage is permitted by right, or obtained by sustainability
bonus points, the following apply: (R*)
1. Interior property line setbacks may be reduced or eliminated.
2. Frontage Zone depths and minimum street building setbacks may be reduced as
approved by the Design Review Committee per Section 1224.A.
Section 1208. Biomed.
A. Intent. The Biomed character area, which is home to the biomedical campus, should be a
lively urban district with medical workers, researchers, and students. Restaurants and shops
on Garfield Street, Roosevelt Row, and Arizona Center are all located within a short walk
and development should be designed to reinforce pedestrian convenience to these areas
through a consistent pattern of shaded sidewalks. Small plazas and courtyards are
encouraged to be located along streets, typically near building entrances, providing
gathering places and "cool pockets" on hot days. Landscaped courtyards interior to the
campus should serve as mid-block pedestrian connections. Views of the landscaped
courtyards should be visible from the street, enriching the street environment.
B. Development Regulations. The following development regulations apply to properties
located with the Biomed character area. Where a “bonus” is indicated, the development
regulation may be modified within the range stated when sustainability bonus points are
earned per Section 1223, as approved by PDD staff or the Design Review Committee.
1. Maximum height: Governed by the height map, Section 1202.B, and height transition
standards of Section 1207.E.
a. Bonus: None.
2. Maximum density: Governed by the density map, Section 1202.C.
a. Bonus: Maximum 50% increase.
3. Maximum lot coverage: No maximum.
a. Bonus: None.
4. Minimum setbacks from interior property lines: None.
5. Required parking: governed by Section 1206.
a. Bonus:
(1) Increase: Maximum 50%.
(2) Decrease: Maximum 100%.
6. Walls/Fences.
a. Frontage Zones: Per the provisions of Section 1207.D.
b. Interior property lines: Maximum wall height is the same as the maximum permitted
building height(s) for the property.
7. Signage. Signage is subject to the regulations of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Section
705, Table D-1, Commercial/Industrial Right-of-Way Low Volume Street Standards.
C. Streetscape and Frontage Zone Development Regulations. The following development
regulations apply to properties which abut the street sections indicated. All regulations in
the table are appealable to the Design Review Committee under the provisions of Section
1224 and considered as R*.
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix--Biomed
Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Minimum Frontage Zone
Street Section Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Setback Depth
Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
Garfield Street 5' 25’ 50% ALL 5' 20’
4th St. to 6th St.
McKinley Street 5' 25’ 50% ALL 5' 20’
4th St. to 7th St.
Pierce Street 5' 25’ 50% ALL 5' 15’
4th St. to 7th St.
Fillmore Street 5' 25’ 50% ALL 5' 15’
5th St. to 7th St.
Van Buren Street 0' 20’ 75% ALL 6' 12’
5th St. to 9th St.
4th Street 5' 20’ 75% SD, PO, S, 6' 14’
Garfield St. to Fillmore GA, FC
St.
5th Street 0' 20’ 75% S, GA, FC 10' 20’
Garfield St. to Fillmore
St.
5th Street 0' 20’ 75% S, GA 10' 20'
Fillmore St. to Monroe
St.
6th Street 5' 25’ 75% SD, PO, S, 10' 20’
Garfield St. to Fillmore GA, FC
St.
7th Street 0' 20’ 75% ALL 5' 15’
McKinley St. to Monroe
St.
(AFY) Active Front Yard, (PA) Patio, (SD) Stoop/Door Well, (PO) Porch, (CE) Common
Entry, (FC) Forecourt, (S) Storefront, (GA) Gallery/Arcade, (GR) Grand Entry, (ALL) All
Frontage Elements
Section 1209. Business Core.
A. Intent. The Business Core character area should function as a strong regional center for
employment, entertainment, conventions, tourism, and cultural institutions, drawing visitors
from around the country and attracting residents from throughout the region. The greatest
development intensity within the region should be located within this character area. New
development should be innovative and incorporate small public spaces that promote
pedestrian movement and comfort. The Business Core should have vibrant pedestrian
activity and be served frequently by multiple modes of high quality public transit.
B. Development Regulations. The following development regulations apply to properties
located with the Business Core character area. Where a “bonus” is indicated, the
development regulation may be modified within the range stated when sustainability bonus
points are earned per Section 1223, as approved by PDD staff or the Design Review
Committee, unless stated otherwise.
1. Maximum height: Governed by the height map, Section 1202.B, and height transition
standards of Section 1207.E.
a. Bonus (north of Madison Street): None.
b. Bonus (south of Madison Street, within the 80 feet base height category only):
Maximum height of 140 feet shall be permitted only with dedication of a 30-year
conservation easement over an existing building designated HP or HP-L, as
approved by HP. The property with the conservation easement must be located
between Madison Street and Lincoln Street, and within either the Business Core or
Warehouse character areas. Sustainability bonus points cannot be used to obtain
this height bonus.
2. Maximum density: Governed by the density map, Section 1202.C.
a. Bonus: None.
3. Maximum lot coverage: No maximum.
a. Bonus: None.
4. Minimum setbacks from interior property lines: None.
5. Required parking:
a. Minimum:
(1) Residential uses: Governed by Section 1206.
(2) Non-residential uses: None.
b. Maximum: Governed by Section 1206.
c. Bonus:
(1) Increase: Maximum 100%.
(2) Decrease: maximum 100%.
6. Walls/Fences.
a. Frontage Zones: Per the provisions of Section 1207.D.
b. Interior property lines: Maximum wall height is the same as the maximum permitted
building height(s) for the property.
7. Taylor Street Paseo. Certain properties within the Business Core are subject to the
additional development regulations of the Taylor Street Paseo, Section 1207.N. The
affected properties are shown on the map provided within that Section.
C. Streetscape and Frontage Zone Development Regulations. The following development
regulations apply to properties which abut the street sections indicated. All regulations in
the table are appealable to the Design Review Committee under the provisions of Section
1224 and considered as R*.
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix—Business Core
Frontage Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Minimum
Street Section Zone Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Setback
Depth Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
Fillmore Street 5' 25’ Minimum ALL 5' 11'
3rd Ave. to 5th St. 50%
Taylor Street Paseo 0’ 20’ Minimum SD, PO, S, 8’ 13’, or 0’
7th Ave. to 3rd Ave. 75% GA, CE when not
located within
or adjacent to
a dedicated
street
Taylor Street 5' 20' Minimum S, GA, GR 8' 14'
1st St. to 3rd St. 75%
Polk Street 0' 20’ Minimum S, GA, GR 8' 14'
Central Ave. to 2nd St. 75%
Van Buren Street 0' 20’ Minimum S, GA, GR 8' 14'
3rd Ave. to 5th St. 75%
Monroe Street 0' 20' Minimum S, GA, GR 10' 16'
5th Ave. to 5th St. 75%
Adams Street 0' 20' Minimum ALL 5' 13'
8th Ave. to 7th Ave. 75%
Adams Street 0' 20' Minimum S, GA, CE, 8' 14'
7th Ave. to 3rd Ave. 75% GR
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix—Business Core
Frontage Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Minimum
Street Section Zone Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Setback
Depth Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
Adams Street 0' 20' Minimum S, GA, CE, 10' 16'
3rd Ave. to 2nd St. 75% GR
Washington Street 0' 20' Minimum S, GA, CE, 10' 16'
8th Ave. to 2nd St. 75% GR
Washington Street 0' 20' Minimum S, GA, CE, 8' 14'
2nd St. to 7th St. 75% GR
Jefferson Street 0' 20' Minimum S, GA, CE, 8' 14'
8th Ave. to 3rd Ave. 75% GR
Jefferson Street 0' 20' Minimum S, GA, CE, 10' 16'
3rd Ave. to 5th St. 75% GR
Jefferson Street 0' 20' Minimum S, GA, CE, 8' 14'
5th St. to 7th St. 75% GR
Madison Street 0' 20' Minimum S, GA, CE, 8' 14'
8th Ave. to 7th Ave. 75% GR
Madison Street 0' 20' Minimum S, GA, CE, 8' 14'
5th Ave. to 1st St. 75% GR
Jackson Street 0' 20' Minimum S, GA, CE, 8' 14'
7th Ave. to 5th Ave. 75% GR
Jackson Street 0' 20' Minimum S, GA, CE, 8' 14'
4th Ave. to 1st Ave. 75% GR
Jackson Street 0' 20' Minimum S, GA, CE, 10' 16'
1st St. to 4th St. 75% GR
Buchanan Street 5' 25' Minimum SD, PA, PO, 8' 14’
4th St. to 7th St. 75% S, GA
Lincoln Street 5' 25' Minimum SD, PA, PO, 8' 14'
4th St. to 7th St. 75% S, GA
8th Avenue 5' 23' Minimum S, GA, GR 8' 14'
Adams St. to Madison 75%
St.
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix—Business Core
Frontage Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Minimum
Street Section Zone Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Setback
Depth Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
7th Avenue 5' 25' Minimum S, GA, GR 6' 14'
Adams St. to Jefferson 75%
St.
7th Avenue None None None ALL 6' 14'
Jefferson St. to Harrison Required Required Required
St. alignment
6th Avenue 5' 25' Minimum S, GA, GR 8' 14'
Adams St. to 50%
Washington St.
5th Avenue 5' 25' Minimum SD, PA, PO, 5' 10'
Monroe St. to 75% S, GA
Washington St.
5th Avenue 5' 25' Minimum ALL 8' West 14' West
Jefferson St. to Harrison 50%
5' East 10' East
St. alignment
4th Avenue 5' 25' Minimum ALL 8' 14'
Monroe St. to 50%
Washington St.
4th Avenue 5' 25' Minimum SD, PA, PO, 10' 16'
Washington St. to 75% S, GA
Jackson St.
3rd Avenue 5' 25' Minimum ALL 8' 14'
Fillmore St. to Van 75%
Buren St.
3rd Avenue 5' 25' Minimum ALL 8' 14'
Van Buren St. to 50%
Washington St.
3rd Avenue 5' 25' Minimum S, GA, GR 8' 14'
Washington St. to 75%
Jackson St.
2nd Avenue 5' 25' Minimum ALL Per plans approved by Street
Fillmore St. to Monroe 75% Transportation Department.
St.
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix—Business Core
Frontage Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Minimum
Street Section Zone Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Setback
Depth Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
2nd Avenue 5' 25' Minimum ALL 10' 16'
Monroe St. to Adams 75%
St.
1st Avenue 5' 25' Minimum S, GA, GR 8' 14'
Fillmore St. to Madison 75%
St.
1st Avenue None None None ALL Per plans approved by Street
Madison St. to Jackson Required Required Required Transportation Department.
St.
Central Avenue 5' 25' Minimum S, GA, GR 10' 16'
Fillmore St. to Madison 75%
St.
1st Street 5' 25' Minimum S, GA, GR 10' 16'
Fillmore St. to Jackson 75%
St.
2nd Street 5' 25' Minimum S, GA, GR 10' 16'
Fillmore St. to Jefferson 75%
St.
3rd Street 5' 25' Minimum S, GA, GR 10' 16'
Fillmore St. to Jackson 75%
St.
4th Street 5' 25' Minimum S, GA, GR 5' 10'
Jefferson St. to Jackson 75%
St.
4th Street 5' 25' Minimum SD, PA, PO, 8' 14'
Jackson St. to Lincoln 75% S, GA
St.
5th Street 5' 25' Minimum SD, PA, PO, 8' 14'
Fillmore St. to Van 75% S, GA
Buren St.
5th Street 5' 25' Minimum S, GA, GR 8' 14'
Van Buren St. to 50%
Jefferson St.
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix—Business Core
Frontage Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Minimum
Street Section Zone Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Setback
Depth Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
5th Street 5' 25' Minimum ALL 8' 14'
Buchanan St. to Lincoln 50%
St.
6th Street 5' 25' Minimum ALL 8' 14'
Buchanan St. to Lincoln 50%
St.
7th Street 5' 25' Minimum S, GA, GR 8' 14'
Monroe St. to Jefferson 75%
St.
7th Street None None None ALL 8' 14'
Jefferson St. to Lincoln Required Required Required
St.
(AFY) Active Front Yard, (PA) Patio, (SD) Stoop/Door Well, (PO) Porch, (CE) Common
Entry, (FC) Forecourt, (S) Storefront, (GA) Gallery/Arcade, (GR) Grand Entry, (ALL) All
Frontage Elements
D. Signage Regulations.
1. Signage in the Business Core Character Area shall be governed by the regulations
applicable to signs for commercial land use as established in Section 705. Signs not
visible beyond the boundaries of the lot or parcel upon which they are situated or from
any public thoroughfare are not regulated as signs.
a. Signs projecting more than six inches from the front of buildings over the public right-
of-way shall be perpendicular to the street (i.e., 90-degree angle), with a maximum of
one sign per entrance. All signs that extend into or over the public right-of-way shall
be permitted only upon issuance of a revocable permit as administered by the City of
Phoenix. Each sign shall:
(1) Identify only one on-site business.
(2) Provide a minimum eight-foot head clearance. Existing signs with a minimum of
seven feet six inches clearance may remain.
(3) Project no more than three feet into the public right-of-way.
(4) Be indirectly illuminated from a shielded light source (i.e., not backlit or "cabinet"
sign).
b. Awning signs shall be permitted by right. Awning signs shall have letters no more
than ten inches in height.
c. Signs painted on the building surface or letters mounted directly to the building
surface shall:
(1) Be a maximum of one square foot of signage for each lineal foot of building
elevation to a maximum of 100 square feet.
(2) Be at least half the vertical height of the letters to a building corner (vertical edge)
or to a roofline.
2. Signage may be increased by up to 25 percent by submitting a comprehensive sign plan
as provided in the Phoenix Sign Code, Section 705.E.
3. The foregoing requirements shall not apply to signs exceeding 56 feet in height
approved through a comprehensive sign plan and subject to the requirements of Section
705.D.3.i of the Zoning Ordinance.
4. Window signs fronting the public right-of-way shall not exceed a total of more than 20
percent of the window panel area.
5. Second-story or basement business fronting the public right-of-way may only use a sign
in a second-story window or use a wall sign. Awning signs shall not be permitted on
second-story windows.
6. Corner buildings shall be allowed signage on each street frontage.
7. Freestanding or ground signs may be allowed to a maximum of 40 square feet in area if
the primary building is set back 15 or more feet from the property line for more than 50
percent of the street frontage. Said sign shall be a maximum of three feet in height.
Signs may be up to 20 feet in height and 100 square feet in area if a comprehensive sign
plan is approved and if the project covers a full block or more.
8. Directional signs for accessory parking will be allowed to a maximum of six square feet
per sign per driveway entrance. Said sign shall be a maximum of three feet in height. No
more than 25 percent of the area may be devoted to business identification.
9. The provisions of Section 705.C.6.d (illuminated sign spacing from residential use) shall
not apply within the Business Core Character Area.
10. Signs, banners, balloons, flags, guidons, and similar devices may be erected subject to
a use permit in conjunction with special promotional events to be held within Downtown
of a civic or commercial nature. No more than 25 percent of the area may be devoted to
corporate sponsorship identity. Findings of approval of the use permit shall include:
a. The signs and other displays are appropriate in scale, composition, and manner of
display with surrounding development.
b. When two or more adjoining establishments are to participate equally in the event, a
single request for a use permit may be filed.
11. For master planned developments covering one or more downtown blocks (300 feet by
300 feet minimum), signs, banners, and flags may be erected subject to a use permit in
compliance with a comprehensive sign plan. Findings of approval of the use permit shall
include:
a. The signs and other displays are appropriate in scale, composition, and manner of
display with surrounding development.
b. The signs, banners, and flags are mounted and secured so as not to pose a
distraction or hazard to vehicles or pedestrians.
c. The signs and other displays shall include only logos, graphics and project name of
the master planned development.
12. Wall signs on buildings in a designated historic preservation zoning district exceeding
the applicable size regulations may be allowed by the Historic Preservation Commission
in accordance with the procedure set forth in Section 812.C.3 and upon the additional
finding that the proposed signage replicates the size, shape, and placement of the
original wall signage.
13. The following signs are prohibited:
a. Signs placed above or on top of any portion of the roof or front parapet.
b. Signs advertising goods or services not provided on the premises.
c. Signs utilizing moving, flashing, or rotating lights or mechanisms, except as provided
by a use permit.
14. For master planned developments covering contiguous area of at least ten acres, signs,
including those signs, banners, and flags otherwise prohibited by Sections 1209.D.10
and 13, may be erected subject to approval of a Master Planned Development Sign Plan
and related detailed project sign plans in accordance with the provisions of this section.
In recognition of design that contributes to and furthers the goals of the Downtown
Phoenix Plan, the City may approve a Master Planned Development Sign Plan to allow
larger and taller signs than are otherwise allowed within Downtown.
a. Sign types. In addition to other signs permitted in the Business Core Character Area
and those signs, banners, and flags otherwise prohibited by Sections 1209.D.10 and
13, the following sign types shall be permitted in a Master Planned Development
Sign Plan: aerial view signs, animated signs, architectural ledge signs, awning signs,
electronic message display signs, inflatable signs, kinetic signs, projected image
signs, projecting signs, roof signs, supergraphic 0signs, and wayfinding signs.
b. Master Planned Development Sign Plan application. A Master Planned Development
Sign Plan application shall include the following elements:
(1) Site plans, building elevations, or photographs, and design guidelines for each
type of sign to be permitted within the boundaries of the master planned
development. These plans and elevations/photographs shall indicate orientation,
size, location and method of installation of signs, including delineating on the site
plan the locations and orientation of ground-mounted signs and delineating on
the elevations/photographs the area in which building/structure mounted signs
will be contained. Design guidelines shall address, at a minimum, architectural
compatibility with primary structures within the master planned development.
(2) Context plan. The context plan shall include an aerial photograph of the master
planned development and the surrounding area with notations of the current land
use of parcels within the development and within 150 feet of the perimeter of the
development. The context plan shall also include photographs taken looking
outward from the perimeter of the master planned development at 100-foot
intervals for the entire boundary of the development.
(3) Standards. The standards and restrictions for each sign type shall include, but
not be limited to size, height, illumination, and durability of materials. The
standards shall also include calculations showing the maximum sign area
permitted per building face. In no case shall the standards exceed the following
limitations:
(a) Ground signs. Ground signs, which may be multi-faced, shall not exceed 50
feet in height and no single face shall exceed 600 square feet. The overall
height of ground signs, including sign embellishments, shall not exceed 67
percent of the height of the closest building.
(b) Building mounted signs. Aggregate area for building mounted signs shall not
exceed 100 percent of the facade to which the signs are attached, including
the building roof. Building mounted signs shall not project more than 20 feet
above the parapet or from the face of the building.
(c) Illumination. Signs facing or oriented to an existing residential use or structure
that has obtained a certificate of occupancy for residential use and located
closer than 60 feet to such residential use or structure shall not be illuminated
between midnight and sunrise.
(d) Temporary signs. Temporary signs shall be allowed at the same sizes and
heights as permanent signs. Temporary signs/graphics shall be allowed to
cover 100 percent of construction fencing and barricades.
(4) Narrative. A written narrative shall discuss the purpose and intent of the Master
Planned Development Sign Plan and its consistency with the Downtown Phoenix
Plan. The narrative shall also address the quantity and durability/anticipated
lifespan of the proposed sign materials.
(5) Architectural lighting. A Master Planned Development Sign Plan may include
provisions regarding architectural lighting, that shall be exempt from calculation
as sign area. Architectural lighting shall not include text, logos, messages, or
images of any kind. Architectural lighting shall not flash, blink, scroll, move or
stream.
c. Approval of a Master Planned Development Sign Plan. An application for a Master
Planned Development Sign Plan shall be submitted to the Planning and
Development Director or designee for review and approval. The Planning and
Development Director or designee shall approve, approve with conditions or deny
such application within 15 working days of receipt of the application. The Planning
and Development Director or designee shall approve such application only if the
following findings are made:
(1) The signs, banners, flags and architectural lighting are mounted and secured so
as to not pose a distraction or hazard to vehicles and pedestrians.
(2) The signs and architectural lighting are appropriate in scale, composition, and
manner of display with surrounding development.
(3) The signs and architectural lighting conform to the vision, goals and policies of
the Downtown Phoenix Plan.
d. Detailed project sign plan application. An application for approval of a detailed
project sign plan for a development within the boundaries of an approved Master
Planned Development Sign Plan shall include the following documents or graphics:
(1) Site plans, building elevations or photo simulations that show the placement of
the signs and architectural lighting within the master planned development and
on the specific building, structure or site.
(2) Graphic rendering of the signs depicting their lettering, illumination, color, shape,
area, and height.
(3) Details regarding any proposed animation or changeable messages, including
duration of each message and intensity of illumination.
(4) Proposed hours for illumination of the signs.
(5) A written narrative discussing the detailed project sign plan’s consistency with the
Master Planned Development Sign Plan.
e. Approval of detailed project sign plans. An application for a detailed project sign plan
shall be submitted to the Planning and Development Director or designee for review
for conformance with the standards, restrictions and guidelines of the Master
Planned Development Sign Plan. The Planning and Development Director or
designee shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny a detailed project sign plan
application within 15 working days of receipt of the application. The Planning and
Development Director or designee shall approve such application only if the
applicant demonstrates the following:
(1) The size and location of the signs, banners, flags or architectural lighting are
allowed under the standards of the Master Development Sign Plan.
(2) The scale, composition and manner of display of the signs, banners, flags or
architectural lighting conform to the standards and guidelines of the Master
Development Sign Plan.
(3) The type and hours of illumination and animation conform to the standards of the
Master Development Sign Plan.
(4) The durability of the materials proposed for the signs, banners, flags or
architectural lighting is appropriate for the intended lifespan of the signs, banners,
flags or architectural lighting.
f. Appeals. An applicant may appeal the decision of the Planning and Development
Director or designee regarding a Master Planned Development Sign Plan within five
working days of the decision. Appeals shall be considered by the Zoning Adjustment
Hearing Officer through the use permit process in accordance with the provisions of
Section 307 on the next available agenda. In addition to the standards of Section
307, the Zoning Adjustment Hearing Officer shall review the decision with the
standards for approval established in Section 1209.D.10.e.
g. Amendment. Any proposal to exceed the standards and restrictions established in a
Master Planned Development Sign Plan shall require amendment through the
process required for initial application and approval of a Master Planned
Development Sign Plan.
h. Specific signs. Requests for approval of specific, individual signs with a master
planned development may be included in an application for either a Master Planned
Development Sign Plan or a detailed project sign plan. Such signs shall not be
installed or erected before issuance of a sign permit from the Planning and
Development Department. If a specific, individual sign within the boundary of a
Master Planned Development Sign Plan is not included in either the Master Planned
Development Sign Plan or a detailed project sign plan, an application for such sign
shall be submitted to the Planning and Development Department for review for
conformance with the applicable sign plan and shall not be installed or erected
before issuance of a sign permit from the Planning and Development Department.
15. For master planned developments for sports, entertainment or concert venues with a
minimum of 4,000 seats, signs, including those signs, banners, and flags otherwise
prohibited by Sections 1209.D.10 and 13, may be erected subject to approval of a
Master Planned Development Sign Plan. The City may approve a Master Planned
Development Sign Plan to allow signs that are larger and taller than are otherwise
allowed within the Business Core Character Area within Downtown. All signage
permitted under this section shall be reviewed and approved in accordance with the
following:
a. Sign types. In addition to other signs permitted in the Business Core Character Area,
the following sign types shall be permitted in a master planned development: aerial
view signs, animated signs, architectural ledge signs, awning signs, electronic
message display signs, inflatable signs, kinetic signs, projected image signs,
projecting signs, roof signs, supergraphics signs, and wayfinding signs.
b. Master Planned Development Sign Plan application. An application for a Master
Planned Development Sign Plan shall be submitted to the Planning and
Development Director or designee for review and approval. A Master Planned
Development Sign Plan application shall include the following:
(1) Design guidelines. Site plans, building elevations, or photographs, and design
guidelines for each type of sign to be permitted within the boundaries of the
master planned development. These plans and elevations/photographs shall
indicate orientation, size, location and method of installation of the sign. This
shall include delineating on the site plan the locations and orientation of ground-
mounted signs and delineating on the elevations/photographs the area in which
building/structure mounted signs will be contained. Design guidelines shall
address, at a minimum, architectural compatibility with primary structures within
the master planned development.
(2) Context plan. The context plan shall include an aerial photograph of the master
planned development and the surrounding area with notations of the current land
use of parcels within the development and within 150 feet of the perimeter of the
development. The context plan shall also include photographs taken looking
outward from the perimeter of the master planned development at 100-foot
intervals for the entire boundary of the development.
(3) Standards. The standards and restrictions for each sign type shall include, but
not be limited to size, height, illumination, and durability of materials. The
standards shall also include calculations showing the maximum sign area
permitted per building face. In no case shall the standards exceed the following
limitations:
(a) Building mounted signs. Aggregate area for building mounted signs shall not
exceed 25 percent on one elevation facing an arterial street and 10 percent
on the other elevations, with the ability to transfer up to five percent from the
arterial elevation to one other elevation. Building mounted signs shall not
project more than 20 feet above the parapet or from the face of the building. If
the sign is placed at an angle to the building elevation, the applicant must
specify to which elevation the sign area will be counted.
(b) Supergraphics. Supergraphics signs not to exceed 300 square feet or five
percent of building elevation whichever is less.
(c) Illumination. Signs facing or oriented to an existing residential use or structure
that has obtained a certificate of occupancy for residential use and located
closer than 60 feet to such residential use or structure shall not be illuminated
between midnight and sunrise.
(d) Temporary signs. Temporary signs may be allowed at the same sizes and
heights as permanent signs. Temporary signs or graphics shall be allowed to
cover 100 percent of construction fencing and barricades.
(4) Narrative. A written narrative shall discuss the purpose and intent of the Master
Planned Development Sign Plan and its consistency with the Downtown Phoenix
Plan. The narrative shall also address the quantity and durability or anticipated
lifespan of the proposed sign materials.
(5) Architectural lighting. A Master Planned Development Sign Plan may include
provisions regarding architectural lighting, that shall be exempt from calculation
as sign area. Architectural lighting shall not include text, logos, messages, or
images of any kind. Architectural lighting shall not flash, blink, scroll, move, or
stream.
c. Approval of a Master Planned Development Sign Plan. The Planning and
Development Director or designee shall approve, approve with conditions or deny
such application. The Planning and Development Director or designee shall approve
such application in writing only if the following findings are made:
(1) The signs, banners, flags and architectural lighting are mounted, secured, and
operated so as to not pose a nuisance.
(2) The signs and architectural lighting are appropriate in scale, composition, and
manner of display with surrounding development.
(3) The signs and architectural lighting are consistent with the vision, goals and
policies of the Downtown Phoenix Plan dated December 14, 2004.
d. Appeals. An applicant may appeal the decision of the Planning and Development
Director or designee regarding the Master Planned Development Sign Plan within
five working days of the decision. Appeals shall be considered by the Zoning
Adjustment Hearing Officer through the use permit process in accordance with the
provisions of Section 307 on the next available agenda. In addition to the standards
of Section 307, the Zoning Adjustment Hearing Officer shall review the decision with
the standards for approval established in Section 1209.D.15.c.
e. Amendment. Any proposal to exceed the standards and restrictions established in a
Master Planned Development Sign Plan shall require amendment through the
process required for initial application and approval of a Master Planned
Development Sign Plan.
16. Signage may be increased by up to 25 percent if a comprehensive sign plan is approved
as provided in Section 705.E of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance.
Section 1210. Central Park.
A. Intent. Central Park has a strong historic single-family form and scale that should be
preserved as this area redevelops. A seamless integration of new buildings within the
existing fabric should be promoted. Mixed uses, home offices and workshops are allowed in
the primary structure and in appropriately scaled accessory buildings. Landscaping is
residential in character with front yards separating the building from the sidewalk. Sidewalks
are shaded by trees in parkway strips. Parking should be on the street and within detached
garages behind the primary structure.
B. Development Regulations. The following development regulations apply to properties
located with the Central Park character area. Where a “bonus” is indicated, the
development regulation may be modified within the range stated when sustainability bonus
points are earned per Section 1223, as approved by PDD staff or the Design Review
Committee.
1. Maximum height:
a. Main building: Governed by the height map, Section 1202.B, and height transition
standards of Section 1207.E.
b. Accessory structures, including Accessory Dwelling Units: 30 feet.
c. Bonus: None.
2. Maximum density: Governed by the density map, Section 1202.C.
a. Bonus: Maximum 50% increase.
3. Maximum lot coverage: 50%.
a. Bonus: None.
b. Additional lot coverage of 10% (total 60%) is allowed for accessory structures.
4. Minimum setbacks from interior property lines.
a. Primary building:
(1) Side: 5 feet.
(2) Rear: 40 feet.
b. Accessory structures:
(1) Side: 3 feet.
(2) Rear: 5 feet, which may be reduced to 0 feet when abutting a fully dedicated
alley which is not a designated Buffer Alley per Section 1202.E.
5. Required parking: Governed by Section 1206.
a. Bonus:
(1) Increase: Maximum 50%.
(2) Decrease: Maximum 50%.
6. Walls/Fences.
a. Frontage Zones: Per the provisions of Section 1207.D.
(1) Walls/fences taller than 40 inches may not be provided closer to the street than
the front façade of the structure. This provision does not apply to street side
yards.
b. Interior property lines: Maximum height of 6 feet.
7. Signage. Signage is subject to the regulations of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Section
705, Table D-1, Nonresidential Activity in a Residential District Right-of-Way Standards.
C. Streetscape and Frontage Zone Development Regulations. The following development
regulations apply to properties which abut the street sections indicated. All regulations in
the table are appealable to the Design Review Committee under the provisions of Section
1224 and considered as R*.
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix—Central Park
Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Minimum Frontage
Street Section Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Setback Zone Depth
Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
Tonto Street 5' 25' Minimum AFY, SD, PA, 5' 12'
Alley west of 1st St. 50% PO
to 4th St.
Hadley Street 5' 25' Minimum AFY, SD, PA, 5' 12'
Alley west of 1st St. 50% PO
to 1st St.
Hadley Street 15' 25' Minimum AFY, SD, PA, 5' 12'
1st St. to 2nd St. 50% PO
Hadley Street 5' 25' Minimum AFY, SD, PA, 5' 12'
2nd St. to 4th St. 50% PO, CE, S
1st Street 15' 25' Minimum AFY, SD, PA, 5' 12'
South of Grant St. to 50% PO, S
north of Buckeye Rd.
2nd Street 15' 25' Minimum AFY, SD, PA, 5' 12'
South of Grant St. to 50% PO
north of Buckeye Rd.
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix—Central Park
Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Minimum Frontage
Street Section Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Setback Zone Depth
Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
3rd Street 15' 25' Minimum AFY, SD, PA, 5' 20'
South of Grant St. to 50% PO
north of Hadley St.
4th Street 15' 25' Minimum AFY, SD, PA, 5' 12’
South of Grant St. to 50% PO
Hadley St.
(AFY) Active Front Yard, (PA) Patio, (SD) Stoop/Door Well, (PO) Porch, (CE) Common
Entry, (FC) Forecourt, (S) Storefront, (GA) Gallery/Arcade, (GR) Grand Entry, (ALL) All
Frontage Elements
Section 1211. Commercial Corridors.
A. Intent. The commercial corridors should become attractive gateways into downtown. New
wider and shaded sidewalks should provide safety and comfort, making it easier for
pedestrians and transit riders to access services in the corridor. New mixed-use
developments are envisioned to line 7th Avenue, with small restaurants, retail and other
businesses serving the surrounding neighborhoods. Along Central Avenue, a street wall
should be established that frames the street to create a gateway entrance into Downtown
from the south.
B. Development Regulations. The following development regulations apply to properties
located with the Commercial Corridors character area. Where a “bonus” is indicated, the
development regulation may be modified within the range stated when sustainability bonus
points are earned per Section 1223, as approved by PDD staff or the Design Review
Committee.
1. Maximum height:
a. Main building: Governed by the height map, Section 1202.B, and height transition
standards of Section 1207.E.
b. Accessory structures, including Accessory Dwelling Units: 20 feet.
c. Bonus: None.
2. Maximum density: Governed by the density map, Section 1202.C.
a. Bonus: None.
3. Maximum lot coverage: 50%.
a. Bonus: Maximum 85% lot coverage.
b. Additional lot coverage of 10% (total 60%) is allowed for an ADU.
4. Minimum setbacks from interior property lines:
a. Primary building:
(1) Side: 5 feet.
(2) Rear: 15 feet, which may be reduced to 0 feet when abutting a fully dedicated
alley which is not a designated Buffer Alley.
5. Required parking: Governed by Section 1206.
a. Bonus:
(1) Increase: Maximum 50%.
(2) Decrease: Maximum 50%.
6. Walls/Fences.
a. Frontage Zones: Per the provisions of Section 1207.D.
b. Interior property lines: Maximum height of 6 feet.
7. Signage. Signage is subject to the regulations of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Section
705, Table D-1, Commercial/Industrial Right-of-Way Low Volume Street Standards.
C. Streetscape and Frontage Zone Development Regulations. The following development
regulations apply to properties which abut the street sections indicated. All regulations in
the table are appealable to the Design Review Committee under the provisions of Section
1224 and considered as R*.
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix—Commercial Corridors
Minimu
Minimum Minimum Minimum
Frontage Allowed Frontage m
Street Section Building Building Streetscape
Zone Depth Elements Sidewalk
Setback Frontage Zone Depth
Width
7th Avenue Corridor
7th Avenue 5' 25' Minimum 50% ALL 6' 12'
Alley north of
Roosevelt St. to
Fillmore St.
Roosevelt Street 5' 25' Minimum 50% AFY, SD, PA, PO, 5' 11'
Alley west of 7th S, GA
Ave. to alley east of
7th Ave.
McKinley Street 5' 25' Minimum 50% AFY, SD, PA, PO, 5' 10' west of 7th
Alley west of 7th S, GA Ave.
Ave. to alley east of
7th Ave. 14' east of 7th
Ave.
Pierce Street 5' 25' Minimum 50% AFY, SD, PA, PO, 5' 10'
Alley west of 7th S, GA
Ave. to 7th Ave.
Fillmore Street 5' 25' Minimum 50% AFY, SD, PA, PO, 5' 12'
Alley west of 7th S, GA
Ave. to alley east of
7th Ave.
Central Avenue South Corridor
Central Avenue 0' 20' Minimum 50% S, GA, SD, PO,CE 5' 11'
Grant St. to Hadley
St.
Central Avenue 0' 20' Minimum 50% S, GA, SD, PO, CE 5' 10'
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix—Commercial Corridors
Minimu
Minimum Minimum Minimum
Frontage Allowed Frontage m
Street Section Building Building Streetscape
Zone Depth Elements Sidewalk
Setback Frontage Zone Depth
Width
Hadley St. to
Buckeye Rd.
Grant Street 5' 25' Minimum 50% SD, PA, PO, S, GA 5' 15'
2nd Ave. to 2nd St.
Sherman Street 5' 25' Minimum 50% SD, PA, PO, S, GA 5' 11'
2nd Ave. to 1st Ave.
crossover
Hadley Street 5' 25' Minimum 50% SD, PA, PO, S, GA 5' 12'
1st Ave. to alley east
of Central Ave.
Tonto Street 5' 25' Minimum 50% SD, PA, PO, S, GA 5' 12'
1st Ave. to alley east
of Central Ave.
Buckeye Road 0' 20' Minimum 50% S, GA 5' 12'
Alley west of Central
Ave. to 3rd St.
Buckeye Road 0' 20' Minimum 50% S, GA 7' 12’
Alley west of 3rd St.
to 4th St.
2nd Avenue 0' 20' Minimum 50% ALL 5' 10'
Grant St. to
Sherman St.
1st Avenue 0' 20’ Minimum 50% S, GA 5' 19'
Grant St. to
Sherman St.
1st Avenue 5' 25' Minimum 50% AFY, SD, PA, PO, 5' 18'
Hadley St. to Tonto S, GA
St.
1st Street 15' 25' Minimum 50% AFY, SD, PA, PO, 5' 12'
South of Grant St. S, GA
1st Street 10' 20' Minimum 50% AFY, SD, PA, PO, 5' 12'
Adjacent to Buckeye S, GA
Rd.
2nd Street 15' 25' Minimum 50% AFY, SD, PA, PO 5' 12'
South of Grant St.
2nd Street 10' 20' Minimum 50% AFY, SD, PA, PO, 5' 12'
S, GA
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix—Commercial Corridors
Minimu
Minimum Minimum Minimum
Frontage Allowed Frontage m
Street Section Building Building Streetscape
Zone Depth Elements Sidewalk
Setback Frontage Zone Depth
Width
Adjacent to Buckeye
Rd.
3rd Street 10' 20' Minimum 50% AFY, SD, PA, PO, 5' 20'
Tonto St. to Buckeye S, GA
Rd.
4th Street 10' 20' Minimum 50% AFY, SD, PA, PO, 5' 10'
Tonto St. to Buckeye S, GA
Rd.
(AFY) Active Front Yard, (PA) Patio, (SD) Stoop/Door Well, (PO) Porch, (CE) Common
Entry, (FC) Forecourt, (S) Storefront, (GA) Gallery/Arcade, (GR) Grand Entry, (ALL) All
Frontage Elements
Section 1212. Downtown Gateway.
A. Intent. The Downtown Gateway should be a high-density, vibrant corridor with a mix of
residential and commercial development designed for transit riders. Restaurants with
outdoor dining, and commercial and retail uses should be placed along the street to invite
pedestrian exploration. Streetscape improvements throughout the area should be
encouraged to make light rail accessible and vibrant.
B. Development Standards. The following development regulations apply to properties
located with the Downtown Gateway character area. Where a “bonus” is indicated, the
development regulation may be modified within the range stated when sustainability bonus
points are earned per Section 1223, as approved by PDD staff or the Design Review
Committee.
1. Maximum height:
a. Main building: Governed by the height map, Section 1202.B, and height transition
standards of Section 1207.E.
b. Bonus: None, except north of Garfield Street, McKinley Street and south of Portland
Street where a 30% bonus is allowed.
2. Maximum density: Governed by the density map, Section 1202.C.
a. Bonus: Maximum 50% increase.
3. Maximum lot coverage: 100%.
a. Bonus: None.
4. Minimum setbacks from interior property lines: None.
5. Required parking: Governed by Section 1206.
a. Bonus:
(1) Increase: Maximum 50%.
(2) Decrease: Maximum 100%.
6. Walls/Fences.
a. Frontage Zones: Per the provisions of Section 1207.D.
b. Interior property lines:
(1) When a fully dedicated alley is present, view fencing shall be provided for all
portions of walls above 40 inches in height.
(2) When not adjacent to an alley, maximum wall height is the same as the
maximum permitted building height(s) for the property.
7. Signage. Signage is subject to the regulations of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Section
705, Table D-1, Nonresidential Activity in a Residential District Right-of-Way Standards.
C. Streetscape and Frontage Zone Development Regulations. The following development
regulations apply to properties which abut the street sections indicated. All regulations in the
table are appealable to the Design Review Committee under the provisions of Section 1224
and considered as R*.
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix—Downtown Gateway
Minimum Frontage Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Street Section Building Zone Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Setback Depth Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
Coronado Road 0' 20' Minimum 75% SD, PA, 8' 16'
Central Ave. to PO, S, GA
Alvarado Rd.
McDowell Road 0' 20' Minimum 75% SD, PA, 8' 16'
1st Ave. to Alvarado PO, S, GA,
Rd. GR
Lynwood Street 0' 20' Minimum 75% SD, PA, 8' 16'
West of Central Ave. PO, S, GA
to Central Ave.
Willetta Street 0' 20' Minimum 50% ALL 8' 16'
Central Ave. to 1st
St.
Culver Street 0' 20' Minimum 50% ALL 8' 16'
West of Central Ave.
to Central Ave.
Roosevelt Street 0' 20' Minimum 75% SD, PA, 8' 16'
Alley west of 1st PO, S, GA
Ave. to alley east of
Central Ave.
Portland Street 0' 20' Minimum 75% SD, PA, 8' 16'
West of Central Ave. PO, S, GA
to Central Ave.
Portland Street 0' 20' Minimum 50% ALL 8' 16'
Central Ave. to alley
east of Central Ave.
Garfield Street 0' 20' Minimum 50% ALL 8' 16'
Central Ave. to alley
east of Central Ave.
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix—Downtown Gateway
Minimum Frontage Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Street Section Building Zone Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Setback Depth Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
McKinley Street 0' 20' Minimum 50% ALL 8' 16'
Alley west of 1st
Ave. to alley east of
Central Ave.
Pierce Street 0' 20' Minimum 50% ALL 8' 16'
Central Ave. to alley
east of Central Ave.
Fillmore Street 0' 20' Minimum 50% ALL 8' 16'
Alley west of 1st
Ave. to alley east of
Central Ave.
1st Avenue 5' 25' N/A SD, PO 8' 16'
Alley north of
Almeria Rd. to
McDowell Rd.
1st Avenue 0' 20' Minimum 75% ALL 8' 16'
Roosevelt St. to
McKinley St.
1st Avenue 0' 20' Minimum 75% ALL 8' 16'
McKinley St. to
Fillmore St.
Central Avenue 0', unless more 20' Minimum 75% ALL per adopted per adopted
Coronado Rd. to needed to Central Central
Culver St. comply with Avenue Avenue
Central Avenue Development Development
Development Standards Standards
Standards
Central Avenue 0' 20' Minimum 75% ALL 8' 16'
Culver St. to
Roosevelt St.
Central Avenue 0' 20' Minimum 75% ALL 8' 16'
Roosevelt St. to
Fillmore St.
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix—Downtown Gateway
Minimum Frontage Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Street Section Building Zone Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Setback Depth Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
Alvarado Road 5’ 20’ 50% SD, PA, 8' 16'
Coronado Rd. to PO, S, GA
McDowell Rd.
1st St. 0' 20' Minimum 75% SD, PA, S 8' 16'
McDowell Rd. to
Willetta St. (Cancer
Survivor Park)
(AFY) Active Front Yard, (PA) Patio, (SD) Stoop/Door Well, (PO) Porch, (CE) Common
Entry, (FC) Forecourt, (S) Storefront, (GA) Gallery/Arcade, (GR) Grand Entry, (ALL) All
Frontage Elements
Section 1213. East Evergreen.
A. Intent. The East Evergreen Character Area centers on its incorporation of a historic
residential district along with residential offices and newer mixed-use/mid-rise
developments. New developments should be compatible with the size of existing buildings,
providing an alternative to high-rise housing and offices downtown. New mixed-use projects
should be integrated with the historic character of the area by preserving the existing
planting strips, palm trees, and landscaped yards on sites within or adjacent to the Historic
District. Streets and pedestrian corridors should be inviting and conveniently link the
neighborhood to services, parks, cultural facilities and public transportation.
B. Development Standards. The following development regulations apply to properties
located with the East Evergreen character area. Where a “bonus” is indicated, the
development regulation may be modified within the range stated when sustainability bonus
points are earned per Section 1223, as approved by PDD staff or the Design Review
Committee.
1. Maximum height:
a. Main building: Governed by the height map, Section 1202.B, and height transition
standards of Section 1207.E.
b. Accessory structures, including Accessory Dwelling Units: 30 feet.
c. Bonus: None.
2. Maximum density: Governed by the density map, Section 1202.C.
a. Bonus: None.
3. Maximum lot coverage: 50%.
a. Additional lot coverage of 10% (total 60%) is allowed for accessory structures.
b. Additional bonus: None.
4. Minimum setbacks from interior property lines.
a. Primary building:
(1) Sides: 3 feet; combined total of 10 feet required.
(2) Rear: 10 feet.
b. Accessory buildings:
(1) Side: 3 feet.
(2) Rear 0 feet.
5. Required parking: Governed by Section 1206.
a. Bonus: None.
6. Walls/Fences.
a. Frontage Zones: Per the provisions of Section 1207.D.
b. Interior property lines: Maximum height of 6 feet.
7. Signage. Signage is subject to the regulations of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Section
705, Table D-1, Commercial/Industrial Right-of-Way Low Volume Street Standards.
C. Streetscape and Frontage Zone Development Regulations. The following development
regulations apply to properties which abut the street sections indicated. All regulations in
the table are appealable to the Design Review Committee under the provisions of Section
1224 and considered as R*.
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix—East Evergreen
Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Street Minimum Frontage
Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Section Setback Zone Depth
Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
Lynwood 15' 30' Minimum AFY, SD, PA, 5' 10' North
Street 50% PO 9' South
West of 7th
St. to 4th St.
Willetta Street 15' 30' Minimum AFY, SD, PA, 5' 19'
West of 7th 50% PO
St. to east of
3rd St.
5th Street 5' 20' Minimum AFY, SD, PA, 5' 19'
South of 50% PO
McDowell Rd.
to Interstate
10 Freeway
(AFY) Active Front Yard, (PA) Patio, (SD) Stoop/Door Well, (PO) Porch, (CE) Common
Entry, (FC) Forecourt, (S) Storefront, (GA) Gallery/Arcade, (GR) Grand Entry, (ALL) All
Frontage Elements
A. Additional Design Regulations—East Evergreen.
1. Building materials. Primary buildings should incorporate a minimum 25 percent of
brick, brick veneer, or decorative masonry on every facade visible from the exterior. (P)
2. Window design. Window format should be square or rectangular and similar to existing
historic buildings. Window openings should be recessed or articulated, particularly at the
ground level. (P)
3. Roof forms. Buildings should incorporate one or more of the following roof forms:
gable (including clipped, and with parapets), hip, and flat with parapets. (P)
Rationale for D.1 through D.3: Building materials, building design, and building accents
should be inspired by the context of the area and create a coherent architectural concept
that is consistent with and strengthens the historic character of East Evergreen, preferably
by using historic materials and design elements already found within the Character Area.
Section 1214. Evans Churchill East.
A. Intent. The primary intent of the Evans Churchill East Character Area is to be a continuously
evolving arts-oriented mixed-use community. Home to unique art galleries and trendy
restaurants, the existing character consisting of arts-oriented uses coupled with various
small businesses should be preserved and additional developments should be consistent
with this character. New mixed-use development shares space with old bungalows and
historic homes, and new live-work units provide additional commercial spaces to cater to the
needs of artists. New pedestrian corridors create connectivity to surrounding destinations,
such as the downtown ASU campus to the south and Hance Park to the north, while new
open spaces will be added to serve the increasing number of new residents and create
opportunities for public gatherings and art display.
B. Development Regulations. The following development regulations apply to properties
located with the Evans Churchill East character area. Where a “bonus” is indicated, the
development regulation may be modified within the range stated when sustainability bonus
points are earned per Section 1223, as approved by PDD staff or the Design Review
Committee.
1. Maximum height:
a. Main building: Governed by the height map, Section 1202.B, and height transition
standards of Section 1207.E.
b. Bonus north of Garfield Street: None.
c. Bonus south of Garfield Street: 10% maximum increase.
2. Maximum density: Governed by the density map, Section 1202.C.
a. Bonus: Maximum 50% increase.
3. Maximum lot coverage:
a. North of Garfield Street: 50%.
b. South of Garfield Street: 90%
c. Bonus (both areas): Maximum 100% lot coverage.
4. Minimum setbacks from interior property lines:
a. Primary building:
(1) Side: 5 feet.
(2) Rear: 15 feet, which may be reduced to 0 feet when abutting a fully dedicated
alley which is not a designated Buffer Alley per Section 1202.E.
5. Required parking: Governed by Section 1206.
a. Bonus:
(1) Increase: Maximum 100%.
(2) Decrease: Maximum 100%.
6. Walls/Fences.
a. Frontage Zones: Per the provisions of Section 1207.D.
b. Interior property lines: Maximum height of 6 feet.
7. Signage. Signage is subject to the regulations of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Section
705, Table D-1, Commercial/Industrial Right-of-Way Low Volume Street Standards
C. Streetscape and Frontage Zone Development Regulations. The following development
regulations apply to properties which abut the street sections indicated. All regulations in
the table are appealable to the Design Review Committee under the provisions of Section
1224 and considered as R*.
Frontage and Streetscape Zone Matrix—Evans Churchill East
Minimum Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Street Frontage
Building Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Section Zone Depth
Setback Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
Moreland 10' 30' Minimum 75% AFY, SD, PA, 5' 20'
Street PO, FC
3rd St. to
7th St.
Portland 10' 30' Minimum 75% AFY, SD, PA, 5' 20'
Street PO, FC
3rd St. to
7th St.
Roosevelt 5' 30' Minimum 75% SD, PA, PO, S, 7' 17'
Street GA
3rd St. to
7th St.
Garfield 5' 30' Minimum 50% ALL 5' 20'
Street
4th St. to
6th St.
Garfield 5' 30' Minimum 50% ALL 5' 12'
Street
6th St. to
7th St.
Frontage and Streetscape Zone Matrix—Evans Churchill East
Minimum Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Street Frontage
Building Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Section Zone Depth
Setback Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
McKinley 5' 30' Minimum 50% ALL 5' 20'
Street
6th St. to
7th St.
3rd Street 5' 30' Minimum 75% ALL 5' 17'
North of
Moreland
St. to
Portland
St.
3rd Street 5' 30' Minimum 75% ALL 5' 15'
Portland
St. to
Roosevelt
St.
4th Street 5' 30' Minimum 75% AFY, SD, PA, 5' 15'
Roosevelt S
St. to
Garfield St.
5th Street 5' 30' Minimum 75% AFY, SD, PA, 5' 20'
Moreland S
St. to
Roosevelt
St.
5th Street 5' 30' Minimum 75% AFY, SD, PA, 5' 20'
Roosevelt S
St. to
Garfield St.
6th Street 5' 30' Minimum 75% SD, PA, S, GA 5' 20'
Roosevelt
St. to
Garfield St.
7th Street 0' 20' Minimum 75% ALL 8' 16'
Moreland
St. to
Frontage and Streetscape Zone Matrix—Evans Churchill East
Minimum Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Street Frontage
Building Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Section Zone Depth
Setback Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
McKinley
St.
(AFY) Active Front Yard, (PA) Patio, (SD) Stoop/Door Well, (PO) Porch, (CE) Common
Entry, (FC) Forecourt, (S) Storefront, (GA) Gallery/Arcade, (GR) Grand Entry, (ALL) All
Frontage Elements
Section 1215. Evans Churchill West.
A. Intent. The primary intent of the Evans Churchill West Character Area is to serve as a
transition between the mixed-use neighborhoods to the north and east, the Downtown
Gateway Corridor to the west, and the Biomed Cluster to the south. Ideally the area should
embrace architecturally innovative high-density residential buildings and offer a dynamic mix
of commercial and retail uses. It is the home of the downtown public market and will develop
into a destination for retail, restaurants and nightlife. Adjacency to major destinations
creates the potential for this area to serve as a major pedestrian thoroughfare. New
developments should reflect the innovation of the area and incorporate shade structures and
landscaping to create comfortable and inviting pedestrian thoroughfares. Outdoor dining and
retail shops will enhance the pedestrian experience and encourage exploration and
patronage. Buildings oriented to the street with ample sidewalk space allow for pedestrian
amenities in addition to the tree-shaded sidewalks in parkway-like strips.
B. Development Regulations. The following development regulations apply to properties
located with the Evans Churchill West character area. Where a “bonus” is indicated, the
development regulation may be modified within the range stated when sustainability bonus
points are earned per Section 1223, as approved by PDD staff or the Design Review
Committee.
1. Maximum height:
a. Main building: Governed by the height map, Section 1202.B, and height transition
standards of Section 1207.E.
b. Bonus: For properties located between Pierce Street and Fillmore Street, a
maximum additional 100-foot height bonus (in addition to the height permitted per
Section 1202.B) may be permitted through a Sustainability Bonus approved by the
Design Review Committee per Section 1224.
2. Maximum density: Governed by the density map, Section 1202.C.
a. Bonus: Maximum 100% increase.
3. Maximum lot coverage: 75%.
a. Bonus: Maximum 100% lot coverage.
4. Minimum setbacks from interior property lines: None.
5. Required parking: Governed by Section 1206.
a. Bonus:
(1) Increase: Maximum 100%.
(2) Decrease: Maximum 100%.
6. Walls/Fences.
a. Frontage Zones: Per the provisions of Section 1207.D.
b. Interior property lines: Maximum wall height is the same as the maximum permitted
building height(s) for the property.
7. Signage. Signage is subject to the regulations of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Section
705, Table D-1, Commercial/Industrial Right-of-Way Low Volume Street Standards
C. Streetscape and Frontage Zone Development Regulations. The following development
regulations apply to properties which abut the street sections indicated. All regulations in
the table are appealable to the Design Review Committee under the provisions of Section
1224 and considered as R*.
Frontage and Streetscape Zone Matrix—Evans Churchill West
Minimum Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Street Frontage
Building Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Section Zone Depth
Setback Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
Moreland 5' 30' Minimum 50% SD, PA, CE, S, 5' 20'
Street GA
1st St. to
3rd St.
Portland 5' 30' Minimum 50% SD, PA, PO, 5' 20'
Street CE, S, GA
Alley east
of Central
Ave. to 3rd
St.
Roosevelt 5' 30' Minimum 75% SD, PA, PO, S, 12' 18'
Street GA
Alley east
of Central
Ave. to 4th
St.
Garfield 5' 30' Minimum 50% SD, PA, PO, S, 5' 20'
Street GA
Alley east
of Central
Ave. to 4th
St.
McKinley 5' 30' Minimum 50% SD, PA, PO, S, 5' 20'
Street GA
Alley east
of Central
Ave. to 4th
St.
Frontage and Streetscape Zone Matrix—Evans Churchill West
Minimum Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Street Frontage
Building Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Section Zone Depth
Setback Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
Pierce 5' 30' Minimum 50% SD, PA, PO, S, 5' 20'
Street GA
Alley east
of Central
Ave. to 2nd
St. and 3rd
St. to 4th
St.
Fillmore 5' 30' Minimum 50% PA, S, GA, CE 8' 14'
Street
Alley east
of Central
Ave. to 1st
St.
Fillmore 5' 30' Minimum 50% PA, S, GA, CE 5' 15'
Street
1st St. to
2nd St.
Fillmore 5' 30' Minimum 50% PA, S, GA, CE 5' North 10' North
Street 8' South 15' South
2nd St. to
3rd St.
Fillmore 5' 30' Minimum 50% PA, S, GA, CE 8' North 15’
Street 5' South
3rd St. to
5th St.
1st Street 0' 20' Minimum 75% SD, PA, PO, S, Per plans approved by Street
Moreland GA Transportation Department.
St. to
Fillmore St.
2nd Street 0' 20' Minimum 75% SD, PA, PO, S, 5' 20'
Moreland GA
St. to
McKinley
St.
Frontage and Streetscape Zone Matrix—Evans Churchill West
Minimum Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Street Frontage
Building Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Section Zone Depth
Setback Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
2nd Street 0' 20' Minimum 75% SD, PA, PO, S, 5' 15' East
McKinley GA 25' West
St. to
Fillmore St.
3rd Street 5' 30' Minimum 75% SD, PA, PO, S, 5' 15'
Moreland GA
St. to
Portland
St.
3rd Street 5' 30' Minimum 75% SD, PA, PO, S, 5' 20' East
Portland GA 10' West
St. to alley
north of
Roosevelt
St.
3rd Street 5' 30' Minimum 75% SD, PA, PO, S, 5' 10'
Alley north GA
of
Roosevelt
St. to
Roosevelt
St.
3rd Street 5' 30' Minimum 75% SD, PA, PO, S, 5' 15'
Roosevelt GA, CE
St. to
Fillmore St.
4th Street 5' 30' Minimum 75% SD, PA, PO, S, 5' 15'
Roosevelt GA, CE
St. to
Fillmore St.
(AFY) Active Front Yard, (PA) Patio, (SD) Stoop/Door Well, (PO) Porch, (CE) Common
Entry, (FC) Forecourt, (S) Storefront, (GA) Gallery/Arcade, (GR) Grand Entry, (ALL) All
Frontage Elements
Section 1216. McDowell Corridor.
A. Intent. The McDowell Corridor should create an attractive, pedestrian-oriented mixed-use
street as a gateway to the historic neighborhoods and Downtown Phoenix. The mixture of
professional offices and retail establishments should become more urban and pedestrian
oriented. New structures should be built closer to the street and parking should be located
behind buildings.
B. Development Regulations. The following development regulations apply to properties
located with the McDowell Corridor character area. Where a “bonus” is indicated, the
development regulation may be modified within the range stated when sustainability bonus
points are earned per Section 1223, as approved by PDD staff or the Design Review
Committee.
1. Maximum height:
a. Main building: Governed by the height map, Section 1202.B, and height transition
standards of Section 1207.E.
b. Bonus: None.
2. Maximum density: Governed by the density map, Section 1202.C.
a. Bonus: Maximum 50% increase.
3. Maximum lot coverage: 50%.
a. Bonus: Maximum 85% lot coverage.
4. Minimum setbacks from interior property lines:
a. Primary building:
(1) Side: 5 feet.
(2) Rear:15 feet.
5. Required parking: Governed by Section 1206.
a. Bonus:
(1) Increase: Maximum 50%.
(2) Decrease: Maximum 25%.
6. Walls/Fences.
a. Frontage Zones: Per the provisions of Section 1207.D.
b. Interior property lines: Maximum height of 6 feet.
7. Signage. Signage is subject to the regulations of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Section
705, Table D-1, Commercial/Industrial Right-of-Way Low Volume Street Standards
C. Streetscape and Frontage Zone Development Regulations. The following development
regulations apply to properties which abut the street sections indicated. All regulations in
the table are appealable to the Design Review Committee under the provisions of Section
1224 and considered as R*.
Frontage and Streetscape Zone Matrix—McDowell Corridor
Minimum Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Street Frontage
Building Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Section Zone Depth
Setback Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
McDowell 10’, or 0’ if a 20' Minimum 75% S, SD, PO, GA 5' 15’
Road minimum 50’
West of 7th ROW is
Ave. to dedicated for
east of 1st the half street
Ave.
McDowell 10’, or 0’ if a 20' Minimum 75% S, GA 6' 16'
Road minimum 50’
3rd St. to ROW is
7th St. dedicated for
the half street
Lynwood 15' 30' Minimum 50% AFY, SD, PA, 5' 15'
Street PO
East of 7th
Ave. (north
side only)
Lynwood 15' 30' Minimum 75% AFY, SD, PA, 5' 15'
Street PO
5th St. to
west of 7th
St.
7th Avenue 0’ 20' Minimum 75% S, GA, CE 7' 17’
Alley north
of
McDowell
to Lynwood
St.
5th Avenue 5' 30' Minimum 50% SD, S, PO 5' 16'
Alley north
of
McDowell
Rd. to alley
Frontage and Streetscape Zone Matrix—McDowell Corridor
Minimum Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Street Frontage
Building Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Section Zone Depth
Setback Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
south of
McDowell
Rd.
3rd Avenue 5' 30' Minimum 75% SD, S, PA, PO 5' North of
Alley north McDowell:
of 10’
McDowell South of
Rd. to alley McDowell:
south of as
McDowell established
Rd.
3rd Street 5' 30' Minimum 50% SD, S, GA, PA, 6' 16’
Alley north PO, CE
of
McDowell
Rd. to alley
south of
McDowell
Rd.
5th Street 5' 30' Minimum 50% SD, S, PO 5' 15'
McDowell
Rd. to
Lynwood
St.
7th Street 0' 20' Minimum 50% ALL 6' 16', or as
Alley north may be
of required by
McDowell ADOT
to adjacent to
Moreland freeway
St. ramps
(AFY) Active Front Yard, (PA) Patio, (SD) Stoop/Door Well, (PO) Porch, (CE) Common
Entry, (FC) Forecourt, (S) Storefront, (GA) Gallery/Arcade, (GR) Grand Entry, (ALL) All
Frontage Elements
Section 1217. Roosevelt East.
A. Intent. The Roosevelt East Character Area is comprised of a mixture of historic buildings
with larger blocks of land with high-rise entitlements. The area will serve as a transition zone
from the smaller scale Roosevelt South and Roosevelt North Character Areas to the
Downtown Gateway Character Area located to the east along the light rail.
B. Development Regulations. The following development regulations apply to properties
located with the Roosevelt East character area. Where a “bonus” is indicated, the
development regulation may be modified within the range stated when sustainability bonus
points are earned per Section 1223, as approved by PDD staff or the Design Review
Committee.
1. Maximum height:
a. Main building: Governed by the height map, Section 1202.B, and height transition
standards of Section 1207.E.
(1) Bonus: Maximum 25%.
b. Accessory structures, including Accessory Dwelling Units: 30 feet.
2. Maximum density: Governed by the density map, Section 1202.C.
a. Bonus: Maximum 100% increase.
3. Maximum lot coverage: 75%.
a. Bonus: Maximum 100% lot coverage.
4. Minimum setbacks from interior property lines.
a. Primary building:
(1) Side abutting HP-zoned lot: 10 feet.
(2) Side abutting lot not zoned HP: 0 feet.
(3) Rear: 0 feet.
b. Accessory buildings:
(1) Side: 3 feet.
(2) Rear: 0 feet.
5. Required parking: Governed by Section 1206.
a. Bonus:
(1) Increase: Maximum 50%.
(2) Decrease: Maximum 100%.
6. Walls/Fences.
a. Frontage Zones: Per the provisions of Section 1207.D.
b. Interior property lines: Maximum height of 6 feet.
7. Signage. Signage is subject to the regulations of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Section
705, Table D-1, Nonresidential Activity in a Residential District Right-of-Way Standards.
8. Street trees.
a. Shade trees, when provided in the Streetscape Zone, shall be Arizona ash or
evergreen elm trees. (T)
b. Palm trees, on blocks where they have existed historically, shall be installed in the
Streetscape Zone in addition to any required shade trees, unless prohibited by law.
Palm trees should be of the same type as existing historic palm trees, and planted in
a similar manner/rate as existing on the same block face. (T)
C. Streetscape and Frontage Zone Development Regulations. The following development
regulations apply to properties which abut the street sections indicated. All regulations in
the table are appealable to the Design Review Committee under the provisions of Section
1224 and considered as R*.
Frontage and Streetscape Zone Matrix—Roosevelt East
Minimum Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Street Frontage
Building Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Section Zone Depth
Setback Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
Portland 0' 20' Minimum SD, S, PO, As As
Street 75% GA, CE Established Established
3rd Ave. to
west of
Central Ave.
Roosevelt 0' 20' Minimum SD, S, PO, As As
Street 75% GA Established Established
3rd Ave. to
1st Ave.
McKinley 0' 25' Minimum SD, PA, PO 5' 15'
Street 50%
3rd Ave. to
alley west of
1st Ave.
Fillmore 0' 25' Minimum SD, PA, PO, 5' 15' North Side
Street 50% GA, CE
Frontage and Streetscape Zone Matrix—Roosevelt East
Minimum Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Street Frontage
Building Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Section Zone Depth
Setback Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
3rd Ave. to 21' South
alley west of Side
1st Ave.
2nd Avenue 0' 25' Minimum SD, S, PO, 6' 16'
Portland St. 75% CE
to Roosevelt
St.
2nd Avenue 20' 30' Minimum AFY, SD, As As
Roosevelt 50% PA, S, PO, Established Established
St. to FC, CE
McKinley St.
2nd Avenue 10' 30' Minimum AFY, SD, S, As As
McKinley St. 75% PO, FC Established Established
to Fillmore
St.
3rd Avenue 0' 25' Minimum SD, PA, PO, 6' As
Latham St. 50% S Established
to Roosevelt
St.
3rd Avenue 20' 30' Minimum AFY, SD, S, 6' 20'
Roosevelt 50% PO, FC
St. to
McKinley St.
3rd Avenue 10' 30' Minimum AFY, SD, S, 6' 20'
McKinley St. 50% PO, FC
to Fillmore
St.
(AFY) Active Front Yard, (PA) Patio, (SD) Stoop/Door Well, (PO) Porch, (CE) Common
Entry, (FC) Forecourt, (S) Storefront, (GA) Gallery/Arcade, (GR) Grand Entry, (ALL) All
Frontage Elements
A. Additional Design Regulations—Roosevelt East.
1. Building materials. Primary buildings should incorporate a minimum 25 percent of
brick, brick veneer, or decorative masonry on every facade visible from the exterior. (P)
Rationale: Building materials, building design, and building accents should be inspired
by the context of the area and create a coherent architectural concept that is consistent
with and strengthens the historic character of Roosevelt East, preferably by using
historic materials and design elements already found within the Character Area.
Section 1218. Roosevelt North.
B. Intent. Roosevelt North is part of the Roosevelt Historic District and it is comprised of
traditional historic single-family homes. Typically the lots have large front yard setbacks with
porches, lush landscaping and turf. Properties generally have carriage houses or garages in
the backyard that are accessed from the alley or the front yard by a porte-cochere. In
Roosevelt North the design and pattern of single-family development is critical to
maintaining its strong character and preserving the existing buildings. The large number of
historic properties creates a unique character and design that should be preserved.
Properties with HP zoning should refer to Chapter 8, Historic Preservation, of the Phoenix
Zoning Ordinance for specific requirements associated with historic designation.
C. Development Regulations. The following development regulations apply to properties
located with the Roosevelt North character area. Where a “bonus” is indicated, the
development regulation may be modified within the range stated when sustainability bonus
points are earned per Section 1223, as approved by PDD staff or the Design Review
Committee.
1. Maximum height:
a. Main building: Governed by the height map, Section 1202.B, and height transition
standards of Section 1207.E.
(1) Bonus: None.
b. Accessory structures, including Accessory Dwelling Units: 30 feet.
2. Maximum density: Governed by the density map, Section 1202.C.
a. Bonus: None.
3. Maximum lot coverage: 40%.
a. Additional lot coverage of 15% (total 55%) is allowed for accessory structures.
b. Additional bonus: None.
4. Minimum setbacks from interior property lines.
a. Primary building:
(1) Sides: 3 feet; 10 feet combined total minimum.
(2) Rear: 10 feet.
b. Accessory structures:
(1) Side: 3 feet.
(2) Rear: 0 feet.
5. Required parking: Governed by Section 1206.
a. Bonus: None.
6. Walls/Fences.
a. Frontage Zones: Per the provisions of Section 1207.D.
b. Interior property lines: Maximum height of 6 feet.
7. Signage. Signage is subject to the regulations of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Section
705, Table D-1, Nonresidential Activity in a Residential District Right-of-Way Standards.
8. Street trees.
a. Shade trees, when provided in the Streetscape Zone, shall be Arizona ash or
evergreen elm trees. (T)
b. Palm trees, on blocks where they have existed historically, shall be installed in the
Streetscape Zone in addition to any required shade trees, unless prohibited by law.
Palm trees should be of the same type as existing historic palm trees, and planted in
a similar manner/rate as existing on the same block face. (T)
D. Streetscape and Frontage Zone Development Regulations. The following development
regulations apply to properties which abut the street sections indicated. All regulations in
the table are appealable to the Design Review Committee under the provisions of Section
1224 and considered as R*.
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix—Roosevelt North
Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Street Minimum Frontage
Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Section Setback Zone Depth
Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
Portland 20' 30' None AFY 5' 10'
Street
7th Ave. to
3rd Ave.
Latham 20' 30' None AFY 5' 7'5"
Street
5th Ave. to
3rd Ave.
Culver 20' 30' None AFY 5' 10'
Street
7th Ave. to
300' west
of Central
Ave.
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix—Roosevelt North
Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Street Minimum Frontage
Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Section Setback Zone Depth
Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
Willetta 20' 30' None AFY 5' 10'
Street
7th Ave. to
alley west
of Central
Ave.
Lynwood 20' 30' None AFY 5' 10'
Street
7th Ave. to
alley west
of Central
Ave.
7th Avenue 20' 30' None AFY 6' None
Lynwood Required
St. to alley
south of
Portland
St.
5th Avenue 10' 25' None AFY, SY 5' 10'
Alley north
of
Roosevelt
St. to alley
north of
Lynwood
St.
3rd Avenue 10' 25' None AFY, SY 5' 10'
Alley north
of
Roosevelt
St. to
Culver St.
3rd Avenue 10' 25' None AFY, SY 5' 6'
Culver
Street to
alley north
of Lynwood
St.
(AFY) Active Front Yard, (PA) Patio, (SD) Stoop/Door Well, (PO) Porch, (CE) Common
Entry, (FC) Forecourt, (S) Storefront, (GA) Gallery/Arcade, (GR) Grand Entry, (ALL) All
Frontage Elements
(Ord. No. G-5480, 2010; Ord. No. G-5777, 2013; Ord. No. G-6409, 2018)
E. Additional Design Regulations—Roosevelt North.
1. Building materials. Primary buildings should incorporate a minimum 25 percent of
brick, brick veneer, or decorative masonry on every facade visible from the exterior. (P)
2. Window design. Window format should be square or rectangular and similar to existing
historic buildings. Window openings should be recessed or articulated, particularly at the
ground level. (P)
3. Roof forms. Buildings should incorporate one or more of the following roof forms:
gable (including clipped, and with parapets), hip, and flat with parapets. Mansard roof
forms are prohibited. (R*)
Rationale for D.1 through D.3: Building materials, building design, and building accents
should be inspired by the context of the area and create a coherent architectural concept
that is consistent with and strengthens the historic character of Roosevelt North, preferably
by using historic materials and design elements already found within the Character Area.
Section 1219. Roosevelt South.
B. Intent. Roosevelt South will be the gateway to historic Roosevelt North, and an oasis for
pedestrians from adjacent high-rise and high-density areas. While the neighborhood will
retain its residential character, it will become a mixed-use neighborhood. Adaptive re-use of
older and historic homes will provide distinctive shopping and dining along tree-lined streets
creating a highly desirable, walkable neighborhood.
C. Development Regulations. The following development regulations apply to properties
located with the Roosevelt South character area. Where a “bonus” is indicated, the
development regulation may be modified within the range stated when sustainability bonus
points are earned per Section 1223, as approved by PDD staff or the Design Review
Committee.
1. Maximum height:
a. Main building: Governed by the height map, Section 1202.B, and height transition
standards of Section 1207.E.
(1) Bonus: None.
b. Accessory structures, including Accessory Dwelling Units: 30 feet.
2. Maximum density: Governed by the density map, Section 1202.C.
a. Bonus: 100%.
3. Maximum lot coverage: 50%.
a. Additional lot coverage of 10% (total 60%) is allowed for accessory structures.
b. Bonus: Maximum 75% lot coverage.
4. Minimum setbacks from interior property lines.
a. Primary building:
(1) Side abutting HP-zoned lot: 10 feet.
(2) Side(s) abutting lot not zoned HP: 3 feet; 10 feet combined total minimum.
(3) Rear: 0 feet.
b. Accessory structures:
(1) Side: 3 feet.
(2) Rear: 0 feet.
5. Required parking: Governed by Section 1206.
a. Bonus:
(1) Increase: Maximum 50%.
(2) Decrease: Maximum 50%.
6. Walls/Fences.
a. Frontage Zones: Per the provisions of Section 1207.D.
b. Interior property lines: Maximum height of 6 feet.
7. Signage. Signage is subject to the regulations of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Section
705, Table D-1, Nonresidential Activity in a Residential District Right-of-Way Standards.
8. Street trees.
a. Shade trees, when provided in the Streetscape Zone, shall be Arizona ash or
evergreen elm trees. (T)
b. Palm trees, on blocks where they have existed historically, shall be installed in the
Streetscape Zone in addition to any required shade trees, unless prohibited by law.
Palm trees should be of the same type as existing historic palm trees and planted in
a similar manner/rate as existing on the same block face. (T)
D. Streetscape and Frontage Zone Development Regulations. The following development
regulations apply to properties which abut the street sections indicated. All regulations in
the table are appealable to the Design Review Committee under the provisions of Section
1224 and considered as R*.
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix—Roosevelt South
Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Street Minimum Frontage
Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Section Setback Zone Depth
Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
Roosevelt 10' 30' Minimum 75% AFY, SD, PO, 5' 6'
Street PA, S
Alley west of
6th Ave. to
3rd Ave.
McKinley 10' 30' Minimum 50% ALL 5' 10'
Street
Alley west of
6th Ave. to
3rd Ave.
Fillmore 10' 30' Minimum 50% ALL 5' 7'5"
Street
Alley west of
6th Ave. to
3rd Ave.
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix—Roosevelt South
Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Street Minimum Frontage
Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Section Setback Zone Depth
Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
6th Avenue 20' 30' Minimum 50% AFY, SD, PA, 5' 6'
Roosevelt St. PO, FC, S
to Fillmore St.
5th Avenue 20' 30' Minimum 50% AFY, SD, PA, 5' 14'
Roosevelt St. PO, FC, S
to Fillmore St.
4th Avenue 20' 30' Minimum 50% AFY, SD, PA, 5' 15'
Roosevelt St. PO, FC, S
to Fillmore St.
3rd Avenue 20' 30' Minimum 50% AFY, SD, PA, 5' 15'
Roosevelt St. PO, FC, S
to Fillmore St.
(AFY) Active Front Yard, (PA) Patio, (SD) Stoop/Door Well, (PO) Porch, (CE) Common
Entry, (FC) Forecourt, (S) Storefront, (GA) Gallery/Arcade, (GR) Grand Entry, (ALL) All
Frontage Elements
(Ord. No. G-5480, 2010; Ord. No. G-5777, 2013; Ord. No. G-6409, 2018)
E. Additional Design Regulations—Roosevelt South.
1. Building materials. Primary buildings should incorporate a minimum 25 percent of
brick, brick veneer, or decorative masonry on every facade visible from the exterior. (P)
2. Window design. Window format should be square or rectangular and similar to existing
historic buildings. Window openings should be recessed or articulated, particularly at the
ground level. (P)
3. Roof forms. Buildings should incorporate one or more of the following roof forms:
gable (including clipped, and with parapets), hip, and flat with parapets. Mansard roof
forms are prohibited. (R*)
Rationale for D.1 through D.3: Building materials, building design, and building accents
should be inspired by the context of the area and create a coherent architectural concept
that is consistent with and strengthens the historic character of Roosevelt South, preferably
by using historic materials and design elements already found within the Character Area.
Section 1220. Townsend Park.
A. Intent. The primary intent of the Townsend Park Character Area is to transition between the
mixed-use neighborhoods to the east, the McDowell Corridor to the north and the Downtown
Gateway to the west. The area’s special potential to connect these diverse adjacent areas
can be realized through incorporating mixed-use/mid-rise developments that focus on office
and cultural facilities. Given the proximity to the City’s largest public library and the light rail
corridor, a cultural focus in any new development is essential. As with any heavily accessed
cultural area, the streetscape should contain inviting and comfortable parkway strips that
offer easy links to nearby cultural facilities, parks and public transportation.
B. Development Regulations. The following development regulations apply to properties located
with the Townsend Park character area. Where a “bonus” is indicated, the development
regulation may be modified within the range stated when sustainability bonus points are earned
per Section 1223, as approved by PDD staff or the Design Review Committee.
1. Maximum height:
a. Main building: Governed by the height map, Section 1202.B, and height transition
standards of Section 1207.E.
(1) Bonus: Maximum 30%.
b. Accessory structures, including Accessory Dwelling Units: 30 feet.
2. Maximum density: Governed by the density map, Section 1202.C.
a. Bonus: 100%.
3. Maximum lot coverage: 75%.
a. Bonus: Maximum 100% lot coverage.
b. Accessory buildings may not exceed 25% of the net lot area. This coverage is
included within the overall permitted lot coverage.
4. Minimum setbacks from interior property lines:
a. Primary building: 0 feet.
b. Accessory structures:
(1) Side: 3 feet.
(2) Rear: 5 feet, which may be reduced to 0 feet when abutting a fully dedicated
alley which is not a designated Buffer Alley per Section 1202.E.
5. Required parking: Governed by Section 1206.
a. Bonus:
(1) Increase: Maximum 50%.
(2) Decrease: maximum 100%.
6. Walls/Fences.
a. Frontage Zones: Per the provisions of Section 1207.D.
b. Interior property lines: Maximum height of 6 feet.
7. Signage. Signage subject to the regulations of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Section 705,
Table D-1, Commercial/Industrial Right-of-Way Low Volume Street Standards.
C. Streetscape and Frontage Zone Development Regulations. The following development
regulations apply to properties which abut the street sections indicated. All regulations in
the table are appealable to the Design Review Committee under the provisions of Section
1224 and considered as R*.
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix—Townsend Park
Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Street Minimum Frontage
Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Section Setback Zone Depth
Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
McDowell 0' 20’ Minimum 75% S, GA, CE 5' 5’
Road
1st St. to east
of 3rd St.
Willetta Street 0' 25' Minimum 50% ALL 5' 15'
1st St. to 3rd
St.
Culver Street 0' 25' Minimum 50% ALL 5' 15'
1st St. to 2nd
St.
Moreland 0' 25' Minimum 50% ALL 5' 15'
Street
1st St. to 3rd
St.
1st Street 0' 25' Minimum 75% S, SD, PA, 5' East 6' East
McDowell Rd. PO, GA 7' West West—None
to Willetta St. Required
2nd Street 0' 25' Minimum 75% S, SD, PA, 5' 25'
McDowell Rd. PO, GA
to Culver St.
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix—Townsend Park
Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Street Minimum Frontage
Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Section Setback Zone Depth
Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
3rd Street 5' 30' Minimum 75% S, SD, PA, 5' 15'
McDowell Rd. PO, GA
to Moreland
St.
(AFY) Active Front Yard, (PA) Patio, (SD) Stoop/Door Well, (PO) Porch, (CE) Common
Entry, (FC) Forecourt, (S) Storefront, (GA) Gallery/Arcade, (GR) Grand Entry, (ALL) All
Frontage Elements
Section 1221. Van Buren.
A. Intent. The intent of the Van Buren Character Area is to establish a dense, vibrant, urban
mixed-use area that is a center for commerce and high-rise urban living. This area
comprises some of the tallest height entitlements within the City. The close proximity to
government buildings and commercial offices makes this an ideal location for future hotels
and iconic residential buildings with a strong urban focus. The active streetscape will
connect the primarily residential neighborhoods to the north with the amenities and services
provided within the Business Core and Van Buren Character Areas.
B. Development Regulations. The following development regulations apply to properties
located with the Van Buren character area. Where a “bonus” is indicated, the development
regulation may be modified within the range stated when sustainability bonus points are
earned per Section 1223, as approved by PDD staff or the Design Review Committee.
1. Maximum height.
a. Main building: Governed by the height map, Section 1202.B, and height transition
standards of Section 1207.E.
(1) Bonus: None.
b. Accessory structures, including Accessory Dwelling Units: 30 feet.
2. Maximum density: Governed by the density map, Section 1202.C.
a. Bonus: Maximum 50% increase.
b. For properties which dedicate the Taylor Street Paseo, see below.
3. Maximum lot coverage: 55%.
a. Bonus: Maximum 100% lot coverage.
b. Accessory structures: Maximum 25% total lot coverage. This amount is included in
the overall allowed lot coverage.
c. For properties which dedicate the Taylor Street Paseo, see below.
4. Minimum setbacks from interior property lines.
a. Primary building: 10 feet. No setback required if property line abuts an alley which is
not a Buffer Alley.
b. Accessory structures: None.
5. Required parking: Governed by Section 1206.
a. Bonus:
(1) Increase: Maximum 50%.
(2) Decrease: Maximum 100%.
6. Walls/Fences.
a. Frontage Zones: Per the provisions of Section 1207.D.
b. Interior property lines: Maximum height of 6 feet.
(1) When a fully dedicated alley is present view fencing shall be provided above 40
inches in height.
7. Signage. Signage subject to the regulations of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance Section 705,
Table D-1, Commercial/Industrial Right-of-Way Low Volume Street Standards.
8. Taylor Street Paseo. Certain properties within Van Buren are subject to the additional
development regulations of the Taylor Street Paseo, Section 1207.N., in addition to the
modified standards stated above. The affected properties are shown on the map
provided within that Section.
a. For properties that dedicate the Taylor Street Paseo, lot coverage and density are
not restricted.
b. For properties formerly required to dedicate the Taylor Street Paseo prior to the
Paseo realignment, lot coverage and density are not restricted if all of the following
amenities are provided within the property frontage:
(1) A minimum 8 foot wide sidewalk is provided for the length of the property.
(2) Two separate rows of shade trees along the public sidewalk, planted along each
side of the public sidewalk.
(3) Open space at the ground level on private property (minimum 500 square feet
and not less than 10 feet wide any direction), with a public access easement
dedicated over all portions of the open space area.
(4) A minimum of three pedestrian amenities within the open space, such as: lit
bollards, waste receptacles (recycling and trash), clocks, way finding signs,
benches, drinking fountains and decorative pedestrian lighting not higher than 15
feet.
C. Streetscape and Frontage Zone Development Regulations. The following development
regulations apply to properties which abut the street sections indicated. All regulations in
the table are appealable to the Design Review Committee under the provisions of Section
1224 and considered as R*.
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix—Van Buren
Frontage Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Minimum
Street Section Zone Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Setback
Depth Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
Fillmore Street 0' 20' Minimum 50% ALL 5' 7'
Alley west of 7th
Ave. to 7th Ave.
Fillmore Street 0' 20' Minimum 50% ALL 5' 10'
7th Ave. to 3rd Ave.
Taylor Street Paseo 0’ 20’ Minimum 75% SD, PO, S, 8’ 13’, or 0’
7th Ave. to 3rd Ave. GA, CE when not
located within
or adjacent to
a dedicated
street
Van Buren Street 0' 20' Minimum 75% S, GA, CE, 5' 5'
7th Ave. to 3rd Ave. GR
Woodland Avenue 12' 30' Minimum 75% AFY, SD, 5' 10'
9th Ave. to alley PA, PO, S
west of 9th Ave.
Monroe Street 0' 20' Minimum 75% SD, PA, 8' 10'
7th Ave. to 3rd Ave. PO, S
Adams Street 0' 20' Minimum 75% SD, PA, 5' 10'
4th Ave. to 7th Ave. PO, S, GA
Adams Street 0' 20' Minimum 75% SD, PA, 8' 5'
7th Ave. to 5th Ave. PO, S, GA
9th Avenue 0' 20' Minimum 50% ALL 5' 20'
Van Buren St. to
Adams St.
7th Avenue 0' 20' Minimum 75% ALL 7' 7'
Fillmore St. to
Adams St.
6th Avenue 0' 20' Minimum 50% SD, PA, East 5' East 8'
Fillmore St. to Van PO, S, GA West 5' West 5'
Buren St.
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix—Van Buren
Frontage Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Minimum
Street Section Zone Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Setback
Depth Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
6th Avenue 0' 20' Minimum 75% ALL East 5' East 5'
Van Buren St. to West 5' West 8'
Adams St.
5th Avenue 0' 20' Minimum 50% SD, PA, 5' 10'
Fillmore St. to Van PO, S, GA
Buren St.
5th Avenue 0' 20' Minimum 75% ALL 7' 7'
Van Buren St. to
Adams St.
4th Avenue 0' 20' Minimum 50% SD, PA, 5' 15'
Fillmore St. to Van PO, S, GA
Buren St.
4th Avenue 0' 20' Minimum 75% ALL 7' 7'
Van Buren St. to
Monroe St.
3rd Avenue 0' 20' Minimum 50% SD, PA, 5' 10'
Fillmore St. to Van PO, S, GA
Buren St.
3rd Avenue 0' 20' Minimum 75% ALL 5' 5'
Van Buren St. to
Monroe St.
Taylor Street Paseo 0' 20' Minimum 65% SD, PO, S, See Paseo See Paseo
7th Ave. to 3rd Ave. FC, GA Guidelines Guidelines
(AFY) Active Front Yard, (PA) Patio, (SD) Stoop/Door Well, (PO) Porch, (CE) Common
Entry, (FC) Forecourt, (S) Storefront, (GA) Gallery/Arcade, (GR) Grand Entry, (ALL) All
Frontage Elements
Section 1222. Warehouse.
A. Intent. The Warehouse Character Area is a unique urban neighborhood that offers a blend
of old railroad charm and modern urban living. The unique old warehouse buildings provide
design inspiration for the design of new buildings that complement the existing character.
This area has unique sports and entertainment venues, in addition to dining and shopping
opportunities that serve the entire region. This area should provide people with the ability to
enjoy the character and authenticity of the area while being close to transit and the heart of
the City.
B. Development Regulations. The following development regulations apply to properties
located with the Warehouse character area. Where a “bonus” is indicated, the development
regulation may be modified within the range stated when sustainability bonus points are
earned per Section 1223, as approved by PDD staff or the Design Review Committee,
unless stated otherwise.
1. Maximum height: Governed by the height map, Section 1202.B, and height transition
standards of Section 1207.E.
a. Bonus (north of Lincoln Street, within the 80 feet base height category only):
maximum height of 140 feet shall be permitted only with dedication of a 30-year
conservation easement over an existing building designated HP or HP-L, as
approved by HP. The property with the conservation easement must be located
between Madison Street and Lincoln Street, and within either the Business Core or
Warehouse character areas. Sustainability bonus points cannot be used to obtain
this height bonus.
b. Bonus (elsewhere within Character Area): 50%. Exception: Any property within a
base height category of 150 feet or greater shall not be permitted a height bonus,
due to Airport Downtown Zone height limits.
c. Additional height restrictions apply for properties subject to Section 1222.B.4.
2. Maximum density: Governed by the density map, Section 1202.C.
a. Bonus: Maximum 100% increase.
3. Maximum lot coverage: 100%.
a. Bonus: None.
4. Minimum setbacks from interior property lines:
a. For sites not abutting a property located within the Central Park Character Area: 0
feet.
b. For sites abutting a property located within the Central Park Character Area (not
including properties separated by a fully dedicated alley or street), the following
regulations apply:
(1) Side or rear lot line: Minimum 20-foot building setback, including a ten-foot
landscape setback. The landscape setback shall be measured from the property
line.
(2) The building shall not exceed 40 feet in height when located between 20 and 30
feet of the side or rear property line.
(3) A stepback shall be required unless the proposed new development is located ten or
more feet beyond the required setback line. A minimum stepback of ten feet in depth
for the length/width of the building that is adjacent to the Central Park Character Area
is required. The stepback shall be measured from the required side or rear yard
setback line.
5. Required parking:
a. Minimum:
(1) Residential uses: Governed by Section 1206.
(2) Non-residential uses: None.
d. Maximum: Governed by Section 1206.
e. Bonus:
(1) Increase: Maximum 100%.
(2) Decrease: Maximum 100%.
6. Walls/Fences.
a. Frontage Zones: Per the provisions of Section 1207.D.
b. Interior property lines: Maximum height of 8 feet.
7. Signage. Signage in the Warehouse Character Area shall be governed by the
regulations applicable to signs in the commercial districts of Section 705 of the Phoenix
Zoning Ordinance.
a. Signs projecting from the front of buildings shall be perpendicular to the street (i.e.,
90-degree angle), with a maximum of one sign per entrance. All signs that extend
into or over the public right-of-way shall require a revocable permit administered by
the City of Phoenix prior to issuance of the sign permit. Each sign shall:
(1) Identify only one on-site business.
(2) Provide a minimum eight-foot clearance.
(3) Project no more than three feet into the public right-of-way.
(4) Be indirectly illuminated from a shielded light source (i.e., not backlit or cabinet sign).
b. Awning signs shall be permitted by right. Awning signs shall have letters no more
than ten inches in height.
c. Signs painted on the building surface or letters mounted directly to the building surface
should:
(1) Be a maximum of one square foot of signage for each lineal foot of building
elevation to a maximum of 100 square feet. May have minimum of 40 square
feet.
(2) Be at least half the vertical height of the letters to a building corner (vertical edge) or
to a roofline.
d. Windows visible from the public right-of-way shall not exceed a maximum of 20
percent of the windowpane area.
e. Second-story businesses may only use a sign in a second-story window, or use a wall
sign. Awning signs shall not be permitted on second-story windows.
f. Corner buildings shall be allowed signage on each street frontage.
g. Directional signs for accessory parking will be allowed to a maximum of six square feet
per sign per driveway entrance. The maximum height of said directional signs is three
feet. No more than 25 percent of the area may be devoted to business identification.
h. The provisions of Section 705.C.6.d shall not apply within the Warehouse Character
Area.
i. Signs, banners, balloons, flags, guidons, and similar advertising devices otherwise
prohibited by Section 705.C.2.a, b and c may be erected subject to a use permit in
conjunction with special promotional events of a civic or commercial nature. No more
than 25 percent of the area may be devoted to corporate sponsorship identification. In
addition to the standards enumerated in Section 705.F, findings of approval of the use
permit shall include:
(1) The signs and other displays are appropriate in scale, composition, and manner
of display with surrounding development.
(2) When adjoining establishments participate in an event, a single request for a use
permit may be filed.
j. Wall signs on buildings designated Historic Preservation (HP) exceeding the applicable
size or area regulations may be allowed by the Historic Preservation Commission in
accordance with the procedure set forth in Section 812.C.3 and upon the additional
finding that the proposed signage replicates the size, shape, and placement of the
original wall signage.
k. The following signs are prohibited:
(1) Those placed above or on top of any portion of the roof or front parapet or facade.
(2) Signs utilizing moving, flashing, or rotating lights or mechanisms, except as provided
by a use permit.
(3) Freestanding signs or ground signs.
l. Signage may be increased by up to 25 percent by submitting a comprehensive sign plan
as provided in Section 705.E of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance.
C. Streetscape and Frontage Zone Development Regulations. The following development
regulations apply to properties which abut the street sections indicated. All regulations in
the table are appealable to the Design Review Committee under the provisions of Section
1224 and considered as R*.
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix—Warehouse
Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Street Minimum Frontage
Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Section Setback Zone Depth
Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
7th Avenue 0’ 20’ None ALL 5' 10’
South of the
train tracks
to Grant St.
7th Avenue 0' 20’ Minimum 75% S, GA, SD, CE 5' 10’
Grant St. to
Sherman
St.
6th Avenue 0' 20' Minimum 50% ALL 5' 12'
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix—Warehouse
Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Street Minimum Frontage
Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Section Setback Zone Depth
Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
Sherman
St. to Grant
St.
5th Avenue 0' 20' Minimum 75% S 5' 12'
Alley south
of Jackson
St. to
Madison St.
4th Avenue 0' 20' Minimum 50% ALL 5' 12'
Sherman
St. to Grant
St.
4th Avenue 0' 20' Minimum 50% ALL 5' 19'
Grant St. to
Lincoln St.
4th Avenue 0' 20' Minimum 75% S 5' 12'
Alley south
of Jackson
St. to
Madison St.
3rd Avenue 0' 20' Minimum 75% S 5' 20'
Grant St. to
Jackson St.
2nd Avenue 0' 20' Minimum 50% ALL 5' 23'
Grant St. to
Lincoln St.
2nd Avenue 0' 20' Minimum 50% S 5' 10'
Buchanan
St. to
Jackson St.
1st Avenue 0' 20' Minimum 75% S 10' 15'
Grant St. to
Madison St.
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix—Warehouse
Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Street Minimum Frontage
Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Section Setback Zone Depth
Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
Central 0' 20' Minimum 75% S, GA, SD, CE 8' 15'
Avenue
Grant St. to
Madison St.
1st Street 0' 20' Minimum 50% ALL 5' 15'
Grant St. to
Buchanan
St.
1st Street 0' 20' Minimum 50% ALL 6' 20'
Buchanan
St. to
Madison St.
2nd Street 0' 20' Minimum 50% ALL 6' 20'
Lincoln St.
to alley
south of
Jackson St.
3rd Street 0' 20' Minimum 75% AFY, SD, PA, 6' 20'
South of PO, S
Grant St. to
Grant St.
3rd Street 0' 20' Minimum 75% S 6' 14'
Grant St.
south to
Railroad
Row
4th Street 0' 20’ Minimum 75% SD, PA, S 5' 10’
Grant St.
south to
Character
Area
boundary
5th Street 0' 20’ Minimum 50% ALL 6' 14'
Grant St. to
Lincoln St.
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix—Warehouse
Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Street Minimum Frontage
Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Section Setback Zone Depth
Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
6th Street 0' 20’ Minimum 50% ALL 8' 13'
Lincoln St.
to
Buchanan
St.
7th Street 0' 20’ Minimum 75% ALL 6' 14'
Lincoln St.
to south of
Grant St.
Madison 0' 20’ Minimum 75% SD, PA, S 5' 12'
Street
5th Ave. to
4th Ave.
Madison 0' 20’ Minimum 75% SD, PA, S 5' 12'
Street
1st Ave. to
1st St.
Jackson 0' 20’ Minimum 75% S 8' As
Street Established
5th Ave. to with Tree
1st St. Wells(1)
Buchanan 0' 20’ Minimum 75% SD, PA, S 7' 12'
Street
3rd Ave. to
3rd St.
Lincoln 0' 20’ Minimum 75% SD, PA, S 7' 12'
Street
7th Ave. to
7th St.
Grant 0' 20’ Minimum 50% ALL 5' 19'
Street
6th Ave. to
2nd St.
3rd St. to
7th St.
Streetscape and Frontage Zone Matrix—Warehouse
Minimum Allowed Minimum Minimum
Street Minimum Frontage
Building Frontage Sidewalk Streetscape
Section Setback Zone Depth
Frontage Elements Width Zone Depth
Grant 0' 20’ Minimum 75% SD, PA, S 5' 19'
Street
2nd St. to
3rd St.
Sherman 0' 20’ Minimum 75% SD, PA, S 8' 14'
Street
7th Ave. to
4th Ave.
(AFY) Active Front Yard, (PA) Patio, (SD) Stoop/Door Well, (PO) Porch, (CE) Common
Entry, (FC) Forecourt, (S) Storefront, (GA) Gallery/Arcade, (GR) Grand Entry, (ALL) All
Frontage Elements
D. Additional Design Regulations--Warehouse.
1. New construction from finished grade to 65 feet in height shall use concrete, brick or other
quality exterior-facing materials found on the structures in the Warehouse Character Area
that have been determined to have character value, such as load bearing walls (brick or
block) and concrete post-and-beam structural systems. (P)
2. Brick veneer and brick tile applications, when used, should give the appearance of structural
brick by using wraparound corner and bullnose pieces to minimize a veneer appearance. (P)
3. Stucco should not be used as a new element on an existing building. For new construction,
stucco finishes should be limited to no more than 25 percent of all facades, and located
where least visible from Streetscape Zones. (P)
Rationale for D.1 – D.3: The Warehouse Character Area has a unique and historic
architectural context which current development should mimic or complement.
4. The following design elements are only permitted for use within the Warehouse Character
area if approved by the Design Review Committee as a Design Alternative per Section 1224
(R*):
a. Metal or wood siding.
b. Parabolic arches and other nongeometric forms.
c. Backlit awnings or panels.
d. Plastic and acrylic components used in awnings and other accessories.
e. Steeply pitched roofs (greater than 30 degrees) including mansard roof forms.
f. Curtain-wall facades.
Section 1223. Sustainability Bonus.
A. Applicability. The Sustainability Bonus system is designed to provide additional
entitlements to developments that exhibit enhanced and/or environmentally friendly design,
or other performance elements as outlined in this Section or as approved by the Design
Review Committee.
1. A Sustainability Bonus may only be awarded when allowed by the applicable Character
Area development regulations.
2. Sustainability Bonus credits (as detailed in Section 1223.C) earned shall only apply to
one category of bonus. If multiple bonuses are desired for one development (such as
one for height increase, and another for parking increase), each bonus must earn the
required bonus credits separately, unless specifically stated otherwise in this Chapter.
3. All items or improvements which are provided specifically to obtain a Sustainability
Bonus shall be located on site, and not in public right-of-way, unless approved as a
Technical Appeal demonstrating that all required Streetscape improvements, including
shade, landscape, and minimum sidewalk width, will still be provided.
B. Credit Categories.
1. Height Increase. The allowed bonus is an increase in height calculated as a percentage
of the base maximum height permitted per Section 1202.B. However, no building height
may exceed the Airport Height Limits provided in Chapter 4, Article XIII of the Phoenix
City Code.
Height Increase
Minimum Credits Required Allowed Bonus
70 50%
60 40%
50 30%
40 20%
30 10%
20 5%
2. Density Increase. The allowed bonus is an increase in the number residential units
calculated as a percentage of the base maximum units permitted per Section 1202.C:
Density Increase
Minimum Credits Required Allowed Bonus
70 100%
60 80%
50 60%
40 40%
30 25%
20 10%
3. Increase of Lot Coverage. The allowed bonus is the amount of additional lot coverage
allowed in addition to the lot coverage permitted by the applicable Character Area; e.g. a
development earning 20 bonus credits is allowed an additional 10% lot coverage.
Increase of Lot Coverage
Minimum Credits Required Allowed Bonus
50 50%
40 25%
30 15%
20 10%
10 5%
4. Increase of Maximum Parking. The allowed bonus is an increase calculated as a
percentage of the maximum parking allowed per Section 1206.
Increase of Maximum Parking
Minimum Credits Required Allowed Bonus
50 100%
40 75%
30 50%
20 25%
10 15%
5 10%
5. Decrease in Minimum Parking. The allowed bonus is a decrease calculated as a
percentage of the minimum parking required per Section 1206.
Decrease of
Minimum Credits Required Allowed Bonus
25 100%
20 75%
15 50%
10 25%
5 10%
C. Sustainability Bonus Credit Matrix.
POSSIBLE
CREDIT DESCRIPTION AND QUALIFIERS OPTIONS
CREDITS
1. Provide a vertical mixed-use development 25% of gross ground 5
which incorporates commercial suites at the area of building
ground level intended for patronage by the
50% + of gross ground 10
general public, and not associated with the
floor area of building
operation of the overall development. Each
suite shall have a primary entrance from the
Frontage/Streetscape zone.
2. Provide pedestrian amenities within the 3 Different Types of 5
Frontage Zone (or Streetscape Zone if Amenities
approved through a Technical Appeal and
6+ Different Types of 10
Street Transportation) such as: lit bollards,
Amenities
waste receptacles (recycling and trash),
clocks, way finding signs, benches, drinking
fountains and decorative pedestrian lighting
not higher than 15 feet. (Must be in addition
to any required amenities.)
3. Provide outdoor dining within the Frontage Minimum 400 sf 5
Zone. Also applies to outdoor dining
800+ sf 10
provided within a Forecourt or a
Gallery/Arcade, but only if the minimum
sidewalk width required by the Character
Area is maintained.
4. Provide additional bicycle amenities (beyond any required), as follows in 4a and 4b:
4a. For any use type, provide additional Secured parking room for 5
amenities such as a secured bicycle parking minimum 50% required
room; bicycle lockers, tire air-up facilities, bicycle parking
and/or bicycle maintenance area or room.
Bicycle lockers for 5
minimum 50% required
bicycle parking
Tire air-up facility or 3 (each)
bicycle maintenance
area/room
POSSIBLE
CREDIT DESCRIPTION AND QUALIFIERS OPTIONS
CREDITS
4b. For non-residential uses, provide showers Shower 4 (each);
and/or personal lockers within changing maximum 20
rooms for use by the building’s tenants. points
Personal lockers in 3 points for each 5
changing room lockers, maximum
15 points
5. Provide a public art installation within or on Art installation (as 5 points per
the building abutting a Frontage Zone. approved by PDD) installation
6. Provide on-site permeable paving, structured minimum 250 sf area 2
soil/grass, open grid paving or similar
>250 sf to 500sf area 4
material which allows for water to permeate
the surface to promote natural drainage and >500 sf to 1000 sf area 8
filtration. The areas provided may include on-
site pedestrian walkways, private >1000 sf area 15
driveways/aisles and parking stalls, but shall
not include loading areas or hardscape
located within public ROW.
7. Utilize non-potable gray water and/or Either gray water or 3
rainwater to supplement required landscape rainwater harvesting
irrigation water. system provided
Both systems provided 6
(may be combined)
8. Outperform the currently adopted energy 5%—9% 5
code standard by the following percentages,
10%—14% 10
measured by the percent (%) over required
energy code standard. 15%+ 15
9. Provide on-site renewable energy for the 1 point for each %
entire building’s electricity from renewable of building energy
sources, like wind, solar, geothermal, usage being
biomass or any similar source that is provided
renewable. Based on the load of the service
and the percent of load being provided by a
renewable source.
POSSIBLE
CREDIT DESCRIPTION AND QUALIFIERS OPTIONS
CREDITS
10. Provide a renewable energy purchasing 10%—35% 5
agreement for the entire building for a
35%+ 10
minimum 5 years, which runs with the
property and applies to the entire building(s).
This agreement shall be recorded and
submitted with the final site plan. Measured
by percent (%) of power purchased to meet
the energy demand for the building.
11. Provide a minimum 8 foot wide public 5 per street
sidewalk for the length of the property frontage
frontage (applicable only when the required
minimum width is less than 8 feet).
12. Provide two separate rows of shade trees Second row trees 10 per street
along the public sidewalk, planted along each matching Streetscape frontage
side of the public sidewalk. minimum requirements
13. Provide a minimum 30-year historic Easement provided on a 20
preservation conservation easement for the property located within
original footprint of a building on a property Downtown
designated HP or HP-L, as approved by the
Easement provided on a 10 (in addition to
Historic Preservation Officer.
property located within the base 20 points)
same Character Area as
development
14. Rehabilitate a structure (including building 30
stabilization) on a property zoned HP or HP-L
located within Downtown, as approved by the
Historic Preservation Officer.
15. Provide open space at the ground level on Provide at least 5% of 5
private property (minimum 500 sf and not the gross site area.
less than 10 feet wide any direction), as
Provide at least 10% of 10
follows:
the gross site area.
POSSIBLE
CREDIT DESCRIPTION AND QUALIFIERS OPTIONS
CREDITS
Dedicate a public access 10 additional
easement over the full
open space area used to
qualify for bonus
16. Provide affordable housing units in the 10%—24% 10
percentage shown with a deed restriction to
25%—49% 15
ensure affordability for a minimum duration
commensurate with the project funding 50%+ 20
agreement, as approved by the Phoenix
Housing Department.
17. Provide solar panels on the roof of the At least 25% of the total 5
building(s), as follows: roof area, up to 50%
More than 50% up to 10
75% of the total roof area
More than 75% of the 15
total roof area
18. Provide electric vehicle charging spaces For use by building 2 per EVC space
with installed electric vehicle charging owners or tenants only
stations (maximum 30 points total).
For use by building 4 per EVC space
visitors and/or general
public
19. Provide below grade and/or lower level No parking provided 10
parking areas only. above the ground floor
(not applicable if no parking provided). level
All parking* provided 20
*not including required ADA spaces
below finished grade
20. Provide shade for a minimum of 50% of all 5
occupiable roof areas.
Section 1224. Appeals.
A. Design Alternative Appeals. A Design Alternative appeal is a requested deviation from
development regulations indicated with (R*), or an appeal of a decision by the Planning and
Development Department regarding compliance with a presumption (P). Approval of a
Design Alternative appeal shall result in a furtherance of the goals and policies of the
Downtown Phoenix Plan and the specific intent of the subject Character Area, as approved
by the DRC, as follows:
1. A Design Alternative appeal shall be reviewed and acted upon by the Design Review
Committee (DRC) in accordance with the procedural requirements of Section 507.G.
2. The DRC may approve substitute methods of meeting the intent of development
regulations as part of a Design Alternative appeal.
3. The DRC may impose conditions or stipulations with an approval of a Design Alternative
appeal.
4. When considering a proposed Design Alternative for the required frontage type/design,
the DRC is authorized to provide relief from other related Zoning Ordinance standards
and regulations indicated with (P), (R*), and (R), but not items indicated with (T).
“RELATED” IN THIS CONTEXT MEANS THAT RELIEF FROM AN ITEM INDICATED
BY (P), (R*), OR (R) IS NECESSARY TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED DESIGN
ALTERNATIVE.
5. Each Design Alternative appeal application shall include, at a minimum, the following:
a. For properties with a Historic Preservation (HP) designation, a Certificate of
Appropriateness or Certificate of No Effect must be obtained in advance of filing the
appeal and a copy submitted with the appeal application;
b. A listing of each of the development regulations that are the subject of the proposed
Design Alternative, including all additional items indicated with (P), (R*) and (R)
which also require relief to attain the proposed Design Alternative;
c. A narrative statement describing the justification for the Design Alternative and the
manner in which the proposed Design Alternative would result in a furtherance of the
goals and policies of the applicable Character Area, and would satisfy the findings
required for approval;
d. Site plan;
e. Building elevations;
f. Context plan (per Section 507.E);
g. Landscaping and shading plan;
h. List of property owners located within 150 feet of the subject property as supplied by
the Maricopa County Assessor’s Office; and
i. Such other information as may be required by the Planning and Development
Director or the DRC.
6. In order to approve a Design Alternative appeal, the DRC must make findings as follows:
a. That the project is consistent with the intent, goals, and polices stated for the
applicable Character Area; and
b. That the project demonstrates design excellence by addressing at least two of the
following:
(1) Design innovation and the imaginative use of space, forms, and materials.
(2) Permeability and connectivity which enables people to move within, around and
through the project with ease.
(3) That the design alternative would improve safety and security by introducing
human activity to the public realm with active building frontages onto streets and
other public spaces, and enable "eyes on the street."
(4) The design alternative will incorporate materials and design which enhance
thermal comfort.
B. Sustainability Bonus Appeals. An applicant may file a request for the Design Review
Committee to appeal a decision of the Planning and Development Department regarding
Sustainability Bonus credits, as outlined in Section 1223.,TO THE DESIGN REVIEW
COMMITTEE, AS FOLLOWS:
1. A Sustainability Bonus appeal shall be reviewed and acted upon by the Design Review
Committee (DRC) in accordance with the procedural requirements of Section 507.G.
2. The DRC may approve substitute methods of meeting the intent of specific bonus credits
as part of a Sustainability Bonus appeal.
3. The DRC may impose conditions or stipulations with an approval of a Sustainability
Bonus appeal.
4. Each Design Alternative appeal application shall include, at a minimum, the following:
a. A listing of the credits that are being utilized and any supporting documentation (to
be sealed by a licensed professional);
b. Site plan;
c. Building elevations;
d. Context plan (per Section 507.E);
e. A narrative statement describing any deviation from the prescribed bonus credit(s)
that indicates how the proposed standard is furthering the goals and policies of the
Downtown Phoenix Plan and making a quantifiable improvement in the performance
of the building(s);
f. List of property owners located within 150 feet of the subject property as supplied by
the Maricopa County Assessor’s Office;
g. Such other information as may be required by the Planning and Development
Director or DRC.
5. In order to approve a Sustainability Bonus Appeal, the DRC must make findings as
follows:
a. That the project is consistent with the intent, goals, and polices stated for the
applicable Character Area; and
b. That the project is improving the overall performance of the building(s) through
generally accepted building and design standards and innovation; and
c. That the increased entitlements are consistent with the improved performance of the
building(s).
C. Variances/Zoning Adjustment. A variance is a requested deviation from a development
regulation designated as a requirement, or (R), and shall comply with the provisions of
Section 307.A.9, in addition to the following:
1. Any variance/zoning adjustment request within Downtown must be formally reviewed by
the Design Review Committee prior to processing of the variance request, UNLESS
THE REQUEST IS NOT DESIGN-RELATED, AS DETERMINED BY THE DESIGN
ADVISOR, OR IS REGARDING A SIGN REGULATION. The formal review shall be
through the same public hearing process as indicated in Section 1224.B, except that the
Design Review Committee shall, instead of making findings and a decision, provide a
written recommendation to the Zoning Administrator regarding the variance request.
The written recommendation shall, at a minimum, address the following items:
a. Whether the request is consistent with the intent, goals, and polices stated for the
applicable Character Area; and
b. Whether the request is consistent with the intended Streetscape design and shade
requirements for the applicable Streetscape and Frontage Zones.
2. The applicant shall provide a written narrative for the DRC to review and address as part
of its written recommendation regarding the variance request. The narrative shall, at a
minimum, include the following items:
a. How much relief has, or could be obtained through application of a Sustainability
Bonus;
b. A written explanation why a Sustainability Bonus cannot be applied or obtain the
relief desired by the variance request; and
c. A written explanation of how the development and the variance request is consistent
with the intent, goals, and polices stated for the applicable Character Area.
This publication can be made available in alternate format upon request. Please contact Teleia
Galaviz at 602-291-2559, teleia.galaviz@phoenix.gov, TTY: Use 7-1-1.
REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
November 7, 2024
ITEM NO: 4
DISTRICT NO.: Citywide
SUBJECT:
Application #: Z-TA-2-24-Y
Proposal: Amend the following sections of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, as follows:
1. Chapter 2, Section 202 (Definitions) to add new definitions and
revise existing definitions regarding Accessory Dwelling Units and
related residential terms;
2. Chapter 6, Section 603 (Suburban S-1 District—Ranch or Farm
Residence) to comply with HB 2720;
3. Section 604 (Suburban S-2 District—Ranch or Farm Commercial)
to comply with HB 2720;
4. Section 605 (Residential Estate RE-43 District—One-Family
Residence) to comply with HB 2720 and increase permitted lot
coverage;
5. Section 606 (Residential Estate RE-24 District—One-Family
Residence) to comply with HB 2720 and increase permitted lot
coverage;
6. Section 607 (Residential R1-14 District—One-Family Residence)
to comply with HB 2720 and increase permitted lot coverage;
7. Section 608 (Residential Districts) to comply with HB 2720;
8. Section 609 (RE-35 Single-Family Residence District) to increase
permitted lot coverage;
9. Chapter 7, Section 701.A.3 (Projections) to comply with HB 2720;
10. Section 703.B (Landscaping and Open Areas In Multiple-Family
Development) to differentiate the addition of ADUs from multi-
family developments; and
11. Section 706 (Accessory Uses and Structures) to clarify wordings
and comply with HB 2720.
Applicant: City of Phoenix, Planning Commission
Representative: City of Phoenix, Planning and Development Department
ACTIONS:
Staff Recommendation: Approval, as shown in the proposed text in Exhibit A.
Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval, per the staff recommendation.
Motion Discussion:
Commissioner Boyd engaged in dialogue with Christopher DePerro about three points of
concern. Commissioner Boyd desired that the word “common wall” be replaced with “shared
wall” within the modifications to the definition of “Accessory Dwelling Unit, Attached” in Chapter
2. He expressed concern regarding the design integration requirements within Section 706 for
attached Accessory Dwelling Units. Lastly, Commissioner Boyd stated that he believed the Use
Permit requirement to place an ADU between the main dwelling unit and right-of-way was
unnecessary.
There was discussion amongst the commissioners regarding Commissioner Boyd’s
recommendations and most agreed on the first item related to the definition, but not the other
items.
Commissioner Jaramillo made a MOTION to approve Z-TA-2-24-Y, per the staff
recommendation, with a modification to amend Chapter 2, Section 202, to strike “common wall”
and replace it with “shared wall” in the definition of “Accessory Dwelling Unit, Attached”.
Commissioner Matthews seconded.
Commissioner Boyd made a MOTION for a substitute motion to amend the prior motion to
include an additional modification to strike Section 706.A.5.
The substitute motion died for lack of a second.
Motion details: Commissioner Jaramillo made a MOTION to approve Z-TA-2-24-Y, per the staff
recommendation, with a modification to amend Chapter 2, Section 202, to strike “common wall”
and replace it with “shared wall” in the definition of “Accessory Dwelling Unit, Attached”.
Maker: Jaramillo
Second: Matthews
Vote: 9-0
Absent: None
Opposition Present: No
Findings: The proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance will bring the City into compliance
with the requirements of HB 2720.
Proposed Language:
Section 202. Definitions.
Amend Chapter 2, Section 202 (Definitions) to add new definitions and revise existing
definitions regarding Accessory Dwelling Units and related residential terms.
***
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU): A dwelling unit, as defined in this section, subordinate to the
primary dwelling unit and situated on the same lot and used for a residential accessory use.
ADUs, where permitted, do not count towards calculations of gross density.
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT, ATTACHED: AN ADU WHICH IS CONSTRUCTED HAVING
A COMMON SHARED WALL AND ATTACHED FOUNDATIONS WITH THE PRIMARY
DWELLING UNIT. AN ADU CONNECTED TO THE PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT IN ANY
OTHER MANNER SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED AN ATTACHED ADU.
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT, DETACHED: AN ADU WHICH IS CONSTRUCTED WITH
NO CONNECTION TO THE PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT, EXCEPT AS MAY BE EXPLICITLY
PERMITTED WITHIN THE ZONING ORDINANCE. A DETACHED ADU MAY INCLUDE AN
INTEGRATED GARAGE, CARPORT, OR PORCH. TWO ADUS ATTACHED TO EACH
OTHER, BUT NOT TO THE PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT, SHALL EACH BE CONSIDERED
AS A DETACHED ADU.
***
Multi-Family/Multiple-Family: A lot or parcel where two or more dwelling units are provided, not
including a permitted accessory dwelling unitS.
***
Section 603. Suburban S-1 District— Ranch or Farm Residence.
Amend Chapter 6, Section 603 (Suburban S-1 District—Ranch or Farm Residence) to
read as follows:
Section 603. Suburban S-1 District—Ranch or Farm Residence.
***
A. Permitted Uses.
1. Dwelling Units. Each lot may have the following:
a. One primary dwelling unit.
b. One TWO accessory dwelling unitS, and
c. For each additional 10 acres provided above the minimum lot size, one
additional accessory dwelling unit for use by on-site laborers may be
provided.
d. IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE, ONE ADDITIONAL ACCESSORY
DWELLING UNIT (ADU) MAY BE PERMITTED ONLY WHEN AT
LEAST ONE ADU QUALIFIES AS AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
***
B. Yard, Height and Area Requirements.
1. Each lot shall have a net area of not less than one acre.
2. For all dwelling units: SETBACK REQUIREMENTS:
a. The minimum front setback is 40 feet.
b. The minimum side setback is 30 feet, EXCEPT THAT ADUS ARE
SUBJECT TO THE SETBACK PROVISIONS OF SECTION 706.A.
c. The minimum rear setback is 30 feet, EXCEPT THAT ADUS ARE
SUBJECT TO THE SETBACK PROVISIONS OF SECTION 706.A.
***
6. Accessory dwelling units are subject to the additional provisions
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS of Section 706.A.
***
Section 604. Suburban S-2 District—Ranch or Farm Commercial.
Amend Chapter 6, Section 604 (Suburban S-2 District—Ranch or Farm Commercial) to
read as follows:
Section 604. Suburban S-2 District—Ranch or Farm Commercial
***
B. Yard, height and area requirements.
1. Each lot shall have a net area of not less than three acres.
2. For all dwelling units: SETBACK REQUIREMENTS:
a. The minimum front setback is 40 feet.
b. The minimum side setback is 30 feet, EXCEPT THAT ADUS ARE
SUBJECT TO THE SETBACK PROVISIONS OF SECTION 706.A.
c. The minimum rear setback is 30 feet, EXCEPT THAT ADUS ARE
SUBJECT TO THE SETBACK PROVISIONS OF SECTION 706.A.
***
6. Accessory dwelling units are subject to the additional provisions
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS of Section 706.A.
***
Section 605. Residential Estate RE-43 District—One-Family Residence.
Amend Chapter 6, Section 605 (Residential Estate RE-43 District—One-Family
Residence) to read as follows:
Section 605. Residential Estate RE-43 District—One-Family Residence.
The provisions of this section shall apply only to land zoned RE-43 prior to September 13,
1981.
The RE-43, One-Family Residence DISTRICT, is a district of single-family homes designed to
maintain, protect and preserve a character of development on lots with a minimum area of
43,560 square feet, and with not more than one dwelling unit and customary accessory
buildings upon one lot.
A. Permitted Uses.
1. Dwelling units. Each lot may have the following:
a. One primary dwelling unit.
b. One TWO accessory dwelling unitS. A THIRD ADU IS PERMITTED
ONLY WHEN AT LEAST ONE ADU QUALIFIES AS AFFORDABLE
HOUSING AND THE NET LOT SIZE IS A MINIMUM OF 43,560
SQUARE FEET.
c. Model homes are permitted subject to the provisions of Section
608.E.19.
***
5. RESERVED. Model homes and/or subdivision sales offices when located in
model homes subject to approval of the Planning and Development Department,
and subject to the following conditions:
a. Such model home and/or subdivision sales offices shall be located in a
subdivision which is owned by or held in trust for the subdivision
developer proposing to erect the model homes and/or proposing to
operate the sales office.
b. Subdivision sales offices and/or model homes shall be permitted for a
period not to exceed 36 months from the date of approval for the sales
offices and/or model homes.
c. The time limit allowed in Section 605.A.5.b for an additional 36 months
shall be extended only upon securing a use permit.
d. The subdivision sales office shall be removed and the model homes
shall be discontinued as model homes on or before the termination date
set forth in Section 605.A.5.b or upon expiration of the extension granted
by the Zoning Administrator pursuant to Section 605.A.5.c, or after six
months following sale or occupancy of all lots in the subdivision other
than the model homes, whichever occurs first. Notwithstanding these
provisions, the model home complex shall, subject to obtaining a use
permit in accordance with the provisions of Section 307, be able to be
used as off-site models after sale of 75 percent of the lots in the
subdivision; provided, that the model home complex is within four
hundred feet of an arterial or collector street and that the use as off-site
models shall not exceed, in combination with the use as on-site models,
a total of 72 months.
e. For the purposes of Sections 605.A.5.a and d, the term "subdivision"
shall mean all the land included within the preliminary plat submitted to
Planning and Development Department.
f. Subdivision sales offices in buildings other than model homes may be
permitted subject to the following standards to be reviewed and
approved by the Planning and Development Department:
(1) One trailer per subdivision;
(2) Trailer shall be removed upon occupancy of first model home or
within six months of approval (whichever occurs first);
(3) Signs shall not exceed six square feet;
(4) Subject to all provisions listed in Section 605.C.1.
g. More than one model home complex in a subdivision shall be permitted
subject to the above standards and the following standards:
(1) A maximum of either six percent of the lots in the development or
two lots, whichever is greater, may be used for model homes.
(2) The model home complexes shall be within four hundred feet of
an arterial or collector street.
(3) Temporary street closures and temporary fences over the public
right-of-way shall be approved by the Street Transportation
Department.
(4) Off-street parking and circulation shall be dustproofed.
(5) Lighting shall be limited to security lighting of the model home
complex.
If these standards cannot be met, the additional model home complex
shall be subject to obtaining a use permit in accordance with the
provisions of Section 307.
***
B. Yard, height and area requirements. Except as required by Section 710, the following
yard, height, and area provisions shall be required for this district.
1. There shall be a lot area of not less than 43,560 square feet. No lot shall
hereafter be subdivided to provide less than 43,560 square feet of lot area, nor
to have a width of less than 165 feet, nor to have a lot depth of less than 175
feet.
2. There shall be a front yard having a depth not less than that established by an
existing main building on the nearest lot within one hundred feet, provided,
however, that on a lot between two lots each within one hundred feet, which lots
have established [front yards, then the minimum front yard shall be that
established] by a line joining the nearest front corner of the main building on one
lot and the nearest front corner of the main building on the other lot. Nothing in
this section shall require that a front yard be more than fifty feet in depth nor to
permit a front yard of less than forty feet in depth. On a lot that is not within one
hundred feet of a lot with an established front yard, the front yard shall be not
less than forty feet.
In a tract development, construction of which is substantially contemporaneous,
the above rules shall not apply at the discretion of the builder providing he follow
an approved plot plan of the tract development and providing the front yards of
all lots be not less than forty feet.
3. There shall be two side yards each having a width of thirty feet.
4. There shall be a rear yard having a depth of not less than forty feet, which depth
may be measured from the centerline of an existing sixteen-foot or wider rear
alley where only a one-half or partial alley exists.
1. EACH LOT SHALL HAVE A NET AREA OF NOT LESS THAN 43,560 SQUARE
FEET.
2. EACH LOT SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM WIDTH OF 165 FEET.
3. EACH LOT SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 175 FEET.
4. SETBACK REQUIREMENTS:
a. THE MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK IS 40 FEET.
b. THE MINIMUM SIDE SETBACK IS 30 FEET, EXCEPT THAT ADUS
ARE SUBJECT TO THE SETBACK PROVISIONS OF SECTION 706.A.
c. THE MINIMUM REAR SETBACK IS 30 FEET, EXCEPT THAT ADUS
ARE SUBJECT TO THE SETBACK PROVISIONS OF SECTION 706.A.
5. The main building and all accessory buildings on a lot shall not occupy more
than 20 percent of the net lot area, except if all structures are less than 20 feet
and one story in height then a maximum of 30 40 percent lot coverage is
allowed.
6. No building shall exceed the height of two stories, not to exceed thirty feet, and
no dwelling shall be erected to a height of less than one story.
7. Yards for aAccessory dDwelling uUnits and other accessory structures shall be
provided in accordance with the provisions ARE SUBJECT TO THE
ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS of Section 706.
8. OPEN Pprojections into the required side yards, per the provisions of Section
701.a.3.a (1)(b), are not permitted.
***
Sectio606. Residential Estate RE-24 District—One-Family Residence
Amend Chapter 6, Section 606 (Residential Estate RE-24 District—One-Family
Residence) to read as follows:
Section 606. Residential Estate RE-24 District—One-Family Residence.
The provisions of this section shall apply only to land zoned RE-24 prior to September 13,
1981.
The RE-24, One Family Residence District, is a district of single-family homes designed to
maintain, protect and preserve a character of development on lots with a minimum area of
24,000 square feet and with not more than one dwelling unit and customary accessory
buildings upon one lot.
A. Permitted Uses.
1. Dwelling Units. Each lot may have the following:
a. One primary dwelling unit.
b. One TWO accessory dwelling unitS. A THIRD ADU IS PERMITTED
ONLY WHEN AT LEAST ONE ADU QUALIFIES AS AFFORDABLE
HOUSING AND THE NET LOT SIZE IS A MINIMUM OF 43,560
SQUARE FEET.
c. Model homes are permitted subject to the provisions of Section
608.E.19.
***
5. RESERVED. Model homes and/or subdivision sales offices when located in
model homes subject to approval of the Planning and Development Department,
and subject to the following conditions:
a. Such model home and/or subdivision sales offices shall be located in a
subdivision which is owned by or held in trust for the subdivision
developer proposing to erect the model homes and/or proposing to
operate the sales office.
b. Subdivision sales offices and/or model homes shall be permitted for a
period not to exceed 36 months from the date of approval for the sales
offices and/or model homes.
c. The time limit allowed in Section 606.A.5.b for an additional 36 months
shall be extended only upon securing a use permit.
d. The subdivision sales office shall be removed and the model homes
shall be discontinued as model homes on or before the termination date
set forth in Section 606.A.5.b or upon expiration of the extension granted
by the Zoning Administrator pursuant to Section 606.A.5.c, or after six
months following sale or occupancy of all lots in the subdivision other
than the model homes, whichever occurs first. Notwithstanding these
provisions, the model home complex shall, subject to obtaining a use
permit in accordance with the provisions of Section 307, be able to be
used as off-site models after sale of 75 percent of the lots in the
subdivision; provided, that the model home complex is within four
hundred feet of an arterial or collector street and that the use as off-site
models shall not exceed, in combination with the use as on-site models,
a total of 72 months.
e. For the purposes of Sections 606.A.5.a and d, the term "subdivision"
shall mean all the land included within the preliminary plat submitted to
Planning and Development Department.
f. Subdivision sales offices in buildings other than model homes may be
permitted subject to the following standards to be reviewed and
approved by the Planning and Development Department:
(1) One trailer per subdivision;
(2) Trailer shall be removed upon occupancy of first model home or
within six months of approval (whichever occurs first);
(3) Signs shall not exceed six square feet;
(4) Subject to all provisions listed in Section 606.A.1.
g. More than one model home complex in a subdivision shall be permitted
subject to the above standards and the following standards:
(1) A maximum of either six percent of the lots in the development or
two lots, whichever is greater, may be used for model homes.
(2) The model home complexes shall be within four hundred feet of
an arterial or collector street.
(3) Temporary street closures and temporary fences over the public
right-of-way shall be approved by the Street Transportation
Department.
(4) Off-street parking and circulation shall be dustproofed.
(5) Lighting shall be limited to security lighting of the model home
complex.
If these standards cannot be met, the additional model home complex
shall be subject to obtaining a use permit in accordance with the
provisions of Section 307.
***
B. Yard, height and area requirements. Except as required by Section 710, the following
yard, height, and area provisions shall be required for this district.
1. There shall be a lot area of not less than 24,000 square feet. No lot shall
hereafter be subdivided to provide less than 24,000 thousand square feet of lot
area nor to have a width of less than 130 feet nor a lot depth of less than 120
feet.
2. There shall be a front yard having a depth not less than that established by an
existing main building on the nearest lot within one hundred feet, provided,
however, that on a lot between two lots each within one hundred feet, which lots
have established front yards, then the minimum front yard shall be that
established by a line joining the nearest front corner of the main building on one
lot and the nearest front corner of the main building on the other lot. Nothing in
this section shall require that a front yard be more than forty feet in depth nor to
permit a front yard of less than feet thirty in depth. On a lot that is not within one
hundred feet of a lot with an established front yard, the front yard shall be not
less than thirty feet.
In a tract development, construction of which is substantially contemporaneous,
the above rules shall not apply at the discretion of the builder providing he
follows an approved lot plan of the tract development and providing the front
yards of all lots be not less than thirty feet.
3. There shall be two side yards which shall have the following minimum widths:
a. Fifteen feet on the street side of a corner lot.
b. Ten feet on an interior side yard.
4. There shall be a rear yard having a depth of not less than thirty feet, which
depth may be measured from the centerline of an existing sixteen-foot or wider
rear alley or from what would be the centerline of a full sixteen-foot or wider rear
alley where only a one-half or partial alley exists.
1. EACH LOT SHALL HAVE A NET AREA OF NOT LESS THAN 24,000 SQUARE
FEET.
2. EACH LOT SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM WIDTH OF 130 FEET.
3. EACH LOT SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 120 FEET.
4. SETBACK REQUIREMENTS:
a. THE MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK IS 30 FEET.
b. THE MINIMUM STREET SIDE SETBACK IS 15 FEET, EXCEPT THAT
ADUS ARE SUBJECT TO THE SETBACK PROVISIONS OF SECTION
706.A.
c. THE MINIMUM INTERIOR SIDE SETBACK IS 10 FEET, EXCEPT THAT
ADUS ARE SUBJECT TO THE SETBACK PROVISIONS OF SECTION
706.A.
d. THE MINIMUM REAR SETBACK IS 20 FEET, EXCEPT THAT ADUS
ARE SUBJECT TO THE SETBACK PROVISIONS OF SECTION 706.A.
5. The main building and all accessory buildings on a lot shall not occupy more
than 25 percent of the net lot area, except if all structures are less than 20 feet
and one story in height then a maximum of 30 40 percent lot coverage is
allowed.
6. No building shall exceed the height of two stories, not to exceed thirty feet, and
no dwelling structure shall be erected to a height of less than one story.
7. Yards for aAccessory dDwelling uUnits and other accessory structures shall be
provided in accordance with the provisions ARE SUBJECT TO THE
ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS of Section 706.
8. OPEN Pprojections into the required side yards, per the provisions of section
701.A.3.a(1)(b), are not permitted.
***
Section 607. Residential R1-14 District—One-Family Residence.
Amend Chapter 6, Section 607 (Residential R1-14 District—One-Family Residence) to
read as follows:
Section 607. Residential R1-14 District—One-Family Residence.
The provisions of this section shall apply only to land zoned R1-14 prior to September 13,
1981.
The R1-14, One-Family Resident RESIDENCE District, is a district of single-family homes
designed to maintain, protect, and preserve a character of development on lots with minimum
area of 14,000 square feet and with not more than one dwelling unit and customary accessory
building upon one lot. Dwelling groups shall also be allowed in the districts on certain lots of
excessive size, then developed consistent with the character of adjacent residential uses in the
district.
***
B. Yard, height and area requirements. Except as required by Section 710, the following
yard, height, and area provisions shall be required for this district.
1. There shall be a lot area of not less than 14,000 square feet. No lot shall
hereafter be subdivided to provide less than 14,000 thousand square feet of lot
area nor to have a width of less than 110 feet nor a lot depth of less than 120
feet.
2. Front yard requirements shall be the same as for RE-24.
3. Side yard requirements shall be the same as for RE-24.
4. Rear yard requirements shall be the same as for RE-24.
1. EACH LOT SHALL HAVE A NET AREA OF NOT LESS THAN 14,000 SQUARE
FEET.
2. EACH LOT SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM WIDTH OF 110 FEET.
3. EACH LOT SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 120 FEET.
4. SETBACK REQUIREMENTS:
a. THE MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK IS 30 FEET.
b. THE MINIMUM STREET SIDE SETBACK IS 15 FEET, EXCEPT THAT
ADUS ARE SUBJECT TO THE SETBACK PROVISIONS OF SECTION
706.A.
c. THE MINIMUM INTERIOR SIDE SETBACK IS 10 FEET, EXCEPT THAT
ADUS ARE SUBJECT TO THE SETBACK PROVISIONS OF SECTION
706.A.
d. THE MINIMUM REAR SETBACK IS 20 FEET, EXCEPT THAT ADUS
ARE SUBJECT TO THE SETBACK PROVISIONS OF SECTION 706.A.
5. The main building and all accessory buildings on a lot shall not occupy more
than 25 percent of the net lot area, except if all structures are less than 20 feet
and one story in height then a maximum of 30 40 percent lot coverage is
allowed.
6. No building shall exceed the height of two stories, not to exceed thirty feet, and
no dwelling structure shall be erected to a height of less than one story.
7. Yards for aAccessory dDwelling uUnits and other accessory structures shall be
provided in accordance with the provisions ARE SUBJECT TO THE
ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS of Section 706.
8. OPEN Pprojections into the required side yards, per the provisions of section
701.A.3.a(1)(b), are not permitted.
***
Section 608. Residential Districts
Amend Chapter 6, Section 608 (Residential Districts) to read as follows:
Section 608. Residential Districts.
***
E. Land Use Conditions.
1. Single-Family Detached Dwelling Unit. Each single-family lot is permitted one
single-family detached primary dwelling unit and no additional dwelling units,
unless otherwise permitted elsewhere in this section.
2. Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU).
a. Each single-family detached lot is permitted one accessory dwelling unit
in addition to the primary dwelling unit, except that lots having a duplex
or triplex may not have an ADU.
WHEN A LOT HAS NO MORE THAN ONE SINGLE-FAMILY
DETACHED PRIMARY DWELLING, TWO ADUS ARE PERMITTED IN
ADDITION TO THE PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT. A THIRD ADU MAY
BE PERMITTED WHEN AT LEAST ONE OF THE ADUS QUALIFIES AS
AFFORDABLE HOUSING, AND THE NET LOT SIZE IS A MINIMUM
43,560 SQUARE FEET. HOWEVER, LOTS HAVING A DUPLEX OR
TRIPLEX, SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED UNITS, OR ANY MULTI-
FAMILY DWELLING UNITS ARE NOT PERMITTED ANY ADUS.
b. An ADU is subject to the development regulations of Section 706.A.
***
Section 609. RE-35 Single-Family Residence District.
Amend Chapter 6, Section 609 (RE-35 Single-Family Residence District) to read as
follows:
Section 609. RE-35 Single-Family Residence District
***
TABLE 609.A
RE-35 Development Options
(c)
(a) (b)
Standards Planned Residential
Subdivision Average Lot
Development
*** *** *** ***
Lot coverage 25%, except if all 30%, PLUS AN 30%, PLUS AN
structures are less ADDITIONAL 10% ADDITIONAL 10%
than 20' and 1 story FOR AN ADU FOR AN ADU
in height then a AND/OR ATTACHED AND/OR ATTACHED
maximum of 30 40% SHADE SHADE
lot coverage is STRUCTURES. STRUCTURES.
allowed. TOTAL: 40% TOTAL: 40%
*** *** *** ***
***
Section 701. Bulk Regulations
Amend Chapter 7, Section 701.A.3 (Projections) to read as follows:
***
A. Lots.
***
3. Projections.
a. The following provisions apply to development in Sections 604 through
607 and Section 619 and in the subdivision option of Sections 609
through 618:
***
(2) Closed Projections.
***
(d) The main building (which may include an attached ADU)
may project into the required rear OR SIDE yard,
SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING: when no portion of the
projection exceeds 15 feet in height; the projection is no
closer to the rear property line than three feet, and the
projection is no closer to a side property line than allowed
by the district; unless a use permit is obtained in
accordance with the provisions of Section 307.
(i) THE PROJECTION IS NO CLOSER TO A SIDE
PROPERTY LINE THAN FIVE FEET;
(ii) THE PROJECTION IS NO CLOSER TO A REAR
PROPERTY LINE THAN THREE FEET; AND
(iii) THE PROJECTION DOES NOT EXCEED 15
FEET IN HEIGHT, UNLESS GREATER HEIGHT
IS PERMITTED BY OBTAINING A USE PERMIT
PER SECTION 307.
***
Section 703B Bulk Regulations (Landscaping and Open Areas In Multiple-Family Develnt)
Amend Chapter 7, Section 703.B (Landscaping and Open Areas In Multiple-Family
Development) to read as follows:
***
B. 2. Landscaping and open space areas shall be provided as follows at the time of
initial development and shall be maintained in a living condition on any lot
subject to residential district standards with four FIVE or more dwelling units.
***
Section 706. Accessory Uses and Structures.
Amend Chapter 7, Section 706 (Accessory Uses and Structures) to revise language
regarding Accessory Dwelling Units, as follows:
Section 706. Accessory Uses and Structures.
A. Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU)
1. In zoning districts where accessory dwelling units are a permitted use, one ADU
is permitted per lot when a single-family detached primary dwelling unit is also
provided, unless otherwise permitted by the zoning district. THIS SECTION
APPLIES TO ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS WHEN A LOT HAVING NO
MORE THAN ONE SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING UNIT IS PERMITTED ONE
OR MORE ADUS PER THE UNDERLYING ZONING DISTRICT.
2. An ADU is not permitted on a lot with a single-family attached dwelling unit, a
duplex, triplex, or multifamily dwelling units, unless otherwise permitted by the
zoning district. AN ADU MAY BE EITHER ATTACHED TO OR DETACHED
FROM THE PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING:
a. A MAXIMUM OF ONE ATTACHED ADU MAY BE PROVIDED PER LOT.
b. A MAXIMUM OF ONE DETACHED ADU MAY BE CONNECTED TO
THE PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT BY A PORCH, DECK, COVERED
PATIO, CARPORT, BREEZEWAY, OR SIMILAR.
3. An ADUS may be either attached to or detached from the primary dwelling unit,
ARE subject to the following design guidelines:
a. An attached ADU shall be integrated into the design of the primary
dwelling unit so that it appears to be part of one single family home,
rather than a duplex. This guideline does not prohibit the provision of
separate entry features. (P)
b. A detached ADU, when visible from adjacent streets, shall be
constructed with similar and/or complementary materials, design, and
color(s) as the primary dwelling unit, SHOULD HAVE A RESIDENTIAL
APPEARANCE IN NATURE AND DESIGN, or as may be approved by
Historic Preservation for HP zoned or designated properties. (P)
Rationale: ADUs are intended be subordinate to the primary single-family home
and should visually appear as such. An ADU which looks like a second duplex
unit, or a second detached primary dwelling unit, does not meet this intent.
MATERIALS MORE COMMONLY ASSOCIATED WITH COMMERCIAL
STRUCTURES SHOULD BE AVOIDED. HOWEVER, THESE DESIGN
GUIDELINES DO NOT REQUIRE THAT AN ADU MATCHES THE EXTERIOR
DESIGN, ROOF PITCH, OR FINISHING MATERIALS OF THE PRIMARY
DWELLING UNIT.
4. A detached ADU may be located within the required rear yard, IS subject to the
following:
a. A DETACHED ADU MAY BE LOCATED WITHIN THE REQUIRED
REAR OR SIDE YARD(S), AND/OR WITHIN A REQUIRED ON-LOT
PERIMETER SETBACK WHICH IS NOT ALSO THE FRONT YARD.
a. b. Setbacks.
(1) Minimum ten FIVE feet from a street side property line.
(2) Minimum three feet from an interior SIDE OR REAR property
line.
(3) No setback is required adjacent to a fully dedicated alley.
(4) FRONT SETBACKS APPLY AS STATED FOR THE ZONING
DISTRICT.
b. c. PERMITTED Height. Maximum 15 feet unless use permit approval for a
greater height is obtained per Section 307.
(1) WHEN LOCATED WITHIN THE REQUIRED REAR OR SIDE
YARDS: MAXIMUM 15 FEET, UNLESS USE PERMIT
APPROVAL FOR A GREATER HEIGHT IS OBTAINED PER
SECTION 307.
(2) WHEN NOT LOCATED WITHIN ANY REQUIRED YARD: THE
SAME HEIGHT AS PERMITTED FOR THE PRIMARY
DWELLING UNIT.
5. A detached ADU not located within the required rear yard and compliant with the
same setbacks required for the primary dwelling unit is subject to the same
height regulations as the primary dwelling unit.
6. 5. WHEN IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE MINIMUM REQUIRED FRONT
SETBACK, Aa detached ADU may not be located between the primary dwelling
unit and the front property line unless use permit approval is obtained per
Section 307.
7. 6. An attached ADU shall comply with same height regulations and setbacks
(including permitted projections per Section 701.A.3) required for the primary
dwelling unit.
8. 7. AnY ADU shall comply with the lot coverage requirements applicable to the
property.
9. 8. AnY ADU shall not have a gross floor area which exceeds 75% of the gross
floor area of the primary dwelling unit, and:
a. For lots up to 10,000 square feet in net area: 1,000 square feet.
b. For lots over 10,000 square feet in net area: the lesser of 3,000 square
feet or 10% of the net lot area.
For the purposes of these calculations, any garage, ATTACHED SHADE
STRUCTURE, or attached carport constructed as part of a detached ADU shall
NOT count toward the gross floor area of the ADU. Any attached shade
structures shall count towards lot coverage, but not gross floor area.
10. Notwithstanding any other provision, using the ADU for an activity requiring a
permit under Chapter 10, Article XVI of the City Code is prohibited.
B. Single-Family Residential Accessory Structures. The following regulations apply to
accessory structures which are not accessory dwelling units, and located on lots having
only single-family residential uses:
1. Accessory structures are not permitted within the required front yard. Accessory
structures located behind the required front setback but between the primary
dwelling unit and the front property line are not permitted unless use permit
approval is obtained per Section 307.
2. SETBACKS.
a. MINIMUM THREE FEET FROM A SIDE OR REAR PROPERTY LINE.
b. NO SETBACK IS REQUIRED ADJACENT TO A FULLY DEDICATED
ALLEY, UNLESS NEEDED FOR REQUIRED VEHICULAR
MANUEVERING.
2. 3. Permitted Heights.
a. WHEN LOCATED WITHIN A REQUIRED REAR OR SIDE YARD, A
Mmaximum height of eight feet IS PERMITTED when located within ten
LESS THAN FIVE feet of FROM a street side property line, AND A
MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF or 15 feet IS PERMITTED when located FIVE
FEET OR MORE FROM A STREET SIDE PROPERTY LINE elsewhere
within the required rear or side yard.
b. Heights in excess of 15 feet, when not located within ten FIVE feet of OR
MORE FROM a street side property line, may be approved through a
use permit obtained per Section 307.
c. An accessory structure not located within the required rear or side yard
and compliant with the same setbacks required for the primary dwelling
unit is subject to the same height regulations as the primary dwelling
unit.
3. Setbacks. Accessory structures shall maintain a minimum setback of three feet
adjacent to a rear or side property line, except that no setback is required
adjacent to a fully dedicated alley.
***
This publication can be made available in alternate format upon request. Please contact Teleia
Galaviz at 602-291-2559, teleia.galaviz@phoenix.gov, TTY: Use 7-1-1.
ATTACHMENT E
REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
October 10, 2024
ITEM NO: 2
DISTRICT NOS.: 4, 7, and 8
SUBJECT:
Application #: Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8
Proposal: Amend the following sections of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, as follows:
1. Revise and clarify provisions in Chapters 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 regarding
definitions; variance and Design Review appeal processes, and to
address how other sections interact with Chapter 12(Downtown
Code): Section 201 (Rules of Construction), Section 202 (Definitions),
Section 307.A (Authority and duties of the Zoning Administrator),
Section 507 (Development Review Approval), Section 669 (Arts,
Culture, and Small Business Overlay District), Section 702 (Off-Street
Parking and Loading), and Section 703 (Landscaping, Fences and
Walls).
2. Add a new Section 312 to Chapter 3 to create the Technical Appeals
Committee.
3. Repeal and replace Chapter 12 (Downtown Code) with revised and
clarified text.
Applicant: City of Phoenix, Planning Commission
Representative: City of Phoenix, Planning and Development Department
ACTIONS:
Staff Recommendation: Approval, as shown in the proposed text in Exhibits A and B of the
Addendum A Staff Report.
Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
Encanto 8/5/2024 Information only.
Central City 8/12/2024 Information only.
Encanto 9/9/2024 Approval, per the staff recommendation. Vote: 9-1.
Central City 9/9/2024 Approval, per the staff recommendation. Vote: 12-0.
Planning Commission Recommendation: Continued to the November 7, 2024 Planning
Commission Hearing, without fee.
Motion Discussion:
Commissioner Boyd made a MOTION to approve Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8, per the staff
recommendation in the Addendum A Staff Report.
Commissioner Gorraiz seconded the motion.
Commissioner Boyd made a MOTION to amend the motion to include the deletion and
replacement of page 41, the Land Use Matrix, regarding drive-throughs to not be permitted in
the Commercial Corridor and McDowell Corridor.
Commissioned Hu seconded the motion.
Chairman Gaynor initiated a roll-call vote.
The motion failed with a vote of 2-5 (Boyd, Hu) (Busching and James absent).
There was discussion about the legality of updating land uses due to possible Proposition 207
diminution in property value claims and that the intent of the text amendment was not to update
uses, so there was a legal advertising issue.
Commissioner Matthews made a MOTION to continue Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8 to the November 7,
2024 Planning Commission hearing and to have an executive session on the item.
Commissioner Jaramillo seconded the motion.
Chairman Gaynor initiated a roll-call vote.
The motion passed with a vote of 4-3 (Gorraiz, Read, Gaynor) (Busching and James absent).
Motion details: Commissioner Matthews made a MOTION to continue Z-TA-5-22-4-7-8 to the
November 7, 2024 Planning Commission Hearing, and to have an executive session on the
item.
Maker: Matthews
Second: Jaramillo
Vote: 4-3 (Gorraiz, Read, Gaynor)
Absent: Busching, James
Opposition Present: No
Findings: The application was continued to the November 7, 2024 Planning Commission
Hearing to allow for an executive session on the item.
This publication can be made available in alternate format upon request. Please contact Teleia
Galaviz at 602-291-2559, teleia.galaviz@phoenix.gov, TTY: Use 7-1-1.
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
-23-2 - Southwest Corner of Black Mountain Boulevard and Deer Valley Drive
(Resolution 22266) - District 2
Request to hold a public hearing on a General Plan Amendment to consider the
Planning Commission's recommendation and the related resolution if approved.
Request to amend the General Plan Land Use Map designation on 20.52 acres from
Residential 2 to 5 dwelling units per acre to Commercial. This is a companion case to
GPA-DSTV-3-23-2 and Z-39-23-2, and must be heard prior to GPA-DSTV-3-23-2 and Z
-39-23-2.
Summary
Application: GPA-DSTV-2-23-2
Current Designation: Residential 2 to 5 dwelling units per acre
Proposed Designation: Commercial
Acreage: 20.52
Proposed Use: Commercial use
Owner: Arizona State Land Department
Applicant: Ryan Ash, Vestar
Representative: Ashley Z. Marsh, Gammage & Burnham
Staff Recommendation: Approval.
VPC Information Only: The Desert View Village Planning Committee heard this item on
August 1, 2023, for information only.
VPC Action: The Desert View Village Planning Committee heard this item on October
3, 2023, and recommended denial, by a vote of 9-1.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this item on January 4, 2024, and
continued to item to a date uncertain and remanded the item back to the Village
Planning Committee for reconsideration, by a vote of 7-0.
VPC Action: The Desert View Village Planning Committee heard this item on October
1, 2024, and recommended approval, by a vote of 9-2.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this item on November 7, 2024, and
recommended approval, per the Desert View Village Planning Committee
recommendation, by a vote of 8-1.
Location
Southwest corner of Black Mountain Boulevard and Deer Valley Drive
Council District: 2
Parcel Addresses: 21502 and 21600 N. Black Mountain Boulevard; 21520, 21618,
21650, 21680, 21702, and 21750 N. Black Mountain Parkway; 3501 and 3517 E. Deer
Valley Drive; and 3539 and 3545 E. Mayo Boulevard
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Planning and
Development Department.
ATTACHMENT A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE 2015
GENERAL PLAN FOR PHOENIX, APPLICATION GPA-DSTV-2-
23-2, CHANGING THE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION FOR THE
PARCEL DESCRIBED HEREIN.
____________
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as
follows:
SECTION 1. The 2015 Phoenix General Plan, which was adopted by
Resolution 21307, is hereby amended by adopting GPA-DSTV-2-23-2. The 20.52
acres located at the southwest corner of Black Mountain Boulevard and Deer Valley
Drive is designated as Commercial.
SECTON 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to
modify the 2015 Phoenix General Plan to reflect this land use classification change as
shown below:
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 4th day of December
2024.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
____________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk
-2- Resolution
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Julie M. Kriegh, City Attorney
By:___________________________
___________________________
REVIEWED BY:
______________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager
-3- Resolution
ATTACHMENT B
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
STAFF ANALYSIS
September 26, 2023
Application: GPA-DSTV-2-23-2
Owner: Arizona State Land Department
Applicant: Ryan Ash, Vestar
Representative: Stephen Anderson, Gammage & Burnham
Location: Southwest corner of Black Mountain Boulevard and
Deer Valley Drive
Acreage: 20.52 acres
Current Plan Designation: Residential 2 to 5 dwelling units per acre (20.52
acres)
Requested Plan Designation: Commercial (20.52 acres)
Reason for Requested Change: A minor General Plan Amendment for commercial
use.
Desert View Village Planning
Committee Meeting Date: October 3, 2023
Staff Recommendation: Approval
FINDINGS:
1) The proposed General Plan Land Use Map designation of Commercial would
allow retail and service uses that would contribute to a mix of land uses in the
surrounding area, providing services to nearby residential neighborhoods.
2) The companion rezoning case, Z-39-23-2, proposes a commercial shopping
center, which, as stipulated, enhances the surrounding area with features
promoting pedestrian safety, facilitating alternative transportation, and providing
pedestrianized amenity spaces for the community.
3) The subject site is appropriate for commercial uses with adequate street access
to two arterial streets.
Staff Analysis
GPA-DSTV-2-23-2
Page 2
BACKGROUND
The subject site is 20.52 acres of undeveloped land, located at the southwest corner of
Black Mountain Boulevard and Deer Valley Drive. There are two companion cases with
this case. Companion case GPA-DSTV-3-23-2 is an amendment to the Desert Ridge
Specific Plan to create a commercial parcel, allowing C-2 zoning, coterminous with the
subject site. Companion case Z-39-23-2 is a rezoning request from S-1 DRSP
(Approved R1-6 DRSP) (Ranch or Farm Residence, Desert Ridge Specific Plan)
(Approved Single-Family Residence District, Desert Ridge Specific Plan) and S-1 DRSP
(Approved R-2 DRSP) (Ranch or Farm Residence, Desert Ridge Specific Plan)
(Approved Multifamily Residence District, Desert Ridge Specific Plan) to C-2 DRSP
(Intermediate Commercial, Desert Ridge Specific Plan).
The General Plan Land Use Map currently designates the subject site as Residential 2
to 5 dwelling units per acre. The applicant proposes to change the designation to
Commercial. This change, along with the companion cases, will facilitate the
development of a new commercial shopping center.
SURROUNDING LAND USES
North, east, and west of the subject site is land designated Residential 2 to 5 dwelling
units per acre on the General Plan Land Use Map with single-family residential housing
developed to the north and east. The land to the west is undeveloped.
South of the subject site is Pinnacle High School, which is designated as Public/Quasi-
Public on the General Plan Land Use Map.
Existing General Plan Land Use Map designation, Source: Planning and Development Department
Staff Analysis
GPA-DSTV-2-23-2
Page 3
RELATIONSHIP TO GENERAL PLAN CORE VALUES AND PRINCIPLES
CONNECT PEOPLE AND PLACES
• CORES, CENTERS, & CORRIDORS; DESIGN PRINCIPLE: Encourage
centers to provide a pedestrian environment with plazas, common open
space, shaded walkways, separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic,
bicycle parking, and vehicle parking in architecturally disguised structures
or underground where feasible.
The proposal, as stipulated in the companion rezoning case, Z-39-23-2, will
provide a commercial center with a pedestrian plaza, shaded walkways,
enhanced features for pedestrian safety, bicycle parking, and a safe crossing to
the adjacent school.
CELEBRATE OUR DIVERSE COMMUNITIES & NEIGHBORHOODS
• DIVERSE NEIGHBORHOODS; LAND USE PRINCIPLE: Communities should
consist of a mix of land uses to provide housing, shopping, dining and
recreational options for residents.
The proposal will contribute to a mix of land uses by providing retail and services
closer to surrounding residential neighborhoods.
• CONNECTED NEIGHBORHOODS; LAND USE PRINCIPLE: Locate
neighborhood retail to be easily accessible to neighborhoods.
The proposal will enhance accessibility to retail uses by locating retail closer to
neighborhoods and as stipulated in companion rezoning case Z-39-23-2,
providing pedestrian and bicycle amenities that promote non-vehicular
transportation.
BUILD THE SUSTAINABLE DESERT CITY
• TREES AND SHADE: DESIGN PRINCIPLE: Integrate trees and shade into
the design of new development and redevelopment projects throughout
Phoenix.
The proposed development, as stipulated in companion rezoning case Z-39-23-
2, provides shaded detached sidewalks on all bounding streets and enhanced
shade to pedestrian areas and surface parking areas on site, which will reduce
the urban heat island effect while also improving thermal comfort to site users
and the surrounding neighborhood.
Staff Analysis
GPA-DSTV-2-23-2
Page 4
COMMUNITY INPUT SUMMARY
At the time this staff report was written, staff has received 180 letters in opposition,
three petitions in opposition with a total of 663 names, 233 letters in support, 23 letters
stating general support but requesting a gas station not be included, three petitions in
support with a total of 753 names, and four letters providing general comments. Among
those opposed, concerns include the change in the residential character of the area,
increased traffic and conflicts with Pinnacle High School traffic, pedestrian safety,
increased lighting, the presence of homeless individuals, crime issues, and a reduction
in property values.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of GPA-DSTV-2-23-2. The proposed land use map
designation allows for development that provides additional retail and commercial
service options for the surrounding community and locates uses appropriately at the
intersection of two arterial streets. The companion rezoning case, Z-39-23-2, as
stipulated, will provide connectivity with the surrounding area.
Writer
Anthony Grande
September 26, 2023
Team Leader
Racelle Escolar
Exhibits
Sketch Maps (2 pages)
Community Correspondence (600 Pages)
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
CITY OF PHOENIX X PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT X 200 W WASHINGTON ST X PHOENIX, AZ X 85003X (602) 262-6882
APPLICATION NO: GPA-DSTV-2-23-2 ACRES: 20.52 +/- REVISION DATE:
VILLAGE: Desert View COUNCIL DISTRICT: 2
APPLICANT: Ryan Ash
EXISTING:
Residential 2 to 5 du/ac ( 20.52 +/- Acres)
Proposed Change Area
Residential 2 to 5 du/ac DEER VALLEY RD
Public/Quasi-Public
Parks/Open Space - Publicly Owned
MA
BLACK MOUNTAIN BLVD
YO
BL
VD
PROPOSED CHANGE:
Commercial ( 20.52 +/- Acres)
Proposed Change Area
DEER VALLEY DR
Commercial
MA
BLACK MOUNTAIN BLVD
YO
BL
VD
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
CITY OF PHOENIX X PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT X 200 W WASHINGTON ST X PHOENIX, AZ X 85003X (602) 262-6882
APPLICATION NO: GPA-DSTV-2-23-2 ACRES: 20.52 +/- REVISION DATE:
VILLAGE: Desert View COUNCIL DISTRICT: 2
APPLICANT: Ryan Ash
EXISTING:
Residential 2 to 5 du/ac ( 20.52 +/- Acres)
Proposed Change Area
Residential 2 to 5 du/acre DEER VALLEY RD
Public/Quasi-Public
E E E E E
Parks/Open Space - Publicly Owned
E E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E E
MA
BLACK MOUNTAIN BLVD
YO
BL
VD
PROPOSED CHANGE:
Commercial ( 20.52 +/- Acres)
Proposed Change Area
DEER VALLEY DR
Commercial
MA
BLACK MOUNTAIN BLVD
YO
BL
VD
From: Scott Clark
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Case GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/DSTV-3-23-2, Z-39-23
Date: Saturday, July 29, 2023 11:20:21 AM
Dear Mr Grande,
I am a resident of Aviano neighborhood and live 1 block from Deer Valley Drive and Black
Mountain Blvd. I wanted to send an email that my family is opposed to rezoning the land use
from residential to commercial, GPA-DSTV-2-23-2.
The reason that I am opposed is that the proposed site is next to Pinnacle High School and
during the times of before and after school the area becomes very crowded with families
driving their kids to school, children walking and biking to school.
Having a commercial shopping center next to the school is going to create an unsafe
environment for the children walking and biking to school. There is a significant amount of
vehicle congestion from drop off/pickup that makes that area very congested. Adding a
commercial shopping area will make the area even more congested and unsafe. I have 4
children that may go to Pinnacle High School and think the current zoning as residential is
appropriate for the area next to a high school.
Thanks
Scott Clark
Resident of 3610 E Donald Dr
602-363-7729 (Cell)
From: Nathan Friedland
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Black Mountain Village - Superblock 12
Date: Wednesday, August 2, 2023 10:52:40 AM
Mr. Grande:
I understand that you are the City Planner for the subject rezoning of the land parcel at the
Southwest corner of Deer Valley and Black Mountain Boulevard. As a resident of Sky
Crossing, directly across Deer Valley from this subject parcel, my family and I along with
1220 homeowners will be directly impacted by this proposed development.
I am not naive to believe that this development will be rejected and I appreciate our
community’s need for additional businesses like a grocery store and restaurants.
However, I would like to bring to your attention some concerns that I have and I am sure our
neighbors have relevant to this rezoning.
1. Traffic is already high on these two streets and with the addition of a large shopping center,
the traffic will expand greatly bringing to our community more noise with drivers revving
their engines and peeling out of the new center. This will be especially realized should a gas
station be approved and built. A gas station, if approved on this parcel, must be restricted in
their hours of operation with it being closed over night. In all candidness. a gas station is not
really needed as there are a number of stations near by on Cave Creek and on Tatum - all
within 2 to 3 miles from this area.
2. Light Pollution is another major concern. Nobody wants to see glaring bright lights during
the night time that will disrupt the tranquility of our lives and interrupt our sleep over night.
The developers must be required to adhere to dark sky compliance to limit the amount of blue
light at night.
These two items are my current concerns and I am sure my neighbors will have other issues
such as neighborhood safety and security that they will bring to your office’s attention.
Thank you for your time and attention to this most important matter.
Nathan Friedland
North 34th Way - Sky Crossing
Phoenix, Az 85050
From: Rachel McLean
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Black Mountain Village Project
Date: Wednesday, August 2, 2023 3:18:23 PM
Hello Mr. Grande,
I am writing to you in regards to the Black Mountain Village Project (GPA-DSTV-2-23-2). I understand that you are
the City Planner for this project and would like to share my opinion. I live in the Sky Crossing neighborhood
directly across Deer Valley Rd from the proposed project. While I am in favor of commercial development on this
parcel, I must urge you to only allow for businesses that will not degrade our neighborhood. For example, most
neighbors are opposed to a gas station. This is an unnecessary addition as there are multiple gas stations on both
Tatum and Cave Creek Rd. A gas station would bring unwanted loitering and excessive noise and traffic to this
residential neighborhood.
Another issue I have is with a large grocery store (ie Frys, Albertsons, etc). Again, this being an entirely residential
neighborhood it would detract from our community to have a large grocery store. I do however support a smaller
grocery store with less traffic such as a Sprouts or Trader Joe’s.
Both the grocery store and a gas station would create a large amount of light pollution. I would like to see building
plans that involves less lighting, more landscaping and a more cohesive ambiance with the desert and the natural
surroundings.
This leads me to my last point that our homes in Sky Crossing are typically selling around $1M. To me, this would
indicate a higher scale neighborhood. I would appreciate if the commercial businesses fit in with the demographic of
the area, similar to business parks in Scottsdale. A gas station and large grocery store would be unwelcome and an
eye sore whereas a smaller neighborhood grocery store and smaller, tasteful restaurants and shops would be a
welcome addition.
Please consider these points and I look forward to attending the next meeting to hear the latest development.
Rachel McLean
Sky Crossing Resident
From: Richard Starr
To: Anthony M Grande; PDD Desert View VPC
Subject: planned commercial/retail center at SWC Black Mtn Pkwy & Deer Valley
Date: Wednesday, August 2, 2023 3:50:16 PM
Hello Anthony and Desert View VPC,
I am a nearby resident (Fireside) of this proposed project. My main concern here is Pinnacle
HS parking. The high schoolers often park in the adjacent residential neighborhoods as
Pinnacle's lot are simply not large enough for its growing population. The AZ State Land
Department, Paradise Valley School District and any potential bidder/buyer of this ASLD
property should work together (now) to facilitate the purchase of additional 3-5 acres for
more Pinnacle High School parking north of Mayo Blvd. The school parking could be on west
side of future retail center. Otherwise, students and visitors for sporting events will simply
park in the new commercial center, upsetting retail tenants and customers alike.
Thank you.
Richard "R.T." Starr
(623) 521-5668
rtstarraz@hotmail.com
From: Ronee Korbin Steiner
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Construction possibilities Deer Valley and Black Mountain
Date: Wednesday, August 2, 2023 7:24:45 PM
As Sky Crossing homeowners, we wanted to express our objection to the potential of large commercial development
at this corner. When school is in session the traffic is awful. It’s going to be exceptionally worse if there is a
commercial structure at that corner. Moreover, I have no idea how the owner will police the students parking there.
It’s going to bring more traffic, crime, congestion and so on. This is not the kind of thing we want to see in our area.
It’s very likely to negatively impact home values as well.
Thanks so much for noting our objection.
Tracy and Ronee Steiner
From: Sabrina Sundquist
To: Anthony M Grande
Date: Wednesday, August 2, 2023 11:45:07 AM
Mr. Grande:
I understand that you are the City Planner for the subject rezoning of the land parcel at the
Southwest corner of Deer Valley and Black Mountain Boulevard.
As a resident of Sky Crossing, directly across Deer Valley from this subject parcel, my family and I
along with 1220 homeowners will be directly impacted by this proposed development.
I am not naive to believe that this development will be rejected, and I appreciate our community’s
need for additional businesses like a grocery store and restaurants.
However, I would like to bring to your attention some concerns that I have, and I am sure our
neighbors have relevant to this rezoning.
1. Traffic is already high on these two streets and with the addition of a large shopping
center, the traffic will expand greatly. Please do not allow a gas station on this corner, it is
not a major arterial intersection. There are plenty of gas stations in both directions of this
corner and those are both busier streets and can accommodate the need.
2. Light Pollution is another major concern. Nobody wants to see glaring bright lights
during the nighttime, this will greatly disrupt the tranquility of our lives and interrupt our
sleep over night. The developers must be required to adhere to dark sky compliance to limit
the amount of blue light at night.
These two items are my current concerns, and I am sure my neighbors will have other issues such as
neighborhood safety and security that they will bring to your office’s attention.
Thank you for your time and attention to this most important matter.
Sabrina Sundquist
3506 E. Daley Lane
From: nav bajwa
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: REZONING OF THE LAND AT BLACK MOUNTAIN AND DEER VALLEY
Date: Friday, August 4, 2023 7:38:56 AM
To Mr. Grande,
My name is Nav Bajwa. I am a resident of Aviano. As a concerned citizen, I am writing this
email to urge and appeal that you reconsider keeping the area zoned for residental purposes
only. The infrastructure in that area is not built to handle a shopping complex, with all the
increased traffic from the Pinnacle high school as well.
Thanks,
Nav.
From: Julie Gibson
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Oppose the development Black Man Deer Valley
Date: Friday, August 4, 2023 7:55:25 AM
Hi Anthony,
First I want to thank you for what you do. I worked ever so briefly in planning in Portland,
OR. I know it’s a tough and under appreciated role in development. So I do not like sending an
email with a negative tone, but on this one I must.
Regarding the development at Black Mountain Blvd and Deer Valley I have 2 major concerns:
1. The additional traffic to an already clogged area - especially with high schoolers in the area.
It increases frustration and potential for life treating accidents. (Teen brains in the mornings
aren’t really the the sharpest in the intersection).
2. How can we guarantee that this doesn’t end up a strip mall of vape stores and liquor stores?
Again the last thing that should be placed near a high school. Our kids have so much on their
plate already in terms of the availability of addictive substances. Why make this any harder for
them?
I do hope the City will take in consideration the development’s proximity to a high school and
the challenges it poses with the teens that will no doubt surround the area before and after
school.
I will do my best to be at the next meeting in October.
Warm regards,
Julie
Julie Gibson
julsgc@me.com
480-352-8612
From: Gordon Smith
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Development at the corner of Deer Valley and Black Mountain Blvd
Date: Friday, August 4, 2023 2:17:59 PM
I live close by and strenuously object to developing this land for commercial use. This would
place a commercial lot right in the middle of neighborhoods and a school. I happen to live in
the closest adjoining neighborhood (Fireside - Copper View) and my property values will be
negatively impacted by this decision. My quality of life will be negatively impacted by this
decision.
From a practical perspective, this is a dangerous place to build a development of that nature.
We already suffer from high school kids parking and clogging our streets in the
adjoining neighborhood. At best, this would shift that burden to this new development.
Having entitled parents with their bad parking/waiting habits combined with parking lots full
of high school teens disobeying parking regulations and the increased pedestrian traffic there
is a recipe for disaster. I sure hope they have amazing insurance - they'll need it.
This will create light and noise pollution, add more traffic to an already congested area and
degrade my property values. If anything, this state land should be used for an expansion of the
school itself to allow for more high school parking and activities of the existing population
attending that school.
We have gas stations nearby already. We have grocery stores nearby already. We have fast
food nearby already. We do not need this development.
Sincerely,
Gordon Smith
3608 E Salter Dr
Phoenix AZ 85050
From: Christian Klein
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Case: GPA-DSTV-2-23-2
Date: Friday, August 4, 2023 12:42:04 PM
Dear Anthony Grande,
I am writing today regarding Vestar’s proposals (case numbers) GPA-DSTV-2-23-2, GPA
DSTV-3-23-2, and Z-39-23. As a resident of Desert Ridge, I oppose Vestar’s proposal for
rezoning the Southwest Corner of Black Moutain Boulevard and Deer Valley Drive from
Residential to Commercial/Retail for several reasons.
First, Desert Ridge is a highly desirable planned residential community that continues to
attract buyers willing to pay a premium for a prime location. Adding commercial/retail
mixed-use space in the middle of the community would decrease the desirability of Desert
Ridge and lower the values of residential real estate within the community.
Second, the traffic flow within Desert Ridge is already too great for the limited infrastructure
within the community. Pinnacle Peak High School is located adjacent to the proposed site.
The traffic caused during the morning/afternoon pick up/drop off combined with regular
commuting already creates a safety issue on Black Moutain and Deer Valley with vehicles
backed up in every direction. Adding unnecessary commercial/retail space would only
increase the traffic and lead to safety issues.
Third, there is no need for mixed commercial/retail space in the middle of single-family
homes. The area has more than ample shopping options - Desert Ridge Marketplace, High
Street, and shopping off of Cave Creek Rd and the 101 are all within an extremely close
distance. Finally, creating a commercial/retail space in the middle of a residential area will
bring increased instances of crime which when coupled with declining property values
would limit the marketability of Desert Ridge.
Given the detrimental impacts on our home values, marketability, safety, noise/light
pollution, and increased traffic without adequate infrastructure these proposals should be
denied. Please do not hesitate to reach out if I can provide any additional information.
Regards,
Christian Klein
From: Ronee Korbin Steiner
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Additional information on potential project at Deer Valley and Black Mountain
Date: Friday, August 4, 2023 7:33:48 AM
I urge you or someone from your office to come by between 7 am and 7:30 and see what the traffic is like. It’s
unbearable. I literally have to change my work schedule by leaving either before 7 or after 7:30. Any commercial
addition to that corner is going to make things exponentially worse, create more accidents or worse. Kids are
walking across the street and not at the intersection because there is gridlock and they think that they can just do
that.
The Steiners
From: Layla
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Case#GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/ Desert Ridge Community
Date: Tuesday, August 8, 2023 10:25:52 AM
Mr. Grande,
My husband and I, and our children, have lived in the Desert Ridge Community since 2010.
What attracted us to this area was the quiet, beauty of the desert, and the many, many young
families that live here. Our children attend all the neighborhood schools including Pinnacle
High School.
We feel strongly that changing this residential land site to commercial would be detrimental to
our community. The increased traffic would be catastrophic to the neighborhood
environment. It is already difficult to get my children to school, this would increase
substantially. We have studied the developers plans for this land and we are deeply troubled.
Our neighborhood will be forever changed with drive-thrus and a gas station. Huge semi
trucks will now be delivering gas and food to our quiet community. We cannot allow this to
happen! We do not need another gas station or grocery store here. We can drive less than a
mile to obtain that. Why destroy a neighborhood/community all for money.
We are pleading with you to put a stop to this! If you have any further questions, please let us
know.
Thank you,
Darrin and Layla Saikley
602-329-4432
From: Wendy
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Rezoning for Commercial of Corner Black Mountain & Deer valley
Date: Tuesday, August 8, 2023 10:00:00 AM
Hi Mr. Grande,
This email is too put in our objection for the rezoning to make commercial the corner of Black
Mountain Blvd and Deer Valley.
The traffic in that area is already very busy with the school and subdivisions. As is there is
usually backups. This is a residential neighborhood with lots of families and kids. We do not
need to bring additional traffic or buildings that don't belong in the middle of a residential
area. There is enough stuff very close by. We did not buy in the area to have that type of stuff
right in the middle of our neighborhoods.
I highly object to this and would not approve it!
Thank you,
Wendy
From: Helen"s Cox Email
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Application No. GPA-DSTV-2-23-2
Date: Thursday, August 10, 2023 10:42:07 AM
Hello Mr. Grande,
We are homeowners of (2) homes in Desert Ridge and we STRONGLY OPPOSE the proposed commercial tract
along Black Mountain Blvd and Deer Valley Road next to Pinnacle High School.
Please make a note of our position.
Thank you,
Helana and Timothy Doyle
Sent from my iPhone
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, August 10, 2023 11:20:48 AM
Name
Peter Feldman
peterjfeldman@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Fireside at Desert Ridge
Support Comments
This development is a terrible idea. Traffic in right lane of Deer Valley is already backed up for a half mile
at drop off and pick up at high school. Black Mtn is impassible with the kids crossing the street and cars
parked along the sides of the roads. Some kid is going to get hit by a shopper leaving that center and
everyone associated with the development is getting sued.
This is literally the worst possible use for the property.
From: Sue
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Zone change of the Southwest Corner of Deer Valley Drive and Black Mountain Boulevard
Date: Thursday, August 10, 2023 11:23:32 AM
Dear Mr. Grande,
I am against the zone change from residential to commercial.
There are many, many reasons why I am opposed to this zone change (lights, noise, traffic , etc.).
I live in the Sky Crossing community.
I attended the August 1st meeting, but nothing favorable was convincing.
Sincerely,
Suzanne Corlett Sayegh
21827 North 33rd Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85050
Sent from my iPhone
From: Rusty Ludwig
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Proposed Development on Black Mountain and Deer Valley
Date: Saturday, August 12, 2023 12:30:18 PM
Hi Anthony,
We have lived in Aviano for the past 17 years, when we purchased our home, in the general
plan this was zoned residential. We have no problem driving to the commercial areas already
developed for that type of businesses. From the sounds of the development it’s catered to
capture the local high school, the area is already congested in that area. Please forward this
response to the City Staff responsible for the decision to change the zoning, please leave it
residential.
Thank You,
Rusty Ludwig
--
Rusty Ludwig
RJL Excavating, Inc.
602-920-8003
rjlexc@gmail.com
From: cmotjen
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Deer Valley & Black Mountian
Date: Sunday, August 13, 2023 9:51:17 AM
Hi Anthony,
If possible, I hope you can restructure the thought of making Deer Valley and Black Mountain a commercial
property. Our kids have to walk by this intersection everyday on their way to school. We moved into a
neighborhood to have a neighborhood, not a city.
If commercial is the only option, please look at other corporations. The locations built by Vestar are tacky and
unappealing, sprawling at best. We need something sophisticated and classy. We/You are beyond fortunate Sky
Crossing Elementary, Fireside Elementary and Pinnacle High School are some of the BEST schools in the PV
school district.
Please don’t let us down in making a rash decision,
Christina Otjen
Sent from my iPhone
From: Helen’s Cox
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Application # GPA-DSTV-2-23-2
Date: Monday, August 14, 2023 11:05:23 AM
Hello Anthony,
I understand that the city would like a more detailed explanation as to why we are strongly against rezoning this
tract for commercial building.
My husband and I have lived in Desert Ridge since 2004. Phoenix does not have many areas where the beauty and
quiet of the desert is so prominent. However, the Desert Ridge community is one of the beautiful, quiet and family
friendly neighborhoods in Phoenix. In fact when we outgrew our home and decided to buy another one we chose to
remain in Phoenix in the Desert Ridge area because we love it so much.
All of our children have and do attend the neighborhood schools. The Desert Ridge area has always been a safe and
quiet neighborhood. Building a commercial plot right next to Pinnacle High School would be outrageous. It would
cause a dangerous amount of traffic, crime and be very disturbing to the school and surrounding neighborhoods.
Desert Ridge Marketplace is less than 1 mile away.
We understand there is a proposed gas station in the plans. This is extremely short sighted. There is a gas station
less than a mile away. The future is electric. In the next few years gas cars will become obsolete. Gas stations are
so toxic, it is incredibly hard to convert the land when it will no longer be needed. This begs the question, is the
development being funded by a gas company?
It appears that the city is being motivated by money and not seeing how this will impact a beautiful neighborhood.
Currently, the neighborhoods in Desert Ridge are very much like you’d see in the city of Scottsdale. The Desert
Ridge area is highly sought after in the City of Phoenix and gives the City of Scottsdale a “run for its money”. This
proposed tract is obviously money motivated with no regards as to the impact it will have on Pinnacle High School
and the surrounding neighborhoods and ultimately the City of Phoenix.
The City of Phoenix is already filled with unsightly commercial plots next to neighborhoods and schools which
downgrades those areas immensely.
Keep the Desert Ridge neighborhood as one of the few in the City of Phoenix that is peaceful, beautiful and safe.
Be the future and preserve this neighborhood for generations to come. Please Do Not build commercial on this
land. Be better and do what’s right for the city.
Thank you,
Timothy and Helana Doyle
602-432-9504
From: Ginger Kurtz
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: new development in desert ridge phx az
Date: Wednesday, August 16, 2023 12:09:48 PM
I am a resident of Desert Ridge. We have been in Desert Ridge since the beginning March
1995. We have seen the growth . We feel blessed everything is within walking or a short
drive . We have gas stations, grocery storel and plenty of restaurants and some fast food. If
you dont like Desert Ridge for shopping you have a short drive to Bell Road off Tatum for
morel choices or go to cave creek off of Deer Valley. We dont need to bring more traffic and
more traffic and chaos to this neighborhood. We oppose the new development off Deer Valley
BLack mountain.
Thank you Ginger Kurtz, Kristina Koontz
From: VH
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Parcel at Black Mtn and Deer Valley
Date: Thursday, August 17, 2023 2:47:26 PM
Hi Mr. Grande,
I want to express my opposition to the proposed rezoning of the parcel on the Southwest
corner of Black Mountain and Deer Valley. It is being proposed that the land be rezoned from
residential to commercial. This is a terrible idea for many reasons. I am a full time resident in
Sky Crossing and below are just a few potential issues that will be created by
commercial zoning.
Violence, as experienced at Desert Ridge shopping area
Increased noise
Predators/sex trafficking
Light pollution
Increased burnouts - burnouts are currently in every intersection in the area
Increased traffic in an already crowded area
Safety - speeding is rampant in the area and there was a death on Deer Valley last year
High school pedestrian safety
High school drop off and pick up is already severely congested
Increased wear and tear on roads from commercial vehicles
Increased commercial vehicles - brakes, horns, noise
There is zero need for a gas station, grocery store, or any other commercial property on this
land. Those services are already conveniently located 2-3 miles in either direction.
Please don't make a decision to rezone the parcel. The future cannot be undone when issues
arise. It's not always about money. Sometimes - in this case for instance - it's about keeping a
neighborhood a neighborhood with residential properties as initially zoned. Home owners in
Sky Crossing were sold on the idea of residential and not commercial across the street. No
commercial zoning nearby was a huge selling point for property owners. Don't go back on this
commitment.
Please don't rezone the parcel at Black Mountain and Deer Valley north of Pinnacle High
School. Be proactive and put residents first.
Thank you for your time.
Vicki
From: Wendy Piermarini
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Do Not Change Residential Lot into Commercial
Date: Friday, August 18, 2023 9:05:36 AM
Anthony,
We built in Desert Ridge back in 1997 and studied the Master Plan. It DID NOT include
commercial inside the Desert Ridge Community. It is the worst idea to change the
residential property into commercial. It will only bring crime, homelessness and more
congestion to an already very congested area. Trying to navigate around Pinnacle High School
is already ridiculous and any changes to the navigating that problem has not helped. . This was
never the plan and it should not be a new plan in order to profit a few. Keep our area
beautiful!!!!
From: wroodenburg@cox.net
To: Anthony M Grande; David Urbinato
Cc: Laura Farrell; Council District 2 PCC; Sarah Stockham; bgeorge@pvschools.net; nwilcox@pvschools.net; PDD Desert View VPC
Subject: RE: Pinnacle High School - Traffic flow / Vision Zero
Date: Friday, August 18, 2023 4:00:29 PM
Attachments: image003.png
image005.png
image006.png
Thanks everyone for your input.
What strikes me in general is that it seems a very reactive process to “wait and see” who comes up with a plan for the vacant land.
There is :
1. already a master plan for Desert Ridge,
2. the land is owned by the Arizona State Land Department, beneficiaries include the k-12 schools,
3. there is a Vision Zero plan and budget to reduce casualties,
4. there is a federal program regarding infrastructure.
On top of that,
1. the school was build in 2000 during a time when Fireside/Aviano/SkyCrossing/DesertRidge marketplace were not even there yet.
2. The school was build in 2000 whilst the freeways like 101 were not build yet, etc, etc
3. During curriculum night at the Pinnacle High School, this topic was brought up and the principal re-iterated that he was 100% against the commercial proposal – this is
not what came across in the meeting and I would love to see the exact wording used that night.
4. Pinnacle High school is further expanding the number of students every year and it should be able to get the infrastructure and parking capabilities for students to get
to school safely.
5. Student Drivers are mixed with in with people that need to get to work in time and this creates a recipe for disaster for these drivers and the students crossing the
intersection.
Adding up all these before mentioned items and elements of existing/approved budgets, would we (as a community) be wrong to assume that there is somebody at City or
State level working with the school district to alleviate the pressures that now exist in this neighborhood, proactively.
We have escalated the issue, discussions and actions have taken place between the school and the city, but this year the dropoff and pickup is in exactly the same state of
chaos around the school and we’re all just waiting for 1 child to get run over.
This doesn’t seem in line with the Vision Zero.
My main question is this;
Does the city planner and the village planning committee have the ability to – themselves - create a proposal for this vacant land, recognizing that the area has grown
tremendously over the last decade and that improvements to the infrastructure, traffic patterns, school safety, etc are now needed.
Here are the benefits:
1. The biggest benefit is the fact that Pinnacle Highschool is one of the few lucky schools that has vacant land around it to still expand and address the issues.
2. Both committees are experts in State and City guidelines and laws
3. Both committees can invite other necessary parties to the table that they know are required to make a good plan and include people from the school districts and the
department of education.
4. You have inside knowledge of budget and grant opportunities at State and Federal level to plan for funding
5. Vision Zero survey results are available in more detail then what the public gets to see and it should have been highlighted by the participation of the community in
Aviano and Fireside.
6. State Land should benefit the school – so why not expand the footprint for this high school directly (and not selling the land for proceeds)
I’m no expert in what it is people on this email can do or not – but I would strongly urge all of you to take my points into consideration and NOT approve the vestar proposal
in any shape or form, because it is NOT what the area needs and it is NOT in the best interest of student safety.
We can only decide ONCE what will happen to this piece of land and it was already decided to NOT be commercial.
We have a great community, they have engaged with surveys and shown up at meetings. We love where we live and it’s mainly because of the master plan that is already in
place.
If you require further input and or participation of our community and/or have any suggestions to have this proposal stopped, please let us know.
Much appreciated if this can be added to the proposal as feedback.
Kind regards,
Wouter Roodenburg
From: Anthony M Grande
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2023 4:00 PM
To: David Urbinato
Cc: Laura Farrell
Subject: RE: Pinnacle High School - Traffic flow / Vision Zero
Hi all,
I want to add some information here. Vestar has filed an application to rezone the property for commercial use. The Desert View VPC heard an informational presentation on
August 1 and took public comments. I know Mr. Roodenburg, you were there and provided input on the rezoning proposal. As was discussed at the meeting, the case is still
under review and won’t have a formal staff recommendation until it returns to the VPC in October for public hearing and recommendation. In the meantime, we are
reviewing all comments received, which will be made part of the case file and included in the staff report for the case.
Please feel free to reach out with any additional questions or comments.
Thanks,
Anthony
Anthony Grande
Planner II – Village Planner
Planning & Development Department
Long Range Planning
Office: 602-256-5648
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
From: David Urbinato
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2023 12:37 PM
To: wroodenburg@cox.net
Cc: Laura Farrell
Subject: FW: Pinnacle High School - Traffic flow / Vision Zero
Mr. Roodenburg, Street Transportation Department staff forwarded your question about development plans for the circled parcel below. This parcel of land is owned by the
Arizona State Land Department. They submitted a request for a pre-application review (PAPP 2206799) of a site plan and potential rezoning that proposed a shopping center
on the property. At this time, the owner has not submitted any additional documents beyond the pre-application stage. Please note that details of proposed plans can change
somewhat as they move past the early pre-application stage.
I have copied the village planner for that area, Anthony Grande, if you have any questions about how the rezoning process would play out from here should the applicant
choose to proceed.
The State Land Department sells parcels based on guidelines in state law. Whether they legally could donate the land to the school district would be a question to address
directly with the Land Department. I’ve included a link to their home page as a place to start. Home | Arizona State Land Department (az.gov) [land.az.gov]
David Urbinato
Economic Development Program Manager
Ombudsman Section
Phone: 602-534-3630
ʇ Planning & Development Department
Ombudsman Section
200 West Washington St., 3rd Floor
Phoenix, AZ 85003
pdd.ombudsman@phoenix.gov
From: wroodenburg@cox.net
Sent: Tuesday, August 1, 2023 1:48 PM
To: Laura Farrell
Cc: Council District 2 PCC
Subject: RE: Pinnacle High School - Traffic flow / Vision Zero
Laura,
Following our previous conversations, it seems that Pinnacle high school and the city have worked together on a better drop off procedure for this year by changing the drop
off route to be going around the school.
There also seem to have been an investment in more signs everywhere and a reduction in speed at Mayo boulevard, but it won’t stop the students being dropped off on the
corner of mayo from where they literally cross this junction in anyway they can (no longer following the crossings). It actually has gotten worse in the last year.
Although these previous mentioned actions are positive signs, they do not seem to address the rootcauses of the traffic issue and doesn’t directly help the safety of the
students, nor provide extra capacity for drop off locations.
Only the land north of the school would be able to provide this with some development.
However, residents have noticed that the city is considering an application for rezoning the land North of the school with commercial intentions. ( Black Mountain Village /
Superblock 12 - Gammage & Burnham | Attorneys at LawGammage & Burnham | Attorneys at Law (gblaw.com) [gblaw.com] ). See Zoning hearings sign attached.
I have copied some board members of the PV school district and hope they are aware of this rezoning application, impacting Pinnacle high school student safety.
After the Fireside residents have tried to communicate our concerns with the safety of this area with the City and our participation in the Road Safety surveys, I find it very
surprising that the City is considering to add yet more traffic to this junction where a lot of high school students are and more new student drivers are going to be this year.
Are you able to share the information you have gathered last year that prompted some of the changes with this Planning commission to take into consideration?
Would you be able to advise us about the options, procedures needed to rezone/donate this exact piece of land to be of future use for Paradise Valley School district and
expansion of the highschool?
Looking forward to further information on this topic.
Kind Regards,
Wouter Roodenburg.
From: Laura Farrell
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2022 11:09 AM
To: Wouter
Cc: Council District 2 PCC
Subject: RE: Pinnacle High School - Traffic flow / Vision Zero
Good morning Wouter,
I apologize for not getting back to you Monday, but I was unexpectedly out. I did leave you a voicemail yesterday afternoon, and I promised to follow up with an
email today.
Staff analyzed the traffic count data and have been monitoring the two traffic signals near Pinnacle High School, especially the one at Black Mountain and Mayo
boulevards, this week as school started. They determined that an adjustment to the signal at Black Mountain and Mayo was needed to allow for more green times
when the signal detects an increase in vehicles. However, while the adjustment has helped some, the amount of traffic present during school pick-up and drop-off
times is still causing congestion, which signal adjustment cannot remediate.
Staff also noticed some issues with the way students/pedestrians are crossing at this intersection. Therefore, staff will contact the school to work with them on
safety education. Staff will also see if they can make some suggestions to the school regarding their pick-up/drop-off plans.
Unfortunately, there is no street engineering solution we can offer to solve this issue. The traffic congestion at Pinnacle High School is not unique; all high schools
in the City have similar congestion issues during the peak morning and afternoon hours, which dissipate once those peak hours are over. We do have a school
safety coordinator who works with schools on their pick-up and drop-off plans to minimize traffic impacts as much as possible, while also educating them on
safety. However, we can only make suggestions as the City does not have the authority to force schools to change their plans. Arizona State Law exempts them
from having to comply with zoning ordinance requirements as other businesses and property owners must do within the City. Schools are governed by the locally
elected school district or the Department of Education at the state level.
I do understand that safety is of utmost concern to you and the other parents as it is for us, too. We will continue to provide as much assistance as we can by
monitoring the signals and communicating with the school. I also urge you to contact the school board or district to solicit their assistance with your concerns.
I also want to thank you for participating in the Road Safety Action Plan Phase I survey. The results are available at phoenix.gov/streets/roadsafety. Another survey
for Phase II is now open through August 31 if you’d like to take that one as well. Please keep checking the website for other community engagement opportunities
and plan updates.
I do hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to call me if you have other questions or concerns.
Thank you,
Laura Farrell
Management Assistant II
200 W. Washington St., 5th Floor
Phoenix, AZ 85003
(602) 495-2047
laura.farrell@phoenix.gov
Follow us on Twitter @StreetsPHX [twitter.com]
From: Wouter
Sent: Monday, August 8, 2022 7:47 AM
To: Laura Farrell
Cc: Council District 2 PCC
Subject: Re: Pinnacle High School - Traffic flow / Vision Zero
Laura,
Hope you also had some time off this summer.
We’re ready to have the kids go back to school and was wondering whether any changes will be made to the traffic light timing of the various lights.
As a community we continue to participate in the questionnaires that came out, etc but hope there is something the city is willing to do now to make the situation safer.
Kind regards
Wouter Roodenburg
480-567-2716
Sent from my iPhone
On May 20, 2022, at 4:00 PM, Laura Farrell
Hi Wouter,
Thank you for your email, and I appreciate the chance to speak with you on the phone today.
Just to reiterate our conversation, we are monitoring the two traffic signals near Pinnacle High School, and we are finalizing traffic counts before
school is out next week. We will analyze the data to see if there are any adjustments we can make. During our monitoring, we did note the school
ingress/egress pattern, so our school safety coordinator is going to review and reach out to the school to see if we can provide some assistance.
I know school is out next week, but we will continue to work with the school and monitor the traffic signals especially when school is back in session in
August. I’ve noted that one of your main concerns is with vehicles getting backed up on Mayo Blvd when turning onto Black Mountain (both turning
left with the arrow going west then southbound onto Black Mountain and turning right when going east then southbound onto Black Mountain from
Mayo) as they wait for students to cross. I have forwarded your concern to the traffic management center, so they can be sure to monitor this
especially. I will let you know if there are any adjustments we can make.
I also let you know that the results of the Road Safety Action Plan (RSAP) public survey should be published on the RSAP website at
phoenix.gov/streets/roadsafety in early to mid-June. I’ll make sure to keep this on my radar to update you once it’s available.
I do appreciate you letting us know of your safety concerns as we are dedicated to working on improving the safety of our roadways as much as
possible.
Please feel free to reach out to me again if you have other concerns. In the meantime, I’ll make sure to provide you with updates as I have them.
Have a wonderful weekend!
Thank you,
Laura Farrell
Management Assistant II
200 W. Washington St., 5th Floor
Phoenix, AZ 85003
(602) 495-2047
laura.farrell@phoenix.gov
Follow us on Twitter @StreetsPHX [twitter.com]
From: Wouter
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2022 7:33 AM
To: Laura Farrell
Cc: Council District 2 PCC
Subject: Re: Pinnacle High School - Traffic flow / Vision Zero
Good morning
I wanted to follow up on the traffic light evaluation. Has it occurred yet?
There really should be some adjustments to make it safer for the kids
Will the results of the questionnaire be published ?
Much appreciate an update
Regards
Wouter
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 17, 2022, at 7:46 AM, Laura Farrell
Good morning Mr. Roodenburg,
Thank you so much for sharing the survey with your neighbors and submitting your feedback.
I have requested the two signals be evaluated, and I’ll follow up once they have been completed. Staff is also evaluating the area for any
pedestrian crossing issues and looking into options.
We do appreciate your willingness to help. We can certainly let you know if there are any opportunities for neighborhood feedback. I’m
copying Tricia Quiroz to be your future contact person. She is my counterpart in our Traffic Services Division, which is the division that
handles traffic signals, pedestrian crossings, and school safety.
One of us will follow up with you with the results of the signal timing evaluations. Let me know if you have any other questions.
Thank you,
Laura Farrell
Management Assistant II
200 W. Washington St., 5th Floor
Phoenix, AZ 85003
(602) 495-2047
laura.farrell@phoenix.gov
Follow us on Twitter @StreetsPHX [twitter.com]
From: wroodenburg@cox.net
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 2:47 PM
To: Laura Farrell
Cc: Council District 2 PCC
Subject: RE: Pinnacle High School - Traffic flow / Vision Zero
Laura,
Thank you for the information. I will take this up with the school district as well.
I did post your survey on our community facebook page and you should see multiple submissions already from me and my neighbors.
I hope that traffic around schools gets prioritized appropriately in your plan.
Please start the process required to get the timing of traffic signals around that intersection reviewed again and adjusted accordingly.
The cross walk lights should be isolated and run separately from the cars to avoid accidents between the kids and cars making last minute turns.
The light from Mayo turning onto black mountain south - should be isolated and run longer to clear up the lines.
Again – there is a large group of parents in Fireside that wish to participate in any effort to make that area safer for our kids and ideally allow them
to walk/bicycle more to school.
Let us know how we can help or who our contact is at the Transportation department.
Regards,
Wouter Roodenburg.
From: Laura Farrell
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 9:02 AM
To: wroodenburg@cox.net
Cc: Council District 2 PCC
Subject: RE: Pinnacle High School - Traffic flow / Vision Zero
Good morning Mr. Roodenburg,
Councilman Waring’s office sent your email to the Street Transportation Department for investigation.
Thank you for contacting the City of Phoenix with your concerns. Unfortunately, the Street Transportation Department has no authority
over your proposals for parking ingress/egress for the school. We also have no jurisdiction over the state land parcel. We suggest taking
your proposal directly to the school district first to see if they can accommodate any of your parking proposals.
What the city can offer at this time is to review the timing of the traffics signals at Black Mountain and Mayo boulevards, and Black
Mountain Boulevard and Deer Valley Road to ensure they are timed appropriately for the traffic volumes.
Regarding Vision Zero, Phoenix City Council did just recently approve adopting Vision Zero with the goal of eliminating all traffic fatalities
on Phoenix roadways. We are also developing a comprehensive Road Safety Action Plan (RSAP) for the city and will be incorporating
Vision Zero goals into the RSAP. We are currently requesting public input to help shape the plan, so I highly encourage you and your
neighbors to visit phoenix.gov/streets/roadsafety for information on the RSAP and to take the survey.
I do hope this information is helpful and thank you again for contacting the City of Phoenix. Please let me know if I can be of any further
assistance.
Thank you,
Laura Farrell
Management Assistant II
200 W. Washington St., 5th Floor
Phoenix, AZ 85003
(602) 495-2047
laura.farrell@phoenix.gov
Follow us on Twitter @StreetsPHX [twitter.com]
From: wroodenburg@cox.net
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2022 4:10 PM
To: Council District 2 PCC
Subject: Pinnacle High School - Traffic flow / Vision Zero
Dear Councilman Waring,
We are living in Fireside Community near Pinnacle High School. Every morning dropping our kids off has turned into a nightmare.
A lot of traffic is building up around this area. Lot of frustrated drivers that I have filmed going through red lights and near collisions, mixed in with
student drivers trying to park their car at the school.
Currently I’m not aware of any fatalities on this highschool junction, but we would hope the city will be pro-active in this case preventing any
accidents before they happen.
Please find below a request to the city with regards to the traffic situation around Pinnacle High School.
Parents are getting very concerned about the safety of our kids.
A lot has changed in this part of phoenix, with big new housing divisions going in and black mountain blvd connecting to the 51 freeway.
The way this new road was build did not consider the kind of traffic that we’re dealing with currently. A bridge to cross Black mountain blvd was
build 500 feet away from the junction which is causing nobody to use it.
Available State land on the corner – highlighted below in picture - is staying vacant and would be the perfect addition to repurpose for the safety of
our kids and increase the parking capacity of the school.
I have seen articles regarding “Vision Zero” and new funding being available to reduce the number of accidents and fatalities in Phoenix and would
very much hope that his will be a timely request to consider by the city council.
We would very much like to understand how we can work with the city to address this dangerous situation.
Much appreciate your feedback on the matter.
Kind regards,
Wouter Roodenburg
480-567-2716
From: wroodenburg@cox.net
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2022 3:42 PM
To: 'patrick.presley@phoenix.gov'
Subject: Pinnacle High School - Traffic flow questions
I’m trying to find out who to speak with regarding the traffic situation at Pinnacle High school.
Most parents in our Fireside community are very concerned about the junction our kids have to cross and cars that are driving through that
intersection.
I’ve got some video’s from just 1 random day and captured a lot of dangerous driving through red lights and almost collisions.
A lot of traffic is going down the same roads trying to reach the school or get onto the 51 freeway causing a massive traffic jam every day.
We would very much like to know if we could work with the City to resolve these situations to increase the safety of our kids.
The plot of state land highlighted in light blue should ideally become part of the highschool to have additional parking for a fast growing highschool.
Closing the entrance from black mountain blvd, forcing students to go via Deer Valley instead.
I’ve included the situation and also some possible solutions to consider.
When the State land becomes part of PV district - Then you could have much needed additional parking and also incorporate a safe drop off and
bridge to have them enter the school.
Traffic will then be diverted away from Mayo Blvd and Black mountain blvd
Much appreciate your feedback.
Kind regards,
Wouter Roodenburg
480-567-2716
*******
Anthony M Grande
From: Chris Hanley
Sent: Saturday, August 19, 2023 4:16 PM
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Black Mountain and Deer Valley Village
Hello Anthony,
My name is Chris Hanley and I live in the Sky Crossing community. I moved into this neighborhood in March 2020 and
am the original owner of my home.
I understand there is a zoning hearing for the parcel of land on Deer Valley, West of Pinnacle High School. I
also understand that a commercial developer wishes to buy the land to develop a shopping center and needs the land
to be rezoned from residential to commercial.
I am opposed to this rezoning.
Sky Crossing is a new neighborhood. Many of us bought here in the last few years with the knowledge of the open land
to our south being other homes, not a grocery store, gas station, and other retail. This isn't an old neighborhood where
things have changed over the decades, we're less than 5 years into this.
As you know, Deer Valley is a 3 lane road in each direction. It is heavily travelled. The high school contributes to the
traffic load at certain times of day. WIth Black Canyon as a feeder onto SR 51, there is high traffic already.
While I understand how that would appeal to a commercial developer, the community is highly concerned about the
added traffic and congestion a shopping center would bring. In addition, the shopping center would add light pollution
and added noise pollution.
As you also know, shopping centers draw in pan handling, the homeless, and additional trash. We don't need that in a
family community, next to a high school and close to Sky Crossing Elementary.
Cave creek road to our West has 2 gas stations on it (north of the 101) and plenty of retail. We have an Albertsons at
Tatum and Deer Valley, with a gas station, and again lots of retail at Desert Ridge. There is also a Safeway and Frys north
of us at Tatum and Cave Creek. We don't need any more grocery stores and there are plenty of gas stations.
Please do not approve the rezoning. Thank you for your consideration on this matter and please reach out if you would
like to discuss.
Chris Hanley
3118 E. Herrera Dr
Phoenix AZ 85050
c3hanley@gmail.com
Anthony M Grande
From: Justin M
Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2023 9:44 AM
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Opposition to Vestar Development Group's Plans for Northwest Corner Deer Valley and
Black Mountain
Dear Anthony Grande,
I hope this messages finds you well. I am writing to express my very strong opposition to the proposed development and
rezoning of the land from residential to commercial at the Northwest Corner of Deer Valley and Black Mountain by
Vestar Development Group. The conversion of this residential area into a commercial zone would have severe
consequences, detrimental implications, and potentially devastating impacts on both the environment and the
community. I implore you to reconsider this decision and prioritize the well-being of the city, its residents, and its
natural surroundings.
The City of Phoenix has outlined a comprehensive sustainability plan for the year 2050, with clear guidelines for
responsible development that considers the efficient usage of resources, including water. One crucial aspect of this plan
is the expansion of parks, preserves, and open spaces, ensuring that all residents are within a five-minute walk of such
spaces, but those spaces must be sustainable or else the whole point of having a commercial center within walking
distance is null. Furthermore, the goal of reducing urban heat-island effects through green infrastructure and increasing
tree and shade canopy coverage is paramount.
However, the proposed development contradicts these essential sustainability goals. Converting the area into a car-
centric commercial zone would undoubtedly lead to increased traffic congestion, resulting in higher CO2 emissions. The
associated light and noise pollution would disrupt the delicate balance of the ecosystem and erode the serene character
of the Sonoran Desert environment, its flora and fauna, and its natural aesthetic.
I urge you to consider the broader impact of this development on the city's future. Will it be in line with the City of
Phoenix's sustainability regulations, ensuring that the structures incorporate features such as vertical gardens and
agricultural areas on their roofs? Will there be proper infrastructure in place, including ample bicycle racks, substantial
green spaces covering over 80% of the area, and designs that prioritize pedestrian and micromobility traffic over internal
combustion engine vehicles? Specifically, bicycle lanes which are physically protected by a barrier to protect cyclists
from traffic?
The City of Phoenix has shown a commitment to reducing air pollution and safeguarding public health through various
programs and initiatives. However, this development project poses a significant threat by potentially increasing the
emission of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs), negatively impacting the environment, ecosystem, and the health of
the community.
The City of Phoenix states, “The City of Phoenix is strongly committed to reducing air pollution and protecting public
health. The city implements a wide range of air quality programs to reduce ozone and particulate pollution (dust and
smoke). Transit, light rail, bikeways, and pedestrian-friendly development reduce vehicle emissions and promote land
use planning and urban designs for a more sustainable environment”. How will this development protect public health
when in fact, it will introduce vulnerabilities witthin the community? It will actively degrade and destroy the health of
the surrounding community and communities.
Equally concerning is the potential destruction of native plants in the area due to this development. The loss of
biodiversity and destruction of the Sonoran Desert's unique ecosystem cannot be taken lightly.
The Environmental Protection Agency asserts that that, “Volatile organic compounds (VOC) means any compound of
carbon, excluding carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic carbides or carbonates, and ammonium
carbonate, which participates in atmospheric photochemical reactions”. These harmful chemicals would be released into
our atmosphere if the proposed development is approved. We must oppose and condemn this egregious use of building
authority with passion for the future of the City of Phoenix, and on a more global scale, the Earth itself.
In light of these concerns, I wholeheartedly disagree and very strongly oppose the Vestar Development Group's plans for
the Northwest Corner of Deer Valley and Black Mountain. I urge you to immediately stop and immediately halt all
current and future development plans and instead prioritize the city's sustainability goals, community well-being, and
the preservation of the natural environment. By doing so, you can help shape a better future for the City of Phoenix and
its residents.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Justin M.
(602)-481-8143
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Tuesday, August 22, 2023 4:30:19 PM
Name
Rebecca Eldridge
rebecca.n.eldridge@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Fireside Desert Ridge
Support Comments
I do NOT support a shopping center at this location. It’s already too congested as it is at that intersection
and south toward the 101. This is not a prime location for something like this right near the high school
and between so many large neighborhoods. Maybe great for the businesses but terrible for neighbors!
The design of our roads and infrastructure in our area was not designed and is not currently conducive
for more high traffic areas. The roads will become a nightmare - even more so (esp in black mountain)
than they are now.
It’s relatively quiet in our area too - aside from the chaos on Tatum in Desert Ridge. Let’s not bring that
chaos west a few blocks!
I will not support a shopping center at this location and aside from those reasons shared above, I have a
list full of others.
If anything, make parking and traffic easier on Pinnacle students and families so they don’t have to block
intersections, slow traffic, or bring their traffic for pick up and drop off into neighborhood streets. If
anything, that high school and its community need support for better access before, during, and after
school.
I guarantee if you put a shopping center in, that parking lot will be filled with student parking M-F. Make
decisions that are to the benefit of the community, not for making money hungry investors richer.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Tuesday, August 22, 2023 3:51:41 PM
Name
Jennifer Francyk
jfrancyk@me.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Fireside
Support Comments
Please do not allow a gas station on that corner. How about a public library? A park? A community
center? Do we really need to put junk food outlets and hang outs so close to the high school? Property
values won’t be the same if this is not done properly. If anything a small grocer like sprouts or Trader
Joe’s might be ok. Prefer it was just housing.
JAMES W. TUFFIN
21214 N. 36th Pl
Phoenix, Arizona 85050
(516) 359-6420
james.tuffin@tuffinlaw.com
(retired attorney not offering services to the public)
August 22, 2023
VIA EMAIL (anthony.grande@phoenix.gov)
Mr. Anthony Grande
Planner II – Village Planner
Planning & Development Department
Re: GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2; Resident Statement in Opposition
Dear Mr. Grande:
I reside in Desert Ridge, and I am opposed to the above listed applications. My home is well west of the
commercial core, overlooking Black Mountain Boulevard and Pinnacle High School (“PHS”), and with a
view of the parcel in question. I have reviewed the application materials posted on the website of
Applicant’s (“Vestar”) counsel, and I attended the informational meeting of the Desert View Village
Planning Committee on August 1, 2023.
The requested change is beyond inequitable, it is unconscionable. It does extreme violence to the terms
of the Desert Ridge Specific Plan (“DRSP”)1 and the reasonable expectations of Desert Ridge
homeowners along Black Mountain Boulevard under the terms of the plan. It does nothing to further the
well-being of nearby residents and poses myriad problems. The arguments offered by Vestar to justify the
change do not pass muster, as will be readily demonstrated below.
THE PROPOSED CHANGE IS AN EXTREME DEPARTURE FROM THE DRSP
DRSP contemplates that “commercial development is restricted to the Village Center . . .” except for
“neighborhood commercial uses located within the residential superblocks”.2 DRSP goes on to explain
the extremely limited size and scope of such commercial uses:
The neighborhood convenience commercial centers are very limited in
size. They are intended to serve only the superblock in which they are
located and not intended to serve a population outside the superblock
boundary. The maximum total acreage for neighborhood retail uses,
including buildings, parking, landscaping, and any other items related to
the existence of the neighborhood retail use, shall be three (3) net acres,
while the minimum acreage will be one (1) net acre. 3
City of Pheonix Planning & Development
August 22, 2023
Page 2
Furthermore, DRSP strictly limits the permitted uses within non-core superblocks, and the list does not
include gas stations or drive-through coffee operations4, both of which were touted by Vestar’s counsel at
the informational meeting. Indeed, DRSP specifically prohibits “Drive-through uses”.5
Under the DRSP, no family purchasing a single-family home in a non-core superblock would reasonably
anticipate having a drive-through Dutch Brothers or Starbucks, or a gas station, across the street from
their home. Vestar now proposes a 20-acre commercial development in Superblock 12. 6 Vestar is
essentially asking the City of Phoenix to throw out DRSP and stab nearby homeowners in the back.
OBVIOUS INTENT TO DRAW ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC FROM SR 51
When Black Mountain Boulevard south of Mayo Boulevard was completed and made the terminal exit of
SR 51, concerns of nearby residents were addressed by placing a traffic circle to slow down traffic and
discourage heavy trucks, and by providing a pedestrian bridge for safe access to PHS.
The proposed change represents a complete reversal of what was until now a concerted effort to keep
Black Mountain Boulevard more quiet and more safe. The placement of the proposed shopping center, at
the first traffic light after the SR 51 terminal exit, is obviously intended to attract vehicles that would
otherwise continue west on SR 101 and exit at Cave Creek Road or further west. It is a repudiation of
DRSP’s promise that homeowners could expect to live in clean, quiet neighborhoods while commercial
activity was limited to the Village Commercial Core.
MAGNET FOR UNSUPERVISED ADOLOSCENTS
Placement of the shopping center within spitting distance of PHS is problematic. This is not meant to
disparage the PHS student body as a whole. Nevertheless, in any group of over 2500 teenagers7, there will
be those whose immaturity or lack of direction makes them prone to get in trouble. While the studious
and industrious will disperse to more wholesome activities, there will undoubtedly be those who choose
to hang out. The shopping center, just across a narrow street from PHS, will obviously become the hang
out venue of choice.
There are numerous reports of problems with unsupervised teenagers in retail environments across the
country8, and unsupervised time leads to drug use and other issues.9 Given the location, these problems
will undoubtedly spill over into the surrounding residential areas, which already experience litter, graffiti,
vandalism and doorbell pranking. Encouraging high concentrations of hundreds of unsupervised teenagers
cannot be a benefit to the teenagers or anyone else. It is best for all concerned if the students disperse
when not involved in supervised activities.
Vestar claims that the presence of the high school makes the parcel unsuitable for development as
currently zoned.10 The opposite is true. DRSP and the existing zoning contemplate Superblock 12 to
contain only the high school and residential use. PHS opened in or about 2000. Nothing has changed
about PHS that would justify depriving nearby homeowners of their reasonable expectations under DRSP.
City of Pheonix Planning & Development
August 22, 2023
Page 3
AIR, NOISE AND LIGHT POLLUTION
DRSP prohibits “Drive-through uses”11 in non-core superblocks for very good reasons. These operations
generate considerable pollution. Not only are PHS and numerous homes nearby, but Fireside Elementary
is not far and generally downwind. Air pollution from idling engines is a serious problem12, and some
communities have gone so far as to try banning drive-through operations entirely13. The air quality in
Phoenix, and Maricopa County generally, is notoriously poor with many “bad air” days. 14 Encouraging
drivers to turn their motors off while waiting will never work when the temperature is over 90 degrees.
DRSP’s approach of limiting these operations to the Village Commercial Core is not arbitrary and should
be maintained.
Although Deer Valley Drive and Black Mountain Boulevard have some traffic at rush hours, things tend
to quiet down in the evening and there is a distinct residential tone to the neighborhood. This holds true
when attendees disburse after PHS Friday night football. The proposed shopping center will keep the
noise up and the lights on much later than nearby residents are used to, greatly diminishing the residential
character of the community.
TRAFFIC CONGESTION
I am aware that other residents have commented on traffic issues. I will not belabor the point here, except
to note that in the chaos that occurs every morning when PHS is in session, I have at times been unable
access westbound Mayo Boulevard from the N. 36th Way gate of my community. Vestar contemplates
cars entering and exiting the shopping center on all four surrounding streets. This would include Mayo
Boulevard directly across from PHS, and will surely exacerbate the existing problems.
VESTAR’S SCHEME IS NOT JUSTIFIED
Vestar’s purported justifications of its scheme do not withstand scrutiny.
There are no traffic or parking impediments to residents obtaining daily needs at the Desert
Ridge Marketplace (“DRM”).
DRM was designed to enable local folks to get to the pharmacy, gas station, grocery store, and various
other businesses without getting involved with traffic headed to the big box stores, apparel outlets or
entertainment district. The local needs providers are located in the northwest corner of the marketplace
and are readily accessed from two curb cuts on Deer Valley Drive just east of Tatum Boulevard. The
apparel and box stores, as well as the entertainment district, are closer to other, much larger, parking lots
which are served by numerous additional entrances to DRM. I have lived in Desert Ridge for over 11
years and have never, even on Black Friday, had a problem finding parking at Albertson’s. To illustrate
this, I recorded a video at Grocery Run Sat 08-19-2023 - YouTube. 15
City of Pheonix Planning & Development
August 22, 2023
Page 4
The proposed center is unlikely to provide alternative groceries.
At the informational meeting, Vestar’s counsel admitted that Vestar is unable to identify any
specific grocer that would occupy the proposed grocery store. Although Vestar says it expects
the grocery store to be smaller than the existing Albertson’s, its counsel conceded that none of
the proposed businesses are sure to occupy the shopping center. Assuming that a grocery store is
established, there is no reason to believe that it will offer merchandise different that that offered
at Albertsons.
Creation of minimum wage retail jobs is not a community priority.
The small number of jobs projected to be “created” on the new shopping center could easily be
placed elsewhere. It should also be noted that substantial construction is taking place at nearby
High Street and City North where much higher density residences, offices, and retail spaces are
being built.
Purported benefits to the community are illusory at best.
Keeping the Current Zoning will have the same effect on dust and storm runoff.
The supposed dust control and storm runoff management benefits are speculative and
unquantified. In 11 years, I have never seen significant flooding along Black Mountain
Boulevard. Residential development at the site would have the same effect.
The “safe alternative” for students is illusory.
Encouraging teenagers to consume junk fast food benefits no one. The so called “safe alternative
. . . before school, after school, and during the lunch hour” actually describes an unsupervised
hangout for hundreds of teenagers with all the attendant problems described above. A
concession by PHS’s principal that the project “would potentially reduce the number of off-
campus trips by car”16 hardly demonstrates a full-throated endorsement of the scheme. Had there
been a firm expression of general support for the project from anyone in authority at PHS or the
school district, Vestar would surely have mentioned it in its explanatory letters.
The residential remnant shows how the change is repugnant to DRSP.
The fact that Vestar wants to gobble up 20 acres of the Superblock while leaving a mere remnant
for residences demonstrates how the proposal is repugnant to both the letter and spirit of DRSP.
City of Pheonix Planning & Development
August 22, 2023
Page 5
The gas station and shopping center have no health benefits and will not be a community social
center.
There is nothing about the proposed project that will foster connection among the citizens. There
are innumerable such shopping centers around Phoenix, and there is nothing unique about this
proposal. There are no outdoor parks, exhibition or performance spaces illustrated on the
Conceptual Site Plan. The purported health benefits are nothing but speculation. It is my
observation after 11 years living here that very few people walk with groceries around Desert
Ridge, regardless of the season. The health hazards of innumerable automobiles spewing particle
pollution on the drive-through lines clearly outweigh these specious claims of health benefits.
The proposed gas station will not provide a net benefit to the community.
A gas station will generate excess light, noise, and fumes on a 24/7 basis. The convenience store
that will inevitably accompany it will only encourage additional teenage loitering.
In my 11 years here, I have only fueled my car once or twice at the Shell station at DRM, even
though it is the most conveniently located, and I am there several times a week while visiting the
grocery store or the pharmacy. The problem is that Shell stations generally charge considerably
more than Circle K, QT or Arco. The issue, if there is one, is the price, not the location.
The proposed gas station is obviously intended to draw traffic from SR 51 as discussed above.
Located as the last gas before the freeway, competitive pricing is doubtful.
The Desert Ridge Community Association (DRCA) has not taken a position on this project.
Although there have been communications between DRCA and Vestar, the board of DRCA has
never resolved to support this project. While I am not privy to communications that may have
taken place between Vestar and DRCA’s officers or board members, the Association has never
formally endorsed the project. A copy of an email from DRCA confirming this is attached as
Exhibit A.
THE PROPOSED CHANGE IS AN UNCONSCIONABLE STAB IN THE BACK
Zoning determinations must be “… equitable, in terms of consistency with established
regulations and procedures, respect for the rights of property owners, and the consideration of the
interests of the citizens of the City.”17
DRSP provides for a mix of densities and uses, from mixed commercial and multi dwelling to
condominiums, to rental apartments to single family homes. Purchasers of single-family homes
were encouraged by a central feature of the plan: all significant commercial activity is placed in
the Village Commercial Core. Retail conveniences in the non-core residential superblocks are
limited to a list of specified uses, limited to three acres, and drive-through operations are
expressly prohibited. Thus, purchasers of single-family homes could look forward to living in
City of Pheonix Planning & Development
August 22, 2023
Page 6
clean, quiet residential neighborhoods. Vestar now proposes to simply rip up that plan and asks
the City to stab nearby homeowners in the back.
Rejecting this proposal is not unfair to any Desert Ridge Residents who may endorse, in the
abstract, a gas station or additional retail operations. There was nothing about DRSP that gave
them any reasonable expectation that these things would be built on Black Mountain Boulevard,
and they were content to buy their homes under that plan. Vestar’s plan to ruin the lives of
residents along Black Mountain Boulevard is grossly unfair; indeed, it is unconscionable and
must be rejected.
Respectfully submitted,
James W. Tuffin
Copies to:
Mr. Terrence Smith (terrance.smith@fsresidential.com
DRCA Board of Directors (desertridge.az@fsresidential.com)
Steven W. Anderson, Esq. (Sanderson@gblaw.com)
Hon. Jim Waring (council.district.2@phoenix.gov)
Hon. Kate Gallego (mayor.gallego@phoenix.gov)
Mr. Eric Molenaar (EMolenaar@AssociatedAsset.com)
Ms. Corina Vanek (cvanek@arizonarepublic.com)
Mr. Wouter Roodenburg (wroodenburg@cox.net)
All references to “DRSP” are to the Specific Plan as revised through November 2, 2022 (accessed on 8/19/23 at
https://www.phoenix.gov/pddsite/Documents/PZ/pdd_pz_pdf_00086.pdf)
DRSP at 5-3. (5.C.1)
DRSP at 6-6 (6.C.3.A.)
DRSP at 6-7 (6.C.3.B.2.c)
DRSP at 6-8 (6.C.3.B.2.d)
SPA-B2-Application, (accessed on 8/19/23 at http://www.gblaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/SPA-B2-
Application-Form.pdf)
PHS reported enrollment of 2556 for 2021-2022 school year (PHS AZ School Report Card, accessed 8/20/23, at
https://azreportcards.azed.gov/schools/detail/79268 .
See, e.g., Bartlesville mall bans unsupervised teenagers due to crime increase
(https://www.koco.com/article/oklahoma-bartlesville-mall-bans-unsupervised-teenagers/43385307); Teen bans on
the rise (https://www.koco.com/article/oklahoma-bartlesville-mall-bans-unsupervised-teenagers/43385307).
See, e.g., Teen Drug Use: Does a Lack of Supervision mean More Drugs?
(https://cascadeheightsrecovery.com/unsupervised-teens/ ); After School: The Prime Time for Juvenile Crime
(https://www.policechiefmagazine.org/after-school-the-prime-time-for-juvenile-crime/ ); Unsupervised teens more
likely to use tobacco, pot and alcohol (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-adolescents-unstructured-time-
idUSKCN0RI1LL20150918 )
City of Pheonix Planning & Development
August 22, 2023
Page 7
RZ-C5-Letter of Explanation, at p. 7 (accessed 8/21/2023 at http://www.gblaw.com/wp-
content/uploads/2023/07/RZ-C5-Letter-of-Explanation.pdf)
N.5, supra.
See, e.g., Mendoza, et al, Pollution hot spots and the impact of drive-through Covid 19 testing sites on urban air
quality, Environ. Res. : Health (https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2752-5309/ace5cb/pdf )); Idling
Reduction for Personal Vehicles (https://afdc.energy.gov/files/u/publication/idling_personal_vehicles.pdf ))
See, e.g., Cities ban new drive-throughs to fight climate change (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cities-put-
brakes-on-drive-thrus-to-curb-carbon-emissions/).
See, e.g., American Lung Association, State of the Aire Arizona: Maricopa
(https://www.lung.org/research/sota/city-rankings/states/arizona/maricopa) ; State of the Air report ranks Phoenix
among worst 25 cities for pollution, (https://cronkitenews.azpbs.org/2022/04/21/air-pollution-phoenix-among-25-
worst-cities-us/ ) ;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2X_OOB2qew
SPA-B5-Letter of Explanation (accessed 08/20/2023 at (http://www.gblaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/SPA-
B5-Letter-of-Explanation.pdf).
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance § 102.
EXHIBIT A
James Tuffin
From: Terrance Smith
Sent: Friday, August 4, 2023 4:26 PM
To: James Tuffin; Desert Ridge - az
Cc: Stephen W. Anderson
Subject: RE: TO ALL BOARD MEMBERS AND TERRENCE SMITH Re: Plan and Zoning Change Case Black Mtn
and Deer Valley
Good afternoon Jim,
I hope all is well with you.
On behalf of the DRCA Board Members, please see below the corresponding response to the
questions in your email:
1. No.
2. Yes, the DRCA received emails from Vestar’s attorney to attend the monthly board meeting(s)
to present and provide community updates regarding Vestar’s Parcel 12 application process
and proceedings relative to their conceptual development plans.
Respectfully,
TERRANCE SMITH, CMCA, AMS, LSM, PCAM
Executive Director
Desert Ridge 5415 E. High Street, Suite 133 | Phoenix, AZ 85054
Direct 480.551.4550 | Cell phone 480.254.5948
Property Fax: 480.551.6000
terrance.smith@fsresidential.com
desertridgelifestyles.com
24/7 Customer Care Center: 855.333.5149
Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube
From: James Tuffin
Sent: Friday, August 4, 2023 11:33 AM
To: Desert Ridge - az
Cc: Stephen W. Anderson
Subject: TO ALL BOARD MEMBERS AND TERRENCE SMITH Re: Plan and Zoning Change Case Black Mtn and Deer Valley
Hi Folks,
It was great reconnecƟng with Reggie and Doug at the recent Desert Village Planning CommiƩee meeƟng, and
remembering the fellowship we enjoyed when I served as DRCA treasurer. Having stepped back from community
aīairs, I was taken by surprise by the rezoning noƟce and some of the things I heard at the meeƟng. Now I need to
catch up and I hope you can help me.
At the meeƟng, and in an explanatory leƩer submiƩed to the City, Vestar’s counsel suggested that the DRCA
supports the proposed changes. I respecƞully request answers to the following quesƟons:
1. Did the DRCA ever pass a resoluƟon supporƟng the proposed changes or the project in general? If so, please
provide a copy of the text of the resoluƟon(s) and the agenda(s) and minutes of the meeƟng(s) at which
such resoluƟon(s) was (were) adopted.
2. Is DRCA, its representaƟves or agents, in possession of any wriƟngs, correspondence, emails or texts
showing communicaƟons between or among the DRCA, Vestar, Vestar’s counsel or representaƟves, the City
of Phoenix or the Arizona State Land Department related to the proposed project or the applicaƟons for
plan and zoning changes? If so, how can associaƟon members get access to those materials?
I’m guessing you’ll be seeing a bit more of me in the coming months and as always, whether we agree or
disagree, as friends. As you might imagine, I need a response to each quesƟon as soon as you can do it. Please do not
delay responding to quesƟon 1 if you need more Ɵme to answer quesƟon 2. I should menƟon, although I’m sure you
know it already, that your response may be incorporated into submissions I may make to the City. As a professional
courtesy, I am providing Vestar’s counsel with a copy of this request.
Thank you very much.
Warm regards,
Jim (James W. Tuĸn)
21214 N 36th Pl, Phoenix AZ 85050
516.359.6420
James.tuĸn@tuĸnlaw.com (reƟred aƩorney not oīering services to the general public)
From: Rajesh Gadde
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Fireside resident - regarding black mountain village
Date: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 9:37:38 PM
Hello Anthony,
I am Rajesh Gadde live in fireside at desert ridge, I would like to formally email you my
opposition about building Black mountain village , I think it's going to make our safe
neighborhood area into commercial area thus causing danger to kids , we don't want this at all.
Please help us om this matter.
Thanks
Rajesh
From: Julia Levene
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Desert View, rezoning application
Date: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 4:45:07 PM
HI Anthony:
I attended the recent board meeting regarding case GPA-DSTV-2-23-2 regarding the rezoning of the
20.5 acres located on the corner of Deer Valley and Black Mountain in the Desert Ridge area.
I currently live in the Fireside neighborhood, and was taken back by plans to change this lot from
residential use to commercial use. I would like to see that land developed for residential as it was
originally intended; or given to Pinnacle High School, as they need additional parking for their
students.
In no way would I want a gas station or large grocery store to be located in that area. Not only would
the light pollution from the gas station be bothersome, and the noise from delivery trucks at early
hours, but the added traffic to the area as well! This is already a busy corner!
Please take the residents, the high school students, and the neighborhoods into consideration
before changing this lot from residential to commercial.
Thank you,
Julia
Julia Levene, CMP
CEO
Go West Destinations, Inc.
DBA: APP, Association Planner Partners
3734 E. Ringtail Way
Phoenix, AZ 85050
Phone: 602 320-8323
www.associationplannerpartners.com [associationplannerpartners.com]
From: Andrea Remke
To: Anthony M Grande
Cc: Council District 2 PCC; Eric Molenaar
Subject: Proposed land development at Mayo/black mtn
Date: Sunday, August 27, 2023 9:29:11 AM
Mr Grande, city officials, etc,
Assuming you are the proper representatives to contact regarding this matter, I’d like to please ask you and the city
representatives to consider the opposition many residents here in Fireside Desert Ridge have to the proposed zoning changes
of the property at Black Mountain Blvd and Mayo Blvd /Deer Valley Drive right next to Pinnacle High School.
It’s currently zoned for residential and for the developer to change it to retail shopping opens this area up to increased traffic
congestion and student/resident safety issues here in the area.
I invite any of you to please come observe the traffic at these intersections around the school during the peak times of
dropoff 7:20-7:30 am and at 2:15-2:20 pm pickup when it’s the worst. These intersections are a nightmare then. Droves of
kids are walking to school and crossing/jaywalking across these intersections some are on bikes even—and they are NOT
heeding any kind of traffic signals or signs because they are kids of course. Many cars are racing through yellow lights and
people sitting in intersections at red lights because they tried to fit through. We have seen lots of accidents, a lot of honking
and near misses. My son’s Pinnacle soccer coach was just in an accident this past Friday during pickup when a man in a car
not paying attention to stopped traffic on Mayo slammed into the back of him causing his car to hit the car in front of him,
which was driven by a student. It happens all the time because of the sheer volume of cars and kids and mayhem happening
during these times. It is only a matter of time before a kid is seriously maimed or killed at this intersection/area.
I live across the street in Fireside, a stone’s throw from this land where they are going to build. My son attends the high
school and my twin girls will attend next fall and then my youngest will attend in two years. We are stuck for a long time
with whatever the powers that be decide should go here. I worry about the influx of traffic and congestion, the problems it
brings to us as nearby residents, by way of safety especially—but also being a single mom I bought this home two years ago
for its close proximity to school for my kids to walk to local schools and the safe neighborhood feel. But I’m worried at the
potential drop in property values if they start putting in crappy shops or gas stations or smoke vape shops, causing our nice
residential area to look, smell and sound like a truck stop dump attracting transients and homelessness, no doubt.
I know money will likely win out in the end, and something will be built here. It’s a shame the school district couldn’t have
bought a piece of this property for added parking for the students at school because as it is currently, only seniors can park
in the school lot, which is asinine. The principal at Pinnacle has even told parents last week they have addressed safety and
traffic issues to Vestar but ultimately can’t have a definitive say in this land development.
City officials have a duty to protect the interests of the residents here who live and work and pay taxes.
These developers have the monetary means to at least put an-over-the street walkway /sidewalk bridge from the Mayo/Black
Mtn crosswalk over to the school so our kids aren’t playing Frogger in traffic through red and green lights as they currently
do every single school day. The existing walking bridge that some idiot designed and installed years ago is out of the way
for kids to walk, located south at the 51 interchange, at the dog park entrance, so they would have to walk down there then
back around to go back up to the school—it’s an extra 10-15 min of walking —not a single soul is doing that and that
pedestrian bridge remains not utilized.
My question: Could the city mandate the developer to at least relocate the pedestrian bridge to the problem/ busy
intersection at the school instead of that bridge uselessly sitting down the street out of the way? (I included a pic of
bridge area)
If something is built here eventually, I hope the people in charge will think first of the safety of students and residents over
the quick buck they’ll make in revenue at the site.
Thank you for hearing me,
Andrea Remke,
Phoenix resident of Fireside Desert Ridge
From: TR
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Southwest corner of Deer Valley and Black Mountain
Date: Monday, August 28, 2023 10:28:56 AM
Hello Mr. Grande,
We are Desert Ridge community members. We have lived here for almost 15 years and in that
time, we've seen many changes. Some are good, some not so good.
We are very concerned about the proposal to convert the property from residential to
commercial at the corner of Black Mountain and Deer Valley. That corner is active all day,
especially during school and sports hours. It's grown from 2 lanes into the large vein that cuts
through Desert Ridge connecting Cave Creek to 56th and possibly in the future, Scottsdale
Road. Added traffic and distractions could be disastrous for all drivers on the road. Traffic
will become heavier (shoppers coming and going, drive-through lines, delivery trucks, etc.)
creating an even more congested intersection. We would honestly love to see a traffic survey
done as this is such a busy intersection and we all need to get a full idea of usage and traffic
patterns.
There are 3 schools within walking distance of this area. We are very concerned about
inviting strangers to the heart of our neighborhood for a quick stop. Security and issues at DR
Marketplace have been escalating and we don't feel we need to invite more people into our
neighborhood for some Chick-fil-A or to gas up their vehicles. We don't have the resources to
handle disturbances in DR Marketplace. Why would this be any different?
We also don't believe stores and convenience markets should have the ability to sell alcohol
and tobacco products that close to a high school. It will just bring issues to law enforcement
that is stretched unbearably thin.
Our children are still young, but we've heard there isn't enough parking at the high school so
this will just entice kids to park there and create issues with parents, the high school, and
business owners. We've heard that the developer won't limit the store sizes so parking could be
inadequate for the project which would add an additional level of stress for shoppers and
drivers trying to find parking spots and exit or enter the center.
We feel converting this land will come with a whole host of issues that will outweigh the
benefits to DR citizens. We in no way think the land developers have the community's best
interest in mind. They, as many before them, build and leave. They never give a second
thought to what impact they add to the communities they have worked within. Honestly, with
all the new builds going up in Desert Ridge, we feel we need to proceed slower than we are to
make sure the roads and area can handle all this growth. We have several big projects
currently in different stages (clearing land on Deer Valley for 882 new apartments, a whole
new community going in off 56th and the massive plans for City North) the added fallout
including the number of new community members, additional cars on our already congested
roads without an option for expansion and added pressure on the school district, etc., is yet to
be seen.
Thank you for your time,
Adam and Timari Rusak
From: Jason Tininenko
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: planning committee
Date: Monday, August 28, 2023 7:13:35 PM
We have lived here in Aviano for 7 years. It's a great neighborhood with easy access to
Fireside, Explorer, Wildfire and Pinnacle. If you allow a gas station and other stores to be
built next to Pinnacle - the traffic will increase, the crime will increase, the traffic accidents
will increase and our properties will devalue. Please vote against building in this area. thank
you.
From: Brad Burnes
To: Council District 2 PCC; Anthony M Grande
Subject: Black Mountain marketplace - NO
Date: Tuesday, August 29, 2023 5:03:20 PM
Hello, my name is Brad Burnes, and my family and I moved to 36th St in Fireside a little over 10 years
ago. I can unequivocally say the idea of a shopping center at Deer Valley and Black Mountain is an awful
idea, and only a play for cash.
Have you witnessed the traffic during school dropoff and pickup? It's a disaster. Can you provide details
of home values in other neighborhoods where a shopping center was allowed to be built after a re-
zoning?
We moved to this area because of the vision and community aspect. If the city proceeds with this
development against the majority of Desert Ridge residents, how does that value the voice of the
residents?
There's plenty of land north of Pinnacle Peak. Please use common sense and do not allow this to
happen.
A very concerned voter and resident,
Brad Burnes
From: Micheal Copeland
To: Council District 2 PCC; Anthony M Grande
Subject: Black Mountain Village
Date: Tuesday, August 29, 2023 9:43:47 PM
Hi Anthony,
My name is Micheal Copeland and I’m a resident in Fireside. I would like to express my deep concern and
opposition to the proposed rezoning by Vestar of the parcel located at the SW of Deer Valley and Black Mountain
High.
Potential uses including gas stations and quick service retail with drive would have quite a negative impact on the
neighborhood. It would also increase the risk to high school students next door given the already existing issues with
traffic and parking.
Ultimately - I would argue that whilst it is still State Land, it should benefit the schools per Arizona laws because
Public Education is the main beneficiaries of state land sales. It should not hurt a public school when they sell it.
I’d also point to the City’s “Vision Zero” (zero traffic casualties) plan to highlight my concerns with regards to the
traffic situation and student safety around Pinnacle High School. I have not seen anything from Vestar that would
ameliorate these concerns.
Furthermore, Vestar could easily develop what they want under the existing plan on pre identified commercial
zones. Given the proximity to over 600,000 square feet of retail within a mile, there simply is not a need to add
additional retail on this parcel.
Sincerely,
Micheal Copeland
Sent from my iPhone
Quick reminder to everyone that tonight at 6pm is the Fireside HOA meeting. The attorneys from Vestar will be
doing their presentation and answer any questions you may have.
Goto zoom.com and use meeting ID: 811-9962-3685 and Passcode : 997589
I attended the Desert Ridge Community HOA meeting last week and my conclusion was that nobody in the HOA’s,
nor the Village Planning Committee for our area will stop this proposal.
It will take all surrounding communities to attend all the meetings and at least write their views on the proposal and
submit them to our councilman ([council.district.2@phoenix.gov](mailto:council.district.2@phoenix.gov) ) and the
City Planner ([anthony.grande@phoenix.gov](mailto:anthony.grande@phoenix.gov) ). Reference : GPA-DSTV-2-
23-2
They should know that it needs their attention instead of making a quick buck by selling the land. We need to
separate the school traffic from the work traffic to ease the congestion around that area and we should be adding
safer drop off areas behind the school and away from Blackmountain boulevard and point out that this Highschool
still has vacant land available to address the situation.
Once this is sold and a big box grocery, gas station, big trucks, etc, etc are put their instead, the community will
have to live with the consequences. Everyone should also be concerned about the impact of Grocery/Gas stations on
the students behavior and attendance of classes. Other folks from the community have brought up other concerns as
well.
Ultimately - I would argue that whilst it is still State Land, it should benefit the schools per Arizona laws because
Public Education is the main beneficiaries of state land sales. It should not hurt a public school when they sell it.
The school will be there for a long time – so we should make an effort now to keep Desert Ridge communities
desirable and family friendly.
We should put student safety before anything else whilst we still can.
Please email your views!!
Let us know your thoughts on this at the meeting or on this post.
From: Andy M
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Black mountain village plan - no vote
Date: Tuesday, August 29, 2023 10:50:35 PM
Hi Anthony,
I'm strongly against the Black Mountain Village plan and zoning changes (cases are GPA-
DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2).
It feels like a bait and switch for our community (especially us in the cooper view sub-
community on black mountain and deer valley who would feel this impact the hardest).
There is plenty of land closer to cave creek available and already designated for commercial
purchase.
Thank you,
Andy Mesecher
From: Sara Millett
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Black Mountain Village - Strongly Oppose
Date: Tuesday, August 29, 2023 10:11:20 AM
Mr Grande,
I wanted to express my strong opposition for the commercial development Black
Mountain Village. I am a parent of an 8th grader and a 5th grader in the
community.
We purchased our home in this area for the community feel, residential zoning and
walkability. The traffic near Pinnacle High School is already dangerous and adding a
commercial building would surely lead to additional traffic issues and potential
accidents.
Desert Ridge Marketplace and High Street already offer plenty of shopping and
restaurants and we are have plenty of convenient options being so close to the
freeway.
Please halt plans for the Black Mountain Village shopping center.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sara Millett
3845 E Cat Balue Drive
Phoenix, AZ 85050
From: Marisa OConnor
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Black mountain village - strongly oppose
Date: Tuesday, August 29, 2023 8:59:01 AM
Mr Grande,
I wanted to express my strong opposition for the commercial development Black Mountain Village. I am a parent of
a freshman at the nearby Pinnacle High School and a 5th grader at Fireside Elementary.
We purchased our home in this area for the community feel, residential zoning and walkability. The traffic near
Pinnacle high school is already horrible and adding a commercial building would surely lead to additional traffic
issues and potential accidents.
There is plenty of shopping nearby with Desert Ridge Marketplace and High street.
Please help keep the children of our community safe!
Thank you for your time and consideration!
Marisa O’Connor
3905 E Half Hitch Pl
Phoenix AZ 85050
From: Peter Feldman
To: Council District 2 PCC; Anthony M Grande
Subject: Reference : GPA-DSTV-2-23-2 - Proposed development at deer Valley and Black Mountain
Date: Wednesday, August 30, 2023 10:09:02 AM
I am a resident of Fireside and my children attend the local schools. I am writing to tell you that I am completely
opposed to the rezoning of land for commercial development at the corner or Black Mountain Pkwy and Deer
Valley Rd.
The proposed development will make an already difficult traffic situation dramatically worse. Student safety
crossing Black Mountain is already compromised by the lack of crossing guards and / or police presence. Cars are
parked on Black Mountain and Mayo Blvd at dropoff and pickup times, already blocking normal traffic flow.
Eastbound traffic on Deer Valley already gets backed up for hundreds of yards on school days during pickup and
dropoff times. This new development would make it significantly worse and dangerous for pedestrians.
The property in question was previously earmarked for public space, like a park. Why is that plan being dropped?
There are other plots of land nearby (Cave Creek / Pinnacle Peak) which are already approved for the type of
development being proposed. There should be no changes of the use of the property at Deer Valley and Black Mtn,
until that already approved plots are sold and developed.
-Peter Feldman
From: Alexandra Hyszczak
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Opposition to Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12
Date: Wednesday, August 30, 2023 11:47:11 AM
Dear Anthony,
I am writing in regards to the rezoning of the land parcel at the corner of Deer Valley Rd and
Black Mountain Boulevard (“Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12”). As a resident of Sky
Crossing, across Deer Valley from this parcel, my family and I, along with 1220 homeowners,
will be directly impacted by this proposed development.
I would like to bring to your attention some concerns that I have relevant to this rezoning.
Traffic is already high on these two streets – at morning drop-off, cars line up from the school
around the corner onto Deer Valley all the way to 32nd St. The addition of a large shopping
center will greatly increase this traffic, bringing more inconvenience, noise and pollution,
especially so if a gas station is built. A gas station is not something we need in this location, as
there are a number of gas stations nearby on Cave Creek and on Tatum, all within 2 to 3 miles
from this area.
Additionally, the proposal contains multiple access/egress points with no provision for safe
crossing or pedestrian/bike safety. A proposal that has the potential to create roughly double
the traffic should be required to address these impacts, especially when located across from
residential areas and next to a school.
The explanation letter for the project describes that for community benefit, the project has the
potential to “increase health” and “reduce transportation burdens” of area residents by creating
a walkable/bikeable retail/grocery destination and “may reduce emissions from residents
driving to Desert Ridge Marketplace.” These statements are, frankly, unproven and
unsupported by the conceptual design, given the proposed rezoning contains no description of
how the commercial center will cater to walking and biking.
Light Pollution is another major concern. Nobody wants to see bright lights on all night that
will disrupt the tranquility of our lives and interrupt our sleep.
We chose to build our home in Sky Crossing due to its location, being between two retail areas
(Desert Ridge and Cave Creek Rd) and not directly adjacent to those busy areas. Creating a
commercial zone in this community greatly reduces the value of this location.
Thank you for your time and attention to this important matter.
Alexandra Hyszczak
3144 E Tina Dr
Phoenix 85050
From: Kelly Davis
To: Anthony M Grande
Cc: msantoro@gblaw.com
Subject: Black Mountain Village Development GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2
Date: Thursday, August 31, 2023 1:43:39 PM
To whom it may concern,
I appreciate the opportunity to have my voice heard. I am a homeowner in Fireside and I absolutely love our
neighborhood. I love it how it is. I am extremely concerned for the future of our neighborhood and the other
surrounding areas if this project is allowed to commence.
I absolutely do not support this development. Desert Ridge Marketplace is bad enough with all the fights, theft, and
sketchy people that it draws to the area! I refuse to allow my kids to go to Desert Ridge without an adult present, and
my oldest is 16! There are too many homeless panhandlers, and unsavory people that are drawn to shopping
centers. To have a development right next to the high school and elementary school than my kids attend is not what
we were promised when we bought our home. My kids walk to school, that’s a primary reason for buying our
house. I would not feel comfortable with my kids walking to/from school if it was right next to a shopping center
like Desert Ridge Marketplace, I see the type of people that shopping centers draw in. Even this one, being a more
high end area brings in distasteful people.
This area is residential, and it needs to stay that way. The increased traffic alone, is a huge concern. Have you ever
tried to come through the area in the morning or afternoon when kids are arriving or leaving school? I pray the day
NEVER comes that an impatient or inexperienced driver strikes and kills a student, but this area is like a ticking
time bomb. Too many cars on too few streets. The area cannot support more traffic. Does the bottom line only
come down to money? What about our kids and their safety? We bought our home here to have a safe place for our
kids to grow up…this was NOT a part of the plan for this community. The safety issue comes down to more than
just cars. Do you realize how easy it is for a kid to be abducted in/around a shopping center or for kids to be lured
into trying drugs or alcohol as they pass by on their way home? I am not in support of this development and I truly
hope that this will not just be pushed through without the consent of the taxpayers living in the surrounding
neighborhoods.
Kelly Davis
Fireside Homeowner
From: Zak House
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Black Mountain Village
Date: Thursday, August 31, 2023 11:57:07 AM
Hello Anthony,
I am reaching out to voice my displeasure and to ask for your support with ensuring that
Vestar/other corporations are blocked from rezoning from “residential” to “commercial” for
the proposed Black Mountain Village in Desert Ridge. The residential zoning was absolutely
a key factor when we purchased our home and would be devastating to our community if
rezoning is allowed. There seems to be plenty of commercial zoning between High Street,
Tatum and Cave Creek Roads.
Regards,
Zak House
From: Sam
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Black Mountain Village/Superblock 12
Date: Thursday, August 31, 2023 5:06:20 AM
Sam Zytcer and Marlene Zytcer are totally against this commercial development project monstrosity.
It will bring excess traffic and crime to an already over crowded area. My neighbors are also in
concurrence with me.
There will be major resistance from your constituents to this commercial project as proposed.
Remember, we vote.
Sincerely,
Sam Zytcer
Sent from Mail [go.microsoft.com] for Windows
From: Matthew D. Chitwood
To: Anthony M Grande
Cc: Council District 2 PCC; Anne Chitwood
Subject: land at Black Mountain and Deer Valley Road - rezone consideration
Date: Friday, September 1, 2023 12:51:36 PM
re: Black Mountain Village plan and zoning changes cases GPA-DSTV-2-23-2 and GPA-
DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2
Mr Grande -
Writing as a concerned resident of Desert Ridge in the Fireside neighborhood. I moved here
in 2007 and have watched this neighborhood grow. Love it. Raised 3 children here, two of
which are at Pinnacle High School and another starting next year.
My wife and I are quite concerned with the proposed re-zoning of the property north of
Pinnacle High School at the corner of Black Mountain Blvd and Deer Valley Road. This
property is smack dab in the middle of other residentially zoned homes, Thousands. There are
sufficient commercially zoned properties in the Desert View Village to support future resident
growth of this beautiful area... not to mention a wonderful village core in and around Desert
Ridge Marketplace.
There is the issue of commercial traffic conflicting with the Pinnacle traffic which is already a
safety issue. I am aware of the fact that Pinnacle High School leadership is NOT supportive of
this re-zoning even though that was misrepresented by the developer at the 8/1/23 village
meeting. Adding commercial traffic to this area that is not familiar with the daily high school
traffic patterns (as residential traffic would be) is IRRESPONSIBLE. This issue in and of
itself should be enough for the Committee to reject this re-zoning request.
On top of this are the hundreds of neighbors of mine who invested in property thinking this
land would be used for future residential use.
I don't intend to hop on the NIMBY train; I just don't think this request of Vestar is in
alignment with what the General Plan originally intended this land be used for and I
specifically request the Committee REJECT the developer's case.
Thanks for listening -
Matt Chitwood
21625 N 39th Place Phoenix 85050
From: Steven Deacon
To: Anthony M Grande; msantoro@gblaw.com
Cc: Metty, Cody; emolenaar@associatedasset.com; Steven Deacon
Subject: Black Mountain Village plan and zoning changes GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2 - Opposed
Date: Friday, September 1, 2023 10:58:13 AM
Attachments: image004.png
image005.png
image006.png
image007.png
image008.png
image009.png
Anthony,
I also live adjacent to the project at Black Mountain Village proposal. From an outsider’s opinion, I
can see why the idea of more commercial real estate would monetarily benefit the city of Phoenix,
Vestar and their attorneys Gammage & Burnham. However, what is heavily being overlooked is the
safety of our community and our children with the rezoning from residential to commercial.
Safety of our children:
Our section in the Fireside community called Copper View sits adjacent to the proposed land at the
southeast corner of Black Mountain and Deer Valley. Since 2012 our section has been a cut through
for the aggressive drivers both parents and children of Pinnacle High School. On my street alone (Cat
Balue Dr.) there are 27 children under the age of 10 years old that walk to the elementary school
and play in our neighborhood. This doesn’t include the other 4 streets with 50 additional homes to
consider. We have seen too many close calls where our children were almost hit by these aggressive
drivers! Imagine living in a community where you do not feel safe letting your kids play out front.
Additionally, Stephen, the attorney for Gammage & Burnham, said on our Fireside community call
this Tuesday that the new traffic would be “counter cyclical patterns” around school hours during
the week and weekend. This means to me that not only do we have to deal with aggressive drivers
from Pinnacle High School, but now we must deal with aggressive drivers all day and on the
weekends! We cannot live in a community where our children are at a greater risk of being hit by a
car while walking to school or playing in their neighborhood.
Secondly, I am concerned that a commercial zone would bring a bus stop right at the corner of
Copper View (Black Mountain & Deer Valley). There are numerous amounts of homeless people that
sleep on the bus stops at Tatum & Deer Valley. I see them at all hours of the day starting at 5am
when I go to Mountainside Fitness and in the evening. We do not want to attract nor give reason for
more homeless to encroach our family neighborhoods with a commercial zone. This is not only a
safety concern for our families but will also impact our property values. PLEASE keep our
neighborhoods (Fireside, Aviano, Sky Crossing) a family suburb of Phoenix. I am asking as a
concerned parent of 3 little kids that you help us protect our children and the safety of our
community by putting a stop to this project.
I appreciate your time and commitment to keeping Desert Ridge a GREAT, family friendly community
in Phoenix.
Steve Deacon & Family
3625 E Cat Balue Dr.
Phoenix, AZ 85050
3654 E Cat Balue Dr.
Phoenix, AZ 85050
Best,
Steve Deacon, CFP®, CIMA®, Private Wealth Advisor
CA Insurance License #0H03830
Five Point Wealth Advisors
8925 E Pima Center Pkwy, Suite 135
Scottsdale, AZ 85258
Phone: 480-948-2416
FAX: 480-291-8643
www.fivepointwealth.com [fivepointwealth.com]
[fivepointwealth.com]
[forbes.com]
[forbes.com]
2023 Forbes Best In State Wealth Advisors, created by SHOOK Research. Presented in April 2023
based on data gathered from June 2021 to June 2022. 22,243 were considered, 7,321 advisors were
recognized. Advisors pay a fee to hold out marketing materials. Not indicative of advisor’s future
performance. Your experience may vary. Click here [forbes.com] for more award information.
2022 Forbes Top Next-Gen Wealth Advisors Best in State, created by SHOOK Research. Presented
in Aug 2022 based on data gathered from March 2021 to March 2022. 3513 Advisors were
considered, 1000 Advisors were recognized. Advisors pay a fee to hold out marketing materials. Not
indicative of advisor’s future performance. Your experience may vary. Click here [forbes.com] for
more award information.
*Securities and advisory services offered through Commonwealth Financial Network®, member
FINRA/SIPC, a Registered Investment Adviser. Fixed insurance products and services are separate from
and not offered through Commonwealth Financial Network.
From: Metty, Cody
Sent: Friday, September 1, 2023 8:40 AM
To: anthony.grande@phoenix.gov
Cc: Steven Deacon
Subject: RE: Black Mountain Village- Please NO commercial development
Forgot to include this: Black Mountain Village plan and zoning changes GPA-DSTV-2-23-
2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2
Anthony, I live adjacent to the project at Black Mountain Village proposal. We do not want to
have beer, liquor and cigarette sales next to our neighborhood or Pinnacle High School. Nor
do we want drive through restaurants and gas stations that are open 24/7. This will bring
about crowds of people at all hours that we current have the benefit of avoiding as it stays
closer to Tatum or Cave Creek roads. I feel that this completely changes the residential feel of
our area in Desert Ridge and feel like this is a money grab right in our neighborhoods of
Fireside, Aviano and Sky Crossing.
When we built our homes this was never a consideration and do not want this project
proceeding. Please help us put a stop to this project in any way we can. If anything this area
should be used as an overflow for the high school or some type of traffic mitigation for Black
Mountain. We already see the overflow from the high school traffic in our direct part of the
neighborhood and do not want this to increase where our kids walk to and from school every
day, to their elementary school. We have 40+ children that walk every single school day and
any increased traffic will up the risk of someone getting hurt through reckless driving, with
people trying to avoid the traffic on Black Mountain.
Please help us and hear what we’re asking before this goes forward. There are much better
uses of that land and once it’s commercial, all bets are off.
Cody Metty and family
3646 E Cat Balue Dr.
Phoenix, AZ 85050
Cody Metty
Triple Crown Banker
Rocket Mortgage
T (480) 346-0885
C (248) 404-7854
F (877) 380-8287
NMLS# 26912
From: Metty, Cody
To: Anthony M Grande
Cc: sdeacon@fivepointwealth.com
Subject: RE: Black Mountain Village- Please NO commercial development
Date: Friday, September 1, 2023 8:40:01 AM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
Forgot to include this: Black Mountain Village plan and zoning changes GPA-DSTV-2-23-
2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2
Anthony, I live adjacent to the project at Black Mountain Village proposal. We do not want to
have beer, liquor and cigarette sales next to our neighborhood or Pinnacle High School. Nor
do we want drive through restaurants and gas stations that are open 24/7. This will bring
about crowds of people at all hours that we current have the benefit of avoiding as it stays
closer to Tatum or Cave Creek roads. I feel that this completely changes the residential feel of
our area in Desert Ridge and feel like this is a money grab right in our neighborhoods of
Fireside, Aviano and Sky Crossing.
When we built our homes this was never a consideration and do not want this project
proceeding. Please help us put a stop to this project in any way we can. If anything this area
should be used as an overflow for the high school or some type of traffic mitigation for Black
Mountain. We already see the overflow from the high school traffic in our direct part of the
neighborhood and do not want this to increase where our kids walk to and from school every
day, to their elementary school. We have 40+ children that walk every single school day and
any increased traffic will up the risk of someone getting hurt through reckless driving, with
people trying to avoid the traffic on Black Mountain.
Please help us and hear what we’re asking before this goes forward. There are much better
uses of that land and once it’s commercial, all bets are off.
Cody Metty and family
3646 E Cat Balue Dr.
Phoenix, AZ 85050
Cody Metty
Triple Crown Banker
Rocket Mortgage
T (480) 346-0885
C (248) 404-7854
F (877) 380-8287
NMLS# 26912
[rocketmortgage.com]
[social.pr]
From: Neeraj Chandak
To: Council District 2 PCC; Anthony M Grande
Cc: Neeraj Chandak; Emolenaar@AssociatedAsset.com
Subject: Desert Ridge Superblock 12 rezoning
Date: Sunday, September 3, 2023 9:57:47 AM
Importance: High
Hi,
I am a long-time resident of Fireside at Desert Ridge and am very concerned with the proposed
changes to the land parcel between Pinnacle High school and Deer Valley Rd (Case No. SPA-DS1 V-2-
23-2), (Case No. CPA-DSTV-3-23-2) and (Case No. Z-39-23).
We moved here 10+ years back with an explicit understanding that this was a residential area, with
high quality living and low crime rates. Over the years, several things have happened that are
cumulatively of an increasing level of concern :
Connection to Hwy 51 has significantly increased vehicular traffic and noise levels at all times for
the neighborhood
It is a nightmare getting out near Pinnacle High school in the morning, traffic back up in all
directions and is a nuisance to the Fireside neighborhood. I have to go around it to drop my
daughter to PVHS at that same time.
An extension of Mayo Blvd to Tatum will make it even worse
As more homes have been added, traffic at both Tatum and Cave Creek is getting progressively
worse
If the rezoning and the development project is approved, here is what I foresee happening :
Retail center will have bright lighting and noise at night and early morning hours with logistics
Already horrible traffic at school times will get even worse, plus additional delivery trucks going in
and out
Crime rates are likely to increase, homelessness and drug use are already of grave concerns in
the nearby areas
Property value will take a dip
A much better use of that space would be to expand parking access to Pinnacle high school that will
also alleviate some of the traffic concerns everyone can feel and have raised.
I would urge you to strongly oppose this change, and save the serenity and quality of the
neighborhood that we all love and like so much. It would be shame to have money-grab
development destroy the character of the community.
Regards,
Neeraj Chandak
623-203-9583
From: Kavita Chandak
To: Council District 2 PCC; Emolenaar@AssociatedAsset.com; Anthony M Grande
Cc: Kavita Chandak
Subject: Desert Ridge Superblock 12 rezoning- Opposing Vestar"s Balck Mountain Village proposal
Date: Sunday, September 3, 2023 10:36:21 AM
Hello,
As a long-time resident of Fireside at Desert Ridge I am deeply concerned with the proposed
changes to the land parcel between Pinnacle High school and Deer Valley Rd (Case No. SPA-DS1 V-2-
23-2), (Case No. CPA-DSTV-3-23-2) and (Case No. Z-39-23).
I moved here back in 2013 with my family and 2 young daughters to be part of this beautiful
neighborhood with great community feel and low crime rates.
Over the years, several things have happened that are cumulatively of an increasing level of concern
:
Increased traffic and noise level due to Connection to Hwy 51.
Dis-respect and abusing of our neighborhood by Pinnancle High School drop off and pick up
crowd. Our Neighborhood has become a parking spot for Pinnacle parent drop off and pick up
making it extremely difficult for residents to walk or even take their cars out for morning and
afternoon commute.
Getting out of the copper view subdivision is at nightmare due to backed up traffic for Pinnacle
High school in the morning, It back up in all directions and is a nuisance to the Fireside
neighborhood. I fear for my teenage daughter's safety as she drives to her high school amidst this
crazy traffic.
An extension of Mayo Blvd to Tatum will make it even worse
As more homes have been added, traffic at both Tatum and Cave Creek is getting progressively
worse
This is what I dear with the rezoning and the development project is approved.
Crime rates are likely to increase, homelessness and drug use are already of grave concerns in
the nearby area
Retail center will have bright lighting and noise at night and early morning hours with logistics
Already horrible traffic at school times will get even worse, plus additional delivery trucks going in
and out
Our property values will dip considerably
A much better use of that space would be to expand parking access to Pinnacle high school that will
also alleviate some of the traffic concerns everyone can feel and have raised.
I strongly oppose this change and request you to not zone this as a commercial zone to save the
serenity and quality of the neighborhood that we all love and like so much. I would hate to see this
beautiful neighborhood being destroyed by few folks who are looking at it for mere financial gains
into their pockets.
Thanks,
Kavita Chandak
From: Lori Tininenko
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Proposed Shopping Center
Date: Monday, September 4, 2023 7:06:39 PM
I am 13+ year resident of Desert Ridge and strongly oppose the proposal to build a shopping center at the corner of
Black Mountain and Deer Valley. It will increase traffic tremendously at an already congested intersection,
endanger kids walking in the area, increase crime, increase noise & light pollution, and serve as an overall eyesore.
PLEASE keep our residential area residential!
Lori Tininenko
Sent from my iPhone
From: Bill Smith
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Application No: GPA-DSTV-2-23-2 - Rezoning Request by Vestar
Date: Tuesday, September 5, 2023 6:52:27 AM
Attachments: GPA-DSTV-2-23-2-App2Amend.pdf
September 5, 2023
Greetings,
I’m writing you today regarding a rezoning request made here by Vestar application No. GPA-
DSTV-2-23-2 and some comments heard by residents resulting from a recent HOA board
meeting held by Desert Ridge Community Association.
My name is William Smith and I am a resident of Regalia Bear Subdivision which is located just
off Tatum Blvd and North of Marriott Drive in Desert Ridge for 13.5 years. Formally a resident
in Vista Norte located at Dynamite and 57th Streets for 14 years. I’ve been a resident in
Arizona since 1969 and have lived the majority of my life in North Scottsdale / North Phoenix
25 miles or more from downtown.
When my wife and I moved to Desert Ridge I began participating in many of the community
HOA meetings assisting mostly on the Awareness Committee. I believe it’s important we
continue to live in a safe and healthy community. The many challenges I’ve witnessed over the
past 13.5 years have been noise pollution, traffic congestion and bottle neck due to lack of
arteries (roads), vandalism and crimes committed by an increase number of teenagers.
Noise pollution continues from above with fly overs; also truck deliveries made during
overnight or early morning hours are heard by vehicles creating those loud safety warning
beeps when backing up. With the increase of home deliveries since the pandemic we’ve seen
an more delays within our Desert Ridge community and about. Thankfully a great deal of the
air traffic above was reduced after our Desert Ridge community associates worked with the
aviation department to reverse a decision that was made several years ago that allowed
commercial places to fly directly over Desert Ridge using a new flight path. We still have a few
non commercial planes and helicopters that don’t always follow the appropriate flight path,
but we are thankful the majority of commercial planes are no longer constantly flying low
overhead. In addition, we reported to the Marriott about the noise issue from trucks backing
up that could be heard for a mile in the silence of the early morning hours and that has
stopped. Our voices are being heard!
As far as vehicle noise issues we continue to hear traffic due to the type of road surface and
proximity of both Tatum Blvd and Marriot Drive. Everyone is racing to be first coming in both
directions cutting through our community because as we all know there aren’t enough
arteries (roads) that allow traffic to flow around the heart of Desert Ridge. Traffic on Tatum
Blvd has met it’s maximum capacity 5 years ago and its only getting worse. Deer Valley road is
starting to show signs of stress unless we start now and think forward.
Let’s talk a little about Desert Ridge planning and how Vestar was originally involved in the
design and planning of this community. I believe just 13.5 years ago when we moved here I
heard mention Desert Ridge was just over 40 percent built out. Since then we seem to
continue cramming more and more condos, apartments, schools, single family homes in
addition to the huge development along the 101 from 56th to Tatum Blvd. There seems to be
this need to fill up every inch of both Super Blocks along the 101 from 56th through to Black
Canyon Blvd. We all know growth brings congestion and headaches.
Listening to representation by Vestar at community planning meetings they talk about
building another marketplace in an area of Desert Ridge that is zoned low residential. I’m
writing you here today to provide my opinion about why we shouldn’t change this residential
parcel as this application suggest to commercial and that we should consider looking for a
location that has better access to the 101 and has the ability to get vehicles in and out of the
area from all four directions without impeding traffic and causing delays. For the past 8 years
or so all I’ve brought up to anyone that would listen that the City of Phoenix must work on a
plan that will open up more arteries (roads) that allow traffic to flow more around Desert
Ridge Market Place and through our community as well.
We can not continue to build both up and out; allowing thousands of more residents,
merchants, delivery vehicles and visitors to move about and not have additional access
roads and arteries (roads) that will provide additional alternatives to Tatum Blvd and Deer
Valley Road.
Everyone knows it will be expensive and we need it; an access road along the 101 that will
allow traffic to access both super blocks from 56th street to as far as Cave Creek Road if we
have too. The idea is to take excess traffic away from Tatum Blvd and Deer Valley Road when
everyone is either trying to get to and from their residence in Desert Ridge, pass through it to
get home in Tatum Ranch or visit Desert Ridge Market Place to enjoy all the shops, restaurants
and planned activities Vestar an their business partners plan throughout the year. Additional
roads that could help the flow of traffic could be at 40th street, Black Mountain Blvd, 56th
street and any additional roads developed during the super block expansion phases which
should include access roads along the 101 freeway. We can’t even head east or west using
Black Mountain Blvd at the 101 to help avoid using Tatum Blvd at the 101?
We understand change is necessary and some people believe we need more growth and there
is no stopping it. However, the reason Desert Ridge has lasted as long as it has being in the
spotlight a community most desirable for its amenities and location is because we live in a
place beyond the boundaries of the City. A place between Rural and the big City life; simply
a suburban experience like no other.
If we allow another marketplace with a gas station at the location of Southwest Corner of
Black Mountain Boulevard and Deer Valley Drive we are going to have big disappointment
with additional traffic, noise, crime, vandalism not only during the day, but all night as well.
We don’t want or need any more attention drawn to close to existing residential community
during the overnight hours. If you have to rezone which I’m not for, bring in medical therapy
centers, Dental, Vision, Day Care Centers, Animal Veterinarians businesses that will bring value
to the investment and more in line with education and health without attracting any negative
impact we currently have going on at Desert Ridge Market Place and our Community City
Parks by individuals that hang out in groups in public places with no regard for others
property. There is so much open space in super block there where the fitness center is and the
hotels are located that if Vestar thinks Desert Ridge needs another grocery store well go big
and put a Walmart there along the 101; build the access road along the 101 and make it easy
to visit the store without impeding any more traffic delays on Tatum Blvd and Deer Valley
Road and push the traffic away from our beautiful neighborhoods.
Final thoughts that come to mind you can all think about …
Observation #1 – The traffic gets so bad moving North and South on Tatum sometimes it takes
3 minutes just to exit out of my subdivision from Williams Drive onto Tatum. The traffic gets
backed up so bad the distance on Tatum between Deer Valley and the 101 one can spend 6
minutes waiting for lights going in any direction. When there is construction, emergency
vehicles or an accident forget being on time for any scheduled appointment. This is not right!
Observation #2 – Recently in the past 4 years after the completion of this new condos and
new single family subdivisions we noticed in addition to Vestar bringing live entertainment
along with Sip and Stroll attractions among other big events, that traffic delays have now
extended everywhere including Tatum Blvd to 56th street going North or South along Deer
Valley road. Drivers are in such a big hurry they speed illegally North on 56th to Pinnacle and in
addition there is so much traffic during rush hours on Deer Valley from 56th all the way to
Cave Creek and beyond due to the 101 bottlenecks experienced when approaching the 51
freeway from either direction. Drivers are not only using Deer Valley, but they are using
Pinnacle Peak from Scottsdale all the way to Cave Creek Road to escape the 101 traffic
debacle during rush hours.
Observation #3 -
Recently we’ve seen a huge increase in teenagers committing crimes and they seem to like
hanging out at Desert Ridge Marketplace. This was brought up at our meetings and Vestar did
speak out regarding our community concerns about the lack of security and care anyone we
would expect to be responsible for managing issues of this nature. Concerns about Target,
Albertsons, In&Out Burger and Panda Express have been going on for as long as I can
remember brought up at Community gatherings with our neighbors for coffee and other
meetings. It’s been on the news this summer about a gang of teenagers sucker punching a
teenager from another group causing 15,000 worth of dental work needed. Teenagers hang
out at Target and act like the sports department is there personal playground. Teens stealing a
cell phone right out of another teenagers hand who was picking up a take out order from
Panda Express and too often homeless people coming up to you for money in front of and in
the parking lot of Albertsons. These attractions that are enticing young people to party drink
and get high not only occur in the marketplace, now we are seeing these young people come
into the neighborhoods within Desert Ridge causing quite a bit of damage. Our Cashman park
has been vandalized at least 3 times within the last couple years that I’ve heard about.
Conclusion:
Please consider another location for this grocery store and gas station to be developed. Lets
choose a location away from existing residential and try to develop existing locations already
designated residential and take the idea of bringing another grocery store and gas station to
already designated commercial zones.
We don’t need any 24 hour a day business on Deer Valley and Black Mountain Blvd. We
already have Desert Ridge Market place a gas station on the intersection at Tatum Blvd and
Deer Valley Road. Take this proposed plan and build on 20.5 acres closer to the 101 and Black
Mountain Blvd. Even if you were to propose moving this development to 40th Street and Deer
Valley Road my suggestion would be to insure there are enough roads leading away from
Tatum and Deer Valley for vehicles to maneuver towards the 101 without impacting the
already congested traffic flow on Tatum and Deer Valley.
We should consider bringing in a large super center like Walmart along the 101 in the super
block between Tatum and Black Mountain Blvd’s. Get the City of Phoenix and the Army Core
of Engineers to build functional access roads and lets see how well traffic flows around Desert
Ridge. Spread things out a bit, petition for business to build on one of the two corners on the
north side of Pinnacle Peak Road.
Leave the corner next to the high school open for residential or if you really think businesses
deserve to come in an take over that property; like I said before consider those businesses
that would help families with their children’s education, day care, health services (mental
health services), vision and dental care along with considering Veterinarian services.
Look I could write a book on how if think about all this push for growth here in Desert Ridge,
but I’m sure in the end people that have the most funding will win. In the past whenever there
was a decision made about something that didn’t entirely make good sense and I would later
bring up my thoughts I was told where were you when during the planning stages and why
didn’t you speak up then. Well I decided maybe its time I did.
Thanks so much for the opportunity to speak my thought and for listening.
As Ever,
Bill Smith
Anthony Grande
Zoning Section
200 W Washington Street, Second Floor
Phoenix AZ 85003
Minor General Plan Amendment GPA-DSTV-2-23-2
Specific Plan Amendment GPA-DSTV-3-23-2
Rezone Z-39-23
Dear. Mr. Grande:
This letter is regarding the proposed rezoning of the Parcel 212-38-023B and the application by
Vestar Development to develop it as a C-2 medium intensity commercial property. The current
proposals for Minor General Plan and Specific Plan Amendments, as well as Rezoning to C-2
commercial development are out of step with the character of the area and should be rejected.
The intersection of Black Mountain Boulevard and Deer Valley Drive is surrounded by a unique
residential area with preserved natural desert spaces and carefully integrated bike and pedestrian
paths. It is unlike the majority of Phoenix neighborhoods and honors the physical geography
immediately around it. Socially, it is an active, engaged community full of care for the landscape
and protective of the safety of people living there. With such a significant change in land use,
the proposed zoning amendment and subsequent commercial development would result in
considerable new traffic to the subject site, resulting in more traffic congestion, potential car-
pedestrian-bike safety conflicts, added emissions, and light and noise pollution.
Further, there are a number of disconnects with the application itself. The developers have
attempted to justify their zoning amendment proposal by saying that the nearby Desert Ridge
Marketplace experiences traffic congestion and parking issues. This point is unsubstantiated in
their application and from a resident’s point of view, completely unsupported by the experience
of living in the area and regularly visiting the shopping center. There is more than enough (much
more!) parking at Desert Ridge and circulation in and around the site runs smoothly. The retail
offerings are substantial and do not leave a gap in market offerings that would be improved by
adding medium-intensity commercial at Black Mountain Boulevard and Deer Valley Drive.
The conceptual site plan put forth by the developers is also incongruous with their explanation
letter. They attempt to claim community benefit from “a reduction in transportation burdens,
increased opportunities for exercise and a cleaner environment.” However, there is nothing to
support their mention of transportation burdens on the residential area surrounding the subject
parcel, nor anything in the conceptual site plan to suggest it would be safe for area residents to
walk or bike to the subject site if developed as a commercial property. Further, the explanation
letter states that provision has been made for 580 parking spaces (well beyond the code
requirement), while the conceptual design includes 533 spaces, which is still more parking than
is required by code. This will not create a cleaner environment, as the developers claim, but will
create increased emissions in a sensitive area where residents would like to keep emissions to a
minimum. Worse still, the conceptual plan calls out opportunity for a fueling center, yet no
designated space for electric vehicle charging (which would be far more helpful in the area,
given a pronounced lack of public charging). As such, increased emissions will become a core
characteristic of this shopping center if built as presented. It would not result in the “connected
oasis” the City hopes to achieve, nor the “village” concept the developer is attempting to sell.
What it achieves is what Phoenix already sees too much of—islands of unspectacular
commercial offerings drowning in a sea of parking.
The subject parcel for proposed rezoning also lies immediately north of Pinnacle High School,
which sees students regularly walking and biking to school, but the concept site design does
nothing to ensure student and faculty safety or effective circulation around the school. To the
contrary, the conceptual site plan shows 3 access/egress points just off Mayo immediately across
from the high school with no provision for safe crossing by pedestrians and bicyclists. To put the
greatest number of access points to the site directly across the road from the school shows a
serious lack of awareness about school zone safety, as does proposing a site plan that does not
incorporate effective circulation by pedestrians and bikes (as the surrounding neighborhoods do
through extensive trail systems), but to cars. And the related traffic study does nothing to elevate
hope for improved traffic circulation or safety. Instead, it reflects lower levels of service on
streets that already experience diminished capacity.
While the concept of community commercial may have some potential if explored at a C-1
neighborhood level, the current applications for Minor General Plan Amendment GPA-DSTV-2-
23-2, Specific Plan Amendment GPA-DSTV-3-23-2, and Rezone Z-39-23 to C-2 commercial do
nothing to improve livability in the area and should be rejected in the interest of public safety, as
well as public health.
Thank you for your consideration,
Ellen Kennedy
From: Richards, Dan
To: Anthony M Grande
Cc: Council District 2 PCC
Subject: Black Mountain Village - Superblock 12 Opposition
Date: Tuesday, September 5, 2023 4:24:56 PM
Attachments: image001.png
Hello Mr. Grande and Councilman Waring,
I wanted to formally write to you both to express my opposition to Vestar Development’s push to
rezone the Property known as a portion of Parcel 12.L, within Superblock 12 of the Desert Ridge
Specific Plan. My wife and I did a lot of research about the area prior to purchasing and building our
home 10 years ago, located at 21618 N 36th Street. I’ve attached a map with the proposed
development layered on it. You can see the yellow star located on the East side of Black Mountain
Boulevard showing the location of our house. I have been very vocal at each of the previous two
meetings expressing my opposition to this development from happening.
As mentioned, my wife and I did our research prior to building the home we wanted to raise our
three boys in. We understood we would have a roadway in our backyard that would create some
noise, and that was fine because that meant we wouldn’t have another house directly behind our
backyard. We love the location, being across the street from Pinnacle High School. One of our boys
is currently a sophomore with our other two boys being 8th graders. When they were younger, they
could walk the opposite direction to Fireside grade school, so we figured this was a perfect location
for our family. If you aren’t aware of this yet, Pulte homes sold the West side of 36th Street as
premium lots with view fences in our backyard. We all paid extra to have a view of the wash behind
our homes. We all paid this knowing that the only thing going in across the street in the future would
likely be an exterior block wall of another residential development. That’s what the Desert Ridge
Specific Plan called for so why would anyone think differently? The news of this commercial
development potentially getting built across the street has made every one of these homeowners
sick to their stomachs. Talk about a bait and switch!!!!! Pulte probably wouldn’t have built these
lots as view fences if there was commercial development zoned for directly across the street. Serious
question to Mr. Grande - Would the City even sign off on a residential development having view
fences directly across the street from a commercial development if it was built after the commercial
was already there?
One major concern from the residents of Copper View (36th Street from Mayo to Deer Valley) is the
decrease in safety for all our families and our properties due to a commercial development being
directly across the street. Shopping centers bring loiterers. Gas Stations are even worse. The
increase in homelessness in the Desert Ridge area can’t be ignored. If this development happens,
this will make Deer Valley a main thoroughfare for these homeless people to walk down between
Desert Ridge Marketplace to Black Mountain Village. Nobody wants the potential for this to happen.
Several years ago, a group of neighborhood kids found a homeless encampment with mattresses in
the wash near Mayo and Black Mountain Boulevard. It was in the storm sewer, under Mayo. We
fear more of this will happen if you move forward with this project. None of us with a view fence,
just across Black Mountain Boulevard, signed up to live across the street from this sort of
development. I enjoy my backyard having a view fence. It makes these tiny yards feel a little larger.
Now I will be fearing someone might jump my back fence because they see something they like.
Another major concern that Copper View resident have is light pollution. Nobody wants to live
across the street from a lit up commercial development. If Vestar moves forward with plans to
include a gas station with this proposal, I would imagine this would be right on the corner, where
they have PAD C is shown on the map I included. That will be my new view from my backyard. A lit-
up gas station. Can you even begin to imagine how upset we all were when we heard not only are
we going to have a commercial development, but also a gas station? Nobody wants a bright gas
station directly across the street from them. Every gas station has loiterers. No place attracts more
loitering than a gas station. Copper View residents are not interested in having this across the
street from us. Not to mention the constant smell of gasoline. Mr. Grande - Would the City sign off
on a residential development having view fences directly across the street from a gas station if it was
built after the gas station was already there? The argument for needing more gas stations within
Desert Ridge is garbage. Replace Jacksons with a Circle K and I’m guessing you’ll see a much higher
volume of people using that gas station. Nobody uses that place because the prices are too high. I
go to either Costco or Circle K on Union Hills because they’re cheaper. Most people with half of a
brain do the same.
A 20-acre commercial property in a mostly residential area wouldn’t just be making a minor tweak to
the Desert Ridge Specific Plan (DRSP). This commercial development would be taking the DRSP and
completely throwing it out the window. The DRSP called for commercial development within the
residential superblocks to be limited to neighborhood convenience commercial centers with a
maximum of 3 net acres. During Mr. Anderson’s presentation to the Desert Ridge committee, he
mentioned there were 6 previous developments that could have included a neighborhood
convenience commercial center but decided against adding them. These 18-acres of commercial
development not getting added throughout Desert Ridge are being used to justify Vestar developing
20-acres in one location. Just because other developments decided against adding 3-acre
neighborhood convenience commercial centers doesn’t justify adding them all together and asking
to rezone this area just because Vestar thinks it would be a good investment.
Please take into consideration the families that built around this area that thought they were moving
close to commercial development, but not directly across the street from it. I know you have been
contacted by several other residents expressing their concerns about the traffic impacts and
proximity to the high school. I am 100% in agreement with all other concerns you have heard
pertaining to these two topics. This development needs to be stopped. It’s just not the right fit for
this location. There are a growing number of residents that share this sentiment. We will be at the
next OCT 3 Desert Village Planning Committee meeting as well as the NOV 2 City of Phoenix Planning
Commission meeting to express our opposition.
Thanks,
Dan Richards
Strand Associates, Inc.®
602.437.3733 ext. 6052
dan.richards@strand.com | www.strand.com [strand.com]
[strand.com]
Excellence in EngineeringSM
From: paul dunn
To: Anthony M Grande; Council District 2 PCC
Subject: Vestar Development Amendment and Zoning Requests for Superblock 12 in Desert Ridge
Date: Wednesday, September 6, 2023 6:01:06 AM
Importance: High
It is indisputable that the area affected by Vestar’s proposal already has a traffic
problem. The 366-page October 2022 Traffic Impact Analysis commissioned by
Vestar acknowledges this existing problem. Please note the following excerpt
from that Analysis:
The results of the existing conditions analysis indicate that all study
intersections operate with acceptable levels of service (LOS D or better) with
the exception of the northbound approach at the intersection of Black
Mountain Boulevard & Deer Valley Drive and the northbound and southbound
left at the intersection of Aviano Way & Deer Valley Drive.
This same Traffic Impact Analysis also reveals the extent to which Vestar’s
proposal would exacerbate this existing problem. The Analysis describes this
impact as follows:
The Black Mountain Village proposes to rezone approximately 16-acres of
undeveloped land from existing R-2 (residential) to C-2 (commercial) to
consists of approximately 76,200 square feet (SF) of grocery supermarket,
41,500-SF of various commercial shops each under 40,000 SF, and 19,700-SF of
fast-food restaurants with drive through window. The proposed developed is
located on the southwest corner of Black Mountain Boulevard and Deer Valley
Drive in the City of Phoenix, Arizona. The site is planned to provide a total of
eight (8) access points, of which five (5) are planned for full movement access
and the remaining three (3) are proposed restricted right-in/right-out
driveways.
This Traffic Impact Analysis does not mention that Vestar’s proposal also includes
a gas station. Moreover, this Traffic Impact Analysis does not analyze the traffic
impact of the nearby Garden Communities 882-unit apartment complex currently
underway at the northeast corner of Tatum Blvd and Deer Valley. It also does not
analyze the impact of the planned development of the 410-acre parcel at the
southeastern corner of Deer Valley and 40th Street purchased by Taylor Morrison
and Pulte Homes for a 1,200-lot master planned community. Because the west
boundary of this parcel directly abuts Mayo Blvd, traffic from this planned
community would likely use Mayo Blvd for ingress and egress. Moreover, the
vehicular traffic entering and exiting the community would also increase the traffic
on 40th Street and Deer Valley.
Vestar’s description of its proposal is disingenuous. It describes its proposal as a
“low-impact” commercial development. Their description of the proposed project
mentions a “neighborhood grocery store and inline retail opportunities.”
However, omitted from their description is a gas station that they have
acknowledged is part of their plan. Also omitted is the “19,700-SF of fast-food
restaurants with drive through window” described in their Traffic Impact Analysis.
How can anyone honestly describe grocery stores, gas stations, and fast food
restaurants with drive through windows as “low impact” uses? Each of these
operations would result in increased vehicular traffic entering the proposed site
from all four bordering streets. In addition to the increased private passenger
vehicular traffic, other traffic entering and exiting the proposed site would include
gas tanker trucks and commercial delivery trucks. This increased traffic would be
in addition to the traffic already generated by 2,600 students and their parents
entering and exiting the Pinnacle High School parking lots twice daily during the
school year. Also not to be overlooked are the evening activities at the school that
result in numerous vehicles exiting onto Black Mountain Blvd and Mayo Blvd. Even
now there are not enough traffic lanes on Mayo Blvd to efficiently handle the
vehicular traffic exiting the high school parking lots.
Pinnacle High School is not the only school affected by Vestar’s proposed
rezoning request. The Fireside Elementary School, with 775 enrolled students, is
only a short block away from Superblock 12. Vestar’s rezoning request would also
impact the traffic to and from this elementary school.
The Arizona State Land Department agrees with Vestar’s C-2 rezoning request
because it wants to sell this parcel for the highest possible price. The Land
Department’s position is understandable. However, in this instance, it represents a
grave injustice to those homeowners who purchased their homes (many with their
life savings) in this neighborhood. They justifiably believed their homes would
never border a commercial development because this area was zoned
Residential. These homeowners should not have their legitimate expectations
sacrificed on an altar of money.
For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully request that Vestar’s proposal not be
approved.
Paul Dunn
3752 E. Covey Lane
Phoenix, AZ 85050
From: James Tuffin
To: Anthony M Grande
Cc: dan.richards@strand.com; "Wouter Roodenburg"; cvanek@arizonarepublic.com; akwok@azcentral.com; Council
District 2 PCC; Mayor Gallego
Subject: RE: GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2
Date: Wednesday, September 6, 2023 6:49:55 AM
Dear Mr. Grande:
An unidentified party is running a sponsored ad on Facebook directing viewers to an online
“petition” for a new grocery store in Desert Ridge. The online petition page can be seen at
https://chng.it/6L8mkBrdDq [chng.it] . It identifies the promoter of the petition as “New Grocer”. It
makes no reference to the ongoing zoning and plan amendment cases. It fails to mention, as
Vestar’s counsel has publicly admitted on more than one occasion, that Vestar cannot say what kind
of grocery might ultimately go in. And needless to say, there is no reference to the 20 acres of drive
through junk food and gas station also included in Vestar’s conceptual plan for the site right next to
the high school.
These deceptive tactics are unworthy of any responsible business. City staff should give no weight
whatsoever to the results of this patently misleading petition drive.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
James W Tuffin
21214 N 36th Pl
Phoenix, AZ 85050
James.tuffin@tuffinlaw.com (retired attorney not offering services to the public).
From: Treye Elzenga
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Desert View Zoning Feedback - Black Mountain Village Project
Date: Thursday, September 7, 2023 11:09:28 AM
Hello Anthony,
As you and constituents consider the proposed Black Mountain Village Project (GPA-DSTV-2-23-2; GPA DSTV 3-23-2; Z-
39-23), I wanted to express my strong opposition to this project. City Planners got this right the first time in the General Plan.
Schools, dog parks, walking trails, community soccer fields, and four housing developments adjoin this property.
Commercial real estate on this proposed parcel has no place, no real need, and only increases risks.
Living in this community, safety should always be our number one concern as residents. Within four hundred yards of this
proposed project, we have two schools, Pinnacle High School and Fireside Elementary, which educate pre-school children
under the age of five. Each morning and afternoon families walk their children to these schools from the surrounding homes
from the north, south, east, and west. Increasing transient traffic flow, especially off the high-speed HWY 51 into this area,
greatly increases risks for residents, especially our younger children. Simply there is no compelling argument for this project
and only increased risk.
While traffic studies were completed, the analysis and land schematics fail to demonstrate any reference to Fireside
Elementary School which is within four hundred yards of this project. How can we consider no traffic turning Left or Right
from or onto Mayo Boulevard. This lack of detail shows severe disregard for our pre-school and elementary age children. In
the analysis, they also fail to reference when the study was completed other than November 2022. In November, we have
slower traffic patterns based on holidays, people traveling outside of Phoenix to visit family, and winter residents not yet
arriving to the area. While the necessary paperwork was completed, beyond the abundance of words in the report where is the
holistic detail that considers an elementary school within yards of this project.
In 2022, the Arizona Department of Housing identified shortages of over 270,000 housing units across our state. As Phoenix
metro comprises over 2/3rds of our state’s population, we require over 175,000 units to meet the needs of the citizens.
Rezoning existing housing parcels to commercial property in the heart of a well-established family-friendly community only
introduces unnecessary risks. Approving this project will only provide short-term rewards for Vestar and Gammage &
Burnham associates not the community.
While developers will make the case for additional services and unsubstantiated benefits to our community, we must consider
the abundance of commercial services that are already available in Desert Ridge Marketplace, Vestar project and along Cave
Creek Road, and HWY 51 south. In addition, all these commercial properties have clearly defined borders which create
increased safety as to not blend housing, schools, parks, and daily life, with commercial development. Within Desert View we
have an abundance of services of all commercial types within one mile. Making the argument that driving one mile creates
hardship is unsubstantiated, unless data is provided on how many cars each household owns in village. Desert View is not the
same as an urban core, such as downtown Phoenix. Lack of concrete detail is consistent throughout the rezoning application,
while there is an abundance of words and feelings including ‘potentially’ and ‘we feel’ it fails to acknowledge key
considerations as I have outlined.
We have an opportunity to put families and our youngest citizens first by DENYING this project. Thank you for your
thoughtful consideration of the data, facts, and real impact on our community for the long term. I appreciate your support
in DENYING this rezoning request.
Treye Elzenga
Resident City of Phoenix - Desert Ridge
From: Lesley Anderson
To: Anthony M Grande; msantoro@gblaw.com; PDD Desert View VPC
Subject: Open Letter to the Desert View Village Planning Committee re: REZONING LAND NEAR PINNACLE HS
Date: Friday, September 8, 2023 6:47:42 AM
Dear Anthony Grande, Michelle Santoro, ad the Desert View Village Planning Committee,
I am one of the many Sky Crossing residents who found out about the rezoning of the
20.52 acres on the SW corner of Black Mountain Blvd and Deer Valley Drive from
an article posted on a Facebook group and not from the City of Phoenix. I am obviously
disappointed that Vestar and the City of Phoenix failed to notify about 95% of the Sky
Crossing residents of this potential zoning change that will deeply affect our neighborhood.
I personally attended the meeting on August 1, 2023 in order to get more
information about the potential gas station, grocery store, and restaurants/shops that will
affect neighborhood traffic as well as my property value in the near future. My hopes were
high as I listened to the presentation by Gammage & Burnham. I was actually in favor of
some sort of small commercial property before the meeting.
I waited for details as to the type and size of grocery store, types of restaurants, and of
course a solution to the traffic problem that haunts that corner of Desert Ridge, but sadly
none of that happened. It felt like no solutions were given. Very general information
was shared on the slides. No 3D rendering of what it would look like. Will the grocery and
gas station lights be on all night? What about the noise from semi trucks dropping off 3 am
deliveries at the grocery store? Will the stores blend with the desert landscape like in
Fountain Hills or stick out like a sore thumb? Residents were simply left with more
questions than answers.
With this in mind, I am writing to you all to express my opposition to rezoning
this land from RESIDENTIAL to COMMERCIAL which would allow for a
commercial shopping center.
I think Sky Crossing residents would be more supportive of a project if it answered the
questions above, and somehow solved the traffic mayhem. Perhaps Vestar could have
proposed to help the school and the community by building Pinnacle High School a parking
garage? Traffic literally comes to a standstill in the morning hours and prevents
area residents from accessing the Black Canyon Road heading south in order to get on the
HWY 51 on-ramp. Apparently because there is not enough parking for students, so parents
have to drop their kids off every morning. Which is ridiculous. If you live in this area,
you know about the problem. The high school and the Phoenix Police are well
aware of the problem. This strip center will only add to the traffic issue.
I am but one of the many voices who oppose the rezoning of this land and the potential
traffic issues it will cause. I am asking the members of the Desert View Village
Planning Committee to please vote NO when voting for the rezoning of this
parcel of land. There are too many unanswered questions.
Thank you for your time and for reading this. Much appreciation.
Regards,
Lesley Anderson
22413 N. 30th Street, Phoenix
Sky Crossing resident
Realtor® with HomeSmart
Email: AZAndersonRealEstate@gmail.com
Direct: 480-390-6297
From: Jamie Bauschka
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Black Mountain Village
Date: Friday, September 8, 2023 12:36:27 PM
Dear Mr. Grande-
This message is in regards to GPA-DSTV-2-23-2
GPA-DSTV-3-23-3
Z-39-23-2
I live in the neighborhood in Fireside that is directly across Black Mtn from this currently vacant land. While we
understood this to be slated as residential, it seems now someone is trying to change that.
While we are not in favor of this changing to commercial, there is a much more pressing issue for this area that
should be addressed prior to any development on that land. The drop off/pick up/ and parking for students at
PVHS. The current situation there is unsafe and terribly inconvenient. The fact that there is not a sufficient amount
of parking for students attending the school has got to be expanded prior to anything else being developed there.
The kids crossing this major intersection (Black Mtn & Mayo) to get to their awaiting rides, is a tragedy waiting to
happen.
Please consider working with the school district & community before it’s too late to address these issues.
And, no thank you to changing the zoning from residential to commercial.
Thank you for your time & consideration!
Jamie Bauschka
Sent from my iPhone
From: Yatharth Chowdhary
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Opposing Black Mountain Village
Date: Friday, September 8, 2023 10:29:24 PM
Hi Anthony,
I am current resident of desert ridge area and regarding GPA-DSTV- 2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-
23-2/Z-39-23-2 i don't want Black Mountain Village.
Our homes were built under the Desert Ridge Specific Plan. The plan promised us clean, quiet
and safe neighborhoods because commercial activity was placed in the "commercial core".
Commercial activity in the "residential superblocks" is strictly limited to minor
"conveniences" of no more than 3 acres and drive through operations are prohibited.
I would like to oppose the rezoning of this area.
Thanks
Yatharth
From: Diana Dichter
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2
Date: Friday, September 8, 2023 9:56:56 AM
Please consider my vote AGAINST the Black Mountain Village Commercial development sought after by Vestar.
My family, including two children, live in Fireside Desert Ridge and plan to stay here for the next 10-20 years, at
least.
We would like to keep Fireside and the overall Desert Ridge community, as originally planned - residential.
The lot across from the Pinnacle High School could be made into a community park, perhaps with some additional
parking to relieve the already horrific traffic conditions for the schools in the area. We do not need more traffic in
the neighborhood or even worse - though it.
Hope our voices carry some value in these determinations.
Thank you,
Diana Dichter
310-912-2790
From: SCOTT ELLEFSON
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Black Mountain Village
Date: Friday, September 8, 2023 8:34:28 AM
Anthony,
Please note, I am Opposed to the Black Mountain Village Plan.
Case numbers GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2
Sincerely,
Scott Ellefson
Fireside at Desert Ridge
From: Joe Haglund
To: Anthony M Grande
Cc: Joe Haglund
Subject: Black Mountain Village Proposed Development
Date: Friday, September 8, 2023 11:06:40 AM
Hello Anthony,
I am resident in Aviano in Desert Ridge in Phoenix and I wanted to reach out to you about the
proposed Black Mountain Village Development that is up for rezoning. Unfortunately I will
not be able to be present at the meeting on October 3rd and wanted to reach out on this.
I have lived in Desert Ridge since 2012 and there have been several great changes over the
past 10+years including access to the 51 and widening Black Mountain. I strongly feel that
the rezoning of this area would be a major mistake for several reasons.
1.) Currently Pinnacle High School has a large amount of traffic that creates a backup onto
Black Mountain and sometimes Deer Valley as well which makes this area extremely difficult
to get through during the week from 7-8:30am, between 3-5, and also when there are sporting
and other events held at the school. Adding this development will bring increased traffic and
and chaos for many new drivers that attend the high school and residents and guests of the
area.
2.) Parking is a major issue at Pinnacle and students will end up parking in this new
development which will create issues with the property manager/owner and tenants as well
3.) As a resident I am all about convenience and the thought of a grocery store and other stores
close by my home sounds great initially, but I think there are a lot more negatives than
positives for this one and the most important one is the safety of the kids and residents of the
area.
Thank you for your help with this and please feel free to contact me with any questions
Joe Haglund
22116 N 36th Way
Phoenix, AZ 85050
480-650-1873-cell
joehaglund1@gmail.com
--
Joe Haglund
480-650-1873-cell
NMLS ID: 24351
From: April Justman
To: Anthony M Grande; Rob A. Justman
Subject: GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2
Date: Friday, September 8, 2023 4:38:15 PM
Hello Anthony,
We are residents of Fireside and parents of Pinnacle High School children. We are strongly
opposed to th Black Mountain Village.
When we purchased our home, Fireside was advertised as a clean, quiet, and safe
neighborhood oriented towards families with children. It is our understanding that
commercial activities within the superblocks adjacent to Fireside are to be limited to minor
conveniences of three (3) acres or less. Vestar is proposing a twenty (20) acre shopping center
directly adjacent to Pinnacle High School; that, as you know, includes drive thrus (which are
also prohibited commercial activities in the superblocks adjacent to Fireside).
Not only is our family concerned about what may become a falsity of how Fireside was
advertised when we purchased our home seven (7) years ago, should Vestar succeed with this
initiative, we are also concerned about the associated crime, noise, pollution, and traffic that
will no doubt plague our residential community. We already have an issue with high-traffic
volume that does not respect the posted speed limits near Fireside Elementary School and
Pinnacle High School on Mayo Street, as commuters travel to Interstate 51. Vestar's initiative
will only heighten this problem, and create a more dangerous situation for our children
including the littlest of our children at Fireside Elementary School, who deserve the ability to
walk to and from their school safely each day. Although older and presumably more ept, our
Pinnacle students deserve the same consideration.
Thank you for your time.
April and Rob Justman
3713 E. Huett Lane
Phoenix, AZ 85050
480-904-1560
From: rmarranca ourfiresidedesertridge.net
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Case #GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2
Date: Friday, September 8, 2023 11:07:18 AM
Good Morning,
We have bought into our community at Fireside with the zoning of all residential. We are NOT
in favor of changing the zoing and the plan to put in a 20 acre shopping center right across
from Pinnacle High.
the Black Mountain Village
I hope you can respectfully reconsider this change in which we did NOT buy into
Thank you,
With Warmest Regards,
Rita Marranca
Administrative Assistant
and Front Desk Manager
Fireside at Desert Ridge
480-203-2166
From: Chintan Patel
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: CASE # GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2
Date: Friday, September 8, 2023 8:49:37 PM
Good evening Mr. Grande:
My name is Dr Chintan Patel and I am a cardiologist at our local, Thompson Peak hospital and
resident within the Copper view community in Fireside here at Desert Ridge. I am writing to
you in reference to case number GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2, also
known as Black mountain village.
I know that you may be receiving numerous letters and petitions against this commercial
community. I would like to take the opportunity to waste my concerns and join amongst the
ranks of those against this proposed commercial shopping area.
The appeal of Desert Ridge and what makes it a unique location is the sense of community
that we all feel and try to bring to the various neighborhoods within the Desert Ridge
communities. While we may live a different neighborhoods, much of what unites us is the
sense of community and safety that we sought when we first moved here. The glue that tends
to bind us all here, like most neighborhoods, is our children. Personally I have two young
daughters who attend Fireside elementary who are currently six and five. We moved to this
community after talking with neighbors and seeing how happy they were raising their kids
from elementary to high school in an area that they felt safe enough to have their kids be
independent.
I do understand the financial benefits of a commercial property, but the location that is
proposed is already in a high traffic area with his own intrinsic problems because of high
school traffic and the on/off ramp to route 51. If the point of the shopping plaza is to serve the
needs of the community, and the community has spoken that the current Desert Ridge is
sufficient then the only thing this could bring are consequences. People moved to this
community the way it was designed with the promise of trying to keep it from being a
commercial hotspot. Bringing more homes and more families to create more neighbors only
makes us stronger, but bringing in businesses that invite more outside traffic, their own self
interests, and the potential negative influences only brings down the reputation of Desert
Ridge and instills of distrust in the city of Phoenix and it's social responsibility to it's citizens.
I thank the city of Phoenix and representatives like you for making communities like Desert
Ridge available to us and keeping it in its current splendor. All we ask is a mutual sense of
trust in us to help continue to grow the community while maintaining its integrity and safety.
I appreciate your time and willingness to hear our voices.
Thank you so much,
Chintan Patel.
From: Susan Sheroff
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2 Black Mountain Village
Date: Friday, September 8, 2023 7:04:25 PM
Dear Mr Grande:
I reside in Desert Ridge at 21214 N 36th Pl
The applications submitted to enable the Black Mountain Village must be denied. I am aware of the comments
submitted by other homeowners including Mr. Tuffin, Mr. Richards and Mr Roodenburg. I will not repeat the many
reasons why this project is a terrible idea. This attempted betrayal of innocent homeowners who purchased under
the existing Specific Plan cannot be justified; the justifications put forward by Vestar are essentially specious and
insufficient to destroy the reasonable expectations of innocent home buyers.
Thank you for your attention
Susan Sheroff
Sent from my iPhone
From: Taylor Ungerer
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: No to Black Mountain Village
Date: Friday, September 8, 2023 9:11:33 PM
Case number-
GPA-DSTV-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2
Hello Anthony,
Myself as well as most of the community at black mountain rd. absolutely disagree with Black Mountain Village
being rezoned from residential to commercial. If you could please let me know an update after the planning
committee meeting with the decision on October 3rd, 2023.
Thank you for your time,
Taylor
From: Jeannette
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Case no Z29-23
Date: Friday, September 8, 2023 9:05:10 PM
I am writing to you regarding the request to rezone in our area 85050 Black Mountain Project.
As a resident and homeowner 17 years in this area - Desert Ridge, I have seen a lot of growth in our area. I want to
make sure we DO NOT REZONE THIS AREA TO COMMERCIAL. We are currently inundated with traffic from
the 51 and all the traffic from the area who avoid the 51. You should be focusing on community not convenience.
Save this are for Pinnacle High School. Every morning my kids walk to school and the amount of traffic is massive
and congested. The 51 Black Mountain ramp has also increased the congestion and safety of residents and children
who live in this area. DO NOT BE MOTIVATED OR SEDUCED BY THE ARROGANCE OF COMMERCIAL
BUSINESS In our community!!!!!
Vote NO!!!!
Jeannette Vespalec
From: Dan Welker
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Black Mtn Village
Date: Friday, September 8, 2023 11:22:38 AM
Mr Grande -
I live across the street from the proposed Back Mountain Village Commercial development in the Desert
Ridge area. This is a major issue for my family. Traffic is already crazy. The noise from Deer Valley and
Black Mtn is already bad (why isn't there a noise ordinance for Harley Davidsons and tuner automobiles,
by the way) and it would just get worse. The high school students next door at Pinnacle don't need this.
Go to the Walgreens next to PV High School after classes get out if you want a sample of what goes on. I
have two kids there right now and my third will be going there in 3 years. This is supposed to be a
residential area and is currently zoned that way. The bait and switch that is going on is unacceptable. I
will oppose this every way possible. Please stand up and represent your citizens and keep the peace in a
neighborhood that is supposed to remain quiet.
Thanks for your help.
Dan Welker
602-821-0262
From: Debbie Bolde
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: GPA-DSTV-2-23-2 SW Black Mountain & Deer Valley
Date: Saturday, September 9, 2023 4:59:53 PM
Dear Mr Grande.
We are residents of Sky Crossing and we received notification of the proposed re-zoning at the
SW Corner of Black Mountain & Deer Valley roads because we live in close proximity of it.
We are opposed to the development and rezoning of this parcel for the following reasons:
1. This project does not fit the neighborhood and it is contradictory to Desert Ridge's
original plan for this area to be a low noise, light traffic community. We purchased our
home in 2020 with the understanding this parcel would be a residential parcel only. We
moved here to get away from the city traffic and noise.
2. The suggested development is not needed in this area because all of these services are
available 2 miles in each direction on Tatum blvd and Cave Creek road. Furthermore a
gas station and drive thru coffee shop/fast food restaraunt will increase pollution into
neighboring communities.
3. Currently PHS turns their lights off at 9pm because of the residential zoning. This
provides a quiet serine and tranquil neighborhood for all homeowners. This
development would change the entire feel of the neighborhoods which is not at all fair
to any homeowner that purchased as described above.
