← Back to meetings

Meeting Public Safety and Justice Subcommittee-9/6/2023 complete

2023-09-06 · Public Safety and Justice Subcommittee

Items: 66

Public Safety and Justice Subcommittee

View on Agenda Online ↗


Synced: 2026-05-28 03:37 AZ

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

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




Page 11
ATTACHMENT A




To: City Council Date: September 6, 2023
From: Mayor Kate Gallego

Subject: BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS – APPOINTEES

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

Development Advisory Board

I recommend the following for appointment:

Jennifer Weskalnies
Ms. Weskalnies is an Architect at ADM Group, and a resident of District 6. She replaces
Cassandra Lemon as a Design Professionals Representative for a term to expire
September 6, 2026.

Phoenix Women’s Commission

I recommend the following for appointment as Chair:

Heather Ross
Dr. Ross is an Assistant Professor at Arizona State University, and a resident of District
3. She will serve a term as Chair to expire September 6, 2024.




Page 12



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Habanero Fresh Mexican Grill

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application #250596.

Summary

Applicant
Miguel Navarro, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

Location
701 W. Deer Valley Road, Ste. A4
Zoning Classification: A-1 DVAO
Council District: 1

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 Sept. 17, 2023.

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

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


Page 13


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 restaurant has been open for 15 years. I believe my staff and I have the
knowledge and experience to hold a liquor license for my restaurant.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“The restaurant is family owned. With that being said we are all responsible and hard
working individuals. We have lots of loyal returning customers as well as new ones
that would appreciate having a drink at our friendly restaurant.”

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

Attachments
Liquor License Data - Habanero Fresh Mexican Grill
Liquor License Map - Habanero Fresh Mexican Grill

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




Page 14
Page 15
Page 16



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - The Mighty Axe

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 06070355.

Summary

Applicant
Amy Nations, Agent

License Type
Series 6 - Bar

Location
5410 E. High St., Ste. 102
Zoning Classification: C-2 DRSP
Council District: 2

This request is for an ownership and location transfer of a liquor license for a bar. This
location was not previously licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim
permit. This location requires a Use Permit to allow a bar and outdoor recreation.

The 60-day limit for processing this application is Sept. 23, 2023.

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

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


Page 17

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:
“Phoenix will be the third location for The Mighty Axe with two locations already open
in California. The owner has many successful businesses he operates with and without
liquor licenses. His employees will attend Arizona state certified liquor law training to
ensure compliance with all liquor laws.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“Axe throwing has become a popular sport throughout the United States and will be
the first in this north Phoenix area. It will be a great addition to the businesses already
open on High Street. The Mighty Axe will be a great place to meet friends for food,
drinks, and fun. We will have safety procedures in place as well as safety attendants to
ensure adherence to rules and procedures. We have leagues for ages 10 and up.”

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

Attachments
Liquor License Data - The Mighty Axe
Liquor License Map - The Mighty Axe

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




Page 18
Liquor License Data: THE MIGHTY AXE
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Bar 6 10 7

Beer and Wine Bar 7 5 3

Liquor Store 9 3 3

Beer and Wine Store 10 5 3

Restaurant 12 33 26


Crime Data

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

Property Crimes 61.49 44.34 33.97

Violent Crimes 11.79 2.65 2.76

*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 49 0

Total Violations 86 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




Page 19
Liquor License Map: THE MIGHTY AXE
5410 E HIGH ST




Ü
Date: 7/28/2023
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi


City Clerk Department
Page 20



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Special Event - Xavier College Preparatory Roman Catholic
High School

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

Summary

Applicant
Maria Sharon Murphy-Fontes

Location
4710 N. 5th St.
Council District: 4

Function
Dinner and Silent Auction

Date(s) - Time(s) / Expected Attendance
Oct. 14, 2023 - 5 p.m. to 11:55 p.m. / 500 attendees

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

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




Page 21



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Rott N' Grapes

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 07070412.

Summary

Applicant
Perry Huellmantel, Agent

License Type
Series 7 - Beer and Wine Bar

Location
4750 N. Central Ave., Ste. B-1
Zoning Classification: C-2 H-R TOD-1
Council District: 4

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

The 60-day limit for processing this application is Sept. 19, 2023.

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

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


Page 22

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 currently serve as the agent on more than 140 licenses in the state of Arizona. Since
I have been an agent on those licenses, I have not received a single citation for a
violation of liquor laws. I ensure that all appropriate individuals have current liquor
training and maintain strict standards to ensure all employees comply with state laws.
As an agent, I have demonstrated that I have the capability, reliability and
qualifications to hold a liquor license.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the requested liquor license because it allows
an existing establishment to continue serving the surrounding residents. This request
is to transfer an existing liquor license at this same location to the new owners. Rott N'
Grapes is a popular beer and wine bar that has been operating at this location since
2016. The previous owner sold the business and the liquor license to the new owners
who are requesting this liquor license transfer request. Approving this request will allow
the new owners to continue to operate this beer and wine bar and continue to serve
existing and future patrons.”

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

Attachments
Liquor License Data - Rott N' Grapes
Liquor License Map - Rott N' Grapes

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



Page 23
Page 24
Page 25
Page 26



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Special Event - Greek Orthodox Church - Holy Trinity

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

Summary

Applicant
Kalliopi Schneider

Location
1973 E. Maryland Ave.
Council District: 6

Function
Cultural Celebration

Date(s) - Time(s) / Expected Attendance
Oct. 6, 2023 - 5 p.m. to 10 p.m. / 3,000 attendees
Oct. 7, 2023 - 11 a.m. to 10 p.m. / 8,000 attendees
Oct. 8, 2023 - 11 a.m. to 8 p.m. / 4,000 attendees

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

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




Page 27



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - CK's Tavern & Grill

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 251636.

Summary

Applicant
Amy Nations, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

Location
4142 E. Chandler Blvd., Ste. 105
Zoning Classification: C-2 PCD
Council District: 6

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 Sept. 22, 2023.

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

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


Page 28


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 owners of Ck's Bar & Grill are experienced business owners and have operated
this location since November 2021. All of their employees have attended state certified
liquor law training.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“This location has been a neighborhood favorite for many years. It has always had a
liquor license. We would like to continue to offer the same great food, drinks,
entertainment, and great people our neighbors have come to expect.”

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

Attachments
Liquor License Data - CK's Tavern & Grill
Liquor License Map - CK's Tavern & Grill

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




Page 29
Liquor License Data: CK'S TAVERN & GRILL
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Bar 6 2 2

Liquor Store 9 3 2

Beer and Wine Store 10 7 3

Restaurant 12 22 11


Crime Data

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

Property Crimes 61.49 50.92 59.34

Violent Crimes 11.79 6.39 11.14

*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 49 15

Total Violations 86 30




Page 30
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius

BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1167121 2721 19 15 9

1167122 1832 76 0 3

1167131 589 64 51 42

1167133 1145 100 0 7

1167135 1106 54 0 2

1167191 1679 87 3 2

1167194 2185 77 0 4

1167202 1687 44 7 7

1167203 1430 34 7 5

1167212 1820 65 4 3

Average 0 61 13 19




Page 31
Liquor License Map: CK'S TAVERN & GRILL
4142 E CHANDLER BLVD




Ü
Date: 7/27/2023
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi


City Clerk Department
Page 32



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Nello's

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 251978.

Summary

Applicant
Amy Nations, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

Location
4710 E. Warner Road, Ste. 10
Zoning Classification: C-1
Council District: 6

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. This location requires a
Use Permit to allow outdoor dining, and outdoor alcohol consumption.

The 60-day limit for processing this application is Sept. 22, 2023.

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

Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
The ownership of this business has an interest in other active liquor license(s) in the


Page 33

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.

Nello's (Series 7)
4710 E. Warner Road, Ste. 10, Phoenix
Calls for police service: 18
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:
“We train all of our employees in responsible liquor service. We also conduct regular
audits to ensure compliance with liquor laws. The owners are current with their basic
and management liquor law training and make sure to stay up to date. They own and
operate other restaurants in Arizona and have for many years.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“Nellos Ahwatukee opened in 1996. Customer loyalty is what helped Nellos long
standing and continued success. The owners were longtime customers before they
purchased the business and didn't want to see it changed. As longtime Arizona
residents, the owners knew of the reputation Nellos has and have continued to be a
part of it.”

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

Attachments
Liquor License Data - Nello's
Liquor License Map - Nello's



Page 34

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




Page 35
Liquor License Data: NELLO'S
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Microbrewery 3 1 0

Bar 6 4 2

Beer and Wine Bar 7 6 3

Liquor Store 9 7 2

Beer and Wine Store 10 5 1

Hotel 11 1 0

Restaurant 12 24 5

Club 14 1 1



Crime Data

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

Property Crimes 61.49 70.59 85.45

Violent Crimes 11.79 7.03 12.31

*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 49 12

Total Violations 86 22




Page 36
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius

BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1167081 1516 88 0 2

1167082 1243 52 3 17

1167083 1314 34 0 7

1167084 1551 93 10 2

1167111 758 80 4 15

1167112 1154 28 15 11

1167171 1769 0 25 11

1167172 1663 40 18 17

1167181 2685 40 10 9

Average 0 61 13 19




Page 37
Liquor License Map: NELLO'S
4710 E WARNER RD




Ü
Date: 7/27/2023
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi


City Clerk Department
Page 38



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Sushi Michi

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application #251980.

Summary

Applicant
Young Lee, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

Location
6025 N. 16th St.
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 6

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

The 60-day limit for processing this application is Sept. 16, 2023.

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

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


Page 39


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 successfully completed all required training and certifications related to
responsible alcohol service and safety. My previous experience in the food industry
has provided me with a deep understandingof the legal and ethical responsibilities that
come with serving alcohol to the public.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“It will provide a responsible and regulated environment for alcohol service, ensuing
safety, while also contributing positively to the local economy and social activities.”

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

Attachments
Liquor License Data - Sushi Michi
Liquor License Map - Sushi Michi

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




Page 40
Liquor License Data: SUSHI MICHI
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Bar 6 3 3

Beer and Wine Bar 7 3 3

Liquor Store 9 2 0

Beer and Wine Store 10 7 2

Restaurant 12 20 11


Crime Data

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

Property Crimes 62.21 81.87 87.26

Violent Crimes 11.92 9.47 11.25

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



Property Violation Data

Description Average 1/2 Mile Average

Parcels w/Violations 49 48

Total Violations 86 81




Page 41
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius

BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1064001 715 84 23 9

1064002 2049 31 16 9

1065021 1383 30 18 43

1065022 1027 85 14 4

1065023 919 56 15 10

1076021 1311 82 0 6

1077001 1222 100 2 3

1077004 526 77 27 21

Average 0 61 13 19




Page 42
Liquor License Map: SUSHI MICHI
6025 N 16TH ST




Ü
Date: 8/11/2023
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi


City Clerk Department
Page 43



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Arizona Mutual Trading, LLC

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 247974.

Summary

Applicant
Harry Kang, Agent

License Type
Series 4 - Wholesaler

Location
5153 W. Fillmore St.
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 Sept. 19, 2023.

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

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

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

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


Page 44

applicant on the City Questionnaire.

I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“I am a resident of Arizona. I will be the manager, representative, and agent of this
business under the name Arizona Mutual Trading, LLC ('AMT'). AMT is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Mutual Trading Co., Inc., a California corporation ('MTC'), a national
importer and distributor and multi-state wholesaler of alcohol beverages. AMT's parent
MTC has operated a similar wholesaler business in California and currently holds a
Wholesaler license in Arizona. MTC has been operating successfully and compliantly
in California for 97 years and in Arizona for 24 years. MTC also holds federal (Alcohol
& Tobacco Tax & Trade Bureau) importer and wholesaler permits in both Arizona and
California. MTC also wholly-owns New York Mutual Trading, LLC, a NJ limited liability
company ('NYMTC'). NYMTC operates a similar wholesaler business in New Jersey
and New York for 49 years and currently holds wholesaler liquor licenses in New
Jersey and New York. Also, MTC is a major shareholder in The Cherry Company Ltd, a
Hawaii corporation ('Cherry Company'). Cherry Company operates a similar
wholesaler business in Hawaii for 35 years and currently holds wholesaler liquor
license in Hawaii.”

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.

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




Page 45



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Buqui Bichi

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 252348.

Summary

Applicant
Juanita Esparza, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

Location
21 W. Van Buren St.
Zoning Classification: DTC-Business Core
Council District: 7

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

The 60-day limit for processing this application is Sept. 19, 2023.

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

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


Page 46

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.

Buqui Bichi (Series 12)
325 S. Arizona Ave., Ste 1 & 2, Chandler
Calls for police service: N/A - not in Phoenix
Liquor license violations: None

Call Her Martina (Series 12)
7135 E. Camelback Road, Ste. 165, Scottsdale
Calls for police service: N/A - not in Phoenix
Liquor license violations: None

Fuego Bar & Grill (Series 6)
9118 W. Van Buren St., Tolleson
Calls for police service: N/A - not in Phoenix
Liquor license violations: None

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

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

I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“The owner of Buqui Bichi Martin A Hurtado is committed to upholding the highest
standards for it's busines practices & employees. He has been trained in the
techniques of legal & responsibility and has taken the Title 4 Liquor Law Training
Course. As owner of the business Mr. Hurtado will oversee all employees & will
provide a safe experience for all staff and restaurant patrons.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“Martin A Hurtado owner of Buqui Bichi wishes to provide dining with alcoholic
beverages at the request of the patron. In addition Mr. Hurtado will responsibly adhere
to all state, and federal tax laws and maintain a strict adherence to the security
requirements of the city and state.”



Page 47

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

Attachments
Liquor License Data - Buqui Bichi
Liquor License Map - Buqui Bichi

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




Page 48
Page 49
Page 50
Page 51



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Special Event - Liberty Wildlife, Inc.

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

Summary

Applicant
Margaret Mosby

Location
2600 E. Elwood St.
Council District: 8

Function
Dinner and Silent Auction

Date(s) - Time(s) / Expected Attendance
Nov. 4, 2023 - 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. / 300 attendees

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

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




Page 52



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Westside Tavern

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 250000.

Summary

Applicant
Raymond Kubik, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

Location
3558 W. Northern Ave.
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 1

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

The 60-day limit for processing this application is Sept. 16, 2023.

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

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


Page 53


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 previously owned two successful bar and grill establishments that carried
Series 6 licenses, including one that operated at this exact location from 2013-2015.
Both establishments operated without fail or incident for a number of years before I
decided to sell them and pursue other business opportunities.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“Westside Tavern will provide a great environment for friends, family and the local
community to gather for fantastic food and drink. We want to create an atmosphere
where all ages from the surrounding area can enjoy a delicious breakfast, lunch or
dinner served by a friendly and caring staff.”

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends disapproval of this application based on a Police Department
recommendation for disapproval. The Police Department disapproval is based on the
applicant's history of liquor license violations at an establishment the applicant owns,
multiple outstanding federal and state tax liens, subject of a criminal investigation and
submitted application indicates the location will be a bar versus restaurant. The
applicant has not demonstrated the capability, qualifications, and reliability to hold and
control a liquor license.

Attachments
Liquor License Data - Westside Tavern
Liquor License Map - Westside Tavern
Liquor License Police Department Recommendation - Westside Tavern

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




Page 54
Page 55
Page 56
Page 57
Page 58
Page 59



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
***REQUEST TO WITHDRAW (SEE ATTACHED MEMO)*** Liquor License -
Ezbachi

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 250641.

Summary

Applicant
Jacqueline Padilla, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

Location
1713 S. Central Ave.
Zoning Classification: C-3
Council District: 8

This request is for a new liquor license for a restaurant. This location was not
previously licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim permit. This location
requires a Use Permit to allow outdoor dining and outdoor alcohol consumption.

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

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

Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona

Page 60

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.

Ezbachi (Series 12)
63 E. Congress St., Ste. 121, Tucson
Calls for police service: N/A - not in Phoenix
Liquor license violations: None

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

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

I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“I have another restaurant located in Tucson which I have a liquor license already. I
make sure my staff as well as myself are trained and stay current with liquor laws and
are resposible.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“Ezbachi is/will be providing an establishment where the community can come and
celebrate special occasions in a newly renovated restaurant that was once an eye
sore. Can rest assure that we are fully capable to sell and supply alcohol to our
community's expectations and in no way, shape or form abuse this privledge.”

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends disapproval of this application based on a Finance department
recommendation for disapproval and noting the applicant must resolve any pending
of Phoenix Code and Ordinances. The applicant has not demonstrated the capability,
qualifications and reliability to hold and control a liquor license.

Attachments
Liquor License Data - Ezbachi
Liquor License Map - Ezbachi
Page 61


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




Page 62
Page 63
Page 64
Page 65



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Bingo License - Central Park Village Bingo

Request for a Class A Bingo License.

Summary
State law requires City Council approval before a State Bingo License can be issued.

Bingo License Types
Class A - gross receipts shall not exceed $75,000 per year
Class B - gross receipts shall not exceed $500,000 per year
Class C - anticipated gross receipts may exceed $500,000 per year

Applicant
DeAnna Mireau

Location
205 W. Bell Road
Zoning Classification: R-3 SP
Council District: 3

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

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




Page 66



PAYMENT ORDINANCE (Ordinance S-50118) (Items 16-22)
Ordinance S-50118 is a request to authorize the City Controller to
disburse funds, up to amounts indicated below, for the purpose of paying
vendors, contractors, claimants and others, and providing additional
payment authority under certain existing city contracts. This section also
requests continuing payment authority, up to amounts indicated below, for
the following contracts, contract extensions and/or bids awarded. As
indicated below, some items below require payment pursuant to Phoenix
City Code section 42-13.

16 Bender Associates, Inc.
For $75,000 in payment authority for a new contract, entered on or about
Sept. 1, 2023, for a term of five years, for maintenance and repair services
of Fargo ID card printers. The badge printers are located in various
Citywide departments and require annual preventative maintenance,
repair services and scheduled cleanings based on usage. These services
must be performed by an authorized vendor/contractor.

17 J.E.B. Environmental Services, LLC, Contract - RFQ
23-089
For $22,000 in payment authority for a new contract, entered on or about
Sept. 15, 2023, for a five-year term for Arizona Task Force 1 training, for
affiliated members from the Fire Department. This training is for
certification and recertification for three Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) required disciplines including Title 49 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (49 CFR) including Department of Transportation
Hazardous Materials Handler/Packer/Labeler, Air Force Manual (AFMAN)
24-604, and International Air Transportation Association (IATA)
certifications.

18 League of Arizona Cities and Towns
For $158,000 in payment authority for annual membership dues and
assessments for Fiscal Year 2023-24 for the Office of Government
Relations. The League of Arizona Cities and Towns provides services and


Page 67
resources focusing on member representation and interests of cities and
towns before the state legislature. The League also provides technical and
legal assistance and coordinates shared services, educational
conferences and events. This membership ensures that the City's
interests are represented and advocated for at the Governor's Office,
Arizona State Legislature, and other State of Arizona agencies.

19 Maricopa Association of Governments
For $252,408 in payment authority for annual membership dues and
assessments for Fiscal Year 2023-24 for the Office of Government
Relations, Public Works, Finance, Water Services and Human Services
departments. The Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) is a
council of governments that serves as the regional planning agency for the
Phoenix metropolitan area. MAG is the air quality planning agency and
Metropolitan Planning Organization for transportation in Maricopa County.
This includes the neighboring urbanized area in Pinal County containing
the Town of Florence and City of Maricopa. MAG also provides regional
planning and guidance on policy decisions in areas of transportation, air
quality, water quality, and human services.

20 National League of Cities
For $51,410 in payment authority for Fiscal Year 2023-24 annual
membership dues for the City of Phoenix. The National League of Cities
(NLC) is an organization focused on strengthening local government. NLC
provides training, educational programs and conferences. City officials
have access to information and publications on federal regulations,
solutions to problems, and future challenges. The City benefits from the
NLC's efforts to ensure that local governments have influence in the White
House, United States Congress, and other federal agencies.

21 United States Conference of Mayors
For $45,569 in payment authority for Fiscal Year 2023-24 annual
membership dues for the City of Phoenix. The United States Conference
of Mayors (USCM) is the official non-partisan organization of cities with
populations of 30,000 or more. Mayors contribute to development of
national urban policy by serving on one or more of the conference's
standing committees. USCM develops policy positions adopted by the
nation's mayors that are distributed to the President of the United States
and Congress. Task forces are also assembled to examine and act on
issues like civic innovations, exports, hunger and homelessness. The
membership ensures that the City's interests are being represented by
USCM.

Page 68


22 Arizona Public Service Company dba APS
For $220,821 in payment authority to APS for design and installation of
conduit work performed in the area bounded by Cave Creek Road to 26th
Street, and Marco Polo Road to Angela Drive, for project ST87210022 for
the Street Transportation Department.




Page 69



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Request to Amend an Intergovernmental Agreement with Arizona State
University (Ordinance S-50151)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to amend an
Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) between Volunteer PHX and the Arizona Board of
Regents on behalf of Arizona State University (ASU), Edson College of Nursing and
Health Innovation to add the College of Health Solutions and Watts College School of
Social Work for additional student placements.

Summary
On June 28, 2023, the City Council approved an intergovernmental agreement with
Edson College of Nursing and Health Innovation and Volunteer PHX for student
placements. This amendment would expand upon the current relationship and include
a broader set of student placement opportunities and skills through the addition of the
Watts College of Public Service and Community Solutions School of Social Work and
the College of Health Solutions.

Each college trains and educates students working towards undergraduate, masters
and doctorate degrees in health and health related fields. At all levels of education,
placements may be required or available for credit to support student learning and the
educational experience. With the City's new Office of Public Health, there is an
enhanced focus on opportunities for public health programming. The City of Phoenix
offers a unique opportunity and setting for community and clinical placements focused
on population and public health through a variety of City departments and offices.

Volunteer PHX coordinates the City's volunteer opportunities, including volunteer
placements and internships. Building on existing relationships, Volunteer PHX will work
closely with the Office of Public Health and other departments to initiate and
coordinate routine opportunities for health-related student placements across
programs. This coordination will enhance the capacity of departments to address
broad social and population health issues while supporting the education and
development of the local workforce.

Examples of routine placements opportunities include:
· Health Education


Page 70

· Research
· Program evaluation
· Clinical placements (health screening, vaccination, etc.)
· Case management and navigation
· Program planning

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

Financial Impact
There is no cost or financial impact associated with this agreement.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council previously approved this request during the June 28, 2023, Formal
· Intergovernmental Agreement with Arizona State University Edson College of
Nursing and Health Innovation.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays, Deputy City Manager
Inger Erickson, Volunteer PHX and the Office of Public Health.




Page 71



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Window Treatment and Associated Services - IFB 18-128 - Amendment
(Ordinance S-50129)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to allow additional
expenditures under Contract 146976 with Coyote Blind Company, Inc., for the
purchase of window treatment and associated services for various City departments.
Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this
item. The additional expenditures will not exceed $200,000.

Summary
This contract will provide all labor, materials, equipment, and transportation to supply
and install roller shades, mini-blinds, honeycomb and cellular shades, vertical blinds
and exterior sunshades in various facilities Citywide. Additional funds are needed for
continued utilization of this contract.

Contract Term
The contract term remains unchanged, ending on Oct. 31, 2024.

Financial Impact
Upon approval of $200,000 in additional funds, the revised aggregate value of the
contract will not exceed $530,000. Funds are available in various department budgets.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council previously approved this request:
• Window Treatment and Associated Services Contract 146976 (Ordinance S-44273)
on Feb. 21, 2018;
• Window Treatment and Associated Services Contract 146976 (Ordinance S-49526)
on March 22, 2023.

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




Page 72



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Acceptance of Easements for Drainage, Water and Sewer Purposes (Ordinance
S-50132)

Request for the City Council to accept easements for drainage, water and sewer
purposes; further ordering the ordinance recorded.

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

Easement (a)
Applicant: CWS Bronco Butte MF, L.P., its successor and assigns
Purpose: Drainage
Location: 31925 N. 29th Ave.
File: FN 230061
Council District: 2

Easement (b)
Applicant: CWS Bronco Butte MF, L.P., its successor and assigns
Purpose: Water
Location: 31925 N. 29th Ave.
File: FN 230061
Council District: 2

Easement (c)
Applicant: North Gateway Core Acreage Investors, LLC; Hare Investments, LLC; its
successor and assigns
Purpose: Sewer
Location: 32600 N. 29th Ave.
File: FN 230021
Council District: 2

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

Page 73



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Acceptance and Dedication of Easements for Pedestrian Access, Sidewalk and
Public Utility Purposes (Ordinance S-50133)

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

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

Easement (a)
Applicant: CWS Bronco Butte MF L.P., its successor and assigns
Purpose: Pedestrian Access
Location: 31925 N. 29th Ave.
File: FN 230061
Council District: 2

Easement (b)
Applicant: Kyrene Elementary School District No. 28 of Maricopa County, its successor
and assigns
Purpose: Sidewalk
Location: 15175 S. 50th St.
File: FN 230054
Council District: 6

Easement (c)
Applicant: Holland Real Estate, LLC, its successor and assigns
Purpose: Public Utility
Location: 3201 E. Wood St.
File: FN 230064
Council District: 8
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Planning and
Development and Finance departments.


Page 74



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Multi-Temporary Staffing Services - Managed Services Provider - ADSPO 17-
00006933 - Amendment (Ordinance S-50143)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to allow additional
expenditures under Contract 148480 with Guidesoft, Inc., dba Knowledge Services, for
the purchase of Multi-Temporary Staffing Services for Citywide departments. Further
request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The
additional expenditures will not exceed $11,275,000.

Summary
This contract will provide information technology professional services through a
Managed Service Provider (MSP) for technology projects and initiatives such as
project management, system implementation, data conversion, and hardware and
software configuration Citywide. Additional funds are needed for the remainder
duration of this contract.

Contract Term
The contract term remains unchanged, ending on Aug. 31, 2025.

Financial Impact
Upon approval of $11,275,000 in additional funds, the revised aggregate value of the
contract will not exceed $23,351,000. Funds are available in various City department
budgets.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council previously reviewed this request:
• Multi-Temporary Staffing Services - Managed Services Provider Contract 148480
(Ordinance S-44975) on Sept. 5, 2018;
• Multi-Temporary Staffing Services - Managed Services Provider Contract 148480
(Ordinance S-45196) on Dec. 5, 2018;
• Multi-Temporary Staffing Services - Managed Services Provider Contract 148480
(Ordinance S-46189) on Nov. 20, 2019;
• Multi-Temporary Staffing Services - Managed Services Provider Contract 148480
(Ordinance S-47922) on Sept. 8, 2021;
• Multi-Temporary Staffing Services - Managed Services Provider Contract 148480


Page 75

(Ordinance S-48944) on Aug. 31, 2022;
• Multi-Temporary Staffing Services - Managed Services Provider Contract 148480
(Ordinance S-49970) on June 28, 2023;

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




Page 76



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Cabling Communication Systems ADSPO17-00007125 - Amendment (Ordinance
S-50134)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute amendments to
Contracts 146189 with BPG Technologies, LLC; 146210 with Cable Solutions, LLC;
146209 with Corporate Technology Solutions, LLC; 146369 with Fishel Company;
146234 with Graybar Electric Company, Inc.; 146188 with IES Commercial, Inc.; and
146187 with Tel Tech Networks, Inc. to extend the contract term. No additional funds
are needed, request to continue using Ordinance S-43955.

Summary
These contracts will provide equipment, installation, testing, and warranty of cabling.
Cabling communication systems connect City facilities to the data network and phone
system through Internet access, phone lines, and data circuits, allowing connection to
email and instant messaging, and access to critical applications such as the City's
financial accounting and reporting system and the human resources system. Cabling
communication systems enable access to emergency services provided by the Police
and Fire Departments, provide public and employee Wi-Fi, critical network
infrastructure at Sky Harbor International Airport, and telephone and network services
in all City facilities. Without the cabling communication systems, users and devices will
not be able to connect to their network and/or back-end systems for operations. The
City's cabling communication systems are critical to operations of City departments.

Contract Term
Upon approval the contracts will be extended through April 9, 2024 with an option to
extend through Oct. 9, 2024.

Financial Impact
The aggregate value of the contracts will not exceed $20.7 million and no additional
funds are needed.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council previously reviewed this request:
Cabling Communication Systems - Contracts 146187, 146188, 146189, 146208,
146209, 146210, 146234, 146369 (Ordinance S-43955) on Oct. 4, 2017.


Page 77

Cabling Communication Systems - Contracts 146187, 146188, 146189, 146208,
146209, 146210, 146234, 146369 (Ordinance S-49008) on Sept. 21, 2022.

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




Page 78



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community Gaming Grant (Ordinance S-50141)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to apply for and accept up to
$264,100 in new funding from the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community under
the 2024 funding cycle. Further request authorization for the City Treasurer to accept
and the City Controller to disburse funds as directed by the Salt River Pima-Maricopa
Indian Community in connection with these grants.

Summary
The Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community 12 Percent Gaming Grant application
process is by invitation only. The tribe will select and identify which municipalities and
local non-profits to invite to apply for funding consideration. An invitation to apply is not
a guarantee that the application will be selected for funding by the tribe. Salt River
Pima-Maricopa Indian Community does not consider multi-year capital campaign
projects.

If awarded, the funds would be applied, as directed by Salt River Pima-Maricopa
Indian Community, towards the following:

City Application
· Parks and Recreation, S'edav Va'aki (formerly Pueblo Grande) Museum: $164,100
for the S'edav Va'aki Museum Exhibit Elements Installation project, which will guide
the creation of the orientation gallery, the O'odham garden extension, renovation of
the children's gallery, lighting, flooring, and exhibit case upgrades.

Non-Profit Applications
· Arizona Humane Society: $75,000 for wrap-around programming to Keeping Pets
and People Together program, which will support innovative, wrap-around programs
that keep families intact, such as the Pet Resource Center, Veterinary Assistance
Fund and Project Home Away from Home Initiative.
· Homeward Bound: $25,000 for the Shelter and Community Services program,
which deliver trauma-informed services and aim to address the varying contributing
factors and complex effects of generational poverty. These programs strive to
improve long-term self-sufficiency and stability for families who enter their program,


Page 79

with a focus on the whole family unit.

The gaming compact entered into by the State of Arizona and various tribes calls for
12 percent of gaming revenue to be contributed to cities, towns, and counties for
government services that benefit the general public, including public safety, mitigation
of impacts of gaming, and promotion of commerce and economic development. The
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community will notify the City, by resolution of the
Tribal Council, if it desires to convey to the City or nonprofit a portion of its annual 12
percent local revenue-sharing contribution.

Financial Impact
There is no budgetary impact to the City and no general-purpose funds are required.
Entities that receive gaming grants are responsible for the management of those
funds.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Jeffrey Barton and the Office of Government
Relations.




Page 80



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Tohono O'odam Nation Gaming Grants (Ordinance S-50146)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to apply, accept, and if
awarded, enter into related agreements for up to $3,214,638 in new funding from the
Tohono O'odham Nation under the 2023 funding cycle. Further request authorization
for the City Treasurer to accept, and the City Controller to disburse funds as directed
by the Tohono O'odham Nation in connection with these grants.

Summary
If awarded, these monies would be applied, as directed by the Tohono O'odham
Nation, towards the following:

City Applications
· Neighborhood Services: $150,000 for the Financial Empowerment Microbusiness
Program, which will launch the program locally in partnership with a trusted
nonprofit financial counseling provider, in collaboration with more than a dozen
community partners who have expressed interest in this program.
· Sustainability: $50,000 for the Student Council Sustainability Officer Initiative, which
seeks to develop student sustainability leaders, educate secondary students on
how to implement community projects on school campuses, and improve civic
engagement and embed sustainability on school campuses.
· Parks and Recreation: $400,000 for the first all-inclusive playground project at
Encanto Park. The park will provide a variety of inclusive amenities and equipment
for children of all abilities, in inclusive environments.
· Parks and Recreation: $1,739,864 for the FitPHX Network of FitLot Outdoor Fitness
Parks at seven different proposed sites, which will support the planning, organizing,
construction and programming of the sites.
· Fire: $9,774 for the automated traffic scenario simulator, which will support Fire
staff's Regional Driver Training Program.
· Planning and Development: $30,000 for the Rio Reimagined Community Plan,
which will develop a community-led planning document that will activate and
transform Rio Salado (Salt River) into a local and regional tourist destination.

Non-Profit Applications


Page 81

· Arizona Forward: $15,000 for the Emerging Sustainability Leaders program, which
will create a fund offering a scholarship to reduce entry barriers in the program and
offer more field trips, a year-end project, and program materials.
· Arizona Foundation for Women: $10,000 for the SHE Leads! program, a leadership
development program designed by women, for women.
· Arizona Science Center: $50,000 for the Focused Field Trips program, which will
fund 5,000 students' free admission to participate in field trips in 2024.
· Ballet Arizona: $10,000 for the Hoop Dance program, which will expand the
program to 40 Native American youth residing in Maricopa County, providing access
to arts programming that is dedicated to honoring and celebrating Native American
traditions, culture, ancestry, and activities.
· Banner Health Foundation: $100,000 for the creation of Play Zone, a healing area
for ill and injured children who come to Banner Health's Diamond Children's Medical
Center for care.
· Creighton Community Foundation: $300,000 for the Native Wetlands Educational
Space, which will create a unique one-time marquee project on a 10,000 square
foot publicly accessible entrance area of a school campus being fully remodeled as
an outdoor learning school.
· Duet Partners in Health: $15,000 for the Improving Academic Achievement Health
and Safety of At-risk Children program, which will improve the health, fitness, safety,
academic skills, and well-being of low-income grandchildren being raised by their
grandparents.
· Foundation for Senior Living: $15,000 for the Nutrition program, which is a long-
standing program for low-income individuals and families.
· Heard Museum: $10,000 for the K-12 Free Admissions and School Tours program,
which will allow 7,500 students, educators, and chaperones to participate in the
program.
· Homeward Bound: $50,000 for the Shelter and Community Services program,
which will assist in operating the program and provide aid to 600 individuals.
· Human Services Campus: $100,000 for the Respiro Shelter program, which will
provide respite and shelter to 500 individuals experiencing homelessness.
· Life More Abundantly: $15,000 for the Pregnancy and Sexually Transmitted Disease
Care programs, which will assist with testing, ultrasound scans, nurse consultants,
medical and social service referrals.
· Lights Camera Discover: $25,000 for the Entrepreneur Workforce Readiness
program, which will support a 24-week program for youth ages 17-21.
· Mission of Mercy: $40,000 for the Access to Care program, which will subsidize
care for more than 100 patients.
· Phoenix Indian Center: $50,000 for the Bridging the Gaps for Indigenous Cultural


Page 82

Connection, and Direct Assistance programs, which will support language and
culture funding and direct emergency support to Indigenous/American Indian youth
and families.
· Stand for Children: $10,000 for the Growing Readers program, which will engage
families at partner schools, provide literacy workshops and other learning
opportunities that help students develop literacy skills.
· Treasures 4 Teacher (T4T): $20,000 for the T4T on Wheels program, which will
distribute 2,235 hygiene kits to children in need.

The gaming compact entered into by the State of Arizona and various tribes calls for
12 percent of gaming revenue to be contributed to cities, towns and counties for
government services that benefit the general public including public safety, mitigation
of impacts, and promotion of commerce and economic development. The Tohono
O'odham Nation will notify the City, by grant-in-aid agreement, of the Tribal Council's
decision, if it desires to convey to the City or local nonprofits a portion of its annual 12
percent local revenue-sharing contribution.

Financial Impact
There is no budgetary impact to the City and no general-purpose funds are required.
Entities that receive gaming grants are responsible for the management of those
funds.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Jeffrey Barton and the Office of Government
Relations.




Page 83



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation Gaming Grants (Ordinance S-50147)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to accept, and as awarded, to
enter into related agreements for up to $12,708.56 in new funding from the Fort
McDowell Yavapai Nation under the 2022 funding cycle. Further request authorization
for the City Treasurer to accept, and the City Controller to disburse, funds as directed
by the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation in connection with these grants.

Summary
These monies would be applied, as directed by the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation
towards the following:

Non-Profit Applications
· Hope Community Services: $6,354.28 for the Specialized Trauma Therapy for Low-
Income Children and Youth program, which will provide specialized trauma therapy
to low-income children who have experienced ongoing, extreme trauma.
· Ronald McDonald House Charities of Central and Northern Arizona: $6,354.28 for
the Keeping Families Together program, which will support families devastated by
their child's medical crisis.

The gaming compact entered into by the State of Arizona and various tribes calls for
12 percent of gaming revenue to be contributed to cities, towns and counties for
government services that benefit the general public including public safety, mitigation
of impacts, and promotion of commerce and economic development. The Fort
McDowell Yavapai Nation will notify the City, by grant-in-aid agreement, of the Tribal
Council's decision, if it desires to convey to the City or local nonprofits a portion of its
annual 12 percent local revenue-sharing contribution.

Financial Impact
There is no budgetary impact to the City and no general funds are required. Entities
that receive gaming grants are responsible for the management of those funds.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Jeffrey Barton and the Office of Government
Relations.


Page 84



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Authorization to Enter into a Contract with Masters of Coin and Accept Funds for
the City of Phoenix Volunteer Income Tax Assistance Program (Ordinance S-
50123)

Request authorization for the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an
agreement and accept funding from Masters of Coin in an amount not to exceed
$350,000 to support the City's volunteer income tax assistance (VITA) services up to a
three-year contract term. Further, request authorization for the City Treasurer to
accept, and the City Controller to disburse, all funds related to this item for the life of
the contract.

Summary
In April 2023, Masters of Coin was selected by the Central Arizona VITA Network to
apply for the Federal Fiscal Year 2023-24 Internal Revenue Service (IRS) VITA grant
on behalf of eight regional partners, including the City. Masters of Coin serves as the
fiduciary agent for the City of Phoenix VITA Program to assist with managing
operational purchases and grant reporting.

The VITA Program is funded by the IRS, with funding for the Central Arizona VITA
Network passing through Master of Coin. The purpose of this program is to provide
training and support for volunteers to become IRS Certified and provide free basic
income tax return preparation with electronic filing to qualified individuals who are low-
to-moderate-income. IRS Certified volunteers provide assistance to Phoenix residents
through neighborhood centers, libraries, schools, shopping malls, senior and family
services centers, and other convenient locations.

The City of Phoenix VITA Program offers services in-person, virtually and through a
hybrid “Do It Yourself” option that allows tax clients to visit a VITA site and prepare their
own taxes with the assistance of a nearby volunteer. In addition to assisting clients
with electronically filing their taxes for free, volunteers also provide education on tax
processes and promote the concept of financial self-sufficiency through saving money.

Contract Term
The contract will begin on or about Oct. 1, 2023, through Sept. 30, 2024, with two, one
-year options to extend through Sept. 30, 2026.


Page 85


Financial Impact
Funding is provided from the IRS, via Master of Coin. There is no impact to the
General Fund.

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




Page 86



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Indoor/Outdoor Sport Court Resurfacing and Repair Services - IFB 21-027 -
Amendment (Ordinance S-50145)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
Contracts No.154058 with Elite Sports Builders, LLC and 154056 with Arizona Gym
Floors, LLC to allow additional expenditures to use ARPA funding and add required
ARPA language to the contracts. Further request to authorize the City Controller to
disburse all funds related to this item. The additional expenditures will not exceed
$1,000,000. There is no impact to the General Fund. Funding is available through the
City's allocation of the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) received from the federal
government and is under the Phoenix Parks Improvements program of the strategic
plan.

Summary
These contracts will provide resurfacing and repair services for indoor, multi-use wood
floors and outdoor concrete sport courts. The Parks and Recreation Department uses
these services to resurface and repair indoor/outdoor sport court floors such as
tennis,volleyball, pickleball, and basketball courts located at various recreation
facilities. The services include, but are not limited to, floor screening, line striping, floor
repair, and wood floor refinishing and maintenance. This contract will also be utilized
for Parks and Recreation capital improvements serving qualifying census tracts as
approved by the City Council in the ARPA Strategic Plan. The ARPA funding being
requested is to be used on ARPA projects.

Contract Term
The contract term will expire on March 31, 2026.

Financial Impact
Upon approval of $1,000,000 in ARPA funds, the revised aggregate value of the
contract will not exceed $2,350,000. No General Funds are requested.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council previously reviewed this request:
· Indoor/Outdoor Sport Court Resurfacing and Repair Services Contracts 154058 &
154056 (Ordinance S-47347) on March 3, 2021.


Page 87

· City Council approved the ARPA Second Tranche Strategic Plan allocating $2.9
million for Phoenix Parks Improvements on June 7, 2022.

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




Page 88



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Apply for U.S. Department of Transportation Promoting Resilient Operations for
Transformative, Efficient, and Cost-saving Transportation Grant Opportunity for
Federal Fiscal Year 2022-23 - Bipartisan Infrastructure Law Funding (Ordinance
S-50148)

Request to retroactively authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to apply for,
accept and, if awarded, enter into an agreement for disbursement of Federal funding
from the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) through the Federal Fiscal Year
2022-23 Promoting Resilient Operations for Transformative, Efficient, and Cost-saving
Transportation grant opportunity. Further request to authorize the City Treasurer to
accept, and the City Controller to disburse, all funds related to this item. Funding for
this grant opportunity is available through the Federal Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.
The total grant funds applied for will not exceed $6.25 million, and the City would not
be required to provide a local match.

Summary
The Promoting Resilient Operations for Transformative, Efficient, and Cost-saving
Transportation (PROTECT) grant program provides funding for projects that address
the climate crisis by improving the resilience of surface transportation systems against
natural hazards including climate change, sea level rise, flooding, extreme weather
events and other natural disasters. The grant program supports innovative and
collaborative approaches to risk reduction, including the use of natural infrastructure.
Also called nature-based solutions, these strategies include conservation, restoration
or construction of riparian and streambed treatments, marshes, wetlands, native
vegetation, stormwater bioswales, breakwaters, reefs, dunes, parks, urban forests and
shade trees.

The Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2022-23 PROTECT grant specifies that the minimum
award amount for urban planning projects must be at least $100,000 with no award
ceiling. The City’s grant request will be for the total project cost in the amount of $6.25
million.

The FFY 2022-23 PROTECT grant submittal deadline was Aug. 18, 2023. Retroactive
approval is requested due to the timing of the application deadline, which occurred
during Council recess.


Page 89


PROTECT planning grants are awarded on a competitive basis considering these
evaluative criteria:
· Program Alignment
· Schedule and Budget
· Public Engagement, Partnerships and Collaboration
· Innovation

The Parks and Recreation and Street Transportation departments are collaborating on
a planning grant submittal for the Laveen Area Conveyance Channel. The purpose of
the planning grant is to evaluate and update the design and improve resiliency of a
dual-purpose amenity channel that extends 5.5 miles in the Laveen Village of Phoenix,
serving to capture and convey local regional drainage while also serving the
community as an active transportation corridor. The goal of the planning grant will be
to evaluate and make recommendations that would best serve the existing
transportation amenity, including but not limited to improvements to the existing
channel design and to design a 10-foot multi-use path on the north side, including
landscaping, updated irrigation, turf improvements, exercise equipment, improved
drainage system equipment, booster pump and well, path lighting and other
transportation or green infrastructure appropriate for the surrounding corridor. This
planning project will meet the grant criteria for competitiveness.

Financial Impact
The estimated total cost for the project is approximately $6.25 million. The maximum
federal participation rate is 100 percent, with no required local match of the total
eligible project cost. If awarded, the federal match would not exceed $6.25 million (100
percent), with no required local funding match. There is no impact to the General
Fund.

Location
The Laveen Area Conveyance Channel is a 5.5 mile multi-use path and drainage
channel located in Laveen Village which runs from the intersection of 43rd and
Southern avenues to the Salt River.
Council Districts: 7 and 8

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Mario Paniagua, Alan Stephenson
and Inger Erickson, and the Street Transportation and Parks and Recreation
departments.




Page 90



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Agreement with Arizona Diamondbacks Foundation Inc. (Ordinance S-50149)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to grant an exception
pursuant to Phoenix City Code 42-18 authorizing indemnification or assumption of
liability provisions that otherwise would be prohibited for the agreement with Arizona
Diamondbacks Foundation Inc.

Summary
The Arizona Diamondbacks Foundation has committed to sponsor refurbishment of
two ballfields at El Oso Park to begin in 2023, with the expected completion by the end
of 2023. The generous project sponsorship will include landscape improvements, new
field accessories, electrical access and a new scoreboard on each field. The
agreement with Arizona Diamondbacks Foundation, which will be presented to the
Parks and Recreation Board for approval, contains indemnification and assumption of
liability provisions that otherwise would be prohibited by Phoenix City Code 42-18. This
authorization allows for mutual indemnification.

Financial Impact
There is no impact to the General Fund, nor a funding request.

Location
3451 N. 75th Ave.
Council District: 5

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




Page 91



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Edwards Fire Alarm Services - Requirements Contract - IFB PCC 22-005 Request
for Award (Ordinance S-50127)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
ADT Commercial, LLC., to provide testing, inspection, and repair services for the
Edwards Fire Life Safety System for the Phoenix Convention Center Department
(PCCD). Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to
this item. The five-year value of the contract will not exceed $450,000.

Summary
This contract will provide annual testing, maintenance, and repair of the Edwards Fire
Life Safety System in Symphony Hall, Herberger Theatre, Orpheum Theatre, Phoenix
Convention Center South Building, Regency Garage, Heritage Garage and East
Garage.

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
ADT Commercial, LLC.: $90,000 annually

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

Financial Impact
The contract value will not exceed $450,000.

Funding is available in the Phoenix Convention Center Department operating budget.



Page 92

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Interim Deputy City Manager John Chan and the Phoenix
Convention Center Department.




Page 93



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Arizona Coliseum and Exposition Center Request for Police Services for 2023
Arizona State Fair (Ordinance S-50121)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with the Arizona Coliseum and Exposition Center for the Phoenix Police (PPD) and the
Neighborhood Services departments (NSD) to provide traffic enforcement, and
vending enforcement. The Arizona Coliseum and Exposition Center will pay $31,500
for these services. Further request authorization for the City Treasurer to accept, and
the City Controller to disburse, all funds related to this item.

Summary
Since 1987, PPD and NSD have partnered with the Arizona Coliseum and Exposition
Center to provide increased traffic enforcement, perimeter security and proactive patrol
in the area surrounding the fair grounds. Services provided by PDD will change to
traffic enforcement only this year. The intent of this agreement is to recover costs
associated with these services during the State Fair. Additionally, the Finance
Department's Tax Enforcement Section receives space at no charge for licensing and
collection of taxes from vendors.

Contract Term
Services will occur from Sept. 22, 2023 through Oct. 30, 2023.

Financial Impact
The amount to be recovered is $19,000 by PPD and $12,500 by NSD.

Location
The area surrounding the Arizona State Fairgrounds located at 1826 W. McDowell
Road.
Council District: 4

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




Page 94



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Authorization to Pay Public Safety Personnel Retirement System for FY2023-24
Police Sworn Cancer Insurance Coverage (Ordinance S-50126)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to make a payment to the
Public Safety Personnel Retirement System (PSPRS) in the amount of $145,300 to
purchase cancer insurance for Fiscal Year (FY) 2023-24 for the sworn personnel of the
Police Department. Further request authorization for the City Controller to disburse all
funds related to this item.

Summary
The Fire Fighter Cancer Insurance Policy Program (FFCIPP) was established in 1997.
The FFCIPP offers supplemental cancer insurance for firefighters, helping to offset
additional costs if a firefighter is diagnosed with cancer after enrollment. The insurance
is administered under the PSPRS. In 2007, HB2268 changed the name of the Fire
Fighter Cancer Insurance Policy Program to the Fire Fighter and Peace Officer Cancer
Insurance Policy Program and extended coverage to certified peace officers under this
program.

Financial Impact
The cost for FY2023-24 is $50 per peace officer. This item requests authorization to
pay up to $145,300. The payment will provide cancer insurance coverage for Police
sworn personnel for FY 2023-24. Funds are available in the Police Department's
budget.

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




Page 95



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Baggage Handling Control System Design, Programming, and Integration
Services - IFB 19-007 - Amendment (Ordinance S-50119)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to amend Contract 149031
with Quantum Integrated Solutions Inc. for Baggage Handling Control System Design,
Programming, and Integration Services by extending the term of the contract. No
additional funds are needed and request to continue using ordinances S-45225 and S-
49334.

Summary
The contract provides technical support, including design, programming, integration,
and architectural controls, of the baggage handling systems (BHS) at Phoenix Sky
Harbor International Airport 24 hours-a-day, seven days-a-week, every day of the year.
The contract, along with an existing contract for the operation, maintenance, and repair
service, are two contracts that impact the BHS. To better meet its operational needs
and to achieve service and pricing efficiencies, the Aviation Department will combine
both services into one solicitation upon the expiration of both contracts, which will
result in one contracted vendor to provide full and comprehensive services and
maintenance to the BHS.

Contract Term
Upon approval, the term of the contract will be extended through June 30, 2024.

Financial Impact
The value of the contract will be up to $2,375,000 and no additional funds are needed.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action

The City Council previously approved:
• Baggage Handling Control System Design, Programming and Integration Services
Contract (Ordinance S-45225) on Dec. 12, 2018; and
• Purchase of Baggage Handling Control System Design, Programming and
Integration (Ordinance S-49334) on Jan. 25, 2023




Page 96



Location
Council District: 8

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




Page 97



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Arizona Aviation Partners, LLC Ground Lease at Phoenix Goodyear Airport
(Ordinance S-50120)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a ground lease
with Arizona Aviation Partners, LLC (AZ Partners) to construct hangars at Phoenix
Goodyear Airport (GYR).

Summary
AZ Partners has requested to enter into a ground lease to develop hangars, apron,
automobile parking, and an access road on approximately 32 acres at GYR. AZ
Partners intends to market the hangars under sublease agreements approved by the
City. The hangars and other improvements will be constructed in two phases of
approximately 16 acres for each phase. AZ Partners will have 24 months to construct
the Phase 1 improvements, and 48 months to construct the Phase 2 improvements.
Construction of the hangars will require the relocation of utilities at an estimated cost of
$1.4 million that will be reimbursed to AZ Partners through rent credits.

Contract Term
The primary term of the ground lease will be 30 years, which will be preceded by a 24-
month development term to complete the Phase 1 improvements. The development
term for the Phase 2 improvements will be 48 months. Provisions of the lease will
include an option to extend the term up to 10 years, which may be exercised by the
City Manager or designee.

Financial Impact
Rent for the primary term of the Phase 1 parcel is anticipated to be approximately
$252,474 per year. AZ Partners will pay annual rent of $38,812 on the Phase 2 parcel
until construction on the Phase 2 parcel commences, or the 48 month development
term expires, whichever occurs first. Upon completion of the Phase 2 development
term, AZ Partners will pay rent of $258,746 per year for the first year. Total revenue
over the 30-year lease term and 10-year option will be approximately $20.5 million. All
rents are subject to annual increases based on the Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale
Consumer Price Index. As an aircraft storage operator, AZ Partners will also be
required to enter into a Specialized Aviation Services Operator permit which will
require AZ Partners to report and remit a monthly two percent fee on gross sales


Page 98

derived from hangar subleases with its tenants.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The Business and Development Subcommittee recommended approval of this item on
May 4, 2023 by a vote of 3-0.
The Phoenix Aviation Advisory Board recommended approval of this item on May 18,
2023 by a vote of 7-0.

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

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




Page 99



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Environmental Remediation Consulting Services Requirements Contract RFP 23
-042 - Request for Award (Ordinance S-50125)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
Geosyntec Consultants, Inc. to provide environmental remediation consulting services
for the Aviation Department. Further request to authorize the City Controller to
disburse all funds related to this item. The total value of the contract will be up to
$250,000.

Summary
In 2008, the City entered into Contract 124536 with Honeywell International Inc.
(Honeywell). The contract sets forth Honeywell's requirements to conduct remediation
of fuel released on and beneath City property and includes provisions for the cost
recovery for these services. Geosyntec will provide expert level remediation consulting
services and support to analyze remediation reports, identify issues of concern to the
City, advise the City on remediation progress, and make recommendations to the City
as remediation nears completion for the Honeywell 34th Street Facility. The contract is
critical as it ensures Honeywell's remediation requirements are met for the purpose of
protecting the public health, welfare, environment, and airport facilities.

Procurement Information
A Request for Proposal was processed in accordance with City of Phoenix
Administrative Regulation 3.10.

One vendor submitted a proposal and was deemed responsive. An evaluation
committee evaluated the offer based on the following criteria with a maximum possible
total of 1,000 points.

· Method of Approach (0-325 Points)
· Key Personnel Qualifications and Experience (0-275 Points)
· Firm Qualifications and Experience (0-250 Points)
· Fee Schedule (0-150 Points)

After reaching consensus, the evaluation committee recommended award to the
following vendor:


Page 100


· Geosyntec Consultants, Inc.

Contract Term
The contract will begin on or about Sept. 26, 2023 for a five-year term with no options
to extend.

Financial Impact
The contract value will be up to $250,000 for the five-year term of the contract.

Funding is available in the Aviation Department's budget.

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

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




Page 101



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Airport Marking Paints Contract - AVN IFB 23-0101 Request for Award
(Ordinance S-50131)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
International Coatings Company, Inc. to provide airport marking paints for Phoenix Sky
Harbor International Airport, Phoenix Deer Valley Airport, and Phoenix Goodyear
Airport (Airports). Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds
related to this item. The total value of the contract will be up to $2 million over its five-
year term.

Summary
The contract will authorize International Coatings Company, Inc. to supply and deliver
runway, taxiway, and roadway marking paints on an as-needed basis to support the
maintenance activities for the Airports. The paint is required to comply with Federal
Aviation Administration regulations and for use in airport operating areas and roadway
systems.

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

Five offerors submitted offers. Four offers were determined to be nonresponsive. The
offer from International Coatings Company, Inc. was determined to be responsive to
posted specifications and reasonable to provide the required goods based on the
market and previous contract pricing.

Contract Term
The term of the contract is five years and will begin on or about Oct. 1, 2023. There
are no options to extend the term.

Financial Impact
The contract value is expect to be up to $2 million over the five-year contract term.

Funding is available in the Aviation Department's Operating budget.



Page 102

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

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




Page 103



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Overhead, Aircraft Hangar, and Automatic Doors/Systems Replacement and
Repair Services Contract IFB 23-0129 - Request for Award (Ordinance S-50140)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
D.H. Pace Company, Inc. (D.H. Pace) to provide maintenance, repair, installation,
testing, and inspection services for various mechanical doors for the Aviation
Department on an as-needed basis. Further request to authorize the City Controller to
disburse all funds related to this item. The total value of the contract will be up to $1.5
million.

Summary
The contract will provide the services for aircraft hangar doors, overhead doors, dock
leveling devices, and automatic doors throughout Phoenix Sky Harbor International
Airport, Phoenix Deer Valley Airport, and Phoenix Goodyear Airport (Airports). These
doors are critical in allowing the Airports to maintain the large array of doors and
ensure the safety and security of the traveling public.

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

One bid was received from D.H. Pace. The bid was evaluated based on the minimum
qualifications, price, responsiveness, and responsibility to the posted specifications to
provide the required goods and services. The bid from D.H. Pace was deemed fair and
reasonable based on the market and previous agreement pricing.

Contract Term
The term of the contract is five years and will begin on or about Oct. 1, 2023. There
are no options to extend the term.

Financial Impact
The contract value will to be up to $1.5 million for the five-year term. Funding is
available in the Aviation Department's budget.




Page 104


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

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




Page 105



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Facility Condition Assessments Agreements - RFQu 24-FMD-002 (Ordinance S-
50122)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to establish a qualified vendor
list and enter into separate agreements with Arrington Watkins Architects; DLR Group,
Inc.; Facility Engineering Associates; FM Solutions Management, LLC; and
SmithGroup, Inc. to provide facility condition assessments on City-owned facilities.
Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this
item. The value of the agreement will not exceed $6.1 million.

Summary
The Public Works Department is responsible for assessing the condition of City-owned
facilities. Facility condition assessments are essential to monitor and maintain the
health and safety of more than 1,500 facilities. Information obtained from the
assessments is used to identify areas of immediate need, address maintenance
improvements, and verify functional or economic obsolescence. This information
allows for planning, budgeting, and prioritizing the necessary maintenance and repairs
of each facility. These agreements will also provide assessments for facilities
maintained by the Phoenix Convention Center, Housing and Water Services
departments.

Procurement Information
Request for Qualifications (RFQu) 24-FMD-002 was conducted in accordance with
Administrative Regulation 3.10. The Public Works Department received fourteen
proposals on March 29, 2023. One proposal was deemed non-responsive. The
proposals were evaluated by a panel that included representation from Fire, Phoenix
Convention Center, Street Transportation, Water Services and Public Works
departments. The proposals were evaluated based on criteria set forth in the RFQu
with 1,000 maximum points possible.

Arrington Watkins Architects: 935 points
DLR Group, Inc.: 921 points
ECS Southwest, LLP: 735 points
Facility Engineering Associates: 921 points
FM Solutions Management, LLC: 930 points


Page 106

GLHN Architects & Engineers, Inc.: 858 points
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.: 890 points
McKinstry Essention, LLC: 875 points
Partner Engineering and Science, Inc.: 888 points
Property Condition Assessments, LLC: 851 points
Sazan Group, Inc.: 895 points
SmithGroup, Inc.: 934 points
Terracon Consulting Engineers & Scientists: 916 points

The evaluation panel recommends the offers from Arrington Watkins Architects; DLR
Group, Inc.; Facility Engineering Associates; FM Solutions Management, LLC; and
SmithGroup, Inc. to be accepted as the responsive and responsible offers with the
highest point value received.

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

Financial Impact
The value of the agreements, including all option years, is $6.1 million, including all
applicable taxes. Funding is available in various departments' operating and CIP
budgets.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Interim Deputy City Manager John Chan, Deputy City
Managers Gina Montes, Ginger Spencer and Mario Paniagua, and the Phoenix
Convention Center, Housing, Water Services, and Public Works departments.




Page 107



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Chiller Maintenance and Repair Services - IFB 19-FMD-023 - Amendment
(Ordinance S-50128)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to amend Agreements 149541
with Mesa Energy Systems, Inc. dba Emcor Services Arizona; 149548 with Trane US,
Inc.; and 149542 with Pueblo Mechanical & Controls, LLC, to allow additional
expenditures for chiller maintenance and repairs in City-owned facilities. Further
request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The
additional expenditures will not exceed $793,000.

Summary
The Public Works Department is responsible for maintaining and repairing chillers in
City-owned facilities. Chillers are necessary in order to maintain temperatures in
buildings, and are the primary source of cooling in larger facilities. These full-service
agreements provide annual inspections, maintenance, and repairs of these systems.
The additional expenditures are necessary and will help maintain chillers citywide to
ensure they run efficiently and to help minimize repair costs. This request will also
support the facilities maintained by the Water Services Department.

Procurement Information
Invitation for Bid 19-FMD-023 was conducted in accordance with Administrative
Regulation 3.10. Five offers were received by the Public Works Department on Jan.
23, 2019. The offers were evaluated based on price, responsiveness to all
specifications, terms and conditions, and responsibility to provide the required
services. The offers submitted by Mesa Energy Systems, Inc. dba Emcor Services
Arizona; Trane US, Inc.; and Pueblo Mechanical & Controls, LLC were deemed fair
and reasonable.

Contract Term
The one-year contract terms started on May 1, 2019, with four option years to be
exercised in increments of up to one year, with a contract end date of April 30, 2024.

Financial Impact
The initial authorization for these agreement was for an expenditure not-to-exceed
$2,215,000. This request will increase the authorization of the agreements by an


Page 108

additional $793,000, for a new not-to-exceed agreement value of $3,008,000. Funds
are available in the Water Services and Public Works departments' budgets.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved Agreements 149541 with Mesa Energy Systems, Inc. dba
Emcor Services Arizona; 149548 with Trane US, Inc.; and 149542 with Pueblo
Mechanical & Controls, LLC (Ordinance S-45452) on March 20, 2019.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Ginger Spencer and Mario Paniagua,
and the Water Services and Public Works departments.




Page 109



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Aviation Glass Repair, Replace, and Maintenance Services - IFB 21-003 -
Amendment (Ordinance S-50130)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
Agreement 152953 with True View Windows and Glass, LLC to allow additional
expenditures and add the Public Works Department as an authorized user for glass
repair, replacement, and maintenance services in City-owned facilities. Further request
to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The additional
expenditures will not exceed $400,000.

Summary
The Public Works Department is responsible for providing glass repair and
replacement in facilities citywide. This agreement will provide glass repair,
replacement, installation, and maintenance services in City-owned facilities. The
agreement also provides frame components, various types of glass for windows, and
specialty services, such as glass scratch removal, graffiti protection film, and the
replacement of worn or missing seals.

Procurement Information
Invitation for Bid 21-003 was conducted in accordance with Administrative Regulation
3.10. Offers were received by the Aviation Department on July 27, 2020. The offers
were evaluated based on price, responsiveness to all specifications, terms and
conditions, and responsibility to provide the required services. The offer submitted by
True View Windows and Glass, LLC was deemed fair and reasonable.

Contract Term
The five-year contract term will remain unchanged, ending Sept. 30, 2025.

Financial Impact
The initial authorization for this agreement was for an expenditure not-to-exceed $1
million. This request will increase the authorization of the agreement by an additional
$400,000, for a new not-to-exceed agreement value of $1.4 million. Funds are
available in the Public Works Department's budget.




Page 110


Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved Agreement 152953 with True View Windows and Glass,
LLC (Ordinance S-46913) on Sept. 16, 2020.

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




Page 111



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Transmission Main Inspection and Assessment Program - Engineering Services
- WS85500379 (Ordinance S-50124)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with Black & Veatch Corporation, to provide Engineering Services that include
programming, studies, assessment, inspections, design, and possible construction
administration and inspection services for the Transmission Main Inspection and
Assessment Program 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 all services will not exceed $4,981,000.

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

Summary
The purpose of this project is to inspect 48 miles of Pre-stressed Concrete Cylinder
Pipe (PCCP) transmission mains. Twenty seven of the total pipes will be inspected to
determine the stability of distress discovered in previous inspections. For these
inspections, plans have been developed that identify the requirements and activities
necessary for shutdown inspection and startup of the mains. The remaining twenty one
miles will be new inspections and will require development of plans.

Black & Veatch Corporation's services include, but are not limited to: reviewing past
assessments; selection and implementation of pertinent inspection methods and tools;
assisting with upkeep of the City's PCCP inspection plan; developing detailed
inspection plans; assisting in development of scope documents for Job Order Contract


Page 112

support agreements; prepare construction documents for short-term or capital
improvements to facilitate pipeline shutdowns/startups; preparing detailed shutdown
plans; assisting with acquisition permits; coordinating shutdowns, inspection, repairs
and startup activities including field inspection and contract administration of work
performed by the Job Order Contractor; performing condition assessments utilizing
appropriate and agreed-upon inspection technologies and techniques; developing
construction documents for rapid pipeline reinforcement on an as-needed basis;
compiling and reporting inspection results; assisting with importing assessment results
into both the City's Computerized Maintenance Management System, Oracle Water
Asset Management and Geographical Information System; and updating inspection
checklists and guidelines and developing new ones as necessary.

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 are listed below.

Selected Firm
Rank 1: Black & Veatch Corporation

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

Financial Impact
The agreement value for Black & Veatch Corporation will not exceed $4,981,000,
including all sub-consultant 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.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Ginger Spencer and Alan
Stephenson, the Water Services Department and the City Engineer.


Page 113



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport Solar Covered Parking Shade
Structures - Architectural Services - AV09000101 FAA (Ordinance S-50135)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with WHPacific, Inc. to provide Architectural Services that include design and possible
construction administration and inspection for the Phoenix Sky Harbor International
Airport Solar Covered Parking Shade Structures 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 $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 related to the
development, design, and construction of the project. Such utility services include, but
are not limited to: electrical, water, sewer, natural gas, telecommunication, cable
television, railroads and other modes of transportation. Further request the City
Council to grant an exception to Phoenix City Code 42-20 to authorize inclusion in the
documents pertaining to this transaction of indemnification and assumption of liability
provisions that otherwise would be prohibited by Phoenix City Code 42-18. This
authorization excludes any transaction involving an interest in real property.

Summary
The purpose of the project is to increase available renewable electricity at the Airport
while reducing reliance on carbon-generated electricity. The project primarily focuses
on installing solar covered parking shade structures at the 24th Street and 44th Street
Phoenix Sky Train Station parking lots and the Terminal 4 Level 9 parking garage of
the Airport. The new solar-covered parking shade structures in the parking areas will
result in an annual average CO2 emissions avoidance, will increase renewable
electricity, produce solar renewable energy credits for the City, and lead to electricity
cost savings, in addition to providing covered parking areas for airport workers and the
traveling public.

WHPacific Inc.'s services include: performing a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
required glare analysis for each site; providing all services in compliance with
applicable FAA rules, regulations, and grant requirements; optimizing each site for

Page 114

applicable FAA rules, regulations, and grant requirements; optimizing each site for
maximum solar production, including battery storage for peak demand savings and
resiliency; providing programming to define requirements, alternatives, recommended
approach, and associated costs and construction program; providing a design package
that includes infrastructure for future electric vehicle charging, system specifications,
and anticipated annual solar production report; providing electrical evaluation of
existing conditions for each site; providing associated structural, electrical, mechanical,
technology, fire/life/safety/security, and civil work as required; participating in pre-
construction conference and weekly construction coordination meetings; conducting
site visits and preparing field reports and monthly construction progress reports;
reviewing and approving requests for information, proposal requests, change orders,
and certification of progress payments; preparing and submitting all required federal,
state, county, city, and others reports; participating in system commissioning activities;
participating in substantial completion walk-through inspections and punch list and in a
final acceptance walk-through inspection; providing record drawings, close-out related
services and system acceptance testing and documentation; participating in post
construction warranty inspection; and other services as needed for a complete project.

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

Selected Firm
Rank 1: WHPacific, Inc.

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

Financial Impact
The agreement value for WHPacfic, Inc. will not exceed $5 million, including all
subconsultant and reimbursable costs.

Funding is available in the Aviation Department's Capital Improvement Program
budget. The Aviation Department anticipates grant funding for a portion of the project.
The Budget and Research Department will separately review and approve funding


Page 115

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
24th Street and 44th Street Phoenix Sky Train Station parking lots and Terminal 4
Level 9 parking garage.
Council District: 8

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




Page 116



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport Tracon Demolition and West Hold Bay
Expansion - Engineering Services - AV08000089 FAA (Ordinance S-50136)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
TRACE Consulting, LLC to provide engineering services that include design and
possible construction administration and inspection services for the Phoenix Sky
Harbor International Airport Terminal Radar Approach Control Demolition and West
Hold Bay Expansion project. Further request to authorize the City Manager, or his
designee, to amend the contract as necessary within the City Council-approved
expenditure authority as provided below and for the City Controller to disburse all
funds related to this item. The fee for the services will not exceed $650,000.

Further 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 related to the
development, design, and construction of the Project. Utility services include:
electrical, water, sewer, natural gas, telecommunication, cable television, and railroads
and other modes of transportation. Further request the City Council to grant an
exception to Phoenix City Code 42-20 to authorize inclusion in the documents
pertaining to this transaction of indemnification and assumption of liability provisions
that otherwise would be prohibited by Phoenix City Code 42-18. This authorization
excludes any transaction involving an interest in real property.

Summary
The purpose of this project is to expand the West Hold Bay and demolish a building
that was formerly used to provide Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Terminal
Radar Approach Control (TRACON) services at the Airport. A replacement TRACON
was co-located with the Airport's control tower in 2006. The West Hold Bay is used for
aircraft parking, aircraft staging and other airfield operations. The size of the hold bay
will be reduced with the completion of the new Crossfield Taxiway U project, which
overlaps with the west end of the hold bay. Demolition of the TRACON building will
allow for expansion of the east end of the hold bay to accommodate the space lost to
Taxiway U.

TRACE Consulting, LLC's services include: develop phased construction requirements


Page 117

with existing airport operations; design and prepare project plans and specifications in
compliance with applicable Maricopa County and City of Phoenix building codes;
provide construction estimates, construction safety plans, and all required
documentation to submit for FAA grant compliance; complete the engineers report
required for FAA and Airport Improvement Project (AIP) grant compliance; provide bid
phase services for the eventual advertisement of construction for the project using the
design-bid-build delivery method; assist with bidding and prepare all project addenda;
provide construction administration and inspection services per AIP and FAA grant
requirements; review contractor shop drawings and submittals; review and approve
monthly pay requests; schedule, conduct, and provide documentation for regular
progress meetings with client and funding agencies; respond to requests for
information; verify compliance with contract documents; issue letter of substantial
completion; review contractor's record drawings monthly and prepare final record
drawings; prepare daily inspection reports for the Project records detailing construction
progress and punch-list development; conduct pre-final and final inspection; and
conduct warranty inspection and other services as needed for a complete project.

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

Selected Firm:
Rank 1: TRACE Consulting, LLC

Additional Firm:
Rank 2: Stantec Consulting Services, Inc.
Rank 3: C&S Engineers, Inc.

Contract Term
The term of the agreement is five years from the issuance of the Notice to Proceed.
Work scope identified and incorporated into the contract 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 contract value for TRACE Consulting, LLC will not exceed $650,000, including all
subconsultant and reimbursable costs.



Page 118

Funding is available in the Aviation Department's Capital Improvement Program. The
Aviation Department anticipates grant funding for a portion of the project. 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
2485 E. Buckeye Road
Council District: 8

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




Page 119



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Arizona Public Service Trenching Agreement for City of Phoenix Booster Pump
Station 5A-B2 - WS85100032 (Ordinance S-50137)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a trenching
agreement with Arizona Public Service (APS) to install underground distribution
facilities for project WS85100032 5A-B2, Booster Pump Station Replacement. Further
request to grant an exception pursuant to Phoenix City Code 42-20 to authorize
inclusion in the documents pertaining to this transaction of indemnification and
assumption of liability provisions that otherwise would be prohibited by Phoenix City
Code 42-18.

Summary
The City is constructing modifications to existing Booster Pump Station 5A-B2 at 20th
Street and Greenway Road that will require the installation of new underground
electrical facilities. The trenching agreement is required by APS to proceed with
electrical design, as well as the installation of necessary facilities to provide power for
the City's requested needs.

Contract Term
The term of the agreement will begin on or about Sept. 5, 2023, and expire when the
project is completed and accepted.

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

Location
20th Street and Greenway Road
Council District: 3

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Alan Stephenson and Ginger
Spencer, the Water Services Department and the City Engineer.




Page 120



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Arizona Public Service Trenching Agreement for City of Phoenix Booster Pump
Station 4F-B1 - WS85400007-7 (Ordinance S-50138)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a Trenching
Agreement with Arizona Public Service (APS) to install underground distribution
facilities for project WS85400007-7 4F-B1 Booster Pump Upgrade. Further request to
grant an exception pursuant to Phoenix City Code 42-20 to authorize inclusion in the
documents pertaining to this transaction of indemnification and assumption of liability
provisions that otherwise would be prohibited by Phoenix City Code 42-18.

Summary
The City is constructing upgrades to existing Booster Pump Station 4F-B1 at 15th
Avenue and Port au Prince Lane that will require the installation of new underground
electrical facilities. The trenching agreement is required by APS to proceed with
electrical design, as well as the installation of necessary facilities to provide power for
the City's requested needs.

Contract Term
The term of the agreement will begin on or about Sept. 5, 2023, and expire when the
project is completed and accepted.

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

Location
15th Avenue and Port au Prince Lane
Council District: 3

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Alan Stephenson and Ginger
Spencer, the Water Services Department and the City Engineer.




Page 121



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Amend Contract 157963-0 Salt River Project Facility Relocation Agreement -
Camelback Road and 44th Street - Salt River Project Aesthetics (Ordinance S-
50139)

Request the City Council amend Contract 157963-0 to revise Exhibit A, sealed legal
descriptions and exhibits for a proposed easement contained in the Salt River Project
(SRP) Facility Relocation Agreement at 44th Street and Camelback.

Summary
SRP is converting overhead electrical facilities on 44th Street North of Camelback
Road, which will be relocated underground in accordance with an approved SRP
Municipal Aesthetics Program project. As part of the conversion, the City entered into
Contract 157963-0, a Facility Relocation Agreement on Jan. 25, 2023, (Ordinance S-
49373) that contained Exhibit A, legal descriptions and exhibits for an easement
needed at 44th Street and Camelback Road. Prior to the start of construction, it was
discovered that Exhibit A did not accurately capture the footprint needed for SRP’s
facilities and was revised accordingly. All other conditions and stipulations previously
stated in the Contract and Ordinance will remain the same.

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

Location
44th Street north of Camelback Road
Council District: 6

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved the Facility Relocation Agreement with Salt River Project
for Electrical Facilities Along 44th Street north of Camelback Road (Ordinance S-
49373) on Jan. 25, 2023.

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



Page 122



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport Taxiway A Connectors A3 to A4
Strengthening and Reconstruction - Engineering Services - AV08000088 FAA
(Ordinance S-50142)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. to provide Engineering Services that include
design and possible construction administration and inspection for the Phoenix Sky
Harbor International Airport Taxiway A Connectors A3 to A4 Strengthening and
Reconstruction project. Further request to authorize execution of amendments to the
agreement as necessary within the Council-approved expenditure authority as
provided below, and for the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The
fee for services will not exceed $2 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 related to the
development, design and construction of the project. Such utility services include, but
are not limited to: electrical, water, sewer, natural gas, telecommunication, cable
television, railroads and other modes of transportation. Further request the City Council
to grant an exception to Phoenix City Code 42-20 to authorize inclusion in the
documents pertaining to this transaction of indemnification and assumption of liability
provisions that otherwise should be prohibited by Phoenix City Code 42-18. This
authorization excludes any transaction involving an interest in real property.

Summary
The purpose of this project is to reconstruct Taxiway A from A3 to A4 and the A4
connector at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport to support Group V aircraft
operations. Taxiway A is part of the north airfield of the airport and parallels the north
runway. The westernmost end of Taxiway A, from connectors A1 to A3, is made up of
concrete pavement and can accommodate Group V aircraft. The remainder of Taxiway
A is asphalt paving and can accommodate smaller Group III aircraft. Planned
development at the northwest corner of the airfield to support cargo operations and an
aircraft isolation pad requires the development of an aircraft isolation pad,
accommodations to connect Taxiway A to the planned cargo development, and the
reconstruction of the vehicle service road that parallels the taxiway to the north of the
airport.

Page 123

Stantec Consulting Services, Inc.'s services include, but are not limited to: developing
phased construction requirements with existing airport operations; designing and
preparing project plans and specifications in compliance with applicable Maricopa
County and City of Phoenix Building Codes; providing construction estimates,
construction safety plans, and all required documentation to submit for Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) grant compliance; completing the engineer's report
required for FAA and Airport Improvement Project (AIP) grant compliance; providing
bid phase services for the eventual advertisement of construction for the project using
the design-bid-build delivery method; assisting with bidding and preparing all project
addenda; providing construction administration and inspection services per AIP and
FAA grant requirements; reviewing contractor shop drawings and submittals; reviewing
and approving monthly pay requests; scheduling, conducting, and providing
documentation for regular progress meetings with client and funding agencies;
responding to requests for information; verifying compliance with contract documents;
issuing letter of substantial completion; reviewing contractor's record drawings monthly
and prepare final record drawings; preparing daily inspection reports for the project
records detailing construction progress and punch-list development; conducting pre-
final and final inspections; and conducting warranty inspection and other services as
needed for a complete project.

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

Selected Firm:
Rank 1: Stantec Consulting Services, Inc.

Additional Firms:
Rank 2: HDR Engineers, Inc.
Rank 3: Dibble & Associates Consulting Engineers, Inc.
Rank 4: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Rank 5: RS&H, Inc.
Rank 6: C&S Engineers, Inc.

Contract Term
The term of the agreement is five years from issuance of the Notice to Proceed. Work




Page 124

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 Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. will not exceed $2 million,
including all subconsultant and reimbursable costs.

Funding is available in the Aviation Department's Capital Improvement Program
budget. The Aviation Department anticipates grant funding for a portion of this project.
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
2485 E. Buckeye Road
Council District: 8

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




Page 125



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport Terminal 4 Central Plant Modernization
- Engineering Services - AV21000111 FAA (Ordinance S-50144)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with SmithGroup, Inc. to provide Engineering Services that include condition
assessment, design, and possible construction administration and inspection for the
Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport Terminal 4 Central Plant Modernization
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 $4.5 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 related to the
development, design, and construction of the project. Such utility services include, but
are not limited to: electrical, water, sewer, natural gas, telecommunication, cable
television, railroads and other modes of transportation. Further request the City
Council to grant an exception to Phoenix City Code 42-20 to authorize inclusion in the
documents pertaining to this transaction of indemnification and assumption of liability
provisions that otherwise should be prohibited by Phoenix City Code 42-18. This
authorization excludes any transaction involving an interest in real property.

Summary
The purpose of this project is to replace the current Terminal 4 Central Plant and all
associated equipment and possible inclusion of the controls systems that provide all
cooling capabilities for the Terminal 4 building campus. The Terminal 4 building
campus is approximately 1.9M square feet, which includes the main terminal and eight
concourses with associated connecting bridges. The Terminal 4 Central Plant and
associated equipment is more than 30 years old and has reached or exceeded its
useful life. The equipment is outdated, costly to operate and maintain, has become
obsolete, and parts are no longer manufactured. The modernization design shall align
with the Airport's goals in sustainability, resiliency, and any applicable key performance
indicators. The objective of the project is to design a modern and sustainable central
plant in Terminal 4. When the project is complete, the new Terminal 4 Central Plant will


Page 126

provide increased building campus cooling capacity and energy efficiency while
simultaneously reducing operation and maintenance costs.

SmithGroup, Inc.'s services include, but are not limited to: conducting onsite
assessment and evaluation; inventorying existing equipment and apparatus;
coordinating with the City and Construction Manager at Risk during design of the
project; designing replacement of electrical services entrance sections, chillers,
condensing water pumps, Central Plant piping, heat exchangers, cooling tower, water
softening and water treatment systems, Central Plant internal space cooling system,
Central Plant control systems, and life safety systems and all associated equipment;
providing full system specifications and anticipated production statistics, optimizing the
Central Plant for maximum energy savings and resiliency; providing design to include
infrastructure for future upgrades where applicable; providing all associated structural,
electrical, mechanical, technology, fire/life/safety/security, and civil design work as
required; and possible construction administration and inspection services that include
participating in pre-construction conference and weekly construction coordination
meetings; preparing meeting minutes and responding to requests for information and
submittal review and approvals; preparing and submitting of all required federal, state,
county, City, and others reports; reviewing and approving monthly pay requests;
scheduling, conducting, and providing documentation for regular progress meetings;
participating in substantial completion walk-through inspection and final acceptance
walk-through inspection; preparing final record drawings and close-out services; and
conducting warranty inspection and other services as needed for a complete project.

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

Selected Firm:
Rank 1: SmithGroup, Inc.

Additional Firms:
Rank 2: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Rank 3: The RMH Group, Inc.
Rank 4: IMEG Consultants Corp.
Rank 5: Energy Systems Design, Inc.
Rank 6: Affiliated Engineers, Inc.
Rank 7: Page Southerland Page, Inc.


Page 127

Rank 8: Arup US, Inc.
Rank 9: Henderson Engineers, Inc.

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

Financial Impact
The agreement value for SmithGroup, Inc. will not exceed $4.5 million, including all
subconsultant and reimbursable costs.

Funding is available in the Aviation Department's Capital Improvement Program
budget. The Aviation Department anticipates grant funding for a portion of the project.
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
3800 E. Sky Harbor Blvd.
Council District: 8

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




Page 128



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Apply for Maricopa Association of Governments Congestion Mitigation and Air
Quality Improvement Program for Fiscal Year 2023-24 Federal - Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law Funding (Ordinance S-50150)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to apply for and accept if
awarded and enter into agreements for disbursement of Federal funding from the
Maricopa Association of Governments through the Fiscal Year 2023-24 Congestion
Mitigation and Air Quality Particulate Matter-10 certified street sweepers grant
opportunity funded by the U.S. Department of Transportation. Further request an
exemption from the indemnification prohibition set forth in the Phoenix City Code
section 42-18 for a governmental entity pursuant to Phoenix City Code section 42-20.
If awarded, the funding will be used to replace aging street sweepers. Additionally,
request to authorize the City Treasurer to accept, and the City Controller to disburse,
all funds related to this item. The City's local match would not exceed $200,000.

Summary
On Aug. 1, 2023, the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) announced a call
for projects for federal Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) Improvement
Particulate Matter 10 micrometers or smaller (PM-10) certified street sweepers. There
is approximately $1,344,969 in CMAQ funding available under this current call.

The City intends to submit applications for up to two PM-10 certified street sweepers to
replace two older sweepers. Obtaining grant funding allows the City to leverage local
dollars to design, build, and procure new projects and equipment for the benefit of the
community.

The CMAQ PM-10 certified street sweepers grant submittal deadline is Sept. 15, 2023.

Financial Impact
The estimated total cost for the equipment will be determined prior to submittal of the
application. The maximum federal participation rate is 94.3 percent with a minimum
local match of 5.7 percent of the total eligible equipment costs. The City’s costs,
including non-eligible costs, would be approximately for a total of $200,000.

The City would fund the required local match plus any overmatch amount to fund


Page 129

additional City-required features or specifications that are not eligible for
reimbursement under CMAQ.

Funding for the local match is available in the Street Transportation Department's
Capital Improvement Program budget. Potential grant funding received is available
through the Federal Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, from MAG through the Fiscal Year
2023-24 CMAQ PM-10 grant opportunity funded by the U.S. Department of
Transportation.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Alan Stephenson and Mario
Paniagua, and the Street Transportation Department.




Page 130



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Final Plat - Dahlia Village - PLAT 230072 - Northwest Corner of 12th Street and
Illini Street

Plat: 230072
Project: 22-2639
Name of Plat: Dahlia Village
Owner: Bonitas Casitas, LLC
Engineer: James M. Williamson, RLS
Request: A One-Lot Commercial Plat
Reviewed by Staff: Aug. 4, 2023
Final Plat requires Formal Action Only

Summary
Staff requests that the above plat be approved by the City Council and certified by the
City Clerk. Recording of the plat dedicates the streets and easements as shown to the
public.

Location
Generally located at the northwest corner of 12th Street and Illini Street
Council District: 8

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




Page 131



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Amend City Code - Official Supplementary Zoning Map 1248 (Ordinance G-7148)

Request to authorize the City Manager to amend Section 601 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance by adopting Official Supplementary Zoning Map 1248. This amendment
reflects that the property owner has met all of the rezoning conditions previously
approved by City Council with Z-129-06 and the entitlements are fully vested.

Summary
To rezone a parcel located approximately 200 feet north of the northeast corner of 41st
Drive and Opportunity Way.
Application No.: Z-129-06
Zoning: C-2 PCD
Owner: 42101 & 42105 N 41st Dr, LLC and K2H Desert North, LLC
Acreage: 9.70

Location
Located approximately 200 feet north of the northeast corner of 41st Drive and
Opportunity Way
Address: 42101, 42105, 42201 and 42211 N. 41st Drive
Council District: 1

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




Page 132
ATTACHMENT A

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




ORDINANCE G-

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 601 OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE BY ADOPTING OFFICIAL
SUPPLEMENTARY ZONING MAP 1248.

____________


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

follows:

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

hereby amended by adopting Official Supplementary Zoning Map 1248, which

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

PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 6th day of September,

2023.



_____________________________________
MAYOR




ATTEST:


_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk




Page 133
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Julie M. Kriegh, City Attorney


By:_________________________

_________________________


REVIEWED BY:


_________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager




PL:arm:LF23-1921:9-6-2023




Page 134
Page 135



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Amend City Code - Official Supplementary Zoning Map 1251 (Ordinance G-7151)

Request to authorize the City Manager to amend Section 601 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance by adopting Official Supplementary Zoning Map 1251. This amendment
reflects that the property owner has met all of the rezoning conditions previously
approved by City Council with Z-87-06-2 and the entitlements are fully vested.

Summary
To rezone a parcel approximately 290 feet north of the northwest corner of 53rd Street
and Dynamite Road.
Application No.: Z-87-06-2
Zoning: R1-10
Owner: Various (Diamond Tree Estates HOA, et al.)
Acreage: 9.50

Location
Approximately 290 feet north of the northwest corner of 53rd Street and Dynamite
Road
Address: Various
Council District: 2

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




Page 136
ATTACHMENT A

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




ORDINANCE G-

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 601 OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE BY ADOPTING OFFICIAL
SUPPLEMENTARY ZONING MAP 1251.

____________


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

follows:

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

hereby amended by adopting Official Supplementary Zoning Map 1251, which

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

PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 6th day of September,

2023.



_____________________________________
MAYOR




ATTEST:


_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk




Page 137
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Julie M. Kriegh, City Attorney


By:_________________________

_________________________


REVIEWED BY:


_________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager




PL:arm:LF23-1932:9-6-2023




Page 138
Page 139



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Amend City Code - Official Supplementary Zoning Map 1249 (Ordinance G-7149)

Request to authorize the City Manager to amend Section 601 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance by adopting Official Supplementary Zoning Map 1249. This amendment
reflects that the property owner has met all of the rezoning conditions previously
approved by City Council with Z-49-06-4 and the entitlements are fully vested.

Summary
To rezone a parcel located approximately 660 feet north of the northeast corner of
Thomas Road and State Route-51.
Application No.: Z-49-06-4
Zoning: R-5 H-R
Owner: Greenfield Hotel Investors, LLC
Acreage: 2.64

Location
Address: 2940 N. Greenfield Road
Council District: 4

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




Page 140
ATTACHMENT A

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




ORDINANCE G-

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 601 OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE BY ADOPTING OFFICIAL
SUPPLEMENTARY ZONING MAP 1249.

____________


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

follows:

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

hereby amended by adopting Official Supplementary Zoning Map 1249, which

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

PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 6th day of September,

2023.



_____________________________________
MAYOR




ATTEST:


_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk




Page 141
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Julie M. Kriegh, City Attorney


By:_________________________

_________________________


REVIEWED BY:


_________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager




PL:arm:LF23-1922:9-6-2023




Page 142
Page 143



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Amend City Code - Official Supplementary Zoning Map 1250 (Ordinance G-7150)

Request to authorize the City Manager to amend Section 601 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance by adopting Official Supplementary Zoning Map 1250. This amendment
reflects that the property owner has met all of the rezoning conditions previously
approved by City Council with Z-76-06-5 and the entitlements are fully vested.

Summary
To rezone a parcel located at the southeast corner of the Loop 101 Freeway and
Camelback Road.
Application No.: Z-76-06-5
Zoning: C-2
Owner: Camelback 101 Development, LLC; Bank of Arizona, N.A.; In-N-Out Burgers; L
& L, LLC; and Spirit Master Funding VIII, LLC
Acreage: 12.26

Location
Southeast corner of Loop 101 Freeway and Camelback Road
Address: 9515, 9545, 9555, 9585, 9611 and 9675 W. Camelback Road
Council District: 5

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




Page 144
ATTACHMENT A

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




ORDINANCE G-

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 601 OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE BY ADOPTING OFFICIAL
SUPPLEMENTARY ZONING MAP 1250.

____________


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

follows:

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

hereby amended by adopting Official Supplementary Zoning Map 1250, which

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

PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 6th day of September,

2023.



_____________________________________
MAYOR




ATTEST:


_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk




Page 145
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Julie M. Kriegh, City Attorney


By:_________________________

_________________________


REVIEWED BY:


_________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager




PL:arm:LF23-1930:9-6-2023




Page 146
Page 147



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Amend City Code - Ordinance Adoption - Rezoning Application Z-21-23-1 -
Approximately 325 Feet North of the Northwest Corner of Black Canyon Highway
and Deer Valley Road (Ordinance G-7154)

Request to amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section 601, the Zoning Map of the
C-1 DVAO (Neighborhood Retail, Deer Valley Airport Overlay District) and C-2
HGT/WVR DVAO (Intermediate Commercial, Height Waiver, Deer Valley Airport
Overlay District) to A-1 DVAO (Light Industrial District, Deer Valley Airport Overlay
District) to allow office and warehouse uses.

Summary
Current Zoning: C-1 DVAO (1.86 acres) and C-2 HGT/WVR DVAO (3.77 acres)
Proposed Zoning: A-1 DVAO
Acreage: 5.63
Proposal: Office and warehouse

Owner: Rockwell Baker Industrial Center, LLC
Applicant/Representative: Cassandra Ayres, Berry Riddell, LLC

Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Action: The Deer Valley Village Planning Committee was scheduled to hear this
case on June 8, 2023; however, there was no quorum.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this case on Aug. 3, 2023, and
recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, by a vote of 8-0.

Location
Approximately 325 feet north of the northwest corner of Black Canyon Highway and
Deer Valley Road
Council District: 1
Parcel Address: 2555 W. Louise Drive

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


Page 148
ATTACHMENT A

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




ORDINANCE G-

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 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-21-23-1) FROM C-1 DVAO (NEIGHBORHOOD
RETAIL, DEER VALLEY AIRPORT OVERLAY DISTRICT) AND C-
2 HGT/WVR DVAO (INTERMEDIATE COMMERCIAL, HEIGHT
WAIVER, DEER VALLEY AIRPORT OVERLAY DISTRICT) TO A-1
DVAO (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT, DEER VALLEY AIRPORT
OVERLAY DISTRICT).

____________



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

follows:

SECTION 1. The zoning of a 5.63-acre site located approximately 325 feet

north of the northwest corner of Black Canyon Highway and Deer Valley Road in a

portion of Section 13, Township 4 North, Range 2 East, as described more specifically

in Exhibit “A,” is hereby changed from 1.86 acres of “C-1 DVAO” (Neighborhood Retail,

Deer Valley Airport Overlay District) and 3.77 acres of “C-2 HGT/WVR DVAO”

(Intermediate Commercial, Height Waiver, Deer Valley Airport Overlay District), to “A-1

DVAO” (Light Industrial District, Deer Valley Airport Overlay District).




Page 149
SECTION 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to

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

change as shown in Exhibit “B.”

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

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

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

Phoenix Zoning Ordinance:

1. An average 9-foot (minimum 5-foot) wide landscape setback shall be provided
along the north perimeter of the site (Louise Drive), as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.

2. An average 9-foot (minimum 5-foot) wide landscape setback shall be provided
along the west perimeter of the site (26th Avenue), as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.

3. A minimum of 4 bicycle parking spaces shall be provided through Inverted U
and/or artistic racks located near the building entrance and installed per the
requirements of Section 1307.H of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, as approved
by the Planning and Development Department. Artistic racks shall adhere to the
Master Plan.

4. A minimum of 10% of the required parking spaces shall be EV Ready.

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

6. Right-of-way totaling 30 feet shall be dedicated for the east half of 26th Avenue,
as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

7. Right-of-way totaling 30 feet for the south half of Louise Drive with a half 50-
foot radius cul-de-sac shall be dedicated at its termination, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.

8. An 18-foot x 18-foot right-of-way triangle shall be dedicated at the southeast
corner of 26th Avenue and Louise Drive, as approved by the Planning and




Page 150
Development Department.

9. A sidewalk easement shall be dedicated on the east side of 26th Avenue and
south side of Louise Drive, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

10. A minimum 5-foot-wide detached sidewalk separated by a minimum 5-foot-wide
landscape strip located between the back of curb with minimum 2-inch caliper
single-trunk, large canopy, drought-tolerant shade trees planted 20 feet on
center or in equivalent groupings and sidewalk shall be constructed along 26th
Avenue and Louise Drive, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

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

11. 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 6th day of September,

2023.




________________________________
MAYOR


ATTEST:


_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk




Page 151
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Julie M. Kriegh, City Attorney


By:
_________________________
_________________________


REVIEWED BY:


_________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager



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




Page 152
EXHIBIT A

WITHIN A PORTION OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 4 NORTH, RANGE 2 EAST OF
THE GILA AND SALT RIVER BASE AND MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY,
ARIZONA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

APN: 209-04-048C
LOT 46, TOWNSITE OF ADOBE, STATE PLAT NO. 11, ACCORDING TO BOOK 68
OF MAPS, PAGE 45, RECORDS OF MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA; EXCEPT THE
WEST 40 FEET THEREOF; AND EXCEPT THAT PART OF SAID LOT 46 LYING
SOUTHEASTERLY OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE:

BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE
SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF
SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 4 NORTH, RANGE 2 EAST OF THE GILA AND SALT
RIVER BASE AND MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, WHICH IS
EASTERLY 998.06 FEET FROM THE SOUTHWEST CORNER THEREOF;

THENCE NORTH 33 DEGREES 16 MINUTES 19 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF
397 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF SAID NORTH
HALF OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST
QUARTER AND THE TERMINUS POINT OF THIS DESCRIPTION; AND ALSO
EXCEPT 1/16TH OF ALL GAS, OIL, METAL AND MINERAL RIGHTS AS RESERVED
UNTO THE STATE OF ARIZONA IN PATENT TO SAID LAND.

APN: 209-04-051A
PARCEL NO. 1:
ALL OF LOT 49 AND THE WEST 40 FEET OF LOT 46, TOWNSITE OF ADOBE,
STATE PLAT NO. 11, ACCORDING TO BOOK 68 OF MAPS, PAGE 45, RECORDS
OF MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA.
EXCEPT 1/16 OF ALL GAS, OIL, METAL AND MINERAL RIGHTS AS RESERVED
UNTO THE STATE OF ARIZONA IN PATENT TO SAID LAND.

PARCEL NO. 2:
A STRIP OF LAND 20 FEET IN WIDTH, ADJOINING THE EAST LINE OF LOT 49,
STATE PLAT NO. 11 TOWNSITE OF ADOBE, ACCORDING TO BOOK 68 OF MAPS,
PAGE 45, RECORDS OF MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, AND LYING BETWEEN
THE EASTERLY PROLONGATIONS OF THE NORTH AND SOUTH LINES OF SAID
LOT 49, AS SET FORTH IN RESOLUTION 20455 RECORDED IN DOCUMENT
NO. 20070072644.




Page 153
Page 154



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Amend City Code - Ordinance Adoption - Rezoning Application Z-SP-2-23-2 -
Approximately 375 Feet South of the Southwest Corner of North Valley Parkway
and Sonoran Desert Drive (Ordinance G-7152)

Request to amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section 601, the Zoning Map of the
from C-2 M-R NBCOD (Intermediate Commercial, Mid-Rise District, North Black
Canyon Overlay District) to C-2 SP NBCOD (Intermediate Commercial, Special Permit,
North Black Canyon Overlay District) to allow a self-service storage warehouse and all
other underlying uses.

Summary
Current Zoning: C-2 M-R NBCOD
Proposed Zoning: C-2 SP NBCOD
Acreage: 1.86
Proposal: Self-service storage warehouse and all other underlying uses

Owner: LDR-Sonoran Parkway, LLC
Applicant/Representative: Paul Gilbert, Beus Gilbert McGroder, LLC

Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Action: The North Gateway Village Planning Committee heard this case on June
8, 2023, and recommended denial, by a vote of 3-1-1.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this case on Aug. 3, 2023, and
recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, by a vote of 5-3.

Location
Approximately 375 feet south of the southwest corner of North Valley Parkway and
Sonoran Desert Drive
Council District: 2
Parcel Address: 31200 N. North Valley Parkway

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


Page 155
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-SP-2-23-2) FROM C-2 M-R NBCOD
(INTERMEDIATE COMMERCIAL, MID-RISE DISTRICT, NORTH
BLACK CANYON OVERLAY DISTRICT) TO C-2 SP NBCOD
(INTERMEDIATE COMMERCIAL, SPECIAL PERMIT, NORTH
BLACK CANYON OVERLAY DISTRICT).

____________



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

follows:

SECTION 1. The zoning of a 1.86-acre site located approximately 375 feet

south of the southwest corner of North Valley Parkway and Sonoran Desert Drive in a

portion of Section 24, Township 5 North, Range 2 East, as described more specifically

in Exhibit “A,” is hereby changed from “C-2 M-R NBCOD” (Intermediate Commercial,

Mid-Rise District, North Black Canyon Overlay District) to “C-2 SP NBCOD”

(Intermediate Commercial, Special Permit, North Black Canyon Overlay District) to

allow a self-service storage warehouse and all other underlying uses.




Page 156
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 in general conformance with the site plan date
stamped May 18, 2023, as modified by the following stipulations and as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.

2. The development shall be in general conformance with the building elevations
date stamped May 18, 2023, with specific regard to the variety and type of
materials, variety of colors, articulation, canopies, windows and massing, as
modified by the following stipulations and as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.

3. The maximum building height shall be three stories and 33 feet above grade.

4. The color and material palette for buildings shall comply with the North Black
Canyon Overlay District, with specific regard to colors being muted and blend
with, rather than contrast strongly, with the surrounding desert environment, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.

5. 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.

6. The walkway adjacent to the building shall provide a connection point for a
continuous walkway that connects to the future commercial pad to the north, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.

7. All walkways, including sidewalks, shall be shaded by a structure, landscaping
at maturity, or a combination of the two to provide a minimum of 75% shade,
measured at summer solstice at noon, at maturity, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.

8. A minimum of 15% of the required parking spaces and a minimum of 50% of




Page 157
the required ADA parking spaces shall include Electric Vehicle (EV) Installed
infrastructure, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

9. A minimum of four bicycle parking spaces shall be provided through Inverted U
and/or artistic racks located near the rental office and installed per the
requirements of Section 1307.H. of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department. Artistic racks shall
adhere to the City of Phoenix Preferred Designs in Appendix K of the
Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan.

10. A minimum of two of the required bicycle parking spaces shall include standard
electrical receptacles for electric bicycle charging capabilities, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department.

11. A minimum 30-foot-wide landscape setback shall be provided along the west
and south perimeter of the site and planted with minimum 3-inch caliper and
minimum 4-inch caliper large canopy drought-tolerant shade trees, as depicted
on the landscape plan date stamped May 18, 2023, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.

12. A minimum 30-foot-wide landscape setback shall be provided along the east
perimeter of the site and planted with minimum 3-inch caliper large canopy
drought-tolerant shade trees placed 20 feet on center or in equivalent
groupings, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

13. A minimum 10-foot-wide landscape setback shall be provided along the north
perimeter of the site.

14. Landscape setbacks shall be planted with drought-tolerant shrubs, accents and
vegetative groundcovers to provide a minimum of 75% live coverage at
maturity, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

15. A minimum 6-foot-wide detached sidewalk and a minimum 10-foot-wide
landscape strip between the back of curb and sidewalk shall be constructed
along the west side of North Valley Parkway, planted to the following standards
and maintained with a watering system, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.

a. Minimum 3-inch caliper single-trunk, large canopy, drought-tolerant
shade trees planted 20 feet on center or in equivalent groupings.

b. Drought-tolerant shrubs, accents and vegetative groundcovers to
achieve a minimum of 75% 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




Page 158
pedestrian environment.

16. A recorded cross-access agreement between the subject site and the parcel to
the north shall be provided prior to preliminary site plan approval, as approved
by the Planning and Development Department. The agreement shall be
reviewed and approved by the Planning and Development Department prior to
recordation with Maricopa County.

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

18. Prior to preliminary site plan approval, the developer shall record documents
that disclose to purchasers of the property within the development the proximity
to building heights up to 190 feet to the north of the subject site. The form and
content of such documents shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to
recordation.

19. 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.

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 6th day of September,

2023.




________________________________
MAYOR


ATTEST:




Page 159
_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk


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


By:
_________________________
_________________________


REVIEWED BY:


_________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager



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




Page 160
EXHIBIT A

The south 227’4” of Lot 1 of the Final Plat of Sonoran Commons Commercial, located in
a portion of the northwest quarter of Section 24, Township 5 North, Range 2 East of the
Gila and Salt River Meridian, Maricopa County, Arizona, according to Book 1307, page
37, recorded in the Office of the County Recorder, Maricopa County, Arizona.




Page 161
Page 162



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
***REQUEST TO WITHDRAW (SEE ATTACHED MEMO)*** Amend City Code -
Ordinance Adoption - Rezoning Application Z-19-23-5 - Approximately 500 Feet
South of the Southeast Corner of 75th Avenue and Camelback Road (Ordinance
G-7155)

Request to amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section 601, the Zoning Map of the
R1-6 (Single-Family Residence District) to R-3A (Multifamily Residence District) to
allow multifamily residential.

Summary
Current Zoning: R1-6
Proposed Zoning: R-3A
Acreage: 6.50
Proposal: Multifamily residential

Owner: Sheri Ranger, Ranger Homes, LLC
Applicant/Representative: Taylor Earl, Earl & Curley, P.C.

Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Action: The Maryvale Village Planning Committee heard this case on July 12,
2023, and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, by a vote of 10-1.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this case on Aug. 3, 2023, and
recommended approval, per the Maryvale Village Planning Committee
recommendation, by a vote of 8-0.

Location
Approximately 500 feet south of the southeast corner of 75th Avenue and Camelback
Road
Council District: 5
Parcel Address: 4705, 4729, 4735 and 4747 N. 75th Ave.

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

Page 163
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-19-23-5) FROM R1-6 (SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENCE DISTRICT) TO R-3A (MULTIFAMILY RESIDENCE
DISTRICT).

____________



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

follows:

SECTION 1. The zoning of a 6.50-acre site located approximately 500 feet

south of the southeast corner of 75th Avenue and Camelback Road in a portion of

Section 24, Township 2 North, Range 1 East, as described more specifically in Exhibit

“A,” is hereby changed from “R1-6” (Single-Family Residence District) to “R-3A”

(Multifamily Residence District).

SECTION 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to

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

change as shown in Exhibit “B.”

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

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




Page 164
violation of which shall be treated in the same manner as a violation of the City of

Phoenix Zoning Ordinance:

1. The site shall be limited to no more than a total of 112 dwelling units.

2. Buildings shall be set back an average of 45 feet from the southern property
line, but in no case shall a building be closer than 15 feet and in no case shall
a building with more than 75 feet of building facade directly facing the southern
property line be any closer than 60 feet, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.

3. The site shall maintain common area of at least 10 percent of the gross
acreage, which may include both active and passive open space, as approved
by the Planning and Development Department.

4. The on-site amenities shall include at least a pool, clubhouse, outdoor BBQ
area, tot lot, and dog run, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

5. The maximum building height shall be 30 feet. Architectural detailing above 30
feet may be added for no more than 25% of any building facade and in no case
shall such detailing exceed 33 feet, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.

6. The south landscape setback shall be planted with minimum 2-inch caliper,
drought tolerant shade trees planted 20 feet on center or in equivalent
groupings, 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.

7. Resident bicycle parking shall be provided at a rate of 0.25 spaces per dwelling
unit, up to a maximum of 50 spaces, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department. These spaces shall be located near building
entrances or common areas and may be provided through a combination of
inverted U- bicycle racks, artistic style racks, “Secure/Covered Facilities” or
“Outdoor/Covered Facilities” as defined in Appendix K or the Comprehensive
Bicycle Master Plan.

8. A minimum of 5% of the required parking spaces shall be Electric Vehicle (EV)
Capable.

9. Where pedestrian pathways cross drive aisles, they shall be constructed of
decorative pavers, stamped, or colored concrete, or other pavement treatments
(such as striping), as approved by the Planning and Development Department.




Page 165
10. A minimum of 70 feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated along the east side of
75th Avenue, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

11. The existing attached sidewalk along 75th Avenue shall be detached to connect
to the existing detached sidewalk. The sidewalk shall be minimum 5-feet-wide
with a minimum 9-foot-wide landscape area between back of curb and sidewalk
to match the existing sidewalk condition on the southwest portion of the site, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.

12. The landscape area within the 75th Avenue right-of-way between the back of
curb and sidewalk shall be planted with minimum 2-inch caliper, single trunk,
drought tolerant shade trees placed 20 feet on center and near the sidewalk, 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.

13. A minimum of one 8-foot-wide shaded pedestrian pathway constructed of
decorative material such as brick, pavers, or alternative material shall be
provided up to the eastern property line to access the Grand Canal Trail, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.

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

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

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

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

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

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

of the remaining portions hereof.




Page 166
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 6th day of September,

2023.




________________________________
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 (3 Pages)
B – Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)




Page 167
EXHIBIT A

The Land referred to herein below in situated in the County of Maricopa, State of
Arizona, and is described as follows:

PARCEL NO. 1:

THAT PART OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 2
NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST OF THE GILA AND SALT RIVER BASE AND MERIDIAN,
MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

BEGINNING AT A POINT 40 FEET EAST AND 33 FEET SOUTH OF THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 24,
TOWNSHIP 2 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST;

THENCE SOUTH ALONG A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND 40 FEET EAST OF THE
WEST LINE OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER, A DISTANCE OF 532.90 FEET TO
THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;

THENCE EAST 508.25 FEET ALONG A LINE PARALLEL WITH THE NORTH LINE OF
SAID SECTION 24, TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF THE
GRAND CANAL;

THENCE SOUTH 41 DEGREES 56 MINUTES 30 SECONDS EAST, ALONG THE
SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY OF SAID GRAND CANAL 217.31 FEET TO A POINT;

THENCE WEST PARALLEL WITH THE NORTH SECTION LINE, A DISTANCE OF
656.25 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF 75TH AVENUE, SAID POINT
BEING 40 FEET EAST AND 1877 FEET NORTH OF THE WEST QUARTER CORNER
OF SAID SECTION 24;

THENCE NORTH 160.00 FEET ALONG SAID EAST LINE, TO THE TRUE POINT OF
BEGINNING.

EXCEPT THE WEST 30 FEET THEREOF.

PARCEL NO. 2:

THE NORTH HALF OF THAT PART OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION
24, TOWNSHIP 2 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST OF THE GILA AND SALT RIVER BASE
AND MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

BEGINNING AT A POINT 70 FEET EAST AND 33 SOUTH OF THE NORTHWEST
CORNER OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 2
NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST;




Page 168
THENCE SOUTH ALONG A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND 70 FEET EAST OF THE
WEST LINE OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER, A DISTANCE OF 532.90 FEET TO
THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;

THENCE NORTH A DISTANCE OF 60 FEET POINT;

THENCE EAST 452.96 FEET ALONG A LINE PARALLEL WITH THE NORTH LINE OF
SECTION 24 TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF THE GRAND
CANAL;

THENCE SOUTH ALONG THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF THE GRAND
CANAL TO A POINT BEING THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE PROPERTY
CONVEYED IN JOINT TENANCY WARRANTY DEED RECORDED AS DOCKET
6900, PAGE 365;

THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 37 MINUTES 50 SECONDS WEST A DISTANCE OF
502.96 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.

PARCEL NO. 3:

THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 2
NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, OF THE GILA AND SALT RIVER BASE AND MERIDIAN,
MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

COMMENCING AT A POINT 70.00 FEET EAST AND 33.00 FEET SOUTH OF THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 24;

THENCE SOUTH, ALONG A LINE PARALLEL TO AND 70.00 FEET EAST OF THE
WEST LINE OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER, 692.90 FEET TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING;

THENCE EAST 656.25 FEET, ALONG A LINE PARALLEL TO THE NORTH LINE OF
SAID SECTION 24, TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF THE
GRAND CANAL;

THENCE SOUTH 41 DEGREES 56 MINUTES 30 SECONDS EAST, 237.68 FEET
ALONG THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY OF THE GRAND CANAL;

THENCE WEST, 817.92 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF 75TH AVENUE,
SAID POINT BEING 70.00 FEET EAST AND 1702.00 FEET NORTH OF THE WEST
QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 24;

THENCE NORTH 175.00 FEET ALONG SAID EAST LINE TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING.




Page 169
PARCEL NO. 4:

THE SOUTH HALF OF THAT PART OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION
24, TOWNSHIP 2 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST OF THE GILA AND SALT RIVER BASE
AND MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

BEGINNING AT A POINT 70 FEET EAST AND 33 SOUTH OF THE NORTHWEST
CORNER OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 2
NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST;

THENCE SOUTH ALONG A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND 70 FEET EAST OF THE
WEST LINE OF SAID NORTHWEST QUARTER, A DISTANCE OF 532.90 FEET TO
THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;

THENCE NORTH A DISTANCE OF 60 FEET POINT;

THENCE EAST 452.96 FEET ALONG A LINE PARALLEL WITH THE NORTH LINE OF
SECTION 24 TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF THE GRAND
CANAL;

THENCE SOUTH ALONG THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF THE GRAND
CANAL TO A POINT BEING THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE PROPERTY
CONVEYED IN JOINT TENANCY WARRANTY DEED RECORDED AS DOCKET
6900, PAGE 365;

THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 37 MINUTES 50 SECONDS WEST A DISTANCE OF
502.96 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.




Page 170
Page 171



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Amend City Code - Ordinance Adoption - Rezoning Application Z-65-22-6
(Chanen Camelback PUD) - Northwest Corner of 34th Street and Camelback
Road (G-7153)

Request to amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section 601, the Zoning Map of the
R-4 (Multifamily Residence District) to PUD (Planned Unit Development) to allow office
use.

Summary
Current Zoning: R-4
Proposed Zoning: PUD
Acreage: 0.93
Proposal: Office use

Owner: Chanen Construction Company, et al.
Applicant and Representative: Larry S. Lazarus, Lazarus & Silvyn, PC

Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Info: The Camelback East Village Planning Committee heard this case on May 2,
2023, for information only.
VPC Action: The Camelback East Village Planning Committee heard this case on July
11, 2023, and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, with additional
stipulations, by a vote of 15-0.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this case on Aug. 3, 2023, and
recommended approval, per the Addendum A Staff Report, by a vote of 8-0.

Location
Northwest corner of 34th Street and Camelback Road.
Council District: 6
Parcel Address: 3352 E. Camelback Road

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


Page 172
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-65-22-6) FROM R-4 (MULTIFAMILY
RESIDENCE DISTRICT) TO PUD (PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT).

____________



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

follows:

SECTION 1. The zoning of a 0.93-acre site located at the northwest

corner of 34th Street and Camelback Road in a portion of Section 13, Township 2

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

from “R-4” (Multifamily Residence District) to “PUD” (Planned Unit Development).

SECTION 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to

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

change as shown in Exhibit “B.”

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

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




4 Ordinance G-
Page 173
violation of which shall be treated in the same manner as a violation of the City of

Phoenix Zoning Ordinance:

1. An updated Development Narrative for the Chanen Camelback PUD reflecting
the changes approved through this request shall be submitted to the Planning
and Development Department within 30 days of City Council approval of this
request. The updated Development Narrative shall be consistent with the
Development Narrative date stamped June 22, 2023 as modified by the
following stipulations:

a. Front cover: Revise the date information on the cover page to the
following:


b. Page 8, Section D: Development Standards, D.1. Development
Standards Table: Add the following language above the table:
“Development shall be consistent with the site plan dated June 22, 2023.

c. Page 9, Section D: Development Standards, D.6. Lighting: Revise the
language to the following: "Lighting standards from Section 704 and
Section 507.Tab A.II.8 of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance and Section 23-
100 of the City Code shall apply."

d. Page 8, Section D: Development Standards, D.1. Development
Standards Table: Update Building Height to “2 stories, 40 feet 8 inches
maximum”

e. Page 8, Section D: Development Standards, D.1. Development
Standards Table: Add “Maximum Building Square Footage” under the
Zoning Standard column and “10,176 square feet” under the
Development Standards column

2. If the existing building is destroyed, any redevelopment of the site that
increases and or modifies 2,000 square feet of building footprint, excluding
interior building renovations not affecting the overall size or exterior
layout/footprint of the existing structure, a 10-foot-sidewalk easement shall be
dedicated and a minimum 6-foot-wide detached sidewalk and minimum 10-foot-
wide landscape strip along the north side of Camelback Road shall be
constructed, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

3. If the existing building is destroyed, any redevelopment of the site that
increases and or modifies 2,000 square feet of building footprint, excluding
interior building renovations not affecting the overall size or exterior
layout/footprint of the existing structure, a minimum 5-foot-wide sidewalk shall
be constructed along the west side of 34th Street, as approved by the Planning




Page 174
and Development Department.

4. If the existing building is destroyed, any redevelopment of the site that
increases and or modifies 2,000 square feet of building footprint, excluding
interior building renovations not affecting the overall size or exterior
layout/footprint of the existing structure, a Traffic Impact Study shall be
provided to the City. No preliminary approval of plans shall be granted until the
study is reviewed and approved by the Street Transportation Department.

5. If development of the site increases and or modifies 2,000 square feet of
building footprint, excluding interior building renovations not affecting the overall
size or exterior layout/footprint of the existing structure, the developer shall
construct all streets within and adjacent to the development with paving, curb,
gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands, landscaping and
other incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and Development
Department. All improvements shall comply with all ADA accessibility
standards.

6. 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.

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

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

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

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

of the remaining portions hereof.

PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 6th day of September,

2023.

________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:


_________________________




Page 175
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)




Page 176
EXHIBIT A

THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF
MARICOPA, STATE OF ARIZONA, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE
SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 2 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST
OF THE GILA AND SALT RIVER BASE AND MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY.
ARIZONA, DESECRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF
SOUTHEAST QUARTER ONF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 13;

THENCE NORTH 0 DEGREES 27 MINUTES 38 SECONDS EAST ALONG THE EAST
LING THEREOF, 281,24 FEET TO A POINT;

THENCE WEST ALONG THE LINE WHICH IS PARALLEL WITH AND 281.24 FEET
NORTH TO A POINT;

THENCE WEST ALONG THE LINE WHICH IS PARALLEL WITH AND 281.24 FEET
NORTH OF THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE
SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 13,
20.00 FEE TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.

THENCE CONTINUING WEST ALONGA LINE WHICH IS PARALLEL WITH AND
281.24 FEET NORTH OF THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF
SAID SECTION 13, 116,61 FEET TO A POINT;

THENCE SOUTH 0 DEGREES 27 MINUTES 28 SECONDS WEST 226.24 TO A
POINT ON A LINE WHICH IS 55 FEET NORTH OF AND PARALLEL WITH THE
SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF
THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 13;

THENCE EAST ALONG A LINE WHICH IS 55 FEET NORTH OF AND PARALLEL
WITH THE SOUTH LINE OF SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST
QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 13, 116.61 FEET;

THENCE NORTH 0 DEGREES 27 MINUTES 38 SECONDS EAST ALONG A LINE
WHICH IS PARALLEWITH AND 30 FEET WEST OF THE EAST LINE OF THE
SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST
QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 13; 226.24 FEET
TO THE POINT OR PLACE OF BEGINNING;

EXCEPT THAT PART OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST
QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 13, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:




Page 177
BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE EAST 30 FEET OF THE
SOUTH 55 FEE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER
OF SAID SECTION 13;

THENCE NORTHLY ALONG THE WEST LING OF THE EAST 30 FEE OF SAID
SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER, A DISTANCE OF 7
FEET;

THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH 55
FEET OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER WHICH
IS 7 FEET WEST OF THE POINT OF BEGINNING;

THENCE EASTERLY, A DISTANCE OF 7 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.

ACCESSOR PARCEL NUMBER: 170-13-029B




Page 178
Page 179



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Public Hearing and Resolution Adoption - General Plan Amendment GPA-AF-1-
23-6 - Approximately 790 Feet North of the Northeast Corner of 48th Street and
Frye Road (Resolution 22148)

Request to hold a public hearing on a General Plan Amendment for the following item
to consider the Planning Commission's recommendation and the related resolution if
approved. Request to amend the General Plan Land Use Map designation on 4.60
acres from Public/Quasi-Public and Commerce/Business Park to Residential 15+
dwelling units/acre. This is a companion case to Z-16-23-6 and should be heard first,
followed by Z-16-23-6.

Summary
Application: GPA-AF-1-23-6
Current Designation: Public/Quasi-Public (0.17 acres) and Commerce/Business Park
(4.43 acres)
Requested Designation: Residential 15+ dwelling units per acre
Acreage: 4.60 acres
Proposed Use: Multifamily residential

Owner: St. Benedict Catholic Parish
Applicant and Representative: Bart Shea, Shea Connelly Development, LLC

Staff Recommendation: Approval.
VPC Action: The Ahwatukee Foothills Village Planning Committee heard this case on
July 24, 2023, and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, by a vote of
8-0.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this case on Aug. 3, 2023, and
recommended approval, per the Ahwatukee Foothills Village Planning Committee
recommendation, by a vote of 8-0.

Location
Approximately 790 feet north of the northeast corner of 48th Street and Frye Road.
Council District: 6
Parcel Address: 16035 and 16223 S. 48th St.



Page 180

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




Page 181
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-AF-1-23-6,
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-AF-1-23-6. The 4.60 acres of

property located approximately 790 feet north of the northeast corner of 48th Street

and Frye Road is designated as Residential 15+ dwelling units per acre.

SECTON 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to

modify the 2015 Phoenix General Plan to reflect this land use classification change as

shown below:




Page 182
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 6th day of September

2023.



MAYOR




ATTEST:


____________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk




-2- Resolution

Page 183
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Julie M. Kriegh, City Attorney



By:___________________________
___________________________



REVIEWED BY:


______________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager




-3- Resolution



Page 184
ATTACHMENT B




GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
STAFF ANALYSIS
July 17, 2023

Application: GPA-AF-1-23-6

Owner: St. Benedict Catholic Parish

Applicant/Representative: Bart Shea, Shea Connelly Development, LLC

Location: Approximately 790 feet north of the northeast corner
of 48th Street and Frye Road

Acreage: 4.60 acres

Current Plan Designation: Public/Quasi-Public (0.17 acres) and
Commerce/Business Park (4.43 acres)


Requested Plan Designation: Residential 15+ dwelling units per acre

Reason for Requested Change: A minor General Plan Amendment to allow
multifamily residential

Ahwatukee Foothills Village Planning
Committee Meeting Date: July 24, 2023

Staff Recommendation: Approval

FINDINGS:

1) The proposed General Plan Land Use Map designation of Residential 15+
dwelling units per acre would allow higher density attached townhouses,
condominiums, or apartments, which are consistent with land uses in the
surrounding area.

2) The companion rezoning case, Z-16-23-6, proposes a senior housing
development, which, as stipulated, protects the character of the surrounding area
by providing enhanced landscaping and improvements to the 48th Street
streetscape.




Page 185
Staff Analysis
GPA-AF-1-23-6
Page 2


3) The subject site is appropriate for residential uses at the proposed densities and
provides new housing opportunities in this part of the city. Furthermore, the
development has adequate street access and provides streetscape
improvements that benefit the surrounding area.

BACKGROUND

The subject site is 4.60 acres, located approximately 790 feet north of the northeast
corner of 48th Street and Frye Road. The subject site is vacant with a church fronting
48th Street. The current General Plan Land Use Map designation on the site is
Commerce/Business Park and Public/Quasi-Public and the zoning is CP/GCP
(Commerce Park District, General Commerce Park Option) and RE-35 (Single-Family
Residence District). The proposal is to change the land use designation to Residential
15+ dwelling units per acre. The companion rezoning case No. Z-16-23-6 is to rezone
the site to R-3A (Multifamily Residence District) to allow multifamily residential.

SURROUNDING LAND USES

The current General Plan Land Use Map designation for the site is Commerce /
Business Park and Public/Quasi-Public.




Existing General Plan Land Use Map designation, Source: Planning and Development Department

North and south of the site has property designated as Public/Quasi-Public, which have
schools located on them. To the west of the subject site is designated as
Commerce/Business Park containing a church. Further to the west across 48th Street,
the General Plan Land Use Map designation is Residential 5 to 10 dwelling units per
acre which contains a single-family residential subdivision. To the east is designated



Page 186
Staff Analysis
GPA-AF-1-23-6
Page 3


Residential 10 to 15 dwelling units per acre and houses a multifamily residential
development.

RELATIONSHIP TO GENERAL PLAN CORE VALUES AND PRINCIPLES

CONNECT PEOPLE AND PLACES

• OPPORTUNITY SITES; LAND USE PRINCIPLE: Support reasonable levels
of increased intensity, respectful of local conditions and surrounding
neighborhoods.

The proposed minor General Plan Amendment, along with the companion
rezoning case, Z-16-23-6, would allow development of an underused site into
senior housing, assisted living and memory care facility (subject to a use permit)
that are compatible with the surrounding land uses. The subject site is situated
between a mix of residential and public/quasi-public land uses and as stipulated,
provides enhanced landscaping to be respectful of local conditions.

CELEBRATE OUR DIVERSE COMMUNITIES & NEIGHBORHOODS

• CERTAINTY & CHARACTER: DESIGN PRINCIPLE: Create new development
or redevelopment that is sensitive to the scale and character of the
surrounding neighborhoods and incorporates adequate development
standards to prevent negative impact(s) on the residential properties.

As stipulated in the companion rezoning case, Z-16-23-6, the proposed
development will be sensitive to the scale and character of the surrounding area.
As stipulated, the development would enhance the streetscape along 48th Street.

• DIVERSE NEIGHBORHOODS; LAND USE PRINCIPLE: Include a mix of
housing types and densities where appropriate within each village that
support a broad range of lifestyles.

The proposal would encourage an array of housing types and lifestyles to meet
the needs of Phoenix’s aging population. The proposed community would be
planned and allow for aging residents with the services and resources necessary
to sustain and improve quality of life.

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.

As stipulated in the companion rezoning case, Z-16-23-6, the proposal is



Page 187
Staff Analysis
GPA-AF-1-23-6
Page 4


required to provide larger minimum sized trees and additional live coverage, an
architectural porte cochere element which will provide additional shading within
the surface parking lots. This will help to provide shade for pedestrians in and
around the community and to mitigate the urban heat island effect by shading
hard surfaces, thus cooling the micro-climate around the vicinity.


CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommends approval of GPA-AF-1-23-6. The proposed land use map designation
allows for development that is consistent with the surrounding land uses and provides
additional multifamily/senior housing opportunities for the area. The companion
rezoning case, Z-16-23-6, as stipulated, will require design features that promote
compatibility with the surrounding area.

Writer
Matteo Moric
July 17, 2023

Team Leader
Racelle Escolar

Exhibits
Sketch Maps (2 pages)
Correspondence (64 pages)




Page 188
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-AF-1-23-6 ACRES: 4.60 +/- REVISION DATE:
VILLAGE: Ahwatukee Foothills COUNCIL DISTRICT: 6
APPLICANT: Bart Shea
EXISTING:
Public/Quasi-Public ( 0.17 +/- Acres)
Commerce / Business Park ( 4.43 +/- Acres)



Proposed Change Area
Residential 5 to 10 du/ac
Residential 10 to 15 du/ac
Commerce / Business Park

48TH ST
Public/Quasi-Public




FRYE RD

PROPOSED CHANGE:
Residential 15+ du/ac ( 4.60 +/- Acres)



Proposed Change Area
Residential 15+ du/ac




48TH ST




FRYE RD
Page 189
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-AF-1-23-6 ACRES: 4.60 +/- REVISION DATE:
VILLAGE: Ahwatukee Foothills COUNCIL DISTRICT: 6
APPLICANT: Bart Shea
EXISTING:
Public/Quasi-Public ( 0.17 +/- Acres)
Commerce / Business Park ( 4.43 +/- Acres)




Proposed Change Area
Residential 5 to 10 du/acre
Residential 10 to 15 du/acre
Commerce / Business Park
Public/Quasi-Public 48TH ST




FRYE RD

PROPOSED CHANGE:
Residential 15+ du/ac ( 4.60 +/- Acres)



Proposed Change Area
Residential 15+ du/acre




48TH ST




FRYE RD
Page 190
Page 191
Page 192
Page 193
Page 194
Page 195
Page 196
Page 197
Page 198
Page 199
Page 200
Page 201
Page 202
Page 203
Page 204
Page 205
Page 206
Page 207
Page 208
Page 209
Page 210
Page 211
Page 212
Page 213
Page 214
Page 215
Page 216
Page 217
Page 218
Page 219
Page 220
Page 221
Page 222
Page 223
Page 224
Page 225
Page 226
Page 227
Page 228
Page 229
Page 230
Page 231
Page 232
Page 233
Page 234
Page 235
Page 236
Page 237
Page 238
Page 239
Page 240
Page 241
Page 242
Page 243
Page 244
Page 245
Page 246
Page 247
Page 248
Page 249
Page 250
Page 251
Page 252
Page 253
From: Kimberly
To: PDD Ahwatukee Foothills VPC
Subject: In support of ST Benedict’s senior living
Date: Wednesday, July 19, 2023 9:47:03 PM




Hello-
I just read the article in the ahwatukee foothill news about the ST Benedict senior living project concerning the
request for a parking variance. I am a resident of Ahwatukee and a supporter of the project. I am also in favor of the
parking reform amendment to reduce parking space minimums.

Sincerely,
Kimberly Barua, AICP




Page 254
ATTACHMENT C




Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
GPA-AF-1-23-6


Date of VPC Meeting July 24, 2023
Request From Public/Quasi-Public, Commerce/Business Park
Request To Residential 15+ dwelling units per acre
Proposal Minor General Plan Amendment to allow multifamily
residential
Location Approximately 790 feet north of the northeast corner
of 48th Street and Frye Road
VPC Recommendation Approval, per the staff recommendation
VPC Vote 8-0


VPC DISCUSSION:
Item No. 3 (GPA-AF-1-23-6) and Item No. 4 (Z-16-23-6) are companion cases and
were heard together.
No members of the public registered to speak on this item.

Staff Presentation:
Matteo Moric, staff, presented an overview of the general plan amendment and the
rezoning case associated with the property along 48th Street. Mr. Moric stated these
proposals will be heard together but require two separate motions.

Mr. Moric showed the location of the proposal for multifamily residential and identified
the staff findings and recommendations. Mr. Moric identified the land uses and zoning
of the surrounding properties, showed the proposed site plan, elevations, and noted
community input. Mr. Moric stated the proposal included independent living, assisted
living and memory care units, provided outdoor seating areas and courtyards. Mr.
Moric presented the staff recommended stipulations.

Applicant Presentation:

Peter Furlow introduced himself as the applicant/representative and identified the
applicant team present at the meeting. Mr. Furlow added that to the north and east are
both 3 story developments and compatible in height with the proposed development,
and the single-family residences across 48th Street do not face 48th Street so he did
not think there would be negative impacts to the homes. Mr. Furlow mentioned 66 of
the units were independent living and 69 were for assisted living and memory care and

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 255
Ahwatukee Foothills Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-AF-1-23-6


added the church would own the entire site. Mr. Furlow said that it will provide full time
nursing and caregiver jobs. Mr. Furlow presented a plan which showed vehicular
circulation onsite. He identified the support they received and that they agreed to staff
stipulations.

Questions from Committee:
Toni Broberg asked how far the setback was to the church and school. Mr. Furlow
was not sure of the exact numbers. Clifford Mager said it was separated by a
driveway and a fire lane between the church and the school.

Mr. Mager asked if this was a lease to the memory care to which the applicant stated
that was correct.

Chair Andrew Gasparro indicated there was a cross access agreement with the
church property and if there was an accident on the north access point this would be a
second means of access.

Ms. Broberg asked what delineates the church parking lot from the senior living facility
parking lot. Mr. Furlow responded a half wall and landscaping.

Mr. Mager said there was an existing use permit for athletic fields and recommended
the applicant go to the site when the school is in operation for the beginning and
closing of the school. Mr. Mager had concerns with kids getting in and out of school
and encouraged moving the circulation route to eliminate in and out conflicts. Mr.
Furlow said it was all owned by the same owner so they could work through the
circulation operation procedures.

Elena Pritchette shared concerns that kids from the Horizon School use the site to
exit.

Chair Gasparro said circulation with any project can be pretty complex how it flows
with the other pieces, and he felt the applicant did a good job.

Vice Chair Fisher said that due to the nature of the facility he could anticipate an
increased need for emergency services, and moving the south entrance would make it
impede the traffic pattern.

Chair Gasparro asked if it gets reviewed by the Fire Department. Mr. Moric indicated
a Fire Plan Reviewer would be reviewing the site plan in the site plan review process.

Public Comments:
None.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 256
Ahwatukee Foothills Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
GPA-AF-1-23-6


Motion:
Clifford Mager motioned to recommend approval of GPA-AF-1-23-6 per the staff
recommendation. Toni Broberg seconded the motion.

Vote:
8-0, Motion to recommend approval of GPA-AF-1-23-6 per the staff recommendation
passed, with Committee Members Broberg, Mager, Maloney, Meier, Pritchette, Sharer,
Fisher and Gasparro in favor.


STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:

Staff has no comments.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 257
ATTACHMENT D


REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
August 3, 2023

ITEM NO: 7
DISTRICT NO.: 6
SUBJECT:

Application #: GPA-AF-1-23-6 (Companion Case Z-16-23-6)
Request: Map Amendment
Location: Approximately 790 feet north of the northeast corner of 48th Street and Frye
Road
From: Public/Quasi-Public and Commerce/Business Park
To: Residential 15+ dwelling units per acre
Acreage: 4.60
Proposal: Minor General Plan Amendment to allow multifamily residential.
Applicant: Bart Shea, Shea Connelly Development, LLC
Owner: St. Benedict Catholic Parish
Representative: Bart Shea, Shea Connelly Development, LLC

ACTIONS:

Staff Recommendation: Approval.

Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
Ahwatukee Foothills 7/24/2023 Approval, per the staff recommendation. Vote: 8-0.

Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval, per the Ahwatukee Foothills Village
Planning Committee recommendation.

Motion Discussion: N/A

Motion details: Commissioner Perez made a MOTION to approve GPA-AF-1-23-6, per the
Ahwatukee Foothills Village Planning Committee recommendation.

Maker: Perez
Second: Gorraiz
Vote: 8-0
Absent: Mangum
Opposition Present: No

Findings:

1. The proposed General Plan Land Use Map designation of Residential 15+ dwelling
units per acre would allow higher density attached townhouses, condominiums, or
apartments, which are consistent with land uses in the surrounding area.

2. The companion rezoning case, Z-16-23-6, proposes a senior housing development,
which, as stipulated, protects the character of the surrounding area by providing
enhanced landscaping and improvements to the 48th Street streetscape.

3. The subject site is appropriate for residential uses at the proposed densities and
provides new housing opportunities in this part of the city. Furthermore, the


Page 258
development has adequate street access and provides streetscape improvements that
benefit the surrounding area.

This publication can be made available in alternate format upon request. Please contact Angie
Holdsworth at (602) 329-5065, TTY use 7-1-1.




Page 259



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Public Hearing and Ordinance Adoption - Rezoning Application Z-16-23-6 -
Approximately 790 Feet North of the Northeast Corner of 48th Street and Frye
Road (Ordinance G-7158)

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-16-23-
6 and rezone the site from RE-35 (Single-Family Residence District) and CP/GCP
(Commerce Park District/General Commerce Park Option) to R-3A (Multifamily
Residence District) to allow senior housing, assisted living and memory care. This is a
companion case and must be heard following GPA-AF-1-23-6.

Summary
Current Zoning: RE-35 (0.17 acres) and CP/GCP (4.43 acres)
Proposed Zoning: R-3A
Acreage: 4.60 acres
Proposal: Senior housing, assisted living and memory care

Owner: St. Benedict Catholic Church
Applicant: Shea Connelly Development, LLC
Representative: Adam Trenk, Rose Law Group

Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Action: The Ahwatukee Foothills Village Planning Committee heard this case on
July 24, 2023, and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, by a vote 8-
0.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this case on Aug. 3, 2023, and
recommended approval, per the Ahwatukee Foothills Village Planning Committee
recommendation, by a vote of 8-0.

Location
Approximately 790 feet north of the northeast corner of 48th Street and Frye Road.
Council District: 6
Parcel Address: 16035 and 16223 S. 48th St.




Page 260

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




Page 261
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-16-23-6) FROM RE-35 (SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENCE DISTRICT) AND CP/GCP (COMMERCE PARK
DISTRICT/GENERAL COMMERCE PARK OPTION) TO R-3A
(MULTIFAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT).
____________



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

follows:

SECTION 1. The zoning of a 4.60 acre site located approximately 790 feet

north of the northeast corner of 48th Street and Frye Road in a portion of Section 32,

Township 1 South, Range 4 East, as described more specifically in Exhibit “A,” is

hereby changed from 0.17 acres of “RE-35” (Single-Family Residence District) and 4.43

acres of “CP/GCP” (Commerce Park District/General Commerce Park Option) to “R-3A”

(Multifamily District).

SECTION 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to

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

change as shown in Exhibit “B”.




Page 262
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 in general conformance with the elevations date
stamped March 6, 2023, in specific regard to the porte cochere element and
the use of varying materials and colors, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.

2. A minimum 40-foot-wide building setback shall be provided along the south
property line, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

3. A minimum 95-foot-wide building setback shall be provided along the north
property line, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

4. A minimum of 25% of the gross site area shall be open space, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department.

5. A minimum of 8 bicycle parking spaces shall be provided through Inverted U
and/or artistic racks located near the building entrance and installed per the
requirements of Section 1307.H of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, as approved
by the Planning and Development Department. Artistic racks shall adhere to
the City of Phoenix Preferred Designs in Appendix K of the Comprehensive
Bicycle Master Plan.

6. A minimum of 2% of the required parking spaces shall be EV Installed.

7. The required trees within landscape areas shall be a minimum of 2-inch
caliper, drought tolerant shade trees as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.

8. Landscape areas shall have a minimum 75% live coverage as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.

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

10. The existing streetscape within the right-of-way shall be replenished along 48th
Street adjacent to the subject parcel (Assessor Parcel No. 301-85-243A) for
the entire 993-foot street frontage, as approved by Planning and Development
Department.


Page 263
11. 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.

12. If Phase I data testing is required, and if, upon review of the results from 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.

13. 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.

14. 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 6th day of September,

2023.




________________________________
MAYOR


ATTEST:


_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk


APPROVED AS TO FORM:


Page 264
Julie M. Kriegh, City Attorney


By:
_________________________
_________________________


REVIEWED BY:


_________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager



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




Page 265
EXHIBIT A

LEGAL DESCRIPTION – LOT 1
ALL THAT CERTAIN LOT, TRACT, OR PARCEL OF LAND, SITUATED IN A PORTION
OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 4
EAST OF THE GILA AND SALT RIVER BASE AND MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY,
ARIZONA, AND BEING MORE COMPLETELY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT A FOUND BRASS CAP IN HANDHOLE; MARKING THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 32 TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 4 EAST;
THENCE SOUTH 00°04'16" EAST, 1322.72 FEET TO A FOUND BRASS CAP FLUSH
MARKING THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE
NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 32.
THENCE NORTH 89°32'44" EAST, 55.09 FEET TO A FOUND REBAR MARKING THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 1 AS RECORDED IN BOOK 702 OF MAPS, PAGE
38 M.C.R.;
THENCE SOUTH 00°07'14" EAST, 442.88 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF
BEGINNING;
THENCE NORTH 89°32'44" EAST, 38.50 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 60°45'40" EAST, 109.85 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 89°32'44" WEST, 134.24 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 0°07'14" WEST, 54.41 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
CONTAINING 4,699.54 SQUARE FEET, (0.1078 AC) MORE OR LESS.

LEGAL DESCRIPTION – LOT 2
ALL THAT CERTAIN LOT, TRACT, OR PARCEL OF LAND, SITUATED IN A PORTION
OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 4
EAST OF THE GILA AND SALT RIVER BASE AND MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY,
ARIZONA, AND BEING MORE COMPLETELY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT A FOUND BRASS CAP IN HANDHOLE; MARKING THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 32 TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 4 EAST;
THENCE SOUTH 00°04'16" EAST, 1322.72 FEET TO A FOUND BRASS CAP FLUSH
MARKING THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE
NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 32.
THENCE NORTH 89°32'44" EAST, 55.09 FEET TO A FOUND REBAR MARKING THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 1 AS RECORDED IN BOOK 702 OF MAPS, PAGE
38 M.C.R.;
THENCE SOUTH 00°07'14" EAST, 497.29 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 89°32'44" EAST, 63.58 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF
BEGINNING;
THENCE NORTH 89°32'44" EAST, 773.44 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 0°14'46" EAST, 496.45 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 89°35'03" WEST, 357.00 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 0°14'46" WEST, 449.47 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 89°32'35" WEST, 334.30 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 60°45'40" WEST, 94.37 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
CONTAINING 194,732.11 SQUARE FEET, (4.4704 AC) MORE OR LESS.




Page 266
Page 267
ATTACHMENT B




Staff Report Z-16-23-6
July 21, 2023

Ahwatukee Foothills Village Planning July 24, 2023
Committee Meeting Date:
Planning Commission Hearing Date: August 3, 2023
Request From: RE-35 (Single-Family Residence
District) (0.17 acres) and CP/GCP
(Commerce Park District, General
Commerce Park Option) (4.43 acres)
Request To: R-3A (Multifamily Residence District)
(4.60 acres)
Proposal: Senior Housing, Assisted Living and
Memory Care
Location: Approximately 790 feet north of the
northeast corner of 48th Street and
Frye Road
Owner: St. Benedict Catholic Church
Applicant: Shea Connelly Development, LLC
Representative: Adam Trenk, Rose Law Group
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations


General Plan Conformity
Current: Public/Quasi-Public (0.17
acres) and Commerce/Business Park
(4.43 acres)
General Plan Land Use Map Designation
Proposed GPA-AF-1-23-6: Residential
15+ dwelling units per acre (4.60
acres)
Street Map
48th Street Arterial 55-foot east half street
Classification
CELEBRATE OUR DIVERSE COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBORHOODS CORE
VALUE; DIVERSE NEIGHBORHOODS; LAND USE PRINCIPLE: Include a mix of
housing types and densities where appropriate within each village that support
a broad range of lifestyles.




Page 268
Staff Report: Z-16-23-6
July 21, 2023


The requested R-3A zoning district will allow for senior housing and supportive uses
which will allow for a mix of housing types in the village, which is appropriately
located along an arterial street.
CONNECT PEOPLE AND PLACES CORE VALUES; OPPORTUNITY SITES;
LAND USE PRINCIPLE: Support reasonable levels of increased intensity,
respectful of local conditions and surrounding neighborhoods.

The proposal will allow development of an underused site into a multifamily
residential community that is compatible with the surrounding area and respectful of
local conditions. The proposed development incorporates large setbacks, enhanced
landscaping around the perimeter, and additional open space to be compatible with
the adjacent neighborhood.
BUILD THE SUSTAINABLE DESERT CITY CORE VALUE; TREES AND SHADE;
DESIGN PRINCIPLE: Integrate trees and shade into the design of new
development and redevelopment projects throughout Phoenix.

The proposal, as stipulated and as required by the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, will
provide enhanced planting standards for landscape areas. This will help to provide
shade for pedestrians and bicyclists in and around the community and will help to
mitigate the urban heat island effect by covering hard surfaces, thus cooling the
micro-climate around the vicinity.

Applicable Plans, Overlays, and Initiatives
Housing Phoenix Plan – See Background Item No. 7.

Tree and Shade Master Plan – See Background Item No. 8.

Complete Streets Guiding Principles – See Background Item No. 9.

Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan – See Background Item No. 10.

Transportation Electrification Action Plan – See Background Item No. 11.

Zero Waste PHX – See Background Item No. 12.




Page 269
Staff Report: Z-16-23-6
July 21, 2023

Surrounding Land Uses and Zoning
Land Use Zoning

On Site Vacant CP/GCP, RE-35

North School RE-35
South School CP/GCP, RE-35

East Multifamily residential R-3

West Church, single-family residential CP/GCP, R1-6



R-3A Planned Residential Development Option

Standards Requirements Proposed Site Plan
Gross Acreage - 4.60
Maximum Density (dwelling 23.1; 26.4 with bonus 23.1 (Met)
units per acre)
Maximum Units 106, 121 with bonus 66 Independent Units, 40
Assisted Living Units, and
29 Memory Care Units
(106 Residential Units)
(Met)
Maximum Lot Coverage 45% (25% for 23.5 percent (Met)
community residence
center)
Maximum Building Height 3 stories or 40 feet 3 stories or 36 feet 7
for 150 feet; 1 foot in inches tallest parapet
5-foot increase to 48 (Met)
feet, 4-story
maximum
Minimum Building Setbacks
West (Adjacent to 48th Street) 20 feet 559 feet (Met)
North (Adjacent to property line) 15 feet 95 feet (Met)
South (Adjacent to property line) 15 feet 41 feet (Met)
East (Adjacent to property line) 15 feet 79 feet (Met)
Minimum Landscape and Open Space Standards
Adjacent to a Public Street 20 feet Not depicted




Page 270
Staff Report: Z-16-23-6
July 21, 2023

Not Adjacent to Streets 5 feet North – Not depicted
North (drive) – 0 feet (Not
Met)*
West (adjacent to church)
– Not depicted
South – Not depicted
East – Not depicted
Usable Outdoor Open Space Minimum of 100 50,329 square feet (Met)
square feet per bed
shall be provided.
(8,200 square feet
required)
Minimum Common Open Space Minimum 5% of 25 percent (Met)
gross site area
Minimum Parking 138 spaces required 150 spaces provided
1.3 spaces (16 (Met)
spaces) per
efficiency unit and
1.5 spaces per 1 or 2
bedroom unit; (81
spaces); 1 space per
2 resident/patient
beds (41 spaces).
*Variance or site plan modification required

Background/Issues/Analysis
SUBJECT SITE
1. This request is to rezone 4.60 acres located approximately 790 feet north of the
northeast corner of 48th Street and Frye Road from RE-35 (Single-Family
Residence District) and CP/GCP (Commerce Park District, General Commerce
Park Option) to R-3A (Multifamily Residence District) for 66 independent units,
40 assisted living units, and 29 memory care units for a total of 135 units, with
106 of them proposed to have kitchens. This later would become a registered
Community Residence Center. The subject site is currently vacant.

SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING




Page 271
Staff Report: Z-16-23-6
July 21, 2023

2. The requested R-3A rezoning will
support a new housing type with
supportive services that is located
along 48th Street which is near the
I-10 and Loop 202 freeway
interchange within the Ahwatukee
Foothills Village. The areas to the
north and south are zoned RE-35
with schools on both sites. To the
west is the church site which is
zoned CP/GCP and the single-
family residential neighborhood
across 48th Street zoned R1-6
(Single-Family Residence District). Existing Zoning Aerial Map
Source: Planning and Development Depatment
To the east is multifamily
residential zoned R-3.

GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION
3. Most of the subject site is designated Commerce/Business Park with the
proposed access strip along the northwestern edge designated Public/Quasi-
Public. To the west, across 48th Street, the designation is Residential 5 to 10
du/acre. To the east the designation is Residential 10 to 15 du/acre. The
designation to the north and south are Public/Quasi-Public.

To ensure consistency with the General Plan, a concurrent General Plan Land
Use Map amendment, GPA-AF-1-23-6, is proposed to change the land use map
designation to Residential 15+ dwelling units per acre.
The requested zoning is consistent with the proposed General Plan Land
Use Map designation.




Page 272
Staff Report: Z-16-23-6
July 21, 2023




General Plan Land Use Map
Source: City of Phoenix Planning and Development Department

PROPOSAL
4. Site Plan
The conceptual site plan depicts a three-story building around three courtyards
which will house multifamily residences including an assisted living and memory
care facility. This proposal includes 66 independent living units, 40 assisted living
units, and 29 memory care units for a total of 135 units, with 106 of the units to
have kitchens.

The conceptual site plan also depicts a porte cochere providing a shaded area at
the building entry. There are two internally oriented courtyards for the assisted
living portion of the development and a memory care courtyard along the
northern edge of the proposed building. Staff recommends Stipulation Nos. 2
through 4 to ensure the site develops as proposed, including additional building
setbacks and open space areas.

Site access is provided from an arterial street. Stipulation No. 9 requires street
improvements adjacent to the development which shall comply with all ADA
accessibility standards.

The proposed land use, as stipulated, will provide enhanced landscaping so that
the proposal is compatible with the surrounding land uses. The proposal is for
both a multifamily project and a Community Residence Center, which is the land
use defined by the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance that the proposed senior housing




Page 273
Staff Report: Z-16-23-6
July 21, 2023

development would be classified. A Use Permit would be required after the
rezoning process through the Zoning Adjustment public hearing process to allow
this type of use.




Overall Site Plan
Source: Landmark Design

5. Elevations
The conceptual building elevations provide a variety of colors, materials,
architectural embellishments, articulation that provides an enhanced building
design. The maximum height proposed is 36 feet and 7 inches to the top of the
parapet. Staff recommends the development shall be in general conformance
with the elevations date stamped March 6, 2023, in specific regard to the porte
cochere element and the use of varying materials and colors, as approved by the




Page 274
Staff Report: Z-16-23-6
July 21, 2023

Planning and Development Department (Stipulation No. 1).




Conceptual Building Elevations
Source: Landmark Design.




Page 275
Staff Report: Z-16-23-6
July 21, 2023


6. Open Space
The conceptual site plan depicts three main courtyard areas, with landscaping
and outdoor seating. The proposed open space is 25 percent of the gross site
area (Stipulation No. 4). This will provide outdoor areas for assisted living,
memory care patients and residents of the facility, and is above the minimum
requirements of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance.

STUDIES AND POLICIES
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 vision of creating a stronger and more vibrant Phoenix through
increased housing options for residents at all income levels and family sizes.
Phoenix’s rapid population growth and housing underproduction has led to a
need for over 163,000 new housing units. Current shortages of housing supply
relative to demand are a primary reason why housing costs are increasing. The
proposed development supports the Plan’s goal of preserving or creating 50,000
housing units by 2030 by contributing to a variety housing types that will address
the supply shortage at a more rapid pace while using underutilized land in a
more sustainable fashion.

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 for pedestrians and residents on site.

Staff is recommending stipulations designed to provide larger trees and enhance
live vegetation coverage within the development.

• The required trees within landscape areas shall be a minimum of 2-inch
caliper, drought tolerant shade trees as approved by the Planning and
Development Department (Stipulation No. 7).

• Landscape areas shall have a minimum 75% live coverage as approved
by the Planning and Development Department (Stipulation No. 8).

There also is a stipulation to replenish the existing streetscape within the right-of-
way along 48th Street (Stipulation 10). This will enhance the streetscape
appearance and add shade along the sidewalk.

9. Complete Streets Guidelines Principles




Page 276
Staff Report: Z-16-23-6
July 21, 2023

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.

There is a bicycle lane along 48th Street and as a way to encourage alternative
transportation to and from the site bicycle parking is required per Stipulation No.
5. In addition, any street improvements shall be done to City of Phoenix and ADA
standards. This is addressed in Stipulations No. 9.

10. 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. Stipulation No. 5 requires bicycle parking on site for residents and
visitors.

11. 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. 6 provides requirements for
electric vehicle parking.

12. Zero Waste PHX:
The City of Phoenix is committed to its waste diversion efforts and has set a goal
to become a zero-waste city, as part of the city’s overall 2050 Environmental
Sustainability Goals. One of the ways Phoenix can achieve this is to improve and
expand its recycling and other waste diversion programs. Section 716 of the
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance establishes standards to encourage the provision of
recycling containers for multifamily, commercial and mixed-use developments
meeting certain criteria. As stated in the application materials, the project will
incorporate recycling. Recycling will include oversized trash enclosures for trash,
recycling material, and organic waste. Landscaping maintenance contractors will




Page 277
Staff Report: Z-16-23-6
July 21, 2023

also be required to recycle yard waste.

COMMUNITY INPUT SUMMARY
13. As of the writing of this report, staff has received a petition with 479 members of
the community in support, a letter of support and no correspondence in
opposition.

INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS

14. The Street Transportation Department requested that the landscaping be
replenished along 48th Street and that all street improvements are done to city
and ADA standards. These are addressed in Stipulation Nos. 9 and 10.

15. The City of Phoenix Water Services Department has noted the property has
existing water and sewer mains that can potentially serve the proposed
development, however, water capacity is a dynamic condition that can change
over time due to a variety of factors.

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
time to properly assess the materials. This is addressed in Stipulations No. 11
through 13.

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. 14.

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




Page 278
Staff Report: Z-16-23-6
July 21, 2023


Findings
1. As stipulated, the proposal will include design elements such as enhanced
architecture, landscaping, and open space to create a development that is
compatible with the surrounding area.

2. The proposal will redevelop an underutilized property and provide a senior living
facility which will help alleviate the housing shortage in Phoenix.

3. The stipulated landscaping and planting standards are above the required
minimum standards and will make the proposal compatible with the neighboring
area.


Stipulations

1. The development shall be in general conformance with the elevations date
stamped March 6, 2023, in specific regard to the porte cochere element and the
use of varying materials and colors, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.

2. A minimum 40-foot-wide building setback shall be provided along the south
property line, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

3. A minimum 95-foot-wide building setback shall be provided along the north
property line, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

4. A minimum of 25% of the gross site area shall be open space, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department.

5. A minimum of 8 bicycle parking spaces shall be provided through Inverted U
and/or artistic racks located near the building entrance and installed per the
requirements of Section 1307.H of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, as approved
by the Planning and Development Department. Artistic racks shall adhere to the
Master Plan.

6. A minimum of 2% of the required parking spaces shall be EV Installed.

7. The required trees within landscape areas shall be a minimum of 2-inch caliper,
drought tolerant shade trees as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

8. Landscape areas shall have a minimum 75% live coverage as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.




Page 279
Staff Report: Z-16-23-6
July 21, 2023


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

10. The existing streetscape within the right-of-way shall be replenished along 48th
Street adjacent to the subject parcel (Assessor Parcel No. 301-85-243A) for the
entire 993-foot street frontage, as approved by Planning and Development
Department.

11. 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.

12. If Phase I data testing is required, and if, upon review of the results from 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.

13. 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.

14. 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
Matteo Moric
July 21, 2023

Team Leader
Racelle Escolar

Exhibits
Zoning sketch map
Aerial sketch map




Page 280
Staff Report: Z-16-23-6
July 21, 2023

Conceptual Site Plan date stamped July 13, 2023
Conceptual Elevations date stamped March 6, 2023
Community Correspondence (64 pages)




Page 281
CP/GCP * R-3A *
Z-54-88 Z-68-96
WOODLAND DR



R
RE-35
C-2
SILVERWOOD DR R-3 * M-R *
50TH ST
47TH WAY
Z-113-05
Z-173-05
R1-6
AMBERWOOD DR
CP/GCP
48TH ST
Z-74-98


47TH ST
TANGLEWOOD DR
R-2
RE-35
FRYE RD




CP/GCP
47TH PL
ASHURST DR
Z-75-98
w
v202
Maricopa County Assessor's Office




I
Miles
Z-16-23
ELLIOT RD


WARNER RD
0.06 0.03 0 0.06
AHWATUKEE FOOTHILLS VILLAGE RAY RD


CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 6 CHANDLER BLVD


PECOS RD




CENTRAL AVE
27TH AVE 17TH AVE 32ND ST 40TH ST
DESERT 48TH ST

FOOTHILLS 24TH ST I-10
PKWY




APPLICANT'S NAME: REQUESTED CHANGE:
Shea Connelly Development, LLC
FROM:
RE-35 ( 0.17 a.c.)
APPLICATION NO.
Z-16-23
DATE:
4/25/2023
REVISION DATES:
CP/GCP ( 4.43 a.c.)
GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO & ZONING MAP
QUARTER SEC. NO.
4.60 Acres QS 011-39 A-11 TO: R-3A ( 4.60 a.c.)
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
RE-35, CP/GCP N/A, N/A N/A, N/A
R-3A 101 121

* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus
Page 282
Document Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2023\Z-16-23.mxd
CP/GCP * R-3A *
Z-54-88 Z-68-96
WOODLAND DR



R
RE-35
C-2
SILVERWOOD DR R-3 * M-R *
50TH ST
47TH WAY
Z-113-05
Z-173-05
R1-6
AMBERWOOD DR
CP/GCP
48TH ST
Z-74-98


47TH ST
TANGLEWOOD DR
R-2
RE-35
FRYE RD




CP/GCP
47TH PL
ASHURST DR
Z-75-98
w
v202
Maricopa County Assessor's Office




I
Miles
Z-16-23
ELLIOT RD


WARNER RD
0.06 0.03 0 0.06
AHWATUKEE FOOTHILLS VILLAGE RAY RD


CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 6 CHANDLER BLVD


PECOS RD




CENTRAL AVE
27TH AVE 17TH AVE 32ND ST 40TH ST
DESERT 48TH ST

FOOTHILLS 24TH ST I-10
PKWY




APPLICANT'S NAME: REQUESTED CHANGE:
Shea Connelly Development, LLC
FROM:
RE-35 ( 0.17 a.c.)
APPLICATION NO.
Z-16-23
DATE:
4/25/2023
REVISION DATES:
CP/GCP ( 4.43 a.c.)
GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO & ZONING MAP
QUARTER SEC. NO.
4.60 Acres QS 011-39 A-11 TO: R-3A ( 4.60 a.c.)
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
RE-35, CP/GCP N/A, N/A N/A, N/A
R-3A 101 121

* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus
Page 283
Document Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2023\Z-16-23.mxd
DATE: REVISIONS:
CITY OF PHOENIX GENERAL SITE PLAN NOTES: 1
DEVELOPMENT AND USE OF THIS SITE WILL CONFORM WITH ALL APPLICABLE CODES AND
ORDINANCES. ALL NEW OR RELOCATED UTILITIES WILL BE PLACED UNDERGROUND. 3
STRUCTURES AND LANDSCAPING WITHIN A TRIANGLE MEASURED BACK 10' FROM THE
PROPERTY LINE AND 20' ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE ON EACH SIDE OF THE DRIVEWAY 4
ENTRANCES WILL BE MAINTAINED AT A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 3'. STRUCTURES AND
LANDSCAPING WITHIN A TRIANGLE MEASURING 33' X 33' ALONG THE PROPERTY LINES WILL BE 5
MAINTAINED AT A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 3'. ANY LIGHTING WILL BE PLACED SO AS TO DIRECT
LIGHT AWAY FROM THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS AND WILL NOT EXCEED ONE-FOOT
CANDLE AT THE PROPERTY LINE. NO NOISE, ODOR, OR VIBRATION WILL BE EMITTED SO THAT IT
EXCEEDS THE GENERAL LEVEL OF NOISE, ODOR, OR VIBRATION EMITTED BY USES OUTSIDE OF
THE SITE.

OWNER OF PROPERTY ADJACENT TO PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY WILL HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITY
PROJECT SUMMARY
FOR MAINTAINING ALL LANDSCAPING WITHIN THE RIGHTS-OF-WAY IN ACCORDANCE WITH
APPROVED PLANS. OWNER APPLICANT:
ST. BENEDICTS CATHOLIC SHEA CONNELLY DEVELOPMENT
ASPHALT ALL ROOFTOP EQUIPMENT AND SATELLITE DISHES SHALL BE SCREENED TO THE HEIGHT OF THE PARISH 8777 E. VIA DE VENTURA
PAVING TALLEST EQUIPMENT. 16035 S 48TH ST SUITE 250
FIRE LANE PHOENIX, AZ 85048 SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85258
ALL SERVICE AREAS SHALL BE SCREENED TO CONCEAL TRASH CONTAINERS, LOADING DOCKS, CONTACT: (480) 315-9090
449'-5 1/2" TRANSFORMERS, BACKFLOW PREVENTERS AND OTHER MECHANICAL OR ELECTRICAL EMAIL: shea@scd-llc.com
EQUIPMENT FROM EYE LEVEL ADJACENT TO ALL PUBLIC STREETS.
ARCHITECT CIVIL ENGINEER
BARBED, RAZOR, OR CONCERTINA WIRE (OR SIMILAR) SHALL NOT BE USED ON THIS SITE WHERE
VISIBLE FROM PUBLIC STREETS OR ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL AREAS. LANDMARK DESIGN JARRET ENGINEERING
8777 E. VIA DE VENTURA 7650 S. MCLINTOCK DRIVE
ALL SIGNAGE REQUIRES SEPARATE REVIEWS, APPROVALS, AND PERMITS. NO SIGNS ARE SUITE 250 SUITE 103
APPROVED PER THIS PLAN. SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85258 TEMPE, AZ 85284
CONTACT: WADE FELKINS CONTACT: ROB JARRET
PHONE: (480) 719-9003 PHONE: (480) 900-8530
GATES ARE TO REMAIN OPEN, OR ARE TO OPEN AUTOMATICALLY, BETWEEN THE HOURS OF
PROPERTY LINE EMAIL: wadef@cox.net EMAIL: rob@jarrettengineering.net
_____ AND ____.
8'-0" THIS PROJECT IS LOCATED IN THE CITY OF PHOENIX WATER SERVICE AREA AND HAS BEEN LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
DESIGNATED AS HAVING AN ASSURED WATER SUPPLY. CAMPBELL COLLABORATIVE
111 E. DUNLAP AVENUE
19'-0" SUITE 1-278
PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85020
TYP. CONTACT: DON CAMPBELL
PHONE: (602) 266-1644
LEGAL DESCRIPTION EMAIL: don@campbellcollaborative.com
FIRE TRUCK
TURNING RADIUS 9'-0" ALL THAT CERTAIN LOT, TRACT, OR PARCEL OF LAND, SITUATED IN A PORTION OF THE
ADDRESS:
PER C.O.P. (TYP.) ASPHALT TYP. NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 4 EAST OF THE GILA AND 16035 S 48TH ST, PHOENIX, AZ 85048
26'-0"
PAVING SALT RIVER BASE AND MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, AND BEING MORE
55' Ø DRIVE COMPLETELY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: APN:
ACCESSIBLE 6" CONCRETE
TYP.
PARKING CURB (TYP.) APN 301-85-243A
BEGINNING AT A FOUND BRASS CAP IN HANDHOLE; MARKING THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF
45' Ø
SECTION 32 TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 4 EAST;
TYP. THENCE SOUTH 00°04'16" EAST, 1322.72 FEET TO A FOUND BRASS CAP FLUSH MARKING THE ZONING:
NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF EXISTING: CP/GCP
SECTION 32.
CONCRETE PROPOSED: R3A, TABLE B, PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
THENCE NORTH 89°32'44" EAST, 55.09 FEET TO A FOUND REBAR MARKING THE NORTHWEST
35' Ø SIDEWALK CORNER OF LOT 1 AS RECORDED IN BOOK 702 OF MAPS, PAGE 38 M.C.R.;
VAN VAN VAN VAN VAN LOT AREA EXISTING:
TYP. THENCE SOUTH 00°07'14" EAST, 442.88 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE NORTH 89°32'44" EAST, 38.50 FEET; GROSS LOT AREA: 20.30 ACRES (884,550 SF)
THENCE SOUTH 60°45'40" EAST, 109.85 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 89°32'44" EAST, 702.79 FEET; NET LOT AREA: 19.13 ACRES (833,427 SF)
THENCE SOUTH 00°14'46" EAST, 496.45 FEET;
PORTE THENCE SOUTH 89°35'07" WEST, 357.00 FEET;
ACCESSIBLE ACCESSIBLE
THENCE NORTH 00°14'46" WEST, 449.47 FEET;
LOT AREA TO BE RE-ZONED:
RAMP
COCHERE RAMP GROSS LOT AREA: 4.62 ACRES (201,316 SF)
LANDSCAPE THENCE SOUTH 89°32'35" WEST, 334.30 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 60°45'40" WEST, 113.37 FEET; NET LOT AREA: 4.56 ACRES (198,905 SF)
THENCE SOUTH 89°32'44" WEST, 46.79 FEET;
5'-0" THENCE NORTH 00°25'03" WEST, 45.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
CONTAINING 198,904.46 SQUARE FEET, (4.57 AC) MORE OR LESS DENSITY:
LANDSCAPE
GROSS LOT AREA: 4.62 ACRES
BUILDING UNITS (ASSISTED & INDEPENDENT LIVING): 106 UNITS
ENTRY
GENERAL NOTES DENSITY PROVIDED: 22.9
MAXIMUM DENSITY ALLOWED: 23.1 / 26.1 WITH BONUS
1. THE FOLLOWING ITEM WILL BE PROVIDED DURING THE DESIGN REVIEW SUBMITTAL:
x EXISTING AND PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANTS
x EXISTING AND NEW FINISH FLOOR PAD ELEVATIONS
F LANDSCAPE AREA
F x LOCATION OF LIGHT FIXTURES / POLES.
F
x INVENTORY / SALVAGE PLAN NET AREA: .887 ACRES (38,636 SF)
x RECORDED CROSS ACCESS AGREEMENT
F x REFUSE ENCLOSURE COP STANDARD DETAILS
OPEN SPACE AREA
F
2. SITE DRAINAGE WILL TO BE CONNECTED TO UNDERGROUND STORM WATER SYSTEM NET AREA: 1.155 ACRES (50,329 SF)

TOTAL LANDSCAPE AREA INCLUDING OPEN SPACE = 2.042 ACRES (88,965 SF)
ASPHALT
PAVING BUILDING INFO:
DESCRIPTION BLDGS: SQ. FT.: TOTAL OCCU- CONST.
ASPHALT SQ.FT.: PANCY TYPE
PAVING
'MAIN' BLDG TYPE: 1 46,749 46,749 A-2,A-3,B, VA
CONCRETE VICINITY MAP: I-1, 1-2
SIDEWALK
TYP. TOTAL BLDG AREAS/SQ FT.: 46,749
W RAY RD LOT COVERAGE: 46,749 BLDGS SF/(198,905 SF = 0.235 * 100% = 23.5%
COURTYARD COURTYARD MEMORY CARE MAX. LOT COVERAGE ALLOWED 25.0%
[ASSISTED LIVING] [ASSISTED LIVING] COURTYARD CIR E
G
I-10
6384LB-SW
[±62'x73'] [±67'x73'] [±80'x150'] CH N 48TH ST N 56TH ST DWELLING UNIT MIX:
N KYRENE
AN DESCRIPTION - - - - -
PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE
SR
F
MEMORY CARE 29 UNITS (34 BEDS)
41'-8" ASSISTED LIVING 40 UNITS (48 BEDS)
W CHANDLER RD
INDEPENDENT LIVING 66 UNITS
Page 284
28'-3 1/2" PROJECT TOTAL UNIT COUNT 135 UNITS
IK
A
WN-H1
CRY
FI
3INRL
LP-
ITY
ICH
OOL S




DRIVE

LIOC-PAVE LIOC-PAVE



PARKING ANALYSIS:
F
NORTH UNIT TYPE: PARKING REQUIRED: TOTAL REQ'D:
BLDG TYPE 'MAIN'
F SEE BELOW 138
OUTDOOR MC, AL AND IL
26'-0"
SEATING SPACES REQUIRED: 138
DRIVE
F
ACCESSIBLE SPACES REQUIRED: 2
INDEPENDENT LIVING: 1.3 SPACES PER EFFICIENCY UNIT
12 UNITS X 1.3 = 16 PARKING SPACES

INDEPENDENT LIVING: 1 BEDROOM
36 UNITS X 1.5 = 54 PARKING SPACES

INDEPENDENT LIVING: 2 BEDROOM
LANDSCAPE
18 UNITS X 1.5 = 27 PARKING SPACES

ASSISTED LIVING: 1 SPACE PER 2 RESIDENT BEDS
LANDSCAPE LANDSCAPE
48 BEDS X 0.5 = 24 PARKING SPACES
LANDSCAPE
35' Ø MEMORY CARE: 1 SPACE PER 2 RESIDENT BEDS
TYP. 34 BEDS X 0.5 = 17 PARKING SPACES

TOTAL SPACES REQUIRED: 138

45' Ø SPACES PROVIDED: 145 REGULAR PARKING SPACES.:
CONCRETE (5) ADA PARKING SPOTS
SIDEWALK TYP.
TYP. TOTAL PROVIDED: 150

BICYCLE REQUIRED: .25 PER UNIT WITH MAX OF 50 SPACES.
BIKE STALLS REQUIRED: 34
BIKE STALLS PROVIDED: 36
FIRE TRUCK
TURNING RADIUS
ASPHALT PER C.O.P. (TYP.) DWELLING UNIT, MULTI-FAMILY - TOTAL REQUIRED PARKING
26'-0"
PAVING 55' Ø
80'-10" DRIVE 1.3 SPACES PER EFFICIENCY UNIT AND 1.5 SPACES PER 1 OR 2 BEDROOM UNIT
TYP.
AND 2 SPACES PER 3 OR MORE BEDROOM UNIT, 1.0 SPACE PER UNIT OF LESS
THAN 600 SQUARE FEET REGARDLESS OF NUMBER OF BEDROOMS

WHEN THE REQUIRED PARKING IS RESERVED FOR RESIDENTS, ADDITIONAL
UNRESERVED PARKING IS REQUIRED AS FOLLOWS: 0.3 SPACES FOR EACH
EFFICIENCY UNIT AND 0.5 SPACES PER EACH 1 OR 2 BEDROOM UNIT AND 1.0
SPACE PER EACH 3 OR MORE BEDROOM UNIT.
KIVA PROJECT: 03-205A6
SDEV #: 0300104 EXCEPTION FOR UNRESERVED PARKING: WHERE MINIMUM 18-FOOT DRIVEWAYS
ARE PROVIDED FOR INDIVIDUAL UNITS, .25 SPACE PER EACH UNIT.
PAPP / FACT #: 2208102
PRLM: TBD UNRESERVED PARKING SHALL BE DISTRIBUTED THROUGHOUT THE SITE.
SCMJ: TBD
* ACCESSIBLE SPACES REQUIRED LISTED USING 2010 ADA STANDARDS FOR
PROPERTY LINE REZONE: TBD ACCESSIBLE DESIGN TABLE 208.2


APPROVAL STAMP
PRELIMINARY Jul 12, 2023




7/12/23

north LANDMARK
design
8777 East Via De Ventura, Suite 250, Scottsdale, AZ 85258



SCALE: 1" = 20'-0"
St. Benedicts
Senior Living
PHOENIX , ARIZONA
0 20' 40' 80'

JOB NO. 22-301 DATE: AUG 5, 2022 SHEET:
CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN

CSP1
\\Landmark\projects\22-301_St.Benedicts\PRE-APP\SHEETs\CSP1.dwg
hloer Jul 12, 2023 - 2:50pm
+36' - 7"
T.O. PARAPET 4
DATE: REVISIONS:
D B A B B F B B A D D D D D A B E D E C F E A D F B +36' - 1"
T.O. PARAPET 3
MECHANICAL
ROOF LINE +35' - 1"
UNITS BEYOND
TYP. T.O. PARAPET 2
(TYP.)
+34' - 1"
T.O. PARAPET 1


+29' - 2 5/8"
T.O. ROOF PLATE

KEYNOTES
+21' - 3 5/8"
F.F. AT 3RD LEVEL




+11' - 1 5/8"
F.F. AT 2ND LEVEL




+0' - 0"
FINISH FLOOR



C E B E B D D C E G C B G C D D C G
WEST ELEVATION
1 SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
+36' - 7"
T.O. PARAPET 4
+36' - 1" D D B D D D A E B F E D E A D D D B A B
T.O. PARAPET 3
MECHANICAL
+35' - 1" UNITS BEYOND
T.O. PARAPET 2 (TYP.) ROOF LINE
+34' - 1" TYP.
T.O. PARAPET 1


+29' - 2 5/8"
T.O. ROOF PLATE




+21' - 3 5/8"
F.F. AT 3RD LEVEL




+11' - 1 5/8"
F.F. AT 2ND LEVEL




+0' - 0"
FINISH FLOOR



B E C C E C B C G C C D G B C E B
WEST ELEVATION CONTINUE
2 SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
+36' - 7"
T.O. PARAPET 4

A B D B F E F D B B D D D D A D B D D F E B D A D F B D D G +36' - 1"
T.O. PARAPET 3
+35' - 1"
T.O. PARAPET 2
Page 285
+34' - 1"
T.O. PARAPET 1


+29' - 2 5/8"
T.O. ROOF PLATE




+21' - 3 5/8"
F.F. AT 3RD LEVEL




+11' - 1 5/8"
F.F. AT 2ND LEVEL




+0' - 0"
FINISH FLOOR




E C B C E B E C C B G C D C E B C B E C C D E B
EAST ELEVATION
3 SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"

+36' - 7"
T.O. PARAPET 4

+36' - 1"
B F D B D F D D E E D B A C D D D B A B D B F
T.O. PARAPET 3
MECHANICAL
+35' - 1" UNITS BEYOND
T.O. PARAPET 2 ROOF LINE (TYP.)
TYP.
+34' - 1"
T.O. PARAPET 1


+29' - 2 5/8"
T.O. ROOF PLATE




+21' - 3 5/8"
F.F. AT 3RD LEVEL




+11' - 1 5/8"
F.F. AT 2ND LEVEL
LANDMARK
design
8777 E. VIA DE VENTURA, STE. 250, SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85258
+0' - 0"
FINISH FLOOR
St. Benedicts
Senior Living
A C G C E C G C E E C B PHOENIX, ARIZONA
EAST ELEVATION CONTINUE
4 SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
JOB NO. 21-301 DATE: JUNE 16 2021 SHEET:
A301
DATE: REVISIONS:


+36' - 7"
T.O. PARAPET 4
B D F D D A B D B F D D A E A F D B D B D B D D F B +36' - 1"
T.O. PARAPET 3

ROOF LINE MECHANICAL +35' - 1"
TYP. UNITS BEYOND T.O. PARAPET 2
+35'-1" (TYP.) ROOF LINE
T.O. PARAPET 2 TYP. +34' - 1"
T.O. PARAPET 1


+29'-2 5/8" +29' - 2 5/8"
T.O. ROOF PLATE T.O. ROOF PLATE




+21'-3 5/8" +21' - 3 5/8"
F.F. AT 3RD LEVEL F.F. AT 3RD LEVEL




+11'-1 5/8" +11' - 1 5/8"
F.F. AT 2ND LEVEL F.F. AT 2ND LEVEL




+0'-0" +0' - 0"
FINISH FLOOR FINISH FLOOR



E C E D G C D B E D B C G C E D E G
NORTH ELEVATION
1 SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"




+36' - 7"
T.O. PARAPET 4

A D F E D B D F D A D F B D F D D A D D F E A D C F A D D +36' - 1"
T.O. PARAPET 3
MECHANICAL
MECHANICAL +35' - 1"
UNITS BEYOND
UNITS BEYOND T.O. PARAPET 2
+36'-1" ROOF LINE (TYP.) ROOF LINE
(TYP.)
T.O. PARAPET 3 TYP. TYP.
+34' - 1"
T.O. PARAPET 1


+29'-2 5/8" +29' - 2 5/8"
T.O. ROOF PLATE T.O. ROOF PLATE




+21'-3 5/8" +21' - 3 5/8"
F.F. AT 3RD LEVEL F.F. AT 3RD LEVEL




+11'-1 5/8" +11' - 1 5/8"
F.F. AT 2ND LEVEL F.F. AT 2ND LEVEL




+0'-0" +0' - 0"
Page 286
FINISH FLOOR FINISH FLOOR



D C G C E C D E B B C G D C B E B D C E G C A

SOUTH ELEVATION
2 SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"




LANDMARK
design
8777 E. VIA DE VENTURA, STE. 250, SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85258


St. Benedicts
Senior Living
PHOENIX, ARIZONA


JOB NO. 21-301 DATE: JUNE 16 2021 SHEET:
A302
Page 287
Page 288
Page 289
Page 290
Page 291
Page 292
Page 293
Page 294
Page 295
Page 296
Page 297
Page 298
Page 299
Page 300
Page 301
Page 302
Page 303
Page 304
Page 305
Page 306
Page 307
Page 308
Page 309
Page 310
Page 311
Page 312
Page 313
Page 314
Page 315
Page 316
Page 317
Page 318
Page 319
Page 320
Page 321
Page 322
Page 323
Page 324
Page 325
Page 326
Page 327
Page 328
Page 329
Page 330
Page 331
Page 332
Page 333
Page 334
Page 335
Page 336
Page 337
Page 338
Page 339
Page 340
Page 341
Page 342
Page 343
Page 344
Page 345
Page 346
Page 347
Page 348
Page 349
From: Kimberly
To: PDD Ahwatukee Foothills VPC
Subject: In support of ST Benedict’s senior living
Date: Wednesday, July 19, 2023 9:47:03 PM




Hello-
I just read the article in the ahwatukee foothill news about the ST Benedict senior living project concerning the
request for a parking variance. I am a resident of Ahwatukee and a supporter of the project. I am also in favor of the
parking reform amendment to reduce parking space minimums.

Sincerely,
Kimberly Barua, AICP




Page 350
ATTACHMENT C




Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-16-23-6


Date of VPC Meeting July 24, 2023
Request From RE-35 and CP/GCP
Request To R-3A
Proposal Multifamily residential
Location Approximately 790 feet north of the northeast corner
of 48th Street and Frye Road
VPC Recommendation Approval, per the staff recommendation
VPC Vote 8-0


VPC DISCUSSION:
Item No. 3 (GPA-AF-1-23-6) and Item No. 4 (Z-16-23-6) are companion cases and
were heard together.
No members of the public registered to speak on this item.

Staff Presentation:
Matteo Moric, staff, presented an overview of the general plan amendment and the
rezoning case associated with the property along 48th Street. Mr. Moric stated these
proposals will be heard together but require two separate motions.

Mr. Moric showed the location of the proposal for multifamily residential and identified
the staff findings and recommendations. Mr. Moric identified the land uses and zoning
of the surrounding properties, showed the proposed site plan, elevations, and noted
community input. Mr. Moric stated the proposal included independent living, assisted
living and memory care units, provided outdoor seating areas and courtyards. Mr.
Moric presented the staff recommended stipulations.

Applicant Presentation:
Peter Furlow introduced himself as the applicant/representative and identified the
applicant team present at the meeting. Mr. Furlow added that to the north and east
are both 3 story developments and compatible in height with the proposed
development, and the single-family residences across 48th Street do not face 48th
Street so he did not think there would be negative impacts to the homes. Mr. Furlow
mentioned 66 of the units were independent living and 69 were for assisted living and
memory care and added the church would own the entire site. Mr. Furlow said that it
will provide full time nursing and caregiver jobs. Mr. Furlow presented a plan which
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 351
Ahwatukee Foothills Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-16-23-6


showed vehicular circulation onsite. He identified the support they received and that
they agreed to staff stipulations.

Questions from Committee:
Toni Broberg asked how far the setback was to the church and school. Mr. Furlow
was not sure of the exact numbers. Clifford Mager said it was separated by a
driveway and a fire lane between the church and the school.

Mr. Mager asked if this was a lease to the memory care to which the applicant stated
that was correct.

Chair Andrew Gasparro indicated there was a cross access agreement with the
church property and if there was an accident on the north access point this would be
a second means of access.

Ms. Broberg asked what delineates the church parking lot from the senior living
facility parking lot. Mr. Furlow responded a half wall and landscaping.

Mr. Mager said there was an existing use permit for athletic fields and recommended
the applicant go to the site when the school is in operation for the beginning and
closing of the school. Mr. Mager had concerns with kids getting in and out of school
and encouraged moving the circulation route to eliminate in and out conflicts. Mr.
Furlow said it was all owned by the same owner so they could work through the
circulation operation procedures.

Elena Pritchette shared concerns that kids from the Horizon School use the site to
exit.

Chair Gasparro said circulation with any project can be pretty complex how it flows
with the other pieces, and he felt the applicant did a good job.

Vice Chair Fisher said that due to the nature of the facility he could anticipate an
increased need for emergency services, and moving the south entrance would make
it impede the traffic pattern.

Chair Gasparro asked if it gets reviewed by the Fire Department. Mr. Moric indicated
a Fire Plan Reviewer would be reviewing the site plan in the site plan review process.

Public Comments:
None.

Motion:
Suzanne Sharer motioned to recommend approval of Z-16-23-6 per the staff
recommendation. Toni Broberg seconded the motion.



200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 352
Ahwatukee Foothills Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-16-23-6


Vote:
8-0, Motion to recommend approval of Z-16-23-6 per the staff recommendation
passed, with Committee Members Broberg, Mager, Maloney, Meier, Pritchette,
Sharer, Fisher and Gasparro in favor.



STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:

Staff has no comments.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 353
ATTACHMENT D


REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
August 3, 2023

ITEM NO: 8
DISTRICT NO.: 6
SUBJECT:

Application #: Z-16-23-6 (Companion Case GPA-AF-1-23-6)
Location: Approximately 790 feet north of the northeast corner of 48th Street and Frye
Road
From: RE-35 and CP/GCP
To: R-3A
Acreage: 4.60
Proposal: Senior Housing, Assisted Living, and Memory Care
Applicant: Shea Connelly Development, LLC
Owner: St. Benedict Catholic Church
Representative: Adam Trenk, Rose Law Group

ACTIONS:

Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.

Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
Ahwatukee Foothills 7/24/2023 Approval, per the staff recommendation. Vote: 8-0.

Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval, per the Ahwatukee Foothills Village
Planning Committee recommendation.

Motion Discussion: N/A

Motion details: Commissioner Perez made a MOTION to approve Z-16-23-6, per the Ahwatukee
Foothills Village Planning Committee recommendation.

Maker: Perez
Second: Gorraiz
Vote: 8-0
Absent: Mangum
Opposition Present: No

Findings:

1. As stipulated, the proposal will include design elements, such as enhanced
architecture, landscaping, and open space to create a pleasant environment for its
residents and the surrounding uses.

2. The proposal will redevelop an underutilized property and provide a senior living facility
which will help alleviate the housing shortage in Phoenix.

3. The stipulated landscaping and planting standards are above the required minimum
standards and will make the proposal compatible with the neighboring area.




Page 354
Stipulations:

1. The development shall be in general conformance with the elevations date stamped
March 6, 2023, in specific regard to the porte cochere element and the use of varying
materials and colors, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

2. A minimum 40-foot-wide building setback shall be provided along the south property
line, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

3. A minimum 95-foot-wide building setback shall be provided along the north property
line, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

4. A minimum of 25% of the gross site area shall be open space, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.

5. A minimum of 8 bicycle parking spaces shall be provided through Inverted U and/or
artistic racks located near the building entrance and installed per the requirements of
Section 1307.H of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department. Artistic racks shall adhere to the City of Phoenix Preferred
Designs in Appendix K of the Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan.

6. A minimum of 2% of the required parking spaces shall be EV Installed.

7. The required trees within landscape areas shall be a minimum of 2-inch caliper,
drought tolerant shade trees as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

8. Landscape areas shall have a minimum 75% live coverage as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.

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

10. The existing streetscape within the right-of-way shall be replenished along 48th Street
adjacent to the subject parcel (Assessor Parcel No. 301-85-243A) for the entire 993-
foot street frontage, as approved by Planning and Development Department.

11. 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.

12. If Phase I data testing is required, and if, upon review of the results from 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.

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


Page 355
14. Prior to preliminary site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a Proposition 207
waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the Maricopa County
Recorder’s Office and delivered to the City to be included in the rezoning application
file for record.

This publication can be made available in alternate format upon request. Please contact Angie
Holdsworth at (602) 329-5065, TTY use 7-1-1.




Page 356



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Public Hearing and Ordinance Adoption - Rezoning Application Z-9-22-4
(Forty600 PUD) - Southwest Corner of Central Avenue and Coolidge Street
(Ordinance G-7159)

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-9-22-4
and rezone the site from C-2 TOD-1 (Intermediate Commercial, Interim Transit-
Oriented Zoning Overlay District One) to PUD (Planned Unit Development) to allow
mixed use multifamily residential.

Summary
Current Zoning: C-2 TOD-1
Proposed Zoning: PUD
Acreage: 1.71 acres
Proposal: Mixed use multifamily residential

Owner: Forty600, LP
Applicant: RAS Developments, Inc.
Representative: Benjamin Tate, Withey Morris Baugh, PLC

Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Info: The Alhambra Village Planning Committee heard this case on Aug. 23,
2022, for information only.
VPC Action: The Alhambra Village Planning Committee heard this case on June 27,
2023, and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, by a vote of 8-5.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this case on Aug. 3, 2023, and
recommended approval, per the Alhambra Village Planning Committee
recommendation, by a vote of 8-0.
The Planning Commission recommendation was appealed for a public hearing by a
community member on Aug. 7, 2023.

Location
Southwest corner of Central Avenue and Coolidge Street.
Council District: 4
Parcel Address: 4600 N. Central Ave.


Page 357


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




Page 358
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-9-22-4) FROM C-2 TOD-1 (INTERMEDIATE
COMMERCIAL, INTERIM TRANSIT-ORIENTED ZONING
OVERLAY DISTRICT ONE) TO PUD (PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT).

____________



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

follows:

SECTION 1. The zoning of a 1.71 acre property located at the southwest

corner of Central Avenue and Coolidge Street in a portion of Section 20, Township 2

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

from “C-2 TOD-1” (Intermediate Commercial, Interim Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay

District One) to “PUD” (Planned Unit Development).

SECTION 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to

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

change as shown in Exhibit “B.”




Page 359
SECTION 3. Due to the site’s specific physical conditions and the use

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

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

Phoenix Zoning Ordinance:

1. An updated Development Narrative for the Forty600 PUD reflecting the changes
approved through this request shall be submitted to the Planning and
Development Department within 30 days of City Council approval of this
request. The updated Development Narrative shall be consistent with the
Development Narrative date stamped May 25, 2023, as modified by the
following stipulations:

a. Front cover: Revise the submittal date information on the bottom to add
the following: Hearing draft submittal: May 25, 2023; City Council
adopted: [Add adoption date].

b. Page 11, Development Standards, Parking: Add the following language to
this section: A minimum of 9 parking spaces shall include EV Installed
infrastructure.

c. Page 13, Design Guidelines, B. Landscape: Add the following language
to this section: 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.

2. The developer and the City must agree to enter into an agreement wherein the
developer will make a single $250,000 donation to the City of Phoenix
Developer Deposit Account prior to final site plan approval to construct
improvements along the Grand Canal between Central Avenue and 3rd Avenue,
as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

If it is not possible for the City to reach an agreement with the necessary
jurisdictional partners such as the Salt River Project after 5 years from the date
of deposit, the funds shall be transferred to the Housing Department to fund the
development of affordable housing in the District 4 City Council District.

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




Page 360
4. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the development
with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands,
landscaping and other incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and
Development Department. All improvements shall comply with all ADA
accessibility standards.

5. A minimum of 25 feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated along the south half of
Coolidge Street, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

6. Detached sidewalk streetscapes must be located within right-of-way or an
appropriate sidewalk easement, as approved by the Street Transportation
Department.

7. The developer shall underground existing electrical utilities within the public
right-of-way that are impacted or, to be relocated as part of this project.
Coordinate with the affected utilities company for their review and permitting.

8. This parcel is in a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) called Zone A, on panel
1740L of the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) dated October 16, 2013. The
following requirements shall apply, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department:

a. The Architect/Engineer is required to show the floodplain boundary limits
on the 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 needs to be submitted to the
Floodplain Management section of Public Works Department 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.

9. 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.

10. If determined necessary by the Phoenix Archeology 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 Archeologist prior to
clearing and grubbing, landscape salvage, and/or grading approval.




Page 361
11. If Phase I data testing is required, and if, upon review of the results from Phase I
data testing, the City Archeologist, in consultation with a qualified archeologist,
determines such data recovery excavations are necessary, the applicant shall
conduct Phase II archeological data recovery excavations.

12. 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.

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

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

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

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

of the remaining portions hereof.

PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 6th day of September,

2023.




________________________________
MAYOR


ATTEST:


_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk


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




Page 362
By:
_________________________
_________________________


REVIEWED BY:


_________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager



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




Page 363
EXHIBIT A

THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 20,
TOWNSHIP 2 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST, OF THE GILA AND SALT RIVER
BASE AND MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS:

BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE AND
COOLIDGE STREET, AS SHOWN ON THE FINAL PLAT OF SUBURBAN
ACRES, BOOK 13 OF MAPS, PAGE 22, MARICOPA COUNTY RECORDS;

THENCE SOUTH 00°14’54” WEST (BASIS OF BEARINGS), ALONG THE
CENTERLINE OF SAID NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE, A DISTANCE OF
271.69 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY PROJECTION OF A LINE
THAT IS PARALLEL WITH AND 25 FEET SOUTH OF, AS MEASURED BY
RIGHT ANGLES, THE SOUTH LINE OF LOT 1 OF SAID SUBURBAN
ACRES;

THENCE NORTH 85°05’23” WEST, ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE AND
ITS EASTERLY PROJECTION, A DISTANCE OF 286.24 FEET TO A POINT
ON THE SOUTHERLY AND NORTHERLY PROJECTION OF THE EAST
LINE OF THE WEST 50 FEET OF LOTS 1 AND 2 OF SAID SUBURBAN
ACRES;

THENCE NORTH 00°14’54” EAST, ALONG SAID EAST LINE AND
ITS SOUTHERLY AND NORTHERLY PROJECTION, A DISTANCE
OF 249.95 FEET TO THE CENTERLINE OF SAID COOLIDGE
STREET;

THENCE SOUTH 89°26’38” EAST, ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF SAID
COOLIDGE STREET, A DISTANCE OF
285.30 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.

CONTAINING 74,411 SQ.FT. OR 1.7082 ACRES,
MORE OR LESS.




Page 364
Page 365
ATTACHMENT B




Staff Report Z-9-22-4
Forty600 PUD
June 15, 2023

Alhambra Village Planning Committee June 27, 2023
Meeting Date:
Planning Commission Hearing Date: August 3, 2023
Request From: C-2 TOD-1 (Intermediate Commercial,
Interim Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay
District One) (1.71 acres)
Request To: PUD (Planned Unit Development) (1.71
acres)

Proposal: PUD to allow mixed use multifamily
residential
Location: Southwest corner of Central Avenue
and Coolidge Street
Owner: Forty600, LP
Applicant: RAS Developments, Inc
Representative: Benjamin Tate, Withey Morris Baugh,
PLC
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations

General Plan Conformity
General Plan Land Use Map Designation Commercial
Arterial
Central Avenue (Light 60-foot west half street
Street Map Rail)
Classification
20-foot south half
Coolidge Street Local
street
CONNECT PEOPLE AND PLACES CORE VALUE; TRANSIT ORIENTED
DEVELOPMENT; LAND USE PRINCIPLE; Encourage high-density housing and
high intensity employment uses to locate adjacent or close to transit stations
per adopted transit district plans.
The subject site is approximately 0.15 miles from the Campbell/Central Avenue light
rail station and approximately 0.30 miles from the Camelback/Central Avenue light rail
station. The proposal will support the vitality of Uptown Phoenix by adding housing
units near light rail, major employment and educational facilities, the Phoenix Sonoran




Page 366
Staff Report: Z-9-22-4
June 15, 2023




Bikeway, and the Grand Canalscape Trail. The proposal will activate the Grand Canal
in a manner consistent with the vision contained in the Uptown Transit Oriented
Development Policy Plan.
CELEBRATE OUR DIVERSE COMMUNITIES AND NEIGHBORHOODS CORE
VALUE; HEALTHY NEIGHBORHOODS; DESIGN PRINCIPLE: Establish design
standards and guidelines for parking lots and structures, setback and build-to
lines, blank wall space, shade, and other elements affecting pedestrians, to
encourage pedestrian activity and identify options for providing pedestrian-
oriented design in different types of development.
The proposal includes design and development standards to encourage walking,
bicycling, and transit use. These standards include ground floor commercial, a shaded
streetscape, units fronting onto the public sidewalk, parking situated away from the
public street, and on-site amenities.
CONNECT PEOPLE AND PLACES CORE VALUE; BICYCLES; DESIGN
PRINCIPLE: Development should include convenient bicycle parking.
The proposal includes bicycle facilities to encourage bicycling and transit use to
become a way of life by leveraging its proximity to the nearby light rail station, the
Phoenix Sonoran Bikeway on 3rd Avenue, and the Grand Canalscape Trail. Features
include secure bicycle parking for residents, convenient racks for guests, and a
bicycle repair station for residents.
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 robust tree plantings that will provide shade along Central
Avenue, along Coolidge Street, and along the Grand Canal. These improvements will
create pedestrian environments with shade and a separation from vehicular traffic that
will comfortably convey pedestrians to the nearby light rail, along the Grand Canal
Trail, and to the Phoenix Sonoran Bikeway on 3rd Avenue.


Applicable Plans, Overlays, and Initiatives

Transit Oriented Development Strategic Policy Framework: Background Item No.

4.

Uptown Transit Oriented Development Policy Plan: Background Item No. 5.

Tree and Shade Master Plan: Background Item No. 13.




Page 367
Staff Report: Z-9-22-4
June 15, 2023




Complete Streets Guidelines: Background Item No. 14.

Housing Phoenix: Background Item No. 15.

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Surrounding Land Uses and Zoning
Land Use Zoning
On Site Vacant C-2 TOD-1
West Multifamily residential C-2 TOD-1, R-5
North (across Coolidge
Multifamily residential PUD TOD-1
Street)
East (across Central
School R1-6
Avenue)
South (across the Grand
Multifamily residential R-4
Canal)

Background/Issues/Analysis

SUBJECT SITE
1. This request is to rezone 1.71 acres located at the southwest corner of Central
Avenue and Coolidge Street from C-2 TOD-1 (Intermediate Commercial, Interim
Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District One) to PUD (Planned Unit
Development District) to allow mixed use multifamily residential.

SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING
2. The subject site is currently vacant and was previously occupied by the Hinkley’s
Lighting Store prior to its demolition in 2023. The Zoning Sketch Map, included as
an exhibit, depicts zoning entitlements for the subject site and the surrounding
area.

To the north, west, and south of the subject site are multifamily residential
developments. The multifamily residential development to the north is zoned
PUD TOD-1 (Planned Unit Development, Interim Transit-Oriented Zoning
Overlay District One) and is constructed to a height of four stories. The




Page 368
Staff Report: Z-9-22-4
June 15, 2023




multifamily residential development to the west is zoned C-2 TOD-1 (Intermediate
Commercial, Interim Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District One) and R-5
(Multifamily Residential), is constructed to a height of three stories, and the
zoning allows a maximum height of four stories and 48 feet. The multifamily
residential development to the south across the Grand Canal is zoned R-4
(Multifamily Residence District) and is constructed to a height of two stories. To
the east of the subject site across Central Avenue is Brophy College Preparatory
School which is zoned R1-6 (Single-Family Residence District).

GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP
3. The General Plan Land
Use Map depicts a
designation of
Commercial. The
commercial land use
category
accommodates office,
retail, and multifamily
residential development
at varying scales and
uses. The proposed mix
of commercial and
residential uses is
consistent with this designation. To the west of the subject site is a Residential
15+ dwelling unit per acre designation. To the north and south of the subject site
are commercial designations. To the east of the subject site is designated as
Public/Quasi-Public.

4. Transit Oriented Development Strategic Policy Framework:
The Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Strategic Policy Framework is part of
the City’s General Plan. The framework identifies planning typologies to describe
urban environments.

The subject site is located within 0.15 miles from the light rail station located at
Campbell Avenue which is identified as a Minor Urban Center Place Type.

The Minor Urban Center Place Type is characterized by medium to low intensity
with building heights typically from two to five stories with incentive heights of up
to seven stories when certain bonus criteria are met. The proposal is for seven
stories and is consistent with the incentive height envisioned by the Minor Urban
Center Place Type. Staff is recommending Stipulation No. 2 to fulfil the incentive
bonus by requiring the developer deposit money into the City of Phoenix




Page 369
Staff Report: Z-9-22-4
June 15, 2023




Developer Deposit Account for improvements to the Grand Canal. If it is not
possible to reach an agreement between the City and necessary jurisdictional
partners within five years of the deposit date, the funds shall be utilized for
affordable housing in the City Council District 4.

Transit Oriented Development Strategic Policy Framework; Source: Planning and Development
Department




5. Uptown TOD Policy Plan:
The site is located within the Uptown TOD Planning Area which is bound by 7th
Street on the east, Indian School Road on the south, Missouri Avenue on the
north, and a western boundary that follows 15th Avenue south to the Grand
Canal and then 7th Avenue to Indian School Road. The policy plan for the
Uptown TOD District provides a blueprint for fully achieving the transformative
potential of light rail in a sustainable manner.

Changes advocated in the plan can lower transportation costs for residents,
create new business opportunities, encourage active, healthy lifestyles, ensure
Phoenix increases its competitive advantage in the global marketplace, and
improve prosperity by growing the economy in locations with existing
infrastructure and public services.




Page 370
Staff Report: Z-9-22-4
June 15, 2023




The Uptown TOD Policy Plan projects a shortfall of 10,888 housing units by 2035
and articulates a goal for more housing and employment in proximity to high-
capacity transit. The proposed project will produce 155 housing units close to
light rail, adjacent to existing multifamily residential development, adjacent to the
Grand Canal Trail, near the Phoenix Sonoran Bikeway on 3rd Avenue, and
nearby to major employers and destinations.

The Uptown TOD Plan
identifies the Grand
Canalscape as a
“master plan” and
includes a rendering of
the subject site and how
it may be positioned to
activate the canal. The
proposal includes upper
story residential and
ground floor commercial
that is envisioned as a
restaurant that will be
oriented onto the canal.
The Development
Narrative requires a
minimum 2,000 square
feet of commercial
space and includes
additional development
standards to require
these treatments.
Furthermore, staff is recommending Stipulation No. 2 to require monies be put
into the City of Phoenix Developer Deposit Account for improvements to the
Grand Canal. Canal improvements may include items such as shade structures,
art, and a gateway arch.

The subject site is identified on the Conceptual Zoning Plan in the Uptown TOD
Policy Plan as being appropriate for WU Code Transect 5:5. The applicant is




Page 371
Staff Report: Z-9-22-4
June 15, 2023




proposing a PUD that utilizes WU Code
Transect 5:6 with modifications therefrom.
While the proposed development
standards exceed the recommended
transect, the TOD Strategic Policy
Framework contains a
mechanism for achieving bonus points to
warrant additional intensity.

To exceed the recommended transect
contained in the Policy Plan, a project must be “mixed-use”, must comply with the
Phoenix Green Construction Code in addition to achieving one of the following
options: provide a minimum 30 percent of units are dedicated to long term
affordability, provide a minimum 30 percent of gross site area is dedicated as
public open space, a deed of conservation easement is dedicated for an eligible
historic property, or provide a proportionate in-lieu fee (if a program is available)
for affordable housing, parks, public parking, or other infrastructure. Staff is
recommending Stipulation No. 2 to require the applicant allocate funds for
improvements to the Grand Canal between Central Avenue and 3rd Avenue.

PROPOSAL
6. The proposal was developed utilizing the PUD zoning district. The Planned Unit
Development (PUD) is intended to create a built environment that is superior to
that produced by conventional zoning districts and design guidelines. Using a
collaborative and comprehensive approach, an applicant authors and proposes
standards and guidelines that are tailored to the context of a site on a case by
case basis. Where the PUD Development Narrative is silent on a requirement,
the applicable Zoning Ordinance provisions will be applied.