4. With the increasing concerns of rising temperatures, water shortage, high traffic and
other issues within the city of Phoenix, it would seem prudent for the city council to
preserve open land to insure a better quality of life for it's residents. Our temperature in
the area is typically 3-7 degrees lower here than it is at Sky harbor airport where the
land has been overdeveloped. We need more trees, bushes and open land and less
concrete, blacktop, buildings and traffic. A better use of this land would be a park with
walking paths, covered picnic area's and additional parking that could be used for PHS
during the week. This would meet the needs of all of these neighborhoods and would
alleviate the current problem with people using the private parks in Sky crossing, it
would be a win win for everyone.
Thank you for your consideration of these issues above. We hope the city council will find
another alternative for this parcel that will be better suited to the neighboring communities
than a commercial development.
Mike & Debbie Bolde
3436 E Louise Drive
Phoenix Az 85050
480.419.9385.
From: Susan Marshall
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: case numbers GPA-DSTV- 2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/2-39-23-3
Date: Saturday, September 9, 2023 11:14:34 AM
To All Involved,
I don't want Black Mountain Village at
Deer Valley-Sky Crossing-Black Mountain.
This land is zoned for residential and should remain so. I see no reason to add more
commercial businesses to a zoned residential area. It will only bring more, crime, noise, litter,
pollution, and traffic nightmares to quiet residential area. This is where very young children
through high school ages are in large number playing outdoors in sports and in
neighborhoods. This will be monstrosity of various issues. Especially with the exit to Black
Mountain-51-101 and intersection of Black Mountain Blvd and Deer Valley. This is easy to
predict. Look at the issues of traffic already. Our neighborhoods were built and purchased
with this in mind of being residential. We would not have purchased otherwise. It’s a promise
you are conducting rescinding. To have it be a bait and switch now will only cause more ill
will in our communities and with government. Please consider everyone’s concerns.
Cordially,
Susan Marshall
From: Marty Minzer
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: This better never take place. You will have a war on you hands!
Date: Saturday, September 9, 2023 1:26:50 PM
Our homes were built under the Desert Ridge Specific Plan. The plan promised us clean, quiet and safe
neighborhoods because commercial activity was placed in the "commercial core". Commercial activity in the
"residential superblocks" is strictly limited to minor "conveniences" of no more than 3 acres and drive through
operations are prohibited.
The land at Deer Valley and Black Mountain is designated residential under the plan. Vestar, the developer of the
Desert Ridge Marketplace, now wants to rake in even more money by changing the zoning, and the plan, to put in
a 20 acre shopping center right across from Pinnacle High School. They say it will contain drive-through fast food,
drive-through coffee, a gas station, a grocery of an unknown name and type, and heaven knows what else.
Many of us are appalled by this bait-and-switch, and worried about the crime, noise, litter, pollution, and traffic
nightmares that will come with this monstrosity. And we are taking action.
Sincerely,
Marty Minzer
From: Alan Walstad
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Black Mountain Village proposal
Date: Saturday, September 9, 2023 12:36:21 PM
Anthony Grande
Planner II* Village Planner
200 W Washington St
3rd Floor
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Greetings Anthony, I appreciate you taking the time to read my note regarding case number
GPA-DSTV-2-23-2 and/or GPA-DSTV-3-23-2 and/or Z-39-23.
My family and I are current residents in the Sky Crossing community, living just northwest of
the intersection of Black Mountain Boulevard and Deer Valley Road. We have some concerns
about the proposed zoning changes for the parcel at the southwest corner of that
intersection.
We moved to our home in part due to the quiet community surroundings, including the
residential neighborhoods of Aviano and Desert Ridge to the east, and Fireside to the
southeast. Also, Sky Crossing is bounded by vegetation and city property to the west,
the National Memorial Cemetary of Arizona to the north, and the Joni Fitts School of
Horsemanship to the northeast.
The Desert Ridge Specific Plan (in which the parcel in question lies) limits commercial
activity in the residential superblocks to no more than 3 acres.
Pinnacle High School is directly to the south of the proposed zoning
change/development.
Our decision to move to this area was predicated on the quiet, residential feel of our
neighborhood and surrounding areas. I know that many neighbors in Sky Crossing as well as
friends and neighbors in Aviano and Fireside feel the same, and this proposed change to
existing zoning conflicts with one of the primary reasons that many families may have selected
these neighborhoods.
We find that existing stores and shops (essential and non-essential) as well as medical facilities
and outdoor activities are all plentiful within a very reasonable distance (most less than 7
miles) from our existing home. We believe that there are multiple alternative locations in the
general vicinity if further development is necessary.
Each morning during the school year, the traffic at the intersection of Deer Valley Road and
Black Mountain Boulevard is horrendous. The current combination of Pinnacle High School
traffic coupled with traffic accessing SR-51 southbound from Black Mountain Boulevard
creates a backup that can take 15+ minutes to travel less than one mile. This traffic situation
will only worsen with any future development north of Pinnacle Peak Road, including the
potential extension of Black Mountain Boulevard to connect to I-17/AZ-303 through Sonoran
Desert Drive.
Our family is not in support of the proposed zoning changes:
Adding a retail shopping center will create additional traffic, including commercial trucks
and trailers delivering goods at all hours of the day and night.
Lighting in the parking lots and the stores themselves will shine directly into
homes/bedrooms along the north side of Deer Valley Road. The same homes will also
have significant noise pollution from the center.
The addition of a gas station/convenience store will also bring environmental concerns,
and even greater light and noise issues.
Any waivers granted for alcohol purchases in the center would be a significant concern
with Pinnacle High School just south of the development.
Criminal activity, which is currently minimal in our community, will very likely increase
with the addition of retail and restaurant businesses directly across the street.
Traffic at the intersection, already a significant concern each morning during the school
year, will be exacerbated with multiple businesses open at that time.
Thank you again Anthony, for reviewing our concerns about the potential zoning changes.
Best regards,
Alan Walstad
From: Rajendra
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: NO to Black Mountain Village-Case GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/Z-39-23-2
Date: Sunday, September 10, 2023 1:13:07 PM
Hello Anthony,
My name is Rajendra Danda and I am a resident of the Skycrossing community located at
Deer valley Rd and Black Mountain Blvd intersection. I would like to formally email you my
opposition about building Black mountain village. I think it's going to make our safe
neighborhood into a commercial area which will primarily cause danger to the kids . It also
will lead to more crime activities, noise, litter, pollution, more traffic nightmare,damage our
home values as well.
Thus, we strongly oppose building Black mountain village as we don't feel any necessity of
this commercial complex . Please help us on this matter.
Thanks,
Rajendra Danda
From: Rajesh Gadde
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: NO to Black Mountain Village-Case GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/Z-39-23-2
Date: Sunday, September 10, 2023 11:54:31 AM
Hello Anthony,
I am Rajesh Gadde. I live in Fireside at desert ridge, I would like to formally email you my
opposition about building Black mountain village. I think it's going to make our safe
neighborhood into a commercial area thus causing danger to kids.
It will create more crime opportunities, noise, litter, pollution, traffic nightmare as well.
We don't want this at all. Please help us on this matter.
Thanks
Rajesh
From: kay ehrick
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2. ABSOLUTELY NO global international here thanks
Date: Sunday, September 10, 2023 7:46:34 AM
Hi Anthony,
Lived here for 10 years and please tell vestar his partners and the global leaders they hang with to all take their
equity BS and play the game in some other county. We have enough crazyness on these roads and riffraff pretty
much all around us. We get eniugh traffic from the 51 enough from all the highschool and elementary. So forgive
me when I say we don’t need anymore traffic around these parts. Not to bright of an idea at all. Maybe the partners
can build near their homes or kids schools. Or find another globe to pollute. Stop building new and be the globalist
equity folks you claim to be.. let me k iw if you need the buildings that need some fixing since global love screams
vestar, and investment of international people who should be maybe building in their own countries and stop
bringing in shops that cater to worldly people. We are o lay one country and our language is English. Foreign
builders should do the climate a favor and fix the the homes already up. We sure as hell don’t need another drive
through, hell no to a gas station and really another grocery store? No thanks if we were looking for so much crap
around us we all would have moved elsewhere! Sick of these investors coming in and messing with something
good. Here’s a suggestion vestar can take all their ideas and I don’t know maybe FIX ALL THE BUILDINGS
CLOSED due some bioweapon plandamic! We don’t need anymore corners with the crap we see that has all the
crap they bring in! Vestar needs to leave it the way it was zoned for! Absolutely no businesses! Save the planet by
using all the empty buildings do to all this equity BS! Hell no to the idea! I wasn’t born yesterday and please tell
vestar to take their global equity and shove it where the son don’t shine! They should not be so money hungry to
into our neighborhood and bring in businesses they know aren’t needed! Plenty around us within a 3 mile radius.
HELL NO TO VESTAR THEIR PARTNERS AND THEIR GLOBAL EQUITY BS! The word these globalists and
their partners don’t like is Equality cause equity is racist! Maybe vestar should go and build something in south
phoenix for all the homeless and OUR VETS
Hell no to vestar in this area! Equity bs doesn’t work here I’ve already lived that time of my life . It’s equality and if
vestar is a foreign entity would rather they go globalize some other suckers! I’ve seen what these globalists and their
equity has done to Greece first hand! Hell no! Fix the buildings that are up and need a gut job remodel! Don’t want
nothing from vestar or their desert ridge ideas!
No more businesses around 3 schools! No riff raff needed anywhere close to any of these kids! Globalists OUT and
the word is EQUALITY.
No to this build.
Kay E
From: Mahitha
To: Anthony M Grande
Cc: Mahi
Subject: NO to Black Mountain Village-Case GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/Z-39-23-2
Date: Sunday, September 10, 2023 12:48:25 PM
Hello Anthony,
I am Mahitha Valluri. I live in Fireside at desert ridge, I would like to formally email you my opposition about
building Black mountain village. I think it's going to make our safe neighborhood into a commercial area thus
causing danger to kids.
It will create more crime opportunities, noise, litter, pollution, traffic nightmare as well.
We don't want this at all. Please help us on this matter.
Thanks
Mahitha
Sent from my iPhone
From: Justin Scott
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Black Mountain Village
Date: Sunday, September 10, 2023 8:53:43 PM
Hi Anthony,
I am reaching out to you with my concern about the Black Mountain Village proposal at the
intersection of Black Mountain Road and Deer Valley. I am a current resident of Desert Ridge in the
Fireside community. I kindly request that Case Numbers: GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-
23-2 are denied. I have no interest in this property and there is absolutely no need for it. This will
only cause significant issues in our community.
I hope you consider the Phoenix residents that will be very negatively affected by this proposal if
passed. Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely,
Justin Scott
Justin Scott
Justinscott634@outlook.com
(480) 865-4700
21264 N. 36h Place, Phoenix AZ 85050
From: ramya silpa
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: NO to Black Mountain Village-Case GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/Z-39-23-2
Date: Sunday, September 10, 2023 1:19:47 PM
Hello Anthony,
My name is Lakshmi Ramya Silpa Alapati and I am a resident of the Skycrossing community
located at Deer valley Rd and Black Mountain Blvd intersection. I would like to formally
email you my opposition about building Black mountain village. I think it's going to make our
safe neighborhood into a commercial area which will primarily cause danger to the kids . It
also will lead to more crime activities, noise, litter, pollution, more traffic nightmare,damage
our home values as well.
Thus, we strongly oppose building Black mountain village as we don't feel any necessity of
this commercial complex . Please help us on this matter.
Thanks,
Lakshmi Ramya Silpa Alapati
From: lakshmi alapati
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: NO to Black Mountain Village-Case GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/Z-39-23-2
Date: Sunday, September 10, 2023 1:24:31 PM
Hello Anthony,
My name is Lakshmi Ramya Silpa Alapati and I am a resident of the Skycrossing community
located at Deer valley Rd and Black Mountain Blvd intersection. I would like to formally
email you my opposition about building Black mountain village. I think it's going to make our
safe neighborhood into a commercial area which will primarily cause danger to the kids . It
also will lead to more crime activities, noise, litter, pollution, more traffic nightmare,damage
our home values as well.
Thus, we strongly oppose building Black mountain village as we don't feel any necessity of
this commercial complex . Please help us on this matter.
Thanks,
Lakshmi Ramya Silpa Alapati
From: Bob Donnelli
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Black Mountain Village
Date: Monday, September 11, 2023 3:05:16 PM
Hello Anthony,
A topic was brought to my attention re: Black Mountain Village development on the corner of Deer Valley road and
Black Mountain freeway. In the communication, it stated a plan to develop the area commercially.
As a resident homeowner in the Desert Ridge Aviano community, I would be opposed to such development. The
expression ‘convenience has its costs’ is not a mantra that would garner local resident support.
As you are aware, with the implementation of such comes an impact on the local community. These external, non-
controllable influences would add additional burden to the traffic flow, already very challenged with the high school
across the street; an esthetic decline of the local neighborhood housing; an invitation to non-resident commuters; and
the potential for a parabolic change of public safety in the local community.
I understand business well. The location would embrace a single family residential development, a logical option for
the land. This area is a much sought after residential community and the ability to pre-sell any number of residences
would be accomplished with little effort.
Albeit one email, this topic was brought to my attention by a host of local homeowners. I look forward to your
consideration.
Sincerely,
Robert Donnelli
602.708.1250
Sent from my iPhone
From: Praveen Mahadevaiah
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Opposition to Black Mountain Village (case numbers GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DTV-3-23-2/Z39-23-2)
Date: Monday, September 11, 2023 9:13:42 AM
Dear Sir,
This is Praveen Mahadevaiah a resident of Fireside in Desert Ridge, Phoenix. I am writing
this email to express our opposition to the proposed Black mountain village with case numbers
GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DTV-3-23-2/Z39-23-2.
Our homes were built under the Desert ridge specific plan. The plan promised us a clean, quiet
and safe neighbourhood because commercial activity was placed in the "commercial core".
Commercial activity in the "residential superblocks" is strictly limited to minor
"conveniences" of no more than 3 acres and drive through operations are prohibited. The land
at deer valley and black mountain is designated residential under the plan, Vestar, the
developer of the Desert ridge marketplace, now wants to rake in more money by changing the
zoning and the plan, to put in a 20 acre shopping center right across from Pinnacle high
school. They say it will contain a drive through fast food, drive through coffee, a gas station
and grocery of unknown name and type.
Many of us were baffled by this rezone proposal and worried about the noise, crime, litter and
pollution and traffic nightmares. As state route 51 route ends at the Black mountain blvd, there
is already a lot of traffic and congestion in this intersection of Deer valley and black mountain,
especially during peak hours. With the proposed rezone for a commercial property, this will
make matters even worse.
Our house backs up to the black mountain blvd and we are really worried about the rezone
proposal and the effect it will have on our beautiful community.
We request you to consider our opposition to this proposed rezone of the residential block and
we don't want the black mountain village.
Regards
Praveen
From: Yasmin Rivera-Klein
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: GPA-DSTV-2-23-2
Date: Monday, September 11, 2023 8:46:51 PM
Dear Anthony,
I am writing today regarding Vestar’s proposals (case numbers) GPA-DSTV-2-23-2, GPA
DSTV-3-23-2, and Z-39-23. As a resident of Desert Ridge, I oppose Vestar’s proposal for
rezoning the Southwest Corner of Black Moutain Boulevard and Deer Valley Drive from
Residential to Commercial/Retail for several reasons.
First, Desert Ridge is a highly desirable planned residential community that continues to
attract buyers willing to pay a premium for a prime location. Adding commercial/retail
mixed-use space in the middle of the community would decrease the desirability of Desert
Ridge and lower the values of residential real estate within the community.
Second, the traffic flow within Desert Ridge is already too great for the limited infrastructure
within the community. Pinnacle Peak High School is located adjacent to the proposed site.
The traffic caused during the morning/afternoon pick up/drop off combined with regular
commuting already creates a safety issue on Black Moutain and Deer Valley, with vehicles
backed up in every direction. Adding unnecessary commercial/retail space would only
increase the traffic and lead to safety issues.
Third, there is no need for mixed commercial/retail space in the middle of single-family
homes. The area has more than ample shopping options - Desert Ridge Marketplace, High
Street, and shopping off of Cave Creek Rd and the 101 are all within an extremely close
distance. Finally, creating a commercial/retail space in the middle of a residential area will
bring increased instances of crime, which, when coupled with declining property values,
would limit the marketability of Desert Ridge.
Given the detrimental impacts on our home values, marketability, safety, noise/light
pollution, and increased traffic without adequate infrastructure, these proposals should be
denied. Please do not hesitate to reach out if I can provide any additional information.
Regards,
Yasmin Rivera
From: Susan Ze
To: Anthony M Grande
Cc: Council District 2 PCC
Subject: Black Mountain village - Superblock 12 Oppostion
Date: Monday, September 11, 2023 3:24:52 PM
Mr. Grande and Councilman Waring. Greetings.
As residents of Copperview Neighborhood in Fireside - Desert Ridge, my husband and I are
adamantly opposed to the proposed rezoning of the property known as a portion of Parcel 12.L
within Superblock 12 of the Desert Ridge Specific Plan. We realize you have probably
received many letters expressing such opposition, so I will briefly list our concerns. We
moved from northern California about seven years ago to be closer to two of our daughters
and their families and have found a pleasant home in Copperview but already see some
negative activity and really fear how the proposed Black Mountain Village Project will
escalate those negative incidents. Many of the younger families in the neighborhood may
have already expressed their opinions, but I feel that we older folk should also have a voice.
We live on E Abraham Lane, just off of Mayo and very close to the Black Mountain/Mayo
corner where large numbers of high school students congregate at the lights waiting to cross
and cars wait in long lines to either turn left to access AZ 51 or drop off their children in the
right lane. We also have long lines of cars on Abraham Lane itself as well as N 36th Street
during drop off and pick up times and many cars exceeding the speed limit and/or making U
turns. A commercial property on Black Mountain Blvd across from the high school will add
more traffic problems to all parts of the Fireside neighborhood, not just Copperview. In
addition, the safety of our students going to Pinnacle High School will be adversely affected.
We have watched over the past few years as vandalism and criminal incidents have increased
at Desert Ridge Shopping Center. Putting a commercial center right next to a high school is
only inviting more of such behavior.
The noise and light pollution will certainly increase and woe to those neighbors whose houses
back up to Black Mountain Blvd directly across from the proposed commercial project. In
addition, the amount of litter produced will surely spread over into the adjoining
neighborhoods.
Of course, there is a master plan for Desert Ridge, and a commercial center next to the high
school was not included, for very good reasons. We realize that the land is owned by the
Arizona State Land Department and proceeds from the sale of such lands is to benefit the
schools, but what better way to benefit Pinnacle High School (as well as the surrounding
neighborhoods, including Fireside, Aviano, and Sky Crossing) than to provide additional
student parking and/or a well designed drop off/ pick up area which would alleviate and not
add to current traffic problems.
If you truly feel in your heart the need to vote for rezoning, despite the very logical and well
researched objections, my husband and I hope that you will fight to incorporate absolute
requirements, such as including community resources (a library and funding for it would be a
fantastic addition!), covered parking with solar panels to reduce electricity needs, location
requirements that reduce traffic problems and light pollution, prohibiting any gas station or
any all night business, to mention just a few ideas.
I hope that you will truly take the concern of your fellow citizens to heart and not just rubber
stamp the rezoning request in order to replenish the city or the school districts coffers. While
we may be only a small neighborhood compared to the number of people living in Phoenix,
we should be respected for our opinions and needs. Please realize the adding a commercial
center right next to the school and directly across from a residential area does not meet OUR
needs and certainly does not show any respect for us.
Sincerely,
Susan Ze
From: barbara bass
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Rezoning for commercial shopping center
Date: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 2:49:39 PM
No NO I know Money Talks But so does the residents of out neighboring communities! We DONT WANT THIS !
(Protecting the safety of our children with a high school right next door! For the safety of all the homes, for the
additional traffic, NO NO)We have a beautiful shopping center with All the amenities we need and Crimes have
increased WE DONT NEED THIS IN OUR BACK YARDS! I’m not sure this can be stopped because it’s all about
$$$ But we can try!!!!
Sent from my iPhone
From: Eliza Bozzelli
To: Anthony M Grande
Cc: Council District 2 PCC; Michael Bozzelli
Subject: STRONGLY OPPOSED to Black Mountain Village
Date: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 10:03:11 AM
To Whom it May Concern,
We are new residents are Fireside with 3 small children, two of which attend Fireside Elementary School.
We bought our home under the pretenses that we were raising our family in a safe, quiet neighborhood
and that the land around us had VERY MINIMAL commercial zoning.
This suggested rezoning is going to have such a great impact on our community, our safety, and our
already overwhelmed streets. Especially Mayo, which we walk along every day to bring our kids to school.
Mayo is a complete nightmare during school dropoff and pickup hours already.
Furthermore, the threat of a gas station, or drive through will bring fumes, loitering and crime to our
community.
I am STRONGLY OPPOSED to this rezoning and I feel that I was sold a lie when I bought my house. Our
children and our community deserve better than this.
Eliza Bozzelli
From: Jen
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Opposed to Re zoning
Date: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 7:11:39 PM
I read that Bestar is looking to redone near Deer Valley and Blk Mtn Rd.
I want to state that I am opposed to this Re-zoning.
Let me know if I need to sign anything .
Thank you-
Jen Cakebread
Long Realty Unlimited
From: Jason Epstein
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Vestar Rezoning Proposal for SW Corner of Deer Valley and Black Mountain Blvd.
Date: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 11:58:46 AM
Hello Mr. Grande,
I have recently learned of the Vestar development proposal to rezone and
commercially develop the land parcel on the SW corner of Deer Valley and Black
Mountain Blvd. This is addressed in case no. GPA-DSTV-3-23-2 and Z-39-23.
As a resident of the Sky Crossing community, on the north side of Deer Valley, I
oppose this rezoning proposal. It threatens our quality of life for the following reasons:
- The proposed commercial businesses will add additional automobile traffic, which
will increase air and noise polution.
- The increased automobile traffic, just feet from Pinacle High School, will also
threaten the safety of these students as motorists continuously drive in and out of this
complex. As parents of a young child who will eventually attend this high school, we
are very concerned about this impact.
- These businesses will add to light polution. The Sky Crossing HOA residential rules
have deliberately restricted lighting on housing in order to preserve our views of the
night sky. Our residents have enjoyed dark nights with full views of the stars. Bright
lights from all-night businesses will impact the tranquility we have worked hard to
achieve.
We moved to the Sky Crossing neighborhood in order to enjoy the relative piece and
quiet afforded by this sparse residential area in northern Phoenix. The parcel on the
SW corner of Deer Valley and Black Mountain Blvd., as originally zoned, is consistent
with this goal, intended as a residential community. I am asking that you reject the
Vestar development proposal and keep this land parcel zoned as residential for the
benefit of the surrounding community.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Jason Epstein
3317 E. Cashman Drive
Phoenix, AZ 85050
From: J
To: Anthony M Grande
Cc: PDD Desert View VPC
Subject: Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 9:47:22 PM
In reference to Cases:
GPA-DSTV-2-23-2
GPA-DSTV-3-23-2
Z-39-23
Hi Anthony,
I just ended a community meeting with the representatives from Vestar (Gammage &
Burnham) and my local community where the conceptual plan for black mountain village was
discussed. I have to say I am deeply disappointed with this proposal, that includes a request for
amending the districting of the land from residential to commercial and the build out of a 20
acre shopping center. From the call itself, many other community members were equally
disappointed and voiced their concerns.
I've read through the plan and the commentary as provided by the representatives of this build
out, that includes notes such as that this is to the benefit of the community in limiting drive
time and is intended to cater to the local area residents. I am a local resident and my current
shopping drive time is 5 minutes to the desert ridge shopping center. I do not agree that
bringing traffic, crime, pollution, litter, noise, and light are worth the benefit of saving me 5
minutes of drive time to do my regular shopping.
I originally purchased my home in the sky crossing community as a part of the desert ridge
specific plan, with the understanding that commercial placements would stay near the
commercial core of the desert ridge area. Should the concept be built, it is difficult to say that
the city did not intend to lure high income residents such as myself into the community with
intention to later change the zoning to benefit builders and local revenues over the safety and
peace of mind of it's residents. The city planners believed that this location would best serve
the community as residential zoning as per the Desert Ridge Specific Plan 6-44 under section
'Superblock 12'.
It is inarguable that commercial districts bring new types of crime to residential communities.
It is inarguable that commercial districts bring more traffic to local communities. The benefit
of building this shopping center, right next to current homes and a large high-school, must
outweigh the traffic, safety concerns, pollution, and noise that such a district would bring.
Since as written by representatives of the build that this shopping center would be to our
benefit, I fail to see what benefit that is that outweighs the safety of our local students and
peace of mind of residents of the local communities. When asked during tonight's phone call
about prioritizing pedestrian bridges for students and locals, the answers were that the
associated costs were prohibitive, likely indicating that the priority is not on benefit of
residents, but on revenue. Perhaps you can share the value-add that outweighs the risks of
commercial traffic near a school zone?
Should this build go through, my wife and I will likely leave the community. I've personally
experienced commercial districts being built next to otherwise quiet, residential locales, and
have heard the song and dance of attorneys who have promised minimal impacts and benefits
to the community. This was intended to be our forever home, and should we have to contend
with the risk of a large shopping center such as this one and the risks that shopping centers
bring, we will find ourselves residents of a new community and will encourage the multitude
of other community members who are equally disappointed to leave as well.
I ask that commercial districting stay within the current confines of existing commercial
districts, that we refrain from re-zoning residential districts to commercial districts found in
the desert ridge specific plan, and that the land we use keeps as planned by the original authors
of the desert ridge specific plan, unless and as agreed to, by residents of the community, not
builders seeking profit.
Thank you for your time and your consideration,
Josh
From: Barb Melsek
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Rezoning on Black Mountain
Date: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 8:58:15 PM
I am opposed to the rezoning from residential to commercial on Black Mountain Blvd and Deer Valley. This will
not be safe for the 100’s of children and staff that go to Pinnacle High School
Thanks,
Barb Melsek
Sent from my iPhone
From: Kenneth Miller
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Opposition to rezone
Date: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 2:56:45 PM
Hi Anthony,
As a 17 year resident of Aviano and living near deer valley I vehemently oppose the rezoning of The parcel of
land near pinnacle high school. I have had 3 kids go thru that school. The traffic is horrendous, the lure of a gas
station to buy tobacco and alcohol and generally hang out will be a detrimental to the kids and our nice quite pocket
away from all shopping and industry will be depleted. I feel, as a real estate agent that this will lower property
values and become a beacon for crime near our homes. Please reconsider. We will all be there at the October
meeting. Thank you
Debbie Miller
22008 north 36th way
Sent from my iPhone
From: C. Taylor Morgan
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Opposition to Black Mountain Village
Date: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 9:27:15 AM
Hello Mr. Grande,
My name is Christine Taylor Morgan and I am a resident of Scarlet Ridge in the Fireside
subdivision in Desert Ridge.
Over recent months I have become aware of the recent efforts by Vestar to rezone land nearby my
home to create a large shopping complex. I just want to add my deep concern and opposition to
such a development. I bought my house in 2011 and was comforted by the lack of commercial
development nearby. Desert Ridge shopping center is close enough (only a few blocks away!) for
all my shopping needs and Costco gas station is not far either and much cheaper alternative to
Jacksons. I worry about the increased traffic off the 51 and on Mayo (interfering with my exiting
my neighborhood), the danger to schoolchildren walking back and forth from school, the crime
and loitering that will inevitably follow, the negative impact this will have on the health and safety
of Pinnacle High School students, the increased light pollution and car exhaust pollution, and yes,
sadly, the increase in homeless near my home. My house backs up to a wash near Black Mountain
Blvd and I can foresee a future where homeless could possibly make an encampment behind my
house. It makes me feel like I may need to move for my own peace of mind and safety. Honestly, I
was hoping that a portion of the empty land in front of Pinnacle High School would have been
turned into a parking lot for the students or parents for pick-up and drop-off. It is absolutely
chaotic around the area for drop-offs and pick-ups. But of course, there is no profit in that.
I feel this development is completely unnecessary and would like to add my name to those who are
vehemently opposed to it. Thank you for your consideration and involvement in this matter.
Regards,
C. Taylor Morgan
From: julie richards
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Black Mountain Village
Date: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 11:54:23 AM
My family has lived in Aviano for the past 17 years. We have loved our quiet community and do not need or want a
shopping center close by. We strongly oppose Black Mountain Village.
Case number: GPA-DSTV 2-23-2 GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/z-39-23-2
Sent from my iPhone
From: Jodie Abrams
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Black Mountain Village
Date: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 9:27:02 AM
Re: cases GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2
To whom It May Concern:
I want to register my strong opposition to the proposed Black Mountain Village at Deer Valley and Black Mountain.
As residents we chose to live in Fireside at Desert Ridge for a clean, quiet and safe neighborhood which was built
under the Desert Ridge Specific Plan. To rezone for Vestar’s commercial purposes is a complete betrayal to this
community. Furthermore, this would drastically increase the traffic around the high school area and potentially put
the kids at risk for traffic accidents and crime. Please DO NOT allow the zoning to be changed.
Jodie Abrams
3872 E. Melinda Dr.
Phoenix, AZ 85050
From: JAYNE BAHOURA
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: No to vestar on deer valley and black mountain blvd.
Date: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 7:24:07 AM
Hello
You may not live in the area, but this is a super bad idea. The location is in the middle of neighborhoods. Nobody
wants the traffic or the noise this would create. We have desert ridge around the corner and cave creek rd. Both of
have plenty of gas stations and food options. Please do not consider this ludicrous idea. Its not an added value
location, it would be a community disrupter.
Thank you
Jayne Bahoura
Sent from Jayne
From: Cindy Bennette
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Vestar Rezoning
Date: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 1:20:27 PM
I am writing to inform you that I am extremely opposed to the Vestar plan to change the zoning from residential to
commercial at Deer Valley and Black Mountain Boulevard. There is already a major traffic issue on that corner,
children walk through that area and I am concerned that this will become an extreme hazard for them. Additionally,
it does not fit within the desert ridge master plan, and will create chaos for homeowners across the street. We
specifically moved to this area to avoid heavy commercial areas.
Thank you for your consideration, Cynthia Bennette
Sent from my iPhone
From: lburdett
To: Anthony M Grande; lburdett@q.com
Subject: Apposed to Rezoning Black Mountain Pkwy
Date: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 5:58:46 PM
Hi Anthony
I am writing to you to let you know I absolutely oppose the rezoning of Black Mountain
Parkway Blvd and Deer Valley Rd where they want to put in commercial zoning. Please don't
do this. Phoenix is developing every inch of land Arizona has!
Thank you
Laura Burdett
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
From: Diane Cash
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Rezoning
Date: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 10:34:10 PM
Anthony
I received the email talking about the rezoning of the area off of Deer Valley/Black Mountain putting in grocery
store, gas station, coffee shop etc.
I am opposed to this . Traffic in that area is always congested and busy with the high school.
We have plenty of stores and gas station at Desert Ridge
Is there a petition that I need to fill out?
Thank you
Diane
Sent from my iPhone
From: Bryant De Piazza
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: I oppose Black Mountain Blvd reasoning proposal for Vestar
Date: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 2:31:23 PM
Attachments: image001.png
Please do not approve the Vestar requested rezoning for Deer Valley and Black Mountain rd. We
already have too many cars and population clogging Tatum and Cave Creek roads and now they
want to do that next to the high school. This will also cause more danger for our young youth around
the high school and clog up that area. Please oppose.
Thank you
Bryant De Piazza | CEO
E: bryant.depiazza@dpgemelli.com
www.gemellihome.com [gemellihome.com]
From: Shelley Flecky
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: Fwd: Resident of Fireside - against rezone Black Mountain Village
Date: Thursday, September 14, 2023 6:53:13 AM
Begin forwarded message:
From: Shelley Flecky
Date: September 13, 2023 at 9:44:03 PM MST
To: anthony.grande@phoenix.gov, council.district.2@phoenix.gov
Subject: Resident of Fireside - against rezone Black Mountain Village
Hello,
I have been a resident of Fireside Desert Ridge since 2011. I now have a son at
Pinnacle High School. I am strongly against re-zoning the area by his school to
commercial. This was not the original plan and definitely after all the growth in
this area should not be the new plan. Traffic on Black Mountain Blvd is
horrendous and downright dangerous during school hours. I don’t think it is a safe
place to add more congestion. Please do not re-zone! The community does not
want this.
Thank you,
Shelley Flecky
Referencing case numbers GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2
From: Dana Hurwitz
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Oppose Rezoning Black Mtn Blvd and Deer Valley/Mayo
Date: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 6:59:25 PM
Hi Anthony
I am OPPOSED TO REZONING the residential area off Mayo and Black Mountain Blvd.
I have living in AZ my entire life. Up the street in Aviano community from Pinnacle High
School now for about 12 years. We opposed the freeway outlet onto BLack Mountian Blvd
when it is being proposed due to the high school and the ineffective bridge that was built over
Black Mountain Boulevard. Every day I watch highschoolers cut across the lanes near the
roundabout versus using the pedestrian bridge. That bridge was a huge waste of money as the
kids who live across the street do not use it. Duh teenagers many will find path of learnt
resistance/ effort. so this was a huge waste of our tax dollars and money and makes it very
dangerous for the kids. So not good planning there. Another negative is the traffic at PHS
during rush hour traffic. Great planning to clog up the very narrow street and bring 2k+ kids to
school during rush hour and adjacent to the freeway entrance. An entrance could have been
built near a less busy entrance or on the west side of the school or off 40th street where there is
no school.
I guess what I am saying is there seems to be little thought on what happens after things are
built out and how it actually impacts the folks who use it everyday. Safety in this first example
was and IS huge concern.
The principal at PHS opposes the rezoning. Many residents in nearby neighborhood and
families that attend PHS oppose the rezoning. The high school has very limited parking and
should be expanded to allow for the increase volume of students that attend the school. The
school grows more every year. I guess if this becomes commercial where do you think all the
sophomores will be parking or the kids who cannot get permits to park on campus?
I feel like Arizona for so long been inept at planning what is proper for communities, families
etc. I am good with not needing a grocery store two blocks from my home. There is a ton of
WOS off 40th street for development and seems more appropriate. Rezoning to commercial
will be an absolute headache for the school, parking, anyone trying to use business in the
proposed area. If you have not please drive though the area on a busy school morning and tell
me how you feel. Or maybe attend an event at the high school. The parents who attend the
school for event have to park in the fields off Mayo as there is just not enough space. I think if
any change is to come it should be parking.
I am opposed to the businesses to be clear. Fast food etc is the wrong thing to put in. This will
make community unhealthy, have too many More kids crossing BMB and very busy Deer
Valley from neighborhoods across the way. No control of pedestrian traffic, even if you try to
they are kids and may not abide. The heavily populated (family friendly)neighborhoods do not
need these businesses in their vicinity as there are plenty around and better if you have to seek
it out to ruin your health. Any entrance for business would be dangerous off Mayo or BMB…
Further down deer valley would be better, but not at or near the corner or DV and BMB or
mayo and BMB. There is just so many kids out walking and I don’t think adding any
congestion or entrance for business make sense.
I think desert, some parking for that area make the most sense for the community. Please help
our community this time to make the right decision and hold safety, what is logical for the
community, growth of the highschool at the forefront vs profits.
Thank you for your time and attention. I am OPPOSED TO REZONING TO
COMMERCIAL.
Dana Hurwitz
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 4:18:37 PM
Name
John N
Jcsiiajdis@proton.me
Support Comments
I am writing to express my very strong opposition to the proposed development and rezoning of the land from
residential to commercial at the Southwest Corner of Deer Valley and Black Mountain by Vestar Development
Group. The conversion of this residential area into a commercial zone would have severe consequences, detrimental
implications, and potentially devastating impacts on both the environment and the community. I implore you to
reconsider this decision and prioritize the well-being of the city, its residents, and its natural surroundings.
The City of Phoenix has outlined a comprehensive sustainability plan for the year 2050, with clear guidelines for
responsible development that considers the efficient usage of resources, including water. One crucial aspect of this
plan is the expansion of parks, preserves, and open spaces, ensuring that all residents are within a five-minute walk
of such spaces, but those spaces must be sustainable or else the whole point of having a commercial center within
walking distance is null. Furthermore, the goal of reducing urban heat-island effects through green infrastructure
and increasing tree and shade canopy coverage is paramount.
However, the proposed development contradicts these essential sustainability goals. Converting the area into a car-
centric commercial zone would undoubtedly lead to increased traffic congestion, resulting in higher CO2 emissions.
The associated light and noise pollution would disrupt the delicate balance of the ecosystem and erode the serene
character of the Sonoran Desert environment, its flora and fauna, and its natural aesthetic.
I urge you to consider the broader impact of this development on the city's future. Will it be in line with the City of
Phoenix's sustainability regulations, ensuring that the structures incorporate features such as vertical gardens and
agricultural areas on their roofs? Will there be proper infrastructure in place, including ample bicycle racks,
substantial green spaces covering over 80% of the area, and designs that prioritize pedestrian and micromobility
traffic over internal combustion engine vehicles? Specifically, bicycle lanes which are physically protected by a
barrier to protect cyclists from traffic?
The City of Phoenix has shown a commitment to reducing air pollution and safeguarding public health through
various programs and initiatives. However, this development project poses a significant threat by potentially
increasing the emission of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs), negatively impacting the environment, ecosystem,
and the health of the community.
The City of Phoenix states, “The City of Phoenix is strongly committed to reducing air pollution and protecting
public health. The city implements a wide range of air quality programs to reduce ozone and particulate pollution
(dust and smoke). Transit, light rail, bikeways, and pedestrian-friendly development reduce vehicle emissions and
promote land use planning and urban designs for a more sustainable environment”. How will this development
protect public health when in fact, it will introduce vulnerabilities witthin the community? It will actively degrade
and destroy the health of the surrounding community and communities.
Equally concerning is the potential destruction of native plants in the area due to this development. The loss of
biodiversity and destruction of the Sonoran Desert's unique ecosystem cannot be taken lightly.
The Environmental Protection Agency asserts that that, “Volatile organic compounds (VOC) means any compound
of carbon, excluding carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic carbides or carbonates, and
ammonium carbonate, which participates in atmospheric photochemical reactions”. These harmful chemicals would
be released into our atmosphere if the proposed development is approved. We must oppose and condemn this
egregious use of building authority with passion for the future of the City of Phoenix, and on a more global scale,
the Earth itself.
In light of these concerns, I wholeheartedly disagree and very strongly oppose the Vestar Development Group's
plans for the Southwest Corner of Deer Valley and Black Mountain. I urge you to immediately stop and
immediately halt all current and future development plans and instead prioritize the city's sustainability goals,
community well-being, and the preservation of the natural environment. By doing so, you can help shape a better
future for the City of Phoenix and its residents.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
From: ELONIA LASKU
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Oppose rezoning
Date: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 3:49:09 PM
To whom it may concern!
My family absolutely opposes the rezoning on Black Mountain Blvd.
Thank you!
Elonia Lasku DDS
Aviano resident
Sent from my iPhone
From: Heather Magill
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: rezoning on Black Mountain Blvd and Mayo Blvd
Date: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 2:36:11 PM
Mr. Grande,
My daughter attended Fireside, currently attends Mountain Trail Middle
School and will most likely go to Pinnacle HS next year. I am extremely
opposed to rezoning the SW Corner of Black Mountain Blvd and Mayo Blvd
into a commercial area.
This was intended to be a residential area not a commercial area.
People purchased their homes with the understanding they were in a
residential neighborhood. Allowing a developer to come in a rezone for
the developers financial benefit is a slap the neighbors face.
Neither Black Mountain Blvd nor Mayo were intended to be major
commercial thorough fairs and there are plenty of businesses within 1 to
3 miles that provide these proposed services. Those areas are in
commercially zoned areas and are major roads.
There are 5000+ students at this school. The area is congested enough
during school drop off and pick up hours and adding more congestion to
the area will create an even bigger risk of accidents especially with
student pedestrians and new drivers. We currently have a jaywalking
problem at that very intersection twice a day. Along with many cars
parking along the road for student pickup.
Rezoning the area to commercial appears to be a ploy for businesses to
target students who are still learning to manage impulse control and
money management. In addition, it increases the opportunities for
student truancy, loitering, littering, purchasing questionable products
such as vapes/alcohol they can easily hide and take directly into school.
Because the businesses will be overwhelmed with students and students
will try to park their to attend school rather than the school parking
lot, I suspect many signs will be posted ... "customer parking only", no
loitering, only "3 students the store at a time", "cars will be towed
after two hours", "no student drop off/pickup". They might even have to
higher a security service to prevent these activities creating a
negative environment at the business center and the neighborhood.
Based on on those items I believe commercial area will not benefit the
neighborhood but make it more stressful and unhappy to access.
Please ask yourself, would you want stores and a gas station to be built
right next to your home or to your child's school? Its one thing to
choose a place where that already exists, its quite another for someone
to change the rules after you have already purchased your home and
established your family.
Thank you for your attention in this matter.
Heather Magill
From: Heather McDonough
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Concerns for proposed land development
Date: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 2:39:23 PM
Hi Anthony,
I’d like to voice my concerns about having such a large commercial development so close to
the high school. I know that this area is underserved with things like grocery stores, but I have
some safety concerns. I’m concerned for a few of these reasons:
1. It will bring a bus stop to the area right outside the high school. Possibly opening it up to
panhandlers and homeless individuals that we have seen on the rise in Desert Ridge. Posing
safety risks to those who walk to and from school.
2. The traffic is already very bad in that area, and will likely cause more congestion and
traffic.
3. Loitering after school by the high school kids, causing safety concerns, also kids from the
high school parking in the shopping parking lots.
4. Noise and light pollution for those homes surrounding this area that has been proposed.
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
Heather McDonough
From: Eugene
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Opposition to Applications to Amend the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance for Desert Ridge
Date: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 9:45:37 AM
As you are aware, there are pending City of Phoenix Planning and Development Department
applications (GPA-DSTV-3-23-2 and Z-39-23), to amend the Desert Ridge Master Plan and zoning
ordinance to allow building a commercial shopping center in the middle of our residential
community! This level of over-development needs to stop NOW, and I request your support to deny
this change. Vestar is not interested in the quality of life in our community. This commercial center
would transform the neighborhood to absorb increased traffic, noise, lighting, pollution, and even
crime. What possible benefit can another neighborhood retail grocery store, gas station or
restaurant add to the abundance of retail shopping and dining at the Desert Ridge Mall and
surrounding areas?
Instead, I would ask that you consider developing this 20.5 acre site owned by the people of Arizona
(through the Arizona State Land Department) by planting trees and green landscaping for the use
and pleasure of your District 2 voters and their children rather than the profits for the Vestar
investors!
Sincerely,
Eugene F. Montgomery, PE
Sent from Mail [go.microsoft.com] for Windows
From: Camille Nassif
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2
Date: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 1:33:44 PM
Re: GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2
Project located at the corner of Deer Valley Road and Black Mountain
Please do not move forward with this re-zoning. We want to keep this area commercial free as was originally
planned and sold to us. There are commercial areas only a few blocks west on Tatum Blvd and a few blocks east on
Cave Creek - we do not need additional commercially designated zones with ones already so close.
There is already too much congestion at that same corner during the mornings and afternoons due to the adjacent
school and this will not only make it worse but also more dangerous for these students and for the neighboring
residents.
Thank you for your time and attention, Camille Nassif
From: Peggy Polito
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Oppose!!!!
Date: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 9:02:48 AM
Anthony Grande,
I’m letting you know, I absolutely oppose the rezoning on Black Mountain Blvd. When is enough….enough!
Peggy Polito
From: Richards, Dan
To: Anthony M Grande; Council District 2 PCC
Subject: Stop the Rezoning change on Parcel 212-38-023B (Black Mountain Village)
Date: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 2:16:00 PM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
Hello Mr. Grande and councilman Waring,
I wanted to bring this to your attention that people in the Desert Ridge area have paid ads popping up on their Facebook page
requesting people to sign their petition in support of the Vestar’s Black Mountain Village Devlopement. If this advertisement
is sponsored by Gammage and Burnham, is this even legal? This advertisement is very misleading, in a matter that could sway
the outcome of the legal representation that they’re providing to Vestar.
A major concern residents that live around this development have is that there is no way of knowing what is being considered
as part of this development. Once this is approved to be rezoned, Vestar can do whatever they want with this land. The
survey at the bottom of this page asks people to take a survey of which grocery store people would like to see in this
development. Below are the options that people can choose from:
Trader Joe’s = Between 10,000 and 15,000 square feet
Sprouts = 28,500 square feet
Whole Foods = Between 21,000 - 38,000 square feet
Safeway = 46,000 square feet
Fry’s = Between 80,000-105,000 square feet
I would say there’s a massive difference between the stores they are discussing in that online survey. We need to know if they
are discussing something smaller like a Trader Joe’s or something massive like a Fry’s. There is a huge difference between
these. There is no sense of connection or community if you’re planning on adding a Fry’s to this development. This is also not
catering to just the Desert Ridge community. Take a couple minutes to jump on the Nextdoor website/app and you’ll see an
incredible amount of people who live south of the 101 excited to see this development. This would allow them to stay off the
101 and just exit directly off the 51, onto Black Mountain Boulevard. This is not at all what Vestar is trying to promote with
this project! They’re promoting a sense of community and providing convenience for grocery stores and gas stations to
Desert Ridge residents.
If you open up google and type in GAS STATION you will find that there are 11 gas stations within 3 miles of this
intersection. Additionally, within 3 miles of this intersection you have a Costco, Fry’s, Albertsons, and Target. I can’t easily
count the number of restaurants in that 3 mile range, but you have over a 20 alone near Desert Ridge and including High
Street. There is absolutely no reason Vestar should be even considering a gas station at this location. The families that built
either directly across the street, or very close to this development, are being punished for no reason. We were told that this is
a residential superblock. The families that built in this area did so knowing that they would have a safe, quiet, area for their
children to grow up around. This is not what I want directly across the street from my young family. Fireside residents, Sky
Crossing resident, as well as the Estate at Ridgeview are uniting and we need to know we are being heard. This development
can not just be a formality, because of the auction price is too lucrative.
I sincerely hope you take my concerns into consideration when deciding the fate of this rezoning vote. I look forward to
speaking with both or you, in person, at the remaining council meetings.
Thanks,
Dan Richards
21618 N 36th Street
From: Dorie Sanders
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Rezoning proposal
Date: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 7:09:51 PM
Please DO NOT permit changed zoning on Deer Valley Rd and Black Mountain. You are ruining our desert. We
don’t want it or need it for all the reasons you’ve already heard. The traffic density is already saturated and our
community will suffer the consequences. We don’t want or need additional commercial development.
Sent from my iPhone
From: Tonia Schwartz
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Rezoning at Deer Valley & Black Mountain
Date: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 8:44:22 PM
Please do not rezone commercial! Maintain the family neighborhood and protect the area from
congestion and increased traffic.
Tonia Schwartz
Sent from Mail [go.microsoft.com] for Windows
From: Joanna Stockford
To: Anthony M Grande; Council District 2 PCC
Subject: Oppose rezoning on Black Mountain
Date: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 8:01:34 AM
To whom it may concern:
I strongly opposed the development of property at Deer Valley and Black Mountain. The traffic in this area is
already unmanageable and adding commercial property is only going to exacerbate this issue. It already takes an
extraordinary amount of time to get children to and from Pinnacle High School. And yes, we live in district for that
school. It will also create a safety hazard for students walking to and from school from the surrounding
neighborhoods. There is already a shortage of parking at the school- this parcel is used for special event parking
when the lot is full (football, etc.). This could lead to overflow parking now occurring in the nearby neighborhoods.
Desert Ridge Marketplace is 3 miles from this location and has everything anyone could need so the development of
this small parcel in the middle of a neighborhood right next to a school (also increasing the risk of crime) is
completely unnecessary. It should remained zoned for residential.
Thank you,
Joanna Stockford
Sent from my iPhone
From: Carol Ticgelaor
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Zoning on Black Mountain Parkway/ Deer Valley Road
Date: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 4:33:16 PM
Dear Sir,
I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed re-zoning effort by Vestar. There are two
schools very nearby, and I am concerned about the increased level of traffic in that area with a
commercial project.
My daughter and her young family live in the subdivision directly across from this proposed area. I
believe it is currently zoned for residential construction, which I believe to be the best use.
I appreciate your taking the time to consider my viewpoint.
Most respectfully,
Carol Fortune Ticgelaor
Sent from Mail [go.microsoft.com] for Windows
From: Marci Gluck-Stewart
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: No rezoning!
Date: Thursday, September 14, 2023 7:54:00 AM
I oppose the rezoning on black mountain Blvd near pinnacle high school. Please don’t allow this!!
Marci Gluck
Resident
Sent from my iPhone
From: Matt Gunty
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Oppose reZoning by Vestar
Date: Thursday, September 14, 2023 7:10:34 AM
As a long time resident of this area I oppose the reZoning petition by Vestar to move the Deer Valley/Black Canyon
freeway at Pinnacle peak from residential to commercial- this area has been over saturated with expansion and the
particular location will encroach in an area near a high school that already sees and influx of young drivers,
pedestrian and vehicular traffic.
Please support the constituency and not big business. Put your efforts towards getting bonds approved to construct a
much needed new high school in the Norterra area for an already over burdened system.
Sincerely,
Matthew Gunty
1005 w Remuda Dr
Phoenix AZ 85085
Sent from my iPhone
From: Dana Huether
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Rezoning
Date: Thursday, September 14, 2023 7:27:32 AM
I am very much opposed to rezoning of the corner of Deer Valley Road and Black Mt. Blvd.
My grandchildren are high school age (Pinnacle High).
Velstar Development's plan is not conducive to a family neighborhood It will bring excessive
traffic, noise and late night business into an area intended for family life.
Dana Huether
Phoenix AZ
From: Sharon Lee-Peters
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: OPPOSE VESTAR REZONING
Date: Thursday, September 14, 2023 5:35:41 AM
We absolutely oppose the rezoning on Black Mountain Blvd for a grocery store, a gas
station, either/and/or a chic fil a, chipotle, dutch bros, etc. on that little corner of space next
to Pinnacle High School.
PLEASE DON'T ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN! A gas station would be a disaster!
Thank you,
Sharon
Sharon Lee-Peters
Interior Designer
Anthony Peters
Contractor
https://www.facebook.com/sharon.lee.peters/ [facebook.com]
Style By Design LLC
21001 N Tatum Blvd
Suite 1630-160
Phoenix AZ 85050
602-788-1216
“I’m going to make everything around me beautiful—that will be my life.” - Elsie De Wolfe
From: Carefree Builders
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Stop the redone
Date: Thursday, September 14, 2023 11:18:33 PM
Hi Anthony ,
I live is SkyCrossing .
I would like to voice my opinion in this redone at black Mnt and deer Valley.
This does not seem like a good fit right next to a high school.
And it very close to the residential areas.
We all wish this would stay Residential land.
I do think this could devalue our home.
Thank you for your time .
Best Regards,
Mike Paluscio,
602.499.5955
Carefree Builders LLC
100 Easy St. #5607
Carefree, AZ 85377
ROC: 342992
From: Dee Willis
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Rezoning Black Mountain Blvd
Date: Thursday, September 14, 2023 4:56:38 PM
I object to the rezoning of Black Mountain near Mayo.
Sent from my iPhone
From: Michael Bozzelli
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: Fwd: Strong opposition to the proposed rezoning in Desert Ridge
Date: Friday, September 15, 2023 12:05:50 PM
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Michael Bozzelli
Date: Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 12:04ௗPM
Subject: Strong opposition to the proposed rezoning in Desert Ridge
To:
Mr. Grande and Mr. Waring,
I am a resident of Desert Ridge and a father of three young children. Our family moved here
this year for the distinct purpose of enjoying a quiet, safe neighborhood for our kids to grow
up in. I am very upset to learn that the land on Black Mountain is being considered for
rezoning as we already have so much traffic on our overwhelmed streets. Furthermore, we
have two schools filled with children within a block of each other that is very burdensome to
Black Mountain and Mayo.
Bringing in commercial development will further burden our streets, increase noise and
pollution, lower property values, raise safety issues, and put more of our neighborhood at
further risk of to commercial rezoning. I am strongly against this proposal, we moved here
specifically to escape this type of living.
Respectfully,
Mike Bozzelli
In reference of case GPA-DSTV-2-23-2 and Case GPA-DSTV-3-23-2 and Case Z-39-
23-2
From: ME Dahl
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Proposed rezoning on Black Mountain Blvd & Deer Valley Road
Date: Friday, September 15, 2023 2:27:19 PM
Good afternoon Mr. Grande,
As a long time Phoenix resident and taxpayer, it has come to my attention that there is a
proposal to rezone the area of southwest Black Mountain Blvd and Deer Valley Road on
the plot of land that is shared with Pinnacle High School.
Even with the widening of Deer Valley Road, the traffic in this area has grown exponentially
over the last four years with the addition of a thousand new homes. The traffic at Pinnacle
High School any given time of day, but especially during the morning drop off and afternoon
pick up, creates gridlock. The Friday night football games, with the shortage of parking
spaces, creates a foot and vehicle traffic nightmare with attendees parking wherever there
is a spot on and off campus, and having to walk in the dark to and from their cars presents
a danger.
Considering a rezone on this corner to add a commercial element that serves food and/or
gas, whose only purpose is to serve the developers, would not only be careless and
irresponsible from a safety standpoint, but inherently negligent at any number of possible
detriments to our neighbors.
Your taxpayers in this area are vehemently opposed to this idea. I hope that you and your
fellow city planners as well as the city council make the right decision.
Thank you for your consideration.
M.E. Dahl
Sent from Mail [go.microsoft.com] for Windows
Virus-free.www.avg.com [avg.com]
[avg.com]
From: Jia Zeng
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Keep Our Kids Safe - Oppose Rezoning at Black Mountain Blvd/Deer Valley
Date: Saturday, September 16, 2023 2:58:53 PM
Dear Mr. Grande,
I am reaching out as a worried resident at Fireside Desert Ridge,
deeply concerned about the safety of the students and the families of
those who are attending Fireside Elementary and Pinnacle High School.
The rezoning proposed in cases GPA-DSTV-2-23-2, GPA-DSTV-3-23-2, and
Z-39-23-2 will severely increase traffic in our quiet community.
Every day, we see numerous students walking and bicycling to school, a
sight that warms our hearts and speaks of a safe, close-knit
community. Introducing a commercial hub will put these innocent lives
at risk, disrupting the safety and tranquility that currently
envelopes our neighborhood.
I urge you to consider the peace of mind of countless parents and
guardians, and reject this rezoning proposal. Let's keep our
neighborhood safe and conducive for our children's growth.
Thank you for your consideration.
Regards,
Jia Zeng
From: Nikki Branstiter
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Oppose Commercial build near Pinnacle High School
Date: Sunday, September 17, 2023 7:45:06 PM
Hi Anthony,
I oppose building anything commercial near Pinnacle High School. It would bring so much more traffic to an
already congested area and more crime. Not a good place to put it. Highly oppose the idea.
Nikki Branstiter
From: Maripat"s
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Fireside zoning
Date: Sunday, September 17, 2023 8:30:00 PM
Dear Mr Grande,
I am a resident of the Fireside Community and I am concerned about the potential action to change the zoning at
Black Mountain and Deer Valley from residential to commercial. Most importantly is the proximity to Pinnacle
High School. Looking at high schools in both Paradise Valley & Scottsdale school districts most of them, if not all,
are set within the community, surrounded by homes, parks, churches and other schools. This provides easy, safer
accessibility and safety for students and families within the community, and it is how the community was designed.
Changing to a commercial development at that particular location is not a wise functional or safety decision for our
community. I hope we can have your support to maintain the residential zoning as designed.
Respectfully,
Mary Burrell
Fireside resident Zachary Dr
Sent from my iPhone
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Sunday, September 17, 2023 9:07:20 PM
Name
Christine Cowley
christine.cowley@abbvie.com
Support Comments
I ABSOlUTELY do NOT support this project! Do not put a commercial property across from pinnacle HS-
what a traffic and safety NIGHTMARE!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Sunday, September 17, 2023 3:14:26 PM
Name
Patrick Gaylor
patrick_gaylor@yahoo.com
Support Comments
I live in one of these neighborhoods. This area is littered with kids riding bikes and people walking their
pets. The area does not have the roads/streets to support this growth.
From: Nancy Jones
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Oppose Vestar Desert Ridge Request
Date: Sunday, September 17, 2023 9:52:40 PM
I am writing to register my opposition to the request to develop the parcel at Black Mountain
Parkway and Deer Valley:
Minor General Plan Amendment GPA-DSTV-2-23-2
Specific Plan Amendment GPA-DSTV-3-23-2
Rezone Z-39-23
This is an incompatible use and will create more congestion in an already high traffic area. We
already have plenty of shopping in Desert Ridge Marketplace.
Thank you.
Nancy Jones
4029 E Via Montoya Dr
Phoenix AZ 85050
Sent from my iPhone
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Sunday, September 17, 2023 3:44:15 PM
Name
Dawn Martinez
dawnalexm@yahoo.com
Support Comments
I do not, I repeat, I do not support this development. This will cause the traffic to be even worse than it is,
especially by the high school.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Sunday, September 17, 2023 8:01:27 PM
Name
Jody Wilmes
jody.wilmes@hotmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Sky crossing.
Support Comments
I DO NOT SUPPORT FOR MANY REASONS.
From: C Dunn
To: Anthony M Grande; Council District 2 PCC
Subject: Vestar"s Proposal for Superblock 12
Date: Monday, September 18, 2023 12:27:22 PM
To All Concerned With This Issue:
Unless you have personally been involved with transporting students to and from
Pinnacle High School, as I have for the last three years, you cannot appreciate the
traffic challenges that occur on a daily basis. Much like a horse race, vehicles
jockey for the best position to beat the clock. We have vehicles traveling east and
west on Mayo Blvd. We have vehicles traveling north and south on Black Mountain
Blvd. We have vehicles traveling north and south on 34th Street. We even have
vehicles from both directions turning onto Black Mountain Blvd from Deer Valley.
All converge at the major intersection of Black Mountain Blvd and Mayo Blvd
directly in front of the high school. Then, as each vehicle maneuvers into the
correct lane for left turns, right turns, U-turns, and even the occasional illegal turn,
the students gather en masse in the middle of the intersection, awaiting the signal
to cross. The old adage that there is safety in numbers definitely applies here. But
even under the best of conditions, some students can be seen darting across
traffic, crossing against the light, and jaywalking. Add to that a plethora of parents
anxious to get their students to school on time, inexperienced student drivers, and
the crush of daily traffic --- and you have nothing less than a recipe for disaster.
With the high school located at the intersection of Black Mountain and Mayo
Boulevards and with the never-ending vehicular traffic at that intersection, we will
always have traffic congestion at this location. However, we can definitely avoid
compounding these already existing traffic issues by prohibiting commercial
developments in this area. Vestar's proposal promises round-the-clock businesses
with round-the-clock traffic. If Vestar’s proposal were to be approved, the result
would be nothing less than a first-class disaster.
Please DO NOT approve Vestar's proposal.
Carolyn Dunn
3752 E Covey Ln
Phoenix, AZ 85050
From: Jason Epstein
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Re: Vestar Rezoning Proposal for SW Corner of Deer Valley and Black Mountain Blvd.
Date: Monday, September 18, 2023 9:35:30 PM
Hello Mr. Grande,
Last Tuesday, I had the chance to attend a briefing from Gammage & Burnham,
Attorneys at Law, representing Vestar in the proposal to commercially develop the
southwest corner of Black Mountain Boulevard and Deer Vally Road. The speaker
was able to partially address some of the concerns I raised previously, but many
issues remain.
Some of the points he made are below:
There are too few grocery stores in the area.
Albertson's, Costco, and Fry's are all less than a 10-minute drive from the
communities surrounding this parcel. More importantly, everyone in these
communities has cars and deliberately chose to live here, happily accepting the
distance from their homes to the local grocery stores.
Any gas station must be associated with the grocery store and will not
include a convenience store.
While this is somewhat helpful, standalone gas stations can attract aggressive
driving and crime. In addition, there is no guarantee that these rules will be in
place in the future. Once the infrastructure is availabie, a change to the rules
(just as this zoning change was proposed) is possible with the potential to allow
a standalone gas station (including an attached convenience store) to be put in
its place.
Some of the business will have limited hours.
It was not clear which businesses, if not all, this curfew would apply to and the
specific time of this curfew. Similar to my concerns about the gas station, all-
night businesses can attract aggressive driving and crime, and add to light
pollution. Also, similar to my concerns for the proposed gas station, curfews can
be repealed. The only way to prevent this is to not build the infrastructure in the
first place.
A traffic study was performed to mitigate traffic impact. Also, they expect
only local community members to frequent these businesses.
There is nothing to prevent more cars, coming from outside the immediate area,
from driving to these businesses and adding to traffic.
These business will increase the walkability score for the immediate
neigborhood and add health benefits as they encourage more walking.
This seems to be an unlikely outcome since the city of Phoenix, especially the
suburbs, is very much a vehicle-oriented culture. In addition, it is too hot for
several months out of the year to walk. (In my own community of Sky Crossing,
most people drive to the community center even when many of them live less
than half a mile away.)
I hope you will consider these concerns that are shared by many of my neighbors
around re-zoning this parcel to be commercial. I encourage you to oppose it.
Thank you!
Jason Epstein
3317 E. Cashman Drive
Phoenix, AZ 85050
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 04:06:47 PM MST, Jason Epstein
Thanks a lot!
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 03:49:19 PM MST, Anthony M Grande
Good afternoon.
Thank you for your comment on this case. This email will be added to the case file and provided to the
Village Planning Committee members prior to the hearing date.
Thanks,
Anthony
Anthony Grande, AICP
Planner II – Village Planner
Planning & Development Department
Long Range Planning
Office: 602-256-5648
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
From: Jason Epstein
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 11:59 AM
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Vestar Rezoning Proposal for SW Corner of Deer Valley and Black Mountain Blvd.
Hello Mr. Grande,
I have recently learned of the Vestar development proposal to rezone and
commercially develop the land parcel on the SW corner of Deer Valley and Black
Mountain Blvd. This is addressed in case no. GPA-DSTV-3-23-2 and Z-39-23.
As a resident of the Sky Crossing community, on the north side of Deer Valley, I
oppose this rezoning proposal. It threatens our quality of life for the following reasons:
- The proposed commercial businesses will add additional automobile traffic, which
will increase air and noise polution.
- The increased automobile traffic, just feet from Pinacle High School, will also
threaten the safety of these students as motorists continuously drive in and out of this
complex. As parents of a young child who will eventually attend this high school, we
are very concerned about this impact.
- These businesses will add to light polution. The Sky Crossing HOA residential rules
have deliberately restricted lighting on housing in order to preserve our views of the
night sky. Our residents have enjoyed dark nights with full views of the stars. Bright
lights from all-night businesses will impact the tranquility we have worked hard to
achieve.
We moved to the Sky Crossing neighborhood in order to enjoy the relative piece and
quiet afforded by this sparse residential area in northern Phoenix. The parcel on the
SW corner of Deer Valley and Black Mountain Blvd., as originally zoned, is consistent
with this goal, intended as a residential community. I am asking that you reject the
Vestar development proposal and keep this land parcel zoned as residential for the
benefit of the surrounding community.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Jason Epstein
3317 E. Cashman Drive
Phoenix, AZ 85050
From: Bob Giammarco
To: Anthony M Grande; Council District 2 PCC
Subject: Do not let Vestar re-zone in Desert Ridge
Date: Monday, September 18, 2023 7:14:34 AM
Importance: High
Mr. Grande, Councilmen Warring,
Please note my strong objection to the rezoning of Superblock 12 in Desert Ridge, the
property at the corner of Black Mountain Blvd. and Deer Valley Road.
This project is ill-conceived and unnecessary. The safety and traffic concerns are enormous
next door to a high school and across the street from an elementary school. There’s no need
for another grocery store in the area, and there are a number of other commercially zoned
parcels in the area if a developer wants to risk their capital. There’s no reason to re-zone this
parcel beyond Vestar’s desire to make more money and Gamage and Burnham to generate
more fees.
I urge you to reject this re-zoning and any future attempts to do so.
Sincerely,
Bob Giammarco (480) 540-0644
https://linktr.ee/bobgiammarco [linktr.ee]
From: Michael Coppola
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: GPA-DSTV-2-23-2
Date: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 6:43:33 AM
Attachments: IMG-3094.PNG
IMG-3095.PNG
IMG-3098.PNG
IMG-3097.PNG
IMG-3096.PNG
IMG-3099.PNG
IMG-3100.PNG
Residents are opposed to this development to rezone this parcel to commercial. The
developer's lawyer was less than truthful when presenting to the Sky Crossing residents and
failed to show what was available South of the 101 in his 5-mile radius from the site. Nobody
wants increased traffic, light, noise and air pollution.
From: Jason Epstein
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: Fw: Vestar Rezoning Proposal for SW Corner of Deer Valley and Black Mountain Blvd.
Date: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 8:40:07 AM
Hello,
I received an out-of-office message from Anthony suggesting I contact this email
address instead. I want to make sure my comments on this rezoning proposal are
considered as part of the final decision.
I strongly oppose the proposal to rezone this parcel to be commercial. My reasons
are in my two emails below.
Thank you for your consideration.
Jason
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Jason Epstein
To: Anthony M Grande
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2023 at 09:35:22 PM MST
Subject: Re: Vestar Rezoning Proposal for SW Corner of Deer Valley and Black Mountain Blvd.
Hello Mr. Grande,
Last Tuesday, I had the chance to attend a briefing from Gammage & Burnham,
Attorneys at Law, representing Vestar in the proposal to commercially develop the
southwest corner of Black Mountain Boulevard and Deer Vally Road. The speaker
was able to partially address some of the concerns I raised previously, but many
issues remain.
Some of the points he made are below:
There are too few grocery stores in the area.
Albertson's, Costco, and Fry's are all less than a 10-minute drive from the
communities surrounding this parcel. More importantly, everyone in these
communities has cars and deliberately chose to live here, happily accepting the
distance from their homes to the local grocery stores.
Any gas station must be associated with the grocery store and will not
include a convenience store.
While this is somewhat helpful, standalone gas stations can attract aggressive
driving and crime. In addition, there is no guarantee that these rules will be in
place in the future. Once the infrastructure is availabie, a change to the rules
(just as this zoning change was proposed) is possible with the potential to allow
a standalone gas station (including an attached convenience store) to be put in
its place.
Some of the business will have limited hours.
It was not clear which businesses, if not all, this curfew would apply to and the
specific time of this curfew. Similar to my concerns about the gas station, all-
night businesses can attract aggressive driving and crime, and add to light
pollution. Also, similar to my concerns for the proposed gas station, curfews can
be repealed. The only way to prevent this is to not build the infrastructure in the
first place.
A traffic study was performed to mitigate traffic impact. Also, they expect
only local community members to frequent these businesses.
There is nothing to prevent more cars, coming from outside the immediate area,
from driving to these businesses and adding to traffic.
These business will increase the walkability score for the immediate
neigborhood and add health benefits as they encourage more walking.
This seems to be an unlikely outcome since the city of Phoenix, especially the
suburbs, is very much a vehicle-oriented culture. In addition, it is too hot for
several months out of the year to walk. (In my own community of Sky Crossing,
most people drive to the community center even when many of them live less
than half a mile away.)
I hope you will consider these concerns that are shared by many of my neighbors
around re-zoning this parcel to be commercial. I encourage you to oppose it.
Thank you!
Jason Epstein
3317 E. Cashman Drive
Phoenix, AZ 85050
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 04:06:47 PM MST, Jason Epstein
Thanks a lot!
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 03:49:19 PM MST, Anthony M Grande
Good afternoon.
Thank you for your comment on this case. This email will be added to the case file and provided to the
Village Planning Committee members prior to the hearing date.
Thanks,
Anthony
Anthony Grande, AICP
Planner II – Village Planner
Planning & Development Department
Long Range Planning
Office: 602-256-5648
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
From: Jason Epstein
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 11:59 AM
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Vestar Rezoning Proposal for SW Corner of Deer Valley and Black Mountain Blvd.
Hello Mr. Grande,
I have recently learned of the Vestar development proposal to rezone and
commercially develop the land parcel on the SW corner of Deer Valley and Black
Mountain Blvd. This is addressed in case no. GPA-DSTV-3-23-2 and Z-39-23.
As a resident of the Sky Crossing community, on the north side of Deer Valley, I
oppose this rezoning proposal. It threatens our quality of life for the following reasons:
- The proposed commercial businesses will add additional automobile traffic, which
will increase air and noise polution.
- The increased automobile traffic, just feet from Pinacle High School, will also
threaten the safety of these students as motorists continuously drive in and out of this
complex. As parents of a young child who will eventually attend this high school, we
are very concerned about this impact.
- These businesses will add to light polution. The Sky Crossing HOA residential rules
have deliberately restricted lighting on housing in order to preserve our views of the
night sky. Our residents have enjoyed dark nights with full views of the stars. Bright
lights from all-night businesses will impact the tranquility we have worked hard to
achieve.
We moved to the Sky Crossing neighborhood in order to enjoy the relative piece and
quiet afforded by this sparse residential area in northern Phoenix. The parcel on the
SW corner of Deer Valley and Black Mountain Blvd., as originally zoned, is consistent
with this goal, intended as a residential community. I am asking that you reject the
Vestar development proposal and keep this land parcel zoned as residential for the
benefit of the surrounding community.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Jason Epstein
3317 E. Cashman Drive
Phoenix, AZ 85050
From: Michael O"Neil
To: Anthony M Grande; Council District 2 PCC
Subject: Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 - Opposition
Date: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 1:21:17 PM
Good afternoon Anthony Grande and Jim Waring,
As a current resident of the Sky Crossing Community, I strongly oppose the rezoning of the
parcel of land at the southwest corner of Deer Valley Drive and Black Mountain Parkway.
Minor General Plan Amendment GPA-DSTV-2-23-2
Specific Plan Amendment GPA-DSTV-3-23-2
Rezone Z-39-23-2
Thank you,
--
Michael O'Neil
508.769.5886
From: allie swanson
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Zoning for area of Black Mountain Rd and Deer Valley Road
Date: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 3:19:35 PM
Dear Mr. Grande,
We bought our home in Sky Crossing the Fall of 2019. We were told that the vacant land at Black Mountain Rd and
Deer Valley Rd was zoned for residential only! Since we have been in our home, we constantly hear of violence,
abductions, and drugs at Desert Ridge shopping area (just a couple miles East of our community). The last thing we
want is to bring to our area are those type of issues along with more traffic. Also, this vacant land sits right in
conjunction with Pinnacle HS. The traffic is already bad and we don’t want drugs or violence around our kids.
Please help us ensure this are will remain zoned Residential!!
Sincerely,
Allyson Swanson
Sky Crossing Resident/32nd St
From: James Tuffin
To: Anthony M Grande; PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: RE: GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2 Black Mountain Village
Date: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 11:26:01 AM
Attachments: opposition.pdf
Dear Mr. Grande:
This email is to supplement my letter of August 23, 2023, a copy of which is attached for ease of
reference. The proposed change is not justified and is highly inequitable. The justifications offered
for the change are specious. The obvious goal is not to benefit nearby homeowners, but to draw
traffic from SR 51 now that the terminal exit is connected to Black Mountain Boulevard.
On or about August 30, 2023, Vestar amended its request for a major amendment to the Desert
Ridge Specific Plan (“DRSP”), amending Chapter 6 to state, in part, that:
“Superblock 12 is located west of a possible future connection to the Squaw PIESTEWA Peak
Parkway, which separates this superblock from the balance of the Desert Ridge community.
BECAUSE OF THIS SEPARATION, THIS SUPERBLOCK CAN SUPPORT LIMITED COMMERCIAL
USES WITHOUT INTERFERING WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE DESERT RIDGE CORE
(DEVELOPMENT PARCEL 5.A). RESIDENTIAL Development parcels may vary in size by 30
percent 25 percent for R1-6 and more dense zoning categories without a minor plan
amendment).” [Exhibit A to GPA-DSTV-3-23-2, accessed 08/19/23 at Microsoft Word - GPA-
DSTV-3-23-2 Exhibit A-Proposed Language Revised 2023-08-30.docx (gblaw.com)
[gblaw.com]]
The proposed change, and the rationale offered for it, flatly contradict a fundamental principle of
the DRSP. The DRSP does not accept distance from the commercial core as justification for building a
20-acre shopping center. To the contrary, it specifies that distance from the commercial core should
correlate with less intensive land use:
“ . . . Desert Ridge is based on the urban village concept in that all community and regional
commercial uses are located in the Desert Ridge Village Center. Very small neighborhood
convenience commercial uses are appropriately placed internally within neighborhood units.
The Desert Ridge Village Center is appropriately the "urban" core of Area C. Land uses are
the most intense in and around the Village Center in Desert Ridge, logically reducing in
density with increasing distance from the commercial/employment center and continuing
beyond the project boundaries. “[DRSP 3.B. (Goal 1) @ p. 3-1, accessed 09/19/23 at Table
of Contents (phoenix.gov) (emphasis supplied)] .
The DRSP acknowledges that residential neighborhoods should be protected from the adverse
environmental impacts from commercial development:
A total of 18 neighborhood convenience commercial acres, or a maximum of 90,000 square
feet of gross leasable area, excluding child care facilities, for all of Desert Ridge outside of
the Village Center will be allowed subject to the criteria and standards in Chapter 6. This
criteria will minimize the adverse environmental impact on the residential neighborhoods
typically associated with commercial development. [DRSP 5. C.1, @p. 5-5] (emphasis
supplied).
The clear intent of the DRSP was to concentrate all significant commercial development in the core.
At a community meeting, Vestar’s counsel argued that because only one of the allowed commercial
conveniences was ever built, a sprawling 20-acre shopping center is now justified. This turns the
logic of the DRSP on its’ head. The criteria were meant to protect homeowners from the evils of
urban sprawl shopping centers, not to promote commercial development outside the core.
Vestar was the original developer of the Desert Ridge Marketplace (“DRM”), and presumably it had a
seat at the table in determining the contents of the DRSP before ground was broken. Vestar was no
doubt happy to accept the centrality of the core for retail development in Desert Ridge for many
years. According to news reports, Vestar extinguished its 99 year lease and took full ownership of
DRM as the sole bidder in an auction staged in December of 2022. Its claim that the proposed
change will “not interfere with the development of the Desert Ridge Core” is nothing more than a
statement that Vestar does not think it will hurt itself. This cruel irony does not address any of the
numerous concerns raised by the community.
I am aware of a social media campaign attempting to induce people to endorse a petition in favor of
a “New Grocer” at the location. While I continue to believe that the contents of these posts are
misleading, a fundamental point is that the DRSP clearly notified homebuyers that they were not to
expect another shopping center in Desert Ridge. There have been no reports of malnutrition or
scurvy related to a lack of grocery stores in Desert Ridge. There are grocery stores and plenty of
shopping centers of the type proposed by Vestar nearby on Bell Road and other locations. The
abstract desire of some residents for a Trader Joe’s or AJ’s (even though Vestar says it cannot
identify any prospective tenant) cannot justify the concrete harm that will be done to the reasonable
expectations of nearby homeowners.
The lack of one of these smaller boutique specialty grocers within the existing commercial core must
be in large part the result of business decisions made by Vestar. It is widely believed in the
community that Albertson’s was granted extensive guarantees against competition; if that is true
Vestar was surely involved in that decision.
Vestar claims, among other things, that the shopping center will provide a safe place for high
schoolers to eat lunch. I have been informed that Pinnacle High School is a closed campus and that
only seniors are allowed to exit the school grounds during the school day.
The DRSP acknowledges commercial development imposes adverse consequences on nearby
residences. Vestar reaped enormous benefits and was perfectly satisfied to build the marketplace
under the plan. Residents were clearly told not to expect a shopping center at Black Mountain and
Deer Valley. That Vestar sees opportunity for profit after completion of the SR 51 terminal exit is
not reason to make a major amendment to the DRSP and subject innocent homeowners to the
inevitable degradation of the neighborhood.
The requested amendments should be denied.
Thank you for your consideration.
James W. Tuffin
James.tuffin@tuffinlaw.com (retired attorney not offering services to the public)
21214 N 36th Pl
Phoenix, AZ 85050
JAMES W. TUFFIN
21214 N. 36th Pl
Phoenix, Arizona 85050
(516) 359-6420
james.tuffin@tuffinlaw.com
(retired attorney not offering services to the public)
August 22, 2023
VIA EMAIL (anthony.grande@phoenix.gov)
Mr. Anthony Grande
Planner II – Village Planner
Planning & Development Department
Re: GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2; Resident Statement in Opposition
Dear Mr. Grande:
I reside in Desert Ridge, and I am opposed to the above listed applications. My home is well west of the
commercial core, overlooking Black Mountain Boulevard and Pinnacle High School (“PHS”), and with a
view of the parcel in question. I have reviewed the application materials posted on the website of
Applicant’s (“Vestar”) counsel, and I attended the informational meeting of the Desert View Village
Planning Committee on August 1, 2023.
The requested change is beyond inequitable, it is unconscionable. It does extreme violence to the terms
of the Desert Ridge Specific Plan (“DRSP”)1 and the reasonable expectations of Desert Ridge
homeowners along Black Mountain Boulevard under the terms of the plan. It does nothing to further the
well-being of nearby residents and poses myriad problems. The arguments offered by Vestar to justify the
change do not pass muster, as will be readily demonstrated below.
THE PROPOSED CHANGE IS AN EXTREME DEPARTURE FROM THE DRSP
DRSP contemplates that “commercial development is restricted to the Village Center . . .” except for
“neighborhood commercial uses located within the residential superblocks”.2 DRSP goes on to explain
the extremely limited size and scope of such commercial uses:
The neighborhood convenience commercial centers are very limited in
size. They are intended to serve only the superblock in which they are
located and not intended to serve a population outside the superblock
boundary. The maximum total acreage for neighborhood retail uses,
including buildings, parking, landscaping, and any other items related to
the existence of the neighborhood retail use, shall be three (3) net acres,
while the minimum acreage will be one (1) net acre. 3
City of Pheonix Planning & Development
August 22, 2023
Page 2
Furthermore, DRSP strictly limits the permitted uses within non-core superblocks, and the list does not
include gas stations or drive-through coffee operations4, both of which were touted by Vestar’s counsel at
the informational meeting. Indeed, DRSP specifically prohibits “Drive-through uses”.5
Under the DRSP, no family purchasing a single-family home in a non-core superblock would reasonably
anticipate having a drive-through Dutch Brothers or Starbucks, or a gas station, across the street from
their home. Vestar now proposes a 20-acre commercial development in Superblock 12. 6 Vestar is
essentially asking the City of Phoenix to throw out DRSP and stab nearby homeowners in the back.
OBVIOUS INTENT TO DRAW ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC FROM SR 51
When Black Mountain Boulevard south of Mayo Boulevard was completed and made the terminal exit of
SR 51, concerns of nearby residents were addressed by placing a traffic circle to slow down traffic and
discourage heavy trucks, and by providing a pedestrian bridge for safe access to PHS.
The proposed change represents a complete reversal of what was until now a concerted effort to keep
Black Mountain Boulevard more quiet and more safe. The placement of the proposed shopping center, at
the first traffic light after the SR 51 terminal exit, is obviously intended to attract vehicles that would
otherwise continue west on SR 101 and exit at Cave Creek Road or further west. It is a repudiation of
DRSP’s promise that homeowners could expect to live in clean, quiet neighborhoods while commercial
activity was limited to the Village Commercial Core.
MAGNET FOR UNSUPERVISED ADOLOSCENTS
Placement of the shopping center within spitting distance of PHS is problematic. This is not meant to
disparage the PHS student body as a whole. Nevertheless, in any group of over 2500 teenagers7, there will
be those whose immaturity or lack of direction makes them prone to get in trouble. While the studious
and industrious will disperse to more wholesome activities, there will undoubtedly be those who choose
to hang out. The shopping center, just across a narrow street from PHS, will obviously become the hang
out venue of choice.
There are numerous reports of problems with unsupervised teenagers in retail environments across the
country8, and unsupervised time leads to drug use and other issues.9 Given the location, these problems
will undoubtedly spill over into the surrounding residential areas, which already experience litter, graffiti,
vandalism and doorbell pranking. Encouraging high concentrations of hundreds of unsupervised teenagers
cannot be a benefit to the teenagers or anyone else. It is best for all concerned if the students disperse
when not involved in supervised activities.
Vestar claims that the presence of the high school makes the parcel unsuitable for development as
currently zoned.10 The opposite is true. DRSP and the existing zoning contemplate Superblock 12 to
contain only the high school and residential use. PHS opened in or about 2000. Nothing has changed
about PHS that would justify depriving nearby homeowners of their reasonable expectations under DRSP.
City of Pheonix Planning & Development
August 22, 2023
Page 3
AIR, NOISE AND LIGHT POLLUTION
DRSP prohibits “Drive-through uses”11 in non-core superblocks for very good reasons. These operations
generate considerable pollution. Not only are PHS and numerous homes nearby, but Fireside Elementary
is not far and generally downwind. Air pollution from idling engines is a serious problem12, and some
communities have gone so far as to try banning drive-through operations entirely13. The air quality in
Phoenix, and Maricopa County generally, is notoriously poor with many “bad air” days. 14 Encouraging
drivers to turn their motors off while waiting will never work when the temperature is over 90 degrees.
DRSP’s approach of limiting these operations to the Village Commercial Core is not arbitrary and should
be maintained.
Although Deer Valley Drive and Black Mountain Boulevard have some traffic at rush hours, things tend
to quiet down in the evening and there is a distinct residential tone to the neighborhood. This holds true
when attendees disburse after PHS Friday night football. The proposed shopping center will keep the
noise up and the lights on much later than nearby residents are used to, greatly diminishing the residential
character of the community.
TRAFFIC CONGESTION
I am aware that other residents have commented on traffic issues. I will not belabor the point here, except
to note that in the chaos that occurs every morning when PHS is in session, I have at times been unable
access westbound Mayo Boulevard from the N. 36th Way gate of my community. Vestar contemplates
cars entering and exiting the shopping center on all four surrounding streets. This would include Mayo
Boulevard directly across from PHS, and will surely exacerbate the existing problems.
VESTAR’S SCHEME IS NOT JUSTIFIED
Vestar’s purported justifications of its scheme do not withstand scrutiny.
There are no traffic or parking impediments to residents obtaining daily needs at the Desert
Ridge Marketplace (“DRM”).
DRM was designed to enable local folks to get to the pharmacy, gas station, grocery store, and various
other businesses without getting involved with traffic headed to the big box stores, apparel outlets or
entertainment district. The local needs providers are located in the northwest corner of the marketplace
and are readily accessed from two curb cuts on Deer Valley Drive just east of Tatum Boulevard. The
apparel and box stores, as well as the entertainment district, are closer to other, much larger, parking lots
which are served by numerous additional entrances to DRM. I have lived in Desert Ridge for over 11
years and have never, even on Black Friday, had a problem finding parking at Albertson’s. To illustrate
this, I recorded a video at Grocery Run Sat 08-19-2023 - YouTube. 15
City of Pheonix Planning & Development
August 22, 2023
Page 4
The proposed center is unlikely to provide alternative groceries.
At the informational meeting, Vestar’s counsel admitted that Vestar is unable to identify any
specific grocer that would occupy the proposed grocery store. Although Vestar says it expects
the grocery store to be smaller than the existing Albertson’s, its counsel conceded that none of
the proposed businesses are sure to occupy the shopping center. Assuming that a grocery store is
established, there is no reason to believe that it will offer merchandise different that that offered
at Albertsons.
Creation of minimum wage retail jobs is not a community priority.
The small number of jobs projected to be “created” on the new shopping center could easily be
placed elsewhere. It should also be noted that substantial construction is taking place at nearby
High Street and City North where much higher density residences, offices, and retail spaces are
being built.
Purported benefits to the community are illusory at best.
Keeping the Current Zoning will have the same effect on dust and storm runoff.
The supposed dust control and storm runoff management benefits are speculative and
unquantified. In 11 years, I have never seen significant flooding along Black Mountain
Boulevard. Residential development at the site would have the same effect.
The “safe alternative” for students is illusory.
Encouraging teenagers to consume junk fast food benefits no one. The so called “safe alternative
. . . before school, after school, and during the lunch hour” actually describes an unsupervised
hangout for hundreds of teenagers with all the attendant problems described above. A
concession by PHS’s principal that the project “would potentially reduce the number of off-
campus trips by car”16 hardly demonstrates a full-throated endorsement of the scheme. Had there
been a firm expression of general support for the project from anyone in authority at PHS or the
school district, Vestar would surely have mentioned it in its explanatory letters.
The residential remnant shows how the change is repugnant to DRSP.
The fact that Vestar wants to gobble up 20 acres of the Superblock while leaving a mere remnant
for residences demonstrates how the proposal is repugnant to both the letter and spirit of DRSP.
City of Pheonix Planning & Development
August 22, 2023
Page 5
The gas station and shopping center have no health benefits and will not be a community social
center.
There is nothing about the proposed project that will foster connection among the citizens. There
are innumerable such shopping centers around Phoenix, and there is nothing unique about this
proposal. There are no outdoor parks, exhibition or performance spaces illustrated on the
Conceptual Site Plan. The purported health benefits are nothing but speculation. It is my
observation after 11 years living here that very few people walk with groceries around Desert
Ridge, regardless of the season. The health hazards of innumerable automobiles spewing particle
pollution on the drive-through lines clearly outweigh these specious claims of health benefits.
The proposed gas station will not provide a net benefit to the community.
A gas station will generate excess light, noise, and fumes on a 24/7 basis. The convenience store
that will inevitably accompany it will only encourage additional teenage loitering.
In my 11 years here, I have only fueled my car once or twice at the Shell station at DRM, even
though it is the most conveniently located, and I am there several times a week while visiting the
grocery store or the pharmacy. The problem is that Shell stations generally charge considerably
more than Circle K, QT or Arco. The issue, if there is one, is the price, not the location.
The proposed gas station is obviously intended to draw traffic from SR 51 as discussed above.
Located as the last gas before the freeway, competitive pricing is doubtful.
The Desert Ridge Community Association (DRCA) has not taken a position on this project.
Although there have been communications between DRCA and Vestar, the board of DRCA has
never resolved to support this project. While I am not privy to communications that may have
taken place between Vestar and DRCA’s officers or board members, the Association has never
formally endorsed the project. A copy of an email from DRCA confirming this is attached as
Exhibit A.
THE PROPOSED CHANGE IS AN UNCONSCIONABLE STAB IN THE BACK
Zoning determinations must be “… equitable, in terms of consistency with established
regulations and procedures, respect for the rights of property owners, and the consideration of the
interests of the citizens of the City.”17
DRSP provides for a mix of densities and uses, from mixed commercial and multi dwelling to
condominiums, to rental apartments to single family homes. Purchasers of single-family homes
were encouraged by a central feature of the plan: all significant commercial activity is placed in
the Village Commercial Core. Retail conveniences in the non-core residential superblocks are
limited to a list of specified uses, limited to three acres, and drive-through operations are
expressly prohibited. Thus, purchasers of single-family homes could look forward to living in
City of Pheonix Planning & Development
August 22, 2023
Page 6
clean, quiet residential neighborhoods. Vestar now proposes to simply rip up that plan and asks
the City to stab nearby homeowners in the back.
Rejecting this proposal is not unfair to any Desert Ridge Residents who may endorse, in the
abstract, a gas station or additional retail operations. There was nothing about DRSP that gave
them any reasonable expectation that these things would be built on Black Mountain Boulevard,
and they were content to buy their homes under that plan. Vestar’s plan to ruin the lives of
residents along Black Mountain Boulevard is grossly unfair; indeed, it is unconscionable and
must be rejected.
Respectfully submitted,
James W. Tuffin
Copies to:
Mr. Terrence Smith (terrance.smith@fsresidential.com
DRCA Board of Directors (desertridge.az@fsresidential.com)
Steven W. Anderson, Esq. (Sanderson@gblaw.com)
Hon. Jim Waring (council.district.2@phoenix.gov)
Hon. Kate Gallego (mayor.gallego@phoenix.gov)
Mr. Eric Molenaar (EMolenaar@AssociatedAsset.com)
Ms. Corina Vanek (cvanek@arizonarepublic.com)
Mr. Wouter Roodenburg (wroodenburg@cox.net)
All references to “DRSP” are to the Specific Plan as revised through November 2, 2022 (accessed on 8/19/23 at
https://www.phoenix.gov/pddsite/Documents/PZ/pdd_pz_pdf_00086.pdf)
DRSP at 5-3. (5.C.1)
DRSP at 6-6 (6.C.3.A.)
DRSP at 6-7 (6.C.3.B.2.c)
DRSP at 6-8 (6.C.3.B.2.d)
SPA-B2-Application, (accessed on 8/19/23 at http://www.gblaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/SPA-B2-
Application-Form.pdf)
PHS reported enrollment of 2556 for 2021-2022 school year (PHS AZ School Report Card, accessed 8/20/23, at
https://azreportcards.azed.gov/schools/detail/79268 .
See, e.g., Bartlesville mall bans unsupervised teenagers due to crime increase
(https://www.koco.com/article/oklahoma-bartlesville-mall-bans-unsupervised-teenagers/43385307); Teen bans on
the rise (https://www.koco.com/article/oklahoma-bartlesville-mall-bans-unsupervised-teenagers/43385307).
See, e.g., Teen Drug Use: Does a Lack of Supervision mean More Drugs?
(https://cascadeheightsrecovery.com/unsupervised-teens/ ); After School: The Prime Time for Juvenile Crime
(https://www.policechiefmagazine.org/after-school-the-prime-time-for-juvenile-crime/ ); Unsupervised teens more
likely to use tobacco, pot and alcohol (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-adolescents-unstructured-time-
idUSKCN0RI1LL20150918 )
City of Pheonix Planning & Development
August 22, 2023
Page 7
RZ-C5-Letter of Explanation, at p. 7 (accessed 8/21/2023 at http://www.gblaw.com/wp-
content/uploads/2023/07/RZ-C5-Letter-of-Explanation.pdf)
N.5, supra.
See, e.g., Mendoza, et al, Pollution hot spots and the impact of drive-through Covid 19 testing sites on urban air
quality, Environ. Res. : Health (https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2752-5309/ace5cb/pdf )); Idling
Reduction for Personal Vehicles (https://afdc.energy.gov/files/u/publication/idling_personal_vehicles.pdf ))
See, e.g., Cities ban new drive-throughs to fight climate change (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cities-put-
brakes-on-drive-thrus-to-curb-carbon-emissions/).
See, e.g., American Lung Association, State of the Aire Arizona: Maricopa
(https://www.lung.org/research/sota/city-rankings/states/arizona/maricopa) ; State of the Air report ranks Phoenix
among worst 25 cities for pollution, (https://cronkitenews.azpbs.org/2022/04/21/air-pollution-phoenix-among-25-
worst-cities-us/ ) ;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2X_OOB2qew
SPA-B5-Letter of Explanation (accessed 08/20/2023 at (http://www.gblaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/SPA-
B5-Letter-of-Explanation.pdf).
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance § 102.
EXHIBIT A
James Tuffin
From: Terrance Smith
Sent: Friday, August 4, 2023 4:26 PM
To: James Tuffin; Desert Ridge - az
Cc: Stephen W. Anderson
Subject: RE: TO ALL BOARD MEMBERS AND TERRENCE SMITH Re: Plan and Zoning Change Case Black Mtn
and Deer Valley
Good afternoon Jim,
I hope all is well with you.
On behalf of the DRCA Board Members, please see below the corresponding response to the
questions in your email:
1. No.
2. Yes, the DRCA received emails from Vestar’s attorney to attend the monthly board meeting(s)
to present and provide community updates regarding Vestar’s Parcel 12 application process
and proceedings relative to their conceptual development plans.
Respectfully,
TERRANCE SMITH, CMCA, AMS, LSM, PCAM
Executive Director
Desert Ridge 5415 E. High Street, Suite 133 | Phoenix, AZ 85054
Direct 480.551.4550 | Cell phone 480.254.5948
Property Fax: 480.551.6000
terrance.smith@fsresidential.com
desertridgelifestyles.com
24/7 Customer Care Center: 855.333.5149
Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube
From: James Tuffin
Sent: Friday, August 4, 2023 11:33 AM
To: Desert Ridge - az
Cc: Stephen W. Anderson
Subject: TO ALL BOARD MEMBERS AND TERRENCE SMITH Re: Plan and Zoning Change Case Black Mtn and Deer Valley
Hi Folks,
It was great reconnecƟng with Reggie and Doug at the recent Desert Village Planning CommiƩee meeƟng, and
remembering the fellowship we enjoyed when I served as DRCA treasurer. Having stepped back from community
aīairs, I was taken by surprise by the rezoning noƟce and some of the things I heard at the meeƟng. Now I need to
catch up and I hope you can help me.
At the meeƟng, and in an explanatory leƩer submiƩed to the City, Vestar’s counsel suggested that the DRCA
supports the proposed changes. I respecƞully request answers to the following quesƟons:
1. Did the DRCA ever pass a resoluƟon supporƟng the proposed changes or the project in general? If so, please
provide a copy of the text of the resoluƟon(s) and the agenda(s) and minutes of the meeƟng(s) at which
such resoluƟon(s) was (were) adopted.
2. Is DRCA, its representaƟves or agents, in possession of any wriƟngs, correspondence, emails or texts
showing communicaƟons between or among the DRCA, Vestar, Vestar’s counsel or representaƟves, the City
of Phoenix or the Arizona State Land Department related to the proposed project or the applicaƟons for
plan and zoning changes? If so, how can associaƟon members get access to those materials?
I’m guessing you’ll be seeing a bit more of me in the coming months and as always, whether we agree or
disagree, as friends. As you might imagine, I need a response to each quesƟon as soon as you can do it. Please do not
delay responding to quesƟon 1 if you need more Ɵme to answer quesƟon 2. I should menƟon, although I’m sure you
know it already, that your response may be incorporated into submissions I may make to the City. As a professional
courtesy, I am providing Vestar’s counsel with a copy of this request.
Thank you very much.
Warm regards,
Jim (James W. Tuĸn)
21214 N 36th Pl, Phoenix AZ 85050
516.359.6420
James.tuĸn@tuĸnlaw.com (reƟred aƩorney not oīering services to the general public)
From: wkelly2000@outlook.com
To: Anthony M Grande; Council District 2 PCC
Subject: Rezoning of land black mtn and deer valley
Date: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 11:03:01 AM
I am not generally opposed to development but putting a shopping center at that location does not make sense.
The issue is every single exit from that planned shopping center will funnel all traffic to the deer valley and black
mountain light. Unless the city puts in new lights all those exiting on the north side must turn right and anyone
exiting on the east side wanting to go north or west will do a u turn at Mayo or go to the roundabout by the ramp to
51 and u turn there. All traffic heading to the one intersection ( deer valley and black mtn).
This location will drive traffic into the fireside desert ridge and into SkyCrossing Communities to avoid the black
mtn and deer valley intersection.
So this is why I am opposed to rezoning this property.
I live in SkyCrossing.
Sent from my iPhone
From: Ben W
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Black Mountain Village
Date: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 6:30:19 PM
Hi,
I am a resident in Fireside at Desert Ridge, and I do not want any gas stations or grocery stores
built on the lot(s) in question (GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2).
Please acknowledge receipt of this email at your earliest convenience.
Thank you,
Ben
From: Bottesch, Karen
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Cc: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Desert Ridge | Case Numbers GPA - DSTV - 2 - 23 - 2 | GPA - DSTV - 3 - 23 - 2 | Z - 39 - 23 - 2
Date: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 6:58:12 AM
Attachments: image001.png
Forwarding due to out of office message.
From: Bottesch, Karen
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 6:55 AM
To: anthony.grande@phoenix.gov
Subject: Desert Ridge | Case Numbers GPA - DSTV - 2 - 23 - 2 | GPA - DSTV - 3 - 23 - 2 | Z - 39 - 23 - 2
Dear Anthony –
RE: Black Mountain Village | Case Numbers GPA - DSTV - 2 - 23 - 2 | GPA - DSTV - 3 - 23 - 2 | Z - 39 -
23 - 2
I am writing about the proposed project called Black Mountain Village at Deer Valley Rd and Black
Mountain Rd.
I am 100% AGAINST this project.
I have lived in Fireside at Desert Ridge since 2009 and served on our board for several years.
I have witnessed the increase in traffic during the school year at Pinnacle, this project only
serves to make that a BIGGER mess
A gas station, conv store, fast food, and whatever else is NOT the project for this site next to a
high school, junking up OUR neighborhood, AND making traffic a bigger mess
We live here for the openness of the area – so far all is in good taste
The Desert Ridge Specific Plan’s intent was to keep commercial activity aligned to a
commercial core; commercial activity in the residential superblocks is strictly limited to minor
conveniences of no more than 3 acres and drive through operations are prohibited
We live in an attractive community, not only will a gas station and the other suggested
businesses junk it up but the traffic will worsen, there are plenty of other gas stations VERY
close by, we do not NEED this project
The land at Deer Valley and Black Mountain is designated RESIDENTIAL under the plan – I
vote NO to change that designation
We do NOT want or need a 20 acre shopping center next to residential and next to a High
School
Crime, litter, noise, pollution and traffic nightmare is what this project equals
Please listen to the community, we LIVE here. Developers build and move on in continuing to live in
‘their’ protected neighborhoods. Please stop this corporate action and change, it is NOT wanted.
Thank you,
Karen
Karen M. Bottesch
Senior Vice President | Senior Relationship Manager
Business Banking
Bank of America
AZ3-566-02-50 | 14636 N Scottsdale Rd Ste 250 | Scottsdale AZ 85254
Phone 480.624.0569 Fax 804.264.2040 Cell 602.315.4204
Karen.bottesch@bofa.com
View my professional web page here. [rm.bofaml.com]
Support Associate:
Patty Ruiz
Phone: 480.624.0648 Fax 804.266.8154
14636 N Scottsdale Rd. Ste 250 | Scottsdale AZ 85254 | AZ3-566-02-50
This message, and any attachments, is for the intended recipient(s) only, may contain
information that is privileged, confidential and/or proprietary and subject to important terms
and conditions available at http://www.bankofamerica.com/emaildisclaimer
[bankofamerica.com]. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message. For
more information about how Bank of America protects your privacy, including specific rights
that may apply, please visit https://bankofamerica.com/privacynotice [bankofamerica.com].
This email may contain a promotion of products or services. If you would like to unsubscribe
from receiving emails like this, please update your Email Preferences here:
https://preferences.em.bankofamerica.com/Prefs/emailoptout
[preferences.em.bankofamerica.com]. Unsubscribing will not affect delivery of important
service messages that we may need to send you or preferences you may have previously set
for other email services. Bank of America, 100 North Tryon St., Charlotte, NC 28255.
From: Eileen K
To: Anthony M Grande
Cc: Bill Kelly; Jill Gargano
Subject: Desert Ridge Zoning Ammendments
Date: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 6:52:16 PM
Regarding
Case No. SPA-DS1 V-2-23-2
Case No. CPA-DSTV-3-23-2
Case No. 1-39-23
Mr Grande
I oppose the zoning change proposed by Vestar Development and I encourage the
board to decline the amendments. I am a homeowner and have lived in Fireside at
Desert Ridge since 2013. While many of us who live in Desert Ridge would like to
see more grocery options in our neighborhood, the location proposed by Vestar is not
appropriate for such a commercial development.
The location is surrounded on 3 sides by single family homes, next to a high school
and just blocks from an elementary school. Most of us who bought into this
community were very attracted by the Desert Ridge Plan, which limited the location
of commercial development. This is a neighborhood with 3 very active HOAs,
excellent schools, walkers and runners of every age and kids playing safely in front of
their homes while neighbors chat.
A commercial shopping center at the corner of Black Mountain Road and Deer
Valley Drive will fundamentally change traffic, lighting, noise, air quality, safety,
crime, physical aesthetic and economic value of our beautiful neighborhood.
The corner is not appropriate for a large grocery store, gas station, drive-through,
restaurants, and other high traffic commercial activity. Vestar does a fine job
managing Desert Ridge mall and should look for a location better suited to the type
of development they propose.
Mary Eileen Kelly
3861 E Melinda Drive
Phoenix, AZ 85050
From: Mike Kip
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: case# GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2
Date: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 5:54:13 PM
My name is Michael KIperman. I'm a resident of Fireside at Desert Ridge community. I
strongly oppose Black Mountain Village project. Due to the fact that such projects attract
unwelcomed characters into immediate residential area. Can't help but stress the fact that there
are 2 schools in the neighborhood, especially elementary school. We want our kids to be as
safe as possible. We don't need additional traffic. It is a nightmare twice a day as it is.
Thank you for understanding. Hopefully this project can be moved elsewhere.
From: Stanislava Kuka
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: Re: Automatic reply: Opposing rezoning Black Mountain Blvd/Deer Valley
Date: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 9:56:03 PM
Good morning,
As a Phoenix resident and tax payer I want to express my disapproval of the proposal of
rezoning the area southwest Black Mountain Blvd and Deer Valley Road next to Pinnacle
High School.
SAFETY
Being next to the high school and walkable distance to 2 elementary school we risk
bringing strangers to our community where so many children walk alone to school.
Possible bus station- more strangers coming to our community. Phoenix, as I believe you are
well aware has a growing homeless population. Did you drive by Desert Ridge recently? At
every stop light you can see panhandlers. Homeless people sleeping on bus stations. Did you
know about the psychiatric, and drug abuse problems among the homeless population? I bet
you did.
Possible gas station- alcohol, criminal. Enough said. Just driving to Desert Ridge there is one,
and even 2 down the road on Cave Creek.
Possible drive through restaurant- if not living in the area you are probably not aware of the
ongoing evening trouble In’n’Out has, for example. Not mentioning providing even more
unhealthy options to our growing students.
Traffic- I could say well congested area. Traffic has grown over the last few years. I can not
get out of my neighborhood due to overwhelming school traffic. But I agreed to that, and
wanted to be the closest possible to schools. Adding more traffic to our community is not
something we were looking for.
I hope you and your fellow city planners have in mind the wellbeing of our community
residents not only the investors that only care about their profit.
Thank you,
Stanislava Kuka
3636 E Covey Ln, Phoenix AZ 85050
Sent from my iPad
Sent from my iPad
On Sep 20, 2023, at 5:23 PM, PDD Long Range Planning
Hi Stanislava,
Can you please forward your comment? I don’t see a message from you, just
Anthony’s out of office.
Thank you,
Sarah Stockham
Planner III
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
Phone: 602-261-8701
sarah.stockham@phoenix.gov
From: Stanislava Kuka
Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2023 9:22 PM
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Re: Automatic reply: Opposing rezoning Black Mountain Blvd/Deer Valley
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 17, 2023, at 3:15 PM, Anthony M Grande
Hello. I am currently out of office and will be returning Monday, September
25, 2023. If you need immediate assistance, please
contact pdd.longrange@phoenix.gov.
From: Natalie Leitner
To: Anthony M Grande
Cc: Council District 2 PCC
Subject: Rezoning Superblock 12
Date: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 8:25:28 PM
Good Evening,
I would like to express my opposition of the rezoning of Black Mountain Village/Superblock
12 from residential to commercial/retail space. There are several reasons, first and foremost
there is an ongoing homelessness issue throughout the perimeter of Desert Ridge. Leaving
Mountianside Fitness yesterday at 6:30PM , there was a man laying across the sidewalk
sleeping with his shopping cart and garbage laid around him on the corner of Rose Garden and
Tatum. I went to pick up my daughter from soccer practice at 8:45PM and he was still there.
Not to mention when I go to the gym at 5:00AM and the bus stops are a campground for the
homeless. I absolutely do not want this type of activity closer to our neighborhoods and
schools and that is exactly what would happen if something like this was to go in this area.
You would encourage the homeless to set up encampments around high school to have easy
access. Go check out the south/east corner of Tatum along the freeway, there are
encampments. Once they’re cleared, they just move to another area. Not to mention the trash
that is left on the corners from panhandlers. It’s ridiculous that it has gotten this bad, but that is
another email and I refuse to let this happen closer to my home.
Secondly, if approved, you basically would be providing a parking lot for high schoolers that
don’t have a parking spot (every junior class
man with a car and license, there is only enough spots for seniors) ask the businesses around
Chaparral High School how they feel about that? The traffic is already horrendous on school
mornings at all the schools, but with this, you would be adding more traffic and delivery
trucks along Deer Valley at all hours of the day and when kids are crossing to go to school.
We have been residents of Fireside for over 10 years and we have raised our 4 kids here. We
moved over here for the great schools and great neighborhoods. We have 2 kids at Pinnacle, 1
at Explorer and 1 at Fireside Elementary. We bought in this neighborhood knowing that would
be zoned for residential and it should stay the way!
Please take into consideration my opposition for this rezoning plan. We love our neighborhood
and schools and want to keep the safe for everyone that lives here!
Case No. SPA-DS1 V-2-23-2
Case No. CPA-DSTV-3-23-2
Case No. 1-39-23
Natalie Leitner
21515 N 39th Terrace
562.706.4702
From: Andrea Remke
To: msantoro@gblaw.com; Anthony M Grande
Subject: Zoning issue near Pinnacle HS
Date: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 7:02:59 PM
My previous emailed letter (on 8/27/23) to you did not have these case numbers attached, please note my below
correspondence in regards to this zoning decision. It is permissible to read aloud or note in any public record as anyone sees
fit. Updated case numbers attached.
Case No. SPA-DS1 V-2-23-2
Case No. CPA-DSTV-3-23-2
Case No. 1-39-23
Mr Grande,
I’d like to please ask you and the city representatives to consider the opposition many residents here in Fireside Desert
Ridge have to the proposed zoning changes of the property at Black Mountain Blvd and Mayo Blvd /Deer Valley Drive
right next to Pinnacle High School.
It’s currently zoned for residential and for the developer to change it to retail shopping opens this area up to increased traffic
congestion and student/resident safety issues here in the area.
I invite any of you to please come observe the traffic at these intersections around the school during the peak times of
dropoff 7:20-7:30 am and at 2:15-2:20 pm pickup when it’s the worst. These intersections are a nightmare then. Droves of
kids are walking to school and crossing/ jaywalking across these intersections some are on bikes even—and they are NOT
heeding any kind of traffic signals or signs because they are kids of course. Many cars are racing through yellow lights and
people sitting in intersections at red lights because they tried to fit through. We have seen lots of accidents, a lot of honking
and near misses. My son’s Pinnacle soccer coach was just in an accident this past Friday during pickup when a man in a car
not paying attention to stopped traffic on Mayo slammed into the back of him causing his car to hit the car in front of him,
which was driven by a student. It happens all the time because of the sheer volume of cars and kids and mayhem happening
during these times. It is only a matter of time before a kid is seriously maimed or killed at this intersection/area.
I live across the street in Fireside, a stone’s throw from this land where they are going to build. My son attends the high
school and my twin girls will attend next fall and then my youngest will attend in two years. We are stuck for a long time
with whatever the powers that be decide should go here. I worry about the influx of traffic and congestion, the problems it
brings to us as nearby residents, by way of safety especially—but also being a single mom I bought this home two years ago
for its close proximity to school for my kids to walk to local schools and the safe neighborhood feel. But I’m worried at the
potential drop in property values if they start putting in crappy shops or gas stations or smoke vape shops, causing our nice
residential area to look, smell and sound like a truck stop dump attracting transients and homelessness, no doubt.
I know money will likely win out in the end, and something will be built here. It’s a shame the school district couldn’t have
bought a piece of this property for added parking for the students at school because as it is currently, only seniors can park
in the school lot, which is asinine. The principal at Pinnacle has even told parents last week they have addressed safety and
traffic issues to Vestar but ultimately can’t have a definitive say in this land development.
City officials have a duty to protect the interests of the residents here who live and work and pay taxes.
These developers have the monetary means to at least put an-over-the street walkway /sidewalk bridge from the Mayo/Black
Mtn crosswalk over to the school so our kids aren’t playing Frogger in traffic through red and green lights as they currently
do every single school day. The existing walking bridge (see attached picture) that some idiot designed and installed years
ago is out of the way for kids to walk, located south at the 51 interchange, at the dog park entrance, so they would have to
walk down there then back around to go back up to the school—it’s an extra 10-15 min of walking —not a single soul is
doing that and that pedestrian bridge remains not utilized.
My question: Could the city mandate the developer to at least relocate the pedestrian bridge to the problem/ busy
intersection at the school instead of that bridge uselessly sitting down the street out of the way? (I included a pic of
bridge area)
If something is built here eventually, I hope the people in charge will think first of the safety of students and residents over
the quick buck they’ll make in revenue at the site.
Thank you for hearing me,
Andrea Remke,
Phoenix resident of Fireside at Desert Ridge
From: Richards, Dan
To: PDD Long Range Planning; Anthony M Grande; Council District 2 PCC
Subject: GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2 Black Mountain Village
Date: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 9:35:48 AM
Attachments: image001.png
Grocery Store options.docx
Dear Mr. Grande and Councilman Waring,
I submitted an email on September 13 pertaining to my opposition to the proposed development .
One of the points made in my previous email was stating the amount of gas stations and grocery
stores within a 3-mile radius of the Deer Valley and Black Mountain intersection. I mentioned 11 gas
stations within a 3-mile radius, but the correct number is 12 gas stations.
It was brought to my attention that Gammage and Burnham met with the residents of Sky Crossing
shared an exhibit showing the lack of gas stations and grocery store options within a 5-mile radius.
They failed to show all the options south of the 101 in their exhibit, which is incredibly misleading. I
have attached a map that shows all the gas stations and grocery stores in a 3-mile radius. If you
change your search to a 4-mile radius, you find 18-gas stations. The grocery store options are quite
vast as well.
Grocery Stores included within a 4-mile radius include:
Costco
Walmart
Target
Sprouts Market Express
2 Fry’s
2 Albertson’s
Food City
Please take this into consideration when Vestar continues to tell people that Desert Ridge is lacking
grocery and gas station options. It’s simply not true. Our neighbors do not want this development
to be built. We all live in the residential superblock portion of Desert Ridge. If we wanted to live
within walking distance to restaurants, we would have moved closer to Desert Ridge Marketplace.
This isn’t for the residents of Desert Ridge. They’re looking at this parcel because they want the
traffic from the 51.
Thanks,
Dan Richards
Strand Associates, Inc.®
602.437.3733 ext. 6052
dan.richards@strand.com | www.strand.com [strand.com]
[strand.com]
Excellence in EngineeringSM
Desert Ridge is not lacking grocery and gas station options
12 gas station within a 3-mile radius of Deer Valley and Black Mountain Blvd Intersection
18 gas stations shown within a 4-mile radius of Deer Valley and Black Mountain Blvd Intersection
Grocery Stores included within a 4-mile radius include:
x Costco
x Walmart
x Target
x Sprouts Market Express
x 2 Fry’s
x 2 Albertson’s
x Food City
From: eva rohr
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: STOP REZONIBG BLACK MOUNTAIN - PERIOD!!
Date: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 9:36:26 PM
eva rohr
4726 e casey ln
cave creek az 85331
480 363 7967
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 4:28:45 PM
Name
Jessica Sconyers
jessicasconyers@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Desert Peak
Support Comments
I work at pinnacle high school. Traffic there is a nightmare and will only get worse with the addition of a
shopping center.
From: Ralph Valenzi
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Super Block D Ridge
Date: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 10:33:37 PM
I am very much opposed to rezoning this property to commercial
I am a resident of Fireside and with the school traffic, adding a commercial development would make that worse
In addition, we don’t need more development in our area. We already have the Marketplace and that is sufficient for
our community
Ralph Valenzi
3629 E Zachary Drive
Sent from my iPhone
From: C Dunn
To: Anthony M Grande; Council District 2 PCC; ppd.longrange@phoenix.gov
Subject: Vestar"s Development Amendment and Zoning Requests for Superblock 12
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 10:13:35 PM
To All Concerned With This Issue:
I recently attended a Desert Ridge Community Association meeting in which
representatives for Vestar presented a rough sketch of their development plan for
approximately 20 acres carved out of Superblock 12. Listening to them, one would
surmise that this development was for the benefit of our neighborhood. They
discussed a neighborhood grocery store, some small retail businesses, and dining
options. A rather straightforward design, you might think. What Vestar’s rep didn’t
mention was the inclusion of a gas station, fast food drive-throughs, and even a city
bus stop. A plan that sounded innocent enough at the time now begs the question
of how a development such as this would impact our neighborhood.
Vestar wants to rezone Superblock 12 from an R-2 residential designation to a C-2
commercial designation. With this rezoning would come a commercial
development, such as Vestar’s, right at our back door. There are many troubling
issues associated with this proposal. I am limiting my comments to the
environmental impact that Vestar’s proposal would have on our community.
One of the most significant pollutants of our environment is gas stations. For
instance, during fueling, toxic compounds such as Benzene (a known carcinogen),
Ethyl Benzene, Toluene, and Xylene (BTEX) are released into the air. Likewise,
these same compounds will pollute the air when there is leakage from the storage
tank vents. Spills from fueling and spills from emptying tanker trucks can occur,
causing soil, groundwater, surface water and air contamination. Even idling
engines of vehicles contribute to air pollution with the release of harmful
chemicals, gases, and particles. Add to this the road noise associated with an
overwhelming number of vehicles driving in and out of the gas station and one
must conclude that gas stations are one of the most significant polluters of our
environment.
Grocery stores and fast food restaurants are right behind gas stations when we
consider the extent to which they pollute the environment. The average grocery
store emits almost two tons of carbon dioxide from the electricity and natural gas
that it uses each year. In addition to that, grocery stores and fast food restaurants
generate tons of litter and garbage yearly. Proper disposal of these then becomes
a major issue. If strict guidelines aren’t followed, we are then dealing with air and
soil pollution, in addition to the environmental issues posed by rodents and other
pests attracted to the area. Another concern is the amount of traffic generated by
these businesses. Their customer traffic, their delivery trucks, and their trash
collection vehicles make a substantial contribution to both noise and air pollution.
Lastly, it is not surprising that air pollution is the direct result of food preparation.
With the kitchen exhaust fans we have the release of organic aerosol into the
environment. With grills, stoves and ovens we have the release of formaldehyde,
carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide into the air. Naturally, these airborne
particulates are inhaled by everyone nearby. With ongoing exposure, these
particulates can be extremely harmful to individuals. This is especially true for
asthmatics and individuals dealing with long-term breathing problems such as
COPD.
It is obvious that the environmental impact of Vestar's proposed development
would not be limited to noise, air, soil, and light pollution. Their proposal would
guarantee both traffic pollution and people pollution, as well. Is it fair to assume
that crime in our neighborhood would not be far behind, if Vestar's proposal were
to be approved?
The negative impact that Vestar’s commercial development would have on our
neighborhood far outweighs any benefits of a grocery store, a gas station, and fast
food restaurants. With these services and many more just minutes away in the
Desert Ridge Marketplace, we don’t need them in our own back yard.. We must
keep Superblock 12 zoned R-2 Residential, as it was originally intended.
Please say NO to Vestar.
Carolyn Dunn
3752 E Covey Lane
Fireside Community
From: Greg Nelson
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Rezoning of Superblock 12
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 2:41:45 PM
RE:
Case No. SPA-DS1 V-2-23-2
Case No. CPA-DSTV-3-23-2
Case No. 1-39-23
Mr Grande,
In exploring the information on the proposed rezoning of Superblock 12 in our community, I
wanted to express my concerns and “no” vote on this land being used for commercial use.
While living in the community for nearly 18 years, this would have a negative impact on the
overall feel which is contrary to what the developers are trying to market to us. The increased
traffic would contribute to further noise pollution as well as the increased opportunity for
crime and trash.
This property is directly across the street from a large high school where new drivers try to
sharpen their new skills and this commercial development would lead to an increase in
accidents as well as fear of children / pedestrians being hit while walking to the surrounding
schools from this intersection (1 high school, 1 middle school, and 2 elementary schools
within a 1 mile radius).
We have seen migration of homeless around our community, near the Desert Ridge mall, and
could only see the future migration to this new shopping area which is a huge safety concern
for my family and other neighbors who bought in the area for the enjoyment of being able to
walk or ride to neighborhood parks and trails.
Lastly, adding a grocery store no matter small or large would not serve a purpose of improving
our service needs. We already have plenty of choices in a short distance around us.
Thank you for taking the time to accept and hopefully take our concerns into account.
Greg Nelson
From: Deanna Guttilla
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Regarding rezoning the block at Deer Valley Rd and Black Mountain next to Pinnacle High School.
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 5:59:51 PM
Hello Mr Grande,
My name is Deanna Guttilla. I have been a homeowner and resident in Fireside and have
happily raised three children here since 2011.
I’m writing in regard to case number GPA-DSTV-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2.
The block of land at Deer Valley Rd and Black Mountain Rd is up for possible rezoning to
commercial land use.
As much as I feel we could use a small grocery such as Trader Joe’s, and would love a little
upscale outdoor mall area, I’m opposed to rezoning to commercial land. It could have
several negative and dangerous consequences for the kids and the traffic flow.
Since the freeway exit was built, the community has seen more accidents on Black Mountain
in front of the high school and a daily back up of traffic. People drive very fast. It is already
dangerous for the kids crossing the road, at the intersection, to get to school every morning
and afternoon.
The proposed plan for rezoning would bring even more traffic to the road in front of the high
school. Especially if a grocery with a gas station is built.
In addition, a building complex with a fast food drive thru and gas station could likely bring
an increase in crime, such as drug sales, right into an area where there are over a thousand kids
every day.
Because of the increased danger to the kids in the neighborhood, and at the high school, I am
opposed to rezoning the land to commercial use. It needs to stay residential.
Thank you for your time,
Deanna Guttilla
Resident of Fireside
Sent from my iPhone
From: Tracy Kaczmarek
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Re zoning
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 8:31:40 PM
Hello,
I would just like to make my opposition to proposed re-zoning of land at Deer Valley/Black Mountain and planned
development.
I live in Fireside, and my backyard faces Black Mountain. When building our house, we were told this land was
NOT zoned for commercial development. As it stands now, traffic is a huge issue. The area is already extremely
busy, with Pinnacle HS traffic and regular flow. Essentially, there is no “flow”. I encourage you to observe what
the traffic pattern is daily. It is near impossible to get out of my neighborhood some mornings, due to chaotic
traffic.
My backyard and even my bedroom face Black Mtn Blvd. We are directly behind the view fence. I cannot imagine
the noise, lights, and traffic this would bring to an already congested area!! I am also greatly concerned with safety,
as we have both a high school and elementary school nearby. I could go on, listing all the reasons this is a horrible
idea….but I am sure you have been informed by other residents. Please— this was NOT the premise and agreement
of said parcel, prior to building my house. This is a RESIDENTIAL area!! I will be attending the October 3rd
meeting.
Thank you for your time.
Tracy Kaczmarek
Sent from my iPhone
From: Amy Kenney
To: PDD Long Range Planning; Anthony M Grande
Subject: Proposed Desert Ridge Rezoning - OPPOSED
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 8:31:53 AM
Anthony,
I am writing to send in my “vote" as I am VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED to the rezoning for a variety of reasons.
Please refer to the following:
Case No. SPA-DS1 V-2-23-2
Case No. CPA-DSTV-3-23-2
Case No. 1-39-23
We do NOT need commercial development in our quiet and already “convenient” homes and neighborhood.
There is ample access 1 mile away (or less!) to gas stations, conveniences galore, grocery stores, etc and RETAIL
galore.
Traffic, crime, noise, all would increase…..this is not something that is welcome….
Thank you for your consideration.
Amy Kenney
Ringtail Way
Fireside, Desert Ridge
Phoenix, AZ 85050
602-696-2639
From: Dessert
To: Anthony M Grande; Council District 2 PCC; pad.longrange@phoenix.gov
Subject: Black Mountain Village
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 5:55:52 PM
Re: GPA-DSTV-
2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2
NO! NO! NO!
TO BLACK MOUNTAIN VILLAGE!!!
I bought my house in Scarlet Ridge 13 years ago knowing I would be living in a safe residential area. Trying to put a
business right next to my house is wrong in so many ways. And to do a bait and switch with me and all the
homeowners is appalling!
We have enough traffic and unfortunately have had accidents with children being injured on the street at at the high
school as it is. And there’s already been issues with homeless people sleeping under the bridge. Bringing in retail
would only add to this on all accounts. And we certainly don’t need more of either to ruin our neighborhood and
injure our children!
I am hoping you have enough respect your homeowners to put this terrible idea to rest and find another location
more suitable for this type of retail. We want to continue to keep our neighborhood safe! Thank you.
Sincerely,
Blythe Lipman
Sent from my iPhone
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 6:52:51 PM
Name
Suzanne Moon
suzannemoonbear@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Paradise Peak West on Pinnacle Peak Rd. 85050
Support Comments
No! Not necessary. The neighborhood is Residential and we’d like it to stay that way.
From: Andrea Nelson
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: Proposed Desert Ridge Rezoning
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 7:12:22 AM
Dear long range planning committee-
I am writing as a homeowner and resident of the Fireside Community in Desert Ridge. I am opposed and concerned
that the proposed Vestar development North of Pinnacle High School would impact the safety of the neighborhood,
both in the businesses which are proposed, and in the traffic patterns. Additionally, proposing a gas station so close
to several residential neighborhood community homes has its own additional safety and health concerns.
These proposed safety hazards could destroy property values for the homes, and seems redundant based on the other
options so close by in Desert Ridge Marketplace- which I understand is already owned by Vestar.
The safety of our families and the neighborhood children is at risk. Please help our community to vote against this
project.
Thank you.
Andrea Nelson, SPHR
480-495-5411
From: Lisa Newman
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Rezoning Opposition to Superblock 12
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 8:30:07 AM
Hi Anthony,
I am a resident of Fireside and am emailing about the proposition to rezone a section of Superblock 12 from residential
to commercial property. I would like to voice my opposition to the following amendment requests case numbers:
Case No. SPA-DS1 V-2-23-2
Case No. CPA-DSTV-3-23-2
Case No. 1-39-23
I vote to keep this residential.
Thank you,
Lisa Newman
From: Rebecca Oakes
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: RE: Case No. SPA-DS1 V-2-23-2; Case No. CPA-DSTV-3-23-2; Case No. 1-39-23
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 6:10:06 PM
Case No. SPA-DS1 V-2-23-2
Case No. CPA-DSTV-3-23-2
Case No. 1-39-23
I am writing to you to register my strong disapproval of proposed amendments (case numbers
listed above) to modify existing zoning from residential to commercial.
Our homes in Fireside at Desert Ridge were built under the Desert Ridge Specific Plan. The
plan promised clean, quiet, and safe neighborhoods because commercial activity was placed in
the “commercial core”. Commercial activity in the “residential superblocks” is strictly limited
to minor “conveniences” of no more than 3 acres and drive through operations are prohibited.
The land at Deer Valley and Black Mountain is designated residential under the plan. Vestar,
the developer of the Desert Ridge Marketplace, now wants to change this for their own
financial gain; if the Desert View Planning Committee and city of Phoenix vote for the change
of zoning, and approve the plan to put in a 20-acre shopping center (reported to contain drive-
through fast food, drive-through coffee, a gas station, a grocery of an unknown name and type,
and who knows what else), this will cause great harm to my family and neighbors.
You see, my family lives in the closest section of Fireside to Pinnacle HS, and the proposed
shopping center. We already suffer through the pedestrian and vehicle traffic that invades the
streets of our neighborhood when school is in session and for other events held at the HS.
Students and parents drive at unsafe speeds down 36th Street and Abraham Dr. Additionally,
at drop off and pick up times, cars are lined up and/or idling as drivers wait to drop off or pick
up their students, blocking our way in and out, causing us to "play chicken" to maneuver down
the narrowed streets. Some of these students walk through our desert wash as a short cut to
those cars dropping off/waiting to pick up.
This is a neighborhood where many children walk to Fireside Elementary School, located a
short distance away. So not only is driving in, through and out of our neighborhood difficult
and would most likely become dangerous as traffic increases in an area not planned for such
commercial development, it is not safe for small children to safely walk to school.
In addition to the dangerous situations we face within our neighborhood, it can be all but
impossible to safely leave our neighborhood at these times - the southern exit, on to Mayo
Blvd. is right turn only and is very close to the Mayo/Black Mountain Blvd intersection. The
northern exit on to Deer Valley Rd. is hard to turn left onto during high traffic times.
To put it more clearly - leaving our neighborhood becomes even more difficult and dangerous
with increased vehicle traffic that comes with commercial development - especially trying to
go south onto Black Mountain Blvd AND west onto Deer Valley. We only have two VERY
flawed entrances/exits that in the best of times is tricky and not very convenient OR safe. We
esentially have to chose to limit leaving our neighborhood or taking the increased risk of
attempting to go south or west in less than safe traffic conditions. How does this benefit our
residential community?!? I predict that vehicle (and pedestrian) accidents will dramatically
increase if this shopping center is approved.
There is nothing that can be commercially built and nothing beneficial from a retail standpoint
that makes this development worth if for my family and residential neighborhood. There are
plenty of retail options at Desert Ridge and other close shopping centers.
Relatedly, are the members of the Desert View Planning Committee and Phoenix City Council
members aware that the parking lot of the proposed shopping center would in fact become an
overflow parking lot for Pinnacle HS students who do not have a parking pass to park at the
school? I would imagine prospective tenants would not be pleased to have the parking spaces
used by people not spending money at their establishments and making it harder for those who
want to spend money to find somewhere to park. Also, just ask security and management
about the issues surrounding teens hanging around Desert Ridge Marketplace - it will be much
easier for some students to hang out in the same manner at this proposed shopping center.
Has the city of Phoenix specifically done a traffic study of this area, taking this
commercial development into account? How would the council plan to ameliorate the
above stated traffic issues? What about environmental studies looking at the increase
noise, light and exhaust pollution that will directly impact the surrounding residential
neighborhoods?
We are appalled by this bait-and-switch, and worried about the crime, noise, litter, pollution,
and traffic nightmares that will come with this monstrosity.
Sincerely,
Rebecca J. Oakes
3608 E Salter Dr
Phoenix, 85050
Get Outlook for Android [aka.ms]
From: Richards, Dan
To: PDD Long Range Planning; Anthony M Grande; Council District 2 PCC
Subject: GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2 Black Mountain Village Opposition
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 4:53:23 PM
Attachments: Fireside Petitions.pdf
Dear Mr. Grande and Councilman Waring,
Please find attached a petition on behalf of the residents of Fireside Community opposing the
rezoning of the SW corner of Deer Valley and Black Mountain Boulevard.
Thanks,
Dan Richards
September 21, 2023
Anthony Grande
Zoning Section
200 W Washington Street, Second Floor
Phoenix AZ 85003
Reference:GPA-DSTV-2-23-2
Dear. Mr. Grande:
On behalf of the residents of Fireside Community, noted in the attached petition, we are opposed
to the proposed rezoning of the Parcel 212-38-023B. The families that built in this area did so
knowing that they would have a safe, quiet area for their children to grow up around. In
proposing the zoning amendment, the developers would like to change the use from residential
(2-5 du per acre) to commercial. We believe this proposed change would result in unacceptable
levels of risk to health and safety.
This commercial development proposal suggests parking for 580 cars and contains 3
access/egress points just off Mayo immediately across from Pinnacle High School with no
provision for safe crossing or pedestrian/bike safety. Further the traffic in this area is already an
issue. In speaking with the Phoenix Police Traffic Bureau, it is clear they have received
numerous complaints about existing safety issues experienced at the intersection of Black
Mountain and Deer Valley Roads. The proposed rezoning would only exacerbate these issues.
The explanation letter for the project describes that for community benefit, the project has the
potential to “increase health” and “reduce transportation burdens” of area residents by creating a
walkable/bikeable retail/grocery destination and “may reduce emissions from residents driving to
Desert Ridge Marketplace.” These statements are unproven and unsupported by the conceptual
design. While this is being promoted as a much-needed commercial alternative for the residents
in Desert Ridge, this will increase the volume of traffic coming from south of the 101, off the 51
exit. This development would increase transportation burdens and emissions in this area.
Residents who likely would have driven to Desert Ridge are now going to be driving to our
neighborhood.
There is no traffic impact or air quality study mentioned. Furthermore, it will increase both light
and sound pollution in the area. As such, the Fireside neighbors that have signed the attached
petition stand against the proposed rezoning and ask that the City reject the developer’s
application for rezoning.
Sincerely,
Dan Richards
From: Richards, Dan
To: PDD Long Range Planning; Anthony M Grande; Council District 2 PCC
Subject: GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2 Black Mountain Village Opposition
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 5:01:51 PM
Attachments: Pinnacle Petitions.pdf
Dear Mr. Grande and Councilman Waring,
Please find attached a petition on behalf of concerned parents of Pinnacle High School students
opposing the rezoning of the SW corner of Deer Valley and Black Mountain Boulevard. Please add
this and the Fireside Community petition to the case file that will be submitted to the Desert View
Village Committee. There are a ton of additional parents that would have signed this petition, but
we found that this was more difficult one to get in front of the parents. We were not legally allowed
to solicit our petition on the school property so we are still trying to figure out the best way to get
through to all the parents.
Thanks,
Dan Richards
September 21, 2023
Anthony Grande
Zoning Section
200 W Washington Street, Second Floor
Phoenix AZ 85003
Reference:GPA-DSTV-2-23-2
Dear. Mr. Grande:
On behalf of concerned parents of Pinnacle High School students, noted in the attached petition,
we are opposed to the proposed rezoning of the Parcel 212-38-023B. We believe the proposed
development by Vestar poses significant risks to safety in the form of traffic congestion, air,
noise, and light pollution. We believe this proposed change would result in unacceptable levels
of risk to health and safety.
There is an existing issue with high-traffic volume that does not respect the posted speed limits
near Pinnacle High School, as commuters travel to Interstate 51. This zoning change will only
heighten this problem and create a more dangerous situation for our children, who deserve the
ability to walk to and from their school safely each day. The proposed rezoning would only
exacerbate these issues, increasing traffic volumes both northbound and southbound. There is no
traffic impact or air quality study included in this proposal.
The explanation letter for this project suggested “The addition of quick service food and retail
options at this location will provide a safe alternative to the students at nearby Pinnacle High
School before school, after school and during the lunch hour.” And “School Principal Chad
Smith indicated that the proposed development would potentially reduce the number of off-
campus trips by car.” Pinnacle is a closed campus for all students except Seniors, so this will not
benefit students during the lunch hour. I would highly recommend that you independently meet
with the Principal of Pinnacle High School who will paint you an entirely different picture of his
views for this project. He is strongly opposed to this development and we feel Vestar has
misrepresented his concerns to help benefit their proposal.
Please take into consideration the Parents of Pinnacle students who have signed the attached
petition. Our children do not need these distractions directly next door from their classrooms.
We stand against the proposed rezoning and ask that the City reject the developer’s application
for rezoning.
Sincerely,
Dan Richards
From: Jennifer Larson Popnoe
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: Fw: Case#GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 6:29:05 PM
From: Jennifer Larson Popnoe
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2023 5:36 PM
To: anthony.grande@phoenix.gov
Subject: Case#GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2
Dear Mr. Anthony Grande,
Ten years ago, I welcomed a beautiful baby boy. At the time we were living in an older
community in North Scottsdale. We knew it was time to move and find that perfect place to
raise a family. A place he could walk to school, ride his bike, trick or treat in a safe family-
oriented neighborhood. Luckily, we found the perfect place, Fireside at Desert Ridge. It has
been the perfect fit for our family. We have made many friends that are like family. My son
feels safe to walk to school, ride his bike to the park and play outside. He was crushed when
we told him of the situation that is happening in our neighborhood. He knew he would no
longer be able to due to the increase in traffic, construction, panhandlers etc. this will bring to
our community.
The community we loved and were told that the space was zoned for residential construction
for the possibility of new friends instead of commercial that will only attract who knows what
off the freeway into our backyard. This once quiet safe community is going to be thrust into
the middle of a shopping center that will only risk our kids safety, decrease our property
values, increase criminal activity and ruin our close-knit happy community. I ask you to
imagine yourself in this situation. Wouldn't you do anything you could to protect your
children and the future of your community?
Please don't let another big corporation ruin what little is left of our small town community.
We are fortunate to have Desert Ridge Marketplace, Costco, and many other options just
down the street that offer everything we need and more. I ask you to please consider the
needs of your fellow community members; we chose this beautiful neighborhood to avoid the
dense, congested, commercial areas and enjoy our small piece of Phoenix. Please support us
in continuing to raise our families in this beautiful please we call home. No Black Mountain
Village!
Sincerely,
Jennifer Larson Popnoe
3622 E Half Hitch Pl
Phoenix, AZ 85050
From: J Popnoe
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: Re: Opposition to commercial rezoning request in Desert Ridge
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 5:18:49 PM
Importance: High
Received an out of office message from Mr. Grande, but want to be certain my
communication is included on the record in this matter. Thank you.
Justin J. Popnoe
3622 E Half Hitch Place
Phoenix, AZ 85050
m: 480.798.0004
From: J Popnoe
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2023 5:17 PM
To: Anthony.Grande@phoenix.gov
Subject: Opposition to commercial rezoning request in Desert Ridge
Mr. Grande ---
I write you in hopes of garnering your support for residents (and our children) in Desert Ridge.
I was frustrated to learn of Vestar's rezoning request (GPA-DSTV-2-23-2, GPA-DSTV-3-23-2, and Z-39-
23-2) geared towards generating massive profits despite the risks and negative impacts created for
residents. I live a short distance from the parcel, and am already a firsthand witness to the daily debacle
of traffic & pedestrian issues near the high school & in my neighborhood (Copper View). Radically
changing the existing plan (that we as homeowners considered a promise to properly manage our
community) to introduce a massive grocer, gas station, fast food, etc. will only create more risks,
especially for our neighborhood children.
I'm incensed with the thought that there would be support despite the many issues (noise, pollution,
crime) that this commercial entity will drop into the heart of our community. My son is currently a fifth
grader at Fireside Elementary, which is also a short distance from the parcel. The most extreme risks are
created for high schoolers --- easy access to alcohol/nicotine, no oversight, traffic --- but nearby, our most
vulnerable will now also pay the price if Vestar's greed is satisfied by lining up behind the ask to mangle
our closeknit community.
I plead with you to support homeowners and residents by opposing this rezoning request. This
parcel should stay zoned for residential use to allow more families to join our thriving community. Vestar
can achieve their profit targets using one of the multiple, available parcels in the area already zoned for
commercial use. Please help protect our community and families.
Respectfully,
Justin J. Popnoe
3622 E Half Hitch Place
Phoenix, AZ 85050
m: 480.798.0004
From: Laura Richards
To: Anthony M Grande; Council District 2 PCC; PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: Subject: Black Mountain Village (GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2)
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 7:33:56 PM
Dear Mr. Grande and Councilman Waring,
I built my home in Fireside over 10 years ago, with my backyard facing Black Mountain Boulevard. I have
a view fence, paid a premium for my lot and was promised the land behind my home across Black
Mountain Blvd was zoned as single-family residential. My husband and I have 3 sons who were toddlers
at the time. Now, they are teenagers attending Explorer Middle School and Pinnacle High. We did much
research to find the perfect neighborhood/lot to build our house and raise our family. I am opposed to the
Black Mountain Village Commercial Development. My reasons for opposing the project include:
Horrific traffic when one considers the daily chaos that exists at the adjoining high school and
nearby elementary school.
Threats to the safety of students at the high school and nearby elementary school.
Introduction of twenty-four-hour noise, light, and air pollution into a residential environment,
specifically concerning since our bedroom windows will look out over this development.
Establishing a 24-hour hang-out for unsupervised adolescents from the adjoining high school.
Litter, crime, vandalism and transient individuals.
Pollution from cars lined up at drive-through operations.
Lack of any reasonable justification for a major amendment to the Desert Ridge Specific Plan to
the detriment of innocent homebuyers who relied on the plan.
Decrease in property values for residents of Fireside and Sky Crossing.
Diversion of traffic from SR 51 that would otherwise head west on SR 101.
We love our Fireside and Desert Ridge Community. Please take these points into consideration and help
us to preserve the sanctity of this beautiful area of Phoenix, that we feel good to call our home. Thank you
for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Laura Richards
From: wroodenburg@cox.net
To: Anthony M Grande; PDD Long Range Planning
Cc: Council District 2 PCC; 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: Letter of Explanation by Resident regarding zoning GPA-DSTV-2-23-2 and Case GPA-DSTV-3-23-2 and Case Z-39-
23-2
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 4:12:13 PM
Attachments: Letter of Explanation Resident Final.docx
Dear Council members,
A rezoning request was submitted by the attorneys of Gammage & Burnham on behalf of Vestar to
convert a Residentially zoned 20 acres into a Commercial zone (C2).
It seems like this council asked 10 very pertinent questions to further explain how this proposal
would impact the neighborhood and they submitted their answers in a Letter of Explanation (dated
July 16st)
I assume the explanation was accepted and the case was subsequently filed. GPA-DSTV-2-23-2
and Case GPA-DSTV-3-23-2 and Case Z-39-23-2
Although the Letter of Explanation by this law firm indicated that support for this proposal was
abundant. I’m writing to you to let you know that nothing is further from the truth. This proposal
should be denied.
In fact, this proposal has triggered a lot of opposition from the residents in Desert Ridge, because it
is proposed adjacent to our High School and Elementary School and contrary to what the attorneys
stated, WILL damage our community. There are many more reasons for opposing this case which are
explained in my version of the attached “Letter of Explanation Resident”
I hope that the detail and the amount of work I put into writing this gives you a good summary of
what is at stake and that the current version of our Master Community specific plan is what
residents are expecting.
This does not entail allowing 20 acres of big box commercial businesses, who will be creating a lot of
issues for all residents and schools to deal with in the coming year.
I urge you to deny this proposal in all its forms.
Rather than outlining the issues we anticipate, I have included alternatives for you to consider and
suggested items that are within our plan and would benefit our community and make it an even
better place to live.
If the developer’s goal is to add a new brand of grocery store to the area, please note that there are
plenty of commercial zones available to build on immediately, which is also highlighted in the
appendices.
In my previous contact with the City, I have raised awareness regarding the traffic situation around
our schools and I also rallied our community to participate in the survey for Vision Zero.
I was pleased to see that within the budget approved by this council, you have allocated money for
schools to improve a “Safe Route To School”.
This proposal would endanger our kids walking to school with the increase of local traffic and non-
resident traffic and ruin our community with big box retailers, alcohol and cigarette sales near
schools, fast food restaurants and gas stations.
Please deny this proposal completely.
Thank you for your consideration.
Regards
Wouter Roodenburg.
Wouter Roodenburg
Resident Fireside Desert Ridge
21507 N 39th Terrace
Phoenix, AZ 85050
Planning and Development Department & City Council
200 W. Washington Street, 2nd ŇŽŽƌ
Phoenix, AZ 85003
RE: SWC of Deer Valley Drive and Black DŽƵŶƚĂŝŶWĂƌŬǁĂLJ͖DŝŶŽƌ'ĞŶĞƌĂůWůĂŶĂŶĚDĂũŽƌ^ƉĞĐŝĮĐWůĂŶ
amendment request.
To whom it may concern:
/͛ŵǁƌŝƟŶŐƚŽLJŽƵĂƐĂĐŽŶĐĞƌŶĞĚƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝŵƉĂĐƚĞĚďLJƚŚĞƌĞnjŽŶŝŶŐƌĞƋƵĞƐƚƐGPA-DSTV-2-23-2 and
Case GPA-DSTV-3-23-2 and Case Z-39-23-2
Upon reading tŚĞ>ĞƩĞƌŽĨdžƉůĂŶĂƟŽŶƉƌŽǀŝĚĞƚŽLJŽƵďLJƚŚĞĂƩŽƌŶĞLJƐŽĨ'ĂŵŵĂŐĞΘƵƌŶŚĂŵ
(GBlaw), dated July 16th, 2023 (rev July 10th͕ϮϬϮϯͿ͕/ĨĞĞůƚŚĂƚLJŽƵƐŚŽƵůĚĂůƐŽŚĂǀĞƚŚĞŽƚŚĞƌƉĞƌƐƉĞĐƟǀĞ
ƚŽƚŚĞŐƌĞĂƚƋƵĞƐƟŽŶƐLJŽƵƐƵďŵŝƩĞĚƌĞŐĂƌĚŝŶŐƚŚŝƐƉƌŽƉŽƐĂů͘
First ĂŶĚĨŽƌĞŵŽƐƚ͕'ůĂǁŝŶĨŽƌŵƐLJŽƵĂƚƚŚĞĞŶĚŽĨƚŚĞŝƌůĞƩĞƌƚŚĂƚ͞sĞƐƚĂƌŚĂƐƌĞĐĞŝǀĞĚƉŽƐŝƟǀĞ
feedback from the ĞƐĞƌƚZŝĚŐĞŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJƐƐŽĐŝĂƟŽŶ. As the Site Plan has evolved, the applicant and
sĞƐƚĂƌŚĂǀĞŵĞƚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞƐƐŽĐŝĂƟŽŶŝŶŽƌĚĞƌƚŽŬĞĞƉƚŚĞŵŝnformed and updated on the project. The
ĐŽŶƟŶƵŽƵƐƋƵĞƐƟŽŶƚŚĂƚŚĂƐďĞĞŶĂƐŬĞĚƚŚƌŽƵŐŚŽƵƚƚŚŝƐŽƵƚƌĞĂĐŚŝƐ͞tŚĞŶǁŝůůLJŽƵƐƚĂƌƚĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶ͍͟
dŚĞĞĂŐĞƌŶĞƐƐŽĨƚŚŝƐĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJƚŽŚĂǀĞƐŚŽƉƉŝŶŐĂůƚĞƌŶĂƟǀĞƐ͕ŐƌŽĐĞƌLJŝŶƉĂƌƟĐƵůĂƌ͕ƐŝŵƉůLJĐĂŶŶŽƚďĞ
overstateĚ͘͞
This statement was completely misleading and unfounded. When we confronted the Desert Ridge
ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJƐƐŽĐŝĂƟŽŶĂďŽƵƚƚŚŝƐƐƚĂƚĞŵĞŶƚĚƵƌŝŶŐƚŚĞŝƌŵŽŶƚŚůLJŵĞĞƟŶŐ͕ƚŚĞLJĐůĂŝŵĞĚƚŚĂƚƚŚĞLJĂƌĞ
͞ũƵƐƚĐŽŶĐĞƌŶĞĚǁŝƚŚĂƉƉůLJŝŶŐƚŚĞΘZ͛ƐŽĨƚŚĞĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJĂŶĚĐĂŶŶŽƚďĞƐƵƉƉŽƌƟŶŐĞŝƚŚĞƌƐŝĚĞŽĨƚŚŝƐ
proposal”. Who did GBlaw quote here and in what capacity? It cannot be further from the truth.
tŚLJĚŝĚƚŚĞZŶŽƚƌƵŶƚŚŝƐďLJƚŚĞĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƟĞƐŝƚƌĞƉƌĞƐĞŶƚƐ͍Was this the basis for LJŽƵƌĐŽŵŵŝƩĞĞ
to decided to move forward? ŝĚƚŚĞĐŽŵŵŝƩĞĞ assumed that the support was already there based on
that statement?
A lot of people do NOT agree with this proposal, it was started under wrong pretenses and now the
community has ƚŽƐƉĞŶĚŽƵƌƟŵĞĮŐŚƟŶŐƚŚŝƐƉƌŽƉŽƐĂů͘This should have been stopped at the start
based on the guidelines – which I will highlight later on – ŽĨƚŚĞƐƉĞĐŝĮĐƉůĂŶĂŶĚƚŚĞĐŽŶŇŝĐƚƚŚĞƐŝƚĞŚĂƐ
near 2 schools͕ĂīĞĐƟŶŐƚŚĞƐĂĨĞƚLJŽĨŬŝĚƐŐŽŝŶŐƚŽƐĐŚŽŽů͘ It is NOT in line with the Phoenix General plan
to create more residents walking somewhere, NOR do any of the fast food restaurants add to residents
ŐĞƫŶŐƚŽŐĞƚŚĞƌ͕ŽƚŚĞƌthan queuing up behind each other at all the drive throughs. It will ruin our
community and if this passes then developers ǁŝůůĐŽŶƟŶƵĞƚŽĞdžƉĂŶĚĂŶĚƚƌLJƚŚĞƐĂŵĞƚŚŝŶŐŽŶŽƚŚĞƌ
ůŽĐĂƟŽŶƐ͘WůĞĂƐĞƐƚŽƉƚŚŝƐŶŽǁ͕ƐƟĐŬƚŽƚŚĞƉůĂŶ.
Please bear in mind that tŚĞƌĞŚĂƐďĞĞŶnjĞƌŽĞīŽƌƚƐĨƌŽŵĂŶLJŽƌŐĂŶŝnjĂƟŽŶƚŽĂƐŬŽƵƌĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƟĞƐǁŚĂƚ
we would like or need. Before this proposal, every resident was under the impression that we have a
ǀĞƌLJĚĞƚĂŝůĞĚƐƉĞĐŝĮĐƉůĂŶĨŽƌĞƐĞƌƚZŝĚŐĞǁŚŝĐŚĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůLJƉĞƌĨĞĐƚůLJĚĞƐĐƌŝďĞƐǁŚĂƚƚŚĞĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJǁŝůů
ůŽŽŬůŝŬĞŽŶĐĞŝƚ͛ƐĮŶŝƐŚĞĚ͘ That is what people bought into and paid a premium to live in this area.
tŚĂƚLJŽƵǁŝůůŶŽƟĐĞ in subsequent events is the fact that GBlaw has started campaigning for support
AFTER ƚŚĞĮƌƐƚƉƵďůŝĐŵĞĞƟŶŐ͘ KƵƌĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJǁĂƐŐĞƫŶŐĂĚƐ;ĂƉƉĞŶĚŝdžϮͿƚŚĂƚĐƌĞĂƚĞĚĂŶŝŵƉƌĞƐƐŝŽŶ
of an innocent small neighborhood grocery store for people to quickly click on, not being informed of the
consequences or full plans͘tŚLJĚŝĚ'ůĂǁŐŝǀĞLJŽƵƚŚĞŝŵƉƌĞƐƐŝŽŶĚƵƌŝŶŐƚŚĞůĞƩĞƌŽĨĞdžƉůĂŶĂƟŽŶƚŚĂƚ
community support already existed?
Giving the push back that you have seen, how much value can be placed on any other answer provided
ŝŶƚŚĂƚůĞƩĞƌ͕ŽƚŚĞƌƚŚĞŶ GBlaw ŚŝĚŝŶŐƚŚĞƌĞĂůŝŶƚĞŶƟŽŶƐof this developer. This developer wants to
make it 20 acres and put on a 50,000-ϭϬϬ͕ϬϬϬƐƋŌŐƌŽĐĞƌLJƐƚŽƌĞ͕ĨĂƐƚĨŽŽĚƌĞƐƚĂƵƌĂŶƚƐ͕ŐĂƐƐƚĂƟŽŶƐ͕
ŵŽƌĞƚƌĂĸĐŝŶŽƵƌĂƌĞĂ͘/ƚƐŚŽǁs ĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞĚŝƐƌĞŐĂƌĚĨŽƌŽƵƌŐƌĞĂƚĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJĂŶĚŝƚĂůƐŽĐŽŶŇŝĐƚƐǁŝƚŚĂ
ůŽƚŽĨƚŚĞĚĞƐŝŐŶƉƌŝŶĐŝƉůĞƐŽĨŽƵƌƐƉĞĐŝĮĐƉůĂŶŽŶŵĂŶLJůĞǀĞůƐ͘ƋƵĂůůLJĚĞĐĞƉƟǀĞǁĂƐƚŚĞŚŝŐŚůŝŐŚƟŶŐŽĨ
ĞdžŝƐƟŶŐƚƌĂĸĐŝƐƐƵĞƐĂƚƚŚĞĞƐĞƌƚZŝĚŐĞDĂƌŬĞƚƉůĂĐĞ͘dŚĞŝƌƐŽůƵƟŽŶ͗ŵŽǀĞĂůůƚŚĞƚƌĂĸĐŝƐƐƵĞƐĐůŽƐĞƌƚŽ
2 schools full of kids walking to school? Unacceptable.
tŚĂƚĂƌĞƚŚĞĂůƚĞƌŶĂƟǀĞƐ͍
There are no compromises to the current proposal. We (those who voted NO on ŽƵƌƉĞƟƟŽŶͿdo not
want 20 acres of commercial on that land. ƐĂƉůĂŶŶŝŶŐĐŽŵŵŝƩĞĞĂŶĚĐŝƚLJĐŽƵŶĐŝů͕LJŽƵƐŚŽƵůĚƐƟĐŬƚŽ
ƚŚĞĞdžŝƐƟŶŐŐƌĞĂƚĂŶĚƐƉĞĐŝĮĐ plan for Desert Ridge. This plan shows these superblock being Low Density
ZĞƐŝĚĞŶƟĂů.
Perhaps you consider ŶĞǁƐƟƉƵůĂƟŽŶƐŝŶƚŚĞƉůĂŶĨŽƌƚŚĞŶĞdžƚƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƟĂůďƵŝůĚĞƌƚŽƚĂŬĞŽŶƚŚĞ
ƵŶŝŶƚĞŶĚĞĚƚƌĂĸĐŝƐƐƵĞƐƚŚĂƚŚĂǀĞďĞĞŶĐƌĞĂƚĞĚŽǀĞƌƟŵĞĂŶĚƉŽƐƐŝďůLJĐƌĞĂƚĞĂŶĞǁĚƌŽƉŽīƌŽƵƚĞĨŽƌ
the highschool using 32nd street and increase the schools parking lots.(Appendix 8).
KƌƵƐŝŶŐƚŚĞsŝƐŝŽŶĞƌŽƉůĂŶ͕ĂƉƉƌŽǀĞĚďLJƚŚĞĐŽƵŶĐŝůƚŽƵƐĞ͞^ĂĨĞZŽƵƚĞƚŽ^ĐŚŽŽů͟ŐƌĂŶƚƐƚŽŵĂŬĞŽƵƌ
ĚƌŽƉŽīĂƌĞĂƐƐĂĨĞƌ͘
ŶŽƚŚĞƌĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĂƟŽŶ͕ǁŚŝĐŚŝƐĂůƌĞĂĚLJŵĞŶƟŽŶĞĚ/ŶŽƵƌĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJƉůĂŶ͕ǁŽƵůĚďĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐĂ>ŝďƌĂƌLJ
andͬŽƌWĂƌŬĂŶĚZŝĚĞƉĂƌŬŝŶŐůŽƚƐ͘dŚĂƚǁŽƵůĚďĞĂŚƵŐĞďĞŶĞĮƚƚŽƚŚŝƐĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJ͕ĞƐƉĞĐŝĂůůLJ
considering the fact that is right next to 2 schools. These things make sense.
hůƟŵĂƚĞůLJ͕ŝĨƉĞŽƉůĞǁĂŶƚŵŽƌĞĐŚŽŝĐĞŝŶŐƌŽĐĞƌLJƐƚŽƌĞƐ͕ƚŚĞŶƚŚĞƌĞĂƌĞƉƌĞ-approved njŽŶĞƐĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞ
ǀĞƌLJĐůŽƐĞďLJ͘ŝƚLJEŽƌƚŚĂůƐŽŚĂƐƌŽŽŵĨŽƌĂŶĂĚĚŝƟŽŶĂůŐƌŽĐĞƌLJƐƚŽƌĞĂŶĚĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůLJŚŽƐƚƐ;ĂƌĞĂů͊Ϳ
neighborhood Sprouts convenience store. There is is land available on 56th and the freeway also. Plenty
ŽĨĂůƚĞƌŶĂƟǀĞƐĂŶĚŐŽŽĚĞŶŽƵŐŚƚŽhost their proposal, without ruining our neighborhood.
&ƵƌƚŚĞƌĚĞƚĂŝůƐŝŶƌĞƐƉŽŶƐĞƚŽŽƌŝŐŝŶĂůƚŚĞ>ĞƩĞƌŽĨdžƉůĂŶĂƟŽŶ͘
/ǁĂŶƚƚŽĐŽŶƟŶƵĞǁŝƚŚŵy response to address the way ƚŚĞƐĞĂƩŽƌŶĞLJƐ chose to ĂŶƐǁĞƌLJŽƵƌƋƵĞƐƟŽŶƐ,
downplaying the impact it would have and leaving out important details that you should consider and be
aware of. They are experts to ƉƌŽǀŝĚĞLJŽƵŽŶůLJǁŝƚŚĚĞƚĂŝůƐƚŚĂƚƚŚĞLJ͛ǀĞůĞĂƌŶĞĚŚĞůƉƐŐĞƫŶŐĂƉƉƌŽǀĂůƐ
from you ĂŶĚƉƵƚƚŚĞǁŚĞĞůƐŝŶŵŽƟŽŶ͘
They described it as ͞ůŽǁŝŵƉĂĐƚ͟ĐŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂůĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͘,ŽǁĚŽƚŚĞLJĚĞƚĞƌŵŝŶĞƚŚŝƐ͍They claim
ƚŚĞƌĞŝƐŶŽĮŶĂůƉůĂŶ͘KŶĐĞĂƉƉƌŽǀĞĚƚŚĞLJĐĂŶĚŽǁŚĂƚƚŚĞLJǁĂŶƚ͘Eƚhey’re proposing this to be next
to an elementary and high school and in the middle of a quit community, which is unacceptable because
of the dangers they’re introducing to the school and kids. ,ĂůĨ-truths are being told.
/ǁŽƵůĚůŝŬĞƚŽƐĞůĞĐƚĂĨĞǁŽĨLJŽƵƌƋƵĞƐƟŽŶƐĂŶĚƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĂŶŽƚŚĞƌƉĞƌƐƉĞĐƟǀĞ and have included
appendices to clarify my comments.
YƵĞƐƟŽŶƐ^ĞůĞĐƚĞĚ͗
Yϯ͖,ŽǁŵĂŶLJƉŽƚĞŶƟĂůŚŽƵƐŝŶŐƵŶŝƚƐǁŽƵůĚďĞĐƌĞĂƚĞĚŽƌůŽƐƚďLJĂƉƉƌŽǀŝŶŐĂŶĚŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƟŶŐƚŚĞ
ƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĂŵĞŶĚŵĞŶƚ͍
'ůĂǁƌĞƐƉŽŶƐĞƐƚĂƚĞƐ͗͞dŚĞďĞŶĞĮƚŽĨďƌŝŶŐŝŶŐŵƵĐŚŶĞĞĚĞĚĐŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂůƚŽƚŚŝƐĂƌĞĂĨĂƌŽƵƚǁĞŝŐŚƐƚŚĞ
minimal loss of housing from the proposed amendments”
DLJZĞƐƉŽŶƐĞ: dŚĞLJĨĂŝůƚŽŵĞŶƟŽŶƚŚĂƚthere are pre-ĂƉƉƌŽǀĞĚĐŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂůnjŽŶĞƐĂƌĞŽŶůLJϭďůŽĐŬŶŽƌƚŚ
of the proposed site along WŝŶŶĂĐůĞWĞĂŬĂŶĚůĞĂǀĞŽƵƚƚŚĞĨĂĐƚƚŚĂƚŝƚLJEŽƌƚŚƐƟůůŚĂƐϱϬйůĂŶĚ
available, whicŚŝƐĂĚũĂĐĞŶƚƚŽĞƐĞƌƚZŝĚŐĞŵĂƌŬĞƚƉůĂĐĞ͘tŚLJǁŽƵůĚƚŚĞLJŶĞĞĚƚŽĂŵĞŶĚŽƵƌƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƟĂů
master plan for 20 acres to insert a commercial development when bigger lots are available?
(See Appendix 1)
Q4: Is there a need for the proposed use(s) or ĚĞŶƐŝƚLJ;ŝĞƐͿŝŶƚŚĞƌĞƋƵĞƐƚĞĚůŽĐĂƟŽŶ͍
'ůĂǁƌĞƐƉŽŶƐĞƐƚĂƚĞƐ͗͞ƵŶŝŶƚĞŶĚĞĚĐŽŶƐĞƋƵĞŶĐĞƐŽĨĐƌĞĂƟŶŐƚŚĞůĂƌŐĞĂŶĚŚƵŐĞůLJƐƵĐĐĞƐƐĨƵůĞƐĞƌƚ
ZŝĚŐĞDĂƌŬĞƚƉůĂĐĞĂŶĚƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐƌĞƚĂŝůƵƐĞƐŝƐƚŚĂƚƚŚĞŝŶƚĞŶƐŝƚLJŽĨƚŚŽƐĞƵƐĞƐŚĂƐůĞĚƚŽƚƌĂĸĐ
ĐŽŶŐĞƐƟŽŶƐĂŶĚparking issues.”
DLJZĞƐƉŽŶƐĞ: There was never any research done or input requested from residents regarding the
impact of the marketplace, nor were we asked what our needs are. This proposal is purely economical
and not ĚƌŝǀĞŶďLJĂŶŝĚĞŶƟĮĞĚŶĞĞĚ͘My resƉŽŶƐĞǁŽƵůĚŚĂǀĞďĞĞŶƚŚĂƚ/ĐĂŶĐŽŶĮƌŵƚƌĂĸĐĐŽŶŐĞƐƟŽŶ
caused by drive through restaurants and those will remain and new ones will be created by their
proposal.
Their responses cŽŶƟŶƵĞƚŽĞŵƉŚĂƐŝƐƚŚĞcurrent ƚƌĂĸĐŝƐƐƵĞƐbut their proposal will bring ĞdžƉŽŶĞŶƟĂů
ŵŽƌĞƚƌĂĸĐto our neighborhood due to new (non resident) ƉĞŽƉůĞŶŽǁĐŚŽŽƐŝŶŐƚŽĐŽŵĞŽīƚŚĞϱϭĂƚ
Black Mountain blvd to get their groceries that previously went to the marketplace. Children are walking
home from Elementary School and thĞ,ŝŐŚ^ĐŚŽŽůĂƌĞďĞŝŶŐƉƵƚĂƚƵŶŶĞĐĞƐƐĂƌLJƌŝƐŬ͘
If I was ĂƐŬĞĚĨŽƌǁŚĂƚƚŚŝƐĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJŶĞĞĚƐ͕ŝƚǁŽƵůĚďĞŵŽƌĞƌĞĐƌĞĂƟŽŶĂůƉĂƌŬƐ͕ĂƉƌŽŵŝƐĞĚůŝďƌĂƌLJ͕
preserve the land for ,ŝŐŚ^ĐŚŽŽůexpansion requirements to accommodate more students, parking and
a safĞƌƌŽƵƚĞƚŽƐĐŚŽŽůĂŶĚĚƌŽƉŽīareas around the school. That is what we need, not light, air, noise
ƉŽůůƵƟŽŶĂŶĚŐĂƐƐƚĂƟŽŶŽƌĂŶLJŽƚŚĞƌƐŚŽƉŶĞdžƚƚŽĂŚŝŐŚƐĐŚŽŽůĂŶĚĞůĞŵĞŶƚĂƌLJƐĐŚŽŽů͘WĞŽƉůĞĂƌĞĂůƐŽ
very concerned about the crimes that go along with such a commercial center.
Qϱ͗tŚĂƚŝŵƉĂĐƚǁŽƵůĚƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĂůĂŵĞŶĚŵĞŶƚŚĂǀĞŽŶĂĚũĂĐĞŶƚŽƌŶĞĂƌďLJůĂŶĚ͍
'>ĂǁƐƚĂƚĞƐ͗͞dŚĞĂĚĚŝƟŽŶŽĨƋƵŝĐŬƐĞƌǀŝĐĞĨŽŽĚĂŶĚƌĞƚĂŝůŽƉƟŽŶƐĂƚƚŚŝƐůŽĐĂƟŽŶǁŝůůƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĂƐĂĨĞ
ĂůƚĞƌŶĂƟǀĞƚŽƚŚĞƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐĂƚŶĞĂƌďLJWŝŶŶĂĐůĞ,ŝŐŚ^ĐŚŽŽůďĞĨŽƌĞƐĐŚŽŽů͕ĂŌĞƌƐĐŚŽŽůĂŶĚĚƵƌŝŶŐƚŚĞ
ůƵŶĐŚŚŽƵƌ͘dŚĞƉƉůŝĐĂŶƚŵĞƚǁŝƚŚWŝŶŶĂĐůĞ,ŝŐŚ^ĐŚŽŽůWƌŝŶĐŝƉal Chad Smith, who indicated that the
ƉƌŽƉŽƐĂůĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚǁŽƵůĚƉŽƚĞŶƟĂůůLJƌĞĚƵĐĞƚŚĞŶƵŵďĞƌŽĨŽī-campus trips by car”
DLJZĞƐƉŽŶƐĞ͗dŚĞŝŵƉĂĐƚǁŝůůďĞďĂĚ͘DŽƌĞƚƌĂĸĐ͕DŽƌĞƉŽůůƵƟŽŶ͕DŽƌĞƐŵĞůůƐ͕DŽƌĞŚŽŵĞůĞƐƐƉĞŽƉůĞ
on corners, More cars idling, MoƌĞŶŽŝƐĞƐĂŶĚůŝŐŚƚƉŽůůƵƟŽŶŝŶƚŽƚŚĞŶŝŐŚƚ͘
PLUS Every parent knows that ƉƵƫŶŐƚĞŵƉƚĂƟŽŶŝŶĨƌŽŶƚŽĨƚĞĞŶĂŐĞƌƐ͕ƚŚĞLJǁŝůůũƵŵƉŽŶƚŚĞŽĐĐĂƐŝŽŶƚŽ
ƐŬŝƉƐĐŚŽŽů͕ĮŶĚĂǁĂLJƚŽďƵLJĂůĐŽŚŽůĂŶĚĐŝŐĂƌĞƩĞƐĂŶĚĐƌĞĂƚĞĂŚĂŶŐŽƵƚĨŽƌƚŚĞƐĞƚĞĞŶĂŐĞƌƐƚŚĂƚǁŝůů
lead to all sorts of trouble͕ĮŐŚƚƐĂŶĚĐƌŝŵĞƐ͘The school is a closed campus school, so only seniors that
are already driving themselves might be interested, but it also highlights their commercial interests in
this area and trying to capture this ĐĂƉƟve audience and provide bad fast food and other bad choices.
EŽƚŚŝŶŐƐĂĨĞĂďŽƵƚƚŚĞŝƌƉƌŽƉŽƐĂůƚŚĂƚǁŝůůďĞŶĞĮƚ,ŝŐŚƐĐŚŽŽůƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐ͘
Secondly, /ǁŽƵůĚŚŝŐŚůLJƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚƚŚĂƚLJŽƵŝŶĚĞƉĞŶĚĞŶƚůLJŵĞĞƚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞWƌŝŶĐŝƉĂůŽĨWŝŶŶĂĐůĞ,ŝŐŚ
School and Fireside ElĞŵĞŶƚĂƌLJ^ĐŚŽŽůĂŶĚƚŚĞLJǁŝůůƉĂŝŶƚLJŽƵĂŶĞŶƟƌĞůLJĚŝīĞƌĞŶƚƉŝĐƚƵƌĞĂŶĚƐƚƌŽŶŐůLJ
ŽƉƉŽƐĞƚŚŝƐĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͘ Don’t take my word for it. Please have someone verify this statement as this
was another technique to give you the impression that they reached out ǁŝƚŚĐŽŶĐĞƌŶĞĚƉĂƌƟĞƐĂŶĚ
only shared what they wanted to hear. Not their ĨƵůůǀĞƌƐŝŽŶĂŶĚŵŝƐƌĞƉƌĞƐĞŶƚĂƟŽŶŽĨƚŚĞŝƌŽƉŝŶŝŽŶ͘
WĂƌĞŶƚƐŚĂǀĞďƌŽƵŐŚƚƚŚŝƐƵƉǁŝƚŚƚŚĞWƌŝŶĐŝƉĂůĚƵƌŝŶŐǀĂƌŝŽƵƐŵĞĞƟŶŐƐĂƚƚŚĞƐƚĂƌƚŽĨƚŚĞƐĐŚŽŽůLJĞĂƌ͘
Q6: How will the propoƐĞĚĂŵĞŶĚŵĞŶƚĂīĞĐƚƚƌĂĸĐŐĞŶĞƌĂƟŽŶĂŶĚƚŚĞƚƌĂŶƐƉŽƌƚĂƟŽŶƐLJƐƚĞŵ͍
'ůĂǁƐƚĂƚĞƐ͖͞ůĂĐŬŵŽƵŶƚĂŝŶďůǀĚĂŶĚĞĞƌsĂůůĞLJĚƌŝǀĞĂƌĞďŽƚŚŵĂũŽƌĂƌƚĞƌŝĂůƐĂĚũĂĐĞŶƚƚŽƚŚĞ
ƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJ͘ƐƐƵĐŚ͕ůĂĐŬŵŽƵŶƚĂŝŶǀŝůůĂŐĞŝƐƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĂƚĂŶĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞůŽĐĂƟŽŶ͟
My RĞƐƉŽŶƐĞ: EŽƟĐĞŚŽǁƐŚŽƌƚƚŚŝƐĂŶƐǁĞƌŝƐĐŽŵƉĂƌĞĚƚŽĂůůƚŚĞŽƚŚĞƌĂŶƐǁĞƌƐ͘dŚĞLJĂƌĞŶŽƚĞǀĞŶ
ĚŝƌĞĐƚůLJĂĚĚƌĞƐƐŝŶŐƚŚĞĐŽƌĞŽĨLJŽƵƌƋƵĞƐƟŽŶ͘'ƌĞĂƚĂǀŽŝĚŝŶŐƚĞĐŚŶŝƋƵĞ of the hot potato.
See Appendix 1 – ƚŚĞƚƌĂĸĐŝƐƚĞƌƌŝďůĞĂƚƚŚĞŵŽŵĞŶƚ͕ĚƵƌŝŶŐĚƌŽƉŽī ĂŶĚƉŝĐŬƵƉƟŵĞƐ͕ĚƵƌŝŶŐƌƵƐŚ
hour, as drivers trying to avoid the 101 and 51 take Deer Valley and they use all of our community road
to take short cuts and therefor causing people speeding on mayo blvd and 40th street to get to where
ƚŚĞLJŶĞĞĚƚŽŐŽ͘tŝƚŚƚŚĞĂƩƌĂĐƟŽŶŽĨŐĂƐƐƚĂƟŽŶƐ͕ĨĂƐƚĨŽŽĚĂŶĚŐƌŽĐĞƌLJƐƚŽƌĞƐ͕ŵŽƌĞ(non resident)
people will start taking this route.
Qϴ͗ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJĞŶĞĮƚƐ͖,ŽǁĚŽĞƐƚŚĞƌĞƋƵĞƐƚĂĚĚƌĞƐƐƚŚĞĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJ͛ƐƵŶŝƋƵĞŽƉƉŽƌƚƵŶŝƟĞƐĂŶĚ
ĐŚĂůůĞŶŐĞƐ ƌĞůĂƚĞĚƚŽƉƌŽƐƉĞƌŝƚLJ͕ŚĞĂůƚŚĂŶĚƚŚĞĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚ͍^ĞĞƉĂŐĞƐϭϴ-26 in the Phoenix General
Plan
GBlaw States: One of the visions discussed in the PlanPhx 2015 General Plan, is to make Phoenix a
͞ŽŶŶĞĐƚĞĚKĂƐŝƐ͘͟Put another way, residents have expressed a desire for the City to have more places
ĂƚǁŚŝĐŚĐŝƟnjĞŶƐĐĂŶĐŽŶŶĞĐƚǁŝƚŚŽŶĞĂŶŽƚŚĞƌ. This new shopping center in the Desert Ridge area will
ƉƌŽǀŝĚĞƐƵĐŚĂƉůĂĐĞ͘DŽƌĞŽǀĞƌ͕ƚŚĞĂĚĚŝƟŽŶŽĨĂƌĞƚĂŝůƐŚŽƉƉŝŶŐĐĞŶƚĞƌƚŚĂƚĐĂŶŵŽƌĞĐŽŶǀĞŶŝĞŶƚůLJ
serve the weƐƚĞƌŶƉŽƌƟŽŶŽĨĞƐĞƌƚZŝĚŐĞǁŝůůƌĞĚƵĐĞƚƌĂŶƐƉŽƌƚĂƟŽŶďƵƌĚĞŶƐŽŶƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐƚŽƌĞĂĐŚ
ŐƌŽĐĞƌLJĂŶĚŽƚŚĞƌƌĞƚĂŝůŽƉƉŽƌƚƵŶŝƟĞƐ͖ƉŽƚĞŶƟĂůůLJŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞƚŚĞŚĞĂůƚŚŽĨĞƐĞƌƚZŝĚŐĞƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐďLJ
ƉƌŽǀŝĚŝŶŐĂĚĞƐƟŶĂƟŽŶƚŽǁŚŝĐŚƚŚĞLJĐĂŶǁĂůŬŽƌďŝŬĞĂŶĚƌĞĚƵĐĞƚŚe emissions from residents driving
to Desert Ridge Marketplace which can lead to a healthier environment͘ƌĞĚƵĐƟŽŶŝƐƚƌĂŶƐƉŽƌƚĂƟŽŶ
ďƵƌĚĞŶƐ͕ŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞĚŽƉƉŽƌƚƵŶŝƟĞƐĨŽƌĞdžĞƌĐŝƐĞĂŶĚĂĐůĞĂŶĞƌĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚůĞĂĚƚŽĂŶŽǀĞƌĂůůŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞŝŶ
health and prosperity.
DLJZĞƐƉŽŶƐĞ: This is pure nonsense as there has NOT been any survey done about what we want and
need or desire. And if they claim this, it can only been hearsay from a few residents close to this project
or overheard in ĂŶ,KďŽĂƌĚŵĞĞƟŶŐ͘EŽƚĞǀĞŶ ŽƵƌ,K͛ƐŚĂǀĞĚŽŶĞƐƵĐŚĂƐƵƌǀĞLJƚŽŐĂƚŚĞƌŝŶƉƵƚ
from their residents͘ '>ĂǁŽŶůLJƐƚĂƌƚĞĚƚŽŐĂƚŚĞƌƐŝŐŶĂƚƵƌĞƐĂƌŽƵŶĚ^ĞƉƚĞŵďĞƌ͕ǁŚŝůƐƚƚŚĞůĞƩĞƌŝƐ
dated July 1Ɛƚ͘
,ŽǁĞǀĞƌ͕ŝf you know anything about Aviano, Sky Crossing and my community Fireside, then you know
ƚŚŝƐĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJŝƐĂůƌĞĂĚLJǀĞƌLJĐŽŶŶĞĐƚĞĚƚŽƚŚĞŝƌŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐ͕ǁĞŚĂǀĞůŽŶŐƟŵĞƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐƚŚĂƚŚĂǀĞ
seen their kids grow up and go through each of the 3 schools in the area as well as many community
ĞǀĞŶƚƐƚŚĂƚĂƌĞŽƌŐĂŶŝnjĞĚby paid community directors every month where we all connect with each
other. &ŝƌĞǁŽƌŬĚŝƐƉůĂLJƐƉĂŝĚĨŽƌďLJ,K͛Ɛ͘KƵƌ,ĂůůŽǁĞĞŶĐĞůĞďƌĂƟŽŶƐĂƌĞŬŶŽǁŶƚŚƌŽƵŐŚŽƵƚWŚŽĞŶŝdž
ĂŶĚǁĞŚĂǀĞƚŽďůŽĐŬŽīŽƵƌƐƚƌĞĞƚƐƚŽĂĐĐŽŵŵŽĚĂƚĞĞǀĞryone safely.
dŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĂůŝƐŶŽƚƉƌŽŵŽƟŶŐĂŶLJŽĨƚŚĞƚŚŝŶŐƐƚŚĞLJĂĚǀĞƌƟƐĞ, nor will any of their proposed
ĐŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂůƉƌŽƉĞƌƟĞƐƉƌŽŵŽƚĞĂŶLJŶĞǁŚĞĂůƚŚLJĂĐƟǀŝƟĞƐĚƵĞƚŽƚŚĞŶĂƚƵƌĞŽĨƚŚĞ'ĂƐƐƚĂƟŽŶ͕&ĂƐƚĨŽŽĚ
restaurants and ŶŽŶĞŽĨƚŚĞϭϬϬ͕ϬϬϬƐƋŌŐrocery stores. dŚĞLJĂƌĞĞdžƉĞĐƟŶŐŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞĚƚƌĂĸĐĨŽƌƚŚĞŝƌ
tenants to be successful.
Other examples to promote these great goals outlined in your General Plan, are libraries and park areas
ĨŽƌŽƵƌĨĂŵŝůŝĞƐƚŚĂƚǁŝůůĂůůŽǁĐŽĂĐŚĞƐƚŽƌƵŶƚŚĞŝƌƉƌĂĐƟĐĞƐand young families to have play areas.
Q9͗,ŽǁǁŝůůƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĂŵĞŶĚŵĞŶƚĂīĞĐƚƚŚĞĐŚĂƌĂĐƚĞƌĂŶĚŝŵĂŐĞŽĨƚŚĞĂĚũĂĐĞŶƚĂƌĞĂ͕
ŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚ͕ĂŶĚǀŝůůĂŐĞ͍
GBlaw states: ͞dŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĂŵĞŶĚŵĞŶƚƐǁŝůůĂĚǀĂŶĐĞƚŚĞůĂŶĚƵƐĞƉƌŝŶĐŝƉůĞƐŝŶƚŚĞĞƐĞƌƚsŝĞǁ
VillĂŐĞŚĂƌĂĐƚĞƌWůĂŶĂŶĚƚŚĞĞƐĞƌƚZŝĚŐĞ^ƉĞĐŝĮĐWůĂŶ. The Desert View Village Character Area Plan
ŚĂƐƐĞǀĞƌĂůƉƌŝŶĐŝƉůĞƐƚŚĂƚĂƌĞƐƵƉƉŽƌƚĞĚďLJƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĂŵĞŶĚŵĞŶƚƐ͘dŚĞĮƌƐƚŝƐĂůĂŶĚƵƐĞƉƌŝŶĐŝƉůĞ
that suggests that new development in or near residenƟĂůĂƌĞĂƐƐŚŽƵůĚďĞĐŽŵƉĂƟďůĞǁŝƚŚĞdžŝƐƟŶŐƵƐĞƐ
and consistent with adopted plans. Next is a design principle that seeks to protect and enhance the
character of each neighborhood and its various housing lifestyles through new development that is
ĐŽŵƉĂƟble in scale, design, and appearance. Finally, the last principle is design-related and requires
impact-ŵŝƟŐĂƟŶŐĨĞĂƚƵƌĞƐǁŚĞŶŶĞǁŶŽŶƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƟĂůƵƐĞƐĂďƵƚĞdžŝƐƟŶŐƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƟĂůƵƐĞƐŽƌĂƌĞĂĚũĂĐĞŶƚ
to arterial streets or freeway corridors.”
DLJZĞƐƉŽŶƐĞ: These design principles should simply state –
1) KEKdh/>KDDZ/>WZKWZd/^EZ,/',E>DEdZz^,KK>^hdK
ŵĞŶƟŽŶĞĚŝƐĂƐŵĂůůǁĂůŬĨŽƌĂŶLJďŽĚLJ͕ƐŽĐůĂŝŵŝŶŐƚŚĞĚĞƐŝŐŶďĞŝŶŐ͞ĂǁĂLJ͟ĨƌŽŵƚŚĞƉƵďůŝĐ
ƐĐŚŽŽůŝƐũƵƐƚƉƵƫŶŐůŝƉƐƟĐŬŽŶĂƉŝŐ͘
2) KEKdh/>KDDZ/>WZKWZd/^/Ed,D/>K&ϯZ^Wd>KDDhE/d/^
hdKd,dZ&&/EZ/D^d,^dzW^K&WZK:d^Z/E'͘The grocery will be giving
ĂĐĐĞƐƐƚŽĂůĐŽŚŽůĂŶĚƚĂďĂĐĐŽŶĞĂƌƚŚĞƐĐŚŽŽůƐ͘dŚĞŐĂƐƐƚĂƟŽŶƐǁŝůůďƌŝŶŐhomeless people
3) d,ZEK/DWdD/d/'d/E'&dhZ^/E>h &KZEKEZ^/Ed/>h^^͘ In fact, the
ǀŝĂďŝůŝƚLJŽĨƚŚŝƐĐŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂůƉƌŽƉŽƐĂůŝƐĐŽƵŶƟŶŐŽŶŶŽŶƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐƚŽƐƚĂƌƚǀŝƐŝƟŶŐƚŚŝƐĂƌĞĂ͘
/ƚǁŝůůĂůƐŽĂīĞĐƚƚŚĞŝŵĂŐĞŽĨWŝŶŶĂĐůĞ,ŝŐŚ^ĐŚŽŽů͕ǁŚŝĐŚŝƐƉƵƫŶŐĂůŽƚŽĨĞīŽƌƚŝŶƚŽŝŶĐƌĞĂƐŝŶŐƚŚĞŝƌ
ŝŵĂŐĞĂŶĚƉƌŽǀŝĚĞƐƵƉĞƌŝŽƌĞĚƵĐĂƟon and is seeing increased enrollment numbers. This include the fact
ƚŚĂƚƐĐŚŽŽůƐĂƌĞŐƌĂĚĞĚŽŶƚŚĞŝƌƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐĂƩĞŶĚĂŶĐĞĂŶĚdĂƌĚŝŶĞƐƐ͘,ĂǀŝŶŐƚŚŝƐĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚŶĞdžƚĚŽŽƌ
will most certainly impact their school standings today.
YϭϬ͘ĚĚŝƟŽŶĂůĐŽŵŵĞŶƚƐĂs appropriate
GBlaw states͗sĞƐƚĂƌŚĂƐƌĞĐĞŝǀĞĚƉŽƐŝƟǀĞĨĞĞĚďĂĐŬĨƌŽŵƚŚĞĞƐĞƌƚZŝĚŐĞŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJƐƐŽĐŝĂƟŽŶ͘Ɛ
ƚŚĞ^ŝƚĞWůĂŶŚĂƐĞǀŽůǀĞĚ͕ƚŚĞĂƉƉůŝĐĂŶƚĂŶĚsĞƐƚĂƌŚĂǀĞŵĞƚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞƐƐŽĐŝĂƟŽŶŝŶŽƌĚĞƌƚŽŬĞĞƉƚŚĞŵ
informed and updated on the project. dŚĞĐŽŶƟŶƵŽƵƐƋƵĞƐƟŽŶƚŚĂƚŚĂƐďĞĞŶĂƐŬĞĚƚŚƌŽƵŐŚŽƵƚƚŚŝƐ
ŽƵƚƌĞĂĐŚŝƐ͞tŚĞŶǁŝůůLJŽƵƐƚĂƌƚĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶ͍͟The eagerness of this community to have shopping
ĂůƚĞƌŶĂƟǀĞƐ͕ŐƌŽĐĞƌLJŝŶƉĂƌƟĐƵůĂƌ͕ƐŝŵƉůLJĐĂŶŶŽƚďĞŽǀĞƌƐƚĂƚĞĚ͘
DLJZĞƐƉŽŶƐĞ͗ These ĂĚĚŝƟŽŶĂůĐŽŵŵĞŶƚƐĂƌĞ possibly based on the opinion of 1 person within the
ĞƐĞƌƚƌŝĚŐĞ,KďŽĂƌĚ͘dŚĞre will be no evidence to support these statements. In fact, every ,K
ŵĞĞƟŶŐ'ůĂǁŚĂƐĂƩĞŶĚĞĚ ĂŌĞƌƚŚĞŝŶŝƟĂůƉƵďůŝĐŚĞĂƌŝŶŐ͕ŚĂƐďĞĞŶŵĞƚǁŝƚŚ more ŽƉƉŽƐŝƟŽŶ. There is
ZERO EAGERNESS by this community, demonstrated by all the emails you have been receiving on this
proposal ĂŶĚĨƵƌƚŚĞƌƐƚƌĞŶŐƚŚĞŶĞĚďLJƚŚĞǀŽƚĞƐŽŶŽƵƌƉĞƟƟŽŶĂŶĚƉĞŽƉůĞƚŚĂƚŚĂǀĞŽƌǁŝůůďĞƐƉĞĂŬŝŶŐ
ĂƚƚŚĞƉƵďůŝĐŵĞĞƟŶŐƐ͘ (Appendix 5)
ƵƚĮƌƐƚĂŶĚĨŽƌĞŵŽƐƚ͕ƚŚĞŽƉƉŽƐŝƟŽŶƚŽƚŚŝƐƉƌŽƉŽƐĂů underlines that this proposal might be a classic
bait-and-switch and they assumed this would slide under radar of this community. They were wrong.
Wd/d/KE^ͬ^ŽĐŝĂůDĞĚŝĂͬĚǀĞƌƟƐŝŶŐ͗
In respŽŶƐĞƚŽǀĂƌŝŽƵƐĂĚƐĂŶĚǁĞďƐŝƚĞĂĐƟǀŝƚLJďLJsĞƐƚĂƌĂŶĚ'ůĂǁ͕ŽƵƌĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJŚĂƐƐĞƚƵƉŽƵƌŽǁŶ
website ( ŚƩƉƐ͗ͬͬĚĞĨĞŶĚĚĞƐĞƌƚƌŝĚŐĞ͘ŐŽĚĂĚĚLJƐŝƚĞƐ͘ĐŽŵͬ ͿĂŶĚŽƵƌWĞƟƟŽŶŽŶŚĂŶŐĞ͘ŽƌŐ ĂŶĚ,ĂŶĚ
ǁƌŝƩĞŶƐŝŐŶĂƚƵƌĞƉĞƟƟŽŶƐ ƚŽŵĂŬĞƐƵƌĞƚŚĂƚǁĞĂƌĞŶŽƚƵŶĚĞƌĐƵƚďLJƚŚŝƐĐŽƌƉŽƌĂƟŽŶƐƚĂĐƟĐƐƚŽƐŚŽǁ
support. Residents cannot match their corporate budget and social media skills, but we hope that you
ƐĞĞƚŚĂƚĞīŽƌƚƐǁĞƌĞŵĂde on our side and that it should be weighed more.
>>ŽĨƚŚĞŝƌĂĐƟǀŝƚLJƚŽďĂĐŬƵƉƚŚĞŝƌƐƚĂƚĞŵĞŶƚƐ͕ĂƌĞd&dZƚŚĞŝƌ͞džƉůĂŶĂƟŽŶ>ĞƩĞƌ͕͟ƚŚƵƐƚŚĞ
statements and references made to our community’s eagerness for this, has been vastly overstated.
We have since also seen ǀĂƌŝŽƵƐĂĚƐƐŚŽǁƵƉŽŶŽƵƌ&ĂĐĞŬĂŶĚŽƚŚĞƌƐŽĐŝĂůŵĞĚŝĂƉůĂƞŽƌŵƐ(
Appendix 2) that ƉĂŝŶƚĂ͞ĚƌĞĂŵ͟ĂƉƉĞĂůŝŶŐƚŽĂƌĂŶĚŽŵƉƵďůŝĐƚŚĂƚƚŚŝƐŝƐĂŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚŐƌŽĐĞƌ͕ǁŚĞŶ
the fact is that it could be 50,000-ϭϬϬ͕ϬϬϬƐƋŌŐƌŽĐĞƌ͘dŚŝƐ ŝƐŶĞǀĞƌŵĞŶƟŽŶĞĚĂŶLJǁŚĞƌĞ͘ŐĂƐƐƚĂƟŽŶŝƐ
ŶĞǀĞƌŵĞŶƟŽŶĞĚĂŶLJǁŚĞƌĞ͘ The audience they target could be outside of Desert Ridge.
Other ads ůĞĂĚƚŽĂƉĞƟƟŽŶŽŶŚĂŶŐĞ͘ŽƌŐ͕ǁŚŝĐŚŝŶƚƵƌŶŚĂƐĂůŝŶŬďĂĐŬƚŽƚŚĞ'ůĂǁǁĞďƐŝƚĞŝŶŽƌĚĞƌ
to submit support emails. (Appendix 3 & 4)
x dŚĞƌĞŝƐEKsĂůŝĚĂƟŽŶǁŚĞƌĞƚŚĞƐĞĞŵĂŝůƐĂƌĞĐŽŵŝŶŐĨƌŽŵ͘
x dŚĞƌĞŝƐEKsĂůŝĚĂƟŽŶǁŚĞƚŚĞƌĂŶLJŽĨƚŚĞƐƵďŵŝƐƐŝŽŶƐĂƌĞĐŽŵŝŶŐĨƌŽŵĂƵƚŽŵĂƚĞĚƐŽŌǁĂƌĞ
x dŚĞƌĞŝƐEKsĂůŝĚĂƟŽŶ– if they were real people – where they live and even part of desert ridge
x dŚĞLJ͛ƌĞƐŚĂƌŝŶŐǀĞƌLJůŝƩůĞŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƟŽŶĂďŽƵƚƚŚĞĨƵůůƐĐŽƉĞŽĨƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚ.
/EKE>h^/KE
I’m completely blown away by the amounƚŽĨĞīŽƌƚƚŚĂƚƚŚĞƐĞĂƩŽƌŶĞLJƐĂŶĚĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞƌƐƉƵƚďĞŚŝŶĚƚŚĞŝƌ
proposals in order to ruin neighborhoods, endanger school areas, and ŶĞŐĂƟǀĞůLJŝŵƉĂĐƚƐŽƵŐŚƚĂŌĞƌ
ĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƟĞƐĨŽƌƚŚĞŝƌƉƌŽĮƚƐ͘
dŚĞƌĞŝƐŶŽĞĂŐĞƌŶĞƐƐŝŶƚŚŝƐĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJĂŶĚŽŶůŝŶĞƉĞƟƟŽŶƐĂŶĚŚĂŶĚǁƌŝƩĞŶƐŝŐŶĂƚƵƌĞƐƵŶĚĞƌůŝŶĞƚŚĂƚ
ƚŚŝƐƉƌŽƉŽƐĂůǁĂƐďĂƐĞĚŽŶŵŝƐŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƟŽŶĂŶĚŶŽƚƐƵďƐƚĂŶƟĂƚĞĚďLJĂŶLJƌĞƐĞĂƌĐŚŽĨĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJŶĞĞĚƐ͘
/ƐŝŶĐĞƌĞůLJŚŽƉĞƚŚĂƚƚŚĞŝƚLJWůĂŶŶĞƌ͕ŝƚLJWůĂŶŶŝŶŐŽŵŵŝƩĞĞĂŶĚŝƚLJŽƵŶĐŝůǁŝůůƐĞĞƚŚŝƐ
ĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĨŽƌǁŚĂƚŝƚŝƐĂŶĚŽƉƉŽƐĞƚŚĞnjŽŶŝŶŐĐŚĂŶŐĞ͕ǁŝƚŚŽƵƚĐŽŵƉƌŽŵŝƐĞ. There is nothing that
ǁŝůůďĞĂĐĐĞƉƚĞĚďLJƚŚŝƐĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJ͕ŽƚŚĞƌƚŚĂŶƚŚĞĐƵƌƌĞŶƚnjŽŶing.
WůĞĂƐĞĚĞĐůŝŶĞƚŚĞĞŶƟƌĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĂůŝŶĂůůŝƚƐĨŽƌŵƐĂŶĚŬĞĞƉƚŚĞƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƟĂůnjŽŶŝŶŐĂƐŝƚŝƐ͕Žƌpro-ĂĐƟǀĞůLJ
work with our community directly ƚŽĮŶĚĂŵŽƌĞǀĂůƵĂďůĞƵƐĞĨŽƌƚŚŝƐůĂŶĚĂƌŽƵŶĚWŝŶŶĂĐůĞŚŝŐŚƐĐŚŽŽů
ĂŶĚŶĞĂƌŽƵƌϯĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƟĞƐ and stop any incoming future proposals immediately.
Sincerely,
Wouter Roodenburg
APPENDIX 1: TRAFFIC CONGESTION and COMMERCIAL ZONING
APPENDIX 2 – FACEBOOK ADS
dŚĞLJĂƌĞŵŝƐƌĞƉƌĞƐĞŶƟŶŐƚŚĞĨƵůůƉůĂŶŽĨƚŚŝƐƉƌŽƉŽƐĂůŝŶŽƌĚĞƌƚŽŐĞƚƉĞŽƉůĞƚŽǀŽƚĞĨŽƌƚŚŝƐ͘
WWE/yϯ'ůĂǁƐƵďŵŝƐƐŝŽŶĨŽƌŵĂŶĚƉĞƟƟŽŶ Link
APPENDIX 4 – 'ďůĂǁƉĞƟƟŽŶ͗BRING NEW GROCER ƉĞƟƟŽŶ;ƉĞƌϵͬϭϵͬϮϯͿ
ŚƩƉƐ͗ͬͬǁǁǁ͘ĐŚĂŶŐĞ͘ŽƌŐͬƉͬŚĞůƉ-bring-a-new-grocer-to-desert-ridge-please-sign-our-ƉĞƟƟŽŶ
This was started in Septembeƌ͕ĂĨƵůůϮŵŽŶƚŚƐĂŌĞƌƚŚĞůĞƩĞƌŽĨĞdžƉůĂŶĂƟŽŶǁĂƐƐĞŶĚ͘
APPENDIX 5 – RESIDENTS PETITION : KƉƉŽƐĞŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂůƌĞnjŽŶŝŶŐŝŶĞƐĞƌƚZŝĚŐĞ
ŚƩƉƐ͗ͬͬǁǁǁ͘ĐŚĂŶŐĞ͘ŽƌŐͬƉͬŽƉƉŽƐĞ-commercial-ƌĞnjŽŶŝŶŐ-in-desert-ridge
^ŽĨĂƌǁĞŚĂǀĞdt/ƚŚĞƐƵƉƉŽƌƚƚŽŽƉƉŽƐĞƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĂů͕ĞdžĐůƵĚŝŶŐǁƌŝƩen signatures.
WWE/yϲĞƐĞƌƚZŝĚŐĞ^ƉĞĐŝĮĐWůĂŶ– Current Plan around 3 acre neighborhood centers
NOTE: I thought it would be helpful to include these chapters around the original intent of neighborhood
convenience commercial.
1) Convenience commercial NOT more then 3 acres max
2) Neighborhood convenience store can be ϱϬϬϬƐƋŌŵĂdž;ƐĞĞƐŝƚĞĚĞƐŝŐŶͿ NOT 100,000
3) Away from Arterial streets
4) No Drive Through
5) Only Beer/Wine allowed
Appendix 7 – ĞƐĞƌƚZŝĚŐĞ^ƉĞĐŝĮĐWůĂŶ– Public Facility Plan
This chapter describes the provisions for public ĨĂĐŝůŝƟĞƐůŝŬĞZŝĚĞ-and-Go and Libraries
These are currently in the planning and would increase our sense of community.
What if a Planning Commission would decide to put library next to 2 schools for kids to go to.
tŚĂƚĂŐƌĞĂƚĐŽŶĐĞƉƚĂŶĚŝƚĮƚƐƌŝŐŚƚinto the goal of bringing a neighborhood together.
Also – please note that in this version of the plan, a Park and Ride parking lot is showing on the proposed
site. Why wouldn’t we want to do that and execute the plan.
Appendix 8 – EĞǁƌŽƉŽīZŽƵƚĞ
From: js
To: Anthony M Grande; Council District 2 PCC; PDD Long Range Planning
Cc: Katie Shashaguay
Subject: Vestar Rezoning near Sky Crossing- Not your normal opposition email
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 9:06:42 AM
Attachments: image.png
Hello Anthony,
As a homeowner in the Sky Crossings community I am writing to you today to voice my
concerns about the rezoning proposed by Vestar development for the plot of land on the corner
of Black Mountain and Deer Valley.
My intention with this email may be a bit different than some others that are opposing
the rezoning as I am only opposed to the change based on the current guidelines. The
concerns I have are with the lack of limitations placed on the development proposed and
the traffic patterns suggested for nearby residents. Let me explain.
As I understand it the Max sq footage of the proposed grocery store would be 100,000 sq ft. In
my opinion this is far too large for the community. I would be in favor if the max sq ft was
closer to 50,000 as this would attract a smaller more neighborhood friendly store and
allow more retail space for local businesses which serve to bring the community together
better than a big grocery.
This would even lend itself to a development plan that could recreate more of a "main
street" feel with business lining a small street. It would be nice to incorporate a small park
for people to gather or even a space for organized neighborhood gatherings and events. It
could be a destination, within walking distance, for the community to gather, shop, eat and for
kids to play. There is nothing like that nearby currently that brings all of the nearby
neighborhoods together.
My other major concern is the traffic pattern proposed.
There would be no way for someone leaving that development to get to Sky Crossing without
taking a U-turn or cutting across traffic to get to a turn lane. This could be remedied by
extending the proposed Mayo Blvd improvements all the way to 32nd street as then there
would be a light allowing people to safely exit the area in either direction.
In summations, I would love to see that entire space (see pic below) turned into a retail /
public use space that would include a small grocery, shopping, a park, a small amphitheater
for neighborhood concerts and events. I'd like to see something that welcomes neighbors in
and encourages us to spend time (and $$) as a community, building friendships and
memories together as our kids grow up.
This is an opportunity to do something different and set a precedent for neighborhood
planning and development to come.
I understand that the highlighted area is larger than what's proposed but wouldn't it be a great
place to bring people together?
Thanks for your time .
Jovan Shashaguay
Sky Crossing resident
312-450-5450- feel free to call anytime
From: Susan Diamant
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: No
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 9:43:14 PM
Dear Sir,
I have been a Desert Ridge resident since 2001. During this time i’ve gotten married, had a child and she has
enjoyed the relaxed
family environment that these neighborhoods currently provide and well as safety and bike riding.
Please consider the values that this neighborhood has offered and desired prior to this refining issue. Some thing are
best left alone and this neighborhood is one of those places here in the valley.
Sincerely,
Susan
Sent from my iPhone
From: Robin Bowie
To: Council District 2 PCC
Cc: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Rezoning of 20.52 acres
Date: Friday, September 22, 2023 10:36:26 AM
Dear Councilman Waring and Mr. Grande:
My name is Robin Bowie and I have been a resident of Desert Ridge since 2004. My
husband, Charlie Bowie, was the former President of Toll Brothers Arizona Division and
worked closely with the City of Phoenix and the Planning Commission to build one of the best
master planned communities in Arizona, Aviano.
I wanted to voice my concerns about the rezoning of approximately 20.52 acres located at the
southwest corner of Black Mountain Boulevard and Deer Valley Drive (GPA-DSTV-2-23-2
(Companion Cases GPA-DSTV-3-23-2 and Z-39-23-2).
By rezoning this parcel from Residential 2 to 5 dwelling units per acre to Commercial directly
affects the following:
1. The already problematic traffic in the morning and afternoons with the school start and stop
times. The newer drivers from Pinnacle High School navigating that area on a daily basis will
be at even more at risk with the additional traffic from the shopping center, especially if a
coffee shop (as was eluded to by Vestar’s attorney at the August 1st Planning Committee
meeting) will be put there.
2. The possibility of a gas station being added to the Plan really is the worst of the worst. Now
you are talking light pollution, large noisy trucks delivering the fuel and supplies, as well as
possible contamination of the soil with any gas or oil leaks. And then there is the vagrancy
issue. The homeless and panhandling has already been an issue sprouting up in Desert Ridge
and now with the new shopping center they will start migrating there.
3. Crime - inevitable things that happen when there is a shopping center. And add to that the
proximity of the on/off ramp of SR51. That exit will then be used by more vehicles who will
want to use that shopping center, especially if there is a gas station there. I would also think
that having a shopping center right next to the high school would draw those same kids into
becoming a nuisance as well. Just ask anyone about the teen problem at the Marketplace and
how Target had to hire a Police Officer to guard their store with all of the teens hanging out
there. And the same holds true for adding a fast food chain. Look at what happened a few
months ago at In and Out Burger with the teens getting into fights and the young man who lost
all of his front teeth. Teens are going to be teens but again, why do we want to bring that right
into the middle of our neighborhood.
5. By adding a “boutique” or any other grocery store you have the issue of loading docks and
large semi-trucks coming in the middle of the night with their loud engines and beeping noises
unloading merchandise so close to the houses in that general vicinity.
The project summary on the Gammage & Burnham website claims: “growing demand and
need for additional commercial and retail options in the Desert Ridge area.” Desert Ridge
Marketplace already encompasses a large parcel of land, High Street with its restaurants,
shops and a small grocery store and add to that City North which is currently in the developing
stages. “City North will be an “urban core” that upon completion will bring over 3,400
additional apartment units, over 2 million square feet of Class A office development along the
Loop 101 freeway, ±1,000 hotel rooms and several new restaurants to the heart of the Desert
Ridge, Arizona's largest master planned community.” (This paragraph copied from
https://www.citynorthdesertridge.com/ [citynorthdesertridge.com]). Desert Ridge has plenty
of “additional and retail options” especially given the fact that it is already becoming more and
more dense with traffic from the existing Marketplace, the new housing all along 56th Street,
as well as Deer Valley Road, City North, and the new apartments slated for the Northeast
corner of Tatum/Deer Valley.
I personally have spoken to several homeowners and they are all in agreement that this is not
wanted or needed. I have signed the Petition that is currently circling the area. I understand
that the Developer is going from door to door looking to convince the neighbors that this is a
good idea.
It is my hope that the Planning Committee will take my comments and the comments of the
other neighbors who are signing the petition and writing letters into consideration when
making their decision on whether or not to rezone this parcel. When I moved to Desert Ridge
back in 2004 everything surrounding Aviano was zoned residential. I have watched all of the
new developments come to life around me. I’m fine with that and am not a NIMBY. My
husband was a builder. The people most directly affected by this, the ones whose properties
will look at or back to this new shopping center, do not deserve this. Residents purchased
their homes in this community assuming that, according to the Public Report given to every
homeowner purchasing a home, that this parcel was zoned residential, not commercial.
Pinnacle High School has been and continues to be bursting at the seams. The parking
situation is such that there is not enough parking for all of the students, the pickup and drop-
off to the school is a nightmare and if there are any school events there is not enough parking
for all of the attendees. If any zoning modifications are going to be made to this piece it
should be that the State Trust Land Department should either donate a a piece of this land to
the school or possibly have the school district buy it.
I had suggested, as did others at the Public Meeting held on August 1, 2023 that Vestar should
look into the parcel that is at the southwest corner of Pinnacle Peak Road and Cave Creek
Road. There are plenty of houses surrounding that area to support a shopping center there.
Vestar is not looking to make the lives of the residents in this neighborhood better by having
things more convenient for them, they are looking at how much more money this will make
for them. Commercial development belongs on the outside of a neighborhood, not smack dab
in the middle. Convenience comes at a price and I for one do not want to pay that price. I’m
happy to get in my car and drive 3-5 minutes to get gas, groceries, coffee and fast food.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Robin Bowie
Hague Partners
602.329.9005 MOBILE
From: Jost, Kevin
To: Anthony M Grande; Council District 2 PCC; PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: Deer Valley/Black Mountain Development Plans?
Date: Friday, September 22, 2023 3:56:56 PM
Importance: High
Hello Mr. Grande and City Councilman Waring,
I wanted to write and let you know that hundreds of people are having discussions around the land
that is just north of Deer Valley Road and west of Black Mountain Blvd in North Phoenix (Zip 85050).
There is so much discussion and misleading information that is getting shared across social media
platforms and even legal firms are sending out notes to try and persuade residents in our
communities to be in favor of new land development.
I moved to Arizona 12 years ago and built a home in the Fireside Community, I also have lived in the
Aviano community and now live in the Sky Crossing community. I’m very much opposed to building
out a large grocery store & gas station/fast food mall/commercial development on this patch of
land.
If you need any further information from me, please let me know.
Thanks for listening and I look forward to meeting you on October 3rd.
Kevin
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential
and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon,
this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact
the sender and delete the material from any computer. If you do not wish to receive future correspondence from Molson Coors,
please click here and type "REMOVE" in the subject line. For more details, contact us. [molsoncoors.com] Molson Coors Brewing
Company is a publicly held corporation on the New York Stock Exchange.
L’information transmise s’adresse uniquement à la personne ou l’entité qui en est le destinataire et peut contenir de l'information
confidentielle et/ou privilégiée. Il est strictement interdit à quiconque n’en est pas le destinataire, d’en prendre connaissance, de
la retransmettre, de la disséminer ou d’en faire quelque autre usage, ou d’agir sur la foi de telle information. Si vous avez reçu
cette transmission par erreur, veuillez s.v.p. en aviser l'expéditeur et effacer la présente de la mémoire de tout ordinateur. Si vous
ne désirez plus recevoir de futures correspondances de la part de Molson Coors, s.v.p. Cliquez ici et indiquer ‘’RETIRER’’ dans
l’objet du message. Pour plus de détails, contactez-nous. [molsoncoors.com]Molson Coors Brewing Company est une société
ouverte cotée à la Bourse de New York.
From: Melissa Resslar Mitschke
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Proposed Redevelopment at Black Mountain and Deer Valley
Date: Friday, September 22, 2023 12:03:27 PM
Hello Mr. Grande- I am a resident in the Sky Crossing subdivision, which is to the north of the
proposed redevelopment of the land that is at the southwest corner of Deer Valley and Black
Mountain. I am writing to express my concerns regarding the proposed redevelopment.
1. Traffic Concerns :Traffic during the school year between the hours of 7:10-7:30 am and
2:00-3:00 pm is already very high in the immediate area. It is considerably worse
during that afternoon block, as there are a large number of parents in the area to pick
their high schoolers up from school. This makes it very difficult to get through the
intersection. In addition, high school students are haphazardly crossing major streets
during this time. Two students were hit by vehicles last year while trying to cross the
street. While I understand that this is somewhat of an issue for PV schools to figure out,
it seems as if the developer has not addressed this other than to acknowledge that there
will be increased traffic in the area. I would encourage members of the planning
committee to drive by that area during those times to get a sense of the congestion. My
hope is that if the redevelopment is approved, the developer agrees to fund and construct
a walkway over Deer Valley (similar to the one over Black Mountain) so that the high
school students walking from Sky Crossing can safely make it to school. Unfortunately,
there is no bus service for these students due to the close proximity of the school and the
increased traffic is only going to make it more dangerous for them.
2. Liquor Sales: It is my understanding that the developer is asking for a variance from the
liquor law rules in order to be able to develop the space to include a gas station, grocery
store and restaurants that serve alcohol. I would encourage the committee to consider
the fact that there is a high school within the immediate vicinity and a large potential for
children to attempt to illegally purchase alcohol.
3. Aesthetic Concerns: Understanding the high likelihood that this land will be re-zoned,
my hope is that it can be developed in a thoughtful way that takes into account the
aesthetics of the area and the high property values of the nearby homes. This could
include a small/higher end grocery store (like an AJs or Whole Foods) with higher end
restaurants and shops rather than the developer seeking to maximize their profit on the
space by including a gas station, fast-food restaurants, large grocery store
(Frys/Safeway), etc. The noise, light and traffic coming from the area will definitely
change the aesthetic of the area, so anything that can be done to minimize that would be
appreciated.
Thank you for your time,
Melissa Mitschke
22614 N. Cave Butte Street, Phoenix 85050
From: wroodenburg@cox.net
To: Anthony M Grande; PDD Long Range Planning
Cc: Council District 2 PCC
Subject: Defend Desert Ridge - Oppose Commercial rezoning in Desert Ridge : Petition Results
Date: Friday, September 22, 2023 12:17:45 AM
Attachments: petition_DefendDesertRidge.pdf
petition_signatures_DefendDesertRidge.pdf
Please find attached the petition results with regards to Black Mountain Village case : GPA-DSTV-
2-23-2 and Case GPA-DSTV-3-23-2 and Case Z-39-23-2
These 473 votes opposing the proposal are not the final results but our residents wanted to make
sure it makes it into the case file for the October 3rd meeting.
Petition · Oppose Commercial rezoning in Desert Ridge · Change.org [change.org]
Kind regards,
Wouter.
WĞƚŝƚŝŽŶ
&ƌŝĚĂLJ͕^ĞƉƚĞŵďĞƌϮϮ͕ϮϬϮϯ ϭϮ͗ϬϱD
Black Mountain Village Page 1
Black Mountain Village Page 2
EĂŵĞ ŝƚLJ ^ƚĂƚĞ WŽƐƚĂůŽĚĞ ŽƵŶƚƌLJ ^ŝŐŶĞĚKŶ
ĞĨĞŶĚĞƐĞƌƚZŝĚŐĞ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
ůŝnjĂŽnjnjĞůůŝ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
ĂŶĚLJ,ĂŵĞƌͲ,ƵĞƚŚĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϰ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
dĂLJůŽƌDŽƌŐĂŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϵ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
ƌŝĞůůĞĂŵ <ĂŝůƵĂ ϵϲϳϯϰ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
ŵŝůLJ^ŚĞĞƚƐ ŽůƵŵďƵƐ ϰϯϮϯϭ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
tĂŝƐĂĚƌĂŶ ůŽƌĂĚŽ,ŝůůƐ ϵϱϳϲϮ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
ZŽďŝŶ,ĂƌĚŝŶŐ DŝůĨŽƌĚ ϭϳϱϳ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
ŐǁLJŶĞƚŚƌŽůŝŶƐ <ĂŝůƵĂ<ŽŶĂ ϵϲϳϰϬ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
ŐĞŽƌŐĞǀŽŶŐ EŽƌĐƌŽƐƐ ϯϬϬϵϯ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
WĞƚƌŽsŽůŽŬŚ ^ŝůǀĞƌ^ƉƌŝŶŐ ϮϬϵϬϰ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
<ĂƌĞŶ^ŵŝƚŚ /ŶĚŝĂŶĂƉŽůŝƐ ϰϲϮϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
ŽƌĞĞŶ'ĂƌƚŶĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϭϱ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
^ƵƐĂŶĞ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
>ĂƌƌLJ'ĂƌƚŶĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϭϱ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
ZŽďĞƌƚ^ĐŚŵŝƚnj WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
'ĂďďLJĂŵŽƌĂ tŚŝƚƚŝĞƌ ϵϬϲϬϯ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
ZŽƐŝĞ>ŽƉĞnj >ĂƐsĞŐĂƐ ϴϵϭϰϮ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
ƐŽƉŚŝůŝĂĂƐŚůĞLJ ^ŚŽŶƚŽ ϴϲϬϱϰ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
<ĂLJůĂ^ŚƵĐŚ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϮϵ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
DĂƌƚŝŶĂ'ŽƌŵĂŶ 'ĂŶĂĚŽ ϴϲϱϬϱ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
,ĞĂƚŚĞƌDĐŽŶŽƵŐŚ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
ĂŶZŝĐŚĂƌĚƐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
:ŽǀĂŶ^ŚĂƐŚĂŐƵĂLJ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
DŝĐŚĂĞůŽƉƉŽůĂ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
ƵƐƚŝŶtĂƌĚ ŽƌǀĂůůŝƐ KZ ϵϳϯϯϬ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
WƌĂǀĞĞŶDĂŚĂĚĞǀĂŝĂŚ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
ZĂũĞƐŚ'ĂĚĚĞ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϲ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
ZĂũĞŶĚƌĂĂŶĚĂ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
<ĂǀŝƚĂŚĂŶĚĂŬ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
ƌǀŝŶĚ^ŚĂƌŵĂ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
DĂŚŝƚŚĂsĂůůƵƌŝ ĞƐĞƌƚƌŝĚŐĞ ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
ZŽŚŝƚŐŐĂƌǁĂů >ŽƐŶŐĞůĞƐ ϵϬϬϲϬ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
ĂƚƚĂƚƌĂLJĂ<ĂůĞ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
DƌŝŶĂůŝŶŝ<ĂůĞ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
sŝŶĞƐŚ^ŽŶŝ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϵ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
<ƌŝƐŚĂŶ<ƵŵĂƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
^ŚĂ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
<ƌŝƐƚĞŶŽŵďĞƐ &ŝƐŚĞƌƐ /E ϰϲϬϯϴ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
ZĂƐŚŵŝsĂŝĚLJĂ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
'ŽŵĂƚŚŝ^ĞůǀĂŵ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϯ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
EĂŶĚŝƚĂ<ŚĞƌĂ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
sŝŶ<ŽĚĞ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
<ĂůLJĂŶŝDŽŽůĂ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϭϳ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
WƌĂĚĞĞƉŚĂŶĚƌĂ ^ŬLJƌŽƐƐŝŶŐ ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
^ŝůƉĂůĂƉĂƚŝ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
WƌĂŬĂƐŚ<ĂŶŶĂŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϵ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
ŽůůLJzĂůĂŵĂŶĐŚŝ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϴ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
WŽŽũĂǀĞƌŵĂZĂũƉƵƚ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
ƌŝĐĂŵŬŽ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
,Ăƚŝŵ<ĂƉĂĚŝĂ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϴ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
DĂŶŝŬĂWĂƚĞů WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϯϲ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
^ĂŵD WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
EĞĞƌĂũŚĂŶĚĂŬ WŚŝĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
sĂƌƵŶ:ŝŶĚĂů WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
^ƌĂsĂŶĂ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
DĂƚƚŚĞǁŚŝƚǁŽŽĚ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
ZĂũƵKŵŬĂƌĂŵ ,ŝŐŚůĂŶĚWĂƌŬ /> ϲϬϬϯϱ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
ŵLJDŝƚĐŚĞůů 'ŝůďĞƌƚ ϴϱϮϵϱ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
ƌĐŚĂŶĂEĂŐĂƌĂũĂŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
DĂďƌLJŝŐŐƐ ^ƉƌŝŶŐ,ŝůů ϯϳϭϳϰ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
ůĞĐtŝůĞLJ ůďĂŶLJ ϭϮϮϬϴ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
DĂƌŝĂŬĂƌůĂ'ŽŵĞnj ,ŽůůLJǁŽŽĚ ϯϯϬϮϬ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
ŶŶĂ>ĂŝĚůĞƌ ĂƐƚ^ƚƌŽƵĚƐďƵƌŐ ϭϴϯϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
WŽũĂ^ŝŶŐŚǀũ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
ĂǀŝĚdƵĐŬĞƌ ŽŽŶĞ ϱϬϬϯϲ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
KůůŝĞ<ĞƚƚůĞ ĂƌƌŝŶŐƚŽŶ ϲϬϬϭϬ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
<ĂƌĞŶDĂƌƚŝŶ ZŽĂŶŽŬĞ ϮϰϬϭϱ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
ŽŶŶŽƌDĂĐĂůƵƐŽ DĂƌŝŽŶ ϰϯϯϬϮ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
WĞĞƐŚƚŝ ůŚĂŵďƌĂ ϵϭϴϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
ŵLJŶĂŵũĞĨ tĞƐƚWůĂŝŶƐ ϲϱϳϳϱ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
ůǀŝĞtŝůůŝĂŵƐ ŽůƵŵďƵƐ ϯϭϵϬϳ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
ůŝnjĂďĞƚŚtĞƌŬƐƚĞůů WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
ůĞdžŽǁůĞƐ hƌďĂŶĂ ϰϯϬϳϴ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
ĚĂŵ&ƌŝĞĚůĂŶĚĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
^ŚĞůůĞLJ&ůĞĐŬLJ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
:ƵƐƚŝŶWŽƉŶŽĞ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
:ĞĨĨƌĞLJ>ĞŝƚŶĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϭϳ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
DŝŬĞŽnjnjĞůůŝ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
DŝĐŚĂĞůĂƵƐĐŚŬĂ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϯ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
^ƵƐĂŶ^ŵŝƚŚ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
ŵŝĞDŝŬƐƚĂ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
:ĞĨĨDŝŬƐƚĂ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
:ŽŚŶĂƐůĞƌ >ŽƐŶŐĞůĞƐ ϵϬϬϲϬ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
>ĂƵƌĂZŝĐŚĂƌĚƐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
ŚƌŝƐƚŝZŽďŝŶƐŽŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϴ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
>ŽŬĞƐŚŶĂŶĚ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
WƌĞƌŶĂDĞŚůĂ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
<ĞƌƌLJĂŬĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
ƌĐŚĂŶĂ'ĂŶŐĂĚŚĂƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
^ƵƐĂŶ^ŚĞƌŽĨĨ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϰϭ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
EĂƚĂůŝĞtĂůŬĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
DŽŬŚƚĂƌŽƵŬŚĂƌŝ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
,ĞŝĚŝsĂŶEĞǁŬŝƌŬ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ƵďĂŝƌ^ŚŽƌĂ DŝĂŵŝ ϯϯϭϵϳ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
>ŝŶĚƐĞLJWƌŽĐŬ DLJƌƚůĞĞĂĐŚ Ϯϵϱϴϴ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
^ƵĐŚŝƚŚƌĂ<ƵŵĂƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
dĂŝLJĂtŽŽĚĞŶ ,ŽůůLJǁŽŽĚ ϯϯϬϮϳ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
:ŽƐĞƉŚĂŶĚůŽ <ĂŶƐĂƐŝƚLJ ϲϲϭϬϰ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ŝĞŐŽDŽƌĂůĞƐ >ŽƐŶŐĞůĞƐ ϵϬϬϮϴ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
:ŽƵƌŶĞLJ:ŽŚŶƐŽŶ DŽƵůƚƌŝĞ ϯϭϳϲϴ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
dŽŵ'ĞŽƌŐĞ ZŽǁůĞƚƚ ϳϱϬϴϵ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ŽƵƌƚŶĞLJKƐĂŬŝ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
>ŝǀĂŶWĞƌĂnjĂ DŝĂŵŝ ϯϯϭϯϴ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
tŽƵƚĞƌZŽŽĚĞŶďƵƌŐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
DĂŶŵĞĞƚƵŐŐĂů WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
^ĂƌĂŚ:ĞǁĞƚƚ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
<ĂŵŶĂ'ĂƵƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
EĞĞƌĂũhŵĂƌũŝŬĂƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
tĞŶũŝĞdĂŶŐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϭϲ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
>ƵůƵtĂŶŐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
zƵŚŝĞŚWŚĂŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϭϲ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
WĞƚĞƌ<ŚƵƵ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
<ĂƚĞůLJŶŚĞŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
DĂŶ&ĞŶŐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
DĞůŝƐƐĂZƵĞƚƚĞŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϭϲ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
DĂƌLJ^ŚƵůůĂǁ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
<ĂƌŝtŝůůŝĂŵƐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϯϲ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ŝũƵDŽŶWĂLJLJĂƉƉŝůůLJWĂƵůŽƐĞ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ZĂƐŚŝŐĂƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϳ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ŶĚƌĞĂ<ĞĞŐĂŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
^ĂƌĂDŝůůĞƚƚ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
DĂƌŝƐĂKŽŶŶŽƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϯ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ƌĂĚĞƌŐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ZĞďĞĐĐĂDĂƵĐŬ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ZĞŵŝĞ>ŽƵĚLJ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϵ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ĂŶŝĞůĂĞƚĂŶĐŽƵƌƚ ,ŽůůĂŶĚ ϰϵϰϮϯ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
DĂƌŐĂƌĞƚůůĞŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ĚĚŝƐŽŶ^ƉƌĂĚůŝŶ ĂŶƚŽŶŵĞŶƚ ϯϮϱϯϯ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
dŚŽŵĂƐdƌĞĚƌĞĂ ĂƚĂǀŝĂ ϲϬϱϭϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ŵĞŐŚĂŶƉĂƌŬĞƌ ,ŽďĂƌƚ ϰϲϯϰϮ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
'ƵŶũĂDĂƐŬĂLJ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϰϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ůĞdžŝƐYƵŝũĂŶŽ ƵƐƚŝŶ ϳϴϳϬϯ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
DĞůŽĚLJDĞŶĚĞnj ďƌŝƐƚŽů ϲϬϭϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ƌŽŽŬĞtŝůůŝĂŵƐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϵ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
DŝŐƵĞů^ŝĞƌƌĂ ĞĚĨŽƌĚ ϳϲϬϮϭ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
:ŽĚLJtŝůŵĞƐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϰϭ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ƵƚŚĂŝŶĂ^ĂůĞŵ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
'ŝƌŝƐŚDŽƵƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
EŝĐŽůĞ<ŽŽůŝĐŬ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
E< WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϯ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
^ƌŝŶŝDŽŽůĂ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
^ĂďĂ:ŽƐŚĂŐŚĂŶŝ ůŚĂŵďƌĂ ϵϭϴϬϯ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
^ĂŵƐŽŶĨĞǁŽƌŬŝ ƵƌŽƌĂ ϴϬϬϭϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
<ŚĂŝƌŵŽŚĂŵŵĂĚŬŚŽŶĚnjĂĚĂ tĞƐƚsĂůůĞLJŝƚLJ ϴϰϭϮϴ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
DĂŵƚĂ:ĂŝŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
dŝĨĨĂŶLJŶĚĞƌƐĞŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ůLJƐĞDĞŝƐůŝŬ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
<Ƶƌƚ,͘DŝůůĞƌ DŝĂŵŝ &> ϯϯϭϵϳ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
^ŚĞĂDĐŽƌŵŝĐŬ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ůůŝŽƚƚƌŽƉƉ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϭϳ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
:ĞŶŶŝĨĞƌZĞĂŵƐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
zĂŶĂŝ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
:ĂŶĞ^ŽƵŬƵƉ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
:ŽƐŚƵĂZĞĞĚLJ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϲϵ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
<ĂƚŚLJEĂƐƐĂƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϯϲ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
DĞůŝƐƐĂŚĂŶĚůĞĞ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ZĞďĞĐĐĂZĞĞĚLJ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϲϵ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
DĂůůŽƌŝĞ>Ă&ŽƌĞƐƚ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ƌŝĂŶĂŽǁŝĞ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
>ĂLJůĂ^ĂŝŬůĞLJ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
'ŝŶĂtĂůƐƚĂĚ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
sŝŬĂƐhƉĂĚŚLJĂLJĂ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϯ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
DĞƌĞĚŝƚŚWŽůůŽǀ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
EĂƚĂůĞĞ<ĂƌƌĞ &ƌĞĚŽŶŝĂ ϲϲϳϯϲ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ďŝW ,ŽƵƐƚŽŶ ϳϳϬϵϵ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ƐƚŚĞƌ&ĂƚŽŬƵŶ dĞƌƌĞ,ĂƵƚĞ ϰϳϴϬϳ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
dĞƌƌLJůĂnjĞ ^ĞĐĂƵĐƵƐ ϳϬϵϰ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ůĞƐƐĂŶĚƌĂsŝůůĂƌ ,ŝĂůĞĂŚ ϯϯϬϭϮ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ĞďďŝĞDŝůůĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϮ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ĞůĞƐƚĞĞƐĂƌŝŽ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ZLJĂŶtĂĚĚŝŶŐƚŽŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
:ŝŶŐLJŝ^Śŝ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ZŽďĞƌƚDĂƌŬƵƐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ŚĂƌĂƚŚŝ:ĂLJĂƌĂŵĂŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
dĞƌƌĂ^ŽƐĂ DĞƐĂ ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ĂƌƌĞŶWŽǁĞůů <ĞŶĂŝ ϵϵϲϭϭ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ŽƌĞLJŵƐůŝĞ DŽďŝůĞ ϯϲϲϭϮ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
>ĂƵƌĂƌĂĐŚůĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ĂĚĚŝƐŽŶĐĂƐƚŽĞ ŝĂŵŽŶĚŚĞĂĚ ϯϵϱϮϱ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
KůƵǁĂŬĞŵŝĚĞĚŽLJŝŶ /ŶĚŝĂŶĂƉŽůŝƐ ϰϲϮϱϱ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
^ƚĂĐLJdĂŽƵŝů WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϳ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
DĞůŝƐƐĂtŽnjŶŝĂŬ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ĂŬ,ŽƵƐĞ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
DĂŶĂƐŝ< WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
DĂƌŝƚnjĂ>ŽƉĞnj ,ŽƵƐƚŽŶ ϳϳϬϱϮ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
,zt,z^hE^,/E ĂůůĂƐ ϳϱϮϳϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
zŽƵƌDŽƚŚĞƌ ŬƌŽŶ ϰϰϯϬϳ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ůĂŶtĂůƐƚĂĚ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
<ƌŝƐƚŝ,ƵĞďŶĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ƌĂĚLJWŽůůŽǀ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϭϳ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
,ĞůĂŶĂŽLJůĞ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
DŝĐŚĞůůĞĂĐŚ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϲϲ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ĞďďŝĞŽůĚĞ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
>ĞƐůŝĞŝĨĨ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
DŝŬĞŽůĚĞ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
WĂŝŐĞĂƐůĞƌ ĂǀĞƌĞĞŬ ϴϱϯϯϭ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ZƵƐƚLJĞŶƚŽŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
'ƌĞŐEĞůƐŽŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
DĞůŝƐƐĂ^ĐŚǁĂŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϲ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ZŽďĞƌƚďďŽƚƚ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϰϭ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
DĂŶŝƐŚĂ'ŽǁůŝŬĂƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϮϵ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ŵŝůLJDŽŚƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
<ĞůůLJŶŶ>ĂĨĨĞLJ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ĞŶŶĂ^ĐŚĂĞĨĞƌ WĂůŵĞƌ ϵϵϲϰϱ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ŬĂƚĂƌŝŶĂŵĞůŝĂŶ KĂŬůĂŶĚ ϵϰϲϭϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ĂƌŵĞŶůůĞŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
:ŽƐŚƵĂƵƌƉŚĞLJ WĞƚĞƌďŽƌŽƵŐŚ Wϳ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
^ĂďƌŝŶĂ^ƵŶĚƋƵŝƐƚ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϭϲ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ĞůŝŶĞĞǀĞƌůLJ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
<ĞůĐŝ,ƵŶƚĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
'ĞŽƌŐĞDĐŶĂŵĂƌĂ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
YŝŶŐLJĂŶŐ>ŝ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
DĂLJƌĂŽƵŬŚĂƌŝ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϰϭ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
:ŝůůzŽƵŶŐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ĂŶĂƉƐƚĞŝŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϴ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
tŝůůŝĂŵ<ĞůůLJ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ZĂŚƵůDĞŶŽŶ ^ĐŽƚƚƐĚĂůĞ ϴϱϮϱϰ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
yŝŚƵ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ƐŵŝƚĂ^ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϮϱϰ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
DŝĐŚĞůĞZŝŽƌĚĂŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
DĂƌŬůůĞŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
>ŝƐĂKƌŵƐďLJ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
WĂƵůKƌŵƐďLJ:ƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ŶĚLJDĞƐĞĐŚĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ĞĂŶdĞƌnjŝĐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
^ůĂǀĞŶ'ƵƐĂŬ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϴ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
sĂůĞƌŝĞ'ŝǀĞŶƐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
<ŝƌĂŶhƉƉĂů WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϰ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
ĞůŝŶĚĂƵƌƚŝƐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
dĂLJůŽƌhŶŐĞƌĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϯϮ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
ĂƌŽů&ĞƌƌĂĐŽ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
ŚƌŝƐKΖŽŶŶŽƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
ƌŝĐĂŽŽƉĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϮϰ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
:ĞŶŶŝĨĞƌƵĚŝĂĐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
'ƌĞŐŽƌLJƵĚŝĂĐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
>ŝŶĚĂDŽŶƚŐŽŵĞƌLJ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
>ĂǀĂŶLJĂhĚƵƉĂ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
EĂƚĂůŝĞ>ĞŝƚŶĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
<ĞůƐĞLJDĂƚŚŝƐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
:ĞŶŶĂ^ƚŽŶĞďĞƌŐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϵ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
>ĂƵƌĞŶ<ŶĂƉƉ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϳ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
ŚƌŝƐ<ĂLJ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
ŚƌŝƐ<ŶĂƉƉ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
Ƶƌƚ<ŶĂƉƉ ^ĐŽƚƚƐĚĂůĞ ϴϱϮϲϭ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
ůĂƵĚŝĂWĂĐŬ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϴ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
^ƵƐĂŶ<ŶĂƉƉ ^ĐŽƚƚƐĚĂůĞ ϴϱϮϲϭ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
ZĞďĞĐĐĂůĚƌŝĚŐĞ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
<ĞůĞŶĞKƚƚĞƌƐŽŶ WƌĞƐĐŽƚƚ ϴϲϯϬϮ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
^ƵĚŚĂhŐĞŶĚƌĂŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
:ŝĂĞŶŐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
EŝĐŽůĞƵƌŶĞƐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
^ĂƌĂƵĐŚĂŶĂŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϮϰ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
DĞŐŚĂŶŶ:ŽŶĞƐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
<ƌŝƐƚLJDĐŽŽů WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϰϬ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
ŵLJ,ŽƵƐĞ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
<ůĂŝƌDŽƐĞƐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
<ŝŵďĞƌĞǀŽĞ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
>ĂƵƌĂZĂLJ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϲ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
dĂŶLJĂZŽŵĞƌŽ ƉŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϮϳ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
WƌĞĞƚŝDĞŶŽŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
<ĂƚŚĞƌŝŶĞ,ƵƚĐŚŝŶƐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
^ƌŝĚŚĂƌzĂĚĂǀ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϭϲ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
^ŚĂŶŶŽŶĚĂŵƐ ^ĐŽƚƚƐĚĂůĞ ϴϱϮϱϰ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
sŝǀĞŬsĂƌƐŚŶĞLJ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
ZĞďĞĐĐĂdŝƐĐŚůĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
ŵŝƚĂǀĂ<ƵŶĚƵ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϴϬ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
ƌĂŶĚŽŶZĂƉĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
dLJůŽƌdƵƚƚůĞ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
>ŝŶŶĂĞĂ'ŽĚǁŝŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
DĞůŝƐƐĂWŽƐƚůĞƌͲWŝĞƌĐĞ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϵϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
ZŽďLJŶĞ^ĐŚƵůƚnj >ŽƐŶŐĞůĞƐ ϵϬϬϭϭ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
:ĂLJĞĞƚĂ<ƵŶĚƵ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϴϬ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
ZŚŽŶĚĂtĂůĚĞƌƐĞŶ ^ĐŽƚƚƐĚĂůĞ ϴϱϮϲϮ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
ĂǀŝĚ^ƚŝŶĞ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϰϯϬϱϰ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
DŝĐŚĞůůĞ^ƚĞůŶŝŬ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
:ĞŶŶŝĨĞƌtŝůůŝƐͲ:ŽƐƚ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
^ƚĞĨĂŶŝƵĐŬĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϭϳ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
>ĂƵƌĂZĞLJŶŽƐŽ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
>ŽƌƌŝƵĐŚŽůnj WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
DĞůŝƐƐĂĞƌŐůŝŶĚ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
LJĚŶĞLJ,ƵďďĂƌĚ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
^ŚĂƌŽŶ<ŶĞĐŚƚ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
ĂƚŚĞƌŝŶĞĞĞ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
<LJůĞZĞŝĐŚĞƌƚ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
ZĞďĞĐĐĂĚĞ:ĞƐƵƐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
<ŝŵŶĚĞƌƐŽŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϲϴ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
<ĞǀŝŶ:ŽƐƚ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
ZŽďŝŶŽǁŝĞ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϰ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
ǀĞůLJŶ'ƌŝĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
WĂƵůŝĞƌďƵƐƐĞ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
^ĂƌĂŚ'ĂǀŝŐĂŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
^ŚƵŽzĂŶŐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
<ƌLJƐƚůĞĚŵŽŶĚƐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
:ĞŶŶŝĨĞƌŽŽůĂŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
ůŝnjĂďĞƚŚEĞůƐŽŶ ^ĞĂƚƚůĞ t ϵϴϭϵϵ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
>ŝŶĚĂ,ŽƵƐƚŽŶ ĞŶǀĞƌ K ϴϬϮϬϲ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
ĂŶŝĞůůĞĞĂĐŽŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
:ŽŚŶWŝůnjŶĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
:ĂƌĞĚ>ĞǁŝƐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϲ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
:ĂĚĂ>ĞǁŝƐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϰϬ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
ŶĚƌĞĂZĞŵŬĞ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
ŵĂŶĚĂ<ĂŝƐĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
tĞŶĚLJDŽLJĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϳ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
ZŽďĞƌƚ,ŽƵƐƚŽŶ ĞŶǀĞƌ K ϴϬϮϭϴ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
ƌŝĂŶĂƌŽǁŶĞůů WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
^ŚĂŶŶŽŶ>ĂƵĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
ůĞdžĂŶĚƌĂĂŶŝĞůƐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
:ĞĂŶŶĞŽŵƐƚŽĐŬ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϲϯϭϰ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
tĞŶĚLJŽLJůĞ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
>ŝƐĂDĐ/ŶƚLJƌĞ EŽƌƚŚǀŝůůĞ D/ ϰϴϭϲϴ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
ĂǀŝĚ&ƌĂŶĐLJŬ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
,ŝůůĂƌLJ'ƌŽƐƐŵĂŶ ^ĐŽƚƚƐĚĂůĞ ϴϱϮϱϭ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
^ƚĞƉŚĂŶŝĞDĂƐŽŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
^ĂŶĚƌĂ/ƚŬŽǁŝƚnj WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
,ĂƌŐƵŶ<ĂƵƌ ^ŽƵƚŚŝŶŐƚŽŶ ϲϰϴϵ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
DĂƌŝƐĞůĂ͘ dŚĞƌŽŶdž ϭϬϰϱϭ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
zĂŵŝůŬŽ>ƵŐŽ DŝĂŵŝ ϯϯϭϬϮ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
ZĂĐŚĞů^ƚĞŝŶďĞƌŐ DĂŶŚĂƚƚĂŶ ϲϬϰϰϮ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
,ŝĐŚĂŵDĂĨŚŽƵŵ ŚŝĐĂŐŽ ϲϬϲϮϱ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
:ĂŵĞƐŽŶ>Ƶƚnj DĞůďŽƵƌŶĞĞĂĐŚ ϯϮϵϱϭ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
/ƐĂĂĐ^ĂŶĐŚĞnj &ƌĞŵŽŶƚ ϰϯϰϮϬ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
:ĞƐƵƐ:ĞƐƵƐ >ĞǁŝƐďƵƌŐ ϯϳϬϵϭ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
WĂŵĞůĂ^ƚĞǁĂƌƚ ,ŽƵƐƚŽŶ ϳϳϬϲϰ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
ĐĂLJůĂŐĂƌĐŝĂ DŝĂŵŝ ϯϯϭϲϵ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
ŝŵĞĞDŝƌĂŶĚĂ ǀĞŶƚƵƌĂ ϯϯϭϲϭ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
ĂŶŝĞůWŽƉĞ WƌŽǀŽ ϴϰϲϬϰ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
'ůĞŶWŝŶĐŬŶĞLJ ƚůĂŶƚĂ ϯϬϯϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
:ĂŶĞƌǀĂ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϯϯϭ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
ƌŽŽŬĞzƵůĞ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϮϰ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
ƌĂŶĚŝ:ĞŶŬŝŶƐ ^ĐŽƚƚƐĚĂůĞ ϴϱϮϱϰ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
:ŝůĂŶŶĞZŽƐĞ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
ƌĂŶĚŝŶĂtĂĚĞ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
WĞƚĞĞĚŽƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
>ĂƌƌLJ>ĂĚĚ ŚŝĐŽ ϵϱϵϮϴ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
:ƌŽǁŶ ^ĂŶ&ƌĂŶĐŝƐĐŽ ϵϰϭϬϵ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
ĂƌĂLJĂŚĂďƚĞ >ŽƐŶŐĞůĞƐ ϵϬϬϬϮ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
DŝŐƵĞůŝŶĂƐƉŝƌŝƚƵ dŚĞƌŽŶdž Ez ϭϬϰϱϮ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
^ŚĞŝůĂĞƚŚĂŶĐŽƵƌƚ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
ŽďĂǀŝƐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
^ŚĞŝůĂ>ŽŶŐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
ƐŚůĞĞ&ƌĂŶĐŝƐĐŽ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
ŚƌŝƐƚŝŶĞůĞdžĂŶĚĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϲ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
ŬƌŝƐƚŝĚŽǁŶŝŶŐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
ƌŝƚŶĞLJ:ĂĐŽďƐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
,ĂŝůĞLJzŽƐƚ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϳ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
^ŚĞůůLJ:ŝŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
ŚĞůƐĞĂZĂŶĚĂůůͲDĐtŚĞƌƚĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
ŚĂŶ:ŝŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
DĂƌŝĂdŽƌŽdŽƌŽ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϴϬ h^ ϵͬϭϴͬϮϬϮϯ
ŝŶĚLJWŽŶĐŝĂŶŽ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϴͬϮϬϮϯ
ƌŝĂŶŶĂDĂŬŽƐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϮϰ h^ ϵͬϭϴͬϮϬϮϯ
tĞŶĚLJWŝĞƌŵĂƌŝŶŝ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϴͬϮϬϮϯ
ĂǁŶDĂƌƚŝŶĞnj WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϲϴ h^ ϵͬϭϴͬϮϬϮϯ
DŝŬĞ,ĂƵŐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϴͬϮϬϮϯ
/ǀLJŝƌŝƚnj WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϮϰ h^ ϵͬϭϴͬϮϬϮϯ
:ĂƐŽŶƉƐƚĞŝŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϴͬϮϬϮϯ
ŝǀLJĂzŽĚĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϴͬϮϬϮϯ
:ĞŶŶŝĨĞƌ<ŝŶĚůĞ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϴͬϮϬϮϯ
dĞƌĞƐĂ^ǁŝŶŐůĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϴͬϮϬϮϯ
<ƌŝƐƚĞŶdŚŝĞůĞŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϴͬϮϬϮϯ
ĐƌŝƐƚŝĂŶĂĐŚŝŵ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϴͬϮϬϮϯ
:ƵůŝĞZŝĐŚĂƌĚƐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϴͬϮϬϮϯ
Žď'ŝĂŵŵĂƌĐŽ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϴͬϮϬϮϯ
ĂƌůĞŶĞ^ĂƵĐŝĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϴͬϮϬϮϯ
>ĂƵƌĂWŝĞƌĐĞ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϴͬϮϬϮϯ
ŚƌŝƐƚŝŶĞŽǁůĞLJ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϴͬϮϬϮϯ
ŬĞŝƚŚƐĐŚŵŽůnjĞ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϴͬϮϬϮϯ
:ĞŶŶLJEĂďĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϰϭ h^ ϵͬϭϴͬϮϬϮϯ
:ĞŶŶŝĨĞƌ:ŽƐƚ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϴͬϮϬϮϯ
ůůŝƐŽŶ'ƌŝƐǁĞůů WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϴͬϮϬϮϯ
EŝĚŚŝ<ƌŝƐŚŶĂ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϴͬϮϬϮϯ
<h^,/</>/W WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϴͬϮϬϮϯ
ůůĂZŝĐŚĂƌĚƐ dĞŵƉĞ ϴϱϮϴϭ h^ ϵͬϭϴͬϮϬϮϯ
ƵĚƌĞLJ,ĂŵŵŽŶĚ dĞŵƉĞ ϴϱϮϴϭ h^ ϵͬϭϴͬϮϬϮϯ
Ğď<ŽnjĂŬ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϴͬϮϬϮϯ
ƌŝŶZƵĞďďĞůŬĞ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϴͬϮϬϮϯ
EŝƌŵĂůũŝKĚĞĚƌĂ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϰ h^ ϵͬϭϵͬϮϬϮϯ
:ĞŶŶŝĨĞƌ>ĂƌƐŽŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϵͬϮϬϮϯ
ĞƚŚĂŶLJ>ĂƵďĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϵͬϮϬϮϯ
:ƵƐƚŝŶ>ĂƵďĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϵͬϮϬϮϯ
<ĂƚŚůĞĞŶƌŝŶŬ ŽnjĞŵĂŶ Dd ϱϵϳϭϱ h^ ϵͬϭϵͬϮϬϮϯ
ůŝƐĂƚŝŵƐ DŝƐƐŽƵůĂ Dd ϱϵϴϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϵͬϮϬϮϯ
<ĂLJŶĂWŽƉŶŽĞ &ŽƌƚtŽƌƚŚ dy ϳϲϭϮϳ h^ ϵͬϭϵͬϮϬϮϯ
EŝĐŬWŽƉŶŽĞ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϵͬϮϬϮϯ
:ŝŵWŽƉŶŽĞ &ŽƌƚtŽƌƚŚ dy ϳϲϬϯϯ h^ ϵͬϭϵͬϮϬϮϯ
ƵĚƌĞLJŽLJĚ &ŽƌƚŽůůŝŶƐ K ϴϬϱϮϳ h^ ϵͬϭϵͬϮϬϮϯ
>ƵŝƐ,ĞƌŶĂŶĚĞnj ĂƉĞŽƌĂů ϯϯϵϭϰ h^ ϵͬϭϵͬϮϬϮϯ
ůŝnjĂďĞƚŚƵĐĂƌ ^ĐŽƚƚƐĚĂůĞ ϴϱϮϲϬ h^ ϵͬϭϵͬϮϬϮϯ
^ĐŽƚƚůĂƌŬ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϵͬϮϬϮϯ
EŝŬŽůĂLJ<ĂƉĂƐŚŝŬŽǀ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϵͬϮϬϮϯ
:ĞŶŶŝĨĞƌ&ƌĂŶĐLJŬ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϵͬϮϬϮϯ
^ĂƌĂŚdŽƌƌŝůŚŽŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϮϰ h^ ϵͬϭϵͬϮϬϮϯ
ZĞďĞĐĐĂŽƌŶĞůů WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϵͬϮϬϮϯ
DĂƌĂdƵĐŬĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱ h^ ϵͬϭϵͬϮϬϮϯ
ĞƐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϯϮ h^ ϵͬϭϵͬϮϬϮϯ
ůŝĐŝĂWĞŶŶĞƌ :ŽŚŶƐƚŽŶ / ϱϬϭϯϭ h^ ϵͬϭϵͬϮϬϮϯ
ŶĚƌĞĂŶĚĞƌƐŽŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϴ h^ ϵͬϭϵͬϮϬϮϯ
ĂƌŽŶƌƵŚŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϮϵ h^ ϵͬϭϵͬϮϬϮϯ
ůůŝƐŽŶWŽƉŶŽĞ ^ĞĂƚƚůĞ t ϵϴϭϯϲ h^ ϵͬϭϵͬϮϬϮϯ
ĚƌŝĂŶĂŶŝĞůƐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϵͬϮϬϮϯ
ZŝĐŬLJĂƌďĞƌ >ŽƐŶŐĞůĞƐ ϵϬϬϲϱ h^ ϵͬϭϵͬϮϬϮϯ
ZŽƐĂŶŐƵůŽ dĂŵƉĂ ϯϯϲϬϲ h^ ϵͬϭϵͬϮϬϮϯ
EŝĐŬ^ƚĞƌƌLJ DŝŶŶĞĂƉŽůŝƐ ϱϱϰϬϴ h^ ϵͬϭϵͬϮϬϮϯ
DŝĐŚĂĞůKΖEĞŝů WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϯϰ h^ ϵͬϭϵͬϮϬϮϯ
:ƵůŝĂ>ĞǀĞŶĞ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϲϵ h^ ϵͬϭϵͬϮϬϮϯ
sƌŝŶĚĂƌŽƌĂ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϯϲ h^ ϵͬϭϵͬϮϬϮϯ
:ĞƐƐŝĐĂYƵŝŶƚ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϮϰ h^ ϵͬϮϬͬϮϬϮϯ
^ŚĞƌŝĞƌŶƐƚĞŝŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϯϬ h^ ϵͬϮϬͬϮϬϮϯ
>ƵŬĞZŝĐŚĂƌĚƐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϮϬͬϮϬϮϯ
EŽĂŚZŝĐŚĂƌĚƐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϮϬͬϮϬϮϯ
,ĂŶŬZŝĐŚĂƌĚƐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϰ h^ ϵͬϮϬͬϮϬϮϯ
^ĂĞĚĂtĂƌĚ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϳϲ h^ ϵͬϮϬͬϮϬϮϯ
DŝƐƚLJDĂŶĞƐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϰ h^ ϵͬϮϬͬϮϬϮϯ
,ĂŶŶĂŚ&ĂƌĨŽƵƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϮϬͬϮϬϮϯ
ĂǀŝĚĂƌŽŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϮϬͬϮϬϮϯ
ŶŶĞƚƚĞƵƌƚŽŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϯϬ h^ ϵͬϮϬͬϮϬϮϯ
ůŵĂƌŵĞŶƚĂ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϴ h^ ϵͬϮϬͬϮϬϮϯ
<ĞůůLJ^ĂŶĚĞƌƐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϵ h^ ϵͬϮϬͬϮϬϮϯ
ƌLJĂŶƚĞWŝĂnjnjĂ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϮϬͬϮϬϮϯ
E^,h>ZKZ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϮϬͬϮϬϮϯ
DŝĐŚĞůůĞ^ƵnjƵŬŝ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϮϬͬϮϬϮϯ
ZĂĐŚĂĞů^ůŽƐŬLJ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϮϬͬϮϬϮϯ
ŶŶ&ŝƐŚĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϳ h^ ϵͬϮϬͬϮϬϮϯ
WĂƚƌŝĐŝĂŝĂŵĂŶƚ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϮϬͬϮϬϮϯ
ĞĂŶŶĂĂůnjĞůůͲŚĂŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϮϬͬϮϬϮϯ
tŝŶƐƚŽŶŚĂŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϮϬͬϮϬϮϯ
ZĂũĞƐŚsĂŝĚLJĂ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϮϬͬϮϬϮϯ
ZĂLJŵŽŶĚƌŽŽŬƐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϮϰ h^ ϵͬϮϬͬϮϬϮϯ
:ĂŵĞƐdĂLJůŽƌ ^ĐŽƚƚƐĚĂůĞ ϴϱϮϲϭ h^ ϵͬϮϬͬϮϬϮϯ
:ĂLJĚĂƚƚ:ŽƐŚŝ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϮϬͬϮϬϮϯ
<ƌƵƚĂƌƚŚ:ŽƐŚŝ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϰϬ h^ ϵͬϮϬͬϮϬϮϯ
<ŝŵďĞƌůLJ:ŽŚŶƐŽŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϯ h^ ϵͬϮϭͬϮϬϮϯ
ŽůĞ:ŽŚŶƐŽŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϮϭͬϮϬϮϯ
'ĂŐĞ:ŽŚŶƐŽŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϮϭͬϮϬϮϯ
KůŐĂZĞŵƉĞů WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϮϭͬϮϬϮϯ
DŝĐŚĂĞů<ŝƉĞƌŵĂŶ ŚĂŶĚůĞƌ ϴϱϮϮϰ h^ ϵͬϮϭͬϮϬϮϯ
dŝŵĂƌŝZƵƐĂŬ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϮϭͬϮϬϮϯ
ůĂŝƌĞ'ƌĂŶƚ ^ƚŽƌƌƐ ϲϮϲϵ h^ ϵͬϮϭͬϮϬϮϯ
tĞƐůĞLJKƌŽnjĐŽ >LJŶŶ ϭϵϬϮ h^ ϵͬϮϭͬϮϬϮϯ
/ƐĂďĞůůĂZŽŵŝŶĞ ƌĂĚĞŶƚŽŶ ϯϰϮϬϭ h^ ϵͬϮϭͬϮϬϮϯ
ŵLJEĂũĞƌĂ Ğůů ϵϬϮϬϭ h^ ϵͬϮϭͬϮϬϮϯ
ĂŶŝĞůůĞ&ůŝŶŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϰϬ h^ ϵͬϮϭͬϮϬϮϯ
DŝĐŚĞůůĞ^ŽƵŶĂƌƚ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϮϭͬϮϬϮϯ
LJŶƚŚŝĂĞŶŶĞƚƚĞ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϮϭͬϮϬϮϯ
ŚĞƌĞĞƌŽǁŶ ĂǀĞƌĞĞŬ ϴϱϯϯϭ h^ ϵͬϮϭͬϮϬϮϯ
ƌĞŶĚĂ^ĐŚŵĂůnj ^ĐŽƚƚƐĚĂůĞ ϴϱϮϲϭ h^ ϵͬϮϭͬϮϬϮϯ
<ĂĐŝKůĚƌŽLJĚ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϴ h^ ϵͬϮϭͬϮϬϮϯ
^ĂŶĚLJĂŵƉďĞůů WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϮϭͬϮϬϮϯ
ŵŝĐŚĂĞůďŽĞĚĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϮϭͬϮϬϮϯ
ĂŶŝĞůtĞůŬĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϮϭͬϮϬϮϯ
ĂǀĞDŽLJĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϮϭͬϮϬϮϯ
ůLJƚŚĞ>ŝƉŵĂŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϮϮͬϮϬϮϯ
dĂLJůŽƌDŽƐŬŽǀŝĐŚ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϴ h^ ϵͬϮϮͬϮϬϮϯ
DŽůůLJ&ŝŶĞ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϮϮͬϮϬϮϯ
ůŝnjĂEĞƵĨĞůĚ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϮϮͬϮϬϮϯ
:ĂLJŵĞDĞƐĞĐŚĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϮϮͬϮϬϮϯ
^ŚĞĞŶĂ>ŽǀĞƚƚ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϵ h^ ϵͬϮϮͬϮϬϮϯ
DŝĐŚĂĞů,ĞŶĞŝŶ DĞƌƌŝĐŬ ϭϭϱϲϲ h^ ϵͬϮϮͬϮϬϮϯ
ĂŶĂ,ƵĞƚŚĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϮϮͬϮϬϮϯ
ĂǀŝĚƌŝƚƚŽŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϲϵ h^ ϵͬϮϮͬϮϬϮϯ
ǀĂƌŝƚƚŽŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϲϵ h^ ϵͬϮϮͬϮϬϮϯ
ůĞdžƌŝƚƚŽŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϲϵ h^ ϵͬϮϮͬϮϬϮϯ
WĂƵů^ƵƌĚĂŬŽǁƐŬŝ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϮϮͬϮϬϮϯ
<ĂLJůĂ'ƌĂŶĚĞ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϮϰ h^ ϵͬϮϮͬϮϬϮϯ
ZŚŽŶĚĂŝŵŵŝĐŬ ĞƐĞƌƚ,ŝůůƐ ϴϱϬϴϲ h^ ϵͬϮϮͬϮϬϮϯ
:ĂĐŬDĂĐŽŶĂůĚͲ,ŝůƚŽŶ tŽƌĐĞƐƚĞƌ ϭϲϬϵ h^ ϵͬϮϮͬϮϬϮϯ
,ĂŶŶĂŚ^ŽůŝŵĂŶ ŚĂƌůŽƚƚĞ ϮϴϬϳϱ h^ ϵͬϮϮͬϮϬϮϯ
ŶĚƌĞǁ&ůŽLJĚ h^ ϵͬϮϮͬϮϬϮϯ
ĂƚŚLJŽƵ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϮϮͬϮϬϮϯ
From: Richards, Dan
To: PDD Long Range Planning; Anthony M Grande; Council District 2 PCC
Subject: RE: GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2 Black Mountain Village
Date: Friday, September 22, 2023 2:18:14 PM
Attachments: image002.png
Could I sneak in one final comment into the case file that was just getting brought up last night?
People are now getting emails from Vestar trying to promote the need for more grocery stores in
this area. The verbiage they are using was that Desert Ridge incredibly only has one grocery store in
a 21-mile square area. Talk about incredibly confusing and misleading. 21-mile square area? Who
speaks that way? Did they mean 21 square miles? They used 21-mile square area intentionally to
confuse people. These people are spreading lies to try getting people to sign their ONLINE petitions.
I would be very interested to see how many of these people that have signed their ONLINE petition
live outside of the Desert Ridge area.
Another thing I would ask Gammage and Burham how many of these people signed their petition,
while voting for a Sprouts or Trader Joes in their online survey? They are deceiving the public with
this survey when they knew before they began the survey that these smaller grocery stores aren’t
even an option to be used as the grocer.
I would like the City and the Village Planning Committee to request the results of their online survey
become public records. I would be willing to bet over 50% of their supporters are looking for
something Vestar already knew wasn’t an option.
Thanks,
Dan Richards
From: PDD Long Range Planning
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2023 2:04 PM
To: Richards, Dan
District 2 PCC
Subject: RE: GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2 Black Mountain Village
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]: Verify sender before opening links or attachments.
Thank you, your comment has been received.
Thank you,
Sarah Stockham
Planner III
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
Phone: 602-261-8701
sarah.stockham@phoenix.gov
From: Richards, Dan
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 9:35 AM
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2 Black Mountain Village
Dear Mr. Grande and Councilman Waring,
I submitted an email on September 13 pertaining to my opposition to the proposed development .
One of the points made in my previous email was stating the amount of gas stations and grocery
stores within a 3-mile radius of the Deer Valley and Black Mountain intersection. I mentioned 11 gas
stations within a 3-mile radius, but the correct number is 12 gas stations.
It was brought to my attention that Gammage and Burnham met with the residents of Sky Crossing
shared an exhibit showing the lack of gas stations and grocery store options within a 5-mile radius.
They failed to show all the options south of the 101 in their exhibit, which is incredibly misleading. I
have attached a map that shows all the gas stations and grocery stores in a 3-mile radius. If you
change your search to a 4-mile radius, you find 18-gas stations. The grocery store options are quite
vast as well.
Grocery Stores included within a 4-mile radius include:
Costco
Walmart
Target
Sprouts Market Express
2 Fry’s
2 Albertson’s
Food City
Please take this into consideration when Vestar continues to tell people that Desert Ridge is lacking
grocery and gas station options. It’s simply not true. Our neighbors do not want this development
to be built. We all live in the residential superblock portion of Desert Ridge. If we wanted to live
within walking distance to restaurants, we would have moved closer to Desert Ridge Marketplace.
This isn’t for the residents of Desert Ridge. They’re looking at this parcel because they want the
traffic from the 51.
Thanks,
Dan Richards
Strand Associates, Inc.®
602.437.3733 ext. 6052
dan.richards@strand.com | www.strand.com [strand.com]
[strand.com]
Excellence in EngineeringSM
From: Valerie Arnold
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: No rezoning of Black Mountain and Deer Valley Road
Date: Saturday, September 23, 2023 10:31:19 AM
Please do not rezone. My kids go to Pinnacle High School and this is a stupid idea. There is
enough traffic there now. Please do not let Vestar come in. We need that land to stay
undeveloped.
Thank you.
From: Kathy Green
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Zoning of the corner of Black Mountain and Deer Valley
Date: Saturday, September 23, 2023 10:51:17 AM
As someone who lives in the area and drives that intersection every day, I fully oppose this re-zoning. Traffics is
already a mess in the mornings and afternoons.
I would love to have a grocery store in the area but that location is awful.
Warmest Regards,
Kathy Green
Mountain Gate Subdivision resident
Sent from my iPhone
From: C Dunn
To: Anthony M Grande; PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: Vestar Development Amendment and Zoning Requests for Superblock 12 in Desert Ridge
Date: Sunday, September 24, 2023 2:12:13 PM
To All Concerned With This Issue:
I recently attended a Desert Ridge Community Association meeting in which
representatives for Vestar presented a rough sketch of their development plan for
approximately 20 acres carved out of Superblock 12. Listening to them, one would
surmise that this development was for the benefit of our neighborhood. They
discussed a neighborhood grocery store, some small retail businesses, and dining
options. A rather straightforward design, you might think. What Vestar’s rep didn’t
mention was the inclusion of a gas station, fast food drive-throughs, and even a city
bus stop. A plan that sounded innocent enough at the time now begs the question
of how a development such as this would impact our neighborhood.
Vestar wants to rezone Superblock 12 from an R-2 residential designation to a C-2
commercial designation. With this rezoning would come a commercial
development, such as Vestar’s, right at our back door. There are many troubling
issues associated with this proposal. I am limiting my comments to the
environmental impact that Vestar’s proposal would have on our community.
One of the most significant pollutants of our environment is gas stations. For
instance, during fueling, toxic compounds such as Benzene (a known carcinogen),
Ethyl Benzene, Toluene, and Xylene (BTEX) are released into the air. Likewise,
these same compounds will pollute the air when there is leakage from the storage
tank vents. Spills from fueling and spills from emptying tanker trucks can occur,
causing soil, groundwater, surface water and air contamination. Even idling
engines of vehicles contribute to air pollution with the release of harmful
chemicals, gases, and particles. Add to this the road noise associated with an
overwhelming number of vehicles driving in and out of the gas station and one
must conclude that gas stations are one of the most significant polluters of our
environment.
Grocery stores and fast food restaurants are right behind gas stations when we
consider the extent to which they pollute the environment. The average grocery
store emits almost two tons of carbon dioxide from the electricity and natural gas
that it uses each year. In addition to that, grocery stores and fast food restaurants
generate tons of litter and garbage yearly. Proper disposal of these then becomes
a major issue. If strict guidelines aren’t followed, we are then dealing with air and
soil pollution, in addition to the environmental issues posed by rodents and other
pests attracted to the area. Another concern is the amount of traffic generated by
these businesses. Their customer traffic, their delivery trucks, and their trash
collection vehicles make a substantial contribution to both noise and air pollution.
Lastly, it is not surprising that air pollution is the direct result of food preparation.
With the kitchen exhaust fans we have the release of organic aerosol into the
environment. With grills, stoves, and ovens we have the release of formaldehyde,
carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide into the air. Naturally, these airborne
particulates are inhaled by everyone nearby. With ongoing exposure, these
particulates can be extremely harmful to individuals. This is especially true for
asthmatics and individuals dealing with long-term breathing problems such as
COPD.
It is obvious that the environmental impact of Vestar's proposed development
would not be limited to noise, air, soil, and light pollution. Their proposal would
guarantee both traffic pollution and people pollution, as well. Is it fair to assume
that crime in our neighborhood would not be far behind, if Vestar's proposal were
to be approved?
The negative impact that Vestar’s commercial development would have on our
neighborhood far outweighs any benefits of a grocery store, a gas station, and fast
food restaurants. With these services and many more just minutes away in the
Desert Ridge Marketplace, we don’t need them in our own back yard.. We must
keep Superblock 12 zoned R-2 Residential, as it was originally intended.
Please say NO to Vestar.
Carolyn Dunn
3752 E Covey Lane
Fireside Community
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Sunday, September 24, 2023 8:00:47 PM
Name
Sachiyo Moench
satosachiyo@hotmail.com
Support Comments
Traffic during school pickup/drop off and rush hour is already stressing the traffic flow in this area. The
traffic associated with a big box retailer would make this intersection/area much worse.
From: Jennifer Garcia
To: Anthony M Grande
Cc: Jennifer Garcia
Subject: Case No. SPA-DS1 V-2-23-2, Case No. CPA-DSTV-3-23-2 and Case No. 1-39-23.
Date: Monday, September 25, 2023 9:08:21 PM
Attachments: image001.png
Dear Anthony,
I am writing to let you know I’m very concerned with the new zoning up for approval.
reference case numbers below.
This zoning in my opinion is way to close to Pinnacle High School. The traffic is
already so congested with the onramp of hwy 51, and with new drivers (young from
the high school) potential accidents would be a huge concern.
I vote NO for the new commercial zoning. It needs to stay residential
Case No. SPA-DS1 V-2-23-2, Case No. CPA-DSTV-3-23-2 and Case No. 1-39-23.
Thank you, Jennifer Garcia
3824 E. Ringtail Way
Jennifer Garcia
www.RelationalWealthAdvisors.com [relationalwealthadvisors.com]
From: Jayme Mesecher
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Rezoning of Superblock 12
Date: Monday, September 25, 2023 8:07:45 PM
Hello,
I’d like to document my opposition to the rezoning of superblock 12. I am a homeowner
across the street at 3609 E Cat Balue Dr Phoenix AZ 85050 and do not want to see this area
rezoned for commercial use. Here are the case numbers:
Case No. SPA-DS1 V-2-23-2, Case No. CPA-DSTV-3-23-2 and Case No. 1-39-23.
Thank you,
Jayme Mesecher
From: Thejas Nair
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Case No. SPA-DS1 V-2-23-2, Case No. CPA-DSTV-3-23-2 and Case No. 1-39-23.
Date: Monday, September 25, 2023 8:44:10 PM
Reference : Case No. SPA-DS1 V-2-23-2, Case No. CPA-DSTV-3-23-2 and
Case No. 1-39-23.
Hello Sir,
This is regarding rezoning of superblock 12 - Case No. SPA-DS1
V-2-23-2, Case No. CPA-DSTV-3-23-2 and Case No. 1-39-23.
I am a resident of the Fireside community in Desert Ridge. I would
like to voice my concerns on rezoning superblock 12.
Rezoning to commercial would change the neighbourhood characteristics
to be less desirable and affect the peace and quiet of the Fireside
community. We already have sufficient access to grocery and other
businesses within a couple of miles in multiple directions.
If rezoning is still being considered, I would be for restricting the
hours of operations of the commercial establishments to be before 10pm
(or restrict it to such types of establishments). And not have other
establishments like gas stations that tend to operate very late in the
night.
Thanks,
Thejas
From: Tininenko, Jason
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: black mountain project
Date: Monday, September 25, 2023 4:24:16 PM
My family wanted to weigh in on the proposed black mountain village project.
We are Opposed to the building of a gas station, grocery store, or any large project that will increase
traffic, crime, and accidents.
A nice restaurant or 2 would be great, but Vape shops, Liquor stores, Pawn shops and gas stations
do not help wonderful neighborhoods like Aviano.
Thanks.
From: Suresh Uppalapu
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Rezoning of super block 12
Date: Monday, September 25, 2023 7:18:49 PM
Hello,
Please consider this email my vote and my wife’s vote in opposition of rezoning the area for
commercial use. It is too close to the schools in the neighborhood. Desert ridge shopping
complex is not that far. We don’t need another complex here. Also, the traffic for drop off and
pick up to Pinnacle and Fireside schools is already backed up. A commercial complex will
further complicate traffic and lead to traffic mishaps.
Please NO.
Sincerely,
Dr. Uppalapu and Dr. Veeranki
From: Kim Galetti
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: SW. Corner of Deer Valley & Black Mountain Blvd.
Date: Wednesday, July 19, 2023 1:51:47 PM
Anthony,
My spouse and I are very excited about the proposed project at the above corner. We badly
need a second option for groceries. This additional competition will be great for the residents
of Desert Ridge. It will also increase property values. Hope this project is approved and
ground is broken soon.
Mr. Kim Galetti
3864 E. Melinda Drive
Phoenix, AZ 85050
443-962-0974
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone [mail.onelink.me]
From: Nahian Latif
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Re: black mountain village
Date: Saturday, July 22, 2023 11:45:06 AM
Hi there,
I am a resident near the proposed zoning change at the intersection of deer valley and black
mountain. I support the zoning change to a small commercial to allow for a small grocery
store/retail shop/restaurant. Ideally a small grocery store like trader Joe's would be ideal.
Encourage bistros like Panera/chipotle or a local business to setup shop. Bike friendly lanes
and bike locks with shaded/mature trees around stops would enhance the experience. Future
growth for a public library adjacent would serve the area well.
Thank you
Nahian Latif
Local resident
From: Riley Dresser
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Support for Z-39-23
Date: Wednesday, August 2, 2023 2:48:50 PM
Hi Anthony,
I just wanted to express my support for this project. I live in Fireside and would love to have amenities closer to my
house without having to go to Desert Ridge.
Thank you,
Riley Dresser
Sent from my iPhone
From: Lauren Packer
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Rezoning Black Mountain/Deer Valley
Date: Thursday, August 3, 2023 8:34:43 PM
Just voicing our opinion for what it is worth.
We are not against the rezone. But we are against a gas station and drive thru fast food. Additionally if this is
rezoned, there must be traffic modifications on Black Mountain. My kids do not attend pinnacle but we get stuck in
the backlog daily and this is without additional people entering or exiting a shopping plaza.
We hope the city listens to the citizens.
Lauren Packer
Sent from my iPhone
From: Polson, Adam
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12
Date: Thursday, August 3, 2023 10:30:07 AM
Attachments: Logo_e6253148-26a1-47a9-b861-6ac0ff0bc3c4.png
80pctcolor_2022mansfieldcertificationbadge_492244a7-2944-454d-8270-3a8a522bf068.png
Mr. Grande,
I am sending this e-mail to indicate that I am IN FAVOR of the proposed development. You are likely to see a bunch of
people trying to complain, and my guess is that those people will try to drown out the people who do want the project. I
would strongly prefer if there was no gas station, but I understand the realities of the situation. To the extent there is a
compromise, I would suggest no gas station.
-Adam Polson
2845 E. Cashman Drive
Phoenix, Arizona 85050
Adam S. Polson
Partner
Adam.Polson@lewisbrisbois.com
T: 602.792.1503 F: 602.385.1051
Phoenix Plaza Tower II
2929 North Central Avenue, Suite 1700, Phoenix, AZ 85012 | LewisBrisbois.com [lewisbrisbois.com]
Representing clients from coast to coast. View our locations nationwide. [lewisbrisbois.com]
This e-mail may contain or attach privileged, confidential or protected information intended only for the use of the intended recipient. If you are not the
intended recipient, any review or use of it is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, you are required to notify the sender, then delete
this email and any attachment from your computer and any of your electronic devices where the message is stored.
From: shawnkline2
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Black Mountain Village Project
Date: Friday, August 4, 2023 1:55:26 PM
Hello Mr. Grande,
I am writing to you regarding the Black Mountain Village project on the corner of Deer Valley
and Black Mountain Dr. I am a resident of the Sky Crossing neighborhood directly across
from the proposed project. I welcome the zoning change from residential to commercial with a
few stipulations.
1. No gas station. It will increase loitering, traffic, and light pollution in the neighborhood.
2. Grocery store must be a smaller, neighborhood grocery store (Trader Joes, Sprouts, Whole
Foods). A large Fry’s or Albertsons type store would not fit into our residential area,
especially since there is already an Albertsons in Desert Ridge and on Cave Creek.
3. The businesses must be in line with the demographics of the neighborhood. Desert Ridge
and Sky Crossing are neighborhoods with high end homes. We need high end businesses,
shops and restaurants that would enhance our community and not degrade it like a large
grocery store and gas station would. This would also hopefully include appropriate
lightscaping and landscaping, so the business park blends into the desert area that we all
bought houses here for. We moved here because it was a quiet, residential area and we do not
want to see it turn into another corner of concrete, traffic, litter, and loitering.
Thank you for your concern and I look forward to hearing about the next steps of the project.
Shawn Kline
Sky Crossing Resident
From: Lisa Abrams
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Zoning Changes Near Black Mountain and Deer Valley RDs
Date: Monday, August 7, 2023 4:32:42 PM
Hi,
I'd like to suggest a compromise for the city to consider regarding the parcel near Black
Mountain and Deer Valley Rds. I agree we need more shopping in the area, however this is
still a large residential neighborhood and I'd like the city to consider putting some restrictions
on the new zoning, similar to what many shopping centers in Scottsdale have done.
Please consider rezoning with conditions including:
a maximum size for the grocery
prohibiting gas stations
dimmer lighting
larger landscape setbacks
shaded walking and bike paths
ample outdoor dining spaces
These conditions would still allow a company to develop the land, while also keeping it as
close to a neighborhood feel as possible.
Thank you for your consideration.
Lisa Abrams
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, August 10, 2023 11:05:58 AM
Name
Jenna Barrett
jennabarrett422@gmail.com
Support Comments
I would want a grocery store and fast food options at the shopping center.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, August 10, 2023 9:09:07 AM
Name
Ashley Campbell
Ashleycampbell@cox.net
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Fireside at Desert Ridge
Support Comments
I support retail space in that location. Thank you!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, August 10, 2023 10:04:56 AM
Name
John Schott
Jopschott@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Desert Ridge
Support Comments
As a native and person living in the area, I welcome the new development. Adding places to live, shop
and eat will benefit the community. Please approve this project.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, August 10, 2023 9:08:35 AM
Name
Austin Lynch
Alynchortho@yahoo.com
Support Comments
Support
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, August 10, 2023 10:03:22 AM
Name
Michael Marsh
michaelmarsh.cre@gmail.com
Support Comments
I am currently building a home in Desert Ridge and am extremely supportive of additional retail and
commercial opportunities in this area. Desert Ridge Marketplace is hugely successful, but that comes
with a convenience fee for people who actually live in the area. Additional options for groceries,
restaurants and neighborhood retail on a smaller scale would actually serve the needs of people who live
in and around the area, and an additional option to avoid the traffic and crowds of Desert Ridge
Marketplace that has become a destination shopping center. My understanding is that the current
entitlements would allow for additional housing units. While I am moving to the area and think that
housing is important, the opportunity to have additional retail and commercial as a future homeowner in
this area is exciting and would seem to actually serve the needs of the people that already live and are
actively building homes there. Thanks for your favorable consideration of the requests.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, August 10, 2023 12:28:47 PM
Name
Rachel Cohn
rachel-cohn@hotmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Fireside
Support Comments
I would love a small grocery store, no gas station and a local bistro. Thanks!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, August 10, 2023 12:05:35 PM
Name
Amanda Honey
amanda.honey3@gmail.com
Support Comments
Neighborhood grocer is wonderful but no gas station please
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, August 10, 2023 12:37:25 PM
Name
Meghann Jones
Mprusick@yahoo.com
Support Comments
No gas station.
Small grocery store, i.e. Trader Joe’s, Whole Foods.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, August 10, 2023 12:09:39 PM
Name
Kevin Honey
amaresh@cox.net
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
3762 e ember glow way
Support Comments
Neighborhood grocer, but no gas station please.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, August 10, 2023 12:16:05 PM
Name
Pam Sullivan
Scottspam4@gmail.com
Support Comments
No gas station
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, August 10, 2023 9:29:06 AM
Name
Peter Reinsch
Preinschaz@gmail.com
Support Comments
Sounds like a great idea! That’s a great location to build a grocery store!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, August 10, 2023 10:56:30 AM
Name
Melissa Romero
Melromeo@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
4240 E Expedition Way
Support Comments
We need additional options in this area.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, August 10, 2023 10:01:05 AM
Name
Allie Schott
alliejschott@gmail.com
Support Comments
As a future resident in the Talinn development, I support growth in the local area.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, August 10, 2023 1:19:23 PM
Name
Scott Shuman
sshuman99@yahoo.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Desert Ridge
Support Comments
I am very supportive of this new development. This area would benefit from additional convenient options
for groceries, restaurants, etc. In particular, it would be great to have a Trader Joe’s or Sprouts. The
congestion around Desert Ridge can be challenging and quality alternatives are welcome.
From: Chris Sinclair
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Deer Valley and Black Mountain commercial
Date: Thursday, August 10, 2023 12:41:55 PM
hi, I guess people are saying to contact the planner about this
development and that's you I guess? anyways, this is great news. we
need more commercial in this area. it's a major intersection and just
what should be happening here. I'm emailing because I'm sure people
will complain. because that's what people do. and usually, the most
vocal are the minority. I want to make sure you guys know that there are
plenty of people excited about this happening. but will probably never
attend a meeting or voice their excitement, because people usually only
do that when they complain. so if you need anybody to point to in the
community that has no vested interest at all, that is excited and 100%
in favor of this, that would be me. thanks and good luck with the
complainers
--
Chris Sinclair
Sinclair Engineering LLC
23251 N.38th Place
Phoenix, AZ 85050
480-695-9734
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, August 10, 2023 1:10:32 PM
Name
Chris Sinclair
sinclaireng@cox.net
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
23251 N 38TH PL
Support Comments
this is a great news. been living in Aviano since 2009. we need more commercial, not less. Deer Valley
and Black Mountain is exactly the type of spot where this should be going. this creates a walkable
destination from our neighborhood. we need more of this. I'm firmly in favor of this happening! thanks.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, August 10, 2023 9:06:22 AM
Name
Hanna Steger
Hannaesteger@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Aviano Community
Support Comments
We fully support the new black mountain shopping center. We would love to see something smaller scale
to desert ridge that provides us places to dine and shop.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, August 10, 2023 12:55:47 PM
Name
Mahyar Vahabzadeh
mahyar@cox.net
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Aviano Desert Ridge
Support Comments
This shopping center will be a much needed addition to the Desert Ridge area as we are very limited
currently with a single grocery store (Albertsons).
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Saturday, August 12, 2023 10:43:46 AM
Name
James Senften
jsenften@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
4535 E. Navigator Lane, Phoenix, AZ 85050
Support Comments
As a resident of Desert Ridge for over 3 years, I am excited for the opportunity to have additional options
for groceries, restaurants and neighborhood retail in the area. This area has seen a lot of residential
development in the past 5 to 10 years, but there has been a lack of additional commercial development.
However, I don't want to see this site end up as another huge big box store (like a Wal-Mart) for several
reasons. For one, we have a Target and other big box stores at Desert Ridge that fill that need. Second,
it might cause too many traffic problems at the site and the surrounding area. I think this site should focus
on a smaller, high quality grocery store and related restaurants and commercial uses. I would be in
support of a square footage cap to prevent any big box stores from going in and to promote the possible
attraction of a Sprouts or Trader Joe's type grocery store.
From: Scott Corwin
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Support for Black Mountain Village development
Date: Sunday, August 13, 2023 1:32:59 PM
Mr. Grande,
My family and I are residents of Sky Crossing, and I am writing in support of the re-zoning of
the land proposed for Black Mountain Village.
To say I am disappointed in my community members who oppose this project is an
understatement. Apparently others do not care about growth and development of a
neighborhood. Apparently others do not care about their property values increasing because of
convenience. Apparently the principal of Pinnacle High School is urging us to protest the re-
zoning, and because the school cannot figure out how to manage the flow of kids arriving to
school, they are using this development as a scapegoat.
Granted, while I love the concept of the development, I do oppose the gas station idea unless it
is only a gas station without a convenience store. Convenience stores, no matter the location,
seem to draw people out of the woodwork. I don’t know what latitude the city has to stipulate
the details of the plan, but that would be my request as a resident.
I do plan on attending the October 3rd meeting, but will all those in attendance have the
opportunity to vote on the decision?
Looking forward to the meeting.
Thank you,
Scott Corwin
3422 E Crest Ln
Phoenix, AZ 85050
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone [mail.onelink.me]
From: Aly Fox
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Case Number Z-39-23
Date: Monday, August 14, 2023 1:26:25 PM
Anthony Grande I am a resident the last 17 years in Aviano in Desert Ridge. I’m
emailing you in reference to case number Z-39-23 to say that we are very excited
for the proposed commercial zoning at the corner of Deer Valley and North Black
Mountain Blvd. We were told that this was in the plan when we first bought. I feel
this will be positive for the area and help bring home values up as well. I hope that
this is highly considered and passed to continue to build. Thank your time and
appreciate all you do.
Alyson and Ken Fox
602-909-0340
From: cici martin
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Desert View Shopping Center - Rezoning
Date: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 9:11:11 PM
Hello,
I am a resident of Sky Crossing and wanted to write to share my thoughts as I have seen a lot of chatter in the Sky
Crossing community FB account.
I am not opposed to a smaller shopping mall with a small grocery store and food/coffee options. Nice mall like
Gainey Ranch or DC Ranch. I would be opposed to a gas station as I believe it will bring traffic from the freeway,
not community members. As well as the noise of refueling trucks.
Just wanted to share my thoughts - commercial property yes; as long as no gas stations are included.
Thank you,
Cecilia Martin
Sent from my iPhone
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Wednesday, August 16, 2023 3:35:09 PM
Name
Jodi Dougan
Jodster_29@hotmail.com
Support Comments
Would love more shopping and eating options close by.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, August 17, 2023 9:42:39 PM
Name
Nicole Mezzatesta
nicolem@lunicabeauty.com
Support Comments
I support this parcel to be zoned for commercial property.
From: Walker, Oliver
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Black Mountain Village Plans at Black Mtn Blvd and Deer Valley Rd
Date: Friday, August 18, 2023 2:09:36 PM
Attachments: image001.png
Anthony,
I hope you are enjoying your Friday! I wanted to reach out as your email was provided by a neighbor
in Sky Crossing as a point of contact on this proposed project.
I live in one of the homes that backs up to Deer Valley and to the piece of land which is being
submitted for rezoning from Residential to Commercial.
I actually love the idea of having a retail center on the plot of land - I absolutely hate the idea of a
gas station being part of the project, especially on the North side of the project as it would be the
first thing I would see out of my back window. I can tell you that opinion within the neighborhood on
the Sky Crossing Facebook group seems to be split 50/50. One thing, however, that seems to be
consensus - nobody wants a gas station as part of the project.
I am in the mortgage lending world, and I can share that if a gas station is placed at the very
northern edge of the parcel, it would render the homes on the other side of Deer Valley unlendable
for certain mortgage products, which seems incredibly unfair to the folks who bought homes here 3
years ago none the wiser to future changes that might occur.
I would stand firmly against a gas station, but would support a well designed retail center that would
serve our community. I have lived in Desert Ridge for the last 15 years, and the project seems very
exciting if done correctly.
Please feel free to call my cell below if you would like any further input or have any questions.
[social.pr]
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Tuesday, August 22, 2023 10:55:52 PM
Name
Doug Dresser
flyboyltu@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Fireside
Support Comments
I’m for no gas station, as we have had a big increase in homelessness in north Phoenix in the last couple
of years as a gas station will increase homeless presence. A small grocery story like sprouts, Aldi, or
Trader Joe’s will be nice as these stores typically don’t attract homelessness and close at a decent hour.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Tuesday, August 22, 2023 4:00:02 PM
Name
Janee Foster
Janeeapostol@yahoo.com
Support Comments
Would like to see a small grocer like Trader Joe’s. Traffic is already so bad by the high school, don’t need
a big retail store there. And NO gas stations!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Tuesday, August 22, 2023 6:50:57 PM
Name
Bob Mayo
bob_mayo@cox.net
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Fireside
Support Comments
I am in support of this project, minus the gas station, think that needs to be rethought. Thank you
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 5:10:04 PM
Name
Clint Marchuk
cmarchuk@yahoo.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Talinn at Desert Ridge
Support Comments
I'm highly supportive of bringing a 2nd grocery store into the Desert Ridge community.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 9:44:23 PM
Name
Raj Kapur
raj85719@gmail.com
Support Comments
the overwhelming majority of desert ridge residents want this project to be built and get another small
grocery store. i would rather not have a gas station though..
From: James Patterson
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Black mountain / deer valley project
Date: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 7:12:43 PM
Anthony,
Hope all is well. I live in Sky Crossing and want to make you (and the other city planners) know that my family
supports this new development. This area continues to grow and we need more amenities like another grocery store,
etc.
I can tell you that the FB group for my neighborhood gets all fired up about every little issue and this is no
different. People are clearly frustrated about pinnacle traffic at 7am… can’t imagine a grocery center is going to
have a ton of extra traffic at that time. They seem to be forgetting the convenience + likely property value
appreciation by having more amenities within walking distance.
I support this development and from what I can tell, Vestar seems like a very reputable firm with a great track record
of great shopping centers.
Apologize in advance if you are getting many emails very different from this one. Appreciate all that the city does!
-Jimmy
James S. Patterson III
(480) 390-4288
Sent from my iPhone
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 11:52:57 AM
Name
Jacqueline Soutus
jackie.soutus@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Desert Ridge
Support Comments
I support this proposal. Currently there is not enough retail in the Desert Ridge area. More house
developments will cause an even larger shortage of restaurants, groceries and other retailers.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Sunday, August 27, 2023 7:11:09 PM
Name
Goldberg Nathan
ndgoldberg@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Fireside - amber crest
Support Comments
I support the proposal but would like it without a gas station. Perhaps we can do some kind of awesome
charging station with higher end convenience store. Also, no Walmart or Walmart market…an AJs or
Trader Joe’s or even a frys would be fantastic.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Monday, August 28, 2023 12:44:37 PM
Name
Sonita W.
Soniyay@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Aviano N 36th St
Support Comments
I just wanted to let you know that as a Aviano resident I am very happy to hear about this development. I
would welcome a grocery store, a coffee shop and other retail, and hopefully also getting dust under
better control once the construction is done. So, good luck and keep us posted.
I do want to request that some thought be given to control of any petty crime that may arise from this
development as there will be increased activity in the surrounding areas.
From: sonia
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New development Desert Ridge Black Mtn Village
Date: Monday, August 28, 2023 12:09:32 PM
I just wanted to let you know that as a Aviano resident I am very happy
to hear about this development. I would welcome a grocery store, a coffee
shop and other retail, and hopefully also getting dust under better control
once the construction is done. So, good luck and keep us posted.
I do want to request that some thought be given to control of any petty
crime that may arise from this development as there will be increased
activity in the surrounding areas.
Thank you
Sonita W.
From: Anthony M Grande
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: FW: SW Corner of Black Mountain Blvd snd Deer Valley
Date: Thursday, August 31, 2023 11:26:19 AM
From: Kim Galetti
Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2023 1:48 PM
To: Michelle Santoro
Subject: SW Corner of Black Mountain Blvd snd Deer Valley
Hi Michelle,
Nice talking to you today. My spouse and I are very excited about the proposed project at the above
corner. We badly need a second option for groceries. This additional competition will be great for
the residents of Desert Ridge. It will also increase property values. Hope this project is approved and
ground is broken soon.
Mr. Kim Galetti
3864 E. Melinda Drive
Phoenix, AZ 85050
443-962-0974
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone [linkprotect.cudasvc.com]
From: Anthony M Grande
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: FW: Black Mountain Village
Date: Thursday, August 31, 2023 11:25:59 AM
From: Nahian Latif
Sent: Saturday, July 22, 2023 11:44 AM
To: Michelle Santoro
Subject: Re: Black Mountain Village
Hi there,
I am a resident near the proposed zoning change at the intersection of deer valley and black
mountain. I support the zoning change to a small commercial to allow for a small grocery store/retail
shop/restaurant. Ideally a small grocery store like trader Joe's would be ideal. Encourage bistros like
Panera/chipotle or a local business to setup shop. Bike friendly lanes and bike locks with
shaded/mature trees around stops would enhance the experience. Future growth for a public
library adjacent would serve the area well.
Thank you
Nahian
Local resident
From: Anthony M Grande
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: FW: Sky Crossing Resident / Black Mountain Village
Date: Monday, September 11, 2023 8:07:40 AM
From: James Patterson
Sent: Friday, September 8, 2023 9:09 AM
To: Michelle Santoro
Subject: Sky Crossing Resident / Black Mountain Village
Hello,
I am a resident of Sky Crossing and very in-favor of this proposed development. For what it's worth,
the community seems overly concerned about 1) the additional traffic around Pinnacle high school
at drop off and pick up, 2) the potential for a gas station and 3) the "aesthetic" of the project.
For me, this seems like a no-brainer given we need a grocery store + other amenities (this helps our
property values). I look forward to attending the town hall on Tuesday
Thanks,
Jimmy
--
James Patterson
(480) 390-4288
From: Jessica Fierros
To: Anthony M Grande
Cc: Robert Fierros
Subject: Aviano resident FOR commercial rezoning
Date: Saturday, September 9, 2023 9:10:41 AM
Hello Anthony,
I am a resident that is beyond excited about the potential rezoning near Pinnacle HS! I am
shocked by the negative response being organized by some here in Desert Ridge. We
DESPERATELY need more commercial businesses to support the homes/community that are
already here. It is horrendous that we only have ONE grocery store and ONE gas station and
ONE fast food restaurant for this many homes in one area- and there are many more homes
still being built. One of the biggest complaints by people is that these businesses will bring in
crime and homelessness. Well guess what?! It's already been moving in and the problem isn't
businesses. The problem is that we have voted in a mayor who is SOFT on crime and our
police force is over worked, under staffed and under funded. Commercial businesses are what
we NEED!!
We have lived in Aviano for 14 years and had already been saying for several years that we
hoped businesses would develop somewhere along this stretch of Deer Valley. We were so
excited to hear about this proposal and couldn't be more disappointed or disheartened by how
"noisy" the ones against this have been. We truly hope they don't ruin this much needed
opportunity for growth in our community.
Jess Fierros
From: Martina McConnon
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Black Mountain shopping area
Date: Saturday, September 9, 2023 8:16:54 AM
Hi Mr Grande,
My name is Martina McConnon, I live in the Fireside community and have been hearing about the planned rezoning
& possible shopping area coming to Black Mountain next to Pinnacle High School. Just wanted to let you know that
our family would very much welcome a grocer like Trader Joes or Sprouts to get that spot. We do not need more
fast food options as we have plenty in Desert Ridge. But another grocery store would be great, especially a healthier
alternative to Albertsons.
Thank you!
Martina McConnon
3826 E Cat Balue Drive
Phoenix AZ 85050
From: vanessacorwin@yahoo.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Support for Black Mountain Village Project
Date: Saturday, September 9, 2023 11:19:25 AM
Mr. Grande,
I am a resident of the Sky Crossing community, and am writing this email in support of the rezoning of
Vestar's proposed Black Mountain Village project. For the planning committee's consideration, I want to
offer some thoughts about the project:
1. Traffic - I have seen a lot of input from community members opposing the rezoning because of traffic
concerns. If it is eventually developed into homes, that'll be another 20+ single family homes built. If it's
developed into townhomes, it'll be another 400 units. If it'll be developed into apartments, the number of
residents will be even higher. Regardless of the outcome of residential development, residential
development will also create more traffic for that area. Those those oppose the rezoning to commercial
don't seem to offer that as a consideration. Some/any level of additional residential development will
further congest DRM. The Vestar development of this land at least offers additional shopping and dining
options, which I would hope offloads DRM to some degree. I see that as a positive. However, I would
hope the City would partner with Vestar to assess entrance and egress points, especially during the
morning when PHS students are driving or being dropped off. I do agree it'll create more traffic at certain
points of the day, so I would hope that is already on the docket to evaluate.
2. Types of businesses on the property - I would ask the planning committee to not support a gas station
with a convenience store. I would rather have a gas station alone, like Costco, with limited hours. A
convenience store option will likely cause more harm than good, in terms of the people who would be
shopping or loitering at the store.
3. There are many concerns about noise from residents in my community and the community to the
immediate east of the proposed development. My house is located 5 houses Black Mountain Boulevard,
and we are objectively closer to the proposed development than 60% of Sky Crossing. In the two+ years
that we've lived in this community, I've never heard any noise from BM boulevard. I can't even hear the
football games at Pinnacle High School. I've seen many people via our community's Facebook and
Desert Ridge's community Facebook groups share this concern as a reason to oppose the development.
How can people 2-3 miles away complain about noise when noise present no impact to them today?
Rhetorical question, but people are grasping at straws.
Overall, while this proposed project is not by any means perfect and there are some legitimate concerns
(like traffic), additional commercial development for this area will be a boost for property values, tax
revenue, economic growth, and some level of job creation. I strongly, strongly support this rezoning in
favor of the Vestar development.
Thank you,
Vanessa Corwin
From: Roland Ward
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Black Mountain Village
Date: Sunday, September 10, 2023 4:25:24 PM
Hello Anthony,
I live in Aviano at Desert Ridge near the proposed Black Mountain Village shopping center.
I fully support the proposal and welcome the additional option for shopping, especially a
grocery store.
Regards,
Roland Ward
3828 E Morning Dove Trail
Phoenix, AZ 85050
From: sonia Whig
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Black mountain village
Date: Monday, September 11, 2023 5:35:10 PM
Not sure if this is the right forum but I am writing to add my FULL SUPPORT for this project.
I live in Aviano and would love to have a coffee shop and a grocery store within walking distance. The land will
definitely go the apartment route if left alone for long. Can’t build more than 6-7 houses in the lot. Can’t imagine
anyone preferring that to a neighbourhood market. I am definitely for it for environmental as well and logistics
reasons.
Thank you
Sent from my iPhone
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 8:48:38 PM
Name
Jared Nielsen
jarheadnielsen@gmail.com
Support Comments
We are very excited about the possibility of a grocery store close to our house. A quick food option would
also be welcome.
From: Polson, Adam
To: Anthony M Grande
Cc: msantoro@gblaw.com
Subject: RE: Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12
Date: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 7:55:44 AM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
Logo_e6253148-26a1-47a9-b861-6ac0ff0bc3c4.png
80pctcolor_2022mansfieldcertificationbadge_492244a7-2944-454d-8270-3a8a522bf068.png
Mr. Grande,
I am sending this e-mail to reaffirm my position that I am IN FAVOR of the proposed development. I attended the
information session by the developer and Gammage and Burnham at Sky Crossing yesterday evening, and I was impressed
with what Vestar was agreeing to do as far as infrastructure in and around this proposed project. If this project is denied, I
do not see a residential developer agreeing to do what Vestar is agreeing to do. Nevertheless, although I do not pretend
to be a traffic engineer, I believe that it makes sense to have a light at 34th street and Deer Valley. This is even though
there is a light nearby at Deer Valley and Black Mountain. Again, I am not a traffic engineer, but it seems to me as a
layperson that 75% of Sky Crossing traffic would be inclined to head west down Deer Valley and enter Sky Crossing at 32nd
Street and/or Sky Crossing Way. I suspect that a lot of people who live around Cave Creek and Deer Valley would also
prefer to have a light at 34th Street. This is something to consider. Again, I am IN FAVOR of the proposed development.
-Adam
Adam S. Polson
Partner
Adam.Polson@lewisbrisbois.com
T: 602.792.1503 F: 602.385.1051
Phoenix Plaza Tower II
2929 North Central Avenue, Suite 1700, Phoenix, AZ 85012 | LewisBrisbois.com [lewisbrisbois.com]
Representing clients from coast to coast. View our locations nationwide. [lewisbrisbois.com]
This e-mail may contain or attach privileged, confidential or protected information intended only for the use of the intended recipient. If you are not the
intended recipient, any review or use of it is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, you are required to notify the sender, then delete
this email and any attachment from your computer and any of your electronic devices where the message is stored.
From: Polson, Adam
Sent: Thursday, August 3, 2023 10:30 AM
To: anthony.grande@phoenix.gov
Subject: Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12
Mr. Grande,
I am sending this e-mail to indicate that I am IN FAVOR of the proposed development. You are likely to see a bunch of
people trying to complain, and my guess is that those people will try to drown out the people who do want the project. I
would strongly prefer if there was no gas station, but I understand the realities of the situation. To the extent there is a
compromise, I would suggest no gas station.
-Adam Polson
2845 E. Cashman Drive
Phoenix, Arizona 85050
Adam S. Polson
Partner
Adam.Polson@lewisbrisbois.com
T: 602.792.1503 F: 602.385.1051
Phoenix Plaza Tower II
2929 North Central Avenue, Suite 1700, Phoenix, AZ 85012 | LewisBrisbois.com [lewisbrisbois.com]
Representing clients from coast to coast. View our locations nationwide. [lewisbrisbois.com]
This e-mail may contain or attach privileged, confidential or protected information intended only for the use of the intended recipient. If you are not the
intended recipient, any review or use of it is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, you are required to notify the sender, then delete
this email and any attachment from your computer and any of your electronic devices where the message is stored.
From: Chris Sinclair
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Black Mountain Village Desert Ridge
Date: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 2:03:18 PM
from the sounds of it, you're getting obliterated with negative comments
about this. just wanted to make sure you know many of us here approve
of this project. we were promised for years we'd be getting a second
grocery store. the people complaining are mostly people that have been
here only a year or 2. many of them back the major roads to this. this
has 2 major roads and leads to the interstate. and backs a high
school. should the rest of the community be deprived of this
development because they bought houses that back these major roads? I
don't think so. I've been here since 2009 and have always known there
was commercial coming. anyways, thanks for hearing me out.
--
Chris Sinclair
Sinclair Engineering LLC
23251 N.38th Place
Phoenix, AZ 85050
480-695-9734
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 11:52:21 AM
Name
Alexander Soutus
asoutus@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
22221 n 41st st
Support Comments
We are in support for commercial business. Preferably a grocery store.
From: david white
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Zoning
Date: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 7:37:10 PM
To Whom This May Concern,
I just want my voice heard.
I fully support the rezoning of the southwest corner of Deer Valley Road and Black Mountain
Blvd. from residential to commercial.
Respectfully,
David White
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 4:09:28 PM
Name
Brandon York
blyork85@gmail.com
Support Comments
Thank you for planning to bring some more shopping to the desert ridge area. Desert ridge marketplace
is a nightmare most all the time with all the congestion.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 14, 2023 5:56:51 PM
Name
Sharon Ceccarelli
Sceccarelli1@gmail.com
Support Comments
I would like a fry’s or Trader Joe’s. Qt would be nice too. I’m down for chic fillet or chipotle
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 14, 2023 7:49:45 PM
Name
Allie Lucyk
Lucykallie88@gmail.com
Support Comments
Bring on the grocery store
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 14, 2023 6:43:12 AM
Name
Chrissy Seibel
chrissyandsteve2011@gmail.com
Support Comments
I’m all for a new grocery store in the area! We are in need!
From: Robert Berto
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Rezoning near Pinnacle High School
Date: Friday, September 15, 2023 8:28:08 AM
I just would say not all residents in this area are opposed to finally building on land that looks like a deserted field
that has not been maintained and does not align with the atmosphere of surrounding homes in the area. Finally
something can be put in place with some amenities north of the 101.
I do have a question though.
Is there a plan to build anything north of Pinnacle Peak and Black Mountain? This land as well looks like overgrown
weeds that have not been maintained.
Not only that, but it is a dark busy road on Pinnacle Peak. Wildlife darts out from the side of the road and could pose
a risk to drivers trying to avoid hitting a coyote chasing a rabbit. I know from experience. I drive it multiple times a
night.
I look forward to seeing more commercial establishments that will help the community that continues to grow.
I just wanted to give some input as I live in the area and my son goes to Pinnacle High School.
Thank You,
Robert Berto
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Saturday, September 16, 2023 6:30:20 AM
Name
Sonia W.
nimbus-polkas0h@icloud.com
Support Comments
Would LOVE to have a Trader Joes or similar grocery store. A nice independent coffee shop would be
great too. Not a gas station though- I don’t think that’s a good idea. Maybe some other tasteful and new
concept retail.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Saturday, September 16, 2023 9:17:01 PM
Name
Lynn Stevens
lynnkstevens@gmail.com
Support Comments
Improved Grocery shopping is needed desert ridge. A Fry’s would offer choices to consumers and
improve the food desert north of the 101.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Sunday, September 17, 2023 2:17:36 PM
Name
Jan Axtell
kentandjan@cox.net
Support Comments
We need another grocery store besides Albertsons!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Sunday, September 17, 2023 8:24:48 PM
Name
Vanessa Corwin
vanessacorwin@yahoo.com
Support Comments
I support this project
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Sunday, September 17, 2023 8:44:54 PM
Name
Michael Curtis
mcc50@q.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
2235 e Parkside lane
Support Comments
I support this there is no grocery stores in this area
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Sunday, September 17, 2023 11:11:07 PM
Name
Melissa Gasper
melissa.gasper@icloud.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Desert peak
Support Comments
I support it
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Sunday, September 17, 2023 7:39:35 PM
Name
John Hamby
Jhamby1011@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Aviano
Support Comments
All day! Living is Aviano is funny because the homes are a millions dollars but the grocery and food
options around are minimal and/or of poor quality. Would love to see more options up here but some
serious traffic mitigation would need to take place because with the high school right there, it’s already a
disaster.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Sunday, September 17, 2023 10:12:51 PM
Name
Brenda Johnson
artbybrenda@cox.net
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
3919 E Daley Lane Phoenix/Aviano
Support Comments
Please! Another grocery store and gas station and another fast food drive-through option!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Sunday, September 17, 2023 2:44:47 PM
Name
Rajesh Kapur
Raj@benefitcommerce.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
20918 N 37th pl
Support Comments
we all want this. please ignore the handful of rowdy fireside folks that are arguing against!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Sunday, September 17, 2023 4:35:44 PM
Name
Jodie Koltes
jodie.koltes@yahoo.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Crescent Butte
Support Comments
Fry’s would be nice!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Sunday, September 17, 2023 10:27:39 PM
Name
Jadyn L
Jnlien267@gmail.com
Support Comments
Please add a Trader Joe’s!!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Sunday, September 17, 2023 3:14:15 PM
Name
Jamie Lafranchi
lafranchi.jamie@gmail.com
Support Comments
We need another grocery. Crazy just to have Albertsons
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Sunday, September 17, 2023 3:32:44 PM
Name
Vanessa Mason
vnessahenderson@gmail.com
Support Comments
As a resident in this area we would
love to have easier access to a nice grocery store without having to drive 10-15 mins to the nearest store.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Sunday, September 17, 2023 12:53:20 PM
Name
Roselyn Meyer
meyerroselyn@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
3818 E Cat Balue Dr
Support Comments
We will support Trader Joe’s to come to our neighborhood!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Sunday, September 17, 2023 8:23:42 PM
Name
Scott Corwin
scott.corwin@yahoo.com
Support Comments
I support this development, but suggest two things: 1) no convenience store as part of any gas station. 2)
Vestar and City do traffic studies to assess impact to BM Boulevard, and make changes to entrance and
egress points.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Sunday, September 17, 2023 7:40:37 PM
Name
Mary Patterson
Mfpatterson2016@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Sky crossing
Support Comments
Support
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Sunday, September 17, 2023 6:44:56 PM
Name
Jon Peterson
jpeterson_az@yahoo.com
Support Comments
I realize the location is not ideal for everyone but I would prefer to have a local grocery store closer and
less crowded than a Desert Ridge
I think the fry’s complex at Thompson Peak and Hayden is a good example of what this could be and
support it.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Sunday, September 17, 2023 10:44:24 PM
Name
Jamisyn Smith
jamisyn.rae.smith@gmail.com
Support Comments
We need better options. A Trader Joe’s please.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Sunday, September 17, 2023 2:21:55 PM
Name
Leslie Wren
lesliewren22@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Cave Creek Rd & Deer Valley
Support Comments
We need another grocery store
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Monday, September 18, 2023 6:54:09 PM
Name
Suhair Riederer
ishtar2000@hotmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
21526 n 59TH way Phoenix AZ 85054
Support Comments
Please bring a sprout , fry’s or Walmart yo the area . We lack a good grocery store in desert ridge
Thanks
Suhair
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Monday, September 18, 2023 4:04:40 PM
Name
Mary Jill Almassy
jillalmassy@cox.net
Support Comments
We definitely need more and more convenient grocery shopping
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Monday, September 18, 2023 6:38:09 PM
Name
Not Helping
Nothelping@stop.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Sky Crossing
Support Comments
Hey Gammage and Burnham - these silly Facebook groups are not a good idea. I actually like the idea of
Black Mountain Village, but having a law firm with no vested interest in the neighborhood aside from the
development being approved creating a Facebook/Instagram group to drum up support for the project
makes your law firm look absolutely desperate, pathetic, and borderline deceptive. Please discontinue
this type of advertising.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Monday, September 18, 2023 10:34:53 AM
Name
Anne Blazek
boutiquewellness@gmail.com
Support Comments
Need more than one alberstsons
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Monday, September 18, 2023 2:08:41 PM
Name
Dennis Brown
azhairguy@hotmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
2513 E Barbed Wire Pass
Support Comments
I think it would be great, yes students need parking which could be part of it, rather more
houses/apartments that they couldn’t park in, stores would be closer for all of us on cave creek and deer
valley ect. Can’t wait for it!!!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Monday, September 18, 2023 5:47:07 AM
Name
Maryanne Christensen
mlchristensen05@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Aviano
Support Comments
We need another grocery store in this area!! I have lived here for 12+ years and the only thing that hasn’t
grown is options to shop for groceries. Please make it a Signature Fry’s!!!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Monday, September 18, 2023 5:09:33 AM
Name
Brian Clifton
bclifton5@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Desert Ridge
Support Comments
We need more business and less housing in the area
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Monday, September 18, 2023 6:44:09 AM
Name
Stephanie Cohen
s_marema@yahoo.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
4410 East Kirkland Rd.
Support Comments
I support and additional shopping development with hopes to have another more boutique style. Grocery
store option.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Monday, September 18, 2023 3:03:00 PM
Name
Ralph Ferrara
ralph.ferrara@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
2129 East Daley Lane
Support Comments
I support this
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Monday, September 18, 2023 6:36:17 AM
Name
Sol Fink
sol_fink@yahoo.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
SkyCrossing
Support Comments
We definitely need a supermarket, some restaurants and a few boutique shops within walking distance of
SkyCrossing.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Monday, September 18, 2023 8:57:01 PM
Name
James Gregory
jamesgregory1882@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Boulder Creek
Support Comments
I'm looking forward to the space being utilized, for what I hope, will be a higher end use.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Monday, September 18, 2023 6:57:52 AM
Name
April Halaby
ahalaby@chicagopropertyconcierge.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
3251 E Harlow Sky Crossing
Support Comments
We wholly support the plans for Vestar to develop the land, including a grocery store. This area is
underserved with regards to grocery stores and small shops, and this would help resolve that issue.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Monday, September 18, 2023 8:45:58 AM
Name
Bob Hamer
Hamer.bob@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Adobe Rd. (Sky crossing resident)
Support Comments
Definitely in favor of the commercial development on Black Mtn and Deer Valley. Closer grocery store
(maybe gas too?) retail restaurants (a coffee shop) would be awesome. Right now we have to go to
desert ridge and it’s too trafficked. Also, growing up and in High School eating at our local restaurants
nearby school was a huge part of the community experience and right now I fear that doesn’t exist. As
long as it’s thoughtful re: loitering and lighting and traffic there really isn’t a downside here at all. Hope we
can get this approved!!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Monday, September 18, 2023 11:47:41 AM
Name
Brooke Harmon
brharmon@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
2214 E SOFT WIND DR
Support Comments
As someone that has live near this area since 2011, I am excited for the potential to build more
commercial stores, including a grocery store other than Albertsons nearby. Our only nearby options for
this is Desert Ridge which is getting ridiculously crowded now that Sky Crossing exists. It's funny that I
see them as the ones complaining, but we were all very opposed to more residential homes in that area
for two reasons. 1 - it made things even more congested and 2 - now our school boundaries risk being
redrawn. I purchased land at cave creek and deer valley for Pinnacle High, now the extra residential
growth is putting our ability to attend that school in the future at risk.
I do NOT want more residential homes at the corner at Black Mountain and Deer Valley. Commercial
property is what I would love to see. It would also create more jobs for our area, especially the older
teens / young adults.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Monday, September 18, 2023 7:52:58 PM
Name
Linda Metcalf
Ljm@hdride.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
26633 N 42nd street
Support Comments
We do need more shopping choices on this area. Not much to choose from right now
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Monday, September 18, 2023 3:02:45 PM
Name
Kyla Geise
kyla_geise@yahoo.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Desert Ridge
Support Comments
I do not want a new gas station/ store on deer valley.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Monday, September 18, 2023 1:13:40 PM
Name
James Patterson
Jsp.three@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Sky Crossing
Support Comments
I fully support this project. It will add much needed amenities to a growing area.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Monday, September 18, 2023 3:04:26 PM
Name
Christina Peregrym
Cperegrym@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Sky crossing
Support Comments
I would love a Trader Joe’s across the street!!’
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Monday, September 18, 2023 4:50:19 AM
Name
Jeanice Ridgway
jeanice@hotmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
2213 E. Monona Dr
Support Comments
We should not need to drive that far to get the things we need. It's a busy corner already with the high
school so it won't change.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Monday, September 18, 2023 10:11:29 AM
Name
David Rucker
azresbroker@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Aviano Desert Ridge
Support Comments
This area is in desperate need of additional shopping. The traffic is way too congested at Tatum and
Deer Valley. It’s also a safety issue for our teens that have to cross Tatum or Deer Valley to get to the
only shopping at Desert Ridge Marketplace. The business revenue for City of Phoenix would be
substantial as multiple businesses are ready to expand to this area. Another grocery anchor is what we
really need. Our options are very limited especially with the expansion off of 56th St. And Deer Valley.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Monday, September 18, 2023 6:27:29 PM
Name
Ron Stilwell
rstilwell9@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Sky Crossing
Support Comments
Yes more choices
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Monday, September 18, 2023 5:14:33 AM
Name
Roland Ward
rmward194@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
3828 E Morning Dove Trail/Aviano
Support Comments
Black Mountain Village is a much needed addition for Desert Ridge residents. Albertsons needs
competition and the current mall is already too congested. I don't shop there because the ingress and
egress are so terrible.
With thousands of new residents coming to Desert Ridge in at least four apartment complexes, new
condos and Talin additional shopping options are absolutely necessary.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Monday, September 18, 2023 5:35:21 PM
Name
Scott Weinberg
scottysair@aol.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
3635 E Zachary Dr
Support Comments
Please build new Fry’s and In N Out Burger, as well as new restaurants.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Monday, September 18, 2023 7:12:09 PM
Name
Shane Zink
shane.j.zink@gmail.com
Support Comments
Put a new grocer in Desert Ridge. Whole Foods or Trader Joe’s would kill here. Don’t listen to the vocal
minority about this.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 12:51:29 PM
Name
Ashley Allen
ashleyallenfit@gmail.com
Support Comments
Please put a grocery store here, with a Starbucks
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 4:13:43 PM
Name
Anna Britt
swedeanna@gmail.com
Support Comments
Its about time! Trader Joe and Sprouts would be great!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 11:19:16 PM
Name
Simental Carolina
csimental@hotmail.com
Support Comments
We need more options on the area. We only have Desert Ridge Mall as option.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 9:43:04 PM
Name
Danielle Coleman
daniellecjacques@msn.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Sky crossing
Support Comments
Desert Ridge marketplace is too congested, would love to have other options
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 8:07:09 AM
Name
Melissa Gitt
melissagitt@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Sky Crossing
Support Comments
We look forward to this potentially happening and appreciate the transparency in your plans.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 8:09:40 AM
Name
Jesse Goldstein
jgoldstein19@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Sky Crossing
Support Comments
We'd like this to happen.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 12:28:44 PM
Name
Jean Kantaros
jkantaros@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Wildcat Ridge
Support Comments
I'd love a grocery store but no stabd alone gas station
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 4:51:34 PM
Name
Sylvia Lind
spawlak0808@gmail.com
Support Comments
Yes we need a grocery store!!! Trader Joe’s please!!!!
There is nothing close by. Albertsons and Costco. Trader Joe’s would be nice.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 8:11:42 AM
Name
Monica Litt
Monicalitt@hotmail.com
Support Comments
We live in Sky Crossing and fully support this project!
A gas station, restaurant, grocery store (would love Trader Joe’s) and a Dutch brothers would be
absolutely amazing!!!!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 4:59:06 PM
Name
Josh Mann
jmann5225@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
23230 N 20TH St
Support Comments
My closest grocery store is desert ridge which is about 12 minutes from my house.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 7:20:31 AM
Name
Don McCaul
ddmccaul1@cox.net
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
3807 E Crest Lane, Phoenix, AZ. 85050
Support Comments
Desert Ridge is exploding in size with no additional retail services. We desperately need an additional
grocery store. Hopefully Vestar will attract Trader Joe’s. Desert Ridge Mall is a transportation nightmare
with poor circulation.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 7:52:42 AM
Name
LM
lauramcintosh5@gmail.com
Support Comments
Trader Joe’s
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 7:47:25 PM
Name
Ben McKeown
buckshanks@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
2521 e paraiso dr
Support Comments
I fully support having more quality grocery options include to my neighborhood.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 6:18:50 PM
Name
Jorge Monroy
jorge.monroy0@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Pinnacle at desert peak
Support Comments
I 100% support more options
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 5:20:08 PM
Name
Marc Pruzansky
mpruzansky@yahoo.com
Support Comments
Albertsons is the only large market in the vicinity. We deserve more options.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 4:29:28 PM
Name
Nathan Rodgers
Iamnatedog@gmail.com
Support Comments
Grocery stores really don’t go north of Bell Road
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 8:59:49 PM
Name
Connie Tracy
ctracycrna@aol.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Aviano
Support Comments
I support more grocery stores and restaurants and shopping .
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 7:29:41 PM
Name
Kasey Allayeva
kaseyaz1225@yahoo.com
Support Comments
Would like to see Trader Joe’s
Aldi store
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 12:28:52 PM
Name
Sommer Arekat
sommer.arekat@gmail.com
Support Comments
Please bring a Trader Joe’s!!!!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 8:37:06 PM
Name
Natalie Castaneda
ndcastaneda80@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
2725 e. Mine creek rd unit 1030 Phoenix, az 85024
Support Comments
We need in this area more retail shopping and a mall too
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 6:37:07 PM
Name
Beth Field
Bethfield1@hotmail.com
Support Comments
Support more shopping
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 10:54:34 AM
Name
Marta Graziano
deltazeta@cox.net
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Desert Peak
Support Comments
My husband and I would greatly appreciate a grocery store with healthy foods like Sprouts. This area is
becoming too dense with homes and not enough grocery stores to support the families who live here.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 2:53:57 PM
Name
Abigail Hunnicutt
abbyjhunnicutt@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
2029 east dry wood rd Phoenix 85024
Support Comments
Our family would love to have a grocery store closer
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 5:42:35 AM
Name
Devin Kaufman
Dgkaufman3@gmail.com
Support Comments
Supportive
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 4:23:46 PM
Name
Cindy Marquardt
cindymarq@cox.net
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
4831 E Williams Dr., Phx 85054
Support Comments
We need another grocery store in desert ridge
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 6:26:33 PM
Name
Lorenia Ochoa
lorenia_o@hotmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
3416 E Los Gatos Dr.
Support Comments
Yes, it would be beneficial to Sky Crossing!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 10:28:39 PM
Name
Sara Phillips
sjsmx@hotmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
904 E Mohawk Dr
Support Comments
A grocery store such as frys, Trader Joe’s and a cvs or Walgreens would be amazing!!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 2:29:33 PM
Name
Joann Polk
Jopolk@me.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
East side of Tatum and Ranger
Support Comments
I support the need for another grocery store in Desert Ridge.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 6:39:54 PM
Name
VERNON PEREZ RUBIO
vpra@me.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
3416 E Los Gatos Dr
Support Comments
I support comercial center
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 9:13:00 PM
Name
Bonnie Sauer
momtogrif@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Fireside
Support Comments
Yes!!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 10:05:49 AM
Name
Nate Schoenfeld
nathan.schoenfeld@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
3251 E Donald Dr Phoenix 850505, Sky Crossing
Support Comments
This is needed!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 4:17:57 PM
Name
Shirlee Tye
tyeshi67@gmail.com
Support Comments
Trader Joe's would be the perfect size store in that location!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 6:29:46 PM
Name
Sunny Weisbaum
sunnyw@sbcglobal.net
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
4009 E hashknife Rd
Support Comments
We need a Trader Joe’s!!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 4:42:43 PM
Name
Jean Kantaros
jkantaros@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
WildCat Ridge
Support Comments
I'm all for a grocery store. NO to a gas station.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 6:42:47 PM
Name
Michael Charley
mcharle9@asu.edu
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Moon Valley
Support Comments
I support the location as their needs to be a grocery store within desert ridge.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 6:18:51 PM
Name
Crystal Cline
crystal2383@aol.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
21917 N 59th Ter
Support Comments
We would love more grocery store, restaurants and shopping options!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 9:32:19 PM
Name
John DEAN
Johntdean@aol.com
Support Comments
I support a grocer and gas station
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 8:48:50 PM
Name
Sandesh Dev
Sandeshdev1@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Aviano
Support Comments
Grocery store is a positive - Sprouts or Whole Foods would be great
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 6:50:13 PM
Name
Joann Friedman
joannwf@cox.net
Support Comments
I watched Desert Ridge shopping Center being built and was thrilled when Albertson's was completed.
Another market facility would add to desert ridge neighbors choices. I wholeheartedly support this idea
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 6:05:00 PM
Name
Shannon Griffith
Rowharder1@gmail.com
Support Comments
It would be very beneficial to build a Trader Joe’s at Deer Valley Dr and Black Mountain Pkwy. This area
is saturated with customers and shopping. However, having more grocery options gives people more
choices. Having a Trader Joe’s also appeals to a younger audience and is highly desirable.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 7:56:23 PM
Name
Bethany Gunn
bethbaz79@aol.com
Support Comments
Trader Joe’s would be great! That’s all I want. Please put one in.
Thank you
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 7:19:17 PM
Name
Jodi Hoffman
lbux555@aol.com
Support Comments
I live off of Cave Creek right after Deer Valley. The only convenient store is Costco. I dont always need to
buy in bulk. Please place a Fryes near me.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 3:09:37 PM
Name
Jennifer Hopkins
jenay99@aol.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
3941 E Hashknife Rd
Support Comments
This is definitely needed in this area as our options are very limited for how many homes are in the area
versus convenience to a local grocer. This is fully supported.
Thank you!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 6:16:47 PM
Name
Joseph Joaquin
Josephj1299@yahoo.com
Support Comments
It would be good to have a Trader Joe’s at Desert Ridge.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 10:35:42 PM
Name
Samalie Kahunde
samaliek@yahoo.com
Support Comments
To begin with, the proposed development will be closer to where our family lives than Desert Ridge
Marketplace. Sometimes, one just needs to make a really quick dash to the store to make a much-
needed quick family dinner, when running late.
I also appreciate the Fuel Station - again for the convenience of proximity when one needs to get the kids
to school or get oneself to work.
If the following stores (Trader Joe’s, Whole Foods, Fry’s, Sprouts or Safeway) were brought closer to the
Desert Ridge residences, it would be a big plus as we usually travel little longer to one of their locations.
In summary, proximity, quality and variety of options, are key for my family and I.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 12:21:07 PM
Name
Debra Kruszalnicki
dsbeerrn99@aol.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Sky Crossing
Support Comments
Sprouts please
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 2:15:29 PM
Name
Cindy Lien
cindyrocketonline@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Mountain Gate
Support Comments
The Albertsons parking lot drivers are just rude and awful and drive like they are above the laws of traffic.
Need more alternatives.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 9:53:56 PM
Name
Diane McCaul
ddmccaul1@gmail.com
Support Comments
Would love to see a Trader Joe’s or a Sprouts at this location.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 10:46:09 PM
Name
Klara McClellan
Klara.mcclellan@hotmail.com
Support Comments
I would love to see Trader Joe's there
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 6:34:54 PM
Name
Whitney Murto
whitneymurto@gmail.com
Support Comments
Trader joes
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 6:55:08 PM
Name
Neal Dubey
neal.dubey@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
22313 N 36th Street
Support Comments
I would love a neighborhood shopping center catering to the local community as getting in and out of
Desert Ridge Marketplace can be quite congested. I prefer a smaller grocery store like a Trader Joe's
over a larger store like Fry's. I am opposed to having a gas station in station the complex. Based on my
discussions with people in the community if the shopping center had Trader Joe's and no gas station
more people would support the development.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 9:03:50 PM
Name
Michelle Nordmann
normoyle@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
23009 North 23rd Place
Support Comments
Would appreciate another spot to shop. Desert ridge is impossible
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 6:11:39 PM
Name
Jaimee Pascale
bklyndevil24@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
23825 N 25th way
Support Comments
It would be much closer for us
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 6:10:44 PM
Name
Anne Pauli
Paulifamily@hotmail.com
Support Comments
TRADER JOES!!! We need one in our area!!!!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 7:32:29 PM
Name
Mary Petty
smspetty2006@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Sky Crossing
Support Comments
I would love to have a Sprouts grocery store nearby. The second choice would be Trader Joe's. I have to
drive a ways to get to the nearest Sprouts store. I would love to have access to both the Albertsons we
have and adding a Sprouts nearby.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 7:11:42 PM
Name
Raymond Rita
raymond3213@hotmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Sky crossing.
Support Comments
I love this idea and have been waiting for news on its development.
Going to desert ridge marketplace is a pain in the butt for the essentials, it will be nice to have a place
that is much closer. It’s a huge win for people who want to bike and walk too.
I think the developers can secure a big win if they scrap the gas station idea. I also think having a left
hand turn option on 34th street would be a big win.
I also think you should include more studies on how convenient/walkable areas like this improve properly
values.
Many of the naysayers also site traffic, however for most residents of SC it’s a net win since they will
drive less to DRM. The safety concerns are also silly cuz there’s already traffic, and the new
improvements will actually make it safer.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 6:24:11 PM
Name
Sophia Rizk
sophia_rizk@yahoo.fr
Support Comments
A Trader Joe’s would be great in the neighborhood.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 9:40:00 AM
Name
David Roth
lancets.bearded.0v@icloud.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Sky Crossing Neighborhood
Support Comments
We fully support development at Deer Valley & Black Mountain Blvd. Desert Ridge can be extremely
busy with traffic in that area, so it would be nice to have other shopping options closer to our home in Sky
Crossing.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 6:26:26 PM
Name
Marjorie Schnell
ms.margieschnell@yahoo.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
39726 N MESSNER WAY
Support Comments
Would love a Trader Joe's or While Foods at Desert Ridge, perfect size and variety of food different from
the many Frys and Sageways we have around. Thank you!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 8:01:21 PM
Name
Kassie Shirey
kassie.shirey@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
2517 E. Paraiso Dr
Support Comments
A neighborhood Sprouts or Trader Joe’s would be wonderful!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 6:39:34 PM
Name
Elissa Silber
gemsilber@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
5867 E Tierra Buena Ln
Support Comments
I would like a Trader Joe’s, or a Sprouts to go on there.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 6:24:59 PM
Name
Cynthia Sowa
clusowa@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
23319 N 44TH PL
Support Comments
Trader Joe's would be great!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 7:18:45 PM
Name
Scott Starr
rltycheck@aol.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Aviano
Support Comments
Thai would be a great addition.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 8:29:06 PM
Name
April Storey
azstorey@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Mountain Gate Pass
Support Comments
Trader Joe’s!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 6:39:37 PM
Name
Elena Tager
elenatager@yahoo.com
Support Comments
We support.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 6:00:15 PM
Name
Juli Thompson
Julesnrs@gmail.com
Support Comments
Yes, I vote for Whole Foods and a trader Joe’s
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 7:57:47 PM
Name
Morgan Troutman
morgan.troutman8700@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
12802 N 23RD ST
Support Comments
I support the proposal of a new grocer in the desert ridge area... preferably Fry's.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 6:03:56 PM
Name
Amber Vercelline
amber.rhodes.rn@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Tatum Manor
Support Comments
Agree with grocery store. Would love Trader Joe’s
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 5:58:52 PM
Name
chris waranch
cwaranch@gmail.com
Support Comments
Would appreciate a new grocery store in this location
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 7:18:11 PM
Name
John Zatarski
jzatarski@hotmail.com
Support Comments
YES - We need another Grocery Store !
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 10:25:29 PM
Name
Mike Albers
MikeAlbers23@gmail.com
Support Comments
Huge NO for gas of any kind.
Yes Trader Joe's or Whole Foods.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Friday, September 22, 2023 12:07:37 PM
Name
David Ashkuri
davidashkuri@yahoo.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
3514 E Utopia Rd.
Support Comments
We would love to see either a traders joe’s
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Friday, September 22, 2023 2:21:51 PM
Name
Tony Baldwin
Avalosoul@live.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Aviano
Support Comments
Trader joes please
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Friday, September 22, 2023 11:36:27 AM
Name
Samantha Bednarz
samiebednarz@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
4616 E Desert Cactus St
Support Comments
This area absolutely needs a Sprouts!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Friday, September 22, 2023 8:25:47 AM
Name
Kimberly Bocchi
kimberly.a.bocchi@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Sky crossing
Support Comments
Such a great use of the land over here!!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Friday, September 22, 2023 10:03:27 PM
Name
Amanda Brockbank
Brockbankamanda16@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Boulder creek at desert foothills subdivision
Support Comments
I think this proposed plan adds value and convenience to the north Phoenix area. With the growing
number of houses going up and no new stores, especially grocery, going up, this will be a positive and
impactful addition to our neighborhood. We don’t want more houses or apartments crammed together.
We want something that will actually be of use in the day to day life.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Friday, September 22, 2023 10:11:14 AM
Name
Susan Cotner
sccotner@hotmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
23650 N. 22nd St.
Support Comments
As senior living in the area, having a new neighborhood grocery store would help me to age in place in
my current home. Currently I live more than 5 miles away from any grocery store.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Friday, September 22, 2023 7:32:55 AM
Name
Kimberly Fabrycki
kimberlyfabrycki@hotmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
3222 E Bryce Ln
Support Comments
Trader Joe’s please .
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Friday, September 22, 2023 1:09:18 PM
Name
Sara Grasteit
sarajuneco@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Aviano
Support Comments
Please make it a Trader Joe’s!!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Friday, September 22, 2023 12:55:08 AM
Name
kevin jerrett
krjerrett@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
5350 6 deer valley drive
Support Comments
Hope its a frys
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Friday, September 22, 2023 12:44:20 PM
Name
PG Lakshminarayan
plakshman@rocketmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Aviani
Support Comments
Support mini grocer like trader joe or sprouts...
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Friday, September 22, 2023 6:32:26 AM
Name
David Larcher
Dlarcher@vestar.com
Support Comments
Go for it
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Friday, September 22, 2023 9:53:48 AM
Name
Sarah Larocca
sarahdeelo@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
3984 E Scout Pass
Support Comments
We need a healthy, organic grocery store that is local.
From: Michelle Santoro
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: FW: Support for Black Mountain Village Project
Date: Friday, September 22, 2023 11:33:04 AM
-----Original Message-----
From: Aaron Lloyd
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2023 11:21 AM
To: anthony.grande@phoenix.gov
Cc: Michelle Santoro
Subject: Support for Black Mountain Village Project
Mr. Grande,
I will not be able to attend the meeting on October 3 but write to provide my strong support for the Black Mountain
Village rezoning project. As a homeowner in the Sky Crossing community I view this project favorably. It will be a
good use of the land and provide homeowners in the surrounding neighborhoods with options not found in the
immediate vicinity. I would much prefer a commercial rezoning to a multi family project and believe those opposed
may be not realizing other potential and less favorable uses for the land.
As a former member of the PV Village Planning Committee, this project has my full support, and I urge the
committee to vote to approve on October 3.
Thanks,
Aaron Lloyd
Sent from my iPhone
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Friday, September 22, 2023 11:10:41 AM
Name
Aaron Lloyd
aarontlloyd@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
21926 N 29th St
Support Comments
Hello,
I strongly support this project as a neighbor in the Sky Crossing community. I believe the project will be
an asset to the neighboring communities, provide additional services not found in the immediate
neighborhood, and be a good use of the land. I strongly recommend that the planning committee approve
the project at the upcoming meeting!
Thanks,
Aaron Lloyd
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Friday, September 22, 2023 4:10:08 PM
Name
Thomas Mosmeyer
thomasmosmeyer@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
4514 E Weaver Road
Support Comments
The ability to walk to a grocer can greatly reduce the traffic strain that is clearly obvious in front of Desert
Ridge Marketplace. The more walkable the surrounding neighborhoods, the cheaper and less deleterious
the use of cars becomes.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Friday, September 22, 2023 1:02:47 PM
Name
Charles Pawlak
charlespawlak@cox.net
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Aviano
Support Comments
A grocery store is badly needed and the Desert Ridge area with all the new apartments and homes being
built and only Albertsons available within a few miles. I totally support a grocery store at the southwest
corner of Deer Valley and Black Mountain
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Friday, September 22, 2023 7:34:01 AM
Name
Nikki Reiter
nikkijean6@yahoo.com
Support Comments
Trader Joe’s would kill it up in this neighborhood! We have to travel all the way down to tatum and shea
or get overwhelmed at the FLW location. Also a full sized Sprouts or ALDIs would be nice.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Friday, September 22, 2023 12:23:46 AM
Name
Gianna Schneider
ggbella12@gmail.com
Support Comments
Trader joe’s!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Friday, September 22, 2023 7:52:48 PM
Name
Sylvia Sebescu
silvip3@yahoo.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
23222 N. 41 st Street, Phoenix 85050
Support Comments
We need grocery store in our neighborhood.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Friday, September 22, 2023 10:17:31 AM
Name
Will Shirey
wtshirey@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
2517 E. Paraiso Dr.
Support Comments
I support this initiative. We need more fuel and groceries in this area. Prefer Sprouts or Trader Joe’s as
first choice. Fry’s second choice.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Friday, September 22, 2023 3:20:20 PM
Name
Jennifer Ulrich
jenbulrich@yahoo.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Stone Butte
Support Comments
We need closer shopping and restaurant options
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Friday, September 22, 2023 8:13:18 AM
Name
Rohit Vir
rohitvir@hotmail.com
Support Comments
Love the idea
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Saturday, September 23, 2023 12:01:03 PM
Name
Ariela Acuna
Acunaariela@gmail.com
Support Comments
We really need more stores near our neighborhood as there isn’t much around and other stores such as
desert ridge are becoming super crowded.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Saturday, September 23, 2023 9:37:09 AM
Name
David Allayev
davidallayev5@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
3843 e expedition way
Support Comments
This would be great for the neighborhood
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Saturday, September 23, 2023 10:15:32 AM
Name
Karla Grajeda
Karlaplacido_96@hotmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
23555 n desert peak parkway Phoenix Arizona 85024
Support Comments
Give us a Trader Joe’s and Whole Foods
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Saturday, September 23, 2023 5:34:53 PM
Name
Ginny Komlos
ginnykomlos@gmail.com
Support Comments
We need a new supermarket and gas station in the Deer Valley/Black Mountain
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Saturday, September 23, 2023 11:05:11 AM
Name
Greg Kraus
greg.kraus@datadvisors.com
Support Comments
Can’t wait
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Saturday, September 23, 2023 8:08:31 AM
Name
Lama Mattar
lama.mattar@hotmail.com
Support Comments
Such a great idea !!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Saturday, September 23, 2023 9:16:56 AM
Name
Terrie Miller
tmiller855@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
5350 E Deer Valley Dr
Support Comments
We need another grocery option as well as dining in this area.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Saturday, September 23, 2023 1:04:05 PM
Name
Shaun Kelley
sh4unz0r@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Sky Crossing
Support Comments
My support for this development is contingent upon 3 things:
1. Grocer is guaranteed to be Sprouts, Whole Foods, or AJ's
2. No gas station, given the above grocers don't do accessory stations.
3. Lighting plan is implemented to be similar to lights at the Shops at Gainey Village.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Saturday, September 23, 2023 2:03:22 PM
Name
Jennifer Padgett
Jcwiltse3@yahoo.com
Support Comments
Trader Joe’s!!!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Saturday, September 23, 2023 10:46:54 AM
Name
Kaci Peregrym
kaciperegrym@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
3253 E Pike St
Support Comments
n/a
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Saturday, September 23, 2023 9:50:49 AM
Name
Gloria Poppa
gjpoppa@yahoo.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
5450 E Deer Valley Dr. #4211 Phoenix AZ 8505
Support Comments
LOVE IT!!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Saturday, September 23, 2023 6:20:40 AM
Name
Xiomara Pravong
xpravong@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
18618 N 34th Pl
Support Comments
Trader Joe’s please
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Saturday, September 23, 2023 8:24:20 AM
Name
Marisa Sanchez
Marisatsanchez@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Desert Peak
Support Comments
We’d like to see a Whole Foods or Sprouts put in. It’s a long drive to either of these places. Or even a
Natural Grocers or Trader Joe’s.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Sunday, September 24, 2023 12:05:30 PM
Name
Joyce Carlberg
carlberg_az@msn.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Sky Crossing
Support Comments
We are in favor
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Sunday, September 24, 2023 7:00:37 PM
Name
Beth Dahl
bethdahl@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Cachet at Peakview
Support Comments
I lived in Aviano and Fireside for 8 years. I would have loved this center a mile from
My house
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Sunday, September 24, 2023 8:21:29 PM
Name
Dianne Moore
dianneishappy@gmail.com
Support Comments
I would be interested in a Trader Joe’s. Is that a possibility?
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Sunday, September 24, 2023 8:01:25 PM
Name
Al Mercado
azalbert@cox.net
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Aviano
Support Comments
Please only speciality high-quality markets like Trader Joe’s, Whole Foods, Fry’s, Sprouts. Please NOT
Frys or Safeway!!!
And surrounded by small retail stores = ok, but NO fuel station please!!!!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Sunday, September 24, 2023 10:23:43 AM
Name
Donald Pearman
1fantasea@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
PO Box 5155 Carefree AZ 85377
Support Comments
I would like the facility (s) to exist. Please help make it happen
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Sunday, September 24, 2023 6:59:13 AM
Name
Victoria Pearman
Twobeadorknot@yahoo.com
Support Comments
I would love to see a Trader Joe’s or something similar in that area. I support Desert Ridge’s idea to build
another grocery. I would definitely use it when in the area.
From: Dan Oseran
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Support(ish) for Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12
Date: Sunday, September 24, 2023 10:56:17 PM
Hi,
I know you are probably inundated with notes about the development on BMB and Deer Valley. Thank you for
taking the time to consider all of the suggestions.
I support a form of development with limitations. I would strongly support a C-1 designation (rather than the
proposed c-2) with no gas stations or fast food drive through pads. I support a true neighborhood community
commercial development.
The area immediately surrounding this parcel has homes worth over a million dollars and I think Vestar made a
tactical error by trying to build too much on the property. The current proposal isn’t aligned with the ‘feeling’ of the
immediately surrounding neighborhood, which is quieter, more residential, and further from the Desert Ridge core.
If a more modest commercial development was proposed, I think it could make a positive difference in the
community and be better received.
Thank you again,
Dan Oseran
From: Mandi Fleming
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Fireside at Desert Ridge - Superblock 12 Rezoning Amendment Requests
Date: Monday, September 25, 2023 11:18:59 AM
Dear Mr. Grande,
This communication is to inform you that as homeowners at Fireside Desert Ridge, my
husband, Tom, and I are in favor of the proposed rezoning requests. You will find the case
numbers associated with this proposal below:
Case No. SPA-DS1 V-2-23-2
Case No. CPA-DSTV-3-23-2
Case No. 1-39-23
Warm Regards,
Mandi and Tom Fleming
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Monday, September 25, 2023 9:40:42 AM
Name
Ana Keller
Anarygi@cox.net
Support Comments
I will strongly support a Trader Joe’s store .
We don’t have any of those close by and I’m sure it will be the best since we have 3 other ones you
mention already and close by too .
Thank you !
Ana Keller
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Monday, September 25, 2023 10:26:01 AM
Name
Alexandra Lusk
alusk482@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Desert ridge
Support Comments
Trader Joe’s. I’m all in. Sprouts. For sure.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Monday, September 25, 2023 4:23:22 PM
Name
Paul Marazzo
amarazzo@arrowheadbmw.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Sky crossing
Support Comments
Sounds great! Better than building apartments!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Monday, September 25, 2023 9:05:32 AM
Name
Shelly Palmer
shellypalmerrd@gmail.com
Support Comments
I would support a Trader Joe’s or Whole Foods
SUPPORT FOR NEW GROCER AT DEER VALLEY ROAD AND BLACK MOUNTAIN BOULEVARD
Name City State Postal Code Country Signed On
New Grocer US 9/1/2023
David Larcher Brooklyn NY 11249 US 9/4/2023
Yvette Mayo Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/6/2023
Bob Mayo Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/6/2023
Stephanie Garcia Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/6/2023
Susan Hweimel Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/6/2023
Christine McNeal Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/6/2023
Monica Pereira-Guana Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/6/2023
Chris Cross Phoenix AZ 85016 US 9/6/2023
Kiersten Pace Phoenix AZ 85017 US 9/6/2023
Mary Downing Clifton CO 81520 US 9/6/2023
Sandy Summers Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/6/2023
Cheryl Wadina Phoenix AZ 85024 US 9/6/2023
Lina Chua Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/6/2023
Jill Blair Phoenix AZ 85085 US 9/6/2023
Skeleton Key Los AngelesCA US 9/6/2023
Michael Vittorio Chicago 97603 US 9/6/2023
Nancy Thompson Kennesaw 30152 US 9/6/2023
Jon Inwood Brooklyn NY 1123 US 9/6/2023
Alix Cassagnol Watertown 13601 US 9/6/2023
Daniel O'Brien MILTON 12547 US 9/6/2023
Preston Towne Burlington 52601 US 9/6/2023
Arya Albritton Terre Haute 47802 US 9/6/2023
Chloe Carlton Peoria 61604 US 9/6/2023
Kieth Bryant Seattle 98118 US 9/6/2023
Shane White Kansas City 66101 US 9/6/2023
Mackenzie Griswold Irving 75063 US 9/6/2023
Max Mildebrandt US 9/6/2023
Aja Smith Norristown 19401 US 9/6/2023
Miala Wilkerson Atlanta 30315 US 9/6/2023
Gedion Yemane Los Angeles 90016 US 9/6/2023
Michael Keith Cincinnati 45239 US 9/6/2023
Frehiwot Gezahegn Hayward 94544 US 9/6/2023
Catherine Kenyon La Quinta 92253 US 9/6/2023
Andrew Floyd US 9/6/2023
Viviana Sanchez Jamaica Plain 2130 US 9/6/2023
lyssy howard Annapolis 21403 US 9/6/2023
Liliana Martinez Caldwell 83605 US 9/6/2023
Ivory Murphy Asbury Park 7712 US 9/6/2023
Trukessa Ussery Hampton 30228 US 9/6/2023
Cynthia Ervin Winston-salem 27105 US 9/6/2023
Mia Helmick Dearborn 48126 US 9/6/2023
Sennait Misghinna Wylie 75098 US 9/6/2023
SUPPORT FOR NEW GROCER AT DEER VALLEY ROAD AND BLACK MOUNTAIN BOULEVARD
Melissa Winner Phoenix AZ 85024 US 9/6/2023
Ann Jankes Phoenix AZ 85054 US 9/6/2023
Lisa Andreas Phoenix AZ 85016 US 9/6/2023
Debbie Merrick Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/6/2023
Gary Lawrence Phoenix AZ 85040 US 9/7/2023
Deirdre Menchaca Hyannis MA 2601 US 9/7/2023
Melanie Stone Phoenix AZ 85024 US 9/7/2023
Carol Ditmore Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/7/2023
Martina McConnon Phoenix AZ 85080 US 9/7/2023
Moon Knight Los AngelesCA US 9/8/2023
Sheena Lamon Phoenix AZ 85024 US 9/11/2023
Christopher Lamon Phoenix AZ 85008 US 9/11/2023
Diane Diamond Phoenix AZ 85024 US 9/11/2023
Shannon Garman Phoenix AZ 85036 US 9/11/2023
Chantelle Sabbath Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/11/2023
Jenna Huffman Phoenix AZ 85024 US 9/11/2023
Robert Caccamo Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/11/2023
Lina Senia Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/11/2023
Susan Cheeseman Phoenix AZ 85024 US 9/11/2023
Beth levine Phoenix AZ 85015 US 9/11/2023
Jamie Bush Phoenix AZ 85003 US 9/11/2023
Sonita W. Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/11/2023
Ginny Komlos Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/11/2023
Christine Nard Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/11/2023
Don Crosby Phoenix AZ 85008 US 9/11/2023
Susan Almanza Phoenix AZ 85059 US 9/11/2023
Angela Marnell Phoenix AZ 85024 US 9/11/2023
Karen Flaherty Phoenix AZ 85063 US 9/11/2023
Rita Onofrio Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/11/2023
Rebeka Bauer Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/11/2023
Juliana Fisher Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/12/2023
Sharon Levy Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/12/2023
Susan Nerheim Phoenix AZ 85024 US 9/12/2023
Maria Elizabeth Rodriguez Phoenix AZ 85022 US 9/12/2023
Sarah Levine Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/12/2023
Jodi Lavin Phoenix AZ 85024 US 9/12/2023
Patrice Kimmerle Phoenix AZ 85003 US 9/12/2023
Betsy Studer Phoenix AZ 85009 US 9/12/2023
Mohan Paredla Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/12/2023
Sri Ben Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/12/2023
Hamsa Srinivasan Phoenix AZ 85080 US 9/12/2023
Sunil K Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/12/2023
Sananda Saha Phoenix AZ 85041 US 9/12/2023
Jamie Bessler Phoenix AZ 85014 US 9/12/2023
Shachindra Pandey Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/12/2023
SUPPORT FOR NEW GROCER AT DEER VALLEY ROAD AND BLACK MOUNTAIN BOULEVARD
Divya Kutty Phoenix AZ 85024 US 9/12/2023
Kingshuk Choudhary San Dimas CA 91773 US 9/12/2023
Neil Hoffman Phoenix AZ 85024 US 9/12/2023
Colleen Widdows Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/12/2023
Barbara Welch Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/12/2023
Kirstin Robinson Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/12/2023
Kathy Petersen Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/12/2023
aaron brock HOWELL 48843 US 9/12/2023
G. Diane Matthews-Marcelin Carson 90746 US 9/12/2023
Javier Chacin Memphis 38112 US 9/12/2023
Christina Rago Cave Creek AZ 85331 US 9/12/2023
barbara coyle San Antonio 78234 US 9/12/2023
Christopher Bean US 9/12/2023
Mary Ursaki Portland 97206 US 9/12/2023
Stephen Roan Baton Rouge 70807 US 9/12/2023
Cody teawitch Castle Rock 80109 US 9/12/2023
natalie thornhill Charleston 25312 US 9/12/2023
Jonna Parker Phoenix AZ 85024 US 9/12/2023
Niko D-R US 9/12/2023
natalie Thornhill Elkview 25071 US 9/12/2023
Jaslyn Ruvalcaba Aurora 80010 US 9/12/2023
Zach Pemberton Santa Rosa 95404 US 9/12/2023
Diana Brown San Bernardino 92410 US 9/12/2023
Cathie Andresen Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/12/2023
Kristin Peterson Scottsdale AZ 85261 US 9/12/2023
Julie Greenberg Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/12/2023
Alysson Zatarga Phoenix AZ 85004 US 9/12/2023
Sarah Williford Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/12/2023
Daliah Meirovits Phoenix AZ 85006 US 9/12/2023
Liz DAnna Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/12/2023
Carrie Cummings Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/12/2023
Julie Peterson Phoenix AZ 85041 US 9/12/2023
Nancy Ackel Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/12/2023
Tony D’Anna Phoenix AZ 85041 US 9/12/2023
Elena Tager Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/12/2023
Sk V Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/12/2023
Carole Fields Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/12/2023
Stephanie Gustafson Phoenix AZ 85041 US 9/12/2023
William Getz Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/12/2023
Karenlee Thorpe Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/12/2023
Joann BEVERLY Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/12/2023
David Binkley Phoenix AZ 85024 US 9/12/2023
Sidney Mae Phoenix AZ 85024 US 9/12/2023
Gillian Fallas Phoenix AZ 85024 US 9/12/2023
Olivia Filippone Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/12/2023
SUPPORT FOR NEW GROCER AT DEER VALLEY ROAD AND BLACK MOUNTAIN BOULEVARD
Dinesh Chintalapuri Phoenix AZ 85024 US 9/12/2023
Jenny Araujo Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/12/2023
Abhishek Saxena Phoenix AZ 85024 US 9/12/2023
Robin Berning Phoenix AZ 85006 US 9/12/2023
Jen Silverberg Phoenix AZ 85024 US 9/12/2023
Sheila Hansen Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/12/2023
Tamara Hajja Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/12/2023
Shalimar Marshall Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/12/2023
Leah Mondlick New York NY 10038 US 9/12/2023
Michele Briggs Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/12/2023
Laurie Thrasher Phoenix AZ 85024 US 9/12/2023
Johnston Melanie Phoenix AZ 85012 US 9/12/2023
Noel Ortiz Phoenix AZ 85004 US 9/12/2023
Michele Sonkin Phoenix AZ 85068 US 9/12/2023
James Patterson Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/12/2023
Keaira Tighe Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/12/2023
Geoff Rubin Phoenix AZ 85024 US 9/12/2023
Kate Fleming Phoenix AZ 85025 US 9/12/2023
Courtney Strittmater Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/12/2023
Crystal Alix Phoenix AZ 85041 US 9/12/2023
Irish Shay Phoenix AZ 85041 US 9/12/2023
Natalie Monjoin Phoenix AZ 85041 US 9/12/2023
Navneet Bhatnagar Phoenix AZ 85080 US 9/12/2023
Monika Saxena Phoenix AZ 85036 US 9/12/2023
Victoria Zacchini Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/12/2023
Adam Polson Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/12/2023
Shilpi Gupta Phoenix AZ 85024 US 9/12/2023
Lavanya Juttukonda Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/12/2023
Shane Zink Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/12/2023
Annabel Rimmer Phoenix AZ 85020 US 9/12/2023
Chris Sinclair Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/12/2023
Abhilasha Kapur Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/12/2023
James Watson Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/12/2023
Nancy Thomas Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/12/2023
Praveen avuthu Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/12/2023
Chris Collins Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/12/2023
Derek Geisinger Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/12/2023
Lauren Barbaruolo Phoenix AZ 85016 US 9/12/2023
Christina Peregrym Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/12/2023
Meredith Blythe Phoenix AZ 85013 US 9/12/2023
Keith Maclaren Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/12/2023
Carrie Laliberte Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/12/2023
Jennifer Kovacik Scottsdale AZ 85254 US 9/12/2023
Meredith Edling Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/12/2023
Richa Sharma Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/12/2023
SUPPORT FOR NEW GROCER AT DEER VALLEY ROAD AND BLACK MOUNTAIN BOULEVARD
Audrey Somers Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/12/2023
Preston Spriggel Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/12/2023
Dipti Dravid Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/12/2023
Katie Ray Phoenix AZ 85016 US 9/12/2023
Cici Martin Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/12/2023
Nathan Goldberg Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/12/2023
Lavanya Vinjamuri Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/12/2023
Brooke chez Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/12/2023
Yana Dashevsky Phoenix AZ 85007 US 9/12/2023
Joshua Hope Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/12/2023
Tanner Davis Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/12/2023
Brianne Fischer Collierville 38017 US 9/12/2023
Neal Dubey Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/12/2023
Shivani Dubey Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/12/2023
Robert Fierros Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/12/2023
Josh Schweser Phoenix AZ 85041 US 9/12/2023
Leslie German Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/13/2023
Heather Noble Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/13/2023
Annie Maiden-Hope Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/13/2023
David Wallace Phoenix AZ 85006 US 9/13/2023
Jodie Koltes Phoenix AZ 85004 US 9/13/2023
Brad Otoupalik Phoenix AZ 85027 US 9/13/2023
Susan Tinsley San Diego CA 92101 US 9/13/2023
Brian Sevchik Phoenix AZ 85015 US 9/13/2023
David M Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/14/2023
Chrissy Seibel Phoenix AZ 85013 US 9/14/2023
Raymond Rita Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/14/2023
Ivy Bryan Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/14/2023
Jordan Sandler Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/15/2023
Scott Corwin Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/15/2023
Sean Morgan Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/15/2023
Monica Litt Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/15/2023
Melissa Gitt Phoenix AZ 85036 US 9/15/2023
Vanessa Corwin Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/15/2023
Morgan Bircher Phoenix AZ 85041 US 9/16/2023
Pratiba Rachamalla Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/16/2023
Mark Sidorenkov Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/17/2023
Erin Reese Phoenix AZ 85008 US 9/17/2023
Bob Hamer Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/17/2023
CJ Wren Phoenix AZ 85024 US 9/17/2023
Lorraine Roberts Rocky Poin NC 28457 US 9/17/2023
Shyamsharan Prajapati Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/18/2023
Jaiden Dubey Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/22/2023
Shweta ghumre Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/22/2023
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Monday, September 25, 2023 1:09:13 AM
Name
Emily Schaefer
emily.schaefer@me.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Tatum Village
Support Comments
Support of sprouts or Safeway
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Monday, September 25, 2023 6:02:40 PM
Name
Fan Wu
wufan1026@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
4723 E Parkside Ln
Support Comments
I am writing the comments below to support Vestar’s proposal to develop the 20.5 acres of Property
located at the southwest corner of Deer Valley Drive and Black Mountain Parkway as a retail shopping
center called Black Mountain Village.
I believed the new grocery store will have the following benefit:
1.Local Economic Growth
2.Convenience and Accessibility
3.Community Gathering Place
4.Environmental Sustainability
From: mjb cartof.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: FW: Review & Comment on General Plan Amendment in the Desert View Village (GPA-DSTV-2-23-2 & GPA-DSTV-
3-23-2)
Date: Tuesday, July 4, 2023 12:17:10 PM
Attachments: image002.png
GPA-DSTV-2-23-2.pdf
GPA-DSTV-3-23-2.pdf
Anthony—
It amazes me that the applicant would want to put in a shopping center of that magnitude only 2.5
miles from Desert Ridge. Why isn’t the currently designated 2-5 du/ac housing more important
than changing the General Plan to provide Commercial?
Marcia Busching
From: Geno Koman [mailto:geno.koman@phoenix.gov]
Sent: Monday, July 3, 2023 3:11 PM
Cc: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Review & Comment on General Plan Amendment in the Desert View Village (GPA-DSTV-2-
23-2 & GPA-DSTV-3-23-2)
Attached for your review is an amendment to the General Plan for Phoenix that has
been filed:
DESERT VIEW VILLAGE
Application GPA-DSTV-2-23-2 at the southwest Corner of Black Mountain Boulevard
and Deer Valley Drive. Request for a Map Amendment to change the General Plan
land use designation on approximately 20.5 acres from Residential 2-5 du/acre (20.5
acres) to Commercial (20.5 acres) to allow commercial land uses.
Application GPA-DSTV-3-23-2 at the southwest Corner of Black Mountain Boulevard
and Deer Valley Drive. Request for an amendment to the Desert Ridge Specific Plan
Section 6.C.5, Superblock 12, Parcel 12.L.
These applications are proceeding concurrently with a rezoning request (Z-39-23-2)
for the same property, approximately 20.5 acres from S-1 (Approved R1-6 and R-2) to
C-2 to allow a commercial shopping center.
Please forward your comments prior to August 22, 2023 to:
Anthony Grande
Village Planner
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor
Phoenix, AZ 85003-1611
602-256-5648
anthony.grande@phoenix.gov
Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact the Planning &
Development Department at 602-262-7811.
Thank you,
Geno Koman
Secretary II
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
Phone: 602-495-2076
geno.koman@phoenix.gov
From: Paul Bierbusse
To: Anthony M Grande
Cc: Council District 2 PCC; marybierbusse@gmail.com
Subject: Input re: requested rezoning E. Deer Valley Dr/Black Mountain Blvd near Pinnacle High School
Date: Monday, August 14, 2023 5:05:46 AM
To: Anthony Grande, Planner, City of Phoenix Planning & Development Department
Cc: Mr. Jim Warring, Councilman – District 2, City of Phoenix
Good morning gentlemen,
My wife, Mary, and I recently purchased a home in the Sky Crossing neighborhood immediately
north of the proposed rezoning on E. Deer Valley Drive and Black Mountain Boulevard near Pinnacle
High School (Desert View Village GPA-DSTV-2-23-2). We are excited to become active members of
the community and have been impressed by how the City of Phoenix has thoughtfully managed
development. We understand that the proposed rezoning transitions the parcel from residential to
commercial, and while we don’t object to the rezoning of the parcel we do have a number of
significant concerns.
First, we understand that proposed development plans include the construction of a gas station on
part of the parcel – we would like to express our strongest reservations as to the inclusion of a gas
station within the final plan given the traffic it is likely to draw, the likely extended hours of
operations including intrusive late-night lighting in the area, and the environmental impact. There
are nearby stations located both at E. Deer Valley Drive/Cave Creek and at E. Deer Valley
Drive/Tatum which should more than suffice to address local demand.
Second, the area already deals with significant traffic challenges associated with ingress/egress to
Pinnacle High School. Any rezoning and associated development should be coordinated with the
traffic needs of the high school both to mitigate impact to overall traffic flow and to enhance safety
in a high traffic area. As development continues north of our community, confident that the AZ-51
access point will only see increased traffic volume – plans should be made to address not only
existing traffic due to the high school but increased traffic due to the proposed redevelopment.
Third, we have been made aware of increased random acts of violence associated with late night
hours at Desert Ridge Marketplace and we don’t wish to see those issues brought closer to our
community. Should the rezoning be approved, we would ask that conditions be placed on the hours
of operations for tenants to minimize late night traffic to the property (preferably no later than 9pm)
and that coordination be pursued with the City of Phoenix Police Department to ensure appropriate
police resources are dedicated to the area.
We understand the importance of continued development across Phoenix and believe that
reasonable accommodations can be made that both permit development while addressing resident
concerns. Thank you for providing us the opportunity to voice our concerns.
Warmest regards,
Paul & Mary Bierbusse
2922 E. Robin Lane
Phoenix, AZ 85050
Any tax advice in this e-mail should be considered in the context of the tax services we are
providing to you. Preliminary tax advice should not be relied upon and may be insufficient for
penalty protection.
________________________________________________________________________
The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential and protected
from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or
agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If
you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to
the message and deleting it from your computer.
Notice required by law: This e-mail may constitute an advertisement or solicitation under U.S.
law, if its primary purpose is to advertise or promote a commercial product or service. You
may choose not to receive advertising and promotional messages from Ernst & Young LLP
(except for My EY, which tracks e-mail preferences through a separate process) at this e-mail
address by opting out of emails through EY’s Email Preference Center [ey.com]. Our principal
postal address is One Manhattan West, New York, NY 10001. Thank you. Ernst & Young
LLP
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 7:26:32 AM
Name
RICHARD STARR
rtstarraz@hotmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
FIRESIDE
Support Comments
There is an existing parking problem at Pinnacle HS that needs to be solved before the development of
retail center. At 6pm last night, there were 200 overflow cars in desert on future retail center site. AZ
State Land, PVUSD and possibly retail developer need to solve problem first. Perhaps retail center
purchases extra 5 acres and delivers to PVUSD west of retail?
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Sunday, September 17, 2023 3:34:20 PM
Name
Susan Babendure
susiebabendure@gmail.com
Support Comments
Need to know info
ATTACHMENT C
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
GPA-DSTV-2-23-2
Date of VPC Meeting October 1, 2024
Request From Residential 2 to 5 dwelling units per acre
Request To Commercial
Proposal Commercial uses
Location Southwest corner of Black Mountain Boulevard and Deer
Valley Drive
VPC Recommendation Approval
VPC Vote 9-2
VPC DISCUSSION:
Item No. 4 (GPA-DSTV-2-23-2), Item No. 5 (GPA-DSTV-3-23-2), and Item No. 6 (Z-39-
23-2) are companion cases and were heard together.
Fifty-two members of the public registered to speak on this item, 18 in opposition, 34 in
support.
Twelve members of the public registered in opposition, not wishing to speak.
Twenty-six members of the public registered in support, not wishing to speak.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Anthony Grande, staff, provided an overview of the location of the subject site and the
surrounding area, the proposed amendments to the General Plan Land Use Map and
the Desert Ridge Specific Plan, and the rezoning request. Mr. Grande further described
the proposed development, the correspondence received from the public, and the staff
recommendations on all three cases, including recommended stipulations for the
rezoning case.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Ashley Marsh, representing the applicant with Gammage & Burnham, PLC, provided a
presentation, highlighting the work the applicant has done with the community since the
last meeting and the aspects of the proposed development that have been modified.
Ryan Ash with Vestar provided an overview of the company and the project, including
the process of deciding on the subject site for this project. Dawn Cartier with CivTech
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1607
Desert View Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-DSTV-2-23-2
October 1, 2024
Page 2
described the proposed street improvements in the surrounding area and the impacts
on the traffic.
QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE
Vice Chair Lagrave asked about the provision of crossing guards and whether the
applicant would be open to prohibiting car washes. Ms. Marsh stated that the applicant
would provide the crossing guards and would be open to prohibiting car washes.
Committee Member Israel asked about the enforceability of the requirements of the
Desert Ridge Specific Plan and about the responsibility to street improvements. Mr.
Grande replied that the requirements of the specific plan are regulatory and would be
enforced for any future development at the site and that developers are generally
responsible for street improvements on their half of the street.
Committee Member Younger asked about auto-oriented businesses. Ms. Marsh
replied that the zoning would allow what’s found in the C-2 zoning use list.
Committee Member Nowell asked about drive throughs and the traffic and noise
generated from them. Ms. Marsh stated that every drive through is different and has to
be reviewed through a use permit for each one.
Mr. Nowell asked about the timing of street improvements. Ms. Marsh replied that all
street improvements would need to be done first before development of the site.
Committee Member Kollar asked about the bus stop pad. Ms. Marsh replied that it
would be incorporated for any future bus routes that may serve the area.
Mr. Younger commented on the traffic pattern example mentioned at Xavier College
Preparatory School and asked if it would be similar here. Ms. Cartier replied that these
would be more controlled movements because of the medians.
Committee Member Carlucci asked about signal timing changes at Black Mountain
Boulevard and Deer Valley Drive. Ms. Cartier replied that the timing would be adjusted
to allow pedestrians time to cross. Mr. Carlucci asked about the overall traffic
modeling. Ms. Cartier provided details of the level of service in several scenarios.
Committee Member Kirkilas asked about the size of the grocery store and asked for
clarification on the definition of adult uses. Mr. Ash replied that the site plan is
conceptual and that negotiations will begin after zoning is in place, which will solidify the
store size. Ms. Marsh provided a clarification on adult uses.
Mr. Israel asked about limiting all auto-oriented uses in C-2. Mr. Grande explained that
individual uses could be prohibited in the Desert Ridge Specific Plan.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1608
Desert View Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-DSTV-2-23-2
October 1, 2024
Page 3
Mr. Younger asked about the height limit. Mr. Ash replied that it would be two stories,
30 feet.
Mr. Carlucci asked about the estimated investment in infrastructure for this project and
whether prohibiting drive throughs would negatively impact the project. Mr. Ash replied
with investment details and stated that prohibiting drive throughs would limit many future
restaurant options. Chair Bowser added that in the post-Covid market, there are many
more pick-up windows and drive throughs than before.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Ted Weis introduced himself and spoke in support of the proposal, highlighting that it
will provide more options for the area.
Stephen Applebaum introduced himself and spoke in opposition to the proposal,
stating that it will provide opportunities for bad behavior for students.
Jackie Zicarelli introduced herself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating that
this will only shift where people spend money, and that housing would be more
important to building due to the housing crisis.
Gary Smith introduced himself and spoke in support of the proposal, stating that Desert
Ridge Marketplace is too crowded, and this will provide an alternative.
Yana Dashevsky introduced herself and spoke in support of the proposal, highlighting
the parking issues at Desert Ridge Marketplace.
Aimee Sinclair introduced herself and spoke in support of the proposal, stating that
Desert Ridge is growing, and this proposal will make it safer to walk and bike.
Kristen Cassuto introduced herself and spoke in support of the proposal, highlighting
the parking issues at Desert Ridge Marketplace.
David Barge introduced himself and spoke in support of the proposal, stating that he
did not like the original proposal but is in support due to the changes Vestar made.
Allie Lucyk read a letter from Geraldine Belafsky in support of the proposal.
Roland Ward introduced himself and spoke in support of the proposal, stating it will
provide an alternative to Desert Ridge Marketplace, which is too busy.
Payton Sinclair introduced himself and spoke in support of the proposal, stating it
would be good to have job opportunities nearby.
Andrea Remke introduced herself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating she
bought her home to be able to safely walk to school, not to have retail neaby.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1609
Desert View Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-DSTV-2-23-2
October 1, 2024
Page 4
Mike Coppola introduced himself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating that it
will cause a traffic nightmare.
Suzanne Sayegh introduced herself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating
that this is not a neighborhood shopping center, that stores people are looking for do not
want to locate here, and that street improvements would be made by any new
development.
Chris Sinclair introduced himself and spoke in support of the proposal.
Allie Lucyk introduced herself and spoke in support of the proposal.
A member of the public read a letter of support from Greg Abrams.
Justin Popnoe introduced himself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating this
will have a negative impact on the nearby schools and highlighting the issue of child
trafficking.
William King introduced himself and spoke in support of the proposal, stating they
expected new retail to be built to accommodate new housing coming in.
Wouter Roodenburg introduced himself and spoke in opposition to the proposal,
highlighting a petition submitted of people against the proposal.
Jason Epstein introduced himself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating there
are too many unknowns.
Megan Lloyd introduced herself and spoke in support of the proposal, stating that
having closer retail options is a good thing.
Ben Butler introduced himself and spoke in support of the proposal, stating support for
additional retail and that Vestar is a good developer.
Ron Bookholder introduced himself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating
the retail center will be regional due to the presence of the SR-51 and that this will be
detrimental to the kids.
Aaron Lloyd introduced himself and spoke in support of the proposal, stating it will
bring amenities to the area.
A member of the public read a letter of support from Bob Hamer.
Layla Saikley introduced herself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating that
the area is a quiet, peaceful community.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1610
Desert View Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-DSTV-2-23-2
October 1, 2024
Page 5
A member of the public read a letter of support from Erin Reese.
A member of the public read a letter of support from Richard Kovacik.
Dan Richards introduced himself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating that
he moved to the area to enjoy the distance from retail, that he was told this parcel would
be residential, and that the shopping center is not needed.
A member of the public read a letter of support from Rick Merritt.
Ronald Diamant introduced himself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating it
will bring in more traffic with the proximity of the SR-51.
Helen Doyle introduced herself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating that this
intersection will end up busier than Tatum Boulevard.
Neeraj Chandak introduced himself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating
that the shopping center will be just as bad as Desert Ridge Marketplace and
highlighting the issue of homelessness.
Irina Butler introduced herself and spoke in support of the proposal, stating that Vestar
did a good job of responding to the community’s concerns.
Linda Miles introduced herself and spoke in support of the proposal.
Sara Johnson introduced herself and spoke in support of the proposal.
Paul Dunn introduced himself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating that it is
spot zoning and should be invalidated, and that the existing allowed use is single-family
residential.
Carolyn Dunn introduced herself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, playing a
video showing the traffic issues around the school.
A member of the public read a letter of support from Harrison Cole, stating the need for
new commercial development to support the new housing.
A member of the public read a letter of support from Caryn Marchuk, stating the peak
times are better with retail than with residential.
Nathan and Ilene Friedland introduced themselves and spoke in support of the
proposal.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1611
Desert View Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-DSTV-2-23-2
October 1, 2024
Page 6
Candy Huether introduced herself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating that
parking and crime are issues, noting the issue of children crossing the street.
Robert Miles introduced himself and spoke in support of the proposal, stating the area
is not currently walkable and that this proposal will take vehicles off the road.
John Norris introduced himself and spoke in support of the proposal, stating it will
enhance the value of the area by providing an amenity.
Jim Farley introduced himself and spoke in support of the proposal, stating that Vestar
responded to community concerns.
Greg Collins introduced himself and spoke in support of the proposal, stating this will
provide options for kids and enhance walkability.
James Tuffin introduced himself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating that
people bought homes based on the Desert Ridge Specific Plan and highlighting the
issues with drive throughs.
A member of the public read a letter of support from Bill Knapp.
Christian Jacob introduced himself and spoke in support of the proposal, stating that
friendships are formed at spaces like this and that other similar centers provide a safe
space.
Peggy Neely introduced herself as the former Councilperson for the area and spoke in
support of the proposal, stating that Vestar is a good developer and that the project will
benefit the area.
APPLICANT RESPONSE
Ms. Marsh showed a drone video highlighting the traffic conditions of the area and
discussed the history of the Desert Ridge Specific Plan being amended in the past.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
Committee Member Warren stated a concern about having retail next to the school,
adding that he would be supportive if it was in a different location.
Vice Chair Lagrave commented about other examples of shopping centers near
schools and noted that he was previously opposed to this because of the size of the
grocery store and the gas station, which have been addressed by the applicant, adding
that he would be supportive with the condition that there is no car wash.
Committee Member Younger asked about the bid process and timing. Ms. Marsh
provided clarification.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1612
Desert View Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-DSTV-2-23-2
October 1, 2024
Page 7
MOTION
Vice Chair Lagrave made a motion to recommend approval of GPA-DSTV-2-23-2.
Richard Carlucci seconded the motion.
VOTE
9-2; motion to recommend approval of GPA-DSTV-2-23-2 passed; Committee Members
Barto, Carlucci, Israel, Kollar, Nowell, Reynolds, Younger, Lagrave, and Bowser in
favor; Committee Members Kirkilas and Warren opposed.
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:
None.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1613
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
GPA-DSTV-2-23-2
Date of VPC Meeting October 3, 2023
Request From Residential 2 to 5 dwelling units per acre
Request To Commercial
Proposal Commercial uses
Location Southwest corner of Black Mountain Boulevard and Deer
Valley Drive
VPC Recommendation Denial
VPC Vote 9-1
VPC DISCUSSION:
Item No. 5 (GPA-DSTV-2-23-2), Item No. 6 (GPA-DSTV-3-23-2), and Item No. 7 (Z-39-
23-2) are companion cases and were heard together.
Twenty members of the public registered to speak on this item, 17 in opposition, three in
support.
Thirty-three members of the public registered in opposition, not wishing to speak.
Three members of the public registered in support, not wishing to speak.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Anthony Grande, staff, provided an overview of the location of the subject site and the
surrounding area, the proposed amendments to the General Plan Land Use Map and
the Desert Ridge Specific Plan, and the rezoning request. He further described the
proposed development, the correspondence received from the public, and the staff
recommendations on all three cases, including recommended stipulations for the
rezoning case.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Stephen Anderson, representing the applicant with Gammage & Burnham, provided a
presentation, describing the need for an additional grocery store in the area and
highlighting details of the proposed development, including limitations on uses and
upgrades to the adjacent streets. Mr. Anderson further noted responses to concerns
raised and reviewed data regarding support for the proposal in the community.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1614
Desert View Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-DSTV-2-23-2
October 3, 2023
Page 2
QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE
Committee Member Bunnell asked about the ownership of the property. Mr.
Anderson replied that the property is owned by the Arizona State Land Department and
provided clarification about the future auction process.
Committee Member Nowell asked if alcohol sales would be permitted at the grocery
store. Mr. Anderson replied that it would be permitted.
Chair Bowser asked for clarification on uses allowed in proximity to the school. Mr.
Anderson stated that alcohol is not permitted within 300 feet of the school and that the
proposed specific plan text would not permit alcohol sales as a primary use, but it would
be allowed as an accessory use.
Committee Member Kirkilas asked if the gas station would be permitted to sell
alcohol. Mr. Anderson replied that a gas station with a convenience store would not be
permitted on the site.
Committee Member Younger asked whether dispensaries would be allowed on the
site. Mr. Anderson replied that they would be prohibited by the proposed text.
Committee Member Kollar asked about parking management plans for the site. Mr.
Anderson replied that the developer has experience managing complex parking
situations, including at Desert Ridge Marketplace.
Committee Member Kirkilas asked about the distance from the site to the Albertsons
and if there is a standard distance expected between grocery stores. Mr. Anderson
stated that the distance is about two miles and noted that the distance to the nearest
grocery store from Albertsons is currently around five miles, which is an unusually large
separation for the Phoenix area.
Committee Member Nowell asked about the median extension stipulation. Mr.
Anderson provided clarification, noting that the curbing would be added where it is
currently striped.
Committee Member Israel asked about street conditions on Mayo Boulevard before
and after the proposed development. Mr. Anderson stated that Mayo Boulevard is
currently a half-street and described the proposed street improvements.
Committee Member Bunnell stated that bike lanes should be provided in both
directions.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Dan Richards introduced himself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating that
residents in the area did their research and expected this parcel to be residential and
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1615
Desert View Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-DSTV-2-23-2
October 3, 2023
Page 3
that the proposed commercial use will bring customers from the SR-51 freeway and
create issues with lighting, safety, loitering, and property values.
Wouter Roodenburg introduced himself and spoke in opposition to the proposal,
stating that neighborhood retail is limited to three acres in the specific plan and it
doesn’t need to be changed because it already accomplishes the goals of the General
Plan, further noting safety concerns with students walking to school and pedestrian and
bike fatalities in relation to Vision Zero.
James Tuffin introduced himself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating that
commercial activity should take place in the core and reduce in intensity away from the
core, further noting that there are other shopping options nearby and that people bought
their homes expecting this parcel to be residential.
Paul Dunn introduced himself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, highlighting the
large footprint of the proposed grocery store and stating that the proposal will not be low
impact and will cause traffic issues, in addition to air and light pollution.
Jackie Zicarelli introduced herself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating that
the statements made by the applicant, including alcohol sales prohibition and the
inclusion of Trader Joes or Whole Foods, are misleading and that C-1 zoning would be
neighborhood retail, rather than C-2.
Mallorie Laforest introduced herself and spoke in opposition to the proposal,
highlighting issues related to light pollution, traffic, and parking.
Todd Laforest introduced himself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating there
was no immediate need for the development and that it would cause traffic issues,
further noting that the development will not necessarily be done by Vestar.
Randal Spence introduced himself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating that
there are many grocery store options in the area and that people supporting the
proposal only want small grocers.
Jeanette Vespalee introduced herself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating
that the master plan does not call for commercial use and that the proposal will cause
congestion, traffic, and crime issues.
Candy Huether introduced herself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating that
homeowners with exterior view fencing on neighboring developments expected the site
to develop with residential, rather than commercial, and that crime, homeless, and
human trafficking are important issues.
Tom Carlson introduced himself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating that it
has transportation engineering issues and will draw traffic into the neighborhood.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1616
Desert View Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-DSTV-2-23-2
October 3, 2023
Page 4
Nathan Goldberg introduced himself and spoke in support to the proposal, stating that
he is generally in favor of the proposal and the area needs more grocery stores, but he
noted that he is concerned about the size of the grocery store and that the plan could be
modified to include pick up and drop off areas for the school.
Joe Hudock introduced himself as a former chair of the committee and spoke in
opposition to the proposal, stating that the purpose of the specific plan was to
concentrate commercial activity in the core and that there will be opportunities to build
with C-2 zoning to the north.
Laurie Smith introduced herself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating that
the plan raises security concerns because residential development allows people to
monitor the streets more than with commercial development.
Jeff Smith introduced himself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, highlighting that
there is uncertainty in the final product because a different developer could come in
later with a different proposal.
Patty Farley introduced herself and spoke in support to the proposal but noted that
there should be no gas station and that a pedestrian bridge should be constructed over
Deer Valley Drive.
Jim Farley introduced himself and spoke in support to the proposal, stating that the
HAWK will be a great device for Mayo Boulevard and that there should be overhead
walkways installed.
Nathan Friedland introduced himself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating
that he moved to the location to get away from the lights of Reach 11 and this proposal
would introduce more lighting to the area, further noting that there should be no gas
station.
Connie Ahlman introduced herself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating
agreement with many of the comments made and adding that Mayo Boulevard will
continue to have a parking issue and that C-1 zoning would be neighborhood retail,
rather than C-2.
Andrea Remke introduced herself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating that
people bought homes in this area to be away from commercial growth and allow kids to
safely walk to school, knowing the proposed site would be residential.
APPLICANT RESPONSE
Mr. Anderson stated that Black Mountain Boulevard connections to the north will be in
the distant future, the adjacent streets are major arterials designed to handle a large
amount of traffic, lighting limits would be in place through stipulations, and this proposal
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1617
Desert View Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-DSTV-2-23-2
October 3, 2023
Page 5
will not set a precedent for additional commercial in the area, further reviewing Desert
Ridge Marketplace traffic issues.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
Committee Member Warren stated that the concerns raised by the community about
commercial activity next to the school are valid and that he has traffic concerns. Mr.
Warren further stated that it is not a good idea to put commercial activity next to a
school and that he is not supportive of the proposal.
Vice Chair Lagrave asked for clarification about the Arizona State Land Department’s
role in the process. Mr. Grande stated that ASLD is the property owner and submitted
an authorization to allow Vestar to apply to rezone the property.
Vice Chair Lagrave stated that he does not support gasoline sales, that car washes
should be prohibited at this location, and that 96,000 square feet is not a neighborhood
grocery store. He further stated that if the application is approved, stipulations should be
added to limit the size of the grocery store to 64,000 square feet, require a 50-foot
building setback on Black Mountain Boulevard and Deer Valley Drive, and prohibit
gasoline sales and car washes.
Committee Member Bunnell provided clarification on the ASLD process for auction.
Committee Member Younger stated that he hopes the shopping center would be
moved to a different location.
MOTION
Committee Member Mark Warren made a motion to recommend denial of GPA-DSTV-
2-23-2. Committee Member Rick Nowell seconded the motion for denial.
VOTE
9-1, motion to recommend denial of GPA-DSTV-2-23-2 passed; Committee Members
Barto, Bunnell, Israel, Kirkilas, Kollar, Nowell, Warren, Younger, and Lagrave in favor;
Committee Member Bowser opposed.
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:
None.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1618
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
GPA-DSTV-2-23-2
INFORMATION ONLY
Date of VPC Meeting August 1, 2023
Request From Residential 2 to 5 dwelling units per acre
Request To Commercial
Proposal Commercial uses
Location Southwest corner of Black Mountain Boulevard and Deer
Valley Drive
VPC DISCUSSION:
Item No. 3 (GPA-DSTV-2-23-2), Item No. 4 (GPA-DSTV-3-23-2), and Item No. 5 (Z-39-
23-2) are companion cases and were heard together.
Committee Member Michelle Santoro declared a conflict of interest, bringing quorum to
10 members.
Eight members of the public registered to speak on this item, seven in opposition, one
with questions.
One member of the public registered in support, not wishing to speak.
One member of the public registered in opposition, not wishing to speak.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Anthony Grande, staff, provided an overview of the process to amend the Desert
Ridge Specific Plan and the amendment proposed by the applicant, further describing
the proposed General Plan Land Use Map amendment and rezoning.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Stephen Anderson, representing the applicant with Gammage & Burnham, described
the proposed commercial development, noting that the anchor would be a grocery store,
described the process for development of Arizona State Land Department property and
the City of Phoenix zoning and development process. He further described the
proposed text change to the Desert Ridge Specific Plan, in addition to the General Plan
Amendment and rezoning cases.
QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1619
Desert View Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-DSTV-2-23-2
August 1, 2023
Page 2
Committee Member Kirkilas suggested adding a prohibition on smoke shops.
Committee Member Powell asked about the size of the grocery store. Mr. Anderson
stated that the size was not defined yet.
Committee Member Nowell stated a concern about light pollution from the proposed
gas station. Mr. Anderson stated that there was interest in a gas station in their
outreach, but they could consider shifting it south.
Committee Member Younger asked if the applicant had spoken with the school
leadership and whether electric vehicle charging would be provided. Mr. Anderson
replied that they had recent discussions with the school leadership, but no specific
agreements have been reached. He further stated that there would be EV charging on
site.
Committee Member Kollar asked about safety issues related to foot traffic around the
school. Mr. Anderson replied that it was the subject of discussions with the school,
adding that a safe crossing is going to be needed for Mayo Boulevard. Dawn Cartier, a
member of the development team with CivTech, stated that a HAWK crossing is under
discussion for Mayo Boulevard.
Committee Member Kollar asked about a traffic study for the project, citing gridlock on
surrounding streets. Ms. Cartier stated that the traffic study is in process, noting that
there will be different peak times for the proposed use and the school.
Chair Bowser stated that there are a lot of illegal left turns on the surrounding streets.
Committee Member Dickson stated that the applicant presented to the Desert Ridge
organization and that people in Desert Ridge want a grocery store and gas station.
Committee Member Kollar asked about the presentation slides showing geographic
limits on certain uses. Mr. Anderson replied that the graphics related to liquor licensing.
Committee Member Nowell asked for clarification on the proposed prohibition on liquor
sales. Mr. Anderson replied that it would only be prohibited as a primary use but that a
business like the grocery story could sell liquor as an accessory use.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Justin Popnoe introduced himself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating that
the community doesn’t have interest in a gas station or any alcohol sales at this site.
Wouter Roodenburg introduced himself and spoke in opposition to the proposal,
stating that traffic is an issue around the school in the mornings and that safety of the
kids is a concern.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1620
Desert View Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-DSTV-2-23-2
August 1, 2023
Page 3
Robin Bowie introduced herself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, citing issues
related to traffic in the area, crime, and homelessness, suggesting the commercial use
could be located elsewhere.
Dan Richards introduced himself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating that
residents in the area don’t want a gas station and that the volume of traffic is very high
in the area.
James Tuffin introduced himself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating that
the neighborhood is clean and quiet because there is no commercial in the area and
that kids going to the shopping center will be a problem.
Taylor Moskovich introduced herself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating
that people bought in the area with the expectation there would be no commercial uses
and that it is a family friendly area with no need for businesses.
Amanda Jane introduced herself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, noting that
residents of Sky Crossing should be considered, even though they are not in Desert
Ridge.
Frank Soldano introduced himself and asked for more information about the size of the
grocery store, as that would make a difference on the impact, noting he would like to
see a gas station at this location.
APPLICANT RESPONSE
Mr. Anderson stated that the applicant team will consider all of the comments made
and that written comments can be submitted to City staff.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
Vice Chair Lagrave stated that the developer is going to need to work with the
community to find solutions to many of the issues raised at the meeting.
Committee Member Younger stated that the public discussion brought up an important
issue about lighting, in addition to other issues raised.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 1621
ATTACHMENT D
REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
November 7, 2024
ITEM NO: 12
DISTRICT NO.: 2
SUBJECT:
Application #: GPA-DSTV-2-23-2
(Companion Cases GPA-DSTV-3-23-2 and Z-39-23-2)
(Continued from January 4, 2024)
Request: Map Amendment
Location: Southwest corner of Black Mountain Boulevard and Deer Valley Drive
From: Residential 2 to 5 dwelling units per acre
To: Commercial
Acreage: 20.52
Proposal: Minor General Plan Amendment for commercial use.
Applicant: Ryan Ash, Vestar
Owner: Arizona State Land Department
Representative: Ashley Z Marsh, Gammage & Burnham
ACTIONS:
Staff Recommendation: Approval.
Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
Desert View 8/1/2023 Information only.
Desert View 10/3/2023 Denial. Vote: 9-1.
Desert View 10/1/2024 Approval. Vote: 9-2.
Planning Commission Recommendation:
11/2/2023 Continued to the January 4, 2024 Planning Commission Hearing, without fee. Vote:
9-0.
1/4/2024 Continued to a date uncertain and remanded back to the Desert View Village Planning
Committee for reconsideration. Vote: 7-0.
111/7/2024 Approval, per the Desert View Village Planning Committee recommendation.
Motion Discussion: N/A
Motion details: Commissioner Matthews made a MOTION to approve GPA-DSTV-2-23-2, per
the Desert View Village Planning Committee recommendation.
Maker: Matthews
Second: Jaramillo
Vote: 8-1 (Busching)
Absent: None
Opposition Present: Yes
Findings:
1. The proposed General Plan Land Use Map designation of Commercial would allow
retail and service uses that would contribute to a mix of land uses in the surrounding
area, providing services to nearby residential neighborhoods.
2. The companion rezoning case, Z-39-23-2, proposes a commercial shopping center,
which, as stipulated, enhances the surrounding area with features promoting
pedestrian safety, facilitating alternative transportation, and providing pedestrianized
amenity spaces for the community.
3. The subject site is appropriate for commercial uses with adequate street access to two
arterial streets.
This publication can be made available in alternate format upon request. Please contact Teleia
Galaviz at 602-291-2559, teleia.galaviz@phoenix.gov, TTY: Use 7-1-1.
REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
January 4, 2024
ITEM NO: 2
DISTRICT NO.: 2
SUBJECT:
Application #: GPA-DSTV-2-23-2 (Companion Cases GPA-DSTV-3-23-2 and Z-39-23-2)
Request: Map Amendment
Location: Southwest corner of Black Mountain Boulevard and Deer Valley Drive
From: Residential 2 to 5 dwelling units per acre
To: Commercial
Acreage: 20.52
Proposal: Minor General Plan Amendment for commercial use.
Applicant: Ryan Ash, Vestar
Owner: Arizona State Land Department
Representative: Stephen Anderson, Gammage & Burnham, PLC
ACTIONS:
Staff Recommendation: Continuance to a date uncertain.
Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
Desert View 8/1/2023 Information only.
Desert View 10/3/2023 Denial. Vote: 9-1.
Planning Commission Recommendation: Continued to a date uncertain, without fee; and
remand the case back to the Desert View Village Planning Committee for reconsideration.
Motion Discussion: N/A
Motion details: Commissioner Gorraiz made a MOTION to continue GPA-DSTV-2-23-2, to a
date uncertain, without fee; and remand the case back to the Desert View Village Planning
Committee for reconsideration.
Maker: Gorraiz
Second: Vice-Chairperson Busching
Vote: 7-0
Absent: Mangum
Opposition Present: Yes
Findings: The applicant requested a continuance to a date uncertain and to be remanded back
to the Desert View Village Planning Committee.
This publication can be made available in alternate format upon request. Please contact Teleia
Galaviz at 602-291-2559, teleia.galaviz@phoenix.gov, TTY: Use 7-1-1.
REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
November 2, 2023
ITEM NO: 7
DISTRICT NO.: 2
SUBJECT:
Application #: GPA-DSTV-2-23-2 (Companion Cases GPA-DSTV-3-23-2 & Z-39-23-2)
Location: Southwest corner of Black Mountain Boulevard and Deer Valley Drive
From: Residential 2 to 5 dwelling units per acre
To: Commercial
Acreage: 20.52
Proposal: Minor General Plan Amendment for Commercial use.
Applicant: Ryan Ash, Vestar
Owner: Arizona State Land Department
Representative: Stephen Anderson, Gammage & Burnham
ACTIONS:
Staff Recommendation: Continuance.
Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
Desert View 8/1/2023 Information only.
Desert View 10/3/2023 Denial. Vote: 9-1.
Planning Commission Recommendation: Continued to the January 4, 2024 Planning
Commission hearing, without fee.
Motion Discussion: N/A
Motion details: Commissioner Perez made a MOTION to continue GPA-DSTV-2-23-2, to the
January 4, 2024 Planning Commission hearing, without fee.
Maker: Perez
Second: Gorraiz
Vote: 9-0
Absent: None
Opposition Present: Yes
Findings: The applicant requested a continuance to allow more to time to work with the State
Land Department and the community.
This publication can be made available in alternate format upon request. Please contact Teleia
Galaviz 602-602-291-2559, TTY use 7-1-1
ATTACHMENT E
For additional correspondence, please see GPA-DSTV-2-23-2,
GPA-DSTV-3-23-2, and Z-39-23-2 on the following website:
https://www.phoenix.gov/pdd/planning-zoning/pzservices/pzstaff-reports
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Black Mountain Boulevard and Deer Valley Drive (Ordinance G-7332) - District 2
Request to hold a public hearing on a General Plan Amendment for the following item
and to consider the Planning Commission's recommendation and the related
ordinance if approved. Request to amend the Desert Ridge Specific Plan. This is a
companion case to GPA-DSTV-2-23-2 and Z-39-23-2 and should be heard following
GPA-DSTV-2-23-2 and followed by Z-39-23-2.
Summary
Application: GPA-DSTV-3-23-2
Proposal: Amendment to the Desert Ridge Specific Plan, Section 6.C.5, Superblock 12
to facilitate commercial development.
Owner: Arizona State Land Department
Applicant: Ryan Ash, Vestar
Representative: Ashley Z. Marsh, Gammage & Burnham
Staff Recommendation: Approval, as shown in the recommended text in Exhibit A.
VPC Information Only: The Desert View Village Planning Committee heard this item on
August 1, 2023, for information only.
VPC Action: The Desert View Village Planning Committee heard this item on October
3, 2023, and recommended denial, by a vote of 7-2-1.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this item on January 4, 2024, and
continued the item to a date uncertain and remanded the case back to the Village
Planning Committee for reconsideration, by a vote of 7-0.
VPC Action: The Desert View Village Planning Committee heard this item on October
1, 2024, and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation (Addendum A),
with modifications, by a vote of 10-1.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this item on November 7, 2024, and
recommended approval, per the Desert View Village Planning Committee
recommendation, by a vote of 8-1.
Location
Southwest corner of Black Mountain Boulevard and Deer Valley Drive
Council District: 2
Parcel Addresses: 21502 and 21600 N. Black Mountain Boulevard; 21520, 21618,
21650, 21680, 21702, and 21750 N. Black Mountain Parkway; 3501 and 3517 E. Deer
Valley Drive; and 3539 and 3545 E. Mayo Boulevard
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Planning and
Development Department.
ATTACHMENT A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE G-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 6 OF THE DESERT
RIDGE SPECIFIC PLAN, ADOPTED JULY 18, 1990,
REFLECTING AMENDMENTS TO SUPERBLOCK 12, AS SET
FORTH IN APPLICATION GPA-DSTV-3-23-2, DESCRIBED
HEREIN.
____________
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as
follows:
SECTION 1. That Chapter 6, (Development Parcel Regulations), Section
C.5 (Development Regulations by Superblock), Page 6-72 of the Desert Ridge Specific
Plan, be amended as set forth by Application GPA-DSTV-3-23-2 and in Exhibit A,
attached hereto and by this reference is made a part hereof.
SECTION 2. 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 December,
2024.
________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Julie M. Kriegh, City Attorney
By:
_________________________
_________________________
REVIEWED BY:
_________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager
Exhibits:
A – Amendment Language (2 Pages)
EXHIBIT A
Amend Chapter 6 (Development Parcel Regulations), Section C.5. (Development
Regulations by Superblock), Page 6-72 as follows:
***
SUPERBLOCK 12
Superblock 12 is located west of a possible future connection to the Squaw PIESTEWA
Peak Parkway, which separates this superblock from the balance of the Desert Ridge
community. BECAUSE OF THIS SEPARATION, THIS SUPERBLOCK CAN SUPPORT
LIMITED COMMERCIAL USES WITHOUT INTERFERING WITH THE DEVELOPMENT
OF THE DESERT RIDGE CORE (DEVELOPMENT PARCEL 5.A). RESIDENTIAL
development parcels may vary in size by 30 percent (25 percent for R1-6 and more
dense zoning categories without a minor plan amendment).
Size: 136 133.41 acres
Maximum Number of Dwelling Units: 347
Average Density: 2.55 du/ac
12.L – Development Parcel 12.L
Size: 77 55.24 acres
Uses Permitted:
Single-family residential
Density Range: 2-5 du/ac for the entire parcel
Maximum Number of Units: 347 257; 451 334 if parcel increases in size 30
percent
Potential Zoning to be Applied: R1-18, R1-10, R1-8, R1-6, R-2
Minimum Lot Size: Zoning controls
Special Requirements (Modifying City Regulations):
No attached single-family units; no multifamily units.
Section C.4.B, Chapter 6, Desert Ridge Specific Plan applies.
No more than 25% of the development parcel may be zoned R-2.
Recommendations:
Clustering permitted subject to minimum lot size.
12.C – DEVELOPMENT PARCEL 12.C
SIZE: 20.52 ACRES
USES PERMITTED:
ALL USES ALLOWED UNDER CITY OF PHOENIX ZONING
DESIGNATION C-2, INTERMEDIATE COMMERCIAL, EXCEPT AS
PROHIBITED BELOW.
MAXIMUM NUMBER OF UNITS: 90
POTENTIAL ZONING TO BE APPLIED: C-2
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS (MODIFYING CITY REGULATIONS):
MAXIMUM GROSS LEASABLE AREA FOR ANY INDIVIDUAL RETAIL
TENANT/USER (E.G. GROCER) SHALL NOT EXCEED 65,000 SQUARE
FEET.
AUTOMOBILE SERVICE STATIONS ARE PROHIBITED.
ADULT USES ARE PROHIBITED.
RETAIL LIQUOR SALES ARE ALLOWED AS AN ACCESSORY USE
BUT ARE PROHIBITED AS A PRIMARY USE.
TOBACCO ORIENTED RETAILERS ARE ALLOWED AS AN
ACCESSORY USE BUT ARE PROHIBITED AS A PRIMARY USE.
RETAIL MARIJUANA SALES (DISPENSARIES) ARE PROHIBITED.
CAR WASHES ARE PROHIBITED.
12.S – Development Parcel 12.S
Size: 59 57.65 acres
Uses Permitted:
High school
Potential Zoning to be Applied: R1-8
***
ATTACHMENT B
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
STAFF ANALYSIS
September 26, 2023
Application: GPA-DSTV-3-23-2
Owner: Arizona State Land Department
Applicant: Ryan Ash, Vestar
Representative: Stephen Anderson, Gammage & Burnham
Proposal: Amendment to the Desert Ridge Specific Plan
Section 6.C.5.12.L-Superblock 12 to facilitate
commercial development
Desert View Village Planning
Committee Meeting Date: October 3, 2023
Staff Recommendation: Approval, as shown in the recommended text in
Exhibit A
FINDINGS:
1) The proposed amendment to the Desert Ridge Specific Plan will contribute to a
mix of land uses in the surrounding area, providing services closer to residential
neighborhoods.
2) The companion rezoning case, Z-39-23-2, proposes a commercial shopping
center, which, as stipulated, enhances the surrounding area with features
promoting pedestrian safety, facilitating alternative transportation, and providing
pedestrianized amenity spaces for the community.
3) The subject site is appropriate for commercial uses with adequate street access
to two arterial streets.
Staff Analysis
GPA-DSTV-3-23-2
Page 2
BACKGROUND
Desert Ridge is an approximately 5,700-
acre master planned community located
in northeast Phoenix generally bounded
by the Central Arizona Canal, Pinnacle
Peak Road, 32nd Street, and 64th
Street. At its inception, the planning area
consisted entirely of undeveloped land
held in trust by the Arizona State Land
Department. The Desert Ridge Specific
Plan was approved by the Phoenix City
Council in July 1990 and is the
governing land use document for Desert
Ridge. Desert Ridge is divided into Desert Ridge Location Map, Source: Planning and
Superblocks, each with their own Development Department
individual land uses and regulations.
This amendment pertains to Superblock
12, Parcel 12.L, located at the southwest
corner of Black Mountain Boulevard and
Deer Valley Drive. The parcel is owned
by the Arizona State Land Department
and is vacant, undeveloped land. The
proposed development is on a portion of
Parcel 12.L, as shown on the aerial
location map. The site is adjacent to
single-family residential uses to the north
and east, vacant land to the west, and
Pinnacle High School to the south. Aerial Location Map, Source: Planning and
Development Department
Surrounding Land Uses
Land Use
North (across Deer Valley Drive) Single-family residential
South (across Mayo Boulevard) Pinnacle High School
East (across Black Mountain
Single-family residential
Boulevard)
West (across 34th Street) Vacant
Staff Analysis
GPA-DSTV-3-23-2
Page 3
The subject site is currently designated
as Residential 2 to 5 dwelling units per
acre on the General Plan Land Use Map.
This is consistent with the current
designation of Parcel 12.L as a single-
family residential parcel with density up
to five dwelling units per acre.
Companion Case GPA-DSTV-2-23-2
proposes to amend the General Plan
Land Use Map designation to
Commercial, consistent with this General Plan Land Use Map, Source: Planning and
proposal to amend the Desert Ridge Development Department
Specific Plan to allow commercial use on
the subject site. Companion case Z-39-23-2 is a rezoning request from S-1 DRSP
(Approved R1-6 DRSP) (Ranch or Farm Residence, Desert Ridge Specific Plan)
(Approved Single-Family Residence District, Desert Ridge Specific Plan) and S-1
DRSP (Approved R-2 DRSP) (Ranch or Farm Residence, Desert Ridge Specific Plan)
(Approved Multifamily Residence District, Desert Ridge Specific Plan) to C-2 DRSP
(Intermediate Commercial, Desert Ridge Specific Plan).
The proposal is to replace a portion of Parcel 12.L with a new Parcel 12.C within
Superblock 12. Parcel 12.C would be designated as a commercial parcel, allowing
uses consistent with the C-2 zoning district and allowing C-2 as a potential zoning to
be applied to the site. Residential use would also be retained as an option with a
maximum of 90 dwelling units to match the existing allowance.
Proposed Superblock 12 Parcel Map, Source: Planning and Development Department
Staff Analysis
GPA-DSTV-3-23-2
Page 4
The proposal, as shown in the draft language attached as Exhibit A, would create a new
Parcel 12.C, adjust acreages in all parcels within Superblock 12, define allowed uses in
Parcel 12.C to include C-2 zoning district uses and multifamily residential, define a
maximum number of residential units, list C-2 as a potential zoning district to be applied,
and define uses that are prohibited in Parcel 12.C. One of the prohibited uses is an
automobile service station, unless accessory to a grocery store, which will limit the
potentially undesirable use at this location and promote compatibility with the
surrounding area.
RELATIONSHIP TO GENERAL PLAN CORE VALUES AND PRINCIPLES
CONNECT PEOPLE AND PLACES
• CORES, CENTERS, & CORRIDORS; DESIGN PRINCIPLE: Encourage
centers to provide a pedestrian environment with plazas, common open
space, shaded walkways, separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic,
bicycle parking, and vehicle parking in architecturally disguised structures
or underground where feasible.
The proposal, as stipulated in the companion rezoning case, Z-39-23-2, will
provide a commercial center with a pedestrian plaza, shaded walkways,
enhanced features for pedestrian safety, bicycle parking, and a safe crossing to
the adjacent school.
CELEBRATE OUR DIVERSE COMMUNITIES & NEIGHBORHOODS
• DIVERSE NEIGHBORHOODS; LAND USE PRINCIPLE: Communities should
consist of a mix of land uses to provide housing, shopping, dining and
recreational options for residents.
The proposal will contribute to a mix of land uses by providing retail and services
closer to surrounding residential neighborhoods.
• CONNECTED NEIGHBORHOODS; LAND USE PRINCIPLE: Locate
neighborhood retail to be easily accessible to neighborhoods.
The proposal will enhance accessibility to retail uses by locating retail closer to
neighborhoods and as stipulated in companion rezoning case Z-39-23-2,
providing pedestrian and bicycle amenities that promote non-vehicular
transportation.
Staff Analysis
GPA-DSTV-3-23-2
Page 5
BUILD THE SUSTAINABLE DESERT CITY
• TREES AND SHADE: DESIGN PRINCIPLE: Integrate trees and shade into
the design of new development and redevelopment projects throughout
Phoenix.
The proposed development, as stipulated in companion rezoning case Z-39-23-
2, provides shaded detached sidewalks on all bounding streets and enhanced
shade to pedestrian areas and surface parking areas on site, which will reduce
the urban heat island effect while also improving thermal comfort to site users
and the surrounding neighborhood.
COMMUNITY INPUT SUMMARY
At the time this staff report was written, staff has received 180 letters in opposition,
three petitions in opposition with a total of 663 names, 233 letters in support, 23 letters
stating general support but requesting a gas station not be included, three petitions in
support with a total of 753 names, and four letters providing general comments. Among
those opposed, concerns include the change in the residential character of the area,
increased traffic and conflicts with Pinnacle High School traffic, pedestrian safety,
increased lighting, the presence of homeless individuals, crime issues, and a reduction
in property values.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of GPA-DSTV-3-23-2, as shown in the recommended text
in Exhibit A. The proposed amendment to the Desert Ridge Specific Plan provides
additional retail and commercial service options for the surrounding area at an
appropriate location.
Writer
Anthony Grande
September 26, 2023
Team Leader
Racelle Escolar
Exhibits
A: Proposed Amendment Language (2 pages)
Desert Ridge Specific Plan Map
Community Correspondence (600 Pages)
EXHIBIT A
GPA-DSTV-3-23-2
Amendment to the Desert Ridge Specific Plan Section 6.C.5.12.L-Superblock 12 to
facilitate commercial development at the southwest corner of
Black Mountain Boulevard and Deer Valley Drive
Staff proposed language that may be modified during the public hearing process is
as follows:
Amend Chapter 6 (Development Parcel Regulations), Section C.5. (Development
Regulations by Superblock), Pages 6-45 to 6-46 as follows:
SUPERBLOCK 12
Superblock 12 is located west of a possible future connection to the Squaw PIESTEWA
Peak Parkway, which separates this superblock from the balance of the Desert Ridge
community. BECAUSE OF THIS SEPARATION, THIS SUPERBLOCK CAN SUPPORT
LIMITED COMMERCIAL USES WITHOUT INTERFERING WITH THE DEVELOPMENT
OF THE DESERT RIDGE CORE (DEVELOPMENT PARCEL 5.A). RESIDENTIAL
development parcels may vary in size by 30 percent (25 percent for R1-6 and more
dense zoning categories without a minor plan amendment).
Size: 136 133.41 acres
Maximum Number of Dwelling Units: 347
Average Density: 2.55 du/ac
12.L – Development Parcel 12.L
Size: 77 55.24 acres
Uses Permitted:
Single-family residential
Density Range: 2-5 du/ac for the entire parcel
Maximum Number of Units: 347 257; 451 334 if parcel increases in size 30
percent
Potential Zoning to be Applied: R1-18, R1-10, R1-8, R1-6, R-2
Minimum Lot Size: Zoning controls
Special Requirements (Modifying City Regulations):
No attached single-family units; no multifamily units.
Section C.4.B, Chapter 6, Desert Ridge Specific Plan applies.
No more than 25% of the development parcel may be zoned R-2.
Recommendations:
Clustering permitted subject to minimum lot size.
12.C – DEVELOPMENT PARCEL 12.C
SIZE: 20.52 ACRES
USES PERMITTED:
ALL USES ALLOWED UNDER CITY OF PHOENIX ZONING
DESIGNATION C-2, INTERMEDIATE COMMERCIAL, EXCEPT AS
PROHIBITED BELOW.
MAXIMUM NUMBER OF UNITS: 90
POTENTIAL ZONING TO BE APPLIED: C-2
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS (MODIFYING CITY REGULATIONS):
LARGE SCALE COMMERCIAL RETAIL IS PROHIBITED.
ADULT USES ARE PROHIBITED.
RETAIL LIQUOR SALES ARE ALLOWED AS AN ACCESSORY USE BUT
ARE PROHIBITED AS A PRIMARY USE.
TOBACCO ORIENTED RETAILERS ARE ALLOWED AS AN ACCESSORY
USE BUT ARE PROHIBITED AS A PRIMARY USE.
RETAIL MARIJUANA SALES (DISPENSARIES) ARE PROHIBITED.
AUTOMOBILE SERVICE STATIONS ARE PROHIBITED, UNLESS
ACCESSORY TO A GROCERY STORE.
12.S – Development Parcel 12.S
Size: 59 57.65 acres
Uses Permitted:
High school
Potential Zoning to be Applied: R1-8
***
PINNACLE PEAK RD
RD
T RA N
GE
R DR
DR 44TH
S
F REMON
R
T
LOCK D
W OO
O
U
G H RIDE R R
D PAT
HF
IND
BLACK MOUNTAIN BLVD
WAY ER
DR
O HS
T A
40 TO
AVIAN T R
DE E
CACTUS D R COLLE
NE R VA L
C
LO LE Y
DR
CO
LL
EC
GA RD TO
E N LN R B
TATUM BLVD 56TH ST 64TH ST
52ND ST
v
w
DSLEY RD
U TO
MAY
51 O PI
A
£
¤ BL
VD RD
GPA-DSTV-3-23-2
Desert Ridge Specific Plan Area
Superblock 12 ( 133.41 a.c.)
Parcel 12.L ( 75.76 a.c.)
32ND ST Miles
¯ 0 0.4 0.8
CHAUNCY LN
S:\Information Systems\GIS\Projects\Desert_Ridge_Superblock_12\Desert_Ridge_Superblock_12.mxd
From: Scott Clark
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Case GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/DSTV-3-23-2, Z-39-23
Date: Saturday, July 29, 2023 11:20:21 AM
Dear Mr Grande,
I am a resident of Aviano neighborhood and live 1 block from Deer Valley Drive and Black
Mountain Blvd. I wanted to send an email that my family is opposed to rezoning the land use
from residential to commercial, GPA-DSTV-2-23-2.
The reason that I am opposed is that the proposed site is next to Pinnacle High School and
during the times of before and after school the area becomes very crowded with families
driving their kids to school, children walking and biking to school.
Having a commercial shopping center next to the school is going to create an unsafe
environment for the children walking and biking to school. There is a significant amount of
vehicle congestion from drop off/pickup that makes that area very congested. Adding a
commercial shopping area will make the area even more congested and unsafe. I have 4
children that may go to Pinnacle High School and think the current zoning as residential is
appropriate for the area next to a high school.
Thanks
Scott Clark
Resident of 3610 E Donald Dr
602-363-7729 (Cell)
From: Nathan Friedland
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Black Mountain Village - Superblock 12
Date: Wednesday, August 2, 2023 10:52:40 AM
Mr. Grande:
I understand that you are the City Planner for the subject rezoning of the land parcel at the
Southwest corner of Deer Valley and Black Mountain Boulevard. As a resident of Sky
Crossing, directly across Deer Valley from this subject parcel, my family and I along with
1220 homeowners will be directly impacted by this proposed development.
I am not naive to believe that this development will be rejected and I appreciate our
community’s need for additional businesses like a grocery store and restaurants.
However, I would like to bring to your attention some concerns that I have and I am sure our
neighbors have relevant to this rezoning.
1. Traffic is already high on these two streets and with the addition of a large shopping center,
the traffic will expand greatly bringing to our community more noise with drivers revving
their engines and peeling out of the new center. This will be especially realized should a gas
station be approved and built. A gas station, if approved on this parcel, must be restricted in
their hours of operation with it being closed over night. In all candidness. a gas station is not
really needed as there are a number of stations near by on Cave Creek and on Tatum - all
within 2 to 3 miles from this area.
2. Light Pollution is another major concern. Nobody wants to see glaring bright lights during
the night time that will disrupt the tranquility of our lives and interrupt our sleep over night.
The developers must be required to adhere to dark sky compliance to limit the amount of blue
light at night.
These two items are my current concerns and I am sure my neighbors will have other issues
such as neighborhood safety and security that they will bring to your office’s attention.
Thank you for your time and attention to this most important matter.
Nathan Friedland
North 34th Way - Sky Crossing
Phoenix, Az 85050
From: Rachel McLean
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Black Mountain Village Project
Date: Wednesday, August 2, 2023 3:18:23 PM
Hello Mr. Grande,
I am writing to you in regards to the Black Mountain Village Project (GPA-DSTV-2-23-2). I understand that you are
the City Planner for this project and would like to share my opinion. I live in the Sky Crossing neighborhood
directly across Deer Valley Rd from the proposed project. While I am in favor of commercial development on this
parcel, I must urge you to only allow for businesses that will not degrade our neighborhood. For example, most
neighbors are opposed to a gas station. This is an unnecessary addition as there are multiple gas stations on both
Tatum and Cave Creek Rd. A gas station would bring unwanted loitering and excessive noise and traffic to this
residential neighborhood.
Another issue I have is with a large grocery store (ie Frys, Albertsons, etc). Again, this being an entirely residential
neighborhood it would detract from our community to have a large grocery store. I do however support a smaller
grocery store with less traffic such as a Sprouts or Trader Joe’s.
Both the grocery store and a gas station would create a large amount of light pollution. I would like to see building
plans that involves less lighting, more landscaping and a more cohesive ambiance with the desert and the natural
surroundings.
This leads me to my last point that our homes in Sky Crossing are typically selling around $1M. To me, this would
indicate a higher scale neighborhood. I would appreciate if the commercial businesses fit in with the demographic of
the area, similar to business parks in Scottsdale. A gas station and large grocery store would be unwelcome and an
eye sore whereas a smaller neighborhood grocery store and smaller, tasteful restaurants and shops would be a
welcome addition.
Please consider these points and I look forward to attending the next meeting to hear the latest development.
Rachel McLean
Sky Crossing Resident
From: Richard Starr
To: Anthony M Grande; PDD Desert View VPC
Subject: planned commercial/retail center at SWC Black Mtn Pkwy & Deer Valley
Date: Wednesday, August 2, 2023 3:50:16 PM
Hello Anthony and Desert View VPC,
I am a nearby resident (Fireside) of this proposed project. My main concern here is Pinnacle
HS parking. The high schoolers often park in the adjacent residential neighborhoods as
Pinnacle's lot are simply not large enough for its growing population. The AZ State Land
Department, Paradise Valley School District and any potential bidder/buyer of this ASLD
property should work together (now) to facilitate the purchase of additional 3-5 acres for
more Pinnacle High School parking north of Mayo Blvd. The school parking could be on west
side of future retail center. Otherwise, students and visitors for sporting events will simply
park in the new commercial center, upsetting retail tenants and customers alike.
Thank you.
Richard "R.T." Starr
(623) 521-5668
rtstarraz@hotmail.com
From: Ronee Korbin Steiner
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Construction possibilities Deer Valley and Black Mountain
Date: Wednesday, August 2, 2023 7:24:45 PM
As Sky Crossing homeowners, we wanted to express our objection to the potential of large commercial development
at this corner. When school is in session the traffic is awful. It’s going to be exceptionally worse if there is a
commercial structure at that corner. Moreover, I have no idea how the owner will police the students parking there.
It’s going to bring more traffic, crime, congestion and so on. This is not the kind of thing we want to see in our area.
It’s very likely to negatively impact home values as well.
Thanks so much for noting our objection.
Tracy and Ronee Steiner
From: Sabrina Sundquist
To: Anthony M Grande
Date: Wednesday, August 2, 2023 11:45:07 AM
Mr. Grande:
I understand that you are the City Planner for the subject rezoning of the land parcel at the
Southwest corner of Deer Valley and Black Mountain Boulevard.
As a resident of Sky Crossing, directly across Deer Valley from this subject parcel, my family and I
along with 1220 homeowners will be directly impacted by this proposed development.
I am not naive to believe that this development will be rejected, and I appreciate our community’s
need for additional businesses like a grocery store and restaurants.
However, I would like to bring to your attention some concerns that I have, and I am sure our
neighbors have relevant to this rezoning.
1. Traffic is already high on these two streets and with the addition of a large shopping
center, the traffic will expand greatly. Please do not allow a gas station on this corner, it is
not a major arterial intersection. There are plenty of gas stations in both directions of this
corner and those are both busier streets and can accommodate the need.
2. Light Pollution is another major concern. Nobody wants to see glaring bright lights
during the nighttime, this will greatly disrupt the tranquility of our lives and interrupt our
sleep over night. The developers must be required to adhere to dark sky compliance to limit
the amount of blue light at night.
These two items are my current concerns, and I am sure my neighbors will have other issues such as
neighborhood safety and security that they will bring to your office’s attention.
Thank you for your time and attention to this most important matter.
Sabrina Sundquist
3506 E. Daley Lane
From: nav bajwa
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: REZONING OF THE LAND AT BLACK MOUNTAIN AND DEER VALLEY
Date: Friday, August 4, 2023 7:38:56 AM
To Mr. Grande,
My name is Nav Bajwa. I am a resident of Aviano. As a concerned citizen, I am writing this
email to urge and appeal that you reconsider keeping the area zoned for residental purposes
only. The infrastructure in that area is not built to handle a shopping complex, with all the
increased traffic from the Pinnacle high school as well.
Thanks,
Nav.
From: Julie Gibson
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Oppose the development Black Man Deer Valley
Date: Friday, August 4, 2023 7:55:25 AM
Hi Anthony,
First I want to thank you for what you do. I worked ever so briefly in planning in Portland,
OR. I know it’s a tough and under appreciated role in development. So I do not like sending an
email with a negative tone, but on this one I must.
Regarding the development at Black Mountain Blvd and Deer Valley I have 2 major concerns:
1. The additional traffic to an already clogged area - especially with high schoolers in the area.
It increases frustration and potential for life treating accidents. (Teen brains in the mornings
aren’t really the the sharpest in the intersection).
2. How can we guarantee that this doesn’t end up a strip mall of vape stores and liquor stores?
Again the last thing that should be placed near a high school. Our kids have so much on their
plate already in terms of the availability of addictive substances. Why make this any harder for
them?
I do hope the City will take in consideration the development’s proximity to a high school and
the challenges it poses with the teens that will no doubt surround the area before and after
school.
I will do my best to be at the next meeting in October.
Warm regards,
Julie
Julie Gibson
julsgc@me.com
480-352-8612
From: Gordon Smith
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Development at the corner of Deer Valley and Black Mountain Blvd
Date: Friday, August 4, 2023 2:17:59 PM
I live close by and strenuously object to developing this land for commercial use. This would
place a commercial lot right in the middle of neighborhoods and a school. I happen to live in
the closest adjoining neighborhood (Fireside - Copper View) and my property values will be
negatively impacted by this decision. My quality of life will be negatively impacted by this
decision.
From a practical perspective, this is a dangerous place to build a development of that nature.
We already suffer from high school kids parking and clogging our streets in the
adjoining neighborhood. At best, this would shift that burden to this new development.
Having entitled parents with their bad parking/waiting habits combined with parking lots full
of high school teens disobeying parking regulations and the increased pedestrian traffic there
is a recipe for disaster. I sure hope they have amazing insurance - they'll need it.
This will create light and noise pollution, add more traffic to an already congested area and
degrade my property values. If anything, this state land should be used for an expansion of the
school itself to allow for more high school parking and activities of the existing population
attending that school.
We have gas stations nearby already. We have grocery stores nearby already. We have fast
food nearby already. We do not need this development.
Sincerely,
Gordon Smith
3608 E Salter Dr
Phoenix AZ 85050
From: Christian Klein
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Case: GPA-DSTV-2-23-2
Date: Friday, August 4, 2023 12:42:04 PM
Dear Anthony Grande,
I am writing today regarding Vestar’s proposals (case numbers) GPA-DSTV-2-23-2, GPA
DSTV-3-23-2, and Z-39-23. As a resident of Desert Ridge, I oppose Vestar’s proposal for
rezoning the Southwest Corner of Black Moutain Boulevard and Deer Valley Drive from
Residential to Commercial/Retail for several reasons.
First, Desert Ridge is a highly desirable planned residential community that continues to
attract buyers willing to pay a premium for a prime location. Adding commercial/retail
mixed-use space in the middle of the community would decrease the desirability of Desert
Ridge and lower the values of residential real estate within the community.
Second, the traffic flow within Desert Ridge is already too great for the limited infrastructure
within the community. Pinnacle Peak High School is located adjacent to the proposed site.
The traffic caused during the morning/afternoon pick up/drop off combined with regular
commuting already creates a safety issue on Black Moutain and Deer Valley with vehicles
backed up in every direction. Adding unnecessary commercial/retail space would only
increase the traffic and lead to safety issues.
Third, there is no need for mixed commercial/retail space in the middle of single-family
homes. The area has more than ample shopping options - Desert Ridge Marketplace, High
Street, and shopping off of Cave Creek Rd and the 101 are all within an extremely close
distance. Finally, creating a commercial/retail space in the middle of a residential area will
bring increased instances of crime which when coupled with declining property values
would limit the marketability of Desert Ridge.
Given the detrimental impacts on our home values, marketability, safety, noise/light
pollution, and increased traffic without adequate infrastructure these proposals should be
denied. Please do not hesitate to reach out if I can provide any additional information.
Regards,
Christian Klein
From: Ronee Korbin Steiner
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Additional information on potential project at Deer Valley and Black Mountain
Date: Friday, August 4, 2023 7:33:48 AM
I urge you or someone from your office to come by between 7 am and 7:30 and see what the traffic is like. It’s
unbearable. I literally have to change my work schedule by leaving either before 7 or after 7:30. Any commercial
addition to that corner is going to make things exponentially worse, create more accidents or worse. Kids are
walking across the street and not at the intersection because there is gridlock and they think that they can just do
that.
The Steiners
From: Layla
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Case#GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/ Desert Ridge Community
Date: Tuesday, August 8, 2023 10:25:52 AM
Mr. Grande,
My husband and I, and our children, have lived in the Desert Ridge Community since 2010.
What attracted us to this area was the quiet, beauty of the desert, and the many, many young
families that live here. Our children attend all the neighborhood schools including Pinnacle
High School.
We feel strongly that changing this residential land site to commercial would be detrimental to
our community. The increased traffic would be catastrophic to the neighborhood
environment. It is already difficult to get my children to school, this would increase
substantially. We have studied the developers plans for this land and we are deeply troubled.
Our neighborhood will be forever changed with drive-thrus and a gas station. Huge semi
trucks will now be delivering gas and food to our quiet community. We cannot allow this to
happen! We do not need another gas station or grocery store here. We can drive less than a
mile to obtain that. Why destroy a neighborhood/community all for money.
We are pleading with you to put a stop to this! If you have any further questions, please let us
know.
Thank you,
Darrin and Layla Saikley
602-329-4432
From: Wendy
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Rezoning for Commercial of Corner Black Mountain & Deer valley
Date: Tuesday, August 8, 2023 10:00:00 AM
Hi Mr. Grande,
This email is too put in our objection for the rezoning to make commercial the corner of Black
Mountain Blvd and Deer Valley.
The traffic in that area is already very busy with the school and subdivisions. As is there is
usually backups. This is a residential neighborhood with lots of families and kids. We do not
need to bring additional traffic or buildings that don't belong in the middle of a residential
area. There is enough stuff very close by. We did not buy in the area to have that type of stuff
right in the middle of our neighborhoods.
I highly object to this and would not approve it!
Thank you,
Wendy
From: Helen"s Cox Email
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Application No. GPA-DSTV-2-23-2
Date: Thursday, August 10, 2023 10:42:07 AM
Hello Mr. Grande,
We are homeowners of (2) homes in Desert Ridge and we STRONGLY OPPOSE the proposed commercial tract
along Black Mountain Blvd and Deer Valley Road next to Pinnacle High School.
Please make a note of our position.
Thank you,
Helana and Timothy Doyle
Sent from my iPhone
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, August 10, 2023 11:20:48 AM
Name
Peter Feldman
peterjfeldman@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Fireside at Desert Ridge
Support Comments
This development is a terrible idea. Traffic in right lane of Deer Valley is already backed up for a half mile
at drop off and pick up at high school. Black Mtn is impassible with the kids crossing the street and cars
parked along the sides of the roads. Some kid is going to get hit by a shopper leaving that center and
everyone associated with the development is getting sued.
This is literally the worst possible use for the property.
From: Sue
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Zone change of the Southwest Corner of Deer Valley Drive and Black Mountain Boulevard
Date: Thursday, August 10, 2023 11:23:32 AM
Dear Mr. Grande,
I am against the zone change from residential to commercial.
There are many, many reasons why I am opposed to this zone change (lights, noise, traffic , etc.).
I live in the Sky Crossing community.
I attended the August 1st meeting, but nothing favorable was convincing.
Sincerely,
Suzanne Corlett Sayegh
21827 North 33rd Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85050
Sent from my iPhone
From: Rusty Ludwig
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Proposed Development on Black Mountain and Deer Valley
Date: Saturday, August 12, 2023 12:30:18 PM
Hi Anthony,
We have lived in Aviano for the past 17 years, when we purchased our home, in the general
plan this was zoned residential. We have no problem driving to the commercial areas already
developed for that type of businesses. From the sounds of the development it’s catered to
capture the local high school, the area is already congested in that area. Please forward this
response to the City Staff responsible for the decision to change the zoning, please leave it
residential.
Thank You,
Rusty Ludwig
--
Rusty Ludwig
RJL Excavating, Inc.
602-920-8003
rjlexc@gmail.com
From: cmotjen
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Deer Valley & Black Mountian
Date: Sunday, August 13, 2023 9:51:17 AM
Hi Anthony,
If possible, I hope you can restructure the thought of making Deer Valley and Black Mountain a commercial
property. Our kids have to walk by this intersection everyday on their way to school. We moved into a
neighborhood to have a neighborhood, not a city.
If commercial is the only option, please look at other corporations. The locations built by Vestar are tacky and
unappealing, sprawling at best. We need something sophisticated and classy. We/You are beyond fortunate Sky
Crossing Elementary, Fireside Elementary and Pinnacle High School are some of the BEST schools in the PV
school district.
Please don’t let us down in making a rash decision,
Christina Otjen
Sent from my iPhone
From: Helen’s Cox
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Application # GPA-DSTV-2-23-2
Date: Monday, August 14, 2023 11:05:23 AM
Hello Anthony,
I understand that the city would like a more detailed explanation as to why we are strongly against rezoning this
tract for commercial building.
My husband and I have lived in Desert Ridge since 2004. Phoenix does not have many areas where the beauty and
quiet of the desert is so prominent. However, the Desert Ridge community is one of the beautiful, quiet and family
friendly neighborhoods in Phoenix. In fact when we outgrew our home and decided to buy another one we chose to
remain in Phoenix in the Desert Ridge area because we love it so much.
All of our children have and do attend the neighborhood schools. The Desert Ridge area has always been a safe and
quiet neighborhood. Building a commercial plot right next to Pinnacle High School would be outrageous. It would
cause a dangerous amount of traffic, crime and be very disturbing to the school and surrounding neighborhoods.
Desert Ridge Marketplace is less than 1 mile away.
We understand there is a proposed gas station in the plans. This is extremely short sighted. There is a gas station
less than a mile away. The future is electric. In the next few years gas cars will become obsolete. Gas stations are
so toxic, it is incredibly hard to convert the land when it will no longer be needed. This begs the question, is the
development being funded by a gas company?
It appears that the city is being motivated by money and not seeing how this will impact a beautiful neighborhood.
Currently, the neighborhoods in Desert Ridge are very much like you’d see in the city of Scottsdale. The Desert
Ridge area is highly sought after in the City of Phoenix and gives the City of Scottsdale a “run for its money”. This
proposed tract is obviously money motivated with no regards as to the impact it will have on Pinnacle High School
and the surrounding neighborhoods and ultimately the City of Phoenix.
The City of Phoenix is already filled with unsightly commercial plots next to neighborhoods and schools which
downgrades those areas immensely.
Keep the Desert Ridge neighborhood as one of the few in the City of Phoenix that is peaceful, beautiful and safe.
Be the future and preserve this neighborhood for generations to come. Please Do Not build commercial on this
land. Be better and do what’s right for the city.
Thank you,
Timothy and Helana Doyle
602-432-9504
From: Ginger Kurtz
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: new development in desert ridge phx az
Date: Wednesday, August 16, 2023 12:09:48 PM
I am a resident of Desert Ridge. We have been in Desert Ridge since the beginning March
1995. We have seen the growth . We feel blessed everything is within walking or a short
drive . We have gas stations, grocery storel and plenty of restaurants and some fast food. If
you dont like Desert Ridge for shopping you have a short drive to Bell Road off Tatum for
morel choices or go to cave creek off of Deer Valley. We dont need to bring more traffic and
more traffic and chaos to this neighborhood. We oppose the new development off Deer Valley
BLack mountain.
Thank you Ginger Kurtz, Kristina Koontz
From: VH
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Parcel at Black Mtn and Deer Valley
Date: Thursday, August 17, 2023 2:47:26 PM
Hi Mr. Grande,
I want to express my opposition to the proposed rezoning of the parcel on the Southwest
corner of Black Mountain and Deer Valley. It is being proposed that the land be rezoned from
residential to commercial. This is a terrible idea for many reasons. I am a full time resident in
Sky Crossing and below are just a few potential issues that will be created by
commercial zoning.
Violence, as experienced at Desert Ridge shopping area
Increased noise
Predators/sex trafficking
Light pollution
Increased burnouts - burnouts are currently in every intersection in the area
Increased traffic in an already crowded area
Safety - speeding is rampant in the area and there was a death on Deer Valley last year
High school pedestrian safety
High school drop off and pick up is already severely congested
Increased wear and tear on roads from commercial vehicles
Increased commercial vehicles - brakes, horns, noise
There is zero need for a gas station, grocery store, or any other commercial property on this
land. Those services are already conveniently located 2-3 miles in either direction.
Please don't make a decision to rezone the parcel. The future cannot be undone when issues
arise. It's not always about money. Sometimes - in this case for instance - it's about keeping a
neighborhood a neighborhood with residential properties as initially zoned. Home owners in
Sky Crossing were sold on the idea of residential and not commercial across the street. No
commercial zoning nearby was a huge selling point for property owners. Don't go back on this
commitment.
Please don't rezone the parcel at Black Mountain and Deer Valley north of Pinnacle High
School. Be proactive and put residents first.
Thank you for your time.
Vicki
From: Wendy Piermarini
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Do Not Change Residential Lot into Commercial
Date: Friday, August 18, 2023 9:05:36 AM
Anthony,
We built in Desert Ridge back in 1997 and studied the Master Plan. It DID NOT include
commercial inside the Desert Ridge Community. It is the worst idea to change the
residential property into commercial. It will only bring crime, homelessness and more
congestion to an already very congested area. Trying to navigate around Pinnacle High School
is already ridiculous and any changes to the navigating that problem has not helped. . This was
never the plan and it should not be a new plan in order to profit a few. Keep our area
beautiful!!!!
From: wroodenburg@cox.net
To: Anthony M Grande; David Urbinato
Cc: Laura Farrell; Council District 2 PCC; Sarah Stockham; bgeorge@pvschools.net; nwilcox@pvschools.net; PDD Desert View VPC
Subject: RE: Pinnacle High School - Traffic flow / Vision Zero
Date: Friday, August 18, 2023 4:00:29 PM
Attachments: image003.png
image005.png
image006.png
Thanks everyone for your input.
What strikes me in general is that it seems a very reactive process to “wait and see” who comes up with a plan for the vacant land.
There is :
1. already a master plan for Desert Ridge,
2. the land is owned by the Arizona State Land Department, beneficiaries include the k-12 schools,
3. there is a Vision Zero plan and budget to reduce casualties,
4. there is a federal program regarding infrastructure.
On top of that,
1. the school was build in 2000 during a time when Fireside/Aviano/SkyCrossing/DesertRidge marketplace were not even there yet.
2. The school was build in 2000 whilst the freeways like 101 were not build yet, etc, etc
3. During curriculum night at the Pinnacle High School, this topic was brought up and the principal re-iterated that he was 100% against the commercial proposal – this is
not what came across in the meeting and I would love to see the exact wording used that night.
4. Pinnacle High school is further expanding the number of students every year and it should be able to get the infrastructure and parking capabilities for students to get
to school safely.
5. Student Drivers are mixed with in with people that need to get to work in time and this creates a recipe for disaster for these drivers and the students crossing the
intersection.
Adding up all these before mentioned items and elements of existing/approved budgets, would we (as a community) be wrong to assume that there is somebody at City or
State level working with the school district to alleviate the pressures that now exist in this neighborhood, proactively.
We have escalated the issue, discussions and actions have taken place between the school and the city, but this year the dropoff and pickup is in exactly the same state of
chaos around the school and we’re all just waiting for 1 child to get run over.
This doesn’t seem in line with the Vision Zero.
My main question is this;
Does the city planner and the village planning committee have the ability to – themselves - create a proposal for this vacant land, recognizing that the area has grown
tremendously over the last decade and that improvements to the infrastructure, traffic patterns, school safety, etc are now needed.
Here are the benefits:
1. The biggest benefit is the fact that Pinnacle Highschool is one of the few lucky schools that has vacant land around it to still expand and address the issues.
2. Both committees are experts in State and City guidelines and laws
3. Both committees can invite other necessary parties to the table that they know are required to make a good plan and include people from the school districts and the
department of education.
4. You have inside knowledge of budget and grant opportunities at State and Federal level to plan for funding
5. Vision Zero survey results are available in more detail then what the public gets to see and it should have been highlighted by the participation of the community in
Aviano and Fireside.
6. State Land should benefit the school – so why not expand the footprint for this high school directly (and not selling the land for proceeds)
I’m no expert in what it is people on this email can do or not – but I would strongly urge all of you to take my points into consideration and NOT approve the vestar proposal
in any shape or form, because it is NOT what the area needs and it is NOT in the best interest of student safety.
We can only decide ONCE what will happen to this piece of land and it was already decided to NOT be commercial.
We have a great community, they have engaged with surveys and shown up at meetings. We love where we live and it’s mainly because of the master plan that is already in
place.
If you require further input and or participation of our community and/or have any suggestions to have this proposal stopped, please let us know.
Much appreciated if this can be added to the proposal as feedback.
Kind regards,
Wouter Roodenburg
From: Anthony M Grande
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2023 4:00 PM
To: David Urbinato
Cc: Laura Farrell
Subject: RE: Pinnacle High School - Traffic flow / Vision Zero
Hi all,
I want to add some information here. Vestar has filed an application to rezone the property for commercial use. The Desert View VPC heard an informational presentation on
August 1 and took public comments. I know Mr. Roodenburg, you were there and provided input on the rezoning proposal. As was discussed at the meeting, the case is still
under review and won’t have a formal staff recommendation until it returns to the VPC in October for public hearing and recommendation. In the meantime, we are
reviewing all comments received, which will be made part of the case file and included in the staff report for the case.
Please feel free to reach out with any additional questions or comments.
Thanks,
Anthony
Anthony Grande
Planner II – Village Planner
Planning & Development Department
Long Range Planning
Office: 602-256-5648
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
From: David Urbinato
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2023 12:37 PM
To: wroodenburg@cox.net
Cc: Laura Farrell
Subject: FW: Pinnacle High School - Traffic flow / Vision Zero
Mr. Roodenburg, Street Transportation Department staff forwarded your question about development plans for the circled parcel below. This parcel of land is owned by the
Arizona State Land Department. They submitted a request for a pre-application review (PAPP 2206799) of a site plan and potential rezoning that proposed a shopping center
on the property. At this time, the owner has not submitted any additional documents beyond the pre-application stage. Please note that details of proposed plans can change
somewhat as they move past the early pre-application stage.
I have copied the village planner for that area, Anthony Grande, if you have any questions about how the rezoning process would play out from here should the applicant
choose to proceed.
The State Land Department sells parcels based on guidelines in state law. Whether they legally could donate the land to the school district would be a question to address
directly with the Land Department. I’ve included a link to their home page as a place to start. Home | Arizona State Land Department (az.gov) [land.az.gov]
David Urbinato
Economic Development Program Manager
Ombudsman Section
Phone: 602-534-3630
ʇ Planning & Development Department
Ombudsman Section
200 West Washington St., 3rd Floor
Phoenix, AZ 85003
pdd.ombudsman@phoenix.gov
From: wroodenburg@cox.net
Sent: Tuesday, August 1, 2023 1:48 PM
To: Laura Farrell
Cc: Council District 2 PCC
Subject: RE: Pinnacle High School - Traffic flow / Vision Zero
Laura,
Following our previous conversations, it seems that Pinnacle high school and the city have worked together on a better drop off procedure for this year by changing the drop
off route to be going around the school.
There also seem to have been an investment in more signs everywhere and a reduction in speed at Mayo boulevard, but it won’t stop the students being dropped off on the
corner of mayo from where they literally cross this junction in anyway they can (no longer following the crossings). It actually has gotten worse in the last year.
Although these previous mentioned actions are positive signs, they do not seem to address the rootcauses of the traffic issue and doesn’t directly help the safety of the
students, nor provide extra capacity for drop off locations.
Only the land north of the school would be able to provide this with some development.
However, residents have noticed that the city is considering an application for rezoning the land North of the school with commercial intentions. ( Black Mountain Village /
Superblock 12 - Gammage & Burnham | Attorneys at LawGammage & Burnham | Attorneys at Law (gblaw.com) [gblaw.com] ). See Zoning hearings sign attached.
I have copied some board members of the PV school district and hope they are aware of this rezoning application, impacting Pinnacle high school student safety.
After the Fireside residents have tried to communicate our concerns with the safety of this area with the City and our participation in the Road Safety surveys, I find it very
surprising that the City is considering to add yet more traffic to this junction where a lot of high school students are and more new student drivers are going to be this year.
Are you able to share the information you have gathered last year that prompted some of the changes with this Planning commission to take into consideration?
Would you be able to advise us about the options, procedures needed to rezone/donate this exact piece of land to be of future use for Paradise Valley School district and
expansion of the highschool?
Looking forward to further information on this topic.
Kind Regards,
Wouter Roodenburg.
From: Laura Farrell
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2022 11:09 AM
To: Wouter
Cc: Council District 2 PCC
Subject: RE: Pinnacle High School - Traffic flow / Vision Zero
Good morning Wouter,
I apologize for not getting back to you Monday, but I was unexpectedly out. I did leave you a voicemail yesterday afternoon, and I promised to follow up with an
email today.
Staff analyzed the traffic count data and have been monitoring the two traffic signals near Pinnacle High School, especially the one at Black Mountain and Mayo
boulevards, this week as school started. They determined that an adjustment to the signal at Black Mountain and Mayo was needed to allow for more green times
when the signal detects an increase in vehicles. However, while the adjustment has helped some, the amount of traffic present during school pick-up and drop-off
times is still causing congestion, which signal adjustment cannot remediate.
Staff also noticed some issues with the way students/pedestrians are crossing at this intersection. Therefore, staff will contact the school to work with them on
safety education. Staff will also see if they can make some suggestions to the school regarding their pick-up/drop-off plans.
Unfortunately, there is no street engineering solution we can offer to solve this issue. The traffic congestion at Pinnacle High School is not unique; all high schools
in the City have similar congestion issues during the peak morning and afternoon hours, which dissipate once those peak hours are over. We do have a school
safety coordinator who works with schools on their pick-up and drop-off plans to minimize traffic impacts as much as possible, while also educating them on
safety. However, we can only make suggestions as the City does not have the authority to force schools to change their plans. Arizona State Law exempts them
from having to comply with zoning ordinance requirements as other businesses and property owners must do within the City. Schools are governed by the locally
elected school district or the Department of Education at the state level.
I do understand that safety is of utmost concern to you and the other parents as it is for us, too. We will continue to provide as much assistance as we can by
monitoring the signals and communicating with the school. I also urge you to contact the school board or district to solicit their assistance with your concerns.
I also want to thank you for participating in the Road Safety Action Plan Phase I survey. The results are available at phoenix.gov/streets/roadsafety. Another survey
for Phase II is now open through August 31 if you’d like to take that one as well. Please keep checking the website for other community engagement opportunities
and plan updates.
I do hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to call me if you have other questions or concerns.
Thank you,
Laura Farrell
Management Assistant II
200 W. Washington St., 5th Floor
Phoenix, AZ 85003
(602) 495-2047
laura.farrell@phoenix.gov
Follow us on Twitter @StreetsPHX [twitter.com]
From: Wouter
Sent: Monday, August 8, 2022 7:47 AM
To: Laura Farrell
Cc: Council District 2 PCC
Subject: Re: Pinnacle High School - Traffic flow / Vision Zero
Laura,
Hope you also had some time off this summer.
We’re ready to have the kids go back to school and was wondering whether any changes will be made to the traffic light timing of the various lights.
As a community we continue to participate in the questionnaires that came out, etc but hope there is something the city is willing to do now to make the situation safer.
Kind regards
Wouter Roodenburg
480-567-2716
Sent from my iPhone
On May 20, 2022, at 4:00 PM, Laura Farrell
Hi Wouter,
Thank you for your email, and I appreciate the chance to speak with you on the phone today.
Just to reiterate our conversation, we are monitoring the two traffic signals near Pinnacle High School, and we are finalizing traffic counts before
school is out next week. We will analyze the data to see if there are any adjustments we can make. During our monitoring, we did note the school
ingress/egress pattern, so our school safety coordinator is going to review and reach out to the school to see if we can provide some assistance.
I know school is out next week, but we will continue to work with the school and monitor the traffic signals especially when school is back in session in
August. I’ve noted that one of your main concerns is with vehicles getting backed up on Mayo Blvd when turning onto Black Mountain (both turning
left with the arrow going west then southbound onto Black Mountain and turning right when going east then southbound onto Black Mountain from
Mayo) as they wait for students to cross. I have forwarded your concern to the traffic management center, so they can be sure to monitor this
especially. I will let you know if there are any adjustments we can make.
I also let you know that the results of the Road Safety Action Plan (RSAP) public survey should be published on the RSAP website at
phoenix.gov/streets/roadsafety in early to mid-June. I’ll make sure to keep this on my radar to update you once it’s available.
I do appreciate you letting us know of your safety concerns as we are dedicated to working on improving the safety of our roadways as much as
possible.
Please feel free to reach out to me again if you have other concerns. In the meantime, I’ll make sure to provide you with updates as I have them.
Have a wonderful weekend!
Thank you,
Laura Farrell
Management Assistant II
200 W. Washington St., 5th Floor
Phoenix, AZ 85003
(602) 495-2047
laura.farrell@phoenix.gov
Follow us on Twitter @StreetsPHX [twitter.com]
From: Wouter
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2022 7:33 AM
To: Laura Farrell
Cc: Council District 2 PCC
Subject: Re: Pinnacle High School - Traffic flow / Vision Zero
Good morning
I wanted to follow up on the traffic light evaluation. Has it occurred yet?
There really should be some adjustments to make it safer for the kids
Will the results of the questionnaire be published ?
Much appreciate an update
Regards
Wouter
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 17, 2022, at 7:46 AM, Laura Farrell
Good morning Mr. Roodenburg,
Thank you so much for sharing the survey with your neighbors and submitting your feedback.
I have requested the two signals be evaluated, and I’ll follow up once they have been completed. Staff is also evaluating the area for any
pedestrian crossing issues and looking into options.
We do appreciate your willingness to help. We can certainly let you know if there are any opportunities for neighborhood feedback. I’m
copying Tricia Quiroz to be your future contact person. She is my counterpart in our Traffic Services Division, which is the division that
handles traffic signals, pedestrian crossings, and school safety.
One of us will follow up with you with the results of the signal timing evaluations. Let me know if you have any other questions.
Thank you,
Laura Farrell
Management Assistant II
200 W. Washington St., 5th Floor
Phoenix, AZ 85003
(602) 495-2047
laura.farrell@phoenix.gov
Follow us on Twitter @StreetsPHX [twitter.com]
From: wroodenburg@cox.net
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 2:47 PM
To: Laura Farrell
Cc: Council District 2 PCC
Subject: RE: Pinnacle High School - Traffic flow / Vision Zero
Laura,
Thank you for the information. I will take this up with the school district as well.
I did post your survey on our community facebook page and you should see multiple submissions already from me and my neighbors.
I hope that traffic around schools gets prioritized appropriately in your plan.
Please start the process required to get the timing of traffic signals around that intersection reviewed again and adjusted accordingly.
The cross walk lights should be isolated and run separately from the cars to avoid accidents between the kids and cars making last minute turns.
The light from Mayo turning onto black mountain south - should be isolated and run longer to clear up the lines.
Again – there is a large group of parents in Fireside that wish to participate in any effort to make that area safer for our kids and ideally allow them
to walk/bicycle more to school.
Let us know how we can help or who our contact is at the Transportation department.
Regards,
Wouter Roodenburg.
From: Laura Farrell
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 9:02 AM
To: wroodenburg@cox.net
Cc: Council District 2 PCC
Subject: RE: Pinnacle High School - Traffic flow / Vision Zero
Good morning Mr. Roodenburg,
Councilman Waring’s office sent your email to the Street Transportation Department for investigation.
Thank you for contacting the City of Phoenix with your concerns. Unfortunately, the Street Transportation Department has no authority
over your proposals for parking ingress/egress for the school. We also have no jurisdiction over the state land parcel. We suggest taking
your proposal directly to the school district first to see if they can accommodate any of your parking proposals.
What the city can offer at this time is to review the timing of the traffics signals at Black Mountain and Mayo boulevards, and Black
Mountain Boulevard and Deer Valley Road to ensure they are timed appropriately for the traffic volumes.
Regarding Vision Zero, Phoenix City Council did just recently approve adopting Vision Zero with the goal of eliminating all traffic fatalities
on Phoenix roadways. We are also developing a comprehensive Road Safety Action Plan (RSAP) for the city and will be incorporating
Vision Zero goals into the RSAP. We are currently requesting public input to help shape the plan, so I highly encourage you and your
neighbors to visit phoenix.gov/streets/roadsafety for information on the RSAP and to take the survey.
I do hope this information is helpful and thank you again for contacting the City of Phoenix. Please let me know if I can be of any further
assistance.
Thank you,
Laura Farrell
Management Assistant II
200 W. Washington St., 5th Floor
Phoenix, AZ 85003
(602) 495-2047
laura.farrell@phoenix.gov
Follow us on Twitter @StreetsPHX [twitter.com]
From: wroodenburg@cox.net
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2022 4:10 PM
To: Council District 2 PCC
Subject: Pinnacle High School - Traffic flow / Vision Zero
Dear Councilman Waring,
We are living in Fireside Community near Pinnacle High School. Every morning dropping our kids off has turned into a nightmare.
A lot of traffic is building up around this area. Lot of frustrated drivers that I have filmed going through red lights and near collisions, mixed in with
student drivers trying to park their car at the school.
Currently I’m not aware of any fatalities on this highschool junction, but we would hope the city will be pro-active in this case preventing any
accidents before they happen.
Please find below a request to the city with regards to the traffic situation around Pinnacle High School.
Parents are getting very concerned about the safety of our kids.
A lot has changed in this part of phoenix, with big new housing divisions going in and black mountain blvd connecting to the 51 freeway.
The way this new road was build did not consider the kind of traffic that we’re dealing with currently. A bridge to cross Black mountain blvd was
build 500 feet away from the junction which is causing nobody to use it.
Available State land on the corner – highlighted below in picture - is staying vacant and would be the perfect addition to repurpose for the safety of
our kids and increase the parking capacity of the school.
I have seen articles regarding “Vision Zero” and new funding being available to reduce the number of accidents and fatalities in Phoenix and would
very much hope that his will be a timely request to consider by the city council.
We would very much like to understand how we can work with the city to address this dangerous situation.
Much appreciate your feedback on the matter.
Kind regards,
Wouter Roodenburg
480-567-2716
From: wroodenburg@cox.net
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2022 3:42 PM
To: 'patrick.presley@phoenix.gov'
Subject: Pinnacle High School - Traffic flow questions
I’m trying to find out who to speak with regarding the traffic situation at Pinnacle High school.
Most parents in our Fireside community are very concerned about the junction our kids have to cross and cars that are driving through that
intersection.
I’ve got some video’s from just 1 random day and captured a lot of dangerous driving through red lights and almost collisions.
A lot of traffic is going down the same roads trying to reach the school or get onto the 51 freeway causing a massive traffic jam every day.
We would very much like to know if we could work with the City to resolve these situations to increase the safety of our kids.
The plot of state land highlighted in light blue should ideally become part of the highschool to have additional parking for a fast growing highschool.
Closing the entrance from black mountain blvd, forcing students to go via Deer Valley instead.
I’ve included the situation and also some possible solutions to consider.
When the State land becomes part of PV district - Then you could have much needed additional parking and also incorporate a safe drop off and
bridge to have them enter the school.
Traffic will then be diverted away from Mayo Blvd and Black mountain blvd
Much appreciate your feedback.
Kind regards,
Wouter Roodenburg
480-567-2716
*******
Anthony M Grande
From: Chris Hanley
Sent: Saturday, August 19, 2023 4:16 PM
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Black Mountain and Deer Valley Village
Hello Anthony,
My name is Chris Hanley and I live in the Sky Crossing community. I moved into this neighborhood in March 2020 and
am the original owner of my home.
I understand there is a zoning hearing for the parcel of land on Deer Valley, West of Pinnacle High School. I
also understand that a commercial developer wishes to buy the land to develop a shopping center and needs the land
to be rezoned from residential to commercial.
I am opposed to this rezoning.
Sky Crossing is a new neighborhood. Many of us bought here in the last few years with the knowledge of the open land
to our south being other homes, not a grocery store, gas station, and other retail. This isn't an old neighborhood where
things have changed over the decades, we're less than 5 years into this.
As you know, Deer Valley is a 3 lane road in each direction. It is heavily travelled. The high school contributes to the
traffic load at certain times of day. WIth Black Canyon as a feeder onto SR 51, there is high traffic already.
While I understand how that would appeal to a commercial developer, the community is highly concerned about the
added traffic and congestion a shopping center would bring. In addition, the shopping center would add light pollution
and added noise pollution.
As you also know, shopping centers draw in pan handling, the homeless, and additional trash. We don't need that in a
family community, next to a high school and close to Sky Crossing Elementary.
Cave creek road to our West has 2 gas stations on it (north of the 101) and plenty of retail. We have an Albertsons at
Tatum and Deer Valley, with a gas station, and again lots of retail at Desert Ridge. There is also a Safeway and Frys north
of us at Tatum and Cave Creek. We don't need any more grocery stores and there are plenty of gas stations.
Please do not approve the rezoning. Thank you for your consideration on this matter and please reach out if you would
like to discuss.
Chris Hanley
3118 E. Herrera Dr
Phoenix AZ 85050
c3hanley@gmail.com
Anthony M Grande
From: Justin M
Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2023 9:44 AM
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Opposition to Vestar Development Group's Plans for Northwest Corner Deer Valley and
Black Mountain
Dear Anthony Grande,
I hope this messages finds you well. I am writing to express my very strong opposition to the proposed development and
rezoning of the land from residential to commercial at the Northwest Corner of Deer Valley and Black Mountain by
Vestar Development Group. The conversion of this residential area into a commercial zone would have severe
consequences, detrimental implications, and potentially devastating impacts on both the environment and the
community. I implore you to reconsider this decision and prioritize the well-being of the city, its residents, and its
natural surroundings.
The City of Phoenix has outlined a comprehensive sustainability plan for the year 2050, with clear guidelines for
responsible development that considers the efficient usage of resources, including water. One crucial aspect of this plan
is the expansion of parks, preserves, and open spaces, ensuring that all residents are within a five-minute walk of such
spaces, but those spaces must be sustainable or else the whole point of having a commercial center within walking
distance is null. Furthermore, the goal of reducing urban heat-island effects through green infrastructure and increasing
tree and shade canopy coverage is paramount.
However, the proposed development contradicts these essential sustainability goals. Converting the area into a car-
centric commercial zone would undoubtedly lead to increased traffic congestion, resulting in higher CO2 emissions. The
associated light and noise pollution would disrupt the delicate balance of the ecosystem and erode the serene character
of the Sonoran Desert environment, its flora and fauna, and its natural aesthetic.
I urge you to consider the broader impact of this development on the city's future. Will it be in line with the City of
Phoenix's sustainability regulations, ensuring that the structures incorporate features such as vertical gardens and
agricultural areas on their roofs? Will there be proper infrastructure in place, including ample bicycle racks, substantial
green spaces covering over 80% of the area, and designs that prioritize pedestrian and micromobility traffic over internal
combustion engine vehicles? Specifically, bicycle lanes which are physically protected by a barrier to protect cyclists
from traffic?
The City of Phoenix has shown a commitment to reducing air pollution and safeguarding public health through various
programs and initiatives. However, this development project poses a significant threat by potentially increasing the
emission of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs), negatively impacting the environment, ecosystem, and the health of
the community.
The City of Phoenix states, “The City of Phoenix is strongly committed to reducing air pollution and protecting public
health. The city implements a wide range of air quality programs to reduce ozone and particulate pollution (dust and
smoke). Transit, light rail, bikeways, and pedestrian-friendly development reduce vehicle emissions and promote land
use planning and urban designs for a more sustainable environment”. How will this development protect public health
when in fact, it will introduce vulnerabilities witthin the community? It will actively degrade and destroy the health of
the surrounding community and communities.
Equally concerning is the potential destruction of native plants in the area due to this development. The loss of
biodiversity and destruction of the Sonoran Desert's unique ecosystem cannot be taken lightly.
The Environmental Protection Agency asserts that that, “Volatile organic compounds (VOC) means any compound of
carbon, excluding carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic carbides or carbonates, and ammonium
carbonate, which participates in atmospheric photochemical reactions”. These harmful chemicals would be released into
our atmosphere if the proposed development is approved. We must oppose and condemn this egregious use of building
authority with passion for the future of the City of Phoenix, and on a more global scale, the Earth itself.
In light of these concerns, I wholeheartedly disagree and very strongly oppose the Vestar Development Group's plans for
the Northwest Corner of Deer Valley and Black Mountain. I urge you to immediately stop and immediately halt all
current and future development plans and instead prioritize the city's sustainability goals, community well-being, and
the preservation of the natural environment. By doing so, you can help shape a better future for the City of Phoenix and
its residents.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Justin M.
(602)-481-8143
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Tuesday, August 22, 2023 4:30:19 PM
Name
Rebecca Eldridge
rebecca.n.eldridge@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Fireside Desert Ridge
Support Comments
I do NOT support a shopping center at this location. It’s already too congested as it is at that intersection
and south toward the 101. This is not a prime location for something like this right near the high school
and between so many large neighborhoods. Maybe great for the businesses but terrible for neighbors!
The design of our roads and infrastructure in our area was not designed and is not currently conducive
for more high traffic areas. The roads will become a nightmare - even more so (esp in black mountain)
than they are now.
It’s relatively quiet in our area too - aside from the chaos on Tatum in Desert Ridge. Let’s not bring that
chaos west a few blocks!
I will not support a shopping center at this location and aside from those reasons shared above, I have a
list full of others.
If anything, make parking and traffic easier on Pinnacle students and families so they don’t have to block
intersections, slow traffic, or bring their traffic for pick up and drop off into neighborhood streets. If
anything, that high school and its community need support for better access before, during, and after
school.
I guarantee if you put a shopping center in, that parking lot will be filled with student parking M-F. Make
decisions that are to the benefit of the community, not for making money hungry investors richer.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Tuesday, August 22, 2023 3:51:41 PM
Name
Jennifer Francyk
jfrancyk@me.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Fireside
Support Comments
Please do not allow a gas station on that corner. How about a public library? A park? A community
center? Do we really need to put junk food outlets and hang outs so close to the high school? Property
values won’t be the same if this is not done properly. If anything a small grocer like sprouts or Trader
Joe’s might be ok. Prefer it was just housing.
JAMES W. TUFFIN
21214 N. 36th Pl
Phoenix, Arizona 85050
(516) 359-6420
james.tuffin@tuffinlaw.com
(retired attorney not offering services to the public)
August 22, 2023
VIA EMAIL (anthony.grande@phoenix.gov)
Mr. Anthony Grande
Planner II – Village Planner
Planning & Development Department
Re: GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2; Resident Statement in Opposition
Dear Mr. Grande:
I reside in Desert Ridge, and I am opposed to the above listed applications. My home is well west of the
commercial core, overlooking Black Mountain Boulevard and Pinnacle High School (“PHS”), and with a
view of the parcel in question. I have reviewed the application materials posted on the website of
Applicant’s (“Vestar”) counsel, and I attended the informational meeting of the Desert View Village
Planning Committee on August 1, 2023.
The requested change is beyond inequitable, it is unconscionable. It does extreme violence to the terms
of the Desert Ridge Specific Plan (“DRSP”)1 and the reasonable expectations of Desert Ridge
homeowners along Black Mountain Boulevard under the terms of the plan. It does nothing to further the
well-being of nearby residents and poses myriad problems. The arguments offered by Vestar to justify the
change do not pass muster, as will be readily demonstrated below.
THE PROPOSED CHANGE IS AN EXTREME DEPARTURE FROM THE DRSP
DRSP contemplates that “commercial development is restricted to the Village Center . . .” except for
“neighborhood commercial uses located within the residential superblocks”.2 DRSP goes on to explain
the extremely limited size and scope of such commercial uses:
The neighborhood convenience commercial centers are very limited in
size. They are intended to serve only the superblock in which they are
located and not intended to serve a population outside the superblock
boundary. The maximum total acreage for neighborhood retail uses,
including buildings, parking, landscaping, and any other items related to
the existence of the neighborhood retail use, shall be three (3) net acres,
while the minimum acreage will be one (1) net acre. 3
City of Pheonix Planning & Development
August 22, 2023
Page 2
Furthermore, DRSP strictly limits the permitted uses within non-core superblocks, and the list does not
include gas stations or drive-through coffee operations4, both of which were touted by Vestar’s counsel at
the informational meeting. Indeed, DRSP specifically prohibits “Drive-through uses”.5
Under the DRSP, no family purchasing a single-family home in a non-core superblock would reasonably
anticipate having a drive-through Dutch Brothers or Starbucks, or a gas station, across the street from
their home. Vestar now proposes a 20-acre commercial development in Superblock 12. 6 Vestar is
essentially asking the City of Phoenix to throw out DRSP and stab nearby homeowners in the back.
OBVIOUS INTENT TO DRAW ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC FROM SR 51
When Black Mountain Boulevard south of Mayo Boulevard was completed and made the terminal exit of
SR 51, concerns of nearby residents were addressed by placing a traffic circle to slow down traffic and
discourage heavy trucks, and by providing a pedestrian bridge for safe access to PHS.
The proposed change represents a complete reversal of what was until now a concerted effort to keep
Black Mountain Boulevard more quiet and more safe. The placement of the proposed shopping center, at
the first traffic light after the SR 51 terminal exit, is obviously intended to attract vehicles that would
otherwise continue west on SR 101 and exit at Cave Creek Road or further west. It is a repudiation of
DRSP’s promise that homeowners could expect to live in clean, quiet neighborhoods while commercial
activity was limited to the Village Commercial Core.
MAGNET FOR UNSUPERVISED ADOLOSCENTS
Placement of the shopping center within spitting distance of PHS is problematic. This is not meant to
disparage the PHS student body as a whole. Nevertheless, in any group of over 2500 teenagers7, there will
be those whose immaturity or lack of direction makes them prone to get in trouble. While the studious
and industrious will disperse to more wholesome activities, there will undoubtedly be those who choose
to hang out. The shopping center, just across a narrow street from PHS, will obviously become the hang
out venue of choice.
There are numerous reports of problems with unsupervised teenagers in retail environments across the
country8, and unsupervised time leads to drug use and other issues.9 Given the location, these problems
will undoubtedly spill over into the surrounding residential areas, which already experience litter, graffiti,
vandalism and doorbell pranking. Encouraging high concentrations of hundreds of unsupervised teenagers
cannot be a benefit to the teenagers or anyone else. It is best for all concerned if the students disperse
when not involved in supervised activities.
Vestar claims that the presence of the high school makes the parcel unsuitable for development as
currently zoned.10 The opposite is true. DRSP and the existing zoning contemplate Superblock 12 to
contain only the high school and residential use. PHS opened in or about 2000. Nothing has changed
about PHS that would justify depriving nearby homeowners of their reasonable expectations under DRSP.
City of Pheonix Planning & Development
August 22, 2023
Page 3
AIR, NOISE AND LIGHT POLLUTION
DRSP prohibits “Drive-through uses”11 in non-core superblocks for very good reasons. These operations
generate considerable pollution. Not only are PHS and numerous homes nearby, but Fireside Elementary
is not far and generally downwind. Air pollution from idling engines is a serious problem12, and some
communities have gone so far as to try banning drive-through operations entirely13. The air quality in
Phoenix, and Maricopa County generally, is notoriously poor with many “bad air” days. 14 Encouraging
drivers to turn their motors off while waiting will never work when the temperature is over 90 degrees.
DRSP’s approach of limiting these operations to the Village Commercial Core is not arbitrary and should
be maintained.
Although Deer Valley Drive and Black Mountain Boulevard have some traffic at rush hours, things tend
to quiet down in the evening and there is a distinct residential tone to the neighborhood. This holds true
when attendees disburse after PHS Friday night football. The proposed shopping center will keep the
noise up and the lights on much later than nearby residents are used to, greatly diminishing the residential
character of the community.
TRAFFIC CONGESTION
I am aware that other residents have commented on traffic issues. I will not belabor the point here, except
to note that in the chaos that occurs every morning when PHS is in session, I have at times been unable
access westbound Mayo Boulevard from the N. 36th Way gate of my community. Vestar contemplates
cars entering and exiting the shopping center on all four surrounding streets. This would include Mayo
Boulevard directly across from PHS, and will surely exacerbate the existing problems.
VESTAR’S SCHEME IS NOT JUSTIFIED
Vestar’s purported justifications of its scheme do not withstand scrutiny.
There are no traffic or parking impediments to residents obtaining daily needs at the Desert
Ridge Marketplace (“DRM”).
DRM was designed to enable local folks to get to the pharmacy, gas station, grocery store, and various
other businesses without getting involved with traffic headed to the big box stores, apparel outlets or
entertainment district. The local needs providers are located in the northwest corner of the marketplace
and are readily accessed from two curb cuts on Deer Valley Drive just east of Tatum Boulevard. The
apparel and box stores, as well as the entertainment district, are closer to other, much larger, parking lots
which are served by numerous additional entrances to DRM. I have lived in Desert Ridge for over 11
years and have never, even on Black Friday, had a problem finding parking at Albertson’s. To illustrate
this, I recorded a video at Grocery Run Sat 08-19-2023 - YouTube. 15
City of Pheonix Planning & Development
August 22, 2023
Page 4
The proposed center is unlikely to provide alternative groceries.
At the informational meeting, Vestar’s counsel admitted that Vestar is unable to identify any
specific grocer that would occupy the proposed grocery store. Although Vestar says it expects
the grocery store to be smaller than the existing Albertson’s, its counsel conceded that none of
the proposed businesses are sure to occupy the shopping center. Assuming that a grocery store is
established, there is no reason to believe that it will offer merchandise different that that offered
at Albertsons.
Creation of minimum wage retail jobs is not a community priority.
The small number of jobs projected to be “created” on the new shopping center could easily be
placed elsewhere. It should also be noted that substantial construction is taking place at nearby
High Street and City North where much higher density residences, offices, and retail spaces are
being built.
Purported benefits to the community are illusory at best.
Keeping the Current Zoning will have the same effect on dust and storm runoff.
The supposed dust control and storm runoff management benefits are speculative and
unquantified. In 11 years, I have never seen significant flooding along Black Mountain
Boulevard. Residential development at the site would have the same effect.
The “safe alternative” for students is illusory.
Encouraging teenagers to consume junk fast food benefits no one. The so called “safe alternative
. . . before school, after school, and during the lunch hour” actually describes an unsupervised
hangout for hundreds of teenagers with all the attendant problems described above. A
concession by PHS’s principal that the project “would potentially reduce the number of off-
campus trips by car”16 hardly demonstrates a full-throated endorsement of the scheme. Had there
been a firm expression of general support for the project from anyone in authority at PHS or the
school district, Vestar would surely have mentioned it in its explanatory letters.
The residential remnant shows how the change is repugnant to DRSP.
The fact that Vestar wants to gobble up 20 acres of the Superblock while leaving a mere remnant
for residences demonstrates how the proposal is repugnant to both the letter and spirit of DRSP.
City of Pheonix Planning & Development
August 22, 2023
Page 5
The gas station and shopping center have no health benefits and will not be a community social
center.
There is nothing about the proposed project that will foster connection among the citizens. There
are innumerable such shopping centers around Phoenix, and there is nothing unique about this
proposal. There are no outdoor parks, exhibition or performance spaces illustrated on the
Conceptual Site Plan. The purported health benefits are nothing but speculation. It is my
observation after 11 years living here that very few people walk with groceries around Desert
Ridge, regardless of the season. The health hazards of innumerable automobiles spewing particle
pollution on the drive-through lines clearly outweigh these specious claims of health benefits.
The proposed gas station will not provide a net benefit to the community.
A gas station will generate excess light, noise, and fumes on a 24/7 basis. The convenience store
that will inevitably accompany it will only encourage additional teenage loitering.
In my 11 years here, I have only fueled my car once or twice at the Shell station at DRM, even
though it is the most conveniently located, and I am there several times a week while visiting the
grocery store or the pharmacy. The problem is that Shell stations generally charge considerably
more than Circle K, QT or Arco. The issue, if there is one, is the price, not the location.
The proposed gas station is obviously intended to draw traffic from SR 51 as discussed above.
Located as the last gas before the freeway, competitive pricing is doubtful.
The Desert Ridge Community Association (DRCA) has not taken a position on this project.
Although there have been communications between DRCA and Vestar, the board of DRCA has
never resolved to support this project. While I am not privy to communications that may have
taken place between Vestar and DRCA’s officers or board members, the Association has never
formally endorsed the project. A copy of an email from DRCA confirming this is attached as
Exhibit A.
THE PROPOSED CHANGE IS AN UNCONSCIONABLE STAB IN THE BACK
Zoning determinations must be “… equitable, in terms of consistency with established
regulations and procedures, respect for the rights of property owners, and the consideration of the
interests of the citizens of the City.”17
DRSP provides for a mix of densities and uses, from mixed commercial and multi dwelling to
condominiums, to rental apartments to single family homes. Purchasers of single-family homes
were encouraged by a central feature of the plan: all significant commercial activity is placed in
the Village Commercial Core. Retail conveniences in the non-core residential superblocks are
limited to a list of specified uses, limited to three acres, and drive-through operations are
expressly prohibited. Thus, purchasers of single-family homes could look forward to living in
City of Pheonix Planning & Development
August 22, 2023
Page 6
clean, quiet residential neighborhoods. Vestar now proposes to simply rip up that plan and asks
the City to stab nearby homeowners in the back.
Rejecting this proposal is not unfair to any Desert Ridge Residents who may endorse, in the
abstract, a gas station or additional retail operations. There was nothing about DRSP that gave
them any reasonable expectation that these things would be built on Black Mountain Boulevard,
and they were content to buy their homes under that plan. Vestar’s plan to ruin the lives of
residents along Black Mountain Boulevard is grossly unfair; indeed, it is unconscionable and
must be rejected.
Respectfully submitted,
James W. Tuffin
Copies to:
Mr. Terrence Smith (terrance.smith@fsresidential.com
DRCA Board of Directors (desertridge.az@fsresidential.com)
Steven W. Anderson, Esq. (Sanderson@gblaw.com)
Hon. Jim Waring (council.district.2@phoenix.gov)
Hon. Kate Gallego (mayor.gallego@phoenix.gov)
Mr. Eric Molenaar (EMolenaar@AssociatedAsset.com)
Ms. Corina Vanek (cvanek@arizonarepublic.com)
Mr. Wouter Roodenburg (wroodenburg@cox.net)
All references to “DRSP” are to the Specific Plan as revised through November 2, 2022 (accessed on 8/19/23 at
https://www.phoenix.gov/pddsite/Documents/PZ/pdd_pz_pdf_00086.pdf)
DRSP at 5-3. (5.C.1)
DRSP at 6-6 (6.C.3.A.)
DRSP at 6-7 (6.C.3.B.2.c)
DRSP at 6-8 (6.C.3.B.2.d)
SPA-B2-Application, (accessed on 8/19/23 at http://www.gblaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/SPA-B2-
Application-Form.pdf)
PHS reported enrollment of 2556 for 2021-2022 school year (PHS AZ School Report Card, accessed 8/20/23, at
https://azreportcards.azed.gov/schools/detail/79268 .
See, e.g., Bartlesville mall bans unsupervised teenagers due to crime increase
(https://www.koco.com/article/oklahoma-bartlesville-mall-bans-unsupervised-teenagers/43385307); Teen bans on
the rise (https://www.koco.com/article/oklahoma-bartlesville-mall-bans-unsupervised-teenagers/43385307).
See, e.g., Teen Drug Use: Does a Lack of Supervision mean More Drugs?
(https://cascadeheightsrecovery.com/unsupervised-teens/ ); After School: The Prime Time for Juvenile Crime
(https://www.policechiefmagazine.org/after-school-the-prime-time-for-juvenile-crime/ ); Unsupervised teens more
likely to use tobacco, pot and alcohol (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-adolescents-unstructured-time-
idUSKCN0RI1LL20150918 )
City of Pheonix Planning & Development
August 22, 2023
Page 7
RZ-C5-Letter of Explanation, at p. 7 (accessed 8/21/2023 at http://www.gblaw.com/wp-
content/uploads/2023/07/RZ-C5-Letter-of-Explanation.pdf)
N.5, supra.
See, e.g., Mendoza, et al, Pollution hot spots and the impact of drive-through Covid 19 testing sites on urban air
quality, Environ. Res. : Health (https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2752-5309/ace5cb/pdf )); Idling
Reduction for Personal Vehicles (https://afdc.energy.gov/files/u/publication/idling_personal_vehicles.pdf ))
See, e.g., Cities ban new drive-throughs to fight climate change (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cities-put-
brakes-on-drive-thrus-to-curb-carbon-emissions/).
See, e.g., American Lung Association, State of the Aire Arizona: Maricopa
(https://www.lung.org/research/sota/city-rankings/states/arizona/maricopa) ; State of the Air report ranks Phoenix
among worst 25 cities for pollution, (https://cronkitenews.azpbs.org/2022/04/21/air-pollution-phoenix-among-25-
worst-cities-us/ ) ;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2X_OOB2qew
SPA-B5-Letter of Explanation (accessed 08/20/2023 at (http://www.gblaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/SPA-
B5-Letter-of-Explanation.pdf).
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance § 102.
EXHIBIT A
James Tuffin
From: Terrance Smith
Sent: Friday, August 4, 2023 4:26 PM
To: James Tuffin; Desert Ridge - az
Cc: Stephen W. Anderson
Subject: RE: TO ALL BOARD MEMBERS AND TERRENCE SMITH Re: Plan and Zoning Change Case Black Mtn
and Deer Valley
Good afternoon Jim,
I hope all is well with you.
On behalf of the DRCA Board Members, please see below the corresponding response to the
questions in your email:
1. No.
2. Yes, the DRCA received emails from Vestar’s attorney to attend the monthly board meeting(s)
to present and provide community updates regarding Vestar’s Parcel 12 application process
and proceedings relative to their conceptual development plans.
Respectfully,
TERRANCE SMITH, CMCA, AMS, LSM, PCAM
Executive Director
Desert Ridge 5415 E. High Street, Suite 133 | Phoenix, AZ 85054
Direct 480.551.4550 | Cell phone 480.254.5948
Property Fax: 480.551.6000
terrance.smith@fsresidential.com
desertridgelifestyles.com
24/7 Customer Care Center: 855.333.5149
Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube
From: James Tuffin
Sent: Friday, August 4, 2023 11:33 AM
To: Desert Ridge - az
Cc: Stephen W. Anderson
Subject: TO ALL BOARD MEMBERS AND TERRENCE SMITH Re: Plan and Zoning Change Case Black Mtn and Deer Valley
Hi Folks,
It was great reconnecƟng with Reggie and Doug at the recent Desert Village Planning CommiƩee meeƟng, and
remembering the fellowship we enjoyed when I served as DRCA treasurer. Having stepped back from community
aīairs, I was taken by surprise by the rezoning noƟce and some of the things I heard at the meeƟng. Now I need to
catch up and I hope you can help me.
At the meeƟng, and in an explanatory leƩer submiƩed to the City, Vestar’s counsel suggested that the DRCA
supports the proposed changes. I respecƞully request answers to the following quesƟons:
1. Did the DRCA ever pass a resoluƟon supporƟng the proposed changes or the project in general? If so, please
provide a copy of the text of the resoluƟon(s) and the agenda(s) and minutes of the meeƟng(s) at which
such resoluƟon(s) was (were) adopted.
2. Is DRCA, its representaƟves or agents, in possession of any wriƟngs, correspondence, emails or texts
showing communicaƟons between or among the DRCA, Vestar, Vestar’s counsel or representaƟves, the City
of Phoenix or the Arizona State Land Department related to the proposed project or the applicaƟons for
plan and zoning changes? If so, how can associaƟon members get access to those materials?
I’m guessing you’ll be seeing a bit more of me in the coming months and as always, whether we agree or
disagree, as friends. As you might imagine, I need a response to each quesƟon as soon as you can do it. Please do not
delay responding to quesƟon 1 if you need more Ɵme to answer quesƟon 2. I should menƟon, although I’m sure you
know it already, that your response may be incorporated into submissions I may make to the City. As a professional
courtesy, I am providing Vestar’s counsel with a copy of this request.
Thank you very much.
Warm regards,
Jim (James W. Tuĸn)
21214 N 36th Pl, Phoenix AZ 85050
516.359.6420
James.tuĸn@tuĸnlaw.com (reƟred aƩorney not oīering services to the general public)
From: Rajesh Gadde
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Fireside resident - regarding black mountain village
Date: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 9:37:38 PM
Hello Anthony,
I am Rajesh Gadde live in fireside at desert ridge, I would like to formally email you my
opposition about building Black mountain village , I think it's going to make our safe
neighborhood area into commercial area thus causing danger to kids , we don't want this at all.
Please help us om this matter.
Thanks
Rajesh
From: Julia Levene
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Desert View, rezoning application
Date: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 4:45:07 PM
HI Anthony:
I attended the recent board meeting regarding case GPA-DSTV-2-23-2 regarding the rezoning of the
20.5 acres located on the corner of Deer Valley and Black Mountain in the Desert Ridge area.
I currently live in the Fireside neighborhood, and was taken back by plans to change this lot from
residential use to commercial use. I would like to see that land developed for residential as it was
originally intended; or given to Pinnacle High School, as they need additional parking for their
students.
In no way would I want a gas station or large grocery store to be located in that area. Not only would
the light pollution from the gas station be bothersome, and the noise from delivery trucks at early
hours, but the added traffic to the area as well! This is already a busy corner!
Please take the residents, the high school students, and the neighborhoods into consideration
before changing this lot from residential to commercial.
Thank you,
Julia
Julia Levene, CMP
CEO
Go West Destinations, Inc.
DBA: APP, Association Planner Partners
3734 E. Ringtail Way
Phoenix, AZ 85050
Phone: 602 320-8323
www.associationplannerpartners.com [associationplannerpartners.com]
From: Andrea Remke
To: Anthony M Grande
Cc: Council District 2 PCC; Eric Molenaar
Subject: Proposed land development at Mayo/black mtn
Date: Sunday, August 27, 2023 9:29:11 AM
Mr Grande, city officials, etc,
Assuming you are the proper representatives to contact regarding this matter, I’d like to please ask you and the city
representatives to consider the opposition many residents here in Fireside Desert Ridge have to the proposed zoning changes
of the property at Black Mountain Blvd and Mayo Blvd /Deer Valley Drive right next to Pinnacle High School.
It’s currently zoned for residential and for the developer to change it to retail shopping opens this area up to increased traffic
congestion and student/resident safety issues here in the area.
I invite any of you to please come observe the traffic at these intersections around the school during the peak times of
dropoff 7:20-7:30 am and at 2:15-2:20 pm pickup when it’s the worst. These intersections are a nightmare then. Droves of
kids are walking to school and crossing/jaywalking across these intersections some are on bikes even—and they are NOT
heeding any kind of traffic signals or signs because they are kids of course. Many cars are racing through yellow lights and
people sitting in intersections at red lights because they tried to fit through. We have seen lots of accidents, a lot of honking
and near misses. My son’s Pinnacle soccer coach was just in an accident this past Friday during pickup when a man in a car
not paying attention to stopped traffic on Mayo slammed into the back of him causing his car to hit the car in front of him,
which was driven by a student. It happens all the time because of the sheer volume of cars and kids and mayhem happening
during these times. It is only a matter of time before a kid is seriously maimed or killed at this intersection/area.
I live across the street in Fireside, a stone’s throw from this land where they are going to build. My son attends the high
school and my twin girls will attend next fall and then my youngest will attend in two years. We are stuck for a long time
with whatever the powers that be decide should go here. I worry about the influx of traffic and congestion, the problems it
brings to us as nearby residents, by way of safety especially—but also being a single mom I bought this home two years ago
for its close proximity to school for my kids to walk to local schools and the safe neighborhood feel. But I’m worried at the
potential drop in property values if they start putting in crappy shops or gas stations or smoke vape shops, causing our nice
residential area to look, smell and sound like a truck stop dump attracting transients and homelessness, no doubt.
I know money will likely win out in the end, and something will be built here. It’s a shame the school district couldn’t have
bought a piece of this property for added parking for the students at school because as it is currently, only seniors can park
in the school lot, which is asinine. The principal at Pinnacle has even told parents last week they have addressed safety and
traffic issues to Vestar but ultimately can’t have a definitive say in this land development.
City officials have a duty to protect the interests of the residents here who live and work and pay taxes.
These developers have the monetary means to at least put an-over-the street walkway /sidewalk bridge from the Mayo/Black
Mtn crosswalk over to the school so our kids aren’t playing Frogger in traffic through red and green lights as they currently
do every single school day. The existing walking bridge that some idiot designed and installed years ago is out of the way
for kids to walk, located south at the 51 interchange, at the dog park entrance, so they would have to walk down there then
back around to go back up to the school—it’s an extra 10-15 min of walking —not a single soul is doing that and that
pedestrian bridge remains not utilized.
My question: Could the city mandate the developer to at least relocate the pedestrian bridge to the problem/ busy
intersection at the school instead of that bridge uselessly sitting down the street out of the way? (I included a pic of
bridge area)
If something is built here eventually, I hope the people in charge will think first of the safety of students and residents over
the quick buck they’ll make in revenue at the site.
Thank you for hearing me,
Andrea Remke,
Phoenix resident of Fireside Desert Ridge
From: TR
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Southwest corner of Deer Valley and Black Mountain
Date: Monday, August 28, 2023 10:28:56 AM
Hello Mr. Grande,
We are Desert Ridge community members. We have lived here for almost 15 years and in that
time, we've seen many changes. Some are good, some not so good.
We are very concerned about the proposal to convert the property from residential to
commercial at the corner of Black Mountain and Deer Valley. That corner is active all day,
especially during school and sports hours. It's grown from 2 lanes into the large vein that cuts
through Desert Ridge connecting Cave Creek to 56th and possibly in the future, Scottsdale
Road. Added traffic and distractions could be disastrous for all drivers on the road. Traffic
will become heavier (shoppers coming and going, drive-through lines, delivery trucks, etc.)
creating an even more congested intersection. We would honestly love to see a traffic survey
done as this is such a busy intersection and we all need to get a full idea of usage and traffic
patterns.
There are 3 schools within walking distance of this area. We are very concerned about
inviting strangers to the heart of our neighborhood for a quick stop. Security and issues at DR
Marketplace have been escalating and we don't feel we need to invite more people into our
neighborhood for some Chick-fil-A or to gas up their vehicles. We don't have the resources to
handle disturbances in DR Marketplace. Why would this be any different?
We also don't believe stores and convenience markets should have the ability to sell alcohol
and tobacco products that close to a high school. It will just bring issues to law enforcement
that is stretched unbearably thin.
Our children are still young, but we've heard there isn't enough parking at the high school so
this will just entice kids to park there and create issues with parents, the high school, and
business owners. We've heard that the developer won't limit the store sizes so parking could be
inadequate for the project which would add an additional level of stress for shoppers and
drivers trying to find parking spots and exit or enter the center.
We feel converting this land will come with a whole host of issues that will outweigh the
benefits to DR citizens. We in no way think the land developers have the community's best
interest in mind. They, as many before them, build and leave. They never give a second
thought to what impact they add to the communities they have worked within. Honestly, with
all the new builds going up in Desert Ridge, we feel we need to proceed slower than we are to
make sure the roads and area can handle all this growth. We have several big projects
currently in different stages (clearing land on Deer Valley for 882 new apartments, a whole
new community going in off 56th and the massive plans for City North) the added fallout
including the number of new community members, additional cars on our already congested
roads without an option for expansion and added pressure on the school district, etc., is yet to
be seen.
Thank you for your time,
Adam and Timari Rusak
From: Jason Tininenko
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: planning committee
Date: Monday, August 28, 2023 7:13:35 PM
We have lived here in Aviano for 7 years. It's a great neighborhood with easy access to
Fireside, Explorer, Wildfire and Pinnacle. If you allow a gas station and other stores to be
built next to Pinnacle - the traffic will increase, the crime will increase, the traffic accidents
will increase and our properties will devalue. Please vote against building in this area. thank
you.
From: Brad Burnes
To: Council District 2 PCC; Anthony M Grande
Subject: Black Mountain marketplace - NO
Date: Tuesday, August 29, 2023 5:03:20 PM
Hello, my name is Brad Burnes, and my family and I moved to 36th St in Fireside a little over 10 years
ago. I can unequivocally say the idea of a shopping center at Deer Valley and Black Mountain is an awful
idea, and only a play for cash.
Have you witnessed the traffic during school dropoff and pickup? It's a disaster. Can you provide details
of home values in other neighborhoods where a shopping center was allowed to be built after a re-
zoning?
We moved to this area because of the vision and community aspect. If the city proceeds with this
development against the majority of Desert Ridge residents, how does that value the voice of the
residents?
There's plenty of land north of Pinnacle Peak. Please use common sense and do not allow this to
happen.
A very concerned voter and resident,
Brad Burnes
From: Micheal Copeland
To: Council District 2 PCC; Anthony M Grande
Subject: Black Mountain Village
Date: Tuesday, August 29, 2023 9:43:47 PM
Hi Anthony,
My name is Micheal Copeland and I’m a resident in Fireside. I would like to express my deep concern and
opposition to the proposed rezoning by Vestar of the parcel located at the SW of Deer Valley and Black Mountain
High.
Potential uses including gas stations and quick service retail with drive would have quite a negative impact on the
neighborhood. It would also increase the risk to high school students next door given the already existing issues with
traffic and parking.
Ultimately - I would argue that whilst it is still State Land, it should benefit the schools per Arizona laws because
Public Education is the main beneficiaries of state land sales. It should not hurt a public school when they sell it.
I’d also point to the City’s “Vision Zero” (zero traffic casualties) plan to highlight my concerns with regards to the
traffic situation and student safety around Pinnacle High School. I have not seen anything from Vestar that would
ameliorate these concerns.
Furthermore, Vestar could easily develop what they want under the existing plan on pre identified commercial
zones. Given the proximity to over 600,000 square feet of retail within a mile, there simply is not a need to add
additional retail on this parcel.
Sincerely,
Micheal Copeland
Sent from my iPhone
Quick reminder to everyone that tonight at 6pm is the Fireside HOA meeting. The attorneys from Vestar will be
doing their presentation and answer any questions you may have.
Goto zoom.com and use meeting ID: 811-9962-3685 and Passcode : 997589
I attended the Desert Ridge Community HOA meeting last week and my conclusion was that nobody in the HOA’s,
nor the Village Planning Committee for our area will stop this proposal.
It will take all surrounding communities to attend all the meetings and at least write their views on the proposal and
submit them to our councilman ([council.district.2@phoenix.gov](mailto:council.district.2@phoenix.gov) ) and the
City Planner ([anthony.grande@phoenix.gov](mailto:anthony.grande@phoenix.gov) ). Reference : GPA-DSTV-2-
23-2
They should know that it needs their attention instead of making a quick buck by selling the land. We need to
separate the school traffic from the work traffic to ease the congestion around that area and we should be adding
safer drop off areas behind the school and away from Blackmountain boulevard and point out that this Highschool
still has vacant land available to address the situation.
Once this is sold and a big box grocery, gas station, big trucks, etc, etc are put their instead, the community will
have to live with the consequences. Everyone should also be concerned about the impact of Grocery/Gas stations on
the students behavior and attendance of classes. Other folks from the community have brought up other concerns as
well.
Ultimately - I would argue that whilst it is still State Land, it should benefit the schools per Arizona laws because
Public Education is the main beneficiaries of state land sales. It should not hurt a public school when they sell it.
The school will be there for a long time – so we should make an effort now to keep Desert Ridge communities
desirable and family friendly.
We should put student safety before anything else whilst we still can.
Please email your views!!
Let us know your thoughts on this at the meeting or on this post.
From: Andy M
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Black mountain village plan - no vote
Date: Tuesday, August 29, 2023 10:50:35 PM
Hi Anthony,
I'm strongly against the Black Mountain Village plan and zoning changes (cases are GPA-
DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2).
It feels like a bait and switch for our community (especially us in the cooper view sub-
community on black mountain and deer valley who would feel this impact the hardest).
There is plenty of land closer to cave creek available and already designated for commercial
purchase.
Thank you,
Andy Mesecher
From: Sara Millett
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Black Mountain Village - Strongly Oppose
Date: Tuesday, August 29, 2023 10:11:20 AM
Mr Grande,
I wanted to express my strong opposition for the commercial development Black
Mountain Village. I am a parent of an 8th grader and a 5th grader in the
community.
We purchased our home in this area for the community feel, residential zoning and
walkability. The traffic near Pinnacle High School is already dangerous and adding a
commercial building would surely lead to additional traffic issues and potential
accidents.
Desert Ridge Marketplace and High Street already offer plenty of shopping and
restaurants and we are have plenty of convenient options being so close to the
freeway.
Please halt plans for the Black Mountain Village shopping center.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sara Millett
3845 E Cat Balue Drive
Phoenix, AZ 85050
From: Marisa OConnor
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Black mountain village - strongly oppose
Date: Tuesday, August 29, 2023 8:59:01 AM
Mr Grande,
I wanted to express my strong opposition for the commercial development Black Mountain Village. I am a parent of
a freshman at the nearby Pinnacle High School and a 5th grader at Fireside Elementary.
We purchased our home in this area for the community feel, residential zoning and walkability. The traffic near
Pinnacle high school is already horrible and adding a commercial building would surely lead to additional traffic
issues and potential accidents.
There is plenty of shopping nearby with Desert Ridge Marketplace and High street.
Please help keep the children of our community safe!
Thank you for your time and consideration!
Marisa O’Connor
3905 E Half Hitch Pl
Phoenix AZ 85050
From: Peter Feldman
To: Council District 2 PCC; Anthony M Grande
Subject: Reference : GPA-DSTV-2-23-2 - Proposed development at deer Valley and Black Mountain
Date: Wednesday, August 30, 2023 10:09:02 AM
I am a resident of Fireside and my children attend the local schools. I am writing to tell you that I am completely
opposed to the rezoning of land for commercial development at the corner or Black Mountain Pkwy and Deer
Valley Rd.
The proposed development will make an already difficult traffic situation dramatically worse. Student safety
crossing Black Mountain is already compromised by the lack of crossing guards and / or police presence. Cars are
parked on Black Mountain and Mayo Blvd at dropoff and pickup times, already blocking normal traffic flow.
Eastbound traffic on Deer Valley already gets backed up for hundreds of yards on school days during pickup and
dropoff times. This new development would make it significantly worse and dangerous for pedestrians.
The property in question was previously earmarked for public space, like a park. Why is that plan being dropped?
There are other plots of land nearby (Cave Creek / Pinnacle Peak) which are already approved for the type of
development being proposed. There should be no changes of the use of the property at Deer Valley and Black Mtn,
until that already approved plots are sold and developed.
-Peter Feldman
From: Alexandra Hyszczak
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Opposition to Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12
Date: Wednesday, August 30, 2023 11:47:11 AM
Dear Anthony,
I am writing in regards to the rezoning of the land parcel at the corner of Deer Valley Rd and
Black Mountain Boulevard (“Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12”). As a resident of Sky
Crossing, across Deer Valley from this parcel, my family and I, along with 1220 homeowners,
will be directly impacted by this proposed development.
I would like to bring to your attention some concerns that I have relevant to this rezoning.
Traffic is already high on these two streets – at morning drop-off, cars line up from the school
around the corner onto Deer Valley all the way to 32nd St. The addition of a large shopping
center will greatly increase this traffic, bringing more inconvenience, noise and pollution,
especially so if a gas station is built. A gas station is not something we need in this location, as
there are a number of gas stations nearby on Cave Creek and on Tatum, all within 2 to 3 miles
from this area.
Additionally, the proposal contains multiple access/egress points with no provision for safe
crossing or pedestrian/bike safety. A proposal that has the potential to create roughly double
the traffic should be required to address these impacts, especially when located across from
residential areas and next to a school.
The explanation letter for the project describes that for community benefit, the project has the
potential to “increase health” and “reduce transportation burdens” of area residents by creating
a walkable/bikeable retail/grocery destination and “may reduce emissions from residents
driving to Desert Ridge Marketplace.” These statements are, frankly, unproven and
unsupported by the conceptual design, given the proposed rezoning contains no description of
how the commercial center will cater to walking and biking.
Light Pollution is another major concern. Nobody wants to see bright lights on all night that
will disrupt the tranquility of our lives and interrupt our sleep.
We chose to build our home in Sky Crossing due to its location, being between two retail areas
(Desert Ridge and Cave Creek Rd) and not directly adjacent to those busy areas. Creating a
commercial zone in this community greatly reduces the value of this location.
Thank you for your time and attention to this important matter.
Alexandra Hyszczak
3144 E Tina Dr
Phoenix 85050
From: Kelly Davis
To: Anthony M Grande
Cc: msantoro@gblaw.com
Subject: Black Mountain Village Development GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2
Date: Thursday, August 31, 2023 1:43:39 PM
To whom it may concern,
I appreciate the opportunity to have my voice heard. I am a homeowner in Fireside and I absolutely love our
neighborhood. I love it how it is. I am extremely concerned for the future of our neighborhood and the other
surrounding areas if this project is allowed to commence.
I absolutely do not support this development. Desert Ridge Marketplace is bad enough with all the fights, theft, and
sketchy people that it draws to the area! I refuse to allow my kids to go to Desert Ridge without an adult present, and
my oldest is 16! There are too many homeless panhandlers, and unsavory people that are drawn to shopping
centers. To have a development right next to the high school and elementary school than my kids attend is not what
we were promised when we bought our home. My kids walk to school, that’s a primary reason for buying our
house. I would not feel comfortable with my kids walking to/from school if it was right next to a shopping center
like Desert Ridge Marketplace, I see the type of people that shopping centers draw in. Even this one, being a more
high end area brings in distasteful people.
This area is residential, and it needs to stay that way. The increased traffic alone, is a huge concern. Have you ever
tried to come through the area in the morning or afternoon when kids are arriving or leaving school? I pray the day
NEVER comes that an impatient or inexperienced driver strikes and kills a student, but this area is like a ticking
time bomb. Too many cars on too few streets. The area cannot support more traffic. Does the bottom line only
come down to money? What about our kids and their safety? We bought our home here to have a safe place for our
kids to grow up…this was NOT a part of the plan for this community. The safety issue comes down to more than
just cars. Do you realize how easy it is for a kid to be abducted in/around a shopping center or for kids to be lured
into trying drugs or alcohol as they pass by on their way home? I am not in support of this development and I truly
hope that this will not just be pushed through without the consent of the taxpayers living in the surrounding
neighborhoods.
Kelly Davis
Fireside Homeowner
From: Zak House
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Black Mountain Village
Date: Thursday, August 31, 2023 11:57:07 AM
Hello Anthony,
I am reaching out to voice my displeasure and to ask for your support with ensuring that
Vestar/other corporations are blocked from rezoning from “residential” to “commercial” for
the proposed Black Mountain Village in Desert Ridge. The residential zoning was absolutely
a key factor when we purchased our home and would be devastating to our community if
rezoning is allowed. There seems to be plenty of commercial zoning between High Street,
Tatum and Cave Creek Roads.
Regards,
Zak House
From: Sam
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Black Mountain Village/Superblock 12
Date: Thursday, August 31, 2023 5:06:20 AM
Sam Zytcer and Marlene Zytcer are totally against this commercial development project monstrosity.
It will bring excess traffic and crime to an already over crowded area. My neighbors are also in
concurrence with me.
There will be major resistance from your constituents to this commercial project as proposed.
Remember, we vote.
Sincerely,
Sam Zytcer
Sent from Mail [go.microsoft.com] for Windows
From: Matthew D. Chitwood
To: Anthony M Grande
Cc: Council District 2 PCC; Anne Chitwood
Subject: land at Black Mountain and Deer Valley Road - rezone consideration
Date: Friday, September 1, 2023 12:51:36 PM
re: Black Mountain Village plan and zoning changes cases GPA-DSTV-2-23-2 and GPA-
DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2
Mr Grande -
Writing as a concerned resident of Desert Ridge in the Fireside neighborhood. I moved here
in 2007 and have watched this neighborhood grow. Love it. Raised 3 children here, two of
which are at Pinnacle High School and another starting next year.
My wife and I are quite concerned with the proposed re-zoning of the property north of
Pinnacle High School at the corner of Black Mountain Blvd and Deer Valley Road. This
property is smack dab in the middle of other residentially zoned homes, Thousands. There are
sufficient commercially zoned properties in the Desert View Village to support future resident
growth of this beautiful area... not to mention a wonderful village core in and around Desert
Ridge Marketplace.
There is the issue of commercial traffic conflicting with the Pinnacle traffic which is already a
safety issue. I am aware of the fact that Pinnacle High School leadership is NOT supportive of
this re-zoning even though that was misrepresented by the developer at the 8/1/23 village
meeting. Adding commercial traffic to this area that is not familiar with the daily high school
traffic patterns (as residential traffic would be) is IRRESPONSIBLE. This issue in and of
itself should be enough for the Committee to reject this re-zoning request.
On top of this are the hundreds of neighbors of mine who invested in property thinking this
land would be used for future residential use.
I don't intend to hop on the NIMBY train; I just don't think this request of Vestar is in
alignment with what the General Plan originally intended this land be used for and I
specifically request the Committee REJECT the developer's case.
Thanks for listening -
Matt Chitwood
21625 N 39th Place Phoenix 85050
From: Steven Deacon
To: Anthony M Grande; msantoro@gblaw.com
Cc: Metty, Cody; emolenaar@associatedasset.com; Steven Deacon
Subject: Black Mountain Village plan and zoning changes GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2 - Opposed
Date: Friday, September 1, 2023 10:58:13 AM
Attachments: image004.png
image005.png
image006.png
image007.png
image008.png
image009.png
Anthony,
I also live adjacent to the project at Black Mountain Village proposal. From an outsider’s opinion, I
can see why the idea of more commercial real estate would monetarily benefit the city of Phoenix,
Vestar and their attorneys Gammage & Burnham. However, what is heavily being overlooked is the
safety of our community and our children with the rezoning from residential to commercial.
Safety of our children:
Our section in the Fireside community called Copper View sits adjacent to the proposed land at the
southeast corner of Black Mountain and Deer Valley. Since 2012 our section has been a cut through
for the aggressive drivers both parents and children of Pinnacle High School. On my street alone (Cat
Balue Dr.) there are 27 children under the age of 10 years old that walk to the elementary school
and play in our neighborhood. This doesn’t include the other 4 streets with 50 additional homes to
consider. We have seen too many close calls where our children were almost hit by these aggressive
drivers! Imagine living in a community where you do not feel safe letting your kids play out front.
Additionally, Stephen, the attorney for Gammage & Burnham, said on our Fireside community call
this Tuesday that the new traffic would be “counter cyclical patterns” around school hours during
the week and weekend. This means to me that not only do we have to deal with aggressive drivers
from Pinnacle High School, but now we must deal with aggressive drivers all day and on the
weekends! We cannot live in a community where our children are at a greater risk of being hit by a
car while walking to school or playing in their neighborhood.
Secondly, I am concerned that a commercial zone would bring a bus stop right at the corner of
Copper View (Black Mountain & Deer Valley). There are numerous amounts of homeless people that
sleep on the bus stops at Tatum & Deer Valley. I see them at all hours of the day starting at 5am
when I go to Mountainside Fitness and in the evening. We do not want to attract nor give reason for
more homeless to encroach our family neighborhoods with a commercial zone. This is not only a
safety concern for our families but will also impact our property values. PLEASE keep our
neighborhoods (Fireside, Aviano, Sky Crossing) a family suburb of Phoenix. I am asking as a
concerned parent of 3 little kids that you help us protect our children and the safety of our
community by putting a stop to this project.
I appreciate your time and commitment to keeping Desert Ridge a GREAT, family friendly community
in Phoenix.
Steve Deacon & Family
3625 E Cat Balue Dr.
Phoenix, AZ 85050
3654 E Cat Balue Dr.
Phoenix, AZ 85050
Best,
Steve Deacon, CFP®, CIMA®, Private Wealth Advisor
CA Insurance License #0H03830
Five Point Wealth Advisors
8925 E Pima Center Pkwy, Suite 135
Scottsdale, AZ 85258
Phone: 480-948-2416
FAX: 480-291-8643
www.fivepointwealth.com [fivepointwealth.com]
[fivepointwealth.com]
[forbes.com]
[forbes.com]
2023 Forbes Best In State Wealth Advisors, created by SHOOK Research. Presented in April 2023
based on data gathered from June 2021 to June 2022. 22,243 were considered, 7,321 advisors were
recognized. Advisors pay a fee to hold out marketing materials. Not indicative of advisor’s future
performance. Your experience may vary. Click here [forbes.com] for more award information.
2022 Forbes Top Next-Gen Wealth Advisors Best in State, created by SHOOK Research. Presented
in Aug 2022 based on data gathered from March 2021 to March 2022. 3513 Advisors were
considered, 1000 Advisors were recognized. Advisors pay a fee to hold out marketing materials. Not
indicative of advisor’s future performance. Your experience may vary. Click here [forbes.com] for
more award information.
*Securities and advisory services offered through Commonwealth Financial Network®, member
FINRA/SIPC, a Registered Investment Adviser. Fixed insurance products and services are separate from
and not offered through Commonwealth Financial Network.
From: Metty, Cody
Sent: Friday, September 1, 2023 8:40 AM
To: anthony.grande@phoenix.gov
Cc: Steven Deacon
Subject: RE: Black Mountain Village- Please NO commercial development
Forgot to include this: Black Mountain Village plan and zoning changes GPA-DSTV-2-23-
2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2
Anthony, I live adjacent to the project at Black Mountain Village proposal. We do not want to
have beer, liquor and cigarette sales next to our neighborhood or Pinnacle High School. Nor
do we want drive through restaurants and gas stations that are open 24/7. This will bring
about crowds of people at all hours that we current have the benefit of avoiding as it stays
closer to Tatum or Cave Creek roads. I feel that this completely changes the residential feel of
our area in Desert Ridge and feel like this is a money grab right in our neighborhoods of
Fireside, Aviano and Sky Crossing.
When we built our homes this was never a consideration and do not want this project
proceeding. Please help us put a stop to this project in any way we can. If anything this area
should be used as an overflow for the high school or some type of traffic mitigation for Black
Mountain. We already see the overflow from the high school traffic in our direct part of the
neighborhood and do not want this to increase where our kids walk to and from school every
day, to their elementary school. We have 40+ children that walk every single school day and
any increased traffic will up the risk of someone getting hurt through reckless driving, with
people trying to avoid the traffic on Black Mountain.
Please help us and hear what we’re asking before this goes forward. There are much better
uses of that land and once it’s commercial, all bets are off.
Cody Metty and family
3646 E Cat Balue Dr.
Phoenix, AZ 85050
Cody Metty
Triple Crown Banker
Rocket Mortgage
T (480) 346-0885
C (248) 404-7854
F (877) 380-8287
NMLS# 26912
From: Metty, Cody
To: Anthony M Grande
Cc: sdeacon@fivepointwealth.com
Subject: RE: Black Mountain Village- Please NO commercial development
Date: Friday, September 1, 2023 8:40:01 AM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
Forgot to include this: Black Mountain Village plan and zoning changes GPA-DSTV-2-23-
2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2
Anthony, I live adjacent to the project at Black Mountain Village proposal. We do not want to
have beer, liquor and cigarette sales next to our neighborhood or Pinnacle High School. Nor
do we want drive through restaurants and gas stations that are open 24/7. This will bring
about crowds of people at all hours that we current have the benefit of avoiding as it stays
closer to Tatum or Cave Creek roads. I feel that this completely changes the residential feel of
our area in Desert Ridge and feel like this is a money grab right in our neighborhoods of
Fireside, Aviano and Sky Crossing.
When we built our homes this was never a consideration and do not want this project
proceeding. Please help us put a stop to this project in any way we can. If anything this area
should be used as an overflow for the high school or some type of traffic mitigation for Black
Mountain. We already see the overflow from the high school traffic in our direct part of the
neighborhood and do not want this to increase where our kids walk to and from school every
day, to their elementary school. We have 40+ children that walk every single school day and
any increased traffic will up the risk of someone getting hurt through reckless driving, with
people trying to avoid the traffic on Black Mountain.
Please help us and hear what we’re asking before this goes forward. There are much better
uses of that land and once it’s commercial, all bets are off.
Cody Metty and family
3646 E Cat Balue Dr.
Phoenix, AZ 85050
Cody Metty
Triple Crown Banker
Rocket Mortgage
T (480) 346-0885
C (248) 404-7854
F (877) 380-8287
NMLS# 26912
[rocketmortgage.com]
[social.pr]
From: Neeraj Chandak
To: Council District 2 PCC; Anthony M Grande
Cc: Neeraj Chandak; Emolenaar@AssociatedAsset.com
Subject: Desert Ridge Superblock 12 rezoning
Date: Sunday, September 3, 2023 9:57:47 AM
Importance: High
Hi,
I am a long-time resident of Fireside at Desert Ridge and am very concerned with the proposed
changes to the land parcel between Pinnacle High school and Deer Valley Rd (Case No. SPA-DS1 V-2-
23-2), (Case No. CPA-DSTV-3-23-2) and (Case No. Z-39-23).
We moved here 10+ years back with an explicit understanding that this was a residential area, with
high quality living and low crime rates. Over the years, several things have happened that are
cumulatively of an increasing level of concern :
Connection to Hwy 51 has significantly increased vehicular traffic and noise levels at all times for
the neighborhood
It is a nightmare getting out near Pinnacle High school in the morning, traffic back up in all
directions and is a nuisance to the Fireside neighborhood. I have to go around it to drop my
daughter to PVHS at that same time.
An extension of Mayo Blvd to Tatum will make it even worse
As more homes have been added, traffic at both Tatum and Cave Creek is getting progressively
worse
If the rezoning and the development project is approved, here is what I foresee happening :
Retail center will have bright lighting and noise at night and early morning hours with logistics
Already horrible traffic at school times will get even worse, plus additional delivery trucks going in
and out
Crime rates are likely to increase, homelessness and drug use are already of grave concerns in
the nearby areas
Property value will take a dip
A much better use of that space would be to expand parking access to Pinnacle high school that will
also alleviate some of the traffic concerns everyone can feel and have raised.
I would urge you to strongly oppose this change, and save the serenity and quality of the
neighborhood that we all love and like so much. It would be shame to have money-grab
development destroy the character of the community.
Regards,
Neeraj Chandak
623-203-9583
From: Kavita Chandak
To: Council District 2 PCC; Emolenaar@AssociatedAsset.com; Anthony M Grande
Cc: Kavita Chandak
Subject: Desert Ridge Superblock 12 rezoning- Opposing Vestar"s Balck Mountain Village proposal
Date: Sunday, September 3, 2023 10:36:21 AM
Hello,
As a long-time resident of Fireside at Desert Ridge I am deeply concerned with the proposed
changes to the land parcel between Pinnacle High school and Deer Valley Rd (Case No. SPA-DS1 V-2-
23-2), (Case No. CPA-DSTV-3-23-2) and (Case No. Z-39-23).
I moved here back in 2013 with my family and 2 young daughters to be part of this beautiful
neighborhood with great community feel and low crime rates.
Over the years, several things have happened that are cumulatively of an increasing level of concern
:
Increased traffic and noise level due to Connection to Hwy 51.
Dis-respect and abusing of our neighborhood by Pinnancle High School drop off and pick up
crowd. Our Neighborhood has become a parking spot for Pinnacle parent drop off and pick up
making it extremely difficult for residents to walk or even take their cars out for morning and
afternoon commute.
Getting out of the copper view subdivision is at nightmare due to backed up traffic for Pinnacle
High school in the morning, It back up in all directions and is a nuisance to the Fireside
neighborhood. I fear for my teenage daughter's safety as she drives to her high school amidst this
crazy traffic.
An extension of Mayo Blvd to Tatum will make it even worse
As more homes have been added, traffic at both Tatum and Cave Creek is getting progressively
worse
This is what I dear with the rezoning and the development project is approved.
Crime rates are likely to increase, homelessness and drug use are already of grave concerns in
the nearby area
Retail center will have bright lighting and noise at night and early morning hours with logistics
Already horrible traffic at school times will get even worse, plus additional delivery trucks going in
and out
Our property values will dip considerably
A much better use of that space would be to expand parking access to Pinnacle high school that will
also alleviate some of the traffic concerns everyone can feel and have raised.
I strongly oppose this change and request you to not zone this as a commercial zone to save the
serenity and quality of the neighborhood that we all love and like so much. I would hate to see this
beautiful neighborhood being destroyed by few folks who are looking at it for mere financial gains
into their pockets.
Thanks,
Kavita Chandak
From: Lori Tininenko
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Proposed Shopping Center
Date: Monday, September 4, 2023 7:06:39 PM
I am 13+ year resident of Desert Ridge and strongly oppose the proposal to build a shopping center at the corner of
Black Mountain and Deer Valley. It will increase traffic tremendously at an already congested intersection,
endanger kids walking in the area, increase crime, increase noise & light pollution, and serve as an overall eyesore.
PLEASE keep our residential area residential!
Lori Tininenko
Sent from my iPhone
From: Bill Smith
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Application No: GPA-DSTV-2-23-2 - Rezoning Request by Vestar
Date: Tuesday, September 5, 2023 6:52:27 AM
Attachments: GPA-DSTV-2-23-2-App2Amend.pdf
September 5, 2023
Greetings,
I’m writing you today regarding a rezoning request made here by Vestar application No. GPA-
DSTV-2-23-2 and some comments heard by residents resulting from a recent HOA board
meeting held by Desert Ridge Community Association.
My name is William Smith and I am a resident of Regalia Bear Subdivision which is located just
off Tatum Blvd and North of Marriott Drive in Desert Ridge for 13.5 years. Formally a resident
in Vista Norte located at Dynamite and 57th Streets for 14 years. I’ve been a resident in
Arizona since 1969 and have lived the majority of my life in North Scottsdale / North Phoenix
25 miles or more from downtown.
When my wife and I moved to Desert Ridge I began participating in many of the community
HOA meetings assisting mostly on the Awareness Committee. I believe it’s important we
continue to live in a safe and healthy community. The many challenges I’ve witnessed over the
past 13.5 years have been noise pollution, traffic congestion and bottle neck due to lack of
arteries (roads), vandalism and crimes committed by an increase number of teenagers.
Noise pollution continues from above with fly overs; also truck deliveries made during
overnight or early morning hours are heard by vehicles creating those loud safety warning
beeps when backing up. With the increase of home deliveries since the pandemic we’ve seen
an more delays within our Desert Ridge community and about. Thankfully a great deal of the
air traffic above was reduced after our Desert Ridge community associates worked with the
aviation department to reverse a decision that was made several years ago that allowed
commercial places to fly directly over Desert Ridge using a new flight path. We still have a few
non commercial planes and helicopters that don’t always follow the appropriate flight path,
but we are thankful the majority of commercial planes are no longer constantly flying low
overhead. In addition, we reported to the Marriott about the noise issue from trucks backing
up that could be heard for a mile in the silence of the early morning hours and that has
stopped. Our voices are being heard!
As far as vehicle noise issues we continue to hear traffic due to the type of road surface and
proximity of both Tatum Blvd and Marriot Drive. Everyone is racing to be first coming in both
directions cutting through our community because as we all know there aren’t enough
arteries (roads) that allow traffic to flow around the heart of Desert Ridge. Traffic on Tatum
Blvd has met it’s maximum capacity 5 years ago and its only getting worse. Deer Valley road is
starting to show signs of stress unless we start now and think forward.
Let’s talk a little about Desert Ridge planning and how Vestar was originally involved in the
design and planning of this community. I believe just 13.5 years ago when we moved here I
heard mention Desert Ridge was just over 40 percent built out. Since then we seem to
continue cramming more and more condos, apartments, schools, single family homes in
addition to the huge development along the 101 from 56th to Tatum Blvd. There seems to be
this need to fill up every inch of both Super Blocks along the 101 from 56th through to Black
Canyon Blvd. We all know growth brings congestion and headaches.
Listening to representation by Vestar at community planning meetings they talk about
building another marketplace in an area of Desert Ridge that is zoned low residential. I’m
writing you here today to provide my opinion about why we shouldn’t change this residential
parcel as this application suggest to commercial and that we should consider looking for a
location that has better access to the 101 and has the ability to get vehicles in and out of the
area from all four directions without impeding traffic and causing delays. For the past 8 years
or so all I’ve brought up to anyone that would listen that the City of Phoenix must work on a
plan that will open up more arteries (roads) that allow traffic to flow more around Desert
Ridge Market Place and through our community as well.
We can not continue to build both up and out; allowing thousands of more residents,
merchants, delivery vehicles and visitors to move about and not have additional access
roads and arteries (roads) that will provide additional alternatives to Tatum Blvd and Deer
Valley Road.
Everyone knows it will be expensive and we need it; an access road along the 101 that will
allow traffic to access both super blocks from 56th street to as far as Cave Creek Road if we
have too. The idea is to take excess traffic away from Tatum Blvd and Deer Valley Road when
everyone is either trying to get to and from their residence in Desert Ridge, pass through it to
get home in Tatum Ranch or visit Desert Ridge Market Place to enjoy all the shops, restaurants
and planned activities Vestar an their business partners plan throughout the year. Additional
roads that could help the flow of traffic could be at 40th street, Black Mountain Blvd, 56th
street and any additional roads developed during the super block expansion phases which
should include access roads along the 101 freeway. We can’t even head east or west using
Black Mountain Blvd at the 101 to help avoid using Tatum Blvd at the 101?
We understand change is necessary and some people believe we need more growth and there
is no stopping it. However, the reason Desert Ridge has lasted as long as it has being in the
spotlight a community most desirable for its amenities and location is because we live in a
place beyond the boundaries of the City. A place between Rural and the big City life; simply
a suburban experience like no other.
If we allow another marketplace with a gas station at the location of Southwest Corner of
Black Mountain Boulevard and Deer Valley Drive we are going to have big disappointment
with additional traffic, noise, crime, vandalism not only during the day, but all night as well.
We don’t want or need any more attention drawn to close to existing residential community
during the overnight hours. If you have to rezone which I’m not for, bring in medical therapy
centers, Dental, Vision, Day Care Centers, Animal Veterinarians businesses that will bring value
to the investment and more in line with education and health without attracting any negative
impact we currently have going on at Desert Ridge Market Place and our Community City
Parks by individuals that hang out in groups in public places with no regard for others
property. There is so much open space in super block there where the fitness center is and the
hotels are located that if Vestar thinks Desert Ridge needs another grocery store well go big
and put a Walmart there along the 101; build the access road along the 101 and make it easy
to visit the store without impeding any more traffic delays on Tatum Blvd and Deer Valley
Road and push the traffic away from our beautiful neighborhoods.
Final thoughts that come to mind you can all think about …
Observation #1 – The traffic gets so bad moving North and South on Tatum sometimes it takes
3 minutes just to exit out of my subdivision from Williams Drive onto Tatum. The traffic gets
backed up so bad the distance on Tatum between Deer Valley and the 101 one can spend 6
minutes waiting for lights going in any direction. When there is construction, emergency
vehicles or an accident forget being on time for any scheduled appointment. This is not right!
Observation #2 – Recently in the past 4 years after the completion of this new condos and
new single family subdivisions we noticed in addition to Vestar bringing live entertainment
along with Sip and Stroll attractions among other big events, that traffic delays have now
extended everywhere including Tatum Blvd to 56th street going North or South along Deer
Valley road. Drivers are in such a big hurry they speed illegally North on 56th to Pinnacle and in
addition there is so much traffic during rush hours on Deer Valley from 56th all the way to
Cave Creek and beyond due to the 101 bottlenecks experienced when approaching the 51
freeway from either direction. Drivers are not only using Deer Valley, but they are using
Pinnacle Peak from Scottsdale all the way to Cave Creek Road to escape the 101 traffic
debacle during rush hours.
Observation #3 -
Recently we’ve seen a huge increase in teenagers committing crimes and they seem to like
hanging out at Desert Ridge Marketplace. This was brought up at our meetings and Vestar did
speak out regarding our community concerns about the lack of security and care anyone we
would expect to be responsible for managing issues of this nature. Concerns about Target,
Albertsons, In&Out Burger and Panda Express have been going on for as long as I can
remember brought up at Community gatherings with our neighbors for coffee and other
meetings. It’s been on the news this summer about a gang of teenagers sucker punching a
teenager from another group causing 15,000 worth of dental work needed. Teenagers hang
out at Target and act like the sports department is there personal playground. Teens stealing a
cell phone right out of another teenagers hand who was picking up a take out order from
Panda Express and too often homeless people coming up to you for money in front of and in
the parking lot of Albertsons. These attractions that are enticing young people to party drink
and get high not only occur in the marketplace, now we are seeing these young people come
into the neighborhoods within Desert Ridge causing quite a bit of damage. Our Cashman park
has been vandalized at least 3 times within the last couple years that I’ve heard about.
Conclusion:
Please consider another location for this grocery store and gas station to be developed. Lets
choose a location away from existing residential and try to develop existing locations already
designated residential and take the idea of bringing another grocery store and gas station to
already designated commercial zones.
We don’t need any 24 hour a day business on Deer Valley and Black Mountain Blvd. We
already have Desert Ridge Market place a gas station on the intersection at Tatum Blvd and
Deer Valley Road. Take this proposed plan and build on 20.5 acres closer to the 101 and Black
Mountain Blvd. Even if you were to propose moving this development to 40th Street and Deer
Valley Road my suggestion would be to insure there are enough roads leading away from
Tatum and Deer Valley for vehicles to maneuver towards the 101 without impacting the
already congested traffic flow on Tatum and Deer Valley.
We should consider bringing in a large super center like Walmart along the 101 in the super
block between Tatum and Black Mountain Blvd’s. Get the City of Phoenix and the Army Core
of Engineers to build functional access roads and lets see how well traffic flows around Desert
Ridge. Spread things out a bit, petition for business to build on one of the two corners on the
north side of Pinnacle Peak Road.
Leave the corner next to the high school open for residential or if you really think businesses
deserve to come in an take over that property; like I said before consider those businesses
that would help families with their children’s education, day care, health services (mental
health services), vision and dental care along with considering Veterinarian services.
Look I could write a book on how if think about all this push for growth here in Desert Ridge,
but I’m sure in the end people that have the most funding will win. In the past whenever there
was a decision made about something that didn’t entirely make good sense and I would later
bring up my thoughts I was told where were you when during the planning stages and why
didn’t you speak up then. Well I decided maybe its time I did.
Thanks so much for the opportunity to speak my thought and for listening.
As Ever,
Bill Smith
Anthony Grande
Zoning Section
200 W Washington Street, Second Floor
Phoenix AZ 85003
Minor General Plan Amendment GPA-DSTV-2-23-2
Specific Plan Amendment GPA-DSTV-3-23-2
Rezone Z-39-23
Dear. Mr. Grande:
This letter is regarding the proposed rezoning of the Parcel 212-38-023B and the application by
Vestar Development to develop it as a C-2 medium intensity commercial property. The current
proposals for Minor General Plan and Specific Plan Amendments, as well as Rezoning to C-2
commercial development are out of step with the character of the area and should be rejected.
The intersection of Black Mountain Boulevard and Deer Valley Drive is surrounded by a unique
residential area with preserved natural desert spaces and carefully integrated bike and pedestrian
paths. It is unlike the majority of Phoenix neighborhoods and honors the physical geography
immediately around it. Socially, it is an active, engaged community full of care for the landscape
and protective of the safety of people living there. With such a significant change in land use,
the proposed zoning amendment and subsequent commercial development would result in
considerable new traffic to the subject site, resulting in more traffic congestion, potential car-
pedestrian-bike safety conflicts, added emissions, and light and noise pollution.
Further, there are a number of disconnects with the application itself. The developers have
attempted to justify their zoning amendment proposal by saying that the nearby Desert Ridge
Marketplace experiences traffic congestion and parking issues. This point is unsubstantiated in
their application and from a resident’s point of view, completely unsupported by the experience
of living in the area and regularly visiting the shopping center. There is more than enough (much
more!) parking at Desert Ridge and circulation in and around the site runs smoothly. The retail
offerings are substantial and do not leave a gap in market offerings that would be improved by
adding medium-intensity commercial at Black Mountain Boulevard and Deer Valley Drive.
The conceptual site plan put forth by the developers is also incongruous with their explanation
letter. They attempt to claim community benefit from “a reduction in transportation burdens,
increased opportunities for exercise and a cleaner environment.” However, there is nothing to
support their mention of transportation burdens on the residential area surrounding the subject
parcel, nor anything in the conceptual site plan to suggest it would be safe for area residents to
walk or bike to the subject site if developed as a commercial property. Further, the explanation
letter states that provision has been made for 580 parking spaces (well beyond the code
requirement), while the conceptual design includes 533 spaces, which is still more parking than
is required by code. This will not create a cleaner environment, as the developers claim, but will
create increased emissions in a sensitive area where residents would like to keep emissions to a
minimum. Worse still, the conceptual plan calls out opportunity for a fueling center, yet no
designated space for electric vehicle charging (which would be far more helpful in the area,
given a pronounced lack of public charging). As such, increased emissions will become a core
characteristic of this shopping center if built as presented. It would not result in the “connected
oasis” the City hopes to achieve, nor the “village” concept the developer is attempting to sell.
What it achieves is what Phoenix already sees too much of—islands of unspectacular
commercial offerings drowning in a sea of parking.
The subject parcel for proposed rezoning also lies immediately north of Pinnacle High School,
which sees students regularly walking and biking to school, but the concept site design does
nothing to ensure student and faculty safety or effective circulation around the school. To the
contrary, the conceptual site plan shows 3 access/egress points just off Mayo immediately across
from the high school with no provision for safe crossing by pedestrians and bicyclists. To put the
greatest number of access points to the site directly across the road from the school shows a
serious lack of awareness about school zone safety, as does proposing a site plan that does not
incorporate effective circulation by pedestrians and bikes (as the surrounding neighborhoods do
through extensive trail systems), but to cars. And the related traffic study does nothing to elevate
hope for improved traffic circulation or safety. Instead, it reflects lower levels of service on
streets that already experience diminished capacity.
While the concept of community commercial may have some potential if explored at a C-1
neighborhood level, the current applications for Minor General Plan Amendment GPA-DSTV-2-
23-2, Specific Plan Amendment GPA-DSTV-3-23-2, and Rezone Z-39-23 to C-2 commercial do
nothing to improve livability in the area and should be rejected in the interest of public safety, as
well as public health.
Thank you for your consideration,
Ellen Kennedy
From: Richards, Dan
To: Anthony M Grande
Cc: Council District 2 PCC
Subject: Black Mountain Village - Superblock 12 Opposition
Date: Tuesday, September 5, 2023 4:24:56 PM
Attachments: image001.png
Hello Mr. Grande and Councilman Waring,
I wanted to formally write to you both to express my opposition to Vestar Development’s push to
rezone the Property known as a portion of Parcel 12.L, within Superblock 12 of the Desert Ridge
Specific Plan. My wife and I did a lot of research about the area prior to purchasing and building our
home 10 years ago, located at 21618 N 36th Street. I’ve attached a map with the proposed
development layered on it. You can see the yellow star located on the East side of Black Mountain
Boulevard showing the location of our house. I have been very vocal at each of the previous two
meetings expressing my opposition to this development from happening.
As mentioned, my wife and I did our research prior to building the home we wanted to raise our
three boys in. We understood we would have a roadway in our backyard that would create some
noise, and that was fine because that meant we wouldn’t have another house directly behind our
backyard. We love the location, being across the street from Pinnacle High School. One of our boys
is currently a sophomore with our other two boys being 8th graders. When they were younger, they
could walk the opposite direction to Fireside grade school, so we figured this was a perfect location
for our family. If you aren’t aware of this yet, Pulte homes sold the West side of 36th Street as
premium lots with view fences in our backyard. We all paid extra to have a view of the wash behind
our homes. We all paid this knowing that the only thing going in across the street in the future would
likely be an exterior block wall of another residential development. That’s what the Desert Ridge
Specific Plan called for so why would anyone think differently? The news of this commercial
development potentially getting built across the street has made every one of these homeowners
sick to their stomachs. Talk about a bait and switch!!!!! Pulte probably wouldn’t have built these
lots as view fences if there was commercial development zoned for directly across the street. Serious
question to Mr. Grande - Would the City even sign off on a residential development having view
fences directly across the street from a commercial development if it was built after the commercial
was already there?
One major concern from the residents of Copper View (36th Street from Mayo to Deer Valley) is the
decrease in safety for all our families and our properties due to a commercial development being
directly across the street. Shopping centers bring loiterers. Gas Stations are even worse. The
increase in homelessness in the Desert Ridge area can’t be ignored. If this development happens,
this will make Deer Valley a main thoroughfare for these homeless people to walk down between
Desert Ridge Marketplace to Black Mountain Village. Nobody wants the potential for this to happen.
Several years ago, a group of neighborhood kids found a homeless encampment with mattresses in
the wash near Mayo and Black Mountain Boulevard. It was in the storm sewer, under Mayo. We
fear more of this will happen if you move forward with this project. None of us with a view fence,
just across Black Mountain Boulevard, signed up to live across the street from this sort of
development. I enjoy my backyard having a view fence. It makes these tiny yards feel a little larger.
Now I will be fearing someone might jump my back fence because they see something they like.
Another major concern that Copper View resident have is light pollution. Nobody wants to live
across the street from a lit up commercial development. If Vestar moves forward with plans to
include a gas station with this proposal, I would imagine this would be right on the corner, where
they have PAD C is shown on the map I included. That will be my new view from my backyard. A lit-
up gas station. Can you even begin to imagine how upset we all were when we heard not only are
we going to have a commercial development, but also a gas station? Nobody wants a bright gas
station directly across the street from them. Every gas station has loiterers. No place attracts more
loitering than a gas station. Copper View residents are not interested in having this across the
street from us. Not to mention the constant smell of gasoline. Mr. Grande - Would the City sign off
on a residential development having view fences directly across the street from a gas station if it was
built after the gas station was already there? The argument for needing more gas stations within
Desert Ridge is garbage. Replace Jacksons with a Circle K and I’m guessing you’ll see a much higher
volume of people using that gas station. Nobody uses that place because the prices are too high. I
go to either Costco or Circle K on Union Hills because they’re cheaper. Most people with half of a
brain do the same.
A 20-acre commercial property in a mostly residential area wouldn’t just be making a minor tweak to
the Desert Ridge Specific Plan (DRSP). This commercial development would be taking the DRSP and
completely throwing it out the window. The DRSP called for commercial development within the
residential superblocks to be limited to neighborhood convenience commercial centers with a
maximum of 3 net acres. During Mr. Anderson’s presentation to the Desert Ridge committee, he
mentioned there were 6 previous developments that could have included a neighborhood
convenience commercial center but decided against adding them. These 18-acres of commercial
development not getting added throughout Desert Ridge are being used to justify Vestar developing
20-acres in one location. Just because other developments decided against adding 3-acre
neighborhood convenience commercial centers doesn’t justify adding them all together and asking
to rezone this area just because Vestar thinks it would be a good investment.
Please take into consideration the families that built around this area that thought they were moving
close to commercial development, but not directly across the street from it. I know you have been
contacted by several other residents expressing their concerns about the traffic impacts and
proximity to the high school. I am 100% in agreement with all other concerns you have heard
pertaining to these two topics. This development needs to be stopped. It’s just not the right fit for
this location. There are a growing number of residents that share this sentiment. We will be at the
next OCT 3 Desert Village Planning Committee meeting as well as the NOV 2 City of Phoenix Planning
Commission meeting to express our opposition.
Thanks,
Dan Richards
Strand Associates, Inc.®
602.437.3733 ext. 6052
dan.richards@strand.com | www.strand.com [strand.com]
[strand.com]
Excellence in EngineeringSM
From: paul dunn
To: Anthony M Grande; Council District 2 PCC
Subject: Vestar Development Amendment and Zoning Requests for Superblock 12 in Desert Ridge
Date: Wednesday, September 6, 2023 6:01:06 AM
Importance: High
It is indisputable that the area affected by Vestar’s proposal already has a traffic
problem. The 366-page October 2022 Traffic Impact Analysis commissioned by
Vestar acknowledges this existing problem. Please note the following excerpt
from that Analysis:
The results of the existing conditions analysis indicate that all study
intersections operate with acceptable levels of service (LOS D or better) with
the exception of the northbound approach at the intersection of Black
Mountain Boulevard & Deer Valley Drive and the northbound and southbound
left at the intersection of Aviano Way & Deer Valley Drive.
This same Traffic Impact Analysis also reveals the extent to which Vestar’s
proposal would exacerbate this existing problem. The Analysis describes this
impact as follows:
The Black Mountain Village proposes to rezone approximately 16-acres of
undeveloped land from existing R-2 (residential) to C-2 (commercial) to
consists of approximately 76,200 square feet (SF) of grocery supermarket,
41,500-SF of various commercial shops each under 40,000 SF, and 19,700-SF of
fast-food restaurants with drive through window. The proposed developed is
located on the southwest corner of Black Mountain Boulevard and Deer Valley
Drive in the City of Phoenix, Arizona. The site is planned to provide a total of
eight (8) access points, of which five (5) are planned for full movement access
and the remaining three (3) are proposed restricted right-in/right-out
driveways.
This Traffic Impact Analysis does not mention that Vestar’s proposal also includes
a gas station. Moreover, this Traffic Impact Analysis does not analyze the traffic
impact of the nearby Garden Communities 882-unit apartment complex currently
underway at the northeast corner of Tatum Blvd and Deer Valley. It also does not
analyze the impact of the planned development of the 410-acre parcel at the
southeastern corner of Deer Valley and 40th Street purchased by Taylor Morrison
and Pulte Homes for a 1,200-lot master planned community. Because the west
boundary of this parcel directly abuts Mayo Blvd, traffic from this planned
community would likely use Mayo Blvd for ingress and egress. Moreover, the
vehicular traffic entering and exiting the community would also increase the traffic
on 40th Street and Deer Valley.
Vestar’s description of its proposal is disingenuous. It describes its proposal as a
“low-impact” commercial development. Their description of the proposed project
mentions a “neighborhood grocery store and inline retail opportunities.”
However, omitted from their description is a gas station that they have
acknowledged is part of their plan. Also omitted is the “19,700-SF of fast-food
restaurants with drive through window” described in their Traffic Impact Analysis.
How can anyone honestly describe grocery stores, gas stations, and fast food
restaurants with drive through windows as “low impact” uses? Each of these
operations would result in increased vehicular traffic entering the proposed site
from all four bordering streets. In addition to the increased private passenger
vehicular traffic, other traffic entering and exiting the proposed site would include
gas tanker trucks and commercial delivery trucks. This increased traffic would be
in addition to the traffic already generated by 2,600 students and their parents
entering and exiting the Pinnacle High School parking lots twice daily during the
school year. Also not to be overlooked are the evening activities at the school that
result in numerous vehicles exiting onto Black Mountain Blvd and Mayo Blvd. Even
now there are not enough traffic lanes on Mayo Blvd to efficiently handle the
vehicular traffic exiting the high school parking lots.
Pinnacle High School is not the only school affected by Vestar’s proposed
rezoning request. The Fireside Elementary School, with 775 enrolled students, is
only a short block away from Superblock 12. Vestar’s rezoning request would also
impact the traffic to and from this elementary school.
The Arizona State Land Department agrees with Vestar’s C-2 rezoning request
because it wants to sell this parcel for the highest possible price. The Land
Department’s position is understandable. However, in this instance, it represents a
grave injustice to those homeowners who purchased their homes (many with their
life savings) in this neighborhood. They justifiably believed their homes would
never border a commercial development because this area was zoned
Residential. These homeowners should not have their legitimate expectations
sacrificed on an altar of money.
For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully request that Vestar’s proposal not be
approved.
Paul Dunn
3752 E. Covey Lane
Phoenix, AZ 85050
From: James Tuffin
To: Anthony M Grande
Cc: dan.richards@strand.com; "Wouter Roodenburg"; cvanek@arizonarepublic.com; akwok@azcentral.com; Council
District 2 PCC; Mayor Gallego
Subject: RE: GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2
Date: Wednesday, September 6, 2023 6:49:55 AM
Dear Mr. Grande:
An unidentified party is running a sponsored ad on Facebook directing viewers to an online
“petition” for a new grocery store in Desert Ridge. The online petition page can be seen at
https://chng.it/6L8mkBrdDq [chng.it] . It identifies the promoter of the petition as “New Grocer”. It
makes no reference to the ongoing zoning and plan amendment cases. It fails to mention, as
Vestar’s counsel has publicly admitted on more than one occasion, that Vestar cannot say what kind
of grocery might ultimately go in. And needless to say, there is no reference to the 20 acres of drive
through junk food and gas station also included in Vestar’s conceptual plan for the site right next to
the high school.
These deceptive tactics are unworthy of any responsible business. City staff should give no weight
whatsoever to the results of this patently misleading petition drive.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
James W Tuffin
21214 N 36th Pl
Phoenix, AZ 85050
James.tuffin@tuffinlaw.com (retired attorney not offering services to the public).
From: Treye Elzenga
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Desert View Zoning Feedback - Black Mountain Village Project
Date: Thursday, September 7, 2023 11:09:28 AM
Hello Anthony,
As you and constituents consider the proposed Black Mountain Village Project (GPA-DSTV-2-23-2; GPA DSTV 3-23-2; Z-
39-23), I wanted to express my strong opposition to this project. City Planners got this right the first time in the General Plan.
Schools, dog parks, walking trails, community soccer fields, and four housing developments adjoin this property.
Commercial real estate on this proposed parcel has no place, no real need, and only increases risks.
Living in this community, safety should always be our number one concern as residents. Within four hundred yards of this
proposed project, we have two schools, Pinnacle High School and Fireside Elementary, which educate pre-school children
under the age of five. Each morning and afternoon families walk their children to these schools from the surrounding homes
from the north, south, east, and west. Increasing transient traffic flow, especially off the high-speed HWY 51 into this area,
greatly increases risks for residents, especially our younger children. Simply there is no compelling argument for this project
and only increased risk.
While traffic studies were completed, the analysis and land schematics fail to demonstrate any reference to Fireside
Elementary School which is within four hundred yards of this project. How can we consider no traffic turning Left or Right
from or onto Mayo Boulevard. This lack of detail shows severe disregard for our pre-school and elementary age children. In
the analysis, they also fail to reference when the study was completed other than November 2022. In November, we have
slower traffic patterns based on holidays, people traveling outside of Phoenix to visit family, and winter residents not yet
arriving to the area. While the necessary paperwork was completed, beyond the abundance of words in the report where is the
holistic detail that considers an elementary school within yards of this project.
In 2022, the Arizona Department of Housing identified shortages of over 270,000 housing units across our state. As Phoenix
metro comprises over 2/3rds of our state’s population, we require over 175,000 units to meet the needs of the citizens.
Rezoning existing housing parcels to commercial property in the heart of a well-established family-friendly community only
introduces unnecessary risks. Approving this project will only provide short-term rewards for Vestar and Gammage &
Burnham associates not the community.
While developers will make the case for additional services and unsubstantiated benefits to our community, we must consider
the abundance of commercial services that are already available in Desert Ridge Marketplace, Vestar project and along Cave
Creek Road, and HWY 51 south. In addition, all these commercial properties have clearly defined borders which create
increased safety as to not blend housing, schools, parks, and daily life, with commercial development. Within Desert View we
have an abundance of services of all commercial types within one mile. Making the argument that driving one mile creates
hardship is unsubstantiated, unless data is provided on how many cars each household owns in village. Desert View is not the
same as an urban core, such as downtown Phoenix. Lack of concrete detail is consistent throughout the rezoning application,
while there is an abundance of words and feelings including ‘potentially’ and ‘we feel’ it fails to acknowledge key
considerations as I have outlined.
We have an opportunity to put families and our youngest citizens first by DENYING this project. Thank you for your
thoughtful consideration of the data, facts, and real impact on our community for the long term. I appreciate your support
in DENYING this rezoning request.
Treye Elzenga
Resident City of Phoenix - Desert Ridge
From: Lesley Anderson
To: Anthony M Grande; msantoro@gblaw.com; PDD Desert View VPC
Subject: Open Letter to the Desert View Village Planning Committee re: REZONING LAND NEAR PINNACLE HS
Date: Friday, September 8, 2023 6:47:42 AM
Dear Anthony Grande, Michelle Santoro, ad the Desert View Village Planning Committee,
I am one of the many Sky Crossing residents who found out about the rezoning of the
20.52 acres on the SW corner of Black Mountain Blvd and Deer Valley Drive from
an article posted on a Facebook group and not from the City of Phoenix. I am obviously
disappointed that Vestar and the City of Phoenix failed to notify about 95% of the Sky
Crossing residents of this potential zoning change that will deeply affect our neighborhood.
I personally attended the meeting on August 1, 2023 in order to get more
information about the potential gas station, grocery store, and restaurants/shops that will
affect neighborhood traffic as well as my property value in the near future. My hopes were
high as I listened to the presentation by Gammage & Burnham. I was actually in favor of
some sort of small commercial property before the meeting.
I waited for details as to the type and size of grocery store, types of restaurants, and of
course a solution to the traffic problem that haunts that corner of Desert Ridge, but sadly
none of that happened. It felt like no solutions were given. Very general information
was shared on the slides. No 3D rendering of what it would look like. Will the grocery and
gas station lights be on all night? What about the noise from semi trucks dropping off 3 am
deliveries at the grocery store? Will the stores blend with the desert landscape like in
Fountain Hills or stick out like a sore thumb? Residents were simply left with more
questions than answers.
With this in mind, I am writing to you all to express my opposition to rezoning
this land from RESIDENTIAL to COMMERCIAL which would allow for a
commercial shopping center.
I think Sky Crossing residents would be more supportive of a project if it answered the
questions above, and somehow solved the traffic mayhem. Perhaps Vestar could have
proposed to help the school and the community by building Pinnacle High School a parking
garage? Traffic literally comes to a standstill in the morning hours and prevents
area residents from accessing the Black Canyon Road heading south in order to get on the
HWY 51 on-ramp. Apparently because there is not enough parking for students, so parents
have to drop their kids off every morning. Which is ridiculous. If you live in this area,
you know about the problem. The high school and the Phoenix Police are well
aware of the problem. This strip center will only add to the traffic issue.
I am but one of the many voices who oppose the rezoning of this land and the potential
traffic issues it will cause. I am asking the members of the Desert View Village
Planning Committee to please vote NO when voting for the rezoning of this
parcel of land. There are too many unanswered questions.
Thank you for your time and for reading this. Much appreciation.
Regards,
Lesley Anderson
22413 N. 30th Street, Phoenix
Sky Crossing resident
Realtor® with HomeSmart
Email: AZAndersonRealEstate@gmail.com
Direct: 480-390-6297
From: Jamie Bauschka
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Black Mountain Village
Date: Friday, September 8, 2023 12:36:27 PM
Dear Mr. Grande-
This message is in regards to GPA-DSTV-2-23-2
GPA-DSTV-3-23-3
Z-39-23-2
I live in the neighborhood in Fireside that is directly across Black Mtn from this currently vacant land. While we
understood this to be slated as residential, it seems now someone is trying to change that.
While we are not in favor of this changing to commercial, there is a much more pressing issue for this area that
should be addressed prior to any development on that land. The drop off/pick up/ and parking for students at
PVHS. The current situation there is unsafe and terribly inconvenient. The fact that there is not a sufficient amount
of parking for students attending the school has got to be expanded prior to anything else being developed there.
The kids crossing this major intersection (Black Mtn & Mayo) to get to their awaiting rides, is a tragedy waiting to
happen.
Please consider working with the school district & community before it’s too late to address these issues.
And, no thank you to changing the zoning from residential to commercial.
Thank you for your time & consideration!
Jamie Bauschka
Sent from my iPhone
From: Yatharth Chowdhary
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Opposing Black Mountain Village
Date: Friday, September 8, 2023 10:29:24 PM
Hi Anthony,
I am current resident of desert ridge area and regarding GPA-DSTV- 2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-
23-2/Z-39-23-2 i don't want Black Mountain Village.
Our homes were built under the Desert Ridge Specific Plan. The plan promised us clean, quiet
and safe neighborhoods because commercial activity was placed in the "commercial core".
Commercial activity in the "residential superblocks" is strictly limited to minor
"conveniences" of no more than 3 acres and drive through operations are prohibited.
I would like to oppose the rezoning of this area.
Thanks
Yatharth
From: Diana Dichter
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2
Date: Friday, September 8, 2023 9:56:56 AM
Please consider my vote AGAINST the Black Mountain Village Commercial development sought after by Vestar.
My family, including two children, live in Fireside Desert Ridge and plan to stay here for the next 10-20 years, at
least.
We would like to keep Fireside and the overall Desert Ridge community, as originally planned - residential.
The lot across from the Pinnacle High School could be made into a community park, perhaps with some additional
parking to relieve the already horrific traffic conditions for the schools in the area. We do not need more traffic in
the neighborhood or even worse - though it.
Hope our voices carry some value in these determinations.
Thank you,
Diana Dichter
310-912-2790
From: SCOTT ELLEFSON
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Black Mountain Village
Date: Friday, September 8, 2023 8:34:28 AM
Anthony,
Please note, I am Opposed to the Black Mountain Village Plan.
Case numbers GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2
Sincerely,
Scott Ellefson
Fireside at Desert Ridge
From: Joe Haglund
To: Anthony M Grande
Cc: Joe Haglund
Subject: Black Mountain Village Proposed Development
Date: Friday, September 8, 2023 11:06:40 AM
Hello Anthony,
I am resident in Aviano in Desert Ridge in Phoenix and I wanted to reach out to you about the
proposed Black Mountain Village Development that is up for rezoning. Unfortunately I will
not be able to be present at the meeting on October 3rd and wanted to reach out on this.
I have lived in Desert Ridge since 2012 and there have been several great changes over the
past 10+years including access to the 51 and widening Black Mountain. I strongly feel that
the rezoning of this area would be a major mistake for several reasons.
1.) Currently Pinnacle High School has a large amount of traffic that creates a backup onto
Black Mountain and sometimes Deer Valley as well which makes this area extremely difficult
to get through during the week from 7-8:30am, between 3-5, and also when there are sporting
and other events held at the school. Adding this development will bring increased traffic and
and chaos for many new drivers that attend the high school and residents and guests of the
area.
2.) Parking is a major issue at Pinnacle and students will end up parking in this new
development which will create issues with the property manager/owner and tenants as well
3.) As a resident I am all about convenience and the thought of a grocery store and other stores
close by my home sounds great initially, but I think there are a lot more negatives than
positives for this one and the most important one is the safety of the kids and residents of the
area.
Thank you for your help with this and please feel free to contact me with any questions
Joe Haglund
22116 N 36th Way
Phoenix, AZ 85050
480-650-1873-cell
joehaglund1@gmail.com
--
Joe Haglund
480-650-1873-cell
NMLS ID: 24351
From: April Justman
To: Anthony M Grande; Rob A. Justman
Subject: GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2
Date: Friday, September 8, 2023 4:38:15 PM
Hello Anthony,
We are residents of Fireside and parents of Pinnacle High School children. We are strongly
opposed to th Black Mountain Village.
When we purchased our home, Fireside was advertised as a clean, quiet, and safe
neighborhood oriented towards families with children. It is our understanding that
commercial activities within the superblocks adjacent to Fireside are to be limited to minor
conveniences of three (3) acres or less. Vestar is proposing a twenty (20) acre shopping center
directly adjacent to Pinnacle High School; that, as you know, includes drive thrus (which are
also prohibited commercial activities in the superblocks adjacent to Fireside).
Not only is our family concerned about what may become a falsity of how Fireside was
advertised when we purchased our home seven (7) years ago, should Vestar succeed with this
initiative, we are also concerned about the associated crime, noise, pollution, and traffic that
will no doubt plague our residential community. We already have an issue with high-traffic
volume that does not respect the posted speed limits near Fireside Elementary School and
Pinnacle High School on Mayo Street, as commuters travel to Interstate 51. Vestar's initiative
will only heighten this problem, and create a more dangerous situation for our children
including the littlest of our children at Fireside Elementary School, who deserve the ability to
walk to and from their school safely each day. Although older and presumably more ept, our
Pinnacle students deserve the same consideration.
Thank you for your time.
April and Rob Justman
3713 E. Huett Lane
Phoenix, AZ 85050
480-904-1560
From: rmarranca ourfiresidedesertridge.net
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Case #GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2
Date: Friday, September 8, 2023 11:07:18 AM
Good Morning,
We have bought into our community at Fireside with the zoning of all residential. We are NOT
in favor of changing the zoing and the plan to put in a 20 acre shopping center right across
from Pinnacle High.
the Black Mountain Village
I hope you can respectfully reconsider this change in which we did NOT buy into
Thank you,
With Warmest Regards,
Rita Marranca
Administrative Assistant
and Front Desk Manager
Fireside at Desert Ridge
480-203-2166
From: Chintan Patel
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: CASE # GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2
Date: Friday, September 8, 2023 8:49:37 PM
Good evening Mr. Grande:
My name is Dr Chintan Patel and I am a cardiologist at our local, Thompson Peak hospital and
resident within the Copper view community in Fireside here at Desert Ridge. I am writing to
you in reference to case number GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2, also
known as Black mountain village.
I know that you may be receiving numerous letters and petitions against this commercial
community. I would like to take the opportunity to waste my concerns and join amongst the
ranks of those against this proposed commercial shopping area.
The appeal of Desert Ridge and what makes it a unique location is the sense of community
that we all feel and try to bring to the various neighborhoods within the Desert Ridge
communities. While we may live a different neighborhoods, much of what unites us is the
sense of community and safety that we sought when we first moved here. The glue that tends
to bind us all here, like most neighborhoods, is our children. Personally I have two young
daughters who attend Fireside elementary who are currently six and five. We moved to this
community after talking with neighbors and seeing how happy they were raising their kids
from elementary to high school in an area that they felt safe enough to have their kids be
independent.
I do understand the financial benefits of a commercial property, but the location that is
proposed is already in a high traffic area with his own intrinsic problems because of high
school traffic and the on/off ramp to route 51. If the point of the shopping plaza is to serve the
needs of the community, and the community has spoken that the current Desert Ridge is
sufficient then the only thing this could bring are consequences. People moved to this
community the way it was designed with the promise of trying to keep it from being a
commercial hotspot. Bringing more homes and more families to create more neighbors only
makes us stronger, but bringing in businesses that invite more outside traffic, their own self
interests, and the potential negative influences only brings down the reputation of Desert
Ridge and instills of distrust in the city of Phoenix and it's social responsibility to it's citizens.
I thank the city of Phoenix and representatives like you for making communities like Desert
Ridge available to us and keeping it in its current splendor. All we ask is a mutual sense of
trust in us to help continue to grow the community while maintaining its integrity and safety.
I appreciate your time and willingness to hear our voices.
Thank you so much,
Chintan Patel.
From: Susan Sheroff
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2 Black Mountain Village
Date: Friday, September 8, 2023 7:04:25 PM
Dear Mr Grande:
I reside in Desert Ridge at 21214 N 36th Pl
The applications submitted to enable the Black Mountain Village must be denied. I am aware of the comments
submitted by other homeowners including Mr. Tuffin, Mr. Richards and Mr Roodenburg. I will not repeat the many
reasons why this project is a terrible idea. This attempted betrayal of innocent homeowners who purchased under
the existing Specific Plan cannot be justified; the justifications put forward by Vestar are essentially specious and
insufficient to destroy the reasonable expectations of innocent home buyers.
Thank you for your attention
Susan Sheroff
Sent from my iPhone
From: Taylor Ungerer
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: No to Black Mountain Village
Date: Friday, September 8, 2023 9:11:33 PM
Case number-
GPA-DSTV-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2
Hello Anthony,
Myself as well as most of the community at black mountain rd. absolutely disagree with Black Mountain Village
being rezoned from residential to commercial. If you could please let me know an update after the planning
committee meeting with the decision on October 3rd, 2023.
Thank you for your time,
Taylor
From: Jeannette
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Case no Z29-23
Date: Friday, September 8, 2023 9:05:10 PM
I am writing to you regarding the request to rezone in our area 85050 Black Mountain Project.
As a resident and homeowner 17 years in this area - Desert Ridge, I have seen a lot of growth in our area. I want to
make sure we DO NOT REZONE THIS AREA TO COMMERCIAL. We are currently inundated with traffic from
the 51 and all the traffic from the area who avoid the 51. You should be focusing on community not convenience.
Save this are for Pinnacle High School. Every morning my kids walk to school and the amount of traffic is massive
and congested. The 51 Black Mountain ramp has also increased the congestion and safety of residents and children
who live in this area. DO NOT BE MOTIVATED OR SEDUCED BY THE ARROGANCE OF COMMERCIAL
BUSINESS In our community!!!!!
Vote NO!!!!
Jeannette Vespalec
From: Dan Welker
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Black Mtn Village
Date: Friday, September 8, 2023 11:22:38 AM
Mr Grande -
I live across the street from the proposed Back Mountain Village Commercial development in the Desert
Ridge area. This is a major issue for my family. Traffic is already crazy. The noise from Deer Valley and
Black Mtn is already bad (why isn't there a noise ordinance for Harley Davidsons and tuner automobiles,
by the way) and it would just get worse. The high school students next door at Pinnacle don't need this.
Go to the Walgreens next to PV High School after classes get out if you want a sample of what goes on. I
have two kids there right now and my third will be going there in 3 years. This is supposed to be a
residential area and is currently zoned that way. The bait and switch that is going on is unacceptable. I
will oppose this every way possible. Please stand up and represent your citizens and keep the peace in a
neighborhood that is supposed to remain quiet.
Thanks for your help.
Dan Welker
602-821-0262
From: Debbie Bolde
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: GPA-DSTV-2-23-2 SW Black Mountain & Deer Valley
Date: Saturday, September 9, 2023 4:59:53 PM
Dear Mr Grande.
We are residents of Sky Crossing and we received notification of the proposed re-zoning at the
SW Corner of Black Mountain & Deer Valley roads because we live in close proximity of it.
We are opposed to the development and rezoning of this parcel for the following reasons:
1. This project does not fit the neighborhood and it is contradictory to Desert Ridge's
original plan for this area to be a low noise, light traffic community. We purchased our
home in 2020 with the understanding this parcel would be a residential parcel only. We
moved here to get away from the city traffic and noise.
2. The suggested development is not needed in this area because all of these services are
available 2 miles in each direction on Tatum blvd and Cave Creek road. Furthermore a
gas station and drive thru coffee shop/fast food restaraunt will increase pollution into
neighboring communities.
3. Currently PHS turns their lights off at 9pm because of the residential zoning. This
provides a quiet serine and tranquil neighborhood for all homeowners. This
development would change the entire feel of the neighborhoods which is not at all fair
to any homeowner that purchased as described above.
4. With the increasing concerns of rising temperatures, water shortage, high traffic and
other issues within the city of Phoenix, it would seem prudent for the city council to
preserve open land to insure a better quality of life for it's residents. Our temperature in
the area is typically 3-7 degrees lower here than it is at Sky harbor airport where the
land has been overdeveloped. We need more trees, bushes and open land and less
concrete, blacktop, buildings and traffic. A better use of this land would be a park with
walking paths, covered picnic area's and additional parking that could be used for PHS
during the week. This would meet the needs of all of these neighborhoods and would
alleviate the current problem with people using the private parks in Sky crossing, it
would be a win win for everyone.
Thank you for your consideration of these issues above. We hope the city council will find
another alternative for this parcel that will be better suited to the neighboring communities
than a commercial development.
Mike & Debbie Bolde
3436 E Louise Drive
Phoenix Az 85050
480.419.9385.
From: Susan Marshall
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: case numbers GPA-DSTV- 2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/2-39-23-3
Date: Saturday, September 9, 2023 11:14:34 AM
To All Involved,
I don't want Black Mountain Village at
Deer Valley-Sky Crossing-Black Mountain.
This land is zoned for residential and should remain so. I see no reason to add more
commercial businesses to a zoned residential area. It will only bring more, crime, noise, litter,
pollution, and traffic nightmares to quiet residential area. This is where very young children
through high school ages are in large number playing outdoors in sports and in
neighborhoods. This will be monstrosity of various issues. Especially with the exit to Black
Mountain-51-101 and intersection of Black Mountain Blvd and Deer Valley. This is easy to
predict. Look at the issues of traffic already. Our neighborhoods were built and purchased
with this in mind of being residential. We would not have purchased otherwise. It’s a promise
you are conducting rescinding. To have it be a bait and switch now will only cause more ill
will in our communities and with government. Please consider everyone’s concerns.
Cordially,
Susan Marshall
From: Marty Minzer
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: This better never take place. You will have a war on you hands!
Date: Saturday, September 9, 2023 1:26:50 PM
Our homes were built under the Desert Ridge Specific Plan. The plan promised us clean, quiet and safe
neighborhoods because commercial activity was placed in the "commercial core". Commercial activity in the
"residential superblocks" is strictly limited to minor "conveniences" of no more than 3 acres and drive through
operations are prohibited.
The land at Deer Valley and Black Mountain is designated residential under the plan. Vestar, the developer of the
Desert Ridge Marketplace, now wants to rake in even more money by changing the zoning, and the plan, to put in
a 20 acre shopping center right across from Pinnacle High School. They say it will contain drive-through fast food,
drive-through coffee, a gas station, a grocery of an unknown name and type, and heaven knows what else.
Many of us are appalled by this bait-and-switch, and worried about the crime, noise, litter, pollution, and traffic
nightmares that will come with this monstrosity. And we are taking action.
Sincerely,
Marty Minzer
From: Alan Walstad
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Black Mountain Village proposal
Date: Saturday, September 9, 2023 12:36:21 PM
Anthony Grande
Planner II* Village Planner
200 W Washington St
3rd Floor
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Greetings Anthony, I appreciate you taking the time to read my note regarding case number
GPA-DSTV-2-23-2 and/or GPA-DSTV-3-23-2 and/or Z-39-23.
My family and I are current residents in the Sky Crossing community, living just northwest of
the intersection of Black Mountain Boulevard and Deer Valley Road. We have some concerns
about the proposed zoning changes for the parcel at the southwest corner of that
intersection.
We moved to our home in part due to the quiet community surroundings, including the
residential neighborhoods of Aviano and Desert Ridge to the east, and Fireside to the
southeast. Also, Sky Crossing is bounded by vegetation and city property to the west,
the National Memorial Cemetary of Arizona to the north, and the Joni Fitts School of
Horsemanship to the northeast.
The Desert Ridge Specific Plan (in which the parcel in question lies) limits commercial
activity in the residential superblocks to no more than 3 acres.
Pinnacle High School is directly to the south of the proposed zoning
change/development.
Our decision to move to this area was predicated on the quiet, residential feel of our
neighborhood and surrounding areas. I know that many neighbors in Sky Crossing as well as
friends and neighbors in Aviano and Fireside feel the same, and this proposed change to
existing zoning conflicts with one of the primary reasons that many families may have selected
these neighborhoods.
We find that existing stores and shops (essential and non-essential) as well as medical facilities
and outdoor activities are all plentiful within a very reasonable distance (most less than 7
miles) from our existing home. We believe that there are multiple alternative locations in the
general vicinity if further development is necessary.
Each morning during the school year, the traffic at the intersection of Deer Valley Road and
Black Mountain Boulevard is horrendous. The current combination of Pinnacle High School
traffic coupled with traffic accessing SR-51 southbound from Black Mountain Boulevard
creates a backup that can take 15+ minutes to travel less than one mile. This traffic situation
will only worsen with any future development north of Pinnacle Peak Road, including the
potential extension of Black Mountain Boulevard to connect to I-17/AZ-303 through Sonoran
Desert Drive.
Our family is not in support of the proposed zoning changes:
Adding a retail shopping center will create additional traffic, including commercial trucks
and trailers delivering goods at all hours of the day and night.
Lighting in the parking lots and the stores themselves will shine directly into
homes/bedrooms along the north side of Deer Valley Road. The same homes will also
have significant noise pollution from the center.
The addition of a gas station/convenience store will also bring environmental concerns,
and even greater light and noise issues.
Any waivers granted for alcohol purchases in the center would be a significant concern
with Pinnacle High School just south of the development.
Criminal activity, which is currently minimal in our community, will very likely increase
with the addition of retail and restaurant businesses directly across the street.
Traffic at the intersection, already a significant concern each morning during the school
year, will be exacerbated with multiple businesses open at that time.
Thank you again Anthony, for reviewing our concerns about the potential zoning changes.
Best regards,
Alan Walstad
From: Rajendra
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: NO to Black Mountain Village-Case GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/Z-39-23-2
Date: Sunday, September 10, 2023 1:13:07 PM
Hello Anthony,
My name is Rajendra Danda and I am a resident of the Skycrossing community located at
Deer valley Rd and Black Mountain Blvd intersection. I would like to formally email you my
opposition about building Black mountain village. I think it's going to make our safe
neighborhood into a commercial area which will primarily cause danger to the kids . It also
will lead to more crime activities, noise, litter, pollution, more traffic nightmare,damage our
home values as well.
Thus, we strongly oppose building Black mountain village as we don't feel any necessity of
this commercial complex . Please help us on this matter.
Thanks,
Rajendra Danda
From: Rajesh Gadde
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: NO to Black Mountain Village-Case GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/Z-39-23-2
Date: Sunday, September 10, 2023 11:54:31 AM
Hello Anthony,
I am Rajesh Gadde. I live in Fireside at desert ridge, I would like to formally email you my
opposition about building Black mountain village. I think it's going to make our safe
neighborhood into a commercial area thus causing danger to kids.
It will create more crime opportunities, noise, litter, pollution, traffic nightmare as well.
We don't want this at all. Please help us on this matter.
Thanks
Rajesh
From: kay ehrick
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2. ABSOLUTELY NO global international here thanks
Date: Sunday, September 10, 2023 7:46:34 AM
Hi Anthony,
Lived here for 10 years and please tell vestar his partners and the global leaders they hang with to all take their
equity BS and play the game in some other county. We have enough crazyness on these roads and riffraff pretty
much all around us. We get eniugh traffic from the 51 enough from all the highschool and elementary. So forgive
me when I say we don’t need anymore traffic around these parts. Not to bright of an idea at all. Maybe the partners
can build near their homes or kids schools. Or find another globe to pollute. Stop building new and be the globalist
equity folks you claim to be.. let me k iw if you need the buildings that need some fixing since global love screams
vestar, and investment of international people who should be maybe building in their own countries and stop
bringing in shops that cater to worldly people. We are o lay one country and our language is English. Foreign
builders should do the climate a favor and fix the the homes already up. We sure as hell don’t need another drive
through, hell no to a gas station and really another grocery store? No thanks if we were looking for so much crap
around us we all would have moved elsewhere! Sick of these investors coming in and messing with something
good. Here’s a suggestion vestar can take all their ideas and I don’t know maybe FIX ALL THE BUILDINGS
CLOSED due some bioweapon plandamic! We don’t need anymore corners with the crap we see that has all the
crap they bring in! Vestar needs to leave it the way it was zoned for! Absolutely no businesses! Save the planet by
using all the empty buildings do to all this equity BS! Hell no to the idea! I wasn’t born yesterday and please tell
vestar to take their global equity and shove it where the son don’t shine! They should not be so money hungry to
into our neighborhood and bring in businesses they know aren’t needed! Plenty around us within a 3 mile radius.
HELL NO TO VESTAR THEIR PARTNERS AND THEIR GLOBAL EQUITY BS! The word these globalists and
their partners don’t like is Equality cause equity is racist! Maybe vestar should go and build something in south
phoenix for all the homeless and OUR VETS
Hell no to vestar in this area! Equity bs doesn’t work here I’ve already lived that time of my life . It’s equality and if
vestar is a foreign entity would rather they go globalize some other suckers! I’ve seen what these globalists and their
equity has done to Greece first hand! Hell no! Fix the buildings that are up and need a gut job remodel! Don’t want
nothing from vestar or their desert ridge ideas!
No more businesses around 3 schools! No riff raff needed anywhere close to any of these kids! Globalists OUT and
the word is EQUALITY.
No to this build.
Kay E
From: Mahitha
To: Anthony M Grande
Cc: Mahi
Subject: NO to Black Mountain Village-Case GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/Z-39-23-2
Date: Sunday, September 10, 2023 12:48:25 PM
Hello Anthony,
I am Mahitha Valluri. I live in Fireside at desert ridge, I would like to formally email you my opposition about
building Black mountain village. I think it's going to make our safe neighborhood into a commercial area thus
causing danger to kids.
It will create more crime opportunities, noise, litter, pollution, traffic nightmare as well.
We don't want this at all. Please help us on this matter.
Thanks
Mahitha
Sent from my iPhone
From: Justin Scott
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Black Mountain Village
Date: Sunday, September 10, 2023 8:53:43 PM
Hi Anthony,
I am reaching out to you with my concern about the Black Mountain Village proposal at the
intersection of Black Mountain Road and Deer Valley. I am a current resident of Desert Ridge in the
Fireside community. I kindly request that Case Numbers: GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-
23-2 are denied. I have no interest in this property and there is absolutely no need for it. This will
only cause significant issues in our community.
I hope you consider the Phoenix residents that will be very negatively affected by this proposal if
passed. Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely,
Justin Scott
Justin Scott
Justinscott634@outlook.com
(480) 865-4700
21264 N. 36h Place, Phoenix AZ 85050
From: ramya silpa
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: NO to Black Mountain Village-Case GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/Z-39-23-2
Date: Sunday, September 10, 2023 1:19:47 PM
Hello Anthony,
My name is Lakshmi Ramya Silpa Alapati and I am a resident of the Skycrossing community
located at Deer valley Rd and Black Mountain Blvd intersection. I would like to formally
email you my opposition about building Black mountain village. I think it's going to make our
safe neighborhood into a commercial area which will primarily cause danger to the kids . It
also will lead to more crime activities, noise, litter, pollution, more traffic nightmare,damage
our home values as well.
Thus, we strongly oppose building Black mountain village as we don't feel any necessity of
this commercial complex . Please help us on this matter.
Thanks,
Lakshmi Ramya Silpa Alapati
From: lakshmi alapati
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: NO to Black Mountain Village-Case GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/Z-39-23-2
Date: Sunday, September 10, 2023 1:24:31 PM
Hello Anthony,
My name is Lakshmi Ramya Silpa Alapati and I am a resident of the Skycrossing community
located at Deer valley Rd and Black Mountain Blvd intersection. I would like to formally
email you my opposition about building Black mountain village. I think it's going to make our
safe neighborhood into a commercial area which will primarily cause danger to the kids . It
also will lead to more crime activities, noise, litter, pollution, more traffic nightmare,damage
our home values as well.
Thus, we strongly oppose building Black mountain village as we don't feel any necessity of
this commercial complex . Please help us on this matter.
Thanks,
Lakshmi Ramya Silpa Alapati
From: Bob Donnelli
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Black Mountain Village
Date: Monday, September 11, 2023 3:05:16 PM
Hello Anthony,
A topic was brought to my attention re: Black Mountain Village development on the corner of Deer Valley road and
Black Mountain freeway. In the communication, it stated a plan to develop the area commercially.
As a resident homeowner in the Desert Ridge Aviano community, I would be opposed to such development. The
expression ‘convenience has its costs’ is not a mantra that would garner local resident support.
As you are aware, with the implementation of such comes an impact on the local community. These external, non-
controllable influences would add additional burden to the traffic flow, already very challenged with the high school
across the street; an esthetic decline of the local neighborhood housing; an invitation to non-resident commuters; and
the potential for a parabolic change of public safety in the local community.
I understand business well. The location would embrace a single family residential development, a logical option for
the land. This area is a much sought after residential community and the ability to pre-sell any number of residences
would be accomplished with little effort.
Albeit one email, this topic was brought to my attention by a host of local homeowners. I look forward to your
consideration.
Sincerely,
Robert Donnelli
602.708.1250
Sent from my iPhone
From: Praveen Mahadevaiah
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Opposition to Black Mountain Village (case numbers GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DTV-3-23-2/Z39-23-2)
Date: Monday, September 11, 2023 9:13:42 AM
Dear Sir,
This is Praveen Mahadevaiah a resident of Fireside in Desert Ridge, Phoenix. I am writing
this email to express our opposition to the proposed Black mountain village with case numbers
GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DTV-3-23-2/Z39-23-2.
Our homes were built under the Desert ridge specific plan. The plan promised us a clean, quiet
and safe neighbourhood because commercial activity was placed in the "commercial core".
Commercial activity in the "residential superblocks" is strictly limited to minor
"conveniences" of no more than 3 acres and drive through operations are prohibited. The land
at deer valley and black mountain is designated residential under the plan, Vestar, the
developer of the Desert ridge marketplace, now wants to rake in more money by changing the
zoning and the plan, to put in a 20 acre shopping center right across from Pinnacle high
school. They say it will contain a drive through fast food, drive through coffee, a gas station
and grocery of unknown name and type.
Many of us were baffled by this rezone proposal and worried about the noise, crime, litter and
pollution and traffic nightmares. As state route 51 route ends at the Black mountain blvd, there
is already a lot of traffic and congestion in this intersection of Deer valley and black mountain,
especially during peak hours. With the proposed rezone for a commercial property, this will
make matters even worse.
Our house backs up to the black mountain blvd and we are really worried about the rezone
proposal and the effect it will have on our beautiful community.
We request you to consider our opposition to this proposed rezone of the residential block and
we don't want the black mountain village.
Regards
Praveen
From: Yasmin Rivera-Klein
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: GPA-DSTV-2-23-2
Date: Monday, September 11, 2023 8:46:51 PM
Dear Anthony,
I am writing today regarding Vestar’s proposals (case numbers) GPA-DSTV-2-23-2, GPA
DSTV-3-23-2, and Z-39-23. As a resident of Desert Ridge, I oppose Vestar’s proposal for
rezoning the Southwest Corner of Black Moutain Boulevard and Deer Valley Drive from
Residential to Commercial/Retail for several reasons.
First, Desert Ridge is a highly desirable planned residential community that continues to
attract buyers willing to pay a premium for a prime location. Adding commercial/retail
mixed-use space in the middle of the community would decrease the desirability of Desert
Ridge and lower the values of residential real estate within the community.
Second, the traffic flow within Desert Ridge is already too great for the limited infrastructure
within the community. Pinnacle Peak High School is located adjacent to the proposed site.
The traffic caused during the morning/afternoon pick up/drop off combined with regular
commuting already creates a safety issue on Black Moutain and Deer Valley, with vehicles
backed up in every direction. Adding unnecessary commercial/retail space would only
increase the traffic and lead to safety issues.
Third, there is no need for mixed commercial/retail space in the middle of single-family
homes. The area has more than ample shopping options - Desert Ridge Marketplace, High
Street, and shopping off of Cave Creek Rd and the 101 are all within an extremely close
distance. Finally, creating a commercial/retail space in the middle of a residential area will
bring increased instances of crime, which, when coupled with declining property values,
would limit the marketability of Desert Ridge.
Given the detrimental impacts on our home values, marketability, safety, noise/light
pollution, and increased traffic without adequate infrastructure, these proposals should be
denied. Please do not hesitate to reach out if I can provide any additional information.
Regards,
Yasmin Rivera
From: Susan Ze
To: Anthony M Grande
Cc: Council District 2 PCC
Subject: Black Mountain village - Superblock 12 Oppostion
Date: Monday, September 11, 2023 3:24:52 PM
Mr. Grande and Councilman Waring. Greetings.
As residents of Copperview Neighborhood in Fireside - Desert Ridge, my husband and I are
adamantly opposed to the proposed rezoning of the property known as a portion of Parcel 12.L
within Superblock 12 of the Desert Ridge Specific Plan. We realize you have probably
received many letters expressing such opposition, so I will briefly list our concerns. We
moved from northern California about seven years ago to be closer to two of our daughters
and their families and have found a pleasant home in Copperview but already see some
negative activity and really fear how the proposed Black Mountain Village Project will
escalate those negative incidents. Many of the younger families in the neighborhood may
have already expressed their opinions, but I feel that we older folk should also have a voice.
We live on E Abraham Lane, just off of Mayo and very close to the Black Mountain/Mayo
corner where large numbers of high school students congregate at the lights waiting to cross
and cars wait in long lines to either turn left to access AZ 51 or drop off their children in the
right lane. We also have long lines of cars on Abraham Lane itself as well as N 36th Street
during drop off and pick up times and many cars exceeding the speed limit and/or making U
turns. A commercial property on Black Mountain Blvd across from the high school will add
more traffic problems to all parts of the Fireside neighborhood, not just Copperview. In
addition, the safety of our students going to Pinnacle High School will be adversely affected.
We have watched over the past few years as vandalism and criminal incidents have increased
at Desert Ridge Shopping Center. Putting a commercial center right next to a high school is
only inviting more of such behavior.
The noise and light pollution will certainly increase and woe to those neighbors whose houses
back up to Black Mountain Blvd directly across from the proposed commercial project. In
addition, the amount of litter produced will surely spread over into the adjoining
neighborhoods.
Of course, there is a master plan for Desert Ridge, and a commercial center next to the high
school was not included, for very good reasons. We realize that the land is owned by the
Arizona State Land Department and proceeds from the sale of such lands is to benefit the
schools, but what better way to benefit Pinnacle High School (as well as the surrounding
neighborhoods, including Fireside, Aviano, and Sky Crossing) than to provide additional
student parking and/or a well designed drop off/ pick up area which would alleviate and not
add to current traffic problems.
If you truly feel in your heart the need to vote for rezoning, despite the very logical and well
researched objections, my husband and I hope that you will fight to incorporate absolute
requirements, such as including community resources (a library and funding for it would be a
fantastic addition!), covered parking with solar panels to reduce electricity needs, location
requirements that reduce traffic problems and light pollution, prohibiting any gas station or
any all night business, to mention just a few ideas.
I hope that you will truly take the concern of your fellow citizens to heart and not just rubber
stamp the rezoning request in order to replenish the city or the school districts coffers. While
we may be only a small neighborhood compared to the number of people living in Phoenix,
we should be respected for our opinions and needs. Please realize the adding a commercial
center right next to the school and directly across from a residential area does not meet OUR
needs and certainly does not show any respect for us.
Sincerely,
Susan Ze
From: barbara bass
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Rezoning for commercial shopping center
Date: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 2:49:39 PM
No NO I know Money Talks But so does the residents of out neighboring communities! We DONT WANT THIS !
(Protecting the safety of our children with a high school right next door! For the safety of all the homes, for the
additional traffic, NO NO)We have a beautiful shopping center with All the amenities we need and Crimes have
increased WE DONT NEED THIS IN OUR BACK YARDS! I’m not sure this can be stopped because it’s all about
$$$ But we can try!!!!
Sent from my iPhone
From: Eliza Bozzelli
To: Anthony M Grande
Cc: Council District 2 PCC; Michael Bozzelli
Subject: STRONGLY OPPOSED to Black Mountain Village
Date: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 10:03:11 AM
To Whom it May Concern,
We are new residents are Fireside with 3 small children, two of which attend Fireside Elementary School.
We bought our home under the pretenses that we were raising our family in a safe, quiet neighborhood
and that the land around us had VERY MINIMAL commercial zoning.
This suggested rezoning is going to have such a great impact on our community, our safety, and our
already overwhelmed streets. Especially Mayo, which we walk along every day to bring our kids to school.
Mayo is a complete nightmare during school dropoff and pickup hours already.
Furthermore, the threat of a gas station, or drive through will bring fumes, loitering and crime to our
community.
I am STRONGLY OPPOSED to this rezoning and I feel that I was sold a lie when I bought my house. Our
children and our community deserve better than this.
Eliza Bozzelli
From: Jen
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Opposed to Re zoning
Date: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 7:11:39 PM
I read that Bestar is looking to redone near Deer Valley and Blk Mtn Rd.
I want to state that I am opposed to this Re-zoning.
Let me know if I need to sign anything .
Thank you-
Jen Cakebread
Long Realty Unlimited
From: Jason Epstein
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Vestar Rezoning Proposal for SW Corner of Deer Valley and Black Mountain Blvd.
Date: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 11:58:46 AM
Hello Mr. Grande,
I have recently learned of the Vestar development proposal to rezone and
commercially develop the land parcel on the SW corner of Deer Valley and Black
Mountain Blvd. This is addressed in case no. GPA-DSTV-3-23-2 and Z-39-23.
As a resident of the Sky Crossing community, on the north side of Deer Valley, I
oppose this rezoning proposal. It threatens our quality of life for the following reasons:
- The proposed commercial businesses will add additional automobile traffic, which
will increase air and noise polution.
- The increased automobile traffic, just feet from Pinacle High School, will also
threaten the safety of these students as motorists continuously drive in and out of this
complex. As parents of a young child who will eventually attend this high school, we
are very concerned about this impact.
- These businesses will add to light polution. The Sky Crossing HOA residential rules
have deliberately restricted lighting on housing in order to preserve our views of the
night sky. Our residents have enjoyed dark nights with full views of the stars. Bright
lights from all-night businesses will impact the tranquility we have worked hard to
achieve.
We moved to the Sky Crossing neighborhood in order to enjoy the relative piece and
quiet afforded by this sparse residential area in northern Phoenix. The parcel on the
SW corner of Deer Valley and Black Mountain Blvd., as originally zoned, is consistent
with this goal, intended as a residential community. I am asking that you reject the
Vestar development proposal and keep this land parcel zoned as residential for the
benefit of the surrounding community.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Jason Epstein
3317 E. Cashman Drive
Phoenix, AZ 85050
From: J
To: Anthony M Grande
Cc: PDD Desert View VPC
Subject: Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 9:47:22 PM
In reference to Cases:
GPA-DSTV-2-23-2
GPA-DSTV-3-23-2
Z-39-23
Hi Anthony,
I just ended a community meeting with the representatives from Vestar (Gammage &
Burnham) and my local community where the conceptual plan for black mountain village was
discussed. I have to say I am deeply disappointed with this proposal, that includes a request for
amending the districting of the land from residential to commercial and the build out of a 20
acre shopping center. From the call itself, many other community members were equally
disappointed and voiced their concerns.
I've read through the plan and the commentary as provided by the representatives of this build
out, that includes notes such as that this is to the benefit of the community in limiting drive
time and is intended to cater to the local area residents. I am a local resident and my current
shopping drive time is 5 minutes to the desert ridge shopping center. I do not agree that
bringing traffic, crime, pollution, litter, noise, and light are worth the benefit of saving me 5
minutes of drive time to do my regular shopping.
I originally purchased my home in the sky crossing community as a part of the desert ridge
specific plan, with the understanding that commercial placements would stay near the
commercial core of the desert ridge area. Should the concept be built, it is difficult to say that
the city did not intend to lure high income residents such as myself into the community with
intention to later change the zoning to benefit builders and local revenues over the safety and
peace of mind of it's residents. The city planners believed that this location would best serve
the community as residential zoning as per the Desert Ridge Specific Plan 6-44 under section
'Superblock 12'.
It is inarguable that commercial districts bring new types of crime to residential communities.
It is inarguable that commercial districts bring more traffic to local communities. The benefit
of building this shopping center, right next to current homes and a large high-school, must
outweigh the traffic, safety concerns, pollution, and noise that such a district would bring.
Since as written by representatives of the build that this shopping center would be to our
benefit, I fail to see what benefit that is that outweighs the safety of our local students and
peace of mind of residents of the local communities. When asked during tonight's phone call
about prioritizing pedestrian bridges for students and locals, the answers were that the
associated costs were prohibitive, likely indicating that the priority is not on benefit of
residents, but on revenue. Perhaps you can share the value-add that outweighs the risks of
commercial traffic near a school zone?
Should this build go through, my wife and I will likely leave the community. I've personally
experienced commercial districts being built next to otherwise quiet, residential locales, and
have heard the song and dance of attorneys who have promised minimal impacts and benefits
to the community. This was intended to be our forever home, and should we have to contend
with the risk of a large shopping center such as this one and the risks that shopping centers
bring, we will find ourselves residents of a new community and will encourage the multitude
of other community members who are equally disappointed to leave as well.
I ask that commercial districting stay within the current confines of existing commercial
districts, that we refrain from re-zoning residential districts to commercial districts found in
the desert ridge specific plan, and that the land we use keeps as planned by the original authors
of the desert ridge specific plan, unless and as agreed to, by residents of the community, not
builders seeking profit.
Thank you for your time and your consideration,
Josh
From: Barb Melsek
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Rezoning on Black Mountain
Date: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 8:58:15 PM
I am opposed to the rezoning from residential to commercial on Black Mountain Blvd and Deer Valley. This will
not be safe for the 100’s of children and staff that go to Pinnacle High School
Thanks,
Barb Melsek
Sent from my iPhone
From: Kenneth Miller
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Opposition to rezone
Date: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 2:56:45 PM
Hi Anthony,
As a 17 year resident of Aviano and living near deer valley I vehemently oppose the rezoning of The parcel of
land near pinnacle high school. I have had 3 kids go thru that school. The traffic is horrendous, the lure of a gas
station to buy tobacco and alcohol and generally hang out will be a detrimental to the kids and our nice quite pocket
away from all shopping and industry will be depleted. I feel, as a real estate agent that this will lower property
values and become a beacon for crime near our homes. Please reconsider. We will all be there at the October
meeting. Thank you
Debbie Miller
22008 north 36th way
Sent from my iPhone
From: C. Taylor Morgan
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Opposition to Black Mountain Village
Date: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 9:27:15 AM
Hello Mr. Grande,
My name is Christine Taylor Morgan and I am a resident of Scarlet Ridge in the Fireside
subdivision in Desert Ridge.
Over recent months I have become aware of the recent efforts by Vestar to rezone land nearby my
home to create a large shopping complex. I just want to add my deep concern and opposition to
such a development. I bought my house in 2011 and was comforted by the lack of commercial
development nearby. Desert Ridge shopping center is close enough (only a few blocks away!) for
all my shopping needs and Costco gas station is not far either and much cheaper alternative to
Jacksons. I worry about the increased traffic off the 51 and on Mayo (interfering with my exiting
my neighborhood), the danger to schoolchildren walking back and forth from school, the crime
and loitering that will inevitably follow, the negative impact this will have on the health and safety
of Pinnacle High School students, the increased light pollution and car exhaust pollution, and yes,
sadly, the increase in homeless near my home. My house backs up to a wash near Black Mountain
Blvd and I can foresee a future where homeless could possibly make an encampment behind my
house. It makes me feel like I may need to move for my own peace of mind and safety. Honestly, I
was hoping that a portion of the empty land in front of Pinnacle High School would have been
turned into a parking lot for the students or parents for pick-up and drop-off. It is absolutely
chaotic around the area for drop-offs and pick-ups. But of course, there is no profit in that.
I feel this development is completely unnecessary and would like to add my name to those who are
vehemently opposed to it. Thank you for your consideration and involvement in this matter.
Regards,
C. Taylor Morgan
From: julie richards
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Black Mountain Village
Date: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 11:54:23 AM
My family has lived in Aviano for the past 17 years. We have loved our quiet community and do not need or want a
shopping center close by. We strongly oppose Black Mountain Village.
Case number: GPA-DSTV 2-23-2 GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/z-39-23-2
Sent from my iPhone
From: Jodie Abrams
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Black Mountain Village
Date: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 9:27:02 AM
Re: cases GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2
To whom It May Concern:
I want to register my strong opposition to the proposed Black Mountain Village at Deer Valley and Black Mountain.
As residents we chose to live in Fireside at Desert Ridge for a clean, quiet and safe neighborhood which was built
under the Desert Ridge Specific Plan. To rezone for Vestar’s commercial purposes is a complete betrayal to this
community. Furthermore, this would drastically increase the traffic around the high school area and potentially put
the kids at risk for traffic accidents and crime. Please DO NOT allow the zoning to be changed.
Jodie Abrams
3872 E. Melinda Dr.
Phoenix, AZ 85050
From: JAYNE BAHOURA
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: No to vestar on deer valley and black mountain blvd.
Date: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 7:24:07 AM
Hello
You may not live in the area, but this is a super bad idea. The location is in the middle of neighborhoods. Nobody
wants the traffic or the noise this would create. We have desert ridge around the corner and cave creek rd. Both of
have plenty of gas stations and food options. Please do not consider this ludicrous idea. Its not an added value
location, it would be a community disrupter.
Thank you
Jayne Bahoura
Sent from Jayne
From: Cindy Bennette
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Vestar Rezoning
Date: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 1:20:27 PM
I am writing to inform you that I am extremely opposed to the Vestar plan to change the zoning from residential to
commercial at Deer Valley and Black Mountain Boulevard. There is already a major traffic issue on that corner,
children walk through that area and I am concerned that this will become an extreme hazard for them. Additionally,
it does not fit within the desert ridge master plan, and will create chaos for homeowners across the street. We
specifically moved to this area to avoid heavy commercial areas.
Thank you for your consideration, Cynthia Bennette
Sent from my iPhone
From: lburdett
To: Anthony M Grande; lburdett@q.com
Subject: Apposed to Rezoning Black Mountain Pkwy
Date: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 5:58:46 PM
Hi Anthony
I am writing to you to let you know I absolutely oppose the rezoning of Black Mountain
Parkway Blvd and Deer Valley Rd where they want to put in commercial zoning. Please don't
do this. Phoenix is developing every inch of land Arizona has!
Thank you
Laura Burdett
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
From: Diane Cash
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Rezoning
Date: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 10:34:10 PM
Anthony
I received the email talking about the rezoning of the area off of Deer Valley/Black Mountain putting in grocery
store, gas station, coffee shop etc.
I am opposed to this . Traffic in that area is always congested and busy with the high school.
We have plenty of stores and gas station at Desert Ridge
Is there a petition that I need to fill out?
Thank you
Diane
Sent from my iPhone
From: Bryant De Piazza
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: I oppose Black Mountain Blvd reasoning proposal for Vestar
Date: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 2:31:23 PM
Attachments: image001.png
Please do not approve the Vestar requested rezoning for Deer Valley and Black Mountain rd. We
already have too many cars and population clogging Tatum and Cave Creek roads and now they
want to do that next to the high school. This will also cause more danger for our young youth around
the high school and clog up that area. Please oppose.
Thank you
Bryant De Piazza | CEO
E: bryant.depiazza@dpgemelli.com
www.gemellihome.com [gemellihome.com]
From: Shelley Flecky
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: Fwd: Resident of Fireside - against rezone Black Mountain Village
Date: Thursday, September 14, 2023 6:53:13 AM
Begin forwarded message:
From: Shelley Flecky
Date: September 13, 2023 at 9:44:03 PM MST
To: anthony.grande@phoenix.gov, council.district.2@phoenix.gov
Subject: Resident of Fireside - against rezone Black Mountain Village
Hello,
I have been a resident of Fireside Desert Ridge since 2011. I now have a son at
Pinnacle High School. I am strongly against re-zoning the area by his school to
commercial. This was not the original plan and definitely after all the growth in
this area should not be the new plan. Traffic on Black Mountain Blvd is
horrendous and downright dangerous during school hours. I don’t think it is a safe
place to add more congestion. Please do not re-zone! The community does not
want this.
Thank you,
Shelley Flecky
Referencing case numbers GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2
From: Dana Hurwitz
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Oppose Rezoning Black Mtn Blvd and Deer Valley/Mayo
Date: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 6:59:25 PM
Hi Anthony
I am OPPOSED TO REZONING the residential area off Mayo and Black Mountain Blvd.
I have living in AZ my entire life. Up the street in Aviano community from Pinnacle High
School now for about 12 years. We opposed the freeway outlet onto BLack Mountian Blvd
when it is being proposed due to the high school and the ineffective bridge that was built over
Black Mountain Boulevard. Every day I watch highschoolers cut across the lanes near the
roundabout versus using the pedestrian bridge. That bridge was a huge waste of money as the
kids who live across the street do not use it. Duh teenagers many will find path of learnt
resistance/ effort. so this was a huge waste of our tax dollars and money and makes it very
dangerous for the kids. So not good planning there. Another negative is the traffic at PHS
during rush hour traffic. Great planning to clog up the very narrow street and bring 2k+ kids to
school during rush hour and adjacent to the freeway entrance. An entrance could have been
built near a less busy entrance or on the west side of the school or off 40th street where there is
no school.
I guess what I am saying is there seems to be little thought on what happens after things are
built out and how it actually impacts the folks who use it everyday. Safety in this first example
was and IS huge concern.
The principal at PHS opposes the rezoning. Many residents in nearby neighborhood and
families that attend PHS oppose the rezoning. The high school has very limited parking and
should be expanded to allow for the increase volume of students that attend the school. The
school grows more every year. I guess if this becomes commercial where do you think all the
sophomores will be parking or the kids who cannot get permits to park on campus?
I feel like Arizona for so long been inept at planning what is proper for communities, families
etc. I am good with not needing a grocery store two blocks from my home. There is a ton of
WOS off 40th street for development and seems more appropriate. Rezoning to commercial
will be an absolute headache for the school, parking, anyone trying to use business in the
proposed area. If you have not please drive though the area on a busy school morning and tell
me how you feel. Or maybe attend an event at the high school. The parents who attend the
school for event have to park in the fields off Mayo as there is just not enough space. I think if
any change is to come it should be parking.
I am opposed to the businesses to be clear. Fast food etc is the wrong thing to put in. This will
make community unhealthy, have too many More kids crossing BMB and very busy Deer
Valley from neighborhoods across the way. No control of pedestrian traffic, even if you try to
they are kids and may not abide. The heavily populated (family friendly)neighborhoods do not
need these businesses in their vicinity as there are plenty around and better if you have to seek
it out to ruin your health. Any entrance for business would be dangerous off Mayo or BMB…
Further down deer valley would be better, but not at or near the corner or DV and BMB or
mayo and BMB. There is just so many kids out walking and I don’t think adding any
congestion or entrance for business make sense.
I think desert, some parking for that area make the most sense for the community. Please help
our community this time to make the right decision and hold safety, what is logical for the
community, growth of the highschool at the forefront vs profits.
Thank you for your time and attention. I am OPPOSED TO REZONING TO
COMMERCIAL.
Dana Hurwitz
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 4:18:37 PM
Name
John N
Jcsiiajdis@proton.me
Support Comments
I am writing to express my very strong opposition to the proposed development and rezoning of the land from
residential to commercial at the Southwest Corner of Deer Valley and Black Mountain by Vestar Development
Group. The conversion of this residential area into a commercial zone would have severe consequences, detrimental
implications, and potentially devastating impacts on both the environment and the community. I implore you to
reconsider this decision and prioritize the well-being of the city, its residents, and its natural surroundings.
The City of Phoenix has outlined a comprehensive sustainability plan for the year 2050, with clear guidelines for
responsible development that considers the efficient usage of resources, including water. One crucial aspect of this
plan is the expansion of parks, preserves, and open spaces, ensuring that all residents are within a five-minute walk
of such spaces, but those spaces must be sustainable or else the whole point of having a commercial center within
walking distance is null. Furthermore, the goal of reducing urban heat-island effects through green infrastructure
and increasing tree and shade canopy coverage is paramount.
However, the proposed development contradicts these essential sustainability goals. Converting the area into a car-
centric commercial zone would undoubtedly lead to increased traffic congestion, resulting in higher CO2 emissions.
The associated light and noise pollution would disrupt the delicate balance of the ecosystem and erode the serene
character of the Sonoran Desert environment, its flora and fauna, and its natural aesthetic.
I urge you to consider the broader impact of this development on the city's future. Will it be in line with the City of
Phoenix's sustainability regulations, ensuring that the structures incorporate features such as vertical gardens and
agricultural areas on their roofs? Will there be proper infrastructure in place, including ample bicycle racks,
substantial green spaces covering over 80% of the area, and designs that prioritize pedestrian and micromobility
traffic over internal combustion engine vehicles? Specifically, bicycle lanes which are physically protected by a
barrier to protect cyclists from traffic?
The City of Phoenix has shown a commitment to reducing air pollution and safeguarding public health through
various programs and initiatives. However, this development project poses a significant threat by potentially
increasing the emission of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs), negatively impacting the environment, ecosystem,
and the health of the community.
The City of Phoenix states, “The City of Phoenix is strongly committed to reducing air pollution and protecting
public health. The city implements a wide range of air quality programs to reduce ozone and particulate pollution
(dust and smoke). Transit, light rail, bikeways, and pedestrian-friendly development reduce vehicle emissions and
promote land use planning and urban designs for a more sustainable environment”. How will this development
protect public health when in fact, it will introduce vulnerabilities witthin the community? It will actively degrade
and destroy the health of the surrounding community and communities.
Equally concerning is the potential destruction of native plants in the area due to this development. The loss of
biodiversity and destruction of the Sonoran Desert's unique ecosystem cannot be taken lightly.
The Environmental Protection Agency asserts that that, “Volatile organic compounds (VOC) means any compound
of carbon, excluding carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic carbides or carbonates, and
ammonium carbonate, which participates in atmospheric photochemical reactions”. These harmful chemicals would
be released into our atmosphere if the proposed development is approved. We must oppose and condemn this
egregious use of building authority with passion for the future of the City of Phoenix, and on a more global scale,
the Earth itself.
In light of these concerns, I wholeheartedly disagree and very strongly oppose the Vestar Development Group's
plans for the Southwest Corner of Deer Valley and Black Mountain. I urge you to immediately stop and
immediately halt all current and future development plans and instead prioritize the city's sustainability goals,
community well-being, and the preservation of the natural environment. By doing so, you can help shape a better
future for the City of Phoenix and its residents.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
From: ELONIA LASKU
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Oppose rezoning
Date: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 3:49:09 PM
To whom it may concern!
My family absolutely opposes the rezoning on Black Mountain Blvd.
Thank you!
Elonia Lasku DDS
Aviano resident
Sent from my iPhone
From: Heather Magill
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: rezoning on Black Mountain Blvd and Mayo Blvd
Date: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 2:36:11 PM
Mr. Grande,
My daughter attended Fireside, currently attends Mountain Trail Middle
School and will most likely go to Pinnacle HS next year. I am extremely
opposed to rezoning the SW Corner of Black Mountain Blvd and Mayo Blvd
into a commercial area.
This was intended to be a residential area not a commercial area.
People purchased their homes with the understanding they were in a
residential neighborhood. Allowing a developer to come in a rezone for
the developers financial benefit is a slap the neighbors face.
Neither Black Mountain Blvd nor Mayo were intended to be major
commercial thorough fairs and there are plenty of businesses within 1 to
3 miles that provide these proposed services. Those areas are in
commercially zoned areas and are major roads.
There are 5000+ students at this school. The area is congested enough
during school drop off and pick up hours and adding more congestion to
the area will create an even bigger risk of accidents especially with
student pedestrians and new drivers. We currently have a jaywalking
problem at that very intersection twice a day. Along with many cars
parking along the road for student pickup.
Rezoning the area to commercial appears to be a ploy for businesses to
target students who are still learning to manage impulse control and
money management. In addition, it increases the opportunities for
student truancy, loitering, littering, purchasing questionable products
such as vapes/alcohol they can easily hide and take directly into school.
Because the businesses will be overwhelmed with students and students
will try to park their to attend school rather than the school parking
lot, I suspect many signs will be posted ... "customer parking only", no
loitering, only "3 students the store at a time", "cars will be towed
after two hours", "no student drop off/pickup". They might even have to
higher a security service to prevent these activities creating a
negative environment at the business center and the neighborhood.
Based on on those items I believe commercial area will not benefit the
neighborhood but make it more stressful and unhappy to access.
Please ask yourself, would you want stores and a gas station to be built
right next to your home or to your child's school? Its one thing to
choose a place where that already exists, its quite another for someone
to change the rules after you have already purchased your home and
established your family.
Thank you for your attention in this matter.
Heather Magill
From: Heather McDonough
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Concerns for proposed land development
Date: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 2:39:23 PM
Hi Anthony,
I’d like to voice my concerns about having such a large commercial development so close to
the high school. I know that this area is underserved with things like grocery stores, but I have
some safety concerns. I’m concerned for a few of these reasons:
1. It will bring a bus stop to the area right outside the high school. Possibly opening it up to
panhandlers and homeless individuals that we have seen on the rise in Desert Ridge. Posing
safety risks to those who walk to and from school.
2. The traffic is already very bad in that area, and will likely cause more congestion and
traffic.
3. Loitering after school by the high school kids, causing safety concerns, also kids from the
high school parking in the shopping parking lots.
4. Noise and light pollution for those homes surrounding this area that has been proposed.
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
Heather McDonough
From: Eugene
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Opposition to Applications to Amend the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance for Desert Ridge
Date: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 9:45:37 AM
As you are aware, there are pending City of Phoenix Planning and Development Department
applications (GPA-DSTV-3-23-2 and Z-39-23), to amend the Desert Ridge Master Plan and zoning
ordinance to allow building a commercial shopping center in the middle of our residential
community! This level of over-development needs to stop NOW, and I request your support to deny
this change. Vestar is not interested in the quality of life in our community. This commercial center
would transform the neighborhood to absorb increased traffic, noise, lighting, pollution, and even
crime. What possible benefit can another neighborhood retail grocery store, gas station or
restaurant add to the abundance of retail shopping and dining at the Desert Ridge Mall and
surrounding areas?
Instead, I would ask that you consider developing this 20.5 acre site owned by the people of Arizona
(through the Arizona State Land Department) by planting trees and green landscaping for the use
and pleasure of your District 2 voters and their children rather than the profits for the Vestar
investors!
Sincerely,
Eugene F. Montgomery, PE
Sent from Mail [go.microsoft.com] for Windows
From: Camille Nassif
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2
Date: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 1:33:44 PM
Re: GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2
Project located at the corner of Deer Valley Road and Black Mountain
Please do not move forward with this re-zoning. We want to keep this area commercial free as was originally
planned and sold to us. There are commercial areas only a few blocks west on Tatum Blvd and a few blocks east on
Cave Creek - we do not need additional commercially designated zones with ones already so close.
There is already too much congestion at that same corner during the mornings and afternoons due to the adjacent
school and this will not only make it worse but also more dangerous for these students and for the neighboring
residents.
Thank you for your time and attention, Camille Nassif
From: Peggy Polito
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Oppose!!!!
Date: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 9:02:48 AM
Anthony Grande,
I’m letting you know, I absolutely oppose the rezoning on Black Mountain Blvd. When is enough….enough!
Peggy Polito
From: Richards, Dan
To: Anthony M Grande; Council District 2 PCC
Subject: Stop the Rezoning change on Parcel 212-38-023B (Black Mountain Village)
Date: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 2:16:00 PM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
Hello Mr. Grande and councilman Waring,
I wanted to bring this to your attention that people in the Desert Ridge area have paid ads popping up on their Facebook page
requesting people to sign their petition in support of the Vestar’s Black Mountain Village Devlopement. If this advertisement
is sponsored by Gammage and Burnham, is this even legal? This advertisement is very misleading, in a matter that could sway
the outcome of the legal representation that they’re providing to Vestar.
A major concern residents that live around this development have is that there is no way of knowing what is being considered
as part of this development. Once this is approved to be rezoned, Vestar can do whatever they want with this land. The
survey at the bottom of this page asks people to take a survey of which grocery store people would like to see in this
development. Below are the options that people can choose from:
Trader Joe’s = Between 10,000 and 15,000 square feet
Sprouts = 28,500 square feet
Whole Foods = Between 21,000 - 38,000 square feet
Safeway = 46,000 square feet
Fry’s = Between 80,000-105,000 square feet
I would say there’s a massive difference between the stores they are discussing in that online survey. We need to know if they
are discussing something smaller like a Trader Joe’s or something massive like a Fry’s. There is a huge difference between
these. There is no sense of connection or community if you’re planning on adding a Fry’s to this development. This is also not
catering to just the Desert Ridge community. Take a couple minutes to jump on the Nextdoor website/app and you’ll see an
incredible amount of people who live south of the 101 excited to see this development. This would allow them to stay off the
101 and just exit directly off the 51, onto Black Mountain Boulevard. This is not at all what Vestar is trying to promote with
this project! They’re promoting a sense of community and providing convenience for grocery stores and gas stations to
Desert Ridge residents.
If you open up google and type in GAS STATION you will find that there are 11 gas stations within 3 miles of this
intersection. Additionally, within 3 miles of this intersection you have a Costco, Fry’s, Albertsons, and Target. I can’t easily
count the number of restaurants in that 3 mile range, but you have over a 20 alone near Desert Ridge and including High
Street. There is absolutely no reason Vestar should be even considering a gas station at this location. The families that built
either directly across the street, or very close to this development, are being punished for no reason. We were told that this is
a residential superblock. The families that built in this area did so knowing that they would have a safe, quiet, area for their
children to grow up around. This is not what I want directly across the street from my young family. Fireside residents, Sky
Crossing resident, as well as the Estate at Ridgeview are uniting and we need to know we are being heard. This development
can not just be a formality, because of the auction price is too lucrative.
I sincerely hope you take my concerns into consideration when deciding the fate of this rezoning vote. I look forward to
speaking with both or you, in person, at the remaining council meetings.
Thanks,
Dan Richards
21618 N 36th Street
From: Dorie Sanders
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Rezoning proposal
Date: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 7:09:51 PM
Please DO NOT permit changed zoning on Deer Valley Rd and Black Mountain. You are ruining our desert. We
don’t want it or need it for all the reasons you’ve already heard. The traffic density is already saturated and our
community will suffer the consequences. We don’t want or need additional commercial development.
Sent from my iPhone
From: Tonia Schwartz
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Rezoning at Deer Valley & Black Mountain
Date: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 8:44:22 PM
Please do not rezone commercial! Maintain the family neighborhood and protect the area from
congestion and increased traffic.
Tonia Schwartz
Sent from Mail [go.microsoft.com] for Windows
From: Joanna Stockford
To: Anthony M Grande; Council District 2 PCC
Subject: Oppose rezoning on Black Mountain
Date: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 8:01:34 AM
To whom it may concern:
I strongly opposed the development of property at Deer Valley and Black Mountain. The traffic in this area is
already unmanageable and adding commercial property is only going to exacerbate this issue. It already takes an
extraordinary amount of time to get children to and from Pinnacle High School. And yes, we live in district for that
school. It will also create a safety hazard for students walking to and from school from the surrounding
neighborhoods. There is already a shortage of parking at the school- this parcel is used for special event parking
when the lot is full (football, etc.). This could lead to overflow parking now occurring in the nearby neighborhoods.
Desert Ridge Marketplace is 3 miles from this location and has everything anyone could need so the development of
this small parcel in the middle of a neighborhood right next to a school (also increasing the risk of crime) is
completely unnecessary. It should remained zoned for residential.
Thank you,
Joanna Stockford
Sent from my iPhone
From: Carol Ticgelaor
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Zoning on Black Mountain Parkway/ Deer Valley Road
Date: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 4:33:16 PM
Dear Sir,
I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed re-zoning effort by Vestar. There are two
schools very nearby, and I am concerned about the increased level of traffic in that area with a
commercial project.
My daughter and her young family live in the subdivision directly across from this proposed area. I
believe it is currently zoned for residential construction, which I believe to be the best use.
I appreciate your taking the time to consider my viewpoint.
Most respectfully,
Carol Fortune Ticgelaor
Sent from Mail [go.microsoft.com] for Windows
From: Marci Gluck-Stewart
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: No rezoning!
Date: Thursday, September 14, 2023 7:54:00 AM
I oppose the rezoning on black mountain Blvd near pinnacle high school. Please don’t allow this!!
Marci Gluck
Resident
Sent from my iPhone
From: Matt Gunty
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Oppose reZoning by Vestar
Date: Thursday, September 14, 2023 7:10:34 AM
As a long time resident of this area I oppose the reZoning petition by Vestar to move the Deer Valley/Black Canyon
freeway at Pinnacle peak from residential to commercial- this area has been over saturated with expansion and the
particular location will encroach in an area near a high school that already sees and influx of young drivers,
pedestrian and vehicular traffic.
Please support the constituency and not big business. Put your efforts towards getting bonds approved to construct a
much needed new high school in the Norterra area for an already over burdened system.
Sincerely,
Matthew Gunty
1005 w Remuda Dr
Phoenix AZ 85085
Sent from my iPhone
From: Dana Huether
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Rezoning
Date: Thursday, September 14, 2023 7:27:32 AM
I am very much opposed to rezoning of the corner of Deer Valley Road and Black Mt. Blvd.
My grandchildren are high school age (Pinnacle High).
Velstar Development's plan is not conducive to a family neighborhood It will bring excessive
traffic, noise and late night business into an area intended for family life.
Dana Huether
Phoenix AZ
From: Sharon Lee-Peters
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: OPPOSE VESTAR REZONING
Date: Thursday, September 14, 2023 5:35:41 AM
We absolutely oppose the rezoning on Black Mountain Blvd for a grocery store, a gas
station, either/and/or a chic fil a, chipotle, dutch bros, etc. on that little corner of space next
to Pinnacle High School.
PLEASE DON'T ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN! A gas station would be a disaster!
Thank you,
Sharon
Sharon Lee-Peters
Interior Designer
Anthony Peters
Contractor
https://www.facebook.com/sharon.lee.peters/ [facebook.com]
Style By Design LLC
21001 N Tatum Blvd
Suite 1630-160
Phoenix AZ 85050
602-788-1216
“I’m going to make everything around me beautiful—that will be my life.” - Elsie De Wolfe
From: Carefree Builders
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Stop the redone
Date: Thursday, September 14, 2023 11:18:33 PM
Hi Anthony ,
I live is SkyCrossing .
I would like to voice my opinion in this redone at black Mnt and deer Valley.
This does not seem like a good fit right next to a high school.
And it very close to the residential areas.
We all wish this would stay Residential land.
I do think this could devalue our home.
Thank you for your time .
Best Regards,
Mike Paluscio,
602.499.5955
Carefree Builders LLC
100 Easy St. #5607
Carefree, AZ 85377
ROC: 342992
From: Dee Willis
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Rezoning Black Mountain Blvd
Date: Thursday, September 14, 2023 4:56:38 PM
I object to the rezoning of Black Mountain near Mayo.
Sent from my iPhone
From: Michael Bozzelli
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: Fwd: Strong opposition to the proposed rezoning in Desert Ridge
Date: Friday, September 15, 2023 12:05:50 PM
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Michael Bozzelli
Date: Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 12:04ௗPM
Subject: Strong opposition to the proposed rezoning in Desert Ridge
To:
Mr. Grande and Mr. Waring,
I am a resident of Desert Ridge and a father of three young children. Our family moved here
this year for the distinct purpose of enjoying a quiet, safe neighborhood for our kids to grow
up in. I am very upset to learn that the land on Black Mountain is being considered for
rezoning as we already have so much traffic on our overwhelmed streets. Furthermore, we
have two schools filled with children within a block of each other that is very burdensome to
Black Mountain and Mayo.
Bringing in commercial development will further burden our streets, increase noise and
pollution, lower property values, raise safety issues, and put more of our neighborhood at
further risk of to commercial rezoning. I am strongly against this proposal, we moved here
specifically to escape this type of living.
Respectfully,
Mike Bozzelli
In reference of case GPA-DSTV-2-23-2 and Case GPA-DSTV-3-23-2 and Case Z-39-
23-2
From: ME Dahl
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Proposed rezoning on Black Mountain Blvd & Deer Valley Road
Date: Friday, September 15, 2023 2:27:19 PM
Good afternoon Mr. Grande,
As a long time Phoenix resident and taxpayer, it has come to my attention that there is a
proposal to rezone the area of southwest Black Mountain Blvd and Deer Valley Road on
the plot of land that is shared with Pinnacle High School.