The Development Narrative proposes standards for the redevelopment of the site
including enhanced standards to activate the canal, to activate Central Avenue,
and architecture including a step-back from the Grand Canal.




Page 372
Staff Report: Z-9-22-4
June 15, 2023




7. Site Plan
The proposal is for 155 units of
multifamily residential with ground floor
commercial on Central Avenue and
Coolidge Street, and a restaurant
space with outdoor seating oriented
towards the Grand Canal on the
southeast corner of the subject site.
The site plan depicts vehicle
ingress/egress from Central Avenue
and pedestrian entrances on the south,
east, and north sides of the structure.
Detached sidewalks are provided on
both street frontages with a minimum
sidewalk width of eight feet and a
minimum landscape width of 13 feet
between the back of curb and sidewalk on Central Avenue and a minimum
sidewalk width of five feet and a minimum landscape width of five feet on
Coolidge Street. Additionally, the site plan depicts an urban plaza on the
southwest corner of the site that will be constructed with a stone floor, benches,
and landscape shrubs.

8. Conceptual Building Conceptual Renderings, RAS Development, LLC
Elevations
The applicant is proposing a
seven-story mixed-use
development that provides a
step-back design along the
canal frontage and outdoor
terraces on levels three, five,
and seven. Commercial
spaces are proposed to be
provided on the north, east,
and west sides of the
development.




Page 373
Staff Report: Z-9-22-4
June 15, 2023




9. Land Use:
The PUD proposes a mixed-use development with ground floor commercial and
multifamily residential on the upper floors. The PUD allows for all uses allowed in
the Walkable Urban Code, Transect T5:6.

10. Development Standards:
The development narrative utilizes the development standards contained in the
Walkable Urban Code, Transect T5:6 as the foundation for this PUD. The PUD
proposes a minimum of 2,000 square feet of ground floor commercial and
multifamily residential on floors two through seven. The development is proposed
to be a maximum of 80 feet in height and does not have a maximum density. A
minimum of 20 percent of the gross site area will be open space with outdoor
terraces on levels three, five, and seven. Parking for residents and guests will be
provided on site in a parking structure which will be screened by the building. The
development will provide an indoor secured bicycle parking room with a bicycle
repair station and guest bicycle parking near building entrances.

The project site has two street frontages along its northern and eastern
perimeters and is bordered by the Grand Canal to the south. The PUD proposes
pedestrian-friendly design standards such as a ground-floor “live/work” residential
units on the canal (south) frontage, and shaded detached sidewalks and
landscaped setbacks with enhanced shading standards along both street
frontages. The frontage along the canal and Coolidge Street shall provide the
Common Entry, Storefront, Arcade, Gallery, or Patio frontage types and the
frontage along Central Avenue shall provide the Common Entry, Storefront,
Arcade, or Gallery frontage types.

Below is a summary of the key development standards set forth in the narrative.

Development Standards
Standard Proposed
Density No maximum
Maximum Building Height 80 feet
Minimum Open Space 20 percent
Maximum Lot Coverage 100 percent
Building Setbacks
North (Coolidge Street) 10 foot maximum
East (Central Avenue) 12 foot maximum
South (Canal) 0 foot minimum
West (Interior Lot Line) 0 foot minimum
Minimum Landscape Setbacks




Page 374
Staff Report: Z-9-22-4
June 15, 2023




North (Coolidge Street) 5 feet
East (Central Avenue) 5 feet
South (Canal) 0 feet
West (Interior Lot Line) 0 feet
Streetscape Standards
Coolidge Street Minimum sidewalk width: 5 feet
Minimum landscape width: 5 feet
between back of curb and sidewalk
Central Avenue Minimum sidewalk width: 8 feet
Minimum landscape width: 13 feet
between back of curb and sidewalk
Ground Floor Uses Minimum 2,000 square feet of
ground floor space for commercial
uses
Minimum three ground floor
“live/work” units on the canal
frontage

11. Landscape and Shade Standards:
The PUD sets forth standards to activate the canal frontage and two street
frontages (Coolidge Street and Central Avenue) with pedestrian-oriented design
and a minimum of three “live/work” units oriented towards the canal. Along
Central Avenue a minimum 13 foot landscape area shall be provided and along
Coolidge Street a minimum five foot landscape area shall be provided.
Additionally, a five foot landscape setback shall be provided on both street
frontages between the building and the sidewalk.

The public sidewalks along Central Avenue and Coolidge Street shall be shaded
to a minimum of 75 percent and all walks, amenity spaces, and gathering spaces
along the Grand Canal shall be shaded a minimum of 50 percent. Additionally, a
minimum 10 percent of the net site area shall be landscaped.

12. Design Guidelines:
The PUD proposes enhanced design guidelines to prioritize the pedestrian and to
ensure the building is compatible with the surrounding area. The PUD sets forth
requirements to activate the canal frontage with a step-backed building design, a
minimum 500 square-foot urban plaza consisting of a stone floor, seating area,
and landscaping in the southwest corner of the development, and a minimum of
three ground floor “live/work” units with private patio spaces and direct pedestrian
access to the Grand Canal.




Page 375
Staff Report: Z-9-22-4
June 15, 2023




STUDIES AND POLICIES
13. 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.

The proposal aligns with the Tree and Shade Master Plan in the following ways.
First, the Development Narrative references the Walkable Urban Code
requirement that all public sidewalks be shaded to a minimum of 75 percent at
maturity. Second, as required by the PUD narrative, all walks, amenity spaces,
and gathering spaces along the Grand Canal shall be shaded a minimum of 50
percent

14. Complete Streets Guidelines:
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 Walkable Urban Code is designed to facilitate pedestrian, bicycle, and
transit-oriented development and includes provisions to advance the goals of the
policy guide. Further, the applicant will be required to construct improvements
along Central Avenue and Coolidge Street which add landscape areas for shade
trees and vegetation which will further buffer the detached sidewalks from
vehicular traffic and add thermal comfort to the street environment. Additionally,
as required by the PUD narrative, the applicant will provide bicycle facilities on
the site that include secure parking and a bicycle repair station (fix-it station); the
purpose of these amenities are to encourage residents to utilize a bicycle for
recreation and transportation including along the Grand Canal, for multimodal
trips on the light rail, and others.

15. Housing Phoenix:
In June 2020, the Phoenix City Council approved the Housing Phoenix Plan. This
Plan contains policy initiatives for the development and preservation of housing
with 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.




Page 376
Staff Report: Z-9-22-4
June 15, 2023




The proposed development supports the Plan’s goal of preserving or creating
50,000 housing units by 2030 by contributing to a variety housing types that will
address the supply shortage at a more rapid pace while using vacant or
underutilized land in a more sustainable fashion.

16. 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.

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 PUD Narrative states that
a recycling program will be provided for residences and office/common areas.

17. 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. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 1b which
requires a minimum of nine parking spaces to be EV installed.

18. Monarch Butterfly Pledge:
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.1c addresses the planting of milkweed shrubs, or other
native nectar plant species, on the subject site.




Page 377
Staff Report: Z-9-22-4
June 15, 2023




COMMUNITY CORRESONDENCE
19. As of the writing of this report, staff has received one letter of opposition.
Concerns raised were regarding traffic impacts on Central Avenue to Campbell
Avenue.

INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS
20. The Street Transportation Department has indicated that the developer will be
required to underground existing electrical utilities within the public right-of-way
as well as all irrigation facilities and requires that all street improvement be made
to City and ADA standards. Furthermore, the Street Transportation Department is
requiring that the developer dedicate 25 feet and construct the south half of
Coolidge Street, that all sidewalks and streetscape areas are within right-of-way
or a sidewalk easement, and submit a Traffic Impact Study for the proposed
development. This is addressed in Stipulation Nos. 3 through 7.

21. The Public Works Department, Floodplain Management Division determined the
site is in a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) called Zone A, on panel 1740L of
the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) dated October 16, 2013. The Public
Works Department provided Stipulation No. 8 to require the applicant follow and
document all necessary processes and improvements.

22. The Aviation Department requires the existence and operational characteristics
of Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport be disclosed to future owners and tenants. This is
addressed in Stipulation No. 9.

23. The Fire Department commented that the site plan and fire hydrants must comply
with the Phoenix Fire Code. Further, the Department commented that they do not
know the water supply at this site and recommended the installation of an
Emergency Responder Radio Coverage System.

OTHER
24. The site is located in a larger area identified as being archaeologically sensitive.
If further review by the City of Phoenix Archaeology Office determines the site
and immediate area to be archaeologically sensitive, and if no previous
archaeological projects have been conducted within this project area, it is
recommended that archaeological Phase I data testing of this area be conducted.
Phase II archaeological data recovery excavations may be necessary based
upon the results of the testing. A qualified archaeologist must make this
determination in consultation with the City of Phoenix Archaeologist. In the event
archaeological materials are encountered during construction, all ground
disturbing activities must cease within a 33-foot radius of the discovery and the




Page 378
Staff Report: Z-9-22-4
June 15, 2023




time to properly assess the materials. This is addressed in Stipulations Nos. 10
through 12.

25. 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. 13.

26. 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 development is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Map
designation of Commercial.

2. The proposal advances the vision and recommendations contained
in the Uptown Transit Oriented Development Policy Plan and will create strong
pedestrian environments along Central Avenue, Coolidge Street, and the Grand
Canal with the provision of commercial space, shaded and detached sidewalks
along Central Avenue and Coolidge Street, and ground floor residential oriented
towards the Grand Canal.

3. The proposal will create additional housing options in line with the Housing
Phoenix Plan’s goal of preserving or creating 50,000 housing units by 2030.

Stipulations

1. An updated Development Narrative for the Forty600 PUD reflecting the changes
approved through this request shall be submitted to the Planning and
Development Department within 30 days of City Council approval of this request.
The updated Development Narrative shall be consistent with the Development
Narrative date stamped May 25, 2023, as modified by the following stipulations:

a. Front cover: Revise the submittal date information on the bottom to add the
following: Hearing draft submittal: May 25, 2023; City Council adopted: [Add
adoption date].




Page 379
Staff Report: Z-9-22-4
June 15, 2023




b. Page 11, Development Standards, Parking: Add the following language to
this section: A minimum of 9 parking spaces shall include EV Installed
infrastructure.

c. Page 13, Design Guidelines, B. Landscape: Add the following language to
this section: 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.

2. The developer and the City must agree to enter into an agreement wherein the
developer will make a single $250,000 donation to the City of Phoenix Developer
Deposit Account prior to final site plan approval to construct improvements along
the Grand Canal between Central Avenue and 3rd Avenue, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.

If it is not possible for the City to reach an agreement with the necessary
jurisdictional partners such as the Salt River Project after 5 years from the date of
deposit, the funds shall be transferred to the Housing Department to fund the
development of affordable housing in the District 4 City Council District.

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

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

5. A minimum of 25 feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated along the south half of
Coolidge Street, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

6. Detached sidewalk streetscapes must be located within right-of-way or an
appropriate sidewalk easement, as approved by the Street Transportation
Department.

7. The developer shall underground existing electrical utilities within the public right-
of-way that are impacted or, to be relocated as part of this project. Coordinate
with the affected utilities company for their review and permitting.




Page 380
Staff Report: Z-9-22-4
June 15, 2023




8. This parcel is in a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) called Zone A, on panel
1740L of the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) dated October 16, 2013. The
following requirements shall apply, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department:

a. The Architect/Engineer is required to show the floodplain boundary limits on
the 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 needs to be submitted to the
Floodplain Management section of Public Works Department 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.

9. 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.

10. If determined necessary by the Phoenix Archeology 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 Archeologist prior to
clearing and grubbing, landscape salvage, and/or grading approval.

11. If Phase I data testing is required, and if, upon review of the results from Phase I
data testing, the City Archeologist, in consultation with a qualified archeologist,
determines such data recovery excavations are necessary, the applicant shall
conduct Phase II archeological data recovery excavations.

12. 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.




Page 381
Staff Report: Z-9-22-4
June 15, 2023




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



Writer
Nick Klimek
Samuel Rogers
June 15, 2023

Team Leader
Racelle Escolar

Exhibits
Zoning sketch map
Aerial sketch map
Conceptual Site Plan date stamped May 31. 2023
Conceptual Building Elevations date stamped May 31, 2023 (2 pages)
Conceptual Renderings date stamped May 31, 2023 (3 pages)
Conceptual Landscape Plan date stamped May 31, 2023
Conceptual Canal Stepback Exhibit date stamped May 31, 2023
Community Correspondence (2 pages)
Forty600 PUD development narrative date stamped May 31, 2023




Page 382
C-2
1ST AVE
R-3 HP R-5 C-2 H-R*
Z-60-85
Z-83-05
HIGHLAND AVE Transit Overlay

R-3 District (TOD-1)

PUD
Z-31-12
P-1 * R1-6
Z-341-83
COOLIDGE ST

R-5
PUD * C-2
Z-56-20

Grand Canal




CENTRAL AVE
R-4 HGT/WVR
PKG/WVR
Z-147-97 Z-175-87
P-1 C-2
R-5
C-2 Z-65-91
H-R

2ND DR P-2 C-2 NORTHERN AVE

I Miles
GLENDALE AVE

BETHANY HOME RD
0.045 0.0225 0 0.045 CAMELBACK RD
ALHAMBRA VILLAGE

43RD AVE 7TH ST
27TH AVE
7TH AVE
Z-9-22
CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 4

35TH AVE I-17

19TH AVE


APPLICANT'S NAME: REQUESTED CHANGE:
RAS Developments, Inc
FROM:
C-2 TOD-1 ( 1.71 a.c.)
APPLICATION NO. DATE:
3/2/2022
Z-9-22 REVISION DATES:

6/14/2023
GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET\AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO & ZONING MAP

1.71 Acres QUARTER SEC. NO.

QS 18-27 H-8 TO: PUD ( 1.71 a.c.)
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
C-2 TOD-1 25 29
PUD No Maximum N/A

* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus
Page 383
Document Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2022\Z-9-22\Z-9-22.aprx
C-2
1ST AVE
R-3 HP R-5 C-2 H-R*
Z-60-85
Z-83-05
HIGHLAND AVE Transit Overlay

R-3 District (TOD-1)

PUD
Z-31-12
P-1 * R1-6
Z-341-83
COOLIDGE ST

R-5
PUD * C-2
Z-56-20

Grand Canal




CENTRAL AVE
R-4 HGT/WVR
PKG/WVR
Z-147-97 Z-175-87
P-1 C-2
R-5
C-2 Z-65-91
H-R

2ND DR P-2
mapservices@phoenix.gov
C-2
I
NORTHERN AVE

GLENDALE AVE
Miles
BETHANY HOME RD
0.045 0.0225 0 0.045
CAMELBACK RD
ALHAMBRA VILLAGE

43RD AVE
Z-9-22
27TH AVE 7TH ST
7TH AVE
CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 4

35TH AVE I-17

19TH AVE

APPLICANT'S NAME: REQUESTED CHANGE:
RAS Developments, Inc
FROM:
C-2 TOD-1 ( 1.71 a.c.)
APPLICATION NO. DATE:
3/2/2022
Z-9-22 REVISION DATES:

6/14/2023
GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET\AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO & ZONING MAP

1.71 Acres QUARTER SEC. NO.

QS 18-27 H-8 TO: PUD ( 1.71 a.c.)
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
C-2 TOD-1 25 29
PUD No Maximum N/A

* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus
Page 384
Document Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2022\Z-9-22\Z-9-22.aprx
                 



WZK:dd
$33/,&$17
WE͗ϭϱϱͲϮϵͲϭϯϰ 0(5*($5&+,7(&785$/*5283
 17+675((768,7(
hZZEdKtEZ͗ >sd/KEKE
3+2(1,;$=
EdZ>WZdDEd^>>
KE/E'ͬh^͗Wh͕Z^/Ed/> 2:1(55$6'(9(/230(17,1&

1 352-(&7'(6&5,37,21 1
1(:0,;('86(''(9(/230(172)81,762) %('52206,16(9(1
6725,(6),5676725<72+$9(2)),&(5(7$,/5(67$85$1763$&(6)25/($6($1'
&203/(;/2%%<$1'/($6,1*2)),&(3$5.,1*72%($/(9(/6758&785($77+(
&(17(52)7+(&203/(;:,7+$23(1&20021$5($217+(/(9(/$%29(

$33/,&$%/(&2'(6
,17(51$7,21$/%8,/',1*&2'($'0,1,675$7,9(3529,6,216
,17(51$7,21$/%8,/',1*&2'(
,17(51$7,21$/(1(5*<&216(59$7,21&2'( 1WK6768,7(
,17(51$7,21$/),5(&2'(
,17(51$7,21$/)8(/*$6&2'(
3+2(1,;$5,=21$
,17(51$7,21$/*5((1&216758&7,21&2'( 3  
0 ,17(51$7,21$/0(&+$1,&$/&2'( 0 )  
,17(51$7,21$/3/80%,1*&2'(
ϮϱΖͲϬΗ 1$7,21$/(/(&75,&$/&2'( FDP#PHUJH$*FRP
Z͘K͘t
$'$67$1'$5'6)25$&&(66,%/('(6,*1 FGF#PHUJH$*FRP
$60(
:$//7+(&,7< 6&2'($0(1'0(176$'237('

:&22/,'*(67 (;,67,1*=21,1* &
352326('=21,1* 38'
75$16(&7',675,&7 7
&+$5$&7(5$5($ 75$16,78372:1
y/^d/E' ϮϱΖͲϬΗ
^/t>< >K/E'KEϭϬyϯϬΖ EKWz 352326('&216758&7,217<3( 9%
&͘,͘
/ Ks Z͘K͘t s/^//>/dz 352326('%8,/',1*+(,*+7   0$;,080$//2:(' /
ϭϮΖͲϬϭͬϮΗ ϲΖͲϲΗ ϳϬΖͲϬΗ ϭϮΖͲϬΗ ϭϰΖͲϵϯͬϰΗ ϯϲΖͲϬΗ ϭϭΖͲϮϭͬϰΗ ϭϰΖͲϬΗ ϯϮΖͲϭϬΗ
dZ/E'>
ϯϯΖyϯϯΖ 352-(&7$''5(66 $31
>^W 1&(175$/$9( $


ϱΖͲϬΗ>E ^d<Ύ
>^W WZKWZdz>/E͗ϴ͘ϱϰΖ


ϭϬΖͲϬΗ>'͘
3+2(1,; $

^d<
ϭϬΖͲϬΗ>'͘
WZKWZdz>/E͗нͬͲ Ϯϭϯ͘ϭϱΖ 
WZKWZdz>/E͗ϭϰ͘ϬϴΖ
ϮϬΖͲϱΗ
^d<


>^W 1(7/27$5($
$6)

^d<
>^W hW
ϭϬΖͲϬΗ
ϭΖͲϯϭͬϰΗ ^/t>< >^W >^W ϭϮΖͲϬΗ hZE $6)
>^W W> 6)
^d< y/^d/E'^dZd
ϭͬϰΗͬϭϮΗ 6)
>/',d
. 727$/ 6) .
^/t><  $&5(6
EKWz
>^W Ks %8,/',1*23(1$5($66&+('8/(
%,.(6725$*( 75$6+5220 6(59,&( 0$,17 &200(5&,$/63$&(
/2%%< /($6,1*2)),&(
0$,1'(&. 6)
>^W 522)'(&.6287+ 6)
522)'(&. 6)
6287+($67

hW ϭΗͬϭϮΗ ϭΗͬϭϮΗ ϯϬΖͲϬΗ 5(67$85$173$7,2 6)
E &255,'25 E ϱΖͲϬΗ>E͘ 7(55$&( 6)
&
/
^d< >^W $5763$&( 6)
- ϴΖͲϬΗ -
hW 6287+:(67
ZK>E^W dzW͘
& 727$/ 6)
ϮϬΖͲϰϯͬϰΗ / ϴϬΖͲϮϭͬϮΗ ϰϮΖͲϭϭϭͬϮΗ ϮΖͲϵΗ
ϭϳΖͲϯΗ
^d</&hdd/E'
ϭϴΖͲϬΗ
ϮϬΖͲϬΗ
/27&29(5$*(

ϳΖͲϭϭͬϰΗ
Z^/Ed/>
&/Z>E
EKh/>/E'^d<^ %8,/',1*23(1$5($ 6) 




WZKWZdz>/E͗нͬͲ Ϯϭϭ͘ϰϱΖ
&KZKEZͲϯ /275(0$,1,1*$5($ 6) 
WE͗ϭϱϱͲϮϵͲϭϯϰ ϰϮΖͲϮϯͬϰΗ ϴϱΖͲϬΗ ϭϬϰΖͲϭϭͬϴΗ *5$1'727$/ 6) 
hZZEdKtEZ͗''/KE>>
KE/E'ͬh^͗ZͲϱ͕Z^/Ed/> ϮϯΖͲϵΗ WEƐ͗
ϯͬϰΗͬϭϮΗ ϭϱϱͲϮϵͲϬϮϳ ΀EŽ^ůŽƉĞ΁ ϯϬΖͲϬΗ &22/,'*(676(7%$&.6
΀EŽ^ůŽƉĞ΁ 3$5.,1* 0$;,080 352326('6(7%$&.6 6(7% .
WZZ/stz
, ϭϱϱͲϮϵͲϬϮϴ %/'*)5217$*(/(1*7+3(5&(17$*( ,
ϭϱϱͲϮϵͲϬϯϬ EdZzΘ Z/stz 0,16725()52175(48,5('
ϭϴΖͲϬΗ ϮϰΖͲϬΗ ϭΖͲϴΗ ϴϯΖͲϰΗ ϭϱϱͲϮϵͲϬϯϭ y/d 3529,'(' 6725()5217
dzW͘ Z/stz 352326(')5217$*(7<3(6725()217
&




WZKWZdz>/E͗ϭϵϴΖ
/
hZZEdKtEZ͗&KZdzϲϬϬ>W 0,1,080352326('675((76&$3(67$1'$5'6
EKWz 0,1,0806,'(:$/.:,'7+ 
ϴΖͲϲΗ y/^d/E'KE/E'͗ͲϮ͕KDDZ/> 6($/


ϳΖͲϭϬϯͬϰΗ
Ks 352326('6,'(:$/.:,'7+ 
dzW͘
ϭϴΖͲϬΗ ϳΖͲϲΗ
WZKWK^KE/E'͗Wh͕Z^/Ed/> ϭ͕ϭϮϱ͘ϬϬ 0,1/$1'6&$3(:,'7+  
352326('/$1':,'7+   
352326('%/'*(175$1&(6(175,(6
ϳΖͲϭϬΗ 352326('%/'*522)6&$123,(66)

ϮΖͲϰϭͬϰΗ
s/^//>/dz
ϴϲΖͲϲΗ &
/ &
/ dZ/E'>




1&(175$/$9(
&/
&+$37(5
ϯϭΖͲϬΗ
ϮϬΖyϭϬΖ 35,0$5<)5217$*(&(175$/$9(
+ +



/,*+75$,/
9$1 6(&21'$5<)5217$*(&22/,'*(67

ϭϵΖͲϬΗ
EKWz
&(175$/$9(6(7%$&.6
ϮϳΖͲϬΗ
Ks
>^W 0$;,080 352326('6(7%$&.6 6(7% .
^/t>< %/'*)5217$*(/(1*7+3(5&(17$*(
&200(5&,$/63$&( 0,16725()52175(48,5('
ϮϵΖͲϭϬΗ >^W 3529,'(' 6725()5217
9$1




)257<08/7,)$0,/<
3$5.,1* 3$5.,1* 352326(')5217$*(7<3(6725()5217
ϭϮΖͲϬΗ>'͘ 0,1,080675((76&$3(67$1'$5'6




5$6'HYHORSPHQW//&
ϭ͕ϭϮϱ͘ϰϴ
0,1,0806,'(:$/.:,'7+ 
^d<
ϭϱΖͲϬΗ
352326('6,'(:$/.:,'7+ 
ϮϳΖͲϬΗ
΀EŽ^ůŽƉĞ΁
0,1,080/$1'6&$3(:,'7+  
* 352326('/$1':,'7+   *
y/^d/E'WZ352326('%/'*(175$1&(6(175,(6
352326('%/'*522)6&$123,(66)
&
/
EKWz
>'>^Z/Wd/KE͗




5$6'HYHORSPHQW//&
ϮϬΖͲϬΗ
&
/




1&HQWUDO$YH
ϭϱϱͲϮϵͲϬϮϳ͗ ^hhZE>KdϭEϰϱΖK&ϭϭϱΖΘϭϭϱΖ>KdϮ>^K^dZK&>E>zK&^
ϭϴΖͲϬΗ
ϭϯΖͲϳϯͬϰΗ
ϴΖͲϬΗ >Kd^ΘtK&EdZ>syZ^^WdK&^>KdϭKDd/EdZEdZ>sE
>^W
dzW͘ D/EEKEsd,EϬϬϭϱDϯϮϳ͘ϭϲ&d,^ϴϵϱϳDtϱϰ&WKd,KEd^ϴϵϱϳDϯ͘ϳϯ&d,
>^W >^W EϬϬϭϱDϭϰϭ͘ϰϱ&^ϴϵϱϵDtϭϰ͘Ϭϴ&d,Eϴ͘ϱϰ&EϴϵϱϳDϭϳ͘ϴϱ&d,^ϬϬϭϱDtϭϱϬ&


3KRHQL[$UL]RQD
ϭ͕ϭϮϱ͘ϵϰ
WK͘
&255,'25 ϵΖͲϬΗ ϭϱϱͲϮϵͲϬϮϴ͗ ^hhZEZ^DZϭϯͲϮϮϭϭϱ&>KdϭyEϰϱ&>^K^dZK&>E>zK&^
^/t>< >KdΘtK&EdZ>syWd&KD/EdEdZ>sΘD/EEKEsd,EϮϱϲ͘ϭϱ&d,t
) hW EdZz ϱϬ&dKWKd,EϴϱϰϬDtϴ͘ϴϭ&d,EϳϬ͘Ϭϵ&d,ϴ͘ϳϴ&d,^ϳϬ͘ϳϲ&dKWKWͬ&ϬϳͲϭϯϬϵϱϳϰ͘ )
ϭϮΖͲϬΗWZ/D͘
ϭϱϱͲϮϵͲϬϯϬ͗ ^hhZE>Kd^ϭΘϮtϲϬΖK&ϭϳϱΖ͘




2:1(5,1)250$7,21
'1 /,9(:25. /,9(:25. /,9(:25. /,9(:25. &ZKEd' >^W ϱϴ͘ϴϬZ͘K͘t
5(67$85$1763$&( ϭϱϱͲϮϵͲϬϯϭ͗ ^hhZEZ^DZϭϯͬϮϮ>Kd^ϭΘϮϱϬ&K&tϭϬϬ&yEϮ͘ϱ&K&>KdϮWZͬ81,7 81,7 81,7 81,7 EKWz

ϴΖͲϬϯͬϰΗ
ϭϭϯϮϱͬϱϲϳ͘

ϮϬΖͲϬΗ
Ks
'ZEE hZE
>dZ/> /dzK&W,KE/y'EZ>^/dW>EEKd^͗
W>
͘ s>KWDEdEh^K&d,/^^/dt/>>KE&KZDt/d,>>WW>/>K^E

352-(&7
hW >^W KZ/EE^͘
>^W Z^dhZEd ͘ >>EtKZZ>Kdhd/>/d/^t/>>W>hEZ'ZKhE͘
Wd/K &͘,͘ ͘ ^dZhdhZ^E>E^W/E't/d,/EdZ/E'>D^hZ<ϭϬ͛ &ZKDd,
WZKWZdz >/E͗н >^W WZKWZdz>/EEϮϬ͛ >KE'd,WZKWZdz>/EKE,^/K&d,Z/stz^
EKh/>/E'^d<^ ͬͲ ϮϮϲΖͲϴΗ Z^dhZEd Wh>/Zd
( Wd/K EdZE^t/>>D/Ed/EdDy/DhD,/',dK&ϯ͛͘ (
ϮϱΖͲϬΗ^d
&KZKEZͲϯ >Kd/KE y/^d/E'^dZd
>^W ͘ ^dZhdhZ^E>E^W/E't/d,/EdZ/E'>D^hZ/E'ϯϯ͛ yϯϯ͛ >KE'd,
<
>/',d :&$0(/%$&.5'
WZKWZdz>/E^t/>>D/Ed/EdDy/DhD,/',dK&ϯ͛͘
ϭ͕ϭϮϯ͘ϭϲ EKWz ^/t>< ͘ Ez>/',d/E't/>>W>^K^dK/Zd>/',dtz&ZKD:EdZ^/Ed/>
Ks
&ZKDtd



1&(175$/$9(
ϭ͕ϭϮϲ͘ϵϯ /^dZ/d^Et/>>EKdyKE&KKdE>dd,WZKWZdz>/E͘EKEK/^͕KKZ͕
ϭ͕ϭϮϯ͘ϭϯ 'ZEE>dZ/>
Z'
KZs/Zd/KEt/>>D/dddEz>s>y/E'd,'EZ>>s>K&EK/^͕
ϭ͕ϭϮϯ͘ϱϴ ϭ͕ϭϮϳ͘Ϭϱ KKZ͕KZs/Zd/KED/ddzh^^/Ed,ZKhd^/K&d,^/d͘ :+,*+/$1'$9(
&͘ KtEZ^K&WZKWZdz:EddKWh>/Z/',d^ͲK&Ͳtzt/>>,sd,Z^WKE^//>/dz
tdZ' &KZD/Ed/E/E'>>>E^W/E'>Kdt/d,/Ed,Z/',d^ͲK&Ͳtz͕/EKZE :&22/,'*(67

t/d,WWZKsW>E^͘ 352-(&7
ϭ͕ϭϮϱ͘Ϭϯ '͘ >>ZKK&dKWYh/WDEdE^d>>/d/^,^^,>>^ZEdKd,,/',dK&d, /2&$7,21 *5$1'
&$1$/
*5$1'& d>>^dYh/WDEd͘
' $1$/ '
,͘ >>^Zs/Z^^,>>^ZEdKKE>dZ^,KEd/EZ^͕ >K/E'K<^͕
dZE^&KZDZ^͕<&>KtWZsEdZ^EKd,ZD,E/>KZ>dZ/>
Yh/WDEd&ZKDz>s>:EddK>>Wh>/^dZd^͘
5(9,6,21
/͘ Z͕ZKZ͕KZKEZd/Et/Z;KZ^/D/>ZͿ^,>>EKdh^ KEd,/^^/dt,Z
s/^/>&ZKDWh>/^dZd^KZ:EdZ^/Ed/>Z^͘ 180%(5 '(6&5,37,21 '$7(
:͘ >>^/'E'ZYh/Z^^WZdZs/t^͕WWZKs>^͕EWZD/d^͘EK^/'E^Z
WWZKsWZd,/^W>E͘

WZ^

ϬΖ ϴΖ ϭϲΖ ϯϮΖ 1 WZh>d/KE^
& 6,7(3/$1 WZ/dzK&W,KE/yd>ϭϯϬϳ͘ϭK&t><>hZEK͕,WdZϭϯ͗Dh>d/&D/>z͕dϱ͗ϲ͕
& 352-(&712
&23<5,*+7
5

"    ϲͲϭϬ^dKZ/^͗ϮϱйZhd/KEKEZYh/ZWZKdt/d,/Eϭ͕ϯϮϬ&d&ZKD>/',d
Z/> 7+,6'5$:,1*,6$1,167580(172)6(59,&(
21/<$1',6$1'6+$//5(0$,1(;&/86,9(
3523(57<2)7+($5&+,7(&712
EhDZK&WZ^dh/KhE/d^;ϰϭͿ ϰϭhE/d^ yϭ͘ϬyϬ͘ϳϱсϯϭ^W^ZYh/Z %<$1<3(562125),50:,7+2877+((;35(66
:5,77(13(50,66,212)7+($5&+,7(&7$1<
tKZ<ͬ>/s;ϰͿ͕ϭͲ;ϲϭͿ 81$87+25,=('86(6+$//92,'7+(
ϮͲhE/d^;ϯϲͿΘϯͲhE/d;ϭͿ ϭϭϰhE/d^yϭ͘ϱyϬ͘ϳϱсϭϮϵ^W^ZYh/Z $5&+,7(&7 66($/$1'6,*1$785(+(5(21$1'
(175</(*(1' K&&/ͬZd/>ͬZ^dhZEd ϳ͕ϭϳϴ^&yϭͬϯϳϱ^&с ϮϬ^W^ZYh/Z
12352)(66,21$//,$%,/,7<:,//5(0$,1

dh>>/s/E'hE/d^͗ϭϱϱhE/d^ dKd>/E>͘^^/>^W^сϭϳϴ^W^ZYh/Z 6+((77,7/(
38%/,&(175<
% %
EhDZK&WZdKd>WZͿ͗ ϮϬ^W^WZKs/
dKd>WZͿ͗ ϭϳϳ^W^WZKs/
35,9$7((175< dKd>WZ^^/>WZ35,9$7($1'38%/,&9(+,&/((175< ^^/>WZ'$7( 
/z>WZ

$
6+((7
ͲZYh/Z͗ϯϵ^W^
ͲWZKs/͗ϰϬ^W^
$ $
                 




Page 385
                 

          




+
BBBBBB +
BBBBBB $
BBBBBB +
BBBBBB
ϴϬΖͲϬΗd͘K͘WZWd $ $ $ $
07 6& 6& 07 */ 07 07 */ &7 07 07 
BBBBBB d͘KWZWdϳϴΖͲϬΗ
ϯϬΖͲϴϯͬϰΗ *

3 3

ϳϳΖͲϲΗd͘K͘WZWd d͘KWZWdϳϳΖͲϲΗ

6&

ϳϮΖͲϬΗ͘K͘,Z


07 Dd>'hZZ/>͕dzW͘ 1WK6768,7(
3+2(1,;$5,=21$
Dd>'hZZ/>͕dzW͘ 3  
1 1 )  
ϲϯΖͲϬΗd͘K͘KEZd d͘K͘KEZdϲϯΖͲϬΗ
FDP#PHUJH$*FRP
FGF#PHUJH$*FRP

07 ͘K͘,ZϲϭΖͲϲΗ



ϱϮΖͲϲΗd͘K͘KEZd d͘K͘KEZdϱϮΖͲϲΗ


0 &7 0




ϰϮΖͲϬΗd͘K͘KEZd d͘K͘KEZdϰϮΖͲϬΗ




/ /
ϯϭΖͲϲΗd͘K͘KEZd d͘K͘KEZdϯϭΖͲϲΗ



$3$570(1781,76 $3$570(1781,76 67$,572:(5



ϮϭΖͲϬΗd͘K͘KEZd d͘K͘KEZdϮϭΖͲϬΗ

07
. ϱΖͲϭΗ .
ϭϰΖͲϭϬΗKddKDK&^d>EKWz
&
/
Dd>^ZEKsZ/E'Wd

ϳΖͲϱΗ
^d>EKWz

07 ϮϰΗ
&
/ &
/

6& KEZdK>hDE
ϲΖͲϬΗ /($6,1*2)),&( (175< &200(5&,$/63$&( ϳϮΗ 6(59,&( 0$,17(1$1&( 75$6+5220 %,.(6725$*(
*/

ϮΖͲϬΗ/
& &
/
- ϮϰΗ &͘&͘͘ϬΗ -
ϬΗ&͘&͘͘

ϯΖͲϲΗ ϯΖͲϲΗ ϯΖͲϲΗ ϯΖͲϲΗ ϯΖͲϲΗ ϯΖͲϲΗ ϯΖͲϬΗ
ϭΖͲϭϬΗ
ϯΖͲϲΗ ϯΖͲϲΗ ϯΖͲϲΗ ϯΖͲϲΗ
&
/ &
/ &
/ &
/ &
/ &
/ +
BBBBBB &
/ &
/ $
BBBBBB
&
/
6($/
$ $ +
BBBBBB
$
EdZz'd &7
^dKZ&ZKEd&ZKEd';ϱϮйͿ 07 &7 &7 &7 ^dKZ&ZKEd&ZKEd' &7 &7 &7 &7 &7 &7
+
BBBBBB



$

+
%8,/',1*(/(9$7,211257+ +

  
$ % & ' ( ) * + ,

ϰϱΖͲϳϭͬϴΗ
^d<ϱ




)257<08/7,)$0,/<
+




5$6'HYHORSPHQW//&
6& 07 07 */ 07 07 BBBBBB 6& 6& 6&
$ $
BBBBBB $
BBBBBB
$ $

* ^d<ϰ ϳΖͲϭϭΗ ϴϬΖͲϬΗ *
ϴϬΖͲϬΗ

ϳϳΖͲϲΗ




5$6'HYHORSPHQW//&
1&HQWUDO$YH
07
ϳϮΖͲϬΗ


3KRHQL[$UL]RQD
07
0$7(5,$//(*(1'
^d<ϯ
) 07 07 )
6&(,)662)7,925<




2:1(5,1)250$7,21
ϲϯΖͲϬΗ
&7
6&(,)6:+,7(6$1'
6&
07


07
*/1215()/(&7,9(62/$5&21752//2:( 352-(&7

&7
( &7 (
070(7$/)/$73$1(/%521=(
:&$0(/%$&.5'
*/




1&(175$/$9(
070(7$/3$1(/)/87('$17,48(%521=(

:+,*+/$1'$9(
^d<Ϯ
070(&+$1,&$/6&5((10(7$/3$1(/6&+$5&2/ :&22/,'*(67



WZKWZdz>/E
352-(&7
/2&$7,21 *5$1'
&$1$/
' 070(7$/3$1(/)/$7$0%(5 '


5(9,6,21
07&86720'(&25$7,9(0(7$/6&5((13$1(/6
180%(5 '(6&5,37,21 '$7(
^d<ϭ
ϴΖͲϮϱͬϴΗ $3$570(1781,76 $3$570(1781,76
&7&21&5(7('$5.*5(<


07
&77(;785('&21&5(7('$5.*5(<
& & 352-(&712 5
&23<5,*+7
ϭϰΖͲϭϬΗ 7+,6'5$:,1*,6$1,167580(172)6(59,&(
21/<$1',6$1'6+$//5(0$,1(;&/86,9(
3523(57<2)7+($5&+,7(&712
5(352'8&7,212527+(586(6+$//%(0$'(
*/ %<$1<3(562125),50:,7+2877+((;35(66
:5,77(13(50,66,212)7+($5&+,7(&7$1<
6& 81$87+25,=('86(6+$//92,'7+(
$5&+,7(&7 66($/$1'6,*1$785(+(5(21$1'
'Z'EdZz 07 12352)(66,21$//,$%,/,7<:,//5(0$,1
5(67$85$17 &200(5&,$/63$&( /($6,1*2)),&(
6+((77,7/(
ϬΗ
% %


(;7(5,25
(/(9$7,216
^dKZ&ZKEd&ZKEd' ^dKZ&ZKEd&ZKEd'
^dKZ&ZKEd&ZKEd' $
BBBBBB
$





'$7( 

%8,/',1*(/(9$7,21($67 6+((7


$ +
BBBBBB
$
  
$ $
                 




Page 386
                 

     



07 6& 6& 07 07 */

BBBBBB
*




3 3




522)'(&.6287+ 522)'(&.6287+($67
1WK6768,7(
3+2(1,;$5,=21$
3  
1 1 )  
FDP#PHUJH$*FRP
67$,572:(5 522)'(&. FGF#PHUJH$*FRP




0 $3$570(1781,76 $3$570(1781,76 0
07


&7



6&

&/8%+286( <2*$3,/$7(6 *<0


/ /



7(55$&( 7(55$&(
07


6&




. .



/,9(:25.81,76 5(67$85$1763$&(




5(67$85$173$7,2


- -




6& 07 07
%8,/',1*(/(9$7,21  6($/

  




+ +
, + * ) ( ' & % $




+
BBBBBB
$
BBBBBB $
BBBBBB 6& $ 07 07 */ 07




)257<08/7,)$0,/<
$ $




5$6'HYHORSPHQW//&
* *




5$6'HYHORSPHQW//&
1&HQWUDO$YH



0$7(5,$//(*(1' 3KRHQL[$UL]RQD

) 07 )




2:1(5,1)250$7,21
6& 6&(,)662)7,925<



6&(,)6:+,7(6$1'


&7 352-(&7
*/1215()/(&7,9(62/$5&21752//2:(
$3$570(1781,76
( (
:&$0(/%$&.5'
070(7$/)/$73$1(/%521=(




1&(175$/$9(
070(7$/3$1(/)/87('$17,48(%521=(
:+,*+/$1'$9(

&7 :&22/,'*(67
070(&+$1,&$/6&5((10(7$/3$1(/6&+$5&2/ 352-(&7
/2&$7,21 *5$1'
&$1$/
' '
07 070(7$/3$1(/)/$7$0%(5
3$5.,1**$5$*(
07 5(9,6,21
7(55$&(
180%(5 '(6&5,37,21 '$7(
07&86720'(&25$7,9(0(7$/6&5((13$1(/6


6&
&7&21&5(7('$5.*5(<

07 07

& & 352-(&712 5
&77(;785('&21&5(7('$5.*5(< &23<5,*+7
&7
7+,6'5$:,1*,6$1,167580(172)6(59,&(
21/<$1',6$1'6+$//5(0$,1(;&/86,9(
3523(57<2)7+($5&+,7(&712
5(352'8&7,212527+(586(6+$//%(0$'(
&7 %<$1<3(562125),50:,7+2877+((;35(66
:5,77(13(50,66,212)7+($5&+,7(&7$1<
81$87+25,=('86(6+$//92,'7+(
06 $5&+,7(&7 66($/$1'6,*1$785(+(5(21$1'
12352)(66,21$//,$%,/,7<:,//5(0$,1

6+((77,7/(
% %


(;7(5,25
$
BBBBBB 07
(/(9$7,216

$
+
BBBBBB
$
%8,/',1*(/(9$7,21 '$7( 
  
6+((7


$ $ $
                 




Page 387




Page 388




Page 389




Page 390
LANDSCAPE LEGEND Revisions

W COOLIDGE ST SYMBOL NAME SIZE QTY.


TREES
Phoenix dactylifera 20' Trunk Height 4
PHOENIX DATE PALM
UP
1:12 ROW Quercus virginianus 36" Box 4
Key Map
1:

SOUTHERN LIVE OAK

UP


UP CAMELBACK RD
Chilopsis linearis 'Desert Diva' 36" Box 9
DESERT DIVA® DESERT WILLOW



N CENTRAL AVE
Lantana camara 'Irene' 5 Gallon 17 3RD AVE


SHRUBS
IRENE LANTANA COOLIDGE ST

Leucophyllum X ‘Convent’ 5 Gallon 11 SITE
CONVENT SAGE GRAND CANAL TRAIL
Muhlenbergia capillaris 5 Gallon 14 N
0.29:12
REGAL MIST®
Olea europaea 'Montra' 5 Gallon 46
LITTLE OLLIE® DWARF OLIVE




FOURTY600 MIXED USE
Ruellia brittoniana ‘Katie’ 5 Gallon 47
DWARF RUELLIA 'KATIE'
C
L




ACCENTS
Hesperaloe X ‘MSWNIvory Swan’ 5 Gallon 27
NITE LIGHTS®
MULTI-FAMILY
LIVE/WORK Furcraea macdougalii 15 Gallon 9
PL 6-STORY DEVELOPMENT MACDOUGALL'S CENTURY PLANT
ZONING: PUD




DEVELOPMENT
Pedilanthus bracteatus 10 Gallon 7




OWNER/CLIENT
N CENTRAL AVE
LADYSLIPPER




GROUNDCOVER
4600 N Central Ave
Lantana montevidensis 'Purple' 3 Gallon X
ROW PURPLE TRAILING LANTANA

Phoenix, Arizona
Teucrium chamaedrys 3 Gallon X
GERMANDER For:




Phone: 480-893-3849 Fax: 480-893-3846
Urban




Waibel & Associates
Design




MATERIALS
Decomposed Granite @ 2" Depth
In all planting spaces
8611 S. Priest Drive, Suite 101 Tempe, AZ 85284
DN


Color: Mahogany
Size: 12" Screened Gardens &




L andscape Architecture
Email: janet@waibel-la.com
PL Consulting

NOTES:

Website: www.waibel-la.com
1. THERE ARE NO EXISTING TREES ON SITE
Master
2. THERE ARE NO OVERHEAD UTILITY LINES Planning

GRAND CANA 3. CENTRAL AVENUE DECORATIVE LIGHTS TO REMAIN IN PLACE
L
URBAN PLAZA:
THE URBAN PLAZA PROPOSED ON THE SWC OF THE PROPERTY
WITH 500 GSF (18'-0" x 28'-10") IS BEING PROVIDED AS A COMMUNITY
OPEN SPACE AND CONSISTS OF 50 LINEAR FEET OF BENCHES ON
THE WEST, NORTH AND EAST ORIENTATIONS. THE NEW SPACE
ALLOWS UP TO 25 PERSONS THROUGH A 'U' CONFIGURATION
ALLOWING THEM TO EXPERIENCE ART EXHIBITS FROM FEATURED
20' 0' 20' 40'
LOCAL ARTISTS, DISPLAYED AT ITS CENTER. THE PLAZA WILL BE
LEVELING OR CONSTRUCTED USING ENDURING STONE FLOORS WHILE THE
SUBSOIL SUBDRAINAGE COURSE
1"= 20'-0" North BENCHES WILL BE FABRICATED IN-PLACE WITH UV RESISTANT
5/9/20

MIN.20'-0"SPACING
SIDEWALK

LANDSCAPE 8'-0" 13'-9"
6"
MATERIALS AND INCORPORATED
AS OCCURS SIDEWALK
PLANTING
WITH LANDSCAPE SHRUBS TO
BETWEEN TREES
SPACE
4"
U.N.O
PROVIDE AN ENJOYABLE
ENVIRONMENT. THIS URBAN
CONCEPTUAL
PLAZA WILL PROVIDE AN
LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECTURALLY PLEASING
PLAN
PLASTIC AERATION SHEET
SPACE WHILE USING THE CANAL
WRAPPED IN FILTER FABRIC.
SHEET MAY BE OFFSET TO
LANDSCAPE AS A BACKGROUND.
TREE PIT
EITHER SIDE OF TRENCH FOR
TREE
ROOT PATHS,
EASE INSTALLATION SHEET
LIGHTLY COMPACTED TOPSOIL MIX
MOVING
RADIALLY
NUMBER

1 OF 1
ROOT BARRIER DIAGRAM ROOT BARRIER DIAGRAM Date: 5/9/2023
3/16" = 1'-0" NTS




Page 391
                 




^/d>'E


E>
3 3

E>'


>E^WͲ^K&d/DWdEh&&ZKE


WZKWK^h/>/E'
1WK6768,7(
3+2(1,;$5,=21$
hW ^/t>< 3  
1 1 )  
hW FDP#PHUJH$*FRP
WZKWZdz>/E
FGF#PHUJH$*FRP
h/>/E'^d<

E>^d<

^dW<>/E^

tdZ'
0 0




9$1




/ /
9$1




. .




ϱΖͲϳΗ

ϭϬΖͲϬΗ
ϭϰΖͲϵΗ


-
ϭϰΖͲϵΗ ϱΖͲϳΗ -


ϭϰΖͲϵΗ
6($/

BBBBBB
*


BBBBBB
* 
BBBBBB
*

+ +
^KEZz^dW< ^dW<&KZϲϬйK&&ZKEd' ^KEZz^dW<




67(3%$&.5()(5(1&(6,7(3/$1 




5$6'HYHORSPHQW//& )257<08/7,)$0,/<
  

* *



% & '




5$6'HYHORSPHQW//&
1&HQWUDO$YH
$ &




/$67%/'*3/$1(
$ 3KRHQL[$UL]RQD




/$67%/'*3/$1(
) )




2:1(5,1)250$7,21
   
3$5$3(7 3$5$3(7




/$67%/'*3/$1(
     
522)/(9(/ 522)/(9(/ 522)/(9(/

352-(&7
8 522)'(&.

(       (
/(9(/ /(9(/ /(9(/ :&$0(/%$&.5'


8 81,7 "


1&(175$/$9(
      :+,*+/$1'$9(




:$7(5('*(6(7%$&.
/(9(/ /(9(/ /(9(/




:$7(5('*(6(7%$&. :$7(5('*(6(7%$&.
:&22/,'*(67
352-(&7
8 81,7 /2&$7,21 *5$1'




3523(57</,1(
&$1$/




3523(57</,1( 3523(57</,1(
' '




:$7(5('*(
     




:$7(5('*( :$7(5('*(
/(9(/ /(9(/ /(9(/

5(9,6,21
8 180%(5 '(6&5,37,21 '$7(


     
/(9(/ /(9(/ /(9(/
ϭ͗Ϯ,KZ/KEd>dKsZd͘Z/^ ϭ͗Ϯ,KZ/KEd>dKsZd͘Z/^
ϭ͗Ϯ,KZ/KEd>dKsZd͘Z/^ 678'<
8
& ϭ͗ϭ,KZ/KEd>dKsZd͘Z/^ & 352-(&712 5
ϭ͗ϭ,KZ/KEd>dKsZd͘Z/^  
ϭ͗ϭ,KZ/KEd>dKsZd͘Z/^
    &23<5,*+7
/(9(/ /(9(/ ϯΖͲϬΗ>E^W /(9(/
ϯΖͲϬΗ>E^W ϯΖͲϬΗ>E^W 7+,6'5$:,1*,6$1,167580(172)6(59,&(
21/<$1',6$1'6+$//5(0$,1(;&/86,9(
^/t>< ϭϰΖͲϵΗ ϱΖͲϳΗ 3523(57<2)7+($5&+,7(&712
^/t>< ϭϰΖͲϵΗ ϱΖͲϳΗ ^/t>< ϭϰΖͲϵΗ ϭϬΖͲϬΗ
5(352'8&7,212527+(586(6+$//%(0$'(
3$5.,1* /,9( %<$1<3(562125),50:,7+2877+((;35(66



ϯϯΖͲϭϭΗDy͘
&/


ϮϮΖͲϵΗDy͘
*$5$*( :5,77(13(50,66,212)7+($5&+,7(&7$1<


ϰϮΖͲϳΗDy͘
&/


ϯϯΖͲϭϭΗDy͘ ϮϮΖͲϵΗDy͘
&/


ϮϮΖͲϵΗDy͘
    Y Y   81$87+25,=('86(6+$//92,'7+(
Y цϮΖͲϭϬϭϭͬϭϲΗ
Y Y Y $5&+,7(&7 66($/$1'6,*1$785(+(5(21$1'
/(9(/ /(9(/ /(9(/ 12352)(66,21$//,$%,/,7<:,//5(0$,1


67$,56 6+((77,7/(
:25.$5($ 5(67$85$17
ϴΖͲϬΗ
%  %
ϴΖͲϬΗ

ϴΖͲϬΗ

63$&(

 &$1$/
/(9(/ /(9(/ /(9(/
 
цϭϲΖͲϬΗ    
67(3%$&.
6,7(/(9(/ 6,7(/(9(/
6,7(/(9(/
678'<
6(&21'$5<67(3%$&.  67(3%$&.)252))5217$*(  6(&21'$5<67(3%$&.  '$7(
6+((7




$
        
$ *
                 




Page 392
From: Jeremy Thacker
To: Edward.Hermes@gmail.com; sc@champion-pr.com; nrrphx@gmail.com; Nick Klimek; Council District 4; DIANE L
MIHALSKY; Dillon Hall; Kristin Lisson
Subject: Forty600 Central Development
Date: Monday, March 14, 2022 6:58:35 PM


Councilmember Pastor, Neighbors, and Friends,

I just attended the community meeting for Forty600 Central Ave presented by Ben Tate at
Withey Morris. The development is proposed on the property located at Hinkley Lighting's
location. It's a 7 story tower with retail on the bottom and luxury apartments above.

They are seeking a zoning of PUD as WUC is too restrictive. Overall, the project is a decent
representation of what is planned along Central with one MAJOR CAVEAT.

They've offered no plan to help with the overall traffic along Central. Additionally, the
specific traffic of the development is being redirected from Peirson Place to Carnation via
Campbell.

Learning from the 3rd Ave & Canal disaster, this development will have only one entrance
and exit both located on Central. Ben described this as a positive for all Pierson Place
residents stating no increased traffic on Coolidge as all traffic will turn south and then
wherever they are headed from there.

Much like the Ben Stiller movie where Jack Black created a spray that made dog poop
disappear, just because you can't see the poop anymore doesn't mean it disappeared. Roughly
half of the traffic leaving the development will be heading north or west, forcing them to u-
turn or turn right on Campbell, neither of which is an acceptable scenario under current
conditions. Proposing to alleviate traffic of Peirson Place and Coolidge by dumping it on
Campbell and Carnation is not a solution of any kind. It's just moving the dog poop from their
yards to ours.

In fairness, you can't blame the scorpion for being a scorpion. The real issue lies at the City
who is responsible for a whole-istic look at development effects on traffic and Livability.
While this development reasonably meets the TOD plans, the missing component is the
upgrades streets and transportation Infrastructure promised. The original approved plan had
3rd St continuing around the park offering through to 7th St, drop off for Central High School
and alternative routes for local traffic.

As it stands today, intersections on Central at Indian School and Camelback are rated 'F' by
traffic studies. As of today, around 4000 units are at some stage of development between those
3 streets and 3rd Ave. This will effectively triple the amount of residents in this half mile
block. What grade is 3x worse than an 'F'?

6000 students attend school within a half mile of Indian School Park. We are setting ourselves
up for a disaster that nobody will be able to say they didn't see coming.

Ben described the issues we are facing as "growing pains". I respectfully disagree as growing
pains implies growing out of the pain. The likely outcome of believing this will naturally fix
itself is permanent dysfunction and affliction.



Page 393
Due to the disparate and segmented neighborhoods being broken into tiny sections divided
among districts, villages, and and subcommittees, we have no singular voice like Encanto or
Coronado despite our community having significantly more development under way than
either. We don't have a single member on the Encanto Village Planning Committee.

Right now is the last chance we have to ensure Uptown is not just filled with developments
but livable and desirable for decades to come. We can't allow the fate of our homes and lives
be dictated by the desires of developers. If we do, none of should be surprised by the scars left
by the scorpions.

Due to the disparate and segmented neighborhoods being broken into tiny sections divided
among districts, villages, and and subcommittees, we have no singular voice like Encanto or
Coronado despite our community having significantly more development under way than
either. We don't have a single member on the Encanto Village Planning Committee.

I'd love to hear others ideas on how we can solve this. I'll propose a couple of issues before we
even look at actual solutions.

1) EVPC Representation - We should have, at least, 2 members from our neighborhood
considering 7 vacancies exist.

2) Uptown United - We need all of the dozen or so smaller groups impacted by intersections at
Central and Indian School and Camelback (7th to 7th and Clarendon to Missouri) to become
one unified voice that is able to be heard rather than a bunch of small whispers.

Once we've got representation and access to leadership, we can then begin discussions on how
to solve these issues. It's not my intention to be overly dramatic as I realize these are first
world problems. With that said, it's our world and if we don't protect it, others will destroy it.

P.S. I don't think Ben Tate is a scorpion. He's always been nice to me and responsive. Just
didn't have a better analogy.

Jeremy Thacker
(480) 410-1923




Page 394
ATTACHMENT D




Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-9-22-4
INFORMATION ONLY

Date of VPC Meeting August 23, 2022
Request From C-2 TOD-1
Request To PUD
Proposed Use PUD to allow mixed use multifamily
Location Southwest corner of Central Avenue and Coolidge Street

VPC DISCUSSION

One virtual speaker card was received from an individual opposed and wishing to
speak.

Mr. Nick Klimek, staff, provided an overview of the PUD process including the purpose
of this information only hearing being to solicit directive input from the Alhambra Village
Planning Committee.

APPLICANT PRESENTATION

Mr. Benjamin Tate introduced himself as the applicant’s representative. The subject
site is small with only 1.09 net acres located at the southwest corner of Central Avenue
and Coolidge Street. The site is surrounded by multifamily to the north, west, and south
across the Grand Canal. The request is for Transect 5:6 which would allow a height of
80 feet which is one step more intense than the Transect 5:5 which is identified in the
Uptown TOD Policy Plan. While more intense than recommended, this additional
intensity comes with enhancements that are aligned with the vision for canal adjacent
development contained in the Uptown TOD Policy Plan.

The development team is proposing ground floor commercial and 150 residential units
in a seven story configuration with a wrapped parking structure. The project activates
the canal with a food/beverage suite, live/work units, and form with multiple elevated
amenity decks oriented to the canal where the building steps back from the canal. The
proposal contains all of its required parking within the parking structure which is
accessed from Central Avenue only. The approach to vehicular circulation and parking
is in response to concerns from the Pierson Place neighborhood regarding cut-through
traffic. The proposal includes many sustainability elements and may even include
geothermal energy.


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882

Page 395
Alhambra Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-9-22-4


The traffic impact statement and trip generation model show that the traffic impact for
the site will be insignificant at approximately 67 per hour at peak times.

QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE

Committee Member Bonilla asked who is designing and constructing the project. Mr.
Tate responded that Merge Architecture is the designer, and that RAS Development is
the developer at this time. Committee Member Bonilla asked if RAS had done any
projects of this scale and type before. Mr. Tate Responded that they have not.
Committee Member Bonilla stated that the amenity deck above the food/beverage
suite will allow the restaurant to be vented properly. He expressed support for the
project.

Committee Member Keyser stated that it is nice to have an applicant come early. He
expressed support by describing it as the right project, in the right place, at the right
time.

Committee Member Adams asked if there was neighborhood support for the project,
specifically to its height. Mr. Tate responded that Withey Morris also represented the
applicant for Z-56-20-4 which was located west on Coolidge Street and, in that case,
traffic was a central issue and the neighborhood was clear that height and intensity
belongs along Central Avenue and key leaders have held to that position. He added that
cut-through traffic and on-street parking are major issues in the Pierson Place
neighborhood and that their design eliminates those as potential issues.

Committee Member Adams asked for how the 67 vehicles per hour at peak time was
calculated. Mr. Tate responded by explaining the internationally accepted methodology
and regularly updated ITE Trip Generation Manual.

Committee Member Adams asked why the canal is a central feature of the project
because they are glamorized in the renderings and are not actually very nice. Mr. Tate
responded that the Uptown TOD Policy Plan sets that vision for the canal.

Committee Member Harris expressed support for the project and stated that the
architecture looks nice. She asked if the project will include detached sidewalks. She
also asked if the parking for the commercial spaces will be located within the parking
structure, noting that can be confusing for prospective customers. Mr. Tate responded
that the sidewalks along Central Avenue will not be detached but will instead function as
a wider pedestrian thoroughfare as required by the “Central Avenue Development
Standards.” He stated that all parking is located within the parking structure in order to
respond to the concerns from the Pierson Place neighborhood.

Committee Member McCabe stated that he is a fan of the Canalscape Vision and feels
this project can be a model for other projects. He stated that he was originally reluctant
to have the only access from Central Avenue but sees that it is in response to
neighborhood concerns.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 396
Alhambra Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-9-22-4


Vice Chair Bryck stated that this site is rendered in the Uptown TOD Plan and
recommended the developer incorporate elements to further align the project with that
vision. Mr. Tate thanked Vice Chair Bryck for the comments and stated that the biggest
alignment in the current proposal is the food/beverage suite along the canal that is
envisioned as a destination for canal users.

PUBLIC COMMENTS

Mr. Jeremy Thacker expressed concern that the project will send traffic south on
Central Avenue will cut-through traffic going westbound on Campbell Avenue which has
more than 600 pedestrian crossings per day. The placement of all driveways on Central
Avenue advantage Pierson Place and disadvantage the Carnation Neighborhood to the
south. He alleged that Committee Member Jones has conflicts of interest on both Z-56-
20-4 at the southwest corner of 3rd Avenue and Coolidge Street and on the Forty600
PUD as a former owner. He expressed concern over the proposed 100 percent lot
coverage as being inconsistent with the Uptown TOD Policy Plan. He stated that the
developer should engage with the Carnation Neighborhood regarding the project
because it will impact them most severely. He added that he obtained review comments
from the City of Phoenix which identify the many problems with the project.

Committee Member Jones responded by stating that he had divested himself of the
parcel and that there is no conflict of interest. He stated that there was a complaint filed
for conflict of interest for Z-56-20-4 but that he was quickly cleared by the City of
Phoenix.

Committee Member Malkoon stated that there should be engagement to the Carnation
Neighborhood.

Committee discussion regarding traffic in Central Phoenix.

APPLICANT RESPONSE

Mr. Tate reiterated that the projected traffic impact of this project is negligible and that
the project is located within the Pierson Place neighborhood and those residents have
therefore been prioritized to reduce impact on their neighborhood.

FLOOR/PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED: COMMITTEE DISCUSSION

Committee discussion regarding traffic in Central Phoenix.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 397
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-9-22-4


Date of VPC Meeting June 27, 2023
Request From C-2 TOD-1
Request To PUD
Proposal PUD to allow mixed use multifamily
Location Southwest corner of Central Avenue and Coolidge
Street
VPC Recommendation Approval, per the staff recommendation
VPC Vote 8-5


VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS:

Three members of the public registered to speak on the item.

STAFF PRESENTATION

Samuel Rogers, staff, reviewed the surrounding land uses, zoning designations, and
site context. Mr. Rogers displayed the proposed site plan, elevations, recommended
stipulations, and concluded with staff findings.

APPLICANT PRESENTATION

Benjamin Tate, with Withey Morris Baugh, PLC, described the subject site location and
surrounding land uses, details about the proposal, and presented the elevation
renderings, site plan, and landscape plan. Mr. Tate described the project’s features,
how the project would make enhancements to the Grand Canalscape, a $250,000
donation to the City of Phoenix for canalscape improvements, how the proposal is
incorporating sustainability, and concluded with a summary of the proposal.

QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE

Committee Member Adams asked how the development addresses shaded sidewalks,
what the species of milkweed shrubs will be required, and how the development will
mitigate the negative impact of the canal when it is drained and cleaned. Mr. Tate


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882

Page 398
Alhambra Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-9-22-4


explained that the PUD requires the sidewalks on Coolidge Street and Central Avenue
be 75% shaded at tree maturity and 50% shaded along the Grand Canal. Mr. Tate
explained that the shading along the Grand Canal is limited by only being able to
provide trees and shade structures within the development’s property lines. Mr. Rogers
stated he would follow up with the milkweed species names. Mr. Tate explained that the
Grand Canal must be cleaned once a year and it is something that the development will
need to deal with.

Committee Member Christian Solorio stated that the City of Phoenix is in an
affordable housing crisis, and he is happy to hear Councilperson Pastor brought up
housing affordability as one of her top priorities. Committee Member Solorio explained
that in the 2023 Low Income Housing Tax Credit awards the average cost of an
affordable housing unit was $380,000 and stated that there seems to a disconnect
between the amount that would have been donated for affordable housing and the
$250,000 that will be donated for improvements to the Grand Canal. Mr. Tate explained
that the donation amount was calculated by using a previous zoning case in 2018 where
an in-lieu housing contribution was calculated on a square foot basis. Mr. Tate stated
that the inflation adjusted donation amount for the in-lieu housing contribution would
have been $237,000 for this project, so the $250,000 canalscape donation is greater
than the amount the in-lieu fee would have been. Committee Member Solorio stated
that a better precedent should be set.

Committee Member Pamela Fitzgerald asked if any restaurants are currently
interested in occupying the canal-oriented restaurant. Mr. Tate stated that the developer
is in talks with a user but that information has not been made public. Committee
Member Fitzgerald asked how optimistic the development team is about cooperation
with the Salt River Project (SRP). Mr. Tate stated he is somewhat optimistic because
the south side of the canal has a service road which should satisfy SRP’s maintenance
needs and because SRP has worked with Scottsdale and allowed them to make
canalscape improvements.

Committee Member Jim DeGraffenreid asked about traffic that will cut through
neighborhoods, asked if there is sufficient light rail capacity, and stated he would like
the committee to consider having the $250,000 donation go directly to low-income
housing now rather than to affordable housing in five years if an agreement between the
Tate stated that traffic impact analysis found that 150 additional units will not have a
significant impact on an arterial street such as Central Avenue and stated there is
sufficient light rail capacity.

Committee Member Jak Keyser stated that traffic along Central Avenue will get better
once the area reaches a critical mass of mixed-use development and residents have the
ability to live, work, and play in the area. Committee Member Keyser stated he worked
on affordable housing between 2006 and 2016 in his area around 27th Avenue and had
also worked with the Bureau of Reclamation and SRP to do canalscape improvements.


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 399
Alhambra Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-9-22-4


Committee Member Keyser stated that some of the fees the City of Phoenix will charge
the development will go towards art.

Committee Member Elizabeth Sanchez asked for confirmation that no affordable
housing is proposed as part of the development and stated that some of the
development surrounding light rail and transit should be affordable. Mr. Tate stated that
the absence of affordable housing is a result of high land cost and construction costs,
not because the development team does not want to build affordable units.

Committee Member Pamela Fitzgerald stated that are many affordable housing
complexes along Camelback Road from Central to 19th and up 17th and 18th.

Committee Member Melisa Camp asked how many luxury multifamily developments
are in the area, asked what type of construction will be used, will water be recaptured,
and is there enough water. Mr. Tate stated that land cost, construction costs, and
interest rates cause developers to have to build luxury developments, explained that
development would be concrete on the first two stories and wood frame construction on
the upper five stories and stated that water recapturing has not been discussed, but
sustainability is important to the developer and the development team is open to
continuing the conversation after the meeting. Mr. Tate stated that there is enough
water to supply the development and stated that multifamily is the most water efficient
form of housing. Committee Member Camp asked how and if the development will use
solar and geothermal energy and asked how many basic needs will be provided in the
commercial spaces. Lorne Wallace, the developer, explained he has had difficulty
researching geothermal power because there is not much precedent for geothermal
power in Arizona, and stated he is looking into solar power, but the development is
restricted by the amount of available roof space. Mr. Tate explained that the commercial
spaces have not been leased, but any use allowed in the Walkable Urban Code would
be allowed. Committee Member Camp asked if the live/work units and leasing office are
included in the 7,100 square feet of commercial space and if the developer is planning
to sell or hold the property. Mr. Tate stated that the first floor of live/work units and the
leasing office are counted toward the total square footage of commercial space. Mr.
Wallace stated that he is planning to hold the property.

Committee Member Keyser stated that affordable housing does not make sense on
Central Avenue because of the price per square foot and because the State of Arizona
does not provide subsidies for the construction of affordable housing. Committee
Member Keyser stated the development will also have to pay impact fees and asked
about the fee amount that will go towards art and the total project cost. Mr. Tate stated
that he does know the exact amount, but stated it is a lot of money.

Committee Member Jamaar Williams asked how large the area is where the
$250,000 donation towards canalscape improvements will be spent. Mr. Tate stated
that the decision of where the $250,000 donation is spent will be up to the City of
Phoenix and added that it is in the development’s best interest to have the funds spent
along the stipulated stretch of canal frontage rather than only in front of the

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 400
Alhambra Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-9-22-4


development’s frontage. Committee Member Williams asked how hopeful the
development team is that SRP will allow the City of Phoenix to make improvements
along the Grand Canal and asked if any other Council Members other than
Councilperson Pastor had been involved in discussion with SRP. Mr. Tate stated that he
thought SRP was interested in working with the City on the canalscape improvements,
but SRP was not incentivized to move quickly. Mr. Tate explained that the donation
funds will be spent in Councilperson Pastor’s district between 7th Street and 7th
Avenue, so only Councilperson Pastor had been involved in discussions with SRP.

Committee Member DeGraffenreid reiterated that he believed that the donation funds
should be used for affordable housing now, rather than for canalscape improvements
and explained that with land prices rising, $250,000 will not be much money for
affordable housing in five years.

Committee Member Keyser stated he does not think the citywide burden of funding
affordable housing should be placed on one developer and explained that the City of
Phoenix needs fund from everywhere. Mr. Keyser added that wealthy people need
places to live as well, stated that wealthy people coming to Phoenix is good for the
economy, and explained that if there is more money in the economy, there will be higher
tax revenues that can be spent of affordable housing.

PUBLIC COMMENTS

Jeremy Thacker explained that the half mile between Central to 7th and between
Indian School to Camelback will triple in population to become the densest
neighborhood in the City of Phoenix with 4,500 multifamily luxury units coming into the
area. Mr. Thacker explained that in these new developments there is 0% affordable-
housing, 1% commercial, and 2,000 parking spaces. Mr. Thacker explained that the
light rail causes all traffic leaving the development to turn south onto Central Avenue
towards Mr. Thacker’s neighborhood, the Carnation Neighborhood. Mr. Thacker asked
why all traffic is being directed away from Coolidge Street and towards his
neighborhood. Mr. Thacker stated that 2,500 square feet of commercial is not enough
and explained that the restaurant space should be where the commercial is indoors,
and the proposed location of the restaurant should be a patio. Mr. Thacker stated the
policy framework provides height incentives if 30% of open space or affordable housing
is provided and explained that to receive the height incentive the development should
have to donate the equivalent cost of providing 30% open space towards improving the
canalscape. Mr. Thacker stated that 30% of the $2.5 million land cost is $750,000, so
$750,000 should have been donated to improve the canalscape for the development to
receive the height incentive. Mr. Thacker stated that paid parking should be
implemented to reduce rents and encourage transit usage.

Ken Waters stated that the Uptown TOD Policy Plan states that this site calls for
Transect T5, while the proposal is for Transect T6 to get an additional 24 feet in height.
Mr. Waters stated that this is a good project but proposed three items that should be
different. First, there should be more patio space, second the live/work units should be

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 401
Alhambra Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-9-22-4


converted to commercial, and third the leasing office should be moved off Central
Avenue.

Ron Szematowicz stated he would be in favor of the project if the traffic stays on
Central Avenue, explained multifamily developments are causing traffic issues in the
area, and stated it is dangerous to turn onto Central Avenue from Coolidge Street due
to the abundance of cars parked along Coolidge Street.

APPLICANT RESPONSE

Mr. Tate thanked members of the public for their comments and stated that he hopes
members of the committee and the public can see the thought, effort, and patience that
went into addressing community concerns. Mr. Tate stated that there are trade off with
shuffling the first-floor commercial space and explained that if the restaurant is moved
inside, commercial space will be lost. Mr. Tate referenced concerns about
approximately 4,000 new units coming into the area and stated that the staff report
references the Uptown TOD Policy Plan which projects a shortfall of approximately
10,000 housing units in the Central corridor alone. Mr. Tate asked where density should
go if not near light rail and in a location designated for density in City of Phoenix policy
plans. Mr. Tate stated that the Traffic Impact Analysis showed that the development will
not have a significant impact on surrounding neighborhoods such as the Carnation
Neighborhood. Mr. Tate stated that Mr. Waters had expressed a desire for the entirety
of the project frontage along the Grand Canal to be commercial and explained that the
developer is already taking a great risk by providing a restaurant with no street frontage.

FLOOR/PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED: MOTION, DUSCUSSION, AND VOTE

Committee Member Maurita Harris asked if the committee is able to alter the amount
of the donation. Mr. Rogers stated that the committee may make a motion to alter any
of the stipulations. Committee Member Harris stated that she would like to make a
motion to increase the donation amount to $500,000 and reduce the time frame before
funds are transferred to the Housing Department to three years.

Committee Member Solorio stated that the time limit for the City of Phoenix and the
Salt River Project to reach an agreement before funds are transferred to the Housing
Department should be decreased to zero years.

Committee Member Harris asked if the funds are given to the Housing Department will
the developer still make improvements along the Grand Canal. Chair Bryck asked Mr.
Tate to respond to Committee Member Harris’ question. Mr. Wallace stated that
donating to the Housing Department and making canalscape improvements had not
been discussed. Mr. Tate stated that the canal is owned by SRP and not by the
developer, so improvements should be made by the City of Phoenix through
cooperation with SRP. Chair Bryck summarized Mr. Tate’s comment that in the current
proposal either affordable housing will be funded or canal improvements somewhere


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 402
Alhambra Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-9-22-4


along the Grand Canal. Mr. Rogers clarified that, per Stipulation No. 2, canalscape
improvements are required to be made between Central Avenue and 3rd Avenue.

Committee Member Harris asked where the money will go if it is given for affordable
housing. Mr. Rogers stated that funds are required to be spent on affordable housing
within Council District 4.

MOTION
Committee Member Harris made a motion to recommend approval of Z-9-22-4 per the
staff recommendation with modifications to Stipulation No. 2 to increase the donation
amount from $250,000 to $500,000 and to decrease the time limit for the City of
Phoenix and the Salt River Project to reach an agreement before funds are transferred
to the Housing Department from five years to zero years. Committee Member
DeGraffenreid seconded the motion.

DISCUSSION
Committee Member Keyser stated that the proposed motion will not get past Planning
Commission or City Council and stated that the committee is looking a gift horse in the
mouth as the developer is offering $250,000. Committee Member Keyser stated that the
proper way to provide affordable housing should be a City Ordinance that requires a fee
to be assessed on new developments that shall be used for affordable housing.
Committee Member Harris stated that she thinks the committee should still try to pass
the motion even if it will not get past Planning Commission and City Council.
Committee Member Solorio stated that Committee Member Keyser was describing
Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning which is illegal in Arizona. Committee Member
DeGraffenreid stated that whether the proposed motion will get past Planning
Commission and City Council, it is the responsibility of the committee to push on the

Committee Member Dina Smith asked how to the Housing Department can spend the
funds if they receive them. Mr. Rogers stated that the fund must be used for affordable
housing in Council District 4.

Committee Member Keyser stated that improving the canalscape will be good for the
City and stated he would like to increase the donation amount and reduce the time
frame before funds are transferred to the Housing Department to three years.

Chair Bryck stated that he was excited for the project as a former member of the
ReinventPhx committee where there was a huge push towards canalscape
improvements. Chair Bryck explained that this project represents a test case for canal
development and stated he was hopeful that this project would catalyze canal
development across the City.

Committee Member Keith Ender asked who funded other improvements along the
Grand Canal. Committee Member Keyser stated that in Scottsdale the City of
Scottsdale and the Maricopa Association of Governments funded canalscape

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 403
Alhambra Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-9-22-4


improvements. Committee Member Keyser echoed Chair Bryck’s hopes that this
development will catalyze canalscape improvements in other developments.

Committee Member Harris asked if the committee could require a total donation of
$500,000 with $250,000 going towards canalscape improvements and $250,000 for
affordable housing. Mr. Rogers stated that the committee can modify or add
stipulations as they see fit.

Committee Member Harris stated that she would like to make a friendly amendment to
her motion to modify Stipulation No. 2 to reduce the time frame before funds are
transferred to the Housing Department to three years and to require an additional
$250,000 to be donated directly to housing department. Committee Member
DeGraffenreid accepted the friendly amendment.

Committee Member Ender stated that the developer’s donation of $250,000 is
generous and stated this is not the right venue to be debating for affordable housing.

Committee Member Adams stated that increased landscaping along the canal will
draw in more development that can potentially fund affordable housing.

Committee Member Solorio stated that the developer is receiving height allowances
for providing the donation, so the Village Planning Committee is where the stipulations
should be debated.

VOTE
4-9, motion to recommend approval of Z-9-22-4 per the staff recommendation with
modifications fails with committee members DeGraffenreid, Harris, Solorio, and Williams
in favor and committee members Adams, Camp, Ender, Fitzgerald, Keyser, Sanchez,
Smith, Shore, and Bryck opposed.

MOTION
Committee Member Adams made a motion to recommend approval of Z-9-22-4 per
the staff recommendation. Committee Member Fitzgerald seconded the motion.

VOTE
8-5, motion to recommend approval of Z-9-22-4 per the staff recommendation passes
with committee members Adams, Ender, Fitzgerald, Keyser, Smith, Solorio, Shore, and
Bryck in favor and committee members Camp, DeGraffenreid, Harris, Sanchez, and
Williams opposed.

STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:


Staff has no comment.



200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 404
ATTACHMENT D


REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
August 3, 2023

ITEM NO: 9
DISTRICT NO.: 4
SUBJECT:

Application #: Z-9-22-4 (Forty600 PUD)
Location: Southwest corner of Central Avenue and Coolidge Street
From: C-2 TOD-1
To: PUD
Acreage: 1.71
Proposal: Planned Unit Development to allow mixed use multifamily.
Applicant: RAS Developments, Inc.
Owner: Forty600, LP
Representative: Benjamin Tate, Withey Morris Baugh, PLC

ACTIONS:

Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.

Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
Alhambra 8/23/2022 Information only.
Alhambra 6/27/2023 Approval, per staff recommendation. Vote: 8-5.

Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval, per the Alhambra Village Planning
Committee recommendation.

Motion Discussion: N/A

Motion details: Commissioner Boyd made a MOTION to approve Z-9-22-4, per the Alhambra
Village Planning Committee recommendation.

Maker: Boyd
Second: Simon
Vote: 8-0
Absent: Mangum
Opposition Present: Yes

Findings:

1. The development is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Map designation of
Commercial.

2. The proposal advances the vision and recommendations contained in the Uptown
Transit Oriented Development Policy Plan and will create strong pedestrian
environments along Central Avenue, Coolidge Street, and the Grand Canal with the
provision of commercial space, shaded and detached sidewalks along Central Avenue
and Coolidge Street, and ground floor residential oriented towards the Grand Canal.

3. The proposal will create additional housing options in line with the Housing Phoenix
Plan’s goal of preserving or creating 50,000 housing units by 2030.


Page 405
Stipulations:

1. An updated Development Narrative for the Forty600 PUD reflecting the changes
approved through this request shall be submitted to the Planning and Development
Department within 30 days of City Council approval of this request. The updated
Development Narrative shall be consistent with the Development Narrative date
stamped May 25, 2023, as modified by the following stipulations:

a. Front cover: Revise the submittal date information on the bottom to add the
following: Hearing draft submittal: May 25, 2023; City Council adopted: [Add
adoption date].

b. Page 11, Development Standards, Parking: Add the following language to this
section: A minimum of 9 parking spaces shall include EV Installed infrastructure.

c. Page 13, Design Guidelines, B. Landscape: Add the following language to this
section: 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.

2. The developer and the City must agree to enter into an agreement wherein the
developer will make a single $250,000 donation to the City of Phoenix Developer
Deposit Account prior to final site plan approval to construct improvements along the
Grand Canal between Central Avenue and 3rd Avenue, as approved by the Planning
and Development Department.

If it is not possible for the City to reach an agreement with the necessary jurisdictional
partners such as the Salt River Project after 5 years from the date of deposit, the funds
shall be transferred to the Housing Department to fund the development of affordable
housing in the District 4 City Council District.

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

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

5. A minimum of 25 feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated along the south half of Coolidge
Street, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

6. Detached sidewalk streetscapes must be located within right-of-way or an appropriate
sidewalk easement, as approved by the Street Transportation Department.

7. The developer shall underground existing electrical utilities within the public right-of-way
that are impacted or, to be relocated as part of this project. Coordinate with the affected
utilities company for their review and permitting.




Page 406
8. This parcel is in a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) called Zone A, on panel 1740L of
the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) dated October 16, 2013. The following
requirements shall apply, as approved by the Planning and Development Department:

a. The Architect/Engineer is required to show the floodplain boundary limits on the
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 needs to be submitted to the Floodplain
Management section of Public Works Department 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.

9. 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.

10. If determined necessary by the Phoenix Archeology 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 Archeologist prior to clearing and grubbing,
landscape salvage, and/or grading approval.

11. If Phase I data testing is required, and if, upon review of the results from Phase I data
testing, the City Archeologist, in consultation with a qualified archeologist, determines
such data recovery excavations are necessary, the applicant shall conduct Phase II
archeological data recovery excavations.

12. 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.

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

This publication can be made available in alternate format upon request. Please contact Angie
Holdsworth at (602) 329-50652, TTY use 7-1-1.




Page 407
ATTACHMENT E


CITY OF PHOENIX
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

FORM TO REQUEST PC to CC
I HEREBY REQUEST THAT THE CC HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON:

APPLICATION NO/ Z-9-22-4 (Forty 600 (SIGNATURE ON ORIGINAL IN FILE)
LOCATION PUD) Southwest opposition x applicant
corner of Central
Avenue and
Coolidge Street
APPEALED FROM: PC 8/3/2023 126 West Pierson Street
Phoenix, AZ 85013

PC DATE STREET/ADDRESS/CITY/STATE/ZIP
TO PC/CC CC 9/6/2023 Ken Waters
HEARING 602-373-1902
Kennywaters602@gmail.com

CC DATE NAME / PHONE / EMAIL
REASON FOR REQUEST:

The project leaves much to be desired on how it utilizes its premier location on the
TOD and canalscape. More and better commercial/retail is called for and far more
patio space.



RECEIVED BY: Greg Harmon RECEIVED ON: 8/7/2023

Alan Stephenson Greg Harmon
Joshua Bednarek Paul M. Li
Tricia Gomes Village Planner
Racelle Escolar GIS
Stephanie Vasquez Applicant
Diana Hernandez Byron Easton (for PHO Appeals)
Heather Klotz
Vikki Cipolla-Murillo




Page 408
Page 409
ATTACHMENT F




Sam Rogers
Alhambra Village Planner
Planning & Development Department
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003

Re: Forty600 PUD – Z-9-22-4

I am writing to express my support for Forty600, the proposed mixed-use development at the
southwest corner of Central Avenue and Coolidge Street in Uptown Phoenix. The proposed
development is exactly the kind of urban-oriented, multi-modal, high-quality development that
the Uptown TOD plan envisions for and is needed in the Central Corridor.

I’ve had the opportunity to speak with the development team, review the plans, and have my
questions answered. Forty600 makes full use of this infill site with mixed-use vertical
development that offers ground-floor commercial and retail spaces, activation along both street
frontages and the Arizona Grand Canal, and new residential opportunities under a single roof.
The development will include a first-of-its-kind canal-oriented restaurant space that will serve as
an amenity for one of the busiest bike and pedestrian thoroughfares in the Valley. The applicant
is also making a significant contribution to future canalscape improvements along the Arizona
Grand Canal, providing a regional community benefit that will help make Uptown Phoenix a bike
and pedestrian destination.

Forty600 is the type of urban-focused investment and development in the Central Corridor that
the City of Phoenix needs, and I am in full support of this application.


Sincerely,



Steve Lopez
340 W. Highland Avenue
Phoenix, AZ




Page 410
Sam Rogers
Alhambra Village Planner
Planning & Development Department
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003

Re: Forty600 PUD – Z-9-22-4

I am writing to express my support for Forty600, the proposed mixed-use development at the
southwest corner of Central Avenue and Coolidge Street in Uptown Phoenix. The proposed
development is exactly the kind of urban-oriented, multi-modal, high-quality development that
the Uptown TOD plan envisions for and is needed in the Central Corridor.

Forty600 makes full use of this infill site with mixed-use vertical development that offers ground-
floor commercial and retail spaces, activation along both street frontages and the Arizona Grand
Canal, and new residential opportunities under a single roof. The development will include a first-
of-its-kind canal-oriented restaurant space that will serve as an amenity for one of the busiest
bike and pedestrian thoroughfares in the Valley. The applicant is also making a significant
contribution to future canalscape improvements along the Arizona Grand Canal, providing a
regional community benefit that will help make Uptown Phoenix a bike and pedestrian
destination.

Forty600 is the type of urban-focused investment and development in the Central Corridor that
the City of Phoenix needs, and I am in full support of this application.


Sincerely,



Name: Daniele Biswas & Lisa Schantz
Address: 1205 E Meadowbrook Ave, Phoenix, AZ 85014




Page 411
Sam Rogers
Alhambra Village Planner
Planning & Development Department
200 West Washington St.
Phoenix, AZ 85003

Dear Chair and members of the Alhambra Village Planning Committee,

Subject: Support for the Forty600 Project

I am writing to express my wholehearted support for the Forty600 Project, a groundbreaking
mid-rise mixed-use development located in the vibrant Uptown Central Phoenix, at the junction
of Central Avenue and Coolidge Street. This commendable initiative embodies the very essence
of sustainable and inclusive urban development, promising to significantly enhance the quality of
life for residents and invigorate the local economy.

Forty600 stands as a testament to the value of community engagement, meticulous planning, and
innovative design. The development team has demonstrated remarkable commitment by actively
seeking feedback from neighbors, stakeholders, and the City of Phoenix. The end result is a
harmonious design that is compatible with the surrounding community and reflects the needs and
aspirations of its residents.

The development exhibits exceptional urban design features that prioritize the pedestrian
experience. The two-story storefront glazing, generous shading, and landscaping, as well as
seating opportunities along Central Avenue, Coolidge Street, and the Arizona Grand Canal, not
only create a welcoming atmosphere but also contribute to the visual appeal and identity of
Uptown Phoenix.

Importantly, Forty600 is in alignment with the city's objectives as set out in the Uptown TOD
Plan, promoting an urban and vibrant light rail corridor while encouraging pedestrian and
bicycle-friendly spaces. The synergy between this project and the city's broader goals can propel
Uptown Phoenix towards sustainable development, fostering community well-being and
economic prosperity.

I respectfully urge the Village to recognize the immense potential of the Forty600 Project and
provide it with the support and encouragement it deserves. This project represents an opportunity
to make a long-lasting positive impact on the Uptown Central Phoenix community and the city
as a whole.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Massimo Sommacampagna
- 13814 N. Burning Tree Pl. Phoenix, AZ 85022




Page 412
Sam Rogers
Alhambra Village Planner
Planning & Development Department
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003

Re: Forty600 PUD – Z-9-22-4

I am writing to express my support for Forty600, the proposed mixed-use development at the
southwest corner of Central Avenue and Coolidge Street in Uptown Phoenix. The proposed
development is appropriate for that very small location and will be a high-quality development
that the Uptown TOD plan envisions.

I’ve had the opportunity to speak with the development team, review the plans, and have my
questions answered. Forty600 makes full use of a very challenging site and the ground-floor
commercial and retail spaces will be attractive and interesting. The development will include a
first-of-its-kind canal-oriented restaurant space that will serve as an amenity for one of the
busiest bike and pedestrian thoroughfares in the Valley. The applicant is also making a
significant contribution to future canalscape improvements along the Arizona Grand Canal,
providing a regional community benefit that will help make Uptown Phoenix a bike and
pedestrian destination.

Forty600 is the type of urban-focused investment and development in the Central Corridor that
the City of Phoenix needs, and I am in full support of this application.


Sincerely,

Michael W. Freret
225 East Oregon Ave
Phoenix, AZ 85012




Page 413
Sam Rogers
Alhambra Village Planner
Planning & Development Department
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003

Re: Forty600 PUD – Z-9-22-4

I would like to register my strong support for the proposed Forty600 development at the
southwest corner of Central Avenue and Coolidge Street. This project represents a true
archetype for the kind of urban-oriented, multi-modal, high-quality development that the Uptown
TOD plan envisions for and is needed in the Central Corridor.

As a resident of nearby Midtown along the Central Avenue light rail corridor, I have witnessed
the tremendous impact that smart infill development like this can have in stabilizing and
enhancing neighborhoods while creating new housing opportunities and driving activity along
formerly neglected commercial thoroughfares.

Forty600 is the checks all the boxes for the City’s and neighborhoods needs from focused urban
infill, and I am in full support of this application.


Sincerely,


Justin Graham
Name: Justin Graham
Address: 35 East Hoover Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85004




Page 414
Sam Rogers
Alhambra Village Planner
Planning & Development Department
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003

Re: Forty600 PUD – Z-9-22-4

I am writing to express my support for Forty600, the proposed mixed-use development at the
southwest corner of Central Avenue and Coolidge Street in Uptown Phoenix. The proposed
development is exactly the kind of urban-oriented, multi-modal, high-quality development that
the Uptown TOD plan envisions for and is needed in the Central Corridor.

Forty600 makes full use of this infill site with mixed-use vertical development that offers ground-
floor commercial and retail spaces, activation along both street frontages and the Arizona Grand
Canal, and new residential opportunities under a single roof. The development will include a first-
of-its-kind canal-oriented restaurant space that will serve as an amenity for one of the busiest
bike and pedestrian thoroughfares in the Valley. The applicant is also making a significant
contribution to future canalscape improvements along the Arizona Grand Canal, providing a
regional community benefit that will help make Uptown Phoenix a bike and pedestrian
destination.

Forty600 is the type of urban-focused investment and development in the Central Corridor that
the City of Phoenix needs, and I am in full support of this application.


Sincerely,



Jake Miller
2555 East Camelback Road, Suite 300
Phoenix, Arizona 85016




Page 415
Sam Rogers
Alhambra Village Planner
Planning & Development Department
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003

Re: Forty600 PUD – Z-9-22-4

I am writing to express my support for Forty600, the proposed mixed-use development at the
southwest corner of Central Avenue and Coolidge Street in Uptown Phoenix. The proposed
development is exactly the kind of urban-oriented, multi-modal, high-quality development that
the Uptown TOD plan envisions for and is needed in the Central Corridor.

Forty600 makes full use of this infill site with mixed-use vertical development that offers ground-
floor commercial and retail spaces, activation along both street frontages and the Arizona Grand
Canal, and new residential opportunities under a single roof. The development will include a first-
of-its-kind canal-oriented restaurant space that will serve as an amenity for one of the busiest
bike and pedestrian thoroughfares in the Valley. The applicant is also making a significant
contribution to future canalscape improvements along the Arizona Grand Canal, providing a
regional community benefit that will help make Uptown Phoenix a bike and pedestrian
destination.

Forty600 is the type of urban-focused investment and development in the Central Corridor that
the City of Phoenix needs, and I am in full support of this application.


Sincerely,



Name: Brian Rosella
Address: 2525 E Camelback Rd., Ste 210
Phoenix, AZ 85016




Page 416
Page 417
Sam Rogers
Alhambra Village Planner
Planning & Development Department
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003

Re: Forty600 PUD – Z-9-22-4

I am writing to express my support for Forty600, the proposed mixed-use development at the
southwest corner of Central Avenue and Coolidge Street in Uptown Phoenix. The proposed
development is exactly the kind of urban-oriented, multi-modal, high-quality development that
the Uptown TOD plan envisions for and is needed in the Central Corridor.

Forty600 makes full use of this infill site with mixed-use vertical development that offers ground-
floor commercial and retail spaces, activation along both street frontages and the Arizona Grand
Canal, and new residential opportunities under a single roof. The development will include a first-
of-its-kind canal-oriented restaurant space that will serve as an amenity for one of the busiest
bike and pedestrian thoroughfares in the Valley. The applicant is also making a significant
contribution to future canalscape improvements along the Arizona Grand Canal, providing a
regional community benefit that will help make Uptown Phoenix a bike and pedestrian
destination.

Forty600 is the type of urban-focused investment and development in the Central Corridor that
the City of Phoenix needs, and I am in full support of this application.


Sincerely,



Name: Adam Billmeyer

4617 E Evans Dr, Phoenix AZ




Page 418
Sam Rogers
Alhambra Village Planner
Planning & Development Department
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003

Re: Forty600 PUD – Z-9-22-4

I am writing to express my support for Forty600, the proposed mixed-use development at the
southwest corner of Central Avenue and Coolidge Street in Uptown Phoenix. The proposed
development is exactly the kind of urban-oriented, multi-modal, high-quality development that
the Uptown TOD plan envisions for and is needed in the Central Corridor.

Forty600 makes full use of this infill site with mixed-use vertical development that offers ground-
floor commercial and retail spaces, activation along both street frontages and the Arizona Grand
Canal, and new residential opportunities under a single roof. The development will include a first-
of-its-kind canal-oriented restaurant space that will serve as an amenity for one of the busiest
bike and pedestrian thoroughfares in the Valley. The applicant is also making a significant
contribution to future canalscape improvements along the Arizona Grand Canal, providing a
regional community benefit that will help make Uptown Phoenix a bike and pedestrian
destination.

Forty600 is the type of urban-focused investment and development in the Central Corridor that
the City of Phoenix needs, and I am in full support of this application.


Sincerely,



Name: Bryan Schlueter
Addresses:

1425 E Hoover Ave
Phoenix AZ 85006

2200 E Camelback Rd Ste 213
Phoenix AZ 85016




Page 419
Sam Rogers
Alhambra Village Planner
Planning & Development Department
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003

Re: Forty600 PUD – Z-9-22-4

I am writing to express my support for Forty600, the proposed mixed-use development at the
southwest corner of Central Avenue and Coolidge Street in Uptown Phoenix. The proposed
development is exactly the kind of urban-oriented, multi-modal, high-quality development that
the Uptown TOD plan envisions for and is needed in the Central Corridor.

Forty600 makes full use of this infill site with mixed-use vertical development that offers ground-
floor commercial and retail spaces, activation along both street frontages and the Arizona Grand
Canal, and new residential opportunities under a single roof. The development will include a first-
of-its-kind canal-oriented restaurant space that will serve as an amenity for one of the busiest
bike and pedestrian thoroughfares in the Valley. The applicant is also making a significant
contribution to future canalscape improvements along the Arizona Grand Canal, providing a
regional community benefit that will help make Uptown Phoenix a bike and pedestrian
destination.

Forty600 is the type of urban-focused investment and development in the Central Corridor that
the City of Phoenix needs, and I am in full support of this application.


Sincerely,



Name: Alex Pollack

Address: 1841 E Montecito Ave Phoenix,
AZ 85016




Page 420
Sam Rogers
Alhambra Village Planner
Planning & Development Department
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003

Re: Forty600 PUD – Z-9-22-4

I am writing to express my support for Forty600, the proposed mixed-use development at the
southwest corner of Central Avenue and Coolidge Street in Uptown Phoenix. The proposed
development is exactly the kind of urban-oriented, multi-modal, high-quality development that
the Uptown TOD plan envisions for and is needed in the Central Corridor.

Forty600 makes full use of this infill site with mixed-use vertical development that offers ground-
floor commercial and retail spaces, activation along both street frontages and the Arizona Grand
Canal, and new residential opportunities under a single roof. The development will include a first-
of-its-kind canal-oriented restaurant space that will serve as an amenity for one of the busiest
bike and pedestrian thoroughfares in the Valley. The applicant is also making a significant
contribution to future canalscape improvements along the Arizona Grand Canal, providing a
regional community benefit that will help make Uptown Phoenix a bike and pedestrian
destination.

Forty600 is the type of urban-focused investment and development in the Central Corridor that
the City of Phoenix needs, and I am in full support of this application.


Sincerely,



Name: Salvatore DeMuro
Address: 902 W. Hazelwood St., Phoenix, AZ 85013




Page 421
Sam Rogers
Alhambra Village Planner
Planning & Development Department
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003

Re: Forty600 PUD – Z-9-22-4

I am writing to express my support for Forty600, the proposed mixed-use development at the
southwest corner of Central Avenue and Coolidge Street in Uptown Phoenix. The proposed
development is exactly the kind of urban-oriented, multi-modal, high-quality development that the
Uptown TOD plan envisions for and is needed in the Central Corridor.

Forty600 makes full use of this infill site with mixed-use vertical development that offers ground-
floor commercial and retail spaces, activation along both street frontages and the Arizona Grand
Canal, and new residential opportunities under a single roof. The development will include a first-
of-its-kind canal-oriented restaurant space that will serve as an amenity for one of the busiest bike
and pedestrian thoroughfares in the Valley. The applicant is also making a significant contribution
to future canalscape improvements along the Arizona Grand Canal, providing a regional
community benefit that will help make Uptown Phoenix a bike and pedestrian destination.

Forty600 is the type of urban-focused investment and development in the Central Corridor that
the City of Phoenix needs, and I am in full support of this application.


Sincerely,




Regional Vice President of Development
Arizona




777 West Putnam Ave. Greenwich, CT 06830 O. 203.869.0900 |
C. 602.800.0300 www.therichmangroup.com


Page 422
Sam Rogers
Alhambra Village Planner
Planning & Development Department
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003

Re: Forty600 PUD – Z-9-22-4

I am writing to express my support for Forty600, the proposed mixed-use development at the
southwest corner of Central Avenue and Coolidge Street in Uptown Phoenix. The proposed
development is exactly the kind of urban-oriented, multi-modal, high-quality development that
the Uptown TOD plan envisions for and is needed in the Central Corridor.

Forty600 makes full use of this infill site with mixed-use vertical development that offers ground-
floor commercial and retail spaces, activation along both street frontages and the Arizona Grand
Canal, and new residential opportunities under a single roof. The development will include a first-
of-its-kind canal-oriented restaurant space that will serve as an amenity for one of the busiest
bike and pedestrian thoroughfares in the Valley. The applicant has also demonstrated that they
will also be making a significant contribution to future canalscape improvements along the
Arizona Grand Canal, providing a regional community benefit that will help make Uptown
Phoenix a bike and pedestrian destination.

Forty600 is the type of urban-focused investment and development in the Central Corridor that
the City of Phoenix needs, and I am in full support of this application.



Sincerely,



William Whittington

7333 E Doubletree Ranch Road Suite #140, Scottsdale, AZ




Page 423



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Public Hearing and Ordinance Adoption - Rezoning Application Z-17-22-4 -
Northwest Corner of Central Avenue and Glenrosa Avenue (Ordinance G-7157)

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-17-22-
4 and rezone the site from R1-6 TOD-1 (Approved C-2 H-R HGT/WVR TOD-1) (Single
-Family Residence District, Interim Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District One,
Approved Intermediate Commercial, High-Rise Incentive District, Height Waiver,
Interim Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District One), R-3 TOD-1 (Approved C-2 H-R
HGT/WVR TOD-1) (Multifamily Residence District, Interim Transit-Oriented Zoning
Overlay District One, Approved Intermediate Commercial, High-Rise Incentive District,
Height Waiver, Interim Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District One), R-3 TOD-1
(Approved C-2 H-R TOD-1) (Multifamily Residence District, Interim Transit-Oriented
Zoning Overlay District One, Approved Intermediate Commercial, High Rise Incentive
District, Interim Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District One), R-5 TOD-1 (Approved C
-2 H-R HGT/WVR TOD-1) (Multifamily Residence District, Interim Transit-Oriented
Zoning Overlay District One, Approved Intermediate Commercial, High-Rise Incentive
District, Height Waiver, Interim Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District One), C-2 TOD
-1 (Approved C-2 H-R HGT/WVR TOD-1) (Intermediate Commercial, Interim Transit-
Oriented Zoning Overlay District One, Approved Intermediate Commercial, High-Rise
Incentive District, Height Waiver, Interim Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District One),
and C-2 TOD-1 (Approved C-2 H-R TOD-1) (Intermediate Commercial, Interim Transit-
Oriented Zoning Overlay District One, Approved Intermediate Commercial, High-Rise
Incentive District, Interim Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District One) to WU Code
T4:3 UT (Walkable Urban Code, Transect 4:3, Transit Uptown Character Area), WU
Code T5:5 UT (Walkable Urban Code, Transect 5:5, Transit Uptown Character Area),
and WU Code T6:22 UT (Walkable Urban Code, Transect 6:22, Transit Uptown
Character Area) to allow mixed use and multifamily residential.

Summary
Current Zoning: R1-6 TOD-1 (Approved C-2 H-R HGT/WVR TOD-1) (1.83 acres), R-3
TOD-1 (Approved C-2 H-R HGT/WVR TOD-1) (7.59 acres), R-3 TOD-1 (Approved C-2
H-R TOD-1) (0.23 acres), R-5 TOD-1 (Approved C-2 H-R HGT/WVR TOD-1) (0.50
acres), C-2 TOD-1 (Approved C-2 H-R HGT/WVR TOD-1) (4.68 acres), C-2 TOD-1
(Approved C-2 H-R TOD-1) (0.78 acres)


Page 424

Proposed Zoning: WU Code T4:3 UT (1.03 acres), WU Code T5:5 UT (2.35 acres),
WU Code T6:22 UT (12.23 acres)
Acreage: 15.61
Proposal: Mixed use and multifamily residential

Owner: Central & Turney Properties, Inc.
Applicant: Petree Development
Representative: Wendy Riddell, Berry Riddell, LLC

Staff Recommendation: Approval subject to stipulations.
VPC Action: The Encanto Village Planning Committee heard this case on June 5,
2023, and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, with modifications,
additional stipulations, and direction, by a vote of 10-2.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this case on Aug. 3, 2023, and
recommended approval, per the Encanto Village Planning Committee
recommendation, by a vote of 8-0.
The Planning Commission recommendation was appealed for a public hearing by a
community member on Aug. 7, 2023.

Location
Northwest corner of Central Avenue and Glenrosa Avenue
Council District: 4
Parcel Address: 4242, 4300, 4302, 4324, 4340, 4342, 4346, 4352 and 4358 N. Central
Ave.; 4301, 4305, 4311, 4315, 4321, 4325, 4329 and 4335 N. 2nd Ave.; 14, 18, 102,
108, 114, 120, 124 and 128 W. Glenrosa Ave.; and 9, 19, 21, 35, 105, 107, 109, 109,
129 and 133 W. Turney Ave.

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




Page 425
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-17-22-4) FROM R1-6 TOD-1 (APPROVED C-
2 H-R HGT/WVR TOD-1) (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE
DISTRICT, INTERIM TRANSIT-ORIENTED ZONING OVERLAY
DISTRICT ONE, APPROVED INTERMEDIATE COMMERCIAL,
HIGH-RISE INCENTIVE DISTRICT, HEIGHT WAIVER,
INTERIM TRANSIT-ORIENTED ZONING OVERLAY DISTRICT
ONE), R-3 TOD-1 (APPROVED C-2 H-R HGT/WVR TOD-1)
(MULTIFAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT, INTERIM TRANSIT-
ORIENTED ZONING OVERLAY DISTRICT ONE, APPROVED
INTERMEDIATE COMMERCIAL, HIGH-RISE INCENTIVE
DISTRICT, HEIGHT WAIVER, INTERIM TRANSIT-ORIENTED
ZONING OVERLAY DISTRICT ONE), R-3 TOD-1 (APPROVED
C-2 H-R TOD-1) (MULTIFAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT,
INTERIM TRANSIT-ORIENTED ZONING OVERLAY DISTRICT
ONE, APPROVED INTERMEDIATE COMMERCIAL, HIGH RISE
INCENTIVE DISTRICT, INTERIM TRANSIT-ORIENTED
ZONING OVERLAY DISTRICT ONE), R-5 TOD-1 (APPROVED
C-2 H-R HGT/WVR TOD-1) (MULTIFAMILY RESIDENCE
DISTRICT, INTERIM TRANSIT-ORIENTED ZONING OVERLAY
DISTRICT ONE, APPROVED INTERMEDIATE COMMERCIAL,
HIGH-RISE INCENTIVE DISTRICT, HEIGHT WAIVER,
INTERIM TRANSIT-ORIENTED ZONING OVERLAY DISTRICT
ONE), C-2 TOD-1 (APPROVED C-2 H-R HGT/WVR TOD-1)
(INTERMEDIATE COMMERCIAL, INTERIM TRANSIT-
ORIENTED ZONING OVERLAY DISTRICT ONE, APPROVED
INTERMEDIATE COMMERCIAL, HIGH-RISE INCENTIVE
DISTRICT, HEIGHT WAIVER, INTERIM TRANSIT-ORIENTED
ZONING OVERLAY DISTRICT ONE), AND C-2 TOD-1
(APPROVED C-2 H-R TOD-1) (INTERMEDIATE
COMMERCIAL, INTERIM TRANSIT-ORIENTED ZONING
OVERLAY DISTRICT ONE, APPROVED INTERMEDIATE
COMMERCIAL, HIGH-RISE INCENTIVE DISTRICT, INTERIM



Page 426
TRANSIT-ORIENTED ZONING OVERLAY DISTRICT ONE) TO
WU CODE T4:3 UT (WALKABLE URBAN CODE, TRANSECT
4:3, TRANSIT UPTOWN CHARACTER AREA), WU CODE T5:5
UT (WALKABLE URBAN CODE, TRANSECT 5:5, TRANSIT
UPTOWN CHARACTER AREA), AND WU CODE T6:22 UT
(WALKABLE URBAN CODE, TRANSECT 6:22, TRANSIT
UPTOWN CHARACTER AREA).

____________



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

follows:

SECTION 1. The zoning of a 15.61-acre site located at the northwest

corner of Central Avenue and Glenrosa Avenue in a portion of Section 20, Township

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

changed from 1.83 acres of “R1-6 TOD-1 (Approved C-2 H-R HGT/WVR TOD-1)”

(Single-Family Residence District, Interim Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District

One, Approved Intermediate Commercial, High-Rise Incentive District, Height Waiver,

Interim Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District One), 7.59 acres of “R-3 TOD-1

(Approved C-2 H-R HGT/WVR TOD-1)” (Multifamily Residence District, Interim

Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District One, Approved Intermediate Commercial,

High-Rise Incentive District, Height Waiver, Interim Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay

District One), 0.23-acres of “R-3 TOD-1 (Approved C-2 H-R TOD-1)” (Multifamily

Residence District, Interim Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District One, Approved

Intermediate Commercial, High Rise Incentive District, Interim Transit-Oriented

Zoning Overlay District One), 0.50-acres of “R-5 TOD-1 (Approved C-2 H-R

HGT/WVR TOD-1)” (Multifamily Residence District, Interim Transit-Oriented Zoning

Overlay District One, Approved Intermediate Commercial, High-Rise Incentive



Page 427
District, Height Waiver, Interim Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District One), 4.68

acres of “C-2 TOD-1 (Approved C-2 H-R HGT/WVR TOD-1)” (Intermediate

Commercial, Interim Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District One, Approved

Intermediate Commercial, High-Rise Incentive District, Height Waiver, Interim Transit-

Oriented Zoning Overlay District One), and 0.78-acres of “C-2 TOD-1 (Approved C-2

H-R TOD-1)” (Intermediate Commercial, Interim Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay

District One, Approved Intermediate Commercial, High-Rise Incentive District, Interim

Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District One) to 1.03 acres of “WU Code T4:3 UT”

(Walkable Urban Code, Transect 4:3, Transit Uptown Character Area), 2.35 acres of

“WU Code T5:5 UT” (Walkable Urban Code, Transect 5:5, Transit Uptown Character

Area), and 12.23 acres of “WU Code T6:22 UT” (Walkable Urban Code, Transect

6:22, Transit Uptown Character Area).

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. Conceptual site plans and elevations shall be reviewed and approved by the
Planning Hearing Officer through the public hearing process for stipulation
modification prior to preliminary plan approval for Parcels 2 through 4 as
depicted on the Conceptual Site Plans date stamped June 1, 2023, with
specific regard to the inclusion of the below elements. 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.

a. The development shall include ground floor activation such as the


Page 428
programming of building spaces adjacent to Central Avenue that may
include retail or commercial uses, the choice and mix of frontage types,
and the presence of indoor or outdoor public amenities that may include
open spaces, and community gathering spaces.

(1) Gray shell (finished slab, fire suppression system, store front,
stubbed utilities, and 200-amp electrical panel for every 1,200
square feet) space shall be provided for all commercial and retail
designated spaces.


b. On Parcel 2, the ground floor shall include a minimum of 10,000 square
feet (for a total of 20,000 square feet) of non-residential uses. Non-
residential uses shall not include lobby, exercise, reception areas, or
other similar uses intended for exclusive use by residents. All required
non-residential uses shall have some frontage on Central Avenue right-
of-way.

c. On Parcel 2, the development shall utilize a continuous storefront
frontage per the requirements of Section 1305.b. for a minimum of 120
linear feet along Central Avenue.

d. On Parcel 4, the ground floor shall include a minimum 10,000 square
feet (for a total of 20,000 square feet) of non-residential uses. Non-
residential uses shall not include lobby, exercise, reception areas, or
other similar uses intended for exclusive use by residents. All required
non-residential uses shall have some frontage on Central Avenue right-
of-way.

e. On Parcel 4, the development shall utilize a continuous storefront
frontage per the requirements of Section 1305.b. for a minimum of 120
linear feet along Central Avenue.

f. The building elevations for Parcels 2 through 4 shall contain a minimum
of 10 percent premium materials such as brick, stone, metal, or other
comparable materials on all four sides of each building.

2. The applicant shall return to the Encanto Village Planning Committee to present
the site plan and elevations for Parcel 1 for review and comment prior to
preliminary site plan approval.

3. The building elevations for Parcel 1 shall contain a minimum of 10 percent
premium materials such as brick, stone, metal, or other comparable materials
on all four sides of each building, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.

4. All private streets within the subject site shall be constructed with the first phase
of the development as depicted on the Conceptual Phasing Plan date stamped


Page 429
June 1, 2023 and be open to the public prior to the issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

5. The developer shall provide a minimum five percent of the gross site area as
open space that is available to the public, as described below and as approved
or modified by the Planning and Development Department.

a. Each open space area shall follow the guidelines established in Section
1310 of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance.

b. Each open space area shall provide at a minimum seating, a drinking
fountain for people and pets, art, and shade elements.

c. A minimum of 15,000 square feet of publicly accessible open space shall
be constructed with the development of Parcel 1 as depicted on the
Conceptual Site Plans date stamped June 1, 2023.

d. One open space node shall be provided near the intersection of the
private Montecito Avenue alignment and 2nd Avenue which shall include
public facing art and a minimum of one higher-order amenity such as
lawn games, gardens, picnic tables, or shade canopies, or a combination
of several complementary amenities.

e. All units adjacent to the public open space located along 2nd Avenue
shall have direct unit entries and compliant frontage types as described
in Table 1305.1 and there shall be a minimum of two common entries to
provide direct pedestrian access from upper and interior units to
adjacent sidewalks.

6. A minimum of 10 percent 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.

7. The applicant shall return to the Encanto Village Planning Committee to present
the stipulated public-facing art generally located at 2nd Avenue and the
Montecito Avenue alignment for review and comment prior to the issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy for the first phase of development, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.

8. For the portion of the subject site zoned WU Code T5:5, the building height
shall not exceed 30 feet within 35 feet of the west property line and 40 feet
within 60 feet of the west property line, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.

9. For the portions of the subject site zoned WU T5:5 and T6:22, all public and
private street frontages shall include a minimum of two “common entry”
frontage type to provide direct pedestrian access from upper and interior units
to adjacent sidewalks, as approved or modified by the Planning and


Page 430
Development Department.

10. The portion of the subject site located along Glenrosa Avenue and between the
centerline of the 1st Avenue alignment on the east and the 2nd Avenue
alignment on the west (the western terminus of the T4:3 portion), shall be
restricted to a maximum height of 30 feet within 30 feet of the south property
line, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

11. The developer shall provide corner enhancements at the intersections of
Central Avenue and all public and private streets to denote the prominence of
the space and shall feature enhanced landscape and/or hardscape treatments
with public-facing art, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

12. The developer shall comply with the design standards of the Central Avenue
Image Enhancement guidelines. The detached sidewalk, landscape area width,
and shade requirements shall comply with the Transit Uptown Character Area
requirements for arterial roadways adjacent to Light Rail Corridor, as approved
or modified by the Planning and Development Department.

13. The public sidewalk along Turney Avenue shall be constructed to a minimum
width of 8 feet and detached from the back of curb by a minimum 5-foot-wide
landscape area planted to the following standards, as approved by the Planning
and Development Department. Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall
work with the Planning and Development Department on alternative design
solutions consistent with the creation of a comfortable pedestrian environment.

a. Minimum 3-inch caliper, large canopy, single-trunk, shade trees shall be
placed 25 feet on center or in equivalent groupings.

b. At tree maturity, the trees shall shade the sidewalks to a minimum 75
percent.

c. Drought tolerant shrubs and vegetative groundcovers shall be
maintained at maximum height of 24 inches to provide a minimum of 75
percent live coverage at maturity.

14. The existing overhead utility lines adjacent to Turney Avenue shall be relocated
underground for the entirety of its frontage, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.

15. The public sidewalk along 2nd Avenue shall be constructed to a minimum width
of 8 feet and detached from the back of curb by a minimum 7-foot-wide
landscape area planted to the following standards, as approved by the Planning
and Development Department. Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall
work with the Planning and Development Department on alternative design
solutions consistent with the creation of a comfortable pedestrian environment.



Page 431
a. Minimum 3-inch caliper, large canopy, single-trunk, shade trees shall be
placed 25 feet on center or in equivalent groupings.

b. At tree maturity, the trees shall shade the sidewalks to a minimum 75
percent.

c. Drought tolerant shrubs and vegetative groundcovers shall be
maintained at maximum height of 24 inches to provide a minimum of 75
percent live coverage at maturity.

The above described improvements shall be installed prior to the issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy for the first phase of development, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.

16. All public street frontages on 2nd Avenue shall require a landscape area
between the back of sidewalk and building front that shall be planted with
minimum 3-inch caliper, single trunk, shade trees planted a minimum of 20 feet
on center or in equivalent groupings, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.

The above described improvements shall be installed prior to the issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy for the first phase of development, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.

17. The public sidewalk along Glenrosa Avenue shall be constructed to a minimum
width of 6 feet and detached from the back of curb by a minimum 5-foot-wide
landscape area planted to the following standards, as approved by the Planning
and Development Department. Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall
work with the Planning and Development Department on alternative design
solutions consistent with the creation of a comfortable pedestrian environment.

a. Minimum 3-inch caliper, large canopy, single-trunk, shade trees shall be
placed 25 feet on center or in equivalent groupings.

b. At tree maturity, the trees shall shade the sidewalks to a minimum 75
percent.

c. Drought tolerant shrubs and vegetative groundcovers shall be
maintained at maximum height of 24 inches to provide a minimum of 75
percent live coverage at maturity.

18. All private streets shall be overlain with dedicated public pedestrian accessway
easements connecting to the public rights-of-way and the private streets shall
provide the following non-vehicular pathways, amenities, and features, as
approved or modified by the Planning and Development Department.

a. Access to/from 2nd Avenue from the private street on the Montecito
Avenue alignment shall be restricted to emergency vehicles, bicycles,


Page 432
and pedestrians.

b. One side of each private street shall comply with the standards
contained in Section 1304.H. of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance and be
detached from the back of curb by a landscape area an average of 5
feet in width that shall be planted with minimum three-inch caliper, single
trunk, shade trees planted a minimum of 20 feet on center or in
equivalent groupings.

c. One side of each private street shall comply with the standards
contained in Section 1312.D.1.c. of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance and
the landscape area shall be planted with minimum three-inch caliper,
single trunk, shade trees planted a minimum of 20 feet on center or in
equivalent groupings.

d. Where outside of public rights-of-way, intersections shall feature
pedestrian enhancements such as speed tables, elevated crosswalks,
and/or bulb-outs.

e. Include on-site bicycle routes that connect the internal streets to 2nd
Avenue, Turney Avenue, and Glenrosa Avenue. The applicant shall
consult with the Active Transportation Coordinator from the Street
Transportation Department on the design of the bicycle facilities.

19. An internal vehicular and pedestrian circulation plan shall be provided to
address ingress and egress to and from the site, vehicle loading, pick up and
drop off locations, pedestrian connections to existing light rail stations. The
developer shall be responsible for all cost and construction of improvements.
No preliminary approval of plans shall be granted until the internal vehicular
and pedestrian circulation plan has been reviewed and approved by the Street
Transportation and Planning and Development Departments. This plan shall be
updated, if needed, for all phases of development.

20. Along 2nd Avenue, no vehicular access shall be provided including no
driveways, no private streets, and no ingress/egress to parking structures.
Emergency vehicles may access the site from 2nd Avenue.

21. All refuse collection, loading, unloading, food and package delivery areas shall
be accessed only from the private streets on the site.

22. The applicant shall submit a Traffic Impact Study to the City for this
development. No preliminary approval of plans shall be granted until the study
is reviewed and approved by the City.

a. The TIS shall analyze the offset intersection of Central Avenue and
Glenrosa Avenue. The TIS shall include the necessary geometric
design, tapers and dedications to align the east/west legs of the
intersection to operate under a non-split phased signal. The developer


Page 433
shall be responsible for all cost and construction of improvements, as
approved by the Street Transportation Department.

23. Vehicular access onto Turney Avenue shall be limited to right-in/right-out, as
approved by the Street Transportation Department.

24. The developer shall incorporate bicycle infrastructure as described below and
as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

a. All required bicycle parking for multifamily use, per Section 1307.H.6.d
of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, shall be secured parking.

b. Guest bicycle parking for multifamily residential use shall be provided at
a minimum of 0.05 spaces per unit with a maximum of 75 required
spaces near entrances of buildings and installed per the requirements of
Section 1307.H of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance.

c. A minimum of 20 percent of the required bicycle parking for
nonresidential uses shall be secured.

d. A minimum of four bicycle repair stations (“fix it stations”) shall be
provided and maintained in areas of high visibility and near secure
bicycle parking areas. At minimum, two shall be directly accessible from
the public sidewalk.

e. Standard electrical receptacles shall be installed for a minimum of 10%
of the required bicycle parking spaces for electric bicycle charging
capabilities.

f. All nonresidential uses over 5,000 square feet of floor area shall provide
one bicycle space per 25 vehicle parking spaces, with a maximum of 50
spaces.

25. Electric vehicle infrastructure shall be provided for the required parking spaces
as follows: Minimum 10 percent EV Installed.

26. The developer shall dedicate a sidewalk easement for any streetscape area
that falls outside of dedicated right-of-way, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.

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

28. The developer shall record a Notice to Prospective Purchasers of Proximity to
Airport in order to disclose the existence and operational characteristics of


Page 434
Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport (PHX) to future owners or tenants of
the property.

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

30. 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.

31. 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.

32. 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.

33. 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.

34. Second Avenue, Minimum Setback:
Subject to approval of a variance, the setback from the western 2nd Avenue
alignment shall be a minimum of 50 feet, subject to review and approval by the
Planning and Development Department.

35. Central Avenue and Glenrosa Avenue Intersection:
The development shall modify the northwest corner the Central Avenue and
Glenrosa Avenue intersection to align the east and west legs and
corresponding signal modifications, as approved by the Street Transportation
Department.

36. Traffic Mitigation:

a. The ultimate design is subject to approval from the Street Transportation
Department.

b. The developer shall be required to complete a private maintenance
agreement for all traffic calming features in the right-of-way.



Page 435
c. Within 60 days of City Council approval, the developer shall prepare the
required petition application documents in coordination with the
Carnation Association of Neighbors in accordance with the city standard
petitioning process, as required by the Traffic Services Division, for the
following traffic calming infrastructure:

(1) Install intersection traffic calming infrastructure. Locations include:

 2nd Avenue and Campbell Avenue
 3rd Avenue and Campbell Avenue
 3rd Avenue and Turney Avenue
 3rd Avenue and Glenrosa Avenue
 3rd Avenue and Monterosa Street
 5th Avenue and Turney Avenue

(2) Install “neckdown neighborhood gateway” curb line bump outs to
narrow the street to 20 feet maximum. Locations include:

 2nd Avenue and Turney Avenue, west side of intersection
 1st Avenue and Glenrosa Avenue, west side of intersection

(3) Install mini roundabout at the following intersections:

 2nd Avenue and Turney Avenue, west of neckdown
neighborhood gateway
 2nd Avenue and Glenrosa Avenue

(4) Install sidewalks at the following locations:

 Glenrosa Avenue, between 3rd Avenue and 7th Avenue
 The south side of Turney Avenue, between 2nd Avenue and
3rd Avenue

The developer shall be responsible for all funding of and construction of
the approved traffic calming infrastructure and sidewalks, subject to the
petition of support being provided to the Street Transportation
Department within 180 days of the of the finalized petition being
provided to the Carnation Association of Neighbors.

37. Traffic Mitigation:
The developer shall install a stop sign at the intersection of 2nd Avenue and
Glenrosa Avenue, subject to review and approval by the Street Transportation
Department.


38. Light Rail Pass:
The developer shall provide a paid 60-day light rail pass to all new residents.


Page 436
39. Interim Construction Mitigation:
Various mitigation efforts including video monitoring cameras, fencing and
screening, and dust proof surfaces shall be utilized to minimize impacts to the
existing neighborhood, and consistent with the Interim Beautification Plan date
stamped June 1, 2023.

40. Material Delivery:
Material delivery will be required to enter and exit from Central Avenue.

41. Construction Parking:
All parking for construction worker vehicles shall be on-site of in a pre-arranged
off-site location.

42. No Speakers:
No outside speakers or amplified music will be permitted during construction.

43. Contact Information:
The applicant’s current contact information shall be provided to the president of
the Carnation Association of Neighbors.

44. Density:
A maximum unit count of 1,500 units shall be provided on the overall site, with
a maximum of 375 units on Parcel 1.

45. Interim Beautification Plan:
Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any building at any
phase, the vacant/undeveloped sites shall be maintained in general
conformance to the Interim Beautification Plan date stamped June 1, 2023,
with specific regard to the following elements, as approved or modified by the
Planning and Development Department.

a. The vacant/undeveloped sites shall be maintained free of vegetation.

b. The vacant/undeveloped sites shall be maintained in a dust-controlled
condition.

c. The vacant/undeveloped sites shall be enclosed by a view fence on all
sides with maintenance gates only located on private streets.

46. Noise Mitigation:
Anywhere a pool is visible to a public street, the developed shall provide a
sound attenuating wall.

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

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



Page 437
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 6th day of

September 2023.




________________________________
MAYOR


ATTEST:


_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk


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


By:
_________________________
_________________________


REVIEWED BY:


_________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager



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




Page 438
EXHIBIT A

BEING WEST OF CENTRAL AVENUE, NORTH OF GLENROSA AVENUE, EAST
OF 2ND AVENUE, AND SOUTH OF TURNEY AVENUE IN THE SOUTHWEST
QUARTER OF SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 2 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST OF THE
GILA AND SALT RIVER BASE AND MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA,
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

COMMENCING AT THE CENTER OF SAID SECTION, LOCATED AT CAMPBELL
AVENUE AND CENTRAL AVENUE AS REFERENCED IN RECORDED
DOCUMENT 2009-0003295;

THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 15 MINUTES 41 SECONDS WEST, ALONG
THE MONUMENT LINE OF CENTRAL AVENUE, A DISTANCE OF 659.32
FEET TO THE INTERSECTION OF TURNEY AVENUE AND CENTRAL
AVENUE, BEING THE POINT OF BEGINNING;

THENCE CONTINUING SOUTH 00 DEGREES 15 MINUTES 41 SECONDS
WEST, ALONG THE MONUMENT LINE OF CENTRAL AVENUE, A DISTANCE OF
831.07 FEET TO THE MONUMENT LINE OF GLENROSA AVENUE;

THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 25 MINUTES 48 SECONDS WEST, ALONG THE
MONUMENT LINE OF SAID GLENROSA AVENUE, A DISTANCE OF 734.08 FEET
TO A 1” IRON PIPE IN HANDHOLE AT THE INTERSECTION OF 2ND AVENUE;

THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 15 MINUTES 12 SECONDS EAST, ALONG THE
MONUMENT LINE OF SAID 2ND AVENUE, A DISTANCE OF 172.01 FEET TO A
1” IRON PIPE IN HANDHOLE AT THE INTERSECTION OF GLENROSA AVENUE;

THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 25 MINUTES 18 SECONDS WEST, ALONG THE
MONUMENT LINE OF SAID GLENROSA AVENUE, A DISTANCE OF 108.31
FEET 1” IRON PIPE IN HANDHOLE AT THE INTERSECTION OF 2ND AVENUE;

THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 34 MINUTES 04 SECONDS EAST, ALONG THE
CENTERLINE OF SAID 2ND AVENUE, A DISTANCE OF 658.45 FEET TO A 1”
IRON PIPE IN HANDHOLE AT THE INTERSECTION OF TURNEY AVENUE;

THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 28 MINUTES 13 SECONDS EAST, ALONG THE
MONUMENT LINE OF SAID TURNEY AVENUE, A DISTANCE OF 838.89 FEET
TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.

SAID PARCEL CONTAINS 680,052 SQUARE FEET OR 15.612 ACRES, MORE OR
LESS.




Page 439
Page 440
ATTACHMENT B




Staff Report Z-17-22-4
June 1, 2023

Encanto Village Planning Committee June 5, 2023
Meeting Date:
Planning Commission Hearing Date: August 3, 2023
Request From: R1-6 TOD-1 (Approved C-2 H-R H/W TOD-1)
(Single-Family Residence District, Interim
Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District One,
Approved Intermediate Commercial, High-Rise
Incentive District, Height Waiver, Interim Transit-
Oriented Zoning Overlay District One) (1.83
acres), R-3 TOD-1 (Approved C-2 H-R H/W
TOD-1) (Multifamily Residence District, Interim
Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District One,
Approved Intermediate Commercial, High-Rise
Incentive District, Height Waiver, Interim Transit-
Oriented Zoning Overlay District One) (7.59
acres), R-3 TOD-1 (Approved C-2 H-R TOD-1)
(Multifamily Residence District, Interim Transit-
Oriented Zoning Overlay District One, Approved
Intermediate Commercial, High Rise Incentive
District, Interim Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay
District One) (0.23 acres), R-5 TOD-1 (Approved
C-2 H-R H/W TOD-1) (Multifamily Residence
District, Interim Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay
District One, Approved Intermediate Commercial,
High-Rise Incentive District, Height Waiver,
Interim Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District
One) (0.50 acres), C-2 TOD-1 (Approved C-2 H-
R H/W TOD-1) (Intermediate Commercial,
Interim Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District
One, Approved Intermediate Commercial, High-
Rise Incentive District, Height Waiver, Interim
Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District One)
(4.68 acres), C-2 TOD-1 (Approved C-2 H-R
TOD-1) (Intermediate Commercial, Interim
Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District One,
Approved Intermediate Commercial, High-Rise
Incentive District, Interim Transit-Oriented Zoning
Overlay District One) (0.78 acres)




Page 441
Staff Report: Z-17-22-4
June 1, 2023




Request To: WU Code T4:3 UT (Walkable Urban
Code, Transect 4:3, Transit Uptown
Character Area) (1.03 acres), WU Code
T5:5 UT (Walkable Urban Code, Transect
5:5, Transit Uptown Character Area) (2.35
acres), WU Code T6:22 UT (Walkable
Urban Code, Transect 6:22, Transit
Uptown Character Area) (12.23 acres)
Proposed Use: Mixed use and multifamily residential
Location: Northwest corner of Central Avenue and
Glenrosa Avenue
Owner: Central & Turney Properties, Inc.
Applicant: Petree Development
Representative: Wendy Riddell, Berry Riddell, LLC
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations


General Plan Conformity
General Plan Land Use Map Designation Commercial
Arterial Street
Central Avenue 50 foot west half street
(Light Rail)
30 foot south half
Turney Avenue Local Street
Street Map street
Classification 25 to 30 foot north half
Glenrosa Avenue Local Street
street

2nd Avenue Local Street 30 foot east half street

CONNECT PEOPLE AND PLACES; TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT CORE
VALUE; LAND USE PRINCIPLE: Encourage high-density housing and high
intensity employment uses to locate adjacent or close to transit stations per
adopted transit district plans.
The proposal will place approximately 1,600 dwelling units on an underutilized site
directly adjacent to light rail, near two light rail stations, and implement the
recommended transects identified on the Uptown Transit Oriented Development
Policy Plan. The proposal, as stipulated, will promote transit oriented development
through relatively small blocks, shaded and detached sidewalks along all public and
private streets, the provision of pedestrian and bicyclist amenities, and a mix of land
uses. Additionally, the site layout meets the standards outlined in the WU Code.




Page 442
Staff Report: Z-17-22-4
June 1, 2023




CONNECT PEOPLE AND PLACES; TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT CORE
VALUE; LAND USE PRINCIPLE: Support compact, small block, mixed use
development in appropriate locations.
The proposal, as stipulated, will develop the subject site at a gross density of 102
dwelling units per acre, in four relatively small blocks, and with a mix of ground floor
residential and non-residential spaces. Additionally, the proposal will utilize the 25
percent by-right parking reduction allowed by the Walkable Urban Code due to its
proximity to light rail and encourage walking, bicycling, and transit-use through well
shaded and engaging streetscape environments.
CONNECT PEOPLE AND PLACES; TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT CORE
VALUE; LAND USE PRINCIPLE: DESIGN PRINCIPLE: Design public
infrastructure to include pedestrian and bicycle amenities.
The proposal includes both pedestrian and bicycle oriented design to encourage
alternative transportation modes for future residents and patrons of the development
but also the greater community. Pedestrian features, as stipulated, include relatively
small blocks, a mix of land uses, engaging building fronts, and streetscape plazas
along Central Avenue. Bicycle features, as stipulated include secure bicycle parking
for residents, convenient bicycle parking for guests, and multiple bicycle repair
stations that will complement the nearby Phoenix Sonoran Bikeway (3rd Avenue) and
nearby high-capacity transit lines by promoting multimodal trips.
CELEBRATE OUR DIVERSE COMMUNITIES AND NEIGHBORHOODS CORE
VALUE; HEALTHY NEIGHBORHOODS; DESIGN PRINCIPLE: Establish design
standards and guidelines for parking lots and structures, setback and build-to
lines, blank wall space, shade, and other elements affecting pedestrians, to
encourage pedestrian activity and identify options for providing pedestrian-
oriented design in different types of development.
The proposal utilizes the Walkable Urban Code which includes design guidelines and
development standards to encourage walking, bicycling, and transit use. These
standards include shaded streetscapes, units fronting onto the public sidewalk,
parking situated away from the public street, and on-site amenities for both residents
of the site and residents of the surrounding neighborhood.
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 robust tree plantings between the back of curb and the building
fronts including a detached sidewalk that will be shaded to 75 percent with shade
trees. These improvements will serve not only the residents of the development but
will also make the walk more comfortable from the adjacent neighborhood to the light
rail and other nearby amenities such as Steele Indian School Park.




Page 443
Staff Report: Z-17-22-4
June 1, 2023




CONNECT PEOPLE AND PLACES CORE VALUE; OPPORTUNITY SITES; LAND
USE PRINCIPLE: Promote and encourage compatible development and
redevelopment with a mix of housing types in neighborhoods close to
employment centers, commercial areas, and where transit or transportation
alternatives exist.
The proposal will introduce new housing opportunities in Central Phoenix with close
access to two light rail stations, a major community park, and the Encanto Village
Core. These additional housing opportunities supports goals contained in the Housing
Phoenix Plan to preserve and create 50,000 units by 2030.
CONNECT PEOPLE AND PLACES CORE VALUE; INFILL DEVELOPMENT; LAND
USE PRINCIPLE: Promote and encourage compatible infill development with a
mix of housing types in neighborhoods close to employment centers,
commercial areas, and where transit or transportation alternatives exist.
The proposal will activate a site that has been vacant and underutilized since 1986
and, as stipulated, includes compatibility features such as deeper build-to lines to
allow for a stronger tree canopy that will act as a transition to the surrounding
neighborhood. Additionally, as stipulated, the development will create housing
opportunities within the North Central Employment Center.


Applicable Plans, Overlays, and Initiatives

Uptown Transit Oriented Development Policy Plan: Background Item No. 5.

Transit Oriented Development Strategic Policy Framework: Background Item No. 7.

Encanto Village Character Plan: Background Item No. 8.

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Zero Waste PHX: Background Item No. 23.

Monarch Butterfly: Background Item No. 24

Transportation Electrification Action Plan: Background Item No. 25




Page 444
Staff Report: Z-17-22-4
June 1, 2023




Surrounding Land Uses and Zoning
Land Use Zoning
On Site Vacant / undeveloped Various
Single-family residences R1-6 (Single-family Residence
West (across 2nd Avenue, north
District) and R-3 (Multifamily
of Glenrosa Avenue)
Residence District)
West (across 2nd Avenue, south R-3 (Multifamily Residence
Single-family residences
of Glenrosa Avenue) District)
Multifamily residences R-4A TOD-1 (Multifamily
Residence District, Interim
Transit-Oriented Zoning
Overlay District - One)
North (across Turney Avenue,
east of 2nd Avenue)
Commercial building C-2 TOD-1 (Intermediate
Commercial, Interim Transit-
Oriented Zoning Overlay
District - One)
North (across Turney Avenue, R-3 (Multifamily Residence
Single-family residences
west of 2nd Avenue) District)
Commercial building C-3 TOD-1 (General
Commercial, Interim Transit-
Oriented Zoning Overlay
District - One)
South (across Glenrosa Avenue,
east of 1st Avenue)
Parking P-1 TOD-1 (Passenger
Parking, Limited, Interim
Transit-Oriented Zoning
Overlay District - One)
South (across Glenrosa Avenue, R1-6 (Single-family Residence
Single-family residences
east of 1st Avenue) District)
Steele Indian School Park R-5 TOD-1 (Multifamily
Residence District, Interim
Transit-Oriented Zoning
Overlay District - One)

Vacant land UR TOD-1 (Urban Residential,
Interim Transit-Oriented
Zoning Overlay District - One)
East (across Central Avenue)
Commercial building C-2 TOD-1 (Intermediate
Commercial, Interim Transit-
Oriented Zoning Overlay
District - One)
High School Athletic Fields
R-5 (Multifamily Residence
District)




Page 445
Staff Report: Z-17-22-4
June 1, 2023




Walkable Urban Code
Standards of General Applicability to the Subject Site
Provisions on the
Standards Requirements
Proposed site Plan
Density No maximum 102 dwelling units
per acre
Parking Structure Cannot exceed building height Met
Building Height
T4:3 40 foot maximum height 40 feet (Met)
T5:5 56 foot maximum height 56 feet (Met)
T6:22 250 foot maximum height 240 feet (Met)
Parking Per Applicant: 1,783 minimum 1,905 spaces
Due to proximity to light rail, parking spaces required; 1,905 provided (Met).
multifamily allows a 25% by-right spaces provided
reduction and commercial allows a
20% by-right reduction.
Public Open Space 5% minimum of gross area 4.34% provided (Not
Met)
Streetscapes
Central Avenue Per adopted plans. No detail provided
Glenrosa Avenue Per Section 1312.C.1.c. for
Minor Collectors and Local
Turney Avenue Streets: Minimum sidewalk Detached
width of five feet; Minimum sidewalks. Not
landscape width of five feet (if dimensioned.
2nd Avenue
no public utility conflict).
Internal Streets No standard for private streets
Primary and Secondary Frontage Assignments (Conceptual)
Preliminary frontage assignments will be refined in
site plan review.
• Vehicular access. Only permitted on Secondary
Frontages.
• Percent Building Frontage: More building
frontage required on Primary Frontage.
• Build-to Lines and Parking Setbacks: Slightly
larger on Primary Frontage.
• Projections into Right-of-Way: Larger in Primary
Frontage.
• Loading and unloading. Only permitted on a
Secondary Frontage.
*Variance or administrative adjustment required.




Page 446
Staff Report: Z-17-22-4
June 1, 2023




Background/Issues/Analysis

SUBJECT SITE
1. This request is to rezone 15.61 acres located at the northwest corner of Central
Avenue and Glenrosa Avenue from R1-6 TOD-1 (Approved C-2 H-R H/W TOD-
1), R-3 TOD-1 (Approved C-2 H-R H/W TOD-1), R-3 TOD-1 (Approved C-2 H-R
TOD-1), R-5 TOD-1 (Approved C-2 H-R H/W TOD-1), C-2 TOD-1 (Approved C-2
H-R H/W TOD-1), and C-2 TOD-1 (Approved C-2 H-R TOD-1) to WU Code T4:3
UT, WU Code T5:5 UT, and WU Code T6:22 UT for the purpose of mixed use
and multifamily residential.

The subject has been entirely vacant and undeveloped since 1986 but was
temporarily used as a plant nursery and community garden from 2016 to 2021.
Prior to that time, there were a variety of uses on the site on historic aerial
photographs including single-family residences along the north, south, and
western perimeters of the site, commercial along Central Avenue, and uses of a
more intense agricultural character at the interior of the site.

Historic Aerial Photographs; Source: Planning and Development Department




Page 447
Staff Report: Z-17-22-4
June 1, 2023




There have been multiple Existing Entitlements, Rendering; Source: Berry
development proposals for the Riddell
subject site over the past decades
including several that resulted in
zoning entitlements for significant
height and intensity. Most notably,
the site received zoning approval
in 1984 through Rezoning Case
Nos. 344-83 and Z-91-84 to allow
a height of 500 feet on the entire
site, subject to stipulations.

In 2003, the City of Phoenix adopted Interim Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay
District – One (TOD-1) which was applied to the entire subject site and many
others throughout the areas that would be served by the first phase of light rail
construction. Broadly, the TOD-1 prohibits auto-oriented uses, supersedes auto-
oriented development standards such as broad setbacks and walled complexes,
and is intended to support a compact pattern of development more conducive to
walking, bicycling, and transit use. The TOD-1 was specifically intended to be
replaced by the WU Code through the rezoning process which provides more
robust transit oriented development standards. The adoption of the TOD-1
represented a policy shift for areas adjacent to light rail regarding the form of
development appropriate near light rail.

Whereas previous entitlements may have permitted or required broad setbacks,
the TOD-1 established minimum build-to lines and streetscape standards like
those that what would later be adopted in the WU Code. While the current zoning
approvals permit a significant amount of intensity, the approvals were subject to
a variety of development standards and stipulations which reflected common
practices of the era that are not consistent with the requirements of the TOD-1
nor the vision contained in the Uptown TOD Policy Plan for walkable and transit-
oriented development. Examples of incompatible stipulations include 1) a
requirement for a vehicular bridge on 3rd Avenue across the Grand Canal and 2)
a requirement that the development be constructed in substantial conformance
to the 1984 site plan, including the building heights and the location of a parking
structure situated at the northwest corner of the site.




Page 448
Staff Report: Z-17-22-4
June 1, 2023




SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING
2. The subject site is currently Proposed Zoning and Adjacent Zoning; Source: Planning
vacant and undeveloped and, and Development Department.
aside from a brief activation
as a plant nursery and
community garden, has been
mostly vacant since 1986.

North, across Turney Avenue:
Of the frontage adjacent to
the subject site beginning east
to west: a portion is
developed as commercial and
zoned C-2 TOD-1, a portion is
developed as multifamily
residence district with R-4A
zoning, and the remainder is
developed as single-family
residences with R-3 zoning.

South, across Glenrosa Avenue: Of the frontage adjacent to the subject site
beginning east to west: a portion is developed as commercial and zoned C-3
TOD-1 and an associated parcel is developed as surface parking and zoned P-1
TOD-1, a portion is developed as single-family residences and zoned R1-6, and
a small portion is developed as a single-family residence and zoned R-3.

West, across 2nd Avenue: Of the frontage adjacent to the subject site beginning
south to north: a small portion is developed as a single-family residence and
zoned R-3, the majority is developed as single-family residences and zoned R1-
6, and another small portion is developed as a single-family residence and zoned
R-3.

East, across Central Avenue: Of the frontage adjacent to the subject site
beginning south to north: a small portion is a public park and zoned R5 TOD-1, a
portion is vacant and zoned U-R TOD-1 for multifamily residential, a portion is
newly vacant and zoned C-2 TOD-1, and the remainder is zoned R-5 and
developed as athletic fields for a public school.




Page 449
Staff Report: Z-17-22-4
June 1, 2023




GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP
3. The General Plan Land Use Map depicts a General Plan Land Use Map; Source:
designation of Commercial for the subject Planning and Development Department
site and the proposal for commercial and
multifamily is consistent with the designation.

West of Central Avenue: The subject site is
adjacent to land with General Plan Land Use
Map designations of Residential 15+ dwelling
units per acre to the north, to Residential 3.5
to 5 dwelling units per acre to the west,
southwest, and northwest, and to
Commercial on the south.

Across Central Avenue: The subject site is
adjacent to land with General Plan Land Use
Map designations of Parks /Open Space, Commercial, and Public/Quasi-Public.

The subject site is also located within the study areas for the Transit Oriented
Strategic Policy Framework, the Uptown Transit Oriented Development Policy
Plan areas which supplement the General Plan, and within a quarter mile from
the Encanto Village Core.

4. The subject site is located within a quarter Encanto Village Core, General Plan
mile of the Encanto Village Core which is Land Use Map; Source: Planning and
Development Department
located immediately south of Indian School
Road from approximately 7th Avenue on the
west, to 3rd Avenue on the east, and Thomas
Road on the south. Since the 1980s, the
village cores were where the greatest intensity
was envisioned in these villages and this
concept remains central to the Connected
Oasis vision contained in the 2015 Phoenix
General Plan.

While outside the formal boundary of the
Encanto Village Core, the proposal is within a
short walk, a short bike ride via Central
Avenue or 3rd Avenue (the Phoenix Sonoran
Bikeway), or a single light rail stop. The
proposal is designed in a manner that complements the vision for Uptown
Phoenix as articulated through adopted policies, described in this staff report.




Page 450
Staff Report: Z-17-22-4
June 1, 2023




5. Uptown TOD Policy Plan:
The site is located within the Uptown TOD Planning Area, which is bound by
Missouri Avenue on the north, 7th Street on the east, Indian School Road on the
south, and the western edge is generally 7th Avenue south of the Grand Canal
and 15th Avenue north of the Grand Canal.

The policy plan for the Uptown TOD District provides a blueprint for fully
achieving the transformative potential of light rail in a sustainable manner.
Changes advocated in the plan can lower transportation costs for residents,
create new business opportunities, encourage active, healthy lifestyles, ensure
Phoenix increases its competitive advantage in the global marketplace, and
improve prosperity by growing the economy in locations with existing
infrastructure and public services.

The plan projects a shortfall of 10,888 housing units by 2035 and articulates a
goal for more housing and employment in proximity to high-capacity transit. The
proposal would add approximately 1,600 dwelling units near light rail, major
employers such as the Carl T. Hayden VA Medical Center that employs more
than 2,400, educational facilities including four high schools, and the 74-acre
Steele Indian School Park.

With specific regard to the subject site, Uptown TOD Policy Plan, Conceptual Zoning
the Uptown TOD District Plan provides Plan; Source: Planning and Development
Department
the following guidance:

The site is depicted on the Conceptual
Zoning Plan with recommended
Transects of 4:3, 5:5, and 6:22. The
plan depicts: much of the site as
Transect 6:22 which allows a
maximum height of 250 feet, Transect
5:5 along 2nd Avenue north of
Glenrosa which allows a maximum
height of 56 feet, and Transect 4:3
which allows a maximum height of 40
feet along a portion of Glenrosa
Avenue. The applicant’s proposal is
consistent with the Conceptual Zoning
Plan.




Page 451
Staff Report: Z-17-22-4
June 1, 2023




6. The subject site is also depicted within Uptown TOD Policy Plan, Illustrative Master
the Illustrative Master Plan which is Plan for Steele Indian School Park; Source:
Planning and Development Department
intended to “to help identify opportunity
sites, address areas needing urban
“repair”, propose a system of open
spaces, illustrate the scale and type of
development, and to provide guidance for
the Walkable Urban form based code.”

For the subject site, the plan contains the
following description: “An infill
development is proposed that restores
the street network and transitions from
higher density development along Central
Avenue to smaller scale building types
facing the existing neighborhood.

The proposal, as stipulated, is consistent with this Illustrative Master Plan in that
it restores the street network on the Montecito alignment and the 1st Avenue
alignment, places the greatest intensity along Central Avenue, transitions to
lower intensity as it approaches 2nd Avenue on the west and the western portion
of Glenrosa Avenue, and integrates publicly accessible open space.

7. Transit Oriented Development Transit Oriented Development Strategic Policy
Strategic Policy Framework: Framework, Place Type Map Excerpt; Source:
Planning and Development Department
The Transit Oriented Development
Strategic Policy Framework is part of
the City’s General Plan. The framework
identifies planning typologies to
describe urban environments for the 42
station areas within the current and
future light rail system. The subject site
is located within a quarter mile of two
light rail stations including Campbell
Road which is identified as a Minor
Urban Center Place Type and Indian
School Road which is identified as a
Major Urban Center Place Type.

The Minor Urban Center Place Type is characterized by medium-low intensity
with building heights typically from two to five stories with incentive heights of up
to 7 stories. The Major Urban Center Place Type is characterized by medium-




Page 452
Staff Report: Z-17-22-4
June 1, 2023




high intensity with heights typically from four to eight stories with incentive
heights up to 15 stories. The development proposal contains elements that are
consistent with the intensity envisioned by the both applicable Place Types.
While the maximum height of 240 feet proposed by the applicant exceeds the
range within either Place Type, the recommended intensity from the Uptown
TOD Policy Plan’s Conceptual Zoning Plan prevails, thus overcoming the
apparent conflict.

Hierarchy of Policy Guidance: Uptown Excerpt from the TOD Strategic Policy
District Plan vs. TOD Strategic Policy Framework; Source: Planning and
Development Department
Framework. Both the Uptown TOD
Policy Plan (the District Plan) and the
TOD Strategic Policy Framework
provide guidance on the appropriate
scale and intensity of development near light rail. However, the TOD Strategic
Policy Framework explicitly states that the district plan shall prevail when a
conflict exists.

The rationale is based on scope and the depth of research for both plans. Unlike
the TOD Strategic Policy Framework which analyzed 42 station areas across the
complete build-out of the eventual light rail system, the Uptown TOD Policy Plan
focused on a much smaller area and the Conceptual Zoning Plan was intended
as a blue-print for a single rezoning action that would replace traditional districts
with the WU Code. While the single rezoning action did not occur for various
reasons, the Conceptual Zoning Plan offers to most complete policy guidance for
the appropriate intensity within the study areas.

8. Encanto Village Character Plan:
The Encanto Village Character Plan was approved and adopted into the Phoenix
General Plan through General Plan Amendment GPA-1-19. The proposed
project advances the following items identified in the Encanto Village Character
Plan:
• Land Use Principle: Include a mix of housing types and densities where
appropriate within each village that support a broad range of lifestyles.
• Design Principle: Enhance the compatibility of residential infill projects by
carefully designing the edges of the development to be sensitive to
adjacent existing housing. Create landscape buffers and other amenities
to link new and existing development.
• Design Principle: Create new development or redevelopment that is
sensitive to the scale and character of the surrounding neighborhoods and
incorporates adequate development standards to prevent negative
impact(s) on the residential properties.




Page 453
Staff Report: Z-17-22-4
June 1, 2023




PROPOSAL
9. Site Plan Conceptual Site Plan; Source:
The proposal is for a four phase, Carrierjohnson + Culture
approximately 10-year, redevelopment of the
undeveloped subject site for 1,600 units of
multifamily and approximately 7,000 square
feet of ground floor retail along Central
Avenue. The conceptual site plans divide the
site into four pieces with private streets on
the east-west Montecito Avenue alignment
and on the north-south 1st Avenue
alignment. The approach to height and
intensity is guided largely by the Conceptual
Zoning Plan from the Uptown TOD Policy
Plan. The conceptual site plan depicts
ground flood commercial along Central
Avenue and a large open space area along
2nd Avenue that will be open to the public.

10. Conceptual Building Elevations
The applicant describes the architectural aesthetic as being inspired by the
historic Carnation building that previously existed south of the site with “angular
and planar roof elements that are directly tied to roof elements that were central
to the design of the Carnation building. The linearity of the Carnation building
lines are incorporated into the design of the balconies that front Central Avenue.”

Left: Carnation Dairy Store – Architectural Inspiration; Souce: Carrierjohnson + Culture
Right: Conceptual Building Elevations; Source: Carrierjohnson + Culture




Page 454
Staff Report: Z-17-22-4
June 1, 2023




11. Phase 1: The northwest parcel is Conceptual Height Plan; Source: Carrierjohnson +
phase one and is depicted with a Culture
maximum height of five-stories that
decreases to three stories as it
nears 2nd Avenue, and the phase is
intended to be exclusively
multifamily.

Phase 2: The northeast parcel is
phase two and is depicted with a
maximum height of seven-stories
and 85 feet with a fourth floor
amenity deck that will overlook
Central Avenue and break up the
mass of the building.




Conceptual Building Elevations, Parcel 1; Source: Carrierjohnson + Culture




Conceptual Building Elevations, Parcel 2; Source: Carrierjohnson + Culture




Page 455
Staff Report: Z-17-22-4
June 1, 2023




12. Phases 3 and 4: The southwest parcel is intended to be phase three and is
depicted with a maximum height of six-stories and 70 feet that decreases as it
nears single-family residential. The southeast parcel is intended to be phase four
and is depicted with a maximum height of 22 stories and 240 feet on the north
edge of the site with the remainder of the site limited to five-stories and 60 feet.

STAFF ANALYSIS
13. Upon review of the conceptual site plans, conceptual building elevations, the
Walkable Urban Code, and applicable policy documents, staff is recommending
a series of stipulations to promote an efficient and orderly build-out of the subject
site that also implements the shared vision for a walkable and transit-oriented
community.

Site Development Proposal and Related Stipulations
The conceptual site plans are complex due to its size and that future phases are
more fluid to respond to future market conditions. The below stipulations
recommended by staff provide guidance on important site improvements that are
key to implementing a high-quality, walkable, and mixed-use project.

Central Avenue Interface and Enhancements: Central Avenue has a long
history of importance to the City of Phoenix, and this has been memorialized in
countless planning documents and policies over the years and this role remains
vital today regarding transit oriented development. As such, to add further vitality
to the Central Avenue corridor, staff is recommending a series of stipulations.

Stipulation No. 1 requires the applicant return to the Encanto Village Planning
Committee and the Planning Hearing Officer to publicly review each of the future
phased to ensure the proposal adequately addresses several conditions. Related
to Central Avenue, the plans will be required to document ground floor activation,
a minimum 10,000 square feet of non-residential space, and a minimum of 240
linear feet of storefront.

Stipulation No. 9 requires common entry frontage types along all public and
private streets to provide direct pedestrian access from upper and interior units
to adjacent sidewalks.

Stipulation No. 11 requires architectural enhancements to the building mass at
all intersections of Central Avenue and public or private streets.

Stipulation No. 12 requires the applicant comply with both the Central Avenue
Development Standards and the standards for the Transit Uptown Character
Area in the Walkable Urban Code.




Page 456
Staff Report: Z-17-22-4
June 1, 2023




Streetscapes and Sidewalks:
• Turney Avenue: Stipulation No. 13 requires a detached sidewalk that will
be shaded to 75 percent by shade trees. Stipulation No. 14 requires the
above-ground utilities be placed underground.
• 2nd Avenue: Staff is recommending two stipulations along this street
frontage which is shared with single-family residences, and both require
improvements that will be implemented for the full length of the site from
Turney Avenue on the north to Glenrosa Avenue on the south. Stipulation
No. 15 requires a detached sidewalk that will be shaded to 75 percent by
shade trees. Stipulation No. 16 requires a row of shade trees between the
building fronts and the sidewalk.
• Glenrosa Avenue: Stipulation No. 17 requires a detached sidewalk that
will shaded to 75 percent by shade trees.

14. Private Streets: The proposal includes one north-south private street and one
east-west private street. The Walkable Urban Code is largely silent on the design
of private streets, and therefore staff is recommending a series of stipulations to
promote walkability, transit-orientation, and harmony with the surrounding
neighborhoods.
• Stipulation No. 18 requires all private streets be overlain with a public
pedestrian accessway easement and meet the following requirements:
prohibit access to/from Montecito Avenue except for emergency vehicles,
bicyclists, and pedestrians (a.), include detached pedestrian pathways on
each private street (b. and c.), include enhanced pedestrian crossings at
all intersections where outside of public right of way (d.), and include
bicycle routes on each private street (e.)
• Stipulation No. 23 requires the junction to/from Turney Avenue and the
north-south private street be restricted to 3/4 access that would prohibit
left turning movements from Turney Avenue into the subject site. The
purpose of this stipulation is to prevent turning traffic from backing up onto
Central Avenue.

15. Publicly Accessible Open Space: The applicant is proposing 29,000 square
feet of publicly accessible open space along their 2nd Avenue frontage where
the site has the greatest interface with single-family homes. The inclusion and
programming of this open space is addressed in Stipulation No. 5. The applicant
is proposing the Montecito Avenue alignment be closed to all but emergency
vehicle access, bicyclists, and pedestrians. The prohibition of automotive through
traffic is addressed in Stipulation Nos. 18 (d.) and 20.




Page 457
Staff Report: Z-17-22-4
June 1, 2023




At the termination of this private street to vehicular traffic, the site plan depicts a
transition into the publicly accessible open space including a “central art piece.”
The inclusion of public-facing art is addressed in Stipulation No. 7 which also
requires the applicant return to the Encanto Village Planning Committee for
review and comment on the art plans.

16. Scale and Compatibility Measures: The Walkable Urban Code utilizes a form-
based approach to promoting compatibility with the surrounding area. Staff is
recommending two stipulations to promote compatibility along the property
edges where the subject site is adjacent to single-family residences with single-
family zoning. There are two exposures: one along 2nd Avenue on the west and
one along Glenrosa Avenue along the south property line.

2nd Avenue (West Property Line): In accordance with the Conceptual Zoning
Map contained in the Uptown TOD Policy Plan, the applicant has proposed
Transect 5:5 along the west property line which is situated across 2nd Avenue
from single-family residences with mostly R1-6 zoning. To promote compatibility
with the adjacent single-family residential zoning, staff is recommending
Stipulation No. 8 to require a maximum height of 30 feet within 35 feet of the
west property line and a maximum height of 40 feet within 60 feet of the west
property line.

Glenrosa Avenue (South Property Line).
Pertaining to the portion of the subject site
between the 1st Avenue alignment on the east
and the 2nd Avenue alignment on the west), the
applicant has proposed Transect 4:3 and
Transect 6:22 which have maximum heights of
40 feet and 250 feet respectively. Like the 2nd
Avenue exposure, this area is developed as and
zoned for single-family residential. Unlike the
2nd Avenue exposure, the Conceptual Zoning
Plan in the Uptown TOD Policy Plan indicates
these single-family parcels may be appropriate
for additional intensity, The Conceptual Zoning
Plan recommends T4:3 across from the
proposed T4:3 on the subject site and
recommends T5:5 where across from the proposed T6:22 on the subject site.

For the portion of the subject site between the 1st Avenue alignment and the 2nd
Avenue, staff is recommending Stipulation No. 10 to require a maximum height
of 40 feet within 60 feet of the south property line.




Page 458
Staff Report: Z-17-22-4
June 1, 2023




Architecture (Phase 1). Stipulation No. 3 requires the first phase of development
at the northwest corner of the site incorporate a minimum 10 percent of premium
building materials such as masonry or stone on all sides of the building.

Trash, Loading / Unloading. Stipulation No. 21 requires that all refuse collection,
loading, and unloading be situated at the interior of the site and accessed from
the private streets.

Phasing Requirements
17. The applicant is proposing the site be developed in four phases with the first
being the northwest corner (Parcel 1), the second being the northeast corner
(Parcel 2), the 3rd being the southwest corner (Parcel 3), and the 4th being the
southeast corner. The below stipulations pertain to the phasing of the project.
• Stipulation No. 4 requires that all private streets be developed with the
first phase of development and be completed prior to the issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy.
• Stipulation Nos. 15 and 16 require the 2nd Avenue streetscape
improvements be constructed with the first phase of development
including two rows of shade trees.

Planning Hearing Officer
Public Conceptual Reviews
18. The below described stipulations require the applicant to return to the Encanto
Village Planning Committee, and, in some cases, the Planning Hearing Officer to
review conceptual plans. These meetings are public hearings and will require
both property owners and registered neighborhood groups be notified. The
purpose of these stipulations is to provide another opportunity for plans to be
reviewed publicly prior to construction.
• Stipulation No. 1 requires all future phases be reviewed through the
Planning Hearing Officer Public Hearing Process to ensure the following
elements are adequately addressed: (a.) evidence of ground floor
activation along Central Avenue, (b.) a minimum 3,500 square feet of non-
residential space along Central Avenue in the northeast parcel, (c.) a
minimum of 120 feet of continuous storefront along Central Avenue in the
northeast parcel, (d.) a minimum 3,500 square feet of non-residential
space along Central Avenue in the southeast parcel, (e.) a minimum of
120 feet of continuous storefront along Central Avenue in the southeast
parcel, (f.) a minimum 10 percent of premium materials on all sides for
Parcels 2, 3, and 4 respectively.
• Stipulation No. 2 requires Parcel 1 to return to the Encanto Village
Planning Committee for review and comment prior to preliminary site plan




Page 459
Staff Report: Z-17-22-4
June 1, 2023




approval so the neighborhood and committee remain apprised of the
plans that are moving toward construction. This stipulation applies to both
the conceptual site plan and conceptual building elevations.
• Stipulation No. 7 requires the applicant return to the Encanto Village
Planning Committee to share their plans for a piece of public-facing art
that will be situated on the Montecito Avenue alignment near the west
property line.

STUDIES AND POLICIES
19. 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.

To advance the goals of the Tree and Shade Master Plan, as stipulated, the
proposal will:
• Include detached sidewalks along all perimeter streets that will be shaded
to 75 percent (Stipulation Nos. 13 through 17).
• Include detached sidewalks along all private streets that will be shaded to
75 percent (Stipulation No. 18).

20. Complete Streets Guidelines:
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 Walkable Urban Code is
designed to facilitate pedestrian, bicycle, and transit-oriented development and
includes provisions to advance the goals of the policy guide.

To advance the goals of the Complete Streets Guidelines, as stipulated, the
applicant will be required to complete the following:
• Include secure bicycle parking for residents, guest bicycle parking, and
four bicycle repair stations of which two will be publicly accessible
(Stipulation No. 24).
• Provide an internal circulation plan for on-site pedestrian and vehicular
movements and the plan will be updated with each phase of the
development (Stipulation No. 19).
• Include shaded and detached sidewalks along all public and private
streets to promote pedestrian activity by creating an environment that is




Page 460
Staff Report: Z-17-22-4
June 1, 2023




both thermally comfortable and buffered from vehicular traffic (Stipulation
Nos. 12, 13, and 15 through 18). To implement these, the applicant will be
required to dedicate sidewalk easements where needed (Stipulation No.
26) and to underground utilities along Turney Avenue (Stipulation No.
14).

21. 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.
There are shared lane markings on Central Avenue, the Grand Canal to the
north which functions are a regional bicycle route, and 3rd Avenue which is the
Phoenix Sonoran Bikeway and provides connectivity to downtown Phoenix.

To promote alternative transportation, staff is Example of a Fix-It Station; Source:
recommending Stipulation No. 24 to require Dero
bicycle infrastructure which, in concert with
high-capacity transit, can drastically expand the
reach of the transit network. The Walkable
Urban Code requires 0.25 bicycle parking
spaces per dwelling unit and the stipulation
requires that these spaces be secure facilities,
such as bike lockers or a bicycle storage room.
The stipulation requires guest bicycle parking
for guests and for commercial patrons. The stipulation requires a minimum of
four bicycle repair (fix-it) stations including two that must be publicly accessible.
Also, the stipulation requires electrical receptacles near the secure bicycle
parking to allow e-bike users to charge their batteries.

22. Housing Phoenix:
In June 2020, the Phoenix City Council approved the Housing Phoenix Plan.
This Plan contains policy initiatives for the development and preservation of
housing with 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 contributing housing units to a vacant parcel
with adjacency to high-capacity transit and existing infrastructure. The proposal
will help to address the supply shortage at a more rapid pace while using vacant
land in a more sustainable fashion.




Page 461
Staff Report: Z-17-22-4
June 1, 2023




23. 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.

Section 716 of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance establishes standards to
encourage the provision of recycling containers for multifamily, commercial, and
mixed-use developments meeting certain criteria. The provision of recycling
containers was not addressed in the applicant’s submittals.

24. 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. 6 addresses the planting of milkweed shrubs,
or other native nectar plant species, on the subject site.

25. 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. This is addressed in Stipulation Nos. 24 and
25.




Page 462
Staff Report: Z-17-22-4
June 1, 2023




COMMUNITY CORRESONDENCE
26. As of the writing of this report, 51 letters of opposition have been received from
27 respondents. Concerns include the scale and intensity of the proposal, the
proposed use and users of the site, traffic impacts, and overflow parking impacts.
Correspondents also expressed a desire for more commercial space along
Central Avenue, a desire for greater compatibility where the proposal abuts
single-family residences, a desire for traffic mitigation.

INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS
27. The Street Transportation Department provided a series of comments and
stipulations. The Department noted the development must:
• Comply with the Central Avenue Development Standards and the Transit
Uptown Character Area Standards (Stipulation No. 12),
• Dedicate a sidewalk easement for any streetscape area that falls outside
of public right-of-way (Stipulation No. 26),
• Dedicate a public pedestrian accessway easement on all private streets to
allow pedestrians and bicyclists to unrestricted access (Stipulation No.
18),
• Restrict ingress/egress to one point of access on Turney Avenue and that
access shall restrict left-in movements from Turney Avenue (Stipulation
No. 23),
• Prepare a Traffic Impact Study prior to the approval of any plans and that
study must analyze the offset intersection at Central Avenue and
Glenrosa Avenue (Stipulation No. 22),
• Construct all street improvements within and adjacent to the public right of
way and these improvements must comply with ADA accessibility
standards (Stipulation No. 27).

28. The Public Transit Department noted the location of the site is immediately
adjacent to light rail and a high-ridership bus corridor. The Department requested
the pedestrian realm be enhanced with abundant shade (Stipulation Nos. 12, 13,
and 15 through 17) and a mix of ground floor uses (Stipulation No. 1) to activate
the streetscape. The department also noted the importance of windows onto the
sidewalks and public spaces, and this is addressed through the Walkable Urban
Code’s “frontage type” standards, through Stipulation Nos. 1.c. and 1.e. which
require continuous storefront along a portion of Central Avenue, and through
Stipulation 5.e. which requires “frontage types” for all units adjacent to the
publicly accessible open space along 2nd Avenue. Additionally, Stipulation No. 9
requires common entry frontage types along all public and private streets to
provide direct pedestrian access from upper and interior units to adjacent
sidewalks.




Page 463
Staff Report: Z-17-22-4
June 1, 2023




29. The Aviation Department commented that the subject site is within the Traffic
Pattern Airspace of Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport and therefore
requested Stipulation Nos. 28 and 29 which requires the applicant to disclose the
existence, and operational characteristics of Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport to future
owners or tenants of the property and to receive a “no hazard determination”
from the FAA.

OTHER
30. 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
time to properly assess the materials. This is addressed in Stipulation Nos. 30
through 33.

31. 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. 33.

32. 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.




Page 464
Staff Report: Z-17-22-4
June 1, 2023




Findings

1. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Map designation of
Commercial and the Conceptual Zoning Plan contained in the Uptown Transit
Oriented Development Policy Plan.

2. The proposal, as stipulated, advances the vision and recommendations contained
in the Uptown Transit Oriented Development Policy Plan and will create strong
pedestrian environments along both its public and private streets with shaded and
detached sidewalks to convey residents safely and comfortably to the Indian
School Road Light Rail Station and the Campbell Avenue Light Rail Station.

3. The proposal will create additional housing options on an underutilized site
served by high-capacity transit which aligns with the Housing Phoenix Plan’s goal
of preserving or creating 50,000 housing units by 2030.

Stipulations

1. Conceptual site plans and elevations shall be reviewed and approved by the
Planning Hearing Officer through the public hearing process for stipulation
modification prior to preliminary plan approval for Parcels 2 through 4 as
depicted on the Conceptual Site Plans date stamped June 1, 2023 with specific
regard to the inclusion of the below elements. 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.

a. The development shall include ground floor activation such as the
programming of building spaces adjacent to Central Avenue that may
include retail or commercial uses, the choice and mix of frontage types,
and the presence of indoor or outdoor public amenities that may include
open spaces, and community gathering spaces.

b. On Parcel 2, the ground floor area of the development shall include a
minimum of 5,000 square feet of non-residential uses. Non-residential
uses shall not include lobby, exercise, reception areas, or other similar
uses intended for exclusive use by residents. All non-residential uses
shall have some frontage on the Central Avenue right-of-way.

c. On Parcel 2, the development shall utilize a continuous storefront
frontage per the requirements of Section 1305.b. for a minimum of 120
linear feet along Central Avenue.




Page 465
Staff Report: Z-17-22-4
June 1, 2023




d. On Parcel 4, the ground floor area of the development shall include a
minimum 5,000 square feet of non-residential uses. Non-residential uses
shall not include lobby, exercise, reception areas, or other similar uses
intended for exclusive use by residents. All non-residential uses shall
have some frontage on the Central Avenue right-of-way.

e. On Parcel 4, the development shall utilize a continuous storefront
frontage per the requirements of Section 1305.b. for a minimum of 120
linear feet along Central Avenue.

f. The building elevations for Parcels 2 through 4 shall contain a minimum
of 10 percent premium materials such as brick, stone, metal, or other
comparable materials on all four sides of each building.

2. The applicant shall return to the Encanto Village Planning Committee to present
the site plan and elevations for Parcel 1 for review and comment prior to
preliminary site plan approval.

3. The building elevations for Parcel 1 shall contain a minimum of 10 percent
premium materials such as brick, stone, metal, or other comparable materials
on all four sides of each building, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department

4. All private streets within the subject site shall be constructed with the first phase
of the development as depicted on the Conceptual Phasing Plan date stamped
June 1, 2023 and be open to the public prior to the issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

5. The developer shall provide a minimum five percent of the gross site area as
open space that is available to the public as described below and as approved
or modified by the Planning and Development Department.

a. Each open space area shall follow the guidelines established in Section
1310 of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance.

b. Each open space area shall provide at a minimum seating, a drinking
fountain for people and pets, art, and shade elements.

c. A minimum of 15,000 square feet of publicly accessible open space shall
be constructed with the development of Parcel 1 as depicted on the
Conceptual Site Plans date stamped June 1, 2023.




Page 466
Staff Report: Z-17-22-4
June 1, 2023




d. One open space node shall be provided near the intersection of the
private Montecito Avenue alignment and 2nd Avenue which shall include
public facing art and a minimum of one higher-order amenity such as
lawn games, gardens, picnic tables, or shade canopies, or a combination
of several complementary amenities.

e. All units adjacent to the public open space located along 2nd Avenue
shall have direct unit entries and compliant frontage types as described
in Table 1305.1 and there shall be a minimum of two common entries to
provide direct pedestrian access from upper and interior units to
adjacent sidewalks.

6. A minimum of 10 percent 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.

7. The applicant shall return to the Encanto Village Planning Committee to present
the stipulated public-facing art generally located at 2nd Avenue and the
Montecito Avenue alignment for review and comment prior to the issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy for the first phase of development, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.

8. For the portion of the subject site zoned WU Code T5:5, the building height
shall not exceed 30 feet within 35 feet of the west property line and 40 feet
within 60 feet of the west property line, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.

9. For the portions of the subject site zoned WU T5:5 and T6:22, all public and
private street frontages shall include a “common entry” frontage type to provide
direct pedestrian access from upper and interior units to adjacent sidewalks, as
approved or modified by the Planning and Development Department.

10. The portion of the subject site located along Glenrosa Avenue and between the
centerline of the 1st Avenue alignment on the east and the 2nd Avenue
alignment on the west (the western terminus of the T4:3 portion), shall be
restricted to a maximum height of 40 feet within 60 feet of the south property
line, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

11. The developer shall provide architectural enhancements at the intersections of
Central Avenue and all public and private streets to denote the prominence of
the space and shall feature enhanced landscape and/or hardscape treatments




Page 467
Staff Report: Z-17-22-4
June 1, 2023




with public-facing art, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

12. The developer shall comply with the design standards of the Central Avenue
Image Enhancement guidelines. The detached sidewalk, landscape area width,
and shade requirements shall comply with the Transit Uptown Character Area
requirements for arterial roadways adjacent to Light Rail Corridor, as approved
or modified by the Planning and Development Department.

13. The public sidewalk along Turney Avenue shall be constructed to a minimum
width of 8 feet and detached from the back of curb by a minimum 5-foot-wide
landscape area planted to the following standards, as approved by the Planning
and Development Department. Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall
work with the Planning and Development Department on alternative design
solutions consistent with the creation of a comfortable pedestrian environment.

a. Minimum 3-inch caliper, large canopy, single-trunk, shade trees shall be
placed 25 feet on center or in equivalent groupings.

b. At tree maturity, the trees shall shade the sidewalks to a minimum 75
percent.

c. Drought tolerant shrubs and vegetative groundcovers shall be
maintained at maximum height of 24 inches to provide a minimum of 75
percent live coverage at maturity.

14. The existing overhead utility lines adjacent to Turney Avenue shall be relocated
underground for the entirety of its frontage, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.

15. The public sidewalk along 2nd Avenue shall be constructed to a minimum width
of 6 feet and detached from the back of curb by a minimum 7-foot-wide
landscape area planted to the following standards, as approved by the Planning
and Development Department. Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall
work with the Planning and Development Department on alternative design
solutions consistent with the creation of a comfortable pedestrian environment.

a. Minimum 3-inch caliper, large canopy, single-trunk, shade trees shall be
placed 25 feet on center or in equivalent groupings.

b. At tree maturity, the trees shall shade the sidewalks to a minimum 75
percent.




Page 468
Staff Report: Z-17-22-4
June 1, 2023




c. Drought tolerant shrubs and vegetative groundcovers shall be
maintained at maximum height of 24 inches to provide a minimum of 75
percent live coverage at maturity.

The above described improvements shall be installed prior to the issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy for the first phase of development, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.

16. All public street frontages on 2nd Avenue shall require a landscape area
between the back of sidewalk and building front that shall be planted with
minimum 3-inch caliper, single trunk, shade trees planted a minimum of 20 feet
on center or in equivalent groupings, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.

The above described improvements shall be installed prior to the issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy for the first phase of development, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.

17. The public sidewalk along Glenrosa Avenue shall be constructed to a minimum
width of 6 feet and detached from the back of curb by a minimum 5-foot-wide
landscape area planted to the following standards, as approved by the Planning
and Development Department. Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall
work with the Planning and Development Department on alternative design
solutions consistent with the creation of a comfortable pedestrian environment.

a. Minimum 3-inch caliper, large canopy, single-trunk, shade trees shall be
placed 25 feet on center or in equivalent groupings.

b. At tree maturity, the trees shall shade the sidewalks to a minimum 75
percent.

c. Drought tolerant shrubs and vegetative groundcovers shall be
maintained at maximum height of 24 inches to provide a minimum of 75
percent live coverage at maturity.

18. All private streets shall be overlain with dedicated public pedestrian accessway
easements connecting to the public rights-of-way and the private streets shall
provide the following non-vehicular pathways, amenities, and features, as
approved or modified by the Planning and Development Department.

a. Access to/from 2nd Avenue from the private street on the Montecito




Page 469
Staff Report: Z-17-22-4
June 1, 2023




Avenue alignment shall be restricted to emergency vehicles, bicycles,
and pedestrians.

b. A minimum one side of each private street shall comply with Section
1304.H. of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance and be detached from the
back of curb by a landscape area an average of 5 feet in width that shall
be planted with minimum three-inch caliper, single trunk, shade trees
planted a minimum of 20 feet on center or in equivalent groupings.

c. Both sides of each private streets shall meet or exceed the standards
contained Section 1312.D.1.c. of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance and the
landscape area shall be planted with minimum two-inch caliper, single
trunk, shade trees planted a minimum of 20 feet on center or in
equivalent groupings.

d. Where outside of public rights-of-way, intersections shall feature
pedestrian enhancements such as speed tables, elevated crosswalks,
and/or bulb-outs.

e. Include on-site bicycle routes that connect the internal streets to 2nd
Avenue, Turney Avenue, and Glenrosa Avenue. The applicant shall
consult with the Active Transportation Coordinator from the Street
Transportation Department on the design of the bicycle facilities.

19. An internal vehicular and pedestrian circulation plan shall be provided to
address ingress and egress to and from the site, vehicle loading, pick up and
drop off locations, pedestrian connections to existing light rail stations. The
developer shall be responsible for all cost and construction of improvements.
No preliminary approval of plans shall be granted until the internal vehicular and
pedestrian circulation plan has been reviewed and approved by the Street
Transportation and Planning and Development Departments. This plan shall be
updated, if needed, for all phases of development.

20. Along 2nd Avenue, vehicular access shall be provided including no driveways,
no private streets, and no ingress/egress to parking structures. Emergency
vehicles may access the site from 2nd Avenue.

21. All refuse collection, loading, and unloading areas shall be accessed only from
the private streets on the site.

22. The applicant shall submit a Traffic Impact Study to the City for this
development. No preliminary approval of plans shall be granted until the study
is reviewed and approved by the City.




Page 470
Staff Report: Z-17-22-4
June 1, 2023




a. The TIS shall analyze the offset intersection of Central Avenue and
Glenrosa Avenue. The TIS shall include the necessary geometric
design, tapers, and dedications to align the east/west legs of the
intersection to operate under a non-split phased signal. The developer
shall be responsible for all cost and construction of improvements, as
approved by the Street Transportation Department.

23. Vehicular access onto Turney Avenue shall be limited to one driveway. This
driveway shall be restricted to 3/4 access, restricting left-in movements, as
approved by the Street Transportation Department.

24. The developer shall incorporate bicycle infrastructure as described below and
as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

a. All required bicycle parking for multifamily use, per Section 1307.H.6.d of
the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, shall be secured parking.

b. Guest bicycle parking for multifamily residential use shall be provided at
a minimum of 0.05 spaces per unit with a maximum of 50 required
spaces near entrances of buildings and installed per the requirements of
Section 1307.H of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance.

c. A minimum of 10 percent of the required bicycle parking for
nonresidential uses shall be secured.

d. A minimum of four bicycle repair stations (“fix it stations”) shall be
provided and maintained in areas of high visibility and near secure
bicycle parking areas. At minimum, two shall be directly accessible from
the public sidewalk.

e. Standard electrical receptacles shall be installed for a minimum of 10%
of the required bicycle parking spaces for electric bicycle charging
capabilities.

25. Electric vehicle infrastructure shall be provided for the required parking spaces
as follows: Minimum 10 percent EV Installed.

26. The developer shall dedicate a sidewalk easement for any streetscape area
that falls outside of dedicated right-of-way, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.




Page 471
Staff Report: Z-17-22-4
June 1, 2023




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

28. The developer shall record a Notice to Prospective Purchasers of Proximity to
Airport in order to disclose the existence and operational characteristics of
Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport (PHX) to future owners or tenants of
the property.

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

30. 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.

31. 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.

32. 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.

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




Page 472
Staff Report: Z-17-22-4
June 1, 2023




Writer
Nick Klimek
June 1, 2023

Team Leader
Racelle Escolar

Exhibits
Zoning sketch map
Aerial sketch map
Conceptual Site Plan date stamped June 1, 2023 (2 pages)
Conceptual Landscape Plan date stamped June 1, 2023 (2 pages)
Conceptual Phasing Plan date stamped June 1, 2023
Conceptual Interim Beautification Plan date stamped June 1, 2023
Conceptual Building Elevations date stamped June 1, 2023 (2 pages)
North Central Employment Corridor (2 pages)
Community Correspondence (71 pages)




Page 473
P-2 C-2

R1-6
HP R1-6
Z-12-97 R-4A*
Z-102-98

R-5
Transit Overlay Z-65-91
District (TOD-1)
R-3 HP R-4A * R-5 C-2
Z-12-97 R-3 Z-22-99 Z-44-79


R-3
C-2
H-R H/W *
Z-344-83
C-2
R1-6
UR TOD-1*
Z-82-05


C-2 H-R * R-5
Z-91-84 Z-65-91

R-5 HP L
R-3 P-1 Z-109-03
R-4
C-3 C-2 H-R *
R-3
Z-65-91

R1-6 WU T6:HWR UT* C-2 *
Z-65-91
Z-9-19 Z-65-91
R-4A *
Z-124-97




I Miles
Z-17-22

INDIAN SCHOOL RD

0.07 0.035 0 0.07
ENCANTO VILLAGE THOMAS RD
CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 4

MC DOWELL RD




REQUESTED CHANGE:
APPLICANT'S NAME:
Petree Development FROM:
R1-6 TOD-1 (Approved C-2 H-R H/W TOD-1) ( 1.83 a.c.)
R-3 TOD-1 (Approved C-2 H-R H/W TOD-1) ( 7.59 a.c.)
R-3 TOD-1 (Approved C-2 H-R TOD-1) ( 0.23 a.c.)
APPLICATION NO. DATE:
4/14/2022
Z-17-22 REVISION DATES: R-5 TOD-1 (Approved C-2 H-R H/W TOD-1) ( 0.50 a.c.)
9/26/2022 10/31/2022 5/15/2023 C-2 TOD-1 (Approved C-2 H-R H/W TOD-1) ( 4.68 a.c.)
GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET C-2 TOD-1 (Approved C-2 H-R TOD-1) ( 0.78 a.c)
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO & ZONING MAP
TO:
WU Code T4:3 UT ( 1.03 a.c.)
QUARTER SEC. NO.
15.61 Acres QS 17-27 H-8 WU Code T5:5 UT ( 2.35 a.c.)
WU Code T6:22 UT ( 12.23 a.c.)

MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
R1-6 TOD-1 (Approved C-2 H-R H/W TOD-1), R-3 TOD-1 (Approved C-2 H-R H/W TOD-1),
R-3 TOD-1 (Approved C-2 H-R TOD-1), R-5 TOD-1 (Approved C-2 H-R H/W TOD-1),
C-2 TOD-1 (Approved C-2 H-R H/W TOD-1), C-2 TOD-1 (Approved C-2 H-R TOD-1)
9(265), 110(1102), 3(33), 21(72), 68(679), 11(113) 12(32), 132(132), 4(4), 26(8), 81(81), 13(13)

WU Code T4:3 UT, WU Code T5:5 UT, WU Code T6:22 UT No Maximum N/A
* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus
Page 474
Document Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2022\Z-17-22.mxd
P-2 C-2

R1-6
HP R1-6
Z-12-97 R-4A*
Z-102-98

R-5
Transit Overlay Z-65-91
District (TOD-1)
R-3 HP R-4A * R-5 C-2
Z-12-97 R-3 Z-22-99 Z-44-79


R-3
C-2
H-R H/W *
Z-344-83
C-2
R1-6
UR TOD-1*
Z-82-05


C-2 H-R * R-5
Z-91-84 Z-65-91

R-5 HP L
R-3 P-1 Z-109-03
R-4
C-3 C-2 H-R *
R-3
Z-65-91

R1-6 WU T6:HWR UT* C-2 *
Z-65-91
Z-9-19 Z-65-91
R-4A *
Z-124-97




I Miles
Z-17-22

INDIAN SCHOOL RD

0.07 0.035 0 0.07
ENCANTO VILLAGE THOMAS RD
CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 4

MC DOWELL RD




REQUESTED CHANGE:
APPLICANT'S NAME:
Petree Development FROM:
R1-6 TOD-1 (Approved C-2 H-R H/W TOD-1) ( 1.83 a.c.)
R-3 TOD-1 (Approved C-2 H-R H/W TOD-1) ( 7.59 a.c.)
R-3 TOD-1 (Approved C-2 H-R TOD-1) ( 0.23 a.c.)
APPLICATION NO. DATE:
4/14/2022
Z-17-22 REVISION DATES: R-5 TOD-1 (Approved C-2 H-R H/W TOD-1) ( 0.50 a.c.)
9/26/2022 10/31/2022 5/15/2023 C-2 TOD-1 (Approved C-2 H-R H/W TOD-1) ( 4.68 a.c.)
GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET C-2 TOD-1 (Approved C-2 H-R TOD-1) ( 0.78 a.c)
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO & ZONING MAP
TO:
WU Code T4:3 UT ( 1.03 a.c.)
QUARTER SEC. NO.
15.61 Acres QS 17-27 H-8 WU Code T5:5 UT ( 2.35 a.c.)
WU Code T6:22 UT ( 12.23 a.c.)

MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
R1-6 TOD-1 (Approved C-2 H-R H/W TOD-1), R-3 TOD-1 (Approved C-2 H-R H/W TOD-1),
R-3 TOD-1 (Approved C-2 H-R TOD-1), R-5 TOD-1 (Approved C-2 H-R H/W TOD-1),
C-2 TOD-1 (Approved C-2 H-R H/W TOD-1), C-2 TOD-1 (Approved C-2 H-R TOD-1)
9(265), 110(1102), 3(33), 21(72), 68(679), 11(113) 12(32), 132(132), 4(4), 26(8), 81(81), 13(13)

WU Code T4:3 UT, WU Code T5:5 UT, WU Code T6:22 UT No Maximum N/A
* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus
Page 475
Document Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2022\Z-17-22.mxd
Page 476
Page 477
Page 478
Page 479
Page 480
Page 481
Page 482
Page 483
Page 484
Page 485
From: Webmail Team
To: Nick Klimek; Joshua Bednarek; Council District 4; Laura Pastor; CarnationAssociationAZ; wr@berryriddell.com;
eric.kenney@petreeproperties.com; Tom Bilsten (tom.bilsten@gmail.com)
Cc: John Roanhorse; PDD Encanto VPC; kathryn@northcentralnews.net
Subject: Better Integration to Existing Neighborhood -- Zoning Request Z-17-
Date: Wednesday, May 24, 2023 12:54:28 PM



Dear Nick and Josh –

Thank you for including in Planning's draft stipulations regarding Petree Properties rezoning
request, Z-17-22-4, a requirement that limits building height to 30 feet within 35 feet and 40
feet within 60 feet for the portion of the subject site zoned WU Code T5:5, measured from
2nd Avenue. The Carnation Association of Neighbors has been requesting this of Petree
Properties for over a year. It is a concern for Carnation residents that a dominating structure
will negatively affect their privacy and homes. We believe it will greatly impact how well the
development integrates with the surrounding single-story homes.

However, please also consider the homes on the southwest end of 2nd Avenue, where the
Petree project is requesting T4:3 zoning. The single-story homes across the street deserve the
same protections that Planning is recommending for the homes across from T5:5 zoning.

We highly appreciate the thoughtful consideration given by Planning regarding the aesthetics
and scale, when compared to all of the single-story homes located along the west side of this
proposal.

Regards,

Diane Mihalsky
304 W. Campbell Ave.
602-541-2200




Page 486
From: Michael Arteca
To: Nick Klimek; Joshua Bednarek; Council District 4; Laura Pastor
Cc: CarnationAssociationAZ; wr@berryriddell.com; eric.kenney@petreeproperties.com; Tom Bilsten; John Roanhorse;
PDD Encanto VPC; kathryn@northcentralnews.net
Subject: Re: Subject: Better Integration to Existing Neighborhood - Zoning request Z-17-22-4
Date: Wednesday, May 24, 2023 11:48:47 AM


Hello,

It is referring to building height restrictions when in proximity to a single family homes on and
around 2nd Ave. The following restrictions are being recommend by the city of Phoenix
planning and development department per a draft document we received.

Per Z-17-22-4: T5:5 BUILDING HEIGHT: For the portion of the subject site zoned WU
Code
T5:5 and measured from 2nd Avenue, the building height shall not exceed 30
feet within 35 feet and 40 feet within 60 feet.


We'd like to see the same restrictions applied to other zoning WU codes associated with the
project to help protect the privacy of the folks that live in the area. Nobody wants to have
random people be able to look down from there window or balcony and see everything that's
going on in their backyard. The houses were there way before the idea of an apartment
complex and it's not okay to take away thier privacy because the city of Phoenix would rather
build now and ask questions later.

The neighborhood is all for density and growth, we just want to see it down right. We have
had to many mistakes with apartments being build in the neighborhood to assume the city is
looking out for our best interest.

Thank you,
Mike Arteca




On Tue, May 23, 2023, 2:52 PM Michael Arteca wrote:


Dear Nick and Josh –

Thank you for including in Planning's draft stipulations
regarding Petree Properties rezoning request, Z-17-22-4, a
requirement that limits building height to 30 feet within 35
feet and 40 feet within 60 feet for the portion of the
subject site zoned WU Code T5:5, measured from 2nd
Avenue. The Carnation Association of Neighbors has been
requesting this of Petree Properties for over a year. It is a
concern for Carnation residents that a dominating


Page 487
structure will negatively affect their privacy and homes.
We believe it will greatly impact how well the
development integrates with the surrounding single-story
homes.

However, please also consider the homes on the
southwest end of 2nd Avenue, where the Petree project is
requesting T4:3 zoning. The single-story homes across the
street deserve the same protections that Planning is
recommending for the homes across from T5:5 zoning.

We highly appreciate the thoughtful consideration given
by Planning regarding the aesthetics and scale, when
compared to all of the single-story homes located along
the west side of this proposal.

Regards,
Mike Arteca




Page 488
From: ANN SKANADORE
To: PDD Encanto VPC
Cc: Marcia Nix; carnationassociationaz@gmail.com; wr@berryriddell.com; eric.kenney@petreeproperties.com;
tom.bilsten@gmail.com; John Roanhorse; kathryn@northcentralnews.net; Nick Klimek; Joshua Bednarek; Council
District 4; Laura Pastor
Subject: Concerning Petree Properties Rezoning Request (Z-17-22-4)
Date: Tuesday, May 23, 2023 2:51:54 PM




This email is sent on behalf of Marcia Nix:

Dear Encanto Village Planning Commissioners,

I am writing to express my profound concern over Petree Properties' request to rezone 15 acres
along Central Avenue, between Glenrosa and Turney (Z-17-22-4). As a resident invested in
the betterment of our neighborhood, myself and others have engaged in extensive discussions
with the developer and their legal representative, Wendy Riddell, over the past year. Through
numerous meetings, emails, and phone calls, our intention was to reach an agreement that
would foster a development aligned with the goals of our community, particularly in
accordance with the Reinvent Phoenix Uptown TOD Policy Plan.

Regrettably, little progress has been made since Petree Properties first presented their plan to
the community following a request made by the Carnation Association of Neighbors
Development Committee, back in March 2022. Despite our repeated appeals for the inclusion
of community-desired elements, the passing months and subsequent meetings have yielded
minimal change.

We advocated for the creation of separate, smaller, and more walkable parcels, the extension
of sidewalks along Glenrosa and Turney to at least 5th Avenue, a balanced distribution of one-
bedroom and two-bedroom units (no studios) along 2nd Avenue, a reduction in the number of
units per acre along 2nd Avenue (even offing to support more along Central), and sensitivity
in scale when adjacent to single-story homes. We lobbied hard for a much needed
commercial-retail component and other amenities that elevate intense developments livability.

To manage traffic we asked for the implementation of a left turn in, right turn out on Turney.
We implored Petree Properties to incorporate interior private streets that would contribute to
the City of Phoenix public street parking and adhere to the same rules and regulations as the
surrounding streets. This measure aimed to alleviate the additional strain the development
would impose on public street parking. Yet again, our ideas were rejected.

Regrettably, the only affirmative responses we have received from Petree Properties have
pertained to matters mandated by code. Over the course of the past year, we have diligently
collaborated with Petree Properties in the hopes of shaping a proposal that would benefit all
stakeholders. However, the proposal that Petree Properties intends to present to the Encanto
Village Planning Commissioners closely mirrors their initial plan presented at the first
community meeting in April 2022.

We don’t expect to reach agreement on everything, but we do expect to get some return that
aligns with the functional goals we have for our neighborhood. We urge our Encanto Village
Planning Commissioners to exercise their oversight, and push Petree Properties back to the
community so we can turn this proposal into something we can all be proud of. It is vital to
prioritize the long-term well-being and cohesion of our community when making decisions of



Page 489
this nature.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Marcia Nix

215 W. Roma Ave

Phoenix, Az 85013




Page 490
From: Michael Madden
To: PDD Encanto VPC
Cc: carnationassociationaz@gmail.com; wr@berryriddell.com; eric.kenney@petreeproperties.com;
tom.bilsten@gmail.com; John Roanhorse; kathryn@northcentralnews.net; Nick Klimek; Joshua Bednarek; Council
District 4; Laura Pastor
Subject: Concerning Petree Properties Rezoning Request (Z-17-22-4)
Date: Tuesday, May 23, 2023 4:09:48 PM


Dear Encanto Village Planning Commissioners,

I am writing to express my profound concern over Petree Properties' request to rezone 15 acres
along Central Avenue, between Glenrosa and Turney (Z-17-22-4). As a resident invested in the
betterment of our neighborhood, myself and others have engaged in extensive discussions with the
developer and their legal representative, Wendy Riddell, over the past year. Through numerous
meetings, emails, and phone calls, our intention was to reach an agreement that would foster a
development aligned with the goals of our community, particularly in accordance with the Reinvent
Phoenix Uptown TOD Policy Plan.

Regrettably, little progress has been made since Petree Properties first presented their plan to the
community following a request made by the Carnation Association of Neighbors Development
Committee, back in March 2022. Despite our repeated appeals for the inclusion of community-
desired elements, the passing months and subsequent meetings have yielded minimal change.

We advocated for the creation of separate, smaller, and more walkable parcels, the extension of
sidewalks along Glenrosa and Turney to at least 5th Avenue (a crucial safety addition), a balanced
distribution of one-bedroom and two-bedroom units (no studios) along 2nd Avenue, a reduction in
the number of units per acre along 2nd Avenue (even offing to support more along Central), and
sensitivity in scale when adjacent to single-story homes. We lobbied hard for a much needed
commercial-retail component and other amenities that elevate intense developments livability.

To manage traffic we asked for the implementation of a left turn in, right turn out on Turney. We
implored Petree Properties to incorporate interior private streets that would contribute to the City
of Phoenix public street parking and adhere to the same rules and regulations as the surrounding
streets. This measure aimed to alleviate the additional strain the development would impose on
public street parking. Yet again, our ideas were rejected.

Regrettably, the only affirmative responses we have received from Petree Properties have pertained
to matters mandated by code. Over the course of the past year, we have diligently collaborated with
Petree Properties in the hopes of shaping a proposal that would benefit all stakeholders. However,
the proposal that Petree Properties intends to present to the Encanto Village Planning
Commissioners closely mirrors their initial plan presented at the first community meeting in April
2022.

We don’t expect to reach agreement on everything, but we do expect to get some return that aligns
with the functional goals we have for our neighborhood. We urge our Encanto Village Planning
Commissioners to exercise their oversight, and push Petree Properties back to the community so we
can turn this proposal into something we can all be proud of. It is vital to prioritize the long-term



Page 491
well-being and cohesion of our community when making decisions of this nature.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Michael Madden MD
312 W Montecito Ave
Phoenix, 85013




Page 492
From: Michael Arteca
To: Nick Klimek; Joshua Bednarek; Council District 4; Laura Pastor
Cc: carnationassociationaz@gmail.com; wr@berryriddell.com; eric.kenney@petreeproperties.com;
tom.blisten@gmail.com; John Roanhorse; PDD Encanto VPC; kathryn@northcentralnews.net
Subject: Subject: Zoning request Z-17-22-4’s Lack of an adequate commercial-retail component
Date: Tuesday, May 23, 2023 2:50:26 PM




Dear Nick and Josh;

It has come to my attention that the City of Phoenix Planning Department is requesting that
Petree only include 7,000 square feet of commercial space as part of Z-17-22-4’s massive
rezoning request. This is far below what many residents of Carnation and other affected
neighborhoods have expressed that we would like to see in a "mixed use" project.

It's crucial to have a more significant commercial-retail component in the project, ranging
from 30,000-50,000 square feet, to create a truly mixed-use space that benefits the
community. This would not only provide a diverse range of amenities but also create jobs
and contribute to the local economy. It would also help maximize the use of light rail, as
people travel into the neighborhood to shop. These are all goals set forth by the Reinvent
Phoenix Uptown Policy Plan.

Therefore, I urge the City of Phoenix Planning Department to reconsider and work towards
a more substantial commercial-retail/mixed-use component that aligns with the needs and
desires of the community.

Sincerely,
Mike Arteca




Page 493
From: Michael Arteca
To: Nick Klimek; Joshua Bednarek; Council District 4; Laura Pastor
Cc: carnationassociationaz@gmail.com; wr@berryriddell.com; eric.kenney@petreeproperties.com;
tom.bilsten@gmail.com; John Roanhorse; PDD Encanto VPC; kathryn@northcentralnews.net
Subject: Subject: Better Integration to Existing Neighborhood - Zoning request Z-17-22-4
Date: Tuesday, May 23, 2023 2:52:55 PM




Dear Nick and Josh –

Thank you for including in Planning's draft stipulations
regarding Petree Properties rezoning request, Z-17-22-4, a
requirement that limits building height to 30 feet within 35
feet and 40 feet within 60 feet for the portion of the
subject site zoned WU Code T5:5, measured from 2nd
Avenue. The Carnation Association of Neighbors has been
requesting this of Petree Properties for over a year. It is a
concern for Carnation residents that a dominating
structure will negatively affect their privacy and homes.
We believe it will greatly impact how well the
development integrates with the surrounding single-story
homes.

However, please also consider the homes on the
southwest end of 2nd Avenue, where the Petree project is
requesting T4:3 zoning. The single-story homes across the
street deserve the same protections that Planning is
recommending for the homes across from T5:5 zoning.

We highly appreciate the thoughtful consideration given
by Planning regarding the aesthetics and scale, when
compared to all of the single-story homes located along
the west side of this proposal.

Regards,
Mike Arteca




Page 494
From: Michael Arteca
To: PDD Encanto VPC
Cc: carnationassociationaz@gmail.com; wr@berryriddell.com; eric.kenney@petreeproperties.com;
tom.bilsten@gmail.com; John Roanhorse; kathryn@northcentralnews.net; Nick Klimek; Joshua Bednarek; Council
District 4; Laura Pastor
Subject: Subject: Concerning Petree Properties Rezoning Request (Z-17-22-4)
Date: Tuesday, May 23, 2023 2:54:38 PM




Dear Encanto Village Planning Commissioners,

I am writing to express my profound concern over Petree Properties' request to rezone 15 acres
along Central Avenue, between Glenrosa and Turney (Z-17-22-4). As a resident invested in the
betterment of our neighborhood, myself and others have engaged in extensive discussions with the
developer and their legal representative, Wendy Riddell, over the past year. Through numerous
meetings, emails, and phone calls, our intention was to reach an agreement that would foster a
development aligned with the goals of our community, particularly in accordance with the Reinvent
Phoenix Uptown TOD Policy Plan.

Regrettably, little progress has been made since Petree Properties first presented their plan to the
community following a request made by the Carnation Association of Neighbors Development
Committee, back in March 2022. Despite our repeated appeals for the inclusion of community-
desired elements, the passing months and subsequent meetings have yielded minimal change.

We advocated for the creation of separate, smaller, and more walkable parcels, the extension of
sidewalks along Glenrosa and Turney to at least 5th Avenue, a balanced distribution of one-bedroom
and two-bedroom units (no studios) along 2nd Avenue, a reduction in the number of units per acre
along 2nd Avenue (even offing to support more along Central), and sensitivity in scale when adjacent
to single-story homes. We lobbied hard for a much needed commercial-retail component and other
amenities that elevate intense developments livability.

To manage traffic we asked for the implementation of a left turn in, right turn out on Turney. We
implored Petree Properties to incorporate interior private streets that would contribute to the City
of Phoenix public street parking and adhere to the same rules and regulations as the surrounding
streets. This measure aimed to alleviate the additional strain the development would impose on
public street parking. Yet again, our ideas were rejected.

Regrettably, the only affirmative responses we have received from Petree Properties have pertained
to matters mandated by code. Over the course of the past year, we have diligently collaborated with
Petree Properties in the hopes of shaping a proposal that would benefit all stakeholders. However,
the proposal that Petree Properties intends to present to the Encanto Village Planning
Commissioners closely mirrors their initial plan presented at the first community meeting in April
2022.