Even with the widening of Deer Valley Road, the traffic in this area has grown exponentially
over the last four years with the addition of a thousand new homes. The traffic at Pinnacle
High School any given time of day, but especially during the morning drop off and afternoon
pick up, creates gridlock. The Friday night football games, with the shortage of parking
spaces, creates a foot and vehicle traffic nightmare with attendees parking wherever there
is a spot on and off campus, and having to walk in the dark to and from their cars presents
a danger.
Considering a rezone on this corner to add a commercial element that serves food and/or
gas, whose only purpose is to serve the developers, would not only be careless and
irresponsible from a safety standpoint, but inherently negligent at any number of possible
detriments to our neighbors.
Your taxpayers in this area are vehemently opposed to this idea. I hope that you and your
fellow city planners as well as the city council make the right decision.
Thank you for your consideration.
M.E. Dahl
Sent from Mail [go.microsoft.com] for Windows
Virus-free.www.avg.com [avg.com]
[avg.com]
From: Jia Zeng
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Keep Our Kids Safe - Oppose Rezoning at Black Mountain Blvd/Deer Valley
Date: Saturday, September 16, 2023 2:58:53 PM
Dear Mr. Grande,
I am reaching out as a worried resident at Fireside Desert Ridge,
deeply concerned about the safety of the students and the families of
those who are attending Fireside Elementary and Pinnacle High School.
The rezoning proposed in cases GPA-DSTV-2-23-2, GPA-DSTV-3-23-2, and
Z-39-23-2 will severely increase traffic in our quiet community.
Every day, we see numerous students walking and bicycling to school, a
sight that warms our hearts and speaks of a safe, close-knit
community. Introducing a commercial hub will put these innocent lives
at risk, disrupting the safety and tranquility that currently
envelopes our neighborhood.
I urge you to consider the peace of mind of countless parents and
guardians, and reject this rezoning proposal. Let's keep our
neighborhood safe and conducive for our children's growth.
Thank you for your consideration.
Regards,
Jia Zeng
From: Nikki Branstiter
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Oppose Commercial build near Pinnacle High School
Date: Sunday, September 17, 2023 7:45:06 PM
Hi Anthony,
I oppose building anything commercial near Pinnacle High School. It would bring so much more traffic to an
already congested area and more crime. Not a good place to put it. Highly oppose the idea.
Nikki Branstiter
From: Maripat"s
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Fireside zoning
Date: Sunday, September 17, 2023 8:30:00 PM
Dear Mr Grande,
I am a resident of the Fireside Community and I am concerned about the potential action to change the zoning at
Black Mountain and Deer Valley from residential to commercial. Most importantly is the proximity to Pinnacle
High School. Looking at high schools in both Paradise Valley & Scottsdale school districts most of them, if not all,
are set within the community, surrounded by homes, parks, churches and other schools. This provides easy, safer
accessibility and safety for students and families within the community, and it is how the community was designed.
Changing to a commercial development at that particular location is not a wise functional or safety decision for our
community. I hope we can have your support to maintain the residential zoning as designed.
Respectfully,
Mary Burrell
Fireside resident Zachary Dr
Sent from my iPhone
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Sunday, September 17, 2023 9:07:20 PM
Name
Christine Cowley
christine.cowley@abbvie.com
Support Comments
I ABSOlUTELY do NOT support this project! Do not put a commercial property across from pinnacle HS-
what a traffic and safety NIGHTMARE!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Sunday, September 17, 2023 3:14:26 PM
Name
Patrick Gaylor
patrick_gaylor@yahoo.com
Support Comments
I live in one of these neighborhoods. This area is littered with kids riding bikes and people walking their
pets. The area does not have the roads/streets to support this growth.
From: Nancy Jones
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Oppose Vestar Desert Ridge Request
Date: Sunday, September 17, 2023 9:52:40 PM
I am writing to register my opposition to the request to develop the parcel at Black Mountain
Parkway and Deer Valley:
Minor General Plan Amendment GPA-DSTV-2-23-2
Specific Plan Amendment GPA-DSTV-3-23-2
Rezone Z-39-23
This is an incompatible use and will create more congestion in an already high traffic area. We
already have plenty of shopping in Desert Ridge Marketplace.
Thank you.
Nancy Jones
4029 E Via Montoya Dr
Phoenix AZ 85050
Sent from my iPhone
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Sunday, September 17, 2023 3:44:15 PM
Name
Dawn Martinez
dawnalexm@yahoo.com
Support Comments
I do not, I repeat, I do not support this development. This will cause the traffic to be even worse than it is,
especially by the high school.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Sunday, September 17, 2023 8:01:27 PM
Name
Jody Wilmes
jody.wilmes@hotmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Sky crossing.
Support Comments
I DO NOT SUPPORT FOR MANY REASONS.
From: C Dunn
To: Anthony M Grande; Council District 2 PCC
Subject: Vestar"s Proposal for Superblock 12
Date: Monday, September 18, 2023 12:27:22 PM
To All Concerned With This Issue:
Unless you have personally been involved with transporting students to and from
Pinnacle High School, as I have for the last three years, you cannot appreciate the
traffic challenges that occur on a daily basis. Much like a horse race, vehicles
jockey for the best position to beat the clock. We have vehicles traveling east and
west on Mayo Blvd. We have vehicles traveling north and south on Black Mountain
Blvd. We have vehicles traveling north and south on 34th Street. We even have
vehicles from both directions turning onto Black Mountain Blvd from Deer Valley.
All converge at the major intersection of Black Mountain Blvd and Mayo Blvd
directly in front of the high school. Then, as each vehicle maneuvers into the
correct lane for left turns, right turns, U-turns, and even the occasional illegal turn,
the students gather en masse in the middle of the intersection, awaiting the signal
to cross. The old adage that there is safety in numbers definitely applies here. But
even under the best of conditions, some students can be seen darting across
traffic, crossing against the light, and jaywalking. Add to that a plethora of parents
anxious to get their students to school on time, inexperienced student drivers, and
the crush of daily traffic --- and you have nothing less than a recipe for disaster.
With the high school located at the intersection of Black Mountain and Mayo
Boulevards and with the never-ending vehicular traffic at that intersection, we will
always have traffic congestion at this location. However, we can definitely avoid
compounding these already existing traffic issues by prohibiting commercial
developments in this area. Vestar's proposal promises round-the-clock businesses
with round-the-clock traffic. If Vestar’s proposal were to be approved, the result
would be nothing less than a first-class disaster.
Please DO NOT approve Vestar's proposal.
Carolyn Dunn
3752 E Covey Ln
Phoenix, AZ 85050
From: Jason Epstein
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Re: Vestar Rezoning Proposal for SW Corner of Deer Valley and Black Mountain Blvd.
Date: Monday, September 18, 2023 9:35:30 PM
Hello Mr. Grande,
Last Tuesday, I had the chance to attend a briefing from Gammage & Burnham,
Attorneys at Law, representing Vestar in the proposal to commercially develop the
southwest corner of Black Mountain Boulevard and Deer Vally Road. The speaker
was able to partially address some of the concerns I raised previously, but many
issues remain.
Some of the points he made are below:
There are too few grocery stores in the area.
Albertson's, Costco, and Fry's are all less than a 10-minute drive from the
communities surrounding this parcel. More importantly, everyone in these
communities has cars and deliberately chose to live here, happily accepting the
distance from their homes to the local grocery stores.
Any gas station must be associated with the grocery store and will not
include a convenience store.
While this is somewhat helpful, standalone gas stations can attract aggressive
driving and crime. In addition, there is no guarantee that these rules will be in
place in the future. Once the infrastructure is availabie, a change to the rules
(just as this zoning change was proposed) is possible with the potential to allow
a standalone gas station (including an attached convenience store) to be put in
its place.
Some of the business will have limited hours.
It was not clear which businesses, if not all, this curfew would apply to and the
specific time of this curfew. Similar to my concerns about the gas station, all-
night businesses can attract aggressive driving and crime, and add to light
pollution. Also, similar to my concerns for the proposed gas station, curfews can
be repealed. The only way to prevent this is to not build the infrastructure in the
first place.
A traffic study was performed to mitigate traffic impact. Also, they expect
only local community members to frequent these businesses.
There is nothing to prevent more cars, coming from outside the immediate area,
from driving to these businesses and adding to traffic.
These business will increase the walkability score for the immediate
neigborhood and add health benefits as they encourage more walking.
This seems to be an unlikely outcome since the city of Phoenix, especially the
suburbs, is very much a vehicle-oriented culture. In addition, it is too hot for
several months out of the year to walk. (In my own community of Sky Crossing,
most people drive to the community center even when many of them live less
than half a mile away.)
I hope you will consider these concerns that are shared by many of my neighbors
around re-zoning this parcel to be commercial. I encourage you to oppose it.
Thank you!
Jason Epstein
3317 E. Cashman Drive
Phoenix, AZ 85050
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 04:06:47 PM MST, Jason Epstein
Thanks a lot!
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 03:49:19 PM MST, Anthony M Grande
Good afternoon.
Thank you for your comment on this case. This email will be added to the case file and provided to the
Village Planning Committee members prior to the hearing date.
Thanks,
Anthony
Anthony Grande, AICP
Planner II – Village Planner
Planning & Development Department
Long Range Planning
Office: 602-256-5648
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
From: Jason Epstein
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 11:59 AM
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Vestar Rezoning Proposal for SW Corner of Deer Valley and Black Mountain Blvd.
Hello Mr. Grande,
I have recently learned of the Vestar development proposal to rezone and
commercially develop the land parcel on the SW corner of Deer Valley and Black
Mountain Blvd. This is addressed in case no. GPA-DSTV-3-23-2 and Z-39-23.
As a resident of the Sky Crossing community, on the north side of Deer Valley, I
oppose this rezoning proposal. It threatens our quality of life for the following reasons:
- The proposed commercial businesses will add additional automobile traffic, which
will increase air and noise polution.
- The increased automobile traffic, just feet from Pinacle High School, will also
threaten the safety of these students as motorists continuously drive in and out of this
complex. As parents of a young child who will eventually attend this high school, we
are very concerned about this impact.
- These businesses will add to light polution. The Sky Crossing HOA residential rules
have deliberately restricted lighting on housing in order to preserve our views of the
night sky. Our residents have enjoyed dark nights with full views of the stars. Bright
lights from all-night businesses will impact the tranquility we have worked hard to
achieve.
We moved to the Sky Crossing neighborhood in order to enjoy the relative piece and
quiet afforded by this sparse residential area in northern Phoenix. The parcel on the
SW corner of Deer Valley and Black Mountain Blvd., as originally zoned, is consistent
with this goal, intended as a residential community. I am asking that you reject the
Vestar development proposal and keep this land parcel zoned as residential for the
benefit of the surrounding community.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Jason Epstein
3317 E. Cashman Drive
Phoenix, AZ 85050
From: Bob Giammarco
To: Anthony M Grande; Council District 2 PCC
Subject: Do not let Vestar re-zone in Desert Ridge
Date: Monday, September 18, 2023 7:14:34 AM
Importance: High
Mr. Grande, Councilmen Warring,
Please note my strong objection to the rezoning of Superblock 12 in Desert Ridge, the
property at the corner of Black Mountain Blvd. and Deer Valley Road.
This project is ill-conceived and unnecessary. The safety and traffic concerns are enormous
next door to a high school and across the street from an elementary school. There’s no need
for another grocery store in the area, and there are a number of other commercially zoned
parcels in the area if a developer wants to risk their capital. There’s no reason to re-zone this
parcel beyond Vestar’s desire to make more money and Gamage and Burnham to generate
more fees.
I urge you to reject this re-zoning and any future attempts to do so.
Sincerely,
Bob Giammarco (480) 540-0644
https://linktr.ee/bobgiammarco [linktr.ee]
From: Michael Coppola
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: GPA-DSTV-2-23-2
Date: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 6:43:33 AM
Attachments: IMG-3094.PNG
IMG-3095.PNG
IMG-3098.PNG
IMG-3097.PNG
IMG-3096.PNG
IMG-3099.PNG
IMG-3100.PNG
Residents are opposed to this development to rezone this parcel to commercial. The
developer's lawyer was less than truthful when presenting to the Sky Crossing residents and
failed to show what was available South of the 101 in his 5-mile radius from the site. Nobody
wants increased traffic, light, noise and air pollution.
From: Jason Epstein
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: Fw: Vestar Rezoning Proposal for SW Corner of Deer Valley and Black Mountain Blvd.
Date: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 8:40:07 AM
Hello,
I received an out-of-office message from Anthony suggesting I contact this email
address instead. I want to make sure my comments on this rezoning proposal are
considered as part of the final decision.
I strongly oppose the proposal to rezone this parcel to be commercial. My reasons
are in my two emails below.
Thank you for your consideration.
Jason
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Jason Epstein
To: Anthony M Grande
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2023 at 09:35:22 PM MST
Subject: Re: Vestar Rezoning Proposal for SW Corner of Deer Valley and Black Mountain Blvd.
Hello Mr. Grande,
Last Tuesday, I had the chance to attend a briefing from Gammage & Burnham,
Attorneys at Law, representing Vestar in the proposal to commercially develop the
southwest corner of Black Mountain Boulevard and Deer Vally Road. The speaker
was able to partially address some of the concerns I raised previously, but many
issues remain.
Some of the points he made are below:
There are too few grocery stores in the area.
Albertson's, Costco, and Fry's are all less than a 10-minute drive from the
communities surrounding this parcel. More importantly, everyone in these
communities has cars and deliberately chose to live here, happily accepting the
distance from their homes to the local grocery stores.
Any gas station must be associated with the grocery store and will not
include a convenience store.
While this is somewhat helpful, standalone gas stations can attract aggressive
driving and crime. In addition, there is no guarantee that these rules will be in
place in the future. Once the infrastructure is availabie, a change to the rules
(just as this zoning change was proposed) is possible with the potential to allow
a standalone gas station (including an attached convenience store) to be put in
its place.
Some of the business will have limited hours.
It was not clear which businesses, if not all, this curfew would apply to and the
specific time of this curfew. Similar to my concerns about the gas station, all-
night businesses can attract aggressive driving and crime, and add to light
pollution. Also, similar to my concerns for the proposed gas station, curfews can
be repealed. The only way to prevent this is to not build the infrastructure in the
first place.
A traffic study was performed to mitigate traffic impact. Also, they expect
only local community members to frequent these businesses.
There is nothing to prevent more cars, coming from outside the immediate area,
from driving to these businesses and adding to traffic.
These business will increase the walkability score for the immediate
neigborhood and add health benefits as they encourage more walking.
This seems to be an unlikely outcome since the city of Phoenix, especially the
suburbs, is very much a vehicle-oriented culture. In addition, it is too hot for
several months out of the year to walk. (In my own community of Sky Crossing,
most people drive to the community center even when many of them live less
than half a mile away.)
I hope you will consider these concerns that are shared by many of my neighbors
around re-zoning this parcel to be commercial. I encourage you to oppose it.
Thank you!
Jason Epstein
3317 E. Cashman Drive
Phoenix, AZ 85050
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 04:06:47 PM MST, Jason Epstein
Thanks a lot!
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 03:49:19 PM MST, Anthony M Grande
Good afternoon.
Thank you for your comment on this case. This email will be added to the case file and provided to the
Village Planning Committee members prior to the hearing date.
Thanks,
Anthony
Anthony Grande, AICP
Planner II – Village Planner
Planning & Development Department
Long Range Planning
Office: 602-256-5648
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
From: Jason Epstein
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 11:59 AM
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Vestar Rezoning Proposal for SW Corner of Deer Valley and Black Mountain Blvd.
Hello Mr. Grande,
I have recently learned of the Vestar development proposal to rezone and
commercially develop the land parcel on the SW corner of Deer Valley and Black
Mountain Blvd. This is addressed in case no. GPA-DSTV-3-23-2 and Z-39-23.
As a resident of the Sky Crossing community, on the north side of Deer Valley, I
oppose this rezoning proposal. It threatens our quality of life for the following reasons:
- The proposed commercial businesses will add additional automobile traffic, which
will increase air and noise polution.
- The increased automobile traffic, just feet from Pinacle High School, will also
threaten the safety of these students as motorists continuously drive in and out of this
complex. As parents of a young child who will eventually attend this high school, we
are very concerned about this impact.
- These businesses will add to light polution. The Sky Crossing HOA residential rules
have deliberately restricted lighting on housing in order to preserve our views of the
night sky. Our residents have enjoyed dark nights with full views of the stars. Bright
lights from all-night businesses will impact the tranquility we have worked hard to
achieve.
We moved to the Sky Crossing neighborhood in order to enjoy the relative piece and
quiet afforded by this sparse residential area in northern Phoenix. The parcel on the
SW corner of Deer Valley and Black Mountain Blvd., as originally zoned, is consistent
with this goal, intended as a residential community. I am asking that you reject the
Vestar development proposal and keep this land parcel zoned as residential for the
benefit of the surrounding community.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Jason Epstein
3317 E. Cashman Drive
Phoenix, AZ 85050
From: Michael O"Neil
To: Anthony M Grande; Council District 2 PCC
Subject: Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 - Opposition
Date: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 1:21:17 PM
Good afternoon Anthony Grande and Jim Waring,
As a current resident of the Sky Crossing Community, I strongly oppose the rezoning of the
parcel of land at the southwest corner of Deer Valley Drive and Black Mountain Parkway.
Minor General Plan Amendment GPA-DSTV-2-23-2
Specific Plan Amendment GPA-DSTV-3-23-2
Rezone Z-39-23-2
Thank you,
--
Michael O'Neil
508.769.5886
From: allie swanson
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Zoning for area of Black Mountain Rd and Deer Valley Road
Date: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 3:19:35 PM
Dear Mr. Grande,
We bought our home in Sky Crossing the Fall of 2019. We were told that the vacant land at Black Mountain Rd and
Deer Valley Rd was zoned for residential only! Since we have been in our home, we constantly hear of violence,
abductions, and drugs at Desert Ridge shopping area (just a couple miles East of our community). The last thing we
want is to bring to our area are those type of issues along with more traffic. Also, this vacant land sits right in
conjunction with Pinnacle HS. The traffic is already bad and we don’t want drugs or violence around our kids.
Please help us ensure this are will remain zoned Residential!!
Sincerely,
Allyson Swanson
Sky Crossing Resident/32nd St
From: James Tuffin
To: Anthony M Grande; PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: RE: GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2 Black Mountain Village
Date: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 11:26:01 AM
Attachments: opposition.pdf
Dear Mr. Grande:
This email is to supplement my letter of August 23, 2023, a copy of which is attached for ease of
reference. The proposed change is not justified and is highly inequitable. The justifications offered
for the change are specious. The obvious goal is not to benefit nearby homeowners, but to draw
traffic from SR 51 now that the terminal exit is connected to Black Mountain Boulevard.
On or about August 30, 2023, Vestar amended its request for a major amendment to the Desert
Ridge Specific Plan (“DRSP”), amending Chapter 6 to state, in part, that:
“Superblock 12 is located west of a possible future connection to the Squaw PIESTEWA Peak
Parkway, which separates this superblock from the balance of the Desert Ridge community.
BECAUSE OF THIS SEPARATION, THIS SUPERBLOCK CAN SUPPORT LIMITED COMMERCIAL
USES WITHOUT INTERFERING WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE DESERT RIDGE CORE
(DEVELOPMENT PARCEL 5.A). RESIDENTIAL Development parcels may vary in size by 30
percent 25 percent for R1-6 and more dense zoning categories without a minor plan
amendment).” [Exhibit A to GPA-DSTV-3-23-2, accessed 08/19/23 at Microsoft Word - GPA-
DSTV-3-23-2 Exhibit A-Proposed Language Revised 2023-08-30.docx (gblaw.com)
[gblaw.com]]
The proposed change, and the rationale offered for it, flatly contradict a fundamental principle of
the DRSP. The DRSP does not accept distance from the commercial core as justification for building a
20-acre shopping center. To the contrary, it specifies that distance from the commercial core should
correlate with less intensive land use:
“ . . . Desert Ridge is based on the urban village concept in that all community and regional
commercial uses are located in the Desert Ridge Village Center. Very small neighborhood
convenience commercial uses are appropriately placed internally within neighborhood units.
The Desert Ridge Village Center is appropriately the "urban" core of Area C. Land uses are
the most intense in and around the Village Center in Desert Ridge, logically reducing in
density with increasing distance from the commercial/employment center and continuing
beyond the project boundaries. “[DRSP 3.B. (Goal 1) @ p. 3-1, accessed 09/19/23 at Table
of Contents (phoenix.gov) (emphasis supplied)] .
The DRSP acknowledges that residential neighborhoods should be protected from the adverse
environmental impacts from commercial development:
A total of 18 neighborhood convenience commercial acres, or a maximum of 90,000 square
feet of gross leasable area, excluding child care facilities, for all of Desert Ridge outside of
the Village Center will be allowed subject to the criteria and standards in Chapter 6. This
criteria will minimize the adverse environmental impact on the residential neighborhoods
typically associated with commercial development. [DRSP 5. C.1, @p. 5-5] (emphasis
supplied).
The clear intent of the DRSP was to concentrate all significant commercial development in the core.
At a community meeting, Vestar’s counsel argued that because only one of the allowed commercial
conveniences was ever built, a sprawling 20-acre shopping center is now justified. This turns the
logic of the DRSP on its’ head. The criteria were meant to protect homeowners from the evils of
urban sprawl shopping centers, not to promote commercial development outside the core.
Vestar was the original developer of the Desert Ridge Marketplace (“DRM”), and presumably it had a
seat at the table in determining the contents of the DRSP before ground was broken. Vestar was no
doubt happy to accept the centrality of the core for retail development in Desert Ridge for many
years. According to news reports, Vestar extinguished its 99 year lease and took full ownership of
DRM as the sole bidder in an auction staged in December of 2022. Its claim that the proposed
change will “not interfere with the development of the Desert Ridge Core” is nothing more than a
statement that Vestar does not think it will hurt itself. This cruel irony does not address any of the
numerous concerns raised by the community.
I am aware of a social media campaign attempting to induce people to endorse a petition in favor of
a “New Grocer” at the location. While I continue to believe that the contents of these posts are
misleading, a fundamental point is that the DRSP clearly notified homebuyers that they were not to
expect another shopping center in Desert Ridge. There have been no reports of malnutrition or
scurvy related to a lack of grocery stores in Desert Ridge. There are grocery stores and plenty of
shopping centers of the type proposed by Vestar nearby on Bell Road and other locations. The
abstract desire of some residents for a Trader Joe’s or AJ’s (even though Vestar says it cannot
identify any prospective tenant) cannot justify the concrete harm that will be done to the reasonable
expectations of nearby homeowners.
The lack of one of these smaller boutique specialty grocers within the existing commercial core must
be in large part the result of business decisions made by Vestar. It is widely believed in the
community that Albertson’s was granted extensive guarantees against competition; if that is true
Vestar was surely involved in that decision.
Vestar claims, among other things, that the shopping center will provide a safe place for high
schoolers to eat lunch. I have been informed that Pinnacle High School is a closed campus and that
only seniors are allowed to exit the school grounds during the school day.
The DRSP acknowledges commercial development imposes adverse consequences on nearby
residences. Vestar reaped enormous benefits and was perfectly satisfied to build the marketplace
under the plan. Residents were clearly told not to expect a shopping center at Black Mountain and
Deer Valley. That Vestar sees opportunity for profit after completion of the SR 51 terminal exit is
not reason to make a major amendment to the DRSP and subject innocent homeowners to the
inevitable degradation of the neighborhood.
The requested amendments should be denied.
Thank you for your consideration.
James W. Tuffin
James.tuffin@tuffinlaw.com (retired attorney not offering services to the public)
21214 N 36th Pl
Phoenix, AZ 85050
JAMES W. TUFFIN
21214 N. 36th Pl
Phoenix, Arizona 85050
(516) 359-6420
james.tuffin@tuffinlaw.com
(retired attorney not offering services to the public)
August 22, 2023
VIA EMAIL (anthony.grande@phoenix.gov)
Mr. Anthony Grande
Planner II – Village Planner
Planning & Development Department
Re: GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2; Resident Statement in Opposition
Dear Mr. Grande:
I reside in Desert Ridge, and I am opposed to the above listed applications. My home is well west of the
commercial core, overlooking Black Mountain Boulevard and Pinnacle High School (“PHS”), and with a
view of the parcel in question. I have reviewed the application materials posted on the website of
Applicant’s (“Vestar”) counsel, and I attended the informational meeting of the Desert View Village
Planning Committee on August 1, 2023.
The requested change is beyond inequitable, it is unconscionable. It does extreme violence to the terms
of the Desert Ridge Specific Plan (“DRSP”)1 and the reasonable expectations of Desert Ridge
homeowners along Black Mountain Boulevard under the terms of the plan. It does nothing to further the
well-being of nearby residents and poses myriad problems. The arguments offered by Vestar to justify the
change do not pass muster, as will be readily demonstrated below.
THE PROPOSED CHANGE IS AN EXTREME DEPARTURE FROM THE DRSP
DRSP contemplates that “commercial development is restricted to the Village Center . . .” except for
“neighborhood commercial uses located within the residential superblocks”.2 DRSP goes on to explain
the extremely limited size and scope of such commercial uses:
The neighborhood convenience commercial centers are very limited in
size. They are intended to serve only the superblock in which they are
located and not intended to serve a population outside the superblock
boundary. The maximum total acreage for neighborhood retail uses,
including buildings, parking, landscaping, and any other items related to
the existence of the neighborhood retail use, shall be three (3) net acres,
while the minimum acreage will be one (1) net acre. 3
City of Pheonix Planning & Development
August 22, 2023
Page 2
Furthermore, DRSP strictly limits the permitted uses within non-core superblocks, and the list does not
include gas stations or drive-through coffee operations4, both of which were touted by Vestar’s counsel at
the informational meeting. Indeed, DRSP specifically prohibits “Drive-through uses”.5
Under the DRSP, no family purchasing a single-family home in a non-core superblock would reasonably
anticipate having a drive-through Dutch Brothers or Starbucks, or a gas station, across the street from
their home. Vestar now proposes a 20-acre commercial development in Superblock 12. 6 Vestar is
essentially asking the City of Phoenix to throw out DRSP and stab nearby homeowners in the back.
OBVIOUS INTENT TO DRAW ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC FROM SR 51
When Black Mountain Boulevard south of Mayo Boulevard was completed and made the terminal exit of
SR 51, concerns of nearby residents were addressed by placing a traffic circle to slow down traffic and
discourage heavy trucks, and by providing a pedestrian bridge for safe access to PHS.
The proposed change represents a complete reversal of what was until now a concerted effort to keep
Black Mountain Boulevard more quiet and more safe. The placement of the proposed shopping center, at
the first traffic light after the SR 51 terminal exit, is obviously intended to attract vehicles that would
otherwise continue west on SR 101 and exit at Cave Creek Road or further west. It is a repudiation of
DRSP’s promise that homeowners could expect to live in clean, quiet neighborhoods while commercial
activity was limited to the Village Commercial Core.
MAGNET FOR UNSUPERVISED ADOLOSCENTS
Placement of the shopping center within spitting distance of PHS is problematic. This is not meant to
disparage the PHS student body as a whole. Nevertheless, in any group of over 2500 teenagers7, there will
be those whose immaturity or lack of direction makes them prone to get in trouble. While the studious
and industrious will disperse to more wholesome activities, there will undoubtedly be those who choose
to hang out. The shopping center, just across a narrow street from PHS, will obviously become the hang
out venue of choice.
There are numerous reports of problems with unsupervised teenagers in retail environments across the
country8, and unsupervised time leads to drug use and other issues.9 Given the location, these problems
will undoubtedly spill over into the surrounding residential areas, which already experience litter, graffiti,
vandalism and doorbell pranking. Encouraging high concentrations of hundreds of unsupervised teenagers
cannot be a benefit to the teenagers or anyone else. It is best for all concerned if the students disperse
when not involved in supervised activities.
Vestar claims that the presence of the high school makes the parcel unsuitable for development as
currently zoned.10 The opposite is true. DRSP and the existing zoning contemplate Superblock 12 to
contain only the high school and residential use. PHS opened in or about 2000. Nothing has changed
about PHS that would justify depriving nearby homeowners of their reasonable expectations under DRSP.
City of Pheonix Planning & Development
August 22, 2023
Page 3
AIR, NOISE AND LIGHT POLLUTION
DRSP prohibits “Drive-through uses”11 in non-core superblocks for very good reasons. These operations
generate considerable pollution. Not only are PHS and numerous homes nearby, but Fireside Elementary
is not far and generally downwind. Air pollution from idling engines is a serious problem12, and some
communities have gone so far as to try banning drive-through operations entirely13. The air quality in
Phoenix, and Maricopa County generally, is notoriously poor with many “bad air” days. 14 Encouraging
drivers to turn their motors off while waiting will never work when the temperature is over 90 degrees.
DRSP’s approach of limiting these operations to the Village Commercial Core is not arbitrary and should
be maintained.
Although Deer Valley Drive and Black Mountain Boulevard have some traffic at rush hours, things tend
to quiet down in the evening and there is a distinct residential tone to the neighborhood. This holds true
when attendees disburse after PHS Friday night football. The proposed shopping center will keep the
noise up and the lights on much later than nearby residents are used to, greatly diminishing the residential
character of the community.
TRAFFIC CONGESTION
I am aware that other residents have commented on traffic issues. I will not belabor the point here, except
to note that in the chaos that occurs every morning when PHS is in session, I have at times been unable
access westbound Mayo Boulevard from the N. 36th Way gate of my community. Vestar contemplates
cars entering and exiting the shopping center on all four surrounding streets. This would include Mayo
Boulevard directly across from PHS, and will surely exacerbate the existing problems.
VESTAR’S SCHEME IS NOT JUSTIFIED
Vestar’s purported justifications of its scheme do not withstand scrutiny.
There are no traffic or parking impediments to residents obtaining daily needs at the Desert
Ridge Marketplace (“DRM”).
DRM was designed to enable local folks to get to the pharmacy, gas station, grocery store, and various
other businesses without getting involved with traffic headed to the big box stores, apparel outlets or
entertainment district. The local needs providers are located in the northwest corner of the marketplace
and are readily accessed from two curb cuts on Deer Valley Drive just east of Tatum Boulevard. The
apparel and box stores, as well as the entertainment district, are closer to other, much larger, parking lots
which are served by numerous additional entrances to DRM. I have lived in Desert Ridge for over 11
years and have never, even on Black Friday, had a problem finding parking at Albertson’s. To illustrate
this, I recorded a video at Grocery Run Sat 08-19-2023 - YouTube. 15
City of Pheonix Planning & Development
August 22, 2023
Page 4
The proposed center is unlikely to provide alternative groceries.
At the informational meeting, Vestar’s counsel admitted that Vestar is unable to identify any
specific grocer that would occupy the proposed grocery store. Although Vestar says it expects
the grocery store to be smaller than the existing Albertson’s, its counsel conceded that none of
the proposed businesses are sure to occupy the shopping center. Assuming that a grocery store is
established, there is no reason to believe that it will offer merchandise different that that offered
at Albertsons.
Creation of minimum wage retail jobs is not a community priority.
The small number of jobs projected to be “created” on the new shopping center could easily be
placed elsewhere. It should also be noted that substantial construction is taking place at nearby
High Street and City North where much higher density residences, offices, and retail spaces are
being built.
Purported benefits to the community are illusory at best.
Keeping the Current Zoning will have the same effect on dust and storm runoff.
The supposed dust control and storm runoff management benefits are speculative and
unquantified. In 11 years, I have never seen significant flooding along Black Mountain
Boulevard. Residential development at the site would have the same effect.
The “safe alternative” for students is illusory.
Encouraging teenagers to consume junk fast food benefits no one. The so called “safe alternative
. . . before school, after school, and during the lunch hour” actually describes an unsupervised
hangout for hundreds of teenagers with all the attendant problems described above. A
concession by PHS’s principal that the project “would potentially reduce the number of off-
campus trips by car”16 hardly demonstrates a full-throated endorsement of the scheme. Had there
been a firm expression of general support for the project from anyone in authority at PHS or the
school district, Vestar would surely have mentioned it in its explanatory letters.
The residential remnant shows how the change is repugnant to DRSP.
The fact that Vestar wants to gobble up 20 acres of the Superblock while leaving a mere remnant
for residences demonstrates how the proposal is repugnant to both the letter and spirit of DRSP.
City of Pheonix Planning & Development
August 22, 2023
Page 5
The gas station and shopping center have no health benefits and will not be a community social
center.
There is nothing about the proposed project that will foster connection among the citizens. There
are innumerable such shopping centers around Phoenix, and there is nothing unique about this
proposal. There are no outdoor parks, exhibition or performance spaces illustrated on the
Conceptual Site Plan. The purported health benefits are nothing but speculation. It is my
observation after 11 years living here that very few people walk with groceries around Desert
Ridge, regardless of the season. The health hazards of innumerable automobiles spewing particle
pollution on the drive-through lines clearly outweigh these specious claims of health benefits.
The proposed gas station will not provide a net benefit to the community.
A gas station will generate excess light, noise, and fumes on a 24/7 basis. The convenience store
that will inevitably accompany it will only encourage additional teenage loitering.
In my 11 years here, I have only fueled my car once or twice at the Shell station at DRM, even
though it is the most conveniently located, and I am there several times a week while visiting the
grocery store or the pharmacy. The problem is that Shell stations generally charge considerably
more than Circle K, QT or Arco. The issue, if there is one, is the price, not the location.
The proposed gas station is obviously intended to draw traffic from SR 51 as discussed above.
Located as the last gas before the freeway, competitive pricing is doubtful.
The Desert Ridge Community Association (DRCA) has not taken a position on this project.
Although there have been communications between DRCA and Vestar, the board of DRCA has
never resolved to support this project. While I am not privy to communications that may have
taken place between Vestar and DRCA’s officers or board members, the Association has never
formally endorsed the project. A copy of an email from DRCA confirming this is attached as
Exhibit A.
THE PROPOSED CHANGE IS AN UNCONSCIONABLE STAB IN THE BACK
Zoning determinations must be “… equitable, in terms of consistency with established
regulations and procedures, respect for the rights of property owners, and the consideration of the
interests of the citizens of the City.”17
DRSP provides for a mix of densities and uses, from mixed commercial and multi dwelling to
condominiums, to rental apartments to single family homes. Purchasers of single-family homes
were encouraged by a central feature of the plan: all significant commercial activity is placed in
the Village Commercial Core. Retail conveniences in the non-core residential superblocks are
limited to a list of specified uses, limited to three acres, and drive-through operations are
expressly prohibited. Thus, purchasers of single-family homes could look forward to living in
City of Pheonix Planning & Development
August 22, 2023
Page 6
clean, quiet residential neighborhoods. Vestar now proposes to simply rip up that plan and asks
the City to stab nearby homeowners in the back.
Rejecting this proposal is not unfair to any Desert Ridge Residents who may endorse, in the
abstract, a gas station or additional retail operations. There was nothing about DRSP that gave
them any reasonable expectation that these things would be built on Black Mountain Boulevard,
and they were content to buy their homes under that plan. Vestar’s plan to ruin the lives of
residents along Black Mountain Boulevard is grossly unfair; indeed, it is unconscionable and
must be rejected.
Respectfully submitted,
James W. Tuffin
Copies to:
Mr. Terrence Smith (terrance.smith@fsresidential.com
DRCA Board of Directors (desertridge.az@fsresidential.com)
Steven W. Anderson, Esq. (Sanderson@gblaw.com)
Hon. Jim Waring (council.district.2@phoenix.gov)
Hon. Kate Gallego (mayor.gallego@phoenix.gov)
Mr. Eric Molenaar (EMolenaar@AssociatedAsset.com)
Ms. Corina Vanek (cvanek@arizonarepublic.com)
Mr. Wouter Roodenburg (wroodenburg@cox.net)
All references to “DRSP” are to the Specific Plan as revised through November 2, 2022 (accessed on 8/19/23 at
https://www.phoenix.gov/pddsite/Documents/PZ/pdd_pz_pdf_00086.pdf)
DRSP at 5-3. (5.C.1)
DRSP at 6-6 (6.C.3.A.)
DRSP at 6-7 (6.C.3.B.2.c)
DRSP at 6-8 (6.C.3.B.2.d)
SPA-B2-Application, (accessed on 8/19/23 at http://www.gblaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/SPA-B2-
Application-Form.pdf)
PHS reported enrollment of 2556 for 2021-2022 school year (PHS AZ School Report Card, accessed 8/20/23, at
https://azreportcards.azed.gov/schools/detail/79268 .
See, e.g., Bartlesville mall bans unsupervised teenagers due to crime increase
(https://www.koco.com/article/oklahoma-bartlesville-mall-bans-unsupervised-teenagers/43385307); Teen bans on
the rise (https://www.koco.com/article/oklahoma-bartlesville-mall-bans-unsupervised-teenagers/43385307).
See, e.g., Teen Drug Use: Does a Lack of Supervision mean More Drugs?
(https://cascadeheightsrecovery.com/unsupervised-teens/ ); After School: The Prime Time for Juvenile Crime
(https://www.policechiefmagazine.org/after-school-the-prime-time-for-juvenile-crime/ ); Unsupervised teens more
likely to use tobacco, pot and alcohol (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-adolescents-unstructured-time-
idUSKCN0RI1LL20150918 )
City of Pheonix Planning & Development
August 22, 2023
Page 7
RZ-C5-Letter of Explanation, at p. 7 (accessed 8/21/2023 at http://www.gblaw.com/wp-
content/uploads/2023/07/RZ-C5-Letter-of-Explanation.pdf)
N.5, supra.
See, e.g., Mendoza, et al, Pollution hot spots and the impact of drive-through Covid 19 testing sites on urban air
quality, Environ. Res. : Health (https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2752-5309/ace5cb/pdf )); Idling
Reduction for Personal Vehicles (https://afdc.energy.gov/files/u/publication/idling_personal_vehicles.pdf ))
See, e.g., Cities ban new drive-throughs to fight climate change (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cities-put-
brakes-on-drive-thrus-to-curb-carbon-emissions/).
See, e.g., American Lung Association, State of the Aire Arizona: Maricopa
(https://www.lung.org/research/sota/city-rankings/states/arizona/maricopa) ; State of the Air report ranks Phoenix
among worst 25 cities for pollution, (https://cronkitenews.azpbs.org/2022/04/21/air-pollution-phoenix-among-25-
worst-cities-us/ ) ;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2X_OOB2qew
SPA-B5-Letter of Explanation (accessed 08/20/2023 at (http://www.gblaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/SPA-
B5-Letter-of-Explanation.pdf).
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance § 102.
EXHIBIT A
James Tuffin
From: Terrance Smith
Sent: Friday, August 4, 2023 4:26 PM
To: James Tuffin; Desert Ridge - az
Cc: Stephen W. Anderson
Subject: RE: TO ALL BOARD MEMBERS AND TERRENCE SMITH Re: Plan and Zoning Change Case Black Mtn
and Deer Valley
Good afternoon Jim,
I hope all is well with you.
On behalf of the DRCA Board Members, please see below the corresponding response to the
questions in your email:
1. No.
2. Yes, the DRCA received emails from Vestar’s attorney to attend the monthly board meeting(s)
to present and provide community updates regarding Vestar’s Parcel 12 application process
and proceedings relative to their conceptual development plans.
Respectfully,
TERRANCE SMITH, CMCA, AMS, LSM, PCAM
Executive Director
Desert Ridge 5415 E. High Street, Suite 133 | Phoenix, AZ 85054
Direct 480.551.4550 | Cell phone 480.254.5948
Property Fax: 480.551.6000
terrance.smith@fsresidential.com
desertridgelifestyles.com
24/7 Customer Care Center: 855.333.5149
Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube
From: James Tuffin
Sent: Friday, August 4, 2023 11:33 AM
To: Desert Ridge - az
Cc: Stephen W. Anderson
Subject: TO ALL BOARD MEMBERS AND TERRENCE SMITH Re: Plan and Zoning Change Case Black Mtn and Deer Valley
Hi Folks,
It was great reconnecƟng with Reggie and Doug at the recent Desert Village Planning CommiƩee meeƟng, and
remembering the fellowship we enjoyed when I served as DRCA treasurer. Having stepped back from community
aīairs, I was taken by surprise by the rezoning noƟce and some of the things I heard at the meeƟng. Now I need to
catch up and I hope you can help me.
At the meeƟng, and in an explanatory leƩer submiƩed to the City, Vestar’s counsel suggested that the DRCA
supports the proposed changes. I respecƞully request answers to the following quesƟons:
1. Did the DRCA ever pass a resoluƟon supporƟng the proposed changes or the project in general? If so, please
provide a copy of the text of the resoluƟon(s) and the agenda(s) and minutes of the meeƟng(s) at which
such resoluƟon(s) was (were) adopted.
2. Is DRCA, its representaƟves or agents, in possession of any wriƟngs, correspondence, emails or texts
showing communicaƟons between or among the DRCA, Vestar, Vestar’s counsel or representaƟves, the City
of Phoenix or the Arizona State Land Department related to the proposed project or the applicaƟons for
plan and zoning changes? If so, how can associaƟon members get access to those materials?
I’m guessing you’ll be seeing a bit more of me in the coming months and as always, whether we agree or
disagree, as friends. As you might imagine, I need a response to each quesƟon as soon as you can do it. Please do not
delay responding to quesƟon 1 if you need more Ɵme to answer quesƟon 2. I should menƟon, although I’m sure you
know it already, that your response may be incorporated into submissions I may make to the City. As a professional
courtesy, I am providing Vestar’s counsel with a copy of this request.
Thank you very much.
Warm regards,
Jim (James W. Tuĸn)
21214 N 36th Pl, Phoenix AZ 85050
516.359.6420
James.tuĸn@tuĸnlaw.com (reƟred aƩorney not oīering services to the general public)
From: wkelly2000@outlook.com
To: Anthony M Grande; Council District 2 PCC
Subject: Rezoning of land black mtn and deer valley
Date: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 11:03:01 AM
I am not generally opposed to development but putting a shopping center at that location does not make sense.
The issue is every single exit from that planned shopping center will funnel all traffic to the deer valley and black
mountain light. Unless the city puts in new lights all those exiting on the north side must turn right and anyone
exiting on the east side wanting to go north or west will do a u turn at Mayo or go to the roundabout by the ramp to
51 and u turn there. All traffic heading to the one intersection ( deer valley and black mtn).
This location will drive traffic into the fireside desert ridge and into SkyCrossing Communities to avoid the black
mtn and deer valley intersection.
So this is why I am opposed to rezoning this property.
I live in SkyCrossing.
Sent from my iPhone
From: Ben W
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Black Mountain Village
Date: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 6:30:19 PM
Hi,
I am a resident in Fireside at Desert Ridge, and I do not want any gas stations or grocery stores
built on the lot(s) in question (GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2).
Please acknowledge receipt of this email at your earliest convenience.
Thank you,
Ben
From: Bottesch, Karen
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Cc: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Desert Ridge | Case Numbers GPA - DSTV - 2 - 23 - 2 | GPA - DSTV - 3 - 23 - 2 | Z - 39 - 23 - 2
Date: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 6:58:12 AM
Attachments: image001.png
Forwarding due to out of office message.
From: Bottesch, Karen
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 6:55 AM
To: anthony.grande@phoenix.gov
Subject: Desert Ridge | Case Numbers GPA - DSTV - 2 - 23 - 2 | GPA - DSTV - 3 - 23 - 2 | Z - 39 - 23 - 2
Dear Anthony –
RE: Black Mountain Village | Case Numbers GPA - DSTV - 2 - 23 - 2 | GPA - DSTV - 3 - 23 - 2 | Z - 39 -
23 - 2
I am writing about the proposed project called Black Mountain Village at Deer Valley Rd and Black
Mountain Rd.
I am 100% AGAINST this project.
I have lived in Fireside at Desert Ridge since 2009 and served on our board for several years.
I have witnessed the increase in traffic during the school year at Pinnacle, this project only
serves to make that a BIGGER mess
A gas station, conv store, fast food, and whatever else is NOT the project for this site next to a
high school, junking up OUR neighborhood, AND making traffic a bigger mess
We live here for the openness of the area – so far all is in good taste
The Desert Ridge Specific Plan’s intent was to keep commercial activity aligned to a
commercial core; commercial activity in the residential superblocks is strictly limited to minor
conveniences of no more than 3 acres and drive through operations are prohibited
We live in an attractive community, not only will a gas station and the other suggested
businesses junk it up but the traffic will worsen, there are plenty of other gas stations VERY
close by, we do not NEED this project
The land at Deer Valley and Black Mountain is designated RESIDENTIAL under the plan – I
vote NO to change that designation
We do NOT want or need a 20 acre shopping center next to residential and next to a High
School
Crime, litter, noise, pollution and traffic nightmare is what this project equals
Please listen to the community, we LIVE here. Developers build and move on in continuing to live in
‘their’ protected neighborhoods. Please stop this corporate action and change, it is NOT wanted.
Thank you,
Karen
Karen M. Bottesch
Senior Vice President | Senior Relationship Manager
Business Banking
Bank of America
AZ3-566-02-50 | 14636 N Scottsdale Rd Ste 250 | Scottsdale AZ 85254
Phone 480.624.0569 Fax 804.264.2040 Cell 602.315.4204
Karen.bottesch@bofa.com
View my professional web page here. [rm.bofaml.com]
Support Associate:
Patty Ruiz
Phone: 480.624.0648 Fax 804.266.8154
14636 N Scottsdale Rd. Ste 250 | Scottsdale AZ 85254 | AZ3-566-02-50
This message, and any attachments, is for the intended recipient(s) only, may contain
information that is privileged, confidential and/or proprietary and subject to important terms
and conditions available at http://www.bankofamerica.com/emaildisclaimer
[bankofamerica.com]. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message. For
more information about how Bank of America protects your privacy, including specific rights
that may apply, please visit https://bankofamerica.com/privacynotice [bankofamerica.com].
This email may contain a promotion of products or services. If you would like to unsubscribe
from receiving emails like this, please update your Email Preferences here:
https://preferences.em.bankofamerica.com/Prefs/emailoptout
[preferences.em.bankofamerica.com]. Unsubscribing will not affect delivery of important
service messages that we may need to send you or preferences you may have previously set
for other email services. Bank of America, 100 North Tryon St., Charlotte, NC 28255.
From: Eileen K
To: Anthony M Grande
Cc: Bill Kelly; Jill Gargano
Subject: Desert Ridge Zoning Ammendments
Date: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 6:52:16 PM
Regarding
Case No. SPA-DS1 V-2-23-2
Case No. CPA-DSTV-3-23-2
Case No. 1-39-23
Mr Grande
I oppose the zoning change proposed by Vestar Development and I encourage the
board to decline the amendments. I am a homeowner and have lived in Fireside at
Desert Ridge since 2013. While many of us who live in Desert Ridge would like to
see more grocery options in our neighborhood, the location proposed by Vestar is not
appropriate for such a commercial development.
The location is surrounded on 3 sides by single family homes, next to a high school
and just blocks from an elementary school. Most of us who bought into this
community were very attracted by the Desert Ridge Plan, which limited the location
of commercial development. This is a neighborhood with 3 very active HOAs,
excellent schools, walkers and runners of every age and kids playing safely in front of
their homes while neighbors chat.
A commercial shopping center at the corner of Black Mountain Road and Deer
Valley Drive will fundamentally change traffic, lighting, noise, air quality, safety,
crime, physical aesthetic and economic value of our beautiful neighborhood.
The corner is not appropriate for a large grocery store, gas station, drive-through,
restaurants, and other high traffic commercial activity. Vestar does a fine job
managing Desert Ridge mall and should look for a location better suited to the type
of development they propose.
Mary Eileen Kelly
3861 E Melinda Drive
Phoenix, AZ 85050
From: Mike Kip
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: case# GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2
Date: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 5:54:13 PM
My name is Michael KIperman. I'm a resident of Fireside at Desert Ridge community. I
strongly oppose Black Mountain Village project. Due to the fact that such projects attract
unwelcomed characters into immediate residential area. Can't help but stress the fact that there
are 2 schools in the neighborhood, especially elementary school. We want our kids to be as
safe as possible. We don't need additional traffic. It is a nightmare twice a day as it is.
Thank you for understanding. Hopefully this project can be moved elsewhere.
From: Stanislava Kuka
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: Re: Automatic reply: Opposing rezoning Black Mountain Blvd/Deer Valley
Date: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 9:56:03 PM
Good morning,
As a Phoenix resident and tax payer I want to express my disapproval of the proposal of
rezoning the area southwest Black Mountain Blvd and Deer Valley Road next to Pinnacle
High School.
SAFETY
Being next to the high school and walkable distance to 2 elementary school we risk
bringing strangers to our community where so many children walk alone to school.
Possible bus station- more strangers coming to our community. Phoenix, as I believe you are
well aware has a growing homeless population. Did you drive by Desert Ridge recently? At
every stop light you can see panhandlers. Homeless people sleeping on bus stations. Did you
know about the psychiatric, and drug abuse problems among the homeless population? I bet
you did.
Possible gas station- alcohol, criminal. Enough said. Just driving to Desert Ridge there is one,
and even 2 down the road on Cave Creek.
Possible drive through restaurant- if not living in the area you are probably not aware of the
ongoing evening trouble In’n’Out has, for example. Not mentioning providing even more
unhealthy options to our growing students.
Traffic- I could say well congested area. Traffic has grown over the last few years. I can not
get out of my neighborhood due to overwhelming school traffic. But I agreed to that, and
wanted to be the closest possible to schools. Adding more traffic to our community is not
something we were looking for.
I hope you and your fellow city planners have in mind the wellbeing of our community
residents not only the investors that only care about their profit.
Thank you,
Stanislava Kuka
3636 E Covey Ln, Phoenix AZ 85050
Sent from my iPad
Sent from my iPad
On Sep 20, 2023, at 5:23 PM, PDD Long Range Planning
Hi Stanislava,
Can you please forward your comment? I don’t see a message from you, just
Anthony’s out of office.
Thank you,
Sarah Stockham
Planner III
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
Phone: 602-261-8701
sarah.stockham@phoenix.gov
From: Stanislava Kuka
Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2023 9:22 PM
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Re: Automatic reply: Opposing rezoning Black Mountain Blvd/Deer Valley
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 17, 2023, at 3:15 PM, Anthony M Grande
Hello. I am currently out of office and will be returning Monday, September
25, 2023. If you need immediate assistance, please
contact pdd.longrange@phoenix.gov.
From: Natalie Leitner
To: Anthony M Grande
Cc: Council District 2 PCC
Subject: Rezoning Superblock 12
Date: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 8:25:28 PM
Good Evening,
I would like to express my opposition of the rezoning of Black Mountain Village/Superblock
12 from residential to commercial/retail space. There are several reasons, first and foremost
there is an ongoing homelessness issue throughout the perimeter of Desert Ridge. Leaving
Mountianside Fitness yesterday at 6:30PM , there was a man laying across the sidewalk
sleeping with his shopping cart and garbage laid around him on the corner of Rose Garden and
Tatum. I went to pick up my daughter from soccer practice at 8:45PM and he was still there.
Not to mention when I go to the gym at 5:00AM and the bus stops are a campground for the
homeless. I absolutely do not want this type of activity closer to our neighborhoods and
schools and that is exactly what would happen if something like this was to go in this area.
You would encourage the homeless to set up encampments around high school to have easy
access. Go check out the south/east corner of Tatum along the freeway, there are
encampments. Once they’re cleared, they just move to another area. Not to mention the trash
that is left on the corners from panhandlers. It’s ridiculous that it has gotten this bad, but that is
another email and I refuse to let this happen closer to my home.
Secondly, if approved, you basically would be providing a parking lot for high schoolers that
don’t have a parking spot (every junior class
man with a car and license, there is only enough spots for seniors) ask the businesses around
Chaparral High School how they feel about that? The traffic is already horrendous on school
mornings at all the schools, but with this, you would be adding more traffic and delivery
trucks along Deer Valley at all hours of the day and when kids are crossing to go to school.
We have been residents of Fireside for over 10 years and we have raised our 4 kids here. We
moved over here for the great schools and great neighborhoods. We have 2 kids at Pinnacle, 1
at Explorer and 1 at Fireside Elementary. We bought in this neighborhood knowing that would
be zoned for residential and it should stay the way!
Please take into consideration my opposition for this rezoning plan. We love our neighborhood
and schools and want to keep the safe for everyone that lives here!
Case No. SPA-DS1 V-2-23-2
Case No. CPA-DSTV-3-23-2
Case No. 1-39-23
Natalie Leitner
21515 N 39th Terrace
562.706.4702
From: Andrea Remke
To: msantoro@gblaw.com; Anthony M Grande
Subject: Zoning issue near Pinnacle HS
Date: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 7:02:59 PM
My previous emailed letter (on 8/27/23) to you did not have these case numbers attached, please note my below
correspondence in regards to this zoning decision. It is permissible to read aloud or note in any public record as anyone sees
fit. Updated case numbers attached.
Case No. SPA-DS1 V-2-23-2
Case No. CPA-DSTV-3-23-2
Case No. 1-39-23
Mr Grande,
I’d like to please ask you and the city representatives to consider the opposition many residents here in Fireside Desert
Ridge have to the proposed zoning changes of the property at Black Mountain Blvd and Mayo Blvd /Deer Valley Drive
right next to Pinnacle High School.
It’s currently zoned for residential and for the developer to change it to retail shopping opens this area up to increased traffic
congestion and student/resident safety issues here in the area.
I invite any of you to please come observe the traffic at these intersections around the school during the peak times of
dropoff 7:20-7:30 am and at 2:15-2:20 pm pickup when it’s the worst. These intersections are a nightmare then. Droves of
kids are walking to school and crossing/ jaywalking across these intersections some are on bikes even—and they are NOT
heeding any kind of traffic signals or signs because they are kids of course. Many cars are racing through yellow lights and
people sitting in intersections at red lights because they tried to fit through. We have seen lots of accidents, a lot of honking
and near misses. My son’s Pinnacle soccer coach was just in an accident this past Friday during pickup when a man in a car
not paying attention to stopped traffic on Mayo slammed into the back of him causing his car to hit the car in front of him,
which was driven by a student. It happens all the time because of the sheer volume of cars and kids and mayhem happening
during these times. It is only a matter of time before a kid is seriously maimed or killed at this intersection/area.
I live across the street in Fireside, a stone’s throw from this land where they are going to build. My son attends the high
school and my twin girls will attend next fall and then my youngest will attend in two years. We are stuck for a long time
with whatever the powers that be decide should go here. I worry about the influx of traffic and congestion, the problems it
brings to us as nearby residents, by way of safety especially—but also being a single mom I bought this home two years ago
for its close proximity to school for my kids to walk to local schools and the safe neighborhood feel. But I’m worried at the
potential drop in property values if they start putting in crappy shops or gas stations or smoke vape shops, causing our nice
residential area to look, smell and sound like a truck stop dump attracting transients and homelessness, no doubt.
I know money will likely win out in the end, and something will be built here. It’s a shame the school district couldn’t have
bought a piece of this property for added parking for the students at school because as it is currently, only seniors can park
in the school lot, which is asinine. The principal at Pinnacle has even told parents last week they have addressed safety and
traffic issues to Vestar but ultimately can’t have a definitive say in this land development.
City officials have a duty to protect the interests of the residents here who live and work and pay taxes.
These developers have the monetary means to at least put an-over-the street walkway /sidewalk bridge from the Mayo/Black
Mtn crosswalk over to the school so our kids aren’t playing Frogger in traffic through red and green lights as they currently
do every single school day. The existing walking bridge (see attached picture) that some idiot designed and installed years
ago is out of the way for kids to walk, located south at the 51 interchange, at the dog park entrance, so they would have to
walk down there then back around to go back up to the school—it’s an extra 10-15 min of walking —not a single soul is
doing that and that pedestrian bridge remains not utilized.
My question: Could the city mandate the developer to at least relocate the pedestrian bridge to the problem/ busy
intersection at the school instead of that bridge uselessly sitting down the street out of the way? (I included a pic of
bridge area)
If something is built here eventually, I hope the people in charge will think first of the safety of students and residents over
the quick buck they’ll make in revenue at the site.
Thank you for hearing me,
Andrea Remke,
Phoenix resident of Fireside at Desert Ridge
From: Richards, Dan
To: PDD Long Range Planning; Anthony M Grande; Council District 2 PCC
Subject: GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2 Black Mountain Village
Date: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 9:35:48 AM
Attachments: image001.png
Grocery Store options.docx
Dear Mr. Grande and Councilman Waring,
I submitted an email on September 13 pertaining to my opposition to the proposed development .
One of the points made in my previous email was stating the amount of gas stations and grocery
stores within a 3-mile radius of the Deer Valley and Black Mountain intersection. I mentioned 11 gas
stations within a 3-mile radius, but the correct number is 12 gas stations.
It was brought to my attention that Gammage and Burnham met with the residents of Sky Crossing
shared an exhibit showing the lack of gas stations and grocery store options within a 5-mile radius.
They failed to show all the options south of the 101 in their exhibit, which is incredibly misleading. I
have attached a map that shows all the gas stations and grocery stores in a 3-mile radius. If you
change your search to a 4-mile radius, you find 18-gas stations. The grocery store options are quite
vast as well.
Grocery Stores included within a 4-mile radius include:
Costco
Walmart
Target
Sprouts Market Express
2 Fry’s
2 Albertson’s
Food City
Please take this into consideration when Vestar continues to tell people that Desert Ridge is lacking
grocery and gas station options. It’s simply not true. Our neighbors do not want this development
to be built. We all live in the residential superblock portion of Desert Ridge. If we wanted to live
within walking distance to restaurants, we would have moved closer to Desert Ridge Marketplace.
This isn’t for the residents of Desert Ridge. They’re looking at this parcel because they want the
traffic from the 51.
Thanks,
Dan Richards
Strand Associates, Inc.®
602.437.3733 ext. 6052
dan.richards@strand.com | www.strand.com [strand.com]
[strand.com]
Excellence in EngineeringSM
Desert Ridge is not lacking grocery and gas station options
12 gas station within a 3-mile radius of Deer Valley and Black Mountain Blvd Intersection
18 gas stations shown within a 4-mile radius of Deer Valley and Black Mountain Blvd Intersection
Grocery Stores included within a 4-mile radius include:
x Costco
x Walmart
x Target
x Sprouts Market Express
x 2 Fry’s
x 2 Albertson’s
x Food City
From: eva rohr
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: STOP REZONIBG BLACK MOUNTAIN - PERIOD!!
Date: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 9:36:26 PM
eva rohr
4726 e casey ln
cave creek az 85331
480 363 7967
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 4:28:45 PM
Name
Jessica Sconyers
jessicasconyers@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Desert Peak
Support Comments
I work at pinnacle high school. Traffic there is a nightmare and will only get worse with the addition of a
shopping center.
From: Ralph Valenzi
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Super Block D Ridge
Date: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 10:33:37 PM
I am very much opposed to rezoning this property to commercial
I am a resident of Fireside and with the school traffic, adding a commercial development would make that worse
In addition, we don’t need more development in our area. We already have the Marketplace and that is sufficient for
our community
Ralph Valenzi
3629 E Zachary Drive
Sent from my iPhone
From: C Dunn
To: Anthony M Grande; Council District 2 PCC; ppd.longrange@phoenix.gov
Subject: Vestar"s Development Amendment and Zoning Requests for Superblock 12
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 10:13:35 PM
To All Concerned With This Issue:
I recently attended a Desert Ridge Community Association meeting in which
representatives for Vestar presented a rough sketch of their development plan for
approximately 20 acres carved out of Superblock 12. Listening to them, one would
surmise that this development was for the benefit of our neighborhood. They
discussed a neighborhood grocery store, some small retail businesses, and dining
options. A rather straightforward design, you might think. What Vestar’s rep didn’t
mention was the inclusion of a gas station, fast food drive-throughs, and even a city
bus stop. A plan that sounded innocent enough at the time now begs the question
of how a development such as this would impact our neighborhood.
Vestar wants to rezone Superblock 12 from an R-2 residential designation to a C-2
commercial designation. With this rezoning would come a commercial
development, such as Vestar’s, right at our back door. There are many troubling
issues associated with this proposal. I am limiting my comments to the
environmental impact that Vestar’s proposal would have on our community.
One of the most significant pollutants of our environment is gas stations. For
instance, during fueling, toxic compounds such as Benzene (a known carcinogen),
Ethyl Benzene, Toluene, and Xylene (BTEX) are released into the air. Likewise,
these same compounds will pollute the air when there is leakage from the storage
tank vents. Spills from fueling and spills from emptying tanker trucks can occur,
causing soil, groundwater, surface water and air contamination. Even idling
engines of vehicles contribute to air pollution with the release of harmful
chemicals, gases, and particles. Add to this the road noise associated with an
overwhelming number of vehicles driving in and out of the gas station and one
must conclude that gas stations are one of the most significant polluters of our
environment.
Grocery stores and fast food restaurants are right behind gas stations when we
consider the extent to which they pollute the environment. The average grocery
store emits almost two tons of carbon dioxide from the electricity and natural gas
that it uses each year. In addition to that, grocery stores and fast food restaurants
generate tons of litter and garbage yearly. Proper disposal of these then becomes
a major issue. If strict guidelines aren’t followed, we are then dealing with air and
soil pollution, in addition to the environmental issues posed by rodents and other
pests attracted to the area. Another concern is the amount of traffic generated by
these businesses. Their customer traffic, their delivery trucks, and their trash
collection vehicles make a substantial contribution to both noise and air pollution.
Lastly, it is not surprising that air pollution is the direct result of food preparation.
With the kitchen exhaust fans we have the release of organic aerosol into the
environment. With grills, stoves and ovens we have the release of formaldehyde,
carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide into the air. Naturally, these airborne
particulates are inhaled by everyone nearby. With ongoing exposure, these
particulates can be extremely harmful to individuals. This is especially true for
asthmatics and individuals dealing with long-term breathing problems such as
COPD.
It is obvious that the environmental impact of Vestar's proposed development
would not be limited to noise, air, soil, and light pollution. Their proposal would
guarantee both traffic pollution and people pollution, as well. Is it fair to assume
that crime in our neighborhood would not be far behind, if Vestar's proposal were
to be approved?
The negative impact that Vestar’s commercial development would have on our
neighborhood far outweighs any benefits of a grocery store, a gas station, and fast
food restaurants. With these services and many more just minutes away in the
Desert Ridge Marketplace, we don’t need them in our own back yard.. We must
keep Superblock 12 zoned R-2 Residential, as it was originally intended.
Please say NO to Vestar.
Carolyn Dunn
3752 E Covey Lane
Fireside Community
From: Greg Nelson
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Rezoning of Superblock 12
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 2:41:45 PM
RE:
Case No. SPA-DS1 V-2-23-2
Case No. CPA-DSTV-3-23-2
Case No. 1-39-23
Mr Grande,
In exploring the information on the proposed rezoning of Superblock 12 in our community, I
wanted to express my concerns and “no” vote on this land being used for commercial use.
While living in the community for nearly 18 years, this would have a negative impact on the
overall feel which is contrary to what the developers are trying to market to us. The increased
traffic would contribute to further noise pollution as well as the increased opportunity for
crime and trash.
This property is directly across the street from a large high school where new drivers try to
sharpen their new skills and this commercial development would lead to an increase in
accidents as well as fear of children / pedestrians being hit while walking to the surrounding
schools from this intersection (1 high school, 1 middle school, and 2 elementary schools
within a 1 mile radius).
We have seen migration of homeless around our community, near the Desert Ridge mall, and
could only see the future migration to this new shopping area which is a huge safety concern
for my family and other neighbors who bought in the area for the enjoyment of being able to
walk or ride to neighborhood parks and trails.
Lastly, adding a grocery store no matter small or large would not serve a purpose of improving
our service needs. We already have plenty of choices in a short distance around us.
Thank you for taking the time to accept and hopefully take our concerns into account.
Greg Nelson
From: Deanna Guttilla
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Regarding rezoning the block at Deer Valley Rd and Black Mountain next to Pinnacle High School.
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 5:59:51 PM
Hello Mr Grande,
My name is Deanna Guttilla. I have been a homeowner and resident in Fireside and have
happily raised three children here since 2011.
I’m writing in regard to case number GPA-DSTV-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2.
The block of land at Deer Valley Rd and Black Mountain Rd is up for possible rezoning to
commercial land use.
As much as I feel we could use a small grocery such as Trader Joe’s, and would love a little
upscale outdoor mall area, I’m opposed to rezoning to commercial land. It could have
several negative and dangerous consequences for the kids and the traffic flow.
Since the freeway exit was built, the community has seen more accidents on Black Mountain
in front of the high school and a daily back up of traffic. People drive very fast. It is already
dangerous for the kids crossing the road, at the intersection, to get to school every morning
and afternoon.
The proposed plan for rezoning would bring even more traffic to the road in front of the high
school. Especially if a grocery with a gas station is built.
In addition, a building complex with a fast food drive thru and gas station could likely bring
an increase in crime, such as drug sales, right into an area where there are over a thousand kids
every day.
Because of the increased danger to the kids in the neighborhood, and at the high school, I am
opposed to rezoning the land to commercial use. It needs to stay residential.
Thank you for your time,
Deanna Guttilla
Resident of Fireside
Sent from my iPhone
From: Tracy Kaczmarek
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Re zoning
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 8:31:40 PM
Hello,
I would just like to make my opposition to proposed re-zoning of land at Deer Valley/Black Mountain and planned
development.
I live in Fireside, and my backyard faces Black Mountain. When building our house, we were told this land was
NOT zoned for commercial development. As it stands now, traffic is a huge issue. The area is already extremely
busy, with Pinnacle HS traffic and regular flow. Essentially, there is no “flow”. I encourage you to observe what
the traffic pattern is daily. It is near impossible to get out of my neighborhood some mornings, due to chaotic
traffic.
My backyard and even my bedroom face Black Mtn Blvd. We are directly behind the view fence. I cannot imagine
the noise, lights, and traffic this would bring to an already congested area!! I am also greatly concerned with safety,
as we have both a high school and elementary school nearby. I could go on, listing all the reasons this is a horrible
idea….but I am sure you have been informed by other residents. Please— this was NOT the premise and agreement
of said parcel, prior to building my house. This is a RESIDENTIAL area!! I will be attending the October 3rd
meeting.
Thank you for your time.
Tracy Kaczmarek
Sent from my iPhone
From: Amy Kenney
To: PDD Long Range Planning; Anthony M Grande
Subject: Proposed Desert Ridge Rezoning - OPPOSED
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 8:31:53 AM
Anthony,
I am writing to send in my “vote" as I am VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED to the rezoning for a variety of reasons.
Please refer to the following:
Case No. SPA-DS1 V-2-23-2
Case No. CPA-DSTV-3-23-2
Case No. 1-39-23
We do NOT need commercial development in our quiet and already “convenient” homes and neighborhood.
There is ample access 1 mile away (or less!) to gas stations, conveniences galore, grocery stores, etc and RETAIL
galore.
Traffic, crime, noise, all would increase…..this is not something that is welcome….
Thank you for your consideration.
Amy Kenney
Ringtail Way
Fireside, Desert Ridge
Phoenix, AZ 85050
602-696-2639
From: Dessert
To: Anthony M Grande; Council District 2 PCC; pad.longrange@phoenix.gov
Subject: Black Mountain Village
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 5:55:52 PM
Re: GPA-DSTV-
2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2
NO! NO! NO!
TO BLACK MOUNTAIN VILLAGE!!!
I bought my house in Scarlet Ridge 13 years ago knowing I would be living in a safe residential area. Trying to put a
business right next to my house is wrong in so many ways. And to do a bait and switch with me and all the
homeowners is appalling!
We have enough traffic and unfortunately have had accidents with children being injured on the street at at the high
school as it is. And there’s already been issues with homeless people sleeping under the bridge. Bringing in retail
would only add to this on all accounts. And we certainly don’t need more of either to ruin our neighborhood and
injure our children!
I am hoping you have enough respect your homeowners to put this terrible idea to rest and find another location
more suitable for this type of retail. We want to continue to keep our neighborhood safe! Thank you.
Sincerely,
Blythe Lipman
Sent from my iPhone
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 6:52:51 PM
Name
Suzanne Moon
suzannemoonbear@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Paradise Peak West on Pinnacle Peak Rd. 85050
Support Comments
No! Not necessary. The neighborhood is Residential and we’d like it to stay that way.
From: Andrea Nelson
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: Proposed Desert Ridge Rezoning
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 7:12:22 AM
Dear long range planning committee-
I am writing as a homeowner and resident of the Fireside Community in Desert Ridge. I am opposed and concerned
that the proposed Vestar development North of Pinnacle High School would impact the safety of the neighborhood,
both in the businesses which are proposed, and in the traffic patterns. Additionally, proposing a gas station so close
to several residential neighborhood community homes has its own additional safety and health concerns.
These proposed safety hazards could destroy property values for the homes, and seems redundant based on the other
options so close by in Desert Ridge Marketplace- which I understand is already owned by Vestar.
The safety of our families and the neighborhood children is at risk. Please help our community to vote against this
project.
Thank you.
Andrea Nelson, SPHR
480-495-5411
From: Lisa Newman
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Rezoning Opposition to Superblock 12
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 8:30:07 AM
Hi Anthony,
I am a resident of Fireside and am emailing about the proposition to rezone a section of Superblock 12 from residential
to commercial property. I would like to voice my opposition to the following amendment requests case numbers:
Case No. SPA-DS1 V-2-23-2
Case No. CPA-DSTV-3-23-2
Case No. 1-39-23
I vote to keep this residential.
Thank you,
Lisa Newman
From: Rebecca Oakes
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: RE: Case No. SPA-DS1 V-2-23-2; Case No. CPA-DSTV-3-23-2; Case No. 1-39-23
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 6:10:06 PM
Case No. SPA-DS1 V-2-23-2
Case No. CPA-DSTV-3-23-2
Case No. 1-39-23
I am writing to you to register my strong disapproval of proposed amendments (case numbers
listed above) to modify existing zoning from residential to commercial.
Our homes in Fireside at Desert Ridge were built under the Desert Ridge Specific Plan. The
plan promised clean, quiet, and safe neighborhoods because commercial activity was placed in
the “commercial core”. Commercial activity in the “residential superblocks” is strictly limited
to minor “conveniences” of no more than 3 acres and drive through operations are prohibited.
The land at Deer Valley and Black Mountain is designated residential under the plan. Vestar,
the developer of the Desert Ridge Marketplace, now wants to change this for their own
financial gain; if the Desert View Planning Committee and city of Phoenix vote for the change
of zoning, and approve the plan to put in a 20-acre shopping center (reported to contain drive-
through fast food, drive-through coffee, a gas station, a grocery of an unknown name and type,
and who knows what else), this will cause great harm to my family and neighbors.
You see, my family lives in the closest section of Fireside to Pinnacle HS, and the proposed
shopping center. We already suffer through the pedestrian and vehicle traffic that invades the
streets of our neighborhood when school is in session and for other events held at the HS.
Students and parents drive at unsafe speeds down 36th Street and Abraham Dr. Additionally,
at drop off and pick up times, cars are lined up and/or idling as drivers wait to drop off or pick
up their students, blocking our way in and out, causing us to "play chicken" to maneuver down
the narrowed streets. Some of these students walk through our desert wash as a short cut to
those cars dropping off/waiting to pick up.
This is a neighborhood where many children walk to Fireside Elementary School, located a
short distance away. So not only is driving in, through and out of our neighborhood difficult
and would most likely become dangerous as traffic increases in an area not planned for such
commercial development, it is not safe for small children to safely walk to school.
In addition to the dangerous situations we face within our neighborhood, it can be all but
impossible to safely leave our neighborhood at these times - the southern exit, on to Mayo
Blvd. is right turn only and is very close to the Mayo/Black Mountain Blvd intersection. The
northern exit on to Deer Valley Rd. is hard to turn left onto during high traffic times.
To put it more clearly - leaving our neighborhood becomes even more difficult and dangerous
with increased vehicle traffic that comes with commercial development - especially trying to
go south onto Black Mountain Blvd AND west onto Deer Valley. We only have two VERY
flawed entrances/exits that in the best of times is tricky and not very convenient OR safe. We
esentially have to chose to limit leaving our neighborhood or taking the increased risk of
attempting to go south or west in less than safe traffic conditions. How does this benefit our
residential community?!? I predict that vehicle (and pedestrian) accidents will dramatically
increase if this shopping center is approved.
There is nothing that can be commercially built and nothing beneficial from a retail standpoint
that makes this development worth if for my family and residential neighborhood. There are
plenty of retail options at Desert Ridge and other close shopping centers.
Relatedly, are the members of the Desert View Planning Committee and Phoenix City Council
members aware that the parking lot of the proposed shopping center would in fact become an
overflow parking lot for Pinnacle HS students who do not have a parking pass to park at the
school? I would imagine prospective tenants would not be pleased to have the parking spaces
used by people not spending money at their establishments and making it harder for those who
want to spend money to find somewhere to park. Also, just ask security and management
about the issues surrounding teens hanging around Desert Ridge Marketplace - it will be much
easier for some students to hang out in the same manner at this proposed shopping center.
Has the city of Phoenix specifically done a traffic study of this area, taking this
commercial development into account? How would the council plan to ameliorate the
above stated traffic issues? What about environmental studies looking at the increase
noise, light and exhaust pollution that will directly impact the surrounding residential
neighborhoods?
We are appalled by this bait-and-switch, and worried about the crime, noise, litter, pollution,
and traffic nightmares that will come with this monstrosity.
Sincerely,
Rebecca J. Oakes
3608 E Salter Dr
Phoenix, 85050
Get Outlook for Android [aka.ms]
From: Richards, Dan
To: PDD Long Range Planning; Anthony M Grande; Council District 2 PCC
Subject: GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2 Black Mountain Village Opposition
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 4:53:23 PM
Attachments: Fireside Petitions.pdf
Dear Mr. Grande and Councilman Waring,
Please find attached a petition on behalf of the residents of Fireside Community opposing the
rezoning of the SW corner of Deer Valley and Black Mountain Boulevard.
Thanks,
Dan Richards
September 21, 2023
Anthony Grande
Zoning Section
200 W Washington Street, Second Floor
Phoenix AZ 85003
Reference:GPA-DSTV-2-23-2
Dear. Mr. Grande:
On behalf of the residents of Fireside Community, noted in the attached petition, we are opposed
to the proposed rezoning of the Parcel 212-38-023B. The families that built in this area did so
knowing that they would have a safe, quiet area for their children to grow up around. In
proposing the zoning amendment, the developers would like to change the use from residential
(2-5 du per acre) to commercial. We believe this proposed change would result in unacceptable
levels of risk to health and safety.
This commercial development proposal suggests parking for 580 cars and contains 3
access/egress points just off Mayo immediately across from Pinnacle High School with no
provision for safe crossing or pedestrian/bike safety. Further the traffic in this area is already an
issue. In speaking with the Phoenix Police Traffic Bureau, it is clear they have received
numerous complaints about existing safety issues experienced at the intersection of Black
Mountain and Deer Valley Roads. The proposed rezoning would only exacerbate these issues.
The explanation letter for the project describes that for community benefit, the project has the
potential to “increase health” and “reduce transportation burdens” of area residents by creating a
walkable/bikeable retail/grocery destination and “may reduce emissions from residents driving to
Desert Ridge Marketplace.” These statements are unproven and unsupported by the conceptual
design. While this is being promoted as a much-needed commercial alternative for the residents
in Desert Ridge, this will increase the volume of traffic coming from south of the 101, off the 51
exit. This development would increase transportation burdens and emissions in this area.
Residents who likely would have driven to Desert Ridge are now going to be driving to our
neighborhood.
There is no traffic impact or air quality study mentioned. Furthermore, it will increase both light
and sound pollution in the area. As such, the Fireside neighbors that have signed the attached
petition stand against the proposed rezoning and ask that the City reject the developer’s
application for rezoning.
Sincerely,
Dan Richards
From: Richards, Dan
To: PDD Long Range Planning; Anthony M Grande; Council District 2 PCC
Subject: GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2 Black Mountain Village Opposition
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 5:01:51 PM
Attachments: Pinnacle Petitions.pdf
Dear Mr. Grande and Councilman Waring,
Please find attached a petition on behalf of concerned parents of Pinnacle High School students
opposing the rezoning of the SW corner of Deer Valley and Black Mountain Boulevard. Please add
this and the Fireside Community petition to the case file that will be submitted to the Desert View
Village Committee. There are a ton of additional parents that would have signed this petition, but
we found that this was more difficult one to get in front of the parents. We were not legally allowed
to solicit our petition on the school property so we are still trying to figure out the best way to get
through to all the parents.
Thanks,
Dan Richards
September 21, 2023
Anthony Grande
Zoning Section
200 W Washington Street, Second Floor
Phoenix AZ 85003
Reference:GPA-DSTV-2-23-2
Dear. Mr. Grande:
On behalf of concerned parents of Pinnacle High School students, noted in the attached petition,
we are opposed to the proposed rezoning of the Parcel 212-38-023B. We believe the proposed
development by Vestar poses significant risks to safety in the form of traffic congestion, air,
noise, and light pollution. We believe this proposed change would result in unacceptable levels
of risk to health and safety.
There is an existing issue with high-traffic volume that does not respect the posted speed limits
near Pinnacle High School, as commuters travel to Interstate 51. This zoning change will only
heighten this problem and create a more dangerous situation for our children, who deserve the
ability to walk to and from their school safely each day. The proposed rezoning would only
exacerbate these issues, increasing traffic volumes both northbound and southbound. There is no
traffic impact or air quality study included in this proposal.
The explanation letter for this project suggested “The addition of quick service food and retail
options at this location will provide a safe alternative to the students at nearby Pinnacle High
School before school, after school and during the lunch hour.” And “School Principal Chad
Smith indicated that the proposed development would potentially reduce the number of off-
campus trips by car.” Pinnacle is a closed campus for all students except Seniors, so this will not
benefit students during the lunch hour. I would highly recommend that you independently meet
with the Principal of Pinnacle High School who will paint you an entirely different picture of his
views for this project. He is strongly opposed to this development and we feel Vestar has
misrepresented his concerns to help benefit their proposal.
Please take into consideration the Parents of Pinnacle students who have signed the attached
petition. Our children do not need these distractions directly next door from their classrooms.
We stand against the proposed rezoning and ask that the City reject the developer’s application
for rezoning.
Sincerely,
Dan Richards
From: Jennifer Larson Popnoe
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: Fw: Case#GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 6:29:05 PM
From: Jennifer Larson Popnoe
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2023 5:36 PM
To: anthony.grande@phoenix.gov
Subject: Case#GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2
Dear Mr. Anthony Grande,
Ten years ago, I welcomed a beautiful baby boy. At the time we were living in an older
community in North Scottsdale. We knew it was time to move and find that perfect place to
raise a family. A place he could walk to school, ride his bike, trick or treat in a safe family-
oriented neighborhood. Luckily, we found the perfect place, Fireside at Desert Ridge. It has
been the perfect fit for our family. We have made many friends that are like family. My son
feels safe to walk to school, ride his bike to the park and play outside. He was crushed when
we told him of the situation that is happening in our neighborhood. He knew he would no
longer be able to due to the increase in traffic, construction, panhandlers etc. this will bring to
our community.
The community we loved and were told that the space was zoned for residential construction
for the possibility of new friends instead of commercial that will only attract who knows what
off the freeway into our backyard. This once quiet safe community is going to be thrust into
the middle of a shopping center that will only risk our kids safety, decrease our property
values, increase criminal activity and ruin our close-knit happy community. I ask you to
imagine yourself in this situation. Wouldn't you do anything you could to protect your
children and the future of your community?
Please don't let another big corporation ruin what little is left of our small town community.
We are fortunate to have Desert Ridge Marketplace, Costco, and many other options just
down the street that offer everything we need and more. I ask you to please consider the
needs of your fellow community members; we chose this beautiful neighborhood to avoid the
dense, congested, commercial areas and enjoy our small piece of Phoenix. Please support us
in continuing to raise our families in this beautiful please we call home. No Black Mountain
Village!
Sincerely,
Jennifer Larson Popnoe
3622 E Half Hitch Pl
Phoenix, AZ 85050
From: J Popnoe
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: Re: Opposition to commercial rezoning request in Desert Ridge
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 5:18:49 PM
Importance: High
Received an out of office message from Mr. Grande, but want to be certain my
communication is included on the record in this matter. Thank you.
Justin J. Popnoe
3622 E Half Hitch Place
Phoenix, AZ 85050
m: 480.798.0004
From: J Popnoe
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2023 5:17 PM
To: Anthony.Grande@phoenix.gov
Subject: Opposition to commercial rezoning request in Desert Ridge
Mr. Grande ---
I write you in hopes of garnering your support for residents (and our children) in Desert Ridge.
I was frustrated to learn of Vestar's rezoning request (GPA-DSTV-2-23-2, GPA-DSTV-3-23-2, and Z-39-
23-2) geared towards generating massive profits despite the risks and negative impacts created for
residents. I live a short distance from the parcel, and am already a firsthand witness to the daily debacle
of traffic & pedestrian issues near the high school & in my neighborhood (Copper View). Radically
changing the existing plan (that we as homeowners considered a promise to properly manage our
community) to introduce a massive grocer, gas station, fast food, etc. will only create more risks,
especially for our neighborhood children.
I'm incensed with the thought that there would be support despite the many issues (noise, pollution,
crime) that this commercial entity will drop into the heart of our community. My son is currently a fifth
grader at Fireside Elementary, which is also a short distance from the parcel. The most extreme risks are
created for high schoolers --- easy access to alcohol/nicotine, no oversight, traffic --- but nearby, our most
vulnerable will now also pay the price if Vestar's greed is satisfied by lining up behind the ask to mangle
our closeknit community.
I plead with you to support homeowners and residents by opposing this rezoning request. This
parcel should stay zoned for residential use to allow more families to join our thriving community. Vestar
can achieve their profit targets using one of the multiple, available parcels in the area already zoned for
commercial use. Please help protect our community and families.
Respectfully,
Justin J. Popnoe
3622 E Half Hitch Place
Phoenix, AZ 85050
m: 480.798.0004
From: Laura Richards
To: Anthony M Grande; Council District 2 PCC; PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: Subject: Black Mountain Village (GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2)
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 7:33:56 PM
Dear Mr. Grande and Councilman Waring,
I built my home in Fireside over 10 years ago, with my backyard facing Black Mountain Boulevard. I have
a view fence, paid a premium for my lot and was promised the land behind my home across Black
Mountain Blvd was zoned as single-family residential. My husband and I have 3 sons who were toddlers
at the time. Now, they are teenagers attending Explorer Middle School and Pinnacle High. We did much
research to find the perfect neighborhood/lot to build our house and raise our family. I am opposed to the
Black Mountain Village Commercial Development. My reasons for opposing the project include:
Horrific traffic when one considers the daily chaos that exists at the adjoining high school and
nearby elementary school.
Threats to the safety of students at the high school and nearby elementary school.
Introduction of twenty-four-hour noise, light, and air pollution into a residential environment,
specifically concerning since our bedroom windows will look out over this development.
Establishing a 24-hour hang-out for unsupervised adolescents from the adjoining high school.
Litter, crime, vandalism and transient individuals.
Pollution from cars lined up at drive-through operations.
Lack of any reasonable justification for a major amendment to the Desert Ridge Specific Plan to
the detriment of innocent homebuyers who relied on the plan.
Decrease in property values for residents of Fireside and Sky Crossing.
Diversion of traffic from SR 51 that would otherwise head west on SR 101.
We love our Fireside and Desert Ridge Community. Please take these points into consideration and help
us to preserve the sanctity of this beautiful area of Phoenix, that we feel good to call our home. Thank you
for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Laura Richards
From: wroodenburg@cox.net
To: Anthony M Grande; PDD Long Range Planning
Cc: Council District 2 PCC; 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: Letter of Explanation by Resident regarding zoning GPA-DSTV-2-23-2 and Case GPA-DSTV-3-23-2 and Case Z-39-
23-2
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 4:12:13 PM
Attachments: Letter of Explanation Resident Final.docx
Dear Council members,
A rezoning request was submitted by the attorneys of Gammage & Burnham on behalf of Vestar to
convert a Residentially zoned 20 acres into a Commercial zone (C2).
It seems like this council asked 10 very pertinent questions to further explain how this proposal
would impact the neighborhood and they submitted their answers in a Letter of Explanation (dated
July 16st)
I assume the explanation was accepted and the case was subsequently filed. GPA-DSTV-2-23-2
and Case GPA-DSTV-3-23-2 and Case Z-39-23-2
Although the Letter of Explanation by this law firm indicated that support for this proposal was
abundant. I’m writing to you to let you know that nothing is further from the truth. This proposal
should be denied.
In fact, this proposal has triggered a lot of opposition from the residents in Desert Ridge, because it
is proposed adjacent to our High School and Elementary School and contrary to what the attorneys
stated, WILL damage our community. There are many more reasons for opposing this case which are
explained in my version of the attached “Letter of Explanation Resident”
I hope that the detail and the amount of work I put into writing this gives you a good summary of
what is at stake and that the current version of our Master Community specific plan is what
residents are expecting.
This does not entail allowing 20 acres of big box commercial businesses, who will be creating a lot of
issues for all residents and schools to deal with in the coming year.
I urge you to deny this proposal in all its forms.
Rather than outlining the issues we anticipate, I have included alternatives for you to consider and
suggested items that are within our plan and would benefit our community and make it an even
better place to live.
If the developer’s goal is to add a new brand of grocery store to the area, please note that there are
plenty of commercial zones available to build on immediately, which is also highlighted in the
appendices.
In my previous contact with the City, I have raised awareness regarding the traffic situation around
our schools and I also rallied our community to participate in the survey for Vision Zero.
I was pleased to see that within the budget approved by this council, you have allocated money for
schools to improve a “Safe Route To School”.
This proposal would endanger our kids walking to school with the increase of local traffic and non-
resident traffic and ruin our community with big box retailers, alcohol and cigarette sales near
schools, fast food restaurants and gas stations.
Please deny this proposal completely.
Thank you for your consideration.
Regards
Wouter Roodenburg.
Wouter Roodenburg
Resident Fireside Desert Ridge
21507 N 39th Terrace
Phoenix, AZ 85050
Planning and Development Department & City Council
200 W. Washington Street, 2nd ŇŽŽƌ
Phoenix, AZ 85003
RE: SWC of Deer Valley Drive and Black DŽƵŶƚĂŝŶWĂƌŬǁĂLJ͖DŝŶŽƌ'ĞŶĞƌĂůWůĂŶĂŶĚDĂũŽƌ^ƉĞĐŝĮĐWůĂŶ
amendment request.
To whom it may concern:
/͛ŵǁƌŝƟŶŐƚŽLJŽƵĂƐĂĐŽŶĐĞƌŶĞĚƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝŵƉĂĐƚĞĚďLJƚŚĞƌĞnjŽŶŝŶŐƌĞƋƵĞƐƚƐGPA-DSTV-2-23-2 and
Case GPA-DSTV-3-23-2 and Case Z-39-23-2
Upon reading tŚĞ>ĞƩĞƌŽĨdžƉůĂŶĂƟŽŶƉƌŽǀŝĚĞƚŽLJŽƵďLJƚŚĞĂƩŽƌŶĞLJƐŽĨ'ĂŵŵĂŐĞΘƵƌŶŚĂŵ
(GBlaw), dated July 16th, 2023 (rev July 10th͕ϮϬϮϯͿ͕/ĨĞĞůƚŚĂƚLJŽƵƐŚŽƵůĚĂůƐŽŚĂǀĞƚŚĞŽƚŚĞƌƉĞƌƐƉĞĐƟǀĞ
ƚŽƚŚĞŐƌĞĂƚƋƵĞƐƟŽŶƐLJŽƵƐƵďŵŝƩĞĚƌĞŐĂƌĚŝŶŐƚŚŝƐƉƌŽƉŽƐĂů͘
First ĂŶĚĨŽƌĞŵŽƐƚ͕'ůĂǁŝŶĨŽƌŵƐLJŽƵĂƚƚŚĞĞŶĚŽĨƚŚĞŝƌůĞƩĞƌƚŚĂƚ͞sĞƐƚĂƌŚĂƐƌĞĐĞŝǀĞĚƉŽƐŝƟǀĞ
feedback from the ĞƐĞƌƚZŝĚŐĞŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJƐƐŽĐŝĂƟŽŶ. As the Site Plan has evolved, the applicant and
sĞƐƚĂƌŚĂǀĞŵĞƚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞƐƐŽĐŝĂƟŽŶŝŶŽƌĚĞƌƚŽŬĞĞƉƚŚĞŵŝnformed and updated on the project. The
ĐŽŶƟŶƵŽƵƐƋƵĞƐƟŽŶƚŚĂƚŚĂƐďĞĞŶĂƐŬĞĚƚŚƌŽƵŐŚŽƵƚƚŚŝƐŽƵƚƌĞĂĐŚŝƐ͞tŚĞŶǁŝůůLJŽƵƐƚĂƌƚĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶ͍͟
dŚĞĞĂŐĞƌŶĞƐƐŽĨƚŚŝƐĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJƚŽŚĂǀĞƐŚŽƉƉŝŶŐĂůƚĞƌŶĂƟǀĞƐ͕ŐƌŽĐĞƌLJŝŶƉĂƌƟĐƵůĂƌ͕ƐŝŵƉůLJĐĂŶŶŽƚďĞ
overstateĚ͘͞
This statement was completely misleading and unfounded. When we confronted the Desert Ridge
ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJƐƐŽĐŝĂƟŽŶĂďŽƵƚƚŚŝƐƐƚĂƚĞŵĞŶƚĚƵƌŝŶŐƚŚĞŝƌŵŽŶƚŚůLJŵĞĞƟŶŐ͕ƚŚĞLJĐůĂŝŵĞĚƚŚĂƚƚŚĞLJĂƌĞ
͞ũƵƐƚĐŽŶĐĞƌŶĞĚǁŝƚŚĂƉƉůLJŝŶŐƚŚĞΘZ͛ƐŽĨƚŚĞĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJĂŶĚĐĂŶŶŽƚďĞƐƵƉƉŽƌƟŶŐĞŝƚŚĞƌƐŝĚĞŽĨƚŚŝƐ
proposal”. Who did GBlaw quote here and in what capacity? It cannot be further from the truth.
tŚLJĚŝĚƚŚĞZŶŽƚƌƵŶƚŚŝƐďLJƚŚĞĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƟĞƐŝƚƌĞƉƌĞƐĞŶƚƐ͍Was this the basis for LJŽƵƌĐŽŵŵŝƩĞĞ
to decided to move forward? ŝĚƚŚĞĐŽŵŵŝƩĞĞ assumed that the support was already there based on
that statement?
A lot of people do NOT agree with this proposal, it was started under wrong pretenses and now the
community has ƚŽƐƉĞŶĚŽƵƌƟŵĞĮŐŚƟŶŐƚŚŝƐƉƌŽƉŽƐĂů͘This should have been stopped at the start
based on the guidelines – which I will highlight later on – ŽĨƚŚĞƐƉĞĐŝĮĐƉůĂŶĂŶĚƚŚĞĐŽŶŇŝĐƚƚŚĞƐŝƚĞŚĂƐ
near 2 schools͕ĂīĞĐƟŶŐƚŚĞƐĂĨĞƚLJŽĨŬŝĚƐŐŽŝŶŐƚŽƐĐŚŽŽů͘ It is NOT in line with the Phoenix General plan
to create more residents walking somewhere, NOR do any of the fast food restaurants add to residents
ŐĞƫŶŐƚŽŐĞƚŚĞƌ͕ŽƚŚĞƌthan queuing up behind each other at all the drive throughs. It will ruin our
community and if this passes then developers ǁŝůůĐŽŶƟŶƵĞƚŽĞdžƉĂŶĚĂŶĚƚƌLJƚŚĞƐĂŵĞƚŚŝŶŐŽŶŽƚŚĞƌ
ůŽĐĂƟŽŶƐ͘WůĞĂƐĞƐƚŽƉƚŚŝƐŶŽǁ͕ƐƟĐŬƚŽƚŚĞƉůĂŶ.
Please bear in mind that tŚĞƌĞŚĂƐďĞĞŶnjĞƌŽĞīŽƌƚƐĨƌŽŵĂŶLJŽƌŐĂŶŝnjĂƟŽŶƚŽĂƐŬŽƵƌĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƟĞƐǁŚĂƚ
we would like or need. Before this proposal, every resident was under the impression that we have a
ǀĞƌLJĚĞƚĂŝůĞĚƐƉĞĐŝĮĐƉůĂŶĨŽƌĞƐĞƌƚZŝĚŐĞǁŚŝĐŚĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůLJƉĞƌĨĞĐƚůLJĚĞƐĐƌŝďĞƐǁŚĂƚƚŚĞĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJǁŝůů
ůŽŽŬůŝŬĞŽŶĐĞŝƚ͛ƐĮŶŝƐŚĞĚ͘ That is what people bought into and paid a premium to live in this area.
tŚĂƚLJŽƵǁŝůůŶŽƟĐĞ in subsequent events is the fact that GBlaw has started campaigning for support
AFTER ƚŚĞĮƌƐƚƉƵďůŝĐŵĞĞƟŶŐ͘ KƵƌĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJǁĂƐŐĞƫŶŐĂĚƐ;ĂƉƉĞŶĚŝdžϮͿƚŚĂƚĐƌĞĂƚĞĚĂŶŝŵƉƌĞƐƐŝŽŶ
of an innocent small neighborhood grocery store for people to quickly click on, not being informed of the
consequences or full plans͘tŚLJĚŝĚ'ůĂǁŐŝǀĞLJŽƵƚŚĞŝŵƉƌĞƐƐŝŽŶĚƵƌŝŶŐƚŚĞůĞƩĞƌŽĨĞdžƉůĂŶĂƟŽŶƚŚĂƚ
community support already existed?
Giving the push back that you have seen, how much value can be placed on any other answer provided
ŝŶƚŚĂƚůĞƩĞƌ͕ŽƚŚĞƌƚŚĞŶ GBlaw ŚŝĚŝŶŐƚŚĞƌĞĂůŝŶƚĞŶƟŽŶƐof this developer. This developer wants to
make it 20 acres and put on a 50,000-ϭϬϬ͕ϬϬϬƐƋŌŐƌŽĐĞƌLJƐƚŽƌĞ͕ĨĂƐƚĨŽŽĚƌĞƐƚĂƵƌĂŶƚƐ͕ŐĂƐƐƚĂƟŽŶƐ͕
ŵŽƌĞƚƌĂĸĐŝŶŽƵƌĂƌĞĂ͘/ƚƐŚŽǁs ĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞĚŝƐƌĞŐĂƌĚĨŽƌŽƵƌŐƌĞĂƚĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJĂŶĚŝƚĂůƐŽĐŽŶŇŝĐƚƐǁŝƚŚĂ
ůŽƚŽĨƚŚĞĚĞƐŝŐŶƉƌŝŶĐŝƉůĞƐŽĨŽƵƌƐƉĞĐŝĮĐƉůĂŶŽŶŵĂŶLJůĞǀĞůƐ͘ƋƵĂůůLJĚĞĐĞƉƟǀĞǁĂƐƚŚĞŚŝŐŚůŝŐŚƟŶŐŽĨ
ĞdžŝƐƟŶŐƚƌĂĸĐŝƐƐƵĞƐĂƚƚŚĞĞƐĞƌƚZŝĚŐĞDĂƌŬĞƚƉůĂĐĞ͘dŚĞŝƌƐŽůƵƟŽŶ͗ŵŽǀĞĂůůƚŚĞƚƌĂĸĐŝƐƐƵĞƐĐůŽƐĞƌƚŽ
2 schools full of kids walking to school? Unacceptable.
tŚĂƚĂƌĞƚŚĞĂůƚĞƌŶĂƟǀĞƐ͍
There are no compromises to the current proposal. We (those who voted NO on ŽƵƌƉĞƟƟŽŶͿdo not
want 20 acres of commercial on that land. ƐĂƉůĂŶŶŝŶŐĐŽŵŵŝƩĞĞĂŶĚĐŝƚLJĐŽƵŶĐŝů͕LJŽƵƐŚŽƵůĚƐƟĐŬƚŽ
ƚŚĞĞdžŝƐƟŶŐŐƌĞĂƚĂŶĚƐƉĞĐŝĮĐ plan for Desert Ridge. This plan shows these superblock being Low Density
ZĞƐŝĚĞŶƟĂů.
Perhaps you consider ŶĞǁƐƟƉƵůĂƟŽŶƐŝŶƚŚĞƉůĂŶĨŽƌƚŚĞŶĞdžƚƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƟĂůďƵŝůĚĞƌƚŽƚĂŬĞŽŶƚŚĞ
ƵŶŝŶƚĞŶĚĞĚƚƌĂĸĐŝƐƐƵĞƐƚŚĂƚŚĂǀĞďĞĞŶĐƌĞĂƚĞĚŽǀĞƌƟŵĞĂŶĚƉŽƐƐŝďůLJĐƌĞĂƚĞĂŶĞǁĚƌŽƉŽīƌŽƵƚĞĨŽƌ
the highschool using 32nd street and increase the schools parking lots.(Appendix 8).
KƌƵƐŝŶŐƚŚĞsŝƐŝŽŶĞƌŽƉůĂŶ͕ĂƉƉƌŽǀĞĚďLJƚŚĞĐŽƵŶĐŝůƚŽƵƐĞ͞^ĂĨĞZŽƵƚĞƚŽ^ĐŚŽŽů͟ŐƌĂŶƚƐƚŽŵĂŬĞŽƵƌ
ĚƌŽƉŽīĂƌĞĂƐƐĂĨĞƌ͘
ŶŽƚŚĞƌĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĂƟŽŶ͕ǁŚŝĐŚŝƐĂůƌĞĂĚLJŵĞŶƟŽŶĞĚ/ŶŽƵƌĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJƉůĂŶ͕ǁŽƵůĚďĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐĂ>ŝďƌĂƌLJ
andͬŽƌWĂƌŬĂŶĚZŝĚĞƉĂƌŬŝŶŐůŽƚƐ͘dŚĂƚǁŽƵůĚďĞĂŚƵŐĞďĞŶĞĮƚƚŽƚŚŝƐĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJ͕ĞƐƉĞĐŝĂůůLJ
considering the fact that is right next to 2 schools. These things make sense.
hůƟŵĂƚĞůLJ͕ŝĨƉĞŽƉůĞǁĂŶƚŵŽƌĞĐŚŽŝĐĞŝŶŐƌŽĐĞƌLJƐƚŽƌĞƐ͕ƚŚĞŶƚŚĞƌĞĂƌĞƉƌĞ-approved njŽŶĞƐĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞ
ǀĞƌLJĐůŽƐĞďLJ͘ŝƚLJEŽƌƚŚĂůƐŽŚĂƐƌŽŽŵĨŽƌĂŶĂĚĚŝƟŽŶĂůŐƌŽĐĞƌLJƐƚŽƌĞĂŶĚĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůLJŚŽƐƚƐ;ĂƌĞĂů͊Ϳ
neighborhood Sprouts convenience store. There is is land available on 56th and the freeway also. Plenty
ŽĨĂůƚĞƌŶĂƟǀĞƐĂŶĚŐŽŽĚĞŶŽƵŐŚƚŽhost their proposal, without ruining our neighborhood.
&ƵƌƚŚĞƌĚĞƚĂŝůƐŝŶƌĞƐƉŽŶƐĞƚŽŽƌŝŐŝŶĂůƚŚĞ>ĞƩĞƌŽĨdžƉůĂŶĂƟŽŶ͘
/ǁĂŶƚƚŽĐŽŶƟŶƵĞǁŝƚŚŵy response to address the way ƚŚĞƐĞĂƩŽƌŶĞLJƐ chose to ĂŶƐǁĞƌLJŽƵƌƋƵĞƐƟŽŶƐ,
downplaying the impact it would have and leaving out important details that you should consider and be
aware of. They are experts to ƉƌŽǀŝĚĞLJŽƵŽŶůLJǁŝƚŚĚĞƚĂŝůƐƚŚĂƚƚŚĞLJ͛ǀĞůĞĂƌŶĞĚŚĞůƉƐŐĞƫŶŐĂƉƉƌŽǀĂůƐ
from you ĂŶĚƉƵƚƚŚĞǁŚĞĞůƐŝŶŵŽƟŽŶ͘
They described it as ͞ůŽǁŝŵƉĂĐƚ͟ĐŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂůĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͘,ŽǁĚŽƚŚĞLJĚĞƚĞƌŵŝŶĞƚŚŝƐ͍They claim
ƚŚĞƌĞŝƐŶŽĮŶĂůƉůĂŶ͘KŶĐĞĂƉƉƌŽǀĞĚƚŚĞLJĐĂŶĚŽǁŚĂƚƚŚĞLJǁĂŶƚ͘Eƚhey’re proposing this to be next
to an elementary and high school and in the middle of a quit community, which is unacceptable because
of the dangers they’re introducing to the school and kids. ,ĂůĨ-truths are being told.
/ǁŽƵůĚůŝŬĞƚŽƐĞůĞĐƚĂĨĞǁŽĨLJŽƵƌƋƵĞƐƟŽŶƐĂŶĚƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĂŶŽƚŚĞƌƉĞƌƐƉĞĐƟǀĞ and have included
appendices to clarify my comments.
YƵĞƐƟŽŶƐ^ĞůĞĐƚĞĚ͗
Yϯ͖,ŽǁŵĂŶLJƉŽƚĞŶƟĂůŚŽƵƐŝŶŐƵŶŝƚƐǁŽƵůĚďĞĐƌĞĂƚĞĚŽƌůŽƐƚďLJĂƉƉƌŽǀŝŶŐĂŶĚŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƟŶŐƚŚĞ
ƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĂŵĞŶĚŵĞŶƚ͍
'ůĂǁƌĞƐƉŽŶƐĞƐƚĂƚĞƐ͗͞dŚĞďĞŶĞĮƚŽĨďƌŝŶŐŝŶŐŵƵĐŚŶĞĞĚĞĚĐŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂůƚŽƚŚŝƐĂƌĞĂĨĂƌŽƵƚǁĞŝŐŚƐƚŚĞ
minimal loss of housing from the proposed amendments”
DLJZĞƐƉŽŶƐĞ: dŚĞLJĨĂŝůƚŽŵĞŶƟŽŶƚŚĂƚthere are pre-ĂƉƉƌŽǀĞĚĐŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂůnjŽŶĞƐĂƌĞŽŶůLJϭďůŽĐŬŶŽƌƚŚ
of the proposed site along WŝŶŶĂĐůĞWĞĂŬĂŶĚůĞĂǀĞŽƵƚƚŚĞĨĂĐƚƚŚĂƚŝƚLJEŽƌƚŚƐƟůůŚĂƐϱϬйůĂŶĚ
available, whicŚŝƐĂĚũĂĐĞŶƚƚŽĞƐĞƌƚZŝĚŐĞŵĂƌŬĞƚƉůĂĐĞ͘tŚLJǁŽƵůĚƚŚĞLJŶĞĞĚƚŽĂŵĞŶĚŽƵƌƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƟĂů
master plan for 20 acres to insert a commercial development when bigger lots are available?
(See Appendix 1)
Q4: Is there a need for the proposed use(s) or ĚĞŶƐŝƚLJ;ŝĞƐͿŝŶƚŚĞƌĞƋƵĞƐƚĞĚůŽĐĂƟŽŶ͍
'ůĂǁƌĞƐƉŽŶƐĞƐƚĂƚĞƐ͗͞ƵŶŝŶƚĞŶĚĞĚĐŽŶƐĞƋƵĞŶĐĞƐŽĨĐƌĞĂƟŶŐƚŚĞůĂƌŐĞĂŶĚŚƵŐĞůLJƐƵĐĐĞƐƐĨƵůĞƐĞƌƚ
ZŝĚŐĞDĂƌŬĞƚƉůĂĐĞĂŶĚƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐƌĞƚĂŝůƵƐĞƐŝƐƚŚĂƚƚŚĞŝŶƚĞŶƐŝƚLJŽĨƚŚŽƐĞƵƐĞƐŚĂƐůĞĚƚŽƚƌĂĸĐ
ĐŽŶŐĞƐƟŽŶƐĂŶĚparking issues.”
DLJZĞƐƉŽŶƐĞ: There was never any research done or input requested from residents regarding the
impact of the marketplace, nor were we asked what our needs are. This proposal is purely economical
and not ĚƌŝǀĞŶďLJĂŶŝĚĞŶƟĮĞĚŶĞĞĚ͘My resƉŽŶƐĞǁŽƵůĚŚĂǀĞďĞĞŶƚŚĂƚ/ĐĂŶĐŽŶĮƌŵƚƌĂĸĐĐŽŶŐĞƐƟŽŶ
caused by drive through restaurants and those will remain and new ones will be created by their
proposal.
Their responses cŽŶƟŶƵĞƚŽĞŵƉŚĂƐŝƐƚŚĞcurrent ƚƌĂĸĐŝƐƐƵĞƐbut their proposal will bring ĞdžƉŽŶĞŶƟĂů
ŵŽƌĞƚƌĂĸĐto our neighborhood due to new (non resident) ƉĞŽƉůĞŶŽǁĐŚŽŽƐŝŶŐƚŽĐŽŵĞŽīƚŚĞϱϭĂƚ
Black Mountain blvd to get their groceries that previously went to the marketplace. Children are walking
home from Elementary School and thĞ,ŝŐŚ^ĐŚŽŽůĂƌĞďĞŝŶŐƉƵƚĂƚƵŶŶĞĐĞƐƐĂƌLJƌŝƐŬ͘
If I was ĂƐŬĞĚĨŽƌǁŚĂƚƚŚŝƐĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJŶĞĞĚƐ͕ŝƚǁŽƵůĚďĞŵŽƌĞƌĞĐƌĞĂƟŽŶĂůƉĂƌŬƐ͕ĂƉƌŽŵŝƐĞĚůŝďƌĂƌLJ͕
preserve the land for ,ŝŐŚ^ĐŚŽŽůexpansion requirements to accommodate more students, parking and
a safĞƌƌŽƵƚĞƚŽƐĐŚŽŽůĂŶĚĚƌŽƉŽīareas around the school. That is what we need, not light, air, noise
ƉŽůůƵƟŽŶĂŶĚŐĂƐƐƚĂƟŽŶŽƌĂŶLJŽƚŚĞƌƐŚŽƉŶĞdžƚƚŽĂŚŝŐŚƐĐŚŽŽůĂŶĚĞůĞŵĞŶƚĂƌLJƐĐŚŽŽů͘WĞŽƉůĞĂƌĞĂůƐŽ
very concerned about the crimes that go along with such a commercial center.
Qϱ͗tŚĂƚŝŵƉĂĐƚǁŽƵůĚƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĂůĂŵĞŶĚŵĞŶƚŚĂǀĞŽŶĂĚũĂĐĞŶƚŽƌŶĞĂƌďLJůĂŶĚ͍
'>ĂǁƐƚĂƚĞƐ͗͞dŚĞĂĚĚŝƟŽŶŽĨƋƵŝĐŬƐĞƌǀŝĐĞĨŽŽĚĂŶĚƌĞƚĂŝůŽƉƟŽŶƐĂƚƚŚŝƐůŽĐĂƟŽŶǁŝůůƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĂƐĂĨĞ
ĂůƚĞƌŶĂƟǀĞƚŽƚŚĞƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐĂƚŶĞĂƌďLJWŝŶŶĂĐůĞ,ŝŐŚ^ĐŚŽŽůďĞĨŽƌĞƐĐŚŽŽů͕ĂŌĞƌƐĐŚŽŽůĂŶĚĚƵƌŝŶŐƚŚĞ
ůƵŶĐŚŚŽƵƌ͘dŚĞƉƉůŝĐĂŶƚŵĞƚǁŝƚŚWŝŶŶĂĐůĞ,ŝŐŚ^ĐŚŽŽůWƌŝŶĐŝƉal Chad Smith, who indicated that the
ƉƌŽƉŽƐĂůĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚǁŽƵůĚƉŽƚĞŶƟĂůůLJƌĞĚƵĐĞƚŚĞŶƵŵďĞƌŽĨŽī-campus trips by car”
DLJZĞƐƉŽŶƐĞ͗dŚĞŝŵƉĂĐƚǁŝůůďĞďĂĚ͘DŽƌĞƚƌĂĸĐ͕DŽƌĞƉŽůůƵƟŽŶ͕DŽƌĞƐŵĞůůƐ͕DŽƌĞŚŽŵĞůĞƐƐƉĞŽƉůĞ
on corners, More cars idling, MoƌĞŶŽŝƐĞƐĂŶĚůŝŐŚƚƉŽůůƵƟŽŶŝŶƚŽƚŚĞŶŝŐŚƚ͘
PLUS Every parent knows that ƉƵƫŶŐƚĞŵƉƚĂƟŽŶŝŶĨƌŽŶƚŽĨƚĞĞŶĂŐĞƌƐ͕ƚŚĞLJǁŝůůũƵŵƉŽŶƚŚĞŽĐĐĂƐŝŽŶƚŽ
ƐŬŝƉƐĐŚŽŽů͕ĮŶĚĂǁĂLJƚŽďƵLJĂůĐŽŚŽůĂŶĚĐŝŐĂƌĞƩĞƐĂŶĚĐƌĞĂƚĞĂŚĂŶŐŽƵƚĨŽƌƚŚĞƐĞƚĞĞŶĂŐĞƌƐƚŚĂƚǁŝůů
lead to all sorts of trouble͕ĮŐŚƚƐĂŶĚĐƌŝŵĞƐ͘The school is a closed campus school, so only seniors that
are already driving themselves might be interested, but it also highlights their commercial interests in
this area and trying to capture this ĐĂƉƟve audience and provide bad fast food and other bad choices.
EŽƚŚŝŶŐƐĂĨĞĂďŽƵƚƚŚĞŝƌƉƌŽƉŽƐĂůƚŚĂƚǁŝůůďĞŶĞĮƚ,ŝŐŚƐĐŚŽŽůƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐ͘
Secondly, /ǁŽƵůĚŚŝŐŚůLJƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚƚŚĂƚLJŽƵŝŶĚĞƉĞŶĚĞŶƚůLJŵĞĞƚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞWƌŝŶĐŝƉĂůŽĨWŝŶŶĂĐůĞ,ŝŐŚ
School and Fireside ElĞŵĞŶƚĂƌLJ^ĐŚŽŽůĂŶĚƚŚĞLJǁŝůůƉĂŝŶƚLJŽƵĂŶĞŶƟƌĞůLJĚŝīĞƌĞŶƚƉŝĐƚƵƌĞĂŶĚƐƚƌŽŶŐůLJ
ŽƉƉŽƐĞƚŚŝƐĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͘ Don’t take my word for it. Please have someone verify this statement as this
was another technique to give you the impression that they reached out ǁŝƚŚĐŽŶĐĞƌŶĞĚƉĂƌƟĞƐĂŶĚ
only shared what they wanted to hear. Not their ĨƵůůǀĞƌƐŝŽŶĂŶĚŵŝƐƌĞƉƌĞƐĞŶƚĂƟŽŶŽĨƚŚĞŝƌŽƉŝŶŝŽŶ͘
WĂƌĞŶƚƐŚĂǀĞďƌŽƵŐŚƚƚŚŝƐƵƉǁŝƚŚƚŚĞWƌŝŶĐŝƉĂůĚƵƌŝŶŐǀĂƌŝŽƵƐŵĞĞƟŶŐƐĂƚƚŚĞƐƚĂƌƚŽĨƚŚĞƐĐŚŽŽůLJĞĂƌ͘
Q6: How will the propoƐĞĚĂŵĞŶĚŵĞŶƚĂīĞĐƚƚƌĂĸĐŐĞŶĞƌĂƟŽŶĂŶĚƚŚĞƚƌĂŶƐƉŽƌƚĂƟŽŶƐLJƐƚĞŵ͍
'ůĂǁƐƚĂƚĞƐ͖͞ůĂĐŬŵŽƵŶƚĂŝŶďůǀĚĂŶĚĞĞƌsĂůůĞLJĚƌŝǀĞĂƌĞďŽƚŚŵĂũŽƌĂƌƚĞƌŝĂůƐĂĚũĂĐĞŶƚƚŽƚŚĞ
ƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJ͘ƐƐƵĐŚ͕ůĂĐŬŵŽƵŶƚĂŝŶǀŝůůĂŐĞŝƐƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĂƚĂŶĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞůŽĐĂƟŽŶ͟
My RĞƐƉŽŶƐĞ: EŽƟĐĞŚŽǁƐŚŽƌƚƚŚŝƐĂŶƐǁĞƌŝƐĐŽŵƉĂƌĞĚƚŽĂůůƚŚĞŽƚŚĞƌĂŶƐǁĞƌƐ͘dŚĞLJĂƌĞŶŽƚĞǀĞŶ
ĚŝƌĞĐƚůLJĂĚĚƌĞƐƐŝŶŐƚŚĞĐŽƌĞŽĨLJŽƵƌƋƵĞƐƟŽŶ͘'ƌĞĂƚĂǀŽŝĚŝŶŐƚĞĐŚŶŝƋƵĞ of the hot potato.
See Appendix 1 – ƚŚĞƚƌĂĸĐŝƐƚĞƌƌŝďůĞĂƚƚŚĞŵŽŵĞŶƚ͕ĚƵƌŝŶŐĚƌŽƉŽī ĂŶĚƉŝĐŬƵƉƟŵĞƐ͕ĚƵƌŝŶŐƌƵƐŚ
hour, as drivers trying to avoid the 101 and 51 take Deer Valley and they use all of our community road
to take short cuts and therefor causing people speeding on mayo blvd and 40th street to get to where
ƚŚĞLJŶĞĞĚƚŽŐŽ͘tŝƚŚƚŚĞĂƩƌĂĐƟŽŶŽĨŐĂƐƐƚĂƟŽŶƐ͕ĨĂƐƚĨŽŽĚĂŶĚŐƌŽĐĞƌLJƐƚŽƌĞƐ͕ŵŽƌĞ(non resident)
people will start taking this route.
Qϴ͗ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJĞŶĞĮƚƐ͖,ŽǁĚŽĞƐƚŚĞƌĞƋƵĞƐƚĂĚĚƌĞƐƐƚŚĞĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJ͛ƐƵŶŝƋƵĞŽƉƉŽƌƚƵŶŝƟĞƐĂŶĚ
ĐŚĂůůĞŶŐĞƐ ƌĞůĂƚĞĚƚŽƉƌŽƐƉĞƌŝƚLJ͕ŚĞĂůƚŚĂŶĚƚŚĞĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚ͍^ĞĞƉĂŐĞƐϭϴ-26 in the Phoenix General
Plan
GBlaw States: One of the visions discussed in the PlanPhx 2015 General Plan, is to make Phoenix a
͞ŽŶŶĞĐƚĞĚKĂƐŝƐ͘͟Put another way, residents have expressed a desire for the City to have more places
ĂƚǁŚŝĐŚĐŝƟnjĞŶƐĐĂŶĐŽŶŶĞĐƚǁŝƚŚŽŶĞĂŶŽƚŚĞƌ. This new shopping center in the Desert Ridge area will
ƉƌŽǀŝĚĞƐƵĐŚĂƉůĂĐĞ͘DŽƌĞŽǀĞƌ͕ƚŚĞĂĚĚŝƟŽŶŽĨĂƌĞƚĂŝůƐŚŽƉƉŝŶŐĐĞŶƚĞƌƚŚĂƚĐĂŶŵŽƌĞĐŽŶǀĞŶŝĞŶƚůLJ
serve the weƐƚĞƌŶƉŽƌƟŽŶŽĨĞƐĞƌƚZŝĚŐĞǁŝůůƌĞĚƵĐĞƚƌĂŶƐƉŽƌƚĂƟŽŶďƵƌĚĞŶƐŽŶƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐƚŽƌĞĂĐŚ
ŐƌŽĐĞƌLJĂŶĚŽƚŚĞƌƌĞƚĂŝůŽƉƉŽƌƚƵŶŝƟĞƐ͖ƉŽƚĞŶƟĂůůLJŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞƚŚĞŚĞĂůƚŚŽĨĞƐĞƌƚZŝĚŐĞƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐďLJ
ƉƌŽǀŝĚŝŶŐĂĚĞƐƟŶĂƟŽŶƚŽǁŚŝĐŚƚŚĞLJĐĂŶǁĂůŬŽƌďŝŬĞĂŶĚƌĞĚƵĐĞƚŚe emissions from residents driving
to Desert Ridge Marketplace which can lead to a healthier environment͘ƌĞĚƵĐƟŽŶŝƐƚƌĂŶƐƉŽƌƚĂƟŽŶ
ďƵƌĚĞŶƐ͕ŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞĚŽƉƉŽƌƚƵŶŝƟĞƐĨŽƌĞdžĞƌĐŝƐĞĂŶĚĂĐůĞĂŶĞƌĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚůĞĂĚƚŽĂŶŽǀĞƌĂůůŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞŝŶ
health and prosperity.
DLJZĞƐƉŽŶƐĞ: This is pure nonsense as there has NOT been any survey done about what we want and
need or desire. And if they claim this, it can only been hearsay from a few residents close to this project
or overheard in ĂŶ,KďŽĂƌĚŵĞĞƟŶŐ͘EŽƚĞǀĞŶ ŽƵƌ,K͛ƐŚĂǀĞĚŽŶĞƐƵĐŚĂƐƵƌǀĞLJƚŽŐĂƚŚĞƌŝŶƉƵƚ
from their residents͘ '>ĂǁŽŶůLJƐƚĂƌƚĞĚƚŽŐĂƚŚĞƌƐŝŐŶĂƚƵƌĞƐĂƌŽƵŶĚ^ĞƉƚĞŵďĞƌ͕ǁŚŝůƐƚƚŚĞůĞƩĞƌŝƐ
dated July 1Ɛƚ͘
,ŽǁĞǀĞƌ͕ŝf you know anything about Aviano, Sky Crossing and my community Fireside, then you know
ƚŚŝƐĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJŝƐĂůƌĞĂĚLJǀĞƌLJĐŽŶŶĞĐƚĞĚƚŽƚŚĞŝƌŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐ͕ǁĞŚĂǀĞůŽŶŐƟŵĞƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐƚŚĂƚŚĂǀĞ
seen their kids grow up and go through each of the 3 schools in the area as well as many community
ĞǀĞŶƚƐƚŚĂƚĂƌĞŽƌŐĂŶŝnjĞĚby paid community directors every month where we all connect with each
other. &ŝƌĞǁŽƌŬĚŝƐƉůĂLJƐƉĂŝĚĨŽƌďLJ,K͛Ɛ͘KƵƌ,ĂůůŽǁĞĞŶĐĞůĞďƌĂƟŽŶƐĂƌĞŬŶŽǁŶƚŚƌŽƵŐŚŽƵƚWŚŽĞŶŝdž
ĂŶĚǁĞŚĂǀĞƚŽďůŽĐŬŽīŽƵƌƐƚƌĞĞƚƐƚŽĂĐĐŽŵŵŽĚĂƚĞĞǀĞryone safely.
dŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĂůŝƐŶŽƚƉƌŽŵŽƟŶŐĂŶLJŽĨƚŚĞƚŚŝŶŐƐƚŚĞLJĂĚǀĞƌƟƐĞ, nor will any of their proposed
ĐŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂůƉƌŽƉĞƌƟĞƐƉƌŽŵŽƚĞĂŶLJŶĞǁŚĞĂůƚŚLJĂĐƟǀŝƟĞƐĚƵĞƚŽƚŚĞŶĂƚƵƌĞŽĨƚŚĞ'ĂƐƐƚĂƟŽŶ͕&ĂƐƚĨŽŽĚ
restaurants and ŶŽŶĞŽĨƚŚĞϭϬϬ͕ϬϬϬƐƋŌŐrocery stores. dŚĞLJĂƌĞĞdžƉĞĐƟŶŐŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞĚƚƌĂĸĐĨŽƌƚŚĞŝƌ
tenants to be successful.
Other examples to promote these great goals outlined in your General Plan, are libraries and park areas
ĨŽƌŽƵƌĨĂŵŝůŝĞƐƚŚĂƚǁŝůůĂůůŽǁĐŽĂĐŚĞƐƚŽƌƵŶƚŚĞŝƌƉƌĂĐƟĐĞƐand young families to have play areas.
Q9͗,ŽǁǁŝůůƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĂŵĞŶĚŵĞŶƚĂīĞĐƚƚŚĞĐŚĂƌĂĐƚĞƌĂŶĚŝŵĂŐĞŽĨƚŚĞĂĚũĂĐĞŶƚĂƌĞĂ͕
ŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚ͕ĂŶĚǀŝůůĂŐĞ͍
GBlaw states: ͞dŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĂŵĞŶĚŵĞŶƚƐǁŝůůĂĚǀĂŶĐĞƚŚĞůĂŶĚƵƐĞƉƌŝŶĐŝƉůĞƐŝŶƚŚĞĞƐĞƌƚsŝĞǁ
VillĂŐĞŚĂƌĂĐƚĞƌWůĂŶĂŶĚƚŚĞĞƐĞƌƚZŝĚŐĞ^ƉĞĐŝĮĐWůĂŶ. The Desert View Village Character Area Plan
ŚĂƐƐĞǀĞƌĂůƉƌŝŶĐŝƉůĞƐƚŚĂƚĂƌĞƐƵƉƉŽƌƚĞĚďLJƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĂŵĞŶĚŵĞŶƚƐ͘dŚĞĮƌƐƚŝƐĂůĂŶĚƵƐĞƉƌŝŶĐŝƉůĞ
that suggests that new development in or near residenƟĂůĂƌĞĂƐƐŚŽƵůĚďĞĐŽŵƉĂƟďůĞǁŝƚŚĞdžŝƐƟŶŐƵƐĞƐ
and consistent with adopted plans. Next is a design principle that seeks to protect and enhance the
character of each neighborhood and its various housing lifestyles through new development that is
ĐŽŵƉĂƟble in scale, design, and appearance. Finally, the last principle is design-related and requires
impact-ŵŝƟŐĂƟŶŐĨĞĂƚƵƌĞƐǁŚĞŶŶĞǁŶŽŶƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƟĂůƵƐĞƐĂďƵƚĞdžŝƐƟŶŐƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƟĂůƵƐĞƐŽƌĂƌĞĂĚũĂĐĞŶƚ
to arterial streets or freeway corridors.”
DLJZĞƐƉŽŶƐĞ: These design principles should simply state –
1) KEKdh/>KDDZ/>WZKWZd/^EZ,/',E>DEdZz^,KK>^hdK
ŵĞŶƟŽŶĞĚŝƐĂƐŵĂůůǁĂůŬĨŽƌĂŶLJďŽĚLJ͕ƐŽĐůĂŝŵŝŶŐƚŚĞĚĞƐŝŐŶďĞŝŶŐ͞ĂǁĂLJ͟ĨƌŽŵƚŚĞƉƵďůŝĐ
ƐĐŚŽŽůŝƐũƵƐƚƉƵƫŶŐůŝƉƐƟĐŬŽŶĂƉŝŐ͘
2) KEKdh/>KDDZ/>WZKWZd/^/Ed,D/>K&ϯZ^Wd>KDDhE/d/^
hdKd,dZ&&/EZ/D^d,^dzW^K&WZK:d^Z/E'͘The grocery will be giving
ĂĐĐĞƐƐƚŽĂůĐŽŚŽůĂŶĚƚĂďĂĐĐŽŶĞĂƌƚŚĞƐĐŚŽŽůƐ͘dŚĞŐĂƐƐƚĂƟŽŶƐǁŝůůďƌŝŶŐhomeless people
3) d,ZEK/DWdD/d/'d/E'&dhZ^/E>h &KZEKEZ^/Ed/>h^^͘ In fact, the
ǀŝĂďŝůŝƚLJŽĨƚŚŝƐĐŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂůƉƌŽƉŽƐĂůŝƐĐŽƵŶƟŶŐŽŶŶŽŶƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐƚŽƐƚĂƌƚǀŝƐŝƟŶŐƚŚŝƐĂƌĞĂ͘
/ƚǁŝůůĂůƐŽĂīĞĐƚƚŚĞŝŵĂŐĞŽĨWŝŶŶĂĐůĞ,ŝŐŚ^ĐŚŽŽů͕ǁŚŝĐŚŝƐƉƵƫŶŐĂůŽƚŽĨĞīŽƌƚŝŶƚŽŝŶĐƌĞĂƐŝŶŐƚŚĞŝƌ
ŝŵĂŐĞĂŶĚƉƌŽǀŝĚĞƐƵƉĞƌŝŽƌĞĚƵĐĂƟon and is seeing increased enrollment numbers. This include the fact
ƚŚĂƚƐĐŚŽŽůƐĂƌĞŐƌĂĚĞĚŽŶƚŚĞŝƌƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐĂƩĞŶĚĂŶĐĞĂŶĚdĂƌĚŝŶĞƐƐ͘,ĂǀŝŶŐƚŚŝƐĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚŶĞdžƚĚŽŽƌ
will most certainly impact their school standings today.
YϭϬ͘ĚĚŝƟŽŶĂůĐŽŵŵĞŶƚƐĂs appropriate
GBlaw states͗sĞƐƚĂƌŚĂƐƌĞĐĞŝǀĞĚƉŽƐŝƟǀĞĨĞĞĚďĂĐŬĨƌŽŵƚŚĞĞƐĞƌƚZŝĚŐĞŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJƐƐŽĐŝĂƟŽŶ͘Ɛ
ƚŚĞ^ŝƚĞWůĂŶŚĂƐĞǀŽůǀĞĚ͕ƚŚĞĂƉƉůŝĐĂŶƚĂŶĚsĞƐƚĂƌŚĂǀĞŵĞƚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞƐƐŽĐŝĂƟŽŶŝŶŽƌĚĞƌƚŽŬĞĞƉƚŚĞŵ
informed and updated on the project. dŚĞĐŽŶƟŶƵŽƵƐƋƵĞƐƟŽŶƚŚĂƚŚĂƐďĞĞŶĂƐŬĞĚƚŚƌŽƵŐŚŽƵƚƚŚŝƐ
ŽƵƚƌĞĂĐŚŝƐ͞tŚĞŶǁŝůůLJŽƵƐƚĂƌƚĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶ͍͟The eagerness of this community to have shopping
ĂůƚĞƌŶĂƟǀĞƐ͕ŐƌŽĐĞƌLJŝŶƉĂƌƟĐƵůĂƌ͕ƐŝŵƉůLJĐĂŶŶŽƚďĞŽǀĞƌƐƚĂƚĞĚ͘
DLJZĞƐƉŽŶƐĞ͗ These ĂĚĚŝƟŽŶĂůĐŽŵŵĞŶƚƐĂƌĞ possibly based on the opinion of 1 person within the
ĞƐĞƌƚƌŝĚŐĞ,KďŽĂƌĚ͘dŚĞre will be no evidence to support these statements. In fact, every ,K
ŵĞĞƟŶŐ'ůĂǁŚĂƐĂƩĞŶĚĞĚ ĂŌĞƌƚŚĞŝŶŝƟĂůƉƵďůŝĐŚĞĂƌŝŶŐ͕ŚĂƐďĞĞŶŵĞƚǁŝƚŚ more ŽƉƉŽƐŝƟŽŶ. There is
ZERO EAGERNESS by this community, demonstrated by all the emails you have been receiving on this
proposal ĂŶĚĨƵƌƚŚĞƌƐƚƌĞŶŐƚŚĞŶĞĚďLJƚŚĞǀŽƚĞƐŽŶŽƵƌƉĞƟƟŽŶĂŶĚƉĞŽƉůĞƚŚĂƚŚĂǀĞŽƌǁŝůůďĞƐƉĞĂŬŝŶŐ
ĂƚƚŚĞƉƵďůŝĐŵĞĞƟŶŐƐ͘ (Appendix 5)
ƵƚĮƌƐƚĂŶĚĨŽƌĞŵŽƐƚ͕ƚŚĞŽƉƉŽƐŝƟŽŶƚŽƚŚŝƐƉƌŽƉŽƐĂů underlines that this proposal might be a classic
bait-and-switch and they assumed this would slide under radar of this community. They were wrong.
Wd/d/KE^ͬ^ŽĐŝĂůDĞĚŝĂͬĚǀĞƌƟƐŝŶŐ͗
In respŽŶƐĞƚŽǀĂƌŝŽƵƐĂĚƐĂŶĚǁĞďƐŝƚĞĂĐƟǀŝƚLJďLJsĞƐƚĂƌĂŶĚ'ůĂǁ͕ŽƵƌĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJŚĂƐƐĞƚƵƉŽƵƌŽǁŶ
website ( ŚƩƉƐ͗ͬͬĚĞĨĞŶĚĚĞƐĞƌƚƌŝĚŐĞ͘ŐŽĚĂĚĚLJƐŝƚĞƐ͘ĐŽŵͬ ͿĂŶĚŽƵƌWĞƟƟŽŶŽŶŚĂŶŐĞ͘ŽƌŐ ĂŶĚ,ĂŶĚ
ǁƌŝƩĞŶƐŝŐŶĂƚƵƌĞƉĞƟƟŽŶƐ ƚŽŵĂŬĞƐƵƌĞƚŚĂƚǁĞĂƌĞŶŽƚƵŶĚĞƌĐƵƚďLJƚŚŝƐĐŽƌƉŽƌĂƟŽŶƐƚĂĐƟĐƐƚŽƐŚŽǁ
support. Residents cannot match their corporate budget and social media skills, but we hope that you
ƐĞĞƚŚĂƚĞīŽƌƚƐǁĞƌĞŵĂde on our side and that it should be weighed more.
>>ŽĨƚŚĞŝƌĂĐƟǀŝƚLJƚŽďĂĐŬƵƉƚŚĞŝƌƐƚĂƚĞŵĞŶƚƐ͕ĂƌĞd&dZƚŚĞŝƌ͞džƉůĂŶĂƟŽŶ>ĞƩĞƌ͕͟ƚŚƵƐƚŚĞ
statements and references made to our community’s eagerness for this, has been vastly overstated.
We have since also seen ǀĂƌŝŽƵƐĂĚƐƐŚŽǁƵƉŽŶŽƵƌ&ĂĐĞŬĂŶĚŽƚŚĞƌƐŽĐŝĂůŵĞĚŝĂƉůĂƞŽƌŵƐ(
Appendix 2) that ƉĂŝŶƚĂ͞ĚƌĞĂŵ͟ĂƉƉĞĂůŝŶŐƚŽĂƌĂŶĚŽŵƉƵďůŝĐƚŚĂƚƚŚŝƐŝƐĂŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚŐƌŽĐĞƌ͕ǁŚĞŶ
the fact is that it could be 50,000-ϭϬϬ͕ϬϬϬƐƋŌŐƌŽĐĞƌ͘dŚŝƐ ŝƐŶĞǀĞƌŵĞŶƟŽŶĞĚĂŶLJǁŚĞƌĞ͘ŐĂƐƐƚĂƟŽŶŝƐ
ŶĞǀĞƌŵĞŶƟŽŶĞĚĂŶLJǁŚĞƌĞ͘ The audience they target could be outside of Desert Ridge.
Other ads ůĞĂĚƚŽĂƉĞƟƟŽŶŽŶŚĂŶŐĞ͘ŽƌŐ͕ǁŚŝĐŚŝŶƚƵƌŶŚĂƐĂůŝŶŬďĂĐŬƚŽƚŚĞ'ůĂǁǁĞďƐŝƚĞŝŶŽƌĚĞƌ
to submit support emails. (Appendix 3 & 4)
x dŚĞƌĞŝƐEKsĂůŝĚĂƟŽŶǁŚĞƌĞƚŚĞƐĞĞŵĂŝůƐĂƌĞĐŽŵŝŶŐĨƌŽŵ͘
x dŚĞƌĞŝƐEKsĂůŝĚĂƟŽŶǁŚĞƚŚĞƌĂŶLJŽĨƚŚĞƐƵďŵŝƐƐŝŽŶƐĂƌĞĐŽŵŝŶŐĨƌŽŵĂƵƚŽŵĂƚĞĚƐŽŌǁĂƌĞ
x dŚĞƌĞŝƐEKsĂůŝĚĂƟŽŶ– if they were real people – where they live and even part of desert ridge
x dŚĞLJ͛ƌĞƐŚĂƌŝŶŐǀĞƌLJůŝƩůĞŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƟŽŶĂďŽƵƚƚŚĞĨƵůůƐĐŽƉĞŽĨƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚ.
/EKE>h^/KE
I’m completely blown away by the amounƚŽĨĞīŽƌƚƚŚĂƚƚŚĞƐĞĂƩŽƌŶĞLJƐĂŶĚĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞƌƐƉƵƚďĞŚŝŶĚƚŚĞŝƌ
proposals in order to ruin neighborhoods, endanger school areas, and ŶĞŐĂƟǀĞůLJŝŵƉĂĐƚƐŽƵŐŚƚĂŌĞƌ
ĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƟĞƐĨŽƌƚŚĞŝƌƉƌŽĮƚƐ͘
dŚĞƌĞŝƐŶŽĞĂŐĞƌŶĞƐƐŝŶƚŚŝƐĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJĂŶĚŽŶůŝŶĞƉĞƟƟŽŶƐĂŶĚŚĂŶĚǁƌŝƩĞŶƐŝŐŶĂƚƵƌĞƐƵŶĚĞƌůŝŶĞƚŚĂƚ
ƚŚŝƐƉƌŽƉŽƐĂůǁĂƐďĂƐĞĚŽŶŵŝƐŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƟŽŶĂŶĚŶŽƚƐƵďƐƚĂŶƟĂƚĞĚďLJĂŶLJƌĞƐĞĂƌĐŚŽĨĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJŶĞĞĚƐ͘
/ƐŝŶĐĞƌĞůLJŚŽƉĞƚŚĂƚƚŚĞŝƚLJWůĂŶŶĞƌ͕ŝƚLJWůĂŶŶŝŶŐŽŵŵŝƩĞĞĂŶĚŝƚLJŽƵŶĐŝůǁŝůůƐĞĞƚŚŝƐ
ĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĨŽƌǁŚĂƚŝƚŝƐĂŶĚŽƉƉŽƐĞƚŚĞnjŽŶŝŶŐĐŚĂŶŐĞ͕ǁŝƚŚŽƵƚĐŽŵƉƌŽŵŝƐĞ. There is nothing that
ǁŝůůďĞĂĐĐĞƉƚĞĚďLJƚŚŝƐĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJ͕ŽƚŚĞƌƚŚĂŶƚŚĞĐƵƌƌĞŶƚnjŽŶing.
WůĞĂƐĞĚĞĐůŝŶĞƚŚĞĞŶƟƌĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĂůŝŶĂůůŝƚƐĨŽƌŵƐĂŶĚŬĞĞƉƚŚĞƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƟĂůnjŽŶŝŶŐĂƐŝƚŝƐ͕Žƌpro-ĂĐƟǀĞůLJ
work with our community directly ƚŽĮŶĚĂŵŽƌĞǀĂůƵĂďůĞƵƐĞĨŽƌƚŚŝƐůĂŶĚĂƌŽƵŶĚWŝŶŶĂĐůĞŚŝŐŚƐĐŚŽŽů
ĂŶĚŶĞĂƌŽƵƌϯĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƟĞƐ and stop any incoming future proposals immediately.
Sincerely,
Wouter Roodenburg
APPENDIX 1: TRAFFIC CONGESTION and COMMERCIAL ZONING
APPENDIX 2 – FACEBOOK ADS
dŚĞLJĂƌĞŵŝƐƌĞƉƌĞƐĞŶƟŶŐƚŚĞĨƵůůƉůĂŶŽĨƚŚŝƐƉƌŽƉŽƐĂůŝŶŽƌĚĞƌƚŽŐĞƚƉĞŽƉůĞƚŽǀŽƚĞĨŽƌƚŚŝƐ͘
WWE/yϯ'ůĂǁƐƵďŵŝƐƐŝŽŶĨŽƌŵĂŶĚƉĞƟƟŽŶ Link
APPENDIX 4 – 'ďůĂǁƉĞƟƟŽŶ͗BRING NEW GROCER ƉĞƟƟŽŶ;ƉĞƌϵͬϭϵͬϮϯͿ
ŚƩƉƐ͗ͬͬǁǁǁ͘ĐŚĂŶŐĞ͘ŽƌŐͬƉͬŚĞůƉ-bring-a-new-grocer-to-desert-ridge-please-sign-our-ƉĞƟƟŽŶ
This was started in Septembeƌ͕ĂĨƵůůϮŵŽŶƚŚƐĂŌĞƌƚŚĞůĞƩĞƌŽĨĞdžƉůĂŶĂƟŽŶǁĂƐƐĞŶĚ͘
APPENDIX 5 – RESIDENTS PETITION : KƉƉŽƐĞŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂůƌĞnjŽŶŝŶŐŝŶĞƐĞƌƚZŝĚŐĞ
ŚƩƉƐ͗ͬͬǁǁǁ͘ĐŚĂŶŐĞ͘ŽƌŐͬƉͬŽƉƉŽƐĞ-commercial-ƌĞnjŽŶŝŶŐ-in-desert-ridge
^ŽĨĂƌǁĞŚĂǀĞdt/ƚŚĞƐƵƉƉŽƌƚƚŽŽƉƉŽƐĞƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĂů͕ĞdžĐůƵĚŝŶŐǁƌŝƩen signatures.
WWE/yϲĞƐĞƌƚZŝĚŐĞ^ƉĞĐŝĮĐWůĂŶ– Current Plan around 3 acre neighborhood centers
NOTE: I thought it would be helpful to include these chapters around the original intent of neighborhood
convenience commercial.
1) Convenience commercial NOT more then 3 acres max
2) Neighborhood convenience store can be ϱϬϬϬƐƋŌŵĂdž;ƐĞĞƐŝƚĞĚĞƐŝŐŶͿ NOT 100,000
3) Away from Arterial streets
4) No Drive Through
5) Only Beer/Wine allowed
Appendix 7 – ĞƐĞƌƚZŝĚŐĞ^ƉĞĐŝĮĐWůĂŶ– Public Facility Plan
This chapter describes the provisions for public ĨĂĐŝůŝƟĞƐůŝŬĞZŝĚĞ-and-Go and Libraries
These are currently in the planning and would increase our sense of community.
What if a Planning Commission would decide to put library next to 2 schools for kids to go to.
tŚĂƚĂŐƌĞĂƚĐŽŶĐĞƉƚĂŶĚŝƚĮƚƐƌŝŐŚƚinto the goal of bringing a neighborhood together.
Also – please note that in this version of the plan, a Park and Ride parking lot is showing on the proposed
site. Why wouldn’t we want to do that and execute the plan.
Appendix 8 – EĞǁƌŽƉŽīZŽƵƚĞ
From: js
To: Anthony M Grande; Council District 2 PCC; PDD Long Range Planning
Cc: Katie Shashaguay
Subject: Vestar Rezoning near Sky Crossing- Not your normal opposition email
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 9:06:42 AM
Attachments: image.png
Hello Anthony,
As a homeowner in the Sky Crossings community I am writing to you today to voice my
concerns about the rezoning proposed by Vestar development for the plot of land on the corner
of Black Mountain and Deer Valley.
My intention with this email may be a bit different than some others that are opposing
the rezoning as I am only opposed to the change based on the current guidelines. The
concerns I have are with the lack of limitations placed on the development proposed and
the traffic patterns suggested for nearby residents. Let me explain.
As I understand it the Max sq footage of the proposed grocery store would be 100,000 sq ft. In
my opinion this is far too large for the community. I would be in favor if the max sq ft was
closer to 50,000 as this would attract a smaller more neighborhood friendly store and
allow more retail space for local businesses which serve to bring the community together
better than a big grocery.
This would even lend itself to a development plan that could recreate more of a "main
street" feel with business lining a small street. It would be nice to incorporate a small park
for people to gather or even a space for organized neighborhood gatherings and events. It
could be a destination, within walking distance, for the community to gather, shop, eat and for
kids to play. There is nothing like that nearby currently that brings all of the nearby
neighborhoods together.
My other major concern is the traffic pattern proposed.
There would be no way for someone leaving that development to get to Sky Crossing without
taking a U-turn or cutting across traffic to get to a turn lane. This could be remedied by
extending the proposed Mayo Blvd improvements all the way to 32nd street as then there
would be a light allowing people to safely exit the area in either direction.
In summations, I would love to see that entire space (see pic below) turned into a retail /
public use space that would include a small grocery, shopping, a park, a small amphitheater
for neighborhood concerts and events. I'd like to see something that welcomes neighbors in
and encourages us to spend time (and $$) as a community, building friendships and
memories together as our kids grow up.
This is an opportunity to do something different and set a precedent for neighborhood
planning and development to come.
I understand that the highlighted area is larger than what's proposed but wouldn't it be a great
place to bring people together?
Thanks for your time .
Jovan Shashaguay
Sky Crossing resident
312-450-5450- feel free to call anytime
From: Susan Diamant
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: No
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 9:43:14 PM
Dear Sir,
I have been a Desert Ridge resident since 2001. During this time i’ve gotten married, had a child and she has
enjoyed the relaxed
family environment that these neighborhoods currently provide and well as safety and bike riding.
Please consider the values that this neighborhood has offered and desired prior to this refining issue. Some thing are
best left alone and this neighborhood is one of those places here in the valley.
Sincerely,
Susan
Sent from my iPhone
From: Robin Bowie
To: Council District 2 PCC
Cc: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Rezoning of 20.52 acres
Date: Friday, September 22, 2023 10:36:26 AM
Dear Councilman Waring and Mr. Grande:
My name is Robin Bowie and I have been a resident of Desert Ridge since 2004. My
husband, Charlie Bowie, was the former President of Toll Brothers Arizona Division and
worked closely with the City of Phoenix and the Planning Commission to build one of the best
master planned communities in Arizona, Aviano.
I wanted to voice my concerns about the rezoning of approximately 20.52 acres located at the
southwest corner of Black Mountain Boulevard and Deer Valley Drive (GPA-DSTV-2-23-2
(Companion Cases GPA-DSTV-3-23-2 and Z-39-23-2).
By rezoning this parcel from Residential 2 to 5 dwelling units per acre to Commercial directly
affects the following:
1. The already problematic traffic in the morning and afternoons with the school start and stop
times. The newer drivers from Pinnacle High School navigating that area on a daily basis will
be at even more at risk with the additional traffic from the shopping center, especially if a
coffee shop (as was eluded to by Vestar’s attorney at the August 1st Planning Committee
meeting) will be put there.
2. The possibility of a gas station being added to the Plan really is the worst of the worst. Now
you are talking light pollution, large noisy trucks delivering the fuel and supplies, as well as
possible contamination of the soil with any gas or oil leaks. And then there is the vagrancy
issue. The homeless and panhandling has already been an issue sprouting up in Desert Ridge
and now with the new shopping center they will start migrating there.
3. Crime - inevitable things that happen when there is a shopping center. And add to that the
proximity of the on/off ramp of SR51. That exit will then be used by more vehicles who will
want to use that shopping center, especially if there is a gas station there. I would also think
that having a shopping center right next to the high school would draw those same kids into
becoming a nuisance as well. Just ask anyone about the teen problem at the Marketplace and
how Target had to hire a Police Officer to guard their store with all of the teens hanging out
there. And the same holds true for adding a fast food chain. Look at what happened a few
months ago at In and Out Burger with the teens getting into fights and the young man who lost
all of his front teeth. Teens are going to be teens but again, why do we want to bring that right
into the middle of our neighborhood.
5. By adding a “boutique” or any other grocery store you have the issue of loading docks and
large semi-trucks coming in the middle of the night with their loud engines and beeping noises
unloading merchandise so close to the houses in that general vicinity.
The project summary on the Gammage & Burnham website claims: “growing demand and
need for additional commercial and retail options in the Desert Ridge area.” Desert Ridge
Marketplace already encompasses a large parcel of land, High Street with its restaurants,
shops and a small grocery store and add to that City North which is currently in the developing
stages. “City North will be an “urban core” that upon completion will bring over 3,400
additional apartment units, over 2 million square feet of Class A office development along the
Loop 101 freeway, ±1,000 hotel rooms and several new restaurants to the heart of the Desert
Ridge, Arizona's largest master planned community.” (This paragraph copied from
https://www.citynorthdesertridge.com/ [citynorthdesertridge.com]). Desert Ridge has plenty
of “additional and retail options” especially given the fact that it is already becoming more and
more dense with traffic from the existing Marketplace, the new housing all along 56th Street,
as well as Deer Valley Road, City North, and the new apartments slated for the Northeast
corner of Tatum/Deer Valley.
I personally have spoken to several homeowners and they are all in agreement that this is not
wanted or needed. I have signed the Petition that is currently circling the area. I understand
that the Developer is going from door to door looking to convince the neighbors that this is a
good idea.
It is my hope that the Planning Committee will take my comments and the comments of the
other neighbors who are signing the petition and writing letters into consideration when
making their decision on whether or not to rezone this parcel. When I moved to Desert Ridge
back in 2004 everything surrounding Aviano was zoned residential. I have watched all of the
new developments come to life around me. I’m fine with that and am not a NIMBY. My
husband was a builder. The people most directly affected by this, the ones whose properties
will look at or back to this new shopping center, do not deserve this. Residents purchased
their homes in this community assuming that, according to the Public Report given to every
homeowner purchasing a home, that this parcel was zoned residential, not commercial.
Pinnacle High School has been and continues to be bursting at the seams. The parking
situation is such that there is not enough parking for all of the students, the pickup and drop-
off to the school is a nightmare and if there are any school events there is not enough parking
for all of the attendees. If any zoning modifications are going to be made to this piece it
should be that the State Trust Land Department should either donate a a piece of this land to
the school or possibly have the school district buy it.
I had suggested, as did others at the Public Meeting held on August 1, 2023 that Vestar should
look into the parcel that is at the southwest corner of Pinnacle Peak Road and Cave Creek
Road. There are plenty of houses surrounding that area to support a shopping center there.
Vestar is not looking to make the lives of the residents in this neighborhood better by having
things more convenient for them, they are looking at how much more money this will make
for them. Commercial development belongs on the outside of a neighborhood, not smack dab
in the middle. Convenience comes at a price and I for one do not want to pay that price. I’m
happy to get in my car and drive 3-5 minutes to get gas, groceries, coffee and fast food.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Robin Bowie
Hague Partners
602.329.9005 MOBILE
From: Jost, Kevin
To: Anthony M Grande; Council District 2 PCC; PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: Deer Valley/Black Mountain Development Plans?
Date: Friday, September 22, 2023 3:56:56 PM
Importance: High
Hello Mr. Grande and City Councilman Waring,
I wanted to write and let you know that hundreds of people are having discussions around the land
that is just north of Deer Valley Road and west of Black Mountain Blvd in North Phoenix (Zip 85050).
There is so much discussion and misleading information that is getting shared across social media
platforms and even legal firms are sending out notes to try and persuade residents in our
communities to be in favor of new land development.
I moved to Arizona 12 years ago and built a home in the Fireside Community, I also have lived in the
Aviano community and now live in the Sky Crossing community. I’m very much opposed to building
out a large grocery store & gas station/fast food mall/commercial development on this patch of
land.
If you need any further information from me, please let me know.
Thanks for listening and I look forward to meeting you on October 3rd.
Kevin
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential
and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon,
this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact
the sender and delete the material from any computer. If you do not wish to receive future correspondence from Molson Coors,
please click here and type "REMOVE" in the subject line. For more details, contact us. [molsoncoors.com] Molson Coors Brewing
Company is a publicly held corporation on the New York Stock Exchange.
L’information transmise s’adresse uniquement à la personne ou l’entité qui en est le destinataire et peut contenir de l'information
confidentielle et/ou privilégiée. Il est strictement interdit à quiconque n’en est pas le destinataire, d’en prendre connaissance, de
la retransmettre, de la disséminer ou d’en faire quelque autre usage, ou d’agir sur la foi de telle information. Si vous avez reçu
cette transmission par erreur, veuillez s.v.p. en aviser l'expéditeur et effacer la présente de la mémoire de tout ordinateur. Si vous
ne désirez plus recevoir de futures correspondances de la part de Molson Coors, s.v.p. Cliquez ici et indiquer ‘’RETIRER’’ dans
l’objet du message. Pour plus de détails, contactez-nous. [molsoncoors.com]Molson Coors Brewing Company est une société
ouverte cotée à la Bourse de New York.
From: Melissa Resslar Mitschke
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Proposed Redevelopment at Black Mountain and Deer Valley
Date: Friday, September 22, 2023 12:03:27 PM
Hello Mr. Grande- I am a resident in the Sky Crossing subdivision, which is to the north of the
proposed redevelopment of the land that is at the southwest corner of Deer Valley and Black
Mountain. I am writing to express my concerns regarding the proposed redevelopment.
1. Traffic Concerns :Traffic during the school year between the hours of 7:10-7:30 am and
2:00-3:00 pm is already very high in the immediate area. It is considerably worse
during that afternoon block, as there are a large number of parents in the area to pick
their high schoolers up from school. This makes it very difficult to get through the
intersection. In addition, high school students are haphazardly crossing major streets
during this time. Two students were hit by vehicles last year while trying to cross the
street. While I understand that this is somewhat of an issue for PV schools to figure out,
it seems as if the developer has not addressed this other than to acknowledge that there
will be increased traffic in the area. I would encourage members of the planning
committee to drive by that area during those times to get a sense of the congestion. My
hope is that if the redevelopment is approved, the developer agrees to fund and construct
a walkway over Deer Valley (similar to the one over Black Mountain) so that the high
school students walking from Sky Crossing can safely make it to school. Unfortunately,
there is no bus service for these students due to the close proximity of the school and the
increased traffic is only going to make it more dangerous for them.
2. Liquor Sales: It is my understanding that the developer is asking for a variance from the
liquor law rules in order to be able to develop the space to include a gas station, grocery
store and restaurants that serve alcohol. I would encourage the committee to consider
the fact that there is a high school within the immediate vicinity and a large potential for
children to attempt to illegally purchase alcohol.
3. Aesthetic Concerns: Understanding the high likelihood that this land will be re-zoned,
my hope is that it can be developed in a thoughtful way that takes into account the
aesthetics of the area and the high property values of the nearby homes. This could
include a small/higher end grocery store (like an AJs or Whole Foods) with higher end
restaurants and shops rather than the developer seeking to maximize their profit on the
space by including a gas station, fast-food restaurants, large grocery store
(Frys/Safeway), etc. The noise, light and traffic coming from the area will definitely
change the aesthetic of the area, so anything that can be done to minimize that would be
appreciated.
Thank you for your time,
Melissa Mitschke
22614 N. Cave Butte Street, Phoenix 85050
From: wroodenburg@cox.net
To: Anthony M Grande; PDD Long Range Planning
Cc: Council District 2 PCC
Subject: Defend Desert Ridge - Oppose Commercial rezoning in Desert Ridge : Petition Results
Date: Friday, September 22, 2023 12:17:45 AM
Attachments: petition_DefendDesertRidge.pdf
petition_signatures_DefendDesertRidge.pdf
Please find attached the petition results with regards to Black Mountain Village case : GPA-DSTV-
2-23-2 and Case GPA-DSTV-3-23-2 and Case Z-39-23-2
These 473 votes opposing the proposal are not the final results but our residents wanted to make
sure it makes it into the case file for the October 3rd meeting.
Petition · Oppose Commercial rezoning in Desert Ridge · Change.org [change.org]
Kind regards,
Wouter.
WĞƚŝƚŝŽŶ
&ƌŝĚĂLJ͕^ĞƉƚĞŵďĞƌϮϮ͕ϮϬϮϯ ϭϮ͗ϬϱD
Black Mountain Village Page 1
Black Mountain Village Page 2
EĂŵĞ ŝƚLJ ^ƚĂƚĞ WŽƐƚĂůŽĚĞ ŽƵŶƚƌLJ ^ŝŐŶĞĚKŶ
ĞĨĞŶĚĞƐĞƌƚZŝĚŐĞ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
ůŝnjĂŽnjnjĞůůŝ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
ĂŶĚLJ,ĂŵĞƌͲ,ƵĞƚŚĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϰ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
dĂLJůŽƌDŽƌŐĂŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϵ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
ƌŝĞůůĞĂŵ <ĂŝůƵĂ ϵϲϳϯϰ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
ŵŝůLJ^ŚĞĞƚƐ ŽůƵŵďƵƐ ϰϯϮϯϭ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
tĂŝƐĂĚƌĂŶ ůŽƌĂĚŽ,ŝůůƐ ϵϱϳϲϮ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
ZŽďŝŶ,ĂƌĚŝŶŐ DŝůĨŽƌĚ ϭϳϱϳ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
ŐǁLJŶĞƚŚƌŽůŝŶƐ <ĂŝůƵĂ<ŽŶĂ ϵϲϳϰϬ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
ŐĞŽƌŐĞǀŽŶŐ EŽƌĐƌŽƐƐ ϯϬϬϵϯ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
WĞƚƌŽsŽůŽŬŚ ^ŝůǀĞƌ^ƉƌŝŶŐ ϮϬϵϬϰ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
<ĂƌĞŶ^ŵŝƚŚ /ŶĚŝĂŶĂƉŽůŝƐ ϰϲϮϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
ŽƌĞĞŶ'ĂƌƚŶĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϭϱ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
^ƵƐĂŶĞ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
>ĂƌƌLJ'ĂƌƚŶĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϭϱ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
ZŽďĞƌƚ^ĐŚŵŝƚnj WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
'ĂďďLJĂŵŽƌĂ tŚŝƚƚŝĞƌ ϵϬϲϬϯ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
ZŽƐŝĞ>ŽƉĞnj >ĂƐsĞŐĂƐ ϴϵϭϰϮ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
ƐŽƉŚŝůŝĂĂƐŚůĞLJ ^ŚŽŶƚŽ ϴϲϬϱϰ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
<ĂLJůĂ^ŚƵĐŚ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϮϵ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
DĂƌƚŝŶĂ'ŽƌŵĂŶ 'ĂŶĂĚŽ ϴϲϱϬϱ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
,ĞĂƚŚĞƌDĐŽŶŽƵŐŚ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
ĂŶZŝĐŚĂƌĚƐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
:ŽǀĂŶ^ŚĂƐŚĂŐƵĂLJ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
DŝĐŚĂĞůŽƉƉŽůĂ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
ƵƐƚŝŶtĂƌĚ ŽƌǀĂůůŝƐ KZ ϵϳϯϯϬ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
WƌĂǀĞĞŶDĂŚĂĚĞǀĂŝĂŚ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
ZĂũĞƐŚ'ĂĚĚĞ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϲ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
ZĂũĞŶĚƌĂĂŶĚĂ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
<ĂǀŝƚĂŚĂŶĚĂŬ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
ƌǀŝŶĚ^ŚĂƌŵĂ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
DĂŚŝƚŚĂsĂůůƵƌŝ ĞƐĞƌƚƌŝĚŐĞ ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
ZŽŚŝƚŐŐĂƌǁĂů >ŽƐŶŐĞůĞƐ ϵϬϬϲϬ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
ĂƚƚĂƚƌĂLJĂ<ĂůĞ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
DƌŝŶĂůŝŶŝ<ĂůĞ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
sŝŶĞƐŚ^ŽŶŝ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϵ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
<ƌŝƐŚĂŶ<ƵŵĂƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
^ŚĂ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
<ƌŝƐƚĞŶŽŵďĞƐ &ŝƐŚĞƌƐ /E ϰϲϬϯϴ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
ZĂƐŚŵŝsĂŝĚLJĂ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
'ŽŵĂƚŚŝ^ĞůǀĂŵ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϯ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
EĂŶĚŝƚĂ<ŚĞƌĂ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
sŝŶ<ŽĚĞ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
<ĂůLJĂŶŝDŽŽůĂ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϭϳ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
WƌĂĚĞĞƉŚĂŶĚƌĂ ^ŬLJƌŽƐƐŝŶŐ ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
^ŝůƉĂůĂƉĂƚŝ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
WƌĂŬĂƐŚ<ĂŶŶĂŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϵ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
ŽůůLJzĂůĂŵĂŶĐŚŝ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϴ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
WŽŽũĂǀĞƌŵĂZĂũƉƵƚ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
ƌŝĐĂŵŬŽ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
,Ăƚŝŵ<ĂƉĂĚŝĂ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϴ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
DĂŶŝŬĂWĂƚĞů WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϯϲ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
^ĂŵD WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
EĞĞƌĂũŚĂŶĚĂŬ WŚŝĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
sĂƌƵŶ:ŝŶĚĂů WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
^ƌĂsĂŶĂ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
DĂƚƚŚĞǁŚŝƚǁŽŽĚ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
ZĂũƵKŵŬĂƌĂŵ ,ŝŐŚůĂŶĚWĂƌŬ /> ϲϬϬϯϱ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
ŵLJDŝƚĐŚĞůů 'ŝůďĞƌƚ ϴϱϮϵϱ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
ƌĐŚĂŶĂEĂŐĂƌĂũĂŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
DĂďƌLJŝŐŐƐ ^ƉƌŝŶŐ,ŝůů ϯϳϭϳϰ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
ůĞĐtŝůĞLJ ůďĂŶLJ ϭϮϮϬϴ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
DĂƌŝĂŬĂƌůĂ'ŽŵĞnj ,ŽůůLJǁŽŽĚ ϯϯϬϮϬ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
ŶŶĂ>ĂŝĚůĞƌ ĂƐƚ^ƚƌŽƵĚƐďƵƌŐ ϭϴϯϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
WŽũĂ^ŝŶŐŚǀũ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
ĂǀŝĚdƵĐŬĞƌ ŽŽŶĞ ϱϬϬϯϲ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
KůůŝĞ<ĞƚƚůĞ ĂƌƌŝŶŐƚŽŶ ϲϬϬϭϬ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
<ĂƌĞŶDĂƌƚŝŶ ZŽĂŶŽŬĞ ϮϰϬϭϱ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
ŽŶŶŽƌDĂĐĂůƵƐŽ DĂƌŝŽŶ ϰϯϯϬϮ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
WĞĞƐŚƚŝ ůŚĂŵďƌĂ ϵϭϴϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
ŵLJŶĂŵũĞĨ tĞƐƚWůĂŝŶƐ ϲϱϳϳϱ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
ůǀŝĞtŝůůŝĂŵƐ ŽůƵŵďƵƐ ϯϭϵϬϳ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
ůŝnjĂďĞƚŚtĞƌŬƐƚĞůů WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
ůĞdžŽǁůĞƐ hƌďĂŶĂ ϰϯϬϳϴ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
ĚĂŵ&ƌŝĞĚůĂŶĚĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
^ŚĞůůĞLJ&ůĞĐŬLJ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
:ƵƐƚŝŶWŽƉŶŽĞ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
:ĞĨĨƌĞLJ>ĞŝƚŶĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϭϳ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
DŝŬĞŽnjnjĞůůŝ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
DŝĐŚĂĞůĂƵƐĐŚŬĂ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϯ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
^ƵƐĂŶ^ŵŝƚŚ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
ŵŝĞDŝŬƐƚĂ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
:ĞĨĨDŝŬƐƚĂ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
:ŽŚŶĂƐůĞƌ >ŽƐŶŐĞůĞƐ ϵϬϬϲϬ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
>ĂƵƌĂZŝĐŚĂƌĚƐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
ŚƌŝƐƚŝZŽďŝŶƐŽŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϴ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
>ŽŬĞƐŚŶĂŶĚ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
WƌĞƌŶĂDĞŚůĂ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
<ĞƌƌLJĂŬĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
ƌĐŚĂŶĂ'ĂŶŐĂĚŚĂƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
^ƵƐĂŶ^ŚĞƌŽĨĨ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϰϭ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
EĂƚĂůŝĞtĂůŬĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
DŽŬŚƚĂƌŽƵŬŚĂƌŝ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
,ĞŝĚŝsĂŶEĞǁŬŝƌŬ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ƵďĂŝƌ^ŚŽƌĂ DŝĂŵŝ ϯϯϭϵϳ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
>ŝŶĚƐĞLJWƌŽĐŬ DLJƌƚůĞĞĂĐŚ Ϯϵϱϴϴ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
^ƵĐŚŝƚŚƌĂ<ƵŵĂƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
dĂŝLJĂtŽŽĚĞŶ ,ŽůůLJǁŽŽĚ ϯϯϬϮϳ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
:ŽƐĞƉŚĂŶĚůŽ <ĂŶƐĂƐŝƚLJ ϲϲϭϬϰ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ŝĞŐŽDŽƌĂůĞƐ >ŽƐŶŐĞůĞƐ ϵϬϬϮϴ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
:ŽƵƌŶĞLJ:ŽŚŶƐŽŶ DŽƵůƚƌŝĞ ϯϭϳϲϴ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
dŽŵ'ĞŽƌŐĞ ZŽǁůĞƚƚ ϳϱϬϴϵ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ŽƵƌƚŶĞLJKƐĂŬŝ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
>ŝǀĂŶWĞƌĂnjĂ DŝĂŵŝ ϯϯϭϯϴ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
tŽƵƚĞƌZŽŽĚĞŶďƵƌŐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
DĂŶŵĞĞƚƵŐŐĂů WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
^ĂƌĂŚ:ĞǁĞƚƚ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
<ĂŵŶĂ'ĂƵƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
EĞĞƌĂũhŵĂƌũŝŬĂƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
tĞŶũŝĞdĂŶŐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϭϲ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
>ƵůƵtĂŶŐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
zƵŚŝĞŚWŚĂŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϭϲ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
WĞƚĞƌ<ŚƵƵ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
<ĂƚĞůLJŶŚĞŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
DĂŶ&ĞŶŐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
DĞůŝƐƐĂZƵĞƚƚĞŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϭϲ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
DĂƌLJ^ŚƵůůĂǁ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
<ĂƌŝtŝůůŝĂŵƐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϯϲ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ŝũƵDŽŶWĂLJLJĂƉƉŝůůLJWĂƵůŽƐĞ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ZĂƐŚŝŐĂƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϳ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ŶĚƌĞĂ<ĞĞŐĂŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
^ĂƌĂDŝůůĞƚƚ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
DĂƌŝƐĂKŽŶŶŽƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϯ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ƌĂĚĞƌŐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ZĞďĞĐĐĂDĂƵĐŬ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ZĞŵŝĞ>ŽƵĚLJ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϵ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ĂŶŝĞůĂĞƚĂŶĐŽƵƌƚ ,ŽůůĂŶĚ ϰϵϰϮϯ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
DĂƌŐĂƌĞƚůůĞŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ĚĚŝƐŽŶ^ƉƌĂĚůŝŶ ĂŶƚŽŶŵĞŶƚ ϯϮϱϯϯ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
dŚŽŵĂƐdƌĞĚƌĞĂ ĂƚĂǀŝĂ ϲϬϱϭϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ŵĞŐŚĂŶƉĂƌŬĞƌ ,ŽďĂƌƚ ϰϲϯϰϮ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
'ƵŶũĂDĂƐŬĂLJ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϰϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ůĞdžŝƐYƵŝũĂŶŽ ƵƐƚŝŶ ϳϴϳϬϯ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
DĞůŽĚLJDĞŶĚĞnj ďƌŝƐƚŽů ϲϬϭϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ƌŽŽŬĞtŝůůŝĂŵƐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϵ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
DŝŐƵĞů^ŝĞƌƌĂ ĞĚĨŽƌĚ ϳϲϬϮϭ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
:ŽĚLJtŝůŵĞƐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϰϭ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ƵƚŚĂŝŶĂ^ĂůĞŵ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
'ŝƌŝƐŚDŽƵƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
EŝĐŽůĞ<ŽŽůŝĐŬ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
E< WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϯ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
^ƌŝŶŝDŽŽůĂ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
^ĂďĂ:ŽƐŚĂŐŚĂŶŝ ůŚĂŵďƌĂ ϵϭϴϬϯ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
^ĂŵƐŽŶĨĞǁŽƌŬŝ ƵƌŽƌĂ ϴϬϬϭϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
<ŚĂŝƌŵŽŚĂŵŵĂĚŬŚŽŶĚnjĂĚĂ tĞƐƚsĂůůĞLJŝƚLJ ϴϰϭϮϴ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
DĂŵƚĂ:ĂŝŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
dŝĨĨĂŶLJŶĚĞƌƐĞŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ůLJƐĞDĞŝƐůŝŬ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
<Ƶƌƚ,͘DŝůůĞƌ DŝĂŵŝ &> ϯϯϭϵϳ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
^ŚĞĂDĐŽƌŵŝĐŬ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ůůŝŽƚƚƌŽƉƉ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϭϳ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
:ĞŶŶŝĨĞƌZĞĂŵƐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
zĂŶĂŝ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
:ĂŶĞ^ŽƵŬƵƉ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
:ŽƐŚƵĂZĞĞĚLJ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϲϵ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
<ĂƚŚLJEĂƐƐĂƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϯϲ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
DĞůŝƐƐĂŚĂŶĚůĞĞ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ZĞďĞĐĐĂZĞĞĚLJ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϲϵ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
DĂůůŽƌŝĞ>Ă&ŽƌĞƐƚ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ƌŝĂŶĂŽǁŝĞ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
>ĂLJůĂ^ĂŝŬůĞLJ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
'ŝŶĂtĂůƐƚĂĚ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
sŝŬĂƐhƉĂĚŚLJĂLJĂ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϯ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
DĞƌĞĚŝƚŚWŽůůŽǀ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
EĂƚĂůĞĞ<ĂƌƌĞ &ƌĞĚŽŶŝĂ ϲϲϳϯϲ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ďŝW ,ŽƵƐƚŽŶ ϳϳϬϵϵ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ƐƚŚĞƌ&ĂƚŽŬƵŶ dĞƌƌĞ,ĂƵƚĞ ϰϳϴϬϳ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
dĞƌƌLJůĂnjĞ ^ĞĐĂƵĐƵƐ ϳϬϵϰ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ůĞƐƐĂŶĚƌĂsŝůůĂƌ ,ŝĂůĞĂŚ ϯϯϬϭϮ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ĞďďŝĞDŝůůĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϮ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ĞůĞƐƚĞĞƐĂƌŝŽ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ZLJĂŶtĂĚĚŝŶŐƚŽŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
:ŝŶŐLJŝ^Śŝ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ZŽďĞƌƚDĂƌŬƵƐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ŚĂƌĂƚŚŝ:ĂLJĂƌĂŵĂŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
dĞƌƌĂ^ŽƐĂ DĞƐĂ ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ĂƌƌĞŶWŽǁĞůů <ĞŶĂŝ ϵϵϲϭϭ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ŽƌĞLJŵƐůŝĞ DŽďŝůĞ ϯϲϲϭϮ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
>ĂƵƌĂƌĂĐŚůĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ĂĚĚŝƐŽŶĐĂƐƚŽĞ ŝĂŵŽŶĚŚĞĂĚ ϯϵϱϮϱ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
KůƵǁĂŬĞŵŝĚĞĚŽLJŝŶ /ŶĚŝĂŶĂƉŽůŝƐ ϰϲϮϱϱ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
^ƚĂĐLJdĂŽƵŝů WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϳ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
DĞůŝƐƐĂtŽnjŶŝĂŬ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ĂŬ,ŽƵƐĞ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
DĂŶĂƐŝ< WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
DĂƌŝƚnjĂ>ŽƉĞnj ,ŽƵƐƚŽŶ ϳϳϬϱϮ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
,zt,z^hE^,/E ĂůůĂƐ ϳϱϮϳϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
zŽƵƌDŽƚŚĞƌ ŬƌŽŶ ϰϰϯϬϳ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ůĂŶtĂůƐƚĂĚ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
<ƌŝƐƚŝ,ƵĞďŶĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ƌĂĚLJWŽůůŽǀ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϭϳ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
,ĞůĂŶĂŽLJůĞ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
DŝĐŚĞůůĞĂĐŚ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϲϲ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ĞďďŝĞŽůĚĞ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
>ĞƐůŝĞŝĨĨ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
DŝŬĞŽůĚĞ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
WĂŝŐĞĂƐůĞƌ ĂǀĞƌĞĞŬ ϴϱϯϯϭ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ZƵƐƚLJĞŶƚŽŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
'ƌĞŐEĞůƐŽŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
DĞůŝƐƐĂ^ĐŚǁĂŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϲ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ZŽďĞƌƚďďŽƚƚ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϰϭ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
DĂŶŝƐŚĂ'ŽǁůŝŬĂƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϮϵ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ŵŝůLJDŽŚƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
<ĞůůLJŶŶ>ĂĨĨĞLJ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ĞŶŶĂ^ĐŚĂĞĨĞƌ WĂůŵĞƌ ϵϵϲϰϱ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ŬĂƚĂƌŝŶĂŵĞůŝĂŶ KĂŬůĂŶĚ ϵϰϲϭϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ĂƌŵĞŶůůĞŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
:ŽƐŚƵĂƵƌƉŚĞLJ WĞƚĞƌďŽƌŽƵŐŚ Wϳ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
^ĂďƌŝŶĂ^ƵŶĚƋƵŝƐƚ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϭϲ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ĞůŝŶĞĞǀĞƌůLJ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
<ĞůĐŝ,ƵŶƚĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
'ĞŽƌŐĞDĐŶĂŵĂƌĂ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
YŝŶŐLJĂŶŐ>ŝ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
DĂLJƌĂŽƵŬŚĂƌŝ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϰϭ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
:ŝůůzŽƵŶŐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ĂŶĂƉƐƚĞŝŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϴ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
tŝůůŝĂŵ<ĞůůLJ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ZĂŚƵůDĞŶŽŶ ^ĐŽƚƚƐĚĂůĞ ϴϱϮϱϰ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
yŝŚƵ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ƐŵŝƚĂ^ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϮϱϰ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
DŝĐŚĞůĞZŝŽƌĚĂŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
DĂƌŬůůĞŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
>ŝƐĂKƌŵƐďLJ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
WĂƵůKƌŵƐďLJ:ƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ŶĚLJDĞƐĞĐŚĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ĞĂŶdĞƌnjŝĐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
^ůĂǀĞŶ'ƵƐĂŬ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϴ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
sĂůĞƌŝĞ'ŝǀĞŶƐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
<ŝƌĂŶhƉƉĂů WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϰ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
ĞůŝŶĚĂƵƌƚŝƐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
dĂLJůŽƌhŶŐĞƌĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϯϮ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
ĂƌŽů&ĞƌƌĂĐŽ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
ŚƌŝƐKΖŽŶŶŽƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
ƌŝĐĂŽŽƉĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϮϰ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
:ĞŶŶŝĨĞƌƵĚŝĂĐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
'ƌĞŐŽƌLJƵĚŝĂĐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
>ŝŶĚĂDŽŶƚŐŽŵĞƌLJ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
>ĂǀĂŶLJĂhĚƵƉĂ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
EĂƚĂůŝĞ>ĞŝƚŶĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
<ĞůƐĞLJDĂƚŚŝƐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
:ĞŶŶĂ^ƚŽŶĞďĞƌŐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϵ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
>ĂƵƌĞŶ<ŶĂƉƉ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϳ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
ŚƌŝƐ<ĂLJ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
ŚƌŝƐ<ŶĂƉƉ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
Ƶƌƚ<ŶĂƉƉ ^ĐŽƚƚƐĚĂůĞ ϴϱϮϲϭ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
ůĂƵĚŝĂWĂĐŬ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϴ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
^ƵƐĂŶ<ŶĂƉƉ ^ĐŽƚƚƐĚĂůĞ ϴϱϮϲϭ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
ZĞďĞĐĐĂůĚƌŝĚŐĞ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
<ĞůĞŶĞKƚƚĞƌƐŽŶ WƌĞƐĐŽƚƚ ϴϲϯϬϮ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
^ƵĚŚĂhŐĞŶĚƌĂŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
:ŝĂĞŶŐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
EŝĐŽůĞƵƌŶĞƐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
^ĂƌĂƵĐŚĂŶĂŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϮϰ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
DĞŐŚĂŶŶ:ŽŶĞƐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
<ƌŝƐƚLJDĐŽŽů WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϰϬ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
ŵLJ,ŽƵƐĞ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
<ůĂŝƌDŽƐĞƐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
<ŝŵďĞƌĞǀŽĞ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
>ĂƵƌĂZĂLJ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϲ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
dĂŶLJĂZŽŵĞƌŽ ƉŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϮϳ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
WƌĞĞƚŝDĞŶŽŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
<ĂƚŚĞƌŝŶĞ,ƵƚĐŚŝŶƐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
^ƌŝĚŚĂƌzĂĚĂǀ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϭϲ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
^ŚĂŶŶŽŶĚĂŵƐ ^ĐŽƚƚƐĚĂůĞ ϴϱϮϱϰ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
sŝǀĞŬsĂƌƐŚŶĞLJ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
ZĞďĞĐĐĂdŝƐĐŚůĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
ŵŝƚĂǀĂ<ƵŶĚƵ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϴϬ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
ƌĂŶĚŽŶZĂƉĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
dLJůŽƌdƵƚƚůĞ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
>ŝŶŶĂĞĂ'ŽĚǁŝŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
DĞůŝƐƐĂWŽƐƚůĞƌͲWŝĞƌĐĞ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϵϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
ZŽďLJŶĞ^ĐŚƵůƚnj >ŽƐŶŐĞůĞƐ ϵϬϬϭϭ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
:ĂLJĞĞƚĂ<ƵŶĚƵ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϴϬ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
ZŚŽŶĚĂtĂůĚĞƌƐĞŶ ^ĐŽƚƚƐĚĂůĞ ϴϱϮϲϮ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
ĂǀŝĚ^ƚŝŶĞ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϰϯϬϱϰ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
DŝĐŚĞůůĞ^ƚĞůŶŝŬ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
:ĞŶŶŝĨĞƌtŝůůŝƐͲ:ŽƐƚ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
^ƚĞĨĂŶŝƵĐŬĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϭϳ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
>ĂƵƌĂZĞLJŶŽƐŽ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
>ŽƌƌŝƵĐŚŽůnj WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
DĞůŝƐƐĂĞƌŐůŝŶĚ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
LJĚŶĞLJ,ƵďďĂƌĚ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
^ŚĂƌŽŶ<ŶĞĐŚƚ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
ĂƚŚĞƌŝŶĞĞĞ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
<LJůĞZĞŝĐŚĞƌƚ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
ZĞďĞĐĐĂĚĞ:ĞƐƵƐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
<ŝŵŶĚĞƌƐŽŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϲϴ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
<ĞǀŝŶ:ŽƐƚ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
ZŽďŝŶŽǁŝĞ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϰ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
ǀĞůLJŶ'ƌŝĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
WĂƵůŝĞƌďƵƐƐĞ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
^ĂƌĂŚ'ĂǀŝŐĂŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
^ŚƵŽzĂŶŐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
<ƌLJƐƚůĞĚŵŽŶĚƐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
:ĞŶŶŝĨĞƌŽŽůĂŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
ůŝnjĂďĞƚŚEĞůƐŽŶ ^ĞĂƚƚůĞ t ϵϴϭϵϵ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
>ŝŶĚĂ,ŽƵƐƚŽŶ ĞŶǀĞƌ K ϴϬϮϬϲ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
ĂŶŝĞůůĞĞĂĐŽŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
:ŽŚŶWŝůnjŶĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
:ĂƌĞĚ>ĞǁŝƐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϲ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
:ĂĚĂ>ĞǁŝƐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϰϬ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
ŶĚƌĞĂZĞŵŬĞ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
ŵĂŶĚĂ<ĂŝƐĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
tĞŶĚLJDŽLJĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϳ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
ZŽďĞƌƚ,ŽƵƐƚŽŶ ĞŶǀĞƌ K ϴϬϮϭϴ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
ƌŝĂŶĂƌŽǁŶĞůů WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
^ŚĂŶŶŽŶ>ĂƵĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
ůĞdžĂŶĚƌĂĂŶŝĞůƐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
:ĞĂŶŶĞŽŵƐƚŽĐŬ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϲϯϭϰ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
tĞŶĚLJŽLJůĞ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
>ŝƐĂDĐ/ŶƚLJƌĞ EŽƌƚŚǀŝůůĞ D/ ϰϴϭϲϴ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
ĂǀŝĚ&ƌĂŶĐLJŬ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
,ŝůůĂƌLJ'ƌŽƐƐŵĂŶ ^ĐŽƚƚƐĚĂůĞ ϴϱϮϱϭ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
^ƚĞƉŚĂŶŝĞDĂƐŽŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
^ĂŶĚƌĂ/ƚŬŽǁŝƚnj WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
,ĂƌŐƵŶ<ĂƵƌ ^ŽƵƚŚŝŶŐƚŽŶ ϲϰϴϵ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
DĂƌŝƐĞůĂ͘ dŚĞƌŽŶdž ϭϬϰϱϭ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
zĂŵŝůŬŽ>ƵŐŽ DŝĂŵŝ ϯϯϭϬϮ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
ZĂĐŚĞů^ƚĞŝŶďĞƌŐ DĂŶŚĂƚƚĂŶ ϲϬϰϰϮ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
,ŝĐŚĂŵDĂĨŚŽƵŵ ŚŝĐĂŐŽ ϲϬϲϮϱ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
:ĂŵĞƐŽŶ>Ƶƚnj DĞůďŽƵƌŶĞĞĂĐŚ ϯϮϵϱϭ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
/ƐĂĂĐ^ĂŶĐŚĞnj &ƌĞŵŽŶƚ ϰϯϰϮϬ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
:ĞƐƵƐ:ĞƐƵƐ >ĞǁŝƐďƵƌŐ ϯϳϬϵϭ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
WĂŵĞůĂ^ƚĞǁĂƌƚ ,ŽƵƐƚŽŶ ϳϳϬϲϰ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
ĐĂLJůĂŐĂƌĐŝĂ DŝĂŵŝ ϯϯϭϲϵ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
ŝŵĞĞDŝƌĂŶĚĂ ǀĞŶƚƵƌĂ ϯϯϭϲϭ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
ĂŶŝĞůWŽƉĞ WƌŽǀŽ ϴϰϲϬϰ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
'ůĞŶWŝŶĐŬŶĞLJ ƚůĂŶƚĂ ϯϬϯϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
:ĂŶĞƌǀĂ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϯϯϭ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
ƌŽŽŬĞzƵůĞ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϮϰ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
ƌĂŶĚŝ:ĞŶŬŝŶƐ ^ĐŽƚƚƐĚĂůĞ ϴϱϮϱϰ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
:ŝůĂŶŶĞZŽƐĞ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
ƌĂŶĚŝŶĂtĂĚĞ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
WĞƚĞĞĚŽƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
>ĂƌƌLJ>ĂĚĚ ŚŝĐŽ ϵϱϵϮϴ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
:ƌŽǁŶ ^ĂŶ&ƌĂŶĐŝƐĐŽ ϵϰϭϬϵ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
ĂƌĂLJĂŚĂďƚĞ >ŽƐŶŐĞůĞƐ ϵϬϬϬϮ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
DŝŐƵĞůŝŶĂƐƉŝƌŝƚƵ dŚĞƌŽŶdž Ez ϭϬϰϱϮ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
^ŚĞŝůĂĞƚŚĂŶĐŽƵƌƚ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
ŽďĂǀŝƐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
^ŚĞŝůĂ>ŽŶŐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
ƐŚůĞĞ&ƌĂŶĐŝƐĐŽ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
ŚƌŝƐƚŝŶĞůĞdžĂŶĚĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϲ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
ŬƌŝƐƚŝĚŽǁŶŝŶŐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
ƌŝƚŶĞLJ:ĂĐŽďƐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
,ĂŝůĞLJzŽƐƚ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϳ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
^ŚĞůůLJ:ŝŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
ŚĞůƐĞĂZĂŶĚĂůůͲDĐtŚĞƌƚĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
ŚĂŶ:ŝŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
DĂƌŝĂdŽƌŽdŽƌŽ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϴϬ h^ ϵͬϭϴͬϮϬϮϯ
ŝŶĚLJWŽŶĐŝĂŶŽ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϴͬϮϬϮϯ
ƌŝĂŶŶĂDĂŬŽƐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϮϰ h^ ϵͬϭϴͬϮϬϮϯ
tĞŶĚLJWŝĞƌŵĂƌŝŶŝ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϴͬϮϬϮϯ
ĂǁŶDĂƌƚŝŶĞnj WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϲϴ h^ ϵͬϭϴͬϮϬϮϯ
DŝŬĞ,ĂƵŐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϴͬϮϬϮϯ
/ǀLJŝƌŝƚnj WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϮϰ h^ ϵͬϭϴͬϮϬϮϯ
:ĂƐŽŶƉƐƚĞŝŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϴͬϮϬϮϯ
ŝǀLJĂzŽĚĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϴͬϮϬϮϯ
:ĞŶŶŝĨĞƌ<ŝŶĚůĞ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϴͬϮϬϮϯ
dĞƌĞƐĂ^ǁŝŶŐůĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϴͬϮϬϮϯ
<ƌŝƐƚĞŶdŚŝĞůĞŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϴͬϮϬϮϯ
ĐƌŝƐƚŝĂŶĂĐŚŝŵ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϴͬϮϬϮϯ
:ƵůŝĞZŝĐŚĂƌĚƐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϴͬϮϬϮϯ
Žď'ŝĂŵŵĂƌĐŽ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϴͬϮϬϮϯ
ĂƌůĞŶĞ^ĂƵĐŝĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϴͬϮϬϮϯ
>ĂƵƌĂWŝĞƌĐĞ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϴͬϮϬϮϯ
ŚƌŝƐƚŝŶĞŽǁůĞLJ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϴͬϮϬϮϯ
ŬĞŝƚŚƐĐŚŵŽůnjĞ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϴͬϮϬϮϯ
:ĞŶŶLJEĂďĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϰϭ h^ ϵͬϭϴͬϮϬϮϯ
:ĞŶŶŝĨĞƌ:ŽƐƚ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϴͬϮϬϮϯ
ůůŝƐŽŶ'ƌŝƐǁĞůů WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϴͬϮϬϮϯ
EŝĚŚŝ<ƌŝƐŚŶĂ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϴͬϮϬϮϯ
<h^,/</>/W WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϴͬϮϬϮϯ
ůůĂZŝĐŚĂƌĚƐ dĞŵƉĞ ϴϱϮϴϭ h^ ϵͬϭϴͬϮϬϮϯ
ƵĚƌĞLJ,ĂŵŵŽŶĚ dĞŵƉĞ ϴϱϮϴϭ h^ ϵͬϭϴͬϮϬϮϯ
Ğď<ŽnjĂŬ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϴͬϮϬϮϯ
ƌŝŶZƵĞďďĞůŬĞ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϴͬϮϬϮϯ
EŝƌŵĂůũŝKĚĞĚƌĂ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϰ h^ ϵͬϭϵͬϮϬϮϯ
:ĞŶŶŝĨĞƌ>ĂƌƐŽŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϵͬϮϬϮϯ
ĞƚŚĂŶLJ>ĂƵďĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϵͬϮϬϮϯ
:ƵƐƚŝŶ>ĂƵďĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϵͬϮϬϮϯ
<ĂƚŚůĞĞŶƌŝŶŬ ŽnjĞŵĂŶ Dd ϱϵϳϭϱ h^ ϵͬϭϵͬϮϬϮϯ
ůŝƐĂƚŝŵƐ DŝƐƐŽƵůĂ Dd ϱϵϴϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϵͬϮϬϮϯ
<ĂLJŶĂWŽƉŶŽĞ &ŽƌƚtŽƌƚŚ dy ϳϲϭϮϳ h^ ϵͬϭϵͬϮϬϮϯ
EŝĐŬWŽƉŶŽĞ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϵͬϮϬϮϯ
:ŝŵWŽƉŶŽĞ &ŽƌƚtŽƌƚŚ dy ϳϲϬϯϯ h^ ϵͬϭϵͬϮϬϮϯ
ƵĚƌĞLJŽLJĚ &ŽƌƚŽůůŝŶƐ K ϴϬϱϮϳ h^ ϵͬϭϵͬϮϬϮϯ
>ƵŝƐ,ĞƌŶĂŶĚĞnj ĂƉĞŽƌĂů ϯϯϵϭϰ h^ ϵͬϭϵͬϮϬϮϯ
ůŝnjĂďĞƚŚƵĐĂƌ ^ĐŽƚƚƐĚĂůĞ ϴϱϮϲϬ h^ ϵͬϭϵͬϮϬϮϯ
^ĐŽƚƚůĂƌŬ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϵͬϮϬϮϯ
EŝŬŽůĂLJ<ĂƉĂƐŚŝŬŽǀ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϵͬϮϬϮϯ
:ĞŶŶŝĨĞƌ&ƌĂŶĐLJŬ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϵͬϮϬϮϯ
^ĂƌĂŚdŽƌƌŝůŚŽŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϮϰ h^ ϵͬϭϵͬϮϬϮϯ
ZĞďĞĐĐĂŽƌŶĞůů WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϵͬϮϬϮϯ
DĂƌĂdƵĐŬĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱ h^ ϵͬϭϵͬϮϬϮϯ
ĞƐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϯϮ h^ ϵͬϭϵͬϮϬϮϯ
ůŝĐŝĂWĞŶŶĞƌ :ŽŚŶƐƚŽŶ / ϱϬϭϯϭ h^ ϵͬϭϵͬϮϬϮϯ
ŶĚƌĞĂŶĚĞƌƐŽŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϴ h^ ϵͬϭϵͬϮϬϮϯ
ĂƌŽŶƌƵŚŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϮϵ h^ ϵͬϭϵͬϮϬϮϯ
ůůŝƐŽŶWŽƉŶŽĞ ^ĞĂƚƚůĞ t ϵϴϭϯϲ h^ ϵͬϭϵͬϮϬϮϯ
ĚƌŝĂŶĂŶŝĞůƐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϵͬϮϬϮϯ
ZŝĐŬLJĂƌďĞƌ >ŽƐŶŐĞůĞƐ ϵϬϬϲϱ h^ ϵͬϭϵͬϮϬϮϯ
ZŽƐĂŶŐƵůŽ dĂŵƉĂ ϯϯϲϬϲ h^ ϵͬϭϵͬϮϬϮϯ
EŝĐŬ^ƚĞƌƌLJ DŝŶŶĞĂƉŽůŝƐ ϱϱϰϬϴ h^ ϵͬϭϵͬϮϬϮϯ
DŝĐŚĂĞůKΖEĞŝů WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϯϰ h^ ϵͬϭϵͬϮϬϮϯ
:ƵůŝĂ>ĞǀĞŶĞ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϲϵ h^ ϵͬϭϵͬϮϬϮϯ
sƌŝŶĚĂƌŽƌĂ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϯϲ h^ ϵͬϭϵͬϮϬϮϯ
:ĞƐƐŝĐĂYƵŝŶƚ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϮϰ h^ ϵͬϮϬͬϮϬϮϯ
^ŚĞƌŝĞƌŶƐƚĞŝŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϯϬ h^ ϵͬϮϬͬϮϬϮϯ
>ƵŬĞZŝĐŚĂƌĚƐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϮϬͬϮϬϮϯ
EŽĂŚZŝĐŚĂƌĚƐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϮϬͬϮϬϮϯ
,ĂŶŬZŝĐŚĂƌĚƐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϰ h^ ϵͬϮϬͬϮϬϮϯ
^ĂĞĚĂtĂƌĚ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϳϲ h^ ϵͬϮϬͬϮϬϮϯ
DŝƐƚLJDĂŶĞƐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϰ h^ ϵͬϮϬͬϮϬϮϯ
,ĂŶŶĂŚ&ĂƌĨŽƵƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϮϬͬϮϬϮϯ
ĂǀŝĚĂƌŽŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϮϬͬϮϬϮϯ
ŶŶĞƚƚĞƵƌƚŽŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϯϬ h^ ϵͬϮϬͬϮϬϮϯ
ůŵĂƌŵĞŶƚĂ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϴ h^ ϵͬϮϬͬϮϬϮϯ
<ĞůůLJ^ĂŶĚĞƌƐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϵ h^ ϵͬϮϬͬϮϬϮϯ
ƌLJĂŶƚĞWŝĂnjnjĂ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϮϬͬϮϬϮϯ
E^,h>ZKZ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϮϬͬϮϬϮϯ
DŝĐŚĞůůĞ^ƵnjƵŬŝ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϮϬͬϮϬϮϯ
ZĂĐŚĂĞů^ůŽƐŬLJ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϮϬͬϮϬϮϯ
ŶŶ&ŝƐŚĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϳ h^ ϵͬϮϬͬϮϬϮϯ
WĂƚƌŝĐŝĂŝĂŵĂŶƚ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϮϬͬϮϬϮϯ
ĞĂŶŶĂĂůnjĞůůͲŚĂŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϮϬͬϮϬϮϯ
tŝŶƐƚŽŶŚĂŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϮϬͬϮϬϮϯ
ZĂũĞƐŚsĂŝĚLJĂ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϮϬͬϮϬϮϯ
ZĂLJŵŽŶĚƌŽŽŬƐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϮϰ h^ ϵͬϮϬͬϮϬϮϯ
:ĂŵĞƐdĂLJůŽƌ ^ĐŽƚƚƐĚĂůĞ ϴϱϮϲϭ h^ ϵͬϮϬͬϮϬϮϯ
:ĂLJĚĂƚƚ:ŽƐŚŝ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϮϬͬϮϬϮϯ
<ƌƵƚĂƌƚŚ:ŽƐŚŝ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϰϬ h^ ϵͬϮϬͬϮϬϮϯ
<ŝŵďĞƌůLJ:ŽŚŶƐŽŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϯ h^ ϵͬϮϭͬϮϬϮϯ
ŽůĞ:ŽŚŶƐŽŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϮϭͬϮϬϮϯ
'ĂŐĞ:ŽŚŶƐŽŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϮϭͬϮϬϮϯ
KůŐĂZĞŵƉĞů WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϮϭͬϮϬϮϯ
DŝĐŚĂĞů<ŝƉĞƌŵĂŶ ŚĂŶĚůĞƌ ϴϱϮϮϰ h^ ϵͬϮϭͬϮϬϮϯ
dŝŵĂƌŝZƵƐĂŬ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϮϭͬϮϬϮϯ
ůĂŝƌĞ'ƌĂŶƚ ^ƚŽƌƌƐ ϲϮϲϵ h^ ϵͬϮϭͬϮϬϮϯ
tĞƐůĞLJKƌŽnjĐŽ >LJŶŶ ϭϵϬϮ h^ ϵͬϮϭͬϮϬϮϯ
/ƐĂďĞůůĂZŽŵŝŶĞ ƌĂĚĞŶƚŽŶ ϯϰϮϬϭ h^ ϵͬϮϭͬϮϬϮϯ
ŵLJEĂũĞƌĂ Ğůů ϵϬϮϬϭ h^ ϵͬϮϭͬϮϬϮϯ
ĂŶŝĞůůĞ&ůŝŶŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϰϬ h^ ϵͬϮϭͬϮϬϮϯ
DŝĐŚĞůůĞ^ŽƵŶĂƌƚ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϮϭͬϮϬϮϯ
LJŶƚŚŝĂĞŶŶĞƚƚĞ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϮϭͬϮϬϮϯ
ŚĞƌĞĞƌŽǁŶ ĂǀĞƌĞĞŬ ϴϱϯϯϭ h^ ϵͬϮϭͬϮϬϮϯ
ƌĞŶĚĂ^ĐŚŵĂůnj ^ĐŽƚƚƐĚĂůĞ ϴϱϮϲϭ h^ ϵͬϮϭͬϮϬϮϯ
<ĂĐŝKůĚƌŽLJĚ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϴ h^ ϵͬϮϭͬϮϬϮϯ
^ĂŶĚLJĂŵƉďĞůů WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϮϭͬϮϬϮϯ
ŵŝĐŚĂĞůďŽĞĚĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϮϭͬϮϬϮϯ
ĂŶŝĞůtĞůŬĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϮϭͬϮϬϮϯ
ĂǀĞDŽLJĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϮϭͬϮϬϮϯ
ůLJƚŚĞ>ŝƉŵĂŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϮϮͬϮϬϮϯ
dĂLJůŽƌDŽƐŬŽǀŝĐŚ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϴ h^ ϵͬϮϮͬϮϬϮϯ
DŽůůLJ&ŝŶĞ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϮϮͬϮϬϮϯ
ůŝnjĂEĞƵĨĞůĚ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϮϮͬϮϬϮϯ
:ĂLJŵĞDĞƐĞĐŚĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϮϮͬϮϬϮϯ
^ŚĞĞŶĂ>ŽǀĞƚƚ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϵ h^ ϵͬϮϮͬϮϬϮϯ
DŝĐŚĂĞů,ĞŶĞŝŶ DĞƌƌŝĐŬ ϭϭϱϲϲ h^ ϵͬϮϮͬϮϬϮϯ
ĂŶĂ,ƵĞƚŚĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϮϮͬϮϬϮϯ
ĂǀŝĚƌŝƚƚŽŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϲϵ h^ ϵͬϮϮͬϮϬϮϯ
ǀĂƌŝƚƚŽŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϲϵ h^ ϵͬϮϮͬϮϬϮϯ
ůĞdžƌŝƚƚŽŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϲϵ h^ ϵͬϮϮͬϮϬϮϯ
WĂƵů^ƵƌĚĂŬŽǁƐŬŝ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϮϮͬϮϬϮϯ
<ĂLJůĂ'ƌĂŶĚĞ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϮϰ h^ ϵͬϮϮͬϮϬϮϯ
ZŚŽŶĚĂŝŵŵŝĐŬ ĞƐĞƌƚ,ŝůůƐ ϴϱϬϴϲ h^ ϵͬϮϮͬϮϬϮϯ
:ĂĐŬDĂĐŽŶĂůĚͲ,ŝůƚŽŶ tŽƌĐĞƐƚĞƌ ϭϲϬϵ h^ ϵͬϮϮͬϮϬϮϯ
,ĂŶŶĂŚ^ŽůŝŵĂŶ ŚĂƌůŽƚƚĞ ϮϴϬϳϱ h^ ϵͬϮϮͬϮϬϮϯ
ŶĚƌĞǁ&ůŽLJĚ h^ ϵͬϮϮͬϮϬϮϯ
ĂƚŚLJŽƵ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϮϮͬϮϬϮϯ
From: Richards, Dan
To: PDD Long Range Planning; Anthony M Grande; Council District 2 PCC
Subject: RE: GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2 Black Mountain Village
Date: Friday, September 22, 2023 2:18:14 PM
Attachments: image002.png
Could I sneak in one final comment into the case file that was just getting brought up last night?
People are now getting emails from Vestar trying to promote the need for more grocery stores in
this area. The verbiage they are using was that Desert Ridge incredibly only has one grocery store in
a 21-mile square area. Talk about incredibly confusing and misleading. 21-mile square area? Who
speaks that way? Did they mean 21 square miles? They used 21-mile square area intentionally to
confuse people. These people are spreading lies to try getting people to sign their ONLINE petitions.
I would be very interested to see how many of these people that have signed their ONLINE petition
live outside of the Desert Ridge area.
Another thing I would ask Gammage and Burham how many of these people signed their petition,
while voting for a Sprouts or Trader Joes in their online survey? They are deceiving the public with
this survey when they knew before they began the survey that these smaller grocery stores aren’t
even an option to be used as the grocer.
I would like the City and the Village Planning Committee to request the results of their online survey
become public records. I would be willing to bet over 50% of their supporters are looking for
something Vestar already knew wasn’t an option.
Thanks,
Dan Richards
From: PDD Long Range Planning
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2023 2:04 PM
To: Richards, Dan
District 2 PCC
Subject: RE: GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2 Black Mountain Village
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]: Verify sender before opening links or attachments.
Thank you, your comment has been received.
Thank you,
Sarah Stockham
Planner III
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
Phone: 602-261-8701
sarah.stockham@phoenix.gov
From: Richards, Dan
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 9:35 AM
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2 Black Mountain Village
Dear Mr. Grande and Councilman Waring,
I submitted an email on September 13 pertaining to my opposition to the proposed development .
One of the points made in my previous email was stating the amount of gas stations and grocery
stores within a 3-mile radius of the Deer Valley and Black Mountain intersection. I mentioned 11 gas
stations within a 3-mile radius, but the correct number is 12 gas stations.
It was brought to my attention that Gammage and Burnham met with the residents of Sky Crossing
shared an exhibit showing the lack of gas stations and grocery store options within a 5-mile radius.
They failed to show all the options south of the 101 in their exhibit, which is incredibly misleading. I
have attached a map that shows all the gas stations and grocery stores in a 3-mile radius. If you
change your search to a 4-mile radius, you find 18-gas stations. The grocery store options are quite
vast as well.
Grocery Stores included within a 4-mile radius include:
Costco
Walmart
Target
Sprouts Market Express
2 Fry’s
2 Albertson’s
Food City
Please take this into consideration when Vestar continues to tell people that Desert Ridge is lacking
grocery and gas station options. It’s simply not true. Our neighbors do not want this development
to be built. We all live in the residential superblock portion of Desert Ridge. If we wanted to live
within walking distance to restaurants, we would have moved closer to Desert Ridge Marketplace.
This isn’t for the residents of Desert Ridge. They’re looking at this parcel because they want the
traffic from the 51.
Thanks,
Dan Richards
Strand Associates, Inc.®
602.437.3733 ext. 6052
dan.richards@strand.com | www.strand.com [strand.com]
[strand.com]
Excellence in EngineeringSM
From: Valerie Arnold
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: No rezoning of Black Mountain and Deer Valley Road
Date: Saturday, September 23, 2023 10:31:19 AM
Please do not rezone. My kids go to Pinnacle High School and this is a stupid idea. There is
enough traffic there now. Please do not let Vestar come in. We need that land to stay
undeveloped.
Thank you.
From: Kathy Green
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Zoning of the corner of Black Mountain and Deer Valley
Date: Saturday, September 23, 2023 10:51:17 AM
As someone who lives in the area and drives that intersection every day, I fully oppose this re-zoning. Traffics is
already a mess in the mornings and afternoons.
I would love to have a grocery store in the area but that location is awful.
Warmest Regards,
Kathy Green
Mountain Gate Subdivision resident
Sent from my iPhone
From: C Dunn
To: Anthony M Grande; PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: Vestar Development Amendment and Zoning Requests for Superblock 12 in Desert Ridge
Date: Sunday, September 24, 2023 2:12:13 PM
To All Concerned With This Issue:
I recently attended a Desert Ridge Community Association meeting in which
representatives for Vestar presented a rough sketch of their development plan for
approximately 20 acres carved out of Superblock 12. Listening to them, one would
surmise that this development was for the benefit of our neighborhood. They
discussed a neighborhood grocery store, some small retail businesses, and dining
options. A rather straightforward design, you might think. What Vestar’s rep didn’t
mention was the inclusion of a gas station, fast food drive-throughs, and even a city
bus stop. A plan that sounded innocent enough at the time now begs the question
of how a development such as this would impact our neighborhood.
Vestar wants to rezone Superblock 12 from an R-2 residential designation to a C-2
commercial designation. With this rezoning would come a commercial
development, such as Vestar’s, right at our back door. There are many troubling
issues associated with this proposal. I am limiting my comments to the
environmental impact that Vestar’s proposal would have on our community.
One of the most significant pollutants of our environment is gas stations. For
instance, during fueling, toxic compounds such as Benzene (a known carcinogen),
Ethyl Benzene, Toluene, and Xylene (BTEX) are released into the air. Likewise,
these same compounds will pollute the air when there is leakage from the storage
tank vents. Spills from fueling and spills from emptying tanker trucks can occur,
causing soil, groundwater, surface water and air contamination. Even idling
engines of vehicles contribute to air pollution with the release of harmful
chemicals, gases, and particles. Add to this the road noise associated with an
overwhelming number of vehicles driving in and out of the gas station and one
must conclude that gas stations are one of the most significant polluters of our
environment.
Grocery stores and fast food restaurants are right behind gas stations when we
consider the extent to which they pollute the environment. The average grocery
store emits almost two tons of carbon dioxide from the electricity and natural gas
that it uses each year. In addition to that, grocery stores and fast food restaurants
generate tons of litter and garbage yearly. Proper disposal of these then becomes
a major issue. If strict guidelines aren’t followed, we are then dealing with air and
soil pollution, in addition to the environmental issues posed by rodents and other
pests attracted to the area. Another concern is the amount of traffic generated by
these businesses. Their customer traffic, their delivery trucks, and their trash
collection vehicles make a substantial contribution to both noise and air pollution.
Lastly, it is not surprising that air pollution is the direct result of food preparation.
With the kitchen exhaust fans we have the release of organic aerosol into the
environment. With grills, stoves, and ovens we have the release of formaldehyde,
carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide into the air. Naturally, these airborne
particulates are inhaled by everyone nearby. With ongoing exposure, these
particulates can be extremely harmful to individuals. This is especially true for
asthmatics and individuals dealing with long-term breathing problems such as
COPD.
It is obvious that the environmental impact of Vestar's proposed development
would not be limited to noise, air, soil, and light pollution. Their proposal would
guarantee both traffic pollution and people pollution, as well. Is it fair to assume
that crime in our neighborhood would not be far behind, if Vestar's proposal were
to be approved?
The negative impact that Vestar’s commercial development would have on our
neighborhood far outweighs any benefits of a grocery store, a gas station, and fast
food restaurants. With these services and many more just minutes away in the
Desert Ridge Marketplace, we don’t need them in our own back yard.. We must
keep Superblock 12 zoned R-2 Residential, as it was originally intended.
Please say NO to Vestar.
Carolyn Dunn
3752 E Covey Lane
Fireside Community
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Sunday, September 24, 2023 8:00:47 PM
Name
Sachiyo Moench
satosachiyo@hotmail.com
Support Comments
Traffic during school pickup/drop off and rush hour is already stressing the traffic flow in this area. The
traffic associated with a big box retailer would make this intersection/area much worse.
From: Jennifer Garcia
To: Anthony M Grande
Cc: Jennifer Garcia
Subject: Case No. SPA-DS1 V-2-23-2, Case No. CPA-DSTV-3-23-2 and Case No. 1-39-23.
Date: Monday, September 25, 2023 9:08:21 PM
Attachments: image001.png
Dear Anthony,
I am writing to let you know I’m very concerned with the new zoning up for approval.
reference case numbers below.
This zoning in my opinion is way to close to Pinnacle High School. The traffic is
already so congested with the onramp of hwy 51, and with new drivers (young from
the high school) potential accidents would be a huge concern.
I vote NO for the new commercial zoning. It needs to stay residential
Case No. SPA-DS1 V-2-23-2, Case No. CPA-DSTV-3-23-2 and Case No. 1-39-23.
Thank you, Jennifer Garcia
3824 E. Ringtail Way
Jennifer Garcia
www.RelationalWealthAdvisors.com [relationalwealthadvisors.com]
From: Jayme Mesecher
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Rezoning of Superblock 12
Date: Monday, September 25, 2023 8:07:45 PM
Hello,
I’d like to document my opposition to the rezoning of superblock 12. I am a homeowner
across the street at 3609 E Cat Balue Dr Phoenix AZ 85050 and do not want to see this area
rezoned for commercial use. Here are the case numbers:
Case No. SPA-DS1 V-2-23-2, Case No. CPA-DSTV-3-23-2 and Case No. 1-39-23.
Thank you,
Jayme Mesecher
From: Thejas Nair
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Case No. SPA-DS1 V-2-23-2, Case No. CPA-DSTV-3-23-2 and Case No. 1-39-23.
Date: Monday, September 25, 2023 8:44:10 PM
Reference : Case No. SPA-DS1 V-2-23-2, Case No. CPA-DSTV-3-23-2 and
Case No. 1-39-23.
Hello Sir,
This is regarding rezoning of superblock 12 - Case No. SPA-DS1
V-2-23-2, Case No. CPA-DSTV-3-23-2 and Case No. 1-39-23.
I am a resident of the Fireside community in Desert Ridge. I would
like to voice my concerns on rezoning superblock 12.
Rezoning to commercial would change the neighbourhood characteristics
to be less desirable and affect the peace and quiet of the Fireside
community. We already have sufficient access to grocery and other
businesses within a couple of miles in multiple directions.
If rezoning is still being considered, I would be for restricting the
hours of operations of the commercial establishments to be before 10pm
(or restrict it to such types of establishments). And not have other
establishments like gas stations that tend to operate very late in the
night.
Thanks,
Thejas
From: Tininenko, Jason
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: black mountain project
Date: Monday, September 25, 2023 4:24:16 PM
My family wanted to weigh in on the proposed black mountain village project.
We are Opposed to the building of a gas station, grocery store, or any large project that will increase
traffic, crime, and accidents.
A nice restaurant or 2 would be great, but Vape shops, Liquor stores, Pawn shops and gas stations
do not help wonderful neighborhoods like Aviano.
Thanks.
From: Suresh Uppalapu
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Rezoning of super block 12
Date: Monday, September 25, 2023 7:18:49 PM
Hello,
Please consider this email my vote and my wife’s vote in opposition of rezoning the area for
commercial use. It is too close to the schools in the neighborhood. Desert ridge shopping
complex is not that far. We don’t need another complex here. Also, the traffic for drop off and
pick up to Pinnacle and Fireside schools is already backed up. A commercial complex will
further complicate traffic and lead to traffic mishaps.
Please NO.
Sincerely,
Dr. Uppalapu and Dr. Veeranki
From: Kim Galetti
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: SW. Corner of Deer Valley & Black Mountain Blvd.
Date: Wednesday, July 19, 2023 1:51:47 PM
Anthony,
My spouse and I are very excited about the proposed project at the above corner. We badly
need a second option for groceries. This additional competition will be great for the residents
of Desert Ridge. It will also increase property values. Hope this project is approved and
ground is broken soon.
Mr. Kim Galetti
3864 E. Melinda Drive
Phoenix, AZ 85050
443-962-0974
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone [mail.onelink.me]
From: Nahian Latif
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Re: black mountain village
Date: Saturday, July 22, 2023 11:45:06 AM
Hi there,
I am a resident near the proposed zoning change at the intersection of deer valley and black
mountain. I support the zoning change to a small commercial to allow for a small grocery
store/retail shop/restaurant. Ideally a small grocery store like trader Joe's would be ideal.
Encourage bistros like Panera/chipotle or a local business to setup shop. Bike friendly lanes
and bike locks with shaded/mature trees around stops would enhance the experience. Future
growth for a public library adjacent would serve the area well.
Thank you
Nahian Latif
Local resident
From: Riley Dresser
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Support for Z-39-23
Date: Wednesday, August 2, 2023 2:48:50 PM
Hi Anthony,
I just wanted to express my support for this project. I live in Fireside and would love to have amenities closer to my
house without having to go to Desert Ridge.
Thank you,
Riley Dresser
Sent from my iPhone
From: Lauren Packer
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Rezoning Black Mountain/Deer Valley
Date: Thursday, August 3, 2023 8:34:43 PM
Just voicing our opinion for what it is worth.
We are not against the rezone. But we are against a gas station and drive thru fast food. Additionally if this is
rezoned, there must be traffic modifications on Black Mountain. My kids do not attend pinnacle but we get stuck in
the backlog daily and this is without additional people entering or exiting a shopping plaza.
We hope the city listens to the citizens.
Lauren Packer
Sent from my iPhone
From: Polson, Adam
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12
Date: Thursday, August 3, 2023 10:30:07 AM
Attachments: Logo_e6253148-26a1-47a9-b861-6ac0ff0bc3c4.png
80pctcolor_2022mansfieldcertificationbadge_492244a7-2944-454d-8270-3a8a522bf068.png
Mr. Grande,
I am sending this e-mail to indicate that I am IN FAVOR of the proposed development. You are likely to see a bunch of
people trying to complain, and my guess is that those people will try to drown out the people who do want the project. I
would strongly prefer if there was no gas station, but I understand the realities of the situation. To the extent there is a
compromise, I would suggest no gas station.
-Adam Polson
2845 E. Cashman Drive
Phoenix, Arizona 85050
Adam S. Polson
Partner
Adam.Polson@lewisbrisbois.com
T: 602.792.1503 F: 602.385.1051
Phoenix Plaza Tower II
2929 North Central Avenue, Suite 1700, Phoenix, AZ 85012 | LewisBrisbois.com [lewisbrisbois.com]
Representing clients from coast to coast. View our locations nationwide. [lewisbrisbois.com]
This e-mail may contain or attach privileged, confidential or protected information intended only for the use of the intended recipient. If you are not the
intended recipient, any review or use of it is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, you are required to notify the sender, then delete
this email and any attachment from your computer and any of your electronic devices where the message is stored.
From: shawnkline2
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Black Mountain Village Project
Date: Friday, August 4, 2023 1:55:26 PM
Hello Mr. Grande,
I am writing to you regarding the Black Mountain Village project on the corner of Deer Valley
and Black Mountain Dr. I am a resident of the Sky Crossing neighborhood directly across
from the proposed project. I welcome the zoning change from residential to commercial with a
few stipulations.
1. No gas station. It will increase loitering, traffic, and light pollution in the neighborhood.
2. Grocery store must be a smaller, neighborhood grocery store (Trader Joes, Sprouts, Whole
Foods). A large Fry’s or Albertsons type store would not fit into our residential area,
especially since there is already an Albertsons in Desert Ridge and on Cave Creek.
3. The businesses must be in line with the demographics of the neighborhood. Desert Ridge
and Sky Crossing are neighborhoods with high end homes. We need high end businesses,
shops and restaurants that would enhance our community and not degrade it like a large
grocery store and gas station would. This would also hopefully include appropriate
lightscaping and landscaping, so the business park blends into the desert area that we all
bought houses here for. We moved here because it was a quiet, residential area and we do not
want to see it turn into another corner of concrete, traffic, litter, and loitering.
Thank you for your concern and I look forward to hearing about the next steps of the project.
Shawn Kline
Sky Crossing Resident
From: Lisa Abrams
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Zoning Changes Near Black Mountain and Deer Valley RDs
Date: Monday, August 7, 2023 4:32:42 PM
Hi,
I'd like to suggest a compromise for the city to consider regarding the parcel near Black
Mountain and Deer Valley Rds. I agree we need more shopping in the area, however this is
still a large residential neighborhood and I'd like the city to consider putting some restrictions
on the new zoning, similar to what many shopping centers in Scottsdale have done.
Please consider rezoning with conditions including:
a maximum size for the grocery
prohibiting gas stations
dimmer lighting
larger landscape setbacks
shaded walking and bike paths
ample outdoor dining spaces
These conditions would still allow a company to develop the land, while also keeping it as
close to a neighborhood feel as possible.
Thank you for your consideration.
Lisa Abrams
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, August 10, 2023 11:05:58 AM
Name
Jenna Barrett
jennabarrett422@gmail.com
Support Comments
I would want a grocery store and fast food options at the shopping center.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, August 10, 2023 9:09:07 AM
Name
Ashley Campbell
Ashleycampbell@cox.net
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Fireside at Desert Ridge
Support Comments
I support retail space in that location. Thank you!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, August 10, 2023 10:04:56 AM
Name
John Schott
Jopschott@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Desert Ridge
Support Comments
As a native and person living in the area, I welcome the new development. Adding places to live, shop
and eat will benefit the community. Please approve this project.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, August 10, 2023 9:08:35 AM
Name
Austin Lynch
Alynchortho@yahoo.com
Support Comments
Support
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, August 10, 2023 10:03:22 AM
Name
Michael Marsh
michaelmarsh.cre@gmail.com
Support Comments
I am currently building a home in Desert Ridge and am extremely supportive of additional retail and
commercial opportunities in this area. Desert Ridge Marketplace is hugely successful, but that comes
with a convenience fee for people who actually live in the area. Additional options for groceries,
restaurants and neighborhood retail on a smaller scale would actually serve the needs of people who live
in and around the area, and an additional option to avoid the traffic and crowds of Desert Ridge
Marketplace that has become a destination shopping center. My understanding is that the current
entitlements would allow for additional housing units. While I am moving to the area and think that
housing is important, the opportunity to have additional retail and commercial as a future homeowner in
this area is exciting and would seem to actually serve the needs of the people that already live and are
actively building homes there. Thanks for your favorable consideration of the requests.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, August 10, 2023 12:28:47 PM
Name
Rachel Cohn
rachel-cohn@hotmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Fireside
Support Comments
I would love a small grocery store, no gas station and a local bistro. Thanks!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, August 10, 2023 12:05:35 PM
Name
Amanda Honey
amanda.honey3@gmail.com
Support Comments
Neighborhood grocer is wonderful but no gas station please
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, August 10, 2023 12:37:25 PM
Name
Meghann Jones
Mprusick@yahoo.com
Support Comments
No gas station.
Small grocery store, i.e. Trader Joe’s, Whole Foods.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, August 10, 2023 12:09:39 PM
Name
Kevin Honey
amaresh@cox.net
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
3762 e ember glow way
Support Comments
Neighborhood grocer, but no gas station please.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, August 10, 2023 12:16:05 PM
Name
Pam Sullivan
Scottspam4@gmail.com
Support Comments
No gas station
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, August 10, 2023 9:29:06 AM
Name
Peter Reinsch
Preinschaz@gmail.com
Support Comments
Sounds like a great idea! That’s a great location to build a grocery store!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, August 10, 2023 10:56:30 AM
Name
Melissa Romero
Melromeo@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
4240 E Expedition Way
Support Comments
We need additional options in this area.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, August 10, 2023 10:01:05 AM
Name
Allie Schott
alliejschott@gmail.com
Support Comments
As a future resident in the Talinn development, I support growth in the local area.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, August 10, 2023 1:19:23 PM
Name
Scott Shuman
sshuman99@yahoo.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Desert Ridge
Support Comments
I am very supportive of this new development. This area would benefit from additional convenient options
for groceries, restaurants, etc. In particular, it would be great to have a Trader Joe’s or Sprouts. The
congestion around Desert Ridge can be challenging and quality alternatives are welcome.
From: Chris Sinclair
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Deer Valley and Black Mountain commercial
Date: Thursday, August 10, 2023 12:41:55 PM
hi, I guess people are saying to contact the planner about this
development and that's you I guess? anyways, this is great news. we
need more commercial in this area. it's a major intersection and just
what should be happening here. I'm emailing because I'm sure people
will complain. because that's what people do. and usually, the most
vocal are the minority. I want to make sure you guys know that there are
plenty of people excited about this happening. but will probably never
attend a meeting or voice their excitement, because people usually only
do that when they complain. so if you need anybody to point to in the
community that has no vested interest at all, that is excited and 100%
in favor of this, that would be me. thanks and good luck with the
complainers
--
Chris Sinclair
Sinclair Engineering LLC
23251 N.38th Place
Phoenix, AZ 85050
480-695-9734
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, August 10, 2023 1:10:32 PM
Name
Chris Sinclair
sinclaireng@cox.net
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
23251 N 38TH PL
Support Comments
this is a great news. been living in Aviano since 2009. we need more commercial, not less. Deer Valley
and Black Mountain is exactly the type of spot where this should be going. this creates a walkable
destination from our neighborhood. we need more of this. I'm firmly in favor of this happening! thanks.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, August 10, 2023 9:06:22 AM
Name
Hanna Steger
Hannaesteger@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Aviano Community
Support Comments
We fully support the new black mountain shopping center. We would love to see something smaller scale
to desert ridge that provides us places to dine and shop.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, August 10, 2023 12:55:47 PM
Name
Mahyar Vahabzadeh
mahyar@cox.net
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Aviano Desert Ridge
Support Comments
This shopping center will be a much needed addition to the Desert Ridge area as we are very limited
currently with a single grocery store (Albertsons).
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Saturday, August 12, 2023 10:43:46 AM
Name
James Senften
jsenften@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
4535 E. Navigator Lane, Phoenix, AZ 85050
Support Comments
As a resident of Desert Ridge for over 3 years, I am excited for the opportunity to have additional options
for groceries, restaurants and neighborhood retail in the area. This area has seen a lot of residential
development in the past 5 to 10 years, but there has been a lack of additional commercial development.
However, I don't want to see this site end up as another huge big box store (like a Wal-Mart) for several
reasons. For one, we have a Target and other big box stores at Desert Ridge that fill that need. Second,
it might cause too many traffic problems at the site and the surrounding area. I think this site should focus
on a smaller, high quality grocery store and related restaurants and commercial uses. I would be in
support of a square footage cap to prevent any big box stores from going in and to promote the possible
attraction of a Sprouts or Trader Joe's type grocery store.
From: Scott Corwin
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Support for Black Mountain Village development
Date: Sunday, August 13, 2023 1:32:59 PM
Mr. Grande,
My family and I are residents of Sky Crossing, and I am writing in support of the re-zoning of
the land proposed for Black Mountain Village.
To say I am disappointed in my community members who oppose this project is an
understatement. Apparently others do not care about growth and development of a
neighborhood. Apparently others do not care about their property values increasing because of
convenience. Apparently the principal of Pinnacle High School is urging us to protest the re-
zoning, and because the school cannot figure out how to manage the flow of kids arriving to
school, they are using this development as a scapegoat.
Granted, while I love the concept of the development, I do oppose the gas station idea unless it
is only a gas station without a convenience store. Convenience stores, no matter the location,
seem to draw people out of the woodwork. I don’t know what latitude the city has to stipulate
the details of the plan, but that would be my request as a resident.
I do plan on attending the October 3rd meeting, but will all those in attendance have the
opportunity to vote on the decision?
Looking forward to the meeting.
Thank you,
Scott Corwin
3422 E Crest Ln
Phoenix, AZ 85050
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone [mail.onelink.me]
From: Aly Fox
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Case Number Z-39-23
Date: Monday, August 14, 2023 1:26:25 PM
Anthony Grande I am a resident the last 17 years in Aviano in Desert Ridge. I’m
emailing you in reference to case number Z-39-23 to say that we are very excited
for the proposed commercial zoning at the corner of Deer Valley and North Black
Mountain Blvd. We were told that this was in the plan when we first bought. I feel
this will be positive for the area and help bring home values up as well. I hope that
this is highly considered and passed to continue to build. Thank your time and
appreciate all you do.
Alyson and Ken Fox
602-909-0340
From: cici martin
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Desert View Shopping Center - Rezoning
Date: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 9:11:11 PM
Hello,
I am a resident of Sky Crossing and wanted to write to share my thoughts as I have seen a lot of chatter in the Sky
Crossing community FB account.
I am not opposed to a smaller shopping mall with a small grocery store and food/coffee options. Nice mall like
Gainey Ranch or DC Ranch. I would be opposed to a gas station as I believe it will bring traffic from the freeway,
not community members. As well as the noise of refueling trucks.
Just wanted to share my thoughts - commercial property yes; as long as no gas stations are included.
Thank you,
Cecilia Martin
Sent from my iPhone
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Wednesday, August 16, 2023 3:35:09 PM
Name
Jodi Dougan
Jodster_29@hotmail.com
Support Comments
Would love more shopping and eating options close by.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, August 17, 2023 9:42:39 PM
Name
Nicole Mezzatesta
nicolem@lunicabeauty.com
Support Comments
I support this parcel to be zoned for commercial property.
From: Walker, Oliver
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Black Mountain Village Plans at Black Mtn Blvd and Deer Valley Rd
Date: Friday, August 18, 2023 2:09:36 PM
Attachments: image001.png
Anthony,
I hope you are enjoying your Friday! I wanted to reach out as your email was provided by a neighbor
in Sky Crossing as a point of contact on this proposed project.
I live in one of the homes that backs up to Deer Valley and to the piece of land which is being
submitted for rezoning from Residential to Commercial.
I actually love the idea of having a retail center on the plot of land - I absolutely hate the idea of a
gas station being part of the project, especially on the North side of the project as it would be the
first thing I would see out of my back window. I can tell you that opinion within the neighborhood on
the Sky Crossing Facebook group seems to be split 50/50. One thing, however, that seems to be
consensus - nobody wants a gas station as part of the project.
I am in the mortgage lending world, and I can share that if a gas station is placed at the very
northern edge of the parcel, it would render the homes on the other side of Deer Valley unlendable
for certain mortgage products, which seems incredibly unfair to the folks who bought homes here 3
years ago none the wiser to future changes that might occur.
I would stand firmly against a gas station, but would support a well designed retail center that would
serve our community. I have lived in Desert Ridge for the last 15 years, and the project seems very
exciting if done correctly.
Please feel free to call my cell below if you would like any further input or have any questions.
[social.pr]
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Tuesday, August 22, 2023 10:55:52 PM
Name
Doug Dresser
flyboyltu@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Fireside
Support Comments
I’m for no gas station, as we have had a big increase in homelessness in north Phoenix in the last couple
of years as a gas station will increase homeless presence. A small grocery story like sprouts, Aldi, or
Trader Joe’s will be nice as these stores typically don’t attract homelessness and close at a decent hour.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Tuesday, August 22, 2023 4:00:02 PM
Name
Janee Foster
Janeeapostol@yahoo.com
Support Comments
Would like to see a small grocer like Trader Joe’s. Traffic is already so bad by the high school, don’t need
a big retail store there. And NO gas stations!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Tuesday, August 22, 2023 6:50:57 PM
Name
Bob Mayo
bob_mayo@cox.net
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Fireside
Support Comments
I am in support of this project, minus the gas station, think that needs to be rethought. Thank you
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 5:10:04 PM
Name
Clint Marchuk
cmarchuk@yahoo.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Talinn at Desert Ridge
Support Comments
I'm highly supportive of bringing a 2nd grocery store into the Desert Ridge community.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 9:44:23 PM
Name
Raj Kapur
raj85719@gmail.com
Support Comments
the overwhelming majority of desert ridge residents want this project to be built and get another small
grocery store. i would rather not have a gas station though..
From: James Patterson
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Black mountain / deer valley project
Date: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 7:12:43 PM
Anthony,
Hope all is well. I live in Sky Crossing and want to make you (and the other city planners) know that my family
supports this new development. This area continues to grow and we need more amenities like another grocery store,
etc.
I can tell you that the FB group for my neighborhood gets all fired up about every little issue and this is no
different. People are clearly frustrated about pinnacle traffic at 7am… can’t imagine a grocery center is going to
have a ton of extra traffic at that time. They seem to be forgetting the convenience + likely property value
appreciation by having more amenities within walking distance.
I support this development and from what I can tell, Vestar seems like a very reputable firm with a great track record
of great shopping centers.
Apologize in advance if you are getting many emails very different from this one. Appreciate all that the city does!
-Jimmy
James S. Patterson III
(480) 390-4288
Sent from my iPhone
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 11:52:57 AM
Name
Jacqueline Soutus
jackie.soutus@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Desert Ridge
Support Comments
I support this proposal. Currently there is not enough retail in the Desert Ridge area. More house
developments will cause an even larger shortage of restaurants, groceries and other retailers.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Sunday, August 27, 2023 7:11:09 PM
Name
Goldberg Nathan
ndgoldberg@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Fireside - amber crest
Support Comments
I support the proposal but would like it without a gas station. Perhaps we can do some kind of awesome
charging station with higher end convenience store. Also, no Walmart or Walmart market…an AJs or
Trader Joe’s or even a frys would be fantastic.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Monday, August 28, 2023 12:44:37 PM
Name
Sonita W.
Soniyay@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Aviano N 36th St
Support Comments
I just wanted to let you know that as a Aviano resident I am very happy to hear about this development. I
would welcome a grocery store, a coffee shop and other retail, and hopefully also getting dust under
better control once the construction is done. So, good luck and keep us posted.
I do want to request that some thought be given to control of any petty crime that may arise from this
development as there will be increased activity in the surrounding areas.
From: sonia
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New development Desert Ridge Black Mtn Village
Date: Monday, August 28, 2023 12:09:32 PM
I just wanted to let you know that as a Aviano resident I am very happy
to hear about this development. I would welcome a grocery store, a coffee
shop and other retail, and hopefully also getting dust under better control
once the construction is done. So, good luck and keep us posted.
I do want to request that some thought be given to control of any petty
crime that may arise from this development as there will be increased
activity in the surrounding areas.
Thank you
Sonita W.
From: Anthony M Grande
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: FW: SW Corner of Black Mountain Blvd snd Deer Valley
Date: Thursday, August 31, 2023 11:26:19 AM
From: Kim Galetti
Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2023 1:48 PM
To: Michelle Santoro
Subject: SW Corner of Black Mountain Blvd snd Deer Valley
Hi Michelle,
Nice talking to you today. My spouse and I are very excited about the proposed project at the above
corner. We badly need a second option for groceries. This additional competition will be great for
the residents of Desert Ridge. It will also increase property values. Hope this project is approved and
ground is broken soon.
Mr. Kim Galetti
3864 E. Melinda Drive
Phoenix, AZ 85050
443-962-0974
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone [linkprotect.cudasvc.com]
From: Anthony M Grande
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: FW: Black Mountain Village
Date: Thursday, August 31, 2023 11:25:59 AM
From: Nahian Latif
Sent: Saturday, July 22, 2023 11:44 AM
To: Michelle Santoro
Subject: Re: Black Mountain Village
Hi there,
I am a resident near the proposed zoning change at the intersection of deer valley and black
mountain. I support the zoning change to a small commercial to allow for a small grocery store/retail
shop/restaurant. Ideally a small grocery store like trader Joe's would be ideal. Encourage bistros like
Panera/chipotle or a local business to setup shop. Bike friendly lanes and bike locks with
shaded/mature trees around stops would enhance the experience. Future growth for a public
library adjacent would serve the area well.
Thank you
Nahian
Local resident
From: Anthony M Grande
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: FW: Sky Crossing Resident / Black Mountain Village
Date: Monday, September 11, 2023 8:07:40 AM
From: James Patterson
Sent: Friday, September 8, 2023 9:09 AM
To: Michelle Santoro
Subject: Sky Crossing Resident / Black Mountain Village
Hello,
I am a resident of Sky Crossing and very in-favor of this proposed development. For what it's worth,
the community seems overly concerned about 1) the additional traffic around Pinnacle high school
at drop off and pick up, 2) the potential for a gas station and 3) the "aesthetic" of the project.
For me, this seems like a no-brainer given we need a grocery store + other amenities (this helps our
property values). I look forward to attending the town hall on Tuesday
Thanks,
Jimmy
--
James Patterson
(480) 390-4288
From: Jessica Fierros
To: Anthony M Grande
Cc: Robert Fierros
Subject: Aviano resident FOR commercial rezoning
Date: Saturday, September 9, 2023 9:10:41 AM
Hello Anthony,
I am a resident that is beyond excited about the potential rezoning near Pinnacle HS! I am
shocked by the negative response being organized by some here in Desert Ridge. We
DESPERATELY need more commercial businesses to support the homes/community that are
already here. It is horrendous that we only have ONE grocery store and ONE gas station and
ONE fast food restaurant for this many homes in one area- and there are many more homes
still being built. One of the biggest complaints by people is that these businesses will bring in
crime and homelessness. Well guess what?! It's already been moving in and the problem isn't
businesses. The problem is that we have voted in a mayor who is SOFT on crime and our
police force is over worked, under staffed and under funded. Commercial businesses are what
we NEED!!
We have lived in Aviano for 14 years and had already been saying for several years that we
hoped businesses would develop somewhere along this stretch of Deer Valley. We were so
excited to hear about this proposal and couldn't be more disappointed or disheartened by how
"noisy" the ones against this have been. We truly hope they don't ruin this much needed
opportunity for growth in our community.
Jess Fierros
From: Martina McConnon
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Black Mountain shopping area
Date: Saturday, September 9, 2023 8:16:54 AM
Hi Mr Grande,
My name is Martina McConnon, I live in the Fireside community and have been hearing about the planned rezoning
& possible shopping area coming to Black Mountain next to Pinnacle High School. Just wanted to let you know that
our family would very much welcome a grocer like Trader Joes or Sprouts to get that spot. We do not need more
fast food options as we have plenty in Desert Ridge. But another grocery store would be great, especially a healthier
alternative to Albertsons.
Thank you!
Martina McConnon
3826 E Cat Balue Drive
Phoenix AZ 85050
From: vanessacorwin@yahoo.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Support for Black Mountain Village Project
Date: Saturday, September 9, 2023 11:19:25 AM
Mr. Grande,
I am a resident of the Sky Crossing community, and am writing this email in support of the rezoning of
Vestar's proposed Black Mountain Village project. For the planning committee's consideration, I want to
offer some thoughts about the project:
1. Traffic - I have seen a lot of input from community members opposing the rezoning because of traffic
concerns. If it is eventually developed into homes, that'll be another 20+ single family homes built. If it's
developed into townhomes, it'll be another 400 units. If it'll be developed into apartments, the number of
residents will be even higher. Regardless of the outcome of residential development, residential
development will also create more traffic for that area. Those those oppose the rezoning to commercial
don't seem to offer that as a consideration. Some/any level of additional residential development will
further congest DRM. The Vestar development of this land at least offers additional shopping and dining
options, which I would hope offloads DRM to some degree. I see that as a positive. However, I would
hope the City would partner with Vestar to assess entrance and egress points, especially during the
morning when PHS students are driving or being dropped off. I do agree it'll create more traffic at certain
points of the day, so I would hope that is already on the docket to evaluate.
2. Types of businesses on the property - I would ask the planning committee to not support a gas station
with a convenience store. I would rather have a gas station alone, like Costco, with limited hours. A
convenience store option will likely cause more harm than good, in terms of the people who would be
shopping or loitering at the store.
3. There are many concerns about noise from residents in my community and the community to the
immediate east of the proposed development. My house is located 5 houses Black Mountain Boulevard,
and we are objectively closer to the proposed development than 60% of Sky Crossing. In the two+ years
that we've lived in this community, I've never heard any noise from BM boulevard. I can't even hear the
football games at Pinnacle High School. I've seen many people via our community's Facebook and
Desert Ridge's community Facebook groups share this concern as a reason to oppose the development.
How can people 2-3 miles away complain about noise when noise present no impact to them today?
Rhetorical question, but people are grasping at straws.
Overall, while this proposed project is not by any means perfect and there are some legitimate concerns
(like traffic), additional commercial development for this area will be a boost for property values, tax
revenue, economic growth, and some level of job creation. I strongly, strongly support this rezoning in
favor of the Vestar development.
Thank you,
Vanessa Corwin
From: Roland Ward
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Black Mountain Village
Date: Sunday, September 10, 2023 4:25:24 PM
Hello Anthony,
I live in Aviano at Desert Ridge near the proposed Black Mountain Village shopping center.
I fully support the proposal and welcome the additional option for shopping, especially a
grocery store.
Regards,
Roland Ward
3828 E Morning Dove Trail
Phoenix, AZ 85050
From: sonia Whig
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Black mountain village
Date: Monday, September 11, 2023 5:35:10 PM
Not sure if this is the right forum but I am writing to add my FULL SUPPORT for this project.
I live in Aviano and would love to have a coffee shop and a grocery store within walking distance. The land will
definitely go the apartment route if left alone for long. Can’t build more than 6-7 houses in the lot. Can’t imagine
anyone preferring that to a neighbourhood market. I am definitely for it for environmental as well and logistics
reasons.
Thank you
Sent from my iPhone
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 8:48:38 PM
Name
Jared Nielsen
jarheadnielsen@gmail.com
Support Comments
We are very excited about the possibility of a grocery store close to our house. A quick food option would
also be welcome.
From: Polson, Adam
To: Anthony M Grande
Cc: msantoro@gblaw.com
Subject: RE: Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12
Date: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 7:55:44 AM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
Logo_e6253148-26a1-47a9-b861-6ac0ff0bc3c4.png
80pctcolor_2022mansfieldcertificationbadge_492244a7-2944-454d-8270-3a8a522bf068.png
Mr. Grande,
I am sending this e-mail to reaffirm my position that I am IN FAVOR of the proposed development. I attended the
information session by the developer and Gammage and Burnham at Sky Crossing yesterday evening, and I was impressed
with what Vestar was agreeing to do as far as infrastructure in and around this proposed project. If this project is denied, I
do not see a residential developer agreeing to do what Vestar is agreeing to do. Nevertheless, although I do not pretend
to be a traffic engineer, I believe that it makes sense to have a light at 34th street and Deer Valley. This is even though
there is a light nearby at Deer Valley and Black Mountain. Again, I am not a traffic engineer, but it seems to me as a
layperson that 75% of Sky Crossing traffic would be inclined to head west down Deer Valley and enter Sky Crossing at 32nd
Street and/or Sky Crossing Way. I suspect that a lot of people who live around Cave Creek and Deer Valley would also
prefer to have a light at 34th Street. This is something to consider. Again, I am IN FAVOR of the proposed development.
-Adam
Adam S. Polson
Partner
Adam.Polson@lewisbrisbois.com
T: 602.792.1503 F: 602.385.1051
Phoenix Plaza Tower II
2929 North Central Avenue, Suite 1700, Phoenix, AZ 85012 | LewisBrisbois.com [lewisbrisbois.com]
Representing clients from coast to coast. View our locations nationwide. [lewisbrisbois.com]
This e-mail may contain or attach privileged, confidential or protected information intended only for the use of the intended recipient. If you are not the
intended recipient, any review or use of it is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, you are required to notify the sender, then delete
this email and any attachment from your computer and any of your electronic devices where the message is stored.
From: Polson, Adam
Sent: Thursday, August 3, 2023 10:30 AM
To: anthony.grande@phoenix.gov
Subject: Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12
Mr. Grande,
I am sending this e-mail to indicate that I am IN FAVOR of the proposed development. You are likely to see a bunch of
people trying to complain, and my guess is that those people will try to drown out the people who do want the project. I
would strongly prefer if there was no gas station, but I understand the realities of the situation. To the extent there is a
compromise, I would suggest no gas station.
-Adam Polson
2845 E. Cashman Drive
Phoenix, Arizona 85050
Adam S. Polson
Partner
Adam.Polson@lewisbrisbois.com
T: 602.792.1503 F: 602.385.1051
Phoenix Plaza Tower II
2929 North Central Avenue, Suite 1700, Phoenix, AZ 85012 | LewisBrisbois.com [lewisbrisbois.com]
Representing clients from coast to coast. View our locations nationwide. [lewisbrisbois.com]
This e-mail may contain or attach privileged, confidential or protected information intended only for the use of the intended recipient. If you are not the
intended recipient, any review or use of it is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, you are required to notify the sender, then delete
this email and any attachment from your computer and any of your electronic devices where the message is stored.
From: Chris Sinclair
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Black Mountain Village Desert Ridge
Date: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 2:03:18 PM
from the sounds of it, you're getting obliterated with negative comments
about this. just wanted to make sure you know many of us here approve
of this project. we were promised for years we'd be getting a second
grocery store. the people complaining are mostly people that have been
here only a year or 2. many of them back the major roads to this. this
has 2 major roads and leads to the interstate. and backs a high
school. should the rest of the community be deprived of this
development because they bought houses that back these major roads? I
don't think so. I've been here since 2009 and have always known there
was commercial coming. anyways, thanks for hearing me out.
--
Chris Sinclair
Sinclair Engineering LLC
23251 N.38th Place
Phoenix, AZ 85050
480-695-9734
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 11:52:21 AM
Name
Alexander Soutus
asoutus@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
22221 n 41st st
Support Comments
We are in support for commercial business. Preferably a grocery store.
From: david white
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Zoning
Date: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 7:37:10 PM
To Whom This May Concern,
I just want my voice heard.
I fully support the rezoning of the southwest corner of Deer Valley Road and Black Mountain
Blvd. from residential to commercial.
Respectfully,
David White
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 4:09:28 PM
Name
Brandon York
blyork85@gmail.com
Support Comments
Thank you for planning to bring some more shopping to the desert ridge area. Desert ridge marketplace
is a nightmare most all the time with all the congestion.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 14, 2023 5:56:51 PM
Name
Sharon Ceccarelli
Sceccarelli1@gmail.com
Support Comments
I would like a fry’s or Trader Joe’s. Qt would be nice too. I’m down for chic fillet or chipotle
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 14, 2023 7:49:45 PM
Name
Allie Lucyk
Lucykallie88@gmail.com
Support Comments
Bring on the grocery store
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 14, 2023 6:43:12 AM
Name
Chrissy Seibel
chrissyandsteve2011@gmail.com
Support Comments
I’m all for a new grocery store in the area! We are in need!
From: Robert Berto
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Rezoning near Pinnacle High School
Date: Friday, September 15, 2023 8:28:08 AM
I just would say not all residents in this area are opposed to finally building on land that looks like a deserted field
that has not been maintained and does not align with the atmosphere of surrounding homes in the area. Finally
something can be put in place with some amenities north of the 101.
I do have a question though.
Is there a plan to build anything north of Pinnacle Peak and Black Mountain? This land as well looks like overgrown
weeds that have not been maintained.
Not only that, but it is a dark busy road on Pinnacle Peak. Wildlife darts out from the side of the road and could pose
a risk to drivers trying to avoid hitting a coyote chasing a rabbit. I know from experience. I drive it multiple times a
night.
I look forward to seeing more commercial establishments that will help the community that continues to grow.
I just wanted to give some input as I live in the area and my son goes to Pinnacle High School.
Thank You,
Robert Berto
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Saturday, September 16, 2023 6:30:20 AM
Name
Sonia W.
nimbus-polkas0h@icloud.com
Support Comments
Would LOVE to have a Trader Joes or similar grocery store. A nice independent coffee shop would be
great too. Not a gas station though- I don’t think that’s a good idea. Maybe some other tasteful and new
concept retail.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Saturday, September 16, 2023 9:17:01 PM
Name
Lynn Stevens
lynnkstevens@gmail.com
Support Comments
Improved Grocery shopping is needed desert ridge. A Fry’s would offer choices to consumers and
improve the food desert north of the 101.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Sunday, September 17, 2023 2:17:36 PM
Name
Jan Axtell
kentandjan@cox.net
Support Comments
We need another grocery store besides Albertsons!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Sunday, September 17, 2023 8:24:48 PM
Name
Vanessa Corwin
vanessacorwin@yahoo.com
Support Comments
I support this project
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Sunday, September 17, 2023 8:44:54 PM
Name
Michael Curtis
mcc50@q.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
2235 e Parkside lane
Support Comments
I support this there is no grocery stores in this area
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Sunday, September 17, 2023 11:11:07 PM
Name
Melissa Gasper
melissa.gasper@icloud.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Desert peak
Support Comments
I support it
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Sunday, September 17, 2023 7:39:35 PM
Name
John Hamby
Jhamby1011@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Aviano
Support Comments
All day! Living is Aviano is funny because the homes are a millions dollars but the grocery and food
options around are minimal and/or of poor quality. Would love to see more options up here but some
serious traffic mitigation would need to take place because with the high school right there, it’s already a
disaster.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Sunday, September 17, 2023 10:12:51 PM
Name
Brenda Johnson
artbybrenda@cox.net
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
3919 E Daley Lane Phoenix/Aviano
Support Comments
Please! Another grocery store and gas station and another fast food drive-through option!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Sunday, September 17, 2023 2:44:47 PM
Name
Rajesh Kapur
Raj@benefitcommerce.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
20918 N 37th pl
Support Comments
we all want this. please ignore the handful of rowdy fireside folks that are arguing against!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Sunday, September 17, 2023 4:35:44 PM
Name
Jodie Koltes
jodie.koltes@yahoo.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Crescent Butte
Support Comments
Fry’s would be nice!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Sunday, September 17, 2023 10:27:39 PM
Name
Jadyn L
Jnlien267@gmail.com
Support Comments
Please add a Trader Joe’s!!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Sunday, September 17, 2023 3:14:15 PM
Name
Jamie Lafranchi
lafranchi.jamie@gmail.com
Support Comments
We need another grocery. Crazy just to have Albertsons
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Sunday, September 17, 2023 3:32:44 PM
Name
Vanessa Mason
vnessahenderson@gmail.com
Support Comments
As a resident in this area we would
love to have easier access to a nice grocery store without having to drive 10-15 mins to the nearest store.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Sunday, September 17, 2023 12:53:20 PM
Name
Roselyn Meyer
meyerroselyn@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
3818 E Cat Balue Dr
Support Comments
We will support Trader Joe’s to come to our neighborhood!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Sunday, September 17, 2023 8:23:42 PM
Name
Scott Corwin
scott.corwin@yahoo.com
Support Comments
I support this development, but suggest two things: 1) no convenience store as part of any gas station. 2)
Vestar and City do traffic studies to assess impact to BM Boulevard, and make changes to entrance and
egress points.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Sunday, September 17, 2023 7:40:37 PM
Name
Mary Patterson
Mfpatterson2016@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Sky crossing
Support Comments
Support
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Sunday, September 17, 2023 6:44:56 PM
Name
Jon Peterson
jpeterson_az@yahoo.com
Support Comments
I realize the location is not ideal for everyone but I would prefer to have a local grocery store closer and
less crowded than a Desert Ridge
I think the fry’s complex at Thompson Peak and Hayden is a good example of what this could be and
support it.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Sunday, September 17, 2023 10:44:24 PM
Name
Jamisyn Smith
jamisyn.rae.smith@gmail.com
Support Comments
We need better options. A Trader Joe’s please.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Sunday, September 17, 2023 2:21:55 PM
Name
Leslie Wren
lesliewren22@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Cave Creek Rd & Deer Valley
Support Comments
We need another grocery store
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Monday, September 18, 2023 6:54:09 PM
Name
Suhair Riederer
ishtar2000@hotmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
21526 n 59TH way Phoenix AZ 85054
Support Comments
Please bring a sprout , fry’s or Walmart yo the area . We lack a good grocery store in desert ridge
Thanks
Suhair
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Monday, September 18, 2023 4:04:40 PM
Name
Mary Jill Almassy
jillalmassy@cox.net
Support Comments
We definitely need more and more convenient grocery shopping
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Monday, September 18, 2023 6:38:09 PM
Name
Not Helping
Nothelping@stop.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Sky Crossing
Support Comments
Hey Gammage and Burnham - these silly Facebook groups are not a good idea. I actually like the idea of
Black Mountain Village, but having a law firm with no vested interest in the neighborhood aside from the
development being approved creating a Facebook/Instagram group to drum up support for the project
makes your law firm look absolutely desperate, pathetic, and borderline deceptive. Please discontinue
this type of advertising.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Monday, September 18, 2023 10:34:53 AM
Name
Anne Blazek
boutiquewellness@gmail.com
Support Comments
Need more than one alberstsons
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Monday, September 18, 2023 2:08:41 PM
Name
Dennis Brown
azhairguy@hotmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
2513 E Barbed Wire Pass
Support Comments
I think it would be great, yes students need parking which could be part of it, rather more
houses/apartments that they couldn’t park in, stores would be closer for all of us on cave creek and deer
valley ect. Can’t wait for it!!!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Monday, September 18, 2023 5:47:07 AM
Name
Maryanne Christensen
mlchristensen05@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Aviano
Support Comments
We need another grocery store in this area!! I have lived here for 12+ years and the only thing that hasn’t
grown is options to shop for groceries. Please make it a Signature Fry’s!!!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Monday, September 18, 2023 5:09:33 AM
Name
Brian Clifton
bclifton5@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Desert Ridge
Support Comments
We need more business and less housing in the area
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Monday, September 18, 2023 6:44:09 AM
Name
Stephanie Cohen
s_marema@yahoo.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
4410 East Kirkland Rd.
Support Comments
I support and additional shopping development with hopes to have another more boutique style. Grocery
store option.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Monday, September 18, 2023 3:03:00 PM
Name
Ralph Ferrara
ralph.ferrara@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
2129 East Daley Lane
Support Comments
I support this
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Monday, September 18, 2023 6:36:17 AM
Name
Sol Fink
sol_fink@yahoo.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
SkyCrossing
Support Comments
We definitely need a supermarket, some restaurants and a few boutique shops within walking distance of
SkyCrossing.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Monday, September 18, 2023 8:57:01 PM
Name
James Gregory
jamesgregory1882@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Boulder Creek
Support Comments
I'm looking forward to the space being utilized, for what I hope, will be a higher end use.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Monday, September 18, 2023 6:57:52 AM
Name
April Halaby
ahalaby@chicagopropertyconcierge.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
3251 E Harlow Sky Crossing
Support Comments
We wholly support the plans for Vestar to develop the land, including a grocery store. This area is
underserved with regards to grocery stores and small shops, and this would help resolve that issue.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Monday, September 18, 2023 8:45:58 AM
Name
Bob Hamer
Hamer.bob@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Adobe Rd. (Sky crossing resident)
Support Comments
Definitely in favor of the commercial development on Black Mtn and Deer Valley. Closer grocery store
(maybe gas too?) retail restaurants (a coffee shop) would be awesome. Right now we have to go to
desert ridge and it’s too trafficked. Also, growing up and in High School eating at our local restaurants
nearby school was a huge part of the community experience and right now I fear that doesn’t exist. As
long as it’s thoughtful re: loitering and lighting and traffic there really isn’t a downside here at all. Hope we
can get this approved!!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Monday, September 18, 2023 11:47:41 AM
Name
Brooke Harmon
brharmon@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
2214 E SOFT WIND DR
Support Comments
As someone that has live near this area since 2011, I am excited for the potential to build more
commercial stores, including a grocery store other than Albertsons nearby. Our only nearby options for
this is Desert Ridge which is getting ridiculously crowded now that Sky Crossing exists. It's funny that I
see them as the ones complaining, but we were all very opposed to more residential homes in that area
for two reasons. 1 - it made things even more congested and 2 - now our school boundaries risk being
redrawn. I purchased land at cave creek and deer valley for Pinnacle High, now the extra residential
growth is putting our ability to attend that school in the future at risk.
I do NOT want more residential homes at the corner at Black Mountain and Deer Valley. Commercial
property is what I would love to see. It would also create more jobs for our area, especially the older
teens / young adults.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Monday, September 18, 2023 7:52:58 PM
Name
Linda Metcalf
Ljm@hdride.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
26633 N 42nd street
Support Comments
We do need more shopping choices on this area. Not much to choose from right now
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Monday, September 18, 2023 3:02:45 PM
Name
Kyla Geise
kyla_geise@yahoo.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Desert Ridge
Support Comments
I do not want a new gas station/ store on deer valley.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Monday, September 18, 2023 1:13:40 PM
Name
James Patterson
Jsp.three@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Sky Crossing
Support Comments
I fully support this project. It will add much needed amenities to a growing area.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Monday, September 18, 2023 3:04:26 PM
Name
Christina Peregrym
Cperegrym@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Sky crossing
Support Comments
I would love a Trader Joe’s across the street!!’
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Monday, September 18, 2023 4:50:19 AM
Name
Jeanice Ridgway
jeanice@hotmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
2213 E. Monona Dr
Support Comments
We should not need to drive that far to get the things we need. It's a busy corner already with the high
school so it won't change.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Monday, September 18, 2023 10:11:29 AM
Name
David Rucker
azresbroker@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Aviano Desert Ridge
Support Comments
This area is in desperate need of additional shopping. The traffic is way too congested at Tatum and
Deer Valley. It’s also a safety issue for our teens that have to cross Tatum or Deer Valley to get to the
only shopping at Desert Ridge Marketplace. The business revenue for City of Phoenix would be
substantial as multiple businesses are ready to expand to this area. Another grocery anchor is what we
really need. Our options are very limited especially with the expansion off of 56th St. And Deer Valley.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Monday, September 18, 2023 6:27:29 PM
Name
Ron Stilwell
rstilwell9@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Sky Crossing
Support Comments
Yes more choices
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Monday, September 18, 2023 5:14:33 AM
Name
Roland Ward
rmward194@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
3828 E Morning Dove Trail/Aviano
Support Comments
Black Mountain Village is a much needed addition for Desert Ridge residents. Albertsons needs
competition and the current mall is already too congested. I don't shop there because the ingress and
egress are so terrible.
With thousands of new residents coming to Desert Ridge in at least four apartment complexes, new
condos and Talin additional shopping options are absolutely necessary.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Monday, September 18, 2023 5:35:21 PM
Name
Scott Weinberg
scottysair@aol.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
3635 E Zachary Dr
Support Comments
Please build new Fry’s and In N Out Burger, as well as new restaurants.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Monday, September 18, 2023 7:12:09 PM
Name
Shane Zink
shane.j.zink@gmail.com
Support Comments
Put a new grocer in Desert Ridge. Whole Foods or Trader Joe’s would kill here. Don’t listen to the vocal
minority about this.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 12:51:29 PM
Name
Ashley Allen
ashleyallenfit@gmail.com
Support Comments
Please put a grocery store here, with a Starbucks
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 4:13:43 PM
Name
Anna Britt
swedeanna@gmail.com
Support Comments
Its about time! Trader Joe and Sprouts would be great!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 11:19:16 PM
Name
Simental Carolina
csimental@hotmail.com
Support Comments
We need more options on the area. We only have Desert Ridge Mall as option.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 9:43:04 PM
Name
Danielle Coleman
daniellecjacques@msn.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Sky crossing
Support Comments
Desert Ridge marketplace is too congested, would love to have other options
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 8:07:09 AM
Name
Melissa Gitt
melissagitt@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Sky Crossing
Support Comments
We look forward to this potentially happening and appreciate the transparency in your plans.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 8:09:40 AM
Name
Jesse Goldstein
jgoldstein19@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Sky Crossing
Support Comments
We'd like this to happen.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 12:28:44 PM
Name
Jean Kantaros
jkantaros@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Wildcat Ridge
Support Comments
I'd love a grocery store but no stabd alone gas station
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 4:51:34 PM
Name
Sylvia Lind
spawlak0808@gmail.com
Support Comments
Yes we need a grocery store!!! Trader Joe’s please!!!!
There is nothing close by. Albertsons and Costco. Trader Joe’s would be nice.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 8:11:42 AM
Name
Monica Litt
Monicalitt@hotmail.com
Support Comments
We live in Sky Crossing and fully support this project!
A gas station, restaurant, grocery store (would love Trader Joe’s) and a Dutch brothers would be
absolutely amazing!!!!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 4:59:06 PM
Name
Josh Mann
jmann5225@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
23230 N 20TH St
Support Comments
My closest grocery store is desert ridge which is about 12 minutes from my house.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 7:20:31 AM
Name
Don McCaul
ddmccaul1@cox.net
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
3807 E Crest Lane, Phoenix, AZ. 85050
Support Comments
Desert Ridge is exploding in size with no additional retail services. We desperately need an additional
grocery store. Hopefully Vestar will attract Trader Joe’s. Desert Ridge Mall is a transportation nightmare
with poor circulation.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 7:52:42 AM
Name
LM
lauramcintosh5@gmail.com
Support Comments
Trader Joe’s
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 7:47:25 PM
Name
Ben McKeown
buckshanks@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
2521 e paraiso dr
Support Comments
I fully support having more quality grocery options include to my neighborhood.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 6:18:50 PM
Name
Jorge Monroy
jorge.monroy0@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Pinnacle at desert peak
Support Comments
I 100% support more options
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 5:20:08 PM
Name
Marc Pruzansky
mpruzansky@yahoo.com
Support Comments
Albertsons is the only large market in the vicinity. We deserve more options.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 4:29:28 PM
Name
Nathan Rodgers
Iamnatedog@gmail.com
Support Comments
Grocery stores really don’t go north of Bell Road
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 8:59:49 PM
Name
Connie Tracy
ctracycrna@aol.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Aviano
Support Comments
I support more grocery stores and restaurants and shopping .
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 7:29:41 PM
Name
Kasey Allayeva
kaseyaz1225@yahoo.com
Support Comments
Would like to see Trader Joe’s
Aldi store
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 12:28:52 PM
Name
Sommer Arekat
sommer.arekat@gmail.com
Support Comments
Please bring a Trader Joe’s!!!!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 8:37:06 PM
Name
Natalie Castaneda
ndcastaneda80@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
2725 e. Mine creek rd unit 1030 Phoenix, az 85024
Support Comments
We need in this area more retail shopping and a mall too
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 6:37:07 PM
Name
Beth Field
Bethfield1@hotmail.com
Support Comments
Support more shopping
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 10:54:34 AM
Name
Marta Graziano
deltazeta@cox.net
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Desert Peak
Support Comments
My husband and I would greatly appreciate a grocery store with healthy foods like Sprouts. This area is
becoming too dense with homes and not enough grocery stores to support the families who live here.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 2:53:57 PM
Name
Abigail Hunnicutt
abbyjhunnicutt@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
2029 east dry wood rd Phoenix 85024
Support Comments
Our family would love to have a grocery store closer
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 5:42:35 AM
Name
Devin Kaufman
Dgkaufman3@gmail.com
Support Comments
Supportive
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 4:23:46 PM
Name
Cindy Marquardt
cindymarq@cox.net
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
4831 E Williams Dr., Phx 85054
Support Comments
We need another grocery store in desert ridge
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 6:26:33 PM
Name
Lorenia Ochoa
lorenia_o@hotmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
3416 E Los Gatos Dr.
Support Comments
Yes, it would be beneficial to Sky Crossing!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 10:28:39 PM
Name
Sara Phillips
sjsmx@hotmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
904 E Mohawk Dr
Support Comments
A grocery store such as frys, Trader Joe’s and a cvs or Walgreens would be amazing!!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 2:29:33 PM
Name
Joann Polk
Jopolk@me.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
East side of Tatum and Ranger
Support Comments
I support the need for another grocery store in Desert Ridge.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 6:39:54 PM
Name
VERNON PEREZ RUBIO
vpra@me.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
3416 E Los Gatos Dr
Support Comments
I support comercial center
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 9:13:00 PM
Name
Bonnie Sauer
momtogrif@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Fireside
Support Comments
Yes!!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 10:05:49 AM
Name
Nate Schoenfeld
nathan.schoenfeld@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
3251 E Donald Dr Phoenix 850505, Sky Crossing
Support Comments
This is needed!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 4:17:57 PM
Name
Shirlee Tye
tyeshi67@gmail.com
Support Comments
Trader Joe's would be the perfect size store in that location!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 6:29:46 PM
Name
Sunny Weisbaum
sunnyw@sbcglobal.net
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
4009 E hashknife Rd
Support Comments
We need a Trader Joe’s!!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 4:42:43 PM
Name
Jean Kantaros
jkantaros@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
WildCat Ridge
Support Comments
I'm all for a grocery store. NO to a gas station.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 6:42:47 PM
Name
Michael Charley
mcharle9@asu.edu
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Moon Valley
Support Comments
I support the location as their needs to be a grocery store within desert ridge.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 6:18:51 PM
Name
Crystal Cline
crystal2383@aol.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
21917 N 59th Ter
Support Comments
We would love more grocery store, restaurants and shopping options!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 9:32:19 PM
Name
John DEAN
Johntdean@aol.com
Support Comments
I support a grocer and gas station
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 8:48:50 PM
Name
Sandesh Dev
Sandeshdev1@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Aviano
Support Comments
Grocery store is a positive - Sprouts or Whole Foods would be great
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 6:50:13 PM
Name
Joann Friedman
joannwf@cox.net
Support Comments
I watched Desert Ridge shopping Center being built and was thrilled when Albertson's was completed.
Another market facility would add to desert ridge neighbors choices. I wholeheartedly support this idea
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 6:05:00 PM
Name
Shannon Griffith
Rowharder1@gmail.com
Support Comments
It would be very beneficial to build a Trader Joe’s at Deer Valley Dr and Black Mountain Pkwy. This area
is saturated with customers and shopping. However, having more grocery options gives people more
choices. Having a Trader Joe’s also appeals to a younger audience and is highly desirable.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 7:56:23 PM
Name
Bethany Gunn
bethbaz79@aol.com
Support Comments
Trader Joe’s would be great! That’s all I want. Please put one in.
Thank you
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 7:19:17 PM
Name
Jodi Hoffman
lbux555@aol.com
Support Comments
I live off of Cave Creek right after Deer Valley. The only convenient store is Costco. I dont always need to
buy in bulk. Please place a Fryes near me.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 3:09:37 PM
Name
Jennifer Hopkins
jenay99@aol.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
3941 E Hashknife Rd
Support Comments
This is definitely needed in this area as our options are very limited for how many homes are in the area
versus convenience to a local grocer. This is fully supported.
Thank you!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 6:16:47 PM
Name
Joseph Joaquin
Josephj1299@yahoo.com
Support Comments
It would be good to have a Trader Joe’s at Desert Ridge.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 10:35:42 PM
Name
Samalie Kahunde
samaliek@yahoo.com
Support Comments
To begin with, the proposed development will be closer to where our family lives than Desert Ridge
Marketplace. Sometimes, one just needs to make a really quick dash to the store to make a much-
needed quick family dinner, when running late.
I also appreciate the Fuel Station - again for the convenience of proximity when one needs to get the kids
to school or get oneself to work.
If the following stores (Trader Joe’s, Whole Foods, Fry’s, Sprouts or Safeway) were brought closer to the
Desert Ridge residences, it would be a big plus as we usually travel little longer to one of their locations.
In summary, proximity, quality and variety of options, are key for my family and I.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 12:21:07 PM
Name
Debra Kruszalnicki
dsbeerrn99@aol.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Sky Crossing
Support Comments
Sprouts please
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 2:15:29 PM
Name
Cindy Lien
cindyrocketonline@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Mountain Gate
Support Comments
The Albertsons parking lot drivers are just rude and awful and drive like they are above the laws of traffic.
Need more alternatives.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 9:53:56 PM
Name
Diane McCaul
ddmccaul1@gmail.com
Support Comments
Would love to see a Trader Joe’s or a Sprouts at this location.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 10:46:09 PM
Name
Klara McClellan
Klara.mcclellan@hotmail.com
Support Comments
I would love to see Trader Joe's there
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 6:34:54 PM
Name
Whitney Murto
whitneymurto@gmail.com
Support Comments
Trader joes
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 6:55:08 PM
Name
Neal Dubey
neal.dubey@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
22313 N 36th Street
Support Comments
I would love a neighborhood shopping center catering to the local community as getting in and out of
Desert Ridge Marketplace can be quite congested. I prefer a smaller grocery store like a Trader Joe's
over a larger store like Fry's. I am opposed to having a gas station in station the complex. Based on my
discussions with people in the community if the shopping center had Trader Joe's and no gas station
more people would support the development.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 9:03:50 PM
Name
Michelle Nordmann
normoyle@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
23009 North 23rd Place
Support Comments
Would appreciate another spot to shop. Desert ridge is impossible
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 6:11:39 PM
Name
Jaimee Pascale
bklyndevil24@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
23825 N 25th way
Support Comments
It would be much closer for us
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 6:10:44 PM
Name
Anne Pauli
Paulifamily@hotmail.com
Support Comments
TRADER JOES!!! We need one in our area!!!!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 7:32:29 PM
Name
Mary Petty
smspetty2006@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Sky Crossing
Support Comments
I would love to have a Sprouts grocery store nearby. The second choice would be Trader Joe's. I have to
drive a ways to get to the nearest Sprouts store. I would love to have access to both the Albertsons we
have and adding a Sprouts nearby.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 7:11:42 PM
Name
Raymond Rita
raymond3213@hotmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Sky crossing.
Support Comments
I love this idea and have been waiting for news on its development.
Going to desert ridge marketplace is a pain in the butt for the essentials, it will be nice to have a place
that is much closer. It’s a huge win for people who want to bike and walk too.
I think the developers can secure a big win if they scrap the gas station idea. I also think having a left
hand turn option on 34th street would be a big win.
I also think you should include more studies on how convenient/walkable areas like this improve properly
values.
Many of the naysayers also site traffic, however for most residents of SC it’s a net win since they will
drive less to DRM. The safety concerns are also silly cuz there’s already traffic, and the new
improvements will actually make it safer.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 6:24:11 PM
Name
Sophia Rizk
sophia_rizk@yahoo.fr
Support Comments
A Trader Joe’s would be great in the neighborhood.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 9:40:00 AM
Name
David Roth
lancets.bearded.0v@icloud.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Sky Crossing Neighborhood
Support Comments
We fully support development at Deer Valley & Black Mountain Blvd. Desert Ridge can be extremely
busy with traffic in that area, so it would be nice to have other shopping options closer to our home in Sky
Crossing.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 6:26:26 PM
Name
Marjorie Schnell
ms.margieschnell@yahoo.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
39726 N MESSNER WAY
Support Comments
Would love a Trader Joe's or While Foods at Desert Ridge, perfect size and variety of food different from
the many Frys and Sageways we have around. Thank you!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 8:01:21 PM
Name
Kassie Shirey
kassie.shirey@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
2517 E. Paraiso Dr
Support Comments
A neighborhood Sprouts or Trader Joe’s would be wonderful!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 6:39:34 PM
Name
Elissa Silber
gemsilber@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
5867 E Tierra Buena Ln
Support Comments
I would like a Trader Joe’s, or a Sprouts to go on there.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 6:24:59 PM
Name
Cynthia Sowa
clusowa@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
23319 N 44TH PL
Support Comments
Trader Joe's would be great!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 7:18:45 PM
Name
Scott Starr
rltycheck@aol.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Aviano
Support Comments
Thai would be a great addition.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 8:29:06 PM
Name
April Storey
azstorey@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Mountain Gate Pass
Support Comments
Trader Joe’s!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 6:39:37 PM
Name
Elena Tager
elenatager@yahoo.com
Support Comments
We support.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 6:00:15 PM
Name
Juli Thompson
Julesnrs@gmail.com
Support Comments
Yes, I vote for Whole Foods and a trader Joe’s
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 7:57:47 PM
Name
Morgan Troutman
morgan.troutman8700@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
12802 N 23RD ST
Support Comments
I support the proposal of a new grocer in the desert ridge area... preferably Fry's.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 6:03:56 PM
Name
Amber Vercelline
amber.rhodes.rn@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Tatum Manor
Support Comments
Agree with grocery store. Would love Trader Joe’s
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 5:58:52 PM
Name
chris waranch
cwaranch@gmail.com
Support Comments
Would appreciate a new grocery store in this location
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 7:18:11 PM
Name
John Zatarski
jzatarski@hotmail.com
Support Comments
YES - We need another Grocery Store !
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 10:25:29 PM
Name
Mike Albers
MikeAlbers23@gmail.com
Support Comments
Huge NO for gas of any kind.
Yes Trader Joe's or Whole Foods.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Friday, September 22, 2023 12:07:37 PM
Name
David Ashkuri
davidashkuri@yahoo.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
3514 E Utopia Rd.
Support Comments
We would love to see either a traders joe’s
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Friday, September 22, 2023 2:21:51 PM
Name
Tony Baldwin
Avalosoul@live.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Aviano
Support Comments
Trader joes please
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Friday, September 22, 2023 11:36:27 AM
Name
Samantha Bednarz
samiebednarz@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
4616 E Desert Cactus St
Support Comments
This area absolutely needs a Sprouts!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Friday, September 22, 2023 8:25:47 AM
Name
Kimberly Bocchi
kimberly.a.bocchi@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Sky crossing
Support Comments
Such a great use of the land over here!!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Friday, September 22, 2023 10:03:27 PM
Name
Amanda Brockbank
Brockbankamanda16@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Boulder creek at desert foothills subdivision
Support Comments
I think this proposed plan adds value and convenience to the north Phoenix area. With the growing
number of houses going up and no new stores, especially grocery, going up, this will be a positive and
impactful addition to our neighborhood. We don’t want more houses or apartments crammed together.
We want something that will actually be of use in the day to day life.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Friday, September 22, 2023 10:11:14 AM
Name
Susan Cotner
sccotner@hotmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
23650 N. 22nd St.
Support Comments
As senior living in the area, having a new neighborhood grocery store would help me to age in place in
my current home. Currently I live more than 5 miles away from any grocery store.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Friday, September 22, 2023 7:32:55 AM
Name
Kimberly Fabrycki
kimberlyfabrycki@hotmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
3222 E Bryce Ln
Support Comments
Trader Joe’s please .
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Friday, September 22, 2023 1:09:18 PM
Name
Sara Grasteit
sarajuneco@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Aviano
Support Comments
Please make it a Trader Joe’s!!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Friday, September 22, 2023 12:55:08 AM
Name
kevin jerrett
krjerrett@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
5350 6 deer valley drive
Support Comments
Hope its a frys
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Friday, September 22, 2023 12:44:20 PM
Name
PG Lakshminarayan
plakshman@rocketmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Aviani
Support Comments
Support mini grocer like trader joe or sprouts...
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Friday, September 22, 2023 6:32:26 AM
Name
David Larcher
Dlarcher@vestar.com
Support Comments
Go for it
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Friday, September 22, 2023 9:53:48 AM
Name
Sarah Larocca
sarahdeelo@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
3984 E Scout Pass
Support Comments
We need a healthy, organic grocery store that is local.
From: Michelle Santoro
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: FW: Support for Black Mountain Village Project
Date: Friday, September 22, 2023 11:33:04 AM
-----Original Message-----
From: Aaron Lloyd
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2023 11:21 AM
To: anthony.grande@phoenix.gov
Cc: Michelle Santoro
Subject: Support for Black Mountain Village Project
Mr. Grande,
I will not be able to attend the meeting on October 3 but write to provide my strong support for the Black Mountain
Village rezoning project. As a homeowner in the Sky Crossing community I view this project favorably. It will be a
good use of the land and provide homeowners in the surrounding neighborhoods with options not found in the
immediate vicinity. I would much prefer a commercial rezoning to a multi family project and believe those opposed
may be not realizing other potential and less favorable uses for the land.
As a former member of the PV Village Planning Committee, this project has my full support, and I urge the
committee to vote to approve on October 3.
Thanks,
Aaron Lloyd
Sent from my iPhone
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Friday, September 22, 2023 11:10:41 AM
Name
Aaron Lloyd
aarontlloyd@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
21926 N 29th St
Support Comments
Hello,
I strongly support this project as a neighbor in the Sky Crossing community. I believe the project will be
an asset to the neighboring communities, provide additional services not found in the immediate
neighborhood, and be a good use of the land. I strongly recommend that the planning committee approve
the project at the upcoming meeting!
Thanks,
Aaron Lloyd
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Friday, September 22, 2023 4:10:08 PM
Name
Thomas Mosmeyer
thomasmosmeyer@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
4514 E Weaver Road
Support Comments
The ability to walk to a grocer can greatly reduce the traffic strain that is clearly obvious in front of Desert
Ridge Marketplace. The more walkable the surrounding neighborhoods, the cheaper and less deleterious
the use of cars becomes.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Friday, September 22, 2023 1:02:47 PM
Name
Charles Pawlak
charlespawlak@cox.net
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Aviano
Support Comments
A grocery store is badly needed and the Desert Ridge area with all the new apartments and homes being
built and only Albertsons available within a few miles. I totally support a grocery store at the southwest
corner of Deer Valley and Black Mountain
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Friday, September 22, 2023 7:34:01 AM
Name
Nikki Reiter
nikkijean6@yahoo.com
Support Comments
Trader Joe’s would kill it up in this neighborhood! We have to travel all the way down to tatum and shea
or get overwhelmed at the FLW location. Also a full sized Sprouts or ALDIs would be nice.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Friday, September 22, 2023 12:23:46 AM
Name
Gianna Schneider
ggbella12@gmail.com
Support Comments
Trader joe’s!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Friday, September 22, 2023 7:52:48 PM
Name
Sylvia Sebescu
silvip3@yahoo.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
23222 N. 41 st Street, Phoenix 85050
Support Comments
We need grocery store in our neighborhood.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Friday, September 22, 2023 10:17:31 AM
Name
Will Shirey
wtshirey@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
2517 E. Paraiso Dr.
Support Comments
I support this initiative. We need more fuel and groceries in this area. Prefer Sprouts or Trader Joe’s as
first choice. Fry’s second choice.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Friday, September 22, 2023 3:20:20 PM
Name
Jennifer Ulrich
jenbulrich@yahoo.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Stone Butte
Support Comments
We need closer shopping and restaurant options
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Friday, September 22, 2023 8:13:18 AM
Name
Rohit Vir
rohitvir@hotmail.com
Support Comments
Love the idea
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Saturday, September 23, 2023 12:01:03 PM
Name
Ariela Acuna
Acunaariela@gmail.com
Support Comments
We really need more stores near our neighborhood as there isn’t much around and other stores such as
desert ridge are becoming super crowded.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Saturday, September 23, 2023 9:37:09 AM
Name
David Allayev
davidallayev5@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
3843 e expedition way
Support Comments
This would be great for the neighborhood
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Saturday, September 23, 2023 10:15:32 AM
Name
Karla Grajeda
Karlaplacido_96@hotmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
23555 n desert peak parkway Phoenix Arizona 85024
Support Comments
Give us a Trader Joe’s and Whole Foods
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Saturday, September 23, 2023 5:34:53 PM
Name
Ginny Komlos
ginnykomlos@gmail.com
Support Comments
We need a new supermarket and gas station in the Deer Valley/Black Mountain
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Saturday, September 23, 2023 11:05:11 AM
Name
Greg Kraus
greg.kraus@datadvisors.com
Support Comments
Can’t wait
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Saturday, September 23, 2023 8:08:31 AM
Name
Lama Mattar
lama.mattar@hotmail.com
Support Comments
Such a great idea !!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Saturday, September 23, 2023 9:16:56 AM
Name
Terrie Miller
tmiller855@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
5350 E Deer Valley Dr
Support Comments
We need another grocery option as well as dining in this area.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Saturday, September 23, 2023 1:04:05 PM
Name
Shaun Kelley
sh4unz0r@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Sky Crossing
Support Comments
My support for this development is contingent upon 3 things:
1. Grocer is guaranteed to be Sprouts, Whole Foods, or AJ's
2. No gas station, given the above grocers don't do accessory stations.
3. Lighting plan is implemented to be similar to lights at the Shops at Gainey Village.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Saturday, September 23, 2023 2:03:22 PM
Name
Jennifer Padgett
Jcwiltse3@yahoo.com
Support Comments
Trader Joe’s!!!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Saturday, September 23, 2023 10:46:54 AM
Name
Kaci Peregrym
kaciperegrym@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
3253 E Pike St
Support Comments
n/a
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Saturday, September 23, 2023 9:50:49 AM
Name
Gloria Poppa
gjpoppa@yahoo.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
5450 E Deer Valley Dr. #4211 Phoenix AZ 8505
Support Comments
LOVE IT!!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Saturday, September 23, 2023 6:20:40 AM
Name
Xiomara Pravong
xpravong@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
18618 N 34th Pl
Support Comments
Trader Joe’s please
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Saturday, September 23, 2023 8:24:20 AM
Name
Marisa Sanchez
Marisatsanchez@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Desert Peak
Support Comments
We’d like to see a Whole Foods or Sprouts put in. It’s a long drive to either of these places. Or even a
Natural Grocers or Trader Joe’s.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Sunday, September 24, 2023 12:05:30 PM
Name
Joyce Carlberg
carlberg_az@msn.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Sky Crossing
Support Comments
We are in favor
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Sunday, September 24, 2023 7:00:37 PM
Name
Beth Dahl
bethdahl@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Cachet at Peakview
Support Comments
I lived in Aviano and Fireside for 8 years. I would have loved this center a mile from
My house
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Sunday, September 24, 2023 8:21:29 PM
Name
Dianne Moore
dianneishappy@gmail.com
Support Comments
I would be interested in a Trader Joe’s. Is that a possibility?
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Sunday, September 24, 2023 8:01:25 PM
Name
Al Mercado
azalbert@cox.net
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Aviano
Support Comments
Please only speciality high-quality markets like Trader Joe’s, Whole Foods, Fry’s, Sprouts. Please NOT
Frys or Safeway!!!
And surrounded by small retail stores = ok, but NO fuel station please!!!!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Sunday, September 24, 2023 10:23:43 AM
Name
Donald Pearman
1fantasea@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
PO Box 5155 Carefree AZ 85377
Support Comments
I would like the facility (s) to exist. Please help make it happen
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Sunday, September 24, 2023 6:59:13 AM
Name
Victoria Pearman
Twobeadorknot@yahoo.com
Support Comments
I would love to see a Trader Joe’s or something similar in that area. I support Desert Ridge’s idea to build
another grocery. I would definitely use it when in the area.
From: Dan Oseran
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Support(ish) for Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12
Date: Sunday, September 24, 2023 10:56:17 PM
Hi,
I know you are probably inundated with notes about the development on BMB and Deer Valley. Thank you for
taking the time to consider all of the suggestions.
I support a form of development with limitations. I would strongly support a C-1 designation (rather than the
proposed c-2) with no gas stations or fast food drive through pads. I support a true neighborhood community
commercial development.
The area immediately surrounding this parcel has homes worth over a million dollars and I think Vestar made a
tactical error by trying to build too much on the property. The current proposal isn’t aligned with the ‘feeling’ of the
immediately surrounding neighborhood, which is quieter, more residential, and further from the Desert Ridge core.
If a more modest commercial development was proposed, I think it could make a positive difference in the
community and be better received.
Thank you again,
Dan Oseran
From: Mandi Fleming
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Fireside at Desert Ridge - Superblock 12 Rezoning Amendment Requests
Date: Monday, September 25, 2023 11:18:59 AM
Dear Mr. Grande,
This communication is to inform you that as homeowners at Fireside Desert Ridge, my
husband, Tom, and I are in favor of the proposed rezoning requests. You will find the case
numbers associated with this proposal below:
Case No. SPA-DS1 V-2-23-2
Case No. CPA-DSTV-3-23-2
Case No. 1-39-23
Warm Regards,
Mandi and Tom Fleming
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Monday, September 25, 2023 9:40:42 AM
Name
Ana Keller
Anarygi@cox.net
Support Comments
I will strongly support a Trader Joe’s store .
We don’t have any of those close by and I’m sure it will be the best since we have 3 other ones you
mention already and close by too .
Thank you !
Ana Keller
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Monday, September 25, 2023 10:26:01 AM
Name
Alexandra Lusk
alusk482@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Desert ridge
Support Comments
Trader Joe’s. I’m all in. Sprouts. For sure.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Monday, September 25, 2023 4:23:22 PM
Name
Paul Marazzo
amarazzo@arrowheadbmw.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Sky crossing
Support Comments
Sounds great! Better than building apartments!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Monday, September 25, 2023 9:05:32 AM
Name
Shelly Palmer
shellypalmerrd@gmail.com
Support Comments
I would support a Trader Joe’s or Whole Foods
SUPPORT FOR NEW GROCER AT DEER VALLEY ROAD AND BLACK MOUNTAIN BOULEVARD
Name City State Postal Code Country Signed On
New Grocer US 9/1/2023
David Larcher Brooklyn NY 11249 US 9/4/2023
Yvette Mayo Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/6/2023
Bob Mayo Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/6/2023
Stephanie Garcia Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/6/2023
Susan Hweimel Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/6/2023
Christine McNeal Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/6/2023
Monica Pereira-Guana Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/6/2023
Chris Cross Phoenix AZ 85016 US 9/6/2023
Kiersten Pace Phoenix AZ 85017 US 9/6/2023
Mary Downing Clifton CO 81520 US 9/6/2023
Sandy Summers Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/6/2023
Cheryl Wadina Phoenix AZ 85024 US 9/6/2023
Lina Chua Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/6/2023
Jill Blair Phoenix AZ 85085 US 9/6/2023
Skeleton Key Los AngelesCA US 9/6/2023
Michael Vittorio Chicago 97603 US 9/6/2023
Nancy Thompson Kennesaw 30152 US 9/6/2023
Jon Inwood Brooklyn NY 1123 US 9/6/2023
Alix Cassagnol Watertown 13601 US 9/6/2023
Daniel O'Brien MILTON 12547 US 9/6/2023
Preston Towne Burlington 52601 US 9/6/2023
Arya Albritton Terre Haute 47802 US 9/6/2023
Chloe Carlton Peoria 61604 US 9/6/2023
Kieth Bryant Seattle 98118 US 9/6/2023
Shane White Kansas City 66101 US 9/6/2023
Mackenzie Griswold Irving 75063 US 9/6/2023
Max Mildebrandt US 9/6/2023
Aja Smith Norristown 19401 US 9/6/2023
Miala Wilkerson Atlanta 30315 US 9/6/2023
Gedion Yemane Los Angeles 90016 US 9/6/2023
Michael Keith Cincinnati 45239 US 9/6/2023
Frehiwot Gezahegn Hayward 94544 US 9/6/2023
Catherine Kenyon La Quinta 92253 US 9/6/2023
Andrew Floyd US 9/6/2023
Viviana Sanchez Jamaica Plain 2130 US 9/6/2023
lyssy howard Annapolis 21403 US 9/6/2023
Liliana Martinez Caldwell 83605 US 9/6/2023
Ivory Murphy Asbury Park 7712 US 9/6/2023
Trukessa Ussery Hampton 30228 US 9/6/2023
Cynthia Ervin Winston-salem 27105 US 9/6/2023
Mia Helmick Dearborn 48126 US 9/6/2023
Sennait Misghinna Wylie 75098 US 9/6/2023
SUPPORT FOR NEW GROCER AT DEER VALLEY ROAD AND BLACK MOUNTAIN BOULEVARD
Melissa Winner Phoenix AZ 85024 US 9/6/2023
Ann Jankes Phoenix AZ 85054 US 9/6/2023
Lisa Andreas Phoenix AZ 85016 US 9/6/2023
Debbie Merrick Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/6/2023
Gary Lawrence Phoenix AZ 85040 US 9/7/2023
Deirdre Menchaca Hyannis MA 2601 US 9/7/2023
Melanie Stone Phoenix AZ 85024 US 9/7/2023
Carol Ditmore Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/7/2023
Martina McConnon Phoenix AZ 85080 US 9/7/2023
Moon Knight Los AngelesCA US 9/8/2023
Sheena Lamon Phoenix AZ 85024 US 9/11/2023
Christopher Lamon Phoenix AZ 85008 US 9/11/2023
Diane Diamond Phoenix AZ 85024 US 9/11/2023
Shannon Garman Phoenix AZ 85036 US 9/11/2023
Chantelle Sabbath Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/11/2023
Jenna Huffman Phoenix AZ 85024 US 9/11/2023
Robert Caccamo Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/11/2023
Lina Senia Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/11/2023
Susan Cheeseman Phoenix AZ 85024 US 9/11/2023
Beth levine Phoenix AZ 85015 US 9/11/2023
Jamie Bush Phoenix AZ 85003 US 9/11/2023
Sonita W. Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/11/2023
Ginny Komlos Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/11/2023
Christine Nard Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/11/2023
Don Crosby Phoenix AZ 85008 US 9/11/2023
Susan Almanza Phoenix AZ 85059 US 9/11/2023
Angela Marnell Phoenix AZ 85024 US 9/11/2023
Karen Flaherty Phoenix AZ 85063 US 9/11/2023
Rita Onofrio Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/11/2023
Rebeka Bauer Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/11/2023
Juliana Fisher Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/12/2023
Sharon Levy Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/12/2023
Susan Nerheim Phoenix AZ 85024 US 9/12/2023
Maria Elizabeth Rodriguez Phoenix AZ 85022 US 9/12/2023
Sarah Levine Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/12/2023
Jodi Lavin Phoenix AZ 85024 US 9/12/2023
Patrice Kimmerle Phoenix AZ 85003 US 9/12/2023
Betsy Studer Phoenix AZ 85009 US 9/12/2023
Mohan Paredla Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/12/2023
Sri Ben Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/12/2023
Hamsa Srinivasan Phoenix AZ 85080 US 9/12/2023
Sunil K Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/12/2023
Sananda Saha Phoenix AZ 85041 US 9/12/2023
Jamie Bessler Phoenix AZ 85014 US 9/12/2023
Shachindra Pandey Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/12/2023
SUPPORT FOR NEW GROCER AT DEER VALLEY ROAD AND BLACK MOUNTAIN BOULEVARD
Divya Kutty Phoenix AZ 85024 US 9/12/2023
Kingshuk Choudhary San Dimas CA 91773 US 9/12/2023
Neil Hoffman Phoenix AZ 85024 US 9/12/2023
Colleen Widdows Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/12/2023
Barbara Welch Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/12/2023
Kirstin Robinson Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/12/2023
Kathy Petersen Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/12/2023
aaron brock HOWELL 48843 US 9/12/2023
G. Diane Matthews-Marcelin Carson 90746 US 9/12/2023
Javier Chacin Memphis 38112 US 9/12/2023
Christina Rago Cave Creek AZ 85331 US 9/12/2023
barbara coyle San Antonio 78234 US 9/12/2023
Christopher Bean US 9/12/2023
Mary Ursaki Portland 97206 US 9/12/2023
Stephen Roan Baton Rouge 70807 US 9/12/2023
Cody teawitch Castle Rock 80109 US 9/12/2023
natalie thornhill Charleston 25312 US 9/12/2023
Jonna Parker Phoenix AZ 85024 US 9/12/2023
Niko D-R US 9/12/2023
natalie Thornhill Elkview 25071 US 9/12/2023
Jaslyn Ruvalcaba Aurora 80010 US 9/12/2023
Zach Pemberton Santa Rosa 95404 US 9/12/2023
Diana Brown San Bernardino 92410 US 9/12/2023
Cathie Andresen Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/12/2023
Kristin Peterson Scottsdale AZ 85261 US 9/12/2023
Julie Greenberg Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/12/2023
Alysson Zatarga Phoenix AZ 85004 US 9/12/2023
Sarah Williford Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/12/2023
Daliah Meirovits Phoenix AZ 85006 US 9/12/2023
Liz DAnna Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/12/2023
Carrie Cummings Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/12/2023
Julie Peterson Phoenix AZ 85041 US 9/12/2023
Nancy Ackel Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/12/2023
Tony D’Anna Phoenix AZ 85041 US 9/12/2023
Elena Tager Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/12/2023
Sk V Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/12/2023
Carole Fields Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/12/2023
Stephanie Gustafson Phoenix AZ 85041 US 9/12/2023
William Getz Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/12/2023
Karenlee Thorpe Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/12/2023
Joann BEVERLY Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/12/2023
David Binkley Phoenix AZ 85024 US 9/12/2023
Sidney Mae Phoenix AZ 85024 US 9/12/2023
Gillian Fallas Phoenix AZ 85024 US 9/12/2023
Olivia Filippone Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/12/2023
SUPPORT FOR NEW GROCER AT DEER VALLEY ROAD AND BLACK MOUNTAIN BOULEVARD
Dinesh Chintalapuri Phoenix AZ 85024 US 9/12/2023
Jenny Araujo Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/12/2023
Abhishek Saxena Phoenix AZ 85024 US 9/12/2023
Robin Berning Phoenix AZ 85006 US 9/12/2023
Jen Silverberg Phoenix AZ 85024 US 9/12/2023
Sheila Hansen Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/12/2023
Tamara Hajja Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/12/2023
Shalimar Marshall Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/12/2023
Leah Mondlick New York NY 10038 US 9/12/2023
Michele Briggs Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/12/2023
Laurie Thrasher Phoenix AZ 85024 US 9/12/2023
Johnston Melanie Phoenix AZ 85012 US 9/12/2023
Noel Ortiz Phoenix AZ 85004 US 9/12/2023
Michele Sonkin Phoenix AZ 85068 US 9/12/2023
James Patterson Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/12/2023
Keaira Tighe Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/12/2023
Geoff Rubin Phoenix AZ 85024 US 9/12/2023
Kate Fleming Phoenix AZ 85025 US 9/12/2023
Courtney Strittmater Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/12/2023
Crystal Alix Phoenix AZ 85041 US 9/12/2023
Irish Shay Phoenix AZ 85041 US 9/12/2023
Natalie Monjoin Phoenix AZ 85041 US 9/12/2023
Navneet Bhatnagar Phoenix AZ 85080 US 9/12/2023
Monika Saxena Phoenix AZ 85036 US 9/12/2023
Victoria Zacchini Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/12/2023
Adam Polson Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/12/2023
Shilpi Gupta Phoenix AZ 85024 US 9/12/2023
Lavanya Juttukonda Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/12/2023
Shane Zink Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/12/2023
Annabel Rimmer Phoenix AZ 85020 US 9/12/2023
Chris Sinclair Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/12/2023
Abhilasha Kapur Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/12/2023
James Watson Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/12/2023
Nancy Thomas Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/12/2023
Praveen avuthu Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/12/2023
Chris Collins Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/12/2023
Derek Geisinger Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/12/2023
Lauren Barbaruolo Phoenix AZ 85016 US 9/12/2023
Christina Peregrym Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/12/2023
Meredith Blythe Phoenix AZ 85013 US 9/12/2023
Keith Maclaren Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/12/2023
Carrie Laliberte Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/12/2023
Jennifer Kovacik Scottsdale AZ 85254 US 9/12/2023
Meredith Edling Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/12/2023
Richa Sharma Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/12/2023
SUPPORT FOR NEW GROCER AT DEER VALLEY ROAD AND BLACK MOUNTAIN BOULEVARD
Audrey Somers Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/12/2023
Preston Spriggel Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/12/2023
Dipti Dravid Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/12/2023
Katie Ray Phoenix AZ 85016 US 9/12/2023
Cici Martin Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/12/2023
Nathan Goldberg Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/12/2023
Lavanya Vinjamuri Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/12/2023
Brooke chez Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/12/2023
Yana Dashevsky Phoenix AZ 85007 US 9/12/2023
Joshua Hope Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/12/2023
Tanner Davis Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/12/2023
Brianne Fischer Collierville 38017 US 9/12/2023
Neal Dubey Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/12/2023
Shivani Dubey Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/12/2023
Robert Fierros Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/12/2023
Josh Schweser Phoenix AZ 85041 US 9/12/2023
Leslie German Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/13/2023
Heather Noble Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/13/2023
Annie Maiden-Hope Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/13/2023
David Wallace Phoenix AZ 85006 US 9/13/2023
Jodie Koltes Phoenix AZ 85004 US 9/13/2023
Brad Otoupalik Phoenix AZ 85027 US 9/13/2023
Susan Tinsley San Diego CA 92101 US 9/13/2023
Brian Sevchik Phoenix AZ 85015 US 9/13/2023
David M Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/14/2023
Chrissy Seibel Phoenix AZ 85013 US 9/14/2023
Raymond Rita Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/14/2023
Ivy Bryan Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/14/2023
Jordan Sandler Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/15/2023
Scott Corwin Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/15/2023
Sean Morgan Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/15/2023
Monica Litt Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/15/2023
Melissa Gitt Phoenix AZ 85036 US 9/15/2023
Vanessa Corwin Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/15/2023
Morgan Bircher Phoenix AZ 85041 US 9/16/2023
Pratiba Rachamalla Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/16/2023
Mark Sidorenkov Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/17/2023
Erin Reese Phoenix AZ 85008 US 9/17/2023
Bob Hamer Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/17/2023
CJ Wren Phoenix AZ 85024 US 9/17/2023
Lorraine Roberts Rocky Poin NC 28457 US 9/17/2023
Shyamsharan Prajapati Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/18/2023
Jaiden Dubey Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/22/2023
Shweta ghumre Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/22/2023
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Monday, September 25, 2023 1:09:13 AM
Name
Emily Schaefer
emily.schaefer@me.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Tatum Village
Support Comments
Support of sprouts or Safeway
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Monday, September 25, 2023 6:02:40 PM
Name
Fan Wu
wufan1026@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
4723 E Parkside Ln
Support Comments
I am writing the comments below to support Vestar’s proposal to develop the 20.5 acres of Property
located at the southwest corner of Deer Valley Drive and Black Mountain Parkway as a retail shopping
center called Black Mountain Village.
I believed the new grocery store will have the following benefit:
1.Local Economic Growth
2.Convenience and Accessibility
3.Community Gathering Place
4.Environmental Sustainability
From: mjb cartof.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: FW: Review & Comment on General Plan Amendment in the Desert View Village (GPA-DSTV-2-23-2 & GPA-DSTV-
3-23-2)
Date: Tuesday, July 4, 2023 12:17:10 PM
Attachments: image002.png
GPA-DSTV-2-23-2.pdf
GPA-DSTV-3-23-2.pdf
Anthony—
It amazes me that the applicant would want to put in a shopping center of that magnitude only 2.5
miles from Desert Ridge. Why isn’t the currently designated 2-5 du/ac housing more important
than changing the General Plan to provide Commercial?
Marcia Busching
From: Geno Koman [mailto:geno.koman@phoenix.gov]
Sent: Monday, July 3, 2023 3:11 PM
Cc: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Review & Comment on General Plan Amendment in the Desert View Village (GPA-DSTV-2-
23-2 & GPA-DSTV-3-23-2)
Attached for your review is an amendment to the General Plan for Phoenix that has
been filed:
DESERT VIEW VILLAGE
Application GPA-DSTV-2-23-2 at the southwest Corner of Black Mountain Boulevard
and Deer Valley Drive. Request for a Map Amendment to change the General Plan
land use designation on approximately 20.5 acres from Residential 2-5 du/acre (20.5
acres) to Commercial (20.5 acres) to allow commercial land uses.
Application GPA-DSTV-3-23-2 at the southwest Corner of Black Mountain Boulevard
and Deer Valley Drive. Request for an amendment to the Desert Ridge Specific Plan
Section 6.C.5, Superblock 12, Parcel 12.L.
These applications are proceeding concurrently with a rezoning request (Z-39-23-2)
for the same property, approximately 20.5 acres from S-1 (Approved R1-6 and R-2) to
C-2 to allow a commercial shopping center.
Please forward your comments prior to August 22, 2023 to:
Anthony Grande
Village Planner
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor
Phoenix, AZ 85003-1611
602-256-5648
anthony.grande@phoenix.gov
Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact the Planning &
Development Department at 602-262-7811.
Thank you,
Geno Koman
Secretary II
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
Phone: 602-495-2076
geno.koman@phoenix.gov
From: Paul Bierbusse
To: Anthony M Grande
Cc: Council District 2 PCC; marybierbusse@gmail.com
Subject: Input re: requested rezoning E. Deer Valley Dr/Black Mountain Blvd near Pinnacle High School
Date: Monday, August 14, 2023 5:05:46 AM
To: Anthony Grande, Planner, City of Phoenix Planning & Development Department
Cc: Mr. Jim Warring, Councilman – District 2, City of Phoenix
Good morning gentlemen,
My wife, Mary, and I recently purchased a home in the Sky Crossing neighborhood immediately
north of the proposed rezoning on E. Deer Valley Drive and Black Mountain Boulevard near Pinnacle
High School (Desert View Village GPA-DSTV-2-23-2). We are excited to become active members of
the community and have been impressed by how the City of Phoenix has thoughtfully managed
development. We understand that the proposed rezoning transitions the parcel from residential to
commercial, and while we don’t object to the rezoning of the parcel we do have a number of
significant concerns.
First, we understand that proposed development plans include the construction of a gas station on
part of the parcel – we would like to express our strongest reservations as to the inclusion of a gas
station within the final plan given the traffic it is likely to draw, the likely extended hours of
operations including intrusive late-night lighting in the area, and the environmental impact. There
are nearby stations located both at E. Deer Valley Drive/Cave Creek and at E. Deer Valley
Drive/Tatum which should more than suffice to address local demand.
Second, the area already deals with significant traffic challenges associated with ingress/egress to
Pinnacle High School. Any rezoning and associated development should be coordinated with the
traffic needs of the high school both to mitigate impact to overall traffic flow and to enhance safety
in a high traffic area. As development continues north of our community, confident that the AZ-51
access point will only see increased traffic volume – plans should be made to address not only
existing traffic due to the high school but increased traffic due to the proposed redevelopment.
Third, we have been made aware of increased random acts of violence associated with late night
hours at Desert Ridge Marketplace and we don’t wish to see those issues brought closer to our
community. Should the rezoning be approved, we would ask that conditions be placed on the hours
of operations for tenants to minimize late night traffic to the property (preferably no later than 9pm)
and that coordination be pursued with the City of Phoenix Police Department to ensure appropriate
police resources are dedicated to the area.
We understand the importance of continued development across Phoenix and believe that
reasonable accommodations can be made that both permit development while addressing resident
concerns. Thank you for providing us the opportunity to voice our concerns.
Warmest regards,
Paul & Mary Bierbusse
2922 E. Robin Lane
Phoenix, AZ 85050
Any tax advice in this e-mail should be considered in the context of the tax services we are
providing to you. Preliminary tax advice should not be relied upon and may be insufficient for
penalty protection.
________________________________________________________________________
The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential and protected
from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or
agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If
you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to
the message and deleting it from your computer.
Notice required by law: This e-mail may constitute an advertisement or solicitation under U.S.
law, if its primary purpose is to advertise or promote a commercial product or service. You
may choose not to receive advertising and promotional messages from Ernst & Young LLP
(except for My EY, which tracks e-mail preferences through a separate process) at this e-mail
address by opting out of emails through EY’s Email Preference Center [ey.com]. Our principal
postal address is One Manhattan West, New York, NY 10001. Thank you. Ernst & Young
LLP
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 7:26:32 AM
Name
RICHARD STARR
rtstarraz@hotmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
FIRESIDE
Support Comments
There is an existing parking problem at Pinnacle HS that needs to be solved before the development of
retail center. At 6pm last night, there were 200 overflow cars in desert on future retail center site. AZ
State Land, PVUSD and possibly retail developer need to solve problem first. Perhaps retail center
purchases extra 5 acres and delivers to PVUSD west of retail?
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Sunday, September 17, 2023 3:34:20 PM
Name
Susan Babendure
susiebabendure@gmail.com
Support Comments
Need to know info
ATTACHMENT C
ADDENDUM A
Staff Report: GPA-DSTV-3-23-2
September 20, 2024
Application: GPA-DSTV-3-23-2
Owner: Arizona State Land Department
Applicant: Ryan Ash, Vestar
Representative: Stephen Anderson, Gammage & Burnham
Proposal: Amendment to the Desert Ridge Specific Plan
Section 6.C.5.Superblock 12 to facilitate commercial
development
Desert View Village Planning October 3, 2023
Committee Meeting Date: October 1, 2024
Staff Recommendation: Approval, as shown in the recommended text in
Exhibit A
On October 3, 2023, the Desert View Village Planning Committee heard this request
and recommended denial by a vote of 7-2-1. On November 2, 2023, the Planning
Commission heard this request and recommended a continuance to the January 4,
2024 meeting by a vote of 9-0. On January 4, 2024, the Planning Commission heard
this request and recommended a continuance to a date uncertain and remanded the
case back to the Desert View Village Planning Committee for reconsideration by a vote
of 7-0. The applicant has since submitted revised amendment language to the Desert
Ridge Specific Plan to address community and committee concerns by limiting the size
of any single retailer to 65,000 square feet and prohibiting gas stations. Staff
recommends the revised Desert Ridge Specific Plan amendment language, as shown in
Exhibit A.
In addition, since the staff report was published on September 26, 2023, staff has
received 127 letters in opposition and 283 letters in support, which are attached as an
exhibit.
Exhibits
A: Proposed Amendment Language (2 pages)
Community Correspondence (545 pages)
EXHIBIT A
GPA-DSTV-3-23-2
Amendment to the Desert Ridge Specific Plan Section 6.C.5.Superblock 12 to
facilitate commercial development at the southwest corner of
Black Mountain Boulevard and Deer Valley Drive
Staff proposed language that may be modified during the public hearing process is
as follows:
Amend Chapter 6 (Development Parcel Regulations), Section C.5. (Development
Regulations by Superblock), Pages 6-45 to 6-46 as follows:
SUPERBLOCK 12
Superblock 12 is located west of a possible future connection to the Squaw PIESTEWA
Peak Parkway, which separates this superblock from the balance of the Desert Ridge
community. BECAUSE OF THIS SEPARATION, THIS SUPERBLOCK CAN SUPPORT
LIMITED COMMERCIAL USES WITHOUT INTERFERING WITH THE DEVELOPMENT
OF THE DESERT RIDGE CORE (DEVELOPMENT PARCEL 5.A). RESIDENTIAL
development parcels may vary in size by 30 percent (25 percent for R1-6 and more
dense zoning categories without a minor plan amendment).
Size: 136 133.41 acres
Maximum Number of Dwelling Units: 347
Average Density: 2.55 du/ac
12.L – Development Parcel 12.L
Size: 77 55.24 acres
Uses Permitted:
Single-family residential
Density Range: 2-5 du/ac for the entire parcel
Maximum Number of Units: 347 257; 451 334 if parcel increases in size 30
percent
Potential Zoning to be Applied: R1-18, R1-10, R1-8, R1-6, R-2
Minimum Lot Size: Zoning controls
Special Requirements (Modifying City Regulations):
No attached single-family units; no multifamily units.
Section C.4.B, Chapter 6, Desert Ridge Specific Plan applies.
No more than 25% of the development parcel may be zoned R-2.
Recommendations:
Clustering permitted subject to minimum lot size.
12.C – DEVELOPMENT PARCEL 12.C
SIZE: 20.52 ACRES
USES PERMITTED:
ALL USES ALLOWED UNDER CITY OF PHOENIX ZONING
DESIGNATION C-2, INTERMEDIATE COMMERCIAL, EXCEPT AS
PROHIBITED BELOW.
MAXIMUM NUMBER OF UNITS: 90
POTENTIAL ZONING TO BE APPLIED: C-2
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS (MODIFYING CITY REGULATIONS):
LARGE SCALE COMMERCIAL RETAIL IS PROHIBITED.
MAXIMUM GROSS LEASABLE AREA FOR ANY INDIVIDUAL RETAIL
TENANT/USER (E.G. GROCER) SHALL NOT EXCEED 65,000
SQUARE FEET.
AUTOMOBILE SERVICE STATIONS ARE PROHIBITED.
ADULT USES ARE PROHIBITED.
RETAIL LIQUOR SALES ARE ALLOWED AS AN ACCESSORY USE
BUT ARE PROHIBITED AS A PRIMARY USE.
TOBACCO ORIENTED RETAILERS ARE ALLOWED AS AN
ACCESSORY USE BUT ARE PROHIBITED AS A PRIMARY USE.
RETAIL MARIJUANA SALES (DISPENSARIES) ARE PROHIBITED.
AUTOMOBILE SERVICE STATIONS ARE PROHIBITED, UNLESS
ACCESSORY TO A GROCERY STORE.
12.S – Development Parcel 12.S
Size: 59 57.65 acres
Uses Permitted:
High school
Potential Zoning to be Applied: R1-8
***
OPPOSITION
From: Richard Starr
To: Anthony M Grande; rlane@gblaw.com
Subject: Black Mtn Village Rezone // PHS turning movements MAJOR CHANGE
Date: Monday, September 9, 2024 1:41:43 PM
Attachments: image.png
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
The proposed retail center site plan (revised) NOW includes a NEW MEDIAN on Mayo. This median will BLOCK a vital left hand turning movement from Mayo into the PHS parking lot. This will result in many U-turns or push nearly all PHS traffic onto Black Mountain Pkwy single
entrance. The prior site plan did NOT include a median on Mayo.
Pinnacle High School's (2,550+ students) operations should not affected by the new retail center. Vestar's revised site plan does not meet the needs of PHS traffic. The aerial picture on G&B website cuts off the school parking lot entrances. With this major change to PHS turning
movements, the aerial should be updated accordingly.
Additionally, AZ State Land and PVUSD need to work on a parking solution for PHS before the land auction to any developer. Special events overflow onto State Land property (100+ cars park in desert). There will be major conflicts in future when PHS and retail center are fighting
over parking.
Richard "R.T." Starr
rtstarraz@hotmail.com
From: Richard Starr
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Black Mountain Village. GPA & Rezone - SWC Deer Valley & Black Mtn // PARKING @ PHS
Date: Monday, September 9, 2024 1:13:58 PM
Attachments: image.png
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Black Mountain Village retail development has been proposed for over 12 months now. The
land seller (AZ State Land Department) and PVUSD have not addressed the existing parking
problem at Pinnacle High School. ASLD should not auction the property immediately adjacent
to the high school to any developer without working with PVUSD to fix this issue. Pinnacle
High School needs at least 250 more parking stalls for everyday use and special events like
football, basketball games or meet-the-teacher nights. During special events, 100+ cars
overflow park in the desert on the future grocer site. These cars will simply park in Fry's
parking lot in the future, creating a logistical nightmare for everyone including the grocer and
retail tenants. The parking issue is not going away as Pinnacle adds students each year.
Richard "R.T." Starr
rtstarraz@hotmail.com
From: Christian Klein
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: GPA-DSTV-2-23-2
Date: Saturday, September 14, 2024 1:49:05 PM
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Dear Anthony Grande,
I am writing today regarding Vestar’s updated proposals (case numbers) GPA-DSTV-2-23-
2, GPA DSTV-3-23-2, and Z-39-23. As a resident of Desert Ridge, I oppose Vestar’s
updated proposal for rezoning the Southwest Corner of Black Mountain Boulevard and
Deer Valley Drive from Residential to Commercial/Retail for several reasons.
First, Desert Ridge is a highly desirable planned residential community that continues to
attract buyers willing to pay a premium for a prime location. Adding commercial/retail
mixed-use space in the middle of our community would decrease the desirability of Desert
Ridge and lower the values of residential real estate within the community.
Second, the traffic flow within Desert Ridge is already too great for the limited infrastructure
within the community. Pinnacle Peak High School is located adjacent to the proposed site.
The traffic caused during the morning/afternoon pick up/drop off combined with regular
commuting already creates a safety issue on Black Mountain and Deer Valley, with vehicles
backed up in every direction. Adding unnecessary commercial/retail space would only
increase the traffic and lead to safety issues.
Third, there is simply no need (or desire) for mixed commercial/retail space in the middle of
single-family homes. The area has more than ample shopping options - Desert Ridge
Marketplace, High Street, and shopping off of Cave Creek Rd and the 101 are all within an
extremely close distance. Finally, creating a commercial/retail space in the middle of a
residential area will bring increased instances of crime, which, when coupled with declining
property values, would limit the marketability of Desert Ridge.
Finally, the entire process by Vestar has been disingenuous to the residents of Desert
Ridge even seeking outside influence/support by non-community residents to showcase
support with Facebook ads. The adjustments made by Vestar do not remedy concerns of a
commercial development in a pristine residential area. Allowing this proposal to go forward
will put a serious blemish on Desert Ridge's reputation.
Given the detrimental impacts on our home values, marketability, safety, noise pollution,
and increased traffic without adequate infrastructure, these proposals should be denied.
Please do not hesitate to reach out if I can provide any additional information.
Regards,
Christian Klein
From: Yasmin Rivera-Klein
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Oppose GPA-DSTV-2-23-2
Date: Sunday, September 15, 2024 11:12:46 PM
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Dear Anthony Grande,
I am writing today regarding Vestar’s updated proposals (case numbers) GPA-
DSTV-2-23-2, GPA DSTV-3-23-2, and Z-39-23. As a resident of Desert Ridge, I
oppose Vestar’s updated proposal for rezoning the Southwest Corner of Black
Mountain Boulevard and Deer Valley Drive from Residential to Commercial/Retail
for several reasons.
First, Desert Ridge is a highly desirable planned residential community that
continues to attract buyers willing to pay a premium for a prime location. Adding
commercial/retail mixed-use space in the middle of our community would decrease
the desirability of Desert Ridge and lower the values of residential real estate within
the community.
Second, the traffic flow within Desert Ridge is already too great for the limited
infrastructure within the community. Pinnacle Peak High School is located adjacent
to the proposed site. The traffic caused during the morning/afternoon pick up/drop
off combined with regular commuting already creates a safety issue on Black
Mountain and Deer Valley, with vehicles backed up in every direction. Adding
unnecessary commercial/retail space would only increase the traffic and lead to
safety issues.
Third, there is simply no need (or desire) for mixed commercial/retail space in the
middle of single-family homes. The area has more than ample shopping options -
Desert Ridge Marketplace, High Street, and shopping off of Cave Creek Rd and the
101 are all within an extremely close distance. Finally, creating a commercial/retail
space in the middle of a residential area will bring increased instances of crime,
which, when coupled with declining property values, would limit the marketability of
Desert Ridge.
Finally, the entire process by Vestar has been disingenuous to the residents of
Desert Ridge even seeking outside influence/support by non-community residents to
showcase support with Facebook ads. The adjustments made by Vestar do not
remedy concerns of a commercial development in a pristine residential area.
Allowing this proposal to go forward will put a serious blemish on Desert
Ridge's reputation.
Given the detrimental impacts on our home values, marketability, safety, noise
pollution, and increased traffic without adequate infrastructure, these proposals
should be denied. Please do not hesitate to reach out if I can provide any additional
information.
Regards,
From: Richards, Dan
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Black Mountain Village – City of Phoenix Case Nos. GPA-DSTV-2-23-2, GPA-DSTV-3-23-2, and Z-39-23-2 – Notice of Revised Development Proposal and Rescheduled Public Hearings
Date: Monday, September 16, 2024 4:06:41 PM
Attachments: image001.png
image003.png
image004.png
Intersection Photo 2.PNG
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Hello Mr. Grande and the Desert View Village Planning Committee,
I wanted to share a couple of photos that are good depictions of the traffic that is currently a problem at the intersection of Deer Valley and Black
Mountain Boulevard. Vestar’s Black Mountain Village will only make this more of a nightmare.
This first photo is showing several vehicles from the southbound lanes of Black Mountain Blvd blocking the intersection after their light turned red.
These vehicles never made it through the intersection while the Deer Valley left turn light was green. Now what we have are vehicles from two
directions stuck in the middle of the intersection. Northbound and Eastbound traffic are completely stuck and cannot get through while they have a
green light. It’s total gridlock.
The second photo is a view from the first vehicle in the left turn lane on Deer Valley, trying to turn south on Black Mountain Blvd. You can see there
are so many vehicles blocking the intersection that vehicles either had to wait for another cycle or be selfish and enter the intersection and block
even more traffic once the light changes. Eastbound traffic is completely blocked at this point. Vehicles in the left turn lane were being considerate
and waited another cycle before trying to enter the intersection.
This is a daily occurrence at this intersection. The level of service for this intersection is already failing. If this is a simple fix by adjusting the
intersection timing with Black Mountain and Mayo to alleviate this problem, then this should be taken care of immediately. If this isn’t a simple fix,
then adding this Black Mountain Village is going to create even more of a mess at this intersection.
Please consider the residents that must drive through these intersections on a daily basis. It’s already a nightmare to deal with. I am asking you to
please reject Vestar’s proposal to rezone this property. The neighbors that live nearby want to see this stay the residential portion of the Desert
Ridge master plan that we all expected when we bought our homes.
Thank,
Dan Richards
From: Robin Bowie
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Black Mountain Village/City of Phoenix Planning Case Nos. GPA-DSTV-2-23-2, GPA-DSTV-3-23-2, & Z-39-23-2
Date: Tuesday, September 17, 2024 3:37:43 PM
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Hello Anthony,
I hope this email finds you well. We met back in November of last year at a City
Planning meeting regarding the above rezoning hearing.
Last night, Vestar’s attorneys, Rob Lane, Senior Land Use Planner of Gammage
and Burnham along with other lawyers held a meeting at Aviano to discuss their
updated plans for the Black Mountain parcel. It seems as though they did listen to
what the residents had to say about many concerns and reworked their plan but there
are still items that are just not acceptable. Mr. Lane went on to say that our local
Albertsons was just way overcrowded and that there needed to be another choice for
the residents. Vestar’s plan was originally billed as this was going to be a “boutique”
shopping center and now it is being deemed “necessary.” But last night, just as they
assured the audience that this was a good thing and so desperately needed, they
spring on us that there will be a bus stop to this shopping center. This raises
concerns for not only me but many folks that I have spoken with today. I believe Mr.
Lane explained that it was the City that decides where the bus stops are installed.
Can you verify that information for me? My issue all along with this plan is what this
is going to do to our neighborhood. This was not in the original master plan of Desert
Ridge to have a shopping center inserted in the middle of our community to begin
with. I was beginning to have a little acceptance of Vestar’s plan - I did feel that they
made a good second attempt at trying to mitigate the concerns of the residents. But
with the bus stop being added, it just brings up for me that fact that what happens at
bus stops and what it may attract. It is one thing to have a bus stop on Tatum
Boulevard just south of Deer Valley, a major thoroughfare but not in the middle of a
neighborhood. My argument here is that if you can afford to live in Desert Ridge you
are more than likely not riding a bus.
And of course there is still the issue of Pinnacle High School and the parking
issue. Those students will invariably park at the shopping center - it will just be a
constant battle. And, what about the overflow parking for families as they attend
extracurricular events such as the football games - they always used that lot. Is the
shopping center prepared to let everyone use their lot for these events?
Thank you for again for your time.
Robin Bowie
Aviano Resident
(602) 329-9005
From: Steven Deacon
To: rlane@gblaw.com; Anthony M Grande; Steven Deacon
Subject: Black Mountain Village Traffic Study Request
Date: Tuesday, September 17, 2024 10:47:12 PM
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Dear Rob & Anthony,
I would like to request a traffic study of 36th Way and 36th street as shown in the attached
pictures to be included as part of Vestar's petition to build a commercial property across from
Pinnacle High School.
I believe this street has been overlooked in Vestar's traffic study as it plays a major role as a
cut through street to avoid the traffic jams during High School drop off and pick up.
My biggest concern is for the safety of our children who reside in the Cooper View section of
Fireside. There are 45 kids in elementary school who live in this section and walk to school
every day. We already deal with the reckless driving from the high school, and I am concerned
that it will only get worse with the increased traffic if the new commercial development gets
approved.
The high school parents use this cut through to avoid the traffic jam where they drop the
students off by the mailboxes then make a U turn back through the community. This is circled
in yellow.
If this additional child safety concern could be addressed it would be greatly appreciated in
protecting our community and safety of our children.
Feel free to contact me if further explanation would be helpful.
CITY OF PHOENIX PLANNING CASE NOS. GPA-DSTV-2-23-2,
GPA-DSTV-3-23-2, & Z-39-23-2
Best,
Steve Deacon, CFP®, CIMA®, Private Wealth Advisor
CA Insurance License #0H03830
Five Point Wealth Advisors
8925 E Pima Center Pkwy, Suite 135
Scottsdale, AZ 85258
Phone: 480-948-2416
FAX: 480-291-8643
www.fivepointwealth.com [fivepointwealth.com]
[fivepointwealth.com]
[forbes.com]
[forbes.com]
2023 Forbes Best In State Wealth Advisors, created by SHOOK Research. Presented in April 2023 based on data
gathered from June 2021 to June 2022. 22,243 were considered, 7,321 advisors were recognized. Advisors pay a fee
to hold out marketing materials. Not indicative of advisor’s future performance. Your experience may vary. Click here
[forbes.com] for more award information.
2023 Forbes Top Next-Gen Wealth Advisors Best in State, created by SHOOK Research. Presented in Aug 2023
based on data gathered from March 2022 to March 2023. 3738 Advisors were considered, 1464 Advisors were
recognized. Not indicative of advisor’s future performance. Your experience may vary. Click here [forbes.com] for
more award information.
*Securities and advisory services offered through Commonwealth Financial Network®, member
FINRA/SIPC, a Registered Investment Adviser. Fixed insurance products and services are separate from
and not offered through Commonwealth Financial Network.
From: Andy M
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Cases GPA-DSTV-2-23-2 & GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2
Date: Wednesday, September 18, 2024 10:35:53 PM
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
I live in fireside (3609 e cat balue Dr) and I am opposed to "black mountain village" -- I ask
that you keep that lot residential! We do not want it turned commercial and do not want
businesses in that area! Vestar should simply use the land a few blocks away at cave Creek
and deer valley!
Thanks,
Andy
From: Rajesh Gadde
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: NO to Black Mountain Village-Case GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/Z-39-23-2
Date: Wednesday, September 18, 2024 8:58:15 PM
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Hello Anthony,
After listening to a new revised plan from Vestar, this is my opinion.
I am Rajesh Gadde. I live in Fireside at desert ridge, I would like to formally email you my
opposition about building Black mountain village. I think it's going to make our safe
neighborhood into a commercial area thus causing danger to kids.
It will create more crime opportunities, noise, litter, pollution, traffic nightmare as well.
We don't want this at all. Please help us on this matter.
Thanks
Rajesh
From: Amal Halaby
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Black mountain , zoning from residential to commercial iam voting. No, no, please hear us. Thank you.
Date: Wednesday, September 18, 2024 12:02:35 PM
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Sent from my iPhone
From: hww33 (null)
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Fwd: Black Mountain Village Proposed Plans for Superblock Parcel 12
Date: Wednesday, September 18, 2024 7:10:17 AM
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Hello Anthony,
I am reaching out to voice my displeasure and to ask for your support with ensuring that Vestar/other corporations
are blocked from rezoning from “residential” to “commercial” for the proposed Black Mountain Village in Desert
Ridge. The residential zoning was absolutely a key factor when we purchased our home and would be
devastating to our community if rezoning is allowed. There seems to be plenty of commercial zoning between
High Street, Tatum and Cave Creek Roads.
Begin forwarded message:
From: Fireside at Desert Ridge
Subject: Black Mountain Village Proposed Plans for Superblock Parcel 12
Date: September 18, 2024 at 7:06:28 AM MST
To: zakhouse2333@gmail.com
Reply-To: emolenaar@associatedasset.com
[fskj7tgbb.cc.rs6.net]
Message from the Manager
Updated Superblock Parcel 12 Presentation
Dear Fireside at Desert Ridge Residents,
Thank you to everyone that participated in yesterday evening's updated proposal
towards the rezoning of Superblock Parcel 12 from residential to commercial
property. The presentation, approximately 15 minutes in length, using both a
hybrid and virtual format, was given by Gammage & Burnham Law, counsel for
Vestar Development Co. Upon conclusion of the presentation, representatives
attempted to answer related questions using a multi-contact approach with the
goal of efficiency.
Specific details from the presented proposal can be found using this link:
https://www.gblaw.com/blackmountainvillage/ [fskj7tgbb.cc.rs6.net]
Questions or comments regarding Black Mountain Village can be sent to Rob Lane,
Gammage & Burnham PLC, Senior Land Use Planner at (602) 256-4439 or
rlane@gblaw.com.
The next step in the rezoning process will be a public hearing with the
Desert Village Planning Committee (VPC).
When: October 1st, 2024 at 6:30 pm
Where: Paradise Valley Community Center, Multi-purpose Room
17402 N. 40th Street, Phoenix, Arizona 85032
To participate, see the instructions available on the Public Meeting Notices website:
https://www.phoenix.gov/cityclerk/publicmeetings/notices
If you would like to voice your opposition or support via written email, contact
Anthony Grande, City Planner at anthony.grande@phoenix.gov as all received
communication is documented.
I can be reached at (480) 214.3357 or emolenaar@associatedasset.com if you
should have any questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
Eric Molenaar, CAAM, SLC
Fireside at Desert Ridge Community Manager
On behalf of the Fireside at Desert Ridge Community Association Board of
Directors.
[fskj7tgbb.cc.rs6.net]
Fireside at Desert Ridge Community Association
Professionally Managed By:
3775 E. Lone Cactus Drive
Phoenix, AZ 85050
480.203.2166
www.ourfiresidedesertridge.net [fskj7tgbb.cc.rs6.net]
[fskj7tgbb.cc.rs6.net]
[fskj7tgbb.cc.rs6.net]
[fskj7tgbb.cc.rs6.net]
[fskj7tgbb.cc.rs6.ne
t]
Download the AAM All Access mobile app here:
[fskj7tgbb.cc.rs6.net] [fskj7tgbb.cc.rs6.net]
This message is intended exclusively for residents of Fireside at Desert Ridge. If you have received this message by
mistake, please let us know by email reply and delete it from your system.
Fireside at Desert Ridge | 3775 E. Lone Cactus Drive | Phoenix, AZ 85050 US
Unsubscribe [visitor.constantcontact.com] | Update Profile [visitor.constantcontact.com] |
Constant Contact Data Notice [constantcontact.com]
Constant Contact
[constantcontact.com]
From: Julia Levene
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Updated Superblock Parcel 12
Date: Wednesday, September 18, 2024 9:09:52 AM
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
HI Anthony:
As I was unable to make the meeting last night, can you answer a couple of questions for me?
Do the restrictions listed in the development project apply only to this proposal, or will these
restrictions be within the confounds of the rezoning to commercial property? Restrictions such as
limited size of box store to no more than 65,000 sq. feet, no gas station, low lighting, and
restrictions types of tenants allowed etc. In other words, down the road, can another developer or
same developer alter what is allowed in this commercial zone and place a gas station there?
Can you describe what is meant by “separate public process” regarding drive through restaurants?
Thanks
Julia
Julia Levene, CMP
CEO
Go West Destinations, Inc.
DBA: APP, Association Planner Partners
3734 E. Ringtail Way
Phoenix, AZ 85050
Phone: 602 320-8323
www.associationplannerpartners.com [associationplannerpartners.com]
From: John Randall
To: Anthony M Grande
Cc: John Randall
Subject: Superblock Parcel 12 revised proposal Opposition
Date: Wednesday, September 18, 2024 7:21:51 AM
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Dear Anthony,
Thank you for taking the time to read my opposition to the revised proposal for superblock 12
adjacent to our high school.
I have a background serving on both economic development and planning commissions in
suburban Chicago for nearly ten years and am generally in favor of development to aid in tax
revenues to support local communities. My rare exception to this bias is when homeowner
community Zoning is changing to accommodate this development post community build out.
Two of the key determining factors in home purchases are High School rating and community
environment which has led to the evolution to planned communities and continued equity
growth over time. To disrupt these factors post build out should NOT happen in my view
without a minimum of a community vote to represent the true data to decision makers who
serve on our community boards and commissions.
It is for these reasons that I vote NO to superblock 12.
Thank you,
John G. Randall
John.randall023@gmail.com
602-919-8150
21709 N. 37th st
Phoenix, Az. 85050
From: Matthew Chitwood
To: Anthony M Grande
Cc: Anne Chitwood
Subject: GPA-DSTV-2-23-2 and Case GPA-DSTV-3-23-2 and Case Z-39-23-2
Date: Thursday, September 19, 2024 11:53:53 PM
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Re:GPA-DSTV-2-23-2 and Case GPA-DSTV-3-23-2 and Case Z-39-23-2
The plans proposed by Vestar are NOT in alignment with what the General Plan originally
intended this land be used for and I specifically request the Committee REJECT the
developer's case.
Matt Chitwood
Fireside Resident
From: C Dunn
To: Anthony M Grande
Cc: Council District 2 PCC
Subject: GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2 BLACK MOUNTAIN VILLAGE
Date: Thursday, September 19, 2024 5:35:25 PM
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Dear Mr Grande and Members of the Desert View Village Planning Committee
-
Unless you have personally been involved with transporting students to and
from Pinnacle High School, you cannot appreciate the traffic challenges that
occur daily at the intersection of Mayo Blvd. and Black Mountain Blvd. (Please
note that this intersection is directly in front of the high school.) We have
parents dropping off students. We have inexperienced student drivers pulling
into the parking lot. We have traffic heading toward the 51. We have traffic
coming off the 51. Plus, we have heavy traffic from Deer Valley, which has
now become an alternate route for the 101. In the midst of all this traffic, we
have those students who walk to school. Even under the best of conditions,
crossing Black Mountain Blvd. and Mayo Blvd. can be difficult. It is not
uncommon to see students darting across traffic, crossing against the light, or
jaywalking. The situation is formidable for all involved.
Vestar is suggesting their proposed commercial development will benefit our
neighborhood. (Please note they would be building adjacent to Pinnacle High
School.) They claim it will offer us an alternative shopping experience, while
alleviating traffic congestion at Desert Ridge Marketplace. Vestar’s suggestion
is nothing short of insulting. Their own traffic analysis of 2022 predicted their
project would add more than 10,000 vehicles DAILY at the intersection of
Deer Valley and Black Mountain Blvd. And that has to be a conservative
number now considering all the construction that has occurred since 2022. Add
those 10,000 vehicles to the already inordinate number of vehicles navigating
Black Mountain Blvd., Mayo Blvd., and Deer Valley on a daily basis and we
have a disaster waiting to happen.
We cannot compromise our values. We must think of the safety, security, and
well-being of our children. The negative impact of having a commercial
development adjacent to Pinnacle High School and one block from Fireside
Elementary school far outweighs any alleged benefits.
Please say NO to re-zoning Superblock 12.
Please say NO to Vestar.
Thank you.
Carolyn Dunn
3752 E Covey Lane
Phoenix, AZ 85050
From: SCOTT ELLEFSON
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Rezoning proposal case GPA-DSTV-2-23-2 and Case GPA-DSTV-3-23-2 and Case Z-39-23-2.
Date: Thursday, September 19, 2024 11:24:47 AM
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Dear Sir,
I Strongly Oppose this rezoning proposal.
Rezoning proposal case GPA-DSTV-2-23-2 and Case GPA-DSTV-3-23-2 and Case
Z-39-23-2.
Sincerely,
Scott Ellefson
3909 E. Melinda Dr.
Sent from my iPad
From: Treye Elzenga
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Resident Feedback I Black Mountain Village Project (GPA-DSTV-2-23-2; GPA DSTV 3-23-2; Z-39-23)
Date: Thursday, September 19, 2024 9:55:08 AM
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Hello Anthony and Desert View Planning Commission,
After reviewing the revised proposal and attending developer led listening sessions for the Black Mountain Village Project
(GPA-DSTV-2-23-2; GPA DSTV 3-23-2; Z-39-23), I want to express my strong opposition to this project. No amount of money,
project design changes, or unsubstantiated claims by the developer or their retained counsel make this project safe for our
community. It was fundamentally flawed from the start and approving this project will only provide short-term rewards for
Vestar and Gammage & Burnham associates not the community. Once again our City Planning Officials should Deny this
project. Commercial real estate on this proposed parcel has no place, no real need, and only increases risks.
Phoenix City Council Women, Ann O’Brien recently noted our cities dire need for housing to meet the needs of a growing
population in reference to a proposed Lennar Homes residential housing project near Hurricane Harbor which will provide
300 much needed additional units to our community. Gammage and Burnham flippantly disregards our civic leaders facts
based leadership in their revised proposal by stating ‘conversion of this property from residential to commercial and the
subsequent loss of 236 dwelling units is negligible’. Gammage and Burnham has also represented Lennar Homes on projects
in Phoenix and appears to pick and choose when housing projects are valuable to our community based on their interests not
residents. Clearly City leaders and Arizona’s own Department of Housing identified shortages of over 270,000 housing units
across our state in recent facts based studies. As Phoenix metro comprises over 2/3rds of our state’s population, we require
over 175,000 units to meet the needs of the citizens. We clearly have work to do in an effort to meet that shortage. Rezoning
existing housing parcels to commercial property in the heart of a well-established family-friendly community only introduces
unnecessary risks and creates tax payer waste in the zoning review process.
Once again, nowhere in this proposal does it acknowledge the most at-risk to traffic related injuries amongst us the pre-
school and elementary school children who walk, bike, and run to Fireside Elementary. Living in this community, safety should
always be our number one concern as residents. Omitting Fireside Elementary from the traffic studies and written rezoning
application responses is negligent and shows clear disregard for our children’s safety. Within four hundred yards of this
proposed project, we have two schools, Pinnacle High School and Fireside Elementary, which educate pre-school children as
young as four years old. Each morning and afternoon families walk their children to these schools from the surrounding
homes from the north, south, east, and west. In the bias traffic study completed in November 2022 they fail to acknowledge
slower traffic patterns based on holidays, people traveling outside of Phoenix to visit family, and winter residents not yet
arriving to the area in addition traffic patterns have evolved after two years. Throwing money at the HAWK system does not
solve the problem of increased transient traffic flow, especially off the high-speed HWY 51 into this area, statistically
increasing risks for residents, especially our younger children. Simply there is no compelling argument for this project and
only increased risk.
While developers will make the case for additional services and unsubstantiated benefits to our community, we must consider
the abundance of commercial services that are already available in Desert Ridge Marketplace, along Cave Creek Road, and
HWY 51 south. In addition, all these commercial properties have clearly defined borders which create increased safety as to
not blend housing, schools, parks, and daily life, with commercial development. Within Desert View we have an abundance of
services of all commercial types within one mile. Making the argument that driving one mile creates hardship is another
unsubstantiated claim by the developer and fails to acknowledge the abundance of delivery services if someone prefers
alternative commercial services that are not available within one mile. Desert View is not the same as an urban core, such as
downtown Phoenix. Lack of concrete detail is consistent throughout the rezoning application, while there is an abundance of
words and feelings including ‘potentially’ and ‘we feel’ it fails to acknowledge key considerations as I have outlined.
Vestar owns Desert Ridge Marketplace and Gammage and Burnham outlines in their own words the developments failures to
manage traffic congestion and parking. Why would we trust the same developer to deliver different results when they
themselves acknowledge these failures. Fool me once let’s not make it twice especially next to our children’s schools and
family homes. We have an opportunity to put families and our youngest citizens first by DENYING this project. Thank you for
your thoughtful consideration of the data, facts, and real impact on our community for the long term. I appreciate your
support in DENYING this rezoning request for the second time.
Treye Elzenga
Resident City of Phoenix - Desert Ridge
From: Dave Evans
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Rezoning Proposal Case GPA-DSTV-2-23-2 and Case GPA DSTV-3-23-2 and Case Z-39-23-2
Date: Thursday, September 19, 2024 5:10:41 PM
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Dear Mr. Grande,
I am a longtime Fireside resident (since 2013), living literally a stone's throw away from Black
Mountain Blvd across from where the proposed site is located. I recently attended the
presentation by Vestar at the Fireside Community Clubhouse on September 17 regarding the
updated proposal plans for superblock parcel 12. I went into the meeting with an open mind
curious as to the amendments and changes they had made. After hearing their presentation
and seeing their proposed plans I can assuredly say I AM NOT in favor of this proposal.
Regardless of how they attempt to build out this commercial center and update the
corresponding streets around it, the traffic in this area is going to become a nightmare and
even more unsafe. I have lived here firsthand through the addition of the Route 51 on/off
ramp and have already noticed the influx of traffic on Black Mountain Blvd, including late
night motorcycle racing, street racing, and unfortunately a few serious accidents.
Vestar says they want to add a destination grocery store such as Trader Joes or Whole Foods
for just our surrounding neighborhoods. They are extremely naive to think this will not be a
huge draw for individuals driving in from all areas to go to this store, adding to increased
traffic all day long, safety issues, noise pollution, and making it more dangerous for residents
(and students) of this area to navigate safely in and out of their own neighborhoods. Throw in
the fact that this is NEXT DOOR to Pinnacle high school and I can't believe Vestar believes
it's a good idea to put a proposal together that will degrade and endanger the safety of the
students and residents who reside here. Have you seen the traffic and safety issues at Paradise
Valley High School on Bell Rd.? We do not deserve to have that brought to our
neighborhood. If Vestar is so determined to bring a new commercial shopping center to our
area they need to find another location that was not already zoned for residential housing. I
hope you will seriously consider the implications of this disastrous proposal and take steps to
keep it from being implemented. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Respectfully
David Evans
From: Shelley Flecky
To: Anthony M Grande; Council District 2 PCC
Subject: Re: Resident of Fireside - against rezone Black Mountain Village
Date: Thursday, September 19, 2024 9:11:05 AM
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
I sent this a year ago, and my thoughts have not changed. Please keep zoned as single family
homes.
Thank you,
Shelley Flecky
> On Sep 13, 2023, at 9:44ௗPM, Shelley Flecky
>
> Hello,
>
> I have been a resident of Fireside Desert Ridge since 2011. I now have a son at Pinnacle
High School. I am strongly against re-zoning the area by his school to commercial. This was
not the original plan and definitely after all the growth in this area should not be the new plan.
Traffic on Black Mountain Blvd is horrendous and downright dangerous during school hours.
I don’t think it is a safe place to add more congestion. Please do not re-zone! The community
does not want this.
>
> Thank you,
> Shelley Flecky
> Referencing case numbers GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2
From: JG Ford
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Rezoning proposal case GPA-DSTV-2-23-2 and Case GPA-DSTV-3-23-2 and Case Z-39-23-2
Date: Thursday, September 19, 2024 5:29:21 PM
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Hello Mr. grande,
I hope you can see by the mass amounts of emails you are receiving to oppose this
Vestar rezoning idea that is not what the majority of affected homeowners want, nor
do we need it. Are there a few who want it, sure.
I strongly oppose this and want it to remain zoned for single family homes ONLY! We
did not buy here to have it rezoned for commercial use.
Vestar has been diligent with their fake marketing and published articles that
residents want this and that it was the Arizona State Land Department that
approached Vestar, when the state in fact did not.
And it is no coincidence that the next scheduled meeting is Oct 1st during our Fall
Break where many families, like mine will be out of town and unable to attend. Why?
Well it’s a planned strategic move so less of us can attend.
Please do the right thing and stop this from moving forward. What if you lived up here,
I don’t believe you would welcome and embrace this unwanted change and increased
traffic in your neighborhood.
Thank you for applying your ethical consideration from a homeowner’s perspective to
stop this from going any further.
Respectfully,
Jay Ford
From: Susan Forkos
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Rezoning proposal case GPA-DSTV-2-23-2 and Case GPA-DSTV-3-23-2 and Case Z-39-23-2.
Date: Thursday, September 19, 2024 10:40:31 AM
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Good morning,
I have had the opportunity to attend the meeting at the Fireside Clubhouse and cannot be more
disappointed in this presentation. It really lacks the "buy in" that I thought I would have after
this discussion. The key points to the community not being in favor are the unfavorable
aspects of driving more traffic to the neighborhood, types of retailers, possibility of junk fast
food, and the list goes on. I was in favor of another grocer in and around Desert Ridge but I
am now in favor of SCRAPPING this proposal and moving forward with the land being
developed into housing, and parks that would not increase traffic at key times throughout the
day.
Key takeaways I was left scratching my head:
-Vestar was approached to develop this area? I have no buy in on this statement. So then
Vestar should have looked at the value of other properties. Even the ones at Pinnacle Peak.
This area would be ideal! And remember Whole Foods built nowhere near housing and people
flock to it. No one in the neighborhood is driving towards the high school except for key times
during the day which is a traffic nightmare. We all drive away from the area for shopping and
knew we would be doing that when we bought our homes. That was one of the appealing
qualities of Desert Ridge.
-Traffic, traffic and more insane traffic...Too much traffic would be directed and come off the
51 and Mayo to go to NEW shopping, there still is no clear answer as to how this would affect
the area as far as noise pollution and added car pollution in general. Also, the influx of cars at
633 parking spots is a huge amount of cars to add to the daily drop off/pick up routine. There
was no clear answer. There is currently a high traffic issue in this area, with accidents and
injuries. Increasing this would not be helpful. We see what a mess Tatum is at the turn into
Albertsons and InNout burger. It's a disaster. Parking lot would become drop off and pick up
and overflow parking for the school that is already bursting at the seams.
-Types of retailers. YES, this matters. When you do not know what is going in and you are at
the mercy of the land developer taking the highest bid, you get what they want. Which is retail
dedicated to convenience of a highway offramp. Not retailers dedicated to increasing the value
of our properties. I was told they cannot be selective and will take whoever bids on the
parcels. Look at several other shopping centers, you currently don't see McDonalds or
ChickFilA at the scottsdale quarter, do you? you have million dollar homes right across the
street that fear the smell of grease and pollution of delivery trucks. Not to mention increasing
foot traffic, loitering and the list goes on and on.
-size retailers down to 65,000 sq ft.?? They were talking about this may be a prime spot for
Sprouts or Trader Joes but we are talking 65,000 sq ft which is the current size of the
Albertsons. A Trader Joes shop is typically 10-12,000 sq ft. So I have no interest in a major
store right next to a high school. This area cannot accommodate the traffic for the size
Albertsons that is at Desert ridge, it is ridiculous to think it can.
-decreased property value. NO one answered this question. And no one would know until we
get a list of retailers.
-education money trade off. No where did this say the trade off would directly go towards the
two schools located near this property, while this seems like a nice trade, our neighborhood
schools would only see a small fraction of this money, if any?
I am overall disappointed in the outcome and changes they have proposed. Adding a
busy shopping plaza is not a good idea for this location and I cannot back it or get on board
with this decision to change the zoning. The lot is just too small to house a 65,000 sq ft grocer
plus handfuls of stores off the highway ramp near an already busy school intersection.
So please add my commentary to the list of people that oppose the rezoning of this land. I
absolutely do not approve their proposed plans. Vestar clearly is in it for the money, not the
benefit of our community.
Thank you,
Susan Forkos
From: harrisonmccrae88@icloud.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: We don"t want Black Mountain Village
Date: Thursday, September 19, 2024 11:23:42 AM
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
To whom it may concern,
We who live in residential areas such as Fireside, do not wish for more traffic going
by homes as it will cause much disturbance to our communities. Case Numbers:
GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2
From: Todd Jennings
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Rezoning proposal case GPA-DSTV-2-23-2 and Case GPA-DSTV-3-23-2 and Case Z-39-23-2
Date: Thursday, September 19, 2024 4:34:49 PM
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Mr. Grande,
I recently attended the presentation by Vestar at the Fireside Community Clubhouse regarding
the proposed plans for superblock parcel 12. While I initially supported the idea of having
another grocery store nearby, I now believe that rezoning this area for commercial use would
not be a good decision. After reviewing the plans, it’s clear that traffic will become a significant
issue, even with the proposed lane expansions and additional sidewalks.
Currently, most residents drive away from Pinnacle High School for their grocery shopping.
Placing a supermarket right next to the high school will not only draw local residents but also
people from outside the community, significantly increasing traffic in the area. This rise in
traffic will bring a higher risk of accidents, especially concerning the safety of children who
attend the high school and live in the surrounding neighborhoods.
In addition to safety concerns, the increased traffic will lead to more noise, disrupting the
quiet environment many of us value. Personally, when I shop at stores like Whole Foods,
Sprouts, or Trader Joe’s, I travel away from the school. If a grocery store is built here, it will
bring more congestion, more noise, and more pollution to our streets.
I believe the best option would be to keep the zoning for single-family homes as it currently is
T Jennings
From: Kris
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Rezoning proposal case GPA-DSTV-2-23-2 and Case GPA-DSTV-3-23-2 and Case Z-39-23-2.
Date: Thursday, September 19, 2024 4:30:43 PM
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Hello Mr Grande. I am writing regarding the above rezoning proposal. I live in Fireside
and have had children attend the local schools as well as Pinnacle High School.
If you don’t live in the area, it is really hard to understand the traffic problems we have
around the High School. There are also major issues, outside of school hours, from
traffic coming from 51 to Black Mountain. People coming from the highway blow
through the stoplight and accidents occur. Unfortunately one of those happened to my
son. We were extremely fortunate no one was injured as his car was t-boned and
completely totaled.
Also I can’t imagine anything worse than having a shopping complex close to a high
school. All you have to do is ask the shop keepers at Desert Ridge Marketplace the
havoc the kids create there after school is let out. I can’t imagine this enhancing our
property values.
There are currently so many shopping choices within a 5-10 mile range that we really
do not need more that aren't already zoned for this purpose. I would strongly urge you
to reject a proposed zoning change to this area.
Thank you for your time.
Kris
Sent from my iPad
From: Craig Liguori
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Superblock parcel 12 I vote NO
Date: Thursday, September 19, 2024 1:00:09 PM
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Anthony,
As a taxpayer whose house backs up to Black Mountain boulevard (Just north of the
pedestrian foot bridge), I OPPOSE the development of Superblock 12 parcel of land.
We as a community already have a problem with the school and its inability to abide by the
sounding a segment timer every 5 minutes during football practice that can be heard in my
house
Playing music that can be heard in the adjacent neighborhood that includes graphic words like:
, , , , and , I do not consider it a prudent move for the city to
continue to expand until they can handle the current situation.
I have brought this issue to the School, and the School District. Both entities still chose to not
take any action. It is time that city officials start doing their job and following / enforcing the
laws that they pass.
Craig Liguori
480-519-9436
From: Martina McConnon
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Black Mountain Village Proposed Plans for Superblock Parcel 12
Date: Thursday, September 19, 2024 8:27:56 AM
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Dear Mr Grande,
I attended the recent presentation by Vestar at the Fireside Community Clubhouse in
regards to the proposed plans for superblock parcel 12. While I had been in favor of
having another grocer in the vicinity, I am now convinced that it's not a good idea to
rezone that area for commercial space. Looking at the presented plans, and even
with the planned lane increases and separate sidewalks, it's very clear that traffic is
going to be a huge issue. Currently all residents are driving away from Pinnacle High
School to do their grocery shopping. If there is a super market right next to the high
school, not only are the people who live in the surrounding communities going to drive
there, it's also going to draw people from even further away. Right now, when I want
to go to a Whole Foods or Sprouts or Trader Joes, I'm driving AWAY from the high
school. If there was a grocer, anyone who likes to shop at that type of market will
drive to Black Mountain Village, increasing traffic on all surrounding streets,
increasing the risk of accidents and definitely increasing pollution.
I would like to keep everything as it is, with the area being zoned for single family
homes.
Thank you for your consideration.
Best regards,
Martina McConnon
3826 E Cat Balue Drive
Phoenix AZ 85050
cell 610-577-4982
Thanks!
From: heather moss
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: NO to Black Mountain Village - case #’s: GPA-DSTV-2-23/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2
Date: Thursday, September 19, 2024 11:24:55 AM
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Dear Anthony,
We are opposed to changing the residentially-zoned plot of land to commercial property.
We are against the Black Mountain Village proposed by Vestar.
We want to keep our high schoolers safe and keep our community protected, NOT increase the
unbelievable amount of traffic that will bottleneck the Black Mountain freeway exit and
surrounding roadways. We were told the area was all going to be residential when we chose
to purchase at Fireside and make this place our home. Now some big corporation has the right
to change that?!
Please take our homes and families in to consideration before agreeing to building this
horrible commercial project. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Heather McCrae
From: Dennis McWherter
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Opposition for Black Mountain Village (GPA-DSTV-2-23-2 / GPA-DSTV-3-23-2 / Z-39-23-2)
Date: Thursday, September 19, 2024 6:51:26 AM
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
To Mr. Grande:
My name is Dennis McWherter and I am a resident of Fireside at Desert Ridge. I understand
that you are the City of Phoenix's point of contact related to the Black Mountain Village
project proposed by Vestar (GPA-DSTV-2-23-2 / GPA-DSTV-3-23-2 / Z-39-23-2). I wish to
voice my opposition to the proposal as you consider it.
Rezoning this land for commercial use will invite more traffic to an already precarious
location due to the higher-than-average concentration of new drivers coming to and from
Pinnacle Peak High School. It will also extend the hours under which there is heavy traffic in
the area. Furthermore, a commercial development in the area may encourage unwelcome
loitering. As a father of young children, I do have concerns about their safety in such an
environment. I find that the efforts to rezone the intersection of Deer Valley Dr. and Black
Mountain Blvd. to be actively harmful to the community residents. With the Desert Ridge
Marketplace approximately 2 miles away and plenty of other shopping complexes easily
accessible within minutes through SR-51, it does not serve a community need and it makes the
area less safe.
Allowing this land to be developed under its current plan for single-family residential better
fits the needs for our community. The current residential zoning also addresses a critical need
among our broader and rapidly growing Phoenix community: increasing the supply of
available housing in the valley. I urge the planning committee to reject the proposed rezoning
for this project.
Thank you for your consideration.
Regards,
Dennis McWherter
From: Sara Millett
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Black Mountain Rezoning Issue
Date: Thursday, September 19, 2024 2:02:11 PM
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Mr. Grande,
am writing you to express my opposition to Rezoning proposal case GPA-DSTV-2-23-2 and
Case GPA-DSTV-3-23-2 and Case Z-39-2.
As a Fireside resident of 13 years, and a parent of a teenager and a pre-teen, I think this is a
dangerous option for our community. The existing traffic nightmare near Pinnacle High School
will only be exacerbated by the addition of a commercial center. We need solutions to make
the intersections around the high school safer, not the opposite.
I urge you please to prioritize the safety of our children and newly driving teen high school
students.
Sincerely,
Sara Millett
3845 E Cat Balue Dr
Phoenix, AZ 85050
From: Michael Moskowitz
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Black Mountain Village Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 19, 2024 8:09:48 PM
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Dear Mr. Grande,
I am writing to express my descent regarding the proposed plans for Superblock Parcel 12. I
have been a resident and homeowner at Fireside in Desert Ridge for 13 years. What was once
a quiet neighborhood has transformed into a thoroughfare, and I fear that the addition of
another shopping center will exacerbate this issue. Traffic and noise levels have continued to
rise, and I am apprehensive about the further impact this shopping center would have.
The Desert Ridge Marketplace is already quite convenient, and efforts should focus on
enhancing this area rather than adding more commercial development.
I urge you not to change the zoning for this land to commercial use.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Michael Moskowitz
From: Marisa Oconnor
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Black Mountain rezoning
Date: Thursday, September 19, 2024 10:06:57 AM
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Mr Grande,
I am writing you to express my opposition to Rezoning proposal case GPA-DSTV-2-
23-2 and Case GPA-DSTV-3-23-2 and Case Z-39-2.
As a long time Fireside resident and parent of Pinnacle HS students, I think this is a
dangerous option for our community. The existing traffic nightmare near the high
school will only be exacerbated by the addition of a commercial center.
I urge you please to take into consideration the safety of our students many of whom
are brand new drivers!
Thank you!
From: Rebecca Moretsky
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Super block Parcel 12 plans
Date: Thursday, September 19, 2024 10:18:42 AM
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Dear Mr. grande,
I’m a resident of Fireside with 2 children in nearby elementary and middle school.
Next year we’ll have a son at Pinnacle Highschool and I’m already concerned about
the terrible traffic and delays on black mountain blvd and deer valley. I’m also a
medical provider so delays getting to work are an issue. I’m deeply concerned about
the significant increase in traffic if the land is used for grocery store. That corner is
dangerous for walking students and young drivers already. I’m in favor of residential
property in that area as this will not bring in the same number of additional people to
the already congested area. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Rebecca Reedy
Sent from my iPhone
From: Richards, Dan
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2 BLACK MOUNTAIN VILLAGE
Date: Thursday, September 19, 2024 2:54:08 PM
Attachments: Grocery Store options.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Mr. Grande,
I submitted something last year depicting the amount of gas stations that were in near Deer
Valley and Black Mountain Blvd. With Vestar eliminating the gas station from their proposal, I
wanted to focus on the fact that we have plenty of grocery stores available in the surrounding
area. Vestar used a graphic last year in some of their meetings stating that Desert Ridge
Marketplace is the only grocery store location in a 5-mile radius. That is simply not true at all!
Their graphic was only using a 5-mile range to the north of this property, and not looking south.
Even if you only looked to the north, they were still not being honest. Fry’s has a location at
Tatum and Cave Creek Road that is just under 5-miles from this property. Sprouts at
Scottsdale and Pinnacle Peak is also just under 5-miles.
If we start looking to the south of this parcel of land as well, then the options are incredible.
You don’t even need to use a 5-mile radius to start running into multiple grocery stores of the
same name. Within a 4-mile radius neighbors can choose between 3 different Fry’s, 2
different Albertsons, a Safeway, a Basha’s, ALDI, Food City, a Sprouts Market Express,
Walmart, Costco, and Target. If we increase this to a 5-mile radius, we add 2 Sprouts, a Whole
Foods, another Frye’s, another Safeway, and a WinCo Foods.
There is no need to be concerned about the undeveloped land to the north of Pinnacle Peak.
Once they start looking into developing the next super block to the north of Desert Ridge then
we can all start worrying about adding more grocery stores to that part of town. The neighbors
that live directly adjacent to the land at Black Mountain and Deer Valley do not want to see this
as a commercial property. We moved to this area to be away from the commercial portion of
Desert Ridge. Nobody is running out of gas just trying to get to a grocery store. We don’t’ want
Black Mountain Village. Please reject Vestar’s proposal to rezone this land.
Sincerely,
Dan Richards
DESERT RIDGE IS NOT LACKING GROCERY OPTIONS
FORGET ABOUT A 5-MILE RADIUS!!!!!!
Grocery Stores within a 4-mile radius of Pinnacle High School include:
x 3 Fry’s
x 2 Albertson’s
x Safeway
x Basha’s
x ALDI
x Sprouts Market Express
x Food City
x Costco
x Walmart
x Target
From: wroodenburg@cox.net
To: PDD Planning Commission; Council District 2 PCC; Mayor Gallego; PDD Desert View VPC
Cc: PDD Long Range Planning; Anthony M Grande
Subject: GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2 BLACK MOUNTAIN VILLAGE opposition.
Date: Friday, September 20, 2024 8:12:09 AM
Attachments: PlanningCommitteePhotoAppendix.docx
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Dear Planning committee members, Mayor, Councilman,
The above mentioned proposal to rezone a residential area in Desert Ridge to commercial has been
“amended” by Vestar with the elimination of the gas station and will be starting the process all over
again starting with the Desert View Village Planning committee on October 1st.
This commercial center is proposed to be right next to a high school and elementary school and our
residents think this is irresponsible and unacceptable to even consider.
(Please see the attached PhotoAppendix for the traffic nightmare we endure and the unsafe
situations our kids navigate to get to school and the drone footage on our website:
DefendDesertRidge (godaddysites.com)
[defenddesertridge.godaddysites.com])
Since the January 4th continuance was granted, Vestar and their lawyers will claim this to be
“working with and listening to the community”. They even have stated in a community meeting that
ASLD approached THEM about developing it.
Both statements are very far from the truth.
The plan before you was already mentioned back in December of 2023 where they already indicated
that they would be willing to drop the gas station and reduce the grocery size to 65,000 sqft, which
equals their original submission.
We requested the origin of this proposal and according to Arizona State Land department official
reply - “The Desert Ridge Community Association (DRCA) has said additional grocery anchored
retail is needed in Desert Ridge.”.
Does the president of an HOA have the authority to represent a whole community without any
involvement or poll results of their residents?
Would any of these parties have listened to the community, they would have heard many people say
that starting a commercial center next to schools is completely unacceptable.
The negative impact on the students is unacceptable, the increased traffic will be unacceptable.
There are plenty of grocery stores in the area and other pre-approved commercial zoned parcels
available.(See attached DR zoning)
900+ people have now signed our petition.
I’m sure you have heard it all before, but are we really all just the regular “not in my backyard”
complainers in your view? Or are we genuinely standing up for the future and safety of our kids and
in our community?
I am writing to you to please consider our concerns and recognize that this proposal is a big mistake
that will have long lasting negative consequences for the desert ridge community.
Also, please consider that we, as residents, have been led to believe that;
We bought our homes within the Desert Ridge master community which had specifically
dedicated land to a commercial core away from schools.
The city has put in place stringent rezoning requirements that stipulate that rezoning should
not be a detriment to adjacent properties, neighborhoods and public welfare (and student
safety I want to add)
The city is actively campaigning for Vision Zero Road Safety Plan to reduce the number of
traffic and pedestrian casualties. Even established an office for pedestrian safety. Not double
the traffic around an already congested school drop off area that would increase the chances
of casualties.
The city is actively campaigning for Safe Route To Schools. In our area a lot of students walk to
school from their homes and have to cross an already dangerous junction at Mayo blvd and
Black Mountain blvd.
Arizona State Land department is selling land to fund public education and works on behalf of
its trustees, the students. Allowing this proposal would do the exact opposite and harm the
students and the schools around it.
Our Desert View Village Planning committee is your first line of defense to filter out
unacceptable proposals to avoid wasting everybody’s time at City Hall. These appointed
people are representing our community in this process and have voted 9-1 against this
proposal as well.
We compel the village planning committee review all the concerns and emails and attachments from
last year and reach the same conclusion that this proposal should be dismissed immediately and
without compromise.
A quick summary of events timeline ;
Rezoning case:
Vestar is seeking to rezone 22 acres of the 77 acres of land from Residential to
Commercial which is part of Superblock 12-section L.
The land is owned by the ASDL and is situated with the Desert Ridge Master
Community, adjacent to Pinnacle High School and a block away from Fireside
Elementary School.
Residents oppose ; (See previous case material for full details)
due to the proximity of alcohol and cigarettes and fast food sales near schools.
And Paradise Valley School district has sent 2 letters in which they share
significant and valid concerns.
due to the increasing traffic safety issues and pedestrian casualties (evidence by
Vision Zero – Road Safety Action Plan)
the widely known detrimental impact and pollution of commercial centers on
our respected community. (Noise,Light,Odor,Gasoline,Idling cars, etc)
On August 25th ,2023 – Lennar Construction has applied for the remainer 55 acres of
Superblock 12L for Single Family Residential development.
This is what Superblock 12 is already zoned for. (Residential 2 to 5 du/ac)
This is already approved in the Desert Ridge master plan and is in line with the Phoenix
general plan.
On October 3rd, 2023 - by a vote of 9-1 - this rezoning request has already been denied by
our Desert View Village Planning committee. Committee members that are appointed by the
councilman and represent and live in our area.
On November 2nd, 2023 we appeared at the Planning Committee meeting where we learned
that Vestar requested a continuance and even negotiated with the opposing core resident
group to make it 60 days – because of the holidays, etc.
The reason that they provided was that they needed to have another review meeting
with the ASLD to review their amendments.
We agreed on the condition that they would share these changes in time for our review
and that stipulation was noted by the chairman.
On December 11th, 2023 the opposing core resident group was invited to meet with Vestar
executives to review these changes.
However, nothing was further from the truth.
They shared that no meeting with ASLD was held, no changes were made.
This meeting was clearly a bait-and-switch for an opportunity to find out what changes
we might be comfortable with.
The meeting ended with a verbal commitment that they would be willing to drop the
gas station and reduce the grocery size to 65,000 sqft. (Their original submitted and
approved plan submitted with the state….)
On January 4th, 2024 the city planning committee granted Vestar an “indefinite” continuance.
They were not asked to pay the cost for this continuance and continue to waste the
valuable time of these committees.
They were allowed to “work with the community” for the past 8 months and are now
presenting the original plan from October 2023
They are now presenting “Shops” in their drawing that will be converted to the
dreaded Drive through restaurants “after Use permit hearings” are complete. There is
no time in the world for residents to continue to battle these
Whilst Vestar is claiming to care for Desert Ridge and boasts about their involvement, the blatant
stalling tactics deployed in this case should not be tolerated and residents should not be asked to
have this request hovering over our community for any longer.
This proposal is starting to cause undue hardship for our community.
We’re fighting for our community character and Residents cannot be asked to fight Vestar, their
disingenuous actions and their attorneys for much longer. It’s not a level playing field.
Families that already have busy lives and volunteers like yourselves shouldn’t be treated like this by
Vestar and their attorneys.
The October 1st VPC meeting is in the middle of our school vacation! We shouldn’t be asked to
come to meetings where nothing new is being discussed, nor should this committee.
My name is Wouter Roodenburg and live on 21507 N 39th Terrace in Phoenix and I’m a long time
resident of Fireside in Desert Ridge and I oppose the case.
Please add this email to your case file and reports
I appreciate your consideration.
Regards,
Wouter Roodenburg.
DefendDesertRidge (godaddysites.com) [defenddesertridge.godaddysites.com]
Appendix In reference of case GPA-DSTV-2-23-2 and Case GPA-DSTV-3-23-2 and Case Z-39-23-2
October 21st – Home Coming Pinnacle High school
Rollover Accident on Black Mountain Blvd and Mayo
Student Driver involved
October 31st – Morning traĸc Pinnacle High school
Accident on Black Mountain Blvd and Mayo
Student Driver involved
Morning Traĸc MAYO Blvd
Access Road are all blocked ǁith traĸc
Morning Traĸc – INTERSECTION Black Mountain Blvd and Mayo
Access Road are all blocked ǁith traĸc
Morning Traĸc – Kids walking to school, crossing wherever they feel like
Morning Traĸc – Deer Valley.
Frustrated drivers making dangerous manouvres to cut into waiƟng lanes
Morning Traĸc
Girl walking along side 34st without sidewalk
Morning Traĸc blocking the Deer Valley IntersecƟon
COMMUNITY SPIRIT
Fireside Halloween ParƟes
Connected community where neighbors know and help each other
A community that puts eīort into creaƟng a safe environment
Fireside Halloween ParƟes
Connected community where neighbors know and help each other
A community that puts eīort into creaƟng unforgeƩable memories for their children
From: Rob Schmitz
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Letter opposing case number GPA-DSTV-2-23-2 / GPA-DSTV-3-23-2 / Z-39-23-2
Date: Thursday, September 19, 2024 4:52:37 PM
Attachments: Desert View Village Planning Committee.docx
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Hello Anthony,
Please find my letter attached in opposition to the above cases.
Thanks,
Rob Schmitz
Desert View Planning Committee,
My name is Rob Schmitz and I’m a resident of Fireside in Desert Ridge. I am a Fire Chief,
husband and most importantly a father. I have been in the Ʊre service for almost 2͏ years and have
a degree in Emergency Management. As a ƱreƱghter you are always learning and working to get
better at your trade, this includes training locally, statewide, and federally. This comes with many
experiences and a whole lot of connections and I have relationships with many law enforcement
oƯicers and even folks at the Arizona Counter Terrorism Information Center. I share all of this with
you to give credibility to my statements on this proposed Black Mountain Village development.
Having a development this close to a school will deƱnitely increase the potential for both
human and sex traƯicking, narcotic use and sales, and other unsafe conditions to the 2,4͏͏ plus
children that attend Pinnacle High School. The access for the bad folks that prey upon children will
increase in the large parking areas where children will deƱnitely congregate both for pick up and
drop oƯ, during school activities and children looking to hang out. We know there have been
incidents at the Desert Ridge Market Place and that is not right next to a school, this proposal is not
only right next to the school but has a proposed HAWX crossing to encourage the Ʋow of children
into this commercial area.
There will also be added traƯic which will increase the potential for accidents. Drivers are
very distracted today and unfortunately so are most pedestrians, have you seen all the people that
walk down the sidewalk and their heads are down looking at their phones? This is an added safety
concern for all the pedestrians in this area being right next to the school. Do we want to add any
additional risk to the 2,4͏͏ plus children that come and go on a regular basis? We have many before
and after school activities on top of all of the coming and going just getting to and from school, it is
a very busy area already and we don’t need a commercial development to add to that.
This committee voted this proposal down 9-1 less than one year ago, it was voted down for
the concern of safety for all of the kids today and all of the kids in the future. After this Vestar
stopped pursuing this and made minor changes, but none of them got to the core of the issue and
that is safety for our children. When Desert Ridge was originally planned this was not the vision,
let’s keep that vision and the vision the city of Phoenix still has today, no commercial development
on this land. Any commercial development next to a school is bad, especially a high school that has
so much foot traƯic. Please don’t take my next statement as a threat, but I’ve learned over my
career you unfortunately must be a bit dramatic to get a point across that resonates with folks. If
one child gets hurt, kidnapped, or even killed from the development of this land into commercial
property, it will be because of your approval on the plan and zoning change.
Thanks for your time,
Rob Schmitz
From: Susan Sheroff
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: GPA-DSTV-2-23-2 GPA-DSTV-3-23-2 Z-39-23 Black Mountain Village
Date: Thursday, September 19, 2024 6:17:34 PM
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Dear Mr. Grande,
My name is Susan Sheroff, I live and own 21214 N 36th Pl, Phoenix, AZ 85050. I
oppose these applications that would ruin the quality of living in Desert Ridge.
Thank you.
Susan Sheroff
Sent from my iPhone
From: Laurie Smith
To: Anthony M Grande
Cc: Council District 2 PCC
Subject: Letter of Opposition
Date: Thursday, September 19, 2024 9:06:58 PM
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Re: Case number GPA-DSTV-2-23-2, GPA-DSTV-3-23-2 and Z-39-23-2
Members of the Desert View Village Planning Committee:
I oppose this project and the rezone. Last fall I submitted letters of
opposition to the City. I also made a public comment at your October 3,
2023 meeting when you voted nearly unanimously to recommend denial.
I've carefully considered the minor revisions Vestar has recently made to
their plans and I urge you to once again recommend denial. The concerns
neighbors and many of you on the committee expressed last year are not
addressed by this revision.
My primary concern was and still is school and student safety. I wish to call
attention to threats to the security of the high school campus and students.
Schools have increasingly become targets of mass shootings. Child
predators prowl streets near schools. This is not hysterical conjecture; this
is a fact.
I have spent a lot of time on Paradise Valley Unified School District
campuses over the last 30 years as a parent and an employee. Campus
perimeters have been fortified, school offices remodeled, classroom locks
installed, and campus visitors restricted.
Currently, the open space surrounding Pinnacle makes it easy to spot a
potential bad actor just outside school gates. When the residential
neighborhood is developed, neighbors will be vigilant and likely to notice
people and vehicles that are suspicious. And, in fact, at schools throughout
the district and the city, police have been alerted by neighbors to stop and
even arrest suspects before a crime can be committed.
Commercial development will bring a great many more people who will
share sidewalks with students and many vehicles that will share the same
streets. It will be nearly impossible for neighbors to identify someone or
something that is out of place. Additionally, it will be more difficult for
school staff to monitor their own school driveways.
Prior to last year's meeting I asked City staff for an example of another high
school in such close proximity to a shopping center and was told that Sandra
Day O’Connor came to mind. But it is not at all comparable. Hackamore
Drive does run between the high school and the shopping center. However,
the two shopping center driveways are barricaded fire lanes with signs
posted that shopping center access is only on Happy Valley Road. There is
no shopping center traffic, vehicular or pedestrian, on Hackamore Drive.
Vestar freely admits that their plans are intentionally designed to connect
the school to the shopping center. The evidence is in the two driveways and
the crosswalk allowing direct ingress and egress to the shopping center from
Mayo Blvd.
Please do not set precedent by allowing this.
I also wish to note that I will be unable to attend the upcoming meeting on
October 1st as I will be out of town. Unfortunately that is the time of the
PVUSD Fall Break; I expect many other neighbors will be out of town, too.
Sincerely,
Laurie D. Smith
3749 E Covey Ln
Phoenix AZ. 85050
(Fireside Desert Ridge)
602-826-3181
From: Heidi Snyders
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Opposition of Vestar Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 19, 2024 7:04:31 PM
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Mr. Grande,
I hope this note finds you well.
My family and I strongly oppose the Vestar proposal regarding rezoning case GPA-DSTV-2-
23-2 and Case GPA-DSTV-3-23-2 and Case Z-39-23-2 at Desert Ridge (Deer Valley and
Black Canyon).
Our opposition is simply because the traffic it will draw will be a safely risk for families,
young drivers and student walkers in that area by the school. We already cannot get by during
peak times and a commercial/retail space will create more traffic that we do not want or need.
I am happy driving away from my community to existing businesses get my groceries and
believe the space is best used for single family homes as currently zoned. We hope you will
stop this development from moving forward.
I am unable to attend October 1st Village planning meeting at PV community center at
6:30pm and hope you can represent the strong opposition our community is expressing.
Kindly,
Heidi Snyders
From: Richard Starr
To: Anthony M Grande; rlane@gblaw.com
Subject: Re: Black Mtn Village Rezone // PHS turning movements MAJOR CHANGE
Date: Thursday, September 19, 2024 10:35:03 AM
Attachments: Outlook-emalwzlp.png
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Hello,
I attended the developer's community meeting on 9/17. There are unresolved questions with traffic. I encourage the City to push for answers on the following:
Updated Traffic Impact Statement.
a. The new median on Mayo will cause changes to traffic patterns for both student traffic (no left-in into student parking lot from Mayo, no left out of student parking lot from Mayo) and bus traffic (re-route from current path - North on Black Mountain Parkway, Left on
Deer Valley, Left on 34th Street (without aid of traffic signal), Left on Mayo Blvd into bus loading area). Black Mountain Pkwy congestion will increase after the developer adds new Mayo median.
b. Developer says it will entitle drive-thrus later. The TIS should include multiple drive-thru's in original analysis.
From: Richard Starr
Sent: Monday, September 9, 2024 1:39 PM
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Black Mtn Village Rezone // PHS turning movements MAJOR CHANGE
The proposed retail center site plan (revised) NOW includes a NEW MEDIAN on Mayo. This median will BLOCK a vital left hand turning movement from Mayo into the PHS parking lot. This will result in many U-turns or push nearly all PHS traffic onto Black Mountain Pkwy single
entrance. The prior site plan did NOT include a median on Mayo.
Pinnacle High School's (2,550+ students) operations should not affected by the new retail center. Vestar's revised site plan does not meet the needs of PHS traffic. The aerial picture on G&B website cuts off the school parking lot entrances. With this major change to PHS turning
movements, the aerial should be updated accordingly.
Additionally, AZ State Land and PVUSD need to work on a parking solution for PHS before the land auction to any developer. Special events overflow onto State Land property (100+ cars park in desert). There will be major conflicts in future when PHS and retail center are fighting
over parking.
Richard "R.T." Starr
rtstarraz@hotmail.com
From: James Tuffin
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: RE: FW: GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2 BLACK MOUNTAIN VILLAGE
Date: Thursday, September 19, 2024 11:36:15 AM
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
From: James Tuffin
Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2024 11:34 AM
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: FW: GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2 BLACK MOUNTAIN VILLAGE
Dear Mr. Grande:
My names is James W. Tuffin. I reside in a home I own at 21214 N 36th Pl, Phoenix AZ
85050. I write to reiterate my opposition to the “Black Mountain Village” project. I
incorporate by reference all of my previous communications on this issue.
Although the Desert Ridge Specific Plan (“DRSP”) has been amended 22 times over the
years, never before has a family that purchased a single- family home away from the
designated Village Center been told that drive- through “quick serve” food operations will be
built across the street from their home on land that DRSP specified for residential use.
The essential justification for the proposed amendment is the alleged need for additional
grocery space in the area. Even if there was any merit to that contention (and I submit
there is none), it does not justify putting drive- through “quick serve” operations across the
street from people who were told that the land was residential when they bought their
homes.
Far from doing anything to address community concerns about drive-through operations in
a residential area, Vestar doubles down, saying it will not accept any limitations on drive-
through operations, in terms of types or operating hours, unless they are imposed by the
The prior site plans proffered by Vestar clearly showed drive-through operations, and
Vestar openly admitted that they were contemplated. In its latest iteration, the site plan
makes the drive-through nature of the retail “shops” less obvious. Nevertheless, at a
meeting conducted at the Fireside community clubhouse on September 17, 2024, Vestar’s
Executive Vice President for Development, Jeffrey M Axtel, and Vestar’s attorney, Ashely
Z. Marsh, Esq., of Gammage and Burnham, said that Vestar will install any drive-through
that the City of Phoenix may allow. I approached Mr. Axtel at the end of the meeting and
asked him what the proposed hours of operation were. He told me that he did not know
what the hours of operations were, and that it was up to the City of Phoenix. Vestar seems
to contend that the requirement of a Use Permit for the drive-throughs is somehow a
concession to community concerns on its part. This is disingenuous, since the same permit
requirements existed when they were more open about the drive-through plans.
Prior to the Fireside meeting, and after receiving the most recent revised site plan, I asked
Vestar executive Ryan Ash if drive-through operations were contemplated. He responded
that “we have not engaged in conversations with any shop or pad tenants at this time. As
such, we don’t currently have any expected users” (email of Ryan Ash to James Tuffin,
8/28/2024). In my opinion, this assertion is not credible.
The Desert Ridge Specific Plan provides as follows:
The urban village concept has been accepted in Phoenix as a desired land use
pattern. It follows that this concept should be extended to guide land use planning
and development in Areas C and D. Desert Ridge is based on the urban village
concept in that all community and regional commercial uses are located in the
Desert Ridge Village Center. Very small neighborhood convenience commercial
uses are appropriately placed internally within neighborhood units. The Desert
Ridge Village Center is appropriately the "urban" core of Area C. Land uses are the
most intense in and around the Village Center in Desert Ridge, logically reducing in
density with increasing distance from the commercial/employment center and
continuing beyond the project boundaries. (DRSP 3.B Goal 1)(emphasis supplied).
In furtherance of this concept, the regulatory portion of DRSP provides that drive-through
operations are specifically prohibited from any commercial conveniences that might be built
in residential areas (DRSP 6.C.3.B.2.d).
The amendment to the regulatory Chapter 6 of DRSP sought by Vestar is, on its face,
wholly inconsistent with the nonregulatory portion reproduced above. Nevertheless, Vestar
refuses to process an amendment of any nonregulatory portion of DRSP. The Zoning
Ordinance clearly requires amendment of the nonregulatory portion in this instance (Zoning
Ordinance Section 403.F.4). I invited Vestar’s counsel to address this deficiency and they
responded as follows:
The DRSP’s non-regulatory provisions is met by the combination of updating the
General Plan land use designation, updating the regulatory provisions of the DRSP,
and the subsequent submittal and review of the Master Plans for the land use area.
These three (3) elements implement the non-regulatory provisions by having public
hearings about the proposed change and a full public process along with the Master
Plan update to show the modifications within the subject Superblock of the DRSP
(email of Ashley Z. Marsh, Esq., to James Tuffin dated September 17, 2024).
The plain language of the Zoning Ordinance does not support this contention. Vestar is just
trying to avoid having to justify stark inconsistency between the requested amendment and
the non-regulatory portions of the plan.
The Zoning Ordinance requires that a ‘zoning case shall be heard on an agenda which is
separate from, and subsequent to, the agenda at which a related specific plan amendment
is heard” (Zoning Ordinance Section 403F.2.e). Assuming, for sake of argument, that the
City has the discretion to waive this requirement, I respectfully submit that it was an
improvident exercise of discretion in this case. The amendment to the regulatory chapter
offered by Vestar is blatantly inconsistent with the non-regulatory portions of DRSP.
This gross deviation from the Specific Plan, to the detriment of homeowning families, is
unprecedented. Of the 22 amendments made to date, few involved any change from
residential to commercial use. Those that might have involved a change from residential to
commercial predated most if not all of the single family construction in the area, and none
of them were anything like the current proposal. S-23543 (May 8, 1996) dealt Superblocks
3 and 6; G-4497 (Feb. 3, 2003) provided for certain institutional uses in Superblock 9; G-
4513 (May 21, 2003) provided for residential office use in neighborhood commercial
conveniences; G-4608 (May 19, 2004) was a minor amendment to accommodate the Boys
and Girls Club); G-4654 (Nov. 3, 2004) involved commerce park uses within Superblock 5).
At the Fireside meeting, Mr. Axtel began by saying that the Black Mountain Village project
was the result of a request made by the State Land Department (SLD) to Vestar. He said
SLD was seeking to add grocery space to accommodate anticipated residential
construction outside of Desert Ridge, north of Pinnacle Peak Road. When asked why the
project was not being placed closer to the intended beneficiaries, he said that grocers were
reluctant to commit to stores where surrounding housing was not yet built. When
questioned about the inconsistency between this information and Vestar’s assertions that
the project is only intended as a local convenience for nearby homes, Vestar’s
representatives were unable to provide a coherent response.
Vestar’s applications must be rejected. Any failure by SLD to meet its own planning
obligation for the land sales in the area north of Desert Ridge can be remedied without
punishing innocent homebuyers in Desert Ridge. Far from meeting any immediate need for
groceries in the area, Vestar is clearly using this as a pretext to cash in drive-through
operations at the last traffic signal before the northern terminus of the SR 51 freeway.
Please include this in the case record.
Sincerely,
James W. Tuffin
21214 N 36th Pl
Phoenix, AZ 85050
516.359.6420
james.tuffin@tuffinlaw.com
From: Sean Yu
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Rezoning proposal case - OPPOSITION
Date: Thursday, September 19, 2024 10:37:54 AM
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Hello Anthony,
Hope this email finds you well!
I am a resident in the dessert ridge neighborhood and I would like to express my opposition to
the Rezoning proposal case GPA-DSTV-2-23-2 and Case GPA-DSTV-3-23-2 and Case Z-
39-23-2.
I strongly believe that it's not a good idea to rezone that area for commercial purposes.
Looking at the presented plans, and even with the planned lane increases and separate
sidewalks, it's very clear that traffic is going to be a huge issue in the surrounding area.
Currently all residents are driving away from Pinnacle High School to do their grocery
shopping. If there is a supermarket right next to the high school, not only are the people who
live in the surrounding communities going to drive there, it's also going to draw people from
even further away.
Increasing traffic on all surrounding streets also means increasing the risk of accidents, highly
likely with HS students involved too during school hours, and definitely increasing pollution
and noise to the neighborhood. Not to mention people gathering and there will be a higher risk
of violent/police-involved incidents/crimes happening as we have seen multiple cases in
Desert Ridge Marketplace. I would like to keep everything as it is, with the area being zoned
for single family homes. Thank you for your consideration!
Best regards,
Yuh-Shang Yu
From: Susan Ze
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: GPA-DSTV-2-23-2 and Case GPA-DSTV-3-23-2 and Case Z-39-23-2.
Date: Thursday, September 19, 2024 4:07:49 PM
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
I am writing once more to register my opposition to the above rezoning proposals. As a
resident of the Copper View neighborhood of Desert Ridge Fireside, I live right next to the
proposed Desert Ridge Village Marketplace and envision many reasons why this commercial
development is not advisable, primarily among them the traffic and safety of our students who
attend the adjacent high school.
The amount of traffic in the early morning drop off and mid afternoon drop off make it
difficult to leave my neighborhood, especially if I need to use 51. As a retired educator who
taught many years in a high school, I know that in addition to being a traffic safety issue, the
proximity of a shopping center will also provide an unneeded distraction to the students, no
matter how many deterrents Vestar claims they will use to prevent the students from accessing
the marketplace.
Vestar also implies that the marketplace will add to the value of our homes, due to the
"walkability" factor of the neighborhood. Please! That "walkability" will factor in only from
October to perhaps April due to the ever increasing heat in Phoenix.
The marketplace will also attract traffic from AZ51 and AZ101 via AZ51, particularly if a
Trader Joe's, Sprouts, or Whole Foods is the anchor or if any of a number of drive through
coffee or fast food restaurants choose to locate there. As one woman remarked at the Fireside
presentation, the increased exhaust from cars and trucks will have a devastating effect on the
cognitive development of the children at the adjacent school and all those in the neighborhood.
For the above and many other reasons, my husband and I oppose the referenced cases and the
Deer Valley/Black Mountain/Mayo rezoning to commercial use,
Susan and Frederic Ze
3616 E Abraham Ln
Phoenix AZ 85050
480 665 6596
From: Rebecca Oakes
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Black Mountain Village – City of Phoenix Case Nos. GPA-DSTV-2-23-2, GPA-DSTV-3-23-2, and Z-39-23-2
Date: Friday, September 20, 2024 9:37:22 AM
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
I again am writing to you to register my strong disapproval of proposed amendments (case
numbers listed above) to modify existing zoning from residential to commercial.
Our homes in Fireside at Desert Ridge were built under the Desert Ridge Specific Plan. The
plan promised clean, quiet, and safe neighborhoods where commercial activity in the
“residential superblocks” is strictly limited to minor “conveniences” of no more than 3 acres
and drive through operations are prohibited.
The land at Deer Valley and Black Mountain is designated residential under the plan. Vestar,
the developer of the Desert Ridge Marketplace, now wants to change this for their own
financial gain; if the Desert View Planning Committee and city of Phoenix vote for the change
of zoning, and approve the plan to put in a 20-acre shopping center (where we cannot and will
not know what types of retail businesses will be - no one involved in this project will commit
to various reasonable restrictions for its location - as per the meeting at Fireside Community
Center. This will cause great harm to my family and neighbors; this land needs to remain
zoned for single family home residential.
As I wrote to you last year, my family lives in the closest section of Fireside to Pinnacle HS, and
the proposed shopping center. We already suffer through the pedestrian and vehicle traffic
that invades the streets of our neighborhood when school is in session and for other events
held at the HS. Students and parents drive at unsafe speeds down 36th Street and Abraham
Dr. Additionally, at drop off and pick up times, cars are lined up and/or idling as drivers wait to
drop off or pick up their students, blocking our way in and out, causing us to "play chicken" to
maneuver down the narrowed streets. Some of these students walk through our desert
wash/neighborhood landscaping as a short cut to those cars dropping off/waiting to pick up.
This is also a neighborhood where many children walk to Fireside Elementary School, located a
short distance away. So not only is driving in, through and out of our neighborhood difficult
and would most likely become dangerous as traffic increases in an area not planned for such
commercial development, it is not safe for small children to safely walk to school. While
adding speed bumps would help the speeding of the drivers cutting through our
neighborhood, there still remains a larger issue.
In addition, it can be all but impossible to safely leave our neighborhood at these times - the
southern exit, on to Mayo Blvd. is right turn only and is very close to the Mayo/Black Mountain
Blvd intersection (specifically to get into the left lane to turn on SR 51). The northern exit on
to Deer Valley Rd. is hard to turn left onto during high traffic times.
To put it more clearly - leaving our neighborhood becomes even more difficult and dangerous
with increased vehicle traffic that comes with commercial development - especially trying to
go south onto Black Mountain Blvd AND west onto Deer Valley. We only have two VERY
flawed entrances/exits that in the best of times are tricky and not very convenient OR safe.
We essentially have to choose to limit leaving our neighborhood or taking the increased risk of
attempting to go south or west in less than safe traffic conditions. How does this benefit our
residential community?!? I predict that vehicle (and pedestrian) accidents will dramatically
increase if this shopping center is approved.
I have seen nothing in the "reworking" of this plan that adequately addresses the traffic
concerns I have laid out here.
Has the city of Phoenix specifically done a traffic study of this area, taking this commercial
development into account? How would the council plan to ameliorate the above stated
traffic issues? What about environmental studies looking at the increase noise, light and
exhaust pollution that will directly impact the surrounding residential neighborhoods?
There is nothing that can be commercially built and nothing beneficial from a retail standpoint
that makes this development worth if for my family and residential neighborhood. There are
plenty of retail options at Desert Ridge and other close shopping centers. The is also land near
by that has been zoned for retail/commercial - use those lands for this development. Keep
this parcel of land zoned as is, and open up bidding to home builders who would like to
purchase this state land.
Sincerely,
Rebecca J. Oakes
3608 E Salter Dr
Phoenix, 85050
SUPPORT
From: ROBERT J MAYO
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: GPA-DSTV-2-23-2, GPA-DSTV-3-23-2,Z-39-23-2
Date: Thursday, September 19, 2024 1:48:01 PM
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Mr. Grande,
I am writing this in regard to above noted rezoning cases.
My family is COMPLETELY IN FAVOR OF THIS PROJECT.
As a 17-year resident of Fireside Desert Ridge, we look forward to having a
neighborhood retail center in the area. It has been long overdue. In my opinion this
project, instead of more residential will reduce traffic at the times that some of my
neighbors believe it will increase.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Bob & Yvette Mayo
21622 N. 39th Pl
Phoenix, AZ 85050
(602)793-8249
Former Managing Partner Roy's Desert Ridge
Current Managing Partner Village Tavern Scottsdale
From: Dan Oseran
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Support for BMB/deer valley development
Date: Wednesday, September 18, 2024 10:39:34 PM
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Hi Anthony,
I support Vestar’s proposed new development south of Deer Valley and Black
mountain Blvd.
I know that you are probably being inundated with emails against the project, and I
think that’s due to a very organized and loud group of homeowners that border the
area and are against any sort of development on that property.
Vestar seems to have listened to criticism in the first round and made this lower
density and smaller stores to keep it more in line with the neighborhood and schools
immediately surrounding the area. I think a tasteful retail area can be beneficial to
property values.
Thank you,
Dan Oseran
ATTACHMENT D
*REVISED
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
GPA-DSTV-3-23-2
Date of VPC Meeting October 1, 2024
Proposal Amendment to the Desert Ridge Specific Plan Section
6.C.5, Superblock 12 to allow commercial development.
Location Southwest corner of Black Mountain Boulevard and Deer
Valley Drive
VPC Recommendation Approval, per the staff recommendation, with
modifications
VPC Vote 10-1
VPC DISCUSSION:
Item No. 4 (GPA-DSTV-2-23-2), Item No. 5 (GPA-DSTV-3-23-2), and Item No. 6 (Z-39-
23-2) are companion cases and were heard together.
Fifty-two members of the public registered to speak on this item, 18 in opposition, 34 in
support.
Twelve members of the public registered in opposition, not wishing to speak.
Twenty-six members of the public registered in support, not wishing to speak.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Anthony Grande, staff, provided an overview of the location of the subject site and the
surrounding area, the proposed amendments to the General Plan Land Use Map and
the Desert Ridge Specific Plan, and the rezoning request. Mr. Grande further described
the proposed development, the correspondence received from the public, and the staff
recommendations on all three cases, including recommended stipulations for the
rezoning case.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Ashley Marsh, representing the applicant with Gammage & Burnham, PLC, provided a
presentation, highlighting the work the applicant has done with the community since the
last meeting and the aspects of the proposed development that have been modified.
Ryan Ash with Vestar provided an overview of the company and the project, including
the process of deciding on the subject site for this project. Dawn Cartier with CivTech
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 2792
Desert View Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-DSTV-3-23-2
October 1, 2024
Page 2
described the proposed street improvements in the surrounding area and the impacts
on the traffic.
QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE
Vice Chair Lagrave asked about the provision of crossing guards and whether the
applicant would be open to prohibiting car washes. Ms. Marsh stated that the applicant
would provide the crossing guards and would be open to prohibiting car washes.
Committee Member Israel asked about the enforceability of the requirements of the
Desert Ridge Specific Plan and about the responsibility to street improvements. Mr.
Grande replied that the requirements of the specific plan are regulatory and would be
enforced for any future development at the site and that developers are generally
responsible for street improvements on their half of the street.
Committee Member Younger asked about auto-oriented businesses. Ms. Marsh
replied that the zoning would allow what’s found in the C-2 zoning use list.
Committee Member Nowell asked about drive throughs and the traffic and noise
generated from them. Ms. Marsh stated that every drive through is different and has to
be reviewed through a use permit for each one.
Mr. Nowell asked about the timing of street improvements. Ms. Marsh replied that all
street improvements would need to be done first before development of the site.
Committee Member Kollar asked about the bus stop pad. Ms. Marsh replied that it
would be incorporated for any future bus routes that may serve the area.
Mr. Younger commented on the traffic pattern example mentioned at Xavier College
Preparatory School and asked if it would be similar here. Ms. Cartier replied that these
would be more controlled movements because of the medians.
Committee Member Carlucci asked about signal timing changes at Black Mountain
Boulevard and Deer Valley Drive. Ms. Cartier replied that the timing would be adjusted
to allow pedestrians time to cross. Mr. Carlucci asked about the overall traffic
modeling. Ms. Cartier provided details of the level of service in several scenarios.
Committee Member Kirkilas asked about the size of the grocery store and asked for
clarification on the definition of adult uses. Mr. Ash replied that the site plan is
conceptual and that negotiations will begin after zoning is in place, which will solidify the
store size. Ms. Marsh provided a clarification on adult uses.
Mr. Israel asked about limiting all auto-oriented uses in C-2. Mr. Grande explained that
individual uses could be prohibited in the Desert Ridge Specific Plan.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 2793
Desert View Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-DSTV-3-23-2
October 1, 2024
Page 3
Mr. Younger asked about the height limit. Mr. Ash replied that it would be two stories,
30 feet.
Mr. Carlucci asked about the estimated investment in infrastructure for this project and
whether prohibiting drive throughs would negatively impact the project. Mr. Ash replied
with investment details and stated that prohibiting drive throughs would limit many future
restaurant options. Chair Bowser added that in the post-Covid market, there are many
more pick-up windows and drive throughs than before.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Ted Weis introduced himself and spoke in support of the proposal, highlighting that it
will provide more options for the area.
Stephen Applebaum introduced himself and spoke in opposition to the proposal,
stating that it will provide opportunities for bad behavior for students.
Jackie Zicarelli introduced herself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating that
this will only shift where people spend money, and that housing would be more
important to building due to the housing crisis.
Gary Smith introduced himself and spoke in support of the proposal, stating that Desert
Ridge Marketplace is too crowded, and this will provide an alternative.
Yana Dashevsky introduced herself and spoke in support of the proposal, highlighting
the parking issues at Desert Ridge Marketplace.
Aimee Sinclair introduced herself and spoke in support of the proposal, stating that
Desert Ridge is growing, and this proposal will make it safer to walk and bike.
Kristen Cassuto introduced herself and spoke in support of the proposal, highlighting
the parking issues at Desert Ridge Marketplace.
David Barge introduced himself and spoke in support of the proposal, stating that he
did not like the original proposal but is in support due to the changes Vestar made.
Allie Lucyk read a letter from Geraldine Belafsky in support of the proposal.
Roland Ward introduced himself and spoke in support of the proposal, stating it will
provide an alternative to Desert Ridge Marketplace, which is too busy.
Payton Sinclair introduced himself and spoke in support of the proposal, stating it
would be good to have job opportunities nearby.
Andrea Remke introduced herself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating she
bought her home to be able to safely walk to school, not to have retail neaby.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 2794
Desert View Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-DSTV-3-23-2
October 1, 2024
Page 4
Mike Coppola introduced himself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating that it
will cause a traffic nightmare.
Suzanne Sayegh introduced herself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating
that this is not a neighborhood shopping center, that stores people are looking for do not
want to locate here, and that street improvements would be made by any new
development.
Chris Sinclair introduced himself and spoke in support of the proposal.
Allie Lucyk introduced herself and spoke in support of the proposal.
A member of the public read a letter of support from Greg Abrams.
Justin Popnoe introduced himself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating this
will have a negative impact on the nearby schools and highlighting the issue of child
trafficking.
William King introduced himself and spoke in support of the proposal, stating they
expected new retail to be built to accommodate new housing coming in.
Wouter Roodenburg introduced himself and spoke in opposition to the proposal,
highlighting a petition submitted of people against the proposal.
Jason Epstein introduced himself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating there
are too many unknowns.
Megan Lloyd introduced herself and spoke in support of the proposal, stating that
having closer retail options is a good thing.
Ben Butler introduced himself and spoke in support of the proposal, stating support for
additional retail and that Vestar is a good developer.
Ron Bookholder introduced himself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating
the retail center will be regional due to the presence of the SR-51 and that this will be
detrimental to the kids.
Aaron Lloyd introduced himself and spoke in support of the proposal, stating it will
bring amenities to the area.
A member of the public read a letter of support from Bob Hamer.
Layla Saikley introduced herself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating that
the area is a quiet, peaceful community.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 2795
Desert View Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-DSTV-3-23-2
October 1, 2024
Page 5
A member of the public read a letter of support from Erin Reese.
A member of the public read a letter of support from Richard Kovacik.
Dan Richards introduced himself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating that
he moved to the area to enjoy the distance from retail, that he was told this parcel would
be residential, and that the shopping center is not needed.
A member of the public read a letter of support from Rick Merritt.
Ronald Diamant introduced himself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating it
will bring in more traffic with the proximity of the SR-51.
Helen Doyle introduced herself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating that this
intersection will end up busier than Tatum Boulevard.
Neeraj Chandak introduced himself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating
that the shopping center will be just as bad as Desert Ridge Marketplace and
highlighting the issue of homelessness.
Irina Butler introduced herself and spoke in support of the proposal, stating that Vestar
did a good job of responding to the community’s concerns.
Linda Miles introduced herself and spoke in support of the proposal.
Sara Johnson introduced herself and spoke in support of the proposal.
Paul Dunn introduced himself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating that it is
spot zoning and should be invalidated, and that the existing allowed use is single-family
residential.
Carolyn Dunn introduced herself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, playing a
video showing the traffic issues around the school.
A member of the public read a letter of support from Harrison Cole, stating the need for
new commercial development to support the new housing.
A member of the public read a letter of support from Caryn Marchuk, stating the peak
times are better with retail than with residential.
Nathan and Ilene Friedland introduced themselves and spoke in support of the
proposal.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 2796
Desert View Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-DSTV-3-23-2
October 1, 2024
Page 6
Candy Huether introduced herself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating that
parking and crime are issues, noting the issue of children crossing the street.
Robert Miles introduced himself and spoke in support of the proposal, stating the area
is not currently walkable and that this proposal will take vehicles off the road.
John Norris introduced himself and spoke in support of the proposal, stating it will
enhance the value of the area by providing an amenity.
Jim Farley introduced himself and spoke in support of the proposal, stating that Vestar
responded to community concerns.
Greg Collins introduced himself and spoke in support of the proposal, stating this will
provide options for kids and enhance walkability.
James Tuffin introduced himself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating that
people bought homes based on the Desert Ridge Specific Plan and highlighting the
issues with drive throughs.
A member of the public read a letter of support from Bill Knapp.
Christian Jacob introduced himself and spoke in support of the proposal, stating that
friendships are formed at spaces like this and that other similar centers provide a safe
space.
Peggy Neely introduced herself as the former Councilperson for the area and spoke in
support of the proposal, stating that Vestar is a good developer and that the project will
benefit the area.
APPLICANT RESPONSE
Ms. Marsh showed a drone video highlighting the traffic conditions of the area and
discussed the history of the Desert Ridge Specific Plan being amended in the past.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
Committee Member Warren stated a concern about having retail next to the school,
adding that he would be supportive if it was in a different location.
Vice Chair Lagrave commented about other examples of shopping centers near
schools and noted that he was previously opposed to this because of the size of the
grocery store and the gas station, which have been addressed by the applicant, adding
that he would be supportive with the condition that there is no car wash.
Committee Member Younger asked about the bid process and timing. Ms. Marsh
provided clarification.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 2797
Desert View Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-DSTV-3-23-2
October 1, 2024
Page 7
MOTION
Vice Chair Lagrave made a motion to recommend approval of GPA-DSTV-3-23-2, per
the staff recommendation, with modifications that the following item be added to the
Special Requirements (Modifying City Regulations) list: “Car washes are prohibited.”
Rick Nowell seconded the motion.
VOTE
10-1; motion to recommend approval of GPA-DSTV-3-23-2, per the staff
recommendation, with modifications passed; Committee Members Barto, Carlucci,
Israel, Kirkilas, Kollar, Nowell, Reynolds, Younger, Lagrave, and Bowser in favor;
Committee Member Warren opposed.
*VPC RECOMMENDED TEXT:
Amend Chapter 6 (Development Parcel Regulations), Section C.5. (Development
Regulations by Superblock), Pages 6-45 to 6-46 as follows:
SUPERBLOCK 12
Superblock 12 is located west of a possible future connection to the Squaw PIESTEWA
Peak Parkway, which separates this superblock from the balance of the Desert Ridge
community. BECAUSE OF THIS SEPARATION, THIS SUPERBLOCK CAN SUPPORT
LIMITED COMMERCIAL USES WITHOUT INTERFERING WITH THE DEVELOPMENT
OF THE DESERT RIDGE CORE (DEVELOPMENT PARCEL 5.A). RESIDENTIAL
development parcels may vary in size by 30 percent (25 percent for R1-6 and more
dense zoning categories without a minor plan amendment).
Size: 136 133.41 acres
Maximum Number of Dwelling Units: 347
Average Density: 2.55 du/ac
12.L – Development Parcel 12.L
Size: 77 55.24 acres
Uses Permitted:
• Single-family residential
Density Range: 2-5 du/ac for the entire parcel
Maximum Number of Units: 347 257; 451 334 if parcel increases in size 30
percent
Potential Zoning to be Applied: R1-18, R1-10, R1-8, R1-6, R-2
Minimum Lot Size: Zoning controls
Special Requirements (Modifying City Regulations):
• No attached single-family units; no multifamily units.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 2798
Desert View Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-DSTV-3-23-2
October 1, 2024
Page 8
• Section C.4.B, Chapter 6, Desert Ridge Specific Plan applies.
• No more than 25% of the development parcel may be zoned R-2.
Recommendations:
• Clustering permitted subject to minimum lot size.
12.C – DEVELOPMENT PARCEL 12.C
SIZE: 20.52 ACRES
USES PERMITTED:
• ALL USES ALLOWED UNDER CITY OF PHOENIX ZONING
DESIGNATION C-2, INTERMEDIATE COMMERCIAL, EXCEPT AS
PROHIBITED BELOW.
MAXIMUM NUMBER OF UNITS: 90
POTENTIAL ZONING TO BE APPLIED: C-2
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS (MODIFYING CITY REGULATIONS):
• MAXIMUM GROSS LEASABLE AREA FOR ANY INDIVIDUAL RETAIL
TENANT/USER (E.G. GROCER) SHALL NOT EXCEED 65,000
SQUARE FEET.
• AUTOMOBILE SERVICE STATIONS ARE PROHIBITED.
• ADULT USES ARE PROHIBITED.
• RETAIL LIQUOR SALES ARE ALLOWED AS AN ACCESSORY USE
BUT ARE PROHIBITED AS A PRIMARY USE.
• TOBACCO ORIENTED RETAILERS ARE ALLOWED AS AN
ACCESSORY USE BUT ARE PROHIBITED AS A PRIMARY USE.
• RETAIL MARIJUANA SALES (DISPENSARIES) ARE PROHIBITED.
• CAR WASHES ARE PROHIBITED.
12.S – Development Parcel 12.S
Size: 59 57.65 acres
Uses Permitted:
• High school
Potential Zoning to be Applied: R1-8
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:
None.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 2799
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
GPA-DSTV-3-23-2
Date of VPC Meeting October 3, 2023
Proposal Amendment to the Desert Ridge Specific Plan Section
6.C.5, Superblock 12, Parcel 12.L to allow commercial
development.
Location Southwest corner of Black Mountain Boulevard and Deer
Valley Drive
VPC Recommendation Denial
VPC Vote 7-2-1
VPC DISCUSSION:
Item No. 5 (GPA-DSTV-2-23-2), Item No. 6 (GPA-DSTV-3-23-2), and Item No. 7 (Z-39-
23-2) are companion cases and were heard together.
Twenty members of the public registered to speak on this item, 17 in opposition, three in
support.
Thirty-three members of the public registered in opposition, not wishing to speak.
Three members of the public registered in support, not wishing to speak.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Anthony Grande, staff, provided an overview of the location of the subject site and the
surrounding area, the proposed amendments to the General Plan Land Use Map and
the Desert Ridge Specific Plan, and the rezoning request. He further described the
proposed development, the correspondence received from the public, and the staff
recommendations on all three cases, including recommended stipulations for the
rezoning case.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Stephen Anderson, representing the applicant with Gammage & Burnham, provided a
presentation, describing the need for an additional grocery store in the area and
highlighting details of the proposed development, including limitations on uses and
upgrades to the adjacent streets. Mr. Anderson further noted responses to concerns
raised and reviewed data regarding support for the proposal in the community.
QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 2800
Desert View Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-DSTV-3-23-2
October 3, 2023
Page 2
Committee Member Bunnell asked about the ownership of the property. Mr.
Anderson replied that the property is owned by the Arizona State Land Department and
provided clarification about the future auction process.
Committee Member Nowell asked if alcohol sales would be permitted at the grocery
store. Mr. Anderson replied that it would be permitted.
Chair Bowser asked for clarification on uses allowed in proximity to the school. Mr.
Anderson stated that alcohol is not permitted within 300 feet of the school and that the
proposed specific plan text would not permit alcohol sales as a primary use, but it would
be allowed as an accessory use.
Committee Member Kirkilas asked if the gas station would be permitted to sell
alcohol. Mr. Anderson replied that a gas station with a convenience store would not be
permitted on the site.
Committee Member Younger asked whether dispensaries would be allowed on the
site. Mr. Anderson replied that they would be prohibited by the proposed text.
Committee Member Kollar asked about parking management plans for the site. Mr.
Anderson replied that the developer has experience managing complex parking
situations, including at Desert Ridge Marketplace.
Committee Member Kirkilas asked about the distance from the site to the Albertsons
and if there is a standard distance expected between grocery stores. Mr. Anderson
stated that the distance is about two miles and noted that the distance to the nearest
grocery store from Albertsons is currently around five miles, which is an unusually large
separation for the Phoenix area.
Committee Member Nowell asked about the median extension stipulation. Mr.
Anderson provided clarification, noting that the curbing would be added where it is
currently striped.
Committee Member Israel asked about street conditions on Mayo Boulevard before
and after the proposed development. Mr. Anderson stated that Mayo Boulevard is
currently a half-street and described the proposed street improvements.
Committee Member Bunnell stated that bike lanes should be provided in both
directions.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Dan Richards introduced himself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating that
residents in the area did their research and expected this parcel to be residential and
that the proposed commercial use will bring customers from the SR-51 freeway and
create issues with lighting, safety, loitering, and property values.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 2801
Desert View Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-DSTV-3-23-2
October 3, 2023
Page 3
Wouter Roodenburg introduced himself and spoke in opposition to the proposal,
stating that neighborhood retail is limited to three acres in the specific plan and it
doesn’t need to be changed because it already accomplishes the goals of the General
Plan, further noting safety concerns with students walking to school and pedestrian and
bike fatalities in relation to Vision Zero.
James Tuffin introduced himself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating that
commercial activity should take place in the core and reduce in intensity away from the
core, further noting that there are other shopping options nearby and that people bought
their homes expecting this parcel to be residential.
Paul Dunn introduced himself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, highlighting the
large footprint of the proposed grocery store and stating that the proposal will not be low
impact and will cause traffic issues, in addition to air and light pollution.
Jackie Zicarelli introduced herself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating that
the statements made by the applicant, including alcohol sales prohibition and the
inclusion of Trader Joes or Whole Foods, are misleading and that C-1 zoning would be
neighborhood retail, rather than C-2.
Mallorie Laforest introduced herself and spoke in opposition to the proposal,
highlighting issues related to light pollution, traffic, and parking.
Todd Laforest introduced himself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating there
was no immediate need for the development and that it would cause traffic issues,
further noting that the development will not necessarily be done by Vestar.
Randal Spence introduced himself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating that
there are many grocery store options in the area and that people supporting the
proposal only want small grocers.
Jeanette Vespalee introduced herself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating
that the master plan does not call for commercial use and that the proposal will cause
congestion, traffic, and crime issues.
Candy Huether introduced herself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating that
homeowners with exterior view fencing on neighboring developments expected the site
to develop with residential, rather than commercial, and that crime, homeless, and
human trafficking are important issues.
Tom Carlson introduced himself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating that it
has transportation engineering issues and will draw traffic into the neighborhood.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 2802
Desert View Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-DSTV-3-23-2
October 3, 2023
Page 4
Nathan Goldberg introduced himself and spoke in support to the proposal, stating that
he is generally in favor of the proposal and the area needs more grocery stores, but he
noted that he is concerned about the size of the grocery store and that the plan could be
modified to include pick up and drop off areas for the school.
Joe Hudock introduced himself as a former chair of the committee and spoke in
opposition to the proposal, stating that the purpose of the specific plan was to
concentrate commercial activity in the core and that there will be opportunities to build
with C-2 zoning to the north.
Laurie Smith introduced herself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating that
the plan raises security concerns because residential development allows people to
monitor the streets more than with commercial development.
Jeff Smith introduced himself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, highlighting that
there is uncertainty in the final product because a different developer could come in
later with a different proposal.
Patty Farley introduced herself and spoke in support to the proposal but noted that
there should be no gas station and that a pedestrian bridge should be constructed over
Deer Valley Drive.
Jim Farley introduced himself and spoke in support to the proposal, stating that the
HAWK will be a great device for Mayo Boulevard and that there should be overhead
walkways installed.
Nathan Friedland introduced himself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating
that he moved to the location to get away from the lights of Reach 11 and this proposal
would introduce more lighting to the area, further noting that there should be no gas
station.
Connie Ahlman introduced herself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating
agreement with many of the comments made and adding that Mayo Boulevard will
continue to have a parking issue and that C-1 zoning would be neighborhood retail,
rather than C-2.
Andrea Remke introduced herself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating that
people bought homes in this area to be away from commercial growth and allow kids to
safely walk to school, knowing the proposed site would be residential.
APPLICANT RESPONSE
Mr. Anderson stated that Black Mountain Boulevard connections to the north will be in
the distant future, the adjacent streets are major arterials designed to handle a large
amount of traffic, lighting limits would be in place through stipulations, and this proposal
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 2803
Desert View Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-DSTV-3-23-2
October 3, 2023
Page 5
will not set a precedent for additional commercial in the area, further reviewing Desert
Ridge Marketplace traffic issues.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
Committee Member Warren stated that the concerns raised by the community about
commercial activity next to the school are valid and that he has traffic concerns. Mr.
Warren further stated that it is not a good idea to put commercial activity next to a
school and that he is not supportive of the proposal.
Vice Chair Lagrave asked for clarification about the Arizona State Land Department’s
role in the process. Mr. Grande stated that ASLD is the property owner and submitted
an authorization to allow Vestar to apply to rezone the property.
Vice Chair Lagrave stated that he does not support gasoline sales, that car washes
should be prohibited at this location, and that 96,000 square feet is not a neighborhood
grocery store. He further stated that if the application is approved, stipulations should be
added to limit the size of the grocery store to 64,000 square feet, require a 50-foot
building setback on Black Mountain Boulevard and Deer Valley Drive, and prohibit
gasoline sales and car washes.
Committee Member Bunnell provided clarification on the ASLD process for auction.
Committee Member Younger stated that he hopes the shopping center would be
moved to a different location.
MOTION
Committee Member Mark Warren made a motion to recommend denial of GPA-DSTV-
3-23-2. Committee Member Rick Nowell seconded the motion for denial.
VOTE
7-2-1, motion to recommend denial of GPA-DSTV-3-23-2 passed; Committee Members
Barto, Bunnell, Kirkilas, Kollar, Nowell, Warren, and Lagrave in favor; Committee
Members Israel and Bowser opposed; Committee Member Younger abstaining.
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:
None.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 2804
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
GPA-DSTV-3-23-2
INFORMATION ONLY
Date of VPC Meeting August 1, 2023
Proposal Amendment to the Desert Ridge Specific Plan Section
6.C.5, Superblock 12, Parcel 12.L to allow commercial
development.
Location Southwest corner of Black Mountain Boulevard and Deer
Valley Drive
VPC DISCUSSION:
Item No. 3 (GPA-DSTV-2-23-2), Item No. 4 (GPA-DSTV-3-23-2), and Item No. 5 (Z-39-
23-2) are companion cases and were heard together.
Committee Member Michelle Santoro declared a conflict of interest, bringing quorum to
10 members.
Eight members of the public registered to speak on this item, seven in opposition, one
with questions.
One member of the public registered in support, not wishing to speak.
One member of the public registered in opposition, not wishing to speak.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Anthony Grande, staff, provided an overview of the process to amend the Desert
Ridge Specific Plan and the amendment proposed by the applicant, further describing
the proposed General Plan Land Use Map amendment and rezoning.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Stephen Anderson, representing the applicant with Gammage & Burnham, described
the proposed commercial development, noting that the anchor would be a grocery store,
described the process for development of Arizona State Land Department property and
the City of Phoenix zoning and development process. He further described the
proposed text change to the Desert Ridge Specific Plan, in addition to the General Plan
Amendment and rezoning cases.
QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE
Committee Member Kirkilas suggested adding a prohibition on smoke shops.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 2805
Desert View Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-DSTV-3-23-2
August 1, 2023
Page 2
Committee Member Powell asked about the size of the grocery store. Mr. Anderson
stated that the size was not defined yet.
Committee Member Nowell stated a concern about light pollution from the proposed
gas station. Mr. Anderson stated that there was interest in a gas station in their
outreach, but they could consider shifting it south.
Committee Member Younger asked if the applicant had spoken with the school
leadership and whether electric vehicle charging would be provided. Mr. Anderson
replied that they had recent discussions with the school leadership, but no specific
agreements have been reached. He further stated that there would be EV charging on
site.
Committee Member Kollar asked about safety issues related to foot traffic around the
school. Mr. Anderson replied that it was the subject of discussions with the school,
adding that a safe crossing is going to be needed for Mayo Boulevard. Dawn Cartier, a
member of the development team with CivTech, stated that a HAWK crossing is under
discussion for Mayo Boulevard.
Committee Member Kollar asked about a traffic study for the project, citing gridlock on
surrounding streets. Ms. Cartier stated that the traffic study is in process, noting that
there will be different peak times for the proposed use and the school.
Chair Bowser stated that there are a lot of illegal left turns on the surrounding streets.
Committee Member Dickson stated that the applicant presented to the Desert Ridge
organization and that people in Desert Ridge want a grocery store and gas station.
Committee Member Kollar asked about the presentation slides showing geographic
limits on certain uses. Mr. Anderson replied that the graphics related to liquor licensing.
Committee Member Nowell asked for clarification on the proposed prohibition on liquor
sales. Mr. Anderson replied that it would only be prohibited as a primary use but that a
business like the grocery story could sell liquor as an accessory use.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Justin Popnoe introduced himself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating that
the community doesn’t have interest in a gas station or any alcohol sales at this site.
Wouter Roodenburg introduced himself and spoke in opposition to the proposal,
stating that traffic is an issue around the school in the mornings and that safety of the
kids is a concern.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 2806
Desert View Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-DSTV-3-23-2
August 1, 2023
Page 3
Robin Bowie introduced herself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, citing issues
related to traffic in the area, crime, and homelessness, suggesting the commercial use
could be located elsewhere.
Dan Richards introduced himself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating that
residents in the area don’t want a gas station and that the volume of traffic is very high
in the area.
James Tuffin introduced himself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating that
the neighborhood is clean and quiet because there is no commercial in the area and
that kids going to the shopping center will be a problem.
Taylor Moskovich introduced herself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating
that people bought in the area with the expectation there would be no commercial uses
and that it is a family friendly area with no need for businesses.
Amanda Jane introduced herself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, noting that
residents of Sky Crossing should be considered, even though they are not in Desert
Ridge.
Frank Soldano introduced himself and asked for more information about the size of the
grocery store, as that would make a difference on the impact, noting he would like to
see a gas station at this location.
APPLICANT RESPONSE
Mr. Anderson stated that the applicant team will consider all of the comments made
and that written comments can be submitted to City staff.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
Vice Chair Lagrave stated that the developer is going to need to work with the
community to find solutions to many of the issues raised at the meeting.
Committee Member Younger stated that the public discussion brought up an important
issue about lighting, in addition to other issues raised.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 2807
ATTACHMENT E
REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
November 7, 2024
ITEM NO: 13
DISTRICT NO.: 2
SUBJECT:
Application #: GPA-DSTV-3-23-2
(Companion Cases GPA-DSTV-2-23-2 and Z-39-23-2)
(Continued from January 4, 2024)
Request: Specific Plan
Location: Southwest corner of Black Mountain Boulevard and Deer Valley Drive
Proposal: Amendment to the Desert Ridge Specific Plan Section 6.C.5.Superblock
12 to facilitate commercial development
Applicant: Ryan Ash, Vestar
Owner: Arizona State Land Department
Representative: Ashley Z Marsh, Gammage & Burnham
ACTIONS:
Staff Recommendation: Approval, as shown in the recommended text in Exhibit A
Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
Desert View 8/1/2023 Information only.
Desert View 10/3/2023 Denial. Vote: 7-2-1.
Desert View 10/1/2024 Approval, per the staff recommendation, with modifications. Vote: 10-1.
Planning Commission Recommendation:
11/2/2023 Continued to the January 4, 2024 Planning Commission Hearing, without fee. Vote:
9-0.
1/4/2024 Continued to a date uncertain and remanded back to the Desert View Village Planning
Committee for reconsideration. Vote: 7-0.
11/7/2024 Approval, per the Desert View Village Planning Committee recommendation.
Motion Discussion: N/A
Motion details: Commissioner Matthews made a MOTION to approve GPA-DSTV-3-23-2, per
the Desert View Village Planning Committee recommendation.
Maker: Matthews
Second: Read
Vote: 8-1 (Busching)
Absent: None
Opposition Present: Yes
Findings: None.
Proposed Language:
Amend Chapter 6 (Development Parcel Regulations), Section C.5. (Development
Regulations by Superblock), Pages 6-45 to 6-46 as follows:
SUPERBLOCK 12
Superblock 12 is located west of a possible future connection to the Squaw PIESTEWA Peak
Parkway, which separates this superblock from the balance of the Desert Ridge community.
BECAUSE OF THIS SEPARATION, THIS SUPERBLOCK CAN SUPPORT LIMITED
COMMERCIAL USES WITHOUT INTERFERING WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE
DESERT RIDGE CORE (DEVELOPMENT PARCEL 5.A). RESIDENTIAL
development parcels may vary in size by 30 percent (25 percent for R1-6 and more dense
zoning categories without a minor plan amendment).
Size: 136 133.41 acres
Maximum Number of Dwelling Units: 347
Average Density: 2.55 du/ac
12.L – Development Parcel 12.L
Size: 77 55.24 acres
Uses Permitted:
x Single-family residential
Density Range: 2-5 du/ac for the entire parcel
Maximum Number of Units: 347 257; 451 334 if parcel increases in size 30 percent
Potential Zoning to be Applied: R1-18, R1-10, R1-8, R1-6, R-2
Minimum Lot Size: Zoning controls
Special Requirements (Modifying City Regulations):
x No attached single-family units; no multifamily units.
x Section C.4.B, Chapter 6, Desert Ridge Specific Plan applies.
x No more than 25% of the development parcel may be zoned R-2.
Recommendations:
x Clustering permitted subject to minimum lot size.
12.C – DEVELOPMENT PARCEL 12.C
SIZE: 20.52 ACRES
USES PERMITTED:
x ALL USES ALLOWED UNDER CITY OF PHOENIX ZONING DESIGNATION
C-2, INTERMEDIATE COMMERCIAL, EXCEPT AS PROHIBITED BELOW.
MAXIMUM NUMBER OF UNITS: 90
POTENTIAL ZONING TO BE APPLIED: C-2
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS (MODIFYING CITY REGULATIONS):
x MAXIMUM GROSS LEASABLE AREA FOR ANY INDIVIDUAL RETAIL
TENANT/USER (E.G. GROCER) SHALL NOT EXCEED 65,000 SQUARE
FEET.
x AUTOMOBILE SERVICE STATIONS ARE PROHIBITED.
x ADULT USES ARE PROHIBITED.
x RETAIL LIQUOR SALES ARE ALLOWED AS AN ACCESSORY USE BUT
ARE PROHIBITED AS A PRIMARY USE.
x TOBACCO ORIENTED RETAILERS ARE ALLOWED AS AN ACCESSORY
USE BUT ARE PROHIBITED AS A PRIMARY USE.
x RETAIL MARIJUANA SALES (DISPENSARIES) ARE PROHIBITED.
x CAR WASHES ARE PROHIBITED.
12.S – Development Parcel 12.S
Size: 59 57.65 acres
Uses Permitted:
x High school
Potential Zoning to be Applied: R1-8
This publication can be made available in alternate format upon request. Please contact Teleia
Galaviz at 602-291-2559, teleia.galaviz@phoenix.gov, TTY: Use 7-1-1.
REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
January 4, 2024
ITEM NO: 3
DISTRICT NO.: 2
SUBJECT:
Application #: GPA-DSTV-3-23-2 (Companion Cases GPA-DSTV-2-23-2 and Z-39-23-2)
Request: Specific Plan Amendment
Location: Southwest corner of Black Mountain Boulevard and Deer Valley Drive
Proposal: Amendment to the Desert Ridge Specific Plan Section 6.C.5.12.L-
Superblock 12 to facilitate commercial development
Applicant: Ryan Ash, Vestar
Owner: Arizona State Land Department
Representative: Stephen Anderson, Gammage & Burnham, PLC
ACTIONS:
Staff Recommendation: Continuance to a date uncertain.
Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
Desert View 8/1/2023 Information only.
Desert View 10/3/2023 Denial. Vote: 7-2-1.
Planning Commission Recommendation: Continued to a date uncertain, without fee; and
remand the case back to the Desert View Village Planning Committee for reconsideration.
Motion Discussion: N/A
Motion details: Commissioner Gorraiz made a MOTION to continue GPA-DSTV-3-23-2, to a
date uncertain, without fee; and remand the case back to the Desert View Village Planning
Committee for reconsideration.
Maker: Gorraiz
Second: Vice-Chairperson Busching
Vote: 7-0
Absent: Mangum
Opposition Present: Yes
Findings: The applicant requested a continuance to a date uncertain and to be remanded back
to the Desert View Village Planning Committee.
This publication can be made available in alternate format upon request. Please contact Teleia
Galaviz at 602-291-2559, teleia.galaviz@phoenix.gov, TTY: Use 7-1-1.
REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
November 2, 2023
ITEM NO: 8
DISTRICT NO.: 2
SUBJECT:
Application #: GPA-DSTV-3-23-2 (Companion Cases GPA-DSTV-2-23-2 & Z-39-23-2)
Location: Southwest corner of Black Mountain Boulevard and Deer Valley Drive
Proposal: Amendment to the Desert Ridge Specific Plan Section 6.C.5.12.L-
Superblock 12 to facilitate commercial development.
Applicant: Ryan Ash, Vestar
Owner: Arizona State Land Department
Representative: Stephen Anderson, Gammage & Burnham
ACTIONS:
Staff Recommendation: Continuance.
Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
Desert View 8/1/2023 Information only.
Desert View 10/3/2023 Denial. Vote: 7-2-1.
Planning Commission Recommendation: Continued to the January 4, 2024 Planning
Commission hearing, without fee.
Motion Discussion: N/A
Motion details: Commissioner Perez made a MOTION to continue GPA-DSTV-3-23-2, to the
January 4, 2024 Planning Commission hearing, without fee.
Maker: Perez
Second: Gorraiz
Vote: 9-0
Absent: None
Opposition Present: Yes
Findings: The applicant requested a continuance to allow more to time to work with the State
Land Department and the community.
This publication can be made available in alternate format upon request. Please contact Teleia
Galaviz 602-602-291-2559, TTY use 7-1-1
ATTACHMENT F
For additional correspondence, please see GPA-DSTV-2-23-2,
GPA-DSTV-3-23-2, and Z-39-23-2 on the following website:
https://www.phoenix.gov/pdd/planning-zoning/pzservices/pzstaff-reports
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Southwest Corner of Black Mountain Boulevard and Deer Valley Drive
(Ordinance G-7331) - District 2
Request to hold a public hearing and amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section
601, the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix, by adopting Rezoning Application Z-39-23-
2 and rezone the site from S-1 DRSP (Approved R1-6 DRSP) (Ranch or Farm
Residence, Desert Ridge Specific Plan) (Approved Single-Family Residence District,
Desert Ridge Specific Plan) and S-1 DRSP (Approved R-2 DRSP) (Ranch or Farm
Residence, Desert Ridge Specific Plan) (Approved Multifamily Residence District,
Desert Ridge Specific Plan) to C-2 DRSP (Intermediate Commercial, Desert Ridge
Specific Plan) to allow a commercial shopping center. This is a companion case to
GPA-DSTV-2-23-2 and GPA-DSTV-3-23-2 and must be heard following GPA-DSTV-2-
23-2 and GPA-DSTV-3-23-2.
Summary
Current Zoning: S-1 DRSP (Approved R1-6 DRSP) (1.71 acres) and S-1 DRSP
(Approved R-2 DRSP) (18.81 acres)
Proposed Zoning: C-2 DRSP
Acreage: 20.52
Proposal: Commercial shopping center
Owner: Arizona State Land Department
Applicant: Ryan Ash, Vestar
Representative: Ashley Z. Marsh, Gammage & Burnham
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Information Only: The Desert View Village Planning Committee heard this item on
August 1, 2023, for information only.
VPC Action: The Desert View Village Planning Committee heard this item on October
3, 2023, and recommended denial by a vote of 9-1.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this item on January 4, 2024, and
recommended a continuance to a date uncertain and remanded the case back to the
Desert View Village Planning Committee for reconsideration by a vote of 7-0.
VPC Action: The Desert View Village Planning Committee heard this item on October
1, 2024, and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, by a vote of 10-1.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this item on November 7, 2024, and
recommended approval, per the Desert View Village Planning Committee, by a vote of
9-0.
Location
Southwest corner of Black Mountain Boulevard and Deer Valley Drive
Council District: 2
Parcel Addresses: 21502 and 21600 N. Black Mountain Boulevard; 21520, 21618,
21650, 21680, 21702, and 21750 N. Black Mountain Parkway; 3501 and 3517 E. Deer
Valley Drive; and 3539 and 3545 E. Mayo Boulevard
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Planning and
Development Department.
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-39-23-2) FROM S-1 DRSP (APPROVED R1-6
DRSP) (RANCH OR FARM RESIDENCE, DESERT RIDGE
SPECIFIC PLAN) (APPROVED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE
DISTRICT, DESERT RIDGE SPECIFIC PLAN) AND S-1 DRSP
(APPROVED R-2 DRSP) (RANCH OR FARM RESIDENCE,
DESERT RIDGE SPECIFIC PLAN) (APPROVED MULTIFAMILY
RESIDENCE DISTRICT, DESERT RIDGE SPECIFIC PLAN) TO
C-2 DRSP (INTERMEDIATE COMMERCIAL, DESERT RIDGE
SPECIFIC PLAN).
____________
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as
follows:
SECTION 1. The zoning of a 20.52-acre property located at the
southwest corner of Black Mountain Boulevard and Deer Valley Drive in a portion of
Section 24, Township 4 North, Range 3 East, as described more specifically in Exhibit
“A,” is hereby changed from 1.71 acres of “S-1 DRSP (Approved R1-6 DRSP)” (Ranch
or Farm Residence, Desert Ridge Specific Plan) (Approved Single-Family Residence
District, Desert Ridge Specific Plan) and 18.81 acres of “S-1 DRSP (Approved R-2
DRSP)” (Ranch or Farm Residence, Desert Ridge Specific Plan) (Approved Multifamily
Residence District, Desert Ridge Specific Plan) to “C-2 DRSP” (Intermediate
Commercial, Desert Ridge Specific Plan).
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. All on site lighting shall comply with the following:
a. Maximum of 20 feet in height including lamp, pole, and base.
b. All outdoor lighting fixtures must be designed, installed, and maintained to
prevent light trespass, glare, and skyglow.
c. All outdoor fixtures must be full cutoff, ensuring zero light output emitted
above the horizontal (90-degree plane).
d. Utilize LED lights with a correlated color temperature (CCT) of 3000K or
lower.
2. A minimum 5,000-square-foot pedestrian plaza shall be provided and maintained
by the developer as a gathering place for the public, adhering to the following
standards, and as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
a. The plaza shall be designed to allow pedestrian access and shall not be
restricted during the time the shopping center is open.
b. The plaza shall include seating for public use and a minimum of two
additional amenities, such as a water feature, outdoor game area, splash
pad, shaded seating, enhanced landscaping, performance stage, fire pit, or
other similar amenities.
3. A minimum 6-foot-wide pedestrian pathway, providing cross-block access and
connecting with the public plaza, shall be provided consistent with the following
standards, and as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
a. The pathway shall adhere to the requirements of Section 1304.H of the
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance.
b. The pathway shall connect with the HAWK crossing provided at Mayo
Boulevard.
c. The pathway shall be lined on both sides with either of the following
elements, or a combination of the two, except where a pedestrian pathway
is a minimum of 16 feet wide:
(1) A minimum 5-foot-wide landscape strip, except where drive aisles
cross the pathway where necessary. Structural shade elements may
be used, and footers may be placed within the landscape strip along
the pathway.
(2) Building frontages meeting the glazing requirements of a minimum
of 75 percent of the ground floor frontages facing the pedestrian
pathway, measured as the area between 3 and 8 feet above grade
for the entire width of the facade, consisting of clear windows that
will allow a minimum of 75 percent of the visible light (as specified by
the manufacturer) to be visible on either side of the window.
4. 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.
5. All pedestrian pathways, including sidewalks and shared-use paths, shall be
shaded by a structure or landscaping at maturity, or a combination of the two to
achieve a minimum of 75 percent shade, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
6. All uncovered surface parking lot areas shall be landscaped with minimum 2-inch
caliper drought-tolerant shade trees. Landscaping shall be dispersed throughout
the parking area and achieve 25 percent shade at maturity, as approved by
Planning and Development Department.
7. Bicycle parking shall be provided, consistent with Section 1307.H of the Phoenix
Zoning Ordinance, except that Section 1307.H.6.c shall not apply, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department.
8. A minimum of 2 percent of the required parking shall be EV installed.
9. A minimum of 10% of the required shrubs, shall be a milkweed or other native
nectar species, and shall be planted in groups of three or more, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department.
10. The developer shall dedicate right-of-way and construct a bus stop pad on
southbound Black Mountain Boulevard. Bus stop pad shall be constructed
according to City of Phoenix Standard Detail P1260 with a minimum depth of 10
feet. Bus stop pad shall be spaced from Deer Valley Drive according to City of
Phoenix Standard Detail P1258. Trees shall be placed to provide 50 percent
shade coverage to bus stop pad at full maturity.
11. A minimum number of pedestrian connections shall be provided from the
development to the adjacent sidewalk, as follows: 2 connections to Deer Valley
Drive, 3 connections to Mayo Boulevard, and 3 connections to Black Mountain
Boulevard, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
Pedestrian connections shall be sufficiently spaced to allow convenient
pedestrian access to the sidewalk from any portion of the proposed development.
12. The landscape planters along all streets, separating the curb from the sidewalk,
shall be planted to the following standards, as approved or modified by the
Planning and Development Department.
a. Minimum 2-inch caliper shade trees planted 20 feet on center or in
equivalent groupings to provide a minimum of 75 percent shade at tree
maturity.
b. Drought-tolerant shrubs, accents, and vegetative groundcovers to achieve
a minimum of 75 percent live coverage at maturity.
Where utility conflicts arise, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on an alternative design solution consistent with a
pedestrian environment.
13. A 20-foot-wide shared-use path easement (SUPE) shall be dedicated along Black
Mountain Boulevard and a minimum 10-foot-wide shared-use path (SUP) shall be
constructed within the easement in accordance with the MAG supplemental detail
and as approved or modified by the Planning and Development Department.
14. A minimum 5-foot-wide detached sidewalk separated by a minimum 5-foot-wide
landscape strip located between the back of curb and sidewalk, shall be provided
along 34th Street, as approved or modified by the Planning and Development
Department.
15. A minimum 70 feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated for the west half of Black
Mountain Boulevard, adjacent to the development.
16. A minimum 55 feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated for the north half of Mayo
Boulevard, adjacent to the development.
17. Mayo Boulevard shall be consistent with the Desert Ridge Specific Plan and the
approved cross sections in the forthcoming Super Block 12 Master Street Plan.
18. The existing median in Black Mountain Boulevard shall be modified to extend
northward to the Deer Valley Drive intersection.
19. The existing traffic signal at the intersection of Mayo Boulevard and Black
Mountain Boulevard shall be fully funded and reconstructed to meet City of
Phoenix standards.
20. A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) and Master Street Plan shall be submitted to the
City for this development and Super Block 12 of the Desert Ridge Specific Plan.
The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) shall also be expanded to address the proposed
development’s impact and funding responsibility on the Sonoran Desert Drive
Corridor. No preliminary approval of plans shall be granted until the study and
master street plan are reviewed and approved by the Street Transportation
Department.
21. A HAWK traffic control device shall be fully funded and constructed on Mayo
Boulevard between 34th Street and Black Mountain Boulevard, as approved by
the Street Transportation Department.
22. Decorative metal view fencing shall be constructed in the landscape median
along Mayo Boulevard, as approved by the Street Transportation Department.
23. Acquire, dedicate sufficient right-of-way, and construct a southbound right turn
lane, including incidental intersection improvements, on the northwest corner of
the Deer Valley Drive and Black Mountain Boulevard intersection.
24. Acquire, dedicate sufficient right-of-way, and construct a westbound right turn
lane, including incidental intersection improvements, on the northeast corner of
the Deer Valley Drive and Black Mountain Boulevard intersection.
25. Acquire, dedicate sufficient right-of-way, and construct an eastbound right turn
lane, including incidental intersection improvements, on the southwest corner of
the Deer Valley Drive and 40th Street intersection.
26. Acquire, dedicate sufficient right-of-way, and construct a westbound right turn
lane, including incidental intersection improvements, on the northeast corner of
the Deer Valley Drive and 40th Street intersection.
27. All streets within and adjacent to the development shall be constructed 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.
28. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and
operational characteristics of the Phoenix Deer Valley Airport to future owners or
tenants of the property. The form and content of such documents shall be
according to the templates and instructions provided which have been reviewed
and approved by the City Attorney.
29. If determined necessary by the Phoenix Archaeology Office, the applicant shall
conduct Phase I data testing and submit an archaeological survey report of the
development area for review and approval by the City Archaeologist prior to
clearing and grubbing, landscape salvage, and/or grading approval.
30. If Phase I data testing is required, and if, upon review of the results from the
Phase I data testing, the City Archaeologist, in consultation with a qualified
archaeologist, determines such data recovery excavations are necessary, the
applicant shall conduct Phase II archaeological data recovery excavations.
31. 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.
32. 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 December,
2024.
________________________________
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 (2 Pages)
B – Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR Z-39-23-2
A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 24,
TOWNSHIP 4 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST, OF THE GILA AND SALT RIVER
BASE AND MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, BEING MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE NORTH QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 24, FROM
WHICH THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 24 BEARS
SOUTH 89 DEGREES 46 MINUTES 38 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF
2,628.51 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 19 MINUTES 26 SECONDS EAST, ALONG
THE EAST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 24,
A DISTANCE OF 1,206.07 FEET TO THE CENTER LINE OF MAYO
BOULEVARD AS SHOWN IN BOOK 487 OF MAPS, PAGE 46, MARICOPA
COUNTY RECORDS;
THENCE ALONG SAID CENTER LINE, NORTH 64 DEGREES 10 MINUTES 09
SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF 1,207.00 FEET TO THE CENTER LINE OF
THAT CERTAIN ACCESS ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY SHOWN IN ASLD DOCUMENT
NO. 16-116983 AND DOCUMENT NO. 2017-136250, MARICOPA COUNTY
RECORDS;
THENCE ALONG SAID CENTER LINE OF ACCESS ROAD THE FOLLOWING FIVE
(5) COURSES:
THENCE NORTH 25 DEGREES 05 MINUTES 44 SECONDS EAST, A
DISTANCE OF 263.99 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVE TO THE RIGHT
HAVING A RADIUS OF 505.00 FEET;
THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, THROUGH
A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 16 DEGREES 19 MINUTES 54 SECONDS, A
DISTANCE OF 143.95 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 41 DEGREES 25 MINUTES 38 SECONDS EAST, A
DISTANCE OF 125.83 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING
A RADIUS OF 245.00 FEET;
THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, THROUGH A
CENTRAL ANGLE OF 41 DEGREES 39 MINUTES 00 SECONDS, A
DISTANCE OF 178.10 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 13 MINUTES 22 SECONDS WEST, A
DISTANCE OF 60.82 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST
QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 24;
THENCE ALONG SAID NORTH LINE, NORTH 89 DEGREES 46
MINUTES 38 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF 744.62 FEET TO THE
POINT OF BEGINNING.
SAID PARCEL CONTAINS 893,555 SQUARE FEET OR 20.513 ACRES, MORE OR
LESS.
ATTACHMENT B
Staff Report: Z-39-23-2
September 26, 2023
Desert View Village Planning October 3, 2023
Committee Hearing Date:
Planning Commission Hearing Date: November 2, 2023
Request From: S-1 DRSP (Approved R1-6 DRSP) (Ranch
or Farm Residence, Desert Ridge Specific
Plan) (Approved Single-Family Residence
District, Desert Ridge Specific Plan) (1.71
acres)
S-1 DRSP (Approved R-2 DRSP) (Ranch or
Farm Residence, Desert Ridge Specific
Plan) (Approved Multifamily Residence
District, Desert Ridge Specific Plan) (18.81
acres)
Request To: C-2 DRSP (Intermediate Commercial,
Desert Ridge Specific Plan) (20.52 acres)
Proposal: Commercial shopping center
Location: Southwest corner of Black Mountain
Boulevard and Deer Valley Drive
Owner: Arizona State Land Department
Applicant: Ryan Ash, Vestar
Representative: Stephen Anderson, Gammage & Burnham
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations
General Plan Conformity
Current
Residential 2 to 5 dwelling units per
acre
General Plan Land Use Map Designation Proposed (GPA-DSTV-2-23-2)
Commercial
Staff Report: Z-39-23-2
September 26, 2023
General Plan Conformity
Major
Deer Valley Drive 70-foot south half street
Arterial
Width varies from 65-
foot to 70-foot west half
Black Mountain
Arterial street (Abandonment
Boulevard
from ADOT to City of
Street Map Classification Phoenix)
Local Approximately 30-foot
34th Street
Street east half street
Width varies from 0 foot
Local
Mayo Boulevard to 12-foot north half
Street
street
CONNECT PEOPLE AND PLACES CORE VALUE; CORES, CENTERS, &
CORRIDORS; DESIGN PRINCIPLE: Encourage centers to provide a pedestrian
environment with plazas, common open space, shaded walkways, separation of
pedestrian and vehicular traffic, bicycle parking, and vehicle parking in
architecturally disguised structures or underground where feasible.
The proposal, as stipulated, will provide a commercial center with a pedestrian plaza,
shaded walkways, enhanced features for pedestrian safety, bicycle parking, and a
safe crossing to the adjacent school.
CELEBRATE OUR DIVERSE COMMUNITIES AND NEIGHBORHOODS CORE
VALUE; DIVERSE NEIGHBORHOODS; LAND USE PRINCIPLE: Communities
should consist of a mix of land uses to provide housing, shopping, dining and
recreational options for residents.
The proposal will contribute to a mix of land uses by providing retail and services
closer to surrounding residential neighborhoods.
CELEBRATE OUR DIVERSE COMMUNITIES AND NEIGHBORHOODS CORE
VALUE; CONNECTED NEIGHBORHOODS; LAND USE PRINCIPLE: Locate
neighborhood retail to be easily accessible to neighborhoods.
The proposal will enhance accessibility to retail uses by locating retail closer to
neighborhoods and providing pedestrian and bicycle amenities that promote non-
vehicular transportation.
Staff Report: Z-39-23-2
September 26, 2023
General Plan Conformity
BUILD THE SUSTAINABLE DESERT CITY CORE VALUE; TREES AND SHADE;
DESIGN PRINCIPLE: Integrate trees and shade into the design of new
development and redevelopment projects throughout Phoenix.
The proposed development, as stipulated, provides shaded detached sidewalks on all
bounding streets and enhanced shade to pedestrian areas and surface parking areas
on site, which will reduce the urban heat island effect while also improving thermal
comfort to site users and the surrounding neighborhood.
Applicable Plans, Overlays and Initiatives
Desert Ridge Specific Plan – See Background Item No. 5.
Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan – See Background Item No. 6.
Complete Streets Guiding Principles – See Background Item No. 7.
Tree and Shade Master Plan – See Background Item No. 8.
Transportation Electrification Action Plan – See Background Item No. 9.
Monarch Butterfly – See Background Item No. 10.
Zero Waste PHX – See Background Item No. 11.
Surrounding Land Uses/Zoning
Land Use Zoning
S-1 DRSP (Approved R1-6
On Site Vacant DRSP) and S-1 DRSP
(Approved R-2 DRSP)
North (across Deer Valley
Single-family residential R-2 PCD
Drive)
South (across Mayo
School S-1 DRSP
Boulevard
East (across Black
Single-family residential R1-6 DRSP
Mountain Boulevard)
S-1 DRSP (Approved R1-6
West (across 34th Street) Vacant
DRSP)
Staff Report: Z-39-23-2
September 26, 2023
C-2 (Intermediate Commercial)
Provision on the Proposed
Standards Requirements
Site Plan
Minimum Building Setbacks
Adjacent to Street 20 feet, Average 25 feet Deer Valley Drive: 25 feet
(Met)
Black Mountain Boulevard:
25 feet (Met)
Mayo Boulevard: 25 feet
(Met)
34th Street: 25 feet (Met)
Minimum Landscaped Setbacks
Adjacent to Street 20 feet, Average 25 feet Deer Valley Drive: 25 feet
(Met)
Black Mountain Boulevard:
25 feet (Met)
Mayo Boulevard: 25 feet
(Met)
34th Street: 25 feet (Met)
Maximum Lot Coverage 50 percent 19.7 percent (Met)
Maximum Building 2 stories, 30 feet 2 stories, 30 feet (Met)
Height
Minimum Parking 530 spaces 533 spaces (Met)
Background/Issues/Analysis
SUBJECT SITE
1. This request is to rezone a 20.52-acre site located at the southwest corner of
Black Mountain Boulevard and Deer Valley Drive from S-1 DRSP (Approved
R1-6 DRSP) (Ranch or Farm Residence, Desert Ridge Specific Plan)
(Approved Single-Family Residence District, Desert Ridge Specific Plan) and
S-1 DRSP (Approved R-2 DRSP) (Ranch or Farm Residence, Desert Ridge
Specific Plan) (Approved Multifamily Residence District, Desert Ridge Specific
Plan) to C-2 DRSP (Intermediate Commercial, Desert Ridge Specific Plan) to
allow a commercial shopping center.
This is a companion case to two other cases that are running concurrently.
GPA-DSTV-2-23-2 is a request to change the General Plan Land Use Map
designation of the subject site from Residential 2 to 5 dwelling units per acre to
Commercial. GPA-DSTV-3-23-2 is an amendment to the Desert Ridge Specific
Staff Report: Z-39-23-2
September 26, 2023
Plan, Superblock 12, Parcel 12.L, which would create a commercial parcel
coterminous with the subject site of this rezoning case.
The subject site is undeveloped land owned by the Arizona State Land
Department that was annexed into the City of Phoenix in 1988. The site was
incorporated into the Desert Ridge Specific Plan at the original adoption of the
plan in 1990 and was identified as a low-density residential parcel. The site was
platted in 1997 with a state plat that created the surrounding street grid and
blocks and tracts in the area. In 2007, the Phoenix City Council approved
rezoning case Z-135-06-2, rezoning the site to R1-6 and R-2 for a proposed
single-family residential development; however, the site was never developed.
2. The subject site is designated as
Residential 2 to 5 dwelling units per
acre on the General Plan Land Use
Map. The properties to the north, east,
and west are also designated as
Residential 2 to 5 dwelling units per
acre. The property to the south is
designated as Public/Quasi-Public.
The applicant is proposing a minor General Plan Land Use Map, Source:
General Plan Amendment (GPA- Planning and Development Department
DSTV-2-23-2) to change the
designation of the subject site to Commercial. The proposed zoning district is
consistent with the proposed General Plan Land Use Map designation.
EXISTING CONDITIONS AND SURROUNDING ZONING
3. The subject site is a 20.52-gross-acre
undeveloped lot, zoned S-1 DRSP
(Approved R1-6 DRSP) and S-1
(Approved R-2 DRSP). To the north
are single-family homes, zoned R-2
PCD (Multifamily Residence District,
Planned Community District). To the
east are single-family homes, zoned
R1-6 DRSP. To the south is Pinnacle
High School, zoned S-1 DRSP. To the
west is undeveloped land zoned S-1
DRSP (Approved R1-6 DRSP).
Zoning Aerial Map, Source: Planning and
Development Department
Staff Report: Z-39-23-2
September 26, 2023
PROPOSAL
4. The proposed development is a commercial shopping center with surface
parking, which would include a grocery store as a major tenant, in addition to
other medium and small commercial spaces throughout the site. The
conceptual site plan shows vehicular access on all four street frontages and
indicates 567 surface parking spaces.
Conceptual Site Plan, Source: Suite Six Architecture and Planning
The conceptual site plan includes a 5,000-square-foot pedestrian plaza and will
include a north-south pedestrian pathway through the site, per Stipulation Nos.
2 and 3. These are discussed further in Item No. 5 below.
AREA PLANS, OVERLAY DISTRICTS, AND INITIATIVES
5. Desert Ridge Specific Plan
The Desert Ridge Specific Plan is a 5,700-acre master planned community in
northeast Phoenix, generally located between Pinnacle Peak Road to the north,
Union Hills Drive to the south, 32nd Street to the west, and 64th Street to the
east. At its inception, the planning area consisted entirely of undeveloped land
held in trust by the Arizona State Land Department. The Desert Ridge Specific
Plan was approved in 1990 and is the governing land use document for Desert
Ridge. Desert Ridge is divided into Superblocks, each with their own individual
land uses and regulations. The subject site is currently within Superblock 12,
Parcel 12.L of the Desert Ridge Specific Plan, which is designated for single-
family residential use with a density range of 2 to 5 dwelling units per acre.
Companion case GPA-DSTV-3-23-2 is a proposed amendment to the plan that
Staff Report: Z-39-23-2
September 26, 2023
would create a Parcel 12.C coterminous with the subject site and identify the
parcel as a commercial parcel with C-2 as a permitted zoning district.
The Desert Ridge Specific Plan identifies a commercial core area in Superblock
5, which today contains the primary retail destination for the Desert Ridge area.
Additionally, the plan allows for convenience retail to be located within all
residential superblocks, which is limited to three acres per site and must be
away from arterial streets to facilitate pedestrian access from residential
communities. To date, most residential superblocks have been developed
without any convenience retail included. This proposal fills a gap by providing
additional retail options closer to the residential Superblocks and providing an
alternative to the commercial core of Superblock 5. In order to meet the original
intent of the Desert Ridge Specific Plan, to promote pedestrian connectivity to
the commercial development, and to reduce the impact of the development on
the surrounding area, staff recommends the following.
• Lighting limitations, including a height limit of 20 feet. This is addressed
in Stipulation No. 1.
• A minimum 5,000-square-foot pedestrian plaza to be provided on site as
a gathering place for the public. The plaza shall be designed for
pedestrian access, incorporate seating and amenities, and be lined with
vegetation. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 2.
• A minimum six-foot-wide pedestrian pathway, providing cross-block
access. The pathway shall adhere to the paseo standards of the
Walkable Urban Code, connect with the pedestrian plaza and the HAWK
crossing at Mayo Boulevard, and be lined on both sides with either
landscaping or buildings with transparent windows to promote activation
and pedestrian comfort of the pathway. This is addressed in Stipulation
No. 3.
6. Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan
The City of Phoenix adopted the Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan in 2014
to guide the development of its Bikeway System and supportive infrastructure.
The Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan supports options for both short- and
long-term bicycle parking as a means of promoting bicyclist traffic to a variety of
destinations. The proposed development will provide bicycle parking, per
Stipulation No. 7.
7. Complete Streets Guiding Principles
In 2014, the City of Phoenix City Council adopted the Complete Streets Guiding
Principles. The principles are intended to promote improvements that provide
an accessible, safe, connected transportation system to include all modes,
such as bicycles, pedestrians, transit, and vehicles. Per the Desert Ridge
master plans and Stipulation Nos. 12, 14, and 17, the proposed development
will provide shaded detached sidewalks on all street frontages. The proposal
will also provide north-south pedestrian connectivity through a shared-use path
along Black Mountain Boulevard (Stipulation No. 13) and a mid-block
Staff Report: Z-39-23-2
September 26, 2023
pedestrian pathway (Stipulation No. 3), in addition to providing a new HAWK
crossing at Mayo Boulevard to allow safer pedestrian crossing (Stipulation No.
21). Additionally, all pedestrian pathways, where they cross drive aisles will
provide visually contrasting treatment to enhance pedestrian safety (Stipulation
No. 4).
8. 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. Per the Desert Ridge master plans and Stipulation Nos. 12, 14, and 17,
the proposed development will provide shaded detached sidewalks on all street
frontages. Shade will be provided at a minimum of 75 percent for all walkways
including sidewalks (Stipulation No. 5) and a minimum of 25 percent for surface
parking areas (Stipulation No. 6).
9. Transportation Electrification Action Plan
In June 2022, the Phoenix City Council approved the Transportation
Electrification Action Plan. The current market desire for the electrification of
transportation is both a national and global phenomenon, fueled by a desire for
better air quality, a reduction in carbon emissions, and a reduction in vehicle
operating and maintenance costs. Businesses, governments and the public are
signaling strong future demand for electric vehicles (EVs), and many
automobile manufacturers have declared plans for a transition to fully electric
offerings within the coming decade. This Plan contains policy initiatives to
prepare the City for a future filled with more EVs, charging infrastructure and e-
mobility equity, and outlines a roadmap for a five-step plan to prepare for the
EV infrastructure needs of 280,000 EVs in Phoenix by 2030. One goal of the
Plan to accelerate public adoption of electric vehicles through workplace,
business, and multifamily charging infrastructure recommends a standard
stipulation for rezoning cases to provide EV charging infrastructure. Stipulation
No. 8 provides requirements for electric vehicle parking, charging and
infrastructure.
10. Monarch Butterfly
In April 2021, Mayor Kate Gallego signed the National Wildlife Federation's
Mayor's Monarch Pledge. This pledge commits the city to take action to support
the monarch butterfly population. In the United States, loss of milkweed habitat
is a major factor in the decline of the monarchs. Arizona has at least 29 species
of milkweed native to the state. Adult monarchs feed on the nectar of many
flowers, but they breed only where milkweeds are found. To support the
monarch butterfly population, Stipulation No. 9 addresses the planting of
milkweed shrubs, or other native nectar plant species, on the subject site.
Staff Report: Z-39-23-2
September 26, 2023
11. Zero Waste PHX
The City of Phoenix is committed to its waste diversion efforts and has set a
goal to become a zero-waste city, as part of the city’s overall 2050
Environmental Sustainability Goals. One of the ways Phoenix can achieve this
is to improve and expand its recycling and other waste diversion programs.
Section 716 of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance establishes standards to
encourage the provision of recycling containers for multifamily, commercial and
mixed-use developments meeting certain criteria. The applicant states that their
commercial developments incorporate green initiatives, including recycling.
COMMUNITY INPUT SUMMARY
12. At the time this staff report was written, staff has received 180 letters in
opposition, three petitions in opposition with a total of 663 names, 233 letters in
support, 23 letters stating general support but requesting a gas station not be
included, three petitions in support with a total of 753 names, and four letters
providing general comments. Among those opposed, concerns include the
change in the residential character of the area, increased traffic and conflicts
with Pinnacle High School traffic, pedestrian safety, increased lighting, the
presence of homeless individuals, crime issues, and a reduction in property
values.
INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS
13. The Public Transit Department requested dedication of right of way and
construction of a bus stop pad on southbound Black Mountain Boulevard and
that the development provide sufficient pedestrian connections to the public
sidewalk. These are addressed in Stipulation Nos. 10 and 11.
14. The Street Transportation Department requested the following:
• Detached sidewalk on 34th Street (Stipulation No. 14)
• Dedication of 70 feet of right-of-way for Black Mountain Boulevard
(Stipulation No. 15).
• Dedication of 55 feet of right-of-way for Mayo Boulevard, construction to
Desert Ridge master plan standards, including a detached sidewalk, and
inclusion of fencing in the median to prevent mid-block crossing
(Stipulation Nos. 16, 17, and 22).
• Median extension on Black Mountain Boulevard to the corner of Deer
Valley Drive (Stipulation No. 18).
• Fully funded and reconstructed signal at the intersection of Mayo
Boulevard and Black Mountain Boulevard to city standards (Stipulation
No. 19).
• Traffic Impact Analysis and Master Street Plan for Superblock 12,
including analysis of the impact and funding responsibility to the
Sonoran Desert Drive corridor (Stipulation No. 20).
Staff Report: Z-39-23-2
September 26, 2023
• New HAWK traffic control device on Mayo Boulevard (Stipulation No.
21).
• Construction of turn lanes at the intersection Deer Valley Drive with
Black Mountain Boulevard and with 40th Street, required per an existing
Intergovernmental Agreement (Stipulation Nos. 23 through 26).
• Construction of street improvements with all required elements and ADA
accessibility (Stipulation No. 27).
15. The Aviation Department requested that the property owner record a Notice to
Prospective Purchasers of Proximity to Airport in order to disclose the
existence, and operational characteristics of the Phoenix Deer Valley Airport to
future owners or tenants of the property. This is addressed in Stipulation No.
28.
OTHER
16. The site is located in a larger area identified as being archaeologically
sensitive. If further review by the City of Phoenix Archaeology Office
determines the site and immediate area to be archaeologically sensitive, and if
no previous archaeological projects have been conducted within this project
area, it is recommended that archaeological Phase I data testing of this area be
conducted. Phase II archaeological data recovery excavations may be
necessary based upon the results of the testing. A qualified archaeologist must
make this determination in consultation with the City of Phoenix Archaeologist.
In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, all
ground disturbing activities must cease within a 33-foot radius of the discovery
and the City of Phoenix Archaeology Office must be notified immediately and
allowed time to properly assess the materials. This is addressed in Stipulation
Nos. 29 through 31.
17. 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 require the form be completed and submitted prior to preliminary site
plan approval. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 32.
18. Development and use of the site is subject to all applicable codes and
ordinances. Zoning approval does not negate other ordinance requirements.
Zoning adjustments, abandonments or other formal actions may also be
required.
Findings
1. The proposal is consistent with the proposed General Plan Land Use Map
designation and will contribute to a mix of land uses in the surrounding area.
Staff Report: Z-39-23-2
September 26, 2023
2. As stipulated, the proposal enhances the surrounding area with features
promoting pedestrian safety, facilitating alternative transportation, and
providing pedestrianized amenity spaces for the community.
3. As stipulated, the proposal provides trees and shade, promoting thermal
comfort for users of the site and pedestrians on adjacent sidewalks.
Stipulations
1. All on site lighting shall comply with the following:
a. Maximum of 20 feet in height including lamp, pole, and base.
b. All outdoor lighting fixtures must be designed, installed, and maintained
to prevent light trespass, glare, and skyglow.
c. All outdoor fixtures must be full cutoff, ensuring zero light output emitted
above the horizontal (90-degree plane).
d. Utilize LED lights with a correlated color temperature (CCT) of 3000K or
lower.
2. A minimum 5,000-square-foot pedestrian plaza shall be provided and
maintained by the developer as a gathering place for the public, adhering to the
following standards, and as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
a. The plaza shall be designed to allow pedestrian access and shall not be
restricted during the time the shopping center is open.
b. The plaza shall include seating for public use and a minimum of two
additional amenities, such as a water feature, outdoor game area, splash
pad, shaded seating, enhanced landscaping, performance stage, fire pit,
or other similar amenities.
3. A minimum 6-foot-wide pedestrian pathway, providing cross-block access and
connecting with the public plaza, shall be provided consistent with the following
standards, and as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
a. The pathway shall adhere to the requirements of Section 1304.H of the
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance.
b. The pathway shall connect with the HAWK crossing provided at Mayo
Boulevard.
Staff Report: Z-39-23-2
September 26, 2023
c. The pathway shall be lined on both sides with either of the following
elements, or a combination of the two, except where a pedestrian
pathway is a minimum of 16 feet wide:
(1) A minimum 5-foot-wide landscape strip, except where drive aisles
cross the pathway where necessary. Structural shade elements
may be used, and footers may be placed within the landscape
strip along the pathway.
(2) Building frontages meeting the glazing requirements of a
minimum of 75 percent of the ground floor frontages facing the
pedestrian pathway, measured as the area between 3 and 8 feet
above grade for the entire width of the facade, consisting of clear
windows that will allow a minimum of 75 percent of the visible light
(as specified by the manufacturer) to be visible on either side of
the window.
4. 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.
5. All pedestrian pathways, including sidewalks and shared-use paths, shall be
shaded by a structure or landscaping at maturity, or a combination of the two to
achieve a minimum of 75 percent shade, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
6. All uncovered surface parking lot areas shall be landscaped with minimum 2-
inch caliper drought-tolerant shade trees. Landscaping shall be dispersed
throughout the parking area and achieve 25 percent shade at maturity, as
approved by Planning and Development Department.
7. Bicycle parking shall be provided, consistent with Section 1307.H of the
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, except that Section 1307.H.6.c shall not apply, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
8. A minimum of 2 percent of the required parking shall be EV installed.
9. A minimum of 10% of the required shrubs, shall be a milkweed or other native
nectar species, and shall be planted in groups of three or more, as approved
by the Planning and Development Department.
10. The developer shall dedicate right-of-way and construct a bus stop pad on
southbound Black Mountain Boulevard. Bus stop pad shall be constructed
according to City of Phoenix Standard Detail P1260 with a minimum depth of
10 feet. Bus stop pad shall be spaced from Deer Valley Drive according to City
Staff Report: Z-39-23-2
September 26, 2023
of Phoenix Standard Detail P1258. Trees shall be placed to provide 50 percent
shade coverage to bus stop pad at full maturity.
11. A minimum number of pedestrian connections shall be provided from the
development to the adjacent sidewalk, as follows: 2 connections to Deer Valley
Drive, 3 connections to Mayo Boulevard, and 3 connections to Black Mountain
Boulevard, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
Pedestrian connections shall be sufficiently spaced to allow convenient
pedestrian access to the sidewalk from any portion of the proposed
development.
12. The landscape planters along all streets, separating the curb from the
sidewalk, shall be planted to the following standards, as approved or modified
by the Planning and Development Department.
a. Minimum 2-inch caliper shade trees planted 20 feet on center or in
equivalent groupings to provide a minimum of 75 percent shade at tree
maturity.
b. Drought-tolerant shrubs, accents, and vegetative groundcovers to
achieve a minimum of 75 percent live coverage at maturity.
Where utility conflicts arise, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on an alternative design solution consistent with a
pedestrian environment.
13. A 20-foot-wide shared-use path easement (SUPE) shall be dedicated along
Black Mountain Boulevard and a minimum 10-foot-wide shared-use path (SUP)
shall be constructed within the easement in accordance with the MAG
supplemental detail and as approved or modified by the Planning and
Development Department.
14. A minimum 5-foot-wide detached sidewalk separated by a minimum 5-foot-
wide landscape strip located between the back of curb and sidewalk, shall be
provided along 34th Street, as approved or modified by the Planning and
Development Department.
15. A minimum 70-feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated for the west half of Black
Mountain Boulevard, adjacent to the development.
16. A minimum 55-feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated for the north half of Mayo
Boulevard, adjacent to the development.
17. Mayo Boulevard shall be consistent with the Desert Ridge Specific Plan and
the approved cross sections in the forthcoming Super Block 12 Master Street
Plan.
Staff Report: Z-39-23-2
September 26, 2023
18. The existing median in Black Mountain Boulevard shall be modified to extend
northward to the Deer Valley Drive intersection.
19. The existing traffic signal at the intersection of Mayo Boulevard and Black
Mountain Boulevard shall be fully funded and reconstructed to meet City of
Phoenix standards.
20. A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) and Master Street Plan shall be submitted to
the City for this development and Super Block 12 of the Desert Ridge Specific
Plan. The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) shall also be expanded to address the
proposed development’s impact and funding responsibility on the Sonoran
Desert Drive Corridor. No preliminary approval of plans shall be granted until
the study and master street plan are reviewed and approved by the Street
Transportation Department.
21. A HAWK traffic control device shall be fully funded and constructed on Mayo
Boulevard between 34th Street and Black Mountain Boulevard, as approved by
the Street Transportation Department.
22. Decorative metal view fencing shall be constructed in the landscape median
along Mayo Boulevard, as approved by the Street Transportation Department.
22. Acquire, dedicate sufficient right-of-way, and construct a southbound right turn
lane, including incidental intersection improvements, on the northwest corner of
the Deer Valley Drive and Black Mountain Boulevard intersection.
24. Acquire, dedicate sufficient right-of-way, and construct a westbound right turn
lane, including incidental intersection improvements, on the northeast corner of
the Deer Valley Drive and Black Mountain Boulevard intersection.
25. Acquire, dedicate sufficient right-of-way, and construct an eastbound right turn
lane, including incidental intersection improvements, on the southwest corner
of the Deer Valley Drive and 40th Street intersection.
26. Acquire, dedicate sufficient right-of-way, and construct a westbound right turn
lane, including incidental intersection improvements, on the northeast corner of
the Deer Valley Drive and 40th Street intersection.
27. All streets within and adjacent to the development shall be constructed 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.
Staff Report: Z-39-23-2
September 26, 2023
28. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and
operational characteristics of the Phoenix Deer Valley Airport to future owners
or tenants of the property. The form and content of such documents shall be
according to the templates and instructions provided which have been
reviewed and approved by the City Attorney.
29. If determined necessary by the Phoenix Archaeology Office, the applicant shall
conduct Phase I data testing and submit an archaeological survey report of the
development area for review and approval by the City Archaeologist prior to
clearing and grubbing, landscape salvage, and/or grading approval.
30. If Phase I data testing is required, and if, upon review of the results from the
Phase I data testing, the City Archaeologist, in consultation with a qualified
archaeologist, determines such data recovery excavations are necessary, the
applicant shall conduct Phase II archaeological data recovery excavations.
31. 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.
32. 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
Anthony Grande
September 26, 2023
Team Leader
Racelle Escolar
Exhibits
Sketch Map
Aerial Map
Conceptual Site Plan Date Stamped September 22, 2023
Community Correspondence (600 Pages)
SA
ND
33RD PL
S
D
35TH PL
36TH
R
R1-6 R-2
S-1 WAY DR
PCD * 35
TH
PCD * LOU
ISE
Z-13-16 ST Z-13-16 R1-8 PCD *
Z-136-01
TINA DR
DEER VALLEY DR
34T E DR
HS BALU
CAT
T
R1-6 *
R-2 * R1-6 *
Z-135-06 Z-82-04
Z-135-06 37T
ST HS
36 T
TH
S-1
Desert Ridge
Specific Plan
36T
HP R1-8 *
L Z-82-04
BLACK MOUNTAIN BLVD
MA
YO
BLV
D
DR
R-3A* RY
Z-82-04 C HA
ZA
I
CAREFREE HWY
Z-39-23 DOVE VALLEY RD
LONE MOUNTAIN RD
Miles
DYNAMITE BLVD
0.085 0.0425 0 0.085 JOMAX RD
DESERT VIEW VILLAGE
HAPPY VALLEY RD
PINNACLE PEAK RD
CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 2
CAVE CREEK RD
DEER VALLEY DR
BLACK MTN PKY
SR-101BLVD
MAYO
TATUM BLVD
56TH ST
64TH ST
SCOTTSDALE RD
APPLICANT'S NAME: REQUESTED CHANGE:
Ryan Ash of Vestar
FROM: S-1 DRSP (Approved R1-6 DRSP) ( 1.71 a.c.)
APPLICATION NO. DATE:
7/03/2023 S-1 DRSP (Approved R-2 DRSP) ( 18.81 a.c.)
Z-39-23 REVISION DATES:
GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO & ZONING MAP
QUARTER SEC. NO.
20.52 Acres QS 42-35 N-10 TO: C-2 DRSP ( 20.52 a.c.)
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
S-1 (Approved R1-6), S-1 (Approved R-2) 1 (9), 18 (188) N/A (11), N/A (225)
C-2 297 357
* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus
Document Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2023\Z-39-23.mxd
SA
ND
33RD PL
S
D
35TH PL
36TH
R
R1-6 R-2
S-1 WAY DR
PCD * 35
TH
PCD * LOU
ISE
Z-13-16 ST Z-13-16 R1-8 PCD *
Z-136-01
TINA DR
DEER VALLEY DR
34T E DR
HS BALU
CAT
T
R1-6 *
R-2 * R1-6 *
Z-135-06 Z-82-04
Z-135-06 37T
ST HS
36 T
TH
S-1
Desert Ridge
Specific Plan
36T
HP R1-8 *
L Z-82-04
BLACK MOUNTAIN BLVD
MA
YO
BLV
D
DR
R-3A* RY
Z-82-04 C HA
ZA
Maricopa County Assessor's Office
I
CAREFREE HWY
Z-39-23 DOVE VALLEY RD
LONE MOUNTAIN RD
Miles
DYNAMITE BLVD
0.085 0.0425 0 0.085 JOMAX RD
DESERT VIEW VILLAGE
HAPPY VALLEY RD
PINNACLE PEAK RD
CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 2
CAVE CREEK RD
DEER VALLEY DR
BLACK MTN PKY
SR-101BLVD
MAYO
TATUM BLVD
56TH ST
64TH ST
SCOTTSDALE RD
APPLICANT'S NAME: REQUESTED CHANGE:
Ryan Ash of Vestar
FROM: S-1 DRSP (Approved R1-6 DRSP) ( 1.71 a.c.)
APPLICATION NO. DATE:
7/03/2023 S-1 DRSP (Approved R-2 DRSP) ( 18.81 a.c.)
Z-39-23 REVISION DATES:
GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO & ZONING MAP
QUARTER SEC. NO.
20.52 Acres QS 42-35 N-10 TO: C-2 DRSP ( 20.52 a.c.)
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
S-1 (Approved R1-6), S-1 (Approved R-2) 1 (9), 18 (188) N/A (11), N/A (225)
C-2 297 357
* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus
Document Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2023\Z-39-23.mxd
R1-6 S-1
ZONING ZONING
Deer Valley Road
signal
30'-0"
3/4
movement
25'-0"
Retention
SB
Retention 25'-0
"
Fuel Sales SB
17 Pad B 70'-0"
±4,000 sf ROW
7 10
5 27
16 4
15 3
14 2
13 1 PIC 3
KU
16 12 P 55 6
11 Pad
10 9 9 9 Bus
R-2 8 A 4 Bay
±5,000
ZONING sf 550'-8"
Rx
DR
TH IV
RU E 25'-0"
SB
St 0"
26'- 5
th 20
'-6" trash enclosure, typ.
34 0"15
8 8
22 26'- Retention
6'-0
"
0"
Grocer 24 26'-
±96,582 sf 25 0"
36'-
SWC Deer Valley Road and Black Mountain Parkway
0"
Outd
Saleoor 26'- 5
s
" Plaza Area
5'-6 5,445 sf 50'-0"
28 '-0"1
0"
30 26'- 6"23
15'-
300 30 0" R1-6
FOO
T LIN 36'- ZONING
E
Retention Basin '-0" 11
'-0"2
5 13 30 6 Pad
9 " 01" 8 C
Phoenix, Arizona
3'-0 18'-
178 ±4,000
19 sf
25'- 30
SB "
Shops A
±8,900 sf 29 Development Review Set
Bid Set
Black Mountain Parkway
377'-6"
24'- 30'- 70'- Retention City Submittal
0" 0"
Me 0 " 18
d. Rete Construction Set
ntio
55'- n
RO 0"
W 77
Revisions:
0" 9
26'-
30'- 33
Installation 0"
of Median 30
Rete 0" 0 26'-0"
FO
Ownership of Instruments of Service:
Fencing ntio 60'-
n 0"
OT
Ma LIN
yo 65'- E This drawing is not to be used or reproduced without the
30'-0" consent of Suite 6 Architecture + Planning, Inc. The
Shops B designs, images, and concepts on this drawing are the
±20,000 sf
Blvd
25'-
0 0" property of Suite 6 Architecture + Planning, Inc.
SB " 70'-
Proposed Rezoning Case: Z-135-06-2
HAWK
Location 25'-0"
Rete SB
ntio
n
277'-10"
Seal
Date: September 20, 2023
Site Project Number: 711
Pinnacle High School Drawn by: dm/rdb
S-1 ZONING
Sheet Number
signal
Master Site Plan
0' 30' 60' 120' 240'
north
PA.1
Vicinity Map n.t.s. Approvals Block Master Site Plan A
From: Scott Clark
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Case GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/DSTV-3-23-2, Z-39-23
Date: Saturday, July 29, 2023 11:20:21 AM
Dear Mr Grande,
I am a resident of Aviano neighborhood and live 1 block from Deer Valley Drive and Black
Mountain Blvd. I wanted to send an email that my family is opposed to rezoning the land use
from residential to commercial, GPA-DSTV-2-23-2.
The reason that I am opposed is that the proposed site is next to Pinnacle High School and
during the times of before and after school the area becomes very crowded with families
driving their kids to school, children walking and biking to school.
Having a commercial shopping center next to the school is going to create an unsafe
environment for the children walking and biking to school. There is a significant amount of
vehicle congestion from drop off/pickup that makes that area very congested. Adding a
commercial shopping area will make the area even more congested and unsafe. I have 4
children that may go to Pinnacle High School and think the current zoning as residential is
appropriate for the area next to a high school.
Thanks
Scott Clark
Resident of 3610 E Donald Dr
602-363-7729 (Cell)
From: Nathan Friedland
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Black Mountain Village - Superblock 12
Date: Wednesday, August 2, 2023 10:52:40 AM
Mr. Grande:
I understand that you are the City Planner for the subject rezoning of the land parcel at the
Southwest corner of Deer Valley and Black Mountain Boulevard. As a resident of Sky
Crossing, directly across Deer Valley from this subject parcel, my family and I along with
1220 homeowners will be directly impacted by this proposed development.
I am not naive to believe that this development will be rejected and I appreciate our
community’s need for additional businesses like a grocery store and restaurants.
However, I would like to bring to your attention some concerns that I have and I am sure our
neighbors have relevant to this rezoning.
1. Traffic is already high on these two streets and with the addition of a large shopping center,
the traffic will expand greatly bringing to our community more noise with drivers revving
their engines and peeling out of the new center. This will be especially realized should a gas
station be approved and built. A gas station, if approved on this parcel, must be restricted in
their hours of operation with it being closed over night. In all candidness. a gas station is not
really needed as there are a number of stations near by on Cave Creek and on Tatum - all
within 2 to 3 miles from this area.
2. Light Pollution is another major concern. Nobody wants to see glaring bright lights during
the night time that will disrupt the tranquility of our lives and interrupt our sleep over night.
The developers must be required to adhere to dark sky compliance to limit the amount of blue
light at night.
These two items are my current concerns and I am sure my neighbors will have other issues
such as neighborhood safety and security that they will bring to your office’s attention.
Thank you for your time and attention to this most important matter.
Nathan Friedland
North 34th Way - Sky Crossing
Phoenix, Az 85050
From: Rachel McLean
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Black Mountain Village Project
Date: Wednesday, August 2, 2023 3:18:23 PM
Hello Mr. Grande,
I am writing to you in regards to the Black Mountain Village Project (GPA-DSTV-2-23-2). I understand that you are
the City Planner for this project and would like to share my opinion. I live in the Sky Crossing neighborhood
directly across Deer Valley Rd from the proposed project. While I am in favor of commercial development on this
parcel, I must urge you to only allow for businesses that will not degrade our neighborhood. For example, most
neighbors are opposed to a gas station. This is an unnecessary addition as there are multiple gas stations on both
Tatum and Cave Creek Rd. A gas station would bring unwanted loitering and excessive noise and traffic to this
residential neighborhood.
Another issue I have is with a large grocery store (ie Frys, Albertsons, etc). Again, this being an entirely residential
neighborhood it would detract from our community to have a large grocery store. I do however support a smaller
grocery store with less traffic such as a Sprouts or Trader Joe’s.
Both the grocery store and a gas station would create a large amount of light pollution. I would like to see building
plans that involves less lighting, more landscaping and a more cohesive ambiance with the desert and the natural
surroundings.
This leads me to my last point that our homes in Sky Crossing are typically selling around $1M. To me, this would
indicate a higher scale neighborhood. I would appreciate if the commercial businesses fit in with the demographic of
the area, similar to business parks in Scottsdale. A gas station and large grocery store would be unwelcome and an
eye sore whereas a smaller neighborhood grocery store and smaller, tasteful restaurants and shops would be a
welcome addition.
Please consider these points and I look forward to attending the next meeting to hear the latest development.
Rachel McLean
Sky Crossing Resident
From: Richard Starr
To: Anthony M Grande; PDD Desert View VPC
Subject: planned commercial/retail center at SWC Black Mtn Pkwy & Deer Valley
Date: Wednesday, August 2, 2023 3:50:16 PM
Hello Anthony and Desert View VPC,
I am a nearby resident (Fireside) of this proposed project. My main concern here is Pinnacle
HS parking. The high schoolers often park in the adjacent residential neighborhoods as
Pinnacle's lot are simply not large enough for its growing population. The AZ State Land
Department, Paradise Valley School District and any potential bidder/buyer of this ASLD
property should work together (now) to facilitate the purchase of additional 3-5 acres for
more Pinnacle High School parking north of Mayo Blvd. The school parking could be on west
side of future retail center. Otherwise, students and visitors for sporting events will simply
park in the new commercial center, upsetting retail tenants and customers alike.
Thank you.
Richard "R.T." Starr
(623) 521-5668
rtstarraz@hotmail.com
From: Ronee Korbin Steiner
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Construction possibilities Deer Valley and Black Mountain
Date: Wednesday, August 2, 2023 7:24:45 PM
As Sky Crossing homeowners, we wanted to express our objection to the potential of large commercial development
at this corner. When school is in session the traffic is awful. It’s going to be exceptionally worse if there is a
commercial structure at that corner. Moreover, I have no idea how the owner will police the students parking there.
It’s going to bring more traffic, crime, congestion and so on. This is not the kind of thing we want to see in our area.
It’s very likely to negatively impact home values as well.
Thanks so much for noting our objection.
Tracy and Ronee Steiner
From: Sabrina Sundquist
To: Anthony M Grande
Date: Wednesday, August 2, 2023 11:45:07 AM
Mr. Grande:
I understand that you are the City Planner for the subject rezoning of the land parcel at the
Southwest corner of Deer Valley and Black Mountain Boulevard.
As a resident of Sky Crossing, directly across Deer Valley from this subject parcel, my family and I
along with 1220 homeowners will be directly impacted by this proposed development.
I am not naive to believe that this development will be rejected, and I appreciate our community’s
need for additional businesses like a grocery store and restaurants.
However, I would like to bring to your attention some concerns that I have, and I am sure our
neighbors have relevant to this rezoning.
1. Traffic is already high on these two streets and with the addition of a large shopping
center, the traffic will expand greatly. Please do not allow a gas station on this corner, it is
not a major arterial intersection. There are plenty of gas stations in both directions of this
corner and those are both busier streets and can accommodate the need.
2. Light Pollution is another major concern. Nobody wants to see glaring bright lights
during the nighttime, this will greatly disrupt the tranquility of our lives and interrupt our
sleep over night. The developers must be required to adhere to dark sky compliance to limit
the amount of blue light at night.
These two items are my current concerns, and I am sure my neighbors will have other issues such as
neighborhood safety and security that they will bring to your office’s attention.
Thank you for your time and attention to this most important matter.
Sabrina Sundquist
3506 E. Daley Lane
From: nav bajwa
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: REZONING OF THE LAND AT BLACK MOUNTAIN AND DEER VALLEY
Date: Friday, August 4, 2023 7:38:56 AM
To Mr. Grande,
My name is Nav Bajwa. I am a resident of Aviano. As a concerned citizen, I am writing this
email to urge and appeal that you reconsider keeping the area zoned for residental purposes
only. The infrastructure in that area is not built to handle a shopping complex, with all the
increased traffic from the Pinnacle high school as well.
Thanks,
Nav.
From: Julie Gibson
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Oppose the development Black Man Deer Valley
Date: Friday, August 4, 2023 7:55:25 AM
Hi Anthony,
First I want to thank you for what you do. I worked ever so briefly in planning in Portland,
OR. I know it’s a tough and under appreciated role in development. So I do not like sending an
email with a negative tone, but on this one I must.
Regarding the development at Black Mountain Blvd and Deer Valley I have 2 major concerns:
1. The additional traffic to an already clogged area - especially with high schoolers in the area.
It increases frustration and potential for life treating accidents. (Teen brains in the mornings
aren’t really the the sharpest in the intersection).
2. How can we guarantee that this doesn’t end up a strip mall of vape stores and liquor stores?
Again the last thing that should be placed near a high school. Our kids have so much on their
plate already in terms of the availability of addictive substances. Why make this any harder for
them?
I do hope the City will take in consideration the development’s proximity to a high school and
the challenges it poses with the teens that will no doubt surround the area before and after
school.
I will do my best to be at the next meeting in October.
Warm regards,
Julie
Julie Gibson
julsgc@me.com
480-352-8612
From: Gordon Smith
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Development at the corner of Deer Valley and Black Mountain Blvd
Date: Friday, August 4, 2023 2:17:59 PM
I live close by and strenuously object to developing this land for commercial use. This would
place a commercial lot right in the middle of neighborhoods and a school. I happen to live in
the closest adjoining neighborhood (Fireside - Copper View) and my property values will be
negatively impacted by this decision. My quality of life will be negatively impacted by this
decision.
From a practical perspective, this is a dangerous place to build a development of that nature.
We already suffer from high school kids parking and clogging our streets in the
adjoining neighborhood. At best, this would shift that burden to this new development.
Having entitled parents with their bad parking/waiting habits combined with parking lots full
of high school teens disobeying parking regulations and the increased pedestrian traffic there
is a recipe for disaster. I sure hope they have amazing insurance - they'll need it.
This will create light and noise pollution, add more traffic to an already congested area and
degrade my property values. If anything, this state land should be used for an expansion of the
school itself to allow for more high school parking and activities of the existing population
attending that school.
We have gas stations nearby already. We have grocery stores nearby already. We have fast
food nearby already. We do not need this development.
Sincerely,
Gordon Smith
3608 E Salter Dr
Phoenix AZ 85050
From: Christian Klein
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Case: GPA-DSTV-2-23-2
Date: Friday, August 4, 2023 12:42:04 PM
Dear Anthony Grande,
I am writing today regarding Vestar’s proposals (case numbers) GPA-DSTV-2-23-2, GPA
DSTV-3-23-2, and Z-39-23. As a resident of Desert Ridge, I oppose Vestar’s proposal for
rezoning the Southwest Corner of Black Moutain Boulevard and Deer Valley Drive from
Residential to Commercial/Retail for several reasons.
First, Desert Ridge is a highly desirable planned residential community that continues to
attract buyers willing to pay a premium for a prime location. Adding commercial/retail
mixed-use space in the middle of the community would decrease the desirability of Desert
Ridge and lower the values of residential real estate within the community.
Second, the traffic flow within Desert Ridge is already too great for the limited infrastructure
within the community. Pinnacle Peak High School is located adjacent to the proposed site.
The traffic caused during the morning/afternoon pick up/drop off combined with regular
commuting already creates a safety issue on Black Moutain and Deer Valley with vehicles
backed up in every direction. Adding unnecessary commercial/retail space would only
increase the traffic and lead to safety issues.
Third, there is no need for mixed commercial/retail space in the middle of single-family
homes. The area has more than ample shopping options - Desert Ridge Marketplace, High
Street, and shopping off of Cave Creek Rd and the 101 are all within an extremely close
distance. Finally, creating a commercial/retail space in the middle of a residential area will
bring increased instances of crime which when coupled with declining property values
would limit the marketability of Desert Ridge.
Given the detrimental impacts on our home values, marketability, safety, noise/light
pollution, and increased traffic without adequate infrastructure these proposals should be
denied. Please do not hesitate to reach out if I can provide any additional information.
Regards,
Christian Klein
From: Ronee Korbin Steiner
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Additional information on potential project at Deer Valley and Black Mountain
Date: Friday, August 4, 2023 7:33:48 AM
I urge you or someone from your office to come by between 7 am and 7:30 and see what the traffic is like. It’s
unbearable. I literally have to change my work schedule by leaving either before 7 or after 7:30. Any commercial
addition to that corner is going to make things exponentially worse, create more accidents or worse. Kids are
walking across the street and not at the intersection because there is gridlock and they think that they can just do
that.
The Steiners
From: Layla
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Case#GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/ Desert Ridge Community
Date: Tuesday, August 8, 2023 10:25:52 AM
Mr. Grande,
My husband and I, and our children, have lived in the Desert Ridge Community since 2010.
What attracted us to this area was the quiet, beauty of the desert, and the many, many young
families that live here. Our children attend all the neighborhood schools including Pinnacle
High School.
We feel strongly that changing this residential land site to commercial would be detrimental to
our community. The increased traffic would be catastrophic to the neighborhood
environment. It is already difficult to get my children to school, this would increase
substantially. We have studied the developers plans for this land and we are deeply troubled.
Our neighborhood will be forever changed with drive-thrus and a gas station. Huge semi
trucks will now be delivering gas and food to our quiet community. We cannot allow this to
happen! We do not need another gas station or grocery store here. We can drive less than a
mile to obtain that. Why destroy a neighborhood/community all for money.
We are pleading with you to put a stop to this! If you have any further questions, please let us
know.
Thank you,
Darrin and Layla Saikley
602-329-4432
From: Wendy
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Rezoning for Commercial of Corner Black Mountain & Deer valley
Date: Tuesday, August 8, 2023 10:00:00 AM
Hi Mr. Grande,
This email is too put in our objection for the rezoning to make commercial the corner of Black
Mountain Blvd and Deer Valley.
The traffic in that area is already very busy with the school and subdivisions. As is there is
usually backups. This is a residential neighborhood with lots of families and kids. We do not
need to bring additional traffic or buildings that don't belong in the middle of a residential
area. There is enough stuff very close by. We did not buy in the area to have that type of stuff
right in the middle of our neighborhoods.
I highly object to this and would not approve it!
Thank you,
Wendy
From: Helen"s Cox Email
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Application No. GPA-DSTV-2-23-2
Date: Thursday, August 10, 2023 10:42:07 AM
Hello Mr. Grande,
We are homeowners of (2) homes in Desert Ridge and we STRONGLY OPPOSE the proposed commercial tract
along Black Mountain Blvd and Deer Valley Road next to Pinnacle High School.
Please make a note of our position.
Thank you,
Helana and Timothy Doyle
Sent from my iPhone
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, August 10, 2023 11:20:48 AM
Name
Peter Feldman
peterjfeldman@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Fireside at Desert Ridge
Support Comments
This development is a terrible idea. Traffic in right lane of Deer Valley is already backed up for a half mile
at drop off and pick up at high school. Black Mtn is impassible with the kids crossing the street and cars
parked along the sides of the roads. Some kid is going to get hit by a shopper leaving that center and
everyone associated with the development is getting sued.
This is literally the worst possible use for the property.
From: Sue
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Zone change of the Southwest Corner of Deer Valley Drive and Black Mountain Boulevard
Date: Thursday, August 10, 2023 11:23:32 AM
Dear Mr. Grande,
I am against the zone change from residential to commercial.
There are many, many reasons why I am opposed to this zone change (lights, noise, traffic , etc.).
I live in the Sky Crossing community.
I attended the August 1st meeting, but nothing favorable was convincing.
Sincerely,
Suzanne Corlett Sayegh
21827 North 33rd Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85050
Sent from my iPhone
From: Rusty Ludwig
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Proposed Development on Black Mountain and Deer Valley
Date: Saturday, August 12, 2023 12:30:18 PM
Hi Anthony,
We have lived in Aviano for the past 17 years, when we purchased our home, in the general
plan this was zoned residential. We have no problem driving to the commercial areas already
developed for that type of businesses. From the sounds of the development it’s catered to
capture the local high school, the area is already congested in that area. Please forward this
response to the City Staff responsible for the decision to change the zoning, please leave it
residential.
Thank You,
Rusty Ludwig
--
Rusty Ludwig
RJL Excavating, Inc.
602-920-8003
rjlexc@gmail.com
From: cmotjen
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Deer Valley & Black Mountian
Date: Sunday, August 13, 2023 9:51:17 AM
Hi Anthony,
If possible, I hope you can restructure the thought of making Deer Valley and Black Mountain a commercial
property. Our kids have to walk by this intersection everyday on their way to school. We moved into a
neighborhood to have a neighborhood, not a city.
If commercial is the only option, please look at other corporations. The locations built by Vestar are tacky and
unappealing, sprawling at best. We need something sophisticated and classy. We/You are beyond fortunate Sky
Crossing Elementary, Fireside Elementary and Pinnacle High School are some of the BEST schools in the PV
school district.
Please don’t let us down in making a rash decision,
Christina Otjen
Sent from my iPhone
From: Helen’s Cox
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Application # GPA-DSTV-2-23-2
Date: Monday, August 14, 2023 11:05:23 AM
Hello Anthony,
I understand that the city would like a more detailed explanation as to why we are strongly against rezoning this
tract for commercial building.
My husband and I have lived in Desert Ridge since 2004. Phoenix does not have many areas where the beauty and
quiet of the desert is so prominent. However, the Desert Ridge community is one of the beautiful, quiet and family
friendly neighborhoods in Phoenix. In fact when we outgrew our home and decided to buy another one we chose to
remain in Phoenix in the Desert Ridge area because we love it so much.
All of our children have and do attend the neighborhood schools. The Desert Ridge area has always been a safe and
quiet neighborhood. Building a commercial plot right next to Pinnacle High School would be outrageous. It would
cause a dangerous amount of traffic, crime and be very disturbing to the school and surrounding neighborhoods.
Desert Ridge Marketplace is less than 1 mile away.
We understand there is a proposed gas station in the plans. This is extremely short sighted. There is a gas station
less than a mile away. The future is electric. In the next few years gas cars will become obsolete. Gas stations are
so toxic, it is incredibly hard to convert the land when it will no longer be needed. This begs the question, is the
development being funded by a gas company?
It appears that the city is being motivated by money and not seeing how this will impact a beautiful neighborhood.
Currently, the neighborhoods in Desert Ridge are very much like you’d see in the city of Scottsdale. The Desert
Ridge area is highly sought after in the City of Phoenix and gives the City of Scottsdale a “run for its money”. This
proposed tract is obviously money motivated with no regards as to the impact it will have on Pinnacle High School
and the surrounding neighborhoods and ultimately the City of Phoenix.
The City of Phoenix is already filled with unsightly commercial plots next to neighborhoods and schools which
downgrades those areas immensely.
Keep the Desert Ridge neighborhood as one of the few in the City of Phoenix that is peaceful, beautiful and safe.
Be the future and preserve this neighborhood for generations to come. Please Do Not build commercial on this
land. Be better and do what’s right for the city.
Thank you,
Timothy and Helana Doyle
602-432-9504
From: Ginger Kurtz
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: new development in desert ridge phx az
Date: Wednesday, August 16, 2023 12:09:48 PM
I am a resident of Desert Ridge. We have been in Desert Ridge since the beginning March
1995. We have seen the growth . We feel blessed everything is within walking or a short
drive . We have gas stations, grocery storel and plenty of restaurants and some fast food. If
you dont like Desert Ridge for shopping you have a short drive to Bell Road off Tatum for
morel choices or go to cave creek off of Deer Valley. We dont need to bring more traffic and
more traffic and chaos to this neighborhood. We oppose the new development off Deer Valley
BLack mountain.
Thank you Ginger Kurtz, Kristina Koontz
From: VH
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Parcel at Black Mtn and Deer Valley
Date: Thursday, August 17, 2023 2:47:26 PM
Hi Mr. Grande,
I want to express my opposition to the proposed rezoning of the parcel on the Southwest
corner of Black Mountain and Deer Valley. It is being proposed that the land be rezoned from
residential to commercial. This is a terrible idea for many reasons. I am a full time resident in
Sky Crossing and below are just a few potential issues that will be created by
commercial zoning.
Violence, as experienced at Desert Ridge shopping area
Increased noise
Predators/sex trafficking
Light pollution
Increased burnouts - burnouts are currently in every intersection in the area
Increased traffic in an already crowded area
Safety - speeding is rampant in the area and there was a death on Deer Valley last year
High school pedestrian safety
High school drop off and pick up is already severely congested
Increased wear and tear on roads from commercial vehicles
Increased commercial vehicles - brakes, horns, noise
There is zero need for a gas station, grocery store, or any other commercial property on this
land. Those services are already conveniently located 2-3 miles in either direction.
Please don't make a decision to rezone the parcel. The future cannot be undone when issues
arise. It's not always about money. Sometimes - in this case for instance - it's about keeping a
neighborhood a neighborhood with residential properties as initially zoned. Home owners in
Sky Crossing were sold on the idea of residential and not commercial across the street. No
commercial zoning nearby was a huge selling point for property owners. Don't go back on this
commitment.
Please don't rezone the parcel at Black Mountain and Deer Valley north of Pinnacle High
School. Be proactive and put residents first.
Thank you for your time.
Vicki
From: Wendy Piermarini
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Do Not Change Residential Lot into Commercial
Date: Friday, August 18, 2023 9:05:36 AM
Anthony,
We built in Desert Ridge back in 1997 and studied the Master Plan. It DID NOT include
commercial inside the Desert Ridge Community. It is the worst idea to change the
residential property into commercial. It will only bring crime, homelessness and more
congestion to an already very congested area. Trying to navigate around Pinnacle High School
is already ridiculous and any changes to the navigating that problem has not helped. . This was
never the plan and it should not be a new plan in order to profit a few. Keep our area
beautiful!!!!
From: wroodenburg@cox.net
To: Anthony M Grande; David Urbinato
Cc: Laura Farrell; Council District 2 PCC; Sarah Stockham; bgeorge@pvschools.net; nwilcox@pvschools.net; PDD Desert View VPC
Subject: RE: Pinnacle High School - Traffic flow / Vision Zero
Date: Friday, August 18, 2023 4:00:29 PM
Attachments: image003.png
image005.png
image006.png
Thanks everyone for your input.
What strikes me in general is that it seems a very reactive process to “wait and see” who comes up with a plan for the vacant land.
There is :
1. already a master plan for Desert Ridge,
2. the land is owned by the Arizona State Land Department, beneficiaries include the k-12 schools,
3. there is a Vision Zero plan and budget to reduce casualties,
4. there is a federal program regarding infrastructure.
On top of that,
1. the school was build in 2000 during a time when Fireside/Aviano/SkyCrossing/DesertRidge marketplace were not even there yet.
2. The school was build in 2000 whilst the freeways like 101 were not build yet, etc, etc
3. During curriculum night at the Pinnacle High School, this topic was brought up and the principal re-iterated that he was 100% against the commercial proposal – this is
not what came across in the meeting and I would love to see the exact wording used that night.
4. Pinnacle High school is further expanding the number of students every year and it should be able to get the infrastructure and parking capabilities for students to get
to school safely.
5. Student Drivers are mixed with in with people that need to get to work in time and this creates a recipe for disaster for these drivers and the students crossing the
intersection.
Adding up all these before mentioned items and elements of existing/approved budgets, would we (as a community) be wrong to assume that there is somebody at City or
State level working with the school district to alleviate the pressures that now exist in this neighborhood, proactively.
We have escalated the issue, discussions and actions have taken place between the school and the city, but this year the dropoff and pickup is in exactly the same state of
chaos around the school and we’re all just waiting for 1 child to get run over.
This doesn’t seem in line with the Vision Zero.
My main question is this;
Does the city planner and the village planning committee have the ability to – themselves - create a proposal for this vacant land, recognizing that the area has grown
tremendously over the last decade and that improvements to the infrastructure, traffic patterns, school safety, etc are now needed.
Here are the benefits:
1. The biggest benefit is the fact that Pinnacle Highschool is one of the few lucky schools that has vacant land around it to still expand and address the issues.
2. Both committees are experts in State and City guidelines and laws
3. Both committees can invite other necessary parties to the table that they know are required to make a good plan and include people from the school districts and the
department of education.
4. You have inside knowledge of budget and grant opportunities at State and Federal level to plan for funding
5. Vision Zero survey results are available in more detail then what the public gets to see and it should have been highlighted by the participation of the community in
Aviano and Fireside.
6. State Land should benefit the school – so why not expand the footprint for this high school directly (and not selling the land for proceeds)
I’m no expert in what it is people on this email can do or not – but I would strongly urge all of you to take my points into consideration and NOT approve the vestar proposal
in any shape or form, because it is NOT what the area needs and it is NOT in the best interest of student safety.
We can only decide ONCE what will happen to this piece of land and it was already decided to NOT be commercial.
We have a great community, they have engaged with surveys and shown up at meetings. We love where we live and it’s mainly because of the master plan that is already in
place.
If you require further input and or participation of our community and/or have any suggestions to have this proposal stopped, please let us know.
Much appreciated if this can be added to the proposal as feedback.
Kind regards,
Wouter Roodenburg
From: Anthony M Grande
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2023 4:00 PM
To: David Urbinato
Cc: Laura Farrell
Subject: RE: Pinnacle High School - Traffic flow / Vision Zero
Hi all,
I want to add some information here. Vestar has filed an application to rezone the property for commercial use. The Desert View VPC heard an informational presentation on
August 1 and took public comments. I know Mr. Roodenburg, you were there and provided input on the rezoning proposal. As was discussed at the meeting, the case is still
under review and won’t have a formal staff recommendation until it returns to the VPC in October for public hearing and recommendation. In the meantime, we are
reviewing all comments received, which will be made part of the case file and included in the staff report for the case.
Please feel free to reach out with any additional questions or comments.
Thanks,
Anthony
Anthony Grande
Planner II – Village Planner
Planning & Development Department
Long Range Planning
Office: 602-256-5648
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
From: David Urbinato
Sent: Friday, August 11, 2023 12:37 PM
To: wroodenburg@cox.net
Cc: Laura Farrell
Subject: FW: Pinnacle High School - Traffic flow / Vision Zero
Mr. Roodenburg, Street Transportation Department staff forwarded your question about development plans for the circled parcel below. This parcel of land is owned by the
Arizona State Land Department. They submitted a request for a pre-application review (PAPP 2206799) of a site plan and potential rezoning that proposed a shopping center
on the property. At this time, the owner has not submitted any additional documents beyond the pre-application stage. Please note that details of proposed plans can change
somewhat as they move past the early pre-application stage.
I have copied the village planner for that area, Anthony Grande, if you have any questions about how the rezoning process would play out from here should the applicant
choose to proceed.
The State Land Department sells parcels based on guidelines in state law. Whether they legally could donate the land to the school district would be a question to address
directly with the Land Department. I’ve included a link to their home page as a place to start. Home | Arizona State Land Department (az.gov) [land.az.gov]
David Urbinato
Economic Development Program Manager
Ombudsman Section
Phone: 602-534-3630
ʇ Planning & Development Department
Ombudsman Section
200 West Washington St., 3rd Floor
Phoenix, AZ 85003
pdd.ombudsman@phoenix.gov
From: wroodenburg@cox.net
Sent: Tuesday, August 1, 2023 1:48 PM
To: Laura Farrell
Cc: Council District 2 PCC
Subject: RE: Pinnacle High School - Traffic flow / Vision Zero
Laura,
Following our previous conversations, it seems that Pinnacle high school and the city have worked together on a better drop off procedure for this year by changing the drop
off route to be going around the school.
There also seem to have been an investment in more signs everywhere and a reduction in speed at Mayo boulevard, but it won’t stop the students being dropped off on the
corner of mayo from where they literally cross this junction in anyway they can (no longer following the crossings). It actually has gotten worse in the last year.
Although these previous mentioned actions are positive signs, they do not seem to address the rootcauses of the traffic issue and doesn’t directly help the safety of the
students, nor provide extra capacity for drop off locations.
Only the land north of the school would be able to provide this with some development.
However, residents have noticed that the city is considering an application for rezoning the land North of the school with commercial intentions. ( Black Mountain Village /
Superblock 12 - Gammage & Burnham | Attorneys at LawGammage & Burnham | Attorneys at Law (gblaw.com) [gblaw.com] ). See Zoning hearings sign attached.
I have copied some board members of the PV school district and hope they are aware of this rezoning application, impacting Pinnacle high school student safety.
After the Fireside residents have tried to communicate our concerns with the safety of this area with the City and our participation in the Road Safety surveys, I find it very
surprising that the City is considering to add yet more traffic to this junction where a lot of high school students are and more new student drivers are going to be this year.
Are you able to share the information you have gathered last year that prompted some of the changes with this Planning commission to take into consideration?
Would you be able to advise us about the options, procedures needed to rezone/donate this exact piece of land to be of future use for Paradise Valley School district and
expansion of the highschool?
Looking forward to further information on this topic.
Kind Regards,
Wouter Roodenburg.
From: Laura Farrell
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2022 11:09 AM
To: Wouter
Cc: Council District 2 PCC
Subject: RE: Pinnacle High School - Traffic flow / Vision Zero
Good morning Wouter,
I apologize for not getting back to you Monday, but I was unexpectedly out. I did leave you a voicemail yesterday afternoon, and I promised to follow up with an
email today.
Staff analyzed the traffic count data and have been monitoring the two traffic signals near Pinnacle High School, especially the one at Black Mountain and Mayo
boulevards, this week as school started. They determined that an adjustment to the signal at Black Mountain and Mayo was needed to allow for more green times
when the signal detects an increase in vehicles. However, while the adjustment has helped some, the amount of traffic present during school pick-up and drop-off
times is still causing congestion, which signal adjustment cannot remediate.
Staff also noticed some issues with the way students/pedestrians are crossing at this intersection. Therefore, staff will contact the school to work with them on
safety education. Staff will also see if they can make some suggestions to the school regarding their pick-up/drop-off plans.
Unfortunately, there is no street engineering solution we can offer to solve this issue. The traffic congestion at Pinnacle High School is not unique; all high schools
in the City have similar congestion issues during the peak morning and afternoon hours, which dissipate once those peak hours are over. We do have a school
safety coordinator who works with schools on their pick-up and drop-off plans to minimize traffic impacts as much as possible, while also educating them on
safety. However, we can only make suggestions as the City does not have the authority to force schools to change their plans. Arizona State Law exempts them
from having to comply with zoning ordinance requirements as other businesses and property owners must do within the City. Schools are governed by the locally
elected school district or the Department of Education at the state level.
I do understand that safety is of utmost concern to you and the other parents as it is for us, too. We will continue to provide as much assistance as we can by
monitoring the signals and communicating with the school. I also urge you to contact the school board or district to solicit their assistance with your concerns.
I also want to thank you for participating in the Road Safety Action Plan Phase I survey. The results are available at phoenix.gov/streets/roadsafety. Another survey
for Phase II is now open through August 31 if you’d like to take that one as well. Please keep checking the website for other community engagement opportunities
and plan updates.
I do hope this information is helpful. Please feel free to call me if you have other questions or concerns.
Thank you,
Laura Farrell
Management Assistant II
200 W. Washington St., 5th Floor
Phoenix, AZ 85003
(602) 495-2047
laura.farrell@phoenix.gov
Follow us on Twitter @StreetsPHX [twitter.com]
From: Wouter
Sent: Monday, August 8, 2022 7:47 AM
To: Laura Farrell
Cc: Council District 2 PCC
Subject: Re: Pinnacle High School - Traffic flow / Vision Zero
Laura,
Hope you also had some time off this summer.
We’re ready to have the kids go back to school and was wondering whether any changes will be made to the traffic light timing of the various lights.
As a community we continue to participate in the questionnaires that came out, etc but hope there is something the city is willing to do now to make the situation safer.
Kind regards
Wouter Roodenburg
480-567-2716
Sent from my iPhone
On May 20, 2022, at 4:00 PM, Laura Farrell
Hi Wouter,
Thank you for your email, and I appreciate the chance to speak with you on the phone today.
Just to reiterate our conversation, we are monitoring the two traffic signals near Pinnacle High School, and we are finalizing traffic counts before
school is out next week. We will analyze the data to see if there are any adjustments we can make. During our monitoring, we did note the school
ingress/egress pattern, so our school safety coordinator is going to review and reach out to the school to see if we can provide some assistance.
I know school is out next week, but we will continue to work with the school and monitor the traffic signals especially when school is back in session in
August. I’ve noted that one of your main concerns is with vehicles getting backed up on Mayo Blvd when turning onto Black Mountain (both turning
left with the arrow going west then southbound onto Black Mountain and turning right when going east then southbound onto Black Mountain from
Mayo) as they wait for students to cross. I have forwarded your concern to the traffic management center, so they can be sure to monitor this
especially. I will let you know if there are any adjustments we can make.
I also let you know that the results of the Road Safety Action Plan (RSAP) public survey should be published on the RSAP website at
phoenix.gov/streets/roadsafety in early to mid-June. I’ll make sure to keep this on my radar to update you once it’s available.
I do appreciate you letting us know of your safety concerns as we are dedicated to working on improving the safety of our roadways as much as
possible.
Please feel free to reach out to me again if you have other concerns. In the meantime, I’ll make sure to provide you with updates as I have them.
Have a wonderful weekend!
Thank you,
Laura Farrell
Management Assistant II
200 W. Washington St., 5th Floor
Phoenix, AZ 85003
(602) 495-2047
laura.farrell@phoenix.gov
Follow us on Twitter @StreetsPHX [twitter.com]
From: Wouter
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2022 7:33 AM
To: Laura Farrell
Cc: Council District 2 PCC
Subject: Re: Pinnacle High School - Traffic flow / Vision Zero
Good morning
I wanted to follow up on the traffic light evaluation. Has it occurred yet?
There really should be some adjustments to make it safer for the kids
Will the results of the questionnaire be published ?
Much appreciate an update
Regards
Wouter
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 17, 2022, at 7:46 AM, Laura Farrell
Good morning Mr. Roodenburg,
Thank you so much for sharing the survey with your neighbors and submitting your feedback.
I have requested the two signals be evaluated, and I’ll follow up once they have been completed. Staff is also evaluating the area for any
pedestrian crossing issues and looking into options.
We do appreciate your willingness to help. We can certainly let you know if there are any opportunities for neighborhood feedback. I’m
copying Tricia Quiroz to be your future contact person. She is my counterpart in our Traffic Services Division, which is the division that
handles traffic signals, pedestrian crossings, and school safety.
One of us will follow up with you with the results of the signal timing evaluations. Let me know if you have any other questions.
Thank you,
Laura Farrell
Management Assistant II
200 W. Washington St., 5th Floor
Phoenix, AZ 85003
(602) 495-2047
laura.farrell@phoenix.gov
Follow us on Twitter @StreetsPHX [twitter.com]
From: wroodenburg@cox.net
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 2:47 PM
To: Laura Farrell
Cc: Council District 2 PCC
Subject: RE: Pinnacle High School - Traffic flow / Vision Zero
Laura,
Thank you for the information. I will take this up with the school district as well.
I did post your survey on our community facebook page and you should see multiple submissions already from me and my neighbors.
I hope that traffic around schools gets prioritized appropriately in your plan.
Please start the process required to get the timing of traffic signals around that intersection reviewed again and adjusted accordingly.
The cross walk lights should be isolated and run separately from the cars to avoid accidents between the kids and cars making last minute turns.
The light from Mayo turning onto black mountain south - should be isolated and run longer to clear up the lines.
Again – there is a large group of parents in Fireside that wish to participate in any effort to make that area safer for our kids and ideally allow them
to walk/bicycle more to school.
Let us know how we can help or who our contact is at the Transportation department.
Regards,
Wouter Roodenburg.
From: Laura Farrell
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 9:02 AM
To: wroodenburg@cox.net
Cc: Council District 2 PCC
Subject: RE: Pinnacle High School - Traffic flow / Vision Zero
Good morning Mr. Roodenburg,
Councilman Waring’s office sent your email to the Street Transportation Department for investigation.
Thank you for contacting the City of Phoenix with your concerns. Unfortunately, the Street Transportation Department has no authority
over your proposals for parking ingress/egress for the school. We also have no jurisdiction over the state land parcel. We suggest taking
your proposal directly to the school district first to see if they can accommodate any of your parking proposals.
What the city can offer at this time is to review the timing of the traffics signals at Black Mountain and Mayo boulevards, and Black
Mountain Boulevard and Deer Valley Road to ensure they are timed appropriately for the traffic volumes.
Regarding Vision Zero, Phoenix City Council did just recently approve adopting Vision Zero with the goal of eliminating all traffic fatalities
on Phoenix roadways. We are also developing a comprehensive Road Safety Action Plan (RSAP) for the city and will be incorporating
Vision Zero goals into the RSAP. We are currently requesting public input to help shape the plan, so I highly encourage you and your
neighbors to visit phoenix.gov/streets/roadsafety for information on the RSAP and to take the survey.
I do hope this information is helpful and thank you again for contacting the City of Phoenix. Please let me know if I can be of any further
assistance.
Thank you,
Laura Farrell
Management Assistant II
200 W. Washington St., 5th Floor
Phoenix, AZ 85003
(602) 495-2047
laura.farrell@phoenix.gov
Follow us on Twitter @StreetsPHX [twitter.com]
From: wroodenburg@cox.net
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2022 4:10 PM
To: Council District 2 PCC
Subject: Pinnacle High School - Traffic flow / Vision Zero
Dear Councilman Waring,
We are living in Fireside Community near Pinnacle High School. Every morning dropping our kids off has turned into a nightmare.
A lot of traffic is building up around this area. Lot of frustrated drivers that I have filmed going through red lights and near collisions, mixed in with
student drivers trying to park their car at the school.
Currently I’m not aware of any fatalities on this highschool junction, but we would hope the city will be pro-active in this case preventing any
accidents before they happen.
Please find below a request to the city with regards to the traffic situation around Pinnacle High School.
Parents are getting very concerned about the safety of our kids.
A lot has changed in this part of phoenix, with big new housing divisions going in and black mountain blvd connecting to the 51 freeway.
The way this new road was build did not consider the kind of traffic that we’re dealing with currently. A bridge to cross Black mountain blvd was
build 500 feet away from the junction which is causing nobody to use it.
Available State land on the corner – highlighted below in picture - is staying vacant and would be the perfect addition to repurpose for the safety of
our kids and increase the parking capacity of the school.
I have seen articles regarding “Vision Zero” and new funding being available to reduce the number of accidents and fatalities in Phoenix and would
very much hope that his will be a timely request to consider by the city council.
We would very much like to understand how we can work with the city to address this dangerous situation.
Much appreciate your feedback on the matter.
Kind regards,
Wouter Roodenburg
480-567-2716
From: wroodenburg@cox.net
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2022 3:42 PM
To: 'patrick.presley@phoenix.gov'
Subject: Pinnacle High School - Traffic flow questions
I’m trying to find out who to speak with regarding the traffic situation at Pinnacle High school.
Most parents in our Fireside community are very concerned about the junction our kids have to cross and cars that are driving through that
intersection.
I’ve got some video’s from just 1 random day and captured a lot of dangerous driving through red lights and almost collisions.
A lot of traffic is going down the same roads trying to reach the school or get onto the 51 freeway causing a massive traffic jam every day.
We would very much like to know if we could work with the City to resolve these situations to increase the safety of our kids.
The plot of state land highlighted in light blue should ideally become part of the highschool to have additional parking for a fast growing highschool.
Closing the entrance from black mountain blvd, forcing students to go via Deer Valley instead.
I’ve included the situation and also some possible solutions to consider.
When the State land becomes part of PV district - Then you could have much needed additional parking and also incorporate a safe drop off and
bridge to have them enter the school.
Traffic will then be diverted away from Mayo Blvd and Black mountain blvd
Much appreciate your feedback.
Kind regards,
Wouter Roodenburg
480-567-2716
*******
Anthony M Grande
From: Chris Hanley
Sent: Saturday, August 19, 2023 4:16 PM
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Black Mountain and Deer Valley Village
Hello Anthony,
My name is Chris Hanley and I live in the Sky Crossing community. I moved into this neighborhood in March 2020 and
am the original owner of my home.
I understand there is a zoning hearing for the parcel of land on Deer Valley, West of Pinnacle High School. I
also understand that a commercial developer wishes to buy the land to develop a shopping center and needs the land
to be rezoned from residential to commercial.
I am opposed to this rezoning.
Sky Crossing is a new neighborhood. Many of us bought here in the last few years with the knowledge of the open land
to our south being other homes, not a grocery store, gas station, and other retail. This isn't an old neighborhood where
things have changed over the decades, we're less than 5 years into this.
As you know, Deer Valley is a 3 lane road in each direction. It is heavily travelled. The high school contributes to the
traffic load at certain times of day. WIth Black Canyon as a feeder onto SR 51, there is high traffic already.
While I understand how that would appeal to a commercial developer, the community is highly concerned about the
added traffic and congestion a shopping center would bring. In addition, the shopping center would add light pollution
and added noise pollution.
As you also know, shopping centers draw in pan handling, the homeless, and additional trash. We don't need that in a
family community, next to a high school and close to Sky Crossing Elementary.
Cave creek road to our West has 2 gas stations on it (north of the 101) and plenty of retail. We have an Albertsons at
Tatum and Deer Valley, with a gas station, and again lots of retail at Desert Ridge. There is also a Safeway and Frys north
of us at Tatum and Cave Creek. We don't need any more grocery stores and there are plenty of gas stations.
Please do not approve the rezoning. Thank you for your consideration on this matter and please reach out if you would
like to discuss.
Chris Hanley
3118 E. Herrera Dr
Phoenix AZ 85050
c3hanley@gmail.com
Anthony M Grande
From: Justin M
Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2023 9:44 AM
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Opposition to Vestar Development Group's Plans for Northwest Corner Deer Valley and
Black Mountain
Dear Anthony Grande,
I hope this messages finds you well. I am writing to express my very strong opposition to the proposed development and
rezoning of the land from residential to commercial at the Northwest Corner of Deer Valley and Black Mountain by
Vestar Development Group. The conversion of this residential area into a commercial zone would have severe
consequences, detrimental implications, and potentially devastating impacts on both the environment and the
community. I implore you to reconsider this decision and prioritize the well-being of the city, its residents, and its
natural surroundings.
The City of Phoenix has outlined a comprehensive sustainability plan for the year 2050, with clear guidelines for
responsible development that considers the efficient usage of resources, including water. One crucial aspect of this plan
is the expansion of parks, preserves, and open spaces, ensuring that all residents are within a five-minute walk of such
spaces, but those spaces must be sustainable or else the whole point of having a commercial center within walking
distance is null. Furthermore, the goal of reducing urban heat-island effects through green infrastructure and increasing
tree and shade canopy coverage is paramount.
However, the proposed development contradicts these essential sustainability goals. Converting the area into a car-
centric commercial zone would undoubtedly lead to increased traffic congestion, resulting in higher CO2 emissions. The
associated light and noise pollution would disrupt the delicate balance of the ecosystem and erode the serene character
of the Sonoran Desert environment, its flora and fauna, and its natural aesthetic.
I urge you to consider the broader impact of this development on the city's future. Will it be in line with the City of
Phoenix's sustainability regulations, ensuring that the structures incorporate features such as vertical gardens and
agricultural areas on their roofs? Will there be proper infrastructure in place, including ample bicycle racks, substantial
green spaces covering over 80% of the area, and designs that prioritize pedestrian and micromobility traffic over internal
combustion engine vehicles? Specifically, bicycle lanes which are physically protected by a barrier to protect cyclists
from traffic?
The City of Phoenix has shown a commitment to reducing air pollution and safeguarding public health through various
programs and initiatives. However, this development project poses a significant threat by potentially increasing the
emission of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs), negatively impacting the environment, ecosystem, and the health of
the community.
The City of Phoenix states, “The City of Phoenix is strongly committed to reducing air pollution and protecting public
health. The city implements a wide range of air quality programs to reduce ozone and particulate pollution (dust and
smoke). Transit, light rail, bikeways, and pedestrian-friendly development reduce vehicle emissions and promote land
use planning and urban designs for a more sustainable environment”. How will this development protect public health
when in fact, it will introduce vulnerabilities witthin the community? It will actively degrade and destroy the health of
the surrounding community and communities.
Equally concerning is the potential destruction of native plants in the area due to this development. The loss of
biodiversity and destruction of the Sonoran Desert's unique ecosystem cannot be taken lightly.
The Environmental Protection Agency asserts that that, “Volatile organic compounds (VOC) means any compound of
carbon, excluding carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic carbides or carbonates, and ammonium
carbonate, which participates in atmospheric photochemical reactions”. These harmful chemicals would be released into
our atmosphere if the proposed development is approved. We must oppose and condemn this egregious use of building
authority with passion for the future of the City of Phoenix, and on a more global scale, the Earth itself.
In light of these concerns, I wholeheartedly disagree and very strongly oppose the Vestar Development Group's plans for
the Northwest Corner of Deer Valley and Black Mountain. I urge you to immediately stop and immediately halt all
current and future development plans and instead prioritize the city's sustainability goals, community well-being, and
the preservation of the natural environment. By doing so, you can help shape a better future for the City of Phoenix and
its residents.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Justin M.
(602)-481-8143
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Tuesday, August 22, 2023 4:30:19 PM
Name
Rebecca Eldridge
rebecca.n.eldridge@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Fireside Desert Ridge
Support Comments
I do NOT support a shopping center at this location. It’s already too congested as it is at that intersection
and south toward the 101. This is not a prime location for something like this right near the high school
and between so many large neighborhoods. Maybe great for the businesses but terrible for neighbors!
The design of our roads and infrastructure in our area was not designed and is not currently conducive
for more high traffic areas. The roads will become a nightmare - even more so (esp in black mountain)
than they are now.
It’s relatively quiet in our area too - aside from the chaos on Tatum in Desert Ridge. Let’s not bring that
chaos west a few blocks!
I will not support a shopping center at this location and aside from those reasons shared above, I have a
list full of others.
If anything, make parking and traffic easier on Pinnacle students and families so they don’t have to block
intersections, slow traffic, or bring their traffic for pick up and drop off into neighborhood streets. If
anything, that high school and its community need support for better access before, during, and after
school.
I guarantee if you put a shopping center in, that parking lot will be filled with student parking M-F. Make
decisions that are to the benefit of the community, not for making money hungry investors richer.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Tuesday, August 22, 2023 3:51:41 PM
Name
Jennifer Francyk
jfrancyk@me.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Fireside
Support Comments
Please do not allow a gas station on that corner. How about a public library? A park? A community
center? Do we really need to put junk food outlets and hang outs so close to the high school? Property
values won’t be the same if this is not done properly. If anything a small grocer like sprouts or Trader
Joe’s might be ok. Prefer it was just housing.
JAMES W. TUFFIN
21214 N. 36th Pl
Phoenix, Arizona 85050
(516) 359-6420
james.tuffin@tuffinlaw.com
(retired attorney not offering services to the public)
August 22, 2023
VIA EMAIL (anthony.grande@phoenix.gov)
Mr. Anthony Grande
Planner II – Village Planner
Planning & Development Department
Re: GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2; Resident Statement in Opposition
Dear Mr. Grande:
I reside in Desert Ridge, and I am opposed to the above listed applications. My home is well west of the
commercial core, overlooking Black Mountain Boulevard and Pinnacle High School (“PHS”), and with a
view of the parcel in question. I have reviewed the application materials posted on the website of
Applicant’s (“Vestar”) counsel, and I attended the informational meeting of the Desert View Village
Planning Committee on August 1, 2023.
The requested change is beyond inequitable, it is unconscionable. It does extreme violence to the terms
of the Desert Ridge Specific Plan (“DRSP”)1 and the reasonable expectations of Desert Ridge
homeowners along Black Mountain Boulevard under the terms of the plan. It does nothing to further the
well-being of nearby residents and poses myriad problems. The arguments offered by Vestar to justify the
change do not pass muster, as will be readily demonstrated below.
THE PROPOSED CHANGE IS AN EXTREME DEPARTURE FROM THE DRSP
DRSP contemplates that “commercial development is restricted to the Village Center . . .” except for
“neighborhood commercial uses located within the residential superblocks”.2 DRSP goes on to explain
the extremely limited size and scope of such commercial uses:
The neighborhood convenience commercial centers are very limited in
size. They are intended to serve only the superblock in which they are
located and not intended to serve a population outside the superblock
boundary. The maximum total acreage for neighborhood retail uses,
including buildings, parking, landscaping, and any other items related to
the existence of the neighborhood retail use, shall be three (3) net acres,
while the minimum acreage will be one (1) net acre. 3
City of Pheonix Planning & Development
August 22, 2023
Page 2
Furthermore, DRSP strictly limits the permitted uses within non-core superblocks, and the list does not
include gas stations or drive-through coffee operations4, both of which were touted by Vestar’s counsel at
the informational meeting. Indeed, DRSP specifically prohibits “Drive-through uses”.5
Under the DRSP, no family purchasing a single-family home in a non-core superblock would reasonably
anticipate having a drive-through Dutch Brothers or Starbucks, or a gas station, across the street from
their home. Vestar now proposes a 20-acre commercial development in Superblock 12. 6 Vestar is
essentially asking the City of Phoenix to throw out DRSP and stab nearby homeowners in the back.
OBVIOUS INTENT TO DRAW ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC FROM SR 51
When Black Mountain Boulevard south of Mayo Boulevard was completed and made the terminal exit of
SR 51, concerns of nearby residents were addressed by placing a traffic circle to slow down traffic and
discourage heavy trucks, and by providing a pedestrian bridge for safe access to PHS.
The proposed change represents a complete reversal of what was until now a concerted effort to keep
Black Mountain Boulevard more quiet and more safe. The placement of the proposed shopping center, at
the first traffic light after the SR 51 terminal exit, is obviously intended to attract vehicles that would
otherwise continue west on SR 101 and exit at Cave Creek Road or further west. It is a repudiation of
DRSP’s promise that homeowners could expect to live in clean, quiet neighborhoods while commercial
activity was limited to the Village Commercial Core.
MAGNET FOR UNSUPERVISED ADOLOSCENTS
Placement of the shopping center within spitting distance of PHS is problematic. This is not meant to
disparage the PHS student body as a whole. Nevertheless, in any group of over 2500 teenagers7, there will
be those whose immaturity or lack of direction makes them prone to get in trouble. While the studious
and industrious will disperse to more wholesome activities, there will undoubtedly be those who choose
to hang out. The shopping center, just across a narrow street from PHS, will obviously become the hang
out venue of choice.
There are numerous reports of problems with unsupervised teenagers in retail environments across the
country8, and unsupervised time leads to drug use and other issues.9 Given the location, these problems
will undoubtedly spill over into the surrounding residential areas, which already experience litter, graffiti,
vandalism and doorbell pranking. Encouraging high concentrations of hundreds of unsupervised teenagers
cannot be a benefit to the teenagers or anyone else. It is best for all concerned if the students disperse
when not involved in supervised activities.
Vestar claims that the presence of the high school makes the parcel unsuitable for development as
currently zoned.10 The opposite is true. DRSP and the existing zoning contemplate Superblock 12 to
contain only the high school and residential use. PHS opened in or about 2000. Nothing has changed
about PHS that would justify depriving nearby homeowners of their reasonable expectations under DRSP.
City of Pheonix Planning & Development
August 22, 2023
Page 3
AIR, NOISE AND LIGHT POLLUTION
DRSP prohibits “Drive-through uses”11 in non-core superblocks for very good reasons. These operations
generate considerable pollution. Not only are PHS and numerous homes nearby, but Fireside Elementary
is not far and generally downwind. Air pollution from idling engines is a serious problem12, and some
communities have gone so far as to try banning drive-through operations entirely13. The air quality in
Phoenix, and Maricopa County generally, is notoriously poor with many “bad air” days. 14 Encouraging
drivers to turn their motors off while waiting will never work when the temperature is over 90 degrees.
DRSP’s approach of limiting these operations to the Village Commercial Core is not arbitrary and should
be maintained.
Although Deer Valley Drive and Black Mountain Boulevard have some traffic at rush hours, things tend
to quiet down in the evening and there is a distinct residential tone to the neighborhood. This holds true
when attendees disburse after PHS Friday night football. The proposed shopping center will keep the
noise up and the lights on much later than nearby residents are used to, greatly diminishing the residential
character of the community.
TRAFFIC CONGESTION
I am aware that other residents have commented on traffic issues. I will not belabor the point here, except
to note that in the chaos that occurs every morning when PHS is in session, I have at times been unable
access westbound Mayo Boulevard from the N. 36th Way gate of my community. Vestar contemplates
cars entering and exiting the shopping center on all four surrounding streets. This would include Mayo
Boulevard directly across from PHS, and will surely exacerbate the existing problems.
VESTAR’S SCHEME IS NOT JUSTIFIED
Vestar’s purported justifications of its scheme do not withstand scrutiny.
There are no traffic or parking impediments to residents obtaining daily needs at the Desert
Ridge Marketplace (“DRM”).
DRM was designed to enable local folks to get to the pharmacy, gas station, grocery store, and various
other businesses without getting involved with traffic headed to the big box stores, apparel outlets or
entertainment district. The local needs providers are located in the northwest corner of the marketplace
and are readily accessed from two curb cuts on Deer Valley Drive just east of Tatum Boulevard. The
apparel and box stores, as well as the entertainment district, are closer to other, much larger, parking lots
which are served by numerous additional entrances to DRM. I have lived in Desert Ridge for over 11
years and have never, even on Black Friday, had a problem finding parking at Albertson’s. To illustrate
this, I recorded a video at Grocery Run Sat 08-19-2023 - YouTube. 15
City of Pheonix Planning & Development
August 22, 2023
Page 4
The proposed center is unlikely to provide alternative groceries.
At the informational meeting, Vestar’s counsel admitted that Vestar is unable to identify any
specific grocer that would occupy the proposed grocery store. Although Vestar says it expects
the grocery store to be smaller than the existing Albertson’s, its counsel conceded that none of
the proposed businesses are sure to occupy the shopping center. Assuming that a grocery store is
established, there is no reason to believe that it will offer merchandise different that that offered
at Albertsons.
Creation of minimum wage retail jobs is not a community priority.
The small number of jobs projected to be “created” on the new shopping center could easily be
placed elsewhere. It should also be noted that substantial construction is taking place at nearby
High Street and City North where much higher density residences, offices, and retail spaces are
being built.
Purported benefits to the community are illusory at best.
Keeping the Current Zoning will have the same effect on dust and storm runoff.
The supposed dust control and storm runoff management benefits are speculative and
unquantified. In 11 years, I have never seen significant flooding along Black Mountain
Boulevard. Residential development at the site would have the same effect.
The “safe alternative” for students is illusory.
Encouraging teenagers to consume junk fast food benefits no one. The so called “safe alternative
. . . before school, after school, and during the lunch hour” actually describes an unsupervised
hangout for hundreds of teenagers with all the attendant problems described above. A
concession by PHS’s principal that the project “would potentially reduce the number of off-
campus trips by car”16 hardly demonstrates a full-throated endorsement of the scheme. Had there
been a firm expression of general support for the project from anyone in authority at PHS or the
school district, Vestar would surely have mentioned it in its explanatory letters.
The residential remnant shows how the change is repugnant to DRSP.
The fact that Vestar wants to gobble up 20 acres of the Superblock while leaving a mere remnant
for residences demonstrates how the proposal is repugnant to both the letter and spirit of DRSP.
City of Pheonix Planning & Development
August 22, 2023
Page 5
The gas station and shopping center have no health benefits and will not be a community social
center.
There is nothing about the proposed project that will foster connection among the citizens. There
are innumerable such shopping centers around Phoenix, and there is nothing unique about this
proposal. There are no outdoor parks, exhibition or performance spaces illustrated on the
Conceptual Site Plan. The purported health benefits are nothing but speculation. It is my
observation after 11 years living here that very few people walk with groceries around Desert
Ridge, regardless of the season. The health hazards of innumerable automobiles spewing particle
pollution on the drive-through lines clearly outweigh these specious claims of health benefits.
The proposed gas station will not provide a net benefit to the community.
A gas station will generate excess light, noise, and fumes on a 24/7 basis. The convenience store
that will inevitably accompany it will only encourage additional teenage loitering.
In my 11 years here, I have only fueled my car once or twice at the Shell station at DRM, even
though it is the most conveniently located, and I am there several times a week while visiting the
grocery store or the pharmacy. The problem is that Shell stations generally charge considerably
more than Circle K, QT or Arco. The issue, if there is one, is the price, not the location.
The proposed gas station is obviously intended to draw traffic from SR 51 as discussed above.
Located as the last gas before the freeway, competitive pricing is doubtful.
The Desert Ridge Community Association (DRCA) has not taken a position on this project.
Although there have been communications between DRCA and Vestar, the board of DRCA has
never resolved to support this project. While I am not privy to communications that may have
taken place between Vestar and DRCA’s officers or board members, the Association has never
formally endorsed the project. A copy of an email from DRCA confirming this is attached as
Exhibit A.
THE PROPOSED CHANGE IS AN UNCONSCIONABLE STAB IN THE BACK
Zoning determinations must be “… equitable, in terms of consistency with established
regulations and procedures, respect for the rights of property owners, and the consideration of the
interests of the citizens of the City.”17
DRSP provides for a mix of densities and uses, from mixed commercial and multi dwelling to
condominiums, to rental apartments to single family homes. Purchasers of single-family homes
were encouraged by a central feature of the plan: all significant commercial activity is placed in
the Village Commercial Core. Retail conveniences in the non-core residential superblocks are
limited to a list of specified uses, limited to three acres, and drive-through operations are
expressly prohibited. Thus, purchasers of single-family homes could look forward to living in
City of Pheonix Planning & Development
August 22, 2023
Page 6
clean, quiet residential neighborhoods. Vestar now proposes to simply rip up that plan and asks
the City to stab nearby homeowners in the back.
Rejecting this proposal is not unfair to any Desert Ridge Residents who may endorse, in the
abstract, a gas station or additional retail operations. There was nothing about DRSP that gave
them any reasonable expectation that these things would be built on Black Mountain Boulevard,
and they were content to buy their homes under that plan. Vestar’s plan to ruin the lives of
residents along Black Mountain Boulevard is grossly unfair; indeed, it is unconscionable and
must be rejected.
Respectfully submitted,
James W. Tuffin
Copies to:
Mr. Terrence Smith (terrance.smith@fsresidential.com
DRCA Board of Directors (desertridge.az@fsresidential.com)
Steven W. Anderson, Esq. (Sanderson@gblaw.com)
Hon. Jim Waring (council.district.2@phoenix.gov)
Hon. Kate Gallego (mayor.gallego@phoenix.gov)
Mr. Eric Molenaar (EMolenaar@AssociatedAsset.com)
Ms. Corina Vanek (cvanek@arizonarepublic.com)
Mr. Wouter Roodenburg (wroodenburg@cox.net)
All references to “DRSP” are to the Specific Plan as revised through November 2, 2022 (accessed on 8/19/23 at
https://www.phoenix.gov/pddsite/Documents/PZ/pdd_pz_pdf_00086.pdf)
DRSP at 5-3. (5.C.1)
DRSP at 6-6 (6.C.3.A.)
DRSP at 6-7 (6.C.3.B.2.c)
DRSP at 6-8 (6.C.3.B.2.d)
SPA-B2-Application, (accessed on 8/19/23 at http://www.gblaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/SPA-B2-
Application-Form.pdf)
PHS reported enrollment of 2556 for 2021-2022 school year (PHS AZ School Report Card, accessed 8/20/23, at
https://azreportcards.azed.gov/schools/detail/79268 .
See, e.g., Bartlesville mall bans unsupervised teenagers due to crime increase
(https://www.koco.com/article/oklahoma-bartlesville-mall-bans-unsupervised-teenagers/43385307); Teen bans on
the rise (https://www.koco.com/article/oklahoma-bartlesville-mall-bans-unsupervised-teenagers/43385307).
See, e.g., Teen Drug Use: Does a Lack of Supervision mean More Drugs?
(https://cascadeheightsrecovery.com/unsupervised-teens/ ); After School: The Prime Time for Juvenile Crime
(https://www.policechiefmagazine.org/after-school-the-prime-time-for-juvenile-crime/ ); Unsupervised teens more
likely to use tobacco, pot and alcohol (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-adolescents-unstructured-time-
idUSKCN0RI1LL20150918 )
City of Pheonix Planning & Development
August 22, 2023
Page 7
RZ-C5-Letter of Explanation, at p. 7 (accessed 8/21/2023 at http://www.gblaw.com/wp-
content/uploads/2023/07/RZ-C5-Letter-of-Explanation.pdf)
N.5, supra.
See, e.g., Mendoza, et al, Pollution hot spots and the impact of drive-through Covid 19 testing sites on urban air
quality, Environ. Res. : Health (https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2752-5309/ace5cb/pdf )); Idling
Reduction for Personal Vehicles (https://afdc.energy.gov/files/u/publication/idling_personal_vehicles.pdf ))
See, e.g., Cities ban new drive-throughs to fight climate change (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cities-put-
brakes-on-drive-thrus-to-curb-carbon-emissions/).
See, e.g., American Lung Association, State of the Aire Arizona: Maricopa
(https://www.lung.org/research/sota/city-rankings/states/arizona/maricopa) ; State of the Air report ranks Phoenix
among worst 25 cities for pollution, (https://cronkitenews.azpbs.org/2022/04/21/air-pollution-phoenix-among-25-
worst-cities-us/ ) ;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2X_OOB2qew
SPA-B5-Letter of Explanation (accessed 08/20/2023 at (http://www.gblaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/SPA-
B5-Letter-of-Explanation.pdf).
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance § 102.
EXHIBIT A
James Tuffin
From: Terrance Smith
Sent: Friday, August 4, 2023 4:26 PM
To: James Tuffin; Desert Ridge - az
Cc: Stephen W. Anderson
Subject: RE: TO ALL BOARD MEMBERS AND TERRENCE SMITH Re: Plan and Zoning Change Case Black Mtn
and Deer Valley
Good afternoon Jim,
I hope all is well with you.
On behalf of the DRCA Board Members, please see below the corresponding response to the
questions in your email:
1. No.
2. Yes, the DRCA received emails from Vestar’s attorney to attend the monthly board meeting(s)
to present and provide community updates regarding Vestar’s Parcel 12 application process
and proceedings relative to their conceptual development plans.
Respectfully,
TERRANCE SMITH, CMCA, AMS, LSM, PCAM
Executive Director
Desert Ridge 5415 E. High Street, Suite 133 | Phoenix, AZ 85054
Direct 480.551.4550 | Cell phone 480.254.5948
Property Fax: 480.551.6000
terrance.smith@fsresidential.com
desertridgelifestyles.com
24/7 Customer Care Center: 855.333.5149
Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube
From: James Tuffin
Sent: Friday, August 4, 2023 11:33 AM
To: Desert Ridge - az
Cc: Stephen W. Anderson
Subject: TO ALL BOARD MEMBERS AND TERRENCE SMITH Re: Plan and Zoning Change Case Black Mtn and Deer Valley
Hi Folks,
It was great reconnecƟng with Reggie and Doug at the recent Desert Village Planning CommiƩee meeƟng, and
remembering the fellowship we enjoyed when I served as DRCA treasurer. Having stepped back from community
aīairs, I was taken by surprise by the rezoning noƟce and some of the things I heard at the meeƟng. Now I need to
catch up and I hope you can help me.
At the meeƟng, and in an explanatory leƩer submiƩed to the City, Vestar’s counsel suggested that the DRCA
supports the proposed changes. I respecƞully request answers to the following quesƟons:
1. Did the DRCA ever pass a resoluƟon supporƟng the proposed changes or the project in general? If so, please
provide a copy of the text of the resoluƟon(s) and the agenda(s) and minutes of the meeƟng(s) at which
such resoluƟon(s) was (were) adopted.
2. Is DRCA, its representaƟves or agents, in possession of any wriƟngs, correspondence, emails or texts
showing communicaƟons between or among the DRCA, Vestar, Vestar’s counsel or representaƟves, the City
of Phoenix or the Arizona State Land Department related to the proposed project or the applicaƟons for
plan and zoning changes? If so, how can associaƟon members get access to those materials?
I’m guessing you’ll be seeing a bit more of me in the coming months and as always, whether we agree or
disagree, as friends. As you might imagine, I need a response to each quesƟon as soon as you can do it. Please do not
delay responding to quesƟon 1 if you need more Ɵme to answer quesƟon 2. I should menƟon, although I’m sure you
know it already, that your response may be incorporated into submissions I may make to the City. As a professional
courtesy, I am providing Vestar’s counsel with a copy of this request.
Thank you very much.
Warm regards,
Jim (James W. Tuĸn)
21214 N 36th Pl, Phoenix AZ 85050
516.359.6420
James.tuĸn@tuĸnlaw.com (reƟred aƩorney not oīering services to the general public)
From: Rajesh Gadde
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Fireside resident - regarding black mountain village
Date: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 9:37:38 PM
Hello Anthony,
I am Rajesh Gadde live in fireside at desert ridge, I would like to formally email you my
opposition about building Black mountain village , I think it's going to make our safe
neighborhood area into commercial area thus causing danger to kids , we don't want this at all.
Please help us om this matter.
Thanks
Rajesh
From: Julia Levene
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Desert View, rezoning application
Date: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 4:45:07 PM
HI Anthony:
I attended the recent board meeting regarding case GPA-DSTV-2-23-2 regarding the rezoning of the
20.5 acres located on the corner of Deer Valley and Black Mountain in the Desert Ridge area.
I currently live in the Fireside neighborhood, and was taken back by plans to change this lot from
residential use to commercial use. I would like to see that land developed for residential as it was
originally intended; or given to Pinnacle High School, as they need additional parking for their
students.
In no way would I want a gas station or large grocery store to be located in that area. Not only would
the light pollution from the gas station be bothersome, and the noise from delivery trucks at early
hours, but the added traffic to the area as well! This is already a busy corner!
Please take the residents, the high school students, and the neighborhoods into consideration
before changing this lot from residential to commercial.
Thank you,
Julia
Julia Levene, CMP
CEO
Go West Destinations, Inc.
DBA: APP, Association Planner Partners
3734 E. Ringtail Way
Phoenix, AZ 85050
Phone: 602 320-8323
www.associationplannerpartners.com [associationplannerpartners.com]
From: Andrea Remke
To: Anthony M Grande
Cc: Council District 2 PCC; Eric Molenaar
Subject: Proposed land development at Mayo/black mtn
Date: Sunday, August 27, 2023 9:29:11 AM
Mr Grande, city officials, etc,
Assuming you are the proper representatives to contact regarding this matter, I’d like to please ask you and the city
representatives to consider the opposition many residents here in Fireside Desert Ridge have to the proposed zoning changes
of the property at Black Mountain Blvd and Mayo Blvd /Deer Valley Drive right next to Pinnacle High School.
It’s currently zoned for residential and for the developer to change it to retail shopping opens this area up to increased traffic
congestion and student/resident safety issues here in the area.
I invite any of you to please come observe the traffic at these intersections around the school during the peak times of
dropoff 7:20-7:30 am and at 2:15-2:20 pm pickup when it’s the worst. These intersections are a nightmare then. Droves of
kids are walking to school and crossing/jaywalking across these intersections some are on bikes even—and they are NOT
heeding any kind of traffic signals or signs because they are kids of course. Many cars are racing through yellow lights and
people sitting in intersections at red lights because they tried to fit through. We have seen lots of accidents, a lot of honking
and near misses. My son’s Pinnacle soccer coach was just in an accident this past Friday during pickup when a man in a car
not paying attention to stopped traffic on Mayo slammed into the back of him causing his car to hit the car in front of him,
which was driven by a student. It happens all the time because of the sheer volume of cars and kids and mayhem happening
during these times. It is only a matter of time before a kid is seriously maimed or killed at this intersection/area.
I live across the street in Fireside, a stone’s throw from this land where they are going to build. My son attends the high
school and my twin girls will attend next fall and then my youngest will attend in two years. We are stuck for a long time
with whatever the powers that be decide should go here. I worry about the influx of traffic and congestion, the problems it
brings to us as nearby residents, by way of safety especially—but also being a single mom I bought this home two years ago
for its close proximity to school for my kids to walk to local schools and the safe neighborhood feel. But I’m worried at the
potential drop in property values if they start putting in crappy shops or gas stations or smoke vape shops, causing our nice
residential area to look, smell and sound like a truck stop dump attracting transients and homelessness, no doubt.
I know money will likely win out in the end, and something will be built here. It’s a shame the school district couldn’t have
bought a piece of this property for added parking for the students at school because as it is currently, only seniors can park
in the school lot, which is asinine. The principal at Pinnacle has even told parents last week they have addressed safety and
traffic issues to Vestar but ultimately can’t have a definitive say in this land development.
City officials have a duty to protect the interests of the residents here who live and work and pay taxes.
These developers have the monetary means to at least put an-over-the street walkway /sidewalk bridge from the Mayo/Black
Mtn crosswalk over to the school so our kids aren’t playing Frogger in traffic through red and green lights as they currently
do every single school day. The existing walking bridge that some idiot designed and installed years ago is out of the way
for kids to walk, located south at the 51 interchange, at the dog park entrance, so they would have to walk down there then
back around to go back up to the school—it’s an extra 10-15 min of walking —not a single soul is doing that and that
pedestrian bridge remains not utilized.
My question: Could the city mandate the developer to at least relocate the pedestrian bridge to the problem/ busy
intersection at the school instead of that bridge uselessly sitting down the street out of the way? (I included a pic of
bridge area)
If something is built here eventually, I hope the people in charge will think first of the safety of students and residents over
the quick buck they’ll make in revenue at the site.
Thank you for hearing me,
Andrea Remke,
Phoenix resident of Fireside Desert Ridge
From: TR
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Southwest corner of Deer Valley and Black Mountain
Date: Monday, August 28, 2023 10:28:56 AM
Hello Mr. Grande,
We are Desert Ridge community members. We have lived here for almost 15 years and in that
time, we've seen many changes. Some are good, some not so good.
We are very concerned about the proposal to convert the property from residential to
commercial at the corner of Black Mountain and Deer Valley. That corner is active all day,
especially during school and sports hours. It's grown from 2 lanes into the large vein that cuts
through Desert Ridge connecting Cave Creek to 56th and possibly in the future, Scottsdale
Road. Added traffic and distractions could be disastrous for all drivers on the road. Traffic
will become heavier (shoppers coming and going, drive-through lines, delivery trucks, etc.)
creating an even more congested intersection. We would honestly love to see a traffic survey
done as this is such a busy intersection and we all need to get a full idea of usage and traffic
patterns.
There are 3 schools within walking distance of this area. We are very concerned about
inviting strangers to the heart of our neighborhood for a quick stop. Security and issues at DR
Marketplace have been escalating and we don't feel we need to invite more people into our
neighborhood for some Chick-fil-A or to gas up their vehicles. We don't have the resources to
handle disturbances in DR Marketplace. Why would this be any different?
We also don't believe stores and convenience markets should have the ability to sell alcohol
and tobacco products that close to a high school. It will just bring issues to law enforcement
that is stretched unbearably thin.
Our children are still young, but we've heard there isn't enough parking at the high school so
this will just entice kids to park there and create issues with parents, the high school, and
business owners. We've heard that the developer won't limit the store sizes so parking could be
inadequate for the project which would add an additional level of stress for shoppers and
drivers trying to find parking spots and exit or enter the center.
We feel converting this land will come with a whole host of issues that will outweigh the
benefits to DR citizens. We in no way think the land developers have the community's best
interest in mind. They, as many before them, build and leave. They never give a second
thought to what impact they add to the communities they have worked within. Honestly, with
all the new builds going up in Desert Ridge, we feel we need to proceed slower than we are to
make sure the roads and area can handle all this growth. We have several big projects
currently in different stages (clearing land on Deer Valley for 882 new apartments, a whole
new community going in off 56th and the massive plans for City North) the added fallout
including the number of new community members, additional cars on our already congested
roads without an option for expansion and added pressure on the school district, etc., is yet to
be seen.
Thank you for your time,
Adam and Timari Rusak
From: Jason Tininenko
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: planning committee
Date: Monday, August 28, 2023 7:13:35 PM
We have lived here in Aviano for 7 years. It's a great neighborhood with easy access to
Fireside, Explorer, Wildfire and Pinnacle. If you allow a gas station and other stores to be
built next to Pinnacle - the traffic will increase, the crime will increase, the traffic accidents
will increase and our properties will devalue. Please vote against building in this area. thank
you.
From: Brad Burnes
To: Council District 2 PCC; Anthony M Grande
Subject: Black Mountain marketplace - NO
Date: Tuesday, August 29, 2023 5:03:20 PM
Hello, my name is Brad Burnes, and my family and I moved to 36th St in Fireside a little over 10 years
ago. I can unequivocally say the idea of a shopping center at Deer Valley and Black Mountain is an awful
idea, and only a play for cash.
Have you witnessed the traffic during school dropoff and pickup? It's a disaster. Can you provide details
of home values in other neighborhoods where a shopping center was allowed to be built after a re-
zoning?
We moved to this area because of the vision and community aspect. If the city proceeds with this
development against the majority of Desert Ridge residents, how does that value the voice of the
residents?
There's plenty of land north of Pinnacle Peak. Please use common sense and do not allow this to
happen.
A very concerned voter and resident,
Brad Burnes
From: Micheal Copeland
To: Council District 2 PCC; Anthony M Grande
Subject: Black Mountain Village
Date: Tuesday, August 29, 2023 9:43:47 PM
Hi Anthony,
My name is Micheal Copeland and I’m a resident in Fireside. I would like to express my deep concern and
opposition to the proposed rezoning by Vestar of the parcel located at the SW of Deer Valley and Black Mountain
High.
Potential uses including gas stations and quick service retail with drive would have quite a negative impact on the
neighborhood. It would also increase the risk to high school students next door given the already existing issues with
traffic and parking.
Ultimately - I would argue that whilst it is still State Land, it should benefit the schools per Arizona laws because
Public Education is the main beneficiaries of state land sales. It should not hurt a public school when they sell it.
I’d also point to the City’s “Vision Zero” (zero traffic casualties) plan to highlight my concerns with regards to the
traffic situation and student safety around Pinnacle High School. I have not seen anything from Vestar that would
ameliorate these concerns.
Furthermore, Vestar could easily develop what they want under the existing plan on pre identified commercial
zones. Given the proximity to over 600,000 square feet of retail within a mile, there simply is not a need to add
additional retail on this parcel.
Sincerely,
Micheal Copeland
Sent from my iPhone
Quick reminder to everyone that tonight at 6pm is the Fireside HOA meeting. The attorneys from Vestar will be
doing their presentation and answer any questions you may have.
Goto zoom.com and use meeting ID: 811-9962-3685 and Passcode : 997589
I attended the Desert Ridge Community HOA meeting last week and my conclusion was that nobody in the HOA’s,
nor the Village Planning Committee for our area will stop this proposal.
It will take all surrounding communities to attend all the meetings and at least write their views on the proposal and
submit them to our councilman ([council.district.2@phoenix.gov](mailto:council.district.2@phoenix.gov) ) and the
City Planner ([anthony.grande@phoenix.gov](mailto:anthony.grande@phoenix.gov) ). Reference : GPA-DSTV-2-
23-2
They should know that it needs their attention instead of making a quick buck by selling the land. We need to
separate the school traffic from the work traffic to ease the congestion around that area and we should be adding
safer drop off areas behind the school and away from Blackmountain boulevard and point out that this Highschool
still has vacant land available to address the situation.
Once this is sold and a big box grocery, gas station, big trucks, etc, etc are put their instead, the community will
have to live with the consequences. Everyone should also be concerned about the impact of Grocery/Gas stations on
the students behavior and attendance of classes. Other folks from the community have brought up other concerns as
well.
Ultimately - I would argue that whilst it is still State Land, it should benefit the schools per Arizona laws because
Public Education is the main beneficiaries of state land sales. It should not hurt a public school when they sell it.
The school will be there for a long time – so we should make an effort now to keep Desert Ridge communities
desirable and family friendly.
We should put student safety before anything else whilst we still can.
Please email your views!!
Let us know your thoughts on this at the meeting or on this post.
From: Andy M
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Black mountain village plan - no vote
Date: Tuesday, August 29, 2023 10:50:35 PM
Hi Anthony,
I'm strongly against the Black Mountain Village plan and zoning changes (cases are GPA-
DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2).
It feels like a bait and switch for our community (especially us in the cooper view sub-
community on black mountain and deer valley who would feel this impact the hardest).
There is plenty of land closer to cave creek available and already designated for commercial
purchase.
Thank you,
Andy Mesecher
From: Sara Millett
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Black Mountain Village - Strongly Oppose
Date: Tuesday, August 29, 2023 10:11:20 AM
Mr Grande,
I wanted to express my strong opposition for the commercial development Black
Mountain Village. I am a parent of an 8th grader and a 5th grader in the
community.
We purchased our home in this area for the community feel, residential zoning and
walkability. The traffic near Pinnacle High School is already dangerous and adding a
commercial building would surely lead to additional traffic issues and potential
accidents.
Desert Ridge Marketplace and High Street already offer plenty of shopping and
restaurants and we are have plenty of convenient options being so close to the
freeway.
Please halt plans for the Black Mountain Village shopping center.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sara Millett
3845 E Cat Balue Drive
Phoenix, AZ 85050
From: Marisa OConnor
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Black mountain village - strongly oppose
Date: Tuesday, August 29, 2023 8:59:01 AM
Mr Grande,
I wanted to express my strong opposition for the commercial development Black Mountain Village. I am a parent of
a freshman at the nearby Pinnacle High School and a 5th grader at Fireside Elementary.
We purchased our home in this area for the community feel, residential zoning and walkability. The traffic near
Pinnacle high school is already horrible and adding a commercial building would surely lead to additional traffic
issues and potential accidents.
There is plenty of shopping nearby with Desert Ridge Marketplace and High street.
Please help keep the children of our community safe!
Thank you for your time and consideration!
Marisa O’Connor
3905 E Half Hitch Pl
Phoenix AZ 85050
From: Peter Feldman
To: Council District 2 PCC; Anthony M Grande
Subject: Reference : GPA-DSTV-2-23-2 - Proposed development at deer Valley and Black Mountain
Date: Wednesday, August 30, 2023 10:09:02 AM
I am a resident of Fireside and my children attend the local schools. I am writing to tell you that I am completely
opposed to the rezoning of land for commercial development at the corner or Black Mountain Pkwy and Deer
Valley Rd.
The proposed development will make an already difficult traffic situation dramatically worse. Student safety
crossing Black Mountain is already compromised by the lack of crossing guards and / or police presence. Cars are
parked on Black Mountain and Mayo Blvd at dropoff and pickup times, already blocking normal traffic flow.
Eastbound traffic on Deer Valley already gets backed up for hundreds of yards on school days during pickup and
dropoff times. This new development would make it significantly worse and dangerous for pedestrians.
The property in question was previously earmarked for public space, like a park. Why is that plan being dropped?
There are other plots of land nearby (Cave Creek / Pinnacle Peak) which are already approved for the type of
development being proposed. There should be no changes of the use of the property at Deer Valley and Black Mtn,
until that already approved plots are sold and developed.
-Peter Feldman
From: Alexandra Hyszczak
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Opposition to Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12
Date: Wednesday, August 30, 2023 11:47:11 AM
Dear Anthony,
I am writing in regards to the rezoning of the land parcel at the corner of Deer Valley Rd and
Black Mountain Boulevard (“Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12”). As a resident of Sky
Crossing, across Deer Valley from this parcel, my family and I, along with 1220 homeowners,
will be directly impacted by this proposed development.
I would like to bring to your attention some concerns that I have relevant to this rezoning.
Traffic is already high on these two streets – at morning drop-off, cars line up from the school
around the corner onto Deer Valley all the way to 32nd St. The addition of a large shopping
center will greatly increase this traffic, bringing more inconvenience, noise and pollution,
especially so if a gas station is built. A gas station is not something we need in this location, as
there are a number of gas stations nearby on Cave Creek and on Tatum, all within 2 to 3 miles
from this area.
Additionally, the proposal contains multiple access/egress points with no provision for safe
crossing or pedestrian/bike safety. A proposal that has the potential to create roughly double
the traffic should be required to address these impacts, especially when located across from
residential areas and next to a school.
The explanation letter for the project describes that for community benefit, the project has the
potential to “increase health” and “reduce transportation burdens” of area residents by creating
a walkable/bikeable retail/grocery destination and “may reduce emissions from residents
driving to Desert Ridge Marketplace.” These statements are, frankly, unproven and
unsupported by the conceptual design, given the proposed rezoning contains no description of
how the commercial center will cater to walking and biking.
Light Pollution is another major concern. Nobody wants to see bright lights on all night that
will disrupt the tranquility of our lives and interrupt our sleep.
We chose to build our home in Sky Crossing due to its location, being between two retail areas
(Desert Ridge and Cave Creek Rd) and not directly adjacent to those busy areas. Creating a
commercial zone in this community greatly reduces the value of this location.
Thank you for your time and attention to this important matter.
Alexandra Hyszczak
3144 E Tina Dr
Phoenix 85050
From: Kelly Davis
To: Anthony M Grande
Cc: msantoro@gblaw.com
Subject: Black Mountain Village Development GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2
Date: Thursday, August 31, 2023 1:43:39 PM
To whom it may concern,
I appreciate the opportunity to have my voice heard. I am a homeowner in Fireside and I absolutely love our
neighborhood. I love it how it is. I am extremely concerned for the future of our neighborhood and the other
surrounding areas if this project is allowed to commence.
I absolutely do not support this development. Desert Ridge Marketplace is bad enough with all the fights, theft, and
sketchy people that it draws to the area! I refuse to allow my kids to go to Desert Ridge without an adult present, and
my oldest is 16! There are too many homeless panhandlers, and unsavory people that are drawn to shopping
centers. To have a development right next to the high school and elementary school than my kids attend is not what
we were promised when we bought our home. My kids walk to school, that’s a primary reason for buying our
house. I would not feel comfortable with my kids walking to/from school if it was right next to a shopping center
like Desert Ridge Marketplace, I see the type of people that shopping centers draw in. Even this one, being a more
high end area brings in distasteful people.
This area is residential, and it needs to stay that way. The increased traffic alone, is a huge concern. Have you ever
tried to come through the area in the morning or afternoon when kids are arriving or leaving school? I pray the day
NEVER comes that an impatient or inexperienced driver strikes and kills a student, but this area is like a ticking
time bomb. Too many cars on too few streets. The area cannot support more traffic. Does the bottom line only
come down to money? What about our kids and their safety? We bought our home here to have a safe place for our
kids to grow up…this was NOT a part of the plan for this community. The safety issue comes down to more than
just cars. Do you realize how easy it is for a kid to be abducted in/around a shopping center or for kids to be lured
into trying drugs or alcohol as they pass by on their way home? I am not in support of this development and I truly
hope that this will not just be pushed through without the consent of the taxpayers living in the surrounding
neighborhoods.
Kelly Davis
Fireside Homeowner
From: Zak House
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Black Mountain Village
Date: Thursday, August 31, 2023 11:57:07 AM
Hello Anthony,
I am reaching out to voice my displeasure and to ask for your support with ensuring that
Vestar/other corporations are blocked from rezoning from “residential” to “commercial” for
the proposed Black Mountain Village in Desert Ridge. The residential zoning was absolutely
a key factor when we purchased our home and would be devastating to our community if
rezoning is allowed. There seems to be plenty of commercial zoning between High Street,
Tatum and Cave Creek Roads.
Regards,
Zak House
From: Sam
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Black Mountain Village/Superblock 12
Date: Thursday, August 31, 2023 5:06:20 AM
Sam Zytcer and Marlene Zytcer are totally against this commercial development project monstrosity.
It will bring excess traffic and crime to an already over crowded area. My neighbors are also in
concurrence with me.
There will be major resistance from your constituents to this commercial project as proposed.
Remember, we vote.
Sincerely,
Sam Zytcer
Sent from Mail [go.microsoft.com] for Windows
From: Matthew D. Chitwood
To: Anthony M Grande
Cc: Council District 2 PCC; Anne Chitwood
Subject: land at Black Mountain and Deer Valley Road - rezone consideration
Date: Friday, September 1, 2023 12:51:36 PM
re: Black Mountain Village plan and zoning changes cases GPA-DSTV-2-23-2 and GPA-
DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2
Mr Grande -
Writing as a concerned resident of Desert Ridge in the Fireside neighborhood. I moved here
in 2007 and have watched this neighborhood grow. Love it. Raised 3 children here, two of
which are at Pinnacle High School and another starting next year.
My wife and I are quite concerned with the proposed re-zoning of the property north of
Pinnacle High School at the corner of Black Mountain Blvd and Deer Valley Road. This
property is smack dab in the middle of other residentially zoned homes, Thousands. There are
sufficient commercially zoned properties in the Desert View Village to support future resident
growth of this beautiful area... not to mention a wonderful village core in and around Desert
Ridge Marketplace.
There is the issue of commercial traffic conflicting with the Pinnacle traffic which is already a
safety issue. I am aware of the fact that Pinnacle High School leadership is NOT supportive of
this re-zoning even though that was misrepresented by the developer at the 8/1/23 village
meeting. Adding commercial traffic to this area that is not familiar with the daily high school
traffic patterns (as residential traffic would be) is IRRESPONSIBLE. This issue in and of
itself should be enough for the Committee to reject this re-zoning request.
On top of this are the hundreds of neighbors of mine who invested in property thinking this
land would be used for future residential use.
I don't intend to hop on the NIMBY train; I just don't think this request of Vestar is in
alignment with what the General Plan originally intended this land be used for and I
specifically request the Committee REJECT the developer's case.
Thanks for listening -
Matt Chitwood
21625 N 39th Place Phoenix 85050
From: Steven Deacon
To: Anthony M Grande; msantoro@gblaw.com
Cc: Metty, Cody; emolenaar@associatedasset.com; Steven Deacon
Subject: Black Mountain Village plan and zoning changes GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2 - Opposed
Date: Friday, September 1, 2023 10:58:13 AM
Attachments: image004.png
image005.png
image006.png
image007.png
image008.png
image009.png
Anthony,
I also live adjacent to the project at Black Mountain Village proposal. From an outsider’s opinion, I
can see why the idea of more commercial real estate would monetarily benefit the city of Phoenix,
Vestar and their attorneys Gammage & Burnham. However, what is heavily being overlooked is the
safety of our community and our children with the rezoning from residential to commercial.
Safety of our children:
Our section in the Fireside community called Copper View sits adjacent to the proposed land at the
southeast corner of Black Mountain and Deer Valley. Since 2012 our section has been a cut through
for the aggressive drivers both parents and children of Pinnacle High School. On my street alone (Cat
Balue Dr.) there are 27 children under the age of 10 years old that walk to the elementary school
and play in our neighborhood. This doesn’t include the other 4 streets with 50 additional homes to
consider. We have seen too many close calls where our children were almost hit by these aggressive
drivers! Imagine living in a community where you do not feel safe letting your kids play out front.
Additionally, Stephen, the attorney for Gammage & Burnham, said on our Fireside community call
this Tuesday that the new traffic would be “counter cyclical patterns” around school hours during
the week and weekend. This means to me that not only do we have to deal with aggressive drivers
from Pinnacle High School, but now we must deal with aggressive drivers all day and on the
weekends! We cannot live in a community where our children are at a greater risk of being hit by a
car while walking to school or playing in their neighborhood.
Secondly, I am concerned that a commercial zone would bring a bus stop right at the corner of
Copper View (Black Mountain & Deer Valley). There are numerous amounts of homeless people that
sleep on the bus stops at Tatum & Deer Valley. I see them at all hours of the day starting at 5am
when I go to Mountainside Fitness and in the evening. We do not want to attract nor give reason for
more homeless to encroach our family neighborhoods with a commercial zone. This is not only a
safety concern for our families but will also impact our property values. PLEASE keep our
neighborhoods (Fireside, Aviano, Sky Crossing) a family suburb of Phoenix. I am asking as a
concerned parent of 3 little kids that you help us protect our children and the safety of our
community by putting a stop to this project.
I appreciate your time and commitment to keeping Desert Ridge a GREAT, family friendly community
in Phoenix.
Steve Deacon & Family
3625 E Cat Balue Dr.
Phoenix, AZ 85050
3654 E Cat Balue Dr.
Phoenix, AZ 85050
Best,
Steve Deacon, CFP®, CIMA®, Private Wealth Advisor
CA Insurance License #0H03830
Five Point Wealth Advisors
8925 E Pima Center Pkwy, Suite 135
Scottsdale, AZ 85258
Phone: 480-948-2416
FAX: 480-291-8643
www.fivepointwealth.com [fivepointwealth.com]
[fivepointwealth.com]
[forbes.com]
[forbes.com]
2023 Forbes Best In State Wealth Advisors, created by SHOOK Research. Presented in April 2023
based on data gathered from June 2021 to June 2022. 22,243 were considered, 7,321 advisors were
recognized. Advisors pay a fee to hold out marketing materials. Not indicative of advisor’s future
performance. Your experience may vary. Click here [forbes.com] for more award information.
2022 Forbes Top Next-Gen Wealth Advisors Best in State, created by SHOOK Research. Presented
in Aug 2022 based on data gathered from March 2021 to March 2022. 3513 Advisors were
considered, 1000 Advisors were recognized. Advisors pay a fee to hold out marketing materials. Not
indicative of advisor’s future performance. Your experience may vary. Click here [forbes.com] for
more award information.
*Securities and advisory services offered through Commonwealth Financial Network®, member
FINRA/SIPC, a Registered Investment Adviser. Fixed insurance products and services are separate from
and not offered through Commonwealth Financial Network.
From: Metty, Cody
Sent: Friday, September 1, 2023 8:40 AM
To: anthony.grande@phoenix.gov
Cc: Steven Deacon
Subject: RE: Black Mountain Village- Please NO commercial development
Forgot to include this: Black Mountain Village plan and zoning changes GPA-DSTV-2-23-
2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2
Anthony, I live adjacent to the project at Black Mountain Village proposal. We do not want to
have beer, liquor and cigarette sales next to our neighborhood or Pinnacle High School. Nor
do we want drive through restaurants and gas stations that are open 24/7. This will bring
about crowds of people at all hours that we current have the benefit of avoiding as it stays
closer to Tatum or Cave Creek roads. I feel that this completely changes the residential feel of
our area in Desert Ridge and feel like this is a money grab right in our neighborhoods of
Fireside, Aviano and Sky Crossing.
When we built our homes this was never a consideration and do not want this project
proceeding. Please help us put a stop to this project in any way we can. If anything this area
should be used as an overflow for the high school or some type of traffic mitigation for Black
Mountain. We already see the overflow from the high school traffic in our direct part of the
neighborhood and do not want this to increase where our kids walk to and from school every
day, to their elementary school. We have 40+ children that walk every single school day and
any increased traffic will up the risk of someone getting hurt through reckless driving, with
people trying to avoid the traffic on Black Mountain.
Please help us and hear what we’re asking before this goes forward. There are much better
uses of that land and once it’s commercial, all bets are off.
Cody Metty and family
3646 E Cat Balue Dr.
Phoenix, AZ 85050
Cody Metty
Triple Crown Banker
Rocket Mortgage
T (480) 346-0885
C (248) 404-7854
F (877) 380-8287
NMLS# 26912
From: Metty, Cody
To: Anthony M Grande
Cc: sdeacon@fivepointwealth.com
Subject: RE: Black Mountain Village- Please NO commercial development
Date: Friday, September 1, 2023 8:40:01 AM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
Forgot to include this: Black Mountain Village plan and zoning changes GPA-DSTV-2-23-
2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2
Anthony, I live adjacent to the project at Black Mountain Village proposal. We do not want to
have beer, liquor and cigarette sales next to our neighborhood or Pinnacle High School. Nor
do we want drive through restaurants and gas stations that are open 24/7. This will bring
about crowds of people at all hours that we current have the benefit of avoiding as it stays
closer to Tatum or Cave Creek roads. I feel that this completely changes the residential feel of
our area in Desert Ridge and feel like this is a money grab right in our neighborhoods of
Fireside, Aviano and Sky Crossing.
When we built our homes this was never a consideration and do not want this project
proceeding. Please help us put a stop to this project in any way we can. If anything this area
should be used as an overflow for the high school or some type of traffic mitigation for Black
Mountain. We already see the overflow from the high school traffic in our direct part of the
neighborhood and do not want this to increase where our kids walk to and from school every
day, to their elementary school. We have 40+ children that walk every single school day and
any increased traffic will up the risk of someone getting hurt through reckless driving, with
people trying to avoid the traffic on Black Mountain.
Please help us and hear what we’re asking before this goes forward. There are much better
uses of that land and once it’s commercial, all bets are off.
Cody Metty and family
3646 E Cat Balue Dr.
Phoenix, AZ 85050
Cody Metty
Triple Crown Banker
Rocket Mortgage
T (480) 346-0885
C (248) 404-7854
F (877) 380-8287
NMLS# 26912
[rocketmortgage.com]
[social.pr]
From: Neeraj Chandak
To: Council District 2 PCC; Anthony M Grande
Cc: Neeraj Chandak; Emolenaar@AssociatedAsset.com
Subject: Desert Ridge Superblock 12 rezoning
Date: Sunday, September 3, 2023 9:57:47 AM
Importance: High
Hi,
I am a long-time resident of Fireside at Desert Ridge and am very concerned with the proposed
changes to the land parcel between Pinnacle High school and Deer Valley Rd (Case No. SPA-DS1 V-2-
23-2), (Case No. CPA-DSTV-3-23-2) and (Case No. Z-39-23).
We moved here 10+ years back with an explicit understanding that this was a residential area, with
high quality living and low crime rates. Over the years, several things have happened that are
cumulatively of an increasing level of concern :
Connection to Hwy 51 has significantly increased vehicular traffic and noise levels at all times for
the neighborhood
It is a nightmare getting out near Pinnacle High school in the morning, traffic back up in all
directions and is a nuisance to the Fireside neighborhood. I have to go around it to drop my
daughter to PVHS at that same time.
An extension of Mayo Blvd to Tatum will make it even worse
As more homes have been added, traffic at both Tatum and Cave Creek is getting progressively
worse
If the rezoning and the development project is approved, here is what I foresee happening :
Retail center will have bright lighting and noise at night and early morning hours with logistics
Already horrible traffic at school times will get even worse, plus additional delivery trucks going in
and out
Crime rates are likely to increase, homelessness and drug use are already of grave concerns in
the nearby areas
Property value will take a dip
A much better use of that space would be to expand parking access to Pinnacle high school that will
also alleviate some of the traffic concerns everyone can feel and have raised.
I would urge you to strongly oppose this change, and save the serenity and quality of the
neighborhood that we all love and like so much. It would be shame to have money-grab
development destroy the character of the community.
Regards,
Neeraj Chandak
623-203-9583
From: Kavita Chandak
To: Council District 2 PCC; Emolenaar@AssociatedAsset.com; Anthony M Grande
Cc: Kavita Chandak
Subject: Desert Ridge Superblock 12 rezoning- Opposing Vestar"s Balck Mountain Village proposal
Date: Sunday, September 3, 2023 10:36:21 AM
Hello,
As a long-time resident of Fireside at Desert Ridge I am deeply concerned with the proposed
changes to the land parcel between Pinnacle High school and Deer Valley Rd (Case No. SPA-DS1 V-2-
23-2), (Case No. CPA-DSTV-3-23-2) and (Case No. Z-39-23).
I moved here back in 2013 with my family and 2 young daughters to be part of this beautiful
neighborhood with great community feel and low crime rates.
Over the years, several things have happened that are cumulatively of an increasing level of concern
:
Increased traffic and noise level due to Connection to Hwy 51.
Dis-respect and abusing of our neighborhood by Pinnancle High School drop off and pick up
crowd. Our Neighborhood has become a parking spot for Pinnacle parent drop off and pick up
making it extremely difficult for residents to walk or even take their cars out for morning and
afternoon commute.
Getting out of the copper view subdivision is at nightmare due to backed up traffic for Pinnacle
High school in the morning, It back up in all directions and is a nuisance to the Fireside
neighborhood. I fear for my teenage daughter's safety as she drives to her high school amidst this
crazy traffic.
An extension of Mayo Blvd to Tatum will make it even worse
As more homes have been added, traffic at both Tatum and Cave Creek is getting progressively
worse
This is what I dear with the rezoning and the development project is approved.
Crime rates are likely to increase, homelessness and drug use are already of grave concerns in
the nearby area
Retail center will have bright lighting and noise at night and early morning hours with logistics
Already horrible traffic at school times will get even worse, plus additional delivery trucks going in
and out
Our property values will dip considerably
A much better use of that space would be to expand parking access to Pinnacle high school that will
also alleviate some of the traffic concerns everyone can feel and have raised.
I strongly oppose this change and request you to not zone this as a commercial zone to save the
serenity and quality of the neighborhood that we all love and like so much. I would hate to see this
beautiful neighborhood being destroyed by few folks who are looking at it for mere financial gains
into their pockets.
Thanks,
Kavita Chandak
From: Lori Tininenko
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Proposed Shopping Center
Date: Monday, September 4, 2023 7:06:39 PM
I am 13+ year resident of Desert Ridge and strongly oppose the proposal to build a shopping center at the corner of
Black Mountain and Deer Valley. It will increase traffic tremendously at an already congested intersection,
endanger kids walking in the area, increase crime, increase noise & light pollution, and serve as an overall eyesore.
PLEASE keep our residential area residential!
Lori Tininenko
Sent from my iPhone
From: Bill Smith
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Application No: GPA-DSTV-2-23-2 - Rezoning Request by Vestar
Date: Tuesday, September 5, 2023 6:52:27 AM
Attachments: GPA-DSTV-2-23-2-App2Amend.pdf
September 5, 2023
Greetings,
I’m writing you today regarding a rezoning request made here by Vestar application No. GPA-
DSTV-2-23-2 and some comments heard by residents resulting from a recent HOA board
meeting held by Desert Ridge Community Association.
My name is William Smith and I am a resident of Regalia Bear Subdivision which is located just
off Tatum Blvd and North of Marriott Drive in Desert Ridge for 13.5 years. Formally a resident
in Vista Norte located at Dynamite and 57th Streets for 14 years. I’ve been a resident in
Arizona since 1969 and have lived the majority of my life in North Scottsdale / North Phoenix
25 miles or more from downtown.
When my wife and I moved to Desert Ridge I began participating in many of the community
HOA meetings assisting mostly on the Awareness Committee. I believe it’s important we
continue to live in a safe and healthy community. The many challenges I’ve witnessed over the
past 13.5 years have been noise pollution, traffic congestion and bottle neck due to lack of
arteries (roads), vandalism and crimes committed by an increase number of teenagers.
Noise pollution continues from above with fly overs; also truck deliveries made during
overnight or early morning hours are heard by vehicles creating those loud safety warning
beeps when backing up. With the increase of home deliveries since the pandemic we’ve seen
an more delays within our Desert Ridge community and about. Thankfully a great deal of the
air traffic above was reduced after our Desert Ridge community associates worked with the
aviation department to reverse a decision that was made several years ago that allowed
commercial places to fly directly over Desert Ridge using a new flight path. We still have a few
non commercial planes and helicopters that don’t always follow the appropriate flight path,
but we are thankful the majority of commercial planes are no longer constantly flying low
overhead. In addition, we reported to the Marriott about the noise issue from trucks backing
up that could be heard for a mile in the silence of the early morning hours and that has
stopped. Our voices are being heard!
As far as vehicle noise issues we continue to hear traffic due to the type of road surface and
proximity of both Tatum Blvd and Marriot Drive. Everyone is racing to be first coming in both
directions cutting through our community because as we all know there aren’t enough
arteries (roads) that allow traffic to flow around the heart of Desert Ridge. Traffic on Tatum
Blvd has met it’s maximum capacity 5 years ago and its only getting worse. Deer Valley road is
starting to show signs of stress unless we start now and think forward.
Let’s talk a little about Desert Ridge planning and how Vestar was originally involved in the
design and planning of this community. I believe just 13.5 years ago when we moved here I
heard mention Desert Ridge was just over 40 percent built out. Since then we seem to
continue cramming more and more condos, apartments, schools, single family homes in
addition to the huge development along the 101 from 56th to Tatum Blvd. There seems to be
this need to fill up every inch of both Super Blocks along the 101 from 56th through to Black
Canyon Blvd. We all know growth brings congestion and headaches.
Listening to representation by Vestar at community planning meetings they talk about
building another marketplace in an area of Desert Ridge that is zoned low residential. I’m
writing you here today to provide my opinion about why we shouldn’t change this residential
parcel as this application suggest to commercial and that we should consider looking for a
location that has better access to the 101 and has the ability to get vehicles in and out of the
area from all four directions without impeding traffic and causing delays. For the past 8 years
or so all I’ve brought up to anyone that would listen that the City of Phoenix must work on a
plan that will open up more arteries (roads) that allow traffic to flow more around Desert
Ridge Market Place and through our community as well.
We can not continue to build both up and out; allowing thousands of more residents,
merchants, delivery vehicles and visitors to move about and not have additional access
roads and arteries (roads) that will provide additional alternatives to Tatum Blvd and Deer
Valley Road.
Everyone knows it will be expensive and we need it; an access road along the 101 that will
allow traffic to access both super blocks from 56th street to as far as Cave Creek Road if we
have too. The idea is to take excess traffic away from Tatum Blvd and Deer Valley Road when
everyone is either trying to get to and from their residence in Desert Ridge, pass through it to
get home in Tatum Ranch or visit Desert Ridge Market Place to enjoy all the shops, restaurants
and planned activities Vestar an their business partners plan throughout the year. Additional
roads that could help the flow of traffic could be at 40th street, Black Mountain Blvd, 56th
street and any additional roads developed during the super block expansion phases which
should include access roads along the 101 freeway. We can’t even head east or west using
Black Mountain Blvd at the 101 to help avoid using Tatum Blvd at the 101?
We understand change is necessary and some people believe we need more growth and there
is no stopping it. However, the reason Desert Ridge has lasted as long as it has being in the
spotlight a community most desirable for its amenities and location is because we live in a
place beyond the boundaries of the City. A place between Rural and the big City life; simply
a suburban experience like no other.
If we allow another marketplace with a gas station at the location of Southwest Corner of
Black Mountain Boulevard and Deer Valley Drive we are going to have big disappointment
with additional traffic, noise, crime, vandalism not only during the day, but all night as well.
We don’t want or need any more attention drawn to close to existing residential community
during the overnight hours. If you have to rezone which I’m not for, bring in medical therapy
centers, Dental, Vision, Day Care Centers, Animal Veterinarians businesses that will bring value
to the investment and more in line with education and health without attracting any negative
impact we currently have going on at Desert Ridge Market Place and our Community City
Parks by individuals that hang out in groups in public places with no regard for others
property. There is so much open space in super block there where the fitness center is and the
hotels are located that if Vestar thinks Desert Ridge needs another grocery store well go big
and put a Walmart there along the 101; build the access road along the 101 and make it easy
to visit the store without impeding any more traffic delays on Tatum Blvd and Deer Valley
Road and push the traffic away from our beautiful neighborhoods.
Final thoughts that come to mind you can all think about …
Observation #1 – The traffic gets so bad moving North and South on Tatum sometimes it takes
3 minutes just to exit out of my subdivision from Williams Drive onto Tatum. The traffic gets
backed up so bad the distance on Tatum between Deer Valley and the 101 one can spend 6
minutes waiting for lights going in any direction. When there is construction, emergency
vehicles or an accident forget being on time for any scheduled appointment. This is not right!
Observation #2 – Recently in the past 4 years after the completion of this new condos and
new single family subdivisions we noticed in addition to Vestar bringing live entertainment
along with Sip and Stroll attractions among other big events, that traffic delays have now
extended everywhere including Tatum Blvd to 56th street going North or South along Deer
Valley road. Drivers are in such a big hurry they speed illegally North on 56th to Pinnacle and in
addition there is so much traffic during rush hours on Deer Valley from 56th all the way to
Cave Creek and beyond due to the 101 bottlenecks experienced when approaching the 51
freeway from either direction. Drivers are not only using Deer Valley, but they are using
Pinnacle Peak from Scottsdale all the way to Cave Creek Road to escape the 101 traffic
debacle during rush hours.
Observation #3 -
Recently we’ve seen a huge increase in teenagers committing crimes and they seem to like
hanging out at Desert Ridge Marketplace. This was brought up at our meetings and Vestar did
speak out regarding our community concerns about the lack of security and care anyone we
would expect to be responsible for managing issues of this nature. Concerns about Target,
Albertsons, In&Out Burger and Panda Express have been going on for as long as I can
remember brought up at Community gatherings with our neighbors for coffee and other
meetings. It’s been on the news this summer about a gang of teenagers sucker punching a
teenager from another group causing 15,000 worth of dental work needed. Teenagers hang
out at Target and act like the sports department is there personal playground. Teens stealing a
cell phone right out of another teenagers hand who was picking up a take out order from
Panda Express and too often homeless people coming up to you for money in front of and in
the parking lot of Albertsons. These attractions that are enticing young people to party drink
and get high not only occur in the marketplace, now we are seeing these young people come
into the neighborhoods within Desert Ridge causing quite a bit of damage. Our Cashman park
has been vandalized at least 3 times within the last couple years that I’ve heard about.
Conclusion:
Please consider another location for this grocery store and gas station to be developed. Lets
choose a location away from existing residential and try to develop existing locations already
designated residential and take the idea of bringing another grocery store and gas station to
already designated commercial zones.
We don’t need any 24 hour a day business on Deer Valley and Black Mountain Blvd. We
already have Desert Ridge Market place a gas station on the intersection at Tatum Blvd and
Deer Valley Road. Take this proposed plan and build on 20.5 acres closer to the 101 and Black
Mountain Blvd. Even if you were to propose moving this development to 40th Street and Deer
Valley Road my suggestion would be to insure there are enough roads leading away from
Tatum and Deer Valley for vehicles to maneuver towards the 101 without impacting the
already congested traffic flow on Tatum and Deer Valley.
We should consider bringing in a large super center like Walmart along the 101 in the super
block between Tatum and Black Mountain Blvd’s. Get the City of Phoenix and the Army Core
of Engineers to build functional access roads and lets see how well traffic flows around Desert
Ridge. Spread things out a bit, petition for business to build on one of the two corners on the
north side of Pinnacle Peak Road.
Leave the corner next to the high school open for residential or if you really think businesses
deserve to come in an take over that property; like I said before consider those businesses
that would help families with their children’s education, day care, health services (mental
health services), vision and dental care along with considering Veterinarian services.
Look I could write a book on how if think about all this push for growth here in Desert Ridge,
but I’m sure in the end people that have the most funding will win. In the past whenever there
was a decision made about something that didn’t entirely make good sense and I would later
bring up my thoughts I was told where were you when during the planning stages and why
didn’t you speak up then. Well I decided maybe its time I did.
Thanks so much for the opportunity to speak my thought and for listening.
As Ever,
Bill Smith
Anthony Grande
Zoning Section
200 W Washington Street, Second Floor
Phoenix AZ 85003
Minor General Plan Amendment GPA-DSTV-2-23-2
Specific Plan Amendment GPA-DSTV-3-23-2
Rezone Z-39-23
Dear. Mr. Grande:
This letter is regarding the proposed rezoning of the Parcel 212-38-023B and the application by
Vestar Development to develop it as a C-2 medium intensity commercial property. The current
proposals for Minor General Plan and Specific Plan Amendments, as well as Rezoning to C-2
commercial development are out of step with the character of the area and should be rejected.
The intersection of Black Mountain Boulevard and Deer Valley Drive is surrounded by a unique
residential area with preserved natural desert spaces and carefully integrated bike and pedestrian
paths. It is unlike the majority of Phoenix neighborhoods and honors the physical geography
immediately around it. Socially, it is an active, engaged community full of care for the landscape
and protective of the safety of people living there. With such a significant change in land use,
the proposed zoning amendment and subsequent commercial development would result in
considerable new traffic to the subject site, resulting in more traffic congestion, potential car-
pedestrian-bike safety conflicts, added emissions, and light and noise pollution.
Further, there are a number of disconnects with the application itself. The developers have
attempted to justify their zoning amendment proposal by saying that the nearby Desert Ridge
Marketplace experiences traffic congestion and parking issues. This point is unsubstantiated in
their application and from a resident’s point of view, completely unsupported by the experience
of living in the area and regularly visiting the shopping center. There is more than enough (much
more!) parking at Desert Ridge and circulation in and around the site runs smoothly. The retail
offerings are substantial and do not leave a gap in market offerings that would be improved by
adding medium-intensity commercial at Black Mountain Boulevard and Deer Valley Drive.
The conceptual site plan put forth by the developers is also incongruous with their explanation
letter. They attempt to claim community benefit from “a reduction in transportation burdens,
increased opportunities for exercise and a cleaner environment.” However, there is nothing to
support their mention of transportation burdens on the residential area surrounding the subject
parcel, nor anything in the conceptual site plan to suggest it would be safe for area residents to
walk or bike to the subject site if developed as a commercial property. Further, the explanation
letter states that provision has been made for 580 parking spaces (well beyond the code
requirement), while the conceptual design includes 533 spaces, which is still more parking than
is required by code. This will not create a cleaner environment, as the developers claim, but will
create increased emissions in a sensitive area where residents would like to keep emissions to a
minimum. Worse still, the conceptual plan calls out opportunity for a fueling center, yet no
designated space for electric vehicle charging (which would be far more helpful in the area,
given a pronounced lack of public charging). As such, increased emissions will become a core
characteristic of this shopping center if built as presented. It would not result in the “connected
oasis” the City hopes to achieve, nor the “village” concept the developer is attempting to sell.
What it achieves is what Phoenix already sees too much of—islands of unspectacular
commercial offerings drowning in a sea of parking.
The subject parcel for proposed rezoning also lies immediately north of Pinnacle High School,
which sees students regularly walking and biking to school, but the concept site design does
nothing to ensure student and faculty safety or effective circulation around the school. To the
contrary, the conceptual site plan shows 3 access/egress points just off Mayo immediately across
from the high school with no provision for safe crossing by pedestrians and bicyclists. To put the
greatest number of access points to the site directly across the road from the school shows a
serious lack of awareness about school zone safety, as does proposing a site plan that does not
incorporate effective circulation by pedestrians and bikes (as the surrounding neighborhoods do
through extensive trail systems), but to cars. And the related traffic study does nothing to elevate
hope for improved traffic circulation or safety. Instead, it reflects lower levels of service on
streets that already experience diminished capacity.
While the concept of community commercial may have some potential if explored at a C-1
neighborhood level, the current applications for Minor General Plan Amendment GPA-DSTV-2-
23-2, Specific Plan Amendment GPA-DSTV-3-23-2, and Rezone Z-39-23 to C-2 commercial do
nothing to improve livability in the area and should be rejected in the interest of public safety, as
well as public health.
Thank you for your consideration,
Ellen Kennedy
From: Richards, Dan
To: Anthony M Grande
Cc: Council District 2 PCC
Subject: Black Mountain Village - Superblock 12 Opposition
Date: Tuesday, September 5, 2023 4:24:56 PM
Attachments: image001.png
Hello Mr. Grande and Councilman Waring,
I wanted to formally write to you both to express my opposition to Vestar Development’s push to
rezone the Property known as a portion of Parcel 12.L, within Superblock 12 of the Desert Ridge
Specific Plan. My wife and I did a lot of research about the area prior to purchasing and building our
home 10 years ago, located at 21618 N 36th Street. I’ve attached a map with the proposed
development layered on it. You can see the yellow star located on the East side of Black Mountain
Boulevard showing the location of our house. I have been very vocal at each of the previous two
meetings expressing my opposition to this development from happening.
As mentioned, my wife and I did our research prior to building the home we wanted to raise our
three boys in. We understood we would have a roadway in our backyard that would create some
noise, and that was fine because that meant we wouldn’t have another house directly behind our
backyard. We love the location, being across the street from Pinnacle High School. One of our boys
is currently a sophomore with our other two boys being 8th graders. When they were younger, they
could walk the opposite direction to Fireside grade school, so we figured this was a perfect location
for our family. If you aren’t aware of this yet, Pulte homes sold the West side of 36th Street as
premium lots with view fences in our backyard. We all paid extra to have a view of the wash behind
our homes. We all paid this knowing that the only thing going in across the street in the future would
likely be an exterior block wall of another residential development. That’s what the Desert Ridge
Specific Plan called for so why would anyone think differently? The news of this commercial
development potentially getting built across the street has made every one of these homeowners
sick to their stomachs. Talk about a bait and switch!!!!! Pulte probably wouldn’t have built these
lots as view fences if there was commercial development zoned for directly across the street. Serious
question to Mr. Grande - Would the City even sign off on a residential development having view
fences directly across the street from a commercial development if it was built after the commercial
was already there?
One major concern from the residents of Copper View (36th Street from Mayo to Deer Valley) is the
decrease in safety for all our families and our properties due to a commercial development being
directly across the street. Shopping centers bring loiterers. Gas Stations are even worse. The
increase in homelessness in the Desert Ridge area can’t be ignored. If this development happens,
this will make Deer Valley a main thoroughfare for these homeless people to walk down between
Desert Ridge Marketplace to Black Mountain Village. Nobody wants the potential for this to happen.
Several years ago, a group of neighborhood kids found a homeless encampment with mattresses in
the wash near Mayo and Black Mountain Boulevard. It was in the storm sewer, under Mayo. We
fear more of this will happen if you move forward with this project. None of us with a view fence,
just across Black Mountain Boulevard, signed up to live across the street from this sort of
development. I enjoy my backyard having a view fence. It makes these tiny yards feel a little larger.
Now I will be fearing someone might jump my back fence because they see something they like.
Another major concern that Copper View resident have is light pollution. Nobody wants to live
across the street from a lit up commercial development. If Vestar moves forward with plans to
include a gas station with this proposal, I would imagine this would be right on the corner, where
they have PAD C is shown on the map I included. That will be my new view from my backyard. A lit-
up gas station. Can you even begin to imagine how upset we all were when we heard not only are
we going to have a commercial development, but also a gas station? Nobody wants a bright gas
station directly across the street from them. Every gas station has loiterers. No place attracts more
loitering than a gas station. Copper View residents are not interested in having this across the
street from us. Not to mention the constant smell of gasoline. Mr. Grande - Would the City sign off
on a residential development having view fences directly across the street from a gas station if it was
built after the gas station was already there? The argument for needing more gas stations within
Desert Ridge is garbage. Replace Jacksons with a Circle K and I’m guessing you’ll see a much higher
volume of people using that gas station. Nobody uses that place because the prices are too high. I
go to either Costco or Circle K on Union Hills because they’re cheaper. Most people with half of a
brain do the same.
A 20-acre commercial property in a mostly residential area wouldn’t just be making a minor tweak to
the Desert Ridge Specific Plan (DRSP). This commercial development would be taking the DRSP and
completely throwing it out the window. The DRSP called for commercial development within the
residential superblocks to be limited to neighborhood convenience commercial centers with a
maximum of 3 net acres. During Mr. Anderson’s presentation to the Desert Ridge committee, he
mentioned there were 6 previous developments that could have included a neighborhood
convenience commercial center but decided against adding them. These 18-acres of commercial
development not getting added throughout Desert Ridge are being used to justify Vestar developing
20-acres in one location. Just because other developments decided against adding 3-acre
neighborhood convenience commercial centers doesn’t justify adding them all together and asking
to rezone this area just because Vestar thinks it would be a good investment.
Please take into consideration the families that built around this area that thought they were moving
close to commercial development, but not directly across the street from it. I know you have been
contacted by several other residents expressing their concerns about the traffic impacts and
proximity to the high school. I am 100% in agreement with all other concerns you have heard
pertaining to these two topics. This development needs to be stopped. It’s just not the right fit for
this location. There are a growing number of residents that share this sentiment. We will be at the
next OCT 3 Desert Village Planning Committee meeting as well as the NOV 2 City of Phoenix Planning
Commission meeting to express our opposition.
Thanks,
Dan Richards
Strand Associates, Inc.®
602.437.3733 ext. 6052
dan.richards@strand.com | www.strand.com [strand.com]
[strand.com]
Excellence in EngineeringSM
From: paul dunn
To: Anthony M Grande; Council District 2 PCC
Subject: Vestar Development Amendment and Zoning Requests for Superblock 12 in Desert Ridge
Date: Wednesday, September 6, 2023 6:01:06 AM
Importance: High
It is indisputable that the area affected by Vestar’s proposal already has a traffic
problem. The 366-page October 2022 Traffic Impact Analysis commissioned by
Vestar acknowledges this existing problem. Please note the following excerpt
from that Analysis:
The results of the existing conditions analysis indicate that all study
intersections operate with acceptable levels of service (LOS D or better) with
the exception of the northbound approach at the intersection of Black
Mountain Boulevard & Deer Valley Drive and the northbound and southbound
left at the intersection of Aviano Way & Deer Valley Drive.
This same Traffic Impact Analysis also reveals the extent to which Vestar’s
proposal would exacerbate this existing problem. The Analysis describes this
impact as follows:
The Black Mountain Village proposes to rezone approximately 16-acres of
undeveloped land from existing R-2 (residential) to C-2 (commercial) to
consists of approximately 76,200 square feet (SF) of grocery supermarket,
41,500-SF of various commercial shops each under 40,000 SF, and 19,700-SF of
fast-food restaurants with drive through window. The proposed developed is
located on the southwest corner of Black Mountain Boulevard and Deer Valley
Drive in the City of Phoenix, Arizona. The site is planned to provide a total of
eight (8) access points, of which five (5) are planned for full movement access
and the remaining three (3) are proposed restricted right-in/right-out
driveways.
This Traffic Impact Analysis does not mention that Vestar’s proposal also includes
a gas station. Moreover, this Traffic Impact Analysis does not analyze the traffic
impact of the nearby Garden Communities 882-unit apartment complex currently
underway at the northeast corner of Tatum Blvd and Deer Valley. It also does not
analyze the impact of the planned development of the 410-acre parcel at the
southeastern corner of Deer Valley and 40th Street purchased by Taylor Morrison
and Pulte Homes for a 1,200-lot master planned community. Because the west
boundary of this parcel directly abuts Mayo Blvd, traffic from this planned
community would likely use Mayo Blvd for ingress and egress. Moreover, the
vehicular traffic entering and exiting the community would also increase the traffic
on 40th Street and Deer Valley.
Vestar’s description of its proposal is disingenuous. It describes its proposal as a
“low-impact” commercial development. Their description of the proposed project
mentions a “neighborhood grocery store and inline retail opportunities.”
However, omitted from their description is a gas station that they have
acknowledged is part of their plan. Also omitted is the “19,700-SF of fast-food
restaurants with drive through window” described in their Traffic Impact Analysis.
How can anyone honestly describe grocery stores, gas stations, and fast food
restaurants with drive through windows as “low impact” uses? Each of these
operations would result in increased vehicular traffic entering the proposed site
from all four bordering streets. In addition to the increased private passenger
vehicular traffic, other traffic entering and exiting the proposed site would include
gas tanker trucks and commercial delivery trucks. This increased traffic would be
in addition to the traffic already generated by 2,600 students and their parents
entering and exiting the Pinnacle High School parking lots twice daily during the
school year. Also not to be overlooked are the evening activities at the school that
result in numerous vehicles exiting onto Black Mountain Blvd and Mayo Blvd. Even
now there are not enough traffic lanes on Mayo Blvd to efficiently handle the
vehicular traffic exiting the high school parking lots.
Pinnacle High School is not the only school affected by Vestar’s proposed
rezoning request. The Fireside Elementary School, with 775 enrolled students, is
only a short block away from Superblock 12. Vestar’s rezoning request would also
impact the traffic to and from this elementary school.
The Arizona State Land Department agrees with Vestar’s C-2 rezoning request
because it wants to sell this parcel for the highest possible price. The Land
Department’s position is understandable. However, in this instance, it represents a
grave injustice to those homeowners who purchased their homes (many with their
life savings) in this neighborhood. They justifiably believed their homes would
never border a commercial development because this area was zoned
Residential. These homeowners should not have their legitimate expectations
sacrificed on an altar of money.
For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully request that Vestar’s proposal not be
approved.
Paul Dunn
3752 E. Covey Lane
Phoenix, AZ 85050
From: James Tuffin
To: Anthony M Grande
Cc: dan.richards@strand.com; "Wouter Roodenburg"; cvanek@arizonarepublic.com; akwok@azcentral.com; Council
District 2 PCC; Mayor Gallego
Subject: RE: GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2
Date: Wednesday, September 6, 2023 6:49:55 AM
Dear Mr. Grande:
An unidentified party is running a sponsored ad on Facebook directing viewers to an online
“petition” for a new grocery store in Desert Ridge. The online petition page can be seen at
https://chng.it/6L8mkBrdDq [chng.it] . It identifies the promoter of the petition as “New Grocer”. It
makes no reference to the ongoing zoning and plan amendment cases. It fails to mention, as
Vestar’s counsel has publicly admitted on more than one occasion, that Vestar cannot say what kind
of grocery might ultimately go in. And needless to say, there is no reference to the 20 acres of drive
through junk food and gas station also included in Vestar’s conceptual plan for the site right next to
the high school.
These deceptive tactics are unworthy of any responsible business. City staff should give no weight
whatsoever to the results of this patently misleading petition drive.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
James W Tuffin
21214 N 36th Pl
Phoenix, AZ 85050
James.tuffin@tuffinlaw.com (retired attorney not offering services to the public).
From: Treye Elzenga
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Desert View Zoning Feedback - Black Mountain Village Project
Date: Thursday, September 7, 2023 11:09:28 AM
Hello Anthony,
As you and constituents consider the proposed Black Mountain Village Project (GPA-DSTV-2-23-2; GPA DSTV 3-23-2; Z-
39-23), I wanted to express my strong opposition to this project. City Planners got this right the first time in the General Plan.
Schools, dog parks, walking trails, community soccer fields, and four housing developments adjoin this property.
Commercial real estate on this proposed parcel has no place, no real need, and only increases risks.
Living in this community, safety should always be our number one concern as residents. Within four hundred yards of this
proposed project, we have two schools, Pinnacle High School and Fireside Elementary, which educate pre-school children
under the age of five. Each morning and afternoon families walk their children to these schools from the surrounding homes
from the north, south, east, and west. Increasing transient traffic flow, especially off the high-speed HWY 51 into this area,
greatly increases risks for residents, especially our younger children. Simply there is no compelling argument for this project
and only increased risk.
While traffic studies were completed, the analysis and land schematics fail to demonstrate any reference to Fireside
Elementary School which is within four hundred yards of this project. How can we consider no traffic turning Left or Right
from or onto Mayo Boulevard. This lack of detail shows severe disregard for our pre-school and elementary age children. In
the analysis, they also fail to reference when the study was completed other than November 2022. In November, we have
slower traffic patterns based on holidays, people traveling outside of Phoenix to visit family, and winter residents not yet
arriving to the area. While the necessary paperwork was completed, beyond the abundance of words in the report where is the
holistic detail that considers an elementary school within yards of this project.
In 2022, the Arizona Department of Housing identified shortages of over 270,000 housing units across our state. As Phoenix
metro comprises over 2/3rds of our state’s population, we require over 175,000 units to meet the needs of the citizens.
Rezoning existing housing parcels to commercial property in the heart of a well-established family-friendly community only
introduces unnecessary risks. Approving this project will only provide short-term rewards for Vestar and Gammage &
Burnham associates not the community.
While developers will make the case for additional services and unsubstantiated benefits to our community, we must consider
the abundance of commercial services that are already available in Desert Ridge Marketplace, Vestar project and along Cave
Creek Road, and HWY 51 south. In addition, all these commercial properties have clearly defined borders which create
increased safety as to not blend housing, schools, parks, and daily life, with commercial development. Within Desert View we
have an abundance of services of all commercial types within one mile. Making the argument that driving one mile creates
hardship is unsubstantiated, unless data is provided on how many cars each household owns in village. Desert View is not the
same as an urban core, such as downtown Phoenix. Lack of concrete detail is consistent throughout the rezoning application,
while there is an abundance of words and feelings including ‘potentially’ and ‘we feel’ it fails to acknowledge key
considerations as I have outlined.
We have an opportunity to put families and our youngest citizens first by DENYING this project. Thank you for your
thoughtful consideration of the data, facts, and real impact on our community for the long term. I appreciate your support
in DENYING this rezoning request.
Treye Elzenga
Resident City of Phoenix - Desert Ridge
From: Lesley Anderson
To: Anthony M Grande; msantoro@gblaw.com; PDD Desert View VPC
Subject: Open Letter to the Desert View Village Planning Committee re: REZONING LAND NEAR PINNACLE HS
Date: Friday, September 8, 2023 6:47:42 AM
Dear Anthony Grande, Michelle Santoro, ad the Desert View Village Planning Committee,
I am one of the many Sky Crossing residents who found out about the rezoning of the
20.52 acres on the SW corner of Black Mountain Blvd and Deer Valley Drive from
an article posted on a Facebook group and not from the City of Phoenix. I am obviously
disappointed that Vestar and the City of Phoenix failed to notify about 95% of the Sky
Crossing residents of this potential zoning change that will deeply affect our neighborhood.
I personally attended the meeting on August 1, 2023 in order to get more
information about the potential gas station, grocery store, and restaurants/shops that will
affect neighborhood traffic as well as my property value in the near future. My hopes were
high as I listened to the presentation by Gammage & Burnham. I was actually in favor of
some sort of small commercial property before the meeting.
I waited for details as to the type and size of grocery store, types of restaurants, and of
course a solution to the traffic problem that haunts that corner of Desert Ridge, but sadly
none of that happened. It felt like no solutions were given. Very general information
was shared on the slides. No 3D rendering of what it would look like. Will the grocery and
gas station lights be on all night? What about the noise from semi trucks dropping off 3 am
deliveries at the grocery store? Will the stores blend with the desert landscape like in
Fountain Hills or stick out like a sore thumb? Residents were simply left with more
questions than answers.
With this in mind, I am writing to you all to express my opposition to rezoning
this land from RESIDENTIAL to COMMERCIAL which would allow for a
commercial shopping center.
I think Sky Crossing residents would be more supportive of a project if it answered the
questions above, and somehow solved the traffic mayhem. Perhaps Vestar could have
proposed to help the school and the community by building Pinnacle High School a parking
garage? Traffic literally comes to a standstill in the morning hours and prevents
area residents from accessing the Black Canyon Road heading south in order to get on the
HWY 51 on-ramp. Apparently because there is not enough parking for students, so parents
have to drop their kids off every morning. Which is ridiculous. If you live in this area,
you know about the problem. The high school and the Phoenix Police are well
aware of the problem. This strip center will only add to the traffic issue.
I am but one of the many voices who oppose the rezoning of this land and the potential
traffic issues it will cause. I am asking the members of the Desert View Village
Planning Committee to please vote NO when voting for the rezoning of this
parcel of land. There are too many unanswered questions.
Thank you for your time and for reading this. Much appreciation.
Regards,
Lesley Anderson
22413 N. 30th Street, Phoenix
Sky Crossing resident
Realtor® with HomeSmart
Email: AZAndersonRealEstate@gmail.com
Direct: 480-390-6297
From: Jamie Bauschka
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Black Mountain Village
Date: Friday, September 8, 2023 12:36:27 PM
Dear Mr. Grande-
This message is in regards to GPA-DSTV-2-23-2
GPA-DSTV-3-23-3
Z-39-23-2
I live in the neighborhood in Fireside that is directly across Black Mtn from this currently vacant land. While we
understood this to be slated as residential, it seems now someone is trying to change that.
While we are not in favor of this changing to commercial, there is a much more pressing issue for this area that
should be addressed prior to any development on that land. The drop off/pick up/ and parking for students at
PVHS. The current situation there is unsafe and terribly inconvenient. The fact that there is not a sufficient amount
of parking for students attending the school has got to be expanded prior to anything else being developed there.
The kids crossing this major intersection (Black Mtn & Mayo) to get to their awaiting rides, is a tragedy waiting to
happen.
Please consider working with the school district & community before it’s too late to address these issues.
And, no thank you to changing the zoning from residential to commercial.
Thank you for your time & consideration!
Jamie Bauschka
Sent from my iPhone
From: Yatharth Chowdhary
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Opposing Black Mountain Village
Date: Friday, September 8, 2023 10:29:24 PM
Hi Anthony,
I am current resident of desert ridge area and regarding GPA-DSTV- 2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-
23-2/Z-39-23-2 i don't want Black Mountain Village.