We don’t expect to reach agreement on everything, but we do expect to get some return that aligns
with the functional goals we have for our neighborhood. We urge our Encanto Village Planning
Commissioners to exercise their oversight, and push Petree Properties back to the community so we



Page 495
can turn this proposal into something we can all be proud of. It is vital to prioritize the long-term
well-being and cohesion of our community when making decisions of this nature.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,
Mike Arteca




Page 496
From: Dave Brian Jenkins
To: PDD Encanto VPC
Cc: carnationassociationaz@gmail.com; wr@berryriddell.com; eric.kenney@petreeproperties.com;
tom.bilsten@gmail.com; John Roanhorse; kathryn@northcentralnews.net; Nick Klimek; Joshua Bednarek; Council
District 4; Laura Pastor
Subject: Concerning Petree Properties Rezoning Request (Z-17-22-4)
Date: Monday, May 22, 2023 8:00:50 AM


Encanto Village Planning Commissioners,

I am writing to express my profound concern over Petree Properties' request to rezone 15 acres
along Central Avenue, between Glenrosa and Turney (Z-17-22-4). As a resident invested in the
betterment of our neighborhood, myself and others have engaged in extensive discussions with the
developer and their legal representative, Wendy Riddell, over the past year. Through numerous
meetings, emails, and phone calls, our intention was to reach an agreement that would foster a
development aligned with the goals of our community, particularly in accordance with the Reinvent
Phoenix Uptown TOD Policy Plan.

Regrettably, little progress has been made since Petree Properties first presented their plan to the
community following a request made by the Carnation Association of Neighbors Development
Committee, back in March 2022. Despite our repeated appeals for the inclusion of community-
desired elements, the passing months and subsequent meetings have yielded minimal change.

We advocated for the creation of separate, smaller, and more walkable parcels, the extension of
sidewalks along Glenrosa and Turney to at least 5th Avenue, a balanced distribution of one-bedroom
and two-bedroom units (no studios) along 2nd Avenue, a reduction in the number of units per acre
along 2nd Avenue (even offing to support more along Central), and sensitivity in scale when adjacent
to single-story homes. We lobbied hard for a much needed commercial-retail component and other
amenities that elevate intense developments livability.

To manage traffic we asked for the implementation of a left turn in, right turn out on Turney. We
implored Petree Properties to incorporate interior private streets that would contribute to the City
of Phoenix public street parking and adhere to the same rules and regulations as the surrounding
streets. This measure aimed to alleviate the additional strain the development would impose on
public street parking. Yet again, our ideas were rejected.

Regrettably, the only affirmative responses we have received from Petree Properties have pertained
to matters mandated by code. Over the course of the past year, we have diligently collaborated with
Petree Properties in the hopes of shaping a proposal that would benefit all stakeholders. However,
the proposal that Petree Properties intends to present to the Encanto Village Planning
Commissioners closely mirrors their initial plan presented at the first community meeting in April
2022.

We don’t expect to reach agreement on everything, but we do expect to get some return that aligns
with the functional goals we have for our neighborhood. We urge our Encanto Village Planning
Commissioners to exercise their oversight and push Petree Properties back to the community so we
can turn this proposal into something we can all be proud of. It is vital to prioritize the long-term



Page 497
well-being and cohesion of our community when making decisions of this nature.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,
Dave Brian Jenkins




Page 498
From: ANN SKANADORE
To: PDD Encanto VPC
Cc: carnationassociationaz@gmail.com; wr@berryriddell.com; eric.kenney@petreeproperties.com;
tom.bilsten@gmail.com; John Roanhorse; kathryn@northcentralnews.net; Nick Klimek; Joshua Bednarek; Council
District 4; Laura Pastor
Subject: Concerning Petree Properties Rezoning Request (Z-17-22-4)
Date: Friday, May 19, 2023 9:44:30 AM




Dear Encanto Village Planning Commissioners,

I sincerely hope you read this entire email. I have lived in the neighborhood for over 58 years.
As a resident of Carnation Neighborhood, I firmly support the sentiments stated below. One of
the greatest concerns with the Petree project is the increase of traffic through our residential
streets. Two of my neighbors and myself have walked every day for 10 years through the area
and have witnessed the increased and sometimes aggressive/speeding through our streets. One
of my neighbors was actually side swiped by a truck during one of our walks. Most of our
streets are small, as well as, having no sidewalks. I live in the Yaple Park Historic District
which is located within the Carnation boundaries and am concerned what the adverse impact
this project will have if no consideration is taken into minimizing the negative repercussions
we will continue to experience on a daily basis.

I am writing to express my profound concern over Petree Properties' request to rezone 15
acres along Central Avenue, between Glenrosa and Turney (Z-17-22-4). As a resident invested
in the betterment of our neighborhood, others and I have engaged in extensive discussions
with the developer and their legal representative, Wendy Riddell, over the past year. Through
numerous meetings, emails, and phone calls, our intention was to reach an agreement that
would foster a development aligned with the goals of our community, particularly in
accordance with the Reinvent Phoenix Uptown TOD Policy Plan.

Regrettably, little progress has been made since Petree Properties first presented their plan to
the community following a request made by the Carnation Association of Neighbors
Development Committee, back in March 2022. Despite our repeated appeals for the inclusion
of community-desired elements, the passing months and subsequent meetings have yielded
minimal change.

We advocated for the creation of separate, smaller, and more walkable parcels, the extension
of sidewalks along Glenrosa and Turney to at least 5th Avenue, a balanced distribution of one-
bedroom and two-bedroom units (no studios) along 2nd Avenue, a reduction in the number of
units per acre along 2nd Avenue (even offing to support more along Central), and sensitivity
in scale when adjacent to single-story homes. We lobbied hard for a much needed
commercial-retail component and other amenities that elevate intense developments livability.

To manage traffic, we asked for the implementation of a left turn in, right turn out on Turney.
We implored Petree Properties to incorporate interior private streets that would contribute to
the City of Phoenix public street parking and adhere to the same rules and regulations as the
surrounding streets. This measure aimed to alleviate the additional strain the development
would impose on public street parking. Yet again, our ideas were rejected.

Regrettably, the only affirmative responses we have received from Petree Properties have
pertained to matters mandated by code. Over the course of the past year, we have diligently
collaborated with Petree Properties in the hopes of shaping a proposal that would benefit all


Page 499
stakeholders. However, the proposal that Petree Properties intends to present to the Encanto
Village Planning Commissioners closely mirrors their initial plan presented at the first
community meeting in April 2022.

We don’t expect to reach agreement on everything, but we do expect to get some return that
aligns with the functional goals we have for our neighborhood. We urge our Encanto Village
Planning Commissioners to exercise their oversight, and push Petree Properties back to the
community so we can turn this proposal into something we can all be proud of. It is vital to
prioritize the long-term well-being and cohesion of our community when making decisions of
this nature.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Anne Skanadore

318 W. Roma Ave.

Phoenix, Az 85013




Page 500
Page 501
Page 502
From: Michael Lueken
To: PDD Encanto VPC
Cc: carnationassociationaz@gmail.com; wr@berryriddell.com; eric.kenney@petreeproperties.com;
tom.bilsten@gmail.com; John Roanhorse; kathryn@northcentralnews.net; Nick Klimek; Joshua Bednarek; Council
District 4; Laura Pastor
Subject: Subject: Concerning Petree Properties Rezoning Request (Z-17-22-4)
Date: Thursday, May 18, 2023 9:34:17 AM




Dear Encanto Village Planning Commissioners,

I am writing to express my profound concern over Petree Properties' request to rezone 15 acres
along Central Avenue, between Glenrosa and Turney (Z-17-22-4). As a resident invested in the
betterment of our neighborhood, myself and others have engaged in extensive discussions with the
developer and their legal representative, Wendy Riddell, over the past year. Through numerous
meetings, emails, and phone calls, our intention was to reach an agreement that would foster a
development aligned with the goals of our community, particularly in accordance with the Reinvent
Phoenix Uptown TOD Policy Plan.

Regrettably, little progress has been made since Petree Properties first presented their plan to the
community following a request made by the Carnation Association of Neighbors Development
Committee, back in March 2022. Despite our repeated appeals for the inclusion of community-
desired elements, the passing months and subsequent meetings have yielded minimal change.

We advocated for the creation of separate, smaller, and more walkable parcels, the extension of
sidewalks along Glenrosa and Turney to at least 5th Avenue, a balanced distribution of one-bedroom
and two-bedroom units (no studios) along 2nd Avenue, a reduction in the number of units per acre
along 2nd Avenue (even offing to support more along Central), and sensitivity in scale when adjacent
to single-story homes. We lobbied hard for a much needed commercial-retail component and other
amenities that elevate intense developments livability.

To manage traffic we asked for the implementation of a left turn in, right turn out on Turney. We
implored Petree Properties to incorporate interior private streets that would contribute to the City
of Phoenix public street parking and adhere to the same rules and regulations as the surrounding
streets. This measure aimed to alleviate the additional strain the development would impose on
public street parking. Yet again, our ideas were rejected.

Regrettably, the only affirmative responses we have received from Petree Properties have pertained
to matters mandated by code. Over the course of the past year, we have diligently collaborated with
Petree Properties in the hopes of shaping a proposal that would benefit all stakeholders. However,
the proposal that Petree Properties intends to present to the Encanto Village Planning
Commissioners closely mirrors their initial plan presented at the first community meeting in April
2022.


Page 503
We don’t expect to reach agreement on everything, but we do expect to get some return that aligns
with the functional goals we have for our neighborhood. We urge our Encanto Village Planning
Commissioners to exercise their oversight, and push Petree Properties back to the community so we
can turn this proposal into something we can all be proud of. It is vital to prioritize the long-term
well-being and cohesion of our community when making decisions of this nature.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Mike Lueken




MICHAEL J. LUEKEN, PHD
THEOLOGY DEPARTMENT
XAVIER COLLEGE PREPARATORY
4710 N 5th St | Phoenix, AZ 85012
mlueken@xcp.org www.xcp.org [na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]




Page 504
From: Sarah Diebolt
To: PDD Encanto VPC
Cc: carnationassociationaz@gmail.com; wr@berryriddell.com; eric.kenney@petreeproperties.com;
tom.bilsten@gmail.com; John Roanhorse; kathryn@northcentralnews.net; Nick Klimek; Joshua Bednarek; Council
District 4; Laura Pastor
Subject: Concerning Petree Properties Rezoning Request (Z-17-22-4)
Date: Thursday, May 18, 2023 7:20:02 PM


Dear Encanto Village Planning Commissioners,

I am writing to express my profound concern over Petree Properties' request to rezone 15 acres
along Central Avenue, between Glenrosa and Turney (Z-17-22-4). As a resident invested in the
betterment of our neighborhood, myself and others have engaged in extensive discussions with the
developer and their legal representative, Wendy Riddell, over the past year. Through numerous
meetings, emails, and phone calls, our intention was to reach an agreement that would foster a
development aligned with the goals of our community, particularly in accordance with the Reinvent
Phoenix Uptown TOD Policy Plan.

Regrettably, little progress has been made since Petree Properties first presented their plan to the
community following a request made by the Carnation Association of Neighbors Development
Committee, back in March 2022. Despite our repeated appeals for the inclusion of community-
desired elements, the passing months and subsequent meetings have yielded minimal change.

We advocated for the creation of separate, smaller, and more walkable parcels, the extension of
sidewalks along Glenrosa and Turney to at least 5th Avenue, a balanced distribution of one-bedroom
and two-bedroom units (no studios) along 2nd Avenue, a reduction in the number of units per acre
along 2nd Avenue (even offing to support more along Central), and sensitivity in scale when adjacent
to single-story homes. We lobbied hard for a much needed commercial-retail component and other
amenities that elevate intense developments livability.

To manage traffic we asked for the implementation of a left turn in, right turn out on Turney. We
implored Petree Properties to incorporate interior private streets that would contribute to the City
of Phoenix public street parking and adhere to the same rules and regulations as the surrounding
streets. This measure aimed to alleviate the additional strain the development would impose on
public street parking. Yet again, our ideas were rejected.

Regrettably, the only affirmative responses we have received from Petree Properties have pertained
to matters mandated by code. Over the course of the past year, we have diligently collaborated with
Petree Properties in the hopes of shaping a proposal that would benefit all stakeholders. However,
the proposal that Petree Properties intends to present to the Encanto Village Planning
Commissioners closely mirrors their initial plan presented at the first community meeting in April
2022.

We don’t expect to reach agreement on everything, but we do expect to get some return that aligns
with the functional goals we have for our neighborhood. We urge our Encanto Village Planning
Commissioners to exercise their oversight, and push Petree Properties back to the community so we
can turn this proposal into something we can all be proud of. It is vital to prioritize the long-term



Page 505
well-being and cohesion of our community when making decisions of this nature.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,
Sarah Diebolt




Page 506
From: Cliff Valenti
To: PDD Encanto VPC
Cc: carnationassociationaz@gmail.com; wr@berryriddell.com; eric.kenney@petreeproperties.com;
tom.bilsten@gmail.com; John Roanhorse; kathryn@northcentralnews.net; Nick Klimek; Joshua Bednarek; Council
District 4; Laura Pastor
Subject: Concerning Petree Properties Rezoning Request (Z-17-22-4)
Date: Wednesday, May 17, 2023 11:26:02 PM


Dear Encanto Village Planning Commissioners,

I am writing to express my profound concern over Petree Properties' request to rezone 15 acres
along Central Avenue, between Glenrosa and Turney (Z-17-22-4). As a resident invested in the
betterment of our neighborhood, myself and others have engaged in extensive discussions with the
developer and their legal representative, Wendy Riddell, over the past year. Through numerous
meetings, emails, and phone calls, our intention was to reach an agreement that would foster a
development aligned with the goals of our community, particularly in accordance with the Reinvent
Phoenix Uptown TOD Policy Plan.

Regrettably, little progress has been made since Petree Properties first presented their plan to the
community following a request made by the Carnation Association of Neighbors Development
Committee, back in March 2022. Despite our repeated appeals for the inclusion of community-
desired elements, the passing months and subsequent meetings have yielded minimal change.

We advocated for the creation of separate, smaller, and more walkable parcels, the extension of
sidewalks along Glenrosa and Turney to at least 5th Avenue, a balanced distribution of one-bedroom
and two-bedroom units (no studios) along 2nd Avenue, a reduction in the number of units per acre
along 2nd Avenue (even offing to support more along Central), and sensitivity in scale when adjacent
to single-story homes. We lobbied hard for a much needed commercial-retail component and other
amenities that elevate intense developments livability.

To manage traffic we asked for the implementation of a left turn in, right turn out on Turney. We
implored Petree Properties to incorporate interior private streets that would contribute to the City
of Phoenix public street parking and adhere to the same rules and regulations as the surrounding
streets. This measure aimed to alleviate the additional strain the development would impose on
public street parking. Yet again, our ideas were rejected.

Regrettably, the only affirmative responses we have received from Petree Properties have pertained
to matters mandated by code. Over the course of the past year, we have diligently collaborated with
Petree Properties in the hopes of shaping a proposal that would benefit all stakeholders. However,
the proposal that Petree Properties intends to present to the Encanto Village Planning
Commissioners closely mirrors their initial plan presented at the first community meeting in April
2022.

We don’t expect to reach agreement on everything, but we do expect to get some return that aligns
with the functional goals we have for our neighborhood. We urge our Encanto Village Planning
Commissioners to exercise their oversight, and push Petree Properties back to the community so we
can turn this proposal into something we can all be proud of. It is vital to prioritize the long-term



Page 507
well-being and cohesion of our community when making decisions of this nature.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,
Cliff Valenti
Secretary, Carnation Association of Neighbors
Chair, Development Committee




Page 508
From: Derek Powell
To: Nick Klimek; Joshua Bednarek; Council District 4; Laura Pastor
Cc: carnationassociationaz@gmail.com; wr@berryriddell.com; eric.kenney@petreeproperties.com;
tom.blisten@gmail.com; John Roanhorse; PDD Encanto VPC; kathryn@northcentralnews.net
Subject: Subject: Zoning request Z-17-22-4’s Lack of an adequate commercial-retail component
Date: Wednesday, May 17, 2023 6:56:38 PM


Dear Nick and Josh;

I want to join my neighbors in sharing my concerns about the City of Phoenix Planning
Department's request that Petree only include 7,000 square feet of commercial space as
part of Z-17-22-4’s massive rezoning request. This is far below what I and many other
residents of Carnation and other affected neighborhoods have expressed that we would like
to see in a "mixed use" project.

It's crucial to have a more significant commercial-retail component in the project, ranging
from 30,000-50,000 square feet, to create a truly mixed-use space that benefits the
community.

This would not only provide a diverse range of amenities but also create jobs and contribute
to the local economy. It would also help maximize the use of light rail, as people travel into
the neighborhood to shop. These are all goals set forth by the Reinvent Phoenix Uptown
Policy Plan.

True mixed-use zoning is a key part of what I love about the Carnation neighborhood. I truly
worry that a massive influx of new housing units without adequate commercial-retail space
will harm the feel of this community, pushing it toward being a place where people only live
and commute from (and I guess take the lightrail downtown to) rather than a vibrant
community.

Therefore, I urge the City of Phoenix Planning Department to reconsider and work towards
a more substantial commercial-retail/mixed-use component that aligns with the needs and
desires of the community.

Sincerely,

Derek Powell




Page 509
From: Michelle Tedhams
To: Nick Klimek; Joshua Bednarek; Council District 4; Laura Pastor
Cc: carnationassociationaz@gmail.com; wr@berryriddell.com; eric.kenney@petreeproperties.com;
tom.bilsten@gmail.com; John Roanhorse; PDD Encanto VPC; kathryn@northcentralnews.net;
eriktedhams@gmail.com
Subject: Better Integration to Existing Neighborhood - Zoning request Z-17-22-4
Date: Tuesday, May 16, 2023 9:09:26 AM



Dear Nick and Josh,

Thank you for including in Planning's draft stipulations regarding Petree Properties rezoning
request, Z-17-22-4, a requirement that limits building height to 30 feet within 35 feet and 40
feet within 60 feet for the portion of the subject site zoned WU Code T5:5, measured from
2nd Avenue. The Carnation Association of Neighbors has been requesting this of Petree
Properties for over a year. It is a concern for Carnation residents that a dominating structure
will negatively affect their privacy and homes. We believe it will greatly impact how well the
development integrates with the surrounding single-story homes.

However, please also consider the homes on the southwest end of 2nd Avenue, where the
Petree project is requesting T4:3 zoning. The single-story homes across the street deserve the
same protections that Planning is recommending for the homes across from T5:5 zoning.

We highly appreciate the thoughtful consideration given by Planning regarding the aesthetics
and scale, when compared to all of the single-story homes located along the west side of this
proposal.

Sincerely,
Michelle Tedhams
4206 N 2nd Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85013-3026
C: 602-300-2944




Page 510
From: Bill Ryan
To: Nick Klimek; Joshua Bednarek; Council District 4; Laura Pastor
Cc: carnationassociationaz@gmail.com; wr@berryriddell.com; eric.kenney@petreeproperties.com;
tom.bilsten@gmail.com; John Roanhorse; PDD Encanto VPC; kathryn@northcentralnews.net
Subject: Better Integration to Existing Neighborhood - Zoning request Z-17-22-4
Date: Monday, May 15, 2023 9:38:23 AM



Dear Nick and Josh,

Thank you for including in Planning's draft stipulations regarding Petree Properties rezoning
request, Z-17-22-4, a requirement that limits building height to 30 feet within 35 feet and 40
feet within 60 feet for the portion of the subject site zoned WU Code T5:5, measured from
2nd Avenue. The Carnation Association of Neighbors has been requesting this of Petree
Properties for over a year. It is a concern for Carnation residents that a dominating structure
will negatively affect their privacy and homes. We believe it will greatly impact how well the
development integrates with the surrounding single-story homes.

However, please also consider the homes on the southwest end of 2nd Avenue, where the
Petree project is requesting T4:3 zoning. The single-story homes across the street deserve the
same protections that Planning is recommending for the homes across from T5:5 zoning.

We highly appreciate the thoughtful consideration given by Planning regarding the aesthetics
and scale, when compared to all of the single-story homes located along the west side of this
proposal.

Regards,

Bill Ryan




Page 511
From: Dave Brian Jenkins
To: Nick Klimek; Joshua Bednarek; Council District 4; Laura Pastor
Cc: carnationassociationaz@gmail.com; wr@berryriddell.com; eric.kenney@petreeproperties.com;
tom.bilsten@gmail.com; John Roanhorse; PDD Encanto VPC; kathryn@northcentralnews.net
Subject: Better Integration to Existing Neighborhood - Zoning request Z-17-22-4
Date: Monday, May 15, 2023 8:01:24 AM



Hello Nick and Josh,

Thank you for including in Planning's draft stipulations regarding Petree Properties' rezoning
request, Z-17-22-4, a requirement that limits building height to 30 feet within 35 feet and 40
feet within 60 feet for the portion of the subject site zoned WU Code T5:5, measured from
2nd Avenue. The Carnation Association of Neighbors has been requesting this of Petree
Properties for over a year. It is a concern for Carnation residents that a dominating structure
will negatively affect their privacy and homes. We believe it will greatly impact how well the
development integrates with the surrounding single-story homes.

However, please also consider the homes on the southwest end of 2nd Avenue, where the
Petree project is requesting T4:3 zoning. The single-story homes across the street deserve the
same protections that Planning is recommending for the homes across from T5:5 zoning.

We highly appreciate the thoughtful consideration given by Planning regarding the aesthetics
and scale, when compared to all of the single-story homes located along the west side of this
proposal.

Thank you
Dave Brian Jenkins




Page 512
From: Kathleen LaVoy
To: Nick Klimek; Joshua Bednarek; Council District 4; Laura Pastor
Cc: carnationassociationaz@gmail.com; wr@berryriddell.com; eric.kenney@petreeproperties.com;
tom.bilsten@gmail.com; John Roanhorse; PDD Encanto VPC; kathryn@northcentralnews.net
Subject: Better Integration to Existing Neighborhood - Zoning request Z-17-22-4
Date: Sunday, May 14, 2023 3:24:30 PM



Dear Nick and Josh –

Thank you for including in Planning's draft stipulations regarding Petree Properties rezoning
request, Z-17-22-4, a requirement that limits building height to 30 feet within 35 feet and 40
feet within 60 feet for the portion of the subject site zoned WU Code T5:5, measured from
2nd Avenue. The Carnation Association of Neighbors has been requesting this of Petree
Properties for over a year. It is a concern for Carnation residents that a dominating structure
will negatively affect their privacy and homes. We believe it will greatly impact how well the
development integrates with the surrounding single-story homes.

However, please also consider the homes on the southwest end of 2nd Avenue, where the
Petree project is requesting T4:3 zoning. The single-story homes across the street deserve the
same protections that Planning is recommending for the homes across from T5:5 zoning.

We highly appreciate the thoughtful consideration given by Planning regarding the aesthetics
and scale, when compared to all of the single-story homes located along the west side of this
proposal.

Regards,
Kathy LaVoy




Page 513
From: ANN SKANADORE
To: Nick Klimek; Joshua Bednarek; Council District 4; Laura Pastor
Cc: carnationassociationaz@gmail.com; wr@berryriddell.com; eric.kenney@petreeproperties.com;
tom.blisten@gmail.com; John Roanhorse; PDD Encanto VPC; kathryn@northcentralnews.net;
msnix215@gmail.com
Subject: Better Integration to Existing Neighborhood - Zoning request Z-17-22-4
Date: Friday, May 12, 2023 11:26:18 AM


Dear Nick and Josh,


Please note: My name is Marcia Nix and Anne Skanadore is sending my email using her
address.

We are grateful that you are including the Planning's draft stipulations regarding Petree
Properties rezoning request, Z-17-22-4, a requirement that limits building height to 30 feet
within 35 feet and 40 feet within 60 feet for the portion of the subject site zoned WU Code
T5:5, measured from 2nd Avenue. The Carnation Association of Neighbors has been
requesting this of Petree Properties for over a year. It is a concern for Carnation residents that
a dominating structure will negatively affect their privacy and homes. We believe it will
greatly impact how well the development integrates with the surrounding single-story homes.

However, please also consider the homes on the southwest end of 2nd Avenue, where the
Petree project is requesting T4:3 zoning. The single-story homes across the street deserve the
same protections that Planning is recommending for the homes across from T5:5 zoning.
Please consider the reflective heat from the additional height of the current proposed structure.
I realize this may sound minimal but every degree that is not reflected back onto our
neighborhood homes will help.

We highly appreciate the thoughtful consideration given by Planning regarding the aesthetics
and scale, when compared to all of the single-story homes located along the west side of this
proposal.

Regards,

Marcia Nix

215 W. Roma Ave.

Phoenix, Az 85013




Page 514
From: Michael Lueken
To: Joshua Bednarek; Council District 4; Laura Pastor; wr@berryriddell.com; eric.kenney@petreeproperties.com;
tom.bilsten@gmail.com; John Roanhorse; PDD Encanto VPC; kathryn@northcentralnews.net; Nick Klimek;
carnationassociationaz@gmail.com
Subject: Better Integration to Existing Neighborhood - Zoning request Z-17-22-4
Date: Friday, May 12, 2023 10:50:45 AM



Dear Nick and Josh –

Thank you for including in Planning's draft stipulations regarding Petree Properties rezoning
request, Z-17-22-4, a requirement that limits building height to 30 feet within 35 feet and 40
feet within 60 feet for the portion of the subject site zoned WU Code T5:5, measured from
2nd Avenue. The Carnation Association of Neighbors has been requesting this of Petree
Properties for over a year. It is a concern for Carnation residents that a dominating structure
will negatively affect their privacy and homes. We believe it will greatly impact how well the
development integrates with the surrounding single-story homes.

However, please also consider the homes on the southwest end of 2nd Avenue, where the
Petree project is requesting T4:3 zoning. The single-story homes across the street deserve the
same protections that Planning is recommending for the homes across from T5:5 zoning.

We highly appreciate the thoughtful consideration given by Planning regarding the aesthetics
and scale, when compared to all of the single-story homes located along the west side of this
proposal.

Regards,
Mike Lueken




Page 515
From: Michael Lueken
To: Joshua Bednarek; Council District 4; Laura Pastor; wr@berryriddell.com; eric.kenney@petreeproperties.com;
tom.blisten@gmail.com; John Roanhorse; PDD Encanto VPC; kathryn@northcentralnews.net; Nick Klimek;
Ccarnationassociationaz@gmail.com
Subject: Subject: Zoning request Z-17-22-4’s Lack of an adequate commercial-retail component
Date: Friday, May 12, 2023 10:54:27 AM


Dear Nick and Josh;

It has come to my attention that the City of Phoenix Planning Department is requesting that
Petree only include 7,000 square feet of commercial space as part of Z-17-22-4’s massive
rezoning request. This is far below what many residents of Carnation and other affected
neighborhoods have expressed that we would like to see in a "mixed use" project.

It's crucial to have a more significant commercial-retail component in the project, ranging
from 30,000-50,000 square feet, to create a truly mixed-use space that benefits the
community. This would not only provide a diverse range of amenities but also create jobs
and contribute to the local economy. It would also help maximize the use of light rail, as
people travel into the neighborhood to shop. These are all goals set forth by the Reinvent
Phoenix Uptown Policy Plan.

Therefore, I urge the City of Phoenix Planning Department to reconsider and work towards
a more substantial commercial-retail/mixed-use component that aligns with the needs and
desires of the community.

Sincerely,
Mike Lueken




Page 516
From: Christina and Tim Price
To: Nick Klimek; Joshua Bednarek; Council District 4; Laura Pastor
Cc: carnationassociationaz@gmail.com; wr@berryriddell.com; eric.kenney@petreeproperties.com;
tom.bilsten@gmail.com; John Roanhorse; PDD Encanto VPC; kathryn@northcentralnews.net
Subject: Better Integration to Existing Neighborhood - Zoning request Z-17-22-4
Date: Thursday, May 11, 2023 8:24:19 AM




Dear Nick and Josh –

It's shocking that we have to ask for this, but thank you for including in Planning's draft
stipulations regarding Petree Properties rezoning request, Z-17-22-4, a requirement that
limits building height to 30 feet within 35 feet and 40 feet within 60 feet for the portion of
the subject site zoned WU Code T5:5, measured from 2nd Avenue. The Carnation Association
of Neighbors has been requesting this of Petree Properties for over a year. It is a concern for
Carnation residents that a dominating structure will negatively affect their privacy and
homes. We believe it will greatly impact how well the development integrates with the
surrounding single-story homes.

However, THIS MUST BE DONE for the homes on the south end of 2nd Avenue, where the
Petree project is requesting T4:3 zoning. The single-story homes across the street deserve the
same protections that Planning is recommending for the homes across from T5:5 zoning.

Chrisitna Price




Page 517
From: Hrushikesh Pandurangi
To: Nick Klimek; Joshua Bednarek
Subject: Subject: Better Integration to Existing Neighborhood - Zoning request Z-17-22-4
Date: Thursday, May 11, 2023 7:19:37 AM



Dear Nick and Josh –

Thank you for including in Planning's draft stipulations regarding Petree Properties rezoning
request, Z-17-22-4, a requirement that limits building height to 30 feet within 35 feet and 40
feet within 60 feet for the portion of the subject site zoned WU Code T5:5, measured from
2nd Avenue. The Carnation Association of Neighbors has been requesting this of Petree
Properties for over a year. It is a concern for Carnation residents that a dominating structure
will negatively affect their privacy and homes. We believe it will greatly impact how well the
development integrates with the surrounding single-story homes.

However, please also consider the homes on the southwest end of 2nd Avenue, where the
Petree project is requesting T4:3 zoning. The single-story homes across the street deserve the
same protections that Planning is recommending for the homes across from T5:5 zoning.

We highly appreciate the thoughtful consideration given by Planning regarding the aesthetics
and scale, when compared to all of the single-story homes located along the west side of this
proposal.

Regards
Kesh Pandurangi




Page 518
From: Michael Madden
To: Nick Klimek; Joshua Bednarek; Council District 4; Laura Pastor
Cc: CarnationAssociationAZ; wr@berryriddell.com; eric.kenney@petreeproperties.com; tom.blisten@gmail.com; John
Roanhorse; PDD Encanto VPC; kathryn@northcentralnews.net
Subject: Better Integration to Existing Neighborhood - Zoning request Z-17-22-4
Date: Thursday, May 11, 2023 6:27:59 AM




Dear Nick and Josh –



I live just 2 blocks from this development and am very concerned about
its impact on my home and neighborhood.



Thank you for including in Planning's draft stipulations regarding Petree
Properties rezoning request, Z-17-22-4, a requirement that limits building height
to 30 feet within 35 feet and 40 feet within 60 feet for the portion of the subject
site zoned WU Code T5:5, measured from 2nd Avenue. The Carnation Association
of Neighbors has been requesting this of Petree Properties for over a year. It is a
concern for Carnation residents that a dominating structure will negatively affect
their privacy and homes. We believe it will greatly impact how well the
development integrates with the surrounding single-story homes.

However, please also consider the homes on the southwest end of 2nd Avenue,
where the Petree project is requesting T4:3 zoning. The single-story homes across
the street deserve the same protections that Planning is recommending for the
homes across from T5:5 zoning.

I highly appreciate the thoughtful consideration given by Planning regarding the
aesthetics and scale, when compared to all of the single-story homes located
along the west side of this proposal.

Sincerely,

Michael Madden MD
312 W Montecito Ave
Phoenix
412-327-3766
Gateway2times@live.com




Page 519
Page 520
From: Michelle Kozimor
To: Nick Klimek; Joshua Bednarek; Council District 4; Laura Pastor
Cc: Tamiko Garmen; wr@berryriddell.com; eric.kenney@petreeproperties.com; tom.blisten@gmail.com; John
Roanhorse; PDD Encanto VPC; kathryn@northcentralnews.net
Subject: Better Integration to Existing Neighborhood - Zoning request Z-17-22-4
Date: Thursday, May 11, 2023 8:04:35 AM



Dear Nick and Josh –

Thank you for including in Planning's draft stipulations regarding Petree Properties rezoning
request, Z-17-22-4, a requirement that limits building height to 30 feet within 35 feet and 40
feet within 60 feet for the portion of the subject site zoned WU Code T5:5, measured from
2nd Avenue. The Carnation Association of Neighbors has been requesting this of Petree
Properties for over a year. It is a concern for Carnation residents that a dominating structure
will negatively affect their privacy and homes. We believe it will greatly impact how well the
development integrates with the surrounding single-story homes.

However, please also consider the homes on the southwest end of 2nd Avenue, where the
Petree project is requesting T4:3 zoning. The single-story homes across the street deserve the
same protections that Planning is recommending for the homes across from T5:5 zoning.

We highly appreciate the thoughtful consideration given by Planning regarding the aesthetics
and scale, when compared to all of the single-story homes located along the west side of this
proposal.

Regards,



Mrs.Kozimor
Michelle Kozimor, M.Ed., MA
School Counselor
Alpha *Can-Fin
McKinney Vento Coordinator
Corona del Sol High School
p: 480-752-8778

Mental Health Resources:
https://www.tempeunion.org/Social-Emotional-Wellness [tempeunion.org]




Page 521
From: Dave Brian Jenkins
To: Nick Klimek; Joshua Bednarek; Council District 4; Laura Pastor
Cc: carnationassociationaz@gmail.com; wr@berryriddell.com; eric.kenney@petreeproperties.com;
tom.blisten@gmail.com; John Roanhorse; PDD Encanto VPC; kathryn@northcentralnews.net
Subject: Zoning request Z-17-22-4’s Lack of an adequate commercial-retail component
Date: Thursday, May 11, 2023 11:51:24 AM


Nick and Josh;

It has come to my attention that the City of Phoenix Planning Department is requesting that
Petree only include 7,000 square feet of commercial space as part of Z-17-22-4’s massive
rezoning request. This is far below what many residents of Carnation and other affected
neighborhoods have expressed that we would like to see in a "mixe-mixed-project.

It's crucial to have a more significant commercial-retail component in the project, ranging
from 30,000-50,000 square feet, to create a truly mixed-use space that benefits the
community. This would not only provide a diverse range of amenities but also create jobs
and contribute to the local economy. It would also help maximize the use of light rail, as
people travel into the neighborhood to shop. These are all goals set forth by the Reinvent
Phoenix Uptown Policy Plan.

Therefore, I urge the City of Phoenix Planning Department to reconsider and work towards
a more substantial commercial-retail/mixed-use component that aligns with the needs and
desires of the community.

Sincerely,
Dave Brian Jenkins




Page 522
From: Becci Collins
To: Council District 4; Joshua Bednarek; Laura Pastor; Nick Klimek
Cc: CarnationAssociationAZ; PDD Encanto VPC; eric.kenney@petreeproperties.com; John Roanhorse;
kathryn@northcentralnews.net; tom.bilsten@gmail.com; wr@berryriddell.com
Subject: Better Integration to Existing Neighborhood - Zoning request Z-17-22-4
Date: Thursday, May 11, 2023 3:08:46 PM



Dear Nick and Josh –

Thank you for including in Planning's draft stipulations regarding Petree Properties rezoning
request, Z-17-22-4, a requirement that limits building height to 30 feet within 35 feet and 40
feet within 60 feet for the portion of the subject site zoned WU Code T5:5, measured from
2nd Avenue. The Carnation Association of Neighbors has been requesting this of Petree
Properties for over a year. It is a concern for Carnation residents that a dominating structure
will negatively affect their privacy and homes. We believe it will greatly impact how well the
development integrates with the surrounding single-story homes.

However, please also consider the homes on the southwest end of 2nd Avenue, where the
Petree project is requesting T4:3 zoning. The single-story homes across the street deserve the
same protections that Planning is recommending for the homes across from T5:5 zoning.

We highly appreciate the thoughtful consideration given by Planning regarding the aesthetics
and scale, when compared to all of the single-story homes located along the west side of this
proposal.

Regards,
Rebecca Burkhart-Collins




Page 523
From: Jess Email
To: Nick Klimek; Joshua Bednarek; Council District 4; Laura Pastor
Subject: Petree Properties
Date: Thursday, May 11, 2023 6:17:31 AM




Better Integration to Existing Neighborhood - Zoning request Z-17-22-4

Dear Nick and Josh –

Regarding the height limitations of the Petree property, please consider the
homes on the southwest end of 2nd Avenue, where the Petree project is
requesting T4:3 zoning. The single-story homes across the street deserve the
same protections that Planning is recommending for the homes across from T5:5
zoning.

We highly appreciate the thoughtful consideration given by Planning regarding
the aesthetics and scale, when compared to all of the single-story homes located
along the west side of this proposal.

Regards,
Jessica Aragon and Phillip Peterson




Page 524
From: Rebecca Thomas
To: Nick Klimek; Joshua Bednarek; Council District 4; Laura Pastor
Cc: CarnationAssociationAZ; wr@berryriddell.com; eric.kenney@petreeproperties.com; tom.blisten@gmail.com; John
Roanhorse; PDD Encanto VPC; kathryn@northcentralnews.net
Subject: Zoning request Z-17-22-4’s Lack of an adequate commercial-retail component
Date: Wednesday, May 10, 2023 2:43:54 PM


Dear Nick and Josh;

It has been brought to my attention via my Carnation Association meetings that the City of
Phoenix Planning Department is requesting that Petree only include 7,000 square feet of
commercial space as part of Z-17-22-4’s massive rezoning request. This is far below what
many residents of Carnation and other affected neighborhoods have expressed that we
would like to see in a "mixed use" project.

It's crucial to have a more significant commercial-retail component in the project, ranging
from 30,000-50,000 square feet, to create a truly mixed-use space that benefits the
community. This would not only provide a diverse range of amenities but also create jobs
and contribute to the local economy. It would also help maximize the use of light rail, as
people travel into the neighborhood to shop. These are all goals set forth by the Reinvent
Phoenix Uptown Policy Plan.

Therefore, I urge the City of Phoenix Planning Department to reconsider and work towards
a more substantial commercial-retail/mixed-use component that aligns with the needs and
desires of the community.

Sincerely,

Rebecca Thomas
334 W. Roma Ave.
Phoenix, AZ 85013
rjthomas@cox.net




Page 525
From: Michelle Tedhams
To: Nick Klimek; Joshua Bednarek; Council District 4; Laura Pastor
Cc: carnationassociationaz@gmail.com; wr@berryriddell.com; eric.kenney@petreeproperties.com;
tom.blisten@gmail.com; John Roanhorse; PDD Encanto VPC; kathryn@northcentralnews.net;
eriktedhams@gmail.com
Subject: Zoning request Z-17-22-4’s Lack of an adequate commercial-retail component
Date: Wednesday, May 10, 2023 6:27:53 AM


Dear Mr. Klimek and Mr. Bednarek,

It has come to my attention, as well as that of our neighborhood association, Carnation, that
the City of Phoenix Planning Department is requesting that Petree only include 7,000
square feet of commercial space as part of Z-17-22-4’s massive rezoning request. This is
far below what many residents of Carnation and other affected neighborhoods have
expressed that we would like to see in a "mixed use" project.

I feel, as well as our association, that it is crucial to have a more significant commercial-
retail component in the project, ranging from 30,000-50,000 square feet, to create a truly
mixed-use space that benefits the community. This would not only provide a diverse range
of amenities but also create jobs and contribute to the local economy. It would also help
maximize the use of light rail, as people travel into the neighborhood to shop. These are all
goals set forth by the Reinvent Phoenix Uptown Policy Plan.

Therefore, I/we urge the City of Phoenix Planning Department to reconsider and work
towards a more substantial commercial-retail/mixed-use component that aligns with the
needs and desires of the community.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to attending meetings regarding
further conversations on this matter, to reinforce the neighborhood concerns and come
together towards a viable resolution.

Best regards,
Michelle Tedhams
4206 North 2nd Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85013-3026
C: (602) 300-2944




Page 526
From: ANN SKANADORE
To: Nick Klimek; Joshua Bednarek; Council District 4; Laura Pastor
Cc: carnationassociationaz@gmail.com; wr@berryriddell.com; eric.kenney@petreeproperties.com;
tom.blisten@gmail.com; John Roanhorse; PDD Encanto VPC; kathryn@northcentralnews.net
Subject: Zoning request Z-17-22-4’s Lack of an adequate commercial-retail component
Date: Wednesday, May 10, 2023 6:48:42 AM




Dear Nick and Josh;

From my understanding, the City of Phoenix Planning Department is requesting that Petree
only include 7,000 square feet of commercial space as part of Z-17-22-4’s massive rezoning
request. This is far below what many residents of Carnation and other affected neighborhoods
have expressed that we would like to see in a "mixed use" project. With allowing the
significant increase of residential occupancy in the Petree development project, the need for a
truly variety of commercial -retail addition is imperative for Carnation residents to feel that the
City and Petree are taking into consideration any benefits for the residents of Carnation.

It's crucial to have a more significant commercial-retail component in the project, ranging
from 30,000-50,000 square feet. This would not only provide a diverse range of amenities but
also create jobs and contribute to the local economy. It would also help maximize the use of
light rail, as people travel into the neighborhood to shop. These are all goals set forth by the
Reinvent Phoenix Uptown Policy Plan.

Therefore, I urge the City of Phoenix Planning Department to reconsider and work towards a
more substantial commercial-retail/mixed-use component that aligns with the needs and
desires of the community.

Sincerely,
Anne Skanadore
318 W. Roma Ave
Phoenix, Az 85013




Page 527
From: ANN SKANADORE
To: Nick Klimek; Joshua Bednarek; Council District 4; Laura Pastor
Cc: Marcia Nix; carnationassociationaz@gmail.com; wr@berryriddell.com; eric.kenney@petreeproperties.com;
tom.blisten@gmail.com; John Roanhorse; PDD Encanto VPC; kathryn@northcentralnews.net
Subject: Zoning request Z-17-22-4’s Lack of an adequate commercial-retail component
Date: Wednesday, May 10, 2023 9:22:15 AM




Dear Nick and Josh;

I would like to address my concern that the City of Phoenix Planning Department is
requesting that Petree only include 7,000 square feet of commercial space as part of Z-17-
22-4’s massive rezoning request. This is far below what many residents of Carnation and
other affected neighborhoods have expressed that we would like to see in a "mixed use"
project.

It's crucial to have a more significant commercial-retail component in the project, ranging
from 30,000-50,000 square feet, to create a truly mixed-use space that benefits the
community. This would not only provide a diverse range of amenities but also create jobs
and contribute to the local economy. It would also help maximize the use of light rail, as
people travel into the neighborhood to shop. These are all goals set forth by the Reinvent
Phoenix Uptown Policy Plan.

Therefore, I urge the City of Phoenix Planning Department to reconsider and work towards
a more substantial commercial-retail/mixed-use component that aligns with the needs and
desires of the community.
I am using Anne Skanadore's email address but reside at a different Carnation
Neighborhood address.

Sincerely,
Marcia Nix
215 W. Roma Ave
Phoenix, Az




Page 528
Page 529
From: Sarah Diebolt
To: Council District 4; Joshua Bednarek; Laura Pastor; Nick Klimek
Cc: PDD Encanto VPC; carnationassociationaz@gmail.com; eric.kenney@petreeproperties.com; John Roanhorse;
kathryn@northcentralnews.net; tom.blisten@gmail.com; wr@berryriddell.com
Subject: Zoning request Z-17-22-4’s Lack of an adequate commercial-retail component
Date: Tuesday, May 9, 2023 8:34:54 PM


Dear Nick and Josh;

It has come to my attention that the City of Phoenix Planning Department is requesting
that Petree only include 7,000 square feet of commercial space as part of Z-17-22-4’s
massive rezoning request. This is far below what many residents of Carnation and other
affected neighborhoods have expressed that we would like to see in a "mixed use"
project.

I live at 3rd Avenue and Glenrosa Avenue and I have been dismayed at the number of
complexes built in the neighborhood that are gated and have zero connection to the
community. I sincerely request that additional commercial space be added in order to
serve the new residents plus connect all of us in the neighborhood through shops and
meeting areas.

It's crucial to have a more significant commercial-retail component in the project, ranging
from 30,000-50,000 square feet, to create a truly mixed-use space that benefits the
community. This would not only provide a diverse range of amenities but also create jobs
and contribute to the local economy. It would also help maximize the use of light rail, as
people travel into the neighborhood to shop. These are all goals set forth by the
Reinvent Phoenix Uptown Policy Plan.

Therefore, I urge the City of Phoenix Planning Department to reconsider and work
towards a more substantial commercial-retail/mixed-use component that aligns with the
needs and desires of the community.

Sincerely,
Sarah Diebolt




Page 530
From: Cliff Valenti
To: Nick Klimek; Joshua Bednarek; Council District 4; Laura Pastor
Cc: carnationassociationaz@gmail.com; wr@berryriddell.com; eric.kenney@petreeproperties.com;
tom.blisten@gmail.com; John Roanhorse; PDD Encanto VPC; kathryn@northcentralnews.net
Subject: Zoning request Z-17-22-4’s Lack of an adequate commercial-retail component
Date: Tuesday, May 9, 2023 10:42:45 AM


Dear Nick and Josh;

Greetings! As discussed in person and over the phone only 7,000 square feet of
commercial space as part of Z-17-22-4’s massive rezoning request is not nearly enough to
justify this rezoning request. This is far below what the neighborhood has been asking of
Petree. We have tried to work with them on this by suggesting as little as 7,000 square feet
in the past, but in conjunction with a multitude of other changes that they have not
provided. The consensus of all the votes and surveys we have conducted in Carnation is
that we want all Central Avenue facing frontage to be commercial retail. It will solve a lot of
problems with the intensity of this development. The square footage needs to at least
come close to what one of the sites prior stipulations states: 50,000 square feet of
commercial retail.

Again, as various single story commercial businesses are displaced by development
– where will those business go if we are not making space for them now?

I urge the City of Phoenix Planning Department to reconsider and work towards a more
substantial commercial-retail/mixed-use component that aligns with the needs and desires
of the community.

Sincerely,
Cliff Valenti
Secretary, CAN
Chair, Development Committee




Page 531
From: Christina and Tim Price
To: Nick Klimek; Joshua Bednarek; Council District 4; Laura Pastor
Cc: carnationassociationaz@gmail.com; wr@berryriddell.com; eric.kenney@petreeproperties.com; John Roanhorse;
PDD Encanto VPC; kathryn@northcentralnews.net
Subject: Zoning request Z-17-22-4’s Lack of an adequate commercial-retail component
Date: Tuesday, May 9, 2023 10:29:35 AM




Dear Nick and Josh;

The 7,000 square feet of commercial space the City of Phoenix Planning department is
asking for as part of Z-17-22-4’s massive rezoning request is far below what many
residents of Carnation and other affected neighborhoods have expressed that we would like
to see in a "mixed use" project. Every meeting I have been to with the developer
significantly more was asked to be included. Why did we have these meetings with them if
they are going to ignore our input?

It's crucial to have a more significant commercial-retail component in the project, ranging
from 30,000-50,000 square feet, to create a truly mixed-use space that benefits the
community. This would not only provide a diverse range of amenities but also create jobs
and contribute to the local economy. It would also help maximize the use of light rail, as
people travel into the neighborhood to shop. These are all goals set forth by the Reinvent
Phoenix Uptown Policy Plan. How can you allow the rezoning under walkable urban code
without it?

Therefore, I urge the City of Phoenix Planning Department to reconsider and work towards
a more substantial commercial-retail/mixed-use component that aligns with the needs and
desires of the community.


Sincerely,
Christina Price, Roma




Page 532
From: Hrushikesh Pandurangi
To: Nick Klimek
Cc: Joshua Bednarek
Subject: Zoning request Z-17-22-4’s Lack of an adequate commercial-retail component
Date: Tuesday, May 9, 2023 5:16:22 AM




Dear Nick and Josh;

It has come to my attention that the City of Phoenix
Planning Department is requesting that Petree only
include 7,000 square feet of commercial space as part of
Z-17-22-4’s massive rezoning request. This is far below
what many residents of Carnation and other affected
neighborhoods have expressed that we would like to see
in a "mixed use" project.

It's crucial to have a more significant commercial-retail
component in the project, ranging from 30,000-50,000
square feet, to create a truly mixed-use space that
benefits the community. This would not only provide a
diverse range of amenities but also create jobs and
contribute to the local economy. It would also help
maximize the use of light rail, as people travel into the
neighborhood to shop. These are all goals set forth by
the Reinvent Phoenix Uptown Policy Plan.

Therefore, I urge the City of Phoenix Planning
Department to reconsider and work towards a more
substantial commercial-retail/mixed-use component that
aligns with the needs and desires of the community.

Sincerely,
Kesh Pandurangi




Page 533
From: Webmail Team
To: Nick Klimek
Subject: Zoning request Z-17-22-4"s lack of an adequate commercial retail component
Date: Tuesday, May 9, 2023 8:16:26 AM


Dear Nick and Josh;

It has come to my attention that the City of Phoenix Planning Department is requesting that
Petree only include 7,000 square feet of commercial space as part of Z-17-22-4’s massive
rezoning request. This is far below what many residents of Carnation and other affected
neighborhoods have expressed that we would like to see in a "mixed use" project.

It's crucial to have a more significant commercial-retail component in the project, ranging
from 30,000-50,000 square feet, to create a truly mixed-use space that benefits the
community. This would not only provide a diverse range of amenities but also create jobs
and contribute to the local economy. It would also help maximize the use of light rail, as
people travel into the neighborhood to shop. These are all goals set forth by the Reinvent
Phoenix Uptown Policy Plan.

Therefore, I urge the City of Phoenix Planning Department to reconsider and work towards
a more substantial commercial-retail/mixed-use component that aligns with the needs and
desires of the community.

Sincerely,

Diane Mihalsky
304 W. Campbell Ave.
Phoenix 85013
602-541-2200




Page 534
From: Michael Madden
To: Nick Klimek; Joshua Bednarek; Council District 4; Laura Pastor
Cc: CarnationAssociationAZ; wr@berryriddell.com; eric.kenney@petreeproperties.com; tom.blisten@gmail.com; John
Roanhorse; PDD Encanto VPC; kathryn@northcentralnews.net
Subject: Zoning request Z-17-22-4’s Lack of an adequate commercial-retail component
Date: Tuesday, May 9, 2023 8:35:54 AM




Dear Nick and Josh;

I live just 2 blocks from this development and am very concerned about its impact on
my home and neighborhood.

It has come to my attention that the City of Phoenix Planning Department is requesting that
Petree only include 7,000 square feet of commercial space as part of Z-17-22-4’s massive
rezoning request. This is far below what many residents of Carnation and other affected
neighborhoods have expressed that we would like to see in a "mixed use" project.

It's crucial to have a more significant commercial-retail component in the project, ranging
from 30,000-50,000 square feet, to create a truly mixed-use space that benefits the
community. This would not only provide a diverse range of amenities but also create jobs
and contribute to the local economy. It would also help maximize the use of light rail, as
people travel into the neighborhood to shop. It would also decrease the number of cars
on our streets. These are all goals set forth by the Reinvent Phoenix Uptown Policy Plan.

Therefore, I urge the City of Phoenix Planning Department to reconsider and work towards
a more substantial commercial-retail/mixed-use component that aligns with the needs and
desires of the community.

Sincerely,

Michael Madden
312 W Montecito Ave
Phoenix
412-327-3766
Gateway2times@live.com




Page 535
From: Michelle Kozimor
To: Nick Klimek; Joshua Bednarek; Council District 4; Laura Pastor
Cc: Tamiko Garmen; wr@berryriddell.com; eric.kenney@petreeproperties.com; tom.blisten@gmail.com; John
Roanhorse; PDD Encanto VPC; kathryn@northcentralnews.net
Subject: Zoning request Z-17-22-4’s Lack of an adequate commercial-retail component
Date: Tuesday, May 9, 2023 7:24:43 AM


Dear Nick and Josh,

It has come to my attention that the City of Phoenix Planning Department is requesting that
Petree only include 7,000 square feet of commercial space as part of Z-17-22-4’s massive
rezoning request. This is far below what many residents of Carnation and other affected
neighborhoods have expressed that we would like to see in a "mixed use" project.

It's crucial to have a more significant commercial-retail component in the project, ranging
from 30,000-50,000 square feet, to create a truly mixed-use space that benefits the
community. This would not only provide a diverse range of amenities but also create jobs
and contribute to the local economy. It would also help maximize the use of light rail, as
people travel into the neighborhood to shop. These are all goals set forth by the Reinvent
Phoenix Uptown Policy Plan.

Therefore, I urge the City of Phoenix Planning Department to reconsider and work towards
a more substantial commercial-retail/mixed-use component that aligns with the needs and
desires of the community.

Sincerely,



Mrs.Kozimor
Michelle Kozimor, M.Ed., MA
School Counselor
Alpha *Can-Fin
McKinney Vento Coordinator
Corona del Sol High School
p: 480-752-8778

Mental Health Resources:
https://www.tempeunion.org/Social-Emotional-Wellness [tempeunion.org]




Page 536
From: Joines, Greg
To: Nick Klimek; Joshua Bednarek; Council District 4; Laura Pastor
Cc: carnationassociationaz@gmail.com; wr@berryriddell.com; eric.kenney@petreeproperties.com;
tom.blisten@gmail.com; John Roanhorse; PDD Encanto VPC; kathryn@northcentralnews.net; Greg Joines; Dante
Salvo
Subject: Zoning request Z-17-22-4’s Lack of an adequate commercial-retail component and parking
Date: Tuesday, May 9, 2023 2:57:31 PM
Attachments: image001.png



Dear Nick and Josh;
I live just 2 blocks from this development and am VERY concerned about its impact on my
home and neighborhood.

It has come to my attention that the City of Phoenix Planning Department is requesting that
Petree only include 7,000 square feet of commercial space as part of Z-17-22-4’s MASSIVE
rezoning request. This is FAR BELOW what many residents of Carnation and other affected
neighborhoods have expressed that we would like to see in a "mixed use" project.

This project is MASSIVE, I am concerned that City of Phoenix Planning Department is NOT
looking at the unintended consequences this project will have on the neighborhood and
surrounding community.

It's crucial to have a more significant commercial-retail component in the project, ranging
from 30,000-50,000 square feet, to create a truly mixed-use space that benefits the
community. This would not only provide a diverse range of amenities but also create jobs and
contribute to the local economy. It would also help maximize the use of light rail, as people
travel into the neighborhood to shop. It would also decrease the number of cars on our
streets.

These are all goals set forth by the Reinvent Phoenix Uptown Policy Plan. NOW, it is up to
you to hold developer accountable, this is your job!

Therefore, I urge the City of Phoenix Planning Department to reconsider and work towards a
more substantial commercial-retail/mixed-use component that aligns with the needs and
desires of the community.

Respectfully,


Greg Joines | Learning Manager | KRB3 – Phoenix, AZ
: grjoines@amazon.com | : (602) 799-1459
Work hard. Have fun. Make history.
Glamazon Phoenix Mega Chapter


Helpful Links:




Page 537
glamazon Phoenix Wiki [w.amazon.com]
glamazon Phoenix Phonetool [phonetool.amazon.com]
glamazon Hyperbadge [phonetool.amazon.com]
glamazon PHX Distro List Sign Up [email-list.corp.amazon.com]




Page 538
From: Stephanie Hennick
To: Council District 4; Joshua Bednarek; Laura Pastor; Nick Klimek
Cc: Carnation Association of Neighbors; PDD Encanto VPC; eric.kenney@petreeproperties.com; John Roanhorse;
kathryn@northcentralnews.net; tom.blisten@gmail.com; wr@berryriddell.com
Subject: Zoning request Z-17-22-4’s Lack of an adequate commercial-retail component
Date: Tuesday, May 9, 2023 6:57:10 AM


Dear Nick and Josh;

It has come to my attention that the City of Phoenix Planning Department is requesting
that Petree only include 7,000 square feet of commercial space as part of Z-17-22-4’s
massive rezoning request. This is far below what many residents of Carnation and other
affected neighborhoods have expressed that we would like to see in a "mixed use"
project.

It's crucial to have a more significant commercial-retail component in the project, ranging
from 30,000-50,000 square feet, to create a truly mixed-use space that benefits the
community. This would not only provide a diverse range of amenities but also create jobs
and contribute to the local economy. It would also help maximize the use of light rail, as
people travel into the neighborhood to shop. These are all goals set forth by the
Reinvent Phoenix Uptown Policy Plan.

Therefore, I urge the City of Phoenix Planning Department to reconsider and work
towards a more substantial commercial-retail/mixed-use component that aligns with the
needs and desires of the community.

Sincerely,

Stephanie Hennick




Page 539
From: Dawn Ligidakis
To: Nick Klimek
Subject: Zoning
Date: Tuesday, May 9, 2023 2:59:57 PM


Dear Nick and Josh;

It has come to my attention that the City of Phoenix Planning Department is requesting that
Petree only include 7,000 square feet of commercial space as part of Z-17-22-4’s massive
rezoning request. This is far below what many residents of Carnation and other affected
neighborhoods have expressed that we would like to see in a "mixed use" project.

It's crucial to have a more significant commercial-retail component in the project, ranging
from 30,000-50,000 square feet, to create a truly mixed-use space that benefits the
community. This would not only provide a diverse range of amenities but also create jobs
and contribute to the local economy. It would also help maximize the use of light rail, as
people travel into the neighborhood to shop. These are all goals set forth by the Reinvent
Phoenix Uptown Policy Plan.

Therefore, I urge the City of Phoenix Planning Department to reconsider and work towards
a more substantial commercial-retail/mixed-use component that aligns with the needs and
desires of the community.

Sincerely,
Dawn Halbrook

Sent from my iPhone




Page 540
From: Scott Grogan
To: Nick Klimek; Joshua Bednarek; Council District 4; Laura Pastor
Cc: carnationassociationaz@gmail.com; wr@berryriddell.com; eric.kenney@petreeproperties.com; John Roanhorse;
PDD Encanto VPC; kathryn@northcentralnews.net; tomblisten@gmail.com
Subject: Zoning request Z-17-22-4’s Lack of an adequate commercial-retail component
Date: Tuesday, May 9, 2023 10:44:39 AM


Dear Nick and Josh,

I live less than 2 blocks from this development and am very concerned about its impact on my
home and neighborhood.

It has come to my attention that the City of Phoenix Planning Department is requesting that
Petree only include 7,000 square feet of commercial space as part of Z-17-22-4’s massive
rezoning request. This is far below what many residents of Carnation and other affected
neighborhoods have expressed that we would like to see in a "mixed use" project.

It's crucial to have a more significant commercial-retail component in the project, ranging
from 30,000-50,000 square feet, to create a truly mixed-use space that benefits the community.
This would not only provide a diverse range of amenities but also create jobs and contribute to
the local economy. It would also help maximize the use of light rail, as people travel into the
neighborhood to shop. These are all goals set forth by the Reinvent Phoenix Uptown Policy
Plan.

Therefore, I urge the City of Phoenix Planning Department to reconsider and work towards a
more substantial commercial-retail/mixed-use component that aligns with the needs and
desires of the community.

Sincerely,

Scott Grogan
316 W Montecito Ave
Phoenix, AZ 85013




Page 541
From: Lauren Engler
To: Joshua Bednarek; Nick Klimek; Council District 4; Laura Pastor
Cc: Scott Grogan; carnationassociationaz@gmail.com; wr@berryriddell.com; John Roanhorse;
eric.kenney@petreeproperties.com; kathryn@northcentralnews.net; tomblisten@gmail.com; PDD Encanto VPC
Subject: Lack of Commercial Space at Petree Development (Zoning request Z-17-22-4)
Date: Tuesday, May 9, 2023 12:18:08 PM


Hi all,

I live adjacent to the Petree development on Central Ave and am quite concerned about the minimal amount of commercial
space (only 7,000 sq ft) included in the plan. The lack of “mixed use” buildings in Phoenix is astonishing compared to
other major metropolitan areas.

We as residents of Carnation Neighborhood feel that it's crucial to have a more significant commercial-retail component in the
project, ranging from 30,000-50,000 square feet, to create a truly mixed-use space that benefits the community. This would
not only provide a diverse range of amenities but also create jobs and contribute to the local economy. It would also help
maximize the use of light rail, as people travel into the neighborhood to shop. These are all goals set forth by the Reinvent
Phoenix Uptown Policy Plan.

Therefore, I urge the City of Phoenix Planning Department to reconsider and work towards a more substantial commercial-
retail/mixed-use component that aligns with the needs and desires of the community.

Sincerely,

Lauren Engler
316 W Montecito Ave
Phoenix, AZ 85013




Page 542
From: Christi Decoufle
To: Nick Klimek
Subject: Petree Development on Central (across from Steele Indian School Park)
Date: Thursday, March 2, 2023 3:07:52 PM


Dear Mr. Klimek,
PXL_20220811_215721483 (1).jpg [drive.google.com]

PXL_20220815_220203584 (1).jpg [drive.google.com]

PXL_20220815_220621866.jpg [drive.google.com]

PXL_20220816_144637154.jpg [drive.google.com]

PXL_20220830_220339410.jpg [drive.google.com]

PXL_20230228_145112642.jpg [drive.google.com]

PXL_20230228_145115888.jpg [drive.google.com]

PXL_20230228_145142946_2.jpg [drive.google.com]

I am a resident of the Carnation Neighborhood (Central to 7th Ave and Indian School North to
the Canal). My husband and I are very involved in the neighborhood activities and have
serious concerns, that do not seem to be addressed, with the development that Petree is
proposing for the land in our neighborhood.

We have 3 chief complaints/ issues, that we have asked to be addressed on numerous
occasions based off of a survey conducted with the neighborhood and continuous meetings
within the neighborhood. As a collective group, we are truly concerned about the value of our
homes, our safety and our overall enjoyment of our property based on what is being proposed
and what is being ignored as concerns from the neighborhood.

The 3 chief complaints are:
1) The density of the complex. They are proposing 1600 units, which this neighborhood
cannot support.
2) The abundance of traffic that will then be associated with that many units. I know that
there is an old traffic study that is being used to evaluate it, but it is completely off base and a
new one needs to be completed now that the nearby schools are back in session and covid is
over. We must also think about the deliveries of Amazon, UPS and food deliveries that will
be coming to a complex that size to top of the multiple residents in each unit.
3) The lack of usable commercial space. Things like grocery stores, restaurants or pharmacies
need to be included for the influx of people and to actually encourage people to walk and/or
use the lightrail instead of driving through the neighborhood continuously to support their
basic needs.

We live at the corner of 2nd Ave and Campbell, just North of this property. Our personal
chief concern is the traffic related to the density of the complex.

I know that it is not completely adjacent to the property, but because of the way the
neighborhood is designed, the density of the people at that property will DRASTICALLY
affect what is going on with traffic at 2nd Ave and Campbell out to the traffic light at Central.


Page 543
We know this is one of 2 ways to go North on Central due to the lightrail and it is already a
disaster every day due to the neighborhood traffic that is already there. In addition, people
tend to cut through from 7th Ave to Central on Campbell that do not live in the
neighborhood.

My husband and I have been taking pictures for months now to show you and Petree what it is
like on a daily basis. I am attaching some of those photographs. This is why the
neighborhood does not believe the traffic study. It's just not realistic with what, those who
live her, experience every single day. I can't imagine what will happen if they put 1600 more
units there to go North on 2nd Avenue from the property to get out of the neighborhood.

To boot, on 2nd Ave, going North from the property, all of the residents of the Pavillions
already park along that street lining it so that two cars cannot pass at the same time without
one pulling to the side. This is also where there is an elementary bus stop with many children
and buses every day.

I am asking that they find a way for the traffic to go to Glenrosa, by the park entrance, to go
North or somehow deter the residents to go North on 2nd Ave as the streets and people here
just cannot take anymore. The realistic and best option for the neighborhood and the safety of
the residents, is to close off the neighborhood at Glenrosa and at Turney with a gate with a fire
key for emergency services. Just those 2 streets alone being closed off, would solve 90% of
the projected problem.

One last point, all along 2nd Ave and along Campbell out to Central is actually a no parking
zone from 7am-5p, but this is not a solution as you see. There is no one to enforce it, as we
know the state of the police department, and it is not the job of the police to fix our parking if
we can be proactive and smart about how this is designed. They have enough to do.

Feel free to reach out to me for any prior discussions or concerns. I also have videos if it
helps, but they do not attach as easily, please let me know if you would like to see them.

Thank you
Michael & Christi Decoufle
602-570-8678
201 W Campbell Ave




Page 544
Page 545
Page 546
Page 547
Page 548
Page 549
Page 550
Page 551
From: Christi Decoufle
To: Nick Klimek
Subject: Petree Development and Carnation Neighborhood
Date: Friday, October 21, 2022 9:19:45 AM


Good Morning Mr. Klimek,

I am writing to you as a member of the Carnation Neighborhood Association. I have attended
many neighborhood meetings and am active in our community. I attend all of the Petree
meetings that I can and participate as much as possible. I am a retired Phoenix Police Officer
and feel very strongly about preserving what we have left of the actual neighborhoods and
ownership in Central Phoenix. I want this city to thrive and be balanced. I appreciate the
growth we are seeing, but it is certainly not balanced.

This neighborhood has worked hard over the years (and is continuing to work hard) to clean it
up and make it nice and liveable. I worked this area 20 + years ago as a patrol officer and
would not have lived here then. I appreciate the old and new residents here and what we are
trying to do.

I walk the neighborhood everyday, as do many of my neighbors. We have very few sidewalks
and the community is small as it is cut in half because of the canal. We have already been
taken over by quite a few large apartment complexes that bring their fair share of issues. I live
at the corner of 2nd Ave and Campbell and deal with management often of 1 W Campbell.
They are not a Crime Free Multihousing property and are very hard to work with sometimes.

Because of where I live, and because I am prior LE, I have cameras ALL over =) I catch
EVERYTHING. Campbell is the through street because of the canal and 2nd Avenue is also
extremely busy as it is the closest way to get around off of Central. This is a small street that
is covered with street parking 7 days a week. 2 cars can rarely fit down the street at the same
time. There is an elementary bus stop just South of me at Roma and my corner is packed
twice daily all the way down Campbell, down 2nd Ave and North into the cul de sac. I really
don't mind the extreme traffic every day as the students enter and exit the school because they
are mostly respectful and it is not a problem. But it is almost impossible to get in and out of
my driveway during that time. It is also a bit unsafe for all of the students as there is just so
much traffic. I can't even imagine what that would look like with 1600 units of traffic
attempting to use 2nd Avenue, as it is the closest way for them to go to Campbell and a light
to turn North onto Central. IT WOULD BE UNBEARABLE.

I know that we have been told that it is not an option, but if they are insistent on building 1600
units, I truly believe that for our safety and wellbeing, there needs to be gates put up at 2nd
Ave and Turney and 2nd Ave and Glenrosa to force their traffic out onto Central. They can
go North at Glenrosa at the light where Steele Indian School Park is and they can go South
from multiple locations.

Besides the people that live there they will have visitors and it is also 2022 and beyond, which
means a ridiculous amounts of Amazon delivery, Uber Eats, etc, drivers that will be zooming
through our little neighborhood. It is just not going to be safe for us anymore.

The second part of this is that if they are going to bring this many people into the
neighborhood, they need to provide larger and more retail space. If we are truly going to try to



Page 552
live by the Urban Walkable Code and are trying to encourage people to use the light rail and
walk, then there needs to be space to have a small grocery, market, drug store, restaurants,
etc. Things that people can use and get the essentials they need so they are not driving
through the neighborhood and up and down Central as much.

The proposal just doesn't make sense and as a neighborhood, we really feel that the city is not
listening to us. We are showing up. We are telling the city and Laura Pastor and Petree, but
feeling very ignored over money and profits. This is our home and we are trying to make
Phoenix a beautiful place where people want to live. We are just asking for balance adn
reasonableness.

I am available to talk or for questions if you are so inclined.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,
Christi Decoufle
201 W Campbell Ave
602-570-8678




Page 553
From: Michael Madden
To: Nick Klimek
Subject: Development at Central and Glenrosa
Date: Tuesday, October 18, 2022 6:26:23 PM




Dear Mr. Kilmer,
I reside at 312 W Montecito, one block from this development.
It will dwarf our peaceful neighborhood, so aggressive actions should be taken to mitigate the impact.
My primary concerns are parking, traffic and security.
Please insist that the developers are held to the highest standard for parking spaces, and that they must ALWAYS be
provided at no additional fee over the rent, for tenants AND their guests. I lived in a development with extra cost
parking and saw a sizeable percentage of the residents seek on street parking, overwhelming local streets and
leaving no where for local homeowners and THEIR guests. Our quiet cul de sac will be turned into a parking lot
unless you act.
Aggressive steps should be taken, at the developer’s expense, to push all traffic to Central Avenue. The new
apartments at Central and Indian School will already be impacting our streets and given that 3rd Ave is a bikeway
the last thing we need is biking made more dangerous by excessive traffic from this development.
The city should require the developer to provide security staff and insist on review, approval and monitoring of their
safety and security practices. We do not want this area to turn into a Frat house by excessive and frequent loud
parties. Please do not allow “party Central on Central”
Ideally, expanded home ownership opportunities would be preferred but that unfortunately does not seem possible
for either our neighborhood or Phoenix residents.
Thank you for your consideration
Michael Madden MD


Sent from my iPad




Page 554
From: Kim Jennings
To: Nick Klimek
Subject: PeeTree development - carnation neighborhood
Date: Monday, October 17, 2022 8:28:59 PM




Hello Nick,

I am writing to express my deepest concern over the peetree development in the carnation neighborhood. I have
lived in this lovely community for eight years and many people in the community have become my friends. I live at
215 W. Campbell Ave. and we are a main fair through in the community. You can get to central and/or seventh
Avenue off of my street with the lights at both ends. When my children were little I would not let them ride their
bikes on Campbell as people don’t pay enough attention to the stop sign and the speed limit. It is very dangerous at
the current time. We have three high schools that bring traffic into our neighborhood throughout the day. Currently,
at times, throughout the day I struggle to pull out of my driveway. What will it be like with a 1600 unit complex
traffic??? It’s already unsafe and I am truly concerned about safety and usability. This is a community that you will
be negatively impacting, not making it better. What kind of city do we live in. Are we all for sale?? We need to
consider the community and the people that Iive there and how it’s going to impact them?

I want to enjoy living in this amazing city and community. Please help keep us safe and our community a
community.

Thanks,
Kim Jennings




Page 555
From: Cliff Valenti
To: Nick Klimek
Cc: Council District 4
Subject: Z-17-22 Central and Glenrosa Development Proposal
Date: Thursday, May 19, 2022 5:17:02 PM


Greetings –

I recently moved to Carnation from Washington, DC, and I am excited about much of the
development occurring in the area. However, I have several concerns with Z-17-22 along Central Ave
& Glenrosa that I would like to share with you. If the developer can address these items, then I
believe this project will be an asset to the neighborhood:

The density, particularly along 2nd Avenue, is completely unacceptable, and drastically higher
than anything between Indian School Road and Camelback. I agree with the Uptown TOD plan
that development fronting Central Avenue should be tall and dense, but as you move back to
single-family, single-story homes, height, and density must be drastically reduced; otherwise it
dominates the neighborhood and threatens the character. It would be best to keep anything
along 2nd Avenue zoned R1-6.
I understand that TOD zoning already has reductions in parking requirements built in, yet the
developer is requesting an additional 25% on top of that. This would negatively impact the
quality of life for people in Carnation. I know from living in Washington, DC for 25 years that
most people do not give up their cars even in cities with the most advanced public
transportation systems.
The pedestrian permeability of the four large parcels do not contribute to a fluid walkable
community. The way WU code reads, development should contain smaller blocks with many
ways to travel between spaces cohesively.
There is a housing shortage in Phoenix that is not driven by rental, but by lack of homes that
can be purchased. This lack of ownership opportunity is what drives up rental prices. At least
20% of this development should include homes that will be sold as a way to contribute to
solving the real housing crisis.

Please consider these points as you study this proposal, and let me know if there is anyone else I
should pass this along to. I’m excited to be living in Phoenix, and hopeful this project can be altered
to be an asset!

Regards,
Cliff Valenti
208 W. Montecito Ave




Page 556
ATTACHMENT C




Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-17-22-4

Date of VPC Meeting June 5, 2023
Request From R1-6 TOD-1 (Approved C-2 H-R H/W TOD-1)
(Single-Family Residence District, Interim
Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District One,
Approved Intermediate Commercial, High-Rise
Incentive District, Height Waiver, Interim Transit-
Oriented Zoning Overlay District One) (1.83
acres), R-3 TOD-1 (Approved C-2 H-R H/W
TOD-1) (Multifamily Residence District, Interim
Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District One,
Approved Intermediate Commercial, High-Rise
Incentive District, Height Waiver, Interim Transit-
Oriented Zoning Overlay District One) (7.59
acres), R-3 TOD-1 (Approved C-2 H-R TOD-1)
(Multifamily Residence District, Interim Transit-
Oriented Zoning Overlay District One, Approved
Intermediate Commercial, High Rise Incentive
District, Interim Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay
District One) (0.23 acres), R-5 TOD-1 (Approved
C-2 H-R H/W TOD-1) (Multifamily Residence
District, Interim Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay
District One, Approved Intermediate Commercial,
High-Rise Incentive District, Height Waiver,
Interim Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District
One) (0.50 acres), C-2 TOD-1 (Approved C-2 HR
H/W TOD-1) (Intermediate Commercial,
Interim Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District
One, Approved Intermediate Commercial, High-
Rise Incentive District, Height Waiver, Interim
Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District One)
(4.68 acres), C-2 TOD-1 (Approved C-2 H-R
TOD-1) (Intermediate Commercial, Interim
Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District One,
Approved Intermediate Commercial, High-Rise
Incentive District, Interim Transit-Oriented Zoning
Overlay District One) (0.78 acres)
Request To WU Code T4:3 UT (Walkable Urban
Code, Transect 4:3, Transit Uptown
Character Area) (1.03 acres), WU Code
T5:5 UT (Walkable Urban Code, Transect
5:5, Transit Uptown Character Area) (2.35
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 557
Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-17-22-4

acres), WU Code T6:22 UT (Walkable
Urban Code, Transect 6:22, Transit
Uptown Character Area) (12.23 acres)
Proposal Mixed use and multifamily residential
Location Northwest corner of Central Avenue and Glenrosa
Avenue
VPC Recommendation Approval, per the staff recommendation with
modifications, additional stipulations, and direction
VPC Vote 10-2

VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS:

5 members of the public registered in support, wishing to speak.
5 members of the public registered in opposition wishing to speak.
6 members of the public registered in support, not wishing to speak.
7 members of the public registered in opposition not wishing to speak.

Nick Klimek, staff, provided an overview of the proposal including the history, context,
location, size, applicable policy areas, existing and proposed zoning districts, General
Plan designation, and the surrounding land uses. Mr. Klimek displayed the site plan,
elevations, phased plans, and traffic improvements. Mr. Klimek shared the staff findings
and stated that staff recommends approval, subject to stipulations.

Committee Member Thacker inquired about the size of the lots and how they were
determined. Mr. Klimek responded that the length of the lots are descriptive and
proportional to the proposed development.

Committee Member Thacker asked about the mix of housing types in the proposal.
Mr. Klimek responded the residential units will be of various product sizes and which
aligns with the Phoenix Housing Plan.

Committee Member Thacker asked if the conceptual zoning map had been reviewed
by the public. Mr. Klimek affirmed that the zoning map was reviewed when the
proposed plans were reviewed. Committee Member Thacker asked if the zoning map
was an old map that was translated by staff, after reviewing some policy documents and
it is not clear how they were included in the staff report. Mr. Klimek responded the
recommendations were the result of existing policies that evolved over time and many
factors were taken into consideration in reviewing the proposal.

Committee Member Thacker referenced the illustrated master plan and asked about
the number of blocks. Mr. Klimek responded the plans reflect a street system that was
identified in the master plan and corresponds to the street alignments and allows bicycle
and pedestrian access. Committee Member Thacker referenced the Reinvent Phoenix


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 558
Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-17-22-4

document and asked how the street alignments are adjusted in the proposal. Mr.
Klimek stated the applicant will provide that information in their presentation.

Committee Member Thacker commented that the number of structures on the site and
asked why are there more structures on the illustrated master plan. Mr. Klimek
responded that the conceptual illustrated master plan was not an engineered or design
plan and is conceptual.

Chair Wagner stated she appreciates the questions from the Committee but in the
interest of time would allow the applicant to provide their presentation.

APPLICANT PRESENTATION:

Wendy Riddell with Berry Riddell, LLC introduced herself and provided background
information on the applicant Petree Properties, the history, design and process of the
mixed-use proposal. Ms. Riddell discussed the request and its conformance to the
Uptown TOD Policy Plan to create a unique walkable, sustainable and dense project
that aligns and transitions to the adjacent residential neighborhoods. Ms. Riddell stated
the proposal has been updated to align with adjacent light rail transects and focus
intensity to Central Avenue to create an iconic location. Ms. Riddell said the
development will transition and integrate with the Carnation Neighborhood with the
addition of stipulations to adjust building height and incorporate setbacks and open
space within the proposal. Ms. Riddell displayed plans and designs that include and
active commercial space, expanded shaded sidewalks and include a primary art feature
to reflect the neighborhood. Ms. Riddell stated that the proposal includes sustainable
features, a community garden space, amenities, commercial space on Central Avenue
and stoop units on 2nd Avenue, Glenrosa Avenue and Turney Avenue. Ms. Riddell
discussed plans for construction management, consultation with the Village Planning
Committee, the neighborhoods and public during the development of the site. Ms.
Riddell described the evolution of the project, the meetings, outreach and coordination
in preparation of the proposal.

QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE:

Committee Member George expressed concern with the intensity of the proposal and
the impacts to neighborhood to the west as far as 7th Avenue. Committee Member
George asked about the traffic calming devices and if they will be installed before
construction on the site. Committee Member George referenced the Encanto Village
Character Plan and inquired about reducing the building height, and how the open
space will be managed, and will the Village Planning Committee have the opportunity to
vote and approve on the phased features prior to construction. Ms. Riddell responded
that the traffic calming devices will be in the first phase of construction, and this will be
part of the construction management and access to the site will be from Central
Avenue.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 559
Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-17-22-4

Committee Member George asked how construction traffic will be handled in the
phased development. Ms. Riddell responded that the construction management plan
will require access from Central Avenue not through the neighborhood.

Committee Member Kleinman commented that all construction traffic from the very
beginning will access the site from Central Avenue and not on any other streets. Ms.
Riddell responded that traffic control is part of construction management which is
addressed in the stipulations.

Committee Member George asked about the building height reduction, from a step
down to two stories on 2nd Avenue. Ms. Riddell responded that for 2nd Avenue the
design includes a larger setback to mitigate the proposed building height. Mr. Klimek,
staff referenced the stipulation regarding the step back regime and that the height along
the west property line is a regulatory requirement.

Ms. Riddell responded to Committee Member George inquiry regarding open space
management stating that the area will be monitored and managed closely, and they are
adjacent to private streets.

Committee Member George asked if the Committee would have input for the proposed
public art. Mr. Klimek responded that there will be an opportunity for review and
comment but not to vote.

Committee Member Searles asked about the percentage of shade coverage and size
of the walkways in the proposal. Ms. Riddell responded that the shade coverage will be
up to 75 percent and open space will be 18 percent. Committee Member Searles ask
about access from Montecito Avenue and if here will be any solar panels on the
building. Ms. Riddell responded that there will be no vehicular access but there will be
access for pedestrian and bicycles and the proposal does not include solar panels.

Committee Member Searles asked will the commercial space be primarily on Central
Avenue. Ms. Riddell responded that a portion of the commercial space will be on
Turney Avenue and Glenrosa Avenue. Committee Member Searles asked if the
proposed development will have recycling collection and if affordable housing will be
included. Ms. Riddell responded that recycling will be available but there will be no
affordable housing in the development.

Committee Member Searles asked how the art feature will be implemented. Ms.
Riddell stated that an art feature would be incorporated with Art Link.

Committee Member Benjamin asked about the EV parking stipulation and how will this
be implemented and what level they will they be and how are the spaces allocated. Ms.
Riddell responded that the details will be worked out for assigned spaces and not all of
them will be for residents.

Committee Member Thacker inquired about the traffic impact study, and the number of
trips per day to the adjacent local streets. Ms. Riddell introduced Jamie Blakeman,

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 560
Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-17-22-4

Traffic Engineer with Lokahi, and responded that traffic volume was based on existing
traffic patterns on all the surrounding streets and how they will change in the future. Ms.
Blakeman stated with the introduction of traffic calming devices, roundabouts, and
sidewalks this goes beyond what is required for traffic control and will reduce traffic
volume.

Committee Member Thacker noted that traffic from the proposed location shows
movement patterns to the north and south form the proposed site. Ms. Blakeman
responded that the goal of the traffic plan is to promote movement to Central Avenue.
Committee Member Thacker stated that traveling to Camelback Road from the
proposed site has multiple stops and takes more time and asked if tenants from the site
will drive though the local neighborhoods. Ms. Blakeman responded improvements are
added to the proposal to move traffic to the arterial roadways. Committee Member
Thacker stated that it is more likely that there will be more cut through traffic in the local
neighborhood. Ms. Riddell responded that the stipulations include specific turning
movements and numerous mitigations measures that will move traffic away from the
local neighborhood.
Committee Member Thacker asked if the mitigation measure will reduce traffic
significantly to reduce the impact to the neighborhood. Ms. Blakeman responded that
the goal is to limit traffic to the neighborhood with the proposed mitigation measures.
Committee Member Thacker commented that the mitigation measures promote drivers
to take a longer route with proposed traffic plan. Ms. Riddell responded that they have
evaluated various designs and asked was their other suggestions to be consider for
traffic management. Committee Member Thacker asked how they came to the
conclusion that traffic will be significantly reduced and if the capacity of the local street
will be able to handle to expected volume.

Committee Member Matthews asked if roundabouts will be included for the local
streets and will this cut down traffic. Ms. Blakeman responded that roundabouts do
break up straight away traffic movement.

Committee Member Thacker asked if smaller parcels would lessen traffic and impact
to the adjacent neighborhood and if the local street classifications were correct. Ms.
Blakeman responded that the local streets were based on street classification maps
and their study will be reviewed and approved by the City. Ms. Riddell stated that any
additional submittals or updates to the phases would be reviewed as they come
available.

Committee Member Thacker asked Mr. Klimek if the Turney Avenue and Glenrosa
were local streets. Mr. Klimek responded that the street classification is noted in the
staff report Ms. Blakeman responded that the street classification is available online.

Chair Wagner stated the street classification and traffic counts will be resolved with the
traffic impact study which will be provided by the applicant. Ms. Riddell responded that
each phase of the project will require an update and will be reviewed.



200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 561
Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-17-22-4

Committee Member Thacker stated two traffic studies have been done. Ms. Riddell
responded that a traffic impact study will also be completed and there will be an update
for each phase.

Committee Member Thacker noted that there was an initial plan where one street
remained open and now appears as closed and asked how this was determined. Ms.
Riddell responded after several meeting with various stakeholder traffic was the single
most important issue as well as including open space and closing one street was in the
best interest of the project. Committee Member Thacker asked when the first meeting
was held regarding the street closure. Ms. Riddell responded that a meeting was held
February 3rd. Committee Member Thacker asked if the neighborhood had been
notified about the development. Ms. Riddell responded neighbors were not notified and
the road closure was not the result of a single meeting and there was input from the
community.

Committee Member Kleinman asked about the proposal’s timeline and the amount of
communication and range of responses, and the decision process. Ms. Riddell
responded that accessing the responses with the level of diversity was a challenge for
the decisions that were made. Committee Member Kleinman asked about the
community feedback and if they were vastly different. Ms. Riddell responded
affirmatively that the feedback was vastly different.

Committee Member Thacker asked how does blocking off Montecito Avenue help
traffic. Ms. Riddell responded that by doing this it will direct traffic to Central Avenue.
Committee Member Thacker asked if Glenrosa Avenue will be blocked as well. Ms.
Riddell responded that the traffic mitigation measures will be implemented to control
traffic movement.

PUBLIC COMMENT:

Ed Hermes a resident of the Carnation Neighborhood, stated he is in favor of the
proposal. Mr. Hermes said the vacant lot has been a concern for some time and
development had been discussed and it has been a long process and he commended
the developer for the outreach and meetings they conducted so far. Mr. Hermes
expressed that many of the people attending have also been at many of the meetings
and this proposal has undergone many changes in the last year and a half. Mr. Hermes
described the Carnation Neighborhood as an area between 7th Avenue and Central
Avenue and Indian School Road and the Arizona Canal and has been on the
neighborhood board for 7 years and is on the Osborn School District Board and has
been involved with street safety. Mr. Hermes said there has been a dearth of investment
in the neighborhood from the City, but there are few sidewalks and no roundabouts and
they have petitioned the City for bikeway improvements and that the proposal with the
stipulations for traffic mitigation and the addition of sidewalks is very appreciated and
will be a huge win for the neighborhood. The addition of sidewalks and other traffic
mitigations, and the commercial space is a big win to create a walkable and bicycle
friendly environment. Mr. Hermes said the neighborhood wants a bodega, salons, a
grocery store and limiting access on Turney Avenue is appreciated. Mr. Hermes

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 562
Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-17-22-4

expressed concern that no one was present from the Street Transportation Department
because there are many details in the development that need to be addressed including
sidewalks are roadway narrowing. Mr. Hermes stated he would like support for the
proposal to move forward and to start the street designs, he supports the increased
bicycle parking and wider sidewalks. Mr. Hermes stated he supports the proposal with
the new stipulations and asks for a yes vote.

Cliff Valenti stated he serves as the Carnation Neighborhood Association Secretary,
and he is in favor of the proposal with changes. Mr. Valenti introduced himself and
thanked the Committee and said he supports progress, understands development and
has followed the decisions, discussions, debates and progress of the proposal. Mr.
Valenti stated he attended thirteen meetings, conducted surveys, researched zoning
law and provided feedback to Petree Properties to align the project with the goals of the
neighborhood. Mr. Valenti expressed his frustration with Petree because they have
been unwilling to respond and already designed the project without neighbor input, but
in the last week they have made some very serious concessions. Mr. Valenti expressed
a renewed sense of excitement in the key aspects of the design including the increased
commercial space which is essential for urban walkability and services and the
elimination of car trips, which is compatible with neighborhood. Mr. Valenti expressed
his disappointment with the Planning Department for not supporting the step back to
decrease the building height to be more aligned with the one-story neighborhood and
how this will impact adjacent homeowners and create a dominate structure. Mr. Valenti
stated that building height in transects should be coordinated with the neighborhood and
Petree has been responsive to adjusting building height and the inclusion of a park has
been positive, but it is an eleventh-hour response and there are still concerns. Mr.
Valenti stated that with the changes Petree has been responsive and has shown a
willingness to be an active partner to create a well-functioning neighborhood.

Kristen Lisson introduced herself as a resident and member of the Carnation
Neighborhood Association, she is not against the proposal, but she opposed the lack of
walkability within the high-density development. Ms. Lisson stated that the site will be
the largest, dense residential development in the area, and they had originally wanted
seven parcels that would support sunlight, shade, frontage and walkability. Ms. Lisson
stated the development was designed around the parking garage and is not truly transit
oriented and there are concerns with the traffic study which has some errors and relies
on arbitrary terms. Ms. Lisson stated the City has conducted a minimal review and the
developer is focused on profits and any approval should be with stipulations for smaller
blocks and the traffic study needs to be reviewed.

Diane Mihelsky, introduced herself as resident of the Carnation Neighborhood. Ms.
Mihelsky stated Petee has worked hard and granted a lot of concessions, and the
neighborhood board has worked hard on the development of the proposal and the traffic
circles work well. Ms. Mihelsky stated that approval for the traffic circles will take 180
days and there are other traffic calming devices, and there is already a lot of traffic in
the area, and it will be difficult to get the traffic circles approved. Ms. Mihelsky request
that Petree give some discretion and leeway in considering other traffic calming devices
because the traffic circles may not work.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 563
Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-17-22-4


Julie Hampton introduced her shelf as the President of the Carnation Neighborhood
Association and stated she is reluctantly optimistic of the proposal. Ms. Hampton stated
she has been a resident of the neighborhood since 2016 and lives across from the
proposed site and has conducted considerable research on the development. Ms.
Hampton expressed that she became familiar with the Uptown, TOD Policy, Reinvent
Phoenix Plan and communicating with residents through surveys to vote on priorities for
the proposal. Ms. Hampton expresses her disillusion with the process because the
proposal does not align with City’s policies and guidelines for walkability and mixed use
in the Reinvent Phoenix Plan. Ms. Hampton stated that the property that had been
vacant for 30 years should have done right by the community and it has only been in the
last week after a year of negotiating that Petree has provided stipulations that include
mixed use and there has been little time to review the details with the neighborhood.
Ms. Hampton said she hopes Petree is sincere about their stipulations and involvement
with the neighborhood with building and landscape designs to extend the existing
community. Ms. Hampton stated that the Carnation Neighborhood has been active in
planting trees to mitigate heat and conserve water. Ms. Hampton stated the
neighborhood has many successful businesses and wants to see that continue and
foster the local economy and all parties need to work together to bring the Reinvent
Phoenix Plan to life.

Jennifer Garrett introduced herself as a resident of the Carnation Neighborhood and a
registered architect and she supports the proposal. Ms. Garrett stated she lives at
intersection of 3rd Avenue and Glenrosa Avenue and the proposal will have a direct
impact on her family every day. Ms. Garrett stated in reviewing the proposal she thought
it was sensitive, well thought out and engaged and expressed appreciation for the work.
Ms. Garrett stated that it was a beautiful proposal but there was work to be done with
traffic mitigation and traffic circles should be used like the in the Willo Neighborhood.
Ms. Garrett asked the Committee for their support for the proposal.

Bob Deardorff introduced himself as a resident of the neighborhood and is a registered
architect and supports the proposal. Mr. Deardorff stated that this is a sensitive project,
and that increased density is inevitable and single family residential has its own
problems. Mr. Deardorff said that the transition from Central Avenue to the
neighborhood is sensitive and the developer is compromising to allow changes and the
proposal deserves to be supported.

Kim Jennings introduced herself as a resident of the neighborhood and stated her
primary concern is traffic in the area where there is lots of congestion. Ms. Jennings
stated there are three schools in the area and adding more traffic will be unsafe and the
City has failed the residents. Ms. Jennings stated that the Urban Walkable Code was
not thought out for the neighborhood and to allow this large proposal to be built will
negatively impact the single-family homes. Ms. Jennings expressed her concern with
the proposal’s building height and how the City has allowed this to be so close to the
neighborhood.



200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 564
Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-17-22-4

David Brian Jenkins introduced himself as a resident of the neighborhood and stated
that the proposal will destruct the peace and quiet of the area. Mr. Jenkins stated the
project has several flaws that need to be corrected, the number of units is excessive,
and car traffic will have great impact in the area. Mr. Jenkins said he is concerned that
the developer could start construction at any time and create a mess for the
neighborhood there needs to be an assurance for a schedule. Mr. Jenkins said it is
important to save the family friendly streets of Turney Avenue and Glenrosa Avenue.

Ken Waters introduced himself and stated he resides at in Pierson Place near Central
Avenue and Camelback Road and opposes the proposal. Mr. Waters stated the City is
failing its TOD and what is happening to transit adjacent to development and there
needs to be a symbiotic system that supports transit redevelopment. Mr. Waters stated
that single use project are being built along Central Avenue where several projects have
been developed with very little commercial space which is not consistent with main
street projects in the Uptown and Midtown areas. Mr. Waters stated the proposed site
should have more commercial space which should be located on the first floor but the
focus has been on residential development on Central Avenue. Mr. Waters stated the
proposal is not a meaningful mix use project and the emphasis has been on residential
development on large lots and is not consistent with an urban walkable lifestyle. Mr.
Waters stated that with the use of artificial intelligence a true mixed-use project could be
more effectively planned, and traffic mitigation must be fully evaluated for this proposal.
Mr. Waters stated that a study area between McDowell Road to Missouri Avenue
between 7th Street to 7th Avenue might be an option to consider in supporting a true
mixed-use development.

APPLICANT RESPONSE:

Ms. Riddell noted the Reinvent Phoenix Plan and the comments for block sizes,
walkability and relative sizes. Ms. Riddell stated that the Walkable Urban Code notes
block lengths at 600 feet and the proposal conforms to the definition and there are stoop
units along the perimeter fronting to the neighborhoods. Ms. Riddell stated that the
proposal was developed with outreach and engagement from neighbors and the
community. Ms. Riddell stated the proposal sought to restore the street network and
include many traffic mitigations features to promote pedestrian connections which is an
important investment in the Carnation Neighborhood. Ms. Riddell expressed the 7-block
size which came from the Subdivision Code that requires an offset for driveways which
are in the proposal. Ms. Riddell stated the pedestrian networks have been created and
stoop units will provide street level connectivity. Ms. Riddell expressed that the proposal
achieves a balance with commercial use which would create more traffic.

Committee Member Mahrle asked about the 7-block building plan. Ms. Riddell
displayed the conceptual plan that shows the 7-blocks which complies with the TOD
Policy Plan and the conceptual plan shows how development might occur. Committee
Member Mahrle commented that traffic on Glenrosa Avenue from Central Avenue may
contribute to cut through traffic into the neighborhood.



200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 565
Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-17-22-4

Ms. Riddell stated they had done a significant amount of work with the Carnation
Neighborhood and expressed gratitude for the participation in the meeting and is willing
the extend the stipulations that will run with the property. Ms. Riddell stated they would
respectfully appreciate the Committee’s support for the proposal.

COMMITTEE DISCUSSION:

Committee Member Matthews asked about the traffic stipulations that include traffic
calming measures and could this also be extended to Turney Avenue. Ms. Riddell
responded that there had been extensive discussions with the Street Department and
they would have to determine if traffic calming features can be added and the developer
would be open to the idea.

Vice Chair Rodriguez asked about the applicability of Vision Zero and the TOD and if
the crosswalks at Central Avenue and Glenrosa Avenue will be widened in the past
there was concern about reducing sidewalks with the with a wider street and additional
costs for changing the crosswalks. Ms. Riddell responded that the crosswalks will be
relocated to be closer to the intersection rather than widened and in the process, they
are evaluating the alignment and configuration of the turn lane and sidewalks. Vice
Chair Rodriguez asked if there will be an additional turning lane and was this a Street
Department recommendation. Ms. Riddell responded affirmatively that they are
following the recommendation.

MOTION:

Committee Member Brent Kleinman made a motion to recommend approval of Z-17-
22-4 with the addition of the stipulations from the applicant to supersede the City’s
stipulations; with direction that Petree will have an in-person meeting with the
neighborhood to describe their stipulations prior to the Planning Commission meeting;
and with a modification of Stipulation No. 36 to include traffic calming infrastructure at
5th Avenue and Turney Avenue.

Committee Member Steve Procaccini seconded the motion.

DISCUSSION:

Committee Member Thacker noted that some improvements will be offsite and how is
traffic calming part of the stipulations that is not tied to the rezone request and is it
enforceable. Committee Member Thacker asked with a petition what is the percentage
of signatures required to put in traffic circles and other calming measures. Ms. Riddell
responded the traffic mitigation stipulations may not be required but they will voluntarily
include them and they would be a conditional to the approval and would be required in
the permitting process so they would be enforceable. Ms. Riddell stated the petitions
will be prepared with technical input conducted within 60 days and turned over to the
neighborhood and explained the required signature percentages required.



200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 566
Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-17-22-4

Committee Member Matthews introduced a friendly amendment to the motion
adding to stipulation No. 36 to add calming infrastructure to an east-west street.
Committee Member Kleinman noted the plans include traffic calming on Turney
Avenue and 2nd Avenue. Committee Member Matthews stated that traffic calming
should be included for Campbell Avenue and 5th Avenue for access to Monterosa
Avenue.

Chair Wagner asked if friendly amendment was acceptable. Committee Member
Kleinman stated that Stipulation No. 36 has been prematurely agreed to, and the
language may be stated as installing additional street calming infrastructure as needed
and the applicant will work with the Street Transportation Department. Committee
Matthews stated that any changes would be subject to negotiations and review, and for
consideration the addition of traffic calming would extend to 7th Avenue which would
reduce traffic in the neighborhood and address concerns. Committee Member
Kleinman stated that including traffic calming on 5th Avenue if approved by the Street
Transportation Department would be a suitable addition. Committee Member
Matthews concurred with the addition of traffic calming on 5th Avenue.

Committee Member Thacker asked for confirmation that adding traffic calming devices
would be enforceable by the city. Mr. Klimek responded traffic calming is enforceable
by the city when proportionate to the development so any traffic concerns can be
addressed through offsite improvements and if the intent is to address cut through traffic
from 7th Avenue that may not be a proportionate response.

Committee Member Matthews referenced Stipulation No. 36 and noted that adding
traffic calming to the east-west corridor will help mitigate excessive traffic. Ms. Riddell
responded that with the request there will be 5 traffic calming circles and they are open
to the idea but this may require more negotiation with the neighborhood. Committee
Member Matthews clarified that the intent is to address traffic calming on Turney
Avenue as an addition to the stipulation.

Mr. Klimek asked for clarification on the friendly amendment and asked if it was
acceptable to Committee Member Kleinman and Committee Member Procaccini.
Committee Member Kleinman referenced that the point was the inclusion of traffic
calming at 5th Avenue and Turney Avenue and if it is acceptable by the Street
Transportation Department. Committee Member Procaccini affirmed the acceptance
of the friendly amendment.

Committee Member Thacker referenced the traffic study and asked about the 98
percent of the traffic flow that was going to the arterial streets and made a request to
add a friendly amendment to restrict traffic to enforce 95 percent of the traffic onto
arterial streets instead of going thought the closed streets to align with the applicant’s
study. Committee Member Mahrle asked how that would be enforced.

Chair Wagner asked Committee Member Kleinman and Committee Member Procaccini
if the friendly amendment as recommended by Committee Member Thacker was
acceptable. Committee Member Kleinman did not agree to the friendly amendment

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 567
Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-17-22-4

and Committee Member Procaccini did not agree with the friendly amendment. Chair
Wagner confirmed that the friendly amendment was not accepted.

VOTE:

10-2; motion to approve Z-17-22-4 per the staff recommendation with modifications and
additional stipulations passes with Committee Members Benjamin, Kleinman, Mahrle,
Matthews, Picos, Procaccini, Searles, Tedhams, Vice Chair Rodriguez, Chair Wagner in
support; with Committee Members George and Thacker opposed.

Committee Member Thacker stated development in Phoenix calls for diverse
communities that have affordable housing and increased transit ridership and this
proposal does not provide these things. Committee Member Thacker noted that smaller
parcels are better suited for neighborhood development and the proposal is a luxury
multifamily development in addition to 14 other multifamily developments in the area
and this is the largest residential development so far. Committee Member Thacker
stated that the review for this proposal has been rushed and it is an abomination and
not aligned with the vision the Committee and they are failing the citizens. Committee
Member Thacker questioned the Committee’s purpose.

Chair Wagner stated that this is not the perfect project for a walkable urban
environment, and it is a good project and thanked the applicants for their willingness to
work with the neighbors and come up with solutions for increasing the commercial
portion of the development and addressing the height facing the neighborhood. Chair
Wagner stated the project has come a long way from the original design.

VPC RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS:

1. Conceptual site plans and elevations shall be reviewed and approved by the
Planning Hearing Officer through the public hearing process for stipulation
modification prior to preliminary plan approval for Parcels 2 through 4 as
depicted on the Conceptual Site Plans date stamped June 1, 2023, with
specific regard to the inclusion of the below elements. 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.

a. The development shall include ground floor activation such as the
programming of building spaces adjacent to Central Avenue that may
include retail or commercial uses, the choice and mix of frontage types,
and the presence of indoor or outdoor public amenities that may include
open spaces, and community gathering spaces.

(1) GRAY SHELL (FINISHED SLAB, FIRE SUPPRESSION
SYSTEM, STORE FRONT, STUBBED UTILITIES, AND 200AMP
ELECTRIC PANEL FOR EVERY 1,200 SQUARE FEET) SPACE
SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR ALL COMMERCIAL AND RETAIL

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 568
Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-17-22-4

DESIGNATED SPACES.

b. On Parcel 2, the ground floor shall include a minimum of 5,000 10,000
square feet (FOR A TOTAL OF 20,000 SQUARE FEET) of non-
residential uses. Non-residential uses shall not include lobby, exercise,
reception areas, or other similar uses intended for exclusive use by
residents. All required non-residential uses shall have some frontage on
Central Avenue right-of-way.

c. On Parcel 2, the development shall utilize a continuous storefront
frontage per the requirements of Section 1305.b. for a minimum of 120
linear feet along Central Avenue.

d. On Parcel 4, the ground floor shall include a minimum 5,000 10,000
square feet (FOR A TOTAL OF 20,000 SQUARE FEET) of non-
residential uses. Non-residential uses shall not include lobby, exercise,
reception areas, or other similar uses intended for exclusive use by
residents. All required non-residential uses shall have some frontage on
Central Avenue right-of-way.

e. On Parcel 4, the development shall utilize a continuous storefront
frontage per the requirements of Section 1305.b. for a minimum of 120
linear feet along Central Avenue.

f. The building elevations for Parcels 2 through 4 shall contain a minimum
of 10 percent premium materials such as brick, stone, metal, or other
comparable materials on all four sides of each building.

2. The applicant shall return to the Encanto Village Planning Committee to present
the site plan and elevations for Parcel 1 for review and comment prior to
preliminary site plan approval.

3. The building elevations for Parcel 1 shall contain a minimum of 10 percent
premium materials such as brick, stone, metal, or other comparable materials
on all four sides of each building, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.

4. All private streets within the subject site shall be constructed with the first phase
of the development as depicted on the Conceptual Phasing Plan date stamped
June 1, 2023 and be open to the public prior to the issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

5. The developer shall provide a minimum five percent of the gross site area as
open space that is available to the public, as described below and as approved
or modified by the Planning and Development Department.

a. Each open space area shall follow the guidelines established in Section

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 569
Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-17-22-4

1310 of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance.

b. Each open space area shall provide at a minimum seating, a drinking
fountain for people and pets, art, and shade elements.

c. A minimum of 15,000 square feet of publicly accessible open space shall
be constructed with the development of Parcel 1 as depicted on the
Conceptual Site Plans date stamped June 1, 2023.

d. One open space node shall be provided near the intersection of the
private Montecito Avenue alignment and 2nd Avenue which shall include
public facing art and a minimum of one higher-order amenity such as
lawn games, gardens, picnic tables, or shade canopies, or a combination
of several complementary amenities.

e. All units adjacent to the public open space located along 2nd Avenue
shall have direct unit entries and compliant frontage types as described
in Table 1305.1 and there shall be a minimum of two common entries to
provide direct pedestrian access from upper and interior units to
adjacent sidewalks.

6. A minimum of 10 percent 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.

7. The applicant shall return to the Encanto Village Planning Committee to present
the stipulated public-facing art generally located at 2nd Avenue and the
Montecito Avenue alignment for review and comment prior to the issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy for the first phase of development, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.

8. For the portion of the subject site zoned WU Code T5:5, the building height
shall not exceed 30 feet within 35 feet of the west property line and 40 feet
within 60 feet of the west property line, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.

9. For the portions of the subject site zoned WU T5:5 and T6:22, all public and
private street frontages shall include a minimum of two “common entry”
frontage type to provide direct pedestrian access from upper and interior units
to adjacent sidewalks, as approved or modified by the Planning and
Development Department.

10. The portion of the subject site located along Glenrosa Avenue and between the
centerline of the 1st Avenue alignment on the east and the 2nd Avenue
alignment on the west (the western terminus of the T4:3 portion), shall be
restricted to a maximum height of 40 30 feet within 60 30 feet of the south
property line, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 570
Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-17-22-4


11. The developer shall provide corner enhancements at the intersections of
Central Avenue and all public and private streets to denote the prominence of
the space and shall feature enhanced landscape and/or hardscape treatments
with public-facing art, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

12. The developer shall comply with the design standards of the Central Avenue
Image Enhancement guidelines. The detached sidewalk, landscape area width,
and shade requirements shall comply with the Transit Uptown Character Area
requirements for arterial roadways adjacent to Light Rail Corridor, as approved
or modified by the Planning and Development Department.

13. The public sidewalk along Turney Avenue shall be constructed to a minimum
width of 8 feet and detached from the back of curb by a minimum 5-foot-wide
landscape area planted to the following standards, as approved by the Planning
and Development Department. Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall
work with the Planning and Development Department on alternative design
solutions consistent with the creation of a comfortable pedestrian environment.

a. Minimum 3-inch caliper, large canopy, single-trunk, shade trees shall be
placed 25 feet on center or in equivalent groupings.

b. At tree maturity, the trees shall shade the sidewalks to a minimum 75
percent.

c. Drought tolerant shrubs and vegetative groundcovers shall be
maintained at maximum height of 24 inches to provide a minimum of 75
percent live coverage at maturity.

14. The existing overhead utility lines adjacent to Turney Avenue shall be relocated
underground for the entirety of its frontage, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.

15. The public sidewalk along 2nd Avenue shall be constructed to a minimum width
of 6 8 feet and detached from the back of curb by a minimum 7-foot-wide
landscape area planted to the following standards, as approved by the Planning
and Development Department. Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall
work with the Planning and Development Department on alternative design
solutions consistent with the creation of a comfortable pedestrian environment.

a. Minimum 3-inch caliper, large canopy, single-trunk, shade trees shall be
placed 25 feet on center or in equivalent groupings.

b. At tree maturity, the trees shall shade the sidewalks to a minimum 75
percent.


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 571
Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-17-22-4

c. Drought tolerant shrubs and vegetative groundcovers shall be
maintained at maximum height of 24 inches to provide a minimum of 75
percent live coverage at maturity.

The above described improvements shall be installed prior to the issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy for the first phase of development, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.

16. All public street frontages on 2nd Avenue shall require a landscape area
between the back of sidewalk and building front that shall be planted with
minimum 3-inch caliper, single trunk, shade trees planted a minimum of 20 feet
on center or in equivalent groupings, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.

The above described improvements shall be installed prior to the issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy for the first phase of development, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.

17. The public sidewalk along Glenrosa Avenue shall be constructed to a minimum
width of 6 feet and detached from the back of curb by a minimum 5-foot-wide
landscape area planted to the following standards, as approved by the Planning
and Development Department. Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall
work with the Planning and Development Department on alternative design
solutions consistent with the creation of a comfortable pedestrian environment.

a. Minimum 3-inch caliper, large canopy, single-trunk, shade trees shall be
placed 25 feet on center or in equivalent groupings.

b. At tree maturity, the trees shall shade the sidewalks to a minimum 75
percent.

c. Drought tolerant shrubs and vegetative groundcovers shall be
maintained at maximum height of 24 inches to provide a minimum of 75
percent live coverage at maturity.

18. All private streets shall be overlain with dedicated public pedestrian accessway
easements connecting to the public rights-of-way and the private streets shall
provide the following non-vehicular pathways, amenities, and features, as
approved or modified by the Planning and Development Department.

a. Access to/from 2nd Avenue from the private street on the Montecito
Avenue alignment shall be restricted to emergency vehicles, bicycles,
and pedestrians.

b. One side of each private street shall comply with the standards
contained in Section 1304.H. of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance and be
detached from the back of curb by a landscape area an average of 5

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 572
Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-17-22-4

feet in width that shall be planted with minimum three-inch caliper, single
trunk, shade trees planted a minimum of 20 feet on center or in
equivalent groupings.

c. One side of each private street shall comply with the standards
contained in Section 1312.D.1.c. of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance and
the landscape area shall be planted with minimum three-inch caliper,
single trunk, shade trees planted a minimum of 20 feet on center or in
equivalent groupings.

d. Where outside of public rights-of-way, intersections shall feature
pedestrian enhancements such as speed tables, elevated crosswalks,
and/or bulb-outs.

e. Include on-site bicycle routes that connect the internal streets to 2nd
Avenue, Turney Avenue, and Glenrosa Avenue. The applicant shall
consult with the Active Transportation Coordinator from the Street
Transportation Department on the design of the bicycle facilities.

19. An internal vehicular and pedestrian circulation plan shall be provided to
address ingress and egress to and from the site, vehicle loading, pick up and
drop off locations, pedestrian connections to existing light rail stations. The
developer shall be responsible for all cost and construction of improvements.
No preliminary approval of plans shall be granted until the internal vehicular
and pedestrian circulation plan has been reviewed and approved by the Street
Transportation and Planning and Development Departments. This plan shall be
updated, if needed, for all phases of development.

20. Along 2nd Avenue, no vehicular access shall be provided including no
driveways, no private streets, and no ingress/egress to parking structures.
Emergency vehicles may access the site from 2nd Avenue.

21. All refuse collection, loading and, unloading, FOOD AND PACKAGE
DELIVERY areas shall be accessed only from the private streets on the site.

22. The applicant shall submit a Traffic Impact Study to the City for this
development. No preliminary approval of plans shall be granted until the study
is reviewed and approved by the City.

a. The TIS shall analyze the offset intersection of Central Avenue and
Glenrosa Avenue. The TIS shall include the necessary geometric
design, tapers and dedications to align the east/west legs of the
intersection to operate under a non-split phased signal. The developer
shall be responsible for all cost and construction of improvements, as
approved by the Street Transportation Department.

23. Vehicular access onto Turney Avenue shall be limited to one drive way.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 573
Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-17-22-4

This driveway shall be restricted to 3/4 access, restricting left-in
movements, as approved by the Street Transportation Department.
VEHICULAR ACCESS ONTO TURNEY AVENUE SHALL BE LIMITED TO
RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT, AS APPROVED BY THE STREET
TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT.

24. The developer shall incorporate bicycle infrastructure as described below and
as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

a. All required bicycle parking for multifamily use, per Section 1307.H.6.d
of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, shall be secured parking.

b. Guest bicycle parking for multifamily residential use shall be provided at
a minimum of 0.05 spaces per unit with a maximum of 50 75 required
spaces near entrances of buildings and installed per the requirements of
Section 1307.H of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance.

c. A minimum of 10 20 percent of the required bicycle parking for
nonresidential uses shall be secured.

d. A minimum of four bicycle repair stations (“fix it stations”) shall be
provided and maintained in areas of high visibility and near secure
bicycle parking areas. At minimum, two shall be directly accessible from
the public sidewalk.

e. Standard electrical receptacles shall be installed for a minimum of 10%
of the required bicycle parking spaces for electric bicycle charging
capabilities.

F. ALL NONRESIDENTIAL USES OVER 5,000 SQUARE FEET FLOOR
AREA SHALL PROVIDE ONE BICYCLE SPACE PER 25 VEHICLE
PARKING SPACES, WITH A MAXIMUM OF 50 SPACES.

25. Electric vehicle infrastructure shall be provided for the required parking spaces
as follows: Minimum 10 percent EV Installed.

26. The developer shall dedicate a sidewalk easement for any streetscape area
that falls outside of dedicated right-of-way, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.

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

28. The developer shall record a Notice to Prospective Purchasers of Proximity to

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 574
Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-17-22-4

Airport in order to disclose the existence and operational characteristics of
Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport (PHX) to future owners or tenants of
the property.

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

30. 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.

31. 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.

32. 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.

33. 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.

34. 2ND AVENUE, MINIMUM BUILDING SETBACK: SUBJECT TO APPROVAL
OF A VARIANCE, THE SETBACK FROM THE WESTERN 2ND AVENUE
ALIGNMENT SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 50 FEET, SUBJECT TO REVIEW
AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT.

35. CENTRAL AVENUE AND GLENROSA AVENUE INTERSECTION: THE
DEVELOPMENT SHALL MODIFY THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE
CENTRAL AVENUE AND GLENROSA AVENUE INTERSECTION TO ALIGN
THE EAST AND WEST LEGS AND CORRESPONDING SIGNAL
MODIFICATIONS, AS APPROVED BY THE STREET TRANSPORTATION
DEPARTMENT.

36. TRAFFIC MITIGATION:

A. THE ULTIMATE DESIGN IS SUBJECT TO APPROVAL FROM THE
STREET TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 575
Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-17-22-4


B. THE DEVELOPER SHALL BE REQUIRED TO COMPLETE A
PRIVATE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT FOR ALL TRAFFIC
CALMING FEATURES IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY.

C. WITHIN 60 DAYS OF CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL, THE DEVELOPER
SHALL PREPARE THE REQUIRED PETITION APPLICATION
DOCUMENTS IN COORDINATION WITH THE CARNATION
ASSOCIATION OF NEIGHBORS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY
STANDARD PETITIONING PROCESS, AS REQUIRED BY THE
TRAFFIC SERVICES DIVISION, FOR THE FOLLOWING TRAFFIC
CALMING INFRASTRUCTURE:

(1) INSTALL INTERSECTION TRAFFIC CALMING
INFRASTRUCTURE. LOCATIONS INCLUDE:

 2ND AVENUE AND CAMPBELL AVENUE
 3RD AVENUE AND CAMPBELL AVENUE
 3RD AVENUE AND TURNEY AVENUE
 3RD AVENUE AND GLENROSA AVENUE
 3RD AVENUE AND MONTEROSA STREET
 5TH AVENUE AND TURNEY AVENUE


(2) INSTALL “NECKDOWN NEIGHBORHOOD GATEWAY” CURB
LINE BUMP OUTS TO NARROW STREET TO 20’ MAXIMUM.
LOCATIONS INCLUDE:

 2ND AVENUE AND TURNEY AVENUE, WEST SIDE OF
INTERSECTION
 1ST AVENUE AND GLENROSA AVENUE WEST SIDE OF
INTERSECTION

(3) INSTALL MINI ROUNDABOUT AT THE FOLLOWING
INTERSECTIONS:

 2ND AVENUE AND TURNEY AVENUE, WEST OF
NEIGHBORHOOD NECKDOWN GATEWAY
 2ND AVENUE AND GLENROSA AVENUE

(4) INSTALL SIDEWALKS AT THE FOLLOWING LOCATIONS:

 GLENROSA, BETWEEN 3RD AVENUE AND 7TH AVENUE
 THE SOUTH SIDE OF TURNEY AVENUE, BETWEEN 2ND
AVENUE AND 3RD AVENUE


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 576
Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-17-22-4

THE DEVELOPER SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL FUNDING
OF AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE APPROVED TRAFFIC CALMING
INFRASTRUCTURE AND SIDEWALKS, SUBJECT TO THE PETITION
OF SUPPORT BEING PROVIDED TO THE STREET
TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT WITHIN 180 DAYS OF THE
FINALIZED PETITION BEING PROVIDED TO THE CARNATION
ASSOCIATION OF NEIGHBORS.

37. TRAFFIC MITIGATION: THE DEVELOPER SHALL INSTALL A STOP SIGN
AT THE INTERSECTION OF 2ND AVENUE GLENROSA AVENUE,
SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE STREET
TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT.

38. LIGHT RAIL PASS: THE DEVELOPER SHALL PROVIDE A PAID 60-DAY
LIGHT RAIL PASS TO ALL NEW RESIDENTS.

39. INTERIM CONSTRUCTION MITIGATION: VARIOUS MITIGATION EFFORTS
INCLUDING VIDEO MONITORING CAMERAS, FENCING AND SCREENING,
AND DUST PROOF SURFACES SHALL BE UTILIZED TO MINIMIZE IMPACTS
TO THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD, AND CONSISTENT WITH THE INTERIM
BEAUTIFICATION PLAN DATE STAMPED JUNE 1, 2023.

40. MATERIAL DELIVERY: MATERIAL DELIVERY WILL BE REQUIRED TO
ENTER AND EXIT FROM CENTRAL AVENUE.

41. CONSTRUCTION PARKING: ALL PARKING FOR CONSTRUCTION
WORKER VEHICLES SHALL BE ON-SITE OR IN A PRE-ARRANGED OFF-
SITE LOCATION.

42. NO SPEAKERS: NO OUTSIDE SPEAKERS OR AMPLIFIED MUSIC WILL
BE PERMITTED DURING CONSTRUCTION.

43. CONTACT INFORMATION: THE APPLICANT’S CURRENT CONTACT
INFORMATION SHALL BE PROVIDED TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE
CARNATION ASSOCIATION OF NEIGHBORS.

44. DENSITY: A MAXIMUM UNIT COUNT OF 1,500 UNITS SHALL BE
PROVIDED ON THE OVERALL SITE, WITH A MAXIMUM OF 375 UNITS ON
PARCEL 1.

45. INTERIM BEAUTIFICATION PLAN: PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A
CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR ANY BUILDING AT ANY PHASE,
THE VACANT/UNDEVELOPED SITES SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN
GENERAL CONFORMANCE TO THE INTERIM BEAUTIFICATION PLAN
DATE STAMPED JUNE 1, 2023, WITH SPECIFIC REGARD TO THE
FOLLOWING ELEMENTS, AS APPROVED OR MODIFIED BY THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 577
Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-17-22-4


A. THE VACANT / UNDEVELOPED SITES SHALL BE MAINTAINED
FREE OF VEGETATION.

B. THE VACANT / UNDEVELOPED SITES SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN
A DUST-CONTROLLED CONDITION.

C. THE VACANT / UNDEVELOPED SITES SHALL BE ENCLOSED BY A
VIEW FENCE ON ALL SIDES WITH MAINTENANCE GATES ONLY
LOCATED ON THE PRIVATE STREETS.

46. NOISE MITIGATION: ANYWHERE A POOL IS VISIBLE TO A PUBLIC
STREET, THE DEVELOPER SHALL PROVIDE A SOUND ATTENUATING
WALL.

STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATIONS & STIPULATIONS:

Staff has concerns that some of the added stipulations will be difficult to enforce,
however they are attainable and were conditions that the applicant agreed to with the
community.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 578
ATTACHMENT D


REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
August 3, 2023

ITEM NO: 15
DISTRICT NO.: 4
SUBJECT:

Application #: Z-17-22-4
Location: Northwest corner of Central Avenue and Glenrosa Avenue
From: R1-6 TOD-1 (Approved C-2 H-R HGT/WVR TOD-1)
R-3 TOD-1 (Approved C-2 H-R HGT/WVR TOD-1)
R-3 TOD-1 (Approved C-2 H-R TOD-1)
R-5 TOD-1 (Approved C-2 H-R HGT/WVR TOD-1)
C-2 TOD-1 (Approved C-2 H-R HGT/WVR TOD-1)
C-2 TOD-1 (Approved C-2 H-R TOD-1)
To: WU Code T4:3 UT
WU Code T5:5 UT
WU Code T6:22 UT
Acreage: 15.61
Proposal: Mixed use and multifamily residential.
Applicant: Petree Development
Owner: Central & Turney Properties, Inc.
Representative: Wendy Riddell, Berry Riddell, LLC

ACTIONS:

Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.

Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
Encanto 6/5/2023 Approval, per the staff recommendation with modifications, additional
stipulations, and direction. Vote: 10-2.

Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval, per the Encanto Village Planning Committee
recommendation.

Motion Discussion: N/A

Motion details: Commissioner Boyd made a MOTION to approve Z-17-22-4, per the Encanto
Village Planning Committee recommendation.

Maker: Boyd
Second: Vice Chairman Gaynor
Vote: 8-0
Absent: Mangum
Opposition Present: Yes

Findings:

1. The proposal is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Map designation of
Commercial and the Conceptual Zoning Plan contained in the Uptown Transit Oriented
Development Policy Plan.



Page 579
2. The proposal, as stipulated, advances the vision and recommendations contained in the
Uptown Transit Oriented Development Policy Plan and will create strong pedestrian
environments along both its public and private streets with shaded and detached
sidewalks to convey residents safely and comfortably to the Indian School Road Light
Rail Station and the Campbell Avenue Light Rail Station.

3. The proposal will create additional housing options on an underutilized site served by
high-capacity transit which aligns with the Housing Phoenix Plan’s goal of preserving or
creating 50,000 housing units by 2030.

Stipulations:

1. Conceptual site plans and elevations shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning
Hearing Officer through the public hearing process for stipulation modification prior to
preliminary plan approval for Parcels 2 through 4 as depicted on the Conceptual Site
Plans date stamped June 1, 2023, with specific regard to the inclusion of the below
elements. 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.

a. The development shall include ground floor activation such as the programming
of building spaces adjacent to Central Avenue that may include retail or
commercial uses, the choice and mix of frontage types, and the presence of
indoor or outdoor public amenities that may include open spaces, and
community gathering spaces.

(1) GRAY SHELL (FINISHED SLAB, FIRE SUPPRESSION SYSTEM,
STORE FRONT, STUBBED UTILITIES, AND 200AMP ELECTRIC
PANEL FOR EVERY 1,200 SQUARE FEET) SPACE SHALL BE
PROVIDED FOR ALL COMMERCIAL AND RETAIL DESIGNATED
SPACES.

b. On Parcel 2, the ground floor shall include a minimum of 5,000 10,000 square
feet (FOR A TOTAL OF 20,000 SQUARE FEET) of non-residential uses. Non-
residential uses shall not include lobby, exercise, reception areas, or other
similar uses intended for exclusive use by residents. All required non-residential
uses shall have some frontage on Central Avenue right-of-way.

c. On Parcel 2, the development shall utilize a continuous storefront frontage per
the requirements of Section 1305.b. for a minimum of 120 linear feet along
Central Avenue.

d. On Parcel 4, the ground floor shall include a minimum 5,000 10,000 square feet
(FOR A TOTAL OF 20,000 SQUARE FEET) of non-residential uses. Non-
residential uses shall not include lobby, exercise, reception areas, or other
similar uses intended for exclusive use by residents. All required non-residential
uses shall have some frontage on Central Avenue right-of-way.

e. On Parcel 4, the development shall utilize a continuous storefront frontage per
the requirements of Section 1305.b. for a minimum of 120 linear feet along
Central Avenue.




Page 580
f. The building elevations for Parcels 2 through 4 shall contain a minimum of 10
percent premium materials such as brick, stone, metal, or other comparable
materials on all four sides of each building.

2. The applicant shall return to the Encanto Village Planning Committee to present the
site plan and elevations for Parcel 1 for review and comment prior to preliminary site
plan approval.

3. The building elevations for Parcel 1 shall contain a minimum of 10 percent premium
materials such as brick, stone, metal, or other comparable materials on all four sides of
each building, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

4. All private streets within the subject site shall be constructed with the first phase of the
development as depicted on the Conceptual Phasing Plan date stamped June 1, 2023
and be open to the public prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.

5. The developer shall provide a minimum five percent of the gross site area as open
space that is available to the public, as described below and as approved or modified
by the Planning and Development Department.

a. Each open space area shall follow the guidelines established in Section 1310
of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance.

b. Each open space area shall provide at a minimum seating, a drinking fountain
for people and pets, art, and shade elements.

c. A minimum of 15,000 square feet of publicly accessible open space shall be
constructed with the development of Parcel 1 as depicted on the Conceptual
Site Plans date stamped June 1, 2023.

d. One open space node shall be provided near the intersection of the private
Montecito Avenue alignment and 2nd Avenue which shall include public facing
art and a minimum of one higher-order amenity such as lawn games, gardens,
picnic tables, or shade canopies, or a combination of several complementary
amenities.

e. All units adjacent to the public open space located along 2nd Avenue shall
have direct unit entries and compliant frontage types as described in Table
1305.1 and there shall be a minimum of two common entries to provide direct
pedestrian access from upper and interior units to adjacent sidewalks.

6. A minimum of 10 percent 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.

7. The applicant shall return to the Encanto Village Planning Committee to present the
stipulated public-facing art generally located at 2nd Avenue and the Montecito Avenue
alignment for review and comment prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
for the first phase of development, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.




Page 581
8. For the portion of the subject site zoned WU Code T5:5, the building height shall not
exceed 30 feet within 35 feet of the west property line and 40 feet within 60 feet of the
west property line, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

9. For the portions of the subject site zoned WU T5:5 and T6:22, all public and private
street frontages shall include a minimum of two “common entry” frontage type to
provide direct pedestrian access from upper and interior units to adjacent sidewalks,
as approved or modified by the Planning and Development Department.

10. The portion of the subject site located along Glenrosa Avenue and between the
centerline of the 1st Avenue alignment on the east and the 2nd Avenue alignment on
the west (the western terminus of the T4:3 portion), shall be restricted to a maximum
height of 40 30 feet within 60 30 feet of the south property line, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.

11. The developer shall provide corner enhancements at the intersections of Central
Avenue and all public and private streets to denote the prominence of the space and
shall feature enhanced landscape and/or hardscape treatments with public-facing art,
as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

12. The developer shall comply with the design standards of the Central Avenue Image
Enhancement guidelines. The detached sidewalk, landscape area width, and shade
requirements shall comply with the Transit Uptown Character Area requirements for
arterial roadways adjacent to Light Rail Corridor, as approved or modified by the
Planning and Development Department.

13. The public sidewalk along Turney Avenue shall be constructed to a minimum width of
8 feet and detached from the back of curb by a minimum 5-foot-wide landscape area
planted to the following standards, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department. Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning
and Development Department on alternative design solutions consistent with the
creation of a comfortable pedestrian environment.

a. Minimum 3-inch caliper, large canopy, single-trunk, shade trees shall be placed
25 feet on center or in equivalent groupings.

b. At tree maturity, the trees shall shade the sidewalks to a minimum 75 percent.

c. Drought tolerant shrubs and vegetative groundcovers shall be maintained at
maximum height of 24 inches to provide a minimum of 75 percent live coverage
at maturity.

14. The existing overhead utility lines adjacent to Turney Avenue shall be relocated
underground for the entirety of its frontage, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.

15. The public sidewalk along 2nd Avenue shall be constructed to a minimum width of 6 8
feet and detached from the back of curb by a minimum 7-foot-wide landscape area
planted to the following standards, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department. Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning
and Development Department on alternative design solutions consistent with the
creation of a comfortable pedestrian environment.

a. Minimum 3-inch caliper, large canopy, single-trunk, shade trees shall be placed
Page 582
25 feet on center or in equivalent groupings.

b. At tree maturity, the trees shall shade the sidewalks to a minimum 75 percent.

c. Drought tolerant shrubs and vegetative groundcovers shall be maintained at
maximum height of 24 inches to provide a minimum of 75 percent live coverage
at maturity.

The above described improvements shall be installed prior to the issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy for the first phase of development, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.

16. All public street frontages on 2nd Avenue shall require a landscape area between the
back of sidewalk and building front that shall be planted with minimum 3-inch caliper,
single trunk, shade trees planted a minimum of 20 feet on center or in equivalent
groupings, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

The above described improvements shall be installed prior to the issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy for the first phase of development, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.

17. The public sidewalk along Glenrosa Avenue shall be constructed to a minimum width
of 6 feet and detached from the back of curb by a minimum 5-foot-wide landscape area
planted to the following standards, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department. Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning
and Development Department on alternative design solutions consistent with the
creation of a comfortable pedestrian environment.

a. Minimum 3-inch caliper, large canopy, single-trunk, shade trees shall be placed
25 feet on center or in equivalent groupings.

b. At tree maturity, the trees shall shade the sidewalks to a minimum 75 percent.

c. Drought tolerant shrubs and vegetative groundcovers shall be maintained at
maximum height of 24 inches to provide a minimum of 75 percent live coverage
at maturity.

18. All private streets shall be overlain with dedicated public pedestrian accessway
easements connecting to the public rights-of-way and the private streets shall provide
the following non-vehicular pathways, amenities, and features, as approved or
modified by the Planning and Development Department.

a. Access to/from 2nd Avenue from the private street on the Montecito Avenue
alignment shall be restricted to emergency vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians.

b. One side of each private street shall comply with the standards contained in
Section 1304.H. of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance and be detached from the
back of curb by a landscape area an average of 5 feet in width that shall be
planted with minimum three-inch caliper, single trunk, shade trees planted a
minimum of 20 feet on center or in equivalent groupings.

c. One side of each private street shall comply with the standards contained in
Section 1312.D.1.c. of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance and the landscape area
shall be planted with minimum three-inch caliper, single trunk, shade trees
Page 583
planted a minimum of 20 feet on center or in equivalent groupings.

d. Where outside of public rights-of-way, intersections shall feature pedestrian
enhancements such as speed tables, elevated crosswalks, and/or bulb-outs.

e. Include on-site bicycle routes that connect the internal streets to 2nd Avenue,
Turney Avenue, and Glenrosa Avenue. The applicant shall consult with the
Active Transportation Coordinator from the Street Transportation Department
on the design of the bicycle facilities.

19. An internal vehicular and pedestrian circulation plan shall be provided to address
ingress and egress to and from the site, vehicle loading, pick up and drop off locations,
pedestrian connections to existing light rail stations. The developer shall be
responsible for all cost and construction of improvements. No preliminary approval of
plans shall be granted until the internal vehicular and pedestrian circulation plan has
been reviewed and approved by the Street Transportation and Planning and
Development Departments. This plan shall be updated, if needed, for all phases of
development.

20. Along 2nd Avenue, no vehicular access shall be provided including no driveways, no
private streets, and no ingress/egress to parking structures. Emergency vehicles may
access the site from 2nd Avenue.

21. All refuse collection, loading and, unloading, FOOD AND PACKAGE DELIVERY areas
shall be accessed only from the private streets on the site.

22. The applicant shall submit a Traffic Impact Study to the City for this development. No
preliminary approval of plans shall be granted until the study is reviewed and approved
by the City.

a. The TIS shall analyze the offset intersection of Central Avenue and Glenrosa
Avenue. The TIS shall include the necessary geometric design, tapers and
dedications to align the east/west legs of the intersection to operate under a
non-split phased signal. The developer shall be responsible for all cost and
construction of improvements, as approved by the Street Transportation
Department.

23. Vehicular access onto Turney Avenue shall be limited to one drive way. This driveway
shall be restricted to 3/4 access, restricting left-in movements, as approved by the
Street Transportation Department. VEHICULAR ACCESS ONTO TURNEY AVENUE
SHALL BE LIMITED TO RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT, AS APPROVED BY THE STREET
TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT.

24. The developer shall incorporate bicycle infrastructure as described below and as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.

a. All required bicycle parking for multifamily use, per Section 1307.H.6.d of the
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, shall be secured parking.

b. Guest bicycle parking for multifamily residential use shall be provided at a
minimum of 0.05 spaces per unit with a maximum of 50 75 required spaces
near entrances of buildings and installed per the requirements of Section
1307.H of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance.


Page 584
c. A minimum of 10 20 percent of the required bicycle parking for nonresidential
uses shall be secured.

d. A minimum of four bicycle repair stations (“fix it stations”) shall be provided and
maintained in areas of high visibility and near secure bicycle parking areas. At
minimum, two shall be directly accessible from the public sidewalk.

e. Standard electrical receptacles shall be installed for a minimum of 10% of the
required bicycle parking spaces for electric bicycle charging capabilities.

F. ALL NONRESIDENTIAL USES OVER 5,000 SQUARE FEET FLOOR AREA
SHALL PROVIDE ONE BICYCLE SPACE PER 25 VEHICLE PARKING
SPACES, WITH A MAXIMUM OF 50 SPACES.

25. Electric vehicle infrastructure shall be provided for the required parking spaces as
follows: Minimum 10 percent EV Installed.

26. The developer shall dedicate a sidewalk easement for any streetscape area that falls
outside of dedicated right-of-way, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

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

28. The developer shall record a Notice to Prospective Purchasers of Proximity to Airport
in order to disclose the existence and operational characteristics of Phoenix Sky
Harbor International Airport (PHX) to future owners or tenants of the property.

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

30. 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.

31. 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.

32. 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.

33. 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


Page 585
Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be included in the rezoning application
file for record.

34. 2ND AVENUE, MINIMUM BUILDING SETBACK: SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF A
VARIANCE, THE SETBACK FROM THE WESTERN 2ND AVENUE ALIGNMENT
SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 50 FEET, SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY
THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

35. CENTRAL AVENUE AND GLENROSA AVENUE INTERSECTION: THE
DEVELOPMENT SHALL MODIFY THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE CENTRAL
AVENUE AND GLENROSA AVENUE INTERSECTION TO ALIGN THE EAST AND
WEST LEGS AND CORRESPONDING SIGNAL MODIFICATIONS, AS APPROVED
BY THE STREET TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT.

36. TRAFFIC MITIGATION:

A. THE ULTIMATE DESIGN IS SUBJECT TO APPROVAL FROM THE STREET
TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT.

B. THE DEVELOPER SHALL BE REQUIRED TO COMPLETE A PRIVATE
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT FOR ALL TRAFFIC CALMING FEATURES IN
THE RIGHT-OF-WAY.

C. WITHIN 60 DAYS OF CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL, THE DEVELOPER SHALL
PREPARE THE REQUIRED PETITION APPLICATION DOCUMENTS IN
COORDINATION WITH THE CARNATION ASSOCIATION OF NEIGHBORS
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY STANDARD PETITIONING PROCESS,
AS REQUIRED BY THE TRAFFIC SERVICES DIVISION, FOR THE
FOLLOWING TRAFFIC CALMING INFRASTRUCTURE:

(1) INSTALL INTERSECTION TRAFFIC CALMING INFRASTRUCTURE.
LOCATIONS INCLUDE:

x 2ND AVENUE AND CAMPBELL AVENUE
x 3RD AVENUE AND CAMPBELL AVENUE
x 3RD AVENUE AND TURNEY AVENUE
x 3RD AVENUE AND GLENROSA AVENUE
x 3RD AVENUE AND MONTEROSA STREET
x 5TH AVENUE AND TURNEY AVENUE


(2) INSTALL “NECKDOWN NEIGHBORHOOD GATEWAY” CURB LINE
BUMP OUTS TO NARROW STREET TO 20’ MAXIMUM. LOCATIONS
INCLUDE:

x 2ND AVENUE AND TURNEY AVENUE, WEST SIDE OF
INTERSECTION
x 1ST AVENUE AND GLENROSA AVENUE WEST SIDE OF
INTERSECTION

(3) INSTALL MINI ROUNDABOUT AT THE FOLLOWING
INTERSECTIONS:


Page 586
x 2ND AVENUE AND TURNEY AVENUE, WEST OF
NEIGHBORHOOD NECKDOWN GATEWAY
x 2ND AVENUE AND GLENROSA AVENUE

(4) INSTALL SIDEWALKS AT THE FOLLOWING LOCATIONS:

x GLENROSA, BETWEEN 3RD AVENUE AND 7TH AVENUE
x THE SOUTH SIDE OF TURNEY AVENUE, BETWEEN 2ND
AVENUE AND 3RD AVENUE

THE DEVELOPER SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL FUNDING OF AND
CONSTRUCTION OF THE APPROVED TRAFFIC CALMING
INFRASTRUCTURE AND SIDEWALKS, SUBJECT TO THE PETITION OF
SUPPORT BEING PROVIDED TO THE STREET TRANSPORTATION
DEPARTMENT WITHIN 180 DAYS OF THE FINALIZED PETITION BEING
PROVIDED TO THE CARNATION ASSOCIATION OF NEIGHBORS.

37. TRAFFIC MITIGATION: THE DEVELOPER SHALL INSTALL A STOP SIGN AT THE
INTERSECTION OF 2ND AVENUE GLENROSA AVENUE, SUBJECT TO REVIEW
AND APPROVAL BY THE STREET TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT.

38. LIGHT RAIL PASS: THE DEVELOPER SHALL PROVIDE A PAID 60-DAY LIGHT
RAIL PASS TO ALL NEW RESIDENTS.

39. INTERIM CONSTRUCTION MITIGATION: VARIOUS MITIGATION EFFORTS
INCLUDING VIDEO MONITORING CAMERAS, FENCING AND SCREENING, AND
DUST PROOF SURFACES SHALL BE UTILIZED TO MINIMIZE IMPACTS TO THE
EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD, AND CONSISTENT WITH THE INTERIM
BEAUTIFICATION PLAN DATE STAMPED JUNE 1, 2023.

40. MATERIAL DELIVERY: MATERIAL DELIVERY WILL BE REQUIRED TO ENTER
AND EXIT FROM CENTRAL AVENUE.

41. CONSTRUCTION PARKING: ALL PARKING FOR CONSTRUCTION WORKER
VEHICLES SHALL BE ON-SITE OR IN A PRE-ARRANGED OFF-SITE LOCATION.

42. NO SPEAKERS: NO OUTSIDE SPEAKERS OR AMPLIFIED MUSIC WILL BE
PERMITTED DURING CONSTRUCTION.

43. CONTACT INFORMATION: THE APPLICANT’S CURRENT CONTACT
INFORMATION SHALL BE PROVIDED TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE CARNATION
ASSOCIATION OF NEIGHBORS.

44. DENSITY: A MAXIMUM UNIT COUNT OF 1,500 UNITS SHALL BE PROVIDED ON
THE OVERALL SITE, WITH A MAXIMUM OF 375 UNITS ON PARCEL 1.

45. INTERIM BEAUTIFICATION PLAN: PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE
OF OCCUPANCY FOR ANY BUILDING AT ANY PHASE, THE
VACANT/UNDEVELOPED SITES SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN GENERAL
CONFORMANCE TO THE INTERIM BEAUTIFICATION PLAN DATE STAMPED
JUNE 1, 2023, WITH SPECIFIC REGARD TO THE FOLLOWING ELEMENTS, AS
APPROVED OR MODIFIED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT.

Page 587
A. THE VACANT / UNDEVELOPED SITES SHALL BE MAINTAINED FREE OF
VEGETATION.

B. THE VACANT / UNDEVELOPED SITES SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN A DUST-
CONTROLLED CONDITION.

C. THE VACANT / UNDEVELOPED SITES SHALL BE ENCLOSED BY A VIEW
FENCE ON ALL SIDES WITH MAINTENANCE GATES ONLY LOCATED ON
THE PRIVATE STREETS.

46. NOISE MITIGATION: ANYWHERE A POOL IS VISIBLE TO A PUBLIC STREET, THE
DEVELOPER SHALL PROVIDE A SOUND ATTENUATING WALL.

This publication can be made available in alternate format upon request. Please contact Angie
Holdsworth at (602) 329-5065, TTY use 7-1-1.




Page 588
ATTACHMENT E

CITY OF PHOENIX
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

FORM TO REQUEST PC to CC
I HEREBY REQUEST THAT THE CC HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON:

APPLICATION NO/ Z-17-22-4 (Petree (SIGNATURE ON ORIGINAL IN FILE)
LOCATION Development PUD) opposition x applicant
Northwest corner of
Central Avenue and
Glenrosa Avenue
APPEALED FROM: PC 8/3/2023 126 West Pierson Street
Phoenix, AZ 85013

PC DATE STREET/ADDRESS/CITY/STATE/ZIP
TO PC/CC CC 9/6/2023 Ken Waters
HEARING 602-373-1902
Kennywaters602@gmail.com

CC DATE NAME / PHONE / EMAIL
REASON FOR REQUEST:

This Petree Development Project is nowhere close to being an adequate TOD project
worthy of approval. The City is failing to green light dynamic Walkable Urban Lifestyle
projects. A mere 20 K of retail on 15.6 acres on Central Avenue is a Joke.


RECEIVED BY: Greg Harmon RECEIVED ON: 8/7/2023

Alan Stephenson Greg Harmon
Joshua Bednarek Paul M. Li
Tricia Gomes Village Planner
Racelle Escolar GIS
Stephanie Vasquez Applicant
Diana Hernandez Byron Easton (for PHO Appeals)
Heather Klotz
Vikki Cipolla-Murillo




Page 589
Page 590
ATTACHMENT F




Page 591
Page 592
Subject: Unacceptable lack of representation on EVPC

Vice Mayor Pastor,

I just received the updated agenda for tomorrow's CC meeting and noticed that a new member was
being added to the Encanto Village Planning Committee. I was excited as I assumed a member of
Carnation was being added after bringing to your attention that the EVCP doesn't have a single
member from our neighborhood despite roughly 4000 units for 7000+ citizens in development.

Imagine my surprise when I discover that another long-time political board member that lives in
Encanto is being added while the applications from Carnation residents remain in the drawer.

As it stands, the EVPC has empty chairs that can be filled and you're still snubbing our neighborhood.
It's unacceptable and I'd like you to explain to the 150+ neighbors on this thread why we aren't



Page 593
allowed a voice in what happens in our own damn neighborhood?

Jeremy Thacker
480-410-1923

On Fri, May 20, 2022, 2:40 PM CarnationAssociationAZ wrote:

Thanks to everyone who came to Monday’s Carnation Association of Neighbors meeting. Below
are the notes from the discussion about the development proposed for the former Agave Farms
land. Please attend the meeting with the developer that will take place on Tuesday, May 24th at
6:00 pm at Changing Hands (300 W Camelback Rd), so you can share your thoughts directly with
them. Here are the notes from our discussion:

Carnation Neighborhood Perspective on the Rezoning and Development of Former Agave
Farms Land:
1. Interior Streets and Parking – the number of vehicles the development proposes will
burden surrounding streets with an abundance of cars, and have a negative impact on
existing businesses and households.
TOD zoning has reductions in parking requirements built in, adding another 25%
reduction would be excessive
The interior streets must contribute to the City of Phoenix public street parking and
abide by the same rules and regulations of the surrounding streets. Private roads
with separate rules are an unfair imposition on existing residents, businesses, and
visitors.
Each of the four parcels must have several publicly accessible bike racks. This is
additional to private bike parking available to the development’s residents.
Activations spaces, loading zones, pickup / drop off areas must be closer to the
interior of the development so the surrounding neighborhood is not burdened with
the noise of loading trucks and trash collection.
Employees of the development must be provided with free parking, and policies
enacted to prohibit them from parking on the street, interior to the development or
exterior.
The large block pattern of the street grid deviates from what is desired by the
Uptown TOD Policy Plan; however it is the lack of pedestrian and bicycle pathways
through the large buildings that will hinder local transportation the most.
Parameter parking must not be included in the formula for meeting minimum
parking requirements.
Support for permitted parking for the Carnation neighborhood.
The number of cars this large development will shift onto quiet neighborhood streets
will decrease the safety and quality of life in Carnation. To help alleviate these
concerns:

♦ New street running north must be configured for right turns only
on Turney, so traffic will be shifted onto Central Avenue.
♦ New street running east west to Montecito must be a cul-de-sac.
The lack of commercial zoning of this project means traffic and parking will only have
residential patterns; if there were a moderate commercial component it would allow
the opportunity to provide shared parking resources and smarter traffic patterns; i.e
while residents are at work during the day, commercial enterprise could use those
parking spots.


2. Massing and Scale -
Generally speaking, there are no objections to the height along Central Avenue on


Page 594
parcel’s 2 & 4. However:

♦ The intent of T6:22 is clearly to provide a large mix of
commercial and residential near light rail, yet the plan contains only 1
commercial space on the ground floor. A larger commercial
component would enhance use of the light rail system, transporting
neighborhood residents to work while others come to the
neighborhood for commerce.
♦ The long uninterrupted blocks do not conform to the Uptown
TOD Policy Plan’s (UTOD) vision for pedestrian walkways, shorter
block patterns, and overall fluidity of walking or biking the
neighborhood. Each parcel creates a “private neighborhood within a
neighborhood”.
Rezoning parcel 1 along Turney and Central to T5:5 is insensitive to the scale and
character of the single-story residences directly adjacent. To attempt sensitivity to
the edges of the existing neighborhood this zoning should remain R1:6 or at most, be
consistent with the T4:3 that is proposed along part of Glenrosa Avenue. However,
many in the neighborhood strongly believe this should remain R1-6.
Open spaces are needed to break up the massively along these streets. Incorporate
publicly accessible plazas, dog parks, and pocket parks.
The site plan proposes 103 units per acre, making this project the most dense
development along this section of Central Avenue - and grotesquely dense along
2nd Avenue.

♦ To demonstrate the Carnations neighborhoods support for
UTOD’s High Intensity District along Central Avenue, we propose
parcel 2 and 4 not exceed 70 units per acre (UPA). Buildings
currently fronting this stretch of Central Avenue range from 40 UPA
to 80 UPA.
♦ Parcel 1 and 3 must drastically reduce the UPA. Even 40 UPA on
these tracts would be out of character for anything that does not front
Central Avenue. We would like to see Parcel 1 and 3 reduce the UPA
to under 40, preferably keep the R1-6 zoning for what directly fronts
single-story, single-family homes.
3. Social and Demographic Concerns
There is a housing shortage in Phoenix that is not driven by lack of available rental
property, but by lack of homes that can be purchased. This lack of ownership
opportunity is what drives up rental prices. At least 20% of this development should
include homes that will be sold so the development can contribute to solving the real
housing crisis.
There is also an affordable housing crisis in Phoenix that is not addressed by this
proposal. At least 4% of the units should be set aside for work-force housing. One of
the goals of the Uptown TOD is to encourage a diversity of housing types.


4. Setbacks –
7’ wide sidewalks on neighborhood street.
Developer must provide additional neighborhood sidewalks as part of a benefits
package.
5. Lighting – (still working)
6. Public Spaces – (still working)




Page 595
John Roanhorse

From: Kim Jennings
Sent: Tuesday, June 6, 2023 10:58 AM
To: Mayor Gallego; Nick Klimek; Laura Pastor; Joshua Bednarek; CarnationAssociationAZ;
PDD Encanto VPC; John Roanhorse; kathryn@northcentralnews.net
Subject: City Letdown


I’m sad to say that the city that I call home has let down the carnation community. While the cities mission is to improve
the quality of life in Phoenix through efficient delivery of outstanding public services it has failed us deeply! The city has
been enamored with the housing shortage and just letting every contractor build these high cost apartments and drown
all the local communities with more and more complexes. Then there are the communities that are by the light rail and
we get hit with even more high cost apartments with zoning codes that don’t benefit the communities but the builders.
The codes that were established for the builders along the light rail were good in concept but there should of been an
overall group that manages it to make sure there that the overall landscape of the city still functions well! This is the
part that is failing us!

All I hear from builders is that we live in the city and need to accept density, but we are past density and now in crisis.
Our streets are already beyond capacity and unsafe!! Now let’s add a complex that’s over 1500 units and an average of
3000 more cars coming through our neighborhood, at a minimum. It is unsafe and where is the city now?? They are
signing off and not reviewing the zoning in relation to the community. It feels like they don’t care about us current
Phoenicians. The city is only looking at the future and not the current situation. Have you taken a step back to see if
what the land is zoned for is good for the communities and what is the current capacity? Where is the oversight of what
is best for Phoenix and its current residents??

Besides these apartment complexes that surround us we also have three high schools that are in the area of central and
Campbell. There is an influx of traffic on Campbell due to the schools too. It is an unsafe environment for all these kids
that get dropped off, take the light rail or walk to school. I hope the city is aware of this safety concern and now with a
minimum of 3000 more cars added to the mix it’s going to be even more chaotic and more unsafe. I worry about my
kids that walk to school and play in our neighborhood. People drive too fast down our street and run the stop sign
multiple times daily. This goes back to the current capacity already being over run.

Are there any city workers that truly value our current quality of life? Right now I would say no!

Some one please take this into consideration for the future of Phoenix!!

Thank you!
Kim Jennings
215 W Campbell Ave





Page 596
Page 597
Page 598
Page 599
● 3,000 vehicles per day are going to take arterial streets over local streets despite
arterials requiring more distance and more time than local streets.

Reality:
● The majority will be traveling through our local neighborhood streets to reach 7th Ave.
● 2,000 VPD on Turney (Capacity 1,000) & 1,600 VPD on Glenrosa (Capacity 1,000)
o *Before consideration of the additional traffic being generated by The Central
Park, Cresleigh Homes, and Forty600.

Lack of Accountability
When asked about the traffic issues at EVPC in June, Jamie Blakeman from Lokahi said that she
“hoped” traffic would flow to arterial streets. “Hope” is not a strategy nor does it provide
accountability. What happens if Petree and Lokahi are incorrect like they were about “minor
collectors”? What happens if the projection of 86 VPDs is actually 1086 VPD on local streets
already over capacity? Who suffers the consequences of these gross miscalculations? It
certainly isn’t Petree or Lokahi. Once the project is completed, only the Carnation residents,
pedestrians, cyclists, and students will pay the price in diminished safety, walkability, and
livability.

Solution
The problem with the current proposal is that four
large parcels offer no option to restrict traffic onto
local neighborhood streets. The solution is simple and
is actually included in ReinventPHX and Uptown TOD
Policy Plan…multiple smaller parcels. By restoring the
original street network as proposed in the Policy Plan,
traffic can be restricted and forced onto the arterial
streets with no option of entering or exiting onto local
streets as seen in a mock site plan below. These are
not “NIMBY” changes as they do not restrict the # of
units or density. In fact, smaller parcels make the
development more walkable and more aligned with
the principles of Reinvent PHX and TOD principles.

Making this one simple modification, multiple smaller parcels, changes this development
from a non-walkable, vehicle-centric, safety hazard of a development to an acceptable and
needed TOD project.




Page 600
Alternative Solution
If, for some reason, the Planning Commission does not recommend the solution of multiple
smaller parcels, the Commission should hold Petree and Lokahi financially responsible if their
traffic projections are incorrect. If 172 VPD turns into 2,172 VPD on local streets, the developer
should be subject to substantial penalties. For every vehicle over the current traffic counts plus
250 VPD (Petree projects only 172) on Turney and Glenrosa, a $20,000 per vehicle seems
reasonable. The funds should be evenly divided between the City and CAN to compensate for
the loss of safety and livability and the increase in maintenance. If Petree and Lokahi are so
certain in their projections and committed to the safety and walkability of Carnation, they
should have no problem being held accountable for the repercussions of their actions.

Conclusion
Should we trust a developer and traffic engineer who mistake “local” streets for “minor
collectors”, a basic principle of transportation? Additionally, you don’t need to be a traffic
engineer to understand that the developers' projections are bogus. You only need to
understand human nature to know that people are going to take the fastest, shortest path of
least resistance. Knowing that fundamental fact about people means that thousands of vehicles
per day are going to flood the over-capacity, local streets of Carnation if this development
proceeds on four huge lots.

Lokahi STIA
Lokahi Trip Generation Report




Page 601
Page 602



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Public Hearing - Amend City Code - Ordinance Adoption - Accessory Dwelling
Units - Z-TA-5-23-Y (Ordinance G-7160)

Request to hold a public hearing on a proposed text amendment Z-TA-5-23-Y and to
request City Council approval per the Planning Commission recommendation which
amends the following sections of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance to permit Accessory
Dwelling Units (ADUs) in residential districts; create and/or amend related
development standards and definitions; clarify related terms and references and
reorganize sections of the Zoning Ordinance as necessary to allow ADUs.

Section 202 (Definitions), section 507 Tab A.II.C.8 (Single-Family Design Review),
section 603 (Suburban S-1 District-Ranch or Farm Residence), section 604 (Suburban
S-2 District-Ranch or Farm Commercial), section 605 (Residential Estate RE-43
District-One-Family Residence), section 606 (Residential Estate RE-24 District-One-
Family Residence), section 607 (Residential R1-14 District-One-Family Residence),
section 608 (Residence Districts), section 609 (RE-35 Single-Family Residence
District), section 610 (R1-18 Single-Family Residence District), section 611 (R1-10
Single-Family Residence District), section 612 (R1-8 Single-Family Residence
District), section 613 (R1-6 Single-Family Residence District), section 614 (R-2
Multifamily Residence District), section 615 (R-3 Multifamily Residence District),
section 616 (R-3A Multifamily Residence District), section 617 (R-4 Multifamily
Residence District), section 618 (R-5 Multifamily Residence District), section 619
(Residential R-4A District-Multifamily Residence-General), section 635 (Planned Area
Development), section 649 (Mixed Use Agricultural (MUA) District), section 651
(Baseline Area Overlay District), section 653 (Desert Character Overlay District),
section 658 (Deer Valley Airport Overlay (DVAO) District), section 664 (North Central
Avenue Special Planning District (SPD) Overlay District), section 701.A.3
(Projections), section 702.F (Special Parking Standards), section 703.B (Landscaping
and Open Areas In Multiple-Family Development), section 706 (Accessory Uses and
Structures), section 708 (Temporary uses), sections 1204.C and D (Land Use Matrix),
section 1303 (Transect lot standards), section 1305.C (Fence Standards), section
1306 (Land Use Matrix), and section 1310 (Open Space Improvements).

Summary
Application: Z-TA-5-23-Y


Page 603

Proposal: The intent of the proposed text amendment is to allow an ADU to be
constructed on a lot with a detached single-family home only, by providing reasonable
increases in permitted lot coverage, and by allowing an ADU to be required within the
rear yard, with conditions. Related definitions have been revised and/or deleted, with
new definitions provided as necessary; “ADU” has been added to the use lists in
appropriate zoning districts; development regulations specific to ADUs have been
added; existing development regulations have been modified to address ADUs; related
terms and references to ADUs have been clarified and updated; and certain sections
have been reorganized for ease of use and clarity.

Additional detail is provided in the Staff Report (Attachment B) and Addendum A of
the Staff Report (Attachment C).

Applicant: City of Phoenix, Planning Commission
Representative: City of Phoenix, Planning and Development Department

Staff Recommendation: Approval of Z-TA-5-23-Y as shown in Exhibit A of the
Addendum A Staff Report (Attachment C).
VPC Info: 11 of the 15 Village Planning Committees (VPCs) heard this item for
information only throughout June, as reflected in Attachments D and E.
VPC Action: 14 VPCs considered the request throughout July and August. Five VPCs
recommended approval, per the staff recommendation; six VPCs recommended
approval, per the staff recommendation, with modifications; three VPCs recommended
denial; and one VPC did not have a quorum, as reflected in Attachments D and F.
PC Info: The Planning Commission heard this item on June 1, 2023, for information
only (Attachment G).
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this item on Aug. 3, 2023, and
recommended approval, per the staff recommendation in the Addendum A Staff
Report, by a vote of 8-0, as reflected in Attachment H.

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




Page 604
ATTACHMENT A

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


ORDINANCE G-

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING 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 202 (DEFINITIONS), SECTION 507 TAB A.II.C.8
(SINGLE-FAMILY DESIGN REVIEW), SECTION 603 (SUBURBAN
S-1 DISTRICT—RANCH OR FARM RESIDENCE), SECTION 604
(SUBURBAN S-2 DISTRICT—RANCH OR FARM COMMERCIAL),
SECTION 605 (RESIDENTIAL ESTATE RE-43 DISTRICT—ONE-
FAMILY RESIDENCE), SECTION 606 (RESIDENTIAL ESTATE RE-
24 DISTRICT—ONE-FAMILY RESIDENCE), SECTION 607
(RESIDENTIAL R1-14 DISTRICT—ONE-FAMILY RESIDENCE),
SECTION 608 (RESIDENCE DISTRICTS), SECTION 609 (RE-35
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT), SECTION 610 (R1-18
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT), SECTION 611 (R1-10
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT), SECTION 612 (R1-8
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT), SECTION 613 (R1-6
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT), SECTION 614 (R-2
MULTIFAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT), SECTION 615 (R-3
MULTIFAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT), SECTION 616 (R-3A
MULTIFAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT), SECTION 617 (R-4
MULTIFAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT), SECTION 618 (R-5
MULTIFAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT), SECTION 619
(RESIDENTIAL R-4A DISTRICT—MULTIFAMILY RESIDENCE—
GENERAL), SECTION 635 (PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT),
SECTION 649 (MIXED USE AGRICULTURAL (MUA) DISTRICT),
SECTION 651 (BASELINE AREA OVERLAY DISTRICT), SECTION
653 (DESERT CHARACTER OVERLAY DISTRICT), SECTION 658
(DEER VALLEY AIRPORT OVERLAY (DVAO) DISTRICT),
SECTION 664 (NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE SPECIAL PLANNING
DISTRICT (SPD) OVERLAY DISTRICT), SECTION 701.A.3
(PROJECTIONS), SECTION 702.F (SPECIAL PARKING
STANDARDS), SECTION 703.B (LANDSCAPING AND OPEN
AREAS IN MULTIPLE-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT), SECTION 706
(ACCESSORY USES AND STRUCTURES), SECTION 708
(TEMPORARY USES), SECTIONS 1204.C AND D (LAND USE
MATRIX), SECTION 1303 (TRANSECT LOT STANDARDS),
SECTION 1305.C (FENCE STANDARDS), SECTION 1306 (LAND
USE MATRIX), AND SECTION 1310 (OPEN SPACE

-1- Ordinance ________

Page 605
IMPROVEMENTS) OF THE PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE TO
ADDRESS ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS.

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

follows:

SECTION 1: That Chapter 2, Section 202 (Definitions), is amended to add new

definitions and revise existing as follows:

***

Accessory Dwelling UNIT (ADU): A subordinate dwelling UNIT, AS DEFINED IN THIS
SECTION, SUBORDINATE TO THE PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT AND situated on the
same lot with the main dwelling and used as FOR an A RESIDENTIAL accessory use.
ADUs, WHERE PERMITTED, DO NOT COUNT TOWARDS CALCULATIONS OF
GROSS DENSITY.

***

Apartment: See "Dwelling, Multiple-Family". A DWELLING UNIT WITHIN A DUPLEX,
TRIPLEX, TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT, AND/OR MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT
WHERE EACH UNIT HAS A PRIMARY ACCESS TO A SHARED WALKWAY OR
CORRIDOR, AND EACH UNIT IS NOT INDIVIDUALLY OWNED.

***

Building, Main: A building, or buildings, in which is conducted the principal use of the lot
on which it is situated. In any residential district, any dwelling shall be deemed to be
the main building of the lot on which the same is situated. ON LOTS WITH ONLY
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES, THE PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT SHALL BE
CONSIDERED THE MAIN BUILDING.

***

DUPLEX: A BUILDING ON ONE LOT, WHICH HOUSES EXACTLY TWO DWELLING
UNITS, NEITHER OF WHICH MAY BE CONSIDERED AN ACCESSORY DWELLING
UNIT. EACH DUPLEX UNIT COUNTS TOWARDS THE CALCULATION OF GROSS
DENSITY.

***

Dwelling, Multifamily: A building or buildings attached to each other and containing two or
more dwelling units. The term "multifamily dwelling" is intended to apply to dwelling types



-2- Ordinance ________

Page 606
as triplex, fourplex, and apartments where any dwellings have their primary access to a
common hallway or corridor.

Dwelling, Single-Family Attached: A building containing dwelling units each of which has
primary ground floor access to the outside and which are attached to each other. Each
unit extends from the foundation to roof and has open spaces on at least two sides. The
term "attached single-family dwelling" is intended primarily for dwelling types as
townhouses and duplexes.

Dwelling, Single-Family, Detached: A building containing only one dwelling unit entirely
separated by open space from buildings on adjoining lots or building sites.

Dwelling Unit: One (1) or more rooms within a building arranged, designed, or used for
residential purposes for one (1) family and containing INDEPENDENT LIVING AND
SLEEPING AREAS, TOGETHER WITH independent sanitary (TOILET, SINK, AND
BATH/SHOWER) and cooking facilities. The presence of cooking facilities conclusively
establishes the intent to use for residential purposes.

DWELLING UNIT, PRIMARY: A DWELLING UNIT THAT IS EITHER 1) THE ONLY
DWELLING UNIT PROVIDED ON A SINGLE-FAMILY LOT, OR 2) THE LARGEST
DWELLING UNIT PROVIDED ON A SINGLE-FAMILY LOT WHEN THE APPLICABLE
ZONING REGULATIONS OTHERWISE ALLOW AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT OR
OTHER TYPES OF DWELLING UNITS.

***

Guesthouse: A free-standing building which is designed to house guests or servants of
the occupants of the primary dwelling unit. SEE “ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT”.

For purposes of a guest house, a "free-standing building" shall be one which is either not
connected to the primary dwelling unit or, if connected to the primary dwelling unit, shall
be considered free-standing if:

1. The connecting structure is less than ten (10) feet wide; or
2. The connecting structure is greater than ten (10) feet wide and the length of the
connection is more than twice the width of the connecting structure.

For purposes of a guest house, the width of the connecting structure shall be the shortest
distance across its narrowest point, measured from the inside surfaces of the exterior,
enclosing walls. The length of the connecting structure shall be the shortest possible
straight line distance from the outside surface of the primary dwelling unit to the most
distant outside surface of the connecting structure.

For purposes of a guest house, a structure shall be deemed to be "designed to house
guests or servants of the occupants or the primary dwelling unit" if it contains the
following;

-3- Ordinance ________

Page 607
1. A shower or bath;
2. A commode;
3. Space for sleeping; and
4. Cooking faculties or space and plumbing and electrical wiring which can be legally
accessed and connected without the requirement of a permit issued by the City and which
is reasonably capable of accommodation of cooking facilities.

***

Interior Suite with Accessory Cooking Facilities: A room or group of rooms located within a
single dwelling unit designed or arranged to allow for semi-private residential use and
includes accessory cooking facilities.

***

Multifamily Residence: See "Dwelling, Multifamily."

MULTIFAMILY/MULTIPLE-FAMILY: A LOT OR PARCEL WHERE TWO OR MORE
DWELLING UNITS ARE PROVIDED, NOT INCLUDING A PERMITTED ACCESSORY
DWELLING UNIT.

***

Offsite Manufactured Home Development: any SINGLE lot, tract, or parcel of land, NOT
TO BE FURTHER SUBDIVIDED, used or offered for use in whole or in part, with or
without charge, for the parking of occupied offsite manufactured homes.

***

Single-Family Attached (SFA) Development: A group of single-family attached dwelling
units located on individually owned lots with common areas which are designed as an
integrated functional unit. Perimeter standards are defined and potential bonus density
and design flexibility allow for quality individual property ownership within a larger
development. Includes townhouse and row house dwellings located on small single-family
owned lots.

SINGLE-FAMILY: A LOT OR DEVELOPMENT WHERE NO MORE THAN ONE
PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT IS PROVIDED PER LOT.

SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED: A SINGLE-FAMILY LOT OR DEVELOPMENT WHERE
EACH DWELLING UNIT IS ATTACHED TO AT LEAST ONE, BUT NO MORE THAN
TWO NEIGHBORING PRIMARY DWELLING UNITS AT THE ABUTTING SIDE
PROPERTY LINE(S). EACH DWELLING UNIT MUST ALSO COMPLY WITH THE
DEFINITION OF “TOWNHOME/TOWNHOUSE”.


-4- Ordinance ________

Page 608
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED: A SINGLE-FAMILY LOT OR DEVELOPMENT WHERE
EACH DWELLING UNIT IS NOT ATTACHED TO ANY OTHER DWELLING UNIT OTHER
THAN A PERMITTED ADU.

SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL (SFI) DEVELOPMENT: A TYPE OF SINGLE-FAMILY
DEVELOPMENT CONSISTING OF TOWNHOUSES AND A LIMITED NUMBER OF
DETACHED DWELLING UNITS. PERIMETER STANDARDS ARE DEFINED AND
POTENTIAL BONUS DENSITY AND DESIGN FLEXIBILITY ALLOW FOR QUALITY
INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNERSHIP WITHIN A LARGER DEVELOPMENT.

***

TOWNHOME/TOWNHOUSE: A TYPE OF DWELLING UNIT WHICH IS ATTACHED TO
AT LEAST ONE OTHER DWELLING UNIT. THE DWELLING UNITS MAY BE
ATTACHED AT A PROPERTY LINE (SEE “SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED”), OR THEY
MAY BE MULTIPLE UNITS ON A SINGLE LOT (SEE “DUPLEX”, “TRIPLEX”, AND/OR
“MULTIFAMILY”). THE KEY CHARACTERISTIC OF A TOWNHOME IS THAT THERE IS
NO VERTICAL OVERLAP OF ANY DWELLING UNITS.

***

TRIPLEX: A BUILDING ON ONE LOT WHICH HOUSES EXACTLY THREE DWELLING
UNITS, NONE OF WHICH MAY BE CONSIDERED AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT.
EACH TRIPLEX UNIT COUNTS TOWARDS THE CALCULATION OF GROSS DENSITY.

***

Yard: A space on any lot, unoccupied by a structure and unobstructed from the ground
upward except as otherwise provided herein, and measured as the minimum horizontal
distance from a building or structure, excluding carports, porches and other permitted
projects, to the property line opposite such building line in the side or rear yards, or to the
street right-of-way or easement in the front yard; provided, however, that where a future
width line is established by the provisions of this ordinance for any street bounding the lot,
then such measurement shall be taken from the line of the building to such future width
line.
[remove existing picture]




-5- Ordinance ________

Page 609
***

SECTION 2: That Chapter 5, Section 507 Tab A II.C. (Subdivision

Design/Development) and Section 507 Tab A II.C.8 (Single-Family Design Review), is

amended to read as follows:

***

C. Subdivision AND SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED Design REVIEW/Development


-6- Ordinance ________

Page 610
***

8. Single-Family DETACHED Design Review. New single-family detached
dwelling units, LOTS HAVING A SINGLE individual duplexes OR TRIPLEX
(duplex developments consisting of ten or more duplex buildings located on
the same lot or adjacent lots are not subject to single-family design review),
manufactured homes, and modular homes that have not received
preliminary site plan or subdivision approval, or building permit issuance
prior to August 1, 2005 shall be subject to single-family design review, as
follows (R*)(R):

(a) Single-family detached developments where 10% or more of the lots
are equal to or less than 65' FEET in width or any residential
horizontal property regime shall incorporate Design Guidelines
Sections 8.1 through 8.4.

(b) Individual single-family detached dwelling units, not subject to
Subdivision Design Guidelines 8.1 through 8.4, on a lot or parcel of
65 feet in width, or less, shall incorporate Design Guidelines Section
8.5. THIS REQUIREMENT INCLUDES LOTS WITH A SINGLE
DUPLEX OR TRIPLEX WHEN NOT LOCATED IN A SUBDIVISION
SUBJECT TO II.C.8(a).

(c) Individual duplexes (as specified above) shall incorporate Design
Guidelines Section 8.5. DWELLING UNITS ON LOTS ZONED OR
DESIGNATED HP ARE EXEMPT FROM THE PROVISIONS OF
SECTION 8.5, SO LONG AS THE PLANS ARE REVIEWED AND
APPROVED THROUGH HISTORIC PRESERVATION PRIOR TO
ISSUANCE OF ANY BUILDING PERMITS. .

(d) Individual manufactured and modular homes, regardless of lot width,
shall incorporate Design Guidelines Section 8.5.

(e) Manufactured and modular home subdivisions, regardless of lot
width, shall incorporate Design Guidelines Sections 8.1 through 8.4.

***

(8.5) Individual Unit Design Standards. The goal of these individual unit
design standards is to ensure a minimum level of design quality for
detached single-family dwelling units, duplexes, manufactured
homes, and modular homes. For information on relief from
requirements (R) AND (R*), and presumptions (P) refer to Section
507.C of the Zoning Ordinance.




-7- Ordinance ________

Page 611
(a) Plot plans shall show all required design guidelines as plan
details or general notes. (R)

Rationale: Design guidelines should be shown on plans to
help ensure they are easily understood by the public and
equally applied by City staff.

(b) Where two detached units are placed on a single lot, a notice
that the lots are not to be split without prior City approval
shall be recorded with the Maricopa County Recorder’s
Office prior to issuance of building permits. The recorded
document shall be on a form approved by the City Attorney’s
Office. A copy of the recorded document shall be submitted
with the application for building permit approval and the
recorded document noted on the submitted site plan. (R)

Rationale: The public is often unaware that the City has lot
split requirements and may unknowingly create an illegal lot,
causing self-imposed obstacles to development.

(c) All driveways and parking spaces shall be hard surfaced with
brick, pavers, concrete, asphalt or equivalent. (R)

Rationale: A defined driveway and parking area reduces
vehicle maneuvering on areas not suitable for vehicles. Hard
surfaces contribute to dust emissions substantially less than
loose or unimproved surfaces. Hard surfaces are generally
more attractive and compatible with surrounding residences.

(d) (a) Each dwelling unit shall have at least one covered parking
space located in a garage or under a carport. The design of
the covered parking shall be substantially similar with regard
to texture, color and material to that of the housing. (R*) (R)

Rationale: Covered parking reduces the visual impact of
parked cars. Carports and garages that are designed with
the same level of quality as the house are more attractive
and more compatible with surrounding residences.

(e) (b) The FRONT YARD area between the front building line and
the front property line, excluding areas necessary approved
for VEHICLE access, should be landscaped with the
following elements: (P)

(1) A minimum of one, two inch caliper or greater, drought
resistant, accent tree. (P*)

-8- Ordinance ________

Page 612
(2) A minimum of five, five gallon or greater, drought
resistant shrubs. (P*)

(3) Dustproofed with ground cover, turf, rock,
decomposed granite, or equivalent material as
approved by the Planning and Development
Department. (P*)

(4) An irrigation system. (P*)

Rationale: Landscaping contributes to an attractive
environment, provides shade, and contributes to
neighborhood identity.

(f) Unless all parking is provided off an alley, no more than half
of the area between the rear lot line and the rear building line
of a single family dwelling unit, or two-thirds of said area for
duplexes, should be used for parking. (P*)

Rationale: Excessive vehicle parking areas reduces
compatibility with surrounding residences and minimizes the
opportunity for recreational activity and landscaped space.

[remove picture, do not replace]




Parking—Rear Building Line

(g) (c) Required covered parking for single family dwelling units,
duplexes, manufactured homes, and modular homes shall
not protrude BE LOCATED more than ten feet beyond
CLOSER TO THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE THAN the front
ENTRY building line. (R*)

-9- Ordinance ________

Page 613
Rationale: When parking structures are concentrated in front
of a dwelling unit, the building loses its residential character
and compatibility with surrounding residences is negatively
impacted.

[remove picture, do not replace]




Covered Parking 2

(h) The area between the rear building line and the rear lot line
shall be enclosed by a block wall, wrought iron fence, or
equivalent enclosure, a minimum of four feet in height, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
(R*)

Rationale: Rear yard enclosures provide physical security
and also ensure rear yard activities, such as pool areas and
material storage, are not readily visible. In addition,
enclosures are visually appealing and benefit the
neighborhood.

(i) (d) Walls, fences, and enclosure materials shall not include
chain link fencing with, or without, plastic or metal slats,
sheeting, non-decorative corrugated metal and fencing made
or topped with razor, concertina, OR barbed wire., or
equivalent as approved by the Planning and Development
Department. (R*)

Rationale: Certain enclosure materials are not durable, and
are incompatible with surrounding residences.




-10- Ordinance ________

Page 614
(j) (e) Development of two detached dwelling units on a lot,
duplexes, manufactured homes, or modular homes LOTS
WITH MORE THAN ONE DWELLING UNIT should provide a
single, common access drive to parking areas. (P*) (P)

Rationale: Shared access and common parking minimize
unnecessary curb cuts and breaks in the streetscape.
Common parking areas also reduce the paved area of a site

(k) (f) Single family ALL dwelling units, duplexes, manufactured
homes, and modular homes should provide the following
architectural design elements: (P)

(1) Consistent detailing and design for each side of the
building. (P*)

(2) Window and door trim as well as accent detailing
should be incorporated and vary from the primary
color and materials of the building. (P*)

(3) Garage doors should be provided with windows,
raised or recessed panels, architectural trim, or single
doors. (P*)

(4) The front entry of the building should be clearly
defined and identifiable from the street. (P*)

(5)(4) Materials such as untextured concrete, unfinished
block, steel panels, and shiny or highly reflective
detailing should not be used as a predominant exterior
material. (P*)

Rationale: High quality design promotes neighborhood
pride and visual interest in residential architecture.

(l) (g) Garage doors FACING visible from the public street AND
ATTACHED TO THE PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT should
not exceed 50% of the house BUILDING width. (P*) (P)

Rationale: Garage doors should not be the aesthetic focus of
a house; they should compliment COMPLEMENT and
appear subordinate to the main structure. THIS IS
PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT IF A DUPLEX OR TRIPLEX
IS CONSTRUCTED.




-11- Ordinance ________

Page 615
(m) (h) The front entrance, of buildings within 50 feet of the front
property line, shall face the street and shall not be set back
more than ten feet behind the front building line. A FRONT
ENTRY SHALL BE PROVIDED THAT FACES AND IS
VISIBLE FROM THE STREET, AND INCLUDES AN
ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE TO CALL ATTENTION TO IT
(SUCH AS A PORCH, ENTRY PATIO, STOOP,
AWNING/CANOPY, COURTYARD, OR ARCHWAY). FOR
LOTS HAVING MORE THAN ONE DWELLING UNIT, A
MINIMUM OF ONE UNIT SHALL COMPLY WITH THIS
REQUIREMENT. (R*)

Rationale: Emphasizing the entrance and front facade adds
to the residential character of new dwelling units and
provides eyes on the street.

[remove picture, do not replace]




Parking—Front Entrance

(n) (i) Manufactured homes shall provide the following additional
architectural design elements:

(1) Materials such as wood, hardboard, brick veneer,
hardiplank, stucco, or horizontal vinyl siding shall be
used as a predominant exterior material. (P*) (P)

(2) The exposed roof pitch shall be at a minimum of 3/12
for units twenty-eight (28) feet or less in width and be
covered with shingles, tile or metal, excluding
aluminum. (R*)




-12- Ordinance ________

Page 616
(3) A minimum fifty (50) square foot recessed entry or
covered porch shall be provided along the front entry
of the building. (R*)

(4) Permanent access to the porch or recessed entry
should be constructed with materials and colors that
are compatible with the dwelling unit. (P*) (P)

(5) A masonry stem wall shall be provided under the
dwelling unit with no more than seven (7) inches of
exposed foundation measured from highest finished
grade. (R*)

(6) The exposed masonry stem wall color should be
compatible to the dwelling unit. (P*) (P)

Rationale: High quality design promotes neighborhood pride
and visual interest in residential architecture for
manufactured homes.

***

SECTION 3: That Chapter 6, Section 603 (Suburban S-1 District – Ranch or Farm

Residence), is amended to read as follows:

***

A. Permitted Uses.

1. A maximum of one dwelling unit for one acre and one additional dwelling
unit for each ten additional acres. These dwelling units are for farm owner
and farm employees only. DWELLING UNITS. EACH LOT MAY HAVE THE
FOLLOWING:

a. ONE PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT.

b. ONE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT, 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.

***




-13- Ordinance ________

Page 617
12. Same accessory uses and buildings as RE-24. THE FOLLOWING
ADDITIONAL USES, WHEN ACCESSORY TO THE RESIDENTIAL USE
OF LAND OR STRUCTURES BY RESIDENTS, SHALL BE PERMITTED:

a. RECREATIONAL FACILITIES, FOR WHICH ALL NECESSARY
CONSTRUCTION AND OTHER REQUIRED PERMITS HAVE BEEN
OBTAINED.

b. PARKING OF VEHICLES IN FACILITIES AND LOCATIONS ON THE
PROPERTY NOT OTHERWISE IN CONFLICT WITH THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS ORDINANCE.

c. MATERIALS USED IN CONJUNCTION WITH A HOBBY,
AVOCATION OR PASTIME, THE USE OF WHICH DOES NOT
OTHERWISE CONFLICT WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS
ORDINANCE.

d. FACILITIES FOR HOUSEHOLD PETS, THE MAINTENANCE OF
WHICH IS NOT OTHERWISE PROHIBITED BY STATUTE,
REGULATION OF THE CITY CODE OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX
AND WHICH FACILITIES ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH ALL
APPLICABLE ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX.

***

B. Yard, Height and Area Requirements.

1. There shall be a EACH lot SHALL HAVE A NET AREA of not less than one
acre.

2. For all residential uses DWELLING UNITS:

a. There shall be a front yard of not less than THE MINIMUM FRONT
SETBACK IS forty 40 feet.

b. There shall be two side yards each having a width of not less than
THE MINIMUM SIDE SETBACK IS thirty 30 feet.

c. There shall be a rear yard having a depth of not less than THE
MINIMUM REAR SETBACK IS thirty 30 feet.

3. Sales stands or AND NON-RESIDENTIAL accessory buildings shall NOT be
located not nearer than fifty 50 feet from any side or rear property line and
shall not be located nearer than forty 40 feet from the front property line.




-14- Ordinance ________

Page 618
4. The main building and all accessory buildings shall not occupy more than
twenty percent of the total area of the lot for all lots under two acres or not
more than ten percent of all lots two acres or over in total area.
LOT COVERAGE:

a. FOR LOTS TWO ACRES OR LESS IN NET AREA, THE
PERMITTED LOT COVERAGE IS 20%, WITH AN ADDITIONAL 5%
PERMITTED FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AND/OR
ATTACHED SHADE STRUCTURES.

b. FOR LOTS GREATER THAN TWO ACRES IN NET AREA, THE
PERMITTED LOT COVERAGE IS 10%, WITH AN ADDITIONAL 5%
PERMITTED FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AND/OR
ATTACHED SHADE STRUCTURES.

5. No building shall exceed a height of two stories, not to exceed thirty 30 feet.

6. ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS ARE SUBJECT TO THE ADDITIONAL
PROVISIONS OF SECTION 706.A.

***

SECTION 4: That Chapter 6, Section 604 (Suburban S-2 District – Ranch or

Farm Commercial), is amended to read as follows:

***

B. Yard, height and area requirements.

1. There shall be a EACH lot SHALL HAVE A NET AREA of not less than three
acres.

2. For all residential uses DWELLING UNITS:

a. There shall be a front yard of not less than THE MINIMUM FRONT
SETBACK IS forty 40 feet.

b. There shall be two side yards each having a width of not less than
THE MINIMUM SIDE SETBACK IS thirty 30 feet.

c. There shall be a rear yard having a depth of not less than THE
MINIMUM REAR SETBACK IS thirty 30 feet.




-15- Ordinance ________

Page 619
3. Sales stands or AND NON-RESIDENTIAL accessory buildings shall NOT be
located not nearer than fifty 50 feet from any side or rear property line and
shall not be located nearer than forty 40 feet from the front property line.

4. The main building and all accessory buildings shall not occupy more than
ten percent of the total lot area.
LOT COVERAGE: THE PERMITTED LOT COVERAGE IS 10%, WITH AN
ADDITIONAL 5% PERMITTED FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS
AND/OR ATTACHED SHADE STRUCTURES.

5. No building shall exceed a height of two stories, not to exceed thirty 30 feet.

6. ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS ARE SUBJECT TO THE ADDITIONAL
PROVISIONS OF SECTION 706.A.

***

SECTION 5: That Chapter 6, Section 605 (Residential Estate RE-43 District—

One-Family Residence), is amended to read as follows:

***

A. Permitted Uses.

1. One single-family dwelling on any lot or parcel, except that a developer of a
subdivision shall be allowed to build model homes prior to recording a
subdivision plat, subject to the provisions of paragraph 7 below and subject
to submitting a final plat which shall show the following information for each
model home lot:
DWELLING UNITS. EACH LOT MAY HAVE THE FOLLOWING:

a. Street addresses for each model home as assigned by the Water
Services Department.
ONE PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT.

b. Finished floor elevations for each model home as assigned by the
Division of Engineering.
ONE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT.

c. Proposed lots for model homes shall be in conformance with lot lines
as shown on the approved preliminary plan.
MODEL HOMES ARE PERMITTED SUBJECT TO THE
PROVISIONS OF SECTION 608.E.19.




-16- Ordinance ________

Page 620
d. Each model home shall be located on each proposed lot in
conformance with yard requirements of the district.

Such final plat need not have the required approvals for purposes of
obtaining permits for model homes.

***

11. RESERVED. Guesthouse, subject to the following conditions:

a. The square footage of the guesthouse shall not exceed fifty percent
of the gross floor area of the primary dwelling unit with a maximum of
nine hundred square feet, except as set forth in subsection b, below.
Any garage area attached to the guesthouse which is more than the
area of a single-car garage shall be counted toward the allowable
square footage of the guesthouse.

b. On lots with more than forty-three thousand five hundred sixty square
feet in net area with a primary dwelling unit of at least three thousand
six hundred square feet in gross floor area, the square footage of the
guesthouse may be twenty-five percent of the gross floor area of the
primary dwelling unit.

c. The floor area of the connecting structure shall be included in the
floor area of the guesthouse.

d. Pergolas and other roofed structures without walls shall not be
considered a connecting structure.

e. Vehicular access to the accessory dwelling unit must be provided
from the same curb (driveway) as the primary dwelling unit, except
that separate access may be permitted from a paved alley.

f. One parking space must be provided for the accessory dwelling unit
in addition to the parking required for the primary dwelling unit.

g. Only one guesthouse is permitted on a single lot.

h. The guesthouse shall be constructed of similar building materials and
in the same architectural style as that of the primary dwelling unit and
shall not exceed the height in feet or number of stories of the primary
dwelling unit.

i. A guesthouse shall not:

(1) Provide more parking than the one required space;

-17- Ordinance ________

Page 621
(2) Be advertised for occupancy through any print or electronic
media or through placement of signs on the property;

(3) Provide separate mail service or have a separate address from
the primary dwelling unit; or

(4) Be separately metered for utilities.

(j) Single-family use requirements shall apply to the guesthouse and the
primary dwelling unit as a single unit.

(k) Any guesthouse existing as of (the effective date of this ordinance)
may qualify as "connected to the primary dwelling unit" by being
connected to the primary dwelling unit without meeting the minimum
width requirements.

12. Accessory uses and buildings.

a. ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS ARE SUBJECT TO THE
ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS OF SECTION 706.A.

a. b. Any accessory building shall maintain the same yard requirements as
the main building. No accessory use shall be maintained in which
there is solicitation of recipients for a service or product, or the
operation of the use so that it is commonly known as offering a
commercial service or product.

b. c. No accessory use of land or structures shall be maintained except as
hereinafter provided or except as may be permitted as a home
occupation.

c. d. The following uses, when accessory to the residential use of land or
structures by residents, shall be permitted:

(1) Sleeping, eating, and rRecreational facilities, for which all
necessary construction and other required permits have been
obtained.

(2) Parking of vehicles in facilities and locations on the property
not otherwise in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance.

(3) Materials used in conjunction with a hobby, avocation or
pastime, the use of which does not otherwise conflict with the
provisions of this ordinance.



-18- Ordinance ________

Page 622
(4) Facilities for household pets, the maintenance of which is not
otherwise prohibited by statute, regulation or the City Code of
the City of Phoenix and which facilities are in compliance with
all applicable ordinances of the City of Phoenix.

(5) Reserved.

d. e. Except as may be provided by use permit approval in conjunction with
a home occupation, no accessory use shall include outdoor display or
storage of any of the following listed items, when such items are
visible or emit odor, dust, gas, noise, vibration, smoke, heat, or glare
beyond any boundary of the lot on which such items are displayed or
stored:

***

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 forty-three thousand five hundred
sixty 43,560 square feet. No lot shall hereafter be subdivided to provide less
than forty-three thousand five hundred sixty 43,560 square feet of lot area,
nor to have a width of less than one hundred sixty-five 165 feet, nor to have
a lot depth of less than one hundred seventy-five 175 feet. The provisions of
Section 701.A.3, as it refers to carports, porches, and balconies in the
side yard, shall not be applicable.

***

7. YARDS FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AND OTHER ACCESSORY
STRUCTURES SHALL BE PROVIDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
PROVISIONS OF SECTION 706.

8. PROJECTIONS INTO THE REQUIRED SIDE YARDS, PER THE
PROVISIONS OF SECTION 701.A.3.a (1)(b), ARE NOT PERMITTED.

***

SECTION 6: That Chapter 6, Section 606 (Residential Estate RE-24 District—

One-Family Residence), is amended to read as follows:

***

A. Permitted Uses.



-19- Ordinance ________

Page 623
1. One single-family dwelling on any lot or parcel, except that a developer of a
subdivision shall be allowed to build model homes prior to recording a
subdivision plat, subject to the provisions of Section 606A.4.b below and
subject to submitting a final plat which shall show the following information
for each model home lot:
DWELLING UNITS. EACH LOT MAY HAVE THE FOLLOWING:

a. Street addresses for each model home as assigned by the Water
Services Department.
ONE PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT.

b. Finished floor elevations for each model home as approved by the
Engineering Department.
ONE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT.

c. Proposed lots for model homes shall be in conformance with lot lines
as shown on the approved preliminary plat.
MODEL HOMES ARE PERMITTED SUBJECT TO THE
PROVISIONS OF SECTION 608.E.19.

d. Each model home shall be located on each proposed lot in
conformance with yard requirements of the district.

Such final plat need not have the required approvals for purposes of
obtaining permits for model homes.

***

11. Accessory uses and buildings.

a. ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS ARE SUBJECT TO THE
ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS OF SECTION 706.A.

a. b. No accessory use shall be maintained in which there is solicitation of
recipients for a service or product, or the operation of the use so that
it is commonly known as offering a commercial service or product.

b. c. No accessory use of land or structures shall be maintained except as
hereinafter provided or except as may be permitted as a home
occupation.

c. d. The following uses, when accessory to the residential use of land or
structures by residents, shall be permitted:




-20- Ordinance ________

Page 624
(1) Sleeping, eating, and rRecreational facilities, for which all
necessary construction and other required permits have been
obtained.

(2) Parking of vehicles in facilities and locations on the property
not otherwise in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance.

(3) Materials used in conjunction with a hobby, avocation or
pastime, the use of which does not otherwise conflict with the
provisions of this ordinance.

(4) Facilities for household pets, the maintenance of which is not
otherwise prohibited by statute, regulation or the City Code of
the City of Phoenix and which facilities are in compliance with
all applicable ordinances of the City of Phoenix.

(5) Reserved.

d. e. Except as may be provided by use permit approval in conjunction with
a home occupation, no accessory use shall include outdoor display or
storage of any of the following listed items, when such items are
visible or emit odor, dust, gas, noise, vibration, smoke, heat, or glare
beyond any boundary of the lot on which such items are displayed or
stored:

***

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 twenty-four thousand 24,000
square feet. No lot shall hereafter be subdivided to provide less than twenty-
four thousand 24,000 thousand square feet of lot area nor to have a width of
less than one hundred thirty 130 feet nor a lot depth of less than one
hundred twenty 120 feet. The provisions of Section 701.A.1 and 701.A.2
shall not be applicable. The provisions of Section 701.A.3, as it refers to
carports, porches, and balconies in the side yard, shall not be applicable.

***

7. Yards for ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AND detached OTHER
accessory buildings STRUCTURES shall be permitted as PROVIDED in
ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF Section 706.

8. PROJECTIONS INTO THE REQUIRED SIDE YARDS, PER THE
PROVISIONS OF SECTION 701.A.3.a(1)(b), ARE NOT PERMITTED.

-21- Ordinance ________

Page 625
***

SECTION 7: That Chapter 6, Section 607 (Residential R1-14 District—One-

Family Residence), is amended to read as follows:

***

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 fourteen thousand 14,000 square
feet. No lot shall hereafter be subdivided to provide less than fourteen
thousand 14,000 square feet of lot area not to have a width of less than one
hundred ten 110 feet nor a depth less than one hundred twenty 120 feet.
The provisions of Section 701.A.1 and 701.A.2 shall not be applicable. The
provisions of Section 701.A.3, as it refers to carports, porches, and
balconies in the side yard, shall not be applicable.

***

7. Yards for ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AND detached OTHER
accessory buildings STRUCTURES shall be permitted as PROVIDED in
ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF Section 706.

8. PROJECTIONS INTO THE REQUIRED SIDE YARDS, PER THE
PROVISIONS OF SECTION 701.A.3.a(1)(b), ARE NOT PERMITTED.


***

SECTION 8: That Chapter 6, Section 608 (Residence Districts), is amended to

read as follows:

Section 608. Residence RESIDENTIAL Districts.




-22- Ordinance ________

Page 626
A. Purpose. Residential districts are established in recognition of a need to provide
areas of the City devoted primarily to living functions. In order to preserve these
areas from the distractions and adverse impacts which can result from immediate
association with nonresidential uses, these districts are restricted to residential,
limited nonresidential uses, and appropriate accessory uses. These regulations are
designed to promote the creation and maintenance of areas in which individuals or
families may pursue residential activities with reasonable access to open space,
and streets or roads, in a setting which is not negatively impacted by adjacent
uses. Limited nonresidential uses may have conditions placed upon them to limit
impact to adjacent residential uses and in some cases require a public hearing
through a use permit or special permit process to mitigate any negative impacts to
surrounding residential uses.

The standards contained in this section and Sections 609 through 618 619 AND
635 are designed to establish the character of new residential development and
also to preserve the quality of residential uses during their lifetime. When applied to
new development, these standards are designed to be used in conjunction with the
development and improvement standards as contained in the Phoenix Subdivision
Ordinance, Chapter 32 of the City Code.

This section applies to the Residential Districts in Sections 609 through 618 619, IN
ADDITION TO SECTION 635 (PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT) WHEN
SPECIFIED.

***

B. Use of district regulations APPLICABILITY OF DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS. The
development of any parcel of land shall be in accordance with the standards
contained in any one development option as contained in Sections 609 through
619. Development of a single lot or a parcel not being further subdivided and
located in the RE-35 and R1-18 zoning districts (Sections 609 and 610) shall be in
accordance with the requirements for the standard subdivision development option
(a), as contained in Sections 609 and 610. For a single lot or parcel not part of a
subdivision platted prior to May 1, 1998, not being further subdivided, and located
in the R1-10 through R-4A zoning districts (Sections 611 through 619),
development shall be in accordance with the requirements of the conventional
subdivision option as contained in Sections 611 through 619.

All subsequent development shall be in accordance with the initially selected
development option unless a use permit is obtained. Building on any lot which was
subdivided or developed prior to the adoption of this chapter shall be done in
accordance with the standards under which the initial subdivision or development
occurred.

For purposes of conversion to this ordinance, property subdivided prior to May 1,
1998, shall be considered as follows:

-23- Ordinance ________

Page 627
***

2. Residential development with a sublot site plan AN APPROVED
SUBDIVISION SETBACK EXHIBIT approved by the subdivision committee
shall be considered under the average lot development option if located in
the RE-35 through R1-5 R-5 zoning districts (Sections 609 through 618).

***

C. Permitted Uses

Use
Permitted
Permit
with
Use Permitted and
Conditions
(1) Conditions
(2)

Single-Family DU X
Governmental Uses X
Community Residence Home X
Interior Suite with Accessory Cooking Facilities X
Boarding House X X
Group Home X X
***
1—6 Dependent Care Facility X
1—4 Adult Day Care Home X
Display for Sale of Vehicle X
Guestrooms X
Public Utility Buildings and Facilities X
Schools, Private X X
X
***

5—10 Adult Day Care Home X X
Churches/Place of Worship X X
Construction Facilities and Storage X X
Home Occupations X X
Model Homes and/or Subdivision Sales Office X X
Nondaily Newspaper Delivery Service X X
Public Assembly—Residential X X
***

7—12 Dependent Care Facility X
Environmental Remediation Facility X


-24- Ordinance ________

Page 628
(1) Please note some uses that are permitted with conditions require a use permit
approval if they exceed established thresholds.

(2) There is also a fourth category of residential uses permitted with approval of a
special permit. Please see Section 647.

***

C. 1. One single-family dwelling on any lot or parcel, except that a developer of a
subdivision shall be allowed to build model homes prior to recording a
subdivision plat, subject to the provisions of Section 608.C.3 and subject to
submitting a final plat which shall show the following information for each
model home lot:

a. Street addresses for each model home as assigned by the Water
Services Department.

b. Finished floor elevations for each model home as approved by the
Engineering Department.

c. Proposed lots for model homes shall be in conformance with lot lines
as shown on the approved preliminary plat.

d. Each model home shall be located on each proposed lot in
conformance with yard requirements of the district.

Such final plat need not have the required approvals for purposes of
obtaining permits for model homes.

2. Governmental uses are permitted.

3. No accessory use of land or structures shall be maintained except as
hereinafter provided or except as may be permitted as a home occupation.

C. USE REGULATIONS. THE REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE USES OF LAND
AND STRUCTURES SHALL BE AS SET FORTH IN THE RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS LAND USE MATRIX, SECTION 608.D, AND LAND USE
CONDITIONS IN SECTION 608.E, AS FOLLOWS:

1. ANY USE NOT LISTED IN SECTION 608.D (RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
LAND USE MATRIX) SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED UNLESS THE USE IS
OTHERWISE PERMITTED WITHIN THE REGULATIONS SPECIFIC TO
THE ZONING DISTRICT, PER SECTIONS 609 – 619 AND 635.




-25- Ordinance ________

Page 629
2. ALL USES INDICATED WITH “p” ARE PERMITTED WITH THE
APPLICABLE ZONING DISTRICT, SUBJECT TO DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS LISTED BELOW AND ELSEWHERE WITHIN THE
ZONING ORDINANCE.

3. ALL USES INDICATED WITH “pc” ARE PERMITTED WITHIN THE
APPLICABLE ZONING DISTRICT ONLY IF SPECIFIC CONDITIONS ARE
MET. THE CONDITIONS ARE DESCRIBED IN SECTION 608.E, LAND
USE CONDITIONS, BY THE ASSOCIATED CONDITION NUMBER (E.G.
“pc15” IS DESCRIBED UNDER SECTION 608.E.15). IN SOME CASES, A
USE PERMIT PER SECTION 307 MAY BE REQUIRED AS OUTLINED IN
THE CONDITIONS.

4. ALL USES INDICATED WITH “up” ARE PERMITTED WITHIN THE
APPLICABLE ZONING DISTRICT ONLY UPON APPROVAL OF A USE
PERMIT PER SECTION 307. IF A NUMBER IS ALSO PROVIDED (E.G.
“UP25”), THERE ARE ALSO CONDITIONS WHICH MUST BE COMPLIED
WITH BEFORE APPLYING FOR A USE PERMIT.

5. ALL USES INDICATED WITH “sp” ARE PERMITTED WITHIN THE
APPLICABLE ZONING DISTRICT ONLY UPON APPROVAL OF A
SPECIAL PERMIT PER SECTION 504.1.

6 ALL USES INDICATED WITH “np” ARE NOT PERMITTED WITHIN THE
APPLICABLE ZONING DISTRICT.

7. NO ACCESSORY USE OF LAND OR STRUCTURES SHALL BE
MAINTAINED EXCEPT AS HEREINAFTER PROVIDED OR EXCEPT AS
MAY BE PERMITTED AS A HOME OCCUPATION.

***

D. Permitted Uses with Conditions.

1. Adult day care home for the care of one to four adult persons; provided, that:

a. Outdoor recreation areas shall be screened from adjacent properties
by a six-foot-high landscape hedge, solid fence, or solid wall.

2. Community residence home; provided, that:

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:

-26- Ordinance ________

Page 630
(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.

3. Dependent care facility for six dependents, subject to the following
conditions:

a. Resident dependents under the age of 12 years shall not be counted.

b. Outdoor play areas shall be screened from adjacent properties by a
six-foot-high landscape hedge, solid fence, or solid wall.

c. The employees must reside at the facility unless a nonresident
employee is required by the Arizona Department of Health Services.

4. The display for sale of a vehicle, which for purposes of this provision
includes trailers, watercraft or other types of transportation that are built to
carry passengers or cargo shall be subject to the following restrictions:

a. No more than one vehicle can be labeled for sale or show any
indication that it is for sale at any given time on a property, whether
visible on site or through some other form of advertising.

b. No more than two vehicles can be sold on a property during any
calendar year.

c. For purposes of Sections 608.A and B, two jet skis, a boat or similar
types of recreational vehicles that are transported on one trailer shall,
together with the trailer, be considered one vehicle.

d. The ownership of the vehicle(s) must be registered to the location
where the vehicle is listed for sale.
e. No vehicle can be labeled for sale or show any indication that it is for
sale at an unoccupied house or on a vacant lot or parcel.




-27- Ordinance ________

Page 631
f. No vehicle can be labeled for sale or show any indication that it is for
sale in conjunction with a retail or wholesale vehicle sales dealership
or business without obtaining a temporary use permit.

5. Guestrooms. Each single-family dwelling may contain no more than two
guestrooms.

6. Public utility buildings and facilities when necessary for serving the
surrounding territory; provided, that no public business offices and no repair
or storage facilities are maintained therein, are permitted in each district.

7. Schools are permitted in each district subject to a site plan being approved
in conformance with Section 507.

8. Interior suite with accessory cooking facilities, subject to the following:

a. Dwelling units with an interior suite with accessory cooking facilities
are permitted only in residential subdivisions of 15 acres or more and
located within the boundaries illustrated in Map 1, as follows:

(1) Subdivided after July 5, 2019; or

(2) Subdivided prior to July 5, 2019, but with less than 25 percent
of the lots having constructed dwelling units or valid building
permits as of July 5, 2019.




-28- Ordinance ________

Page 632
Map 1: Applicable Area




-29- Ordinance ________

Page 633
b. An interior suite with accessory cooking facilities shall only be part of
a single-family detached dwelling unit and must be under the same
roof structure. Only one interior suite with accessory cooking facilities
shall be permitted per lot and shall be located on the ground floor.

c. The square footage of the interior suite with accessory cooking
facilities shall not exceed 30 percent of the total net floor area or 800
square feet (whichever is less). Garage or patio areas shall not be
included for the purpose of this calculation.

d. An interior suite with accessory cooking facilities shall not have utility
services that are metered separately from the remainder of the
dwelling unit.

e. At least one internal doorway shall be provided between the interior
suite with accessory cooking facilities and the remainder of the
dwelling unit.

f. An interior suite with accessory cooking facilities shall not have a
private yard area that is fenced or walled off from the remainder of the
lot. This requirement shall not prohibit required pool fences, fenced in
animal areas, garden fencing, or other fencing used for different
purposes.

g. No more than one parking space, which may be covered or enclosed,
shall be provided for an interior suite with accessory cooking facilities
in addition to the parking provided for the remainder of the dwelling
unit, with a maximum of four spaces total. This requirement does not
apply to parking that may occur on the driveway in front of the
garage(s).

h. An interior suite with accessory cooking facilities shall not have a
parking space served by a driveway separated from the main
driveway and parking areas provided for the remainder of the dwelling
unit.

i. An interior suite with accessory cooking facilities shall not provide
separate mail service or have a separate address from the remainder
of the dwelling unit.

j. Design requirements. Elevations must minimize any secondary entry
visible from the street and have the appearance of a single-family
home. This shall be treated as a presumption as outlined in Section
507.C.2.



-30- Ordinance ________

Page 634
D. RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS LAND USE MATRIX
Section 608.D. (new) Residential Districts Land Use Matrix
SECTION AND ZONING DISTRICT
LAND USE CATEGORIES 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 635
RE-35 R1-18 R1-10 R1-8 R1-6 R-2 R-3 R-3A R-4 R-5 R-4A PAD
Single-Family Detached pc1 pc1 pc1 pc1 pc1 pc1 pc1 pc1 pc1 pc1 pc1 pc1
Accessory Dwelling Unit
(ac) pc2 pc2 pc2 pc2 pc2 pc2 pc2 pc2 pc2 pc2 pc2 pc2
(ADU)
(ac) Guestroom(s) pc3 pc3 pc3 pc3 pc3 pc3 pc3 pc3 pc3 pc3 pc3 pc3
Duplex np np pc4 pc4 pc4 pc4 pc4 pc4 pc4 pc4 pc4 pc4
Triplex np np np np np pc5 pc5 pc5 pc5 pc5 pc5 pc5
Single-Family Attached pc6 pc6 pc6 pc6 pc6 pc6 pc6 pc6 pc6 pc6 pc6 pc6
Multifamily np np pc7 pc7 pc7 pc7 pc7 pc7 pc7 pc7 pc7 pc7
Residential Convenience
(ac) np np np np np np np pc8 pc8 pc8 pc8 pc8
Market
Off-Site Manufactured Home
np np np np np up35 up35 up35 up35 up35 up35 np
Developments
Boarding House np np np np np np up9 up9 up9 up9 up9 up9
1-4 Adult Day Care Home pc10 pc10 pc10 pc10 pc10 pc10 pc10 pc10 pc10 pc10 pc10 pc10
5-10 Adult Day Care Home up11 up11 up11 up11 up11 up11 up11 up11 up11 up11 up11 up11
Page 635 11+ Adult Day Care Center np np np np np np up12 up12 up12 up12 up12 np
1-10 Community Residence
pc13 pc13 pc13 pc13 pc13 pc13 pc13 pc13 pc13 pc13 pc13 pc13
Home
11 + Community Residence
np np np np np np up14 up14 up14 up14 up14 np
Center
1-6 Dependent Care Facility pc15 pc15 pc15 pc15 pc15 pc15 pc15 pc15 pc15 pc15 pc15 pc15
7-12 Dependent Care Facility up16 up16 up16 up16 up16 up16 up16 up16 up16 up16 up16 up16
13 + Dependent Care Facility np np np np np np up17 up17 up17 up17 up17 np
Group Home np np np np np np up18 up18 up18 up18 up18 up18
Group Foster Home np np np np np np up up p p p np
Governmental Uses p p p p p p p p p p p p
Model Homes and Subdivision
pc19 pc19 pc19 pc19 pc19 pc19 pc19 pc19 pc19 pc19 pc19 pc19
Sales Offices
Public Utility Buildings and
pc20 pc20 pc20 pc20 pc20 pc20 pc20 pc20 pc20 pc20 pc20 pc20
Facilities
Schools, Private pc22 pc22 pc22 pc22 pc22 pc22 pc22 pc22 pc22 pc22 pc22 pc22
Schools, Public p p p p p p p p p p p p
Church/Place of Worship p p p p p p p p p p p p

-31- Ordinance ________
SECTION AND ZONING DISTRICT
LAND USE CATEGORIES 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 635
RE-35 R1-18 R1-10 R1-8 R1-6 R-2 R-3 R-3A R-4 R-5 R-4A PAD
Accessory To
(ac) pc21 pc21 pc21 pc21 pc21 pc21 pc21 pc21 pc21 pc21 pc21 pc21
Church/Place Of Worship
Public Assembly--Residential pc22 pc22 pc22 pc22 pc22 pc22 pc22 pc22 pc22 pc22 pc22 pc22
Environmental Remediation
up23 up23 up23 up23 up23 up23 up23 up23 up23 up23 up23 up23
Facility
Community Garden pc24 pc24 pc24 pc24 pc24 pc24 pc24 pc24 pc24 pc24 pc24 np
Farmer’s Market pc25 pc25 pc25 pc25 pc25 pc25 pc25 pc25 pc25 pc25 pc25 np
ACCESSORY USES IN RESIDENCE DISTRICTS
Construction Facilities
pc26 pc26 pc26 pc26 pc26 pc26 pc26 pc26 pc26 pc26 pc26 pc26
And Storage
Home Occupations pc27 pc27 pc27 pc27 pc27 pc27 pc27 pc27 pc27 pc27 pc27 pc27
Non-Daily Newspaper
pc28 pc28 pc28 pc28 pc28 pc28 pc28 pc28 pc28 pc28 pc28 pc28
Service
Display For Sale Of
pc29 pc29 pc29 pc29 pc29 pc29 pc29 pc29 pc29 pc29 pc29 pc29
Vehicle
Facilities For Household
pc30 pc30 pc30 pc30 pc30 pc30 pc30 pc30 pc30 pc30 pc30 pc30
Pets
Garage Or Yard Sales pc31 pc31 pc31 pc31 pc31 pc31 pc31 pc31 pc31 pc31 pc31 pc31
Page 636 Hobbies And Associated
pc32 pc32 pc32 pc32 pc32 pc32 pc32 pc32 pc32 pc32 pc32 pc32
Supplies
Parking (Accessory) pc33 pc33 pc33 pc33 pc33 pc33 pc33 pc33 pc33 pc33 pc33 pc33
Private Tennis / Outdoor
pc34 pc34 pc34 pc34 pc34 pc34 pc34 pc34 pc34 pc34 pc34 pc34
Game Courts

*(ac) = accessory use permitted only with primary use listed immediately prior in the table.




-32- Ordinance ________
E. Permitted Uses with Conditions and May Require Approval of a Use Permit
Pursuant to Section 307.

1. Churches or similar places of worship, including parish houses, parsonages,
rectories, and convents and dormitories with no more than ten residents
accessory thereto, are permitted in each district, except temporary tents or
buildings. Athletic activities in conjunction with the above and on the same
lot or contiguous lots may be permitted. See Public Assembly—Residential.

a. Bingo may be operated as an accessory use on the premises of the
church when conducted no more than two days a week. Fundraising
events located on the same lot or contiguous lots shall be permitted,
subject to the following requirements:

(1) The sponsoring, organizing and benefiting entities shall be
nonprofit or religious organizations.

b. Events held entirely within a building or buildings shall not be further
regulated; however, events to be conducted wholly or in part outdoors
shall be subject to the following additional conditions:

(1) Any outdoor portion of the event must be located a minimum of
50 feet from a property line adjacent to a residential zoning
district and a residential use.

(2) The event shall not be conducted between the hours of 10:00
p.m. and 5:00 a.m.

(3) The event shall not be conducted in such manner as to reduce
the number of parking spaces required for any normal
functions of the primary use which are held during the event.

(4) Lighting shall be so placed as to reflect the light away from
adjacent residences.

c. Pocket shelters as accessory uses to churches or similar places of
worship, subject to the following standards (and applicable Maricopa
County and City of Phoenix health and safety regulations):

(1) A pocket shelter shall house no more than 12 unrelated
persons. A pocket shelter may house up to 20 unrelated
persons upon approval of a use permit in accordance with the
procedures and standards of Section 307. Minors (age 18
years or younger) accompanied by a parent or a guardian shall
not be counted in the number of unrelated persons.



-33- Ordinance ________

Page 637
(2) The church or similar place of worship shall be located on an
arterial or collector street as defined on the street classification
map. A shelter at a church or similar place of worship which is
not on an arterial or collector street shall be permitted upon
approval of a use permit in accordance with the procedures
and provisions of Section 307.

(3) The church or similar place of worship shall provide on-site
supervision of shelter residents at all times that two or more
unrelated residents are at the shelter.

(4) Drug, alcohol, other substance abuse, or mental health
rehabilitation programs shall not be allowed as part of the
shelter services. This provision shall not prevent the church or
similar place of worship from referring shelter residents to
other appropriate programs at the church or similar place of
worship or elsewhere, e.g., Alcoholics Anonymous, which are
not part of the shelter services.

(5) Shelter residents shall not possess alcohol, weapons, or illegal
drugs at the shelter.

(6) Open areas surrounding pocket shelter structures shall be
screened from view from abutting and/or adjoining properties
by hedges, trees, other landscaping, or walls.

(7) Pocket shelter structures shall not have direct access to
abutting and/or adjoining properties.

(8) Pocket shelters shall be housed in permanent structures rather
than in tents or other similar temporary structures.

(9) A church or similar place of worship shall house no more than
one pocket shelter.

2. Construction facilities and storage, incidental to a construction project and
located on the project site, are permitted. When such facilities or storage are
used for construction on a lot or lots other than the lot or lots used for such
facilities or storage, such use shall maintain the setbacks provided by the
requirements of this chapter and shall be subject to securing a use permit.
When such facilities and storage serve a residential subdivision, are
approved in conjunction with model homes by the Planning and
Development Department, and meet all of the standards listed below, no
use permit is required:




-34- Ordinance ________

Page 638
a. The facilities shall not be placed on a lot which abuts, joins at the
corners, or is across a street or alley from a dwelling unit which is
under construction or occupied at the time of said placement, unless
written agreement to the placement is given by the owner or occupant
of the affected property.

b. All outside storage shall be screened by a six-foot-high solid fence or
masonry wall. No construction vehicles or machinery shall be placed
within ten feet of the screen fence or wall.

c. All signs on the facility shall fully comply with Section 705, the Sign
Code.

d. All facilities and storage shall be removed within three months of the
closure of the model homes.

3. Home occupations including but not limited to architect, lawyer, off-site sales
businesses, accountant, real estate agent, telemarketing sales, and
psychologist. For purposes of this section, off-site sales means processing
orders by mail, facsimile, phone, modem or Internet.

a. No one outside the family residing in the dwelling unit shall be
employed in the home occupation.

b. No exterior display, no exterior storage of materials, no sign, and no
other exterior indication of the home occupation or variation from the
residential character of the principal or accessory building, except as
authorized in Section 608.E.3.h.

c. No home occupation shall emit odor, dust, gas, noise, vibration,
smoke, heat, or glare beyond any boundary of the lot on which the
home occupation is conducted.

d. Activity shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00
p.m.

e. No mechanical equipment shall be used except that normally used for
domestic, hobby, standard office, or household purposes.

f. Not more than 25 percent of the total area under roof on the site shall
be used for any home occupation.

g. Any parking incidental to the home occupation shall be provided on
the site.

h. Home occupations shall obtain a use permit from the Zoning
Administrator in accordance with Section 307 when:

-35- Ordinance ________

Page 639
(1) Traffic (other than trips by occupants of the household) is
generated by the home occupation; or

(2) The home occupation is conducted in an accessory building; or

(3) The home occupation is conducted as an outside use; or

(4) Minor variations to Section 608.E.3.c are required to conduct
the home occupation; or

(5) An applicant desires an official approval of a home occupation.

i. A home occupation shall not include, but such exclusion shall not be
limited to, the following uses:

(1) Barbershops and beauty parlors.

(2) Commercial stables, veterinary offices.

(3) Dog grooming.

(4) Massage parlors.

(5) Reserved.

(6) Restaurants.

(7) Veterinary hospitals and commercial kennels.

4. Model homes and/or subdivision sales offices when located in model homes
subject to approval of the Planning and Development Department’s
representative to the Site Planning Division, and subject to the following
conditions:

a. Such model home and/or subdivision sales offices shall be located in
a subdivision or portion thereof 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 608.E.4.b for an additional 36
months shall be extended only upon securing a use permit.


-36- Ordinance ________

Page 640
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 608.E.4.b or upon expiration of the extension
granted by the Zoning Administrator pursuant to Section 608.E.4.c, or
after six months following sale or occupancy of all lots in the
subdivision other than the model homes, whichever comes 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 400 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 Section 608.E.4.a and d, the term "subdivision"
shall mean all the land included within the preliminary plat submitted
to the 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 608.C.1.

g. Modular subdivision sales office, subject to the following criteria:

(1) The structure shall be integrated with, architecturally
compatible to, and blend in color to the model homes approved
for the subdivision, as determined by the Planning and
Development Department.

(2) Modular subdivision sales offices shall be permitted for a
period not to exceed 36 months from the date of approval for
the sales offices.

(3) The time limit allowed in Section 608.E.4.g.2 for an additional
36 months shall be extended only upon securing a use permit.




-37- Ordinance ________

Page 641
(4) The modular subdivision sales office shall be removed on or
before the termination date set forth in Section 608.E.4.g.2 or
upon expiration of the extension granted by the Zoning
Administrator or after six months following sale or occupancy
of all lots in the subdivision other than the model homes,
whichever comes first.

(5) For the purposes of this section, the term "subdivision" shall
mean all of the land included within the preliminary plat
submitted to the Planning and Development Department.

(6) Prior to issuance of any sales office permits, a site plan shall
be approved by the Planning and Development Department for
verification of setback conformance.

(7) Two signs are permitted. Signs shall not exceed a combined
total of 32 square feet.

(8) One sales office shall be permitted for each model home
complex allowed in accordance with Section 608.E.4.h.

h. 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 400 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 dust proofed.

(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.

5. Nondaily newspaper delivery service shall be permitted subject to the
following limitations:


-38- Ordinance ________

Page 642
a. Delivered bulk materials related to nondaily publications shall be
transferred to an enclosed building or secured area so that materials
are not visible from the street or adjacent properties unless for
preparation of materials for same day distribution. Preparation of
materials for same day distribution may occur on or about adjacent
public rights-of-way; provided, that materials do not remain in public
view for longer than 24 hours.

b. Materials stored for periods greater than 24 hours shall be enclosed
within a building or secured by a wall or fence of such material,
construction, and height so as to conceal the materials located.

c. Activities relating to and/or accessory to the preparation of materials
stored for periods greater than 24 hours shall occur within an
enclosed building or an area secured by a wall or fence of such
material, construction, and height so as to completely conceal the
activities.

d. Such delivery shall be limited to two bulk deliveries in a seven-day
period. More frequent deliveries shall require a use permit in
accordance with the procedures of Section 307.

e. No traffic other than that required for the bulk delivery and pickup
shall be allowed by outside employees. Any other business-related
traffic shall require a use permit in accordance with the procedures of
Section 307.

6. Public Assembly—Residential. A use permit shall be required for all public
assembly—residential uses with vehicular access on local or minor collector
streets.

E. LAND USE CONDITIONS.

1. SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DWELLING UNIT. EACH SINGLE-FAMILY
LOT IS PERMITTED ONE (1) 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 (1)
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT IN ADDITION TO THE PRIMARY
DWELLING UNIT, EXCEPT THAT LOTS HAVING A DUPLEX OR
TRIPLEX MAY NOT HAVE AN ADU.

b. AN ADU IS SUBJECT TO THE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF
SECTION 706.A.

-39- Ordinance ________

Page 643
3. GUESTROOMS. EACH SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING UNIT MAY CONTAIN
NO MORE THAN TWO GUESTROOMS.

4. DUPLEX:

a. SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS: ONE (1) DUPLEX IS PERMITTED PER
LOT WHEN ALLOWED BY THE UNDERLYING ZONING DISTRICT
AND DEVELOPMENT OPTION. THE LOT MUST BE OF THE
MINIMUM SIZE REQUIRED BY THE APPLICABLE DENSITY TO
PERMIT TWO DWELLING UNITS.

b. MULTIFAMILY LOTS: DUPLEXES ARE PERMITTED WHEN
ALLOWED BY THE UNDERLYING ZONING DISTRICT AND
DEVELOPMENT OPTION. THE LOT MUST BE OF THE MINIMUM
SIZE REQUIRED BY THE APPLICABLE DENSITY TO PERMIT THE
NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS PROPOSED.

5. TRIPLEX:

a. SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS: ONE (1) TRIPLEX IS PERMITTED PER
LOT WHEN ALLOWED BY THE UNDERLYING ZONING DISTRICT
AND DEVELOPMENT OPTION. THE LOT MUST BE OF THE
MINIMUM SIZE REQUIRED BY THE APPLICABLE DENSITY TO
PERMIT THREE DWELLING UNITS.

b. MULTIFAMILY LOTS: TRIPLEXES ARE PERMITTED WHEN
ALLOWED BY THE UNDERLYING ZONING DISTRICT AND
DEVELOPMENT OPTION. THE LOT MUST BE OF THE MINIMUM
SIZE REQUIRED BY THE APPLICABLE DENSITY TO PERMIT THE
NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS PROPOSED.

6. SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED DWELLING UNIT. ONE (1) SINGLE-
FAMILY ATTACHED DWELLING UNIT IS PERMITTED PER SINGLE-
FAMILY LOT WHEN ALLOWED BY THE UNDERLYING ZONING
DISTRICT AND DEVELOPMENT OPTION.

7 MULTIFAMILY DWELLING UNITS. MULTIFAMILY DWELLING UNITS
ARE PERMITTED WHEN ALLOWED BY THE UNDERLYING ZONING
DISTRICT AND DEVELOPMENT OPTION.

8. RESIDENTIAL CONVENIENCE MARKET. A RESIDENTIAL
CONVENIENCE MARKET IS PERMITTED AS AN ACCESSORY USE TO A
MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT WHERE SPECIFIED IN THE
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT LAND USE MATRIX, SUBJECT TO THE
FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:


-40- Ordinance ________

Page 644
a. THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL CONTAIN A MINIMUM OF 400
DWELLING UNITS.

b. THE MARKET SHALL NOT EXCEED 1,000 SQUARE FEET IN
TOTAL FLOOR AREA (DISPLAY AND STORAGE) IF THE
DEVELOPMENT CONTAINS LESS THAN 850 DWELLING UNITS.
THE MARKET SHALL NOT EXCEED 3,000 SQUARE FEET IN
TOTAL FLOOR AREA (DISPLAY AND STORAGE) IF THE
DEVELOPMENT CONTAINS 850 OR MORE DWELLING UNITS.

c. NO PARKING SPACES SHALL BE REQUIRED OR PERMITTED
FOR THE MARKET EXCEPT FOR SPACES DESIGNATED FOR
DELIVERIES OR ACCESSIBLE SPACES.

d. SIGNAGE SHALL BE ALLOWED ONLY AS PART OF A
COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PLAN PURSUANT TO SECTION 705.
THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MAY APPROVE WALL MOUNTED
SIGNAGE UP TO A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 30 FEET AS PART OF
AN APPROVED COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PLAN.

9. BOARDING HOUSE, SUBJECT TO A USE PERMIT AND THE
FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:

a. 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.

b. NO BOARDING HOUSE 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 BOARDING HOUSE, GROUP HOME, OR COMMUNITY
RESIDENCE HOME OR CENTER WITHIN A RESIDENTIAL
ZONING DISTRICT.

c. A MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE OF 25 PERCENT.

d. A MINIMUM OF 100 SQUARE FEET OF USABLE OUTDOOR OPEN
SPACE PER BED SHALL BE PROVIDED, WHICH MAY BE
REDUCED TO 50 SQUARE FEET OF USABLE OUTDOOR OPEN
SPACE PER BED IN THE R-5 AND R-4A DISTRICTS.

e. THE LOT SHALL ONLY HAVE VEHICULAR ACCESS FROM AN
ARTERIAL OR COLLECTOR STREET.




-41- Ordinance ________

Page 645
10. ADULT DAY CARE HOME FOR THE CARE OF ONE TO FOUR ADULT
PERSONS; PROVIDED THAT:

a. OUTDOOR RECREATION AREAS SHALL BE SCREENED FROM
ADJACENT PROPERTIES BY A SIX-FOOT-HIGH LANDSCAPE
HEDGE, SOLID FENCE, OR SOLID WALL.

11. ADULT DAY CARE HOME FOR THE CARE OF FIVE TO TEN ADULT
PERSONS, SUBJECT TO A USE PERMIT; AND PROVIDED THAT:

a. OUTDOOR RECREATION AREAS SHALL BE SCREENED FROM
ADJACENT PROPERTIES BY A SIX-FOOT-HIGH LANDSCAPE
HEDGE, SOLID FENCE, OR SOLID WALL.

12. ADULT DAY CARE CENTER FOR THE CARE OF ELEVEN OR MORE
ADULT PERSONS, SUBJECT TO A USE PERMIT; AND PROVIDED
THAT:

a. OUTDOOR RECREATION AREAS SHALL BE SCREENED FROM
ADJACENT PROPERTIES BY A SIX-FOOT-HIGH LANDSCAPE
HEDGE, SOLID FENCE, OR SOLID WALL.

13. COMMUNITY RESIDENCE HOME; PROVIDED, THAT:

a. THE HOME HAS NO MORE THAN FIVE RESIDENTS, NOT
INCLUDING STAFF (UNLESS PERMITTED BY SECTION 36-
582(A), ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES).

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.

-42- Ordinance ________

Page 646
14. COMMUNITY RESIDENCE CENTER, SUBJECT TO A USE PERMIT AND
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:

a. SUCH CENTER 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.

b. NO COMMUNITY RESIDENCE CENTER 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 OR CENTER WITHIN
A RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT.

c. DISABILITY ACCOMMODATION FROM THE SPACING
REQUIREMENT MAY BE REQUESTED BY AN APPLICANT PER
SECTION 701.E.3.

d. A MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE OF 25 PERCENT.

e. A MINIMUM OF 100 SQUARE FEET OF USABLE OUTDOOR OPEN
SPACE PER BED SHALL BE PROVIDED, WHICH MAY BE
REDUCED TO 50 SQUARE FEET OF USABLE OUTDOOR OPEN
SPACE PER BED IN THE R-5 AND R-4A DISTRICTS.

f. THE LOT SHALL ONLY HAVE VEHICULAR ACCESS FROM AN
ARTERIAL OR COLLECTOR STREET.

15. DEPENDENT CARE FACILITY FOR UP TO SIX DEPENDENTS,
SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:

a. RESIDENT DEPENDENTS UNDER THE AGE OF 12 YEARS SHALL
NOT BE COUNTED.

b. OUTDOOR PLAY AREAS SHALL BE SCREENED FROM
ADJACENT PROPERTIES BY A SIX-FOOT-HIGH LANDSCAPE
HEDGE, SOLID FENCE, OR SOLID WALL.

c. THE EMPLOYEES MUST RESIDE AT THE FACILITY UNLESS A
NONRESIDENT EMPLOYEE IS REQUIRED BY THE ARIZONA
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES.




-43- Ordinance ________

Page 647
16. DEPENDENT CARE FACILITY FOR SEVEN TO 12 DEPENDENTS,
SUBJECT TO OBTAINING A USE PERMIT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
PROVISIONS OF SECTION 307 AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING
STANDARDS:

a. RESIDENT DEPENDENTS UNDER THE AGE OF 12 YEARS SHALL
NOT BE COUNTED WHEN THEY ARE PRESENT ON THE
PREMISES.

b. OUTDOOR PLAY AREAS SHALL BE SCREENED FROM
ADJACENT PROPERTIES BY A SIX-FOOT-HIGH LANDSCAPE
HEDGE, SOLID FENCE, OR SOLID WALL.

c. HOURS OF OPERATION SHALL BE ONLY BETWEEN 6:00 A.M.
AND 10:00 P.M. THESE HOURS MAY BE RESTRICTED AS PART
OF THE USE PERMIT APPROVAL.

d. NONRESIDENT EMPLOYEES MAY BE PERMITTED WITH THE
USE PERMIT IF NECESSARY TO MEET STATE REQUIREMENTS.

e. ONE PARKING SPACE SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR EACH
EMPLOYEE WHO DOES NOT RESIDE AT THE FACILITY.

f. NO SIGNAGE SHALL BE PERMITTED.

g. THE FACILITY SHALL BE SUBJECT TO ARIZONA LICENSING
REQUIREMENTS.

17. DEPENDENT CARE FACILITY FOR 13 OR MORE DEPENDENTS AND
SCHOOLS FOR THE MENTALLY OR PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED
SUBJECT TO SECURING A USE PERMIT PURSUANT TO SECTION 307.

18. GROUP HOME, SUBJECT TO A USE PERMIT AND THE FOLLOWING
CONDITIONS:

a. 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.

b. NO GROUP 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 GROUP HOME, BOARDING HOUSE, OR COMMUNITY
RESIDENCE HOME OR CENTER WITHIN A RESIDENTIAL
ZONING DISTRICT.

-44- Ordinance ________

Page 648
c. A MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE OF 25 PERCENT.

d. A MINIMUM OF 100 SQUARE FEET OF USABLE OUTDOOR OPEN
SPACE PER BED SHALL BE PROVIDED, WHICH MAY BE
REDUCED TO 50 SQUARE FEET OF USABLE OUTDOOR OPEN
SPACE PER BED IN THE R-5 AND R-4A DISTRICTS.

e. THE LOT SHALL ONLY HAVE VEHICULAR ACCESS FROM AN
ARTERIAL OR COLLECTOR STREET.

19. MODEL HOMES AND/OR SUBDIVISION SALES OFFICES WHEN
LOCATED IN MODEL HOMES; PROVIDED THAT:

a. MODEL HOMES ARE PERMITTED SUBJECT TO THE
FOLLOWING:

(1) A DEVELOPER OF A SINGLE-FAMILY SUBDIVISION SHALL
BE ALLOWED TO BUILD MODEL HOMES PRIOR TO
RECORDING A SUBDIVISION PLAT, SUBJECT TO THE
PROVISIONS BELOW AND SUBJECT TO SUBMITTING A
MODEL COMPLEX SITE PLAN WHICH SHALL SHOW THE
FOLLOWING INFORMATION FOR EACH MODEL HOME
LOT:

(2) STREET ADDRESSES FOR EACH MODEL HOME AS
ASSIGNED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT.

(3) FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATIONS FOR EACH MODEL HOME
AS ASSIGNED BY THE DIVISION OF ENGINEERING.

(4) PROPOSED LOTS FOR MODEL HOMES SHALL BE IN
CONFORMANCE WITH LOT LINES AS SHOWN ON THE
APPROVED PRELIMINARY PLAT.

(5) EACH MODEL HOME SHALL BE LOCATED ON EACH
PROPOSED LOT IN CONFORMANCE WITH YARD
REQUIREMENTS OF THE DISTRICT.

(6) THE FINAL PLAT IS NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE FINAL
APPROVAL PRIOR TO OBTAINING PERMITS FOR MODEL
HOMES.




-45- Ordinance ________

Page 649
b. MODEL HOMES AND/OR SUBDIVISION SALES OFFICES SHALL
BE LOCATED IN A SUBDIVISION OR PORTION THEREOF 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.

c. 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.

d. THE TIME LIMIT ALLOWED IN SECTION 608.E.19.C FOR AN
ADDITIONAL 36 MONTHS SHALL BE EXTENDED ONLY UPON
SECURING A USE PERMIT.

e. 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 608.E.19.C OR UPON EXPIRATION OF THE
EXTENSION GRANTED BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
PURSUANT TO SECTION 608.E.19.D, OR AFTER SIX MONTHS
FOLLOWING SALE OR OCCUPANCY OF ALL LOTS IN THE
SUBDIVISION OTHER THAN THE MODEL HOMES, WHICHEVER
COMES 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 400 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.

f. FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 608.E.19.C AND D, THE
TERM "SUBDIVISION" SHALL MEAN ALL THE LAND INCLUDED
WITHIN THE PRELIMINARY PLAT SUBMITTED TO THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

g. 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;




-46- Ordinance ________

Page 650
(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
608.E.19.A.

h. MODULAR SUBDIVISION SALES OFFICE, SUBJECT TO THE
FOLLOWING CRITERIA:

(1) THE STRUCTURE SHALL BE INTEGRATED WITH,
ARCHITECTURALLY COMPATIBLE TO, AND BLEND IN
COLOR TO THE MODEL HOMES APPROVED FOR THE
SUBDIVISION, AS DETERMINED BY THE PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

(2) MODULAR SUBDIVISION SALES OFFICES SHALL BE
PERMITTED FOR A PERIOD NOT TO EXCEED 36 MONTHS
FROM THE DATE OF APPROVAL FOR THE SALES
OFFICES.

(3) THE TIME LIMIT ALLOWED IN SECTION 608.E.19.H(2) FOR
AN ADDITIONAL 36 MONTHS SHALL BE EXTENDED ONLY
UPON SECURING A USE PERMIT.

(4) THE MODULAR SUBDIVISION SALES OFFICE SHALL BE
REMOVED ON OR BEFORE THE TERMINATION DATE SET
FORTH IN SECTION 608.E.19.H(2) OR UPON EXPIRATION
OF THE EXTENSION GRANTED BY THE ZONING
ADMINISTRATOR OR AFTER SIX MONTHS FOLLOWING
SALE OR OCCUPANCY OF ALL LOTS IN THE SUBDIVISION
OTHER THAN THE MODEL HOMES, WHICHEVER COMES
FIRST.

(5) FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, THE TERM
"SUBDIVISION" SHALL MEAN ALL OF THE LAND
INCLUDED WITHIN THE PRELIMINARY PLAT SUBMITTED
TO THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

(6) PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF ANY SALES OFFICE PERMITS, A
SITE PLAN SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR VERIFICATION OF
SETBACK CONFORMANCE.




-47- Ordinance ________

Page 651
(7) TWO SIGNS ARE PERMITTED. SIGNS SHALL NOT
EXCEED A COMBINED TOTAL OF 32 SQUARE FEET.

(8) ONE SALES OFFICE SHALL BE PERMITTED FOR EACH
MODEL HOME COMPLEX ALLOWED IN ACCORDANCE
WITH SECTION 608.E.19.I.

i. 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 400
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
DUST PROOFED.

(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.

20. PUBLIC UTILITY BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES WHEN NECESSARY
FOR SERVING THE SURROUNDING TERRITORY; PROVIDED, THAT NO
PUBLIC BUSINESS OFFICES AND NO REPAIR OR STORAGE
FACILITIES ARE MAINTAINED THEREIN, ARE PERMITTED IN EACH
DISTRICT.




-48- Ordinance ________

Page 652
21. CHURCHES OR SIMILAR PLACES OF WORSHIP, INCLUDING PARISH
HOUSES, PARSONAGES, RECTORIES, AND CONVENTS AND
DORMITORIES WITH NO MORE THAN TEN RESIDENTS ACCESSORY
THERETO, ARE PERMITTED IN EACH DISTRICT, EXCEPT TEMPORARY
TENTS OR BUILDINGS. ATHLETIC ACTIVITIES IN CONJUNCTION WITH
THE ABOVE AND ON THE SAME LOT OR CONTIGUOUS LOTS MAY BE
PERMITTED. ALL CHURCH USES ARE ALSO CONSIDERED “PUBLIC
ASSEMBLY—RESIDENTIAL”, AND ARE SUBJECT TO SECTION
608.E.22.

a. BINGO MAY BE OPERATED AS AN ACCESSORY USE ON THE
PREMISES OF THE CHURCH WHEN CONDUCTED NO MORE
THAN TWO DAYS A WEEK. FUNDRAISING EVENTS LOCATED
ON THE SAME LOT OR CONTIGUOUS LOTS SHALL BE
PERMITTED, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS:

(1) THE SPONSORING, ORGANIZING AND BENEFITING
ENTITIES SHALL BE NONPROFIT OR RELIGIOUS
ORGANIZATIONS.

b. EVENTS HELD ENTIRELY WITHIN A BUILDING OR BUILDINGS
SHALL NOT BE FURTHER REGULATED; HOWEVER, EVENTS TO
BE CONDUCTED WHOLLY OR IN PART OUTDOORS SHALL BE
SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS:

(1) ANY OUTDOOR PORTION OF THE EVENT MUST BE
LOCATED A MINIMUM OF 50 FEET FROM A PROPERTY
LINE ADJACENT TO A RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT
AND A RESIDENTIAL USE.

(2) THE EVENT SHALL NOT BE CONDUCTED BETWEEN THE
HOURS OF 10:00 P.M. AND 5:00 A.M.

(3) THE EVENT SHALL NOT BE CONDUCTED IN SUCH
MANNER AS TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF PARKING
SPACES REQUIRED FOR ANY NORMAL FUNCTIONS OF
THE PRIMARY USE WHICH ARE HELD DURING THE
EVENT.

(4) LIGHTING SHALL BE SO PLACED AS TO REFLECT THE
LIGHT AWAY FROM ADJACENT RESIDENCES.

c. POCKET SHELTERS AS ACCESSORY USES TO CHURCHES OR
SIMILAR PLACES OF WORSHIP, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING
STANDARDS (AND APPLICABLE MARICOPA COUNTY AND CITY
OF PHOENIX HEALTH AND SAFETY REGULATIONS):


-49- Ordinance ________

Page 653
(1) A POCKET SHELTER SHALL HOUSE NO MORE THAN 12
UNRELATED PERSONS. A POCKET SHELTER MAY
HOUSE UP TO 20 UNRELATED PERSONS UPON
APPROVAL OF A USE PERMIT IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE PROCEDURES AND STANDARDS OF SECTION 307.
MINORS (AGE 18 YEARS OR YOUNGER) ACCOMPANIED
BY A PARENT OR A GUARDIAN SHALL NOT BE COUNTED
IN THE NUMBER OF UNRELATED PERSONS.

(2) THE CHURCH OR SIMILAR PLACE OF WORSHIP SHALL
BE LOCATED ON AN ARTERIAL OR COLLECTOR STREET
AS DEFINED ON THE STREET CLASSIFICATION MAP. A
SHELTER AT A CHURCH OR SIMILAR PLACE OF
WORSHIP WHICH IS NOT ON AN ARTERIAL OR
COLLECTOR STREET SHALL BE PERMITTED UPON
APPROVAL OF A USE PERMIT IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE PROCEDURES AND PROVISIONS OF SECTION 307.

(3) THE CHURCH OR SIMILAR PLACE OF WORSHIP SHALL
PROVIDE ON-SITE SUPERVISION OF SHELTER
RESIDENTS AT ALL TIMES THAT TWO OR MORE
UNRELATED RESIDENTS ARE AT THE SHELTER.

(4) (DRUG, ALCOHOL, OTHER SUBSTANCE ABUSE, OR
MENTAL HEALTH REHABILITATION PROGRAMS SHALL
NOT BE ALLOWED AS PART OF THE SHELTER SERVICES.
THIS PROVISION SHALL NOT PREVENT THE CHURCH OR
SIMILAR PLACE OF WORSHIP FROM REFERRING
SHELTER RESIDENTS TO OTHER APPROPRIATE
PROGRAMS AT THE CHURCH OR SIMILAR PLACE OF
WORSHIP OR ELSEWHERE, E.G., ALCOHOLICS
ANONYMOUS, WHICH ARE NOT PART OF THE SHELTER
SERVICES.

(5) SHELTER RESIDENTS SHALL NOT POSSESS ALCOHOL,
WEAPONS, OR ILLEGAL DRUGS AT THE SHELTER.

(6) OPEN AREAS SURROUNDING POCKET SHELTER
STRUCTURES SHALL BE SCREENED FROM VIEW FROM
ABUTTING AND/OR ADJOINING PROPERTIES BY
HEDGES, TREES, OTHER LANDSCAPING, OR WALLS.

(7) POCKET SHELTER STRUCTURES SHALL NOT HAVE
DIRECT ACCESS TO ABUTTING AND/OR ADJOINING
PROPERTIES.




-50- Ordinance ________

Page 654
(8) POCKET SHELTERS SHALL BE HOUSED IN PERMANENT
STRUCTURES RATHER THAN IN TENTS OR OTHER
SIMILAR TEMPORARY STRUCTURES.

(9) A CHURCH OR SIMILAR PLACE OF WORSHIP SHALL
HOUSE NO MORE THAN ONE POCKET SHELTER.

22. 22. PUBLIC ASSEMBLY—RESIDENTIAL. A USE PERMIT SHALL BE
REQUIRED FOR ALL PUBLIC ASSEMBLY—RESIDENTIAL USES
HAVING VEHICULAR ACCESS TO LOCAL OR MINOR COLLECTOR
STREETS, INCLUDING PRIVATE SCHOOLS AND CHURCH USES.
23.
23. 24. ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION FACILITY, SUBJECT TO THE
FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
25.
a. A USE PERMIT SHALL BE OBTAINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH
SECTION 307.

b. THE ABOVE GROUND AREA OF LAND OCCUPIED BY THE
ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION FACILITY SHALL NOT EXCEED
THE MINIMUM NUMBER OF SQUARE FEET NECESSARY TO
IMPLEMENT THE REMEDIAL OR CORRECTIVE ACTION.

c. ALL STRUCTURES AND DEVICES CONSTRUCTED ABOVE
GROUND LEVEL SHALL BE SHIELDED FROM THE VIEW OF
PERSONS OUTSIDE THE PROPERTY BOUNDARY BY AN
OPAQUE FENCE CONSTRUCTED OF MATERIALS OF SIMILAR
COMPOSITION AND APPEARANCE TO FENCES AND
STRUCTURES ON NEARBY PROPERTY.

d. OUTDOOR EQUIPMENT INSTALLED AS PART OF THE FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION FACILITY SHALL NOT EXCEED
A HEIGHT OF TEN FEET AND SHALL BE SET BACK FROM THE
PERIMETER WALL A MINIMUM OF THREE FEET FOR EVERY
ONE FOOT OF HEIGHT OVER SIX FEET.

e. AFTER INSTALLATION, NO EQUIPMENT OR MATERIALS
BEYOND THAT NECESSARY TO OPERATE THE FACILITY SHALL
BE STORED ON THE LOT.

f. A PERIMETER LANDSCAPING PLAN SHALL BE APPROVED BY
THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AS
NECESSARY UNLESS AN APPLICABLE APPROVED LANDSCAPE
PLAN ALREADY EXISTS.




-51- Ordinance ________

Page 655
g. ANY LIGHTING SHALL BE PLACED SO AS TO REFLECT THE
LIGHT AWAY FROM ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS.
NOISE, ODOR, OR VIBRATION SHALL NOT BE EMITTED ANY
TIME BY THE FACILITY SO THAT IT EXCEEDS THE GENERAL
LEVEL OF NOISE, ODOR, OR VIBRATION EMITTED BY USES
OUTSIDE THE SITE. SUCH COMPARISON SHALL BE MADE AT
THE BOUNDARY OF THE LOT ON WHICH THE TREATMENT
FACILITY IS LOCATED.

h. THE FACILITY SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE
PROVISIONS OF THE FIRE CODE.

i. A PERMIT ISSUED UNDER SECTION 307 SHALL INCLUDE
REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS ON THE OPERATION OF THE
FACILITY TO MITIGATE ANY ADVERSE IMPACTS ON NEARBY
LAND, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO RESTRICTIONS ON
VEHICULAR TRAFFIC AND HOURS OF OPERATION OF THE
FACILITY.

j. THIS SECTION ALLOWS AUTHORIZATION OF ACTIVITIES TO
UNDERTAKE ALL ON-SITE INVESTIGATIVE, CONSTRUCTION,
AND MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES ANCILLARY TO THE
OPERATION OF THE FACILITY. ALL OFF-SITE DISCHARGES OF
ANY SUBSTANCE SHALL BE SEPARATELY AUTHORIZED
PURSUANT TO APPLICABLE LAWS.

k. THE STRUCTURES USED FOR THE FACILITY SHALL NOT
EXCEED A TOTAL AREA OF 5,000 SQUARE FEET.

24. COMMUNITY GARDEN. ACCESSORY SALES OF PRODUCTS
CULTIVATED ON SITE WITHIN TEN DAYS OF HARVESTING SUBJECT
TO APPROVAL OF A USE PERMIT PURSUANT TO SECTION 307. ON-
SITE OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS MAY BE
STIPULATED AS A CONDITION OF USE PERMIT APPROVAL.

25. FARMERS MARKET, SUBJECT TO OBTAINING A USE PERMIT IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 307 AND
SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING STANDARDS:

a. NO MORE THAN SIX ONE-DAY MARKET EVENTS IN ANY 30-DAY
PERIOD.

b. HOURS OF OPERATION SHALL BE ONLY BETWEEN 7:00 A.M.
AND 9:00 P.M. THESE HOURS MAY BE RESTRICTED AS PART
OF THE USE PERMIT APPROVAL.

c. NO SIGNAGE SHALL BE PERMITTED.

-52- Ordinance ________

Page 656
d. ON-SITE IMPROVEMENTS AND OTHER OPERATIONAL
CONDITIONS MAY BE STIPULATED AS A CONDITION OF USE
PERMIT APPROVAL.

26. CONSTRUCTION FACILITIES AND STORAGE, INCIDENTAL TO A
CONSTRUCTION PROJECT AND LOCATED ON THE PROJECT SITE,
ARE PERMITTED. WHEN SUCH FACILITIES OR STORAGE ARE USED
FOR CONSTRUCTION ON A LOT OR LOTS OTHER THAN THE LOT OR
LOTS USED FOR SUCH FACILITIES OR STORAGE, SUCH USE SHALL
MAINTAIN THE SETBACKS PROVIDED BY THE REQUIREMENTS OF
THIS CHAPTER AND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO SECURING A USE
PERMIT. WHEN SUCH FACILITIES AND STORAGE SERVE A
RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION, ARE APPROVED IN CONJUNCTION WITH
MODEL HOMES BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT, AND MEET ALL OF THE STANDARDS LISTED BELOW,
NO USE PERMIT IS REQUIRED:

a. THE FACILITIES SHALL NOT BE PLACED ON A LOT WHICH
ABUTS, JOINS AT THE CORNERS, OR IS ACROSS A STREET OR
ALLEY FROM A DWELLING UNIT WHICH IS UNDER
CONSTRUCTION OR OCCUPIED AT THE TIME OF SAID
PLACEMENT, UNLESS WRITTEN AGREEMENT TO THE
PLACEMENT IS GIVEN BY THE OWNER OR OCCUPANT OF THE
AFFECTED PROPERTY.

b. ALL OUTSIDE STORAGE SHALL BE SCREENED BY A SIX-FOOT-
HIGH SOLID FENCE OR MASONRY WALL. NO CONSTRUCTION
VEHICLES OR MACHINERY SHALL BE PLACED WITHIN TEN
FEET OF THE SCREEN FENCE OR WALL.

c. ALL SIGNS ON THE FACILITY SHALL FULLY COMPLY WITH
SECTION 705, THE SIGN CODE.

d. ALL FACILITIES AND STORAGE SHALL BE REMOVED WITHIN
THREE MONTHS OF THE CLOSURE OF THE MODEL HOMES.

27. HOME OCCUPATIONS INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ARCHITECT,
LAWYER, OFF-SITE SALES BUSINESSES, ACCOUNTANT, REAL
ESTATE AGENT, TELEMARKETING SALES, AND PSYCHOLOGIST. FOR
PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, OFF-SITE SALES MEANS
PROCESSING ORDERS BY MAIL, FACSIMILE, PHONE, MODEM OR
INTERNET.

a. NO ONE OUTSIDE THE FAMILY RESIDING IN THE DWELLING
UNIT SHALL BE EMPLOYED IN THE HOME OCCUPATION.


-53- Ordinance ________

Page 657
b. NO EXTERIOR DISPLAY, NO EXTERIOR STORAGE OF
MATERIALS, NO SIGN, AND NO OTHER EXTERIOR INDICATION
OF THE HOME OCCUPATION OR VARIATION FROM THE
RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE PRINCIPAL OR ACCESSORY
BUILDING, EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED IN SECTION 608.E.27.h.

c. NO HOME OCCUPATION SHALL EMIT ODOR, DUST, GAS,
NOISE, VIBRATION, SMOKE, HEAT, OR GLARE BEYOND ANY
BOUNDARY OF THE LOT ON WHICH THE HOME OCCUPATION
IS CONDUCTED.

d. ACTIVITY SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE HOURS BETWEEN 7:00
A.M. AND 10:00 P.M.

e. NO MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT SHALL BE USED EXCEPT THAT
NORMALLY USED FOR DOMESTIC, HOBBY, STANDARD OFFICE,
OR HOUSEHOLD PURPOSES.

f. NOT MORE THAN 25 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL AREA UNDER
ROOF ON THE SITE SHALL BE USED FOR ANY HOME
OCCUPATION.

g. ANY PARKING INCIDENTAL TO THE HOME OCCUPATION SHALL
BE PROVIDED ON THE SITE.

h. HOME OCCUPATIONS SHALL OBTAIN A USE PERMIT FROM THE
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 307
WHEN:

(1) TRAFFIC (OTHER THAN TRIPS BY OCCUPANTS OF THE
HOUSEHOLD) IS GENERATED BY THE HOME
OCCUPATION; OR

(2) THE HOME OCCUPATION IS CONDUCTED IN AN
ACCESSORY BUILDING, INCLUDING AN ADU; OR

(3) THE HOME OCCUPATION IS CONDUCTED AS AN
OUTSIDE USE; OR

(4) MINOR VARIATIONS TO SECTION 608.E.3.C ARE
REQUIRED TO CONDUCT THE HOME OCCUPATION; OR

(5) AN APPLICANT DESIRES AN OFFICIAL APPROVAL OF A
HOME OCCUPATION.




-54- Ordinance ________

Page 658
i. A HOME OCCUPATION SHALL NOT INCLUDE, BUT SUCH
EXCLUSION SHALL NOT BE LIMITED TO, THE FOLLOWING
USES:

(1) BARBERSHOPS AND BEAUTY PARLORS.

(2) COMMERCIAL STABLES, VETERINARY OFFICES.

(3) DOG GROOMING.

(4) MASSAGE PARLORS.

(5) RESTAURANTS.

(6) VETERINARY HOSPITALS AND COMMERCIAL KENNELS.

28. NONDAILY NEWSPAPER DELIVERY SERVICE SHALL BE PERMITTED
SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING LIMITATIONS:

a. DELIVERED BULK MATERIALS RELATED TO NONDAILY
PUBLICATIONS SHALL BE TRANSFERRED TO AN ENCLOSED
BUILDING OR SECURED AREA SO THAT MATERIALS ARE NOT
VISIBLE FROM THE STREET OR ADJACENT PROPERTIES
UNLESS FOR PREPARATION OF MATERIALS FOR SAME DAY
DISTRIBUTION. PREPARATION OF MATERIALS FOR SAME DAY
DISTRIBUTION MAY OCCUR ON OR ABOUT ADJACENT PUBLIC
RIGHTS-OF-WAY; PROVIDED, THAT MATERIALS DO NOT
REMAIN IN PUBLIC VIEW FOR LONGER THAN 24 HOURS.

b. MATERIALS STORED FOR PERIODS GREATER THAN 24 HOURS
SHALL BE ENCLOSED WITHIN A BUILDING OR SECURED BY A
WALL OR FENCE OF SUCH MATERIAL, CONSTRUCTION, AND
HEIGHT SO AS TO CONCEAL THE MATERIALS LOCATED.

c. ACTIVITIES RELATING TO AND/OR ACCESSORY TO THE
PREPARATION OF MATERIALS STORED FOR PERIODS
GREATER THAN 24 HOURS SHALL OCCUR WITHIN AN
ENCLOSED BUILDING OR AN AREA SECURED BY A WALL OR
FENCE OF SUCH MATERIAL, CONSTRUCTION, AND HEIGHT SO
AS TO COMPLETELY CONCEAL THE ACTIVITIES.

d. SUCH DELIVERY SHALL BE LIMITED TO TWO BULK DELIVERIES
IN A SEVEN-DAY PERIOD. MORE FREQUENT DELIVERIES
SHALL REQUIRE A USE PERMIT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
PROCEDURES OF SECTION 307.




-55- Ordinance ________

Page 659
e. NO TRAFFIC OTHER THAN THAT REQUIRED FOR THE BULK
DELIVERY AND PICKUP SHALL BE ALLOWED BY OUTSIDE
EMPLOYEES. ANY OTHER BUSINESS-RELATED TRAFFIC SHALL
REQUIRE A USE PERMIT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
PROCEDURES OF SECTION 307.

29. THE DISPLAY FOR SALE OF A VEHICLE, WHICH FOR PURPOSES OF
THIS PROVISION INCLUDES TRAILERS, WATERCRAFT OR OTHER
TYPES OF TRANSPORTATION THAT ARE BUILT TO CARRY
PASSENGERS OR CARGO SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING
RESTRICTIONS:

a. NO MORE THAN ONE VEHICLE CAN BE LABELED FOR SALE OR
SHOW ANY INDICATION THAT IT IS FOR SALE AT ANY GIVEN
TIME ON A PROPERTY, WHETHER VISIBLE ON SITE OR
THROUGH SOME OTHER FORM OF ADVERTISING.

b. NO MORE THAN TWO VEHICLES CAN BE SOLD ON A
PROPERTY DURING ANY CALENDAR YEAR.

c. FOR PURPOSES OF SECTIONS 608.A AND B, TWO JET SKIS, A
BOAT OR SIMILAR TYPES OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES THAT
ARE TRANSPORTED ON ONE TRAILER SHALL, TOGETHER
WITH THE TRAILER, BE CONSIDERED ONE VEHICLE.

d. THE OWNERSHIP OF THE VEHICLE(S) MUST BE REGISTERED
TO THE LOCATION WHERE THE VEHICLE IS LISTED FOR SALE.

e. NO VEHICLE CAN BE LABELED FOR SALE OR SHOW ANY
INDICATION THAT IT IS FOR SALE AT AN UNOCCUPIED HOUSE
OR ON A VACANT LOT OR PARCEL.

f. NO VEHICLE CAN BE LABELED FOR SALE OR SHOW ANY
INDICATION THAT IT IS FOR SALE IN CONJUNCTION WITH A
RETAIL OR WHOLESALE VEHICLE SALES DEALERSHIP OR
BUSINESS WITHOUT OBTAINING A TEMPORARY USE PERMIT.

30. FACILITIES FOR HOUSEHOLD PETS, THE MAINTENANCE OF WHICH
IS NOT OTHERWISE PROHIBITED BY STATUTE, REGULATIONS, OR
THE CITY CODE OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX AND WHICH FACILITIES
ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE ORDINANCES OF THE
CITY OF PHOENIX, ARE PERMITTED.

31. GARAGE OR YARD SALES MAY BE CONDUCTED TWICE EVERY 12
MONTHS ON ANY RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTY OCCUPIED BY
A DWELLING UNIT. ANY SALE SHALL NOT EXCEED THE TIME PERIOD
OF THREE CONSECUTIVE DAYS.

-56- Ordinance ________

Page 660
32. MATERIALS USED IN CONJUNCTION WITH A HOBBY, AVOCATION,
OR PASTIME, THE USE OF WHICH DOES NOT OTHERWISE CONFLICT
WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ORDINANCE, ARE PERMITTED.

33. PARKING OF VEHICLES IN FACILITIES AND LOCATIONS ON THE
PROPERTY NOT OTHERWISE IN CONFLICT WITH THE PROVISIONS
OF THIS ORDINANCE, IS PERMITTED.

34. PRIVATE TENNIS OR OUTDOOR GAME COURTS AS AN ACCESSORY
USE IS PERMITTED. TENNIS OR OUTDOOR GAME COURT FENCES
OVER SIX FEET HIGH IN REQUIRED REAR YARD OR REQUIRED SIDE
YARD ARE PERMITTED SUBJECT TO A USE PERMIT. TENNIS OR
OUTDOOR GAME COURT LIGHTS ARE ALSO SUBJECT TO A USE
PERMIT.

35. OFFSITE MANUFACTURED HOME DEVELOPMENTS ARE PERMITTED
WITH USE PERMIT APPROVAL PER SECTION 307, AND SUBJECT TO
THE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS PROVIDED IN SECTION 608.F.7.

***

F. Permitted Uses with Use Permit Approval Pursuant to Section 307.

1. Boarding house permitted in the R-3, R-3A, R-4, R-4A, and R-5 zoning
districts, subject to a use permit and conditions as outlined in each
respective zoning district.

2. Group home permitted in the R-3, R-3A, R-4, R-4A, and R-5 zoning districts,
subject to a use permit and conditions as outlined in each respective zoning
district.

3. Adult day care home for the care of five to ten adult persons, subject to a
use permit; and provided, that:

a. Outdoor recreation areas shall be screened from adjacent properties
by a six-foot-high landscape hedge, solid fence, or solid wall.

4. Dependent care facility for seven to 12 dependents, subject to obtaining a
use permit in accordance with the provisions of Section 307 and subject to
the following standards:

a. Resident dependents under the age of 12 years shall not be counted
when they are present on the premises.

b. Outdoor play areas shall be screened from adjacent properties by a
six-foot-high landscape hedge, solid fence, or solid wall.

-57- Ordinance ________

Page 661
c. Hours of operation shall be only between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.
These hours may be restricted as part of the use permit approval.

d. Nonresident employees may be permitted with the use permit if
necessary to meet state requirements.

e. One parking space shall be provided for each employee who does
not reside at the facility.

f. No signage shall be permitted.

g. The facility shall be subject to Arizona licensing requirements.

5. 26. Environmental remediation facility, subject to the following conditions:
27.
a. A use permit shall be obtained in accordance with Section 307.

b. The above ground area of land occupied by the environmental
remediation facility shall not exceed the minimum number of square
feet necessary to implement the remedial or corrective action.

c. All structures and devices constructed above ground level shall be
shielded from the view of persons outside the property boundary by
an opaque fence constructed of materials of similar composition and
appearance to fences and structures on nearby property.

d. Outdoor equipment installed as part of the final environmental
remediation facility shall not exceed a height of ten feet and shall be
set back from the perimeter wall a minimum of three feet for every
one foot of height over six feet.

e. After installation, no equipment or materials beyond that necessary to
operate the facility shall be stored on the lot.

f. A perimeter landscaping plan shall be approved by the Planning and
Development Department as necessary unless an applicable
approved landscape plan already exists.

g. Any lighting shall be placed so as to reflect the light away from
adjacent residential districts. Noise, odor, or vibration shall not be
emitted any time by the facility so that it exceeds the general level of
noise, odor, or vibration emitted by uses outside the site. Such
comparison shall be made at the boundary of the lot on which the
treatment facility is located.




-58- Ordinance ________

Page 662
h. The facility shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Fire
Code.

i. A permit issued under Section 307 shall include reasonable
restrictions on the operation of the facility to mitigate any adverse
impacts on nearby land, including but not limited to restrictions on
vehicular traffic and hours of operation of the facility.

j. This section allows authorization of activities to undertake all on-site
investigative, construction, and maintenance activities ancillary to the
operation of the facility. All off-site discharges of any substance shall
be separately authorized pursuant to applicable laws.

k. The structures used for the facility shall not exceed a total area of
5,000 square feet.

6. Community Garden. Accessory sales of products cultivated on site within
ten days of harvesting subject to approval of a use permit pursuant to
Section 307. On-site operational conditions and improvements may be
stipulated as a condition of use permit approval.

7. Farmers market, subject to obtaining a use permit in accordance with the
provisions of Section 307 and subject to the following standards: Farmers
market, subject to obtaining a use permit in accordance with the provisions
of Section 307 and subject to the following standards:

a. No more than six one-day market events in any 30-day period.

b. Hours of operation shall be only between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m.
These hours may be restricted as part of the use permit approval.

c. No signage shall be permitted.

d. On-site improvements and other operational conditions may be
stipulated as a condition of use permit approval.

8. Single-family attached (SFA) development option is allowed within the infill
development district identified in the General Plan or with use permit
approval for R-2, R-3, R-3A, R-4, R-5, R-4A, C-1, and C-3 zoned properties
within the following boundaries:




-59- Ordinance ________

Page 663
a. The SFA development option does not eliminate any redevelopment
area, special planning district or overlays. Where conflicts occur
between the requirements of the SFA development option and
redevelopment areas, overlay zoning districts, special planning
districts, and specific plans, the requirements of the overlay zoning
districts, special planning districts, redevelopment areas or specific
plans shall apply.

Historic preservation designated properties or properties in historic
preservation districts cannot use the single-family attached
development option.




-60- Ordinance ________

Page 664
b. Design Requirements. Applicants must provide photographs of the
property surrounding their site and an explanation of how the single-
family attached project architecture would complement and be
integrated into the surrounding neighborhood.

(1) Individual units fronting on street rights-of-way shall provide an
entryway that is either elevated, depressed or includes a
feature such as a low wall to accentuate the primary entrance.

(2) Required covered parking spaces shall not front on street
rights-of-way.

c. Perimeter Landscape Setbacks and Requirements.

(1) Residences that front on arterial, collector, or local street
rights-of-way shall provide a minimum ten-foot-wide landscape
tract or community maintained landscaping abutting the street,
except when within 2,000 feet of a light rail station.

(2) Residences that side on arterial, collector, or local street rights-
of-way shall provide a minimum 15-foot-wide landscape tract
or community maintained landscaping abutting the street.

(3) Perimeter of the development not abutting rights-of-way must
provide a minimum five-foot landscape setback, except that
development adjacent to a single-family residential district or
historic preservation designated property must provide a
minimum ten-foot landscape setback.

(4) Minimum trees spaced 20 feet on center or equivalent
groupings in required landscape setbacks.

Minimum one-and-one-half-inch caliper (50 percent of required
trees). Minimum two-inch caliper or multi-trunk tree (25 percent
of required trees). Minimum three-inch caliper or multi-trunk
tree (25 percent of required trees). Provide minimum five five-
gallon shrubs per tree.

d. Open Space. Only fences to enclose pool or community amenities
allowed within required open space.

e. Attached single-family units in a row shall not exceed a total length of
200 feet without having a minimum 20-foot-wide open area.

f. Parking Requirements.




-61- Ordinance ________

Page 665
(1) Within infill development district: 1.3 spaces per efficiency unit,
1.5 spaces per two-bedroom unit and two spaces per three or
more bedroom unit must be provided that are covered or
located within a garage and a minimum 0.25 unreserved guest
parking space per unit must be provided on site.

(2) Within the applicable area that is not located within the infill
development district: Two parking spaces per dwelling unit
must be provided that are covered or located within a garage.
The required spaces for each unit must be located on the lot
that the unit is on. A minimum 0.25 unreserved guest parking
space per unit must be provided on site.

g. Alley Access.

(1) Within infill development district: alley access allowed.

(2) Within the applicable area that is not located within the infill
development district: No alley access allowed if adjacent to
single-family or historic preservation zoning district unless
approved as part of the use permit hearing and all necessary
technical appeals have been approved.

h. Maximum 40-inch fence height allowed in the required building
setback along perimeter rights-of-way.

i. Signage subject to the regulations of Section 705, Table D-1, Single-
Family Residential.

9. Offsite manufactured home developments.

A. Offsite manufactured home development is allowed R-2, R-3, R-3A,
R-4, R-5, R-4A, C-1, C-2, and C-3 zoning districts subject to a use
permit and the conditions outlined below:

(1) Placement for each offsite manufactured home shall be
provided as follows:

(a) There shall be a minimum of twenty feet between
offsite manufactured homes and ten feet between
awnings and canopies. All annexes or structural
additions shall be considered part of the offsite
manufactured home.

(b) There shall be at least forty feet between offsite
manufactured homes on opposite sides of a private
accessway.

-62- Ordinance ________

Page 666
(c) No offsite manufactured home, annex or structural
addition shall be closer than eight feet to any private
accessway or private drive.

(2) Each offsite manufactured home space shall have private
outdoor living space of at least 150 square feet. The
dimension of this space shall be at least fifteen feet in width.

(3) For each occupied offsite manufactured home space, there
shall be an enclosed storage locker for yard tools and other
bulky items convenient to the space with a storage capacity
of at least one hundred fifty cubic feet.

(4) All areas not covered by structures or paved surfaces shall
be landscaped and maintained in accordance with the site
plans required under Section 507.

(5) Screening the perimeter of an offsite manufactured home
development by a wall or other approved material may be
required.

(6) There shall be a network of pedestrian walks connecting
offsite manufactured home spaces with each other and with
development facilities.

(7) If storage yards are provided, there shall be a screened
storage yard or yards for boats, recreational vehicles, etc.
Such storage yards shall have a minimum of sixty square
feet of storage space for each offsite manufactured home
space in the development and shall be located so as to not
detract from surrounding properties. All boats and
recreational vehicles shall be parked in the storage yard.

(8) Each offsite manufactured home shall a): be affixed
permanently to the ground or b): have "skirting" around its
perimeter to screen its wheels and undercarriage.

(9) All utilities and the wires of any central television or radio
antenna system shall be underground.

(10) Not more than fifteen percent of the spaces in any one
offsite manufactured home development shall be developed
or used for recreational vehicles.




-63- Ordinance ________

Page 667
(11) Development of offsite manufactured home communities
shall be under the Planned Residential Development option
of the underlying zoning district.

(12) Private drives may be used for access to each offsite
manufactured homes only when there is no subdivision of
the mobile home development into individual lots.

(13) There shall be a minimum of five percent of the total area of
the offsite manufactured home development dedicated or
reserved as usable common "open space" land. Common
"open space" lands shall be clearly designated on the plan
as to the character of use and development but shall not
include:

(a) Areas reserved for the exclusive use or benefit of an
individual tenant or owner; nor

(b) Dedicated streets, alleys, and other public rights-of-
way; nor

(c) Vehicular drives, parking, loading, and storage areas;
nor

(d) Required setback areas at exterior boundaries of the
site; nor

(e) Golf courses.

Adequate guarantees must be provided to ensure
permanent retention of "open space" land area resulting
from the application of these regulations, either by private
reservation for the use of the residents within the
development or by dedication to the public, or a
combination thereof.

F. SPECIAL REGULATIONS

1. NO STRUCTURE MAY BE BUILT ON A LOT WHICH DOES NOT FRONT
ON A STREET WHICH IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ADOPTED
STREET CLASSIFICATION MAP UNLESS EXEMPTED BY THIS
SECTION.




-64- Ordinance ________

Page 668
2. IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE A HALF STREET NOT LESS THAN ONE-HALF
OF THAT WIDTH PRESCRIBED FOR THAT STREET BY THE STREET
CLASSIFICATION MAP, AND AMENDMENTS THERETO, HAS BEEN
DEDICATED, ANY LOTS FACING OR SIDING ON SUCH HALF STREET
FROM WHICH SIDE THE REQUIRED WIDTH OF DEDICATION HAS
BEEN MADE SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE FRONTAGE ON A STREET.

3. NO PERMIT SHALL BE ISSUED FOR BUILDINGS ON A LOT FRONTING
ON A HALF STREET OF LESS THAN THAT PRESCRIBED BY THE
STREET CLASSIFICATION MAP FOR AN ARTERIAL OR COLLECTOR
STREET OR 25 FEET FOR ALL OTHER STREETS EXCEPT FOR
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED DEVELOPMENT INDIVIDUAL DWELLING
UNITS.

a. FOR DEVELOPMENT UTILIZING AN AVERAGE LOT OR PRD
DEVELOPMENT OPTION OR FOR DEVELOPMENT BUILT UNDER
A PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, A MINIMUM OF
16.58-FOOT HALF-STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY MAY BE PROVIDED
WHEN ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE MET:

(1) THE STREET IS NOT DESIGNATED AS A COLLECTOR OR
ARTERIAL STREET.

(2) THERE ARE NO RESTRICTIONS TO PUBLIC ACCESS TO
THE STREET.

(3) PAVEMENT WIDTH SHALL BE 33.16 FEET FROM BACK OF
CURB TO BACK OF CURB.

(4) PAVEMENT THICKNESS AND DESIGN SHALL BE IN
ACCORDANCE WITH MARICOPA ASSOCIATION OF
GOVERNMENTS’ STANDARDS.

(5) ALL TERMINATIONS SHALL CONTAIN A 40-FOOT-RADIUS
RIGHT-OF-WAY.

(6) THE STREET HAS BEEN CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO
MARCH 19, 1986.

4. THERE SHALL BE NO OUTDOOR STORAGE OF PERSONAL
PROPERTY VISIBLE BEYOND THE BOUNDARIES OF THE PROPERTY
WITHIN ANY FRONT OR SIDE YARD.




-65- Ordinance ________

Page 669
5. NO ACCESSORY USE SHALL INCLUDE OUTDOOR DISPLAY OR
STORAGE OF ANY OF THE FOLLOWING LISTED ITEMS WHEN SUCH
ITEMS ARE VISIBLE OR EMIT ODOR, DUST, GAS, NOISE, VIBRATION,
SMOKE, HEAT OR GLARE BEYOND ANY BOUNDARY OF THE LOT ON
WHICH SUCH ITEMS ARE DISPLAYED OR STORED:

a. ANY BUILDING OR LANDSCAPING MATERIALS.

b. ANY MACHINERY, PARTS, SCRAP, OR APPLIANCES.

c. VEHICLES WHICH ARE UNLICENSED, INOPERABLE, OR
REGISTERED TO OR OWNED BY PERSONS NOT RESIDING ON
OR THE GUEST OF PERSONS RESIDING ON THE PREMISES.

d. ANY OTHER CHATTEL USED FOR OR INTENDED FOR A
COMMERCIAL PURPOSE OR ULTIMATE USE ON OTHER THAN
THE SUBJECT PREMISES.

6. SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL (SFI). SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS MAY BE APPLIED IN ZONING DISTRICTS WHERE THE
SFI DEVELOPMENT OPTION IS OFFERED, BUT ONLY WHEN THE
DEVELOPMENT FALLS WITHIN THE INFILL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
IDENTIFIED IN THE GENERAL PLAN, OR WITH USE PERMIT
APPROVAL WITHIN THE FOLLOWING AREAS LOCATED OUTSIDE OF
THE INFILL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT:




-66- Ordinance ________

Page 670
MAP 608.F.6. SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL DEVELOPMENT AREAS




-67- Ordinance ________

Page 671
a. THE SFI DEVELOPMENT OPTION DOES NOT ELIMINATE ANY
REDEVELOPMENT AREA, SPECIAL PLANNING DISTRICT OR
OVERLAYS. WHERE CONFLICTS OCCUR BETWEEN THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE SFI DEVELOPMENT OPTION AND
REDEVELOPMENT AREAS, OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICTS,
SPECIAL PLANNING DISTRICTS, AND SPECIFIC PLANS, THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICTS,
SPECIAL PLANNING DISTRICTS, REDEVELOPMENT AREAS OR
SPECIFIC PLANS SHALL APPLY.

b. HISTORIC PRESERVATION DESIGNATED PROPERTIES OR
PROPERTIES IN HISTORIC PRESERVATION DISTRICTS
CANNOT USE THE SFI DEVELOPMENT OPTION.

c. DWELLING UNITS. THE SFI DEVELOPMENT OPTION IS
INTENDED PRIMARILY FOR SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED
DWELLING UNITS; HOWEVER, UP TO 20% OF THE UNITS IN A
DEVELOPMENT MAY BE SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DWELLING
UNITS TO ALLOW FOR VARIETY AND EFFICIENCY OF DESIGN.

(1) ANY PROVIDED DETACHED DWELLING UNITS SHALL
COMPLY WITH THE SAME DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
APPLICABLE TO THAT SFI DEVELOPMENT.

d. DESIGN REQUIREMENTS.

(1) INDIVIDUAL UNITS FRONTING ON STREET RIGHTS-OF-
WAY SHALL PROVIDE AN ENTRYWAY THAT IS EITHER
ELEVATED, DEPRESSED OR INCLUDES A FEATURE
SUCH AS A LOW WALL TO ACCENTUATE THE PRIMARY
ENTRANCE.

(2) REQUIRED COVERED PARKING SPACES SHALL NOT
FRONT ON PERIMETER STREET RIGHTS-OF-WAY.

(3) INDIVIDUAL UNIT REAR YARDS SHALL NOT ABUT
PERIMETER STREET ROW OR AN ADJACENT PERIMETER
STREET LANDSCAPE AREA.

(4) ATTACHED DWELLING UNITS CONSTRUCTED IN A ROW
SHALL NOT EXCEED A TOTAL LENGTH OF 200 FEET
WITHOUT HAVING A MINIMUM 20-FOOT-WIDE OPEN
AREA

e. PERIMETER LANDSCAPE SETBACKS AND REQUIREMENTS.




-68- Ordinance ________

Page 672
(1) RESIDENCES THAT FRONT ON ARTERIAL, COLLECTOR,
OR LOCAL STREET RIGHTS-OF-WAY SHALL PROVIDE A
MINIMUM TEN-FOOT-WIDE LANDSCAPE TRACT OR
COMMUNITY MAINTAINED LANDSCAPING ABUTTING THE
STREET, EXCEPT WHEN WITHIN 2,000 FEET OF A LIGHT
RAIL STATION.

(2) RESIDENCES THAT SIDE ON ARTERIAL, COLLECTOR, OR
LOCAL STREET RIGHTS-OF-WAY SHALL PROVIDE A
MINIMUM 15-FOOT-WIDE LANDSCAPE TRACT OR
COMMUNITY MAINTAINED LANDSCAPING ABUTTING THE
STREET.

(3) PERIMETER OF THE DEVELOPMENT NOT ABUTTING
RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND ADJACENT TO A SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT OR HISTORIC PRESERVATION
DESIGNATED PROPERTY MUST PROVIDE A MINIMUM
TEN-FOOT LANDSCAPE SETBACK. WALLS/FENCES UP
TO 6 FEET HIGH WITHIN PRIVATE REAR YARDS MAY BE
PROVIDED WITHIN THE PERIMETER SETBACK SO LONG
AS THE REQUIRED LANDSCAPE IS STILL PROVIDED.

(4) TREES SHALL BE PROVIDED IN REQUIRED LANDSCAPE
SETBACKS AT A MINIMUM RATE OF 20 FEET ON CENTER
OR EQUIVALENT GROUPINGS, AS APPROVED BY THE
PDD LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, SUBJECT TO THE
FOLLOWING:

(a) 50% OF THE REQUIRED TREES SHALL BE
MINIMUM ONE-AND-ONE-HALF-INCH CALIPER AT
THE TIME OF INSTALLATION.

(b) 25% OF THE REQUIRED TREES SHALL BE
MINIMUM TWO-INCH CALIPER OR MULTI-TRUNKED
TREES AT THE TIME OF INSTALLATION.

(c) 25% OF THE REQUIRED TREES SHALL BE
MINIMUM THREE-INCH CALIPER OR MULTI-
TRUNKED TREES AT THE TIME OF INSTALLATION.

(5) A MINIMUM OF FIVE FIVE-GALLON SHRUBS PER TREE
SHALL BE PROVIDED.

f. OPEN SPACE REGULATIONS. THE ONLY WALLS/FENCES
ALLOWED WITHIN REQUIRED COMMON AREA OPEN SPACE
ARE REQUIRED POOL SECURITY FENCES AND OTHER
NECESSARY SECURITY FENCES, AS APPROVED BY PDD.

-69- Ordinance ________

Page 673
g. PARKING REQUIREMENTS. SECTION 702 APPLIES TO SFI
DEVELOPMENT, EXCEPT WHERE SPECIFICALLY MODIFIED BY
THIS SECTION.

(1) WITHIN THE INFILL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT: ONE (1)
PARKING SPACE PER DWELLING UNIT MUST BE
PROVIDED THAT IS COVERED OR LOCATED WITHIN A
GARAGE.

(2) WITHIN THE APPLICABLE SFI AREA THAT IS NOT
LOCATED WITHIN THE INFILL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT:
TWO (2) PARKING SPACES PER DWELLING UNIT MUST
BE PROVIDED THAT ARE COVERED OR LOCATED WITHIN
A GARAGE.

(3) THE REQUIRED SPACES FOR EACH DWELLING UNIT
MUST BE LOCATED ON THE SAME LOT AS THE UNIT FOR
WHICH THEY ARE PROVIDED.

(4) A MINIMUM 0.25 ADDITIONAL UNRESERVED GUEST
PARKING SPACE PER DWELLING UNIT MUST BE
PROVIDED WITHIN ANY SFI DEVELOPMENT.

h. ALLEY ACCESS AND MANEUVERING.

(1) ALL MANEUVERING FOR ON-SITE PARKING MUST BE
LOCATED ON PRIVATE PROPERTY AND NOT IN PUBLIC
ROW.

(2) ACCESS TO THE SITE FROM A FULLY DEDICATED AND
PAVED ALLEY IS PERMITTED WITHIN THE INFILL
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT.

(3) ACCESS TO THE SITE FROM A FULLY DEDICATED AND
PAVED ALLEY IS PERMITTED WITHIN THE SFI
APPLICABLE AREA OUTSIDE OF THE INFILL
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT IF ALL THREE CONDITIONS
ARE MET, AS FOLLOWS:

(a) THE SITE IS NOT ACROSS THE ALLEY FROM
EITHER A SINGLE-FAMILY OR HISTORIC
PRESERVATION ZONING DISTRICT;

(b) ALLEY ACCESS IS SPECIFICALLY APPROVED AS
PART OF THE USE PERMIT HEARING; AND


-70- Ordinance ________

Page 674
(c) ALL NECESSARY TECHNICAL APPEALS HAVE
BEEN APPROVED.

h. MAXIMUM 40-INCH FENCE HEIGHT ALLOWED IN THE
REQUIRED SETBACKS ALONG PERIMETER STREET RIGHTS-
OF-WAY.

i. SIGNAGE IS SUBJECT TO THE REGULATIONS OF SECTION 705,
TABLE D-1, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.

7. OFFSITE MANUFACTURED HOME DEVELOPMENTS. OFFSITE
MANUFACTURED HOME DEVELOPMENT IS SUBJECT TO USE PERMIT
APPROVAL IN THE C-1, C-2, AND C-3 DISTRICTS, IN ADDITION TO
ZONING DISTRICTS INDICATED IN SECTION 608.D; AND SUBJECT TO
THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS:

a. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 703.B DO NOT APPLY TO
OFFSITE MANUFACTURED HOME DEVELOPMENTS.

a. b. THESE REGULATIONS APPLY TO DEVELOPMENT OF A SINGLE
LOT OR PARCEL, NOT TO BE FURTHER SUBDIVIDED.

b. c. PLACEMENT FOR EACH OFFSITE MANUFACTURED HOME
SHALL BE PROVIDED AS FOLLOWS:

(1) THERE SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF TWENTY FEET
BETWEEN OFFSITE MANUFACTURED HOMES AND TEN
FEET BETWEEN AWNINGS AND CANOPIES. ALL ANNEXES
OR STRUCTURAL ADDITIONS SHALL BE CONSIDERED
PART OF THE OFFSITE MANUFACTURED HOME.

(2) THERE SHALL BE AT LEAST FORTY FEET BETWEEN
OFFSITE MANUFACTURED HOMES ON OPPOSITE SIDES
OF A PRIVATE ACCESSWAY.

(3) NO OFFSITE MANUFACTURED HOME, ANNEX OR
STRUCTURAL ADDITION SHALL BE CLOSER THAN EIGHT
FEET TO ANY PRIVATE ACCESSWAY OR PRIVATE DRIVE.

c. d. EACH OFFSITE MANUFACTURED HOME SPACE SHALL HAVE
PRIVATE OUTDOOR LIVING SPACE OF AT LEAST 150 SQUARE
FEET. THE DIMENSION OF THIS SPACE SHALL BE AT LEAST
FIFTEEN FEET IN WIDTH.




-71- Ordinance ________

Page 675
d. e. AT EACH OCCUPIED OFFSITE MANUFACTURED HOME SPACE,
THERE SHALL BE AN ENCLOSED STORAGE LOCKER FOR YARD
TOOLS AND OTHER BULKY ITEMS CONVENIENT TO THE SPACE
WITH A STORAGE CAPACITY OF AT LEAST ONE HUNDRED
FIFTY CUBIC FEET.

e. f. ALL AREAS NOT COVERED BY STRUCTURES OR PAVED
SURFACES SHALL BE LANDSCAPED AND MAINTAINED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPROVED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
DOCUMENTS REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 507.

f. g. SCREENING THE PERIMETER OF AN OFFSITE MANUFACTURED
HOME DEVELOPMENT BY A WALL OR OTHER APPROVED
MATERIAL MAY BE REQUIRED AS A CONDITION OF USE PERMIT
APPROVAL.

g. h. THERE SHALL BE A NETWORK OF PEDESTRIAN WALKWAYS
CONNECTING OFFSITE MANUFACTURED HOME SPACES WITH
EACH OTHER AND WITH DEVELOPMENT FACILITIES AND
AMENITIES.

h. i. IF STORAGE YARDS ARE PROVIDED, THERE SHALL BE A
SCREENED STORAGE YARD OR YARDS FOR BOATS,
RECREATIONAL VEHICLES, ETC. SUCH STORAGE YARDS
SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM OF SIXTY SQUARE FEET OF STORAGE
SPACE FOR EACH OFFSITE MANUFACTURED HOME SPACE IN
THE DEVELOPMENT AND SHALL BE LOCATED SO AS TO NOT
DETRACT FROM SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. ALL BOATS AND
RECREATIONAL VEHICLES SHALL BE PARKED IN THE
STORAGE YARD.

i.j. EACH OFFSITE MANUFACTURED HOME SHALL A): BE AFFIXED
PERMANENTLY TO THE GROUND OR B): HAVE "SKIRTING"
AROUND ITS PERIMETER TO SCREEN ITS WHEELS AND
UNDERCARRIAGE.

j.k. ALL UTILITIES AND THE WIRES OF ANY CENTRAL TELEVISION
OR RADIO ANTENNA SYSTEM SHALL BE UNDERGROUND.

k. l. NOT MORE THAN FIFTEEN PERCENT OF THE SPACES IN ANY
ONE OFFSITE MANUFACTURED HOME DEVELOPMENT SHALL
BE DEVELOPED OR USED FOR RECREATIONAL VEHICLES.

l. m. DEVELOPMENT OF OFFSITE MANUFACTURED HOME
COMMUNITIES SHALL BE UNDER THE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT OPTION APPLICABLE IN THE UNDERLYING
ZONING DISTRICT.

-72- Ordinance ________

Page 676
m. n. PRIVATE DRIVES MAY BE USED FOR ACCESS TO EACH
OFFSITE MANUFACTURED HOMES.

n. o. THERE SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF FIVE PERCENT OF THE TOTAL
AREA OF THE OFFSITE MANUFACTURED HOME DEVELOPMENT
DEDICATED OR RESERVED AS USABLE COMMON "OPEN
SPACE" LAND. COMMON "OPEN SPACE" LANDS SHALL BE
CLEARLY DESIGNATED ON THE PLAN AS TO THE CHARACTER
OF USE AND DEVELOPMENT BUT SHALL NOT INCLUDE:

(1) AREAS RESERVED FOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE OR
BENEFIT OF AN INDIVIDUAL TENANT OR OWNER; NOR

(2) DEDICATED STREETS, ALLEYS, AND OTHER PUBLIC
RIGHTS-OF-WAY; NOR

VEHICULAR DRIVES, PARKING, LOADING, AND STORAGE
AREAS; NOR
(3)
REQUIRED SETBACK AREAS AT EXTERIOR BOUNDARIES
OF THE SITE; NOR

(4) GOLF COURSES.

ADEQUATE GUARANTEES MUST BE PROVIDED TO ENSURE
PERMANENT RETENTION OF "OPEN SPACE" LAND AREA
RESULTING FROM THE APPLICATION OF THESE REGULATIONS,
EITHER BY PRIVATE RESERVATION FOR THE USE OF THE
RESIDENTS WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT OR BY DEDICATION
TO THE PUBLIC, OR A COMBINATION THEREOF.

***

G. Accessory Uses. RESERVED.

1. Facilities for household pets, the maintenance of which is not otherwise
prohibited by statute, regulations, or the City Code of the City of Phoenix
and which facilities are in compliance with all applicable ordinances of the

2. Garage or yard sales may be conducted twice every 12 months on any
residentially zoned property occupied by a dwelling unit. Any sale shall not
exceed the time period of three consecutive days.

3. Materials used in conjunction with a hobby, avocation, or pastime, the use of
which does not otherwise conflict with the provisions of this ordinance.

-73- Ordinance ________

Page 677
4. Parking of vehicles in facilities and locations on the property not otherwise in
conflict with the provisions of this ordinance.

5. Private tennis or outdoor game courts as an accessory use. Tennis or
outdoor game court fences over six feet high in required rear yard or
required side yard, subject to a use permit. Tennis or outdoor game court
lights, subject to a use permit.

6. No accessory use of land or structures shall be maintained except as
hereinafter provided or except as may be permitted as a home occupation.

7. No accessory use shall include outdoor display or storage of any of the
following listed items when such items are visible or emit odor, dust, gas,
noise, vibration, smoke, heat or glare beyond any boundary of the lot on
which such items are displayed or stored:

a. Any building or landscaping materials.

b. Any machinery, parts, scrap, or appliances.

c. Vehicles which are unlicensed, inoperable, or registered to or owned
by persons not residing on or the guest of persons residing on the
premises.

d. Any other chattel used for or intended for a commercial purpose or
ultimate use on other than the subject premises.

***

H. General Provisions. RESERVED.

1. No structure may be built on a lot which does not front on a street which is in
accordance with the adopted street classification map unless exempted by
this section.

In any district where a half street not less than one-half of that width
prescribed for that street by the street classification map, and amendments
thereto, has been dedicated, any lots facing or siding on such half street
from which side the required width of dedication has been made shall be
deemed to have frontage on a street.

No permit shall be issued for buildings on a lot fronting on a half street of
less than that prescribed by the street classification map for an arterial or
collector street or 25 feet for all other streets except for single-family
attached development individual dwelling units.


-74- Ordinance ________

Page 678
a. For development utilizing an average lot or PRD development option
or for development built under a planned area development district, a
minimum of 16.58-foot half-street right-of-way may be provided when
all of the following conditions are met:

(1) The street is not designated as a collector or arterial street.

(2) There are no restrictions to public access to the street.

(3) Pavement width shall be 33.16 feet from back of curb to back
of curb.

(4) Pavement thickness and design shall be in accordance with
Maricopa Association of Governments’ standards.

(5) All terminations shall contain a 40-foot-radius right-of-way.

(6) The street has been constructed prior to March 19, 1986.

2. There shall be no outdoor storage of personal property visible beyond the
boundaries of the property within any front or side yard.

***

I. Development Regulations. Following are definitions of terms used in the
development standards tables for each district:

***

2. Dwelling unit density: The total number of dwelling units on a site divided
by the gross area of the site.

a. Under the planned residential development, additional density may
be granted in the R1-10 through R-4A districts (Sections 611 through
619) for detached single-family development by providing site
enhancements from the following list. In R1-10 through R1-6, an
increase of 0.1 du/ac may be achieved for each ten bonus points
earned up to the maximum listed in Table A. In R-2 through R-4A, an
increase of 0.275 du/ac may be achieved for each five bonus points
earned up to a maximum of 12 du/ac. However, at least half of the
bonus points used to achieve densities in excess of seven and one-
half du/ac must be from the architectural design category.
DENSITY BONUS POINTS. ADDITIONAL DENSITY MAY BE
GRANTED BY EARNING DENSITY BONUS POINTS BY
PROVIDING SITE ENHANCEMENTS FROM THE TABLE BELOW,
AS FOLLOWS:


-75- Ordinance ________

Page 679
(1) SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT IN THE R1-10
THROUGH R1-6 DISTRICTS (SECTIONS 611 THROUGH
613) MAY EARN INCREASED DENSITY OF 0.1 DU/AC FOR
EACH TEN (10) DENSITY BONUS POINTS EARNED WHEN
ALSO USING THE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT OPTION, UP TO THE MAXIMUM DENSITY
ALLOWED BY THE DISTRICT.

(2) SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT IN THE R-2
THROUGH R-4A DISTRICTS (SECTIONS 614 THROUGH
619) MAY EARN INCREASED DENSITY OF 0.275 DU/AC
FOR EACH FIVE (5) DENSITY BONUS POINTS EARNED
WHEN ALSO USING THE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT OPTION, UP TO THE MAXIMUM DENSITY
ALLOWED BY THE DISTRICT. HOWEVER, AT LEAST HALF
OF THE BONUS POINTS USED TO ACHIEVE DENSITIES IN
EXCESS OF SEVEN AND ONE-HALF (7.5) DU/AC MUST BE
FROM THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BONUS POINT
CATEGORY.

***

b. Under the planned residential development option, additional density
may be granted in the R1-10 through R-4A districts (Sections 611
through 619) for attached single-family and multifamily development,
and under the single-family attached development additional density
may be granted in the R-2 through R-4A districts (Sections 614
through 619) up to the maximum shown in Table B by providing open
space areas beyond the minimum required in each district in
accordance with the following:
ADDITIONAL COMMON AREA/OPEN SPACE. ADDITIONAL
DENSITY MAY BE GRANTED BY PROVIDING ADDITIONAL
COMMON AREA, ABOVE ANY MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS, AS
FOLLOWS:

(1) QUALIFYING DEVELOPMENTS (LISTED BELOW) MAY
EARN: A one percent density bonus for each four percent of
basic common area; or

(a) A ONE PERCENT DENSITY BONUS FOR EACH
FOUR PERCENT OF BASIC COMMON AREA; OR

(b) A ONE PERCENT DENSITY BONUS FOR EACH TWO
PERCENT OF IMPROVED COMMON AREA.




-76- Ordinance ________

Page 680
(c) THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
SHALL DETERMINE THE ADEQUACY OF BOTH
BASIC AND IMPROVED COMMON AREAS AS PART
OF THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS. OPEN
SPACE SHALL NOT INCLUDE:

i. PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY.

ii. VEHICULAR DRIVES OR PARKING AREAS.

iii. PRIVATE PATIO AREAS, NARROW STRIPS
BETWEEN OR IN FRONT OF UNITS; OR, IN
GENERAL, AREAS RESERVED FOR THE
EXCLUSIVE USE OF INDIVIDUAL TENANTS.

iv. REQUIRED SETBACK AREAS AT THE
EXTERIOR BOUNDARIES OF THE SITE.

v. GOLF COURSES.

(d) IN NO CASE SHALL THE DENSITY OF THE
DEVELOPMENT EXCEED THE MAXIMUM DENSITY
ALLOWED BY THE DISTRICT.

(2) A one percent density bonus for each two percent of improved
common area.
DEVELOPMENTS QUALIFYING FOR THE ADDITIONAL
COMMON AREA/OPEN SPACE DENSITY BONUS ARE AS
FOLLOWS:

(a) SINGLE-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT IN THE RE-35 AND
R1-18 ZONING DISTRICTS (SECTIONS 609 AND
610), WHEN ALSO USING THE PLANNED
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OPTION.

(b) SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED DEVELOPMENT IN THE
R1-10 THROUGH R-4A ZONING DISTRICTS
(SECTIONS 611 THROUGH 619), WHEN USING THE
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OPTION.

(c) SINGLE-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT IN THE R-2
THROUGH R-4A ZONING DISTRICTS (SECTIONS
614 THROUGH 619), WHEN USING THE SINGLE-
FAMILY INFILL DEVELOPMENT OPTION.




-77- Ordinance ________

Page 681
(d) MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT IN THE R1-10
THROUGH R-4A ZONING DISTRICTS (SECTIONS
611 THROUGH 619), WHEN USING THE PLANNED
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OPTION.

(3) Review and determination of the adequacy of common areas,
basic and improved, will be part of development review by the
Site Planning Division of the Planning and Development
Department. Open space shall not include:

(a) Public right-of-way.

(b) Vehicular drives or parking areas.

(c) Private patio areas, narrow strips between or in front of
units; or, in general, areas reserved for the exclusive
use of individual tenants.

(d) Required setback areas at the exterior boundaries of
the site.

(e) Golf courses.

***

8. Allowed uses DEVELOPMENT: Refer to the following tables for uses
allowed in each district and to chapter 2 for definitions of permitted uses.
THE DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS TABLES PROVIDED IN SECTIONS 609
THROUGH 619 INDICATE THE ONLY TYPES OF RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT PERMITTED UNDER EACH DEVELOPMENT OPTION
AND ASSOCIATED DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. THE COMPLETE
LIST OF ALL PERMITTED USES, INCLUDING ACCESSORY AND
TEMPORARY USES, IS PROVIDED IN SECTION 608.C.

***

SECTION 9: That Chapter 6, Section 609 (RE-35 Single-Family Residence

District), is amended to read as follows:

Section 609. RE-35 Single-Family Residence District

A. Purpose. A basic purpose of these regulations is to foster the creation of living
areas which can assist the establishment of stable, functional neighborhoods. An
established pattern of living in this metropolitan area reflects a tradition of single-
family occupied dwellings which also emphasize outdoor living. Many of these
dwellings are thereby located on relatively large urban or suburban lots.

-78- Ordinance ________

Page 682
These regulations provide standards for dwellings built at low and moderate
densities. While the predominant housing type is expected to be single-family
dwelling, provisions are made for alternative housing types within the same density
limits.

B. District Regulations. The following tables establishes standards to be used for
each district in the RE-35 district. Following are definitions of terms used in these
standards: THE DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED IN THESE STANDARDS ARE
FOUND IN SECTION 608.I.

1. Minimum Lot Dimension: The minimum width and depth of lot lines and
where specified, the minimum area of each lot.

2. Dwelling Unit Density: The total number of dwelling units on a site divided
by the gross area of the site. Under the planned residential development
option, additional density may be granted for areas beyond minimum
required in each district in accordance with the following:

a. A one percent density bonus for each four percent of basic common
area; or

b. A one percent density bonus for each two percent of improved
common area.

c. Review and determination of the adequacy of common areas, basic
and improved, will be part of the development review by the Site
Planning Division of the Planning and Development Department.
Open space shall not include:

(1) Public right-of-way.

(2) Vehicular drives or parking areas.

(3) Private patio areas, narrow strips between or in front of units;
or, in general, areas reserved for the exclusive use of
individual tenants.

(4) Required setback areas at the exterior boundaries of the site.

(5) Golf courses.




-79- Ordinance ________

Page 683
3. Perimeter standards: Setbacks for structures which are required at the
perimeter of a development. These standards shall apply only to lots which
are created by a subdivision or a project approved under the provisions of
Section 507. These standards shall not apply in the following circumstances:
when contiguous developments are to be developed using the same
development option with the same perimeter standards and are on the same
preliminary plat or are platted concurrently; when the perimeter of a
development is contiguous to a permanent open space, such as a natural
wash, hillside preserve, or existing golf course, the depth of which is at least
forty feet; or when the development was properly platted prior to September
13, 1981.

4. Building setback: The required separation of buildings from lot lines.

5. Maximum height: The maximum allowed height as measured from natural
grade which measurement shall be as in chapter 2

6. Lot coverage: The maximum area of a lot occupied by structures and open
projections as defined in chapter 2

7. Common areas: Required areas in a planned residential development to be
used and enjoyed by residents of a development and either improved in
accordance with the standards in chapter 2 or maintained in a natural state
as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

8. Allowed uses: Refer to the following tables for uses allowed in each district
and to chapter 2 for definitions of permitted uses.

9. Required review: Where a site plan is required, development shall be
according to Section 507 of this ordinance. Development on land for which
neither a subdivision nor a site plan has been approved shall be according
to standards in option (a), subdivision.

10 Required parking: The minimum number of off-street parking spaces to be
provided and which shall be according to Section 702.A.

11. Street standards: The class of street required to provide access to any
parcel or subdivided lot within a development.

ILLUSTRATIONS OF DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS




-80- Ordinance ________

Page 684
TABLE 609.A
RE-35 Development Option OPTIONS

(c)
(a) (b)
Standards Planned Residential
Subdivision Average Lot
Development

Minimum lot 150' width, 175' 100' width, 125' None
dimensions (width depth (Minimum depth
and depth) area 35,000 sq. ft.)

Dwelling unit 1.10 1.10 1.15; 1.32 with bonus
density
(units/gross acre)

Perimeter None 40' front or rear, 20' 40' adjacent to a public
standards side street STREET (2); this
area is to be in
common ownership
unless lots front on the
perimeter public street;
20' adjacent to
property line

Building setbacks 40' front, 40' rear, 25' front, 50' total 25' front
20' side front and rear

Maximum height 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30'




-81- Ordinance ________

Page 685
TABLE 609.A
RE-35 Development Option OPTIONS

(c)
(a) (b)
Standards Planned Residential
Subdivision Average Lot
Development

Lot coverage 25%, except if all Primary structure, Primary structure, not
structures are less not including including attached
than 20' and 1 story attached shade shade structures: 25%
in height then a structures: 25% Total: 30%
maximum of 30% Total: 30%
lot coverage is
allowed.

Common areas None None Minimum 5% of gross
area

Allowed uses Single-family Single-family Single-family attached;
DEVELOPMENT detached attached; plus (a) plus (a)

Required review Subdivision to Subdivision with Site plan per Section
create 4 or more building setbacks 507
lots

Street standards Public street Public street Public street or private
required accessway (2) (1)

(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for
extensions of street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue
partial dedications.

(2) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as
public street rights-of-way.

C. Special Regulations.

1. Guesthouse, subject to the following conditions:

a. The square footage of the guesthouse shall not exceed fifty percent
of the gross floor area of the primary dwelling unit with a maximum of
nine hundred square feet, except as set forth in subsection b, below.
Any garage area attached to the guesthouse which is more than the
area of a single-car garage shall be counted toward the allowable
square footage of the guesthouse.



-82- Ordinance ________

Page 686
b. On lots with more than forty-three thousand five hundred sixty square
feet in net area with a primary dwelling unit of at least three thousand
six hundred square feet in gross floor area, the square footage of the
guesthouse may be twenty-five percent of the gross floor area of the
primary dwelling unit.

c. The floor area of the connecting structure shall be included in the
floor area of the guesthouse.

d. Pergolas and other roofed structures without walls shall not be
considered a connecting structure.

e. Vehicular access to the accessory dwelling unit must be provided
from the same curb (driveway) as the primary dwelling unit, except
that separate access may be permitted from a paved alley.

f. One parking space must be provided for the accessory dwelling unit
in addition to the parking required for the primary dwelling unit.

g. Only one guesthouse is permitted on a single lot.

h. The guesthouse shall be constructed of similar building materials and
in the same architectural style as that of the primary dwelling unit and
shall not exceed the height in feet or number of stories of the primary
dwelling unit.

i. A guesthouse shall not:

(1) Provide more parking than the one required space;

(2) Be advertised for occupancy through any print or electronic
media or through placement of signs on the property;

(3) Provide separate mail service or have a separate address from
the primary dwelling unit; or

(4) Be separately metered for utilities.

(j) Single-family use requirements shall apply to the guesthouse and the
primary dwelling unit as a single unit.

(k) Any guesthouse existing as of (the effective date of this ordinance)
may qualify as "connected to the primary dwelling unit" by being
connected to the primary dwelling unit without meeting the minimum
width requirements.

***

-83- Ordinance ________

Page 687
SECTION 10: That Chapter 6, Section 610 (R1-18 Single-Family Residence

District), is amended to read as follows:

Section 610. R1-18 Single-Family Residence District.

A. Purpose. A basic purpose of these regulations is to foster the creation of living
areas which can assist the establishment of stable, functional neighborhoods. An
established pattern of living in this metropolitan area reflects a tradition of single-
family occupied dwellings which also emphasize outdoor living. Many of these
dwellings are thereby located on relatively large urban or suburban lots.

These regulations provide standards for dwellings built at low and moderate
densities. While the predominant housing type is expected to be single-family
dwelling, provisions are made for alternative housing types within the same density
limits.

B. District Regulations. The following tables establishes standards to be used for
each district in the R1-18 district. Following are definitions of terms used in these
standards: THE DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED IN THESE STANDARDS ARE
FOUND IN SECTION 608.I.

1. Minimum Lot Dimension: The minimum width and depth of lot lines and
where specified, the minimum area of each lot.

2. Dwelling Unit Density: The total number of dwelling units on a site divided
by the gross area of the site. Under the planned residential development
option, additional density may be granted for areas beyond minimum
required in each district in accordance with the following:

a. A one percent density bonus for each four percent of basic common
area; or

b. A one percent density bonus for each two percent of improved
common area.

c. Review and determination of the adequacy of common areas, basic
and improved, will be part of the development review by the Site
Planning Division of the Planning and Development Department.
Open space shall not include:

(1) Public right-of-way.

(2) Vehicular drives or parking areas.




-84- Ordinance ________

Page 688
(3) Private patio areas, narrow strips between or in front of units;
or, in general, areas reserved for the exclusive use of
individual tenants.

(4) Required setback areas at the exterior boundaries of the site.

(5) Golf courses.

3. Perimeter standards: Setbacks for structures which are required at the
perimeter of a development. These standards shall apply only to lots which
are created by a subdivision or a project approved under the provisions of
Section 507. These standards shall not apply in the following circumstances:
when contiguous developments are to be developed using the same
development option with the same perimeter standards and are on the same
preliminary plat or are platted concurrently; when the perimeter of a
development is contiguous to a permanent open space, such as a natural
wash, hillside preserve, or existing golf course, the depth of which is at least
forty feet; or when the development was properly platted prior to September
13, 1981.

4. Building setback: The required separation of buildings from lot lines.

5. Maximum height: The maximum allowed height as measured from natural
grade which measurement shall be as in chapter 2

6. Lot coverage: The maximum area of a lot occupied by structures and open
projections as defined in chapter 2

7. Common areas: Required areas in a planned residential development to be
used and enjoyed by residents of a development and either improved in
accordance with the standards in chapter 2 or maintained in a natural state
as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

8. Allowed uses: Refer to the following tables for uses allowed in each district
and to chapter 2 for definitions of permitted uses.

9. Required review: Where a site plan is required, development shall be
according to Section 507 of this ordinance. Development on land for which
neither a subdivision nor a site plan has been approved shall be according
to standards in option (a), subdivision.

10 Required parking: The minimum number of off-street parking spaces to be
provided and which shall be according to Section 702.A.

11. Street standards: The class of street required to provide access to any
parcel or subdivided lot within a development.


-85- Ordinance ________

Page 689
ILLUSTRATIONS OF DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS




TABLE 610.A
R1-18 Development Option OPTIONS

(c)
(a) (b)
Standards Planned Residential
Subdivision Average Lot
Development

Minimum lot 130' width, 120' 90' width, 80' None
dimensions (width depth (Minimum depth
and depth) area 18,000 sq.
ft.)

Dwelling unit 1.95 1.95 2.05; 2.34 with bonus
density (units/gross
acre)

Perimeter standards None 30' front or rear, 20' adjacent to a public
10' side street STREET (2); this
area is to be in
common ownership
unless lots front on the
perimeter public street;
15' adjacent to
property line

Building setbacks 25' front, 30' rear, 25' front, 50' total 25' front
10' side front plus rear

Maximum height 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30'




-86- Ordinance ________

Page 690
TABLE 610.A
R1-18 Development Option OPTIONS

(c)
(a) (b)
Standards Planned Residential
Subdivision Average Lot
Development

Lot coverage 25% 30%, PLUS Primary structure, Primary structure, not
AN ADDITIONAL not including including attached
10% FOR AN attached shade shade structures: 25%
ADU AND/OR structures: 25% Total: 30%, PLUS AN
ATTACHED Total: 30%, PLUS ADDITIONAL 10%
SHADE AN ADDITIONAL FOR AN ADU AND/OR
STRUCTURES. 10% FOR AN ATTACHED SHADE
TOTAL: 40% ADU AND/OR STRUCTURES.
ATTACHED TOTAL: 40%
SHADE
STRUCTURES.
TOTAL: 40%


Common areas None None Minimum 5% of gross
area

Allowed uses Single-family Single-family Single-family attached;
DEVELOPMENT detached attached; plus (a) plus (a)

Required review Subdivision to Subdivision with Site plan per Section
create 4 or more building setbacks 507
lots

Street standards Public street Public street Public street or private
required accessway (2) (1)

(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for
extensions of street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue
partial dedications.

(2) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as
public street rights-of-way.

C. Reserved.

***




-87- Ordinance ________

Page 691
SECTION 11: That Chapter 6, Section 611 (R1-10 Single-Family Residence

District), is amended to read as follows:

Section 611. R1-10 Single-Family Residence District.

A. Purpose. A basic purpose of these regulations is to foster the creation of living
areas which can assist the establishment of stable, functional neighborhoods. An
established pattern of living in this metropolitan area reflects a tradition of single-
family occupied dwellings which also emphasize outdoor living. Many of these
dwellings are thereby located on relatively large urban or suburban lots.

These regulations provide standards for dwellings built at low and moderate
densities. While the predominant housing type is expected to be single-family
dwelling, provisions are made for alternative housing types within the same density
limits.

B. District Regulations. The following tables establish standards to be used is IN the
R1-10 district. The definitions of terms used in these standards are found in
Section 608.D 608.I.

Table A. Single-Family Detached Development
R1-10 Development Options
TABLE 611.A
R-10 R1-10 Development Option OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum lot width (in the 75' minimum 45' minimum (unless
event of horizontal approved by either the
property regimes, "lot" design advisor or the
shall refer to the width of DESIGN REVIEW
the structure and exclusive COMMITTEE Single-
use area) Family Architectural
Appeals Board for
demonstrating enhanced
architecture that minimizes
the impact of the garage.
(see Section 507 Tab
A.2.12.1 B(2)(b) [sic]))

Minimum lot depth None, except 110' adjacent None, except 110' adjacent
to freeway or arterial to freeway or arterial



-88- Ordinance ________

Page 692
TABLE 611.A
R-10 R1-10 Development Option OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Dwelling unit density 3.0 3.5; 4.5 with bonus
(units/gross acre)

Minimum perimeter Front: 15'; Street STREET (2) (front,
building setbacks Rear: 15' (1-story), 20' (2- rear or side): 15' (in
story); addition to landscape
Side: 10' (1-story), 15' (2- setback);
story) Property line (rear): 15' (1-
story), 20' (2-story);
Property line (side): 10' (1-
story), 15' (2-story)

Common landscaped None 15' average, 10' minimum
setback adjacent to (Does not apply to lots
perimeter streets fronting onto perimeter
STREETS (2) streets)

Minimum interior building Front: 10'; rear: 10'; Front: 10'; rear: none
setbacks combined front and rear: (established by Building
35', street side: 10'; sides: Code); street side: 10';
13' total (3' minimum, sides: none (established by
unless 0') Building Code)

Minimum building 10' None
separation

Minimum garage setback 18' from back of sidewalk 18' from back of sidewalk
for front-loaded garages, for front-loaded garages,
10' from property line for 10' from property line for
side-loaded garages side-loaded garages

Maximum garage width For lots <60': 2 car widths, For lots <60': 2 car widths,
for lots ≥60' to 70': 3 car for lots ≥60' to 70': 3 car
widths, for lots >70': no widths, for lots >70': no
maximum maximum




-89- Ordinance ________

Page 693
TABLE 611.A
R-10 R1-10 Development Option OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Maximum height 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' (except
that 3 stories not
exceeding 30' are
permitted when approved
by the design advisor for
demonstrating enhanced
architecture)

Lot coverage Primary structure, not Primary structure, not
including attached shade including attached shade
structures: 40%Total: 50%, structures: 40% Total:
PLUS AN ADDITIONAL 50%, PLUS AN
10% FOR AN ADU ADDITIONAL 10% FOR
AND/OR ATTACHED AN ADU AND/OR
SHADE STRUCTURES. ATTACHED SHADE
TOTAL: 60% STRUCTURES. TOTAL:
60%

Common areas None Minimum 5% of gross area

Allowed uses Single-family detached Single-family detached
DEVELOPMENT DETACHED (3) DETACHED (3)

Required review Development review per Development review per
Section 507, and Section 507, and
subdivision to create 4 or subdivision to create 4 or
more lots more lots

Street standards Public street, or private Public street or private
street built to City accessway (1)
standards with a
homeowners’ association
established for
maintenance OR PRIVATE
ACCESSWAY (1)

On-lot and common Common retention Common retention
retention required for lots less than required for lots less than
8,000 sq. ft. per grading 8,000 sq. ft. per grading
and drainage ordinance and drainage ordinance
requirements requirements

-90- Ordinance ________

Page 694
TABLE 611.A
R-10 R1-10 Development Option OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Landscape standards Perimeter common: trees
spaced a maximum of 20
to 30 feet on center (based
on species) or in
equivalent groupings, and
5 shrubs per tree.

(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for
extensions of street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue
partial dedications.

(2) For single-family, detached development built or subdivided under the subdivision
option prior to June 2, 1999, refer to the subdivision option in table B. FOR
PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, CANAL RIGHTS-OF-WAY SHALL BE TREATED
THE SAME AS PUBLIC STREET RIGHTS-OF-WAY.

(3) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as
public street rights-of-way. FOR SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT
BUILT OR SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO JUNE 2, 1999, REFER TO THE
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF TABLE 611.B.

Table B. Single-Family Detached (Subdivided Prior to June 2, 1999), Single-Family
Attached and Multifamily Development




-91- Ordinance ________

Page 695
TABLE 611.B
R1-10 DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, AND
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO JUNE 2,
1999)

(c)
(a) (b)
Standards Planned Residential
Subdivision Average Lot
Development

Minimum lot 80' width, 94' 60' width, 65' None
dimensions (width depth depth
and depth) (Minimum area
10,000 sq. ft.)

Dwelling unit density 3.50 3.50 3.68; 4.20 with bonus
(units/gross acre)

Perimeter standards None 30' front, 25' rear, 20' adjacent to a
10' side public street STREET
(2); this area is to be in

common ownership
unless lots front on the
perimeter public
street; 15' adjacent to
property line

Building setbacks 25' front, 25' rear, 10' front, 35' front 10' front
10' and 3' side plus rear

Maximum height 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' for
first 150'; 1' in 5'
increase to 48' high
and 4 stories

Lot coverage 40% 50%, PLUS Primary structure, Primary structure, not
AN ADDITIONAL not including including attached
10% FOR AN attached shade shade structures:
ADU AND/OR structures: 40%Total: 45%. 50%,
ATTACHED 40%Total: 45%. PLUS AN
SHADE 50%, PLUS AN ADDITIONAL 10%
STRUCTURES. ADDITIONAL FOR AN ADU
TOTAL: 60% 10% FOR AN AND/OR ATTACHED
ADU AND/OR SHADE
ATTACHED STRUCTURES.
SHADE TOTAL: 60%
STRUCTURES.
TOTAL: 60%

-92- Ordinance ________

Page 696
TABLE 611.B
R1-10 DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, AND
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO JUNE 2,
1999)

(c)
(a) (b)
Standards Planned Residential
Subdivision Average Lot
Development

Common areas None None Minimum 5% of gross
area

Allowed uses Single-family Single-family Multiple-family
DEVELOPMENT detached attached; plus (a) MULTIFAMILY plus
DETACHED (3) (b)
AND DUPLEX

Required review Subdivision to Subdivision with Site plan per Section
create 4 or more building setbacks 507
lots

Street standards Public street Public street Public street or private
required accessway (2)(1)

(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for
extensions of street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue
partial dedications.

(2) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as
public street rights-of-way.

(3) THE ONLY SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENTS THAT THE
STANDARDS OF THIS TABLE APPLY TO ARE ONES BUILT OR SUBDIVIDED
PRIOR TO JUNE 2, 1999.

C. Reserved.

***

SECTION 12: That Chapter 6, Section 612 (R1-8 Single-Family Residence

District), is amended to read as follows:

Section 612. R1-8 Single-Family Residence District.



-93- Ordinance ________

Page 697
A. Purpose. A basic purpose of these regulations is to foster the creation of living
areas which can assist the establishment of stable, functional neighborhoods. An
established pattern of living in this metropolitan area reflects a tradition of single-
family occupied dwellings which also emphasize outdoor living. Many of these
dwellings are thereby located on relatively large urban or suburban lots.

These regulations provide standards for dwellings built at low and moderate
densities. While the predominant housing type is expected to be single-family
dwelling, provisions are made for alternative housing types within the same density
limits.

B. District Regulations. The following tables establish standards to be used is IN the
R1-8 district. The definitions of terms used in these standards are found in Section
608.D 608.I.

Table A. Single-Family Detached Development
TABLE 612.A
R1-8 Development Option OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum lot width (in the event 65' minimum 45' minimum (unless
of horizontal property regimes, approved by either the
"lot" shall refer to the width of design advisor or the
the structure and exclusive use DESIGN REVIEW
area) COMMITTEE Single-
Family Architectural
Appeals Board for
demonstrating enhanced
architecture that
minimizes the impact of
the garage. (see Section
507 Tab A.2.12.1
B(2)(b) [sic]))

Minimum lot depth None, except 110' None, except 110'
adjacent to freeway or adjacent to freeway or
arterial arterial

Dwelling unit density 4.0 4.5; 5.5 with bonus
(units/gross acre)




-94- Ordinance ________

Page 698
TABLE 612.A
R1-8 Development Option OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum perimeter building Front: 15'; Street STREET (2) (front,
setbacks Rear: 15' (1-story), 20' rear or side): 15' (in
(2-story); addition to landscape
Side: 10' (1-story), 15' setback);
(2-story) Property line (rear): 15'
(1-story), 20' (2-story);
Property line (side): 10'
(1-story), 15' (2-story)

Common landscaped setback None 15' average, 10'
adjacent to perimeter streets minimum (Does not
STREETS (2) apply to lots fronting
onto perimeter streets)

Minimum interior building Front: 10'; rear: 10'; Front: 10'; rear: none
setbacks combined front and rear: (established by Building
35', street side: 10'; Code); street side: 10';
sides: 13' total (3' sides: none (established
minimum, unless 0') by Building Code)

Minimum building separation 10' None

Minimum garage setback 18' from back of 18' from back of
sidewalk for front-loaded sidewalk for front-loaded
garages, 10' from garages, 10' from
property line for side- property line for side-
loaded garages loaded garages

Maximum garage width For lots <60': 2 car For lots <60': 2 car
widths, for lots ≥60' to widths, for lots ≥60' to
70': 3 car widths, for lots 70': 3 car widths, for lots
>70': no maximum >70': no maximum

Maximum height 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' (except
that 3 stories not
exceeding 30' are
permitted when
approved by the design
advisor for
demonstrating enhanced
architecture)

-95- Ordinance ________

Page 699
TABLE 612.A
R1-8 Development Option OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Lot coverage Primary structure, not Primary structure, not
including attached including attached
shade structures: shade structures:
40%Total: 50%, PLUS 40%Total: 50%, PLUS
AN ADDITIONAL 10% AN ADDITIONAL 10%
FOR AN ADU AND/OR FOR AN ADU AND/OR
ATTACHED SHADE ATTACHED SHADE
STRUCTURES. STRUCTURES.
TOTAL: 60% TOTAL: 60%

Common areas None Minimum 5% of gross
area

Allowed uses DEVELOPMENT Single-family detached Single-family detached
DETACHED (3) DETACHED (3)

Required review Development review per Development review per
Section 507, and Section 507, and
subdivision to create 4 subdivision to create 4
or more lots or more lots

Street standards Public street, or private Public street or private
street built to City accessway (1)
standards with a
homeowners’
association established
for maintenance OR
PRIVATE ACCESSWAY
(1)


On-lot and common retention Common retention Common retention
required for lots less required for lots less
than 8,000 sq. ft. per than 8,000 sq. ft. per
grading and drainage grading and drainage
ordinance requirements ordinance requirements




-96- Ordinance ________

Page 700
TABLE 612.A
R1-8 Development Option OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Landscape standards Perimeter common:
trees spaced a
maximum of 20' to 30'
on center (based on
species) or in equivalent
groupings, and 5 shrubs
per tree.

(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for
extensions of street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue
partial dedications.

(2) For single-family, detached development built or subdivided under the
subdivision option prior to June 2, 1999, refer to the subdivision option in table B.
FOR PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, CANAL RIGHTS-OF-WAY SHALL BE
TREATED THE SAME AS PUBLIC STREET RIGHTS-OF-WAY.

(3) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as
public street rights-of-way. FOR SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT
BUILT OR SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO JUNE 2, 1999, REFER TO THE
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF TABLE 612.B.

Table B. Single-Family Detached (Subdivided Prior to June 2, 1998), Single-Family
Attached and Multifamily Development




-97- Ordinance ________

Page 701
TABLE 612.B
R1-8 DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, AND
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO JUNE 2,
1999)

(c)
(a) (b)
Standards Planned Residential
Subdivision Average Lot
Development

Minimum lot 70' width, 94' depth 50' width, 65' None
dimensions (width (Minimum area depth
and depth) 8,000 sq. ft.)

Dwelling unit 4.30 4.30 4.52; 5.16 with bonus
density
(units/gross acre)

Perimeter None 25' front or rear 20' adjacent to a
standards 10' side public street STREET
(2); this area is to be in

common ownership
unless lots front on
the perimeter public
street; 15' adjacent to
property line

Building setbacks 20' front, 25' rear, 10' front, 35' front 10' front
10' and 3' side plus rear

Maximum height 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' for
first 150'; 1' in 5'
increase to 48' high
and 4 stories

Lot coverage 40% 50%, PLUS AN Primary structure, Primary structure, not
ADDITIONAL 10% not including including attached
FOR AN ADU attached shade shade structures:
AND/OR structures: 40%Total: 45%. 50%,
ATTACHED SHADE 40%Total: 45%. PLUS AN
STRUCTURES. 50%, PLUS AN ADDITIONAL 10%
TOTAL: 60% ADDITIONAL FOR AN ADU
10% FOR AN AND/OR ATTACHED
ADU AND/OR SHADE
ATTACHED STRUCTURES.
SHADE TOTAL: 60%
STRUCTURES.
TOTAL: 60%

-98- Ordinance ________

Page 702
TABLE 612.B
R1-8 DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, AND
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO JUNE 2,
1999)

(c)
(a) (b)
Standards Planned Residential
Subdivision Average Lot
Development

Common areas None None Minimum 5% of gross
area

Allowed uses Single-family Single-family Multiple-family
DEVELOPMENT detached attached; plus (a) MULTIFAMILY plus
DETACHED (3) AND (b)
DUPLEX

Required review Subdivision to Subdivision with Site plan per Section
create 4 or more lots building setbacks 507

Street standards Public street Public street Public street or
required private accessway
(2)(1)



(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for
extensions of street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue
partial dedications.

(2) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as
public street rights-of-way.

(3) THE ONLY SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENTS THAT THE
STANDARDS OF THIS TABLE APPLY TO ARE ONES BUILT OR SUBDIVIDED
PRIOR TO JUNE 2, 1999.

C. Reserved.

***

SECTION 13: That Chapter 6, Section 613 (R1-6 Single-Family Residence

District), is amended to read as follows:

Section 613. R1-6 Single-Family Residence District.



-99- Ordinance ________

Page 703
A. Purpose. A basic purpose of these regulations is to foster the creation of living
areas which can assist the establishment of stable, functional neighborhoods. An
established pattern of living in this metropolitan area reflects a tradition of single-
family occupied dwellings which also emphasize outdoor living. Many of these
dwellings are thereby located on relatively large urban or suburban lots.

These regulations provide standards for dwellings built at low and moderate
densities. While the predominant housing type is expected to be single-family
dwelling, provisions are made for alternative housing types within the same density
limits.

B. District Regulations. The following tables establish standards to be used in the
R1-6 district. The definitions of terms used in these standards are found in Section
608.D 608.I.

Table A. Single-Family, Detached Development
TABLE 613.A
R1-6 Development Option OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum lot width (in 55' minimum 45' minimum (unless
the event of horizontal approved by either the
property regimes, "lot" design advisor or the
shall refer to the width of DESIGN REVIEW
the structure and COMMITTEE Single-Family
exclusive use area) Architectural Appeals Board
for demonstrating enhanced
architecture that minimizes
the impact of the garage.
(see Section 507 Tab
A.2.12.1 B(2)(b) [sic]))

Minimum lot depth None, except 110' adjacent None, except 110' adjacent
to freeway or arterial to freeway or arterial

Dwelling unit density 5.0 5.5; 6.5 with bonus
(units/gross acre)




-100- Ordinance ________

Page 704
TABLE 613.A
R1-6 Development Option OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum perimeter Front: 15'; Street STREET (2) (front,
building setbacks Rear: 15' (1-story), 20' (2- rear or side): 15' (in addition
story); to landscape setback);
Side: 10' (1-story), 15' (2- Property line (rear): 15' (1-
story) story), 20' (2-story);
Property line (side): 10' (1-
story), 15' (2-story)

Common landscaped None 15' average, 10' minimum
setback adjacent to (Does not apply to lots
perimeter streets fronting onto perimeter
STREETS (2) streets)

Minimum interior Front: 10'; rear: 10'; Front: 10'; rear: none
building setbacks combined front and rear: (established by Building
35', street side: 10'; sides: Code); street side: 10';
13' total (3' minimum, unless sides: none (established by
0') Building Code)

Minimum building 10' None
separation

Minimum garage 18' from back of sidewalk for 18' from back of sidewalk for
setback front-loaded garages, 10' front-loaded garages, 10'
from property line for side- from property line for side-
loaded garages loaded garages

Maximum garage width For lots <60': 2 car widths, For lots <60': 2 car widths,
for lots ≥60' to 70': 3 car for lots ≥60' to 70': 3 car
widths, for lots >70': no widths, for lots >70': no
maximum maximum

Maximum height 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' (except
that 3 stories not exceeding
30' are permitted when
approved by the design
advisor for demonstrating
enhanced architecture)




-101- Ordinance ________

Page 705
TABLE 613.A
R1-6 Development Option OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Lot coverage Primary structure, not Primary structure, not
including attached shade including attached shade
structures: 40%Total: 50%, structures: 40%Total: 50%,
PLUS AN ADDITIONAL PLUS AN ADDITIONAL
10% FOR AN ADU AND/OR 10% FOR AN ADU AND/OR
ATTACHED SHADE ATTACHED SHADE
STRUCTURES. TOTAL: STRUCTURES. TOTAL:
60% 60%

Common areas None Minimum 5% of gross area

Allowed uses Single-family detached Single-family detached
DEVELOPMENT DETACHED (3) DETACHED (3)

Required review Development review per Development review per
Section 507, and Section 507, and
subdivision to create 4 or subdivision to create 4 or
more lots more lots

Street standards Public street, or private Public street or private
street built to City standards accessway (1)
with a homeowners’
association established for
maintenance OR PRIVATE
ACCESSWAY (1)

On-lot and common Common retention required Common retention required
retention for lots less than 8,000 sq. for lots less than 8,000 sq.
ft. per grading and drainage ft. per grading and drainage
ordinance requirements ordinance requirements

Landscape standards Perimeter common: trees
spaced a maximum of 20 to
30 feet on center (based on
species) or in equivalent
groupings, and 5 shrubs per
tree.

(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for
extensions of street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue
partial dedications.

-102- Ordinance ________

Page 706
(2) For single-family, detached development built or subdivided under the
subdivision option prior to May 1, 1998, refer to the subdivision option in table B.
FOR PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, CANAL RIGHTS-OF-WAY SHALL BE
TREATED THE SAME AS PUBLIC STREET RIGHTS-OF-WAY.

(3) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as
public street rights-of-way. FOR SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT
BUILT OR SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO MAY 1, 1998, REFER TO THE
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF TABLE 613.B

Table B. Single-Family Detached (Subdivided Prior to May 1, 1998), Single-Family
Attached and Multifamily Development




TABLE 613.B
R1-6 DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, AND
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO MAY 1,
1998)

(c)
(a) (b)
Standards Planned Residential
Subdivision(3) Average Lot
Development

Minimum lot 60' width, 94' depth 40' width, 60' None
dimensions (width (Minimum area depth
and depth) 6,000 sq. ft.)

Dwelling unit 5.30 5.30 5.54; 6.34 with bonus
density (units/gross
acre)




-103- Ordinance ________

Page 707
TABLE 613.B
R1-6 DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, AND
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO MAY 1,
1998)

(c)
(a) (b)
Standards Planned Residential
Subdivision(3) Average Lot
Development

Perimeter None 25' front or rear 20' adjacent to a
standards 10' side public street STREET
(2); this area is to be in

common ownership
unless lots front on the
perimeter public
street; 15' adjacent to
property line

Building setbacks 20' front, 25' rear, 10' front, 35' front 10' front
10' and 3' side plus rear

Maximum height 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' for
first 150'; 1' in 5'
increase to 48' high
and 4 stories

Lot coverage 40% 50%, PLUS Primary structure, Primary structure, not
AN ADDITIONAL not including including attached
10% FOR AN ADU attached shade shade structures:
AND/OR structures: 40%Total: 45%. 50%,
ATTACHED 40%Total: 45%. PLUS AN
SHADE 50%, PLUS AN ADDITIONAL 10%
STRUCTURES. ADDITIONAL FOR AN ADU
TOTAL: 60% 10% FOR AN AND/OR ATTACHED
ADU AND/OR SHADE
ATTACHED STRUCTURES.
SHADE TOTAL: 60%
STRUCTURES.
TOTAL: 60%

Common areas None None Minimum 5% of gross
area(3) AREA

Allowed uses Single-family Single-family Multiple-family
DEVELOPMENT detached attached; PLUS MULTIFAMILY and
DETACHED (3) (a) single-family attached
AND DUPLEX PLUS (b)

-104- Ordinance ________

Page 708
TABLE 613.B
R1-6 DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, AND
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO MAY 1,
1998)

(c)
(a) (b)
Standards Planned Residential
Subdivision(3) Average Lot
Development

Required review Subdivision to Subdivision with Development review
create 4 or more building setbacks per Section 507
lots

Street standards Public street Public street Public street or private
required accessway (2)(1)

(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for
extensions of street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue
partial dedications.

(2) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as
public street rights-of-way.

(3) These standards apply only to single-family, detached development built or
subdivided under the subdivision option prior to May 1, 1998. THE ONLY
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENTS THAT THE STANDARDS OF
THIS TABLE APPLY TO ARE ONES BUILT OR SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO MAY
1, 1998.

C. Reserved.

***

SECTION 14: That Chapter 6, Section 614 (R-2 Multifamily Residence District),

is amended to read as follows:

Section 614. R-2 Multifamily Residence District.

***

B. District Regulations. The following tables establish standards to be used in the R-
2 district. The definitions of terms used in these standards are found in Section
608.I. The single-family attached INFILL development option must meet Section
608.F.6 requirements.

-105- Ordinance ________

Page 709
Table A. Single-Family, Detached Development(2)

TABLE 614.A
R-2 Development Option OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum lot width (in the 55' minimum 45' minimum (unless
event of horizontal approved by either the
property regimes, "lot" design advisor or the
shall refer to the width of DESIGN REVIEW
the structure and COMMITTEE Single-
exclusive use area) Family Architectural
Appeals Board for
demonstrating enhanced
architecture that minimizes
the impact of the garage.
(see Section 507 Tab
A.2.12.1 B(2)(b) [sic]))

Minimum lot depth None, except 110' adjacent None, except 110' adjacent
to freeway or arterial to freeway or arterial

Dwelling unit density 5.0 6.5; 12 with bonus
(units/gross acre)

Minimum perimeter Front: 15'; Rear: 15' (1- Street STREET (2) (front,
building setbacks story), 20' (2-story); Side: rear or side): 15' (in
10' (1-story), 15' (2-story) addition to landscape
setback);
Property line (rear): 15' (1-
story), 20' (2-story);
Property line (side): 10' (1-
story), 15' (2-story)

Common landscaped None 15' average, 10' minimum
setback adjacent to (Does not apply to lots
perimeter streets fronting onto perimeter
STREETS (2) streets)

Minimum interior building Front: 10'; rear: 10'; Front: 10'; rear: none
setbacks combined front and rear: (established by Building
35', street side: 10'; sides: Code); street side: 10';
13' total (3' minimum, sides: none (established by
unless 0') Building Code)

-106- Ordinance ________

Page 710
TABLE 614.A
R-2 Development Option OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum building 10' None
separation

Minimum garage setback 18' from back of sidewalk 18' from back of sidewalk
for front-loaded garages, for front-loaded garages,
10' from property line for 10' from property line for
side-loaded garages side-loaded garages

Maximum garage width For lots <60': 2 car widths, For lots <60': 2 car widths,
for lots ≥60' to 70': 3 car for lots ≥60' to 70': 3 car
widths, for lots >70': no widths, for lots >70': no
maximum maximum

Maximum height 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' (except
that 3 stories not exceeding
30' are permitted when
approved by the design
advisor for demonstrating
enhanced architecture)

Lot coverage Primary structure, not Primary structure, not
including attached shade including attached shade
structures: 40%Total: 50%, structures: 40%Total: 50%,
PLUS AN ADDITIONAL PLUS AN ADDITIONAL
10% FOR AN ADU 10% FOR AN ADU
AND/OR ATTACHED AND/OR ATTACHED
SHADE STRUCTURES. SHADE STRUCTURES.
TOTAL: 60% TOTAL: 60%

Common areas None Minimum 5% of gross area

Allowed uses Single-family detached Single-family detached
DEVELOPMENT DETACHED (3) DETACHED (3)

Required review Development review per Development review per
Section 507, and Section 507, and
subdivision to create 4 or subdivision to create 4 or
more lots more lots




-107- Ordinance ________

Page 711
TABLE 614.A
R-2 Development Option OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Street standards Public street, or private Public street or private
street built to City accessway (1)
standards with a
homeowners’ association
established for
maintenance OR PRIVATE
ACCESSWAY (1)

On-lot and common Common retention required Common retention required
retention for lots less than 8,000 sq. for lots less than 8,000 sq.
ft. per grading and drainage ft. per grading and drainage
ordinance requirements ordinance requirements

Landscape standards Perimeter common: trees
spaced a maximum of 20 to
30 feet on center (based on
species) or in equivalent
groupings, and 5 shrubs
per tree.

(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for
extensions of street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue
partial dedications.

(2) For single-family, detached development built or subdivided under the
subdivision option prior to May 1, 1998, refer to the subdivision option in table B.
FOR PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, CANAL RIGHTS-OF-WAY SHALL BE
TREATED THE SAME AS PUBLIC STREET RIGHTS-OF-WAY.

(3) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as
public street rights-of-way. FOR SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT
BUILT OR SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO MAY 1, 1998, REFER TO THE
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF TABLE 614.B

Table B. Single-Family Detached (Subdivided Prior to May 1, 1998), Single-Family
Attached and Multifamily Development




-108- Ordinance ________

Page 712
TABLE 614.B
R-2 Development Options
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, AND
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO MAY
1,1998)

(c) (d)
(a)
(b) Planned Single-Family
Standards Subdivision(2
) Average Lot Residential Attached (3)
Development INFILL (4)

Minimum lot 60' width, 94' 40' width, 50' None Development
dimensions depth depth site: none.
(width and Individual
depth) dwelling lot:
20'.

Dwelling unit 10.0 10.0 10.50; 12.00 10.50; 12.00
density with bonus with bonus
(units/gross
acre)

Perimeter None 20' front, 15' 20' adjacent to 10' for units
standards rear, 10' side a public street; fronting street
this area is to rights-of-way;
be in common 15' for units
ownership siding street
unless lots front rights-of-way.
on the This area is to
perimeter be in common
public street ownership or
STREET (2); 10' management.
15’ adjacent to 10' adjacent to
property line property line.




-109- Ordinance ________

Page 713
TABLE 614.B
R-2 Development Options
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, AND
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO MAY
1,1998)

(c) (d)
(a)
(b) Planned Single-Family
Standards Subdivision(2
) Average Lot Residential Attached (3)
Development INFILL (4)

Building 25' front, 25' 10' front, 35' 10' front Individual unit
setbacks rear, 10' and front plus rear lot: none
3' side

Maximum height 2 stories and 2 stories and 2 stories and 3 stories or
30'* 30’ (5) 30'* 30’ (5) 30' for first 150'; AND 40' for
1' in 5' increase first 150'; 1' in
to 48' high 1' increase to
HEIGHT, and 48' height, 4-
4- stories* story
STORY maximum*
MAXIMUM (5) MAXIMUM (6)

Lot coverage 40% 50%, 45% 50%, 45% 50%, 100% FOR
PLUS AN PLUS AN PLUS AN EACH
ADDITIONAL ADDITIONAL ADDITIONAL INDIVIDUAL
10% FOR AN 10% FOR AN 10% FOR AN LOT. 50%
ADU AND/OR ADU AND/OR ADU AND/OR FOR OTHER
ATTACHED ATTACHED ATTACHED PARCELS OR
SHADE SHADE SHADE TRACTS
STRUCTURE STRUCTURE STRUCTURES WITH
S. TOTAL: S. TOTAL: . TOTAL: 60% ACCESSORY
60% 60% STRUCTURE
S.

Common areas None None Minimum 5% of Minimum 5%
gross area (2) of gross area
(2)




-110- Ordinance ________

Page 714
TABLE 614.B
R-2 Development Options
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, AND
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO MAY
1,1998)

(c) (d)
(a)
(b) Planned Single-Family
Standards Subdivision(2
) Average Lot Residential Attached (3)
Development INFILL (4)

Allowed uses Single-family Single-family Single-family Single-family
DEVELOPMENT DETACHED DETACHED (3), DETACHED (3), attached and
(3), SINGLE- SINGLE- SINGLE- SINGLE-
FAMILY FAMILY FAMILY FAMILY
attached, and attached, and attached, and DETACHED
multifamily multifamily multifamily (PER THE
PROVISIONS
OF 608.F.6
ONLY) home
occupations
per Section

Required review Subdivision to Subdivision Development Development
create 4 or with building review per review per
more lots setbacks Section 507 Section 507

Street standards Public street Public street Public street or Development
required private site: public
accessway street,
ACCESSWAY PUBLIC
(1) ALLEY, or
private
accessway.
Individual unit
lot: private
accessway,
alley right-of-
way or
driveway OR
PRIVATE
DRIVE (1).

* There shall be a 15-foot maximum height within ten feet of a single-family zoned
district, which height may be increased one foot for each additional one foot of
building setback to the maximum permitted height.

-111- Ordinance ________

Page 715
(1) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as public
street rights-of-way. PUBLIC STREETS MAY BE REQUIRED AS A PART
OF SUBDIVISION OR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR EXTENSIONS OF STREET
PATTERNS, FOR CIRCULATION WITHIN NEIGHBORHOODS, OR TO
CONTINUE PARTIAL DEDICATIONS.

(2) These standards also apply to single-family, detached development built or
subdivided under the subdivision option prior to May 1, 1998. FOR PURPOSES
OF THIS SECTION, CANAL RIGHTS-OF-WAY SHALL BE TREATED THE SAME
AS PUBLIC STREET RIGHTS-OF-WAY.

(3) The single-family attached development option must meet Section 608.F.8
requirements. THE ONLY SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENTS THAT
THE STANDARDS OF THIS TABLE APPLY TO ARE ONES BUILT OR
SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO MAY 1, 1998.

(4) THE SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL DEVELOPMENT OPTION MUST COMPLY WITH
THE ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS PROVIDED IN SECTION
608.F.6.

(5) THERE SHALL BE A 15-FOOT MAXIMUM HEIGHT WITHIN TEN FEET OF A
SINGLE-FAMILY ZONED DISTRICT, WHICH HEIGHT MAY BE INCREASED ONE
FOOT FOR EACH ADDITIONAL ONE FOOT OF BUILDING SETBACK TO THE
MAXIMUM PERMITTED HEIGHT.




-112- Ordinance ________

Page 716
-113- Ordinance ________

Page 717
C. Special Regulations

1. A site plan in accordance with Section 507 is required for all development in
the R-2, R-3, R-3A, R-4, R-4A and R-5 districts except when the
development consists of single-family dwellings on individual lots.

2. Reserved.

***

SECTION 15: That Chapter 6, Section 615 (R-3 Multifamily Residence District),

is amended to read as follows:

Section 615. R-3 Multifamily Residence District.

***

B. District Regulations. The following tables establish standards to be used in the R-
3 district. The definitions of terms used in these standards are found in Section
608.I. The single-family attached INFILL development option must meet Section
608.F.6 requirements.

Table A. Single-Family Development(2)
TABLE 615.A
R-3 Development Option OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum lot width (in the 55' minimum 45' minimum (unless
event of horizontal approved by either the
property regimes, "lot" design advisor or the
shall refer to the width of DESIGN REVIEW
the structure and COMMITTEE Single-Family
exclusive use area) Architectural Appeals Board
for demonstrating enhanced
architecture that minimizes
the impact of the garage.
(see Section 507 Tab
A.2.12.1 B(2)(b) [sic]))

Minimum lot depth None, except 110' adjacent None, except 110' adjacent
to freeway or arterial to freeway or arterial



-114- Ordinance ________

Page 718
TABLE 615.A
R-3 Development Option OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Dwelling unit density 5.0 6.5; 12 with bonus
(units/gross acre)

Minimum perimeter Front: 15'; Rear: 15' (1- Street STREET (2) (front,
building setbacks story), 20' (2-story); Side: rear or side): 15' (in addition
10' (1-story), 15' (2-story) to landscape setback);
Property line (rear): 15' (1-
story), 20' (2-story);
Property line (side): 10' (1-
story), 15' (2-story)

Common landscaped None 15' average, 10' minimum
setback adjacent to (Does not apply to lots
perimeter streets fronting onto perimeter
STREETS (2) streets)

Minimum interior Front: 10'; rear: 10'; Front: 10'; rear: none
building setbacks combined front and rear: (established by Building
35', street side: 10'; sides: Code); street side: 10';
13' total (3' minimum, sides: none (established by
unless 0') Building Code)

Minimum building 10' None
separation

Minimum garage 18' from back of sidewalk 18' from back of sidewalk
setback for front-loaded garages, 10' for front-loaded garages, 10'
from property line for side- from property line for side-
loaded garages loaded garages

Maximum garage width For lots <60': 2 car widths, For lots <60': 2 car widths,
for lots ≥60' to 70': 3 car for lots ≥60' to 70': 3 car
widths, for lots >70': no widths, for lots >70': no
maximum maximum

Maximum height 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' (except
that 3 stories not exceeding
30' are permitted when
approved by the design
advisor for demonstrating
enhanced architecture)

-115- Ordinance ________

Page 719
TABLE 615.A
R-3 Development Option OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Lot coverage Primary structure, not Primary structure, not
including attached shade including attached shade
structures: 40%Total: 50%, structures: 40%Total: 50%,
PLUS AN ADDITIONAL PLUS AN ADDITIONAL
10% FOR AN ADU 10% FOR AN ADU
AND/OR ATTACHED AND/OR ATTACHED
SHADE STRUCTURES. SHADE STRUCTURES.
TOTAL: 60% TOTAL: 60%

Common areas None Minimum 5% of gross area

Allowed uses Single-family detached Single-family detached
DEVELOPMENT DETACHED (3) DETACHED (3)

Required review Development review per Development review per
Section 507, and Section 507, and
subdivision to create 4 or subdivision to create 4 or
more lots more lots

Street standards Public street, or private Public street or private
street built to City standards accessway (1)
with a homeowners’
association established for
maintenance OR PRIVATE
ACCESSWAY (1)

On-lot and common Common retention required Common retention required
retention for lots less than 8,000 sq. for lots less than 8,000 sq.
ft. per grading and drainage ft. per grading and drainage
ordinance requirements ordinance requirements

Landscape standards Perimeter common: trees
spaced a maximum of 20 to
30 feet on center (based on
species) or in equivalent
groupings, and 5 shrubs per
tree.

(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for
extensions of street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue
partial dedications.

-116- Ordinance ________

Page 720
(2) For single-family, detached development built or subdivided under the
subdivision option prior to May 1, 1998, refer to the subdivision option in table B.
FOR PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, CANAL RIGHTS-OF-WAY SHALL BE
TREATED THE SAME AS PUBLIC STREET RIGHTS-OF-WAY.

(3) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as
public street rights-of-way. FOR SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT
BUILT OR SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO MAY 1, 1998, REFER TO THE
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF TABLE 615.B

Table B. Single-Family (Subdivided Prior to May 1, 1998), Single-Family Attached
and Multifamily Development




TABLE 615.B
R-3 Development Options
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, AND
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO MAY 1,
1998)

(c) (d)
(a) (b) Planned Single-Family
Standards
Subdivision(2) Average Lot Residential Attached (3)
Development INFILL (4)

Minimum lot 60' width, 94' 40' width, 50' None Individual unit
dimensions depth depth lot: 20' width,
(width and no minimum
depth) depth

Dwelling unit 14.5 14.5 15.23; 17.40 15.23; 17.40
density with bonus with bonus
(units/gross
acre)




-117- Ordinance ________

Page 721
TABLE 615.B
R-3 Development Options
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, AND
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO MAY 1,
1998)

(c) (d)
(a) (b) Planned Single-Family
Standards
Subdivision(2) Average Lot Residential Attached (3)
Development INFILL (4)

Perimeter None 20' front, 15' 20' adjacent to 10' for units
standards rear, 10' side a public street; fronting street
this area is to rights-of-way;
be in common 15' for units
ownership siding street
unless lots rights-of-way.
front on the This area is to
perimeter be in common
public street ownership or
STREET (2); 15' management.
adjacent to 10' adjacent to
property line property line.

Building 25' front, 15' 10' front, 30' 10' front Individual unit
setbacks rear, 10' and 3' front plus rear lot: none
side

Maximum 2 stories and 2 stories and 2 stories and 3 stories or
height 30'* 30’ (5) 30'* 30’ (5) 30' for first AND 40' for
150'; 1' in 5' first 150'; 1' in
increase to 48' 1' increase to
high HEIGHT, 48' height, 4-
and 4- stories* story
STORY maximum*
MAXIMUM (5) MAXIMUM (6)




-118- Ordinance ________

Page 722
TABLE 615.B
R-3 Development Options
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, AND
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO MAY 1,
1998)

(c) (d)
(a) (b) Planned Single-Family
Standards
Subdivision(2) Average Lot Residential Attached (3)
Development INFILL (4)

Lot coverage 40% 50%, 45% 50%, 45% 50%, 100% FOR
PLUS AN PLUS AN PLUS AN EACH
ADDITIONAL ADDITIONAL ADDITIONAL INDIVIDUAL
10% FOR AN 10% FOR AN 10% FOR AN LOT. 50%
ADU AND/OR ADU AND/OR ADU AND/OR FOR OTHER
ATTACHED ATTACHED ATTACHED PARCELS OR
SHADE SHADE SHADE TRACTS
STRUCTURE STRUCTURE STRUCTURE WITH
S. TOTAL: S. TOTAL: S. TOTAL: ACCESSORY
60% 60% 60% STRUCTURE
S.

Common areas None None Minimum 5% Minimum 5%
of gross area of gross area
(2)


Allowed uses Single-family Single-family Single-family Single-family
DEVELOPMEN DETACHED (3), DETACHED (3), DETACHED (3), attached and
T SINGLE- SINGLE- SINGLE- SINGLE-
FAMILY FAMILY FAMILY FAMILY
attached, and attached, and attached, and DETACHED
multifamily multifamily multifamily (PER THE
PROVISIONS
OF 608.F.6
ONLY) home
occupations
per Section

Required review Subdivision to Subdivision Development Development
create 4 or with building review per review per
more lots setbacks Section 507 Section 507




-119- Ordinance ________

Page 723
TABLE 615.B
R-3 Development Options
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, AND
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO MAY 1,
1998)

(c) (d)
(a) (b) Planned Single-Family
Standards
Subdivision(2) Average Lot Residential Attached (3)
Development INFILL (4)

Street Public street Public street Public street or Development
standards required private site: public
accessway street, PUBLIC
ACCESSWAY ALLEY, or
(1) private
accessway.
Individual unit
lot: private
accessway,
alley right-of-
way or
driveway OR
PRIVATE
DRIVE (1).

* There shall be a 15-foot maximum height within ten feet of a single-family zoned
district, which height may be increased one foot for each additional one foot of
building setback to the maximum permitted height.

(1) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as
public street rights-of-way. PUBLIC STREETS MAY BE REQUIRED AS A PART
OF SUBDIVISION OR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR EXTENSIONS OF
STREET PATTERNS, FOR CIRCULATION WITHIN NEIGHBORHOODS, OR
TO CONTINUE PARTIAL DEDICATIONS.

(2) These standards also apply to single-family, detached development built or
subdivided under the subdivision option prior to May 1, 1998. FOR PURPOSES
OF THIS SECTION, CANAL RIGHTS-OF-WAY SHALL BE TREATED THE
SAME AS PUBLIC STREET RIGHTS-OF-WAY.

(3) The single-family attached development option must meet Section 608.F.8
requirements. THE ONLY SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENTS
THAT THE STANDARDS OF THIS TABLE APPLY TO ARE ONES BUILT OR
SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO MAY 1, 1998.



-120- Ordinance ________

Page 724
(4) THE SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL DEVELOPMENT OPTION MUST COMPLY WITH
THE ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS PROVIDED IN SECTION
608.F.6.

(5) THERE SHALL BE A 15-FOOT MAXIMUM HEIGHT WITHIN TEN FEET OF A
SINGLE-FAMILY ZONED DISTRICT, WHICH HEIGHT MAY BE INCREASED
ONE FOOT FOR EACH ADDITIONAL ONE FOOT OF BUILDING SETBACK TO
THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED HEIGHT.




C. Special Regulations

1. Adult day care home for the care of one to four adult persons; provided, that:

a. Outdoor recreation areas shall be screened from adjacent properties
by a six-foot-high landscape hedge, solid fence, or solid wall.

2. Boarding house, subject to a use permit and the following conditions:

a. 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.



-121- Ordinance ________

Page 725
b. No boarding house 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 boarding house, group home, or community
residence home or center within a residential zoning district.

c. A maximum lot coverage of 25 percent.

d. A minimum of 100 square feet of usable outdoor open space per
bed shall be provided.

e. The lot shall only have vehicular access from an arterial or
collector street.

3. Community residence center, subject to a use permit and the following
conditions:

a. Such center 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.

b. No community residence center 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 or
center within a residential zoning district.

c. Disability accommodation from the spacing requirement may be
requested by an applicant per Section 701.E.3.

d. A maximum lot coverage of 25 percent.

e. A minimum of 100 square feet of usable outdoor open space per bed
shall be provided.

f. The lot shall only have vehicular access from an arterial or collector
street.

4. Group home, subject to a use permit and the following conditions:

a. 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.




-122- Ordinance ________

Page 726
b. No group 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 group home, boarding house, or community residence
home or center within a residential zoning district.

c. A maximum lot coverage of 25 percent.

d. A minimum of 100 square feet of usable outdoor open space per bed
shall be provided.

e. The lot shall only have vehicular access from an arterial or collector
street.

5. Group foster home, subject to a use permit.

6. Dormitories and convents shall be permitted as accessory uses to churches
or similar places of worship.

7. A site plan in accordance with Section 507 is required for all development in
the R-2, R-3, R-3A, R-4, R-4A and R-5 districts except when the
development consists of single-family dwellings on individual lots.

8. Dependent care facility for 13 or more dependents and schools for the
mentally or physically handicapped subject to securing a use permit
pursuant to Section 307.

***

SECTION 16: That Chapter 6, Section 616 (R-3A Multifamily Residence District),

is amended to read as follows:

Section 616. R-3A Multifamily Residence District.

***

B. District Regulations. The following tables establish standards to be used in the R-
3A district. The definitions of terms used in these standards are found in Section
608.I. The single-family attached INFILL development option must meet Section
608.F.6 requirements.

Table A. Single-Family Development(2)




-123- Ordinance ________

Page 727
TABLE 616.A
R-3A Development Option OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum lot width (in the 55' minimum 45' minimum (unless
event of horizontal approved by either the
property regimes, "lot" design advisor or the
shall refer to the width of DESIGN REVIEW
the structure and exclusive COMMITTEE Single-
use area) Family Architectural
Appeals Board for
demonstrating enhanced
architecture that minimizes
the impact of the garage.
(see Section 507 Tab
A.2.12.1 B(2)(b) [sic]))

Minimum lot depth None, except 110' adjacent None, except 110' adjacent
to freeway or arterial to freeway or arterial

Dwelling unit density 5.0 6.5; 12 with bonus
(units/gross acre)

Minimum perimeter Front: 15'; Street STREET (2) (front,
building setbacks Rear: 15' (1-story), 20' (2- rear or side): 15' (in
story); addition to landscape
Side: 10' (1-story), 15' (2- setback);
story) Property line (rear): 15' (1-
story), 20' (2-story);
Property line (side): 10' (1-
story), 15' (2-story)

Common landscaped None 15' average, 10' minimum
setback adjacent to (Does not apply to lots
perimeter streets fronting onto perimeter
STREETS (2) streets)

Minimum interior building Front: 10'; rear: 10'; Front: 10'; rear: none
setbacks combined front and rear: (established by Building
35', street side: 10'; sides: Code); street side: 10';
13' total (3' minimum, sides: none (established
unless 0') by Building Code)

Minimum building 10' None
separation

-124- Ordinance ________

Page 728
TABLE 616.A
R-3A Development Option OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum garage setback 18' from back of sidewalk 18' from back of sidewalk
for front-loaded garages, for front-loaded garages,
10' from property line for 10' from property line for
side-loaded garages side-loaded garages

Maximum garage width For lots <60': 2 car widths, For lots <60': 2 car widths,
for lots ≥60' to 70': 3 car for lots ≥60' to 70': 3 car
widths, for lots >70': no widths, for lots >70': no
maximum maximum

Maximum height 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' (except
that 3 stories not
exceeding 30' are
permitted when approved
by the design advisor for
demonstrating enhanced
architecture)

Lot coverage Primary structure, not Primary structure, not
including attached shade including attached shade
structures: 40%Total: 50%, structures: 40%Total: 50%,
PLUS AN ADDITIONAL PLUS AN ADDITIONAL
10% FOR AN ADU 10% FOR AN ADU
AND/OR ATTACHED AND/OR ATTACHED
SHADE STRUCTURES. SHADE STRUCTURES.
TOTAL: 60% TOTAL: 60%

Common areas None Minimum 5% of gross area

Allowed uses Single-family detached Single-family detached
DEVELOPMENT DETACHED (3) DETACHED (3)

Required review Development review per Development review per
Section 507, and Section 507, and
subdivision to create 4 or subdivision to create 4 or
more lots more lots




-125- Ordinance ________

Page 729
TABLE 616.A
R-3A Development Option OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Street standards Public street, or private Public street or private
street built to City accessway (1)
standards with a
homeowners’ association
established for
maintenance OR PRIVATE
ACCESSWAY (1)

On-lot and common Common retention Common retention
retention required for lots less than required for lots less than
8,000 sq. ft. per grading 8,000 sq. ft. per grading
and drainage ordinance and drainage ordinance
requirements requirements

Landscape standards Perimeter common: trees
spaced a maximum of 20
to 30 feet on center (based
on species) or in
equivalent groupings, and
5 shrubs per tree.

(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for
extensions of street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue
partial dedications.

(2) For single-family, detached development built or subdivided under the
subdivision option prior to May 1, 1998, refer to the subdivision option in table B.
FOR PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, CANAL RIGHTS-OF-WAY SHALL BE
TREATED THE SAME AS PUBLIC STREET RIGHTS-OF-WAY.

(3) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as
public street rights-of-way. FOR SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT
BUILT OR SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO MAY 1, 1998, REFER TO THE
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF TABLE 616.B

Table B. Single-Family (Subdivided Prior to May 1, 1998), Single-Family Attached
and Multifamily Development




-126- Ordinance ________

Page 730
TABLE 616.B
R-3A Development Options
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, AND
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO MAY 1,
1998)

(c) (d)
(a) (b) Planned Single-Family
Standards
Subdivision(2) Average Lot Residential Attached (3)
Development INFILL (4)

Minimum lot 60' width, 94' 40' width, 50' None Individual unit
dimensions depth depth lot: 20' width,
(width and no minimum
depth) depth

Dwelling unit 22 22 23.1; 26.4 with 23.1; 26.4 with
density bonus bonus
(units/gross
acre)

Perimeter None 20' front, 15' 20' adjacent to 10' for units
standards rear, 10' side a public street; fronting street
this area is to rights-of-way;
be in common 15' for units
ownership siding street
unless lots rights-of-way.
front on the This area is to
perimeter be in common
public street ownership or
STREET (2); 15' management.
adjacent to 10' adjacent to
property line property line

Building 25' front, 15' 10' front, 30' 10' front Individual unit
setbacks rear, 10' and 3' front plus rear lot: none
side

-127- Ordinance ________

Page 731
TABLE 616.B
R-3A Development Options
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, AND
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO MAY 1,
1998)

(c) (d)
(a) (b) Planned Single-Family
Standards
Subdivision(2) Average Lot Residential Attached (3)
Development INFILL (4)

Maximum 3 stories or 3 stories or 3 stories or 40' 3 stories or 40'
height 40'* 40’(5) 40'* 40’(5) for 150'; 1' in 5' for first 150'; 1'
increase to 48' in 1' increase
HEIGHT, 4- to 48' height,
story maximum 4-story
(5) maximum*
MAXIMUM (6)

Lot coverage 40% 50%, 45% 50%, 45% 50%, 100% FOR
PLUS AN PLUS AN PLUS AN EACH
ADDITIONAL ADDITIONAL ADDITIONAL INDIVIDUAL
10% FOR AN 10% FOR AN 10% FOR AN LOT. 50%
ADU AND/OR ADU AND/OR ADU AND/OR FOR OTHER
ATTACHED ATTACHED ATTACHED PARCELS OR
SHADE SHADE SHADE TRACTS
STRUCTURE STRUCTURE STRUCTURE WITH
S. TOTAL: S. TOTAL: S. TOTAL: ACCESSORY
60% 60% 60% STRUCTURE
S.

Common areas None None Minimum 5% Minimum 5%
of gross area of gross area
(2)


Allowed uses Single-family Single-family Single-family Single-family
DEVELOPMEN DETACHED (3), DETACHED (3), DETACHED (3), attached and
T SINGLE- SINGLE- SINGLE- SINGLE-
FAMILY FAMILY FAMILY FAMILY
attached, and attached, and attached, and DETACHED
multifamily multifamily multifamily (PER THE
PROVISIONS
OF 608.F.6
ONLY) home
occupations
per Section


-128- Ordinance ________

Page 732
TABLE 616.B
R-3A Development Options
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, AND
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO MAY 1,
1998)

(c) (d)
(a) (b) Planned Single-Family
Standards
Subdivision(2) Average Lot Residential Attached (3)
Development INFILL (4)

Required review Subdivision to Subdivision Development Development
create 4 or with building review per review per
more lots setbacks Section 507 Section 507

Street Public street Public street Public street or Development
standards required private site: public
accessway street, PUBLIC
ACCESSWAY ALLEY, or
(1) private
accessway.
Individual unit
lot: private
accessway,
alley right-of-
way or
driveway OR
PRIVATE
DRIVE (1).

* There shall be a 15-foot maximum height within ten feet of a single-family zoned
district, which height may be increased one foot for each additional one foot of
building setback to the maximum permitted height.

(1) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as
public street rights-of-way. PUBLIC STREETS MAY BE REQUIRED AS A PART
OF SUBDIVISION OR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR EXTENSIONS OF
STREET PATTERNS, FOR CIRCULATION WITHIN NEIGHBORHOODS, OR
TO CONTINUE PARTIAL DEDICATIONS.

(2) These standards also apply to single-family, detached development built or
subdivided under the subdivision option prior to May 1, 1998. FOR PURPOSES
OF THIS SECTION, CANAL RIGHTS-OF-WAY SHALL BE TREATED THE
SAME AS PUBLIC STREET RIGHTS-OF-WAY.

(3) The single-family attached development option must meet Section 608.F.8
requirements. THE ONLY SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENTS
-129- Ordinance ________

Page 733
THAT THE STANDARDS OF THIS TABLE APPLY TO ARE ONES BUILT OR
SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO MAY 1, 1998.

(4) THE SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL DEVELOPMENT OPTION MUST COMPLY WITH
THE ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS PROVIDED IN SECTION
608.F.6.

(5) THERE SHALL BE A 15-FOOT MAXIMUM HEIGHT WITHIN TEN FEET OF A
SINGLE-FAMILY ZONED DISTRICT, WHICH HEIGHT MAY BE INCREASED
ONE FOOT FOR EACH ADDITIONAL ONE FOOT OF BUILDING SETBACK TO
THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED HEIGHT.




C. Special Regulations

1. Adult day care center, subject to a use permit; and provided, that:

a. Outdoor recreation areas shall be screened from adjacent properties
by a six-foot-high landscape hedge, solid fence, or solid wall.

2. Boarding house, subject to a use permit and the following conditions:




-130- Ordinance ________

Page 734
a. 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.

b. No boarding house 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 boarding house, group home, or community
residence home or center within a residential zoning district.

c. A maximum lot coverage of 25 percent.

d. A minimum of 100 square feet of usable outdoor open space per
bed shall be provided.

e. The lot shall only have vehicular access from an arterial or
collector street.

3. Community residence center, subject to a use permit and the following
conditions:

a. Such center 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.

b. No community residence center 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 or
center within a residential zoning district.

c. Disability accommodation from the spacing requirement may be
requested by an applicant per Section 701.E.3.

d. A maximum lot coverage of 25 percent.

e. A minimum of 100 square feet of usable outdoor open space per bed
shall be provided.

f. The lot shall only have vehicular access from an arterial or collector
street.

4. Group home, subject to a use permit and the following conditions:




-131- Ordinance ________

Page 735
a. 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.

b. No group 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 group home, boarding house, or community residence
home or center within a residential zoning district.

c. A maximum lot coverage of 25 percent.

d. A minimum of 100 square feet of usable outdoor open space per bed
shall be provided.

e. The lot shall only have vehicular access from an arterial or collector
street.

5. Group foster home, subject to a use permit.

6. Dormitories and convents shall be permitted as accessory uses to churches
or similar places of worship.

7. A site plan in accordance with Section 507 is required for all development in
the R-2, R-3, R-3A, R-4, R-4A and R-5 districts except when the
development consists of single-family dwellings on individual lots.

8. A residential convenience market is permitted as an accessory use to a
multiple-family development, subject to the following conditions:

a. Signage shall be allowed only as part of a Comprehensive Sign Plan
pursuant to Section 705. The Zoning Administrator may approve wall
mounted signage up to a maximum height of 30 feet as part of an
approved Comprehensive Sign Plan.

b. The development shall contain a minimum of 400 dwelling units.

c. The market shall not exceed 1,000 square feet in total floor area
(display and storage) if the development contains less than 850
dwelling units. The market shall not exceed 3,000 square feet in total
floor area (display and storage) if the development contains 850 or
more dwelling units.

d. No parking spaces shall be required or permitted for the market
except for spaces designated for deliveries or handicapped
individuals.


-132- Ordinance ________

Page 736
9. Dependent care facility for 13 or more dependents and schools for the
mentally or physically handicapped subject to securing a use permit
pursuant to Section 307.

***

SECTION 17: That Chapter 6, Section 617 (R-4 Multifamily Residence District),

is amended to read as follows:

Section 617. R-4 Multifamily Residence District.

***

B. District Regulations. The following tables establish standards to be used in the R-
4 district. The definitions of terms used in these standards are found in Section
608.I. The single-family attached INFILL development option must meet Section
608.F.6 requirements.

Table A. Single-Family Development(2)

TABLE 617.A
R-4 Development Option OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum lot width (in the 55' minimum 45' minimum (unless
event of horizontal property approved by either the
regimes, "lot" shall refer to design advisor or the
the width of the structure DESIGN REVIEW
and exclusive use area) COMMITTEE Single-
Family Architectural
Appeals Board for
demonstrating enhanced
architecture that minimizes
the impact of the garage.
(see Section 507 Tab
A.2.12.1 B(2)(b) [sic]))

Minimum lot depth None, except 110' None, except 110'
adjacent to freeway or adjacent to freeway or
arterial arterial

Dwelling unit density 5.0 6.5; 12 with bonus
(units/gross acre)


-133- Ordinance ________

Page 737
TABLE 617.A
R-4 Development Option OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum perimeter building Front: 15'; Street STREET (2) (front,
setbacks Rear: 15' (1-story), 20' (2- rear or side): 15' (in
story); addition to landscape
Side: 10' (1-story), 15' (2- setback);
story) Property line (rear): 15' (1-
story), 20' (2-story);
Property line (side): 10' (1-
story), 15' (2-story)

Common landscaped None 15' average, 10' minimum
setback adjacent to (Does not apply to lots
perimeter streets STREETS fronting onto perimeter
(2) streets)

Minimum interior building Front: 10'; rear: 10'; Front: 10'; rear: none
setbacks combined front and rear: (established by Building
35', street side: 10'; sides: Code); street side: 10';
13' total (3' minimum, sides: none (established
unless 0') by Building Code)

Minimum building separation 10' None

Minimum garage setback 18' from back of sidewalk 18' from back of sidewalk
for front-loaded garages, for front-loaded garages,
10' from property line for 10' from property line for
side-loaded garages side-loaded garages

Maximum garage width For lots <60': 2 car For lots, 60': 2 car widths,
widths, for lots ≥60' to 70': for lots ≥60' to 70': 3 car
3 car widths, for lots >70': widths, for lots >70': no
no maximum maximum

Maximum height 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' (except
that 3 stories not
exceeding 30' are
permitted when approved
by the design advisor for
demonstrating enhanced
architecture)




-134- Ordinance ________

Page 738
TABLE 617.A
R-4 Development Option OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Lot coverage Primary structure, not Primary structure, not
including attached shade including attached shade
structures: 40%Total: structures: 40%Total:
50%, PLUS AN 50%, PLUS AN
ADDITIONAL 10% FOR ADDITIONAL 10% FOR
AN ADU AND/OR AN ADU AND/OR
ATTACHED SHADE ATTACHED SHADE
STRUCTURES. TOTAL: STRUCTURES. TOTAL:
60% 60%

Common areas None Minimum 5% of gross area

Allowed uses Single-family detached Single-family detached
DEVELOPMENT DETACHED (3) DETACHED (3)

Required review Development review per Development review per
Section 507, and Section 507, and
subdivision to create 4 or subdivision to create 4 or
more lots more lots

Street standards Public street, or private Public street or private
street built to City accessway (1)
standards with a
homeowners’ association
established for
maintenance OR
PRIVATE ACCESSWAY
(1)


On-lot and common Common retention Common retention
retention required for lots less than required for lots less than
8,000 sq. ft. per grading 8,000 sq. ft. per grading
and drainage ordinance and drainage ordinance
requirements requirements

Landscape standards Perimeter common: trees
spaced a maximum of 20
to 30 feet on center
(based on species) or in
equivalent groupings, and
5 shrubs per tree.

-135- Ordinance ________

Page 739
(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for
extensions of street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue
partial dedications.

(2) For single-family, detached development built or subdivided under the
subdivision option prior to May 1, 1998, refer to the subdivision option in table B.
FOR PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, CANAL RIGHTS-OF-WAY SHALL BE
TREATED THE SAME AS PUBLIC STREET RIGHTS-OF-WAY.

(3) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as
public street rights-of-way. FOR SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT
BUILT OR SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO MAY 1, 1998, REFER TO THE
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF TABLE 617.B

Table B. Single-Family (Subdivided Prior to May 1, 1998) Single-Family Attached
and Multifamily Development




TABLE 617.B
R-4 Development Options
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, AND
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO MAY 1,
1998)

(c) (d)
(a) (b) Planned Single-Family
Standards
Subdivision(2) Average Lot Residential Attached (3)
Development INFILL (4)

Minimum lot 60' width, 94' 40' width, 50' None Individual unit
dimensions depth depth lot: 20' width,
(width and no minimum
depth) depth




-136- Ordinance ________

Page 740
TABLE 617.B
R-4 Development Options
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, AND
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO MAY 1,
1998)

(c) (d)
(a) (b) Planned Single-Family
Standards
Subdivision(2) Average Lot Residential Attached (3)
Development INFILL (4)

Dwelling unit 29.0 29.0 30.45; 34.80 30.45; 34.80
density with bonus with bonus
(units/gross
acre)

Perimeter None 20' front, 15' 20' adjacent to 10' for units
standards rear, 10' side a public street; fronting street
this area is to rights-of-way;
be in common 15' for units
ownership siding street
unless lots rights-of-way.
front on the This area is to
perimeter be in common
public street ownership or
STREET (2); management.
10’ 15' 10' adjacent to
adjacent to property line
property line

Building 20' front, 15' 10' front, 30' 10' front Individual unit
setbacks rear, 10' and 3' front plus rear lot: none
side

Maximum 3 stories or 3 stories or 3 stories or 40' 3 stories or 40'
height 40'* 40’(5) 40'* 40’(5) for 150'; 1' in 5' for first 150'; 1'
increase to 48' in 1' increase
HEIGHT, 4- to 48' height,
story maximum 4-story
(5) maximum*
MAXIMUM (6)




-137- Ordinance ________

Page 741
TABLE 617.B
R-4 Development Options
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, AND
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO MAY 1,
1998)

(c) (d)
(a) (b) Planned Single-Family
Standards
Subdivision(2) Average Lot Residential Attached (3)
Development INFILL (4)

Lot coverage 50%, PLUS 50%, PLUS 50%, PLUS 100% FOR
AN AN AN EACH
ADDITIONAL ADDITIONAL ADDITIONAL INDIVIDUAL
10% FOR AN 10% FOR AN 10% FOR AN LOT. 50%
ADU AND/OR ADU AND/OR ADU AND/OR FOR OTHER
ATTACHED ATTACHED ATTACHED PARCELS OR
SHADE SHADE SHADE TRACTS
STRUCTURE STRUCTURE STRUCTURE WITH
S. TOTAL: S. TOTAL: S. TOTAL: ACCESSORY
60% 60% 60% STRUCTURE
S.

Common areas None None Minimum 5% Minimum 5%
of gross area of gross area
(3)


Allowed uses Single-family Single-family Single-family Single-family
DEVELOPMEN DETACHED (3), DETACHED (3), DETACHED (3), attached and
T SINGLE- SINGLE- SINGLE- SINGLE-
FAMILY FAMILY FAMILY FAMILY
attached, and attached, and attached, and DETACHED
multifamily multifamily multifamily (PER THE
PROVISIONS
OF 608.F.6
ONLY) home
occupations
per Section

Required review Subdivision to Subdivision Development Development
create 4 or with building review per review per
more lots setbacks Section 507 Section 507




-138- Ordinance ________

Page 742
TABLE 617.B
R-4 Development Options
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, AND
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO MAY 1,
1998)

(c) (d)
(a) (b) Planned Single-Family
Standards
Subdivision(2) Average Lot Residential Attached (3)
Development INFILL (4)

Street Public street Public street Public street or Development
standards required private site: public
accessway street, PUBLIC
ACCESSWAY ALLEY, or
(1) private
accessway.
Individual unit
lot: private
accessway,
alley right-of-
way or
driveway OR
PRIVATE
DRIVE (1).

* There shall be a 15-foot maximum height within ten feet of a single-family zoned
district, which height may be increased one foot for each additional one foot of
building setback to the maximum permitted height.

(1) 1.3 for efficiency; 1.5 for one or two bedrooms; 2.0 for more than two bedrooms
or for single-family detached. PUBLIC STREETS MAY BE REQUIRED AS A
PART OF SUBDIVISION OR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR EXTENSIONS OF
STREET PATTERNS, FOR CIRCULATION WITHIN NEIGHBORHOODS, OR
TO CONTINUE PARTIAL DEDICATIONS.

(2) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as
public street rights-of-way.

(3) These standards also apply to single-family, detached development built or
subdivided under the subdivision option prior to May 1, 1998. THE ONLY
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENTS THAT THE STANDARDS OF
THIS TABLE APPLY TO ARE ONES BUILT OR SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO MAY
1, 1998.




-139- Ordinance ________

Page 743
(4) The single-family attached development option must meet Section 608.F.8
requirements.THE SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL DEVELOPMENT OPTION MUST
COMPLY WITH THE ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
PROVIDED IN SECTION 608.F.6.

(5) THERE SHALL BE A 15-FOOT MAXIMUM HEIGHT WITHIN TEN FEET OF A
SINGLE-FAMILY ZONED DISTRICT, WHICH HEIGHT MAY BE INCREASED
ONE FOOT FOR EACH ADDITIONAL ONE FOOT OF BUILDING SETBACK TO
THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED HEIGHT.




C. Special Regulations

1. Adult day care center, subject to a use permit; and provided, that:

a. Outdoor recreation areas shall be screened from adjacent properties
by a six-foot-high landscape hedge, solid fence, or solid wall.

2. Boarding house, subject to a use permit and the following conditions:

a. 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.


-140- Ordinance ________

Page 744
b. No boarding house 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 boarding house, group home, or community residence
home or center within a residential zoning district.

c. A maximum lot coverage of 25 percent.

d. A minimum of 100 square feet of usable outdoor open space per bed
shall be provided.

e. The lot shall only have vehicular access from an arterial or collector
street.

3. Community residence center, subject to a use permit and the following
conditions:

a. Such center 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.

b. No community residence center 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 or
center within a residential zoning district.

c. Disability accommodation from the spacing requirement may be
requested by an applicant per Section 701.E.3.

d. A maximum lot coverage of 25 percent.

e. A minimum of 100 square feet of usable outdoor open space per bed
shall be provided.

f. The lot shall only have vehicular access from an arterial or collector
street.

4. Group home, subject to a use permit and the following conditions:

a. 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.




-141- Ordinance ________

Page 745
b. No group 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 group home, boarding house, or community residence
home or center within a residential zoning district.

c. A maximum lot coverage of 25 percent.

d. A minimum of 100 square feet of usable outdoor open space per bed
shall be provided.

e. The lot shall only have vehicular access from an arterial or collector
street.

5. Group foster home, subject to a use permit.

6. Dormitories and convents shall be permitted as accessory uses to churches
or similar places of worship.

7. A site plan in accordance with Section 507 is required for all development in
the R-2, R-3, R-3A, R-4, R-4A and R-5 districts except when the
development consists of single-family dwellings on individual lots.

8. A residential convenience market is permitted as an accessory use to a
multiple-family development, subject to the following conditions:

a. Signage shall be allowed only as part of a Comprehensive Sign Plan
pursuant to Section 705. The Zoning Administrator may approve wall
mounted signage up to a maximum height of 30 feet as part of an
approved Comprehensive Sign Plan.

b. The development shall contain a minimum of 400 dwelling units.

c. The market shall not exceed 1,000 square feet in total floor area
(display and storage) if the development contains less than 850
dwelling units. The market shall not exceed 3,000 square feet in total
floor area (display and storage) if the development contains 850 or
more dwelling units.

d. No parking spaces shall be required or permitted for the market
except for spaces designated for deliveries or handicapped
individuals.

9. Dependent care facility for 13 or more dependents and schools for the
mentally or physically handicapped subject to securing a use permit
pursuant to Section 307.

***

-142- Ordinance ________

Page 746
SECTION 18: That Chapter 6, Section 618 (R-5 Multifamily Residence District),

is amended to read as follows:

Section 618. R-5 Multifamily Residence District – RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL.

***

B. District Regulations - RESIDENTIAL USES. THE FOLLOWING TABLES
ESTABLISH STANDARDS TO BE USED FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS
IN THE R-5 DISTRICT. THE DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED IN THESE
STANDARDS ARE FOUND IN SECTION 608.I. THE SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL
DEVELOPMENT OPTION MUST MEET SECTION 608.F.6 REQUIREMENTS.

1. Development Standards for Residential Uses. The following tables
establish standards to be used in the R-5 District. The definitions of terms
used in these standards are found in Section 608.I. The single-family
attached development option must meet Section 608.F.8 requirements.

Table A. Single-Family, Detached Development (Subdivided on or after May 1,
1998)

TABLE 618.A
R-5 Development Option OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum lot width (in 55' minimum 45' minimum (unless
the event of horizontal approved by either the
property regimes, "lot" design advisor or the
shall refer to the width DESIGN REVIEW
of the structure and COMMITTEE Single-Family
exclusive use area) Architectural Appeals Board
for demonstrating enhanced
architecture that minimizes
the impact of the garage.
(see Section 507 Tab
A.2.12.1 B(2)(b) [sic]))

Minimum lot depth None, except 110' adjacent None, except 110' adjacent
to freeway or arterial to freeway or arterial

Dwelling unit density 5.0 6.5; 12 with bonus
(units/gross acre)



-143- Ordinance ________

Page 747
TABLE 618.A
R-5 Development Option OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum perimeter Front: 15'; Street STREET (2) (front,
building setbacks Rear: 15' (1-story), 20' (2- rear or side): 15' (in addition
story); to landscape setback);
Side: 10' (1-story), 15' (2- Property line (rear): 15' (1-
story) story), 20' (2-story);
Property line (side): 10' (1-
story), 15' (2-story)

Common landscaped None 15' average, 10' minimum
setback adjacent to (does not apply to lots
perimeter streets (2) fronting onto perimeter
streets)

Minimum interior Front: 10'; rear: 10'; Front: 10'; rear: none
building setbacks combined front and rear: (established by Building
35', street side: 10'; sides: Code); street side: 10';
13' total (3' minimum, unless sides: none (established by
0') Building Code)

Minimum building 10' None
separation

Minimum garage 18' from back of sidewalk for 18' from back of sidewalk for
setback front-loaded garages, 10' front-loaded garages, 10'
from property line for side- from property line for side-
loaded garages loaded garages

Maximum garage width For lots <60': 2 car widths, For lots <60': 2 car widths,
for lots ≥60' to 70': 3 car for lots ≥60' to 70': 3 car
widths, for lots >70': no widths, for lots >70': no
maximum maximum

Maximum height 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' (except
that 3 stories not exceeding
30' are permitted when
approved by the design
advisor for demonstrating
enhanced architecture)




-144- Ordinance ________

Page 748
TABLE 618.A
R-5 Development Option OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Lot coverage Primary structure, not Primary structure, not
including attached shade including attached shade
structures: 40%Total: 50%, structures: 40%Total: 50%,
PLUS AN ADDITIONAL PLUS AN ADDITIONAL
10% FOR AN ADU AND/OR 10% FOR AN ADU AND/OR
ATTACHED SHADE ATTACHED SHADE
STRUCTURES. TOTAL: STRUCTURES. TOTAL:
60% 60%

Common areas None Minimum 5% of gross area

ALLOWED Single-family detached Single-family detached
DEVELOPMENT DETACHED (3) DETACHED (3)

Required review Development review per Development review per
Section 507, and Section 507, and
subdivision to create 4 or subdivision to create 4 or
more lots more lots

Street standards Public street, or private Public street or private
street built to City standards accessway (1)
with a homeowners’
association established for
maintenance OR PRIVATE
ACCESSWAY (1)

On-lot and common Common retention required Common retention required
retention for lots less than 8,000 sq. for lots less than 8,000 sq.
ft. per grading and drainage ft. per grading and drainage
ordinance requirements ordinance requirements

Landscape standards Perimeter common: trees
spaced a maximum of 20 to
30 feet on center (based on
species) or in equivalent
groupings, and 5 shrubs per
tree.

(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for
extensions of street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue
partial dedications.

-145- Ordinance ________

Page 749
(2) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as
public street rights-of-way.

(3) FOR SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT BUILT OR SUBDIVIDED
PRIOR TO MAY 1, 1998, REFER TO THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF
TABLE 618.B

Table B. Single-Family (Subdivided Prior to May 1, 1998), Single-Family
Attached and Multifamily Development




TABLE 618.B
R-5 Development Options
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, AND
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO MAY 1,
1998)

(c) (d)
(a) (b) Planned Single-Family
Standards
Subdivision(2) Average Lot Residential Attached (3)
Development INFILL (4)

Minimum lot 60' width, 94' 40' width, 50' None Individual unit
dimensions depth depth lot: 20' width,
(width and no minimum
depth) depth

Dwelling unit 43.5 43.5 45.68; 52.20 45.68; 52.20
density with bonus with bonus
(units/gross
acre)




-146- Ordinance ________

Page 750
TABLE 618.B
R-5 Development Options
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, AND
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO MAY 1,
1998)

(c) (d)
(a) (b) Planned Single-Family
Standards
Subdivision(2) Average Lot Residential Attached (3)
Development INFILL (4)

Perimeter None 20' front, 15' 20' adjacent to 10' for units
standards rear, 10' side a public street; fronting street
this area is to rights-of-way;
be in common 15' for units
ownership siding street
unless lots rights-of-way.
front on the This area is to
perimeter be in common
public street ownership or
STREET (2); management.
10’ 15' 10' adjacent to
adjacent to property line
property line

Building 20' front, 15' 10' front, 30' 10' front Individual unit
setbacks rear, 10' and 3' front plus rear lot: none
side

Maximum 4 stories or 48' 4 stories or 48' 4 stories or 48' 4 stories or 48'
height (1) (2) (5) (1) (2) (5) (1) (2) (5) (1) (2) (6)


Lot coverage 50%, PLUS 50%, PLUS 50%, PLUS 100% FOR
AN AN AN EACH
ADDITIONAL ADDITIONAL ADDITIONAL INDIVIDUAL
10% FOR AN 10% FOR AN 10% FOR AN LOT. 50%
ADU AND/OR ADU AND/OR ADU AND/OR FOR OTHER
ATTACHED ATTACHED ATTACHED PARCELS OR
SHADE SHADE SHADE TRACTS
STRUCTURE STRUCTURE STRUCTURE WITH
S. TOTAL: S. TOTAL: S. TOTAL: ACCESSORY
60% 60% 60% STRUCTURE
S.

Common areas None None Minimum 5% Minimum 5%
of gross area(3) of gross area



-147- Ordinance ________

Page 751
TABLE 618.B
R-5 Development Options
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, AND
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO MAY 1,
1998)

(c) (d)
(a) (b) Planned Single-Family
Standards
Subdivision(2) Average Lot Residential Attached (3)
Development INFILL (4)

ALLOWED SINGLE- SINGLE- SINGLE- SINGLE-
DEVELOPMEN FAMILY FAMILY FAMILY FAMILY
T DETACHED, DETACHED, DETACHED, ATTACHED
SINGLE- SINGLE- SINGLE- AND SINGLE-
FAMILY FAMILY FAMILY FAMILY
ATTACHED, ATTACHED, ATTACHED, DETACHED
AND AND AND (PER THE
MULTIFAMILY MULTIFAMILY MULTIFAMILY PROVISIONS
OF 608.F.6
ONLY)

Required review Subdivision to Subdivision Development Development
create 4 or with building review per review per
more lots setbacks Section 507 Section 507

Street Public street Public street Public street or Development
standards required private site: public
accessway street, PUBLIC
ACCESSWAY ALLEY, or
(1) private
accessway.
Individual unit
lot: private
accessway,
alley right-of-
way or
driveway OR
PRIVATE
DRIVE (1).

* There shall be a 15-foot maximum height within ten feet of a single-family zoned
district, which height may be increased one foot for each additional one foot of
building setback to the maximum permitted height.

(1) 1.3 for efficiency; 1.5 for one or two bedrooms; 2.0 for more than two bedrooms or
for single-family detached. PUBLIC STREETS MAY BE REQUIRED AS A PART

-148- Ordinance ________

Page 752
OF SUBDIVISION OR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR EXTENSIONS OF
STREET PATTERNS, FOR CIRCULATION WITHIN NEIGHBORHOODS, OR TO
CONTINUE PARTIAL DEDICATIONS.

(2) The height limitation of four stories or 48 feet applies to residential uses. FOR
PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, CANAL RIGHTS-OF-WAY SHALL BE
TREATED THE SAME AS PUBLIC STREET RIGHTS-OF-WAY.

(3) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as
public street rights-of-way.THE ONLY SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED
DEVELOPMENTS THAT THE STANDARDS OF THIS TABLE APPLY TO ARE
ONES BUILT OR SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO MAY 1, 1998.

(4) The single-family attached development option must meet Section 608.F.8
requirements.THE SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL DEVELOPMENT OPTION MUST
COMPLY WITH THE ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS PROVIDED
IN SECTION 608.F.6.

(5) THERE SHALL BE A 15-FOOT MAXIMUM HEIGHT WITHIN TEN FEET OF A
SINGLE-FAMILY ZONED DISTRICT, WHICH HEIGHT MAY BE INCREASED
ONE FOOT FOR EACH ADDITIONAL ONE FOOT OF BUILDING SETBACK TO
THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED HEIGHT.




-149- Ordinance ________

Page 753
2. Development standards for commercial and mixed uses (including hotels
and motels) shall be in accordance with Section 622.E.3 and E.4.

C. Special DISTRICT Regulations FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL AND MIXED USES.
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL AND MIXED USES
SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH C-1 STANDARDS (SECTIONS 622.E.3 AND
E.4).

1. A site plan in accordance with Section 507 is required for all development
in the R-2, R-3, R-3A, R-4, R-4A and R-5 districts except when the
development consists of single-family dwellings on individual lots.

D. ADDITIONAL Permitted Uses.

1. Adult day care center, subject to a use permit; and provided, that:

a. Outdoor recreation areas shall be screened from adjacent properties
by a six-foot-high landscape hedge, solid fence, or solid wall.

2. 1. Bed and breakfast establishment.

3. 2. Biomedical and Medical Research Offices. A biomedical or medical
research laboratory shall be permitted as an accessory use to a
biomedical and medical research office, subject to the following limitations:

a. The use shall be subject to obtaining a use permit in accordance with
the procedures and standards of Section 307.

b. Entrance to the laboratory shall only be from within the building and
shall not be through doors which open to the outside of the building.

c. No sign or display for the laboratory shall be visible from adjacent
public rights-of-way.

d. Access to a property containing a laboratory shall only be from a
major arterial or arterial, as designated on the street classification
map.

4. 3. Biomedical and Medical Research Offices. A biomedical or medical
research laboratory shall be permitted as an accessory use to a
biomedical and medical research office, subject to the following limitations:

5. Boarding house, subject to a use permit and the following conditions:




-150- Ordinance ________

Page 754
a. 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.

b. No boarding house 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 boarding house, group home, or community
residence home or center within a residential zoning district.

c. A maximum lot coverage of 25 percent.

d. A minimum of 50 square feet of usable outdoor open space per
bed shall be provided.

e. The lot shall only have vehicular access from an arterial or
collector street.

6. 4. Branch offices of the following uses are permitted subject to a use permit:
banks, building and loan associations, brokerage houses, savings and
loan associations, finance companies, title insurance companies, and trust
companies.

7. Community residence center, subject to a use permit and the following
conditions:

a. Such center 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.

b. No community residence center 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 or
center within a residential zoning district.

c. Disability accommodation from the spacing requirement may be
requested by an applicant per Section 701.E.3.

d. A maximum lot coverage of 25 percent.

e. A minimum of 50 square feet of usable outdoor open space per bed
shall be provided.

f. The lot shall only have vehicular access from an arterial or collector
street.


-151- Ordinance ________

Page 755
8. 5. Copy and reproduction center, subject to a use permit.

9. Dependent care facility for 13 or more dependents and schools for the
mentally or physically handicapped subject to securing a use permit
pursuant to Section 307.

10. Group foster home, subject to a use permit.

11. Group home, subject to a use permit and the following conditions:

a. 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.

b. No group 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 group home, boarding house, or community residence
home or center within a residential zoning district.

c. A maximum lot coverage of 25 percent.

d. A minimum of 50 square feet of usable outdoor open space per bed
shall be provided.

12. Dormitories and convents shall be permitted as accessory uses to
churches or similar places of worship.

13. 6. Hospice, subject to a use permit.

14. 7. Hotel or Motel. The following accessory uses are permitted; provided, that
the entrance to said accessory uses shall be from within the building only
and that no sign or display for the accessory uses shall be located so as to
be visible from a public thoroughfare or adjacent property:

a. Auto rental agency; provided, that there are no more than three
vehicles stored on the hotel property.

b. Child care, for hotel/motel guests only.

c. Cocktail lounges with recorded music or one musician.

d. Convention or private group activities.

e. Gift shop.

f. News stand.

-152- Ordinance ________

Page 756
g. Restaurants with recorded music or one musician.

h. Other services customarily accessory thereto.

15. 8. Office for Administrative, Clerical, or Sales Services. No commodity or
tangible personal property, either by way of inventory or sample, shall be
stored, kept, or exhibited for purposes of sale in any said office or on the
premises wherein the said office is located. Seminars shall be permitted as
an accessory use; provided, that they are clearly accessory to the office
use.

16. 9. Office for professional use, including medical center, wellness center, and
counseling services (provided that services are administered or overseen
by a State licensed professional).

a. The following accessory uses are permitted; provided, that the
entrance to said accessory uses shall be from within the building
only, that no sign or display for the accessory uses shall be located
so as to be visible from a public thoroughfare or adjacent property,
and that no more than 25 percent of the floor area can be used for
the accessory uses:

(1) Fitness center.

(2) Massage therapy, administered by a State licensed massage
therapist.

(3) Ophthalmic materials dispensing.

(4) Pharmacy.

(5) Sleep disorder testing with less than a 24-hour stay duration.

(6) Snack bar.

(7) Surgical center, provided there are no overnight stays.

b. The following accessory uses are permitted, subject to a use permit
and provided that the entrance to said accessory uses shall be from
within the building only, that no sign or display for the accessory uses
shall be located so as to be visible from a public thoroughfare or
adjacent property:

(1) Medical and dental laboratories.

(2) Orthotics and prosthetic laboratories.

-153- Ordinance ________

Page 757
17. 10. Nursing home, subject to a use permit and the following conditions:

a. A maximum lot coverage of 25 percent.

b. A minimum of 50 square feet of usable outdoor open space per bed
shall be provided.

18. 11. Private clubs and lodges qualifying by law as a nonprofit entity, subject to
a use permit. The use permit is not required if a special permit, according
to Section 647, is obtained. Bingo may be operated as an accessory use
on the premises of the club no more than two days per week.

19. A residential convenience market is permitted as an accessory use to a
multiple-family development, subject to the following conditions:

a. Signage shall be allowed only as part of a Comprehensive Sign Plan
pursuant to Section 705. The Zoning Administrator may approve wall
mounted signage up to a maximum height of 30 feet as part of an
approved Comprehensive Sign Plan.

b. The development shall contain a minimum of 400 dwelling units.

c. The market shall not exceed 1,000 square feet in total floor area
(display and storage) if the development contains less than 850
dwelling units. The market shall not exceed 3,000 square feet in total
floor area (display and storage) if the development contains 850 or
more dwelling units.

d. No parking spaces shall be required or permitted for the market
except for spaces designated for deliveries or handicapped
individuals.

20. 12. Teaching of the fine arts, subject to use permit.

21. 13. Volunteer community blood centers qualifying by law as a nonprofit entity,
subject to a use permit.

***

SECTION 19: That Chapter 6, Section 619 (R-4A District—Multifamily Residence—

General), is amended to read as follows:


***


-154- Ordinance ________

Page 758
A. Permitted Uses. PRIMARY USES AND ACCESSORY USES ARE PERMITTED
AS INDICATED IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS LAND USE MATRIX,
SECTION 608.D, PLUS THE FOLLOWING:

1. All uses permitted in the RE-24, R-3 and R-4 districts.

2. Same accessory uses and buildings as RE-24.

3. Adult day care center, subject to a use permit; and provided, that:

a. Outdoor recreation areas shall be screened from adjacent properties
by a six-foot-high landscape hedge, solid fence, or solid wall.

4. Boarding house, subject to a use permit and the following conditions:

a. 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.

b. No boarding house 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 boarding house, group home, or community residence
home or center within a residential zoning district.

c. A maximum lot coverage of 25 percent.

d. A minimum of 50 square feet of usable outdoor open space per bed
shall be provided.

5. Community residence center, subject to a use permit and the following
conditions:

a. Such center 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.

b. No community residence center 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 or
center within a residential zoning district.

c. Disability accommodation from the spacing requirement may be
requested by an applicant per Section 701.E.3.

d. A maximum lot coverage of 25 percent.

-155- Ordinance ________

Page 759
e. A minimum of 50 square feet of usable outdoor open space per bed
shall be provided.

6. Group foster home, subject to a use permit.

7. Group home, subject to a use permit and the following conditions:

a. 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.

b. No group 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 group home, boarding house, or community residence
home or center within a residential zoning district.

c. A maximum lot coverage of 25 percent.

d. A minimum of 50 square feet of usable outdoor open space per bed
shall be provided.

8. 1. Hospice, subject to a use permit.

9. 2. Nursing home, subject to a use permit and the following conditions:

a. A maximum lot coverage of 25 percent.

b. A minimum of 50 square feet of usable outdoor open space per bed
shall be provided.

10. Dormitories and convents shall be permitted as accessory uses to
churches or similar places of worship.


11. A residential convenience market is permitted as an accessory use to a
multiple-family development, subject to the following conditions:

a. Signage shall be allowed only as part of a Comprehensive Sign Plan
pursuant to Section 705. The Zoning Administrator may approve wall
mounted signage up to a maximum height of 30 feet as part of an
approved Comprehensive Sign Plan.

b. The development shall contain a minimum of 400 dwelling units.




-156- Ordinance ________

Page 760
c. The market shall not exceed 1,000 square feet in total floor area
(display and storage) if the development contains less than 850
dwelling units. The market shall not exceed 3,000 square feet in total
floor area (display and storage) if the development contains 850 or
more dwelling units.

d. No parking spaces shall be required or permitted for the market
except for spaces designated for deliveries or handicapped
individuals.

12. The display for sale of a vehicle, which for purposes of this provision
includes trailers, watercraft or other types of transportation that are built to
carry passengers or cargo, shall be subject to the following restrictions:

a. No more than one [1] vehicle can be labeled for sale or show any
indication that it is for sale at any given time on a property, whether
visible on-site or through some other form of advertising.

b. No more than two [2] vehicles can be sold on a property during any
calendar year.

c. For purposes of Subsections a and b above, two [2] jet skis, a boat or
similar types of recreational vehicles that are transported on one
trailer shall, together with the trailer, be considered one vehicle.

d. The ownership of the vehicle[s] must be registered to the location
where the vehicle is listed for sale.

e. No vehicle can be labeled for sale or show any indication that it is for
sale at an unoccupied house or on a vacant lot or parcel.

f. No vehicle can be labeled for sale or show any indication that it is for
sale in conjunction with a retail or wholesale vehicle sales dealership
or business without obtaining a temporary use permit.

13. Dependent care facility for 13 or more dependents and schools for the
mentally or physically handicapped subject to securing a use permit
pursuant to Section 307.

3. SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL DEVELOPMENTS, PER THE PROVISIONS OF
SECTION 608.F.6 AND SECTION 617 (R-4) TABLE B, COLUMN D.

B. Yard, Height and Area Requirements. Except as required by Section 701, the
following yard, height and area provisions shall be required for this district:

***


-157- Ordinance ________

Page 761
7. Yards for ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS and detached OTHER
accessory buildings STRUCTURES shall be permitted as in
ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF Section 706.

8. Single-family attached INFILL development must comply with R-4
standards ALL REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO SFI DEVELOPMENT IN
THE R-4 DISTRICT EXCEPT FOR DENSITY, WHICH SHALL BE
PERMITTED PER SECTION 619.B.1.

9. OFFSITE MANUFACTURED HOME DEVELOPMENTS, UPON
OBTAINING USE PERMIT APPROVAL, SHALL COMPLY WITH THE R-4
STANDARDS FOR PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS (TABLE
617.B, COLUMN C) EXCEPT FOR DENSITY, WHICH SHALL BE
PERMITTED PER SECTION 619.B.1

C. Site Plan Required. A site plan in accordance with Section 507 is required for all
development in the R-2, R-3, R-3A, R-4, R-4A and R-5 districts except when the
development consists of single-family dwellings on individual lots.

***

SECTION 20: That Chapter 6, Section 635 (Planned Area Development), is

amended to read as follows:

***

C. Use Regulations.

1. Uses permitted. In the planned area development districts only the
following uses are permitted:

a. Single-family detached, duplex, and multiple dwellings; apartment
houses. AS STATED IN SECTION 608.D, RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS LAND USE MATRIX.

b. Other uses as permitted in Sections 608 and 703.A.

c. b. Neighborhood retail uses and other nonresidential uses limited to
those enumerated in the C-1 district may be specifically and
selectively authorized as to type and size only when integrated by
design as an accessory element of the project, and only when located
in an area proposed to be appropriately zoned for said use and
approved as provided below, provided that the development is
planned for more than four hundred dwelling units.

d. Same accessory uses and buildings as RE-24.

-158- Ordinance ________

Page 762
e. The display for sale of a vehicle, which for purposes of this provision
includes trailers, watercraft or other types of transportation that are
built to carry passengers or cargo shall be subject to the following
restrictions:

(1) No more than one [1] vehicle can be labeled for sale or show
any indication that it is for sale at any given time on a property,
whether visible on-site or through some other form of
advertising.

(2) No more than two [2] vehicles can be sold on a property during
any calendar year.

(3) For purposes of subsections a and b above, two [2] jet skis, a
boat or similar types of recreational vehicles that are
transported on one trailer shall, together with the trailer, be
considered one vehicle.

(4) The ownership of the vehicle[s] must be registered to the
location where the vehicle is listed for sale.

(5) No vehicle can be labeled for sale or show any indication that it
is for sale at an unoccupied house or on a vacant lot or parcel.

(6) No vehicle can be labeled for sale or show any indication that it
is for sale in conjunction with a retail or wholesale vehicle sales
dealership or business without obtaining a temporary use
permit.

***

SECTION 21: That Chapter 6, Section 649 (Mixed Use Agricultural (MUA) District),

is amended to read as follows:

***

E. Permitted Accessory Uses. Land in the MUA District may be used as permitted
accessory uses and structures, incidental to and on the same zoning lot as the
primary use, for the following uses:

***




-159- Ordinance ________

Page 763
4 Guesthouse, provided that it does not exceed six hundred square feet or
twenty-five percent of the floor area of the principal structure, whichever is
larger. ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT, PER THE PROVISIONS OF
SECTION 706.A.

***

SECTION 22: That Chapter 6, Section 651 (Baseline Area Overlay District), is

amended to read as follows:

***

C. Use Regulations. The regulations governing the uses of land and structures shall
be as set forth in the underlying zoning districts except as expressly modified by
the following regulations.

Detached guesthouses are permitted in R1-18 to R1-6 single-family districts,
provided that:

1. The structure shall not exceed seven hundred square feet. A use permit is
required to exceed seven hundred square feet.

2. The minimum lot size is eight thousand square feet.

3. An additional parking space shall be provided.

4. There shall be no more than one guesthouse per lot.

5. The guesthouse shall maintain the same setbacks as the primary structure.

6. The guesthouse shall maintain the same architectural style, color and
building materials as the primary dwelling in order to be viewed as an
accessory to the main unit and not a separate dwelling.

7. A use permit shall be required for all guests homes where the primary
structure existed prior to the effective date of this section of the ordinance.

8. There shall be a minimum lot width of sixty-five feet.

***

SECTION 23: That Chapter 6, Section 653 (Desert Character Overlay Districts),

is amended to read as follows:

***

-160- Ordinance ________

Page 764
B. Desert Maintenance Overlay (Sub-Districts A and B).

***

4. Permitted uses for Sub-Districts A and B. Land and structures in the
Desert Maintenance Overlay Sub-Districts A and B shall only be used for the
following purposes subject to the standards and procedures in Chapters 3
and 5 of the Zoning Ordinance and the regulations and special standards
set forth herein. In the event there is a conflict these provisions shall prevail.

***

c. AN guesthouse ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT, WHEN
PERMITTED, shall be allowed as a structure subordinate to a
residence. It is to be sited within the building envelope. The SHOULD
HAVE AN architectural character and detailing must be consistent
with the main residence. and should appear to tie in to the main
residence.

***

5. District regulations for Desert Maintenance Overlay Sub-District A.

***

s. Model homes are allowed prior to recording a subdivision plat, subject
to submitting a final plat which shall show the following information for
each model home lot as well as meet other requirements of this
ordinance and Section 608.C.3 608.D.7 of the Zoning Ordinance.

***

6. District regulations for Desert Maintenance Overlay Sub-District B.
***
h. Model homes are allowed prior to recording a subdivision plat, subject
to submitting a final plat which shall show the following information for
each model home lot as well as meet other requirements of this
ordinance and Section 608.C.3 608.D.7 of the Zoning Ordinance.

***

SECTION 24: That Chapter 6, Section 658 (Deer Valley Airport Overlay (DVAO)

District), is amended to read as follows:

***

-161- Ordinance ________

Page 765
C. Regulation Areas: The DVAO District is divided into three separate regulation
areas. When a parcel falls partially into one or more of the regulation areas, the
most restrictive regulation area shall apply to the entire parcel.