Our homes were built under the Desert Ridge Specific Plan. The plan promised us clean, quiet
and safe neighborhoods because commercial activity was placed in the "commercial core".
Commercial activity in the "residential superblocks" is strictly limited to minor
"conveniences" of no more than 3 acres and drive through operations are prohibited.
I would like to oppose the rezoning of this area.
Thanks
Yatharth
From: Diana Dichter
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2
Date: Friday, September 8, 2023 9:56:56 AM
Please consider my vote AGAINST the Black Mountain Village Commercial development sought after by Vestar.
My family, including two children, live in Fireside Desert Ridge and plan to stay here for the next 10-20 years, at
least.
We would like to keep Fireside and the overall Desert Ridge community, as originally planned - residential.
The lot across from the Pinnacle High School could be made into a community park, perhaps with some additional
parking to relieve the already horrific traffic conditions for the schools in the area. We do not need more traffic in
the neighborhood or even worse - though it.
Hope our voices carry some value in these determinations.
Thank you,
Diana Dichter
310-912-2790
From: SCOTT ELLEFSON
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Black Mountain Village
Date: Friday, September 8, 2023 8:34:28 AM
Anthony,
Please note, I am Opposed to the Black Mountain Village Plan.
Case numbers GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2
Sincerely,
Scott Ellefson
Fireside at Desert Ridge
From: Joe Haglund
To: Anthony M Grande
Cc: Joe Haglund
Subject: Black Mountain Village Proposed Development
Date: Friday, September 8, 2023 11:06:40 AM
Hello Anthony,
I am resident in Aviano in Desert Ridge in Phoenix and I wanted to reach out to you about the
proposed Black Mountain Village Development that is up for rezoning. Unfortunately I will
not be able to be present at the meeting on October 3rd and wanted to reach out on this.
I have lived in Desert Ridge since 2012 and there have been several great changes over the
past 10+years including access to the 51 and widening Black Mountain. I strongly feel that
the rezoning of this area would be a major mistake for several reasons.
1.) Currently Pinnacle High School has a large amount of traffic that creates a backup onto
Black Mountain and sometimes Deer Valley as well which makes this area extremely difficult
to get through during the week from 7-8:30am, between 3-5, and also when there are sporting
and other events held at the school. Adding this development will bring increased traffic and
and chaos for many new drivers that attend the high school and residents and guests of the
area.
2.) Parking is a major issue at Pinnacle and students will end up parking in this new
development which will create issues with the property manager/owner and tenants as well
3.) As a resident I am all about convenience and the thought of a grocery store and other stores
close by my home sounds great initially, but I think there are a lot more negatives than
positives for this one and the most important one is the safety of the kids and residents of the
area.
Thank you for your help with this and please feel free to contact me with any questions
Joe Haglund
22116 N 36th Way
Phoenix, AZ 85050
480-650-1873-cell
joehaglund1@gmail.com
--
Joe Haglund
480-650-1873-cell
NMLS ID: 24351
From: April Justman
To: Anthony M Grande; Rob A. Justman
Subject: GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2
Date: Friday, September 8, 2023 4:38:15 PM
Hello Anthony,
We are residents of Fireside and parents of Pinnacle High School children. We are strongly
opposed to th Black Mountain Village.
When we purchased our home, Fireside was advertised as a clean, quiet, and safe
neighborhood oriented towards families with children. It is our understanding that
commercial activities within the superblocks adjacent to Fireside are to be limited to minor
conveniences of three (3) acres or less. Vestar is proposing a twenty (20) acre shopping center
directly adjacent to Pinnacle High School; that, as you know, includes drive thrus (which are
also prohibited commercial activities in the superblocks adjacent to Fireside).
Not only is our family concerned about what may become a falsity of how Fireside was
advertised when we purchased our home seven (7) years ago, should Vestar succeed with this
initiative, we are also concerned about the associated crime, noise, pollution, and traffic that
will no doubt plague our residential community. We already have an issue with high-traffic
volume that does not respect the posted speed limits near Fireside Elementary School and
Pinnacle High School on Mayo Street, as commuters travel to Interstate 51. Vestar's initiative
will only heighten this problem, and create a more dangerous situation for our children
including the littlest of our children at Fireside Elementary School, who deserve the ability to
walk to and from their school safely each day. Although older and presumably more ept, our
Pinnacle students deserve the same consideration.
Thank you for your time.
April and Rob Justman
3713 E. Huett Lane
Phoenix, AZ 85050
480-904-1560
From: rmarranca ourfiresidedesertridge.net
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Case #GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2
Date: Friday, September 8, 2023 11:07:18 AM
Good Morning,
We have bought into our community at Fireside with the zoning of all residential. We are NOT
in favor of changing the zoing and the plan to put in a 20 acre shopping center right across
from Pinnacle High.
the Black Mountain Village
I hope you can respectfully reconsider this change in which we did NOT buy into
Thank you,
With Warmest Regards,
Rita Marranca
Administrative Assistant
and Front Desk Manager
Fireside at Desert Ridge
480-203-2166
From: Chintan Patel
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: CASE # GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2
Date: Friday, September 8, 2023 8:49:37 PM
Good evening Mr. Grande:
My name is Dr Chintan Patel and I am a cardiologist at our local, Thompson Peak hospital and
resident within the Copper view community in Fireside here at Desert Ridge. I am writing to
you in reference to case number GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2, also
known as Black mountain village.
I know that you may be receiving numerous letters and petitions against this commercial
community. I would like to take the opportunity to waste my concerns and join amongst the
ranks of those against this proposed commercial shopping area.
The appeal of Desert Ridge and what makes it a unique location is the sense of community
that we all feel and try to bring to the various neighborhoods within the Desert Ridge
communities. While we may live a different neighborhoods, much of what unites us is the
sense of community and safety that we sought when we first moved here. The glue that tends
to bind us all here, like most neighborhoods, is our children. Personally I have two young
daughters who attend Fireside elementary who are currently six and five. We moved to this
community after talking with neighbors and seeing how happy they were raising their kids
from elementary to high school in an area that they felt safe enough to have their kids be
independent.
I do understand the financial benefits of a commercial property, but the location that is
proposed is already in a high traffic area with his own intrinsic problems because of high
school traffic and the on/off ramp to route 51. If the point of the shopping plaza is to serve the
needs of the community, and the community has spoken that the current Desert Ridge is
sufficient then the only thing this could bring are consequences. People moved to this
community the way it was designed with the promise of trying to keep it from being a
commercial hotspot. Bringing more homes and more families to create more neighbors only
makes us stronger, but bringing in businesses that invite more outside traffic, their own self
interests, and the potential negative influences only brings down the reputation of Desert
Ridge and instills of distrust in the city of Phoenix and it's social responsibility to it's citizens.
I thank the city of Phoenix and representatives like you for making communities like Desert
Ridge available to us and keeping it in its current splendor. All we ask is a mutual sense of
trust in us to help continue to grow the community while maintaining its integrity and safety.
I appreciate your time and willingness to hear our voices.
Thank you so much,
Chintan Patel.
From: Susan Sheroff
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2 Black Mountain Village
Date: Friday, September 8, 2023 7:04:25 PM
Dear Mr Grande:
I reside in Desert Ridge at 21214 N 36th Pl
The applications submitted to enable the Black Mountain Village must be denied. I am aware of the comments
submitted by other homeowners including Mr. Tuffin, Mr. Richards and Mr Roodenburg. I will not repeat the many
reasons why this project is a terrible idea. This attempted betrayal of innocent homeowners who purchased under
the existing Specific Plan cannot be justified; the justifications put forward by Vestar are essentially specious and
insufficient to destroy the reasonable expectations of innocent home buyers.
Thank you for your attention
Susan Sheroff
Sent from my iPhone
From: Taylor Ungerer
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: No to Black Mountain Village
Date: Friday, September 8, 2023 9:11:33 PM
Case number-
GPA-DSTV-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2
Hello Anthony,
Myself as well as most of the community at black mountain rd. absolutely disagree with Black Mountain Village
being rezoned from residential to commercial. If you could please let me know an update after the planning
committee meeting with the decision on October 3rd, 2023.
Thank you for your time,
Taylor
From: Jeannette
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Case no Z29-23
Date: Friday, September 8, 2023 9:05:10 PM
I am writing to you regarding the request to rezone in our area 85050 Black Mountain Project.
As a resident and homeowner 17 years in this area - Desert Ridge, I have seen a lot of growth in our area. I want to
make sure we DO NOT REZONE THIS AREA TO COMMERCIAL. We are currently inundated with traffic from
the 51 and all the traffic from the area who avoid the 51. You should be focusing on community not convenience.
Save this are for Pinnacle High School. Every morning my kids walk to school and the amount of traffic is massive
and congested. The 51 Black Mountain ramp has also increased the congestion and safety of residents and children
who live in this area. DO NOT BE MOTIVATED OR SEDUCED BY THE ARROGANCE OF COMMERCIAL
BUSINESS In our community!!!!!
Vote NO!!!!
Jeannette Vespalec
From: Dan Welker
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Black Mtn Village
Date: Friday, September 8, 2023 11:22:38 AM
Mr Grande -
I live across the street from the proposed Back Mountain Village Commercial development in the Desert
Ridge area. This is a major issue for my family. Traffic is already crazy. The noise from Deer Valley and
Black Mtn is already bad (why isn't there a noise ordinance for Harley Davidsons and tuner automobiles,
by the way) and it would just get worse. The high school students next door at Pinnacle don't need this.
Go to the Walgreens next to PV High School after classes get out if you want a sample of what goes on. I
have two kids there right now and my third will be going there in 3 years. This is supposed to be a
residential area and is currently zoned that way. The bait and switch that is going on is unacceptable. I
will oppose this every way possible. Please stand up and represent your citizens and keep the peace in a
neighborhood that is supposed to remain quiet.
Thanks for your help.
Dan Welker
602-821-0262
From: Debbie Bolde
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: GPA-DSTV-2-23-2 SW Black Mountain & Deer Valley
Date: Saturday, September 9, 2023 4:59:53 PM
Dear Mr Grande.
We are residents of Sky Crossing and we received notification of the proposed re-zoning at the
SW Corner of Black Mountain & Deer Valley roads because we live in close proximity of it.
We are opposed to the development and rezoning of this parcel for the following reasons:
1. This project does not fit the neighborhood and it is contradictory to Desert Ridge's
original plan for this area to be a low noise, light traffic community. We purchased our
home in 2020 with the understanding this parcel would be a residential parcel only. We
moved here to get away from the city traffic and noise.
2. The suggested development is not needed in this area because all of these services are
available 2 miles in each direction on Tatum blvd and Cave Creek road. Furthermore a
gas station and drive thru coffee shop/fast food restaraunt will increase pollution into
neighboring communities.
3. Currently PHS turns their lights off at 9pm because of the residential zoning. This
provides a quiet serine and tranquil neighborhood for all homeowners. This
development would change the entire feel of the neighborhoods which is not at all fair
to any homeowner that purchased as described above.
4. With the increasing concerns of rising temperatures, water shortage, high traffic and
other issues within the city of Phoenix, it would seem prudent for the city council to
preserve open land to insure a better quality of life for it's residents. Our temperature in
the area is typically 3-7 degrees lower here than it is at Sky harbor airport where the
land has been overdeveloped. We need more trees, bushes and open land and less
concrete, blacktop, buildings and traffic. A better use of this land would be a park with
walking paths, covered picnic area's and additional parking that could be used for PHS
during the week. This would meet the needs of all of these neighborhoods and would
alleviate the current problem with people using the private parks in Sky crossing, it
would be a win win for everyone.
Thank you for your consideration of these issues above. We hope the city council will find
another alternative for this parcel that will be better suited to the neighboring communities
than a commercial development.
Mike & Debbie Bolde
3436 E Louise Drive
Phoenix Az 85050
480.419.9385.
From: Susan Marshall
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: case numbers GPA-DSTV- 2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/2-39-23-3
Date: Saturday, September 9, 2023 11:14:34 AM
To All Involved,
I don't want Black Mountain Village at
Deer Valley-Sky Crossing-Black Mountain.
This land is zoned for residential and should remain so. I see no reason to add more
commercial businesses to a zoned residential area. It will only bring more, crime, noise, litter,
pollution, and traffic nightmares to quiet residential area. This is where very young children
through high school ages are in large number playing outdoors in sports and in
neighborhoods. This will be monstrosity of various issues. Especially with the exit to Black
Mountain-51-101 and intersection of Black Mountain Blvd and Deer Valley. This is easy to
predict. Look at the issues of traffic already. Our neighborhoods were built and purchased
with this in mind of being residential. We would not have purchased otherwise. It’s a promise
you are conducting rescinding. To have it be a bait and switch now will only cause more ill
will in our communities and with government. Please consider everyone’s concerns.
Cordially,
Susan Marshall
From: Marty Minzer
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: This better never take place. You will have a war on you hands!
Date: Saturday, September 9, 2023 1:26:50 PM
Our homes were built under the Desert Ridge Specific Plan. The plan promised us clean, quiet and safe
neighborhoods because commercial activity was placed in the "commercial core". Commercial activity in the
"residential superblocks" is strictly limited to minor "conveniences" of no more than 3 acres and drive through
operations are prohibited.
The land at Deer Valley and Black Mountain is designated residential under the plan. Vestar, the developer of the
Desert Ridge Marketplace, now wants to rake in even more money by changing the zoning, and the plan, to put in
a 20 acre shopping center right across from Pinnacle High School. They say it will contain drive-through fast food,
drive-through coffee, a gas station, a grocery of an unknown name and type, and heaven knows what else.
Many of us are appalled by this bait-and-switch, and worried about the crime, noise, litter, pollution, and traffic
nightmares that will come with this monstrosity. And we are taking action.
Sincerely,
Marty Minzer
From: Alan Walstad
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Black Mountain Village proposal
Date: Saturday, September 9, 2023 12:36:21 PM
Anthony Grande
Planner II* Village Planner
200 W Washington St
3rd Floor
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Greetings Anthony, I appreciate you taking the time to read my note regarding case number
GPA-DSTV-2-23-2 and/or GPA-DSTV-3-23-2 and/or Z-39-23.
My family and I are current residents in the Sky Crossing community, living just northwest of
the intersection of Black Mountain Boulevard and Deer Valley Road. We have some concerns
about the proposed zoning changes for the parcel at the southwest corner of that
intersection.
We moved to our home in part due to the quiet community surroundings, including the
residential neighborhoods of Aviano and Desert Ridge to the east, and Fireside to the
southeast. Also, Sky Crossing is bounded by vegetation and city property to the west,
the National Memorial Cemetary of Arizona to the north, and the Joni Fitts School of
Horsemanship to the northeast.
The Desert Ridge Specific Plan (in which the parcel in question lies) limits commercial
activity in the residential superblocks to no more than 3 acres.
Pinnacle High School is directly to the south of the proposed zoning
change/development.
Our decision to move to this area was predicated on the quiet, residential feel of our
neighborhood and surrounding areas. I know that many neighbors in Sky Crossing as well as
friends and neighbors in Aviano and Fireside feel the same, and this proposed change to
existing zoning conflicts with one of the primary reasons that many families may have selected
these neighborhoods.
We find that existing stores and shops (essential and non-essential) as well as medical facilities
and outdoor activities are all plentiful within a very reasonable distance (most less than 7
miles) from our existing home. We believe that there are multiple alternative locations in the
general vicinity if further development is necessary.
Each morning during the school year, the traffic at the intersection of Deer Valley Road and
Black Mountain Boulevard is horrendous. The current combination of Pinnacle High School
traffic coupled with traffic accessing SR-51 southbound from Black Mountain Boulevard
creates a backup that can take 15+ minutes to travel less than one mile. This traffic situation
will only worsen with any future development north of Pinnacle Peak Road, including the
potential extension of Black Mountain Boulevard to connect to I-17/AZ-303 through Sonoran
Desert Drive.
Our family is not in support of the proposed zoning changes:
Adding a retail shopping center will create additional traffic, including commercial trucks
and trailers delivering goods at all hours of the day and night.
Lighting in the parking lots and the stores themselves will shine directly into
homes/bedrooms along the north side of Deer Valley Road. The same homes will also
have significant noise pollution from the center.
The addition of a gas station/convenience store will also bring environmental concerns,
and even greater light and noise issues.
Any waivers granted for alcohol purchases in the center would be a significant concern
with Pinnacle High School just south of the development.
Criminal activity, which is currently minimal in our community, will very likely increase
with the addition of retail and restaurant businesses directly across the street.
Traffic at the intersection, already a significant concern each morning during the school
year, will be exacerbated with multiple businesses open at that time.
Thank you again Anthony, for reviewing our concerns about the potential zoning changes.
Best regards,
Alan Walstad
From: Rajendra
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: NO to Black Mountain Village-Case GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/Z-39-23-2
Date: Sunday, September 10, 2023 1:13:07 PM
Hello Anthony,
My name is Rajendra Danda and I am a resident of the Skycrossing community located at
Deer valley Rd and Black Mountain Blvd intersection. I would like to formally email you my
opposition about building Black mountain village. I think it's going to make our safe
neighborhood into a commercial area which will primarily cause danger to the kids . It also
will lead to more crime activities, noise, litter, pollution, more traffic nightmare,damage our
home values as well.
Thus, we strongly oppose building Black mountain village as we don't feel any necessity of
this commercial complex . Please help us on this matter.
Thanks,
Rajendra Danda
From: Rajesh Gadde
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: NO to Black Mountain Village-Case GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/Z-39-23-2
Date: Sunday, September 10, 2023 11:54:31 AM
Hello Anthony,
I am Rajesh Gadde. I live in Fireside at desert ridge, I would like to formally email you my
opposition about building Black mountain village. I think it's going to make our safe
neighborhood into a commercial area thus causing danger to kids.
It will create more crime opportunities, noise, litter, pollution, traffic nightmare as well.
We don't want this at all. Please help us on this matter.
Thanks
Rajesh
From: kay ehrick
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2. ABSOLUTELY NO global international here thanks
Date: Sunday, September 10, 2023 7:46:34 AM
Hi Anthony,
Lived here for 10 years and please tell vestar his partners and the global leaders they hang with to all take their
equity BS and play the game in some other county. We have enough crazyness on these roads and riffraff pretty
much all around us. We get eniugh traffic from the 51 enough from all the highschool and elementary. So forgive
me when I say we don’t need anymore traffic around these parts. Not to bright of an idea at all. Maybe the partners
can build near their homes or kids schools. Or find another globe to pollute. Stop building new and be the globalist
equity folks you claim to be.. let me k iw if you need the buildings that need some fixing since global love screams
vestar, and investment of international people who should be maybe building in their own countries and stop
bringing in shops that cater to worldly people. We are o lay one country and our language is English. Foreign
builders should do the climate a favor and fix the the homes already up. We sure as hell don’t need another drive
through, hell no to a gas station and really another grocery store? No thanks if we were looking for so much crap
around us we all would have moved elsewhere! Sick of these investors coming in and messing with something
good. Here’s a suggestion vestar can take all their ideas and I don’t know maybe FIX ALL THE BUILDINGS
CLOSED due some bioweapon plandamic! We don’t need anymore corners with the crap we see that has all the
crap they bring in! Vestar needs to leave it the way it was zoned for! Absolutely no businesses! Save the planet by
using all the empty buildings do to all this equity BS! Hell no to the idea! I wasn’t born yesterday and please tell
vestar to take their global equity and shove it where the son don’t shine! They should not be so money hungry to
into our neighborhood and bring in businesses they know aren’t needed! Plenty around us within a 3 mile radius.
HELL NO TO VESTAR THEIR PARTNERS AND THEIR GLOBAL EQUITY BS! The word these globalists and
their partners don’t like is Equality cause equity is racist! Maybe vestar should go and build something in south
phoenix for all the homeless and OUR VETS
Hell no to vestar in this area! Equity bs doesn’t work here I’ve already lived that time of my life . It’s equality and if
vestar is a foreign entity would rather they go globalize some other suckers! I’ve seen what these globalists and their
equity has done to Greece first hand! Hell no! Fix the buildings that are up and need a gut job remodel! Don’t want
nothing from vestar or their desert ridge ideas!
No more businesses around 3 schools! No riff raff needed anywhere close to any of these kids! Globalists OUT and
the word is EQUALITY.
No to this build.
Kay E
From: Mahitha
To: Anthony M Grande
Cc: Mahi
Subject: NO to Black Mountain Village-Case GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/Z-39-23-2
Date: Sunday, September 10, 2023 12:48:25 PM
Hello Anthony,
I am Mahitha Valluri. I live in Fireside at desert ridge, I would like to formally email you my opposition about
building Black mountain village. I think it's going to make our safe neighborhood into a commercial area thus
causing danger to kids.
It will create more crime opportunities, noise, litter, pollution, traffic nightmare as well.
We don't want this at all. Please help us on this matter.
Thanks
Mahitha
Sent from my iPhone
From: Justin Scott
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Black Mountain Village
Date: Sunday, September 10, 2023 8:53:43 PM
Hi Anthony,
I am reaching out to you with my concern about the Black Mountain Village proposal at the
intersection of Black Mountain Road and Deer Valley. I am a current resident of Desert Ridge in the
Fireside community. I kindly request that Case Numbers: GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-
23-2 are denied. I have no interest in this property and there is absolutely no need for it. This will
only cause significant issues in our community.
I hope you consider the Phoenix residents that will be very negatively affected by this proposal if
passed. Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely,
Justin Scott
Justin Scott
Justinscott634@outlook.com
(480) 865-4700
21264 N. 36h Place, Phoenix AZ 85050
From: ramya silpa
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: NO to Black Mountain Village-Case GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/Z-39-23-2
Date: Sunday, September 10, 2023 1:19:47 PM
Hello Anthony,
My name is Lakshmi Ramya Silpa Alapati and I am a resident of the Skycrossing community
located at Deer valley Rd and Black Mountain Blvd intersection. I would like to formally
email you my opposition about building Black mountain village. I think it's going to make our
safe neighborhood into a commercial area which will primarily cause danger to the kids . It
also will lead to more crime activities, noise, litter, pollution, more traffic nightmare,damage
our home values as well.
Thus, we strongly oppose building Black mountain village as we don't feel any necessity of
this commercial complex . Please help us on this matter.
Thanks,
Lakshmi Ramya Silpa Alapati
From: lakshmi alapati
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: NO to Black Mountain Village-Case GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/Z-39-23-2
Date: Sunday, September 10, 2023 1:24:31 PM
Hello Anthony,
My name is Lakshmi Ramya Silpa Alapati and I am a resident of the Skycrossing community
located at Deer valley Rd and Black Mountain Blvd intersection. I would like to formally
email you my opposition about building Black mountain village. I think it's going to make our
safe neighborhood into a commercial area which will primarily cause danger to the kids . It
also will lead to more crime activities, noise, litter, pollution, more traffic nightmare,damage
our home values as well.
Thus, we strongly oppose building Black mountain village as we don't feel any necessity of
this commercial complex . Please help us on this matter.
Thanks,
Lakshmi Ramya Silpa Alapati
From: Bob Donnelli
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Black Mountain Village
Date: Monday, September 11, 2023 3:05:16 PM
Hello Anthony,
A topic was brought to my attention re: Black Mountain Village development on the corner of Deer Valley road and
Black Mountain freeway. In the communication, it stated a plan to develop the area commercially.
As a resident homeowner in the Desert Ridge Aviano community, I would be opposed to such development. The
expression ‘convenience has its costs’ is not a mantra that would garner local resident support.
As you are aware, with the implementation of such comes an impact on the local community. These external, non-
controllable influences would add additional burden to the traffic flow, already very challenged with the high school
across the street; an esthetic decline of the local neighborhood housing; an invitation to non-resident commuters; and
the potential for a parabolic change of public safety in the local community.
I understand business well. The location would embrace a single family residential development, a logical option for
the land. This area is a much sought after residential community and the ability to pre-sell any number of residences
would be accomplished with little effort.
Albeit one email, this topic was brought to my attention by a host of local homeowners. I look forward to your
consideration.
Sincerely,
Robert Donnelli
602.708.1250
Sent from my iPhone
From: Praveen Mahadevaiah
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Opposition to Black Mountain Village (case numbers GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DTV-3-23-2/Z39-23-2)
Date: Monday, September 11, 2023 9:13:42 AM
Dear Sir,
This is Praveen Mahadevaiah a resident of Fireside in Desert Ridge, Phoenix. I am writing
this email to express our opposition to the proposed Black mountain village with case numbers
GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DTV-3-23-2/Z39-23-2.
Our homes were built under the Desert ridge specific plan. The plan promised us a clean, quiet
and safe neighbourhood because commercial activity was placed in the "commercial core".
Commercial activity in the "residential superblocks" is strictly limited to minor
"conveniences" of no more than 3 acres and drive through operations are prohibited. The land
at deer valley and black mountain is designated residential under the plan, Vestar, the
developer of the Desert ridge marketplace, now wants to rake in more money by changing the
zoning and the plan, to put in a 20 acre shopping center right across from Pinnacle high
school. They say it will contain a drive through fast food, drive through coffee, a gas station
and grocery of unknown name and type.
Many of us were baffled by this rezone proposal and worried about the noise, crime, litter and
pollution and traffic nightmares. As state route 51 route ends at the Black mountain blvd, there
is already a lot of traffic and congestion in this intersection of Deer valley and black mountain,
especially during peak hours. With the proposed rezone for a commercial property, this will
make matters even worse.
Our house backs up to the black mountain blvd and we are really worried about the rezone
proposal and the effect it will have on our beautiful community.
We request you to consider our opposition to this proposed rezone of the residential block and
we don't want the black mountain village.
Regards
Praveen
From: Yasmin Rivera-Klein
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: GPA-DSTV-2-23-2
Date: Monday, September 11, 2023 8:46:51 PM
Dear Anthony,
I am writing today regarding Vestar’s proposals (case numbers) GPA-DSTV-2-23-2, GPA
DSTV-3-23-2, and Z-39-23. As a resident of Desert Ridge, I oppose Vestar’s proposal for
rezoning the Southwest Corner of Black Moutain Boulevard and Deer Valley Drive from
Residential to Commercial/Retail for several reasons.
First, Desert Ridge is a highly desirable planned residential community that continues to
attract buyers willing to pay a premium for a prime location. Adding commercial/retail
mixed-use space in the middle of the community would decrease the desirability of Desert
Ridge and lower the values of residential real estate within the community.
Second, the traffic flow within Desert Ridge is already too great for the limited infrastructure
within the community. Pinnacle Peak High School is located adjacent to the proposed site.
The traffic caused during the morning/afternoon pick up/drop off combined with regular
commuting already creates a safety issue on Black Moutain and Deer Valley, with vehicles
backed up in every direction. Adding unnecessary commercial/retail space would only
increase the traffic and lead to safety issues.
Third, there is no need for mixed commercial/retail space in the middle of single-family
homes. The area has more than ample shopping options - Desert Ridge Marketplace, High
Street, and shopping off of Cave Creek Rd and the 101 are all within an extremely close
distance. Finally, creating a commercial/retail space in the middle of a residential area will
bring increased instances of crime, which, when coupled with declining property values,
would limit the marketability of Desert Ridge.
Given the detrimental impacts on our home values, marketability, safety, noise/light
pollution, and increased traffic without adequate infrastructure, these proposals should be
denied. Please do not hesitate to reach out if I can provide any additional information.
Regards,
Yasmin Rivera
From: Susan Ze
To: Anthony M Grande
Cc: Council District 2 PCC
Subject: Black Mountain village - Superblock 12 Oppostion
Date: Monday, September 11, 2023 3:24:52 PM
Mr. Grande and Councilman Waring. Greetings.
As residents of Copperview Neighborhood in Fireside - Desert Ridge, my husband and I are
adamantly opposed to the proposed rezoning of the property known as a portion of Parcel 12.L
within Superblock 12 of the Desert Ridge Specific Plan. We realize you have probably
received many letters expressing such opposition, so I will briefly list our concerns. We
moved from northern California about seven years ago to be closer to two of our daughters
and their families and have found a pleasant home in Copperview but already see some
negative activity and really fear how the proposed Black Mountain Village Project will
escalate those negative incidents. Many of the younger families in the neighborhood may
have already expressed their opinions, but I feel that we older folk should also have a voice.
We live on E Abraham Lane, just off of Mayo and very close to the Black Mountain/Mayo
corner where large numbers of high school students congregate at the lights waiting to cross
and cars wait in long lines to either turn left to access AZ 51 or drop off their children in the
right lane. We also have long lines of cars on Abraham Lane itself as well as N 36th Street
during drop off and pick up times and many cars exceeding the speed limit and/or making U
turns. A commercial property on Black Mountain Blvd across from the high school will add
more traffic problems to all parts of the Fireside neighborhood, not just Copperview. In
addition, the safety of our students going to Pinnacle High School will be adversely affected.
We have watched over the past few years as vandalism and criminal incidents have increased
at Desert Ridge Shopping Center. Putting a commercial center right next to a high school is
only inviting more of such behavior.
The noise and light pollution will certainly increase and woe to those neighbors whose houses
back up to Black Mountain Blvd directly across from the proposed commercial project. In
addition, the amount of litter produced will surely spread over into the adjoining
neighborhoods.
Of course, there is a master plan for Desert Ridge, and a commercial center next to the high
school was not included, for very good reasons. We realize that the land is owned by the
Arizona State Land Department and proceeds from the sale of such lands is to benefit the
schools, but what better way to benefit Pinnacle High School (as well as the surrounding
neighborhoods, including Fireside, Aviano, and Sky Crossing) than to provide additional
student parking and/or a well designed drop off/ pick up area which would alleviate and not
add to current traffic problems.
If you truly feel in your heart the need to vote for rezoning, despite the very logical and well
researched objections, my husband and I hope that you will fight to incorporate absolute
requirements, such as including community resources (a library and funding for it would be a
fantastic addition!), covered parking with solar panels to reduce electricity needs, location
requirements that reduce traffic problems and light pollution, prohibiting any gas station or
any all night business, to mention just a few ideas.
I hope that you will truly take the concern of your fellow citizens to heart and not just rubber
stamp the rezoning request in order to replenish the city or the school districts coffers. While
we may be only a small neighborhood compared to the number of people living in Phoenix,
we should be respected for our opinions and needs. Please realize the adding a commercial
center right next to the school and directly across from a residential area does not meet OUR
needs and certainly does not show any respect for us.
Sincerely,
Susan Ze
From: barbara bass
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Rezoning for commercial shopping center
Date: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 2:49:39 PM
No NO I know Money Talks But so does the residents of out neighboring communities! We DONT WANT THIS !
(Protecting the safety of our children with a high school right next door! For the safety of all the homes, for the
additional traffic, NO NO)We have a beautiful shopping center with All the amenities we need and Crimes have
increased WE DONT NEED THIS IN OUR BACK YARDS! I’m not sure this can be stopped because it’s all about
$$$ But we can try!!!!
Sent from my iPhone
From: Eliza Bozzelli
To: Anthony M Grande
Cc: Council District 2 PCC; Michael Bozzelli
Subject: STRONGLY OPPOSED to Black Mountain Village
Date: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 10:03:11 AM
To Whom it May Concern,
We are new residents are Fireside with 3 small children, two of which attend Fireside Elementary School.
We bought our home under the pretenses that we were raising our family in a safe, quiet neighborhood
and that the land around us had VERY MINIMAL commercial zoning.
This suggested rezoning is going to have such a great impact on our community, our safety, and our
already overwhelmed streets. Especially Mayo, which we walk along every day to bring our kids to school.
Mayo is a complete nightmare during school dropoff and pickup hours already.
Furthermore, the threat of a gas station, or drive through will bring fumes, loitering and crime to our
community.
I am STRONGLY OPPOSED to this rezoning and I feel that I was sold a lie when I bought my house. Our
children and our community deserve better than this.
Eliza Bozzelli
From: Jen
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Opposed to Re zoning
Date: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 7:11:39 PM
I read that Bestar is looking to redone near Deer Valley and Blk Mtn Rd.
I want to state that I am opposed to this Re-zoning.
Let me know if I need to sign anything .
Thank you-
Jen Cakebread
Long Realty Unlimited
From: Jason Epstein
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Vestar Rezoning Proposal for SW Corner of Deer Valley and Black Mountain Blvd.
Date: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 11:58:46 AM
Hello Mr. Grande,
I have recently learned of the Vestar development proposal to rezone and
commercially develop the land parcel on the SW corner of Deer Valley and Black
Mountain Blvd. This is addressed in case no. GPA-DSTV-3-23-2 and Z-39-23.
As a resident of the Sky Crossing community, on the north side of Deer Valley, I
oppose this rezoning proposal. It threatens our quality of life for the following reasons:
- The proposed commercial businesses will add additional automobile traffic, which
will increase air and noise polution.
- The increased automobile traffic, just feet from Pinacle High School, will also
threaten the safety of these students as motorists continuously drive in and out of this
complex. As parents of a young child who will eventually attend this high school, we
are very concerned about this impact.
- These businesses will add to light polution. The Sky Crossing HOA residential rules
have deliberately restricted lighting on housing in order to preserve our views of the
night sky. Our residents have enjoyed dark nights with full views of the stars. Bright
lights from all-night businesses will impact the tranquility we have worked hard to
achieve.
We moved to the Sky Crossing neighborhood in order to enjoy the relative piece and
quiet afforded by this sparse residential area in northern Phoenix. The parcel on the
SW corner of Deer Valley and Black Mountain Blvd., as originally zoned, is consistent
with this goal, intended as a residential community. I am asking that you reject the
Vestar development proposal and keep this land parcel zoned as residential for the
benefit of the surrounding community.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Jason Epstein
3317 E. Cashman Drive
Phoenix, AZ 85050
From: J
To: Anthony M Grande
Cc: PDD Desert View VPC
Subject: Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 9:47:22 PM
In reference to Cases:
GPA-DSTV-2-23-2
GPA-DSTV-3-23-2
Z-39-23
Hi Anthony,
I just ended a community meeting with the representatives from Vestar (Gammage &
Burnham) and my local community where the conceptual plan for black mountain village was
discussed. I have to say I am deeply disappointed with this proposal, that includes a request for
amending the districting of the land from residential to commercial and the build out of a 20
acre shopping center. From the call itself, many other community members were equally
disappointed and voiced their concerns.
I've read through the plan and the commentary as provided by the representatives of this build
out, that includes notes such as that this is to the benefit of the community in limiting drive
time and is intended to cater to the local area residents. I am a local resident and my current
shopping drive time is 5 minutes to the desert ridge shopping center. I do not agree that
bringing traffic, crime, pollution, litter, noise, and light are worth the benefit of saving me 5
minutes of drive time to do my regular shopping.
I originally purchased my home in the sky crossing community as a part of the desert ridge
specific plan, with the understanding that commercial placements would stay near the
commercial core of the desert ridge area. Should the concept be built, it is difficult to say that
the city did not intend to lure high income residents such as myself into the community with
intention to later change the zoning to benefit builders and local revenues over the safety and
peace of mind of it's residents. The city planners believed that this location would best serve
the community as residential zoning as per the Desert Ridge Specific Plan 6-44 under section
'Superblock 12'.
It is inarguable that commercial districts bring new types of crime to residential communities.
It is inarguable that commercial districts bring more traffic to local communities. The benefit
of building this shopping center, right next to current homes and a large high-school, must
outweigh the traffic, safety concerns, pollution, and noise that such a district would bring.
Since as written by representatives of the build that this shopping center would be to our
benefit, I fail to see what benefit that is that outweighs the safety of our local students and
peace of mind of residents of the local communities. When asked during tonight's phone call
about prioritizing pedestrian bridges for students and locals, the answers were that the
associated costs were prohibitive, likely indicating that the priority is not on benefit of
residents, but on revenue. Perhaps you can share the value-add that outweighs the risks of
commercial traffic near a school zone?
Should this build go through, my wife and I will likely leave the community. I've personally
experienced commercial districts being built next to otherwise quiet, residential locales, and
have heard the song and dance of attorneys who have promised minimal impacts and benefits
to the community. This was intended to be our forever home, and should we have to contend
with the risk of a large shopping center such as this one and the risks that shopping centers
bring, we will find ourselves residents of a new community and will encourage the multitude
of other community members who are equally disappointed to leave as well.
I ask that commercial districting stay within the current confines of existing commercial
districts, that we refrain from re-zoning residential districts to commercial districts found in
the desert ridge specific plan, and that the land we use keeps as planned by the original authors
of the desert ridge specific plan, unless and as agreed to, by residents of the community, not
builders seeking profit.
Thank you for your time and your consideration,
Josh
From: Barb Melsek
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Rezoning on Black Mountain
Date: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 8:58:15 PM
I am opposed to the rezoning from residential to commercial on Black Mountain Blvd and Deer Valley. This will
not be safe for the 100’s of children and staff that go to Pinnacle High School
Thanks,
Barb Melsek
Sent from my iPhone
From: Kenneth Miller
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Opposition to rezone
Date: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 2:56:45 PM
Hi Anthony,
As a 17 year resident of Aviano and living near deer valley I vehemently oppose the rezoning of The parcel of
land near pinnacle high school. I have had 3 kids go thru that school. The traffic is horrendous, the lure of a gas
station to buy tobacco and alcohol and generally hang out will be a detrimental to the kids and our nice quite pocket
away from all shopping and industry will be depleted. I feel, as a real estate agent that this will lower property
values and become a beacon for crime near our homes. Please reconsider. We will all be there at the October
meeting. Thank you
Debbie Miller
22008 north 36th way
Sent from my iPhone
From: C. Taylor Morgan
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Opposition to Black Mountain Village
Date: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 9:27:15 AM
Hello Mr. Grande,
My name is Christine Taylor Morgan and I am a resident of Scarlet Ridge in the Fireside
subdivision in Desert Ridge.
Over recent months I have become aware of the recent efforts by Vestar to rezone land nearby my
home to create a large shopping complex. I just want to add my deep concern and opposition to
such a development. I bought my house in 2011 and was comforted by the lack of commercial
development nearby. Desert Ridge shopping center is close enough (only a few blocks away!) for
all my shopping needs and Costco gas station is not far either and much cheaper alternative to
Jacksons. I worry about the increased traffic off the 51 and on Mayo (interfering with my exiting
my neighborhood), the danger to schoolchildren walking back and forth from school, the crime
and loitering that will inevitably follow, the negative impact this will have on the health and safety
of Pinnacle High School students, the increased light pollution and car exhaust pollution, and yes,
sadly, the increase in homeless near my home. My house backs up to a wash near Black Mountain
Blvd and I can foresee a future where homeless could possibly make an encampment behind my
house. It makes me feel like I may need to move for my own peace of mind and safety. Honestly, I
was hoping that a portion of the empty land in front of Pinnacle High School would have been
turned into a parking lot for the students or parents for pick-up and drop-off. It is absolutely
chaotic around the area for drop-offs and pick-ups. But of course, there is no profit in that.
I feel this development is completely unnecessary and would like to add my name to those who are
vehemently opposed to it. Thank you for your consideration and involvement in this matter.
Regards,
C. Taylor Morgan
From: julie richards
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Black Mountain Village
Date: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 11:54:23 AM
My family has lived in Aviano for the past 17 years. We have loved our quiet community and do not need or want a
shopping center close by. We strongly oppose Black Mountain Village.
Case number: GPA-DSTV 2-23-2 GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/z-39-23-2
Sent from my iPhone
From: Jodie Abrams
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Black Mountain Village
Date: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 9:27:02 AM
Re: cases GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2
To whom It May Concern:
I want to register my strong opposition to the proposed Black Mountain Village at Deer Valley and Black Mountain.
As residents we chose to live in Fireside at Desert Ridge for a clean, quiet and safe neighborhood which was built
under the Desert Ridge Specific Plan. To rezone for Vestar’s commercial purposes is a complete betrayal to this
community. Furthermore, this would drastically increase the traffic around the high school area and potentially put
the kids at risk for traffic accidents and crime. Please DO NOT allow the zoning to be changed.
Jodie Abrams
3872 E. Melinda Dr.
Phoenix, AZ 85050
From: JAYNE BAHOURA
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: No to vestar on deer valley and black mountain blvd.
Date: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 7:24:07 AM
Hello
You may not live in the area, but this is a super bad idea. The location is in the middle of neighborhoods. Nobody
wants the traffic or the noise this would create. We have desert ridge around the corner and cave creek rd. Both of
have plenty of gas stations and food options. Please do not consider this ludicrous idea. Its not an added value
location, it would be a community disrupter.
Thank you
Jayne Bahoura
Sent from Jayne
From: Cindy Bennette
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Vestar Rezoning
Date: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 1:20:27 PM
I am writing to inform you that I am extremely opposed to the Vestar plan to change the zoning from residential to
commercial at Deer Valley and Black Mountain Boulevard. There is already a major traffic issue on that corner,
children walk through that area and I am concerned that this will become an extreme hazard for them. Additionally,
it does not fit within the desert ridge master plan, and will create chaos for homeowners across the street. We
specifically moved to this area to avoid heavy commercial areas.
Thank you for your consideration, Cynthia Bennette
Sent from my iPhone
From: lburdett
To: Anthony M Grande; lburdett@q.com
Subject: Apposed to Rezoning Black Mountain Pkwy
Date: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 5:58:46 PM
Hi Anthony
I am writing to you to let you know I absolutely oppose the rezoning of Black Mountain
Parkway Blvd and Deer Valley Rd where they want to put in commercial zoning. Please don't
do this. Phoenix is developing every inch of land Arizona has!
Thank you
Laura Burdett
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
From: Diane Cash
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Rezoning
Date: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 10:34:10 PM
Anthony
I received the email talking about the rezoning of the area off of Deer Valley/Black Mountain putting in grocery
store, gas station, coffee shop etc.
I am opposed to this . Traffic in that area is always congested and busy with the high school.
We have plenty of stores and gas station at Desert Ridge
Is there a petition that I need to fill out?
Thank you
Diane
Sent from my iPhone
From: Bryant De Piazza
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: I oppose Black Mountain Blvd reasoning proposal for Vestar
Date: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 2:31:23 PM
Attachments: image001.png
Please do not approve the Vestar requested rezoning for Deer Valley and Black Mountain rd. We
already have too many cars and population clogging Tatum and Cave Creek roads and now they
want to do that next to the high school. This will also cause more danger for our young youth around
the high school and clog up that area. Please oppose.
Thank you
Bryant De Piazza | CEO
E: bryant.depiazza@dpgemelli.com
www.gemellihome.com [gemellihome.com]
From: Shelley Flecky
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: Fwd: Resident of Fireside - against rezone Black Mountain Village
Date: Thursday, September 14, 2023 6:53:13 AM
Begin forwarded message:
From: Shelley Flecky
Date: September 13, 2023 at 9:44:03 PM MST
To: anthony.grande@phoenix.gov, council.district.2@phoenix.gov
Subject: Resident of Fireside - against rezone Black Mountain Village
Hello,
I have been a resident of Fireside Desert Ridge since 2011. I now have a son at
Pinnacle High School. I am strongly against re-zoning the area by his school to
commercial. This was not the original plan and definitely after all the growth in
this area should not be the new plan. Traffic on Black Mountain Blvd is
horrendous and downright dangerous during school hours. I don’t think it is a safe
place to add more congestion. Please do not re-zone! The community does not
want this.
Thank you,
Shelley Flecky
Referencing case numbers GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2
From: Dana Hurwitz
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Oppose Rezoning Black Mtn Blvd and Deer Valley/Mayo
Date: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 6:59:25 PM
Hi Anthony
I am OPPOSED TO REZONING the residential area off Mayo and Black Mountain Blvd.
I have living in AZ my entire life. Up the street in Aviano community from Pinnacle High
School now for about 12 years. We opposed the freeway outlet onto BLack Mountian Blvd
when it is being proposed due to the high school and the ineffective bridge that was built over
Black Mountain Boulevard. Every day I watch highschoolers cut across the lanes near the
roundabout versus using the pedestrian bridge. That bridge was a huge waste of money as the
kids who live across the street do not use it. Duh teenagers many will find path of learnt
resistance/ effort. so this was a huge waste of our tax dollars and money and makes it very
dangerous for the kids. So not good planning there. Another negative is the traffic at PHS
during rush hour traffic. Great planning to clog up the very narrow street and bring 2k+ kids to
school during rush hour and adjacent to the freeway entrance. An entrance could have been
built near a less busy entrance or on the west side of the school or off 40th street where there is
no school.
I guess what I am saying is there seems to be little thought on what happens after things are
built out and how it actually impacts the folks who use it everyday. Safety in this first example
was and IS huge concern.
The principal at PHS opposes the rezoning. Many residents in nearby neighborhood and
families that attend PHS oppose the rezoning. The high school has very limited parking and
should be expanded to allow for the increase volume of students that attend the school. The
school grows more every year. I guess if this becomes commercial where do you think all the
sophomores will be parking or the kids who cannot get permits to park on campus?
I feel like Arizona for so long been inept at planning what is proper for communities, families
etc. I am good with not needing a grocery store two blocks from my home. There is a ton of
WOS off 40th street for development and seems more appropriate. Rezoning to commercial
will be an absolute headache for the school, parking, anyone trying to use business in the
proposed area. If you have not please drive though the area on a busy school morning and tell
me how you feel. Or maybe attend an event at the high school. The parents who attend the
school for event have to park in the fields off Mayo as there is just not enough space. I think if
any change is to come it should be parking.
I am opposed to the businesses to be clear. Fast food etc is the wrong thing to put in. This will
make community unhealthy, have too many More kids crossing BMB and very busy Deer
Valley from neighborhoods across the way. No control of pedestrian traffic, even if you try to
they are kids and may not abide. The heavily populated (family friendly)neighborhoods do not
need these businesses in their vicinity as there are plenty around and better if you have to seek
it out to ruin your health. Any entrance for business would be dangerous off Mayo or BMB…
Further down deer valley would be better, but not at or near the corner or DV and BMB or
mayo and BMB. There is just so many kids out walking and I don’t think adding any
congestion or entrance for business make sense.
I think desert, some parking for that area make the most sense for the community. Please help
our community this time to make the right decision and hold safety, what is logical for the
community, growth of the highschool at the forefront vs profits.
Thank you for your time and attention. I am OPPOSED TO REZONING TO
COMMERCIAL.
Dana Hurwitz
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 4:18:37 PM
Name
John N
Jcsiiajdis@proton.me
Support Comments
I am writing to express my very strong opposition to the proposed development and rezoning of the land from
residential to commercial at the Southwest Corner of Deer Valley and Black Mountain by Vestar Development
Group. The conversion of this residential area into a commercial zone would have severe consequences, detrimental
implications, and potentially devastating impacts on both the environment and the community. I implore you to
reconsider this decision and prioritize the well-being of the city, its residents, and its natural surroundings.
The City of Phoenix has outlined a comprehensive sustainability plan for the year 2050, with clear guidelines for
responsible development that considers the efficient usage of resources, including water. One crucial aspect of this
plan is the expansion of parks, preserves, and open spaces, ensuring that all residents are within a five-minute walk
of such spaces, but those spaces must be sustainable or else the whole point of having a commercial center within
walking distance is null. Furthermore, the goal of reducing urban heat-island effects through green infrastructure
and increasing tree and shade canopy coverage is paramount.
However, the proposed development contradicts these essential sustainability goals. Converting the area into a car-
centric commercial zone would undoubtedly lead to increased traffic congestion, resulting in higher CO2 emissions.
The associated light and noise pollution would disrupt the delicate balance of the ecosystem and erode the serene
character of the Sonoran Desert environment, its flora and fauna, and its natural aesthetic.
I urge you to consider the broader impact of this development on the city's future. Will it be in line with the City of
Phoenix's sustainability regulations, ensuring that the structures incorporate features such as vertical gardens and
agricultural areas on their roofs? Will there be proper infrastructure in place, including ample bicycle racks,
substantial green spaces covering over 80% of the area, and designs that prioritize pedestrian and micromobility
traffic over internal combustion engine vehicles? Specifically, bicycle lanes which are physically protected by a
barrier to protect cyclists from traffic?
The City of Phoenix has shown a commitment to reducing air pollution and safeguarding public health through
various programs and initiatives. However, this development project poses a significant threat by potentially
increasing the emission of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs), negatively impacting the environment, ecosystem,
and the health of the community.
The City of Phoenix states, “The City of Phoenix is strongly committed to reducing air pollution and protecting
public health. The city implements a wide range of air quality programs to reduce ozone and particulate pollution
(dust and smoke). Transit, light rail, bikeways, and pedestrian-friendly development reduce vehicle emissions and
promote land use planning and urban designs for a more sustainable environment”. How will this development
protect public health when in fact, it will introduce vulnerabilities witthin the community? It will actively degrade
and destroy the health of the surrounding community and communities.
Equally concerning is the potential destruction of native plants in the area due to this development. The loss of
biodiversity and destruction of the Sonoran Desert's unique ecosystem cannot be taken lightly.
The Environmental Protection Agency asserts that that, “Volatile organic compounds (VOC) means any compound
of carbon, excluding carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic carbides or carbonates, and
ammonium carbonate, which participates in atmospheric photochemical reactions”. These harmful chemicals would
be released into our atmosphere if the proposed development is approved. We must oppose and condemn this
egregious use of building authority with passion for the future of the City of Phoenix, and on a more global scale,
the Earth itself.
In light of these concerns, I wholeheartedly disagree and very strongly oppose the Vestar Development Group's
plans for the Southwest Corner of Deer Valley and Black Mountain. I urge you to immediately stop and
immediately halt all current and future development plans and instead prioritize the city's sustainability goals,
community well-being, and the preservation of the natural environment. By doing so, you can help shape a better
future for the City of Phoenix and its residents.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
From: ELONIA LASKU
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Oppose rezoning
Date: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 3:49:09 PM
To whom it may concern!
My family absolutely opposes the rezoning on Black Mountain Blvd.
Thank you!
Elonia Lasku DDS
Aviano resident
Sent from my iPhone
From: Heather Magill
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: rezoning on Black Mountain Blvd and Mayo Blvd
Date: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 2:36:11 PM
Mr. Grande,
My daughter attended Fireside, currently attends Mountain Trail Middle
School and will most likely go to Pinnacle HS next year. I am extremely
opposed to rezoning the SW Corner of Black Mountain Blvd and Mayo Blvd
into a commercial area.
This was intended to be a residential area not a commercial area.
People purchased their homes with the understanding they were in a
residential neighborhood. Allowing a developer to come in a rezone for
the developers financial benefit is a slap the neighbors face.
Neither Black Mountain Blvd nor Mayo were intended to be major
commercial thorough fairs and there are plenty of businesses within 1 to
3 miles that provide these proposed services. Those areas are in
commercially zoned areas and are major roads.
There are 5000+ students at this school. The area is congested enough
during school drop off and pick up hours and adding more congestion to
the area will create an even bigger risk of accidents especially with
student pedestrians and new drivers. We currently have a jaywalking
problem at that very intersection twice a day. Along with many cars
parking along the road for student pickup.
Rezoning the area to commercial appears to be a ploy for businesses to
target students who are still learning to manage impulse control and
money management. In addition, it increases the opportunities for
student truancy, loitering, littering, purchasing questionable products
such as vapes/alcohol they can easily hide and take directly into school.
Because the businesses will be overwhelmed with students and students
will try to park their to attend school rather than the school parking
lot, I suspect many signs will be posted ... "customer parking only", no
loitering, only "3 students the store at a time", "cars will be towed
after two hours", "no student drop off/pickup". They might even have to
higher a security service to prevent these activities creating a
negative environment at the business center and the neighborhood.
Based on on those items I believe commercial area will not benefit the
neighborhood but make it more stressful and unhappy to access.
Please ask yourself, would you want stores and a gas station to be built
right next to your home or to your child's school? Its one thing to
choose a place where that already exists, its quite another for someone
to change the rules after you have already purchased your home and
established your family.
Thank you for your attention in this matter.
Heather Magill
From: Heather McDonough
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Concerns for proposed land development
Date: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 2:39:23 PM
Hi Anthony,
I’d like to voice my concerns about having such a large commercial development so close to
the high school. I know that this area is underserved with things like grocery stores, but I have
some safety concerns. I’m concerned for a few of these reasons:
1. It will bring a bus stop to the area right outside the high school. Possibly opening it up to
panhandlers and homeless individuals that we have seen on the rise in Desert Ridge. Posing
safety risks to those who walk to and from school.
2. The traffic is already very bad in that area, and will likely cause more congestion and
traffic.
3. Loitering after school by the high school kids, causing safety concerns, also kids from the
high school parking in the shopping parking lots.
4. Noise and light pollution for those homes surrounding this area that has been proposed.
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
Heather McDonough
From: Eugene
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Opposition to Applications to Amend the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance for Desert Ridge
Date: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 9:45:37 AM
As you are aware, there are pending City of Phoenix Planning and Development Department
applications (GPA-DSTV-3-23-2 and Z-39-23), to amend the Desert Ridge Master Plan and zoning
ordinance to allow building a commercial shopping center in the middle of our residential
community! This level of over-development needs to stop NOW, and I request your support to deny
this change. Vestar is not interested in the quality of life in our community. This commercial center
would transform the neighborhood to absorb increased traffic, noise, lighting, pollution, and even
crime. What possible benefit can another neighborhood retail grocery store, gas station or
restaurant add to the abundance of retail shopping and dining at the Desert Ridge Mall and
surrounding areas?
Instead, I would ask that you consider developing this 20.5 acre site owned by the people of Arizona
(through the Arizona State Land Department) by planting trees and green landscaping for the use
and pleasure of your District 2 voters and their children rather than the profits for the Vestar
investors!
Sincerely,
Eugene F. Montgomery, PE
Sent from Mail [go.microsoft.com] for Windows
From: Camille Nassif
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2
Date: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 1:33:44 PM
Re: GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2
Project located at the corner of Deer Valley Road and Black Mountain
Please do not move forward with this re-zoning. We want to keep this area commercial free as was originally
planned and sold to us. There are commercial areas only a few blocks west on Tatum Blvd and a few blocks east on
Cave Creek - we do not need additional commercially designated zones with ones already so close.
There is already too much congestion at that same corner during the mornings and afternoons due to the adjacent
school and this will not only make it worse but also more dangerous for these students and for the neighboring
residents.
Thank you for your time and attention, Camille Nassif
From: Peggy Polito
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Oppose!!!!
Date: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 9:02:48 AM
Anthony Grande,
I’m letting you know, I absolutely oppose the rezoning on Black Mountain Blvd. When is enough….enough!
Peggy Polito
From: Richards, Dan
To: Anthony M Grande; Council District 2 PCC
Subject: Stop the Rezoning change on Parcel 212-38-023B (Black Mountain Village)
Date: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 2:16:00 PM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
Hello Mr. Grande and councilman Waring,
I wanted to bring this to your attention that people in the Desert Ridge area have paid ads popping up on their Facebook page
requesting people to sign their petition in support of the Vestar’s Black Mountain Village Devlopement. If this advertisement
is sponsored by Gammage and Burnham, is this even legal? This advertisement is very misleading, in a matter that could sway
the outcome of the legal representation that they’re providing to Vestar.
A major concern residents that live around this development have is that there is no way of knowing what is being considered
as part of this development. Once this is approved to be rezoned, Vestar can do whatever they want with this land. The
survey at the bottom of this page asks people to take a survey of which grocery store people would like to see in this
development. Below are the options that people can choose from:
Trader Joe’s = Between 10,000 and 15,000 square feet
Sprouts = 28,500 square feet
Whole Foods = Between 21,000 - 38,000 square feet
Safeway = 46,000 square feet
Fry’s = Between 80,000-105,000 square feet
I would say there’s a massive difference between the stores they are discussing in that online survey. We need to know if they
are discussing something smaller like a Trader Joe’s or something massive like a Fry’s. There is a huge difference between
these. There is no sense of connection or community if you’re planning on adding a Fry’s to this development. This is also not
catering to just the Desert Ridge community. Take a couple minutes to jump on the Nextdoor website/app and you’ll see an
incredible amount of people who live south of the 101 excited to see this development. This would allow them to stay off the
101 and just exit directly off the 51, onto Black Mountain Boulevard. This is not at all what Vestar is trying to promote with
this project! They’re promoting a sense of community and providing convenience for grocery stores and gas stations to
Desert Ridge residents.
If you open up google and type in GAS STATION you will find that there are 11 gas stations within 3 miles of this
intersection. Additionally, within 3 miles of this intersection you have a Costco, Fry’s, Albertsons, and Target. I can’t easily
count the number of restaurants in that 3 mile range, but you have over a 20 alone near Desert Ridge and including High
Street. There is absolutely no reason Vestar should be even considering a gas station at this location. The families that built
either directly across the street, or very close to this development, are being punished for no reason. We were told that this is
a residential superblock. The families that built in this area did so knowing that they would have a safe, quiet, area for their
children to grow up around. This is not what I want directly across the street from my young family. Fireside residents, Sky
Crossing resident, as well as the Estate at Ridgeview are uniting and we need to know we are being heard. This development
can not just be a formality, because of the auction price is too lucrative.
I sincerely hope you take my concerns into consideration when deciding the fate of this rezoning vote. I look forward to
speaking with both or you, in person, at the remaining council meetings.
Thanks,
Dan Richards
21618 N 36th Street
From: Dorie Sanders
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Rezoning proposal
Date: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 7:09:51 PM
Please DO NOT permit changed zoning on Deer Valley Rd and Black Mountain. You are ruining our desert. We
don’t want it or need it for all the reasons you’ve already heard. The traffic density is already saturated and our
community will suffer the consequences. We don’t want or need additional commercial development.
Sent from my iPhone
From: Tonia Schwartz
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Rezoning at Deer Valley & Black Mountain
Date: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 8:44:22 PM
Please do not rezone commercial! Maintain the family neighborhood and protect the area from
congestion and increased traffic.
Tonia Schwartz
Sent from Mail [go.microsoft.com] for Windows
From: Joanna Stockford
To: Anthony M Grande; Council District 2 PCC
Subject: Oppose rezoning on Black Mountain
Date: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 8:01:34 AM
To whom it may concern:
I strongly opposed the development of property at Deer Valley and Black Mountain. The traffic in this area is
already unmanageable and adding commercial property is only going to exacerbate this issue. It already takes an
extraordinary amount of time to get children to and from Pinnacle High School. And yes, we live in district for that
school. It will also create a safety hazard for students walking to and from school from the surrounding
neighborhoods. There is already a shortage of parking at the school- this parcel is used for special event parking
when the lot is full (football, etc.). This could lead to overflow parking now occurring in the nearby neighborhoods.
Desert Ridge Marketplace is 3 miles from this location and has everything anyone could need so the development of
this small parcel in the middle of a neighborhood right next to a school (also increasing the risk of crime) is
completely unnecessary. It should remained zoned for residential.
Thank you,
Joanna Stockford
Sent from my iPhone
From: Carol Ticgelaor
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Zoning on Black Mountain Parkway/ Deer Valley Road
Date: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 4:33:16 PM
Dear Sir,
I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed re-zoning effort by Vestar. There are two
schools very nearby, and I am concerned about the increased level of traffic in that area with a
commercial project.
My daughter and her young family live in the subdivision directly across from this proposed area. I
believe it is currently zoned for residential construction, which I believe to be the best use.
I appreciate your taking the time to consider my viewpoint.
Most respectfully,
Carol Fortune Ticgelaor
Sent from Mail [go.microsoft.com] for Windows
From: Marci Gluck-Stewart
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: No rezoning!
Date: Thursday, September 14, 2023 7:54:00 AM
I oppose the rezoning on black mountain Blvd near pinnacle high school. Please don’t allow this!!
Marci Gluck
Resident
Sent from my iPhone
From: Matt Gunty
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Oppose reZoning by Vestar
Date: Thursday, September 14, 2023 7:10:34 AM
As a long time resident of this area I oppose the reZoning petition by Vestar to move the Deer Valley/Black Canyon
freeway at Pinnacle peak from residential to commercial- this area has been over saturated with expansion and the
particular location will encroach in an area near a high school that already sees and influx of young drivers,
pedestrian and vehicular traffic.
Please support the constituency and not big business. Put your efforts towards getting bonds approved to construct a
much needed new high school in the Norterra area for an already over burdened system.
Sincerely,
Matthew Gunty
1005 w Remuda Dr
Phoenix AZ 85085
Sent from my iPhone
From: Dana Huether
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Rezoning
Date: Thursday, September 14, 2023 7:27:32 AM
I am very much opposed to rezoning of the corner of Deer Valley Road and Black Mt. Blvd.
My grandchildren are high school age (Pinnacle High).
Velstar Development's plan is not conducive to a family neighborhood It will bring excessive
traffic, noise and late night business into an area intended for family life.
Dana Huether
Phoenix AZ
From: Sharon Lee-Peters
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: OPPOSE VESTAR REZONING
Date: Thursday, September 14, 2023 5:35:41 AM
We absolutely oppose the rezoning on Black Mountain Blvd for a grocery store, a gas
station, either/and/or a chic fil a, chipotle, dutch bros, etc. on that little corner of space next
to Pinnacle High School.
PLEASE DON'T ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN! A gas station would be a disaster!
Thank you,
Sharon
Sharon Lee-Peters
Interior Designer
Anthony Peters
Contractor
https://www.facebook.com/sharon.lee.peters/ [facebook.com]
Style By Design LLC
21001 N Tatum Blvd
Suite 1630-160
Phoenix AZ 85050
602-788-1216
“I’m going to make everything around me beautiful—that will be my life.” - Elsie De Wolfe
From: Carefree Builders
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Stop the redone
Date: Thursday, September 14, 2023 11:18:33 PM
Hi Anthony ,
I live is SkyCrossing .
I would like to voice my opinion in this redone at black Mnt and deer Valley.
This does not seem like a good fit right next to a high school.
And it very close to the residential areas.
We all wish this would stay Residential land.
I do think this could devalue our home.
Thank you for your time .
Best Regards,
Mike Paluscio,
602.499.5955
Carefree Builders LLC
100 Easy St. #5607
Carefree, AZ 85377
ROC: 342992
From: Dee Willis
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Rezoning Black Mountain Blvd
Date: Thursday, September 14, 2023 4:56:38 PM
I object to the rezoning of Black Mountain near Mayo.
Sent from my iPhone
From: Michael Bozzelli
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: Fwd: Strong opposition to the proposed rezoning in Desert Ridge
Date: Friday, September 15, 2023 12:05:50 PM
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Michael Bozzelli
Date: Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 12:04ௗPM
Subject: Strong opposition to the proposed rezoning in Desert Ridge
To:
Mr. Grande and Mr. Waring,
I am a resident of Desert Ridge and a father of three young children. Our family moved here
this year for the distinct purpose of enjoying a quiet, safe neighborhood for our kids to grow
up in. I am very upset to learn that the land on Black Mountain is being considered for
rezoning as we already have so much traffic on our overwhelmed streets. Furthermore, we
have two schools filled with children within a block of each other that is very burdensome to
Black Mountain and Mayo.
Bringing in commercial development will further burden our streets, increase noise and
pollution, lower property values, raise safety issues, and put more of our neighborhood at
further risk of to commercial rezoning. I am strongly against this proposal, we moved here
specifically to escape this type of living.
Respectfully,
Mike Bozzelli
In reference of case GPA-DSTV-2-23-2 and Case GPA-DSTV-3-23-2 and Case Z-39-
23-2
From: ME Dahl
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Proposed rezoning on Black Mountain Blvd & Deer Valley Road
Date: Friday, September 15, 2023 2:27:19 PM
Good afternoon Mr. Grande,
As a long time Phoenix resident and taxpayer, it has come to my attention that there is a
proposal to rezone the area of southwest Black Mountain Blvd and Deer Valley Road on
the plot of land that is shared with Pinnacle High School.
Even with the widening of Deer Valley Road, the traffic in this area has grown exponentially
over the last four years with the addition of a thousand new homes. The traffic at Pinnacle
High School any given time of day, but especially during the morning drop off and afternoon
pick up, creates gridlock. The Friday night football games, with the shortage of parking
spaces, creates a foot and vehicle traffic nightmare with attendees parking wherever there
is a spot on and off campus, and having to walk in the dark to and from their cars presents
a danger.
Considering a rezone on this corner to add a commercial element that serves food and/or
gas, whose only purpose is to serve the developers, would not only be careless and
irresponsible from a safety standpoint, but inherently negligent at any number of possible
detriments to our neighbors.
Your taxpayers in this area are vehemently opposed to this idea. I hope that you and your
fellow city planners as well as the city council make the right decision.
Thank you for your consideration.
M.E. Dahl
Sent from Mail [go.microsoft.com] for Windows
Virus-free.www.avg.com [avg.com]
[avg.com]
From: Jia Zeng
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Keep Our Kids Safe - Oppose Rezoning at Black Mountain Blvd/Deer Valley
Date: Saturday, September 16, 2023 2:58:53 PM
Dear Mr. Grande,
I am reaching out as a worried resident at Fireside Desert Ridge,
deeply concerned about the safety of the students and the families of
those who are attending Fireside Elementary and Pinnacle High School.
The rezoning proposed in cases GPA-DSTV-2-23-2, GPA-DSTV-3-23-2, and
Z-39-23-2 will severely increase traffic in our quiet community.
Every day, we see numerous students walking and bicycling to school, a
sight that warms our hearts and speaks of a safe, close-knit
community. Introducing a commercial hub will put these innocent lives
at risk, disrupting the safety and tranquility that currently
envelopes our neighborhood.
I urge you to consider the peace of mind of countless parents and
guardians, and reject this rezoning proposal. Let's keep our
neighborhood safe and conducive for our children's growth.
Thank you for your consideration.
Regards,
Jia Zeng
From: Nikki Branstiter
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Oppose Commercial build near Pinnacle High School
Date: Sunday, September 17, 2023 7:45:06 PM
Hi Anthony,
I oppose building anything commercial near Pinnacle High School. It would bring so much more traffic to an
already congested area and more crime. Not a good place to put it. Highly oppose the idea.
Nikki Branstiter
From: Maripat"s
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Fireside zoning
Date: Sunday, September 17, 2023 8:30:00 PM
Dear Mr Grande,
I am a resident of the Fireside Community and I am concerned about the potential action to change the zoning at
Black Mountain and Deer Valley from residential to commercial. Most importantly is the proximity to Pinnacle
High School. Looking at high schools in both Paradise Valley & Scottsdale school districts most of them, if not all,
are set within the community, surrounded by homes, parks, churches and other schools. This provides easy, safer
accessibility and safety for students and families within the community, and it is how the community was designed.
Changing to a commercial development at that particular location is not a wise functional or safety decision for our
community. I hope we can have your support to maintain the residential zoning as designed.
Respectfully,
Mary Burrell
Fireside resident Zachary Dr
Sent from my iPhone
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Sunday, September 17, 2023 9:07:20 PM
Name
Christine Cowley
christine.cowley@abbvie.com
Support Comments
I ABSOlUTELY do NOT support this project! Do not put a commercial property across from pinnacle HS-
what a traffic and safety NIGHTMARE!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Sunday, September 17, 2023 3:14:26 PM
Name
Patrick Gaylor
patrick_gaylor@yahoo.com
Support Comments
I live in one of these neighborhoods. This area is littered with kids riding bikes and people walking their
pets. The area does not have the roads/streets to support this growth.
From: Nancy Jones
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Oppose Vestar Desert Ridge Request
Date: Sunday, September 17, 2023 9:52:40 PM
I am writing to register my opposition to the request to develop the parcel at Black Mountain
Parkway and Deer Valley:
Minor General Plan Amendment GPA-DSTV-2-23-2
Specific Plan Amendment GPA-DSTV-3-23-2
Rezone Z-39-23
This is an incompatible use and will create more congestion in an already high traffic area. We
already have plenty of shopping in Desert Ridge Marketplace.
Thank you.
Nancy Jones
4029 E Via Montoya Dr
Phoenix AZ 85050
Sent from my iPhone
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Sunday, September 17, 2023 3:44:15 PM
Name
Dawn Martinez
dawnalexm@yahoo.com
Support Comments
I do not, I repeat, I do not support this development. This will cause the traffic to be even worse than it is,
especially by the high school.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Sunday, September 17, 2023 8:01:27 PM
Name
Jody Wilmes
jody.wilmes@hotmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Sky crossing.
Support Comments
I DO NOT SUPPORT FOR MANY REASONS.
From: C Dunn
To: Anthony M Grande; Council District 2 PCC
Subject: Vestar"s Proposal for Superblock 12
Date: Monday, September 18, 2023 12:27:22 PM
To All Concerned With This Issue:
Unless you have personally been involved with transporting students to and from
Pinnacle High School, as I have for the last three years, you cannot appreciate the
traffic challenges that occur on a daily basis. Much like a horse race, vehicles
jockey for the best position to beat the clock. We have vehicles traveling east and
west on Mayo Blvd. We have vehicles traveling north and south on Black Mountain
Blvd. We have vehicles traveling north and south on 34th Street. We even have
vehicles from both directions turning onto Black Mountain Blvd from Deer Valley.
All converge at the major intersection of Black Mountain Blvd and Mayo Blvd
directly in front of the high school. Then, as each vehicle maneuvers into the
correct lane for left turns, right turns, U-turns, and even the occasional illegal turn,
the students gather en masse in the middle of the intersection, awaiting the signal
to cross. The old adage that there is safety in numbers definitely applies here. But
even under the best of conditions, some students can be seen darting across
traffic, crossing against the light, and jaywalking. Add to that a plethora of parents
anxious to get their students to school on time, inexperienced student drivers, and
the crush of daily traffic --- and you have nothing less than a recipe for disaster.
With the high school located at the intersection of Black Mountain and Mayo
Boulevards and with the never-ending vehicular traffic at that intersection, we will
always have traffic congestion at this location. However, we can definitely avoid
compounding these already existing traffic issues by prohibiting commercial
developments in this area. Vestar's proposal promises round-the-clock businesses
with round-the-clock traffic. If Vestar’s proposal were to be approved, the result
would be nothing less than a first-class disaster.
Please DO NOT approve Vestar's proposal.
Carolyn Dunn
3752 E Covey Ln
Phoenix, AZ 85050
From: Jason Epstein
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Re: Vestar Rezoning Proposal for SW Corner of Deer Valley and Black Mountain Blvd.
Date: Monday, September 18, 2023 9:35:30 PM
Hello Mr. Grande,
Last Tuesday, I had the chance to attend a briefing from Gammage & Burnham,
Attorneys at Law, representing Vestar in the proposal to commercially develop the
southwest corner of Black Mountain Boulevard and Deer Vally Road. The speaker
was able to partially address some of the concerns I raised previously, but many
issues remain.
Some of the points he made are below:
There are too few grocery stores in the area.
Albertson's, Costco, and Fry's are all less than a 10-minute drive from the
communities surrounding this parcel. More importantly, everyone in these
communities has cars and deliberately chose to live here, happily accepting the
distance from their homes to the local grocery stores.
Any gas station must be associated with the grocery store and will not
include a convenience store.
While this is somewhat helpful, standalone gas stations can attract aggressive
driving and crime. In addition, there is no guarantee that these rules will be in
place in the future. Once the infrastructure is availabie, a change to the rules
(just as this zoning change was proposed) is possible with the potential to allow
a standalone gas station (including an attached convenience store) to be put in
its place.
Some of the business will have limited hours.
It was not clear which businesses, if not all, this curfew would apply to and the
specific time of this curfew. Similar to my concerns about the gas station, all-
night businesses can attract aggressive driving and crime, and add to light
pollution. Also, similar to my concerns for the proposed gas station, curfews can
be repealed. The only way to prevent this is to not build the infrastructure in the
first place.
A traffic study was performed to mitigate traffic impact. Also, they expect
only local community members to frequent these businesses.
There is nothing to prevent more cars, coming from outside the immediate area,
from driving to these businesses and adding to traffic.
These business will increase the walkability score for the immediate
neigborhood and add health benefits as they encourage more walking.
This seems to be an unlikely outcome since the city of Phoenix, especially the
suburbs, is very much a vehicle-oriented culture. In addition, it is too hot for
several months out of the year to walk. (In my own community of Sky Crossing,
most people drive to the community center even when many of them live less
than half a mile away.)
I hope you will consider these concerns that are shared by many of my neighbors
around re-zoning this parcel to be commercial. I encourage you to oppose it.
Thank you!
Jason Epstein
3317 E. Cashman Drive
Phoenix, AZ 85050
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 04:06:47 PM MST, Jason Epstein
Thanks a lot!
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 03:49:19 PM MST, Anthony M Grande
Good afternoon.
Thank you for your comment on this case. This email will be added to the case file and provided to the
Village Planning Committee members prior to the hearing date.
Thanks,
Anthony
Anthony Grande, AICP
Planner II – Village Planner
Planning & Development Department
Long Range Planning
Office: 602-256-5648
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
From: Jason Epstein
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 11:59 AM
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Vestar Rezoning Proposal for SW Corner of Deer Valley and Black Mountain Blvd.
Hello Mr. Grande,
I have recently learned of the Vestar development proposal to rezone and
commercially develop the land parcel on the SW corner of Deer Valley and Black
Mountain Blvd. This is addressed in case no. GPA-DSTV-3-23-2 and Z-39-23.
As a resident of the Sky Crossing community, on the north side of Deer Valley, I
oppose this rezoning proposal. It threatens our quality of life for the following reasons:
- The proposed commercial businesses will add additional automobile traffic, which
will increase air and noise polution.
- The increased automobile traffic, just feet from Pinacle High School, will also
threaten the safety of these students as motorists continuously drive in and out of this
complex. As parents of a young child who will eventually attend this high school, we
are very concerned about this impact.
- These businesses will add to light polution. The Sky Crossing HOA residential rules
have deliberately restricted lighting on housing in order to preserve our views of the
night sky. Our residents have enjoyed dark nights with full views of the stars. Bright
lights from all-night businesses will impact the tranquility we have worked hard to
achieve.
We moved to the Sky Crossing neighborhood in order to enjoy the relative piece and
quiet afforded by this sparse residential area in northern Phoenix. The parcel on the
SW corner of Deer Valley and Black Mountain Blvd., as originally zoned, is consistent
with this goal, intended as a residential community. I am asking that you reject the
Vestar development proposal and keep this land parcel zoned as residential for the
benefit of the surrounding community.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Jason Epstein
3317 E. Cashman Drive
Phoenix, AZ 85050
From: Bob Giammarco
To: Anthony M Grande; Council District 2 PCC
Subject: Do not let Vestar re-zone in Desert Ridge
Date: Monday, September 18, 2023 7:14:34 AM
Importance: High
Mr. Grande, Councilmen Warring,
Please note my strong objection to the rezoning of Superblock 12 in Desert Ridge, the
property at the corner of Black Mountain Blvd. and Deer Valley Road.
This project is ill-conceived and unnecessary. The safety and traffic concerns are enormous
next door to a high school and across the street from an elementary school. There’s no need
for another grocery store in the area, and there are a number of other commercially zoned
parcels in the area if a developer wants to risk their capital. There’s no reason to re-zone this
parcel beyond Vestar’s desire to make more money and Gamage and Burnham to generate
more fees.
I urge you to reject this re-zoning and any future attempts to do so.
Sincerely,
Bob Giammarco (480) 540-0644
https://linktr.ee/bobgiammarco [linktr.ee]
From: Michael Coppola
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: GPA-DSTV-2-23-2
Date: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 6:43:33 AM
Attachments: IMG-3094.PNG
IMG-3095.PNG
IMG-3098.PNG
IMG-3097.PNG
IMG-3096.PNG
IMG-3099.PNG
IMG-3100.PNG
Residents are opposed to this development to rezone this parcel to commercial. The
developer's lawyer was less than truthful when presenting to the Sky Crossing residents and
failed to show what was available South of the 101 in his 5-mile radius from the site. Nobody
wants increased traffic, light, noise and air pollution.
From: Jason Epstein
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: Fw: Vestar Rezoning Proposal for SW Corner of Deer Valley and Black Mountain Blvd.
Date: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 8:40:07 AM
Hello,
I received an out-of-office message from Anthony suggesting I contact this email
address instead. I want to make sure my comments on this rezoning proposal are
considered as part of the final decision.
I strongly oppose the proposal to rezone this parcel to be commercial. My reasons
are in my two emails below.
Thank you for your consideration.
Jason
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Jason Epstein
To: Anthony M Grande
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2023 at 09:35:22 PM MST
Subject: Re: Vestar Rezoning Proposal for SW Corner of Deer Valley and Black Mountain Blvd.
Hello Mr. Grande,
Last Tuesday, I had the chance to attend a briefing from Gammage & Burnham,
Attorneys at Law, representing Vestar in the proposal to commercially develop the
southwest corner of Black Mountain Boulevard and Deer Vally Road. The speaker
was able to partially address some of the concerns I raised previously, but many
issues remain.
Some of the points he made are below:
There are too few grocery stores in the area.
Albertson's, Costco, and Fry's are all less than a 10-minute drive from the
communities surrounding this parcel. More importantly, everyone in these
communities has cars and deliberately chose to live here, happily accepting the
distance from their homes to the local grocery stores.
Any gas station must be associated with the grocery store and will not
include a convenience store.
While this is somewhat helpful, standalone gas stations can attract aggressive
driving and crime. In addition, there is no guarantee that these rules will be in
place in the future. Once the infrastructure is availabie, a change to the rules
(just as this zoning change was proposed) is possible with the potential to allow
a standalone gas station (including an attached convenience store) to be put in
its place.
Some of the business will have limited hours.
It was not clear which businesses, if not all, this curfew would apply to and the
specific time of this curfew. Similar to my concerns about the gas station, all-
night businesses can attract aggressive driving and crime, and add to light
pollution. Also, similar to my concerns for the proposed gas station, curfews can
be repealed. The only way to prevent this is to not build the infrastructure in the
first place.
A traffic study was performed to mitigate traffic impact. Also, they expect
only local community members to frequent these businesses.
There is nothing to prevent more cars, coming from outside the immediate area,
from driving to these businesses and adding to traffic.
These business will increase the walkability score for the immediate
neigborhood and add health benefits as they encourage more walking.
This seems to be an unlikely outcome since the city of Phoenix, especially the
suburbs, is very much a vehicle-oriented culture. In addition, it is too hot for
several months out of the year to walk. (In my own community of Sky Crossing,
most people drive to the community center even when many of them live less
than half a mile away.)
I hope you will consider these concerns that are shared by many of my neighbors
around re-zoning this parcel to be commercial. I encourage you to oppose it.
Thank you!
Jason Epstein
3317 E. Cashman Drive
Phoenix, AZ 85050
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 04:06:47 PM MST, Jason Epstein
Thanks a lot!
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 03:49:19 PM MST, Anthony M Grande
Good afternoon.
Thank you for your comment on this case. This email will be added to the case file and provided to the
Village Planning Committee members prior to the hearing date.
Thanks,
Anthony
Anthony Grande, AICP
Planner II – Village Planner
Planning & Development Department
Long Range Planning
Office: 602-256-5648
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
From: Jason Epstein
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2023 11:59 AM
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Vestar Rezoning Proposal for SW Corner of Deer Valley and Black Mountain Blvd.
Hello Mr. Grande,
I have recently learned of the Vestar development proposal to rezone and
commercially develop the land parcel on the SW corner of Deer Valley and Black
Mountain Blvd. This is addressed in case no. GPA-DSTV-3-23-2 and Z-39-23.
As a resident of the Sky Crossing community, on the north side of Deer Valley, I
oppose this rezoning proposal. It threatens our quality of life for the following reasons:
- The proposed commercial businesses will add additional automobile traffic, which
will increase air and noise polution.
- The increased automobile traffic, just feet from Pinacle High School, will also
threaten the safety of these students as motorists continuously drive in and out of this
complex. As parents of a young child who will eventually attend this high school, we
are very concerned about this impact.
- These businesses will add to light polution. The Sky Crossing HOA residential rules
have deliberately restricted lighting on housing in order to preserve our views of the
night sky. Our residents have enjoyed dark nights with full views of the stars. Bright
lights from all-night businesses will impact the tranquility we have worked hard to
achieve.
We moved to the Sky Crossing neighborhood in order to enjoy the relative piece and
quiet afforded by this sparse residential area in northern Phoenix. The parcel on the
SW corner of Deer Valley and Black Mountain Blvd., as originally zoned, is consistent
with this goal, intended as a residential community. I am asking that you reject the
Vestar development proposal and keep this land parcel zoned as residential for the
benefit of the surrounding community.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Jason Epstein
3317 E. Cashman Drive
Phoenix, AZ 85050
From: Michael O"Neil
To: Anthony M Grande; Council District 2 PCC
Subject: Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 - Opposition
Date: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 1:21:17 PM
Good afternoon Anthony Grande and Jim Waring,
As a current resident of the Sky Crossing Community, I strongly oppose the rezoning of the
parcel of land at the southwest corner of Deer Valley Drive and Black Mountain Parkway.
Minor General Plan Amendment GPA-DSTV-2-23-2
Specific Plan Amendment GPA-DSTV-3-23-2
Rezone Z-39-23-2
Thank you,
--
Michael O'Neil
508.769.5886
From: allie swanson
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Zoning for area of Black Mountain Rd and Deer Valley Road
Date: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 3:19:35 PM
Dear Mr. Grande,
We bought our home in Sky Crossing the Fall of 2019. We were told that the vacant land at Black Mountain Rd and
Deer Valley Rd was zoned for residential only! Since we have been in our home, we constantly hear of violence,
abductions, and drugs at Desert Ridge shopping area (just a couple miles East of our community). The last thing we
want is to bring to our area are those type of issues along with more traffic. Also, this vacant land sits right in
conjunction with Pinnacle HS. The traffic is already bad and we don’t want drugs or violence around our kids.
Please help us ensure this are will remain zoned Residential!!
Sincerely,
Allyson Swanson
Sky Crossing Resident/32nd St
From: James Tuffin
To: Anthony M Grande; PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: RE: GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2 Black Mountain Village
Date: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 11:26:01 AM
Attachments: opposition.pdf
Dear Mr. Grande:
This email is to supplement my letter of August 23, 2023, a copy of which is attached for ease of
reference. The proposed change is not justified and is highly inequitable. The justifications offered
for the change are specious. The obvious goal is not to benefit nearby homeowners, but to draw
traffic from SR 51 now that the terminal exit is connected to Black Mountain Boulevard.
On or about August 30, 2023, Vestar amended its request for a major amendment to the Desert
Ridge Specific Plan (“DRSP”), amending Chapter 6 to state, in part, that:
“Superblock 12 is located west of a possible future connection to the Squaw PIESTEWA Peak
Parkway, which separates this superblock from the balance of the Desert Ridge community.
BECAUSE OF THIS SEPARATION, THIS SUPERBLOCK CAN SUPPORT LIMITED COMMERCIAL
USES WITHOUT INTERFERING WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE DESERT RIDGE CORE
(DEVELOPMENT PARCEL 5.A). RESIDENTIAL Development parcels may vary in size by 30
percent 25 percent for R1-6 and more dense zoning categories without a minor plan
amendment).” [Exhibit A to GPA-DSTV-3-23-2, accessed 08/19/23 at Microsoft Word - GPA-
DSTV-3-23-2 Exhibit A-Proposed Language Revised 2023-08-30.docx (gblaw.com)
[gblaw.com]]
The proposed change, and the rationale offered for it, flatly contradict a fundamental principle of
the DRSP. The DRSP does not accept distance from the commercial core as justification for building a
20-acre shopping center. To the contrary, it specifies that distance from the commercial core should
correlate with less intensive land use:
“ . . . Desert Ridge is based on the urban village concept in that all community and regional
commercial uses are located in the Desert Ridge Village Center. Very small neighborhood
convenience commercial uses are appropriately placed internally within neighborhood units.
The Desert Ridge Village Center is appropriately the "urban" core of Area C. Land uses are
the most intense in and around the Village Center in Desert Ridge, logically reducing in
density with increasing distance from the commercial/employment center and continuing
beyond the project boundaries. “[DRSP 3.B. (Goal 1) @ p. 3-1, accessed 09/19/23 at Table
of Contents (phoenix.gov) (emphasis supplied)] .
The DRSP acknowledges that residential neighborhoods should be protected from the adverse
environmental impacts from commercial development:
A total of 18 neighborhood convenience commercial acres, or a maximum of 90,000 square
feet of gross leasable area, excluding child care facilities, for all of Desert Ridge outside of
the Village Center will be allowed subject to the criteria and standards in Chapter 6. This
criteria will minimize the adverse environmental impact on the residential neighborhoods
typically associated with commercial development. [DRSP 5. C.1, @p. 5-5] (emphasis
supplied).
The clear intent of the DRSP was to concentrate all significant commercial development in the core.
At a community meeting, Vestar’s counsel argued that because only one of the allowed commercial
conveniences was ever built, a sprawling 20-acre shopping center is now justified. This turns the
logic of the DRSP on its’ head. The criteria were meant to protect homeowners from the evils of
urban sprawl shopping centers, not to promote commercial development outside the core.
Vestar was the original developer of the Desert Ridge Marketplace (“DRM”), and presumably it had a
seat at the table in determining the contents of the DRSP before ground was broken. Vestar was no
doubt happy to accept the centrality of the core for retail development in Desert Ridge for many
years. According to news reports, Vestar extinguished its 99 year lease and took full ownership of
DRM as the sole bidder in an auction staged in December of 2022. Its claim that the proposed
change will “not interfere with the development of the Desert Ridge Core” is nothing more than a
statement that Vestar does not think it will hurt itself. This cruel irony does not address any of the
numerous concerns raised by the community.
I am aware of a social media campaign attempting to induce people to endorse a petition in favor of
a “New Grocer” at the location. While I continue to believe that the contents of these posts are
misleading, a fundamental point is that the DRSP clearly notified homebuyers that they were not to
expect another shopping center in Desert Ridge. There have been no reports of malnutrition or
scurvy related to a lack of grocery stores in Desert Ridge. There are grocery stores and plenty of
shopping centers of the type proposed by Vestar nearby on Bell Road and other locations. The
abstract desire of some residents for a Trader Joe’s or AJ’s (even though Vestar says it cannot
identify any prospective tenant) cannot justify the concrete harm that will be done to the reasonable
expectations of nearby homeowners.
The lack of one of these smaller boutique specialty grocers within the existing commercial core must
be in large part the result of business decisions made by Vestar. It is widely believed in the
community that Albertson’s was granted extensive guarantees against competition; if that is true
Vestar was surely involved in that decision.
Vestar claims, among other things, that the shopping center will provide a safe place for high
schoolers to eat lunch. I have been informed that Pinnacle High School is a closed campus and that
only seniors are allowed to exit the school grounds during the school day.
The DRSP acknowledges commercial development imposes adverse consequences on nearby
residences. Vestar reaped enormous benefits and was perfectly satisfied to build the marketplace
under the plan. Residents were clearly told not to expect a shopping center at Black Mountain and
Deer Valley. That Vestar sees opportunity for profit after completion of the SR 51 terminal exit is
not reason to make a major amendment to the DRSP and subject innocent homeowners to the
inevitable degradation of the neighborhood.
The requested amendments should be denied.
Thank you for your consideration.
James W. Tuffin
James.tuffin@tuffinlaw.com (retired attorney not offering services to the public)
21214 N 36th Pl
Phoenix, AZ 85050
JAMES W. TUFFIN
21214 N. 36th Pl
Phoenix, Arizona 85050
(516) 359-6420
james.tuffin@tuffinlaw.com
(retired attorney not offering services to the public)
August 22, 2023
VIA EMAIL (anthony.grande@phoenix.gov)
Mr. Anthony Grande
Planner II – Village Planner
Planning & Development Department
Re: GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2; Resident Statement in Opposition
Dear Mr. Grande:
I reside in Desert Ridge, and I am opposed to the above listed applications. My home is well west of the
commercial core, overlooking Black Mountain Boulevard and Pinnacle High School (“PHS”), and with a
view of the parcel in question. I have reviewed the application materials posted on the website of
Applicant’s (“Vestar”) counsel, and I attended the informational meeting of the Desert View Village
Planning Committee on August 1, 2023.
The requested change is beyond inequitable, it is unconscionable. It does extreme violence to the terms
of the Desert Ridge Specific Plan (“DRSP”)1 and the reasonable expectations of Desert Ridge
homeowners along Black Mountain Boulevard under the terms of the plan. It does nothing to further the
well-being of nearby residents and poses myriad problems. The arguments offered by Vestar to justify the
change do not pass muster, as will be readily demonstrated below.
THE PROPOSED CHANGE IS AN EXTREME DEPARTURE FROM THE DRSP
DRSP contemplates that “commercial development is restricted to the Village Center . . .” except for
“neighborhood commercial uses located within the residential superblocks”.2 DRSP goes on to explain
the extremely limited size and scope of such commercial uses:
The neighborhood convenience commercial centers are very limited in
size. They are intended to serve only the superblock in which they are
located and not intended to serve a population outside the superblock
boundary. The maximum total acreage for neighborhood retail uses,
including buildings, parking, landscaping, and any other items related to
the existence of the neighborhood retail use, shall be three (3) net acres,
while the minimum acreage will be one (1) net acre. 3
City of Pheonix Planning & Development
August 22, 2023
Page 2
Furthermore, DRSP strictly limits the permitted uses within non-core superblocks, and the list does not
include gas stations or drive-through coffee operations4, both of which were touted by Vestar’s counsel at
the informational meeting. Indeed, DRSP specifically prohibits “Drive-through uses”.5
Under the DRSP, no family purchasing a single-family home in a non-core superblock would reasonably
anticipate having a drive-through Dutch Brothers or Starbucks, or a gas station, across the street from
their home. Vestar now proposes a 20-acre commercial development in Superblock 12. 6 Vestar is
essentially asking the City of Phoenix to throw out DRSP and stab nearby homeowners in the back.
OBVIOUS INTENT TO DRAW ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC FROM SR 51
When Black Mountain Boulevard south of Mayo Boulevard was completed and made the terminal exit of
SR 51, concerns of nearby residents were addressed by placing a traffic circle to slow down traffic and
discourage heavy trucks, and by providing a pedestrian bridge for safe access to PHS.
The proposed change represents a complete reversal of what was until now a concerted effort to keep
Black Mountain Boulevard more quiet and more safe. The placement of the proposed shopping center, at
the first traffic light after the SR 51 terminal exit, is obviously intended to attract vehicles that would
otherwise continue west on SR 101 and exit at Cave Creek Road or further west. It is a repudiation of
DRSP’s promise that homeowners could expect to live in clean, quiet neighborhoods while commercial
activity was limited to the Village Commercial Core.
MAGNET FOR UNSUPERVISED ADOLOSCENTS
Placement of the shopping center within spitting distance of PHS is problematic. This is not meant to
disparage the PHS student body as a whole. Nevertheless, in any group of over 2500 teenagers7, there will
be those whose immaturity or lack of direction makes them prone to get in trouble. While the studious
and industrious will disperse to more wholesome activities, there will undoubtedly be those who choose
to hang out. The shopping center, just across a narrow street from PHS, will obviously become the hang
out venue of choice.
There are numerous reports of problems with unsupervised teenagers in retail environments across the
country8, and unsupervised time leads to drug use and other issues.9 Given the location, these problems
will undoubtedly spill over into the surrounding residential areas, which already experience litter, graffiti,
vandalism and doorbell pranking. Encouraging high concentrations of hundreds of unsupervised teenagers
cannot be a benefit to the teenagers or anyone else. It is best for all concerned if the students disperse
when not involved in supervised activities.
Vestar claims that the presence of the high school makes the parcel unsuitable for development as
currently zoned.10 The opposite is true. DRSP and the existing zoning contemplate Superblock 12 to
contain only the high school and residential use. PHS opened in or about 2000. Nothing has changed
about PHS that would justify depriving nearby homeowners of their reasonable expectations under DRSP.
City of Pheonix Planning & Development
August 22, 2023
Page 3
AIR, NOISE AND LIGHT POLLUTION
DRSP prohibits “Drive-through uses”11 in non-core superblocks for very good reasons. These operations
generate considerable pollution. Not only are PHS and numerous homes nearby, but Fireside Elementary
is not far and generally downwind. Air pollution from idling engines is a serious problem12, and some
communities have gone so far as to try banning drive-through operations entirely13. The air quality in
Phoenix, and Maricopa County generally, is notoriously poor with many “bad air” days. 14 Encouraging
drivers to turn their motors off while waiting will never work when the temperature is over 90 degrees.
DRSP’s approach of limiting these operations to the Village Commercial Core is not arbitrary and should
be maintained.
Although Deer Valley Drive and Black Mountain Boulevard have some traffic at rush hours, things tend
to quiet down in the evening and there is a distinct residential tone to the neighborhood. This holds true
when attendees disburse after PHS Friday night football. The proposed shopping center will keep the
noise up and the lights on much later than nearby residents are used to, greatly diminishing the residential
character of the community.
TRAFFIC CONGESTION
I am aware that other residents have commented on traffic issues. I will not belabor the point here, except
to note that in the chaos that occurs every morning when PHS is in session, I have at times been unable
access westbound Mayo Boulevard from the N. 36th Way gate of my community. Vestar contemplates
cars entering and exiting the shopping center on all four surrounding streets. This would include Mayo
Boulevard directly across from PHS, and will surely exacerbate the existing problems.
VESTAR’S SCHEME IS NOT JUSTIFIED
Vestar’s purported justifications of its scheme do not withstand scrutiny.
There are no traffic or parking impediments to residents obtaining daily needs at the Desert
Ridge Marketplace (“DRM”).
DRM was designed to enable local folks to get to the pharmacy, gas station, grocery store, and various
other businesses without getting involved with traffic headed to the big box stores, apparel outlets or
entertainment district. The local needs providers are located in the northwest corner of the marketplace
and are readily accessed from two curb cuts on Deer Valley Drive just east of Tatum Boulevard. The
apparel and box stores, as well as the entertainment district, are closer to other, much larger, parking lots
which are served by numerous additional entrances to DRM. I have lived in Desert Ridge for over 11
years and have never, even on Black Friday, had a problem finding parking at Albertson’s. To illustrate
this, I recorded a video at Grocery Run Sat 08-19-2023 - YouTube. 15
City of Pheonix Planning & Development
August 22, 2023
Page 4
The proposed center is unlikely to provide alternative groceries.
At the informational meeting, Vestar’s counsel admitted that Vestar is unable to identify any
specific grocer that would occupy the proposed grocery store. Although Vestar says it expects
the grocery store to be smaller than the existing Albertson’s, its counsel conceded that none of
the proposed businesses are sure to occupy the shopping center. Assuming that a grocery store is
established, there is no reason to believe that it will offer merchandise different that that offered
at Albertsons.
Creation of minimum wage retail jobs is not a community priority.
The small number of jobs projected to be “created” on the new shopping center could easily be
placed elsewhere. It should also be noted that substantial construction is taking place at nearby
High Street and City North where much higher density residences, offices, and retail spaces are
being built.
Purported benefits to the community are illusory at best.
Keeping the Current Zoning will have the same effect on dust and storm runoff.
The supposed dust control and storm runoff management benefits are speculative and
unquantified. In 11 years, I have never seen significant flooding along Black Mountain
Boulevard. Residential development at the site would have the same effect.
The “safe alternative” for students is illusory.
Encouraging teenagers to consume junk fast food benefits no one. The so called “safe alternative
. . . before school, after school, and during the lunch hour” actually describes an unsupervised
hangout for hundreds of teenagers with all the attendant problems described above. A
concession by PHS’s principal that the project “would potentially reduce the number of off-
campus trips by car”16 hardly demonstrates a full-throated endorsement of the scheme. Had there
been a firm expression of general support for the project from anyone in authority at PHS or the
school district, Vestar would surely have mentioned it in its explanatory letters.
The residential remnant shows how the change is repugnant to DRSP.
The fact that Vestar wants to gobble up 20 acres of the Superblock while leaving a mere remnant
for residences demonstrates how the proposal is repugnant to both the letter and spirit of DRSP.
City of Pheonix Planning & Development
August 22, 2023
Page 5
The gas station and shopping center have no health benefits and will not be a community social
center.
There is nothing about the proposed project that will foster connection among the citizens. There
are innumerable such shopping centers around Phoenix, and there is nothing unique about this
proposal. There are no outdoor parks, exhibition or performance spaces illustrated on the
Conceptual Site Plan. The purported health benefits are nothing but speculation. It is my
observation after 11 years living here that very few people walk with groceries around Desert
Ridge, regardless of the season. The health hazards of innumerable automobiles spewing particle
pollution on the drive-through lines clearly outweigh these specious claims of health benefits.
The proposed gas station will not provide a net benefit to the community.
A gas station will generate excess light, noise, and fumes on a 24/7 basis. The convenience store
that will inevitably accompany it will only encourage additional teenage loitering.
In my 11 years here, I have only fueled my car once or twice at the Shell station at DRM, even
though it is the most conveniently located, and I am there several times a week while visiting the
grocery store or the pharmacy. The problem is that Shell stations generally charge considerably
more than Circle K, QT or Arco. The issue, if there is one, is the price, not the location.
The proposed gas station is obviously intended to draw traffic from SR 51 as discussed above.
Located as the last gas before the freeway, competitive pricing is doubtful.
The Desert Ridge Community Association (DRCA) has not taken a position on this project.
Although there have been communications between DRCA and Vestar, the board of DRCA has
never resolved to support this project. While I am not privy to communications that may have
taken place between Vestar and DRCA’s officers or board members, the Association has never
formally endorsed the project. A copy of an email from DRCA confirming this is attached as
Exhibit A.
THE PROPOSED CHANGE IS AN UNCONSCIONABLE STAB IN THE BACK
Zoning determinations must be “… equitable, in terms of consistency with established
regulations and procedures, respect for the rights of property owners, and the consideration of the
interests of the citizens of the City.”17
DRSP provides for a mix of densities and uses, from mixed commercial and multi dwelling to
condominiums, to rental apartments to single family homes. Purchasers of single-family homes
were encouraged by a central feature of the plan: all significant commercial activity is placed in
the Village Commercial Core. Retail conveniences in the non-core residential superblocks are
limited to a list of specified uses, limited to three acres, and drive-through operations are
expressly prohibited. Thus, purchasers of single-family homes could look forward to living in
City of Pheonix Planning & Development
August 22, 2023
Page 6
clean, quiet residential neighborhoods. Vestar now proposes to simply rip up that plan and asks
the City to stab nearby homeowners in the back.
Rejecting this proposal is not unfair to any Desert Ridge Residents who may endorse, in the
abstract, a gas station or additional retail operations. There was nothing about DRSP that gave
them any reasonable expectation that these things would be built on Black Mountain Boulevard,
and they were content to buy their homes under that plan. Vestar’s plan to ruin the lives of
residents along Black Mountain Boulevard is grossly unfair; indeed, it is unconscionable and
must be rejected.
Respectfully submitted,
James W. Tuffin
Copies to:
Mr. Terrence Smith (terrance.smith@fsresidential.com
DRCA Board of Directors (desertridge.az@fsresidential.com)
Steven W. Anderson, Esq. (Sanderson@gblaw.com)
Hon. Jim Waring (council.district.2@phoenix.gov)
Hon. Kate Gallego (mayor.gallego@phoenix.gov)
Mr. Eric Molenaar (EMolenaar@AssociatedAsset.com)
Ms. Corina Vanek (cvanek@arizonarepublic.com)
Mr. Wouter Roodenburg (wroodenburg@cox.net)
All references to “DRSP” are to the Specific Plan as revised through November 2, 2022 (accessed on 8/19/23 at
https://www.phoenix.gov/pddsite/Documents/PZ/pdd_pz_pdf_00086.pdf)
DRSP at 5-3. (5.C.1)
DRSP at 6-6 (6.C.3.A.)
DRSP at 6-7 (6.C.3.B.2.c)
DRSP at 6-8 (6.C.3.B.2.d)
SPA-B2-Application, (accessed on 8/19/23 at http://www.gblaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/SPA-B2-
Application-Form.pdf)
PHS reported enrollment of 2556 for 2021-2022 school year (PHS AZ School Report Card, accessed 8/20/23, at
https://azreportcards.azed.gov/schools/detail/79268 .
See, e.g., Bartlesville mall bans unsupervised teenagers due to crime increase
(https://www.koco.com/article/oklahoma-bartlesville-mall-bans-unsupervised-teenagers/43385307); Teen bans on
the rise (https://www.koco.com/article/oklahoma-bartlesville-mall-bans-unsupervised-teenagers/43385307).
See, e.g., Teen Drug Use: Does a Lack of Supervision mean More Drugs?
(https://cascadeheightsrecovery.com/unsupervised-teens/ ); After School: The Prime Time for Juvenile Crime
(https://www.policechiefmagazine.org/after-school-the-prime-time-for-juvenile-crime/ ); Unsupervised teens more
likely to use tobacco, pot and alcohol (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-adolescents-unstructured-time-
idUSKCN0RI1LL20150918 )
City of Pheonix Planning & Development
August 22, 2023
Page 7
RZ-C5-Letter of Explanation, at p. 7 (accessed 8/21/2023 at http://www.gblaw.com/wp-
content/uploads/2023/07/RZ-C5-Letter-of-Explanation.pdf)
N.5, supra.
See, e.g., Mendoza, et al, Pollution hot spots and the impact of drive-through Covid 19 testing sites on urban air
quality, Environ. Res. : Health (https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2752-5309/ace5cb/pdf )); Idling
Reduction for Personal Vehicles (https://afdc.energy.gov/files/u/publication/idling_personal_vehicles.pdf ))
See, e.g., Cities ban new drive-throughs to fight climate change (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cities-put-
brakes-on-drive-thrus-to-curb-carbon-emissions/).
See, e.g., American Lung Association, State of the Aire Arizona: Maricopa
(https://www.lung.org/research/sota/city-rankings/states/arizona/maricopa) ; State of the Air report ranks Phoenix
among worst 25 cities for pollution, (https://cronkitenews.azpbs.org/2022/04/21/air-pollution-phoenix-among-25-
worst-cities-us/ ) ;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2X_OOB2qew
SPA-B5-Letter of Explanation (accessed 08/20/2023 at (http://www.gblaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/SPA-
B5-Letter-of-Explanation.pdf).
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance § 102.
EXHIBIT A
James Tuffin
From: Terrance Smith
Sent: Friday, August 4, 2023 4:26 PM
To: James Tuffin; Desert Ridge - az
Cc: Stephen W. Anderson
Subject: RE: TO ALL BOARD MEMBERS AND TERRENCE SMITH Re: Plan and Zoning Change Case Black Mtn
and Deer Valley
Good afternoon Jim,
I hope all is well with you.
On behalf of the DRCA Board Members, please see below the corresponding response to the
questions in your email:
1. No.
2. Yes, the DRCA received emails from Vestar’s attorney to attend the monthly board meeting(s)
to present and provide community updates regarding Vestar’s Parcel 12 application process
and proceedings relative to their conceptual development plans.
Respectfully,
TERRANCE SMITH, CMCA, AMS, LSM, PCAM
Executive Director
Desert Ridge 5415 E. High Street, Suite 133 | Phoenix, AZ 85054
Direct 480.551.4550 | Cell phone 480.254.5948
Property Fax: 480.551.6000
terrance.smith@fsresidential.com
desertridgelifestyles.com
24/7 Customer Care Center: 855.333.5149
Facebook | LinkedIn | YouTube
From: James Tuffin
Sent: Friday, August 4, 2023 11:33 AM
To: Desert Ridge - az
Cc: Stephen W. Anderson
Subject: TO ALL BOARD MEMBERS AND TERRENCE SMITH Re: Plan and Zoning Change Case Black Mtn and Deer Valley
Hi Folks,
It was great reconnecƟng with Reggie and Doug at the recent Desert Village Planning CommiƩee meeƟng, and
remembering the fellowship we enjoyed when I served as DRCA treasurer. Having stepped back from community
aīairs, I was taken by surprise by the rezoning noƟce and some of the things I heard at the meeƟng. Now I need to
catch up and I hope you can help me.
At the meeƟng, and in an explanatory leƩer submiƩed to the City, Vestar’s counsel suggested that the DRCA
supports the proposed changes. I respecƞully request answers to the following quesƟons:
1. Did the DRCA ever pass a resoluƟon supporƟng the proposed changes or the project in general? If so, please
provide a copy of the text of the resoluƟon(s) and the agenda(s) and minutes of the meeƟng(s) at which
such resoluƟon(s) was (were) adopted.
2. Is DRCA, its representaƟves or agents, in possession of any wriƟngs, correspondence, emails or texts
showing communicaƟons between or among the DRCA, Vestar, Vestar’s counsel or representaƟves, the City
of Phoenix or the Arizona State Land Department related to the proposed project or the applicaƟons for
plan and zoning changes? If so, how can associaƟon members get access to those materials?
I’m guessing you’ll be seeing a bit more of me in the coming months and as always, whether we agree or
disagree, as friends. As you might imagine, I need a response to each quesƟon as soon as you can do it. Please do not
delay responding to quesƟon 1 if you need more Ɵme to answer quesƟon 2. I should menƟon, although I’m sure you
know it already, that your response may be incorporated into submissions I may make to the City. As a professional
courtesy, I am providing Vestar’s counsel with a copy of this request.
Thank you very much.
Warm regards,
Jim (James W. Tuĸn)
21214 N 36th Pl, Phoenix AZ 85050
516.359.6420
James.tuĸn@tuĸnlaw.com (reƟred aƩorney not oīering services to the general public)
From: wkelly2000@outlook.com
To: Anthony M Grande; Council District 2 PCC
Subject: Rezoning of land black mtn and deer valley
Date: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 11:03:01 AM
I am not generally opposed to development but putting a shopping center at that location does not make sense.
The issue is every single exit from that planned shopping center will funnel all traffic to the deer valley and black
mountain light. Unless the city puts in new lights all those exiting on the north side must turn right and anyone
exiting on the east side wanting to go north or west will do a u turn at Mayo or go to the roundabout by the ramp to
51 and u turn there. All traffic heading to the one intersection ( deer valley and black mtn).
This location will drive traffic into the fireside desert ridge and into SkyCrossing Communities to avoid the black
mtn and deer valley intersection.
So this is why I am opposed to rezoning this property.
I live in SkyCrossing.
Sent from my iPhone
From: Ben W
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Black Mountain Village
Date: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 6:30:19 PM
Hi,
I am a resident in Fireside at Desert Ridge, and I do not want any gas stations or grocery stores
built on the lot(s) in question (GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2).
Please acknowledge receipt of this email at your earliest convenience.
Thank you,
Ben
From: Bottesch, Karen
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Cc: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Desert Ridge | Case Numbers GPA - DSTV - 2 - 23 - 2 | GPA - DSTV - 3 - 23 - 2 | Z - 39 - 23 - 2
Date: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 6:58:12 AM
Attachments: image001.png
Forwarding due to out of office message.
From: Bottesch, Karen
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 6:55 AM
To: anthony.grande@phoenix.gov
Subject: Desert Ridge | Case Numbers GPA - DSTV - 2 - 23 - 2 | GPA - DSTV - 3 - 23 - 2 | Z - 39 - 23 - 2
Dear Anthony –
RE: Black Mountain Village | Case Numbers GPA - DSTV - 2 - 23 - 2 | GPA - DSTV - 3 - 23 - 2 | Z - 39 -
23 - 2
I am writing about the proposed project called Black Mountain Village at Deer Valley Rd and Black
Mountain Rd.
I am 100% AGAINST this project.
I have lived in Fireside at Desert Ridge since 2009 and served on our board for several years.
I have witnessed the increase in traffic during the school year at Pinnacle, this project only
serves to make that a BIGGER mess
A gas station, conv store, fast food, and whatever else is NOT the project for this site next to a
high school, junking up OUR neighborhood, AND making traffic a bigger mess
We live here for the openness of the area – so far all is in good taste
The Desert Ridge Specific Plan’s intent was to keep commercial activity aligned to a
commercial core; commercial activity in the residential superblocks is strictly limited to minor
conveniences of no more than 3 acres and drive through operations are prohibited
We live in an attractive community, not only will a gas station and the other suggested
businesses junk it up but the traffic will worsen, there are plenty of other gas stations VERY
close by, we do not NEED this project
The land at Deer Valley and Black Mountain is designated RESIDENTIAL under the plan – I
vote NO to change that designation
We do NOT want or need a 20 acre shopping center next to residential and next to a High
School
Crime, litter, noise, pollution and traffic nightmare is what this project equals
Please listen to the community, we LIVE here. Developers build and move on in continuing to live in
‘their’ protected neighborhoods. Please stop this corporate action and change, it is NOT wanted.
Thank you,
Karen
Karen M. Bottesch
Senior Vice President | Senior Relationship Manager
Business Banking
Bank of America
AZ3-566-02-50 | 14636 N Scottsdale Rd Ste 250 | Scottsdale AZ 85254
Phone 480.624.0569 Fax 804.264.2040 Cell 602.315.4204
Karen.bottesch@bofa.com
View my professional web page here. [rm.bofaml.com]
Support Associate:
Patty Ruiz
Phone: 480.624.0648 Fax 804.266.8154
14636 N Scottsdale Rd. Ste 250 | Scottsdale AZ 85254 | AZ3-566-02-50
This message, and any attachments, is for the intended recipient(s) only, may contain
information that is privileged, confidential and/or proprietary and subject to important terms
and conditions available at http://www.bankofamerica.com/emaildisclaimer
[bankofamerica.com]. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message. For
more information about how Bank of America protects your privacy, including specific rights
that may apply, please visit https://bankofamerica.com/privacynotice [bankofamerica.com].
This email may contain a promotion of products or services. If you would like to unsubscribe
from receiving emails like this, please update your Email Preferences here:
https://preferences.em.bankofamerica.com/Prefs/emailoptout
[preferences.em.bankofamerica.com]. Unsubscribing will not affect delivery of important
service messages that we may need to send you or preferences you may have previously set
for other email services. Bank of America, 100 North Tryon St., Charlotte, NC 28255.
From: Eileen K
To: Anthony M Grande
Cc: Bill Kelly; Jill Gargano
Subject: Desert Ridge Zoning Ammendments
Date: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 6:52:16 PM
Regarding
Case No. SPA-DS1 V-2-23-2
Case No. CPA-DSTV-3-23-2
Case No. 1-39-23
Mr Grande
I oppose the zoning change proposed by Vestar Development and I encourage the
board to decline the amendments. I am a homeowner and have lived in Fireside at
Desert Ridge since 2013. While many of us who live in Desert Ridge would like to
see more grocery options in our neighborhood, the location proposed by Vestar is not
appropriate for such a commercial development.
The location is surrounded on 3 sides by single family homes, next to a high school
and just blocks from an elementary school. Most of us who bought into this
community were very attracted by the Desert Ridge Plan, which limited the location
of commercial development. This is a neighborhood with 3 very active HOAs,
excellent schools, walkers and runners of every age and kids playing safely in front of
their homes while neighbors chat.
A commercial shopping center at the corner of Black Mountain Road and Deer
Valley Drive will fundamentally change traffic, lighting, noise, air quality, safety,
crime, physical aesthetic and economic value of our beautiful neighborhood.
The corner is not appropriate for a large grocery store, gas station, drive-through,
restaurants, and other high traffic commercial activity. Vestar does a fine job
managing Desert Ridge mall and should look for a location better suited to the type
of development they propose.
Mary Eileen Kelly
3861 E Melinda Drive
Phoenix, AZ 85050
From: Mike Kip
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: case# GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2
Date: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 5:54:13 PM
My name is Michael KIperman. I'm a resident of Fireside at Desert Ridge community. I
strongly oppose Black Mountain Village project. Due to the fact that such projects attract
unwelcomed characters into immediate residential area. Can't help but stress the fact that there
are 2 schools in the neighborhood, especially elementary school. We want our kids to be as
safe as possible. We don't need additional traffic. It is a nightmare twice a day as it is.
Thank you for understanding. Hopefully this project can be moved elsewhere.
From: Stanislava Kuka
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: Re: Automatic reply: Opposing rezoning Black Mountain Blvd/Deer Valley
Date: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 9:56:03 PM
Good morning,
As a Phoenix resident and tax payer I want to express my disapproval of the proposal of
rezoning the area southwest Black Mountain Blvd and Deer Valley Road next to Pinnacle
High School.
SAFETY
Being next to the high school and walkable distance to 2 elementary school we risk
bringing strangers to our community where so many children walk alone to school.
Possible bus station- more strangers coming to our community. Phoenix, as I believe you are
well aware has a growing homeless population. Did you drive by Desert Ridge recently? At
every stop light you can see panhandlers. Homeless people sleeping on bus stations. Did you
know about the psychiatric, and drug abuse problems among the homeless population? I bet
you did.
Possible gas station- alcohol, criminal. Enough said. Just driving to Desert Ridge there is one,
and even 2 down the road on Cave Creek.
Possible drive through restaurant- if not living in the area you are probably not aware of the
ongoing evening trouble In’n’Out has, for example. Not mentioning providing even more
unhealthy options to our growing students.
Traffic- I could say well congested area. Traffic has grown over the last few years. I can not
get out of my neighborhood due to overwhelming school traffic. But I agreed to that, and
wanted to be the closest possible to schools. Adding more traffic to our community is not
something we were looking for.
I hope you and your fellow city planners have in mind the wellbeing of our community
residents not only the investors that only care about their profit.
Thank you,
Stanislava Kuka
3636 E Covey Ln, Phoenix AZ 85050
Sent from my iPad
Sent from my iPad
On Sep 20, 2023, at 5:23 PM, PDD Long Range Planning
Hi Stanislava,
Can you please forward your comment? I don’t see a message from you, just
Anthony’s out of office.
Thank you,
Sarah Stockham
Planner III
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
Phone: 602-261-8701
sarah.stockham@phoenix.gov
From: Stanislava Kuka
Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2023 9:22 PM
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Re: Automatic reply: Opposing rezoning Black Mountain Blvd/Deer Valley
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 17, 2023, at 3:15 PM, Anthony M Grande
Hello. I am currently out of office and will be returning Monday, September
25, 2023. If you need immediate assistance, please
contact pdd.longrange@phoenix.gov.
From: Natalie Leitner
To: Anthony M Grande
Cc: Council District 2 PCC
Subject: Rezoning Superblock 12
Date: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 8:25:28 PM
Good Evening,
I would like to express my opposition of the rezoning of Black Mountain Village/Superblock
12 from residential to commercial/retail space. There are several reasons, first and foremost
there is an ongoing homelessness issue throughout the perimeter of Desert Ridge. Leaving
Mountianside Fitness yesterday at 6:30PM , there was a man laying across the sidewalk
sleeping with his shopping cart and garbage laid around him on the corner of Rose Garden and
Tatum. I went to pick up my daughter from soccer practice at 8:45PM and he was still there.
Not to mention when I go to the gym at 5:00AM and the bus stops are a campground for the
homeless. I absolutely do not want this type of activity closer to our neighborhoods and
schools and that is exactly what would happen if something like this was to go in this area.
You would encourage the homeless to set up encampments around high school to have easy
access. Go check out the south/east corner of Tatum along the freeway, there are
encampments. Once they’re cleared, they just move to another area. Not to mention the trash
that is left on the corners from panhandlers. It’s ridiculous that it has gotten this bad, but that is
another email and I refuse to let this happen closer to my home.
Secondly, if approved, you basically would be providing a parking lot for high schoolers that
don’t have a parking spot (every junior class
man with a car and license, there is only enough spots for seniors) ask the businesses around
Chaparral High School how they feel about that? The traffic is already horrendous on school
mornings at all the schools, but with this, you would be adding more traffic and delivery
trucks along Deer Valley at all hours of the day and when kids are crossing to go to school.
We have been residents of Fireside for over 10 years and we have raised our 4 kids here. We
moved over here for the great schools and great neighborhoods. We have 2 kids at Pinnacle, 1
at Explorer and 1 at Fireside Elementary. We bought in this neighborhood knowing that would
be zoned for residential and it should stay the way!
Please take into consideration my opposition for this rezoning plan. We love our neighborhood
and schools and want to keep the safe for everyone that lives here!
Case No. SPA-DS1 V-2-23-2
Case No. CPA-DSTV-3-23-2
Case No. 1-39-23
Natalie Leitner
21515 N 39th Terrace
562.706.4702
From: Andrea Remke
To: msantoro@gblaw.com; Anthony M Grande
Subject: Zoning issue near Pinnacle HS
Date: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 7:02:59 PM
My previous emailed letter (on 8/27/23) to you did not have these case numbers attached, please note my below
correspondence in regards to this zoning decision. It is permissible to read aloud or note in any public record as anyone sees
fit. Updated case numbers attached.
Case No. SPA-DS1 V-2-23-2
Case No. CPA-DSTV-3-23-2
Case No. 1-39-23
Mr Grande,
I’d like to please ask you and the city representatives to consider the opposition many residents here in Fireside Desert
Ridge have to the proposed zoning changes of the property at Black Mountain Blvd and Mayo Blvd /Deer Valley Drive
right next to Pinnacle High School.
It’s currently zoned for residential and for the developer to change it to retail shopping opens this area up to increased traffic
congestion and student/resident safety issues here in the area.
I invite any of you to please come observe the traffic at these intersections around the school during the peak times of
dropoff 7:20-7:30 am and at 2:15-2:20 pm pickup when it’s the worst. These intersections are a nightmare then. Droves of
kids are walking to school and crossing/ jaywalking across these intersections some are on bikes even—and they are NOT
heeding any kind of traffic signals or signs because they are kids of course. Many cars are racing through yellow lights and
people sitting in intersections at red lights because they tried to fit through. We have seen lots of accidents, a lot of honking
and near misses. My son’s Pinnacle soccer coach was just in an accident this past Friday during pickup when a man in a car
not paying attention to stopped traffic on Mayo slammed into the back of him causing his car to hit the car in front of him,
which was driven by a student. It happens all the time because of the sheer volume of cars and kids and mayhem happening
during these times. It is only a matter of time before a kid is seriously maimed or killed at this intersection/area.
I live across the street in Fireside, a stone’s throw from this land where they are going to build. My son attends the high
school and my twin girls will attend next fall and then my youngest will attend in two years. We are stuck for a long time
with whatever the powers that be decide should go here. I worry about the influx of traffic and congestion, the problems it
brings to us as nearby residents, by way of safety especially—but also being a single mom I bought this home two years ago
for its close proximity to school for my kids to walk to local schools and the safe neighborhood feel. But I’m worried at the
potential drop in property values if they start putting in crappy shops or gas stations or smoke vape shops, causing our nice
residential area to look, smell and sound like a truck stop dump attracting transients and homelessness, no doubt.
I know money will likely win out in the end, and something will be built here. It’s a shame the school district couldn’t have
bought a piece of this property for added parking for the students at school because as it is currently, only seniors can park
in the school lot, which is asinine. The principal at Pinnacle has even told parents last week they have addressed safety and
traffic issues to Vestar but ultimately can’t have a definitive say in this land development.
City officials have a duty to protect the interests of the residents here who live and work and pay taxes.
These developers have the monetary means to at least put an-over-the street walkway /sidewalk bridge from the Mayo/Black
Mtn crosswalk over to the school so our kids aren’t playing Frogger in traffic through red and green lights as they currently
do every single school day. The existing walking bridge (see attached picture) that some idiot designed and installed years
ago is out of the way for kids to walk, located south at the 51 interchange, at the dog park entrance, so they would have to
walk down there then back around to go back up to the school—it’s an extra 10-15 min of walking —not a single soul is
doing that and that pedestrian bridge remains not utilized.
My question: Could the city mandate the developer to at least relocate the pedestrian bridge to the problem/ busy
intersection at the school instead of that bridge uselessly sitting down the street out of the way? (I included a pic of
bridge area)
If something is built here eventually, I hope the people in charge will think first of the safety of students and residents over
the quick buck they’ll make in revenue at the site.
Thank you for hearing me,
Andrea Remke,
Phoenix resident of Fireside at Desert Ridge
From: Richards, Dan
To: PDD Long Range Planning; Anthony M Grande; Council District 2 PCC
Subject: GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2 Black Mountain Village
Date: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 9:35:48 AM
Attachments: image001.png
Grocery Store options.docx
Dear Mr. Grande and Councilman Waring,
I submitted an email on September 13 pertaining to my opposition to the proposed development .
One of the points made in my previous email was stating the amount of gas stations and grocery
stores within a 3-mile radius of the Deer Valley and Black Mountain intersection. I mentioned 11 gas
stations within a 3-mile radius, but the correct number is 12 gas stations.
It was brought to my attention that Gammage and Burnham met with the residents of Sky Crossing
shared an exhibit showing the lack of gas stations and grocery store options within a 5-mile radius.
They failed to show all the options south of the 101 in their exhibit, which is incredibly misleading. I
have attached a map that shows all the gas stations and grocery stores in a 3-mile radius. If you
change your search to a 4-mile radius, you find 18-gas stations. The grocery store options are quite
vast as well.
Grocery Stores included within a 4-mile radius include:
Costco
Walmart
Target
Sprouts Market Express
2 Fry’s
2 Albertson’s
Food City
Please take this into consideration when Vestar continues to tell people that Desert Ridge is lacking
grocery and gas station options. It’s simply not true. Our neighbors do not want this development
to be built. We all live in the residential superblock portion of Desert Ridge. If we wanted to live
within walking distance to restaurants, we would have moved closer to Desert Ridge Marketplace.
This isn’t for the residents of Desert Ridge. They’re looking at this parcel because they want the
traffic from the 51.
Thanks,
Dan Richards
Strand Associates, Inc.®
602.437.3733 ext. 6052
dan.richards@strand.com | www.strand.com [strand.com]
[strand.com]
Excellence in EngineeringSM
Desert Ridge is not lacking grocery and gas station options
12 gas station within a 3-mile radius of Deer Valley and Black Mountain Blvd Intersection
18 gas stations shown within a 4-mile radius of Deer Valley and Black Mountain Blvd Intersection
Grocery Stores included within a 4-mile radius include:
x Costco
x Walmart
x Target
x Sprouts Market Express
x 2 Fry’s
x 2 Albertson’s
x Food City
From: eva rohr
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: STOP REZONIBG BLACK MOUNTAIN - PERIOD!!
Date: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 9:36:26 PM
eva rohr
4726 e casey ln
cave creek az 85331
480 363 7967
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 4:28:45 PM
Name
Jessica Sconyers
jessicasconyers@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Desert Peak
Support Comments
I work at pinnacle high school. Traffic there is a nightmare and will only get worse with the addition of a
shopping center.
From: Ralph Valenzi
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Super Block D Ridge
Date: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 10:33:37 PM
I am very much opposed to rezoning this property to commercial
I am a resident of Fireside and with the school traffic, adding a commercial development would make that worse
In addition, we don’t need more development in our area. We already have the Marketplace and that is sufficient for
our community
Ralph Valenzi
3629 E Zachary Drive
Sent from my iPhone
From: C Dunn
To: Anthony M Grande; Council District 2 PCC; ppd.longrange@phoenix.gov
Subject: Vestar"s Development Amendment and Zoning Requests for Superblock 12
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 10:13:35 PM
To All Concerned With This Issue:
I recently attended a Desert Ridge Community Association meeting in which
representatives for Vestar presented a rough sketch of their development plan for
approximately 20 acres carved out of Superblock 12. Listening to them, one would
surmise that this development was for the benefit of our neighborhood. They
discussed a neighborhood grocery store, some small retail businesses, and dining
options. A rather straightforward design, you might think. What Vestar’s rep didn’t
mention was the inclusion of a gas station, fast food drive-throughs, and even a city
bus stop. A plan that sounded innocent enough at the time now begs the question
of how a development such as this would impact our neighborhood.
Vestar wants to rezone Superblock 12 from an R-2 residential designation to a C-2
commercial designation. With this rezoning would come a commercial
development, such as Vestar’s, right at our back door. There are many troubling
issues associated with this proposal. I am limiting my comments to the
environmental impact that Vestar’s proposal would have on our community.
One of the most significant pollutants of our environment is gas stations. For
instance, during fueling, toxic compounds such as Benzene (a known carcinogen),
Ethyl Benzene, Toluene, and Xylene (BTEX) are released into the air. Likewise,
these same compounds will pollute the air when there is leakage from the storage
tank vents. Spills from fueling and spills from emptying tanker trucks can occur,
causing soil, groundwater, surface water and air contamination. Even idling
engines of vehicles contribute to air pollution with the release of harmful
chemicals, gases, and particles. Add to this the road noise associated with an
overwhelming number of vehicles driving in and out of the gas station and one
must conclude that gas stations are one of the most significant polluters of our
environment.
Grocery stores and fast food restaurants are right behind gas stations when we
consider the extent to which they pollute the environment. The average grocery
store emits almost two tons of carbon dioxide from the electricity and natural gas
that it uses each year. In addition to that, grocery stores and fast food restaurants
generate tons of litter and garbage yearly. Proper disposal of these then becomes
a major issue. If strict guidelines aren’t followed, we are then dealing with air and
soil pollution, in addition to the environmental issues posed by rodents and other
pests attracted to the area. Another concern is the amount of traffic generated by
these businesses. Their customer traffic, their delivery trucks, and their trash
collection vehicles make a substantial contribution to both noise and air pollution.
Lastly, it is not surprising that air pollution is the direct result of food preparation.
With the kitchen exhaust fans we have the release of organic aerosol into the
environment. With grills, stoves and ovens we have the release of formaldehyde,
carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide into the air. Naturally, these airborne
particulates are inhaled by everyone nearby. With ongoing exposure, these
particulates can be extremely harmful to individuals. This is especially true for
asthmatics and individuals dealing with long-term breathing problems such as
COPD.
It is obvious that the environmental impact of Vestar's proposed development
would not be limited to noise, air, soil, and light pollution. Their proposal would
guarantee both traffic pollution and people pollution, as well. Is it fair to assume
that crime in our neighborhood would not be far behind, if Vestar's proposal were
to be approved?
The negative impact that Vestar’s commercial development would have on our
neighborhood far outweighs any benefits of a grocery store, a gas station, and fast
food restaurants. With these services and many more just minutes away in the
Desert Ridge Marketplace, we don’t need them in our own back yard.. We must
keep Superblock 12 zoned R-2 Residential, as it was originally intended.
Please say NO to Vestar.
Carolyn Dunn
3752 E Covey Lane
Fireside Community
From: Greg Nelson
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Rezoning of Superblock 12
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 2:41:45 PM
RE:
Case No. SPA-DS1 V-2-23-2
Case No. CPA-DSTV-3-23-2
Case No. 1-39-23
Mr Grande,
In exploring the information on the proposed rezoning of Superblock 12 in our community, I
wanted to express my concerns and “no” vote on this land being used for commercial use.
While living in the community for nearly 18 years, this would have a negative impact on the
overall feel which is contrary to what the developers are trying to market to us. The increased
traffic would contribute to further noise pollution as well as the increased opportunity for
crime and trash.
This property is directly across the street from a large high school where new drivers try to
sharpen their new skills and this commercial development would lead to an increase in
accidents as well as fear of children / pedestrians being hit while walking to the surrounding
schools from this intersection (1 high school, 1 middle school, and 2 elementary schools
within a 1 mile radius).
We have seen migration of homeless around our community, near the Desert Ridge mall, and
could only see the future migration to this new shopping area which is a huge safety concern
for my family and other neighbors who bought in the area for the enjoyment of being able to
walk or ride to neighborhood parks and trails.
Lastly, adding a grocery store no matter small or large would not serve a purpose of improving
our service needs. We already have plenty of choices in a short distance around us.
Thank you for taking the time to accept and hopefully take our concerns into account.
Greg Nelson
From: Deanna Guttilla
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Regarding rezoning the block at Deer Valley Rd and Black Mountain next to Pinnacle High School.
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 5:59:51 PM
Hello Mr Grande,
My name is Deanna Guttilla. I have been a homeowner and resident in Fireside and have
happily raised three children here since 2011.
I’m writing in regard to case number GPA-DSTV-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2.
The block of land at Deer Valley Rd and Black Mountain Rd is up for possible rezoning to
commercial land use.
As much as I feel we could use a small grocery such as Trader Joe’s, and would love a little
upscale outdoor mall area, I’m opposed to rezoning to commercial land. It could have
several negative and dangerous consequences for the kids and the traffic flow.
Since the freeway exit was built, the community has seen more accidents on Black Mountain
in front of the high school and a daily back up of traffic. People drive very fast. It is already
dangerous for the kids crossing the road, at the intersection, to get to school every morning
and afternoon.
The proposed plan for rezoning would bring even more traffic to the road in front of the high
school. Especially if a grocery with a gas station is built.
In addition, a building complex with a fast food drive thru and gas station could likely bring
an increase in crime, such as drug sales, right into an area where there are over a thousand kids
every day.
Because of the increased danger to the kids in the neighborhood, and at the high school, I am
opposed to rezoning the land to commercial use. It needs to stay residential.
Thank you for your time,
Deanna Guttilla
Resident of Fireside
Sent from my iPhone
From: Tracy Kaczmarek
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Re zoning
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 8:31:40 PM
Hello,
I would just like to make my opposition to proposed re-zoning of land at Deer Valley/Black Mountain and planned
development.
I live in Fireside, and my backyard faces Black Mountain. When building our house, we were told this land was
NOT zoned for commercial development. As it stands now, traffic is a huge issue. The area is already extremely
busy, with Pinnacle HS traffic and regular flow. Essentially, there is no “flow”. I encourage you to observe what
the traffic pattern is daily. It is near impossible to get out of my neighborhood some mornings, due to chaotic
traffic.
My backyard and even my bedroom face Black Mtn Blvd. We are directly behind the view fence. I cannot imagine
the noise, lights, and traffic this would bring to an already congested area!! I am also greatly concerned with safety,
as we have both a high school and elementary school nearby. I could go on, listing all the reasons this is a horrible
idea….but I am sure you have been informed by other residents. Please— this was NOT the premise and agreement
of said parcel, prior to building my house. This is a RESIDENTIAL area!! I will be attending the October 3rd
meeting.
Thank you for your time.
Tracy Kaczmarek
Sent from my iPhone
From: Amy Kenney
To: PDD Long Range Planning; Anthony M Grande
Subject: Proposed Desert Ridge Rezoning - OPPOSED
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 8:31:53 AM
Anthony,
I am writing to send in my “vote" as I am VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED to the rezoning for a variety of reasons.
Please refer to the following:
Case No. SPA-DS1 V-2-23-2
Case No. CPA-DSTV-3-23-2
Case No. 1-39-23
We do NOT need commercial development in our quiet and already “convenient” homes and neighborhood.
There is ample access 1 mile away (or less!) to gas stations, conveniences galore, grocery stores, etc and RETAIL
galore.
Traffic, crime, noise, all would increase…..this is not something that is welcome….
Thank you for your consideration.
Amy Kenney
Ringtail Way
Fireside, Desert Ridge
Phoenix, AZ 85050
602-696-2639
From: Dessert
To: Anthony M Grande; Council District 2 PCC; pad.longrange@phoenix.gov
Subject: Black Mountain Village
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 5:55:52 PM
Re: GPA-DSTV-
2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2
NO! NO! NO!
TO BLACK MOUNTAIN VILLAGE!!!
I bought my house in Scarlet Ridge 13 years ago knowing I would be living in a safe residential area. Trying to put a
business right next to my house is wrong in so many ways. And to do a bait and switch with me and all the
homeowners is appalling!
We have enough traffic and unfortunately have had accidents with children being injured on the street at at the high
school as it is. And there’s already been issues with homeless people sleeping under the bridge. Bringing in retail
would only add to this on all accounts. And we certainly don’t need more of either to ruin our neighborhood and
injure our children!
I am hoping you have enough respect your homeowners to put this terrible idea to rest and find another location
more suitable for this type of retail. We want to continue to keep our neighborhood safe! Thank you.
Sincerely,
Blythe Lipman
Sent from my iPhone
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 6:52:51 PM
Name
Suzanne Moon
suzannemoonbear@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Paradise Peak West on Pinnacle Peak Rd. 85050
Support Comments
No! Not necessary. The neighborhood is Residential and we’d like it to stay that way.
From: Andrea Nelson
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: Proposed Desert Ridge Rezoning
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 7:12:22 AM
Dear long range planning committee-
I am writing as a homeowner and resident of the Fireside Community in Desert Ridge. I am opposed and concerned
that the proposed Vestar development North of Pinnacle High School would impact the safety of the neighborhood,
both in the businesses which are proposed, and in the traffic patterns. Additionally, proposing a gas station so close
to several residential neighborhood community homes has its own additional safety and health concerns.
These proposed safety hazards could destroy property values for the homes, and seems redundant based on the other
options so close by in Desert Ridge Marketplace- which I understand is already owned by Vestar.
The safety of our families and the neighborhood children is at risk. Please help our community to vote against this
project.
Thank you.
Andrea Nelson, SPHR
480-495-5411
From: Lisa Newman
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Rezoning Opposition to Superblock 12
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 8:30:07 AM
Hi Anthony,
I am a resident of Fireside and am emailing about the proposition to rezone a section of Superblock 12 from residential
to commercial property. I would like to voice my opposition to the following amendment requests case numbers:
Case No. SPA-DS1 V-2-23-2
Case No. CPA-DSTV-3-23-2
Case No. 1-39-23
I vote to keep this residential.
Thank you,
Lisa Newman
From: Rebecca Oakes
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: RE: Case No. SPA-DS1 V-2-23-2; Case No. CPA-DSTV-3-23-2; Case No. 1-39-23
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 6:10:06 PM
Case No. SPA-DS1 V-2-23-2
Case No. CPA-DSTV-3-23-2
Case No. 1-39-23
I am writing to you to register my strong disapproval of proposed amendments (case numbers
listed above) to modify existing zoning from residential to commercial.
Our homes in Fireside at Desert Ridge were built under the Desert Ridge Specific Plan. The
plan promised clean, quiet, and safe neighborhoods because commercial activity was placed in
the “commercial core”. Commercial activity in the “residential superblocks” is strictly limited
to minor “conveniences” of no more than 3 acres and drive through operations are prohibited.
The land at Deer Valley and Black Mountain is designated residential under the plan. Vestar,
the developer of the Desert Ridge Marketplace, now wants to change this for their own
financial gain; if the Desert View Planning Committee and city of Phoenix vote for the change
of zoning, and approve the plan to put in a 20-acre shopping center (reported to contain drive-
through fast food, drive-through coffee, a gas station, a grocery of an unknown name and type,
and who knows what else), this will cause great harm to my family and neighbors.
You see, my family lives in the closest section of Fireside to Pinnacle HS, and the proposed
shopping center. We already suffer through the pedestrian and vehicle traffic that invades the
streets of our neighborhood when school is in session and for other events held at the HS.
Students and parents drive at unsafe speeds down 36th Street and Abraham Dr. Additionally,
at drop off and pick up times, cars are lined up and/or idling as drivers wait to drop off or pick
up their students, blocking our way in and out, causing us to "play chicken" to maneuver down
the narrowed streets. Some of these students walk through our desert wash as a short cut to
those cars dropping off/waiting to pick up.
This is a neighborhood where many children walk to Fireside Elementary School, located a
short distance away. So not only is driving in, through and out of our neighborhood difficult
and would most likely become dangerous as traffic increases in an area not planned for such
commercial development, it is not safe for small children to safely walk to school.
In addition to the dangerous situations we face within our neighborhood, it can be all but
impossible to safely leave our neighborhood at these times - the southern exit, on to Mayo
Blvd. is right turn only and is very close to the Mayo/Black Mountain Blvd intersection. The
northern exit on to Deer Valley Rd. is hard to turn left onto during high traffic times.
To put it more clearly - leaving our neighborhood becomes even more difficult and dangerous
with increased vehicle traffic that comes with commercial development - especially trying to
go south onto Black Mountain Blvd AND west onto Deer Valley. We only have two VERY
flawed entrances/exits that in the best of times is tricky and not very convenient OR safe. We
esentially have to chose to limit leaving our neighborhood or taking the increased risk of
attempting to go south or west in less than safe traffic conditions. How does this benefit our
residential community?!? I predict that vehicle (and pedestrian) accidents will dramatically
increase if this shopping center is approved.
There is nothing that can be commercially built and nothing beneficial from a retail standpoint
that makes this development worth if for my family and residential neighborhood. There are
plenty of retail options at Desert Ridge and other close shopping centers.
Relatedly, are the members of the Desert View Planning Committee and Phoenix City Council
members aware that the parking lot of the proposed shopping center would in fact become an
overflow parking lot for Pinnacle HS students who do not have a parking pass to park at the
school? I would imagine prospective tenants would not be pleased to have the parking spaces
used by people not spending money at their establishments and making it harder for those who
want to spend money to find somewhere to park. Also, just ask security and management
about the issues surrounding teens hanging around Desert Ridge Marketplace - it will be much
easier for some students to hang out in the same manner at this proposed shopping center.
Has the city of Phoenix specifically done a traffic study of this area, taking this
commercial development into account? How would the council plan to ameliorate the
above stated traffic issues? What about environmental studies looking at the increase
noise, light and exhaust pollution that will directly impact the surrounding residential
neighborhoods?
We are appalled by this bait-and-switch, and worried about the crime, noise, litter, pollution,
and traffic nightmares that will come with this monstrosity.
Sincerely,
Rebecca J. Oakes
3608 E Salter Dr
Phoenix, 85050
Get Outlook for Android [aka.ms]
From: Richards, Dan
To: PDD Long Range Planning; Anthony M Grande; Council District 2 PCC
Subject: GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2 Black Mountain Village Opposition
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 4:53:23 PM
Attachments: Fireside Petitions.pdf
Dear Mr. Grande and Councilman Waring,
Please find attached a petition on behalf of the residents of Fireside Community opposing the
rezoning of the SW corner of Deer Valley and Black Mountain Boulevard.
Thanks,
Dan Richards
September 21, 2023
Anthony Grande
Zoning Section
200 W Washington Street, Second Floor
Phoenix AZ 85003
Reference:GPA-DSTV-2-23-2
Dear. Mr. Grande:
On behalf of the residents of Fireside Community, noted in the attached petition, we are opposed
to the proposed rezoning of the Parcel 212-38-023B. The families that built in this area did so
knowing that they would have a safe, quiet area for their children to grow up around. In
proposing the zoning amendment, the developers would like to change the use from residential
(2-5 du per acre) to commercial. We believe this proposed change would result in unacceptable
levels of risk to health and safety.
This commercial development proposal suggests parking for 580 cars and contains 3
access/egress points just off Mayo immediately across from Pinnacle High School with no
provision for safe crossing or pedestrian/bike safety. Further the traffic in this area is already an
issue. In speaking with the Phoenix Police Traffic Bureau, it is clear they have received
numerous complaints about existing safety issues experienced at the intersection of Black
Mountain and Deer Valley Roads. The proposed rezoning would only exacerbate these issues.
The explanation letter for the project describes that for community benefit, the project has the
potential to “increase health” and “reduce transportation burdens” of area residents by creating a
walkable/bikeable retail/grocery destination and “may reduce emissions from residents driving to
Desert Ridge Marketplace.” These statements are unproven and unsupported by the conceptual
design. While this is being promoted as a much-needed commercial alternative for the residents
in Desert Ridge, this will increase the volume of traffic coming from south of the 101, off the 51
exit. This development would increase transportation burdens and emissions in this area.
Residents who likely would have driven to Desert Ridge are now going to be driving to our
neighborhood.
There is no traffic impact or air quality study mentioned. Furthermore, it will increase both light
and sound pollution in the area. As such, the Fireside neighbors that have signed the attached
petition stand against the proposed rezoning and ask that the City reject the developer’s
application for rezoning.
Sincerely,
Dan Richards
From: Richards, Dan
To: PDD Long Range Planning; Anthony M Grande; Council District 2 PCC
Subject: GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2 Black Mountain Village Opposition
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 5:01:51 PM
Attachments: Pinnacle Petitions.pdf
Dear Mr. Grande and Councilman Waring,
Please find attached a petition on behalf of concerned parents of Pinnacle High School students
opposing the rezoning of the SW corner of Deer Valley and Black Mountain Boulevard. Please add
this and the Fireside Community petition to the case file that will be submitted to the Desert View
Village Committee. There are a ton of additional parents that would have signed this petition, but
we found that this was more difficult one to get in front of the parents. We were not legally allowed
to solicit our petition on the school property so we are still trying to figure out the best way to get
through to all the parents.
Thanks,
Dan Richards
September 21, 2023
Anthony Grande
Zoning Section
200 W Washington Street, Second Floor
Phoenix AZ 85003
Reference:GPA-DSTV-2-23-2
Dear. Mr. Grande:
On behalf of concerned parents of Pinnacle High School students, noted in the attached petition,
we are opposed to the proposed rezoning of the Parcel 212-38-023B. We believe the proposed
development by Vestar poses significant risks to safety in the form of traffic congestion, air,
noise, and light pollution. We believe this proposed change would result in unacceptable levels
of risk to health and safety.
There is an existing issue with high-traffic volume that does not respect the posted speed limits
near Pinnacle High School, as commuters travel to Interstate 51. This zoning change will only
heighten this problem and create a more dangerous situation for our children, who deserve the
ability to walk to and from their school safely each day. The proposed rezoning would only
exacerbate these issues, increasing traffic volumes both northbound and southbound. There is no
traffic impact or air quality study included in this proposal.
The explanation letter for this project suggested “The addition of quick service food and retail
options at this location will provide a safe alternative to the students at nearby Pinnacle High
School before school, after school and during the lunch hour.” And “School Principal Chad
Smith indicated that the proposed development would potentially reduce the number of off-
campus trips by car.” Pinnacle is a closed campus for all students except Seniors, so this will not
benefit students during the lunch hour. I would highly recommend that you independently meet
with the Principal of Pinnacle High School who will paint you an entirely different picture of his
views for this project. He is strongly opposed to this development and we feel Vestar has
misrepresented his concerns to help benefit their proposal.
Please take into consideration the Parents of Pinnacle students who have signed the attached
petition. Our children do not need these distractions directly next door from their classrooms.
We stand against the proposed rezoning and ask that the City reject the developer’s application
for rezoning.
Sincerely,
Dan Richards
From: Jennifer Larson Popnoe
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: Fw: Case#GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 6:29:05 PM
From: Jennifer Larson Popnoe
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2023 5:36 PM
To: anthony.grande@phoenix.gov
Subject: Case#GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2
Dear Mr. Anthony Grande,
Ten years ago, I welcomed a beautiful baby boy. At the time we were living in an older
community in North Scottsdale. We knew it was time to move and find that perfect place to
raise a family. A place he could walk to school, ride his bike, trick or treat in a safe family-
oriented neighborhood. Luckily, we found the perfect place, Fireside at Desert Ridge. It has
been the perfect fit for our family. We have made many friends that are like family. My son
feels safe to walk to school, ride his bike to the park and play outside. He was crushed when
we told him of the situation that is happening in our neighborhood. He knew he would no
longer be able to due to the increase in traffic, construction, panhandlers etc. this will bring to
our community.
The community we loved and were told that the space was zoned for residential construction
for the possibility of new friends instead of commercial that will only attract who knows what
off the freeway into our backyard. This once quiet safe community is going to be thrust into
the middle of a shopping center that will only risk our kids safety, decrease our property
values, increase criminal activity and ruin our close-knit happy community. I ask you to
imagine yourself in this situation. Wouldn't you do anything you could to protect your
children and the future of your community?
Please don't let another big corporation ruin what little is left of our small town community.
We are fortunate to have Desert Ridge Marketplace, Costco, and many other options just
down the street that offer everything we need and more. I ask you to please consider the
needs of your fellow community members; we chose this beautiful neighborhood to avoid the
dense, congested, commercial areas and enjoy our small piece of Phoenix. Please support us
in continuing to raise our families in this beautiful please we call home. No Black Mountain
Village!
Sincerely,
Jennifer Larson Popnoe
3622 E Half Hitch Pl
Phoenix, AZ 85050
From: J Popnoe
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: Re: Opposition to commercial rezoning request in Desert Ridge
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 5:18:49 PM
Importance: High
Received an out of office message from Mr. Grande, but want to be certain my
communication is included on the record in this matter. Thank you.
Justin J. Popnoe
3622 E Half Hitch Place
Phoenix, AZ 85050
m: 480.798.0004
From: J Popnoe
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2023 5:17 PM
To: Anthony.Grande@phoenix.gov
Subject: Opposition to commercial rezoning request in Desert Ridge
Mr. Grande ---
I write you in hopes of garnering your support for residents (and our children) in Desert Ridge.
I was frustrated to learn of Vestar's rezoning request (GPA-DSTV-2-23-2, GPA-DSTV-3-23-2, and Z-39-
23-2) geared towards generating massive profits despite the risks and negative impacts created for
residents. I live a short distance from the parcel, and am already a firsthand witness to the daily debacle
of traffic & pedestrian issues near the high school & in my neighborhood (Copper View). Radically
changing the existing plan (that we as homeowners considered a promise to properly manage our
community) to introduce a massive grocer, gas station, fast food, etc. will only create more risks,
especially for our neighborhood children.
I'm incensed with the thought that there would be support despite the many issues (noise, pollution,
crime) that this commercial entity will drop into the heart of our community. My son is currently a fifth
grader at Fireside Elementary, which is also a short distance from the parcel. The most extreme risks are
created for high schoolers --- easy access to alcohol/nicotine, no oversight, traffic --- but nearby, our most
vulnerable will now also pay the price if Vestar's greed is satisfied by lining up behind the ask to mangle
our closeknit community.
I plead with you to support homeowners and residents by opposing this rezoning request. This
parcel should stay zoned for residential use to allow more families to join our thriving community. Vestar
can achieve their profit targets using one of the multiple, available parcels in the area already zoned for
commercial use. Please help protect our community and families.
Respectfully,
Justin J. Popnoe
3622 E Half Hitch Place
Phoenix, AZ 85050
m: 480.798.0004
From: Laura Richards
To: Anthony M Grande; Council District 2 PCC; PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: Subject: Black Mountain Village (GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2)
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 7:33:56 PM
Dear Mr. Grande and Councilman Waring,
I built my home in Fireside over 10 years ago, with my backyard facing Black Mountain Boulevard. I have
a view fence, paid a premium for my lot and was promised the land behind my home across Black
Mountain Blvd was zoned as single-family residential. My husband and I have 3 sons who were toddlers
at the time. Now, they are teenagers attending Explorer Middle School and Pinnacle High. We did much
research to find the perfect neighborhood/lot to build our house and raise our family. I am opposed to the
Black Mountain Village Commercial Development. My reasons for opposing the project include:
Horrific traffic when one considers the daily chaos that exists at the adjoining high school and
nearby elementary school.
Threats to the safety of students at the high school and nearby elementary school.
Introduction of twenty-four-hour noise, light, and air pollution into a residential environment,
specifically concerning since our bedroom windows will look out over this development.
Establishing a 24-hour hang-out for unsupervised adolescents from the adjoining high school.
Litter, crime, vandalism and transient individuals.
Pollution from cars lined up at drive-through operations.
Lack of any reasonable justification for a major amendment to the Desert Ridge Specific Plan to
the detriment of innocent homebuyers who relied on the plan.
Decrease in property values for residents of Fireside and Sky Crossing.
Diversion of traffic from SR 51 that would otherwise head west on SR 101.
We love our Fireside and Desert Ridge Community. Please take these points into consideration and help
us to preserve the sanctity of this beautiful area of Phoenix, that we feel good to call our home. Thank you
for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Laura Richards
From: wroodenburg@cox.net
To: Anthony M Grande; PDD Long Range Planning
Cc: Council District 2 PCC; 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: Letter of Explanation by Resident regarding zoning GPA-DSTV-2-23-2 and Case GPA-DSTV-3-23-2 and Case Z-39-
23-2
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 4:12:13 PM
Attachments: Letter of Explanation Resident Final.docx
Dear Council members,
A rezoning request was submitted by the attorneys of Gammage & Burnham on behalf of Vestar to
convert a Residentially zoned 20 acres into a Commercial zone (C2).
It seems like this council asked 10 very pertinent questions to further explain how this proposal
would impact the neighborhood and they submitted their answers in a Letter of Explanation (dated
July 16st)
I assume the explanation was accepted and the case was subsequently filed. GPA-DSTV-2-23-2
and Case GPA-DSTV-3-23-2 and Case Z-39-23-2
Although the Letter of Explanation by this law firm indicated that support for this proposal was
abundant. I’m writing to you to let you know that nothing is further from the truth. This proposal
should be denied.
In fact, this proposal has triggered a lot of opposition from the residents in Desert Ridge, because it
is proposed adjacent to our High School and Elementary School and contrary to what the attorneys
stated, WILL damage our community. There are many more reasons for opposing this case which are
explained in my version of the attached “Letter of Explanation Resident”
I hope that the detail and the amount of work I put into writing this gives you a good summary of
what is at stake and that the current version of our Master Community specific plan is what
residents are expecting.
This does not entail allowing 20 acres of big box commercial businesses, who will be creating a lot of
issues for all residents and schools to deal with in the coming year.
I urge you to deny this proposal in all its forms.
Rather than outlining the issues we anticipate, I have included alternatives for you to consider and
suggested items that are within our plan and would benefit our community and make it an even
better place to live.
If the developer’s goal is to add a new brand of grocery store to the area, please note that there are
plenty of commercial zones available to build on immediately, which is also highlighted in the
appendices.
In my previous contact with the City, I have raised awareness regarding the traffic situation around
our schools and I also rallied our community to participate in the survey for Vision Zero.
I was pleased to see that within the budget approved by this council, you have allocated money for
schools to improve a “Safe Route To School”.
This proposal would endanger our kids walking to school with the increase of local traffic and non-
resident traffic and ruin our community with big box retailers, alcohol and cigarette sales near
schools, fast food restaurants and gas stations.
Please deny this proposal completely.
Thank you for your consideration.
Regards
Wouter Roodenburg.
Wouter Roodenburg
Resident Fireside Desert Ridge
21507 N 39th Terrace
Phoenix, AZ 85050
Planning and Development Department & City Council
200 W. Washington Street, 2nd ŇŽŽƌ
Phoenix, AZ 85003
RE: SWC of Deer Valley Drive and Black DŽƵŶƚĂŝŶWĂƌŬǁĂLJ͖DŝŶŽƌ'ĞŶĞƌĂůWůĂŶĂŶĚDĂũŽƌ^ƉĞĐŝĮĐWůĂŶ
amendment request.
To whom it may concern:
/͛ŵǁƌŝƟŶŐƚŽLJŽƵĂƐĂĐŽŶĐĞƌŶĞĚƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝŵƉĂĐƚĞĚďLJƚŚĞƌĞnjŽŶŝŶŐƌĞƋƵĞƐƚƐGPA-DSTV-2-23-2 and
Case GPA-DSTV-3-23-2 and Case Z-39-23-2
Upon reading tŚĞ>ĞƩĞƌŽĨdžƉůĂŶĂƟŽŶƉƌŽǀŝĚĞƚŽLJŽƵďLJƚŚĞĂƩŽƌŶĞLJƐŽĨ'ĂŵŵĂŐĞΘƵƌŶŚĂŵ
(GBlaw), dated July 16th, 2023 (rev July 10th͕ϮϬϮϯͿ͕/ĨĞĞůƚŚĂƚLJŽƵƐŚŽƵůĚĂůƐŽŚĂǀĞƚŚĞŽƚŚĞƌƉĞƌƐƉĞĐƟǀĞ
ƚŽƚŚĞŐƌĞĂƚƋƵĞƐƟŽŶƐLJŽƵƐƵďŵŝƩĞĚƌĞŐĂƌĚŝŶŐƚŚŝƐƉƌŽƉŽƐĂů͘
First ĂŶĚĨŽƌĞŵŽƐƚ͕'ůĂǁŝŶĨŽƌŵƐLJŽƵĂƚƚŚĞĞŶĚŽĨƚŚĞŝƌůĞƩĞƌƚŚĂƚ͞sĞƐƚĂƌŚĂƐƌĞĐĞŝǀĞĚƉŽƐŝƟǀĞ
feedback from the ĞƐĞƌƚZŝĚŐĞŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJƐƐŽĐŝĂƟŽŶ. As the Site Plan has evolved, the applicant and
sĞƐƚĂƌŚĂǀĞŵĞƚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞƐƐŽĐŝĂƟŽŶŝŶŽƌĚĞƌƚŽŬĞĞƉƚŚĞŵŝnformed and updated on the project. The
ĐŽŶƟŶƵŽƵƐƋƵĞƐƟŽŶƚŚĂƚŚĂƐďĞĞŶĂƐŬĞĚƚŚƌŽƵŐŚŽƵƚƚŚŝƐŽƵƚƌĞĂĐŚŝƐ͞tŚĞŶǁŝůůLJŽƵƐƚĂƌƚĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶ͍͟
dŚĞĞĂŐĞƌŶĞƐƐŽĨƚŚŝƐĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJƚŽŚĂǀĞƐŚŽƉƉŝŶŐĂůƚĞƌŶĂƟǀĞƐ͕ŐƌŽĐĞƌLJŝŶƉĂƌƟĐƵůĂƌ͕ƐŝŵƉůLJĐĂŶŶŽƚďĞ
overstateĚ͘͞
This statement was completely misleading and unfounded. When we confronted the Desert Ridge
ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJƐƐŽĐŝĂƟŽŶĂďŽƵƚƚŚŝƐƐƚĂƚĞŵĞŶƚĚƵƌŝŶŐƚŚĞŝƌŵŽŶƚŚůLJŵĞĞƟŶŐ͕ƚŚĞLJĐůĂŝŵĞĚƚŚĂƚƚŚĞLJĂƌĞ
͞ũƵƐƚĐŽŶĐĞƌŶĞĚǁŝƚŚĂƉƉůLJŝŶŐƚŚĞΘZ͛ƐŽĨƚŚĞĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJĂŶĚĐĂŶŶŽƚďĞƐƵƉƉŽƌƟŶŐĞŝƚŚĞƌƐŝĚĞŽĨƚŚŝƐ
proposal”. Who did GBlaw quote here and in what capacity? It cannot be further from the truth.
tŚLJĚŝĚƚŚĞZŶŽƚƌƵŶƚŚŝƐďLJƚŚĞĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƟĞƐŝƚƌĞƉƌĞƐĞŶƚƐ͍Was this the basis for LJŽƵƌĐŽŵŵŝƩĞĞ
to decided to move forward? ŝĚƚŚĞĐŽŵŵŝƩĞĞ assumed that the support was already there based on
that statement?
A lot of people do NOT agree with this proposal, it was started under wrong pretenses and now the
community has ƚŽƐƉĞŶĚŽƵƌƟŵĞĮŐŚƟŶŐƚŚŝƐƉƌŽƉŽƐĂů͘This should have been stopped at the start
based on the guidelines – which I will highlight later on – ŽĨƚŚĞƐƉĞĐŝĮĐƉůĂŶĂŶĚƚŚĞĐŽŶŇŝĐƚƚŚĞƐŝƚĞŚĂƐ
near 2 schools͕ĂīĞĐƟŶŐƚŚĞƐĂĨĞƚLJŽĨŬŝĚƐŐŽŝŶŐƚŽƐĐŚŽŽů͘ It is NOT in line with the Phoenix General plan
to create more residents walking somewhere, NOR do any of the fast food restaurants add to residents
ŐĞƫŶŐƚŽŐĞƚŚĞƌ͕ŽƚŚĞƌthan queuing up behind each other at all the drive throughs. It will ruin our
community and if this passes then developers ǁŝůůĐŽŶƟŶƵĞƚŽĞdžƉĂŶĚĂŶĚƚƌLJƚŚĞƐĂŵĞƚŚŝŶŐŽŶŽƚŚĞƌ
ůŽĐĂƟŽŶƐ͘WůĞĂƐĞƐƚŽƉƚŚŝƐŶŽǁ͕ƐƟĐŬƚŽƚŚĞƉůĂŶ.
Please bear in mind that tŚĞƌĞŚĂƐďĞĞŶnjĞƌŽĞīŽƌƚƐĨƌŽŵĂŶLJŽƌŐĂŶŝnjĂƟŽŶƚŽĂƐŬŽƵƌĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƟĞƐǁŚĂƚ
we would like or need. Before this proposal, every resident was under the impression that we have a
ǀĞƌLJĚĞƚĂŝůĞĚƐƉĞĐŝĮĐƉůĂŶĨŽƌĞƐĞƌƚZŝĚŐĞǁŚŝĐŚĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůLJƉĞƌĨĞĐƚůLJĚĞƐĐƌŝďĞƐǁŚĂƚƚŚĞĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJǁŝůů
ůŽŽŬůŝŬĞŽŶĐĞŝƚ͛ƐĮŶŝƐŚĞĚ͘ That is what people bought into and paid a premium to live in this area.
tŚĂƚLJŽƵǁŝůůŶŽƟĐĞ in subsequent events is the fact that GBlaw has started campaigning for support
AFTER ƚŚĞĮƌƐƚƉƵďůŝĐŵĞĞƟŶŐ͘ KƵƌĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJǁĂƐŐĞƫŶŐĂĚƐ;ĂƉƉĞŶĚŝdžϮͿƚŚĂƚĐƌĞĂƚĞĚĂŶŝŵƉƌĞƐƐŝŽŶ
of an innocent small neighborhood grocery store for people to quickly click on, not being informed of the
consequences or full plans͘tŚLJĚŝĚ'ůĂǁŐŝǀĞLJŽƵƚŚĞŝŵƉƌĞƐƐŝŽŶĚƵƌŝŶŐƚŚĞůĞƩĞƌŽĨĞdžƉůĂŶĂƟŽŶƚŚĂƚ
community support already existed?
Giving the push back that you have seen, how much value can be placed on any other answer provided
ŝŶƚŚĂƚůĞƩĞƌ͕ŽƚŚĞƌƚŚĞŶ GBlaw ŚŝĚŝŶŐƚŚĞƌĞĂůŝŶƚĞŶƟŽŶƐof this developer. This developer wants to
make it 20 acres and put on a 50,000-ϭϬϬ͕ϬϬϬƐƋŌŐƌŽĐĞƌLJƐƚŽƌĞ͕ĨĂƐƚĨŽŽĚƌĞƐƚĂƵƌĂŶƚƐ͕ŐĂƐƐƚĂƟŽŶƐ͕
ŵŽƌĞƚƌĂĸĐŝŶŽƵƌĂƌĞĂ͘/ƚƐŚŽǁs ĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞĚŝƐƌĞŐĂƌĚĨŽƌŽƵƌŐƌĞĂƚĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJĂŶĚŝƚĂůƐŽĐŽŶŇŝĐƚƐǁŝƚŚĂ
ůŽƚŽĨƚŚĞĚĞƐŝŐŶƉƌŝŶĐŝƉůĞƐŽĨŽƵƌƐƉĞĐŝĮĐƉůĂŶŽŶŵĂŶLJůĞǀĞůƐ͘ƋƵĂůůLJĚĞĐĞƉƟǀĞǁĂƐƚŚĞŚŝŐŚůŝŐŚƟŶŐŽĨ
ĞdžŝƐƟŶŐƚƌĂĸĐŝƐƐƵĞƐĂƚƚŚĞĞƐĞƌƚZŝĚŐĞDĂƌŬĞƚƉůĂĐĞ͘dŚĞŝƌƐŽůƵƟŽŶ͗ŵŽǀĞĂůůƚŚĞƚƌĂĸĐŝƐƐƵĞƐĐůŽƐĞƌƚŽ
2 schools full of kids walking to school? Unacceptable.
tŚĂƚĂƌĞƚŚĞĂůƚĞƌŶĂƟǀĞƐ͍
There are no compromises to the current proposal. We (those who voted NO on ŽƵƌƉĞƟƟŽŶͿdo not
want 20 acres of commercial on that land. ƐĂƉůĂŶŶŝŶŐĐŽŵŵŝƩĞĞĂŶĚĐŝƚLJĐŽƵŶĐŝů͕LJŽƵƐŚŽƵůĚƐƟĐŬƚŽ
ƚŚĞĞdžŝƐƟŶŐŐƌĞĂƚĂŶĚƐƉĞĐŝĮĐ plan for Desert Ridge. This plan shows these superblock being Low Density
ZĞƐŝĚĞŶƟĂů.
Perhaps you consider ŶĞǁƐƟƉƵůĂƟŽŶƐŝŶƚŚĞƉůĂŶĨŽƌƚŚĞŶĞdžƚƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƟĂůďƵŝůĚĞƌƚŽƚĂŬĞŽŶƚŚĞ
ƵŶŝŶƚĞŶĚĞĚƚƌĂĸĐŝƐƐƵĞƐƚŚĂƚŚĂǀĞďĞĞŶĐƌĞĂƚĞĚŽǀĞƌƟŵĞĂŶĚƉŽƐƐŝďůLJĐƌĞĂƚĞĂŶĞǁĚƌŽƉŽīƌŽƵƚĞĨŽƌ
the highschool using 32nd street and increase the schools parking lots.(Appendix 8).
KƌƵƐŝŶŐƚŚĞsŝƐŝŽŶĞƌŽƉůĂŶ͕ĂƉƉƌŽǀĞĚďLJƚŚĞĐŽƵŶĐŝůƚŽƵƐĞ͞^ĂĨĞZŽƵƚĞƚŽ^ĐŚŽŽů͟ŐƌĂŶƚƐƚŽŵĂŬĞŽƵƌ
ĚƌŽƉŽīĂƌĞĂƐƐĂĨĞƌ͘
ŶŽƚŚĞƌĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĂƟŽŶ͕ǁŚŝĐŚŝƐĂůƌĞĂĚLJŵĞŶƟŽŶĞĚ/ŶŽƵƌĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJƉůĂŶ͕ǁŽƵůĚďĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐĂ>ŝďƌĂƌLJ
andͬŽƌWĂƌŬĂŶĚZŝĚĞƉĂƌŬŝŶŐůŽƚƐ͘dŚĂƚǁŽƵůĚďĞĂŚƵŐĞďĞŶĞĮƚƚŽƚŚŝƐĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJ͕ĞƐƉĞĐŝĂůůLJ
considering the fact that is right next to 2 schools. These things make sense.
hůƟŵĂƚĞůLJ͕ŝĨƉĞŽƉůĞǁĂŶƚŵŽƌĞĐŚŽŝĐĞŝŶŐƌŽĐĞƌLJƐƚŽƌĞƐ͕ƚŚĞŶƚŚĞƌĞĂƌĞƉƌĞ-approved njŽŶĞƐĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞ
ǀĞƌLJĐůŽƐĞďLJ͘ŝƚLJEŽƌƚŚĂůƐŽŚĂƐƌŽŽŵĨŽƌĂŶĂĚĚŝƟŽŶĂůŐƌŽĐĞƌLJƐƚŽƌĞĂŶĚĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůLJŚŽƐƚƐ;ĂƌĞĂů͊Ϳ
neighborhood Sprouts convenience store. There is is land available on 56th and the freeway also. Plenty
ŽĨĂůƚĞƌŶĂƟǀĞƐĂŶĚŐŽŽĚĞŶŽƵŐŚƚŽhost their proposal, without ruining our neighborhood.
&ƵƌƚŚĞƌĚĞƚĂŝůƐŝŶƌĞƐƉŽŶƐĞƚŽŽƌŝŐŝŶĂůƚŚĞ>ĞƩĞƌŽĨdžƉůĂŶĂƟŽŶ͘
/ǁĂŶƚƚŽĐŽŶƟŶƵĞǁŝƚŚŵy response to address the way ƚŚĞƐĞĂƩŽƌŶĞLJƐ chose to ĂŶƐǁĞƌLJŽƵƌƋƵĞƐƟŽŶƐ,
downplaying the impact it would have and leaving out important details that you should consider and be
aware of. They are experts to ƉƌŽǀŝĚĞLJŽƵŽŶůLJǁŝƚŚĚĞƚĂŝůƐƚŚĂƚƚŚĞLJ͛ǀĞůĞĂƌŶĞĚŚĞůƉƐŐĞƫŶŐĂƉƉƌŽǀĂůƐ
from you ĂŶĚƉƵƚƚŚĞǁŚĞĞůƐŝŶŵŽƟŽŶ͘
They described it as ͞ůŽǁŝŵƉĂĐƚ͟ĐŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂůĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͘,ŽǁĚŽƚŚĞLJĚĞƚĞƌŵŝŶĞƚŚŝƐ͍They claim
ƚŚĞƌĞŝƐŶŽĮŶĂůƉůĂŶ͘KŶĐĞĂƉƉƌŽǀĞĚƚŚĞLJĐĂŶĚŽǁŚĂƚƚŚĞLJǁĂŶƚ͘Eƚhey’re proposing this to be next
to an elementary and high school and in the middle of a quit community, which is unacceptable because
of the dangers they’re introducing to the school and kids. ,ĂůĨ-truths are being told.
/ǁŽƵůĚůŝŬĞƚŽƐĞůĞĐƚĂĨĞǁŽĨLJŽƵƌƋƵĞƐƟŽŶƐĂŶĚƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĂŶŽƚŚĞƌƉĞƌƐƉĞĐƟǀĞ and have included
appendices to clarify my comments.
YƵĞƐƟŽŶƐ^ĞůĞĐƚĞĚ͗
Yϯ͖,ŽǁŵĂŶLJƉŽƚĞŶƟĂůŚŽƵƐŝŶŐƵŶŝƚƐǁŽƵůĚďĞĐƌĞĂƚĞĚŽƌůŽƐƚďLJĂƉƉƌŽǀŝŶŐĂŶĚŝŵƉůĞŵĞŶƟŶŐƚŚĞ
ƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĂŵĞŶĚŵĞŶƚ͍
'ůĂǁƌĞƐƉŽŶƐĞƐƚĂƚĞƐ͗͞dŚĞďĞŶĞĮƚŽĨďƌŝŶŐŝŶŐŵƵĐŚŶĞĞĚĞĚĐŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂůƚŽƚŚŝƐĂƌĞĂĨĂƌŽƵƚǁĞŝŐŚƐƚŚĞ
minimal loss of housing from the proposed amendments”
DLJZĞƐƉŽŶƐĞ: dŚĞLJĨĂŝůƚŽŵĞŶƟŽŶƚŚĂƚthere are pre-ĂƉƉƌŽǀĞĚĐŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂůnjŽŶĞƐĂƌĞŽŶůLJϭďůŽĐŬŶŽƌƚŚ
of the proposed site along WŝŶŶĂĐůĞWĞĂŬĂŶĚůĞĂǀĞŽƵƚƚŚĞĨĂĐƚƚŚĂƚŝƚLJEŽƌƚŚƐƟůůŚĂƐϱϬйůĂŶĚ
available, whicŚŝƐĂĚũĂĐĞŶƚƚŽĞƐĞƌƚZŝĚŐĞŵĂƌŬĞƚƉůĂĐĞ͘tŚLJǁŽƵůĚƚŚĞLJŶĞĞĚƚŽĂŵĞŶĚŽƵƌƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƟĂů
master plan for 20 acres to insert a commercial development when bigger lots are available?
(See Appendix 1)
Q4: Is there a need for the proposed use(s) or ĚĞŶƐŝƚLJ;ŝĞƐͿŝŶƚŚĞƌĞƋƵĞƐƚĞĚůŽĐĂƟŽŶ͍
'ůĂǁƌĞƐƉŽŶƐĞƐƚĂƚĞƐ͗͞ƵŶŝŶƚĞŶĚĞĚĐŽŶƐĞƋƵĞŶĐĞƐŽĨĐƌĞĂƟŶŐƚŚĞůĂƌŐĞĂŶĚŚƵŐĞůLJƐƵĐĐĞƐƐĨƵůĞƐĞƌƚ
ZŝĚŐĞDĂƌŬĞƚƉůĂĐĞĂŶĚƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐƌĞƚĂŝůƵƐĞƐŝƐƚŚĂƚƚŚĞŝŶƚĞŶƐŝƚLJŽĨƚŚŽƐĞƵƐĞƐŚĂƐůĞĚƚŽƚƌĂĸĐ
ĐŽŶŐĞƐƟŽŶƐĂŶĚparking issues.”
DLJZĞƐƉŽŶƐĞ: There was never any research done or input requested from residents regarding the
impact of the marketplace, nor were we asked what our needs are. This proposal is purely economical
and not ĚƌŝǀĞŶďLJĂŶŝĚĞŶƟĮĞĚŶĞĞĚ͘My resƉŽŶƐĞǁŽƵůĚŚĂǀĞďĞĞŶƚŚĂƚ/ĐĂŶĐŽŶĮƌŵƚƌĂĸĐĐŽŶŐĞƐƟŽŶ
caused by drive through restaurants and those will remain and new ones will be created by their
proposal.
Their responses cŽŶƟŶƵĞƚŽĞŵƉŚĂƐŝƐƚŚĞcurrent ƚƌĂĸĐŝƐƐƵĞƐbut their proposal will bring ĞdžƉŽŶĞŶƟĂů
ŵŽƌĞƚƌĂĸĐto our neighborhood due to new (non resident) ƉĞŽƉůĞŶŽǁĐŚŽŽƐŝŶŐƚŽĐŽŵĞŽīƚŚĞϱϭĂƚ
Black Mountain blvd to get their groceries that previously went to the marketplace. Children are walking
home from Elementary School and thĞ,ŝŐŚ^ĐŚŽŽůĂƌĞďĞŝŶŐƉƵƚĂƚƵŶŶĞĐĞƐƐĂƌLJƌŝƐŬ͘
If I was ĂƐŬĞĚĨŽƌǁŚĂƚƚŚŝƐĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJŶĞĞĚƐ͕ŝƚǁŽƵůĚďĞŵŽƌĞƌĞĐƌĞĂƟŽŶĂůƉĂƌŬƐ͕ĂƉƌŽŵŝƐĞĚůŝďƌĂƌLJ͕
preserve the land for ,ŝŐŚ^ĐŚŽŽůexpansion requirements to accommodate more students, parking and
a safĞƌƌŽƵƚĞƚŽƐĐŚŽŽůĂŶĚĚƌŽƉŽīareas around the school. That is what we need, not light, air, noise
ƉŽůůƵƟŽŶĂŶĚŐĂƐƐƚĂƟŽŶŽƌĂŶLJŽƚŚĞƌƐŚŽƉŶĞdžƚƚŽĂŚŝŐŚƐĐŚŽŽůĂŶĚĞůĞŵĞŶƚĂƌLJƐĐŚŽŽů͘WĞŽƉůĞĂƌĞĂůƐŽ
very concerned about the crimes that go along with such a commercial center.
Qϱ͗tŚĂƚŝŵƉĂĐƚǁŽƵůĚƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĂůĂŵĞŶĚŵĞŶƚŚĂǀĞŽŶĂĚũĂĐĞŶƚŽƌŶĞĂƌďLJůĂŶĚ͍
'>ĂǁƐƚĂƚĞƐ͗͞dŚĞĂĚĚŝƟŽŶŽĨƋƵŝĐŬƐĞƌǀŝĐĞĨŽŽĚĂŶĚƌĞƚĂŝůŽƉƟŽŶƐĂƚƚŚŝƐůŽĐĂƟŽŶǁŝůůƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĂƐĂĨĞ
ĂůƚĞƌŶĂƟǀĞƚŽƚŚĞƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐĂƚŶĞĂƌďLJWŝŶŶĂĐůĞ,ŝŐŚ^ĐŚŽŽůďĞĨŽƌĞƐĐŚŽŽů͕ĂŌĞƌƐĐŚŽŽůĂŶĚĚƵƌŝŶŐƚŚĞ
ůƵŶĐŚŚŽƵƌ͘dŚĞƉƉůŝĐĂŶƚŵĞƚǁŝƚŚWŝŶŶĂĐůĞ,ŝŐŚ^ĐŚŽŽůWƌŝŶĐŝƉal Chad Smith, who indicated that the
ƉƌŽƉŽƐĂůĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚǁŽƵůĚƉŽƚĞŶƟĂůůLJƌĞĚƵĐĞƚŚĞŶƵŵďĞƌŽĨŽī-campus trips by car”
DLJZĞƐƉŽŶƐĞ͗dŚĞŝŵƉĂĐƚǁŝůůďĞďĂĚ͘DŽƌĞƚƌĂĸĐ͕DŽƌĞƉŽůůƵƟŽŶ͕DŽƌĞƐŵĞůůƐ͕DŽƌĞŚŽŵĞůĞƐƐƉĞŽƉůĞ
on corners, More cars idling, MoƌĞŶŽŝƐĞƐĂŶĚůŝŐŚƚƉŽůůƵƟŽŶŝŶƚŽƚŚĞŶŝŐŚƚ͘
PLUS Every parent knows that ƉƵƫŶŐƚĞŵƉƚĂƟŽŶŝŶĨƌŽŶƚŽĨƚĞĞŶĂŐĞƌƐ͕ƚŚĞLJǁŝůůũƵŵƉŽŶƚŚĞŽĐĐĂƐŝŽŶƚŽ
ƐŬŝƉƐĐŚŽŽů͕ĮŶĚĂǁĂLJƚŽďƵLJĂůĐŽŚŽůĂŶĚĐŝŐĂƌĞƩĞƐĂŶĚĐƌĞĂƚĞĂŚĂŶŐŽƵƚĨŽƌƚŚĞƐĞƚĞĞŶĂŐĞƌƐƚŚĂƚǁŝůů
lead to all sorts of trouble͕ĮŐŚƚƐĂŶĚĐƌŝŵĞƐ͘The school is a closed campus school, so only seniors that
are already driving themselves might be interested, but it also highlights their commercial interests in
this area and trying to capture this ĐĂƉƟve audience and provide bad fast food and other bad choices.
EŽƚŚŝŶŐƐĂĨĞĂďŽƵƚƚŚĞŝƌƉƌŽƉŽƐĂůƚŚĂƚǁŝůůďĞŶĞĮƚ,ŝŐŚƐĐŚŽŽůƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐ͘
Secondly, /ǁŽƵůĚŚŝŐŚůLJƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚƚŚĂƚLJŽƵŝŶĚĞƉĞŶĚĞŶƚůLJŵĞĞƚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞWƌŝŶĐŝƉĂůŽĨWŝŶŶĂĐůĞ,ŝŐŚ
School and Fireside ElĞŵĞŶƚĂƌLJ^ĐŚŽŽůĂŶĚƚŚĞLJǁŝůůƉĂŝŶƚLJŽƵĂŶĞŶƟƌĞůLJĚŝīĞƌĞŶƚƉŝĐƚƵƌĞĂŶĚƐƚƌŽŶŐůLJ
ŽƉƉŽƐĞƚŚŝƐĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͘ Don’t take my word for it. Please have someone verify this statement as this
was another technique to give you the impression that they reached out ǁŝƚŚĐŽŶĐĞƌŶĞĚƉĂƌƟĞƐĂŶĚ
only shared what they wanted to hear. Not their ĨƵůůǀĞƌƐŝŽŶĂŶĚŵŝƐƌĞƉƌĞƐĞŶƚĂƟŽŶŽĨƚŚĞŝƌŽƉŝŶŝŽŶ͘
WĂƌĞŶƚƐŚĂǀĞďƌŽƵŐŚƚƚŚŝƐƵƉǁŝƚŚƚŚĞWƌŝŶĐŝƉĂůĚƵƌŝŶŐǀĂƌŝŽƵƐŵĞĞƟŶŐƐĂƚƚŚĞƐƚĂƌƚŽĨƚŚĞƐĐŚŽŽůLJĞĂƌ͘
Q6: How will the propoƐĞĚĂŵĞŶĚŵĞŶƚĂīĞĐƚƚƌĂĸĐŐĞŶĞƌĂƟŽŶĂŶĚƚŚĞƚƌĂŶƐƉŽƌƚĂƟŽŶƐLJƐƚĞŵ͍
'ůĂǁƐƚĂƚĞƐ͖͞ůĂĐŬŵŽƵŶƚĂŝŶďůǀĚĂŶĚĞĞƌsĂůůĞLJĚƌŝǀĞĂƌĞďŽƚŚŵĂũŽƌĂƌƚĞƌŝĂůƐĂĚũĂĐĞŶƚƚŽƚŚĞ
ƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJ͘ƐƐƵĐŚ͕ůĂĐŬŵŽƵŶƚĂŝŶǀŝůůĂŐĞŝƐƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĂƚĂŶĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞůŽĐĂƟŽŶ͟
My RĞƐƉŽŶƐĞ: EŽƟĐĞŚŽǁƐŚŽƌƚƚŚŝƐĂŶƐǁĞƌŝƐĐŽŵƉĂƌĞĚƚŽĂůůƚŚĞŽƚŚĞƌĂŶƐǁĞƌƐ͘dŚĞLJĂƌĞŶŽƚĞǀĞŶ
ĚŝƌĞĐƚůLJĂĚĚƌĞƐƐŝŶŐƚŚĞĐŽƌĞŽĨLJŽƵƌƋƵĞƐƟŽŶ͘'ƌĞĂƚĂǀŽŝĚŝŶŐƚĞĐŚŶŝƋƵĞ of the hot potato.
See Appendix 1 – ƚŚĞƚƌĂĸĐŝƐƚĞƌƌŝďůĞĂƚƚŚĞŵŽŵĞŶƚ͕ĚƵƌŝŶŐĚƌŽƉŽī ĂŶĚƉŝĐŬƵƉƟŵĞƐ͕ĚƵƌŝŶŐƌƵƐŚ
hour, as drivers trying to avoid the 101 and 51 take Deer Valley and they use all of our community road
to take short cuts and therefor causing people speeding on mayo blvd and 40th street to get to where
ƚŚĞLJŶĞĞĚƚŽŐŽ͘tŝƚŚƚŚĞĂƩƌĂĐƟŽŶŽĨŐĂƐƐƚĂƟŽŶƐ͕ĨĂƐƚĨŽŽĚĂŶĚŐƌŽĐĞƌLJƐƚŽƌĞƐ͕ŵŽƌĞ(non resident)
people will start taking this route.
Qϴ͗ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJĞŶĞĮƚƐ͖,ŽǁĚŽĞƐƚŚĞƌĞƋƵĞƐƚĂĚĚƌĞƐƐƚŚĞĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJ͛ƐƵŶŝƋƵĞŽƉƉŽƌƚƵŶŝƟĞƐĂŶĚ
ĐŚĂůůĞŶŐĞƐ ƌĞůĂƚĞĚƚŽƉƌŽƐƉĞƌŝƚLJ͕ŚĞĂůƚŚĂŶĚƚŚĞĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚ͍^ĞĞƉĂŐĞƐϭϴ-26 in the Phoenix General
Plan
GBlaw States: One of the visions discussed in the PlanPhx 2015 General Plan, is to make Phoenix a
͞ŽŶŶĞĐƚĞĚKĂƐŝƐ͘͟Put another way, residents have expressed a desire for the City to have more places
ĂƚǁŚŝĐŚĐŝƟnjĞŶƐĐĂŶĐŽŶŶĞĐƚǁŝƚŚŽŶĞĂŶŽƚŚĞƌ. This new shopping center in the Desert Ridge area will
ƉƌŽǀŝĚĞƐƵĐŚĂƉůĂĐĞ͘DŽƌĞŽǀĞƌ͕ƚŚĞĂĚĚŝƟŽŶŽĨĂƌĞƚĂŝůƐŚŽƉƉŝŶŐĐĞŶƚĞƌƚŚĂƚĐĂŶŵŽƌĞĐŽŶǀĞŶŝĞŶƚůLJ
serve the weƐƚĞƌŶƉŽƌƟŽŶŽĨĞƐĞƌƚZŝĚŐĞǁŝůůƌĞĚƵĐĞƚƌĂŶƐƉŽƌƚĂƟŽŶďƵƌĚĞŶƐŽŶƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐƚŽƌĞĂĐŚ
ŐƌŽĐĞƌLJĂŶĚŽƚŚĞƌƌĞƚĂŝůŽƉƉŽƌƚƵŶŝƟĞƐ͖ƉŽƚĞŶƟĂůůLJŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞƚŚĞŚĞĂůƚŚŽĨĞƐĞƌƚZŝĚŐĞƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐďLJ
ƉƌŽǀŝĚŝŶŐĂĚĞƐƟŶĂƟŽŶƚŽǁŚŝĐŚƚŚĞLJĐĂŶǁĂůŬŽƌďŝŬĞĂŶĚƌĞĚƵĐĞƚŚe emissions from residents driving
to Desert Ridge Marketplace which can lead to a healthier environment͘ƌĞĚƵĐƟŽŶŝƐƚƌĂŶƐƉŽƌƚĂƟŽŶ
ďƵƌĚĞŶƐ͕ŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞĚŽƉƉŽƌƚƵŶŝƟĞƐĨŽƌĞdžĞƌĐŝƐĞĂŶĚĂĐůĞĂŶĞƌĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚůĞĂĚƚŽĂŶŽǀĞƌĂůůŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞŝŶ
health and prosperity.
DLJZĞƐƉŽŶƐĞ: This is pure nonsense as there has NOT been any survey done about what we want and
need or desire. And if they claim this, it can only been hearsay from a few residents close to this project
or overheard in ĂŶ,KďŽĂƌĚŵĞĞƟŶŐ͘EŽƚĞǀĞŶ ŽƵƌ,K͛ƐŚĂǀĞĚŽŶĞƐƵĐŚĂƐƵƌǀĞLJƚŽŐĂƚŚĞƌŝŶƉƵƚ
from their residents͘ '>ĂǁŽŶůLJƐƚĂƌƚĞĚƚŽŐĂƚŚĞƌƐŝŐŶĂƚƵƌĞƐĂƌŽƵŶĚ^ĞƉƚĞŵďĞƌ͕ǁŚŝůƐƚƚŚĞůĞƩĞƌŝƐ
dated July 1Ɛƚ͘
,ŽǁĞǀĞƌ͕ŝf you know anything about Aviano, Sky Crossing and my community Fireside, then you know
ƚŚŝƐĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJŝƐĂůƌĞĂĚLJǀĞƌLJĐŽŶŶĞĐƚĞĚƚŽƚŚĞŝƌŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐ͕ǁĞŚĂǀĞůŽŶŐƟŵĞƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐƚŚĂƚŚĂǀĞ
seen their kids grow up and go through each of the 3 schools in the area as well as many community
ĞǀĞŶƚƐƚŚĂƚĂƌĞŽƌŐĂŶŝnjĞĚby paid community directors every month where we all connect with each
other. &ŝƌĞǁŽƌŬĚŝƐƉůĂLJƐƉĂŝĚĨŽƌďLJ,K͛Ɛ͘KƵƌ,ĂůůŽǁĞĞŶĐĞůĞďƌĂƟŽŶƐĂƌĞŬŶŽǁŶƚŚƌŽƵŐŚŽƵƚWŚŽĞŶŝdž
ĂŶĚǁĞŚĂǀĞƚŽďůŽĐŬŽīŽƵƌƐƚƌĞĞƚƐƚŽĂĐĐŽŵŵŽĚĂƚĞĞǀĞryone safely.
dŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĂůŝƐŶŽƚƉƌŽŵŽƟŶŐĂŶLJŽĨƚŚĞƚŚŝŶŐƐƚŚĞLJĂĚǀĞƌƟƐĞ, nor will any of their proposed
ĐŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂůƉƌŽƉĞƌƟĞƐƉƌŽŵŽƚĞĂŶLJŶĞǁŚĞĂůƚŚLJĂĐƟǀŝƟĞƐĚƵĞƚŽƚŚĞŶĂƚƵƌĞŽĨƚŚĞ'ĂƐƐƚĂƟŽŶ͕&ĂƐƚĨŽŽĚ
restaurants and ŶŽŶĞŽĨƚŚĞϭϬϬ͕ϬϬϬƐƋŌŐrocery stores. dŚĞLJĂƌĞĞdžƉĞĐƟŶŐŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞĚƚƌĂĸĐĨŽƌƚŚĞŝƌ
tenants to be successful.
Other examples to promote these great goals outlined in your General Plan, are libraries and park areas
ĨŽƌŽƵƌĨĂŵŝůŝĞƐƚŚĂƚǁŝůůĂůůŽǁĐŽĂĐŚĞƐƚŽƌƵŶƚŚĞŝƌƉƌĂĐƟĐĞƐand young families to have play areas.
Q9͗,ŽǁǁŝůůƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĂŵĞŶĚŵĞŶƚĂīĞĐƚƚŚĞĐŚĂƌĂĐƚĞƌĂŶĚŝŵĂŐĞŽĨƚŚĞĂĚũĂĐĞŶƚĂƌĞĂ͕
ŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚ͕ĂŶĚǀŝůůĂŐĞ͍
GBlaw states: ͞dŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĂŵĞŶĚŵĞŶƚƐǁŝůůĂĚǀĂŶĐĞƚŚĞůĂŶĚƵƐĞƉƌŝŶĐŝƉůĞƐŝŶƚŚĞĞƐĞƌƚsŝĞǁ
VillĂŐĞŚĂƌĂĐƚĞƌWůĂŶĂŶĚƚŚĞĞƐĞƌƚZŝĚŐĞ^ƉĞĐŝĮĐWůĂŶ. The Desert View Village Character Area Plan
ŚĂƐƐĞǀĞƌĂůƉƌŝŶĐŝƉůĞƐƚŚĂƚĂƌĞƐƵƉƉŽƌƚĞĚďLJƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĂŵĞŶĚŵĞŶƚƐ͘dŚĞĮƌƐƚŝƐĂůĂŶĚƵƐĞƉƌŝŶĐŝƉůĞ
that suggests that new development in or near residenƟĂůĂƌĞĂƐƐŚŽƵůĚďĞĐŽŵƉĂƟďůĞǁŝƚŚĞdžŝƐƟŶŐƵƐĞƐ
and consistent with adopted plans. Next is a design principle that seeks to protect and enhance the
character of each neighborhood and its various housing lifestyles through new development that is
ĐŽŵƉĂƟble in scale, design, and appearance. Finally, the last principle is design-related and requires
impact-ŵŝƟŐĂƟŶŐĨĞĂƚƵƌĞƐǁŚĞŶŶĞǁŶŽŶƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƟĂůƵƐĞƐĂďƵƚĞdžŝƐƟŶŐƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƟĂůƵƐĞƐŽƌĂƌĞĂĚũĂĐĞŶƚ
to arterial streets or freeway corridors.”
DLJZĞƐƉŽŶƐĞ: These design principles should simply state –
1) KEKdh/>KDDZ/>WZKWZd/^EZ,/',E>DEdZz^,KK>^hdK
ŵĞŶƟŽŶĞĚŝƐĂƐŵĂůůǁĂůŬĨŽƌĂŶLJďŽĚLJ͕ƐŽĐůĂŝŵŝŶŐƚŚĞĚĞƐŝŐŶďĞŝŶŐ͞ĂǁĂLJ͟ĨƌŽŵƚŚĞƉƵďůŝĐ
ƐĐŚŽŽůŝƐũƵƐƚƉƵƫŶŐůŝƉƐƟĐŬŽŶĂƉŝŐ͘
2) KEKdh/>KDDZ/>WZKWZd/^/Ed,D/>K&ϯZ^Wd>KDDhE/d/^
hdKd,dZ&&/EZ/D^d,^dzW^K&WZK:d^Z/E'͘The grocery will be giving
ĂĐĐĞƐƐƚŽĂůĐŽŚŽůĂŶĚƚĂďĂĐĐŽŶĞĂƌƚŚĞƐĐŚŽŽůƐ͘dŚĞŐĂƐƐƚĂƟŽŶƐǁŝůůďƌŝŶŐhomeless people
3) d,ZEK/DWdD/d/'d/E'&dhZ^/E>h &KZEKEZ^/Ed/>h^^͘ In fact, the
ǀŝĂďŝůŝƚLJŽĨƚŚŝƐĐŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂůƉƌŽƉŽƐĂůŝƐĐŽƵŶƟŶŐŽŶŶŽŶƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐƚŽƐƚĂƌƚǀŝƐŝƟŶŐƚŚŝƐĂƌĞĂ͘
/ƚǁŝůůĂůƐŽĂīĞĐƚƚŚĞŝŵĂŐĞŽĨWŝŶŶĂĐůĞ,ŝŐŚ^ĐŚŽŽů͕ǁŚŝĐŚŝƐƉƵƫŶŐĂůŽƚŽĨĞīŽƌƚŝŶƚŽŝŶĐƌĞĂƐŝŶŐƚŚĞŝƌ
ŝŵĂŐĞĂŶĚƉƌŽǀŝĚĞƐƵƉĞƌŝŽƌĞĚƵĐĂƟon and is seeing increased enrollment numbers. This include the fact
ƚŚĂƚƐĐŚŽŽůƐĂƌĞŐƌĂĚĞĚŽŶƚŚĞŝƌƐƚƵĚĞŶƚƐĂƩĞŶĚĂŶĐĞĂŶĚdĂƌĚŝŶĞƐƐ͘,ĂǀŝŶŐƚŚŝƐĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚŶĞdžƚĚŽŽƌ
will most certainly impact their school standings today.
YϭϬ͘ĚĚŝƟŽŶĂůĐŽŵŵĞŶƚƐĂs appropriate
GBlaw states͗sĞƐƚĂƌŚĂƐƌĞĐĞŝǀĞĚƉŽƐŝƟǀĞĨĞĞĚďĂĐŬĨƌŽŵƚŚĞĞƐĞƌƚZŝĚŐĞŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJƐƐŽĐŝĂƟŽŶ͘Ɛ
ƚŚĞ^ŝƚĞWůĂŶŚĂƐĞǀŽůǀĞĚ͕ƚŚĞĂƉƉůŝĐĂŶƚĂŶĚsĞƐƚĂƌŚĂǀĞŵĞƚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞƐƐŽĐŝĂƟŽŶŝŶŽƌĚĞƌƚŽŬĞĞƉƚŚĞŵ
informed and updated on the project. dŚĞĐŽŶƟŶƵŽƵƐƋƵĞƐƟŽŶƚŚĂƚŚĂƐďĞĞŶĂƐŬĞĚƚŚƌŽƵŐŚŽƵƚƚŚŝƐ
ŽƵƚƌĞĂĐŚŝƐ͞tŚĞŶǁŝůůLJŽƵƐƚĂƌƚĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶ͍͟The eagerness of this community to have shopping
ĂůƚĞƌŶĂƟǀĞƐ͕ŐƌŽĐĞƌLJŝŶƉĂƌƟĐƵůĂƌ͕ƐŝŵƉůLJĐĂŶŶŽƚďĞŽǀĞƌƐƚĂƚĞĚ͘
DLJZĞƐƉŽŶƐĞ͗ These ĂĚĚŝƟŽŶĂůĐŽŵŵĞŶƚƐĂƌĞ possibly based on the opinion of 1 person within the
ĞƐĞƌƚƌŝĚŐĞ,KďŽĂƌĚ͘dŚĞre will be no evidence to support these statements. In fact, every ,K
ŵĞĞƟŶŐ'ůĂǁŚĂƐĂƩĞŶĚĞĚ ĂŌĞƌƚŚĞŝŶŝƟĂůƉƵďůŝĐŚĞĂƌŝŶŐ͕ŚĂƐďĞĞŶŵĞƚǁŝƚŚ more ŽƉƉŽƐŝƟŽŶ. There is
ZERO EAGERNESS by this community, demonstrated by all the emails you have been receiving on this
proposal ĂŶĚĨƵƌƚŚĞƌƐƚƌĞŶŐƚŚĞŶĞĚďLJƚŚĞǀŽƚĞƐŽŶŽƵƌƉĞƟƟŽŶĂŶĚƉĞŽƉůĞƚŚĂƚŚĂǀĞŽƌǁŝůůďĞƐƉĞĂŬŝŶŐ
ĂƚƚŚĞƉƵďůŝĐŵĞĞƟŶŐƐ͘ (Appendix 5)
ƵƚĮƌƐƚĂŶĚĨŽƌĞŵŽƐƚ͕ƚŚĞŽƉƉŽƐŝƟŽŶƚŽƚŚŝƐƉƌŽƉŽƐĂů underlines that this proposal might be a classic
bait-and-switch and they assumed this would slide under radar of this community. They were wrong.
Wd/d/KE^ͬ^ŽĐŝĂůDĞĚŝĂͬĚǀĞƌƟƐŝŶŐ͗
In respŽŶƐĞƚŽǀĂƌŝŽƵƐĂĚƐĂŶĚǁĞďƐŝƚĞĂĐƟǀŝƚLJďLJsĞƐƚĂƌĂŶĚ'ůĂǁ͕ŽƵƌĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJŚĂƐƐĞƚƵƉŽƵƌŽǁŶ
website ( ŚƩƉƐ͗ͬͬĚĞĨĞŶĚĚĞƐĞƌƚƌŝĚŐĞ͘ŐŽĚĂĚĚLJƐŝƚĞƐ͘ĐŽŵͬ ͿĂŶĚŽƵƌWĞƟƟŽŶŽŶŚĂŶŐĞ͘ŽƌŐ ĂŶĚ,ĂŶĚ
ǁƌŝƩĞŶƐŝŐŶĂƚƵƌĞƉĞƟƟŽŶƐ ƚŽŵĂŬĞƐƵƌĞƚŚĂƚǁĞĂƌĞŶŽƚƵŶĚĞƌĐƵƚďLJƚŚŝƐĐŽƌƉŽƌĂƟŽŶƐƚĂĐƟĐƐƚŽƐŚŽǁ
support. Residents cannot match their corporate budget and social media skills, but we hope that you
ƐĞĞƚŚĂƚĞīŽƌƚƐǁĞƌĞŵĂde on our side and that it should be weighed more.
>>ŽĨƚŚĞŝƌĂĐƟǀŝƚLJƚŽďĂĐŬƵƉƚŚĞŝƌƐƚĂƚĞŵĞŶƚƐ͕ĂƌĞd&dZƚŚĞŝƌ͞džƉůĂŶĂƟŽŶ>ĞƩĞƌ͕͟ƚŚƵƐƚŚĞ
statements and references made to our community’s eagerness for this, has been vastly overstated.
We have since also seen ǀĂƌŝŽƵƐĂĚƐƐŚŽǁƵƉŽŶŽƵƌ&ĂĐĞŬĂŶĚŽƚŚĞƌƐŽĐŝĂůŵĞĚŝĂƉůĂƞŽƌŵƐ(
Appendix 2) that ƉĂŝŶƚĂ͞ĚƌĞĂŵ͟ĂƉƉĞĂůŝŶŐƚŽĂƌĂŶĚŽŵƉƵďůŝĐƚŚĂƚƚŚŝƐŝƐĂŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚŐƌŽĐĞƌ͕ǁŚĞŶ
the fact is that it could be 50,000-ϭϬϬ͕ϬϬϬƐƋŌŐƌŽĐĞƌ͘dŚŝƐ ŝƐŶĞǀĞƌŵĞŶƟŽŶĞĚĂŶLJǁŚĞƌĞ͘ŐĂƐƐƚĂƟŽŶŝƐ
ŶĞǀĞƌŵĞŶƟŽŶĞĚĂŶLJǁŚĞƌĞ͘ The audience they target could be outside of Desert Ridge.
Other ads ůĞĂĚƚŽĂƉĞƟƟŽŶŽŶŚĂŶŐĞ͘ŽƌŐ͕ǁŚŝĐŚŝŶƚƵƌŶŚĂƐĂůŝŶŬďĂĐŬƚŽƚŚĞ'ůĂǁǁĞďƐŝƚĞŝŶŽƌĚĞƌ
to submit support emails. (Appendix 3 & 4)
x dŚĞƌĞŝƐEKsĂůŝĚĂƟŽŶǁŚĞƌĞƚŚĞƐĞĞŵĂŝůƐĂƌĞĐŽŵŝŶŐĨƌŽŵ͘
x dŚĞƌĞŝƐEKsĂůŝĚĂƟŽŶǁŚĞƚŚĞƌĂŶLJŽĨƚŚĞƐƵďŵŝƐƐŝŽŶƐĂƌĞĐŽŵŝŶŐĨƌŽŵĂƵƚŽŵĂƚĞĚƐŽŌǁĂƌĞ
x dŚĞƌĞŝƐEKsĂůŝĚĂƟŽŶ– if they were real people – where they live and even part of desert ridge
x dŚĞLJ͛ƌĞƐŚĂƌŝŶŐǀĞƌLJůŝƩůĞŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƟŽŶĂďŽƵƚƚŚĞĨƵůůƐĐŽƉĞŽĨƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚ.
/EKE>h^/KE
I’m completely blown away by the amounƚŽĨĞīŽƌƚƚŚĂƚƚŚĞƐĞĂƩŽƌŶĞLJƐĂŶĚĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞƌƐƉƵƚďĞŚŝŶĚƚŚĞŝƌ
proposals in order to ruin neighborhoods, endanger school areas, and ŶĞŐĂƟǀĞůLJŝŵƉĂĐƚƐŽƵŐŚƚĂŌĞƌ
ĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƟĞƐĨŽƌƚŚĞŝƌƉƌŽĮƚƐ͘
dŚĞƌĞŝƐŶŽĞĂŐĞƌŶĞƐƐŝŶƚŚŝƐĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJĂŶĚŽŶůŝŶĞƉĞƟƟŽŶƐĂŶĚŚĂŶĚǁƌŝƩĞŶƐŝŐŶĂƚƵƌĞƐƵŶĚĞƌůŝŶĞƚŚĂƚ
ƚŚŝƐƉƌŽƉŽƐĂůǁĂƐďĂƐĞĚŽŶŵŝƐŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƟŽŶĂŶĚŶŽƚƐƵďƐƚĂŶƟĂƚĞĚďLJĂŶLJƌĞƐĞĂƌĐŚŽĨĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJŶĞĞĚƐ͘
/ƐŝŶĐĞƌĞůLJŚŽƉĞƚŚĂƚƚŚĞŝƚLJWůĂŶŶĞƌ͕ŝƚLJWůĂŶŶŝŶŐŽŵŵŝƩĞĞĂŶĚŝƚLJŽƵŶĐŝůǁŝůůƐĞĞƚŚŝƐ
ĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĨŽƌǁŚĂƚŝƚŝƐĂŶĚŽƉƉŽƐĞƚŚĞnjŽŶŝŶŐĐŚĂŶŐĞ͕ǁŝƚŚŽƵƚĐŽŵƉƌŽŵŝƐĞ. There is nothing that
ǁŝůůďĞĂĐĐĞƉƚĞĚďLJƚŚŝƐĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJ͕ŽƚŚĞƌƚŚĂŶƚŚĞĐƵƌƌĞŶƚnjŽŶing.
WůĞĂƐĞĚĞĐůŝŶĞƚŚĞĞŶƟƌĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĂůŝŶĂůůŝƚƐĨŽƌŵƐĂŶĚŬĞĞƉƚŚĞƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƟĂůnjŽŶŝŶŐĂƐŝƚŝƐ͕Žƌpro-ĂĐƟǀĞůLJ
work with our community directly ƚŽĮŶĚĂŵŽƌĞǀĂůƵĂďůĞƵƐĞĨŽƌƚŚŝƐůĂŶĚĂƌŽƵŶĚWŝŶŶĂĐůĞŚŝŐŚƐĐŚŽŽů
ĂŶĚŶĞĂƌŽƵƌϯĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƟĞƐ and stop any incoming future proposals immediately.
Sincerely,
Wouter Roodenburg
APPENDIX 1: TRAFFIC CONGESTION and COMMERCIAL ZONING
APPENDIX 2 – FACEBOOK ADS
dŚĞLJĂƌĞŵŝƐƌĞƉƌĞƐĞŶƟŶŐƚŚĞĨƵůůƉůĂŶŽĨƚŚŝƐƉƌŽƉŽƐĂůŝŶŽƌĚĞƌƚŽŐĞƚƉĞŽƉůĞƚŽǀŽƚĞĨŽƌƚŚŝƐ͘
WWE/yϯ'ůĂǁƐƵďŵŝƐƐŝŽŶĨŽƌŵĂŶĚƉĞƟƟŽŶ Link
APPENDIX 4 – 'ďůĂǁƉĞƟƟŽŶ͗BRING NEW GROCER ƉĞƟƟŽŶ;ƉĞƌϵͬϭϵͬϮϯͿ
ŚƩƉƐ͗ͬͬǁǁǁ͘ĐŚĂŶŐĞ͘ŽƌŐͬƉͬŚĞůƉ-bring-a-new-grocer-to-desert-ridge-please-sign-our-ƉĞƟƟŽŶ
This was started in Septembeƌ͕ĂĨƵůůϮŵŽŶƚŚƐĂŌĞƌƚŚĞůĞƩĞƌŽĨĞdžƉůĂŶĂƟŽŶǁĂƐƐĞŶĚ͘
APPENDIX 5 – RESIDENTS PETITION : KƉƉŽƐĞŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂůƌĞnjŽŶŝŶŐŝŶĞƐĞƌƚZŝĚŐĞ
ŚƩƉƐ͗ͬͬǁǁǁ͘ĐŚĂŶŐĞ͘ŽƌŐͬƉͬŽƉƉŽƐĞ-commercial-ƌĞnjŽŶŝŶŐ-in-desert-ridge
^ŽĨĂƌǁĞŚĂǀĞdt/ƚŚĞƐƵƉƉŽƌƚƚŽŽƉƉŽƐĞƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĂů͕ĞdžĐůƵĚŝŶŐǁƌŝƩen signatures.
WWE/yϲĞƐĞƌƚZŝĚŐĞ^ƉĞĐŝĮĐWůĂŶ– Current Plan around 3 acre neighborhood centers
NOTE: I thought it would be helpful to include these chapters around the original intent of neighborhood
convenience commercial.
1) Convenience commercial NOT more then 3 acres max
2) Neighborhood convenience store can be ϱϬϬϬƐƋŌŵĂdž;ƐĞĞƐŝƚĞĚĞƐŝŐŶͿ NOT 100,000
3) Away from Arterial streets
4) No Drive Through
5) Only Beer/Wine allowed
Appendix 7 – ĞƐĞƌƚZŝĚŐĞ^ƉĞĐŝĮĐWůĂŶ– Public Facility Plan
This chapter describes the provisions for public ĨĂĐŝůŝƟĞƐůŝŬĞZŝĚĞ-and-Go and Libraries
These are currently in the planning and would increase our sense of community.
What if a Planning Commission would decide to put library next to 2 schools for kids to go to.
tŚĂƚĂŐƌĞĂƚĐŽŶĐĞƉƚĂŶĚŝƚĮƚƐƌŝŐŚƚinto the goal of bringing a neighborhood together.
Also – please note that in this version of the plan, a Park and Ride parking lot is showing on the proposed
site. Why wouldn’t we want to do that and execute the plan.
Appendix 8 – EĞǁƌŽƉŽīZŽƵƚĞ
From: js
To: Anthony M Grande; Council District 2 PCC; PDD Long Range Planning
Cc: Katie Shashaguay
Subject: Vestar Rezoning near Sky Crossing- Not your normal opposition email
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 9:06:42 AM
Attachments: image.png
Hello Anthony,
As a homeowner in the Sky Crossings community I am writing to you today to voice my
concerns about the rezoning proposed by Vestar development for the plot of land on the corner
of Black Mountain and Deer Valley.
My intention with this email may be a bit different than some others that are opposing
the rezoning as I am only opposed to the change based on the current guidelines. The
concerns I have are with the lack of limitations placed on the development proposed and
the traffic patterns suggested for nearby residents. Let me explain.
As I understand it the Max sq footage of the proposed grocery store would be 100,000 sq ft. In
my opinion this is far too large for the community. I would be in favor if the max sq ft was
closer to 50,000 as this would attract a smaller more neighborhood friendly store and
allow more retail space for local businesses which serve to bring the community together
better than a big grocery.
This would even lend itself to a development plan that could recreate more of a "main
street" feel with business lining a small street. It would be nice to incorporate a small park
for people to gather or even a space for organized neighborhood gatherings and events. It
could be a destination, within walking distance, for the community to gather, shop, eat and for
kids to play. There is nothing like that nearby currently that brings all of the nearby
neighborhoods together.
My other major concern is the traffic pattern proposed.
There would be no way for someone leaving that development to get to Sky Crossing without
taking a U-turn or cutting across traffic to get to a turn lane. This could be remedied by
extending the proposed Mayo Blvd improvements all the way to 32nd street as then there
would be a light allowing people to safely exit the area in either direction.
In summations, I would love to see that entire space (see pic below) turned into a retail /
public use space that would include a small grocery, shopping, a park, a small amphitheater
for neighborhood concerts and events. I'd like to see something that welcomes neighbors in
and encourages us to spend time (and $$) as a community, building friendships and
memories together as our kids grow up.
This is an opportunity to do something different and set a precedent for neighborhood
planning and development to come.
I understand that the highlighted area is larger than what's proposed but wouldn't it be a great
place to bring people together?
Thanks for your time .
Jovan Shashaguay
Sky Crossing resident
312-450-5450- feel free to call anytime
From: Susan Diamant
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: No
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 9:43:14 PM
Dear Sir,
I have been a Desert Ridge resident since 2001. During this time i’ve gotten married, had a child and she has
enjoyed the relaxed
family environment that these neighborhoods currently provide and well as safety and bike riding.
Please consider the values that this neighborhood has offered and desired prior to this refining issue. Some thing are
best left alone and this neighborhood is one of those places here in the valley.
Sincerely,
Susan
Sent from my iPhone
From: Robin Bowie
To: Council District 2 PCC
Cc: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Rezoning of 20.52 acres
Date: Friday, September 22, 2023 10:36:26 AM
Dear Councilman Waring and Mr. Grande:
My name is Robin Bowie and I have been a resident of Desert Ridge since 2004. My
husband, Charlie Bowie, was the former President of Toll Brothers Arizona Division and
worked closely with the City of Phoenix and the Planning Commission to build one of the best
master planned communities in Arizona, Aviano.
I wanted to voice my concerns about the rezoning of approximately 20.52 acres located at the
southwest corner of Black Mountain Boulevard and Deer Valley Drive (GPA-DSTV-2-23-2
(Companion Cases GPA-DSTV-3-23-2 and Z-39-23-2).
By rezoning this parcel from Residential 2 to 5 dwelling units per acre to Commercial directly
affects the following:
1. The already problematic traffic in the morning and afternoons with the school start and stop
times. The newer drivers from Pinnacle High School navigating that area on a daily basis will
be at even more at risk with the additional traffic from the shopping center, especially if a
coffee shop (as was eluded to by Vestar’s attorney at the August 1st Planning Committee
meeting) will be put there.
2. The possibility of a gas station being added to the Plan really is the worst of the worst. Now
you are talking light pollution, large noisy trucks delivering the fuel and supplies, as well as
possible contamination of the soil with any gas or oil leaks. And then there is the vagrancy
issue. The homeless and panhandling has already been an issue sprouting up in Desert Ridge
and now with the new shopping center they will start migrating there.
3. Crime - inevitable things that happen when there is a shopping center. And add to that the
proximity of the on/off ramp of SR51. That exit will then be used by more vehicles who will
want to use that shopping center, especially if there is a gas station there. I would also think
that having a shopping center right next to the high school would draw those same kids into
becoming a nuisance as well. Just ask anyone about the teen problem at the Marketplace and
how Target had to hire a Police Officer to guard their store with all of the teens hanging out
there. And the same holds true for adding a fast food chain. Look at what happened a few
months ago at In and Out Burger with the teens getting into fights and the young man who lost
all of his front teeth. Teens are going to be teens but again, why do we want to bring that right
into the middle of our neighborhood.
5. By adding a “boutique” or any other grocery store you have the issue of loading docks and
large semi-trucks coming in the middle of the night with their loud engines and beeping noises
unloading merchandise so close to the houses in that general vicinity.
The project summary on the Gammage & Burnham website claims: “growing demand and
need for additional commercial and retail options in the Desert Ridge area.” Desert Ridge
Marketplace already encompasses a large parcel of land, High Street with its restaurants,
shops and a small grocery store and add to that City North which is currently in the developing
stages. “City North will be an “urban core” that upon completion will bring over 3,400
additional apartment units, over 2 million square feet of Class A office development along the
Loop 101 freeway, ±1,000 hotel rooms and several new restaurants to the heart of the Desert
Ridge, Arizona's largest master planned community.” (This paragraph copied from
https://www.citynorthdesertridge.com/ [citynorthdesertridge.com]). Desert Ridge has plenty
of “additional and retail options” especially given the fact that it is already becoming more and
more dense with traffic from the existing Marketplace, the new housing all along 56th Street,
as well as Deer Valley Road, City North, and the new apartments slated for the Northeast
corner of Tatum/Deer Valley.
I personally have spoken to several homeowners and they are all in agreement that this is not
wanted or needed. I have signed the Petition that is currently circling the area. I understand
that the Developer is going from door to door looking to convince the neighbors that this is a
good idea.
It is my hope that the Planning Committee will take my comments and the comments of the
other neighbors who are signing the petition and writing letters into consideration when
making their decision on whether or not to rezone this parcel. When I moved to Desert Ridge
back in 2004 everything surrounding Aviano was zoned residential. I have watched all of the
new developments come to life around me. I’m fine with that and am not a NIMBY. My
husband was a builder. The people most directly affected by this, the ones whose properties
will look at or back to this new shopping center, do not deserve this. Residents purchased
their homes in this community assuming that, according to the Public Report given to every
homeowner purchasing a home, that this parcel was zoned residential, not commercial.
Pinnacle High School has been and continues to be bursting at the seams. The parking
situation is such that there is not enough parking for all of the students, the pickup and drop-
off to the school is a nightmare and if there are any school events there is not enough parking
for all of the attendees. If any zoning modifications are going to be made to this piece it
should be that the State Trust Land Department should either donate a a piece of this land to
the school or possibly have the school district buy it.
I had suggested, as did others at the Public Meeting held on August 1, 2023 that Vestar should
look into the parcel that is at the southwest corner of Pinnacle Peak Road and Cave Creek
Road. There are plenty of houses surrounding that area to support a shopping center there.
Vestar is not looking to make the lives of the residents in this neighborhood better by having
things more convenient for them, they are looking at how much more money this will make
for them. Commercial development belongs on the outside of a neighborhood, not smack dab
in the middle. Convenience comes at a price and I for one do not want to pay that price. I’m
happy to get in my car and drive 3-5 minutes to get gas, groceries, coffee and fast food.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Robin Bowie
Hague Partners
602.329.9005 MOBILE
From: Jost, Kevin
To: Anthony M Grande; Council District 2 PCC; PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: Deer Valley/Black Mountain Development Plans?
Date: Friday, September 22, 2023 3:56:56 PM
Importance: High
Hello Mr. Grande and City Councilman Waring,
I wanted to write and let you know that hundreds of people are having discussions around the land
that is just north of Deer Valley Road and west of Black Mountain Blvd in North Phoenix (Zip 85050).
There is so much discussion and misleading information that is getting shared across social media
platforms and even legal firms are sending out notes to try and persuade residents in our
communities to be in favor of new land development.
I moved to Arizona 12 years ago and built a home in the Fireside Community, I also have lived in the
Aviano community and now live in the Sky Crossing community. I’m very much opposed to building
out a large grocery store & gas station/fast food mall/commercial development on this patch of
land.
If you need any further information from me, please let me know.
Thanks for listening and I look forward to meeting you on October 3rd.
Kevin
The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential
and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon,
this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact
the sender and delete the material from any computer. If you do not wish to receive future correspondence from Molson Coors,
please click here and type "REMOVE" in the subject line. For more details, contact us. [molsoncoors.com] Molson Coors Brewing
Company is a publicly held corporation on the New York Stock Exchange.
L’information transmise s’adresse uniquement à la personne ou l’entité qui en est le destinataire et peut contenir de l'information
confidentielle et/ou privilégiée. Il est strictement interdit à quiconque n’en est pas le destinataire, d’en prendre connaissance, de
la retransmettre, de la disséminer ou d’en faire quelque autre usage, ou d’agir sur la foi de telle information. Si vous avez reçu
cette transmission par erreur, veuillez s.v.p. en aviser l'expéditeur et effacer la présente de la mémoire de tout ordinateur. Si vous
ne désirez plus recevoir de futures correspondances de la part de Molson Coors, s.v.p. Cliquez ici et indiquer ‘’RETIRER’’ dans
l’objet du message. Pour plus de détails, contactez-nous. [molsoncoors.com]Molson Coors Brewing Company est une société
ouverte cotée à la Bourse de New York.
From: Melissa Resslar Mitschke
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Proposed Redevelopment at Black Mountain and Deer Valley
Date: Friday, September 22, 2023 12:03:27 PM
Hello Mr. Grande- I am a resident in the Sky Crossing subdivision, which is to the north of the
proposed redevelopment of the land that is at the southwest corner of Deer Valley and Black
Mountain. I am writing to express my concerns regarding the proposed redevelopment.
1. Traffic Concerns :Traffic during the school year between the hours of 7:10-7:30 am and
2:00-3:00 pm is already very high in the immediate area. It is considerably worse
during that afternoon block, as there are a large number of parents in the area to pick
their high schoolers up from school. This makes it very difficult to get through the
intersection. In addition, high school students are haphazardly crossing major streets
during this time. Two students were hit by vehicles last year while trying to cross the
street. While I understand that this is somewhat of an issue for PV schools to figure out,
it seems as if the developer has not addressed this other than to acknowledge that there
will be increased traffic in the area. I would encourage members of the planning
committee to drive by that area during those times to get a sense of the congestion. My
hope is that if the redevelopment is approved, the developer agrees to fund and construct
a walkway over Deer Valley (similar to the one over Black Mountain) so that the high
school students walking from Sky Crossing can safely make it to school. Unfortunately,
there is no bus service for these students due to the close proximity of the school and the
increased traffic is only going to make it more dangerous for them.
2. Liquor Sales: It is my understanding that the developer is asking for a variance from the
liquor law rules in order to be able to develop the space to include a gas station, grocery
store and restaurants that serve alcohol. I would encourage the committee to consider
the fact that there is a high school within the immediate vicinity and a large potential for
children to attempt to illegally purchase alcohol.
3. Aesthetic Concerns: Understanding the high likelihood that this land will be re-zoned,
my hope is that it can be developed in a thoughtful way that takes into account the
aesthetics of the area and the high property values of the nearby homes. This could
include a small/higher end grocery store (like an AJs or Whole Foods) with higher end
restaurants and shops rather than the developer seeking to maximize their profit on the
space by including a gas station, fast-food restaurants, large grocery store
(Frys/Safeway), etc. The noise, light and traffic coming from the area will definitely
change the aesthetic of the area, so anything that can be done to minimize that would be
appreciated.
Thank you for your time,
Melissa Mitschke
22614 N. Cave Butte Street, Phoenix 85050
From: wroodenburg@cox.net
To: Anthony M Grande; PDD Long Range Planning
Cc: Council District 2 PCC
Subject: Defend Desert Ridge - Oppose Commercial rezoning in Desert Ridge : Petition Results
Date: Friday, September 22, 2023 12:17:45 AM
Attachments: petition_DefendDesertRidge.pdf
petition_signatures_DefendDesertRidge.pdf
Please find attached the petition results with regards to Black Mountain Village case : GPA-DSTV-
2-23-2 and Case GPA-DSTV-3-23-2 and Case Z-39-23-2
These 473 votes opposing the proposal are not the final results but our residents wanted to make
sure it makes it into the case file for the October 3rd meeting.
Petition · Oppose Commercial rezoning in Desert Ridge · Change.org [change.org]
Kind regards,
Wouter.
WĞƚŝƚŝŽŶ
&ƌŝĚĂLJ͕^ĞƉƚĞŵďĞƌϮϮ͕ϮϬϮϯ ϭϮ͗ϬϱD
Black Mountain Village Page 1
Black Mountain Village Page 2
EĂŵĞ ŝƚLJ ^ƚĂƚĞ WŽƐƚĂůŽĚĞ ŽƵŶƚƌLJ ^ŝŐŶĞĚKŶ
ĞĨĞŶĚĞƐĞƌƚZŝĚŐĞ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
ůŝnjĂŽnjnjĞůůŝ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
ĂŶĚLJ,ĂŵĞƌͲ,ƵĞƚŚĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϰ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
dĂLJůŽƌDŽƌŐĂŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϵ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
ƌŝĞůůĞĂŵ <ĂŝůƵĂ ϵϲϳϯϰ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
ŵŝůLJ^ŚĞĞƚƐ ŽůƵŵďƵƐ ϰϯϮϯϭ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
tĂŝƐĂĚƌĂŶ ůŽƌĂĚŽ,ŝůůƐ ϵϱϳϲϮ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
ZŽďŝŶ,ĂƌĚŝŶŐ DŝůĨŽƌĚ ϭϳϱϳ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
ŐǁLJŶĞƚŚƌŽůŝŶƐ <ĂŝůƵĂ<ŽŶĂ ϵϲϳϰϬ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
ŐĞŽƌŐĞǀŽŶŐ EŽƌĐƌŽƐƐ ϯϬϬϵϯ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
WĞƚƌŽsŽůŽŬŚ ^ŝůǀĞƌ^ƉƌŝŶŐ ϮϬϵϬϰ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
<ĂƌĞŶ^ŵŝƚŚ /ŶĚŝĂŶĂƉŽůŝƐ ϰϲϮϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
ŽƌĞĞŶ'ĂƌƚŶĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϭϱ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
^ƵƐĂŶĞ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
>ĂƌƌLJ'ĂƌƚŶĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϭϱ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
ZŽďĞƌƚ^ĐŚŵŝƚnj WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
'ĂďďLJĂŵŽƌĂ tŚŝƚƚŝĞƌ ϵϬϲϬϯ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
ZŽƐŝĞ>ŽƉĞnj >ĂƐsĞŐĂƐ ϴϵϭϰϮ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
ƐŽƉŚŝůŝĂĂƐŚůĞLJ ^ŚŽŶƚŽ ϴϲϬϱϰ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
<ĂLJůĂ^ŚƵĐŚ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϮϵ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
DĂƌƚŝŶĂ'ŽƌŵĂŶ 'ĂŶĂĚŽ ϴϲϱϬϱ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
,ĞĂƚŚĞƌDĐŽŶŽƵŐŚ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
ĂŶZŝĐŚĂƌĚƐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
:ŽǀĂŶ^ŚĂƐŚĂŐƵĂLJ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
DŝĐŚĂĞůŽƉƉŽůĂ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
ƵƐƚŝŶtĂƌĚ ŽƌǀĂůůŝƐ KZ ϵϳϯϯϬ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
WƌĂǀĞĞŶDĂŚĂĚĞǀĂŝĂŚ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
ZĂũĞƐŚ'ĂĚĚĞ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϲ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
ZĂũĞŶĚƌĂĂŶĚĂ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
<ĂǀŝƚĂŚĂŶĚĂŬ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
ƌǀŝŶĚ^ŚĂƌŵĂ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
DĂŚŝƚŚĂsĂůůƵƌŝ ĞƐĞƌƚƌŝĚŐĞ ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
ZŽŚŝƚŐŐĂƌǁĂů >ŽƐŶŐĞůĞƐ ϵϬϬϲϬ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
ĂƚƚĂƚƌĂLJĂ<ĂůĞ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
DƌŝŶĂůŝŶŝ<ĂůĞ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
sŝŶĞƐŚ^ŽŶŝ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϵ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
<ƌŝƐŚĂŶ<ƵŵĂƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
^ŚĂ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
<ƌŝƐƚĞŶŽŵďĞƐ &ŝƐŚĞƌƐ /E ϰϲϬϯϴ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
ZĂƐŚŵŝsĂŝĚLJĂ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
'ŽŵĂƚŚŝ^ĞůǀĂŵ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϯ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
EĂŶĚŝƚĂ<ŚĞƌĂ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
sŝŶ<ŽĚĞ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
<ĂůLJĂŶŝDŽŽůĂ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϭϳ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
WƌĂĚĞĞƉŚĂŶĚƌĂ ^ŬLJƌŽƐƐŝŶŐ ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
^ŝůƉĂůĂƉĂƚŝ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
WƌĂŬĂƐŚ<ĂŶŶĂŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϵ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
ŽůůLJzĂůĂŵĂŶĐŚŝ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϴ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
WŽŽũĂǀĞƌŵĂZĂũƉƵƚ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
ƌŝĐĂŵŬŽ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
,Ăƚŝŵ<ĂƉĂĚŝĂ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϴ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
DĂŶŝŬĂWĂƚĞů WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϯϲ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
^ĂŵD WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
EĞĞƌĂũŚĂŶĚĂŬ WŚŝĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
sĂƌƵŶ:ŝŶĚĂů WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
^ƌĂsĂŶĂ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
DĂƚƚŚĞǁŚŝƚǁŽŽĚ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
ZĂũƵKŵŬĂƌĂŵ ,ŝŐŚůĂŶĚWĂƌŬ /> ϲϬϬϯϱ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
ŵLJDŝƚĐŚĞůů 'ŝůďĞƌƚ ϴϱϮϵϱ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
ƌĐŚĂŶĂEĂŐĂƌĂũĂŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
DĂďƌLJŝŐŐƐ ^ƉƌŝŶŐ,ŝůů ϯϳϭϳϰ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
ůĞĐtŝůĞLJ ůďĂŶLJ ϭϮϮϬϴ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
DĂƌŝĂŬĂƌůĂ'ŽŵĞnj ,ŽůůLJǁŽŽĚ ϯϯϬϮϬ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
ŶŶĂ>ĂŝĚůĞƌ ĂƐƚ^ƚƌŽƵĚƐďƵƌŐ ϭϴϯϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
WŽũĂ^ŝŶŐŚǀũ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
ĂǀŝĚdƵĐŬĞƌ ŽŽŶĞ ϱϬϬϯϲ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
KůůŝĞ<ĞƚƚůĞ ĂƌƌŝŶŐƚŽŶ ϲϬϬϭϬ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
<ĂƌĞŶDĂƌƚŝŶ ZŽĂŶŽŬĞ ϮϰϬϭϱ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
ŽŶŶŽƌDĂĐĂůƵƐŽ DĂƌŝŽŶ ϰϯϯϬϮ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
WĞĞƐŚƚŝ ůŚĂŵďƌĂ ϵϭϴϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
ŵLJŶĂŵũĞĨ tĞƐƚWůĂŝŶƐ ϲϱϳϳϱ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
ůǀŝĞtŝůůŝĂŵƐ ŽůƵŵďƵƐ ϯϭϵϬϳ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
ůŝnjĂďĞƚŚtĞƌŬƐƚĞůů WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
ůĞdžŽǁůĞƐ hƌďĂŶĂ ϰϯϬϳϴ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
ĚĂŵ&ƌŝĞĚůĂŶĚĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
^ŚĞůůĞLJ&ůĞĐŬLJ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
:ƵƐƚŝŶWŽƉŶŽĞ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
:ĞĨĨƌĞLJ>ĞŝƚŶĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϭϳ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
DŝŬĞŽnjnjĞůůŝ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
DŝĐŚĂĞůĂƵƐĐŚŬĂ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϯ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
^ƵƐĂŶ^ŵŝƚŚ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
ŵŝĞDŝŬƐƚĂ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
:ĞĨĨDŝŬƐƚĂ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
:ŽŚŶĂƐůĞƌ >ŽƐŶŐĞůĞƐ ϵϬϬϲϬ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
>ĂƵƌĂZŝĐŚĂƌĚƐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
ŚƌŝƐƚŝZŽďŝŶƐŽŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϴ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
>ŽŬĞƐŚŶĂŶĚ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
WƌĞƌŶĂDĞŚůĂ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
<ĞƌƌLJĂŬĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
ƌĐŚĂŶĂ'ĂŶŐĂĚŚĂƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
^ƵƐĂŶ^ŚĞƌŽĨĨ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϰϭ h^ ϵͬϭϰͬϮϬϮϯ
EĂƚĂůŝĞtĂůŬĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
DŽŬŚƚĂƌŽƵŬŚĂƌŝ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
,ĞŝĚŝsĂŶEĞǁŬŝƌŬ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ƵďĂŝƌ^ŚŽƌĂ DŝĂŵŝ ϯϯϭϵϳ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
>ŝŶĚƐĞLJWƌŽĐŬ DLJƌƚůĞĞĂĐŚ Ϯϵϱϴϴ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
^ƵĐŚŝƚŚƌĂ<ƵŵĂƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
dĂŝLJĂtŽŽĚĞŶ ,ŽůůLJǁŽŽĚ ϯϯϬϮϳ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
:ŽƐĞƉŚĂŶĚůŽ <ĂŶƐĂƐŝƚLJ ϲϲϭϬϰ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ŝĞŐŽDŽƌĂůĞƐ >ŽƐŶŐĞůĞƐ ϵϬϬϮϴ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
:ŽƵƌŶĞLJ:ŽŚŶƐŽŶ DŽƵůƚƌŝĞ ϯϭϳϲϴ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
dŽŵ'ĞŽƌŐĞ ZŽǁůĞƚƚ ϳϱϬϴϵ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ŽƵƌƚŶĞLJKƐĂŬŝ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
>ŝǀĂŶWĞƌĂnjĂ DŝĂŵŝ ϯϯϭϯϴ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
tŽƵƚĞƌZŽŽĚĞŶďƵƌŐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
DĂŶŵĞĞƚƵŐŐĂů WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
^ĂƌĂŚ:ĞǁĞƚƚ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
<ĂŵŶĂ'ĂƵƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
EĞĞƌĂũhŵĂƌũŝŬĂƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
tĞŶũŝĞdĂŶŐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϭϲ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
>ƵůƵtĂŶŐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
zƵŚŝĞŚWŚĂŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϭϲ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
WĞƚĞƌ<ŚƵƵ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
<ĂƚĞůLJŶŚĞŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
DĂŶ&ĞŶŐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
DĞůŝƐƐĂZƵĞƚƚĞŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϭϲ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
DĂƌLJ^ŚƵůůĂǁ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
<ĂƌŝtŝůůŝĂŵƐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϯϲ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ŝũƵDŽŶWĂLJLJĂƉƉŝůůLJWĂƵůŽƐĞ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ZĂƐŚŝŐĂƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϳ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ŶĚƌĞĂ<ĞĞŐĂŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
^ĂƌĂDŝůůĞƚƚ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
DĂƌŝƐĂKŽŶŶŽƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϯ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ƌĂĚĞƌŐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ZĞďĞĐĐĂDĂƵĐŬ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ZĞŵŝĞ>ŽƵĚLJ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϵ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ĂŶŝĞůĂĞƚĂŶĐŽƵƌƚ ,ŽůůĂŶĚ ϰϵϰϮϯ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
DĂƌŐĂƌĞƚůůĞŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ĚĚŝƐŽŶ^ƉƌĂĚůŝŶ ĂŶƚŽŶŵĞŶƚ ϯϮϱϯϯ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
dŚŽŵĂƐdƌĞĚƌĞĂ ĂƚĂǀŝĂ ϲϬϱϭϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ŵĞŐŚĂŶƉĂƌŬĞƌ ,ŽďĂƌƚ ϰϲϯϰϮ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
'ƵŶũĂDĂƐŬĂLJ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϰϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ůĞdžŝƐYƵŝũĂŶŽ ƵƐƚŝŶ ϳϴϳϬϯ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
DĞůŽĚLJDĞŶĚĞnj ďƌŝƐƚŽů ϲϬϭϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ƌŽŽŬĞtŝůůŝĂŵƐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϵ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
DŝŐƵĞů^ŝĞƌƌĂ ĞĚĨŽƌĚ ϳϲϬϮϭ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
:ŽĚLJtŝůŵĞƐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϰϭ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ƵƚŚĂŝŶĂ^ĂůĞŵ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
'ŝƌŝƐŚDŽƵƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
EŝĐŽůĞ<ŽŽůŝĐŬ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
E< WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϯ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
^ƌŝŶŝDŽŽůĂ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
^ĂďĂ:ŽƐŚĂŐŚĂŶŝ ůŚĂŵďƌĂ ϵϭϴϬϯ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
^ĂŵƐŽŶĨĞǁŽƌŬŝ ƵƌŽƌĂ ϴϬϬϭϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
<ŚĂŝƌŵŽŚĂŵŵĂĚŬŚŽŶĚnjĂĚĂ tĞƐƚsĂůůĞLJŝƚLJ ϴϰϭϮϴ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
DĂŵƚĂ:ĂŝŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
dŝĨĨĂŶLJŶĚĞƌƐĞŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ůLJƐĞDĞŝƐůŝŬ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
<Ƶƌƚ,͘DŝůůĞƌ DŝĂŵŝ &> ϯϯϭϵϳ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
^ŚĞĂDĐŽƌŵŝĐŬ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ůůŝŽƚƚƌŽƉƉ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϭϳ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
:ĞŶŶŝĨĞƌZĞĂŵƐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
zĂŶĂŝ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
:ĂŶĞ^ŽƵŬƵƉ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
:ŽƐŚƵĂZĞĞĚLJ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϲϵ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
<ĂƚŚLJEĂƐƐĂƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϯϲ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
DĞůŝƐƐĂŚĂŶĚůĞĞ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ZĞďĞĐĐĂZĞĞĚLJ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϲϵ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
DĂůůŽƌŝĞ>Ă&ŽƌĞƐƚ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ƌŝĂŶĂŽǁŝĞ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
>ĂLJůĂ^ĂŝŬůĞLJ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
'ŝŶĂtĂůƐƚĂĚ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
sŝŬĂƐhƉĂĚŚLJĂLJĂ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϯ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
DĞƌĞĚŝƚŚWŽůůŽǀ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
EĂƚĂůĞĞ<ĂƌƌĞ &ƌĞĚŽŶŝĂ ϲϲϳϯϲ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ďŝW ,ŽƵƐƚŽŶ ϳϳϬϵϵ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ƐƚŚĞƌ&ĂƚŽŬƵŶ dĞƌƌĞ,ĂƵƚĞ ϰϳϴϬϳ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
dĞƌƌLJůĂnjĞ ^ĞĐĂƵĐƵƐ ϳϬϵϰ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ůĞƐƐĂŶĚƌĂsŝůůĂƌ ,ŝĂůĞĂŚ ϯϯϬϭϮ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ĞďďŝĞDŝůůĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϮ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ĞůĞƐƚĞĞƐĂƌŝŽ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ZLJĂŶtĂĚĚŝŶŐƚŽŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
:ŝŶŐLJŝ^Śŝ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ZŽďĞƌƚDĂƌŬƵƐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ŚĂƌĂƚŚŝ:ĂLJĂƌĂŵĂŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
dĞƌƌĂ^ŽƐĂ DĞƐĂ ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ĂƌƌĞŶWŽǁĞůů <ĞŶĂŝ ϵϵϲϭϭ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ŽƌĞLJŵƐůŝĞ DŽďŝůĞ ϯϲϲϭϮ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
>ĂƵƌĂƌĂĐŚůĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ĂĚĚŝƐŽŶĐĂƐƚŽĞ ŝĂŵŽŶĚŚĞĂĚ ϯϵϱϮϱ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
KůƵǁĂŬĞŵŝĚĞĚŽLJŝŶ /ŶĚŝĂŶĂƉŽůŝƐ ϰϲϮϱϱ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
^ƚĂĐLJdĂŽƵŝů WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϳ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
DĞůŝƐƐĂtŽnjŶŝĂŬ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ĂŬ,ŽƵƐĞ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
DĂŶĂƐŝ< WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
DĂƌŝƚnjĂ>ŽƉĞnj ,ŽƵƐƚŽŶ ϳϳϬϱϮ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
,zt,z^hE^,/E ĂůůĂƐ ϳϱϮϳϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
zŽƵƌDŽƚŚĞƌ ŬƌŽŶ ϰϰϯϬϳ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ůĂŶtĂůƐƚĂĚ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
<ƌŝƐƚŝ,ƵĞďŶĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ƌĂĚLJWŽůůŽǀ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϭϳ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
,ĞůĂŶĂŽLJůĞ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
DŝĐŚĞůůĞĂĐŚ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϲϲ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ĞďďŝĞŽůĚĞ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
>ĞƐůŝĞŝĨĨ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
DŝŬĞŽůĚĞ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
WĂŝŐĞĂƐůĞƌ ĂǀĞƌĞĞŬ ϴϱϯϯϭ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ZƵƐƚLJĞŶƚŽŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
'ƌĞŐEĞůƐŽŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
DĞůŝƐƐĂ^ĐŚǁĂŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϲ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ZŽďĞƌƚďďŽƚƚ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϰϭ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
DĂŶŝƐŚĂ'ŽǁůŝŬĂƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϮϵ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ŵŝůLJDŽŚƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
<ĞůůLJŶŶ>ĂĨĨĞLJ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ĞŶŶĂ^ĐŚĂĞĨĞƌ WĂůŵĞƌ ϵϵϲϰϱ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ŬĂƚĂƌŝŶĂŵĞůŝĂŶ KĂŬůĂŶĚ ϵϰϲϭϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ĂƌŵĞŶůůĞŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
:ŽƐŚƵĂƵƌƉŚĞLJ WĞƚĞƌďŽƌŽƵŐŚ Wϳ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
^ĂďƌŝŶĂ^ƵŶĚƋƵŝƐƚ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϭϲ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ĞůŝŶĞĞǀĞƌůLJ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
<ĞůĐŝ,ƵŶƚĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
'ĞŽƌŐĞDĐŶĂŵĂƌĂ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
YŝŶŐLJĂŶŐ>ŝ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
DĂLJƌĂŽƵŬŚĂƌŝ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϰϭ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
:ŝůůzŽƵŶŐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ĂŶĂƉƐƚĞŝŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϴ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
tŝůůŝĂŵ<ĞůůLJ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ZĂŚƵůDĞŶŽŶ ^ĐŽƚƚƐĚĂůĞ ϴϱϮϱϰ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
yŝŚƵ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ƐŵŝƚĂ^ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϮϱϰ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
DŝĐŚĞůĞZŝŽƌĚĂŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
DĂƌŬůůĞŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
>ŝƐĂKƌŵƐďLJ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
WĂƵůKƌŵƐďLJ:ƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ŶĚLJDĞƐĞĐŚĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
ĞĂŶdĞƌnjŝĐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
^ůĂǀĞŶ'ƵƐĂŬ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϴ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
sĂůĞƌŝĞ'ŝǀĞŶƐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϱͬϮϬϮϯ
<ŝƌĂŶhƉƉĂů WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϰ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
ĞůŝŶĚĂƵƌƚŝƐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
dĂLJůŽƌhŶŐĞƌĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϯϮ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
ĂƌŽů&ĞƌƌĂĐŽ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
ŚƌŝƐKΖŽŶŶŽƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
ƌŝĐĂŽŽƉĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϮϰ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
:ĞŶŶŝĨĞƌƵĚŝĂĐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
'ƌĞŐŽƌLJƵĚŝĂĐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
>ŝŶĚĂDŽŶƚŐŽŵĞƌLJ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
>ĂǀĂŶLJĂhĚƵƉĂ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
EĂƚĂůŝĞ>ĞŝƚŶĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
<ĞůƐĞLJDĂƚŚŝƐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
:ĞŶŶĂ^ƚŽŶĞďĞƌŐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϵ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
>ĂƵƌĞŶ<ŶĂƉƉ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϳ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
ŚƌŝƐ<ĂLJ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
ŚƌŝƐ<ŶĂƉƉ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
Ƶƌƚ<ŶĂƉƉ ^ĐŽƚƚƐĚĂůĞ ϴϱϮϲϭ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
ůĂƵĚŝĂWĂĐŬ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϴ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
^ƵƐĂŶ<ŶĂƉƉ ^ĐŽƚƚƐĚĂůĞ ϴϱϮϲϭ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
ZĞďĞĐĐĂůĚƌŝĚŐĞ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
<ĞůĞŶĞKƚƚĞƌƐŽŶ WƌĞƐĐŽƚƚ ϴϲϯϬϮ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
^ƵĚŚĂhŐĞŶĚƌĂŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
:ŝĂĞŶŐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
EŝĐŽůĞƵƌŶĞƐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
^ĂƌĂƵĐŚĂŶĂŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϮϰ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
DĞŐŚĂŶŶ:ŽŶĞƐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
<ƌŝƐƚLJDĐŽŽů WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϰϬ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
ŵLJ,ŽƵƐĞ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
<ůĂŝƌDŽƐĞƐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
<ŝŵďĞƌĞǀŽĞ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
>ĂƵƌĂZĂLJ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϲ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
dĂŶLJĂZŽŵĞƌŽ ƉŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϮϳ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
WƌĞĞƚŝDĞŶŽŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
<ĂƚŚĞƌŝŶĞ,ƵƚĐŚŝŶƐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
^ƌŝĚŚĂƌzĂĚĂǀ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϭϲ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
^ŚĂŶŶŽŶĚĂŵƐ ^ĐŽƚƚƐĚĂůĞ ϴϱϮϱϰ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
sŝǀĞŬsĂƌƐŚŶĞLJ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
ZĞďĞĐĐĂdŝƐĐŚůĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
ŵŝƚĂǀĂ<ƵŶĚƵ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϴϬ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
ƌĂŶĚŽŶZĂƉĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
dLJůŽƌdƵƚƚůĞ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
>ŝŶŶĂĞĂ'ŽĚǁŝŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
DĞůŝƐƐĂWŽƐƚůĞƌͲWŝĞƌĐĞ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϵϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
ZŽďLJŶĞ^ĐŚƵůƚnj >ŽƐŶŐĞůĞƐ ϵϬϬϭϭ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
:ĂLJĞĞƚĂ<ƵŶĚƵ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϴϬ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
ZŚŽŶĚĂtĂůĚĞƌƐĞŶ ^ĐŽƚƚƐĚĂůĞ ϴϱϮϲϮ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
ĂǀŝĚ^ƚŝŶĞ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϰϯϬϱϰ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
DŝĐŚĞůůĞ^ƚĞůŶŝŬ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
:ĞŶŶŝĨĞƌtŝůůŝƐͲ:ŽƐƚ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
^ƚĞĨĂŶŝƵĐŬĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϭϳ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
>ĂƵƌĂZĞLJŶŽƐŽ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
>ŽƌƌŝƵĐŚŽůnj WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
DĞůŝƐƐĂĞƌŐůŝŶĚ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
LJĚŶĞLJ,ƵďďĂƌĚ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
^ŚĂƌŽŶ<ŶĞĐŚƚ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
ĂƚŚĞƌŝŶĞĞĞ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
<LJůĞZĞŝĐŚĞƌƚ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
ZĞďĞĐĐĂĚĞ:ĞƐƵƐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
<ŝŵŶĚĞƌƐŽŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϲϴ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
<ĞǀŝŶ:ŽƐƚ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
ZŽďŝŶŽǁŝĞ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϰ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
ǀĞůLJŶ'ƌŝĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
WĂƵůŝĞƌďƵƐƐĞ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
^ĂƌĂŚ'ĂǀŝŐĂŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
^ŚƵŽzĂŶŐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
<ƌLJƐƚůĞĚŵŽŶĚƐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
:ĞŶŶŝĨĞƌŽŽůĂŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
ůŝnjĂďĞƚŚEĞůƐŽŶ ^ĞĂƚƚůĞ t ϵϴϭϵϵ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
>ŝŶĚĂ,ŽƵƐƚŽŶ ĞŶǀĞƌ K ϴϬϮϬϲ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
ĂŶŝĞůůĞĞĂĐŽŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
:ŽŚŶWŝůnjŶĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
:ĂƌĞĚ>ĞǁŝƐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϲ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
:ĂĚĂ>ĞǁŝƐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϰϬ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
ŶĚƌĞĂZĞŵŬĞ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
ŵĂŶĚĂ<ĂŝƐĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
tĞŶĚLJDŽLJĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϳ h^ ϵͬϭϲͬϮϬϮϯ
ZŽďĞƌƚ,ŽƵƐƚŽŶ ĞŶǀĞƌ K ϴϬϮϭϴ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
ƌŝĂŶĂƌŽǁŶĞůů WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
^ŚĂŶŶŽŶ>ĂƵĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
ůĞdžĂŶĚƌĂĂŶŝĞůƐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
:ĞĂŶŶĞŽŵƐƚŽĐŬ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϲϯϭϰ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
tĞŶĚLJŽLJůĞ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
>ŝƐĂDĐ/ŶƚLJƌĞ EŽƌƚŚǀŝůůĞ D/ ϰϴϭϲϴ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
ĂǀŝĚ&ƌĂŶĐLJŬ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
,ŝůůĂƌLJ'ƌŽƐƐŵĂŶ ^ĐŽƚƚƐĚĂůĞ ϴϱϮϱϭ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
^ƚĞƉŚĂŶŝĞDĂƐŽŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
^ĂŶĚƌĂ/ƚŬŽǁŝƚnj WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
,ĂƌŐƵŶ<ĂƵƌ ^ŽƵƚŚŝŶŐƚŽŶ ϲϰϴϵ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
DĂƌŝƐĞůĂ͘ dŚĞƌŽŶdž ϭϬϰϱϭ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
zĂŵŝůŬŽ>ƵŐŽ DŝĂŵŝ ϯϯϭϬϮ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
ZĂĐŚĞů^ƚĞŝŶďĞƌŐ DĂŶŚĂƚƚĂŶ ϲϬϰϰϮ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
,ŝĐŚĂŵDĂĨŚŽƵŵ ŚŝĐĂŐŽ ϲϬϲϮϱ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
:ĂŵĞƐŽŶ>Ƶƚnj DĞůďŽƵƌŶĞĞĂĐŚ ϯϮϵϱϭ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
/ƐĂĂĐ^ĂŶĐŚĞnj &ƌĞŵŽŶƚ ϰϯϰϮϬ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
:ĞƐƵƐ:ĞƐƵƐ >ĞǁŝƐďƵƌŐ ϯϳϬϵϭ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
WĂŵĞůĂ^ƚĞǁĂƌƚ ,ŽƵƐƚŽŶ ϳϳϬϲϰ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
ĐĂLJůĂŐĂƌĐŝĂ DŝĂŵŝ ϯϯϭϲϵ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
ŝŵĞĞDŝƌĂŶĚĂ ǀĞŶƚƵƌĂ ϯϯϭϲϭ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
ĂŶŝĞůWŽƉĞ WƌŽǀŽ ϴϰϲϬϰ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
'ůĞŶWŝŶĐŬŶĞLJ ƚůĂŶƚĂ ϯϬϯϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
:ĂŶĞƌǀĂ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϯϯϭ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
ƌŽŽŬĞzƵůĞ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϮϰ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
ƌĂŶĚŝ:ĞŶŬŝŶƐ ^ĐŽƚƚƐĚĂůĞ ϴϱϮϱϰ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
:ŝůĂŶŶĞZŽƐĞ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
ƌĂŶĚŝŶĂtĂĚĞ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
WĞƚĞĞĚŽƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
>ĂƌƌLJ>ĂĚĚ ŚŝĐŽ ϵϱϵϮϴ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
:ƌŽǁŶ ^ĂŶ&ƌĂŶĐŝƐĐŽ ϵϰϭϬϵ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
ĂƌĂLJĂŚĂďƚĞ >ŽƐŶŐĞůĞƐ ϵϬϬϬϮ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
DŝŐƵĞůŝŶĂƐƉŝƌŝƚƵ dŚĞƌŽŶdž Ez ϭϬϰϱϮ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
^ŚĞŝůĂĞƚŚĂŶĐŽƵƌƚ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
ŽďĂǀŝƐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
^ŚĞŝůĂ>ŽŶŐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
ƐŚůĞĞ&ƌĂŶĐŝƐĐŽ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
ŚƌŝƐƚŝŶĞůĞdžĂŶĚĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϲ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
ŬƌŝƐƚŝĚŽǁŶŝŶŐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
ƌŝƚŶĞLJ:ĂĐŽďƐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
,ĂŝůĞLJzŽƐƚ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϳ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
^ŚĞůůLJ:ŝŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
ŚĞůƐĞĂZĂŶĚĂůůͲDĐtŚĞƌƚĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
ŚĂŶ:ŝŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϳͬϮϬϮϯ
DĂƌŝĂdŽƌŽdŽƌŽ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϴϬ h^ ϵͬϭϴͬϮϬϮϯ
ŝŶĚLJWŽŶĐŝĂŶŽ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϴͬϮϬϮϯ
ƌŝĂŶŶĂDĂŬŽƐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϮϰ h^ ϵͬϭϴͬϮϬϮϯ
tĞŶĚLJWŝĞƌŵĂƌŝŶŝ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϴͬϮϬϮϯ
ĂǁŶDĂƌƚŝŶĞnj WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϲϴ h^ ϵͬϭϴͬϮϬϮϯ
DŝŬĞ,ĂƵŐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϴͬϮϬϮϯ
/ǀLJŝƌŝƚnj WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϮϰ h^ ϵͬϭϴͬϮϬϮϯ
:ĂƐŽŶƉƐƚĞŝŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϴͬϮϬϮϯ
ŝǀLJĂzŽĚĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϴͬϮϬϮϯ
:ĞŶŶŝĨĞƌ<ŝŶĚůĞ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϴͬϮϬϮϯ
dĞƌĞƐĂ^ǁŝŶŐůĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϴͬϮϬϮϯ
<ƌŝƐƚĞŶdŚŝĞůĞŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϴͬϮϬϮϯ
ĐƌŝƐƚŝĂŶĂĐŚŝŵ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϴͬϮϬϮϯ
:ƵůŝĞZŝĐŚĂƌĚƐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϴͬϮϬϮϯ
Žď'ŝĂŵŵĂƌĐŽ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϴͬϮϬϮϯ
ĂƌůĞŶĞ^ĂƵĐŝĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϴͬϮϬϮϯ
>ĂƵƌĂWŝĞƌĐĞ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϴͬϮϬϮϯ
ŚƌŝƐƚŝŶĞŽǁůĞLJ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϴͬϮϬϮϯ
ŬĞŝƚŚƐĐŚŵŽůnjĞ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϴͬϮϬϮϯ
:ĞŶŶLJEĂďĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϰϭ h^ ϵͬϭϴͬϮϬϮϯ
:ĞŶŶŝĨĞƌ:ŽƐƚ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϴͬϮϬϮϯ
ůůŝƐŽŶ'ƌŝƐǁĞůů WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϴͬϮϬϮϯ
EŝĚŚŝ<ƌŝƐŚŶĂ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϴͬϮϬϮϯ
<h^,/</>/W WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϴͬϮϬϮϯ
ůůĂZŝĐŚĂƌĚƐ dĞŵƉĞ ϴϱϮϴϭ h^ ϵͬϭϴͬϮϬϮϯ
ƵĚƌĞLJ,ĂŵŵŽŶĚ dĞŵƉĞ ϴϱϮϴϭ h^ ϵͬϭϴͬϮϬϮϯ
Ğď<ŽnjĂŬ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϴͬϮϬϮϯ
ƌŝŶZƵĞďďĞůŬĞ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϴͬϮϬϮϯ
EŝƌŵĂůũŝKĚĞĚƌĂ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϰ h^ ϵͬϭϵͬϮϬϮϯ
:ĞŶŶŝĨĞƌ>ĂƌƐŽŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϵͬϮϬϮϯ
ĞƚŚĂŶLJ>ĂƵďĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϵͬϮϬϮϯ
:ƵƐƚŝŶ>ĂƵďĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϵͬϮϬϮϯ
<ĂƚŚůĞĞŶƌŝŶŬ ŽnjĞŵĂŶ Dd ϱϵϳϭϱ h^ ϵͬϭϵͬϮϬϮϯ
ůŝƐĂƚŝŵƐ DŝƐƐŽƵůĂ Dd ϱϵϴϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϵͬϮϬϮϯ
<ĂLJŶĂWŽƉŶŽĞ &ŽƌƚtŽƌƚŚ dy ϳϲϭϮϳ h^ ϵͬϭϵͬϮϬϮϯ
EŝĐŬWŽƉŶŽĞ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϵͬϮϬϮϯ
:ŝŵWŽƉŶŽĞ &ŽƌƚtŽƌƚŚ dy ϳϲϬϯϯ h^ ϵͬϭϵͬϮϬϮϯ
ƵĚƌĞLJŽLJĚ &ŽƌƚŽůůŝŶƐ K ϴϬϱϮϳ h^ ϵͬϭϵͬϮϬϮϯ
>ƵŝƐ,ĞƌŶĂŶĚĞnj ĂƉĞŽƌĂů ϯϯϵϭϰ h^ ϵͬϭϵͬϮϬϮϯ
ůŝnjĂďĞƚŚƵĐĂƌ ^ĐŽƚƚƐĚĂůĞ ϴϱϮϲϬ h^ ϵͬϭϵͬϮϬϮϯ
^ĐŽƚƚůĂƌŬ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϵͬϮϬϮϯ
EŝŬŽůĂLJ<ĂƉĂƐŚŝŬŽǀ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϵͬϮϬϮϯ
:ĞŶŶŝĨĞƌ&ƌĂŶĐLJŬ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϵͬϮϬϮϯ
^ĂƌĂŚdŽƌƌŝůŚŽŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϮϰ h^ ϵͬϭϵͬϮϬϮϯ
ZĞďĞĐĐĂŽƌŶĞůů WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϭϵͬϮϬϮϯ
DĂƌĂdƵĐŬĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱ h^ ϵͬϭϵͬϮϬϮϯ
ĞƐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϯϮ h^ ϵͬϭϵͬϮϬϮϯ
ůŝĐŝĂWĞŶŶĞƌ :ŽŚŶƐƚŽŶ / ϱϬϭϯϭ h^ ϵͬϭϵͬϮϬϮϯ
ŶĚƌĞĂŶĚĞƌƐŽŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϴ h^ ϵͬϭϵͬϮϬϮϯ
ĂƌŽŶƌƵŚŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϮϵ h^ ϵͬϭϵͬϮϬϮϯ
ůůŝƐŽŶWŽƉŶŽĞ ^ĞĂƚƚůĞ t ϵϴϭϯϲ h^ ϵͬϭϵͬϮϬϮϯ
ĚƌŝĂŶĂŶŝĞůƐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϭϵͬϮϬϮϯ
ZŝĐŬLJĂƌďĞƌ >ŽƐŶŐĞůĞƐ ϵϬϬϲϱ h^ ϵͬϭϵͬϮϬϮϯ
ZŽƐĂŶŐƵůŽ dĂŵƉĂ ϯϯϲϬϲ h^ ϵͬϭϵͬϮϬϮϯ
EŝĐŬ^ƚĞƌƌLJ DŝŶŶĞĂƉŽůŝƐ ϱϱϰϬϴ h^ ϵͬϭϵͬϮϬϮϯ
DŝĐŚĂĞůKΖEĞŝů WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϯϰ h^ ϵͬϭϵͬϮϬϮϯ
:ƵůŝĂ>ĞǀĞŶĞ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϲϵ h^ ϵͬϭϵͬϮϬϮϯ
sƌŝŶĚĂƌŽƌĂ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϯϲ h^ ϵͬϭϵͬϮϬϮϯ
:ĞƐƐŝĐĂYƵŝŶƚ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϮϰ h^ ϵͬϮϬͬϮϬϮϯ
^ŚĞƌŝĞƌŶƐƚĞŝŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϯϬ h^ ϵͬϮϬͬϮϬϮϯ
>ƵŬĞZŝĐŚĂƌĚƐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϮϬͬϮϬϮϯ
EŽĂŚZŝĐŚĂƌĚƐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϮϬͬϮϬϮϯ
,ĂŶŬZŝĐŚĂƌĚƐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϰ h^ ϵͬϮϬͬϮϬϮϯ
^ĂĞĚĂtĂƌĚ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϳϲ h^ ϵͬϮϬͬϮϬϮϯ
DŝƐƚLJDĂŶĞƐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϰ h^ ϵͬϮϬͬϮϬϮϯ
,ĂŶŶĂŚ&ĂƌĨŽƵƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϮϬͬϮϬϮϯ
ĂǀŝĚĂƌŽŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϮϬͬϮϬϮϯ
ŶŶĞƚƚĞƵƌƚŽŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϯϬ h^ ϵͬϮϬͬϮϬϮϯ
ůŵĂƌŵĞŶƚĂ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϴ h^ ϵͬϮϬͬϮϬϮϯ
<ĞůůLJ^ĂŶĚĞƌƐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϵ h^ ϵͬϮϬͬϮϬϮϯ
ƌLJĂŶƚĞWŝĂnjnjĂ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϮϬͬϮϬϮϯ
E^,h>ZKZ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϮϬͬϮϬϮϯ
DŝĐŚĞůůĞ^ƵnjƵŬŝ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϮϬͬϮϬϮϯ
ZĂĐŚĂĞů^ůŽƐŬLJ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϮϬͬϮϬϮϯ
ŶŶ&ŝƐŚĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϳ h^ ϵͬϮϬͬϮϬϮϯ
WĂƚƌŝĐŝĂŝĂŵĂŶƚ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϮϬͬϮϬϮϯ
ĞĂŶŶĂĂůnjĞůůͲŚĂŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϮϬͬϮϬϮϯ
tŝŶƐƚŽŶŚĂŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϮϬͬϮϬϮϯ
ZĂũĞƐŚsĂŝĚLJĂ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϮϬͬϮϬϮϯ
ZĂLJŵŽŶĚƌŽŽŬƐ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϮϰ h^ ϵͬϮϬͬϮϬϮϯ
:ĂŵĞƐdĂLJůŽƌ ^ĐŽƚƚƐĚĂůĞ ϴϱϮϲϭ h^ ϵͬϮϬͬϮϬϮϯ
:ĂLJĚĂƚƚ:ŽƐŚŝ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϮϬͬϮϬϮϯ
<ƌƵƚĂƌƚŚ:ŽƐŚŝ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϰϬ h^ ϵͬϮϬͬϮϬϮϯ
<ŝŵďĞƌůLJ:ŽŚŶƐŽŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϯ h^ ϵͬϮϭͬϮϬϮϯ
ŽůĞ:ŽŚŶƐŽŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϮϭͬϮϬϮϯ
'ĂŐĞ:ŽŚŶƐŽŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϮϭͬϮϬϮϯ
KůŐĂZĞŵƉĞů WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϮϭͬϮϬϮϯ
DŝĐŚĂĞů<ŝƉĞƌŵĂŶ ŚĂŶĚůĞƌ ϴϱϮϮϰ h^ ϵͬϮϭͬϮϬϮϯ
dŝŵĂƌŝZƵƐĂŬ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϮϭͬϮϬϮϯ
ůĂŝƌĞ'ƌĂŶƚ ^ƚŽƌƌƐ ϲϮϲϵ h^ ϵͬϮϭͬϮϬϮϯ
tĞƐůĞLJKƌŽnjĐŽ >LJŶŶ ϭϵϬϮ h^ ϵͬϮϭͬϮϬϮϯ
/ƐĂďĞůůĂZŽŵŝŶĞ ƌĂĚĞŶƚŽŶ ϯϰϮϬϭ h^ ϵͬϮϭͬϮϬϮϯ
ŵLJEĂũĞƌĂ Ğůů ϵϬϮϬϭ h^ ϵͬϮϭͬϮϬϮϯ
ĂŶŝĞůůĞ&ůŝŶŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϰϬ h^ ϵͬϮϭͬϮϬϮϯ
DŝĐŚĞůůĞ^ŽƵŶĂƌƚ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϮϭͬϮϬϮϯ
LJŶƚŚŝĂĞŶŶĞƚƚĞ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϮϭͬϮϬϮϯ
ŚĞƌĞĞƌŽǁŶ ĂǀĞƌĞĞŬ ϴϱϯϯϭ h^ ϵͬϮϭͬϮϬϮϯ
ƌĞŶĚĂ^ĐŚŵĂůnj ^ĐŽƚƚƐĚĂůĞ ϴϱϮϲϭ h^ ϵͬϮϭͬϮϬϮϯ
<ĂĐŝKůĚƌŽLJĚ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϴ h^ ϵͬϮϭͬϮϬϮϯ
^ĂŶĚLJĂŵƉďĞůů WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϮϭͬϮϬϮϯ
ŵŝĐŚĂĞůďŽĞĚĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϮϭͬϮϬϮϯ
ĂŶŝĞůtĞůŬĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϮϭͬϮϬϮϯ
ĂǀĞDŽLJĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϮϭͬϮϬϮϯ
ůLJƚŚĞ>ŝƉŵĂŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϮϮͬϮϬϮϯ
dĂLJůŽƌDŽƐŬŽǀŝĐŚ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϴ h^ ϵͬϮϮͬϮϬϮϯ
DŽůůLJ&ŝŶĞ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϮϮͬϮϬϮϯ
ůŝnjĂEĞƵĨĞůĚ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϮϮͬϮϬϮϯ
:ĂLJŵĞDĞƐĞĐŚĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϮϮͬϮϬϮϯ
^ŚĞĞŶĂ>ŽǀĞƚƚ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϵ h^ ϵͬϮϮͬϮϬϮϯ
DŝĐŚĂĞů,ĞŶĞŝŶ DĞƌƌŝĐŬ ϭϭϱϲϲ h^ ϵͬϮϮͬϮϬϮϯ
ĂŶĂ,ƵĞƚŚĞƌ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϮϮͬϮϬϮϯ
ĂǀŝĚƌŝƚƚŽŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϲϵ h^ ϵͬϮϮͬϮϬϮϯ
ǀĂƌŝƚƚŽŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϲϵ h^ ϵͬϮϮͬϮϬϮϯ
ůĞdžƌŝƚƚŽŶ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϲϵ h^ ϵͬϮϮͬϮϬϮϯ
WĂƵů^ƵƌĚĂŬŽǁƐŬŝ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϱϬ h^ ϵͬϮϮͬϮϬϮϯ
<ĂLJůĂ'ƌĂŶĚĞ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϮϰ h^ ϵͬϮϮͬϮϬϮϯ
ZŚŽŶĚĂŝŵŵŝĐŬ ĞƐĞƌƚ,ŝůůƐ ϴϱϬϴϲ h^ ϵͬϮϮͬϮϬϮϯ
:ĂĐŬDĂĐŽŶĂůĚͲ,ŝůƚŽŶ tŽƌĐĞƐƚĞƌ ϭϲϬϵ h^ ϵͬϮϮͬϮϬϮϯ
,ĂŶŶĂŚ^ŽůŝŵĂŶ ŚĂƌůŽƚƚĞ ϮϴϬϳϱ h^ ϵͬϮϮͬϮϬϮϯ
ŶĚƌĞǁ&ůŽLJĚ h^ ϵͬϮϮͬϮϬϮϯ
ĂƚŚLJŽƵ WŚŽĞŶŝdž ϴϱϬϬϭ h^ ϵͬϮϮͬϮϬϮϯ
From: Richards, Dan
To: PDD Long Range Planning; Anthony M Grande; Council District 2 PCC
Subject: RE: GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2 Black Mountain Village
Date: Friday, September 22, 2023 2:18:14 PM
Attachments: image002.png
Could I sneak in one final comment into the case file that was just getting brought up last night?
People are now getting emails from Vestar trying to promote the need for more grocery stores in
this area. The verbiage they are using was that Desert Ridge incredibly only has one grocery store in
a 21-mile square area. Talk about incredibly confusing and misleading. 21-mile square area? Who
speaks that way? Did they mean 21 square miles? They used 21-mile square area intentionally to
confuse people. These people are spreading lies to try getting people to sign their ONLINE petitions.
I would be very interested to see how many of these people that have signed their ONLINE petition
live outside of the Desert Ridge area.
Another thing I would ask Gammage and Burham how many of these people signed their petition,
while voting for a Sprouts or Trader Joes in their online survey? They are deceiving the public with
this survey when they knew before they began the survey that these smaller grocery stores aren’t
even an option to be used as the grocer.
I would like the City and the Village Planning Committee to request the results of their online survey
become public records. I would be willing to bet over 50% of their supporters are looking for
something Vestar already knew wasn’t an option.
Thanks,
Dan Richards
From: PDD Long Range Planning
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2023 2:04 PM
To: Richards, Dan
District 2 PCC
Subject: RE: GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2 Black Mountain Village
[EXTERNAL EMAIL]: Verify sender before opening links or attachments.
Thank you, your comment has been received.
Thank you,
Sarah Stockham
Planner III
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
Phone: 602-261-8701
sarah.stockham@phoenix.gov
From: Richards, Dan
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 9:35 AM
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2 Black Mountain Village
Dear Mr. Grande and Councilman Waring,
I submitted an email on September 13 pertaining to my opposition to the proposed development .
One of the points made in my previous email was stating the amount of gas stations and grocery
stores within a 3-mile radius of the Deer Valley and Black Mountain intersection. I mentioned 11 gas
stations within a 3-mile radius, but the correct number is 12 gas stations.
It was brought to my attention that Gammage and Burnham met with the residents of Sky Crossing
shared an exhibit showing the lack of gas stations and grocery store options within a 5-mile radius.
They failed to show all the options south of the 101 in their exhibit, which is incredibly misleading. I
have attached a map that shows all the gas stations and grocery stores in a 3-mile radius. If you
change your search to a 4-mile radius, you find 18-gas stations. The grocery store options are quite
vast as well.
Grocery Stores included within a 4-mile radius include:
Costco
Walmart
Target
Sprouts Market Express
2 Fry’s
2 Albertson’s
Food City
Please take this into consideration when Vestar continues to tell people that Desert Ridge is lacking
grocery and gas station options. It’s simply not true. Our neighbors do not want this development
to be built. We all live in the residential superblock portion of Desert Ridge. If we wanted to live
within walking distance to restaurants, we would have moved closer to Desert Ridge Marketplace.
This isn’t for the residents of Desert Ridge. They’re looking at this parcel because they want the
traffic from the 51.
Thanks,
Dan Richards
Strand Associates, Inc.®
602.437.3733 ext. 6052
dan.richards@strand.com | www.strand.com [strand.com]
[strand.com]
Excellence in EngineeringSM
From: Valerie Arnold
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: No rezoning of Black Mountain and Deer Valley Road
Date: Saturday, September 23, 2023 10:31:19 AM
Please do not rezone. My kids go to Pinnacle High School and this is a stupid idea. There is
enough traffic there now. Please do not let Vestar come in. We need that land to stay
undeveloped.
Thank you.
From: Kathy Green
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Zoning of the corner of Black Mountain and Deer Valley
Date: Saturday, September 23, 2023 10:51:17 AM
As someone who lives in the area and drives that intersection every day, I fully oppose this re-zoning. Traffics is
already a mess in the mornings and afternoons.
I would love to have a grocery store in the area but that location is awful.
Warmest Regards,
Kathy Green
Mountain Gate Subdivision resident
Sent from my iPhone
From: C Dunn
To: Anthony M Grande; PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: Vestar Development Amendment and Zoning Requests for Superblock 12 in Desert Ridge
Date: Sunday, September 24, 2023 2:12:13 PM
To All Concerned With This Issue:
I recently attended a Desert Ridge Community Association meeting in which
representatives for Vestar presented a rough sketch of their development plan for
approximately 20 acres carved out of Superblock 12. Listening to them, one would
surmise that this development was for the benefit of our neighborhood. They
discussed a neighborhood grocery store, some small retail businesses, and dining
options. A rather straightforward design, you might think. What Vestar’s rep didn’t
mention was the inclusion of a gas station, fast food drive-throughs, and even a city
bus stop. A plan that sounded innocent enough at the time now begs the question
of how a development such as this would impact our neighborhood.
Vestar wants to rezone Superblock 12 from an R-2 residential designation to a C-2
commercial designation. With this rezoning would come a commercial
development, such as Vestar’s, right at our back door. There are many troubling
issues associated with this proposal. I am limiting my comments to the
environmental impact that Vestar’s proposal would have on our community.
One of the most significant pollutants of our environment is gas stations. For
instance, during fueling, toxic compounds such as Benzene (a known carcinogen),
Ethyl Benzene, Toluene, and Xylene (BTEX) are released into the air. Likewise,
these same compounds will pollute the air when there is leakage from the storage
tank vents. Spills from fueling and spills from emptying tanker trucks can occur,
causing soil, groundwater, surface water and air contamination. Even idling
engines of vehicles contribute to air pollution with the release of harmful
chemicals, gases, and particles. Add to this the road noise associated with an
overwhelming number of vehicles driving in and out of the gas station and one
must conclude that gas stations are one of the most significant polluters of our
environment.
Grocery stores and fast food restaurants are right behind gas stations when we
consider the extent to which they pollute the environment. The average grocery
store emits almost two tons of carbon dioxide from the electricity and natural gas
that it uses each year. In addition to that, grocery stores and fast food restaurants
generate tons of litter and garbage yearly. Proper disposal of these then becomes
a major issue. If strict guidelines aren’t followed, we are then dealing with air and
soil pollution, in addition to the environmental issues posed by rodents and other
pests attracted to the area. Another concern is the amount of traffic generated by
these businesses. Their customer traffic, their delivery trucks, and their trash
collection vehicles make a substantial contribution to both noise and air pollution.
Lastly, it is not surprising that air pollution is the direct result of food preparation.
With the kitchen exhaust fans we have the release of organic aerosol into the
environment. With grills, stoves, and ovens we have the release of formaldehyde,
carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide into the air. Naturally, these airborne
particulates are inhaled by everyone nearby. With ongoing exposure, these
particulates can be extremely harmful to individuals. This is especially true for
asthmatics and individuals dealing with long-term breathing problems such as
COPD.
It is obvious that the environmental impact of Vestar's proposed development
would not be limited to noise, air, soil, and light pollution. Their proposal would
guarantee both traffic pollution and people pollution, as well. Is it fair to assume
that crime in our neighborhood would not be far behind, if Vestar's proposal were
to be approved?
The negative impact that Vestar’s commercial development would have on our
neighborhood far outweighs any benefits of a grocery store, a gas station, and fast
food restaurants. With these services and many more just minutes away in the
Desert Ridge Marketplace, we don’t need them in our own back yard.. We must
keep Superblock 12 zoned R-2 Residential, as it was originally intended.
Please say NO to Vestar.
Carolyn Dunn
3752 E Covey Lane
Fireside Community
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Sunday, September 24, 2023 8:00:47 PM
Name
Sachiyo Moench
satosachiyo@hotmail.com
Support Comments
Traffic during school pickup/drop off and rush hour is already stressing the traffic flow in this area. The
traffic associated with a big box retailer would make this intersection/area much worse.
From: Jennifer Garcia
To: Anthony M Grande
Cc: Jennifer Garcia
Subject: Case No. SPA-DS1 V-2-23-2, Case No. CPA-DSTV-3-23-2 and Case No. 1-39-23.
Date: Monday, September 25, 2023 9:08:21 PM
Attachments: image001.png
Dear Anthony,
I am writing to let you know I’m very concerned with the new zoning up for approval.
reference case numbers below.
This zoning in my opinion is way to close to Pinnacle High School. The traffic is
already so congested with the onramp of hwy 51, and with new drivers (young from
the high school) potential accidents would be a huge concern.
I vote NO for the new commercial zoning. It needs to stay residential
Case No. SPA-DS1 V-2-23-2, Case No. CPA-DSTV-3-23-2 and Case No. 1-39-23.
Thank you, Jennifer Garcia
3824 E. Ringtail Way
Jennifer Garcia
www.RelationalWealthAdvisors.com [relationalwealthadvisors.com]
From: Jayme Mesecher
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Rezoning of Superblock 12
Date: Monday, September 25, 2023 8:07:45 PM
Hello,
I’d like to document my opposition to the rezoning of superblock 12. I am a homeowner
across the street at 3609 E Cat Balue Dr Phoenix AZ 85050 and do not want to see this area
rezoned for commercial use. Here are the case numbers:
Case No. SPA-DS1 V-2-23-2, Case No. CPA-DSTV-3-23-2 and Case No. 1-39-23.
Thank you,
Jayme Mesecher
From: Thejas Nair
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Case No. SPA-DS1 V-2-23-2, Case No. CPA-DSTV-3-23-2 and Case No. 1-39-23.
Date: Monday, September 25, 2023 8:44:10 PM
Reference : Case No. SPA-DS1 V-2-23-2, Case No. CPA-DSTV-3-23-2 and
Case No. 1-39-23.
Hello Sir,
This is regarding rezoning of superblock 12 - Case No. SPA-DS1
V-2-23-2, Case No. CPA-DSTV-3-23-2 and Case No. 1-39-23.
I am a resident of the Fireside community in Desert Ridge. I would
like to voice my concerns on rezoning superblock 12.
Rezoning to commercial would change the neighbourhood characteristics
to be less desirable and affect the peace and quiet of the Fireside
community. We already have sufficient access to grocery and other
businesses within a couple of miles in multiple directions.
If rezoning is still being considered, I would be for restricting the
hours of operations of the commercial establishments to be before 10pm
(or restrict it to such types of establishments). And not have other
establishments like gas stations that tend to operate very late in the
night.
Thanks,
Thejas
From: Tininenko, Jason
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: black mountain project
Date: Monday, September 25, 2023 4:24:16 PM
My family wanted to weigh in on the proposed black mountain village project.
We are Opposed to the building of a gas station, grocery store, or any large project that will increase
traffic, crime, and accidents.
A nice restaurant or 2 would be great, but Vape shops, Liquor stores, Pawn shops and gas stations
do not help wonderful neighborhoods like Aviano.
Thanks.
From: Suresh Uppalapu
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Rezoning of super block 12
Date: Monday, September 25, 2023 7:18:49 PM
Hello,
Please consider this email my vote and my wife’s vote in opposition of rezoning the area for
commercial use. It is too close to the schools in the neighborhood. Desert ridge shopping
complex is not that far. We don’t need another complex here. Also, the traffic for drop off and
pick up to Pinnacle and Fireside schools is already backed up. A commercial complex will
further complicate traffic and lead to traffic mishaps.
Please NO.
Sincerely,
Dr. Uppalapu and Dr. Veeranki
From: Kim Galetti
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: SW. Corner of Deer Valley & Black Mountain Blvd.
Date: Wednesday, July 19, 2023 1:51:47 PM
Anthony,
My spouse and I are very excited about the proposed project at the above corner. We badly
need a second option for groceries. This additional competition will be great for the residents
of Desert Ridge. It will also increase property values. Hope this project is approved and
ground is broken soon.
Mr. Kim Galetti
3864 E. Melinda Drive
Phoenix, AZ 85050
443-962-0974
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone [mail.onelink.me]
From: Nahian Latif
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Re: black mountain village
Date: Saturday, July 22, 2023 11:45:06 AM
Hi there,
I am a resident near the proposed zoning change at the intersection of deer valley and black
mountain. I support the zoning change to a small commercial to allow for a small grocery
store/retail shop/restaurant. Ideally a small grocery store like trader Joe's would be ideal.
Encourage bistros like Panera/chipotle or a local business to setup shop. Bike friendly lanes
and bike locks with shaded/mature trees around stops would enhance the experience. Future
growth for a public library adjacent would serve the area well.
Thank you
Nahian Latif
Local resident
From: Riley Dresser
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Support for Z-39-23
Date: Wednesday, August 2, 2023 2:48:50 PM
Hi Anthony,
I just wanted to express my support for this project. I live in Fireside and would love to have amenities closer to my
house without having to go to Desert Ridge.
Thank you,
Riley Dresser
Sent from my iPhone
From: Lauren Packer
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Rezoning Black Mountain/Deer Valley
Date: Thursday, August 3, 2023 8:34:43 PM
Just voicing our opinion for what it is worth.
We are not against the rezone. But we are against a gas station and drive thru fast food. Additionally if this is
rezoned, there must be traffic modifications on Black Mountain. My kids do not attend pinnacle but we get stuck in
the backlog daily and this is without additional people entering or exiting a shopping plaza.
We hope the city listens to the citizens.
Lauren Packer
Sent from my iPhone
From: Polson, Adam
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12
Date: Thursday, August 3, 2023 10:30:07 AM
Attachments: Logo_e6253148-26a1-47a9-b861-6ac0ff0bc3c4.png
80pctcolor_2022mansfieldcertificationbadge_492244a7-2944-454d-8270-3a8a522bf068.png
Mr. Grande,
I am sending this e-mail to indicate that I am IN FAVOR of the proposed development. You are likely to see a bunch of
people trying to complain, and my guess is that those people will try to drown out the people who do want the project. I
would strongly prefer if there was no gas station, but I understand the realities of the situation. To the extent there is a
compromise, I would suggest no gas station.
-Adam Polson
2845 E. Cashman Drive
Phoenix, Arizona 85050
Adam S. Polson
Partner
Adam.Polson@lewisbrisbois.com
T: 602.792.1503 F: 602.385.1051
Phoenix Plaza Tower II
2929 North Central Avenue, Suite 1700, Phoenix, AZ 85012 | LewisBrisbois.com [lewisbrisbois.com]
Representing clients from coast to coast. View our locations nationwide. [lewisbrisbois.com]
This e-mail may contain or attach privileged, confidential or protected information intended only for the use of the intended recipient. If you are not the
intended recipient, any review or use of it is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, you are required to notify the sender, then delete
this email and any attachment from your computer and any of your electronic devices where the message is stored.
From: shawnkline2
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Black Mountain Village Project
Date: Friday, August 4, 2023 1:55:26 PM
Hello Mr. Grande,
I am writing to you regarding the Black Mountain Village project on the corner of Deer Valley
and Black Mountain Dr. I am a resident of the Sky Crossing neighborhood directly across
from the proposed project. I welcome the zoning change from residential to commercial with a
few stipulations.
1. No gas station. It will increase loitering, traffic, and light pollution in the neighborhood.
2. Grocery store must be a smaller, neighborhood grocery store (Trader Joes, Sprouts, Whole
Foods). A large Fry’s or Albertsons type store would not fit into our residential area,
especially since there is already an Albertsons in Desert Ridge and on Cave Creek.
3. The businesses must be in line with the demographics of the neighborhood. Desert Ridge
and Sky Crossing are neighborhoods with high end homes. We need high end businesses,
shops and restaurants that would enhance our community and not degrade it like a large
grocery store and gas station would. This would also hopefully include appropriate
lightscaping and landscaping, so the business park blends into the desert area that we all
bought houses here for. We moved here because it was a quiet, residential area and we do not
want to see it turn into another corner of concrete, traffic, litter, and loitering.
Thank you for your concern and I look forward to hearing about the next steps of the project.
Shawn Kline
Sky Crossing Resident
From: Lisa Abrams
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Zoning Changes Near Black Mountain and Deer Valley RDs
Date: Monday, August 7, 2023 4:32:42 PM
Hi,
I'd like to suggest a compromise for the city to consider regarding the parcel near Black
Mountain and Deer Valley Rds. I agree we need more shopping in the area, however this is
still a large residential neighborhood and I'd like the city to consider putting some restrictions
on the new zoning, similar to what many shopping centers in Scottsdale have done.
Please consider rezoning with conditions including:
a maximum size for the grocery
prohibiting gas stations
dimmer lighting
larger landscape setbacks
shaded walking and bike paths
ample outdoor dining spaces
These conditions would still allow a company to develop the land, while also keeping it as
close to a neighborhood feel as possible.
Thank you for your consideration.
Lisa Abrams
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, August 10, 2023 11:05:58 AM
Name
Jenna Barrett
jennabarrett422@gmail.com
Support Comments
I would want a grocery store and fast food options at the shopping center.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, August 10, 2023 9:09:07 AM
Name
Ashley Campbell
Ashleycampbell@cox.net
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Fireside at Desert Ridge
Support Comments
I support retail space in that location. Thank you!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, August 10, 2023 10:04:56 AM
Name
John Schott
Jopschott@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Desert Ridge
Support Comments
As a native and person living in the area, I welcome the new development. Adding places to live, shop
and eat will benefit the community. Please approve this project.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, August 10, 2023 9:08:35 AM
Name
Austin Lynch
Alynchortho@yahoo.com
Support Comments
Support
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, August 10, 2023 10:03:22 AM
Name
Michael Marsh
michaelmarsh.cre@gmail.com
Support Comments
I am currently building a home in Desert Ridge and am extremely supportive of additional retail and
commercial opportunities in this area. Desert Ridge Marketplace is hugely successful, but that comes
with a convenience fee for people who actually live in the area. Additional options for groceries,
restaurants and neighborhood retail on a smaller scale would actually serve the needs of people who live
in and around the area, and an additional option to avoid the traffic and crowds of Desert Ridge
Marketplace that has become a destination shopping center. My understanding is that the current
entitlements would allow for additional housing units. While I am moving to the area and think that
housing is important, the opportunity to have additional retail and commercial as a future homeowner in
this area is exciting and would seem to actually serve the needs of the people that already live and are
actively building homes there. Thanks for your favorable consideration of the requests.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, August 10, 2023 12:28:47 PM
Name
Rachel Cohn
rachel-cohn@hotmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Fireside
Support Comments
I would love a small grocery store, no gas station and a local bistro. Thanks!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, August 10, 2023 12:05:35 PM
Name
Amanda Honey
amanda.honey3@gmail.com
Support Comments
Neighborhood grocer is wonderful but no gas station please
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, August 10, 2023 12:37:25 PM
Name
Meghann Jones
Mprusick@yahoo.com
Support Comments
No gas station.
Small grocery store, i.e. Trader Joe’s, Whole Foods.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, August 10, 2023 12:09:39 PM
Name
Kevin Honey
amaresh@cox.net
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
3762 e ember glow way
Support Comments
Neighborhood grocer, but no gas station please.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, August 10, 2023 12:16:05 PM
Name
Pam Sullivan
Scottspam4@gmail.com
Support Comments
No gas station
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, August 10, 2023 9:29:06 AM
Name
Peter Reinsch
Preinschaz@gmail.com
Support Comments
Sounds like a great idea! That’s a great location to build a grocery store!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, August 10, 2023 10:56:30 AM
Name
Melissa Romero
Melromeo@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
4240 E Expedition Way
Support Comments
We need additional options in this area.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, August 10, 2023 10:01:05 AM
Name
Allie Schott
alliejschott@gmail.com
Support Comments
As a future resident in the Talinn development, I support growth in the local area.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, August 10, 2023 1:19:23 PM
Name
Scott Shuman
sshuman99@yahoo.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Desert Ridge
Support Comments
I am very supportive of this new development. This area would benefit from additional convenient options
for groceries, restaurants, etc. In particular, it would be great to have a Trader Joe’s or Sprouts. The
congestion around Desert Ridge can be challenging and quality alternatives are welcome.
From: Chris Sinclair
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Deer Valley and Black Mountain commercial
Date: Thursday, August 10, 2023 12:41:55 PM
hi, I guess people are saying to contact the planner about this
development and that's you I guess? anyways, this is great news. we
need more commercial in this area. it's a major intersection and just
what should be happening here. I'm emailing because I'm sure people
will complain. because that's what people do. and usually, the most
vocal are the minority. I want to make sure you guys know that there are
plenty of people excited about this happening. but will probably never
attend a meeting or voice their excitement, because people usually only
do that when they complain. so if you need anybody to point to in the
community that has no vested interest at all, that is excited and 100%
in favor of this, that would be me. thanks and good luck with the
complainers
--
Chris Sinclair
Sinclair Engineering LLC
23251 N.38th Place
Phoenix, AZ 85050
480-695-9734
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, August 10, 2023 1:10:32 PM
Name
Chris Sinclair
sinclaireng@cox.net
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
23251 N 38TH PL
Support Comments
this is a great news. been living in Aviano since 2009. we need more commercial, not less. Deer Valley
and Black Mountain is exactly the type of spot where this should be going. this creates a walkable
destination from our neighborhood. we need more of this. I'm firmly in favor of this happening! thanks.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, August 10, 2023 9:06:22 AM
Name
Hanna Steger
Hannaesteger@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Aviano Community
Support Comments
We fully support the new black mountain shopping center. We would love to see something smaller scale
to desert ridge that provides us places to dine and shop.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, August 10, 2023 12:55:47 PM
Name
Mahyar Vahabzadeh
mahyar@cox.net
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Aviano Desert Ridge
Support Comments
This shopping center will be a much needed addition to the Desert Ridge area as we are very limited
currently with a single grocery store (Albertsons).
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Saturday, August 12, 2023 10:43:46 AM
Name
James Senften
jsenften@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
4535 E. Navigator Lane, Phoenix, AZ 85050
Support Comments
As a resident of Desert Ridge for over 3 years, I am excited for the opportunity to have additional options
for groceries, restaurants and neighborhood retail in the area. This area has seen a lot of residential
development in the past 5 to 10 years, but there has been a lack of additional commercial development.
However, I don't want to see this site end up as another huge big box store (like a Wal-Mart) for several
reasons. For one, we have a Target and other big box stores at Desert Ridge that fill that need. Second,
it might cause too many traffic problems at the site and the surrounding area. I think this site should focus
on a smaller, high quality grocery store and related restaurants and commercial uses. I would be in
support of a square footage cap to prevent any big box stores from going in and to promote the possible
attraction of a Sprouts or Trader Joe's type grocery store.
From: Scott Corwin
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Support for Black Mountain Village development
Date: Sunday, August 13, 2023 1:32:59 PM
Mr. Grande,
My family and I are residents of Sky Crossing, and I am writing in support of the re-zoning of
the land proposed for Black Mountain Village.
To say I am disappointed in my community members who oppose this project is an
understatement. Apparently others do not care about growth and development of a
neighborhood. Apparently others do not care about their property values increasing because of
convenience. Apparently the principal of Pinnacle High School is urging us to protest the re-
zoning, and because the school cannot figure out how to manage the flow of kids arriving to
school, they are using this development as a scapegoat.
Granted, while I love the concept of the development, I do oppose the gas station idea unless it
is only a gas station without a convenience store. Convenience stores, no matter the location,
seem to draw people out of the woodwork. I don’t know what latitude the city has to stipulate
the details of the plan, but that would be my request as a resident.
I do plan on attending the October 3rd meeting, but will all those in attendance have the
opportunity to vote on the decision?
Looking forward to the meeting.
Thank you,
Scott Corwin
3422 E Crest Ln
Phoenix, AZ 85050
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone [mail.onelink.me]
From: Aly Fox
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Case Number Z-39-23
Date: Monday, August 14, 2023 1:26:25 PM
Anthony Grande I am a resident the last 17 years in Aviano in Desert Ridge. I’m
emailing you in reference to case number Z-39-23 to say that we are very excited
for the proposed commercial zoning at the corner of Deer Valley and North Black
Mountain Blvd. We were told that this was in the plan when we first bought. I feel
this will be positive for the area and help bring home values up as well. I hope that
this is highly considered and passed to continue to build. Thank your time and
appreciate all you do.
Alyson and Ken Fox
602-909-0340
From: cici martin
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Desert View Shopping Center - Rezoning
Date: Tuesday, August 15, 2023 9:11:11 PM
Hello,
I am a resident of Sky Crossing and wanted to write to share my thoughts as I have seen a lot of chatter in the Sky
Crossing community FB account.
I am not opposed to a smaller shopping mall with a small grocery store and food/coffee options. Nice mall like
Gainey Ranch or DC Ranch. I would be opposed to a gas station as I believe it will bring traffic from the freeway,
not community members. As well as the noise of refueling trucks.
Just wanted to share my thoughts - commercial property yes; as long as no gas stations are included.
Thank you,
Cecilia Martin
Sent from my iPhone
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Wednesday, August 16, 2023 3:35:09 PM
Name
Jodi Dougan
Jodster_29@hotmail.com
Support Comments
Would love more shopping and eating options close by.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, August 17, 2023 9:42:39 PM
Name
Nicole Mezzatesta
nicolem@lunicabeauty.com
Support Comments
I support this parcel to be zoned for commercial property.
From: Walker, Oliver
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Black Mountain Village Plans at Black Mtn Blvd and Deer Valley Rd
Date: Friday, August 18, 2023 2:09:36 PM
Attachments: image001.png
Anthony,
I hope you are enjoying your Friday! I wanted to reach out as your email was provided by a neighbor
in Sky Crossing as a point of contact on this proposed project.
I live in one of the homes that backs up to Deer Valley and to the piece of land which is being
submitted for rezoning from Residential to Commercial.
I actually love the idea of having a retail center on the plot of land - I absolutely hate the idea of a
gas station being part of the project, especially on the North side of the project as it would be the
first thing I would see out of my back window. I can tell you that opinion within the neighborhood on
the Sky Crossing Facebook group seems to be split 50/50. One thing, however, that seems to be
consensus - nobody wants a gas station as part of the project.
I am in the mortgage lending world, and I can share that if a gas station is placed at the very
northern edge of the parcel, it would render the homes on the other side of Deer Valley unlendable
for certain mortgage products, which seems incredibly unfair to the folks who bought homes here 3
years ago none the wiser to future changes that might occur.
I would stand firmly against a gas station, but would support a well designed retail center that would
serve our community. I have lived in Desert Ridge for the last 15 years, and the project seems very
exciting if done correctly.
Please feel free to call my cell below if you would like any further input or have any questions.
[social.pr]
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Tuesday, August 22, 2023 10:55:52 PM
Name
Doug Dresser
flyboyltu@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Fireside
Support Comments
I’m for no gas station, as we have had a big increase in homelessness in north Phoenix in the last couple
of years as a gas station will increase homeless presence. A small grocery story like sprouts, Aldi, or
Trader Joe’s will be nice as these stores typically don’t attract homelessness and close at a decent hour.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Tuesday, August 22, 2023 4:00:02 PM
Name
Janee Foster
Janeeapostol@yahoo.com
Support Comments
Would like to see a small grocer like Trader Joe’s. Traffic is already so bad by the high school, don’t need
a big retail store there. And NO gas stations!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Tuesday, August 22, 2023 6:50:57 PM
Name
Bob Mayo
bob_mayo@cox.net
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Fireside
Support Comments
I am in support of this project, minus the gas station, think that needs to be rethought. Thank you
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 5:10:04 PM
Name
Clint Marchuk
cmarchuk@yahoo.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Talinn at Desert Ridge
Support Comments
I'm highly supportive of bringing a 2nd grocery store into the Desert Ridge community.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 9:44:23 PM
Name
Raj Kapur
raj85719@gmail.com
Support Comments
the overwhelming majority of desert ridge residents want this project to be built and get another small
grocery store. i would rather not have a gas station though..
From: James Patterson
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Black mountain / deer valley project
Date: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 7:12:43 PM
Anthony,
Hope all is well. I live in Sky Crossing and want to make you (and the other city planners) know that my family
supports this new development. This area continues to grow and we need more amenities like another grocery store,
etc.
I can tell you that the FB group for my neighborhood gets all fired up about every little issue and this is no
different. People are clearly frustrated about pinnacle traffic at 7am… can’t imagine a grocery center is going to
have a ton of extra traffic at that time. They seem to be forgetting the convenience + likely property value
appreciation by having more amenities within walking distance.
I support this development and from what I can tell, Vestar seems like a very reputable firm with a great track record
of great shopping centers.
Apologize in advance if you are getting many emails very different from this one. Appreciate all that the city does!
-Jimmy
James S. Patterson III
(480) 390-4288
Sent from my iPhone
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 11:52:57 AM
Name
Jacqueline Soutus
jackie.soutus@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Desert Ridge
Support Comments
I support this proposal. Currently there is not enough retail in the Desert Ridge area. More house
developments will cause an even larger shortage of restaurants, groceries and other retailers.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Sunday, August 27, 2023 7:11:09 PM
Name
Goldberg Nathan
ndgoldberg@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Fireside - amber crest
Support Comments
I support the proposal but would like it without a gas station. Perhaps we can do some kind of awesome
charging station with higher end convenience store. Also, no Walmart or Walmart market…an AJs or
Trader Joe’s or even a frys would be fantastic.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Monday, August 28, 2023 12:44:37 PM
Name
Sonita W.
Soniyay@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Aviano N 36th St
Support Comments
I just wanted to let you know that as a Aviano resident I am very happy to hear about this development. I
would welcome a grocery store, a coffee shop and other retail, and hopefully also getting dust under
better control once the construction is done. So, good luck and keep us posted.
I do want to request that some thought be given to control of any petty crime that may arise from this
development as there will be increased activity in the surrounding areas.
From: sonia
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New development Desert Ridge Black Mtn Village
Date: Monday, August 28, 2023 12:09:32 PM
I just wanted to let you know that as a Aviano resident I am very happy
to hear about this development. I would welcome a grocery store, a coffee
shop and other retail, and hopefully also getting dust under better control
once the construction is done. So, good luck and keep us posted.
I do want to request that some thought be given to control of any petty
crime that may arise from this development as there will be increased
activity in the surrounding areas.
Thank you
Sonita W.
From: Anthony M Grande
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: FW: SW Corner of Black Mountain Blvd snd Deer Valley
Date: Thursday, August 31, 2023 11:26:19 AM
From: Kim Galetti
Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2023 1:48 PM
To: Michelle Santoro
Subject: SW Corner of Black Mountain Blvd snd Deer Valley
Hi Michelle,
Nice talking to you today. My spouse and I are very excited about the proposed project at the above
corner. We badly need a second option for groceries. This additional competition will be great for
the residents of Desert Ridge. It will also increase property values. Hope this project is approved and
ground is broken soon.
Mr. Kim Galetti
3864 E. Melinda Drive
Phoenix, AZ 85050
443-962-0974
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone [linkprotect.cudasvc.com]
From: Anthony M Grande
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: FW: Black Mountain Village
Date: Thursday, August 31, 2023 11:25:59 AM
From: Nahian Latif
Sent: Saturday, July 22, 2023 11:44 AM
To: Michelle Santoro
Subject: Re: Black Mountain Village
Hi there,
I am a resident near the proposed zoning change at the intersection of deer valley and black
mountain. I support the zoning change to a small commercial to allow for a small grocery store/retail
shop/restaurant. Ideally a small grocery store like trader Joe's would be ideal. Encourage bistros like
Panera/chipotle or a local business to setup shop. Bike friendly lanes and bike locks with
shaded/mature trees around stops would enhance the experience. Future growth for a public
library adjacent would serve the area well.
Thank you
Nahian
Local resident
From: Anthony M Grande
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: FW: Sky Crossing Resident / Black Mountain Village
Date: Monday, September 11, 2023 8:07:40 AM
From: James Patterson
Sent: Friday, September 8, 2023 9:09 AM
To: Michelle Santoro
Subject: Sky Crossing Resident / Black Mountain Village
Hello,
I am a resident of Sky Crossing and very in-favor of this proposed development. For what it's worth,
the community seems overly concerned about 1) the additional traffic around Pinnacle high school
at drop off and pick up, 2) the potential for a gas station and 3) the "aesthetic" of the project.
For me, this seems like a no-brainer given we need a grocery store + other amenities (this helps our
property values). I look forward to attending the town hall on Tuesday
Thanks,
Jimmy
--
James Patterson
(480) 390-4288
From: Jessica Fierros
To: Anthony M Grande
Cc: Robert Fierros
Subject: Aviano resident FOR commercial rezoning
Date: Saturday, September 9, 2023 9:10:41 AM
Hello Anthony,
I am a resident that is beyond excited about the potential rezoning near Pinnacle HS! I am
shocked by the negative response being organized by some here in Desert Ridge. We
DESPERATELY need more commercial businesses to support the homes/community that are
already here. It is horrendous that we only have ONE grocery store and ONE gas station and
ONE fast food restaurant for this many homes in one area- and there are many more homes
still being built. One of the biggest complaints by people is that these businesses will bring in
crime and homelessness. Well guess what?! It's already been moving in and the problem isn't
businesses. The problem is that we have voted in a mayor who is SOFT on crime and our
police force is over worked, under staffed and under funded. Commercial businesses are what
we NEED!!