***

2. Prohibited uses, Areas 2 & 3: Same as Area 1 and the following:

***

d. Church or similar place of worship; including parish houses,
parsonages, rectories and convents, and dormitories (including all
elements of such as defined in Section 608.E.1 608.E.21).

***

SECTION 25: That Chapter 6, Section 664 (North Central Avenue Special

Planning District (SPD) Overlay District), is amended to read as follows:

***

D. District Regulations. The following table establishes variations to the current
standards for the R1-10 Subdivision Option. The definitions of terms used in these
standards are found in Section 608.D 608.I. Development standards that are not
listed here shall follow the standards in the R1-10 Subdivision Option, Section 611,
Table 611.B. Variances to these regulations should also consider objectives of the
Special Planning District Plan. To use a development option other than subdivision
requires approval through the rezoning public hearing process, Section 506.B.

***

SECTION 26: That Chapter 7, Section 701.A.3 (Projections), is amended to read

as follows:

***
A. Lots.

***

3. Projections.




-162- Ordinance ________

Page 766
a. The following provisions apply to development in the subdivision
option of Sections 604 through 607 AND 619, and IN THE
SUBDIVISION OPTION OF Sections 609 through 618:

***

(2) Closed Projections.

***

(d) The main building in a residence district (WHICH MAY
INCLUDE AN ATTACHED ADU) may project five feet
into the required rear yard for no more than one-half the
maximum width of the structure. WHEN NO PORTION
OF THE PROJECTION EXCEEDS 15 FEET IN
HEIGHT; THE PROJECTION IS NO CLOSER TO THE
REAR PROPERTY LINE THAN 3 FEET, AND THE
PROJECTION IS NO CLOSER TO A SIDE PROPERTY
LINE THAN ALLOWED BY THE DISTRICT; UNLESS A
greater projection than five feet is subject to obtaining a
use permit IS OBTAINED in accordance with the
provisions of Section 307.

***

SECTION 27: That Chapter 7, Section 702.F (Special Parking Standards), is

amended to read as follows:

F. Special Parking Standards.

***

1. Residential lots.

a. Required parking spaces for single-family and duplex residential uses
may not be located in the required front yard.

b. Spaces in excess of those required for single family and duplex
residential uses may be located in the required front yard. However,
all parking and maneuvering areas within the required front yard shall
not exceed forty-five percent (45%) 50% OF THE AREA OF THE
REQUIRED FRONT YARD, EXCEPT THAT A DRIVEWAY SHALL
NOT BE REQUIRED TO BE LESS THAN 18 FEET IN WIDTH
UNLESS OTHERWISE STIPULATED BY HISTORIC
PRESERVATION.


-163- Ordinance ________

Page 767
(1) The area of the required front yard, or

(2) An area equal to the required front yard setback times the
average lot width when the adjoining side property lines are
not parallel. Notwithstanding the above requirements, the
parking and maneuvering area shall not be required to be less
than:

(a) Eighteen (18) feet in width, or

(b) The cumulative width of all front facing garage doors or
carports plus three (3) feet, whichever is greater.

***

SECTION 28: That Chapter 7, Section 703.B (Landscaping and Open Areas In

Multiple-Family Development), is amended to read as follows:


B. 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 in any district containing a
structure with two FOUR or more dwelling units.

***

SECTION 29: That Chapter 7, Section 706 (Accessory Uses and Structures), is

amended to read as follows:

***

Section 706. Accessory Uses and Structures.

A. No detached accessory structures or swimming pools are permitted within the
required front yard(s) of any residential district.

B. . All detached accessory structures in the side and rear yard, not used for sleeping
or living purposes, are to maintain a minimum setback of three feet from property
lines. Swimming pools are to maintain a minimum setback of three feet from
exterior property lines.

C. All accessory structures located within the required side yard are not to exceed
eight feet in height.



-164- Ordinance ________

Page 768
D. On any corner lot contiguous to a key lot, detached structures with a height which
exceeds eight feet must be set back from the street side a distance equal to the
required front yard setback of the adjoining key lot.

E. On any other corner lot no detached accessory building over eight feet high shall
be closer to the side street property line than a distance of ten feet.

F. Detached accessory structures may be constructed on the property line where the
rear lot line is adjacent to a fully dedicated alley.

G. No detached accessory structure located within the required rear yard of a
residentially zoned property shall exceed a height of one story or fifteen feet except
as approved by a use permit in accordance with the provisions of Section 307.

***

A. ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS (ADU)

1. IN ZONING DISTRICTS WHERE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS ARE A
PERMITTED USE, ONE (1) ADU IS PERMITTED PER LOT WHEN A
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT IS ALSO
PROVIDED, UNLESS OTHERWISE PERMITTED BY THE 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.

3. AN ADU MAY BE EITHER ATTACHED TO OR DETACHED FROM THE
PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT, 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, OR AS MAY BE APPROVED BY
HISTORIC PRESERVATION FOR HP ZONED OR DESIGNATED
PROPERTIES. (P)



-165- Ordinance ________

Page 769
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.

4. A DETACHED ADU MAY BE LOCATED WITHIN THE REQUIRED REAR
YARD, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING:

a. SETBACKS.

(1) MINIMUM 10 FEET FROM A STREET SIDE PROPERTY
LINE.

(2) MINIMUM 3 FEET FROM AN INTERIOR PROPERTY LINE.

(3) NO SETBACK IS REQUIRED ADJACENT TO A FULLY
DEDICATED ALLEY.

b. HEIGHT. MAXIMUM 15 FEET UNLESS USE PERMIT APPROVAL
FOR A GREATER HEIGHT IS OBTAINED PER SECTION 307.

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. A 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. 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. AN ADU SHALL COMPLY WITH THE LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS
APPLICABLE TO THE PROPERTY.

9. AN 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.




-166- Ordinance ________

Page 770
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 OR
ATTACHED SHADE STRUCTURE CONSTRUCTED AS PART OF A
DETACHED ADU SHALL COUNT TOWARD THE GROSS FLOOR AREA
OF THE ADU. ANY ATTACHED SHADE STRUCTURES SHALL COUNT
TOWARDS LOT COVERAGE, BUT NOT GROSS FLOOR AREA.

10. PERMIT ISSUANCE AND RESTRICTIVE COVENANT. PRIOR TO
ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT FOR AN ADU, THE PROPERTY
OWNER SHALL SIGN BEFORE A NOTARY PUBLIC A RESTRICTIVE
COVENANT THAT RUNS WITH THE LAND ON A FORM PREPARED BY
THE CITY ATTORNEY OR DESIGNEE AFFIRMING THAT THE
PROPERTY OWNER SHALL:

a. OCCUPY EITHER THE PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT OR THE ADU,
OR

b. IF THE PROPERTY OWNER RENTS OR LEASES A PROPERTY
WITH BOTH A PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT AND AN ADU TO A
THIRD PARTY, THEN NEITHER THE PRIMARY RESIDENCE NOR
THE ADU SHALL BE RENTED OR LEASED SEPARATELY FROM
THE REMAINDER OF THE PROPERTY, NOR SUB-LEASED.

B. SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ACCESSORY STRUCTURES. THE
FOLLOWING REGULATIONS APPLY TO ACCESSORY STRUCTURES WHICH
ARE NOT USED FOR SLEEPING OR LIVING PURPOSES, 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. PERMITTED HEIGHTS.

a. MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 8 FEET WHEN LOCATED WITHIN 10 FEET
OF A STREET SIDE PROPERTY LINE, OR 15 FEET WHEN
LOCATED ELSEWHERE WITHIN THE REQUIRED REAR OR SIDE
YARD.




-167- Ordinance ________

Page 771
b. HEIGHTS IN EXCESS OF 15 FEET, WHEN NOT LOCATED WITHIN
10 FEET OF 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 3 FEET ADJACENT TO A REAR OR SIDE PROPERTY
LINE, EXCEPT THAT NO SETBACK IS REQUIRED ADJACENT TO A
FULLY DEDICATED ALLEY.




-168- Ordinance ________

Page 772
***
C. SWIMMING POOLS.




-169- Ordinance ________

Page 773
1. SWIMMING POOLS SHALL NOT BE LOCATED IN THE REQUIRED
FRONT YARD, NOR IN ANY REQUIRED LANDSCAPE SETBACK.

2. SWIMMING POOLS SHALL MAINTAIN A MINIMUM SETBACK OF THREE
FEET FROM PROPERTY LINES, EXCEPT THAT POOLS LOCATED ON A
LOT DESIGNATED “HILLSIDE” PER SECTION 710 SHALL COMPLY WITH
ALL HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, INCLUDING SETBACKS.

***

SECTION 30: That Chapter 7, Section 708 (Temporary uses), is amended to

read as follows:

***

L. Charitable Drop Box Container Permit. A charitable drop box container permit is
subject to the following:

***

1. An annual permit is required for the following uses or analogous uses:

a. Charitable drop box containers.

***

(9) Permits are not required when the container is in compliance
pursuant to Section 608.E.1 608.E.21.

***

SECTION 31: That Chapter 12, Sections 1204.C and D (Land Use Matrix), is

amended to read as follows:

Section 1204. Land Use Matrix.

***

C. 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
1204.D:

***


-170- Ordinance ________

Page 774
27. Single-family attached INFILL SUBDIVISION, subject to the following:, PER
THE STANDARDS OF SECTION 608.F.6 AND SECTION 614, TABLE
614.B, COLUMN D, EXCEPT AS MODIFIED BELOW:

a. Historic preservation designated properties or properties in historic
preservation districts cannot use the single-family attached INFILL
development option.

b. Individual unit lot: minimum 20-foot width, no minimum depth.
MAXIMUM HEIGHT: AS PER HEIGHT MAP, SECTION 1202.B.

c. Perimeter standards: maximum ten feet for units fronting street rights-
of-way; minimum 15 feet for units siding street rights-of-way. This
area is to be in common ownership or management, ten feet adjacent
to property line. MAXIMUM DENSITY: AS PER DENSITY MAP,
SECTION 1202.C.

d. Building setbacks, individual unit lot: none. MAXIMUM LOT
COVERAGE: 100 PERCENT PER LOT; OVERALL SUBDIVISION
LOT COVERAGE PER APPLICABLE CHARACTER AREA.

e. Maximum stories: as per height map, Section 1202.C. FRONTAGE
SETBACKS AND REQUIREMENTS: AS PER THE APPLICABLE
CHARACTER AREA; OR, IF LOTS FRONT ON A NEW INTERNAL
STREET OR DRIVE, PER THE REGULATIONS OF SECTION
608.F.6 AND SECTION 614, TABLE B, COLUMN D.

f. Lot coverage per dwelling unit: 100 percent. PERIMETER
STANDARDS (NOT ON A STREET): PER THE REGULATIONS OF
SECTION 608.F.6.

g. Common areas: minimum five percent of gross area. INDIVIDUAL
LOT SETBACKS.

(1) THE STEPBACK REQUIREMENTS OF TABLE 614.B,
COLUMN D DO NOT APPLY TO BUILDINGS COMPLYING
WITH THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT ALLOWED BY THE HEIGHT
MAP, SECTION 1202.B.

(2) INDIVIDUAL LOT FRONT: 10 FEET OR THE REQUIRED
FRONTAGE SETBACK, WHICHEVER IS GREATER.

(3) INDIVIDUAL LOT SIDE AND REAR: 0-FEET OR THE
REQUIRED PERIMETER SETBACK, WHICHEVER IS
GREATER.




-171- Ordinance ________

Page 775
h. Allowed uses: single-family attached and home occupations per
Section 608. PARKING REQUIREMENTS: PER SECTION 608.F.6,
AS THE REGULATIONS APPLY TO THE INFILL DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT.

i. Development review per Section 507. 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. Design: front of units should face right-of-way. No garages allowed to
face pedestrian or side streets. 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.

k. Other requirements of Section 608.F.8 shall apply if not specifically
modified by this section.

***

D. Land Use Matrix.

LAND USE CATEGORIES CHARACTER AREAS
Commerc
ACTIVE Warehous
*** ial ***
USE e
Corridor
Residential Uses
*** *** *** *** *** ***
Dwelling UNIT, Multi-Family
*** p p
MULTIFAMILY
Dwelling UNIT, Single-
Family, Detached
*** p *** np
(INCLUDING DUPLEX AND
TRIPLEX USES)
Dwelling UNIT, Single-
Family and *** p *** np
Duplex, Attached
*** *** *** *** *** ***
SUBDIVISION, Single-
*** np PC27 *** pc27 NP
Family Attached Infill
***


-172- Ordinance ________

Page 776
SECTION 32: That Chapter 13, Sections 1303 (Transect lot standards), 1305.C

(Fence Standards), 1306 (Land Use Matrix) and 1310 (Open Space Improvements), is

amended to read as follows:

Section 1303. Transect lot standards.

A. General Lot Standards.

1. Subdivisions shall comply with development standards per this chapter,
including frontage standards, for all existing and newly created lots abutting
public streets, private accessways, and private driveways, with the following
caveats:

a. A development may instead utilize the Single-Family attached INFILL
development option standards per Section 608(F)(8) 608.F.6 and
Section 614, Table 614.B, Column D (except for the density, which is
not restricted) if it meets all three of the following conditions:

(1) The development consists solely of attached SINGLE-FAMILY
dwelling units and allowable accessory uses;

(2) The development is located within the applicable area for the
single-family attached INFILL development option or the Infill
Development District as depicted on the map provided in
Section 608(F)(8) 608.F.6; and

***

2. All developments adjacent to single-family zoning districts shall follow the
same setback and stepback standards as the single-family attached INFILL
development option (Section 614, Table 614.B, Column D); with additional
requirements as follows:

***

B. Transect Setbacks and Lot Standards.

***




-173- Ordinance ________

Page 777
Table 1303.2 Transect T4

***

BUILDING HEIGHT BUILDING STEPBACKS
Main T4:2 30-foot
a
Building maximum
T4:3 40-foot
maximum
SFA SFI: 48- Required for SFA SFI as per
foot maximum Sections 1303.A.1 and 2

***

* Lot coverage maximum may be modified for SFA SFI development option.

Table 1303.2 Transect T5

***

BUILDING HEIGHT BUILDING STEPBACKS

***

* a. Lot coverage maximum may be modified for SFA SFI development option.

b. Lot coverage maximum may vary depending on setback requirements when adjacent to
existing single-family residential districts and historic preservation properties or districts.

Table 1303.2 Transect T6

***

Minimum glazing shall apply to commercial building frontages only, as per
Section 1305.B.2. For residential products T4 glazing standards shall apply.

***

* a. Lot coverage maximum may be modified for SFA SFI
development option.




-174- Ordinance ________

Page 778
b. Lot coverage maximum may vary depending on setback
requirements when adjacent to existing single-family residential
districts and historic preservation properties or districts.

***

1305. Frontage Standards.

***

C. Fence Standards.

1. T3 and T4.

a. Primary frontages: 40 inches maximum height.

b. Secondary frontages: 72 inches maximum height. For SFA SFI
development: 48 inches maximum height solid fence. Above 48
inches to 72 inches allowed only as a 70 percent open view fence,
unless screening above grade utilities or trash enclosures.

***

Section 1306. Land Use Matrix.

***

Table 1306.1. Land Use Matrix

T6:22
CATEGORY: RESIDENTIAL T6:7
T3 T4 *** T6:
USES T6:15
HWR
*** *** *** *** *** ***
Dwelling UNIT, Multifamily NP P P P
Dwelling UNIT, Single-Family,
Detached (INCLUDING P P *** NP NP
DUPLEX AND TRIPLEX USES)
Dwelling UNIT, Single-
P P *** P P
Family and Duplex, Attached
***

C. Residential Uses, Land Use Conditions.

***
3. Dependent Care Facility.


-175- Ordinance ________

Page 779
a. One to six dependents: standards as per Section 608.D.5 608.E.15.
Use permit required for sSeven to 12 dependents: USE PERMIT,
AND STANDARDS AS PER SECTION 608.E.16.

***

Table 1306.1. Land Use Matrix

T6:22
CATEGORY: T6:7
T3 T4 *** T6:
SERVICES T6:15
HWR
***
Home Occupation
PC PC *** P P
As per Section 608.E.3
*** *** *** *** *** ***
Hotel
NP PC *** PC PC
As per Section 618.D.14 7
*** *** *** *** *** ***
Office, Professional
As per Section 618.D.15 8 and PC PC *** PC PC
16 9
***
T6:22
CATEGORY: T6:7
T3 T4 *** T6:
LOCAL FOOD PRODUCTION T6:15
HWR
Community Garden
UP UP *** UP UP
As per Section 608.F.6 608.E.24
Farmers Markets
UP UP *** UP UP
As per Section 608.F.7 608.E.25
***
T6:22
CATEGORY: T6:7
T3 T4 *** T6:
ACCESSORY USES T6:15
HWR
Accessory Dwelling Unit P P *** P P
Accessory Dwelling Unit—
P P *** P P
Guest
***
Home Occupation
PC PC *** PC PC
As per Section 608.E.3 608.E.27
***
T6:22
CATEGORY: T6:7
T3 T4 *** T6:
INTERIM USES T6:15
HWR



-176- Ordinance ________

Page 780
Environmental
Remediation Facility UP UP *** UP UP
As per 608.F.5 608.E.23

Section 1310. Open space improvements.

A. Open Space Guidelines.

1. Parcels zoned T3 are exempt from required public open space
improvements.

2. Open space requirements for developments within the T4, T5, and T6
transects are as follows:

a. For sites of one gross acre or larger, minimum open space of at least
five percent of the gross site area shall be required. For
developments utilizing the single-family attached INFILL development
option standards in accordance with Section 1303(A)(1)(a)
1303.A.1.a., open space shall be provided as required by Section
614, Table 614,B, Column D, regardless of lot size.

***

Table 1310.1 Public Open Space Type Guidelines

***
[table unchanged]

* Single-family attached INFILL developments must provide open
space as required per Section 1310(A)(2)(a) 1310.A.2.a.

***




-177- Ordinance ________

Page 781
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 6th day of September, 2023



________________________________
MAYOR




ATTEST:


____________________________City Clerk


APPROVED AS TO FORM:

____________________________City Attorney


REVIEWED BY:

____________________________City Manager




-178- Ordinance ________

Page 782
ATTACHMENT B




Staff Report
Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment
Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023

Application No Z-TA-5-23-Y: Amend the following sections of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance to permit Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) in residential districts; create
and/or amend related development standards and definitions; clarify related terms and
references and reorganize sections of the Zoning Ordinance as necessary to allow
ADUs.

Section 202 (Definitions), Section 507 Tab A.II.C.8 (Single-Family Design Review),
Section 603 (Suburban S-1 District—Ranch or Farm Residence), Section 604
(Suburban S-2 District—Ranch or Farm Commercial), Section 605 (Residential Estate
RE-43 District—One-Family Residence), Section 606 (Residential Estate RE-24
District—One-Family Residence), Section 607 (Residential R1-14 District—One-Family
Residence), Section 608 (Residence Districts), Section 609 (RE-35 Single-Family
Residence District), Section 610 (R1-18 Single-Family Residence District), Section 611
(R1-10 Single-Family Residence District), Section 612 (R1-8 Single-Family Residence
District), Section 613 (R1-6 Single-Family Residence District), Section 614 (R-2
Multifamily Residence District), Section 615 (R-3 Multifamily Residence District),
Section 616 (R-3A Multifamily Residence District), Section 617 (R-4 Multifamily
Residence District), Section 618 (R-5 Multifamily Residence District), Section 619
(Residential R-4A District—Multifamily Residence—General), Section 635 (Planned
Area Development), Section 649 (Mixed Use Agricultural (MUA) District), Section 651
(Baseline Area Overlay District), Section 653 (Desert Character Overlay District),
Section 658 (Deer Valley Airport Overlay (DVAO) District), Section 664 (North Central
Avenue Special Planning District (SPD) Overlay District), Section 701.A.3 (Projections),
Section 702.F (Special Parking Standards), Section 703.B (Landscaping and Open
Areas In Multiple-Family Development), Section 706 (Accessory Uses and Structures),
Section 708 (Temporary uses), Sections 1204.C and D (Land Use Matrix), Section 1303
(Transect lot standards), Section 1305.C (Fence Standards), Section 1306 (Land Use
Matrix), and Section 1310 (Open Space Improvements).

Staff recommendation: Staff recommends approval of Z-TA-5-23-Y as shown in the
recommended text in Attachment A.




Page 783
Staff Report: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023


BACKGROUND
In 2020, City Council unanimously approved the Housing Phoenix Plan to create a
stronger and more vibrant Phoenix through increased housing options for residents at
all income levels and family sizes. The Plan’s primary goal is to create or preserve
50,000 homes by 2030, and increase overall supply of market, workforce, and
affordable housing to address the housing shortage in Phoenix. In order to implement
this goal, nine policy initiatives were identified. Policy Initiative 2 is “Amend Current
Zoning Ordinance to Facilitate More Housing Options - Amend Current Zoning
Ordinance in Target Areas to Allow for Accessory Dwelling Units”. These proposed
changes will expand housing options for a diverse population at every income level.

PURPOSE
The intent of the proposed text amendment is to allow an Accessory Dwelling Unit
(ADU) to be constructed on a lot with a detached single-family home only, by providing
reasonable increases in permitted lot coverage, and by allowing an ADU to be required
within the rear yard, with conditions. Related definitions have been revised and/or
deleted, with new definitions provided as necessary; “ADU” has been added to the use
lists in appropriate zoning districts; development regulations specific to ADUs have
been added; existing development regulations have been modified to address ADUs,
related terms and references to ADUs have been clarified and updated, and certain
sections have been reorganized for ease of use and clarity.

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED TEXT
The proposed text amendment includes four main components: Definitions, regulations
in each respective zoning district, ADU-specific development regulations, and ordinance
clarifications/cleanup:

1. Definitions:
Terms that are proposed to be deleted include “Guesthouse” (replaced by
“Accessory Dwelling Unit”. Terms proposed to revised or added are “Accessory
Dwelling Unit”, “Apartment”, “Building, Main”, “Dwelling Unit”, “Dwelling Unit,
Primary”, and many residential terms to make clear the differentiation between them
(“duplex”, “triplex”, “single-family attached”, “townhome”, etc.).

Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU)
The proposed definition states that the ADU must be subordinate to the Primary
Dwelling Unit on the same lot. The criteria for being subordinate generally refers to
the size of the ADU, which is restricted in all cased to 75% of the primary dwelling,
but not to exceed 1000 square feet if on a lot up to 10,000 square feet in net area, or
the lesser of 10% of the net lot area, or 3000 square feet, if the lot is larger than
10,000 square feet in net area.




Page 784
Staff Report: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023


Regulations in each respective zoning district:

The Zoning Ordinance currently does not have development regulations for anything
with the term “Accessory Dwelling Unit”. Certain larger-lot districts, such as RE-43,
RE-35, RE-24, and R1-14, have existing permissions and regulations for a
“Guesthouse”. These districts have had the terminology updated to use “Accessory
Dwelling Unit”, and they will be subject to the proposed ADU development standards
(which allow ADUs within required rear yards when 15 feet or less in height). Lot
coverage has not been proposed to be increased for these districts, since there was
relatively recent text amendment in 2015 which allowed an additional 5% lot
coverage when all structures on the lot are one-story, maximum 20 feet in height.
All of the other residential zoning districts that did not have any permissions for
ADUs have had such permissions granted, together with reasonable increases
(about 10%) in lot coverage.

2. ADU-specific development regulations:

The proposed regulations for ADUs were based upon both established practices in
other municipalities, as well as existing permissions for detached accessory
structures (which are not dwelling units) located within the rear yard. In general,
ADUs would be allowed to be constructed within a required rear yard when subject
to the same development regulations as detached accessory structures, as follows:

• One ADU per single-family detached lot may be constructed.
• A detached ADU may be located within the required rear yard and may not
exceed 15 feet in height, unless use permit approval is granted.
• An attached ADU may project into the rear yard if the same side yard
setbacks as the primary dwelling unit are maintained, and a maximum height
of 15 feet is provided.
• An attached ADU which meets all required standard setbacks may be
constructed to the full height permitted by the zoning district.
• An ADU must comply with lot coverage requirements for the lot, though most
have been increased.
• For up to lots 10,000 square feet in area, the maximum size of the ADU is
1000 square feet.
• For lots over 10,000 square feet in area, the maximum size of the ADU is
3000 square feet, or 10% of the net lot area, whichever is less.
• But in no case may an ADU exceed 75% of the gross floor area of the primary
dwelling unit.




Page 785
Staff Report: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023


Restrictive Covenant
The proposed text also includes a provision similar to one adopted in 2021 by the
City of Flagstaff which requires a property owner to record a restrictive covenant
prior to issuance of a building permit for an ADU stating that either the ADU or the
primary dwelling unit will be owner-occupied.

3. Ordinance clarifications/cleanup:

Other updates and corrections are proposed to ensure consistency with the
proposed language. This includes the following:

• Updating language that referenced “guesthouse” to reference “accessory
dwelling unit”
• Changing numbers to numeric form.
• Renaming the “Single-Family Attached” development option to “Single-Family
Infill” to end confusion of the term with a type of dwelling unit and updating all
associated references.
• Creating a new Residential Land Use Matrix table to add Accessory Dwelling
Unit, as well as recently added conditional use, “Off-Site Manufactured Home
Development”, and relocating/reformatting the conditions of certain uses
within Section 608, and many associated references throughout the Zoning
Ordinance.
• Updating language in the Mixed Use Agricultural (MUA) District (Section 649),
Baseline Area Overlay District (Section 651), and the Desert Character
Overlay Districts (Section 653) to revise the permissions regarding
“guesthouses” to be consistent with the new “accessory dwelling unit”
provisions.
• Update the permission for paving in the front yard to increase from 45% to
50%, which removes the need for the special exception for 3-car garages and
allows slightly wider driveways to accommodate potential increases in on-site
parking for ADUs.
• Update the land use matrix and references in the Downtown Code (Chapter
12 of the Zoning Ordinance) to match the revised Section 608.
• Update the land use matrix and references in the Walkable Urban Code
(Chapter 13 of the Zoning Ordinance) to match the revised Section 608.
• Fix various typographical errors in the existing ordinance within the sections
being modified to permit ADUs.




Page 786
Staff Report: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023


Conclusion:
This text amendment is quite extensive due to the many references which need to be
updated due to the inclusion of the new term “Accessory Dwelling Unit” (generally
replacing “Guesthouse”), as well as the reorganization of Section 608 to clarify uses and
associated conditions for all residential districts. The development standards were also
revised for all districts to include standards for ADUs, and to fix some typographical
errors and outdated terminology such as “Single-Family Architectural Appeals Board”,
which changed to the “Design Review Committee” over 10 years ago. All of the
revisions proposed are directly related to changes needed to allow accessory dwelling
units, including those made to clarify what are not ADUs (duplex, triplex, single-family
attached).

Staff recommends approval of the changes to the Zoning Ordinance as proposed in
Attachment A.

Writer
C. DePerro
6/30/2023

Attachments
A. Proposed Language




Page 787
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023

Exhibit A

Staff proposed language that may be modified during the public hearing process is as
follows:


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 subordinate dwelling UNIT, AS DEFINED IN THIS
SECTION, SUBORDINATE TO THE PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT AND situated on the
same lot with the main dwelling and used as FOR an A RESIDENTIAL accessory use.
ADUs, WHERE PERMITTED, DO NOT COUNT TOWARDS CALCULATIONS OF
GROSS DENSITY.

***

Apartment: See "Dwelling, Multiple-Family". A DWELLING UNIT WITHIN A DUPLEX,
TRIPLEX, TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT, AND/OR MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT
WHERE EACH UNIT HAS A PRIMARY ACCESS TO A SHARED WALKWAY OR
CORRIDOR, AND EACH UNIT IS NOT INDIVIDUALLY OWNED.

***

Building, Main: A building, or buildings, in which is conducted the principal use of the lot
on which it is situated. In any residential district, any dwelling shall be deemed to be
the main building of the lot on which the same is situated. ON LOTS WITH ONLY
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES, THE PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT SHALL BE
CONSIDERED THE MAIN BUILDING.

***

DUPLEX: A BUILDING ON ONE LOT, WHICH HOUSES EXACTLY TWO DWELLING
UNITS, NEITHER OF WHICH MAY BE CONSIDERED AN ACCESSORY DWELLING
UNIT. EACH DUPLEX UNIT COUNTS TOWARDS THE CALCULATION OF GROSS
DENSITY.

***

Dwelling, Multifamily: A building or buildings attached to each other and containing two or
more dwelling units. The term "multifamily dwelling" is intended to apply to dwelling types




Page 788
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023

as triplex, fourplex, and apartments where any dwellings have their primary access to a
common hallway or corridor.

Dwelling, Single-Family Attached: A building containing dwelling units each of which has
primary ground floor access to the outside and which are attached to each other. Each
unit extends from the foundation to roof and has open spaces on at least two sides. The
term "attached single-family dwelling" is intended primarily for dwelling types as
townhouses and duplexes.

Dwelling, Single-Family, Detached: A building containing only one dwelling unit entirely
separated by open space from buildings on adjoining lots or building sites.

Dwelling Unit: One (1) or more rooms within a building arranged, designed, or used for
residential purposes for one (1) family and containing INDEPENDENT LIVING AND
SLEEPING AREAS, TOGETHER WITH independent sanitary (TOILET, SINK, AND
BATH/SHOWER) and cooking facilities. The presence of cooking facilities conclusively
establishes the intent to use for residential purposes.

DWELLING UNIT, PRIMARY: A DWELLING UNIT THAT IS EITHER 1) THE ONLY
DWELLING UNIT PROVIDED ON A SINGLE-FAMILY LOT, OR 2) THE LARGEST
DWELLING UNIT PROVIDED ON A SINGLE-FAMILY LOT WHEN THE APPLICABLE
ZONING REGULATIONS OTHERWISE ALLOW AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT OR
OTHER TYPES OF DWELLING UNITS.

***

Guesthouse: A free-standing building which is designed to house guests or servants of
the occupants of the primary dwelling unit. SEE “ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT”.

For purposes of a guest house, a "free-standing building" shall be one which is either not
connected to the primary dwelling unit or, if connected to the primary dwelling unit, shall
be considered free-standing if:

1. The connecting structure is less than ten (10) feet wide; or
2. The connecting structure is greater than ten (10) feet wide and the length of the
connection is more than twice the width of the connecting structure.

For purposes of a guest house, the width of the connecting structure shall be the shortest
distance across its narrowest point, measured from the inside surfaces of the exterior,
enclosing walls. The length of the connecting structure shall be the shortest possible
straight line distance from the outside surface of the primary dwelling unit to the most
distant outside surface of the connecting structure.




Page 789
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023

For purposes of a guest house, a structure shall be deemed to be "designed to house
guests or servants of the occupants or the primary dwelling unit" if it contains the
following;

1. A shower or bath;
2. A commode;
3. Space for sleeping; and
4. Cooking faculties or space and plumbing and electrical wiring which can be legally
accessed and connected without the requirement of a permit issued by the City and which
is reasonably capable of accommodation of cooking facilities.


***

Interior Suite with Accessory Cooking Facilities: A room or group of rooms located within a
single dwelling unit designed or arranged to allow for semi-private residential use and
includes accessory cooking facilities.

***

Multifamily Residence: See "Dwelling, Multifamily."

MULTIFAMILY/MULTIPLE-FAMILY: A LOT OR PARCEL WHERE TWO OR MORE
DWELLING UNITS ARE PROVIDED.

***

Offsite Manufactured Home Development: any SINGLE lot, tract, or parcel of land, NOT
TO BE FURTHER SUBDIVIDED, used or offered for use in whole or in part, with or
without charge, for the parking of occupied offsite manufactured homes.

***

Single-Family Attached (SFA) Development: A group of single-family attached dwelling
units located on individually owned lots with common areas which are designed as an
integrated functional unit. Perimeter standards are defined and potential bonus density
and design flexibility allow for quality individual property ownership within a larger
development. Includes townhouse and row house dwellings located on small single-family
owned lots.

SINGLE-FAMILY: A LOT OR DEVELOPMENT WHERE NO MORE THAN ONE
PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT IS PROVIDED PER LOT.

SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED: A SINGLE-FAMILY LOT OR DEVELOPMENT WHERE
EACH DWELLING UNIT IS ATTACHED TO AT LEAST ONE, BUT NO MORE THAN




Page 790
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023

TWO NEIGHBORING PRIMARY DWELLING UNITS AT THE ABUTTING SIDE
PROPERTY LINE(S). EACH DWELLING UNIT MUST ALSO COMPLY WITH THE
DEFINITION OF “TOWNHOME/TOWNHOUSE”.

SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED: A SINGLE-FAMILY LOT OR DEVELOPMENT WHERE
EACH DWELLING UNIT IS NOT ATTACHED TO ANY OTHER DWELLING UNIT OTHER
THAN A PERMITTED ADU.

SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL (SFI) DEVELOPMENT: A TYPE OF SINGLE-FAMILY
DEVELOPMENT CONSISTING OF TOWNHOUSES AND A LIMITED NUMBER OF
DETACHED DWELLING UNITS. PERIMETER STANDARDS ARE DEFINED AND
POTENTIAL BONUS DENSITY AND DESIGN FLEXIBILITY ALLOW FOR QUALITY
INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNERSHIP WITHIN A LARGER DEVELOPMENT.

***

TOWNHOME/TOWNHOUSE: A TYPE OF DWELLING UNIT WHICH IS ATTACHED TO
AT LEAST ONE OTHER DWELLING UNIT. THE DWELLING UNITS MAY BE
ATTACHED AT A PROPERTY LINE (SEE “SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED”), OR THEY
MAY BE MULTIPLE UNITS ON A SINGLE LOT (SEE “DUPLEX”, “TRIPLEX”, AND/OR
“MULTIFAMILY”). THE KEY CHARACTERISTIC OF A TOWNHOME IS THAT THERE IS
NO VERTICAL OVERLAP OF ANY DWELLING UNITS.

***

TRIPLEX: A BUILDING ON ONE LOT WHICH HOUSES EXACTLY THREE DWELLING
UNITS, NONE OF WHICH MAY BE CONSIDERED AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT.
EACH TRIPLEX UNIT COUNTS TOWARDS THE CALCULATION OF GROSS DENSITY.

***

Yard: A space on any lot, unoccupied by a structure and unobstructed from the ground
upward except as otherwise provided herein, and measured as the minimum horizontal
distance from a building or structure, excluding carports, porches and other permitted
projects, to the property line opposite such building line in the side or rear yards, or to the
street right-of-way or easement in the front yard; provided, however, that where a future
width line is established by the provisions of this ordinance for any street bounding the lot,
then such measurement shall be taken from the line of the building to such future width
line.
[remove existing picture]




Page 791
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023




***

Amend Chapter 5, Section 507 Tab A II.C. (Subdivision Design/Development) and
Section 507 Tab A II.C. 8 (Single-Family Design Review) to clarify and simplify
Single-Family Design Review requirements for individual lots, especially as related
to duplex and triplex uses, and to read as follows:

***

C. Subdivision AND SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED Design REVIEW/Development




Page 792
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023

***

8. Single-Family DETACHED Design Review. New single-family detached
dwelling units, LOTS HAVING A SINGLE individual duplex OR TRIPLEX
(duplex developments consisting of ten or more duplex buildings located on
the same lot or adjacent lots are not subject to single-family design review),
manufactured homes, and modular homes that have not received
preliminary site plan or subdivision approval, or building permit issuance
prior to August 1, 2005 shall be subject to single-family design review, as
follows (R*)(R):

(a) Single-family detached developments where 10% or more of the lots
are equal to or less than 65' FEET in width or any residential
horizontal property regime shall incorporate Design Guidelines
Sections 8.1 through 8.4.

(b) Individual single-family detached dwelling units, not subject to
Subdivision Design Guidelines 8.1 through 8.4, on a lot or parcel of
65 feet in width, or less, shall incorporate Design Guidelines Section
8.5. THIS REQUIREMENT INCLUDES LOTS WITH A SINGLE
DUPLEX OR TRIPLEX WHEN NOT LOCATED IN A SUBDIVISION
SUBJECT TO II.C.8(a).

(c) Individual duplexes (as specified above) shall incorporate Design
Guidelines Section 8.5. DWELLING UNITS ON LOTS ZONED OR
DESIGNATED HP ARE EXEMPT FROM THE PROVISIONS OF
SECTION 8.5, SO LONG AS THE PLANS ARE REVIEWED AND
APPROVED THROUGH HISTORIC PRESERVATION PRIOR TO
ISSUANCE OF ANY BUILDING PERMITS. .

(d) Individual manufactured and modular homes, regardless of lot width,
shall incorporate Design Guidelines Section 8.5.

(e) Manufactured and modular home subdivisions, regardless of lot
width, shall incorporate Design Guidelines Sections 8.1 through 8.4.

***

(8.5) Individual Unit Design Standards. The goal of these individual unit
design standards is to ensure a minimum level of design quality for
detached single-family dwelling units, duplexes, manufactured
homes, and modular homes. For information on relief from
requirements (R) AND (R*), and presumptions (P) refer to Section
507.C of the Zoning Ordinance.




Page 793
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023

(a) Plot plans shall show all required design guidelines as plan
details or general notes. (R)

Rationale: Design guidelines should be shown on plans to
help ensure they are easily understood by the public and
equally applied by City staff.

(b) Where two detached units are placed on a single lot, a notice
that the lots are not to be split without prior City approval
shall be recorded with the Maricopa County Recorder’s
Office prior to issuance of building permits. The recorded
document shall be on a form approved by the City Attorney’s
Office. A copy of the recorded document shall be submitted
with the application for building permit approval and the
recorded document noted on the submitted site plan. (R)

Rationale: The public is often unaware that the City has lot
split requirements and may unknowingly create an illegal lot,
causing self-imposed obstacles to development.

(c) All driveways and parking spaces shall be hard surfaced with
brick, pavers, concrete, asphalt or equivalent. (R)

Rationale: A defined driveway and parking area reduces
vehicle maneuvering on areas not suitable for vehicles. Hard
surfaces contribute to dust emissions substantially less than
loose or unimproved surfaces. Hard surfaces are generally
more attractive and compatible with surrounding residences.

(d) (a) Each dwelling unit shall have at least one covered parking
space located in a garage or under a carport. The design of
the covered parking shall be substantially similar with regard
to texture, color and material to that of the housing. (R*) (R)

Rationale: Covered parking reduces the visual impact of
parked cars. Carports and garages that are designed with
the same level of quality as the house are more attractive
and more compatible with surrounding residences.

(e) (b) The FRONT YARD area between the front building line and
the front property line, excluding areas necessary approved
for VEHICLE access, should be landscaped with the
following elements: (P)




Page 794
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023

(1) A minimum of one, two inch caliper or greater, drought
resistant, accent tree. (P*)

(2) A minimum of five, five gallon or greater, drought
resistant shrubs. (P*)

(3) Dustproofed with ground cover, turf, rock,
decomposed granite, or equivalent material as
approved by the Planning and Development
Department. (P*)

(4) An irrigation system. (P*)

Rationale: Landscaping contributes to an attractive
environment, provides shade, and contributes to
neighborhood identity.

(f) Unless all parking is provided off an alley, no more than half
of the area between the rear lot line and the rear building line
of a single family dwelling unit, or two-thirds of said area for
duplexes, should be used for parking. (P*)

Rationale: Excessive vehicle parking areas reduces
compatibility with surrounding residences and minimizes the
opportunity for recreational activity and landscaped space.

[remove picture, do not replace]




Parking—Rear Building Line




Page 795
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023

(g) (c) Required covered parking for single family dwelling units,
duplexes, manufactured homes, and modular homes shall
not protrude BE LOCATED more than ten feet beyond
CLOSER TO THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE THAN the front
ENTRY building line. (R*)

Rationale: When parking structures are concentrated in front
of a dwelling unit, the building loses its residential character
and compatibility with surrounding residences is negatively
impacted.

[remove picture, do not replace]




Covered Parking 2

(h) The area between the rear building line and the rear lot line
shall be enclosed by a block wall, wrought iron fence, or
equivalent enclosure, a minimum of four feet in height, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
(R*)

Rationale: Rear yard enclosures provide physical security
and also ensure rear yard activities, such as pool areas and
material storage, are not readily visible. In addition,
enclosures are visually appealing and benefit the
neighborhood.




Page 796
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023

(i) (d) Walls, fences, and enclosure materials shall not include
chain link fencing with, or without, plastic or metal slats,
sheeting, non-decorative corrugated metal and fencing made
or topped with razor, concertina, OR barbed wire., or
equivalent as approved by the Planning and Development
Department. (R*)

Rationale: Certain enclosure materials are not durable, and
are incompatible with surrounding residences.

(j) (e) Development of two detached dwelling units on a lot,
duplexes, manufactured homes, or modular homes LOTS
WITH MORE THAN ONE DWELLING UNIT should provide a
single, common access drive to parking areas. (P*) (P)

Rationale: Shared access and common parking minimize
unnecessary curb cuts and breaks in the streetscape.
Common parking areas also reduce the paved area of a site

(k) (f) Single family ALL dwelling units, duplexes, manufactured
homes, and modular homes should provide the following
architectural design elements: (P)

(1) Consistent detailing and design for each side of the
building. (P*)

(2) Window and door trim as well as accent detailing
should be incorporated and vary from the primary
color and materials of the building. (P*)

(3) Garage doors should be provided with windows,
raised or recessed panels, architectural trim, or single
doors. (P*)

(4) The front entry of the building should be clearly
defined and identifiable from the street. (P*)

(5)(4) Materials such as untextured concrete, unfinished
block, steel panels, and shiny or highly reflective
detailing should not be used as a predominant exterior
material. (P*)

Rationale: High quality design promotes neighborhood
pride and visual interest in residential architecture.




Page 797
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023

(l) (g) Garage doors FACING visible from the public street AND
ATTACHED TO THE PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT should
not exceed 50% of the house BUILDING width. (P*) (P)

Rationale: Garage doors should not be the aesthetic focus of
a house; they should compliment COMPLEMENT and
appear subordinate to the main structure. THIS IS
PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT IF A DUPLEX OR TRIPLEX
IS CONSTRUCTED.

(m) (h) The front entrance, of buildings within 50 feet of the front
property line, shall face the street and shall not be set back
more than ten feet behind the front building line. A FRONT
ENTRY SHALL BE PROVIDED THAT FACES AND IS
VISIBLE FROM THE STREET, AND INCLUDES AN
ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE TO CALL ATTENTION TO IT
(SUCH AS A PORCH, ENTRY PATIO, STOOP,
AWNING/CANOPY, COURTYARD, OR ARCHWAY). FOR
LOTS HAVING MORE THAN ONE DWELLING UNIT, A
MINIMUM OF ONE UNIT SHALL COMPLY WITH THIS
REQUIREMENT. (R*)

Rationale: Emphasizing the entrance and front facade adds
to the residential character of new dwelling units and
provides eyes on the street.

[remove picture, do not replace]




Parking—Front Entrance

(n) (i) Manufactured homes shall provide the following additional
architectural design elements:




Page 798
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023

(1) Materials such as wood, hardboard, brick veneer,
hardiplank, stucco, or horizontal vinyl siding shall be
used as a predominant exterior material. (P*) (P)

(2) The exposed roof pitch shall be at a minimum of 3/12
for units twenty-eight (28) feet or less in width and be
covered with shingles, tile or metal, excluding
aluminum. (R*)

(3) A minimum fifty (50) square foot recessed entry or
covered porch shall be provided along the front entry
of the building. (R*)

(4) Permanent access to the porch or recessed entry
should be constructed with materials and colors that
are compatible with the dwelling unit. (P*) (P)

(5) A masonry stem wall shall be provided under the
dwelling unit with no more than seven (7) inches of
exposed foundation measured from highest finished
grade. (R*)

(6) The exposed masonry stem wall color should be
compatible to the dwelling unit. (P*) (P)

Rationale: High quality design promotes neighborhood pride
and visual interest in residential architecture for
manufactured homes.

***
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. A maximum of one dwelling unit for one acre and one additional dwelling
unit for each ten additional acres. These dwelling units are for farm owner
and farm employees only. DWELLING UNITS. EACH LOT MAY HAVE THE
FOLLOWING:




Page 799
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023

a. ONE PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT.

b. ONE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT, 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.

***

12. Same accessory uses and buildings as RE-24. THE FOLLOWING
ADDITIONAL USES, WHEN ACCESSORY TO THE RESIDENTIAL USE
OF LAND OR STRUCTURES BY RESIDENTS, SHALL BE PERMITTED:

a. RECREATIONAL FACILITIES, FOR WHICH ALL NECESSARY
CONSTRUCTION AND OTHER REQUIRED PERMITS HAVE BEEN
OBTAINED.

b. PARKING OF VEHICLES IN FACILITIES AND LOCATIONS ON THE
PROPERTY NOT OTHERWISE IN CONFLICT WITH THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS ORDINANCE.

c. MATERIALS USED IN CONJUNCTION WITH A HOBBY,
AVOCATION OR PASTIME, THE USE OF WHICH DOES NOT
OTHERWISE CONFLICT WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS
ORDINANCE.

d. FACILITIES FOR HOUSEHOLD PETS, THE MAINTENANCE OF
WHICH IS NOT OTHERWISE PROHIBITED BY STATUTE,
REGULATION OF THE CITY CODE OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX
AND WHICH FACILITIES ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH ALL
APPLICABLE ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX.

***

B. Yard, Height and Area Requirements.

1. There shall be a EACH lot SHALL HAVE A NET AREA of not less than one
acre.

2. For all residential uses DWELLING UNITS:

a. There shall be a front yard of not less than THE MINIMUM FRONT
SETBACK IS forty 40 feet.




Page 800
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023

b. There shall be two side yards each having a width of not less than
THE MINIMUM SIDE SETBACK IS thirty 30 feet.

c. There shall be a rear yard having a depth of not less than THE
MINIMUM REAR SETBACK IS thirty 30 feet.

3. Sales stands or AND NON-RESIDENTIAL accessory buildings shall NOT be
located not nearer than fifty 50 feet from any side or rear property line and
shall not be located nearer than forty 40 feet from the front property line.

4. The main building and all accessory buildings shall not occupy more than
twenty percent of the total area of the lot for all lots under two acres or not
more than ten percent of all lots two acres or over in total area.
LOT COVERAGE:

a. FOR LOTS TWO ACRES OR LESS IN NET AREA, THE
PERMITTED LOT COVERAGE IS 20%, WITH AN ADDITIONAL 5%
PERMITTED FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AND/OR
ATTACHED SHADE STRUCTURES.

b. FOR LOTS GREATER THAN TWO ACRES IN NET AREA, THE
PERMITTED LOT COVERAGE IS 10%, WITH AN ADDITIONAL 5%
PERMITTED FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AND/OR
ATTACHED SHADE STRUCTURES.

5. No building shall exceed a height of two stories, not to exceed thirty 30 feet.

6. ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS ARE SUBJECT TO THE ADDITIONAL
PROVISIONS 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. There shall be a EACH lot SHALL HAVE A NET AREA of not less than three
acres.

2. For all residential uses DWELLING UNITS:




Page 801
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023


a. There shall be a front yard of not less than THE MINIMUM FRONT
SETBACK IS forty 40 feet.

b. There shall be two side yards each having a width of not less than
THE MINIMUM SIDE SETBACK IS thirty 30 feet.

c. There shall be a rear yard having a depth of not less than THE
MINIMUM REAR SETBACK IS thirty 30 feet.

3. Sales stands or AND NON-RESIDENTIAL accessory buildings shall NOT be
located not nearer than fifty 50 feet from any side or rear property line and
shall not be located nearer than forty 40 feet from the front property line.

4. The main building and all accessory buildings shall not occupy more than
ten percent of the total lot area.
LOT COVERAGE: THE PERMITTED LOT COVERAGE IS 10%, WITH AN
ADDITIONAL 5% PERMITTED FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS
AND/OR ATTACHED SHADE STRUCTURES.

5. No building shall exceed a height of two stories, not to exceed thirty 30 feet.

6. ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS ARE SUBJECT TO THE ADDITIONAL
PROVISIONS 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.

***

A. Permitted Uses.

1. One single-family dwelling on any lot or parcel, except that a developer of a
subdivision shall be allowed to build model homes prior to recording a
subdivision plat, subject to the provisions of paragraph 7 below and subject
to submitting a final plat which shall show the following information for each
model home lot:
DWELLING UNITS. EACH LOT MAY HAVE THE FOLLOWING:




Page 802
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023


a. Street addresses for each model home as assigned by the Water
Services Department.
ONE PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT.

b. Finished floor elevations for each model home as assigned by the
Division of Engineering.
ONE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT.

c. Proposed lots for model homes shall be in conformance with lot lines
as shown on the approved preliminary plan.
MODEL HOMES ARE PERMITTED SUBJECT TO THE
PROVISIONS OF SECTION 608.E.19.

d. Each model home shall be located on each proposed lot in
conformance with yard requirements of the district.

Such final plat need not have the required approvals for purposes of
obtaining permits for model homes.

***

11. RESERVED. Guesthouse, subject to the following conditions:

a. The square footage of the guesthouse shall not exceed fifty percent
of the gross floor area of the primary dwelling unit with a maximum of
nine hundred square feet, except as set forth in subsection b, below.
Any garage area attached to the guesthouse which is more than the
area of a single-car garage shall be counted toward the allowable
square footage of the guesthouse.

b. On lots with more than forty-three thousand five hundred sixty square
feet in net area with a primary dwelling unit of at least three thousand
six hundred square feet in gross floor area, the square footage of the
guesthouse may be twenty-five percent of the gross floor area of the
primary dwelling unit.

c. The floor area of the connecting structure shall be included in the
floor area of the guesthouse.

d. Pergolas and other roofed structures without walls shall not be
considered a connecting structure.




Page 803
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023

e. Vehicular access to the accessory dwelling unit must be provided
from the same curb (driveway) as the primary dwelling unit, except
that separate access may be permitted from a paved alley.

f. One parking space must be provided for the accessory dwelling unit
in addition to the parking required for the primary dwelling unit.

g. Only one guesthouse is permitted on a single lot.

h. The guesthouse shall be constructed of similar building materials and
in the same architectural style as that of the primary dwelling unit and
shall not exceed the height in feet or number of stories of the primary
dwelling unit.

i. A guesthouse shall not:

(1) Provide more parking than the one required space;

(2) Be advertised for occupancy through any print or electronic
media or through placement of signs on the property;

(3) Provide separate mail service or have a separate address from
the primary dwelling unit; or

(4) Be separately metered for utilities.

(j) Single-family use requirements shall apply to the guesthouse and the
primary dwelling unit as a single unit.

(k) Any guesthouse existing as of (the effective date of this ordinance)
may qualify as "connected to the primary dwelling unit" by being
connected to the primary dwelling unit without meeting the minimum
width requirements.

12. Accessory uses and buildings.

a. ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS ARE SUBJECT TO THE
ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS OF SECTION 706.A.

a. b. Any OTHER accessory building(S) shall maintain the same yard
requirements as the main building. No accessory use shall be
maintained in which there is solicitation of recipients for a service or
product, or the operation of the use so that it is commonly known as
offering a commercial service or product.




Page 804
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023

b. c. No accessory use of land or structures shall be maintained except as
hereinafter provided or except as may be permitted as a home
occupation.

c. d. The following uses, when accessory to the residential use of land or
structures by residents, shall be permitted:

(1) Sleeping, eating, and rRecreational facilities, for which all
necessary construction and other required permits have been
obtained.

(2) Parking of vehicles in facilities and locations on the property
not otherwise in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance.

(3) Materials used in conjunction with a hobby, avocation or
pastime, the use of which does not otherwise conflict with the
provisions of this ordinance.

(4) Facilities for household pets, the maintenance of which is not
otherwise prohibited by statute, regulation or the City Code of
the City of Phoenix and which facilities are in compliance with
all applicable ordinances of the City of Phoenix.

(5) Reserved.

d. e. Except as may be provided by use permit approval in conjunction with
a home occupation, no accessory use shall include outdoor display or
storage of any of the following listed items, when such items are
visible or emit odor, dust, gas, noise, vibration, smoke, heat, or glare
beyond any boundary of the lot on which such items are displayed or
stored:
***
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 forty-three thousand five hundred
sixty 43,560 square feet. No lot shall hereafter be subdivided to provide less
than forty-three thousand five hundred sixty 43,560 square feet of lot area,
nor to have a width of less than one hundred sixty-five 165 feet, nor to have
a lot depth of less than one hundred seventy-five 175 feet. The provisions of
Section 701.A.3, as it refers to carports, porches, and balconies in the
side yard, shall not be applicable.

***




Page 805
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023

7. YARDS FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AND OTHER ACCESSORY
STRUCTURES SHALL BE PROVIDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
PROVISIONS OF SECTION 706.

8. PROJECTIONS INTO THE REQUIRED SIDE YARDS, PER THE
PROVISIONS OF SECTION 701.A.3.a (1)(b), ARE NOT PERMITTED.

***
Sen 606. 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.

A. Permitted Uses.

1. One single-family dwelling on any lot or parcel, except that a developer of a
subdivision shall be allowed to build model homes prior to recording a
subdivision plat, subject to the provisions of Section 606A.4.b below and
subject to submitting a final plat which shall show the following information
for each model home lot:
DWELLING UNITS. EACH LOT MAY HAVE THE FOLLOWING:

a. Street addresses for each model home as assigned by the Water
Services Department.
ONE PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT.

b. Finished floor elevations for each model home as approved by the
Engineering Department.
ONE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT.

c. Proposed lots for model homes shall be in conformance with lot lines
as shown on the approved preliminary plat.
MODEL HOMES ARE PERMITTED SUBJECT TO THE
PROVISIONS OF SECTION 608.E.19.

d. Each model home shall be located on each proposed lot in
conformance with yard requirements of the district.

Such final plat need not have the required approvals for purposes of
obtaining permits for model homes.




Page 806
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023

***

11. Accessory uses and buildings.

a. ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS ARE SUBJECT TO THE
ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS OF SECTION 706.A.

a. b. OTHER ACCESSORY BUILDING(S) SHALL MAINTAIN THE SAME
YARD REQUIREMENTS AS THE MAIN BUILDING. No accessory
use shall be maintained in which there is solicitation of recipients for a
service or product, or the operation of the use so that it is commonly
known as offering a commercial service or product.

b. c. No accessory use of land or structures shall be maintained except as
hereinafter provided or except as may be permitted as a home
occupation.

c. d. The following uses, when accessory to the residential use of land or
structures by residents, shall be permitted:

(1) Sleeping, eating, and rRecreational facilities, for which all
necessary construction and other required permits have been
obtained.

(2) Parking of vehicles in facilities and locations on the property
not otherwise in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance.

(3) Materials used in conjunction with a hobby, avocation or
pastime, the use of which does not otherwise conflict with the
provisions of this ordinance.

(4) Facilities for household pets, the maintenance of which is not
otherwise prohibited by statute, regulation or the City Code of
the City of Phoenix and which facilities are in compliance with
all applicable ordinances of the City of Phoenix.

(5) Reserved.

d. e. Except as may be provided by use permit approval in conjunction with
a home occupation, no accessory use shall include outdoor display or
storage of any of the following listed items, when such items are
visible or emit odor, dust, gas, noise, vibration, smoke, heat, or glare
beyond any boundary of the lot on which such items are displayed or
stored:




Page 807
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023

***

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 twenty-four thousand 24,000
square feet. No lot shall hereafter be subdivided to provide less than twenty-
four thousand 24,000 thousand square feet of lot area nor to have a width of
less than one hundred thirty 130 feet nor a lot depth of less than one
hundred twenty 120 feet. The provisions of Section 701.A.1 and 701.A.2
shall not be applicable. The provisions of Section 701.A.3, as it refers to
carports, porches, and balconies in the side yard, shall not be applicable.

***

7. Yards for ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AND detached OTHER
accessory buildings STRUCTURES shall be permitted as PROVIDED in
ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF Section 706.

8. PROJECTIONS 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.

***

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 fourteen thousand 14,000 square
feet. No lot shall hereafter be subdivided to provide less than fourteen
thousand 14,000 square feet of lot area not to have a width of less than one
hundred ten 110 feet nor a depth less than one hundred twenty 120 feet.
The provisions of Section 701.A.1 and 701.A.2 shall not be applicable. The
provisions of Section 701.A.3, as it refers to carports, porches, and
balconies in the side yard, shall not be applicable.




Page 808
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023

***
7. Yards for ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AND detached OTHER
accessory buildings STRUCTURES shall be permitted as PROVIDED in
ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF Section 706.

8. PROJECTIONS INTO THE REQUIRED SIDE YARDS, PER THE
PROVISIONS OF SECTION 701.A.3.a(1)(b), ARE NOT PERMITTED.

***
Section 608. Residence Districts
Amend Chapter 6, Section 608 (Residence Districts) to read as follows:

Section 608. Residence RESIDENTIAL Districts.

A. Purpose. Residential districts are established in recognition of a need to provide
areas of the City devoted primarily to living functions. In order to preserve these
areas from the distractions and adverse impacts which can result from immediate
association with nonresidential uses, these districts are restricted to residential,
limited nonresidential uses, and appropriate accessory uses. These regulations are
designed to promote the creation and maintenance of areas in which individuals or
families may pursue residential activities with reasonable access to open space,
and streets or roads, in a setting which is not negatively impacted by adjacent
uses. Limited nonresidential uses may have conditions placed upon them to limit
impact to adjacent residential uses and in some cases require a public hearing
through a use permit or special permit process to mitigate any negative impacts to
surrounding residential uses.

The standards contained in this section and Sections 609 through 618 619 AND
635 are designed to establish the character of new residential development and
also to preserve the quality of residential uses during their lifetime. When applied to
new development, these standards are designed to be used in conjunction with the
development and improvement standards as contained in the Phoenix Subdivision
Ordinance, Chapter 32 of the City Code.

This section applies to the Residential Districts in Sections 609 through 618 619, IN
ADDITION TO SECTION 635 (PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT) WHEN
SPECIFIED.

***

Amend Chapter 6, Section 608.B (Residence Districts—Use of district regulations)
to read as follows:




Page 809
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023

B. Use of district regulations APPLICABILITY OF DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS. The
development of any parcel of land shall be in accordance with the standards
contained in any one development option as contained in Sections 609 through
619. Development of a single lot or a parcel not being further subdivided and
located in the RE-35 and R1-18 zoning districts (Sections 609 and 610) shall be in
accordance with the requirements for the standard subdivision development option
(a), as contained in Sections 609 and 610. For a single lot or parcel not part of a
subdivision platted prior to May 1, 1998, not being further subdivided, and located
in the R1-10 through R-4A zoning districts (Sections 611 through 619),
development shall be in accordance with the requirements of the conventional
subdivision option as contained in Sections 611 through 619.

All subsequent development shall be in accordance with the initially selected
development option unless a use permit is obtained. Building on any lot which was
subdivided or developed prior to the adoption of this chapter shall be done in
accordance with the standards under which the initial subdivision or development
occurred.

For purposes of conversion to this ordinance, property subdivided prior to May 1,
1998, shall be considered as follows:

***

2. Residential development with a sublot site plan AN APPROVED
SUBDIVISION SETBACK EXHIBIT approved by the subdivision committee
shall be considered under the average lot development option if located in
the RE-35 through R1-5 R-5 zoning districts (Sections 609 through 618).

***

Amend Chapter 6, Section 608.C (Residence Districts—Permitted Uses) to read as
follows:

C. Permitted Uses

Use
Permitted
Permit
with
Use Permitted and
Conditions
(1) Conditions
(2)

Single-Family DU X
Governmental Uses X
Community Residence Home X
Interior Suite with Accessory Cooking Facilities X




Page 810
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023

Boarding House X X
Group Home X X
***
1—6 Dependent Care Facility X
1—4 Adult Day Care Home X
Display for Sale of Vehicle X
Guestrooms X
Public Utility Buildings and Facilities X
Schools, Private X X
X
***

5—10 Adult Day Care Home X X
Churches/Place of Worship X X
Construction Facilities and Storage X X
Home Occupations X X
Model Homes and/or Subdivision Sales Office X X
Nondaily Newspaper Delivery Service X X
Public Assembly—Residential X X
***

7—12 Dependent Care Facility X
Environmental Remediation Facility X

(1) Please note some uses that are permitted with conditions require a use permit
approval if they exceed established thresholds.

(2) There is also a fourth category of residential uses permitted with approval of a
special permit. Please see Section 647.

***

C. 1. One single-family dwelling on any lot or parcel, except that a developer of a
subdivision shall be allowed to build model homes prior to recording a
subdivision plat, subject to the provisions of Section 608.C.3 and subject to
submitting a final plat which shall show the following information for each
model home lot:

a. Street addresses for each model home as assigned by the Water
Services Department.

b. Finished floor elevations for each model home as approved by the
Engineering Department.




Page 811
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023


c. Proposed lots for model homes shall be in conformance with lot lines
as shown on the approved preliminary plat.

d. Each model home shall be located on each proposed lot in
conformance with yard requirements of the district.

Such final plat need not have the required approvals for purposes of
obtaining permits for model homes.

2. Governmental uses are permitted.

3. No accessory use of land or structures shall be maintained except as
hereinafter provided or except as may be permitted as a home occupation.

C. USE REGULATIONS. THE REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE USES OF LAND
AND STRUCTURES SHALL BE AS SET FORTH IN THE RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS LAND USE MATRIX, SECTION 608.D, AND LAND USE
CONDITIONS IN SECTION 608.E, AS FOLLOWS:

1. ANY USE NOT LISTED IN SECTION 608.D (RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
LAND USE MATRIX) SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED UNLESS THE USE IS
OTHERWISE PERMITTED WITHIN THE REGULATIONS SPECIFIC TO
THE ZONING DISTRICT, PER SECTIONS 609 – 619 AND 635.

2. ALL USES INDICATED WITH “P” ARE PERMITTED WITH THE
APPLICABLE ZONING DISTRICT, SUBJECT TO DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS LISTED BELOW AND ELSEWHERE WITHIN THE
ZONING ORDINANCE.

3. ALL USES INDICATED WITH “PC” ARE PERMITTED WITHIN THE
APPLICABLE ZONING DISTRICT ONLY IF SPECIFIC CONDITIONS ARE
MET. THE CONDITIONS ARE DESCRIBED IN SECTION 608.E, LAND
USE CONDITIONS, BY THE ASSOCIATED CONDITION NUMBER (E.G.
“pc15” IS DESCRIBED UNDER SECTION 608.E.15). IN SOME CASES, A
USE PERMIT PER SECTION 307 MAY BE REQUIRED AS OUTLINED IN
THE CONDITIONS.

4. ALL USES INDICATED WITH “UP” ARE PERMITTED WITHIN THE
APPLICABLE ZONING DISTRICT ONLY UPON APPROVAL OF A USE
PERMIT PER SECTION 307. IF A NUMBER IS ALSO PROVIDED (E.G.
“UP25”), THERE ARE ALSO CONDITIONS WHICH MUST BE COMPLIED
WITH BEFORE APPLYING FOR A USE PERMIT.




Page 812
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023

5. ALL USES INDICATED WITH “SP” ARE PERMITTED WITHIN THE
APPLICABLE ZONING DISTRICT ONLY UPON APPROVAL OF A
SPECIAL PERMIT PER SECTION 504.1.

6 ALL USES INDICATED WITH “NP” ARE NOT PERMITTED WITHIN THE
APPLICABLE ZONING DISTRICT.

7. NO ACCESSORY USE OF LAND OR STRUCTURES SHALL BE
MAINTAINED EXCEPT AS HEREINAFTER PROVIDED OR EXCEPT AS
MAY BE PERMITTED AS A HOME OCCUPATION.

***

Amend Chapter 6, Section 608.D (Residence Districts—Permitted Uses with
Conditions) to read as follows:

D. Permitted Uses with Conditions.

1. Adult day care home for the care of one to four adult persons; provided, that:

a. Outdoor recreation areas shall be screened from adjacent properties
by a six-foot-high landscape hedge, solid fence, or solid wall.

2. Community residence home; provided, that:

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.




Page 813
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023

3. Dependent care facility for six dependents, subject to the following
conditions:

a. Resident dependents under the age of 12 years shall not be counted.

b. Outdoor play areas shall be screened from adjacent properties by a
six-foot-high landscape hedge, solid fence, or solid wall.

c. The employees must reside at the facility unless a nonresident
employee is required by the Arizona Department of Health Services.

4. The display for sale of a vehicle, which for purposes of this provision
includes trailers, watercraft or other types of transportation that are built to
carry passengers or cargo shall be subject to the following restrictions:

a. No more than one vehicle can be labeled for sale or show any
indication that it is for sale at any given time on a property, whether
visible on site or through some other form of advertising.

b. No more than two vehicles can be sold on a property during any
calendar year.

c. For purposes of Sections 608.A and B, two jet skis, a boat or similar
types of recreational vehicles that are transported on one trailer shall,
together with the trailer, be considered one vehicle.

d. The ownership of the vehicle(s) must be registered to the location
where the vehicle is listed for sale.
e. No vehicle can be labeled for sale or show any indication that it is for
sale at an unoccupied house or on a vacant lot or parcel.

f. No vehicle can be labeled for sale or show any indication that it is for
sale in conjunction with a retail or wholesale vehicle sales dealership
or business without obtaining a temporary use permit.

5. Guestrooms. Each single-family dwelling may contain no more than two
guestrooms.

6. Public utility buildings and facilities when necessary for serving the
surrounding territory; provided, that no public business offices and no repair
or storage facilities are maintained therein, are permitted in each district.

7. Schools are permitted in each district subject to a site plan being approved
in conformance with Section 507.




Page 814
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023

8. Interior suite with accessory cooking facilities, subject to the following:

a. Dwelling units with an interior suite with accessory cooking facilities
are permitted only in residential subdivisions of 15 acres or more and
located within the boundaries illustrated in Map 1, as follows:

(1) Subdivided after July 5, 2019; or

(2) Subdivided prior to July 5, 2019, but with less than 25 percent
of the lots having constructed dwelling units or valid building
permits as of July 5, 2019.




Page 815
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023

Map 1: Applicable Area




Page 816
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023

b. An interior suite with accessory cooking facilities shall only be part of
a single-family detached dwelling unit and must be under the same
roof structure. Only one interior suite with accessory cooking facilities
shall be permitted per lot and shall be located on the ground floor.

c. The square footage of the interior suite with accessory cooking
facilities shall not exceed 30 percent of the total net floor area or 800
square feet (whichever is less). Garage or patio areas shall not be
included for the purpose of this calculation.

d. An interior suite with accessory cooking facilities shall not have utility
services that are metered separately from the remainder of the
dwelling unit.

e. At least one internal doorway shall be provided between the interior
suite with accessory cooking facilities and the remainder of the
dwelling unit.

f. An interior suite with accessory cooking facilities shall not have a
private yard area that is fenced or walled off from the remainder of the
lot. This requirement shall not prohibit required pool fences, fenced in
animal areas, garden fencing, or other fencing used for different
purposes.

g. No more than one parking space, which may be covered or enclosed,
shall be provided for an interior suite with accessory cooking facilities
in addition to the parking provided for the remainder of the dwelling
unit, with a maximum of four spaces total. This requirement does not
apply to parking that may occur on the driveway in front of the
garage(s).

h. An interior suite with accessory cooking facilities shall not have a
parking space served by a driveway separated from the main
driveway and parking areas provided for the remainder of the dwelling
unit.

i. An interior suite with accessory cooking facilities shall not provide
separate mail service or have a separate address from the remainder
of the dwelling unit.

j. Design requirements. Elevations must minimize any secondary entry
visible from the street and have the appearance of a single-family
home. This shall be treated as a presumption as outlined in Section
507.C.2.




Page 817
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023

D. RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS LAND USE MATRIX


SECTION AND ZONING DISTRICT
LAND USE CATEGORIES 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 635
RE-35 R1-18 R1-10 R1-8 R1-6 R-2 R-3 R-3A R-4 R-5 R-4A PAD
Single-Family Detached pc1 pc1 pc1 pc1 pc1 pc1 pc1 pc1 pc1 pc1 pc1 pc1
(a Accessory Dwelling
pc2 pc2 pc2 pc2 pc2 pc2 pc2 pc2 pc2 pc2 pc2 pc2
c) Unit (ADU)
(a pc3
Guestroom(s) pc3 pc3 pc3 pc3 pc3 pc3 pc3 pc3 pc3 pc3 pc3
c)
Duplex np np pc4 pc4 pc4 pc4 pc4 pc4 pc4 pc4 pc4 pc4
Triplex np np np np np pc5 pc5 pc5 pc5 pc5 pc5 pc5
Single-Family Attached pc6 pc6 pc6 pc6 pc6 pc6 pc6 pc6 pc6 pc6 pc6 pc6
Multifamily np np pc7 pc7 pc7 pc7 pc7 pc7 pc7 pc7 pc7 pc7
Page 818 (a Residential
np np np np np np np pc8 pc8 pc8 pc8 pc8
c) Convenience Market
Off-Site Manufactured
np np np np np up35 up35 up35 up35 up35 up35 np
Home Developments
Boarding House np np np np np np up9 up9 up9 up9 up9 up9
1-4 Adult Day Care Home pc10 pc10 pc10 pc10 pc10 pc10 pc10 pc10 pc10 pc10 pc10 pc10
5-10 Adult Day Care Home up11 up11 up11 up11 up11 up11 up11 up11 up11 up11 up11 up11
11+ Adult Day Care Center np np np np np np up12 up12 up12 up12 up12 np
1-10 Community Residence
pc13 pc13 pc13 pc13 pc13 pc13 pc13 pc13 pc13 pc13 pc13 pc13
Home
11 + Community Residence
np np np np np np up14 up14 up14 up14 up14 np
Center
1-6 Dependent Care Facility pc15 pc15 pc15 pc15 pc15 pc15 pc15 pc15 pc15 pc15 pc15 pc15
7-12 Dependent Care
up16 up16 up16 up16 up16 up16 up16 up16 up16 up16 up16 up16
Facility
13 + Dependent Care
np np np np np np up17 up17 up17 up17 up17 np
Facility
Group Home np np np np np np up18 up18 up18 up18 up18 up18
Group Foster Home np np np np np np up up p p p np
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023

SECTION AND ZONING DISTRICT
LAND USE CATEGORIES 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 635
RE-35 R1-18 R1-10 R1-8 R1-6 R-2 R-3 R-3A R-4 R-5 R-4A PAD
Governmental Uses p p p p p p p p p p p p
Model Homes and
pc19 pc19 pc19 pc19 pc19 pc19 pc19 pc19 pc19 pc19 pc19 pc19
Subdivision Sales Offices
Public Utility Buildings and
pc20 pc20 pc20 pc20 pc20 pc20 pc20 pc20 pc20 pc20 pc20 pc20
Facilities
Schools, Private pc22 pc22 pc22 pc22 pc22 pc22 pc22 pc22 pc22 pc22 pc22 pc22
Schools, Public p p p p p p p p p p p p
Church/Place of Worship p p p p p p p p p p p p
Accessory To
(a
Church/Place Of pc21 pc21 pc21 pc21 pc21 pc21 pc21 pc21 pc21 pc21 pc21 pc21
c)
Worship
Public Assembly--
pc22 pc22 pc22 pc22 pc22 pc22 pc22 pc22 pc22 pc22 pc22 pc22
Page 819 Residential
Environmental Remediation
up23 up23 up23 up23 up23 up23 up23 up23 up23 up23 up23 up23
Facility
Community Garden pc24 pc24 pc24 pc24 pc24 pc24 pc24 pc24 pc24 pc24 pc24 np
Farmer’s Market pc25 pc25 pc25 pc25 pc25 pc25 pc25 pc25 pc25 pc25 pc25 np
ACCESSORY USES IN RESIDENCE DISTRICTS
Construction Facilities
pc26 pc26 pc26 pc26 pc26 pc26 pc26 pc26 pc26 pc26 pc26 pc26
And Storage
Home Occupations pc27 pc27 pc27 pc27 pc27 pc27 pc27 pc27 pc27 pc27 pc27 pc27
Non-Daily Newspaper
pc28 pc28 pc28 pc28 pc28 pc28 pc28 pc28 pc28 pc28 pc28 pc28
Service
Display For Sale Of
pc29 pc29 pc29 pc29 pc29 pc29 pc29 pc29 pc29 pc29 pc29 pc29
Vehicle
Facilities For
pc30 pc30 pc30 pc30 pc30 pc30 pc30 pc30 pc30 pc30 pc30 pc30
Household Pets
Garage Or Yard Sales pc31 pc31 pc31 pc31 pc31 pc31 pc31 pc31 pc31 pc31 pc31 pc31
Hobbies And
pc32 pc32 pc32 pc32 pc32 pc32 pc32 pc32 pc32 pc32 pc32 pc32
Associated Supplies
Parking (Accessory) pc33 pc33 pc33 pc33 pc33 pc33 pc33 pc33 pc33 pc33 pc33 pc33
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023

SECTION AND ZONING DISTRICT
LAND USE CATEGORIES 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 635
RE-35 R1-18 R1-10 R1-8 R1-6 R-2 R-3 R-3A R-4 R-5 R-4A PAD
Private Tennis /
pc34 pc34 pc34 pc34 pc34 pc34 pc34 pc34 pc34 pc34 pc34 pc34
Outdoor Game Courts




Page 820
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023

Amend Chapter 6, Section 608.E (Residence Districts—Permitted Uses with
Conditions and May Require Approval of a Use Permit Pursuant to Section 307) to
read as follows:

E. Permitted Uses with Conditions and May Require Approval of a Use Permit
Pursuant to Section 307.

1. Churches or similar places of worship, including parish houses, parsonages,
rectories, and convents and dormitories with no more than ten residents
accessory thereto, are permitted in each district, except temporary tents or
buildings. Athletic activities in conjunction with the above and on the same
lot or contiguous lots may be permitted. See Public Assembly—Residential.

a. Bingo may be operated as an accessory use on the premises of the
church when conducted no more than two days a week. Fundraising
events located on the same lot or contiguous lots shall be permitted,
subject to the following requirements:

(1) The sponsoring, organizing and benefiting entities shall be
nonprofit or religious organizations.

b. Events held entirely within a building or buildings shall not be further
regulated; however, events to be conducted wholly or in part outdoors
shall be subject to the following additional conditions:

(1) Any outdoor portion of the event must be located a minimum of
50 feet from a property line adjacent to a residential zoning
district and a residential use.

(2) The event shall not be conducted between the hours of 10:00
p.m. and 5:00 a.m.

(3) The event shall not be conducted in such manner as to reduce
the number of parking spaces required for any normal
functions of the primary use which are held during the event.

(4) Lighting shall be so placed as to reflect the light away from
adjacent residences.

c. Pocket shelters as accessory uses to churches or similar places of
worship, subject to the following standards (and applicable Maricopa
County and City of Phoenix health and safety regulations):




Page 821
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



(1) A pocket shelter shall house no more than 12 unrelated
persons. A pocket shelter may house up to 20 unrelated
persons upon approval of a use permit in accordance with the
procedures and standards of Section 307. Minors (age 18
years or younger) accompanied by a parent or a guardian shall
not be counted in the number of unrelated persons.

(2) The church or similar place of worship shall be located on an
arterial or collector street as defined on the street classification
map. A shelter at a church or similar place of worship which is
not on an arterial or collector street shall be permitted upon
approval of a use permit in accordance with the procedures
and provisions of Section 307.

(3) The church or similar place of worship shall provide on-site
supervision of shelter residents at all times that two or more
unrelated residents are at the shelter.

(4) Drug, alcohol, other substance abuse, or mental health
rehabilitation programs shall not be allowed as part of the
shelter services. This provision shall not prevent the church or
similar place of worship from referring shelter residents to
other appropriate programs at the church or similar place of
worship or elsewhere, e.g., Alcoholics Anonymous, which are
not part of the shelter services.

(5) Shelter residents shall not possess alcohol, weapons, or illegal
drugs at the shelter.

(6) Open areas surrounding pocket shelter structures shall be
screened from view from abutting and/or adjoining properties
by hedges, trees, other landscaping, or walls.

(7) Pocket shelter structures shall not have direct access to
abutting and/or adjoining properties.

(8) Pocket shelters shall be housed in permanent structures rather
than in tents or other similar temporary structures.

(9) A church or similar place of worship shall house no more than
one pocket shelter.




Page 822
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



2. Construction facilities and storage, incidental to a construction project and
located on the project site, are permitted. When such facilities or storage are
used for construction on a lot or lots other than the lot or lots used for such
facilities or storage, such use shall maintain the setbacks provided by the
requirements of this chapter and shall be subject to securing a use permit.
When such facilities and storage serve a residential subdivision, are
approved in conjunction with model homes by the Planning and
Development Department, and meet all of the standards listed below, no
use permit is required:

a. The facilities shall not be placed on a lot which abuts, joins at the
corners, or is across a street or alley from a dwelling unit which is
under construction or occupied at the time of said placement, unless
written agreement to the placement is given by the owner or occupant
of the affected property.

b. All outside storage shall be screened by a six-foot-high solid fence or
masonry wall. No construction vehicles or machinery shall be placed
within ten feet of the screen fence or wall.

c. All signs on the facility shall fully comply with Section 705, the Sign
Code.

d. All facilities and storage shall be removed within three months of the
closure of the model homes.

3. Home occupations including but not limited to architect, lawyer, off-site sales
businesses, accountant, real estate agent, telemarketing sales, and
psychologist. For purposes of this section, off-site sales means processing
orders by mail, facsimile, phone, modem or Internet.

a. No one outside the family residing in the dwelling unit shall be
employed in the home occupation.

b. No exterior display, no exterior storage of materials, no sign, and no
other exterior indication of the home occupation or variation from the
residential character of the principal or accessory building, except as
authorized in Section 608.E.3.h.

c. No home occupation shall emit odor, dust, gas, noise, vibration,
smoke, heat, or glare beyond any boundary of the lot on which the
home occupation is conducted.




Page 823
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



d. Activity shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00
p.m.

e. No mechanical equipment shall be used except that normally used for
domestic, hobby, standard office, or household purposes.

f. Not more than 25 percent of the total area under roof on the site shall
be used for any home occupation.

g. Any parking incidental to the home occupation shall be provided on
the site.

h. Home occupations shall obtain a use permit from the Zoning
Administrator in accordance with Section 307 when:

(1) Traffic (other than trips by occupants of the household) is
generated by the home occupation; or

(2) The home occupation is conducted in an accessory building; or

(3) The home occupation is conducted as an outside use; or

(4) Minor variations to Section 608.E.3.c are required to conduct
the home occupation; or

(5) An applicant desires an official approval of a home occupation.

i. A home occupation shall not include, but such exclusion shall not be
limited to, the following uses:

(1) Barbershops and beauty parlors.

(2) Commercial stables, veterinary offices.

(3) Dog grooming.

(4) Massage parlors.

(5) Reserved.

(6) Restaurants.

(7) Veterinary hospitals and commercial kennels.




Page 824
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023




4. Model homes and/or subdivision sales offices when located in model homes
subject to approval of the Planning and Development Department’s
representative to the Site Planning Division, and subject to the following
conditions:

a. Such model home and/or subdivision sales offices shall be located in
a subdivision or portion thereof 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 608.E.4.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 608.E.4.b or upon expiration of the extension
granted by the Zoning Administrator pursuant to Section 608.E.4.c, or
after six months following sale or occupancy of all lots in the
subdivision other than the model homes, whichever comes 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 400 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 Section 608.E.4.a and d, the term "subdivision"
shall mean all the land included within the preliminary plat submitted
to the 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;




Page 825
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



(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 608.C.1.

g. Modular subdivision sales office, subject to the following criteria:

(1) The structure shall be integrated with, architecturally
compatible to, and blend in color to the model homes approved
for the subdivision, as determined by the Planning and
Development Department.

(2) Modular subdivision sales offices shall be permitted for a
period not to exceed 36 months from the date of approval for
the sales offices.

(3) The time limit allowed in Section 608.E.4.g.2 for an additional
36 months shall be extended only upon securing a use permit.

(4) The modular subdivision sales office shall be removed on or
before the termination date set forth in Section 608.E.4.g.2 or
upon expiration of the extension granted by the Zoning
Administrator or after six months following sale or occupancy
of all lots in the subdivision other than the model homes,
whichever comes first.

(5) For the purposes of this section, the term "subdivision" shall
mean all of the land included within the preliminary plat
submitted to the Planning and Development Department.

(6) Prior to issuance of any sales office permits, a site plan shall
be approved by the Planning and Development Department for
verification of setback conformance.

(7) Two signs are permitted. Signs shall not exceed a combined
total of 32 square feet.

(8) One sales office shall be permitted for each model home
complex allowed in accordance with Section 608.E.4.h.




Page 826
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



h. 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 400 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 dust proofed.

(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.

5. Nondaily newspaper delivery service shall be permitted subject to the
following limitations:

a. Delivered bulk materials related to nondaily publications shall be
transferred to an enclosed building or secured area so that materials
are not visible from the street or adjacent properties unless for
preparation of materials for same day distribution. Preparation of
materials for same day distribution may occur on or about adjacent
public rights-of-way; provided, that materials do not remain in public
view for longer than 24 hours.

b. Materials stored for periods greater than 24 hours shall be enclosed
within a building or secured by a wall or fence of such material,
construction, and height so as to conceal the materials located.

c. Activities relating to and/or accessory to the preparation of materials
stored for periods greater than 24 hours shall occur within an
enclosed building or an area secured by a wall or fence of such
material, construction, and height so as to completely conceal the
activities.




Page 827
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023




d. Such delivery shall be limited to two bulk deliveries in a seven-day
period. More frequent deliveries shall require a use permit in
accordance with the procedures of Section 307.

e. No traffic other than that required for the bulk delivery and pickup
shall be allowed by outside employees. Any other business-related
traffic shall require a use permit in accordance with the procedures of
Section 307.

6. Public Assembly—Residential. A use permit shall be required for all public
assembly—residential uses with vehicular access on local or minor collector
streets.

E. LAND USE CONDITIONS.

1. SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DWELLING UNIT. EACH SINGLE-FAMILY
LOT IS PERMITTED ONE (1) 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 (1)
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT IN ADDITION TO THE PRIMARY
DWELLING UNIT, EXCEPT THAT LOTS HAVING A DUPLEX OR
TRIPLEX MAY NOT HAVE AN ADU.

b. AN ADU IS SUBJECT TO THE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF
SECTION 706.A.

3. GUESTROOMS. EACH SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING UNIT MAY CONTAIN
NO MORE THAN TWO GUESTROOMS.

4. DUPLEX:

a. SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS: ONE (1) DUPLEX IS PERMITTED PER
LOT WHEN ALLOWED BY THE UNDERLYING ZONING DISTRICT
AND DEVELOPMENT OPTION. THE LOT MUST BE OF THE
MINIMUM SIZE REQUIRED BY THE APPLICABLE DENSITY TO
PERMIT TWO DWELLING UNITS.




Page 828
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



b. MULTIFAMILY LOTS: DUPLEXES ARE PERMITTED WHEN
ALLOWED BY THE UNDERLYING ZONING DISTRICT AND
DEVELOPMENT OPTION. THE LOT MUST BE OF THE MINIMUM
SIZE REQUIRED BY THE APPLICABLE DENSITY TO PERMIT THE
NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS PROPOSED.

5. TRIPLEX:

a. SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS: ONE (1) TRIPLEX IS PERMITTED PER
LOT WHEN ALLOWED BY THE UNDERLYING ZONING DISTRICT
AND DEVELOPMENT OPTION. THE LOT MUST BE OF THE
MINIMUM SIZE REQUIRED BY THE APPLICABLE DENSITY TO
PERMIT THREE DWELLING UNITS.

b. MULTIFAMILY LOTS: TRIPLEXES ARE PERMITTED WHEN
ALLOWED BY THE UNDERLYING ZONING DISTRICT AND
DEVELOPMENT OPTION. THE LOT MUST BE OF THE MINIMUM
SIZE REQUIRED BY THE APPLICABLE DENSITY TO PERMIT THE
NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS PROPOSED.

6. SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED DWELLING UNIT. ONE (1) SINGLE-
FAMILY ATTACHED DWELLING UNIT IS PERMITTED PER SINGLE-
FAMILY LOT WHEN ALLOWED BY THE UNDERLYING ZONING
DISTRICT AND DEVELOPMENT OPTION.

7 MULTIFAMILY DWELLING UNITS. MULTIFAMILY DWELLING UNITS
ARE PERMITTED WHEN ALLOWED BY THE UNDERLYING ZONING
DISTRICT AND DEVELOPMENT OPTION.

8. RESIDENTIAL CONVENIENCE MARKET. A RESIDENTIAL
CONVENIENCE MARKET IS PERMITTED AS AN ACCESSORY USE TO A
MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT WHERE SPECIFIED IN THE
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT LAND USE MATRIX, SUBJECT TO THE
FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:

a. THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL CONTAIN A MINIMUM OF 400
DWELLING UNITS.




Page 829
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



b. THE MARKET SHALL NOT EXCEED 1,000 SQUARE FEET IN
TOTAL FLOOR AREA (DISPLAY AND STORAGE) IF THE
DEVELOPMENT CONTAINS LESS THAN 850 DWELLING UNITS.
THE MARKET SHALL NOT EXCEED 3,000 SQUARE FEET IN
TOTAL FLOOR AREA (DISPLAY AND STORAGE) IF THE
DEVELOPMENT CONTAINS 850 OR MORE DWELLING UNITS.

c. NO PARKING SPACES SHALL BE REQUIRED OR PERMITTED
FOR THE MARKET EXCEPT FOR SPACES DESIGNATED FOR
DELIVERIES OR HANDICAPPED INDIVIDUALS.

d. SIGNAGE SHALL BE ALLOWED ONLY AS PART OF A
COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PLAN PURSUANT TO SECTION 705.
THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MAY APPROVE WALL MOUNTED
SIGNAGE UP TO A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 30 FEET AS PART OF
AN APPROVED COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PLAN.

9. BOARDING HOUSE, SUBJECT TO A USE PERMIT AND THE
FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:

a. 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.

b. NO BOARDING HOUSE 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 BOARDING HOUSE, GROUP HOME, OR COMMUNITY
RESIDENCE HOME OR CENTER WITHIN A RESIDENTIAL
ZONING DISTRICT.

c. A MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE OF 25 PERCENT.

d. A MINIMUM OF 100 SQUARE FEET OF USABLE OUTDOOR OPEN
SPACE PER BED SHALL BE PROVIDED, WHICH MAY BE
REDUCED TO 50 SQUARE FEET OF USABLE OUTDOOR OPEN
SPACE PER BED IN THE R-5 AND R-4A DISTRICTS.

e. THE LOT SHALL ONLY HAVE VEHICULAR ACCESS FROM AN
ARTERIAL OR COLLECTOR STREET.




Page 830
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



10. ADULT DAY CARE HOME FOR THE CARE OF ONE TO FOUR ADULT
PERSONS; PROVIDED THAT:

a. OUTDOOR RECREATION AREAS SHALL BE SCREENED FROM
ADJACENT PROPERTIES BY A SIX-FOOT-HIGH LANDSCAPE
HEDGE, SOLID FENCE, OR SOLID WALL.

11. ADULT DAY CARE HOME FOR THE CARE OF FIVE TO TEN ADULT
PERSONS, SUBJECT TO A USE PERMIT; AND PROVIDED THAT:

a. OUTDOOR RECREATION AREAS SHALL BE SCREENED FROM
ADJACENT PROPERTIES BY A SIX-FOOT-HIGH LANDSCAPE
HEDGE, SOLID FENCE, OR SOLID WALL.

12. ADULT DAY CARE CENTER FOR THE CARE OF ELEVEN OR MORE
ADULT PERSONS, SUBJECT TO A USE PERMIT; AND PROVIDED
THAT:

a. OUTDOOR RECREATION AREAS SHALL BE SCREENED FROM
ADJACENT PROPERTIES BY A SIX-FOOT-HIGH LANDSCAPE
HEDGE, SOLID FENCE, OR SOLID WALL.

13. COMMUNITY RESIDENCE HOME; PROVIDED, THAT:

a. THE HOME HAS NO MORE THAN FIVE RESIDENTS, NOT
INCLUDING STAFF (UNLESS PERMITTED BY SECTION 36-
582(A), ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES).

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.




Page 831
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023




(3) DISABILITY ACCOMMODATION FROM THE SPACING
REQUIREMENT MAY BE REQUESTED BY AN APPLICANT
PER SECTION 701.E.3.

14. COMMUNITY RESIDENCE CENTER, SUBJECT TO A USE PERMIT AND
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:

a. SUCH CENTER 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.

b. NO COMMUNITY RESIDENCE CENTER 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 OR CENTER WITHIN
A RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT.

c. DISABILITY ACCOMMODATION FROM THE SPACING
REQUIREMENT MAY BE REQUESTED BY AN APPLICANT PER
SECTION 701.E.3.

d. A MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE OF 25 PERCENT.

e. A MINIMUM OF 100 SQUARE FEET OF USABLE OUTDOOR OPEN
SPACE PER BED SHALL BE PROVIDED, WHICH MAY BE
REDUCED TO 50 SQUARE FEET OF USABLE OUTDOOR OPEN
SPACE PER BED IN THE R-5 AND R-4A DISTRICTS.

f. THE LOT SHALL ONLY HAVE VEHICULAR ACCESS FROM AN
ARTERIAL OR COLLECTOR STREET.

15. DEPENDENT CARE FACILITY FOR UP TO SIX DEPENDENTS,
SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:

a. RESIDENT DEPENDENTS UNDER THE AGE OF 12 YEARS SHALL
NOT BE COUNTED.

b. OUTDOOR PLAY AREAS SHALL BE SCREENED FROM
ADJACENT PROPERTIES BY A SIX-FOOT-HIGH LANDSCAPE
HEDGE, SOLID FENCE, OR SOLID WALL.




Page 832
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023




c. THE EMPLOYEES MUST RESIDE AT THE FACILITY UNLESS A
NONRESIDENT EMPLOYEE IS REQUIRED BY THE ARIZONA
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES.

16. DEPENDENT CARE FACILITY FOR SEVEN TO 12 DEPENDENTS,
SUBJECT TO OBTAINING A USE PERMIT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
PROVISIONS OF SECTION 307 AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING
STANDARDS:

a. RESIDENT DEPENDENTS UNDER THE AGE OF 12 YEARS SHALL
NOT BE COUNTED WHEN THEY ARE PRESENT ON THE
PREMISES.

b. OUTDOOR PLAY AREAS SHALL BE SCREENED FROM
ADJACENT PROPERTIES BY A SIX-FOOT-HIGH LANDSCAPE
HEDGE, SOLID FENCE, OR SOLID WALL.

c. HOURS OF OPERATION SHALL BE ONLY BETWEEN 6:00 A.M.
AND 10:00 P.M. THESE HOURS MAY BE RESTRICTED AS PART
OF THE USE PERMIT APPROVAL.

d. NONRESIDENT EMPLOYEES MAY BE PERMITTED WITH THE
USE PERMIT IF NECESSARY TO MEET STATE REQUIREMENTS.

e. ONE PARKING SPACE SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR EACH
EMPLOYEE WHO DOES NOT RESIDE AT THE FACILITY.

f. NO SIGNAGE SHALL BE PERMITTED.

g. THE FACILITY SHALL BE SUBJECT TO ARIZONA LICENSING
REQUIREMENTS.

17. DEPENDENT CARE FACILITY FOR 13 OR MORE DEPENDENTS AND
SCHOOLS FOR THE MENTALLY OR PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED
SUBJECT TO SECURING A USE PERMIT PURSUANT TO SECTION 307.

18. GROUP HOME, SUBJECT TO A USE PERMIT AND THE FOLLOWING
CONDITIONS:




Page 833
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



a. 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.

b. NO GROUP 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 GROUP HOME, BOARDING HOUSE, OR COMMUNITY
RESIDENCE HOME OR CENTER WITHIN A RESIDENTIAL
ZONING DISTRICT.

c. A MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE OF 25 PERCENT.

d. A MINIMUM OF 100 SQUARE FEET OF USABLE OUTDOOR OPEN
SPACE PER BED SHALL BE PROVIDED, WHICH MAY BE
REDUCED TO 50 SQUARE FEET OF USABLE OUTDOOR OPEN
SPACE PER BED IN THE R-5 AND R-4A DISTRICTS.

e. THE LOT SHALL ONLY HAVE VEHICULAR ACCESS FROM AN
ARTERIAL OR COLLECTOR STREET.

19. MODEL HOMES AND/OR SUBDIVISION SALES OFFICES WHEN
LOCATED IN MODEL HOMES; PROVIDED THAT:

a. MODEL HOMES ARE PERMITTED SUBJECT TO THE
FOLLOWING:

(1) A DEVELOPER OF A SINGLE-FAMILY SUBDIVISION SHALL
BE ALLOWED TO BUILD MODEL HOMES PRIOR TO
RECORDING A SUBDIVISION PLAT, SUBJECT TO THE
PROVISIONS BELOW AND SUBJECT TO SUBMITTING
MODEL COMPLEX SITE PLAN WHICH SHALL SHOW THE
FOLLOWING INFORMATION FOR EACH MODEL HOME
LOT:

(2) STREET ADDRESSES FOR EACH MODEL HOME AS
ASSIGNED BY THE WATER SERVICES DEPARTMENT.

(3) FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATIONS FOR EACH MODEL HOME
AS ASSIGNED BY THE DIVISION OF ENGINEERING.




Page 834
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



(4) PROPOSED LOTS FOR MODEL HOMES SHALL BE IN
CONFORMANCE WITH LOT LINES AS SHOWN ON THE
APPROVED PRELIMINARY PLAN.

(5) EACH MODEL HOME SHALL BE LOCATED ON EACH
PROPOSED LOT IN CONFORMANCE WITH YARD
REQUIREMENTS OF THE DISTRICT.

(6) THE FINAL PLAT IS NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE FINAL
APPROVAL PRIOR TO OBTAINING PERMITS FOR MODEL
HOMES.

b. MODEL HOMES AND/OR SUBDIVISION SALES OFFICES SHALL
BE LOCATED IN A SUBDIVISION OR PORTION THEREOF 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.

c. 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.

d. THE TIME LIMIT ALLOWED IN SECTION 608.E.19.C FOR AN
ADDITIONAL 36 MONTHS SHALL BE EXTENDED ONLY UPON
SECURING A USE PERMIT.




Page 835
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



e. 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 608.E.19.C OR UPON EXPIRATION OF THE
EXTENSION GRANTED BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
PURSUANT TO SECTION 608.E.19.D, OR AFTER SIX MONTHS
FOLLOWING SALE OR OCCUPANCY OF ALL LOTS IN THE
SUBDIVISION OTHER THAN THE MODEL HOMES, WHICHEVER
COMES 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 400 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.

f. FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 608.E.19.C AND D, THE
TERM "SUBDIVISION" SHALL MEAN ALL THE LAND INCLUDED
WITHIN THE PRELIMINARY PLAT SUBMITTED TO THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

g. 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
608.E.19.A.

h. MODULAR SUBDIVISION SALES OFFICE, SUBJECT TO THE
FOLLOWING CRITERIA:




Page 836
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



(1) THE STRUCTURE SHALL BE INTEGRATED WITH,
ARCHITECTURALLY COMPATIBLE TO, AND BLEND IN
COLOR TO THE MODEL HOMES APPROVED FOR THE
SUBDIVISION, AS DETERMINED BY THE PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

(2) MODULAR SUBDIVISION SALES OFFICES SHALL BE
PERMITTED FOR A PERIOD NOT TO EXCEED 36 MONTHS
FROM THE DATE OF APPROVAL FOR THE SALES
OFFICES.

(3) THE TIME LIMIT ALLOWED IN SECTION 608.E.19.H(2) FOR
AN ADDITIONAL 36 MONTHS SHALL BE EXTENDED ONLY
UPON SECURING A USE PERMIT.

(4) THE MODULAR SUBDIVISION SALES OFFICE SHALL BE
REMOVED ON OR BEFORE THE TERMINATION DATE SET
FORTH IN SECTION 608.E.19.H(2) OR UPON EXPIRATION
OF THE EXTENSION GRANTED BY THE ZONING
ADMINISTRATOR OR AFTER SIX MONTHS FOLLOWING
SALE OR OCCUPANCY OF ALL LOTS IN THE SUBDIVISION
OTHER THAN THE MODEL HOMES, WHICHEVER COMES
FIRST.

(5) FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, THE TERM
"SUBDIVISION" SHALL MEAN ALL OF THE LAND
INCLUDED WITHIN THE PRELIMINARY PLAT SUBMITTED
TO THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

(6) PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF ANY SALES OFFICE PERMITS, A
SITE PLAN SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR VERIFICATION OF
SETBACK CONFORMANCE.

(7) TWO SIGNS ARE PERMITTED. SIGNS SHALL NOT
EXCEED A COMBINED TOTAL OF 32 SQUARE FEET.

(8) ONE SALES OFFICE SHALL BE PERMITTED FOR EACH
MODEL HOME COMPLEX ALLOWED IN ACCORDANCE
WITH SECTION 608.E.19.I.




Page 837
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



i. 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 400
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
DUST PROOFED.

(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.

20. PUBLIC UTILITY BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES WHEN NECESSARY
FOR SERVING THE SURROUNDING TERRITORY; PROVIDED, THAT NO
PUBLIC BUSINESS OFFICES AND NO REPAIR OR STORAGE
FACILITIES ARE MAINTAINED THEREIN, ARE PERMITTED IN EACH
DISTRICT.

21. CHURCHES OR SIMILAR PLACES OF WORSHIP, INCLUDING PARISH
HOUSES, PARSONAGES, RECTORIES, AND CONVENTS AND
DORMITORIES WITH NO MORE THAN TEN RESIDENTS ACCESSORY
THERETO, ARE PERMITTED IN EACH DISTRICT, EXCEPT TEMPORARY
TENTS OR BUILDINGS. ATHLETIC ACTIVITIES IN CONJUNCTION WITH
THE ABOVE AND ON THE SAME LOT OR CONTIGUOUS LOTS MAY BE
PERMITTED. ALL CHURCH USES ARE ALSO CONSIDERED “PUBLIC
ASSEMBLY—RESIDENTIAL”, AND ARE SUBJECT TO SECTION
608.E.22.




Page 838
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023




a. BINGO MAY BE OPERATED AS AN ACCESSORY USE ON THE
PREMISES OF THE CHURCH WHEN CONDUCTED NO MORE
THAN TWO DAYS A WEEK. FUNDRAISING EVENTS LOCATED
ON THE SAME LOT OR CONTIGUOUS LOTS SHALL BE
PERMITTED, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS:

(1) THE SPONSORING, ORGANIZING AND BENEFITING
ENTITIES SHALL BE NONPROFIT OR RELIGIOUS
ORGANIZATIONS.

b. EVENTS HELD ENTIRELY WITHIN A BUILDING OR BUILDINGS
SHALL NOT BE FURTHER REGULATED; HOWEVER, EVENTS TO
BE CONDUCTED WHOLLY OR IN PART OUTDOORS SHALL BE
SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS:

(1) ANY OUTDOOR PORTION OF THE EVENT MUST BE
LOCATED A MINIMUM OF 50 FEET FROM A PROPERTY
LINE ADJACENT TO A RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT
AND A RESIDENTIAL USE.

(2) THE EVENT SHALL NOT BE CONDUCTED BETWEEN THE
HOURS OF 10:00 P.M. AND 5:00 A.M.

(3) THE EVENT SHALL NOT BE CONDUCTED IN SUCH
MANNER AS TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF PARKING
SPACES REQUIRED FOR ANY NORMAL FUNCTIONS OF
THE PRIMARY USE WHICH ARE HELD DURING THE
EVENT.

(4) LIGHTING SHALL BE SO PLACED AS TO REFLECT THE
LIGHT AWAY FROM ADJACENT RESIDENCES.

c. POCKET SHELTERS AS ACCESSORY USES TO CHURCHES OR
SIMILAR PLACES OF WORSHIP, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING
STANDARDS (AND APPLICABLE MARICOPA COUNTY AND CITY
OF PHOENIX HEALTH AND SAFETY REGULATIONS):




Page 839
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



(1) A POCKET SHELTER SHALL HOUSE NO MORE THAN 12
UNRELATED PERSONS. A POCKET SHELTER MAY
HOUSE UP TO 20 UNRELATED PERSONS UPON
APPROVAL OF A USE PERMIT IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE PROCEDURES AND STANDARDS OF SECTION 307.
MINORS (AGE 18 YEARS OR YOUNGER) ACCOMPANIED
BY A PARENT OR A GUARDIAN SHALL NOT BE COUNTED
IN THE NUMBER OF UNRELATED PERSONS.

(2) THE CHURCH OR SIMILAR PLACE OF WORSHIP SHALL
BE LOCATED ON AN ARTERIAL OR COLLECTOR STREET
AS DEFINED ON THE STREET CLASSIFICATION MAP. A
SHELTER AT A CHURCH OR SIMILAR PLACE OF
WORSHIP WHICH IS NOT ON AN ARTERIAL OR
COLLECTOR STREET SHALL BE PERMITTED UPON
APPROVAL OF A USE PERMIT IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE PROCEDURES AND PROVISIONS OF SECTION 307.

(3) THE CHURCH OR SIMILAR PLACE OF WORSHIP SHALL
PROVIDE ON-SITE SUPERVISION OF SHELTER
RESIDENTS AT ALL TIMES THAT TWO OR MORE
UNRELATED RESIDENTS ARE AT THE SHELTER.

(4) (DRUG, ALCOHOL, OTHER SUBSTANCE ABUSE, OR
MENTAL HEALTH REHABILITATION PROGRAMS SHALL
NOT BE ALLOWED AS PART OF THE SHELTER SERVICES.
THIS PROVISION SHALL NOT PREVENT THE CHURCH OR
SIMILAR PLACE OF WORSHIP FROM REFERRING
SHELTER RESIDENTS TO OTHER APPROPRIATE
PROGRAMS AT THE CHURCH OR SIMILAR PLACE OF
WORSHIP OR ELSEWHERE, E.G., ALCOHOLICS
ANONYMOUS, WHICH ARE NOT PART OF THE SHELTER
SERVICES.

(5) SHELTER RESIDENTS SHALL NOT POSSESS ALCOHOL,
WEAPONS, OR ILLEGAL DRUGS AT THE SHELTER.

(6) OPEN AREAS SURROUNDING POCKET SHELTER
STRUCTURES SHALL BE SCREENED FROM VIEW FROM
ABUTTING AND/OR ADJOINING PROPERTIES BY
HEDGES, TREES, OTHER LANDSCAPING, OR WALLS.




Page 840
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



(7) POCKET SHELTER STRUCTURES SHALL NOT HAVE
DIRECT ACCESS TO ABUTTING AND/OR ADJOINING
PROPERTIES.

(8) POCKET SHELTERS SHALL BE HOUSED IN PERMANENT
STRUCTURES RATHER THAN IN TENTS OR OTHER
SIMILAR TEMPORARY STRUCTURES.

(9) A CHURCH OR SIMILAR PLACE OF WORSHIP SHALL
HOUSE NO MORE THAN ONE POCKET SHELTER.

22. PUBLIC ASSEMBLY—RESIDENTIAL. A USE PERMIT SHALL BE
REQUIRED FOR ALL PUBLIC ASSEMBLY—RESIDENTIAL USES
HAVING VEHICULAR ACCESS TO LOCAL OR MINOR COLLECTOR
STREETS, INCLUDING PRIVATE SCHOOLS AND CHURCH USES.

23. ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION FACILITY, SUBJECT TO THE
FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:

a. A USE PERMIT SHALL BE OBTAINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH
SECTION 307.

b. THE ABOVE GROUND AREA OF LAND OCCUPIED BY THE
ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION FACILITY SHALL NOT EXCEED
THE MINIMUM NUMBER OF SQUARE FEET NECESSARY TO
IMPLEMENT THE REMEDIAL OR CORRECTIVE ACTION.

c. ALL STRUCTURES AND DEVICES CONSTRUCTED ABOVE
GROUND LEVEL SHALL BE SHIELDED FROM THE VIEW OF
PERSONS OUTSIDE THE PROPERTY BOUNDARY BY AN
OPAQUE FENCE CONSTRUCTED OF MATERIALS OF SIMILAR
COMPOSITION AND APPEARANCE TO FENCES AND
STRUCTURES ON NEARBY PROPERTY.

d. OUTDOOR EQUIPMENT INSTALLED AS PART OF THE FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION FACILITY SHALL NOT EXCEED
A HEIGHT OF TEN FEET AND SHALL BE SET BACK FROM THE
PERIMETER WALL A MINIMUM OF THREE FEET FOR EVERY
ONE FOOT OF HEIGHT OVER SIX FEET.

e. AFTER INSTALLATION, NO EQUIPMENT OR MATERIALS
BEYOND THAT NECESSARY TO OPERATE THE FACILITY SHALL
BE STORED ON THE LOT.




Page 841
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023




f. A PERIMETER LANDSCAPING PLAN SHALL BE APPROVED BY
THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AS
NECESSARY UNLESS AN APPLICABLE APPROVED LANDSCAPE
PLAN ALREADY EXISTS.

g. ANY LIGHTING SHALL BE PLACED SO AS TO REFLECT THE
LIGHT AWAY FROM ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS.
NOISE, ODOR, OR VIBRATION SHALL NOT BE EMITTED ANY
TIME BY THE FACILITY SO THAT IT EXCEEDS THE GENERAL
LEVEL OF NOISE, ODOR, OR VIBRATION EMITTED BY USES
OUTSIDE THE SITE. SUCH COMPARISON SHALL BE MADE AT
THE BOUNDARY OF THE LOT ON WHICH THE TREATMENT
FACILITY IS LOCATED.

h. THE FACILITY SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE
PROVISIONS OF THE FIRE CODE.

i. A PERMIT ISSUED UNDER SECTION 307 SHALL INCLUDE
REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS ON THE OPERATION OF THE
FACILITY TO MITIGATE ANY ADVERSE IMPACTS ON NEARBY
LAND, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO RESTRICTIONS ON
VEHICULAR TRAFFIC AND HOURS OF OPERATION OF THE
FACILITY.

j. THIS SECTION ALLOWS AUTHORIZATION OF ACTIVITIES TO
UNDERTAKE ALL ON-SITE INVESTIGATIVE, CONSTRUCTION,
AND MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES ANCILLARY TO THE
OPERATION OF THE FACILITY. ALL OFF-SITE DISCHARGES OF
ANY SUBSTANCE SHALL BE SEPARATELY AUTHORIZED
PURSUANT TO APPLICABLE LAWS.

k. THE STRUCTURES USED FOR THE FACILITY SHALL NOT
EXCEED A TOTAL AREA OF 5,000 SQUARE FEET.

24. COMMUNITY GARDEN. ACCESSORY SALES OF PRODUCTS
CULTIVATED ON SITE WITHIN TEN DAYS OF HARVESTING SUBJECT
TO APPROVAL OF A USE PERMIT PURSUANT TO SECTION 307. ON-
SITE OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS MAY BE
STIPULATED AS A CONDITION OF USE PERMIT APPROVAL.




Page 842
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



25. FARMERS MARKET, SUBJECT TO OBTAINING A USE PERMIT IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 307 AND
SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING STANDARDS: FARMERS MARKET,
SUBJECT TO OBTAINING A USE PERMIT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
PROVISIONS OF SECTION 307 AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING
STANDARDS:

a. NO MORE THAN SIX ONE-DAY MARKET EVENTS IN ANY 30-DAY
PERIOD.

b. HOURS OF OPERATION SHALL BE ONLY BETWEEN 7:00 A.M.
AND 9:00 P.M. THESE HOURS MAY BE RESTRICTED AS PART
OF THE USE PERMIT APPROVAL.

c. NO SIGNAGE SHALL BE PERMITTED.

d. ON-SITE IMPROVEMENTS AND OTHER OPERATIONAL
CONDITIONS MAY BE STIPULATED AS A CONDITION OF USE
PERMIT APPROVAL.

26. CONSTRUCTION FACILITIES AND STORAGE, INCIDENTAL TO A
CONSTRUCTION PROJECT AND LOCATED ON THE PROJECT SITE,
ARE PERMITTED. WHEN SUCH FACILITIES OR STORAGE ARE USED
FOR CONSTRUCTION ON A LOT OR LOTS OTHER THAN THE LOT OR
LOTS USED FOR SUCH FACILITIES OR STORAGE, SUCH USE SHALL
MAINTAIN THE SETBACKS PROVIDED BY THE REQUIREMENTS OF
THIS CHAPTER AND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO SECURING A USE
PERMIT. WHEN SUCH FACILITIES AND STORAGE SERVE A
RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION, ARE APPROVED IN CONJUNCTION WITH
MODEL HOMES BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT, AND MEET ALL OF THE STANDARDS LISTED BELOW,
NO USE PERMIT IS REQUIRED:

a. THE FACILITIES SHALL NOT BE PLACED ON A LOT WHICH
ABUTS, JOINS AT THE CORNERS, OR IS ACROSS A STREET OR
ALLEY FROM A DWELLING UNIT WHICH IS UNDER
CONSTRUCTION OR OCCUPIED AT THE TIME OF SAID
PLACEMENT, UNLESS WRITTEN AGREEMENT TO THE
PLACEMENT IS GIVEN BY THE OWNER OR OCCUPANT OF THE
AFFECTED PROPERTY.

b. ALL OUTSIDE STORAGE SHALL BE SCREENED BY A SIX-FOOT-
HIGH SOLID FENCE OR MASONRY WALL. NO CONSTRUCTION




Page 843
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



VEHICLES OR MACHINERY SHALL BE PLACED WITHIN TEN
FEET OF THE SCREEN FENCE OR WALL.

c. ALL SIGNS ON THE FACILITY SHALL FULLY COMPLY WITH
SECTION 705, THE SIGN CODE.

d. ALL FACILITIES AND STORAGE SHALL BE REMOVED WITHIN
THREE MONTHS OF THE CLOSURE OF THE MODEL HOMES.

27. HOME OCCUPATIONS INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ARCHITECT,
LAWYER, OFF-SITE SALES BUSINESSES, ACCOUNTANT, REAL
ESTATE AGENT, TELEMARKETING SALES, AND PSYCHOLOGIST. FOR
PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, OFF-SITE SALES MEANS
PROCESSING ORDERS BY MAIL, FACSIMILE, PHONE, MODEM OR
INTERNET.

a. NO ONE OUTSIDE THE FAMILY RESIDING IN THE DWELLING
UNIT SHALL BE EMPLOYED IN THE HOME OCCUPATION.

b. NO EXTERIOR DISPLAY, NO EXTERIOR STORAGE OF
MATERIALS, NO SIGN, AND NO OTHER EXTERIOR INDICATION
OF THE HOME OCCUPATION OR VARIATION FROM THE
RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE PRINCIPAL OR ACCESSORY
BUILDING, EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED IN SECTION 608.E.3.H.

c. NO HOME OCCUPATION SHALL EMIT ODOR, DUST, GAS,
NOISE, VIBRATION, SMOKE, HEAT, OR GLARE BEYOND ANY
BOUNDARY OF THE LOT ON WHICH THE HOME OCCUPATION
IS CONDUCTED.

d. ACTIVITY SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE HOURS BETWEEN 7:00
A.M. AND 10:00 P.M.

e. NO MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT SHALL BE USED EXCEPT THAT
NORMALLY USED FOR DOMESTIC, HOBBY, STANDARD OFFICE,
OR HOUSEHOLD PURPOSES.

f. NOT MORE THAN 25 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL AREA UNDER
ROOF ON THE SITE SHALL BE USED FOR ANY HOME
OCCUPATION.

g. ANY PARKING INCIDENTAL TO THE HOME OCCUPATION SHALL
BE PROVIDED ON THE SITE.




Page 844
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023




h. HOME OCCUPATIONS SHALL OBTAIN A USE PERMIT FROM THE
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 307
WHEN:

(1) TRAFFIC (OTHER THAN TRIPS BY OCCUPANTS OF THE
HOUSEHOLD) IS GENERATED BY THE HOME
OCCUPATION; OR

(2) THE HOME OCCUPATION IS CONDUCTED IN AN
ACCESSORY BUILDING, INCLUDING AN ADU; OR

(3) THE HOME OCCUPATION IS CONDUCTED AS AN
OUTSIDE USE; OR

(4) MINOR VARIATIONS TO SECTION 608.E.3.C ARE
REQUIRED TO CONDUCT THE HOME OCCUPATION; OR

(5) AN APPLICANT DESIRES AN OFFICIAL APPROVAL OF A
HOME OCCUPATION.

i. A HOME OCCUPATION SHALL NOT INCLUDE, BUT SUCH
EXCLUSION SHALL NOT BE LIMITED TO, THE FOLLOWING
USES:

(1) BARBERSHOPS AND BEAUTY PARLORS.

(2) COMMERCIAL STABLES, VETERINARY OFFICES.

(3) DOG GROOMING.

(4) MASSAGE PARLORS.

(5) RESTAURANTS.

(6) VETERINARY HOSPITALS AND COMMERCIAL KENNELS.

28. NONDAILY NEWSPAPER DELIVERY SERVICE SHALL BE PERMITTED
SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING LIMITATIONS:

a. DELIVERED BULK MATERIALS RELATED TO NONDAILY
PUBLICATIONS SHALL BE TRANSFERRED TO AN ENCLOSED
BUILDING OR SECURED AREA SO THAT MATERIALS ARE NOT




Page 845
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



VISIBLE FROM THE STREET OR ADJACENT PROPERTIES
UNLESS FOR PREPARATION OF MATERIALS FOR SAME DAY
DISTRIBUTION. PREPARATION OF MATERIALS FOR SAME DAY
DISTRIBUTION MAY OCCUR ON OR ABOUT ADJACENT PUBLIC
RIGHTS-OF-WAY; PROVIDED, THAT MATERIALS DO NOT
REMAIN IN PUBLIC VIEW FOR LONGER THAN 24 HOURS.

b. MATERIALS STORED FOR PERIODS GREATER THAN 24 HOURS
SHALL BE ENCLOSED WITHIN A BUILDING OR SECURED BY A
WALL OR FENCE OF SUCH MATERIAL, CONSTRUCTION, AND
HEIGHT SO AS TO CONCEAL THE MATERIALS LOCATED.

c. ACTIVITIES RELATING TO AND/OR ACCESSORY TO THE
PREPARATION OF MATERIALS STORED FOR PERIODS
GREATER THAN 24 HOURS SHALL OCCUR WITHIN AN
ENCLOSED BUILDING OR AN AREA SECURED BY A WALL OR
FENCE OF SUCH MATERIAL, CONSTRUCTION, AND HEIGHT SO
AS TO COMPLETELY CONCEAL THE ACTIVITIES.

d. SUCH DELIVERY SHALL BE LIMITED TO TWO BULK DELIVERIES
IN A SEVEN-DAY PERIOD. MORE FREQUENT DELIVERIES
SHALL REQUIRE A USE PERMIT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
PROCEDURES OF SECTION 307.

e. NO TRAFFIC OTHER THAN THAT REQUIRED FOR THE BULK
DELIVERY AND PICKUP SHALL BE ALLOWED BY OUTSIDE
EMPLOYEES. ANY OTHER BUSINESS-RELATED TRAFFIC SHALL
REQUIRE A USE PERMIT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
PROCEDURES OF SECTION 307.

29. THE DISPLAY FOR SALE OF A VEHICLE, WHICH FOR PURPOSES OF
THIS PROVISION INCLUDES TRAILERS, WATERCRAFT OR OTHER
TYPES OF TRANSPORTATION THAT ARE BUILT TO CARRY
PASSENGERS OR CARGO SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING
RESTRICTIONS:

a. NO MORE THAN ONE VEHICLE CAN BE LABELED FOR SALE OR
SHOW ANY INDICATION THAT IT IS FOR SALE AT ANY GIVEN
TIME ON A PROPERTY, WHETHER VISIBLE ON SITE OR
THROUGH SOME OTHER FORM OF ADVERTISING.

b. NO MORE THAN TWO VEHICLES CAN BE SOLD ON A
PROPERTY DURING ANY CALENDAR YEAR.




Page 846
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023




c. FOR PURPOSES OF SECTIONS 608.A AND B, TWO JET SKIS, A
BOAT OR SIMILAR TYPES OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES THAT
ARE TRANSPORTED ON ONE TRAILER SHALL, TOGETHER
WITH THE TRAILER, BE CONSIDERED ONE VEHICLE.

d. THE OWNERSHIP OF THE VEHICLE(S) MUST BE REGISTERED
TO THE LOCATION WHERE THE VEHICLE IS LISTED FOR SALE.

e. NO VEHICLE CAN BE LABELED FOR SALE OR SHOW ANY
INDICATION THAT IT IS FOR SALE AT AN UNOCCUPIED HOUSE
OR ON A VACANT LOT OR PARCEL.

f. NO VEHICLE CAN BE LABELED FOR SALE OR SHOW ANY
INDICATION THAT IT IS FOR SALE IN CONJUNCTION WITH A
RETAIL OR WHOLESALE VEHICLE SALES DEALERSHIP OR
BUSINESS WITHOUT OBTAINING A TEMPORARY USE PERMIT.

30. FACILITIES FOR HOUSEHOLD PETS, THE MAINTENANCE OF WHICH
IS NOT OTHERWISE PROHIBITED BY STATUTE, REGULATIONS, OR
THE CITY CODE OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX AND WHICH FACILITIES
ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE ORDINANCES OF THE
CITY OF PHOENIX, ARE PERMITTED.

31. GARAGE OR YARD SALES MAY BE CONDUCTED TWICE EVERY 12
MONTHS ON ANY RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTY OCCUPIED BY
A DWELLING UNIT. ANY SALE SHALL NOT EXCEED THE TIME PERIOD
OF THREE CONSECUTIVE DAYS.

32. MATERIALS USED IN CONJUNCTION WITH A HOBBY, AVOCATION,
OR PASTIME, THE USE OF WHICH DOES NOT OTHERWISE CONFLICT
WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ORDINANCE, ARE PERMITTED.

33. PARKING OF VEHICLES IN FACILITIES AND LOCATIONS ON THE
PROPERTY NOT OTHERWISE IN CONFLICT WITH THE PROVISIONS
OF THIS ORDINANCE, IS PERMITTED.

34. PRIVATE TENNIS OR OUTDOOR GAME COURTS AS AN ACCESSORY
USE IS PERMITTED. TENNIS OR OUTDOOR GAME COURT FENCES
OVER SIX FEET HIGH IN REQUIRED REAR YARD OR REQUIRED SIDE
YARD ARE PERMITTED SUBJECT TO A USE PERMIT. TENNIS OR
OUTDOOR GAME COURT LIGHTS ARE ALSO SUBJECT TO A USE
PERMIT.




Page 847
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023




35. OFFSITE MANUFACTURED HOME DEVELOPMENTS ARE PERMITTED
WITH USE PERMIT APPROVAL PER SECTION 307, AND SUBJECT TO
THE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS PROVIDED IN SECTION 608.F.7.

***

Amend Chapter 6, Section 608.F (Residence Districts—Permitted with Use Permit
Approval Pursuant to Section 307) to read as follows:

F. Permitted Uses with Use Permit Approval Pursuant to Section 307.

1. Boarding house permitted in the R-3, R-3A, R-4, R-4A, and R-5 zoning
districts, subject to a use permit and conditions as outlined in each
respective zoning district.

2. Group home permitted in the R-3, R-3A, R-4, R-4A, and R-5 zoning districts,
subject to a use permit and conditions as outlined in each respective zoning
district.

3. Adult day care home for the care of five to ten adult persons, subject to a
use permit; and provided, that:

a. Outdoor recreation areas shall be screened from adjacent properties
by a six-foot-high landscape hedge, solid fence, or solid wall.

4. Dependent care facility for seven to 12 dependents, subject to obtaining a
use permit in accordance with the provisions of Section 307 and subject to
the following standards:

a. Resident dependents under the age of 12 years shall not be counted
when they are present on the premises.

b. Outdoor play areas shall be screened from adjacent properties by a
six-foot-high landscape hedge, solid fence, or solid wall.

c. Hours of operation shall be only between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.
These hours may be restricted as part of the use permit approval.

d. Nonresident employees may be permitted with the use permit if
necessary to meet state requirements.




Page 848
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



e. One parking space shall be provided for each employee who does
not reside at the facility.

f. No signage shall be permitted.

g. The facility shall be subject to Arizona licensing requirements.

5. Environmental remediation facility, subject to the following conditions:

a. A use permit shall be obtained in accordance with Section 307.

b. The above ground area of land occupied by the environmental
remediation facility shall not exceed the minimum number of square
feet necessary to implement the remedial or corrective action.

c. All structures and devices constructed above ground level shall be
shielded from the view of persons outside the property boundary by
an opaque fence constructed of materials of similar composition and
appearance to fences and structures on nearby property.

d. Outdoor equipment installed as part of the final environmental
remediation facility shall not exceed a height of ten feet and shall be
set back from the perimeter wall a minimum of three feet for every
one foot of height over six feet.

e. After installation, no equipment or materials beyond that necessary to
operate the facility shall be stored on the lot.

f. A perimeter landscaping plan shall be approved by the Planning and
Development Department as necessary unless an applicable
approved landscape plan already exists.

g. Any lighting shall be placed so as to reflect the light away from
adjacent residential districts. Noise, odor, or vibration shall not be
emitted any time by the facility so that it exceeds the general level of
noise, odor, or vibration emitted by uses outside the site. Such
comparison shall be made at the boundary of the lot on which the
treatment facility is located.

h. The facility shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Fire
Code.




Page 849
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



i. A permit issued under Section 307 shall include reasonable
restrictions on the operation of the facility to mitigate any adverse
impacts on nearby land, including but not limited to restrictions on
vehicular traffic and hours of operation of the facility.

j. This section allows authorization of activities to undertake all on-site
investigative, construction, and maintenance activities ancillary to the
operation of the facility. All off-site discharges of any substance shall
be separately authorized pursuant to applicable laws.

k. The structures used for the facility shall not exceed a total area of
5,000 square feet.

6. Community Garden. Accessory sales of products cultivated on site within
ten days of harvesting subject to approval of a use permit pursuant to
Section 307. On-site operational conditions and improvements may be
stipulated as a condition of use permit approval.

7. Farmers market, subject to obtaining a use permit in accordance with the
provisions of Section 307 and subject to the following standards: Farmers
market, subject to obtaining a use permit in accordance with the provisions
of Section 307 and subject to the following standards:

a. No more than six one-day market events in any 30-day period.

b. Hours of operation shall be only between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m.
These hours may be restricted as part of the use permit approval.

c. No signage shall be permitted.

d. On-site improvements and other operational conditions may be
stipulated as a condition of use permit approval.

8. Single-family attached (SFA) development option is allowed within the infill
development district identified in the General Plan or with use permit
approval for R-2, R-3, R-3A, R-4, R-5, R-4A, C-1, and C-3 zoned properties
within the following boundaries:




Page 850
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023




a. The SFA development option does not eliminate any redevelopment
area, special planning district or overlays. Where conflicts occur
between the requirements of the SFA development option and
redevelopment areas, overlay zoning districts, special planning
districts, and specific plans, the requirements of the overlay zoning
districts, special planning districts, redevelopment areas or specific
plans shall apply.

Historic preservation designated properties or properties in historic
preservation districts cannot use the single-family attached
development option.




Page 851
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023




b. Design Requirements. Applicants must provide photographs of the
property surrounding their site and an explanation of how the single-
family attached project architecture would complement and be
integrated into the surrounding neighborhood.

(1) Individual units fronting on street rights-of-way shall provide an
entryway that is either elevated, depressed or includes a
feature such as a low wall to accentuate the primary entrance.

(2) Required covered parking spaces shall not front on street
rights-of-way.

c. Perimeter Landscape Setbacks and Requirements.

(1) Residences that front on arterial, collector, or local street
rights-of-way shall provide a minimum ten-foot-wide landscape
tract or community maintained landscaping abutting the street,
except when within 2,000 feet of a light rail station.

(2) Residences that side on arterial, collector, or local street rights-
of-way shall provide a minimum 15-foot-wide landscape tract
or community maintained landscaping abutting the street.

(3) Perimeter of the development not abutting rights-of-way must
provide a minimum five-foot landscape setback, except that
development adjacent to a single-family residential district or
historic preservation designated property must provide a
minimum ten-foot landscape setback.

(4) Minimum trees spaced 20 feet on center or equivalent
groupings in required landscape setbacks.

Minimum one-and-one-half-inch caliper (50 percent of required
trees). Minimum two-inch caliper or multi-trunk tree (25 percent
of required trees). Minimum three-inch caliper or multi-trunk
tree (25 percent of required trees). Provide minimum five five-
gallon shrubs per tree.

d. Open Space. Only fences to enclose pool or community amenities
allowed within required open space.




Page 852
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



e. Attached single-family units in a row shall not exceed a total length of
200 feet without having a minimum 20-foot-wide open area.

f. Parking Requirements.

(1) Within infill development district: 1.3 spaces per efficiency unit,
1.5 spaces per two-bedroom unit and two spaces per three or
more bedroom unit must be provided that are covered or
located within a garage and a minimum 0.25 unreserved guest
parking space per unit must be provided on site.

(2) Within the applicable area that is not located within the infill
development district: Two parking spaces per dwelling unit
must be provided that are covered or located within a garage.
The required spaces for each unit must be located on the lot
that the unit is on. A minimum 0.25 unreserved guest parking
space per unit must be provided on site.

g. Alley Access.

(1) Within infill development district: alley access allowed.

(2) Within the applicable area that is not located within the infill
development district: No alley access allowed if adjacent to
single-family or historic preservation zoning district unless
approved as part of the use permit hearing and all necessary
technical appeals have been approved.

h. Maximum 40-inch fence height allowed in the required building
setback along perimeter rights-of-way.

i. Signage subject to the regulations of Section 705, Table D-1, Single-
Family Residential.

9. Offsite manufactured home developments.

A. Offsite manufactured home development is allowed in the R-2, R-3,
R-3A, R-4, R-5, R-4A, C-1, C-2, and C-3 zoning districts subject to a
use permit and the conditions outlined below:

(1) Placement for each offsite manufactured home shall be
provided as follows:




Page 853
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



(a) There shall be a minimum of twenty feet between
offsite manufactured homes and ten feet between
awnings and canopies. All annexes or structural
additions shall be considered part of the offsite
manufactured home.

(b) There shall be at least forty feet between offsite
manufactured homes on opposite sides of a private
accessway.

(c) No offsite manufactured home, annex or structural
addition shall be closer than eight feet to any private
accessway or private drive.

(2) Each offsite manufactured home space shall have private
outdoor living space of at least 150 square feet. The
dimension of this space shall be at least fifteen feet in width.

(3) At each occupied offsite manufactured home space, there
shall be an enclosed storage locker for yard tools and other
bulky items convenient to the space with a storage capacity
of at least one hundred fifty cubic feet.

(4) All areas not covered by structures or paved surfaces shall
be landscaped and maintained in accordance with the site
plans required under ssection 507.

(5) Screening the perimeter of an offsite manufactured home
development by a wall or other approved material may be
required.

(6) There shall be a network of pedestrian walks connecting
offsite manufactured home spaces with each other and with
development facilities.

(7) If storage yards are provided, there shall be a screened
storage yard or yards for boats, recreational vehicles, etc.
Such storage yards shall have a minimum of sixty square
feet of storage space for each offsite manufactured home
space in the development and shall be located so as to not
detract from surrounding properties. All boats and
recreational vehicles shall be parked in the storage yard.




Page 854
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



(8) Each offsite manufactured home shall a): be affixed
permanently to the ground or b): have "skirting" around its
perimeter to screen its wheels and undercarriage.

(9) All utilities and the wires of any central television or radio
antenna system shall be underground.

(10) Not more than fifteen percent of the spaces in any one
offsite manufactured home development shall be developed
or used for recreational vehicles.

(11) Development of offsite manufactured home communities
shall be under the Planned Residential Development option
of the underlying zoning district.

(12) Private drives may be used for access to each offsite
manufactured homes only when there is no subdivision of
the mobile home development into individual lots.

(13) There shall be a minimum of five percent of the total area of
the offsite manufactured home development dedicated or
reserved as usable common "open space" land. Common
"open space" lands shall be clearly designated on the plan
as to the character of use and development but shall not
include:

(a) Areas reserved for the exclusive use or benefit of an
individual tenant or owner; nor

(b) Dedicated streets, alleys, and other public rights-of-
way; nor

(c) Vehicular drives, parking, loading, and storage areas;
nor

(d) Required setback areas at exterior boundaries of the
site; nor

(e) Golf courses.




Page 855
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



Adequate guarantees must be provided to ensure
permanent retention of "open space" land area resulting
from the application of these regulations, either by private
reservation for the use of the residents within the
development or by dedication to the public, or a
combination thereof.

F. SPECIAL REGULATIONS

1. NO STRUCTURE MAY BE BUILT ON A LOT WHICH DOES NOT FRONT
ON A STREET WHICH IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ADOPTED
STREET CLASSIFICATION MAP UNLESS EXEMPTED BY THIS
SECTION.

2. IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE A HALF STREET NOT LESS THAN ONE-HALF
OF THAT WIDTH PRESCRIBED FOR THAT STREET BY THE STREET
CLASSIFICATION MAP, AND AMENDMENTS THERETO, HAS BEEN
DEDICATED, ANY LOTS FACING OR SIDING ON SUCH HALF STREET
FROM WHICH SIDE THE REQUIRED WIDTH OF DEDICATION HAS
BEEN MADE SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE FRONTAGE ON A STREET.

3. NO PERMIT SHALL BE ISSUED FOR BUILDINGS ON A LOT FRONTING
ON A HALF STREET OF LESS THAN THAT PRESCRIBED BY THE
STREET CLASSIFICATION MAP FOR AN ARTERIAL OR COLLECTOR
STREET OR 25 FEET FOR ALL OTHER STREETS EXCEPT FOR
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED DEVELOPMENT INDIVIDUAL DWELLING
UNITS.

a. FOR DEVELOPMENT UTILIZING AN AVERAGE LOT OR PRD
DEVELOPMENT OPTION OR FOR DEVELOPMENT BUILT UNDER
A PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, A MINIMUM OF
16.58-FOOT HALF-STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY MAY BE PROVIDED
WHEN ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE MET:

(1) THE STREET IS NOT DESIGNATED AS A COLLECTOR OR
ARTERIAL STREET.

(2) THERE ARE NO RESTRICTIONS TO PUBLIC ACCESS TO
THE STREET.

(3) PAVEMENT WIDTH SHALL BE 33.16 FEET FROM BACK OF
CURB TO BACK OF CURB.




Page 856
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



(4) PAVEMENT THICKNESS AND DESIGN SHALL BE IN
ACCORDANCE WITH MARICOPA ASSOCIATION OF
GOVERNMENTS’ STANDARDS.

(5) ALL TERMINATIONS SHALL CONTAIN A 40-FOOT-RADIUS
RIGHT-OF-WAY.

(6) THE STREET HAS BEEN CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO
MARCH 19, 1986.

4. THERE SHALL BE NO OUTDOOR STORAGE OF PERSONAL
PROPERTY VISIBLE BEYOND THE BOUNDARIES OF THE PROPERTY
WITHIN ANY FRONT OR SIDE YARD.

5. NO ACCESSORY USE SHALL INCLUDE OUTDOOR DISPLAY OR
STORAGE OF ANY OF THE FOLLOWING LISTED ITEMS WHEN SUCH
ITEMS ARE VISIBLE OR EMIT ODOR, DUST, GAS, NOISE, VIBRATION,
SMOKE, HEAT OR GLARE BEYOND ANY BOUNDARY OF THE LOT ON
WHICH SUCH ITEMS ARE DISPLAYED OR STORED:

a. ANY BUILDING OR LANDSCAPING MATERIALS.

b. ANY MACHINERY, PARTS, SCRAP, OR APPLIANCES.

c. VEHICLES WHICH ARE UNLICENSED, INOPERABLE, OR
REGISTERED TO OR OWNED BY PERSONS NOT RESIDING ON
OR THE GUEST OF PERSONS RESIDING ON THE PREMISES.

d. ANY OTHER CHATTEL USED FOR OR INTENDED FOR A
COMMERCIAL PURPOSE OR ULTIMATE USE ON OTHER THAN
THE SUBJECT PREMISES.

6. SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL (SFI). SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS MAY BE APPLIED IN ZONING DISTRICTS WHERE THE
SFI DEVELOPMENT OPTION IS OFFERED, BUT ONLY WHEN THE
DEVELOPMENT FALLS WITHIN THE INFILL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
IDENTIFIED IN THE GENERAL PLAN, OR WITH USE PERMIT
APPROVAL WITHIN THE FOLLOWING AREAS LOCATED OUTSIDE OF
THE INFILL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT:

MAP 608.F.6. SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL DEVELOPMENT AREAS




Page 857
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023




Page 858
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



a. THE SFI DEVELOPMENT OPTION DOES NOT ELIMINATE ANY
REDEVELOPMENT AREA, SPECIAL PLANNING DISTRICT OR
OVERLAYS. WHERE CONFLICTS OCCUR BETWEEN THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE SFI DEVELOPMENT OPTION AND
REDEVELOPMENT AREAS, OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICTS,
SPECIAL PLANNING DISTRICTS, AND SPECIFIC PLANS, THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICTS,
SPECIAL PLANNING DISTRICTS, REDEVELOPMENT AREAS OR
SPECIFIC PLANS SHALL APPLY.

b. HISTORIC PRESERVATION DESIGNATED PROPERTIES OR
PROPERTIES IN HISTORIC PRESERVATION DISTRICTS
CANNOT USE THE SFI DEVELOPMENT OPTION.

c. DWELLING UNITS. THE SFI DEVELOPMENT OPTION IS
INTENDED PRIMARILY FOR SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED
DWELLING UNITS; HOWEVER, UP TO 20% OF THE UNITS IN A
DEVELOPMENT MAY BE SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DWELLING
UNITS TO ALLOW FOR VARIETY AND EFFICIENCY OF DESIGN.

(1) ANY PROVIDED DETACHED DWELLING UNITS SHALL
COMPLY WITH THE SAME DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
APPLICABLE TO THAT SFI DEVELOPMENT.

d. DESIGN REQUIREMENTS.

(1) INDIVIDUAL UNITS FRONTING ON STREET RIGHTS-OF-
WAY SHALL PROVIDE AN ENTRYWAY THAT IS EITHER
ELEVATED, DEPRESSED OR INCLUDES A FEATURE
SUCH AS A LOW WALL TO ACCENTUATE THE PRIMARY
ENTRANCE.

(2) REQUIRED COVERED PARKING SPACES SHALL NOT
FRONT ON PERIMETER STREET RIGHTS-OF-WAY.

(3) INDIVIDUAL UNIT REAR YARDS SHALL NOT ABUT
PERIMETER STREET ROW OR AN ADJACENT PERIMETER
STREET LANDSCAPE AREA.

(4) ATTACHED DWELLING UNITS CONSTRUCTED IN A ROW
SHALL NOT EXCEED A TOTAL LENGTH OF 200 FEET
WITHOUT HAVING A MINIMUM 20-FOOT-WIDE OPEN
AREA




Page 859
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023




e. PERIMETER LANDSCAPE SETBACKS AND REQUIREMENTS.

(1) RESIDENCES THAT FRONT ON ARTERIAL, COLLECTOR,
OR LOCAL STREET RIGHTS-OF-WAY SHALL PROVIDE A
MINIMUM TEN-FOOT-WIDE LANDSCAPE TRACT OR
COMMUNITY MAINTAINED LANDSCAPING ABUTTING THE
STREET, EXCEPT WHEN WITHIN 2,000 FEET OF A LIGHT
RAIL STATION.

(2) RESIDENCES THAT SIDE ON ARTERIAL, COLLECTOR, OR
LOCAL STREET RIGHTS-OF-WAY SHALL PROVIDE A
MINIMUM 15-FOOT-WIDE LANDSCAPE TRACT OR
COMMUNITY MAINTAINED LANDSCAPING ABUTTING THE
STREET.

(3) PERIMETER OF THE DEVELOPMENT NOT ABUTTING
RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND ADJACENT TO A SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT OR HISTORIC PRESERVATION
DESIGNATED PROPERTY MUST PROVIDE A MINIMUM
TEN-FOOT LANDSCAPE SETBACK. WALLS/FENCES UP
TO 6 FEET HIGH WITHIN PRIVATE REAR YARDS MAY BE
PROVIDED WITHIN THE PERIMETER SETBACK SO LONG
AS THE REQUIRED LANDSCAPE IS STILL PROVIDED.

(4) TREES SHALL BE PROVIDED IN REQUIRED LANDSCAPE
SETBACKS AT A MINIMUM RATE OF 20 FEET ON CENTER
OR EQUIVALENT GROUPINGS, AS APPROVED BY THE
PDD LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, SUBJECT TO THE
FOLLOWING:

(a) 50% OF THE REQUIRED TREES SHALL BE
MINIMUM ONE-AND-ONE-HALF-INCH CALIPER AT
THE TIME OF INSTALLATION.

(b) 25% OF THE REQUIRED TREES SHALL BE
MINIMUM TWO-INCH CALIPER OR MULTI-TRUNKED
TREES AT THE TIME OF INSTALLATION.

(c) 25% OF THE REQUIRED TREES SHALL BE
MINIMUM THREE-INCH CALIPER OR MULTI-
TRUNKED TREES AT THE TIME OF INSTALLATION.




Page 860
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



(5) A MINIMUM OF FIVE FIVE-GALLON SHRUBS PER TREE
SHALL BE PROVIDED.

f. OPEN SPACE REGULATIONS. THE ONLY WALLS/FENCES
ALLOWED WITHIN REQUIRED COMMON AREA OPEN SPACE
ARE REQUIRED POOL SECURITY FENCES AND OTHER
NECESSARY SECURITY FENCES, AS APPROVED BY PDD.

g. PARKING REQUIREMENTS. SECTION 702 APPLIES TO SFI
DEVELOPMENT, EXCEPT WHERE SPECIFICALLY MODIFIED BY
THIS SECTION.

(1) WITHIN THE INFILL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT: ONE (1)
PARKING SPACE PER DWELLING UNIT MUST BE
PROVIDED THAT IS COVERED OR LOCATED WITHIN A
GARAGE.

(2) WITHIN THE APPLICABLE SFI AREA THAT IS NOT
LOCATED WITHIN THE INFILL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT:
TWO (2) PARKING SPACES PER DWELLING UNIT MUST
BE PROVIDED THAT ARE COVERED OR LOCATED WITHIN
A GARAGE.

(3) THE REQUIRED SPACES FOR EACH DWELLING UNIT
MUST BE LOCATED ON THE SAME LOT AS THE UNIT FOR
WHICH THEY ARE PROVIDED.

(4) A MINIMUM 0.25 ADDITIONAL UNRESERVED GUEST
PARKING SPACE PER DWELLING UNIT MUST BE
PROVIDED WITHIN ANY SFI DEVELOPMENT.

h. ALLEY ACCESS AND MANEUVERING.

(1) ALL MANEUVERING FOR ON-SITE PARKING MUST BE
LOCATED ON PRIVATE PROPERTY AND NOT IN PUBLIC
ROW.

(2) ACCESS TO THE SITE FROM A FULLY DEDICATED AND
PAVED ALLEY IS PERMITTED WITHIN THE INFILL
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT.




Page 861
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



(3) ACCESS TO THE SITE FROM A FULLY DEDICATED AND
PAVED ALLEY IS PERMITTED WITHIN THE SFI
APPLICABLE AREA OUTSIDE OF THE INFILL
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT IF ALL THREE CONDITIONS
ARE MET, AS FOLLOWS:

(a) THE SITE IS NOT ACROSS THE ALLEY FROM
EITHER A SINGLE-FAMILY OR HISTORIC
PRESERVATION ZONING DISTRICT;

(b) ALLEY ACCESS IS SPECIFICALLY APPROVED AS
PART OF THE USE PERMIT HEARING; AND

(c) ALL NECESSARY TECHNICAL APPEALS HAVE
BEEN APPROVED.

h. MAXIMUM 40-INCH FENCE HEIGHT ALLOWED IN THE
REQUIRED SETBACKS ALONG PERIMETER STREET RIGHTS-
OF-WAY.

i. SIGNAGE IS SUBJECT TO THE REGULATIONS OF SECTION 705,
TABLE D-1, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.

7. OFFSITE MANUFACTURED HOME DEVELOPMENTS. OFFSITE
MANUFACTURED HOME DEVELOPMENT IS SUBJECT TO USE PERMIT
APPROVAL IN THE C-1, C-2, AND C-3 DISTRICTS, IN ADDITION TO
ZONING DISTRICTS INDICATED IN SECTION 608.D; AND SUBJECT TO
THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS:

a. THESE REGULATIONS APPLY TO DEVELOPMENT OF A SINGLE
LOT OR PARCEL, NOT TO BE FURTHER SUBDIVIDED.

b. PLACEMENT FOR EACH OFFSITE MANUFACTURED HOME
SHALL BE PROVIDED AS FOLLOWS:

(1) THERE SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF TWENTY FEET
BETWEEN OFFSITE MANUFACTURED HOMES AND TEN
FEET BETWEEN AWNINGS AND CANOPIES. ALL ANNEXES
OR STRUCTURAL ADDITIONS SHALL BE CONSIDERED
PART OF THE OFFSITE MANUFACTURED HOME.




Page 862
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



(2) THERE SHALL BE AT LEAST FORTY FEET BETWEEN
OFFSITE MANUFACTURED HOMES ON OPPOSITE SIDES
OF A PRIVATE ACCESSWAY.

(3) NO OFFSITE MANUFACTURED HOME, ANNEX OR
STRUCTURAL ADDITION SHALL BE CLOSER THAN EIGHT
FEET TO ANY PRIVATE ACCESSWAY OR PRIVATE DRIVE.

c. EACH OFFSITE MANUFACTURED HOME SPACE SHALL HAVE
PRIVATE OUTDOOR LIVING SPACE OF AT LEAST 150 SQUARE
FEET. THE DIMENSION OF THIS SPACE SHALL BE AT LEAST
FIFTEEN FEET IN WIDTH.

d. AT EACH OCCUPIED OFFSITE MANUFACTURED HOME SPACE,
THERE SHALL BE AN ENCLOSED STORAGE LOCKER FOR YARD
TOOLS AND OTHER BULKY ITEMS CONVENIENT TO THE SPACE
WITH A STORAGE CAPACITY OF AT LEAST ONE HUNDRED
FIFTY CUBIC FEET.

e. ALL AREAS NOT COVERED BY STRUCTURES OR PAVED
SURFACES SHALL BE LANDSCAPED AND MAINTAINED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPROVED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
DOCUMENTS REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 507.

f. SCREENING THE PERIMETER OF AN OFFSITE MANUFACTURED
HOME DEVELOPMENT BY A WALL OR OTHER APPROVED
MATERIAL MAY BE REQUIRED AS A CONDITION OF USE PERMIT
APPROVAL.

g. THERE SHALL BE A NETWORK OF PEDESTRIAN WALKWAYS
CONNECTING OFFSITE MANUFACTURED HOME SPACES WITH
EACH OTHER AND WITH DEVELOPMENT FACILITIES AND
AMENITIES.

h. IF STORAGE YARDS ARE PROVIDED, THERE SHALL BE A
SCREENED STORAGE YARD OR YARDS FOR BOATS,
RECREATIONAL VEHICLES, ETC. SUCH STORAGE YARDS
SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM OF SIXTY SQUARE FEET OF STORAGE
SPACE FOR EACH OFFSITE MANUFACTURED HOME SPACE IN
THE DEVELOPMENT AND SHALL BE LOCATED SO AS TO NOT
DETRACT FROM SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. ALL BOATS AND
RECREATIONAL VEHICLES SHALL BE PARKED IN THE
STORAGE YARD.




Page 863
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023




i. EACH OFFSITE MANUFACTURED HOME SHALL A): BE AFFIXED
PERMANENTLY TO THE GROUND OR B): HAVE "SKIRTING"
AROUND ITS PERIMETER TO SCREEN ITS WHEELS AND
UNDERCARRIAGE.

j. ALL UTILITIES AND THE WIRES OF ANY CENTRAL TELEVISION
OR RADIO ANTENNA SYSTEM SHALL BE UNDERGROUND.

k. NOT MORE THAN FIFTEEN PERCENT OF THE SPACES IN ANY
ONE OFFSITE MANUFACTURED HOME DEVELOPMENT SHALL
BE DEVELOPED OR USED FOR RECREATIONAL VEHICLES.

l. DEVELOPMENT OF OFFSITE MANUFACTURED HOME
COMMUNITIES SHALL BE UNDER THE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT OPTION APPLICABLE IN THE UNDERLYING
ZONING DISTRICT.

m. PRIVATE DRIVES MAY BE USED FOR ACCESS TO EACH
OFFSITE MANUFACTURED HOMES.

n. THERE SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF FIVE PERCENT OF THE TOTAL
AREA OF THE OFFSITE MANUFACTURED HOME DEVELOPMENT
DEDICATED OR RESERVED AS USABLE COMMON "OPEN
SPACE" LAND. COMMON "OPEN SPACE" LANDS SHALL BE
CLEARLY DESIGNATED ON THE PLAN AS TO THE CHARACTER
OF USE AND DEVELOPMENT BUT SHALL NOT INCLUDE:

(1) AREAS RESERVED FOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE OR
BENEFIT OF AN INDIVIDUAL TENANT OR OWNER; NOR

(2) DEDICATED STREETS, ALLEYS, AND OTHER PUBLIC
RIGHTS-OF-WAY; NOR

VEHICULAR DRIVES, PARKING, LOADING, AND STORAGE
AREAS; NOR
(3)
REQUIRED SETBACK AREAS AT EXTERIOR BOUNDARIES
OF THE SITE; NOR

(4) GOLF COURSES.




Page 864
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



ADEQUATE GUARANTEES MUST BE PROVIDED TO ENSURE
PERMANENT RETENTION OF "OPEN SPACE" LAND AREA
RESULTING FROM THE APPLICATION OF THESE REGULATIONS,
EITHER BY PRIVATE RESERVATION FOR THE USE OF THE
RESIDENTS WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT OR BY DEDICATION
TO THE PUBLIC, OR A COMBINATION THEREOF.

***

Amend Chapter 6, Section 608.G (Accessory Uses) to read as follows:

G. Accessory Uses. RESERVED.

1. Facilities for household pets, the maintenance of which is not otherwise
prohibited by statute, regulations, or the City Code of the City of Phoenix
and which facilities are in compliance with all applicable ordinances of the

2. Garage or yard sales may be conducted twice every 12 months on any
residentially zoned property occupied by a dwelling unit. Any sale shall not
exceed the time period of three consecutive days.

3. Materials used in conjunction with a hobby, avocation, or pastime, the use of
which does not otherwise conflict with the provisions of this ordinance.

4. Parking of vehicles in facilities and locations on the property not otherwise in
conflict with the provisions of this ordinance.

5. Private tennis or outdoor game courts as an accessory use. Tennis or
outdoor game court fences over six feet high in required rear yard or
required side yard, subject to a use permit. Tennis or outdoor game court
lights, subject to a use permit.

6. No accessory use of land or structures shall be maintained except as
hereinafter provided or except as may be permitted as a home occupation.

7. No accessory use shall include outdoor display or storage of any of the
following listed items when such items are visible or emit odor, dust, gas,
noise, vibration, smoke, heat or glare beyond any boundary of the lot on
which such items are displayed or stored:

a. Any building or landscaping materials.




Page 865
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



b. Any machinery, parts, scrap, or appliances.

c. Vehicles which are unlicensed, inoperable, or registered to or owned
by persons not residing on or the guest of persons residing on the
premises.

d. Any other chattel used for or intended for a commercial purpose or
ultimate use on other than the subject premises.

***

Amend Chapter 6, Section 608.H (General Provisions) to read as follows:

H. General Provisions. RESERVED.

1. No structure may be built on a lot which does not front on a street which is in
accordance with the adopted street classification map unless exempted by
this section.

In any district where a half street not less than one-half of that width
prescribed for that street by the street classification map, and amendments
thereto, has been dedicated, any lots facing or siding on such half street
from which side the required width of dedication has been made shall be
deemed to have frontage on a street.

No permit shall be issued for buildings on a lot fronting on a half street of
less than that prescribed by the street classification map for an arterial or
collector street or 25 feet for all other streets except for single-family
attached development individual dwelling units.

a. For development utilizing an average lot or PRD development option
or for development built under a planned area development district, a
minimum of 16.58-foot half-street right-of-way may be provided when
all of the following conditions are met:

(1) The street is not designated as a collector or arterial street.

(2) There are no restrictions to public access to the street.

(3) Pavement width shall be 33.16 feet from back of curb to back
of curb.




Page 866
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



(4) Pavement thickness and design shall be in accordance with
Maricopa Association of Governments’ standards.

(5) All terminations shall contain a 40-foot-radius right-of-way.

(6) The street has been constructed prior to March 19, 1986.

2. There shall be no outdoor storage of personal property visible beyond the
boundaries of the property within any front or side yard.

***

Amend Chapter 6, Section 608.I (Development Regulations) to read as follows:

I. Development Regulations. Following are definitions of terms used in the
development standards tables for each district:

***

2. Dwelling unit density: The total number of dwelling units on a site divided
by the gross area of the site.

a. Under the planned residential development, additional density may
be granted in the R1-10 through R-4A districts (Sections 611 through
619) for detached single-family development by providing site
enhancements from the following list. In R1-10 through R1-6, an
increase of 0.1 du/ac may be achieved for each ten bonus points
earned up to the maximum listed in Table A. In R-2 through R-4A, an
increase of 0.275 du/ac may be achieved for each five bonus points
earned up to a maximum of 12 du/ac. However, at least half of the
bonus points used to achieve densities in excess of seven and one-
half du/ac must be from the architectural design category.
DENSITY BONUS POINTS. ADDITIONAL DENSITY MAY BE
GRANTED BY EARNING DENSITY BONUS POINTS BY
PROVIDING SITE ENHANCEMENTS FROM THE TABLE BELOW,
AS FOLLOWS:




Page 867
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



(1) SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT IN THE R1-10
THROUGH R1-6 DISTRICTS (SECTIONS 611 THROUGH
613) MAY EARN INCREASED DENSITY OF 0.1 DU/AC FOR
EACH TEN (10) DENSITY BONUS POINTS EARNED WHEN
ALSO USING THE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT OPTION, UP TO THE MAXIMUM DENSITY
ALLOWED BY THE DISTRICT.

(2) SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT IN THE R-2
THROUGH R-4A DISTRICTS (SECTIONS 614 THROUGH
619) MAY EARN INCREASED DENSITY OF 0.275 DU/AC
FOR EACH FIVE (5) DENSITY BONUS POINTS EARNED
WHEN ALSO USING THE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT OPTION, UP TO THE MAXIMUM DENSITY
ALLOWED BY THE DISTRICT. HOWEVER, AT LEAST HALF
OF THE BONUS POINTS USED TO ACHIEVE DENSITIES IN
EXCESS OF SEVEN AND ONE-HALF (7.5) DU/AC MUST BE
FROM THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BONUS POINT
CATEGORY.

***

b. Under the planned residential development option, additional density
may be granted in the R1-10 through R-4A districts (Sections 611
through 619) for attached single-family and multifamily development,
and under the single-family attached development additional density
may be granted in the R-2 through R-4A districts (Sections 614
through 619) up to the maximum shown in Table B by providing open
space areas beyond the minimum required in each district in
accordance with the following:
ADDITIONAL COMMON AREA/OPEN SPACE. ADDITIONAL
DENSITY MAY BE GRANTED BY PROVIDING ADDITIONAL
COMMON AREA, ABOVE ANY MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS, AS
FOLLOWS:

(1) QUALIFYING DEVELOPMENTS (LISTED BELOW) MAY
EARN: A one percent density bonus for each four percent of
basic common area; or

(a) A ONE PERCENT DENSITY BONUS FOR EACH
FOUR PERCENT OF BASIC COMMON AREA; OR




Page 868
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



(b) A ONE PERCENT DENSITY BONUS FOR EACH TWO
PERCENT OF IMPROVED COMMON AREA.

(c) THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
SHALL DETERMINE THE ADEQUACY OF BOTH
BASIC AND IMPROVED COMMON AREAS AS PART
OF THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS. OPEN
SPACE SHALL NOT INCLUDE:

i. PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY.

ii. VEHICULAR DRIVES OR PARKING AREAS.

iii. PRIVATE PATIO AREAS, NARROW STRIPS
BETWEEN OR IN FRONT OF UNITS; OR, IN
GENERAL, AREAS RESERVED FOR THE
EXCLUSIVE USE OF INDIVIDUAL TENANTS.

iv. REQUIRED SETBACK AREAS AT THE
EXTERIOR BOUNDARIES OF THE SITE.

v. GOLF COURSES.

(d) IN NO CASE SHALL THE DENSITY OF THE
DEVELOPMENT EXCEED THE MAXIMUM DENSITY
ALLOWED BY THE DISTRICT.

(2) A one percent density bonus for each two percent of improved
common area.
DEVELOPMENTS QUALIFYING FOR THE ADDITIONAL
COMMON AREA/OPEN SPACE DENSITY BONUS ARE AS
FOLLOWS:

(a) SINGLE-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT IN THE RE-35 AND
R1-18 ZONING DISTRICTS (SECTIONS 609 AND
610), WHEN ALSO USING THE PLANNED
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OPTION.

(b) SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED DEVELOPMENT IN THE
R1-10 THROUGH R-4A ZONING DISTRICTS
(SECTIONS 611 THROUGH 619), WHEN USING THE
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.




Page 869
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



(c) SINGLE-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT IN THE R-2
THROUGH R-4A ZONING DISTRICTS (SECTIONS
614 THROUGH 619), WHEN USING THE SINGLE-
FAMILY INFILL DEVELOPMENT OPTION.

(d) MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT IN THE R1-10
THROUGH R-4A ZONING DISTRICTS (SECTIONS
611 THROUGH 619), WHEN USING THE PLANNED
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OPTION.

(3) Review and determination of the adequacy of common areas,
basic and improved, will be part of development review by the
Site Planning Division of the Planning and Development
Department. Open space shall not include:

(a) Public right-of-way.

(b) Vehicular drives or parking areas.

(c) Private patio areas, narrow strips between or in front of
units; or, in general, areas reserved for the exclusive
use of individual tenants.

(d) Required setback areas at the exterior boundaries of
the site.

(e) Golf courses.

***

8. Allowed uses DEVELOPMENT: Refer to the following tables for uses
allowed in each district and to chapter 2 for definitions of permitted uses.
THE DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS TABLES PROVIDED IN SECTIONS 609
THROUGH 619 INDICATE THE ONLY TYPES OF RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT PERMITTED UNDER EACH DEVELOPMENT OPTION
AND ASSOCIATED DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. THE COMPLETE
LIST OF ALL PERMITTED USES, INCLUDING ACCESSORY AND
TEMPORARY USES, IS PROVIDED IN SECTION 608.C.

***
Section 609. RE-35 Single-Family Residence District.
Amend Chapter 6, Section 609 (RE-35 Single-Family Residence District) to read as
follows:




Page 870
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023




Section 609. RE-35 Single-Family Residence District

A. Purpose. A basic purpose of these regulations is to foster the creation of living
areas which can assist the establishment of stable, functional neighborhoods. An
established pattern of living in this metropolitan area reflects a tradition of single-
family occupied dwellings which also emphasize outdoor living. Many of these
dwellings are thereby located on relatively large urban or suburban lots.

These regulations provide standards for dwellings built at low and moderate
densities. While the predominant housing type is expected to be single-family
dwelling, provisions are made for alternative housing types within the same density
limits.

B. District Regulations. The following tables establishes standards to be used for
each district in the RE-35 district. Following are definitions of terms used in these
standards: THE DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED IN THESE STANDARDS ARE
FOUND IN SECTION 608.I.

1. Minimum Lot Dimension: The minimum width and depth of lot lines and
where specified, the minimum area of each lot.

2. Dwelling Unit Density: The total number of dwelling units on a site divided
by the gross area of the site. Under the planned residential development
option, additional density may be granted for areas beyond minimum
required in each district in accordance with the following:

a. A one percent density bonus for each four percent of basic common
area; or

b. A one percent density bonus for each two percent of improved
common area.

c. Review and determination of the adequacy of common areas, basic
and improved, will be part of the development review by the Site
Planning Division of the Planning and Development Department.
Open space shall not include:

(1) Public right-of-way.

(2) Vehicular drives or parking areas.




Page 871
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



(3) Private patio areas, narrow strips between or in front of units;
or, in general, areas reserved for the exclusive use of
individual tenants.

(4) Required setback areas at the exterior boundaries of the site.

(5) Golf courses.

3. Perimeter standards: Setbacks for structures which are required at the
perimeter of a development. These standards shall apply only to lots which
are created by a subdivision or a project approved under the provisions of
Section 507. These standards shall not apply in the following circumstances:
when contiguous developments are to be developed using the same
development option with the same perimeter standards and are on the same
preliminary plat or are platted concurrently; when the perimeter of a
development is contiguous to a permanent open space, such as a natural
wash, hillside preserve, or existing golf course, the depth of which is at least
forty feet; or when the development was properly platted prior to September
13, 1981.

4. Building setback: The required separation of buildings from lot lines.

5. Maximum height: The maximum allowed height as measured from natural
grade which measurement shall be as in chapter 2

6. Lot coverage: The maximum area of a lot occupied by structures and open
projections as defined in chapter 2

7. Common areas: Required areas in a planned residential development to be
used and enjoyed by residents of a development and either improved in
accordance with the standards in chapter 2 or maintained in a natural state
as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

8. Allowed uses: Refer to the following tables for uses allowed in each district
and to chapter 2 for definitions of permitted uses.

9. Required review: Where a site plan is required, development shall be
according to Section 507 of this ordinance. Development on land for which
neither a subdivision nor a site plan has been approved shall be according
to standards in option (a), subdivision.

10 Required parking: The minimum number of off-street parking spaces to be
provided and which shall be according to Section 702.A.




Page 872
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023




11. Street standards: The class of street required to provide access to any
parcel or subdivided lot within a development.

ILLUSTRATIONS OF DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS




TABLE 609.A
RE-35 Development Option OPTIONS

(c)
(a) (b)
Standards Planned Residential
Subdivision Average Lot
Development

Minimum lot 150' width, 175' 100' width, 125' None
dimensions (width depth (Minimum depth
and depth) area 35,000 sq. ft.)

Dwelling unit 1.10 1.10 1.15; 1.32 with bonus
density
(units/gross acre)

Perimeter None 40' front or rear, 20' 40' adjacent to a public
standards side street STREET (2); this
area is to be in
common ownership
unless lots front on the
perimeter public street;
20' adjacent to
property line




Page 873
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



TABLE 609.A
RE-35 Development Option OPTIONS

(c)
(a) (b)
Standards Planned Residential
Subdivision Average Lot
Development

Building setbacks 40' front, 40' rear, 25' front, 50' total 25' front
20' side front and rear

Maximum height 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30'

Lot coverage 25%, except if all Primary structure, Primary structure, not
structures are less not including including attached
than 20' and 1 story attached shade shade structures: 25%
in height then a structures: 25% Total: 30%
maximum of 30% Total: 30%
lot coverage is
allowed.

Common areas None None Minimum 5% of gross
area

Allowed uses Single-family Single-family Single-family attached;
DEVELOPMENT detached attached; plus (a) plus (a)

Required review Subdivision to Subdivision with Site plan per Section
create 4 or more building setbacks 507
lots

Street standards Public street Public street Public street or private
required accessway (2) (1)

(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for
extensions of street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue
partial dedications.

(2) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as
public street rights-of-way.

C. Special Regulations.

1. Guesthouse, subject to the following conditions:




Page 874
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023




a. The square footage of the guesthouse shall not exceed fifty percent
of the gross floor area of the primary dwelling unit with a maximum of
nine hundred square feet, except as set forth in subsection b, below.
Any garage area attached to the guesthouse which is more than the
area of a single-car garage shall be counted toward the allowable
square footage of the guesthouse.

b. On lots with more than forty-three thousand five hundred sixty square
feet in net area with a primary dwelling unit of at least three thousand
six hundred square feet in gross floor area, the square footage of the
guesthouse may be twenty-five percent of the gross floor area of the
primary dwelling unit.

c. The floor area of the connecting structure shall be included in the
floor area of the guesthouse.

d. Pergolas and other roofed structures without walls shall not be
considered a connecting structure.

e. Vehicular access to the accessory dwelling unit must be provided
from the same curb (driveway) as the primary dwelling unit, except
that separate access may be permitted from a paved alley.

f. One parking space must be provided for the accessory dwelling unit
in addition to the parking required for the primary dwelling unit.

g. Only one guesthouse is permitted on a single lot.

h. The guesthouse shall be constructed of similar building materials and
in the same architectural style as that of the primary dwelling unit and
shall not exceed the height in feet or number of stories of the primary
dwelling unit.

i. A guesthouse shall not:

(1) Provide more parking than the one required space;

(2) Be advertised for occupancy through any print or electronic
media or through placement of signs on the property;

(3) Provide separate mail service or have a separate address from
the primary dwelling unit; or




Page 875
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023




(4) Be separately metered for utilities.

(j) Single-family use requirements shall apply to the guesthouse and the
primary dwelling unit as a single unit.

(k) Any guesthouse existing as of (the effective date of this ordinance)
may qualify as "connected to the primary dwelling unit" by being
connected to the primary dwelling unit without meeting the minimum
width requirements.

***
Section 610. R1-18 Single-Family Residence District.
Amend Chapter 6, Section 610 (R1-18 Single-Family Residence District) to read as
follows:

Section 610. R1-18 Single-Family Residence District.

A. Purpose. A basic purpose of these regulations is to foster the creation of living
areas which can assist the establishment of stable, functional neighborhoods. An
established pattern of living in this metropolitan area reflects a tradition of single-
family occupied dwellings which also emphasize outdoor living. Many of these
dwellings are thereby located on relatively large urban or suburban lots.

These regulations provide standards for dwellings built at low and moderate
densities. While the predominant housing type is expected to be single-family
dwelling, provisions are made for alternative housing types within the same density
limits.

B. District Regulations. The following tables establishes standards to be used for
each district in the R1-18 district. Following are definitions of terms used in these
standards: THE DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED IN THESE STANDARDS ARE
FOUND IN SECTION 608.I.

1. Minimum Lot Dimension: The minimum width and depth of lot lines and
where specified, the minimum area of each lot.

2. Dwelling Unit Density: The total number of dwelling units on a site divided
by the gross area of the site. Under the planned residential development
option, additional density may be granted for areas beyond minimum
required in each district in accordance with the following:




Page 876
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



a. A one percent density bonus for each four percent of basic common
area; or

b. A one percent density bonus for each two percent of improved
common area.

c. Review and determination of the adequacy of common areas, basic
and improved, will be part of the development review by the Site
Planning Division of the Planning and Development Department.
Open space shall not include:

(1) Public right-of-way.

(2) Vehicular drives or parking areas.

(3) Private patio areas, narrow strips between or in front of units;
or, in general, areas reserved for the exclusive use of
individual tenants.

(4) Required setback areas at the exterior boundaries of the site.

(5) Golf courses.

3. Perimeter standards: Setbacks for structures which are required at the
perimeter of a development. These standards shall apply only to lots which
are created by a subdivision or a project approved under the provisions of
Section 507. These standards shall not apply in the following circumstances:
when contiguous developments are to be developed using the same
development option with the same perimeter standards and are on the same
preliminary plat or are platted concurrently; when the perimeter of a
development is contiguous to a permanent open space, such as a natural
wash, hillside preserve, or existing golf course, the depth of which is at least
forty feet; or when the development was properly platted prior to September
13, 1981.

4. Building setback: The required separation of buildings from lot lines.

5. Maximum height: The maximum allowed height as measured from natural
grade which measurement shall be as in chapter 2

6. Lot coverage: The maximum area of a lot occupied by structures and open
projections as defined in chapter 2




Page 877
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



7. Common areas: Required areas in a planned residential development to be
used and enjoyed by residents of a development and either improved in
accordance with the standards in chapter 2 or maintained in a natural state
as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

8. Allowed uses: Refer to the following tables for uses allowed in each district
and to chapter 2 for definitions of permitted uses.

9. Required review: Where a site plan is required, development shall be
according to Section 507 of this ordinance. Development on land for which
neither a subdivision nor a site plan has been approved shall be according
to standards in option (a), subdivision.

10 Required parking: The minimum number of off-street parking spaces to be
provided and which shall be according to Section 702.A.

11. Street standards: The class of street required to provide access to any
parcel or subdivided lot within a development.


ILLUSTRATIONS OF DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS




TABLE 610.A
R1-18 Development Option OPTIONS

(c)
(a) (b)
Standards Planned Residential
Subdivision Average Lot
Development

Minimum lot 130' width, 120' 90' width, 80' None
dimensions (width depth (Minimum depth
and depth) area 18,000 sq.
ft.)




Page 878
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



TABLE 610.A
R1-18 Development Option OPTIONS

(c)
(a) (b)
Standards Planned Residential
Subdivision Average Lot
Development

Dwelling unit 1.95 1.95 2.05; 2.34 with bonus
density (units/gross
acre)

Perimeter standards None 30' front or rear, 20' adjacent to a public
10' side street STREET (2); this
area is to be in
common ownership
unless lots front on the
perimeter public street;
15' adjacent to
property line

Building setbacks 25' front, 30' rear, 25' front, 50' total 25' front
10' side front plus rear

Maximum height 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30'

Lot coverage 25% 30%, PLUS Primary structure, Primary structure, not
AN ADDITIONAL not including including attached
10% FOR AN attached shade shade structures: 25%
ADU AND/OR structures: 25% Total: 30%, PLUS AN
ATTACHED Total: 30%, PLUS ADDITIONAL 10%
SHADE AN ADDITIONAL FOR AN ADU AND/OR
STRUCTURES. 10% FOR AN ATTACHED SHADE
TOTAL: 40% ADU AND/OR STRUCTURES.
ATTACHED TOTAL: 40%
SHADE
STRUCTURES.
TOTAL: 40%


Common areas None None Minimum 5% of gross
area

Allowed uses Single-family Single-family Single-family attached;
DEVELOPMENT detached attached; plus (a) plus (a)




Page 879
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



TABLE 610.A
R1-18 Development Option OPTIONS

(c)
(a) (b)
Standards Planned Residential
Subdivision Average Lot
Development

Required review Subdivision to Subdivision with Site plan per Section
create 4 or more building setbacks 507
lots

Street standards Public street Public street Public street or private
required accessway (2) (1)

(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for
extensions of street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue
partial dedications.

(2) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as
public street rights-of-way.

C. Reserved.

***
Section 611. R1-10 Single-Family Residence District.
Amend Chapter 6, Section 611 (R1-10 Single-Family Residence District) to read as
follows:

Section 611. R1-10 Single-Family Residence District.

A. Purpose. A basic purpose of these regulations is to foster the creation of living
areas which can assist the establishment of stable, functional neighborhoods. An
established pattern of living in this metropolitan area reflects a tradition of single-
family occupied dwellings which also emphasize outdoor living. Many of these
dwellings are thereby located on relatively large urban or suburban lots.

These regulations provide standards for dwellings built at low and moderate
densities. While the predominant housing type is expected to be single-family
dwelling, provisions are made for alternative housing types within the same density
limits.




Page 880
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



B. District Regulations. The following tables establish standards to be used is IN the
R1-10 district. The definitions of terms used in these standards are found in
Section 608.D 608.I.

Table A. Single-Family Detached Development
R1-10 Development Options
TABLE 611.A
R-10 R1-10 Development Option OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum lot width (in the 75' minimum 45' minimum (unless
event of horizontal approved by either the
property regimes, "lot" design advisor or the
shall refer to the width of DESIGN REVIEW
the structure and exclusive COMMITTEE Single-
use area) Family Architectural
Appeals Board for
demonstrating enhanced
architecture that minimizes
the impact of the garage.
(see Section 507 Tab
A.2.12.1 B(2)(b) [sic]))

Minimum lot depth None, except 110' adjacent None, except 110' adjacent
to freeway or arterial to freeway or arterial

Dwelling unit density 3.0 3.5; 4.5 with bonus
(units/gross acre)

Minimum perimeter Front: 15'; Street STREET (2) (front,
building setbacks Rear: 15' (1-story), 20' (2- rear or side): 15' (in
story); addition to landscape
Side: 10' (1-story), 15' (2- setback);
story) Property line (rear): 15' (1-
story), 20' (2-story);
Property line (side): 10' (1-
story), 15' (2-story)




Page 881
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



TABLE 611.A
R-10 R1-10 Development Option OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Common landscaped None 15' average, 10' minimum
setback adjacent to (Does not apply to lots
perimeter streets fronting onto perimeter
STREETS (2) streets)

Minimum interior building Front: 10'; rear: 10'; Front: 10'; rear: none
setbacks combined front and rear: (established by Building
35', street side: 10'; sides: Code); street side: 10';
13' total (3' minimum, sides: none (established by
unless 0') Building Code)

Minimum building 10' None
separation

Minimum garage setback 18' from back of sidewalk 18' from back of sidewalk
for front-loaded garages, for front-loaded garages,
10' from property line for 10' from property line for
side-loaded garages side-loaded garages

Maximum garage width For lots <60': 2 car widths, For lots <60': 2 car widths,
for lots ≥60' to 70': 3 car for lots ≥60' to 70': 3 car
widths, for lots >70': no widths, for lots >70': no
maximum maximum

Maximum height 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' (except
that 3 stories not
exceeding 30' are
permitted when approved
by the design advisor for
demonstrating enhanced
architecture)




Page 882
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



TABLE 611.A
R-10 R1-10 Development Option OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Lot coverage Primary structure, not Primary structure, not
including attached shade including attached shade
structures: 40%Total: 50%, structures: 40% Total:
PLUS AN ADDITIONAL 50%, PLUS AN
10% FOR AN ADU ADDITIONAL 10% FOR
AND/OR ATTACHED AN ADU AND/OR
SHADE STRUCTURES. ATTACHED SHADE
TOTAL: 60% STRUCTURES. TOTAL:
60%

Common areas None Minimum 5% of gross area

Allowed uses Single-family detached Single-family detached
DEVELOPMENT DETACHED (3) DETACHED (3)

Required review Development review per Development review per
Section 507, and Section 507, and
subdivision to create 4 or subdivision to create 4 or
more lots more lots

Street standards Public street, or private Public street or private
street built to City accessway (1)
standards with a
homeowners’ association
established for
maintenance OR PRIVATE
ACCESSWAY (1)

On-lot and common Common retention Common retention
retention required for lots less than required for lots less than
8,000 sq. ft. per grading 8,000 sq. ft. per grading
and drainage ordinance and drainage ordinance
requirements requirements




Page 883
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



TABLE 611.A
R-10 R1-10 Development Option OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Landscape standards Perimeter common: trees
spaced a maximum of 20
to 30 feet on center (based
on species) or in
equivalent groupings, and
5 shrubs per tree.

(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for
extensions of street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue
partial dedications.

(2) For single-family, detached development built or subdivided under the subdivision
option prior to June 2, 1999, refer to the subdivision option in table B. FOR
PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, CANAL RIGHTS-OF-WAY SHALL BE TREATED
THE SAME AS PUBLIC STREET RIGHTS-OF-WAY.

(3) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as
public street rights-of-way. FOR SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT
BUILT OR SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO JUNE 2, 1999, REFER TO THE
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF TABLE 611.B.

Table B. Single-Family Detached (Subdivided Prior to June 2, 1999), Single-Family
Attached and Multifamily Development




Page 884
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



TABLE 611.B
R1-10 DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, AND
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO JUNE 2,
1999)

(c)
(a) (b)
Standards Planned Residential
Subdivision Average Lot
Development

Minimum lot 80' width, 94' 60' width, 65' None
dimensions (width depth depth
and depth) (Minimum area
10,000 sq. ft.)

Dwelling unit density 3.50 3.50 3.68; 4.20 with bonus
(units/gross acre)

Perimeter standards None 30' front, 25' rear, 20' adjacent to a
10' side public street STREET
(2); this area is to be in

common ownership
unless lots front on the
perimeter public
street; 15' adjacent to
property line

Building setbacks 25' front, 25' rear, 10' front, 35' front 10' front
10' and 3' side plus rear

Maximum height 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' for
first 150'; 1' in 5'
increase to 48' high
and 4 stories




Page 885
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



TABLE 611.B
R1-10 DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, AND
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO JUNE 2,
1999)

(c)
(a) (b)
Standards Planned Residential
Subdivision Average Lot
Development

Lot coverage 40% 50%, PLUS Primary structure, Primary structure, not
AN ADDITIONAL not including including attached
10% FOR AN attached shade shade structures:
ADU AND/OR structures: 40%Total: 45%. 50%,
ATTACHED 40%Total: 45%. PLUS AN
SHADE 50%, PLUS AN ADDITIONAL 10%
STRUCTURES. ADDITIONAL FOR AN ADU
TOTAL: 60% 10% FOR AN AND/OR ATTACHED
ADU AND/OR SHADE
ATTACHED STRUCTURES.
SHADE TOTAL: 60%
STRUCTURES.
TOTAL: 60%

Common areas None None Minimum 5% of gross
area

Allowed uses Single-family Single-family Multiple-family
DEVELOPMENT detached attached; plus (a) MULTIFAMILY plus
DETACHED (3) (b)
AND DUPLEX

Required review Subdivision to Subdivision with Site plan per Section
create 4 or more building setbacks 507
lots

Street standards Public street Public street Public street or private
required accessway (2)(1)

(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for
extensions of street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue
partial dedications.




Page 886
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



(2) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as
public street rights-of-way.

(3) THE ONLY SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENTS THAT THE
STANDARDS OF THIS TABLE APPLY TO ARE ONES BUILT OR SUBDIVIDED
PRIOR TO JUNE 2, 1999.

C. Reserved.

***
Section 612. R1-8 Single-Family Residence District.
Amend Chapter 6, Section 612 (R1-8 Single-Family Residence District) to read as
follows:

Section 612. R1-8 Single-Family Residence District.

A. Purpose. A basic purpose of these regulations is to foster the creation of living
areas which can assist the establishment of stable, functional neighborhoods. An
established pattern of living in this metropolitan area reflects a tradition of single-
family occupied dwellings which also emphasize outdoor living. Many of these
dwellings are thereby located on relatively large urban or suburban lots.

These regulations provide standards for dwellings built at low and moderate
densities. While the predominant housing type is expected to be single-family
dwelling, provisions are made for alternative housing types within the same density
limits.

B. District Regulations. The following tables establish standards to be used is IN the
R1-8 district. The definitions of terms used in these standards are found in Section
608.D 608.I.

Table A. Single-Family Detached Development




Page 887
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



TABLE 612.A
R1-8 Development Option OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum lot width (in the event 65' minimum 45' minimum (unless
of horizontal property regimes, approved by either the
"lot" shall refer to the width of design advisor or the
the structure and exclusive use DESIGN REVIEW
area) COMMITTEE Single-
Family Architectural
Appeals Board for
demonstrating enhanced
architecture that
minimizes the impact of
the garage. (see Section
507 Tab A.2.12.1
B(2)(b) [sic]))

Minimum lot depth None, except 110' None, except 110'
adjacent to freeway or adjacent to freeway or
arterial arterial

Dwelling unit density 4.0 4.5; 5.5 with bonus
(units/gross acre)

Minimum perimeter building Front: 15'; Street STREET (2) (front,
setbacks Rear: 15' (1-story), 20' rear or side): 15' (in
(2-story); addition to landscape
Side: 10' (1-story), 15' setback);
(2-story) Property line (rear): 15'
(1-story), 20' (2-story);
Property line (side): 10'
(1-story), 15' (2-story)

Common landscaped setback None 15' average, 10'
adjacent to perimeter streets minimum (Does not
STREETS (2) apply to lots fronting
onto perimeter streets)




Page 888
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



TABLE 612.A
R1-8 Development Option OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum interior building Front: 10'; rear: 10'; Front: 10'; rear: none
setbacks combined front and rear: (established by Building
35', street side: 10'; Code); street side: 10';
sides: 13' total (3' sides: none (established
minimum, unless 0') by Building Code)

Minimum building separation 10' None

Minimum garage setback 18' from back of 18' from back of
sidewalk for front-loaded sidewalk for front-loaded
garages, 10' from garages, 10' from
property line for side- property line for side-
loaded garages loaded garages

Maximum garage width For lots <60': 2 car For lots <60': 2 car
widths, for lots ≥60' to widths, for lots ≥60' to
70': 3 car widths, for lots 70': 3 car widths, for lots
>70': no maximum >70': no maximum

Maximum height 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' (except
that 3 stories not
exceeding 30' are
permitted when
approved by the design
advisor for
demonstrating enhanced
architecture)

Lot coverage Primary structure, not Primary structure, not
including attached including attached
shade structures: shade structures:
40%Total: 50%, PLUS 40%Total: 50%, PLUS
AN ADDITIONAL 10% AN ADDITIONAL 10%
FOR AN ADU AND/OR FOR AN ADU AND/OR
ATTACHED SHADE ATTACHED SHADE
STRUCTURES. STRUCTURES.
TOTAL: 60% TOTAL: 60%




Page 889
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



TABLE 612.A
R1-8 Development Option OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Common areas None Minimum 5% of gross
area

Allowed uses DEVELOPMENT Single-family detached Single-family detached
DETACHED (3) DETACHED (3)

Required review Development review per Development review per
Section 507, and Section 507, and
subdivision to create 4 subdivision to create 4
or more lots or more lots

Street standards Public street, or private Public street or private
street built to City accessway (1)
standards with a
homeowners’
association established
for maintenance OR
PRIVATE ACCESSWAY
(1)


On-lot and common retention Common retention Common retention
required for lots less required for lots less
than 8,000 sq. ft. per than 8,000 sq. ft. per
grading and drainage grading and drainage
ordinance requirements ordinance requirements

Landscape standards Perimeter common:
trees spaced a
maximum of 20' to 30'
on center (based on
species) or in equivalent
groupings, and 5 shrubs
per tree.

(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for
extensions of street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue
partial dedications.



Page 890
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023




(2) For single-family, detached development built or subdivided under the
subdivision option prior to June 2, 1999, refer to the subdivision option in table B.
FOR PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, CANAL RIGHTS-OF-WAY SHALL BE
TREATED THE SAME AS PUBLIC STREET RIGHTS-OF-WAY.

(3) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as
public street rights-of-way. FOR SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT
BUILT OR SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO JUNE 2, 1999, REFER TO THE
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF TABLE 612.B.

Table B. Single-Family Detached (Subdivided Prior to June 2, 1998), Single-Family
Attached and Multifamily Development




TABLE 612.B
R1-8 DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, AND
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO JUNE 2,
1999)

(c)
(a) (b)
Standards Planned Residential
Subdivision Average Lot
Development

Minimum lot 70' width, 94' depth 50' width, 65' None
dimensions (width (Minimum area depth
and depth) 8,000 sq. ft.)

Dwelling unit 4.30 4.30 4.52; 5.16 with bonus
density
(units/gross acre)




Page 891
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



TABLE 612.B
R1-8 DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, AND
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO JUNE 2,
1999)

(c)
(a) (b)
Standards Planned Residential
Subdivision Average Lot
Development

Perimeter None 25' front or rear 20' adjacent to a
standards 10' side public street STREET
(2); this area is to be in

common ownership
unless lots front on
the perimeter public
street; 15' adjacent to
property line

Building setbacks 20' front, 25' rear, 10' front, 35' front 10' front
10' and 3' side plus rear

Maximum height 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' for
first 150'; 1' in 5'
increase to 48' high
and 4 stories

Lot coverage 40% 50%, PLUS AN Primary structure, Primary structure, not
ADDITIONAL 10% not including including attached
FOR AN ADU attached shade shade structures:
AND/OR structures: 40%Total: 45%. 50%,
ATTACHED SHADE 40%Total: 45%. PLUS AN
STRUCTURES. 50%, PLUS AN ADDITIONAL 10%
TOTAL: 60% ADDITIONAL FOR AN ADU
10% FOR AN AND/OR ATTACHED
ADU AND/OR SHADE
ATTACHED STRUCTURES.
SHADE TOTAL: 60%
STRUCTURES.
TOTAL: 60%

Common areas None None Minimum 5% of gross
area




Page 892
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



TABLE 612.B
R1-8 DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, AND
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO JUNE 2,
1999)

(c)
(a) (b)
Standards Planned Residential
Subdivision Average Lot
Development

Allowed uses Single-family Single-family Multiple-family
DEVELOPMENT detached attached; plus (a) MULTIFAMILY plus
DETACHED (3) AND (b)
DUPLEX

Required review Subdivision to Subdivision with Site plan per Section
create 4 or more lots building setbacks 507

Street standards Public street Public street Public street or
required private accessway
(2)(1)



(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for
extensions of street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue
partial dedications.

(2) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as
public street rights-of-way.

(3) THE ONLY SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENTS THAT THE
STANDARDS OF THIS TABLE APPLY TO ARE ONES BUILT OR SUBDIVIDED
PRIOR TO JUNE 2, 1999.

C. Reserved.

***
Section 613. R1-6 Single-Family Residence District.
Amend Chapter 6, Section 613 (R1-6 Single-Family Residence District) to read as
follows:

Section 613. R1-6 Single-Family Residence District.




Page 893
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



A. Purpose. A basic purpose of these regulations is to foster the creation of living
areas which can assist the establishment of stable, functional neighborhoods. An
established pattern of living in this metropolitan area reflects a tradition of single-
family occupied dwellings which also emphasize outdoor living. Many of these
dwellings are thereby located on relatively large urban or suburban lots.

These regulations provide standards for dwellings built at low and moderate
densities. While the predominant housing type is expected to be single-family
dwelling, provisions are made for alternative housing types within the same density
limits.

B. District Regulations. The following tables establish standards to be used in the
R1-6 district. The definitions of terms used in these standards are found in Section
608.D 608.I.

Table A. Single-Family, Detached Development
TABLE 613.A
R1-6 Development Option OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum lot width (in 55' minimum 45' minimum (unless
the event of horizontal approved by either the
property regimes, "lot" design advisor or the
shall refer to the width of DESIGN REVIEW
the structure and COMMITTEE Single-Family
exclusive use area) Architectural Appeals Board
for demonstrating enhanced
architecture that minimizes
the impact of the garage.
(see Section 507 Tab
A.2.12.1 B(2)(b) [sic]))

Minimum lot depth None, except 110' adjacent None, except 110' adjacent
to freeway or arterial to freeway or arterial

Dwelling unit density 5.0 5.5; 6.5 with bonus
(units/gross acre)




Page 894
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



TABLE 613.A
R1-6 Development Option OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum perimeter Front: 15'; Street STREET (2) (front,
building setbacks Rear: 15' (1-story), 20' (2- rear or side): 15' (in addition
story); to landscape setback);
Side: 10' (1-story), 15' (2- Property line (rear): 15' (1-
story) story), 20' (2-story);
Property line (side): 10' (1-
story), 15' (2-story)

Common landscaped None 15' average, 10' minimum
setback adjacent to (Does not apply to lots
perimeter streets fronting onto perimeter
STREETS (2) streets)

Minimum interior Front: 10'; rear: 10'; Front: 10'; rear: none
building setbacks combined front and rear: (established by Building
35', street side: 10'; sides: Code); street side: 10';
13' total (3' minimum, unless sides: none (established by
0') Building Code)

Minimum building 10' None
separation

Minimum garage 18' from back of sidewalk for 18' from back of sidewalk for
setback front-loaded garages, 10' front-loaded garages, 10'
from property line for side- from property line for side-
loaded garages loaded garages

Maximum garage width For lots <60': 2 car widths, For lots <60': 2 car widths,
for lots ≥60' to 70': 3 car for lots ≥60' to 70': 3 car
widths, for lots >70': no widths, for lots >70': no
maximum maximum




Page 895
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



TABLE 613.A
R1-6 Development Option OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Maximum height 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' (except
that 3 stories not exceeding
30' are permitted when
approved by the design
advisor for demonstrating
enhanced architecture)

Lot coverage Primary structure, not Primary structure, not
including attached shade including attached shade
structures: 40%Total: 50%, structures: 40%Total: 50%,
PLUS AN ADDITIONAL PLUS AN ADDITIONAL
10% FOR AN ADU AND/OR 10% FOR AN ADU AND/OR
ATTACHED SHADE ATTACHED SHADE
STRUCTURES. TOTAL: STRUCTURES. TOTAL:
60% 60%

Common areas None Minimum 5% of gross area

Allowed uses Single-family detached Single-family detached
DEVELOPMENT DETACHED (3) DETACHED (3)

Required review Development review per Development review per
Section 507, and Section 507, and
subdivision to create 4 or subdivision to create 4 or
more lots more lots

Street standards Public street, or private Public street or private
street built to City standards accessway (1)
with a homeowners’
association established for
maintenance OR PRIVATE
ACCESSWAY (1)

On-lot and common Common retention required Common retention required
retention for lots less than 8,000 sq. for lots less than 8,000 sq.
ft. per grading and drainage ft. per grading and drainage
ordinance requirements ordinance requirements




Page 896
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



TABLE 613.A
R1-6 Development Option OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Landscape standards Perimeter common: trees
spaced a maximum of 20 to
30 feet on center (based on
species) or in equivalent
groupings, and 5 shrubs per
tree.

(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for
extensions of street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue
partial dedications.

(2) For single-family, detached development built or subdivided under the
subdivision option prior to May 1, 1998, refer to the subdivision option in table B.
FOR PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, CANAL RIGHTS-OF-WAY SHALL BE
TREATED THE SAME AS PUBLIC STREET RIGHTS-OF-WAY.

(3) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as
public street rights-of-way. FOR SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT
BUILT OR SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO MAY 1, 1998, REFER TO THE
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF TABLE 613.B

Table B. Single-Family Detached (Subdivided Prior to May 1, 1998), Single-Family
Attached and Multifamily Development




Page 897
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



TABLE 613.B
R1-6 DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, AND
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO MAY 1,
1998)

(c)
(a) (b)
Standards Planned Residential
Subdivision(3) Average Lot
Development

Minimum lot 60' width, 94' depth 40' width, 60' None
dimensions (width (Minimum area depth
and depth) 6,000 sq. ft.)

Dwelling unit 5.30 5.30 5.54; 6.34 with bonus
density (units/gross
acre)

Perimeter None 25' front or rear 20' adjacent to a
standards 10' side public street STREET
(2); this area is to be in

common ownership
unless lots front on the
perimeter public
street; 15' adjacent to
property line

Building setbacks 20' front, 25' rear, 10' front, 35' front 10' front
10' and 3' side plus rear

Maximum height 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' for
first 150'; 1' in 5'
increase to 48' high
and 4 stories




Page 898
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



TABLE 613.B
R1-6 DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, AND
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO MAY 1,
1998)

(c)
(a) (b)
Standards Planned Residential
Subdivision(3) Average Lot
Development

Lot coverage 40% 50%, PLUS Primary structure, Primary structure, not
AN ADDITIONAL not including including attached
10% FOR AN ADU attached shade shade structures:
AND/OR structures: 40%Total: 45%. 50%,
ATTACHED 40%Total: 45%. PLUS AN
SHADE 50%, PLUS AN ADDITIONAL 10%
STRUCTURES. ADDITIONAL FOR AN ADU
TOTAL: 60% 10% FOR AN AND/OR ATTACHED
ADU AND/OR SHADE
ATTACHED STRUCTURES.
SHADE TOTAL: 60%
STRUCTURES.
TOTAL: 60%

Common areas None None Minimum 5% of gross
area(3) AREA

Allowed uses Single-family Single-family Multiple-family
DEVELOPMENT detached attached; PLUS MULTIFAMILY and
DETACHED (3) (a) single-family attached
AND DUPLEX PLUS (b)

Required review Subdivision to Subdivision with Development review
create 4 or more building setbacks per Section 507
lots

Street standards Public street Public street Public street or private
required accessway (2)(1)

(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for
extensions of street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue
partial dedications.




Page 899
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



(2) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as
public street rights-of-way.

(3) These standards apply only to single-family, detached development built or
subdivided under the subdivision option prior to May 1, 1998. THE ONLY
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENTS THAT THE STANDARDS OF
THIS TABLE APPLY TO ARE ONES BUILT OR SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO MAY
1, 1998.

C. Reserved.

***
Section 614. R-2 Multifamily Residence District.
Amend Chapter 6, Section 614 (R-2 Multifamily Residence District) to read as
follows:

Section 614. R-2 Multifamily Residence District.

***

B. District Regulations. The following tables establish standards to be used in the R-
2 district. The definitions of terms used in these standards are found in Section
608.I. The single-family attached INFILL development option must meet Section
608.F.6 requirements.

Table A. Single-Family, Detached Development(2)




Page 900
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



TABLE 614.A
R-2 Development Option OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum lot width (in the 55' minimum 45' minimum (unless
event of horizontal approved by either the
property regimes, "lot" design advisor or the
shall refer to the width of DESIGN REVIEW
the structure and COMMITTEE Single-
exclusive use area) Family Architectural
Appeals Board for
demonstrating enhanced
architecture that minimizes
the impact of the garage.
(see Section 507 Tab
A.2.12.1 B(2)(b) [sic]))

Minimum lot depth None, except 110' adjacent None, except 110' adjacent
to freeway or arterial to freeway or arterial

Dwelling unit density 5.0 6.5; 12 with bonus
(units/gross acre)

Minimum perimeter Front: 15'; Rear: 15' (1- Street STREET (2) (front,
building setbacks story), 20' (2-story); Side: rear or side): 15' (in
10' (1-story), 15' (2-story) addition to landscape
setback);
Property line (rear): 15' (1-
story), 20' (2-story);
Property line (side): 10' (1-
story), 15' (2-story)

Common landscaped None 15' average, 10' minimum
setback adjacent to (Does not apply to lots
perimeter streets fronting onto perimeter
STREETS (2) streets)




Page 901
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



TABLE 614.A
R-2 Development Option OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum interior building Front: 10'; rear: 10'; Front: 10'; rear: none
setbacks combined front and rear: (established by Building
35', street side: 10'; sides: Code); street side: 10';
13' total (3' minimum, sides: none (established by
unless 0') Building Code)

Minimum building 10' None
separation

Minimum garage setback 18' from back of sidewalk 18' from back of sidewalk
for front-loaded garages, for front-loaded garages,
10' from property line for 10' from property line for
side-loaded garages side-loaded garages

Maximum garage width For lots <60': 2 car widths, For lots <60': 2 car widths,
for lots ≥60' to 70': 3 car for lots ≥60' to 70': 3 car
widths, for lots >70': no widths, for lots >70': no
maximum maximum

Maximum height 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' (except
that 3 stories not exceeding
30' are permitted when
approved by the design
advisor for demonstrating
enhanced architecture)

Lot coverage Primary structure, not Primary structure, not
including attached shade including attached shade
structures: 40%Total: 50%, structures: 40%Total: 50%,
PLUS AN ADDITIONAL PLUS AN ADDITIONAL
10% FOR AN ADU 10% FOR AN ADU
AND/OR ATTACHED AND/OR ATTACHED
SHADE STRUCTURES. SHADE STRUCTURES.
TOTAL: 60% TOTAL: 60%

Common areas None Minimum 5% of gross area




Page 902
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



TABLE 614.A
R-2 Development Option OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Allowed uses Single-family detached Single-family detached
DEVELOPMENT DETACHED (3) DETACHED (3)

Required review Development review per Development review per
Section 507, and Section 507, and
subdivision to create 4 or subdivision to create 4 or
more lots more lots

Street standards Public street, or private Public street or private
street built to City accessway (1)
standards with a
homeowners’ association
established for
maintenance OR PRIVATE
ACCESSWAY (1)

On-lot and common Common retention required Common retention required
retention for lots less than 8,000 sq. for lots less than 8,000 sq.
ft. per grading and drainage ft. per grading and drainage
ordinance requirements ordinance requirements

Landscape standards Perimeter common: trees
spaced a maximum of 20 to
30 feet on center (based on
species) or in equivalent
groupings, and 5 shrubs
per tree.

(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for
extensions of street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue
partial dedications.

(2) For single-family, detached development built or subdivided under the
subdivision option prior to May 1, 1998, refer to the subdivision option in table B.
FOR PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, CANAL RIGHTS-OF-WAY SHALL BE
TREATED THE SAME AS PUBLIC STREET RIGHTS-OF-WAY.




Page 903
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023




(3) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as
public street rights-of-way. FOR SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT
BUILT OR SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO MAY 1, 1998, REFER TO THE
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF TABLE 614.B

Table B. Single-Family Detached (Subdivided Prior to May 1, 1998), Single-Family
Attached and Multifamily Development




TABLE 614.B
R-2 Development Options
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, AND
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO MAY
1,1998)

(c) (d)
(a)
(b) Planned Single-Family
Standards Subdivision(2
) Average Lot Residential Attached (3)
Development INFILL (4)

Minimum lot 60' width, 94' 40' width, 50' None Development
dimensions depth depth site: none.
(width and Individual
depth) dwelling lot:
20'.

Dwelling unit 10.0 10.0 10.50; 12.00 10.50; 12.00
density with bonus with bonus
(units/gross
acre)




Page 904
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



TABLE 614.B
R-2 Development Options
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, AND
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO MAY
1,1998)

(c) (d)
(a)
(b) Planned Single-Family
Standards Subdivision(2
) Average Lot Residential Attached (3)
Development INFILL (4)

Perimeter None 20' front, 15' 20' adjacent to 10' for units
standards rear, 10' side a public street; fronting street
this area is to rights-of-way;
be in common 15' for units
ownership siding street
unless lots front rights-of-way.
on the This area is to
perimeter be in common
public street ownership or
STREET (2); 10' management.
15’ adjacent to 10' adjacent to
property line property line.

Building 25' front, 25' 10' front, 35' 10' front Individual unit
setbacks rear, 10' and front plus rear lot: none
3' side

Maximum height 2 stories and 2 stories and 2 stories and 3 stories or
30'* 30’ (5) 30'* 30’ (5) 30' for first 150'; AND 40' for
1' in 5' increase first 150'; 1' in
to 48' high 1' increase to
HEIGHT, and 48' height, 4-
4- stories* story
STORY maximum*
MAXIMUM (5) MAXIMUM (6)




Page 905
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



TABLE 614.B
R-2 Development Options
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, AND
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO MAY
1,1998)

(c) (d)
(a)
(b) Planned Single-Family
Standards Subdivision(2
) Average Lot Residential Attached (3)
Development INFILL (4)

Lot coverage 40% 50%, 45% 50%, 45% 50%, 100% FOR
PLUS AN PLUS AN PLUS AN EACH
ADDITIONAL ADDITIONAL ADDITIONAL INDIVIDUAL
10% FOR AN 10% FOR AN 10% FOR AN LOT. 50%
ADU AND/OR ADU AND/OR ADU AND/OR FOR OTHER
ATTACHED ATTACHED ATTACHED PARCELS OR
SHADE SHADE SHADE TRACTS
STRUCTURE STRUCTURE STRUCTURES WITH
S. TOTAL: S. TOTAL: . TOTAL: 60% ACCESSORY
60% 60% STRUCTURE
S.

Common areas None None Minimum 5% of Minimum 5%
gross area (2) of gross area
(2)


Allowed uses Single-family Single-family Single-family Single-family
DEVELOPMENT DETACHED DETACHED (3), DETACHED (3), attached and
(3), SINGLE- SINGLE- SINGLE- SINGLE-
FAMILY FAMILY FAMILY FAMILY
attached, and attached, and attached, and DETACHED
multifamily multifamily multifamily (PER THE
PROVISIONS
OF 608.F.6
ONLY) home
occupations
per Section

Required review Subdivision to Subdivision Development Development
create 4 or with building review per review per
more lots setbacks Section 507 Section 507




Page 906
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



TABLE 614.B
R-2 Development Options
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, AND
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO MAY
1,1998)

(c) (d)
(a)
(b) Planned Single-Family
Standards Subdivision(2
) Average Lot Residential Attached (3)
Development INFILL (4)

Street standards Public street Public street Public street or Development
required private site: public
accessway street,
ACCESSWAY PUBLIC
(1) ALLEY, or
private
accessway.
Individual unit
lot: private
accessway,
alley right-of-
way or
driveway OR
PRIVATE
DRIVE (1).

* There shall be a 15-foot maximum height within ten feet of a single-family zoned
district, which height may be increased one foot for each additional one foot of
building setback to the maximum permitted height.

(1) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as public
street rights-of-way. PUBLIC STREETS MAY BE REQUIRED AS A PART
OF SUBDIVISION OR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR EXTENSIONS OF STREET
PATTERNS, FOR CIRCULATION WITHIN NEIGHBORHOODS, OR TO
CONTINUE PARTIAL DEDICATIONS.

(2) These standards also apply to single-family, detached development built or
subdivided under the subdivision option prior to May 1, 1998. FOR PURPOSES
OF THIS SECTION, CANAL RIGHTS-OF-WAY SHALL BE TREATED THE SAME
AS PUBLIC STREET RIGHTS-OF-WAY.




Page 907
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



(3) The single-family attached development option must meet Section 608.F.8
requirements. THE ONLY SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENTS THAT
THE STANDARDS OF THIS TABLE APPLY TO ARE ONES BUILT OR
SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO MAY 1, 1998.

(4) THE SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL DEVELOPMENT OPTION MUST COMPLY WITH
THE ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS PROVIDED IN SECTION
608.F.6.

(5) THERE SHALL BE A 15-FOOT MAXIMUM HEIGHT WITHIN TEN FEET OF A
SINGLE-FAMILY ZONED DISTRICT, WHICH HEIGHT MAY BE INCREASED ONE
FOOT FOR EACH ADDITIONAL ONE FOOT OF BUILDING SETBACK TO THE
MAXIMUM PERMITTED HEIGHT.

(6)




Page 908
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023




C. Special Regulations

1. A site plan in accordance with Section 507 is required for all development in
the R-2, R-3, R-3A, R-4, R-4A and R-5 districts except when the
development consists of single-family dwellings on individual lots.

2. Reserved.

***
Section 615. R-3 Multifamily Residence District.
Amend Chapter 6, Section 615 (R-3 Multifamily Residence District) to read as
follows:

Section 615. R-3 Multifamily Residence District.

***

B. District Regulations. The following tables establish standards to be used in the R-
3 district. The definitions of terms used in these standards are found in Section




Page 909
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



608.I. The single-family attached INFILL development option must meet Section
608.F.6 requirements.

Table A. Single-Family Development(2)
TABLE 615.A
R-3 Development Option OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum lot width (in the 55' minimum 45' minimum (unless
event of horizontal approved by either the
property regimes, "lot" design advisor or the
shall refer to the width of DESIGN REVIEW
the structure and COMMITTEE Single-Family
exclusive use area) Architectural Appeals Board
for demonstrating enhanced
architecture that minimizes
the impact of the garage.
(see Section 507 Tab
A.2.12.1 B(2)(b) [sic]))

Minimum lot depth None, except 110' adjacent None, except 110' adjacent
to freeway or arterial to freeway or arterial

Dwelling unit density 5.0 6.5; 12 with bonus
(units/gross acre)

Minimum perimeter Front: 15'; Rear: 15' (1- Street STREET (2) (front,
building setbacks story), 20' (2-story); Side: rear or side): 15' (in addition
10' (1-story), 15' (2-story) to landscape setback);
Property line (rear): 15' (1-
story), 20' (2-story);
Property line (side): 10' (1-
story), 15' (2-story)

Common landscaped None 15' average, 10' minimum
setback adjacent to (Does not apply to lots
perimeter streets fronting onto perimeter
STREETS (2) streets)




Page 910
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



TABLE 615.A
R-3 Development Option OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum interior Front: 10'; rear: 10'; Front: 10'; rear: none
building setbacks combined front and rear: (established by Building
35', street side: 10'; sides: Code); street side: 10';
13' total (3' minimum, sides: none (established by
unless 0') Building Code)

Minimum building 10' None
separation

Minimum garage 18' from back of sidewalk 18' from back of sidewalk
setback for front-loaded garages, 10' for front-loaded garages, 10'
from property line for side- from property line for side-
loaded garages loaded garages

Maximum garage width For lots <60': 2 car widths, For lots <60': 2 car widths,
for lots ≥60' to 70': 3 car for lots ≥60' to 70': 3 car
widths, for lots >70': no widths, for lots >70': no
maximum maximum

Maximum height 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' (except
that 3 stories not exceeding
30' are permitted when
approved by the design
advisor for demonstrating
enhanced architecture)

Lot coverage Primary structure, not Primary structure, not
including attached shade including attached shade
structures: 40%Total: 50%, structures: 40%Total: 50%,
PLUS AN ADDITIONAL PLUS AN ADDITIONAL
10% FOR AN ADU 10% FOR AN ADU
AND/OR ATTACHED AND/OR ATTACHED
SHADE STRUCTURES. SHADE STRUCTURES.
TOTAL: 60% TOTAL: 60%

Common areas None Minimum 5% of gross area




Page 911
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



TABLE 615.A
R-3 Development Option OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Allowed uses Single-family detached Single-family detached
DEVELOPMENT DETACHED (3) DETACHED (3)

Required review Development review per Development review per
Section 507, and Section 507, and
subdivision to create 4 or subdivision to create 4 or
more lots more lots

Street standards Public street, or private Public street or private
street built to City standards accessway (1)
with a homeowners’
association established for
maintenance OR PRIVATE
ACCESSWAY (1)

On-lot and common Common retention required Common retention required
retention for lots less than 8,000 sq. for lots less than 8,000 sq.
ft. per grading and drainage ft. per grading and drainage
ordinance requirements ordinance requirements

Landscape standards Perimeter common: trees
spaced a maximum of 20 to
30 feet on center (based on
species) or in equivalent
groupings, and 5 shrubs per
tree.

(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for
extensions of street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue
partial dedications.

(2) For single-family, detached development built or subdivided under the
subdivision option prior to May 1, 1998, refer to the subdivision option in table B.
FOR PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, CANAL RIGHTS-OF-WAY SHALL BE
TREATED THE SAME AS PUBLIC STREET RIGHTS-OF-WAY.




Page 912
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



(3) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as
public street rights-of-way. FOR SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT
BUILT OR SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO MAY 1, 1998, REFER TO THE
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF TABLE 615.B

Table B. Single-Family (Subdivided Prior to May 1, 1998), Single-Family Attached
and Multifamily Development




TABLE 615.B
R-3 Development Options
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, AND
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO MAY 1,
1998)

(c) (d)
(a) (b) Planned Single-Family
Standards
Subdivision(2) Average Lot Residential Attached (3)
Development INFILL (4)

Minimum lot 60' width, 94' 40' width, 50' None Individual unit
dimensions depth depth lot: 20' width,
(width and no minimum
depth) depth

Dwelling unit 14.5 14.5 15.23; 17.40 15.23; 17.40
density with bonus with bonus
(units/gross
acre)




Page 913
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



TABLE 615.B
R-3 Development Options
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, AND
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO MAY 1,
1998)

(c) (d)
(a) (b) Planned Single-Family
Standards
Subdivision(2) Average Lot Residential Attached (3)
Development INFILL (4)

Perimeter None 20' front, 15' 20' adjacent to 10' for units
standards rear, 10' side a public street; fronting street
this area is to rights-of-way;
be in common 15' for units
ownership siding street
unless lots rights-of-way.
front on the This area is to
perimeter be in common
public street ownership or
STREET (2); 15' management.
adjacent to 10' adjacent to
property line property line.

Building 25' front, 15' 10' front, 30' 10' front Individual unit
setbacks rear, 10' and 3' front plus rear lot: none
side

Maximum 2 stories and 2 stories and 2 stories and 3 stories or
height 30'* 30’ (5) 30'* 30’ (5) 30' for first AND 40' for
150'; 1' in 5' first 150'; 1' in
increase to 48' 1' increase to
high HEIGHT, 48' height, 4-
and 4- stories* story
STORY maximum*
MAXIMUM (5) MAXIMUM (6)




Page 914
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



TABLE 615.B
R-3 Development Options
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, AND
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO MAY 1,
1998)

(c) (d)
(a) (b) Planned Single-Family
Standards
Subdivision(2) Average Lot Residential Attached (3)
Development INFILL (4)

Lot coverage 40% 50%, 45% 50%, 45% 50%, 100% FOR
PLUS AN PLUS AN PLUS AN EACH
ADDITIONAL ADDITIONAL ADDITIONAL INDIVIDUAL
10% FOR AN 10% FOR AN 10% FOR AN LOT. 50%
ADU AND/OR ADU AND/OR ADU AND/OR FOR OTHER
ATTACHED ATTACHED ATTACHED PARCELS OR
SHADE SHADE SHADE TRACTS
STRUCTURE STRUCTURE STRUCTURE WITH
S. TOTAL: S. TOTAL: S. TOTAL: ACCESSORY
60% 60% 60% STRUCTURE
S.

Common areas None None Minimum 5% Minimum 5%
of gross area of gross area
(2)


Allowed uses Single-family Single-family Single-family Single-family
DEVELOPMEN DETACHED (3), DETACHED (3), DETACHED (3), attached and
T SINGLE- SINGLE- SINGLE- SINGLE-
FAMILY FAMILY FAMILY FAMILY
attached, and attached, and attached, and DETACHED
multifamily multifamily multifamily (PER THE
PROVISIONS
OF 608.F.6
ONLY) home
occupations
per Section

Required review Subdivision to Subdivision Development Development
create 4 or with building review per review per
more lots setbacks Section 507 Section 507




Page 915
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



TABLE 615.B
R-3 Development Options
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, AND
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO MAY 1,
1998)

(c) (d)
(a) (b) Planned Single-Family
Standards
Subdivision(2) Average Lot Residential Attached (3)
Development INFILL (4)

Street Public street Public street Public street or Development
standards required private site: public
accessway street, PUBLIC
ACCESSWAY ALLEY, or
(1) private
accessway.
Individual unit
lot: private
accessway,
alley right-of-
way or
driveway OR
PRIVATE
DRIVE (1).

* There shall be a 15-foot maximum height within ten feet of a single-family zoned
district, which height may be increased one foot for each additional one foot of
building setback to the maximum permitted height.

(1) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as
public street rights-of-way. PUBLIC STREETS MAY BE REQUIRED AS A PART
OF SUBDIVISION OR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR EXTENSIONS OF
STREET PATTERNS, FOR CIRCULATION WITHIN NEIGHBORHOODS, OR
TO CONTINUE PARTIAL DEDICATIONS.

(2) These standards also apply to single-family, detached development built or
subdivided under the subdivision option prior to May 1, 1998. FOR PURPOSES
OF THIS SECTION, CANAL RIGHTS-OF-WAY SHALL BE TREATED THE
SAME AS PUBLIC STREET RIGHTS-OF-WAY.




Page 916
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



(3) The single-family attached development option must meet Section 608.F.8
requirements. THE ONLY SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENTS
THAT THE STANDARDS OF THIS TABLE APPLY TO ARE ONES BUILT OR
SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO MAY 1, 1998.

(4) THE SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL DEVELOPMENT OPTION MUST COMPLY WITH
THE ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS PROVIDED IN SECTION
608.F.6.

(5) THERE SHALL BE A 15-FOOT MAXIMUM HEIGHT WITHIN TEN FEET OF A
SINGLE-FAMILY ZONED DISTRICT, WHICH HEIGHT MAY BE INCREASED
ONE FOOT FOR EACH ADDITIONAL ONE FOOT OF BUILDING SETBACK TO
THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED HEIGHT.

(6)




C. Special Regulations

1. Adult day care home for the care of one to four adult persons; provided, that:




Page 917
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



a. Outdoor recreation areas shall be screened from adjacent properties
by a six-foot-high landscape hedge, solid fence, or solid wall.

2. Boarding house, subject to a use permit and the following conditions:

a. 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.

b. No boarding house 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 boarding house, group home, or community
residence home or center within a residential zoning district.

c. A maximum lot coverage of 25 percent.

d. A minimum of 100 square feet of usable outdoor open space per
bed shall be provided.

e. The lot shall only have vehicular access from an arterial or
collector street.

3. Community residence center, subject to a use permit and the following
conditions:

a. Such center 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.

b. No community residence center 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 or
center within a residential zoning district.

c. Disability accommodation from the spacing requirement may be
requested by an applicant per Section 701.E.3.

d. A maximum lot coverage of 25 percent.

e. A minimum of 100 square feet of usable outdoor open space per bed
shall be provided.




Page 918
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023




f. The lot shall only have vehicular access from an arterial or collector
street.

4. Group home, subject to a use permit and the following conditions:

a. 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.

b. No group 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 group home, boarding house, or community residence
home or center within a residential zoning district.

c. A maximum lot coverage of 25 percent.

d. A minimum of 100 square feet of usable outdoor open space per bed
shall be provided.

e. The lot shall only have vehicular access from an arterial or collector
street.

5. Group foster home, subject to a use permit.

6. Dormitories and convents shall be permitted as accessory uses to churches
or similar places of worship.

7. A site plan in accordance with Section 507 is required for all development in
the R-2, R-3, R-3A, R-4, R-4A and R-5 districts except when the
development consists of single-family dwellings on individual lots.

8. Dependent care facility for 13 or more dependents and schools for the
mentally or physically handicapped subject to securing a use permit
pursuant to Section 307.

***
n 616. R-3A Multifamily Residence District.
Amend Chapter 6, Section 616 (R-3A Multifamily Residence District) to read as
follows:

Section 616. R-3A Multifamily Residence District.




Page 919
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023




***

B. District Regulations. The following tables establish standards to be used in the R-
3A district. The definitions of terms used in these standards are found in Section
608.I. The single-family attached INFILL development option must meet Section
608.F.6 requirements.

Table A. Single-Family Development(2)
TABLE 616.A
R-3A Development Option OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum lot width (in the 55' minimum 45' minimum (unless
event of horizontal approved by either the
property regimes, "lot" design advisor or the
shall refer to the width of DESIGN REVIEW
the structure and exclusive COMMITTEE Single-
use area) Family Architectural
Appeals Board for
demonstrating enhanced
architecture that minimizes
the impact of the garage.
(see Section 507 Tab
A.2.12.1 B(2)(b) [sic]))

Minimum lot depth None, except 110' adjacent None, except 110' adjacent
to freeway or arterial to freeway or arterial

Dwelling unit density 5.0 6.5; 12 with bonus
(units/gross acre)

Minimum perimeter Front: 15'; Street STREET (2) (front,
building setbacks Rear: 15' (1-story), 20' (2- rear or side): 15' (in
story); addition to landscape
Side: 10' (1-story), 15' (2- setback);
story) Property line (rear): 15' (1-
story), 20' (2-story);
Property line (side): 10' (1-
story), 15' (2-story)




Page 920
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



TABLE 616.A
R-3A Development Option OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Common landscaped None 15' average, 10' minimum
setback adjacent to (Does not apply to lots
perimeter streets fronting onto perimeter
STREETS (2) streets)

Minimum interior building Front: 10'; rear: 10'; Front: 10'; rear: none
setbacks combined front and rear: (established by Building
35', street side: 10'; sides: Code); street side: 10';
13' total (3' minimum, sides: none (established
unless 0') by Building Code)

Minimum building 10' None
separation

Minimum garage setback 18' from back of sidewalk 18' from back of sidewalk
for front-loaded garages, for front-loaded garages,
10' from property line for 10' from property line for
side-loaded garages side-loaded garages

Maximum garage width For lots <60': 2 car widths, For lots <60': 2 car widths,
for lots ≥60' to 70': 3 car for lots ≥60' to 70': 3 car
widths, for lots >70': no widths, for lots >70': no
maximum maximum

Maximum height 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' (except
that 3 stories not
exceeding 30' are
permitted when approved
by the design advisor for
demonstrating enhanced
architecture)




Page 921
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



TABLE 616.A
R-3A Development Option OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Lot coverage Primary structure, not Primary structure, not
including attached shade including attached shade
structures: 40%Total: 50%, structures: 40%Total: 50%,
PLUS AN ADDITIONAL PLUS AN ADDITIONAL
10% FOR AN ADU 10% FOR AN ADU
AND/OR ATTACHED AND/OR ATTACHED
SHADE STRUCTURES. SHADE STRUCTURES.
TOTAL: 60% TOTAL: 60%

Common areas None Minimum 5% of gross area

Allowed uses Single-family detached Single-family detached
DEVELOPMENT DETACHED (3) DETACHED (3)

Required review Development review per Development review per
Section 507, and Section 507, and
subdivision to create 4 or subdivision to create 4 or
more lots more lots

Street standards Public street, or private Public street or private
street built to City accessway (1)
standards with a
homeowners’ association
established for
maintenance OR PRIVATE
ACCESSWAY (1)

On-lot and common Common retention Common retention
retention required for lots less than required for lots less than
8,000 sq. ft. per grading 8,000 sq. ft. per grading
and drainage ordinance and drainage ordinance
requirements requirements




Page 922
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



TABLE 616.A
R-3A Development Option OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Landscape standards Perimeter common: trees
spaced a maximum of 20
to 30 feet on center (based
on species) or in
equivalent groupings, and
5 shrubs per tree.

(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for
extensions of street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue
partial dedications.

(2) For single-family, detached development built or subdivided under the
subdivision option prior to May 1, 1998, refer to the subdivision option in table B.
FOR PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, CANAL RIGHTS-OF-WAY SHALL BE
TREATED THE SAME AS PUBLIC STREET RIGHTS-OF-WAY.

(3) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as
public street rights-of-way. FOR SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT
BUILT OR SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO MAY 1, 1998, REFER TO THE
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF TABLE 616.B

Table B. Single-Family (Subdivided Prior to May 1, 1998), Single-Family Attached
and Multifamily Development




Page 923
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



TABLE 616.B
R-3A Development Options
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, AND
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO MAY 1,
1998)

(c) (d)
(a) (b) Planned Single-Family
Standards
Subdivision(2) Average Lot Residential Attached (3)
Development INFILL (4)

Minimum lot 60' width, 94' 40' width, 50' None Individual unit
dimensions depth depth lot: 20' width,
(width and no minimum
depth) depth

Dwelling unit 22 22 23.1; 26.4 with 23.1; 26.4 with
density bonus bonus
(units/gross
acre)

Perimeter None 20' front, 15' 20' adjacent to 10' for units
standards rear, 10' side a public street; fronting street
this area is to rights-of-way;
be in common 15' for units
ownership siding street
unless lots rights-of-way.
front on the This area is to
perimeter be in common
public street ownership or
STREET (2); 15' management.
adjacent to 10' adjacent to
property line property line

Building 25' front, 15' 10' front, 30' 10' front Individual unit
setbacks rear, 10' and 3' front plus rear lot: none
side




Page 924
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



TABLE 616.B
R-3A Development Options
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, AND
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO MAY 1,
1998)

(c) (d)
(a) (b) Planned Single-Family
Standards
Subdivision(2) Average Lot Residential Attached (3)
Development INFILL (4)

Maximum 3 stories or 3 stories or 3 stories or 40' 3 stories or 40'
height 40'* 40’(5) 40'* 40’(5) for 150'; 1' in 5' for first 150'; 1'
increase to 48' in 1' increase
HEIGHT, 4- to 48' height,
story maximum 4-story
(5) maximum*
MAXIMUM (6)

Lot coverage 40% 50%, 45% 50%, 45% 50%, 100% FOR
PLUS AN PLUS AN PLUS AN EACH
ADDITIONAL ADDITIONAL ADDITIONAL INDIVIDUAL
10% FOR AN 10% FOR AN 10% FOR AN LOT. 50%
ADU AND/OR ADU AND/OR ADU AND/OR FOR OTHER
ATTACHED ATTACHED ATTACHED PARCELS OR
SHADE SHADE SHADE TRACTS
STRUCTURE STRUCTURE STRUCTURE WITH
S. TOTAL: S. TOTAL: S. TOTAL: ACCESSORY
60% 60% 60% STRUCTURE
S.

Common areas None None Minimum 5% Minimum 5%
of gross area of gross area
(2)




Page 925
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



TABLE 616.B
R-3A Development Options
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, AND
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO MAY 1,
1998)

(c) (d)
(a) (b) Planned Single-Family
Standards
Subdivision(2) Average Lot Residential Attached (3)
Development INFILL (4)

Allowed uses Single-family Single-family Single-family Single-family
DEVELOPMEN DETACHED (3), DETACHED (3), DETACHED (3), attached and
T SINGLE- SINGLE- SINGLE- SINGLE-
FAMILY FAMILY FAMILY FAMILY
attached, and attached, and attached, and DETACHED
multifamily multifamily multifamily (PER THE
PROVISIONS
OF 608.F.6
ONLY) home
occupations
per Section

Required review Subdivision to Subdivision Development Development
create 4 or with building review per review per
more lots setbacks Section 507 Section 507

Street Public street Public street Public street or Development
standards required private site: public
accessway street, PUBLIC
ACCESSWAY ALLEY, or
(1) private
accessway.
Individual unit
lot: private
accessway,
alley right-of-
way or
driveway OR
PRIVATE
DRIVE (1).




Page 926
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



* There shall be a 15-foot maximum height within ten feet of a single-family zoned
district, which height may be increased one foot for each additional one foot of
building setback to the maximum permitted height.

(1) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as
public street rights-of-way. PUBLIC STREETS MAY BE REQUIRED AS A PART
OF SUBDIVISION OR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR EXTENSIONS OF
STREET PATTERNS, FOR CIRCULATION WITHIN NEIGHBORHOODS, OR
TO CONTINUE PARTIAL DEDICATIONS.

(2) These standards also apply to single-family, detached development built or
subdivided under the subdivision option prior to May 1, 1998. FOR PURPOSES
OF THIS SECTION, CANAL RIGHTS-OF-WAY SHALL BE TREATED THE
SAME AS PUBLIC STREET RIGHTS-OF-WAY.

(3) The single-family attached development option must meet Section 608.F.8
requirements. THE ONLY SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENTS
THAT THE STANDARDS OF THIS TABLE APPLY TO ARE ONES BUILT OR
SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO MAY 1, 1998.

(4) THE SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL DEVELOPMENT OPTION MUST COMPLY WITH
THE ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS PROVIDED IN SECTION
608.F.6.

(5) THERE SHALL BE A 15-FOOT MAXIMUM HEIGHT WITHIN TEN FEET OF A
SINGLE-FAMILY ZONED DISTRICT, WHICH HEIGHT MAY BE INCREASED
ONE FOOT FOR EACH ADDITIONAL ONE FOOT OF BUILDING SETBACK TO
THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED HEIGHT.




Page 927
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



(6)




C. Special Regulations

1. Adult day care center, subject to a use permit; and provided, that:

a. Outdoor recreation areas shall be screened from adjacent properties
by a six-foot-high landscape hedge, solid fence, or solid wall.

2. Boarding house, subject to a use permit and the following conditions:

a. 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.

b. No boarding house 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 boarding house, group home, or community
residence home or center within a residential zoning district.




Page 928
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



c. A maximum lot coverage of 25 percent.

d. A minimum of 100 square feet of usable outdoor open space per
bed shall be provided.

e. The lot shall only have vehicular access from an arterial or
collector street.

3. Community residence center, subject to a use permit and the following
conditions:

a. Such center 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.

b. No community residence center 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 or
center within a residential zoning district.

c. Disability accommodation from the spacing requirement may be
requested by an applicant per Section 701.E.3.

d. A maximum lot coverage of 25 percent.

e. A minimum of 100 square feet of usable outdoor open space per bed
shall be provided.

f. The lot shall only have vehicular access from an arterial or collector
street.

4. Group home, subject to a use permit and the following conditions:

a. 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.

b. No group 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 group home, boarding house, or community residence
home or center within a residential zoning district.




Page 929
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023




c. A maximum lot coverage of 25 percent.

d. A minimum of 100 square feet of usable outdoor open space per bed
shall be provided.

e. The lot shall only have vehicular access from an arterial or collector
street.

5. Group foster home, subject to a use permit.

6. Dormitories and convents shall be permitted as accessory uses to churches
or similar places of worship.

7. A site plan in accordance with Section 507 is required for all development in
the R-2, R-3, R-3A, R-4, R-4A and R-5 districts except when the
development consists of single-family dwellings on individual lots.

8. A residential convenience market is permitted as an accessory use to a
multiple-family development, subject to the following conditions:

a. Signage shall be allowed only as part of a Comprehensive Sign Plan
pursuant to Section 705. The Zoning Administrator may approve wall
mounted signage up to a maximum height of 30 feet as part of an
approved Comprehensive Sign Plan.

b. The development shall contain a minimum of 400 dwelling units.

c. The market shall not exceed 1,000 square feet in total floor area
(display and storage) if the development contains less than 850
dwelling units. The market shall not exceed 3,000 square feet in total
floor area (display and storage) if the development contains 850 or
more dwelling units.

d. No parking spaces shall be required or permitted for the market
except for spaces designated for deliveries or handicapped
individuals.

9. Dependent care facility for 13 or more dependents and schools for the
mentally or physically handicapped subject to securing a use permit
pursuant to Section 307.

***




Page 930
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



Section 617. R-4 Multifamily Residence District.
Amend Chapter 6, Section 617 (R-4 Multifamily Residence District) to read as
follows:

Section 617. R-4 Multifamily Residence District.

***

B. District Regulations. The following tables establish standards to be used in the R-
4 district. The definitions of terms used in these standards are found in Section
608.I. The single-family attached INFILL development option must meet Section
608.F.6 requirements.

Table A. Single-Family Development(2)

TABLE 617.A
R-4 Development Option OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum lot width (in the 55' minimum 45' minimum (unless
event of horizontal property approved by either the
regimes, "lot" shall refer to design advisor or the
the width of the structure DESIGN REVIEW
and exclusive use area) COMMITTEE Single-
Family Architectural
Appeals Board for
demonstrating enhanced
architecture that minimizes
the impact of the garage.
(see Section 507 Tab
A.2.12.1 B(2)(b) [sic]))

Minimum lot depth None, except 110' None, except 110'
adjacent to freeway or adjacent to freeway or
arterial arterial

Dwelling unit density 5.0 6.5; 12 with bonus
(units/gross acre)




Page 931
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



TABLE 617.A
R-4 Development Option OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum perimeter building Front: 15'; Street STREET (2) (front,
setbacks Rear: 15' (1-story), 20' (2- rear or side): 15' (in
story); addition to landscape
Side: 10' (1-story), 15' (2- setback);
story) Property line (rear): 15' (1-
story), 20' (2-story);
Property line (side): 10' (1-
story), 15' (2-story)

Common landscaped None 15' average, 10' minimum
setback adjacent to (Does not apply to lots
perimeter streets STREETS fronting onto perimeter
(2) streets)

Minimum interior building Front: 10'; rear: 10'; Front: 10'; rear: none
setbacks combined front and rear: (established by Building
35', street side: 10'; sides: Code); street side: 10';
13' total (3' minimum, sides: none (established
unless 0') by Building Code)

Minimum building separation 10' None

Minimum garage setback 18' from back of sidewalk 18' from back of sidewalk
for front-loaded garages, for front-loaded garages,
10' from property line for 10' from property line for
side-loaded garages side-loaded garages

Maximum garage width For lots <60': 2 car For lots, 60': 2 car widths,
widths, for lots ≥60' to 70': for lots ≥60' to 70': 3 car
3 car widths, for lots >70': widths, for lots >70': no
no maximum maximum

Maximum height 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' (except
that 3 stories not
exceeding 30' are
permitted when approved
by the design advisor for




Page 932
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



TABLE 617.A
R-4 Development Option OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

demonstrating enhanced
architecture)

Lot coverage Primary structure, not Primary structure, not
including attached shade including attached shade
structures: 40%Total: structures: 40%Total:
50%, PLUS AN 50%, PLUS AN
ADDITIONAL 10% FOR ADDITIONAL 10% FOR
AN ADU AND/OR AN ADU AND/OR
ATTACHED SHADE ATTACHED SHADE
STRUCTURES. TOTAL: STRUCTURES. TOTAL:
60% 60%

Common areas None Minimum 5% of gross area

Allowed uses Single-family detached Single-family detached
DEVELOPMENT DETACHED (3) DETACHED (3)

Required review Development review per Development review per
Section 507, and Section 507, and
subdivision to create 4 or subdivision to create 4 or
more lots more lots

Street standards Public street, or private Public street or private
street built to City accessway (1)
standards with a
homeowners’ association
established for
maintenance OR
PRIVATE ACCESSWAY
(1)


On-lot and common Common retention Common retention
retention required for lots less than required for lots less than
8,000 sq. ft. per grading 8,000 sq. ft. per grading
and drainage ordinance and drainage ordinance
requirements requirements




Page 933
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



TABLE 617.A
R-4 Development Option OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Landscape standards Perimeter common: trees
spaced a maximum of 20
to 30 feet on center
(based on species) or in
equivalent groupings, and
5 shrubs per tree.

(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for
extensions of street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue
partial dedications.

(2) For single-family, detached development built or subdivided under the
subdivision option prior to May 1, 1998, refer to the subdivision option in table B.
FOR PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, CANAL RIGHTS-OF-WAY SHALL BE
TREATED THE SAME AS PUBLIC STREET RIGHTS-OF-WAY.

(3) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as
public street rights-of-way. FOR SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT
BUILT OR SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO MAY 1, 1998, REFER TO THE
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF TABLE 617.B

Table B. Single-Family (Subdivided Prior to May 1, 1998) Single-Family Attached
and Multifamily Development




Page 934
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



TABLE 617.B
R-4 Development Options
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, AND
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO MAY 1,
1998)

(c) (d)
(a) (b) Planned Single-Family
Standards
Subdivision(2) Average Lot Residential Attached (3)
Development INFILL (4)

Minimum lot 60' width, 94' 40' width, 50' None Individual unit
dimensions depth depth lot: 20' width,
(width and no minimum
depth) depth

Dwelling unit 29.0 29.0 30.45; 34.80 30.45; 34.80
density with bonus with bonus
(units/gross
acre)

Perimeter None 20' front, 15' 20' adjacent to 10' for units
standards rear, 10' side a public street; fronting street
this area is to rights-of-way;
be in common 15' for units
ownership siding street
unless lots rights-of-way.
front on the This area is to
perimeter be in common
public street ownership or
STREET (2); management.
10’ 15' 10' adjacent to
adjacent to property line
property line

Building 20' front, 15' 10' front, 30' 10' front Individual unit
setbacks rear, 10' and 3' front plus rear lot: none
side




Page 935
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



TABLE 617.B
R-4 Development Options
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, AND
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO MAY 1,
1998)

(c) (d)
(a) (b) Planned Single-Family
Standards
Subdivision(2) Average Lot Residential Attached (3)
Development INFILL (4)

Maximum 3 stories or 3 stories or 3 stories or 40' 3 stories or 40'
height 40'* 40’(5) 40'* 40’(5) for 150'; 1' in 5' for first 150'; 1'
increase to 48' in 1' increase
HEIGHT, 4- to 48' height,
story maximum 4-story
(5) maximum*
MAXIMUM (6)

Lot coverage 50%, PLUS 50%, PLUS 50%, PLUS 100% FOR
AN AN AN EACH
ADDITIONAL ADDITIONAL ADDITIONAL INDIVIDUAL
10% FOR AN 10% FOR AN 10% FOR AN LOT. 50%
ADU AND/OR ADU AND/OR ADU AND/OR FOR OTHER
ATTACHED ATTACHED ATTACHED PARCELS OR
SHADE SHADE SHADE TRACTS
STRUCTURE STRUCTURE STRUCTURE WITH
S. TOTAL: S. TOTAL: S. TOTAL: ACCESSORY
60% 60% 60% STRUCTURE
S.

Common areas None None Minimum 5% Minimum 5%
of gross area of gross area
(3)




Page 936
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



TABLE 617.B
R-4 Development Options
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, AND
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO MAY 1,
1998)

(c) (d)
(a) (b) Planned Single-Family
Standards
Subdivision(2) Average Lot Residential Attached (3)
Development INFILL (4)

Allowed uses Single-family Single-family Single-family Single-family
DEVELOPMEN DETACHED (3), DETACHED (3), DETACHED (3), attached and
T SINGLE- SINGLE- SINGLE- SINGLE-
FAMILY FAMILY FAMILY FAMILY
attached, and attached, and attached, and DETACHED
multifamily multifamily multifamily (PER THE
PROVISIONS
OF 608.F.6
ONLY) home
occupations
per Section

Required review Subdivision to Subdivision Development Development
create 4 or with building review per review per
more lots setbacks Section 507 Section 507

Street Public street Public street Public street or Development
standards required private site: public
accessway street, PUBLIC
ACCESSWAY ALLEY, or
(1) private
accessway.
Individual unit
lot: private
accessway,
alley right-of-
way or
driveway OR
PRIVATE
DRIVE (1).




Page 937
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



* There shall be a 15-foot maximum height within ten feet of a single-family zoned
district, which height may be increased one foot for each additional one foot of
building setback to the maximum permitted height.

(1) 1.3 for efficiency; 1.5 for one or two bedrooms; 2.0 for more than two bedrooms
or for single-family detached. PUBLIC STREETS MAY BE REQUIRED AS A
PART OF SUBDIVISION OR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR EXTENSIONS OF
STREET PATTERNS, FOR CIRCULATION WITHIN NEIGHBORHOODS, OR
TO CONTINUE PARTIAL DEDICATIONS.

(2) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as
public street rights-of-way.

(3) These standards also apply to single-family, detached development built or
subdivided under the subdivision option prior to May 1, 1998. THE ONLY
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENTS THAT THE STANDARDS OF
THIS TABLE APPLY TO ARE ONES BUILT OR SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO MAY
1, 1998.

(4) The single-family attached development option must meet Section 608.F.8
requirements.THE SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL DEVELOPMENT OPTION MUST
COMPLY WITH THE ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
PROVIDED IN SECTION 608.F.6.

(5) THERE SHALL BE A 15-FOOT MAXIMUM HEIGHT WITHIN TEN FEET OF A
SINGLE-FAMILY ZONED DISTRICT, WHICH HEIGHT MAY BE INCREASED
ONE FOOT FOR EACH ADDITIONAL ONE FOOT OF BUILDING SETBACK TO
THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED HEIGHT.




Page 938
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



(6)




C. Special Regulations

1. Adult day care center, subject to a use permit; and provided, that:

a. Outdoor recreation areas shall be screened from adjacent properties
by a six-foot-high landscape hedge, solid fence, or solid wall.

2. Boarding house, subject to a use permit and the following conditions:

a. 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.

b. No boarding house 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 boarding house, group home, or community residence
home or center within a residential zoning district.




Page 939
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



c. A maximum lot coverage of 25 percent.

d. A minimum of 100 square feet of usable outdoor open space per bed
shall be provided.

e. The lot shall only have vehicular access from an arterial or collector
street.

3. Community residence center, subject to a use permit and the following
conditions:

a. Such center 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.

b. No community residence center 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 or
center within a residential zoning district.

c. Disability accommodation from the spacing requirement may be
requested by an applicant per Section 701.E.3.

d. A maximum lot coverage of 25 percent.

e. A minimum of 100 square feet of usable outdoor open space per bed
shall be provided.

f. The lot shall only have vehicular access from an arterial or collector
street.

4. Group home, subject to a use permit and the following conditions:

a. 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.

b. No group 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 group home, boarding house, or community residence
home or center within a residential zoning district.




Page 940
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023




c. A maximum lot coverage of 25 percent.

d. A minimum of 100 square feet of usable outdoor open space per bed
shall be provided.

e. The lot shall only have vehicular access from an arterial or collector
street.

5. Group foster home, subject to a use permit.

6. Dormitories and convents shall be permitted as accessory uses to churches
or similar places of worship.

7. A site plan in accordance with Section 507 is required for all development in
the R-2, R-3, R-3A, R-4, R-4A and R-5 districts except when the
development consists of single-family dwellings on individual lots.

8. A residential convenience market is permitted as an accessory use to a
multiple-family development, subject to the following conditions:

a. Signage shall be allowed only as part of a Comprehensive Sign Plan
pursuant to Section 705. The Zoning Administrator may approve wall
mounted signage up to a maximum height of 30 feet as part of an
approved Comprehensive Sign Plan.

b. The development shall contain a minimum of 400 dwelling units.

c. The market shall not exceed 1,000 square feet in total floor area
(display and storage) if the development contains less than 850
dwelling units. The market shall not exceed 3,000 square feet in total
floor area (display and storage) if the development contains 850 or
more dwelling units.

d. No parking spaces shall be required or permitted for the market
except for spaces designated for deliveries or handicapped
individuals.

9. Dependent care facility for 13 or more dependents and schools for the
mentally or physically handicapped subject to securing a use permit
pursuant to Section 307.

***




Page 941
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



Section 618. R-5 Multifamily Residence District.
Amend Chapter 6, Section 618 (R-5 Multifamily Residence District) to read as
follows:

Section 618. R-5 Multifamily Residence District – RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL.

***

B. District Regulations - RESIDENTIAL USES. THE FOLLOWING TABLES
ESTABLISH STANDARDS TO BE USED FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS
IN THE R-5 DISTRICT. THE DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED IN THESE
STANDARDS ARE FOUND IN SECTION 608.I. THE SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL
DEVELOPMENT OPTION MUST MEET SECTION 608.F.6 REQUIREMENTS.

1. Development Standards for Residential Uses. The following tables
establish standards to be used in the R-5 District. The definitions of terms
used in these standards are found in Section 608.I. The single-family
attached development option must meet Section 608.F.8 requirements.

Table A. Single-Family, Detached Development (Subdivided on or after May 1,
1998)

TABLE 618.A
R-5 Development Option OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum lot width (in 55' minimum 45' minimum (unless
the event of horizontal approved by either the
property regimes, "lot" design advisor or the
shall refer to the width DESIGN REVIEW
of the structure and COMMITTEE Single-Family
exclusive use area) Architectural Appeals Board
for demonstrating enhanced
architecture that minimizes
the impact of the garage.
(see Section 507 Tab
A.2.12.1 B(2)(b) [sic]))




Page 942
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



TABLE 618.A
R-5 Development Option OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum lot depth None, except 110' adjacent None, except 110' adjacent
to freeway or arterial to freeway or arterial

Dwelling unit density 5.0 6.5; 12 with bonus
(units/gross acre)

Minimum perimeter Front: 15'; Street STREET (2) (front,
building setbacks Rear: 15' (1-story), 20' (2- rear or side): 15' (in addition
story); to landscape setback);
Side: 10' (1-story), 15' (2- Property line (rear): 15' (1-
story) story), 20' (2-story);
Property line (side): 10' (1-
story), 15' (2-story)

Common landscaped None 15' average, 10' minimum
setback adjacent to (does not apply to lots
perimeter streets (2) fronting onto perimeter
streets)

Minimum interior Front: 10'; rear: 10'; Front: 10'; rear: none
building setbacks combined front and rear: (established by Building
35', street side: 10'; sides: Code); street side: 10';
13' total (3' minimum, unless sides: none (established by
0') Building Code)

Minimum building 10' None
separation

Minimum garage 18' from back of sidewalk for 18' from back of sidewalk for
setback front-loaded garages, 10' front-loaded garages, 10'
from property line for side- from property line for side-
loaded garages loaded garages

Maximum garage width For lots <60': 2 car widths, For lots <60': 2 car widths,
for lots ≥60' to 70': 3 car for lots ≥60' to 70': 3 car
widths, for lots >70': no widths, for lots >70': no
maximum maximum




Page 943
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



TABLE 618.A
R-5 Development Option OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Maximum height 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' (except
that 3 stories not exceeding
30' are permitted when
approved by the design
advisor for demonstrating
enhanced architecture)

Lot coverage Primary structure, not Primary structure, not
including attached shade including attached shade
structures: 40%Total: 50%, structures: 40%Total: 50%,
PLUS AN ADDITIONAL PLUS AN ADDITIONAL
10% FOR AN ADU AND/OR 10% FOR AN ADU AND/OR
ATTACHED SHADE ATTACHED SHADE
STRUCTURES. TOTAL: STRUCTURES. TOTAL:
60% 60%

Common areas None Minimum 5% of gross area

ALLOWED Single-family detached Single-family detached
DEVELOPMENT DETACHED (3) DETACHED (3)

Required review Development review per Development review per
Section 507, and Section 507, and
subdivision to create 4 or subdivision to create 4 or
more lots more lots

Street standards Public street, or private Public street or private
street built to City standards accessway (1)
with a homeowners’
association established for
maintenance OR PRIVATE
ACCESSWAY (1)

On-lot and common Common retention required Common retention required
retention for lots less than 8,000 sq. for lots less than 8,000 sq.
ft. per grading and drainage ft. per grading and drainage
ordinance requirements ordinance requirements




Page 944
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



TABLE 618.A
R-5 Development Option OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Landscape standards Perimeter common: trees
spaced a maximum of 20 to
30 feet on center (based on
species) or in equivalent
groupings, and 5 shrubs per
tree.

(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for
extensions of street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue
partial dedications.

(2) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as
public street rights-of-way.

(3) FOR SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT BUILT OR SUBDIVIDED
PRIOR TO MAY 1, 1998, REFER TO THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF
TABLE 618.B

Table B. Single-Family (Subdivided Prior to May 1, 1998), Single-Family
Attached and Multifamily Development




Page 945
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



TABLE 618.B
R-5 Development Options
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, AND
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO MAY 1,
1998)

(c) (d)
(a) (b) Planned Single-Family
Standards
Subdivision(2) Average Lot Residential Attached (3)
Development INFILL (4)

Minimum lot 60' width, 94' 40' width, 50' None Individual unit
dimensions depth depth lot: 20' width,
(width and no minimum
depth) depth

Dwelling unit 43.5 43.5 45.68; 52.20 45.68; 52.20
density with bonus with bonus
(units/gross
acre)

Perimeter None 20' front, 15' 20' adjacent to 10' for units
standards rear, 10' side a public street; fronting street
this area is to rights-of-way;
be in common 15' for units
ownership siding street
unless lots rights-of-way.
front on the This area is to
perimeter be in common
public street ownership or
STREET (2); management.
10’ 15' 10' adjacent to
adjacent to property line
property line

Building 20' front, 15' 10' front, 30' 10' front Individual unit
setbacks rear, 10' and 3' front plus rear lot: none
side

Maximum 4 stories or 48' 4 stories or 48' 4 stories or 48' 4 stories or 48'
height (1) (2) (5) (1) (2) (5) (1) (2) (5) (1) (2) (6)




Page 946
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



TABLE 618.B
R-5 Development Options
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, AND
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO MAY 1,
1998)

(c) (d)
(a) (b) Planned Single-Family
Standards
Subdivision(2) Average Lot Residential Attached (3)
Development INFILL (4)

Lot coverage 50%, PLUS 50%, PLUS 50%, PLUS 100% FOR
AN AN AN EACH
ADDITIONAL ADDITIONAL ADDITIONAL INDIVIDUAL
10% FOR AN 10% FOR AN 10% FOR AN LOT. 50%
ADU AND/OR ADU AND/OR ADU AND/OR FOR OTHER
ATTACHED ATTACHED ATTACHED PARCELS OR
SHADE SHADE SHADE TRACTS
STRUCTURE STRUCTURE STRUCTURE WITH
S. TOTAL: S. TOTAL: S. TOTAL: ACCESSORY
60% 60% 60% STRUCTURE
S.

Common areas None None Minimum 5% Minimum 5%
of gross area(3) of gross area

ALLOWED SINGLE- SINGLE- SINGLE- SINGLE-
DEVELOPMEN FAMILY FAMILY FAMILY FAMILY
T DETACHED, DETACHED, DETACHED, ATTACHED
SINGLE- SINGLE- SINGLE- AND SINGLE-
FAMILY FAMILY FAMILY FAMILY
ATTACHED, ATTACHED, ATTACHED, DETACHED
AND AND AND (PER THE
MULTIFAMILY MULTIFAMILY MULTIFAMILY PROVISIONS
OF 608.F.6
ONLY)

Required review Subdivision to Subdivision Development Development
create 4 or with building review per review per
more lots setbacks Section 507 Section 507




Page 947
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



TABLE 618.B
R-5 Development Options
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, AND
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO MAY 1,
1998)

(c) (d)
(a) (b) Planned Single-Family
Standards
Subdivision(2) Average Lot Residential Attached (3)
Development INFILL (4)

Street Public street Public street Public street or Development
standards required private site: public
accessway street, PUBLIC
ACCESSWAY ALLEY, or
(1) private
accessway.
Individual unit
lot: private
accessway,
alley right-of-
way or
driveway OR
PRIVATE
DRIVE (1).

* There shall be a 15-foot maximum height within ten feet of a single-family zoned
district, which height may be increased one foot for each additional one foot of
building setback to the maximum permitted height.

(1) 1.3 for efficiency; 1.5 for one or two bedrooms; 2.0 for more than two bedrooms or
for single-family detached. PUBLIC STREETS MAY BE REQUIRED AS A PART
OF SUBDIVISION OR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR EXTENSIONS OF
STREET PATTERNS, FOR CIRCULATION WITHIN NEIGHBORHOODS, OR TO
CONTINUE PARTIAL DEDICATIONS.

(2) The height limitation of four stories or 48 feet applies to residential uses. FOR
PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, CANAL RIGHTS-OF-WAY SHALL BE
TREATED THE SAME AS PUBLIC STREET RIGHTS-OF-WAY.

(3) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as
public street rights-of-way.THE ONLY SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED




Page 948
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



DEVELOPMENTS THAT THE STANDARDS OF THIS TABLE APPLY TO ARE
ONES BUILT OR SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO MAY 1, 1998.

(4) The single-family attached development option must meet Section 608.F.8
requirements.THE SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL DEVELOPMENT OPTION MUST
COMPLY WITH THE ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS PROVIDED
IN SECTION 608.F.6.

(5) THERE SHALL BE A 15-FOOT MAXIMUM HEIGHT WITHIN TEN FEET OF A
SINGLE-FAMILY ZONED DISTRICT, WHICH HEIGHT MAY BE INCREASED
ONE FOOT FOR EACH ADDITIONAL ONE FOOT OF BUILDING SETBACK TO
THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED HEIGHT.

(6)




2. Development standards for commercial and mixed uses (including hotels
and motels) shall be in accordance with Section 622.E.3 and E.4.




Page 949
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



C. Special DISTRICT Regulations FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL AND MIXED USES.
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL AND MIXED USES
SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH C-1 STANDARDS (SECTIONS 622.E.3 AND
E.4).

1. A site plan in accordance with Section 507 is required for all development
in the R-2, R-3, R-3A, R-4, R-4A and R-5 districts except when the
development consists of single-family dwellings on individual lots.

D. ADDITIONAL Permitted Uses.

1. Adult day care center, subject to a use permit; and provided, that:

a. Outdoor recreation areas shall be screened from adjacent properties
by a six-foot-high landscape hedge, solid fence, or solid wall.

2. 1. Bed and breakfast establishment.

3. 2. Biomedical and Medical Research Offices. A biomedical or medical
research laboratory shall be permitted as an accessory use to a
biomedical and medical research office, subject to the following limitations:

a. The use shall be subject to obtaining a use permit in accordance with
the procedures and standards of Section 307.

b. Entrance to the laboratory shall only be from within the building and
shall not be through doors which open to the outside of the building.

c. No sign or display for the laboratory shall be visible from adjacent
public rights-of-way.

d. Access to a property containing a laboratory shall only be from a
major arterial or arterial, as designated on the street classification
map.

4. 3. Biomedical and Medical Research Offices. A biomedical or medical
research laboratory shall be permitted as an accessory use to a
biomedical and medical research office, subject to the following limitations:

5. Boarding house, subject to a use permit and the following conditions:




Page 950
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



a. 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.

b. No boarding house 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 boarding house, group home, or community
residence home or center within a residential zoning district.

c. A maximum lot coverage of 25 percent.

d. A minimum of 50 square feet of usable outdoor open space per
bed shall be provided.

e. The lot shall only have vehicular access from an arterial or
collector street.

6. 4. Branch offices of the following uses are permitted subject to a use permit:
banks, building and loan associations, brokerage houses, savings and
loan associations, finance companies, title insurance companies, and trust
companies.

7. Community residence center, subject to a use permit and the following
conditions:

a. Such center 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.

b. No community residence center 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 or
center within a residential zoning district.

c. Disability accommodation from the spacing requirement may be
requested by an applicant per Section 701.E.3.

d. A maximum lot coverage of 25 percent.

e. A minimum of 50 square feet of usable outdoor open space per bed
shall be provided.




Page 951
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023




f. The lot shall only have vehicular access from an arterial or collector
street.

8. 5. Copy and reproduction center, subject to a use permit.

9. Dependent care facility for 13 or more dependents and schools for the
mentally or physically handicapped subject to securing a use permit
pursuant to Section 307.

10. Group foster home, subject to a use permit.

11. Group home, subject to a use permit and the following conditions:

a. 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.

b. No group 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 group home, boarding house, or community residence
home or center within a residential zoning district.

c. A maximum lot coverage of 25 percent.

d. A minimum of 50 square feet of usable outdoor open space per bed
shall be provided.

12. Dormitories and convents shall be permitted as accessory uses to
churches or similar places of worship.

13. 6. Hospice, subject to a use permit.

14. 7. Hotel or Motel. The following accessory uses are permitted; provided, that
the entrance to said accessory uses shall be from within the building only
and that no sign or display for the accessory uses shall be located so as to
be visible from a public thoroughfare or adjacent property:

a. Auto rental agency; provided, that there are no more than three
vehicles stored on the hotel property.

b. Child care, for hotel/motel guests only.




Page 952
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023




c. Cocktail lounges with recorded music or one musician.

d. Convention or private group activities.

e. Gift shop.

f. News stand.

g. Restaurants with recorded music or one musician.

h. Other services customarily accessory thereto.

15. 8. Office for Administrative, Clerical, or Sales Services. No commodity or
tangible personal property, either by way of inventory or sample, shall be
stored, kept, or exhibited for purposes of sale in any said office or on the
premises wherein the said office is located. Seminars shall be permitted as
an accessory use; provided, that they are clearly accessory to the office
use.

16. 9. Office for professional use, including medical center, wellness center, and
counseling services (provided that services are administered or overseen
by a State licensed professional).

a. The following accessory uses are permitted; provided, that the
entrance to said accessory uses shall be from within the building
only, that no sign or display for the accessory uses shall be located
so as to be visible from a public thoroughfare or adjacent property,
and that no more than 25 percent of the floor area can be used for
the accessory uses:

(1) Fitness center.

(2) Massage therapy, administered by a State licensed massage
therapist.

(3) Ophthalmic materials dispensing.

(4) Pharmacy.

(5) Sleep disorder testing with less than a 24-hour stay duration.

(6) Snack bar.




Page 953
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023




(7) Surgical center, provided there are no overnight stays.

b. The following accessory uses are permitted, subject to a use permit
and provided that the entrance to said accessory uses shall be from
within the building only, that no sign or display for the accessory uses
shall be located so as to be visible from a public thoroughfare or
adjacent property:

(1) Medical and dental laboratories.

(2) Orthotics and prosthetic laboratories.

17. 10. Nursing home, subject to a use permit and the following conditions:

a. A maximum lot coverage of 25 percent.

b. A minimum of 50 square feet of usable outdoor open space per bed
shall be provided.

18. 11. Private clubs and lodges qualifying by law as a nonprofit entity, subject to
a use permit. The use permit is not required if a special permit, according
to Section 647, is obtained. Bingo may be operated as an accessory use
on the premises of the club no more than two days per week.

19. A residential convenience market is permitted as an accessory use to a
multiple-family development, subject to the following conditions:

a. Signage shall be allowed only as part of a Comprehensive Sign Plan
pursuant to Section 705. The Zoning Administrator may approve wall
mounted signage up to a maximum height of 30 feet as part of an
approved Comprehensive Sign Plan.

b. The development shall contain a minimum of 400 dwelling units.

c. The market shall not exceed 1,000 square feet in total floor area
(display and storage) if the development contains less than 850
dwelling units. The market shall not exceed 3,000 square feet in total
floor area (display and storage) if the development contains 850 or
more dwelling units.




Page 954
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



d. No parking spaces shall be required or permitted for the market
except for spaces designated for deliveries or handicapped
individuals.

20. 12. Teaching of the fine arts, subject to use permit.

21. 13. Volunteer community blood centers qualifying by law as a nonprofit entity,
subject to a use permit.

***
n 619. Residential R-4A District—Multifamily Residence—General.
Amend Chapter 6, Section 619 (R-4A District—Multifamily Residence—General) to
read as follows:

Section 619. R-4A District—Multifamily Residence—General

***

A. Permitted Uses. PRIMARY USES AND ACCESSORY USES ARE PERMITTED
AS INDICATED IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS LAND USE MATRIX,
SECTION 608.D, PLUS THE FOLLOWING:

1. All uses permitted in the RE-24, R-3 and R-4 districts.

2. Same accessory uses and buildings as RE-24.

3. Adult day care center, subject to a use permit; and provided, that:

a. Outdoor recreation areas shall be screened from adjacent properties
by a six-foot-high landscape hedge, solid fence, or solid wall.

4. Boarding house, subject to a use permit and the following conditions:

a. 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.

b. No boarding house 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 boarding house, group home, or community residence
home or center within a residential zoning district.




Page 955
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



c. A maximum lot coverage of 25 percent.

d. A minimum of 50 square feet of usable outdoor open space per bed
shall be provided.

5. Community residence center, subject to a use permit and the following
conditions:

a. Such center 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.

b. No community residence center 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 or
center within a residential zoning district.

c. Disability accommodation from the spacing requirement may be
requested by an applicant per Section 701.E.3.

d. A maximum lot coverage of 25 percent.

e. A minimum of 50 square feet of usable outdoor open space per bed
shall be provided.

6. Group foster home, subject to a use permit.

7. Group home, subject to a use permit and the following conditions:

a. 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.

b. No group 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 group home, boarding house, or community residence
home or center within a residential zoning district.

c. A maximum lot coverage of 25 percent.




Page 956
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



d. A minimum of 50 square feet of usable outdoor open space per bed
shall be provided.

8. 1. Hospice, subject to a use permit.

9. 2. Nursing home, subject to a use permit and the following conditions:

a. A maximum lot coverage of 25 percent.

b. A minimum of 50 square feet of usable outdoor open space per bed
shall be provided.

10. Dormitories and convents shall be permitted as accessory uses to
churches or similar places of worship.


11. A residential convenience market is permitted as an accessory use to a
multiple-family development, subject to the following conditions:

a. Signage shall be allowed only as part of a Comprehensive Sign Plan
pursuant to Section 705. The Zoning Administrator may approve wall
mounted signage up to a maximum height of 30 feet as part of an
approved Comprehensive Sign Plan.

b. The development shall contain a minimum of 400 dwelling units.

c. The market shall not exceed 1,000 square feet in total floor area
(display and storage) if the development contains less than 850
dwelling units. The market shall not exceed 3,000 square feet in total
floor area (display and storage) if the development contains 850 or
more dwelling units.

d. No parking spaces shall be required or permitted for the market
except for spaces designated for deliveries or handicapped
individuals.

12. The display for sale of a vehicle, which for purposes of this provision
includes trailers, watercraft or other types of transportation that are built to
carry passengers or cargo, shall be subject to the following restrictions:

a. No more than one [1] vehicle can be labeled for sale or show any
indication that it is for sale at any given time on a property, whether
visible on-site or through some other form of advertising.




Page 957
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023




b. No more than two [2] vehicles can be sold on a property during any
calendar year.

c. For purposes of Subsections a and b above, two [2] jet skis, a boat or
similar types of recreational vehicles that are transported on one
trailer shall, together with the trailer, be considered one vehicle.

d. The ownership of the vehicle[s] must be registered to the location
where the vehicle is listed for sale.

e. No vehicle can be labeled for sale or show any indication that it is for
sale at an unoccupied house or on a vacant lot or parcel.

f. No vehicle can be labeled for sale or show any indication that it is for
sale in conjunction with a retail or wholesale vehicle sales dealership
or business without obtaining a temporary use permit.

13. Dependent care facility for 13 or more dependents and schools for the
mentally or physically handicapped subject to securing a use permit
pursuant to Section 307.

3. SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL DEVELOPMENTS, PER THE PROVISIONS OF
SECTION 608.F.6 AND SECTION 617 (R-4) TABLE B, COLUMN D.

B. Yard, Height and Area Requirements. Except as required by Section 701, the
following yard, height and area provisions shall be required for this district:

***

7. Yards for ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS and detached OTHER
accessory buildings STRUCTURES shall be permitted as in
ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF Section 706.

8. Single-family attached INFILL development must comply with R-4
standards ALL REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO SFI DEVELOPMENT IN
THE R-4 DISTRICT EXCEPT FOR DENSITY, WHICH SHALL BE
PERMITTED PER SECTION 619.B.1.




Page 958
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



9. OFFSITE MANUFACTURED HOME DEVELOPMENTS, UPON
OBTAINING USE PERMIT APPROVAL, SHALL COMPLY WITH THE R-4
STANDARDS FOR PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS (TABLE
617.B, COLUMN C) EXCEPT FOR DENSITY, WHICH SHALL BE
PERMITTED PER SECTION 619.B.1

C. Site Plan Required. A site plan in accordance with Section 507 is required for all
development in the R-2, R-3, R-3A, R-4, R-4A and R-5 districts except when the
development consists of single-family dwellings on individual lots.

***
635. Planned Area Development.
Amend Chapter 6, Section 635 (Planned Area Development) to read as follows:

Section 635. Planned Area Development.

***

C. Use Regulations.

1. Uses permitted. In the planned area development districts only the
following uses are permitted:

a. Single-family detached, duplex, and multiple dwellings; apartment
houses. AS STATED IN SECTION 608.D, RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS LAND USE MATRIX.

b. Other uses as permitted in Sections 608 and 703.A.

c. b. Neighborhood retail uses and other nonresidential uses limited to
those enumerated in the C-1 district may be specifically and
selectively authorized as to type and size only when integrated by
design as an accessory element of the project, and only when located
in an area proposed to be appropriately zoned for said use and
approved as provided below, provided that the development is
planned for more than four hundred dwelling units.

d. Same accessory uses and buildings as RE-24.

e. The display for sale of a vehicle, which for purposes of this provision
includes trailers, watercraft or other types of transportation that are
built to carry passengers or cargo shall be subject to the following
restrictions:




Page 959
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023




(1) No more than one [1] vehicle can be labeled for sale or show
any indication that it is for sale at any given time on a property,
whether visible on-site or through some other form of
advertising.

(2) No more than two [2] vehicles can be sold on a property during
any calendar year.

(3) For purposes of subsections a and b above, two [2] jet skis, a
boat or similar types of recreational vehicles that are
transported on one trailer shall, together with the trailer, be
considered one vehicle.

(4) The ownership of the vehicle[s] must be registered to the
location where the vehicle is listed for sale.

(5) No vehicle can be labeled for sale or show any indication that it
is for sale at an unoccupied house or on a vacant lot or parcel.

(6) No vehicle can be labeled for sale or show any indication that it
is for sale in conjunction with a retail or wholesale vehicle sales
dealership or business without obtaining a temporary use
permit.

***
Section 649. Mixed Use Agricultural (MUA) District.
Amend Chapter 6, Section 649 (Mixed Use Agricultural (MUA) District) to read as
follows:

Section 649. Mixed Use Agricultural (MUA) District.

***

E. Permitted Accessory Uses. Land in the MUA District may be used as permitted
accessory uses and structures, incidental to and on the same zoning lot as the
primary use, for the following uses:

***




Page 960
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



4 Guesthouse, provided that it does not exceed six hundred square feet or
twenty-five percent of the floor area of the principal structure, whichever is
larger. ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT, PER THE PROVISIONS OF
SECTION 706.A.

***
ection 651. Baseline Area Overlay District.
Amend Chapter 6, Section 651 (Baseline Area Overlay District) to read as follows:

Section 651. Baseline Area Overlay District (BAOD).

***

C. Use Regulations. The regulations governing the uses of land and structures shall
be as set forth in the underlying zoning districts except as expressly modified by
the following regulations.

Detached guesthouses are permitted in R1-18 to R1-6 single-family districts,
provided that:

1. The structure shall not exceed seven hundred square feet. A use permit is
required to exceed seven hundred square feet.

2. The minimum lot size is eight thousand square feet.

3. An additional parking space shall be provided.

4. There shall be no more than one guesthouse per lot.

5. The guesthouse shall maintain the same setbacks as the primary structure.

6. The guesthouse shall maintain the same architectural style, color and
building materials as the primary dwelling in order to be viewed as an
accessory to the main unit and not a separate dwelling.

7. A use permit shall be required for all guests homes where the primary
structure existed prior to the effective date of this section of the ordinance.

8. There shall be a minimum lot width of sixty-five feet.

***




Page 961
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



Section 653. Desert Character Overlay Districts.
Amend Chapter 6, Section 653 (Desert Character Overlay Districts) to read as
follows:

Section 653. Desert Character Overlay Districts.

***

B. Desert Maintenance Overlay (Sub-Districts A and B).

***

4. Permitted uses for Sub-Districts A and B. Land and structures in the
Desert Maintenance Overlay Sub-Districts A and B shall only be used for the
following purposes subject to the standards and procedures in Chapters 3
and 5 of the Zoning Ordinance and the regulations and special standards
set forth herein. In the event there is a conflict these provisions shall prevail.

***

c. AN guesthouse ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT, WHEN
PERMITTED, shall be allowed as a structure subordinate to a
residence. It is to be sited within the building envelope. The SHOULD
HAVE AN architectural character and detailing must be consistent
with the main residence. and should appear to tie in to the main
residence.

***

5. District regulations for Desert Maintenance Overlay Sub-District A.

***

s. Model homes are allowed prior to recording a subdivision plat, subject
to submitting a final plat which shall show the following information for
each model home lot as well as meet other requirements of this
ordinance and Section 608.C.3 608.D.7 of the Zoning Ordinance.

***

6. District regulations for Desert Maintenance Overlay Sub-District B.
***




Page 962
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



h. Model homes are allowed prior to recording a subdivision plat, subject
to submitting a final plat which shall show the following information for
each model home lot as well as meet other requirements of this
ordinance and Section 608.C.3 608.D.7 of the Zoning Ordinance.

***
Section 658. Deer Valley Airport Overlay (DVAO) District
Amend Chapter 6, Section 658 (Deer Valley Airport Overlay (DVAO) District) to read
as follows:

Section 658. Deer Valley Airport Overlay (DVAO) District.

***

C. Regulation Areas: The DVAO District is divided into three separate regulation
areas. When a parcel falls partially into one or more of the regulation areas, the
most restrictive regulation area shall apply to the entire parcel.

***

2. Prohibited uses, Areas 2 & 3: Same as Area 1 and the following:

***

d. Church or similar place of worship; including parish houses,
parsonages, rectories and convents, and dormitories (including all
elements of such as defined in Section 608.E.1 608.E.21).

***
North Central Avenue Special Planning District (SPD) Overlay District
Amend Chapter 6, Section 664 (North Central Avenue Special Planning District
(SPD) Overlay District) to read as follows:

Section 664. North Central Avenue Special Planning District (SPD) Overlay District.

***

D. District Regulations. The following table establishes variations to the current
standards for the R1-10 Subdivision Option. The definitions of terms used in these
standards are found in Section 608.D 608.I. Development standards that are not
listed here shall follow the standards in the R1-10 Subdivision Option, Section 611,
Table 611.B. Variances to these regulations should also consider objectives of the




Page 963
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



Special Planning District Plan. To use a development option other than subdivision
requires approval through the rezoning public hearing process, Section 506.B.

***
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 the subdivision
option of Sections 604 through 607 AND 619, and IN THE
SUBDIVISION OPTION OF Sections 609 through 618:

***


(2) Closed Projections.

***

(d) The main building in a residence district (WHICH MAY
INCLUDE AN ATTACHED ADU) may project five feet
into the required rear yard for no more than one-half the
maximum width of the structure. WHEN NO PORTION
OF THE PROJECTION EXCEEDS 15’ IN HEIGHT;
THE PROJECTION IS NO CLOSER TO THE REAR
PROPERTY LINE THAN 3’, AND THE PROJECTION
IS NO CLOSER TO A SIDE PROPERTY LINE THAN
ALLOWED BY THE DISTRICT; UNLESS A greater
projection than five feet is subject to obtaining a use
permit IS OBTAINED in accordance with the provisions
of Section 307.

***
Section 702. Off-Street Parking and Loading
Amend Chapter 7, Section 702.F (Special Parking Standards) to read as follows:

F. Special Parking Standards.



Page 964
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023




***

1. Residential lots.

a. Required parking spaces for single-family and duplex residential uses
may not be located in the required front yard.

b. Spaces in excess of those required for single family and duplex
residential uses may be located in the required front yard. However,
all parking and maneuvering areas within the required front yard shall
not exceed forty-five percent (45%) 50% OF THE AREA OF THE
REQUIRED FRONT YARD, EXCEPT THAT A DRIVEWAY SHALL
NOT BE REQUIRED TO BE LESS THAN 18’ IN WIDTH UNLESS
OTHERWISE STIPULATED BY HISTORIC PRESERVATION.

(1) The area of the required front yard, or

(2) An area equal to the required front yard setback times the
average lot width when the adjoining side property lines are
not parallel. Notwithstanding the above requirements, the
parking and maneuvering area shall not be required to be less
than:

(a) Eighteen (18) feet in width, or

(b) The cumulative width of all front facing garage doors or
carports plus three (3) feet, whichever is greater.

***




Page 965
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



703. Landscaping, Fences and Walls.
Amend Chapter 7, Section 703.B (Landscaping and Open Areas In Multiple-Family
Development) to read as follows:

B. 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 in any district containing a
structure with two FOUR or more dwelling units.

***
Section 706. Accessory Uses and Structures.
Amend Chapter 7, Section 706 (Accessory Uses and Structures) to add language
regarding Accessory Dwelling Units, and revising the existing language to apply
only to other types of accessory structures, and to read as follows:

***

Section 706. Accessory Uses and Structures.

A. No detached accessory structures or swimming pools are permitted within the
required front yard(s) of any residential district.

B. . All detached accessory structures in the side and rear yard, not used for sleeping
or living purposes, are to maintain a minimum setback of three feet from property
lines. Swimming pools are to maintain a minimum setback of three feet from
exterior property lines.

C. All accessory structures located within the required side yard are not to exceed
eight feet in height.

D. On any corner lot contiguous to a key lot, detached structures with a height which
exceeds eight feet must be set back from the street side a distance equal to the
required front yard setback of the adjoining key lot.

E. On any other corner lot no detached accessory building over eight feet high shall
be closer to the side street property line than a distance of ten feet.

F. Detached accessory structures may be constructed on the property line where the
rear lot line is adjacent to a fully dedicated alley.




Page 966
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



G. No detached accessory structure located within the required rear yard of a
residentially zoned property shall exceed a height of one story or fifteen feet except
as approved by a use permit in accordance with the provisions of Section 307.

***

A. ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS (ADU)

1. IN ZONING DISTRICTS WHERE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS ARE A
PERMITTED USE, ONE (1) ADU IS PERMITTED PER LOT WHEN A
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT IS ALSO
PROVIDED, UNLESS OTHERWISE PERMITTED BY THE 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.

3. AN ADU MAY BE EITHER ATTACHED TO OR DETACHED FROM THE
PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT, 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, 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.




Page 967
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



4. A DETACHED ADU MAY BE LOCATED WITHIN THE REQUIRED REAR
YARD, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING:

a. SETBACKS.

(1) MINIMUM 10 FEET FROM A STREET SIDE PROPERTY
LINE.

(2) MINIMUM 3 FEET FROM AN INTERIOR PROPERTY LINE.

(3) NO SETBACK IS REQUIRED ADJACENT TO A FULLY
DEDICATED ALLEY.

b. HEIGHT. MAXIMUM 15 FEET UNLESS USE PERMIT APPROVAL
FOR A GREATER HEIGHT IS OBTAINED PER SECTION 307.

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. A 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. 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. AN ADU SHALL COMPLY WITH THE LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS
APPLICABLE TO THE PROPERTY.

9. AN 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.




Page 968
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023




FOR THE PURPOSES OF THESE CALCULATIONS, ANY GARAGE OR
ATTACHED SHADE STRUCTURE CONSTRUCTED AS PART OF A
DETACHED ADU SHALL COUNT TOWARD THE GROSS FLOOR AREA
OF THE ADU. ANY ATTACHED SHADE STRUCTURES SHALL COUNT
TOWARDS LOT COVERAGE, BUT NOT GROSS FLOOR AREA.

10. PERMIT ISSUANCE AND RESTRICTIVE COVENANT. PRIOR TO
ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT FOR AN ADU, THE PROPERTY
OWNER SHALL SIGN BEFORE A NOTARY PUBLIC A RESTRICTIVE
COVENANT THAT RUNS WITH THE LAND ON A FORM PREPARED BY
THE CITY ATTORNEY OR DESIGNEE AFFIRMING THAT THE
PROPERTY OWNER SHALL:

a. OCCUPY EITHER THE PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT OR THE ADU,
OR

b. IF THE PROPERTY OWNER RENTS OR LEASES A PROPERTY
WITH BOTH A PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT AND AN ADU TO A
THIRD PARTY, THEN NEITHER THE PRIMARY RESIDENCE NOR
THE ADU SHALL BE SUB-LEASED.

B. SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ACCESSORY STRUCTURES. THE
FOLLOWING REGULATIONS APPLY TO ACCESSORY STRUCTURES WHICH
ARE NOT USED FOR SLEEPING OR LIVING PURPOSES, 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. PERMITTED HEIGHTS.

a. MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 8 FEET WHEN LOCATED WITHIN 10 FEET
OF A STREET SIDE PROPERTY LINE, OR 15 FEET WHEN
LOCATED ELSEWHERE WITHIN THE REQUIRED REAR OR SIDE
YARD.




Page 969
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



b. HEIGHTS IN EXCESS OF 15 FEET, WHEN NOT LOCATED WITHIN
10’ OF 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 3 FEET ADJACENT TO A REAR OR SIDE PROPERTY
LINE, EXCEPT THAT NO SETBACK IS REQUIRED ADJACENT TO A
FULLY DEDICATED ALLEY.




Page 970
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023




Page 971
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



***
C. SWIMMING POOLS.

1. SWIMMING POOLS SHALL NOT BE LOCATED IN THE REQUIRED
FRONT YARD, NOR IN ANY REQUIRED LANDSCAPE SETBACK.

2. SWIMMING POOLS SHALL MAINTAIN A MINIMUM SETBACK OF THREE
FEET FROM PROPERTY LINES, EXCEPT THAT POOLS LOCATED ON A
LOT DESIGNATED “HILLSIDE” PER SECTION 710 SHALL COMPLY WITH
ALL HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, INCLUDING SETBACKS.

***
Section 708. Temporary uses.
Amend Chapter 7, Section 708. (Temporary uses) to read as follows:

Section 708. Temporary uses.

***

L. Charitable Drop Box Container Permit. A charitable drop box container permit is
subject to the following:

***

1. An annual permit is required for the following uses or analogous uses:

a. Charitable drop box containers.

***

(9) Permits are not required when the container is in compliance
pursuant to Section 608.E.1 608.E.21.

***
Chapter 12. Downtown Code.
Amend Chapter 12, Sections 1204.C and D (Land Use Matrix) to correct references
of “Single-Family Attached” to “Single-Family Infill”, and to read as follows:

Chapter 12
DOWNTOWN CODE

***




Page 972
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



Section 1204. Land Use Matrix.

***

C. 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
1204.D:

***

27. Single-family attached INFILL SUBDIVISION, subject to the following:, PER
THE STANDARDS OF SECTION 608.F.6 AND SECTION 614, TABLE
614.B, COLUMN D, EXCEPT AS MODIFIED BELOW:

a. Historic preservation designated properties or properties in historic
preservation districts cannot use the single-family attached INFILL
development option.

b. Individual unit lot: minimum 20-foot width, no minimum depth.
MAXIMUM HEIGHT: AS PER HEIGHT MAP, SECTION 1202.B.

c. Perimeter standards: maximum ten feet for units fronting street rights-
of-way; minimum 15 feet for units siding street rights-of-way. This
area is to be in common ownership or management, ten feet adjacent
to property line. MAXIMUM DENSITY: AS PER DENSITY MAP,
SECTION 1202.C.

d. Building setbacks, individual unit lot: none. MAXIMUM LOT
COVERAGE: 100 PERCENT PER LOT; OVERALL SUBDIVISION
LOT COVERAGE PER APPLICABLE CHARACTER AREA.

e. Maximum stories: as per height map, Section 1202.C. FRONTAGE
SETBACKS AND REQUIREMENTS: AS PER THE APPLICABLE
CHARACTER AREA; OR, IF LOTS FRONT ON A NEW INTERNAL
STREET OR DRIVE, PER THE REGULATIONS OF SECTION
608.F.6 AND SECTION 614, TABLE B, COLUMN D.

f. Lot coverage per dwelling unit: 100 percent. PERIMETER
STANDARDS (NOT ON A STREET): PER THE REGULATIONS OF
SECTION 608.F.6.

g. Common areas: minimum five percent of gross area. INDIVIDUAL
LOT SETBACKS.




Page 973
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023




(1) THE STEPBACK REQUIREMENTS OF TABLE 614.B,
COLUMN D DO NOT APPLY TO BUILDINGS COMPLYING
WITH THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT ALLOWED BY THE HEIGHT
MAP, SECTION 1202.B.

(2) INDIVIDUAL LOT FRONT: 10’ OR THE REQUIRED
FRONTAGE SETBACK, WHICHEVER IS GREATER.

(3) INDIVIDUAL LOT SIDE AND REAR: 0’ OR THE REQUIRED
PERIMETER SETBACK, WHICHEVER IS GREATER.

h. Allowed uses: single-family attached and home occupations per
Section 608. PARKING REQUIREMENTS: PER SECTION 608.F.6,
AS THE REGULATIONS APPLY TO THE INFILL DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT.

i. Development review per Section 507. 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. Design: front of units should face right-of-way. No garages allowed to
face pedestrian or side streets. 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.

k. Other requirements of Section 608.F.8 shall apply if not specifically
modified by this section.

***

D. Land Use Matrix.

LAND USE CATEGORIES CHARACTER AREAS
Commerc
ACTIVE Warehous
*** ial ***
USE e
Corridor




Page 974
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



Residential Uses
*** *** *** *** *** ***
Dwelling UNIT, Multi-Family
*** p p
MULTIFAMILY
Dwelling UNIT, Single-
Family, Detached
*** p *** np
(INCLUDING DUPLEX AND
TRIPLEX USES)
Dwelling UNIT, Single-
Family and *** p *** np
Duplex, Attached
*** *** *** *** *** ***
SUBDIVISION, Single-
*** np PC27 *** pc27 NP
Family Attached Infill
***
Chapter 13. Walkable Urban Code.
Amend Chapter 13, Sections 1303 (Transect lot standards), 1305.C (Fence
Standards), 1306 (Land Use Matrix) and 1310 (Open Space Improvements) to
correct references of “Single-Family Attached” to “Single-Family Infill”, and to read
as follows:

Chapter 13
WALKABLE URBAN (WU) CODE

***

Section 1303. Transect lot standards.

A. General Lot Standards.

1. Subdivisions shall comply with development standards per this chapter,
including frontage standards, for all existing and newly created lots abutting
public streets, private accessways, and private driveways, with the following
caveats:

a. A development may instead utilize the Single-Family attached INFILL
development option standards per Section 608(F)(8) 608.F.6 and
Section 614, Table 614.B, Column D (except for the density, which is
not restricted) if it meets all three of the following conditions:

(1) The development consists solely of attached SINGLE-FAMILY
dwelling units and allowable accessory uses;



Page 975
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023




(2) The development is located within the applicable area for the
single-family attached INFILL development option or the Infill
Development District as depicted on the map provided in
Section 608(F)(8) 608.F.6; and

***

2. All developments adjacent to single-family zoning districts shall follow the
same setback and stepback standards as the single-family attached INFILL
development option (Section 614, Table 614.B, Column D); with additional
requirements as follows:

***

B. Transect Setbacks and Lot Standards.

***

Table 1303.2 Transect T4

***

BUILDING HEIGHT BUILDING STEPBACKS
Main T4:2 30-foot
a
Building maximum
T4:3 40-foot
maximum
SFA SFI: 48- Required for SFA SFI as per
foot maximum Sections 1303.A.1 and 2

***

* Lot coverage maximum may be modified for SFA SFI development option.

Table 1303.2 Transect T5

***
BUILDING HEIGHT BUILDING STEPBACKS
***

* a. Lot coverage maximum may be modified for SFA SFI development option.




Page 976
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



b. Lot coverage maximum may vary depending on setback requirements when adjacent to
existing single-family residential districts and historic preservation properties or districts.

Table 1303.2 Transect T6

***

Minimum glazing shall apply to commercial building frontages only, as per
Section 1305.B.2. For residential products T4 glazing standards shall apply.

***

* a. Lot coverage maximum may be modified for SFA SFI
development option.

b. Lot coverage maximum may vary depending on setback
requirements when adjacent to existing single-family residential
districts and historic preservation properties or districts.

***

1305. Frontage Standards.

***

C. Fence Standards.

1. T3 and T4.

a. Primary frontages: 40 inches maximum height.

b. Secondary frontages: 72 inches maximum height. For SFA SFI
development: 48 inches maximum height solid fence. Above 48
inches to 72 inches allowed only as a 70 percent open view fence,
unless screening above grade utilities or trash enclosures.

***

Section 1306. Land Use Matrix.

***

Table 1306.1. Land Use Matrix




Page 977
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023




T6:22
CATEGORY: RESIDENTIAL T6:7
T3 T4 *** T6:
USES T6:15
HWR
*** *** *** *** *** ***
Dwelling UNIT, Multif NP P P P
Dwelling UNIT, Single-Family,
Detached (INCLUDING P P *** NP NP
DUPLEX AND TRIPLEX USES)
Dwelling UNIT, Single-
P P *** P P
Family and Duplex, Attached
***

C. Residential Uses, Land Use Conditions.

***
3. Dependent Care Facility.

a. One to six dependents: standards as per Section 608.D.5 608.E.15.
Use permit required for sSeven to 12 dependents: USE PERMIT,
AND STANDARDS AS PER SECTION 608.E.16.

***

Table 1306.1. Land Use Matrix

T6:22
CATEGORY: T6:7
T3 T4 *** T6:
SERVICES T6:15
HWR
***
Home Occupation
PC PC *** P P
As per Section 608.E.3
*** *** *** *** *** ***
Hotel
NP PC *** PC PC
As per Section 618.D.14 7
*** *** *** *** *** ***
Office, Professional
As per Section 618.D.15 8 and PC PC *** PC PC
16 9
***




Page 978
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023



T6:22
CATEGORY: T6:7
T3 T4 *** T6:
LOCAL FOOD PRODUCTION T6:15
HWR
Community Garden
UP UP *** UP UP
As per Section 608.F.6 608.E.24
Farmers Markets
UP UP *** UP UP
As per Section 608.F.7 608.E.25
***
T6:22
CATEGORY: T6:7
T3 T4 *** T6:
ACCESSORY USES T6:15
HWR
Accessory Dwelling Unit P P *** P P
Accessory Dwelling Unit—
P P *** P P
Guest
***
Home Occupation
PC PC *** PC PC
As per Section 608.E.3 608.E.27
***
T6:22
CATEGORY: T6:7
T3 T4 *** T6:
INTERIM USES T6:15
HWR
Environmental
Remediation Facility UP UP *** UP UP
As per 608.F.5 608.E.23

Section 1310. Open space improvements.

A. Open Space Guidelines.

1. Parcels zoned T3 are exempt from required public open space
improvements.

2. Open space requirements for developments within the T4, T5, and T6
transects are as follows:

a. For sites of one gross acre or larger, minimum open space of at least
five percent of the gross site area shall be required. For
developments utilizing the single-family attached INFILL development
option standards in accordance with Section 1303(A)(1)(a)
1303.A.1.a., open space shall be provided as required by Section
614, Table 614,B, Column D, regardless of lot size.




Page 979
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 30, 2023




***

Table 1310.1 Public Open Space Type Guidelines



[table unchanged]
* Single-family attached INFILL developments must provide open
space as required per Section 1310(A)(2)(a) 1310.A.2.a.

***




Page 980
ATTACHMENT C




ADDENDUM A
Staff Report: Z-TA-5-23-Y
Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment
July 27, 2023


Application No. Z-TA-5-23-Y: Amend the following sections of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance to permit Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) in residential districts; create and/or
amend related development standards and definitions; clarify related terms and references
and reorganize sections of the Zoning Ordinance as necessary to allow ADUs.

Section 202 (Definitions), Section 507 Tab A.II.C.8 (Single-Family Design Review),
Section 603 (Suburban S-1 District—Ranch or Farm Residence), Section 604 (Suburban
S-2 District—Ranch or Farm Commercial), Section 605 (Residential Estate RE-43
District—One-Family Residence), Section 606 (Residential Estate RE-24 District—One-
Family Residence), Section 607 (Residential R1-14 District—One-Family Residence),
Section 608 (Residence Districts), Section 609 (RE-35 Single-Family Residence District),
Section 610 (R1-18 Single-Family Residence District), Section 611 (R1-10 Single-Family
Residence District), Section 612 (R1-8 Single-Family Residence District), Section 613
(R1-6 Single-Family Residence District), Section 614 (R-2 Multifamily Residence District),
Section 615 (R-3 Multifamily Residence District), Section 616 (R-3A Multifamily
Residence District), Section 617 (R-4 Multifamily Residence District), Section 618 (R-5
Multifamily Residence District), Section 619 (Residential R-4A District—Multifamily
Residence—General), Section 635 (Planned Area Development), Section 649 (Mixed
Use Agricultural (MUA) District), Section 651 (Baseline Area Overlay District), Section
653 (Desert Character Overlay District), Section 658 (Deer Valley Airport Overlay (DVAO)
District), Section 664 (North Central Avenue Special Planning District (SPD) Overlay
District), Section 701.A.3 (Projections), Section 702.F (Special Parking Standards),
Section 703.B (Landscaping and Open Areas In Multiple-Family Development), Section
706 (Accessory Uses and Structures), Section 708 (Temporary uses), Sections 1204.C
and D (Land Use Matrix), Section 1303 (Transect lot standards), Section 1305.C (Fence
Standards), Section 1306 (Land Use Matrix), and Section 1310 (Open Space
Improvements).

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of Z-TA-5-23-Y as shown in the proposed text in Exhibit A.




Page 981
Addendum A to the Staff Report for Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023


Reason for Addendum
The purpose of this Addendum is to address minor revisions to the recommended text
in Exhibit A. Upon additional review of the proposed text revisions, staff identified some
typographical errors and omissions, and also identified a few necessary clarifications from
questions posed at the Village Planning Committee meetings. Below is a summary of the
proposed revisions to the text amendment which are denoted as BOLD/UNDELINED text in
Exhibit A dated July 27, 2023.

Proposed Changes
Following the VPC meetings, staff proposes that the following changes be made to the
proposed language for Z-TA-5-23-Y, as follows:

A. Revise Section 202 to revise the definition of “multifamily / multiple-family” to clarify that
an ADU on a single-family lot in addition to the primary dwelling unit will not cause a lot to
be considered multifamily:

MULTIFAMILY/MULTIPLE-FAMILY: A LOT OR PARCEL WHERE TWO OR MORE
DWELLING UNITS ARE PROVIDED, NOT INCLUDING A PERMITTED ACCESSORY
DWELLING UNIT.

B. Revise Section 605.A.12.b to remove a contradictory provision regarding setbacks for
accessory structures:

12. Accessory uses and buildings.

a. ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS ARE SUBJECT TO THE
ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS OF SECTION 706.A.

a. b. Any OTHER accessory building(S) shall maintain the same yard
requirements as the main building. No accessory use shall be
maintained in which there is solicitation of recipients for a service or
product, or the operation of the use so that it is commonly known as
offering a commercial service or product.

C. Revise Section 606.A.11.b to remove a contradictory provision regarding setbacks for
accessory structures:

11. Accessory uses and buildings.

a. ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS ARE SUBJECT TO THE
ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS OF SECTION 706.A.




Page 982
Addendum A to the Staff Report for Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023


a. b. OTHER ACCESSORY BUILDING(S) SHALL MAINTAIN THE SAME
YARD REQUIREMENTS AS THE MAIN BUILDING. No accessory use
shall be maintained in which there is solicitation of recipients for a
service or product, or the operation of the use so that it is commonly
known as offering a commercial service or product.

D. Revise Section 608.D to add the following footnote following the Residential Land Use
Table Matrix:

*(ac) = accessory use permitted only with primary use listed immediately prior in
the table.

E. Revise Section 608.E.8.c to update “handicapped individuals” to “accessible spaces”:

c. NO PARKING SPACES SHALL BE REQUIRED OR PERMITTED FOR
THE MARKET EXCEPT FOR SPACES DESIGNATED FOR
DELIVERIES OR HANDICAPPED INDIVIDUALS ACCESSIBLE
SPACES.

F. Revise Section 608.E.19.a to add an omitted word and fix two incorrect references:

19. MODEL HOMES AND/OR SUBDIVISION SALES OFFICES WHEN LOCATED
IN MODEL HOMES; PROVIDED THAT:

a. MODEL HOMES ARE PERMITTED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING:

(1) A DEVELOPER OF A SINGLE-FAMILY SUBDIVISION SHALL
BE ALLOWED TO BUILD MODEL HOMES PRIOR TO
RECORDING A SUBDIVISION PLAT, SUBJECT TO THE
PROVISIONS BELOW AND SUBJECT TO SUBMITTING A
MODEL COMPLEX SITE PLAN WHICH SHALL SHOW THE
FOLLOWING INFORMATION FOR EACH MODEL HOME LOT:

(2) STREET ADDRESSES FOR EACH MODEL HOME AS
ASSIGNED BY THE WATER SERVICES PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

(3) FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATIONS FOR EACH MODEL HOME AS
ASSIGNED BY THE DIVISION OF ENGINEERING.

(4) PROPOSED LOTS FOR MODEL HOMES SHALL BE IN
CONFORMANCE WITH LOT LINES AS SHOWN ON THE
APPROVED PRELIMINARY PLAN PLAT.




Page 983
Addendum A to the Staff Report for Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023


(5) EACH MODEL HOME SHALL BE LOCATED ON EACH
PROPOSED LOT IN CONFORMANCE WITH YARD
REQUIREMENTS OF THE DISTRICT.

(6) THE FINAL PLAT IS NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE FINAL
APPROVAL PRIOR TO OBTAINING PERMITS FOR MODEL
HOMES.

G. Revise Section 608.E.25 to remove an unnecessary repeated sentence:

25. FARMERS MARKET, SUBJECT TO OBTAINING A USE PERMIT IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 307 AND SUBJECT
TO THE FOLLOWING STANDARDS: FARMERS MARKET, SUBJECT TO
OBTAINING A USE PERMIT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF
SECTION 307 AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING STANDARDS:

H. Revise Section 608.E.27.b to revise an incorrect code reference:

27. HOME OCCUPATIONS INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ARCHITECT,
LAWYER, OFF-SITE SALES BUSINESSES, ACCOUNTANT, REAL ESTATE
AGENT, TELEMARKETING SALES, AND PSYCHOLOGIST. FOR
PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, OFF-SITE SALES MEANS PROCESSING
ORDERS BY MAIL, FACSIMILE, PHONE, MODEM OR INTERNET.

a. NO ONE OUTSIDE THE FAMILY RESIDING IN THE DWELLING UNIT
SHALL BE EMPLOYED IN THE HOME OCCUPATION.

b. NO EXTERIOR DISPLAY, NO EXTERIOR STORAGE OF MATERIALS,
NO SIGN, AND NO OTHER EXTERIOR INDICATION OF THE HOME
OCCUPATION OR VARIATION FROM THE RESIDENTIAL
CHARACTER OF THE PRINCIPAL OR ACCESSORY BUILDING,
EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED IN SECTION 608.E.3.H.608.E.27.h.

I. Revise Section 608.F.7.b to include a clarification that multi-family landscape and open
space standards to not apply to offsite manufactured home developments, and to
renumber the remaining section accordingly:

7. OFFSITE MANUFACTURED HOME DEVELOPMENTS. OFFSITE
MANUFACTURED HOME DEVELOPMENT IS SUBJECT TO USE PERMIT
APPROVAL IN THE C-1, C-2, AND C-3 DISTRICTS, IN ADDITION TO
ZONING DISTRICTS INDICATED IN SECTION 608.D; AND SUBJECT TO
THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS:




Page 984
Addendum A to the Staff Report for Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023


a. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 703.B DO NOT APPLY TO
OFFSITE MANUFACTURED HOME DEVELOPMENTS.

a. b. THESE REGULATIONS APPLY TO DEVELOPMENT OF A SINGLE
LOT OR PARCEL, NOT TO BE FURTHER SUBDIVIDED.

b. c. PLACEMENT FOR EACH OFFSITE MANUFACTURED HOME
SHALL BE PROVIDED AS FOLLOWS:

(1) THERE SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF TWENTY FEET
BETWEEN OFFSITE MANUFACTURED HOMES AND TEN
FEET BETWEEN AWNINGS AND CANOPIES. ALL
ANNEXES OR STRUCTURAL ADDITIONS SHALL BE
CONSIDERED PART OF THE OFFSITE MANUFACTURED
HOME.

(2) THERE SHALL BE AT LEAST FORTY FEET BETWEEN
OFFSITE MANUFACTURED HOMES ON OPPOSITE SIDES
OF A PRIVATE ACCESSWAY.

(3) NO OFFSITE MANUFACTURED HOME, ANNEX OR
STRUCTURAL ADDITION SHALL BE CLOSER THAN EIGHT
FEET TO ANY PRIVATE ACCESSWAY OR PRIVATE DRIVE.

c. d. EACH OFFSITE MANUFACTURED HOME SPACE SHALL HAVE
PRIVATE OUTDOOR LIVING SPACE OF AT LEAST 150 SQUARE
FEET. THE DIMENSION OF THIS SPACE SHALL BE AT LEAST
FIFTEEN FEET IN WIDTH.

d. e. AT EACH OCCUPIED OFFSITE MANUFACTURED HOME SPACE,
THERE SHALL BE AN ENCLOSED STORAGE LOCKER FOR
YARD TOOLS AND OTHER BULKY ITEMS CONVENIENT TO THE
SPACE WITH A STORAGE CAPACITY OF AT LEAST ONE
HUNDRED FIFTY CUBIC FEET.

e. f. ALL AREAS NOT COVERED BY STRUCTURES OR PAVED
SURFACES SHALL BE LANDSCAPED AND MAINTAINED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPROVED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
DOCUMENTS REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 507.

f. g. SCREENING THE PERIMETER OF AN OFFSITE
MANUFACTURED HOME DEVELOPMENT BY A WALL OR OTHER
APPROVED MATERIAL MAY BE REQUIRED AS A CONDITION OF
USE PERMIT APPROVAL.




Page 985
Addendum A to the Staff Report for Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



g. h. THERE SHALL BE A NETWORK OF PEDESTRIAN WALKWAYS
CONNECTING OFFSITE MANUFACTURED HOME SPACES WITH
EACH OTHER AND WITH DEVELOPMENT FACILITIES AND
AMENITIES.

h. i. IF STORAGE YARDS ARE PROVIDED, THERE SHALL BE A
SCREENED STORAGE YARD OR YARDS FOR BOATS,
RECREATIONAL VEHICLES, ETC. SUCH STORAGE YARDS
SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM OF SIXTY SQUARE FEET OF
STORAGE SPACE FOR EACH OFFSITE MANUFACTURED HOME
SPACE IN THE DEVELOPMENT AND SHALL BE LOCATED SO AS
TO NOT DETRACT FROM SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. ALL
BOATS AND RECREATIONAL VEHICLES SHALL BE PARKED IN
THE STORAGE YARD.

i.j. EACH OFFSITE MANUFACTURED HOME SHALL A): BE AFFIXED
PERMANENTLY TO THE GROUND OR B): HAVE "SKIRTING"
AROUND ITS PERIMETER TO SCREEN ITS WHEELS AND
UNDERCARRIAGE.

j.k. ALL UTILITIES AND THE WIRES OF ANY CENTRAL TELEVISION
OR RADIO ANTENNA SYSTEM SHALL BE UNDERGROUND.

k. l. NOT MORE THAN FIFTEEN PERCENT OF THE SPACES IN ANY
ONE OFFSITE MANUFACTURED HOME DEVELOPMENT SHALL
BE DEVELOPED OR USED FOR RECREATIONAL VEHICLES.

l. m. DEVELOPMENT OF OFFSITE MANUFACTURED HOME
COMMUNITIES SHALL BE UNDER THE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT OPTION APPLICABLE IN THE UNDERLYING
ZONING DISTRICT.

m. n. PRIVATE DRIVES MAY BE USED FOR ACCESS TO EACH
OFFSITE MANUFACTURED HOMES.

n. o. THERE SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF FIVE PERCENT OF THE
TOTAL AREA OF THE OFFSITE MANUFACTURED HOME
DEVELOPMENT DEDICATED OR RESERVED AS USABLE
COMMON "OPEN SPACE" LAND. COMMON "OPEN SPACE"
LANDS SHALL BE CLEARLY DESIGNATED ON THE PLAN AS TO
THE CHARACTER OF USE AND DEVELOPMENT BUT SHALL
NOT INCLUDE:




Page 986
Addendum A to the Staff Report for Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023


(1) AREAS RESERVED FOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE OR
BENEFIT OF AN INDIVIDUAL TENANT OR OWNER; NOR

(2) DEDICATED STREETS, ALLEYS, AND OTHER PUBLIC
RIGHTS-OF-WAY; NOR

VEHICULAR DRIVES, PARKING, LOADING, AND STORAGE
AREAS; NOR
(3)
REQUIRED SETBACK AREAS AT EXTERIOR BOUNDARIES
OF THE SITE; NOR

(4) GOLF COURSES.

ADEQUATE GUARANTEES MUST BE PROVIDED TO ENSURE
PERMANENT RETENTION OF "OPEN SPACE" LAND AREA
RESULTING FROM THE APPLICATION OF THESE
REGULATIONS, EITHER BY PRIVATE RESERVATION FOR THE
USE OF THE RESIDENTS WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT OR BY
DEDICATION TO THE PUBLIC, OR A COMBINATION THEREOF.

J. Revise Section 608.I.2.b(2)(b) to add the omitted word “option”:

(b) SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED DEVELOPMENT IN THE
R1-10 THROUGH R-4A ZONING DISTRICTS
(SECTIONS 611 THROUGH 619), WHEN USING THE
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OPTION.

K. Revise Section 706.A.10 to further clarify that a property must be rented as a whole if
either the ADU or the primary dwelling unit are not owner-occupied:

10. PERMIT ISSUANCE AND RESTRICTIVE COVENANT. PRIOR TO
ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT FOR AN ADU, THE PROPERTY
OWNER SHALL SIGN BEFORE A NOTARY PUBLIC A RESTRICTIVE
COVENANT THAT RUNS WITH THE LAND ON A FORM PREPARED BY
THE CITY ATTORNEY OR DESIGNEE AFFIRMING THAT THE
PROPERTY OWNER SHALL:

a. OCCUPY EITHER THE PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT OR THE ADU,
OR




Page 987
Addendum A to the Staff Report for Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023


b. IF THE PROPERTY OWNER RENTS OR LEASES A PROPERTY
WITH BOTH A PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT AND AN ADU TO A
THIRD PARTY, THEN NEITHER THE PRIMARY RESIDENCE NOR
THE ADU SHALL BE RENTED OR LEASED SEPARATELY FROM
THE REMAINDER OF THE PROPERTY, NOR SUB-LEASED.

L. Revise Section 706.B.2.b to clarify that the required setback applies to a street side
property line:

b. HEIGHTS IN EXCESS OF 15 FEET, WHEN NOT LOCATED WITHIN
10’ OF A STREET SIDE PROPERTY LINE, MAY BE APPROVED
THROUGH A USE PERMIT OBTAINED PER SECTION 307.




Page 988
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023

Exhibit A

Staff proposed language that may be modified during the public hearing process is as
follows:

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 subordinate dwelling UNIT, AS DEFINED IN THIS
SECTION, SUBORDINATE TO THE PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT AND situated on the
same lot with the main dwelling and used as FOR an A RESIDENTIAL accessory use.
ADUs, WHERE PERMITTED, DO NOT COUNT TOWARDS CALCULATIONS OF
GROSS DENSITY.

***

Apartment: See "Dwelling, Multiple-Family". A DWELLING UNIT WITHIN A DUPLEX,
TRIPLEX, TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT, AND/OR MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT
WHERE EACH UNIT HAS A PRIMARY ACCESS TO A SHARED WALKWAY OR
CORRIDOR, AND EACH UNIT IS NOT INDIVIDUALLY OWNED.

***

Building, Main: A building, or buildings, in which is conducted the principal use of the lot
on which it is situated. In any residential district, any dwelling shall be deemed to be
the main building of the lot on which the same is situated. ON LOTS WITH ONLY
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES, THE PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT SHALL BE
CONSIDERED THE MAIN BUILDING.

***

DUPLEX: A BUILDING ON ONE LOT, WHICH HOUSES EXACTLY TWO DWELLING
UNITS, NEITHER OF WHICH MAY BE CONSIDERED AN ACCESSORY DWELLING
UNIT. EACH DUPLEX UNIT COUNTS TOWARDS THE CALCULATION OF GROSS
DENSITY.

***

Dwelling, Multifamily: A building or buildings attached to each other and containing two or
more dwelling units. The term "multifamily dwelling" is intended to apply to dwelling types




Page 989
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023

as triplex, fourplex, and apartments where any dwellings have their primary access to a
common hallway or corridor.

Dwelling, Single-Family Attached: A building containing dwelling units each of which has
primary ground floor access to the outside and which are attached to each other. Each
unit extends from the foundation to roof and has open spaces on at least two sides. The
term "attached single-family dwelling" is intended primarily for dwelling types as
townhouses and duplexes.

Dwelling, Single-Family, Detached: A building containing only one dwelling unit entirely
separated by open space from buildings on adjoining lots or building sites.

Dwelling Unit: One (1) or more rooms within a building arranged, designed, or used for
residential purposes for one (1) family and containing INDEPENDENT LIVING AND
SLEEPING AREAS, TOGETHER WITH independent sanitary (TOILET, SINK, AND
BATH/SHOWER) and cooking facilities. The presence of cooking facilities conclusively
establishes the intent to use for residential purposes.

DWELLING UNIT, PRIMARY: A DWELLING UNIT THAT IS EITHER 1) THE ONLY
DWELLING UNIT PROVIDED ON A SINGLE-FAMILY LOT, OR 2) THE LARGEST
DWELLING UNIT PROVIDED ON A SINGLE-FAMILY LOT WHEN THE APPLICABLE
ZONING REGULATIONS OTHERWISE ALLOW AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT OR
OTHER TYPES OF DWELLING UNITS.

***

Guesthouse: A free-standing building which is designed to house guests or servants of
the occupants of the primary dwelling unit. SEE “ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT”.

For purposes of a guest house, a "free-standing building" shall be one which is either not
connected to the primary dwelling unit or, if connected to the primary dwelling unit, shall
be considered free-standing if:

1. The connecting structure is less than ten (10) feet wide; or
2. The connecting structure is greater than ten (10) feet wide and the length of the
connection is more than twice the width of the connecting structure.

For purposes of a guest house, the width of the connecting structure shall be the shortest
distance across its narrowest point, measured from the inside surfaces of the exterior,
enclosing walls. The length of the connecting structure shall be the shortest possible
straight line distance from the outside surface of the primary dwelling unit to the most
distant outside surface of the connecting structure.




Page 990
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023

For purposes of a guest house, a structure shall be deemed to be "designed to house
guests or servants of the occupants or the primary dwelling unit" if it contains the
following;

1. A shower or bath;
2. A commode;
3. Space for sleeping; and
4. Cooking faculties or space and plumbing and electrical wiring which can be legally
accessed and connected without the requirement of a permit issued by the City and which
is reasonably capable of accommodation of cooking facilities.


***

Interior Suite with Accessory Cooking Facilities: A room or group of rooms located within a
single dwelling unit designed or arranged to allow for semi-private residential use and
includes accessory cooking facilities.

***

Multifamily Residence: See "Dwelling, Multifamily."

MULTIFAMILY/MULTIPLE-FAMILY: A LOT OR PARCEL WHERE TWO OR MORE
DWELLING UNITS ARE PROVIDED, NOT INCLUDING A PERMITTED ACCESSORY
DWELLING UNIT.

***

Offsite Manufactured Home Development: any SINGLE lot, tract, or parcel of land, NOT
TO BE FURTHER SUBDIVIDED, used or offered for use in whole or in part, with or
without charge, for the parking of occupied offsite manufactured homes.

***

Single-Family Attached (SFA) Development: A group of single-family attached dwelling
units located on individually owned lots with common areas which are designed as an
integrated functional unit. Perimeter standards are defined and potential bonus density
and design flexibility allow for quality individual property ownership within a larger
development. Includes townhouse and row house dwellings located on small single-family
owned lots.

SINGLE-FAMILY: A LOT OR DEVELOPMENT WHERE NO MORE THAN ONE
PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT IS PROVIDED PER LOT.




Page 991
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023

SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED: A SINGLE-FAMILY LOT OR DEVELOPMENT WHERE
EACH DWELLING UNIT IS ATTACHED TO AT LEAST ONE, BUT NO MORE THAN
TWO NEIGHBORING PRIMARY DWELLING UNITS AT THE ABUTTING SIDE
PROPERTY LINE(S). EACH DWELLING UNIT MUST ALSO COMPLY WITH THE
DEFINITION OF “TOWNHOME/TOWNHOUSE”.

SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED: A SINGLE-FAMILY LOT OR DEVELOPMENT WHERE
EACH DWELLING UNIT IS NOT ATTACHED TO ANY OTHER DWELLING UNIT OTHER
THAN A PERMITTED ADU.

SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL (SFI) DEVELOPMENT: A TYPE OF SINGLE-FAMILY
DEVELOPMENT CONSISTING OF TOWNHOUSES AND A LIMITED NUMBER OF
DETACHED DWELLING UNITS. PERIMETER STANDARDS ARE DEFINED AND
POTENTIAL BONUS DENSITY AND DESIGN FLEXIBILITY ALLOW FOR QUALITY
INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNERSHIP WITHIN A LARGER DEVELOPMENT.

***

TOWNHOME/TOWNHOUSE: A TYPE OF DWELLING UNIT WHICH IS ATTACHED TO
AT LEAST ONE OTHER DWELLING UNIT. THE DWELLING UNITS MAY BE
ATTACHED AT A PROPERTY LINE (SEE “SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED”), OR THEY
MAY BE MULTIPLE UNITS ON A SINGLE LOT (SEE “DUPLEX”, “TRIPLEX”, AND/OR
“MULTIFAMILY”). THE KEY CHARACTERISTIC OF A TOWNHOME IS THAT THERE IS
NO VERTICAL OVERLAP OF ANY DWELLING UNITS.

***

TRIPLEX: A BUILDING ON ONE LOT WHICH HOUSES EXACTLY THREE DWELLING
UNITS, NONE OF WHICH MAY BE CONSIDERED AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT.
EACH TRIPLEX UNIT COUNTS TOWARDS THE CALCULATION OF GROSS DENSITY.

***

Yard: A space on any lot, unoccupied by a structure and unobstructed from the ground
upward except as otherwise provided herein, and measured as the minimum horizontal
distance from a building or structure, excluding carports, porches and other permitted
projects, to the property line opposite such building line in the side or rear yards, or to the
street right-of-way or easement in the front yard; provided, however, that where a future
width line is established by the provisions of this ordinance for any street bounding the lot,
then such measurement shall be taken from the line of the building to such future width
line.
[remove existing picture]




Page 992
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023




***

Section 507 Tab A II.C. Subdivision Design/Development
Amend Chapter 5, Section 507 Tab A II.C. (Subdivision Design/Development) and
Section 507 Tab A II.C. 8 (Single-Family Design Review) to clarify and simplify
Single-Family Design Review requirements for individual lots, especially as related
to duplex and triplex uses, and to read as follows:

***

C. Subdivision AND SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED Design REVIEW/Development




Page 993
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023


***

8. Single-Family DETACHED Design Review. New single-family detached
dwelling units, LOTS HAVING A SINGLE individual duplexes OR TRIPLEX
(duplex developments consisting of ten or more duplex buildings located on
the same lot or adjacent lots are not subject to single-family design review),
manufactured homes, and modular homes that have not received
preliminary site plan or subdivision approval, or building permit issuance
prior to August 1, 2005 shall be subject to single-family design review, as
follows (R*)(R):

(a) Single-family detached developments where 10% or more of the lots
are equal to or less than 65' FEET in width or any residential
horizontal property regime shall incorporate Design Guidelines
Sections 8.1 through 8.4.

(b) Individual single-family detached dwelling units, not subject to
Subdivision Design Guidelines 8.1 through 8.4, on a lot or parcel of
65 feet in width, or less, shall incorporate Design Guidelines Section
8.5. THIS REQUIREMENT INCLUDES LOTS WITH A SINGLE
DUPLEX OR TRIPLEX WHEN NOT LOCATED IN A SUBDIVISION
SUBJECT TO II.C.8(a).

(c) Individual duplexes (as specified above) shall incorporate Design
Guidelines Section 8.5. DWELLING UNITS ON LOTS ZONED OR
DESIGNATED HP ARE EXEMPT FROM THE PROVISIONS OF
SECTION 8.5, SO LONG AS THE PLANS ARE REVIEWED AND
APPROVED THROUGH HISTORIC PRESERVATION PRIOR TO
ISSUANCE OF ANY BUILDING PERMITS. .

(d) Individual manufactured and modular homes, regardless of lot width,
shall incorporate Design Guidelines Section 8.5.

(e) Manufactured and modular home subdivisions, regardless of lot
width, shall incorporate Design Guidelines Sections 8.1 through 8.4.

***

(8.5) Individual Unit Design Standards. The goal of these individual unit
design standards is to ensure a minimum level of design quality for
detached single-family dwelling units, duplexes, manufactured
homes, and modular homes. For information on relief from
requirements (R) AND (R*), and presumptions (P) refer to Section
507.C of the Zoning Ordinance.




Page 994
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023


(a) Plot plans shall show all required design guidelines as plan
details or general notes. (R)

Rationale: Design guidelines should be shown on plans to
help ensure they are easily understood by the public and
equally applied by City staff.

(b) Where two detached units are placed on a single lot, a notice
that the lots are not to be split without prior City approval
shall be recorded with the Maricopa County Recorder’s
Office prior to issuance of building permits. The recorded
document shall be on a form approved by the City Attorney’s
Office. A copy of the recorded document shall be submitted
with the application for building permit approval and the
recorded document noted on the submitted site plan. (R)

Rationale: The public is often unaware that the City has lot
split requirements and may unknowingly create an illegal lot,
causing self-imposed obstacles to development.

(c) All driveways and parking spaces shall be hard surfaced with
brick, pavers, concrete, asphalt or equivalent. (R)

Rationale: A defined driveway and parking area reduces
vehicle maneuvering on areas not suitable for vehicles. Hard
surfaces contribute to dust emissions substantially less than
loose or unimproved surfaces. Hard surfaces are generally
more attractive and compatible with surrounding residences.

(d) (a) Each dwelling unit shall have at least one covered parking
space located in a garage or under a carport. The design of
the covered parking shall be substantially similar with regard
to texture, color and material to that of the housing. (R*) (R)

Rationale: Covered parking reduces the visual impact of
parked cars. Carports and garages that are designed with
the same level of quality as the house are more attractive
and more compatible with surrounding residences.

(e) (b) The FRONT YARD area between the front building line and
the front property line, excluding areas necessary approved
for VEHICLE access, should be landscaped with the
following elements: (P)




Page 995
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023

(1) A minimum of one, two inch caliper or greater, drought
resistant, accent tree. (P*)

(2) A minimum of five, five gallon or greater, drought
resistant shrubs. (P*)

(3) Dustproofed with ground cover, turf, rock,
decomposed granite, or equivalent material as
approved by the Planning and Development
Department. (P*)

(4) An irrigation system. (P*)

Rationale: Landscaping contributes to an attractive
environment, provides shade, and contributes to
neighborhood identity.

(f) Unless all parking is provided off an alley, no more than half
of the area between the rear lot line and the rear building line
of a single family dwelling unit, or two-thirds of said area for
duplexes, should be used for parking. (P*)

Rationale: Excessive vehicle parking areas reduces
compatibility with surrounding residences and minimizes the
opportunity for recreational activity and landscaped space.

[remove picture, do not replace]




Parking—Rear Building Line




Page 996
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023

(g) (c) Required covered parking for single family dwelling units,
duplexes, manufactured homes, and modular homes shall
not protrude BE LOCATED more than ten feet beyond
CLOSER TO THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE THAN the front
ENTRY building line. (R*)

Rationale: When parking structures are concentrated in front
of a dwelling unit, the building loses its residential character
and compatibility with surrounding residences is negatively
impacted.

[remove picture, do not replace]




Covered Parking 2

(h) The area between the rear building line and the rear lot line
shall be enclosed by a block wall, wrought iron fence, or
equivalent enclosure, a minimum of four feet in height, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
(R*)

Rationale: Rear yard enclosures provide physical security
and also ensure rear yard activities, such as pool areas and
material storage, are not readily visible. In addition,
enclosures are visually appealing and benefit the
neighborhood.




Page 997
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023

(i) (d) Walls, fences, and enclosure materials shall not include
chain link fencing with, or without, plastic or metal slats,
sheeting, non-decorative corrugated metal and fencing made
or topped with razor, concertina, OR barbed wire., or
equivalent as approved by the Planning and Development
Department. (R*)

Rationale: Certain enclosure materials are not durable, and
are incompatible with surrounding residences.

(j) (e) Development of two detached dwelling units on a lot,
duplexes, manufactured homes, or modular homes LOTS
WITH MORE THAN ONE DWELLING UNIT should provide a
single, common access drive to parking areas. (P*) (P)

Rationale: Shared access and common parking minimize
unnecessary curb cuts and breaks in the streetscape.
Common parking areas also reduce the paved area of a site

(k) (f) Single family ALL dwelling units, duplexes, manufactured
homes, and modular homes should provide the following
architectural design elements: (P)

(1) Consistent detailing and design for each side of the
building. (P*)

(2) Window and door trim as well as accent detailing
should be incorporated and vary from the primary
color and materials of the building. (P*)

(3) Garage doors should be provided with windows,
raised or recessed panels, architectural trim, or single
doors. (P*)

(4) The front entry of the building should be clearly
defined and identifiable from the street. (P*)

(5)(4) Materials such as untextured concrete, unfinished
block, steel panels, and shiny or highly reflective
detailing should not be used as a predominant exterior
material. (P*)

Rationale: High quality design promotes neighborhood
pride and visual interest in residential architecture.




Page 998
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023

(l) (g) Garage doors FACING visible from the public street AND
ATTACHED TO THE PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT should
not exceed 50% of the house BUILDING width. (P*) (P)

Rationale: Garage doors should not be the aesthetic focus of
a house; they should compliment COMPLEMENT and
appear subordinate to the main structure. THIS IS
PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT IF A DUPLEX OR TRIPLEX
IS CONSTRUCTED.

(m) (h) The front entrance, of buildings within 50 feet of the front
property line, shall face the street and shall not be set back
more than ten feet behind the front building line. A FRONT
ENTRY SHALL BE PROVIDED THAT FACES AND IS
VISIBLE FROM THE STREET, AND INCLUDES AN
ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE TO CALL ATTENTION TO IT
(SUCH AS A PORCH, ENTRY PATIO, STOOP,
AWNING/CANOPY, COURTYARD, OR ARCHWAY). FOR
LOTS HAVING MORE THAN ONE DWELLING UNIT, A
MINIMUM OF ONE UNIT SHALL COMPLY WITH THIS
REQUIREMENT. (R*)

Rationale: Emphasizing the entrance and front facade adds
to the residential character of new dwelling units and
provides eyes on the street.

[remove picture, do not replace]




Parking—Front Entrance

(n) (i) Manufactured homes shall provide the following additional
architectural design elements:




Page 999
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023

(1) Materials such as wood, hardboard, brick veneer,
hardiplank, stucco, or horizontal vinyl siding shall be
used as a predominant exterior material. (P*) (P)

(2) The exposed roof pitch shall be at a minimum of 3/12
for units twenty-eight (28) feet or less in width and be
covered with shingles, tile or metal, excluding
aluminum. (R*)

(3) A minimum fifty (50) square foot recessed entry or
covered porch shall be provided along the front entry
of the building. (R*)

(4) Permanent access to the porch or recessed entry
should be constructed with materials and colors that
are compatible with the dwelling unit. (P*) (P)

(5) A masonry stem wall shall be provided under the
dwelling unit with no more than seven (7) inches of
exposed foundation measured from highest finished
grade. (R*)

(6) The exposed masonry stem wall color should be
compatible to the dwelling unit. (P*) (P)

Rationale: High quality design promotes neighborhood pride
and visual interest in residential architecture for
manufactured homes.

***
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. A maximum of one dwelling unit for one acre and one additional dwelling
unit for each ten additional acres. These dwelling units are for farm owner
and farm employees only. DWELLING UNITS. EACH LOT MAY HAVE THE
FOLLOWING:




Page 1000
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023

a. ONE PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT.

b. ONE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT, 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.

***

12. Same accessory uses and buildings as RE-24. THE FOLLOWING
ADDITIONAL USES, WHEN ACCESSORY TO THE RESIDENTIAL USE
OF LAND OR STRUCTURES BY RESIDENTS, SHALL BE PERMITTED:

a. RECREATIONAL FACILITIES, FOR WHICH ALL NECESSARY
CONSTRUCTION AND OTHER REQUIRED PERMITS HAVE BEEN
OBTAINED.

b. PARKING OF VEHICLES IN FACILITIES AND LOCATIONS ON THE
PROPERTY NOT OTHERWISE IN CONFLICT WITH THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS ORDINANCE.

c. MATERIALS USED IN CONJUNCTION WITH A HOBBY,
AVOCATION OR PASTIME, THE USE OF WHICH DOES NOT
OTHERWISE CONFLICT WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS
ORDINANCE.

d. FACILITIES FOR HOUSEHOLD PETS, THE MAINTENANCE OF
WHICH IS NOT OTHERWISE PROHIBITED BY STATUTE,
REGULATION OF THE CITY CODE OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX
AND WHICH FACILITIES ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH ALL
APPLICABLE ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX.

***

B. Yard, Height and Area Requirements.

1. There shall be a EACH lot SHALL HAVE A NET AREA of not less than one
acre.

2. For all residential uses DWELLING UNITS:

a. There shall be a front yard of not less than THE MINIMUM FRONT
SETBACK IS forty 40 feet.




Page 1001
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023

b. There shall be two side yards each having a width of not less than
THE MINIMUM SIDE SETBACK IS thirty 30 feet.

c. There shall be a rear yard having a depth of not less than THE
MINIMUM REAR SETBACK IS thirty 30 feet.

3. Sales stands or AND NON-RESIDENTIAL accessory buildings shall NOT be
located not nearer than fifty 50 feet from any side or rear property line and
shall not be located nearer than forty 40 feet from the front property line.

4. The main building and all accessory buildings shall not occupy more than
twenty percent of the total area of the lot for all lots under two acres or not
more than ten percent of all lots two acres or over in total area.
LOT COVERAGE:

a. FOR LOTS TWO ACRES OR LESS IN NET AREA, THE
PERMITTED LOT COVERAGE IS 20%, WITH AN ADDITIONAL 5%
PERMITTED FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AND/OR
ATTACHED SHADE STRUCTURES.

b. FOR LOTS GREATER THAN TWO ACRES IN NET AREA, THE
PERMITTED LOT COVERAGE IS 10%, WITH AN ADDITIONAL 5%
PERMITTED FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AND/OR
ATTACHED SHADE STRUCTURES.

5. No building shall exceed a height of two stories, not to exceed thirty 30 feet.

6. ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS ARE SUBJECT TO THE ADDITIONAL
PROVISIONS 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. There shall be a EACH lot SHALL HAVE A NET AREA of not less than three
acres.

2. For all residential uses DWELLING UNITS:




Page 1002
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023


a. There shall be a front yard of not less than THE MINIMUM FRONT
SETBACK IS forty 40 feet.

b. There shall be two side yards each having a width of not less than
THE MINIMUM SIDE SETBACK IS thirty 30 feet.

c. There shall be a rear yard having a depth of not less than THE
MINIMUM REAR SETBACK IS thirty 30 feet.

3. Sales stands or AND NON-RESIDENTIAL accessory buildings shall NOT be
located not nearer than fifty 50 feet from any side or rear property line and
shall not be located nearer than forty 40 feet from the front property line.

4. The main building and all accessory buildings shall not occupy more than
ten percent of the total lot area.
LOT COVERAGE: THE PERMITTED LOT COVERAGE IS 10%, WITH AN
ADDITIONAL 5% PERMITTED FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS
AND/OR ATTACHED SHADE STRUCTURES.

5. No building shall exceed a height of two stories, not to exceed thirty 30 feet.

6. ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS ARE SUBJECT TO THE ADDITIONAL
PROVISIONS 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.

***

A. Permitted Uses.

1. One single-family dwelling on any lot or parcel, except that a developer of a
subdivision shall be allowed to build model homes prior to recording a
subdivision plat, subject to the provisions of paragraph 7 below and subject
to submitting a final plat which shall show the following information for each
model home lot:
DWELLING UNITS. EACH LOT MAY HAVE THE FOLLOWING:




Page 1003
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023


a. Street addresses for each model home as assigned by the Water
Services Department.
ONE PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT.

b. Finished floor elevations for each model home as assigned by the
Division of Engineering.
ONE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT.

c. Proposed lots for model homes shall be in conformance with lot lines
as shown on the approved preliminary plan.
MODEL HOMES ARE PERMITTED SUBJECT TO THE
PROVISIONS OF SECTION 608.E.19.

d. Each model home shall be located on each proposed lot in
conformance with yard requirements of the district.

Such final plat need not have the required approvals for purposes of
obtaining permits for model homes.

***

11. RESERVED. Guesthouse, subject to the following conditions:

a. The square footage of the guesthouse shall not exceed fifty percent
of the gross floor area of the primary dwelling unit with a maximum of
nine hundred square feet, except as set forth in subsection b, below.
Any garage area attached to the guesthouse which is more than the
area of a single-car garage shall be counted toward the allowable
square footage of the guesthouse.

b. On lots with more than forty-three thousand five hundred sixty square
feet in net area with a primary dwelling unit of at least three thousand
six hundred square feet in gross floor area, the square footage of the
guesthouse may be twenty-five percent of the gross floor area of the
primary dwelling unit.

c. The floor area of the connecting structure shall be included in the
floor area of the guesthouse.

d. Pergolas and other roofed structures without walls shall not be
considered a connecting structure.




Page 1004
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023

e. Vehicular access to the accessory dwelling unit must be provided
from the same curb (driveway) as the primary dwelling unit, except
that separate access may be permitted from a paved alley.

f. One parking space must be provided for the accessory dwelling unit
in addition to the parking required for the primary dwelling unit.

g. Only one guesthouse is permitted on a single lot.

h. The guesthouse shall be constructed of similar building materials and
in the same architectural style as that of the primary dwelling unit and
shall not exceed the height in feet or number of stories of the primary
dwelling unit.

i. A guesthouse shall not:

(1) Provide more parking than the one required space;

(2) Be advertised for occupancy through any print or electronic
media or through placement of signs on the property;

(3) Provide separate mail service or have a separate address from
the primary dwelling unit; or

(4) Be separately metered for utilities.

(j) Single-family use requirements shall apply to the guesthouse and the
primary dwelling unit as a single unit.

(k) Any guesthouse existing as of (the effective date of this ordinance)
may qualify as "connected to the primary dwelling unit" by being
connected to the primary dwelling unit without meeting the minimum
width requirements.

12. Accessory uses and buildings.

a. ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS ARE SUBJECT TO THE
ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS OF SECTION 706.A.

a. b. Any OTHER accessory building(S) shall maintain the same yard
requirements as the main building. No accessory use shall be
maintained in which there is solicitation of recipients for a service or
product, or the operation of the use so that it is commonly known as
offering a commercial service or product.




Page 1005
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023

b. c. No accessory use of land or structures shall be maintained except as
hereinafter provided or except as may be permitted as a home
occupation.

c. d. The following uses, when accessory to the residential use of land or
structures by residents, shall be permitted:

(1) Sleeping, eating, and rRecreational facilities, for which all
necessary construction and other required permits have been
obtained.

(2) Parking of vehicles in facilities and locations on the property
not otherwise in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance.

(3) Materials used in conjunction with a hobby, avocation or
pastime, the use of which does not otherwise conflict with the
provisions of this ordinance.

(4) Facilities for household pets, the maintenance of which is not
otherwise prohibited by statute, regulation or the City Code of
the City of Phoenix and which facilities are in compliance with
all applicable ordinances of the City of Phoenix.

(5) Reserved.

d. e. Except as may be provided by use permit approval in conjunction with
a home occupation, no accessory use shall include outdoor display or
storage of any of the following listed items, when such items are
visible or emit odor, dust, gas, noise, vibration, smoke, heat, or glare
beyond any boundary of the lot on which such items are displayed or
stored:
***
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 forty-three thousand five hundred
sixty 43,560 square feet. No lot shall hereafter be subdivided to provide less
than forty-three thousand five hundred sixty 43,560 square feet of lot area,
nor to have a width of less than one hundred sixty-five 165 feet, nor to have
a lot depth of less than one hundred seventy-five 175 feet. The provisions of
Section 701.A.3, as it refers to carports, porches, and balconies in the
side yard, shall not be applicable.

***




Page 1006
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023

7. YARDS FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AND OTHER ACCESSORY
STRUCTURES SHALL BE PROVIDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
PROVISIONS OF SECTION 706.

8. PROJECTIONS INTO THE REQUIRED SIDE YARDS, PER THE
PROVISIONS OF SECTION 701.A.3.a (1)(b), ARE NOT PERMITTED.

***
Section 606. 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.

A. Permitted Uses.

1. One single-family dwelling on any lot or parcel, except that a developer of a
subdivision shall be allowed to build model homes prior to recording a
subdivision plat, subject to the provisions of Section 606A.4.b below and
subject to submitting a final plat which shall show the following information
for each model home lot:
DWELLING UNITS. EACH LOT MAY HAVE THE FOLLOWING:

a. Street addresses for each model home as assigned by the Water
Services Department.
ONE PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT.

b. Finished floor elevations for each model home as approved by the
Engineering Department.
ONE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT.

c. Proposed lots for model homes shall be in conformance with lot lines
as shown on the approved preliminary plat.
MODEL HOMES ARE PERMITTED SUBJECT TO THE
PROVISIONS OF SECTION 608.E.19.

d. Each model home shall be located on each proposed lot in
conformance with yard requirements of the district.

Such final plat need not have the required approvals for purposes of
obtaining permits for model homes.




Page 1007
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023

***

11. Accessory uses and buildings.

a. ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS ARE SUBJECT TO THE
ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS OF SECTION 706.A.

a. b. OTHER ACCESSORY BUILDING(S) SHALL MAINTAIN THE SAME
YARD REQUIREMENTS AS THE MAIN BUILDING. No accessory
use shall be maintained in which there is solicitation of recipients for a
service or product, or the operation of the use so that it is commonly
known as offering a commercial service or product.

b. c. No accessory use of land or structures shall be maintained except as
hereinafter provided or except as may be permitted as a home
occupation.

c. d. The following uses, when accessory to the residential use of land or
structures by residents, shall be permitted:

(1) Sleeping, eating, and rRecreational facilities, for which all
necessary construction and other required permits have been
obtained.

(2) Parking of vehicles in facilities and locations on the property
not otherwise in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance.

(3) Materials used in conjunction with a hobby, avocation or
pastime, the use of which does not otherwise conflict with the
provisions of this ordinance.

(4) Facilities for household pets, the maintenance of which is not
otherwise prohibited by statute, regulation or the City Code of
the City of Phoenix and which facilities are in compliance with
all applicable ordinances of the City of Phoenix.

(5) Reserved.

d. e. Except as may be provided by use permit approval in conjunction with
a home occupation, no accessory use shall include outdoor display or
storage of any of the following listed items, when such items are
visible or emit odor, dust, gas, noise, vibration, smoke, heat, or glare
beyond any boundary of the lot on which such items are displayed or
stored:




Page 1008
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023

***

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 twenty-four thousand 24,000
square feet. No lot shall hereafter be subdivided to provide less than twenty-
four thousand 24,000 thousand square feet of lot area nor to have a width of
less than one hundred thirty 130 feet nor a lot depth of less than one
hundred twenty 120 feet. The provisions of Section 701.A.1 and 701.A.2
shall not be applicable. The provisions of Section 701.A.3, as it refers to
carports, porches, and balconies in the side yard, shall not be applicable.

***

7. Yards for ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AND detached OTHER
accessory buildings STRUCTURES shall be permitted as PROVIDED in
ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF Section 706.

8. PROJECTIONS 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.

***

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 fourteen thousand 14,000 square
feet. No lot shall hereafter be subdivided to provide less than fourteen
thousand 14,000 square feet of lot area not to have a width of less than one
hundred ten 110 feet nor a depth less than one hundred twenty 120 feet.
The provisions of Section 701.A.1 and 701.A.2 shall not be applicable. The
provisions of Section 701.A.3, as it refers to carports, porches, and
balconies in the side yard, shall not be applicable.




Page 1009
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023

***
7. Yards for ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AND detached OTHER
accessory buildings STRUCTURES shall be permitted as PROVIDED in
ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF Section 706.

8. PROJECTIONS INTO THE REQUIRED SIDE YARDS, PER THE
PROVISIONS OF SECTION 701.A.3.a(1)(b), ARE NOT PERMITTED.

***
Section 608. Residence Districts
Amend Chapter 6, Section 608 (Residence Districts) to read as follows:

Section 608. Residence RESIDENTIAL Districts.

A. Purpose. Residential districts are established in recognition of a need to provide
areas of the City devoted primarily to living functions. In order to preserve these
areas from the distractions and adverse impacts which can result from immediate
association with nonresidential uses, these districts are restricted to residential,
limited nonresidential uses, and appropriate accessory uses. These regulations are
designed to promote the creation and maintenance of areas in which individuals or
families may pursue residential activities with reasonable access to open space,
and streets or roads, in a setting which is not negatively impacted by adjacent
uses. Limited nonresidential uses may have conditions placed upon them to limit
impact to adjacent residential uses and in some cases require a public hearing
through a use permit or special permit process to mitigate any negative impacts to
surrounding residential uses.

The standards contained in this section and Sections 609 through 618 619 AND
635 are designed to establish the character of new residential development and
also to preserve the quality of residential uses during their lifetime. When applied to
new development, these standards are designed to be used in conjunction with the
development and improvement standards as contained in the Phoenix Subdivision
Ordinance, Chapter 32 of the City Code.

This section applies to the Residential Districts in Sections 609 through 618 619, IN
ADDITION TO SECTION 635 (PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT) WHEN
SPECIFIED.

***

Amend Chapter 6, Section 608.B (Residence Districts—Use of district regulations)
to read as follows:




Page 1010
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023

B. Use of district regulations APPLICABILITY OF DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS. The
development of any parcel of land shall be in accordance with the standards
contained in any one development option as contained in Sections 609 through
619. Development of a single lot or a parcel not being further subdivided and
located in the RE-35 and R1-18 zoning districts (Sections 609 and 610) shall be in
accordance with the requirements for the standard subdivision development option
(a), as contained in Sections 609 and 610. For a single lot or parcel not part of a
subdivision platted prior to May 1, 1998, not being further subdivided, and located
in the R1-10 through R-4A zoning districts (Sections 611 through 619),
development shall be in accordance with the requirements of the conventional
subdivision option as contained in Sections 611 through 619.

All subsequent development shall be in accordance with the initially selected
development option unless a use permit is obtained. Building on any lot which was
subdivided or developed prior to the adoption of this chapter shall be done in
accordance with the standards under which the initial subdivision or development
occurred.

For purposes of conversion to this ordinance, property subdivided prior to May 1,
1998, shall be considered as follows:

***

2. Residential development with a sublot site plan AN APPROVED
SUBDIVISION SETBACK EXHIBIT approved by the subdivision committee
shall be considered under the average lot development option if located in
the RE-35 through R1-5 R-5 zoning districts (Sections 609 through 618).

***

Amend Chapter 6, Section 608.C (Residence Districts—Permitted Uses) to read as
follows:

C. Permitted Uses

Use
Permitted
Permit
with
Use Permitted and
Conditions
(1) Conditions
(2)

Single-Family DU X
Governmental Uses X
Community Residence Home X
Interior Suite with Accessory Cooking Facilities X




Page 1011
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023

Boarding House X X
Group Home X X
***
1—6 Dependent Care Facility X
1—4 Adult Day Care Home X
Display for Sale of Vehicle X
Guestrooms X
Public Utility Buildings and Facilities X
Schools, Private X X
X
***

5—10 Adult Day Care Home X X
Churches/Place of Worship X X
Construction Facilities and Storage X X
Home Occupations X X
Model Homes and/or Subdivision Sales Office X X
Nondaily Newspaper Delivery Service X X
Public Assembly—Residential X X
***

7—12 Dependent Care Facility X
Environmental Remediation Facility X

(1) Please note some uses that are permitted with conditions require a use permit
approval if they exceed established thresholds.

(2) There is also a fourth category of residential uses permitted with approval of a
special permit. Please see Section 647.

***

C. 1. One single-family dwelling on any lot or parcel, except that a developer of a
subdivision shall be allowed to build model homes prior to recording a
subdivision plat, subject to the provisions of Section 608.C.3 and subject to
submitting a final plat which shall show the following information for each
model home lot:

a. Street addresses for each model home as assigned by the Water
Services Department.

b. Finished floor elevations for each model home as approved by the
Engineering Department.




Page 1012
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023


c. Proposed lots for model homes shall be in conformance with lot lines
as shown on the approved preliminary plat.

d. Each model home shall be located on each proposed lot in
conformance with yard requirements of the district.

Such final plat need not have the required approvals for purposes of
obtaining permits for model homes.

2. Governmental uses are permitted.

3. No accessory use of land or structures shall be maintained except as
hereinafter provided or except as may be permitted as a home occupation.

C. USE REGULATIONS. THE REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE USES OF LAND
AND STRUCTURES SHALL BE AS SET FORTH IN THE RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS LAND USE MATRIX, SECTION 608.D, AND LAND USE
CONDITIONS IN SECTION 608.E, AS FOLLOWS:

1. ANY USE NOT LISTED IN SECTION 608.D (RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
LAND USE MATRIX) SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED UNLESS THE USE IS
OTHERWISE PERMITTED WITHIN THE REGULATIONS SPECIFIC TO
THE ZONING DISTRICT, PER SECTIONS 609 – 619 AND 635.

2. ALL USES INDICATED WITH “p” ARE PERMITTED WITH THE
APPLICABLE ZONING DISTRICT, SUBJECT TO DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS LISTED BELOW AND ELSEWHERE WITHIN THE
ZONING ORDINANCE.

3. ALL USES INDICATED WITH “pc” ARE PERMITTED WITHIN THE
APPLICABLE ZONING DISTRICT ONLY IF SPECIFIC CONDITIONS ARE
MET. THE CONDITIONS ARE DESCRIBED IN SECTION 608.E, LAND
USE CONDITIONS, BY THE ASSOCIATED CONDITION NUMBER (E.G.
“pc15” IS DESCRIBED UNDER SECTION 608.E.15). IN SOME CASES, A
USE PERMIT PER SECTION 307 MAY BE REQUIRED AS OUTLINED IN
THE CONDITIONS.

4. ALL USES INDICATED WITH “up” ARE PERMITTED WITHIN THE
APPLICABLE ZONING DISTRICT ONLY UPON APPROVAL OF A USE
PERMIT PER SECTION 307. IF A NUMBER IS ALSO PROVIDED (E.G.
“UP25”), THERE ARE ALSO CONDITIONS WHICH MUST BE COMPLIED
WITH BEFORE APPLYING FOR A USE PERMIT.




Page 1013
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023

5. ALL USES INDICATED WITH “sp” ARE PERMITTED WITHIN THE
APPLICABLE ZONING DISTRICT ONLY UPON APPROVAL OF A
SPECIAL PERMIT PER SECTION 504.1.

6 ALL USES INDICATED WITH “np” ARE NOT PERMITTED WITHIN THE
APPLICABLE ZONING DISTRICT.

7. NO ACCESSORY USE OF LAND OR STRUCTURES SHALL BE
MAINTAINED EXCEPT AS HEREINAFTER PROVIDED OR EXCEPT AS
MAY BE PERMITTED AS A HOME OCCUPATION.

***

Amend Chapter 6, Section 608.D (Residence Districts—Permitted Uses with
Conditions) to read as follows:

D. Permitted Uses with Conditions.

1. Adult day care home for the care of one to four adult persons; provided, that:

a. Outdoor recreation areas shall be screened from adjacent properties
by a six-foot-high landscape hedge, solid fence, or solid wall.

2. Community residence home; provided, that:

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.




Page 1014
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023

3. Dependent care facility for six dependents, subject to the following
conditions:

a. Resident dependents under the age of 12 years shall not be counted.

b. Outdoor play areas shall be screened from adjacent properties by a
six-foot-high landscape hedge, solid fence, or solid wall.

c. The employees must reside at the facility unless a nonresident
employee is required by the Arizona Department of Health Services.

4. The display for sale of a vehicle, which for purposes of this provision
includes trailers, watercraft or other types of transportation that are built to
carry passengers or cargo shall be subject to the following restrictions:

a. No more than one vehicle can be labeled for sale or show any
indication that it is for sale at any given time on a property, whether
visible on site or through some other form of advertising.

b. No more than two vehicles can be sold on a property during any
calendar year.

c. For purposes of Sections 608.A and B, two jet skis, a boat or similar
types of recreational vehicles that are transported on one trailer shall,
together with the trailer, be considered one vehicle.

d. The ownership of the vehicle(s) must be registered to the location
where the vehicle is listed for sale.
e. No vehicle can be labeled for sale or show any indication that it is for
sale at an unoccupied house or on a vacant lot or parcel.

f. No vehicle can be labeled for sale or show any indication that it is for
sale in conjunction with a retail or wholesale vehicle sales dealership
or business without obtaining a temporary use permit.

5. Guestrooms. Each single-family dwelling may contain no more than two
guestrooms.

6. Public utility buildings and facilities when necessary for serving the
surrounding territory; provided, that no public business offices and no repair
or storage facilities are maintained therein, are permitted in each district.

7. Schools are permitted in each district subject to a site plan being approved
in conformance with Section 507.




Page 1015
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023

8. Interior suite with accessory cooking facilities, subject to the following:

a. Dwelling units with an interior suite with accessory cooking facilities
are permitted only in residential subdivisions of 15 acres or more and
located within the boundaries illustrated in Map 1, as follows:

(1) Subdivided after July 5, 2019; or

(2) Subdivided prior to July 5, 2019, but with less than 25 percent
of the lots having constructed dwelling units or valid building
permits as of July 5, 2019.




Page 1016
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023

Map 1: Applicable Area




Page 1017
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023

b. An interior suite with accessory cooking facilities shall only be part of
a single-family detached dwelling unit and must be under the same
roof structure. Only one interior suite with accessory cooking facilities
shall be permitted per lot and shall be located on the ground floor.

c. The square footage of the interior suite with accessory cooking
facilities shall not exceed 30 percent of the total net floor area or 800
square feet (whichever is less). Garage or patio areas shall not be
included for the purpose of this calculation.

d. An interior suite with accessory cooking facilities shall not have utility
services that are metered separately from the remainder of the
dwelling unit.

e. At least one internal doorway shall be provided between the interior
suite with accessory cooking facilities and the remainder of the
dwelling unit.

f. An interior suite with accessory cooking facilities shall not have a
private yard area that is fenced or walled off from the remainder of the
lot. This requirement shall not prohibit required pool fences, fenced in
animal areas, garden fencing, or other fencing used for different
purposes.

g. No more than one parking space, which may be covered or enclosed,
shall be provided for an interior suite with accessory cooking facilities
in addition to the parking provided for the remainder of the dwelling
unit, with a maximum of four spaces total. This requirement does not
apply to parking that may occur on the driveway in front of the
garage(s).

h. An interior suite with accessory cooking facilities shall not have a
parking space served by a driveway separated from the main
driveway and parking areas provided for the remainder of the dwelling
unit.

i. An interior suite with accessory cooking facilities shall not provide
separate mail service or have a separate address from the remainder
of the dwelling unit.

j. Design requirements. Elevations must minimize any secondary entry
visible from the street and have the appearance of a single-family
home. This shall be treated as a presumption as outlined in Section
507.C.2.




Page 1018
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023

D. RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS LAND USE MATRIX
Section 608.D. (new) Residential Districts Land Use Matrix
SECTION AND ZONING DISTRICT
LAND USE CATEGORIES 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 635
RE-35 R1-18 R1-10 R1-8 R1-6 R-2 R-3 R-3A R-4 R-5 R-4A PAD
Single-Family Detached pc1 pc1 pc1 pc1 pc1 pc1 pc1 pc1 pc1 pc1 pc1 pc1
Accessory Dwelling Unit
(ac) pc2 pc2 pc2 pc2 pc2 pc2 pc2 pc2 pc2 pc2 pc2 pc2
(ADU)
(ac) Guestroom(s) pc3 pc3 pc3 pc3 pc3 pc3 pc3 pc3 pc3 pc3 pc3 pc3
Duplex np np pc4 pc4 pc4 pc4 pc4 pc4 pc4 pc4 pc4 pc4
Triplex np np np np np pc5 pc5 pc5 pc5 pc5 pc5 pc5
Single-Family Attached pc6 pc6 pc6 pc6 pc6 pc6 pc6 pc6 pc6 pc6 pc6 pc6
Multifamily np np pc7 pc7 pc7 pc7 pc7 pc7 pc7 pc7 pc7 pc7
Residential Convenience
(ac) np np np np np np np pc8 pc8 pc8 pc8 pc8
Market
Off-Site Manufactured Home
np np np np np up35 up35 up35 up35 up35 up35 np
Developments
Page 1019 Boarding House np np np np np np up9 up9 up9 up9 up9 up9
1-4 Adult Day Care Home pc10 pc10 pc10 pc10 pc10 pc10 pc10 pc10 pc10 pc10 pc10 pc10
5-10 Adult Day Care Home up11 up11 up11 up11 up11 up11 up11 up11 up11 up11 up11 up11
11+ Adult Day Care Center np np np np np np up12 up12 up12 up12 up12 np
1-10 Community Residence
pc13 pc13 pc13 pc13 pc13 pc13 pc13 pc13 pc13 pc13 pc13 pc13
Home
11 + Community Residence
np np np np np np up14 up14 up14 up14 up14 np
Center
1-6 Dependent Care Facility pc15 pc15 pc15 pc15 pc15 pc15 pc15 pc15 pc15 pc15 pc15 pc15
7-12 Dependent Care Facility up16 up16 up16 up16 up16 up16 up16 up16 up16 up16 up16 up16
13 + Dependent Care Facility np np np np np np up17 up17 up17 up17 up17 np
Group Home np np np np np np up18 up18 up18 up18 up18 up18
Group Foster Home np np np np np np up up p p p np
Governmental Uses p p p p p p p p p p p p
Model Homes and Subdivision
pc19 pc19 pc19 pc19 pc19 pc19 pc19 pc19 pc19 pc19 pc19 pc19
Sales Offices
Public Utility Buildings and
pc20 pc20 pc20 pc20 pc20 pc20 pc20 pc20 pc20 pc20 pc20 pc20
Facilities
Schools, Private pc22 pc22 pc22 pc22 pc22 pc22 pc22 pc22 pc22 pc22 pc22 pc22
Schools, Public p p p p p p p p p p p p
Church/Place of Worship p p p p p p p p p p p p
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023

SECTION AND ZONING DISTRICT
LAND USE CATEGORIES 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 635
RE-35 R1-18 R1-10 R1-8 R1-6 R-2 R-3 R-3A R-4 R-5 R-4A PAD
Accessory To
(ac) pc21 pc21 pc21 pc21 pc21 pc21 pc21 pc21 pc21 pc21 pc21 pc21
Church/Place Of Worship
Public Assembly--Residential pc22 pc22 pc22 pc22 pc22 pc22 pc22 pc22 pc22 pc22 pc22 pc22
Environmental Remediation
up23 up23 up23 up23 up23 up23 up23 up23 up23 up23 up23 up23
Facility
Community Garden pc24 pc24 pc24 pc24 pc24 pc24 pc24 pc24 pc24 pc24 pc24 np
Farmer’s Market pc25 pc25 pc25 pc25 pc25 pc25 pc25 pc25 pc25 pc25 pc25 np
ACCESSORY USES IN RESIDENCE DISTRICTS
Construction Facilities
pc26 pc26 pc26 pc26 pc26 pc26 pc26 pc26 pc26 pc26 pc26 pc26
And Storage
Home Occupations pc27 pc27 pc27 pc27 pc27 pc27 pc27 pc27 pc27 pc27 pc27 pc27
Non-Daily Newspaper
pc28 pc28 pc28 pc28 pc28 pc28 pc28 pc28 pc28 pc28 pc28 pc28
Service
Display For Sale Of
pc29 pc29 pc29 pc29 pc29 pc29 pc29 pc29 pc29 pc29 pc29 pc29
Vehicle
Facilities For Household
Page 1020
pc30 pc30 pc30 pc30 pc30 pc30 pc30 pc30 pc30 pc30 pc30 pc30
Pets
Garage Or Yard Sales pc31 pc31 pc31 pc31 pc31 pc31 pc31 pc31 pc31 pc31 pc31 pc31
Hobbies And Associated
pc32 pc32 pc32 pc32 pc32 pc32 pc32 pc32 pc32 pc32 pc32 pc32
Supplies
Parking (Accessory) pc33 pc33 pc33 pc33 pc33 pc33 pc33 pc33 pc33 pc33 pc33 pc33
Private Tennis / Outdoor
pc34 pc34 pc34 pc34 pc34 pc34 pc34 pc34 pc34 pc34 pc34 pc34
Game Courts

*(ac) = accessory use permitted only with primary use listed immediately prior in the table.
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



Amend Chapter 6, Section 608.E (Residence Districts—Permitted Uses with
Conditions and May Require Approval of a Use Permit Pursuant to Section 307) to
read as follows:

E. Permitted Uses with Conditions and May Require Approval of a Use Permit
Pursuant to Section 307.

1. Churches or similar places of worship, including parish houses, parsonages,
rectories, and convents and dormitories with no more than ten residents
accessory thereto, are permitted in each district, except temporary tents or
buildings. Athletic activities in conjunction with the above and on the same
lot or contiguous lots may be permitted. See Public Assembly—Residential.

a. Bingo may be operated as an accessory use on the premises of the
church when conducted no more than two days a week. Fundraising
events located on the same lot or contiguous lots shall be permitted,
subject to the following requirements:

(1) The sponsoring, organizing and benefiting entities shall be
nonprofit or religious organizations.

b. Events held entirely within a building or buildings shall not be further
regulated; however, events to be conducted wholly or in part outdoors
shall be subject to the following additional conditions:

(1) Any outdoor portion of the event must be located a minimum of
50 feet from a property line adjacent to a residential zoning
district and a residential use.

(2) The event shall not be conducted between the hours of 10:00
p.m. and 5:00 a.m.

(3) The event shall not be conducted in such manner as to reduce
the number of parking spaces required for any normal
functions of the primary use which are held during the event.

(4) Lighting shall be so placed as to reflect the light away from
adjacent residences.

c. Pocket shelters as accessory uses to churches or similar places of
worship, subject to the following standards (and applicable Maricopa
County and City of Phoenix health and safety regulations):




Page 1021
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



(1) A pocket shelter shall house no more than 12 unrelated
persons. A pocket shelter may house up to 20 unrelated
persons upon approval of a use permit in accordance with the
procedures and standards of Section 307. Minors (age 18
years or younger) accompanied by a parent or a guardian shall
not be counted in the number of unrelated persons.

(2) The church or similar place of worship shall be located on an
arterial or collector street as defined on the street classification
map. A shelter at a church or similar place of worship which is
not on an arterial or collector street shall be permitted upon
approval of a use permit in accordance with the procedures
and provisions of Section 307.

(3) The church or similar place of worship shall provide on-site
supervision of shelter residents at all times that two or more
unrelated residents are at the shelter.

(4) Drug, alcohol, other substance abuse, or mental health
rehabilitation programs shall not be allowed as part of the
shelter services. This provision shall not prevent the church or
similar place of worship from referring shelter residents to
other appropriate programs at the church or similar place of
worship or elsewhere, e.g., Alcoholics Anonymous, which are
not part of the shelter services.

(5) Shelter residents shall not possess alcohol, weapons, or illegal
drugs at the shelter.

(6) Open areas surrounding pocket shelter structures shall be
screened from view from abutting and/or adjoining properties
by hedges, trees, other landscaping, or walls.

(7) Pocket shelter structures shall not have direct access to
abutting and/or adjoining properties.

(8) Pocket shelters shall be housed in permanent structures rather
than in tents or other similar temporary structures.

(9) A church or similar place of worship shall house no more than
one pocket shelter.




Page 1022
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



2. Construction facilities and storage, incidental to a construction project and
located on the project site, are permitted. When such facilities or storage are
used for construction on a lot or lots other than the lot or lots used for such
facilities or storage, such use shall maintain the setbacks provided by the
requirements of this chapter and shall be subject to securing a use permit.
When such facilities and storage serve a residential subdivision, are
approved in conjunction with model homes by the Planning and
Development Department, and meet all of the standards listed below, no
use permit is required:

a. The facilities shall not be placed on a lot which abuts, joins at the
corners, or is across a street or alley from a dwelling unit which is
under construction or occupied at the time of said placement, unless
written agreement to the placement is given by the owner or occupant
of the affected property.

b. All outside storage shall be screened by a six-foot-high solid fence or
masonry wall. No construction vehicles or machinery shall be placed
within ten feet of the screen fence or wall.

c. All signs on the facility shall fully comply with Section 705, the Sign
Code.

d. All facilities and storage shall be removed within three months of the
closure of the model homes.

3. Home occupations including but not limited to architect, lawyer, off-site sales
businesses, accountant, real estate agent, telemarketing sales, and
psychologist. For purposes of this section, off-site sales means processing
orders by mail, facsimile, phone, modem or Internet.

a. No one outside the family residing in the dwelling unit shall be
employed in the home occupation.

b. No exterior display, no exterior storage of materials, no sign, and no
other exterior indication of the home occupation or variation from the
residential character of the principal or accessory building, except as
authorized in Section 608.E.3.h.

c. No home occupation shall emit odor, dust, gas, noise, vibration,
smoke, heat, or glare beyond any boundary of the lot on which the
home occupation is conducted.




Page 1023
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



d. Activity shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00
p.m.

e. No mechanical equipment shall be used except that normally used for
domestic, hobby, standard office, or household purposes.

f. Not more than 25 percent of the total area under roof on the site shall
be used for any home occupation.

g. Any parking incidental to the home occupation shall be provided on
the site.

h. Home occupations shall obtain a use permit from the Zoning
Administrator in accordance with Section 307 when:

(1) Traffic (other than trips by occupants of the household) is
generated by the home occupation; or

(2) The home occupation is conducted in an accessory building; or

(3) The home occupation is conducted as an outside use; or

(4) Minor variations to Section 608.E.3.c are required to conduct
the home occupation; or

(5) An applicant desires an official approval of a home occupation.

i. A home occupation shall not include, but such exclusion shall not be
limited to, the following uses:

(1) Barbershops and beauty parlors.

(2) Commercial stables, veterinary offices.

(3) Dog grooming.

(4) Massage parlors.

(5) Reserved.

(6) Restaurants.

(7) Veterinary hospitals and commercial kennels.




Page 1024
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023




4. Model homes and/or subdivision sales offices when located in model homes
subject to approval of the Planning and Development Department’s
representative to the Site Planning Division, and subject to the following
conditions:

a. Such model home and/or subdivision sales offices shall be located in
a subdivision or portion thereof 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 608.E.4.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 608.E.4.b or upon expiration of the extension
granted by the Zoning Administrator pursuant to Section 608.E.4.c, or
after six months following sale or occupancy of all lots in the
subdivision other than the model homes, whichever comes 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 400 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 Section 608.E.4.a and d, the term "subdivision"
shall mean all the land included within the preliminary plat submitted
to the 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;




Page 1025
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



(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 608.C.1.

g. Modular subdivision sales office, subject to the following criteria:

(1) The structure shall be integrated with, architecturally
compatible to, and blend in color to the model homes approved
for the subdivision, as determined by the Planning and
Development Department.

(2) Modular subdivision sales offices shall be permitted for a
period not to exceed 36 months from the date of approval for
the sales offices.

(3) The time limit allowed in Section 608.E.4.g.2 for an additional
36 months shall be extended only upon securing a use permit.

(4) The modular subdivision sales office shall be removed on or
before the termination date set forth in Section 608.E.4.g.2 or
upon expiration of the extension granted by the Zoning
Administrator or after six months following sale or occupancy
of all lots in the subdivision other than the model homes,
whichever comes first.

(5) For the purposes of this section, the term "subdivision" shall
mean all of the land included within the preliminary plat
submitted to the Planning and Development Department.

(6) Prior to issuance of any sales office permits, a site plan shall
be approved by the Planning and Development Department for
verification of setback conformance.

(7) Two signs are permitted. Signs shall not exceed a combined
total of 32 square feet.

(8) One sales office shall be permitted for each model home
complex allowed in accordance with Section 608.E.4.h.




Page 1026
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



h. 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 400 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 dust proofed.

(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.

5. Nondaily newspaper delivery service shall be permitted subject to the
following limitations:

a. Delivered bulk materials related to nondaily publications shall be
transferred to an enclosed building or secured area so that materials
are not visible from the street or adjacent properties unless for
preparation of materials for same day distribution. Preparation of
materials for same day distribution may occur on or about adjacent
public rights-of-way; provided, that materials do not remain in public
view for longer than 24 hours.

b. Materials stored for periods greater than 24 hours shall be enclosed
within a building or secured by a wall or fence of such material,
construction, and height so as to conceal the materials located.

c. Activities relating to and/or accessory to the preparation of materials
stored for periods greater than 24 hours shall occur within an
enclosed building or an area secured by a wall or fence of such
material, construction, and height so as to completely conceal the
activities.




Page 1027
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023




d. Such delivery shall be limited to two bulk deliveries in a seven-day
period. More frequent deliveries shall require a use permit in
accordance with the procedures of Section 307.

e. No traffic other than that required for the bulk delivery and pickup
shall be allowed by outside employees. Any other business-related
traffic shall require a use permit in accordance with the procedures of
Section 307.

6. Public Assembly—Residential. A use permit shall be required for all public
assembly—residential uses with vehicular access on local or minor collector
streets.
Section 608.E. (new) Land Use Conditions.
E. LAND USE CONDITIONS.

1. SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DWELLING UNIT. EACH SINGLE-FAMILY
LOT IS PERMITTED ONE (1) 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 (1)
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT IN ADDITION TO THE PRIMARY
DWELLING UNIT, EXCEPT THAT LOTS HAVING A DUPLEX OR
TRIPLEX MAY NOT HAVE AN ADU.

b. AN ADU IS SUBJECT TO THE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF
SECTION 706.A.

3. GUESTROOMS. EACH SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING UNIT MAY CONTAIN
NO MORE THAN TWO GUESTROOMS.

4. DUPLEX:

a. SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS: ONE (1) DUPLEX IS PERMITTED PER
LOT WHEN ALLOWED BY THE UNDERLYING ZONING DISTRICT
AND DEVELOPMENT OPTION. THE LOT MUST BE OF THE
MINIMUM SIZE REQUIRED BY THE APPLICABLE DENSITY TO
PERMIT TWO DWELLING UNITS.




Page 1028
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



b. MULTIFAMILY LOTS: DUPLEXES ARE PERMITTED WHEN
ALLOWED BY THE UNDERLYING ZONING DISTRICT AND
DEVELOPMENT OPTION. THE LOT MUST BE OF THE MINIMUM
SIZE REQUIRED BY THE APPLICABLE DENSITY TO PERMIT THE
NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS PROPOSED.

5. TRIPLEX:

a. SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS: ONE (1) TRIPLEX IS PERMITTED PER
LOT WHEN ALLOWED BY THE UNDERLYING ZONING DISTRICT
AND DEVELOPMENT OPTION. THE LOT MUST BE OF THE
MINIMUM SIZE REQUIRED BY THE APPLICABLE DENSITY TO
PERMIT THREE DWELLING UNITS.

b. MULTIFAMILY LOTS: TRIPLEXES ARE PERMITTED WHEN
ALLOWED BY THE UNDERLYING ZONING DISTRICT AND
DEVELOPMENT OPTION. THE LOT MUST BE OF THE MINIMUM
SIZE REQUIRED BY THE APPLICABLE DENSITY TO PERMIT THE
NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS PROPOSED.

6. SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED DWELLING UNIT. ONE (1) SINGLE-
FAMILY ATTACHED DWELLING UNIT IS PERMITTED PER SINGLE-
FAMILY LOT WHEN ALLOWED BY THE UNDERLYING ZONING
DISTRICT AND DEVELOPMENT OPTION.

7 MULTIFAMILY DWELLING UNITS. MULTIFAMILY DWELLING UNITS
ARE PERMITTED WHEN ALLOWED BY THE UNDERLYING ZONING
DISTRICT AND DEVELOPMENT OPTION.

8. RESIDENTIAL CONVENIENCE MARKET. A RESIDENTIAL
CONVENIENCE MARKET IS PERMITTED AS AN ACCESSORY USE TO A
MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT WHERE SPECIFIED IN THE
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT LAND USE MATRIX, SUBJECT TO THE
FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:

a. THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL CONTAIN A MINIMUM OF 400
DWELLING UNITS.




Page 1029
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



b. THE MARKET SHALL NOT EXCEED 1,000 SQUARE FEET IN
TOTAL FLOOR AREA (DISPLAY AND STORAGE) IF THE
DEVELOPMENT CONTAINS LESS THAN 850 DWELLING UNITS.
THE MARKET SHALL NOT EXCEED 3,000 SQUARE FEET IN
TOTAL FLOOR AREA (DISPLAY AND STORAGE) IF THE
DEVELOPMENT CONTAINS 850 OR MORE DWELLING UNITS.

c. NO PARKING SPACES SHALL BE REQUIRED OR PERMITTED
FOR THE MARKET EXCEPT FOR SPACES DESIGNATED FOR
DELIVERIES OR HANDICAPPED INDIVIDUALS ACCESSIBLE
SPACES.

d. SIGNAGE SHALL BE ALLOWED ONLY AS PART OF A
COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PLAN PURSUANT TO SECTION 705.
THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MAY APPROVE WALL MOUNTED
SIGNAGE UP TO A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 30 FEET AS PART OF
AN APPROVED COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PLAN.

9. BOARDING HOUSE, SUBJECT TO A USE PERMIT AND THE
FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:

a. 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.

b. NO BOARDING HOUSE 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 BOARDING HOUSE, GROUP HOME, OR COMMUNITY
RESIDENCE HOME OR CENTER WITHIN A RESIDENTIAL
ZONING DISTRICT.

c. A MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE OF 25 PERCENT.

d. A MINIMUM OF 100 SQUARE FEET OF USABLE OUTDOOR OPEN
SPACE PER BED SHALL BE PROVIDED, WHICH MAY BE
REDUCED TO 50 SQUARE FEET OF USABLE OUTDOOR OPEN
SPACE PER BED IN THE R-5 AND R-4A DISTRICTS.

e. THE LOT SHALL ONLY HAVE VEHICULAR ACCESS FROM AN
ARTERIAL OR COLLECTOR STREET.




Page 1030
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023




10. ADULT DAY CARE HOME FOR THE CARE OF ONE TO FOUR ADULT
PERSONS; PROVIDED THAT:

a. OUTDOOR RECREATION AREAS SHALL BE SCREENED FROM
ADJACENT PROPERTIES BY A SIX-FOOT-HIGH LANDSCAPE
HEDGE, SOLID FENCE, OR SOLID WALL.

11. ADULT DAY CARE HOME FOR THE CARE OF FIVE TO TEN ADULT
PERSONS, SUBJECT TO A USE PERMIT; AND PROVIDED THAT:

a. OUTDOOR RECREATION AREAS SHALL BE SCREENED FROM
ADJACENT PROPERTIES BY A SIX-FOOT-HIGH LANDSCAPE
HEDGE, SOLID FENCE, OR SOLID WALL.

12. ADULT DAY CARE CENTER FOR THE CARE OF ELEVEN OR MORE
ADULT PERSONS, SUBJECT TO A USE PERMIT; AND PROVIDED
THAT:

a. OUTDOOR RECREATION AREAS SHALL BE SCREENED FROM
ADJACENT PROPERTIES BY A SIX-FOOT-HIGH LANDSCAPE
HEDGE, SOLID FENCE, OR SOLID WALL.

13. COMMUNITY RESIDENCE HOME; PROVIDED, THAT:

a. THE HOME HAS NO MORE THAN FIVE RESIDENTS, NOT
INCLUDING STAFF (UNLESS PERMITTED BY SECTION 36-
582(A), ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES).

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.




Page 1031
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



(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.

14. COMMUNITY RESIDENCE CENTER, SUBJECT TO A USE PERMIT AND
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:

a. SUCH CENTER 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.

b. NO COMMUNITY RESIDENCE CENTER 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 OR CENTER WITHIN
A RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT.

c. DISABILITY ACCOMMODATION FROM THE SPACING
REQUIREMENT MAY BE REQUESTED BY AN APPLICANT PER
SECTION 701.E.3.

d. A MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE OF 25 PERCENT.

e. A MINIMUM OF 100 SQUARE FEET OF USABLE OUTDOOR OPEN
SPACE PER BED SHALL BE PROVIDED, WHICH MAY BE
REDUCED TO 50 SQUARE FEET OF USABLE OUTDOOR OPEN
SPACE PER BED IN THE R-5 AND R-4A DISTRICTS.

f. THE LOT SHALL ONLY HAVE VEHICULAR ACCESS FROM AN
ARTERIAL OR COLLECTOR STREET.

15. DEPENDENT CARE FACILITY FOR UP TO SIX DEPENDENTS,
SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:




Page 1032
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



a. RESIDENT DEPENDENTS UNDER THE AGE OF 12 YEARS SHALL
NOT BE COUNTED.

b. OUTDOOR PLAY AREAS SHALL BE SCREENED FROM
ADJACENT PROPERTIES BY A SIX-FOOT-HIGH LANDSCAPE
HEDGE, SOLID FENCE, OR SOLID WALL.

c. THE EMPLOYEES MUST RESIDE AT THE FACILITY UNLESS A
NONRESIDENT EMPLOYEE IS REQUIRED BY THE ARIZONA
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES.

16. DEPENDENT CARE FACILITY FOR SEVEN TO 12 DEPENDENTS,
SUBJECT TO OBTAINING A USE PERMIT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
PROVISIONS OF SECTION 307 AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING
STANDARDS:

a. RESIDENT DEPENDENTS UNDER THE AGE OF 12 YEARS SHALL
NOT BE COUNTED WHEN THEY ARE PRESENT ON THE
PREMISES.

b. OUTDOOR PLAY AREAS SHALL BE SCREENED FROM
ADJACENT PROPERTIES BY A SIX-FOOT-HIGH LANDSCAPE
HEDGE, SOLID FENCE, OR SOLID WALL.

c. HOURS OF OPERATION SHALL BE ONLY BETWEEN 6:00 A.M.
AND 10:00 P.M. THESE HOURS MAY BE RESTRICTED AS PART
OF THE USE PERMIT APPROVAL.

d. NONRESIDENT EMPLOYEES MAY BE PERMITTED WITH THE
USE PERMIT IF NECESSARY TO MEET STATE REQUIREMENTS.

e. ONE PARKING SPACE SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR EACH
EMPLOYEE WHO DOES NOT RESIDE AT THE FACILITY.

f. NO SIGNAGE SHALL BE PERMITTED.

g. THE FACILITY SHALL BE SUBJECT TO ARIZONA LICENSING
REQUIREMENTS.

17. DEPENDENT CARE FACILITY FOR 13 OR MORE DEPENDENTS AND
SCHOOLS FOR THE MENTALLY OR PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED
SUBJECT TO SECURING A USE PERMIT PURSUANT TO SECTION 307.




Page 1033
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



18. GROUP HOME, SUBJECT TO A USE PERMIT AND THE FOLLOWING
CONDITIONS:

a. 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.

b. NO GROUP 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 GROUP HOME, BOARDING HOUSE, OR COMMUNITY
RESIDENCE HOME OR CENTER WITHIN A RESIDENTIAL
ZONING DISTRICT.

c. A MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE OF 25 PERCENT.

d. A MINIMUM OF 100 SQUARE FEET OF USABLE OUTDOOR OPEN
SPACE PER BED SHALL BE PROVIDED, WHICH MAY BE
REDUCED TO 50 SQUARE FEET OF USABLE OUTDOOR OPEN
SPACE PER BED IN THE R-5 AND R-4A DISTRICTS.

e. THE LOT SHALL ONLY HAVE VEHICULAR ACCESS FROM AN
ARTERIAL OR COLLECTOR STREET.

19. MODEL HOMES AND/OR SUBDIVISION SALES OFFICES WHEN
LOCATED IN MODEL HOMES; PROVIDED THAT:

a. MODEL HOMES ARE PERMITTED SUBJECT TO THE
FOLLOWING:

(1) A DEVELOPER OF A SINGLE-FAMILY SUBDIVISION SHALL
BE ALLOWED TO BUILD MODEL HOMES PRIOR TO
RECORDING A SUBDIVISION PLAT, SUBJECT TO THE
PROVISIONS BELOW AND SUBJECT TO SUBMITTING A
MODEL COMPLEX SITE PLAN WHICH SHALL SHOW THE
FOLLOWING INFORMATION FOR EACH MODEL HOME
LOT:

(2) STREET ADDRESSES FOR EACH MODEL HOME AS
ASSIGNED BY THE WATER SERVICES PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.




Page 1034
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023




(3) FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATIONS FOR EACH MODEL HOME
AS ASSIGNED BY THE DIVISION OF ENGINEERING.

(4) PROPOSED LOTS FOR MODEL HOMES SHALL BE IN
CONFORMANCE WITH LOT LINES AS SHOWN ON THE
APPROVED PRELIMINARY PLAN PLAT.

(5) EACH MODEL HOME SHALL BE LOCATED ON EACH
PROPOSED LOT IN CONFORMANCE WITH YARD
REQUIREMENTS OF THE DISTRICT.

(6) THE FINAL PLAT IS NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE FINAL
APPROVAL PRIOR TO OBTAINING PERMITS FOR MODEL
HOMES.

b. MODEL HOMES AND/OR SUBDIVISION SALES OFFICES SHALL
BE LOCATED IN A SUBDIVISION OR PORTION THEREOF 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.

c. 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.

d. THE TIME LIMIT ALLOWED IN SECTION 608.E.19.C FOR AN
ADDITIONAL 36 MONTHS SHALL BE EXTENDED ONLY UPON
SECURING A USE PERMIT.




Page 1035
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



e. 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 608.E.19.C OR UPON EXPIRATION OF THE
EXTENSION GRANTED BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
PURSUANT TO SECTION 608.E.19.D, OR AFTER SIX MONTHS
FOLLOWING SALE OR OCCUPANCY OF ALL LOTS IN THE
SUBDIVISION OTHER THAN THE MODEL HOMES, WHICHEVER
COMES 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 400 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.

f. FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 608.E.19.C AND D, THE
TERM "SUBDIVISION" SHALL MEAN ALL THE LAND INCLUDED
WITHIN THE PRELIMINARY PLAT SUBMITTED TO THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

g. 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
608.E.19.A.

h. MODULAR SUBDIVISION SALES OFFICE, SUBJECT TO THE
FOLLOWING CRITERIA:




Page 1036
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



(1) THE STRUCTURE SHALL BE INTEGRATED WITH,
ARCHITECTURALLY COMPATIBLE TO, AND BLEND IN
COLOR TO THE MODEL HOMES APPROVED FOR THE
SUBDIVISION, AS DETERMINED BY THE PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

(2) MODULAR SUBDIVISION SALES OFFICES SHALL BE
PERMITTED FOR A PERIOD NOT TO EXCEED 36 MONTHS
FROM THE DATE OF APPROVAL FOR THE SALES
OFFICES.

(3) THE TIME LIMIT ALLOWED IN SECTION 608.E.19.H(2) FOR
AN ADDITIONAL 36 MONTHS SHALL BE EXTENDED ONLY
UPON SECURING A USE PERMIT.

(4) THE MODULAR SUBDIVISION SALES OFFICE SHALL BE
REMOVED ON OR BEFORE THE TERMINATION DATE SET
FORTH IN SECTION 608.E.19.H(2) OR UPON EXPIRATION
OF THE EXTENSION GRANTED BY THE ZONING
ADMINISTRATOR OR AFTER SIX MONTHS FOLLOWING
SALE OR OCCUPANCY OF ALL LOTS IN THE SUBDIVISION
OTHER THAN THE MODEL HOMES, WHICHEVER COMES
FIRST.

(5) FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, THE TERM
"SUBDIVISION" SHALL MEAN ALL OF THE LAND
INCLUDED WITHIN THE PRELIMINARY PLAT SUBMITTED
TO THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

(6) PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF ANY SALES OFFICE PERMITS, A
SITE PLAN SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR VERIFICATION OF
SETBACK CONFORMANCE.

(7) TWO SIGNS ARE PERMITTED. SIGNS SHALL NOT
EXCEED A COMBINED TOTAL OF 32 SQUARE FEET.

(8) ONE SALES OFFICE SHALL BE PERMITTED FOR EACH
MODEL HOME COMPLEX ALLOWED IN ACCORDANCE
WITH SECTION 608.E.19.I.




Page 1037
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



i. 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 400
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
DUST PROOFED.

(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.

20. PUBLIC UTILITY BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES WHEN NECESSARY
FOR SERVING THE SURROUNDING TERRITORY; PROVIDED, THAT NO
PUBLIC BUSINESS OFFICES AND NO REPAIR OR STORAGE
FACILITIES ARE MAINTAINED THEREIN, ARE PERMITTED IN EACH
DISTRICT.

21. CHURCHES OR SIMILAR PLACES OF WORSHIP, INCLUDING PARISH
HOUSES, PARSONAGES, RECTORIES, AND CONVENTS AND
DORMITORIES WITH NO MORE THAN TEN RESIDENTS ACCESSORY
THERETO, ARE PERMITTED IN EACH DISTRICT, EXCEPT TEMPORARY
TENTS OR BUILDINGS. ATHLETIC ACTIVITIES IN CONJUNCTION WITH
THE ABOVE AND ON THE SAME LOT OR CONTIGUOUS LOTS MAY BE
PERMITTED. ALL CHURCH USES ARE ALSO CONSIDERED “PUBLIC
ASSEMBLY—RESIDENTIAL”, AND ARE SUBJECT TO SECTION
608.E.22.




Page 1038
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023




a. BINGO MAY BE OPERATED AS AN ACCESSORY USE ON THE
PREMISES OF THE CHURCH WHEN CONDUCTED NO MORE
THAN TWO DAYS A WEEK. FUNDRAISING EVENTS LOCATED
ON THE SAME LOT OR CONTIGUOUS LOTS SHALL BE
PERMITTED, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS:

(1) THE SPONSORING, ORGANIZING AND BENEFITING
ENTITIES SHALL BE NONPROFIT OR RELIGIOUS
ORGANIZATIONS.

b. EVENTS HELD ENTIRELY WITHIN A BUILDING OR BUILDINGS
SHALL NOT BE FURTHER REGULATED; HOWEVER, EVENTS TO
BE CONDUCTED WHOLLY OR IN PART OUTDOORS SHALL BE
SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS:

(1) ANY OUTDOOR PORTION OF THE EVENT MUST BE
LOCATED A MINIMUM OF 50 FEET FROM A PROPERTY
LINE ADJACENT TO A RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT
AND A RESIDENTIAL USE.

(2) THE EVENT SHALL NOT BE CONDUCTED BETWEEN THE
HOURS OF 10:00 P.M. AND 5:00 A.M.

(3) THE EVENT SHALL NOT BE CONDUCTED IN SUCH
MANNER AS TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF PARKING
SPACES REQUIRED FOR ANY NORMAL FUNCTIONS OF
THE PRIMARY USE WHICH ARE HELD DURING THE
EVENT.

(4) LIGHTING SHALL BE SO PLACED AS TO REFLECT THE
LIGHT AWAY FROM ADJACENT RESIDENCES.

c. POCKET SHELTERS AS ACCESSORY USES TO CHURCHES OR
SIMILAR PLACES OF WORSHIP, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING
STANDARDS (AND APPLICABLE MARICOPA COUNTY AND CITY
OF PHOENIX HEALTH AND SAFETY REGULATIONS):




Page 1039
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



(1) A POCKET SHELTER SHALL HOUSE NO MORE THAN 12
UNRELATED PERSONS. A POCKET SHELTER MAY
HOUSE UP TO 20 UNRELATED PERSONS UPON
APPROVAL OF A USE PERMIT IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE PROCEDURES AND STANDARDS OF SECTION 307.
MINORS (AGE 18 YEARS OR YOUNGER) ACCOMPANIED
BY A PARENT OR A GUARDIAN SHALL NOT BE COUNTED
IN THE NUMBER OF UNRELATED PERSONS.

(2) THE CHURCH OR SIMILAR PLACE OF WORSHIP SHALL
BE LOCATED ON AN ARTERIAL OR COLLECTOR STREET
AS DEFINED ON THE STREET CLASSIFICATION MAP. A
SHELTER AT A CHURCH OR SIMILAR PLACE OF
WORSHIP WHICH IS NOT ON AN ARTERIAL OR
COLLECTOR STREET SHALL BE PERMITTED UPON
APPROVAL OF A USE PERMIT IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE PROCEDURES AND PROVISIONS OF SECTION 307.

(3) THE CHURCH OR SIMILAR PLACE OF WORSHIP SHALL
PROVIDE ON-SITE SUPERVISION OF SHELTER
RESIDENTS AT ALL TIMES THAT TWO OR MORE
UNRELATED RESIDENTS ARE AT THE SHELTER.

(4) (DRUG, ALCOHOL, OTHER SUBSTANCE ABUSE, OR
MENTAL HEALTH REHABILITATION PROGRAMS SHALL
NOT BE ALLOWED AS PART OF THE SHELTER SERVICES.
THIS PROVISION SHALL NOT PREVENT THE CHURCH OR
SIMILAR PLACE OF WORSHIP FROM REFERRING
SHELTER RESIDENTS TO OTHER APPROPRIATE
PROGRAMS AT THE CHURCH OR SIMILAR PLACE OF
WORSHIP OR ELSEWHERE, E.G., ALCOHOLICS
ANONYMOUS, WHICH ARE NOT PART OF THE SHELTER
SERVICES.

(5) SHELTER RESIDENTS SHALL NOT POSSESS ALCOHOL,
WEAPONS, OR ILLEGAL DRUGS AT THE SHELTER.

(6) OPEN AREAS SURROUNDING POCKET SHELTER
STRUCTURES SHALL BE SCREENED FROM VIEW FROM
ABUTTING AND/OR ADJOINING PROPERTIES BY
HEDGES, TREES, OTHER LANDSCAPING, OR WALLS.




Page 1040
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



(7) POCKET SHELTER STRUCTURES SHALL NOT HAVE
DIRECT ACCESS TO ABUTTING AND/OR ADJOINING
PROPERTIES.

(8) POCKET SHELTERS SHALL BE HOUSED IN PERMANENT
STRUCTURES RATHER THAN IN TENTS OR OTHER
SIMILAR TEMPORARY STRUCTURES.

(9) A CHURCH OR SIMILAR PLACE OF WORSHIP SHALL
HOUSE NO MORE THAN ONE POCKET SHELTER.

22. PUBLIC ASSEMBLY—RESIDENTIAL. A USE PERMIT SHALL BE
REQUIRED FOR ALL PUBLIC ASSEMBLY—RESIDENTIAL USES
HAVING VEHICULAR ACCESS TO LOCAL OR MINOR COLLECTOR
STREETS, INCLUDING PRIVATE SCHOOLS AND CHURCH USES.

23. ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION FACILITY, SUBJECT TO THE
FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:

a. A USE PERMIT SHALL BE OBTAINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH
SECTION 307.

b. THE ABOVE GROUND AREA OF LAND OCCUPIED BY THE
ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION FACILITY SHALL NOT EXCEED
THE MINIMUM NUMBER OF SQUARE FEET NECESSARY TO
IMPLEMENT THE REMEDIAL OR CORRECTIVE ACTION.

c. ALL STRUCTURES AND DEVICES CONSTRUCTED ABOVE
GROUND LEVEL SHALL BE SHIELDED FROM THE VIEW OF
PERSONS OUTSIDE THE PROPERTY BOUNDARY BY AN
OPAQUE FENCE CONSTRUCTED OF MATERIALS OF SIMILAR
COMPOSITION AND APPEARANCE TO FENCES AND
STRUCTURES ON NEARBY PROPERTY.

d. OUTDOOR EQUIPMENT INSTALLED AS PART OF THE FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION FACILITY SHALL NOT EXCEED
A HEIGHT OF TEN FEET AND SHALL BE SET BACK FROM THE
PERIMETER WALL A MINIMUM OF THREE FEET FOR EVERY
ONE FOOT OF HEIGHT OVER SIX FEET.

e. AFTER INSTALLATION, NO EQUIPMENT OR MATERIALS
BEYOND THAT NECESSARY TO OPERATE THE FACILITY SHALL
BE STORED ON THE LOT.




Page 1041
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023




f. A PERIMETER LANDSCAPING PLAN SHALL BE APPROVED BY
THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AS
NECESSARY UNLESS AN APPLICABLE APPROVED LANDSCAPE
PLAN ALREADY EXISTS.

g. ANY LIGHTING SHALL BE PLACED SO AS TO REFLECT THE
LIGHT AWAY FROM ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS.
NOISE, ODOR, OR VIBRATION SHALL NOT BE EMITTED ANY
TIME BY THE FACILITY SO THAT IT EXCEEDS THE GENERAL
LEVEL OF NOISE, ODOR, OR VIBRATION EMITTED BY USES
OUTSIDE THE SITE. SUCH COMPARISON SHALL BE MADE AT
THE BOUNDARY OF THE LOT ON WHICH THE TREATMENT
FACILITY IS LOCATED.

h. THE FACILITY SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE
PROVISIONS OF THE FIRE CODE.

i. A PERMIT ISSUED UNDER SECTION 307 SHALL INCLUDE
REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS ON THE OPERATION OF THE
FACILITY TO MITIGATE ANY ADVERSE IMPACTS ON NEARBY
LAND, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO RESTRICTIONS ON
VEHICULAR TRAFFIC AND HOURS OF OPERATION OF THE
FACILITY.

j. THIS SECTION ALLOWS AUTHORIZATION OF ACTIVITIES TO
UNDERTAKE ALL ON-SITE INVESTIGATIVE, CONSTRUCTION,
AND MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES ANCILLARY TO THE
OPERATION OF THE FACILITY. ALL OFF-SITE DISCHARGES OF
ANY SUBSTANCE SHALL BE SEPARATELY AUTHORIZED
PURSUANT TO APPLICABLE LAWS.

k. THE STRUCTURES USED FOR THE FACILITY SHALL NOT
EXCEED A TOTAL AREA OF 5,000 SQUARE FEET.

24. COMMUNITY GARDEN. ACCESSORY SALES OF PRODUCTS
CULTIVATED ON SITE WITHIN TEN DAYS OF HARVESTING SUBJECT
TO APPROVAL OF A USE PERMIT PURSUANT TO SECTION 307. ON-
SITE OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS MAY BE
STIPULATED AS A CONDITION OF USE PERMIT APPROVAL.




Page 1042
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



25. FARMERS MARKET, SUBJECT TO OBTAINING A USE PERMIT IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 307 AND
SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING STANDARDS: FARMERS MARKET,
SUBJECT TO OBTAINING A USE PERMIT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
PROVISIONS OF SECTION 307 AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING
STANDARDS:

a. NO MORE THAN SIX ONE-DAY MARKET EVENTS IN ANY 30-DAY
PERIOD.

b. HOURS OF OPERATION SHALL BE ONLY BETWEEN 7:00 A.M.
AND 9:00 P.M. THESE HOURS MAY BE RESTRICTED AS PART
OF THE USE PERMIT APPROVAL.

c. NO SIGNAGE SHALL BE PERMITTED.

d. ON-SITE IMPROVEMENTS AND OTHER OPERATIONAL
CONDITIONS MAY BE STIPULATED AS A CONDITION OF USE
PERMIT APPROVAL.

26. CONSTRUCTION FACILITIES AND STORAGE, INCIDENTAL TO A
CONSTRUCTION PROJECT AND LOCATED ON THE PROJECT SITE,
ARE PERMITTED. WHEN SUCH FACILITIES OR STORAGE ARE USED
FOR CONSTRUCTION ON A LOT OR LOTS OTHER THAN THE LOT OR
LOTS USED FOR SUCH FACILITIES OR STORAGE, SUCH USE SHALL
MAINTAIN THE SETBACKS PROVIDED BY THE REQUIREMENTS OF
THIS CHAPTER AND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO SECURING A USE
PERMIT. WHEN SUCH FACILITIES AND STORAGE SERVE A
RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION, ARE APPROVED IN CONJUNCTION WITH
MODEL HOMES BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT, AND MEET ALL OF THE STANDARDS LISTED BELOW,
NO USE PERMIT IS REQUIRED:

a. THE FACILITIES SHALL NOT BE PLACED ON A LOT WHICH
ABUTS, JOINS AT THE CORNERS, OR IS ACROSS A STREET OR
ALLEY FROM A DWELLING UNIT WHICH IS UNDER
CONSTRUCTION OR OCCUPIED AT THE TIME OF SAID
PLACEMENT, UNLESS WRITTEN AGREEMENT TO THE
PLACEMENT IS GIVEN BY THE OWNER OR OCCUPANT OF THE
AFFECTED PROPERTY.

b. ALL OUTSIDE STORAGE SHALL BE SCREENED BY A SIX-FOOT-
HIGH SOLID FENCE OR MASONRY WALL. NO CONSTRUCTION




Page 1043
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



VEHICLES OR MACHINERY SHALL BE PLACED WITHIN TEN
FEET OF THE SCREEN FENCE OR WALL.

c. ALL SIGNS ON THE FACILITY SHALL FULLY COMPLY WITH
SECTION 705, THE SIGN CODE.

d. ALL FACILITIES AND STORAGE SHALL BE REMOVED WITHIN
THREE MONTHS OF THE CLOSURE OF THE MODEL HOMES.

27. HOME OCCUPATIONS INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ARCHITECT,
LAWYER, OFF-SITE SALES BUSINESSES, ACCOUNTANT, REAL
ESTATE AGENT, TELEMARKETING SALES, AND PSYCHOLOGIST. FOR
PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, OFF-SITE SALES MEANS
PROCESSING ORDERS BY MAIL, FACSIMILE, PHONE, MODEM OR
INTERNET.

a. NO ONE OUTSIDE THE FAMILY RESIDING IN THE DWELLING
UNIT SHALL BE EMPLOYED IN THE HOME OCCUPATION.

b. NO EXTERIOR DISPLAY, NO EXTERIOR STORAGE OF
MATERIALS, NO SIGN, AND NO OTHER EXTERIOR INDICATION
OF THE HOME OCCUPATION OR VARIATION FROM THE
RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE PRINCIPAL OR ACCESSORY
BUILDING, EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED IN SECTION
608.E.3.H.608.E.27.h.

c. NO HOME OCCUPATION SHALL EMIT ODOR, DUST, GAS,
NOISE, VIBRATION, SMOKE, HEAT, OR GLARE BEYOND ANY
BOUNDARY OF THE LOT ON WHICH THE HOME OCCUPATION
IS CONDUCTED.

d. ACTIVITY SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE HOURS BETWEEN 7:00
A.M. AND 10:00 P.M.

e. NO MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT SHALL BE USED EXCEPT THAT
NORMALLY USED FOR DOMESTIC, HOBBY, STANDARD OFFICE,
OR HOUSEHOLD PURPOSES.

f. NOT MORE THAN 25 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL AREA UNDER
ROOF ON THE SITE SHALL BE USED FOR ANY HOME
OCCUPATION.




Page 1044
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



g. ANY PARKING INCIDENTAL TO THE HOME OCCUPATION SHALL
BE PROVIDED ON THE SITE.

h. HOME OCCUPATIONS SHALL OBTAIN A USE PERMIT FROM THE
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 307
WHEN:

(1) TRAFFIC (OTHER THAN TRIPS BY OCCUPANTS OF THE
HOUSEHOLD) IS GENERATED BY THE HOME
OCCUPATION; OR

(2) THE HOME OCCUPATION IS CONDUCTED IN AN
ACCESSORY BUILDING, INCLUDING AN ADU; OR

(3) THE HOME OCCUPATION IS CONDUCTED AS AN
OUTSIDE USE; OR

(4) MINOR VARIATIONS TO SECTION 608.E.3.C ARE
REQUIRED TO CONDUCT THE HOME OCCUPATION; OR

(5) AN APPLICANT DESIRES AN OFFICIAL APPROVAL OF A
HOME OCCUPATION.

i. A HOME OCCUPATION SHALL NOT INCLUDE, BUT SUCH
EXCLUSION SHALL NOT BE LIMITED TO, THE FOLLOWING
USES:

(1) BARBERSHOPS AND BEAUTY PARLORS.

(2) COMMERCIAL STABLES, VETERINARY OFFICES.

(3) DOG GROOMING.

(4) MASSAGE PARLORS.

(5) RESTAURANTS.

(6) VETERINARY HOSPITALS AND COMMERCIAL KENNELS.

28. NONDAILY NEWSPAPER DELIVERY SERVICE SHALL BE PERMITTED
SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING LIMITATIONS:




Page 1045
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



a. DELIVERED BULK MATERIALS RELATED TO NONDAILY
PUBLICATIONS SHALL BE TRANSFERRED TO AN ENCLOSED
BUILDING OR SECURED AREA SO THAT MATERIALS ARE NOT
VISIBLE FROM THE STREET OR ADJACENT PROPERTIES
UNLESS FOR PREPARATION OF MATERIALS FOR SAME DAY
DISTRIBUTION. PREPARATION OF MATERIALS FOR SAME DAY
DISTRIBUTION MAY OCCUR ON OR ABOUT ADJACENT PUBLIC
RIGHTS-OF-WAY; PROVIDED, THAT MATERIALS DO NOT
REMAIN IN PUBLIC VIEW FOR LONGER THAN 24 HOURS.

b. MATERIALS STORED FOR PERIODS GREATER THAN 24 HOURS
SHALL BE ENCLOSED WITHIN A BUILDING OR SECURED BY A
WALL OR FENCE OF SUCH MATERIAL, CONSTRUCTION, AND
HEIGHT SO AS TO CONCEAL THE MATERIALS LOCATED.

c. ACTIVITIES RELATING TO AND/OR ACCESSORY TO THE
PREPARATION OF MATERIALS STORED FOR PERIODS
GREATER THAN 24 HOURS SHALL OCCUR WITHIN AN
ENCLOSED BUILDING OR AN AREA SECURED BY A WALL OR
FENCE OF SUCH MATERIAL, CONSTRUCTION, AND HEIGHT SO
AS TO COMPLETELY CONCEAL THE ACTIVITIES.

d. SUCH DELIVERY SHALL BE LIMITED TO TWO BULK DELIVERIES
IN A SEVEN-DAY PERIOD. MORE FREQUENT DELIVERIES
SHALL REQUIRE A USE PERMIT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
PROCEDURES OF SECTION 307.

e. NO TRAFFIC OTHER THAN THAT REQUIRED FOR THE BULK
DELIVERY AND PICKUP SHALL BE ALLOWED BY OUTSIDE
EMPLOYEES. ANY OTHER BUSINESS-RELATED TRAFFIC SHALL
REQUIRE A USE PERMIT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
PROCEDURES OF SECTION 307.

29. THE DISPLAY FOR SALE OF A VEHICLE, WHICH FOR PURPOSES OF
THIS PROVISION INCLUDES TRAILERS, WATERCRAFT OR OTHER
TYPES OF TRANSPORTATION THAT ARE BUILT TO CARRY
PASSENGERS OR CARGO SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING
RESTRICTIONS:

a. NO MORE THAN ONE VEHICLE CAN BE LABELED FOR SALE OR
SHOW ANY INDICATION THAT IT IS FOR SALE AT ANY GIVEN
TIME ON A PROPERTY, WHETHER VISIBLE ON SITE OR
THROUGH SOME OTHER FORM OF ADVERTISING.




Page 1046
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023




b. NO MORE THAN TWO VEHICLES CAN BE SOLD ON A
PROPERTY DURING ANY CALENDAR YEAR.

c. FOR PURPOSES OF SECTIONS 608.A AND B, TWO JET SKIS, A
BOAT OR SIMILAR TYPES OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES THAT
ARE TRANSPORTED ON ONE TRAILER SHALL, TOGETHER
WITH THE TRAILER, BE CONSIDERED ONE VEHICLE.

d. THE OWNERSHIP OF THE VEHICLE(S) MUST BE REGISTERED
TO THE LOCATION WHERE THE VEHICLE IS LISTED FOR SALE.

e. NO VEHICLE CAN BE LABELED FOR SALE OR SHOW ANY
INDICATION THAT IT IS FOR SALE AT AN UNOCCUPIED HOUSE
OR ON A VACANT LOT OR PARCEL.

f. NO VEHICLE CAN BE LABELED FOR SALE OR SHOW ANY
INDICATION THAT IT IS FOR SALE IN CONJUNCTION WITH A
RETAIL OR WHOLESALE VEHICLE SALES DEALERSHIP OR
BUSINESS WITHOUT OBTAINING A TEMPORARY USE PERMIT.

30. FACILITIES FOR HOUSEHOLD PETS, THE MAINTENANCE OF WHICH
IS NOT OTHERWISE PROHIBITED BY STATUTE, REGULATIONS, OR
THE CITY CODE OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX AND WHICH FACILITIES
ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE ORDINANCES OF THE
CITY OF PHOENIX, ARE PERMITTED.

31. GARAGE OR YARD SALES MAY BE CONDUCTED TWICE EVERY 12
MONTHS ON ANY RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTY OCCUPIED BY
A DWELLING UNIT. ANY SALE SHALL NOT EXCEED THE TIME PERIOD
OF THREE CONSECUTIVE DAYS.

32. MATERIALS USED IN CONJUNCTION WITH A HOBBY, AVOCATION,
OR PASTIME, THE USE OF WHICH DOES NOT OTHERWISE CONFLICT
WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ORDINANCE, ARE PERMITTED.

33. PARKING OF VEHICLES IN FACILITIES AND LOCATIONS ON THE
PROPERTY NOT OTHERWISE IN CONFLICT WITH THE PROVISIONS
OF THIS ORDINANCE, IS PERMITTED.

34. PRIVATE TENNIS OR OUTDOOR GAME COURTS AS AN ACCESSORY
USE IS PERMITTED. TENNIS OR OUTDOOR GAME COURT FENCES
OVER SIX FEET HIGH IN REQUIRED REAR YARD OR REQUIRED SIDE




Page 1047
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



YARD ARE PERMITTED SUBJECT TO A USE PERMIT. TENNIS OR
OUTDOOR GAME COURT LIGHTS ARE ALSO SUBJECT TO A USE
PERMIT.

35. OFFSITE MANUFACTURED HOME DEVELOPMENTS ARE PERMITTED
WITH USE PERMIT APPROVAL PER SECTION 307, AND SUBJECT TO
THE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS PROVIDED IN SECTION 608.F.7.

***

Amend Chapter 6, Section 608.F (Residence Districts—Permitted with Use Permit
Approval Pursuant to Section 307) to read as follows:

F. Permitted Uses with Use Permit Approval Pursuant to Section 307.

1. Boarding house permitted in the R-3, R-3A, R-4, R-4A, and R-5 zoning
districts, subject to a use permit and conditions as outlined in each
respective zoning district.

2. Group home permitted in the R-3, R-3A, R-4, R-4A, and R-5 zoning districts,
subject to a use permit and conditions as outlined in each respective zoning
district.

3. Adult day care home for the care of five to ten adult persons, subject to a
use permit; and provided, that:

a. Outdoor recreation areas shall be screened from adjacent properties
by a six-foot-high landscape hedge, solid fence, or solid wall.

4. Dependent care facility for seven to 12 dependents, subject to obtaining a
use permit in accordance with the provisions of Section 307 and subject to
the following standards:

a. Resident dependents under the age of 12 years shall not be counted
when they are present on the premises.

b. Outdoor play areas shall be screened from adjacent properties by a
six-foot-high landscape hedge, solid fence, or solid wall.

c. Hours of operation shall be only between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.
These hours may be restricted as part of the use permit approval.




Page 1048
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



d. Nonresident employees may be permitted with the use permit if
necessary to meet state requirements.

e. One parking space shall be provided for each employee who does
not reside at the facility.

f. No signage shall be permitted.

g. The facility shall be subject to Arizona licensing requirements.

5. Environmental remediation facility, subject to the following conditions:

a. A use permit shall be obtained in accordance with Section 307.

b. The above ground area of land occupied by the environmental
remediation facility shall not exceed the minimum number of square
feet necessary to implement the remedial or corrective action.

c. All structures and devices constructed above ground level shall be
shielded from the view of persons outside the property boundary by
an opaque fence constructed of materials of similar composition and
appearance to fences and structures on nearby property.

d. Outdoor equipment installed as part of the final environmental
remediation facility shall not exceed a height of ten feet and shall be
set back from the perimeter wall a minimum of three feet for every
one foot of height over six feet.

e. After installation, no equipment or materials beyond that necessary to
operate the facility shall be stored on the lot.

f. A perimeter landscaping plan shall be approved by the Planning and
Development Department as necessary unless an applicable
approved landscape plan already exists.

g. Any lighting shall be placed so as to reflect the light away from
adjacent residential districts. Noise, odor, or vibration shall not be
emitted any time by the facility so that it exceeds the general level of
noise, odor, or vibration emitted by uses outside the site. Such
comparison shall be made at the boundary of the lot on which the
treatment facility is located.




Page 1049
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



h. The facility shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Fire
Code.

i. A permit issued under Section 307 shall include reasonable
restrictions on the operation of the facility to mitigate any adverse
impacts on nearby land, including but not limited to restrictions on
vehicular traffic and hours of operation of the facility.

j. This section allows authorization of activities to undertake all on-site
investigative, construction, and maintenance activities ancillary to the
operation of the facility. All off-site discharges of any substance shall
be separately authorized pursuant to applicable laws.

k. The structures used for the facility shall not exceed a total area of
5,000 square feet.

6. Community Garden. Accessory sales of products cultivated on site within
ten days of harvesting subject to approval of a use permit pursuant to
Section 307. On-site operational conditions and improvements may be
stipulated as a condition of use permit approval.

7. Farmers market, subject to obtaining a use permit in accordance with the
provisions of Section 307 and subject to the following standards: Farmers
market, subject to obtaining a use permit in accordance with the provisions
of Section 307 and subject to the following standards:

a. No more than six one-day market events in any 30-day period.

b. Hours of operation shall be only between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m.
These hours may be restricted as part of the use permit approval.

c. No signage shall be permitted.

d. On-site improvements and other operational conditions may be
stipulated as a condition of use permit approval.

8. Single-family attached (SFA) development option is allowed within the infill
development district identified in the General Plan or with use permit
approval for R-2, R-3, R-3A, R-4, R-5, R-4A, C-1, and C-3 zoned properties
within the following boundaries:




Page 1050
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023




a. The SFA development option does not eliminate any redevelopment
area, special planning district or overlays. Where conflicts occur
between the requirements of the SFA development option and
redevelopment areas, overlay zoning districts, special planning
districts, and specific plans, the requirements of the overlay zoning
districts, special planning districts, redevelopment areas or specific
plans shall apply.

Historic preservation designated properties or properties in historic
preservation districts cannot use the single-family attached
development option.




Page 1051
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023




b. Design Requirements. Applicants must provide photographs of the
property surrounding their site and an explanation of how the single-
family attached project architecture would complement and be
integrated into the surrounding neighborhood.

(1) Individual units fronting on street rights-of-way shall provide an
entryway that is either elevated, depressed or includes a
feature such as a low wall to accentuate the primary entrance.

(2) Required covered parking spaces shall not front on street
rights-of-way.

c. Perimeter Landscape Setbacks and Requirements.

(1) Residences that front on arterial, collector, or local street
rights-of-way shall provide a minimum ten-foot-wide landscape
tract or community maintained landscaping abutting the street,
except when within 2,000 feet of a light rail station.

(2) Residences that side on arterial, collector, or local street rights-
of-way shall provide a minimum 15-foot-wide landscape tract
or community maintained landscaping abutting the street.

(3) Perimeter of the development not abutting rights-of-way must
provide a minimum five-foot landscape setback, except that
development adjacent to a single-family residential district or
historic preservation designated property must provide a
minimum ten-foot landscape setback.

(4) Minimum trees spaced 20 feet on center or equivalent
groupings in required landscape setbacks.