We have lived in Aviano for 14 years and had already been saying for several years that we
hoped businesses would develop somewhere along this stretch of Deer Valley. We were so
excited to hear about this proposal and couldn't be more disappointed or disheartened by how
"noisy" the ones against this have been. We truly hope they don't ruin this much needed
opportunity for growth in our community.
Jess Fierros
From: Martina McConnon
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Black Mountain shopping area
Date: Saturday, September 9, 2023 8:16:54 AM
Hi Mr Grande,
My name is Martina McConnon, I live in the Fireside community and have been hearing about the planned rezoning
& possible shopping area coming to Black Mountain next to Pinnacle High School. Just wanted to let you know that
our family would very much welcome a grocer like Trader Joes or Sprouts to get that spot. We do not need more
fast food options as we have plenty in Desert Ridge. But another grocery store would be great, especially a healthier
alternative to Albertsons.
Thank you!
Martina McConnon
3826 E Cat Balue Drive
Phoenix AZ 85050
From: vanessacorwin@yahoo.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Support for Black Mountain Village Project
Date: Saturday, September 9, 2023 11:19:25 AM
Mr. Grande,
I am a resident of the Sky Crossing community, and am writing this email in support of the rezoning of
Vestar's proposed Black Mountain Village project. For the planning committee's consideration, I want to
offer some thoughts about the project:
1. Traffic - I have seen a lot of input from community members opposing the rezoning because of traffic
concerns. If it is eventually developed into homes, that'll be another 20+ single family homes built. If it's
developed into townhomes, it'll be another 400 units. If it'll be developed into apartments, the number of
residents will be even higher. Regardless of the outcome of residential development, residential
development will also create more traffic for that area. Those those oppose the rezoning to commercial
don't seem to offer that as a consideration. Some/any level of additional residential development will
further congest DRM. The Vestar development of this land at least offers additional shopping and dining
options, which I would hope offloads DRM to some degree. I see that as a positive. However, I would
hope the City would partner with Vestar to assess entrance and egress points, especially during the
morning when PHS students are driving or being dropped off. I do agree it'll create more traffic at certain
points of the day, so I would hope that is already on the docket to evaluate.
2. Types of businesses on the property - I would ask the planning committee to not support a gas station
with a convenience store. I would rather have a gas station alone, like Costco, with limited hours. A
convenience store option will likely cause more harm than good, in terms of the people who would be
shopping or loitering at the store.
3. There are many concerns about noise from residents in my community and the community to the
immediate east of the proposed development. My house is located 5 houses Black Mountain Boulevard,
and we are objectively closer to the proposed development than 60% of Sky Crossing. In the two+ years
that we've lived in this community, I've never heard any noise from BM boulevard. I can't even hear the
football games at Pinnacle High School. I've seen many people via our community's Facebook and
Desert Ridge's community Facebook groups share this concern as a reason to oppose the development.
How can people 2-3 miles away complain about noise when noise present no impact to them today?
Rhetorical question, but people are grasping at straws.
Overall, while this proposed project is not by any means perfect and there are some legitimate concerns
(like traffic), additional commercial development for this area will be a boost for property values, tax
revenue, economic growth, and some level of job creation. I strongly, strongly support this rezoning in
favor of the Vestar development.
Thank you,
Vanessa Corwin
From: Roland Ward
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Black Mountain Village
Date: Sunday, September 10, 2023 4:25:24 PM
Hello Anthony,
I live in Aviano at Desert Ridge near the proposed Black Mountain Village shopping center.
I fully support the proposal and welcome the additional option for shopping, especially a
grocery store.
Regards,
Roland Ward
3828 E Morning Dove Trail
Phoenix, AZ 85050
From: sonia Whig
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Black mountain village
Date: Monday, September 11, 2023 5:35:10 PM
Not sure if this is the right forum but I am writing to add my FULL SUPPORT for this project.
I live in Aviano and would love to have a coffee shop and a grocery store within walking distance. The land will
definitely go the apartment route if left alone for long. Can’t build more than 6-7 houses in the lot. Can’t imagine
anyone preferring that to a neighbourhood market. I am definitely for it for environmental as well and logistics
reasons.
Thank you
Sent from my iPhone
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 8:48:38 PM
Name
Jared Nielsen
jarheadnielsen@gmail.com
Support Comments
We are very excited about the possibility of a grocery store close to our house. A quick food option would
also be welcome.
From: Polson, Adam
To: Anthony M Grande
Cc: msantoro@gblaw.com
Subject: RE: Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12
Date: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 7:55:44 AM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
Logo_e6253148-26a1-47a9-b861-6ac0ff0bc3c4.png
80pctcolor_2022mansfieldcertificationbadge_492244a7-2944-454d-8270-3a8a522bf068.png
Mr. Grande,
I am sending this e-mail to reaffirm my position that I am IN FAVOR of the proposed development. I attended the
information session by the developer and Gammage and Burnham at Sky Crossing yesterday evening, and I was impressed
with what Vestar was agreeing to do as far as infrastructure in and around this proposed project. If this project is denied, I
do not see a residential developer agreeing to do what Vestar is agreeing to do. Nevertheless, although I do not pretend
to be a traffic engineer, I believe that it makes sense to have a light at 34th street and Deer Valley. This is even though
there is a light nearby at Deer Valley and Black Mountain. Again, I am not a traffic engineer, but it seems to me as a
layperson that 75% of Sky Crossing traffic would be inclined to head west down Deer Valley and enter Sky Crossing at 32nd
Street and/or Sky Crossing Way. I suspect that a lot of people who live around Cave Creek and Deer Valley would also
prefer to have a light at 34th Street. This is something to consider. Again, I am IN FAVOR of the proposed development.
-Adam
Adam S. Polson
Partner
Adam.Polson@lewisbrisbois.com
T: 602.792.1503 F: 602.385.1051
Phoenix Plaza Tower II
2929 North Central Avenue, Suite 1700, Phoenix, AZ 85012 | LewisBrisbois.com [lewisbrisbois.com]
Representing clients from coast to coast. View our locations nationwide. [lewisbrisbois.com]
This e-mail may contain or attach privileged, confidential or protected information intended only for the use of the intended recipient. If you are not the
intended recipient, any review or use of it is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, you are required to notify the sender, then delete
this email and any attachment from your computer and any of your electronic devices where the message is stored.
From: Polson, Adam
Sent: Thursday, August 3, 2023 10:30 AM
To: anthony.grande@phoenix.gov
Subject: Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12
Mr. Grande,
I am sending this e-mail to indicate that I am IN FAVOR of the proposed development. You are likely to see a bunch of
people trying to complain, and my guess is that those people will try to drown out the people who do want the project. I
would strongly prefer if there was no gas station, but I understand the realities of the situation. To the extent there is a
compromise, I would suggest no gas station.
-Adam Polson
2845 E. Cashman Drive
Phoenix, Arizona 85050
Adam S. Polson
Partner
Adam.Polson@lewisbrisbois.com
T: 602.792.1503 F: 602.385.1051
Phoenix Plaza Tower II
2929 North Central Avenue, Suite 1700, Phoenix, AZ 85012 | LewisBrisbois.com [lewisbrisbois.com]
Representing clients from coast to coast. View our locations nationwide. [lewisbrisbois.com]
This e-mail may contain or attach privileged, confidential or protected information intended only for the use of the intended recipient. If you are not the
intended recipient, any review or use of it is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, you are required to notify the sender, then delete
this email and any attachment from your computer and any of your electronic devices where the message is stored.
From: Chris Sinclair
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Black Mountain Village Desert Ridge
Date: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 2:03:18 PM
from the sounds of it, you're getting obliterated with negative comments
about this. just wanted to make sure you know many of us here approve
of this project. we were promised for years we'd be getting a second
grocery store. the people complaining are mostly people that have been
here only a year or 2. many of them back the major roads to this. this
has 2 major roads and leads to the interstate. and backs a high
school. should the rest of the community be deprived of this
development because they bought houses that back these major roads? I
don't think so. I've been here since 2009 and have always known there
was commercial coming. anyways, thanks for hearing me out.
--
Chris Sinclair
Sinclair Engineering LLC
23251 N.38th Place
Phoenix, AZ 85050
480-695-9734
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 11:52:21 AM
Name
Alexander Soutus
asoutus@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
22221 n 41st st
Support Comments
We are in support for commercial business. Preferably a grocery store.
From: david white
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Zoning
Date: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 7:37:10 PM
To Whom This May Concern,
I just want my voice heard.
I fully support the rezoning of the southwest corner of Deer Valley Road and Black Mountain
Blvd. from residential to commercial.
Respectfully,
David White
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 4:09:28 PM
Name
Brandon York
blyork85@gmail.com
Support Comments
Thank you for planning to bring some more shopping to the desert ridge area. Desert ridge marketplace
is a nightmare most all the time with all the congestion.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 14, 2023 5:56:51 PM
Name
Sharon Ceccarelli
Sceccarelli1@gmail.com
Support Comments
I would like a fry’s or Trader Joe’s. Qt would be nice too. I’m down for chic fillet or chipotle
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 14, 2023 7:49:45 PM
Name
Allie Lucyk
Lucykallie88@gmail.com
Support Comments
Bring on the grocery store
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 14, 2023 6:43:12 AM
Name
Chrissy Seibel
chrissyandsteve2011@gmail.com
Support Comments
I’m all for a new grocery store in the area! We are in need!
From: Robert Berto
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Rezoning near Pinnacle High School
Date: Friday, September 15, 2023 8:28:08 AM
I just would say not all residents in this area are opposed to finally building on land that looks like a deserted field
that has not been maintained and does not align with the atmosphere of surrounding homes in the area. Finally
something can be put in place with some amenities north of the 101.
I do have a question though.
Is there a plan to build anything north of Pinnacle Peak and Black Mountain? This land as well looks like overgrown
weeds that have not been maintained.
Not only that, but it is a dark busy road on Pinnacle Peak. Wildlife darts out from the side of the road and could pose
a risk to drivers trying to avoid hitting a coyote chasing a rabbit. I know from experience. I drive it multiple times a
night.
I look forward to seeing more commercial establishments that will help the community that continues to grow.
I just wanted to give some input as I live in the area and my son goes to Pinnacle High School.
Thank You,
Robert Berto
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Saturday, September 16, 2023 6:30:20 AM
Name
Sonia W.
nimbus-polkas0h@icloud.com
Support Comments
Would LOVE to have a Trader Joes or similar grocery store. A nice independent coffee shop would be
great too. Not a gas station though- I don’t think that’s a good idea. Maybe some other tasteful and new
concept retail.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Saturday, September 16, 2023 9:17:01 PM
Name
Lynn Stevens
lynnkstevens@gmail.com
Support Comments
Improved Grocery shopping is needed desert ridge. A Fry’s would offer choices to consumers and
improve the food desert north of the 101.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Sunday, September 17, 2023 2:17:36 PM
Name
Jan Axtell
kentandjan@cox.net
Support Comments
We need another grocery store besides Albertsons!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Sunday, September 17, 2023 8:24:48 PM
Name
Vanessa Corwin
vanessacorwin@yahoo.com
Support Comments
I support this project
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Sunday, September 17, 2023 8:44:54 PM
Name
Michael Curtis
mcc50@q.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
2235 e Parkside lane
Support Comments
I support this there is no grocery stores in this area
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Sunday, September 17, 2023 11:11:07 PM
Name
Melissa Gasper
melissa.gasper@icloud.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Desert peak
Support Comments
I support it
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Sunday, September 17, 2023 7:39:35 PM
Name
John Hamby
Jhamby1011@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Aviano
Support Comments
All day! Living is Aviano is funny because the homes are a millions dollars but the grocery and food
options around are minimal and/or of poor quality. Would love to see more options up here but some
serious traffic mitigation would need to take place because with the high school right there, it’s already a
disaster.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Sunday, September 17, 2023 10:12:51 PM
Name
Brenda Johnson
artbybrenda@cox.net
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
3919 E Daley Lane Phoenix/Aviano
Support Comments
Please! Another grocery store and gas station and another fast food drive-through option!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Sunday, September 17, 2023 2:44:47 PM
Name
Rajesh Kapur
Raj@benefitcommerce.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
20918 N 37th pl
Support Comments
we all want this. please ignore the handful of rowdy fireside folks that are arguing against!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Sunday, September 17, 2023 4:35:44 PM
Name
Jodie Koltes
jodie.koltes@yahoo.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Crescent Butte
Support Comments
Fry’s would be nice!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Sunday, September 17, 2023 10:27:39 PM
Name
Jadyn L
Jnlien267@gmail.com
Support Comments
Please add a Trader Joe’s!!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Sunday, September 17, 2023 3:14:15 PM
Name
Jamie Lafranchi
lafranchi.jamie@gmail.com
Support Comments
We need another grocery. Crazy just to have Albertsons
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Sunday, September 17, 2023 3:32:44 PM
Name
Vanessa Mason
vnessahenderson@gmail.com
Support Comments
As a resident in this area we would
love to have easier access to a nice grocery store without having to drive 10-15 mins to the nearest store.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Sunday, September 17, 2023 12:53:20 PM
Name
Roselyn Meyer
meyerroselyn@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
3818 E Cat Balue Dr
Support Comments
We will support Trader Joe’s to come to our neighborhood!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Sunday, September 17, 2023 8:23:42 PM
Name
Scott Corwin
scott.corwin@yahoo.com
Support Comments
I support this development, but suggest two things: 1) no convenience store as part of any gas station. 2)
Vestar and City do traffic studies to assess impact to BM Boulevard, and make changes to entrance and
egress points.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Sunday, September 17, 2023 7:40:37 PM
Name
Mary Patterson
Mfpatterson2016@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Sky crossing
Support Comments
Support
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Sunday, September 17, 2023 6:44:56 PM
Name
Jon Peterson
jpeterson_az@yahoo.com
Support Comments
I realize the location is not ideal for everyone but I would prefer to have a local grocery store closer and
less crowded than a Desert Ridge
I think the fry’s complex at Thompson Peak and Hayden is a good example of what this could be and
support it.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Sunday, September 17, 2023 10:44:24 PM
Name
Jamisyn Smith
jamisyn.rae.smith@gmail.com
Support Comments
We need better options. A Trader Joe’s please.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Sunday, September 17, 2023 2:21:55 PM
Name
Leslie Wren
lesliewren22@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Cave Creek Rd & Deer Valley
Support Comments
We need another grocery store
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Monday, September 18, 2023 6:54:09 PM
Name
Suhair Riederer
ishtar2000@hotmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
21526 n 59TH way Phoenix AZ 85054
Support Comments
Please bring a sprout , fry’s or Walmart yo the area . We lack a good grocery store in desert ridge
Thanks
Suhair
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Monday, September 18, 2023 4:04:40 PM
Name
Mary Jill Almassy
jillalmassy@cox.net
Support Comments
We definitely need more and more convenient grocery shopping
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Monday, September 18, 2023 6:38:09 PM
Name
Not Helping
Nothelping@stop.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Sky Crossing
Support Comments
Hey Gammage and Burnham - these silly Facebook groups are not a good idea. I actually like the idea of
Black Mountain Village, but having a law firm with no vested interest in the neighborhood aside from the
development being approved creating a Facebook/Instagram group to drum up support for the project
makes your law firm look absolutely desperate, pathetic, and borderline deceptive. Please discontinue
this type of advertising.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Monday, September 18, 2023 10:34:53 AM
Name
Anne Blazek
boutiquewellness@gmail.com
Support Comments
Need more than one alberstsons
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Monday, September 18, 2023 2:08:41 PM
Name
Dennis Brown
azhairguy@hotmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
2513 E Barbed Wire Pass
Support Comments
I think it would be great, yes students need parking which could be part of it, rather more
houses/apartments that they couldn’t park in, stores would be closer for all of us on cave creek and deer
valley ect. Can’t wait for it!!!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Monday, September 18, 2023 5:47:07 AM
Name
Maryanne Christensen
mlchristensen05@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Aviano
Support Comments
We need another grocery store in this area!! I have lived here for 12+ years and the only thing that hasn’t
grown is options to shop for groceries. Please make it a Signature Fry’s!!!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Monday, September 18, 2023 5:09:33 AM
Name
Brian Clifton
bclifton5@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Desert Ridge
Support Comments
We need more business and less housing in the area
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Monday, September 18, 2023 6:44:09 AM
Name
Stephanie Cohen
s_marema@yahoo.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
4410 East Kirkland Rd.
Support Comments
I support and additional shopping development with hopes to have another more boutique style. Grocery
store option.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Monday, September 18, 2023 3:03:00 PM
Name
Ralph Ferrara
ralph.ferrara@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
2129 East Daley Lane
Support Comments
I support this
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Monday, September 18, 2023 6:36:17 AM
Name
Sol Fink
sol_fink@yahoo.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
SkyCrossing
Support Comments
We definitely need a supermarket, some restaurants and a few boutique shops within walking distance of
SkyCrossing.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Monday, September 18, 2023 8:57:01 PM
Name
James Gregory
jamesgregory1882@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Boulder Creek
Support Comments
I'm looking forward to the space being utilized, for what I hope, will be a higher end use.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Monday, September 18, 2023 6:57:52 AM
Name
April Halaby
ahalaby@chicagopropertyconcierge.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
3251 E Harlow Sky Crossing
Support Comments
We wholly support the plans for Vestar to develop the land, including a grocery store. This area is
underserved with regards to grocery stores and small shops, and this would help resolve that issue.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Monday, September 18, 2023 8:45:58 AM
Name
Bob Hamer
Hamer.bob@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Adobe Rd. (Sky crossing resident)
Support Comments
Definitely in favor of the commercial development on Black Mtn and Deer Valley. Closer grocery store
(maybe gas too?) retail restaurants (a coffee shop) would be awesome. Right now we have to go to
desert ridge and it’s too trafficked. Also, growing up and in High School eating at our local restaurants
nearby school was a huge part of the community experience and right now I fear that doesn’t exist. As
long as it’s thoughtful re: loitering and lighting and traffic there really isn’t a downside here at all. Hope we
can get this approved!!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Monday, September 18, 2023 11:47:41 AM
Name
Brooke Harmon
brharmon@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
2214 E SOFT WIND DR
Support Comments
As someone that has live near this area since 2011, I am excited for the potential to build more
commercial stores, including a grocery store other than Albertsons nearby. Our only nearby options for
this is Desert Ridge which is getting ridiculously crowded now that Sky Crossing exists. It's funny that I
see them as the ones complaining, but we were all very opposed to more residential homes in that area
for two reasons. 1 - it made things even more congested and 2 - now our school boundaries risk being
redrawn. I purchased land at cave creek and deer valley for Pinnacle High, now the extra residential
growth is putting our ability to attend that school in the future at risk.
I do NOT want more residential homes at the corner at Black Mountain and Deer Valley. Commercial
property is what I would love to see. It would also create more jobs for our area, especially the older
teens / young adults.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Monday, September 18, 2023 7:52:58 PM
Name
Linda Metcalf
Ljm@hdride.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
26633 N 42nd street
Support Comments
We do need more shopping choices on this area. Not much to choose from right now
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Monday, September 18, 2023 3:02:45 PM
Name
Kyla Geise
kyla_geise@yahoo.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Desert Ridge
Support Comments
I do not want a new gas station/ store on deer valley.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Monday, September 18, 2023 1:13:40 PM
Name
James Patterson
Jsp.three@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Sky Crossing
Support Comments
I fully support this project. It will add much needed amenities to a growing area.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Monday, September 18, 2023 3:04:26 PM
Name
Christina Peregrym
Cperegrym@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Sky crossing
Support Comments
I would love a Trader Joe’s across the street!!’
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Monday, September 18, 2023 4:50:19 AM
Name
Jeanice Ridgway
jeanice@hotmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
2213 E. Monona Dr
Support Comments
We should not need to drive that far to get the things we need. It's a busy corner already with the high
school so it won't change.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Monday, September 18, 2023 10:11:29 AM
Name
David Rucker
azresbroker@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Aviano Desert Ridge
Support Comments
This area is in desperate need of additional shopping. The traffic is way too congested at Tatum and
Deer Valley. It’s also a safety issue for our teens that have to cross Tatum or Deer Valley to get to the
only shopping at Desert Ridge Marketplace. The business revenue for City of Phoenix would be
substantial as multiple businesses are ready to expand to this area. Another grocery anchor is what we
really need. Our options are very limited especially with the expansion off of 56th St. And Deer Valley.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Monday, September 18, 2023 6:27:29 PM
Name
Ron Stilwell
rstilwell9@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Sky Crossing
Support Comments
Yes more choices
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Monday, September 18, 2023 5:14:33 AM
Name
Roland Ward
rmward194@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
3828 E Morning Dove Trail/Aviano
Support Comments
Black Mountain Village is a much needed addition for Desert Ridge residents. Albertsons needs
competition and the current mall is already too congested. I don't shop there because the ingress and
egress are so terrible.
With thousands of new residents coming to Desert Ridge in at least four apartment complexes, new
condos and Talin additional shopping options are absolutely necessary.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Monday, September 18, 2023 5:35:21 PM
Name
Scott Weinberg
scottysair@aol.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
3635 E Zachary Dr
Support Comments
Please build new Fry’s and In N Out Burger, as well as new restaurants.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Monday, September 18, 2023 7:12:09 PM
Name
Shane Zink
shane.j.zink@gmail.com
Support Comments
Put a new grocer in Desert Ridge. Whole Foods or Trader Joe’s would kill here. Don’t listen to the vocal
minority about this.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 12:51:29 PM
Name
Ashley Allen
ashleyallenfit@gmail.com
Support Comments
Please put a grocery store here, with a Starbucks
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 4:13:43 PM
Name
Anna Britt
swedeanna@gmail.com
Support Comments
Its about time! Trader Joe and Sprouts would be great!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 11:19:16 PM
Name
Simental Carolina
csimental@hotmail.com
Support Comments
We need more options on the area. We only have Desert Ridge Mall as option.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 9:43:04 PM
Name
Danielle Coleman
daniellecjacques@msn.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Sky crossing
Support Comments
Desert Ridge marketplace is too congested, would love to have other options
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 8:07:09 AM
Name
Melissa Gitt
melissagitt@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Sky Crossing
Support Comments
We look forward to this potentially happening and appreciate the transparency in your plans.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 8:09:40 AM
Name
Jesse Goldstein
jgoldstein19@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Sky Crossing
Support Comments
We'd like this to happen.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 12:28:44 PM
Name
Jean Kantaros
jkantaros@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Wildcat Ridge
Support Comments
I'd love a grocery store but no stabd alone gas station
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 4:51:34 PM
Name
Sylvia Lind
spawlak0808@gmail.com
Support Comments
Yes we need a grocery store!!! Trader Joe’s please!!!!
There is nothing close by. Albertsons and Costco. Trader Joe’s would be nice.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 8:11:42 AM
Name
Monica Litt
Monicalitt@hotmail.com
Support Comments
We live in Sky Crossing and fully support this project!
A gas station, restaurant, grocery store (would love Trader Joe’s) and a Dutch brothers would be
absolutely amazing!!!!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 4:59:06 PM
Name
Josh Mann
jmann5225@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
23230 N 20TH St
Support Comments
My closest grocery store is desert ridge which is about 12 minutes from my house.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 7:20:31 AM
Name
Don McCaul
ddmccaul1@cox.net
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
3807 E Crest Lane, Phoenix, AZ. 85050
Support Comments
Desert Ridge is exploding in size with no additional retail services. We desperately need an additional
grocery store. Hopefully Vestar will attract Trader Joe’s. Desert Ridge Mall is a transportation nightmare
with poor circulation.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 7:52:42 AM
Name
LM
lauramcintosh5@gmail.com
Support Comments
Trader Joe’s
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 7:47:25 PM
Name
Ben McKeown
buckshanks@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
2521 e paraiso dr
Support Comments
I fully support having more quality grocery options include to my neighborhood.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 6:18:50 PM
Name
Jorge Monroy
jorge.monroy0@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Pinnacle at desert peak
Support Comments
I 100% support more options
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 5:20:08 PM
Name
Marc Pruzansky
mpruzansky@yahoo.com
Support Comments
Albertsons is the only large market in the vicinity. We deserve more options.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 4:29:28 PM
Name
Nathan Rodgers
Iamnatedog@gmail.com
Support Comments
Grocery stores really don’t go north of Bell Road
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Tuesday, September 19, 2023 8:59:49 PM
Name
Connie Tracy
ctracycrna@aol.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Aviano
Support Comments
I support more grocery stores and restaurants and shopping .
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 7:29:41 PM
Name
Kasey Allayeva
kaseyaz1225@yahoo.com
Support Comments
Would like to see Trader Joe’s
Aldi store
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 12:28:52 PM
Name
Sommer Arekat
sommer.arekat@gmail.com
Support Comments
Please bring a Trader Joe’s!!!!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 8:37:06 PM
Name
Natalie Castaneda
ndcastaneda80@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
2725 e. Mine creek rd unit 1030 Phoenix, az 85024
Support Comments
We need in this area more retail shopping and a mall too
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 6:37:07 PM
Name
Beth Field
Bethfield1@hotmail.com
Support Comments
Support more shopping
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 10:54:34 AM
Name
Marta Graziano
deltazeta@cox.net
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Desert Peak
Support Comments
My husband and I would greatly appreciate a grocery store with healthy foods like Sprouts. This area is
becoming too dense with homes and not enough grocery stores to support the families who live here.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 2:53:57 PM
Name
Abigail Hunnicutt
abbyjhunnicutt@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
2029 east dry wood rd Phoenix 85024
Support Comments
Our family would love to have a grocery store closer
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 5:42:35 AM
Name
Devin Kaufman
Dgkaufman3@gmail.com
Support Comments
Supportive
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 4:23:46 PM
Name
Cindy Marquardt
cindymarq@cox.net
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
4831 E Williams Dr., Phx 85054
Support Comments
We need another grocery store in desert ridge
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 6:26:33 PM
Name
Lorenia Ochoa
lorenia_o@hotmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
3416 E Los Gatos Dr.
Support Comments
Yes, it would be beneficial to Sky Crossing!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 10:28:39 PM
Name
Sara Phillips
sjsmx@hotmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
904 E Mohawk Dr
Support Comments
A grocery store such as frys, Trader Joe’s and a cvs or Walgreens would be amazing!!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 2:29:33 PM
Name
Joann Polk
Jopolk@me.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
East side of Tatum and Ranger
Support Comments
I support the need for another grocery store in Desert Ridge.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 6:39:54 PM
Name
VERNON PEREZ RUBIO
vpra@me.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
3416 E Los Gatos Dr
Support Comments
I support comercial center
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 9:13:00 PM
Name
Bonnie Sauer
momtogrif@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Fireside
Support Comments
Yes!!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 10:05:49 AM
Name
Nate Schoenfeld
nathan.schoenfeld@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
3251 E Donald Dr Phoenix 850505, Sky Crossing
Support Comments
This is needed!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 4:17:57 PM
Name
Shirlee Tye
tyeshi67@gmail.com
Support Comments
Trader Joe's would be the perfect size store in that location!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 6:29:46 PM
Name
Sunny Weisbaum
sunnyw@sbcglobal.net
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
4009 E hashknife Rd
Support Comments
We need a Trader Joe’s!!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 4:42:43 PM
Name
Jean Kantaros
jkantaros@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
WildCat Ridge
Support Comments
I'm all for a grocery store. NO to a gas station.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 6:42:47 PM
Name
Michael Charley
mcharle9@asu.edu
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Moon Valley
Support Comments
I support the location as their needs to be a grocery store within desert ridge.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 6:18:51 PM
Name
Crystal Cline
crystal2383@aol.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
21917 N 59th Ter
Support Comments
We would love more grocery store, restaurants and shopping options!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 9:32:19 PM
Name
John DEAN
Johntdean@aol.com
Support Comments
I support a grocer and gas station
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 8:48:50 PM
Name
Sandesh Dev
Sandeshdev1@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Aviano
Support Comments
Grocery store is a positive - Sprouts or Whole Foods would be great
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 6:50:13 PM
Name
Joann Friedman
joannwf@cox.net
Support Comments
I watched Desert Ridge shopping Center being built and was thrilled when Albertson's was completed.
Another market facility would add to desert ridge neighbors choices. I wholeheartedly support this idea
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 6:05:00 PM
Name
Shannon Griffith
Rowharder1@gmail.com
Support Comments
It would be very beneficial to build a Trader Joe’s at Deer Valley Dr and Black Mountain Pkwy. This area
is saturated with customers and shopping. However, having more grocery options gives people more
choices. Having a Trader Joe’s also appeals to a younger audience and is highly desirable.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 7:56:23 PM
Name
Bethany Gunn
bethbaz79@aol.com
Support Comments
Trader Joe’s would be great! That’s all I want. Please put one in.
Thank you
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 7:19:17 PM
Name
Jodi Hoffman
lbux555@aol.com
Support Comments
I live off of Cave Creek right after Deer Valley. The only convenient store is Costco. I dont always need to
buy in bulk. Please place a Fryes near me.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 3:09:37 PM
Name
Jennifer Hopkins
jenay99@aol.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
3941 E Hashknife Rd
Support Comments
This is definitely needed in this area as our options are very limited for how many homes are in the area
versus convenience to a local grocer. This is fully supported.
Thank you!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 6:16:47 PM
Name
Joseph Joaquin
Josephj1299@yahoo.com
Support Comments
It would be good to have a Trader Joe’s at Desert Ridge.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 10:35:42 PM
Name
Samalie Kahunde
samaliek@yahoo.com
Support Comments
To begin with, the proposed development will be closer to where our family lives than Desert Ridge
Marketplace. Sometimes, one just needs to make a really quick dash to the store to make a much-
needed quick family dinner, when running late.
I also appreciate the Fuel Station - again for the convenience of proximity when one needs to get the kids
to school or get oneself to work.
If the following stores (Trader Joe’s, Whole Foods, Fry’s, Sprouts or Safeway) were brought closer to the
Desert Ridge residences, it would be a big plus as we usually travel little longer to one of their locations.
In summary, proximity, quality and variety of options, are key for my family and I.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 12:21:07 PM
Name
Debra Kruszalnicki
dsbeerrn99@aol.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Sky Crossing
Support Comments
Sprouts please
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 2:15:29 PM
Name
Cindy Lien
cindyrocketonline@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Mountain Gate
Support Comments
The Albertsons parking lot drivers are just rude and awful and drive like they are above the laws of traffic.
Need more alternatives.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 9:53:56 PM
Name
Diane McCaul
ddmccaul1@gmail.com
Support Comments
Would love to see a Trader Joe’s or a Sprouts at this location.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 10:46:09 PM
Name
Klara McClellan
Klara.mcclellan@hotmail.com
Support Comments
I would love to see Trader Joe's there
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 6:34:54 PM
Name
Whitney Murto
whitneymurto@gmail.com
Support Comments
Trader joes
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 6:55:08 PM
Name
Neal Dubey
neal.dubey@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
22313 N 36th Street
Support Comments
I would love a neighborhood shopping center catering to the local community as getting in and out of
Desert Ridge Marketplace can be quite congested. I prefer a smaller grocery store like a Trader Joe's
over a larger store like Fry's. I am opposed to having a gas station in station the complex. Based on my
discussions with people in the community if the shopping center had Trader Joe's and no gas station
more people would support the development.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 9:03:50 PM
Name
Michelle Nordmann
normoyle@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
23009 North 23rd Place
Support Comments
Would appreciate another spot to shop. Desert ridge is impossible
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 6:11:39 PM
Name
Jaimee Pascale
bklyndevil24@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
23825 N 25th way
Support Comments
It would be much closer for us
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 6:10:44 PM
Name
Anne Pauli
Paulifamily@hotmail.com
Support Comments
TRADER JOES!!! We need one in our area!!!!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 7:32:29 PM
Name
Mary Petty
smspetty2006@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Sky Crossing
Support Comments
I would love to have a Sprouts grocery store nearby. The second choice would be Trader Joe's. I have to
drive a ways to get to the nearest Sprouts store. I would love to have access to both the Albertsons we
have and adding a Sprouts nearby.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 7:11:42 PM
Name
Raymond Rita
raymond3213@hotmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Sky crossing.
Support Comments
I love this idea and have been waiting for news on its development.
Going to desert ridge marketplace is a pain in the butt for the essentials, it will be nice to have a place
that is much closer. It’s a huge win for people who want to bike and walk too.
I think the developers can secure a big win if they scrap the gas station idea. I also think having a left
hand turn option on 34th street would be a big win.
I also think you should include more studies on how convenient/walkable areas like this improve properly
values.
Many of the naysayers also site traffic, however for most residents of SC it’s a net win since they will
drive less to DRM. The safety concerns are also silly cuz there’s already traffic, and the new
improvements will actually make it safer.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 6:24:11 PM
Name
Sophia Rizk
sophia_rizk@yahoo.fr
Support Comments
A Trader Joe’s would be great in the neighborhood.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 9:40:00 AM
Name
David Roth
lancets.bearded.0v@icloud.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Sky Crossing Neighborhood
Support Comments
We fully support development at Deer Valley & Black Mountain Blvd. Desert Ridge can be extremely
busy with traffic in that area, so it would be nice to have other shopping options closer to our home in Sky
Crossing.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 6:26:26 PM
Name
Marjorie Schnell
ms.margieschnell@yahoo.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
39726 N MESSNER WAY
Support Comments
Would love a Trader Joe's or While Foods at Desert Ridge, perfect size and variety of food different from
the many Frys and Sageways we have around. Thank you!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 8:01:21 PM
Name
Kassie Shirey
kassie.shirey@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
2517 E. Paraiso Dr
Support Comments
A neighborhood Sprouts or Trader Joe’s would be wonderful!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 6:39:34 PM
Name
Elissa Silber
gemsilber@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
5867 E Tierra Buena Ln
Support Comments
I would like a Trader Joe’s, or a Sprouts to go on there.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 6:24:59 PM
Name
Cynthia Sowa
clusowa@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
23319 N 44TH PL
Support Comments
Trader Joe's would be great!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 7:18:45 PM
Name
Scott Starr
rltycheck@aol.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Aviano
Support Comments
Thai would be a great addition.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 8:29:06 PM
Name
April Storey
azstorey@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Mountain Gate Pass
Support Comments
Trader Joe’s!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 6:39:37 PM
Name
Elena Tager
elenatager@yahoo.com
Support Comments
We support.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 6:00:15 PM
Name
Juli Thompson
Julesnrs@gmail.com
Support Comments
Yes, I vote for Whole Foods and a trader Joe’s
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 7:57:47 PM
Name
Morgan Troutman
morgan.troutman8700@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
12802 N 23RD ST
Support Comments
I support the proposal of a new grocer in the desert ridge area... preferably Fry's.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 6:03:56 PM
Name
Amber Vercelline
amber.rhodes.rn@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Tatum Manor
Support Comments
Agree with grocery store. Would love Trader Joe’s
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 5:58:52 PM
Name
chris waranch
cwaranch@gmail.com
Support Comments
Would appreciate a new grocery store in this location
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 7:18:11 PM
Name
John Zatarski
jzatarski@hotmail.com
Support Comments
YES - We need another Grocery Store !
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 21, 2023 10:25:29 PM
Name
Mike Albers
MikeAlbers23@gmail.com
Support Comments
Huge NO for gas of any kind.
Yes Trader Joe's or Whole Foods.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Friday, September 22, 2023 12:07:37 PM
Name
David Ashkuri
davidashkuri@yahoo.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
3514 E Utopia Rd.
Support Comments
We would love to see either a traders joe’s
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Friday, September 22, 2023 2:21:51 PM
Name
Tony Baldwin
Avalosoul@live.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Aviano
Support Comments
Trader joes please
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Friday, September 22, 2023 11:36:27 AM
Name
Samantha Bednarz
samiebednarz@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
4616 E Desert Cactus St
Support Comments
This area absolutely needs a Sprouts!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Friday, September 22, 2023 8:25:47 AM
Name
Kimberly Bocchi
kimberly.a.bocchi@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Sky crossing
Support Comments
Such a great use of the land over here!!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Friday, September 22, 2023 10:03:27 PM
Name
Amanda Brockbank
Brockbankamanda16@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Boulder creek at desert foothills subdivision
Support Comments
I think this proposed plan adds value and convenience to the north Phoenix area. With the growing
number of houses going up and no new stores, especially grocery, going up, this will be a positive and
impactful addition to our neighborhood. We don’t want more houses or apartments crammed together.
We want something that will actually be of use in the day to day life.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Friday, September 22, 2023 10:11:14 AM
Name
Susan Cotner
sccotner@hotmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
23650 N. 22nd St.
Support Comments
As senior living in the area, having a new neighborhood grocery store would help me to age in place in
my current home. Currently I live more than 5 miles away from any grocery store.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Friday, September 22, 2023 7:32:55 AM
Name
Kimberly Fabrycki
kimberlyfabrycki@hotmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
3222 E Bryce Ln
Support Comments
Trader Joe’s please .
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Friday, September 22, 2023 1:09:18 PM
Name
Sara Grasteit
sarajuneco@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Aviano
Support Comments
Please make it a Trader Joe’s!!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Friday, September 22, 2023 12:55:08 AM
Name
kevin jerrett
krjerrett@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
5350 6 deer valley drive
Support Comments
Hope its a frys
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Friday, September 22, 2023 12:44:20 PM
Name
PG Lakshminarayan
plakshman@rocketmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Aviani
Support Comments
Support mini grocer like trader joe or sprouts...
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Friday, September 22, 2023 6:32:26 AM
Name
David Larcher
Dlarcher@vestar.com
Support Comments
Go for it
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Friday, September 22, 2023 9:53:48 AM
Name
Sarah Larocca
sarahdeelo@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
3984 E Scout Pass
Support Comments
We need a healthy, organic grocery store that is local.
From: Michelle Santoro
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: FW: Support for Black Mountain Village Project
Date: Friday, September 22, 2023 11:33:04 AM
-----Original Message-----
From: Aaron Lloyd
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2023 11:21 AM
To: anthony.grande@phoenix.gov
Cc: Michelle Santoro
Subject: Support for Black Mountain Village Project
Mr. Grande,
I will not be able to attend the meeting on October 3 but write to provide my strong support for the Black Mountain
Village rezoning project. As a homeowner in the Sky Crossing community I view this project favorably. It will be a
good use of the land and provide homeowners in the surrounding neighborhoods with options not found in the
immediate vicinity. I would much prefer a commercial rezoning to a multi family project and believe those opposed
may be not realizing other potential and less favorable uses for the land.
As a former member of the PV Village Planning Committee, this project has my full support, and I urge the
committee to vote to approve on October 3.
Thanks,
Aaron Lloyd
Sent from my iPhone
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Friday, September 22, 2023 11:10:41 AM
Name
Aaron Lloyd
aarontlloyd@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
21926 N 29th St
Support Comments
Hello,
I strongly support this project as a neighbor in the Sky Crossing community. I believe the project will be
an asset to the neighboring communities, provide additional services not found in the immediate
neighborhood, and be a good use of the land. I strongly recommend that the planning committee approve
the project at the upcoming meeting!
Thanks,
Aaron Lloyd
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Friday, September 22, 2023 4:10:08 PM
Name
Thomas Mosmeyer
thomasmosmeyer@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
4514 E Weaver Road
Support Comments
The ability to walk to a grocer can greatly reduce the traffic strain that is clearly obvious in front of Desert
Ridge Marketplace. The more walkable the surrounding neighborhoods, the cheaper and less deleterious
the use of cars becomes.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Friday, September 22, 2023 1:02:47 PM
Name
Charles Pawlak
charlespawlak@cox.net
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Aviano
Support Comments
A grocery store is badly needed and the Desert Ridge area with all the new apartments and homes being
built and only Albertsons available within a few miles. I totally support a grocery store at the southwest
corner of Deer Valley and Black Mountain
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Friday, September 22, 2023 7:34:01 AM
Name
Nikki Reiter
nikkijean6@yahoo.com
Support Comments
Trader Joe’s would kill it up in this neighborhood! We have to travel all the way down to tatum and shea
or get overwhelmed at the FLW location. Also a full sized Sprouts or ALDIs would be nice.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Friday, September 22, 2023 12:23:46 AM
Name
Gianna Schneider
ggbella12@gmail.com
Support Comments
Trader joe’s!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Friday, September 22, 2023 7:52:48 PM
Name
Sylvia Sebescu
silvip3@yahoo.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
23222 N. 41 st Street, Phoenix 85050
Support Comments
We need grocery store in our neighborhood.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Friday, September 22, 2023 10:17:31 AM
Name
Will Shirey
wtshirey@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
2517 E. Paraiso Dr.
Support Comments
I support this initiative. We need more fuel and groceries in this area. Prefer Sprouts or Trader Joe’s as
first choice. Fry’s second choice.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Friday, September 22, 2023 3:20:20 PM
Name
Jennifer Ulrich
jenbulrich@yahoo.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Stone Butte
Support Comments
We need closer shopping and restaurant options
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Friday, September 22, 2023 8:13:18 AM
Name
Rohit Vir
rohitvir@hotmail.com
Support Comments
Love the idea
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Saturday, September 23, 2023 12:01:03 PM
Name
Ariela Acuna
Acunaariela@gmail.com
Support Comments
We really need more stores near our neighborhood as there isn’t much around and other stores such as
desert ridge are becoming super crowded.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Saturday, September 23, 2023 9:37:09 AM
Name
David Allayev
davidallayev5@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
3843 e expedition way
Support Comments
This would be great for the neighborhood
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Saturday, September 23, 2023 10:15:32 AM
Name
Karla Grajeda
Karlaplacido_96@hotmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
23555 n desert peak parkway Phoenix Arizona 85024
Support Comments
Give us a Trader Joe’s and Whole Foods
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Saturday, September 23, 2023 5:34:53 PM
Name
Ginny Komlos
ginnykomlos@gmail.com
Support Comments
We need a new supermarket and gas station in the Deer Valley/Black Mountain
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Saturday, September 23, 2023 11:05:11 AM
Name
Greg Kraus
greg.kraus@datadvisors.com
Support Comments
Can’t wait
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Saturday, September 23, 2023 8:08:31 AM
Name
Lama Mattar
lama.mattar@hotmail.com
Support Comments
Such a great idea !!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Saturday, September 23, 2023 9:16:56 AM
Name
Terrie Miller
tmiller855@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
5350 E Deer Valley Dr
Support Comments
We need another grocery option as well as dining in this area.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Saturday, September 23, 2023 1:04:05 PM
Name
Shaun Kelley
sh4unz0r@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Sky Crossing
Support Comments
My support for this development is contingent upon 3 things:
1. Grocer is guaranteed to be Sprouts, Whole Foods, or AJ's
2. No gas station, given the above grocers don't do accessory stations.
3. Lighting plan is implemented to be similar to lights at the Shops at Gainey Village.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Saturday, September 23, 2023 2:03:22 PM
Name
Jennifer Padgett
Jcwiltse3@yahoo.com
Support Comments
Trader Joe’s!!!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Saturday, September 23, 2023 10:46:54 AM
Name
Kaci Peregrym
kaciperegrym@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
3253 E Pike St
Support Comments
n/a
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Saturday, September 23, 2023 9:50:49 AM
Name
Gloria Poppa
gjpoppa@yahoo.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
5450 E Deer Valley Dr. #4211 Phoenix AZ 8505
Support Comments
LOVE IT!!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Saturday, September 23, 2023 6:20:40 AM
Name
Xiomara Pravong
xpravong@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
18618 N 34th Pl
Support Comments
Trader Joe’s please
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Saturday, September 23, 2023 8:24:20 AM
Name
Marisa Sanchez
Marisatsanchez@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Desert Peak
Support Comments
We’d like to see a Whole Foods or Sprouts put in. It’s a long drive to either of these places. Or even a
Natural Grocers or Trader Joe’s.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Sunday, September 24, 2023 12:05:30 PM
Name
Joyce Carlberg
carlberg_az@msn.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Sky Crossing
Support Comments
We are in favor
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Sunday, September 24, 2023 7:00:37 PM
Name
Beth Dahl
bethdahl@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Cachet at Peakview
Support Comments
I lived in Aviano and Fireside for 8 years. I would have loved this center a mile from
My house
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Sunday, September 24, 2023 8:21:29 PM
Name
Dianne Moore
dianneishappy@gmail.com
Support Comments
I would be interested in a Trader Joe’s. Is that a possibility?
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Sunday, September 24, 2023 8:01:25 PM
Name
Al Mercado
azalbert@cox.net
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Aviano
Support Comments
Please only speciality high-quality markets like Trader Joe’s, Whole Foods, Fry’s, Sprouts. Please NOT
Frys or Safeway!!!
And surrounded by small retail stores = ok, but NO fuel station please!!!!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Sunday, September 24, 2023 10:23:43 AM
Name
Donald Pearman
1fantasea@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
PO Box 5155 Carefree AZ 85377
Support Comments
I would like the facility (s) to exist. Please help make it happen
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Sunday, September 24, 2023 6:59:13 AM
Name
Victoria Pearman
Twobeadorknot@yahoo.com
Support Comments
I would love to see a Trader Joe’s or something similar in that area. I support Desert Ridge’s idea to build
another grocery. I would definitely use it when in the area.
From: Dan Oseran
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Support(ish) for Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12
Date: Sunday, September 24, 2023 10:56:17 PM
Hi,
I know you are probably inundated with notes about the development on BMB and Deer Valley. Thank you for
taking the time to consider all of the suggestions.
I support a form of development with limitations. I would strongly support a C-1 designation (rather than the
proposed c-2) with no gas stations or fast food drive through pads. I support a true neighborhood community
commercial development.
The area immediately surrounding this parcel has homes worth over a million dollars and I think Vestar made a
tactical error by trying to build too much on the property. The current proposal isn’t aligned with the ‘feeling’ of the
immediately surrounding neighborhood, which is quieter, more residential, and further from the Desert Ridge core.
If a more modest commercial development was proposed, I think it could make a positive difference in the
community and be better received.
Thank you again,
Dan Oseran
From: Mandi Fleming
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Fireside at Desert Ridge - Superblock 12 Rezoning Amendment Requests
Date: Monday, September 25, 2023 11:18:59 AM
Dear Mr. Grande,
This communication is to inform you that as homeowners at Fireside Desert Ridge, my
husband, Tom, and I are in favor of the proposed rezoning requests. You will find the case
numbers associated with this proposal below:
Case No. SPA-DS1 V-2-23-2
Case No. CPA-DSTV-3-23-2
Case No. 1-39-23
Warm Regards,
Mandi and Tom Fleming
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Monday, September 25, 2023 9:40:42 AM
Name
Ana Keller
Anarygi@cox.net
Support Comments
I will strongly support a Trader Joe’s store .
We don’t have any of those close by and I’m sure it will be the best since we have 3 other ones you
mention already and close by too .
Thank you !
Ana Keller
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Monday, September 25, 2023 10:26:01 AM
Name
Alexandra Lusk
alusk482@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Desert ridge
Support Comments
Trader Joe’s. I’m all in. Sprouts. For sure.
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Monday, September 25, 2023 4:23:22 PM
Name
Paul Marazzo
amarazzo@arrowheadbmw.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Sky crossing
Support Comments
Sounds great! Better than building apartments!
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Monday, September 25, 2023 9:05:32 AM
Name
Shelly Palmer
shellypalmerrd@gmail.com
Support Comments
I would support a Trader Joe’s or Whole Foods
SUPPORT FOR NEW GROCER AT DEER VALLEY ROAD AND BLACK MOUNTAIN BOULEVARD
Name City State Postal Code Country Signed On
New Grocer US 9/1/2023
David Larcher Brooklyn NY 11249 US 9/4/2023
Yvette Mayo Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/6/2023
Bob Mayo Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/6/2023
Stephanie Garcia Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/6/2023
Susan Hweimel Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/6/2023
Christine McNeal Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/6/2023
Monica Pereira-Guana Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/6/2023
Chris Cross Phoenix AZ 85016 US 9/6/2023
Kiersten Pace Phoenix AZ 85017 US 9/6/2023
Mary Downing Clifton CO 81520 US 9/6/2023
Sandy Summers Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/6/2023
Cheryl Wadina Phoenix AZ 85024 US 9/6/2023
Lina Chua Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/6/2023
Jill Blair Phoenix AZ 85085 US 9/6/2023
Skeleton Key Los AngelesCA US 9/6/2023
Michael Vittorio Chicago 97603 US 9/6/2023
Nancy Thompson Kennesaw 30152 US 9/6/2023
Jon Inwood Brooklyn NY 1123 US 9/6/2023
Alix Cassagnol Watertown 13601 US 9/6/2023
Daniel O'Brien MILTON 12547 US 9/6/2023
Preston Towne Burlington 52601 US 9/6/2023
Arya Albritton Terre Haute 47802 US 9/6/2023
Chloe Carlton Peoria 61604 US 9/6/2023
Kieth Bryant Seattle 98118 US 9/6/2023
Shane White Kansas City 66101 US 9/6/2023
Mackenzie Griswold Irving 75063 US 9/6/2023
Max Mildebrandt US 9/6/2023
Aja Smith Norristown 19401 US 9/6/2023
Miala Wilkerson Atlanta 30315 US 9/6/2023
Gedion Yemane Los Angeles 90016 US 9/6/2023
Michael Keith Cincinnati 45239 US 9/6/2023
Frehiwot Gezahegn Hayward 94544 US 9/6/2023
Catherine Kenyon La Quinta 92253 US 9/6/2023
Andrew Floyd US 9/6/2023
Viviana Sanchez Jamaica Plain 2130 US 9/6/2023
lyssy howard Annapolis 21403 US 9/6/2023
Liliana Martinez Caldwell 83605 US 9/6/2023
Ivory Murphy Asbury Park 7712 US 9/6/2023
Trukessa Ussery Hampton 30228 US 9/6/2023
Cynthia Ervin Winston-salem 27105 US 9/6/2023
Mia Helmick Dearborn 48126 US 9/6/2023
Sennait Misghinna Wylie 75098 US 9/6/2023
SUPPORT FOR NEW GROCER AT DEER VALLEY ROAD AND BLACK MOUNTAIN BOULEVARD
Melissa Winner Phoenix AZ 85024 US 9/6/2023
Ann Jankes Phoenix AZ 85054 US 9/6/2023
Lisa Andreas Phoenix AZ 85016 US 9/6/2023
Debbie Merrick Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/6/2023
Gary Lawrence Phoenix AZ 85040 US 9/7/2023
Deirdre Menchaca Hyannis MA 2601 US 9/7/2023
Melanie Stone Phoenix AZ 85024 US 9/7/2023
Carol Ditmore Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/7/2023
Martina McConnon Phoenix AZ 85080 US 9/7/2023
Moon Knight Los AngelesCA US 9/8/2023
Sheena Lamon Phoenix AZ 85024 US 9/11/2023
Christopher Lamon Phoenix AZ 85008 US 9/11/2023
Diane Diamond Phoenix AZ 85024 US 9/11/2023
Shannon Garman Phoenix AZ 85036 US 9/11/2023
Chantelle Sabbath Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/11/2023
Jenna Huffman Phoenix AZ 85024 US 9/11/2023
Robert Caccamo Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/11/2023
Lina Senia Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/11/2023
Susan Cheeseman Phoenix AZ 85024 US 9/11/2023
Beth levine Phoenix AZ 85015 US 9/11/2023
Jamie Bush Phoenix AZ 85003 US 9/11/2023
Sonita W. Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/11/2023
Ginny Komlos Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/11/2023
Christine Nard Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/11/2023
Don Crosby Phoenix AZ 85008 US 9/11/2023
Susan Almanza Phoenix AZ 85059 US 9/11/2023
Angela Marnell Phoenix AZ 85024 US 9/11/2023
Karen Flaherty Phoenix AZ 85063 US 9/11/2023
Rita Onofrio Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/11/2023
Rebeka Bauer Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/11/2023
Juliana Fisher Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/12/2023
Sharon Levy Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/12/2023
Susan Nerheim Phoenix AZ 85024 US 9/12/2023
Maria Elizabeth Rodriguez Phoenix AZ 85022 US 9/12/2023
Sarah Levine Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/12/2023
Jodi Lavin Phoenix AZ 85024 US 9/12/2023
Patrice Kimmerle Phoenix AZ 85003 US 9/12/2023
Betsy Studer Phoenix AZ 85009 US 9/12/2023
Mohan Paredla Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/12/2023
Sri Ben Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/12/2023
Hamsa Srinivasan Phoenix AZ 85080 US 9/12/2023
Sunil K Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/12/2023
Sananda Saha Phoenix AZ 85041 US 9/12/2023
Jamie Bessler Phoenix AZ 85014 US 9/12/2023
Shachindra Pandey Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/12/2023
SUPPORT FOR NEW GROCER AT DEER VALLEY ROAD AND BLACK MOUNTAIN BOULEVARD
Divya Kutty Phoenix AZ 85024 US 9/12/2023
Kingshuk Choudhary San Dimas CA 91773 US 9/12/2023
Neil Hoffman Phoenix AZ 85024 US 9/12/2023
Colleen Widdows Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/12/2023
Barbara Welch Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/12/2023
Kirstin Robinson Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/12/2023
Kathy Petersen Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/12/2023
aaron brock HOWELL 48843 US 9/12/2023
G. Diane Matthews-Marcelin Carson 90746 US 9/12/2023
Javier Chacin Memphis 38112 US 9/12/2023
Christina Rago Cave Creek AZ 85331 US 9/12/2023
barbara coyle San Antonio 78234 US 9/12/2023
Christopher Bean US 9/12/2023
Mary Ursaki Portland 97206 US 9/12/2023
Stephen Roan Baton Rouge 70807 US 9/12/2023
Cody teawitch Castle Rock 80109 US 9/12/2023
natalie thornhill Charleston 25312 US 9/12/2023
Jonna Parker Phoenix AZ 85024 US 9/12/2023
Niko D-R US 9/12/2023
natalie Thornhill Elkview 25071 US 9/12/2023
Jaslyn Ruvalcaba Aurora 80010 US 9/12/2023
Zach Pemberton Santa Rosa 95404 US 9/12/2023
Diana Brown San Bernardino 92410 US 9/12/2023
Cathie Andresen Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/12/2023
Kristin Peterson Scottsdale AZ 85261 US 9/12/2023
Julie Greenberg Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/12/2023
Alysson Zatarga Phoenix AZ 85004 US 9/12/2023
Sarah Williford Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/12/2023
Daliah Meirovits Phoenix AZ 85006 US 9/12/2023
Liz DAnna Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/12/2023
Carrie Cummings Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/12/2023
Julie Peterson Phoenix AZ 85041 US 9/12/2023
Nancy Ackel Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/12/2023
Tony D’Anna Phoenix AZ 85041 US 9/12/2023
Elena Tager Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/12/2023
Sk V Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/12/2023
Carole Fields Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/12/2023
Stephanie Gustafson Phoenix AZ 85041 US 9/12/2023
William Getz Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/12/2023
Karenlee Thorpe Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/12/2023
Joann BEVERLY Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/12/2023
David Binkley Phoenix AZ 85024 US 9/12/2023
Sidney Mae Phoenix AZ 85024 US 9/12/2023
Gillian Fallas Phoenix AZ 85024 US 9/12/2023
Olivia Filippone Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/12/2023
SUPPORT FOR NEW GROCER AT DEER VALLEY ROAD AND BLACK MOUNTAIN BOULEVARD
Dinesh Chintalapuri Phoenix AZ 85024 US 9/12/2023
Jenny Araujo Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/12/2023
Abhishek Saxena Phoenix AZ 85024 US 9/12/2023
Robin Berning Phoenix AZ 85006 US 9/12/2023
Jen Silverberg Phoenix AZ 85024 US 9/12/2023
Sheila Hansen Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/12/2023
Tamara Hajja Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/12/2023
Shalimar Marshall Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/12/2023
Leah Mondlick New York NY 10038 US 9/12/2023
Michele Briggs Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/12/2023
Laurie Thrasher Phoenix AZ 85024 US 9/12/2023
Johnston Melanie Phoenix AZ 85012 US 9/12/2023
Noel Ortiz Phoenix AZ 85004 US 9/12/2023
Michele Sonkin Phoenix AZ 85068 US 9/12/2023
James Patterson Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/12/2023
Keaira Tighe Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/12/2023
Geoff Rubin Phoenix AZ 85024 US 9/12/2023
Kate Fleming Phoenix AZ 85025 US 9/12/2023
Courtney Strittmater Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/12/2023
Crystal Alix Phoenix AZ 85041 US 9/12/2023
Irish Shay Phoenix AZ 85041 US 9/12/2023
Natalie Monjoin Phoenix AZ 85041 US 9/12/2023
Navneet Bhatnagar Phoenix AZ 85080 US 9/12/2023
Monika Saxena Phoenix AZ 85036 US 9/12/2023
Victoria Zacchini Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/12/2023
Adam Polson Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/12/2023
Shilpi Gupta Phoenix AZ 85024 US 9/12/2023
Lavanya Juttukonda Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/12/2023
Shane Zink Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/12/2023
Annabel Rimmer Phoenix AZ 85020 US 9/12/2023
Chris Sinclair Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/12/2023
Abhilasha Kapur Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/12/2023
James Watson Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/12/2023
Nancy Thomas Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/12/2023
Praveen avuthu Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/12/2023
Chris Collins Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/12/2023
Derek Geisinger Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/12/2023
Lauren Barbaruolo Phoenix AZ 85016 US 9/12/2023
Christina Peregrym Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/12/2023
Meredith Blythe Phoenix AZ 85013 US 9/12/2023
Keith Maclaren Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/12/2023
Carrie Laliberte Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/12/2023
Jennifer Kovacik Scottsdale AZ 85254 US 9/12/2023
Meredith Edling Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/12/2023
Richa Sharma Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/12/2023
SUPPORT FOR NEW GROCER AT DEER VALLEY ROAD AND BLACK MOUNTAIN BOULEVARD
Audrey Somers Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/12/2023
Preston Spriggel Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/12/2023
Dipti Dravid Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/12/2023
Katie Ray Phoenix AZ 85016 US 9/12/2023
Cici Martin Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/12/2023
Nathan Goldberg Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/12/2023
Lavanya Vinjamuri Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/12/2023
Brooke chez Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/12/2023
Yana Dashevsky Phoenix AZ 85007 US 9/12/2023
Joshua Hope Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/12/2023
Tanner Davis Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/12/2023
Brianne Fischer Collierville 38017 US 9/12/2023
Neal Dubey Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/12/2023
Shivani Dubey Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/12/2023
Robert Fierros Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/12/2023
Josh Schweser Phoenix AZ 85041 US 9/12/2023
Leslie German Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/13/2023
Heather Noble Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/13/2023
Annie Maiden-Hope Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/13/2023
David Wallace Phoenix AZ 85006 US 9/13/2023
Jodie Koltes Phoenix AZ 85004 US 9/13/2023
Brad Otoupalik Phoenix AZ 85027 US 9/13/2023
Susan Tinsley San Diego CA 92101 US 9/13/2023
Brian Sevchik Phoenix AZ 85015 US 9/13/2023
David M Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/14/2023
Chrissy Seibel Phoenix AZ 85013 US 9/14/2023
Raymond Rita Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/14/2023
Ivy Bryan Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/14/2023
Jordan Sandler Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/15/2023
Scott Corwin Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/15/2023
Sean Morgan Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/15/2023
Monica Litt Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/15/2023
Melissa Gitt Phoenix AZ 85036 US 9/15/2023
Vanessa Corwin Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/15/2023
Morgan Bircher Phoenix AZ 85041 US 9/16/2023
Pratiba Rachamalla Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/16/2023
Mark Sidorenkov Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/17/2023
Erin Reese Phoenix AZ 85008 US 9/17/2023
Bob Hamer Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/17/2023
CJ Wren Phoenix AZ 85024 US 9/17/2023
Lorraine Roberts Rocky Poin NC 28457 US 9/17/2023
Shyamsharan Prajapati Phoenix AZ 85001 US 9/18/2023
Jaiden Dubey Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/22/2023
Shweta ghumre Phoenix AZ 85050 US 9/22/2023
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Monday, September 25, 2023 1:09:13 AM
Name
Emily Schaefer
emily.schaefer@me.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
Tatum Village
Support Comments
Support of sprouts or Safeway
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Monday, September 25, 2023 6:02:40 PM
Name
Fan Wu
wufan1026@gmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
4723 E Parkside Ln
Support Comments
I am writing the comments below to support Vestar’s proposal to develop the 20.5 acres of Property
located at the southwest corner of Deer Valley Drive and Black Mountain Parkway as a retail shopping
center called Black Mountain Village.
I believed the new grocery store will have the following benefit:
1.Local Economic Growth
2.Convenience and Accessibility
3.Community Gathering Place
4.Environmental Sustainability
From: mjb cartof.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: FW: Review & Comment on General Plan Amendment in the Desert View Village (GPA-DSTV-2-23-2 & GPA-DSTV-
3-23-2)
Date: Tuesday, July 4, 2023 12:17:10 PM
Attachments: image002.png
GPA-DSTV-2-23-2.pdf
GPA-DSTV-3-23-2.pdf
Anthony—
It amazes me that the applicant would want to put in a shopping center of that magnitude only 2.5
miles from Desert Ridge. Why isn’t the currently designated 2-5 du/ac housing more important
than changing the General Plan to provide Commercial?
Marcia Busching
From: Geno Koman [mailto:geno.koman@phoenix.gov]
Sent: Monday, July 3, 2023 3:11 PM
Cc: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Review & Comment on General Plan Amendment in the Desert View Village (GPA-DSTV-2-
23-2 & GPA-DSTV-3-23-2)
Attached for your review is an amendment to the General Plan for Phoenix that has
been filed:
DESERT VIEW VILLAGE
Application GPA-DSTV-2-23-2 at the southwest Corner of Black Mountain Boulevard
and Deer Valley Drive. Request for a Map Amendment to change the General Plan
land use designation on approximately 20.5 acres from Residential 2-5 du/acre (20.5
acres) to Commercial (20.5 acres) to allow commercial land uses.
Application GPA-DSTV-3-23-2 at the southwest Corner of Black Mountain Boulevard
and Deer Valley Drive. Request for an amendment to the Desert Ridge Specific Plan
Section 6.C.5, Superblock 12, Parcel 12.L.
These applications are proceeding concurrently with a rezoning request (Z-39-23-2)
for the same property, approximately 20.5 acres from S-1 (Approved R1-6 and R-2) to
C-2 to allow a commercial shopping center.
Please forward your comments prior to August 22, 2023 to:
Anthony Grande
Village Planner
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor
Phoenix, AZ 85003-1611
602-256-5648
anthony.grande@phoenix.gov
Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact the Planning &
Development Department at 602-262-7811.
Thank you,
Geno Koman
Secretary II
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
Phone: 602-495-2076
geno.koman@phoenix.gov
From: Paul Bierbusse
To: Anthony M Grande
Cc: Council District 2 PCC; marybierbusse@gmail.com
Subject: Input re: requested rezoning E. Deer Valley Dr/Black Mountain Blvd near Pinnacle High School
Date: Monday, August 14, 2023 5:05:46 AM
To: Anthony Grande, Planner, City of Phoenix Planning & Development Department
Cc: Mr. Jim Warring, Councilman – District 2, City of Phoenix
Good morning gentlemen,
My wife, Mary, and I recently purchased a home in the Sky Crossing neighborhood immediately
north of the proposed rezoning on E. Deer Valley Drive and Black Mountain Boulevard near Pinnacle
High School (Desert View Village GPA-DSTV-2-23-2). We are excited to become active members of
the community and have been impressed by how the City of Phoenix has thoughtfully managed
development. We understand that the proposed rezoning transitions the parcel from residential to
commercial, and while we don’t object to the rezoning of the parcel we do have a number of
significant concerns.
First, we understand that proposed development plans include the construction of a gas station on
part of the parcel – we would like to express our strongest reservations as to the inclusion of a gas
station within the final plan given the traffic it is likely to draw, the likely extended hours of
operations including intrusive late-night lighting in the area, and the environmental impact. There
are nearby stations located both at E. Deer Valley Drive/Cave Creek and at E. Deer Valley
Drive/Tatum which should more than suffice to address local demand.
Second, the area already deals with significant traffic challenges associated with ingress/egress to
Pinnacle High School. Any rezoning and associated development should be coordinated with the
traffic needs of the high school both to mitigate impact to overall traffic flow and to enhance safety
in a high traffic area. As development continues north of our community, confident that the AZ-51
access point will only see increased traffic volume – plans should be made to address not only
existing traffic due to the high school but increased traffic due to the proposed redevelopment.
Third, we have been made aware of increased random acts of violence associated with late night
hours at Desert Ridge Marketplace and we don’t wish to see those issues brought closer to our
community. Should the rezoning be approved, we would ask that conditions be placed on the hours
of operations for tenants to minimize late night traffic to the property (preferably no later than 9pm)
and that coordination be pursued with the City of Phoenix Police Department to ensure appropriate
police resources are dedicated to the area.
We understand the importance of continued development across Phoenix and believe that
reasonable accommodations can be made that both permit development while addressing resident
concerns. Thank you for providing us the opportunity to voice our concerns.
Warmest regards,
Paul & Mary Bierbusse
2922 E. Robin Lane
Phoenix, AZ 85050
Any tax advice in this e-mail should be considered in the context of the tax services we are
providing to you. Preliminary tax advice should not be relied upon and may be insufficient for
penalty protection.
________________________________________________________________________
The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential and protected
from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or
agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If
you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to
the message and deleting it from your computer.
Notice required by law: This e-mail may constitute an advertisement or solicitation under U.S.
law, if its primary purpose is to advertise or promote a commercial product or service. You
may choose not to receive advertising and promotional messages from Ernst & Young LLP
(except for My EY, which tracks e-mail preferences through a separate process) at this e-mail
address by opting out of emails through EY’s Email Preference Center [ey.com]. Our principal
postal address is One Manhattan West, New York, NY 10001. Thank you. Ernst & Young
LLP
From: website@gblaw.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Wednesday, August 23, 2023 7:26:32 AM
Name
RICHARD STARR
rtstarraz@hotmail.com
Address / Neighborhood (Optional)
FIRESIDE
Support Comments
There is an existing parking problem at Pinnacle HS that needs to be solved before the development of
retail center. At 6pm last night, there were 200 overflow cars in desert on future retail center site. AZ
State Land, PVUSD and possibly retail developer need to solve problem first. Perhaps retail center
purchases extra 5 acres and delivers to PVUSD west of retail?
From: website@gblaw.com
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: New Support for Vestar"s Black Mountain Village / Superblock 12 Proposal
Date: Sunday, September 17, 2023 3:34:20 PM
Name
Susan Babendure
susiebabendure@gmail.com
Support Comments
Need to know info
ATTACHMENT C
ADDENDUM A
Staff Report: Z-39-23-2
September 20, 2024
Desert View Village Planning October 3, 2023
Committee Hearing Date: October 1, 2024
Planning Commission Hearing Date: November 2, 2023
January 4, 2024
November 7, 2024
Request From: S-1 DRSP (Approved R1-6 DRSP) (Ranch
or Farm Residence, Desert Ridge Specific
Plan) (Approved Single-Family Residence
District, Desert Ridge Specific Plan) (1.71
acres)
S-1 DRSP (Approved R-2 DRSP) (Ranch or
Farm Residence, Desert Ridge Specific
Plan) (Approved Multifamily Residence
District, Desert Ridge Specific Plan) (18.81
acres)
Request To: C-2 DRSP (Intermediate Commercial,
Desert Ridge Specific Plan) (20.52 acres)
Proposal: Commercial shopping center
Location: Southwest corner of Black Mountain
Boulevard and Deer Valley Drive
Owner: Arizona State Land Department
Applicant: Ryan Ash, Vestar
Representative: Stephen Anderson, Gammage & Burnham
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations
On October 3, 2023, the Desert View Village Planning Committee heard this request
and recommended denial by a vote of 9-1. On November 2, 2023, the Planning
Commission heard this request and recommended a continuance to the January 4,
2024 meeting by a vote of 9-0. On January 4, 2024, the Planning Commission heard
this request and recommended a continuance to a date uncertain and remanded the
case back to the Desert View Village Planning Committee for reconsideration by a vote
of 7-0. The applicant has since submitted a revised site plan, date stamped August 27,
2024, to address community and committee concerns. The conceptual site plan,
attached as an exhibit, shows a reduction in the size of the largest retail spaces and
does not include a gas station. Staff does not recommend any revisions to the
Addendum A to the Staff Report Z-39-23-2
September 20, 2024
stipulations as a result of the revised site plan; however, staff recommends a technical
correction to Stipulation No. 23 to correct a numbering error.
In addition, since the staff report was published on September 26, 2023, staff has
received 127 letters in opposition and 283 letters in support, which are attached as an
exhibit.
Staff recommends approval per the modified stipulations in bold font below.
1. All on site lighting shall comply with the following:
a. Maximum of 20 feet in height including lamp, pole, and base.
b. All outdoor lighting fixtures must be designed, installed, and maintained
to prevent light trespass, glare, and skyglow.
c. All outdoor fixtures must be full cutoff, ensuring zero light output emitted
above the horizontal (90-degree plane).
d. Utilize LED lights with a correlated color temperature (CCT) of 3000K or
lower.
2. A minimum 5,000-square-foot pedestrian plaza shall be provided and
maintained by the developer as a gathering place for the public, adhering to the
following standards, and as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
a. The plaza shall be designed to allow pedestrian access and shall not be
restricted during the time the shopping center is open.
b. The plaza shall include seating for public use and a minimum of two
additional amenities, such as a water feature, outdoor game area, splash
pad, shaded seating, enhanced landscaping, performance stage, fire pit,
or other similar amenities.
3. A minimum 6-foot-wide pedestrian pathway, providing cross-block access and
connecting with the public plaza, shall be provided consistent with the following
standards, and as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
a. The pathway shall adhere to the requirements of Section 1304.H of the
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance.
b. The pathway shall connect with the HAWK crossing provided at Mayo
Boulevard.
Addendum A to the Staff Report Z-39-23-2
September 20, 2024
c. The pathway shall be lined on both sides with either of the following
elements, or a combination of the two, except where a pedestrian
pathway is a minimum of 16 feet wide:
(1) A minimum 5-foot-wide landscape strip, except where drive aisles
cross the pathway where necessary. Structural shade elements
may be used, and footers may be placed within the landscape
strip along the pathway.
(2) Building frontages meeting the glazing requirements of a
minimum of 75 percent of the ground floor frontages facing the
pedestrian pathway, measured as the area between 3 and 8 feet
above grade for the entire width of the facade, consisting of clear
windows that will allow a minimum of 75 percent of the visible light
(as specified by the manufacturer) to be visible on either side of
the window.
4. 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.
5. All pedestrian pathways, including sidewalks and shared-use paths, shall be
shaded by a structure or landscaping at maturity, or a combination of the two to
achieve a minimum of 75 percent shade, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
6. All uncovered surface parking lot areas shall be landscaped with minimum 2-
inch caliper drought-tolerant shade trees. Landscaping shall be dispersed
throughout the parking area and achieve 25 percent shade at maturity, as
approved by Planning and Development Department.
7. Bicycle parking shall be provided, consistent with Section 1307.H of the
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, except that Section 1307.H.6.c shall not apply, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
8. A minimum of 2 percent of the required parking shall be EV installed.
9. A minimum of 10% of the required shrubs, shall be a milkweed or other native
nectar species, and shall be planted in groups of three or more, as approved
by the Planning and Development Department.
10. The developer shall dedicate right-of-way and construct a bus stop pad on
southbound Black Mountain Boulevard. Bus stop pad shall be constructed
according to City of Phoenix Standard Detail P1260 with a minimum depth of
10 feet. Bus stop pad shall be spaced from Deer Valley Drive according to City
Addendum A to the Staff Report Z-39-23-2
September 20, 2024
of Phoenix Standard Detail P1258. Trees shall be placed to provide 50 percent
shade coverage to bus stop pad at full maturity.
11. A minimum number of pedestrian connections shall be provided from the
development to the adjacent sidewalk, as follows: 2 connections to Deer Valley
Drive, 3 connections to Mayo Boulevard, and 3 connections to Black Mountain
Boulevard, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
Pedestrian connections shall be sufficiently spaced to allow convenient
pedestrian access to the sidewalk from any portion of the proposed
development.
12. The landscape planters along all streets, separating the curb from the
sidewalk, shall be planted to the following standards, as approved or modified
by the Planning and Development Department.
a. Minimum 2-inch caliper shade trees planted 20 feet on center or in
equivalent groupings to provide a minimum of 75 percent shade at tree
maturity.
b. Drought-tolerant shrubs, accents, and vegetative groundcovers to
achieve a minimum of 75 percent live coverage at maturity.
Where utility conflicts arise, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on an alternative design solution consistent with a
pedestrian environment.
13. A 20-foot-wide shared-use path easement (SUPE) shall be dedicated along
Black Mountain Boulevard and a minimum 10-foot-wide shared-use path (SUP)
shall be constructed within the easement in accordance with the MAG
supplemental detail and as approved or modified by the Planning and
Development Department.
14. A minimum 5-foot-wide detached sidewalk separated by a minimum 5-foot-
wide landscape strip located between the back of curb and sidewalk, shall be
provided along 34th Street, as approved or modified by the Planning and
Development Department.
15. A minimum 70-feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated for the west half of Black
Mountain Boulevard, adjacent to the development.
16. A minimum 55-feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated for the north half of Mayo
Boulevard, adjacent to the development.
17. Mayo Boulevard shall be consistent with the Desert Ridge Specific Plan and
the approved cross sections in the forthcoming Super Block 12 Master Street
Plan.
Addendum A to the Staff Report Z-39-23-2
September 20, 2024
18. The existing median in Black Mountain Boulevard shall be modified to extend
northward to the Deer Valley Drive intersection.
19. The existing traffic signal at the intersection of Mayo Boulevard and Black
Mountain Boulevard shall be fully funded and reconstructed to meet City of
Phoenix standards.
20. A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) and Master Street Plan shall be submitted to
the City for this development and Super Block 12 of the Desert Ridge Specific
Plan. The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) shall also be expanded to address the
proposed development’s impact and funding responsibility on the Sonoran
Desert Drive Corridor. No preliminary approval of plans shall be granted until
the study and master street plan are reviewed and approved by the Street
Transportation Department.
21. A HAWK traffic control device shall be fully funded and constructed on Mayo
Boulevard between 34th Street and Black Mountain Boulevard, as approved by
the Street Transportation Department.
22. Decorative metal view fencing shall be constructed in the landscape median
along Mayo Boulevard, as approved by the Street Transportation Department.
22. Acquire, dedicate sufficient right-of-way, and construct a southbound right turn
23. lane, including incidental intersection improvements, on the northwest corner of
the Deer Valley Drive and Black Mountain Boulevard intersection.
24. Acquire, dedicate sufficient right-of-way, and construct a westbound right turn
lane, including incidental intersection improvements, on the northeast corner of
the Deer Valley Drive and Black Mountain Boulevard intersection.
25. Acquire, dedicate sufficient right-of-way, and construct an eastbound right turn
lane, including incidental intersection improvements, on the southwest corner
of the Deer Valley Drive and 40th Street intersection.
26. Acquire, dedicate sufficient right-of-way, and construct a westbound right turn
lane, including incidental intersection improvements, on the northeast corner of
the Deer Valley Drive and 40th Street intersection.
27. All streets within and adjacent to the development shall be constructed 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.
28. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and
operational characteristics of the Phoenix Deer Valley Airport to future owners
Addendum A to the Staff Report Z-39-23-2
September 20, 2024
or tenants of the property. The form and content of such documents shall be
according to the templates and instructions provided which have been
reviewed and approved by the City Attorney.
29. If determined necessary by the Phoenix Archaeology Office, the applicant shall
conduct Phase I data testing and submit an archaeological survey report of the
development area for review and approval by the City Archaeologist prior to
clearing and grubbing, landscape salvage, and/or grading approval.
30. If Phase I data testing is required, and if, upon review of the results from the
Phase I data testing, the City Archaeologist, in consultation with a qualified
archaeologist, determines such data recovery excavations are necessary, the
applicant shall conduct Phase II archaeological data recovery excavations.
31. 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.
32. 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.
Exhibits
Revised Conceptual Site Plan, date stamped August 27, 2024
Community Correspondence (545 pages)
OPPOSITION
From: Richard Starr
To: Anthony M Grande; rlane@gblaw.com
Subject: Black Mtn Village Rezone // PHS turning movements MAJOR CHANGE
Date: Monday, September 9, 2024 1:41:43 PM
Attachments: image.png
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
The proposed retail center site plan (revised) NOW includes a NEW MEDIAN on Mayo. This median will BLOCK a vital left hand turning movement from Mayo into the PHS parking lot. This will result in many U-turns or push nearly all PHS traffic onto Black Mountain Pkwy single
entrance. The prior site plan did NOT include a median on Mayo.
Pinnacle High School's (2,550+ students) operations should not affected by the new retail center. Vestar's revised site plan does not meet the needs of PHS traffic. The aerial picture on G&B website cuts off the school parking lot entrances. With this major change to PHS turning
movements, the aerial should be updated accordingly.
Additionally, AZ State Land and PVUSD need to work on a parking solution for PHS before the land auction to any developer. Special events overflow onto State Land property (100+ cars park in desert). There will be major conflicts in future when PHS and retail center are fighting
over parking.
Richard "R.T." Starr
rtstarraz@hotmail.com
From: Richard Starr
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Black Mountain Village. GPA & Rezone - SWC Deer Valley & Black Mtn // PARKING @ PHS
Date: Monday, September 9, 2024 1:13:58 PM
Attachments: image.png
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Black Mountain Village retail development has been proposed for over 12 months now. The
land seller (AZ State Land Department) and PVUSD have not addressed the existing parking
problem at Pinnacle High School. ASLD should not auction the property immediately adjacent
to the high school to any developer without working with PVUSD to fix this issue. Pinnacle
High School needs at least 250 more parking stalls for everyday use and special events like
football, basketball games or meet-the-teacher nights. During special events, 100+ cars
overflow park in the desert on the future grocer site. These cars will simply park in Fry's
parking lot in the future, creating a logistical nightmare for everyone including the grocer and
retail tenants. The parking issue is not going away as Pinnacle adds students each year.
Richard "R.T." Starr
rtstarraz@hotmail.com
From: Christian Klein
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: GPA-DSTV-2-23-2
Date: Saturday, September 14, 2024 1:49:05 PM
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Dear Anthony Grande,
I am writing today regarding Vestar’s updated proposals (case numbers) GPA-DSTV-2-23-
2, GPA DSTV-3-23-2, and Z-39-23. As a resident of Desert Ridge, I oppose Vestar’s
updated proposal for rezoning the Southwest Corner of Black Mountain Boulevard and
Deer Valley Drive from Residential to Commercial/Retail for several reasons.
First, Desert Ridge is a highly desirable planned residential community that continues to
attract buyers willing to pay a premium for a prime location. Adding commercial/retail
mixed-use space in the middle of our community would decrease the desirability of Desert
Ridge and lower the values of residential real estate within the community.
Second, the traffic flow within Desert Ridge is already too great for the limited infrastructure
within the community. Pinnacle Peak High School is located adjacent to the proposed site.
The traffic caused during the morning/afternoon pick up/drop off combined with regular
commuting already creates a safety issue on Black Mountain and Deer Valley, with vehicles
backed up in every direction. Adding unnecessary commercial/retail space would only
increase the traffic and lead to safety issues.
Third, there is simply no need (or desire) for mixed commercial/retail space in the middle of
single-family homes. The area has more than ample shopping options - Desert Ridge
Marketplace, High Street, and shopping off of Cave Creek Rd and the 101 are all within an
extremely close distance. Finally, creating a commercial/retail space in the middle of a
residential area will bring increased instances of crime, which, when coupled with declining
property values, would limit the marketability of Desert Ridge.
Finally, the entire process by Vestar has been disingenuous to the residents of Desert
Ridge even seeking outside influence/support by non-community residents to showcase
support with Facebook ads. The adjustments made by Vestar do not remedy concerns of a
commercial development in a pristine residential area. Allowing this proposal to go forward
will put a serious blemish on Desert Ridge's reputation.
Given the detrimental impacts on our home values, marketability, safety, noise pollution,
and increased traffic without adequate infrastructure, these proposals should be denied.
Please do not hesitate to reach out if I can provide any additional information.
Regards,
Christian Klein
From: Yasmin Rivera-Klein
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Oppose GPA-DSTV-2-23-2
Date: Sunday, September 15, 2024 11:12:46 PM
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Dear Anthony Grande,
I am writing today regarding Vestar’s updated proposals (case numbers) GPA-
DSTV-2-23-2, GPA DSTV-3-23-2, and Z-39-23. As a resident of Desert Ridge, I
oppose Vestar’s updated proposal for rezoning the Southwest Corner of Black
Mountain Boulevard and Deer Valley Drive from Residential to Commercial/Retail
for several reasons.
First, Desert Ridge is a highly desirable planned residential community that
continues to attract buyers willing to pay a premium for a prime location. Adding
commercial/retail mixed-use space in the middle of our community would decrease
the desirability of Desert Ridge and lower the values of residential real estate within
the community.
Second, the traffic flow within Desert Ridge is already too great for the limited
infrastructure within the community. Pinnacle Peak High School is located adjacent
to the proposed site. The traffic caused during the morning/afternoon pick up/drop
off combined with regular commuting already creates a safety issue on Black
Mountain and Deer Valley, with vehicles backed up in every direction. Adding
unnecessary commercial/retail space would only increase the traffic and lead to
safety issues.
Third, there is simply no need (or desire) for mixed commercial/retail space in the
middle of single-family homes. The area has more than ample shopping options -
Desert Ridge Marketplace, High Street, and shopping off of Cave Creek Rd and the
101 are all within an extremely close distance. Finally, creating a commercial/retail
space in the middle of a residential area will bring increased instances of crime,
which, when coupled with declining property values, would limit the marketability of
Desert Ridge.
Finally, the entire process by Vestar has been disingenuous to the residents of
Desert Ridge even seeking outside influence/support by non-community residents to
showcase support with Facebook ads. The adjustments made by Vestar do not
remedy concerns of a commercial development in a pristine residential area.
Allowing this proposal to go forward will put a serious blemish on Desert
Ridge's reputation.
Given the detrimental impacts on our home values, marketability, safety, noise
pollution, and increased traffic without adequate infrastructure, these proposals
should be denied. Please do not hesitate to reach out if I can provide any additional
information.
Regards,
From: Richards, Dan
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Black Mountain Village – City of Phoenix Case Nos. GPA-DSTV-2-23-2, GPA-DSTV-3-23-2, and Z-39-23-2 – Notice of Revised Development Proposal and Rescheduled Public Hearings
Date: Monday, September 16, 2024 4:06:41 PM
Attachments: image001.png
image003.png
image004.png
Intersection Photo 2.PNG
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Hello Mr. Grande and the Desert View Village Planning Committee,
I wanted to share a couple of photos that are good depictions of the traffic that is currently a problem at the intersection of Deer Valley and Black
Mountain Boulevard. Vestar’s Black Mountain Village will only make this more of a nightmare.
This first photo is showing several vehicles from the southbound lanes of Black Mountain Blvd blocking the intersection after their light turned red.
These vehicles never made it through the intersection while the Deer Valley left turn light was green. Now what we have are vehicles from two
directions stuck in the middle of the intersection. Northbound and Eastbound traffic are completely stuck and cannot get through while they have a
green light. It’s total gridlock.
The second photo is a view from the first vehicle in the left turn lane on Deer Valley, trying to turn south on Black Mountain Blvd. You can see there
are so many vehicles blocking the intersection that vehicles either had to wait for another cycle or be selfish and enter the intersection and block
even more traffic once the light changes. Eastbound traffic is completely blocked at this point. Vehicles in the left turn lane were being considerate
and waited another cycle before trying to enter the intersection.
This is a daily occurrence at this intersection. The level of service for this intersection is already failing. If this is a simple fix by adjusting the
intersection timing with Black Mountain and Mayo to alleviate this problem, then this should be taken care of immediately. If this isn’t a simple fix,
then adding this Black Mountain Village is going to create even more of a mess at this intersection.
Please consider the residents that must drive through these intersections on a daily basis. It’s already a nightmare to deal with. I am asking you to
please reject Vestar’s proposal to rezone this property. The neighbors that live nearby want to see this stay the residential portion of the Desert
Ridge master plan that we all expected when we bought our homes.
Thank,
Dan Richards
From: Robin Bowie
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Black Mountain Village/City of Phoenix Planning Case Nos. GPA-DSTV-2-23-2, GPA-DSTV-3-23-2, & Z-39-23-2
Date: Tuesday, September 17, 2024 3:37:43 PM
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Hello Anthony,
I hope this email finds you well. We met back in November of last year at a City
Planning meeting regarding the above rezoning hearing.
Last night, Vestar’s attorneys, Rob Lane, Senior Land Use Planner of Gammage
and Burnham along with other lawyers held a meeting at Aviano to discuss their
updated plans for the Black Mountain parcel. It seems as though they did listen to
what the residents had to say about many concerns and reworked their plan but there
are still items that are just not acceptable. Mr. Lane went on to say that our local
Albertsons was just way overcrowded and that there needed to be another choice for
the residents. Vestar’s plan was originally billed as this was going to be a “boutique”
shopping center and now it is being deemed “necessary.” But last night, just as they
assured the audience that this was a good thing and so desperately needed, they
spring on us that there will be a bus stop to this shopping center. This raises
concerns for not only me but many folks that I have spoken with today. I believe Mr.
Lane explained that it was the City that decides where the bus stops are installed.
Can you verify that information for me? My issue all along with this plan is what this
is going to do to our neighborhood. This was not in the original master plan of Desert
Ridge to have a shopping center inserted in the middle of our community to begin
with. I was beginning to have a little acceptance of Vestar’s plan - I did feel that they
made a good second attempt at trying to mitigate the concerns of the residents. But
with the bus stop being added, it just brings up for me that fact that what happens at
bus stops and what it may attract. It is one thing to have a bus stop on Tatum
Boulevard just south of Deer Valley, a major thoroughfare but not in the middle of a
neighborhood. My argument here is that if you can afford to live in Desert Ridge you
are more than likely not riding a bus.
And of course there is still the issue of Pinnacle High School and the parking
issue. Those students will invariably park at the shopping center - it will just be a
constant battle. And, what about the overflow parking for families as they attend
extracurricular events such as the football games - they always used that lot. Is the
shopping center prepared to let everyone use their lot for these events?
Thank you for again for your time.
Robin Bowie
Aviano Resident
(602) 329-9005
From: Steven Deacon
To: rlane@gblaw.com; Anthony M Grande; Steven Deacon
Subject: Black Mountain Village Traffic Study Request
Date: Tuesday, September 17, 2024 10:47:12 PM
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Dear Rob & Anthony,
I would like to request a traffic study of 36th Way and 36th street as shown in the attached
pictures to be included as part of Vestar's petition to build a commercial property across from
Pinnacle High School.
I believe this street has been overlooked in Vestar's traffic study as it plays a major role as a
cut through street to avoid the traffic jams during High School drop off and pick up.
My biggest concern is for the safety of our children who reside in the Cooper View section of
Fireside. There are 45 kids in elementary school who live in this section and walk to school
every day. We already deal with the reckless driving from the high school, and I am concerned
that it will only get worse with the increased traffic if the new commercial development gets
approved.
The high school parents use this cut through to avoid the traffic jam where they drop the
students off by the mailboxes then make a U turn back through the community. This is circled
in yellow.
If this additional child safety concern could be addressed it would be greatly appreciated in
protecting our community and safety of our children.
Feel free to contact me if further explanation would be helpful.
CITY OF PHOENIX PLANNING CASE NOS. GPA-DSTV-2-23-2,
GPA-DSTV-3-23-2, & Z-39-23-2
Best,
Steve Deacon, CFP®, CIMA®, Private Wealth Advisor
CA Insurance License #0H03830
Five Point Wealth Advisors
8925 E Pima Center Pkwy, Suite 135
Scottsdale, AZ 85258
Phone: 480-948-2416
FAX: 480-291-8643
www.fivepointwealth.com [fivepointwealth.com]
[fivepointwealth.com]
[forbes.com]
[forbes.com]
2023 Forbes Best In State Wealth Advisors, created by SHOOK Research. Presented in April 2023 based on data
gathered from June 2021 to June 2022. 22,243 were considered, 7,321 advisors were recognized. Advisors pay a fee
to hold out marketing materials. Not indicative of advisor’s future performance. Your experience may vary. Click here
[forbes.com] for more award information.
2023 Forbes Top Next-Gen Wealth Advisors Best in State, created by SHOOK Research. Presented in Aug 2023
based on data gathered from March 2022 to March 2023. 3738 Advisors were considered, 1464 Advisors were
recognized. Not indicative of advisor’s future performance. Your experience may vary. Click here [forbes.com] for
more award information.
*Securities and advisory services offered through Commonwealth Financial Network®, member
FINRA/SIPC, a Registered Investment Adviser. Fixed insurance products and services are separate from
and not offered through Commonwealth Financial Network.
From: Andy M
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Cases GPA-DSTV-2-23-2 & GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2
Date: Wednesday, September 18, 2024 10:35:53 PM
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
I live in fireside (3609 e cat balue Dr) and I am opposed to "black mountain village" -- I ask
that you keep that lot residential! We do not want it turned commercial and do not want
businesses in that area! Vestar should simply use the land a few blocks away at cave Creek
and deer valley!
Thanks,
Andy
From: Rajesh Gadde
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: NO to Black Mountain Village-Case GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/Z-39-23-2
Date: Wednesday, September 18, 2024 8:58:15 PM
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Hello Anthony,
After listening to a new revised plan from Vestar, this is my opinion.
I am Rajesh Gadde. I live in Fireside at desert ridge, I would like to formally email you my
opposition about building Black mountain village. I think it's going to make our safe
neighborhood into a commercial area thus causing danger to kids.
It will create more crime opportunities, noise, litter, pollution, traffic nightmare as well.
We don't want this at all. Please help us on this matter.
Thanks
Rajesh
From: Amal Halaby
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Black mountain , zoning from residential to commercial iam voting. No, no, please hear us. Thank you.
Date: Wednesday, September 18, 2024 12:02:35 PM
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Sent from my iPhone
From: hww33 (null)
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Fwd: Black Mountain Village Proposed Plans for Superblock Parcel 12
Date: Wednesday, September 18, 2024 7:10:17 AM
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Hello Anthony,
I am reaching out to voice my displeasure and to ask for your support with ensuring that Vestar/other corporations
are blocked from rezoning from “residential” to “commercial” for the proposed Black Mountain Village in Desert
Ridge. The residential zoning was absolutely a key factor when we purchased our home and would be
devastating to our community if rezoning is allowed. There seems to be plenty of commercial zoning between
High Street, Tatum and Cave Creek Roads.
Begin forwarded message:
From: Fireside at Desert Ridge
Subject: Black Mountain Village Proposed Plans for Superblock Parcel 12
Date: September 18, 2024 at 7:06:28 AM MST
To: zakhouse2333@gmail.com
Reply-To: emolenaar@associatedasset.com
[fskj7tgbb.cc.rs6.net]
Message from the Manager
Updated Superblock Parcel 12 Presentation
Dear Fireside at Desert Ridge Residents,
Thank you to everyone that participated in yesterday evening's updated proposal
towards the rezoning of Superblock Parcel 12 from residential to commercial
property. The presentation, approximately 15 minutes in length, using both a
hybrid and virtual format, was given by Gammage & Burnham Law, counsel for
Vestar Development Co. Upon conclusion of the presentation, representatives
attempted to answer related questions using a multi-contact approach with the
goal of efficiency.
Specific details from the presented proposal can be found using this link:
https://www.gblaw.com/blackmountainvillage/ [fskj7tgbb.cc.rs6.net]
Questions or comments regarding Black Mountain Village can be sent to Rob Lane,
Gammage & Burnham PLC, Senior Land Use Planner at (602) 256-4439 or
rlane@gblaw.com.
The next step in the rezoning process will be a public hearing with the
Desert Village Planning Committee (VPC).
When: October 1st, 2024 at 6:30 pm
Where: Paradise Valley Community Center, Multi-purpose Room
17402 N. 40th Street, Phoenix, Arizona 85032
To participate, see the instructions available on the Public Meeting Notices website:
https://www.phoenix.gov/cityclerk/publicmeetings/notices
If you would like to voice your opposition or support via written email, contact
Anthony Grande, City Planner at anthony.grande@phoenix.gov as all received
communication is documented.
I can be reached at (480) 214.3357 or emolenaar@associatedasset.com if you
should have any questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
Eric Molenaar, CAAM, SLC
Fireside at Desert Ridge Community Manager
On behalf of the Fireside at Desert Ridge Community Association Board of
Directors.
[fskj7tgbb.cc.rs6.net]
Fireside at Desert Ridge Community Association
Professionally Managed By:
3775 E. Lone Cactus Drive
Phoenix, AZ 85050
480.203.2166
www.ourfiresidedesertridge.net [fskj7tgbb.cc.rs6.net]
[fskj7tgbb.cc.rs6.net]
[fskj7tgbb.cc.rs6.net]
[fskj7tgbb.cc.rs6.net]
[fskj7tgbb.cc.rs6.ne
t]
Download the AAM All Access mobile app here:
[fskj7tgbb.cc.rs6.net] [fskj7tgbb.cc.rs6.net]
This message is intended exclusively for residents of Fireside at Desert Ridge. If you have received this message by
mistake, please let us know by email reply and delete it from your system.
Fireside at Desert Ridge | 3775 E. Lone Cactus Drive | Phoenix, AZ 85050 US
Unsubscribe [visitor.constantcontact.com] | Update Profile [visitor.constantcontact.com] |
Constant Contact Data Notice [constantcontact.com]
Constant Contact
[constantcontact.com]
From: Julia Levene
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Updated Superblock Parcel 12
Date: Wednesday, September 18, 2024 9:09:52 AM
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
HI Anthony:
As I was unable to make the meeting last night, can you answer a couple of questions for me?
Do the restrictions listed in the development project apply only to this proposal, or will these
restrictions be within the confounds of the rezoning to commercial property? Restrictions such as
limited size of box store to no more than 65,000 sq. feet, no gas station, low lighting, and
restrictions types of tenants allowed etc. In other words, down the road, can another developer or
same developer alter what is allowed in this commercial zone and place a gas station there?
Can you describe what is meant by “separate public process” regarding drive through restaurants?
Thanks
Julia
Julia Levene, CMP
CEO
Go West Destinations, Inc.
DBA: APP, Association Planner Partners
3734 E. Ringtail Way
Phoenix, AZ 85050
Phone: 602 320-8323
www.associationplannerpartners.com [associationplannerpartners.com]
From: John Randall
To: Anthony M Grande
Cc: John Randall
Subject: Superblock Parcel 12 revised proposal Opposition
Date: Wednesday, September 18, 2024 7:21:51 AM
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Dear Anthony,
Thank you for taking the time to read my opposition to the revised proposal for superblock 12
adjacent to our high school.
I have a background serving on both economic development and planning commissions in
suburban Chicago for nearly ten years and am generally in favor of development to aid in tax
revenues to support local communities. My rare exception to this bias is when homeowner
community Zoning is changing to accommodate this development post community build out.
Two of the key determining factors in home purchases are High School rating and community
environment which has led to the evolution to planned communities and continued equity
growth over time. To disrupt these factors post build out should NOT happen in my view
without a minimum of a community vote to represent the true data to decision makers who
serve on our community boards and commissions.
It is for these reasons that I vote NO to superblock 12.
Thank you,
John G. Randall
John.randall023@gmail.com
602-919-8150
21709 N. 37th st
Phoenix, Az. 85050
From: Matthew Chitwood
To: Anthony M Grande
Cc: Anne Chitwood
Subject: GPA-DSTV-2-23-2 and Case GPA-DSTV-3-23-2 and Case Z-39-23-2
Date: Thursday, September 19, 2024 11:53:53 PM
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Re:GPA-DSTV-2-23-2 and Case GPA-DSTV-3-23-2 and Case Z-39-23-2
The plans proposed by Vestar are NOT in alignment with what the General Plan originally
intended this land be used for and I specifically request the Committee REJECT the
developer's case.
Matt Chitwood
Fireside Resident
From: C Dunn
To: Anthony M Grande
Cc: Council District 2 PCC
Subject: GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2 BLACK MOUNTAIN VILLAGE
Date: Thursday, September 19, 2024 5:35:25 PM
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Dear Mr Grande and Members of the Desert View Village Planning Committee
-
Unless you have personally been involved with transporting students to and
from Pinnacle High School, you cannot appreciate the traffic challenges that
occur daily at the intersection of Mayo Blvd. and Black Mountain Blvd. (Please
note that this intersection is directly in front of the high school.) We have
parents dropping off students. We have inexperienced student drivers pulling
into the parking lot. We have traffic heading toward the 51. We have traffic
coming off the 51. Plus, we have heavy traffic from Deer Valley, which has
now become an alternate route for the 101. In the midst of all this traffic, we
have those students who walk to school. Even under the best of conditions,
crossing Black Mountain Blvd. and Mayo Blvd. can be difficult. It is not
uncommon to see students darting across traffic, crossing against the light, or
jaywalking. The situation is formidable for all involved.
Vestar is suggesting their proposed commercial development will benefit our
neighborhood. (Please note they would be building adjacent to Pinnacle High
School.) They claim it will offer us an alternative shopping experience, while
alleviating traffic congestion at Desert Ridge Marketplace. Vestar’s suggestion
is nothing short of insulting. Their own traffic analysis of 2022 predicted their
project would add more than 10,000 vehicles DAILY at the intersection of
Deer Valley and Black Mountain Blvd. And that has to be a conservative
number now considering all the construction that has occurred since 2022. Add
those 10,000 vehicles to the already inordinate number of vehicles navigating
Black Mountain Blvd., Mayo Blvd., and Deer Valley on a daily basis and we
have a disaster waiting to happen.
We cannot compromise our values. We must think of the safety, security, and
well-being of our children. The negative impact of having a commercial
development adjacent to Pinnacle High School and one block from Fireside
Elementary school far outweighs any alleged benefits.
Please say NO to re-zoning Superblock 12.
Please say NO to Vestar.
Thank you.
Carolyn Dunn
3752 E Covey Lane
Phoenix, AZ 85050
From: SCOTT ELLEFSON
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Rezoning proposal case GPA-DSTV-2-23-2 and Case GPA-DSTV-3-23-2 and Case Z-39-23-2.
Date: Thursday, September 19, 2024 11:24:47 AM
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Dear Sir,
I Strongly Oppose this rezoning proposal.
Rezoning proposal case GPA-DSTV-2-23-2 and Case GPA-DSTV-3-23-2 and Case
Z-39-23-2.
Sincerely,
Scott Ellefson
3909 E. Melinda Dr.
Sent from my iPad
From: Treye Elzenga
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Resident Feedback I Black Mountain Village Project (GPA-DSTV-2-23-2; GPA DSTV 3-23-2; Z-39-23)
Date: Thursday, September 19, 2024 9:55:08 AM
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Hello Anthony and Desert View Planning Commission,
After reviewing the revised proposal and attending developer led listening sessions for the Black Mountain Village Project
(GPA-DSTV-2-23-2; GPA DSTV 3-23-2; Z-39-23), I want to express my strong opposition to this project. No amount of money,
project design changes, or unsubstantiated claims by the developer or their retained counsel make this project safe for our
community. It was fundamentally flawed from the start and approving this project will only provide short-term rewards for
Vestar and Gammage & Burnham associates not the community. Once again our City Planning Officials should Deny this
project. Commercial real estate on this proposed parcel has no place, no real need, and only increases risks.
Phoenix City Council Women, Ann O’Brien recently noted our cities dire need for housing to meet the needs of a growing
population in reference to a proposed Lennar Homes residential housing project near Hurricane Harbor which will provide
300 much needed additional units to our community. Gammage and Burnham flippantly disregards our civic leaders facts
based leadership in their revised proposal by stating ‘conversion of this property from residential to commercial and the
subsequent loss of 236 dwelling units is negligible’. Gammage and Burnham has also represented Lennar Homes on projects
in Phoenix and appears to pick and choose when housing projects are valuable to our community based on their interests not
residents. Clearly City leaders and Arizona’s own Department of Housing identified shortages of over 270,000 housing units
across our state in recent facts based studies. As Phoenix metro comprises over 2/3rds of our state’s population, we require
over 175,000 units to meet the needs of the citizens. We clearly have work to do in an effort to meet that shortage. Rezoning
existing housing parcels to commercial property in the heart of a well-established family-friendly community only introduces
unnecessary risks and creates tax payer waste in the zoning review process.
Once again, nowhere in this proposal does it acknowledge the most at-risk to traffic related injuries amongst us the pre-
school and elementary school children who walk, bike, and run to Fireside Elementary. Living in this community, safety should
always be our number one concern as residents. Omitting Fireside Elementary from the traffic studies and written rezoning
application responses is negligent and shows clear disregard for our children’s safety. Within four hundred yards of this
proposed project, we have two schools, Pinnacle High School and Fireside Elementary, which educate pre-school children as
young as four years old. Each morning and afternoon families walk their children to these schools from the surrounding
homes from the north, south, east, and west. In the bias traffic study completed in November 2022 they fail to acknowledge
slower traffic patterns based on holidays, people traveling outside of Phoenix to visit family, and winter residents not yet
arriving to the area in addition traffic patterns have evolved after two years. Throwing money at the HAWK system does not
solve the problem of increased transient traffic flow, especially off the high-speed HWY 51 into this area, statistically
increasing risks for residents, especially our younger children. Simply there is no compelling argument for this project and
only increased risk.
While developers will make the case for additional services and unsubstantiated benefits to our community, we must consider
the abundance of commercial services that are already available in Desert Ridge Marketplace, along Cave Creek Road, and
HWY 51 south. In addition, all these commercial properties have clearly defined borders which create increased safety as to
not blend housing, schools, parks, and daily life, with commercial development. Within Desert View we have an abundance of
services of all commercial types within one mile. Making the argument that driving one mile creates hardship is another
unsubstantiated claim by the developer and fails to acknowledge the abundance of delivery services if someone prefers
alternative commercial services that are not available within one mile. Desert View is not the same as an urban core, such as
downtown Phoenix. Lack of concrete detail is consistent throughout the rezoning application, while there is an abundance of
words and feelings including ‘potentially’ and ‘we feel’ it fails to acknowledge key considerations as I have outlined.
Vestar owns Desert Ridge Marketplace and Gammage and Burnham outlines in their own words the developments failures to
manage traffic congestion and parking. Why would we trust the same developer to deliver different results when they
themselves acknowledge these failures. Fool me once let’s not make it twice especially next to our children’s schools and
family homes. We have an opportunity to put families and our youngest citizens first by DENYING this project. Thank you for
your thoughtful consideration of the data, facts, and real impact on our community for the long term. I appreciate your
support in DENYING this rezoning request for the second time.
Treye Elzenga
Resident City of Phoenix - Desert Ridge
From: Dave Evans
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Rezoning Proposal Case GPA-DSTV-2-23-2 and Case GPA DSTV-3-23-2 and Case Z-39-23-2
Date: Thursday, September 19, 2024 5:10:41 PM
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Dear Mr. Grande,
I am a longtime Fireside resident (since 2013), living literally a stone's throw away from Black
Mountain Blvd across from where the proposed site is located. I recently attended the
presentation by Vestar at the Fireside Community Clubhouse on September 17 regarding the
updated proposal plans for superblock parcel 12. I went into the meeting with an open mind
curious as to the amendments and changes they had made. After hearing their presentation
and seeing their proposed plans I can assuredly say I AM NOT in favor of this proposal.
Regardless of how they attempt to build out this commercial center and update the
corresponding streets around it, the traffic in this area is going to become a nightmare and
even more unsafe. I have lived here firsthand through the addition of the Route 51 on/off
ramp and have already noticed the influx of traffic on Black Mountain Blvd, including late
night motorcycle racing, street racing, and unfortunately a few serious accidents.
Vestar says they want to add a destination grocery store such as Trader Joes or Whole Foods
for just our surrounding neighborhoods. They are extremely naive to think this will not be a
huge draw for individuals driving in from all areas to go to this store, adding to increased
traffic all day long, safety issues, noise pollution, and making it more dangerous for residents
(and students) of this area to navigate safely in and out of their own neighborhoods. Throw in
the fact that this is NEXT DOOR to Pinnacle high school and I can't believe Vestar believes
it's a good idea to put a proposal together that will degrade and endanger the safety of the
students and residents who reside here. Have you seen the traffic and safety issues at Paradise
Valley High School on Bell Rd.? We do not deserve to have that brought to our
neighborhood. If Vestar is so determined to bring a new commercial shopping center to our
area they need to find another location that was not already zoned for residential housing. I
hope you will seriously consider the implications of this disastrous proposal and take steps to
keep it from being implemented. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Respectfully
David Evans
From: Shelley Flecky
To: Anthony M Grande; Council District 2 PCC
Subject: Re: Resident of Fireside - against rezone Black Mountain Village
Date: Thursday, September 19, 2024 9:11:05 AM
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
I sent this a year ago, and my thoughts have not changed. Please keep zoned as single family
homes.
Thank you,
Shelley Flecky
> On Sep 13, 2023, at 9:44ௗPM, Shelley Flecky
>
> Hello,
>
> I have been a resident of Fireside Desert Ridge since 2011. I now have a son at Pinnacle
High School. I am strongly against re-zoning the area by his school to commercial. This was
not the original plan and definitely after all the growth in this area should not be the new plan.
Traffic on Black Mountain Blvd is horrendous and downright dangerous during school hours.
I don’t think it is a safe place to add more congestion. Please do not re-zone! The community
does not want this.
>
> Thank you,
> Shelley Flecky
> Referencing case numbers GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2
From: JG Ford
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Rezoning proposal case GPA-DSTV-2-23-2 and Case GPA-DSTV-3-23-2 and Case Z-39-23-2
Date: Thursday, September 19, 2024 5:29:21 PM
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Hello Mr. grande,
I hope you can see by the mass amounts of emails you are receiving to oppose this
Vestar rezoning idea that is not what the majority of affected homeowners want, nor
do we need it. Are there a few who want it, sure.
I strongly oppose this and want it to remain zoned for single family homes ONLY! We
did not buy here to have it rezoned for commercial use.
Vestar has been diligent with their fake marketing and published articles that
residents want this and that it was the Arizona State Land Department that
approached Vestar, when the state in fact did not.
And it is no coincidence that the next scheduled meeting is Oct 1st during our Fall
Break where many families, like mine will be out of town and unable to attend. Why?
Well it’s a planned strategic move so less of us can attend.
Please do the right thing and stop this from moving forward. What if you lived up here,
I don’t believe you would welcome and embrace this unwanted change and increased
traffic in your neighborhood.
Thank you for applying your ethical consideration from a homeowner’s perspective to
stop this from going any further.
Respectfully,
Jay Ford
From: Susan Forkos
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Rezoning proposal case GPA-DSTV-2-23-2 and Case GPA-DSTV-3-23-2 and Case Z-39-23-2.
Date: Thursday, September 19, 2024 10:40:31 AM
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Good morning,
I have had the opportunity to attend the meeting at the Fireside Clubhouse and cannot be more
disappointed in this presentation. It really lacks the "buy in" that I thought I would have after
this discussion. The key points to the community not being in favor are the unfavorable
aspects of driving more traffic to the neighborhood, types of retailers, possibility of junk fast
food, and the list goes on. I was in favor of another grocer in and around Desert Ridge but I
am now in favor of SCRAPPING this proposal and moving forward with the land being
developed into housing, and parks that would not increase traffic at key times throughout the
day.
Key takeaways I was left scratching my head:
-Vestar was approached to develop this area? I have no buy in on this statement. So then
Vestar should have looked at the value of other properties. Even the ones at Pinnacle Peak.
This area would be ideal! And remember Whole Foods built nowhere near housing and people
flock to it. No one in the neighborhood is driving towards the high school except for key times
during the day which is a traffic nightmare. We all drive away from the area for shopping and
knew we would be doing that when we bought our homes. That was one of the appealing
qualities of Desert Ridge.
-Traffic, traffic and more insane traffic...Too much traffic would be directed and come off the
51 and Mayo to go to NEW shopping, there still is no clear answer as to how this would affect
the area as far as noise pollution and added car pollution in general. Also, the influx of cars at
633 parking spots is a huge amount of cars to add to the daily drop off/pick up routine. There
was no clear answer. There is currently a high traffic issue in this area, with accidents and
injuries. Increasing this would not be helpful. We see what a mess Tatum is at the turn into
Albertsons and InNout burger. It's a disaster. Parking lot would become drop off and pick up
and overflow parking for the school that is already bursting at the seams.
-Types of retailers. YES, this matters. When you do not know what is going in and you are at
the mercy of the land developer taking the highest bid, you get what they want. Which is retail
dedicated to convenience of a highway offramp. Not retailers dedicated to increasing the value
of our properties. I was told they cannot be selective and will take whoever bids on the
parcels. Look at several other shopping centers, you currently don't see McDonalds or
ChickFilA at the scottsdale quarter, do you? you have million dollar homes right across the
street that fear the smell of grease and pollution of delivery trucks. Not to mention increasing
foot traffic, loitering and the list goes on and on.
-size retailers down to 65,000 sq ft.?? They were talking about this may be a prime spot for
Sprouts or Trader Joes but we are talking 65,000 sq ft which is the current size of the
Albertsons. A Trader Joes shop is typically 10-12,000 sq ft. So I have no interest in a major
store right next to a high school. This area cannot accommodate the traffic for the size
Albertsons that is at Desert ridge, it is ridiculous to think it can.
-decreased property value. NO one answered this question. And no one would know until we
get a list of retailers.
-education money trade off. No where did this say the trade off would directly go towards the
two schools located near this property, while this seems like a nice trade, our neighborhood
schools would only see a small fraction of this money, if any?
I am overall disappointed in the outcome and changes they have proposed. Adding a
busy shopping plaza is not a good idea for this location and I cannot back it or get on board
with this decision to change the zoning. The lot is just too small to house a 65,000 sq ft grocer
plus handfuls of stores off the highway ramp near an already busy school intersection.
So please add my commentary to the list of people that oppose the rezoning of this land. I
absolutely do not approve their proposed plans. Vestar clearly is in it for the money, not the
benefit of our community.
Thank you,
Susan Forkos
From: harrisonmccrae88@icloud.com
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: We don"t want Black Mountain Village
Date: Thursday, September 19, 2024 11:23:42 AM
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
To whom it may concern,
We who live in residential areas such as Fireside, do not wish for more traffic going
by homes as it will cause much disturbance to our communities. Case Numbers:
GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2
From: Todd Jennings
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Rezoning proposal case GPA-DSTV-2-23-2 and Case GPA-DSTV-3-23-2 and Case Z-39-23-2
Date: Thursday, September 19, 2024 4:34:49 PM
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Mr. Grande,
I recently attended the presentation by Vestar at the Fireside Community Clubhouse regarding
the proposed plans for superblock parcel 12. While I initially supported the idea of having
another grocery store nearby, I now believe that rezoning this area for commercial use would
not be a good decision. After reviewing the plans, it’s clear that traffic will become a significant
issue, even with the proposed lane expansions and additional sidewalks.
Currently, most residents drive away from Pinnacle High School for their grocery shopping.
Placing a supermarket right next to the high school will not only draw local residents but also
people from outside the community, significantly increasing traffic in the area. This rise in
traffic will bring a higher risk of accidents, especially concerning the safety of children who
attend the high school and live in the surrounding neighborhoods.
In addition to safety concerns, the increased traffic will lead to more noise, disrupting the
quiet environment many of us value. Personally, when I shop at stores like Whole Foods,
Sprouts, or Trader Joe’s, I travel away from the school. If a grocery store is built here, it will
bring more congestion, more noise, and more pollution to our streets.
I believe the best option would be to keep the zoning for single-family homes as it currently is
T Jennings
From: Kris
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Rezoning proposal case GPA-DSTV-2-23-2 and Case GPA-DSTV-3-23-2 and Case Z-39-23-2.
Date: Thursday, September 19, 2024 4:30:43 PM
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Hello Mr Grande. I am writing regarding the above rezoning proposal. I live in Fireside
and have had children attend the local schools as well as Pinnacle High School.
If you don’t live in the area, it is really hard to understand the traffic problems we have
around the High School. There are also major issues, outside of school hours, from
traffic coming from 51 to Black Mountain. People coming from the highway blow
through the stoplight and accidents occur. Unfortunately one of those happened to my
son. We were extremely fortunate no one was injured as his car was t-boned and
completely totaled.
Also I can’t imagine anything worse than having a shopping complex close to a high
school. All you have to do is ask the shop keepers at Desert Ridge Marketplace the
havoc the kids create there after school is let out. I can’t imagine this enhancing our
property values.
There are currently so many shopping choices within a 5-10 mile range that we really
do not need more that aren't already zoned for this purpose. I would strongly urge you
to reject a proposed zoning change to this area.
Thank you for your time.
Kris
Sent from my iPad
From: Craig Liguori
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Superblock parcel 12 I vote NO
Date: Thursday, September 19, 2024 1:00:09 PM
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Anthony,
As a taxpayer whose house backs up to Black Mountain boulevard (Just north of the
pedestrian foot bridge), I OPPOSE the development of Superblock 12 parcel of land.
We as a community already have a problem with the school and its inability to abide by the
sounding a segment timer every 5 minutes during football practice that can be heard in my
house
Playing music that can be heard in the adjacent neighborhood that includes graphic words like:
, , , , and , I do not consider it a prudent move for the city to
continue to expand until they can handle the current situation.
I have brought this issue to the School, and the School District. Both entities still chose to not
take any action. It is time that city officials start doing their job and following / enforcing the
laws that they pass.
Craig Liguori
480-519-9436
From: Martina McConnon
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Black Mountain Village Proposed Plans for Superblock Parcel 12
Date: Thursday, September 19, 2024 8:27:56 AM
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Dear Mr Grande,
I attended the recent presentation by Vestar at the Fireside Community Clubhouse in
regards to the proposed plans for superblock parcel 12. While I had been in favor of
having another grocer in the vicinity, I am now convinced that it's not a good idea to
rezone that area for commercial space. Looking at the presented plans, and even
with the planned lane increases and separate sidewalks, it's very clear that traffic is
going to be a huge issue. Currently all residents are driving away from Pinnacle High
School to do their grocery shopping. If there is a super market right next to the high
school, not only are the people who live in the surrounding communities going to drive
there, it's also going to draw people from even further away. Right now, when I want
to go to a Whole Foods or Sprouts or Trader Joes, I'm driving AWAY from the high
school. If there was a grocer, anyone who likes to shop at that type of market will
drive to Black Mountain Village, increasing traffic on all surrounding streets,
increasing the risk of accidents and definitely increasing pollution.
I would like to keep everything as it is, with the area being zoned for single family
homes.
Thank you for your consideration.
Best regards,
Martina McConnon
3826 E Cat Balue Drive
Phoenix AZ 85050
cell 610-577-4982
Thanks!
From: heather moss
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: NO to Black Mountain Village - case #’s: GPA-DSTV-2-23/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2
Date: Thursday, September 19, 2024 11:24:55 AM
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Dear Anthony,
We are opposed to changing the residentially-zoned plot of land to commercial property.
We are against the Black Mountain Village proposed by Vestar.
We want to keep our high schoolers safe and keep our community protected, NOT increase the
unbelievable amount of traffic that will bottleneck the Black Mountain freeway exit and
surrounding roadways. We were told the area was all going to be residential when we chose
to purchase at Fireside and make this place our home. Now some big corporation has the right
to change that?!
Please take our homes and families in to consideration before agreeing to building this
horrible commercial project. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Heather McCrae
From: Dennis McWherter
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Opposition for Black Mountain Village (GPA-DSTV-2-23-2 / GPA-DSTV-3-23-2 / Z-39-23-2)
Date: Thursday, September 19, 2024 6:51:26 AM
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
To Mr. Grande:
My name is Dennis McWherter and I am a resident of Fireside at Desert Ridge. I understand
that you are the City of Phoenix's point of contact related to the Black Mountain Village
project proposed by Vestar (GPA-DSTV-2-23-2 / GPA-DSTV-3-23-2 / Z-39-23-2). I wish to
voice my opposition to the proposal as you consider it.
Rezoning this land for commercial use will invite more traffic to an already precarious
location due to the higher-than-average concentration of new drivers coming to and from
Pinnacle Peak High School. It will also extend the hours under which there is heavy traffic in
the area. Furthermore, a commercial development in the area may encourage unwelcome
loitering. As a father of young children, I do have concerns about their safety in such an
environment. I find that the efforts to rezone the intersection of Deer Valley Dr. and Black
Mountain Blvd. to be actively harmful to the community residents. With the Desert Ridge
Marketplace approximately 2 miles away and plenty of other shopping complexes easily
accessible within minutes through SR-51, it does not serve a community need and it makes the
area less safe.
Allowing this land to be developed under its current plan for single-family residential better
fits the needs for our community. The current residential zoning also addresses a critical need
among our broader and rapidly growing Phoenix community: increasing the supply of
available housing in the valley. I urge the planning committee to reject the proposed rezoning
for this project.
Thank you for your consideration.
Regards,
Dennis McWherter
From: Sara Millett
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Black Mountain Rezoning Issue
Date: Thursday, September 19, 2024 2:02:11 PM
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Mr. Grande,
am writing you to express my opposition to Rezoning proposal case GPA-DSTV-2-23-2 and
Case GPA-DSTV-3-23-2 and Case Z-39-2.
As a Fireside resident of 13 years, and a parent of a teenager and a pre-teen, I think this is a
dangerous option for our community. The existing traffic nightmare near Pinnacle High School
will only be exacerbated by the addition of a commercial center. We need solutions to make
the intersections around the high school safer, not the opposite.
I urge you please to prioritize the safety of our children and newly driving teen high school
students.
Sincerely,
Sara Millett
3845 E Cat Balue Dr
Phoenix, AZ 85050
From: Michael Moskowitz
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Black Mountain Village Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 19, 2024 8:09:48 PM
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Dear Mr. Grande,
I am writing to express my descent regarding the proposed plans for Superblock Parcel 12. I
have been a resident and homeowner at Fireside in Desert Ridge for 13 years. What was once
a quiet neighborhood has transformed into a thoroughfare, and I fear that the addition of
another shopping center will exacerbate this issue. Traffic and noise levels have continued to
rise, and I am apprehensive about the further impact this shopping center would have.
The Desert Ridge Marketplace is already quite convenient, and efforts should focus on
enhancing this area rather than adding more commercial development.
I urge you not to change the zoning for this land to commercial use.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Michael Moskowitz
From: Marisa Oconnor
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Black Mountain rezoning
Date: Thursday, September 19, 2024 10:06:57 AM
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Mr Grande,
I am writing you to express my opposition to Rezoning proposal case GPA-DSTV-2-
23-2 and Case GPA-DSTV-3-23-2 and Case Z-39-2.
As a long time Fireside resident and parent of Pinnacle HS students, I think this is a
dangerous option for our community. The existing traffic nightmare near the high
school will only be exacerbated by the addition of a commercial center.
I urge you please to take into consideration the safety of our students many of whom
are brand new drivers!
Thank you!
From: Rebecca Moretsky
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Super block Parcel 12 plans
Date: Thursday, September 19, 2024 10:18:42 AM
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Dear Mr. grande,
I’m a resident of Fireside with 2 children in nearby elementary and middle school.
Next year we’ll have a son at Pinnacle Highschool and I’m already concerned about
the terrible traffic and delays on black mountain blvd and deer valley. I’m also a
medical provider so delays getting to work are an issue. I’m deeply concerned about
the significant increase in traffic if the land is used for grocery store. That corner is
dangerous for walking students and young drivers already. I’m in favor of residential
property in that area as this will not bring in the same number of additional people to
the already congested area. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Rebecca Reedy
Sent from my iPhone
From: Richards, Dan
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2 BLACK MOUNTAIN VILLAGE
Date: Thursday, September 19, 2024 2:54:08 PM
Attachments: Grocery Store options.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Mr. Grande,
I submitted something last year depicting the amount of gas stations that were in near Deer
Valley and Black Mountain Blvd. With Vestar eliminating the gas station from their proposal, I
wanted to focus on the fact that we have plenty of grocery stores available in the surrounding
area. Vestar used a graphic last year in some of their meetings stating that Desert Ridge
Marketplace is the only grocery store location in a 5-mile radius. That is simply not true at all!
Their graphic was only using a 5-mile range to the north of this property, and not looking south.
Even if you only looked to the north, they were still not being honest. Fry’s has a location at
Tatum and Cave Creek Road that is just under 5-miles from this property. Sprouts at
Scottsdale and Pinnacle Peak is also just under 5-miles.
If we start looking to the south of this parcel of land as well, then the options are incredible.
You don’t even need to use a 5-mile radius to start running into multiple grocery stores of the
same name. Within a 4-mile radius neighbors can choose between 3 different Fry’s, 2
different Albertsons, a Safeway, a Basha’s, ALDI, Food City, a Sprouts Market Express,
Walmart, Costco, and Target. If we increase this to a 5-mile radius, we add 2 Sprouts, a Whole
Foods, another Frye’s, another Safeway, and a WinCo Foods.
There is no need to be concerned about the undeveloped land to the north of Pinnacle Peak.
Once they start looking into developing the next super block to the north of Desert Ridge then
we can all start worrying about adding more grocery stores to that part of town. The neighbors
that live directly adjacent to the land at Black Mountain and Deer Valley do not want to see this
as a commercial property. We moved to this area to be away from the commercial portion of
Desert Ridge. Nobody is running out of gas just trying to get to a grocery store. We don’t’ want
Black Mountain Village. Please reject Vestar’s proposal to rezone this land.
Sincerely,
Dan Richards
DESERT RIDGE IS NOT LACKING GROCERY OPTIONS
FORGET ABOUT A 5-MILE RADIUS!!!!!!
Grocery Stores within a 4-mile radius of Pinnacle High School include:
x 3 Fry’s
x 2 Albertson’s
x Safeway
x Basha’s
x ALDI
x Sprouts Market Express
x Food City
x Costco
x Walmart
x Target
From: wroodenburg@cox.net
To: PDD Planning Commission; Council District 2 PCC; Mayor Gallego; PDD Desert View VPC
Cc: PDD Long Range Planning; Anthony M Grande
Subject: GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2 BLACK MOUNTAIN VILLAGE opposition.
Date: Friday, September 20, 2024 8:12:09 AM
Attachments: PlanningCommitteePhotoAppendix.docx
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Dear Planning committee members, Mayor, Councilman,
The above mentioned proposal to rezone a residential area in Desert Ridge to commercial has been
“amended” by Vestar with the elimination of the gas station and will be starting the process all over
again starting with the Desert View Village Planning committee on October 1st.
This commercial center is proposed to be right next to a high school and elementary school and our
residents think this is irresponsible and unacceptable to even consider.
(Please see the attached PhotoAppendix for the traffic nightmare we endure and the unsafe
situations our kids navigate to get to school and the drone footage on our website:
DefendDesertRidge (godaddysites.com)
[defenddesertridge.godaddysites.com])
Since the January 4th continuance was granted, Vestar and their lawyers will claim this to be
“working with and listening to the community”. They even have stated in a community meeting that
ASLD approached THEM about developing it.
Both statements are very far from the truth.
The plan before you was already mentioned back in December of 2023 where they already indicated
that they would be willing to drop the gas station and reduce the grocery size to 65,000 sqft, which
equals their original submission.
We requested the origin of this proposal and according to Arizona State Land department official
reply - “The Desert Ridge Community Association (DRCA) has said additional grocery anchored
retail is needed in Desert Ridge.”.
Does the president of an HOA have the authority to represent a whole community without any
involvement or poll results of their residents?
Would any of these parties have listened to the community, they would have heard many people say
that starting a commercial center next to schools is completely unacceptable.
The negative impact on the students is unacceptable, the increased traffic will be unacceptable.
There are plenty of grocery stores in the area and other pre-approved commercial zoned parcels
available.(See attached DR zoning)
900+ people have now signed our petition.
I’m sure you have heard it all before, but are we really all just the regular “not in my backyard”
complainers in your view? Or are we genuinely standing up for the future and safety of our kids and
in our community?
I am writing to you to please consider our concerns and recognize that this proposal is a big mistake
that will have long lasting negative consequences for the desert ridge community.
Also, please consider that we, as residents, have been led to believe that;
We bought our homes within the Desert Ridge master community which had specifically
dedicated land to a commercial core away from schools.
The city has put in place stringent rezoning requirements that stipulate that rezoning should
not be a detriment to adjacent properties, neighborhoods and public welfare (and student
safety I want to add)
The city is actively campaigning for Vision Zero Road Safety Plan to reduce the number of
traffic and pedestrian casualties. Even established an office for pedestrian safety. Not double
the traffic around an already congested school drop off area that would increase the chances
of casualties.
The city is actively campaigning for Safe Route To Schools. In our area a lot of students walk to
school from their homes and have to cross an already dangerous junction at Mayo blvd and
Black Mountain blvd.
Arizona State Land department is selling land to fund public education and works on behalf of
its trustees, the students. Allowing this proposal would do the exact opposite and harm the
students and the schools around it.
Our Desert View Village Planning committee is your first line of defense to filter out
unacceptable proposals to avoid wasting everybody’s time at City Hall. These appointed
people are representing our community in this process and have voted 9-1 against this
proposal as well.
We compel the village planning committee review all the concerns and emails and attachments from
last year and reach the same conclusion that this proposal should be dismissed immediately and
without compromise.
A quick summary of events timeline ;
Rezoning case:
Vestar is seeking to rezone 22 acres of the 77 acres of land from Residential to
Commercial which is part of Superblock 12-section L.
The land is owned by the ASDL and is situated with the Desert Ridge Master
Community, adjacent to Pinnacle High School and a block away from Fireside
Elementary School.
Residents oppose ; (See previous case material for full details)
due to the proximity of alcohol and cigarettes and fast food sales near schools.
And Paradise Valley School district has sent 2 letters in which they share
significant and valid concerns.
due to the increasing traffic safety issues and pedestrian casualties (evidence by
Vision Zero – Road Safety Action Plan)
the widely known detrimental impact and pollution of commercial centers on
our respected community. (Noise,Light,Odor,Gasoline,Idling cars, etc)
On August 25th ,2023 – Lennar Construction has applied for the remainer 55 acres of
Superblock 12L for Single Family Residential development.
This is what Superblock 12 is already zoned for. (Residential 2 to 5 du/ac)
This is already approved in the Desert Ridge master plan and is in line with the Phoenix
general plan.
On October 3rd, 2023 - by a vote of 9-1 - this rezoning request has already been denied by
our Desert View Village Planning committee. Committee members that are appointed by the
councilman and represent and live in our area.
On November 2nd, 2023 we appeared at the Planning Committee meeting where we learned
that Vestar requested a continuance and even negotiated with the opposing core resident
group to make it 60 days – because of the holidays, etc.
The reason that they provided was that they needed to have another review meeting
with the ASLD to review their amendments.
We agreed on the condition that they would share these changes in time for our review
and that stipulation was noted by the chairman.
On December 11th, 2023 the opposing core resident group was invited to meet with Vestar
executives to review these changes.
However, nothing was further from the truth.
They shared that no meeting with ASLD was held, no changes were made.
This meeting was clearly a bait-and-switch for an opportunity to find out what changes
we might be comfortable with.
The meeting ended with a verbal commitment that they would be willing to drop the
gas station and reduce the grocery size to 65,000 sqft. (Their original submitted and
approved plan submitted with the state….)
On January 4th, 2024 the city planning committee granted Vestar an “indefinite” continuance.
They were not asked to pay the cost for this continuance and continue to waste the
valuable time of these committees.
They were allowed to “work with the community” for the past 8 months and are now
presenting the original plan from October 2023
They are now presenting “Shops” in their drawing that will be converted to the
dreaded Drive through restaurants “after Use permit hearings” are complete. There is
no time in the world for residents to continue to battle these
Whilst Vestar is claiming to care for Desert Ridge and boasts about their involvement, the blatant
stalling tactics deployed in this case should not be tolerated and residents should not be asked to
have this request hovering over our community for any longer.
This proposal is starting to cause undue hardship for our community.
We’re fighting for our community character and Residents cannot be asked to fight Vestar, their
disingenuous actions and their attorneys for much longer. It’s not a level playing field.
Families that already have busy lives and volunteers like yourselves shouldn’t be treated like this by
Vestar and their attorneys.
The October 1st VPC meeting is in the middle of our school vacation! We shouldn’t be asked to
come to meetings where nothing new is being discussed, nor should this committee.
My name is Wouter Roodenburg and live on 21507 N 39th Terrace in Phoenix and I’m a long time
resident of Fireside in Desert Ridge and I oppose the case.
Please add this email to your case file and reports
I appreciate your consideration.
Regards,
Wouter Roodenburg.
DefendDesertRidge (godaddysites.com) [defenddesertridge.godaddysites.com]
Appendix In reference of case GPA-DSTV-2-23-2 and Case GPA-DSTV-3-23-2 and Case Z-39-23-2
October 21st – Home Coming Pinnacle High school
Rollover Accident on Black Mountain Blvd and Mayo
Student Driver involved
October 31st – Morning traĸc Pinnacle High school
Accident on Black Mountain Blvd and Mayo
Student Driver involved
Morning Traĸc MAYO Blvd
Access Road are all blocked ǁith traĸc
Morning Traĸc – INTERSECTION Black Mountain Blvd and Mayo
Access Road are all blocked ǁith traĸc
Morning Traĸc – Kids walking to school, crossing wherever they feel like
Morning Traĸc – Deer Valley.
Frustrated drivers making dangerous manouvres to cut into waiƟng lanes
Morning Traĸc
Girl walking along side 34st without sidewalk
Morning Traĸc blocking the Deer Valley IntersecƟon
COMMUNITY SPIRIT
Fireside Halloween ParƟes
Connected community where neighbors know and help each other
A community that puts eīort into creaƟng a safe environment
Fireside Halloween ParƟes
Connected community where neighbors know and help each other
A community that puts eīort into creaƟng unforgeƩable memories for their children
From: Rob Schmitz
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Letter opposing case number GPA-DSTV-2-23-2 / GPA-DSTV-3-23-2 / Z-39-23-2
Date: Thursday, September 19, 2024 4:52:37 PM
Attachments: Desert View Village Planning Committee.docx
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Hello Anthony,
Please find my letter attached in opposition to the above cases.
Thanks,
Rob Schmitz
Desert View Planning Committee,
My name is Rob Schmitz and I’m a resident of Fireside in Desert Ridge. I am a Fire Chief,
husband and most importantly a father. I have been in the Ʊre service for almost 2͏ years and have
a degree in Emergency Management. As a ƱreƱghter you are always learning and working to get
better at your trade, this includes training locally, statewide, and federally. This comes with many
experiences and a whole lot of connections and I have relationships with many law enforcement
oƯicers and even folks at the Arizona Counter Terrorism Information Center. I share all of this with
you to give credibility to my statements on this proposed Black Mountain Village development.
Having a development this close to a school will deƱnitely increase the potential for both
human and sex traƯicking, narcotic use and sales, and other unsafe conditions to the 2,4͏͏ plus
children that attend Pinnacle High School. The access for the bad folks that prey upon children will
increase in the large parking areas where children will deƱnitely congregate both for pick up and
drop oƯ, during school activities and children looking to hang out. We know there have been
incidents at the Desert Ridge Market Place and that is not right next to a school, this proposal is not
only right next to the school but has a proposed HAWX crossing to encourage the Ʋow of children
into this commercial area.
There will also be added traƯic which will increase the potential for accidents. Drivers are
very distracted today and unfortunately so are most pedestrians, have you seen all the people that
walk down the sidewalk and their heads are down looking at their phones? This is an added safety
concern for all the pedestrians in this area being right next to the school. Do we want to add any
additional risk to the 2,4͏͏ plus children that come and go on a regular basis? We have many before
and after school activities on top of all of the coming and going just getting to and from school, it is
a very busy area already and we don’t need a commercial development to add to that.
This committee voted this proposal down 9-1 less than one year ago, it was voted down for
the concern of safety for all of the kids today and all of the kids in the future. After this Vestar
stopped pursuing this and made minor changes, but none of them got to the core of the issue and
that is safety for our children. When Desert Ridge was originally planned this was not the vision,
let’s keep that vision and the vision the city of Phoenix still has today, no commercial development
on this land. Any commercial development next to a school is bad, especially a high school that has
so much foot traƯic. Please don’t take my next statement as a threat, but I’ve learned over my
career you unfortunately must be a bit dramatic to get a point across that resonates with folks. If
one child gets hurt, kidnapped, or even killed from the development of this land into commercial
property, it will be because of your approval on the plan and zoning change.
Thanks for your time,
Rob Schmitz
From: Susan Sheroff
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: GPA-DSTV-2-23-2 GPA-DSTV-3-23-2 Z-39-23 Black Mountain Village
Date: Thursday, September 19, 2024 6:17:34 PM
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Dear Mr. Grande,
My name is Susan Sheroff, I live and own 21214 N 36th Pl, Phoenix, AZ 85050. I
oppose these applications that would ruin the quality of living in Desert Ridge.
Thank you.
Susan Sheroff
Sent from my iPhone
From: Laurie Smith
To: Anthony M Grande
Cc: Council District 2 PCC
Subject: Letter of Opposition
Date: Thursday, September 19, 2024 9:06:58 PM
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Re: Case number GPA-DSTV-2-23-2, GPA-DSTV-3-23-2 and Z-39-23-2
Members of the Desert View Village Planning Committee:
I oppose this project and the rezone. Last fall I submitted letters of
opposition to the City. I also made a public comment at your October 3,
2023 meeting when you voted nearly unanimously to recommend denial.
I've carefully considered the minor revisions Vestar has recently made to
their plans and I urge you to once again recommend denial. The concerns
neighbors and many of you on the committee expressed last year are not
addressed by this revision.
My primary concern was and still is school and student safety. I wish to call
attention to threats to the security of the high school campus and students.
Schools have increasingly become targets of mass shootings. Child
predators prowl streets near schools. This is not hysterical conjecture; this
is a fact.
I have spent a lot of time on Paradise Valley Unified School District
campuses over the last 30 years as a parent and an employee. Campus
perimeters have been fortified, school offices remodeled, classroom locks
installed, and campus visitors restricted.
Currently, the open space surrounding Pinnacle makes it easy to spot a
potential bad actor just outside school gates. When the residential
neighborhood is developed, neighbors will be vigilant and likely to notice
people and vehicles that are suspicious. And, in fact, at schools throughout
the district and the city, police have been alerted by neighbors to stop and
even arrest suspects before a crime can be committed.
Commercial development will bring a great many more people who will
share sidewalks with students and many vehicles that will share the same
streets. It will be nearly impossible for neighbors to identify someone or
something that is out of place. Additionally, it will be more difficult for
school staff to monitor their own school driveways.
Prior to last year's meeting I asked City staff for an example of another high
school in such close proximity to a shopping center and was told that Sandra
Day O’Connor came to mind. But it is not at all comparable. Hackamore
Drive does run between the high school and the shopping center. However,
the two shopping center driveways are barricaded fire lanes with signs
posted that shopping center access is only on Happy Valley Road. There is
no shopping center traffic, vehicular or pedestrian, on Hackamore Drive.
Vestar freely admits that their plans are intentionally designed to connect
the school to the shopping center. The evidence is in the two driveways and
the crosswalk allowing direct ingress and egress to the shopping center from
Mayo Blvd.
Please do not set precedent by allowing this.
I also wish to note that I will be unable to attend the upcoming meeting on
October 1st as I will be out of town. Unfortunately that is the time of the
PVUSD Fall Break; I expect many other neighbors will be out of town, too.
Sincerely,
Laurie D. Smith
3749 E Covey Ln
Phoenix AZ. 85050
(Fireside Desert Ridge)
602-826-3181
From: Heidi Snyders
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Opposition of Vestar Proposal
Date: Thursday, September 19, 2024 7:04:31 PM
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Mr. Grande,
I hope this note finds you well.
My family and I strongly oppose the Vestar proposal regarding rezoning case GPA-DSTV-2-
23-2 and Case GPA-DSTV-3-23-2 and Case Z-39-23-2 at Desert Ridge (Deer Valley and
Black Canyon).
Our opposition is simply because the traffic it will draw will be a safely risk for families,
young drivers and student walkers in that area by the school. We already cannot get by during
peak times and a commercial/retail space will create more traffic that we do not want or need.
I am happy driving away from my community to existing businesses get my groceries and
believe the space is best used for single family homes as currently zoned. We hope you will
stop this development from moving forward.
I am unable to attend October 1st Village planning meeting at PV community center at
6:30pm and hope you can represent the strong opposition our community is expressing.
Kindly,
Heidi Snyders
From: Richard Starr
To: Anthony M Grande; rlane@gblaw.com
Subject: Re: Black Mtn Village Rezone // PHS turning movements MAJOR CHANGE
Date: Thursday, September 19, 2024 10:35:03 AM
Attachments: Outlook-emalwzlp.png
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Hello,
I attended the developer's community meeting on 9/17. There are unresolved questions with traffic. I encourage the City to push for answers on the following:
Updated Traffic Impact Statement.
a. The new median on Mayo will cause changes to traffic patterns for both student traffic (no left-in into student parking lot from Mayo, no left out of student parking lot from Mayo) and bus traffic (re-route from current path - North on Black Mountain Parkway, Left on
Deer Valley, Left on 34th Street (without aid of traffic signal), Left on Mayo Blvd into bus loading area). Black Mountain Pkwy congestion will increase after the developer adds new Mayo median.
b. Developer says it will entitle drive-thrus later. The TIS should include multiple drive-thru's in original analysis.
From: Richard Starr
Sent: Monday, September 9, 2024 1:39 PM
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Black Mtn Village Rezone // PHS turning movements MAJOR CHANGE
The proposed retail center site plan (revised) NOW includes a NEW MEDIAN on Mayo. This median will BLOCK a vital left hand turning movement from Mayo into the PHS parking lot. This will result in many U-turns or push nearly all PHS traffic onto Black Mountain Pkwy single
entrance. The prior site plan did NOT include a median on Mayo.
Pinnacle High School's (2,550+ students) operations should not affected by the new retail center. Vestar's revised site plan does not meet the needs of PHS traffic. The aerial picture on G&B website cuts off the school parking lot entrances. With this major change to PHS turning
movements, the aerial should be updated accordingly.
Additionally, AZ State Land and PVUSD need to work on a parking solution for PHS before the land auction to any developer. Special events overflow onto State Land property (100+ cars park in desert). There will be major conflicts in future when PHS and retail center are fighting
over parking.
Richard "R.T." Starr
rtstarraz@hotmail.com
From: James Tuffin
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: RE: FW: GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2 BLACK MOUNTAIN VILLAGE
Date: Thursday, September 19, 2024 11:36:15 AM
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
From: James Tuffin
Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2024 11:34 AM
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: FW: GPA-DSTV-2-23-2/GPA-DSTV-3-23-2/Z-39-23-2 BLACK MOUNTAIN VILLAGE
Dear Mr. Grande:
My names is James W. Tuffin. I reside in a home I own at 21214 N 36th Pl, Phoenix AZ
85050. I write to reiterate my opposition to the “Black Mountain Village” project. I
incorporate by reference all of my previous communications on this issue.
Although the Desert Ridge Specific Plan (“DRSP”) has been amended 22 times over the
years, never before has a family that purchased a single- family home away from the
designated Village Center been told that drive- through “quick serve” food operations will be
built across the street from their home on land that DRSP specified for residential use.
The essential justification for the proposed amendment is the alleged need for additional
grocery space in the area. Even if there was any merit to that contention (and I submit
there is none), it does not justify putting drive- through “quick serve” operations across the
street from people who were told that the land was residential when they bought their
homes.
Far from doing anything to address community concerns about drive-through operations in
a residential area, Vestar doubles down, saying it will not accept any limitations on drive-
through operations, in terms of types or operating hours, unless they are imposed by the
The prior site plans proffered by Vestar clearly showed drive-through operations, and
Vestar openly admitted that they were contemplated. In its latest iteration, the site plan
makes the drive-through nature of the retail “shops” less obvious. Nevertheless, at a
meeting conducted at the Fireside community clubhouse on September 17, 2024, Vestar’s
Executive Vice President for Development, Jeffrey M Axtel, and Vestar’s attorney, Ashely
Z. Marsh, Esq., of Gammage and Burnham, said that Vestar will install any drive-through
that the City of Phoenix may allow. I approached Mr. Axtel at the end of the meeting and
asked him what the proposed hours of operation were. He told me that he did not know
what the hours of operations were, and that it was up to the City of Phoenix. Vestar seems
to contend that the requirement of a Use Permit for the drive-throughs is somehow a
concession to community concerns on its part. This is disingenuous, since the same permit
requirements existed when they were more open about the drive-through plans.
Prior to the Fireside meeting, and after receiving the most recent revised site plan, I asked
Vestar executive Ryan Ash if drive-through operations were contemplated. He responded
that “we have not engaged in conversations with any shop or pad tenants at this time. As
such, we don’t currently have any expected users” (email of Ryan Ash to James Tuffin,
8/28/2024). In my opinion, this assertion is not credible.
The Desert Ridge Specific Plan provides as follows:
The urban village concept has been accepted in Phoenix as a desired land use
pattern. It follows that this concept should be extended to guide land use planning
and development in Areas C and D. Desert Ridge is based on the urban village
concept in that all community and regional commercial uses are located in the
Desert Ridge Village Center. Very small neighborhood convenience commercial
uses are appropriately placed internally within neighborhood units. The Desert
Ridge Village Center is appropriately the "urban" core of Area C. Land uses are the
most intense in and around the Village Center in Desert Ridge, logically reducing in
density with increasing distance from the commercial/employment center and
continuing beyond the project boundaries. (DRSP 3.B Goal 1)(emphasis supplied).
In furtherance of this concept, the regulatory portion of DRSP provides that drive-through
operations are specifically prohibited from any commercial conveniences that might be built
in residential areas (DRSP 6.C.3.B.2.d).
The amendment to the regulatory Chapter 6 of DRSP sought by Vestar is, on its face,
wholly inconsistent with the nonregulatory portion reproduced above. Nevertheless, Vestar
refuses to process an amendment of any nonregulatory portion of DRSP. The Zoning
Ordinance clearly requires amendment of the nonregulatory portion in this instance (Zoning
Ordinance Section 403.F.4). I invited Vestar’s counsel to address this deficiency and they
responded as follows:
The DRSP’s non-regulatory provisions is met by the combination of updating the
General Plan land use designation, updating the regulatory provisions of the DRSP,
and the subsequent submittal and review of the Master Plans for the land use area.
These three (3) elements implement the non-regulatory provisions by having public
hearings about the proposed change and a full public process along with the Master
Plan update to show the modifications within the subject Superblock of the DRSP
(email of Ashley Z. Marsh, Esq., to James Tuffin dated September 17, 2024).
The plain language of the Zoning Ordinance does not support this contention. Vestar is just
trying to avoid having to justify stark inconsistency between the requested amendment and
the non-regulatory portions of the plan.
The Zoning Ordinance requires that a ‘zoning case shall be heard on an agenda which is
separate from, and subsequent to, the agenda at which a related specific plan amendment
is heard” (Zoning Ordinance Section 403F.2.e). Assuming, for sake of argument, that the
City has the discretion to waive this requirement, I respectfully submit that it was an
improvident exercise of discretion in this case. The amendment to the regulatory chapter
offered by Vestar is blatantly inconsistent with the non-regulatory portions of DRSP.
This gross deviation from the Specific Plan, to the detriment of homeowning families, is
unprecedented. Of the 22 amendments made to date, few involved any change from
residential to commercial use. Those that might have involved a change from residential to
commercial predated most if not all of the single family construction in the area, and none
of them were anything like the current proposal. S-23543 (May 8, 1996) dealt Superblocks
3 and 6; G-4497 (Feb. 3, 2003) provided for certain institutional uses in Superblock 9; G-
4513 (May 21, 2003) provided for residential office use in neighborhood commercial
conveniences; G-4608 (May 19, 2004) was a minor amendment to accommodate the Boys
and Girls Club); G-4654 (Nov. 3, 2004) involved commerce park uses within Superblock 5).
At the Fireside meeting, Mr. Axtel began by saying that the Black Mountain Village project
was the result of a request made by the State Land Department (SLD) to Vestar. He said
SLD was seeking to add grocery space to accommodate anticipated residential
construction outside of Desert Ridge, north of Pinnacle Peak Road. When asked why the
project was not being placed closer to the intended beneficiaries, he said that grocers were
reluctant to commit to stores where surrounding housing was not yet built. When
questioned about the inconsistency between this information and Vestar’s assertions that
the project is only intended as a local convenience for nearby homes, Vestar’s
representatives were unable to provide a coherent response.
Vestar’s applications must be rejected. Any failure by SLD to meet its own planning
obligation for the land sales in the area north of Desert Ridge can be remedied without
punishing innocent homebuyers in Desert Ridge. Far from meeting any immediate need for
groceries in the area, Vestar is clearly using this as a pretext to cash in drive-through
operations at the last traffic signal before the northern terminus of the SR 51 freeway.
Please include this in the case record.
Sincerely,
James W. Tuffin
21214 N 36th Pl
Phoenix, AZ 85050
516.359.6420
james.tuffin@tuffinlaw.com
From: Sean Yu
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Rezoning proposal case - OPPOSITION
Date: Thursday, September 19, 2024 10:37:54 AM
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Hello Anthony,
Hope this email finds you well!
I am a resident in the dessert ridge neighborhood and I would like to express my opposition to
the Rezoning proposal case GPA-DSTV-2-23-2 and Case GPA-DSTV-3-23-2 and Case Z-
39-23-2.
I strongly believe that it's not a good idea to rezone that area for commercial purposes.
Looking at the presented plans, and even with the planned lane increases and separate
sidewalks, it's very clear that traffic is going to be a huge issue in the surrounding area.
Currently all residents are driving away from Pinnacle High School to do their grocery
shopping. If there is a supermarket right next to the high school, not only are the people who
live in the surrounding communities going to drive there, it's also going to draw people from
even further away.
Increasing traffic on all surrounding streets also means increasing the risk of accidents, highly
likely with HS students involved too during school hours, and definitely increasing pollution
and noise to the neighborhood. Not to mention people gathering and there will be a higher risk
of violent/police-involved incidents/crimes happening as we have seen multiple cases in
Desert Ridge Marketplace. I would like to keep everything as it is, with the area being zoned
for single family homes. Thank you for your consideration!
Best regards,
Yuh-Shang Yu
From: Susan Ze
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: GPA-DSTV-2-23-2 and Case GPA-DSTV-3-23-2 and Case Z-39-23-2.
Date: Thursday, September 19, 2024 4:07:49 PM
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
I am writing once more to register my opposition to the above rezoning proposals. As a
resident of the Copper View neighborhood of Desert Ridge Fireside, I live right next to the
proposed Desert Ridge Village Marketplace and envision many reasons why this commercial
development is not advisable, primarily among them the traffic and safety of our students who
attend the adjacent high school.
The amount of traffic in the early morning drop off and mid afternoon drop off make it
difficult to leave my neighborhood, especially if I need to use 51. As a retired educator who
taught many years in a high school, I know that in addition to being a traffic safety issue, the
proximity of a shopping center will also provide an unneeded distraction to the students, no
matter how many deterrents Vestar claims they will use to prevent the students from accessing
the marketplace.
Vestar also implies that the marketplace will add to the value of our homes, due to the
"walkability" factor of the neighborhood. Please! That "walkability" will factor in only from
October to perhaps April due to the ever increasing heat in Phoenix.
The marketplace will also attract traffic from AZ51 and AZ101 via AZ51, particularly if a
Trader Joe's, Sprouts, or Whole Foods is the anchor or if any of a number of drive through
coffee or fast food restaurants choose to locate there. As one woman remarked at the Fireside
presentation, the increased exhaust from cars and trucks will have a devastating effect on the
cognitive development of the children at the adjacent school and all those in the neighborhood.
For the above and many other reasons, my husband and I oppose the referenced cases and the
Deer Valley/Black Mountain/Mayo rezoning to commercial use,
Susan and Frederic Ze
3616 E Abraham Ln
Phoenix AZ 85050
480 665 6596
From: Rebecca Oakes
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Black Mountain Village – City of Phoenix Case Nos. GPA-DSTV-2-23-2, GPA-DSTV-3-23-2, and Z-39-23-2
Date: Friday, September 20, 2024 9:37:22 AM
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
I again am writing to you to register my strong disapproval of proposed amendments (case
numbers listed above) to modify existing zoning from residential to commercial.
Our homes in Fireside at Desert Ridge were built under the Desert Ridge Specific Plan. The
plan promised clean, quiet, and safe neighborhoods where commercial activity in the
“residential superblocks” is strictly limited to minor “conveniences” of no more than 3 acres
and drive through operations are prohibited.
The land at Deer Valley and Black Mountain is designated residential under the plan. Vestar,
the developer of the Desert Ridge Marketplace, now wants to change this for their own
financial gain; if the Desert View Planning Committee and city of Phoenix vote for the change
of zoning, and approve the plan to put in a 20-acre shopping center (where we cannot and will
not know what types of retail businesses will be - no one involved in this project will commit
to various reasonable restrictions for its location - as per the meeting at Fireside Community
Center. This will cause great harm to my family and neighbors; this land needs to remain
zoned for single family home residential.
As I wrote to you last year, my family lives in the closest section of Fireside to Pinnacle HS, and
the proposed shopping center. We already suffer through the pedestrian and vehicle traffic
that invades the streets of our neighborhood when school is in session and for other events
held at the HS. Students and parents drive at unsafe speeds down 36th Street and Abraham
Dr. Additionally, at drop off and pick up times, cars are lined up and/or idling as drivers wait to
drop off or pick up their students, blocking our way in and out, causing us to "play chicken" to
maneuver down the narrowed streets. Some of these students walk through our desert
wash/neighborhood landscaping as a short cut to those cars dropping off/waiting to pick up.
This is also a neighborhood where many children walk to Fireside Elementary School, located a
short distance away. So not only is driving in, through and out of our neighborhood difficult
and would most likely become dangerous as traffic increases in an area not planned for such
commercial development, it is not safe for small children to safely walk to school. While
adding speed bumps would help the speeding of the drivers cutting through our
neighborhood, there still remains a larger issue.
In addition, it can be all but impossible to safely leave our neighborhood at these times - the
southern exit, on to Mayo Blvd. is right turn only and is very close to the Mayo/Black Mountain
Blvd intersection (specifically to get into the left lane to turn on SR 51). The northern exit on
to Deer Valley Rd. is hard to turn left onto during high traffic times.
To put it more clearly - leaving our neighborhood becomes even more difficult and dangerous
with increased vehicle traffic that comes with commercial development - especially trying to
go south onto Black Mountain Blvd AND west onto Deer Valley. We only have two VERY
flawed entrances/exits that in the best of times are tricky and not very convenient OR safe.
We essentially have to choose to limit leaving our neighborhood or taking the increased risk of
attempting to go south or west in less than safe traffic conditions. How does this benefit our
residential community?!? I predict that vehicle (and pedestrian) accidents will dramatically
increase if this shopping center is approved.
I have seen nothing in the "reworking" of this plan that adequately addresses the traffic
concerns I have laid out here.
Has the city of Phoenix specifically done a traffic study of this area, taking this commercial
development into account? How would the council plan to ameliorate the above stated
traffic issues? What about environmental studies looking at the increase noise, light and
exhaust pollution that will directly impact the surrounding residential neighborhoods?
There is nothing that can be commercially built and nothing beneficial from a retail standpoint
that makes this development worth if for my family and residential neighborhood. There are
plenty of retail options at Desert Ridge and other close shopping centers. The is also land near
by that has been zoned for retail/commercial - use those lands for this development. Keep
this parcel of land zoned as is, and open up bidding to home builders who would like to
purchase this state land.
Sincerely,
Rebecca J. Oakes
3608 E Salter Dr
Phoenix, 85050
SUPPORT
From: ROBERT J MAYO
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: GPA-DSTV-2-23-2, GPA-DSTV-3-23-2,Z-39-23-2
Date: Thursday, September 19, 2024 1:48:01 PM
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Mr. Grande,
I am writing this in regard to above noted rezoning cases.
My family is COMPLETELY IN FAVOR OF THIS PROJECT.
As a 17-year resident of Fireside Desert Ridge, we look forward to having a
neighborhood retail center in the area. It has been long overdue. In my opinion this
project, instead of more residential will reduce traffic at the times that some of my
neighbors believe it will increase.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Bob & Yvette Mayo
21622 N. 39th Pl
Phoenix, AZ 85050
(602)793-8249
Former Managing Partner Roy's Desert Ridge
Current Managing Partner Village Tavern Scottsdale
From: Dan Oseran
To: Anthony M Grande
Subject: Support for BMB/deer valley development
Date: Wednesday, September 18, 2024 10:39:34 PM
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Hi Anthony,
I support Vestar’s proposed new development south of Deer Valley and Black
mountain Blvd.
I know that you are probably being inundated with emails against the project, and I
think that’s due to a very organized and loud group of homeowners that border the
area and are against any sort of development on that property.
Vestar seems to have listened to criticism in the first round and made this lower
density and smaller stores to keep it more in line with the neighborhood and schools
immediately surrounding the area. I think a tasteful retail area can be beneficial to
property values.
Thank you,
Dan Oseran
ATTACHMENT D
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-39-23-2
Date of VPC Meeting October 1, 2024
Request From S-1 DRSP (Approved R1-6 DRSP)
S-1 DRSP (Approved R-2 DRSP)
Request To C-2 DRSP
Proposed Use Commercial shopping center
Location Southwest corner of Black Mountain Boulevard and Deer
Valley Drive
VPC Recommendation Approval, per the staff recommendation
VPC Vote 10-1
VPC DISCUSSION:
Item No. 4 (GPA-DSTV-2-23-2), Item No. 5 (GPA-DSTV-3-23-2), and Item No. 6 (Z-39-
23-2) are companion cases and were heard together.
Fifty-two members of the public registered to speak on this item, 18 in opposition, 34 in
support.
Twelve members of the public registered in opposition, not wishing to speak.
Twenty-six members of the public registered in support, not wishing to speak.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Anthony Grande, staff, provided an overview of the location of the subject site and the
surrounding area, the proposed amendments to the General Plan Land Use Map and
the Desert Ridge Specific Plan, and the rezoning request. Mr. Grande further described
the proposed development, the correspondence received from the public, and the staff
recommendations on all three cases, including recommended stipulations for the
rezoning case.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Ashley Marsh, representing the applicant with Gammage & Burnham, PLC, provided a
presentation, highlighting the work the applicant has done with the community since the
last meeting and the aspects of the proposed development that have been modified.
Ryan Ash with Vestar provided an overview of the company and the project, including
the process of deciding on the subject site for this project. Dawn Cartier with CivTech
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 3996
Desert View Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-39-23-2
October 1, 2024
Page 2
described the proposed street improvements in the surrounding area and the impacts
on the traffic.
QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE
Vice Chair Lagrave asked about the provision of crossing guards and whether the
applicant would be open to prohibiting car washes. Ms. Marsh stated that the applicant
would provide the crossing guards and would be open to prohibiting car washes.
Committee Member Israel asked about the enforceability of the requirements of the
Desert Ridge Specific Plan and about the responsibility to street improvements. Mr.
Grande replied that the requirements of the specific plan are regulatory and would be
enforced for any future development at the site and that developers are generally
responsible for street improvements on their half of the street.
Committee Member Younger asked about auto-oriented businesses. Ms. Marsh
replied that the zoning would allow what’s found in the C-2 zoning use list.
Committee Member Nowell asked about drive throughs and the traffic and noise
generated from them. Ms. Marsh stated that every drive through is different and has to
be reviewed through a use permit for each one.
Mr. Nowell asked about the timing of street improvements. Ms. Marsh replied that all
street improvements would need to be done first before development of the site.
Committee Member Kollar asked about the bus stop pad. Ms. Marsh replied that it
would be incorporated for any future bus routes that may serve the area.
Mr. Younger commented on the traffic pattern example mentioned at Xavier College
Preparatory School and asked if it would be similar here. Ms. Cartier replied that these
would be more controlled movements because of the medians.
Committee Member Carlucci asked about signal timing changes at Black Mountain
Boulevard and Deer Valley Drive. Ms. Cartier replied that the timing would be adjusted
to allow pedestrians time to cross. Mr. Carlucci asked about the overall traffic
modeling. Ms. Cartier provided details of the level of service in several scenarios.
Committee Member Kirkilas asked about the size of the grocery store and asked for
clarification on the definition of adult uses. Mr. Ash replied that the site plan is
conceptual and that negotiations will begin after zoning is in place, which will solidify the
store size. Ms. Marsh provided a clarification on adult uses.
Mr. Israel asked about limiting all auto-oriented uses in C-2. Mr. Grande explained that
individual uses could be prohibited in the Desert Ridge Specific Plan.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 3997
Desert View Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-39-23-2
October 1, 2024
Page 3
Mr. Younger asked about the height limit. Mr. Ash replied that it would be two stories,
30 feet.
Mr. Carlucci asked about the estimated investment in infrastructure for this project and
whether prohibiting drive throughs would negatively impact the project. Mr. Ash replied
with investment details and stated that prohibiting drive throughs would limit many future
restaurant options. Chair Bowser added that in the post-Covid market, there are many
more pick-up windows and drive throughs than before.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Ted Weis introduced himself and spoke in support of the proposal, highlighting that it
will provide more options for the area.
Stephen Applebaum introduced himself and spoke in opposition to the proposal,
stating that it will provide opportunities for bad behavior for students.
Jackie Zicarelli introduced herself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating that
this will only shift where people spend money, and that housing would be more
important to building due to the housing crisis.
Gary Smith introduced himself and spoke in support of the proposal, stating that Desert
Ridge Marketplace is too crowded, and this will provide an alternative.
Yana Dashevsky introduced herself and spoke in support of the proposal, highlighting
the parking issues at Desert Ridge Marketplace.
Aimee Sinclair introduced herself and spoke in support of the proposal, stating that
Desert Ridge is growing, and this proposal will make it safer to walk and bike.
Kristen Cassuto introduced herself and spoke in support of the proposal, highlighting
the parking issues at Desert Ridge Marketplace.
David Barge introduced himself and spoke in support of the proposal, stating that he
did not like the original proposal but is in support due to the changes Vestar made.
Allie Lucyk read a letter from Geraldine Belafsky in support of the proposal.
Roland Ward introduced himself and spoke in support of the proposal, stating it will
provide an alternative to Desert Ridge Marketplace, which is too busy.
Payton Sinclair introduced himself and spoke in support of the proposal, stating it
would be good to have job opportunities nearby.
Andrea Remke introduced herself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating she
bought her home to be able to safely walk to school, not to have retail neaby.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 3998
Desert View Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-39-23-2
October 1, 2024
Page 4
Mike Coppola introduced himself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating that it
will cause a traffic nightmare.
Suzanne Sayegh introduced herself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating
that this is not a neighborhood shopping center, that stores people are looking for do not
want to locate here, and that street improvements would be made by any new
development.
Chris Sinclair introduced himself and spoke in support of the proposal.
Allie Lucyk introduced herself and spoke in support of the proposal.
A member of the public read a letter of support from Greg Abrams.
Justin Popnoe introduced himself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating this
will have a negative impact on the nearby schools and highlighting the issue of child
trafficking.
William King introduced himself and spoke in support of the proposal, stating they
expected new retail to be built to accommodate new housing coming in.
Wouter Roodenburg introduced himself and spoke in opposition to the proposal,
highlighting a petition submitted of people against the proposal.
Jason Epstein introduced himself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating there
are too many unknowns.
Megan Lloyd introduced herself and spoke in support of the proposal, stating that
having closer retail options is a good thing.
Ben Butler introduced himself and spoke in support of the proposal, stating support for
additional retail and that Vestar is a good developer.
Ron Bookholder introduced himself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating
the retail center will be regional due to the presence of the SR-51 and that this will be
detrimental to the kids.
Aaron Lloyd introduced himself and spoke in support of the proposal, stating it will
bring amenities to the area.
A member of the public read a letter of support from Bob Hamer.
Layla Saikley introduced herself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating that
the area is a quiet, peaceful community.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 3999
Desert View Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-39-23-2
October 1, 2024
Page 5
A member of the public read a letter of support from Erin Reese.
A member of the public read a letter of support from Richard Kovacik.
Dan Richards introduced himself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating that
he moved to the area to enjoy the distance from retail, that he was told this parcel would
be residential, and that the shopping center is not needed.
A member of the public read a letter of support from Rick Merritt.
Ronald Diamant introduced himself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating it
will bring in more traffic with the proximity of the SR-51.
Helen Doyle introduced herself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating that this
intersection will end up busier than Tatum Boulevard.
Neeraj Chandak introduced himself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating
that the shopping center will be just as bad as Desert Ridge Marketplace and
highlighting the issue of homelessness.
Irina Butler introduced herself and spoke in support of the proposal, stating that Vestar
did a good job of responding to the community’s concerns.
Linda Miles introduced herself and spoke in support of the proposal.
Sara Johnson introduced herself and spoke in support of the proposal.
Paul Dunn introduced himself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating that it is
spot zoning and should be invalidated, and that the existing allowed use is single-family
residential.
Carolyn Dunn introduced herself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, playing a
video showing the traffic issues around the school.
A member of the public read a letter of support from Harrison Cole, stating the need for
new commercial development to support the new housing.
A member of the public read a letter of support from Caryn Marchuk, stating the peak
times are better with retail than with residential.
Nathan and Ilene Friedland introduced themselves and spoke in support of the
proposal.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 4000
Desert View Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-39-23-2
October 1, 2024
Page 6
Candy Huether introduced herself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating that
parking and crime are issues, noting the issue of children crossing the street.
Robert Miles introduced himself and spoke in support of the proposal, stating the area
is not currently walkable and that this proposal will take vehicles off the road.
John Norris introduced himself and spoke in support of the proposal, stating it will
enhance the value of the area by providing an amenity.
Jim Farley introduced himself and spoke in support of the proposal, stating that Vestar
responded to community concerns.
Greg Collins introduced himself and spoke in support of the proposal, stating this will
provide options for kids and enhance walkability.
James Tuffin introduced himself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating that
people bought homes based on the Desert Ridge Specific Plan and highlighting the
issues with drive throughs.
A member of the public read a letter of support from Bill Knapp.
Christian Jacob introduced himself and spoke in support of the proposal, stating that
friendships are formed at spaces like this and that other similar centers provide a safe
space.
Peggy Neely introduced herself as the former Councilperson for the area and spoke in
support of the proposal, stating that Vestar is a good developer and that the project will
benefit the area.
APPLICANT RESPONSE
Ms. Marsh showed a drone video highlighting the traffic conditions of the area and
discussed the history of the Desert Ridge Specific Plan being amended in the past.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
Committee Member Warren stated a concern about having retail next to the school,
adding that he would be supportive if it was in a different location.
Vice Chair Lagrave commented about other examples of shopping centers near
schools and noted that he was previously opposed to this because of the size of the
grocery store and the gas station, which have been addressed by the applicant, adding
that he would be supportive with the condition that there is no car wash.
Committee Member Younger asked about the bid process and timing. Ms. Marsh
provided clarification.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 4001
Desert View Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-39-23-2
October 1, 2024
Page 7
MOTION
Vice Chair Lagrave made a motion to recommend approval of Z-39-23-2 per the staff
recommendation. Richard Carlucci seconded the motion.
VOTE
10-1; motion to recommend approval of Z-39-23-2 per the staff recommendation
passed; Committee Members Barto, Carlucci, Israel, Kirkilas, Kollar, Nowell, Reynolds,
Younger, Lagrave, and Bowser in favor; Committee Member Warren opposed.
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:
None.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 4002
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-39-23-2
Date of VPC Meeting October 3, 2023
Request From S-1 DRSP (Approved R1-6 DRSP)
S-1 DRSP (Approved R-2 DRSP)
Request To C-2 DRSP
Proposed Use Commercial shopping center
Location Southwest corner of Black Mountain Boulevard and Deer
Valley Drive
VPC Recommendation Denial
VPC Vote 9-1
VPC DISCUSSION:
Item No. 5 (GPA-DSTV-2-23-2), Item No. 6 (GPA-DSTV-3-23-2), and Item No. 7 (Z-39-
23-2) are companion cases and were heard together.
Twenty members of the public registered to speak on this item, 17 in opposition, three in
support.
Thirty-three members of the public registered in opposition, not wishing to speak.
Three members of the public registered in support, not wishing to speak.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Anthony Grande, staff, provided an overview of the location of the subject site and the
surrounding area, the proposed amendments to the General Plan Land Use Map and
the Desert Ridge Specific Plan, and the rezoning request. He further described the
proposed development, the correspondence received from the public, and the staff
recommendations on all three cases, including recommended stipulations for the
rezoning case.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Stephen Anderson, representing the applicant with Gammage & Burnham, provided a
presentation, describing the need for an additional grocery store in the area and
highlighting details of the proposed development, including limitations on uses and
upgrades to the adjacent streets. Mr. Anderson further noted responses to concerns
raised and reviewed data regarding support for the proposal in the community.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 4003
Desert View Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-39-23-2
October 3, 2023
Page 2
QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE
Committee Member Bunnell asked about the ownership of the property. Mr.
Anderson replied that the property is owned by the Arizona State Land Department and
provided clarification about the future auction process.
Committee Member Nowell asked if alcohol sales would be permitted at the grocery
store. Mr. Anderson replied that it would be permitted.
Chair Bowser asked for clarification on uses allowed in proximity to the school. Mr.
Anderson stated that alcohol is not permitted within 300 feet of the school and that the
proposed specific plan text would not permit alcohol sales as a primary use, but it would
be allowed as an accessory use.
Committee Member Kirkilas asked if the gas station would be permitted to sell
alcohol. Mr. Anderson replied that a gas station with a convenience store would not be
permitted on the site.
Committee Member Younger asked whether dispensaries would be allowed on the
site. Mr. Anderson replied that they would be prohibited by the proposed text.
Committee Member Kollar asked about parking management plans for the site. Mr.
Anderson replied that the developer has experience managing complex parking
situations, including at Desert Ridge Marketplace.
Committee Member Kirkilas asked about the distance from the site to the Albertsons
and if there is a standard distance expected between grocery stores. Mr. Anderson
stated that the distance is about two miles and noted that the distance to the nearest
grocery store from Albertsons is currently around five miles, which is an unusually large
separation for the Phoenix area.
Committee Member Nowell asked about the median extension stipulation. Mr.
Anderson provided clarification, noting that the curbing would be added where it is
currently striped.
Committee Member Israel asked about street conditions on Mayo Boulevard before
and after the proposed development. Mr. Anderson stated that Mayo Boulevard is
currently a half-street and described the proposed street improvements.
Committee Member Bunnell stated that bike lanes should be provided in both
directions.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Dan Richards introduced himself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating that
residents in the area did their research and expected this parcel to be residential and
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 4004
Desert View Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-39-23-2
October 3, 2023
Page 3
that the proposed commercial use will bring customers from the SR-51 freeway and
create issues with lighting, safety, loitering, and property values.
Wouter Roodenburg introduced himself and spoke in opposition to the proposal,
stating that neighborhood retail is limited to three acres in the specific plan and it
doesn’t need to be changed because it already accomplishes the goals of the General
Plan, further noting safety concerns with students walking to school and pedestrian and
bike fatalities in relation to Vision Zero.
James Tuffin introduced himself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating that
commercial activity should take place in the core and reduce in intensity away from the
core, further noting that there are other shopping options nearby and that people bought
their homes expecting this parcel to be residential.
Paul Dunn introduced himself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, highlighting the
large footprint of the proposed grocery store and stating that the proposal will not be low
impact and will cause traffic issues, in addition to air and light pollution.
Jackie Zicarelli introduced herself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating that
the statements made by the applicant, including alcohol sales prohibition and the
inclusion of Trader Joes or Whole Foods, are misleading and that C-1 zoning would be
neighborhood retail, rather than C-2.
Mallorie Laforest introduced herself and spoke in opposition to the proposal,
highlighting issues related to light pollution, traffic, and parking.
Todd Laforest introduced himself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating there
was no immediate need for the development and that it would cause traffic issues,
further noting that the development will not necessarily be done by Vestar.
Randal Spence introduced himself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating that
there are many grocery store options in the area and that people supporting the
proposal only want small grocers.
Jeanette Vespalee introduced herself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating
that the master plan does not call for commercial use and that the proposal will cause
congestion, traffic, and crime issues.
Candy Huether introduced herself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating that
homeowners with exterior view fencing on neighboring developments expected the site
to develop with residential, rather than commercial, and that crime, homeless, and
human trafficking are important issues.
Tom Carlson introduced himself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating that it
has transportation engineering issues and will draw traffic into the neighborhood.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 4005
Desert View Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-39-23-2
October 3, 2023
Page 4
Nathan Goldberg introduced himself and spoke in support to the proposal, stating that
he is generally in favor of the proposal and the area needs more grocery stores, but he
noted that he is concerned about the size of the grocery store and that the plan could be
modified to include pick up and drop off areas for the school.
Joe Hudock introduced himself as a former chair of the committee and spoke in
opposition to the proposal, stating that the purpose of the specific plan was to
concentrate commercial activity in the core and that there will be opportunities to build
with C-2 zoning to the north.
Laurie Smith introduced herself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating that
the plan raises security concerns because residential development allows people to
monitor the streets more than with commercial development.
Jeff Smith introduced himself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, highlighting that
there is uncertainty in the final product because a different developer could come in
later with a different proposal.
Patty Farley introduced herself and spoke in support to the proposal but noted that
there should be no gas station and that a pedestrian bridge should be constructed over
Deer Valley Drive.
Jim Farley introduced himself and spoke in support to the proposal, stating that the
HAWK will be a great device for Mayo Boulevard and that there should be overhead
walkways installed.
Nathan Friedland introduced himself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating
that he moved to the location to get away from the lights of Reach 11 and this proposal
would introduce more lighting to the area, further noting that there should be no gas
station.
Connie Ahlman introduced herself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating
agreement with many of the comments made and adding that Mayo Boulevard will
continue to have a parking issue and that C-1 zoning would be neighborhood retail,
rather than C-2.
Andrea Remke introduced herself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating that
people bought homes in this area to be away from commercial growth and allow kids to
safely walk to school, knowing the proposed site would be residential.
APPLICANT RESPONSE
Mr. Anderson stated that Black Mountain Boulevard connections to the north will be in
the distant future, the adjacent streets are major arterials designed to handle a large
amount of traffic, lighting limits would be in place through stipulations, and this proposal
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 4006
Desert View Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-39-23-2
October 3, 2023
Page 5
will not set a precedent for additional commercial in the area, further reviewing Desert
Ridge Marketplace traffic issues.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
Committee Member Warren stated that the concerns raised by the community about
commercial activity next to the school are valid and that he has traffic concerns. Mr.
Warren further stated that it is not a good idea to put commercial activity next to a
school and that he is not supportive of the proposal.
Vice Chair Lagrave asked for clarification about the Arizona State Land Department’s
role in the process. Mr. Grande stated that ASLD is the property owner and submitted
an authorization to allow Vestar to apply to rezone the property.
Vice Chair Lagrave stated that he does not support gasoline sales, that car washes
should be prohibited at this location, and that 96,000 square feet is not a neighborhood
grocery store. He further stated that if the application is approved, stipulations should be
added to limit the size of the grocery store to 64,000 square feet, require a 50-foot
building setback on Black Mountain Boulevard and Deer Valley Drive, and prohibit
gasoline sales and car washes.
Committee Member Bunnell provided clarification on the ASLD process for auction.
Committee Member Younger stated that he hopes the shopping center would be
moved to a different location.
MOTION
Committee Member Mark Warren made a motion to recommend denial of Z-39-23-2.
Committee Member Rick Nowell seconded the motion for denial.
VOTE
9-1, motion to recommend denial of Z-39-23-2 passed; Committee Members Barto,
Bunnell, Israel, Kirkilas, Kollar, Nowell, Warren, Younger, and Lagrave in favor;
Committee Member Bowser opposed.
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:
None.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 4007
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-39-23-2
INFORMATION ONLY
Date of VPC Meeting August 1, 2023
Request From S-1 DRSP (Approved R1-6 DRSP)
S-1 DRSP (Approved R-2 DRSP)
Request To C-2 DRSP
Proposed Use Commercial shopping center
Location Southwest corner of Black Mountain Boulevard and Deer
Valley Drive
VPC DISCUSSION:
Item No. 3 (GPA-DSTV-2-23-2), Item No. 4 (GPA-DSTV-3-23-2), and Item No. 5 (Z-39-
23-2) are companion cases and were heard together.
Committee Member Michelle Santoro declared a conflict of interest, bringing quorum to
10 members.
Eight members of the public registered to speak on this item, seven in opposition, one
with questions.
One member of the public registered in support, not wishing to speak.
One member of the public registered in opposition, not wishing to speak.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Anthony Grande, staff, provided an overview of the process to amend the Desert
Ridge Specific Plan and the amendment proposed by the applicant, further describing
the proposed General Plan Land Use Map amendment and rezoning.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Stephen Anderson, representing the applicant with Gammage & Burnham, described
the proposed commercial development, noting that the anchor would be a grocery store,
described the process for development of Arizona State Land Department property and
the City of Phoenix zoning and development process. He further described the
proposed text change to the Desert Ridge Specific Plan, in addition to the General Plan
Amendment and rezoning cases.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 4008
Desert View Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-39-23-2
August 1, 2023
Page 2
QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE
Committee Member Kirkilas suggested adding a prohibition on smoke shops.
Committee Member Powell asked about the size of the grocery store. Mr. Anderson
stated that the size was not defined yet.
Committee Member Nowell stated a concern about light pollution from the proposed
gas station. Mr. Anderson stated that there was interest in a gas station in their
outreach, but they could consider shifting it south.
Committee Member Younger asked if the applicant had spoken with the school
leadership and whether electric vehicle charging would be provided. Mr. Anderson
replied that they had recent discussions with the school leadership, but no specific
agreements have been reached. He further stated that there would be EV charging on
site.
Committee Member Kollar asked about safety issues related to foot traffic around the
school. Mr. Anderson replied that it was the subject of discussions with the school,
adding that a safe crossing is going to be needed for Mayo Boulevard. Dawn Cartier, a
member of the development team with CivTech, stated that a HAWK crossing is under
discussion for Mayo Boulevard.
Committee Member Kollar asked about a traffic study for the project, citing gridlock on
surrounding streets. Ms. Cartier stated that the traffic study is in process, noting that
there will be different peak times for the proposed use and the school.
Chair Bowser stated that there are a lot of illegal left turns on the surrounding streets.
Committee Member Dickson stated that the applicant presented to the Desert Ridge
organization and that people in Desert Ridge want a grocery store and gas station.
Committee Member Kollar asked about the presentation slides showing geographic
limits on certain uses. Mr. Anderson replied that the graphics related to liquor licensing.
Committee Member Nowell asked for clarification on the proposed prohibition on liquor
sales. Mr. Anderson replied that it would only be prohibited as a primary use but that a
business like the grocery story could sell liquor as an accessory use.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Justin Popnoe introduced himself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating that
the community doesn’t have interest in a gas station or any alcohol sales at this site.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 4009
Desert View Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-39-23-2
August 1, 2023
Page 3
Wouter Roodenburg introduced himself and spoke in opposition to the proposal,
stating that traffic is an issue around the school in the mornings and that safety of the
kids is a concern.
Robin Bowie introduced herself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, citing issues
related to traffic in the area, crime, and homelessness, suggesting the commercial use
could be located elsewhere.
Dan Richards introduced himself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating that
residents in the area don’t want a gas station and that the volume of traffic is very high
in the area.
James Tuffin introduced himself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating that
the neighborhood is clean and quiet because there is no commercial in the area and
that kids going to the shopping center will be a problem.
Taylor Moskovich introduced herself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, stating
that people bought in the area with the expectation there would be no commercial uses
and that it is a family friendly area with no need for businesses.
Amanda Jane introduced herself and spoke in opposition to the proposal, noting that
residents of Sky Crossing should be considered, even though they are not in Desert
Ridge.
Frank Soldano introduced himself and asked for more information about the size of the
grocery store, as that would make a difference on the impact, noting he would like to
see a gas station at this location.
APPLICANT RESPONSE
Mr. Anderson stated that the applicant team will consider all of the comments made
and that written comments can be submitted to City staff.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
Vice Chair Lagrave stated that the developer is going to need to work with the
community to find solutions to many of the issues raised at the meeting.
Committee Member Younger stated that the public discussion brought up an important
issue about lighting, in addition to other issues raised.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 4010
ATTACHMENT E
REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
November 7, 2024
ITEM NO: 14
DISTRICT NO.: 2
SUBJECT:
Application #: Z-39-23-2
(Companion Cases GPA-DSTV-2-23-2 and GPA-DSTV-3-23-2)
(Continued from January 4, 2024)
Location: Southwest corner of Black Mountain Boulevard and Deer Valley Drive
From: S-1 DRSP (Approved R1-6 DRSP) and S-1 DRSP (Approved R-2 DRSP)
To: C-2 DRSP
Acreage: 20.52
Proposal: Commercial shopping center
Applicant: Ryan Ash, Vestar
Owner: Arizona State Land Department
Representative: Ashley Z Marsh, Gammage & Burnham
ACTIONS:
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
Desert View 8/1/2023 Information only.
Desert View 10/3/2023 Denial. Vote: 9-1.
Desert View 10/1/2024 Approval, per the staff recommendation. Vote: 10-1.
Planning Commission Recommendation:
11/2/2023 Continued to the January 4, 2024 Planning Commission Hearing, without fee. Vote:
9-0.
1/4/2024 Continued to a date uncertain and remanded back to the Desert View Village Planning
Committee for reconsideration. Vote: 7-0.
111/7/2024 Approval, per the Desert View Village Planning Committee recommendation.
Motion Discussion: None
Motion details: Commissioner Matthews made a MOTION to approve Z-39-23-2, per the Desert
View Village Planning Committee recommendation.
Maker: Matthews
Second: Read
Vote: 9-0
Absent: None
Opposition Present: Yes
Findings:
1. The proposal is consistent with the proposed General Plan Land Use Map
designation and will contribute to a mix of land uses in the surrounding area.
2. As stipulated, the proposal enhances the surrounding area with features
promoting pedestrian safety, facilitating alternative transportation, and
providing pedestrianized amenity spaces for the community.
3. As stipulated, the proposal provides trees and shade, promoting thermal
comfort for users of the site and pedestrians on adjacent sidewalks.
Stipulations:
1. All on site lighting shall comply with the following:
a. Maximum of 20 feet in height including lamp, pole, and base.
b. All outdoor lighting fixtures must be designed, installed, and maintained to
prevent light trespass, glare, and skyglow.
c. All outdoor fixtures must be full cutoff, ensuring zero light output emitted above
the horizontal (90-degree plane).
d. Utilize LED lights with a correlated color temperature (CCT) of 3000K or lower.
2. A minimum 5,000-square-foot pedestrian plaza shall be provided and maintained by
the developer as a gathering place for the public, adhering to the following standards,
and as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
a. The plaza shall be designed to allow pedestrian access and shall not be
restricted during the time the shopping center is open.
b. The plaza shall include seating for public use and a minimum of two additional
amenities, such as a water feature, outdoor game area, splash pad, shaded
seating, enhanced landscaping, performance stage, fire pit, or other similar
amenities.
3. A minimum 6-foot-wide pedestrian pathway, providing cross-block access and
connecting with the public plaza, shall be provided consistent with the following
standards, and as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
a. The pathway shall adhere to the requirements of Section 1304.H of the
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance.
b. The pathway shall connect with the HAWK crossing provided at Mayo
Boulevard.
c. The pathway shall be lined on both sides with either of the following elements,
or a combination of the two, except where a pedestrian pathway is a minimum
of 16 feet wide:
(1) A minimum 5-foot-wide landscape strip, except where drive aisles cross
the pathway where necessary. Structural shade elements may be used,
and footers may be placed within the landscape strip along the
pathway.
(2) Building frontages meeting the glazing requirements of a minimum of 75
percent of the ground floor frontages facing the pedestrian pathway,
measured as the area between 3 and 8 feet above grade for the entire
width of the facade, consisting of clear windows that will allow a
minimum of 75 percent of the visible light (as specified by the
manufacturer) to be visible on either side of the window.
4. 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.
5. All pedestrian pathways, including sidewalks and shared-use paths, shall be shaded
by a structure or landscaping at maturity, or a combination of the two to achieve a
minimum of 75 percent shade, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
6. All uncovered surface parking lot areas shall be landscaped with minimum 2-inch
caliper drought-tolerant shade trees. Landscaping shall be dispersed throughout the
parking area and achieve 25 percent shade at maturity, as approved by Planning and
Development Department.
7. Bicycle parking shall be provided, consistent with Section 1307.H of the Phoenix
Zoning Ordinance, except that Section 1307.H.6.c shall not apply, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
8. A minimum of 2 percent of the required parking shall be EV installed.
9. A minimum of 10% of the required shrubs, shall be a milkweed or other native nectar
species, and shall be planted in groups of three or more, as approved by the Planning
and Development Department.
10. The developer shall dedicate right-of-way and construct a bus stop pad on
southbound Black Mountain Boulevard. Bus stop pad shall be constructed according
to City of Phoenix Standard Detail P1260 with a minimum depth of 10 feet. Bus stop
pad shall be spaced from Deer Valley Drive according to City of Phoenix Standard
Detail P1258. Trees shall be placed to provide 50 percent shade coverage to bus stop
pad at full maturity.
11. A minimum number of pedestrian connections shall be provided from the development
to the adjacent sidewalk, as follows: 2 connections to Deer Valley Drive, 3 connections
to Mayo Boulevard, and 3 connections to Black Mountain Boulevard, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department. Pedestrian connections shall be
sufficiently spaced to allow convenient pedestrian access to the sidewalk from any
portion of the proposed development.
12. The landscape planters along all streets, separating the curb from the sidewalk, shall
be planted to the following standards, as approved or modified by the Planning and
Development Department.
a. Minimum 2-inch caliper shade trees planted 20 feet on center or in equivalent
groupings to provide a minimum of 75 percent shade at tree maturity.
b. Drought-tolerant shrubs, accents, and vegetative groundcovers to achieve a
minimum of 75 percent live coverage at maturity.
Where utility conflicts arise, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on an alternative design solution consistent with a
pedestrian environment.
13. A 20-foot-wide shared-use path easement (SUPE) shall be dedicated along Black
Mountain Boulevard and a minimum 10-foot-wide shared-use path (SUP) shall be
constructed within the easement in accordance with the MAG supplemental detail and
as approved or modified by the Planning and Development Department.
14. A minimum 5-foot-wide detached sidewalk separated by a minimum 5-foot-wide
landscape strip located between the back of curb and sidewalk, shall be provided
along 34th Street, as approved or modified by the Planning and Development
Department.
15. A minimum 70 feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated for the west half of Black
Mountain Boulevard, adjacent to the development.
16. A minimum 55 feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated for the north half of Mayo
Boulevard, adjacent to the development.
17. Mayo Boulevard shall be consistent with the Desert Ridge Specific Plan and the
approved cross sections in the forthcoming Super Block 12 Master Street Plan.
18. The existing median in Black Mountain Boulevard shall be modified to extend
northward to the Deer Valley Drive intersection.
19. The existing traffic signal at the intersection of Mayo Boulevard and Black Mountain
Boulevard shall be fully funded and reconstructed to meet City of Phoenix standards.
20. A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) and Master Street Plan shall be submitted to the City
for this development and Super Block 12 of the Desert Ridge Specific Plan. The
Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) shall also be expanded to address the proposed
development’s impact and funding responsibility on the Sonoran Desert Drive
Corridor. No preliminary approval of plans shall be granted until the study and master
street plan are reviewed and approved by the Street Transportation Department.
21. A HAWK traffic control device shall be fully funded and constructed on Mayo
Boulevard between 34th Street and Black Mountain Boulevard, as approved by the
Street Transportation Department.
22. Decorative metal view fencing shall be constructed in the landscape median along
Mayo Boulevard, as approved by the Street Transportation Department.
22. Acquire, dedicate sufficient right-of-way, and construct a southbound right turn lane,
23. including incidental intersection improvements, on the northwest corner of the Deer
Valley Drive and Black Mountain Boulevard intersection.
24. Acquire, dedicate sufficient right-of-way, and construct a westbound right turn lane,
including incidental intersection improvements, on the northeast corner of the Deer
Valley Drive and Black Mountain Boulevard intersection.
25. Acquire, dedicate sufficient right-of-way, and construct an eastbound right turn lane,
including incidental intersection improvements, on the southwest corner of the Deer
Valley Drive and 40th Street intersection.
26. Acquire, dedicate sufficient right-of-way, and construct a westbound right turn lane,
including incidental intersection improvements, on the northeast corner of the Deer
Valley Drive and 40th Street intersection.
27. All streets within and adjacent to the development shall be constructed 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.
28. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and
operational characteristics of the Phoenix Deer Valley Airport to future owners or
tenants of the property. The form and content of such documents shall be according to
the templates and instructions provided which have been reviewed and approved by
the City Attorney.
29. If determined necessary by the Phoenix Archaeology Office, the applicant shall
conduct Phase I data testing and submit an archaeological survey report of the
development area for review and approval by the City Archaeologist prior to clearing
and grubbing, landscape salvage, and/or grading approval.
30. If Phase I data testing is required, and if, upon review of the results from the Phase I
data testing, the City Archaeologist, in consultation with a qualified archaeologist,
determines such data recovery excavations are necessary, the applicant shall conduct
Phase II archaeological data recovery excavations.
31. 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.
32. Prior to preliminary site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a Proposition 207
waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the Maricopa County
Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be included in the rezoning application
file for record.
This publication can be made available in alternate format upon request. Please contact Teleia
Galaviz at 602-291-2559, teleia.galaviz@phoenix.gov, TTY: Use 7-1-1.
REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
January 4, 2024
ITEM NO: 4
DISTRICT NO.: 2
SUBJECT:
Application #: Z-39-23-2 (Companion Cases GPA-DSTV-2-23-2 and GPA-DSTV-3-23-2)
Location: Southwest corner of Black Mountain Boulevard and Deer Valley Drive
From: S-1 DRSP (Approved R1-6 DRSP) and S-1 DRSP (Approved R-2 DRSP)
To: C-2 DRSP
Acreage: 20.52
Proposal: Commercial shopping center
Applicant: Ryan Ash, Vestar
Owner: Arizona State Land Department
Representative: Stephen Anderson, Gammage & Burnham, PLC
ACTIONS:
Staff Recommendation: Continuance to a date uncertain.
Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
Desert View 8/1/2023 Information only.
Desert View 10/3/2023 Denial. Vote: 9-1.
Planning Commission Recommendation: Continued to a date uncertain, without fee; and
remand the case back to the Desert View Village Planning Committee for reconsideration.
Motion Discussion: N/A
Motion details: Commissioner Gorraiz made a MOTION to continue Z-39-23-2, to a date
uncertain, without fee; and remand the case back to the Desert View Village Planning
Committee for reconsideration. Direction was given to have the applicant notify everyone that
registered to speak at the meeting.
Maker: Gorraiz
Second: Perez
Vote: 7-0
Absent: Mangum
Opposition Present: Yes
Findings: The applicant requested a continuance to a date uncertain and to be remanded back
to the Desert View Village Planning Committee.
This publication can be made available in alternate format upon request. Please contact Teleia
Galaviz at 602-291-2559, teleia.galaviz@phoenix.gov, TTY: Use 7-1-1.
REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
November 2, 2023
ITEM NO: 9
DISTRICT NO.: 2
SUBJECT:
Application #: Z-39-23-2
(Companion Cases GPA-DSTV-2-23-2 & GPA-DSTV-3-23-2)
Location: Southwest corner of Black Mountain Boulevard and Deer Valley Drive
From: S-1 DRSP (Approved R1-6 DRSP) and S-1 DRSP (Approved R-2 DRSP)
To: C-2 DRSP
Acreage: 20.52
Proposal: Commercial shopping center
Applicant: Ryan Ash, Vestar
Owner: Arizona State Land Department
Representative: Stephen Anderson, Gammage & Burnham
ACTIONS:
Staff Recommendation: Continuance.
Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
Desert View 8/1/2023 Information only.
Desert View 10/3/2023 Denial. Vote: 9-1.
Planning Commission Recommendation: Continued to the January 4, 2024 Planning
Commission hearing, without fee.
Motion Discussion: N/A
Motion details: Commissioner Perez made a MOTION to continue Z-39-23-2, to the January 4,
2024 Planning Commission hearing, without fee.
Maker: Perez
Second: Gorraiz
Vote: 9-0
Absent: None
Opposition Present: Yes
Findings: The applicant requested a continuance to allow more to time to work with the State
Land Department and the community.
This publication can be made available in alternate format upon request. Please contact Teleia
Galaviz 602-602-291-2559, TTY use 7-1-1
ATTACHMENT F
For additional correspondence, please see GPA-DSTV-2-23-2,
GPA-DSTV-3-23-2, and Z-39-23-2 on the following website:
https://www.phoenix.gov/pdd/planning-zoning/pzservices/pzstaff-reports
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Adoption - Rezoning Application Z-58-24-8 - Approximately 710 Feet North and
305 Feet West of the Northwest Corner of 20th Avenue and South Mountain
Avenue (Ordinance G-7322) - District 8
Request to hold a public hearing and amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section
601, the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix, by adopting Rezoning Application Z-58-24-
8 and rezone the site from S-1 (Ranch or Farm Residence) to R1-10 (Single-Family
Residential) for single-family residential.
Summary
Current Zoning: S-1
Proposed Zoning: R1-10
Acreage: 4.54
Proposal: Single-family residential
Owner: Dorothy M. Hallock
Applicant/Representative: John Fox
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Action: The South Mountain Village Planning Committee heard this item on July
9, 2024, and recommended a continuance to the August 13, 2024, Village Planning
Committee meeting, by a vote of 11-3. The South Mountain Village Planning
Committee heard this item on August 13, 2024, and recommended a continuance to
the September 10, 2024, Village Planning Committee meeting, by a vote of 12-0. The
South Mountain Village Planning Committee heard this item on September 10, 2024,
and recommend approval, per the staff recommendation, with additional stipulations,
by a vote of 7-5.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this item on October 10, 2024, and
recommended approval, per the staff memo dated October 7, 2024, with a
modification, by a vote of 7-2.
The Planning Commission recommendation was appealed by a community member
and a petition for a 3/4 vote was submitted on October 15, 2024. A 3/4 vote is
required.
Location
Approximately 710 feet north and 305 feet west of the northwest corner of 20th Avenue
and South Mountain Avenue
Council District: 8
Parcel Address: N/A
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Planning and
Development Department.
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-58-24-8) FROM S-1 (RANCH OR FARM
RESIDENCE) TO R1-10 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE
DISTRICT).
____________
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as
follows:
SECTION 1. The zoning of a 4.54-acre site located approximately 710 feet
north and 305 feet west of the northwest corner of 20th Avenue and South Mountain
Avenue in a portion of Section 1, Township 1 South, Range 2 East, as described more
specifically in Exhibit “A,” is hereby changed from “S-1” (Ranch or Farm Residence) to
“R1-10” (Single-Family Residence).
SECTION 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to
modify the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix to reflect this use district classification
change as shown in Exhibit “B.”
SECTION 3. Due to the site’s specific physical conditions and the use
district applied for by the applicant, this rezoning is subject to the following stipulations,
violation of which shall be treated in the same manner as a violation of the City of
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance:
1. The conceptual site plan and landscape plan for future development of the site
shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Hearing Officer through the
public hearing process, including review by the South Mountain Village
Planning Committee, for stipulation modification prior to preliminary site plan
approval. This is a legislative review for conceptual purposes only. Specific
development standards and requirements will be determined by the Planning
Hearing Officer and the Planning and Development Department.
2. The conceptual elevations for future development of the site shall be reviewed
and approved by the Planning Hearing Officer through the public hearing
process, including review by the South Mountain Village Planning Committee,
for stipulation modification prior to final site plan approval. This is a legislative
review for conceptual purposes only. Specific development standards and
requirements will be determined by the Planning Hearing Officer and the
Planning and Development Department.
3. Prior to preliminary plat approval, documentation shall be provided that
demonstrates participation in the Environmental Protection Agency’s
WaterSense certification program, or an equivalent program, as approved by
the Planning and Development and Water Services departments.
4. A WaterSense inspection report from a third-party verifier shall be submitted
that demonstrates successful participation in the Environmental Protection
Agency’s WaterSense certification program, or an equivalent program, prior to
certificate of occupancy, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
5. Only landscape materials listed in the Phoenix Active Management Area Low-
Water-Use/Drought-Tolerant Plant List shall be utilized in the common areas
and within the front yards of individual residential lots, as approved or modified
by the Planning and Development Department.
6. Natural turf shall only be utilized on individual single-family lots (behind the
front yard); required retention areas (bottom of basin); and functional turf areas
within common areas, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
7. Pressure regulating sprinkler heads and/or drip lines shall be utilized in any turf
areas to reduce water waste.
8. A minimum of two green infrastructure (GI) techniques for stormwater
management shall be implemented per the Greater Phoenix Metro Green
Infrastructure and Low-Impact Development Details for Alternative Stormwater
Management, as approved or modified by the Planning and Development
Department.
9. Participation in the City of Phoenix Homeowner’s Association Water Efficiency
Program shall be incorporated into to Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions
for the subdivision, prior to final site plan approval.
10. Swimming pools on individual single-family lots shall be limited to 600 square
feet in size.
11. A minimum 50 feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated and constructed for the
full width of 20th Lane for the full length of the subject site, connecting to the
southern adjacent parcel.
12. A minimum 50-foot radius easement shall be dedicated and a minimum 45-foot
radius temporary turnaround shall be constructed at the southern terminus of
20th Lane. Alternatively, a permanent turn around design may be considered
and shall include a center landscaped island, designed to City of Phoenix
standards, as approved by the Street Transportation Department.
13. All streets within and adjacent to the development shall be constructed 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. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and
operational characteristics of Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport to future owners or
tenants of the property. The form and content of such documents shall be
according to the templates and instructions provided which have been reviewed
and approved by the City Attorney.
15. In the event archeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-
foot radius of the discovery, notify the City Archeologist, and allow time for the
Archeology Office to properly assess the materials.
16. Prior to final 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. The development shall be limited to a maximum of 18 units.
18. A minimum of 30% of building elevations shall include covered porches in the
front yard and rear yard at a minimum of 60 feet each and at a depth of at least
6 feet, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
19. The maximum building height for 80% of the lots shall be limited to one story
and 26 feet, as approved by the Planning and Development Department. Two-
story lots shall be south of lots 5 and 15, as shown on the site plan date
stamped September 5, 2024.
20. A minimum of 8% of the gross project area shall be retained as common area,
as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
21. Building elevations shall contain multiple colors, exterior accent materials and
textural changes that exhibit quality and durability such as brick, stone, colored
textured concrete or stucco, or other materials to provide a decorative and
aesthetic treatment, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
22. All street-facing garage doors lengths shall be less than 50% of the total width
of the façade, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
23. Front setbacks for covered building elements shall be staggered by a minimum
of 5 feet, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
24. Lot widths shall vary, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
25. The southern end of the street shall have landscaping and wrought iron view
fencing to enhance the view of South Mountain, until 20th Lane is constructed
to the south of the property, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
26. A retaining wall shall be provided along the northern boundary of Tract A, as
approved or modified by the Planning and Development Department.
27. The development shall be in general conformance with the site plan date
stamped September 5, 2024, as modified by the above stipulations and as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
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 13th day of November,
2024.
________________________________
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)
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR Z-58-24-3
THE NORTH 595.00 FEET OF THE WEST HALF OF THE WEST HALF OF FARM
UNIT H, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS THE WEST HALF OF THE WEST
HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF
SECTION 1, TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 2 EAST OF THE GILA AND SALT RIVER
BASE AND MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY ARIZONA.
ATTACHMENT B
Staff Report Z-58-24-8
June 25, 2024
South Mountain Village Planning July 9, 2024
Committee Meeting Date:
Planning Commission Hearing Date: August 1, 2024
Request From: S-1 (Ranch or Farm Residence)
(4.54 acres)
Request To: R1-10 (Single-Family Residence District)
(4.54 acres)
Proposal: Single-family residential
Location: Approximately 710 feet north and 305
feet west of the northwest corner of 20th
Avenue and South Mountain Avenue
Owner: Dorothy M. Hallock
Applicant/Representative: John Fox, William Seymour Co. Inc.
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations
General Plan Conformity
Residential 2 to 3.5 dwelling units
General Plan Land Use Map Designation
per acre
Street Map
20th Lane Local 0-foot full street
Classification
CELEBRATE OUR DIVERSE COMMUNITIES AND NEIGHBORHOODS CORE
VALUE; CLEAN NEIGHBORHOODS; LAND USE PRINCIPLE: Facilitate the
acquisition of vacant, underutilized and blighted parcels for appropriate
redevelopment, compatible with the adjacent neighborhood character and
adopted area plans.
The proposal, as stipulated, will facilitate development of this vacant lot in a manner
that will be compatible in scale and character with the adjacent single-family residential
uses.
CELEBRATE OUR DIVERSE COMMUNITIES & NEIGHBORHOODS CORE VALUE;
CERTAINTY & CHARACTER; DESIGN PRINCIPLE: Promote neighborhood
identity through planning that reinforces the existing landscaping and character
of the area. Each new development should contribute to the character identified
for the village.
Staff Report: Z-58-24-8
June 25, 2024
As stipulated, the proposal will promote neighborhood identity by requiring the site
plan, landscape plan, and elevations be reviewed and approved by the Planning
Hearing Officer through a public hearing process, including review by the South
Mountain Village Planning Committee. This will also promote the existing character of
the area and the vision for the Rio Montaña Area Plan.
BUILD THE SUSTAINABLE DESERT CITY CORE VALUE; DESIGN PRINCIPLE:
Integrate trees and shade into the design of new development and
redevelopment projects throughout Phoenix.
The proposal includes detached sidewalks within the development that will be planted
with shade trees and enhanced landscaping within the front yards of individual lots.
These improvements will be required to earn the necessary bonus points to achieve
the proposed density. The proposal, will create a comfortable pedestrian environment
within the development, reduce the urban heat island effect, and make the walk to
nearby destinations safer and more comfortable.
Applicable Plans, Overlays, and Initiatives
Rio Montaña Area Plan: Background Item No. 6.
Housing Phoenix Plan: Background Item No. 7.
Phoenix Climate Action Plan: Background Item No. 8.
Conservation Measures for New Development: Background Item No. 9.
Tree and Shade Master Plan: Background Item No. 10.
Complete Streets Guiding Principles: Background Item No. 11.
Zero Waste PHX: Background Item No. 12.
Surrounding Land Uses and Zoning
Land Use Zoning
On Site Vacant S-1
North Single-family residential R1-10
South Single-family residential S-1
East Single-family residential S-1
Staff Report: Z-58-24-8
June 25, 2024
West Single-family residential S-1 (Approved R1-10)
R1-10 – Single-Family Residence District
(Planned Residential Development Option)
Provisions on the
Standards R1-10 Requirements
proposed site plan
Gross Acreage - 4.54
Total Maximum Number of 16; 20 with bonus 20 with 90 bonus points
Units required (Not specified)
Maximum Density 3.5; 4.5 with bonus 4.4 (Met)
Minimum Lot Width 45 feet 50 to 60 feet (Met)
Minimum Lot Depth None, except 110 feet 110 to 140 (Met)
adjacent to freeway or arterial
Maximum Building Height 2 stories and 30 feet 2 story (24 feet and 4
inches) (Met)
Maximum Lot Coverage 50 percent, up to 60 percent Not specified
for an ADU and/or attached
shade structures
Minimum Building Setbacks
Perimeter Streets 15 feet (in addition to No perimeter street
landscape setback)
Perimeter Property Lines Rear Rear: Not specified
(Side and Rear) 1-story building: 15 feet
2-story building: 20 feet Side: Not specified
Side
1-story building: 10 feet
2-story building: 15 feet
Minimum Landscape Setbacks and Standards
Common landscaped 15 feet average, 10 feet No perimeter street
setback adjacent to minimum
perimeter streets
Minimum Common Area 5 percent of gross site area Not specified
Staff Report: Z-58-24-8
June 25, 2024
Background/Issues/Analysis
SUBJECT SITE
1. This request is to rezone 4.54 acres located approximately 710 feet north and 305
feet west of the northwest corner of 20th Avenue and South Mountain Avenue from
S-1 (Ranch or Farm Residence) to R1-10 (Single-Family Residence District) for a
detached single-family residential subdivision. The subject site is presently vacant.
2. The subject site is
designated as Residential 2
to 3.5 dwelling units per acre
on the General Plan Land
Use Map. The areas to the
north, east, and west are
also designated Residential
2 to 3.5 dwelling units per
acre. The area to the south is
designated as Residential 1
to 2 dwelling units per acre.
The request to rezone to R1-
10 is consistent with the
General Plan Land Use Map
designation on the site.
Staff Report: Z-58-24-8
June 25, 2024
SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING
3. To north is a single-family
subdivision zoned R1-10; to
the east are single-family
residences zoned S-1; to the
west is a single-family
subdivision zoned S-1
(Approved R1-10); and to the
south is a single-family
residence zoned S-1.
Location Map; Source: Planning and Development Department
PROPOSAL
4. Site Plan
The proposal is for a Conceptual Site Plan; Source: William Seymour Co. Inc.
20-lot subdivision.
The requested R1-
10 zoning district
allows for 16 units,
and up to 20 units
with a density
bonus. To achieve
20 units the
development will
need 90 bonus
points, the
development
proposes to
achieve the 90
bonus points
through the
provision of detached sidewalks, enhanced landscaping, additional open space,
enhanced architectural design, and entry monuments. The proposed bonus points
will be reviewed through the development review process.
Staff Report: Z-58-24-8
June 25, 2024
The conceptual site plan, attached as an exhibit, depicts the site layout including
the location of each lot, the open space areas, proposed lot widths, proposed lot
depths, the connection to the existing subdivision to the north, and pedestrian
circulation. The site will have access to Baseline Road through the subdivision to
the north. A temporary cul-de-sac will be constructed at the southern portion of the
site until a future connection to South Mountain Avenue is constructed.
To ensure compatibility with the surrounding area and the Rio Montaña Area Plan,
staff recommends Stipulation No. 1 to require that the site plan and landscape plan
for future development of the site be reviewed and approved by the Planning
Hearing Officer through the public hearing process, including review by the South
Mountain Village Planning Committee.
5. Conceptual Building Elevations
The conceptual building elevations and renderings, attached as an exhibit, feature
two, one-story and two, two-story elevations. Each elevation highlights four-sided
architecture and a diverse mix of building materials. The designs incorporate
enhanced architectural variation that is needed to earn the necessary bonus points
to achieve the proposed density. Staff recommends Stipulation No. 2 to require
that the building elevations for future development of the site be reviewed and
approved by the Planning Hearing Officer through the public hearing process,
including review by the South Mountain Village Planning Committee.
Conceptual Building Elevations; Source: E-Project International
Staff Report: Z-58-24-8
June 25, 2024
STUDIES AND POLICIES
6. Rio Montaña Area Plan:
Source: Planning and Development Department
The Rio Montaña Area Plan
encourages preservation of
the rural character of the
area and incorporates
transition zones to protect
desert and open space
areas. The plan also
encourages pedestrian and
equestrian activities through
a network of trails and
aspires to develop a sense of
community while
encouraging investment in
the community.
The Rio Montaña Area Plan intended to accomplish this vision through seven goals
that include: promoting balanced, high quality development; protecting and
improving neighborhoods through maintenance, rehabilitation and infill projects;
keeping a distinctive character that reflects the diversity in its equestrian heritage,
culture, history and architecture; protecting the rural character, the Sonoran Desert
and the riparian potential of the Rio Salado Habitat Restoration Project; promoting
future business development and economic growth; developing the tourism
industry through a wide range of opportunities; and providing a variety of
transportation options.
This site is located in the center of the Rio Montaña Area Plan boundaries in an
area with a mix of rural residential neighborhoods, single-family subdivisions,
commercial, and agricultural uses. The development of this vacant parcel will
further the Rio Montaña Area Plan goal of promoting infill projects.
The proposal will further address design and pedestrian connectivity goals by
providing detached sidewalks within the development, entry monuments, enhanced
landscaping, and enhanced building elevations. These improvements will be
required to earn the necessary bonus points to achieve the proposed density.
Additionally, to ensure the development is compatible with the Rio Montaña Area
Plan design goals, Stipulation Nos. 1 and 2 require that the site plan, landscape
plan, and elevations for future development of the site be reviewed and approved
Staff Report: Z-58-24-8
June 25, 2024
by the Planning Hearing Officer through the public hearing process, including
review by the South Mountain Village Planning Committee
Other design elements of the Rio Montaña Area Plan will be addressed through the
design guidelines of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance in Chapter 5, Section 507 Tab.
A (Guidelines for Design Review).
7. Housing Phoenix Plan:
In June 2020, the Phoenix City Council approved the Housing Phoenix Plan. This
Plan contains policy initiatives for the development and preservation of housing
with the vision of creating a stronger and more vibrant Phoenix through increased
housing options for residents at all income levels and family sizes. Phoenix’s rapid
population growth and housing underproduction has led to a need for over 163,000
new housing units. Current shortages of housing supply relative to demand are a
primary reason why housing costs are increasing.
The proposed development supports the Plan’s goal of preserving or creating
50,000 housing units by 2030 by providing housing that will address the supply
shortage at a more rapid pace while using vacant or underutilized land in a more
sustainable fashion.
8. Phoenix Climate Action Plan
In October 2021, the Phoenix City Council approved the Climate Action Plan. The
Climate Action Plan will serve as a long-term plan to achieve greenhouse gas
emissions reductions and resiliency goals from local operations and community
activities as well as prepare for the impacts of climate change. This plan contains
policy and initiatives regarding stationary energy, transportation, waste
management, air quality, local food systems, heat, and water. Goal W2 (Water),
Action W2.4, pertains to the implementation of the Greater Phoenix Metro Green
Infrastructure (GI) and Low Impact Development Details for Alternative Stormwater
Management to benefit the environment, promote water conservation, reduce
urban heat, improve the public health, and create additional green spaces. This
goal is addressed in Stipulation No. 8, which requires a minimum of two GI
techniques for stormwater management to be implemented in this development.
9. Conservation Measures for New Development:
In June 2023, the Phoenix City Council adopted the Conservation Measures for
New Development policy as part of a resolution addressing the future water
consumption of new development (Resolution 22129). This resolution addresses
the future water consumption of new development to support one of the City’s Five
Core Values in the General Plan which calls for Phoenix to - Build the Sustainable
Desert City. The Conservation Measures for New Development policy includes
Staff Report: Z-58-24-8
June 25, 2024
direction to develop standards for consideration as stipulations for all rezoning
cases that will address best practices related to water usage in nine specific
categories. This is addressed in Stipulation Nos. 3 through 10.
10. Tree and Shade Master Plan:
The Tree and Shade Master Plan encourages treating the urban forest as
infrastructure to ensure the trees are an integral part of the City’s planning and
development process. Sidewalks on the street frontage should be detached from
the curb to allow trees to be planted on both sides of the sidewalk to provide
thermal comfort for pedestrians and to reduce the urban heat island effect. The
proposal will create a comfortable streetscape environment with enhanced
landscaping and shaded, detached sidewalks within the development. These
improvements will be required to earn the necessary bonus points to achieve the
proposed density.
Additionally, to ensure the proposal provides adequet shading and landscaping,
the landscape plan for future development, as stipulated, will be required to be
reviewed and approved by the Planning Hearing Officer through the public hearing
process, including review by the South Mountain Village Planning Committee. This
is addressed in Stipulation No. 2.
11. Complete Streets Guiding Principles:
The City of Phoenix City Council adopted the Complete Streets Guiding Principles.
The principles are intended to promote improvements that provide an accessible,
safe, connected transportation system to include all modes, such as bicycles,
pedestrians, transit, and vehicles.
The proposed development, as stipulated, will support walking, bicycling, and
transit-use by proposing sidewalks along both sides of 20th Lane. This is
addressed in Stipulation No. 13. Additionally, to earn the necessary bonus points to
achieve the proposed density, detached sidewalks within the development are
proposed.
12. Zero Waste Phoenix PHX:
The City of Phoenix is committed to its waste diversion efforts and has set a goal to
become a zero waste city, as part of the city’s overall 2050 Environmental
Sustainability Goals. One of the ways Phoenix can achieve this is to improve and
expand its recycling and other waste diversion programs.
The city provides recycling service to single-family developments.
Staff Report: Z-58-24-8
June 25, 2024
COMMUNITY CORRESONDENCE
13. At the time this staff report was written, staff has received two letters of opposition
regarding the request. Concerns include increased traffic congestion, developer’s
credibility, public outreach, impact on community character and quality of life, and
environmental and infrastructure strain.
INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS
14. The Street Transportation Department requested that right-of way be dedicated for
20th Lane; a temporary turnaround easement be dedicated until 20th Lane is
extended to the south, alternatively, a permanent turn around design may be
considered and shall include a center landscaped island; and all improvements in
the right-of-way be constructed with all required elements and to ADA standards.
These are addressed in Stipulation Nos. 11 through 13.
15. The Aviation Department requested the airport disclosure stipulation. This is
addressed in Stipulation No. 14.
OTHER
16. The site has not been identified as being archaeologically sensitive. However, in
the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, all ground
disturbing activities must cease within 33-feet of the discovery and the City of
Phoenix Archaeology Office must be notified immediately and allowed time to
properly assess the materials. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 15.
17. 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
require the form be completed and submitted prior to final site plan approval. This
is addressed in Stipulation No. 16.
18. Development and use of the site are subject to all applicable codes and
ordinances. Zoning approval does not negate other ordinance requirements. Other
formal actions such as, but not limited to, zoning adjustments and abandonments
may be required.
Findings
1. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Map designation, the
Rio Montaña Area Plan, and with the character of the surrounding area.
2. The requested R1-10 zoning district is consistent with surrounding zoning and
development patterns in the general area.
Staff Report: Z-58-24-8
June 25, 2024
3. The proposal will offer additional housing options within the area, contributing to
the mix of housing types in the vicinity, and aiding in alleviating the housing
shortage in Phoenix.
Stipulations:
1. The conceptual site plan and landscape plan for future development of the site
shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Hearing Officer through the
public hearing process, including review by the South Mountain Village
Planning Committee, for stipulation modification prior to preliminary site plan
approval. This is a legislative review for conceptual purposes only. Specific
development standards and requirements will be determined by the Planning
Hearing Officer and the Planning and Development Department.
2. The conceptual elevations for future development of the site shall be reviewed
and approved by the Planning Hearing Officer through the public hearing
process, including review by the South Mountain Village Planning Committee,
for stipulation modification prior to final site plan approval. This is a legislative
review for conceptual purposes only. Specific development standards and
requirements will be determined by the Planning Hearing Officer and the
Planning and Development Department.
3. Prior to preliminary plat approval, documentation shall be provided that
demonstrates participation in the Environmental Protection Agency’s
WaterSense certification program, or an equivalent program, as approved by
the Planning and Development and Water Services departments.
4. A WaterSense inspection report from a third-party verifier shall be submitted
that demonstrates successful participation in the Environmental Protection
Agency’s WaterSense certification program, or an equivalent program, prior to
certificate of occupancy, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
5. Only landscape materials listed in the Phoenix Active Management Area Low-
Water-Use/Drought-Tolerant Plant List shall be utilized in the common areas
and within the front yards of individual residential lots, as approved or modified
by the Planning and Development Department.
6. Natural turf shall only be utilized on individual single-family lots (behind the
front yard); required retention areas (bottom of basin); and functional turf areas
Staff Report: Z-58-24-8
June 25, 2024
within common areas, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
7. Pressure regulating sprinkler heads and/or drip lines shall be utilized in any turf
areas to reduce water waste.
8. A minimum of two green infrastructure (GI) techniques for stormwater
management shall be implemented per the Greater Phoenix Metro Green
Infrastructure and Low-Impact Development Details for Alternative Stormwater
Management, as approved or modified by the Planning and Development
Department.
9. Participation in the City of Phoenix Homeowner’s Association Water Efficiency
Program shall be incorporated into to Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions
for the subdivision, prior to final site plan approval.
10. Swimming pools on individual single-family lots shall be limited to 600 square
feet in size.
11. A minimum 50 feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated and constructed for the
full width of 20th Lane for the full length of the subject site, connecting to the
southern adjacent parcel.
12. A minimum 50-foot radius easement shall be dedicated and a minimum 45-foot
radius temporary turnaround shall be constructed at the southern terminus of
20th Lane. Alternatively, a permanent turn around design may be considered
and shall include a center landscaped island, designed to City of Phoenix
standards, as approved by the Street Transportation Department.
13. All streets within and adjacent to the development shall be constructed 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. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and
operational characteristics of Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport to future owners or
tenants of the property. The form and content of such documents shall be
according to the templates and instructions provided which have been reviewed
and approved by the City Attorney.
Staff Report: Z-58-24-8
June 25, 2024
15. In the event archeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-
foot radius of the discovery, notify the City Archeologist, and allow time for the
Archeology Office to properly assess the materials.
16. Prior to final 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
Samuel Rogers
June 25, 2024
Team Leader
Racelle Escolar
Exhibits
Zoning sketch map
Aerial sketch map
Conceptual Site Plan date stamped April 23, 2024
Conceptual Building Elevations and Renderings date stamped April 23, 2024 (6 pages)
Conceptual Landscape Plan date stamped April 23, 2024
Correspondence (7 pages)
Z-72-15
BASELINE RD
C-2*
DR
CIA
Z-101-76
VALEN
C-2*
20TH DR
C-2 SP* Z-110-07
Z-SP-2-18
LN
NHAM
20TH LN
LN C-2 SP*
R1-6 * D RA
2N B Z-SP-10-16
Z-121-03 2
R1-10 AW
N DR R1-10*
F
BE Z-109-00 Z-66-01 S-1
VE
RLY
RD S-1
HARWELL RD
ME
LO DY DR
23RD AVE
IAN DR
19TH AVE
23RD DR 22ND AVE 21ST DR
R1-10 PRD *
20TH AVE
S-1 Z-47-17
DESERT LN
R1-8 * R1-10 *
Z-121-03 Z-121-03
ALICIA DR S-1 LATONA LN
R1-18 *
ANX 49
Z-171-99
SOUTH MOUNTAIN AVE
*
R1-18 * R1-10 * R1-10
Z-121-03 Z-58-21 Z-31-21
¯ Miles 27TH AVE
7TH AVE
CENTRAL AVE
7TH ST
16TH ST
32ND ST 40TH ST 48TH ST
24TH ST
0 0.05 0.1 0.2 19TH AVE
I-10
BROADWAY RD
SOUTH MOUNTAIN VILLAGE SOUTHERN AVE
COUNCIL DISTRICT: 8 BASELINE RD
DOBBINS RD
Z-58-24
REQUESTED CHANGE:
APPLICANT'S NAME: John Fox
FROM: S-1 ( 4.54 a.c.)
DATE:
4/30/2024
APPLICATION NO: Z-58-24 REVISION DATES:
GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO &
QUARTER SEC. NO.
ZONING MAP TO:
R1-10 ( 4.54 a.c.)
4.54 Acres QS 01-24 D-7
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D OPTION
S-1 4 N/A
R1-10 16 20
* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus 4041
Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2024\Z-58-24.aprx
Z-72-15
BASELINE RD
C-2*
DR
CIA
Z-101-76
VALEN
C-2*
20TH DR
C-2 SP* Z-110-07
Z-SP-2-18
LN
NHAM
20TH LN
LN C-2 SP*
R1-6 * D RA
2N B Z-SP-10-16
Z-121-03 2
R1-10 AW
N DR R1-10*
F
BE Z-109-00 Z-66-01 S-1
VE
RLY
RD S-1
HARWELL RD
ME
LO DY DR
23RD AVE
IAN DR
19TH AVE
23RD DR 22ND AVE 21ST DR
R1-10 PRD *
20TH AVE
S-1 Z-47-17
DESERT LN
R1-8 * R1-10 *
Z-121-03 Z-121-03
ALICIA DR S-1 LATONA LN
R1-18 *
ANX 49
Z-171-99
SOUTH MOUNTAIN AVE
*
R1-18 * R1-10 * R1-10
Z-121-03 Z-58-21 Z-31-21
¯ Miles 27TH AVE
7TH AVE
CENTRAL AVE
7TH ST
16TH ST
32ND ST 40TH ST 48TH ST
24TH ST
0 0.05 0.1 0.2 19TH AVE
I-10
BROADWAY RD
SOUTH MOUNTAIN VILLAGE SOUTHERN AVE
COUNCIL DISTRICT: 8 BASELINE RD
DOBBINS RD
Z-58-24
REQUESTED CHANGE:
APPLICANT'S NAME: John Fox
FROM: S-1 ( 4.54 a.c.)
DATE:
4/30/2024
APPLICATION NO: Z-58-24 REVISION DATES:
GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO &
QUARTER SEC. NO.
ZONING MAP TO:
R1-10 ( 4.54 a.c.)
4.54 Acres QS 01-24 D-7
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D OPTION
S-1 4 N/A
R1-10 16 20
* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus 4042
Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2024\Z-58-24.aprx
’
–
’
WILLIAM SEYMOUR CO, INC
-
1. FINISH GRADE.
2. FINISH FLOOR.
6615 N Scottsdale Rd #215
3. CONCRETE SLAB OR STEP - REFER TO FOUNDATION PLAN. Scottsdale, AZ 85250
4. TYP. STUCCO SYSTEM - REFER TO GENERAL ELEVATION phone: 480/626-8648
1 NOTES. e-mail: info@e-projectinternational.com
T.O.PARAPET 5. CONT. 26 GA. G.I. WEEP SCREED AT +4" A.F.G.
12 A5.1
16'-0 1/2" 6. FLAT CONCRETE ROOF TILE (ICC-ESR 1647). Rev. Date Submittal
7. STONE VENEER.
8. WOOD FASCIA, PAINTED. Revision 1
R1 11-17-2023
T.O.ROOF 9. 16'-0" X 7'-0" SECTIONAL GARAGE DOOR. 1st Plan Review
T.O.RIDGE
13'-0" 10. TYP. 8" WOOD SIDING.
14'-1" 11. TYP. BOARD AND BATTEN.
T.O.ROOF 12. SCUPPER, REFER TO DETAILS.
12'-6" 13. 36'' HIGH WOOD FENCE.
14. LIGHT FIXTURES.
R1
T.O.PLATE
9'-0" B.O.BEAM
T.O.PLATE 8'-0"
A. STUCCO SYSTEM SHALL BE 3/8" ONE OR TWO COAT(S) OF
8'-0" CEMENT, LIME, SAND MIX, WESTERN ONE KOTE STUCCO
8 SYSTEM (ICC-ESR 1471) ON PAPER BACKED K-LATH
(ICC-ESR 1471), ON 1-1/2" P.C.F. DENSITY, TYPE II,
T&G E.P.S. INSULATION BOARD (ICC-ESR 1471).
PROVIDE WEATHER RESISTIVE BARRIER OVER ALL WOOD
FRAMING - (2) LAYERS OF GRADE "D" KRAFT PAPER OR
15# FELT.
B. MAG ONE-COAT STUCCO COMPLIANCE PROGRAM, ALL
ONE-COAT STUCCO SYSTEMS SHALL BE APPLIED BY
FINISH FLOOR MANUFACTURER APPROVED INSTALLERS. AN APPROVED
0'-0" WEATHER-RESISTIVE BARRIER SHALL BE INSTALLED
OVER ALL FRAMING AND WOOD BASED SHEATHING.
C. PROVIDE (2) LAYER 30# FELT AS FLASHING AT ALL
13 1 5 4 10 7 8 2 4 5 HEADS, JAMBS, AND SILLS OF WINDOWS AND DOOR
TYP.TYP. TYP. OPENINGS.
D. PROVIDE CONTINUOUS SEALANT BEAD WHERE STUCCO
ABUTS WINDOW AND DOOR FRAMES SO AS TO PROVIDE
SCALE : 1/4" = 1'-0" A WEATHER RESISTIVE BARRIER.
E. MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT TO BE SCREENED BY A WALL
+1'-0" ABOVE HIGHEST MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT.
T = DENOTES TEMPERED GLASS LOCATION
2 4 3 3
A5.1 7 A5.1 T.O.PARAPET T.O.PARAPET
A5.1 A5.1
16'-0 1/2" 16'-0 1/2"
T.O.ROOF
T.O.RIDGE
14'-6" 14 TYP. 7
8 14'-1"
T.O.ROOF 8 8
T.O.ROOF
12 13'-0" 12 12
R1 13'-1 1/2" 14 TYP. 3 3 3
T.O.PLATE 3 T.O.ROOF
11'-0" R1
R1 12'-6"
T.O.PLATE T.O.PLATE R1 T.O.PLATE
9'-0" 9'-0" 9'-0"
R1
T.O.PLATE
8'-0" B.O.BEAM
8'-0"
Plan 1700
GARAGE FINISH FLOOR FINISH FLOOR
FINISH FLOOR
0'-0" 0'-0"
-0'-4"
1 5 4 9 11 5 14 3 13 10 4 3 5 4 2 7 5 1 5 2 4 3 4 4
TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP.
SCALE : 1/4" = 1'-0" SCALE : 1/4" = 1'-0"
T.O.PARAPET
A5.1
16'-0 1/2"
8 T.O.ROOF
T.O.RIDGE
14'-1" 14'-3 1/2"
T.O.ROOF
12'-6"
R1
T.O.PLATE
B.O.BEAM 9'-0"
8'-0" T.O.PLATE
8'-0" Date: 11-17-2023
Project No. 0421-2
Drawn By: MM,KV
Checked By: ED
FINISH FLOOR Approved By: ED
0'-0"
1 4 3 5 2 8 3 4 7 7 5 10 2 7 5 3 13
Scale: 1/4"=1'-0"
TYP. TYP. TYP.
SCALE : 1/4" = 1'-0" A4.1
”
– –
–
”
WILLIAM SEYMOUR CO, INC
Sarah Stockham
From: Carlo
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2024 1:57 PM
To: Samuel S Rogers; PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: Case Z-58-24 : Opposition to Proposed Zoning Development Near Wyndham Square HOA
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were expecting this
email.
Report Suspicious
Dear Members of the Phoenix Planning and Development Department,
I am writing on behalf of the Wyndham Square HOA community, located near Baseline Rd and 20th Ln in ZIP
code 85041, to express our strong opposition to the proposed development of 20 houses on the empty land
adjacent to our community. As residents deeply invested in the well-being and safety of our neighborhood, we
have several serious concerns regarding this development.
1. Increased Traffic Congestion:
Our community already faces significant congestion issues, particularly at the single exit onto Baseline Rd. The
addition of 20 houses, each potentially contributing an average of 2-3 cars, would introduce approximately 50-
60 more vehicles to this already congested exit. This substantial increase in traffic volume would exacerbate
existing delays, increase the risk of accidents, and create a hazardous environment for both drivers and
pedestrians.
2. Developer’s Credibility:
The developer assigned to this project, DeLex Realty LLC, is not accredited by the Better Business Bureau
(BBB) and currently holds an "F" rating. This poor rating raises serious concerns about the reliability and
integrity of the developer, and their ability to responsibly manage a project of this scale. We question their
capacity to meet the community’s standards and to follow through on commitments to mitigate negative
impacts on our neighborhood.
Evidence for #2:
The applicant for the zoning is “John Fox”, with an email of “wscing@cox.net”
A simple google search on “wscing@cox.net”, reveals that “DeLex Realty LLC” is the real estate broker.
https://www.delexrealty.com/agents/79087-john-fox-pllc [delexrealty.com]
BBB rating of “F” with multiple complaints.
https://www.bbb.org/us/az/glendale/profile/real-estate/delex-realty-1126-1000047946 [bbb.org]
3. Impact on Community Character and Quality of Life:
The proposed development threatens to alter the character of our close-knit community. Our neighborhood
values open spaces and the tranquility that comes with lower housing density. The introduction of 20 additional
houses will not only strain our infrastructure but also detract from the peaceful environment that our residents
cherish. Increased noise, reduced privacy, and potential overcrowding are all significant concerns that have not
been adequately addressed.
4. Environmental and Infrastructure Strain:
The proposed development will likely put additional strain on our local infrastructure, including water supply,
sewage systems, and public services. Without significant upgrades to these systems, which have not been
outlined by the developer, the quality of service for current residents could deteriorate. Furthermore, we are
concerned about the environmental impact, including increased runoff and potential flooding issues, due to the
reduction of permeable land.
Given these substantial concerns, we urge the City of Phoenix Planning and Development Department to
reconsider the approval of this zoning plan. The long-term welfare and safety of our community depend on
responsible and sustainable development practices. We strongly believe that this proposed development does
not align with these principles and would negatively impact our neighborhood.
We appreciate your attention to our concerns and look forward to your thoughtful consideration of our position.
Please feel free to contact me at charles.carbaj@gmail.com or 480-326-1981.
Sincerely,
Carlos Carbajal
Owner of :
2017 W. Harwell Rd
Phoenix, AZ 85041
480-326-1981
6/24/24, 1:58 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
Questions and comments concerning rezoning case Z-58-24 and the proposed
development
H. Jewel Clark
Mon 6/24/2024 9:55 AM
To:Samuel S Rogers
Cc:Mike Josic
1 attachments (3 MB)
20th and South Mountain 24-4-18-SITE (6).pdf;
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Hello Samuel,
My name is Jewel Clark. I am writing regarding rezoning case number Z-58-24. My husband
(cc'd on this email) and I own property at 2020 W. South Mountain Ave (APN # 300-17-004S).
Attached you will find what we received from the applicant for your convenience and cross-
reference.
The application for rezoning and development centers on a 4.5 acre parcel which we are
adjacent to. While these plans were received and stamped by the planning department in
November of 2023, the first meeting request the surrounding neighbors received concerning
this proposal was May 17. May 17, which was a Friday, notified us of a meeting to be held by
the developers on May 18. One day's notice. The letter was postmarked May 13, which was
Monday. I was unable to attend because of a standing appointment that Saturday but my
husband went. The developer had picked a pizza parlor for the meeting. Approximately 50
concerned neighbors attended but according to my husband it was practically impossible to
hear (this was not in a reserved room away from the rest of the guests) and it was difficult for
everyone to get close to the posters of the proposal for details. However, the neighbors were
able to communicate opposition to key elements of the proposal: increased traffic, density and
multiple stories.
Approximately 1 month later, the weekend of June 15, the developer, Mr. John Fox, held
another meeting with the neighbors. We received that letter on the 10th. It was postmarked 6-4-
24. Two of our neighbors whose properties are adjacent to this proposed development had not
received a letter notifying them of the meeting. These neighbors are very concerned about how
this proposal could affect their properties and would have been there had they known about it.
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAGlYf9Znv8BDjTzpD%2BxlnJ0%3D
1/3
6/24/24, 1:58 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
Some questions are:
1. Is there a minimum notification time for developers to alert neighbors within the 600 ft
minimum for these kinds of meetings?
2. How is the 600’ notification zone measured for developers to build their contact list?
3. Should the ADU’s have been shown on the drawings they provided? They were not.
4. I may be misreading the plans attached but on the lot diagram page under Project
Description, it appears they list R1-10 density as 3.5-5 DU/AC. My understanding is that
R1-10 is 3-3.5, 4.5 with bonus. Do the submitted plans have to be correct or corrected to
be allowed to move forward?
5. Should there be updated plans at this point that are not designated “pre-application”? If
so, the neighbors have not seen anything different from the attachment enclosed.
6. Will this application also require a general plan amendment application?
7. My husband said the developers told the neighbors that approval for
developments/rezoning no longer went through the city council. According to what I could
find on the city website, rezoning requests, either opposed or unopposed were still heard
by the city council as the final arbiters. Is this incorrect?
I'd also like to let you know that according to my husband, the plan had not changed at all in the
month the developer had to incorporate neighbor concerns. They showed up with exactly the
same designs/plans. So, on two fronts, they don't appear to be listening to or trying to work with
any of the surrounding neighbors who would be affected by this development, and they said
they are planning on presenting this proposal to the South Mountain Village Planning
Committee at the next meeting on July 9.
Since the neighbors confronted them with the fact that nothing had changed, they said they
would look into making changes and call another meeting before the SMVPC meeting but I'm
concerned that yet again, the neighbors may not be notified in a timely enough fashion to
attend whatever meeting is scheduled.
So to recap the timeline:
1. Application submitted Nov. '23
2. First notice to neighbors mailed May 13, 2024 for a May 18 meeting. We got our letter the
day before and so did many others. Developers heard from approx. 50 people that density
was too high, 2 story designs were opposed and concern about increased traffic in an
existing development with only one entrance/egress point onto Baseline were paramount,
among other concerns.
3. One month later, June 15, developer held another meeting. Notification letter postmarked
6-4, received on 6-10, at least by us. Some neighbors confirmed they did not receive their
letters by the meeting date and missed the meeting. Plans had not changed at all.
Neighbors reiterated concerns.
4. Developers said they would look at some changes and call another meeting but said they
were still planning on moving the application through to the SMVPC July 9 meeting.
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAGlYf9Znv8BDjTzpD%2BxlnJ0%3D
2/3
6/24/24, 1:58 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
The main issues: density, traffic for the north neighborhood, multiple stories
The current plan is requesting a density of approximately 4.5, which means they are requesting
a bonus designation and I do not see where they are calling out enhancements per city
requirements to justify or earn the points for such density. In addition, this parcel is fully
bordered on the east by S-1 acre+ homes, which would be a tremendously incongruous jump in
density if approved. As well, there are no developments surrounding that are more than 3.5 R1-
10 in density, making 4.5 units per acre unprecedented for the immediate area.
This new development would be an extension of an existing development to the north with only
1 entrance/exit onto Baseline Rd for an already existing 54 houses. There is no way for this
addition to have another entrance/exit onto a different street because it is surrounded by
already developed land. There is no light at Baseline for the current neighborhood and the
residents say that getting in and out of their neighborhood is already extremely difficult. Are
there any safety requirements for the number of houses in a development to the number of
entrance/exits? It seems like this ratio should be a concern for the city in case of evacuation or
other emergencies.
The neighborhood around this parcel has been very active in working to keep housing height to
one story, per Rio Montana guidelines, which takes into account view obstruction to South
Mountain for existing neighbors. This is a priority for the northbound neighborhood and the
east-bordering homes who don't want 2-story houses right up on their property line looking
into their backyards. The precedent for all surrounding construction we have been involved with
for single family homes has been overwhelmingly single story and that is what all the neighbors
want.
Any information, clarification, links to specific city web pages, etc. you can provide is most
appreciated. Thank you!
Sincerely,
Jewel Clark
--
H. Jewel Clark
hjewelclark@fastmail.com
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAGlYf9Znv8BDjTzpD%2BxlnJ0%3D
3/3
ATTACHMENT C
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-58-24-8
Date of VPC Meeting July 9, 2024
Request From S-1
Request To R1-10
Proposal Single-family residential
Location Approximately 710 feet north and 305 feet west of the
northwest corner of 20th Avenue and South Mountain
Avenue
VPC Recommendation Continuance to August 13, 2024
VPC Vote 11-3
Tremikus Muhammad left the meeting bringing quorum to 14 members (ten needed for a
quorum).
Nine members of the public registered to speak in opposition to this item and 19
members of the public registered in opposition but did not wish to speak. Four members
of the public donated their time to Jewel Clark, five members of the public donated their
time to Jai Goudeau, and two members of the public donated their time to Julian Galindo.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Samuel Rogers, staff, presented the request, the location of the subject site, the
surrounding context, the General Plan Land Use Map designation, the site plan, proposed
elevations, the staff recommendation, the staff findings, and concluded by presenting the
proposed stipulations.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
John Fox, representing the applicant with William Seymour Co., presented the subject
site, the proposal, the surrounding zoning, alignment with the General Plan, Rio Montaña
Area Plan, and other policy plans, the existing conditions, the proposed landscape plan,
elevations, and site plan, project benefits, and the public outreach.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Jewel Clark expressed concerns about the proposed development, stated concerns
about the two-story homes, and stated that the high density of the project is out of
character with the area. Ms. Clark stated that there was no mention of Accessory
Dwelling Units (ADUs) in the applicant presentation and raised concerns about an
additional 200 trips that the development would generate. Ms. Clark emphasized that the
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 4058
South Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-58-24-8
area currently has an open feel which would be lost, leading to an increase in heat due to
reduced open space. Ms. Clark questioned whether the homes would be for rent or sale
and noted that many other homes are already being introduced into the area. Ms. Clark
stated that the developer has not had good conversations with the neighbors.
Jai Goudeau highlighted several issues, starting with the difficulty of turning left onto
Baseline Road, which can take up to 15 minutes. Mr. Goudeau noted that the existing
homes average 11,000 square feet, compared to the proposed 7,000 square feet. Mr.
Goudeau stated he is not opposed to development with fewer homes and criticized the
applicant for being unresponsive to working with the neighbors. Mr. Goudeau stated that
large vehicles would struggle to maneuver and stated that the first meeting was too small,
prompting him to request a second meeting. Mr. Goudeau explained that he reserved the
room for the second neighborhood meeting. Mr. Goudeau also expressed concerns
about the traffic circle eliminating street parking and mentioned that there are other
places where such developments would make more sense.
Jewel Clark stated that there is no guarantee that Dorothy, the property owner to the
south, will move. Ms. Clark stated that the neighborhood is healthy and diverse and does
not need this development. Ms. Clark pointed out that the first notification was not
received within the required 10-day notice period, and no solutions were provided.
Julian Galindo shared his experience as a resident for 15 years and expressed pride in
the neighborhood. Mr. Galindo compared a traffic letter with a full traffic study and voiced
opposition to the proposal. Mr. Galindo raised concerns about foot traffic, the safety of
children, and the long-term issues related to extra traffic.
Nicole Sordello stated she never received notice and suggested that there wouldn't be
an empty chair in the room if the notification had been proper. Ms. Sordello expressed
concerns about the impact of two-story homes on her privacy, noting that several lots will
back up to her property. Ms. Sordello stated the project has multiple unknowns regarding
rentals and HOA prohibitions on short-term rentals.
Joe Hernandez stated there is already heavy traffic near his residence at the entrance of
the subdivision to the north and stated that the proposal would make traffic worse. Mr.
Hernandez questioned how construction crews would maneuver, stated that the
neighborhood has been seeking to add an entry breezeway for the Wyndham Square
neighborhood, and expressed disappointment that new subdivision name may end up on
the breezeway too.
Mike Josic stated that the applicant does not own the property, and the sale is
contingent on the rezoning being approved. Mr. Josic mentioned the lack of discussion
on ADUs, which could result in about 40 households, and raised traffic concerns. Mr.
Josic argued that two-story buildings are inappropriate and stated that 20th Lane would
not likely connect to South Mountain Avenue in the near future because Dorothy, the
South Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-58-24-8
property owner to the south, is not likely to move soon. Mr. Josic urged the committee to
reject the request and stated that the proposal is the wrong project in the wrong place.
Funyung Mon stated concerns about increases traffic, expressed frustration with the
already terrible traffic, and noted that her insurance quote increased by 20% due to the
area's high accident rate.
Monica Garcia stated she is a housing lawyer, stated the neighborhood had endured
half-built houses being built and flooding issues. Ms. Garcia stated traffic concerns,
stated that the homes are small, stated that insurance premiums will keep going up, and
asked the VPC to oppose to the project.
Candice McDonald Ramsey stated she works for Corporate America, clarified that she
is not trying to hinder the City's progress and understands the need for homeownership.
Ms. Ramsey expressed a willingness to compromise and highlighted the potential upside
for existing homeowners. Ms. Ramsey acknowledged that small homes could be a good
product but considered them inferior to existing homes. Ms. Ramsey stated concerns
about construction vehicle presence, stated she appreciated the VPC hearing the
community, and stated she feels that the applicant was not listening to their voices.
Jacques Phelps spoke about the diversity in the area, mentioning that he had just
closed on a home. Mr. Phelps expressed concern that the project would adversely impact
home values and the recent investment, negatively affecting his family and what he has
built.
Chair Trent Marchuk noted for the record that 29 cards had been submitted in
opposition to the proposed development, with 0 cards in support. Chair Marchuk also
reported that a petition opposing the development had gathered 63 signatures, 31 letters
of opposition were received, and explained that of the 52 homes in the Wyndham Square
neighborhood, 29 residents were in opposition to the proposal.
APPLICANT RESPONSE
Mr. Fox stated that South Mountain is a large area where R1-10 zoning is appropriate
and explained that the size of the lots is based on the Planned Residential Development
(PRD) option for R1-10. Mr. Fox emphasized that the project is designed to prevent water
from flowing into the neighborhood to the north. Mr. Fox acknowledged concerns about
the presence of two-story homes but stated that there are two-story homes in the
subdivision to the north. Mr. Fox clarified that the project has never been intended as a
rental community or proposed to include Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). Mr. Fox
expressed frustration, suggesting that the opposition indicates a reluctance to be good
neighbors. Mr. Fox affirmed that the development would consist of quality homes and
foster good neighborly relations.
South Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-58-24-8
Mr. Goudeau responded by acknowledging the presence of two-story homes in the area.
Mr. Goudeau expressed concerns that the proposed retention measures might create
issues for existing homes.
QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE
Committee Member Busching asked if the applicant is interested in continuing the case
to allow more time to work with the community. Mr. Fox stated that he does not think he
can go through the process another time.
Committee Member Darlene Jackson remarked that Phoenix is growing and
emphasized the goal of building a healthy and connected city. Committee Member
Jackson inquired whether the project would contribute to building a healthy community.
Mr. Fox stated that the project includes connected sidewalks and open space and stated
that detached sidewalks could be removed to widen the street. Committee Member
Jackson questioned if it is fair to take away something to give something. Mr. Fox stated
that when the neighborhood to the north bought their homes Baseline Road was already
there.
Committee Member Kay Shepard asked why a Traffic Statement was used instead of a
Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA). Mr. Rogers explained that a Traffic Statement is
appropriate for smaller developments, but not for larger ones. Committee Member
Shepard asked what the current width of 20th Lane is. Mr. Fox explained that the current
street is 28 feet wide. Committee Member Shepard stated that the development should
not include two-story homes.
Committee Member Edward Aldama stated that the original question was about
walkability and questioned why the conversation had shifted to needing wider street that
do not help with walkability. Committee Member Aldama stated that detached sidewalks
would improve walkability and that people generally avoid cul-de-sacs. Aldama
advocated for the future residents and stated that he believes the proposed walkability
would be adequate and traffic would not have a significant impact.
Committee Member Kassandra Alvarez stated that the South Mountain VPC has high
standards for community engagement, asked what issues were encountered while
working with the community, and inquired about the timeframe for connecting to South
Mountain Avenue. Mr. Fox indicated that the Wallace Group is building high-end
products in the area and stated that the timeframe for the project is to move forward as
soon as possible, aiming to start around the beginning of next year. Committee Member
Alvarez further asked about the timeframe for connecting to South Mountain Avenue. Mr.
Fox stated that the connection to South Mountain Avenue is not an empty promise,
stated that the timing of Dorothy’s move is uncertain, and noted that the City of Phoenix
requires 20th Lane to be built for an eventual connection to South Mountain Avenue. Mr.
Fox acknowledged difficulties in working with neighborhoods, stated that his team is not
South Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-58-24-8
willing to change the proposed density, and stated that his team is open to adjusting lot
sizes.
Committee Member Gene Holmerud stated that the proposal will add 20 residences to
the existing 52 residences that access the neighborhood via Baseline Road and asked
how the access compares other developments over the past ten years. Chair Marchuk
asked how many homes accessed Baseline Road on the self-storage special permit case
on 41st Street and Baseline Road. Mr. Rogers stated that over 100 homes access
Baseline Road via 41st Street and stated that he does not have statistics on access.
Committee Member Tamala Daniels stated that the VPC had approved subdivisions
with limited access in the past. Committee Member Emma Viera argued that precedent
should not dictate future decisions and emphasized the importance of unity within the
community. Committee Member Viera expressed a desire for the developer to be
invested in working with the community. Mr. Fox stated that if the neighborhood would
work with him, he would reciprocate and stated that both two-story and one-story homes
are planned.
Chair Marchuk asked the development team if they are open to stipulating a ratio of the
homes be one-story. Mr. Fox stated that the ratio could be stipulated and stated that the
mix of heights is determined by the builder.
Committee Member T. Daniels stated that the site to the north is also zoned R1-10 but
has different dimensions. Mr. Fox explained the proposal is utilizing the Planned
Residential Development option. Committee Member T. Daniels highlighted that
surrounding sites are R1-10, expressed that people seem unhappy with the access being
through the development, and asked if there is any stipulation requiring that the proposed
subdivision eventually connect to South Mountain Avenue. Mr. Rogers explained that,
per Stipulation No. 12, the City is requiring a temporary turn around at the terminus of
20th Lane that would eventually connect to South Mountain Avenue. Committee Member
Busching asked for clarification on Stipulation No. 12. Mr. Rogers explained Stipulation
No. 12 and explained the City would require 20th Lane to connect to South Mountain
Avenue if the property to the south develops with a use such as a subdivision, but not if a
use such as a single-family home is proposed.
Committee Member Busching inquired about the owner of the property to the south and
asked if an access easement across the property to the south is a possibility. Mr. Fox
stated that the subject site is owned by the same owner of the property to the south and
explained that an access easement would be a burden on the property owner to the
south. Committee Member T. Daniels asked why the property owner to the south would
put an easement on a home she currently lives in. Committee Member Busching
explained that the property owner to the south could sell an access easement at the
same time she sells the subject site.
Committee Member T. Daniels stated that when the development to the north was
rezoned, there were likely complaints from S-1 property owners in the area, explained
South Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-58-24-8
there is always resistance to smaller housing products, and stated that it is unfair to
prohibit two-story homes when the neighboring area has two-story structures. Vice Chair
Arthur Greathouse III proposed stipulating that no two-story homes be placed next to
each other. Committee Member T. Daniels stated that it could be stipulated that no two-
story home can be next to each other if the developer is willing to offer the concession.
Committee Member T. Daniels asked about using flood maps to address retention
issues. Mr. Fox responded that the proposed retention basins will maintain any onsite
water, stated that flows would be monitored by the City of Phoenix, and explained that
the development team was required to overlay the flood maps during their assessment.
Mr. Fox stated that he is willing to work with the neighborhood on anything other than
reducing the proposed density.
Committee Member Aldama asked if the development would improve flooding issues in
the immediate area. Mr. Fox confirmed the retention basins would improve water issues.
Committee Member Jackson expressed concerns about the number of proposed units
and stated that traffic concerns are not being addressed.
Committee Member Holmerud stated that there was a question about requiring a ratio
of single-story and two-story homes, stated that in the past the VPC had stipulated that
two-story homes be in the center of the development, and stated that the stipulation will
not work on the proposed development because of the small site size.
Chair Marchuk explained that the proposal is technically R1-10, but the housing product
is more similar to an R1-6 product, stated that the density in the area ranges from 2.5 to
3.5 units per acre, and stated that proposed 4 units per acre seems aggressive. Chair
Marchuk stressed the importance of community engagement and proposed taking a
month-long break to continue the case to allow more time to work with the community.
Mr. Fox agreed to continue the case and suggested that a mediator be present at the
next neighborhood meeting.
Committee Member T. Daniels asked if information on the Rio Montaña Area Plan could
be distributed to the applicant and asked for clarification on the proposed density bonus.
Mr. Rogers explained that additionally amenities can be provided in exchange for a
higher allowed density. Committee Member T. Daniels asked if the proposal had been
reviewed to ensure the proposed bonus points would allow the proposed density. Mr.
Rogers explained that the final assessment of bonus points would be determined through
the development review process. Chair Marchuk ask what the proposed density is. Mr.
Rogers explained the proposed density is 4.4 units per acre. Committee Member T.
Daniels asked about the proposal’s compliance with development standards such as
setbacks. Mr. Rogers explained that a site plan showing home locations was not
provided.
South Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-58-24-8
FLOOR/PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED: MOTION, DISCUSSION, AND VOTE
MOTION
Committee Member Kay Shepard made a motion to continue Z-58-24-8 to the August
13, 2024 South Mountain Village Planning Committee Meeting. Committee Member
George Brooks seconded the motion.
VOTE
11-3, motion to recommend a continuance of Z-58-24-8 passes with with Committee
Members Aldama, Alvarez, Brooks, Busching, F. Daniels, T. Daniels, Holmerud, Jackson,
Shepard, Greathouse, and Chair Marchuk in favor and Falcon, F. Muhammed Roque,
Viera opposed.
Committee Member Alvarez expressed hope that the relationship with the community
could be repaired.
Committee Member Petra Falcon mentioned that the community had not been treated
well and stated the community has said this project is not suitable for the location.
Committee Member Holmerud stated that stipulating a percentage of two-story homes
will not work in the location.
Committee Member Jackson advocated for fewer homes and more open space.
Vice Chair Greathouse III encouraged collaboration. Chair Marchuk echoed Vice Chair
Greathouse and encouraged collaboration from the applicant and the neighborhood.
Committee Member Falcon observed that community members left the meeting and did
not get to hear the results.
Committee Member T. Daniels explained that if the vote were to reject the project, it
would not stop the development process and stated that Arizona has various housing
formations. Committee Member T. Daniels mentioned the skyrocketing housing market,
the developer’s agreement to return, and the importance of creating a win-win situation.
Committee Member T. Daniels encouraged everyone to bring a positive attitude to the
discussion
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:
None.
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-58-24-8
Date of VPC Meeting August 13, 2024
Request From S-1
Request To R1-10
Proposal Single-family residential
Location Approximately 710 feet north and 305 feet west of the
northwest corner of 20th Avenue and South Mountain
Avenue
VPC Recommendation Continuance to September 10, 2024
VPC Vote 12-0
Committee Member Tamala Daniels joined the meeting bringing quorum to 12 members
(ten needed for a quorum).
Six members of the public registered to speak in opposition to this item and 12 members
of the public registered in opposition but did not wish to speak. Four members of the
public donated their time to Jewel Clark and three members of the public donated their
time to Jai Goudeau.
Chair Trent Marchuk explained that the applicant for case Z-58-24 reached out to
request a continuance to the September 10, 2024 South Mountain Village Planning
Committee meeting. Chair Marchuk stated that a continuance was granted in the last
meeting and noted that the applicant has been working with the community but that
progress still needs to be made. Chair Marchuk stated the applicant is hopeful that
another month will yield the necessary progress, thanked the community members for
attending the meeting, and asked staff for clarification on the process.
Samuel Rogers, staff, explained that a motion to continue the case could be made.
FLOOR/PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED: MOTION, DISCUSSION, AND VOTE
MOTION
Committee Member Kay Shepard made a motion to continue Z-58-24-8 to the
September 10, 2024 South Mountain Village Planning Committee Meeting. Committee
Member George Brooks seconded the motion.
VOTE
12-0, motion to recommend a continuance of Z-58-24-8 passes with with Committee
Members Aldama, Beehler, Brooks, Brownell, Busching, T. Daniels, Holmerud, Jackson,
Shepard, Viera, Vice Chair Greathouse, and Chair Marchuk in favor.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 4065
South Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-58-24-8
Chair Trent Marchuk stated for the record that 17 comment cards had been received in
opposition to the project and thanked the community for attending.
Committee Member Marcia Busching emphasized the importance of ensuring that
people in attendance are aware of the ongoing negotiations and are able to participate.
Chair Marchuk stated his understanding that two individuals were appointed by the
community to be their representatives in the negotiations and added that others are
welcome to participate. Chair Marchuk asked about the process for people to get
involved. Mr. Rogers informed the committee that community members could reach out
to himself, the Chair, or the applicant to get involved.
Committee Member Brooks asked why there are still so many people in attendance
who are in opposition if progress is being made. Chair Marchuk stated that the need for
continued negotiation is the reason the applicant requested a continuance.
Committee Member Tamala Daniels inquired about the requirement for community
notification when a continuance is going to be requested. Committee Member Brooks
suggested that there should be a timeline to ensure people are informed when a
continuance is going to be requested. Chair Marchuk stated that the community
representatives were informed about the continuance as soon as he had heard.
Committee Member Greg Brownell commented that the community representatives are
not the only people who represent the community given the number of people in
attendance. Committee Member Gene Holmerud stated that the issue could be
resolved with a real-time website but acknowledged that this would be a significant
undertaking.
Committee Member T. Daniels asked how long prior to the meeting applicants are
required to inform the committee that a continuance is planned to be requested. Mr.
Rogers stated that applicants are allowed to request continuances up to the meeting
itself. Mr. Rogers explained that while it would be prudent to inform the community
earlier, there is no regulation requiring this. Committee Member Brooks asked what the
process would be to implement a new rule requiring earlier notification for continuances.
Mr. Rogers stated that he would have to follow up on the topic.
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:
None.
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-58-24-8
Date of VPC Meeting September 10, 2024
Request From S-1
Request To R1-10
Proposal Single-family residential
Location Approximately 710 feet north and 305 feet west of the
northwest corner of 20th Avenue and South Mountain
Avenue
VPC Recommendation Approval, per the staff recommendation with additional
stipulations
VPC Vote 7-5
12 members of the public registered to speak in opposition to this item and 10 members
of the public registered in opposition but did not wish to speak. Four members of the
public donated their time to Jewel Clark and four members of the public donated their
time to Jai Goudeau.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Samuel Rogers, staff, presented the request, the location of the subject site, the
surrounding context, the General Plan Land Use Map designation, the site plan,
proposed elevations, the staff recommendation, the staff findings, and concluded by
presenting the proposed stipulations.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
John Fox, representing the applicant, presented the history of the rezoning process,
including his attendance at two previous Village Planning Committee (VPC) meetings.
Mr. Fox stated that the City is recommending approval of the rezoning request, explained
that his team had provided a site plan to the neighbors that reduced the number of units
from 20 to 18, explained that he had received additional stipulations from neighborhood
representatives asking for a 16-unit proposal, explained he thought his team and the
neighbors could meet in the middle with an 18-unit proposal, and explained that his team
is now proposing a 20-unit development.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Chair Trent Marchuk noted that there were 22 cards in opposition to the project, with no
cards in support and explained that five cards were submitted to Jai Goudeau, five to
Jewel Clark, and one card to Mike Josic.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 4067
South Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-58-24-8
Jewel Clark explained where she lives and stated that she has consistently opposed an
18-unit development. Ms. Clark asked Mr. Fox about compliance with the Rio Montaña
Plan, expressed concerns about preserving the character of the area, and referenced
not opposed to a development but wants a development that fits the neighborhood. Ms.
Clark explained that she would support the proposal if it included stipulations provided by
the neighborhood representatives. Committee Member Marcia Busching asked how
the proposed neighborhood stipulations were developed and if they came from City of
Phoenix policy plans or previous cases. Ms. Clark explained that many of the
neighborhood requested stipulations came from the Rio Montaña Plan and other
rezoning cases in the area.
Julian Galindo explained he attended the meeting with the developer and that the
neighborhood had been against an 18-unit proposal, explained he is a civil engineer, and
stated that he has concerns about stormwater management and the project’s density.
Committee Member Busching asked a question regarding the retaining wall. Mr.
Galindo confirmed that he advocated for the stipulation regarding the retaining wall and
explained that the retaining wall will help to mitigate flooding concerns. Committee
Member Busching asked whether Mr. Fox was in opposition to the stipulation. Mr.
Galindo responded that the stipulation had been discussed but not agreed to.
Committee Member Greg Brownell inquired about the project's floodplain review. Mr.
Rogers explained that the project had gone through a preliminary floodplain review, but a
full grading and drainage review will occur when the development comes in for permitting.
Chair Marchuk stated that the existing homes to the north are four feet lower than the
proposed development, explained that the retaining wall will mitigate flooding issues, and
explained that Mr. Fox had agreed to the retaining wall in concept.
Kara Moreno echoed other neighbors’ concerns regarding the proposed development
and explained concerns about the impact of the development if additional street access is
not provided. Ms. Moreno emphasized the potential safety risks associated with
construction activities, including traffic and car safety. Ms. Moreno also raised concerns
about the increased length of the street, which she believed could encourage faster
driving, potentially leading to safety hazards due to speeding vehicles.
Jai Goudeau explained that he owns the first home built in the neighborhood to the
north, highlighted ongoing flooding issues, and stated traffic accidents occur every 2.5
days at 19th Avenue and Baseline Road. Mr. Goudeau expressed concerns about the
proposed street length and the temporary turnaround in the development, noting potential
difficulties for large trucks navigating the roundabout. Mr. Goudeau explained that the
community proposed several design alternatives and stated the developer backed out of
negotiations at the last minute. Mr. Goudeau expressed concerns about the meeting
noticing, stated that the HOA failed to send timely notices, and stated more neighbors
would be in attendance if they had been properly noticed. Mr. Goudeau stated that he is
South Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-58-24-8
not opposed to building a community, emphasized that all traffic from the new
development would flow through Wyndham Square, and explained the development
would effectively an extension of the Wyndham Square neighborhood.
Mike Josic voiced his understanding of the housing crisis but argued that reducing the
number of homes by four would not significantly impact the crisis. Mr. Josic emphasized
that the proposed development feels unfair to current residents and urged the committee
to vote against it.
APPLICANT RESPONSE
Mr. Fox provided examples of other developments in the area that were not held to the
same requirements the neighborhood is asking his team to comply with. Mr. Fox
explained that the neighborhood’s stipulations were received too late and that the staff is
already stipulating that the site plan, elevations, and landscape plan be reviewed by the
Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) and the South Mountain VPC. Mr. Fox explained that the
Rio Montaña plan is an older plan and explained that he disagrees with some of the
stipulations but stated that he is open to compromise on others.
QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE
Committee Member Coleman asked when other subdivisions Mr. Fox referenced were
built. Mr. Fox explained that they were constructed within the last 15 to 20 years.
Committee Member Beehler asked if Mr. Fox was the purchaser or the owner of the
property, who owns the parcel to the south, and asked about a potential access
easement across the parcel to the south. Mr. Fox explained that he is in escrow for the
purchase of the subject site, explained that the property owner also owns the parcel to
the south, and stated the owner is not open to an access easement across the property
to the south.
Chair Marchuk asked staff to explain the City's perspective on the street termination. Mr.
Rogers explained that the proposed street must be designed to accommodate a future
connection to the parcel to the south and stated that most potential uses for the southern
parcel, aside from a single-family home, would require this connection to the subject site.
Committee Member Busching asked if Mr. Fox was amenable to any of the
neighborhood’s stipulations. Mr. Fox explained which stipulations his team is not okay
with and others he is willing to accept.
Committee Member Coleman asked if Mr. Fox was willing to comply with a retaining
wall if approved by grading and drainage standards. Mr. Fox affirmed that he would
comply if necessary.
South Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-58-24-8
Chair Marchuk mentioned that although the stipulation language was new, the content
had been received on Sunday.
Committee Member Petra Falcon asked if the current plan was the one that the
Planning Commission would see. Mr. Rogers explained that the stipulations are written
so that the plans will come back in front of the VPC through the PHO process and
explained that Mr. Fox may provide updated plans for the Planning Commission hearing.
Committee Kay Shepard asked about the VPC’s ability to stipulate to a specific site
plan. Mr. Rogers confirmed that the VPC can stipulate conformance to a site plan.
Committee Member Busching asked if there was an updated site plan. Mr. Rogers
confirmed that the applicant had submitted an updated site plan date stamped
September 5, 2024 and stated the site plan was included in the slide deck he had sent to
the VPC.
Committee Member Greg Brownell expressed concerns about denying the case and it
getting approved at the next hearing body without the VPC’s input. Committee Member
Brownell emphasized the need for more discussion, stated that an old plan does not
imply a weaker plan, and clarified that the overlay is not law but guidance. Committee
Member Brownell explained that if the committee opposes this, they are essentially out of
the discussion, expressed a preference to keep the case at the committee level,
explained that both citizens and the builder will need to compromise, and explained he
would like the development team to return with a proposal that the committee can vote
on.
Committee Member Beehler stated that the VPC should deny the project, stated the
proposal does not adequately address key access issues to Baseline Road. expressed a
belief that the property owner is selling prematurely, and explained that the owner should
sell the entire property.
Committee Member Holmerud stated that most arguments against the development
focus on perceived shortcomings and explained that the fact previous developments
were not held to the same standards should not prevent negotiations on the proposed
project.
Committee Member Brownell stated that the committee should not decline the proposal
and recommended continuing the case and explained that declining the project would
result in losing the opportunity for the VPC to impact the development.
Committee Member Beehler expressed that this project is unsuitable for the site at this
time and reiterated the recommendation to decline.
Committee Member Busching mentioned her usual support for the neighborhood but
expressed a different perspective due to the relatively small community. Committee
Member Busching explained that people have the right to buy and develop land and
South Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-58-24-8
referenced that the Wyndham Square builder had constructed the development with a
stub road intended to connect to the adjacent parcel to the south. Committee Member
Busching acknowledged the hard work of the neighbors and the VPC and stated she
would like to make a motion to approve the rezoning request with additional stipulations.
Committee Member Holmerud questioned the financial viability of a project with 16 lots.
Chair Marchuk stated that his understanding is that 18 lots is the minimum acceptable
for the development.
Chair Marchuk echoed Committee Member Busching, explained that VPC members, the
applicant, and community representatives had been meeting weekly since the previous
month’s continuance of the case, and explained that the applicant declined to attend the
final meeting. Chair Marchuk explained that the site plan had been extensively reviewed
and explained that the layout makes the most sense with the current parcel dimensions.
Chair Marchuk stated that negotiations were going well until the neighborhood provided a
list of stipulations they would like considered, stated there was not adequate time to vet
the neighborhood stipulations, stated there is still an opportunity for negotiation, and
stated it may be premature to pass the project in its current form.
Committee Member Shepard stated that 18 lots are the bottom line for the developer,
while 16 lots are the maximum for the community and expressed skepticism about any
potential movement by either party on the proposal.
Committee Member Beehler explained there are ongoing access issues and expressed
concern about burdening neighbors with additional traffic.
Committee Member Shepard inquired about the traffic generated by an 18-lot
subdivision per day. Mr. Fox stated that traffic was analyzed by peak hour trips, not per
day.
FLOOR/PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED: MOTION, DISCUSSION, AND VOTE
MOTION
Committee Member Mark Beehler made a motion to deny Z-58-24-8. Committee
Member Gene Holmerud seconded the motion.
VOTE
4-8, motion to recommend denial of Z-58-24-8 fails with Committee Members Beehler,
Coleman, F. Daniels, and Holmerud in favor and Committee Members Brooks, Brownell,
Busching, Falcon, T. Muhammad, Shepard, Greathouse, and Marchuk in opposition.
MOTION
Committee Member Marcia Busching made a motion to approve Z-58-24-8 with
additional stipulations. Committee Member Lee Coleman seconded the motion.
South Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-58-24-8
VOTE
7-5, motion to recommend approval of Z-58-24-8 with additional stipulations passed with
Committee Members Committee Members Busching, Coleman, Falcon, Holmerud T.
Muhammad, Shepard, and Greathouse in favor and Committee Members Beehler,
Brooks, Brownell, F. Daniels, and Marchuk and in opposition.
Vice Chair Greathouse explained that he had been a part of the process, including
multiple iterations of the site plan, and stated it is unfortunate to have reached this point.
Vice Chair Greathouse explained that good collaboration had been happening but was
lost along the way. Vice Chair Greathouse stated that this is the most logical and feasible
plan and wished there was more support, as a lot of work had gone into reaching this
point. Vice Chair Greathouse emphasized that nobody was going to win everything or
concede on every negotiation point and stated his support for the project.
Chair Marchuk stated that he would be voting in opposition to the motion to approve and
explained there are several unresolved questions that should have been addressed and
still have the potential to be resolved.
VPC recommended stipulations:
1. The conceptual site plan and landscape plan for future development of the site
shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Hearing Officer through the
public hearing process, including review by the South Mountain Village
Planning Committee, for stipulation modification prior to preliminary site plan
approval. This is a legislative review for conceptual purposes only. Specific
development standards and requirements will be determined by the Planning
Hearing Officer and the Planning and Development Department.
2. The conceptual elevations for future development of the site shall be reviewed
and approved by the Planning Hearing Officer through the public hearing
process, including review by the South Mountain Village Planning Committee,
for stipulation modification prior to final site plan approval. This is a legislative
review for conceptual purposes only. Specific development standards and
requirements will be determined by the Planning Hearing Officer and the
Planning and Development Department.
3. Prior to preliminary plat approval, documentation shall be provided that
demonstrates participation in the Environmental Protection Agency’s
WaterSense certification program, or an equivalent program, as approved by
the Planning and Development and Water Services departments.
4. A WaterSense inspection report from a third-party verifier shall be submitted
that demonstrates successful participation in the Environmental Protection
Agency’s WaterSense certification program, or an equivalent program, prior to
South Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-58-24-8
certificate of occupancy, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
5. Only landscape materials listed in the Phoenix Active Management Area Low-
Water-Use/Drought-Tolerant Plant List shall be utilized in the common areas
and within the front yards of individual residential lots, as approved or modified
by the Planning and Development Department.
6. Natural turf shall only be utilized on individual single-family lots (behind the
front yard); required retention areas (bottom of basin); and functional turf areas
within common areas, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
7. Pressure regulating sprinkler heads and/or drip lines shall be utilized in any turf
areas to reduce water waste.
8. A minimum of two green infrastructure (GI) techniques for stormwater
management shall be implemented per the Greater Phoenix Metro Green
Infrastructure and Low-Impact Development Details for Alternative Stormwater
Management, as approved or modified by the Planning and Development
Department.
9. Participation in the City of Phoenix Homeowner’s Association Water Efficiency
Program shall be incorporated into to Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions
for the subdivision, prior to final site plan approval.
10. Swimming pools on individual single-family lots shall be limited to 600 square
feet in size.
11. A minimum 50 feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated and constructed for the
full width of 20th Lane for the full length of the subject site, connecting to the
southern adjacent parcel.
12. A minimum 50-foot radius easement shall be dedicated and a minimum 45-foot
radius temporary turnaround shall be constructed at the southern terminus of
20th Lane. Alternatively, a permanent turn around design may be considered
and shall include a center landscaped island, designed to City of Phoenix
standards, as approved by the Street Transportation Department.
13. All streets within and adjacent to the development shall be constructed 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.
South Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-58-24-8
14. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and
operational characteristics of Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport to future owners or
tenants of the property. The form and content of such documents shall be
according to the templates and instructions provided which have been reviewed
and approved by the City Attorney.
15. In the event archeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-
foot radius of the discovery, notify the City Archeologist, and allow time for the
Archeology Office to properly assess the materials.
16. Prior to final 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. THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE LIMITED TO A MAXIMUM OF 18 UNITS.
18. A MINIMUM OF 30% OF BUILDING ELEVATIONS SHALL INCLUDE
COVERED PORCHES IN THE FRONT YARD AND REAR YARD AT A
MINIMUM OF SIXTY SQUARE FEET EACH AND AT A DEPTH OF AT
LEAST SIX FEET, AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
19. THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT FOR 80% OF THE LOTS SHALL BE
LIMITED TO ONE STORY AND 26 FEET, AS APPROVED BY THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
20. THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT SHALL BE TWO-STORIES AND 32
FEET, AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT.
21. A MINIMUM OF 8% OF THE GROSS PROJECT AREA SHALL BE
RETAINED AS COMMON AREA, AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
22. BUILDING ELEVATIONS SHALL CONTAIN MULTIPLE COLORS,
EXTERIOR ACCENT MATERIALS AND TEXTURAL CHANGES THAT
EXHIBIT QUALITY AND DURABILITY SUCH AS BRICK, STONE,
COLORED TEXTURED CONCRETE OR STUCCO, OR OTHER MATERIALS
TO PROVIDE A DECORATIVE AND AESTHETIC TREATMENT, AS
APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
South Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-58-24-8
23. ALL STREET-FACING GARAGE DOORS LENGTHS SHALL BE LESS THAN
50% OF THE TOTAL WIDTH OF THE FAÇADE, AS APPROVED BY THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
24. FRONT SETBACKS FOR COVERED BUILDING ELEMENTS SHALL BE
STAGGERED BY A MINIMUM OF 5 FEET, AS APPROVED BY THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
25. LOT WIDTHS SHALL VARY, AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
26. THE SOUTHERN END OF THE STREET SHALL HAVE LANDSCAPING AND
ROD IRON VIEW FENCING TO ENHANCE THE VIEW OF SOUTH
MOUNTAIN, UNTIL 20TH LANE IS CONSTRUCTED TO THE SOUTH OF
THE PROPERTY, AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
27. A RETAINING WALL SHALL BE PROVIDED ALONG THE NORTHERN
BOUNDARY OF TRACT A, AS APPROVED OR MODIFIED BY THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
28. THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE IN GENERAL CONFORMANCE WITH THE
SITE PLAN DATE STAMPED SEPTEMBER 5, 2024, AS MODIFIED BY THE
ABOVE STIPULATIONS AND AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that Stipulation No. 20 be deleted, as it seeks to limit the height of
the development to 32 feet. The maximum height permitted with the R1-10 Zoning
District is two stories and 30 feet and cannot be exceeded via a rezoning stipulation.
Since the maximum height requirement of 30 feet will apply, a stipulation limiting the
height to 30 feet is extraneous.
ATTACHMENT D
To: City of Phoenix Planning Commission Date: October 7, 2024
From: Racelle Escolar, AICP
Principal Planner
Subject: ITEM NO. 6 (Z-58-24-8) - APPROXIMATELY 710 FEET NORTH AND 305
FEET WEST OF THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF 20TH AVENUE AND
SOUTH MOUNTAIN AVENUE
The purpose of this memo is to recommend the removal a stipulation in response to the
South Mountain Village Planning Committee (VPC) recommendation and to convey
additional opposition correspondence that has been received regarding this rezoning
request.
Rezoning Case No. Z-58-24-8 is a request to rezone 4.54 acres located approximately
710 feet north and 305 feet west of the northwest corner of 20th Avenue and South
Mountain Avenue from S-1 (Ranch or Farm Residence) to R1-10 (Single-Family
Residence District) to allow a single-family residential subdivision.
The South Mountain VPC heard this request on September 10, 2024, and
recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, with additional stipulations by a
vote of 7-5.
Staff recommends that Stipulation No. 20 be deleted, as it seeks to limit the height of
the development to 32 feet. The maximum height permitted with the R1-10 Zoning
District is two stories and 30 feet and cannot be exceeded via a rezoning stipulation.
Since the maximum height requirement of 30 feet will apply, a stipulation limiting the
height to 30 feet is not appropriate.
Staff recommends approval, per the modified stipulations in bold font below:
1. The conceptual site plan and landscape plan for future development of the site
shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Hearing Officer through the
public hearing process, including review by the South Mountain Village
Planning Committee, for stipulation modification prior to preliminary site plan
approval. This is a legislative review for conceptual purposes only. Specific
development standards and requirements will be determined by the Planning
Hearing Officer and the Planning and Development Department.
2. The conceptual elevations for future development of the site shall be reviewed
and approved by the Planning Hearing Officer through the public hearing
process, including review by the South Mountain Village Planning Committee,
for stipulation modification prior to final site plan approval. This is a legislative
review for conceptual purposes only. Specific development standards and
Z-58-24-8 Planning Commission Backup Memo
October 7, 2024
requirements will be determined by the Planning Hearing Officer and the
Planning and Development Department.
3. Prior to preliminary plat approval, documentation shall be provided that
demonstrates participation in the Environmental Protection Agency’s
WaterSense certification program, or an equivalent program, as approved by
the Planning and Development and Water Services departments.
4. A WaterSense inspection report from a third-party verifier shall be submitted
that demonstrates successful participation in the Environmental Protection
Agency’s WaterSense certification program, or an equivalent program, prior to
certificate of occupancy, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
5. Only landscape materials listed in the Phoenix Active Management Area Low-
Water-Use/Drought-Tolerant Plant List shall be utilized in the common areas
and within the front yards of individual residential lots, as approved or modified
by the Planning and Development Department.
6. Natural turf shall only be utilized on individual single-family lots (behind the
front yard); required retention areas (bottom of basin); and functional turf areas
within common areas, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
7. Pressure regulating sprinkler heads and/or drip lines shall be utilized in any turf
areas to reduce water waste.
8. A minimum of two green infrastructure (GI) techniques for stormwater
management shall be implemented per the Greater Phoenix Metro Green
Infrastructure and Low-Impact Development Details for Alternative Stormwater
Management, as approved or modified by the Planning and Development
Department.
9. Participation in the City of Phoenix Homeowner’s Association Water Efficiency
Program shall be incorporated into to Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions
for the subdivision, prior to final site plan approval.
10. Swimming pools on individual single-family lots shall be limited to 600 square
feet in size.
11. A minimum 50 feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated and constructed for the
full width of 20th Lane for the full length of the subject site, connecting to the
southern adjacent parcel.
12. A minimum 50-foot radius easement shall be dedicated and a minimum 45-foot
radius temporary turnaround shall be constructed at the southern terminus of
20th Lane. Alternatively, a permanent turn around design may be considered
Z-58-24-8 Planning Commission Backup Memo
October 7, 2024
and shall include a center landscaped island, designed to City of Phoenix
standards, as approved by the Street Transportation Department.
13. All streets within and adjacent to the development shall be constructed 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. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and
operational characteristics of Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport to future owners or
tenants of the property. The form and content of such documents shall be
according to the templates and instructions provided which have been reviewed
and approved by the City Attorney.
15. In the event archeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-
foot radius of the discovery, notify the City Archeologist, and allow time for the
Archeology Office to properly assess the materials.
16. Prior to final 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. THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE LIMITED TO A MAXIMUM OF 18 UNITS.
18. A MINIMUM OF 30% OF BUILDING ELEVATIONS SHALL INCLUDE
COVERED PORCHES IN THE FRONT YARD AND REAR YARD AT A
MINIMUM OF 60 FEET EACH AND AT A DEPTH OF AT LEAST 6 FEET, AS
APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
19. THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT FOR 80% OF THE LOTS SHALL BE
LIMITED TO ONE STORY AND 26 FEET, AS APPROVED BY THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
20. THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT SHALL BE TWO-STORIES AND 32
FEET, AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT.
21. A MINIMUM OF 8% OF THE GROSS PROJECT AREA SHALL BE RETAINED
20. AS COMMON AREA, AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
22. BUILDING ELEVATIONS SHALL CONTAIN MULTIPLE COLORS, EXTERIOR
21. ACCENT MATERIALS AND TEXTURAL CHANGES THAT EXHIBIT QUALITY
AND DURABILITY SUCH AS BRICK, STONE, COLORED TEXTURED
Z-58-24-8 Planning Commission Backup Memo
October 7, 2024
CONCRETE OR STUCCO, OR OTHER MATERIALS TO PROVIDE A
DECORATIVE AND AESTHETIC TREATMENT, AS APPROVED BY THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
23. ALL STREET-FACING GARAGE DOORS LENGTHS SHALL BE LESS THAN
22. 50% OF THE TOTAL WIDTH OF THE FAÇADE, AS APPROVED BY THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
24. FRONT SETBACKS FOR COVERED BUILDING ELEMENTS SHALL BE
23. STAGGERED BY A MINIMUM OF 5 FEET, AS APPROVED BY THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
25. LOT WIDTHS SHALL VARY, AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND
24. DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
26. THE SOUTHERN END OF THE STREET SHALL HAVE LANDSCAPING AND
25. WROUGHT IRON VIEW FENCING TO ENHANCE THE VIEW OF SOUTH
MOUNTAIN, UNTIL 20TH LANE IS CONSTRUCTED TO THE SOUTH OF THE
PROPERTY, AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT.
27. A RETAINING WALL SHALL BE PROVIDED ALONG THE NORTHERN
26. BOUNDARY OF TRACT A, AS APPROVED OR MODIFIED BY THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
28. THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE IN GENERAL CONFORMANCE WITH THE
27. SITE PLAN DATE STAMPED SEPTEMBER 5, 2024, AS MODIFIED BY THE
ABOVE STIPULATIONS AND AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
Enclosure
Opposition correspondence (236 pages)
July 1, 2024
My name is Constance Box and I live at 7719 S. 20th Dr. I am writing in opposition to the
application for development and rezoning case number Z-58-24-8 submitted by John Fox, which
proposes to rezone 4.5 acres of currently S-1 property to the maximum density allowed for
R-10, which is 4.5 (bonus).
I am opposed to multiple issues with this proposed development.
Density- problems
● This property is bordered on 2 sides (east and south) by established homes on S-1
properties. The north and west sides are bordered by homes on R-10 property at no
more than standard 3.5 density. This development proposes a bonus density of 4.5 (20
homes) in addition to ADUs.
o This density is inconsistent with the surrounding developed land (at traditional
<=3.5) and an inappropriate transition density for all east and southern
neighbors with homes on S-1 property.
o It is not aligned with the Rio Montana Plan which recommends lower densities
towards South Mount Park and gradual density steps between lower and higher
density areas. (Rio Montana Plan, pg. 17)
Density- solutions
● Appropriate density transition between S-1 and R-10 is R-18 or approx. 2 houses per
acre or 2.34 with bonus. Allowing construction but with appropriate accommodations
for the environment and surrounding neighborhoods will still further the city’s housing
goals and provide additional benefits to the surrounding communities as outlined below.
Traffic- problems
● In relation to inappropriate density, the only entrance/exit is through a 52-home
neighborhood to the north onto Baseline Rd. The neighborhood already suffers severely
from difficult entrance/exit due to the heavy traffic on Baseline while also directly across
from a commercial shopping center entrance/exit, which sees greater traffic than a
neighborhood.
o According to the ITE Trip Generation Report 10th Edition (Maricopa’s Traffic
Impact Study Manual references the ITE report as its guideline), a single-family
house generates 10 trips per day on average. That will increase traffic to an
already bottlenecked neighborhood by 200 trips per day on average, not
including traffic potentially generated by ADU residents.
● No southbound exit/entrance can be counted on b/c the land is currently being lived on
for the foreseeable future and waiting to see if that will eventually become an option to
alleviate traffic issues is not good planning.
● Fire and emergency vehicles will be subject to the same traffic congestion potentially
impacting safety, property, and health.
Traffic- solutions
● R-18 density (10 homes) to reduce the overall impact on traffic for the existing
neighborhood.
● Traffic impact study and recommendations stipulated before any approvals for
rezoning/development.
Housing design- problems
● The development proposes an unknown number of 2-story homes, which are not
compatible with the recommendations of the Rio Montana Plan to preserve views to
South Mountain (Rio Montana Plan, pgs. 22-23) and are inconsistent with the vast
majority of the surrounding homes, which are single-story.
● The designers have not incorporated porches, non-street-facing garage entrances or
other signature elements recommended by the Rio Montana Plan in their conceptual
designs.
Housing design- solutions
● Limit construction to single-story (most important).
● Require deep front porches.
● Require some designs to incorporate garages that do not face the street.
● Require more architectural variety and placement/orientation on lots.
Heat island/climate, trees/shade- problems
● The current stipulations list trees on either side of concrete sidewalks to comply with the
current tree and shade master plan, however, allowing up to a 60% housing footprint on
each lot does nothing to mitigate the heat island effect that will be exacerbated from
that much roof area absorbing and radiating heat.
Heat island/climate, trees/shade - solutions
● Require lower density zoning and more open space.
● Require use of available SRP flood irrigation to provide added cooling.
● Require high emissivity and high SRI roofing materials.
● Stipulate the most conservation-forward building practices for housing insulation and
heat island mitigation currently within the city codes and aligned with the city’s 2021
Climate Action Plan. We don’t have time for “business as usual” to curb climate change.
● Require shade trees on the east, south and west sides of all properties to help keep the
sun off the building walls and shade the ground.
● Require deep set front and back porches (which appear predominantly east/west facing
based on the lot orientation) to also keep the sun off building walls.
Lastly, as of this writing, Mr. Fox has made absolutely no effort to work with any of the
neighbors and address the concerns listed above, which he has heard in person at the only 2
meetings he called to present this plan to the surrounding property owners before having it
appear before the SMVPC.
At the second meeting, a month later, the plan had not changed and there were several
neighbors who confirmed they did not receive a second meeting notice letter in time to attend.
He told the neighbors who were able to attend that he would go back and see what he could do
to incorporate these concerns before the July 9 SMVPC meeting, but no such meeting has been
called.
He has not listened to, much less acted on, any of the neighbor’s concerns. His development
plan is completely incompatible and insensitive to the surrounding neighbors. This application
should not move forward.
Respectfully,
Constance Box
7719 S 20th Drive
Phoenix, AZ 85041
:ƵůLJϭƐƚ͕ϮϬϮϰ
DLJŶĂŵĞŝƐĂǀŝĚ<ĞLJĂŶĚ/ůŝǀĞĂƚϮϬϬϲtĞƐƚƌĂŶŚĂŵ>ĂŶĞ͕WŚŽĞŶŝdžnjϴϱϬϰϭ͘/ĂŵǁƌŝƟŶŐŝŶ
ŽƉƉŽƐŝƟŽŶƚŽƚŚĞĂƉƉůŝĐĂƟŽŶĨŽƌĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂŶĚƌĞnjŽŶŝŶŐĐĂƐĞŶƵŵďĞƌͲϱϴͲϮϰͲϴƐƵďŵŝƩĞĚ
ďLJ:ŽŚŶ&Ždž͕ǁŚŝĐŚƉƌŽƉŽƐĞƐƚŽƌĞnjŽŶĞϰ͘ϱĂĐƌĞƐŽĨĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůLJ^ͲϭƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJƚŽƚŚĞŵĂdžŝŵƵŵ
ĚĞŶƐŝƚLJĂůůŽǁĞĚĨŽƌZͲϭϬ͕ǁŚŝĐŚŝƐϰ͘ϱ;ďŽŶƵƐͿ͘
/ĂŵŽƉƉŽƐĞĚƚŽŵƵůƟƉůĞŝƐƐƵĞƐǁŝƚŚƚŚŝƐƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͘
ĞŶƐŝƚLJͲƉƌŽďůĞŵƐ
x dŚŝƐƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJŝƐďŽƌĚĞƌĞĚŽŶϮƐŝĚĞƐ;ĞĂƐƚĂŶĚƐŽƵƚŚͿďLJĞƐƚĂďůŝƐŚĞĚŚŽŵĞƐŽŶ^Ͳϭ
ƉƌŽƉĞƌƟĞƐ͘dŚĞŶŽƌƚŚĂŶĚǁĞƐƚƐŝĚĞƐĂƌĞďŽƌĚĞƌĞĚďLJŚŽŵĞƐŽŶZͲϭϬƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJĂƚŶŽ
ŵŽƌĞƚŚĂŶƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚϯ͘ϱĚĞŶƐŝƚLJ͘dŚŝƐĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƉƌŽƉŽƐĞƐĂďŽŶƵƐĚĞŶƐŝƚLJŽĨϰ͘ϱ;ϮϬ
ŚŽŵĞƐͿŝŶĂĚĚŝƟŽŶƚŽhƐ͘
o dŚŝƐĚĞŶƐŝƚLJŝƐŝŶĐŽŶƐŝƐƚĞŶƚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞĚůĂŶĚ;ĂƚƚƌĂĚŝƟŽŶĂů
фсϯ͘ϱͿĂŶĚĂŶŝŶĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞƚƌĂŶƐŝƟŽŶĚĞŶƐŝƚLJĨŽƌĂůůĞĂƐƚĂŶĚƐŽƵƚŚĞƌŶŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐ
ǁŝƚŚŚŽŵĞƐŽŶ^ͲϭƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJ͘
o /ƚŝƐŶŽƚĂůŝŐŶĞĚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞZŝŽDŽŶƚĂŶĂWůĂŶǁŚŝĐŚƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚƐůŽǁĞƌĚĞŶƐŝƟĞƐ
ƚŽǁĂƌĚƐ^ŽƵƚŚDŽƵŶƚWĂƌŬĂŶĚŐƌĂĚƵĂůĚĞŶƐŝƚLJƐƚĞƉƐďĞƚǁĞĞŶůŽǁĞƌĂŶĚŚŝŐŚĞƌ
ĚĞŶƐŝƚLJĂƌĞĂƐ͘;ZŝŽDŽŶƚĂŶĂWůĂŶ͕ƉŐ͘ϭϳͿ
ĞŶƐŝƚLJͲƐŽůƵƟŽŶƐ
x ƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞĚĞŶƐŝƚLJƚƌĂŶƐŝƟŽŶďĞƚǁĞĞŶ^ͲϭĂŶĚZͲϭϬŝƐZͲϭϴŽƌĂƉƉƌŽdž͘ϮŚŽƵƐĞƐƉĞƌ
ĂĐƌĞŽƌϮ͘ϯϰǁŝƚŚďŽŶƵƐ͘ůůŽǁŝŶŐĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶďƵƚǁŝƚŚĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞĂĐĐŽŵŵŽĚĂƟŽŶƐ
ĨŽƌƚŚĞĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂŶĚƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚƐǁŝůůƐƟůůĨƵƌƚŚĞƌƚŚĞĐŝƚLJ͛ƐŚŽƵƐŝŶŐ
ŐŽĂůƐĂŶĚƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĂĚĚŝƟŽŶĂůďĞŶĞĮƚƐƚŽƚŚĞƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƟĞƐĂƐŽƵƚůŝŶĞĚďĞůŽǁ͘
dƌĂĸĐͲƉƌŽďůĞŵƐ
x /ŶƌĞůĂƟŽŶƚŽŝŶĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞĚĞŶƐŝƚLJ͕ƚŚĞŽŶůLJĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞͬĞdžŝƚŝƐƚŚƌŽƵŐŚĂϱϮͲŚŽŵĞ
ŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚƚŽƚŚĞŶŽƌƚŚŽŶƚŽĂƐĞůŝŶĞZĚ͘dŚĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚĂůƌĞĂĚLJƐƵīĞƌƐƐĞǀĞƌĞůLJ
ĨƌŽŵĚŝĸĐƵůƚĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞͬĞdžŝƚĚƵĞƚŽƚŚĞŚĞĂǀLJƚƌĂĸĐŽŶĂƐĞůŝŶĞǁŚŝůĞĂůƐŽĚŝƌĞĐƚůLJĂĐƌŽƐƐ
ĨƌŽŵĂĐŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂůƐŚŽƉƉŝŶŐĐĞŶƚĞƌĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞͬĞdžŝƚ͕ǁŚŝĐŚƐĞĞƐŐƌĞĂƚĞƌƚƌĂĸĐƚŚĂŶĂ
ŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚ͘
o ĐĐŽƌĚŝŶŐƚŽƚŚĞ/ddƌŝƉ'ĞŶĞƌĂƟŽŶZĞƉŽƌƚϭϬƚŚĚŝƟŽŶ;DĂƌŝĐŽƉĂ͛ƐdƌĂĸĐ
/ŵƉĂĐƚ^ƚƵĚLJDĂŶƵĂůƌĞĨĞƌĞŶĐĞƐƚŚĞ/dƌĞƉŽƌƚĂƐŝƚƐŐƵŝĚĞůŝŶĞͿ͕ĂƐŝŶŐůĞͲĨĂŵŝůLJ
ŚŽƵƐĞŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞƐϭϬƚƌŝƉƐƉĞƌĚĂLJŽŶĂǀĞƌĂŐĞ͘dŚĂƚǁŝůůŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞƚƌĂĸĐƚŽĂŶ
ĂůƌĞĂĚLJďŽƩůĞŶĞĐŬĞĚŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚďLJϮϬϬƚƌŝƉƐƉĞƌĚĂLJŽŶĂǀĞƌĂŐĞ͕ŶŽƚ
ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐƚƌĂĸĐƉŽƚĞŶƟĂůůLJŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞĚďLJhƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐ͘
x EŽƐŽƵƚŚďŽƵŶĚĞdžŝƚͬĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞĐĂŶďĞĐŽƵŶƚĞĚŽŶďͬĐƚŚĞůĂŶĚŝƐĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůLJďĞŝŶŐůŝǀĞĚŽŶ
ĨŽƌƚŚĞĨŽƌĞƐĞĞĂďůĞĨƵƚƵƌĞĂŶĚǁĂŝƟŶŐƚŽƐĞĞŝĨƚŚĂƚǁŝůůĞǀĞŶƚƵĂůůLJďĞĐŽŵĞĂŶŽƉƟŽŶƚŽ
ĂůůĞǀŝĂƚĞƚƌĂĸĐŝƐƐƵĞƐŝƐŶŽƚŐŽŽĚƉůĂŶŶŝŶŐ͘
x &ŝƌĞĂŶĚĞŵĞƌŐĞŶĐLJǀĞŚŝĐůĞƐǁŝůůďĞƐƵďũĞĐƚƚŽƚŚĞƐĂŵĞƚƌĂĸĐĐŽŶŐĞƐƟŽŶƉŽƚĞŶƟĂůůLJ
ŝŵƉĂĐƟŶŐƐĂĨĞƚLJ͕ƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJ͕ĂŶĚŚĞĂůƚŚ͘
dƌĂĸĐͲƐŽůƵƟŽŶƐ
x ZͲϭϴĚĞŶƐŝƚLJ;ϭϬŚŽŵĞƐͿƚŽƌĞĚƵĐĞƚŚĞŽǀĞƌĂůůŝŵƉĂĐƚŽŶƚƌĂĸĐĨŽƌƚŚĞĞdžŝƐƟŶŐ
ŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚ͘
x dƌĂĸĐŝŵƉĂĐƚƐƚƵĚLJĂŶĚƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĂƟŽŶƐƐƟƉƵůĂƚĞĚďĞĨŽƌĞĂŶLJĂƉƉƌŽǀĂůƐĨŽƌ
ƌĞnjŽŶŝŶŐͬĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͘
,ŽƵƐŝŶŐĚĞƐŝŐŶͲƉƌŽďůĞŵƐ
x dŚĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƉƌŽƉŽƐĞƐĂŶƵŶŬŶŽǁŶŶƵŵďĞƌŽĨϮͲƐƚŽƌLJŚŽŵĞƐ͕ǁŚŝĐŚĂƌĞŶŽƚ
ĐŽŵƉĂƟďůĞǁŝƚŚƚŚĞƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĂƟŽŶƐŽĨƚŚĞZŝŽDŽŶƚĂŶĂWůĂŶƚŽƉƌĞƐĞƌǀĞǀŝĞǁƐƚŽ
^ŽƵƚŚDŽƵŶƚĂŝŶ;ZŝŽDŽŶƚĂŶĂWůĂŶ͕ƉŐƐ͘ϮϮͲϮϯͿĂŶĚĂƌĞŝŶĐŽŶƐŝƐƚĞŶƚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞǀĂƐƚ
ŵĂũŽƌŝƚLJŽĨƚŚĞƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐŚŽŵĞƐ͕ǁŚŝĐŚĂƌĞƐŝŶŐůĞͲƐƚŽƌLJ͘
x dŚĞĚĞƐŝŐŶĞƌƐŚĂǀĞŶŽƚŝŶĐŽƌƉŽƌĂƚĞĚƉŽƌĐŚĞƐ͕ŶŽŶͲƐƚƌĞĞƚͲĨĂĐŝŶŐŐĂƌĂŐĞĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞƐŽƌ
ŽƚŚĞƌƐŝŐŶĂƚƵƌĞĞůĞŵĞŶƚƐƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĞĚďLJƚŚĞZŝŽDŽŶƚĂŶĂWůĂŶŝŶƚŚĞŝƌĐŽŶĐĞƉƚƵĂů
ĚĞƐŝŐŶƐ͘
,ŽƵƐŝŶŐĚĞƐŝŐŶͲƐŽůƵƟŽŶƐ
x >ŝŵŝƚĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶƚŽƐŝŶŐůĞͲƐƚŽƌLJ;ŵŽƐƚŝŵƉŽƌƚĂŶƚͿ͘
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞĚĞĞƉĨƌŽŶƚƉŽƌĐŚĞƐ͘
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞƐŽŵĞĚĞƐŝŐŶƐƚŽŝŶĐŽƌƉŽƌĂƚĞŐĂƌĂŐĞƐƚŚĂƚĚŽŶŽƚĨĂĐĞƚŚĞƐƚƌĞĞƚ͘
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞŵŽƌĞĂƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƵƌĂůǀĂƌŝĞƚLJĂŶĚƉůĂĐĞŵĞŶƚͬŽƌŝĞŶƚĂƟŽŶŽŶůŽƚƐ͘
,ĞĂƚŝƐůĂŶĚͬĐůŝŵĂƚĞ͕ƚƌĞĞƐͬƐŚĂĚĞͲƉƌŽďůĞŵƐ
x dŚĞĐƵƌƌĞŶƚƐƟƉƵůĂƟŽŶƐůŝƐƚƚƌĞĞƐŽŶĞŝƚŚĞƌƐŝĚĞŽĨĐŽŶĐƌĞƚĞƐŝĚĞǁĂůŬƐƚŽĐŽŵƉůLJǁŝƚŚƚŚĞ
ĐƵƌƌĞŶƚƚƌĞĞĂŶĚƐŚĂĚĞŵĂƐƚĞƌƉůĂŶ͕ŚŽǁĞǀĞƌ͕ĂůůŽǁŝŶŐƵƉƚŽĂϲϬйŚŽƵƐŝŶŐĨŽŽƚƉƌŝŶƚŽŶ
ĞĂĐŚůŽƚĚŽĞƐŶŽƚŚŝŶŐƚŽŵŝƟŐĂƚĞƚŚĞŚĞĂƚŝƐůĂŶĚĞīĞĐƚƚŚĂƚǁŝůůďĞĞdžĂĐĞƌďĂƚĞĚĨƌŽŵ
ƚŚĂƚŵƵĐŚƌŽŽĨĂƌĞĂĂďƐŽƌďŝŶŐĂŶĚƌĂĚŝĂƟŶŐŚĞĂƚ͘
,ĞĂƚŝƐůĂŶĚͬĐůŝŵĂƚĞ͕ƚƌĞĞƐͬƐŚĂĚĞͲƐŽůƵƟŽŶƐ
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞůŽǁĞƌĚĞŶƐŝƚLJnjŽŶŝŶŐĂŶĚŵŽƌĞŽƉĞŶƐƉĂĐĞ͘
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞƵƐĞŽĨĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞ^ZWŇŽŽĚŝƌƌŝŐĂƟŽŶƚŽƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĂĚĚĞĚĐŽŽůŝŶŐ͘
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞŚŝŐŚĞŵŝƐƐŝǀŝƚLJĂŶĚŚŝŐŚ^Z/ƌŽŽĮŶŐŵĂƚĞƌŝĂůƐ͘
x ^ƟƉƵůĂƚĞƚŚĞŵŽƐƚĐŽŶƐĞƌǀĂƟŽŶͲĨŽƌǁĂƌĚďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƉƌĂĐƟĐĞƐĨŽƌŚŽƵƐŝŶŐŝŶƐƵůĂƟŽŶĂŶĚ
ŚĞĂƚŝƐůĂŶĚŵŝƟŐĂƟŽŶĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůLJǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞĐŝƚLJĐŽĚĞƐĂŶĚĂůŝŐŶĞĚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞĐŝƚLJ͛ƐϮϬϮϭ
ůŝŵĂƚĞĐƟŽŶWůĂŶ͘tĞĚŽŶ͛ƚŚĂǀĞƟŵĞĨŽƌ͞ďƵƐŝŶĞƐƐĂƐƵƐƵĂů͟ƚŽĐƵƌďĐůŝŵĂƚĞĐŚĂŶŐĞ͘
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞƐŚĂĚĞƚƌĞĞƐŽŶƚŚĞĞĂƐƚ͕ƐŽƵƚŚĂŶĚǁĞƐƚƐŝĚĞƐŽĨĂůůƉƌŽƉĞƌƟĞƐƚŽŚĞůƉŬĞĞƉƚŚĞ
ƐƵŶŽīƚŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐǁĂůůƐĂŶĚƐŚĂĚĞƚŚĞŐƌŽƵŶĚ͘
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞĚĞĞƉƐĞƚĨƌŽŶƚĂŶĚďĂĐŬƉŽƌĐŚĞƐ;ǁŚŝĐŚĂƉƉĞĂƌƉƌĞĚŽŵŝŶĂŶƚůLJĞĂƐƚͬǁĞƐƚĨĂĐŝŶŐ
ďĂƐĞĚŽŶƚŚĞůŽƚŽƌŝĞŶƚĂƟŽŶͿƚŽĂůƐŽŬĞĞƉƚŚĞƐƵŶŽīďƵŝůĚŝŶŐǁĂůůƐ͘
>ĂƐƚůLJ͕ĂƐŽĨƚŚŝƐǁƌŝƟŶŐ͕Dƌ͘&ŽdžŚĂƐŵĂĚĞĂďƐŽůƵƚĞůLJŶŽĞīŽƌƚƚŽǁŽƌŬǁŝƚŚĂŶLJŽĨƚŚĞ
ŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐĂŶĚĂĚĚƌĞƐƐƚŚĞĐŽŶĐĞƌŶƐůŝƐƚĞĚĂďŽǀĞ͕ǁŚŝĐŚŚĞŚĂƐŚĞĂƌĚŝŶƉĞƌƐŽŶĂƚƚŚĞŽŶůLJϮ
ŵĞĞƟŶŐƐŚĞĐĂůůĞĚƚŽƉƌĞƐĞŶƚƚŚŝƐƉůĂŶƚŽƚŚĞƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJŽǁŶĞƌƐďĞĨŽƌĞŚĂǀŝŶŐŝƚ
ĂƉƉĞĂƌďĞĨŽƌĞƚŚĞ^DsW͘
ƚƚŚĞƐĞĐŽŶĚŵĞĞƟŶŐ͕ĂŵŽŶƚŚůĂƚĞƌ͕ƚŚĞƉůĂŶŚĂĚŶŽƚĐŚĂŶŐĞĚĂŶĚƚŚĞƌĞǁĞƌĞƐĞǀĞƌĂů
ŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐǁŚŽĐŽŶĮƌŵĞĚƚŚĞLJĚŝĚŶŽƚƌĞĐĞŝǀĞĂƐĞĐŽŶĚŵĞĞƟŶŐŶŽƟĐĞůĞƩĞƌŝŶƟŵĞƚŽĂƩĞŶĚ͘
,ĞƚŽůĚƚŚĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐǁŚŽǁĞƌĞĂďůĞƚŽĂƩĞŶĚƚŚĂƚŚĞǁŽƵůĚŐŽďĂĐŬĂŶĚƐĞĞǁŚĂƚŚĞĐŽƵůĚĚŽ
ƚŽŝŶĐŽƌƉŽƌĂƚĞƚŚĞƐĞĐŽŶĐĞƌŶƐďĞĨŽƌĞƚŚĞ:ƵůLJϵ^DsWŵĞĞƟŶŐ͕ďƵƚŶŽƐƵĐŚŵĞĞƟŶŐŚĂƐďĞĞŶ
ĐĂůůĞĚ͘
,ĞŚĂƐŶŽƚůŝƐƚĞŶĞĚƚŽ͕ŵƵĐŚůĞƐƐĂĐƚĞĚŽŶ͕ĂŶLJŽĨƚŚĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌ͛ƐĐŽŶĐĞƌŶƐ͘,ŝƐĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ
ƉůĂŶŝƐĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞůLJŝŶĐŽŵƉĂƟďůĞĂŶĚŝŶƐĞŶƐŝƟǀĞƚŽƚŚĞƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐ͘dŚŝƐĂƉƉůŝĐĂƟŽŶ
ƐŚŽƵůĚŶŽƚŵŽǀĞĨŽƌǁĂƌĚ͘
ZĞƐƉĞĐƞƵůůLJ͕
ĂǀŝĚ<ĞLJĂŶĚEŝŬŝ<ĞLJ
ϮϬϬϲtĞƐƚƌĂŶŚĂŵ>ĂŶĞ
WŚŽĞŶŝdžnjϴϱϬϰϭ
7/9/24, 2:14 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
Opposition to Rezoning Case Z-58-24-8
James Betterment
Mon 7/8/2024 4:50 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers
1 attachments (22 KB)
Opposition-letter_Z-58-24-8_8008-S-20th-Ave_James-Betterment.docx;
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Please see attached for my opposition to rezoning case Z-58-24-8.£
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQANF8CoQjfVdJkzQ3ok2BFps…
1/1
July 4th 2024
My name is :ĂŵĞƐĞƩĞƌŵĞŶƚand I live at 8008 S 20th Ave, Phoenix AZ 85041. /ĂŵǁƌŝƟŶŐŝŶ
ŽƉƉŽƐŝƟŽŶƚŽƚŚĞĂƉƉůŝĐĂƟŽŶĨŽƌĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂŶĚƌĞnjŽŶŝŶŐĐĂƐĞŶƵŵďĞƌZ-58-24-8 ƐƵďŵŝƩĞĚ
ďLJ:ŽŚŶ&Ždž͕ǁŚŝĐŚƉƌŽƉŽƐĞƐƚŽƌĞnjŽŶĞϰ͘ϱĂĐƌĞƐŽĨĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůLJ^-ϭƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJƚŽƚŚĞŵĂdžŝŵƵŵ
ĚĞŶƐŝƚLJĂůůŽǁĞĚĨŽƌZ-10͕ǁŚŝĐŚŝƐϰ͘ϱ;ďŽŶƵƐͿ.