Minimum one-and-one-half-inch caliper (50 percent of required
trees). Minimum two-inch caliper or multi-trunk tree (25 percent
of required trees). Minimum three-inch caliper or multi-trunk
tree (25 percent of required trees). Provide minimum five five-
gallon shrubs per tree.

d. Open Space. Only fences to enclose pool or community amenities
allowed within required open space.




Page 1052
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



e. Attached single-family units in a row shall not exceed a total length of
200 feet without having a minimum 20-foot-wide open area.

f. Parking Requirements.

(1) Within infill development district: 1.3 spaces per efficiency unit,
1.5 spaces per two-bedroom unit and two spaces per three or
more bedroom unit must be provided that are covered or
located within a garage and a minimum 0.25 unreserved guest
parking space per unit must be provided on site.

(2) Within the applicable area that is not located within the infill
development district: Two parking spaces per dwelling unit
must be provided that are covered or located within a garage.
The required spaces for each unit must be located on the lot
that the unit is on. A minimum 0.25 unreserved guest parking
space per unit must be provided on site.

g. Alley Access.

(1) Within infill development district: alley access allowed.

(2) Within the applicable area that is not located within the infill
development district: No alley access allowed if adjacent to
single-family or historic preservation zoning district unless
approved as part of the use permit hearing and all necessary
technical appeals have been approved.

h. Maximum 40-inch fence height allowed in the required building
setback along perimeter rights-of-way.

i. Signage subject to the regulations of Section 705, Table D-1, Single-
Family Residential.

9. Offsite manufactured home developments.

A. Offsite manufactured home development is allowed R-2, R-3, R-3A,
R-4, R-5, R-4A, C-1, C-2, and C-3 zoning districts subject to a use
permit and the conditions outlined below:

(1) Placement for each offsite manufactured home shall be
provided as follows:




Page 1053
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



(a) There shall be a minimum of twenty feet between
offsite manufactured homes and ten feet between
awnings and canopies. All annexes or structural
additions shall be considered part of the offsite
manufactured home.

(b) There shall be at least forty feet between offsite
manufactured homes on opposite sides of a private
accessway.

(c) No offsite manufactured home, annex or structural
addition shall be closer than eight feet to any private
accessway or private drive.

(2) Each offsite manufactured home space shall have private
outdoor living space of at least 150 square feet. The
dimension of this space shall be at least fifteen feet in width.

(3) For each occupied offsite manufactured home space, there
shall be an enclosed storage locker for yard tools and other
bulky items convenient to the space with a storage capacity
of at least one hundred fifty cubic feet.

(4) All areas not covered by structures or paved surfaces shall
be landscaped and maintained in accordance with the site
plans required under Section 507.

(5) Screening the perimeter of an offsite manufactured home
development by a wall or other approved material may be
required.

(6) There shall be a network of pedestrian walks connecting
offsite manufactured home spaces with each other and with
development facilities.

(7) If storage yards are provided, there shall be a screened
storage yard or yards for boats, recreational vehicles, etc.
Such storage yards shall have a minimum of sixty square
feet of storage space for each offsite manufactured home
space in the development and shall be located so as to not
detract from surrounding properties. All boats and
recreational vehicles shall be parked in the storage yard.




Page 1054
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



(8) Each offsite manufactured home shall a): be affixed
permanently to the ground or b): have "skirting" around its
perimeter to screen its wheels and undercarriage.

(9) All utilities and the wires of any central television or radio
antenna system shall be underground.

(10) Not more than fifteen percent of the spaces in any one
offsite manufactured home development shall be developed
or used for recreational vehicles.

(11) Development of offsite manufactured home communities
shall be under the Planned Residential Development option
of the underlying zoning district.

(12) Private drives may be used for access to each offsite
manufactured homes only when there is no subdivision of
the mobile home development into individual lots.

(13) There shall be a minimum of five percent of the total area of
the offsite manufactured home development dedicated or
reserved as usable common "open space" land. Common
"open space" lands shall be clearly designated on the plan
as to the character of use and development but shall not
include:

(a) Areas reserved for the exclusive use or benefit of an
individual tenant or owner; nor

(b) Dedicated streets, alleys, and other public rights-of-
way; nor

(c) Vehicular drives, parking, loading, and storage areas;
nor

(d) Required setback areas at exterior boundaries of the
site; nor

(e) Golf courses.




Page 1055
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



Adequate guarantees must be provided to ensure
permanent retention of "open space" land area resulting
from the application of these regulations, either by private
reservation for the use of the residents within the
development or by dedication to the public, or a
combination thereof.
Section 608.F. (new) Special Regulations.
F. SPECIAL REGULATIONS

1. NO STRUCTURE MAY BE BUILT ON A LOT WHICH DOES NOT FRONT
ON A STREET WHICH IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ADOPTED
STREET CLASSIFICATION MAP UNLESS EXEMPTED BY THIS
SECTION.

2. IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE A HALF STREET NOT LESS THAN ONE-HALF
OF THAT WIDTH PRESCRIBED FOR THAT STREET BY THE STREET
CLASSIFICATION MAP, AND AMENDMENTS THERETO, HAS BEEN
DEDICATED, ANY LOTS FACING OR SIDING ON SUCH HALF STREET
FROM WHICH SIDE THE REQUIRED WIDTH OF DEDICATION HAS
BEEN MADE SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE FRONTAGE ON A STREET.

3. NO PERMIT SHALL BE ISSUED FOR BUILDINGS ON A LOT FRONTING
ON A HALF STREET OF LESS THAN THAT PRESCRIBED BY THE
STREET CLASSIFICATION MAP FOR AN ARTERIAL OR COLLECTOR
STREET OR 25 FEET FOR ALL OTHER STREETS EXCEPT FOR
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED DEVELOPMENT INDIVIDUAL DWELLING
UNITS.

a. FOR DEVELOPMENT UTILIZING AN AVERAGE LOT OR PRD
DEVELOPMENT OPTION OR FOR DEVELOPMENT BUILT UNDER
A PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, A MINIMUM OF
16.58-FOOT HALF-STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY MAY BE PROVIDED
WHEN ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE MET:

(1) THE STREET IS NOT DESIGNATED AS A COLLECTOR OR
ARTERIAL STREET.

(2) THERE ARE NO RESTRICTIONS TO PUBLIC ACCESS TO
THE STREET.

(3) PAVEMENT WIDTH SHALL BE 33.16 FEET FROM BACK OF
CURB TO BACK OF CURB.




Page 1056
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



(4) PAVEMENT THICKNESS AND DESIGN SHALL BE IN
ACCORDANCE WITH MARICOPA ASSOCIATION OF
GOVERNMENTS’ STANDARDS.

(5) ALL TERMINATIONS SHALL CONTAIN A 40-FOOT-RADIUS
RIGHT-OF-WAY.

(6) THE STREET HAS BEEN CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO
MARCH 19, 1986.

4. THERE SHALL BE NO OUTDOOR STORAGE OF PERSONAL
PROPERTY VISIBLE BEYOND THE BOUNDARIES OF THE PROPERTY
WITHIN ANY FRONT OR SIDE YARD.

5. NO ACCESSORY USE SHALL INCLUDE OUTDOOR DISPLAY OR
STORAGE OF ANY OF THE FOLLOWING LISTED ITEMS WHEN SUCH
ITEMS ARE VISIBLE OR EMIT ODOR, DUST, GAS, NOISE, VIBRATION,
SMOKE, HEAT OR GLARE BEYOND ANY BOUNDARY OF THE LOT ON
WHICH SUCH ITEMS ARE DISPLAYED OR STORED:

a. ANY BUILDING OR LANDSCAPING MATERIALS.

b. ANY MACHINERY, PARTS, SCRAP, OR APPLIANCES.

c. VEHICLES WHICH ARE UNLICENSED, INOPERABLE, OR
REGISTERED TO OR OWNED BY PERSONS NOT RESIDING ON
OR THE GUEST OF PERSONS RESIDING ON THE PREMISES.

d. ANY OTHER CHATTEL USED FOR OR INTENDED FOR A
COMMERCIAL PURPOSE OR ULTIMATE USE ON OTHER THAN
THE SUBJECT PREMISES.

6. SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL (SFI). SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS MAY BE APPLIED IN ZONING DISTRICTS WHERE THE
SFI DEVELOPMENT OPTION IS OFFERED, BUT ONLY WHEN THE
DEVELOPMENT FALLS WITHIN THE INFILL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
IDENTIFIED IN THE GENERAL PLAN, OR WITH USE PERMIT
APPROVAL WITHIN THE FOLLOWING AREAS LOCATED OUTSIDE OF
THE INFILL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT:




Page 1057
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



MAP 608.F.6. SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL DEVELOPMENT AREAS




Page 1058
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



a. THE SFI DEVELOPMENT OPTION DOES NOT ELIMINATE ANY
REDEVELOPMENT AREA, SPECIAL PLANNING DISTRICT OR
OVERLAYS. WHERE CONFLICTS OCCUR BETWEEN THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE SFI DEVELOPMENT OPTION AND
REDEVELOPMENT AREAS, OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICTS,
SPECIAL PLANNING DISTRICTS, AND SPECIFIC PLANS, THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICTS,
SPECIAL PLANNING DISTRICTS, REDEVELOPMENT AREAS OR
SPECIFIC PLANS SHALL APPLY.

b. HISTORIC PRESERVATION DESIGNATED PROPERTIES OR
PROPERTIES IN HISTORIC PRESERVATION DISTRICTS
CANNOT USE THE SFI DEVELOPMENT OPTION.

c. DWELLING UNITS. THE SFI DEVELOPMENT OPTION IS
INTENDED PRIMARILY FOR SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED
DWELLING UNITS; HOWEVER, UP TO 20% OF THE UNITS IN A
DEVELOPMENT MAY BE SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DWELLING
UNITS TO ALLOW FOR VARIETY AND EFFICIENCY OF DESIGN.

(1) ANY PROVIDED DETACHED DWELLING UNITS SHALL
COMPLY WITH THE SAME DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
APPLICABLE TO THAT SFI DEVELOPMENT.

d. DESIGN REQUIREMENTS.

(1) INDIVIDUAL UNITS FRONTING ON STREET RIGHTS-OF-
WAY SHALL PROVIDE AN ENTRYWAY THAT IS EITHER
ELEVATED, DEPRESSED OR INCLUDES A FEATURE
SUCH AS A LOW WALL TO ACCENTUATE THE PRIMARY
ENTRANCE.

(2) REQUIRED COVERED PARKING SPACES SHALL NOT
FRONT ON PERIMETER STREET RIGHTS-OF-WAY.

(3) INDIVIDUAL UNIT REAR YARDS SHALL NOT ABUT
PERIMETER STREET ROW OR AN ADJACENT PERIMETER
STREET LANDSCAPE AREA.

(4) ATTACHED DWELLING UNITS CONSTRUCTED IN A ROW
SHALL NOT EXCEED A TOTAL LENGTH OF 200 FEET
WITHOUT HAVING A MINIMUM 20-FOOT-WIDE OPEN
AREA




Page 1059
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023




e. PERIMETER LANDSCAPE SETBACKS AND REQUIREMENTS.

(1) RESIDENCES THAT FRONT ON ARTERIAL, COLLECTOR,
OR LOCAL STREET RIGHTS-OF-WAY SHALL PROVIDE A
MINIMUM TEN-FOOT-WIDE LANDSCAPE TRACT OR
COMMUNITY MAINTAINED LANDSCAPING ABUTTING THE
STREET, EXCEPT WHEN WITHIN 2,000 FEET OF A LIGHT
RAIL STATION.

(2) RESIDENCES THAT SIDE ON ARTERIAL, COLLECTOR, OR
LOCAL STREET RIGHTS-OF-WAY SHALL PROVIDE A
MINIMUM 15-FOOT-WIDE LANDSCAPE TRACT OR
COMMUNITY MAINTAINED LANDSCAPING ABUTTING THE
STREET.

(3) PERIMETER OF THE DEVELOPMENT NOT ABUTTING
RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND ADJACENT TO A SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT OR HISTORIC PRESERVATION
DESIGNATED PROPERTY MUST PROVIDE A MINIMUM
TEN-FOOT LANDSCAPE SETBACK. WALLS/FENCES UP
TO 6 FEET HIGH WITHIN PRIVATE REAR YARDS MAY BE
PROVIDED WITHIN THE PERIMETER SETBACK SO LONG
AS THE REQUIRED LANDSCAPE IS STILL PROVIDED.

(4) TREES SHALL BE PROVIDED IN REQUIRED LANDSCAPE
SETBACKS AT A MINIMUM RATE OF 20 FEET ON CENTER
OR EQUIVALENT GROUPINGS, AS APPROVED BY THE
PDD LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, SUBJECT TO THE
FOLLOWING:

(a) 50% OF THE REQUIRED TREES SHALL BE
MINIMUM ONE-AND-ONE-HALF-INCH CALIPER AT
THE TIME OF INSTALLATION.

(b) 25% OF THE REQUIRED TREES SHALL BE
MINIMUM TWO-INCH CALIPER OR MULTI-TRUNKED
TREES AT THE TIME OF INSTALLATION.

(c) 25% OF THE REQUIRED TREES SHALL BE
MINIMUM THREE-INCH CALIPER OR MULTI-
TRUNKED TREES AT THE TIME OF INSTALLATION.




Page 1060
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



(5) A MINIMUM OF FIVE FIVE-GALLON SHRUBS PER TREE
SHALL BE PROVIDED.

f. OPEN SPACE REGULATIONS. THE ONLY WALLS/FENCES
ALLOWED WITHIN REQUIRED COMMON AREA OPEN SPACE
ARE REQUIRED POOL SECURITY FENCES AND OTHER
NECESSARY SECURITY FENCES, AS APPROVED BY PDD.

g. PARKING REQUIREMENTS. SECTION 702 APPLIES TO SFI
DEVELOPMENT, EXCEPT WHERE SPECIFICALLY MODIFIED BY
THIS SECTION.

(1) WITHIN THE INFILL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT: ONE (1)
PARKING SPACE PER DWELLING UNIT MUST BE
PROVIDED THAT IS COVERED OR LOCATED WITHIN A
GARAGE.

(2) WITHIN THE APPLICABLE SFI AREA THAT IS NOT
LOCATED WITHIN THE INFILL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT:
TWO (2) PARKING SPACES PER DWELLING UNIT MUST
BE PROVIDED THAT ARE COVERED OR LOCATED WITHIN
A GARAGE.

(3) THE REQUIRED SPACES FOR EACH DWELLING UNIT
MUST BE LOCATED ON THE SAME LOT AS THE UNIT FOR
WHICH THEY ARE PROVIDED.

(4) A MINIMUM 0.25 ADDITIONAL UNRESERVED GUEST
PARKING SPACE PER DWELLING UNIT MUST BE
PROVIDED WITHIN ANY SFI DEVELOPMENT.

h. ALLEY ACCESS AND MANEUVERING.

(1) ALL MANEUVERING FOR ON-SITE PARKING MUST BE
LOCATED ON PRIVATE PROPERTY AND NOT IN PUBLIC
ROW.

(2) ACCESS TO THE SITE FROM A FULLY DEDICATED AND
PAVED ALLEY IS PERMITTED WITHIN THE INFILL
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT.




Page 1061
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



(3) ACCESS TO THE SITE FROM A FULLY DEDICATED AND
PAVED ALLEY IS PERMITTED WITHIN THE SFI
APPLICABLE AREA OUTSIDE OF THE INFILL
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT IF ALL THREE CONDITIONS
ARE MET, AS FOLLOWS:

(a) THE SITE IS NOT ACROSS THE ALLEY FROM
EITHER A SINGLE-FAMILY OR HISTORIC
PRESERVATION ZONING DISTRICT;

(b) ALLEY ACCESS IS SPECIFICALLY APPROVED AS
PART OF THE USE PERMIT HEARING; AND

(c) ALL NECESSARY TECHNICAL APPEALS HAVE
BEEN APPROVED.

h. MAXIMUM 40-INCH FENCE HEIGHT ALLOWED IN THE
REQUIRED SETBACKS ALONG PERIMETER STREET RIGHTS-
OF-WAY.

i. SIGNAGE IS SUBJECT TO THE REGULATIONS OF SECTION 705,
TABLE D-1, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.

7. OFFSITE MANUFACTURED HOME DEVELOPMENTS. OFFSITE
MANUFACTURED HOME DEVELOPMENT IS SUBJECT TO USE PERMIT
APPROVAL IN THE C-1, C-2, AND C-3 DISTRICTS, IN ADDITION TO
ZONING DISTRICTS INDICATED IN SECTION 608.D; AND SUBJECT TO
THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS:

a. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 703.B DO NOT APPLY TO
OFFSITE MANUFACTURED HOME DEVELOPMENTS.

a. b. THESE REGULATIONS APPLY TO DEVELOPMENT OF A SINGLE
LOT OR PARCEL, NOT TO BE FURTHER SUBDIVIDED.

b. c. PLACEMENT FOR EACH OFFSITE MANUFACTURED HOME
SHALL BE PROVIDED AS FOLLOWS:

(1) THERE SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF TWENTY FEET
BETWEEN OFFSITE MANUFACTURED HOMES AND TEN
FEET BETWEEN AWNINGS AND CANOPIES. ALL ANNEXES
OR STRUCTURAL ADDITIONS SHALL BE CONSIDERED
PART OF THE OFFSITE MANUFACTURED HOME.




Page 1062
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023




(2) THERE SHALL BE AT LEAST FORTY FEET BETWEEN
OFFSITE MANUFACTURED HOMES ON OPPOSITE SIDES
OF A PRIVATE ACCESSWAY.

(3) NO OFFSITE MANUFACTURED HOME, ANNEX OR
STRUCTURAL ADDITION SHALL BE CLOSER THAN EIGHT
FEET TO ANY PRIVATE ACCESSWAY OR PRIVATE DRIVE.

c. d. EACH OFFSITE MANUFACTURED HOME SPACE SHALL HAVE
PRIVATE OUTDOOR LIVING SPACE OF AT LEAST 150 SQUARE
FEET. THE DIMENSION OF THIS SPACE SHALL BE AT LEAST
FIFTEEN FEET IN WIDTH.

d. e. AT EACH OCCUPIED OFFSITE MANUFACTURED HOME SPACE,
THERE SHALL BE AN ENCLOSED STORAGE LOCKER FOR YARD
TOOLS AND OTHER BULKY ITEMS CONVENIENT TO THE SPACE
WITH A STORAGE CAPACITY OF AT LEAST ONE HUNDRED
FIFTY CUBIC FEET.

e. f. ALL AREAS NOT COVERED BY STRUCTURES OR PAVED
SURFACES SHALL BE LANDSCAPED AND MAINTAINED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPROVED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
DOCUMENTS REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 507.

f. g. SCREENING THE PERIMETER OF AN OFFSITE MANUFACTURED
HOME DEVELOPMENT BY A WALL OR OTHER APPROVED
MATERIAL MAY BE REQUIRED AS A CONDITION OF USE PERMIT
APPROVAL.

g. h. THERE SHALL BE A NETWORK OF PEDESTRIAN WALKWAYS
CONNECTING OFFSITE MANUFACTURED HOME SPACES WITH
EACH OTHER AND WITH DEVELOPMENT FACILITIES AND
AMENITIES.




Page 1063
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



h. i. IF STORAGE YARDS ARE PROVIDED, THERE SHALL BE A
SCREENED STORAGE YARD OR YARDS FOR BOATS,
RECREATIONAL VEHICLES, ETC. SUCH STORAGE YARDS
SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM OF SIXTY SQUARE FEET OF STORAGE
SPACE FOR EACH OFFSITE MANUFACTURED HOME SPACE IN
THE DEVELOPMENT AND SHALL BE LOCATED SO AS TO NOT
DETRACT FROM SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. ALL BOATS AND
RECREATIONAL VEHICLES SHALL BE PARKED IN THE
STORAGE YARD.

i.j. EACH OFFSITE MANUFACTURED HOME SHALL A): BE AFFIXED
PERMANENTLY TO THE GROUND OR B): HAVE "SKIRTING"
AROUND ITS PERIMETER TO SCREEN ITS WHEELS AND
UNDERCARRIAGE.

j.k. ALL UTILITIES AND THE WIRES OF ANY CENTRAL TELEVISION
OR RADIO ANTENNA SYSTEM SHALL BE UNDERGROUND.

k. l. NOT MORE THAN FIFTEEN PERCENT OF THE SPACES IN ANY
ONE OFFSITE MANUFACTURED HOME DEVELOPMENT SHALL
BE DEVELOPED OR USED FOR RECREATIONAL VEHICLES.

l. m. DEVELOPMENT OF OFFSITE MANUFACTURED HOME
COMMUNITIES SHALL BE UNDER THE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT OPTION APPLICABLE IN THE UNDERLYING
ZONING DISTRICT.

m. n. PRIVATE DRIVES MAY BE USED FOR ACCESS TO EACH
OFFSITE MANUFACTURED HOMES.

n. o. THERE SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF FIVE PERCENT OF THE TOTAL
AREA OF THE OFFSITE MANUFACTURED HOME DEVELOPMENT
DEDICATED OR RESERVED AS USABLE COMMON "OPEN
SPACE" LAND. COMMON "OPEN SPACE" LANDS SHALL BE
CLEARLY DESIGNATED ON THE PLAN AS TO THE CHARACTER
OF USE AND DEVELOPMENT BUT SHALL NOT INCLUDE:

(1) AREAS RESERVED FOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE OR
BENEFIT OF AN INDIVIDUAL TENANT OR OWNER; NOR

(2) DEDICATED STREETS, ALLEYS, AND OTHER PUBLIC
RIGHTS-OF-WAY; NOR




Page 1064
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



VEHICULAR DRIVES, PARKING, LOADING, AND STORAGE
AREAS; NOR
(3)
REQUIRED SETBACK AREAS AT EXTERIOR BOUNDARIES
OF THE SITE; NOR

(4) GOLF COURSES.

ADEQUATE GUARANTEES MUST BE PROVIDED TO ENSURE
PERMANENT RETENTION OF "OPEN SPACE" LAND AREA
RESULTING FROM THE APPLICATION OF THESE REGULATIONS,
EITHER BY PRIVATE RESERVATION FOR THE USE OF THE
RESIDENTS WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT OR BY DEDICATION
TO THE PUBLIC, OR A COMBINATION THEREOF.

***

Amend Chapter 6, Section 608.G (Accessory Uses) to read as follows:

G. Accessory Uses. RESERVED.

1. Facilities for household pets, the maintenance of which is not otherwise
prohibited by statute, regulations, or the City Code of the City of Phoenix
and which facilities are in compliance with all applicable ordinances of the

2. Garage or yard sales may be conducted twice every 12 months on any
residentially zoned property occupied by a dwelling unit. Any sale shall not
exceed the time period of three consecutive days.

3. Materials used in conjunction with a hobby, avocation, or pastime, the use of
which does not otherwise conflict with the provisions of this ordinance.

4. Parking of vehicles in facilities and locations on the property not otherwise in
conflict with the provisions of this ordinance.

5. Private tennis or outdoor game courts as an accessory use. Tennis or
outdoor game court fences over six feet high in required rear yard or
required side yard, subject to a use permit. Tennis or outdoor game court
lights, subject to a use permit.

6. No accessory use of land or structures shall be maintained except as
hereinafter provided or except as may be permitted as a home occupation.




Page 1065
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023




7. No accessory use shall include outdoor display or storage of any of the
following listed items when such items are visible or emit odor, dust, gas,
noise, vibration, smoke, heat or glare beyond any boundary of the lot on
which such items are displayed or stored:

a. Any building or landscaping materials.

b. Any machinery, parts, scrap, or appliances.

c. Vehicles which are unlicensed, inoperable, or registered to or owned
by persons not residing on or the guest of persons residing on the
premises.

d. Any other chattel used for or intended for a commercial purpose or
ultimate use on other than the subject premises.

***

Amend Chapter 6, Section 608.H (General Provisions) to read as follows:

H. General Provisions. RESERVED.

1. No structure may be built on a lot which does not front on a street which is in
accordance with the adopted street classification map unless exempted by
this section.

In any district where a half street not less than one-half of that width
prescribed for that street by the street classification map, and amendments
thereto, has been dedicated, any lots facing or siding on such half street
from which side the required width of dedication has been made shall be
deemed to have frontage on a street.

No permit shall be issued for buildings on a lot fronting on a half street of
less than that prescribed by the street classification map for an arterial or
collector street or 25 feet for all other streets except for single-family
attached development individual dwelling units.

a. For development utilizing an average lot or PRD development option
or for development built under a planned area development district, a
minimum of 16.58-foot half-street right-of-way may be provided when
all of the following conditions are met:




Page 1066
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



(1) The street is not designated as a collector or arterial street.

(2) There are no restrictions to public access to the street.

(3) Pavement width shall be 33.16 feet from back of curb to back
of curb.

(4) Pavement thickness and design shall be in accordance with
Maricopa Association of Governments’ standards.

(5) All terminations shall contain a 40-foot-radius right-of-way.

(6) The street has been constructed prior to March 19, 1986.

2. There shall be no outdoor storage of personal property visible beyond the
boundaries of the property within any front or side yard.

***

Amend Chapter 6, Section 608.I (Development Regulations) to read as follows:

I. Development Regulations. Following are definitions of terms used in the
development standards tables for each district:

***

2. Dwelling unit density: The total number of dwelling units on a site divided
by the gross area of the site.

a. Under the planned residential development, additional density may
be granted in the R1-10 through R-4A districts (Sections 611 through
619) for detached single-family development by providing site
enhancements from the following list. In R1-10 through R1-6, an
increase of 0.1 du/ac may be achieved for each ten bonus points
earned up to the maximum listed in Table A. In R-2 through R-4A, an
increase of 0.275 du/ac may be achieved for each five bonus points
earned up to a maximum of 12 du/ac. However, at least half of the
bonus points used to achieve densities in excess of seven and one-
half du/ac must be from the architectural design category.
DENSITY BONUS POINTS. ADDITIONAL DENSITY MAY BE
GRANTED BY EARNING DENSITY BONUS POINTS BY
PROVIDING SITE ENHANCEMENTS FROM THE TABLE BELOW,
AS FOLLOWS:



Page 1067
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023




(1) SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT IN THE R1-10
THROUGH R1-6 DISTRICTS (SECTIONS 611 THROUGH
613) MAY EARN INCREASED DENSITY OF 0.1 DU/AC FOR
EACH TEN (10) DENSITY BONUS POINTS EARNED WHEN
ALSO USING THE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT OPTION, UP TO THE MAXIMUM DENSITY
ALLOWED BY THE DISTRICT.

(2) SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT IN THE R-2
THROUGH R-4A DISTRICTS (SECTIONS 614 THROUGH
619) MAY EARN INCREASED DENSITY OF 0.275 DU/AC
FOR EACH FIVE (5) DENSITY BONUS POINTS EARNED
WHEN ALSO USING THE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT OPTION, UP TO THE MAXIMUM DENSITY
ALLOWED BY THE DISTRICT. HOWEVER, AT LEAST HALF
OF THE BONUS POINTS USED TO ACHIEVE DENSITIES IN
EXCESS OF SEVEN AND ONE-HALF (7.5) DU/AC MUST BE
FROM THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BONUS POINT
CATEGORY.

***

b. Under the planned residential development option, additional density
may be granted in the R1-10 through R-4A districts (Sections 611
through 619) for attached single-family and multifamily development,
and under the single-family attached development additional density
may be granted in the R-2 through R-4A districts (Sections 614
through 619) up to the maximum shown in Table B by providing open
space areas beyond the minimum required in each district in
accordance with the following:
ADDITIONAL COMMON AREA/OPEN SPACE. ADDITIONAL
DENSITY MAY BE GRANTED BY PROVIDING ADDITIONAL
COMMON AREA, ABOVE ANY MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS, AS
FOLLOWS:

(1) QUALIFYING DEVELOPMENTS (LISTED BELOW) MAY
EARN: A one percent density bonus for each four percent of
basic common area; or

(a) A ONE PERCENT DENSITY BONUS FOR EACH
FOUR PERCENT OF BASIC COMMON AREA; OR




Page 1068
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



(b) A ONE PERCENT DENSITY BONUS FOR EACH TWO
PERCENT OF IMPROVED COMMON AREA.

(c) THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
SHALL DETERMINE THE ADEQUACY OF BOTH
BASIC AND IMPROVED COMMON AREAS AS PART
OF THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS. OPEN
SPACE SHALL NOT INCLUDE:

i. PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY.

ii. VEHICULAR DRIVES OR PARKING AREAS.

iii. PRIVATE PATIO AREAS, NARROW STRIPS
BETWEEN OR IN FRONT OF UNITS; OR, IN
GENERAL, AREAS RESERVED FOR THE
EXCLUSIVE USE OF INDIVIDUAL TENANTS.

iv. REQUIRED SETBACK AREAS AT THE
EXTERIOR BOUNDARIES OF THE SITE.

v. GOLF COURSES.

(d) IN NO CASE SHALL THE DENSITY OF THE
DEVELOPMENT EXCEED THE MAXIMUM DENSITY
ALLOWED BY THE DISTRICT.

(2) A one percent density bonus for each two percent of improved
common area.
DEVELOPMENTS QUALIFYING FOR THE ADDITIONAL
COMMON AREA/OPEN SPACE DENSITY BONUS ARE AS
FOLLOWS:

(a) SINGLE-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT IN THE RE-35 AND
R1-18 ZONING DISTRICTS (SECTIONS 609 AND
610), WHEN ALSO USING THE PLANNED
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OPTION.

(b) SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED DEVELOPMENT IN THE
R1-10 THROUGH R-4A ZONING DISTRICTS
(SECTIONS 611 THROUGH 619), WHEN USING THE
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OPTION.




Page 1069
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



(c) SINGLE-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT IN THE R-2
THROUGH R-4A ZONING DISTRICTS (SECTIONS
614 THROUGH 619), WHEN USING THE SINGLE-
FAMILY INFILL DEVELOPMENT OPTION.

(d) MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT IN THE R1-10
THROUGH R-4A ZONING DISTRICTS (SECTIONS
611 THROUGH 619), WHEN USING THE PLANNED
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OPTION.

(3) Review and determination of the adequacy of common areas,
basic and improved, will be part of development review by the
Site Planning Division of the Planning and Development
Department. Open space shall not include:

(a) Public right-of-way.

(b) Vehicular drives or parking areas.

(c) Private patio areas, narrow strips between or in front of
units; or, in general, areas reserved for the exclusive
use of individual tenants.

(d) Required setback areas at the exterior boundaries of
the site.

(e) Golf courses.

***

8. Allowed uses DEVELOPMENT: Refer to the following tables for uses
allowed in each district and to chapter 2 for definitions of permitted uses.
THE DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS TABLES PROVIDED IN SECTIONS 609
THROUGH 619 INDICATE THE ONLY TYPES OF RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT PERMITTED UNDER EACH DEVELOPMENT OPTION
AND ASSOCIATED DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. THE COMPLETE
LIST OF ALL PERMITTED USES, INCLUDING ACCESSORY AND
TEMPORARY USES, IS PROVIDED IN SECTION 608.C.

***
Section 609. RE-35 Single-Family Residence District.
Amend Chapter 6, Section 609 (RE-35 Single-Family Residence District) to read as
follows:




Page 1070
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023




Section 609. RE-35 Single-Family Residence District

A. Purpose. A basic purpose of these regulations is to foster the creation of living
areas which can assist the establishment of stable, functional neighborhoods. An
established pattern of living in this metropolitan area reflects a tradition of single-
family occupied dwellings which also emphasize outdoor living. Many of these
dwellings are thereby located on relatively large urban or suburban lots.

These regulations provide standards for dwellings built at low and moderate
densities. While the predominant housing type is expected to be single-family
dwelling, provisions are made for alternative housing types within the same density
limits.

B. District Regulations. The following tables establishes standards to be used for
each district in the RE-35 district. Following are definitions of terms used in these
standards: THE DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED IN THESE STANDARDS ARE
FOUND IN SECTION 608.I.

1. Minimum Lot Dimension: The minimum width and depth of lot lines and
where specified, the minimum area of each lot.

2. Dwelling Unit Density: The total number of dwelling units on a site divided
by the gross area of the site. Under the planned residential development
option, additional density may be granted for areas beyond minimum
required in each district in accordance with the following:

a. A one percent density bonus for each four percent of basic common
area; or

b. A one percent density bonus for each two percent of improved
common area.

c. Review and determination of the adequacy of common areas, basic
and improved, will be part of the development review by the Site
Planning Division of the Planning and Development Department.
Open space shall not include:

(1) Public right-of-way.

(2) Vehicular drives or parking areas.




Page 1071
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



(3) Private patio areas, narrow strips between or in front of units;
or, in general, areas reserved for the exclusive use of
individual tenants.

(4) Required setback areas at the exterior boundaries of the site.

(5) Golf courses.

3. Perimeter standards: Setbacks for structures which are required at the
perimeter of a development. These standards shall apply only to lots which
are created by a subdivision or a project approved under the provisions of
Section 507. These standards shall not apply in the following circumstances:
when contiguous developments are to be developed using the same
development option with the same perimeter standards and are on the same
preliminary plat or are platted concurrently; when the perimeter of a
development is contiguous to a permanent open space, such as a natural
wash, hillside preserve, or existing golf course, the depth of which is at least
forty feet; or when the development was properly platted prior to September
13, 1981.

4. Building setback: The required separation of buildings from lot lines.

5. Maximum height: The maximum allowed height as measured from natural
grade which measurement shall be as in chapter 2

6. Lot coverage: The maximum area of a lot occupied by structures and open
projections as defined in chapter 2

7. Common areas: Required areas in a planned residential development to be
used and enjoyed by residents of a development and either improved in
accordance with the standards in chapter 2 or maintained in a natural state
as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

8. Allowed uses: Refer to the following tables for uses allowed in each district
and to chapter 2 for definitions of permitted uses.

9. Required review: Where a site plan is required, development shall be
according to Section 507 of this ordinance. Development on land for which
neither a subdivision nor a site plan has been approved shall be according
to standards in option (a), subdivision.

10 Required parking: The minimum number of off-street parking spaces to be
provided and which shall be according to Section 702.A.




Page 1072
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023




11. Street standards: The class of street required to provide access to any
parcel or subdivided lot within a development.

ILLUSTRATIONS OF DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS




TABLE 609.A
RE-35 Development Option OPTIONS

(c)
(a) (b)
Standards Planned Residential
Subdivision Average Lot
Development

Minimum lot 150' width, 175' 100' width, 125' None
dimensions (width depth (Minimum depth
and depth) area 35,000 sq. ft.)

Dwelling unit 1.10 1.10 1.15; 1.32 with bonus
density
(units/gross acre)

Perimeter None 40' front or rear, 20' 40' adjacent to a public
standards side street STREET (2); this
area is to be in
common ownership
unless lots front on the
perimeter public street;
20' adjacent to
property line




Page 1073
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



TABLE 609.A
RE-35 Development Option OPTIONS

(c)
(a) (b)
Standards Planned Residential
Subdivision Average Lot
Development

Building setbacks 40' front, 40' rear, 25' front, 50' total 25' front
20' side front and rear

Maximum height 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30'

Lot coverage 25%, except if all Primary structure, Primary structure, not
structures are less not including including attached
than 20' and 1 story attached shade shade structures: 25%
in height then a structures: 25% Total: 30%
maximum of 30% Total: 30%
lot coverage is
allowed.

Common areas None None Minimum 5% of gross
area

Allowed uses Single-family Single-family Single-family attached;
DEVELOPMENT detached attached; plus (a) plus (a)

Required review Subdivision to Subdivision with Site plan per Section
create 4 or more building setbacks 507
lots

Street standards Public street Public street Public street or private
required accessway (2) (1)

(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for
extensions of street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue
partial dedications.

(2) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as
public street rights-of-way.

C. Special Regulations.

1. Guesthouse, subject to the following conditions:




Page 1074
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023




a. The square footage of the guesthouse shall not exceed fifty percent
of the gross floor area of the primary dwelling unit with a maximum of
nine hundred square feet, except as set forth in subsection b, below.
Any garage area attached to the guesthouse which is more than the
area of a single-car garage shall be counted toward the allowable
square footage of the guesthouse.

b. On lots with more than forty-three thousand five hundred sixty square
feet in net area with a primary dwelling unit of at least three thousand
six hundred square feet in gross floor area, the square footage of the
guesthouse may be twenty-five percent of the gross floor area of the
primary dwelling unit.

c. The floor area of the connecting structure shall be included in the
floor area of the guesthouse.

d. Pergolas and other roofed structures without walls shall not be
considered a connecting structure.

e. Vehicular access to the accessory dwelling unit must be provided
from the same curb (driveway) as the primary dwelling unit, except
that separate access may be permitted from a paved alley.

f. One parking space must be provided for the accessory dwelling unit
in addition to the parking required for the primary dwelling unit.

g. Only one guesthouse is permitted on a single lot.

h. The guesthouse shall be constructed of similar building materials and
in the same architectural style as that of the primary dwelling unit and
shall not exceed the height in feet or number of stories of the primary
dwelling unit.

i. A guesthouse shall not:

(1) Provide more parking than the one required space;

(2) Be advertised for occupancy through any print or electronic
media or through placement of signs on the property;

(3) Provide separate mail service or have a separate address from
the primary dwelling unit; or




Page 1075
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023




(4) Be separately metered for utilities.

(j) Single-family use requirements shall apply to the guesthouse and the
primary dwelling unit as a single unit.

(k) Any guesthouse existing as of (the effective date of this ordinance)
may qualify as "connected to the primary dwelling unit" by being
connected to the primary dwelling unit without meeting the minimum
width requirements.

***
Section 610. R1-18 Single-Family Residence District.
Amend Chapter 6, Section 610 (R1-18 Single-Family Residence District) to read as
follows:

Section 610. R1-18 Single-Family Residence District.

A. Purpose. A basic purpose of these regulations is to foster the creation of living
areas which can assist the establishment of stable, functional neighborhoods. An
established pattern of living in this metropolitan area reflects a tradition of single-
family occupied dwellings which also emphasize outdoor living. Many of these
dwellings are thereby located on relatively large urban or suburban lots.

These regulations provide standards for dwellings built at low and moderate
densities. While the predominant housing type is expected to be single-family
dwelling, provisions are made for alternative housing types within the same density
limits.

B. District Regulations. The following tables establishes standards to be used for
each district in the R1-18 district. Following are definitions of terms used in these
standards: THE DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED IN THESE STANDARDS ARE
FOUND IN SECTION 608.I.

1. Minimum Lot Dimension: The minimum width and depth of lot lines and
where specified, the minimum area of each lot.

2. Dwelling Unit Density: The total number of dwelling units on a site divided
by the gross area of the site. Under the planned residential development
option, additional density may be granted for areas beyond minimum
required in each district in accordance with the following:




Page 1076
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



a. A one percent density bonus for each four percent of basic common
area; or

b. A one percent density bonus for each two percent of improved
common area.

c. Review and determination of the adequacy of common areas, basic
and improved, will be part of the development review by the Site
Planning Division of the Planning and Development Department.
Open space shall not include:

(1) Public right-of-way.

(2) Vehicular drives or parking areas.

(3) Private patio areas, narrow strips between or in front of units;
or, in general, areas reserved for the exclusive use of
individual tenants.

(4) Required setback areas at the exterior boundaries of the site.

(5) Golf courses.

3. Perimeter standards: Setbacks for structures which are required at the
perimeter of a development. These standards shall apply only to lots which
are created by a subdivision or a project approved under the provisions of
Section 507. These standards shall not apply in the following circumstances:
when contiguous developments are to be developed using the same
development option with the same perimeter standards and are on the same
preliminary plat or are platted concurrently; when the perimeter of a
development is contiguous to a permanent open space, such as a natural
wash, hillside preserve, or existing golf course, the depth of which is at least
forty feet; or when the development was properly platted prior to September
13, 1981.

4. Building setback: The required separation of buildings from lot lines.

5. Maximum height: The maximum allowed height as measured from natural
grade which measurement shall be as in chapter 2

6. Lot coverage: The maximum area of a lot occupied by structures and open
projections as defined in chapter 2




Page 1077
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



7. Common areas: Required areas in a planned residential development to be
used and enjoyed by residents of a development and either improved in
accordance with the standards in chapter 2 or maintained in a natural state
as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

8. Allowed uses: Refer to the following tables for uses allowed in each district
and to chapter 2 for definitions of permitted uses.

9. Required review: Where a site plan is required, development shall be
according to Section 507 of this ordinance. Development on land for which
neither a subdivision nor a site plan has been approved shall be according
to standards in option (a), subdivision.

10 Required parking: The minimum number of off-street parking spaces to be
provided and which shall be according to Section 702.A.

11. Street standards: The class of street required to provide access to any
parcel or subdivided lot within a development.


ILLUSTRATIONS OF DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS




TABLE 610.A
R1-18 Development Option OPTIONS

(c)
(a) (b)
Standards Planned Residential
Subdivision Average Lot
Development

Minimum lot 130' width, 120' 90' width, 80' None
dimensions (width depth (Minimum depth
and depth) area 18,000 sq.
ft.)




Page 1078
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



TABLE 610.A
R1-18 Development Option OPTIONS

(c)
(a) (b)
Standards Planned Residential
Subdivision Average Lot
Development

Dwelling unit 1.95 1.95 2.05; 2.34 with bonus
density (units/gross
acre)

Perimeter standards None 30' front or rear, 20' adjacent to a public
10' side street STREET (2); this
area is to be in
common ownership
unless lots front on the
perimeter public street;
15' adjacent to
property line

Building setbacks 25' front, 30' rear, 25' front, 50' total 25' front
10' side front plus rear

Maximum height 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30'

Lot coverage 25% 30%, PLUS Primary structure, Primary structure, not
AN ADDITIONAL not including including attached
10% FOR AN attached shade shade structures: 25%
ADU AND/OR structures: 25% Total: 30%, PLUS AN
ATTACHED Total: 30%, PLUS ADDITIONAL 10%
SHADE AN ADDITIONAL FOR AN ADU AND/OR
STRUCTURES. 10% FOR AN ATTACHED SHADE
TOTAL: 40% ADU AND/OR STRUCTURES.
ATTACHED TOTAL: 40%
SHADE
STRUCTURES.
TOTAL: 40%


Common areas None None Minimum 5% of gross
area

Allowed uses Single-family Single-family Single-family attached;
DEVELOPMENT detached attached; plus (a) plus (a)




Page 1079
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



TABLE 610.A
R1-18 Development Option OPTIONS

(c)
(a) (b)
Standards Planned Residential
Subdivision Average Lot
Development

Required review Subdivision to Subdivision with Site plan per Section
create 4 or more building setbacks 507
lots

Street standards Public street Public street Public street or private
required accessway (2) (1)

(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for
extensions of street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue
partial dedications.

(2) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as
public street rights-of-way.

C. Reserved.

***
Section 611. R1-10 Single-Family Residence District.
Amend Chapter 6, Section 611 (R1-10 Single-Family Residence District) to read as
follows:

Section 611. R1-10 Single-Family Residence District.

A. Purpose. A basic purpose of these regulations is to foster the creation of living
areas which can assist the establishment of stable, functional neighborhoods. An
established pattern of living in this metropolitan area reflects a tradition of single-
family occupied dwellings which also emphasize outdoor living. Many of these
dwellings are thereby located on relatively large urban or suburban lots.

These regulations provide standards for dwellings built at low and moderate
densities. While the predominant housing type is expected to be single-family
dwelling, provisions are made for alternative housing types within the same density
limits.




Page 1080
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



B. District Regulations. The following tables establish standards to be used is IN the
R1-10 district. The definitions of terms used in these standards are found in
Section 608.D 608.I.

Table A. Single-Family Detached Development
R1-10 Development Options
TABLE 611.A
R-10 R1-10 Development Option OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum lot width (in the 75' minimum 45' minimum (unless
event of horizontal approved by either the
property regimes, "lot" design advisor or the
shall refer to the width of DESIGN REVIEW
the structure and exclusive COMMITTEE Single-
use area) Family Architectural
Appeals Board for
demonstrating enhanced
architecture that minimizes
the impact of the garage.
(see Section 507 Tab
A.2.12.1 B(2)(b) [sic]))

Minimum lot depth None, except 110' adjacent None, except 110' adjacent
to freeway or arterial to freeway or arterial

Dwelling unit density 3.0 3.5; 4.5 with bonus
(units/gross acre)

Minimum perimeter Front: 15'; Street STREET (2) (front,
building setbacks Rear: 15' (1-story), 20' (2- rear or side): 15' (in
story); addition to landscape
Side: 10' (1-story), 15' (2- setback);
story) Property line (rear): 15' (1-
story), 20' (2-story);
Property line (side): 10' (1-
story), 15' (2-story)




Page 1081
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



TABLE 611.A
R-10 R1-10 Development Option OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Common landscaped None 15' average, 10' minimum
setback adjacent to (Does not apply to lots
perimeter streets fronting onto perimeter
STREETS (2) streets)

Minimum interior building Front: 10'; rear: 10'; Front: 10'; rear: none
setbacks combined front and rear: (established by Building
35', street side: 10'; sides: Code); street side: 10';
13' total (3' minimum, sides: none (established by
unless 0') Building Code)

Minimum building 10' None
separation

Minimum garage setback 18' from back of sidewalk 18' from back of sidewalk
for front-loaded garages, for front-loaded garages,
10' from property line for 10' from property line for
side-loaded garages side-loaded garages

Maximum garage width For lots <60': 2 car widths, For lots <60': 2 car widths,
for lots ≥60' to 70': 3 car for lots ≥60' to 70': 3 car
widths, for lots >70': no widths, for lots >70': no
maximum maximum

Maximum height 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' (except
that 3 stories not
exceeding 30' are
permitted when approved
by the design advisor for
demonstrating enhanced
architecture)




Page 1082
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



TABLE 611.A
R-10 R1-10 Development Option OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Lot coverage Primary structure, not Primary structure, not
including attached shade including attached shade
structures: 40%Total: 50%, structures: 40% Total:
PLUS AN ADDITIONAL 50%, PLUS AN
10% FOR AN ADU ADDITIONAL 10% FOR
AND/OR ATTACHED AN ADU AND/OR
SHADE STRUCTURES. ATTACHED SHADE
TOTAL: 60% STRUCTURES. TOTAL:
60%

Common areas None Minimum 5% of gross area

Allowed uses Single-family detached Single-family detached
DEVELOPMENT DETACHED (3) DETACHED (3)

Required review Development review per Development review per
Section 507, and Section 507, and
subdivision to create 4 or subdivision to create 4 or
more lots more lots

Street standards Public street, or private Public street or private
street built to City accessway (1)
standards with a
homeowners’ association
established for
maintenance OR PRIVATE
ACCESSWAY (1)

On-lot and common Common retention Common retention
retention required for lots less than required for lots less than
8,000 sq. ft. per grading 8,000 sq. ft. per grading
and drainage ordinance and drainage ordinance
requirements requirements




Page 1083
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



TABLE 611.A
R-10 R1-10 Development Option OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Landscape standards Perimeter common: trees
spaced a maximum of 20
to 30 feet on center (based
on species) or in
equivalent groupings, and
5 shrubs per tree.

(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for
extensions of street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue
partial dedications.

(2) For single-family, detached development built or subdivided under the subdivision
option prior to June 2, 1999, refer to the subdivision option in table B. FOR
PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, CANAL RIGHTS-OF-WAY SHALL BE TREATED
THE SAME AS PUBLIC STREET RIGHTS-OF-WAY.

(3) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as
public street rights-of-way. FOR SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT
BUILT OR SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO JUNE 2, 1999, REFER TO THE
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF TABLE 611.B.

Table B. Single-Family Detached (Subdivided Prior to June 2, 1999), Single-Family
Attached and Multifamily Development




Page 1084
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



TABLE 611.B
R1-10 DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, AND
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO JUNE 2,
1999)

(c)
(a) (b)
Standards Planned Residential
Subdivision Average Lot
Development

Minimum lot 80' width, 94' 60' width, 65' None
dimensions (width depth depth
and depth) (Minimum area
10,000 sq. ft.)

Dwelling unit density 3.50 3.50 3.68; 4.20 with bonus
(units/gross acre)

Perimeter standards None 30' front, 25' rear, 20' adjacent to a
10' side public street STREET
(2); this area is to be in

common ownership
unless lots front on the
perimeter public
street; 15' adjacent to
property line

Building setbacks 25' front, 25' rear, 10' front, 35' front 10' front
10' and 3' side plus rear

Maximum height 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' for
first 150'; 1' in 5'
increase to 48' high
and 4 stories




Page 1085
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



TABLE 611.B
R1-10 DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, AND
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO JUNE 2,
1999)

(c)
(a) (b)
Standards Planned Residential
Subdivision Average Lot
Development

Lot coverage 40% 50%, PLUS Primary structure, Primary structure, not
AN ADDITIONAL not including including attached
10% FOR AN attached shade shade structures:
ADU AND/OR structures: 40%Total: 45%. 50%,
ATTACHED 40%Total: 45%. PLUS AN
SHADE 50%, PLUS AN ADDITIONAL 10%
STRUCTURES. ADDITIONAL FOR AN ADU
TOTAL: 60% 10% FOR AN AND/OR ATTACHED
ADU AND/OR SHADE
ATTACHED STRUCTURES.
SHADE TOTAL: 60%
STRUCTURES.
TOTAL: 60%

Common areas None None Minimum 5% of gross
area

Allowed uses Single-family Single-family Multiple-family
DEVELOPMENT detached attached; plus (a) MULTIFAMILY plus
DETACHED (3) (b)
AND DUPLEX

Required review Subdivision to Subdivision with Site plan per Section
create 4 or more building setbacks 507
lots

Street standards Public street Public street Public street or private
required accessway (2)(1)

(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for
extensions of street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue
partial dedications.




Page 1086
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



(2) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as
public street rights-of-way.

(3) THE ONLY SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENTS THAT THE
STANDARDS OF THIS TABLE APPLY TO ARE ONES BUILT OR SUBDIVIDED
PRIOR TO JUNE 2, 1999.

C. Reserved.

***
Section 612. R1-8 Single-Family Residence District.
Amend Chapter 6, Section 612 (R1-8 Single-Family Residence District) to read as
follows:

Section 612. R1-8 Single-Family Residence District.

A. Purpose. A basic purpose of these regulations is to foster the creation of living
areas which can assist the establishment of stable, functional neighborhoods. An
established pattern of living in this metropolitan area reflects a tradition of single-
family occupied dwellings which also emphasize outdoor living. Many of these
dwellings are thereby located on relatively large urban or suburban lots.

These regulations provide standards for dwellings built at low and moderate
densities. While the predominant housing type is expected to be single-family
dwelling, provisions are made for alternative housing types within the same density
limits.

B. District Regulations. The following tables establish standards to be used is IN the
R1-8 district. The definitions of terms used in these standards are found in Section
608.D 608.I.

Table A. Single-Family Detached Development




Page 1087
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



TABLE 612.A
R1-8 Development Option OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum lot width (in the event 65' minimum 45' minimum (unless
of horizontal property regimes, approved by either the
"lot" shall refer to the width of design advisor or the
the structure and exclusive use DESIGN REVIEW
area) COMMITTEE Single-
Family Architectural
Appeals Board for
demonstrating enhanced
architecture that
minimizes the impact of
the garage. (see Section
507 Tab A.2.12.1
B(2)(b) [sic]))

Minimum lot depth None, except 110' None, except 110'
adjacent to freeway or adjacent to freeway or
arterial arterial

Dwelling unit density 4.0 4.5; 5.5 with bonus
(units/gross acre)

Minimum perimeter building Front: 15'; Street STREET (2) (front,
setbacks Rear: 15' (1-story), 20' rear or side): 15' (in
(2-story); addition to landscape
Side: 10' (1-story), 15' setback);
(2-story) Property line (rear): 15'
(1-story), 20' (2-story);
Property line (side): 10'
(1-story), 15' (2-story)

Common landscaped setback None 15' average, 10'
adjacent to perimeter streets minimum (Does not
STREETS (2) apply to lots fronting
onto perimeter streets)




Page 1088
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



TABLE 612.A
R1-8 Development Option OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum interior building Front: 10'; rear: 10'; Front: 10'; rear: none
setbacks combined front and rear: (established by Building
35', street side: 10'; Code); street side: 10';
sides: 13' total (3' sides: none (established
minimum, unless 0') by Building Code)

Minimum building separation 10' None

Minimum garage setback 18' from back of 18' from back of
sidewalk for front-loaded sidewalk for front-loaded
garages, 10' from garages, 10' from
property line for side- property line for side-
loaded garages loaded garages

Maximum garage width For lots <60': 2 car For lots <60': 2 car
widths, for lots ≥60' to widths, for lots ≥60' to
70': 3 car widths, for lots 70': 3 car widths, for lots
>70': no maximum >70': no maximum

Maximum height 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' (except
that 3 stories not
exceeding 30' are
permitted when
approved by the design
advisor for
demonstrating enhanced
architecture)

Lot coverage Primary structure, not Primary structure, not
including attached including attached
shade structures: shade structures:
40%Total: 50%, PLUS 40%Total: 50%, PLUS
AN ADDITIONAL 10% AN ADDITIONAL 10%
FOR AN ADU AND/OR FOR AN ADU AND/OR
ATTACHED SHADE ATTACHED SHADE
STRUCTURES. STRUCTURES.
TOTAL: 60% TOTAL: 60%




Page 1089
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



TABLE 612.A
R1-8 Development Option OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Common areas None Minimum 5% of gross
area

Allowed uses DEVELOPMENT Single-family detached Single-family detached
DETACHED (3) DETACHED (3)

Required review Development review per Development review per
Section 507, and Section 507, and
subdivision to create 4 subdivision to create 4
or more lots or more lots

Street standards Public street, or private Public street or private
street built to City accessway (1)
standards with a
homeowners’
association established
for maintenance OR
PRIVATE ACCESSWAY
(1)


On-lot and common retention Common retention Common retention
required for lots less required for lots less
than 8,000 sq. ft. per than 8,000 sq. ft. per
grading and drainage grading and drainage
ordinance requirements ordinance requirements

Landscape standards Perimeter common:
trees spaced a
maximum of 20' to 30'
on center (based on
species) or in equivalent
groupings, and 5 shrubs
per tree.

(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for
extensions of street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue
partial dedications.



Page 1090
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023




(2) For single-family, detached development built or subdivided under the
subdivision option prior to June 2, 1999, refer to the subdivision option in table B.
FOR PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, CANAL RIGHTS-OF-WAY SHALL BE
TREATED THE SAME AS PUBLIC STREET RIGHTS-OF-WAY.

(3) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as
public street rights-of-way. FOR SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT
BUILT OR SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO JUNE 2, 1999, REFER TO THE
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF TABLE 612.B.

Table B. Single-Family Detached (Subdivided Prior to June 2, 1998), Single-Family
Attached and Multifamily Development




TABLE 612.B
R1-8 DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, AND
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO JUNE 2,
1999)

(c)
(a) (b)
Standards Planned Residential
Subdivision Average Lot
Development

Minimum lot 70' width, 94' depth 50' width, 65' None
dimensions (width (Minimum area depth
and depth) 8,000 sq. ft.)

Dwelling unit 4.30 4.30 4.52; 5.16 with bonus
density
(units/gross acre)




Page 1091
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



TABLE 612.B
R1-8 DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, AND
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO JUNE 2,
1999)

(c)
(a) (b)
Standards Planned Residential
Subdivision Average Lot
Development

Perimeter None 25' front or rear 20' adjacent to a
standards 10' side public street STREET
(2); this area is to be in

common ownership
unless lots front on
the perimeter public
street; 15' adjacent to
property line

Building setbacks 20' front, 25' rear, 10' front, 35' front 10' front
10' and 3' side plus rear

Maximum height 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' for
first 150'; 1' in 5'
increase to 48' high
and 4 stories

Lot coverage 40% 50%, PLUS AN Primary structure, Primary structure, not
ADDITIONAL 10% not including including attached
FOR AN ADU attached shade shade structures:
AND/OR structures: 40%Total: 45%. 50%,
ATTACHED SHADE 40%Total: 45%. PLUS AN
STRUCTURES. 50%, PLUS AN ADDITIONAL 10%
TOTAL: 60% ADDITIONAL FOR AN ADU
10% FOR AN AND/OR ATTACHED
ADU AND/OR SHADE
ATTACHED STRUCTURES.
SHADE TOTAL: 60%
STRUCTURES.
TOTAL: 60%

Common areas None None Minimum 5% of gross
area




Page 1092
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



TABLE 612.B
R1-8 DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, AND
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO JUNE 2,
1999)

(c)
(a) (b)
Standards Planned Residential
Subdivision Average Lot
Development

Allowed uses Single-family Single-family Multiple-family
DEVELOPMENT detached attached; plus (a) MULTIFAMILY plus
DETACHED (3) AND (b)
DUPLEX

Required review Subdivision to Subdivision with Site plan per Section
create 4 or more lots building setbacks 507

Street standards Public street Public street Public street or
required private accessway
(2)(1)



(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for
extensions of street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue
partial dedications.

(2) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as
public street rights-of-way.

(3) THE ONLY SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENTS THAT THE
STANDARDS OF THIS TABLE APPLY TO ARE ONES BUILT OR SUBDIVIDED
PRIOR TO JUNE 2, 1999.

C. Reserved.

***
Section 613. R1-6 Single-Family Residence District.
Amend Chapter 6, Section 613 (R1-6 Single-Family Residence District) to read as
follows:

Section 613. R1-6 Single-Family Residence District.




Page 1093
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



A. Purpose. A basic purpose of these regulations is to foster the creation of living
areas which can assist the establishment of stable, functional neighborhoods. An
established pattern of living in this metropolitan area reflects a tradition of single-
family occupied dwellings which also emphasize outdoor living. Many of these
dwellings are thereby located on relatively large urban or suburban lots.

These regulations provide standards for dwellings built at low and moderate
densities. While the predominant housing type is expected to be single-family
dwelling, provisions are made for alternative housing types within the same density
limits.

B. District Regulations. The following tables establish standards to be used in the
R1-6 district. The definitions of terms used in these standards are found in Section
608.D 608.I.

Table A. Single-Family, Detached Development
TABLE 613.A
R1-6 Development Option OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum lot width (in 55' minimum 45' minimum (unless
the event of horizontal approved by either the
property regimes, "lot" design advisor or the
shall refer to the width of DESIGN REVIEW
the structure and COMMITTEE Single-Family
exclusive use area) Architectural Appeals Board
for demonstrating enhanced
architecture that minimizes
the impact of the garage.
(see Section 507 Tab
A.2.12.1 B(2)(b) [sic]))

Minimum lot depth None, except 110' adjacent None, except 110' adjacent
to freeway or arterial to freeway or arterial

Dwelling unit density 5.0 5.5; 6.5 with bonus
(units/gross acre)




Page 1094
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



TABLE 613.A
R1-6 Development Option OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum perimeter Front: 15'; Street STREET (2) (front,
building setbacks Rear: 15' (1-story), 20' (2- rear or side): 15' (in addition
story); to landscape setback);
Side: 10' (1-story), 15' (2- Property line (rear): 15' (1-
story) story), 20' (2-story);
Property line (side): 10' (1-
story), 15' (2-story)

Common landscaped None 15' average, 10' minimum
setback adjacent to (Does not apply to lots
perimeter streets fronting onto perimeter
STREETS (2) streets)

Minimum interior Front: 10'; rear: 10'; Front: 10'; rear: none
building setbacks combined front and rear: (established by Building
35', street side: 10'; sides: Code); street side: 10';
13' total (3' minimum, unless sides: none (established by
0') Building Code)

Minimum building 10' None
separation

Minimum garage 18' from back of sidewalk for 18' from back of sidewalk for
setback front-loaded garages, 10' front-loaded garages, 10'
from property line for side- from property line for side-
loaded garages loaded garages

Maximum garage width For lots <60': 2 car widths, For lots <60': 2 car widths,
for lots ≥60' to 70': 3 car for lots ≥60' to 70': 3 car
widths, for lots >70': no widths, for lots >70': no
maximum maximum




Page 1095
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



TABLE 613.A
R1-6 Development Option OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Maximum height 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' (except
that 3 stories not exceeding
30' are permitted when
approved by the design
advisor for demonstrating
enhanced architecture)

Lot coverage Primary structure, not Primary structure, not
including attached shade including attached shade
structures: 40%Total: 50%, structures: 40%Total: 50%,
PLUS AN ADDITIONAL PLUS AN ADDITIONAL
10% FOR AN ADU AND/OR 10% FOR AN ADU AND/OR
ATTACHED SHADE ATTACHED SHADE
STRUCTURES. TOTAL: STRUCTURES. TOTAL:
60% 60%

Common areas None Minimum 5% of gross area

Allowed uses Single-family detached Single-family detached
DEVELOPMENT DETACHED (3) DETACHED (3)

Required review Development review per Development review per
Section 507, and Section 507, and
subdivision to create 4 or subdivision to create 4 or
more lots more lots

Street standards Public street, or private Public street or private
street built to City standards accessway (1)
with a homeowners’
association established for
maintenance OR PRIVATE
ACCESSWAY (1)

On-lot and common Common retention required Common retention required
retention for lots less than 8,000 sq. for lots less than 8,000 sq.
ft. per grading and drainage ft. per grading and drainage
ordinance requirements ordinance requirements




Page 1096
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



TABLE 613.A
R1-6 Development Option OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Landscape standards Perimeter common: trees
spaced a maximum of 20 to
30 feet on center (based on
species) or in equivalent
groupings, and 5 shrubs per
tree.

(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for
extensions of street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue
partial dedications.

(2) For single-family, detached development built or subdivided under the
subdivision option prior to May 1, 1998, refer to the subdivision option in table B.
FOR PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, CANAL RIGHTS-OF-WAY SHALL BE
TREATED THE SAME AS PUBLIC STREET RIGHTS-OF-WAY.

(3) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as
public street rights-of-way. FOR SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT
BUILT OR SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO MAY 1, 1998, REFER TO THE
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF TABLE 613.B

Table B. Single-Family Detached (Subdivided Prior to May 1, 1998), Single-Family
Attached and Multifamily Development




Page 1097
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



TABLE 613.B
R1-6 DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, AND
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO MAY 1,
1998)

(c)
(a) (b)
Standards Planned Residential
Subdivision(3) Average Lot
Development

Minimum lot 60' width, 94' depth 40' width, 60' None
dimensions (width (Minimum area depth
and depth) 6,000 sq. ft.)

Dwelling unit 5.30 5.30 5.54; 6.34 with bonus
density (units/gross
acre)

Perimeter None 25' front or rear 20' adjacent to a
standards 10' side public street STREET
(2); this area is to be in

common ownership
unless lots front on the
perimeter public
street; 15' adjacent to
property line

Building setbacks 20' front, 25' rear, 10' front, 35' front 10' front
10' and 3' side plus rear

Maximum height 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' for
first 150'; 1' in 5'
increase to 48' high
and 4 stories




Page 1098
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



TABLE 613.B
R1-6 DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, AND
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO MAY 1,
1998)

(c)
(a) (b)
Standards Planned Residential
Subdivision(3) Average Lot
Development

Lot coverage 40% 50%, PLUS Primary structure, Primary structure, not
AN ADDITIONAL not including including attached
10% FOR AN ADU attached shade shade structures:
AND/OR structures: 40%Total: 45%. 50%,
ATTACHED 40%Total: 45%. PLUS AN
SHADE 50%, PLUS AN ADDITIONAL 10%
STRUCTURES. ADDITIONAL FOR AN ADU
TOTAL: 60% 10% FOR AN AND/OR ATTACHED
ADU AND/OR SHADE
ATTACHED STRUCTURES.
SHADE TOTAL: 60%
STRUCTURES.
TOTAL: 60%

Common areas None None Minimum 5% of gross
area(3) AREA

Allowed uses Single-family Single-family Multiple-family
DEVELOPMENT detached attached; PLUS MULTIFAMILY and
DETACHED (3) (a) single-family attached
AND DUPLEX PLUS (b)

Required review Subdivision to Subdivision with Development review
create 4 or more building setbacks per Section 507
lots

Street standards Public street Public street Public street or private
required accessway (2)(1)

(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for
extensions of street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue
partial dedications.




Page 1099
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



(2) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as
public street rights-of-way.

(3) These standards apply only to single-family, detached development built or
subdivided under the subdivision option prior to May 1, 1998. THE ONLY
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENTS THAT THE STANDARDS OF
THIS TABLE APPLY TO ARE ONES BUILT OR SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO MAY
1, 1998.

C. Reserved.

***
Section 614. R-2 Multifamily Residence District.
Amend Chapter 6, Section 614 (R-2 Multifamily Residence District) to read as
follows:

Section 614. R-2 Multifamily Residence District.

***

B. District Regulations. The following tables establish standards to be used in the R-
2 district. The definitions of terms used in these standards are found in Section
608.I. The single-family attached INFILL development option must meet Section
608.F.6 requirements.

Table A. Single-Family, Detached Development(2)




Page 1100
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



TABLE 614.A
R-2 Development Option OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum lot width (in the 55' minimum 45' minimum (unless
event of horizontal approved by either the
property regimes, "lot" design advisor or the
shall refer to the width of DESIGN REVIEW
the structure and COMMITTEE Single-
exclusive use area) Family Architectural
Appeals Board for
demonstrating enhanced
architecture that minimizes
the impact of the garage.
(see Section 507 Tab
A.2.12.1 B(2)(b) [sic]))

Minimum lot depth None, except 110' adjacent None, except 110' adjacent
to freeway or arterial to freeway or arterial

Dwelling unit density 5.0 6.5; 12 with bonus
(units/gross acre)

Minimum perimeter Front: 15'; Rear: 15' (1- Street STREET (2) (front,
building setbacks story), 20' (2-story); Side: rear or side): 15' (in
10' (1-story), 15' (2-story) addition to landscape
setback);
Property line (rear): 15' (1-
story), 20' (2-story);
Property line (side): 10' (1-
story), 15' (2-story)

Common landscaped None 15' average, 10' minimum
setback adjacent to (Does not apply to lots
perimeter streets fronting onto perimeter
STREETS (2) streets)




Page 1101
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



TABLE 614.A
R-2 Development Option OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum interior building Front: 10'; rear: 10'; Front: 10'; rear: none
setbacks combined front and rear: (established by Building
35', street side: 10'; sides: Code); street side: 10';
13' total (3' minimum, sides: none (established by
unless 0') Building Code)

Minimum building 10' None
separation

Minimum garage setback 18' from back of sidewalk 18' from back of sidewalk
for front-loaded garages, for front-loaded garages,
10' from property line for 10' from property line for
side-loaded garages side-loaded garages

Maximum garage width For lots <60': 2 car widths, For lots <60': 2 car widths,
for lots ≥60' to 70': 3 car for lots ≥60' to 70': 3 car
widths, for lots >70': no widths, for lots >70': no
maximum maximum

Maximum height 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' (except
that 3 stories not exceeding
30' are permitted when
approved by the design
advisor for demonstrating
enhanced architecture)

Lot coverage Primary structure, not Primary structure, not
including attached shade including attached shade
structures: 40%Total: 50%, structures: 40%Total: 50%,
PLUS AN ADDITIONAL PLUS AN ADDITIONAL
10% FOR AN ADU 10% FOR AN ADU
AND/OR ATTACHED AND/OR ATTACHED
SHADE STRUCTURES. SHADE STRUCTURES.
TOTAL: 60% TOTAL: 60%

Common areas None Minimum 5% of gross area




Page 1102
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



TABLE 614.A
R-2 Development Option OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Allowed uses Single-family detached Single-family detached
DEVELOPMENT DETACHED (3) DETACHED (3)

Required review Development review per Development review per
Section 507, and Section 507, and
subdivision to create 4 or subdivision to create 4 or
more lots more lots

Street standards Public street, or private Public street or private
street built to City accessway (1)
standards with a
homeowners’ association
established for
maintenance OR PRIVATE
ACCESSWAY (1)

On-lot and common Common retention required Common retention required
retention for lots less than 8,000 sq. for lots less than 8,000 sq.
ft. per grading and drainage ft. per grading and drainage
ordinance requirements ordinance requirements

Landscape standards Perimeter common: trees
spaced a maximum of 20 to
30 feet on center (based on
species) or in equivalent
groupings, and 5 shrubs
per tree.

(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for
extensions of street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue
partial dedications.

(2) For single-family, detached development built or subdivided under the
subdivision option prior to May 1, 1998, refer to the subdivision option in table B.
FOR PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, CANAL RIGHTS-OF-WAY SHALL BE
TREATED THE SAME AS PUBLIC STREET RIGHTS-OF-WAY.




Page 1103
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023




(3) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as
public street rights-of-way. FOR SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT
BUILT OR SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO MAY 1, 1998, REFER TO THE
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF TABLE 614.B

Table B. Single-Family Detached (Subdivided Prior to May 1, 1998), Single-Family
Attached and Multifamily Development




TABLE 614.B
R-2 Development Options
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, AND
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO MAY
1,1998)

(c) (d)
(a)
(b) Planned Single-Family
Standards Subdivision(2
) Average Lot Residential Attached (3)
Development INFILL (4)

Minimum lot 60' width, 94' 40' width, 50' None Development
dimensions depth depth site: none.
(width and Individual
depth) dwelling lot:
20'.

Dwelling unit 10.0 10.0 10.50; 12.00 10.50; 12.00
density with bonus with bonus
(units/gross
acre)




Page 1104
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



TABLE 614.B
R-2 Development Options
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, AND
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO MAY
1,1998)

(c) (d)
(a)
(b) Planned Single-Family
Standards Subdivision(2
) Average Lot Residential Attached (3)
Development INFILL (4)

Perimeter None 20' front, 15' 20' adjacent to 10' for units
standards rear, 10' side a public street; fronting street
this area is to rights-of-way;
be in common 15' for units
ownership siding street
unless lots front rights-of-way.
on the This area is to
perimeter be in common
public street ownership or
STREET (2); 10' management.
15’ adjacent to 10' adjacent to
property line property line.

Building 25' front, 25' 10' front, 35' 10' front Individual unit
setbacks rear, 10' and front plus rear lot: none
3' side

Maximum height 2 stories and 2 stories and 2 stories and 3 stories or
30'* 30’ (5) 30'* 30’ (5) 30' for first 150'; AND 40' for
1' in 5' increase first 150'; 1' in
to 48' high 1' increase to
HEIGHT, and 48' height, 4-
4- stories* story
STORY maximum*
MAXIMUM (5) MAXIMUM (6)




Page 1105
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



TABLE 614.B
R-2 Development Options
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, AND
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO MAY
1,1998)

(c) (d)
(a)
(b) Planned Single-Family
Standards Subdivision(2
) Average Lot Residential Attached (3)
Development INFILL (4)

Lot coverage 40% 50%, 45% 50%, 45% 50%, 100% FOR
PLUS AN PLUS AN PLUS AN EACH
ADDITIONAL ADDITIONAL ADDITIONAL INDIVIDUAL
10% FOR AN 10% FOR AN 10% FOR AN LOT. 50%
ADU AND/OR ADU AND/OR ADU AND/OR FOR OTHER
ATTACHED ATTACHED ATTACHED PARCELS OR
SHADE SHADE SHADE TRACTS
STRUCTURE STRUCTURE STRUCTURES WITH
S. TOTAL: S. TOTAL: . TOTAL: 60% ACCESSORY
60% 60% STRUCTURE
S.

Common areas None None Minimum 5% of Minimum 5%
gross area (2) of gross area
(2)


Allowed uses Single-family Single-family Single-family Single-family
DEVELOPMENT DETACHED DETACHED (3), DETACHED (3), attached and
(3), SINGLE- SINGLE- SINGLE- SINGLE-
FAMILY FAMILY FAMILY FAMILY
attached, and attached, and attached, and DETACHED
multifamily multifamily multifamily (PER THE
PROVISIONS
OF 608.F.6
ONLY) home
occupations
per Section

Required review Subdivision to Subdivision Development Development
create 4 or with building review per review per
more lots setbacks Section 507 Section 507




Page 1106
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



TABLE 614.B
R-2 Development Options
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, AND
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO MAY
1,1998)

(c) (d)
(a)
(b) Planned Single-Family
Standards Subdivision(2
) Average Lot Residential Attached (3)
Development INFILL (4)

Street standards Public street Public street Public street or Development
required private site: public
accessway street,
ACCESSWAY PUBLIC
(1) ALLEY, or
private
accessway.
Individual unit
lot: private
accessway,
alley right-of-
way or
driveway OR
PRIVATE
DRIVE (1).

* There shall be a 15-foot maximum height within ten feet of a single-family zoned
district, which height may be increased one foot for each additional one foot of
building setback to the maximum permitted height.

(1) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as public
street rights-of-way. PUBLIC STREETS MAY BE REQUIRED AS A PART
OF SUBDIVISION OR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR EXTENSIONS OF STREET
PATTERNS, FOR CIRCULATION WITHIN NEIGHBORHOODS, OR TO
CONTINUE PARTIAL DEDICATIONS.

(2) These standards also apply to single-family, detached development built or
subdivided under the subdivision option prior to May 1, 1998. FOR PURPOSES
OF THIS SECTION, CANAL RIGHTS-OF-WAY SHALL BE TREATED THE SAME
AS PUBLIC STREET RIGHTS-OF-WAY.




Page 1107
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



(3) The single-family attached development option must meet Section 608.F.8
requirements. THE ONLY SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENTS THAT
THE STANDARDS OF THIS TABLE APPLY TO ARE ONES BUILT OR
SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO MAY 1, 1998.

(4) THE SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL DEVELOPMENT OPTION MUST COMPLY WITH
THE ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS PROVIDED IN SECTION
608.F.6.

(5) THERE SHALL BE A 15-FOOT MAXIMUM HEIGHT WITHIN TEN FEET OF A
SINGLE-FAMILY ZONED DISTRICT, WHICH HEIGHT MAY BE INCREASED ONE
FOOT FOR EACH ADDITIONAL ONE FOOT OF BUILDING SETBACK TO THE
MAXIMUM PERMITTED HEIGHT.




Page 1108
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023




C. Special Regulations

1. A site plan in accordance with Section 507 is required for all development in
the R-2, R-3, R-3A, R-4, R-4A and R-5 districts except when the
development consists of single-family dwellings on individual lots.

2. Reserved.

***
Section 615. R-3 Multifamily Residence District.
Amend Chapter 6, Section 615 (R-3 Multifamily Residence District) to read as
follows:

Section 615. R-3 Multifamily Residence District.

***

B. District Regulations. The following tables establish standards to be used in the R-
3 district. The definitions of terms used in these standards are found in Section




Page 1109
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



608.I. The single-family attached INFILL development option must meet Section
608.F.6 requirements.

Table A. Single-Family Development(2)
TABLE 615.A
R-3 Development Option OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum lot width (in the 55' minimum 45' minimum (unless
event of horizontal approved by either the
property regimes, "lot" design advisor or the
shall refer to the width of DESIGN REVIEW
the structure and COMMITTEE Single-Family
exclusive use area) Architectural Appeals Board
for demonstrating enhanced
architecture that minimizes
the impact of the garage.
(see Section 507 Tab
A.2.12.1 B(2)(b) [sic]))

Minimum lot depth None, except 110' adjacent None, except 110' adjacent
to freeway or arterial to freeway or arterial

Dwelling unit density 5.0 6.5; 12 with bonus
(units/gross acre)

Minimum perimeter Front: 15'; Rear: 15' (1- Street STREET (2) (front,
building setbacks story), 20' (2-story); Side: rear or side): 15' (in addition
10' (1-story), 15' (2-story) to landscape setback);
Property line (rear): 15' (1-
story), 20' (2-story);
Property line (side): 10' (1-
story), 15' (2-story)

Common landscaped None 15' average, 10' minimum
setback adjacent to (Does not apply to lots
perimeter streets fronting onto perimeter
STREETS (2) streets)




Page 1110
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



TABLE 615.A
R-3 Development Option OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum interior Front: 10'; rear: 10'; Front: 10'; rear: none
building setbacks combined front and rear: (established by Building
35', street side: 10'; sides: Code); street side: 10';
13' total (3' minimum, sides: none (established by
unless 0') Building Code)

Minimum building 10' None
separation

Minimum garage 18' from back of sidewalk 18' from back of sidewalk
setback for front-loaded garages, 10' for front-loaded garages, 10'
from property line for side- from property line for side-
loaded garages loaded garages

Maximum garage width For lots <60': 2 car widths, For lots <60': 2 car widths,
for lots ≥60' to 70': 3 car for lots ≥60' to 70': 3 car
widths, for lots >70': no widths, for lots >70': no
maximum maximum

Maximum height 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' (except
that 3 stories not exceeding
30' are permitted when
approved by the design
advisor for demonstrating
enhanced architecture)

Lot coverage Primary structure, not Primary structure, not
including attached shade including attached shade
structures: 40%Total: 50%, structures: 40%Total: 50%,
PLUS AN ADDITIONAL PLUS AN ADDITIONAL
10% FOR AN ADU 10% FOR AN ADU
AND/OR ATTACHED AND/OR ATTACHED
SHADE STRUCTURES. SHADE STRUCTURES.
TOTAL: 60% TOTAL: 60%

Common areas None Minimum 5% of gross area




Page 1111
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



TABLE 615.A
R-3 Development Option OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Allowed uses Single-family detached Single-family detached
DEVELOPMENT DETACHED (3) DETACHED (3)

Required review Development review per Development review per
Section 507, and Section 507, and
subdivision to create 4 or subdivision to create 4 or
more lots more lots

Street standards Public street, or private Public street or private
street built to City standards accessway (1)
with a homeowners’
association established for
maintenance OR PRIVATE
ACCESSWAY (1)

On-lot and common Common retention required Common retention required
retention for lots less than 8,000 sq. for lots less than 8,000 sq.
ft. per grading and drainage ft. per grading and drainage
ordinance requirements ordinance requirements

Landscape standards Perimeter common: trees
spaced a maximum of 20 to
30 feet on center (based on
species) or in equivalent
groupings, and 5 shrubs per
tree.

(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for
extensions of street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue
partial dedications.

(2) For single-family, detached development built or subdivided under the
subdivision option prior to May 1, 1998, refer to the subdivision option in table B.
FOR PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, CANAL RIGHTS-OF-WAY SHALL BE
TREATED THE SAME AS PUBLIC STREET RIGHTS-OF-WAY.




Page 1112
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



(3) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as
public street rights-of-way. FOR SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT
BUILT OR SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO MAY 1, 1998, REFER TO THE
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF TABLE 615.B

Table B. Single-Family (Subdivided Prior to May 1, 1998), Single-Family Attached
and Multifamily Development




TABLE 615.B
R-3 Development Options
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, AND
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO MAY 1,
1998)

(c) (d)
(a) (b) Planned Single-Family
Standards
Subdivision(2) Average Lot Residential Attached (3)
Development INFILL (4)

Minimum lot 60' width, 94' 40' width, 50' None Individual unit
dimensions depth depth lot: 20' width,
(width and no minimum
depth) depth

Dwelling unit 14.5 14.5 15.23; 17.40 15.23; 17.40
density with bonus with bonus
(units/gross
acre)




Page 1113
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



TABLE 615.B
R-3 Development Options
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, AND
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO MAY 1,
1998)

(c) (d)
(a) (b) Planned Single-Family
Standards
Subdivision(2) Average Lot Residential Attached (3)
Development INFILL (4)

Perimeter None 20' front, 15' 20' adjacent to 10' for units
standards rear, 10' side a public street; fronting street
this area is to rights-of-way;
be in common 15' for units
ownership siding street
unless lots rights-of-way.
front on the This area is to
perimeter be in common
public street ownership or
STREET (2); 15' management.
adjacent to 10' adjacent to
property line property line.

Building 25' front, 15' 10' front, 30' 10' front Individual unit
setbacks rear, 10' and 3' front plus rear lot: none
side

Maximum 2 stories and 2 stories and 2 stories and 3 stories or
height 30'* 30’ (5) 30'* 30’ (5) 30' for first AND 40' for
150'; 1' in 5' first 150'; 1' in
increase to 48' 1' increase to
high HEIGHT, 48' height, 4-
and 4- stories* story
STORY maximum*
MAXIMUM (5) MAXIMUM (6)




Page 1114
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



TABLE 615.B
R-3 Development Options
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, AND
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO MAY 1,
1998)

(c) (d)
(a) (b) Planned Single-Family
Standards
Subdivision(2) Average Lot Residential Attached (3)
Development INFILL (4)

Lot coverage 40% 50%, 45% 50%, 45% 50%, 100% FOR
PLUS AN PLUS AN PLUS AN EACH
ADDITIONAL ADDITIONAL ADDITIONAL INDIVIDUAL
10% FOR AN 10% FOR AN 10% FOR AN LOT. 50%
ADU AND/OR ADU AND/OR ADU AND/OR FOR OTHER
ATTACHED ATTACHED ATTACHED PARCELS OR
SHADE SHADE SHADE TRACTS
STRUCTURE STRUCTURE STRUCTURE WITH
S. TOTAL: S. TOTAL: S. TOTAL: ACCESSORY
60% 60% 60% STRUCTURE
S.

Common areas None None Minimum 5% Minimum 5%
of gross area of gross area
(2)


Allowed uses Single-family Single-family Single-family Single-family
DEVELOPMEN DETACHED (3), DETACHED (3), DETACHED (3), attached and
T SINGLE- SINGLE- SINGLE- SINGLE-
FAMILY FAMILY FAMILY FAMILY
attached, and attached, and attached, and DETACHED
multifamily multifamily multifamily (PER THE
PROVISIONS
OF 608.F.6
ONLY) home
occupations
per Section

Required review Subdivision to Subdivision Development Development
create 4 or with building review per review per
more lots setbacks Section 507 Section 507




Page 1115
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



TABLE 615.B
R-3 Development Options
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, AND
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO MAY 1,
1998)

(c) (d)
(a) (b) Planned Single-Family
Standards
Subdivision(2) Average Lot Residential Attached (3)
Development INFILL (4)

Street Public street Public street Public street or Development
standards required private site: public
accessway street, PUBLIC
ACCESSWAY ALLEY, or
(1) private
accessway.
Individual unit
lot: private
accessway,
alley right-of-
way or
driveway OR
PRIVATE
DRIVE (1).

* There shall be a 15-foot maximum height within ten feet of a single-family zoned
district, which height may be increased one foot for each additional one foot of
building setback to the maximum permitted height.

(1) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as
public street rights-of-way. PUBLIC STREETS MAY BE REQUIRED AS A PART
OF SUBDIVISION OR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR EXTENSIONS OF
STREET PATTERNS, FOR CIRCULATION WITHIN NEIGHBORHOODS, OR
TO CONTINUE PARTIAL DEDICATIONS.

(2) These standards also apply to single-family, detached development built or
subdivided under the subdivision option prior to May 1, 1998. FOR PURPOSES
OF THIS SECTION, CANAL RIGHTS-OF-WAY SHALL BE TREATED THE
SAME AS PUBLIC STREET RIGHTS-OF-WAY.




Page 1116
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



(3) The single-family attached development option must meet Section 608.F.8
requirements. THE ONLY SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENTS
THAT THE STANDARDS OF THIS TABLE APPLY TO ARE ONES BUILT OR
SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO MAY 1, 1998.

(4) THE SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL DEVELOPMENT OPTION MUST COMPLY WITH
THE ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS PROVIDED IN SECTION
608.F.6.

(5) THERE SHALL BE A 15-FOOT MAXIMUM HEIGHT WITHIN TEN FEET OF A
SINGLE-FAMILY ZONED DISTRICT, WHICH HEIGHT MAY BE INCREASED
ONE FOOT FOR EACH ADDITIONAL ONE FOOT OF BUILDING SETBACK TO
THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED HEIGHT.




C. Special Regulations

1. Adult day care home for the care of one to four adult persons; provided, that:




Page 1117
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



a. Outdoor recreation areas shall be screened from adjacent properties
by a six-foot-high landscape hedge, solid fence, or solid wall.

2. Boarding house, subject to a use permit and the following conditions:

a. 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.

b. No boarding house 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 boarding house, group home, or community
residence home or center within a residential zoning district.

c. A maximum lot coverage of 25 percent.

d. A minimum of 100 square feet of usable outdoor open space per
bed shall be provided.

e. The lot shall only have vehicular access from an arterial or
collector street.

3. Community residence center, subject to a use permit and the following
conditions:

a. Such center 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.

b. No community residence center 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 or
center within a residential zoning district.

c. Disability accommodation from the spacing requirement may be
requested by an applicant per Section 701.E.3.

d. A maximum lot coverage of 25 percent.

e. A minimum of 100 square feet of usable outdoor open space per bed
shall be provided.




Page 1118
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023




f. The lot shall only have vehicular access from an arterial or collector
street.

4. Group home, subject to a use permit and the following conditions:

a. 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.

b. No group 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 group home, boarding house, or community residence
home or center within a residential zoning district.

c. A maximum lot coverage of 25 percent.

d. A minimum of 100 square feet of usable outdoor open space per bed
shall be provided.

e. The lot shall only have vehicular access from an arterial or collector
street.

5. Group foster home, subject to a use permit.

6. Dormitories and convents shall be permitted as accessory uses to churches
or similar places of worship.

7. A site plan in accordance with Section 507 is required for all development in
the R-2, R-3, R-3A, R-4, R-4A and R-5 districts except when the
development consists of single-family dwellings on individual lots.

8. Dependent care facility for 13 or more dependents and schools for the
mentally or physically handicapped subject to securing a use permit
pursuant to Section 307.

***
Section 616. R-3A Multifamily Residence District.
Amend Chapter 6, Section 616 (R-3A Multifamily Residence District) to read as
follows:

Section 616. R-3A Multifamily Residence District.




Page 1119
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023




***

B. District Regulations. The following tables establish standards to be used in the R-
3A district. The definitions of terms used in these standards are found in Section
608.I. The single-family attached INFILL development option must meet Section
608.F.6 requirements.

Table A. Single-Family Development(2)
TABLE 616.A
R-3A Development Option OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum lot width (in the 55' minimum 45' minimum (unless
event of horizontal approved by either the
property regimes, "lot" design advisor or the
shall refer to the width of DESIGN REVIEW
the structure and exclusive COMMITTEE Single-
use area) Family Architectural
Appeals Board for
demonstrating enhanced
architecture that minimizes
the impact of the garage.
(see Section 507 Tab
A.2.12.1 B(2)(b) [sic]))

Minimum lot depth None, except 110' adjacent None, except 110' adjacent
to freeway or arterial to freeway or arterial

Dwelling unit density 5.0 6.5; 12 with bonus
(units/gross acre)

Minimum perimeter Front: 15'; Street STREET (2) (front,
building setbacks Rear: 15' (1-story), 20' (2- rear or side): 15' (in
story); addition to landscape
Side: 10' (1-story), 15' (2- setback);
story) Property line (rear): 15' (1-
story), 20' (2-story);
Property line (side): 10' (1-
story), 15' (2-story)




Page 1120
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



TABLE 616.A
R-3A Development Option OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Common landscaped None 15' average, 10' minimum
setback adjacent to (Does not apply to lots
perimeter streets fronting onto perimeter
STREETS (2) streets)

Minimum interior building Front: 10'; rear: 10'; Front: 10'; rear: none
setbacks combined front and rear: (established by Building
35', street side: 10'; sides: Code); street side: 10';
13' total (3' minimum, sides: none (established
unless 0') by Building Code)

Minimum building 10' None
separation

Minimum garage setback 18' from back of sidewalk 18' from back of sidewalk
for front-loaded garages, for front-loaded garages,
10' from property line for 10' from property line for
side-loaded garages side-loaded garages

Maximum garage width For lots <60': 2 car widths, For lots <60': 2 car widths,
for lots ≥60' to 70': 3 car for lots ≥60' to 70': 3 car
widths, for lots >70': no widths, for lots >70': no
maximum maximum

Maximum height 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' (except
that 3 stories not
exceeding 30' are
permitted when approved
by the design advisor for
demonstrating enhanced
architecture)




Page 1121
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



TABLE 616.A
R-3A Development Option OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Lot coverage Primary structure, not Primary structure, not
including attached shade including attached shade
structures: 40%Total: 50%, structures: 40%Total: 50%,
PLUS AN ADDITIONAL PLUS AN ADDITIONAL
10% FOR AN ADU 10% FOR AN ADU
AND/OR ATTACHED AND/OR ATTACHED
SHADE STRUCTURES. SHADE STRUCTURES.
TOTAL: 60% TOTAL: 60%

Common areas None Minimum 5% of gross area

Allowed uses Single-family detached Single-family detached
DEVELOPMENT DETACHED (3) DETACHED (3)

Required review Development review per Development review per
Section 507, and Section 507, and
subdivision to create 4 or subdivision to create 4 or
more lots more lots

Street standards Public street, or private Public street or private
street built to City accessway (1)
standards with a
homeowners’ association
established for
maintenance OR PRIVATE
ACCESSWAY (1)

On-lot and common Common retention Common retention
retention required for lots less than required for lots less than
8,000 sq. ft. per grading 8,000 sq. ft. per grading
and drainage ordinance and drainage ordinance
requirements requirements




Page 1122
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



TABLE 616.A
R-3A Development Option OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Landscape standards Perimeter common: trees
spaced a maximum of 20
to 30 feet on center (based
on species) or in
equivalent groupings, and
5 shrubs per tree.

(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for
extensions of street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue
partial dedications.

(2) For single-family, detached development built or subdivided under the
subdivision option prior to May 1, 1998, refer to the subdivision option in table B.
FOR PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, CANAL RIGHTS-OF-WAY SHALL BE
TREATED THE SAME AS PUBLIC STREET RIGHTS-OF-WAY.

(3) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as
public street rights-of-way. FOR SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT
BUILT OR SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO MAY 1, 1998, REFER TO THE
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF TABLE 616.B

Table B. Single-Family (Subdivided Prior to May 1, 1998), Single-Family Attached
and Multifamily Development




Page 1123
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



TABLE 616.B
R-3A Development Options
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, AND
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO MAY 1,
1998)

(c) (d)
(a) (b) Planned Single-Family
Standards
Subdivision(2) Average Lot Residential Attached (3)
Development INFILL (4)

Minimum lot 60' width, 94' 40' width, 50' None Individual unit
dimensions depth depth lot: 20' width,
(width and no minimum
depth) depth

Dwelling unit 22 22 23.1; 26.4 with 23.1; 26.4 with
density bonus bonus
(units/gross
acre)

Perimeter None 20' front, 15' 20' adjacent to 10' for units
standards rear, 10' side a public street; fronting street
this area is to rights-of-way;
be in common 15' for units
ownership siding street
unless lots rights-of-way.
front on the This area is to
perimeter be in common
public street ownership or
STREET (2); 15' management.
adjacent to 10' adjacent to
property line property line

Building 25' front, 15' 10' front, 30' 10' front Individual unit
setbacks rear, 10' and 3' front plus rear lot: none
side




Page 1124
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



TABLE 616.B
R-3A Development Options
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, AND
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO MAY 1,
1998)

(c) (d)
(a) (b) Planned Single-Family
Standards
Subdivision(2) Average Lot Residential Attached (3)
Development INFILL (4)

Maximum 3 stories or 3 stories or 3 stories or 40' 3 stories or 40'
height 40'* 40’(5) 40'* 40’(5) for 150'; 1' in 5' for first 150'; 1'
increase to 48' in 1' increase
HEIGHT, 4- to 48' height,
story maximum 4-story
(5) maximum*
MAXIMUM (6)

Lot coverage 40% 50%, 45% 50%, 45% 50%, 100% FOR
PLUS AN PLUS AN PLUS AN EACH
ADDITIONAL ADDITIONAL ADDITIONAL INDIVIDUAL
10% FOR AN 10% FOR AN 10% FOR AN LOT. 50%
ADU AND/OR ADU AND/OR ADU AND/OR FOR OTHER
ATTACHED ATTACHED ATTACHED PARCELS OR
SHADE SHADE SHADE TRACTS
STRUCTURE STRUCTURE STRUCTURE WITH
S. TOTAL: S. TOTAL: S. TOTAL: ACCESSORY
60% 60% 60% STRUCTURE
S.

Common areas None None Minimum 5% Minimum 5%
of gross area of gross area
(2)




Page 1125
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



TABLE 616.B
R-3A Development Options
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, AND
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO MAY 1,
1998)

(c) (d)
(a) (b) Planned Single-Family
Standards
Subdivision(2) Average Lot Residential Attached (3)
Development INFILL (4)

Allowed uses Single-family Single-family Single-family Single-family
DEVELOPMEN DETACHED (3), DETACHED (3), DETACHED (3), attached and
T SINGLE- SINGLE- SINGLE- SINGLE-
FAMILY FAMILY FAMILY FAMILY
attached, and attached, and attached, and DETACHED
multifamily multifamily multifamily (PER THE
PROVISIONS
OF 608.F.6
ONLY) home
occupations
per Section

Required review Subdivision to Subdivision Development Development
create 4 or with building review per review per
more lots setbacks Section 507 Section 507

Street Public street Public street Public street or Development
standards required private site: public
accessway street, PUBLIC
ACCESSWAY ALLEY, or
(1) private
accessway.
Individual unit
lot: private
accessway,
alley right-of-
way or
driveway OR
PRIVATE
DRIVE (1).




Page 1126
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



* There shall be a 15-foot maximum height within ten feet of a single-family zoned
district, which height may be increased one foot for each additional one foot of
building setback to the maximum permitted height.

(1) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as
public street rights-of-way. PUBLIC STREETS MAY BE REQUIRED AS A PART
OF SUBDIVISION OR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR EXTENSIONS OF
STREET PATTERNS, FOR CIRCULATION WITHIN NEIGHBORHOODS, OR
TO CONTINUE PARTIAL DEDICATIONS.

(2) These standards also apply to single-family, detached development built or
subdivided under the subdivision option prior to May 1, 1998. FOR PURPOSES
OF THIS SECTION, CANAL RIGHTS-OF-WAY SHALL BE TREATED THE
SAME AS PUBLIC STREET RIGHTS-OF-WAY.

(3) The single-family attached development option must meet Section 608.F.8
requirements. THE ONLY SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENTS
THAT THE STANDARDS OF THIS TABLE APPLY TO ARE ONES BUILT OR
SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO MAY 1, 1998.

(4) THE SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL DEVELOPMENT OPTION MUST COMPLY WITH
THE ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS PROVIDED IN SECTION
608.F.6.

(5) THERE SHALL BE A 15-FOOT MAXIMUM HEIGHT WITHIN TEN FEET OF A
SINGLE-FAMILY ZONED DISTRICT, WHICH HEIGHT MAY BE INCREASED
ONE FOOT FOR EACH ADDITIONAL ONE FOOT OF BUILDING SETBACK TO
THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED HEIGHT.




Page 1127
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023




C. Special Regulations

1. Adult day care center, subject to a use permit; and provided, that:

a. Outdoor recreation areas shall be screened from adjacent properties
by a six-foot-high landscape hedge, solid fence, or solid wall.

2. Boarding house, subject to a use permit and the following conditions:

a. 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.

b. No boarding house 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 boarding house, group home, or community
residence home or center within a residential zoning district.




Page 1128
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



c. A maximum lot coverage of 25 percent.

d. A minimum of 100 square feet of usable outdoor open space per
bed shall be provided.

e. The lot shall only have vehicular access from an arterial or
collector street.

3. Community residence center, subject to a use permit and the following
conditions:

a. Such center 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.

b. No community residence center 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 or
center within a residential zoning district.

c. Disability accommodation from the spacing requirement may be
requested by an applicant per Section 701.E.3.

d. A maximum lot coverage of 25 percent.

e. A minimum of 100 square feet of usable outdoor open space per bed
shall be provided.

f. The lot shall only have vehicular access from an arterial or collector
street.

4. Group home, subject to a use permit and the following conditions:

a. 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.

b. No group 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 group home, boarding house, or community residence
home or center within a residential zoning district.




Page 1129
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023




c. A maximum lot coverage of 25 percent.

d. A minimum of 100 square feet of usable outdoor open space per bed
shall be provided.

e. The lot shall only have vehicular access from an arterial or collector
street.

5. Group foster home, subject to a use permit.

6. Dormitories and convents shall be permitted as accessory uses to churches
or similar places of worship.

7. A site plan in accordance with Section 507 is required for all development in
the R-2, R-3, R-3A, R-4, R-4A and R-5 districts except when the
development consists of single-family dwellings on individual lots.

8. A residential convenience market is permitted as an accessory use to a
multiple-family development, subject to the following conditions:

a. Signage shall be allowed only as part of a Comprehensive Sign Plan
pursuant to Section 705. The Zoning Administrator may approve wall
mounted signage up to a maximum height of 30 feet as part of an
approved Comprehensive Sign Plan.

b. The development shall contain a minimum of 400 dwelling units.

c. The market shall not exceed 1,000 square feet in total floor area
(display and storage) if the development contains less than 850
dwelling units. The market shall not exceed 3,000 square feet in total
floor area (display and storage) if the development contains 850 or
more dwelling units.

d. No parking spaces shall be required or permitted for the market
except for spaces designated for deliveries or handicapped
individuals.

9. Dependent care facility for 13 or more dependents and schools for the
mentally or physically handicapped subject to securing a use permit
pursuant to Section 307.

***




Page 1130
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



Section 617. R-4 Multifamily Residence District.
Amend Chapter 6, Section 617 (R-4 Multifamily Residence District) to read as
follows:

Section 617. R-4 Multifamily Residence District.

***

B. District Regulations. The following tables establish standards to be used in the R-
4 district. The definitions of terms used in these standards are found in Section
608.I. The single-family attached INFILL development option must meet Section
608.F.6 requirements.

Table A. Single-Family Development(2)

TABLE 617.A
R-4 Development Option OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum lot width (in the 55' minimum 45' minimum (unless
event of horizontal property approved by either the
regimes, "lot" shall refer to design advisor or the
the width of the structure DESIGN REVIEW
and exclusive use area) COMMITTEE Single-
Family Architectural
Appeals Board for
demonstrating enhanced
architecture that minimizes
the impact of the garage.
(see Section 507 Tab
A.2.12.1 B(2)(b) [sic]))

Minimum lot depth None, except 110' None, except 110'
adjacent to freeway or adjacent to freeway or
arterial arterial

Dwelling unit density 5.0 6.5; 12 with bonus
(units/gross acre)




Page 1131
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



TABLE 617.A
R-4 Development Option OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum perimeter building Front: 15'; Street STREET (2) (front,
setbacks Rear: 15' (1-story), 20' (2- rear or side): 15' (in
story); addition to landscape
Side: 10' (1-story), 15' (2- setback);
story) Property line (rear): 15' (1-
story), 20' (2-story);
Property line (side): 10' (1-
story), 15' (2-story)

Common landscaped None 15' average, 10' minimum
setback adjacent to (Does not apply to lots
perimeter streets STREETS fronting onto perimeter
(2) streets)

Minimum interior building Front: 10'; rear: 10'; Front: 10'; rear: none
setbacks combined front and rear: (established by Building
35', street side: 10'; sides: Code); street side: 10';
13' total (3' minimum, sides: none (established
unless 0') by Building Code)

Minimum building separation 10' None

Minimum garage setback 18' from back of sidewalk 18' from back of sidewalk
for front-loaded garages, for front-loaded garages,
10' from property line for 10' from property line for
side-loaded garages side-loaded garages

Maximum garage width For lots <60': 2 car For lots, 60': 2 car widths,
widths, for lots ≥60' to 70': for lots ≥60' to 70': 3 car
3 car widths, for lots >70': widths, for lots >70': no
no maximum maximum

Maximum height 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' (except
that 3 stories not
exceeding 30' are
permitted when approved
by the design advisor for




Page 1132
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



TABLE 617.A
R-4 Development Option OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

demonstrating enhanced
architecture)

Lot coverage Primary structure, not Primary structure, not
including attached shade including attached shade
structures: 40%Total: structures: 40%Total:
50%, PLUS AN 50%, PLUS AN
ADDITIONAL 10% FOR ADDITIONAL 10% FOR
AN ADU AND/OR AN ADU AND/OR
ATTACHED SHADE ATTACHED SHADE
STRUCTURES. TOTAL: STRUCTURES. TOTAL:
60% 60%

Common areas None Minimum 5% of gross area

Allowed uses Single-family detached Single-family detached
DEVELOPMENT DETACHED (3) DETACHED (3)

Required review Development review per Development review per
Section 507, and Section 507, and
subdivision to create 4 or subdivision to create 4 or
more lots more lots

Street standards Public street, or private Public street or private
street built to City accessway (1)
standards with a
homeowners’ association
established for
maintenance OR
PRIVATE ACCESSWAY
(1)


On-lot and common Common retention Common retention
retention required for lots less than required for lots less than
8,000 sq. ft. per grading 8,000 sq. ft. per grading
and drainage ordinance and drainage ordinance
requirements requirements




Page 1133
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



TABLE 617.A
R-4 Development Option OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Landscape standards Perimeter common: trees
spaced a maximum of 20
to 30 feet on center
(based on species) or in
equivalent groupings, and
5 shrubs per tree.

(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for
extensions of street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue
partial dedications.

(2) For single-family, detached development built or subdivided under the
subdivision option prior to May 1, 1998, refer to the subdivision option in table B.
FOR PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, CANAL RIGHTS-OF-WAY SHALL BE
TREATED THE SAME AS PUBLIC STREET RIGHTS-OF-WAY.

(3) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as
public street rights-of-way. FOR SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT
BUILT OR SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO MAY 1, 1998, REFER TO THE
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF TABLE 617.B

Table B. Single-Family (Subdivided Prior to May 1, 1998) Single-Family Attached
and Multifamily Development




Page 1134
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



TABLE 617.B
R-4 Development Options
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, AND
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO MAY 1,
1998)

(c) (d)
(a) (b) Planned Single-Family
Standards
Subdivision(2) Average Lot Residential Attached (3)
Development INFILL (4)

Minimum lot 60' width, 94' 40' width, 50' None Individual unit
dimensions depth depth lot: 20' width,
(width and no minimum
depth) depth

Dwelling unit 29.0 29.0 30.45; 34.80 30.45; 34.80
density with bonus with bonus
(units/gross
acre)

Perimeter None 20' front, 15' 20' adjacent to 10' for units
standards rear, 10' side a public street; fronting street
this area is to rights-of-way;
be in common 15' for units
ownership siding street
unless lots rights-of-way.
front on the This area is to
perimeter be in common
public street ownership or
STREET (2); management.
10’ 15' 10' adjacent to
adjacent to property line
property line

Building 20' front, 15' 10' front, 30' 10' front Individual unit
setbacks rear, 10' and 3' front plus rear lot: none
side




Page 1135
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



TABLE 617.B
R-4 Development Options
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, AND
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO MAY 1,
1998)

(c) (d)
(a) (b) Planned Single-Family
Standards
Subdivision(2) Average Lot Residential Attached (3)
Development INFILL (4)

Maximum 3 stories or 3 stories or 3 stories or 40' 3 stories or 40'
height 40'* 40’(5) 40'* 40’(5) for 150'; 1' in 5' for first 150'; 1'
increase to 48' in 1' increase
HEIGHT, 4- to 48' height,
story maximum 4-story
(5) maximum*
MAXIMUM (6)

Lot coverage 50%, PLUS 50%, PLUS 50%, PLUS 100% FOR
AN AN AN EACH
ADDITIONAL ADDITIONAL ADDITIONAL INDIVIDUAL
10% FOR AN 10% FOR AN 10% FOR AN LOT. 50%
ADU AND/OR ADU AND/OR ADU AND/OR FOR OTHER
ATTACHED ATTACHED ATTACHED PARCELS OR
SHADE SHADE SHADE TRACTS
STRUCTURE STRUCTURE STRUCTURE WITH
S. TOTAL: S. TOTAL: S. TOTAL: ACCESSORY
60% 60% 60% STRUCTURE
S.

Common areas None None Minimum 5% Minimum 5%
of gross area of gross area
(3)




Page 1136
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



TABLE 617.B
R-4 Development Options
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, AND
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO MAY 1,
1998)

(c) (d)
(a) (b) Planned Single-Family
Standards
Subdivision(2) Average Lot Residential Attached (3)
Development INFILL (4)

Allowed uses Single-family Single-family Single-family Single-family
DEVELOPMEN DETACHED (3), DETACHED (3), DETACHED (3), attached and
T SINGLE- SINGLE- SINGLE- SINGLE-
FAMILY FAMILY FAMILY FAMILY
attached, and attached, and attached, and DETACHED
multifamily multifamily multifamily (PER THE
PROVISIONS
OF 608.F.6
ONLY) home
occupations
per Section

Required review Subdivision to Subdivision Development Development
create 4 or with building review per review per
more lots setbacks Section 507 Section 507

Street Public street Public street Public street or Development
standards required private site: public
accessway street, PUBLIC
ACCESSWAY ALLEY, or
(1) private
accessway.
Individual unit
lot: private
accessway,
alley right-of-
way or
driveway OR
PRIVATE
DRIVE (1).




Page 1137
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



* There shall be a 15-foot maximum height within ten feet of a single-family zoned
district, which height may be increased one foot for each additional one foot of
building setback to the maximum permitted height.

(1) 1.3 for efficiency; 1.5 for one or two bedrooms; 2.0 for more than two bedrooms
or for single-family detached. PUBLIC STREETS MAY BE REQUIRED AS A
PART OF SUBDIVISION OR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR EXTENSIONS OF
STREET PATTERNS, FOR CIRCULATION WITHIN NEIGHBORHOODS, OR
TO CONTINUE PARTIAL DEDICATIONS.

(2) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as
public street rights-of-way.

(3) These standards also apply to single-family, detached development built or
subdivided under the subdivision option prior to May 1, 1998. THE ONLY
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENTS THAT THE STANDARDS OF
THIS TABLE APPLY TO ARE ONES BUILT OR SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO MAY
1, 1998.

(4) The single-family attached development option must meet Section 608.F.8
requirements.THE SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL DEVELOPMENT OPTION MUST
COMPLY WITH THE ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
PROVIDED IN SECTION 608.F.6.

(5) THERE SHALL BE A 15-FOOT MAXIMUM HEIGHT WITHIN TEN FEET OF A
SINGLE-FAMILY ZONED DISTRICT, WHICH HEIGHT MAY BE INCREASED
ONE FOOT FOR EACH ADDITIONAL ONE FOOT OF BUILDING SETBACK TO
THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED HEIGHT.




Page 1138
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023




C. Special Regulations

1. Adult day care center, subject to a use permit; and provided, that:

a. Outdoor recreation areas shall be screened from adjacent properties
by a six-foot-high landscape hedge, solid fence, or solid wall.

2. Boarding house, subject to a use permit and the following conditions:

a. 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.

b. No boarding house 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 boarding house, group home, or community residence
home or center within a residential zoning district.




Page 1139
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



c. A maximum lot coverage of 25 percent.

d. A minimum of 100 square feet of usable outdoor open space per bed
shall be provided.

e. The lot shall only have vehicular access from an arterial or collector
street.

3. Community residence center, subject to a use permit and the following
conditions:

a. Such center 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.

b. No community residence center 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 or
center within a residential zoning district.

c. Disability accommodation from the spacing requirement may be
requested by an applicant per Section 701.E.3.

d. A maximum lot coverage of 25 percent.

e. A minimum of 100 square feet of usable outdoor open space per bed
shall be provided.

f. The lot shall only have vehicular access from an arterial or collector
street.

4. Group home, subject to a use permit and the following conditions:

a. 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.

b. No group 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 group home, boarding house, or community residence
home or center within a residential zoning district.




Page 1140
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023




c. A maximum lot coverage of 25 percent.

d. A minimum of 100 square feet of usable outdoor open space per bed
shall be provided.

e. The lot shall only have vehicular access from an arterial or collector
street.

5. Group foster home, subject to a use permit.

6. Dormitories and convents shall be permitted as accessory uses to churches
or similar places of worship.

7. A site plan in accordance with Section 507 is required for all development in
the R-2, R-3, R-3A, R-4, R-4A and R-5 districts except when the
development consists of single-family dwellings on individual lots.

8. A residential convenience market is permitted as an accessory use to a
multiple-family development, subject to the following conditions:

a. Signage shall be allowed only as part of a Comprehensive Sign Plan
pursuant to Section 705. The Zoning Administrator may approve wall
mounted signage up to a maximum height of 30 feet as part of an
approved Comprehensive Sign Plan.

b. The development shall contain a minimum of 400 dwelling units.

c. The market shall not exceed 1,000 square feet in total floor area
(display and storage) if the development contains less than 850
dwelling units. The market shall not exceed 3,000 square feet in total
floor area (display and storage) if the development contains 850 or
more dwelling units.

d. No parking spaces shall be required or permitted for the market
except for spaces designated for deliveries or handicapped
individuals.

9. Dependent care facility for 13 or more dependents and schools for the
mentally or physically handicapped subject to securing a use permit
pursuant to Section 307.

***




Page 1141
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



Section 618. R-5 Multifamily Residence District.
Amend Chapter 6, Section 618 (R-5 Multifamily Residence District) to read as
follows:

Section 618. R-5 Multifamily Residence District – RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL.

***

B. District Regulations - RESIDENTIAL USES. THE FOLLOWING TABLES
ESTABLISH STANDARDS TO BE USED FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS
IN THE R-5 DISTRICT. THE DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED IN THESE
STANDARDS ARE FOUND IN SECTION 608.I. THE SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL
DEVELOPMENT OPTION MUST MEET SECTION 608.F.6 REQUIREMENTS.

1. Development Standards for Residential Uses. The following tables
establish standards to be used in the R-5 District. The definitions of terms
used in these standards are found in Section 608.I. The single-family
attached development option must meet Section 608.F.8 requirements.

Table A. Single-Family, Detached Development (Subdivided on or after May 1,
1998)

TABLE 618.A
R-5 Development Option OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum lot width (in 55' minimum 45' minimum (unless
the event of horizontal approved by either the
property regimes, "lot" design advisor or the
shall refer to the width DESIGN REVIEW
of the structure and COMMITTEE Single-Family
exclusive use area) Architectural Appeals Board
for demonstrating enhanced
architecture that minimizes
the impact of the garage.
(see Section 507 Tab
A.2.12.1 B(2)(b) [sic]))




Page 1142
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



TABLE 618.A
R-5 Development Option OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum lot depth None, except 110' adjacent None, except 110' adjacent
to freeway or arterial to freeway or arterial

Dwelling unit density 5.0 6.5; 12 with bonus
(units/gross acre)

Minimum perimeter Front: 15'; Street STREET (2) (front,
building setbacks Rear: 15' (1-story), 20' (2- rear or side): 15' (in addition
story); to landscape setback);
Side: 10' (1-story), 15' (2- Property line (rear): 15' (1-
story) story), 20' (2-story);
Property line (side): 10' (1-
story), 15' (2-story)

Common landscaped None 15' average, 10' minimum
setback adjacent to (does not apply to lots
perimeter streets (2) fronting onto perimeter
streets)

Minimum interior Front: 10'; rear: 10'; Front: 10'; rear: none
building setbacks combined front and rear: (established by Building
35', street side: 10'; sides: Code); street side: 10';
13' total (3' minimum, unless sides: none (established by
0') Building Code)

Minimum building 10' None
separation

Minimum garage 18' from back of sidewalk for 18' from back of sidewalk for
setback front-loaded garages, 10' front-loaded garages, 10'
from property line for side- from property line for side-
loaded garages loaded garages

Maximum garage width For lots <60': 2 car widths, For lots <60': 2 car widths,
for lots ≥60' to 70': 3 car for lots ≥60' to 70': 3 car
widths, for lots >70': no widths, for lots >70': no
maximum maximum




Page 1143
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



TABLE 618.A
R-5 Development Option OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Maximum height 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' (except
that 3 stories not exceeding
30' are permitted when
approved by the design
advisor for demonstrating
enhanced architecture)

Lot coverage Primary structure, not Primary structure, not
including attached shade including attached shade
structures: 40%Total: 50%, structures: 40%Total: 50%,
PLUS AN ADDITIONAL PLUS AN ADDITIONAL
10% FOR AN ADU AND/OR 10% FOR AN ADU AND/OR
ATTACHED SHADE ATTACHED SHADE
STRUCTURES. TOTAL: STRUCTURES. TOTAL:
60% 60%

Common areas None Minimum 5% of gross area

ALLOWED Single-family detached Single-family detached
DEVELOPMENT DETACHED (3) DETACHED (3)

Required review Development review per Development review per
Section 507, and Section 507, and
subdivision to create 4 or subdivision to create 4 or
more lots more lots

Street standards Public street, or private Public street or private
street built to City standards accessway (1)
with a homeowners’
association established for
maintenance OR PRIVATE
ACCESSWAY (1)

On-lot and common Common retention required Common retention required
retention for lots less than 8,000 sq. for lots less than 8,000 sq.
ft. per grading and drainage ft. per grading and drainage
ordinance requirements ordinance requirements




Page 1144
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



TABLE 618.A
R-5 Development Option OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Landscape standards Perimeter common: trees
spaced a maximum of 20 to
30 feet on center (based on
species) or in equivalent
groupings, and 5 shrubs per
tree.

(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for
extensions of street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue
partial dedications.

(2) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as
public street rights-of-way.

(3) FOR SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT BUILT OR SUBDIVIDED
PRIOR TO MAY 1, 1998, REFER TO THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF
TABLE 618.B

Table B. Single-Family (Subdivided Prior to May 1, 1998), Single-Family
Attached and Multifamily Development




Page 1145
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



TABLE 618.B
R-5 Development Options
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, AND
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO MAY 1,
1998)

(c) (d)
(a) (b) Planned Single-Family
Standards
Subdivision(2) Average Lot Residential Attached (3)
Development INFILL (4)

Minimum lot 60' width, 94' 40' width, 50' None Individual unit
dimensions depth depth lot: 20' width,
(width and no minimum
depth) depth

Dwelling unit 43.5 43.5 45.68; 52.20 45.68; 52.20
density with bonus with bonus
(units/gross
acre)

Perimeter None 20' front, 15' 20' adjacent to 10' for units
standards rear, 10' side a public street; fronting street
this area is to rights-of-way;
be in common 15' for units
ownership siding street
unless lots rights-of-way.
front on the This area is to
perimeter be in common
public street ownership or
STREET (2); management.
10’ 15' 10' adjacent to
adjacent to property line
property line

Building 20' front, 15' 10' front, 30' 10' front Individual unit
setbacks rear, 10' and 3' front plus rear lot: none
side

Maximum 4 stories or 48' 4 stories or 48' 4 stories or 48' 4 stories or 48'
height (1) (2) (5) (1) (2) (5) (1) (2) (5) (1) (2) (6)




Page 1146
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



TABLE 618.B
R-5 Development Options
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, AND
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO MAY 1,
1998)

(c) (d)
(a) (b) Planned Single-Family
Standards
Subdivision(2) Average Lot Residential Attached (3)
Development INFILL (4)

Lot coverage 50%, PLUS 50%, PLUS 50%, PLUS 100% FOR
AN AN AN EACH
ADDITIONAL ADDITIONAL ADDITIONAL INDIVIDUAL
10% FOR AN 10% FOR AN 10% FOR AN LOT. 50%
ADU AND/OR ADU AND/OR ADU AND/OR FOR OTHER
ATTACHED ATTACHED ATTACHED PARCELS OR
SHADE SHADE SHADE TRACTS
STRUCTURE STRUCTURE STRUCTURE WITH
S. TOTAL: S. TOTAL: S. TOTAL: ACCESSORY
60% 60% 60% STRUCTURE
S.

Common areas None None Minimum 5% Minimum 5%
of gross area(3) of gross area

ALLOWED SINGLE- SINGLE- SINGLE- SINGLE-
DEVELOPMEN FAMILY FAMILY FAMILY FAMILY
T DETACHED, DETACHED, DETACHED, ATTACHED
SINGLE- SINGLE- SINGLE- AND SINGLE-
FAMILY FAMILY FAMILY FAMILY
ATTACHED, ATTACHED, ATTACHED, DETACHED
AND AND AND (PER THE
MULTIFAMILY MULTIFAMILY MULTIFAMILY PROVISIONS
OF 608.F.6
ONLY)

Required review Subdivision to Subdivision Development Development
create 4 or with building review per review per
more lots setbacks Section 507 Section 507




Page 1147
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



TABLE 618.B
R-5 Development Options
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, AND
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO MAY 1,
1998)

(c) (d)
(a) (b) Planned Single-Family
Standards
Subdivision(2) Average Lot Residential Attached (3)
Development INFILL (4)

Street Public street Public street Public street or Development
standards required private site: public
accessway street, PUBLIC
ACCESSWAY ALLEY, or
(1) private
accessway.
Individual unit
lot: private
accessway,
alley right-of-
way or
driveway OR
PRIVATE
DRIVE (1).

* There shall be a 15-foot maximum height within ten feet of a single-family zoned
district, which height may be increased one foot for each additional one foot of
building setback to the maximum permitted height.

(1) 1.3 for efficiency; 1.5 for one or two bedrooms; 2.0 for more than two bedrooms or
for single-family detached. PUBLIC STREETS MAY BE REQUIRED AS A PART
OF SUBDIVISION OR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR EXTENSIONS OF
STREET PATTERNS, FOR CIRCULATION WITHIN NEIGHBORHOODS, OR TO
CONTINUE PARTIAL DEDICATIONS.

(2) The height limitation of four stories or 48 feet applies to residential uses. FOR
PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, CANAL RIGHTS-OF-WAY SHALL BE
TREATED THE SAME AS PUBLIC STREET RIGHTS-OF-WAY.

(3) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as
public street rights-of-way.THE ONLY SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED




Page 1148
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



DEVELOPMENTS THAT THE STANDARDS OF THIS TABLE APPLY TO ARE
ONES BUILT OR SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO MAY 1, 1998.

(4) The single-family attached development option must meet Section 608.F.8
requirements.THE SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL DEVELOPMENT OPTION MUST
COMPLY WITH THE ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS PROVIDED
IN SECTION 608.F.6.

(5) THERE SHALL BE A 15-FOOT MAXIMUM HEIGHT WITHIN TEN FEET OF A
SINGLE-FAMILY ZONED DISTRICT, WHICH HEIGHT MAY BE INCREASED
ONE FOOT FOR EACH ADDITIONAL ONE FOOT OF BUILDING SETBACK TO
THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED HEIGHT.




2. Development standards for commercial and mixed uses (including hotels
and motels) shall be in accordance with Section 622.E.3 and E.4.




Page 1149
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



C. Special DISTRICT Regulations FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL AND MIXED USES.
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL AND MIXED USES
SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH C-1 STANDARDS (SECTIONS 622.E.3 AND
E.4).

1. A site plan in accordance with Section 507 is required for all development
in the R-2, R-3, R-3A, R-4, R-4A and R-5 districts except when the
development consists of single-family dwellings on individual lots.

D. ADDITIONAL Permitted Uses.

1. Adult day care center, subject to a use permit; and provided, that:

a. Outdoor recreation areas shall be screened from adjacent properties
by a six-foot-high landscape hedge, solid fence, or solid wall.

2. 1. Bed and breakfast establishment.

3. 2. Biomedical and Medical Research Offices. A biomedical or medical
research laboratory shall be permitted as an accessory use to a
biomedical and medical research office, subject to the following limitations:

a. The use shall be subject to obtaining a use permit in accordance with
the procedures and standards of Section 307.

b. Entrance to the laboratory shall only be from within the building and
shall not be through doors which open to the outside of the building.

c. No sign or display for the laboratory shall be visible from adjacent
public rights-of-way.

d. Access to a property containing a laboratory shall only be from a
major arterial or arterial, as designated on the street classification
map.

4. 3. Biomedical and Medical Research Offices. A biomedical or medical
research laboratory shall be permitted as an accessory use to a
biomedical and medical research office, subject to the following limitations:

5. Boarding house, subject to a use permit and the following conditions:




Page 1150
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



a. 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.

b. No boarding house 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 boarding house, group home, or community
residence home or center within a residential zoning district.

c. A maximum lot coverage of 25 percent.

d. A minimum of 50 square feet of usable outdoor open space per
bed shall be provided.

e. The lot shall only have vehicular access from an arterial or
collector street.

6. 4. Branch offices of the following uses are permitted subject to a use permit:
banks, building and loan associations, brokerage houses, savings and
loan associations, finance companies, title insurance companies, and trust
companies.

7. Community residence center, subject to a use permit and the following
conditions:

a. Such center 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.

b. No community residence center 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 or
center within a residential zoning district.

c. Disability accommodation from the spacing requirement may be
requested by an applicant per Section 701.E.3.

d. A maximum lot coverage of 25 percent.

e. A minimum of 50 square feet of usable outdoor open space per bed
shall be provided.




Page 1151
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023




f. The lot shall only have vehicular access from an arterial or collector
street.

8. 5. Copy and reproduction center, subject to a use permit.

9. Dependent care facility for 13 or more dependents and schools for the
mentally or physically handicapped subject to securing a use permit
pursuant to Section 307.

10. Group foster home, subject to a use permit.

11. Group home, subject to a use permit and the following conditions:

a. 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.

b. No group 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 group home, boarding house, or community residence
home or center within a residential zoning district.

c. A maximum lot coverage of 25 percent.

d. A minimum of 50 square feet of usable outdoor open space per bed
shall be provided.

12. Dormitories and convents shall be permitted as accessory uses to
churches or similar places of worship.

13. 6. Hospice, subject to a use permit.

14. 7. Hotel or Motel. The following accessory uses are permitted; provided, that
the entrance to said accessory uses shall be from within the building only
and that no sign or display for the accessory uses shall be located so as to
be visible from a public thoroughfare or adjacent property:

a. Auto rental agency; provided, that there are no more than three
vehicles stored on the hotel property.

b. Child care, for hotel/motel guests only.




Page 1152
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023




c. Cocktail lounges with recorded music or one musician.

d. Convention or private group activities.

e. Gift shop.

f. News stand.

g. Restaurants with recorded music or one musician.

h. Other services customarily accessory thereto.

15. 8. Office for Administrative, Clerical, or Sales Services. No commodity or
tangible personal property, either by way of inventory or sample, shall be
stored, kept, or exhibited for purposes of sale in any said office or on the
premises wherein the said office is located. Seminars shall be permitted as
an accessory use; provided, that they are clearly accessory to the office
use.

16. 9. Office for professional use, including medical center, wellness center, and
counseling services (provided that services are administered or overseen
by a State licensed professional).

a. The following accessory uses are permitted; provided, that the
entrance to said accessory uses shall be from within the building
only, that no sign or display for the accessory uses shall be located
so as to be visible from a public thoroughfare or adjacent property,
and that no more than 25 percent of the floor area can be used for
the accessory uses:

(1) Fitness center.

(2) Massage therapy, administered by a State licensed massage
therapist.

(3) Ophthalmic materials dispensing.

(4) Pharmacy.

(5) Sleep disorder testing with less than a 24-hour stay duration.

(6) Snack bar.




Page 1153
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023




(7) Surgical center, provided there are no overnight stays.

b. The following accessory uses are permitted, subject to a use permit
and provided that the entrance to said accessory uses shall be from
within the building only, that no sign or display for the accessory uses
shall be located so as to be visible from a public thoroughfare or
adjacent property:

(1) Medical and dental laboratories.

(2) Orthotics and prosthetic laboratories.

17. 10. Nursing home, subject to a use permit and the following conditions:

a. A maximum lot coverage of 25 percent.

b. A minimum of 50 square feet of usable outdoor open space per bed
shall be provided.

18. 11. Private clubs and lodges qualifying by law as a nonprofit entity, subject to
a use permit. The use permit is not required if a special permit, according
to Section 647, is obtained. Bingo may be operated as an accessory use
on the premises of the club no more than two days per week.

19. A residential convenience market is permitted as an accessory use to a
multiple-family development, subject to the following conditions:

a. Signage shall be allowed only as part of a Comprehensive Sign Plan
pursuant to Section 705. The Zoning Administrator may approve wall
mounted signage up to a maximum height of 30 feet as part of an
approved Comprehensive Sign Plan.

b. The development shall contain a minimum of 400 dwelling units.

c. The market shall not exceed 1,000 square feet in total floor area
(display and storage) if the development contains less than 850
dwelling units. The market shall not exceed 3,000 square feet in total
floor area (display and storage) if the development contains 850 or
more dwelling units.




Page 1154
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



d. No parking spaces shall be required or permitted for the market
except for spaces designated for deliveries or handicapped
individuals.

20. 12. Teaching of the fine arts, subject to use permit.

21. 13. Volunteer community blood centers qualifying by law as a nonprofit entity,
subject to a use permit.

***
n 619. Residential R-4A District—Multifamily Residence—General.
Amend Chapter 6, Section 619 (R-4A District—Multifamily Residence—General) to
read as follows:

Section 619. R-4A District—Multifamily Residence—General

***

A. Permitted Uses. PRIMARY USES AND ACCESSORY USES ARE PERMITTED
AS INDICATED IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS LAND USE MATRIX,
SECTION 608.D, PLUS THE FOLLOWING:

1. All uses permitted in the RE-24, R-3 and R-4 districts.

2. Same accessory uses and buildings as RE-24.

3. Adult day care center, subject to a use permit; and provided, that:

a. Outdoor recreation areas shall be screened from adjacent properties
by a six-foot-high landscape hedge, solid fence, or solid wall.

4. Boarding house, subject to a use permit and the following conditions:

a. 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.

b. No boarding house 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 boarding house, group home, or community residence
home or center within a residential zoning district.




Page 1155
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



c. A maximum lot coverage of 25 percent.

d. A minimum of 50 square feet of usable outdoor open space per bed
shall be provided.

5. Community residence center, subject to a use permit and the following
conditions:

a. Such center 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.

b. No community residence center 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 or
center within a residential zoning district.

c. Disability accommodation from the spacing requirement may be
requested by an applicant per Section 701.E.3.

d. A maximum lot coverage of 25 percent.

e. A minimum of 50 square feet of usable outdoor open space per bed
shall be provided.

6. Group foster home, subject to a use permit.

7. Group home, subject to a use permit and the following conditions:

a. 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.

b. No group 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 group home, boarding house, or community residence
home or center within a residential zoning district.

c. A maximum lot coverage of 25 percent.




Page 1156
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



d. A minimum of 50 square feet of usable outdoor open space per bed
shall be provided.

8. 1. Hospice, subject to a use permit.

9. 2. Nursing home, subject to a use permit and the following conditions:

a. A maximum lot coverage of 25 percent.

b. A minimum of 50 square feet of usable outdoor open space per bed
shall be provided.

10. Dormitories and convents shall be permitted as accessory uses to
churches or similar places of worship.


11. A residential convenience market is permitted as an accessory use to a
multiple-family development, subject to the following conditions:

a. Signage shall be allowed only as part of a Comprehensive Sign Plan
pursuant to Section 705. The Zoning Administrator may approve wall
mounted signage up to a maximum height of 30 feet as part of an
approved Comprehensive Sign Plan.

b. The development shall contain a minimum of 400 dwelling units.

c. The market shall not exceed 1,000 square feet in total floor area
(display and storage) if the development contains less than 850
dwelling units. The market shall not exceed 3,000 square feet in total
floor area (display and storage) if the development contains 850 or
more dwelling units.

d. No parking spaces shall be required or permitted for the market
except for spaces designated for deliveries or handicapped
individuals.

12. The display for sale of a vehicle, which for purposes of this provision
includes trailers, watercraft or other types of transportation that are built to
carry passengers or cargo, shall be subject to the following restrictions:

a. No more than one [1] vehicle can be labeled for sale or show any
indication that it is for sale at any given time on a property, whether
visible on-site or through some other form of advertising.




Page 1157
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023




b. No more than two [2] vehicles can be sold on a property during any
calendar year.

c. For purposes of Subsections a and b above, two [2] jet skis, a boat or
similar types of recreational vehicles that are transported on one
trailer shall, together with the trailer, be considered one vehicle.

d. The ownership of the vehicle[s] must be registered to the location
where the vehicle is listed for sale.

e. No vehicle can be labeled for sale or show any indication that it is for
sale at an unoccupied house or on a vacant lot or parcel.

f. No vehicle can be labeled for sale or show any indication that it is for
sale in conjunction with a retail or wholesale vehicle sales dealership
or business without obtaining a temporary use permit.

13. Dependent care facility for 13 or more dependents and schools for the
mentally or physically handicapped subject to securing a use permit
pursuant to Section 307.

3. SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL DEVELOPMENTS, PER THE PROVISIONS OF
SECTION 608.F.6 AND SECTION 617 (R-4) TABLE B, COLUMN D.

B. Yard, Height and Area Requirements. Except as required by Section 701, the
following yard, height and area provisions shall be required for this district:

***

7. Yards for ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS and detached OTHER
accessory buildings STRUCTURES shall be permitted as in
ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF Section 706.

8. Single-family attached INFILL development must comply with R-4
standards ALL REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO SFI DEVELOPMENT IN
THE R-4 DISTRICT EXCEPT FOR DENSITY, WHICH SHALL BE
PERMITTED PER SECTION 619.B.1.




Page 1158
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



9. OFFSITE MANUFACTURED HOME DEVELOPMENTS, UPON
OBTAINING USE PERMIT APPROVAL, SHALL COMPLY WITH THE R-4
STANDARDS FOR PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS (TABLE
617.B, COLUMN C) EXCEPT FOR DENSITY, WHICH SHALL BE
PERMITTED PER SECTION 619.B.1

C. Site Plan Required. A site plan in accordance with Section 507 is required for all
development in the R-2, R-3, R-3A, R-4, R-4A and R-5 districts except when the
development consists of single-family dwellings on individual lots.

***
Section 635. Planned Area Development.
Amend Chapter 6, Section 635 (Planned Area Development) to read as follows:

Section 635. Planned Area Development.

***

C. Use Regulations.

1. Uses permitted. In the planned area development districts only the
following uses are permitted:

a. Single-family detached, duplex, and multiple dwellings; apartment
houses. AS STATED IN SECTION 608.D, RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS LAND USE MATRIX.

b. Other uses as permitted in Sections 608 and 703.A.

c. b. Neighborhood retail uses and other nonresidential uses limited to
those enumerated in the C-1 district may be specifically and
selectively authorized as to type and size only when integrated by
design as an accessory element of the project, and only when located
in an area proposed to be appropriately zoned for said use and
approved as provided below, provided that the development is
planned for more than four hundred dwelling units.

d. Same accessory uses and buildings as RE-24.

e. The display for sale of a vehicle, which for purposes of this provision
includes trailers, watercraft or other types of transportation that are
built to carry passengers or cargo shall be subject to the following
restrictions:




Page 1159
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023




(1) No more than one [1] vehicle can be labeled for sale or show
any indication that it is for sale at any given time on a property,
whether visible on-site or through some other form of
advertising.

(2) No more than two [2] vehicles can be sold on a property during
any calendar year.

(3) For purposes of subsections a and b above, two [2] jet skis, a
boat or similar types of recreational vehicles that are
transported on one trailer shall, together with the trailer, be
considered one vehicle.

(4) The ownership of the vehicle[s] must be registered to the
location where the vehicle is listed for sale.

(5) No vehicle can be labeled for sale or show any indication that it
is for sale at an unoccupied house or on a vacant lot or parcel.

(6) No vehicle can be labeled for sale or show any indication that it
is for sale in conjunction with a retail or wholesale vehicle sales
dealership or business without obtaining a temporary use
permit.

***
Section 649. Mixed Use Agricultural (MUA) District.
Amend Chapter 6, Section 649 (Mixed Use Agricultural (MUA) District) to read as
follows:

Section 649. Mixed Use Agricultural (MUA) District.

***

E. Permitted Accessory Uses. Land in the MUA District may be used as permitted
accessory uses and structures, incidental to and on the same zoning lot as the
primary use, for the following uses:

***




Page 1160
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



4 Guesthouse, provided that it does not exceed six hundred square feet or
twenty-five percent of the floor area of the principal structure, whichever is
larger. ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT, PER THE PROVISIONS OF
SECTION 706.A.

***
Section 651. Baseline Area Overlay District.
Amend Chapter 6, Section 651 (Baseline Area Overlay District) to read as follows:

Section 651. Baseline Area Overlay District (BAOD).

***

C. Use Regulations. The regulations governing the uses of land and structures shall
be as set forth in the underlying zoning districts except as expressly modified by
the following regulations.

Detached guesthouses are permitted in R1-18 to R1-6 single-family districts,
provided that:

1. The structure shall not exceed seven hundred square feet. A use permit is
required to exceed seven hundred square feet.

2. The minimum lot size is eight thousand square feet.

3. An additional parking space shall be provided.

4. There shall be no more than one guesthouse per lot.

5. The guesthouse shall maintain the same setbacks as the primary structure.

6. The guesthouse shall maintain the same architectural style, color and
building materials as the primary dwelling in order to be viewed as an
accessory to the main unit and not a separate dwelling.

7. A use permit shall be required for all guests homes where the primary
structure existed prior to the effective date of this section of the ordinance.

8. There shall be a minimum lot width of sixty-five feet.

***




Page 1161
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



Section 653. Desert Character Overlay Districts.
Amend Chapter 6, Section 653 (Desert Character Overlay Districts) to read as
follows:

Section 653. Desert Character Overlay Districts.

***

B. Desert Maintenance Overlay (Sub-Districts A and B).

***

4. Permitted uses for Sub-Districts A and B. Land and structures in the
Desert Maintenance Overlay Sub-Districts A and B shall only be used for the
following purposes subject to the standards and procedures in Chapters 3
and 5 of the Zoning Ordinance and the regulations and special standards
set forth herein. In the event there is a conflict these provisions shall prevail.

***

c. AN guesthouse ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT, WHEN
PERMITTED, shall be allowed as a structure subordinate to a
residence. It is to be sited within the building envelope. The SHOULD
HAVE AN architectural character and detailing must be consistent
with the main residence. and should appear to tie in to the main
residence.

***

5. District regulations for Desert Maintenance Overlay Sub-District A.

***

s. Model homes are allowed prior to recording a subdivision plat, subject
to submitting a final plat which shall show the following information for
each model home lot as well as meet other requirements of this
ordinance and Section 608.C.3 608.D.7 of the Zoning Ordinance.

***

6. District regulations for Desert Maintenance Overlay Sub-District B.
***




Page 1162
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



h. Model homes are allowed prior to recording a subdivision plat, subject
to submitting a final plat which shall show the following information for
each model home lot as well as meet other requirements of this
ordinance and Section 608.C.3 608.D.7 of the Zoning Ordinance.

***
Section 658. Deer Valley Airport Overlay (DVAO) District
Amend Chapter 6, Section 658 (Deer Valley Airport Overlay (DVAO) District) to read
as follows:

Section 658. Deer Valley Airport Overlay (DVAO) District.

***

C. Regulation Areas: The DVAO District is divided into three separate regulation
areas. When a parcel falls partially into one or more of the regulation areas, the
most restrictive regulation area shall apply to the entire parcel.

***

2. Prohibited uses, Areas 2 & 3: Same as Area 1 and the following:

***

d. Church or similar place of worship; including parish houses,
parsonages, rectories and convents, and dormitories (including all
elements of such as defined in Section 608.E.1 608.E.21).

***
Section 664. North Central Avenue Special Planning District (SPD) Overlay District
Amend Chapter 6, Section 664 (North Central Avenue Special Planning District
(SPD) Overlay District) to read as follows:

Section 664. North Central Avenue Special Planning District (SPD) Overlay District.

***

D. District Regulations. The following table establishes variations to the current
standards for the R1-10 Subdivision Option. The definitions of terms used in these
standards are found in Section 608.D 608.I. Development standards that are not
listed here shall follow the standards in the R1-10 Subdivision Option, Section 611,
Table 611.B. Variances to these regulations should also consider objectives of the




Page 1163
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



Special Planning District Plan. To use a development option other than subdivision
requires approval through the rezoning public hearing process, Section 506.B.

***
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 the subdivision
option of Sections 604 through 607 AND 619, and IN THE
SUBDIVISION OPTION OF Sections 609 through 618:

***


(2) Closed Projections.

***

(d) The main building in a residence district (WHICH MAY
INCLUDE AN ATTACHED ADU) may project five feet
into the required rear yard for no more than one-half the
maximum width of the structure. WHEN NO PORTION
OF THE PROJECTION EXCEEDS 15’ IN HEIGHT;
THE PROJECTION IS NO CLOSER TO THE REAR
PROPERTY LINE THAN 3’, AND THE PROJECTION
IS NO CLOSER TO A SIDE PROPERTY LINE THAN
ALLOWED BY THE DISTRICT; UNLESS A greater
projection than five feet is subject to obtaining a use
permit IS OBTAINED in accordance with the provisions
of Section 307.

***
Section 702. Off-Street Parking and Loading
Amend Chapter 7, Section 702.F (Special Parking Standards) to read as follows:

F. Special Parking Standards.



Page 1164
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023




***

1. Residential lots.

a. Required parking spaces for single-family and duplex residential uses
may not be located in the required front yard.

b. Spaces in excess of those required for single family and duplex
residential uses may be located in the required front yard. However,
all parking and maneuvering areas within the required front yard shall
not exceed forty-five percent (45%) 50% OF THE AREA OF THE
REQUIRED FRONT YARD, EXCEPT THAT A DRIVEWAY SHALL
NOT BE REQUIRED TO BE LESS THAN 18’ IN WIDTH UNLESS
OTHERWISE STIPULATED BY HISTORIC PRESERVATION.

(1) The area of the required front yard, or

(2) An area equal to the required front yard setback times the
average lot width when the adjoining side property lines are
not parallel. Notwithstanding the above requirements, the
parking and maneuvering area shall not be required to be less
than:

(a) Eighteen (18) feet in width, or

(b) The cumulative width of all front facing garage doors or
carports plus three (3) feet, whichever is greater.

***




Page 1165
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



Section 703.B Bulk Regulations (Landscaping and Open Areas In Multiple-Family
Development) 3. Landscaping, Fences and Walls.
Amend Chapter 7, Section 703.B (Landscaping and Open Areas In Multiple-Family
Development) to read as follows:

B. 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 in any district containing a
structure with two FOUR or more dwelling units.

***
Section 706. Accessory Uses and Structures.
Amend Chapter 7, Section 706 (Accessory Uses and Structures) to add language
regarding Accessory Dwelling Units, and revising the existing language to apply
only to other types of accessory structures, and to read as follows:

***

Section 706. Accessory Uses and Structures.

A. No detached accessory structures or swimming pools are permitted within the
required front yard(s) of any residential district.

B. . All detached accessory structures in the side and rear yard, not used for sleeping
or living purposes, are to maintain a minimum setback of three feet from property
lines. Swimming pools are to maintain a minimum setback of three feet from
exterior property lines.

C. All accessory structures located within the required side yard are not to exceed
eight feet in height.

D. On any corner lot contiguous to a key lot, detached structures with a height which
exceeds eight feet must be set back from the street side a distance equal to the
required front yard setback of the adjoining key lot.

E. On any other corner lot no detached accessory building over eight feet high shall
be closer to the side street property line than a distance of ten feet.

F. Detached accessory structures may be constructed on the property line where the
rear lot line is adjacent to a fully dedicated alley.




Page 1166
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



G. No detached accessory structure located within the required rear yard of a
residentially zoned property shall exceed a height of one story or fifteen feet except
as approved by a use permit in accordance with the provisions of Section 307.

***

A. ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS (ADU)

1. IN ZONING DISTRICTS WHERE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS ARE A
PERMITTED USE, ONE (1) ADU IS PERMITTED PER LOT WHEN A
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT IS ALSO
PROVIDED, UNLESS OTHERWISE PERMITTED BY THE 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.

3. AN ADU MAY BE EITHER ATTACHED TO OR DETACHED FROM THE
PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT, 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, 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.




Page 1167
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



4. A DETACHED ADU MAY BE LOCATED WITHIN THE REQUIRED REAR
YARD, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING:

a. SETBACKS.

(1) MINIMUM 10 FEET FROM A STREET SIDE PROPERTY
LINE.

(2) MINIMUM 3 FEET FROM AN INTERIOR PROPERTY LINE.

(3) NO SETBACK IS REQUIRED ADJACENT TO A FULLY
DEDICATED ALLEY.

b. HEIGHT. MAXIMUM 15 FEET UNLESS USE PERMIT APPROVAL
FOR A GREATER HEIGHT IS OBTAINED PER SECTION 307.

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. A 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. 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. AN ADU SHALL COMPLY WITH THE LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS
APPLICABLE TO THE PROPERTY.

9. AN 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.




Page 1168
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023




FOR THE PURPOSES OF THESE CALCULATIONS, ANY GARAGE OR
ATTACHED SHADE STRUCTURE CONSTRUCTED AS PART OF A
DETACHED ADU SHALL COUNT TOWARD THE GROSS FLOOR AREA
OF THE ADU. ANY ATTACHED SHADE STRUCTURES SHALL COUNT
TOWARDS LOT COVERAGE, BUT NOT GROSS FLOOR AREA.

10. PERMIT ISSUANCE AND RESTRICTIVE COVENANT. PRIOR TO
ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT FOR AN ADU, THE PROPERTY
OWNER SHALL SIGN BEFORE A NOTARY PUBLIC A RESTRICTIVE
COVENANT THAT RUNS WITH THE LAND ON A FORM PREPARED BY
THE CITY ATTORNEY OR DESIGNEE AFFIRMING THAT THE
PROPERTY OWNER SHALL:

a. OCCUPY EITHER THE PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT OR THE ADU,
OR

b. IF THE PROPERTY OWNER RENTS OR LEASES A PROPERTY
WITH BOTH A PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT AND AN ADU TO A
THIRD PARTY, THEN NEITHER THE PRIMARY RESIDENCE NOR
THE ADU SHALL BE RENTED OR LEASED SEPARATELY FROM
THE REMAINDER OF THE PROPERTY, NOR SUB-LEASED.

B. SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ACCESSORY STRUCTURES. THE
FOLLOWING REGULATIONS APPLY TO ACCESSORY STRUCTURES WHICH
ARE NOT USED FOR SLEEPING OR LIVING PURPOSES, 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. PERMITTED HEIGHTS.

a. MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 8 FEET WHEN LOCATED WITHIN 10 FEET
OF A STREET SIDE PROPERTY LINE, OR 15 FEET WHEN
LOCATED ELSEWHERE WITHIN THE REQUIRED REAR OR SIDE
YARD.




Page 1169
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



b. HEIGHTS IN EXCESS OF 15 FEET, WHEN NOT LOCATED WITHIN
10’ OF 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 3 FEET ADJACENT TO A REAR OR SIDE PROPERTY
LINE, EXCEPT THAT NO SETBACK IS REQUIRED ADJACENT TO A
FULLY DEDICATED ALLEY.




Page 1170
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023




Page 1171
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



***
C. SWIMMING POOLS.

1. SWIMMING POOLS SHALL NOT BE LOCATED IN THE REQUIRED
FRONT YARD, NOR IN ANY REQUIRED LANDSCAPE SETBACK.

2. SWIMMING POOLS SHALL MAINTAIN A MINIMUM SETBACK OF THREE
FEET FROM PROPERTY LINES, EXCEPT THAT POOLS LOCATED ON A
LOT DESIGNATED “HILLSIDE” PER SECTION 710 SHALL COMPLY WITH
ALL HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, INCLUDING SETBACKS.

***
Section 708. Temporary uses.
Amend Chapter 7, Section 708. (Temporary uses) to read as follows:

Section 708. Temporary uses.

***

L. Charitable Drop Box Container Permit. A charitable drop box container permit is
subject to the following:

***

1. An annual permit is required for the following uses or analogous uses:

a. Charitable drop box containers.

***

(9) Permits are not required when the container is in compliance
pursuant to Section 608.E.1 608.E.21.

***
Chapter 12. Downtown Code.
Amend Chapter 12, Sections 1204.C and D (Land Use Matrix) to correct references
of “Single-Family Attached” to “Single-Family Infill”, and to read as follows:

Chapter 12
DOWNTOWN CODE

***




Page 1172
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



Section 1204. Land Use Matrix.

***

C. 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
1204.D:

***

27. Single-family attached INFILL SUBDIVISION, subject to the following:, PER
THE STANDARDS OF SECTION 608.F.6 AND SECTION 614, TABLE
614.B, COLUMN D, EXCEPT AS MODIFIED BELOW:

a. Historic preservation designated properties or properties in historic
preservation districts cannot use the single-family attached INFILL
development option.

b. Individual unit lot: minimum 20-foot width, no minimum depth.
MAXIMUM HEIGHT: AS PER HEIGHT MAP, SECTION 1202.B.

c. Perimeter standards: maximum ten feet for units fronting street rights-
of-way; minimum 15 feet for units siding street rights-of-way. This
area is to be in common ownership or management, ten feet adjacent
to property line. MAXIMUM DENSITY: AS PER DENSITY MAP,
SECTION 1202.C.

d. Building setbacks, individual unit lot: none. MAXIMUM LOT
COVERAGE: 100 PERCENT PER LOT; OVERALL SUBDIVISION
LOT COVERAGE PER APPLICABLE CHARACTER AREA.

e. Maximum stories: as per height map, Section 1202.C. FRONTAGE
SETBACKS AND REQUIREMENTS: AS PER THE APPLICABLE
CHARACTER AREA; OR, IF LOTS FRONT ON A NEW INTERNAL
STREET OR DRIVE, PER THE REGULATIONS OF SECTION
608.F.6 AND SECTION 614, TABLE B, COLUMN D.

f. Lot coverage per dwelling unit: 100 percent. PERIMETER
STANDARDS (NOT ON A STREET): PER THE REGULATIONS OF
SECTION 608.F.6.

g. Common areas: minimum five percent of gross area. INDIVIDUAL
LOT SETBACKS.




Page 1173
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023




(1) THE STEPBACK REQUIREMENTS OF TABLE 614.B,
COLUMN D DO NOT APPLY TO BUILDINGS COMPLYING
WITH THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT ALLOWED BY THE HEIGHT
MAP, SECTION 1202.B.

(2) INDIVIDUAL LOT FRONT: 10’ OR THE REQUIRED
FRONTAGE SETBACK, WHICHEVER IS GREATER.

(3) INDIVIDUAL LOT SIDE AND REAR: 0’ OR THE REQUIRED
PERIMETER SETBACK, WHICHEVER IS GREATER.

h. Allowed uses: single-family attached and home occupations per
Section 608. PARKING REQUIREMENTS: PER SECTION 608.F.6,
AS THE REGULATIONS APPLY TO THE INFILL DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT.

i. Development review per Section 507. 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. Design: front of units should face right-of-way. No garages allowed to
face pedestrian or side streets. 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.

k. Other requirements of Section 608.F.8 shall apply if not specifically
modified by this section.

***

D. Land Use Matrix.

LAND USE CATEGORIES CHARACTER AREAS
Commerc
ACTIVE Warehous
*** ial ***
USE e
Corridor




Page 1174
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



Residential Uses
*** *** *** *** *** ***
Dwelling UNIT, Multi-Family
*** p p
MULTIFAMILY
Dwelling UNIT, Single-
Family, Detached
*** p *** np
(INCLUDING DUPLEX AND
TRIPLEX USES)
Dwelling UNIT, Single-
Family and *** p *** np
Duplex, Attached
*** *** *** *** *** ***
SUBDIVISION, Single-
*** np PC27 *** pc27 NP
Family Attached Infill
***
Chapter 13. Walkable Urban Code.
Amend Chapter 13, Sections 1303 (Transect lot standards), 1305.C (Fence
Standards), 1306 (Land Use Matrix) and 1310 (Open Space Improvements) to
correct references of “Single-Family Attached” to “Single-Family Infill”, and to read
as follows:

Chapter 13
WALKABLE URBAN (WU) CODE

***

Section 1303. Transect lot standards.

A. General Lot Standards.

1. Subdivisions shall comply with development standards per this chapter,
including frontage standards, for all existing and newly created lots abutting
public streets, private accessways, and private driveways, with the following
caveats:

a. A development may instead utilize the Single-Family attached INFILL
development option standards per Section 608(F)(8) 608.F.6 and
Section 614, Table 614.B, Column D (except for the density, which is
not restricted) if it meets all three of the following conditions:

(1) The development consists solely of attached SINGLE-FAMILY
dwelling units and allowable accessory uses;



Page 1175
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023




(2) The development is located within the applicable area for the
single-family attached INFILL development option or the Infill
Development District as depicted on the map provided in
Section 608(F)(8) 608.F.6; and

***

2. All developments adjacent to single-family zoning districts shall follow the
same setback and stepback standards as the single-family attached INFILL
development option (Section 614, Table 614.B, Column D); with additional
requirements as follows:

***

B. Transect Setbacks and Lot Standards.

***

Table 1303.2 Transect T4

***

BUILDING HEIGHT BUILDING STEPBACKS
Main T4:2 30-foot
a
Building maximum
T4:3 40-foot
maximum
SFA SFI: 48- Required for SFA SFI as per
foot maximum Sections 1303.A.1 and 2

***

* Lot coverage maximum may be modified for SFA SFI development option.

Table 1303.2 Transect T5

***
BUILDING HEIGHT BUILDING STEPBACKS
***

* a. Lot coverage maximum may be modified for SFA SFI development option.




Page 1176
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



b. Lot coverage maximum may vary depending on setback requirements when adjacent to
existing single-family residential districts and historic preservation properties or districts.

Table 1303.2 Transect T6

***

Minimum glazing shall apply to commercial building frontages only, as per
Section 1305.B.2. For residential products T4 glazing standards shall apply.

***

* a. Lot coverage maximum may be modified for SFA SFI
development option.

b. Lot coverage maximum may vary depending on setback
requirements when adjacent to existing single-family residential
districts and historic preservation properties or districts.

***

1305. Frontage Standards.

***

C. Fence Standards.

1. T3 and T4.

a. Primary frontages: 40 inches maximum height.

b. Secondary frontages: 72 inches maximum height. For SFA SFI
development: 48 inches maximum height solid fence. Above 48
inches to 72 inches allowed only as a 70 percent open view fence,
unless screening above grade utilities or trash enclosures.

***

Section 1306. Land Use Matrix.

***

Table 1306.1. Land Use Matrix




Page 1177
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023




T6:22
CATEGORY: RESIDENTIAL T6:7
T3 T4 *** T6:
USES T6:15
HWR
*** *** *** *** *** ***
Dwelling UNIT, Multif NP P P P
Dwelling UNIT, Single-Family,
Detached (INCLUDING P P *** NP NP
DUPLEX AND TRIPLEX USES)
Dwelling UNIT, Single-
P P *** P P
Family and Duplex, Attached
***

C. Residential Uses, Land Use Conditions.

***
3. Dependent Care Facility.

a. One to six dependents: standards as per Section 608.D.5 608.E.15.
Use permit required for sSeven to 12 dependents: USE PERMIT,
AND STANDARDS AS PER SECTION 608.E.16.

***

Table 1306.1. Land Use Matrix

T6:22
CATEGORY: T6:7
T3 T4 *** T6:
SERVICES T6:15
HWR
***
Home Occupation
PC PC *** P P
As per Section 608.E.3
*** *** *** *** *** ***
Hotel
NP PC *** PC PC
As per Section 618.D.14 7
*** *** *** *** *** ***
Office, Professional
As per Section 618.D.15 8 and PC PC *** PC PC
16 9
***




Page 1178
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023



T6:22
CATEGORY: T6:7
T3 T4 *** T6:
LOCAL FOOD PRODUCTION T6:15
HWR
Community Garden
UP UP *** UP UP
As per Section 608.F.6 608.E.24
Farmers Markets
UP UP *** UP UP
As per Section 608.F.7 608.E.25
***
T6:22
CATEGORY: T6:7
T3 T4 *** T6:
ACCESSORY USES T6:15
HWR
Accessory Dwelling Unit P P *** P P
Accessory Dwelling Unit—
P P *** P P
Guest
***
Home Occupation
PC PC *** PC PC
As per Section 608.E.3 608.E.27
***
T6:22
CATEGORY: T6:7
T3 T4 *** T6:
INTERIM USES T6:15
HWR
Environmental
Remediation Facility UP UP *** UP UP
As per 608.F.5 608.E.23

Section 1310. Open space improvements.

A. Open Space Guidelines.

1. Parcels zoned T3 are exempt from required public open space
improvements.

2. Open space requirements for developments within the T4, T5, and T6
transects are as follows:

a. For sites of one gross acre or larger, minimum open space of at least
five percent of the gross site area shall be required. For
developments utilizing the single-family attached INFILL development
option standards in accordance with Section 1303(A)(1)(a)
1303.A.1.a., open space shall be provided as required by Section
614, Table 614,B, Column D, regardless of lot size.




Page 1179
Exhibit A: Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 27, 2023




***

Table 1310.1 Public Open Space Type Guidelines


***
[table unchanged]
* Single-family attached INFILL developments must provide open
space as required per Section 1310(A)(2)(a) 1310.A.2.a.

***




Page 1180
ATTACHMENT D
Z-TA-5-23: Accesory Dwelling Units
Village Planning Committee Summary Results
Information Only Recommendation
Village Recommendations Vote
Date Date
7/10/2023 No Quorum N/A
Paradise Valley 6/5/2023
8/7/2023 Denial 9-5
Encanto 6/5/2023 7/10/2023 Approval, per the staff recommendation 9-4
Approval, per the staff recommendation
with direction to incorporate the changes
Laveen 6/12/2023 7/10/2023 7-1
recommended by the Neighborhood
Coalition of Greater Phoenix letter
Approval, per the staff recommendation
with direction to that the city investigate
Central City 6/12/2023 7/10/2023 short term rental regulations, utility and 14-0
parking capacity, and a permitting
process for ADUs
Approval, per the staff recommendation
with direction to incorporate the changes
Camelback East 6/6/2023 7/11/2023 15-0
recommended by the Neighborhood
Coalition of Greater Phoenix letter
Desert View 6/6/2023 7/11/2023 Denial 5-4
Rio Vista 6/13/2023 7/11/2023 Approval, per the staff recommendation 3-2
South Mountain 6/13/2023 7/11/2023 Approval, per the staff recommendation 9-2
7/12/2023 No Quorum. N/A
Maryvale 6/14/2023
8/9/2023 No Quorum. N/A
Deer Valley 6/8/2023 7/13/2023 Approval, per the staff recommendation 6-3
North Gateway 6/8/2023 7/13/2023 Approval, per the staff recommendation 4-2
Approval, per the staff recommendation
with stipulations to clarify language
Estrella 6/20/2023 7/18/2023 7-2
regarding regulations related to HP
properties and HOAs
Approval, per the staff recommendation
with direction to include a 30 day
minimum lease term, the locations of all
approved ADUs shall be made public
and be continually updated, staff shall
North Mountain 6/21/2023 7/19/2023 conduct an assessment after 1 year to 14-0
evaluate the number of units constructed
and how the program is working, and the
city shall explore options to assist low
and moderate income homeowners to
construct ADUs.
Ahwatukee Foothills 6/26/2023 7/24/2023 Denial 7-1
Approval, per the staff recommendation
with modifications that to ensure HOAs
Alhambra 6/27/2023 7/25/2023 have superiority in regulating ADUs and 10-5
require that the owner lives in one of the
units for a minimum of two years.




Updated: 8/11/2023
Page 1181
ATTACHMENT E




Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-23-Y
INFORMATION ONLY



Date of VPC Meeting June 5, 2023
Request Amend Chapters 2, 5, 6, 7, 12 and 13 of the Phoenix
Zoning Ordinance to add accessory dwelling units.

VPC DISCUSSION:

Mr. Zambrano explained what an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) is, sharing current
terms used in Phoenix Zoning Ordinance and other nicknames for ADUs. Mr. Zambrano
displayed a photo of the Willo Historic District showing buildings that are likely ADUs, or
guesthouses. Mr. Zambrano shared the proposed changes in the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance, including allowing only one ADU per lot in all single-family zoned districts,
definitions for duplex and triplex to make clear distinctions from ADUs, increases in lot
coverage for most districts, revisions to rear-yard projection rules to allow ADUs and
other projections further into the rear yard, height limitations in the rear yard, and fixing
references to guesthouses among other sections. Mr. Zambrano then discussed
different types of ADUs, including above-garage apartments, detached ADUs, attached
ADUs, basement conversions, and converted garages. Mr. Zambrano noted that ADUs
would be allowed to be two-stories within the building envelope, outside of the required
setbacks, and would be limited to one-story and 15 feet in height within the required
rear yard. Mr. Zambrano added that the text amendment would not prohibit other
accessory structures, such as a detached garage. Mr. Zambrano then shared the
proposed development standards for ADUs and concluded with the timeline for the text
amendment.

Daniel Mazza asked if an ADU that was an above-garage apartment would need an
exterior door and stairwell. Mr. Zambrano responded that he was unsure but would
write the question down and follow up.

Mr. Goodhue stated that if the intent was to rent out an ADU, a separate entrance
would be desired.

Diane Petersen asked if there could only be one accessory structure per lot. Mr.
Zambrano responded that there will only be one ADU allowed per lot, and that the text
amendment would not prohibit other accessory structures, such as a detached garage.



200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1182
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-23-Y

Anna Sepic asked if the structures are determined to be livable structures based on a
kitchen. Mr. Zambrano responded affirmatively, noting that a full kitchen with cooking
facilities would distinguish a structure as a dwelling unit.

Mr. Goodhue asked for clarification if an ADU would have a full kitchen in it. Mr.
Zambrano responded that an ADU would have a full kitchen in it.

Mr. Mazza stated that a garage could have a dishwasher and a refrigerator but could
not have ovens and a stove if there was an ADU on the lot already. Mr. Zambrano
confirmed that was correct.
Louisa Ward asked if an ADU has to be a permanently constructed building and cannot
be a trailer. Mr. Zambrano responded affirmatively, noting that RVs and trailers have
different standards and are not allowed to be lived in unless in a designated RV or
mobile home park.

Robert Gubser asked what a closed projection is. Mr. Zambrano responded that an
addition to a house that projects passed the rear setback line is a closed projection, and
that the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance allows closed projections for a maximum of five feet
into the rear yard for no more than half of the width of the house. Mr. Zambrano stated
that the text amendment would allow the closed projection for the full width of the house
and would allow a deeper projection.

Chair Popovic asked if access can be from an alley. Mr. Zambrano responded that the
primary access has to be from the street.

Larisa Balderrama asked if existing structures that do not meet the proposed
requirements would have to be brought up to code. Mr. Zambrano responded that it
would depend on if the structures were legally permitted or not, and if they were legally
permitted, then they would be considered legal non-conforming and would be allowed to
remain as-is, with certain provisions per Chapter 9 of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance for
nonconformities. Mr. Zambrano added that if a structure was used as a guesthouse
illegally without permits, then it would need to be brought up to current code.

Mr. Goodhue asked what other cities are also considering allowing ADUs. Mr.
Zambrano responded that it is a movement nationwide to allow ADUs, and that he
believes they are currently allowed in Tempe but is unsure of other cities. Mr. Goodhue
stated that he is not personally supportive of ADUs and desires to live in a single-family
neighborhood. Mr. Goodhue added that this would result in more on-street parking and
that he would move to another City that does not allow ADUs. Mr. Goodhue asked if the
intent of the text amendment is to address housing shortage and affordability. Mr.
Goodhue stated that the text amendment seems very open-ended and would allow
short-term rentals.

Ms. Balderrama echoed Mr. Goodhue’s question on the intent of the text amendment.
Mr. Zambrano responded that the intent of the text amendment is to address the
housing shortage by allowing different types of housing and that the City is considering
a variety of solutions to address this issue.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1183
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-23-Y

Diane Petersen stated that short-term vacation rentals would not help address the
housing shortage and added that there should be limitations on short-term rentals.

Mr. Goodhue concurred.

Mr. Zambrano stated that there are some existing restrictions for short-term rentals.

Ms. Balderrama stated that she is a member of a group that is working with the City
and the State on short-term rentals and added that the City is working on some
restrictions for short-term rentals.

Ms. Sepic asked if large lots that have enough room to build an addition on the side
rather than the rear would still be a minimum three-foot setback. Mr. Zambrano
responded that if the addition is in the rear yard, it would still be a three-foot setback
from the property line. Mr. Zambrano added that the addition would still be required to
meet the required side yard setback. Ms. Sepic asked how ADUs would affect property
taxes since there would be additional rental income from ADUs. Ms. Sepic added that
she is a multigenerational household and is considering building an ADU. Mr.
Zambrano responded that he was unsure how it would affect property taxes but could
follow up. Mr. Zambrano added that another intent behind this text amendment was to
address multigenerational housing to allow an ADU for grandparents or in-laws, which is
not currently allowed.

Ms. Balderrama asked for clarification that no additional parking would be required for
an ADU. Mr. Zambrano responded affirmatively.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1184
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-23-Y
INFORMATION ONLY

Date of VPC Meeting June 5, 2023
Request Amend Chapters 2, 5, 6, 7, 12 and 13 of the Phoenix
Zoning Ordinance to add accessory dwellings units

VPC DISCUSSION:

No quorum.

STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION & STIPULATIONS:

No quorum.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1185
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-23-Y
INFORMATION ONLY


Date of VPC Meeting June 12, 2023
Amend Chapters 2, 5, 6, 7, 12 and 13 of the Phoenix
Request
Zoning Ordinance to add accessory dwelling units.

VPC DISCUSSION:

Staff Presentation:

Mrs. Sanchez Luna provided an overview of the proposed text amendment. Mrs.
Sanchez Luna noted that the proposed text amendment would allow for accessory
dwelling units. Mrs. Sanchez Luna presented examples of the proposed accessory
dwelling unit development standards. Mrs. Sanchez Luna concluded the presentation by
noting the proposed hearing dates for the text amendment.

Questions from the Committee:

Patrick Nasser-Taylor asked if an additional room was built, would the owner be
allowed to construct an accessory dwelling unit. Mrs. Sanchez Luna noted that if the
room was an addition, an accessory dwelling unit could still be constructed. Mr. Nasser-
Taylor asked if HOAs would be able to limit accessory dwelling units. Mrs. Sanchez
Luna confirmed.

Ms. Rouse stated she had concerns with accessory dwelling units being converted to
short term rentals. Ms. Rouse noted that the primary concern would be parking and
crime. Mrs. Sanchez Luna noted that there are regulations for short term rentals but
that the text amendment would not modify the regulations.

Vice Chair Stephanie Hurd asked for clarification on the intent of the proposed text
amendment. Mrs. Sanchez Luna noted that the intent was to add to the housing
demand and offer individuals a variety of housing options. Mrs. Sanchez Luna noted
that accessory dwelling units can rented or used for multigenerational housing.

Ms. Rubio-Raffin sked how duplexes and triplexes will be defined to differentiate them
from accessory dwelling units. Ms. Gomes noted that the accessory dwelling unit will
have to be accessory to the primary structure. Ms. Gomes added that a duplex would
be equal number of units. Ms. Rubio-Raffin asked if fencing could be added for pets
such as dogs to prevent them from utilizing the entire yard. Ms. Gomes stated that pet
fencing would not be affected. Ms. Gomes added that fencing that would create two

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1186
Laveen Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 12, 2023
Page 2

separate spaces would not be permitted.

JoAnne Jensen agreed with Committee Member Rouse’s concerns. Ms. Jensen noted
that she was in favor of attainable housing but was skeptical of accessory dwelling units
serving that purpose.

Dean Chiarelli agreed. Mr. Chiarelli asked if any language would be added to address
short term rentals and who would enforce accessory dwelling units. Mr. Chiarelli voiced
his displeasure regarding short term rentals. Mr. Chiarelli noted that he did not support
accessory dwelling units without regulations regarding short term rentals.

Chair Abegg noted that a previous text amendment allowed for an additional cooking
facility and contained numerous development standards. Chair Abegg added that she
had concerns with the number of dwelling units per acre and the lack of parking
regulations. Chair Abegg requested more language regarding additional parking for
accessory dwelling units.

Ms. Perrera noted that this text amendment would address older subdivisions that do
not have HOAs. Ms. Perrera voiced her concerns regarding parking.

Chair Abegg stated that she had concerns with HOA’s ability to regulate accessory
dwelling units.

Mr. Nasser-Taylor noted that in San Diego, accessory dwelling units were utilized as
short-term rentals rather than apartments and recommended staff to contact the other
cities.

Chair Abegg noted that accessory dwelling units could cause infrastructure issues such
as overcrowded schools, longer emergency response times, and traffic congestion.

Vice Chair Hurd voiced her encouragement to research how other cities have
implemented accessory dwelling units.

Ms. Gomes stated that the text amendment has been in response to what has been
occurring at the legislative level. Ms. Gomes noted that legislative would make the
decision, but the city would like to have an input in the process. Ms. Gomes noted that
the state regulation overrules city municipalities regarding short term rentals. Ms.
Gomes noted that the city evaluated Tucson, Arizona for accessory dwelling units and
create feasible requirements.

Ms. Rubio-Raffin asked how many parking spots would be required for a property with
an accessory dwelling unit. Ms. Gomes noted that all single-family homes are required
two parking spaces and the text amendment would not require additional parking. Ms.
Rubio-Raffin recommended that two additional parking spots should be required per
accessory dwelling unit. Ms. Rubio-Raffin noted that accessory dwelling units would
assist the conservation of land.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1187
Laveen Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 12, 2023
Page 3


Ms. Jensen noted that there are hundreds of potential homes not being built because of
the lack of permits.

Chair Abegg asked if accessory dwelling units could be part of new developments or
be built later. Ms. Gomes noted that a plot plan would have to be presented to the Site
Planning Department for any accessory dwelling unit. Ms. Gomes added that if a new
development included accessory dwelling units, then those would be shown on the site
plan. Chair Abegg asked if the accessory dwelling units would have separate water
and electrical meters. Ms. Gomes stated that it would be attached to the existing
infrastructure. Chair Abegg asked if there were any regulations regarding meters. Ms.
Gomes noted that meter regulations are not part of the text amendment as it is not a
land use issue. Chair Abegg asked who the best contact for the text amendment would
be. Ms. Gomes noted that Nayeli Sanchez Luna, Chris DePerro and herself would be
the best contacts.

Public Comment:

Phil Hertel voiced his concerns regarding parking. Mr. Hertel asked if a driveway to the
accessory dwelling unit would be required. Mr. Hertel asked who would be responsible
for any property damage or criminal activity in the accessory dwelling unit. Mr. Hertel
voiced his concerns regarding vehicle access to subdivisions and water conservation.
Mr. Hertel suggested restrictions regarding accessory dwelling units.

Staff Response:

Ms. Gomes noted that parking has been a concern in all villages. Ms. Gomes added
that the property owner would be responsible for any violations. Ms. Gomes stated that
the proposed accessory dwelling unit standards would help mitigate the impact.

Committee Discussion:

Chair Abegg asked if the Fire Department would be looking at the number of potential
accessory dwelling units and street parking when analyzing vehicle access. Ms. Gomes
noted more information could be provided at a later date.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1188
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-23-Y
INFORMATION ONLY

Date of VPC Meeting June 12, 2023
Request Amend Chapters 2, 5, 6, 7, 12 and 13 of the Phoenix
Zoning Ordinance to add accessory dwellings units.


VPC DISCUSSION:

No members of the public registered to speak on this item.

Anthony Grande, staff, provided a presentation regarding the proposed text
amendment, gave examples of accessory dwelling units (ADUs), noted the proposed
standards for new ADUs, and provided a timeline for the proposal.

Committee Member Johnson stated that ADUs are needed and asked whether ADUs
would be allowed to access the alley, noting that it would be beneficial to include alley
access. Mr. Grande replied that the text would require access to the street at a
minimum but doesn’t address access to the alley.

Committee Member Olivas stated that the access wouldn’t work for closed alleys. Mr.
Grande stated that if alley access were included as an option, it wouldn’t work for
gated alleys, and access to the street would be required.

Committee Member Sherman agreed with the comment about alley access and
asked about the definition of height for ADUs. Mr. Grande stated that the zoning
already has a definition for height, which is different depending on the shape of the
roof.

Committee Member Burns asked for clarification on the separate cooking facilities
and if there will be rules for distance between structures. Mr. Grande replied that the
text clarifies that separate cooking facilities are allowed in ADUs and that the text likely
won’t specify a separation distance, which is addressed by building codes, but he will
provide clarification at the next meeting.

Vice Chair O’Grady stated that he was excited to see this text amendment go forward.

Committee Member Sonoskey provided clarification on fire rating requirements for


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882

Page 1189
Central City Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 12, 2023
Page 2


buildings that are closer than five feet together and that there are a lot of illegal
accessory units, and it is important to legalize them.

Committee Member Gaughan asked about the use of ADUs for short-term rentals.
Mr. Grande replied that the text doesn’t address short-term rentals. Vice Chair
O’Grady commented that a study found that 12 percent of ADUs were used as short-
term rentals.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1190
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-23-Y
INFORMATION ONLY
Date of VPC Meeting June 6, 2023
Request Amend Chapters 2, 5, 6, 7, 12 and 13 of the Phoenix
Zoning Ordinance to add accessory dwellings units.

VPC DISCUSSION:
Two members of the public registered to speak on this item.

STAFF PRESENTATION:

John Roanhorse, staff, provided a presentation on the development and adoption of
accessory dwelling units as an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Roanhorse
provided information on definitions, types, zoning, and development standards. Mr.
Roanhorse displayed examples of ADU configurations, sizes, dimensions and
standards that will be applicable for residential development. Mr. Roanhorse discussed
the schedule for the text amendment review at the Villages, Planning Commission and

QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE:

Ms. Schmieder asked if the addition of a pathway and parking associated to an ADU
will be required and will this be balanced in the development and review process. Mr.
Roanhorse responded that additional parking is not required and access via pathway to
the ADU from the front would be required.

PUBLIC COMMENTS:

Larry Whitesell introduced himself and thanked the Committee for the opportunity to
speak, and stated he agreed with the proposed text amendment. Mr. Whitesell stated
this action reflects the City moving forward and would like to see more details on lot
coverage, setbacks and parking needs to be fully addressed. Mr. Whitesell stated he is
looking forward to seeing this get approved by the City Council.

Neal Haddad thanked the Committee for the opportunity to speak and stated there
were some good ideas about the text amendment. Mr. Haddad stated that this text
amendment is a response to state legislative actions, and it is a good response but it is
moving fast in the review process. Mr. Haddad expressed that the recent text
amendments are about legitimacy and input and there has not been input at the
neighborhood level for the previous and current text amendments. Mr. Haddad

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882

Page 1191
Camelback East Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-23-Y


expressed his concern that there is not sufficient input and the City needs to find people
to be involved in the review process.

STAFF RESPONSE:

None.

CCOMMITTEE DISCUSSION:

None.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1192
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-23-Y
INFORMATION ONLY

Date of VPC Meeting June 6, 2023
Request Amend Chapters 2, 5, 6, 7, 12 and 13 of the Phoenix
Zoning Ordinance to add accessory dwellings units


VPC DISCUSSION:

No members of the public registered to speak on this item.

Anthony Grande, staff, provided a presentation regarding the proposed text
amendment, gave examples of accessory dwelling units (ADUs), noted the proposed
standards for new ADUs, and provided a timeline for the proposal.

Committee Member Santoro asked about rear yard projection limits. Mr. Grande
clarified the proposed text related to rear yards.

Committee Member Reynolds asked about the applicability in existing subdivisions
and whether HOAs could prevent it. Mr. Grande stated that he would provide
clarification at the next meeting.

Vice Chair Lagrave stated that he was not in favor of the proposal, noting that it would
cause congestion and parking issues in neighborhoods.

Committee Member Santoro stated that the proposal could provide opportunities for
next generation homes. Vice Chair Lagrave stated that he didn’t have an issue with
that type of housing, but the proposal would create slum conditions.

Committee Member Nowell asked about the impetus for this proposal. Mr. Grande
replied that it would promote new opportunities for housing.

Committee Member Hankins asked for clarification that this proposal would
essentially be doubling the zoning. Mr. Grande replied that it would allow an additional
unit on single-family lots with limitations, explained in the presentation.

Committee Member Younger asked if this would have an impact on property taxes.
Chair Bowser replied that it would impact taxes because the assessed value would


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882

Page 1193
Desert View Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 6, 2023
Page 2


increase for properties with an ADU.

Committee Member Kirkilas asked for clarification about the building footprint that
could be constructed under the proposal. Mr. Grande reviewed the limitations on the
building footprint, including lot coverage, setbacks, and the specific limitations included
in the proposed text.

Committee Member Kollar asked about lot coverage. Mr. Grande replied with a
description of the lot coverage requirements. Chair Bowser, Vice Chair Lagrave, and
Committee Member Santoro added additional context with a discussion about the
various development standards that new development must follow.

Vice Chair Lagrave stated that the proposal was inconsistent with several of the city’s
policy plans.

Committee Member Israel asked if there would be a parallel process addressing
issues with short-term rentals. Committee Member Nowell noted that the city isn’t
able to prohibit short-term rentals.

Committee Member Kirkilas stated that the proposal could help reduce urban sprawl.

Chair Bowser suggested that the city undertake educational efforts to inform property
owners of the standards for ADUs and that there should be a level of design review for
ADUs to make sure the buildings look good.

Committee Member Israel agreed with the Chair and noted that in the absence of
design review, someone could put up a container home as an ADU.

Committee Member Santoro stated that there was a builder that wanted to do ADUs
in the past and that there should be a middle ground solution because many people
fight against having multifamily housing in their neighborhoods, suggesting that smaller
lots could be exempted from allowing ADUs. Mr. Kirkilas indicated agreement. Mr.
Nowell agreed there should be a minimum lot size.

Committee Member Kollar asked for clarification on the definition of an ADU. Mr
Grande replied that there would be more specific text at the next hearing and would
include a definition.

Chair Bowser suggested there should be simple, clear guidance for mom and pop
applicants looking to build an ADU.

Vice Chair Lagrave stated that he doesn’t agree with allowing the types of ADUs
where the building footprint on a property increases.

Committee Member Hankins asked about the current regulations because there are
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1194
Desert View Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 6, 2023
Page 3


some homes with accessory structures on the lots. Mr. Grande noted that some
districts currently allow guesthouses. Ms. Santoro noted that some developments in
Desert View included small casitas as accessory structures but that they are not
considered dwelling units because they don’t have cooking facilities.

Committee Member Nowell asked whether ADUs would be allowed in front yards,
noting that it would be terrible for curb appeal. Mr. Grande replied that ADUs would not
be allowed in required front yards and most homes don’t have much space between
the front facade and the required front yard.

Committee Member Reynolds asked for clarification that detached garages would still
be allowed on lots with ADUs. Mr. Grande replied that they would be as long as the
property doesn’t exceed the lot coverage or other development standards.

Vice Chair Lagrave stated that this proposal creates issues with sustainability and that
he would rather see yards increasing to allow more tree landscaping.

Committee Member Israel asked for clarification on the definition of height for ADUs.
Mr. Grande stated that he could provide more information at the next meeting.

Committee Member Nowell stated that the proposal could cause an issue with the
urban heat island effect.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1195
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-23-Y
INFORMATION ONLY


Date of VPC Meeting June 13, 2023
Request Amend Chapters 2, 5, 6, 7, 12 and 13 of the Phoenix
Zoning Ordinance to add accessory dwelling units.

VPC DISCUSSION:

Mr. Zambrano explained what an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) is, sharing current
terms used in Phoenix Zoning Ordinance and other nicknames for ADUs. Mr. Zambrano
displayed a photo of the Willo Historic District showing buildings that are likely ADUs, or
guesthouses. Mr. Zambrano shared the proposed changes in the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance, including allowing only one ADU per lot in all single-family zoned districts,
definitions for duplex and triplex to make clear distinctions from ADUs, increases in lot
coverage for most districts, revisions to rear-yard projection rules to allow ADUs and
other projections further into the rear yard, height limitations in the rear yard, and fixing
references to guesthouses among other sections. Mr. Zambrano then discussed
different types of ADUs, including above-garage apartments, detached ADUs, attached
ADUs, basement conversions, and converted garages. Mr. Zambrano noted that ADUs
would be allowed to be two-stories within the building envelope, outside of the required
setbacks, and would be limited to one-story and 15 feet in height within the required
rear yard. Mr. Zambrano added that the text amendment would not prohibit other
accessory structures, such as a detached garage. Mr. Zambrano then shared the
proposed development standards for ADUs and concluded with the timeline for the text
amendment.

Chair Lawrence asked if the proposed text amendment would be for all residential. Mr.
Zambrano confirmed it would apply for all single-family zoning districts.

Mr. Virgil stated that it would only be allowed if the lot had enough room. Mr. Virgil
stated that the required setbacks would restrict some lots from building ADUs.

Chair Lawrence asked what setbacks were depicted on the presentation slide. Mr.
Zambrano responded that most single-family lots have a three-foot side setback on one
side and a 10-foot side setback on the other side, in addition to a 20-foot front yard
setback and a 25-foot rear yard setback, which is likely what is being depicted.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1196
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-23-Y

Mr. Virgil stated that the intent is to try to allow in-law units with cooking facilities. Mr.
Virgil stated that most people were adding kitchens to new structures anyways without
obtaining permits for them.

Chair Lawrence stated that this text amendment would allow inspections for the livable
structures now moving forward rather than doing it without permits. Chair Lawrence
asked what will happen next with this request. Mr. Zambrano responded that it will be
coming back to the VPCs next month for a recommendation vote. Chair Lawrence
asked if HOAs would be able to restrict ADUs. Mr. Zambrano responded that HOAs
could restrict ADUS, but that it would not stop the City from permitting an ADU because
it would be permitted by the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, and because the City does not
look at or know what HOA restrictions are.

Mr. Sommacampagna asked how an attached ADU would have access to the street.
Mr. Zambrano responded that an accessway would be required outside of the primary
dwelling, which could include a pathway along the side of the house, as long as it does
not go through the primary dwelling unit. Mr. Sommacampagna asked if there will be
fire sprinkler requirements for ADUs. Mr. Zambrano responded that he was not sure,
but that fire plan reviewers would review the plans for these structures and would
require the owners to do whatever is required by the fire code. Mr. Sommacampagna
asked if access would be allowed through an alley. Mr. Zambrano responded that the
Phoenix City Code does not allow pedestrian access through an alley, but vehicular
access would be allowed through an alley if it is wide enough. Mr. Sommacampagna
asked if a 220-volt outlet would be allowed in an ADU. Mr. Zambrano responded
affirmatively.

Vice Chair Perreira asked why the Planning Commission had already voted on the
previous text amendments and this text amendment was being heard for a vote by the
VPC before the Planning Commission. Mr. Zambrano responded that the two previous
text amendments were supposed to be heard by the VPC last month but were
continued to this month due to time constraints.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1197
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-23-Y
INFORMATION ONLY


Date of VPC Meeting June 13, 2023
Location Amend Chapters 2, 5, 6, 7, 12 and 13 of the Phoenix
Zoning Ordinance to add accessory dwelling units.


VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS:

No quorum.

STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:

Committee member Ashley Hare left during this item, thus losing quorum.




Page 1198
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-23-Y
INFORMATION ONLY




Date of VPC Meeting June 14, 2023
Request Amend Chapters 2, 5, 6, 7, 12 and 13 of the Phoenix
Zoning Ordinance to add accessory dwelling units.



VPC DISCUSSION:

No quorum.



STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION & STIPULATIONS:

No quorum.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1199
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-23-Y
INFORMATION ONLY



Date of VPC Meeting June 8, 2023
Request Amend Chapters 2, 5, 6, 7, 12 and 13 of the Phoenix
Zoning Ordinance to add accessory dwelling units.


VPC DISCUSSION:

No quorum.



STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION & STIPULATIONS:

No quorum.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1200
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-23-Y
INFORMATION ONLY


Date of VPC Meeting June 8, 2023
Request Amend Chapters 2, 5, 6, 7, 12 and 13 of the Phoenix
Zoning Ordinance to add accessory dwelling units.

VPC DISCUSSION:

Committee member Simon left during this item, bringing the quorum to four members.

Staff Presentation:
Mr. Zambrano explained what an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) is, sharing current
terms used in Phoenix Zoning Ordinance and other nicknames for ADUs. Mr. Zambrano
displayed a photo of the Willo Historic District showing buildings that are likely ADUs, or
guesthouses. Mr. Zambrano shared the proposed changes in the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance, including allowing only one ADU per lot in all single-family zoned districts,
definitions for duplex and triplex to make clear distinctions from ADUs, increases in lot
coverage for most districts, revisions to rear-yard projection rules to allow ADUs and
other projections further into the rear yard, height limitations in the rear yard, and fixing
references to guesthouses among other sections. Mr. Zambrano then discussed
different types of ADUs, including above-garage apartments, detached ADUs, attached
ADUs, basement conversions, and converted garages. Mr. Zambrano noted that ADUs
would be allowed to be two-stories within the building envelope, outside of the required
setbacks, and would be limited to one-story and 15 feet in height within the required
rear yard. Mr. Zambrano added that the text amendment would not prohibit other
accessory structures, such as a detached garage. Mr. Zambrano then shared the
proposed development standards for ADUs and concluded with the timeline for the text
amendment.

Discussion:
None.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1201
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-23-Y
INFORMATION ONLY

Date of VPC Meeting June 20, 2023
Request Amend Chapters 2, 5, 6, 7, 12 and 13 of the Phoenix
Zoning Ordinance to add accessory dwelling units.

VPC DISCUSSION:

Staff Presentation:

Mrs. Sanchez Luna provided an overview of the proposed text amendment. Mrs.
Sanchez Luna noted that the proposed text amendment would allow for accessory
dwelling units. Mrs. Sanchez Luna presented examples of the proposed accessory
dwelling unit development standards. Mrs. Sanchez Luna concluded the presentation by
noting the proposed hearing dates for the text amendment.

Questions from the Committee:

Chair Perez stated that this would make housing available for different income options.
Chair Perez noted that HOAs would be able to prevent accessory dwelling units from
being built or allowed.

Mr. Sanou voiced his support and stated that people are already living in garage
conversions. Mr. Sanou stated that this text amendment would allow more housing
options. Chair Perez noted that the text amendment did not overrule HOA regulations.

Public Comment:

Kirin Goff asked if the city had a ban on advertising guest houses or accessory dwelling
units. Ms. Escolar noted that the majority of residential housing does not allow for a guest
house or accessory dwelling units. Ms. Wallace noted that another common term was
“casita.” Ms. Wallace voiced her support for accessory dwelling units. Chair Perez
requested staff to provide more information on terminology used on housing
advertisement.

Committee Discussion:

Chair Perez recommended the committee to voice their support at the next committee
meeting.


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1202
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-23-Y
INFORMATION ONLY


Date of VPC Meeting June 21, 2023
Amend Chapters 2, 5, 6, 7, 12 and 13 of the Phoenix
Request
Zoning Ordinance to add accessory dwelling units.

VPC DISCUSSION:

Mr. Klimek, staff, explained what an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) is, sharing current
terms used in Phoenix Zoning Ordinance and other nicknames for ADUs. He displayed
a photo of the Willo Historic District showing buildings that are likely ADUs, or
guesthouses. He shared the proposed changes in the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance,
including allowing only one ADU per lot in all single-family zoned districts, definitions for
duplex and triplex to make clear distinctions from ADUs, increases in lot coverage for
most districts, revisions to rear-yard projection rules to allow ADUs and other
projections further into the rear yard, height limitations in the rear yard, and fixing
references to guesthouses among other sections. He then discussed different types of
ADUs, including above-garage apartments, detached ADUs, attached ADUs, basement
conversions, and converted garages. He noted that ADUs would be allowed to be two-
stories within the building envelope, outside of the required setbacks, and would be
limited to one-story and 15 feet in height within the required rear yard. He added that
the text amendment would not prohibit other accessory structures, such as a detached
garage. He then shared the proposed development standards for ADUs and concluded
with the timeline for the text amendment.

QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE

Committee Member Larson asked if the proposed text amendment will override
CC&Rs. Mr. Klimek responded that the \text amendment will not invalidate deed
restrictions.

Committee Member Sommacampagna asked if a public alley can be counted as a
direct pedestrian access to a public right of way. Mr. Klimek responded that an alley
can be used to access the ADU but that a route to the nearest public street must be
provided.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1203
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-23-Y
INFORMATION ONLY


Date of VPC Meeting June 26, 2023
Request Amend Chapters 2, 5, 6, 7, 12 and 13 of the Phoenix
Zoning Ordinance to add accessory dwelling units.


VPC DISCUSSION:

Meeting was canceled due to lack of quorum.



STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION & STIPULATIONS:

Meeting was canceled due to lack of quorum.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1204
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-23-Y
INFORMATION ONLY

Date of VPC Meeting June 27, 2023
Request Amend Chapters 2, 5, 6, 7, 12 and 13 of the Phoenix
Zoning Ordinance to add accessory dwelling units.


VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS:

One member of the public registered to speak on this item.

STAFF PRESENTATION

Mr. Samuel Rogers, staff, provided a presentation regarding the proposed text
amendment, gave examples of accessory dwelling units (ADUs), noted the proposed
standards for new ADUs, and provided a timeline for the proposal.

QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE

Committee Member Adams asked if height is measured to the top of the roof pitch and
if there are any 10,000 square foot properties in Alhambra. Sarah Stockham, staff,
confirmed that height is measured to the top of the roof. Committee Member Keyser
stated that there are large lot homes between Northern and Glendale.

Committee Member Keyser stated that ADUs had previously been restricted and
asked if the reason this text amendment is going forward is to provide more housing
and density. Mr. Rogers confirmed that the purpose of the text amendment is to provide
more housing and greater density and stated that there is also pressure from the State
because there an ADU bill in the state legislature.

Committee Member Fitzgerald asked if parking will be provided in the street. Mr.
Rogers stated that parking is not required but can occur in the existing driveway, the
owner can build additional parking area, or residents can park on the street.

Committee Member Camp stated that she has seen demand for more
multigenerational housing.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882

Page 1205
Alhambra Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-91-22-5


Committee Member Solorio stated that the AARP is working on ADU reform nationally
and has developed model language in cooperation with the American Planning
Association. Committee Member Solorio explained that in order to not exclude seniors
that do not drive, one of the key components of the model AARP language is to not
include parking. Committee Member Solorio stated that ADUs are legal statewide in
Oregon, California, and Montana, as well as in cities across the country, and explained
that ADUs are an affordable housing typology that is not subsidized by the government.

Committee Member Fitzgerald asked if the ADUs can be used as short-term rentals.
Mr. Rogers explained that the State restricts municipalities’ ability to regulate ADUs, but
there may be some changes at the state level that allow municipalities more power to
regulate short-term rentals.

Chair Bryck asked about the research behind the regulations presented and what
communication had occurred with other jurisdictions. Mr. Rogers explained that he was
not a part of the team that developed to ordinance, but he knew that some elements of
the text amendment language had come from the City of Tucson. Ms. Stockham stated
that there will be a staff report with more information. Chair Bryck stated that the
regulation that allows for larger lots to have larger ADUs favors large landowners, stated
that the restriction on fences seems strange, and explained that ADUs should be
allowed to have zero-foot rear setback when adjacent to a fully dedicated alley. Mr.
Rogers explained that you can encroach into the rear yard setback but not the side yard
setbacks.

PUBLIC COMMENTS

Jackie Rich stated that there was not enough publication of the text amendments and
explained that the ADUs will not address workforce housing because they will not be
rented to strangers. Ms. Rich stated that the ADU ordinance will be good for developers
who want to build two units on a lot. Ms. Rich stated that she has wants short-term
rentals to be regulated, protection for historic neighborhoods, protection from investors,
and for the text amendment to be evaluated in terms of how much workforce housing
will be developed.

STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION

None.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1206
ATTACHMENT F




Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-23-Y



Date of VPC Meeting August 7, 2023
Request Amend Chapters 2, 5, 6, 7, 12 and 13 of the Phoenix
Zoning Ordinance to add accessory dwelling units.
VPC Recommendation Denial
VPC Vote 9-5


VPC DISCUSSION:

Abram Bowman, Diane Petersen, and Regina Schmidt joined the meeting during this
item, bringing the quorum to 14 members.

Staff Presentation:
Adrian Zambrano, staff, explained what an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) is, sharing
current terms used in Phoenix Zoning Ordinance and other nicknames for ADUs. Mr.
Zambrano shared the proposed changes to the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, including
allowing only one ADU per lot in all single-family zoned districts, definitions for duplex
and triplex to make clear distinctions from ADUs, increases in lot coverage for most
districts, revisions to rear-yard projection rules to allow ADUs and other projections
further into the rear yard, height limitations in the rear yard unless a use permit is
obtained, and fixing references to guesthouses and other sections of the Phoenix
Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Zambrano then discussed different types of ADUs, including
detached ADUs and attached ADUs. Mr. Zambrano noted that ADUs would be allowed
to be two-stories within the building envelope, outside of the required setbacks, and
would be limited to one-story and 15 feet in height within the required rear yard, unless
a use permit is obtained. Mr. Zambrano added that the text amendment would not
prohibit other accessory structures, such as a detached garage. Mr. Zambrano then
shared the proposed development standards for ADUs. Mr. Zambrano shared the
timeline for the text amendment, the results of the other Village Planning Committees
(VPCs) that heard this text amendment last month, and Planning Commission results.
Mr. Zambrano stated that staff recommends approval per the language in Exhibit A of
the Addendum A staff report.

Questions from the Committee:
Mr. Goodhue asked for clarification that building ADUs and other detached accessory
structures still cannot go beyond the maximum lot coverage. Mr. Zambrano responded

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1207
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-23-Y

affirmatively, noting that it could only go beyond the maximum lot coverage allowed if a
variance is obtained.

Diane Petersen asked if the access to the ADU has to be outside of the primary
dwelling unit. Mr. Zambrano responded affirmatively, noting that the unit could still have
a door connecting to the primary dwelling unit, but it is required to have access outside
of the primary dwelling unit.

Chair Popovic asked for clarification that Homeowners Associations (HOAs) can
prohibit ADUs. Mr. Zambrano responded affirmatively, noting that the City may still
permit ADUs in communities with HOAs because the City does not look at the
Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) of all the different HOAs throughout
the City and only looks at the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance based on what is allowed
throughout the City. Mr. Zambrano added that it would become an enforcement issue
with the HOA if an individual did not get HOA permission prior to seeking permits from
the City.

Marc Soronson asked if the City knows what happened recently at the Arizona
Governor’s office related to short-term rentals. Mr. Zambrano responded that he is not
sure what happened. Mr. Zambrano added that there is an upcoming amendment to the
Phoenix City Code regarding short-term rentals to address the recent Arizona State
laws that passed about what cities could regulate regarding short-term rentals.

Mr. Goodhue asked if the text amendment would still require ADU applicants to record
a restrictive covenant requiring the property owner to live in either the ADU or the
primary dwelling unit. Mr. Zambrano responded affirmatively, noting that this language
was vetted through the Law Department. Mr. Zambrano added that the restrictive
covenant would also require the property to either be sold or rented as a whole rather
than individually.

Ms. Petersen stated that HOAs can prohibit short-term rentals and asked why the City
cannot. Mr. Zambrano responded that HOAs can restrict ADUs but is unsure if they can
restrict short-term rentals due to the State laws. Ms. Petersen stated that HOAs can
restrict them.

Chair Popovic asked if the concern with short-term rentals is wanting longer-term
occupants of the unit.

Ms. Petersen stated that there was a proposed modification to restrict the time of
occupancy to 30 days.

Chair Popovic asked what the minimum time allowed would be to rent a short-term
rental that is not located within an HOA. Mr. Zambrano responded that with the
proposed text, there would be no time limit for one of the units, as long as the property
owner lives within the other unit. Mr. Zambrano explained that the restrictive covenant to
require the property owner to live in either the ADU or the primary dwelling unit was a


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1208
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-23-Y

way for the City to be able to limit the number of short-term rentals, since investment
companies would not be able to live within one of the units.

Mr. Goodhue asked if the restrictive covenant would still be accepted if it is signed by a
business, such as an LLC. Mr. Zambrano responded that he was not sure.

Ms. Petersen asked why this text amendment was initiated. Mr. Zambrano responded
that it was initiated per the direction of City Council and the Housing Phoenix Plan,
which was adopted in 2020, to allow increased density throughout the City in order to
increase housing supply. Ms. Petersen stated that the problem with the housing supply
is that many properties are bought by short-term rental companies.

Mr. Goodhue asked if the text amendment was being pushed through due to proposed
State bills that would have allowed the State to dictate what is allowed for ADUs instead
of the City. Mr. Zambrano responded affirmatively, adding that the City is limited in
terms of restrictions on short-term rentals due to the State laws.

Jennifer Hall asked if the text amendment is approved, if ADUs can be constructed
without any zoning public hearing process. Mr. Zambrano responded affirmatively. Ms.
Hall expressed concerns with allowing ADUs on all lots with single-family homes
throughout the City.

Chair Popovic stated that a majority of individuals throughout the City would probably
not be able to afford to build an ADU.

Ms. Hall stated that she did not understand the motivation behind this due to concerns
with how ADUs will affect neighborhoods.
Chair Popovic stated that there would likely not ever be ADUs on every single lot with
single-family homes due to the costs associated with building an ADU.

Ms. Hall expressed concerns with there being no control over ADUs due to no use
permit or other public hearing process being required for ADUs.

Mr. Wise asked why additional parking is not required for ADUs and expressed
concerns with more on-street parking and traffic congestion. Mr. Zambrano explained
that required parking cannot be located within the front yard setback area, so if a
parking space is required, most single-family lots would not have anywhere to place an
extra parking space. Mr. Zambrano added that single-family homes require two parking
spaces, which would be located within the garage behind the front yard setback area,
leaving two guest parking spaces in the driveway for the ADU. Mr. Wise responded that
some garages are filled with junk which results in those two cars parking in the
driveway.

Mr. Goodhue stated that if he rented out an ADU, he would not allow the renters to
park in the driveway. Mr. Goodhue asked if part of the text amendment still included
increasing the allowable percentage of the front yard area for driveways. Mr. Zambrano
responded affirmatively.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1209
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-23-Y

Ms. Hall asked for clarification that the Planning Commission recommended approval
per the staff recommendation and did not include any of the direction or modifications
recommended by other VPCs. Mr. Zambrano responded affirmatively.

Anna Sepic commented that areas with smaller lots, such as areas with R1-6 zoning,
already have issues with parking. Ms. Sepic expressed concerns with not requiring
additional parking for ADUs and diminishing the character of neighborhoods.

Mr. Goodhue concurred. Mr. Goodhue added that there were enforcement issues the
City had in the past of people using accessory structures to live in, which the text
amendment would legalize.

Ms. Sepic asked what distinguishes a dwelling unit as being considered a dwelling unit.
Mr. Zambrano responded that the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance defines a dwelling unit as
specifically having cooking facilities. Mr. Zambrano added that currently, building plans
for accessory structures are reviewed to ensure it is not labeled as a casita,
guesthouse, or ADU, and to ensure no rooms are labeled as a bedroom or kitchen, and
the approval note would usually state that the structure cannot be used for sleeping,
living or cooking.