I am opposed to ŵƵůƟƉůĞŝƐƐƵĞƐǁŝƚŚƚŚŝƐƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ.
Loss of Privacy:
x dŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚǁŽƵůĚƌĞƐƵůƚŝŶĨŽƵƌƉƌŽƉĞƌƟĞƐĚŝƌĞĐƚůLJĂďƵƫŶŐƚŚĞďĂĐŬŽĨ
ŵLJƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJ͕ƐŝŐŶŝĮĐĂŶƚůLJƌĞĚƵĐŝŶŐƚŚĞƉƌŝǀĂĐLJƚŚĂƚŵLJĨĂŵŝůLJĂŶĚ/ĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůLJĞŶũŽLJ͘dŚĞ
ŝŶĐůƵƐŝŽŶŽĨƚǁŽ-ƐƚŽƌLJŚŽƵƐĞƐŝƐƉĂƌƟĐƵůĂƌůLJĐŽŶĐĞƌŶŝŶŐ͕ĂƐƚŚĞƐĞƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞƐǁŽƵůĚŚĂǀĞ
ĚŝƌĞĐƚƐŝŐŚƚůŝŶĞƐŝŶƚŽŵLJďĂĐŬLJĂƌĚĂŶĚƉŽƚĞŶƟĂůůLJŝŶƚŽŵLJŚŽŵĞ͕ƐĞǀĞƌĞůLJĐŽŵƉƌŽŵŝƐŝŶŐ
ŽƵƌƉƌŝǀĂĐLJ͘
/ŶĂĚĞƋƵĂƚĞEŽƟĐĞĂŶĚŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJ/ŶƉƵƚ͗
x /ŚĂǀĞŶŽƚƌĞĐĞŝǀĞĚĂŶLJŶŽƟĐĞƐŽĨƚŚŝƐĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƌĞƋƵĞƐƚĂŶĚŚĂĚƚŽďĞŝŶĨŽƌŵĞĚďLJ
ŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐƚŚĞĚĂLJďĞĨŽƌĞƚŚĞŵĞĞƟŶŐƐ͘
Density- ƉƌŽďůĞŵƐ
x dŚŝƐƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJŝƐďŽƌĚĞƌĞĚŽŶϮƐŝĚĞƐ;ĞĂƐƚĂŶĚƐŽƵƚŚͿďLJĞƐƚĂďůŝƐŚĞĚŚŽŵĞƐŽŶ^-1
ƉƌŽƉĞƌƟĞƐ͘dŚĞŶŽƌƚŚĂŶĚǁĞƐƚƐŝĚĞƐĂƌĞďŽƌĚĞƌĞĚďLJŚŽŵĞƐŽŶZ-ϭϬƉƌŽƉĞƌƟes at no
ŵŽƌĞƚŚĂŶƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚϯ͘ϱĚĞŶƐŝƚLJ͘dŚŝƐĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƉƌŽƉŽƐĞƐĂďŽŶƵƐĚĞŶƐŝƚLJŽĨϰ͘ϱ;ϮϬ
ŚŽŵĞƐͿŝŶĂĚĚŝƟŽŶƚŽhƐ͘
o This deŶƐŝƚLJŝƐŝŶĐŽŶƐŝƐƚĞŶƚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞĚůĂŶĚ;ĂƚƚƌĂĚŝƟŽŶĂů
фсϯ͘ϱͿĂŶĚĂŶŝŶĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞƚƌĂŶƐŝƟŽŶĚĞŶƐŝƚLJĨŽƌĂůůĞĂƐƚĂŶĚƐŽƵƚŚĞƌŶŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐ
with homes on S-ϭƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJ͘
o /ƚŝƐŶŽƚĂůŝŐŶĞĚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞZŝŽDŽŶƚĂŶĂWůĂŶ ǁŚŝĐŚƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚƐůŽǁĞƌĚĞŶƐŝƟĞƐ
ƚŽǁĂƌĚƐ^ŽƵƚŚDŽƵŶƚWĂƌŬĂŶĚŐƌĂĚƵĂůĚĞŶƐŝƚLJƐƚĞƉƐďĞƚǁĞĞŶůŽǁĞƌĂŶĚŚŝŐŚĞƌ
ĚĞŶƐŝƚLJĂƌĞĂƐ͘;ZŝŽDŽŶƚĂŶĂWůĂŶ͕ƉŐ͘ ϭϳͿ
Density- ƐŽůƵƟŽŶƐ
x ƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞĚĞŶƐŝƚLJƚƌĂŶƐŝƟŽŶďĞƚǁĞĞŶ^-ϭĂŶĚZ-ϭϬŝƐZ-ϭϴŽƌĂƉƉƌŽdž͘ϮŚŽƵƐĞƐƉĞƌ
ĂĐƌĞŽƌϮ͘ϯϰǁŝƚŚďŽŶƵƐ͘ ůůŽǁŝŶŐĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶďƵƚǁŝƚŚĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞ ĂĐĐŽŵŵŽĚĂƟŽŶƐ
ĨŽƌƚŚĞĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂŶĚƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚƐǁŝůůƐƟůůĨƵƌƚŚĞƌƚŚĞĐŝƚLJ͛Ɛ ŚŽƵƐŝŶŐ
ŐŽĂůƐ ĂŶĚƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĂĚĚŝƟŽŶĂůďĞŶĞĮƚƐ ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐ ŵŝƟŐĂƟŶŐŚĞĂƚĂŶĚƉƌĞƐĞƌǀŝŶŐůŽĐĂů
ĐŚĂƌĂĐƚĞƌ ƚŽƚŚĞƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƟĞƐ.
dƌĂĸĐ- ƉƌŽďůĞŵƐ
x /ŶƌĞůĂƟŽŶƚŽŝŶĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞĚĞŶƐŝƚLJ͕ƚŚĞŽŶůLJĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞͬexit ŝƐƚŚƌŽƵŐŚ tLJŶĚŚĂŵ^ƋƵĂƌĞ͕
a 52-home neŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚƚŽƚŚĞŶŽƌƚŚŽŶƚŽĂƐĞůŝŶĞZĚ͘dŚĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚĂůƌĞĂĚLJ
ƐƵīĞƌƐƐĞǀĞƌĞůLJĨƌŽŵĚŝĸĐƵůƚĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞͬĞdžŝƚĚƵĞƚŽƚŚĞheavy ƚƌĂĸĐŽŶĂƐĞůŝŶĞ while
ĂůƐŽĚŝƌĞĐƚůLJĂĐƌŽƐƐĨƌŽŵĂĐŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂůƐŚŽƉƉŝŶŐĐĞŶƚĞƌĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞͬĞdžŝƚ͕ǁŚŝĐŚƐĞĞƐ
ŐƌĞĂƚĞƌƚƌĂĸĐƚŚĂŶĂŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚ.
o ĐĐŽƌĚŝŶŐƚŽƚŚĞ/ddƌŝƉ'ĞŶĞƌĂƟŽŶZĞƉŽƌƚϭϬth ĚŝƟŽŶ;DĂƌŝĐŽƉĂ͛ƐdƌĂĸĐ
/ŵƉĂĐƚ^ƚƵĚLJDĂŶƵĂů ƌĞĨĞƌĞŶĐĞƐƚŚĞ/dƌĞƉŽƌƚĂƐŝƚƐŐƵŝĚĞůŝŶĞͿ͕ĂƐŝŶŐůĞ-ĨĂŵŝůLJ
ŚŽƵƐĞŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞƐϭϬƚƌŝƉƐƉĞƌĚĂLJŽŶĂǀĞƌĂŐĞ͘dŚĂƚǁŝůůŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞƚƌĂĸĐƚŽĂŶ
ĂůƌĞĂĚLJďŽƩůĞŶĞĐŬĞĚŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚďLJϮϬϬƚƌŝƉƐ ƉĞƌĚĂLJŽŶĂǀĞƌĂŐĞ͕ŶŽƚ
ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐƚƌĂĸĐƉŽƚĞŶƟĂůůLJŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞĚďLJhƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐ͘
x EŽƐŽƵƚŚďŽƵŶĚĞdžŝƚͬĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞĐĂŶďĞĐŽƵŶƚĞĚŽŶďͬĐƚŚĞůĂŶĚŝƐĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůLJďĞŝŶŐůŝǀĞĚŽŶ
ĨŽƌƚŚĞĨŽƌĞƐĞĞĂďůĞĨƵƚƵƌĞĂŶĚǁĂŝƟŶŐƚŽƐĞĞŝĨƚŚĂƚǁŝůůĞǀĞŶƚƵĂůůLJďĞĐŽŵĞĂŶŽƉƟŽŶƚŽ
ĂůůĞǀŝĂƚĞƚƌĂĸĐŝƐƐƵĞƐŝƐŶŽƚŐŽŽĚƉůĂŶŶŝŶŐ ĂŶĚĚŽĞƐŶŽƚŚŝŶŐƚŽĂůůĞǀŝĂƚĞŝŵŵĞĚŝĂƚĞ
ƉƌŽďůĞŵƐ.
x &ŝƌĞĂŶĚĞŵĞƌŐĞŶĐLJǀĞŚŝĐůĞƐǁŝůůďĞƐƵďũĞĐƚƚŽƚŚĞsame ƚƌĂĸĐĐŽŶŐĞƐƟŽŶ ƉŽƚĞŶƟĂůůLJ
ŝŵƉĂĐƟŶŐƐĂĨĞƚLJ͕ƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJ͕ and health.
dƌĂĸĐ- ƐŽůƵƟŽŶƐ
x Z-18 density ;ϭϬŚŽŵĞƐͿƚŽƌĞĚƵĐĞƚŚĞŽǀĞƌĂůůŝŵƉĂĐƚŽŶƚƌĂĸĐĨŽƌƚŚĞĞdžŝƐƟŶŐ
ŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚ͘
x dƌĂĸĐŝŵƉĂĐƚƐƚƵĚLJĂŶĚƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĂƟŽŶƐƐƟƉƵůĂƚĞĚďĞĨŽƌĞĂŶLJĂƉƉƌŽǀĂůƐĨŽƌ
ƌĞnjŽŶŝŶŐͬĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͘
Housing design- ƉƌŽďůĞŵƐ
x dŚĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƉƌŽƉŽƐĞs ĂŶƵŶŬŶŽǁŶŶƵŵďĞƌŽĨ2-ƐƚŽƌLJŚŽŵĞƐ͕ǁŚŝĐŚĂƌĞŶŽƚ
ĐŽŵƉĂƟďůĞǁŝƚŚƚŚĞƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĂƟŽŶƐŽĨƚŚĞZŝŽDŽŶƚĂŶĂWůĂŶƚŽƉƌĞƐĞƌǀĞǀŝĞǁƐƚŽ
^ŽƵƚŚDŽƵŶƚĂŝŶ;ZŝŽDŽŶƚĂŶĂWůĂŶ͕ƉŐƐ͘ 22-ϮϯͿĂŶĚĂƌĞŝŶĐŽŶƐŝƐƚĞŶƚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞǀĂƐƚ
ŵĂũŽƌŝƚLJŽĨƚŚĞƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐhomes͕ǁŚŝĐŚĂƌĞƐŝŶŐůĞ-ƐƚŽƌLJ͘
x dŚĞĚĞƐŝŐŶĞƌƐŚĂǀĞŶŽƚŝŶĐŽƌƉŽƌĂƚĞĚƉŽƌĐŚĞƐ͕ŶŽŶ-ƐƚƌĞĞƚ-ĨĂĐŝŶŐŐĂƌĂŐĞĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞƐŽƌ
ŽƚŚĞƌƐŝŐŶĂƚƵƌĞĞůĞŵĞŶƚƐƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĞĚďLJƚŚĞZŝŽDŽŶƚĂŶĂWůĂŶŝŶƚŚĞŝƌĐŽŶĐĞƉƚƵĂů
ĚĞƐŝŐŶƐ͘
Housing design- ƐŽůƵƟŽŶƐ
x >ŝŵŝƚĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶƚŽƐŝŶŐůĞ-ƐƚŽƌLJ;mŽƐƚŝŵƉŽƌƚĂŶƚͿ.
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞĚĞĞƉĨƌŽŶƚƉŽƌĐŚĞƐ͘
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞƐŽŵĞĚĞƐŝŐŶƐƚŽŝŶĐŽƌƉŽƌĂƚĞŐĂƌĂŐĞƐƚŚĂƚĚŽŶŽƚĨĂĐĞƚŚĞƐƚƌĞĞƚ͘
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞŵŽƌĞĂƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƵƌĂůǀĂƌŝĞƚLJ ĂŶĚƉůĂĐĞŵĞŶƚͬŽƌŝĞŶƚĂƟŽŶŽŶůŽƚƐ͘
,ĞĂƚŝƐůĂŶĚͬĐůŝŵĂƚĞ͕ƚƌĞĞƐͬƐŚĂĚĞ- ƉƌŽďůĞŵƐ
x dŚĞĐƵƌƌĞŶƚƐƟƉƵůĂƟŽŶƐůŝƐƚƚƌĞĞƐŽŶĞŝƚŚĞƌƐŝĚĞŽĨĐŽŶĐƌĞƚĞƐŝĚĞǁĂůŬƐƚŽĐŽŵƉůLJǁŝƚŚƚŚĞ
ĐƵƌƌĞŶƚƚƌĞĞĂŶĚƐŚĂĚĞŵĂƐƚĞƌƉůĂŶ͕ŚŽǁĞǀĞƌ͕ĂůůŽǁŝŶŐƵƉƚŽa ϲϬйŚŽƵƐŝŶŐĨŽŽƚƉƌŝŶƚŽŶ
ĞĂĐŚůŽƚĚŽĞƐŶŽƚŚŝŶŐƚŽŵŝƟŐĂƚĞƚŚĞŚĞĂƚŝƐůĂŶĚĞīĞĐƚƚŚĂƚǁŝůůďĞĞdžĂĐĞƌďĂƚĞĚĨƌŽŵ
ƚŚĂƚŵƵĐŚƌŽŽĨĂƌĞĂĂďƐŽƌďŝŶŐĂŶĚƌĂĚŝĂƟŶŐŚĞĂƚ͘
,ĞĂƚŝƐůĂŶĚͬĐůŝŵĂƚĞ͕ƚƌĞĞƐͬƐŚĂĚĞ- ƐŽůƵƟŽŶƐ
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞůŽǁĞƌĚĞŶƐŝƚLJnjŽŶŝŶŐĂŶĚŵŽƌĞŽƉĞŶƐƉĂĐĞ͘
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞƵƐĞŽĨĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞ^ZWŇŽŽĚŝƌƌŝŐĂƟŽŶƚŽƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĂĚĚĞĚĐŽŽůŝŶŐ͘
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞŚŝŐŚemissivity ĂŶĚŚŝŐŚ^Z/ƌŽŽĮŶŐŵĂƚĞƌŝĂůƐ͘
x ^ƟƉƵůĂƚĞƚŚĞŵŽƐƚĐŽŶƐĞƌǀĂƟŽŶ-ĨŽƌǁĂƌĚ ďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƉƌĂĐƟĐĞƐĨŽƌŚŽƵƐŝŶŐŝŶƐƵůĂƟŽŶĂŶĚ
ŚĞĂƚŝƐůĂŶĚŵŝƟŐĂƟŽŶĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůLJǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞĐŝƚLJĐŽĚĞƐ ĂŶĚĂůŝŐŶĞĚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞĐŝƚLJ͛Ɛ2021
ůŝŵĂƚĞĐƟŽŶWůĂŶ. tĞĚŽŶ͛ƚŚĂǀĞƟŵĞĨŽƌ͞ďƵƐŝŶĞƐƐĂƐƵƐƵĂů͟ƚŽĐƵƌďĐůŝŵĂƚĞĐŚĂŶŐĞ͘
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞƐŚĂĚĞƚƌĞĞƐŽŶƚŚĞĞĂƐƚ͕ƐŽƵƚŚĂŶĚǁĞƐƚƐŝĚĞƐŽĨĂůůƉƌŽƉĞƌƟĞƐƚŽŚĞůƉŬĞĞƉƚŚĞ
sun Žī ƚŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐǁĂůůƐĂŶĚƐŚĂĚĞƚŚĞŐƌŽƵŶĚ͘
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞĚĞĞƉƐĞƚĨƌŽŶƚĂŶĚďĂĐŬƉŽƌĐŚĞƐ ;ǁŚŝĐŚĂƉƉĞĂƌƉƌĞĚŽŵŝŶĂŶƚůLJĞĂƐƚͬǁĞƐƚĨĂĐŝŶŐ
ďĂƐĞĚŽŶƚŚĞůŽƚŽƌŝĞŶƚĂƟŽŶͿ ƚŽĂůƐŽŬĞĞƉƚŚĞƐƵŶŽī ďƵŝůĚŝŶŐǁĂůůƐ͘
dŚŝƐƉƌŽƉŽƐĂůŚĂƐĂƉƉĂƌĞŶƚůLJďĞĞŶƉůĂŶŶĞĚƐŝŶĐĞůĂƐƚLJĞĂƌ ƐŝŶĐĞƚŚĞĞůĞǀĂƟŽŶƐĂƌĞĚĂƚĞĚ
^ĞƉƚĞŵďĞƌϮϬϮϯĂŶĚƚŚĞĮƌƐƚƉůĂŶƌĞǀŝĞǁǁĂƐƐĐŚĞĚƵůĞĚĨŽƌEŽǀĞŵďĞƌϮϬϮϯ͘zĞƚDƌ͘&ŽdžƐĞŶƚ
ŽƵƚƚŚĞĮƌƐƚŵĞĞƟŶŐŶŽƟĐĞƚŽƚŚĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐĨŽƌ May 18, 2024. As ŽĨƚŚŝƐǁƌŝƟŶŐ͕Dƌ͘&ŽdžŚĂƐ
ŵĂĚĞĂďƐŽůƵƚĞůLJŶŽĞīŽƌƚƚŽǁŽƌŬǁŝƚŚĂŶLJŽĨƚŚĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐĂŶĚĂĚĚƌĞƐƐƚŚĞĐŽŶĐĞƌŶƐůŝƐƚĞĚ
ĂďŽǀĞ͕ǁŚŝĐŚŚĞŚĂƐŚĞĂƌĚŝŶƉĞƌƐŽŶĂƚthe only ϮŵĞĞƟŶŐƐŚĞĐĂůůĞĚƚŽƉƌĞƐĞŶƚƚŚŝƐƉůĂŶƚŽƚŚĞ
ƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJŽǁŶĞƌƐ ďĞĨŽƌĞŚĂǀŝŶŐŝƚĂƉƉĞĂƌďĞĨŽƌĞƚŚĞ^DsW.
ƚƚŚĞƐĞĐŽŶĚŵĞĞƟŶŐ͕on June 15͕ƚŚĞƉůĂŶŚĂĚŶŽƚĐŚĂŶŐĞĚĂŶĚƚŚĞƌĞǁĞƌĞƐĞǀĞƌĂůŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐ
ǁŚŽĐŽŶĮƌŵĞĚƚŚĞLJĚŝĚŶŽƚƌĞĐĞŝǀĞĂƐĞĐŽŶĚŵĞĞƟŶŐŶŽƟĐĞůĞƩĞƌ ŝŶƟŵĞƚŽĂƩĞŶĚ. His
ĐŽůůĞĂŐƵĞ ƚŽůĚƚŚĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐǁŚŽǁĞƌĞĂďůĞƚŽĂƩĞŶĚ ƚŚĂƚŚĞǁŽƵůĚŐŽďĂĐŬĂŶĚƐĞĞǁŚĂƚŚĞ
ĐŽƵůĚĚŽƚŽŝŶĐŽƌƉŽƌĂƚĞthese ĐŽŶĐĞƌŶƐďĞĨŽƌĞƚŚĞ:ƵůLJϵ^DsWŵĞĞƟŶŐ͕ďƵƚŶŽƐƵĐŚŵĞĞƟŶŐ
ŚĂƐďĞĞŶĐĂůůĞĚ͘
He has not listened to͕ŵƵĐŚůĞƐƐĂĐƚĞĚŽŶ͕ ĂŶLJŽĨƚŚĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌ͛Ɛ ĐŽŶĐĞƌŶƐ. His development
ƉůĂŶŝƐĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞůLJŝŶĐŽŵƉĂƟďůĞĂŶĚŝŶƐĞŶƐŝƟǀĞƚŽƚŚĞƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐ. dŚŝƐĂƉƉůŝĐĂƟŽŶ
ƐŚŽƵůĚŶŽƚŵŽǀĞĨŽƌǁĂƌĚ͘
ZĞƐƉĞĐƞƵůůLJ,
:ĂŵĞƐĞƩĞƌŵĞŶƚ
8008 S 20th Ave, Phoenix AZ 85041
July 8th, 2024
My name is Jose Angel Perea and I live at 8004 S 20th Ave. Phoenix, AZ 85041. I am writing in
opposition to the application for development and rezoning case number Z-58-24-8 submitted
by John Fox, which proposes to rezone 4.5 acres of currently S-1 property to the maximum
density allowed for R-10, which is 4.5 (bonus).
I am opposed to multiple issues with this proposed development.
Density- problems
● This property is bordered on 2 sides (east and south) by established homes on S-1
properties. The north and west sides are bordered by homes on R-10 properties at no
more than standard 3.5 density. This development proposes a bonus density of 4.5 (20
homes) in addition to ADUs.
o This density is inconsistent with the surrounding developed land (at traditional
<=3.5) and an inappropriate transition density for all east and southern
neighbors with homes on S-1 property.
o It is not aligned with the Rio Montana Plan which recommends lower densities
towards South Mount Park and gradual density steps between lower and higher
density areas. (Rio Montana Plan, pg. 17)
Density- solutions
● Appropriate density transition between S-1 and R-10 is R-18 or approx. 2 houses per
acre or 2.34 with bonus. Allowing construction but with appropriate accommodations
for the environment and surrounding neighborhoods will still further the city’s housing
goals and provide additional benefits including mitigating heat and preserving local
character to the surrounding communities.
Traffic- problems
● In relation to inappropriate density, the only entrance/exit is through Wyndham Square,
a 52-home neighborhood to the north onto Baseline Rd. The neighborhood already
suffers severely from difficult entrance/exit due to the heavy traffic on Baseline while
also directly across from a commercial shopping center entrance/exit, which sees
greater traffic than a neighborhood.
o According to the ITE Trip Generation Report 10th Edition (Maricopa’s Traffic
Impact Study Manual references the ITE report as its guideline), a single-family
house generates 10 trips per day on average. That will increase traffic to an
already bottlenecked neighborhood by 200 trips per day on average, not
including traffic potentially generated by ADU residents.
● No southbound exit/entrance can be counted on b/c the land is currently being lived on
for the foreseeable future and waiting to see if that will eventually become an option to
alleviate traffic issues is not good planning and does nothing to alleviate immediate
problems.
● Fire and emergency vehicles will be subject to the same traffic congestion potentially
impacting safety, property, and health.
Traffic- solutions
● R-18 density (10 homes) to reduce the overall impact on traffic for the existing
neighborhood.
● Traffic impact study and recommendations stipulated before any approvals for
rezoning/development.
Housing design- problems
● The development proposes an unknown number of 2-story homes, which are not
compatible with the recommendations of the Rio Montana Plan to preserve views to
South Mountain (Rio Montana Plan, pgs. 22-23) and are inconsistent with the vast
majority of the surrounding homes, which are single-story.
● The designers have not incorporated porches, non-street-facing garage entrances or
other signature elements recommended by the Rio Montana Plan in their conceptual
designs.
Housing design- solutions
● Limit construction to single-story (most important).
● Require deep front porches.
● Require some designs to incorporate garages that do not face the street.
● Require more architectural variety and placement/orientation on lots.
Heat island/climate, trees/shade- problems
● The current stipulations list trees on either side of concrete sidewalks to comply with the
current tree and shade master plan, however, allowing up to a 60% housing footprint on
each lot does nothing to mitigate the heat island effect that will be exacerbated from
that much roof area absorbing and radiating heat.
Heat island/climate, trees/shade - solutions
● Require lower density zoning and more open space.
● Require use of available SRP flood irrigation to provide added cooling.
● Require high emissivity and high SRI roofing materials.
● Stipulate the most conservation-forward building practices for housing insulation and
heat island mitigation currently within the city codes and aligned with the city’s 2021
Climate Action Plan. We don’t have time for “business as usual” to curb climate change.
● Require shade trees on the east, south and west sides of all properties to help keep the
sun off the building walls and shade the ground.
● Require deep set front and back porches (which appear predominantly east/west facing
based on the lot orientation) to also keep the sun off building walls.
This proposal has apparently been planned since last year since the elevations are dated
September 2023 and the first plan review was scheduled for November 2023. Yet Mr. Fox sent
out the first meeting notice to the neighbors for May 18, 2024. As of this writing, Mr. Fox has
made absolutely no effort to work with any of the neighbors and address the concerns listed
above, which he has heard in person at the only 2 meetings he called to present this plan to the
surrounding property owners before having it appear before the SMVPC.
At the second meeting, on June 15, the plan had not changed and there were several neighbors
who confirmed they did not receive a second meeting notice letter in time to attend. His
colleague told the neighbors who were able to attend that he would go back and see what he
could do to incorporate these concerns before the July 9 SMVPC meeting, but no such meeting
has been called.
He has not listened to, much less acted on, any of the neighbor’s concerns. His development
plan is completely incompatible and insensitive to the surrounding neighbors. This application
should not move forward.
Respectfully,
Jose Angel Perea
8004 S 20th Ave.
Phoenix, AZ 85041
07-09-2024
My name is Miguel Rubio and I live at 8020 s. 20th Ave Phoenix, AZ 85041͘/ĂŵǁƌŝƟŶŐŝŶ
ŽƉƉŽƐŝƟŽŶƚŽƚŚĞĂƉƉůŝĐĂƟŽŶĨŽƌĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂŶĚƌĞnjŽŶŝŶŐĐĂƐĞŶƵŵďĞƌZ-58-24-8 ƐƵďŵŝƩĞĚ
ďLJ:ŽŚŶ&Ždž͕ǁŚŝĐŚƉƌŽƉŽƐĞƐƚŽƌĞnjŽŶĞϰ͘ϱĂĐƌĞƐŽĨĐƵƌƌĞŶƚly S-1 property to the maximum
ĚĞŶƐŝƚLJĂůůŽǁĞĚĨŽƌZ-10͕ǁŚŝĐŚŝƐϰ͘ϱ;ďŽŶƵƐͿ.
I am opposed to ŵƵůƟƉůĞŝƐƐƵĞƐǁŝƚŚƚŚŝƐproposed development.
Density- problems
x dŚŝƐƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJŝƐďŽƌĚĞƌĞĚŽŶϮƐŝĚĞƐ;ĞĂƐƚĂŶĚƐŽƵƚŚͿďLJestablished homes on S-1
ƉƌŽƉĞƌƟĞƐ͘dŚĞŶŽƌƚŚĂŶĚǁĞƐƚƐŝĚĞƐĂƌĞďŽƌĚĞƌĞĚďLJŚŽŵĞƐŽŶZ-ϭϬƉƌŽƉĞƌƟes at no
more than standard 3.5 density. dŚŝƐĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƉƌŽƉŽƐĞƐĂďŽŶƵƐĚĞŶƐŝƚLJŽĨϰ͘ϱ;ϮϬ
ŚŽŵĞƐͿŝŶĂĚĚŝƟŽŶƚŽhƐ͘
o dŚŝƐĚĞŶƐŝƚLJŝƐŝŶĐŽŶƐŝƐƚĞŶƚǁŝƚŚ ƚŚĞƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞĚůĂŶĚ;ĂƚƚƌĂĚŝƟŽŶĂů
фсϯ͘ϱͿĂŶĚĂŶŝŶĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞƚƌĂŶƐŝƟŽŶĚĞŶƐŝƚLJĨŽƌĂůůĞĂƐƚĂŶĚƐŽƵƚŚĞƌŶŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐ
with homes on S-1 property.
o It is not aligned with the Rio Montana Plan ǁŚŝĐŚƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚƐůŽǁĞƌĚĞŶƐŝƟĞƐ
towards South Mount Park and gradual density steps between lower and higher
ĚĞŶƐŝƚLJĂƌĞĂƐ͘;Rio Montana Plan, pg. ϭϳͿ
Density- ƐŽůƵƟŽŶƐ
x Appropriate density trĂŶƐŝƟŽŶďĞƚǁĞĞŶ^-1 and R-10 is R-18 or approx. 2 houses per
ĂĐƌĞŽƌϮ͘ϯϰǁŝƚŚďŽŶƵƐ͘ ůůŽǁŝŶŐĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶďƵƚǁŝƚŚappropriate ĂĐĐŽŵŵŽĚĂƟŽŶƐ
ĨŽƌƚŚĞĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂŶĚƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚƐǁŝůůƐƟůůĨƵƌƚŚĞƌƚŚĞĐŝƚLJ͛ƐŚŽƵƐŝŶŐ
goals ĂŶĚƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĂĚĚŝƟŽŶĂůďĞŶĞĮƚƐ ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐ ŵŝƟŐĂƟŶŐŚĞĂƚĂŶĚƉƌĞƐĞƌǀŝŶŐůŽĐĂů
ĐŚĂƌĂĐƚĞƌ ƚŽƚŚĞƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƟĞƐ.
dƌĂĸĐ- problems
x /ŶƌĞůĂƟŽŶƚŽŝŶĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞĚĞŶƐŝƚLJ͕ƚŚĞŽŶůLJĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞͬexit is through Wyndham Square,
a 52-home neighborhood to the north onto Baseline Rd. The neighborhood already
ƐƵīĞƌƐƐĞǀĞƌĞůLJĨƌŽŵĚŝĸĐƵůƚĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞͬĞdžŝƚĚƵĞƚŽƚŚĞheavy ƚƌĂĸĐŽŶĂƐĞůŝŶĞ while
ĂůƐŽĚŝƌĞĐƚůLJĂĐƌŽƐƐĨƌŽŵĂĐŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂůƐŚŽƉƉŝŶŐĐĞŶƚĞƌĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞͬĞdžŝƚ͕ǁŚŝĐŚƐĞĞƐ
greateƌƚƌĂĸĐƚŚĂŶĂŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚ.
o ĐĐŽƌĚŝŶŐƚŽƚŚĞ/ddƌŝƉ'ĞŶĞƌĂƟŽŶZĞƉŽƌƚϭϬth ĚŝƟŽŶ;DĂƌŝĐŽƉĂ͛ƐdƌĂĸĐ
/ŵƉĂĐƚ^ƚƵĚLJDĂŶƵĂů ƌĞĨĞƌĞŶĐĞƐƚŚĞ/dƌĞƉŽƌƚĂƐits guidelineͿ͕Ăsingle-ĨĂŵŝůLJ
house generates 10 trips per day on average. dŚĂƚǁŝůůŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞƚƌĂĸĐƚŽĂŶ
ĂůƌĞĂĚLJďŽƩůĞŶĞĐŬĞĚŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚďLJϮϬϬtrips per day on average, not
ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐƚƌĂĸĐƉŽƚĞŶƟĂůůLJŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞĚďLJhƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐ͘
x EŽƐŽƵƚŚďŽƵŶĚĞdžŝƚͬĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞĐĂŶďĞĐŽƵŶƚĞĚŽŶďͬĐƚŚĞůĂŶĚŝƐĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůLJďĞŝŶŐůŝǀĞĚŽŶ
ĨŽƌƚŚĞĨŽƌĞƐĞĞĂďůĞĨƵƚƵƌĞĂŶĚǁĂŝƟŶŐƚŽƐĞĞŝĨƚŚĂƚǁŝůůĞǀĞŶƚƵĂůůLJďĞĐŽŵĞĂŶŽƉƟŽŶƚŽ
ĂůůĞǀŝĂƚĞƚƌĂĸĐŝƐƐƵĞƐŝƐŶŽƚŐŽŽĚƉůĂŶŶŝŶŐ and does nothing to alleviate immediate
problems.
x &ŝƌĞĂŶĚĞŵĞƌŐĞŶĐLJǀĞŚŝĐůĞƐǁŝůůďĞƐƵďũĞĐƚƚŽƚŚĞƐĂŵĞƚƌĂĸĐĐŽŶŐĞƐƟŽŶ ƉŽƚĞŶƟĂůůLJ
ŝŵƉĂĐƟŶŐƐĂĨĞƚLJ, property, and health.
dƌĂĸĐ- ƐŽůƵƟŽŶƐ
x R-18 density ;ϭϬŚŽŵĞƐͿƚŽƌĞĚƵĐĞƚŚĞŽǀĞƌĂůůŝŵƉĂĐƚŽŶƚƌĂĸĐĨŽƌƚŚĞĞdžŝƐƟŶŐ
neighborhood.
x dƌĂĸĐŝŵƉĂĐƚƐƚƵĚLJĂŶĚƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĂƟŽŶƐƐƟƉƵůĂƚĞĚ ďĞĨŽƌĞĂŶLJĂƉƉƌŽǀĂůƐĨŽƌ
ƌĞnjŽŶŝŶŐͬĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͘
Housing design- problems
x The development proposes ĂŶƵŶŬŶŽǁŶŶƵŵďĞƌŽĨ2-ƐƚŽƌLJŚŽŵĞƐ͕ǁŚŝĐŚĂƌĞŶŽƚ
ĐŽŵƉĂƟďůĞǁŝƚŚƚŚĞƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĂƟŽŶƐŽĨƚŚĞZŝŽDŽŶƚĂŶĂWůĂŶƚŽƉƌĞƐĞƌǀĞǀŝĞǁƐƚŽ
^ŽƵƚŚDŽƵŶƚĂŝŶ;Rio Montana Plan, pgs. 22-ϮϯͿĂŶĚĂƌĞŝŶĐŽŶƐŝƐƚĞŶƚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞǀĂƐƚ
ŵĂũŽƌŝƚLJŽĨƚŚĞƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐhomes͕ǁŚŝĐŚĂƌĞƐŝŶŐůĞ-story.
x The dĞƐŝŐŶĞƌƐŚĂǀĞŶŽƚŝŶĐŽƌƉŽƌĂƚĞĚƉŽƌĐŚĞƐ͕ŶŽŶ-street-ĨĂĐŝŶŐŐĂƌĂŐĞĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞƐŽƌ
ŽƚŚĞƌƐŝŐŶĂƚƵƌĞĞůĞŵĞŶƚƐƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĞĚďLJƚŚĞZŝŽDŽŶƚĂŶĂWůĂŶŝŶƚŚĞŝƌĐŽŶĐĞƉƚƵĂů
designs.
Housing design- ƐŽůƵƟŽŶƐ
x >ŝŵŝƚĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶƚŽƐŝŶŐůĞ-ƐƚŽƌLJ;mŽƐƚŝŵƉŽƌƚĂŶƚͿ.
x Require dĞĞƉĨƌŽŶƚƉŽƌĐŚĞƐ͘
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞƐŽŵĞĚĞƐŝŐŶƐƚŽŝŶĐŽƌƉŽƌĂƚĞŐĂƌĂŐĞƐƚŚĂƚĚŽŶŽƚĨĂĐĞƚŚĞƐƚƌĞĞƚ͘
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞŵŽƌĞĂƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƵƌĂůǀĂƌŝĞƚLJ ĂŶĚƉůĂĐĞŵĞŶƚͬŽƌŝĞŶƚĂƟŽŶŽŶůŽƚƐ͘
Heat islandͬĐůŝŵĂƚĞ͕ƚƌĞĞƐͬƐŚĂĚĞ- problems
x dŚĞĐƵƌƌĞŶƚƐƟƉƵůĂƟŽŶƐůŝƐƚƚƌĞĞƐŽŶĞŝƚŚĞƌƐŝĚĞ ŽĨĐŽŶĐƌĞƚĞƐŝĚĞǁĂůŬƐƚŽĐŽŵƉůLJǁŝƚŚƚŚĞ
ĐƵƌƌĞŶƚƚƌĞĞĂŶĚƐŚĂĚĞŵĂƐƚĞƌƉůĂŶ͕ŚŽǁĞǀĞƌ͕ĂůůŽǁŝŶŐƵƉƚŽa ϲϬйŚŽƵƐŝŶŐĨŽŽƚƉƌŝŶƚŽŶ
ĞĂĐŚůŽƚĚŽĞƐŶŽƚŚŝŶŐƚŽŵŝƟŐĂƚĞƚŚĞŚĞĂƚŝƐůĂŶĚĞīĞĐƚƚŚĂƚǁŝůůďĞĞdžĂĐĞƌďĂƚĞĚĨƌŽŵ
ƚŚĂƚŵƵĐŚƌŽŽĨĂƌĞĂĂďƐŽƌďŝŶŐĂŶĚƌĂĚŝĂƟng heat.
Heat islandͬĐůŝŵĂƚĞ͕ƚƌĞĞƐͬƐŚĂĚĞ - ƐŽůƵƟŽŶƐ
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞůŽǁĞƌĚĞŶƐŝƚLJnjŽŶŝŶŐĂŶĚŵŽƌĞŽƉĞŶƐƉĂĐĞ͘
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞƵƐĞŽĨĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞ^ZWŇŽŽĚŝƌƌŝŐĂƟŽŶƚŽƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĂĚĚĞĚĐŽŽůŝŶŐ͘
x Require high emissivity ĂŶĚŚŝŐŚ^Z/ƌŽŽĮŶŐŵĂƚĞƌŝĂůƐ͘
x ^ƟƉƵůĂƚĞƚŚĞŵŽƐƚĐŽŶƐĞƌǀĂƟŽŶ-Ĩorward ďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƉƌĂĐƟĐĞƐĨŽƌŚŽƵƐŝŶŐŝŶƐƵůĂƟŽŶĂŶĚ
ŚĞĂƚŝƐůĂŶĚŵŝƟŐĂƟŽŶĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůLJǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞĐŝƚLJĐŽĚĞƐ ĂŶĚĂůŝŐŶĞĚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞĐŝƚLJ͛Ɛ2021
ůŝŵĂƚĞĐƟŽŶWůĂŶ. tĞĚŽŶ͛ƚŚĂǀĞƟŵĞĨŽƌ͞ďƵƐŝŶĞƐƐĂƐƵƐƵĂů͟ƚŽĐƵƌďĐůŝŵĂƚĞĐŚĂŶŐĞ͘
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞƐŚĂĚĞƚƌĞĞƐŽŶƚŚĞĞĂƐƚ͕ƐŽƵƚŚĂŶĚǁĞƐƚƐŝĚĞƐŽĨĂůůƉƌŽƉĞƌƟĞƐƚŽŚĞůƉŬĞĞƉƚŚĞ
sun Žī the building walls and shade the ground.
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞĚĞĞƉƐĞƚĨƌŽŶƚĂŶĚďĂĐŬƉŽƌĐŚĞƐ ;ǁŚŝĐŚĂƉƉĞĂƌƉƌĞĚŽŵŝŶĂŶƚůLJĞĂƐƚͬǁĞƐƚĨĂĐŝŶŐ
based on the lot orŝĞŶƚĂƟŽŶͿ to also keep the sun Žī building walls.
dŚŝƐƉƌŽƉŽƐĂůŚĂƐĂƉƉĂƌĞŶƚůLJďĞĞŶƉůĂŶŶĞĚƐŝŶĐĞůĂƐƚLJĞĂƌ ƐŝŶĐĞƚŚĞĞůĞǀĂƟŽŶƐĂƌĞĚĂƚĞĚ
^ĞƉƚĞŵďĞƌϮϬϮϯĂŶĚƚŚĞĮƌƐƚƉůĂŶƌĞǀŝĞǁǁĂƐƐĐŚĞĚƵůĞĚĨŽƌEŽǀĞŵďĞƌϮϬϮϯ͘zĞƚMr. Fox sent
ŽƵƚƚŚĞĮƌƐƚŵĞĞƟŶŐŶŽƟĐĞto the neighbors ĨŽƌ May 18, 2024. As ŽĨƚŚŝƐǁƌŝƟŶŐ͕Dƌ͘&ŽdžŚĂƐ
ŵĂĚĞĂďƐŽůƵƚĞůLJŶŽĞīŽƌƚƚŽǁŽƌŬǁŝƚŚĂŶLJŽĨƚŚĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐĂŶĚĂĚĚƌĞƐƐƚŚĞĐŽŶĐĞƌŶƐůŝƐƚĞĚ
ĂďŽǀĞ͕ǁŚŝĐŚŚĞŚĂƐŚĞĂƌĚŝŶƉĞƌƐŽŶĂƚthe only ϮŵĞĞƟŶŐƐŚĞĐĂůůĞĚƚŽƉƌĞƐĞŶƚƚŚŝƐƉůĂŶƚo the
surrounding property owners ďĞĨŽƌĞŚĂǀŝŶŐŝƚĂƉƉĞĂƌďĞĨŽƌĞƚŚĞ^DsW.
ƚƚŚĞƐĞĐŽŶĚŵĞĞƟŶŐ͕on June 15͕ƚŚĞƉůĂŶŚĂĚŶŽƚĐŚĂŶŐĞĚĂŶĚƚŚĞƌĞǁĞƌĞƐĞǀĞƌĂůŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐ
ǁŚŽĐŽŶĮƌŵĞĚƚŚĞLJĚŝĚŶŽƚƌĞĐĞŝǀĞĂƐĞĐŽŶĚŵĞĞƟŶŐŶŽƟĐĞůĞƩĞƌ ŝŶƟŵĞƚŽĂƩĞŶĚ. His
ĐŽůůĞĂŐƵĞ told the neighbors who ǁĞƌĞĂďůĞƚŽĂƩĞŶĚ ƚŚĂƚŚĞǁŽƵůĚŐŽďĂĐŬĂŶĚƐĞĞǁŚĂƚŚĞ
ĐŽƵůĚĚŽƚŽŝŶĐŽƌƉŽƌĂƚĞthese ĐŽŶĐĞƌŶƐďĞĨŽƌĞƚŚĞ:ƵůLJϵ^DsWŵĞĞƟŶŐ͕ďƵƚŶŽƐƵĐŚŵĞĞƟŶŐ
ŚĂƐďĞĞŶĐĂůůĞĚ͘
He has not listened to͕ŵƵĐŚůĞƐƐĂĐƚĞĚŽŶ͕ ĂŶLJŽĨƚŚĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌ͛Ɛ ĐŽŶĐĞƌŶƐ. His development
ƉůĂŶŝƐĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞůLJŝŶĐŽŵƉĂƟďůĞĂŶĚŝŶƐĞŶƐŝƟǀĞƚŽƚŚĞƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐ. This ĂƉƉůŝĐĂƟŽŶ
ƐŚŽƵůĚŶŽƚŵŽǀĞĨŽƌǁĂƌĚ͘
ZĞƐƉĞĐƞƵůůLJ,
Miguel Rubio
8020 s. 20th Ave Phoenix, AZ 85041
7/9/24, 2:24 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
Opposition to Rezoning Case Z-58-24-8
Nicki Sordello
Mon 7/8/2024 7:02 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers
1 attachments (22 KB)
Opposition-letter_Z-58-24-8_8008-S-20th-Ave_Nicole.Sordello.docx;
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Good evening,
Please see the attached letter in opposition to the rezoning proposal Z-58-24-8. If you have any
questions or request further information, please let me know.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Best regards,
Nicole Sordello
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAEEAv%2BuhPpRDvjgN2TWr…
1/1
July 8th 2024
To whom it may concern,
My name is Nicole Sordello, and I live at 8008 S 20th Ave, Phoenix AZ 85041. /ĂŵǁƌŝƟŶŐthis
ůĞƩĞƌin ƐƚƌŽŶŐ ŽƉƉŽƐŝƟŽŶƚŽƚŚĞĂƉƉůŝĐĂƟŽŶĨŽƌĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂŶĚƌĞnjŽŶŝŶŐĐĂƐĞŶƵŵďĞƌZ-58-
24-8 ƐƵďŵŝƩĞĚ ďLJ:ŽŚŶ&Ždž͕ǁŚŝĐŚƉƌŽƉŽƐĞƐƚŽƌĞnjŽŶĞϰ͘ϱĂĐƌĞƐŽĨĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůLJ^-1 property to the
ŵĂdžŝŵƵŵĚĞŶƐŝƚLJĂůůŽǁĞĚĨŽƌZ-10.
I am opposed to ƚŚŝƐƌĞnjŽŶŝŶŐƉƌŽƉŽƐĂůĨŽƌ ŵƵůƟƉůĞreasons:
Loss of Privacy:
x dŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚǁŽƵůĚƌĞƐƵůƚŝŶĨŽƵƌƉƌŽƉĞƌƟĞƐĚŝƌĞĐƚůLJĂďƵƫŶŐƚŚĞďĂĐŬŽĨ
ŵLJƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJ͕ƐŝŐŶŝĮĐĂŶƚůLJƌĞĚƵĐŝŶŐƚŚĞƉƌŝǀĂĐLJƚŚĂƚŵLJĨĂŵŝůLJĂŶĚ/ĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůLJĞŶũŽLJ͘dŚĞ
ŝŶĐůƵƐŝŽŶŽĨƚǁŽ-ƐƚŽƌLJŚŽƵƐĞƐŝƐƉĂƌƟĐƵůĂƌůLJĐŽŶĐĞƌŶŝŶŐ͕ĂƐƚŚĞƐĞƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞƐǁŽƵůĚŚĂǀĞ
ĚŝƌĞĐƚƐŝŐŚƚůŝŶĞƐŝŶƚŽŵLJďĂĐŬLJĂƌĚĂŶĚƉŽƚĞŶƟĂůůLJŝŶƚŽŵLJŚŽŵĞ͕ƐĞǀĞƌĞůLJĐŽŵƉƌŽŵŝƐŝŶŐ
our privacy.
/ŶĂĚĞƋƵĂƚĞEŽƟĐĞĂŶĚŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJ/ŶƉƵƚ͗
x /ŚĂǀĞŶŽƚƌĞĐĞŝǀĞĚĂŶLJŶŽƟĐĞƐŽĨƚŚŝƐĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚrequest ĂŶĚŚĂĚƚŽďĞŝŶĨŽƌŵĞĚďLJ
ŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐƚŚĞĚĂLJďĞĨŽƌĞƚŚĞŵĞĞƟŶŐƐ͘
Density- ƉƌŽďůĞŵƐ
x This ƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJŝƐďŽƌĚĞƌĞĚŽŶϮƐŝĚĞƐ;ĞĂƐƚĂŶĚƐŽƵƚŚͿďLJĞƐƚĂďůŝƐŚĞĚŚŽŵĞƐŽŶ^-1
ƉƌŽƉĞƌƟĞƐ͘dŚĞŶŽƌƚŚĂŶĚǁĞƐƚƐŝĚĞƐĂƌĞďŽƌĚĞƌĞĚďLJŚŽŵĞƐŽŶZ-ϭϬƉƌŽƉĞƌƟes at no
more than standard 3.5 density. dŚŝƐĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƉƌŽƉŽƐĞƐĂďŽŶƵƐĚĞŶƐŝƚLJŽĨϰ͘ϱ;ϮϬ
ŚŽŵĞƐͿŝŶĂĚĚŝƟŽŶƚŽhƐ͘
o dŚŝƐĚĞŶƐŝƚLJŝƐŝŶĐŽŶƐŝƐƚĞŶƚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞĚůĂŶĚ;ĂƚƚƌĂĚŝƟŽŶĂů
фсϯ͘ϱͿĂŶĚĂŶŝŶĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞƚƌĂŶƐŝƟŽŶĚĞŶƐŝƚLJĨŽƌĂůůĞĂƐƚĂŶĚƐŽƵƚŚĞƌŶŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐ
with homes on S-1 property.
o /ƚŝƐŶŽƚĂůŝŐŶĞĚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞZŝŽDŽŶƚĂŶĂWůĂŶ ǁŚŝĐŚƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚƐůŽǁĞƌĚĞŶƐŝƟĞƐ
ƚŽǁĂƌĚƐ^ŽƵƚŚDŽƵŶƚWĂƌŬĂŶĚŐƌĂĚƵĂůĚĞŶƐŝƚLJƐƚĞƉƐďĞƚǁĞĞŶůŽǁĞƌĂŶĚŚŝŐŚĞƌ
ĚĞŶƐŝƚLJĂƌĞĂƐ͘;ZŝŽDŽŶƚĂŶĂWůĂŶ͕ƉŐ͘ ϭϳͿ
Density- ƐŽůƵƟŽŶƐ
x ƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞĚĞŶƐŝƚLJƚƌĂŶƐŝƟŽŶďĞƚǁĞĞŶ^-ϭĂŶĚZ-ϭϬŝƐZ-18 or approx. 2 houses per
ĂĐƌĞŽƌϮ͘ϯϰǁŝƚŚďŽŶƵƐ͘ ůůŽǁŝŶŐĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶďƵƚǁŝƚŚappropriate ĂĐĐŽŵŵŽĚĂƟŽŶƐ
ĨŽƌƚŚĞĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂŶĚƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚƐǁŝůůƐƟůůĨƵƌƚŚĞƌƚŚĞĐŝƚLJ͛ƐŚŽƵƐŝŶŐ
ŐŽĂůƐ ĂŶĚƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĂĚĚŝƟŽŶĂůďĞŶĞĮƚƐ ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐ ŵŝƟŐĂƟŶŐŚĞĂƚĂŶĚƉƌĞƐĞƌǀŝŶŐůŽĐĂů
character ƚŽƚŚĞƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƟĞƐ.
dƌĂĸĐ- ƉƌŽďůĞŵƐ
x /ŶƌĞůĂƟŽŶƚŽŝŶĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞĚĞŶƐŝƚLJ͕ƚŚĞŽŶůLJĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞͬexit ŝƐƚŚƌŽƵŐŚ Wyndham Square,
a 52-ŚŽŵĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚƚŽƚŚĞŶŽƌƚŚŽŶƚŽĂƐĞůŝŶĞZĚ͘dŚĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚĂůƌĞĂĚLJ
ƐƵīĞƌƐƐĞǀĞƌĞůLJĨƌŽŵĚŝĸĐƵůƚĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞͬĞdžŝƚĚƵĞƚŽƚŚĞheavy ƚƌĂĸĐŽŶĂƐĞůŝŶĞ while
ĂůƐŽĚŝƌĞĐƚůLJĂĐƌŽƐƐĨƌŽŵĂĐŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂůƐŚŽƉƉŝŶŐĐĞŶƚĞƌentraŶĐĞͬĞdžŝƚ, which sees
ŐƌĞĂƚĞƌƚƌĂĸĐƚŚĂŶĂŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚ.
o ĐĐŽƌĚŝŶŐƚŽƚŚĞ/ddƌŝƉ'ĞŶĞƌĂƟŽŶZĞƉŽƌƚϭϬth ĚŝƟŽŶ;DĂƌŝĐŽƉĂ͛ƐdƌĂĸĐ
Impact Study Manual ƌĞĨĞƌĞŶĐĞƐƚŚĞ/dƌĞƉŽƌƚĂƐŝƚƐŐƵŝĚĞůŝŶĞͿ͕ĂƐŝŶŐůĞ-ĨĂŵŝůLJ
ŚŽƵƐĞŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞƐϭϬƚƌŝƉƐƉĞƌĚĂLJŽŶĂǀĞƌĂŐĞ͘dŚĂƚǁŝůůŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞƚƌĂĸĐƚŽĂŶ
ĂůƌĞĂĚLJďŽƩůĞŶĞĐŬĞĚŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚďLJϮϬϬtrips per ĚĂLJŽŶĂǀĞƌĂŐĞ͕ŶŽƚ
ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐƚƌĂĸĐƉŽƚĞŶƟĂůůLJŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞĚďLJhƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐ͘
x EŽƐŽƵƚŚďŽƵŶĚĞdžŝƚͬĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞĐĂŶďĞĐŽƵŶƚĞĚŽŶďͬĐƚŚĞůĂŶĚŝƐĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůLJďĞŝŶŐůŝǀĞĚŽŶ
ĨŽƌƚŚĞĨŽƌĞƐĞĞĂďůĞĨƵƚƵƌĞĂŶĚǁĂŝƟŶŐƚŽƐĞĞŝĨƚŚĂƚǁŝůůĞǀĞŶƚƵĂůůLJďĞĐŽŵĞĂŶŽƉƟŽŶƚŽ
ĂůůĞǀŝĂƚĞƚƌĂĸĐŝƐƐƵĞƐŝƐŶŽƚŐŽŽĚƉůĂŶŶŝŶŐ ĂŶĚĚŽĞƐŶŽƚŚŝŶŐƚŽĂůůĞǀŝĂƚĞŝŵŵĞĚŝĂƚĞ
ƉƌŽďůĞŵƐ.
x &ŝƌĞĂŶĚĞŵĞƌŐĞŶĐLJǀĞŚŝĐůĞƐǁŝůůďĞƐƵďũĞĐƚƚŽƚŚĞƐĂŵĞƚƌĂĸĐĐŽŶŐĞƐƟŽŶ ƉŽƚĞŶƟĂůůLJ
ŝŵƉĂĐƟŶŐƐĂĨĞƚLJ, property, and health.
dƌĂĸĐ- ƐŽůƵƟŽŶƐ
x Z-18 density ;ϭϬŚŽŵĞƐͿƚŽƌĞĚƵĐĞƚŚĞŽǀĞƌĂůůŝŵƉĂĐƚŽŶƚƌĂĸĐĨŽƌƚŚĞĞdžŝƐƟŶŐ
ŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚ͘
x dƌĂĸĐŝŵƉĂĐƚƐƚƵĚLJĂŶĚƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĂƟŽŶƐƐƟƉƵůĂƚĞĚďĞĨŽƌĞĂŶLJĂƉƉƌŽǀĂůƐĨŽƌ
ƌĞnjŽŶŝŶŐͬĚĞǀĞlopment.
Housing design- ƉƌŽďůĞŵƐ
x The development proposes ĂŶƵŶŬŶŽǁŶŶƵŵďĞƌŽĨ2-story homes, which are not
ĐŽŵƉĂƟďůĞǁŝƚŚƚŚĞƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĂƟŽŶƐŽĨƚŚĞZŝŽDŽŶƚĂŶĂWůĂŶƚŽƉƌĞƐĞƌǀĞǀŝĞǁƐƚŽ
^ŽƵƚŚDŽƵŶƚĂŝŶ;ZŝŽDŽŶƚĂŶĂWůĂŶ͕ƉŐƐ͘ 22-ϮϯͿĂŶĚĂƌĞŝŶĐŽŶƐŝƐƚĞŶƚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞǀĂƐƚ
ŵĂũŽƌŝƚLJŽĨƚŚĞƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐhomes͕ǁŚŝĐŚĂƌĞƐŝŶŐůĞ-story.
x dŚĞĚĞƐŝŐŶĞƌƐŚĂǀĞŶŽƚŝŶĐŽƌƉŽƌĂƚĞĚƉŽƌĐŚĞƐ͕ŶŽŶ-street-ĨĂĐŝŶŐŐĂƌĂŐĞĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞƐŽƌ
ŽƚŚĞƌƐŝŐŶĂƚƵƌĞĞůĞŵĞŶƚƐƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĞĚďLJƚŚĞZŝŽDŽŶƚĂŶĂWůĂŶŝŶƚŚĞŝƌconceptual
ĚĞƐŝŐŶƐ͘
Housing design- ƐŽůƵƟŽŶƐ
x >ŝŵŝƚĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶƚŽƐŝŶŐůĞ-ƐƚŽƌLJ;mŽƐƚŝŵƉŽƌƚĂŶƚͿ.
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞĚĞĞƉĨƌŽŶƚƉŽƌĐŚĞƐ͘
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞƐŽŵĞĚĞƐŝŐŶƐƚŽŝŶĐŽƌƉŽƌĂƚĞŐĂƌĂŐĞƐƚŚĂƚĚŽŶŽƚĨĂĐĞƚŚĞƐƚƌĞĞƚ͘
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞŵŽƌĞĂƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƵƌĂůǀĂƌŝĞƚLJ ĂŶĚƉůĂĐĞŵĞŶƚͬŽƌŝĞŶƚĂƟŽŶŽŶůŽƚƐ͘
,ĞĂƚŝƐůĂŶĚͬĐůŝŵĂƚĞ͕ƚƌĞĞƐͬƐŚĂĚĞ- ƉƌŽďůĞŵƐ
x dŚĞĐƵƌƌĞŶƚƐƟƉƵůĂƟŽŶƐůŝƐƚƚƌĞĞƐŽŶĞŝƚŚĞƌƐŝĚĞŽĨĐŽŶĐƌĞƚĞƐŝĚĞǁĂůŬƐƚŽĐŽŵƉůLJǁŝƚŚƚŚĞ
ĐƵƌƌĞŶƚƚƌĞĞĂŶĚƐŚĂĚĞŵĂƐƚĞƌƉůĂŶ͕ŚŽǁĞǀĞƌ͕ĂůůŽǁŝŶŐƵƉƚŽa ϲϬйŚŽƵƐŝŶŐĨŽŽƚƉƌŝŶƚŽŶ
each lot does nothiŶŐƚŽŵŝƟŐĂƚĞƚŚĞŚĞĂƚŝƐůĂŶĚĞīĞĐƚƚŚĂƚǁŝůůďĞĞdžĂĐĞƌďĂƚĞĚĨƌŽŵ
ƚŚĂƚŵƵĐŚƌŽŽĨĂƌĞĂĂďƐŽƌďŝŶŐĂŶĚƌĂĚŝĂƟŶŐŚĞĂƚ͘
,ĞĂƚŝƐůĂŶĚͬĐůŝŵĂƚĞ͕ƚƌĞĞƐͬƐŚĂĚĞ- ƐŽůƵƟŽŶƐ
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞůŽǁĞƌĚĞŶƐŝƚLJnjŽŶŝŶŐĂŶĚŵŽƌĞŽƉĞŶƐƉĂĐĞ͘
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞƵƐĞŽĨĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞ^ZWŇŽŽĚŝƌƌŝŐĂƟŽŶƚŽƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĂĚĚĞĚĐŽŽůŝŶŐ͘
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞŚŝŐŚemissivity ĂŶĚŚŝŐŚ^Z/ƌŽŽĮŶŐŵĂƚĞƌŝĂůƐ͘
x ^ƟƉƵůĂƚĞƚŚĞŵŽƐƚĐŽŶƐĞƌǀĂƟŽŶ-Ĩorward ďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƉƌĂĐƟĐĞƐĨŽƌŚŽƵƐŝŶŐŝŶƐƵůĂƟŽŶĂŶĚ
ŚĞĂƚŝƐůĂŶĚŵŝƟŐĂƟŽŶĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůLJǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞĐŝƚLJĐŽĚĞƐ ĂŶĚĂůŝŐŶĞĚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞĐŝƚLJ͛Ɛ2021
ůŝŵĂƚĞĐƟŽŶWůĂŶ. tĞĚŽŶ͛ƚŚĂǀĞƟŵĞĨŽƌ͞ďƵƐŝŶĞƐƐĂƐƵƐƵĂů͟ƚŽĐƵƌďĐůŝŵĂƚĞĐŚĂŶŐĞ͘
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞƐŚĂĚĞƚƌĞĞƐŽŶƚŚĞĞĂƐƚ͕ƐŽƵƚŚĂŶĚǁĞƐƚƐŝĚĞƐŽĨĂůůƉƌŽƉĞƌƟĞƐƚŽŚĞůƉŬĞĞƉƚŚĞ
sun Žī ƚŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐǁĂůůƐĂŶĚƐŚĂĚĞƚŚĞŐƌŽƵŶĚ͘
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞĚĞĞƉƐĞƚĨƌŽŶƚĂŶĚďĂĐŬƉŽƌĐŚĞƐ ;ǁŚŝĐŚĂƉƉĞĂƌƉƌĞĚŽŵŝŶĂŶƚůLJĞĂƐƚͬǁĞƐƚĨĂĐŝŶŐ
ďĂƐĞĚŽŶƚŚĞůŽƚŽƌŝĞŶƚĂƟŽŶͿ ƚŽĂůƐŽŬĞĞƉƚŚĞƐƵŶŽī ďƵŝůĚŝŶŐǁĂůůƐ͘
dŚŝƐƉƌŽƉŽƐĂůŚĂƐĂƉƉĂƌĞŶƚůLJďĞĞŶƉůĂŶŶĞĚƐŝŶĐĞůĂƐƚLJĞĂƌ ƐŝŶĐĞƚŚĞĞůĞǀĂƟŽŶƐĂƌĞĚĂƚĞĚ
^ĞƉƚĞŵďĞƌϮϬϮϯĂŶĚƚŚĞĮƌƐƚƉůĂŶƌĞǀŝĞǁǁĂƐƐĐŚĞĚƵůĞĚĨŽƌEŽǀĞŵďĞƌϮϬϮϯ͘zĞƚDƌ͘&ŽdžƐĞŶƚ
ŽƵƚƚŚĞĮƌƐƚŵĞĞƟŶŐŶŽƟĐĞƚŽƚŚĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐĨŽƌ May 18, 2024. As ŽĨƚŚŝƐǁƌŝƟŶŐ͕Dƌ͘&ŽdžŚĂƐ
ŵĂĚĞĂďƐŽůƵƚĞůLJŶŽĞīŽƌƚƚŽǁŽƌŬǁŝƚŚĂŶLJŽĨƚŚĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐĂŶĚĂĚĚƌĞƐƐƚŚĞĐŽŶĐĞƌŶƐůŝƐƚĞĚ
ĂďŽǀĞ͕which he has heard in person at the only ϮŵĞĞƟŶŐƐŚĞĐĂůůĞĚƚŽƉƌĞƐĞŶƚƚŚŝƐƉůĂŶƚŽƚŚĞ
ƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJŽǁŶĞƌƐ ďĞĨŽƌĞŚĂǀŝŶŐŝƚĂƉƉĞĂƌďĞĨŽƌĞƚŚĞ^DsW.
ƚƚŚĞƐĞĐŽŶĚŵĞĞƟŶŐ͕on June 15͕ƚŚĞƉůĂŶŚĂĚŶŽƚĐŚĂŶŐĞĚĂŶĚƚŚĞƌĞǁĞƌĞƐĞǀĞƌĂůŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐ
ǁŚŽĐŽŶĮƌŵĞĚƚŚĞLJĚŝĚŶŽƚƌĞĐĞŝǀĞĂƐĞĐŽŶĚŵĞĞƟŶŐŶŽƟĐĞůĞƩĞƌ ŝŶƟŵĞƚŽĂƩĞŶĚ. His
ĐŽůůĞĂŐƵĞ ƚŽůĚƚŚĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐǁŚŽǁĞƌĞĂďůĞƚŽĂƩĞŶĚ ƚŚĂƚŚĞǁŽƵůĚŐŽďĂĐŬĂŶĚƐĞĞǁŚĂƚŚĞ
could do to incorporate these ĐŽŶĐĞƌŶƐďĞĨŽƌĞƚŚĞ:ƵůLJϵ^DsWŵĞĞƟŶŐ͕ďƵƚŶŽƐƵĐŚŵĞĞƟŶŐ
ŚĂƐďĞĞŶĐĂůůĞĚ͘
He has not listened to, much less acted on, ĂŶLJŽĨƚŚĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌ͛Ɛ concerns. His development
ƉůĂŶŝƐĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞůLJŝŶĐŽŵƉĂƟďůĞĂŶĚŝŶƐĞŶƐŝƟǀĞƚŽƚŚĞƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐ. dŚŝƐĂƉƉůŝĐĂƟŽŶ
ƐŚŽƵůĚŶŽƚŵŽǀĞĨŽƌǁĂƌĚ͘
ZĞƐƉĞĐƞƵůůLJ,
Nicole Sordello
8008 S. 20th Ave, Phoenix AZ 85041
7/3/24, 10:16 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
Z-58-24-8
Andrew Maifield
Tue 7/2/2024 12:38 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Samuel Rogers££
I Andrew Maifield am a resident of the Windham square housing community.£ £Homeowner.£ £I
am sending this email to the city of Phoenix to dispute The rezoning allowing housing
developers using£ windham square as the main entrance and exit of the new housing
community.£ £The rezoning will negatively affect my family my home value and the quiet good-
hearted small community we live in.£ £Rezoning for 20 homes on 4.5 acres is unrealistic.£ Small
cramped homes like that would reduce the values of neighboring homes and especially my
home value.£ The large amount of traffic will be a burden on my small children and our family.£ I
would like to request the city block Windham squares access to that lot for good.£ Permanently
block and wall that access point.£ The veterans retired city workers current city workers
hardworking tax paying citizens that live in this community do not want to change it please
respect our request.£ £Thank you Samuel for helping with this matter.££
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android [go.onelink.me]
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAH3GQQI1TJtMhTZ5XgE8uro…
1/1
7/3/24, 10:57 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
Opposition letter- Case Number Z-58-24-8
D. Fong
Tue 7/2/2024 3:20 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers
1 attachments (19 KB)
Opposition letter- Z-58-24-8.docx;
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Mr. Samuel Rogers,
Please see my opposiƟon leƩer aƩachment relaƟng to Case Number: Z-58-24-8 to be included in the file
for the Village Planning CommiƩee meeƟng on Tuesday, July 9, 2024.
Regards,
David Fong
2004 W. Harwell Rd - Wyndham Square neighborhood
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAPA0z1r%2FTKdAuF7P8YXC…
1/1
July 2, 2024
My name is David Fong and I live at 2004 W. Harwell Rd. I am writing in opposition to the
application for development and rezoning case number Z-58-24-8submitted by John Fox, which
proposes to rezone 4.5 acres of currently S-1 property to the maximum density allowed for R-
10, which is 4.5 (bonus).
I am opposed to multiple issues with this proposed development.
Density- problems
x This property is bordered on 2 sides (east and south) by established homes on S-1
properties. The north and west sides are bordered by homes on R-10 property at no
more than standard 3.5 density. This development proposes a bonus density of 4.5 (20
homes) in addition to ADUs.
o This density is inconsistent with the surrounding developed land (at traditional
<=3.5) and an inappropriate transition density for all east and southern
neighbors with homes on S-1 property.
o It is not aligned with the Rio Montana Plan which recommends lower densities
towards South Mount Park and gradual density steps between lower and higher
density areas. (Rio Montana Plan, pg. 17)
Density- solutions
x Appropriate density transition between S-1 and R-10 is R-18 or approx. 2 houses per
acre or 2.34 with bonus. Allowing construction but with appropriate accommodations
for the environment and surrounding neighborhoods will still further the city’s housing
goals and provide additional benefits to the surrounding communities as outlined below.
Traffic- problems
x In relation to inappropriate density, the only entrance/exit is through a 52-home
neighborhood to the north onto Baseline Rd. The neighborhood already suffers severely
from difficult entrance/exit due to the heavy traffic on Baselinewhile also directly across
from a commercial shopping center entrance/exit, which sees greater traffic than a
neighborhood.
o According to the ITE Trip Generation Report 10th Edition (Maricopa’s Traffic
Impact Study Manual references the ITE report as its guideline), a single-family
house generates 10 trips per day on average. That will increase traffic to an
already bottlenecked neighborhood by 200 tripsper day on average, not
including traffic potentially generated by ADU residents.
x No southbound exit/entrance can be counted on b/c the land is currently being lived on
for the foreseeable future and waiting to see if that will eventually become an option to
alleviate traffic issues is not good planning.
x Fire and emergency vehicles will be subject to the same traffic congestion potentially
impacting safety, property, and health.
Traffic- solutions
x R-18 density (10 homes) to reduce the overall impact on traffic for the existing
neighborhood.
x Traffic impact study and recommendations stipulatedbefore any approvals for
rezoning/development.
Housing design- problems
x The development proposesan unknown number of 2-story homes, which are not
compatible with the recommendations of the Rio Montana Plan to preserve views to
South Mountain (Rio Montana Plan, pgs. 22-23) and are inconsistent with the vast
majority of the surrounding homes, which are single-story.
x The designers have not incorporated porches, non-street-facing garage entrances or
other signature elements recommended by the Rio Montana Plan in their conceptual
designs.
Housing design- solutions
x Limit construction to single-story (most important).
x Require deep front porches.
x Require some designs to incorporate garages that do not face the street.
x Require more architectural variety and placement/orientation on lots.
Heat island/climate, trees/shade- problems
x The current stipulations list trees on either side of concrete sidewalks to comply with the
current tree and shade master plan, however, allowing up to a 60% housing footprint on
each lot does nothing to mitigate the heat island effect that will be exacerbated from
that much roof area absorbing and radiating heat.
Heat island/climate, trees/shade- solutions
x Require lower density zoning and more open space.
x Require use of available SRP flood irrigation to provide added cooling.
x Require high emissivityand high SRI roofing materials.
x Stipulate the most conservation-forward building practices for housing insulation and
heat island mitigation currently within the city codes and aligned with the city’s 2021
Climate Action Plan. We don’t have time for “business as usual” to curb climate change.
x Require shade trees on the east, south and west sides of all properties to help keep the
sun off the building walls and shade the ground.
x Require deep set front and back porches (which appear predominantly east/west facing
based on the lot orientation) to also keep the sun off building walls.
Lastly, as of this writing, Mr. Fox has made absolutely no effort to work with any of the
neighbors and address the concerns listed above, which he has heard in person at the only 2
meetings he called to present this plan to the surrounding property owners before having it
appear before the SMVPC.
At the second meeting, a month later, the plan had not changed and there were several
neighbors who confirmed they did not receive a second meeting notice letter in time to attend.
He told the neighbors who were able to attend that he would go back and see what he could do
to incorporate these concerns before the July 9 SMVPC meeting, but no such meeting has been
called.
He has not listened to, much less acted on, any of the neighbor’s concerns. His development
plan is completely incompatible and insensitive to the surrounding neighbors. This application
should not move forward.
Respectfully,
David Fong
2004 W. Harwell Rd.
7/3/24, 11:05 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
Z-58-24-8
Eduardo Camacho
Tue 7/2/2024 8:16 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers
1 attachments (21 KB)
Opposition letter- Z-58-24-8 (2).docx;
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Hello Samuel,
please see attached letter of opposition
thank you,
Eduardo Camacho
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAMotTcJOi0pKnXWGedXoxR8…
1/1
:ƵůLJϮ͕ϮϬϮϰ
DLJŶĂŵĞŝƐĚƵĂƌĚŽĂŵĂĐŚŽĂŶĚ/ůŝǀĞĂƚϮϬϭϱtƌĂŶŚĂŵ>ĂŶĞWŚŽĞŶŝdžϴϱϬϰϭ͘/Ăŵ
ǁƌŝƟŶŐŝŶŽƉƉŽƐŝƟŽŶƚŽƚŚĞĂƉƉůŝĐĂƟŽŶĨŽƌĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂŶĚƌĞnjŽŶŝŶŐĐĂƐĞŶƵŵďĞƌͲϱϴͲϮϰͲϴ
ƐƵďŵŝƩĞĚďLJ:ŽŚŶ&Ždž͕ǁŚŝĐŚƉƌŽƉŽƐĞƐ ƚŽƌĞnjŽŶĞ ϰ͘ϱĂĐƌĞƐŽĨĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůLJ^ͲϭƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJƚŽƚŚĞ
ŵĂdžŝŵƵŵĚĞŶƐŝƚLJĂůůŽǁĞĚĨŽƌZͲϭϬ͕ǁŚŝĐŚŝƐϰ͘ϱ;ďŽŶƵƐͿ͘
/ĂŵŽƉƉŽƐĞĚƚŽŵƵůƟƉůĞŝƐƐƵĞƐǁŝƚŚƚŚŝƐ ƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ ĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͘
ĞŶƐŝƚLJͲƉƌŽďůĞŵƐ
x dŚŝƐƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJŝƐďŽƌĚĞƌĞĚ ŽŶϮƐŝĚĞƐ;ĞĂƐƚĂŶĚƐŽƵƚŚͿďLJĞƐƚĂďůŝƐŚĞĚŚŽŵĞƐŽŶ^Ͳϭ
ƉƌŽƉĞƌƟĞƐ͘dŚĞŶŽƌƚŚĂŶĚǁĞƐƚƐŝĚĞƐĂƌĞďŽƌĚĞƌĞĚ ďLJŚŽŵĞƐŽŶZͲϭϬƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJĂƚŶŽ
ŵŽƌĞƚŚĂŶƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚϯ͘ϱĚĞŶƐŝƚLJ͘ dŚŝƐĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƉƌŽƉŽƐĞƐ ĂďŽŶƵƐĚĞŶƐŝƚLJŽĨϰ͘ϱ;ϮϬ
ŚŽŵĞƐͿŝŶĂĚĚŝƟŽŶƚŽhƐ͘
o dŚŝƐĚĞŶƐŝƚLJŝƐŝŶĐŽŶƐŝƐƚĞŶƚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐ ĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞĚůĂŶĚ;ĂƚƚƌĂĚŝƟŽŶĂů
фсϯ͘ϱͿĂŶĚĂŶŝŶĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞƚƌĂŶƐŝƟŽŶĚĞŶƐŝƚLJĨŽƌĂůůĞĂƐƚĂŶĚƐŽƵƚŚĞƌŶŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐ
ǁŝƚŚŚŽŵĞƐŽŶ^ͲϭƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJ͘
o /ƚŝƐŶŽƚĂůŝŐŶĞĚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞZŝŽDŽŶƚĂŶĂWůĂŶǁŚŝĐŚƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚƐůŽǁĞƌĚĞŶƐŝƟĞƐ
ƚŽǁĂƌĚƐ^ŽƵƚŚ DŽƵŶƚWĂƌŬĂŶĚŐƌĂĚƵĂůĚĞŶƐŝƚLJƐƚĞƉƐďĞƚǁĞĞŶůŽǁĞƌĂŶĚŚŝŐŚĞƌ
ĚĞŶƐŝƚLJĂƌĞĂƐ͘;ZŝŽDŽŶƚĂŶĂWůĂŶ͕ƉŐ͘ϭϳͿ
ĞŶƐŝƚLJͲƐŽůƵƟŽŶƐ
x ƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞĚĞŶƐŝƚLJƚƌĂŶƐŝƟŽŶďĞƚǁĞĞŶ^ͲϭĂŶĚZͲϭϬŝƐZͲϭϴŽƌĂƉƉƌŽdž͘ϮŚŽƵƐĞƐƉĞƌ
ĂĐƌĞŽƌϮ͘ϯϰǁŝƚŚďŽŶƵƐ͘ůůŽǁŝŶŐĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶďƵƚǁŝƚŚĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞĂĐĐŽŵŵŽĚĂƟŽŶƐ
ĨŽƌƚŚĞĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂŶĚƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚƐ ǁŝůůƐƟůůĨƵƌƚŚĞƌƚŚĞĐŝƚLJ͛ƐŚŽƵƐŝŶŐ
ŐŽĂůƐĂŶĚƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĂĚĚŝƟŽŶĂůďĞŶĞĮƚƐƚŽƚŚĞƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐ ĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƟĞƐĂƐŽƵƚůŝŶĞĚďĞůŽǁ͘
dƌĂĸĐͲƉƌŽďůĞŵƐ
x /ŶƌĞůĂƟŽŶƚŽŝŶĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞĚĞŶƐŝƚLJ͕ƚŚĞŽŶůLJĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞͬĞdžŝƚŝƐƚŚƌŽƵŐŚĂϱϮͲŚŽŵĞ
ŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚ ƚŽƚŚĞŶŽƌƚŚŽŶƚŽĂƐĞůŝŶĞZĚ͘dŚĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚĂůƌĞĂĚLJƐƵīĞƌƐƐĞǀĞƌĞůLJ
ĨƌŽŵĚŝĸĐƵůƚĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞͬĞdžŝƚĚƵĞƚŽƚŚĞ ŚĞĂǀLJƚƌĂĸĐŽŶĂƐĞůŝŶĞǁŚŝůĞĂůƐŽĚŝƌĞĐƚůLJĂĐƌŽƐƐ
ĨƌŽŵĂĐŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂůƐŚŽƉƉŝŶŐĐĞŶƚĞƌĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞͬĞdžŝƚ͕ǁŚŝĐŚƐĞĞƐŐƌĞĂƚĞƌƚƌĂĸĐƚŚĂŶĂ
ŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚ͘
o ĐĐŽƌĚŝŶŐƚŽƚŚĞ/ddƌŝƉ'ĞŶĞƌĂƟŽŶZĞƉŽƌƚϭϬ ƚŚĚŝƟŽŶ;DĂƌŝĐŽƉĂ͛ƐdƌĂĸĐ
/ŵƉĂĐƚ^ƚƵĚLJDĂŶƵĂůƌĞĨĞƌĞŶĐĞƐƚŚĞ/dƌĞƉŽƌƚĂƐŝƚƐŐƵŝĚĞůŝŶĞͿ͕ĂƐŝŶŐůĞͲĨĂŵŝůLJ
ŚŽƵƐĞŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞƐϭϬƚƌŝƉƐƉĞƌĚĂLJŽŶĂǀĞƌĂŐĞ͘dŚĂƚǁŝůůŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞƚƌĂĸĐƚŽĂŶ
ĂůƌĞĂĚLJďŽƩůĞŶĞĐŬĞĚŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚ ďLJϮϬϬƚƌŝƉƐƉĞƌĚĂLJŽŶĂǀĞƌĂŐĞ͕ŶŽƚ
ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐƚƌĂĸĐƉŽƚĞŶƟĂůůLJŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞĚďLJhƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐ͘
x EŽƐŽƵƚŚďŽƵŶĚ ĞdžŝƚͬĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞĐĂŶďĞĐŽƵŶƚĞĚŽŶďͬĐƚŚĞůĂŶĚŝƐĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůLJďĞŝŶŐůŝǀĞĚŽŶ
ĨŽƌƚŚĞĨŽƌĞƐĞĞĂďůĞĨƵƚƵƌĞĂŶĚǁĂŝƟŶŐƚŽƐĞĞŝĨƚŚĂƚǁŝůůĞǀĞŶƚƵĂůůLJďĞĐŽŵĞĂŶŽƉƟŽŶƚŽ
ĂůůĞǀŝĂƚĞƚƌĂĸĐŝƐƐƵĞƐŝƐŶŽƚŐŽŽĚƉůĂŶŶŝŶŐ͘
x &ŝƌĞĂŶĚĞŵĞƌŐĞŶĐLJǀĞŚŝĐůĞƐǁŝůůďĞƐƵďũĞĐƚƚŽƚŚĞƐĂŵĞƚƌĂĸĐĐŽŶŐĞƐƟŽŶƉŽƚĞŶƟĂůůLJ
ŝŵƉĂĐƟŶŐƐĂĨĞƚLJ͕ƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJ͕ĂŶĚŚĞĂůƚŚ͘
dƌĂĸĐͲƐŽůƵƟŽŶƐ
x ZͲϭϴĚĞŶƐŝƚLJ;ϭϬŚŽŵĞƐͿƚŽƌĞĚƵĐĞƚŚĞŽǀĞƌĂůůŝŵƉĂĐƚŽŶƚƌĂĸĐĨŽƌƚŚĞĞdžŝƐƟŶŐ
ŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚ͘
x dƌĂĸĐŝŵƉĂĐƚƐƚƵĚLJĂŶĚƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĂƟŽŶƐƐƟƉƵůĂƚĞĚďĞĨŽƌĞĂŶLJĂƉƉƌŽǀĂůƐĨŽƌ
ƌĞnjŽŶŝŶŐͬĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͘
,ŽƵƐŝŶŐĚĞƐŝŐŶͲƉƌŽďůĞŵƐ
x dŚĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƉƌŽƉŽƐĞƐ ĂŶƵŶŬŶŽǁŶ ŶƵŵďĞƌŽĨϮͲƐƚŽƌLJŚŽŵĞƐ͕ǁŚŝĐŚĂƌĞŶŽƚ
ĐŽŵƉĂƟďůĞǁŝƚŚƚŚĞƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĂƟŽŶƐŽĨƚŚĞZŝŽDŽŶƚĂŶĂWůĂŶƚŽƉƌĞƐĞƌǀĞǀŝĞǁƐƚŽ
^ŽƵƚŚ DŽƵŶƚĂŝŶ;ZŝŽDŽŶƚĂŶĂWůĂŶ͕ƉŐƐ͘ϮϮͲϮϯͿĂŶĚĂƌĞŝŶĐŽŶƐŝƐƚĞŶƚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞǀĂƐƚ
ŵĂũŽƌŝƚLJŽĨƚŚĞƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐ ŚŽŵĞƐ͕ǁŚŝĐŚĂƌĞƐŝŶŐůĞͲƐƚŽƌLJ͘
x dŚĞĚĞƐŝŐŶĞƌƐŚĂǀĞŶŽƚŝŶĐŽƌƉŽƌĂƚĞĚƉŽƌĐŚĞƐ͕ŶŽŶͲƐƚƌĞĞƚͲĨĂĐŝŶŐŐĂƌĂŐĞĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞƐŽƌ
ŽƚŚĞƌƐŝŐŶĂƚƵƌĞĞůĞŵĞŶƚƐƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĞĚďLJƚŚĞZŝŽDŽŶƚĂŶĂWůĂŶŝŶƚŚĞŝƌĐŽŶĐĞƉƚƵĂů
ĚĞƐŝŐŶƐ͘
,ŽƵƐŝŶŐĚĞƐŝŐŶͲƐŽůƵƟŽŶƐ
x >ŝŵŝƚĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶƚŽƐŝŶŐůĞͲƐƚŽƌLJ;ŵŽƐƚŝŵƉŽƌƚĂŶƚͿ͘
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞĚĞĞƉĨƌŽŶƚƉŽƌĐŚĞƐ͘
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞƐŽŵĞĚĞƐŝŐŶƐƚŽŝŶĐŽƌƉŽƌĂƚĞŐĂƌĂŐĞƐƚŚĂƚĚŽŶŽƚĨĂĐĞƚŚĞƐƚƌĞĞƚ͘
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞŵŽƌĞĂƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƵƌĂůǀĂƌŝĞƚLJĂŶĚƉůĂĐĞŵĞŶƚͬŽƌŝĞŶƚĂƟŽŶŽŶůŽƚƐ͘
,ĞĂƚŝƐůĂŶĚͬĐůŝŵĂƚĞ͕ƚƌĞĞƐͬƐŚĂĚĞͲƉƌŽďůĞŵƐ
x dŚĞĐƵƌƌĞŶƚƐƟƉƵůĂƟŽŶƐůŝƐƚƚƌĞĞƐŽŶĞŝƚŚĞƌƐŝĚĞŽĨĐŽŶĐƌĞƚĞƐŝĚĞǁĂůŬƐƚŽĐŽŵƉůLJǁŝƚŚƚŚĞ
ĐƵƌƌĞŶƚƚƌĞĞĂŶĚƐŚĂĚĞŵĂƐƚĞƌƉůĂŶ͕ŚŽǁĞǀĞƌ͕ĂůůŽǁŝŶŐƵƉƚŽĂϲϬйŚŽƵƐŝŶŐĨŽŽƚƉƌŝŶƚŽŶ
ĞĂĐŚůŽƚĚŽĞƐŶŽƚŚŝŶŐƚŽŵŝƟŐĂƚĞƚŚĞŚĞĂƚŝƐůĂŶĚĞīĞĐƚƚŚĂƚǁŝůůďĞĞdžĂĐĞƌďĂƚĞĚĨƌŽŵ
ƚŚĂƚŵƵĐŚƌŽŽĨĂƌĞĂĂďƐŽƌďŝŶŐĂŶĚƌĂĚŝĂƟŶŐŚĞĂƚ͘
,ĞĂƚŝƐůĂŶĚͬĐůŝŵĂƚĞ͕ƚƌĞĞƐͬƐŚĂĚĞͲƐŽůƵƟŽŶƐ
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞůŽǁĞƌĚĞŶƐŝƚLJnjŽŶŝŶŐĂŶĚŵŽƌĞŽƉĞŶƐƉĂĐĞ͘
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞƵƐĞŽĨĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞ^ZWŇŽŽĚŝƌƌŝŐĂƟŽŶƚŽƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĂĚĚĞĚĐŽŽůŝŶŐ͘
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞŚŝŐŚĞŵŝƐƐŝǀŝƚLJĂŶĚŚŝŐŚ^Z/ƌŽŽĮŶŐŵĂƚĞƌŝĂůƐ͘
x ^ƟƉƵůĂƚĞƚŚĞŵŽƐƚĐŽŶƐĞƌǀĂƟŽŶͲĨŽƌǁĂƌĚďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƉƌĂĐƟĐĞƐĨŽƌŚŽƵƐŝŶŐŝŶƐƵůĂƟŽŶĂŶĚ
ŚĞĂƚŝƐůĂŶĚŵŝƟŐĂƟŽŶĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůLJǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞĐŝƚLJĐŽĚĞƐĂŶĚĂůŝŐŶĞĚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞĐŝƚLJ͛ƐϮϬϮϭ
ůŝŵĂƚĞĐƟŽŶWůĂŶ͘tĞĚŽŶ͛ƚŚĂǀĞƟŵĞĨŽƌ͞ďƵƐŝŶĞƐƐĂƐƵƐƵĂů͟ƚŽĐƵƌďĐůŝŵĂƚĞĐŚĂŶŐĞ͘
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞƐŚĂĚĞƚƌĞĞƐŽŶƚŚĞĞĂƐƚ͕ƐŽƵƚŚĂŶĚǁĞƐƚƐŝĚĞƐŽĨĂůůƉƌŽƉĞƌƟĞƐƚŽŚĞůƉŬĞĞƉƚŚĞ
ƐƵŶŽīƚŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐǁĂůůƐĂŶĚƐŚĂĚĞƚŚĞŐƌŽƵŶĚ͘
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞĚĞĞƉƐĞƚĨƌŽŶƚĂŶĚďĂĐŬƉŽƌĐŚĞƐ;ǁŚŝĐŚĂƉƉĞĂƌƉƌĞĚŽŵŝŶĂŶƚůLJĞĂƐƚͬǁĞƐƚĨĂĐŝŶŐ
ďĂƐĞĚŽŶƚŚĞůŽƚŽƌŝĞŶƚĂƟŽŶͿƚŽĂůƐŽŬĞĞƉƚŚĞƐƵŶ ŽīďƵŝůĚŝŶŐǁĂůůƐ͘
>ĂƐƚůLJ͕ĂƐŽĨƚŚŝƐǁƌŝƟŶŐ͕Dƌ͘&ŽdžŚĂƐŵĂĚĞĂďƐŽůƵƚĞůLJŶŽĞīŽƌƚƚŽǁŽƌŬǁŝƚŚĂŶLJŽĨƚŚĞ
ŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐĂŶĚĂĚĚƌĞƐƐƚŚĞĐŽŶĐĞƌŶƐůŝƐƚĞĚĂďŽǀĞ͕ǁŚŝĐŚŚĞŚĂƐŚĞĂƌĚŝŶƉĞƌƐŽŶĂƚƚŚĞŽŶůLJϮ
ŵĞĞƟŶŐƐŚĞĐĂůůĞĚƚŽƉƌĞƐĞŶƚƚŚŝƐƉůĂŶƚŽƚŚĞƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐ ƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJŽǁŶĞƌƐďĞĨŽƌĞŚĂǀŝŶŐŝƚ
ĂƉƉĞĂƌďĞĨŽƌĞƚŚĞ^DsW͘
ƚƚŚĞƐĞĐŽŶĚŵĞĞƟŶŐ͕ĂŵŽŶƚŚůĂƚĞƌ͕ƚŚĞƉůĂŶŚĂĚŶŽƚĐŚĂŶŐĞĚĂŶĚƚŚĞƌĞǁĞƌĞƐĞǀĞƌĂů
ŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐǁŚŽĐŽŶĮƌŵĞĚƚŚĞLJĚŝĚŶŽƚƌĞĐĞŝǀĞĂƐĞĐŽŶĚŵĞĞƟŶŐŶŽƟĐĞůĞƩĞƌŝŶƟŵĞƚŽĂƩĞŶĚ͘
,ĞƚŽůĚƚŚĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐǁŚŽ ǁĞƌĞĂďůĞƚŽĂƩĞŶĚƚŚĂƚŚĞǁŽƵůĚŐŽďĂĐŬĂŶĚƐĞĞǁŚĂƚŚĞĐŽƵůĚĚŽ
ƚŽŝŶĐŽƌƉŽƌĂƚĞƚŚĞƐĞĐŽŶĐĞƌŶƐďĞĨŽƌĞƚŚĞ:ƵůLJϵ^DsWŵĞĞƟŶŐ͕ďƵƚŶŽƐƵĐŚŵĞĞƟŶŐŚĂƐďĞĞŶ
ĐĂůůĞĚ͘
,ĞŚĂƐŶŽƚůŝƐƚĞŶĞĚƚŽ͕ŵƵĐŚůĞƐƐĂĐƚĞĚŽŶ͕ĂŶLJŽĨƚŚĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌ͛ƐĐŽŶĐĞƌŶƐ͘,ŝƐĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ
ƉůĂŶŝƐĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞůLJŝŶĐŽŵƉĂƟďůĞĂŶĚŝŶƐĞŶƐŝƟǀĞƚŽƚŚĞƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐ͘dŚŝƐĂƉƉůŝĐĂƟŽŶ
ƐŚŽƵůĚŶŽƚŵŽǀĞĨŽƌǁĂƌĚ͘
ZĞƐƉĞĐƞƵůůLJ͕
ĚƵĂƌĚŽĂŵĂĐŚŽ
ϮϬϭϱtƌĂŶŚĂŵ>ĂŶĞ
WŚŽĞŶŝdžϴϱϬϰϭ
7/3/24, 10:21 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
Z-58-24-8
Jai Goudeau
Tue 7/2/2024 1:51 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers
1 attachments (2 MB)
My letter of opposition.docx;
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
My name is Jai Goudeau and I live at 2013 W. Harwell Road Phoenix, 85041. I am writing in
opposition to the Rezoning request filed for approximately 4.5 acres site located at 700’ feet
north and 305’ feet west of the northwest corner of South Mountain Ave and 20th Ave, rezoning
case number Z-58-24 to change zoning from S1 to R1-10.
Attached is my letter of opposition.
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAAx1C%2FGhd%2BNNnma3l…
1/1
To whom it may concern,
My name is Jai Goudeau and I live at 2013 W. Harwell Road Phoenix, 85041. I am
writing in opposition to the Rezoning request filed for approximately 4.5 acres site
located at 700’ feet north and 305’ feet west of the northwest corner of South Mountain
Ave and 20th Ave, rezoning case number Z-58-24 to change zoning from S1 to R1-10.
I am President of the Board for the Wyndham Square Neighborhood Homeowners
Association and resident. I am opposed to rezoning due to the increased traffic impact
it would have in our community. Our neighborhood only has one road into it on 20 th
drive from Baseline Rd with Branham Ln and Harwell Rd connecting to 20 th Ln which
dead ends south of Harwell Rd. (see Fig 1 attached). 20th Dr is a standard road with a
traffic circle mid-block. Our community already struggles to pull out onto Baseline Rd
during peak hours, often having to wait long times, especially if making a left-hand turn
in the mornings due to people entering the businesses on the north side.
I am concerned about the layout of the proposed development only having one road in
and if it has sufficient space for construction vehicles, emergency vehicles and
deliveries to turn around. I believe it is most likely that those vehicles would end up
backing all the way up to Harwell Rd to exit the development.
When we purchased our home in 2003, we paid a premium to have a view of the
mountains and if the proposed development were to continue with two story homes
built, it would obstruct our view of the mountains ruining our investment.
The developer proposes adding retention areas against the properties on the north side
of the development. A major concern that we have is that when our homes were built,
they had to have their own water retention area in the yard. This puts our homes way
below the property’s elevation to the south where the proposed development will be.
The property sits approximately 4 feet higher than our property. Attached are images
showing the elevation below the fence line (see fig2 attached) (ladder is 6feet for
reference) and an overview of the elevation of the two properties (see fig3 attached). In
the past we have had problems with our yards flooding due to heavy rainfall and the
water entering our yard through tunnels left by wildlife. We see this currently with the
residence at 2009 W Harwell Rd when the resident to the south put up a block wall
around their property causing their yard to flood every time it rains. This problem will be
prevalent for my property as well as the property of 2017 W Harwell and 7828 S. 20th
Ln.
Mr Fox has not made an effort to work with the neighborhood regarding these concerns
and I believe he has not acted in good faith to address the community and involve us in
the process based on the following:
In the first meeting he arranged at a Barro’s Pizza parlor on a Saturday afternoon in
which I received notice 4 days prior and some did not receive notice at all. There was
loud music playing and very few people could hear his presentation or respond. I
requested that we have another meeting in a more suitable location so I reserved a
meeting room at Caesar Chavez Library on May 28 th for June 15th and he said he would
send out notices.
At the second meeting on June 15 th , John Fox was in attendance with Mike Haer. In the
meeting several attendees addressed their concerns as well as I and Mike Haer said he
wanted to take this information and address his team and he and John Fox agreed to
have another meeting to discuss their findings prior to the hearing.
I contacted John Fox as I saw a survey crew doing measurements on 06/18/24. I asked
John if he was still having another community meeting as he requested or if he was
moving forward with the Village Planning Committee meeting to which he replied that he
was not going to have another neighborhood meeting because he wanted to have a
constructive meeting and was tired of getting beaten up. I reminded him that he and
Mike requested that we have another meeting and he told me that he had not spoken to
Mike and that Mike would be out of town during the Village Planning Committee
Meeting. I then requested that John send me a copy of his mailing list that he has been
using to notify the neighborhoods because there have been so many residents saying
that they are not receiving them. He told me that he sent the notices out to the
residents within 600 feet of the property boundary and that he would send me the
mailing list that he used.
Upon evaluation of the mailing list, I discovered that the 600 feet covered only
approximately half of the neighborhood.
I believe that a developer acting in good faith would have sent out notices to the entire
neighborhood being affected in this situation. It was determined that approximately 23
of 52 homes were not notified of the meetings by John Fox.
Fig 1
Fig2
Fig3
7/3/24, 10:56 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
Zoning case number Z-58-24-8
Lori
Tue 7/2/2024 3:14 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers
2 attachments (910 KB)
Lori_0001.jpg; Lori_0002.jpg;
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQABjbaVltbUWVnkCaGWPIt0Q…
1/1
7/3/24, 10:24 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQABjbaVltbUWVnkCaGWPIt0Q…
1/1
7/3/24, 10:25 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQABjbaVltbUWVnkCaGWPIt0Q…
1/1
7/3/24, 11:21 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
Z-58-24-8
Joe Hernandez
Tue 7/2/2024 10:34 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers
1 attachments (3 MB)
Z-58-24-8 SIGNED HERNANDEZ N PG 1.zip;
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Greetings
As Requested£
Nadine Hernandez
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAJNrcuQOJotBpSbqcmpXBhc…
1/1
7/3/24, 11:02 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
Case # Z-58-24-8
Natividad Tapia
Tue 7/2/2024 8:05 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers
1 attachments (21 KB)
Opposition letter- Z-58-24-8.docx;
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Hello Samuel,
Please see the aƩached leƩer of opposiƟon.
Thank you,
NaƟvidad
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQACFpVS4SvfREtLk7Nn65sEI…
1/1
ϬϳͬϬϮͬϮϬϮϰ
DLJŶĂŵĞŝƐEĂƟǀŝĚĂĚdĂƉŝĂĂŶĚ/ůŝǀĞĂƚϮϬϭϱtƌĂŶŚĂŵ>ĂŶĞWŚŽĞŶŝdžϴϱϬϰϭ͘/ĂŵǁƌŝƟŶŐ
ŝŶŽƉƉŽƐŝƟŽŶ ƚŽƚŚĞĂƉƉůŝĐĂƟŽŶĨŽƌĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂŶĚƌĞnjŽŶŝŶŐĐĂƐĞŶƵŵďĞƌͲϱϴͲϮϰͲϴ
ƐƵďŵŝƩĞĚďLJ:ŽŚŶ&Ždž͕ǁŚŝĐŚƉƌŽƉŽƐĞƐ ƚŽƌĞnjŽŶĞ ϰ͘ϱĂĐƌĞƐŽĨĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůLJ^ͲϭƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJƚŽƚŚĞ
ŵĂdžŝŵƵŵĚĞŶƐŝƚLJĂůůŽǁĞĚĨŽƌZͲϭϬ͕ǁŚŝĐŚŝƐϰ͘ϱ;ďŽŶƵƐͿ͘
/ĂŵŽƉƉŽƐĞĚƚŽŵƵůƟƉůĞŝƐƐƵĞƐǁŝƚŚƚŚŝƐ ƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ ĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͘
ĞŶƐŝƚLJͲƉƌŽďůĞŵƐ
x dŚŝƐƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJŝƐďŽƌĚĞƌĞĚ ŽŶϮƐŝĚĞƐ;ĞĂƐƚĂŶĚƐŽƵƚŚͿďLJĞƐƚĂďůŝƐŚĞĚŚŽŵĞƐŽŶ^Ͳϭ
ƉƌŽƉĞƌƟĞƐ͘dŚĞŶŽƌƚŚĂŶĚǁĞƐƚƐŝĚĞƐĂƌĞďŽƌĚĞƌĞĚ ďLJŚŽŵĞƐŽŶZͲϭϬƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJĂƚŶŽ
ŵŽƌĞƚŚĂŶƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚϯ͘ϱĚĞŶƐŝƚLJ͘ dŚŝƐĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƉƌŽƉŽƐĞƐ ĂďŽŶƵƐĚĞŶƐŝƚLJŽĨϰ͘ϱ;ϮϬ
ŚŽŵĞƐͿŝŶĂĚĚŝƟŽŶƚŽhƐ͘
o dŚŝƐĚĞŶƐŝƚLJŝƐŝŶĐŽŶƐŝƐƚĞŶƚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐ ĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞĚůĂŶĚ;ĂƚƚƌĂĚŝƟŽŶĂů
фсϯ͘ϱͿĂŶĚĂŶŝŶĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞƚƌĂŶƐŝƟŽŶĚĞŶƐŝƚLJĨŽƌĂůůĞĂƐƚĂŶĚƐŽƵƚŚĞƌŶŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐ
ǁŝƚŚŚŽŵĞƐŽŶ^ͲϭƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJ͘
o /ƚŝƐŶŽƚĂůŝŐŶĞĚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞZŝŽDŽŶƚĂŶĂWůĂŶǁŚŝĐŚƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚƐůŽǁĞƌĚĞŶƐŝƟĞƐ
ƚŽǁĂƌĚƐ^ŽƵƚŚ DŽƵŶƚWĂƌŬĂŶĚŐƌĂĚƵĂůĚĞŶƐŝƚLJƐƚĞƉƐďĞƚǁĞĞŶůŽǁĞƌĂŶĚŚŝŐŚĞƌ
ĚĞŶƐŝƚLJĂƌĞĂƐ͘;ZŝŽDŽŶƚĂŶĂWůĂŶ͕ƉŐ͘ϭϳͿ
ĞŶƐŝƚLJͲƐŽůƵƟŽŶƐ
x ƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞĚĞŶƐŝƚLJƚƌĂŶƐŝƟŽŶďĞƚǁĞĞŶ^ͲϭĂŶĚZͲϭϬŝƐZͲϭϴŽƌĂƉƉƌŽdž͘ϮŚŽƵƐĞƐƉĞƌ
ĂĐƌĞŽƌϮ͘ϯϰǁŝƚŚďŽŶƵƐ͘ůůŽǁŝŶŐĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶďƵƚǁŝƚŚĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞĂĐĐŽŵŵŽĚĂƟŽŶƐ
ĨŽƌƚŚĞĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂŶĚƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚƐ ǁŝůůƐƟůůĨƵƌƚŚĞƌƚŚĞĐŝƚLJ͛ƐŚŽƵƐŝŶŐ
ŐŽĂůƐĂŶĚƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĂĚĚŝƟŽŶĂůďĞŶĞĮƚƐƚŽƚŚĞƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐ ĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƟĞƐĂƐŽƵƚůŝŶĞĚďĞůŽǁ͘
dƌĂĸĐͲƉƌŽďůĞŵƐ
x /ŶƌĞůĂƟŽŶƚŽŝŶĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞĚĞŶƐŝƚLJ͕ƚŚĞŽŶůLJĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞͬĞdžŝƚŝƐƚŚƌŽƵŐŚĂϱϮͲŚŽŵĞ
ŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚ ƚŽƚŚĞŶŽƌƚŚŽŶƚŽĂƐĞůŝŶĞZĚ͘dŚĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚĂůƌĞĂĚLJƐƵīĞƌƐƐĞǀĞƌĞůLJ
ĨƌŽŵĚŝĸĐƵůƚĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞͬĞdžŝƚĚƵĞƚŽƚŚĞ ŚĞĂǀLJƚƌĂĸĐŽŶĂƐĞůŝŶĞǁŚŝůĞĂůƐŽĚŝƌĞĐƚůLJĂĐƌŽƐƐ
ĨƌŽŵĂĐŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂůƐŚŽƉƉŝŶŐĐĞŶƚĞƌĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞͬĞdžŝƚ͕ǁŚŝĐŚƐĞĞƐŐƌĞĂƚĞƌƚƌĂĸĐƚŚĂŶĂ
ŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚ͘
o ĐĐŽƌĚŝŶŐƚŽƚŚĞ/ddƌŝƉ'ĞŶĞƌĂƟŽŶZĞƉŽƌƚϭϬ ƚŚĚŝƟŽŶ;DĂƌŝĐŽƉĂ͛ƐdƌĂĸĐ
/ŵƉĂĐƚ^ƚƵĚLJDĂŶƵĂůƌĞĨĞƌĞŶĐĞƐƚŚĞ/dƌĞƉŽƌƚĂƐŝƚƐŐƵŝĚĞůŝŶĞͿ͕ĂƐŝŶŐůĞͲĨĂŵŝůLJ
ŚŽƵƐĞŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞƐϭϬƚƌŝƉƐƉĞƌĚĂLJŽŶĂǀĞƌĂŐĞ͘dŚĂƚǁŝůůŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞƚƌĂĸĐƚŽĂŶ
ĂůƌĞĂĚLJďŽƩůĞŶĞĐŬĞĚŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚ ďLJϮϬϬƚƌŝƉƐƉĞƌĚĂLJŽŶĂǀĞƌĂŐĞ͕ŶŽƚ
ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐƚƌĂĸĐƉŽƚĞŶƟĂůůLJŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞĚďLJhƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐ͘
x EŽƐŽƵƚŚďŽƵŶĚ ĞdžŝƚͬĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞĐĂŶďĞĐŽƵŶƚĞĚŽŶďͬĐƚŚĞůĂŶĚŝƐĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůLJďĞŝŶŐůŝǀĞĚŽŶ
ĨŽƌƚŚĞĨŽƌĞƐĞĞĂďůĞĨƵƚƵƌĞĂŶĚǁĂŝƟŶŐƚŽƐĞĞŝĨƚŚĂƚǁŝůůĞǀĞŶƚƵĂůůLJďĞĐŽŵĞĂŶŽƉƟŽŶƚŽ
ĂůůĞǀŝĂƚĞƚƌĂĸĐŝƐƐƵĞƐŝƐŶŽƚŐŽŽĚƉůĂŶŶŝŶŐ͘
x &ŝƌĞĂŶĚĞŵĞƌŐĞŶĐLJǀĞŚŝĐůĞƐǁŝůůďĞƐƵďũĞĐƚƚŽƚŚĞƐĂŵĞƚƌĂĸĐĐŽŶŐĞƐƟŽŶƉŽƚĞŶƟĂůůLJ
ŝŵƉĂĐƟŶŐƐĂĨĞƚLJ͕ƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJ͕ĂŶĚŚĞĂůƚŚ͘
dƌĂĸĐͲƐŽůƵƟŽŶƐ
x ZͲϭϴĚĞŶƐŝƚLJ;ϭϬŚŽŵĞƐͿƚŽƌĞĚƵĐĞƚŚĞŽǀĞƌĂůůŝŵƉĂĐƚŽŶƚƌĂĸĐĨŽƌƚŚĞĞdžŝƐƟŶŐ
ŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚ͘
x dƌĂĸĐŝŵƉĂĐƚƐƚƵĚLJĂŶĚƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĂƟŽŶƐƐƟƉƵůĂƚĞĚďĞĨŽƌĞĂŶLJĂƉƉƌŽǀĂůƐĨŽƌ
ƌĞnjŽŶŝŶŐͬĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͘
,ŽƵƐŝŶŐĚĞƐŝŐŶͲƉƌŽďůĞŵƐ
x dŚĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƉƌŽƉŽƐĞƐ ĂŶƵŶŬŶŽǁŶ ŶƵŵďĞƌŽĨϮͲƐƚŽƌLJŚŽŵĞƐ͕ǁŚŝĐŚĂƌĞŶŽƚ
ĐŽŵƉĂƟďůĞǁŝƚŚƚŚĞƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĂƟŽŶƐŽĨƚŚĞZŝŽDŽŶƚĂŶĂWůĂŶƚŽƉƌĞƐĞƌǀĞǀŝĞǁƐƚŽ
^ŽƵƚŚ DŽƵŶƚĂŝŶ;ZŝŽDŽŶƚĂŶĂWůĂŶ͕ƉŐƐ͘ϮϮͲϮϯͿĂŶĚĂƌĞŝŶĐŽŶƐŝƐƚĞŶƚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞǀĂƐƚ
ŵĂũŽƌŝƚLJŽĨƚŚĞƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐ ŚŽŵĞƐ͕ǁŚŝĐŚĂƌĞƐŝŶŐůĞͲƐƚŽƌLJ͘
x dŚĞĚĞƐŝŐŶĞƌƐŚĂǀĞŶŽƚŝŶĐŽƌƉŽƌĂƚĞĚƉŽƌĐŚĞƐ͕ŶŽŶͲƐƚƌĞĞƚͲĨĂĐŝŶŐŐĂƌĂŐĞĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞƐŽƌ
ŽƚŚĞƌƐŝŐŶĂƚƵƌĞĞůĞŵĞŶƚƐƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĞĚďLJƚŚĞZŝŽDŽŶƚĂŶĂWůĂŶŝŶƚŚĞŝƌĐŽŶĐĞƉƚƵĂů
ĚĞƐŝŐŶƐ͘
,ŽƵƐŝŶŐĚĞƐŝŐŶͲƐŽůƵƟŽŶƐ
x >ŝŵŝƚĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶƚŽƐŝŶŐůĞͲƐƚŽƌLJ;ŵŽƐƚŝŵƉŽƌƚĂŶƚͿ͘
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞĚĞĞƉĨƌŽŶƚƉŽƌĐŚĞƐ͘
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞƐŽŵĞĚĞƐŝŐŶƐƚŽŝŶĐŽƌƉŽƌĂƚĞŐĂƌĂŐĞƐƚŚĂƚĚŽŶŽƚĨĂĐĞƚŚĞƐƚƌĞĞƚ͘
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞŵŽƌĞĂƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƵƌĂůǀĂƌŝĞƚLJĂŶĚƉůĂĐĞŵĞŶƚͬŽƌŝĞŶƚĂƟŽŶŽŶůŽƚƐ͘
,ĞĂƚŝƐůĂŶĚͬĐůŝŵĂƚĞ͕ƚƌĞĞƐͬƐŚĂĚĞͲƉƌŽďůĞŵƐ
x dŚĞĐƵƌƌĞŶƚƐƟƉƵůĂƟŽŶƐůŝƐƚƚƌĞĞƐŽŶĞŝƚŚĞƌƐŝĚĞŽĨĐŽŶĐƌĞƚĞƐŝĚĞǁĂůŬƐƚŽĐŽŵƉůLJǁŝƚŚƚŚĞ
ĐƵƌƌĞŶƚƚƌĞĞĂŶĚƐŚĂĚĞŵĂƐƚĞƌƉůĂŶ͕ŚŽǁĞǀĞƌ͕ĂůůŽǁŝŶŐƵƉƚŽĂϲϬйŚŽƵƐŝŶŐĨŽŽƚƉƌŝŶƚŽŶ
ĞĂĐŚůŽƚĚŽĞƐŶŽƚŚŝŶŐƚŽŵŝƟŐĂƚĞƚŚĞŚĞĂƚŝƐůĂŶĚĞīĞĐƚƚŚĂƚǁŝůůďĞĞdžĂĐĞƌďĂƚĞĚĨƌŽŵ
ƚŚĂƚŵƵĐŚƌŽŽĨĂƌĞĂĂďƐŽƌďŝŶŐĂŶĚƌĂĚŝĂƟŶŐŚĞĂƚ͘
,ĞĂƚŝƐůĂŶĚͬĐůŝŵĂƚĞ͕ƚƌĞĞƐͬƐŚĂĚĞͲƐŽůƵƟŽŶƐ
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞůŽǁĞƌĚĞŶƐŝƚLJnjŽŶŝŶŐĂŶĚŵŽƌĞŽƉĞŶƐƉĂĐĞ͘
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞƵƐĞŽĨĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞ^ZWŇŽŽĚŝƌƌŝŐĂƟŽŶƚŽƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĂĚĚĞĚĐŽŽůŝŶŐ͘
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞŚŝŐŚĞŵŝƐƐŝǀŝƚLJĂŶĚŚŝŐŚ^Z/ƌŽŽĮŶŐŵĂƚĞƌŝĂůƐ͘
x ^ƟƉƵůĂƚĞƚŚĞŵŽƐƚĐŽŶƐĞƌǀĂƟŽŶͲĨŽƌǁĂƌĚďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƉƌĂĐƟĐĞƐĨŽƌŚŽƵƐŝŶŐŝŶƐƵůĂƟŽŶĂŶĚ
ŚĞĂƚŝƐůĂŶĚŵŝƟŐĂƟŽŶĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůLJǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞĐŝƚLJĐŽĚĞƐĂŶĚĂůŝŐŶĞĚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞĐŝƚLJ͛ƐϮϬϮϭ
ůŝŵĂƚĞĐƟŽŶWůĂŶ͘tĞĚŽŶ͛ƚŚĂǀĞƟŵĞĨŽƌ͞ďƵƐŝŶĞƐƐĂƐƵƐƵĂů͟ƚŽĐƵƌďĐůŝŵĂƚĞĐŚĂŶŐĞ͘
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞƐŚĂĚĞƚƌĞĞƐŽŶƚŚĞĞĂƐƚ͕ƐŽƵƚŚĂŶĚǁĞƐƚƐŝĚĞƐŽĨĂůůƉƌŽƉĞƌƟĞƐƚŽŚĞůƉŬĞĞƉƚŚĞ
ƐƵŶŽīƚŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐǁĂůůƐĂŶĚƐŚĂĚĞƚŚĞŐƌŽƵŶĚ͘
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞĚĞĞƉƐĞƚĨƌŽŶƚĂŶĚďĂĐŬƉŽƌĐŚĞƐ;ǁŚŝĐŚĂƉƉĞĂƌƉƌĞĚŽŵŝŶĂŶƚůLJĞĂƐƚͬǁĞƐƚĨĂĐŝŶŐ
ďĂƐĞĚŽŶƚŚĞůŽƚŽƌŝĞŶƚĂƟŽŶͿƚŽĂůƐŽŬĞĞƉƚŚĞƐƵŶ ŽīďƵŝůĚŝŶŐǁĂůůƐ͘
>ĂƐƚůLJ͕ĂƐŽĨƚŚŝƐǁƌŝƟŶŐ͕Dƌ͘&ŽdžŚĂƐŵĂĚĞĂďƐŽůƵƚĞůLJŶŽĞīŽƌƚƚŽǁŽƌŬǁŝƚŚĂŶLJŽĨƚŚĞ
ŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐĂŶĚĂĚĚƌĞƐƐƚŚĞĐŽŶĐĞƌŶƐůŝƐƚĞĚĂďŽǀĞ͕ǁŚŝĐŚŚĞŚĂƐŚĞĂƌĚŝŶƉĞƌƐŽŶĂƚƚŚĞŽŶůLJϮ
ŵĞĞƟŶŐƐŚĞĐĂůůĞĚƚŽƉƌĞƐĞŶƚƚŚŝƐƉůĂŶƚŽƚŚĞƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐ ƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJŽǁŶĞƌƐďĞĨŽƌĞŚĂǀŝŶŐŝƚ
ĂƉƉĞĂƌďĞĨŽƌĞƚŚĞ^DsW͘
ƚƚŚĞƐĞĐŽŶĚŵĞĞƟŶŐ͕ĂŵŽŶƚŚůĂƚĞƌ͕ƚŚĞƉůĂŶŚĂĚŶŽƚĐŚĂŶŐĞĚĂŶĚƚŚĞƌĞǁĞƌĞƐĞǀĞƌĂů
ŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐǁŚŽĐŽŶĮƌŵĞĚƚŚĞLJĚŝĚŶŽƚƌĞĐĞŝǀĞĂƐĞĐŽŶĚŵĞĞƟŶŐŶŽƟĐĞůĞƩĞƌŝŶƟŵĞƚŽĂƩĞŶĚ͘
,ĞƚŽůĚƚŚĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐǁŚŽ ǁĞƌĞĂďůĞƚŽĂƩĞŶĚƚŚĂƚŚĞǁŽƵůĚŐŽďĂĐŬĂŶĚƐĞĞǁŚĂƚŚĞĐŽƵůĚĚŽ
ƚŽŝŶĐŽƌƉŽƌĂƚĞƚŚĞƐĞĐŽŶĐĞƌŶƐďĞĨŽƌĞƚŚĞ:ƵůLJϵ^DsWŵĞĞƟŶŐ͕ďƵƚŶŽƐƵĐŚŵĞĞƟŶŐŚĂƐďĞĞŶ
ĐĂůůĞĚ͘
,ĞŚĂƐŶŽƚůŝƐƚĞŶĞĚƚŽ͕ŵƵĐŚůĞƐƐĂĐƚĞĚŽŶ͕ĂŶLJŽĨƚŚĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌ͛ƐĐŽŶĐĞƌŶƐ͘,ŝƐĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ
ƉůĂŶŝƐĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞůLJŝŶĐŽŵƉĂƟďůĞĂŶĚŝŶƐĞŶƐŝƟǀĞƚŽƚŚĞƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐ͘dŚŝƐĂƉƉůŝĐĂƟŽŶ
ƐŚŽƵůĚŶŽƚŵŽǀĞĨŽƌǁĂƌĚ͘
ZĞƐƉĞĐƞƵůůLJ͕
EĂƟǀŝĚĂĚdĂƉŝĂ
Natividad Tapia
ϮϬϭϱtƌĂŶŚĂŵ>ĂŶĞWŚŽĞŶŝdžϴϱϬϰϭ
7/8/24, 1:43 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
Z-58-24-8
D D
Wed 7/3/2024 5:06 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers
1 attachments (83 KB)
DD Opposition letter- Z-58-24-8.pdf;
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Hi Samuel,£
Here is my opposition letter. Also, I wanted to include£that a lot of people are
continuously£doing turn arounds on our driveway and it is getting very annoying.
Thank you.
Delilah Delgai
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAONxZOXAefJKm%2FOexTz…
1/1
07/03/2024,
My name is Delilah Delgai and I live at 7711 S. 20th Drive Phoenix AZ 85041. I am wri ng in
opposi on to the applica on for development and rezoning case number Z-58-24-8 submi ed
by John Fox, which proposes to rezone 4.5 acres of currently S-1 property to the maximum
density allowed for R-10, which is 4.5 (bonus).
I am opposed to mul ple issues with this proposed development.
Density- problems
● This property is bordered on 2 sides (east and south) by established homes on S-1
proper es. The north and west sides are bordered by homes on R-10 property at no
more than standard 3.5 density. This development proposes a bonus density of 4.5 (20
homes) in addi on to ADUs.
o This density is inconsistent with the surrounding developed land (at tradi onal
<=3.5) and an inappropriate transi on density for all east and southern neighbors
with homes on S-1 property.
o It is not aligned with the Rio Montana Plan which recommends lower densi es
towards South Mount Park and gradual density steps between lower and higher
density areas. (Rio Montana Plan, pg. 17)
Density- solu ons
● Appropriate density transi on between S-1 and R-10 is R-18 or approx. 2 houses per
acre or 2.34 with bonus. Allowing construc on but with appropriate accommoda ons
for the environment and surrounding neighborhoods will s ll further the city’s housing
goals and provide addi onal benefits to the surrounding communi es as outlined below.
Traffic- problems
● In rela on to inappropriate density, the only entrance/exit is through a 52-home
neighborhood to the north onto Baseline Rd. The neighborhood already suffers severely
from difficult entrance/exit due to the heavy traffic on Baseline while also directly across
from a commercial shopping center entrance/exit, which sees greater traffic than a
neighborhood.
o According to the ITE Trip Genera on Report 10th Edi on (Maricopa’s Traffic
Impact Study Manual references the ITE report as its guideline), a single-family
house generates 10 trips per day on average. That will increase traffic to an
already bo lenecked neighborhood by 200 trips per day on average, not
including traffic poten ally generated by ADU residents.
● No southbound exit/entrance can be counted on b/c the land is currently being lived on
for the foreseeable future and wai ng to see if that will eventually become an op on to
alleviate traffic issues is not good planning.
● Fire and emergency vehicles will be subject to the same traffic conges on poten ally
impac ng safety, property, and health.
Traffic- solu ons
● R-18 density (10 homes) to reduce the overall impact on traffic for the exis ng
neighborhood.
● Traffic impact study and recommenda ons s pulated before any approvals for
rezoning/development.
Housing design- problems
● The development proposes an unknown number of 2-story homes, which are not
compa ble with the recommenda ons of the Rio Montana Plan to preserve views to
South Mountain (Rio Montana Plan, pgs. 22-23) and are inconsistent with the vast
majority of the surrounding homes, which are single-story.
● The designers have not incorporated porches, non-street-facing garage entrances or
other signature elements recommended by the Rio Montana Plan in their conceptual
designs.
Housing design- solu ons
● Limit construc on to single-story (most important).
● Require deep front porches.
● Require some designs to incorporate garages that do not face the street.
● Require more architectural variety and placement/orienta on on lots.
Heat island/climate, trees/shade- problems
● The current s pula ons list trees on either side of concrete sidewalks to comply with the
current tree and shade master plan, however, allowing up to a 60% housing footprint on
each lot does nothing to mi gate the heat island effect that will be exacerbated from
that much roof area absorbing and radia ng heat.
Heat island/climate, trees/shade - solu ons
● Require lower density zoning and more open space.
● Require use of available SRP flood irriga on to provide added cooling.
● Require high emissivity and high SRI roofing materials.
● S pulate the most conserva on-forward building prac ces for housing insula on and
heat island mi ga on currently within the city codes and aligned with the city’s 2021
Climate Ac on Plan. We don’t have me for “business as usual” to curb climate change.
● Require shade trees on the east, south and west sides of all proper es to help keep the
sun off the building walls and shade the ground.
● Require deep set front and back porches (which appear predominantly east/west facing
based on the lot orienta on) to also keep the sun off building walls.
Lastly, as of this wri ng, Mr. Fox has made absolutely no effort to work with any of the
neighbors and address the concerns listed above, which he has heard in person at the only 2
mee ngs he called to present this plan to the surrounding property owners before having it
appear before the SMVPC.
At the second mee ng, a month later, the plan had not changed and there were several
neighbors who confirmed they did not receive a second mee ng no ce le er in me to a end.
He told the neighbors who were able to a end that he would go back and see what he could do
to incorporate these concerns before the July 9 SMVPC mee ng, but no such mee ng has been
called.
He has not listened to, much less acted on, any of the neighbor’s concerns. His development
plan is completely incompa ble and insensi ve to the surrounding neighbors. This applica on
should not move forward.
Respec ully,
Delilah Delgai
7711 S. 20th Drive
Phoenix AZ, 85041
7/5/24, 2:23 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
Z-58-24-8
Lorenzo Gonzales
Wed 7/3/2024 1:37 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers
1 attachments (6 KB)
Opposition letter- Z-58-24-8[8370].docx;
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Sent from Mail [go.microsoŌ.com] for Windows
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQADlyoCEcD9JFpN1i%2B%2BJ…
1/1
7/3/24
My name is Lorenzo Gonzales] and I live at 7815 S 20th Dr. I am writing in opposition to the
application for development and rezoning case number Z-58-24-8 submitted by John Fox, which
proposes to rezone 4.5 acres of currently S-1 property to the maximum density allowed for R-
10, which is 4.5 (bonus).
I am opposed to multiple issues with this proposed development.
Density- problems
• This property is bordered on 2 sides (east and south) by established homes on S-1
properties. The north and west sides are bordered by homes on R-10 property at no
more than standard 3.5 density. This development proposes a bonus density of 4.5 (20
homes) in addition to ADUs.
• This density is inconsistent with the surrounding developed land (at traditional
<=3.5) and an inappropriate transition density for all east and southern
neighbors with homes on S-1 property.
• It is not aligned with the Rio Montana Plan which recommends lower densities
towards South Mount Park and gradual density steps between lower and higher
density areas. (Rio Montana Plan, pg. 17)
Density- solutions
• Appropriate density transition between S-1 and R-10 is R-18 or approx. 2 houses per
acre or 2.34 with bonus. Allowing construction but with appropriate accommodations
for the environment and surrounding neighborhoods will still further the city’s housing
goals and provide additional benefits to the surrounding communities as outlined below.
Traffic- problems
• In relation to inappropriate density, the only entrance/exit is through a 52-home
neighborhood to the north onto Baseline Rd. The neighborhood already suffers severely
from difficult entrance/exit due to the heavy traffic on Baseline while also directly across
from a commercial shopping center entrance/exit, which sees greater traffic than a
neighborhood.
• According to the ITE Trip Generation Report 10th Edition (Maricopa’s Traffic
Impact Study Manual references the ITE report as its guideline), a single-family
house generates 10 trips per day on average. That will increase traffic to an
already bottlenecked neighborhood by 200 trips per day on average, not
including traffic potentially generated by ADU residents.
• No southbound exit/entrance can be counted on b/c the land is currently being lived on
for the foreseeable future and waiting to see if that will eventually become an option to
alleviate traffic issues is not good planning.
• Fire and emergency vehicles will be subject to the same traffic congestion potentially
impacting safety, property, and health.
Traffic- solutions
• R-18 density (10 homes) to reduce the overall impact on traffic for the existing
neighborhood.
• Traffic impact study and recommendations stipulated before any approvals for
rezoning/development.
Housing design- problems
• The development proposes an unknown number of 2-story homes, which are not
compatible with the recommendations of the Rio Montana Plan to preserve views to
South Mountain (Rio Montana Plan, pgs. 22-23) and are inconsistent with the vast
majority of the surrounding homes, which are single-story.
• The designers have not incorporated porches, non-street-facing garage entrances or
other signature elements recommended by the Rio Montana Plan in their conceptual
designs.
Housing design- solutions
• Limit construction to single-story (most important).
• Require deep front porches.
• Require some designs to incorporate garages that do not face the street.
• Require more architectural variety and placement/orientation on lots.
Heat island/climate, trees/shade- problems
• The current stipulations list trees on either side of concrete sidewalks to comply with the
current tree and shade master plan, however, allowing up to a 60% housing footprint on
each lot does nothing to mitigate the heat island effect that will be exacerbated from
that much roof area absorbing and radiating heat.
Heat island/climate, trees/shade - solutions
• Require lower density zoning and more open space.
• Require use of available SRP flood irrigation to provide added cooling.
• Require high emissivity and high SRI roofing materials.
• Stipulate the most conservation-forward building practices for housing insulation and
heat island mitigation currently within the city codes and aligned with the city’s 2021
Climate Action Plan. We don’t have time for “business as usual” to curb climate change.
• Require shade trees on the east, south and west sides of all properties to help keep the
sun off the building walls and shade the ground.
• Require deep set front and back porches (which appear predominantly east/west facing
based on the lot orientation) to also keep the sun off building walls.
Lastly, as of this writing, Mr. Fox has made absolutely no effort to work with any of the
neighbors and address the concerns listed above, which he has heard in person at the only 2
meetings he called to present this plan to the surrounding property owners before having it
appear before the SMVPC.
At the second meeting, a month later, the plan had not changed and there were several
neighbors who confirmed they did not receive a second meeting notice letter in time to attend.
He told the neighbors who were able to attend that he would go back and see what he could do
to incorporate these concerns before the July 9 SMVPC meeting, but no such meeting has been
called.
He has not listened to, much less acted on, any of the neighbor’s concerns. His development
plan is completely incompatible and insensitive to the surrounding neighbors. This application
should not move forward.
Respectfully,
Lorenzo Gonzales
7815 S 20th Dr. Phx AZ 85041
7/8/24, 1:39 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
Wyndham SQ: Rezoning Hearing
Melissa Sunia
Wed 7/3/2024 3:28 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers
Cc:Michelle Teodoro
1 attachments (21 KB)
Opposition letter- Z-58-24-8_MS.docx;
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Please see the attached letter.£
R,
Melissa Sunia
2022 West Branham Lane
Phoenix, AZ 85041
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAN4%2BZQe89E2CieZFCyrvn…
1/1
7/3/24
My name is Melissa Sunia and I live at 2022 West Branham Lane. I ĂŵǁƌŝƟŶŐŝŶŽƉƉŽƐŝƟŽŶƚŽ
ƚŚĞĂƉƉůŝĐĂƟŽŶĨŽƌĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂŶĚƌĞnjŽŶŝŶŐĐĂƐĞŶƵŵďĞƌZ-58-24-8 ƐƵďŵŝƩĞĚ ďLJ:ŽŚŶ&Ždž͕
ǁŚŝĐŚƉƌŽƉŽƐĞƐƚŽƌĞnjŽŶĞϰ͘ϱĂĐƌĞƐŽĨĐƵƌƌĞŶƚly S-ϭƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJƚŽƚŚĞŵĂdžŝŵƵŵĚĞŶƐŝƚLJĂůůŽǁĞĚ
ĨŽƌZ-10͕ǁŚŝĐŚŝƐϰ͘ϱ;ďŽŶƵƐͿ.
/ĂŵŽƉƉŽƐĞĚƚŽ ŵƵůƟƉůĞŝƐƐƵĞƐǁŝƚŚƚŚŝƐƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ.
Density- problems
x dŚŝƐƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJŝƐďŽƌĚĞƌĞĚŽŶϮƐŝĚĞƐ;ĞĂƐƚĂŶĚƐŽƵƚŚͿďLJĞƐƚĂďůŝƐŚĞĚŚŽŵĞƐŽŶ^-1
ƉƌŽƉĞƌƟĞƐ͘dŚĞŶŽƌƚŚĂŶĚǁĞƐƚƐŝĚĞƐĂƌĞďŽƌĚĞƌĞĚďLJŚŽŵĞƐŽŶZ-ϭϬƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJĂƚŶŽ
ŵŽƌĞƚŚĂŶƐƚĂŶĚĂƌĚϯ͘ϱĚĞŶƐŝƚLJ͘dŚŝƐĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƉƌŽƉŽƐĞƐĂďŽŶƵƐĚĞŶƐŝƚLJŽĨϰ͘ϱ;ϮϬ
ŚŽŵĞƐͿŝŶĂĚĚŝƟŽŶƚŽhƐ͘
o dŚŝƐĚĞŶƐŝƚLJŝƐŝŶĐŽŶƐŝƐƚĞŶƚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞĚůĂŶĚ;ĂƚƚƌĂĚŝƟŽŶĂů
фсϯ͘ϱͿĂŶĚĂŶŝŶĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞƚƌĂŶƐŝƟŽŶĚĞŶƐŝƚLJĨŽƌĂůůĞĂƐƚ ĂŶĚƐŽƵƚŚĞƌŶŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐ
with ŚŽŵĞƐŽŶ S-ϭƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJ͘
o /ƚŝƐŶŽƚĂůŝŐŶĞĚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞZŝŽDŽŶƚĂŶĂWůĂŶǁŚŝĐŚƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚƐůŽǁĞƌĚĞŶƐŝƟĞƐ
ƚŽǁĂƌĚƐ^ŽƵƚŚDŽƵŶƚWĂƌŬĂŶĚŐƌĂĚƵĂůĚĞŶƐŝƚLJƐƚĞƉƐďĞƚǁĞĞŶůŽǁĞƌĂŶĚŚŝŐŚĞƌ
density areas. (ZŝŽDŽŶƚĂŶĂWůĂŶ͕ƉŐ͘ ϭϳͿ
Density- ƐŽůƵƟŽŶƐ
x ƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞĚĞŶƐŝƚLJƚƌĂŶƐŝƟŽŶďĞƚǁĞĞŶ^-ϭĂŶĚZ-ϭϬŝƐZ-ϭϴŽƌĂƉƉƌŽdž͘ϮŚŽƵƐĞƐƉĞƌ
ĂĐƌĞŽƌϮ͘ϯϰǁŝƚŚďŽŶƵƐ͘ ůůŽǁŝŶŐĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶďƵƚǁŝƚŚĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞ ĂĐĐŽŵŵŽĚĂƟŽŶƐ
ĨŽƌƚŚĞĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂŶĚƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚƐǁŝůůƐƟůůĨƵƌƚŚĞƌƚŚĞĐŝƚLJ͛Ɛ ŚŽƵƐŝŶŐ
ŐŽĂůƐ ĂŶĚƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĂĚĚŝƟŽŶĂůďĞŶĞĮƚƐƚŽƚŚĞƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƟĞƐĂƐŽƵƚůŝŶĞĚďĞůŽǁ.
dƌĂĸĐ- problems
x /ŶƌĞůĂƟŽŶƚŽŝŶĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞĚĞŶƐŝƚLJ͕ƚŚĞŽŶůLJĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞͬĞdžŝƚ ŝƐƚŚƌŽƵŐŚĂϱϮ-ŚŽŵĞ
ŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚƚŽƚŚĞŶŽƌƚŚŽŶƚŽĂƐĞůŝŶĞZĚ͘dŚĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚĂůƌĞĂĚLJƐƵīĞƌƐƐĞǀĞƌĞůLJ
ĨƌŽŵĚŝĸĐƵůƚĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞͬĞdžŝƚĚƵĞƚŽƚŚĞheavy ƚƌĂĸĐŽŶĂƐĞůŝŶĞ ǁŚŝůĞĂůƐŽĚŝƌĞĐƚůLJĂĐƌŽƐƐ
ĨƌŽŵĂĐŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂůƐŚŽƉƉŝŶŐĐĞŶƚĞƌĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞͬĞdžŝƚ͕ǁŚŝĐŚƐĞĞƐŐƌĞĂƚĞƌƚƌĂĸĐƚŚĂŶĂ
ŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚ.
o ĐĐŽƌĚŝŶŐƚŽƚŚĞ/ddƌŝƉ'ĞŶĞƌĂƟŽŶZĞƉŽƌƚϭϬth ĚŝƟŽŶ;DĂƌŝĐŽƉĂ͛ƐdƌĂĸĐ
/ŵƉĂĐƚ^ƚƵĚLJDĂŶƵĂů ƌĞĨĞƌĞŶĐĞƐƚŚĞ/dƌĞƉŽƌƚĂƐŝƚƐŐƵŝĚĞůŝŶĞͿ͕ĂsŝŶŐůĞ-ĨĂŵŝůLJ
ŚŽƵƐĞŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞƐϭϬƚƌŝƉƐƉĞƌĚĂLJŽŶĂǀĞƌĂŐĞ͘dŚĂƚǁŝůůŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞƚƌĂĸĐƚŽĂŶ
ĂůƌĞĂĚLJďŽƩůĞŶĞĐŬĞĚŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚďLJϮϬϬƚƌŝƉƐ ƉĞƌĚĂLJŽŶĂǀĞƌĂŐĞ͕ŶŽƚ
ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐƚƌĂĸĐƉŽƚĞŶƟĂůůLJŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞĚďLJhƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐ͘
x EŽƐŽƵƚŚďŽƵŶĚĞdžŝƚͬĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞĐĂŶďĞĐŽƵŶƚĞĚŽŶďͬĐƚŚĞůĂŶĚŝƐĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůLJďĞŝŶŐůŝǀĞĚŽŶ
ĨŽƌƚŚĞĨŽƌĞƐĞĞĂďůĞĨƵƚƵƌĞĂŶĚǁĂŝƟŶŐƚŽƐĞĞŝĨƚŚĂƚǁŝůůĞǀĞŶƚƵĂůůLJďĞĐŽŵĞĂŶŽƉƟŽŶƚŽ
ĂůůĞǀŝĂƚĞƚƌĂĸĐŝƐƐƵĞƐŝƐŶŽƚŐŽŽĚƉůĂŶŶŝŶŐ͘
x &ŝƌĞĂŶĚĞŵĞƌŐĞŶĐLJǀĞŚŝĐůĞƐǁŝůůďĞƐƵďũĞĐƚƚŽƚŚĞƐĂŵĞƚƌĂĸĐĐŽŶŐĞƐƟŽŶ ƉŽƚĞŶƟĂůůLJ
ŝŵƉĂĐƟŶŐƐĂĨĞƚLJ͕ƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJ͕ and health.
dƌĂĸĐ- ƐŽůƵƟŽŶƐ
x Z-18 density ;ϭϬŚŽŵĞƐͿƚŽƌĞĚƵĐĞƚŚĞŽǀĞƌĂůůŝŵƉĂĐƚŽŶƚƌĂĸĐĨŽƌƚŚĞĞdžŝƐƟŶŐ
ŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚ͘
x dƌĂĸĐŝŵƉĂĐƚƐƚƵĚLJĂŶĚƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĂƟŽŶƐƐƟƉƵůĂƚĞĚ ďĞĨŽƌĞĂŶLJĂƉƉƌŽǀĂůƐĨŽƌ
ƌĞnjŽŶŝŶŐͬĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͘
Housing design- problems
x dŚĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƉƌŽƉŽƐĞs ĂŶƵŶŬŶŽǁŶŶƵŵďĞƌŽĨ2-ƐƚŽƌLJŚŽŵĞƐ͕ǁŚŝĐŚĂƌĞŶŽƚ
ĐŽŵƉĂƟďůĞǁŝƚŚƚŚĞƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĂƟŽŶƐŽĨƚŚĞZŝŽDŽŶƚĂŶĂWůĂŶƚŽƉƌĞƐĞƌǀĞǀŝĞǁƐƚŽ
^ŽƵƚŚDŽƵŶƚĂŝŶ;ZŝŽDŽŶƚĂŶĂWůĂŶ͕ƉŐƐ͘ 22-ϮϯͿĂŶĚĂƌĞŝŶĐŽŶƐŝƐƚĞŶƚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞǀĂƐƚ
ŵĂũŽƌŝƚLJŽĨƚŚĞƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐŚŽŵĞƐ͕ǁŚŝĐŚĂƌĞƐŝŶŐůĞ-ƐƚŽƌLJ͘
x dŚĞĚĞƐŝŐŶĞƌƐŚĂǀĞŶŽƚŝŶĐŽƌƉŽƌĂƚĞĚƉŽƌĐŚĞƐ͕ŶŽŶ-street-ĨĂĐŝŶŐŐĂƌĂŐĞĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞƐŽƌ
ŽƚŚĞƌƐŝŐŶĂƚƵƌĞĞůĞŵĞŶƚƐƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĞĚďLJƚŚĞZŝŽDŽŶƚĂŶĂWůĂŶŝŶƚŚĞŝƌĐŽŶĐĞƉƚƵĂů
ĚĞƐŝŐŶƐ͘
Housing design- ƐŽůƵƟŽŶƐ
x >ŝŵŝƚĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶƚŽƐŝŶŐůĞ-ƐƚŽƌLJ;mŽƐƚŝŵƉŽƌƚĂŶƚͿ.
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞĚĞĞƉĨƌŽŶƚƉŽƌĐŚĞƐ͘
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞƐŽŵĞĚĞƐŝŐŶƐƚŽŝŶĐŽƌƉŽƌĂƚĞŐĂƌĂŐĞƐƚŚĂƚĚŽŶŽƚĨĂĐĞƚŚĞƐƚƌĞĞƚ͘
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞŵŽƌĞĂƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƵƌĂůǀĂƌŝĞƚLJ ĂŶĚƉůĂĐĞŵĞŶƚͬŽƌŝĞŶƚĂƟŽŶŽŶůŽƚƐ͘
Heat islandͬĐůŝŵĂƚĞ͕ƚƌĞĞƐͬƐŚĂĚĞ- problems
x dŚĞĐƵƌƌĞŶƚƐƟƉƵůĂƟŽŶƐůŝƐƚƚƌĞĞƐŽŶĞŝƚŚĞƌƐŝĚĞŽĨĐŽŶĐƌĞƚĞƐŝĚĞǁĂůŬƐƚŽĐŽŵƉůLJǁŝƚŚƚŚĞ
ĐƵƌƌĞŶƚƚƌĞĞĂŶĚƐŚĂĚĞŵĂƐƚĞƌƉůĂŶ͕ŚŽǁĞǀĞƌ͕ĂůůŽǁŝŶŐƵƉƚŽa ϲϬйŚŽƵƐŝŶŐĨŽŽƚƉƌŝŶƚŽŶ
ĞĂĐŚůŽƚĚŽĞƐŶŽƚŚŝŶŐƚŽŵŝƟŐĂƚĞƚŚĞŚĞĂƚŝƐůĂŶĚĞīĞĐƚƚŚĂƚǁŝůůďĞĞdžĂĐĞƌďĂƚĞĚĨƌŽŵ
ƚŚĂƚŵƵĐŚƌŽŽĨĂƌĞĂĂďƐŽƌďŝŶŐĂŶĚƌĂĚŝĂƟŶŐŚĞĂƚ͘
Heat islandͬĐůŝŵĂƚĞ͕ƚƌĞĞƐͬƐŚĂĚĞ - ƐŽůƵƟŽŶƐ
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞůŽǁĞƌĚĞŶƐŝƚLJnjŽŶŝŶŐĂŶĚŵŽƌĞŽƉĞŶƐƉĂĐĞ͘
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞƵƐĞŽĨĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞ^ZWŇŽŽĚŝƌƌŝŐĂƟŽŶƚŽƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĂĚĚĞĚĐŽŽůŝŶŐ͘
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞŚŝŐŚemissivity ĂŶĚŚŝŐŚ^Z/ƌŽŽĮŶŐŵĂƚĞƌŝĂůƐ͘
x ^ƟƉƵůĂƚĞƚŚĞŵŽƐƚĐŽŶƐĞƌǀĂƟŽŶ-ĨŽƌǁĂƌĚ ďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƉƌĂĐƟĐĞƐ ĨŽƌŚŽƵƐŝŶŐŝŶƐƵůĂƟŽŶĂŶĚ
ŚĞĂƚŝƐůĂŶĚŵŝƟŐĂƟŽŶĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůLJǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞĐŝƚLJĐŽĚĞƐ ĂŶĚĂůŝŐŶĞĚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞĐŝƚLJ͛Ɛ2021
ůŝŵĂƚĞĐƟŽŶWůĂŶ. tĞĚŽŶ͛ƚŚĂǀĞƟŵĞĨŽƌ͞ďƵƐŝŶĞƐƐĂƐƵƐƵĂů͟ƚŽĐƵƌďĐůŝŵĂƚĞĐŚĂŶŐĞ͘
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞƐŚĂĚĞƚƌĞĞƐŽŶƚŚĞĞĂƐƚ͕ƐŽƵƚŚĂŶĚǁĞƐƚƐŝĚĞƐŽĨĂůůƉƌŽƉĞƌƟĞƐƚŽŚĞůƉŬĞĞƉƚŚĞ
sun Žī ƚŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐǁĂůůƐĂŶĚƐŚĂĚĞƚŚĞŐƌŽƵŶĚ͘
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞĚĞĞƉƐĞƚĨƌŽŶƚĂŶĚďĂĐŬƉŽƌĐŚĞƐ ;ǁŚŝĐŚĂƉƉĞĂƌƉƌĞĚŽŵŝŶĂŶƚůLJĞĂƐƚͬǁĞƐƚĨĂĐŝŶŐ
ďĂƐĞĚŽŶƚŚĞůŽƚŽƌŝĞŶƚĂƟŽŶͿ ƚŽĂůƐŽŬĞĞƉƚŚĞƐƵŶŽī ďƵŝůĚŝŶŐǁĂůůƐ͘
>ĂƐƚůLJ͕ĂƐŽĨƚŚŝƐǁƌŝƟŶŐ͕Dƌ͘&ŽdžŚĂƐŵĂĚĞĂďƐŽůƵƚĞůLJŶŽĞīŽƌƚƚŽǁŽƌŬǁŝƚŚĂŶLJŽĨƚŚĞ
ŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐĂŶĚĂĚĚƌĞƐƐƚŚĞĐŽŶĐĞƌŶƐůŝƐƚĞĚĂďŽǀĞ͕ǁŚŝĐŚŚĞŚĂƐŚĞĂƌĚŝŶƉĞƌƐŽŶĂƚƚŚĞŽŶůLJ2
ŵĞĞƟŶŐƐŚĞĐĂůůĞĚƚŽƉƌĞƐĞŶƚƚŚŝƐƉůĂŶƚŽƚŚĞƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJŽǁŶĞƌƐ ďĞĨŽƌĞŚĂǀŝŶŐŝƚ
ĂƉƉĞĂƌďĞĨŽƌĞƚŚĞ^DsW.
ƚƚŚĞƐĞĐŽŶĚŵĞĞƟŶŐ͕ĂŵŽŶƚŚlater͕ƚŚĞƉůĂŶŚĂĚŶŽƚĐŚĂŶŐĞĚĂŶĚƚŚĞƌĞǁĞƌĞƐĞǀĞƌĂů
ŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐǁŚŽĐŽŶĮƌŵĞĚƚŚĞLJĚŝĚŶŽƚƌĞĐĞŝǀĞĂƐĞĐŽŶĚŵĞĞƟŶŐŶŽƟĐĞůĞƩĞƌ ŝŶƟŵĞƚŽ ĂƩĞŶĚ.
,ĞƚŽůĚƚŚĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐǁŚŽǁĞƌĞĂďůĞƚŽĂƩĞŶĚ ƚŚĂƚŚĞǁŽƵůĚŐŽďĂĐŬĂŶĚƐĞĞǁŚĂƚŚĞĐŽƵůĚĚŽ
ƚŽŝŶĐŽƌƉŽƌĂƚĞthese ĐŽŶĐĞƌŶƐďĞĨŽƌĞƚŚĞ:ƵůLJϵ^DsWŵĞĞƟŶŐ͕ďƵƚŶŽƐƵĐŚŵĞĞƟŶŐŚĂƐďĞĞŶ
ĐĂůůĞĚ͘
,ĞŚĂƐŶŽƚůŝƐƚĞŶĞĚƚŽ͕ŵƵĐŚůĞƐƐĂĐƚĞĚŽŶ͕ ĂŶLJŽĨƚŚĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌ͛Ɛ ĐŽŶĐĞƌŶƐ. HŝƐĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ
ƉůĂŶŝƐĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞůLJŝŶĐŽŵƉĂƟďůĞĂŶĚŝŶƐĞŶƐŝƟǀĞƚŽƚŚĞƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐ. dŚŝƐĂƉƉůŝĐĂƟŽŶ
ƐŚŽƵůĚŶŽƚŵŽǀĞĨŽƌǁĂƌĚ͘
ZĞƐƉĞĐƞƵůůLJ͕
Melissa Sunia
2022 West Branham Lane
07/03/2024,
My name is Shangel Cas llo and I live at 7711 S. 20th Drive Phoenix AZ 85041. I am wri ng in
opposi on to the applica on for development and rezoning case number Z-58-24-8 submi ed
by John Fox, which proposes to rezone 4.5 acres of currently S-1 property to the maximum
density allowed for R-10, which is 4.5 (bonus).
I am opposed to mul ple issues with this proposed development.
Density- problems
● This property is bordered on 2 sides (east and south) by established homes on S-1
proper es. The north and west sides are bordered by homes on R-10 property at no
more than standard 3.5 density. This development proposes a bonus density of 4.5 (20
homes) in addi on to ADUs.
o This density is inconsistent with the surrounding developed land (at tradi onal
<=3.5) and an inappropriate transi on density for all east and southern neighbors
with homes on S-1 property.
o It is not aligned with the Rio Montana Plan which recommends lower densi es
towards South Mount Park and gradual density steps between lower and higher
density areas. (Rio Montana Plan, pg. 17)
Density- solu ons
● Appropriate density transi on between S-1 and R-10 is R-18 or approx. 2 houses per
acre or 2.34 with bonus. Allowing construc on but with appropriate accommoda ons
for the environment and surrounding neighborhoods will s ll further the city’s housing
goals and provide addi onal benefits to the surrounding communi es as outlined below.
Traffic- problems
● In rela on to inappropriate density, the only entrance/exit is through a 52-home
neighborhood to the north onto Baseline Rd. The neighborhood already suffers severely
from difficult entrance/exit due to the heavy traffic on Baseline while also directly across
from a commercial shopping center entrance/exit, which sees greater traffic than a
neighborhood.
o According to the ITE Trip Genera on Report 10th Edi on (Maricopa’s Traffic
Impact Study Manual references the ITE report as its guideline), a single-family
house generates 10 trips per day on average. That will increase traffic to an
already bo lenecked neighborhood by 200 trips per day on average, not
including traffic poten ally generated by ADU residents.
● No southbound exit/entrance can be counted on b/c the land is currently being lived on
for the foreseeable future and wai ng to see if that will eventually become an op on to
alleviate traffic issues is not good planning.
● Fire and emergency vehicles will be subject to the same traffic conges on poten ally
impac ng safety, property, and health.
Traffic- solu ons
● R-18 density (10 homes) to reduce the overall impact on traffic for the exis ng
neighborhood.
● Traffic impact study and recommenda ons s pulated before any approvals for
rezoning/development.
Housing design- problems
● The development proposes an unknown number of 2-story homes, which are not
compa ble with the recommenda ons of the Rio Montana Plan to preserve views to
South Mountain (Rio Montana Plan, pgs. 22-23) and are inconsistent with the vast
majority of the surrounding homes, which are single-story.
● The designers have not incorporated porches, non-street-facing garage entrances or
other signature elements recommended by the Rio Montana Plan in their conceptual
designs.
Housing design- solu ons
● Limit construc on to single-story (most important).
● Require deep front porches.
● Require some designs to incorporate garages that do not face the street.
● Require more architectural variety and placement/orienta on on lots.
Heat island/climate, trees/shade- problems
● The current s pula ons list trees on either side of concrete sidewalks to comply with the
current tree and shade master plan, however, allowing up to a 60% housing footprint on
each lot does nothing to mi gate the heat island effect that will be exacerbated from
that much roof area absorbing and radia ng heat.
Heat island/climate, trees/shade - solu ons
● Require lower density zoning and more open space.
● Require use of available SRP flood irriga on to provide added cooling.
● Require high emissivity and high SRI roofing materials.
● S pulate the most conserva on-forward building prac ces for housing insula on and
heat island mi ga on currently within the city codes and aligned with the city’s 2021
Climate Ac on Plan. We don’t have me for “business as usual” to curb climate change.
● Require shade trees on the east, south and west sides of all proper es to help keep the
sun off the building walls and shade the ground.
● Require deep set front and back porches (which appear predominantly east/west facing
based on the lot orienta on) to also keep the sun off building walls.
Lastly, as of this wri ng, Mr. Fox has made absolutely no effort to work with any of the
neighbors and address the concerns listed above, which he has heard in person at the only 2
mee ngs he called to present this plan to the surrounding property owners before having it
appear before the SMVPC.
At the second mee ng, a month later, the plan had not changed and there were several
neighbors who confirmed they did not receive a second mee ng no ce le er in me to a end.
He told the neighbors who were able to a end that he would go back and see what he could do
to incorporate these concerns before the July 9 SMVPC mee ng, but no such mee ng has been
called.
He has not listened to, much less acted on, any of the neighbor’s concerns. His development
plan is completely incompa ble and insensi ve to the surrounding neighbors. This applica on
should not move forward.
Respec ully,
Shangel Cas llo
7711 S. 20th Drive
Phoenix AZ, 85041
07/05/2024
My name is Dawn Smith and I live at 7816 South 20th Lane, Phoenix Az 85041͘/ĂŵǁƌŝƟŶŐŝŶ
ŽƉƉŽƐŝƟŽŶƚŽƚŚĞĂƉƉůŝĐĂƟŽŶĨŽƌĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂŶĚƌĞnjŽŶŝŶŐĐĂƐĞŶƵŵďĞƌZ-58-24-8 ƐƵďŵŝƩĞĚ
ďLJ:ŽŚŶ&Ždž͕ǁŚŝĐŚƉƌŽƉŽƐĞƐƚŽƌĞnjŽŶĞϰ͘ϱĂĐƌĞƐŽĨĐƵƌƌĞŶƚly S-1 property to the maximum
ĚĞŶƐŝƚLJĂůůŽǁĞĚĨŽƌZ-10͕ǁŚŝĐŚŝƐϰ͘ϱ;ďŽŶƵƐͿ.
I am opposed to ŵƵůƟƉůĞŝƐƐƵĞƐǁŝƚŚƚŚŝƐproposed development.
Density- ƉƌŽďůĞŵƐ
x dŚŝƐƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJŝƐďŽƌĚĞƌĞĚŽŶϮƐŝĚĞƐ;ĞĂƐƚĂŶĚƐŽƵƚŚͿďLJĞƐƚĂďůŝƐŚĞĚŚŽŵĞƐŽŶ^-1
ƉƌŽƉĞƌƟĞƐ͘dŚĞŶŽƌƚŚĂŶĚǁĞƐƚƐŝĚĞƐĂƌĞďŽƌĚĞƌĞĚďLJŚŽŵĞƐŽŶZ-10 property at no
more than standard 3.5 density. dŚŝƐĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƉƌŽƉŽƐĞƐĂďŽŶƵƐĚĞŶƐŝƚLJŽĨϰ͘ϱ;ϮϬ
ŚŽŵĞƐͿŝŶĂĚĚŝƟŽŶƚŽhƐ͘
o dŚŝƐĚĞŶƐŝƚLJŝƐŝŶĐŽŶƐŝƐƚĞŶƚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞĚůĂŶĚ;ĂƚƚƌĂĚŝƟŽŶĂů
фсϯ͘ϱͿĂŶĚĂŶŝŶĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞƚƌĂŶƐŝƟŽŶĚĞŶƐŝƚLJĨŽƌĂůůĞĂƐƚĂŶĚƐŽƵƚŚĞƌŶŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐ
with homes on S-1 property.
o /ƚŝƐŶŽƚĂůŝŐŶĞĚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞZŝŽDŽŶƚĂŶĂWůĂŶǁŚŝĐŚƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚƐůŽǁĞƌĚĞŶƐŝƟĞƐ
ƚŽǁĂƌĚƐ^ŽƵƚŚDŽƵŶƚWĂƌŬĂŶĚŐƌĂĚƵĂůĚĞŶƐŝƚLJƐƚĞƉƐďĞƚǁĞĞŶůŽǁĞƌĂŶĚŚŝŐŚĞƌ
ĚĞŶƐŝƚLJĂƌĞĂƐ͘;ZŝŽDŽŶƚĂŶĂWůĂŶ͕ƉŐ͘ ϭϳͿ
Density- ƐŽůƵƟŽŶƐ
x ƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞĚĞŶƐŝƚLJƚƌĂŶƐŝƟŽŶďĞƚǁĞĞŶ^-ϭĂŶĚZ-ϭϬŝƐZ-18 or approx. 2 houses per
ĂĐƌĞŽƌϮ͘ϯϰǁŝƚŚďŽŶƵƐ͘ ůůŽǁŝŶŐĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶďƵƚǁŝƚŚappropriate ĂĐĐŽŵŵŽĚĂƟŽŶƐ
ĨŽƌƚŚĞĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂŶĚƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚƐǁŝůůƐƟůůĨƵƌƚŚĞƌƚŚĞĐŝƚLJ͛ƐŚŽƵƐŝŶŐ
ŐŽĂůƐ ĂŶĚƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĂĚĚŝƟŽŶĂůďĞŶĞĮƚƐƚŽƚŚĞƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƟĞƐĂƐŽƵƚůŝŶĞĚďĞůŽw.
dƌĂĸĐ- ƉƌŽďůĞŵƐ
x /ŶƌĞůĂƟŽŶƚŽŝŶĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞĚĞŶƐŝƚLJ͕ƚŚĞŽŶůLJĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞͬexit ŝƐƚŚƌŽƵŐŚĂϱϮ-home
ŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚƚŽƚŚĞŶŽƌƚŚŽŶƚŽĂƐĞůŝŶĞZĚ͘dŚĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚĂůƌĞĂĚLJƐƵīĞƌƐƐĞǀĞƌĞůLJ
ĨƌŽŵĚŝĸĐƵůƚĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞͬĞdžŝƚĚƵĞƚŽƚŚĞheavy ƚƌĂĸĐŽŶĂƐĞůŝŶĞ ǁŚŝůĞĂůƐŽĚŝƌĞĐƚůLJĂĐƌŽƐƐ
ĨƌŽŵĂĐŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂůƐŚŽƉƉŝŶŐĐĞŶƚĞƌĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞͬĞdžŝƚ͕ǁŚŝĐŚƐĞĞƐŐƌĞĂƚĞƌƚƌĂĸĐƚŚĂŶĂ
ŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚ.
o ĐĐŽƌĚŝŶŐƚŽƚŚĞ/ddƌŝƉ'ĞŶĞƌĂƟŽŶZĞƉŽƌƚϭϬth ĚŝƟŽŶ;DĂƌŝĐŽƉĂ͛ƐdƌĂĸĐ
/ŵƉĂĐƚ^ƚƵĚLJDĂŶƵĂů ƌĞĨĞƌĞŶĐĞƐƚŚĞ/dƌĞƉŽƌƚĂƐŝƚƐŐƵŝĚĞůŝŶĞͿ͕ĂƐŝŶŐůĞ-ĨĂŵŝůLJ
ŚŽƵƐĞŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞƐϭϬƚƌŝƉƐƉĞƌĚĂLJŽŶĂǀĞƌĂŐĞ͘dŚĂƚǁŝůůŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞƚƌĂĸĐƚŽĂŶ
ĂůƌĞĂĚLJďŽƩůĞŶĞĐŬĞĚŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚďLJϮϬϬtrips per ĚĂLJŽŶĂǀĞƌĂŐĞ͕ŶŽƚ
ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐƚƌĂĸĐƉŽƚĞŶƟĂůůLJŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞĚďLJhƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐ͘
x EŽƐŽƵƚŚďŽƵŶĚĞdžŝƚͬĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞĐĂŶďĞĐŽƵŶƚĞĚŽŶďͬĐƚŚĞůĂŶĚŝƐĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůLJďĞŝŶŐůŝǀĞĚŽŶ
ĨŽƌƚŚĞĨŽƌĞƐĞĞĂďůĞĨƵƚƵƌĞĂŶĚǁĂŝƟŶŐƚŽƐĞĞŝĨƚŚĂƚǁŝůůĞǀĞŶƚƵĂůůLJďĞĐŽŵĞĂŶŽƉƟŽŶƚŽ
ĂůůĞǀŝĂƚĞƚƌĂĸĐŝƐƐƵĞƐŝƐŶŽƚŐŽŽĚƉůĂŶŶŝŶŐ͘
x &ŝƌĞĂŶĚĞŵĞƌŐĞŶĐLJǀĞŚŝĐůĞƐǁŝůůďĞƐƵďũĞĐƚƚŽƚŚĞƐĂŵĞƚƌĂĸĐĐŽŶŐĞƐƟŽŶ ƉŽƚĞŶƟĂůůLJ
ŝŵƉĂĐƟŶŐƐĂĨety, property, and health.
dƌĂĸĐ- ƐŽůƵƟŽŶƐ
x Z-18 density ;ϭϬŚŽŵĞƐͿƚŽƌĞĚƵĐĞƚŚĞŽǀĞƌĂůůŝŵƉĂĐƚŽŶƚƌĂĸĐĨŽƌƚŚĞĞdžŝƐƟŶŐ
ŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚ͘
x dƌĂĸĐŝŵƉĂĐƚƐƚƵĚLJĂŶĚƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĂƟŽŶƐƐƟƉƵůĂƚĞĚ ďĞĨŽƌĞĂŶLJĂƉƉƌŽǀĂůƐĨŽƌ
ƌĞnjŽŶŝŶŐͬĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͘
,ŽƵƐŝŶŐĚĞƐŝŐŶ- ƉƌŽďůĞŵƐ
x The development proposes ĂŶƵŶŬŶŽǁŶŶƵŵďĞƌŽĨ2-ƐƚŽƌLJŚŽŵĞƐ͕ǁŚŝĐŚĂƌĞŶŽƚ
ĐŽŵƉĂƟďůĞǁŝƚŚƚŚĞƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĂƟŽŶƐŽĨƚŚĞZŝŽDŽŶƚĂŶĂWůĂŶƚŽƉƌĞƐĞƌǀĞǀŝĞǁƐƚŽ
^ŽƵƚŚDŽƵŶƚĂŝŶ;ZŝŽDŽŶƚĂŶĂWůĂŶ͕ƉŐƐ͘ 22-ϮϯͿĂŶĚĂƌĞŝŶĐŽŶƐŝƐƚĞŶƚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞǀĂƐƚ
ŵĂũŽƌŝƚLJŽĨƚŚĞƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐhomes͕ǁŚŝĐŚĂƌĞƐŝŶŐůĞ-story.
x dŚĞĚĞƐŝŐŶĞƌƐŚĂǀĞŶŽƚŝŶĐŽƌƉŽƌĂƚĞĚƉŽƌĐŚĞƐ͕ŶŽŶ-street-ĨĂĐŝŶŐŐĂƌĂŐĞĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞƐŽƌ
ŽƚŚĞƌƐŝŐŶĂƚƵƌĞĞůĞŵĞŶƚƐƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĞĚďLJƚŚĞZŝŽDŽŶƚĂŶĂWůĂŶŝŶƚŚĞŝƌĐŽŶĐĞƉƚƵĂů
ĚĞƐŝŐŶƐ͘
,ŽƵƐŝŶŐĚĞƐŝŐŶ- ƐŽůƵƟŽŶƐ
x Limit ĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶƚŽƐŝŶŐůĞ-ƐƚŽƌLJ;mŽƐƚŝŵƉŽƌƚĂŶƚͿ.
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞĚĞĞƉĨƌŽŶƚƉŽƌĐŚĞƐ͘
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞƐŽŵĞĚĞƐŝŐŶƐƚŽŝŶĐŽƌƉŽƌĂƚĞŐĂƌĂŐĞƐƚŚĂƚĚŽŶŽƚĨĂĐĞƚŚĞƐƚƌĞĞƚ͘
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞŵŽƌĞĂƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƵƌĂůǀĂƌŝĞƚLJ ĂŶĚƉůĂĐĞŵĞŶƚͬŽƌŝĞŶƚĂƟŽŶŽŶůŽƚƐ͘
Heat islandͬĐůŝŵĂƚĞ͕trees/shade- ƉƌŽďůĞŵƐ
x dŚĞĐƵƌƌĞŶƚƐƟƉƵůĂƟŽŶƐůŝƐƚƚƌĞĞƐŽŶĞŝƚŚĞƌƐŝĚĞŽĨĐŽŶĐƌĞƚĞƐŝĚĞǁĂůŬƐƚŽĐŽŵƉůLJǁŝƚŚƚŚĞ
ĐƵƌƌĞŶƚƚƌĞĞĂŶĚƐŚĂĚĞŵĂƐƚĞƌƉůĂŶ͕ŚŽǁĞǀĞƌ͕ĂůůŽǁŝŶŐƵƉƚŽa ϲϬйŚŽƵƐŝŶŐĨŽŽƚƉƌŝŶƚŽŶ
ĞĂĐŚůŽƚĚŽĞƐŶŽƚŚŝŶŐƚŽŵŝƟŐĂƚĞƚŚĞŚĞĂƚŝƐůĂŶĚĞīĞĐƚƚŚĂƚǁŝůůďĞĞdžĂĐĞƌďĂƚĞĚĨƌŽŵ
ƚŚĂƚŵƵĐŚƌŽŽĨĂƌĞĂĂďƐŽƌďŝŶŐĂŶĚƌĂĚŝĂƟŶŐŚĞĂƚ͘
Heat islandͬĐůŝŵĂƚĞ͕ƚƌĞĞƐͬƐŚĂĚĞ - ƐŽůƵƟŽŶƐ
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞůŽǁĞƌĚĞŶƐŝƚLJnjŽŶŝŶŐĂŶĚŵŽƌĞŽƉĞŶƐƉĂĐĞ͘
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞƵƐĞŽĨĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞ^ZWŇŽŽĚŝƌƌŝŐĂƟŽŶƚŽƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĂĚĚĞĚĐŽŽůŝŶŐ͘
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞŚŝŐŚemissivity ĂŶĚŚŝŐŚ^Z/ƌŽŽĮŶŐŵĂƚĞƌŝĂůƐ͘
x ^ƟƉƵůĂƚĞƚŚĞŵŽƐƚĐŽŶƐĞƌǀĂƟŽŶ-Ĩorward ďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƉƌĂĐƟĐĞƐĨŽƌŚŽƵƐŝŶŐŝŶƐƵůĂƟŽŶĂŶĚ
heat island miƟŐĂƟŽŶĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůLJǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞĐŝƚLJĐŽĚĞƐ ĂŶĚĂůŝŐŶĞĚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞĐŝƚLJ͛Ɛ2021
ůŝŵĂƚĞĐƟŽŶWůĂŶ. tĞĚŽŶ͛ƚŚĂǀĞƟŵĞĨŽƌ͞ďƵƐŝŶĞƐƐĂƐƵƐƵĂů͟ƚŽĐƵƌďĐůŝŵĂƚĞĐŚĂŶŐĞ͘
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞƐŚĂĚĞƚƌĞĞƐŽŶƚŚĞĞĂƐƚ͕ƐŽƵƚŚĂŶĚǁĞƐƚƐŝĚĞƐŽĨĂůůƉƌŽƉĞƌƟĞƐƚŽŚĞůƉŬĞĞƉƚŚĞ
sun Žī ƚŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐǁĂůůƐĂŶĚƐŚĂĚĞƚŚĞŐƌŽƵŶĚ͘
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞĚĞĞƉƐĞƚĨƌŽŶƚĂŶĚďĂĐŬƉŽƌĐŚĞƐ ;ǁŚŝĐŚĂƉƉĞĂƌƉƌĞĚŽŵŝŶĂŶƚůLJĞĂƐƚͬǁĞƐƚĨĂĐŝŶŐ
ďĂƐĞĚŽŶƚŚĞůŽƚŽƌŝĞŶƚĂƟŽŶͿ to also keep the sun Žī ďƵŝůĚŝŶŐǁĂůůƐ͘
>ĂƐƚůLJ͕ĂƐŽĨƚŚŝƐǁƌŝƟŶŐ͕Dƌ͘&ŽdžŚĂƐŵĂĚĞĂďƐŽůƵƚĞůLJŶŽĞīŽƌƚƚŽǁŽƌŬǁŝƚŚĂŶLJŽĨƚŚĞ
ŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐĂŶĚĂĚĚƌĞƐƐƚŚĞĐŽŶĐĞƌŶƐůŝƐƚĞĚĂďŽǀĞ͕ǁŚŝĐŚŚĞŚĂƐŚĞĂƌĚŝŶƉĞƌƐŽŶĂƚthe only 2
ŵĞĞƟŶŐƐŚĞĐĂůůĞĚƚŽƉƌĞƐĞŶƚƚŚŝƐƉůĂŶƚŽƚŚĞƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJŽǁŶĞƌƐ ďĞĨŽƌĞŚĂǀŝŶŐŝƚ
ĂƉƉĞĂƌďĞĨŽƌĞƚŚĞ^DsW.
ƚƚŚĞƐĞĐŽŶĚŵĞĞƟŶŐ͕ĂŵŽŶƚŚlater͕ƚŚĞƉůĂŶŚĂĚŶŽƚĐŚĂŶŐĞĚĂŶĚƚŚĞƌĞǁĞƌĞƐĞǀĞƌĂů
ŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐǁŚŽĐŽŶĮƌŵĞĚƚŚĞLJĚŝĚŶŽƚƌĞĐĞŝǀĞĂƐĞĐŽŶĚŵĞĞƟŶŐŶŽƟĐĞůĞƩĞƌ ŝŶƟŵĞƚŽĂƩĞŶĚ.
,ĞƚŽůĚƚŚĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐǁŚŽǁĞƌĞĂďůĞƚŽĂƩĞŶĚ ƚŚĂƚŚĞǁŽƵůĚŐŽďĂĐŬĂŶĚƐĞĞǁŚĂƚŚĞĐŽƵůĚĚŽ
ƚŽŝŶĐŽƌƉŽƌĂƚĞthese ĐŽŶĐĞƌŶƐďĞĨŽƌĞƚŚĞ:ƵůLJϵ^DsWŵĞĞƟŶŐ͕ďƵƚŶŽƐƵĐŚŵĞĞƟŶŐŚĂƐďĞĞŶ
ĐĂůůĞĚ͘
He has not listened to͕ŵƵĐŚůĞƐƐĂĐƚĞĚŽŶ͕ ĂŶLJŽĨƚŚĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌ͛Ɛ ĐŽŶĐĞƌŶƐ. His development
ƉůĂŶŝƐĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞůLJŝŶĐŽŵƉĂƟďůĞĂŶĚŝŶƐĞŶƐŝƟǀĞƚŽƚŚĞƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐ. dŚŝƐĂƉƉůŝĐĂƟŽŶ
ƐŚŽƵůĚŶŽƚŵŽǀĞĨŽƌǁĂƌĚ͘
ZĞƐƉĞĐƞƵůůLJ,
Dawn Smith
7816 S 20th Ln
Phoenix, Az 85041
7/8/24, 2:31 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
Oppose the Zoning Change Filed by John Fox - Case # Z-58-24-8
Fy M
Thu 7/4/2024 4:57 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers
1 attachments (19 KB)
Oppose Zoning Change,-case # Z-58-24-8.docx;
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Good morning Samuel Rogers,
Please see attached for the opposition letter.
I, Funyung£Mon, the resident and homeowner at 8115 S 21st Drive, Phoenix, AZ
85041. I missed the past two meetings because the meeting notice was mailed out
very£late. When I received the notice, the meeting date was already£past.
Respectfully,
Funyung£Mon,
8115 S 21st Dr, Phoenix, AZ 85041
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAALQIdTpXuJIiYkKB6uKHaU…
1/1
07-04-24
My name is Funyung Mon and I live at 8115 S 21st Dr, Phoenix, AZ 85041 for more than 15
years. I am writing in opposition to the application for development and rezoning case number
Z-58-24-8 submitted by John Fox, which proposes to rezone 4.5 acres of currently S-1 property
to the maximum density allowed for R-10, which is 4.5 (bonus).
I am opposed to multiple issues with this proposed development.
Density- problems
x This property is bordered on 2 sides (east and south) by established homes on S-1
properties. The north and west sides are bordered by homes on R-10 property at no
more than standard 3.5 density. This development proposes a bonus density of 4.5 (20
homes) in addition to ADUs.
x This density is inconsistent with the surrounding developed land (at traditional
<=3.5) and an inappropriate transition density for all east and southern
neighbors with homes on S-1 property.
x It is not aligned with the Rio Montana Plan which recommends lower densities
towards South Mount Park and gradual density steps between lower and higher
density areas. (Rio Montana Plan, pg. 17)
Density- solutions
x Appropriate density transition between S-1 and R-10 is R-18 or approx. 2 houses per
acre or 2.34 with bonus. Allowing construction but with appropriate accommodations
for the environment and surrounding neighborhoods will still further the city’s housing
goals and provide additional benefits to the surrounding communities as outlined
below.
Traffic- problems
x In relation to inappropriate density, the only entrance/exit is through a 52-home
neighborhood to the north onto Baseline Rd. The neighborhood already suffers severely
from difficult entrance/exit due to the heavy traffic on Baseline while also directly
across from a commercial shopping center entrance/exit, which sees greater traffic than
a neighborhood.
x According to the ITE Trip Generation Report 10 Edition (Maricopa’s Traffic
th
Impact Study Manual references the ITE report as its guideline), a single-family
house generates 10 trips per day on average. That will increase traffic to an
already bottlenecked neighborhood by 200 trips per day on average, not
including traffic potentially generated by ADU residents.
x No southbound exit/entrance can be counted on b/c the land is currently being lived on
for the foreseeable future and waiting to see if that will eventually become an option to
alleviate traffic issues is not good planning.
x Fire and emergency vehicles will be subject to the same traffic congestion potentially
impacting safety, property, and health.
Traffic- solutions
x R-18 density (10 homes) to reduce the overall impact on traffic for the existing
neighborhood.
x Traffic impact study and recommendations stipulated before any approvals for
rezoning/development.
Housing design- problems
x The development proposes an unknown number of 2-story homes, which are not
compatible with the recommendations of the Rio Montana Plan to preserve views to
South Mountain (Rio Montana Plan, pgs. 22-23) and are inconsistent with the vast
majority of the surrounding homes, which are single-story.
x The designers have not incorporated porches, non-street-facing garage entrances or
other signature elements recommended by the Rio Montana Plan in their conceptual
designs.
Housing design- solutions
x Limit construction to single-story (most important).
x Require deep front porches.
x Require some designs to incorporate garages that do not face the street.
x Require more architectural variety and placement/orientation on lots.
Heat island/climate, trees/shade- problems
x The current stipulations list trees on either side of concrete sidewalks to comply with
the current tree and shade master plan, however, allowing up to a 60% housing
footprint on each lot does nothing to mitigate the heat island effect that will be
exacerbated from that much roof area absorbing and radiating heat.
Heat island/climate, trees/shade - solutions
x Require lower density zoning and more open space.
x Require use of available SRP flood irrigation to provide added cooling.
x Require high emissivity and high SRI roofing materials.
x Stipulate the most conservation-forward building practices for housing insulation and
heat island mitigation currently within the city codes and aligned with the city’s 2021
Climate Action Plan. We don’t have time for “business as usual” to curb climate change.
x Require shade trees on the east, south and west sides of all properties to help keep the
sun off the building walls and shade the ground.
x Require deep set front and back porches (which appear predominantly east/west facing
based on the lot orientation) to also keep the sun off building walls.
Lastly, as of this writing, Mr. Fox has made absolutely no effort to work with any of the
neighbors and address the concerns listed above, which he has heard in person at the only 2
meetings he called to present this plan to the surrounding property owners before having it
appear before the SMVPC.
At the second meeting, a month later, the plan had not changed and there were several
neighbors who confirmed they did not receive a second meeting notice letter in time to attend.
He told the neighbors who were able to attend that he would go back and see what he could do
to incorporate these concerns before the July 9 SMVPC meeting, but no such meeting has been
called.
He has not listened to, much less acted on, any of the neighbor’s concerns. His development
plan is completely incompatible and insensitive to the surrounding neighbors. This application
should not move forward.
Respectfully,
Funyung Mon
The homeowner/resident at 8115 S 21st Drive, Phoenix, AZ 85041
Gabriel Betancourt
7823 S. 20th drive
Phoenix. AZ 85041
For: City of Phoenix Planning and Development Department, Samuel Rogers, John Fox
In regard to zoning change application #Z-58-24-8
My name is Gabriel Betancourt, I am the property owner at 7823 S. 20th drive and have been
here since June of 2009. Please accept this letter as testimony of concern against the rezoning
proposal near the Wyndham Square community. The is a small, semiprivate neighborhood that
is only accessible through a private cul-de-sac street. This is one of the main reasons that
attracted me to purchase my home. I know many families in the neighborhood and keep an eye
out for each other. I understand local traffic patterns, events and community attitude towards
our small neighborhood. Approval of the rezoning application will allow entrance to a new
residential development via OUR neighborhood and disrupt our peace of mind tremendously.
We can anticipate two years of construction, an increase in traffic during and after. Deliveries,
school buses, city services, and emergency response time will increase, and the peace/love of
our little neighborhood will decrease. The Wyndham Square community should not carry the
burden and aftermath for a landlocked development project. We should not give up the reason
why we chose to live here and why we stay.
Please feel free to reach me anytime at betancourtfamily@yahoo.com
7/8/24, 2:44 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
Opposition letter for case Z-58-24-8 to be heard at SMVPC meeting July 9
H. Jewel Clark
Sat 7/6/2024 1:42 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
July 5, 2024
To the SMVPC,
My name is Jewel Clark and my husband and I live at 2020 W. South Mountain Ave. I am wriƟng in
opposiƟon to the applicaƟon for development and rezoning case number Z-58-24-8 submiƩed by John
Fox, which proposes to rezone 4.5 acres of currently S-1 property to the maximum density allowed for R-
10, which is 4.5 (bonus).
I am opposed to multiple issues with this proposed development.
£
Density- problems
x This property is bordered on 2 sides (east and south) by established homes on S-1
properties. The north and west sides are bordered by homes on R1-10 properties at no
more than standard 3.5 or less density. This development proposes a bonus density of
4.5 (20 homes) in addition to ADUs.
o This density is inconsistent with the surrounding developed land (at traditional
<=3.5) and an inappropriate transition density for all eastern and southern
neighbors with homes on S-1 property.
o It is not aligned with the Rio Montana Plan which recommends lower densities
towards South Mount Park and gradual density steps between lower and higher
density areas. (Rio Montana Plan, pg. 17)
o Allowing such inappropriate density is unprecedented for all approved single-
family development in the immediate area.
Density- solutions
x Appropriate density transition between S-1 and R1-10 is R1-18 or approx. 2 houses per
acre or 2.34 with bonus. Allowing construction but with appropriate accommodations for
the environment and surrounding neighborhoods will still further the city’s housing goals
and provide additional benefits including mitigating heat and preserving local character
for the surrounding communities.
£
Traffic- problems
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAKtVh%2BlNDTJEmAsoIgM5q…
1/3
7/8/24, 2:44 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
x In relation to inappropriate density, the only entrance/exit is through Wyndham Square,
a 52-home neighborhood to the north onto Baseline Rd. The neighborhood already
suffers severely from difficult entrance/exit due to the heavy traffic on Baseline while also
directly across from a commercial shopping center entrance/exit, which sees greater
traffic than a neighborhood.
o According to the ITE Trip Generation Report 10th Edition (Maricopa’s Traffic Impact
Study Manual [maricopa.gov] references the ITE report as its guideline), a single-
family house generates 10 trips per day on average. That will increase traffic to an
already bottlenecked neighborhood by 200 trips per day on average, not including
traffic potentially generated by ADU residents.
x No southbound exit/entrance can be counted on b/c the land is currently being lived on
for the foreseeable future and waiting to see if that will eventually become an option to
alleviate traffic issues is not good planning and does nothing to alleviate immediate
problems.
x Fire and emergency vehicles will be subject to the same traffic congestion potentially
impacting safety, property, and health.
Traffic- solutions
x R-18 density (10 homes) to reduce the overall impact on traffic for the existing
neighborhood.
x Traffic impact study and recommendations stipulated before any approvals for
rezoning/development.
£
Housing design- problems
x The development proposes an unknown number of 2-story homes, which are not
compatible with the recommendations of the Rio Montana Plan to preserve views to
South Mountain (Rio Montana Plan, pgs. 22-23) and are inconsistent with the majority of
the surrounding homes, which are single-story. All single-family homes approved in the
surrounding area since 2018 have stipulated single-story with the exception of Larkey
Estates, which was originally approved in 2004. That said, all homes along 20th Ave.
adjacent to the proposed project are single story, as are other established developments
such as the nearby Silva Estates and Magdelana Estates.
x The designers have not incorporated porches, non-street-facing garage entrances or
other signature elements recommended by the Rio Montana Plan in their conceptual
designs.
Housing design- solutions
x Limit construction to single-story (most important).
x Require deep front and back porches.
x Require some designs to incorporate garages that do not face the street.
x Require more architectural variety and placement/orientation on lots.
£
Heat island/climate, trees/shade- problems
x The current stipulations list trees on either side of concrete sidewalks to comply with the
current tree and shade master plan, however, allowing up to a 60% housing footprint on
each lot does nothing to mitigate the heat island effect that will be exacerbated from that
much roof area absorbing and radiating heat.
Heat island/climate, trees/shade - solutions
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAKtVh%2BlNDTJEmAsoIgM5q…
2/3
7/8/24, 2:44 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
x Require lower density zoning and more open space.
x Require use of available SRP flood irrigation to provide added cooling.
x Require high emissivity [en.wikipedia.org] and high SRI roofing materials.
x Stipulate the most conservation-forward building practices for housing insulation and
heat island mitigation currently within the city codes and aligned with the city’s 2021
Climate Action Plan. We don’t have time for “business as usual” to curb climate change.
x Require shade trees on the east, south and west sides of all properties to help keep the
sun off the building walls and shade the ground.
x Require deep set front and back porches (which appear predominantly east/west facing
based on the lot orientation) to also keep the sun off building walls.
£
This proposal has apparently been planned since last year since the elevations are dated
September 2023 and the first plan review was scheduled for November 2023. Yet Mr. Fox sent
out the first meeting notice, with less than the 10 days required lead time, to the neighbors for
May 18, 2024. As of this writing, Mr. Fox has made absolutely no effort to work with any of the
neighbors and address the concerns listed above, which he has heard in person at the only 2
meetings he called to present this plan to the surrounding property owners before having it
appear before the SMVPC.
£
At the second neighborhood meeting on June 15, the plan had not changed and there were
several neighbors who later confirmed they did not receive a second meeting notice letter in
time to attend. His colleague told the neighbors who were able to attend that he would go back
and see what he could do to incorporate these concerns before the July 9 SMVPC meeting, but
no such meeting has been called.
£
He has not listened to, much less acted on, any of the neighbor’s concerns. His development
plan is completely incompatible and insensitive to the surrounding neighbors. This application
should not move forward.
£
Respectfully,
Jewel Clark
£
2020 W. South Mountain Ave.
Phoenix, AZ 85041
£
£
--£
£ H. Jewel Clark
££hjewelclark@fastmail.com
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAKtVh%2BlNDTJEmAsoIgM5q…
3/3
07-04-24
My name is Lucille Heine and I live at 2115 W. Harwell Rd Phoenix, AZ 85041. I am writing in
opposition to the application for development and rezoning case number Z-58-24-8 submitted
by John Fox, which proposes to rezone 4.5 acres of currently S-1 property to the maximum
density allowed for R-10, which is 4.5 (bonus).
I am opposed to multiple issues with this proposed development.
Density- problems
● This property is bordered on 2 sides (east and south) by established homes on S-1
properties. The north and west sides are bordered by homes on R-10 property at no
more than standard 3.5 density. This development proposes a bonus density of 4.5 (20
homes) in addition to ADUs.
o This density is inconsistent with the surrounding developed land (at traditional
<=3.5) and an inappropriate transition density for all east and southern
neighbors with homes on S-1 property.
o It is not aligned with the Rio Montana Plan which recommends lower densities
towards South Mount Park and gradual density steps between lower and higher
density areas. (Rio Montana Plan, pg. 17)
Density- solutions
● Appropriate density transition between S-1 and R-10 is R-18 or approx. 2 houses per
acre or 2.34 with bonus. Allowing construction but with appropriate accommodations
for the environment and surrounding neighborhoods will still further the city’s housing
goals and provide additional benefits to the surrounding communities as outlined below.
Traffic- problems
● In relation to inappropriate density, the only entrance/exit is through a 52-home
neighborhood to the north onto Baseline Rd. The neighborhood already suffers severely
from difficult entrance/exit due to the heavy traffic on Baseline while also directly across
from a commercial shopping center entrance/exit, which sees greater traffic than a
neighborhood.
o According to the ITE Trip Generation Report 10th Edition (Maricopa’s Traffic
Impact Study Manual references the ITE report as its guideline), a single-family
house generates 10 trips per day on average. That will increase traffic to an
already bottlenecked neighborhood by 200 trips per day on average, not
including traffic potentially generated by ADU residents.
● No southbound exit/entrance can be counted on b/c the land is currently being lived on
for the foreseeable future and waiting to see if that will eventually become an option to
alleviate traffic issues is not good planning.
● Fire and emergency vehicles will be subject to the same traffic congestion potentially
impacting safety, property, and health.
Traffic- solutions
● R-18 density (10 homes) to reduce the overall impact on traffic for the existing
neighborhood.
● Traffic impact study and recommendations stipulated before any approvals for
rezoning/development.
Housing design- problems
● The development proposes an unknown number of 2-story homes, which are not
compatible with the recommendations of the Rio Montana Plan to preserve views to
South Mountain (Rio Montana Plan, pgs. 22-23) and are inconsistent with the vast
majority of the surrounding homes, which are single-story.
● The designers have not incorporated porches, non-street-facing garage entrances or
other signature elements recommended by the Rio Montana Plan in their conceptual
designs.
Housing design- solutions
● Limit construction to single-story (most important).
● Require deep front porches.
● Require some designs to incorporate garages that do not face the street.
● Require more architectural variety and placement/orientation on lots.
Heat island/climate, trees/shade- problems
● The current stipulations list trees on either side of concrete sidewalks to comply with the
current tree and shade master plan, however, allowing up to a 60% housing footprint on
each lot does nothing to mitigate the heat island effect that will be exacerbated from
that much roof area absorbing and radiating heat.
Heat island/climate, trees/shade - solutions
● Require lower density zoning and more open space.
● Require use of available SRP flood irrigation to provide added cooling.
● Require high emissivity and high SRI roofing materials.
● Stipulate the most conservation-forward building practices for housing insulation and
heat island mitigation currently within the city codes and aligned with the city’s 2021
Climate Action Plan. We don’t have time for “business as usual” to curb climate change.
● Require shade trees on the east, south and west sides of all properties to help keep the
sun off the building walls and shade the ground.
● Require deep set front and back porches (which appear predominantly east/west facing
based on the lot orientation) to also keep the sun off building walls.
Lastly, as of this writing, Mr. Fox has made absolutely no effort to work with any of the
neighbors and address the concerns listed above, which he has heard in person at the only 2
meetings he called to present this plan to the surrounding property owners before having it
appear before the SMVPC.
At the second meeting, a month later, the plan had not changed and there were several
neighbors who confirmed they did not receive a second meeting notice letter in time to attend.
He told the neighbors who were able to attend that he would go back and see what he could do
to incorporate these concerns before the July 9 SMVPC meeting, but no such meeting has been
called.
He has not listened to, much less acted on, any of the neighbor’s concerns. His development
plan is completely incompatible and insensitive to the surrounding neighbors. This application
should not move forward.
Respectfully,
Lucille Heine
2115 W. Harwell Rd
Phoenix, AZ 85041
7/8/24, 2:41 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
Z-58-24
Jai Goudeau
Sat 7/6/2024 12:20 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers
1 attachments (739 KB)
Petition of opposition.pdf;
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAPhQ2h56IUlCn4%2Fe%2Fa…
1/1
7/8/24, 2:52 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
Letter of opposition to zoning case Z-58-24-8
ameliagoudeau@gmail.com
Mon 7/8/2024 10:45 AM
To:Samuel S Rogers
1 attachments (149 KB)
Opposition letter- Z-58-24-8.pdf;
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Mr. Samuel Rogers,
Please find the attached letter of opposition for zoning case number Z-58-24-8.
~Amelia Goudeau~
# 602-460-5545
The mind is everything, what you think you become!
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQABRHQsTBfUvcvV1sa0utpU4…
1/1
July 8, 2024
My name is Amelia Goudeau and I live at 2013 W. Harwell Rd Phoenix, Az 85041. I am wri ng in
opposi on to the applica on for development and rezoning case number Z-58-24-8 submi ed
by John Fox, which proposes to rezone 4.5 acres of currently S-1 property to the maximum
density allowed for R-10, which is 4.5 (bonus).
I am opposed to mul ple issues with this proposed development.
Density- problems
x This property is bordered on 2 sides (east and south) by established homes on S-1
proper es. The north and west sides are bordered by homes on R-10 property at no
more than standard 3.5 density. This development proposes a bonus density of 4.5 (20
homes) in addi on to ADUs.
o This density is inconsistent with the surrounding developed land (at tradi onal
<=3.5) and an inappropriate transi on density for all east and southern neighbors
with homes on S-1 property.
o It is not aligned with the Rio Montana Plan which recommends lower densi es
towards South Mount Park and gradual density steps between lower and higher
density areas. (Rio Montana Plan, pg. 17)
Density- solu ons
x Appropriate density transi on between S-1 and R-10 is R-18 or approx. 2 houses per
acre or 2.34 with bonus. Allowing construc on but with appropriate accommoda ons
for the environment and surrounding neighborhoods will s ll further the city’s housing
goals and provide addi onal benefits to the surrounding communi es as outlined below.
Traffic- problems
x In rela on to inappropriate density, the only entrance/exit is through a 52-home
neighborhood to the north onto Baseline Rd. The neighborhood already suffers severely
from difficult entrance/exit due to the heavy traffic on Baseline while also directly across
from a commercial shopping center entrance/exit, which sees greater traffic than a
neighborhood.
o According to the ITE Trip Genera on Report 10th Edi on (Maricopa’s Traffic
Impact Study Manual references the ITE report as its guideline), a single-family
house generates 10 trips per day on average. That will increase traffic to an
already bo lenecked neighborhood by 200 trips per day on average, not
including traffic poten ally generated by ADU residents.
x No southbound exit/entrance can be counted on b/c the land is currently being lived on
for the foreseeable future and wai ng to see if that will eventually become an op on to
alleviate traffic issues is not good planning.
x Fire and emergency vehicles will be subject to the same traffic conges on poten ally
impac ng safety, property, and health.
Traffic- solu ons
x R-18 density (10 homes) to reduce the overall impact on traffic for the exis ng
neighborhood.
x Traffic impact study and recommenda ons s pulated before any approvals for
rezoning/development.
Housing design- problems
x The development proposes an unknown number of 2-story homes, which are not
compa ble with the recommenda ons of the Rio Montana Plan to preserve views to
South Mountain (Rio Montana Plan, pgs. 22-23) and are inconsistent with the vast
majority of the surrounding homes, which are single-story.
x The designers have not incorporated porches, non-street-facing garage entrances or
other signature elements recommended by the Rio Montana Plan in their conceptual
designs.
Housing design- solu ons
x Limit construc on to single-story (most important).
x Require deep front porches.
x Require some designs to incorporate garages that do not face the street.
x Require more architectural variety and placement/orienta on on lots.
Heat island/climate, trees/shade- problems
x The current s pula ons list trees on either side of concrete sidewalks to comply with the
current tree and shade master plan, however, allowing up to a 60% housing footprint on
each lot does nothing to mi gate the heat island effect that will be exacerbated from
that much roof area absorbing and radia ng heat.
Heat island/climate, trees/shade - solu ons
x Require lower density zoning and more open space.
x Require use of available SRP flood irriga on to provide added cooling.
x Require high emissivity and high SRI roofing materials.
x S pulate the most conserva on-forward building prac ces for housing insula on and
heat island mi ga on currently within the city codes and aligned with the city’s 2021
Climate Ac on Plan. We don’t have me for “business as usual” to curb climate change.
x Require shade trees on the east, south and west sides of all proper es to help keep the
sun off the building walls and shade the ground.
x Require deep set front and back porches (which appear predominantly east/west facing
based on the lot orienta on) to also keep the sun off building walls.
Lastly, as of this wri ng, Mr. Fox has made absolutely no effort to work with any of the
neighbors and address the concerns listed above, which he has heard in person at the only 2
mee ngs he called to present this plan to the surrounding property owners before having it
appear before the SMVPC.
At the second mee ng, a month later, the plan had not changed and there were several
neighbors who confirmed they did not receive a second mee ng no ce le er in me to a end.
He told the neighbors who were able to a end that he would go back and see what he could do
to incorporate these concerns before the July 9 SMVPC mee ng, but no such mee ng has been
called.
He has not listened to, much less acted on, any of the neighbor’s concerns. His development
plan is completely incompa ble and insensi ve to the surrounding neighbors. This applica on
should not move forward.
Respec ully,
Amelia Goudeau
2013 W. Harwell Rd Phoenix, Az 85041
7/8/24, 3:29 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
Opposition to Z-58-24-8
Mike Josic
Mon 7/8/2024 1:12 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers
1 attachments (62 KB)
Mike Josic Opposition letter- Z-58-24-8.pdf;
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Dear Mr. Rodgers,
Please add my letter and voice to oppose the proposed development and zoning change for
case number££Z-58-24-8.
Please contact me if you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter.
Thank£you,
Mike Josic
2020 W. South Mountain Ave.
Phoenix, AZ 85041
480-967-6644
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQABT3bnGjhpBEuvww07X2%2…
1/1
MAKAHFHJ
*#*($/ 8*)-);
8)($. $#' *.$) *6)/#+-*+-/8)'$5/HFHF<*4/# *4)/$)5;#*)$7;NKFJG<
(6-$1)"$)*++*.$1*)/*/#++'$1*)*-5'*+()/)-9*)$)".)4(-AKNAHJAN.4($3
8 *#)*7;6#$#+-*+*../*-9*)J
).$/8A+-*'(.
• #$.+-*+-/8$.*--*)H.$.B./).*4/#C8./'$.##*(.*)AG+-*+-1.<#
)*-/#)6./.$.-*--8#*(.*)AGF+-*+-1./)*(*-/#)./)-I
• /$.)*/'$")6$/#/#$* *)/)')6#$#-*(().'*6-).$1./*6-.*4/#
*4)/-&)"-4').$/8./+./6)'*6-)#$"#-).$/8-.<B$* *)/)
');+"<GMC
).$/8A.*'41*).
• ++-*+-$/).$/8/-).$1*)/6)AG)AGF$.AGN*-++-*7<H#*4..+--*-H
.4--*4)$)")$"#*-#**.6$''.1''4-/#-/#$/8=.#*4.$)""*'.)+-*5$$1*)')/.
$)'4$)"($1"1)"#/)+-.-5$)"'*'#-/-/*/#.4--*4)$)"*((4)$1.<
- A+-*'(.
• )-'1*)/*$)++-*+-$/).$/8;/#*)'8)/-)@7$/$./#-*4"#8)#(,4-;KHA#*(
)$"#*-#**/*/#)*-/#*)/*.'$)<#)$"#*-#**'-8.4-..5-'8-*($ 4'/
)/-)@7$/4/*/##58/- *).'$)6#$''.*$-/'8-*..-*(*((-$'
.#*++$)")/-)/-)@7$/;6#$#.."-/-/- /#))$"#*-#**<
*-$)"/*/# -$+)-1*)+*-/GF$1*)B -$*+=.- (+//48
)4'--)./# -+*-/.$/."4$'$)C;.$)"'A($'8#*4.")-/.GF/-$+.+-
8*)5-"<#/6$''$)-./- /*)'-8*3')&)$"#*-#**8HFF/-$+.
+-8*)5-";)*/$)'4$)"/- +*/)1''8")-/8-.$)/.<
• *.*4/#*4)7$/@)/-))*4)/*)@/#')$.4--)/'8$)"'$5*)*-/#
*-.'4/4-)6$1)"/*.$/#/6$''5)/4''8*()*+1*)/*''5$//- $..4.
$.)*/"**+'))$)")*.)*/#$)"/*''5$/$(($/+-*'(.<
• $-)(-")85#$'.6$''.4%//*/#.(/- *)".1*)+*/)1''8$(+1)"./8;
+-*+-/8;)#'/#<
- A.*'41*).
• AGN).$/8BGF#*(.C/*-4/#*5-''$(+/*)/- *-/#7$.1)")$"#*-#**<
• - $(+/./48)-*(()1*)..1+4'/*-)8++-*5'.*--9*)$)"@5'*+()/<
*4.$)".$")A+-*'(.
• #5'*+()/+-*+*..)4)&)*6))4(-*HA./*-8#*(.;6#$#-)*/*(+1'6$/#/#
-*(()1*).*/#$* *)/)')/*+-.-55$6./**4/# *4)/$)B$* *)/)');
+".<HHAHIC)-$)*).$./)/6$/#/#5./(%*-$/8*/#.4--*4)$)"#*(.;6#$#-.$)"'A
./*-8<
• #.$")-.#5)*/$)*-+*-/+*-#.;)*)A./-/A$)""-")/-).*-*/#-.$")/4-
'()/.-*(()8/#$* *)/)')$)/#$-*)+/4'.$").<
*4.$)".$")A.*'41*).
• $($/*)./-41*)/*.$)"'A./*-8B(*./$(+*-/)/C<
• ,4$-+-*)/+*-#.<
• ,4$-.*(.$")./*$)*-+*-/"-"./#/*)*//#./-/<
• ,4$-(*--#$//4-'5-$/8)+'()/@*-$)/1*)*)'*/.<
/$.')@'$(/;/-.@.#A+-*'(.
• #4--)/.1+4'1*).'$.//-.*)$/#-.$**)-/.$6'&./**(+'86$/#/#4--)//-
).#(./-+');#*65-;''*6$)"4+/*LFR#*4.$)"**/+-$)/*)#'*/*.)*/#$)"/*
($1"//##/$.')//#/6$''7-/-*(/#/(4#-**-.*-$)")
-$1)"#/<
/$.')@'$(/;/-.@.#A.*'41*).
• ,4$-'*6-).$/89*)$)")(*-*+).+<
• ,4$-4.*5$''!**$--$"1*)/*+-*5$**'$)"<
• ,4$-#$"#($..$5$/8)#$"# -**)"(/-$'.<
• 1+4'//#(*./*).-51*)A*-6-4$'$)"+-1.*-#*4.$)"$).4'1*))#/$.')
($1"1*)4--)/'86$/#$)/#$/8*.)'$")6$/#/#$/8=.HFHG'$(/1*)')<
*)=/#51(*->4.$)...4.4'?/*4-'$(/#)"<
• ,4$-.#/-.*)/#./;.*4/#)6./.$.*''+-*+-1./*#'+&+/#.4)*/#
4$'$)"6''.).#/#"-*4)<
• ,4$-+./-*)/)&+*-#.B6#$#++-+-*($))/'8./@6./$)".*)/#
'*/*-$)/1*)C/*'.*&+/#.4)*4$'$)"6''.<
#$.+-*+*.'#.++-)/'8)+')).$)'./8-.$)/#'51*).-/+/(-HFHI)
/#-./+')-5$66..#4'*-*5(-HFHI</ -<*7.)/*4//#-./(1)")*1/*/#
)$"#*-.*- 8GN;HFHJ<.*/#$.6-$1)"; -<*7#.(.*'4/'8)**-//*6*-&6$/#)8*/#
)$"#*-.)-../#*)-).'$./*5;6#$###.#-$)+-.*)//#*)'8H(1)".#
''/*+-.)//#$.+')/*/#.4--*4)$)"+-*+-/8*6)-.*-#5$)"$/++-*-/# <
//#.*)(1)";*) 4)GK;/#+')#)*/#)")/#-6-.5-')$"#*-.6#*
*)-(/#8$)*/-$5.*)(1)")*1'3-$)1(/*3)< $.*''"4/*'/#
)$"#*-.6#*6-'/*3)/#/#6*4'"*&).6#/#*4'*/*$)*-+*-//#.
*)-).*-/# 4'8O (1)";4/)*.4#(1)"#.)''<
#.)*/'$./)/*;(4#'../*);)8*/#)$"#*-=.*)-).< $.5'*+()/+')$.*(+'/'8
$)*(+1')$).).$15/*/#.4--*4)$)")$"#*-.<#$.++'$1*).#*4')*/(*5*-6-<
.+04''8;
$& *.$
HFHF<*4/# *4)/$)5;#*)$7;NKFJG
7/8/24, 3:35 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
Z-58-24-8
Ravi Sharma
Mon 7/8/2024 2:57 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers
Cc:Ravi Sharma
1 attachments (20 KB)
Opposition letter- Z-58-24-8 (1).docx;
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Dear Mr. Rogers,
We are attaching a letter to register opposition to the proposed development being discussed
tomorrow in case number Z-58-24-8.££
Regards,
Ravi & Snigdha Sharma
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQADN4YVKsxwJCoCyS87P%2…
1/1
July 8, 2024
Our names are Ravi & Snigdha Sharma and we live at 8012 S 20th Ave. Phoenix, AZ 85041. We
are writing in opposition to the application for development and rezoning case number Z-58-24-
8 submitted by John Fox, which proposes to rezone 4.5 acres of currently S-1 property to the
maximum density allowed for R-10, which is 4.5 (bonus).
We are opposed to multiple issues with this proposed development.
Density - problems
x This property is bordered on 2 sides (east and south) by established homes on S-1
properties. The north and west sides are bordered by homes on R-10 properties at no
more than standard 3.5 density. This development proposes a bonus density of 4.5 (20
homes) in addition to ADUs.
o This density is inconsistent with the surrounding developed land (at traditional
<=3.5) and an inappropriate transition density for all east and southern
neighbors with homes on S-1 property.
o It is not aligned with the Rio Montana Plan which recommends lower densities
towards South Mount Park and gradual density steps between lower and higher
density areas. (Rio Montana Plan, pg. 17)
Density - solutions
x Appropriate density transition between S-1 and R-10 is R-18 or approx. 2 houses per
acre or 2.34 with bonus. Allowing construction but with appropriate accommodations
for the environment and surrounding neighborhoods will still further the city’s housing
goals and provide additional benefits including mitigating heat and preserving local
character to the surrounding communities.
Traffic- problems
x In relation to inappropriate density, the only entrance/exit is through Wyndham Square,
a 52-home neighborhood to the north onto Baseline Rd. The neighborhood already
suffers severely from difficult entrance/exit due to the heavy traffic on Baseline while
also directly across from a commercial shopping center entrance/exit, which sees
greater traffic than a neighborhood.
o According to the ITE Trip Generation Report 10th Edition (Maricopa’s Traffic
Impact Study Manual references the ITE report as its guideline), a single-family
house generates 10 trips per day on average. That will increase traffic to an
already bottlenecked neighborhood by 200 trips per day on average, not
including traffic potentially generated by ADU residents.
x No southbound exit/entrance can be counted on b/c the land is currently being lived on
for the foreseeable future and waiting to see if that will eventually become an option to
alleviate traffic issues is not good planning and does nothing to alleviate immediate
problems.
x Fire and emergency vehicles will be subject to the same traffic congestion potentially
impacting safety, property, and health.
Traffic - solutions
x R-18 density (10 homes) to reduce the overall impact on traffic for the existing
neighborhood.
x Traffic impact study and recommendations stipulated before any approvals for
rezoning/development.
Housing design - problems
x The development proposes an unknown number of 2-story homes, which are not
compatible with the recommendations of the Rio Montana Plan to preserve views to
South Mountain (Rio Montana Plan, pgs. 22-23) and are inconsistent with the vast
majority of the surrounding homes, which are single-story.
x The designers have not incorporated porches, non-street-facing garage entrances or
other signature elements recommended by the Rio Montana Plan in their conceptual
designs.
Housing design - solutions
x Limit construction to single-story (most important).
x Require deep front porches.
x Require some designs to incorporate garages that do not face the street.
x Require more architectural variety and placement/orientation on lots.
Heat island/climate, trees/shade - problems
x The current stipulations list trees on either side of concrete sidewalks to comply with the
current tree and shade master plan, however, allowing up to a 60% housing footprint on
each lot does nothing to mitigate the heat island effect that will be exacerbated from
that much roof area absorbing and radiating heat.
Heat island/climate, trees/shade - solutions
x Require lower density zoning and more open space.
x Require use of available SRP flood irrigation to provide added cooling.
x Require high emissivity and high SRI roofing materials.
x Stipulate the most conservation-forward building practices for housing insulation and
heat island mitigation currently within the city codes and aligned with the city’s 2021
Climate Action Plan. We don’t have time for “business as usual” to curb climate change.
x Require shade trees on the east, south and west sides of all properties to help keep the
sun off the building walls and shade the ground.
x Require deep set front and back porches (which appear predominantly east/west facing
based on the lot orientation) to also keep the sun off building walls.
This proposal has apparently been planned since last year since the elevations are dated
September 2023 and the first plan review was scheduled for November 2023. Yet Mr. Fox sent
out the first meeting notice to the neighbors for May 18, 2024. As of this writing, Mr. Fox has
made absolutely no effort to work with any of the neighbors and address the concerns listed
above, which he has heard in person at the only 2 meetings he called to present this plan to the
surrounding property owners before having it appear before the SMVPC.
At the second meeting, on June 15, the plan had not changed and there were several neighbors
who confirmed they did not receive a second meeting notice letter in time to attend. His
colleague told the neighbors who were able to attend that he would go back and see what he
could do to incorporate these concerns before the July 9 SMVPC meeting, but no such meeting
has been called.
He has not listened to, much less acted on, any of the neighbor’s concerns. His development
plan is completely incompatible and insensitive to the surrounding neighbors. This application
should not move forward.
Respectfully,
Ravi & Snigdha Sharma
8012 S 20th Ave.
Phoenix, AZ, 85041
07-09-2024
My name is Stephanie Bell and I live at 8020 s. 20th Ave Phoenix, AZ 85041͘/ĂŵǁƌŝƟŶŐŝŶ
ŽƉƉŽƐŝƟŽŶƚŽƚŚĞĂƉƉůŝĐĂƟŽŶĨŽƌĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĂŶĚƌĞnjŽŶŝŶŐĐĂƐĞŶƵŵďĞƌZ-58-24-8 ƐƵďŵŝƩĞĚ
ďLJ:ŽŚŶ&Ždž͕ǁŚŝĐŚƉƌŽƉŽƐĞƐƚŽƌĞnjŽŶĞϰ͘ϱĂĐƌĞƐŽĨĐƵƌƌĞŶƚly S-ϭƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJƚŽƚŚĞŵĂdžŝŵƵŵ
ĚĞŶƐŝƚLJĂůůŽǁĞĚĨŽƌZ-10͕ǁŚŝĐŚŝƐϰ͘ϱ;ďŽŶƵƐͿ.
I am opposed to ŵƵůƟƉůĞŝƐƐƵĞƐǁŝƚŚƚŚŝƐproposed development.
Density- problems
x dŚŝƐƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJŝƐďŽƌĚĞƌĞĚŽŶϮƐŝĚĞƐ;ĞĂƐƚĂŶĚƐŽƵƚŚͿďLJĞƐƚĂďůŝƐŚĞĚŚŽŵĞƐŽŶ^-1
ƉƌŽƉĞƌƟĞƐ͘dŚĞŶŽƌƚŚĂŶĚǁĞƐƚƐŝĚĞƐĂƌĞďŽƌĚĞƌĞĚďLJŚŽŵĞƐŽŶZ-ϭϬƉƌŽƉĞƌƟes at no
more than standard 3.5 density. dŚŝƐĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƉƌŽƉŽƐĞƐĂďŽŶƵƐĚĞŶƐŝƚLJŽĨϰ͘ϱ;ϮϬ
ŚŽŵĞƐͿŝŶĂĚĚŝƟŽŶƚŽhƐ͘
o dŚŝƐĚĞŶƐŝƚLJŝƐŝŶĐŽŶƐŝƐƚĞŶƚǁŝƚŚ ƚŚĞƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐĚĞǀĞůŽƉĞĚůĂŶĚ;ĂƚƚƌĂĚŝƟŽŶĂů
фсϯ͘ϱͿĂŶĚĂŶŝŶĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞƚƌĂŶƐŝƟŽŶĚĞŶƐŝƚLJĨŽƌĂůůĞĂƐƚĂŶĚƐŽƵƚŚĞƌŶŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐ
with homes on S-1 property.
o /ƚŝƐŶŽƚĂůŝŐŶĞĚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞZŝŽDŽŶƚĂŶĂWůĂŶ ǁŚŝĐŚƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚƐůŽǁĞƌĚĞŶƐŝƟĞƐ
ƚŽǁĂƌĚƐ^ŽƵƚŚDŽƵŶƚWĂƌŬĂŶĚŐƌĂĚƵĂůĚĞŶƐŝƚLJƐƚĞƉƐďĞƚǁĞĞŶůŽǁĞƌĂŶĚŚŝŐŚĞƌ
ĚĞŶƐŝƚLJĂƌĞĂƐ͘;ZŝŽDŽŶƚĂŶĂWůĂŶ͕ƉŐ͘ ϭϳͿ
Density- ƐŽůƵƟŽŶƐ
x Appropriate density trĂŶƐŝƟŽŶďĞƚǁĞĞŶ^-ϭĂŶĚZ-ϭϬŝƐZ-ϭϴŽƌĂƉƉƌŽdž͘ϮŚŽƵƐĞƐƉĞƌ
ĂĐƌĞŽƌϮ͘ϯϰǁŝƚŚďŽŶƵƐ͘ ůůŽǁŝŶŐĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶďƵƚǁŝƚŚappropriate ĂĐĐŽŵŵŽĚĂƟŽŶƐ
ĨŽƌƚŚĞĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂŶĚƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚƐǁŝůůƐƟůůĨƵƌƚŚĞƌƚŚĞĐŝƚLJ͛ƐŚŽƵƐŝŶŐ
ŐŽĂůƐ ĂŶĚƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĂĚĚŝƟŽŶĂůďĞŶĞĮƚƐ ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐ ŵŝƟŐĂƟŶŐŚĞĂƚĂŶĚƉƌĞƐĞƌǀŝŶŐůŽĐĂů
ĐŚĂƌĂĐƚĞƌ ƚŽƚŚĞƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƟĞƐ.
dƌĂĸĐ- problems
x /ŶƌĞůĂƟŽŶƚŽŝŶĂƉƉƌŽƉƌŝĂƚĞĚĞŶƐŝƚLJ͕ƚŚĞŽŶůLJĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞͬexit ŝƐƚŚƌŽƵŐŚ tLJŶĚŚĂŵ^ƋƵĂƌĞ͕
a 52-ŚŽŵĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚƚŽƚŚĞŶŽƌƚŚŽŶƚŽĂƐĞůŝŶĞZĚ͘dŚĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚĂůƌĞĂĚLJ
ƐƵīĞƌƐƐĞǀĞƌĞůLJĨƌŽŵĚŝĸĐƵůƚĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞͬĞdžŝƚĚƵĞƚŽƚŚĞheavy ƚƌĂĸĐŽŶĂƐĞůŝŶĞ while
ĂůƐŽĚŝƌĞĐƚůLJĂĐƌŽƐƐĨƌŽŵĂĐŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂůƐŚŽƉƉŝŶŐĐĞŶƚĞƌĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞͬĞdžŝƚ͕ǁŚŝĐŚƐĞĞƐ
ŐƌĞĂƚĞƌƚƌĂĸĐƚŚĂŶĂŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚ.
o ĐĐŽƌĚŝŶŐƚŽƚŚĞ/ddƌŝƉ'ĞŶĞƌĂƟŽŶZĞƉŽƌƚϭϬth ĚŝƟŽŶ;DĂƌŝĐŽƉĂ͛ƐdƌĂĸĐ
/ŵƉĂĐƚ^ƚƵĚLJDĂŶƵĂů ƌĞĨĞƌĞŶĐĞƐƚŚĞ/dƌĞƉort as ŝƚƐŐƵŝĚĞůŝŶĞͿ͕ĂƐŝŶŐůĞ-ĨĂŵŝůLJ
ŚŽƵƐĞŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞƐϭϬƚƌŝƉƐƉĞƌĚĂLJŽŶĂǀĞƌĂŐĞ͘dŚĂƚǁŝůůŝŶĐƌĞĂƐĞƚƌĂĸĐƚŽĂŶ
ĂůƌĞĂĚLJďŽƩůĞŶĞĐŬĞĚŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚďLJϮϬϬtrips per ĚĂLJŽŶĂǀĞƌĂŐĞ͕ŶŽƚ
ŝŶĐůƵĚŝŶŐƚƌĂĸĐƉŽƚĞŶƟĂůůLJŐĞŶĞƌĂƚĞĚďLJhƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐ͘
x EŽƐŽƵƚŚďŽƵŶĚĞdžŝƚͬĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞĐĂŶďĞĐŽƵŶƚĞĚŽŶďͬĐƚŚĞůĂŶĚŝƐĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůLJďĞŝŶŐůŝǀĞĚŽŶ
ĨŽƌƚŚĞĨŽƌĞƐĞĞĂďůĞĨƵƚƵƌĞĂŶĚǁĂŝƟŶŐƚŽƐĞĞŝĨƚŚĂƚǁŝůůĞǀĞŶƚƵĂůůLJďĞĐŽŵĞĂŶŽƉƟŽŶƚŽ
ĂůůĞǀŝĂƚĞƚƌĂĸĐŝƐƐƵĞƐŝƐŶŽƚŐŽŽĚƉůĂŶŶŝŶŐ ĂŶĚĚŽĞƐŶŽƚŚŝŶŐƚŽĂůůĞǀŝĂƚĞŝŵŵĞĚŝĂƚĞ
prŽďůĞŵƐ.
x &ŝƌĞĂŶĚĞŵĞƌŐĞŶĐLJǀĞŚŝĐůĞƐǁŝůůďĞƐƵďũĞĐƚƚŽƚŚĞƐĂŵĞƚƌĂĸĐĐŽŶŐĞƐƟŽŶ ƉŽƚĞŶƟĂůůLJ
ŝŵƉĂĐƟŶŐƐĂĨĞƚLJ, property, and health.
dƌĂĸĐ- ƐŽůƵƟŽŶƐ
x Z-18 density ;ϭϬŚŽŵĞƐͿƚŽƌĞĚƵĐĞƚŚĞŽǀĞƌĂůůŝŵƉĂĐƚŽŶƚƌĂĸĐĨŽƌƚŚĞĞdžŝƐƟŶŐ
ŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚ͘
x dƌĂĸĐŝŵƉĂĐƚƐƚƵĚLJĂŶĚƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĂƟŽŶƐƐƟƉƵůĂƚĞĚ ďĞĨŽƌĞĂŶLJĂƉƉƌŽǀĂůƐĨŽƌ
ƌĞnjŽŶŝŶŐͬĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͘
Housing design- problems
x The development proposes ĂŶƵŶŬŶŽǁŶŶƵŵďĞƌŽĨ2-ƐƚŽƌLJŚŽŵĞƐ͕ǁŚŝĐŚĂƌĞŶŽƚ
ĐŽŵƉĂƟďůĞǁŝƚŚƚŚĞƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĂƟŽŶƐŽĨƚŚĞZŝŽDŽŶƚĂŶĂPlan to preserve views to
^ŽƵƚŚDŽƵŶƚĂŝŶ;ZŝŽDŽŶƚĂŶĂWůĂŶ͕ƉŐƐ͘ 22-ϮϯͿĂŶĚĂƌĞŝŶĐŽŶƐŝƐƚĞŶƚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞǀĂƐƚ
ŵĂũŽƌŝƚLJŽĨƚŚĞƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐhomes͕ǁŚŝĐŚĂƌĞƐŝŶŐůĞ-story.
x dŚĞĚĞƐŝŐŶĞƌƐŚĂǀĞŶŽƚŝŶĐŽƌƉŽƌĂƚĞĚƉŽƌĐŚĞƐ͕ŶŽŶ-street-ĨĂĐŝŶŐŐĂƌĂŐĞĞŶƚƌĂŶĐĞƐŽƌ
other ƐŝŐŶĂƚƵƌĞĞůĞŵĞŶƚƐƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĞĚďLJƚŚĞZŝŽDŽŶƚĂŶĂWůĂŶŝŶƚŚĞŝƌĐŽŶĐĞƉƚƵĂů
ĚĞƐŝŐŶƐ͘
Housing design- ƐŽůƵƟŽŶƐ
x >ŝŵŝƚĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶƚŽƐŝŶŐůĞ-ƐƚŽƌLJ;mŽƐƚŝŵƉŽƌƚĂŶƚͿ.
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞĚĞĞƉĨƌŽŶƚƉŽƌĐŚĞƐ͘
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞƐŽŵĞĚĞƐŝŐŶƐƚŽŝŶĐŽƌƉŽƌĂƚĞŐĂƌĂŐĞƐƚŚĂƚĚŽŶŽƚĨĂĐĞƚŚĞstreet.
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞŵŽƌĞĂƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƵƌĂůǀĂƌŝĞƚLJ ĂŶĚƉůĂĐĞŵĞŶƚͬŽƌŝĞŶƚĂƟŽŶŽŶůŽƚƐ͘
Heat islandͬĐůŝŵĂƚĞ͕ƚƌĞĞƐͬƐŚĂĚĞ- problems
x dŚĞĐƵƌƌĞŶƚƐƟƉƵůĂƟŽŶƐůŝƐƚƚƌĞĞƐŽŶĞŝƚŚĞƌƐŝĚĞŽĨĐŽŶĐƌĞƚĞƐŝĚĞǁĂůŬƐƚŽĐŽŵƉůLJǁŝƚŚƚŚĞ
ĐƵƌƌĞŶƚƚƌĞĞĂŶĚƐŚĂĚĞŵĂƐƚĞƌƉůĂŶ͕ŚŽǁĞǀĞƌ͕ĂůůŽǁŝŶŐƵƉƚŽa ϲϬйŚŽƵƐŝŶŐĨŽŽƚƉƌŝŶƚŽŶ
ĞĂĐŚůŽƚĚŽĞƐŶŽƚŚŝŶŐƚŽŵŝƟŐĂƚĞƚŚĞŚĞĂƚŝƐůĂŶĚĞīĞĐƚƚŚĂƚǁŝůůďĞĞdžĂĐĞƌďĂƚĞĚĨƌŽŵ
ƚŚĂƚŵƵĐŚƌŽŽĨĂƌĞĂĂďƐŽƌďŝŶŐĂŶĚƌĂĚŝĂƟŶŐŚĞĂƚ͘
Heat islandͬĐůŝŵĂƚĞ͕ƚƌĞĞƐͬƐŚĂĚĞ - ƐŽůƵƟŽŶƐ
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞůŽǁĞƌĚĞŶƐŝƚLJnjŽŶŝŶŐ ĂŶĚŵŽƌĞŽƉĞŶƐƉĂĐĞ͘
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞƵƐĞŽĨĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞ^ZWŇŽŽĚŝƌƌŝŐĂƟŽŶƚŽƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĂĚĚĞĚĐŽŽůŝŶŐ͘
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞŚŝŐŚemissivity ĂŶĚŚŝŐŚ^Z/ƌŽŽĮŶŐŵĂƚĞƌŝĂůƐ͘
x ^ƟƉƵůĂƚĞƚŚĞŵŽƐƚĐŽŶƐĞƌǀĂƟŽŶ-Ĩorward ďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƉƌĂĐƟĐĞƐĨŽƌŚŽƵƐŝŶŐŝŶƐƵůĂƟŽŶĂŶĚ
ŚĞĂƚŝƐůĂŶĚŵŝƟŐĂƟŽŶĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůLJǁŝƚŚŝŶƚŚĞĐŝƚLJĐŽĚĞƐ ĂŶĚĂůŝŐŶĞĚǁŝƚŚƚŚĞĐŝƚLJ͛Ɛ2021
ůŝŵĂƚĞĐƟŽŶWůĂŶ. tĞĚŽŶ͛ƚŚĂǀĞƟŵĞĨŽƌ͞ďƵƐŝŶĞƐƐĂƐƵƐƵĂů͟ƚŽĐƵƌďĐůŝŵĂƚĞĐŚĂŶŐĞ͘
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞƐŚĂĚĞƚƌĞĞƐŽŶƚŚĞĞĂƐƚ͕ƐŽƵƚŚĂŶĚǁĞƐƚƐŝĚĞƐŽĨĂůůƉƌŽƉĞƌƟĞƐƚŽŚĞůƉŬĞĞƉƚŚĞ
ƐƵŶŽī ƚŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐǁĂůůƐĂŶĚƐŚĂĚĞƚŚĞŐƌŽƵŶĚ͘
x ZĞƋƵŝƌĞĚĞĞƉƐĞƚĨƌŽŶƚĂŶĚďĂĐŬƉŽƌĐŚĞƐ ;ǁŚŝĐŚĂƉƉĞĂƌƉƌĞĚŽŵŝŶĂŶƚůLJĞĂƐƚͬǁĞƐƚĨĂĐŝŶŐ
ďĂƐĞĚŽŶƚŚĞůŽƚŽƌŝĞŶƚĂƟŽŶͿ ƚŽĂůƐŽŬĞĞƉƚŚĞƐƵŶŽī ďƵŝůĚŝŶŐǁĂůls.
dŚŝƐƉƌŽƉŽƐĂůŚĂƐĂƉƉĂƌĞŶƚůLJďĞĞŶƉůĂŶŶĞĚƐŝŶĐĞůĂƐƚLJĞĂƌ ƐŝŶĐĞƚŚĞĞůĞǀĂƟŽŶƐĂƌĞĚĂƚĞĚ
^ĞƉƚĞŵďĞƌϮϬϮϯĂŶĚƚŚĞĮƌƐƚƉůĂŶƌĞǀŝĞǁǁĂƐƐĐŚĞĚƵůĞĚĨŽƌEŽǀĞŵďĞƌϮϬϮϯ͘zĞƚDƌ͘&ŽdžƐĞŶƚ
ŽƵƚƚŚĞĮƌƐƚŵĞĞƟŶŐŶŽƟĐĞƚŽƚŚĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐĨŽƌ May 18, 2024. As ŽĨƚŚŝƐǁƌŝƟŶŐ͕Dƌ͘&ŽdžŚĂƐ
ŵĂĚĞĂďƐŽůƵƚĞůLJŶŽĞīŽƌƚƚŽǁŽƌŬǁŝƚŚĂŶLJŽĨƚŚĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐĂŶĚĂĚĚƌĞƐƐƚŚĞĐŽŶĐĞƌŶƐůŝƐƚĞĚ
ĂďŽǀĞ͕ǁŚŝĐŚŚĞŚĂƐŚĞĂƌĚŝŶƉĞƌƐŽŶĂƚthe only ϮŵĞĞƟŶŐƐŚĞĐĂůůĞĚƚŽƉƌĞƐĞŶƚƚŚŝƐƉůĂŶƚŽƚŚĞ
ƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJŽǁŶĞƌƐ ďĞĨŽƌĞŚĂǀŝŶŐŝƚĂƉƉĞĂƌďĞĨŽƌĞƚŚĞ^DsW.
ƚƚŚĞƐĞĐŽŶĚŵĞĞƟŶŐ͕ŽŶ:ƵŶĞ15͕ƚŚĞƉůĂŶŚĂĚŶŽƚĐŚĂŶŐĞĚĂŶĚƚŚĞƌĞǁĞƌĞƐĞǀĞƌĂůŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐ
ǁŚŽĐŽŶĮƌŵĞĚƚŚĞLJĚŝĚŶŽƚƌĞĐĞŝǀĞĂƐĞĐŽŶĚŵĞĞƟŶŐŶŽƟĐĞůĞƩĞƌ ŝŶƟŵĞƚŽĂƩĞŶĚ. His
ĐŽůůĞĂŐƵĞ ƚŽůĚƚŚĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐǁŚŽǁĞƌĞĂďůĞƚŽ ĂƩĞŶĚ ƚŚĂƚŚĞǁŽƵůĚŐŽďĂĐŬĂŶĚƐĞĞǁŚĂƚŚĞ
ĐŽƵůĚĚŽƚŽŝŶĐŽƌƉŽƌĂƚĞthese ĐŽŶĐĞƌŶƐďĞĨŽƌĞƚŚĞ:ƵůLJϵ^DsWŵĞĞƟŶŐ͕ďƵƚŶŽƐƵĐŚŵĞĞƟŶŐ
ŚĂƐďĞĞŶĐĂůůĞĚ͘
He has not listened to͕ŵƵĐŚůĞƐƐĂĐƚĞĚŽŶ͕ ĂŶLJŽĨƚŚĞŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌ͛Ɛ ĐŽŶĐĞƌŶƐ. His development
plan is ĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞůLJŝŶĐŽŵƉĂƟďůĞĂŶĚŝŶƐĞŶƐŝƟǀĞƚŽƚŚĞƐƵƌƌŽƵŶĚŝŶŐŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌƐ. dŚŝƐĂƉƉůŝĐĂƟŽŶ
ƐŚŽƵůĚŶŽƚŵŽǀĞĨŽƌǁĂƌĚ͘
ZĞƐƉĞĐƞƵůůLJ,
Stephanie Bell
8020 s 20th Ave Phoenix, AZ 85041
7/31/24, 4:48 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
Zoning Case Z-58-24-8
LM
Tue 7/23/2024 8:55 AM
To:Samuel S Rogers
1 attachments (3 MB)
Opposition letter Z58248_LM.pdf;
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Hello,
Please see my attached full letter regarding Zoning Case z-58-24-8
Lynnette Myers
7828 S 20th Lane
Phoenix, AZ 85041
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAAJQQ7eQgLxPoHKjBU%2F…
1/1
July 2024
My name is Lynnette Myers and I live at 7828 S. 20th Lane, Phoenix, AZ 85041-7716 I
am writing in stern opposition to the application for development and rezoning case
number Z-58-24-8 submitted by John Fox, which proposes to rezone 4.5 acres of
currently S-1 property to the maximum density allowed for R-10, which is 4.5 (bonus).
I am absolutely opposed to multiple issues with this proposed development.
Density- problems
• This property is bordered on 2 sides (east and south) by established homes on
S-1 properties. The north and west sides are bordered by homes on R-10
property at no more than standard 3.5 density. This development proposes a
bonus density of 4.5 (20 homes) in addition to ADUs.
o This density is inconsistent with the surrounding developed land (at
traditional <=3.5) and an inappropriate transition density for all east and
southern neighbors with homes on S-1 property.
o It is not aligned with the Rio Montana Plan which recommends lower
densities towards South Mount Park and gradual density steps between
lower and higher density areas. (Rio Montana Plan, pg. 17)
Density- solutions
• Appropriate density transition between S-1 and R-10 is R-18 or approx. 2 houses
per acre or 2.34 with bonus. Allowing construction but with appropriate
accommodations for the environment and surrounding neighborhoods will still
further the city’s housing goals and provide additional benefits to the surrounding
communities as outlined below.
Traffic- problems
• In relation to inappropriate density, the only entrance/exit is through a 52-
home neighborhood to the north onto Baseline Rd. The neighborhood
already suffers severely from difficult entrance/exit due to the heavy traffic on
Baseline while also directly across from a commercial shopping center
entrance/exit, which sees greater traffic than a neighborhood.
o According to the ITE Trip Generation Report 10th Edition (Maricopa’s
Traffic Impact Study Manual references the ITE report as its guideline), a
single-family house generates 10 trips per day on average. That will
increase traffic to an already bottlenecked neighborhood by 200 trips
per day on average, not including traffic potentially generated by
ADU residents.
• No southbound exit/entrance can be counted on b/c the land is currently
being lived on for the foreseeable future and waiting to see if that will
eventually become an option to alleviate traffic issues is not good
planning.
• Fire and emergency vehicles will be subject to the same traffic congestion
potentially impacting safety, property, and health.
Traffic- solutions
• R-18 density (10 homes) to reduce the overall impact on traffic for the existing
neighborhood.
• Traffic impact study and recommendations stipulated before any approvals
for rezoning/development.
Housing design- problems
• The development proposes an unknown number of 2-story homes, which
are not compatible with the recommendations of the Rio Montana Plan to
preserve views to South Mountain (Rio Montana Plan, pgs. 22-23) and are
inconsistent with the vast majority of the surrounding homes, which are single-
story.
• The designers have not incorporated porches, non-street-facing garage
entrances or other signature elements recommended by the Rio Montana
Plan in their conceptual designs.
Housing design- solutions
• Limit construction to single-story (most important).
• Require deep front porches.
• Require some designs to incorporate garages that do not face the street.
• Require more architectural variety and placement/orientation on lots.
Heat island/climate, trees/shade- problems
• The current stipulations list trees on either side of concrete sidewalks to comply
with the current tree and shade master plan, however, allowing up to a 60%
housing footprint on each lot does nothing to mitigate the heat island effect that
will be exacerbated from that much roof area absorbing and radiating heat.
Heat island/climate, trees/shade - solutions
• Require lower density zoning and more open space.
• Require use of available SRP flood irrigation to provide added cooling.
• Require high emissivity and high SRI roofing materials.
• Stipulate the most conservation-forward building practices for housing insulation
and heat island mitigation currently within the city codes and aligned with the
city’s 2021 Climate Action Plan. We don’t have time for “business as usual” to
curb climate change.
• Require shade trees on the east, south and west sides of all properties to help
keep the sun off the building walls and shade the ground.
• Require deep set front and back porches (which appear predominantly east/west
facing based on the lot orientation) to also keep the sun off building walls.
Lastly, as of this writing, Mr. Fox has made absolutely no effort to work with any
of the neighbors and address the concerns listed above, which he has heard in
person at the only 2 meetings he called to present this plan to the surrounding
property owners before having it appear before the SMVPC.
At the second meeting, a month later, the plan had not changed and there were several
neighbors who confirmed they did not receive a second meeting notice letter in time to
attend. He told the neighbors who were able to attend that he would go back and see
what he could do to incorporate these concerns before the July 9 SMVPC meeting, but
no such meeting has been called.
He has not listened to, much less acted on, any of the neighbor’s concerns. His
development plan is completely incompatible and insensitive to the surrounding
neighbors. This application should not in anyway move forward.
ADDITIONAL PERSONAL PERSPECTIVES & CONCERNS
I absolutely have major concern about this matter since my home will be
impacted the most!!!
The existing pasture that is undeveloped land to the south of our subdivision has been
this way since prior to our subdivision was build back in 2003. This pasture was
absolutely influential in my dissension and others to purchase in Wydham Sq in the first
place. We were all looking for a small quite neighborhood where we could live and
actually know our neighbors. My choice in which lot I purchased was 100% influenced
by the undeveloped land and all the good that comes from that and the views that I
enjoy daily to the south mountains.
If the owner of this undeveloped land has sold to a developer to rezone and build they
are entitled within the appropriate guidelines of the Rio Mountain Plan; but they need to
have their own access to that development – NOT THROUGH OUR
NEIGHBORHOOD!! They should have arranged with the seller access off of S 19th Ave
or off W South Mountain Ave. This option of our neighborhood should NOT even be a
possibility!!
This development as is would dramatically change the safety of our neighborhood and
my home! Regardless of random drivers not realizing that the neighborhood has no
outlet we have come together to make things as safe as possible with signs, cameras
and communication to help one another in our neighborhood. I have suffered both a
home burglary and a stolen car – I know these kind of crimes will only increase
dramatically for all of us with the proposed access through our community into another
community behind us.
This MUST NOT HAPPEN!!
I have always pushed for our community to become a gated community and I thing that
matter needs to be on the table again regardless of the rezoning and proposed
development to the south of us. IF somehow this matter moves forward despite our
entire neighborhood that are 100% opposed then I believe it should become mandatory
that our community have entrance gates installed to help keep us all safe!!
Respectfully,
Lynnette Myers
7828 S. 20th Lane, Phoenix, AZ 85041-7716
8/9/24, 10:16 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
(No subject)
Butch Box
Wed 8/7/2024 4:44 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
My name is Constance Box and I live at 7719 S. 20th Dr .
The neighbors have not seen that the developer has made any significant changes to the plans that
would warrant our support of his development. I remain opposed to this development in its current
form.
Constance Box
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQANKfNt9u17tOhfZPaT7invM%3D
1/1
8/9/24, 10:15 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
Opposition to Z-58-24-8
Butch Box
Wed 8/7/2024 4:43 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
My name is Forrest Box and I live at 7719 S 20th Dr.
The neighbors have not seen that the developer has made any significant changes to the plans that
would warrant our support of his development. I remain opposed to this development in its current
form.
Forrest Box
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQALJcnyQtmWBEgXNvl75ZAN…
1/1
8/9/24, 10:10 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
Opposition to Z-58-24-8
Marylou Scadden
Wed 8/7/2024 3:03 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Opposition to Z-58-24-8
My name is MaryLou Scadden and I live at 7807 S 20th Dr, Phoenix AZ 85041.
The neighbors have not seen that the developer has made any significant changes to the plans that
would warrant our support of his development. I remain opposed to this development in its current
form.
Best regards,
MaryLou Scadden
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAEXjDjCEv6dJnOA5bLrvZqQ…
1/1
8/9/24, 10:25 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
Z-58-24-8
Andrew Maifield
Thu 8/8/2024 6:24 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Opposition to rezoning Z-58-24-8.£ £The new house will disproportionately effect the families lyin the
neighboring communities.£ £I would like the city to leave some S1 property in south Phoenix.£ That's
part of the rich and diverse history of our community.£ Thank you.
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android [go.onelink.me]
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAIkAHHy4Z9BMkdbOG0lJUB4…
1/1
8/9/24, 10:23 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
Opposition to Z-58-24-8
Carlo
Thu 8/8/2024 1:58 PM
To:PDD Long Range Planning
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
My name is Carlos Carbajal and I live at 2017 W. Harwell Rd, Phoenix AZ, 85041.
The neighbors have not seen that the developer has made any significant changes to the plans that
would warrant our support of his development. £
I remain opposed to this development in its current form.
Thanks,
Carlos
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAAu%2BldgCrJJBg2tS3SiXuF…
1/1
8/9/24, 10:25 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
Opposition to Z-58-24-8
CESAR TRUJILLO
Thu 8/8/2024 9:37 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
My name is Cesar Trujillo and I live at 7819 S 20th Dr, Phoenix AZ 85041.
The neighbors have not seen that the developer has made any significant changes to the plans that would
warrant our support of his development. I remain opposed to this development in its current form.
Sincerely
Cesar Trujillo
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAIlSCRAwGrpDnU79hJXUD9g…
1/1
8/9/24, 10:24 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
Opposition to Z-58-24-8
D. Fong
Thu 8/8/2024 3:13 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Mr. Samuel Rogers,
My name is David Fong and I live at 2004 W. Harwell Rd. in the Wyndham Square neighborhood.
The neighbors have not seen that the developer has made any significant changes to the plans that would
warrant our support of his development.
I remain opposed to this development in its current form.
Regards,
David Fong
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQADbTp0YtlWZBk%2BHL179D…
1/1
8/9/24, 10:17 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
Opposition to Z-58-24-8
Lori
Thu 8/8/2024 6:32 AM
To:Samuel S Rogers
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
My name is Ernest Coscarelli and I live at 2008 W Harwell Road, Phoenix, AZ 85041.
The neighbors have not seen that the developer has made any significant changes to the plans that would
warrant our support of his development. I remain opposed to this development in its current form.
Thank you.
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQACv24lRVLEMPk6UttQh0pfU…
1/1
8/9/24, 10:23 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
Opposition to Z-58-24-8
Lorraine Gloria
Thu 8/8/2024 2:10 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Our names are Ernie and Lorraine Gloria and we live at 7813 S. 20th Ln., Phoenix, AZ 85041. The
neighbors have not seen that the developer has made any significant changes to the plans that would
warrant our support of this development. We remain opposed to this development in its current form.
Sent from my iPhone
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAP5xc3ywtO1Mgtr%2BZZ%2F…
1/1
8/9/24, 10:21 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
Opposition to Z-58-24-8
Lori
Thu 8/8/2024 6:33 AM
To:Samuel S Rogers
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
My name is Lori Coscarelli and I live at 2008 W Harwell Road, Phoenix, AZ 85041.
The neighbors have not seen that the developer has made any significant changes to the plans that would
warrant our support of his development. I remain opposed to this development in its current form.
Thank you.
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAK1f%2BGK5AkPYj%2BBH%…
1/1
8/9/24, 10:22 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
Opposition to Z-58-24-8
Melissa Sunia
Thu 8/8/2024 1:45 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers
Cc:Michelle Teodoro
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
My name is Melissa Sunia and I live at 2022 West Branham Lane Phoenix, AZ 85041.
The neighbors have not seen that the developer has made any significant changes to the plans that
would warrant our support of his development. I remain opposed to this development in its current
form.
R,
Melissa Sunia
Sent from my iPhone
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAINm45KMt%2B1GsMbNzLA…
1/1
8/9/24, 10:24 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
Opposition to Z-58-24-8
Natividad Tapia
Thu 8/8/2024 5:33 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Hello,
My name is NaƟvidad Tapia and I live at 2015 W Branham Lane Phoenix AZ 85041.
The neighbors have not seen that the developer has made any significant changes to the plans that would
warrant our support of his development. I remain opposed to this development in its current form.
Thank you,
NaƟvidad Tapia
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAECAXhWl%2BNpMhS2J%2F…
1/1
8/13/24, 8:58 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
Opposition to Z-58-24-8
Alicia Sainz
Fri 8/9/2024 8:24 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers
Cc:hjewelclark@fastmail.com
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
To the SMVPC,
My name is Alicia Sainz and I live at 8250 S 20th Ave, Phoenix, AZ 85041. I am writing in
opposition to the proposed development Z-58-24-8.
This broker has not made changes to his plans that the neighbors can support. I remain opposed to
this development in its current form. Development that is compatible with the density allowed in the
Rio Montana Plan and the design elements and goals that govern our area is welcome. This plan is
not it.
The broker has provided no reasons beyond his financial gain to lower the density to a compatible
level or include other meaningful criteria in the Rio Montana Plan.
I respectfully urge you to vote no.
Thank you very much,
Alicia Sainz
623-329-3606
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQADjQz6nJI79GrdD29we2xxI%3D
1/1
8/13/24, 8:59 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
Apposition Z-58-24-8.
Carlos Ruiz
Fri 8/9/2024 8:39 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers
Cc:hjewelclark@fastmail.com
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Hello Samuel,£
My name is Carlos Ruiz £and I live at 8250 S 20th Ave, Phoenix AZ 85041 . I am writing in opposition to
the proposed development Z-58-24-8. This broker has not made changes to his plans that the
neighbors can support.£ I remain opposed to this development in its current form. Development that is
compatible with the density allowed in the Rio Montana Plan and the design elements and goals that
govern our area is welcome. This plan is not it.£
£The broker has provided no reasons beyond his financial gain to lower the density to a compatible
level or include other meaningful criteria in the Rio Montana Plan.£ I respectfully urge you to vote no.
Sincerely,
Carlos Ruiz
623-329-3606
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAKWJv2VG79ROjjGl%2F9%2…
1/1
8/13/24, 8:50 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
Opposition to Z-58-24-8
Christian Griepenstroh
Fri 8/9/2024 11:50 AM
To:Samuel S Rogers
Cc:Jaigoudeau@gmail.com
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Hello Samuel,
My name is Christian Griepenstroh and I live at 7710 S 20th Drive, Phoenix AZ, 85041.
The neighbors have not seen that the developer has made any significant changes to the plans that
would warrant our support of his development. I remain opposed to this development in its current
form.
I am unable to attend next Tuesday's meeting due to a work event so I would like to donate my time to
Michelle and Jai to speak on our behalf on this item.
Have a great weekend,
Christian G.
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAATZ09xZ1R1HhmjSqlzrdj0%3D
1/1
8/9/24, 10:26 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
Opposition to Z-58-24-8
D D
Fri 8/9/2024 6:25 AM
To:Samuel S Rogers
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
8/9/2024,£
Good morning,
My name is Delilah Delgai and I live at 7711 S. 20th Drive Phoenix AZ 85041 .
The neighbors have not seen that the developer has made any significant changes to the plans that
would warrant our support of his development. I remain opposed to this development in its current
form.
Sincerely,
Delilah Delgai
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQALAKmFv6FXVAoDEhWjOYijc…
1/1
8/13/24, 8:54 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
Opposition to Z-58-24-8
Eduardo Camacho
Fri 8/9/2024 3:22 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Hello Samuel,
My name is Eduardo Camacho and I live at 2015 W Branham Lane Phoenix AZ 85041.
The neighbors have not seen that the developer had made any significant changes to the plans that would
warrant our support of his development. I remain opposed to this development in its current form.
Thank you,
Eduardo Camacho
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAP1k%2BRVvcWBFv%2FMpf…
1/1
8/13/24, 8:58 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
OPPOSITION TO Z-58-24-8
LM
Fri 8/9/2024 7:08 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
My name is Lynnette Myers and I live at 7828 S 20th Lane, Phoenix AZ 85041
The neighbors have not seen that the developer has made any significant changes to the plans that
would warrant our support of his development. I remain opposed to this development in its current
form.
L Myers
"Everything you've wanted is on the other side of fear" £–George Addair
Sent from my iPhone
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQANxJOI9QLu1FqzrxyBPY18w…
1/1
8/9/24, 10:26 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
Opposition to Z-58-24-8
S.C
Fri 8/9/2024 6:48 AM
To:Samuel S Rogers
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
8/9/2024,£
Good morning,
£My name is Shangel Castillo and I live at 7711 S. 20th Drive Phoenix AZ 85041 .
The neighbors have not seen that the developer has made any significant changes to the plans that
would warrant our support of his development.£ I remain opposed to this development in its current
form.
Sincerely,££
Shangel Castillo£
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAFwh1Fz6ralKmWNKiqN0ujQ…
1/1
8/13/24, 9:00 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
Opposition to Z-58-24-8
Dawn Smith
Sat 8/10/2024 4:18 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers
Cc:Jaigoudeau@gmail.com
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
£
My name is Dawn Smith, and I live at 7816 S 20th Ln Phoenix AZ 85041.
The neighbors have not seen that the developer has made any significant changes to the plans that
would warrant our support of his development. I remain opposed to this development in its current
form.
Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S20 FE 5G, an AT&T 5G smartphone
Get Outlook for Android [aka.ms]
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAN%2FbO2kkn5dHhDkWkT6i…
1/1
8/13/24, 8:59 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
Opposition to Rezoning Case Z-58-24-8
Michael Jordan
Sat 8/10/2024 6:51 AM
To:Samuel S Rogers
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Dear Members of the Planning and Zoning Department,
I am wri ng to oppose rezoning case Z-58-24-8 due to the serious impact it will have on traffic and access to
Baseline Road. Baseline Road is already heavily congested, and during the day, it’s nearly impossible to make a
le turn, just wai ng for 1 car to gain access to baseline during the busy mes could add up to 10 minutes to
a commute, even if they are taking a right turn. The proposed rezoning will only worsen this issue, making it
even harder for residents to safely and efficiently use this vital road.
In addi on, this rezoning will increase residen al traffic in front of my house by 200 percent, further disrup ng
our community. There have been no significant changes to the rezoning plans to address these concerns. The
added traffic and accessibility challenges are too severe to ignore, and they threaten the quality of life in our
neighborhood.
Please reject this rezoning proposal to protect our neighborhood’s safety, accessibility, and quality of life.
Thank you for your considera on.
Sincerely,
Michael Jordan
7804 s. 20th ln,
Phoenix, AZ , 85041
Michael.d.jordan2@hotmail.com
480-248-5261
10 August 2024
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAOxHZpe7qr5NpfUp3AIap28…
1/1
8/13/24, 9:00 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
Opposition to Z-58-24-8
Ronald Thompson
Sat 8/10/2024 8:37 AM
To:Samuel S Rogers
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
My name is Ronald Thompson and I live at 7728 S 20th Lane, Phoenix, AZ 85041 ( Lot 26 of the
Wyndham Square Association) .
The neighbors have not seen that the developer has made any significant changes to the plans that
would warrant our support of his development. I remain opposed to this development in its current
form.
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQADoapTBpB05Cr0znvtAGCJw…
1/1
8/13/24, 9:01 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
Opposition to Z-58-24-8
Amelia Goudeau
Sun 8/11/2024 4:21 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Hello Samuel,
My name is Amelia Goudeau and I live at 203 W. Harwell Rd Phoenix, Az 85041 .
The neighbors have not seen that the developer has made any significant changes to the plans that
would warrant our support of his development. I remain opposed to this development in its current
form.
Thank you,
~Amelia Goudeau~
£ #602-460-5545
The mind is everything, what you think you will become.
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQANPur4yOteRPu0E2WwhBL5…
1/1
8/13/24, 9:01 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
Opposition to Z-58-24-8
David Key
Sun 8/11/2024 6:15 AM
To:Samuel S Rogers
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
My name is David Key and I live at£2006 W. Branham Lane Phoenix, AZ 85041 [google.com]£in
Wyndham Square. The neighbors have not seen that the developer has made any significant changes
to the plans that would warrant our support of this development. I remain opposed to this
development in its current form.
Thank you for your consideration£in this matter.
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAKNW1hE8IL1ElEfuBxIhAn0%…
1/1
8/13/24, 9:01 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
Rezoning Case No. Z-58-24
Jai Goudeau
Sun 8/11/2024 4:16 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
08/11/2024
Re: Rezoning Case No. Z-58-24
To: Samuel Rogers, City of Phoenix Village Planner
Joshua Bednarek, City of Phoenix Planning and Development Director
South Mountain Village Planning Commi ee
Dear Mr. Bednarek, Commi ee and Department Members,
I am wri ng to express my concerns related to the S-1 to R1-10 rezoning for the proposed development of land
owned by Dorothy M. Hallock for the benefit of John Fox and William Seymour Co, Inc., referenced in the case
number cited above. My family and neighbors are concerned the necessary thresholds for rezoning approval,
and ongoing neighborhood concerns about the proposed development, have not been sa sfactorily addressed
by the developer and exis ng landowner. This proposal is not compa ble with the scale and character of the
neighborhood and adjacent residen al uses. It is also not in keeping with the Rio Montana Area Plan in several
respects. There are unique challenges presented in this area related to exis ng proper es including livestock,
infrastructure, and a history of flooding on this site and adjacent proper es.
In addi on, the proposal does not meet the requirements of R1-10 for lot coverage, rear and side set-back
distances, and minimum common space areas. In fact, they are not even defined for review by the City, the
Village Planning Commission, or the neighborhood stakeholders. We do not agree that this rezoning should be
completed as a Planned Residen al Development case, which allows the pe oner to overcome the
standard zoning requirements without variances. PRDs are typically reserved for larger subdivisions. The
standard zoning requirements, including the lot coverage, rear and side setbacks, and common space area
requirements, are there to protect the community from significant changes in the character of the community.
It appears it will be necessary to not only rezone the Subject site, but to obtain variances from the City for a
number of the required zoning elements in order to develop it as proposed.
The developer has entered into an agreement to purchase the land from Ms. Hallock, con ngent upon the
success of this change in zoning from S-1 to R1-10. The sale will not take place unless the rezoning is completed,
which is a self-imposed condi on created by the property owner. Please note:
x There are no provisions of the S-1 zoning which create a hardship for the current property owner.
x There are no special circumstances or condi ons applying to this land or its current use, which do
not also apply to other proper es in the community.
x The rezoning and what appear to be the need for extensive variances is not necessary for the
preserva on or enjoyment of the owner’s property rights.
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQABusD2n4ZrBFr2LwR8lZ%2F…
1/3
8/13/24, 9:01 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
Our neighbors and family have determined that the approval of this rezoning applica on will be detrimental to
people living and working in the vicinity, to the adjacent property owners, and to the welfare of the public in
general.
Traffic Concerns: The development of the subject site, as proposed, will cause a significant increase in vehicular
traffic in adjacent residen al areas, including on extremely ght and narrow streets which were not originally
designed to accommodate another development. Studies should be undertaken to determine if it is
appropriate to bring the traffic into this proposed development from the north, or from the property owner’s
adjoining lot to the south, where there is a higher capacity and wider city street close to a main arterial (19th
Avenue). This is an op on available to the property owner and developer, and it is possible to design an entry to
the Subject site in this way. We do not know why Ms. Hallock has previously objected to providing an easement
for this purpose, which makes it another self-imposed condi on.
Flooding Concerns: There are unknown impacts this development may cause to the surrounding proper es
including drainage from flooding. The Subject site already has a history of flooding, and the prior flooding has
detrimentally impacted proper es to the north. Further decreasing the ability of the land to accommodate
flooding, or raising it out of the current 500-year floodplain level, will nega vely impact the surrounding
proper es. Because civil engineering drawings and finished floor or street eleva ons are not available for
review, it is impossible to know how much the development will further impact the surrounding proper es.
Many of the neighbors abu ng the Subject site have sep c systems designed to flow toward this property
which could be impacted by diversion of any drainage onto their proper es. As designed, the proposed
development has virtually no open space or common areas, the lot coverage appears to be greater than what is
allowed by R1-10 zoning, and given the history of flooding this is a significant concern to the community. A
hydrology, floodplain and drainage study, as well as civil engineering drawings detailing how the drainage will
be addressed, should be reviewed and evaluated prior to approval of this rezoning proposal, to determine if
rezoning of this site is suitable for the surrounding community.
Infrastructure: There are also infrastructure concerns for this type of higher density infill development related
to water connec on capacity, sewer connec ons and wastewater capacity. It is unknown whether a water and
sewer connec on to the north in a 20+ year old development, designed to meet the needs of the number of
houses there, would accommodate the addi onal homes proposed due to its age and previous design. A
further study and report should be required to determine if addi onal sewer capacity, modifica on of the
current wastewater system, a li sta on and possibly changes to easement distances will be necessary in the
exis ng surrounding neighborhoods in order to meet the latest 2021 wastewater design standards for a new
development. The Planning and Development Department at the City of Phoenix should provide a technical
review to the Village Planning Commission and affected neighborhood stakeholders.
Rio Montana Area Plan: The Subject rezoning proposal conflicts with numerous elements cited in the Rio
Montana Area Plan. It is not in conformance with the vision of the area or what we have seen from other area
developments which encourage pedestrian and equestrian ac vity. It does not achieve a density transi on from
north to south in a decreasing manner, and is in opposi on to the General Plan and Land Use Map for the area
which indicates a maximum density of 3.5. There is no explana on of how the developer intends to reach the
90 “bonus points” needed for density greater than 3.5 du/acre or why the proposed density meets the
requirements of R1-10 zoning. Bonus points are also typically applied in much larger subdivision PRD cases, not
in sites as small as this one, in these types of infill loca ons.
The zoning applica on indicates that the proposal is consistent with the General Plan and Land Use Map, but it
exceeds it. The ability to achieve bonus points and a breakdo100wn of how they are applied to this proposal
should be available for review and considera on by the Village Planning Commi ee and the neighborhood
stakeholders. Many developments in this area have setbacks for horse trails or pedestrian trails. They also
contain perimeter walls with landscape features to prevent one long slab of concrete block facing into
neighboring areas. The Rio Montana Area Plan also encourages variety in lot width, staggered setbacks, rear
loaded garages, roof line and building façade variety and limited privacy fencing – none of which appears to be
included in the proposed development design. In many respects, the designs shown as elements to be avoided
in the Rio Montana plan (Figures 82, 83, 84, 87), are actually included in the plan for the project as designed.
Based on the issues raised above, this rezoning applica on should come in with a full preliminary plat, in
conformance with standard R1-10 zoning and without the many variances which appear to be required to
develop the site.
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQABusD2n4ZrBFr2LwR8lZ%2F…
2/3
8/13/24, 9:01 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
Our family and neighbors are not opposed to residen al development as long as it does not nega vely impact
the community in favor of one property owner. We recognize that a range of housing op ons is necessary to
con nue the economic viability of the community. However, in this case, it appears to present a significant
detrimental impact as designed, and no benefit to the community surrounding the Subject site. It appears this
rezoning will only benefit Ms. Hallock and the broker seeking to rezone the property, which is not in keeping
with the Core Values stated in the City’s General Plan. We urge the South Mountain Village Planning
Commission, the Phoenix Planning and Zoning Department and the City of Phoenix Planning and Development
Director to consider the above concerns, address them if possible, and work with the community stakeholders
to create a development which will meet the needs of the community.
Sincerely,
Jai Goudeau
2013 W. Harwell Road
Phoenix AZ 85041
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQABusD2n4ZrBFr2LwR8lZ%2F…
3/3
8/13/24, 9:04 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
Opposition to Z-58-24-8
chevera trillo
Sun 8/11/2024 6:32 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers
Cc:Ntonyt
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
To the SMVPC,
This communication is to go on record for voicing our strong opposition to the proposed
development Z-58-24-8.
We live at 23rd Ave/Dobbins and continue to be very concerned with over development in the area
that creates unsafe traffic and increased congestion in areas that are not designed for the volume of
additional traffic£this proposed development would create.
The proposed plans, in the current form, are not only bad for the surrounding neighbors, but the
broker has not made changes that can be supported by the neighborhood or listened to the concerns
of the neighborhood.
We stand in opposition with our neighbors in this development's current form.£
As has been the position of ourselves and the neighbors in this area we request SMVPC£support
development that is compatible with the density allowed in the Rio Montana Plan.££
We respectfully encourage you to vote no and support responsible development - this proposed plan
is not responsible.£
Nick & Chevera Torrez
602.315.9774
2311 W. Dobbins Road
Phx¬85041
***
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQACnXfdiUN9BCjW7rbyJZpUE…
1/1
8/13/24, 9:00 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
Opposition to Z-58-24-8
Niki Key
Sun 8/11/2024 6:02 AM
To:Samuel S Rogers
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
My name is Niki Key and I live at 2006 W. Branham Lane Phoenix, AZ 85041 in Wyndham Square.
The neighbors have not seen that the developer has made any significant changes to the plans that
would warrant our support of this development. I remain opposed to this development in its current
form.
Thank you for your consideration£in this matter.
Niki Key
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQADqUkfrgFDRIhmDi1sv0zRA…
1/1
8/13/24, 9:02 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
Proposed Development Z-58-24-8.
Ravi Sharma
Sun 8/11/2024 6:30 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers
Cc:H. Jewel Clark
1 attachments (28 KB)
To the SMVPC -1.doc;
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Dear Mr. Roger,
Attached please find my letter of opposition to Proposed Development Z-58-24-8. Let me know if you
have any questions.
Thank you,
Dr. Ravi Sharma
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQANqSb6JwDhtFgp69nY0p0C8…
1/1
To the SMVPC,
My name is Dr. Ravi Sharma and I live at 8012 S 20th Ave., Phoenix, AZ 85041.
I am writing in opposition to the proposed development Z-58-24-8.
This broker has not made changes to his plans that the neighbors can support. I remain
opposed to this development in its current form. Development that is compatible with
the density allowed in the Rio Montana Plan and the design elements and goals that
govern our area is welcome. This plan is not it.
The broker has provided no reasons beyond his financial gain to lower the density to a
compatible level or include other meaningful criteria in the Rio Montana Plan.
I respectfully urge you to vote no.
Thank you,
Dr. Ravi Sharma
8/13/24, 9:05 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
Proposed Development Z-58-24-8.
Snigdha Sharma
Sun 8/11/2024 6:37 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers
Cc:H. Jewel Clark
1 attachments (27 KB)
To the SMVPC -2.doc;
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Dear Mr. Roger,
Attached please find my letter of opposition to Proposed Development Z-58-24-8. Let me know if you
have any questions.
Thank you,
Mrs. Snigdha Sharma
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAD7NpZ%2BoFglBl5llreE%2F…
1/1
To the SMVPC,
My name is Mrs. Snigdha Sharma and I live at 8012 S 20th Ave., Phoenix, AZ 85041.
I am writing in opposition to the proposed development Z-58-24-8.
This broker has not made changes to his plans that the neighbors can support. I remain
opposed to this development in its current form. Development that is compatible with
the density allowed in the Rio Montana Plan and the design elements and goals that
govern our area is welcome. This plan is not it.
The broker has provided no reasons beyond his financial gain to lower the density to a
compatible level or include other meaningful criteria in the Rio Montana Plan.
I respectfully urge you to vote no.
Thank you,
Mrs Snigdha Sharma
8/13/24, 9:10 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
Opposition to Z-58-24-8
Alexis Mesquita
Mon 8/12/2024 4:31 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
To the SMVPC,
My name is Alexis Mesquita and I live at 8020 s 20th ave Phoenix£ Az, 85041. I am writing in opposition
to the proposed development Z-58-24-8.
This broker has not made changes to his plans that the neighbors can support. I remain opposed to
this development in its current form. Development that is compatible with the density allowed in the
Rio Montana Plan and the design elements and goals that govern our area is welcome. This plan is not
it.
The broker has provided no reasons beyond his financial gain to lower the density to a compatible
level or include other meaningful criteria in the Rio Montana Plan.£
I respectfully urge you to vote no.
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAN5v9FQzqTRCs5q3fxF72N8…
1/1
8/13/24, 9:08 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
Opposition letter for Z-58-24-8
H. Jewel Clark
Mon 8/12/2024 3:00 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
To the SMVPC,
My name is Jewel Clark, and my home is at 2020 W. South Mountain Ave., Phoenix, AZ, 85041. I am
writing in continued opposition to zoning case Z-58-24-8. The broker, Mr. John Fox, has still not
worked with us to create a compatible proposal that the community could support.
The first meeting notice from Mr. Fox was sent to neighbors less than the 10 days required by the city.
Our letter was postmarked June 10 for a June 15 meeting. We received it June 14. The location for the
meeting was a pizza parlor where no one could hear the presentation or see the plans. Mr. Fox did not
have adequate answers for neighbor concerns and was uninterested in any changes to his proposal.
Mr. Fox agreed to another meeting but never made any attempt to have one. Mr. Jai Goudeau,
president of the Wyndham Square neighborhood to the north, made a room reservation at Cesar
Chavez Library and called Mr. Fox to see if he would meet after having not heard from him for over a
week after the first meeting. At that meeting, he still did not have answers to address neighbor
concerns, and he had made no changes to his plans. At the first SMVPC meeting, he again had no
interest in trying to work with the neighbors or alter his plans. After the SMVPC voted for a
continuance with the instructions that he should try to work with the neighbors, he made no effort to
contact any of us to arrange to talk. It was only when concerned members of the SMVPC took time out
of their busy schedules to try and help and arranged a meeting the week before August 13, that he
came to the table with no change in his plan except to modify the widths of the lots slightly, so they
weren’t all the same size and to move the storm basin/retention to a slightly different area. At that
meeting, he said he would prepare a new plan with 2 less houses, which we said was still too high, and
to stagger the lots so the property lines wouldn’t line up with each other across the street. This is not
working with the neighbors. This is not meaningful change. No one in the community has seen what
he plans to present at the August 13 meeting. There is no neighbor we know of that supports even
what little we know of this new plan and no one supported the original one.
The density is not compatible with the surrounding developments, plain and simple. The core goals
and vision for the Rio Montana Plan is to preserve rural character, open space, and promote balanced,
high-quality development with higher densities in the northern portion.
The Rio Montana Site Plan Design emphasizes that a new development should consider the larger
context in which a proposed site is located. The parcel in question is sandwiched between low density
R1-10 homes and acre+ lot homes. Mr. Fox has completely disregarded the context of the area he
wants to rezone for a bonus density of at least 18 homes on 4.54 acres when there is no density
around it greater than 3.23 du/ac and the majority is lower.
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAEasR66Z8dxBteak2wAnRME…
1/3
8/13/24, 9:08 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
Just because Mr. Fox can request more density doesn’t mean it’s appropriate for the area and it
doesn’t mean he should be rewarded with any bonus for not doing the right thing in the first
place: proposing a reasonable plan and working with the neighbors to refine it for everyone’s
benefit. There is no precedent for it in the area for good reason: it is simply incompatible with the
communities already established.
Wording about compatibility and context for surrounding areas in the Rio Montana Plan and the
Phoenix General Plan are there to provide governing bodies like the SMVPC the power and oversight
to curb one-size-fits-all zoning. This situation calls for the use of that power.
Mr. Fox’s plan is so bare bones (at least what was submitted for the staff report and what the
neighbors have seen) that it is nearly impossible to know if he even understands and is incorporating
key design elements from the Site Plan Design and the Single-Family design criteria such as including:
x Deep overhangs and deep porches.
x Planting trees on the east and west of buildings.
x Planting windbreak perimeter trees.
x Using deep green, wide-leafed trees for shade such as the Chinese Pistache.
x Limiting the use of 2-story buildings.
x Creating terminal vistas.
x Allowing for adequate non-straight driveways and side-load/rear-load garages.
££ No more than 40% of driveways should be straight.
x Varieties in roofing materials and facades.
x Changing façade designs, roofing materials and roof ridge orientation at least every third
house.
x Staggered housing setbacks.
x Angled housing orientation on lots.
x Truly varied lot widths of at least 10’ or more.
x Meaningful open space.
Mr. Fox has not addressed neighbor concerns about flood mitigation for both communities to the east
and west nor has he addressed traffic concerns for the Wyndham Square neighborhood to the north
which is the only access to Baseline Rd. and any entrance/exit to the proposed development.
All 52 homes in Wyndham Square have on-lot retention in addition to the storm basins at the
entrance. Mr. Fox has only proposed storm basins, which do not appear to be appreciably bigger than
Wyndham Square’s and no on-lot retention. This property is subject to the same runoff patterns as
Wyndham Square. There is no hydrology report that confirms his planned runoff mitigation is
sufficient and does not pose a danger to either the acre+ lots on the east or Wyndham Square to the
north.
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAEasR66Z8dxBteak2wAnRME…
2/3
8/13/24, 9:08 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
Since Wyndham Square was built in approx. 2003, traffic on Baseline has increased by nearly 500%.
There is only one in/out and that is onto Baseline. Neighbors report that it is extremely difficult to get
in and out of the neighborhood. An additional 18 or more homes will add 180-200 more car trips per
house per day into this neighborhood, dramatically exacerbating an already difficult situation.
Do we think a density of 3.5 du/ac or approx. 15-16 houses is truly appropriate? No. R1-18 or at least
no more of a density than is present in Wyndham Square, which is 3 du/ac would be appropriate.
Lowering the density to no more than 3.5 du/ac is a compromise. Does any lowering of density help
ameliorate traffic for Wyndham Square? Yes, some. Does lower density help with flood mitigation? Yes,
because there can be more open space allotted for additional retention. Does lower density help
provide room to incorporate the design and site plan elements of the Rio Montana Plan? Yes.
Rio Montana calls out a step density of 2-3.5 on pg. 17. There’s no allowance for more than that. If we
are going to hold developers accountable to design criteria, we should hold them to the other
elements in the Plan as well. Make context a criterion and hold developers accountable when they
don’t do it themselves. I respectfully urge you to help us create a plan that keeps density to no more
than 3.5 du/ac as our compromise and as consistent with the Rio Montana Plan. Help us create a plan
that incorporates the well-considered design and site plan elements the Rio Montana Plan calls for. If
this broker doesn’t want to follow the rules and work with the community, please vote no.
Sincerely,
Jewel Clark
--£
£ H. Jewel Clark
££hjewelclark@fastmail.com
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAEasR66Z8dxBteak2wAnRME…
3/3
8/13/24, 9:07 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
In regards to the rezoning hearing Z-58-24-8
Joe and Ana Laura Serna
Mon 8/12/2024 1:58 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
I am Joe Serna.
My Wife Ana and I live in Wyndham Square,
at
2018 West Branham Lane£
Phoenix, AZ 85041.
Neither my Neighbors of Wyndham Square,£
nor I,£
have seen that the developer has made any significant changes to the plans, that would warrant our
support of his development.££
I remain opposed to this development in its current form!
Respectfully,
CDR Joe Serna MD
(Ret) US Public Health Service£
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAPo9tNGULvdBlgjDEuB1Ymc…
1/1
8/13/24, 9:11 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
Opposition to Z-58-24-8
julian galindo
Mon 8/12/2024 11:02 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Hello,£
My name is Julian Galindo and I live at 7808 S. 20th Lane with my wife and (3) kids who are under the
age of 11.£
We have not had any progression towards a resolution for the newly planned development directly
south of Wyndham Square. The developer has not made any concessions per the request of the board
and the community from the July meeting. I remain opposed to the development in its current form.£
Sincerely,£
Julian Galindo
602-413-7791
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQACzDK4elGYdKuCB7j7VCHfQ…
1/1
8/13/24, 9:09 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
Opposition to Z-58-24-8
Mike Josic
Mon 8/12/2024 3:07 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
To the SMVPC,
My name is Mike Josic and I live at£2020£W. South Mountain Ave. Phoenix, AZ 85041.
I am writing in opposition to the proposed development Z-58-24-8.
There is no reason why this development should not conform to the Rio Montana plan other than
greater financial gain for this broker. This broker has not made changes to his plans that the neighbors
can support.£ I remain opposed to this development in its current form. Development that is
compatible with the density allowed in the Rio Montana Plan and the design elements and goals that
govern our area I would support. This plan is not it.
The broker has provided no reasons beyond his financial gain to lower the density to a compatible
level or include other meaningful criteria in the Rio Montana Plan.£
I respectfully urge you to support the existing neighbors and vote no.
Sincerely,
Mike Josic
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAHh6D3SZ9JRIsq3nQhe4ino…
1/1
8/13/24, 9:10 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
OPPOSITION to Z-58-24-8
Selena Leon
Mon 8/12/2024 5:18 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
My name is Selena Leon and I live at 2009 W. Harwell Rd Phoenix, AZ 85041. The neighbors have not
seen that the developer has made any significant changes to the plans that would warrant our support
of his development. I remain opposed to this development in its current form.
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQABJJ5qXxAZRCtP%2FRIOc2T…
1/1
8/13/24, 9:09 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
Opposition to Z-58-24-8
stephanie rubio
Mon 8/12/2024 3:15 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
To the SMVPC,
My name is Stephanie Bell, and I live at£ £ £ £ £8020 S 20th Ave Phoenix Az, 85041. I am writing in
opposition to the proposed development Z-58-24-8.
This broker has not made changes to his plans that the neighbors can support.£ I remain opposed to
this development in its current form. Development that is compatible with the density allowed in the
Rio Montana Plan and the design elements and goals that govern our area is welcome. This plan is not
it.
The broker has provided no reasons beyond his financial gain to lower the density to a compatible
level or include other meaningful criteria in the Rio Montana Plan.£
I respectfully urge you to vote no.
Sent from my T-Mobile 5G Device
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQALz2iU7C6WZCojZpjCXCRB…
1/1
8/13/24, 4:03 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
**Subject: Opposition to Z-58-24-8**
Candace McDonald-Ramsey
Tue 8/13/2024 4:00 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Dear Mr. Rogers and Committee Members,
My name is Candace McDonald Ramsey, and I reside at 2012 W. Harwell Rd; Phoenix AZ 85041. I am
writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed development under case number Z-58-24-8.
Despite ongoing discussions, it is clear that the developer has not made any significant changes to the
plans that would address the concerns of the community or justify our support for this project. The
current proposal does not adequately consider the impact on our neighborhood, including potential
issues related to traffic, infrastructure, and overall quality of life.
As a resident invested in the well-being and future of our community, I urge you to reject this
development in its current form. We need a plan that truly reflects the needs and interests of the
residents, rather than one that prioritizes external interests at our expense.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,££
Candace McDonald Ramsey£
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQANTWwvMhgnZAunuSnhEEln…
1/1
8/28/24, 4:24 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
Opposition to Z-58-24-8
Elizabeth Franco
Tue 8/13/2024 5:58 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Good afternoon,£
I hope this£email finds you well. My name is Elizabeth Hintze Franco and I live at£7820 S 20th Ln,
Phoenix, AZ 85041. The neighbors along£with my family have not seen that the developer has made
any significant changes to the plans that£would warrant£our support of his development. I am
unfortunately£not able to make it to the hearing today, but I am still opposed to this development in
its current form and would like for it to be taken into consideration.£
Kindest regards,£
Elizabeth Hintze Franco£
602-515-8842
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAJhB%2BrItbD5JoHXNTUx9t…
1/1
8/13/24, 9:11 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
Opposition to Z-58-24-8
James Betterment
Tue 8/13/2024 7:49 AM
To:Samuel S Rogers
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
My name is James Betterment and I live at 8008 S 20th Ave. Phoenix AZ 85041.
I am writing in opposition to the proposed development Z-58-24-8. The broker has not made changes
to his plans that the neighbors can support. I remain opposed to this development in its current form.
Development that is compatible with the density allowed in the Rio Montana Plan and the design
elements and goals that govern our area is welcome. This plan is not it.
The broker has provided no reasons beyond his financial gain to lower the density to a compatible
level or include other meaningful criteria in the Rio Montana Plan.
I respectfully urge you to vote no.
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAPDVeS2CTHhGn5heAyvoziY…
1/1
8/28/24, 4:23 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
Opposition to Z-58-24-8
Joe Hernandez
Tue 8/13/2024 10:17 AM
To:Samuel S Rogers
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Opposition to Z-58-24-8
My name is Joseph Hernandez and I live at __7706 S 20th DR, PHX, AZ 85041_________________ .
The neighbors have not seen that the developer has made any significant changes to the plans that
would warrant our support of his development. I remain opposed to this development in its current
form.
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAELh2VWEbGFAmhMWPIFG…
1/1
8/13/24, 9:12 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
Opposition to Z-58-24-8
leticia gonzalez
Tue 8/13/2024 8:41 AM
To:Samuel S Rogers
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
My name is leticia gonzalez and I live at 7723 S 20th Dr.
The neighbors have not seen that the developer has made any significant changes to the plans that
would warrant our support of his development. I remain opposed to this development in its current
form.
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAGMkwK8UTy1CjI3keu%2FX…
1/1
8/13/24, 4:01 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
Fwd: Opposition to Z-58-24-8
Joe Hernandez
Tue 8/13/2024 10:24 AM
To:Samuel S Rogers
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Joe Hernandez
Date: Tue, Aug 13, 2024 at 10:17 AM
Subject: Opposition to Z-58-24-8
To: Samuel S Rogers
Opposition to Z-58-24-8
My name is Nadine Hernandez Wife of Joseph and I live at __7706 S 20th DR, PHX, AZ
85041_________________ .
The neighbors have not seen that the developer has made any significant changes to the plans that would
warrant our support of his development. I remain opposed to this development in its current form.
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAELh2VWEbGFAmhMWPIFG…
1/1
8/13/24, 9:12 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
Opposition to Z-58-24-8
Nicki Sordello
Tue 8/13/2024 8:14 AM
To:Samuel S Rogers
1 attachments (14 KB)
Opposition-letter2 _Z-58-24-8_8008-S-20th-Ave_Nicole.Sordello.docx;
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Good morning,
My name is Nicole Sordello, and I live at 8008 S 20th Ave. Phoenix AZ 85041.
I am writing in opposition to the proposed development Z-58-24-8. The broker has not made changes to his plans that the
neighbors can support. I remain opposed to this development in its current form. Development that is compatible with the
density allowed in the Rio Montana Plan and the design elements and goals that govern our area is welcome. This plan is
not it.
The broker has provided no reasons beyond his financial gain to lower the density to a compatible level or include other
meaningful criteria in the Rio Montana Plan.
I respectfully urge you to vote no.
Thank you for your time and consideration,
Nicole Sordello
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAJy64yhrG%2BNPr%2FBy6cY…
1/1
8/13/24, 9:11 AM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
Opposition to Z-58-24-8
Tyler Hintze
Tue 8/13/2024 7:54 AM
To:Samuel S Rogers
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
My name is Tyler Hintze and I live at 7820 S 20th Ln, Phoenix, AZ 85041.£
The neighbors have not seen that the developer has made any significant changes to the plans that
would warrant our support of his development.£ I remain opposed to this development in it's current
form.
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAFaaSg1ea0ZMpYoXSsf8r5I%…
1/1
9/10/24, 12:26 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
Opposition to Z-58-24-8
leticia gonzalez
Fri 9/6/2024 2:13 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
My name is Humberto González and I live at 7723 S 20th Dr.
The neighbors have not seen that the developer has made any significant changes to the plans
that would warrant our support of his development. I remain opposed to this development in its
current form.£
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAPxAAM9tcGtDqGJYQUiDC%…
1/1
9/10/24, 12:23 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
Opposition to Z-58-24-8
leticia gonzalez
Fri 9/6/2024 2:10 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
My name is Mauricio González and I live at£ 7723 S 20th Dr .
The neighbors have not seen that the developer has made any significant changes to the plans
that would warrant our support of his development. I remain opposed to this development in its
current form.
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAP7cfnFa4%2FNKkvf1ZnWeS…
1/1
9/10/24, 12:27 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
Opposition to zoning case Z-58-24-8
CESAR TRUJILLO
Sat 9/7/2024 9:47 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers
Cc:Jai Goudeau
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
To the SMVPC,
My name is Cesar Trujillo and I live at 7819 S 20th Dr, Phoenix AZ 85041.
I’m opposed to Z-58-24-8. The current plan does not comply with Rio Montana criteria, and we
were not in favor of the cul-de-sac design for practical reasons. We welcome development in
our area, but we want development to be compatible with existing character and quality of the
existing neighborhoods, uphold the requirements for zoning, the Phoenix general plan, and the
real Montana plan.
We support a maximum density of 16 houses to allow for more elements of the real Montana
criteria to be implemented.
Limiting two-story homes to no more than 20% of the total.
Inclusion of the stipulations submitted to the SMVPC chair by Jewel Clark and Jai Goudeau.
Thank you.
If you have questions or one more information, email Jewel Clark at hjewelclark@fastmail.com
or Jai Goudeau at jaigoudeau@gmail.com
Sent from my iPhone
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAOFEAfY4j5hEltO%2BySRQx…
1/1
9/10/24, 12:40 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
Opposition to zoning case Z-58-24-8
Carla Soberanes
Sun 9/8/2024 9:49 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
To the SMVPC,
£
My name is Carla Soberanes£and I live at 7818 S 20th Drive, Phoenix AZ 85041
I am opposed to Z-58-24-8. The current plan does not comply with Rio Montana
criteria and we were not in favor of the cul-de-sac design for practical reasons.
We welcome development in our area, but we want development to be compatible
with the existing character and quality of the existing neighborhoods, uphold the
requirements for zoning, the Phoenix General Plan, and the Rio Montana Plan.
We support:
A maximum density of 16 houses to allow for more elements of the RIo
Montana criteria to be implemented.
Limiting 2-story homes to no more than 20% of the total.
Inclusion of the stipulations submitted to the SMVPC by Jewel Clark and Jai
Goudeau to the zoning application.
Thank you.
Carla Soberanes
Sent from my iPhone
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQADW8rZ7Izk5IlK%2B4Wd5QQ…
1/1
9/10/24, 12:30 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
FW: Development update and opposition letter to use
cndymnrotc
Sun 9/8/2024 5:42 AM
To:Samuel S Rogers
Cc:H. Jewel Clark
1 attachments (4 MB)
Final-site-plan-from-Fox---20th-and-South-Mountain.jpg;
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
My contributions to the disapproval of the new proposed development.£ We all agree in our
household that Wyndham Square shouldn't be used as a launch pad for construction traffic and
potential flooding if and when it goes through.£ The South Mountain road is ideal!!!
Sent from my T-Mobile 5G Device
-------- Original message --------
From: "H. Jewel Clark"
Date: 9/7/24 21:58 (GMT-06:00)
To: Jewel Clark
Cc: Adolfo Mauritsia Coronado
bobbyscadden@yahoo.com, Butch Box
<1dhernan@tempeschools.org>, Drewkgarvin@gmail.com, Eduardo Camacho
"H. Jewel Clark"
ISH326
Julian Galindo
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAHgdefXF1AZGvacBGOOV2C…
1/3
9/10/24, 12:30 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
Subject: Development update and opposition letter to use
The vote on the development adjoining our neighborhood is coming
up!
Rezoning case Z-58-24-8 will be voted on Tuesday
September 10th at 6 p.m. at the££South Mountain
Community Library, 7050 S. 24th St.
[phoenixpubliclibrary.org]£
We need you to do 2 things:
£Write an opposition email to register your opposition.
Come to the meeting Tuesday, September 10 at 6 p.m. at the South Mountain Library to
show the SMVPC we stand united.
£
Write your own or send the letter below via email to samuel.rogers@phoenix.gov
-----------------------------------------------------
£
Subject line: Opposition to zoning case Z-58-24-8
£
To the SMVPC,
£
My name is Joe and Nadine Hernandez£and I live at 7706 S 20th DR.
I am opposed to Z-58-24-8. The current plan does not comply with Rio Montana criteria and we
were not in favor of the cul-de-sac design for practical reasons.
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAHgdefXF1AZGvacBGOOV2C…
2/3
9/10/24, 12:30 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
We welcome development in our area, but we want development to be compatible with the
existing character and quality of the existing neighborhoods, uphold the requirements for
zoning, the Phoenix General Plan, and the Rio Montana Plan.
We support:
A maximum density of 16 houses to allow for more elements of the RIo Montana criteria
to be implemented.
Limiting 2-story homes to no more than 20% of the total.
Inclusion of the stipulations submitted to the SMVPC by Jewel Clark and Jai Goudeau to
the zoning application.
Lastly, a plan that shows the developers contributions to the environmental and traffic
concerns.£
Thank you.
-----------------------------------------------------
If you still have questions or want more information, email Jewel Clark at
hjewelclark@fastmail.com or Jai Goudeau at jaigoudeau@gmail.com.
We have power in numbers! Thank you for your continued efforts and support!
Sincerely,
Jewel Clark and Jai Goudeau
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAHgdefXF1AZGvacBGOOV2C…
3/3
9/10/24, 12:36 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
Dear South Mountain Village Planning Committee,
David Key
Sun 9/8/2024 9:29 AM
To:Samuel S Rogers
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
My name is David Key£and I live at£2006 W Branham Ln, Phoenix, AZ 85041 [google.com].£
I am opposed to Z-58-24-8. The current plan does not comply with Rio Montana criteria and I
am not in favor of the cul-de-sac design for practical reasons.
Our community welcomes development in our area, but we want development to be
compatible with the existing character and quality of the existing neighborhoods, uphold the
requirements for zoning, the Phoenix General Plan, and the Rio Montana Plan.
We support:
A maximum density of 16 houses to allow for more elements of the RIo Montana criteria to be
implemented.
Limiting 2-story homes to no more than 20% of the total.
Inclusion of the stipulations submitted to the SMVPC by Jewel Clark and Jai Goudeau to the
zoning application.
Thank you.
David M Key Jr
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQALiMVOWM8n9MrOqMDTtmH…
1/1
9/10/24, 12:39 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
Opposition to zoning case Z-58-24-8
Eduardo Camacho
Sun 9/8/2024 9:16 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
To the SMVPC,
My name is Eduardo Camacho and I live at 2015 W Branham Lane Phoenix AZ 85041.
I am opposed to Z-58-24-8. The current plan does not comply with Rio Montana criteria,
and we were not in favor of the cul-de-sac design for pracƟcal reasons.
We welcome development in our area, but we want development to be compaƟble with the
exisƟng character and quality of the exisƟng neighborhoods, uphold the requirements for
zoning, the Phoenix General Plan, and the Rio Montana Plan.
We support a maximum density of 16 houses to allow for more elements of the Rio
Montana criteria to be implemented.
LimiƟng 2-story homes to no more than 20% of the total.
Inclusion of the sƟpulaƟons submiƩed to the SMVPC chair by Jewel Clark and Jai
Goudeau.
Thank you,
Eduardo Camacho
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAKP2Zu28wYVKql5y5ihkdw4…
1/1
9/10/24, 12:37 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
Opposition to zoning case Z-58-24-8
Lori Coscarelli
Sun 9/8/2024 9:53 AM
To:Samuel S Rogers
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
To the SMVPC,
£
My name is Ernest Coscarelli£and I live at 2008 W Harwell Road, Phoenix, AZ.
I am opposed to Z-58-24-8. The current plan does not comply with Rio Montana criteria and we
were not in favor of the cul-de-sac design for practical reasons.
We welcome development in our area, but we want development to be compatible with the
existing character and quality of the existing neighborhoods, uphold the requirements for
zoning, the Phoenix General Plan, and the Rio Montana Plan.
We support:
A maximum density of 16 houses to allow for more elements of the RIo Montana criteria
to be implemented.
Limiting 2-story homes to no more than 20% of the total.
Inclusion of the stipulations submitted to the SMVPC by Jewel Clark and Jai Goudeau to
the zoning application.
Thank You,
Ernie
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAGpG2OZwmjJJp9OuDRdYU…
1/1
9/10/24, 12:37 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
Opposition to zoning case Z-58-24-8
Fy M
Sun 9/8/2024 3:46 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
£To the SMVPC,
My name£ is Funyung Mon and I live at 8115 S 21st Drive, Phoenix, AZ 85041.
I oppose Z-58-24-8. It does not comply with Rio Montana criteria and we were not in favor of
the cul-de-sac design for practical reasons. We welcome development in our area, but we want
development to be compatible with the existing character and quality of the existing
neighborhoods, uphold the requirements for zoning, the Phoenix General Plan, and the Rio
Montana Plan.
We support:£
A maximum density of 16 houses to allow for more elements of the RIo Montana criteria
to be implemented.
Limiting 2-story homes to no more than 20% of the total.
Inclusion of the stipulations submitted to the SMVPC by Jewel Clark and Jai Goudeau to
the zoning application.
Thank you.
Sincerely,£
Funyung Mon, Homeowner at 8115 S 21st Dr, Phoenix, AZ 85041
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQADSVEmK%2FPxdMhrqgkSm…
1/1
9/10/24, 12:40 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
Opposition to zoning case Z-58-24-8
Jacques Phelps
Sun 9/8/2024 9:52 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
To the SMVPC,
£
My name is Jacques Phelps Jr£and I live at 7818 S 20th Dr, Phoenix AZ 85041.
I am opposed to Z-58-24-8. The current plan does not comply with Rio Montana criteria and we
were not in favor of the cul-de-sac design for practical reasons.
We welcome development in our area, but we want development to be compatible with the
existing character and quality of the existing neighborhoods, uphold the requirements for
zoning, the Phoenix General Plan, and the Rio Montana Plan.
We support:
A maximum density of 16 houses to allow for more elements of the RIo Montana criteria
to be implemented.
Limiting 2-story homes to no more than 20% of the total.
Inclusion of the stipulations submitted to the SMVPC by Jewel Clark and Jai Goudeau to
the zoning application.
Thank you.
Jacques Phelps Jr
Sent from my iPhone
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQANEjZicSn5ZGrTQRNqzHGc8…
1/1
9/10/24, 12:41 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
Opposition to zoning case Z58- 24:8
Joe and Ana Laura Serna
Sun 9/8/2024 11:04 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
£
To the SMVPC,
£
I am Joe Serna and live in Wyndham Square, at 2018 West Branham Lane (Phx.AZ).
I am opposed to Z-58-24-8.£
The current plan does not comply with Rio Montana criteria and we were not in favor of the cul-
de-sac design for practical reasons.
We welcome development in our area, but we want development to be compatible with the
existing character and quality of the existing neighborhoods, and to uphold the requirements
for zoning as per the Phoenix General Plan, and the Rio Montana Plan.
We support:
A maximum density of 16 houses to allow for more elements of the RIo Montana criteria
to be implemented.
Limiting 2-story homes to no more than 20% of the total.
Inclusion of the stipulations submitted to the SMVPC by Jewel Clark and Jai Goudeau to
the zoning application.
Thank you.
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAPa4eulq6%2BdAg3K7vcpwKl…
1/1
9/10/24, 12:30 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
Opposition to zoning case Z-58-24-8
Marylou Scadden
Sun 9/8/2024 8:13 AM
To:Samuel S Rogers
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
To the SMVPC,
My name is MaryLou Scadden and I live at 7807 S 20th Dr, Phoenix AZ 85041 .
I am opposed to Z-58-24-8. The current plan does not comply with Rio Montana criteria and we were
not in favor of the cul-de-sac design for practical reasons.
We welcome development in our area, but we want development to be compatible with the existing
character and quality of the existing neighborhoods, uphold the requirements for zoning, the Phoenix
General Plan, and the Rio Montana Plan.
We support:
A maximum density of 16 houses to allow for more elements of the RIo Montana criteria to be
implemented.
Limiting 2-story homes to no more than 20% of the total.
Inclusion of the stipulations submitted to the SMVPC by Jewel Clark and Jai Goudeau to the
zoning application.
Thank you.
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAHMmRM0WSiZLrYsEdcj1bb…
1/1
9/10/24, 12:38 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
Opposition to zoning case Z-58-24-8
Natividad Tapia
Sun 9/8/2024 7:48 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
To the SMVPC,
My name is Na vidad Tapia and I live at 2015 W Branham Lane Phoenix AZ 85041.
I am opposed to Z-58-24-8. The current plan does not comply with Rio Montana criteria, and we were
not in favor of the cul-de-sac design for prac cal reasons.
We welcome development in our area, but we want development to be compa ble with the exis ng
character and quality of the exis ng neighborhoods, uphold the requirements for zoning, the Phoenix
General Plan, and the Rio Montana Plan.
We support a maximum density of 16 houses to allow for more elements of the Rio Montana
criteria to be implemented.
Limi ng 2-story homes to no more than 20% of the total.
Inclusion of the s pula ons submi ed to the SMVPC chair by Jewel Clark and Jai Goudeau.
Thank you,
Na vidad Tapia
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAKP2Zu28wYVKql5y5ihkdw4…
1/1
9/10/24, 12:31 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
Opposition to zoning case Z-58-24-8
Niki Key
Sun 9/8/2024 9:26 AM
To:Samuel S Rogers
Cc:David Key
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
Dear South Mountain Village Planning Committee,
£
£
My name is Niki Key£and I live at£2006 W Branham Ln, Phoenix, AZ 85041.£
I am opposed to Z-58-24-8. The current plan does not comply with Rio Montana criteria and I
am not in favor of the cul-de-sac design for practical reasons.
Our community welcomes development in our area, but we want development to be
compatible with the existing character and quality of the existing neighborhoods, uphold the
requirements for zoning, the Phoenix General Plan, and the Rio Montana Plan.
We support:
A maximum density of 16 houses to allow for more elements of the RIo Montana criteria
to be implemented.
Limiting 2-story homes to no more than 20% of the total.
Inclusion of the stipulations submitted to the SMVPC by Jewel Clark and Jai Goudeau to
the zoning application.
Thank you.
Niki Key
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAJIB9hhonn1HlCbB%2FS5PF…
1/1
9/10/24, 12:51 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
opposition to zoning to zoning case Z-58-24-8
Alexis Mesquita
Mon 9/9/2024 5:28 PM
To:Samuel S Rogers
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
To the SMVPC,
£
My name is Alexis Mesquita£and I live at£8020 S 20th Ave.
I am opposed to Z-58-24-8. The current plan does not comply with Rio Montana criteria and we
were not in favor of the cul-de-sac design for practical reasons.
We welcome development in our area, but we want development to be compatible with the
existing character and quality of the existing neighborhoods, uphold the requirements for
zoning, the Phoenix General Plan, and the Rio Montana Plan.
We support:
A maximum density of 16 houses to allow for more elements of the RIo Montana criteria
to be implemented.
Limiting 2-story homes to no more than 20% of the total.
Inclusion of the stipulations submitted to the SMVPC by Jewel Clark and Jai Goudeau to
the zoning application.
Thank you.
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQACyMXSZfzndJicjyFRV3uPc%…
1/1
9/10/24, 12:50 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
Opposition to zoning case Z-58-24-8
Alicia Sainz
Mon 9/9/2024 4:59 PM
To:hjewelclark@fastmail.com
CAUTION: This email originated outside of the City of Phoenix.
Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the sender and were
expecting this email.
Report Suspicious
To the SMVPC,
My name is Alicia Sainz and I live at 8250 S 20th Ave, Phoenix AZ 85041.
I am opposed to Z-58-24-8. The current plan does not comply with Rio Montana criteria and we were not
in favor of the cul-de-sac design for practical reasons.
We welcome development in our area, but we want development to be compatible with the existing
character and quality of the existing neighborhoods, uphold the requirements for zoning, the Phoenix
General Plan, and the Rio Montana Plan.
We support:
A maximum density of 16 houses to allow for more elements of the RIo Montana criteria to be
implemented.
Limiting 2-story homes to no more than 20% of the total.
Inclusion of the stipulations submitted to the SMVPC by Jewel Clark and Jai Goudeau to the
zoning application.
Thank you.
Alicia Sainz
623 329 3606
https://outlook.office365.com/mail/inbox/id/AAQkADNkMzc1MjA2LTRjOTktNGNjNi04OWVkLTM5NzllZmM4N2U4MwAQAMf2Ps5Vys5Ao1iLu6GVtkY%…
1/1
9/10/24, 12:47 PM Mail - Samuel S Rogers - Outlook
Opposition to zoning case Z-58-24-8
Amelia Goudeau