Mr. Goodhue asked if there was any discussion to restrict the primary dwelling unit to
be owner-occupied. Mr. Zambrano responded that the restrictive covenant would
require the property owner to occupy either the ADU or the primary dwelling unit. Mr.
Goodhue stated that the property owner could live in the ADU and rent the primary
dwelling unit for an unaffordable price.

Chair Popovic argued that there is a missing middle housing problem.

Ms. Sepic criticized the process for this City-wide text amendment, noting that it was
not a strategic plan to allow ADUs on any lot with a single-family home and to require no
additional parking. Ms. Sepic added that there are villages with major parking issues
and violations. Ms. Sepic stated that the text amendment should have been to allow
ADUs only for specific lots that actually have the capabilities to build an ADU.

Public Comments:
None.

Staff Response:
None.

MOTION – Z-TA-5-23-Y:
Ms. Hall motioned to recommend denial of Z-TA-5-23-Y. Ms. Petersen seconded the
motion.

VOTE – Z-TA-5-23-Y:
9-5; motion to recommend denial of Z-TA-5-23-Y passes with Committee members
DeMoss, Goodhue, Hall, Mazza, Petersen, Schmidt, Sepic, Wise, and Mortensen in

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1210
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-23-Y

favor and Committee members Bowman, Bustamante, Soronson, Ward, and Popovic
opposed.

STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:

None.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1211
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-23-Y
Date of VPC Meeting July 10, 2023
Request Amend Chapters 2, 5, 6, 7, 12 and 13 of the Phoenix
Zoning Ordinance to add accessory dwellings units.
VPC Recommendation Approval, per the staff recommendation
VPC Vote 9-4

VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS:

1 member of the public registered in support, wishing to speak.
2 members of the public registered in opposition wishing to speak.

STAFF PRESENTATION

John Roanhorse, staff, introduced himself and provided a presentation on the
development and adoption of accessory dwelling units. Mr. Roanhorse provided a brief
history of the text amendment and the City Council’s response to provide housing
options. Mr. Roanhorse provided information on definitions, types, zoning, and
development standards, lot coverage and the allowance of ADU’s in additional zoning
areas. Mr. Roanhorse displayed examples of ADU configurations, sizes, projections,
setbacks, dimensions and standards that will be applicable for residential development.
Mr. Roanhorse noted associated parking and accessibility to ADU’s if they are
developed. Mr. Roanhorse discussed the schedule for the text amendment review at the
Villages, Planning Commission and City Council.

QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE
Committee Member Kleinman inquired if there is a property with a detached garage
can that structure become an ADU. Mr. Roanhorse responded that yes a garage could
become an ADU as long as it complies with the requirements for life safety and fire
code to allow someone to reside there. Mr. Kleinman commented that a garage would
then be in the category of being allowed to be transferred to an ADU. Mr. Kleinman
asked if an ADU could be constructed and used as a business. Mr. Chris DePerro,
staff responded that home occupation is already allowed on residential property, a
business in an attached structure requires a use permit. Mr. Kleinman asked if a
homeowner built an ADU then chose to reside there could the primary house be
converted into a community type group home without a permit. Mr. DePerro responded
that group homes with 5 residents or more require a special permit.

Vice Chair Rodriguez asked if a single-family home does not have a garage can it be
converted to an ADU for aging relatives. Mr. DePerro responded that garages are not
living spaces and the text amendment grants permission to allow ADU without making
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1212
Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-23-Y

the process more difficult. Mr. DePerro stated that the text amendment allows an
increase in lot coverage. Vice Chair Rodriguez commented that accessory structure
permitting should not take too long to allow residential structures and occupancy. Vice
Chair Rodriguez asked about the setbacks for ADU’s. Mr. DePerro responded for an
ADU the side yard setback would have to be met and with an alley the setback would be
0. Mr. DePerro noted that there are some existing accessory structures and the setback
would not require any additional action.

Committee Member Mahrle asked about short-term rentals and this has not been a
problem when owners live in the primary home and noted how the City of Flagstaff
responded to the issue. Mr. DePerro responded that the intent of the text amendment
was to prevent a primary residence and an ADU to be rented separately however state
law limits the City’s authority, so a covenant requirement was included as a requirement
for an ADU.

Committee Member Benjamin commented that this is the first time the city has
expressed the existence of short-term rentals.

Chair Wagner asked what public outreach was done to get input for the text
amendments. Mr. DePerro responded that there was pressure from the state level and
there were initial information only sessions at the Village Planning Committee meetings
and these interactions would promote the dissemination of information to gain more
public feedback. Chair Wagner asked if the information only session were open to the
public and was notice provided. Mr. DePerro responded that notice was given for the
meetings and information on the text amendments were made available to the public.
Chair Wagner noted that when the information only presentation was provided at the
Encanto Village Planning Committee Meeting there was no quorum. Chair Wagner
commented the text amendment information is lengthy and thanked Mr. DePerro for his
work and asked does this action remove single family zoning in Phoenix. Chair Wagner
asked if traditional zoning has been for single-family with only one family on a lot and
will there be anywhere in Phoenix where this will still exist. Mr. DePerro respond that the
text amendment is intended for an accessory unit to a primary unit for residential
purposes to provide a housing option. Mr. DePerro stated that accessory units have
been developed prior to this text amendment increases the lot coverage but does not
change much more and this action allows an accessory use. Chair Wagner noted that
many homes in the historic districts have existing accessory units that were done many
years ago and certain neighborhoods like Willo there have been questions about ADUs.
Chair Wagner stated that many residents in historic districts have asked what the ADU
can be used for and the text should include provisions to all existing units to become
legal with little effort for homeowners. Mr. DePerro responded that if existing ADU’s
meet the requirements for setbacks in the rear yard and side yard and they were
permitted they would be considered legal nonconforming.

Committee Member Kleinman asked how do ADU impact HOA’s and how would a
new ADU be developed in a historic district and who would take the lead on a historic
property. Mr. DePerro responded that ADU’s do not have an impact on HOA’s the
City’s zoning code does not have the ability effect what an HOA does. Mr. DePerro

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1213
Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-23-Y

responded that for historic preservation the required development review will be
conducted by the Historic Preservation Office. Mr. Kleinman asked that if a certificate of
appropriateness will still be required for an ADU and would this change the timeline for
development. Mr. DePerro responded that the timeline may not change for a historic
preservation review. Mr. Kleinman commented that the review process for historic
preservation is a cumbersome and timely process.

Vice Chair Rodriguez asked in a historic area if a swimming pool was added would
that be subject to an historic preservation review. Ms. Helena Ruter, staff responded
that it would not require a historic preservation review. Vice Chair Rodriguez asked if
installing a 12-foot-deep pool would not need a review but an ADU would require a
review. Ms. Ruter stated that some reviews in the past have been approved over the
counter and this might be something that can be reevaluated.

Mr. Kleinman asked about the number of permitted ADUs. Ms. Ruter responded that
presently there are none but currently an accessory units up to 600 square feet have
been approved over the counter.

Mr. Tedhams asked about a lot of 10,000 square feet and can you build an ADU up to
3,000 square feet and is only one ADU allowed per property. Mr. DePerro responded
that one ADU is allowed for a single family detached lot and if a lot is 10,000 square feet
or more 3,000 square feet is the cap or 10 percent of the lot area. Mr. Tedhams asked if
the text amendment allows only one ADU per residential lot. Mr. DePerro responded
that yes only one is allowed.

Ms. George asked about the public outreach process for the Village Planning
Committees and what has taken place. Mr. DePerro responded that conducting
presentations at the Village Planning Committee Meeting has been one method of
outreach to neighborhoods. Mr. DePerro noted that when the Village Planning
Committees were initiated, they would be the first outreach and by interacting with
neighborhoods and their established networks they would provide information. Mr.
DePerro noted that the Village Committees are the first line in working with
neighborhoods.

Chair Wagner asked about special planning districts and overlays and will these be
superseded by this text amendment. Mr. DePerro responded that with any overlay
district or special district what is more restrictive is what is applicable. Chair Wagner
asked about the applicability of the historic preservation review and it appears that the
text amendment may override the historic preservation requirements because the
language is imprecise. Chair Wagner noted that language has been put forward that
explicitly says where there is conflict historic preservation shall prevail and is there a
way this language can be added to the text amendment. Mr. DePerro responded yes
that additional language can be added but additions can be applicable to certain
portions of the ordinance. Mr. DePerro stated the requirements for historic preservation
apply everywhere and in all cases for zoning. Chair Wagner asked why historic
preservation was added to certain sections and does not make it clear. Mr. DePerro
responded that there are areas where historic preservation has been added to allow

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1214
Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-23-Y

permission and exempt plans from review but a historic preservation review is still
required. Chair Wagner noted that the code is written for the public not just people at
the counter and in Section 706, it is not clear that a project will have to be reviewed by
historic preservation and the assertion the review is either or is a concern. Mr. DePerro
responded that all accessory structures where it is applicable have to go through a
historic preservation review. Chair Wagner commented that with the information
discussed does any language need to be changed. Mr. DePerro responded no but he
has the feedback and the language will be evaluated for consideration and clarity. Chair
Wagner commented the historic preservation issue is a sticking point.

Vice Chair Rodriguez asked when there is a change in leadership will there be a
change in the internal processes of how projects will be reviewed. Mr. DePerro
responded that he has served under many directors and the policy and process will
remain the same and the addition of historic preservation was intended to provide
clarity.

Mr. Tedhams asked if a detached garage is already set up to live in why would it be
required to go to the city and is it now required for new developments. Mr. DePerro
responded that it is not needed and this proposed action allows an entitlement and may
not be a factor however when a property is sold the evaluation may require a
determination if a structure was permitted.

Mr. Procaccini asked if the text amendment was passed with stipulations with the
addition of the information provided by the Phoenix Historic Neighborhood Coalition
would that be a detriment. Mr. DePerro responded not directly to granting permission
but in the long term there could be confusion about where historic preservation is
applicable if is noted in one section in not in another and the requirement of a historic
preservation review will always remain.

PUBLIC COMMENT
Cory Kincaid introduced himself as a resident of Phoenix for 15 years and has been
involved with ADU’s for the last 5 years. Mr. Kincaid stated he is pleased that this text
amendment is moving forward. Mr. Kincaid stated that small living spaces have been
legal in many communities and it is a good option and housing prices is a factor in
residential development and availability. Mr. Kincaid stated he supports this text
amendment and thanked the Committee.

Susan Edward with the Arizona Neighborhood Alliance introduced herself. Ms.
Edwards stated the proposed text amendment could be a disaster and this could be a
potential solution to increase housing. Ms. Edwards noted that SB 1350 prohibits
municipalities and counties from regulating short term rentals and SB 1487 provides
measures for complaints and review. Ms. Edward stated that any stipulation developed
by the city are not going to avoid any complaints or lawsuits. Ms. Edward noted there
are numerous ADU’s in the state and only a few are licensed. Ms. Edwards noted that
there is no penalty mechanism set up and how will this be addressed and the city has
no resources for enforcement. Some cities have established requirements for short term

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1215
Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-23-Y

rentals and had to resend the requirements because they violated the state laws. Ms.
Edwards stated this text amendment is a disaster and will require a state level solution.

Neal Haddad introduced himself and referenced a letter prepared by the Neighborhood
Coalition of Greater Phoenix. Mr. Haddad stated there is some confusion about how the
text amendment has been prepared and there were some language suggestions on
language and other improvements. Mr. Haddad stated there are many issues with the
text amendment that have been identify by many who have reviewed the proposed
amendment. Mr. Haddad stated that approving the text amendment as approved would
be a problem and there are many concerns. Mr. Haddad stated there are concerns with
outreach and how it was conducted. Mr. Haddad presented at 15 committee meetings
and noted that each village has differing contacts and connections and there needs to
be more citizen participation.

STAFF RESPONSE
Mr. Roanhorse responded that there are many issues that have been discussed and
that the City has taken great steps to provide information and has received and
extensive volume of comments and these will be reviewed and considered.

Mr. DePerro noted there is an additional action regarding short term rentals that is not
zoning related, the City Code is being amended to adopt the strictest regulations that
the state will allow for licensing, and this may impact short term rentals and there is
much more happening.

Mr. Cardenas asked for clarification on state requirements and taxation for short term
rentals. Mr. DePerro stated this text amendment is zoning entitlement to allow an ADU
on your property and talks about accessory uses. Mr. Cardenas asked if there is only
one chance for review and will there be an opportunity to make changes in the future if
there are unintended consequences. Mr. DePerro responded from the meeting tonight
the recommendations will be reviewed and the amendment will go to the Planning
Commission for further review and discussion and finally to the City Council for action.

MOTION:
Committee Member G.G. George made a motion to recommend denial of Z-TA-5-23-
Y. Chair Opal Wagner seconded the motion.

Chair Wagner stated that the text amendment as proposed is a sweeping change for
the City of Phoenix and there are many existing ADU’s and it would be beneficial to
have an approval process in place. Chair Wagner stated there should be considerably
more outreach for the text amendment and would like to see more and there is no
enforcement process and the addition of historic preservation language as intended is
not suitable. Chair Wagner noted Vice Chair Rodriguez comment about making
adjustments with stipulations and that would not be sufficient.

Committee Member Mark Cardenas made a substitute motion to approve Z-TA-5-23-
Y per the staff recommendation. Vice Chair Nicole Rodriguez seconded the motion.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1216
Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-23-Y


DISCUSSION:
Mr. Tedhams commented that the use of ADU’s is an opportunity and should be
allowed for more residential options and the zoning language is adequate.

Mr. Mahrle stated that he does not support either text amendment and that the
Committee should recommend that the City should look at the historic preservation
requirements carefully.

Vice Chair Rodriguez stated that there has been due diligence on the text
amendments and things will change with ongoing review and it could be better and this
action will have a positive impact on residents and it should be voted on as is.

VOTE:
9-4; motion to approve Z-TA-5-23-Y per the staff recommendation passes with
Committee Members Benjamin, Cardenas, Jewett, Kleinman, Picos, Procaccini,
Searles, Tedhams and Vice Chair Rodriguez in support; with Committee Members
Doescher, George, Mahrle, and Chair Wagner opposed.

STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION & STIPULATIONS:

None.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1217
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-23-Y

Date of VPC Meeting July 10, 2023
Request Amend Chapters 2, 5, 6, 7, 12 and 13 of the Phoenix
Zoning Ordinance to add accessory dwelling units.
VPC Recommendation Approval with direction
VPC Vote 7-1

VPC DISCUSSION:

Staff Presentation:

Tricia Gomes, acting Deputy Director of the Planning and Development Department,
provided a presentation regarding the proposed text amendment, gave examples of
accessory dwelling units (ADUs), noted the proposed standards for new ADUs,
provided a timeline for the proposal, and presented the staff recommendation to
approve.

Questions from Committee:

Dean Chiarelli noted that the proposed text amendment would put a strain on the
neighborhoods and that he had concerns regarding the parking and the lack of data
used to support the text amendment. Mr. Chiarelli also noted that there should be a
maximum number of ADUs in a street. Ms. Gomes noted that the definition of
affordable housing would be addressed in the next text amendment and the current text
amendment does not place affordable restrictions on ADUs. Ms. Gomes also provided
the definition of affordable housing that is present in the text amendment Z-TA-8-23-Y.
Mr. Chiarelli noted that the ADU text amendment was on the right path but that it would
not solve the housing issue.

JoAnne Jensen stated that the proposed text amendment has structural concerns
regarding parking, traffic, water, sewer, and electric. Ms. Jensen noted that there are
concerns with emergency service accessibility. Ms. Jensen added that there are
community concerns regarding the role of the committee. Ms. Jensen noted that it felt
that the community has lost its decision-making power and will be ignored. Ms. Jensen
added that this text amendment would not adequately address the housing issues in the
City. Ms. Gomes noted that the text amendment is not an absolute solution to the
housing issue. Ms. Gomes added that ADUs would be a tool and an option to address
the housing issue in the City.


200 West Washington Street, 3 rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1218
Carlos Ortega stated that some ADUs can be used for recreational activities and asked
what neighborhoods can do to tackle issues such as ADUs used for parties. Mr. Ortega
noted that the term affordable housing used in the text amendment could cause issues
and asked if the wording could be changed. Mr. Ortega added that he had concerns
with parking, fire safety, and how are regulations going to be enforced. Ms. Gomes
noted that ADUs are required to go through a full review. Ms. Gomes noted that the fire
and police department will have access to all structures on a lot. Ms. Gomes added that
the property owner should have control over tenant behavior and that there are laws to
assist in any nuisance situations. Ms. Gomes noted ADU parking can be provided in the
driveway, but that it would not be required.

Patrick Nasser-Taylor asked what research was done to support ADUs. Ms. Gomes
stated that the Phoenix Housing Plan encourages an increase in housing stock within
the City and ADUs are just one option that is offered but are not meant to solve
affordable housing. Ms. Gomes noted that staff analyzed the Tucson, Flagstaff, and the
current Phoenix Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Gomes added that staff analyzed the
requirements in different cities and applied it to Phoenix’s structure. Mr. Nasser-Taylor
asked how the city would enforce the owner occupied portion of the proposed text
amendment. Ms. Gomes noted that before a building permit for the ADU is provided,
the owner must a recorded owner occupied document. Ms. Gomes stated that
Neighborhood Services Department can enforce the requirement, or the surrounding
neighbors could sue the owner. Mr. Nasser-Taylor asked how ADUs would affect
property taxes. Ms. Gomes noted that it would be assessed as a single-family.

Rebecca Perrera stated that she had concerns with short-term rentals and parking. Ms.
Perrera asked if staff has a worst-case scenario once the text amendment is approved
and provided a theoretical lot size. Ms. Gomes stated that the majority of the lots are
less than 10,000 square feet which would limit ADUs to 1,000 square feet. Mr. Ortega
noted that small lots would be unable to build ADUs. Ms. Gomes added that the lot
coverage was slightly increased to accommodate the construction of an ADU.

Vice Chair Hurd asked what percentage of homes would be able to build an ADU. Ms.
Gomes noted that an exact percentage can not be provided. Ms. Gomes added that the
city is allowing for the construction of an ADU, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that
everyone can afford an ADU.

Jennifer Rouse stated that she has concerns with the crime, short term rentals, and
violations of covenants. Ms. Gomes noted that property owners have the right to rent
out their property to any individual and that that would be beyond the realm of the text
amendment.

Public Comment:

Phil Hertel stated that ADUs should be reviewed and approved in a case-by-case basis
rather than through a city-wide text amendment. Mr. Hertel noted that there should be a
limitation on the number of ADUs per street or neighborhood. Mr. Hertel added that
ADUs will add to issues with street parking. Mr. Hertel noted that street parking and
excessive parking will prevent fire from accessing a house or an ADU. Mr. Hertel stated
that parking had to be addressed in the text amendment. Mr. Hertel stated that he
agreed with Committee Member Ortega’s comments and noted that there should have
been extensive outreach and public meetings.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1219
Dan Penton, on behalf of the LCRD, stated that the LCRD has received a letter from
the Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix. Mr. Penton stated that he was in
support of the letter submitted by the coalition. Mr. Penton noted that the LCRD
supported the proposed parking regulations and short-term rentals. Mr. Penton added
that the there should be coordination between HOAs and staff proposing the text
amendment.

Jack Purvis asked if HOAs would be able to supersede the provisions allowed per the
text amendment. Ms. Gomes noted that if an HOA has a regulation restricting ADUs
then the homeowner would have to oblige by those rules. Mr. Purvis asked HOAs could
amend their regulations to address ADUs. Ms. Gomes confirmed. Mr. Purvis asked if
recreational vehicles (RVs) or tiny homes are already permitted. Ms. Gomes noted that
people are unable to live in RVs and tiny homes can be converted to ADUs.

Mr. Hertel asked how parking would work in a cul-de-sac. Mrs. Gomes stated that
single-family residential houses are required to have two parking spaces outside of the
front yard setback. Mr. Hertel noted that that is not realistic as people use garages for
storage.

Committee Discussion:

Mr. Ortega stated that enforcement of regulations is not enough to make sure ADUs do
not negatively impact neighborhoods.

Mr. Nasser-Taylor stated that the wealthy would be the ones capitalizing from ADUs.

Ms. Jensen noted that the committee has been focusing on extreme cases. Ms. Jensen
stated that she agreed with other member’s comments but that the ADUs would help.

Ms. Perrera stated that she agreed with the Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix
letter. Ms. Perrera stated that she would support a motion to approve the text
amendment with the proposed changes in the letter.

Motion:
Rebecca Perrera motioned to recommend approval of Z-TA-5-23-Y with direction to
incorporate the changes in the Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix letter of
recommendation with respect to accessory dwelling units. Jennifer Rouse seconded
the motion.

Ms. Gomes noted that staff has also receive the letter. Ms. Gomes added that if a
property is designated as historic, then Historic Preservation must review the plans. Ms.
Gomes stated that ADUs would still have to comply to Historic Preservation and the
proposed standards. Ms. Gomes noted that the letter states to provide parking in the
driveway. Ms. Gomes reiterated that required parking is not allowed in the front yard
setback. Ms. Gomes stated that the current State law allows for short-term rentals and
the text amendment would require the property owner to live on the site.

Ms. Perrera stated that the changes proposed in the letter could be a good starting
point and that she would like to retain her motion.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1220
Vote:
7-1, motion to recommend approval of Z-TA-5-23-Y with direction passed with
Committee Members Barraza, Chiarelli, Jensen, Ortega, Perrera, Rouse, and Hurd in
favor and Committee Member Nasser-Taylor in opposition.

Staff Comments Regarding VPC Recommendation:

None.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1221
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-23-Y

Date of VPC Meeting July 10, 2023
Request Amend Chapters 2, 5, 6, 7, 12 and 13 of the Phoenix
Zoning Ordinance to add accessory dwellings units
VPC Recommendation Approval per the staff recommendation with direction
VPC Vote 14-0



VPC DISCUSSION:

One member of the public registered to speak on this item.

STAFF PRESENTATION
Anthony Grande, staff, provided a presentation regarding the proposed text
amendment, gave examples of accessory dwelling units (ADUs), noted the proposed
standards for new ADUs, and provided a timeline for the proposal.

QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE
Committee Member Starks asked about the process and standards for obtaining a
use permit to exceed the 15-foot height limit in the rear yard. Mr. Grande replied with
the standards for use permits.

Committee Member Uss stated that short-term rentals have been an issue in other
cities allowing ADUs and other cities have implemented rules to mitigate issues with
short-term rentals. Mr. Grande stated that the proposed text includes a requirement for
the property owner to live on the property or not allow subleasing of the property.

Committee Member Olivas expressed support for ADUs and noted concerns about
the speed of the process for implementing the text amendment.

Committee Member Sherman expressed support for the text amendment and asked
about compliance with the new registration process for short-term rentals. Mr. Grande
stated that he didn’t have any information available on the issue.

Committee Member Sonoskey asked about the lot coverage increase. Mr. Grande
replied that the lot coverage is increased overall and also allows additional lot coverage
for a property with an ADU. Mr. Sonoskey asked about historic preservation concerns


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882

Page 1222
Central City Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 10, 2023
Page 2


raised by correspondence sent to the committee. Mr. Grande stated that the proposed
text does not remove the requirement for a historic property to go through HP review.
Sarah Stockham, staff, replied by reading the requirement for HP review in Chapter 8
of the zoning.

Committee Member Martinez asked about compliance checks. Mr. Grande described
the development review process.

Committee Member Greenman stated concerns about the lack of public input on the
text amendment, the availability of infrastructure in the city to support ADUs, and a
preference for a smaller pilot program, rather than a citywide proposal. Mr. Grande
replied that infrastructure capacity is reviewed when site plans are reviewed by the city.

Committee Member Gaughan expressed concern about short-term rentals and stated
it would be good to stay ahead of the curve on infrastructure.

Committee Member Uss stated that a similar proposal in Tucson had issues because
of the parking requirements, noting there may be amendments to this proposal in the
future.

Chair Gonzales asked why R-O districts were excluded. Mr. Grande stated he didn’t
know the reason for excluding that particular district.

Committee Member Panetta asked about how modifications to the text amendment
will be made going forward. Mr. Grande replied that modifications could be made at
any point in the process up until the City Council adoption.

Committee Member Olivas asked for clarification on the historic preservation
requirements of Chapter 8 as it relates to the concerns raised by the letter submitted to
the committee. Ms. Stockham replied that the concerns are addressed by the
requirement for HP review in Chapter 8.

Committee Member Dana Johnson asked about ADUs providing basement space.
Mr. Grande replied that it would be possible and that height limits are based on the
height from the ground level.

Committee Member Sherman stated that more staff will be needed to process
building permits as a result of this request. Mr. Grande stated he wasn’t aware of any
proposed staffing changes.


PUBLIC COMMENTS
Tom Mulhern introduced himself and stated that the proposal should provide
additional housing inventory but that the deed restriction requirement could hinder that
goal. He further stated that the city will need a more streamlined approval process, as
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1223
Central City Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 10, 2023
Page 3


the proposal will likely overwhelm city staff.

STAFF RESPONSE
Anthony Grande stated the goal with the deed restriction requirement.

COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
Committee Member Olivas provided a clarification regarding the Housing Phoenix
Plan.

Committee Member Sherman stated that the deed restriction requirement is a helpful
component of the proposal.

Committee Member Panetta stated that ADUs should be considered for a self-
certification process.

Committee Member Uss stated that existing structures should be subject to more
minor permits than for new structures.

Committee Member Burns asked if a streamlined permit review process could be
included in the text. Mr. Grande replied that it would be more appropriate as an internal
process.

MOTION
Patrick Panetta made a motion to recommend approval of Z-TA-5-23-Y per the staff
recommendation with direction that the city investigate short term rental regulations,
utility and parking capacity, and a permitting process for ADUs. Zach Burns seconded
the motion for approval per the staff recommendation with direction.

Committee Member Sonoskey asked if long term rentals are an issue. Mr. Sherman
replied that they are not an issue, but short-term rentals are more concerning.

Committee Member Olivas stated that enforcement is difficult with absentee
landlords.

Committee Member Uss stated that studies showed that 88 percent of ADUs are used
to provide additional housing stock.

VOTE
14-0, Motion to recommend approval of Z-TA-5-23-Y per the staff recommendation with
direction passed, with Committee Members Burns, Burton, Gaughan, Greenman,
Johnson, Lockhart, Martinez, Olivas, Panetta, Sherman, Sonoskey, Starks, Uss, and
Gonzales in favor.

STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:
None.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1224
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-23-Y

Date of VPC Meeting July 11, 2023
Request Amend Chapters 2, 5, 6, 7, 12 and 13 of the Phoenix
Zoning Ordinance to add accessory dwellings units
VPC Recommendation Approval per the staff recommendation with
modifications passes
VPC Vote 15-0


VPC DISCUSSION:

2 members of the public registered to speak on this item in support.
1 member of the public registered to speak on this item in opposition.

Chris DePerro, staff, introduced himself and provided a presentation on the
development and adoption of accessory dwelling units. Mr. DePerro provided a brief
history of the text amendment and the City Council’s response to provide housing
options. Mr. DePerro provided information on definitions, types, zoning, and
development standards, lot coverage and the allowance of ADU’s in additional zoning
areas. Mr. DePerro displayed examples of ADU configurations, sizes, projections,
setbacks, dimensions and standards that will be applicable for residential development.
Mr. DePerro noted associated parking and accessibility to ADU’s if they are developed.
Mr. DePerro discussed the schedule for the text amendment review at the Villages,
Planning Commission and City Council.

QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE:

Mr. O’Malley noted the text amendment appears to be a part of various sweeping
additions that have come before the Committee and asked if ADU’s are appropriate for
every neighborhood in Phoenix and asked about the review process. Mr. DePerro
responded the text amendments came from Council direction to the Planning and
Development Department based on the Housing Phoenix Plan to provide residential
options. Mr. O’Malley asked about the applicability of a deed restriction placed on
property and what is an interior suite. Mr. DePerro described an interior suite and that
the text amendment would remove that description. Mr. DePerro discussed the
conditions that were developed by the City of Flagstaff in response to short term rentals
that includes a restrictive covenant to allow owner occupancy and provisions for rental
conditions. Mr. O’Malley asked how will enforcement of ADU’s be conducted for rentals.


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882

Page 1225
Camelback East Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-23-Y

Mr. DePerro responded that enforcement would be conducted through Neighborhood
Services and covenants would have written agreement that would be court enforceable.

Ms. Augusta inquired about the required 3-foot setback for ADU’s. Mr. DePerro
responded that an existing setback for the rear yard for an ADU is 3 feet and 0 feet if
there is a dedicated alley. Ms. Augusta asked for clarification on setbacks for corner
lots. Mr. DePerro responded that for corner lots with a side street the setback would be
10 feet. Ms. Augusta asked if ADU’s would be a tax revenue for the City of Phoenix. Mr.
DePerro responded that he is not familiar with the taxation but did note that Maricopa
County does the property assessment and typically with an increase of square footage
taxes do increase with the evaluation of property.

Ms. Schmieder asked about the information provided by the Neighborhood Coalition of
Greater Phoenix and will there be a response to their comments. Mr. DePerro
responded that he could respond to any or all the comments from the Committee.

Chair Swart stated that questions from the public may be the same questions from the
Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix and the Committee would hear all
comments and questions presented to allow the City to respond.

PUBLIC COMMENTS:

Kirin Goff introduced herself as a homeowner and was born and raised in Phoenix and
stated she is in favor of allowing ADU’s. Ms. Goff stated her family has a home and
extended family who may move to Phoenix in the future and an ADU would be ideal for
her family situation. Ms. Goff noted that she is an Associate Professor of Practice and
Director of the Applied Health Policy Institute at the University of Arizona and has some
experience in housing supply and demand and allowing ADU’s would be an efficient use
of residential space. Ms. Goff noted that she would be available to assist and provide
information if necessary and thanked the Committee.

Patricia Powell introduced herself and expressed that she resides on Edgemont
Avenue and asked if the City had all the discussion information in one location with
summary bullet points that could be disseminated to the community. Ms. Powell also
asked about parking and with the addition of and ADU is there a way to prevent parking
on the street which would interfere with the enjoyment of the neighborhood street. Ms.
Powell also expressed concern about the proposed building height of ADU’s and how it
would impact the adjacent neighbors. Ms. Powell expressed concern that the text
amendment approach is a one size fits all and may not have positive impacts overall
and enforcement will be difficult.

Chair Swart stated he would like a response to the comments and would like
information made available so citizens would not have to seek out public records
requests and asked that the information on the text amendments be available and
citizens may obtain it easily.



200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1226
Camelback East Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-23-Y

Mr. DePerro responded that information sheets are available and have been updated
with the feedback and discussion obtained from the first information only presentations.
Mr. DePerro stated he would provide the available information as requested. Mr.
DePerro mentioned that ADU’s will be allowed at 1 story up to 15 feet in height and this
is applicable to other structures on the site. Mr. DePerro responded that no additional
parking was added for ADU’s as it may be prohibitive for development.

Neal Haddad introduced himself as a member of the Neighborhood Coalition of Greater
Phoenix and stated a position statement was prepared by the organization and provided
to the Committee. Mr. Haddad stated they support ADU’s and the work that Mr. DePerro
has done because they have a positive effect on housing supply however their certain
elements that need to be revised to avoid any unintended consequences including
historic preservation and special overlay planning districts. Mr. Haddad noted that
parking needs to be addressed and discussed restricted and regulated parking
conditions. Mr. Haddad expressed concern with short term rentals and restricted
covenants which is not sufficient. Mr. Haddad mentioned that the text amendments do
not coordinate with Homeowner Associations and CC & R’s. Mr. Haddad asked the
Committee to carefully review the revised language that has been provided by the
Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix request that the text amendment be
approved with provisions. Mr. Haddad expressed that text amendments need earlier
involvement so details can be vetted before coming to the Village Planning Committee.

STAFF RESPONSE:

Chris DePerro responded that HOA’s are a function under state statue and the City
cannot regulate these items. Mr. DePerro noted that HOA’s can regulate things that are
above and beyond what the City allows and it would not be necessary to add additional
provisions.

Ms. Schmieder asked if a reference could be added to the text amendment noting the
Arizona Revised Statue in doing this it would be helpful for people who are not familiar
with land use and zoning law. Mr. DePerro responded that the proposed text
amendment contains cross references and when certain provisions are included may
create confusion, but the City’s legal department may consider certain additions. Ms.
Schmieder stated that parking does need to be addressed within the scope of the text
amendment. Mr. DePerro responded the addition of a parking requirement would make
ADU’s prohibitive, but it would be something that will be considered.

Ms. Beckerleg Thraen commented that parking is more associated to use and that in
certain situations parking may not be an issue and the City’s approach is
understandable.

Ms. Schmieder commented that the discussion at the March 2023 Planning
Commission Meeting there was an emphasis on getting the text amendments done as
soon as possible and some of the details were not complete and relied on elements
from other cities. Ms. Schmieder stated the information provided by the Neighborhood
Coalition of Greater Phoenix has been more thorough and responsive. Mr. DePerro

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1227
Camelback East Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-23-Y

responded that he was responsible for much of the text amendment as presented and
noted historic preservation is included and the review that will be applicable without a
site plan review. Mr. DePerro explained the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance for
Historic Preservation provide greater authority for review and avoid double review
situations. Mr. DePerro discussed short term rentals and the method for allowing them
to get permitted as available housing stock.

Ms. Augusta commented that this is not the first time the Committee has heard about
ADU’s, this has been on ongoing process. Ms. Augusta expressed that people should
have options for housing and ADU’s will provide opportunity for available housing for
different populations and improve neighborhood walkability.

Mr. Grace commented on parking associated with ADU’s. Mr. Grace noted parking on
the street where there is more frontage and in areas where lots are narrower, and
people will have to adapt to the increasing number of ADU’s.

COMMITTEE DISCUSSION:

None.

MOTION

Committee member Dawn Augusta motioned to recommend approval of Z-TA-5-23-Y
per the staff recommendation. Committee member Rhonda Beckerleg Thraen
seconded the motion.

Mr. Paceley stated he supports the amendment and requested a friendly amendment
noting the information provided by the Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix
should be included in the recommendation for approval.

Ms. Beckerleg Thraen asked if the friendly amendment is to include all of the
provisions provided by the Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix. Mr. Paceley
stated that some of the language should be adjusted and the letter should be part of the
recommendation. Ms. Beckerleg Thraen responded that only certain provisions should
be included and noted the cross references may not be suitable for the text amendment
as presented. Mr. Paceley stated the language is acceptable and provided a highlighted
copy as improvements to add to the text amendment. Ms. Beckerleg Thraen ask if the
language can be reviewed as the amendment moves forward to the Planning
Commission and requested friendly amendment be and acknowledgement of the added
provisions. Mr. Paceley was agreeable to the acknowledging and referencing parts of
the Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix letter as part of the friendly amendment.

Chair Swart stated that it would be best to attach the letter from the Neighborhood
Coalition of Greater Phoenix as an exhibit to the Committee’s recommendation for
review by the legal department from the City and the Planning Department. Mr. Paceley
agreed with the request.


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1228
Camelback East Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-23-Y

Ms. Eichelkraut stated that there was discussion on two statutes and certain language
would be adjusted to avoid any added cross referencing that would create confusion.
Ms. Eichelkraut stated that the letter would be an appendix to the text amendment. Mr.
Paceley responded that there are issues as stated in the letter that are important and
should be acknowledged and considered for the text amendment.

Chair Swart asked Ms. Augusta if the friendly amendment was acceptable which was
acknowledged and confirmed. Chair Swart asked Ms. Beckerleg Thraen if the friendly
amendment as introduced was acceptable and Ms. Beckerleg Thraen agreed with the
friendly amendment.

VOTE

15-0; motion to approve Z-TA-5-23-Y per the staff recommendation with modifications
passes with Committee members Abbott, Augusta, Baumer, Bayless, Beckerleg
Thraen, Czerwinski, Eichelkraut, Grace, Langmade, Miller, O’Malley, Paceley,
Schmieder, Wilenchik and Swart in favor.

STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION & STIPULATIONS:

Staff notes that VPC approval will include correspondence from the Neighborhood
Coalition of Greater Phoenix for acknowledgement and consideration for changes to the
proposed text amendment.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1229
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-23-Y

Date of VPC Meeting July 11, 2023
Request Amend Chapters 2, 5, 6, 7, 12 and 13 of the Phoenix
Zoning Ordinance to add accessory dwellings units
VPC Recommendation Denial
VPC Vote 5-4



VPC DISCUSSION:

Two members of the public registered to speak on this item, in opposition.

Committee Member Gary Kirkilas joined the meeting during this item, bringing quorum
to 9 members.

STAFF PRESENTATION
Anthony Grande, staff, provided a presentation regarding the proposed text
amendment, gave examples of accessory dwelling units (ADUs), noted the proposed
standards for new ADUs, and provided a timeline for the proposal.

QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE
Committee Member Kirkilas asked about the three-foot rear setback requirement. Mr.
Grande provided clarification. Committee Member Santoro noted that it is the
standard for other allowed projections. Mr. Grande agreed.

Committee Member Nowell asked about projections for overhangs. Racelle Escolar,
staff, responded that she will look it up and get back to the committee.

Committee Member Powell asked about lot coverage requirements. Mr. Grande and
Ms. Escolar reviewed the proposed changes to lot coverage.

Vice Chair Lagrave asked whether ADUs could be built in the front yard. Mr. Grande
replied that they wouldn’t be able to project into the front yard and detached ADUs are
not allowed in front of a home.

Committee Member Nowell asked about the concerns raised in the letters provided to
the committee. Mr. Grande described the historic preservation requirements of the


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882

Page 1230
Desert View Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 11, 2023
Page 2


zoning. Ms. Escolar stated that the city is reviewing the recommendations and the
committee could include them in their recommendation.

Vice Chair Lagrave stated that he didn’t think making recommended modifications to
the text was worthwhile because the next reviewers were only interested in whether
VPCs approved or denied the request.

Ms. Escolar replied to an earlier question, saying that the zoning requires 2 feet of
separation between the roof overhang and the rear property line.

Vice Chair Lagrave stated that three feet is very close to the lot line for an ADU.

Committee Member Israel asked about side yards. Mr. Grande replied that side yards
would be maintained for ADUs.

Committee Member Santoro asked about leasing for short-term and long-term
rentals. Mr. Grande replied with the proposed requirement for a deed restriction.

Vice Chair Lagrave stated that it doesn’t seem likely that the state government is
going to enact legislation regarding ADUs soon, adding that there is room for new
development on undeveloped land in the area and that adding ADUs in existing
neighborhoods will turn them into slums.

Committee Member Nowell asked if the text would supersede HOA restrictions. Mr.
Grande replied that the text does not intend to do so.

Chair Bowser stated that there should be an architectural requirement, that the one-
story limit in the rear yard is good, and that there should be a way to prevent two ADUs
from being built on one lot.

Committee Member Kirkilas asked for clarification on the process when a committee
makes a recommendation with stipulations. Vice Chair Lagrave stated that the
Planning Commission will listen for items that are in Desert View but not for citywide
items. Mr. Grande provided clarification on the process of forwarding
recommendations to the Planning Commission.

Michelle Santoro asked what other village have been saying about this proposal. Mr.
Grande and Ms. Escolar responded with the results from other villages.

Vice Chair Lagrave asked about Open Meeting Law requirements. Mr. Grande
discussed Open Meeting Law requirements.

Committee Member Israel stated that the VPC has a responsibility to provide
feedback on the proposal, adding that parking could be an issue. Mr. Grande reviewed
the proposed provision for additional parking space allowed in the front yard. Mr. Israel
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1231
Desert View Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 11, 2023
Page 3


followed up with a question about design elements. Mr. Grande reviewed the proposed
requirement for design review. Chair Bowser suggested that the language be updated
to include an ADU visible from the neighboring property. Mr. Nowell stated that the
language is broadly defined and could be more specific. Mr. Grande stated that design
review is intended to have some flexibility.

PUBLIC COMMENTS
Larry Whitesell introduced himself as a member of the Neighborhood Coalition of
Greater Phoenix and stated that the text needed to be revised, as stated in the letter
submitted by NCGP. He reviewed the proposed modifications, including requirements
for historic properties, parking, short-term rentals, and HOAs.

Jackie Rich introduced herself and stated that it wasn’t clear if the ADUs could be
used for other uses or how the new ADU zoning text would be enforced.

STAFF RESPONSE
Mr. Grande stated that it’s important to recognize that accessory structures are already
allowed and that this text is allowing accessory buildings to be used as dwelling units
with cooking facilities. He further stated that the city has enforcement mechanisms for
every aspect of the city’s zoning and other codes.

COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
Vice Chair Lagrave asked if the text is allowing construction that is already permitted.
Mr. Grande replied that it mostly is, except that the text would allow cooking facilities in
a separate space to be considered a unit.

Chair Bowser stated that he liked the proposal to require off-street parking for an
ADU.

Committee Member Santoro suggested adding a parameter for parking to the text,
noting that she is supportive of ADUs, but there should be limits on short-term rentals.

Vice Chair Lagrave stated that the Planning Commission gets 15 recommendations,
one from each VPC, and it’s impossible to look at all of them. He added that they will
focus on whether VPCs voted to approve or deny.

Committee Member Kirkilas stated that it would be impactful if multiple VPCs made
the same recommended modifications. Committee Member Israel agreed that
multiple VPCs could support the same modifications to make a larger impact.

Vice Chair Lagrave stated that parking is also an issue with ADUs.

MOTION
Vice Chair Lagrave made a motion to recommend denial of Z-TA-5-23-Y. Committee
Member Rick Nowell seconded the motion for denial.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1232
Desert View Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 11, 2023
Page 4



Committee Member Jason Israel made a substitute motion to recommend approval
with the following modifications:
• That 1 parking space be required for an ADU.
• That there be a 90-day minimum term for rentals of ADUs.
There was no second; therefore, the motion failed.

Hearing no further motions or discussion from the committee, Chair Bowser called for
a vote on the motion.

VOTE
5-4, motion to recommend denial of Z-TA-5-23-Y passed; Committee Members Barto,
Israel, Nowell, Reynolds, and Lagrave in favor; Committee Members Kirkilas, Powell,
Santoro, and Bowser opposed.


STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:

None.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1233
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-23-Y


Date of VPC Meeting July 11, 2023
Request Amend Chapters 2, 5, 6, 7, 12 and 13 of the Phoenix
Zoning Ordinance to add accessory dwelling units.
VPC Recommendation Approval, per the staff recommendation
VPC Vote 3-2

VPC DISCUSSION:

Staff Presentation:
Adrian Zambrano, staff, explained what an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) is, sharing
current terms used in Phoenix Zoning Ordinance and other nicknames for ADUs. Mr.
Zambrano shared the proposed changes in the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, including
allowing only one ADU per lot in all single-family zoned districts, definitions for duplex
and triplex to make clear distinctions from ADUs, increases in lot coverage for most
districts, revisions to rear-yard projection rules to allow ADUs and other projections
further into the rear yard, height limitations in the rear yard, and fixing references to
guesthouses and other sections of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Zambrano then
discussed different types of ADUs, including above-garage apartments, detached
ADUs, attached ADUs, basement conversions, and converted garages. Mr. Zambrano
noted that ADUs would be allowed to be two-stories within the building envelope,
outside of the required setbacks, and would be limited to one-story and 15 feet in height
within the required rear yard, unless a use permit is obtained. Mr. Zambrano added that
the text amendment would not prohibit other accessory structures, such as a detached
garage. Mr. Zambrano then shared the proposed development standards for ADUs and
concluded with the timeline for the text amendment. Mr. Zambrano stated that staff
recommends approval as listed in the staff report.

Questions from the Committee:
Chair Lawrence asked about the use permit requirement for building heights taller than
15 feet in the rear yard and asked if a two-story casita could be built in the rear yard.
Mr. Zambrano responded that the current provisions in the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance
only allow guesthouses in large-lot zoning districts and that he is unsure what the
maximum height allowance is for guesthouses with the current provisions. Mr.
Zambrano added that most single-family homes are allowed a maximum building height
of two stories and 30 feet within the building envelope. Chair Lawrence asked if ADUs
would be reviewed through the regular building permit review process. Mr. Zambrano
responded affirmatively.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1234
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-23-Y

Mr. Virgil asked how large an ADU would be allowed to be for a lot size of 12,000
square feet. Mr. Zambrano responded that it would be 10 percent of the net lot area, if
it is less than 3,000 square feet. Mr. Virgil stated that an acre lot would likely be able to
build a 3,000 square-foot ADU. Mr. Zambrano responded that there would also be the
provision that the ADU cannot be larger than 75 percent of the size of the primary
dwelling unit.

Massimo Sommacampagna asked for clarification that a second home could not be
built. Mr. Zambrano responded that one of the provisions in the text amendment is that
either the primary dwelling unit or the ADU has to be owner-occupied as a measure to
help with limiting selling them individually or renting ADUs as short-term rentals. Mr.
Zambrano stated that a covenant agreement has to be signed and recorded that will run
with the land. Mr. Sommacampagna asked if the City would enforce this provision. Mr.
Zambrano responded that the applicant would need to provide the City with a recorded
covenant agreement prior to permits being issued.

Mr. Virgil asked if rooms could be rented individually in an ADU. Mr. Zambrano
responded that he believes they could be, and that the City does not control how it is
rented.

Chair Lawrence stated that it would be a homeowners’ association (HOA) issue and
that this text amendment stems from people applying for building permits for accessory
structures and calling them an office or pool house and illegally putting in kitchens and
bathrooms in them afterwards. Chair Lawrence shared concerns with short-term rentals
and stated that it would become an HOA challenge. Chair Lawrence added that it would
be a great idea for individuals wishing to house their family members in the ADU. Chair
Lawrence stated that the requirement for a separate pathway to the street outside of the
primary dwelling unit does set it up nicely for a short-term rental and that HOAs would
have a challenging time managing them.

Mr. Scharboneau asked about an ADU related to a garage. Mr. Zambrano responded
that one of the types of ADUs is an above-garage apartment. Mr. Scharboneau asked
what an ADU must include to be considered an ADU. Mr. Zambrano responded that
the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance defines a dwelling unit as specifically having cooking
facilities, so if the structure has cooking facilities, it would be considered an ADU. Mr.
Scharboneau asked if an ADU would need to have cooking facilities in it. Mr.
Zambrano responded that in order for it to be considered a dwelling unit, it would need
to have cooking facilities. Mr. Scharboneau asked if other Village Planning Committees
have heard this item and what their recommendations were.

Sarah Stockham, staff, responded that it was heard by the Encanto Village Planning
Committee (VPC), Laveen VPC and Central City VPC the prior night and that they all
recommended approval, and one recommended approval with direction. Mr. Virgil
asked what their main concern was. Ms. Stockham responded that she was at Central
City VPC, who wanted to provide direction for the enforcement of short-term rentals.
Ms. Stockham stated that the City is tied by State law to regulate short-term rentals. Ms.


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1235
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-23-Y

Stockham added that Central City VPC wanted to ensure there was enough staff to
permit ADUs.

Chair Lawrence asked if ADUs would require architectural drawings or if sketches
would be accepted. Ms. Stockham responded that applicants would still be required to
go through the plan review process, and if located within an Historic Preservation (HP)
zoning district, would still be required to comply with HP district standards and go
through the HP review process.

Mr. Virgil asked if the same would apply for HOAs. Ms. Stockham responded that
HOA requirements would be on top of what the City requirements are, but that the City
would not enforce the HOA requirements. Mr. Virgil asked about the HP concerns
within the Encanto Village. Ms. Stockham responded that the Encanto VPC heard it the
prior night and had concerns with HP oversight. Ms. Stockham stated that HP
provisions are not seen in the text amendment because they are not being changed and
they are found in Chapter 8 of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Stockham stated that
anytime a site planner sees the zoning of a property and sees that it is zoned HP, they
immediately send them to the HP office to get HP approval first. Mr. Virgil asked for
clarification that the Committee’s vote on the text amendment would not modify the HP
requirements. Ms. Stockham responded affirmatively, stating that the properties with
HP zoning would still be zoned HP and would be subject to Chapter 8 of the Phoenix
Zoning Ordinance.

Mr. Sommacampagna asked if the requirement for a covenant agreement would be a
violation of Proposition 207 for takings. Mr. Zambrano responded that when someone
applies for an ADU, as part of the approval before permits are issued, the applicant will
need to provide a recorded covenant agreement to show that one of the units will be
owner-occupied, which is a measure the City proposed to help reduce the potential for
using ADUs as short-term rentals.

Ms. Stockham added that the text language has been vetted by the Law Department.
Ms. Stockham stated that the language comes from the City of Flagstaff who also tried
to come up with ways to regulate short-term rentals under State law. Ms. Stockham
stated that the City of Flagstaff has not been challenged legally on that requirement yet.

Mr. Sommacampagna asked if it would be a violation of Proposition 207 in the event
the property owner indicates that rentals are exceeding the value of homeownership.
Ms. Stockham responded that it would not be since the property would be getting an
additional entitlement to build an ADU.

Mr. Scharboneau asked for clarification that property owners are not required to sign
the covenant agreement unless they wish to use the additional zoning entitlement to
build an ADU. Ms. Stockham responded affirmatively.

Mr. Zambrano added that ADUs, such as casitas or guesthouses, are not currently
allowed in smaller-lot zoning districts.


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1236
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-23-Y

Will Holton asked for clarity that the ADU would have to have a separate entrance
outside of the primary dwelling unit. Mr. Zambrano responded affirmatively. Mr. Holton
asked if an attached ADU would have a sealed off wall to separate it from the primary
dwelling unit. Mr. Zambrano responded that they generally would be separated, but
there is not a specific requirement for it to be sealed off from the other dwelling unit, and
that there is only the requirement to have a separate entrance outside of the primary
dwelling unit. Mr. Holton asked for clarification if there could be a doorway that goes
into the other dwelling unit. Mr. Zambrano responded that if the property owner wanted
to, they could have a door that connects to the other dwelling unit. Mr. Holton asked if
an ADU would require a separate water meter. Mr. Zambrano responded that he
believes the ADU would be required to use the same meter.

Mr. Sommacampagna asked if fire is part of the typical permit review process. Mr.
Zambrano responded affirmatively.

Chair Lawrence stated that it would be another challenge if the ADU addition results in
requiring fire sprinklers. Ms. Stockham responded that it would depend on how large
the ADU is. Ms. Stockham stated that she has a guesthouse that is about 200 square
feet which did not require a full permit review that larger structures would be required to
go through. Chair Lawrence stated that the best the Committee could do is hope that
the permit reviewers would require the right requirements. Chair Lawrence added that
allowing ADUs would allow them to be properly inspected since people are building
them illegally anyways without proper inspections.

Mr. Holton asked if an ADU could be in a basement as well. Mr. Zambrano responded
affirmatively, confirming that a basement apartment is one of the types of ADUs, if the
property owner wants to pay the cost to dig a basement. Mr. Holton asked if another
type of ADU allowed would be an above-garage apartment. Mr. Zambrano responded
affirmatively. Mr. Holton asked if the maximum height allowed for the above-garage
apartment would be 15 feet. Mr. Zambrano responded that if it is located within the
building envelope, it would be permitted to be as tall as the primary dwelling unit is
allowed to be, which is two stories and 30 feet. Mr. Zambrano stated that the 15-foot
height limitation is when the ADU is located within the rear yard.

Public Comments:
None.

Staff Response:
None.

MOTION – Z-TA-5-23-Y:
Mr. Sommacampagna motioned to recommend approval of Z-TA-5-23-Y, per the staff
recommendation. Mr. Scharboneau seconded the motion.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1237
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-23-Y

VOTE – Z-TA-5-23-Y:
3-2; motion to recommend approval of Z-TA-5-23-Y per the staff recommendation
passes with Committee members Scharboneau, Sommacampagna, and Lawrence in
favor and Committee members Holton and Virgil opposed.


STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:

None.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1238
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-23-Y
REVISED
Date of VPC Meeting July 11, 2023
Request Amend Chapters 2, 5, 6, 7, 12 and 13 of the Phoenix
Zoning Ordinance to add accessory dwellings units
VPC Recommendation Approval, per the staff recommendation
VPC Vote 9-2



VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS:

STAFF PRESENTATION

Samuel Rogers, staff, provided a presentation regarding the proposed text
amendment, gave examples of accessory dwelling units (ADUs), noted the proposed
standards for new ADUs, and provided a timeline for the proposal.

QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE

Committee Member Lee Coleman asked how height will be measured. Mr. Rogers
stated that height is measure to the top of the roof ridge.

Committee Member Darlene Jackson asked if a permit will be required to build an
ADU. Mr. Rogers stated that a permit will be required.

Committee Member Kassandra Alvarez stated that she is concerned with the design
of the ADU not being consistent with the primary dwelling. Mr. Rogers stated that ADUs
are subject to Single-Family design review. Tricia Gomes, staff, added that in the
Single-Family design guidelines ADUs are required to have the same materials, look,
and feel of the primary structure.

Committee Member Coleman asked if the text amendment was permitting only
detached units. Mr. Rogers stated that the text amendment would permit both attached
and detached ADUs. Committee Member Coleman asked if attached ADUs can
encroach into the rear yard setback if they are less than 15-feet in height. Ms. Gomes
confirmed that attached ADUs can encroach into the rear yard setback if they are
limited to 15-feet in height or if a Use Permit is pursued to allow a greater height.
Committee Member Coleman asked what the definition of attached is. Ms. Gomes
stated that structures are attached if they share a wall. Chair Daniels asked what the
max height would be for a single level home that is converted into a duplex. Ms. Gomes



Page 1239
clarified that an ADU is not allowed on a property with a duplex and explained that any
portion of an ADU that encroaches into the rear yard setback will be limited to 15-feet in
height.

Vice Chair Arthur Greathouse III stated concerns about adding more drivers to
neighborhoods but not any parking and asked what that would look like in
neighborhoods. Ms. Gomes stated that, while no additional parking is required in the
text amendment, every single-family residence is required to provide a minimum of two
parking spaces and may potentially extend the driveway area. Chair Tamala Daniels
stated that most households have two cars and adding a household will add two
additional cars and asked how the Planning Department is considering the impact on
neighborhoods and safety. Chair Daniels stated she is concerned that if a dust-proof
surface for parking is added it will not have a curb cut and cause safety issues. Ms.
Gomes explained that any additional parking spaces will be required to comply with
driveway standards. Chair Daniels stated that parking should be required to permit an
ADU. Ms. Gomes stated that parking can be included as a part of an ADU permit but is
not required and explained that when drafting the ADU ordinance staff followed several
directives, firstly to add more units to the City per the Housing Phoenix Plan, and
secondly, to make ADUs feasible. Ms. Gomes explained that in many communities
adding parking may not be an option, so many communities may be prohibited to build
an ADU if parking is required. Vice Chair Greathouse stated that perhaps a lot width
requirement should be added to the ordinance. Ms. Gomes stated that any additional
requirements will restrict where ADUs can be built and stated ADUs are currently
allowed in new subdivisions within South Mountain but have not been built at scale.
Chair Daniels explained that Lennar Homes has built many single-family residences
with ADUs, but they have built when the primary dwelling has been built and include
parking. Ms. Gomes stated the parking will be available in the driveway if the garage is
utilized or tenants can utilize street parking. Chair Daniels asked about HOAs with
private streets. Ms. Gomes stated that residents within an HOA must comply with the
neighborhood’s CC&Rs and street parking may be restricted.

Committee Member Alvarez stated that she expects ADUs will be built more in
communities with public streets than in communities with private streets that are
regulated by an HOA and asked if HOA communities were asking for ADUs as an
option. Ms. Gomes stated that ADUs are currently allowed in larger lot zoning districts
and in smaller lot zoning districts ADUs are often built either illegally or without a full
kitchen, so they are not considered a full unit.

Committee Member Coleman asked why not only allow ADUs in the larger lot zoning
districts, asked if this ordinance is eliminating single-family zoning, stated that
“attached” needs to be defined, and asked about sewer connections and development
fees. Ms. Gomes stated that “attached” means there is a shared wall and explained that
subdivisions are built with the utility and street capacity to serve additional structures on
a single-family lot. Chair Daniels asked if utility connection fees would be assessed on
the ADUs. Ms. Gomes confirmed that the ADUs would go through a full site and building
review and be assessed utility connection fees.




Page 1240
Committee Member Viera stated that ADUs will have to go through the permitting
process but lots wont need to go through a rezone to have two units. Ms. Gomes stated
that ADUs are accessory structures to the single-family home and are two full units wont
be allowed.

Committee Member Coleman asked if ADUs would be charged water and sewer
development fees. Ms. Gomes confirmed that water and sewer fees will be charged on
ADUs.

Committee Member Kay Shepard asked if there is a minimum lot size to allow and
ADU. Ms. Gomes stated that base zoning districts have minimum lot sizes, there is a
maximum lot coverage, and are limited to 75% the size of the primary structure.

Chair Daniels asked if there is a minimum distance requirement between the primary
structure and the ADU. Ms. Gomes stated that if a building is less than five feet from
another building fire-rated walls will be required.

PUBLIC COMMENT

Elias Valencia stated that he grew up as a low-income minority and dealt with issues of
red-lining and saw the struggle of his single mother raising three kids by herself. Mr.
Valencia explained that he sees ADUs not as something that will eliminate requirements
or destroy neighborhoods, but rather the next step in the incremental development by
allowing neighborhoods to retain their character rather than upzoning. Mr. Valencia
added that ADUs are typically placed behind the primary dwelling so the visual impact
of the ADU should be minimal and explained that lots are generally 60-feet wide, so
street parking should be available if the garage, driveway, and any additional parking
area is already being used. Mr. Valencia explained that ADUs provide an additional
housing option for communities and HOAs can regulate ADUs if they are not desired.

Vice Chair Greathouse thanked Mr. Valencia for his statements, stated that ADUs will
be expensive to build, and asked if ADUs are likely to be built by homeowners or
investors. Chair Daniels stated that homeowners are likely to build ADUs and
explained that the Lennar Next Gen product, that includes an ADU, are very popular.
Chair Daniels added that when most investors buy a property they are the single owner,
so they can do whatever they want with their property. Vice Chair Greathouse stated
that he would like to know what neighborhoods would be most impacted by the ADU
text amendment if investors come in and buy up single-family rental properties to but
two or three units on the lot. Chair Daniels stated that investors have been gentrifying
communities for a long time. Ms. Gomes stated that to have an ADU a restrictive
covenant is required that mandates that the property owner will need to live in either the
primary or accessory unit and explained that three units would only be allowed in
multifamily zoning district. Vice Chair Greathouse asked how many rooms are allowed
in an ADU. Ms. Gomes explained that number of rooms is limited by the allowed size of
the ADU, so ADUs will likely be one or two rooms.




Page 1241
Committee Member Coleman asked if parking will be required for the primary dwelling
if a garage is converted to an ADU. Ms. Gomes stated that parking will still be required
for the primary dwelling, or a variance will be required.

Melissa Gallegos explained that she lives in an older neighborhood where many
spaces have already been converted to handle the influx of people coming into the
neighborhood and asked where the capacity of these homes is. Ms. Gallegos explained
her household has four cars and her neighbor has more and stated that the fire
department could not reach her neighbor due to narrow streets and an abundance of
cars parked on the street. Ms. Gomes explained that the ordinance cannot
accommodate for every family type as some families are larger and some are smaller
and stated that typical streets are 50-feet wide that can accommodate emergency
services. Ms. Gallegos stated that she has several neighbors that have 10 to 12 people
living in their homes and adding more bedrooms that will be filled with up to eight more
people will create unacceptable living conditions and stated that it will be too expensive
for a typical family to spend $100,000 on building an ADU, but not too expensive for
investors. Ms. Gomes stated that owners will be required to live on the property, so
investors will be limited to building an ADU on the lot where they reside. Committee
Member Alvarez stated that allowing ADUs may provide relief for multigenerational
households with 10 people by allowing some of the residents to move into the ADU. Ms.
Gallegos stated that she is supportive of multigeneration housing but in California ADUs
have been rented out, not occupied by family. Chair Daniels stated that
multigenerational living is common in many cultures and echoed Ms. Gallegos concerns
that street parking is already at capacity without adding any additional units. Committee
Member Jackson stated that ADUs are a good idea but would love to see someone
from the City go out when people complain about issues at public forums such as the
Village Planning Committee. Committee Member Coleman added that an abundance
of street parking makes it dangerous for kids to play in the street. Committee Member
Muriel Smith explained that she had to work with her neighbor to settle parking issues
that arose when they threw a block party and encouraged people to call the City to find
out how issues can be settled. Committee Member Alvarez asked what department
should be contacted to settle access and parking issues. Committee Member Smith
stated that the Street Transportation Department handles parking and access issues.

Michael Neal asked if the ADU ordinance will be applicable to all zoning districts within
the City of Phoenix, asked if they would be allowed in Planned Unit Developments
(PUDs), and asked if the Sanitation, Water, Fire, and Police Departments had reviewed
the ADU proposal.

Ms. Gomes confirmed that ADUs will be allowed in all zoning districts on lots with a
single-family residence, stated that ADUs would have to allowed in the PUD narrative to
be permitted, and explained that the proposal had been reviewed by an interdisciplinary
team that included traffic, civil, and other reviewers, as well as Neighborhood Services.
Mr. Neal stated that adding another unit would require larger water meters at the street,
would require sanitation to change the way that they do pickups because properties will




Page 1242
have double the trash, stated street parking is already at capacity, and asked how close
to property line an ADU will be allowed to be. Ms. Gomes stated that an accessory
structure can be three feet from the property line. Mr. Neal asked if a property with 4
bedrooms could potentially add a three-bedroom ADU and asked how addresses will
function. Ms. Gomes stated that if the lot coverage and size calculations allowed for a
three-bedroom ADU it would be allowed and explained that an ADU will be allowed to
have a different address than the primary dwelling.

Cory Kincaid stated that allowing ADUs had been a discussion since he moved to
Phoenix 15 years ago, explained that housing had gotten harder and harder to build,
thus making housing less affordable, and stated that Phoenix is 100,000 housing units
short. Mr. Kincaid stated that there may be issues that are created by the ADUs, but
cars do not need heat relief stations, eviction relief, and rent relief in the way that people
do and stated that his area has seen a 40% rise in rents. Mr. Kincaid stated that
communities in Phoenix used to be able to build ADUs and stated this is a small but
meaningful step to address the housing crisis.

FLOOR/PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED: MOTION, DISCUSSION, AND VOTE

Committee Member Jackson stated that with typical home prices around $350,000
she is happy to hear that a three-bedroom ADU could be built for around $100,000 and
can allow a lower income household to attain housing and stated she is in support of the
proposal.

Chair Daniels stated that the Arizona Senate rejected the bill that would have legalized
ADUs statewide.

MOTION
Committee Member Shepard made a motion to recommend approval of Z-TA-5-23-Y
per the staff recommendation. Committee Member Jackson seconded the motion.

VOTE
9-2, motion to recommend approval of Z-TA-5-23-Y per the staff recommendation
passed with Committee Members Alvarez, F. Daniels, Hare, Jackson, Roque, Shepard,
Smith, Viera, and Greathouse in favor and Committee Members Coleman and T.
Daniels opposed.


STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:

None




Page 1243
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-23-Y



Date of VPC Meeting July 12, 2023
Request Amend Chapters 2, 5, 6, 7, 12 and 13 of the Phoenix
Zoning Ordinance to add accessory dwellings units
VPC Recommendation None
VPC Vote No quorum.


VPC DISCUSSION:

No quorum.



STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION & STIPULATIONS:

No quorum.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1244
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-23-Y



Date of VPC Meeting July 13, 2023
Request Amend Chapters 2, 5, 6, 7, 12 and 13 of the Phoenix
Zoning Ordinance to add accessory dwellings units
VPC Recommendation Approval, per the staff recommendation
VPC Vote 6-3


Two members of the public registered to speak on this item, in opposition.

One member of the public registered to speak on this item.

VPC DISCUSSION:

STAFF PRESENTATION

Matteo Moric, staff, presented the proposed text amendment for the accessory dwelling
units.

QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE

Vice Chair Kenney said this would help with the housing shortage and is an interesting
way to address this shortage.

Ricardo Romero asked if the item passes what the timeline would be to make it official
and also asked how the communication has been passed down to the Homeowner’s
Associations.

Mr. Moric responded the text amendment goes in front of City Council in September an
indicated that if a Homeowner’s Association requires going through them for review, the
City process is separate.

Gregory Freeman said ADU’s often in other parts of the country get used for short term
rentals.

Matteo Moric explained that the proposal requires a restrictive covenant which would
stick with the land and only one of the units on the property could be rented.


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1245
Deer Valley Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-23-Y


Al Field asked about utility easements in the rear and why nothing was said about
them. Mr. Field felt these needed to be addressed and did not like the idea of doing this
for all zones in the City. Mr. Field noted that the Desert View VPC recommended denial.

Mr. Moric responded that site planning would review the plans to ensure there is an
authorization from the different utility companies if they want to place a structure in the
easement.

Trilese DiLeo stated the accessory unit cannot be larger than 75% of the primary
dwelling unit.

Mr. Moric said for a lot less than 10,000 square feet an accessory dwelling unit
potentially could be up to 1,000 square feet in size. Mr. Moric explained that anywhere
within the required rear yard you can go as close as 3 feet, however, when there’s a
fully dedicated alley it can go to within 0 feet of the rear property line.

Trilese DiLeo asked what the requirement would be if it is a narrow lot, noting that
homes currently being built have small lots.

Mr. Moric replied you’d still have to comply with lot coverage of how much roof is
allowed on the lot.

Sandra Hoffman shared there was no definition of primary residence in the text
amendment and thought it might be good to include principal residence. Ms. Hoffman
added that with building code they’d need to meet separation distances between the
buildings.

Gregory Freeman responded that the staff indicated that the owner would need to live
in one of the units and it would not have to be the bigger one.

Al Field said measurements to property line had no consideration to the block wall.

PUBLIC COMMENTS

Sandy Grunow stated that the Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix supports the
accessory units as they can have positive aspects during the housing shortage. Ms.
Grunow noted there were concerns related to ADU parking to ensure property owners
are not being inconvenienced and she felt on street parking should be regulated, and
that staff should look at short term rentals language in Flagstaff’s Ordinance. Ms.
Grunow felt that HOA and CC&R’s did not address the coordination with municipal
codes and ordinances and asked the Committee to carefully consider the revised
language in their statement they had provided and felt this text amendment needed
more discussion with stakeholders.

Jackie Rich opposed the text amendment and was the President of a Neighborhood
Association and member of Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix. Ms. Rich asked
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1246
Deer Valley Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-23-Y


what takes precedent the zoning overlays or the ADU measures. Ms. Rich added that
the ADU text amendment would allow larger driveways, lot coverage and she added that
there are 30 different overlay zones and regulatory plans. Ms. Rich said the
enforcement of short-term rentals with the restrictive covenants was unclear. Ms. Rich
asked the Committee to seriously consider the letter.

Russel Osborne said the additional dwelling units will fill in and overtime will affect all
utilities from electricity, water use, size of the pipes, sewer lines, trash pickup, and lead
to more on street parking. Mr. Osborne said street parking would have small clearance
for emergency vehicles and parking would be an issue, also, there could be problems
with naming conventions in single family districts and this could change entire character
of the community. Mr. Osborne said the City of Phoenix’s primary enforcement would be
difficult and not have manpower or resources to track these items. Mr. Osborne said the
covenant would be hard to enforce.

Matteo Moric, staff, explained he did not have an answer for the capacity of today’s
infrastructure.

Sarah Stockham, staff, responded that the construction is subject to the building code.

Mr. Moric indicated that the restrictive covenants would ensure that at least one of the
units would be owner occupied. Mr. Moric noted that it would be difficult to enforce but
the covenant would be recorded and stick with the land in perpetuity.

Mr. Moric said the minutes would be forwarded to the Planning Commission and City
Council.

Al Field felt there were a lot of questions that still needed to be answered.

Vice Chair Kenney indicated that this would be reflected in their vote.

Sandra Hoffman indicated that there is a State statute which supersedes cities from
stopping Airbnb’s.

Mr. Moric said State law still supersedes cities for short term rentals.

Gregory Freeman said this is a step of adding density and as a solution for affordable
housing, it’s not perfect but he had not seen a better solution.

Trilese DiLeo agreed with Mr. Freeman and believed it was important to get more multi-
generational housing which would provide alternative housing options. Ms. DiLeo
shared ADU’s would be nice to have as an option but would like to see that no more
than 10% of the lot size shall be used for these ADU’s.

Sandra Hoffman said that the cost of homes were so high that children could not afford
homes anymore and they need a more livable situation. Ms. Hoffman added that there
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1247
Deer Valley Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-23-Y


are places like in downtown where there is limited parking for residents and they control
parking in the street. Ms. Hoffman thinks this text amendment is needed at this time and
it would help with the affordable housing issue.

MOTION:
James Sutphen motioned to recommend denial of Z-TA-5-23-Y. Al Field seconded the
motion.

VOTE:
3 - 6, motion to recommend denial of Z-TA-5-23-Y failed with Committee Members
Field, Sutphen, Virgil in support. Committee Members DiLeo, Freeman, Herber,
Hoffman, Romero and Vice Chair Kenney opposed.

MOTION:
Gregory Freeman motioned to recommend approval of Z-TA-5-23-Y. Sandra Hoffman
seconded the motion.

VOTE:
6 - 3, motion to recommend approval of Z-TA-5-23-Y per the staff recommendation
passed with Committee Members DiLeo, Freeman, Herber, Hoffman, Romero and
Kenney in favor. Committee Members Field, Sutphen and Virgil opposed.


STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:

None.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1248
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-23-Y


Date of VPC Meeting July 13, 2023
Request Amend Chapters 2, 5, 6, 7, 12 and 13 of the Phoenix
Zoning Ordinance to add accessory dwelling units.
VPC Recommendation Approval, per the staff recommendation
VPC Vote 4-2

VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDATION:

Two members of the public registered to speak on this item, in support with
modifications.

Staff Presentation:
Adrian Zambrano, staff, explained what an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) is, sharing
current terms used in Phoenix Zoning Ordinance and other nicknames for ADUs. Mr.
Zambrano shared the proposed changes in the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, including
allowing only one ADU per lot in all single-family zoned districts, definitions for duplex
and triplex to make clear distinctions from ADUs, increases in lot coverage for most
districts, revisions to rear-yard projection rules to allow ADUs and other projections
further into the rear yard, height limitations in the rear yard unless a use permit is
obtained, and fixing references to guesthouses among other sections. Mr. Zambrano
then discussed different types of ADUs, including above-garage apartments, detached
ADUs, attached ADUs, basement conversions, and converted garages. Mr. Zambrano
noted that ADUs would be allowed to be two-stories within the building envelope,
outside of the required setbacks, and would be limited to one-story and 15 feet in height
within the required rear yard, unless a use permit is obtained. Mr. Zambrano added that
the text amendment would not prohibit other accessory structures, such as a detached
garage. Mr. Zambrano then shared the proposed development standards for ADUs and
concluded with the timeline for the text amendment. Mr. Zambrano stated that staff
recommends approval as listed in the staff report.

Questions from Committee:
None.

Public Comments:
Neal Haddad, member with the Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix (NCGP),
introduced himself and stated that a number of members of the NCGP working group
met and created a position statement on this text amendment, which was sent to the
Committee. Mr. Haddad stated it is important to support ADUs and that they can have a
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1249
North Gateway Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-23-Y

positive impact on housing supply; however, there are several elements of the text
amendment that they believe requires some modifications and greater clarity to avoid
unintended negative consequences. Mr. Haddad stated that they first cover historic
preservation (HP), special planning districts (SPDs) and overlay districts in their letter.
Mr. Haddad stated that they believe clearer language is needed regarding the existing
regulations governing properties in an HP district, SPD, and overlay districts that would
be applicable to ADUs. Mr. Haddad stated that on-street parking should be regulated.
Mr. Haddad continued that short-term rentals are a problem in many parts of the City
and shared that they do not believe requiring a restrictive covenant indicating one of the
units will be owner-occupied is good enough to ensure that ADUs contribute to the
housing supply rather than be used as short-term rentals. Mr. Haddad noted that the
City of Flagstaff has language regulating short-term rentals for ADUs that could be a
template for Phoenix, which has been included in the letter. Mr. Haddad added that the
proposed amendment language does not address coordination with homeowners’
associations (HOAs), or covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs), and
recommended that language be added that states applicants for ADUs must comply
with CC&Rs in addition to the provisions in the proposed amendment language. Mr.
Haddad stated that they believe this needs to be clarified to avoid loopholes and stated
that they recommend the Committee approve the text amendment with modifications as
listed in their letter. Mr. Haddad concluded that NCGP consists of neighborhood
organizations all over the City and they continue to advocate for earlier involvement in
the development of City-wide text amendments so these types of details could be
implemented before coming to the Village Planning Committees (VPCs).

Jack Leonard, member with NCGP, architect, and former member of the Camelback
East VPC and Encanto VPC, introduced himself as a member in support of this text
amendment. Mr. Leonard stated that he does not believe it will have the impact on the
housing supply that they think it will have because short-term rentals cannot be
regulated very much and are having a bigger impact on the housing crisis. Mr. Leonard
stated that he has seen hotels purchase homes in neighborhoods to convert them to
short-term rentals. Mr. Leonard added that it would be great if there could be better
regulations regarding short-term rentals, but it may be another fight for the State. Mr.
Leonard added that he believes that the impact ADUs will have on parking in
neighborhoods should be looked at more closely, noting that ADUs will make on-street
parking worse.

Amanda McGowan stated that their HOA CC&Rs had originally allowed casitas and
then they were removed from the CC&Rs after there was a lot of fighting over them. Ms.
McGowan concurred with Mr. Haddad’s comments that the proposed amendment
language should address compliance with CC&Rs as well.

Staff Response to Public Comment and Discussion:
Christopher DePerro, staff, introduced himself and stated that he has worked for the
Planning and Development Department since 1998. Mr. DePerro stated that HOA
regulations are a function of State Statute and that cities do not regulate HOAs. Mr.
DePerro stated that HOAs can prohibit casitas but could not override City restrictions.
Mr. DePerro added that whenever a provision is added into the Zoning Ordinance,
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1250
North Gateway Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-23-Y

typically variances can be applied for to vary from that provision, and a variance cannot
be obtained for compliance with HOA CC&Rs since it is not a function of City regulation.
Mr. DePerro stated that adding a provision in the text amendment for compliance with
HOA CC&Rs would be redundant and is inadvisable by law.

Chair Julie Read asked Mr. DePerro to explain the process for a text amendment and
how citizens are included in the process. Mr. DePerro responded that there is a
difference between a text amendment for a small geographic area versus a City-wide
text amendment. Mr. DePerro stated that the text amendments on this night’s agenda
were per the direction from City Council members based on meetings they have had
with different stakeholders, and that the City Council directed the Planning and
Development Director to have the Planning Commission initiate four text amendments
related to the housing crisis. Mr. DePerro added that the Housing Phoenix Plan had
talked about trying ADUs in certain neighborhoods of the City, and the City Council
requested that staff try to go further than that. Mr. DePerro explained the history of the
VPCs, noting that they were established in 1985 specifically for community outreach
since Phoenix was becoming so large, and that each VPC can have up to 21 members
that are hopefully selected for a diverse representation of each village. Mr. DePerro
added that the City always struggles with fairness when conducting community
outreach, noting that the notices for each VPC went out at the exact same time, and
that the VPCs are the best and most fair way of doing community outreach for City-wide
text amendments. Mr. DePerro stated that more complicated text amendments would
typically come to the VPCs first as information only agenda items to give a heads up to
VPC members regarding text amendments that are coming for a vote soon. Mr.
DePerro added that beyond the VPC recommendations, staff would compile all the
comments and provide them to the Director and City Manager to review and to
determine if any changes to the proposed amendment language should be made before
presenting it to the Planning Commission. Chair Read stated that a majority of their
community’s on-street parking is regulated by HOAs and asked about parking related to
ADUs. Mr. DePerro responded that they have looked at what other cities have done,
noting provisions for ADUs from the City of Tempe and the City of Flagstaff, in addition
to the City of Tucson, which is the closest largest city that has provisions for ADUs. Mr.
DePerro stated that Tucson has stricter requirements, including reviewing ADUs as
multifamily, but they found that the main item that would prevent people from
constructing an ADU would be a requirement to provide an additional parking spot. Mr.
DePerro stated that the text amendment does change the percentage allowed of a
driveway within the front yard. Mr. DePerro noted that Phoenix has certain regulations
that make the requirement of a parking space for an ADU difficult, including that all
required parking spaces must be located behind the front yard setback. Mr. DePerro
noted that detached single-family homes are required to have two parking spaces,
which would be located in the garage behind the front yard setback, and there would be
two unofficial parking spaces on the driveway that could be viewed as guest parking.
Mr. DePerro stated that requiring an additional parking space that would be allowed in
the existing driveway would have the same result if an additional parking space was not
required for an ADU.



200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1251
North Gateway Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-23-Y

Shannon Simon asked about short-term rentals. Mr. DePerro responded that the City
is doing a separate City Code text amendment related to the updated State laws
indicating what cities can regulate regarding short-term rentals. Mr. DePerro added that
staff tried to write a similar provision to what the City of Flagstaff has done, limited under
State law, to regulate short-term rentals in terms of ADUs. Mr. DePerro explained that
the provision requires a restrictive covenant be recorded that says the property owner
will occupy either the main home or the ADU, or that the entire property will be sold or
leased as a whole, and not individually. Mr. DePerro noted that the City of Flagstaff had
a different policy direction, which Phoenix Law Department advises against, that states
that both units could be leased separately if the lease term is for 30 days or longer.

Chair Read asked for clarification if the restrictive covenant provision is in the current
proposed amendment language. Mr. DePerro responded that it is included in the
language and clarified that what is not in the current amendment language is the
minimum 30-day rental term provision. Mr. DePerro added that the City of Flagstaff’s
rental term provision is an option and does not require the term rentals to be more than
30 days, except if the property owner wishes to rent both units separately.

Jennifer Krieger asked if the property owner of a short-term rental has to inform the
City of the property being used as a short-term rental. Mr. DePerro responded that it is
a requirement. Ms. Krieger asked if the property owner has to pay more taxes for a
short-term rental. Mr. DePerro responded that there is a cost for the permit, but he is
unsure if Maricopa County Assessor would then consider the valuation differently. Mr.
DePerro added that he had answered a question from a previous committee that adding
square footage to a property would increase taxes. Ms. Krieger stated that there has to
be some type of control relating to if properties are being used as an income, such as
for short-term rentals.

Vice Chair Michelle Ricart stated she has been a realtor since 1996 and sold two
homes near 24th Street and Thomas Road that had guesthouses and asked what the
text amendment is changing. Mr. DePerro responded that there are certain areas in the
City in certain zoning districts where guesthouses are permitted, usually being districts
with larger lots. Mr. DePerro stated that the text amendment would expand the
allowance for guesthouses, or ADUS, to smaller-lot districts, and would allow it by
allowing more lot coverage. Mr. DePerro added that accessory structures are currently
allowed in the same way as the text amendment proposes for ADUs, except that
accessory structures currently are not allowed to be used for sleeping or living. Mr.
DePerro stated that the text amendment would update the terminology to the accepted
terminology nowadays, which is ADUs, would expand ADUs to be allowed in most
districts, would expand the lot coverage to actually make it possible in most districts,
and would allow existing accessory structures to be used as an ADU. Mr. DePerro
added that Site Planning permits these types of structures every day, and that the plans
just cannot label it as an ADU, and it cannot label rooms as bedrooms or kitchens. Vice
Chair Ricart stated that in the North Gateway Village, there are a lot of newer homes
where builders have built the casita as part of the new home construction, termed as
“NextGen” units. Mr. DePerro responded that those are interior suites with cooking


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1252
North Gateway Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-23-Y

facilities, which was permitted around 2017 and will be removed with this text
amendment because the proposed amendment language is more lenient.

Ms. Krieger suggested that if ADUs are being built for financial gain, there needs to be
restrictions or additional taxes assessed to those properties.

Jeff Johnson stated that ADUs will likely be used mostly as short-term rentals.

Mr. DePerro stated that there is a version of language he has seen that states that if at
any point a property requires a transaction privilege tax license, it would require a
parking spot, which would then make it more difficult to build an ADU to be used as a
short-term rental. Mr. DePerro stated that if a motion was made to approve the text
amendment with that direction, staff could further investigate that language.

Chair Read asked if the amendment language could include language that the ADU
would have to have a designated parking spot, whether it be on the existing driveway or
on a new parking surface. Mr. DePerro reiterated that unless the language was written
specifically to say that a required parking space for an ADU may be located within the
front yard, the default would be for it to not be located within the front yard, which is why
staff did not recommend requiring a parking space, since it would be difficult for many
lots to provide a parking space behind the front yard setback. Mr. DePerro added that in
terms of short-term rentals, they could potentially be restricted more by requiring a
parking space, which would be triggered by the transaction privilege tax license.

Ms. Krieger agreed that it would help control the short-term rental aspect of ADUs.

Mr. Leonard stated that there is no connection between the transaction privilege tax
licensing and zoning, so there is no oversight. Mr. Leonard asked for clarification if four
parking spaces would be required for a lot with an ADU since there would be two
dwelling units and single-family homes require two parking spaces per unit. Mr.
DePerro responded that the amendment language is currently written to not require an
additional parking space for an ADU. Mr. Leonard stated that the residents living in an
ADU would be driving and asked where they would park. Mr. DePerro responded that
depending on how an ADU is being used, some residents living in an ADU may not
have a car.

Ms. Krieger stated that they would assume that there would be more than one car per
ADU and recommended that if an ADU is being used for financial gain, that two parking
spaces be required. Mr. DePerro responded that he has not seen another city require
more than one parking space for an ADU. Ms. Krieger stated that at least one parking
space should be required if an ADU is being used for financial gain.

Mr. Leonard stated that Tucson allows parking off of alleys, which makes Tucson
different than Phoenix. Mr. Leonard added that Tucson has allowed guesthouses since
the 1970s, which contributed to inexpensive student housing in Tucson, and as soon as
Airbnb came around, they all came off the market and were converted to short-term
rentals. Mr. DePerro responded that Phoenix always has allowed parking off of alleys
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1253
North Gateway Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-23-Y

for single-family homes, including accessing the rear yard from the alley and
maneuvering in the alley by right. Mr. DePerro added that parking off of alleys is not
allowed for multifamily by right, and that the North Gateway Village likely does not have
a lot of alleys.

MOTION – Z-TA-5-23-Y:
Vice Chair Ricart motioned to recommend approval of Z-TA-5-23-Y, per the staff
recommendation.

Mr. Johnson motioned a substitute motion to recommend approval of Z-TA-5-23-Y, per
the staff recommendation, with a modification to require two parking spaces per ADU.
Ms. Krieger seconded the motion.

VOTE – Z-TA-5-23-Y:
3-3; motion to recommend approval of Z-TA-5-23-Y, per the staff recommendation, with
a modification, fails with Committee members French, Johnson and Krieger in favor and
Committee members Simon, Ricart and Read opposed.

MOTION – Z-TA-5-23-Y:
Vice Chair Ricart motioned to recommend approval of Z-TA-5-23-Y, per the staff
recommendation. Ms. Simon seconded the motion.

VOTE – Z-TA-5-23-Y:
4-2; motion to recommend approval of Z-TA-5-23-Y, per the staff recommendation,
passes with Committee members French, Simon, Ricart and Read in favor and
Committee members Johnson and Krieger opposed.

STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:

None.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1254
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-23-Y
REVISED

Date of VPC Meeting July 18, 2023
Request Amend Chapters 2, 5, 6, 7, 12 and 13 of the Phoenix
Zoning Ordinance to add accessory dwelling units.
VPC Recommendation Approval with additional stipulations
VPC Vote 7-2

VPC DISCUSSION:

Four members of the public registered to speak on this item.

Staff Presentation:

Nayeli Sanchez Luna, staff, provided a presentation regarding the proposed text
amendment, gave examples of accessory dwelling units (ADUs), noted the proposed
standards for new ADUs, provided a timeline for the proposal, and presented the staff
recommendation to approve.

Questions from the Committee:

None.

Public Comment:

Neal Haddad stated that he was part of the Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix
and that the coalition supports ADUs. Mr. Haddad stated that modifications to the text
amendment are required. Mr. Haddad noted that the coalition has suggested language for
houses and ADUs in historic preservation areas, special planning districts and overlays.
Mr. Haddad added that the letter also focuses on parking, short-term rentals, and HOAs.

Chair Lisa Perez asked why the language regarding HOAs can not be added to the text
amendment. Tricia Gomes, acting Deputy Director for the Planning and Development
Department, stated that there is a private agreement between the HOA and individuals
who live within HOAs. Ms. Gomes noted that HOA provisions are not analyzed by city
staff. Chair Perez noted that even if an HOA doesn’t specifically prohibit ADUs, there are
other restrictions that prevent the construction of one. Ms. Gomes noted that the current
Zoning Ordinance doesn’t state that individuals must follow state regulations, but people
are still required to follow state regulations. Chair Perez stated that the current

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1255
councilperson has been providing false information because she states that ADUs are
allowed anywhere. Ms. Gomes stated that HOAs could implement more restrictions on
ADUs.

Leezah Sun stated that HOAs have a strong impact at a state and federal level. Ms. Sun
stated that there is a demand for more housing in the city and state. Ms. Sun noted
Arizona should analyze affordable housing and there are issues that need to be addressed
in the text amendment.

Jack Leonard noted that he was in support of ADUs but the text amendment would not
solve affordable housing. Mr. Leonard noted that a lot of the existing ADUs are used for
short-term rentals. Mr. Leonard added that he would like to clean up the language in the
text amendment regarding parking and other items addressed in the Neighborhood
Coalition of Greater Phoenix.

Committee Discussion:

Parris Wallace noted that Tucson has been successful with the addition of ADUs. Ms.
Wallace noted that the proposed text amendment has been complied by numerous cities
and ADUs will help alleviate the housing crisis. Ms. Wallace added that she was not
opposed to on-street parking since that is public right-of-way. Chair Perez noted that on-
street parking has been an issue in historic districts or HOAs. Chair Perez added that the
first reaction would be how does it affect everyone individually, but it also affects others.
Ms. Wallace requested to read a letter from State Representative Analise Ortiz. Chair
Perez approved and requested the letter be sent to staff. Ms. Wallace stated that State
Representative Ortiz supported the ADU text amendment because it would help alleviate
the housing shortage and affordability crisis. Ms. Wallace added that the letter stated that
ADUs would help with infill development, create a more sustainable city, and help low- and
middle-income families. Ms. Wallace noted that she will be voting in favor of the text
amendment.

Kristine Morris stated that she supported the text amendment but would like to take into
consideration historic preservation areas and HOAs. Chair Perez stated that she would
also like clarification. Chair Perez asked staff how they could make a motion. Ms. Gomes
stated that other committees have recommended approval with specific direction. Chair
Perez stated that she would like it to be a stipulation and not a direction. Ms. Gomes
noted that if a property is located within a historic preservation area, they are required to
go through Historic Preservation. Ms. Gomes noted that the language in the text
amendment would ensure that Historic Preservation review each ADU, but they would not
have to go through the design review. Ms. Gomes added that design review is primarily for
new homes. Ms. Morris asked what if historic preservation doesn’t address ADUs. Ms.
Gomes added that any modification, such as a garage, wall, addition, etc., to a historic
preservation lot must be approved by Historic Preservation. Ms. Gomes added that the
text amendment will not provide any leeway from design or combability. Ms. Morris asked
what if there are no guidelines for ADUs in Historic Preservation. Ms. Gomes noted that
anything constructed on the lot must be analyzed. Ms. Gomes added that any ADU in a
historic neighborhood will be analyzed to make sure it is compatible with the current
structure.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1256
Chair Perez noted she received a letter from the Phoenix Historic Neighborhood Coalition
and stated that there were areas in the text amendment that required modifications to
address historic preservation homes.

Mr. Leonard noted that most lots in historic neighborhoods are 50 feet wide and that the
removal of the front yard for parking would be detrimental to the neighborhood. Mr.
Leonard added that the text amendment did not address items found in historic
neighborhoods such as a driveway leading to existing casitas.

Dan Kcocke stated that he lived in a historic neighborhood, and he was supportive of the
language in the text amendment. Mr. Kcocke added that anyone could park in front of his
house because it is public right-of-way.

Mr. Haddad reiterated that the coalition was supportive of the proposed text amendment
but requested certain modifications to the language.

Andre Serrette stated that he works in affordable housing and agreed that the text
amendment could benefit from clarification language.

Chair Perez stated that the majority of the committee is in agreement to the additional
language. Chair Perez stated that she wanted the language in the letters be added as a
stipulation not a direction. Ms. Gomes noted that other committees have made a motion to
recommend approval with direction. Chair Perez stated that she would like the direction to
be stipulated. Dan Rush noted that numerous additions to the motion could make it
confusing for the committee to make a vote.

Ms. Morris noted that the committee had not had a discussion regarding special overlays,
short-term rentals, and parking associated with ADUs. Ms. Wallace noted that she was
not opposed to short-term rentals because that was the right of the property owner. Mr.
Haddad noted that the language in the letter required a minimum 30-day rental period. Mr.
Haddad added that short-term rentals will eliminate affordable housing. Ms. Wallace noted
that she was in a short-term rental of half a year and supported short-term rentals. Ms.
Morris noted that short-term rentals have made housing unaffordable near the Arizona
State University. Mr. Serrette noted that someone could not purchase an ADU, and it
would be beneficial to have rental options for students.

Ms. Wallace noted that she was supportive of the property owner living on the lot. Ms.
Sun stated that the real issue seemed to be who would be benefiting from ADUs. Ms. Sun
added that HOAs would regulations addressing ADUs. Renee Dominguez stated that she
had concerns regarding ADU short-term rentals. Ms. Gomes stated that the text
amendment would require the property owner to live on the same lot as an ADU. Ms.
Gomes added that the 30-day minimum requirement was not added to the text
amendment because single-family houses that are short-term rentals do not require the
30-day minimum.

Motion:
Kristine Morris motioned to recommend approval of Z-TA-5-23-Y with the following
stipulations:
• Provide clarifying language for Historic Preservation regarding Accessory Dwelling
Units.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1257
• Provide clarifying language for Homeowner Associations regarding Accessory
Dwelling Units.
Bill Barquin seconded the motion.



Vote:
7-2, motioned passed with Committee Members Ayala, Barquin, Dominguez, Morris,
Sanou, Wallace, and Perez in favor and Committee Members Rush and Serrette in
opposition.

Staff Comments Regarding VPC Recommendation and Stipulations:

None.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1258
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-23-Y

Date of VPC Meeting July 19, 2023
Request Amend Chapters 2, 5, 6, 7, 12 and 13 of the Phoenix
Zoning Ordinance to add accessory dwellings units
VPC Recommendation Approval per the staff recommendation with direction
VPC Vote 14-0

VPC DISCUSSION:

Three members of the public submitted speaker cards with all wishing to speak. One
indicated they are opposed, one in favor and opposition, and one “partially” in favor.

STAFF PRESENTATION

Mr. Klimek, staff, provided a presentation regarding the proposed text amendment,
gave examples of accessory dwelling units (ADUs), noted the proposed standards for
new ADUs, provided a timeline for the proposal, and presented the staff
recommendation to approve.

QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE

Committee Member Matthews asked if the text amendment addresses a scenario
where an ADU may be constructed before the primary dwelling. Mr. Klimek responded
that the definition of ADU will not allow one to exist without a primary dwelling.

Committee Member Larson asked for clarity on who is the target market for this type
of dwelling unit. Mr. Klimek responded that this dwelling type can be attractive to many
user groups include multigenerational households.

Committee Member Veidmark asked if this text amendment will supersede HOA
requirements. Mr. Klimek responded that state law does not allow a municipality to
enforce HOA covenants and therefore the text amendment does not acknowledge
HOAs, but this does not eliminate an HOAs authority.

Committee Member Perez expressed concern over the permitting costs and
procedural complexities that may deter regular homeowners to construct ADUs. Mr.
Klimek responded that permit costs are based on square footage and added that the
department will likely explore measures to reduce barriers to ADU construction.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882

Page 1259
North Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 19, 2023
Page 2



Committee Member Sommacampagna asked for clarity on how the restrictive
covenant would work. Mr. Klimek responded that the City of Phoenix will likely ask for
the documentation whenever a building permit is issued for an ADU.

Committee Member Gore asked Klimek for the most common criticism to this
proposal. Mr. Klimek responded that the most common criticisms are on-street
parking, utility capacity, and additional vehicular traffic.

Committee Member Veidmark asked if stipulations or modifications can be added to
this type of request. Mr. Klimek responded that a text amendment is a type of case
that cannot be approved by the City Council with stipulations and added that any
modifications or stipulations added by the VPCs will likely be treated as “direction from
the committee.”

Committee Member Matthews posed a hypothetical scenario to ask if the city would
be evaluating infrastructure capacity based on the assumption that all or a portion of
single-family lots will have ADUs constructed. Mr. Klimek responded that ADUs do not
count against the overall density maximum permitted in a district. He added that the
department is not expecting that every owner on a given street will construct ADUs. If a
builder were inclined to create a development with ADUs on every lot, they would likely
submit their plans showing the total number of primary and accessory dwellings to
simplify the overall review process; in this case, the applicant would be required to
show, for example, the total projected traffic demand.

PUBLIC COMMENTS

Ms. Sandy Grunow introduced herself as a representative of the Neighborhood
Coalition of Greater Phoenix and shared some highlights from their briefing paper that
was provided to the North Mountain Village Planning Committee. She asked the
committee to consider their proposed stipulations regarding historic preservation,
regulating parking, regulating short term rentals, and addressing how HOAs will be
impacted by the proposal. She added that they are also advocates for early
engagement for text amendments that will impact so much of the city.

Ms. Jackie Rich introduced herself as a representative of the Neighborhood Coalition
of Greater Phoenix and shared some highlights from their briefing paper that was
provided to the North Mountain Village Planning Committee. She asked the committee
to consider the proposed stipulations to require a minimum lease period of 30 days, to
add language acknowledging HOA authority, and she expressed concern that this text
amendment may impact the Special Planning Districts such as Royal Palm.

Mr. Stephen Pamperin expressed that his main concern is short term rentals, and a
lesser concern is that street parking issues may arise from this proposal.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1260
North Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 19, 2023
Page 3


STAFF RESPONSE

Mr. Klimek thanked the members of the public for their comments and responded with
the following. State law does not allow a municipality to enforce HOA regulations so
this text amendment cannot acknowledge or state that the city will enforce HOA
requirements. Staff has evaluated the concerns regarding historic preservation and
found that any additional acknowledgements in this section would be redundant and
unnecessary. Staff has limited authority to regulate short term rentals due to state law,
however, he noted that there is a text amendment in the pipeline to address the topic.

FLOOR/PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED: MOTION, DISCUSSION, AND VOTE.

Committee Member Gore stated expressed concern that the city is allowing this to
move forward before it has a plan to regulate short term rentals. He asked why this text
amendment cannot address short term rentals and how the restrictive covenants would
be enforced. Mr. Klimek stated that ADUs and short-term rentals are both complex
topics and that the larger topic of short-term rentals requires more information. He
added that enforcement will likely include requiring the applicant to provide evidence
that a compliant covenant has been recorded.

Committee Member Matthews noted that, if approved, he would like the new code
section to be evaluated after one year to determine if it is working and if any
adjustments are needed.

Committee Member Perez stated that ADUs are more of a housing solution than a
short-term rental problem. She expressed support for financial and procedural support
for low- and moderate-income households to enable the people who need ADUs most
to build them.

Committee O’Connor asked if a second story ADU would be permitted. Mr. Klimek
responded that a two story ADU is permitted; however, it is not permitted by right in the
required rear yard or is allowed to exceed the height of the primary structure.
Committee Member Larson asked if a second story of a home can be constructed as
an ADU. Mr. Klimek responded that he was not certain.

Committee Member Gore and Sommacampagna asked about how the covenants
would be enforced. Mr. Klimek responded that the applicant would likely be required to
provide evidence of a recorded and compliant covenant prior to being issued a building
permit or Certificate of Occupancy for an ADU.

Committee Member Alauria stated that she sees the benefit to the proposal as it
provides a housing option for multigenerational households such as aging parents,
young adults, and/or persons with disabilities.

Committee Member Gore suggested that the City of Phoenix should provide loan
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1261
North Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-23-Y
July 19, 2023
Page 4


guarantees with the ADU and property as collateral. Committee Member Krentz
responded that he is not supportive of requiring loan guarantees because there are
separate financial assistance programs that exist that that these programs should not
be mixed. Committee Member O’Hara stated that he is not onboard with loan
guarantees and that it would not stand up legally.

Committee Member McBride stated that the recommendation and direction does not
need to be very specific but can instead focus on the spirit versus the letter of the
recommendation.

Committee Member Perez stated that affordability is key and that she is ok without
loan guarantees but asked that financial assistance, such as a waiver of permit fees,
and procedural assistance be considered help homeowners to overcome barriers.
Committee Member Matthews stated that the building permits for an ADU would be
less than $1,500 which is likely not enough to make a project infeasible. Committee
Member Perez stated that most homeowners are not professional developers and
would benefit from assistance navigating the city’s process.

Committee Member Gore stated that he is still supportive of loan guarantees. Chair
Jaramillo responded that microloan programs are difficult because many participants
are deterred by the idea of having a lien on their property.

MOTION:

Committee Member Matthews moved to approve the request per the staff
recommendation with the following direction to staff: include a 30 day minimum lease
term, the locations of all approved ADUs shall be made public and be continually
updated, staff shall conduct an assessment after 1 year to evaluate the number of units
constructed and how the program is working, and the city shall explore options to assist
low and moderate income homeowners to construct ADUs.

Committee Member Perez seconded the motion.

DISCUSSION:

None.

VOTE: 14-0-0, motion to approve Z-TA-5-23-Y per the staff recommendation with the
direction provided by Committee Member Matthews, passes with Committee Members
Alauria, Gore, Krentz, Larson, Matthews, McBride, Molfetta, O’Connor, O’Hara, Perez,
Sommacampagna, Veidmark, Whitney, and Chair Jaramillo in favor; none in
opposition; and none in abstention.

STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:
None.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1262
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-23-Y


Date of VPC Meeting July 24, 2023
Request Amend Chapters 2, 5, 6, 7, 12 and 13 of the Phoenix
Zoning Ordinance to add accessory dwellings units
VPC Recommendation Denial
VPC Vote 7-1


VPC DISCUSSION:
2 members of the public registered to speak on this item, in support.
2 members of the public registered to speak on this item, in opposition.

Staff Presentation:
Matteo Moric, staff, presented the proposed text amendment for the accessory
dwelling units.

Questions from Committee:
Toni Broberg inquired if the setback requirements would change in the rear. Mr.
Moric said the setbacks in the rear and side for a detached ADU would be 3 feet
unless there is a fully dedicated alley where it would be 0 feet.

Chair Gasparro asked if the proposed text amendment would override HOA
governed lots. Mr. Moric said the City process and HOA’s are separate processes
where the city could issue the permit and the HOA could have more stringent
regulations.

Vice Chair Fisher asked how this would affect the parking and maneuvering in the
front yard and Mr. Moric mentioned with accessory dwelling units the driveway area
in the front yard could be a little larger. Mr. Fisher felt many of these accessory
dwellings would turn into small businesses and VRBO’s. Mr. Moric replied that there
would be a restrictive covenant where one of the structures would need to be owner
occupied.

Vice Chair Fisher wanted to understand what problems the City is trying to resolve
here.

Ms. Broberg brought up mother-in-law and next generation units, Ms. Broberg
thought if people could have older parents live next to them it would be a nice
alternative.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1263
Ahwatukee Foothills Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-23-Y



Vice Chair Fisher felt that there was not enough time to analyze the pros and cons
before going to Planning Commission.

Mike Maloney wanted to better understand how regulating the short-term rental
would be enforced and how expensive it would be to locate an ADU on a property.

Chair Gasparro noted that if there is an ADU on each lot this may inundate the local
street with traffic and parking.

Vice Chair Fisher felt the text amendment was drafted in a vacuum and the direct
impact by all the neighborhoods had not been addressed, and wanted to know when
the stakeholders would be invited in the process.

Mr. Moric explained that there was an information only item brought to the committee
and all the Villages.

Clifford Mager asked the date when this text amendment started. Sarah Stockham,
staff, stated ADU’s as part of solution to reduce the cost of housing as part of the
Housing Phoenix Plan, and it was approved by City Council 3 years ago.

Vice Chair Fisher felt many details need to still be worked out.

Mr. Moric indicated other communities were researched when creating the text
language.

Public Comments:
Ms. Nicole Rodriguez said she was in favor of this text amendment, and it was
interesting that it is easier to get a swimming pool than a house in the backyard.

Mr. Neal Haddad from the Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix referred to a
letter that was previously sent out to the Committee. Mr. Haddad thought some items
needed to be cleaned up such as special planning districts and overlays and had
concerns with parking for ADU’s and thought there should be dedicated parking for
the units. Mr. Haddad said the neighborhood he lives in is all built out and Mr. Haddad
did not think the text amendment has been thought through enough and the city
wants to make it easy to have these units. Mr. Haddad identified Flagstaffs
requirements for ADU’s. Mr. Haddad felt short term rentals and HOA concerns
needed to be better addressed and felt HOA’s needed to be involved in the process.

Mr. Larry Whitesell from the Peak Neighborhood Association said the issue about
public input and almost half of the Village Planning Committees for the first
information item had no quorum. Mr. Whitesell added that the public process had not
been thorough and the language of the restrictive covenant input was heard and
brought into the text amendment. Mr. Whitesell felt the restrictive covenant that no
rentals of the ADU’s except a 30 day minimum should be added. Mr. Whitesell added

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1264
Ahwatukee Foothills Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-23-Y


that the increase of parking in the front yard would not be enough to park a car and
there is a real issue with parking in front of neighbors homes. Mr. Whitesell felt the
ADU should be on a separate meter for utilities.

Ms. Broberg asked how much feedback Mr. Whitesell received for his text changes.
Mr. Whitesell replied that they have not received feedback except at the VPC
meetings where some of the Planners responded.

Mike Maloney asked if someone wanted to build an accessory dwelling today for a
family member can he build it now. Mr. Moric responded that there are certain zoning
categories which allow guest houses, but this would apply to all lots where single
family homes could go.

Ryan Boyd from Phoenix Project was in support of the proposed text amendment,
this was 3 years in the making and the Housing Phoenix Plan passed at the City
Council by a 9-0 vote. Mr. Boyd said they supported this because of the affordability
aspect, these would not be affordable without a subsidy. Mr. Boyd said there could be
tweaks made to the language but urged the committee to recommend approval.

Vice Chair Fisher said he was concerned that this was not affordable housing and
wanted specific examples this would create affordable housing. Mr. Boyd said the
ADU’s would be more affordable.

Chair Gasparro said this increases the supply out there and by increasing the supply
which could catch up to demand and help cause a reduction of the challenge in the
Phoenix affordability problem.

Vice Chair Fisher believed ADU’s did not cater to the affordability problem.

Chair Gasparro explained that this would not be a final solution but a part of the total
solution.

Ms. Broberg emphasized this is a city-wide text amendment and that this may be
different in Ahwatukee versus elsewhere in the city.

Chair Gasparro said if 20,000 homes in the city of Phoenix get ADU’s it could be a
significant amount to increase the housing supply.

Mr. Boyd said had studies could send over to the Committee.

Chair Gasparro thought maybe a good place to start would be ADU’s to have at least
one parking spot per unit, a cap on the rental time period.

Discussion:
Vice Chair Fisher felt there was a lack of specificity that was brought to them at this
time.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1265
Ahwatukee Foothills Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-23-Y



Ms. Broberg shared that this proposal has been going on for 3 years. Vice Chair
Fisher felt this needed to be a more collaborative effort.

Mr. Mager was concerned once it gets approved, it cannot be undone and it could be
exploited.

Chair Gasparro felt it would be nice to come back to all the Villages for further
discussion on this item.

Motion:
Vice Chair Darin Fisher motioned to recommend denial of Z-TA-5-23-Y. Clifford
Mager seconded the motion.

Vote:
7-1, Motion to recommend denial of Z-TA-5-23-Y passed, with Committee Members
Mager, Maloney, Meier, Pritchette, Sharer, Fisher and Gasparro in favor; and Broberg
in opposition.



STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:

Staff has no comments.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1266
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-23-Y

Date of VPC Meeting July 25, 2023
Request Amend Chapters 2, 5, 6, 7, 12 and 13 of the Phoenix
Zoning Ordinance to add accessory dwelling units.
VPC Recommendation Approval with modifications, per the staff
recommendation
VPC Vote 10-5


VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS:

Committee Member Jamaar Williams joined during this item bringing quorum to 15
members.

Five members of the public register to speak on this item.

STAFF PRESENTATION

Mr. Samuel Rogers, staff, provided a presentation regarding the proposed text
amendment, gave examples of accessory dwelling units (ADUs), noted the proposed
standards for new ADUs, and provided a timeline for the proposal.

QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE

Committee Member Jak Keyser asked about two story ADUs. Mr. Rogers stated that
any portion of an ADU that encroaches into the rear yard setback will be limited to 15
feet in height.

Committee Member Malkoon asked what the rear yard setback distance is. Mr.
Rogers stated that the rear yard setback would vary by zoning district.

Mr. Rogers clarified that a detached bedroom without a kitchen is already allowed to be
built and the proposed ordinance is allowing a detached bedroom with a kitchen to be
built.

Committee Member Malkoon asked about the one-foot setback that the packet details.
Mr. Rogers stated that dedicated alleys can have reduced setbacks and explained that
staff had been directed to make ADUs attainable.


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882

Page 1267
Alhambra Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-91-22-5



Committee Member Pamala Fitzgerald asked about the occupancy rate of apartments
in Phoenix and how the square footage of the ADU would be verified. Mr. Rogers
stated that apartment vacancy rates are approximately 3.7 percent, the lowest it has
been in 20 years and explained that the square footage would be verified during the
permitting process.

Committee Member Keith Ender asked about the process for converting existing
structures into an ADU. Mr. Rogers stated that an ADU conversion will require a permit.

Committee Member Tracey Adams asked about ADUs and Airbnb. Mr. Rogers stated
that ADUs can be used as an Airbnb and explained that the property owner will be
required to occupy the primary or accessory unit.

Committee Member Jim DeGraffenreid asked about HOA height restrictions. Mr.
Rogers stated that HOA requirements will take precedent.

Committee Member Maurita Harris asked about a 30 day lease requirement. Mr.
Rogers explained that the 30 day lease was not included in the ordinance per
advisement from the City of Phoenix legal team.

Committee Member Keyser explained that ADUs built without permits cannot be
insured and a mortgage cannot be pursued to finance the structure.

Committee Member Fitzgerald asked how allowing the ADUs to be utilized as short-
term rentals will address the housing shortage. Mr. Rogers stated that, while some of
the units will be used as short-term rentals, providing more housing options within the
City will help to address the housing shortage.

Committee Member Martin Shultz discussed financing, short term rentals, the City’s
need for more housing, and stated that the text amendment should move forward.

Committee Member Solorio stated that 15% to 20% of ADUs are used as short-term
rentals, discussed the success of ADUs in other communities, and explained that most
housing that is being built is luxury or single-family homes, so ADUs are a needed
housing type.

Committee Member Adams stated that the owner should be required to occupy the
primary dwelling to maintain the neighborhood and community.

Committee Member Malkoon asked about a time requirement for the owner-occupied
requirement. Mr. Rogers stated he would have to take another look at the ordinance.
Sarah Stockham, staff, stated there is no time requirement for the owner-occupied
requirement. Committee Member Malkoon stated that ADUs will add to home values
and make the homebuyers market less affordable.


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1268
Alhambra Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-91-22-5


Committee Member Camp stated that many owners want to live in the ADU and stated
that the owner should not be required to occupy the primary unit. Committee Member
Camp added that the National Association of Relators and AARP both support ADUs.

Committee Member Solorio referenced several reports that support ADUs, explained
that ADUs are typically built in low to moderate income neighborhoods and serve the
working poor, and stated that ADUs used to be legal.

Committee Fitzgerald asked if ADU tenants would be expected to park in the street.
Mr. Rogers stated that tenants can park in the driveway, an additional parking location
can be permitted, or they can utilize street parking.

Chair Bryck asked how close to the rear property line an ADU can be if it is in the rear
yard setback and asked about fences. Ms. Stockham stated that ADUs can have up to
a 0-foot setback if adjacent to a dedicated alley. Mr. Rogers stated that a fence cannot
be used to create a private yard for the ADU tenant.

Committee Member Malkoon asked if the text amendment addresses lot splits on sites
with an ADU, stated that the vacancy rates sound too high, and asked if there was any
pressure from the Biden administration. Mr. Rogers stated that the amendment does
not address lots splits, but it could likely be done if minimum lot size requirements are
met and stated that he is not aware of pressure from the Biden administration, but there
was pressure from the state and the Housing Phoenix Plan calls out ADUs as a method
that should be used to address housing shortages.

Committee Member Dina Smith asked about the number of units that had been built to
address the Housing Phoenix Plan’s goal to add 50,000 units by 2030 and asked why
ADUs were outlawed if they used to be legal. Mr. Rogers stated he would try to find
that information. Committee Member Solorio explained that zoning had been
weaponized against people of low socioeconomic status and discussed missing middle
housing.

Committee Member Keyser stated that homes not being built for upper and lower
classes impacts the housing supply for lower income people, spoke about the
continuing trend of people migrating from California to Phoenix, and discussed the
urban heat island effect.

Committee Member Malkoon spoke about the positive impacts of Homeowner
Associations and stated concerns about losing neighborhood organizations.

PUBLIC COMMENT

Neal Haddad stated he would like to complain that the Neighborhood Coalition of
Greater Phoenix’s (NCGP) letter regarding the text amendment was not sent out earlier
and discussed concerns about parking, historic preservation, short term rentals, and not
having an HOA supremacy clause as a part of the text amendment.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1269
Alhambra Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-91-22-5



Jackie Rich stated she has concerns about evidence that short term rentals are
associated with shootings, harassment, and trash, stated concerns about the
enforcement of restrictive covenants, and stated the ADUs should have 30 day
minimum lease.

Sterling Sourk stated he approves of the height and property line separation and
stated the ADUs would be great for affordability, and people who want their
family/friends nearby. Mr. Sourk spoke about his positive experiences with short-term
rentals.

Wes Ballu stated that he would like to build an ADU for his aging parents and stated
that the short-term rental market is oversaturated. Mr. Ballu stated that parking should
not be required but provided on a case-by-case basis.

Nicole Rodriguez stated that there are many short-term rentals and Section 8 homes
near her residence and stated that renters are valuable. Ms. Rodriguez stated concerns
about being told what she can do on her property, stated that 0-foot setbacks on lots
adjacent to alleys makes alleys safer, stated that parking will not be needed for those
who do not drive, stated the importance of stable housing, and stated that the
committees have had months to learn how the ordinance will work.

Committee Member Malkoon asked about HOA superiority. Mr. Rogers stated that
HOAs have superiority and can regulate ADUs how they see fit.

STAFF RESPONSE

Mr. Rogers clarified that the NCGP had sent their letter directly to the VPC on July
14th, but Mr. Rogers had not sent out the letter for a second time until the day of the
meeting. Mr. Rogers stated that ADUs would be subject to historic preservation
requirements and explained that the City’s legal team had advised staff to not include a
30 day minimum lease. Mr. Rogers explained that residents can Airbnb detached
bedrooms now, stated that the only difference between a detached bedroom and an
ADU is a kitchen, explained that short-term rentals do not need kitchens, and asked
why someone would pay all the development fees to add an ADU to their property if
they could build a less expensive detached bedroom that can be used as a short-term
rental.

FLOOR/PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED: MOTION, DUSCUSSION, AND VOTE

Committee Member Keith Ender stated that he had just read the NCGP letter and that
all the members should read it.

Committee Member Malkoon asked how the other Village Planning Committees had
voted. Ms. Stockham stated that the text amendment had been approved by 10
villages, denied by two villages, and had not been heard by two villages.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1270
Alhambra Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-91-22-5



Committee Member Malkoon motioned to recommend approval of Z-TA-5-23-Y with
direction to incorporate the changes in the NCGP letter of recommendation with respect
to accessory dwelling units. Committee Member Harris seconded the motion.

Committee Member Keyser stated that the modifications should be spelt out. Mr.
Rogers clarified that the motion had been approved with direction to incorporate the
changes in the NCGP letter in other villages.

Committee Member Camp asked if there would be an opportunity to vote for the text
amendment without stipulations.

Committee Member Solorio explained that a substitute motion could be made.

Committee Member Elizabeth Sanchez made a substitute motion to recommend
approval of Z-TA 5-23-Y, per staff recommendation. Committee Member Solorio
seconded the motion.

Committee Member Keyser stated that the NCGP was too long to be used as legal
language.

Committee Member Williams stated the NCGP letter would not accomplish what the
NCGP think it will accomplish and stated that the Planning Commission will not be
receptive to this recommendation.

Committee Member Keyser stated he would attend Planning Commission if the
substitute motion passes and he changes his mind after reading the NCGP letter.

Committee Member Malkoon introduced a friendly amendment to the substitute
motion with guidance to staff to state that applicants for ADUs must comply with HOA
and Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions and to require owners to live in one of the
units for a minimum of two years.

Chair Bryck asked Committee Member Sanchez and Committee Member Solorio if the
friendly amendment as recommended by Committee Member Malkoon was acceptable.
Committee Member Sanchez started she agreed to the friendly amendment.
Committee Member Solorio stated he agreed to the friendly amendment.

Mr. Rogers clarified that HOAs are regulated by the state, so a mention of them had
been left out of the text amendment.

VOTE
10-5, motion to recommend approval of Z-TA-5-23-Y with modifications passes with
Committee Members Adams, Camp, Harris, Keyser, Mulgado, Sanchez, Shultz, Solorio,
Williams, and Bryck in favor and Committee Members DeGraffenreid, Ender, Fitzgerald,
Malkoon, and Smith opposed.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1271
Alhambra Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-91-22-5



STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION

None.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1272
ATTACHMENT G


Phoenix, Arizona

June 1, 2023

The meeting of the Phoenix Planning Commission was called to order by Acting
Chairman Emilio Gaynor at 6:06 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 200 West Jefferson
Street, Phoenix, Arizona. Commissioners present participated in the meeting both in-
person and virtually from a remote location.

Present: Commissioner Emilio Gaynor, (Acting Chairman)
Commissioner Ryan A. Boyd, (Acting Vice-Chairman)
Commissioner Marcia Busching (Virtual)
Commissioner Pete Gorraiz
Commissioner Gabriel Jaramillo (Virtual)
Commissioner Lachele Mangum
Commissioner Lisa Perez
Commissioner Shannon Simon

Absent: Commissioner Nico Howard, Chairman

Also
Present: Ms. Racelle Escolar, Planner Principal
Ms. Tricia Gomes, Deputy Director, PDD
Mr. Greg Harmon, Planner I
Ms. Vikki Cipolla-Murillo, Secretary III/Council Reporter


At the request of Acting Chairman Emilio Gaynor, Ms. Racelle Escolar, Staff Liaison,
read the hybrid meeting introduction. She welcomed everyone to the Planning
Commission Hearing and stated that all attendees who were participating virtually and
requested to speak would remain muted until called on to speak. Speakers experiencing
audio issues were asked to switch their audio connection to have WebEx call them. She
stated that all individuals speaking virtually at the meeting tonight had contacted staff
within the required timeframe prior to the start of the meeting. Those who did not
contact staff, wishing to speak, were asked to contact her after the meeting to discuss
the next steps and future opportunities to speak regarding any items on the agenda.
She provided her contact information, via phone at 602-534-2864 and email at
racelle.escolar@phoenix.gov, which was also listed on the bottom of the public meeting
notice for the meeting. She asked those attending the meeting from the Council
Chambers to complete a speaker card and provide it to one of the staff members.

***

Acting Chairman Gaynor asked Acting Vice-Chair Boyd to read the opening remarks.

***

Acting Chairman Gaynor asked the audience to follow the General Rules of Order for
the meeting:

Page 1273
Planning Commission Hearing
Approved Minutes - June 1, 2023

OTHER BUSINESS

15. INFORMATION ONLY: Z-TA-5-23-Y: Presentation and discussion regarding a
request to amend Chapters 2, 5, 6, 7, 12, and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance to add accessory dwellings units.

Ms. Racelle Escolar stated that Item No. 15 was an information presentation
regarding Z-TA-5-23-Y, a request to amend Chapters 2, 5, 6, 7, 12, and 13 of the
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance to add accessory dwellings units. She stated that Ms.
Tricia Gomes, the Deputy Director in the Planning Development Department was
there to provide a presentation.

Ms. Tricia Gomes delivered an informational presentation on Z-TA-5-23-Y to the
Planning Commission to address accessory dwelling units. She stated that some
familiar terms are “guest house”, currently in the Zoning Ordinance and interior
suite with “accessory cooking facilities”. Other names used are granny flats, in-
law suites, garage unit, and basement apartment. Ms. Gomes displayed several
examples of accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in the City of Phoenix. She stated
that most of them are either non-conforming in some of the historic districts or
they do not include cooking facilities. The Planning Commission approved a text
amendment several years ago and an amendment last year.

Ms. Gomes stated that staff is proposing language to allow for ADUs. The
proposed text:

x Allows one ADU per lot in all single-family zoned districts, including S-1
and S-2 (larger lots, farm districts).
x Defines “duplex” and “triplex” to make a clear distinction from the
“accessory dwelling unit”.
x Increases the lot coverage for ADUs in most districts.
x Revises rear-yard projection rules to allow ADUs and other projections
further into rear yard, with one-story and 15 feet height limitation.
x Fixes many references throughout the Zoning Code to “guesthouse” and
other revised sections throughout the Zoning Ordinance.

Ms. Gomes stated that there are different types of ADUs. Two-story will only be
permitted within the building envelope, outside of the required lot setbacks. If you
are not in your required setbacks, that height for the building is traditionally two-
stories, 30 feet.

x Detached Accessory Dwelling Unit: If in the rear yard, it will be limited to
one-story, and 15’. This is consistent with accessory structures, such as
garages, sheds, pool houses, etc. They follow the same requirement. The
detached ADU will not prohibit other accessory structures such as garage.

x Attached Accessory Dwelling Unit: It will not prohibit detached accessory
structures, such as garages. It can be attached to the home. The closed
projection rules that go into the required rear-yard setback will be

Page 1274
Planning Commission Hearing
Approved Minutes - June 1, 2023

permitted when they comply with minimum side yard setbacks, and when
all portions of the projection do not exceed one-story and 15 feet in height.
It will also follow the minimum side-yard setbacks of the primary dwelling
unit.

Ms. Gomes stated that additional development standards for ADUs would be for
all lots, ADU would be:

x (All lots) Maximum 75% of size of primary dwelling. (to be subordinate to
the primary dwelling)
x Maximum size requirement of 1,000 square feet for the ADU if on lot
10,000 square feet or less (R1-6, R-18, R1-10 lots). The actual size of the
ADU is going to be determined by the lot coverage, depending on how
large the primary home is. The ADU can go up to 1,000 square feet, if not
exceeding overall lot coverage.
x Maximum 3,000 square feet if lot greater than 10,000 square feet, or 10%
of the net lot area, whichever is less. (Maximum one-story and 15 feet, if in
the required rear yard)
x Maximum height one-story and 15 feet if in required rear yard.
x Maximum height same as primary dwelling if outside of required setbacks.
x Lot coverage has generally been increased by 10%, but not in RE-43, RE-
24, R1-14, and RE-35, which 5% added in 2015 (if all structures are one-
story). These districts already allow guesthouses.
x Additional parking is not required for the ADU. The thought is that one
would be using the driveway or existing garage space.
x The ADU must have a means of exterior egress with a pathway to the
street not through the primary dwelling.
x The ADU may not have a separate fenced yard area, because this is an
accessory unit to the primary single-family home. It should be functioning
as one development.

Ms. Gomes reviewed the scheduled timeline:

x Planning Commission (information): June 2023
x Villages (information): June 2023
x Villages (action/recommendation): July 2023
x Planning Commission (action/recommendation): August 2023
x City Council Hearing: September 2023

Acting Chairman Gaynor asked if there were any questions from commissioners.

Commissioner Busching stated that she had raised an issue with Ms. Escolar
already and would raise it with her, as well. These ADUs are going to be allowed
in S-1 properties, which are sort of in the recently annexed outskirts. In a lot of
those cases, those properties are on septic tanks and not on sewer. She thinks
that they need to consider where and when they are going to need to have a new
septic tank, and whether people are going to be required to tap into the City
sewer. There have been some real problems with respect to the existing
Page 1275
Planning Commission Hearing
Approved Minutes - June 1, 2023

properties, but it will be even worse with new properties. She welcomed a
sidebar discussion over this whole issue.

Ms. Gomes responded yes, you are correct, we would need to consult or have
discussions with the City Water Services Department about what that threshold is
and if that would be changing and if they could look at it. That is obviously aside
from the Zoning Ordinance process. She made a note and stated that staff can
certainly circle back.

Commissioner Busching stated, unfortunately it is in the Zoning Ordinance about
the distance you are from the sewer and the requirement to tap into it. This will
be impacted by the existing Zoning Ordinance, in that regard.

There were no further questions, and no action was necessary on this item.

***




Page 1276
ATTACHMENT H


REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
August 3, 2023

ITEM NO: 16
DISTRICT NO.: Citywide
SUBJECT:

Application #: Z-TA-5-23-Y (Accessory Dwelling Units)
Proposal: Amend Section 202 (Definitions), Section 507 Tab A.II.C.8 (Single-Family
Design Review), Section 603 (Suburban S-1 District—Ranch or Farm
Residence), Section 604 (Suburban S-2 District—Ranch or Farm
Commercial), Section 605 (Residential Estate RE-43 District—One-Family
Residence), Section 606 (Residential Estate RE-24 District—One-Family
Residence), Section 607 (Residential R1-14 District—One-Family
Residence), Section 608 (Residence Districts), Section 609 (RE-35 Single-
Family Residence District), Section 610 (R1-18 Single-Family Residence
District), Section 611 (R1-10 Single-Family Residence District), Section 612
(R1-8 Single-Family Residence District), Section 613 (R1-6 Single-Family
Residence District), Section 614 (R-2 Multifamily Residence District),
Section 615 (R-3 Multifamily Residence District), Section 616 (R-3A
Multifamily Residence District), Section 617 (R-4 Multifamily Residence
District), Section 618 (R-5 Multifamily Residence District), Section 619
(Residential R-4A District—Multifamily Residence—General), Section 635
(Planned Area Development), Section 649 (Mixed Use Agricultural (MUA)
District), Section 651 (Baseline Area Overlay District), Section 653 (Desert
Character Overlay District), Section 658 (Deer Valley Airport Overlay
(DVAO) District), Section 664 (North Central Avenue Special Planning
District (SPD) Overlay District), Section 701.A.3 (Projections), Section 702.F
(Special Parking Standards), Section 703.B (Landscaping and Open Areas
In Multiple-Family Development), Section 706 (Accessory Uses and
Structures), Section 708 (Temporary uses), Sections 1204.C and D (Land
Use Matrix), Section 1303 (Transect lot standards), Section 1305.C (Fence
Standards), Section 1306 (Land Use Matrix), and Section 1310 (Open
Space Improvements) of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance to address
accessory dwelling units.
Applicant: City of Phoenix, Planning Commission
Representative: City of Phoenix, Planning and Development Department

ACTIONS:

Staff Recommendation: Approval, as shown in the recommended text in Attachment A of the
Staff Report.

Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
Ahwatukee Foothills 6/26/2023 Information only. Canceled (no quorum).
Ahwatukee Foothills 7/24/2023 Denial. Vote: 7-1.
Alhambra 6/27/2023 Information only.
Alhambra 7/25/2023 Approval, per the staff recommendation with modifications. Vote 10-5
Camelback East 6/6/2023 Information only.
Camelback East 7/11/2023 Approval, per the staff recommendation with direction.
Vote: 15-0.
Central City 6/12/2023 Information only.
Central City 7/10/2023 Approval, per the staff recommendation with direction.

Page 1277
Vote: 14-0.
Deer Valley 6/8/2023. Information only. No quorum.
Deer Valley 7/13/2023 Approval, per the staff recommendation. Vote: 6-3.
Desert View 6/6/2023 Information only.
Desert View 7/11/2023 Denial. Vote: 5-4.
Encanto 6/5/2023 Information only. No quorum.
Encanto 7/10/2023 Approval, per the staff recommendation. Vote: 9-4.
Estrella 6/20/2023 Information only.
Estrella 7/18/2023 Approval, per the staff recommendation with stipulations. Vote: 7-2.
Laveen 6/12/2023 Information only.
Laveen 7/10/2023 Approval, per the staff recommendation with direction. Vote: 7-1.
Maryvale 6/14/2023 No quorum.
Maryvale 7/12/2023 No quorum.
Maryvale 8/9/2023 No quorum.
North Gateway 6/8/2023 Information only.
North Gateway 7/13/2023 Approval, per the staff recommendation. Vote: 4-2.
North Mountain 6/21/2023 Information only.
North Mountain 7/19/2023 Approval, per the staff recommendation with direction.
Vote: 14-0.
Paradise Valley 6/5/2023 Information only.
Paradise Valley 7/10/2023 No quorum.
Paradise Valley 8/7/2023 Denial. Vote: 9-5.
Rio Vista 6/13/2023 Information only.
Rio Vista 7/11/2023 Approval, per the staff recommendation. Vote: 3-2.
South Mountain 6/13/2023 Information only.
South Mountain 7/11/2023 Approval, per the staff recommendation. Vote: 9-2.

Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval, per staff recommendation in the Addendum
A Staff Report.

Motion Discussion: Commissioner Busching stated that she supports the motion with
reservations, noting that she would like to see staff make some modifications related to the
restrictive covenants before the City Council meeting.

Motion details: Commissioner Boyd made a MOTION to approve Z-TA-5-23-Y, per the staff
recommendation in the Addendum A Staff Report.

Maker: Boyd
Second: Jaramillo
Vote: 8-0
Absent: Mangum
Opposition Present: Yes

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 subordinate dwelling UNIT, AS DEFINED IN THIS
SECTION, SUBORDINATE TO THE PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT AND situated on the
Page 1278
same lot with the main dwelling and used as FOR an A RESIDENTIAL accessory use.
ADUs, WHERE PERMITTED, DO NOT COUNT TOWARDS CALCULATIONS OF
GROSS DENSITY.

***

Apartment: See "Dwelling, Multiple-Family". A DWELLING UNIT WITHIN A DUPLEX,
TRIPLEX, TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT, AND/OR MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT
WHERE EACH UNIT HAS A PRIMARY ACCESS TO A SHARED WALKWAY OR
CORRIDOR, AND EACH UNIT IS NOT INDIVIDUALLY OWNED.

***

Building, Main: A building, or buildings, in which is conducted the principal use of the lot
on which it is situated. In any residential district, any dwelling shall be deemed to be
the main building of the lot on which the same is situated. ON LOTS WITH ONLY
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES, THE PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT SHALL BE
CONSIDERED THE MAIN BUILDING.

***

DUPLEX: A BUILDING ON ONE LOT, WHICH HOUSES EXACTLY TWO DWELLING
UNITS, NEITHER OF WHICH MAY BE CONSIDERED AN ACCESSORY DWELLING
UNIT. EACH DUPLEX UNIT COUNTS TOWARDS THE CALCULATION OF GROSS
DENSITY.

***

Dwelling, Multifamily: A building or buildings attached to each other and containing two or
more dwelling units. The term "multifamily dwelling" is intended to apply to dwelling types
as triplex, fourplex, and apartments where any dwellings have their primary access to a
common hallway or corridor.

Dwelling, Single-Family Attached: A building containing dwelling units each of which has
primary ground floor access to the outside and which are attached to each other. Each
unit extends from the foundation to roof and has open spaces on at least two sides. The
term "attached single-family dwelling" is intended primarily for dwelling types as
townhouses and duplexes.

Dwelling, Single-Family, Detached: A building containing only one dwelling unit entirely
separated by open space from buildings on adjoining lots or building sites.

Dwelling Unit: One (1) or more rooms within a building arranged, designed, or used for
residential purposes for one (1) family and containing INDEPENDENT LIVING AND
SLEEPING AREAS, TOGETHER WITH independent sanitary (TOILET, SINK, AND
BATH/SHOWER) and cooking facilities. The presence of cooking facilities conclusively
establishes the intent to use for residential purposes.



Page 1279
DWELLING UNIT, PRIMARY: A DWELLING UNIT THAT IS EITHER 1) THE ONLY
DWELLING UNIT PROVIDED ON A SINGLE-FAMILY LOT, OR 2) THE LARGEST
DWELLING UNIT PROVIDED ON A SINGLE-FAMILY LOT WHEN THE APPLICABLE
ZONING REGULATIONS OTHERWISE ALLOW AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT OR
OTHER TYPES OF DWELLING UNITS.

***

Guesthouse: A free-standing building which is designed to house guests or servants of
the occupants of the primary dwelling unit. SEE “ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT”.

For purposes of a guest house, a "free-standing building" shall be one which is either not
connected to the primary dwelling unit or, if connected to the primary dwelling unit, shall
be considered free-standing if:

1. The connecting structure is less than ten (10) feet wide; or
2. The connecting structure is greater than ten (10) feet wide and the length of the
connection is more than twice the width of the connecting structure.

For purposes of a guest house, the width of the connecting structure shall be the shortest
distance across its narrowest point, measured from the inside surfaces of the exterior,
enclosing walls. The length of the connecting structure shall be the shortest possible
straight line distance from the outside surface of the primary dwelling unit to the most
distant outside surface of the connecting structure.

For purposes of a guest house, a structure shall be deemed to be "designed to house
guests or servants of the occupants or the primary dwelling unit" if it contains the
following;

1. A shower or bath;
2. A commode;
3. Space for sleeping; and
4. Cooking faculties or space and plumbing and electrical wiring which can be legally
accessed and connected without the requirement of a permit issued by the City and which
is reasonably capable of accommodation of cooking facilities.

***

Interior Suite with Accessory Cooking Facilities: A room or group of rooms located within a
single dwelling unit designed or arranged to allow for semi-private residential use and
includes accessory cooking facilities.

***

Multifamily Residence: See "Dwelling, Multifamily."

MULTIFAMILY/MULTIPLE-FAMILY: A LOT OR PARCEL WHERE TWO OR MORE
DWELLING UNITS ARE PROVIDED, NOT INCLUDING A PERMITTED ACCESSORY
DWELLING UNIT.

Page 1280
***

Offsite Manufactured Home Development: any SINGLE lot, tract, or parcel of land, NOT
TO BE FURTHER SUBDIVIDED, used or offered for use in whole or in part, with or
without charge, for the parking of occupied offsite manufactured homes.

***

Single-Family Attached (SFA) Development: A group of single-family attached dwelling
units located on individually owned lots with common areas which are designed as an
integrated functional unit. Perimeter standards are defined and potential bonus density
and design flexibility allow for quality individual property ownership within a larger
development. Includes townhouse and row house dwellings located on small single-family
owned lots.

SINGLE-FAMILY: A LOT OR DEVELOPMENT WHERE NO MORE THAN ONE
PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT IS PROVIDED PER LOT.

SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED: A SINGLE-FAMILY LOT OR DEVELOPMENT WHERE
EACH DWELLING UNIT IS ATTACHED TO AT LEAST ONE, BUT NO MORE THAN
TWO NEIGHBORING PRIMARY DWELLING UNITS AT THE ABUTTING SIDE
PROPERTY LINE(S). EACH DWELLING UNIT MUST ALSO COMPLY WITH THE
DEFINITION OF “TOWNHOME/TOWNHOUSE”.

SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED: A SINGLE-FAMILY LOT OR DEVELOPMENT WHERE
EACH DWELLING UNIT IS NOT ATTACHED TO ANY OTHER DWELLING UNIT OTHER
THAN A PERMITTED ADU.

SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL (SFI) DEVELOPMENT: A TYPE OF SINGLE-FAMILY
DEVELOPMENT CONSISTING OF TOWNHOUSES AND A LIMITED NUMBER OF
DETACHED DWELLING UNITS. PERIMETER STANDARDS ARE DEFINED AND
POTENTIAL BONUS DENSITY AND DESIGN FLEXIBILITY ALLOW FOR QUALITY
INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNERSHIP WITHIN A LARGER DEVELOPMENT.

***

TOWNHOME/TOWNHOUSE: A TYPE OF DWELLING UNIT WHICH IS ATTACHED TO
AT LEAST ONE OTHER DWELLING UNIT. THE DWELLING UNITS MAY BE
ATTACHED AT A PROPERTY LINE (SEE “SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED”), OR THEY
MAY BE MULTIPLE UNITS ON A SINGLE LOT (SEE “DUPLEX”, “TRIPLEX”, AND/OR
“MULTIFAMILY”). THE KEY CHARACTERISTIC OF A TOWNHOME IS THAT THERE IS
NO VERTICAL OVERLAP OF ANY DWELLING UNITS.

***

TRIPLEX: A BUILDING ON ONE LOT WHICH HOUSES EXACTLY THREE DWELLING
UNITS, NONE OF WHICH MAY BE CONSIDERED AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT.
EACH TRIPLEX UNIT COUNTS TOWARDS THE CALCULATION OF GROSS DENSITY.

Page 1281
***

Yard: A space on any lot, unoccupied by a structure and unobstructed from the ground
upward except as otherwise provided herein, and measured as the minimum horizontal
distance from a building or structure, excluding carports, porches and other permitted
projects, to the property line opposite such building line in the side or rear yards, or to the
street right-of-way or easement in the front yard; provided, however, that where a future
width line is established by the provisions of this ordinance for any street bounding the lot,
then such measurement shall be taken from the line of the building to such future width
line.
[remove existing picture]




***



Page 1282
Section 507 Tab A II.C. Subdivision Design/Development
Amend Chapter 5, Section 507 Tab A II.C. (Subdivision Design/Development) and
Section 507 Tab A II.C. 8 (Single-Family Design Review) to clarify and simplify
Single-Family Design Review requirements for individual lots, especially as related
to duplex and triplex uses, and to read as follows:

***

C. Subdivision AND SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED Design REVIEW/Development

***

8. Single-Family DETACHED Design Review. New single-family detached
dwelling units, LOTS HAVING A SINGLE individual duplexes OR TRIPLEX
(duplex developments consisting of ten or more duplex buildings located on
the same lot or adjacent lots are not subject to single-family design review),
manufactured homes, and modular homes that have not received
preliminary site plan or subdivision approval, or building permit issuance
prior to August 1, 2005 shall be subject to single-family design review, as
follows (R*)(R):

(a) Single-family detached developments where 10% or more of the lots
are equal to or less than 65' FEET in width or any residential
horizontal property regime shall incorporate Design Guidelines
Sections 8.1 through 8.4.

(b) Individual single-family detached dwelling units, not subject to
Subdivision Design Guidelines 8.1 through 8.4, on a lot or parcel of
65 feet in width, or less, shall incorporate Design Guidelines Section
8.5. THIS REQUIREMENT INCLUDES LOTS WITH A SINGLE
DUPLEX OR TRIPLEX WHEN NOT LOCATED IN A SUBDIVISION
SUBJECT TO II.C.8(a).

(c) Individual duplexes (as specified above) shall incorporate Design
Guidelines Section 8.5. DWELLING UNITS ON LOTS ZONED OR
DESIGNATED HP ARE EXEMPT FROM THE PROVISIONS OF
SECTION 8.5, SO LONG AS THE PLANS ARE REVIEWED AND
APPROVED THROUGH HISTORIC PRESERVATION PRIOR TO
ISSUANCE OF ANY BUILDING PERMITS. .

(d) Individual manufactured and modular homes, regardless of lot width,
shall incorporate Design Guidelines Section 8.5.

(e) Manufactured and modular home subdivisions, regardless of lot
width, shall incorporate Design Guidelines Sections 8.1 through 8.4.

***



Page 1283
(8.5) Individual Unit Design Standards. The goal of these individual unit
design standards is to ensure a minimum level of design quality for
detached single-family dwelling units, duplexes, manufactured
homes, and modular homes. For information on relief from
requirements (R) AND (R*), and presumptions (P) refer to Section
507.C of the Zoning Ordinance.

(a) Plot plans shall show all required design guidelines as plan
details or general notes. (R)

Rationale: Design guidelines should be shown on plans to
help ensure they are easily understood by the public and
equally applied by City staff.

(b) Where two detached units are placed on a single lot, a notice
that the lots are not to be split without prior City approval
shall be recorded with the Maricopa County Recorder’s
Office prior to issuance of building permits. The recorded
document shall be on a form approved by the City Attorney’s
Office. A copy of the recorded document shall be submitted
with the application for building permit approval and the
recorded document noted on the submitted site plan. (R)

Rationale: The public is often unaware that the City has lot
split requirements and may unknowingly create an illegal lot,
causing self-imposed obstacles to development.

(c) All driveways and parking spaces shall be hard surfaced with
brick, pavers, concrete, asphalt or equivalent. (R)

Rationale: A defined driveway and parking area reduces
vehicle maneuvering on areas not suitable for vehicles. Hard
surfaces contribute to dust emissions substantially less than
loose or unimproved surfaces. Hard surfaces are generally
more attractive and compatible with surrounding residences.

(d) (a) Each dwelling unit shall have at least one covered parking
space located in a garage or under a carport. The design of
the covered parking shall be substantially similar with regard
to texture, color and material to that of the housing. (R*) (R)

Rationale: Covered parking reduces the visual impact of
parked cars. Carports and garages that are designed with
the same level of quality as the house are more attractive
and more compatible with surrounding residences.




Page 1284
(e) (b) The FRONT YARD area between the front building line and
the front property line, excluding areas necessary approved
for VEHICLE access, should be landscaped with the
following elements: (P)

(1) A minimum of one, two inch caliper or greater, drought
resistant, accent tree. (P*)

(2) A minimum of five, five gallon or greater, drought
resistant shrubs. (P*)

(3) Dustproofed with ground cover, turf, rock,
decomposed granite, or equivalent material as
approved by the Planning and Development
Department. (P*)

(4) An irrigation system. (P*)

Rationale: Landscaping contributes to an attractive
environment, provides shade, and contributes to
neighborhood identity.

(f) Unless all parking is provided off an alley, no more than half
of the area between the rear lot line and the rear building line
of a single family dwelling unit, or two-thirds of said area for
duplexes, should be used for parking. (P*)

Rationale: Excessive vehicle parking areas reduces
compatibility with surrounding residences and minimizes the
opportunity for recreational activity and landscaped space.

[remove picture, do not replace]




Parking—Rear Building Line



Page 1285
(g) (c) Required covered parking for single family dwelling units,
duplexes, manufactured homes, and modular homes shall
not protrude BE LOCATED more than ten feet beyond
CLOSER TO THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE THAN the front
ENTRY building line. (R*)

Rationale: When parking structures are concentrated in front
of a dwelling unit, the building loses its residential character
and compatibility with surrounding residences is negatively
impacted.

[remove picture, do not replace]




Covered Parking 2

(h) The area between the rear building line and the rear lot line
shall be enclosed by a block wall, wrought iron fence, or
equivalent enclosure, a minimum of four feet in height, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
(R*)

Rationale: Rear yard enclosures provide physical security
and also ensure rear yard activities, such as pool areas and
material storage, are not readily visible. In addition,
enclosures are visually appealing and benefit the
neighborhood.

(i) (d) Walls, fences, and enclosure materials shall not include
chain link fencing with, or without, plastic or metal slats,
sheeting, non-decorative corrugated metal and fencing made
or topped with razor, concertina, OR barbed wire., or
equivalent as approved by the Planning and Development
Department. (R*)

Rationale: Certain enclosure materials are not durable, and
are incompatible with surrounding residences.

Page 1286
(j) (e) Development of two detached dwelling units on a lot,
duplexes, manufactured homes, or modular homes LOTS
WITH MORE THAN ONE DWELLING UNIT should provide a
single, common access drive to parking areas. (P*) (P)

Rationale: Shared access and common parking minimize
unnecessary curb cuts and breaks in the streetscape.
Common parking areas also reduce the paved area of a site

(k) (f) Single family ALL dwelling units, duplexes, manufactured
homes, and modular homes should provide the following
architectural design elements: (P)

(1) Consistent detailing and design for each side of the
building. (P*)

(2) Window and door trim as well as accent detailing
should be incorporated and vary from the primary
color and materials of the building. (P*)

(3) Garage doors should be provided with windows,
raised or recessed panels, architectural trim, or single
doors. (P*)

(4) The front entry of the building should be clearly
defined and identifiable from the street. (P*)

(5)(4) Materials such as untextured concrete, unfinished
block, steel panels, and shiny or highly reflective
detailing should not be used as a predominant exterior
material. (P*)

Rationale: High quality design promotes neighborhood
pride and visual interest in residential architecture.

(l) (g) Garage doors FACING visible from the public street AND
ATTACHED TO THE PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT should
not exceed 50% of the house BUILDING width. (P*) (P)

Rationale: Garage doors should not be the aesthetic focus of
a house; they should compliment COMPLEMENT and
appear subordinate to the main structure. THIS IS
PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT IF A DUPLEX OR TRIPLEX
IS CONSTRUCTED.




Page 1287
(m) (h) The front entrance, of buildings within 50 feet of the front
property line, shall face the street and shall not be set back
more than ten feet behind the front building line. A FRONT
ENTRY SHALL BE PROVIDED THAT FACES AND IS
VISIBLE FROM THE STREET, AND INCLUDES AN
ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE TO CALL ATTENTION TO IT
(SUCH AS A PORCH, ENTRY PATIO, STOOP,
AWNING/CANOPY, COURTYARD, OR ARCHWAY). FOR
LOTS HAVING MORE THAN ONE DWELLING UNIT, A
MINIMUM OF ONE UNIT SHALL COMPLY WITH THIS
REQUIREMENT. (R*)

Rationale: Emphasizing the entrance and front facade adds
to the residential character of new dwelling units and
provides eyes on the street.

[remove picture, do not replace]




Parking—Front Entrance

(n) (i) Manufactured homes shall provide the following additional
architectural design elements:

(1) Materials such as wood, hardboard, brick veneer,
hardiplank, stucco, or horizontal vinyl siding shall be
used as a predominant exterior material. (P*) (P)

(2) The exposed roof pitch shall be at a minimum of 3/12
for units twenty-eight (28) feet or less in width and be
covered with shingles, tile or metal, excluding
aluminum. (R*)

(3) A minimum fifty (50) square foot recessed entry or
covered porch shall be provided along the front entry
of the building. (R*)



Page 1288
(4) Permanent access to the porch or recessed entry
should be constructed with materials and colors that
are compatible with the dwelling unit. (P*) (P)

(5) A masonry stem wall shall be provided under the
dwelling unit with no more than seven (7) inches of
exposed foundation measured from highest finished
grade. (R*)

(6) The exposed masonry stem wall color should be
compatible to the dwelling unit. (P*) (P)

Rationale: High quality design promotes neighborhood pride
and visual interest in residential architecture for
manufactured homes.

***

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. A maximum of one dwelling unit for one acre and one additional dwelling
unit for each ten additional acres. These dwelling units are for farm owner
and farm employees only. DWELLING UNITS. EACH LOT MAY HAVE THE
FOLLOWING:

a. ONE PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT.

b. ONE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT, 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.

***

12. Same accessory uses and buildings as RE-24. THE FOLLOWING
ADDITIONAL USES, WHEN ACCESSORY TO THE RESIDENTIAL USE
OF LAND OR STRUCTURES BY RESIDENTS, SHALL BE PERMITTED:

a. RECREATIONAL FACILITIES, FOR WHICH ALL NECESSARY
CONSTRUCTION AND OTHER REQUIRED PERMITS HAVE BEEN
OBTAINED.

Page 1289
b. PARKING OF VEHICLES IN FACILITIES AND LOCATIONS ON THE
PROPERTY NOT OTHERWISE IN CONFLICT WITH THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS ORDINANCE.

c. MATERIALS USED IN CONJUNCTION WITH A HOBBY,
AVOCATION OR PASTIME, THE USE OF WHICH DOES NOT
OTHERWISE CONFLICT WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS
ORDINANCE.

d. FACILITIES FOR HOUSEHOLD PETS, THE MAINTENANCE OF
WHICH IS NOT OTHERWISE PROHIBITED BY STATUTE,
REGULATION OF THE CITY CODE OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX
AND WHICH FACILITIES ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH ALL
APPLICABLE ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX.

***

B. Yard, Height and Area Requirements.

1. There shall be a EACH lot SHALL HAVE A NET AREA of not less than one
acre.

2. For all residential uses DWELLING UNITS:

a. There shall be a front yard of not less than THE MINIMUM FRONT
SETBACK IS forty 40 feet.

b. There shall be two side yards each having a width of not less than
THE MINIMUM SIDE SETBACK IS thirty 30 feet.

c. There shall be a rear yard having a depth of not less than THE
MINIMUM REAR SETBACK IS thirty 30 feet.

3. Sales stands or AND NON-RESIDENTIAL accessory buildings shall NOT be
located not nearer than fifty 50 feet from any side or rear property line and
shall not be located nearer than forty 40 feet from the front property line.

4. The main building and all accessory buildings shall not occupy more than
twenty percent of the total area of the lot for all lots under two acres or not
more than ten percent of all lots two acres or over in total area.
LOT COVERAGE:

a. FOR LOTS TWO ACRES OR LESS IN NET AREA, THE
PERMITTED LOT COVERAGE IS 20%, WITH AN ADDITIONAL 5%
PERMITTED FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AND/OR
ATTACHED SHADE STRUCTURES.



Page 1290
b. FOR LOTS GREATER THAN TWO ACRES IN NET AREA, THE
PERMITTED LOT COVERAGE IS 10%, WITH AN ADDITIONAL 5%
PERMITTED FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AND/OR
ATTACHED SHADE STRUCTURES.

5. No building shall exceed a height of two stories, not to exceed thirty 30 feet.

6. ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS ARE SUBJECT TO THE ADDITIONAL
PROVISIONS OF SECTION 706.A.

***

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. There shall be a EACH lot SHALL HAVE A NET AREA of not less than three
acres.

2. For all residential uses DWELLING UNITS:

a. There shall be a front yard of not less than THE MINIMUM FRONT
SETBACK IS forty 40 feet.

b. There shall be two side yards each having a width of not less than
THE MINIMUM SIDE SETBACK IS thirty 30 feet.

c. There shall be a rear yard having a depth of not less than THE
MINIMUM REAR SETBACK IS thirty 30 feet.

3. Sales stands or AND NON-RESIDENTIAL accessory buildings shall NOT be
located not nearer than fifty 50 feet from any side or rear property line and
shall not be located nearer than forty 40 feet from the front property line.

4. The main building and all accessory buildings shall not occupy more than
ten percent of the total lot area.
LOT COVERAGE: THE PERMITTED LOT COVERAGE IS 10%, WITH AN
ADDITIONAL 5% PERMITTED FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS
AND/OR ATTACHED SHADE STRUCTURES.

5. No building shall exceed a height of two stories, not to exceed thirty 30 feet.

6. ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS ARE SUBJECT TO THE ADDITIONAL
PROVISIONS OF SECTION 706.A.

Page 1291
***

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.

***

A. Permitted Uses.

1. One single-family dwelling on any lot or parcel, except that a developer of a
subdivision shall be allowed to build model homes prior to recording a
subdivision plat, subject to the provisions of paragraph 7 below and subject
to submitting a final plat which shall show the following information for each
model home lot:
DWELLING UNITS. EACH LOT MAY HAVE THE FOLLOWING:

a. Street addresses for each model home as assigned by the Water
Services Department.
ONE PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT.

b. Finished floor elevations for each model home as assigned by the
Division of Engineering.
ONE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT.

c. Proposed lots for model homes shall be in conformance with lot lines
as shown on the approved preliminary plan.
MODEL HOMES ARE PERMITTED SUBJECT TO THE
PROVISIONS OF SECTION 608.E.19.

d. Each model home shall be located on each proposed lot in
conformance with yard requirements of the district.

Such final plat need not have the required approvals for purposes of
obtaining permits for model homes.

***

11. RESERVED. Guesthouse, subject to the following conditions:

a. The square footage of the guesthouse shall not exceed fifty percent
of the gross floor area of the primary dwelling unit with a maximum of
nine hundred square feet, except as set forth in subsection b, below.
Any garage area attached to the guesthouse which is more than the

Page 1292
area of a single-car garage shall be counted toward the allowable
square footage of the guesthouse.

b. On lots with more than forty-three thousand five hundred sixty square
feet in net area with a primary dwelling unit of at least three thousand
six hundred square feet in gross floor area, the square footage of the
guesthouse may be twenty-five percent of the gross floor area of the
primary dwelling unit.

c. The floor area of the connecting structure shall be included in the
floor area of the guesthouse.

d. Pergolas and other roofed structures without walls shall not be
considered a connecting structure.

e. Vehicular access to the accessory dwelling unit must be provided
from the same curb (driveway) as the primary dwelling unit, except
that separate access may be permitted from a paved alley.

f. One parking space must be provided for the accessory dwelling unit
in addition to the parking required for the primary dwelling unit.

g. Only one guesthouse is permitted on a single lot.

h. The guesthouse shall be constructed of similar building materials and
in the same architectural style as that of the primary dwelling unit and
shall not exceed the height in feet or number of stories of the primary
dwelling unit.

i. A guesthouse shall not:

(1) Provide more parking than the one required space;

(2) Be advertised for occupancy through any print or electronic
media or through placement of signs on the property;

(3) Provide separate mail service or have a separate address from
the primary dwelling unit; or

(4) Be separately metered for utilities.

(j) Single-family use requirements shall apply to the guesthouse and the
primary dwelling unit as a single unit.

(k) Any guesthouse existing as of (the effective date of this ordinance)
may qualify as "connected to the primary dwelling unit" by being
connected to the primary dwelling unit without meeting the minimum
width requirements.


Page 1293
12. Accessory uses and buildings.

a. ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS ARE SUBJECT TO THE
ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS OF SECTION 706.A.

a. b. Any OTHER accessory building(S) shall maintain the same yard
requirements as the main building. No accessory use shall be
maintained in which there is solicitation of recipients for a service or
product, or the operation of the use so that it is commonly known as
offering a commercial service or product.

b. c. No accessory use of land or structures shall be maintained except as
hereinafter provided or except as may be permitted as a home
occupation.

c. d. The following uses, when accessory to the residential use of land or
structures by residents, shall be permitted:

(1) Sleeping, eating, and rRecreational facilities, for which all
necessary construction and other required permits have been
obtained.

(2) Parking of vehicles in facilities and locations on the property
not otherwise in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance.

(3) Materials used in conjunction with a hobby, avocation or
pastime, the use of which does not otherwise conflict with the
provisions of this ordinance.

(4) Facilities for household pets, the maintenance of which is not
otherwise prohibited by statute, regulation or the City Code of
the City of Phoenix and which facilities are in compliance with
all applicable ordinances of the City of Phoenix.

(5) Reserved.

d. e. Except as may be provided by use permit approval in conjunction with
a home occupation, no accessory use shall include outdoor display or
storage of any of the following listed items, when such items are
visible or emit odor, dust, gas, noise, vibration, smoke, heat, or glare
beyond any boundary of the lot on which such items are displayed or
stored:

***

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.



Page 1294
1. There shall be a lot area of not less than forty-three thousand five hundred
sixty 43,560 square feet. No lot shall hereafter be subdivided to provide less
than forty-three thousand five hundred sixty 43,560 square feet of lot area,
nor to have a width of less than one hundred sixty-five 165 feet, nor to have
a lot depth of less than one hundred seventy-five 175 feet. The provisions of
Section 701.A.3, as it refers to carports, porches, and balconies in the
side yard, shall not be applicable.

***

7. YARDS FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AND OTHER ACCESSORY
STRUCTURES SHALL BE PROVIDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
PROVISIONS OF SECTION 706.

8. PROJECTIONS INTO THE REQUIRED SIDE YARDS, PER THE
PROVISIONS OF SECTION 701.A.3.a (1)(b), ARE NOT PERMITTED.

***

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.

A. Permitted Uses.

1. One single-family dwelling on any lot or parcel, except that a developer of a
subdivision shall be allowed to build model homes prior to recording a
subdivision plat, subject to the provisions of Section 606A.4.b below and
subject to submitting a final plat which shall show the following information
for each model home lot:
DWELLING UNITS. EACH LOT MAY HAVE THE FOLLOWING:

a. Street addresses for each model home as assigned by the Water
Services Department.
ONE PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT.

b. Finished floor elevations for each model home as approved by the
Engineering Department.
ONE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT.

c. Proposed lots for model homes shall be in conformance with lot lines
as shown on the approved preliminary plat.
MODEL HOMES ARE PERMITTED SUBJECT TO THE
PROVISIONS OF SECTION 608.E.19.


Page 1295
d. Each model home shall be located on each proposed lot in
conformance with yard requirements of the district.

Such final plat need not have the required approvals for purposes of
obtaining permits for model homes.

***

11. Accessory uses and buildings.

a. ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS ARE SUBJECT TO THE
ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS OF SECTION 706.A.

a. b. OTHER ACCESSORY BUILDING(S) SHALL MAINTAIN THE SAME
YARD REQUIREMENTS AS THE MAIN BUILDING. No accessory
use shall be maintained in which there is solicitation of recipients for a
service or product, or the operation of the use so that it is commonly
known as offering a commercial service or product.

b. c. No accessory use of land or structures shall be maintained except as
hereinafter provided or except as may be permitted as a home
occupation.

c. d. The following uses, when accessory to the residential use of land or
structures by residents, shall be permitted:

(1) Sleeping, eating, and rRecreational facilities, for which all
necessary construction and other required permits have been
obtained.

(2) Parking of vehicles in facilities and locations on the property
not otherwise in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance.

(3) Materials used in conjunction with a hobby, avocation or
pastime, the use of which does not otherwise conflict with the
provisions of this ordinance.

(4) Facilities for household pets, the maintenance of which is not
otherwise prohibited by statute, regulation or the City Code of
the City of Phoenix and which facilities are in compliance with
all applicable ordinances of the City of Phoenix.

(5) Reserved.

d. e. Except as may be provided by use permit approval in conjunction with
a home occupation, no accessory use shall include outdoor display or
storage of any of the following listed items, when such items are
visible or emit odor, dust, gas, noise, vibration, smoke, heat, or glare


Page 1296
beyond any boundary of the lot on which such items are displayed or
stored:

***

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 twenty-four thousand 24,000
square feet. No lot shall hereafter be subdivided to provide less than twenty-
four thousand 24,000 thousand square feet of lot area nor to have a width of
less than one hundred thirty 130 feet nor a lot depth of less than one
hundred twenty 120 feet. The provisions of Section 701.A.1 and 701.A.2
shall not be applicable. The provisions of Section 701.A.3, as it refers to
carports, porches, and balconies in the side yard, shall not be applicable.

***

7. Yards for ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AND detached OTHER
accessory buildings STRUCTURES shall be permitted as PROVIDED in
ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF Section 706.

8. PROJECTIONS INTO THE REQUIRED SIDE YARDS, PER THE
PROVISIONS OF SECTION 701.A.3.a(1)(b), ARE NOT PERMITTED.

***

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.

***

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 fourteen thousand 14,000 square
feet. No lot shall hereafter be subdivided to provide less than fourteen
thousand 14,000 square feet of lot area not to have a width of less than one
hundred ten 110 feet nor a depth less than one hundred twenty 120 feet.
The provisions of Section 701.A.1 and 701.A.2 shall not be applicable. The
provisions of Section 701.A.3, as it refers to carports, porches, and
balconies in the side yard, shall not be applicable.

***
Page 1297
7. Yards for ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AND detached OTHER
accessory buildings STRUCTURES shall be permitted as PROVIDED in
ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF Section 706.

8. PROJECTIONS INTO THE REQUIRED SIDE YARDS, PER THE
PROVISIONS OF SECTION 701.A.3.a(1)(b), ARE NOT PERMITTED.

***

Amend Chapter 6, Section 608 (Residence Districts) to read as follows:

Section 608. Residence RESIDENTIAL Districts.

A. Purpose. Residential districts are established in recognition of a need to provide
areas of the City devoted primarily to living functions. In order to preserve these
areas from the distractions and adverse impacts which can result from immediate
association with nonresidential uses, these districts are restricted to residential,
limited nonresidential uses, and appropriate accessory uses. These regulations are
designed to promote the creation and maintenance of areas in which individuals or
families may pursue residential activities with reasonable access to open space,
and streets or roads, in a setting which is not negatively impacted by adjacent
uses. Limited nonresidential uses may have conditions placed upon them to limit
impact to adjacent residential uses and in some cases require a public hearing
through a use permit or special permit process to mitigate any negative impacts to
surrounding residential uses.

The standards contained in this section and Sections 609 through 618 619 AND
635 are designed to establish the character of new residential development and
also to preserve the quality of residential uses during their lifetime. When applied to
new development, these standards are designed to be used in conjunction with the
development and improvement standards as contained in the Phoenix Subdivision
Ordinance, Chapter 32 of the City Code.

This section applies to the Residential Districts in Sections 609 through 618 619, IN
ADDITION TO SECTION 635 (PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT) WHEN
SPECIFIED.

***




Page 1298
Amend Chapter 6, Section 608.B (Residence Districts—Use of district regulations)
to read as follows:

B. Use of district regulations APPLICABILITY OF DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS. The
development of any parcel of land shall be in accordance with the standards
contained in any one development option as contained in Sections 609 through
619. Development of a single lot or a parcel not being further subdivided and
located in the RE-35 and R1-18 zoning districts (Sections 609 and 610) shall be in
accordance with the requirements for the standard subdivision development option
(a), as contained in Sections 609 and 610. For a single lot or parcel not part of a
subdivision platted prior to May 1, 1998, not being further subdivided, and located
in the R1-10 through R-4A zoning districts (Sections 611 through 619),
development shall be in accordance with the requirements of the conventional
subdivision option as contained in Sections 611 through 619.

All subsequent development shall be in accordance with the initially selected
development option unless a use permit is obtained. Building on any lot which was
subdivided or developed prior to the adoption of this chapter shall be done in
accordance with the standards under which the initial subdivision or development
occurred.

For purposes of conversion to this ordinance, property subdivided prior to May 1,
1998, shall be considered as follows:

***

2. Residential development with a sublot site plan AN APPROVED
SUBDIVISION SETBACK EXHIBIT approved by the subdivision committee
shall be considered under the average lot development option if located in
the RE-35 through R1-5 R-5 zoning districts (Sections 609 through 618).

***

Amend Chapter 6, Section 608.C (Residence Districts—Permitted Uses) to read as
follows:

C. Permitted Uses

Use
Permitted
Permit
with
Use Permitted and
Conditions
(1) Conditions
(2)

Single-Family DU X
Governmental Uses X
Community Residence Home X
Interior Suite with Accessory Cooking Facilities X
Boarding House X X
Page 1299
Group Home X X
***
1—6 Dependent Care Facility X
1—4 Adult Day Care Home X
Display for Sale of Vehicle X
Guestrooms X
Public Utility Buildings and Facilities X
Schools, Private X X
X
***

5—10 Adult Day Care Home X X
Churches/Place of Worship X X
Construction Facilities and Storage X X
Home Occupations X X
Model Homes and/or Subdivision Sales Office X X
Nondaily Newspaper Delivery Service X X
Public Assembly—Residential X X
***

7—12 Dependent Care Facility X
Environmental Remediation Facility X

(1) Please note some uses that are permitted with conditions require a use permit
approval if they exceed established thresholds.

(2) There is also a fourth category of residential uses permitted with approval of a
special permit. Please see Section 647.

***

C. 1. One single-family dwelling on any lot or parcel, except that a developer of a
subdivision shall be allowed to build model homes prior to recording a
subdivision plat, subject to the provisions of Section 608.C.3 and subject to
submitting a final plat which shall show the following information for each
model home lot:

a. Street addresses for each model home as assigned by the Water
Services Department.

b. Finished floor elevations for each model home as approved by the
Engineering Department.

c. Proposed lots for model homes shall be in conformance with lot lines
as shown on the approved preliminary plat.




Page 1300
d. Each model home shall be located on each proposed lot in
conformance with yard requirements of the district.

Such final plat need not have the required approvals for purposes of
obtaining permits for model homes.

2. Governmental uses are permitted.

3. No accessory use of land or structures shall be maintained except as
hereinafter provided or except as may be permitted as a home occupation.

C. USE REGULATIONS. THE REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE USES OF LAND
AND STRUCTURES SHALL BE AS SET FORTH IN THE RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS LAND USE MATRIX, SECTION 608.D, AND LAND USE
CONDITIONS IN SECTION 608.E, AS FOLLOWS:

1. ANY USE NOT LISTED IN SECTION 608.D (RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
LAND USE MATRIX) SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED UNLESS THE USE IS
OTHERWISE PERMITTED WITHIN THE REGULATIONS SPECIFIC TO
THE ZONING DISTRICT, PER SECTIONS 609 – 619 AND 635.

2. ALL USES INDICATED WITH “p” ARE PERMITTED WITH THE
APPLICABLE ZONING DISTRICT, SUBJECT TO DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS LISTED BELOW AND ELSEWHERE WITHIN THE
ZONING ORDINANCE.

3. ALL USES INDICATED WITH “pc” ARE PERMITTED WITHIN THE
APPLICABLE ZONING DISTRICT ONLY IF SPECIFIC CONDITIONS ARE
MET. THE CONDITIONS ARE DESCRIBED IN SECTION 608.E, LAND
USE CONDITIONS, BY THE ASSOCIATED CONDITION NUMBER (E.G.
“pc15” IS DESCRIBED UNDER SECTION 608.E.15). IN SOME CASES, A
USE PERMIT PER SECTION 307 MAY BE REQUIRED AS OUTLINED IN
THE CONDITIONS.

4. ALL USES INDICATED WITH “up” ARE PERMITTED WITHIN THE
APPLICABLE ZONING DISTRICT ONLY UPON APPROVAL OF A USE
PERMIT PER SECTION 307. IF A NUMBER IS ALSO PROVIDED (E.G.
“UP25”), THERE ARE ALSO CONDITIONS WHICH MUST BE COMPLIED
WITH BEFORE APPLYING FOR A USE PERMIT.

5. ALL USES INDICATED WITH “sp” ARE PERMITTED WITHIN THE
APPLICABLE ZONING DISTRICT ONLY UPON APPROVAL OF A
SPECIAL PERMIT PER SECTION 504.1.

6 ALL USES INDICATED WITH “np” ARE NOT PERMITTED WITHIN THE
APPLICABLE ZONING DISTRICT.




Page 1301
7. NO ACCESSORY USE OF LAND OR STRUCTURES SHALL BE
MAINTAINED EXCEPT AS HEREINAFTER PROVIDED OR EXCEPT AS
MAY BE PERMITTED AS A HOME OCCUPATION.

***

Amend Chapter 6, Section 608.D (Residence Districts—Permitted Uses with
Conditions) to read as follows:

D. Permitted Uses with Conditions.

1. Adult day care home for the care of one to four adult persons; provided, that:

a. Outdoor recreation areas shall be screened from adjacent properties
by a six-foot-high landscape hedge, solid fence, or solid wall.

2. Community residence home; provided, that:

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.

3. Dependent care facility for six dependents, subject to the following
conditions:

a. Resident dependents under the age of 12 years shall not be counted.

b. Outdoor play areas shall be screened from adjacent properties by a
six-foot-high landscape hedge, solid fence, or solid wall.

c. The employees must reside at the facility unless a nonresident
employee is required by the Arizona Department of Health Services.



Page 1302
4. The display for sale of a vehicle, which for purposes of this provision
includes trailers, watercraft or other types of transportation that are built to
carry passengers or cargo shall be subject to the following restrictions:

a. No more than one vehicle can be labeled for sale or show any
indication that it is for sale at any given time on a property, whether
visible on site or through some other form of advertising.

b. No more than two vehicles can be sold on a property during any
calendar year.

c. For purposes of Sections 608.A and B, two jet skis, a boat or similar
types of recreational vehicles that are transported on one trailer shall,
together with the trailer, be considered one vehicle.

d. The ownership of the vehicle(s) must be registered to the location
where the vehicle is listed for sale.
e. No vehicle can be labeled for sale or show any indication that it is for
sale at an unoccupied house or on a vacant lot or parcel.

f. No vehicle can be labeled for sale or show any indication that it is for
sale in conjunction with a retail or wholesale vehicle sales dealership
or business without obtaining a temporary use permit.

5. Guestrooms. Each single-family dwelling may contain no more than two
guestrooms.

6. Public utility buildings and facilities when necessary for serving the
surrounding territory; provided, that no public business offices and no repair
or storage facilities are maintained therein, are permitted in each district.

7. Schools are permitted in each district subject to a site plan being approved
in conformance with Section 507.

8. Interior suite with accessory cooking facilities, subject to the following:

a. Dwelling units with an interior suite with accessory cooking facilities
are permitted only in residential subdivisions of 15 acres or more and
located within the boundaries illustrated in Map 1, as follows:

(1) Subdivided after July 5, 2019; or

(2) Subdivided prior to July 5, 2019, but with less than 25 percent
of the lots having constructed dwelling units or valid building
permits as of July 5, 2019.




Page 1303
Map 1: Applicable Area




Page 1304
b. An interior suite with accessory cooking facilities shall only be part of
a single-family detached dwelling unit and must be under the same
roof structure. Only one interior suite with accessory cooking facilities
shall be permitted per lot and shall be located on the ground floor.

c. The square footage of the interior suite with accessory cooking
facilities shall not exceed 30 percent of the total net floor area or 800
square feet (whichever is less). Garage or patio areas shall not be
included for the purpose of this calculation.

d. An interior suite with accessory cooking facilities shall not have utility
services that are metered separately from the remainder of the
dwelling unit.

e. At least one internal doorway shall be provided between the interior
suite with accessory cooking facilities and the remainder of the
dwelling unit.

f. An interior suite with accessory cooking facilities shall not have a
private yard area that is fenced or walled off from the remainder of the
lot. This requirement shall not prohibit required pool fences, fenced in
animal areas, garden fencing, or other fencing used for different
purposes.

g. No more than one parking space, which may be covered or enclosed,
shall be provided for an interior suite with accessory cooking facilities
in addition to the parking provided for the remainder of the dwelling
unit, with a maximum of four spaces total. This requirement does not
apply to parking that may occur on the driveway in front of the
garage(s).

h. An interior suite with accessory cooking facilities shall not have a
parking space served by a driveway separated from the main
driveway and parking areas provided for the remainder of the dwelling
unit.

i. An interior suite with accessory cooking facilities shall not provide
separate mail service or have a separate address from the remainder
of the dwelling unit.

j. Design requirements. Elevations must minimize any secondary entry
visible from the street and have the appearance of a single-family
home. This shall be treated as a presumption as outlined in Section
507.C.2.




Page 1305
D. RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS LAND USE MATRIX

SECTION AND ZONING DISTRICT
LAND USE CATEGORIES 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 635
RE-35 R1-18 R1-10 R1-8 R1-6 R-2 R-3 R-3A R-4 R-5 R-4A PAD
Single-Family Detached pc1 pc1 pc1 pc1 pc1 pc1 pc1 pc1 pc1 pc1 pc1 pc1
Accessory Dwelling Unit
(ac) pc2 pc2 pc2 pc2 pc2 pc2 pc2 pc2 pc2 pc2 pc2 pc2
(ADU)
(ac) Guestroom(s) pc3 pc3 pc3 pc3 pc3 pc3 pc3 pc3 pc3 pc3 pc3 pc3
Duplex np np pc4 pc4 pc4 pc4 pc4 pc4 pc4 pc4 pc4 pc4
Triplex np np np np np pc5 pc5 pc5 pc5 pc5 pc5 pc5
Single-Family Attached pc6 pc6 pc6 pc6 pc6 pc6 pc6 pc6 pc6 pc6 pc6 pc6
Multifamily np np pc7 pc7 pc7 pc7 pc7 pc7 pc7 pc7 pc7 pc7
Residential Convenience
(ac) np np np np np np np pc8 pc8 pc8 pc8 pc8
Market
Off-Site Manufactured Home
np np np np np up35 up35 up35 up35 up35 up35 np
Developments
Boarding House np np np np np np up9 up9 up9 up9 up9 up9
1-4 Adult Day Care Home pc10 pc10 pc10 pc10 pc10 pc10 pc10 pc10 pc10 pc10 pc10 pc10
5-10 Adult Day Care Home up11 up11 up11 up11 up11 up11 up11 up11 up11 up11 up11 up11
11+ Adult Day Care Center np np np np np np up12 up12 up12 up12 up12 np
1-10 Community Residence
Page 1306
pc13 pc13 pc13 pc13 pc13 pc13 pc13 pc13 pc13 pc13 pc13 pc13
Home
11 + Community Residence
np np np np np np up14 up14 up14 up14 up14 np
Center
1-6 Dependent Care Facility pc15 pc15 pc15 pc15 pc15 pc15 pc15 pc15 pc15 pc15 pc15 pc15
7-12 Dependent Care Facility up16 up16 up16 up16 up16 up16 up16 up16 up16 up16 up16 up16
13 + Dependent Care Facility np np np np np np up17 up17 up17 up17 up17 np
Group Home np np np np np np up18 up18 up18 up18 up18 up18
Group Foster Home np np np np np np up up p p p np
Governmental Uses p p p p p p p p p p p p
Model Homes and Subdivision
pc19 pc19 pc19 pc19 pc19 pc19 pc19 pc19 pc19 pc19 pc19 pc19
Sales Offices
Public Utility Buildings and
pc20 pc20 pc20 pc20 pc20 pc20 pc20 pc20 pc20 pc20 pc20 pc20
Facilities
Schools, Private pc22 pc22 pc22 pc22 pc22 pc22 pc22 pc22 pc22 pc22 pc22 pc22
Schools, Public p p p p p p p p p p p p
Church/Place of Worship p p p p p p p p p p p p
Accessory To
(ac) pc21 pc21 pc21 pc21 pc21 pc21 pc21 pc21 pc21 pc21 pc21 pc21
Church/Place Of Worship
Public Assembly--Residential pc22 pc22 pc22 pc22 pc22 pc22 pc22 pc22 pc22 pc22 pc22 pc22
SECTION AND ZONING DISTRICT
LAND USE CATEGORIES 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 635
RE-35 R1-18 R1-10 R1-8 R1-6 R-2 R-3 R-3A R-4 R-5 R-4A PAD
Environmental Remediation
up23 up23 up23 up23 up23 up23 up23 up23 up23 up23 up23 up23
Facility
Community Garden pc24 pc24 pc24 pc24 pc24 pc24 pc24 pc24 pc24 pc24 pc24 np
Farmer’s Market pc25 pc25 pc25 pc25 pc25 pc25 pc25 pc25 pc25 pc25 pc25 np
ACCESSORY USES IN RESIDENCE DISTRICTS
Construction Facilities
pc26 pc26 pc26 pc26 pc26 pc26 pc26 pc26 pc26 pc26 pc26 pc26
And Storage
Home Occupations pc27 pc27 pc27 pc27 pc27 pc27 pc27 pc27 pc27 pc27 pc27 pc27
Non-Daily Newspaper
pc28 pc28 pc28 pc28 pc28 pc28 pc28 pc28 pc28 pc28 pc28 pc28
Service
Display For Sale Of
pc29 pc29 pc29 pc29 pc29 pc29 pc29 pc29 pc29 pc29 pc29 pc29
Vehicle
Facilities For Household
pc30 pc30 pc30 pc30 pc30 pc30 pc30 pc30 pc30 pc30 pc30 pc30
Pets
Garage Or Yard Sales pc31 pc31 pc31 pc31 pc31 pc31 pc31 pc31 pc31 pc31 pc31 pc31
Hobbies And Associated
pc32 pc32 pc32 pc32 pc32 pc32 pc32 pc32 pc32 pc32 pc32 pc32
Supplies
Parking (Accessory) pc33 pc33 pc33 pc33 pc33 pc33 pc33 pc33 pc33 pc33 pc33 pc33
Private Tennis / Outdoor
pc34 pc34 pc34 pc34 pc34 pc34 pc34 pc34 pc34 pc34 pc34 pc34
Page 1307 Game Courts

*(ac) = accessory use permitted only with primary use listed immediately prior in the table.
Amend Chapter 6, Section 608.E (Residence Districts—Permitted Uses with
Conditions and May Require Approval of a Use Permit Pursuant to Section 307) to
read as follows:

E. Permitted Uses with Conditions and May Require Approval of a Use Permit
Pursuant to Section 307.

1. Churches or similar places of worship, including parish houses, parsonages,
rectories, and convents and dormitories with no more than ten residents
accessory thereto, are permitted in each district, except temporary tents or
buildings. Athletic activities in conjunction with the above and on the same
lot or contiguous lots may be permitted. See Public Assembly—Residential.

a. Bingo may be operated as an accessory use on the premises of the
church when conducted no more than two days a week. Fundraising
events located on the same lot or contiguous lots shall be permitted,
subject to the following requirements:

(1) The sponsoring, organizing and benefiting entities shall be
nonprofit or religious organizations.

b. Events held entirely within a building or buildings shall not be further
regulated; however, events to be conducted wholly or in part outdoors
shall be subject to the following additional conditions:

(1) Any outdoor portion of the event must be located a minimum of
50 feet from a property line adjacent to a residential zoning
district and a residential use.

(2) The event shall not be conducted between the hours of 10:00
p.m. and 5:00 a.m.

(3) The event shall not be conducted in such manner as to reduce
the number of parking spaces required for any normal
functions of the primary use which are held during the event.

(4) Lighting shall be so placed as to reflect the light away from
adjacent residences.

c. Pocket shelters as accessory uses to churches or similar places of
worship, subject to the following standards (and applicable Maricopa
County and City of Phoenix health and safety regulations):




Page 1308
(1) A pocket shelter shall house no more than 12 unrelated
persons. A pocket shelter may house up to 20 unrelated
persons upon approval of a use permit in accordance with the
procedures and standards of Section 307. Minors (age 18
years or younger) accompanied by a parent or a guardian shall
not be counted in the number of unrelated persons.

(2) The church or similar place of worship shall be located on an
arterial or collector street as defined on the street classification
map. A shelter at a church or similar place of worship which is
not on an arterial or collector street shall be permitted upon
approval of a use permit in accordance with the procedures
and provisions of Section 307.

(3) The church or similar place of worship shall provide on-site
supervision of shelter residents at all times that two or more
unrelated residents are at the shelter.

(4) Drug, alcohol, other substance abuse, or mental health
rehabilitation programs shall not be allowed as part of the
shelter services. This provision shall not prevent the church or
similar place of worship from referring shelter residents to
other appropriate programs at the church or similar place of
worship or elsewhere, e.g., Alcoholics Anonymous, which are
not part of the shelter services.

(5) Shelter residents shall not possess alcohol, weapons, or illegal
drugs at the shelter.

(6) Open areas surrounding pocket shelter structures shall be
screened from view from abutting and/or adjoining properties
by hedges, trees, other landscaping, or walls.

(7) Pocket shelter structures shall not have direct access to
abutting and/or adjoining properties.

(8) Pocket shelters shall be housed in permanent structures rather
than in tents or other similar temporary structures.

(9) A church or similar place of worship shall house no more than
one pocket shelter.




Page 1309
2. Construction facilities and storage, incidental to a construction project and
located on the project site, are permitted. When such facilities or storage are
used for construction on a lot or lots other than the lot or lots used for such
facilities or storage, such use shall maintain the setbacks provided by the
requirements of this chapter and shall be subject to securing a use permit.
When such facilities and storage serve a residential subdivision, are
approved in conjunction with model homes by the Planning and
Development Department, and meet all of the standards listed below, no
use permit is required:

a. The facilities shall not be placed on a lot which abuts, joins at the
corners, or is across a street or alley from a dwelling unit which is
under construction or occupied at the time of said placement, unless
written agreement to the placement is given by the owner or occupant
of the affected property.

b. All outside storage shall be screened by a six-foot-high solid fence or
masonry wall. No construction vehicles or machinery shall be placed
within ten feet of the screen fence or wall.

c. All signs on the facility shall fully comply with Section 705, the Sign
Code.

d. All facilities and storage shall be removed within three months of the
closure of the model homes.

3. Home occupations including but not limited to architect, lawyer, off-site sales
businesses, accountant, real estate agent, telemarketing sales, and
psychologist. For purposes of this section, off-site sales means processing
orders by mail, facsimile, phone, modem or Internet.

a. No one outside the family residing in the dwelling unit shall be
employed in the home occupation.

b. No exterior display, no exterior storage of materials, no sign, and no
other exterior indication of the home occupation or variation from the
residential character of the principal or accessory building, except as
authorized in Section 608.E.3.h.

c. No home occupation shall emit odor, dust, gas, noise, vibration,
smoke, heat, or glare beyond any boundary of the lot on which the
home occupation is conducted.

d. Activity shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00
p.m.




Page 1310
e. No mechanical equipment shall be used except that normally used for
domestic, hobby, standard office, or household purposes.

f. Not more than 25 percent of the total area under roof on the site shall
be used for any home occupation.

g. Any parking incidental to the home occupation shall be provided on
the site.

h. Home occupations shall obtain a use permit from the Zoning
Administrator in accordance with Section 307 when:

(1) Traffic (other than trips by occupants of the household) is
generated by the home occupation; or

(2) The home occupation is conducted in an accessory building; or

(3) The home occupation is conducted as an outside use; or

(4) Minor variations to Section 608.E.3.c are required to conduct
the home occupation; or

(5) An applicant desires an official approval of a home occupation.

i. A home occupation shall not include, but such exclusion shall not be
limited to, the following uses:

(1) Barbershops and beauty parlors.

(2) Commercial stables, veterinary offices.

(3) Dog grooming.

(4) Massage parlors.

(5) Reserved.

(6) Restaurants.

(7) Veterinary hospitals and commercial kennels.

4. Model homes and/or subdivision sales offices when located in model homes
subject to approval of the Planning and Development Department’s
representative to the Site Planning Division, and subject to the following
conditions:




Page 1311
a. Such model home and/or subdivision sales offices shall be located in
a subdivision or portion thereof 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 608.E.4.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 608.E.4.b or upon expiration of the extension
granted by the Zoning Administrator pursuant to Section 608.E.4.c, or
after six months following sale or occupancy of all lots in the
subdivision other than the model homes, whichever comes 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 400 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 Section 608.E.4.a and d, the term "subdivision"
shall mean all the land included within the preliminary plat submitted
to the 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 608.C.1.

g. Modular subdivision sales office, subject to the following criteria:




Page 1312
(1) The structure shall be integrated with, architecturally
compatible to, and blend in color to the model homes approved
for the subdivision, as determined by the Planning and
Development Department.

(2) Modular subdivision sales offices shall be permitted for a
period not to exceed 36 months from the date of approval for
the sales offices.

(3) The time limit allowed in Section 608.E.4.g.2 for an additional
36 months shall be extended only upon securing a use permit.

(4) The modular subdivision sales office shall be removed on or
before the termination date set forth in Section 608.E.4.g.2 or
upon expiration of the extension granted by the Zoning
Administrator or after six months following sale or occupancy
of all lots in the subdivision other than the model homes,
whichever comes first.

(5) For the purposes of this section, the term "subdivision" shall
mean all of the land included within the preliminary plat
submitted to the Planning and Development Department.

(6) Prior to issuance of any sales office permits, a site plan shall
be approved by the Planning and Development Department for
verification of setback conformance.

(7) Two signs are permitted. Signs shall not exceed a combined
total of 32 square feet.

(8) One sales office shall be permitted for each model home
complex allowed in accordance with Section 608.E.4.h.

h. 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 400 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.




Page 1313
(4) Off-street parking and circulation shall be dust proofed.

(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.

5. Nondaily newspaper delivery service shall be permitted subject to the
following limitations:

a. Delivered bulk materials related to nondaily publications shall be
transferred to an enclosed building or secured area so that materials
are not visible from the street or adjacent properties unless for
preparation of materials for same day distribution. Preparation of
materials for same day distribution may occur on or about adjacent
public rights-of-way; provided, that materials do not remain in public
view for longer than 24 hours.

b. Materials stored for periods greater than 24 hours shall be enclosed
within a building or secured by a wall or fence of such material,
construction, and height so as to conceal the materials located.

c. Activities relating to and/or accessory to the preparation of materials
stored for periods greater than 24 hours shall occur within an
enclosed building or an area secured by a wall or fence of such
material, construction, and height so as to completely conceal the
activities.

d. Such delivery shall be limited to two bulk deliveries in a seven-day
period. More frequent deliveries shall require a use permit in
accordance with the procedures of Section 307.

e. No traffic other than that required for the bulk delivery and pickup
shall be allowed by outside employees. Any other business-related
traffic shall require a use permit in accordance with the procedures of
Section 307.

6. Public Assembly—Residential. A use permit shall be required for all public
assembly—residential uses with vehicular access on local or minor collector
streets.

E. LAND USE CONDITIONS.




Page 1314
1. SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DWELLING UNIT. EACH SINGLE-FAMILY
LOT IS PERMITTED ONE (1) 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 (1)
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT IN ADDITION TO THE PRIMARY
DWELLING UNIT, EXCEPT THAT LOTS HAVING A DUPLEX OR
TRIPLEX MAY NOT HAVE AN ADU.

b. AN ADU IS SUBJECT TO THE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF
SECTION 706.A.

3. GUESTROOMS. EACH SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING UNIT MAY CONTAIN
NO MORE THAN TWO GUESTROOMS.

4. DUPLEX:

a. SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS: ONE (1) DUPLEX IS PERMITTED PER
LOT WHEN ALLOWED BY THE UNDERLYING ZONING DISTRICT
AND DEVELOPMENT OPTION. THE LOT MUST BE OF THE
MINIMUM SIZE REQUIRED BY THE APPLICABLE DENSITY TO
PERMIT TWO DWELLING UNITS.

b. MULTIFAMILY LOTS: DUPLEXES ARE PERMITTED WHEN
ALLOWED BY THE UNDERLYING ZONING DISTRICT AND
DEVELOPMENT OPTION. THE LOT MUST BE OF THE MINIMUM
SIZE REQUIRED BY THE APPLICABLE DENSITY TO PERMIT THE
NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS PROPOSED.

5. TRIPLEX:

a. SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS: ONE (1) TRIPLEX IS PERMITTED PER
LOT WHEN ALLOWED BY THE UNDERLYING ZONING DISTRICT
AND DEVELOPMENT OPTION. THE LOT MUST BE OF THE
MINIMUM SIZE REQUIRED BY THE APPLICABLE DENSITY TO
PERMIT THREE DWELLING UNITS.

b. MULTIFAMILY LOTS: TRIPLEXES ARE PERMITTED WHEN
ALLOWED BY THE UNDERLYING ZONING DISTRICT AND
DEVELOPMENT OPTION. THE LOT MUST BE OF THE MINIMUM
SIZE REQUIRED BY THE APPLICABLE DENSITY TO PERMIT THE
NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS PROPOSED.




Page 1315
6. SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED DWELLING UNIT. ONE (1) SINGLE-
FAMILY ATTACHED DWELLING UNIT IS PERMITTED PER SINGLE-
FAMILY LOT WHEN ALLOWED BY THE UNDERLYING ZONING
DISTRICT AND DEVELOPMENT OPTION.

7 MULTIFAMILY DWELLING UNITS. MULTIFAMILY DWELLING UNITS
ARE PERMITTED WHEN ALLOWED BY THE UNDERLYING ZONING
DISTRICT AND DEVELOPMENT OPTION.

8. RESIDENTIAL CONVENIENCE MARKET. A RESIDENTIAL
CONVENIENCE MARKET IS PERMITTED AS AN ACCESSORY USE TO A
MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT WHERE SPECIFIED IN THE
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT LAND USE MATRIX, SUBJECT TO THE
FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:

a. THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL CONTAIN A MINIMUM OF 400
DWELLING UNITS.

b. THE MARKET SHALL NOT EXCEED 1,000 SQUARE FEET IN
TOTAL FLOOR AREA (DISPLAY AND STORAGE) IF THE
DEVELOPMENT CONTAINS LESS THAN 850 DWELLING UNITS.
THE MARKET SHALL NOT EXCEED 3,000 SQUARE FEET IN
TOTAL FLOOR AREA (DISPLAY AND STORAGE) IF THE
DEVELOPMENT CONTAINS 850 OR MORE DWELLING UNITS.

c. NO PARKING SPACES SHALL BE REQUIRED OR PERMITTED
FOR THE MARKET EXCEPT FOR SPACES DESIGNATED FOR
DELIVERIES OR HANDICAPPED INDIVIDUALS ACCESSIBLE
SPACES.

d. SIGNAGE SHALL BE ALLOWED ONLY AS PART OF A
COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PLAN PURSUANT TO SECTION 705.
THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MAY APPROVE WALL MOUNTED
SIGNAGE UP TO A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 30 FEET AS PART OF
AN APPROVED COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PLAN.

9. BOARDING HOUSE, SUBJECT TO A USE PERMIT AND THE
FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:

a. 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.




Page 1316
b. NO BOARDING HOUSE 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 BOARDING HOUSE, GROUP HOME, OR COMMUNITY
RESIDENCE HOME OR CENTER WITHIN A RESIDENTIAL
ZONING DISTRICT.

c. A MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE OF 25 PERCENT.

d. A MINIMUM OF 100 SQUARE FEET OF USABLE OUTDOOR OPEN
SPACE PER BED SHALL BE PROVIDED, WHICH MAY BE
REDUCED TO 50 SQUARE FEET OF USABLE OUTDOOR OPEN
SPACE PER BED IN THE R-5 AND R-4A DISTRICTS.

e. THE LOT SHALL ONLY HAVE VEHICULAR ACCESS FROM AN
ARTERIAL OR COLLECTOR STREET.

10. ADULT DAY CARE HOME FOR THE CARE OF ONE TO FOUR ADULT
PERSONS; PROVIDED THAT:

a. OUTDOOR RECREATION AREAS SHALL BE SCREENED FROM
ADJACENT PROPERTIES BY A SIX-FOOT-HIGH LANDSCAPE
HEDGE, SOLID FENCE, OR SOLID WALL.

11. ADULT DAY CARE HOME FOR THE CARE OF FIVE TO TEN ADULT
PERSONS, SUBJECT TO A USE PERMIT; AND PROVIDED THAT:

a. OUTDOOR RECREATION AREAS SHALL BE SCREENED FROM
ADJACENT PROPERTIES BY A SIX-FOOT-HIGH LANDSCAPE
HEDGE, SOLID FENCE, OR SOLID WALL.

12. ADULT DAY CARE CENTER FOR THE CARE OF ELEVEN OR MORE
ADULT PERSONS, SUBJECT TO A USE PERMIT; AND PROVIDED
THAT:

a. OUTDOOR RECREATION AREAS SHALL BE SCREENED FROM
ADJACENT PROPERTIES BY A SIX-FOOT-HIGH LANDSCAPE
HEDGE, SOLID FENCE, OR SOLID WALL.

13. COMMUNITY RESIDENCE HOME; PROVIDED, THAT:

a. THE HOME HAS NO MORE THAN FIVE RESIDENTS, NOT
INCLUDING STAFF (UNLESS PERMITTED BY SECTION 36-
582(A), ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES).




Page 1317
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.

14. COMMUNITY RESIDENCE CENTER, SUBJECT TO A USE PERMIT AND
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:

a. SUCH CENTER 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.

b. NO COMMUNITY RESIDENCE CENTER 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 OR CENTER WITHIN
A RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT.

c. DISABILITY ACCOMMODATION FROM THE SPACING
REQUIREMENT MAY BE REQUESTED BY AN APPLICANT PER
SECTION 701.E.3.

d. A MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE OF 25 PERCENT.

e. A MINIMUM OF 100 SQUARE FEET OF USABLE OUTDOOR OPEN
SPACE PER BED SHALL BE PROVIDED, WHICH MAY BE
REDUCED TO 50 SQUARE FEET OF USABLE OUTDOOR OPEN
SPACE PER BED IN THE R-5 AND R-4A DISTRICTS.




Page 1318
f. THE LOT SHALL ONLY HAVE VEHICULAR ACCESS FROM AN
ARTERIAL OR COLLECTOR STREET.

15. DEPENDENT CARE FACILITY FOR UP TO SIX DEPENDENTS,
SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:

a. RESIDENT DEPENDENTS UNDER THE AGE OF 12 YEARS SHALL
NOT BE COUNTED.

b. OUTDOOR PLAY AREAS SHALL BE SCREENED FROM
ADJACENT PROPERTIES BY A SIX-FOOT-HIGH LANDSCAPE
HEDGE, SOLID FENCE, OR SOLID WALL.

c. THE EMPLOYEES MUST RESIDE AT THE FACILITY UNLESS A
NONRESIDENT EMPLOYEE IS REQUIRED BY THE ARIZONA
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES.

16. DEPENDENT CARE FACILITY FOR SEVEN TO 12 DEPENDENTS,
SUBJECT TO OBTAINING A USE PERMIT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
PROVISIONS OF SECTION 307 AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING
STANDARDS:

a. RESIDENT DEPENDENTS UNDER THE AGE OF 12 YEARS SHALL
NOT BE COUNTED WHEN THEY ARE PRESENT ON THE
PREMISES.

b. OUTDOOR PLAY AREAS SHALL BE SCREENED FROM
ADJACENT PROPERTIES BY A SIX-FOOT-HIGH LANDSCAPE
HEDGE, SOLID FENCE, OR SOLID WALL.

c. HOURS OF OPERATION SHALL BE ONLY BETWEEN 6:00 A.M.
AND 10:00 P.M. THESE HOURS MAY BE RESTRICTED AS PART
OF THE USE PERMIT APPROVAL.

d. NONRESIDENT EMPLOYEES MAY BE PERMITTED WITH THE
USE PERMIT IF NECESSARY TO MEET STATE REQUIREMENTS.

e. ONE PARKING SPACE SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR EACH
EMPLOYEE WHO DOES NOT RESIDE AT THE FACILITY.

f. NO SIGNAGE SHALL BE PERMITTED.

g. THE FACILITY SHALL BE SUBJECT TO ARIZONA LICENSING
REQUIREMENTS.




Page 1319
17. DEPENDENT CARE FACILITY FOR 13 OR MORE DEPENDENTS AND
SCHOOLS FOR THE MENTALLY OR PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED
SUBJECT TO SECURING A USE PERMIT PURSUANT TO SECTION 307.

18. GROUP HOME, SUBJECT TO A USE PERMIT AND THE FOLLOWING
CONDITIONS:

a. 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.

b. NO GROUP 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 GROUP HOME, BOARDING HOUSE, OR COMMUNITY
RESIDENCE HOME OR CENTER WITHIN A RESIDENTIAL
ZONING DISTRICT.

c. A MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE OF 25 PERCENT.

d. A MINIMUM OF 100 SQUARE FEET OF USABLE OUTDOOR OPEN
SPACE PER BED SHALL BE PROVIDED, WHICH MAY BE
REDUCED TO 50 SQUARE FEET OF USABLE OUTDOOR OPEN
SPACE PER BED IN THE R-5 AND R-4A DISTRICTS.

e. THE LOT SHALL ONLY HAVE VEHICULAR ACCESS FROM AN
ARTERIAL OR COLLECTOR STREET.

19. MODEL HOMES AND/OR SUBDIVISION SALES OFFICES WHEN
LOCATED IN MODEL HOMES; PROVIDED THAT:

a. MODEL HOMES ARE PERMITTED SUBJECT TO THE
FOLLOWING:

(1) A DEVELOPER OF A SINGLE-FAMILY SUBDIVISION SHALL
BE ALLOWED TO BUILD MODEL HOMES PRIOR TO
RECORDING A SUBDIVISION PLAT, SUBJECT TO THE
PROVISIONS BELOW AND SUBJECT TO SUBMITTING A
MODEL COMPLEX SITE PLAN WHICH SHALL SHOW THE
FOLLOWING INFORMATION FOR EACH MODEL HOME
LOT:




Page 1320
(2) STREET ADDRESSES FOR EACH MODEL HOME AS
ASSIGNED BY THE WATER SERVICES PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

(3) FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATIONS FOR EACH MODEL HOME
AS ASSIGNED BY THE DIVISION OF ENGINEERING.

(4) PROPOSED LOTS FOR MODEL HOMES SHALL BE IN
CONFORMANCE WITH LOT LINES AS SHOWN ON THE
APPROVED PRELIMINARY PLAN PLAT.

(5) EACH MODEL HOME SHALL BE LOCATED ON EACH
PROPOSED LOT IN CONFORMANCE WITH YARD
REQUIREMENTS OF THE DISTRICT.

(6) THE FINAL PLAT IS NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE FINAL
APPROVAL PRIOR TO OBTAINING PERMITS FOR MODEL
HOMES.

b. MODEL HOMES AND/OR SUBDIVISION SALES OFFICES SHALL
BE LOCATED IN A SUBDIVISION OR PORTION THEREOF 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.

c. 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.

d. THE TIME LIMIT ALLOWED IN SECTION 608.E.19.C FOR AN
ADDITIONAL 36 MONTHS SHALL BE EXTENDED ONLY UPON
SECURING A USE PERMIT.




Page 1321
e. 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 608.E.19.C OR UPON EXPIRATION OF THE
EXTENSION GRANTED BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
PURSUANT TO SECTION 608.E.19.D, OR AFTER SIX MONTHS
FOLLOWING SALE OR OCCUPANCY OF ALL LOTS IN THE
SUBDIVISION OTHER THAN THE MODEL HOMES, WHICHEVER
COMES 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 400 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.

f. FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 608.E.19.C AND D, THE
TERM "SUBDIVISION" SHALL MEAN ALL THE LAND INCLUDED
WITHIN THE PRELIMINARY PLAT SUBMITTED TO THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

g. 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
608.E.19.A.

h. MODULAR SUBDIVISION SALES OFFICE, SUBJECT TO THE
FOLLOWING CRITERIA:




Page 1322
(1) THE STRUCTURE SHALL BE INTEGRATED WITH,
ARCHITECTURALLY COMPATIBLE TO, AND BLEND IN
COLOR TO THE MODEL HOMES APPROVED FOR THE
SUBDIVISION, AS DETERMINED BY THE PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

(2) MODULAR SUBDIVISION SALES OFFICES SHALL BE
PERMITTED FOR A PERIOD NOT TO EXCEED 36 MONTHS
FROM THE DATE OF APPROVAL FOR THE SALES
OFFICES.

(3) THE TIME LIMIT ALLOWED IN SECTION 608.E.19.H(2) FOR
AN ADDITIONAL 36 MONTHS SHALL BE EXTENDED ONLY
UPON SECURING A USE PERMIT.

(4) THE MODULAR SUBDIVISION SALES OFFICE SHALL BE
REMOVED ON OR BEFORE THE TERMINATION DATE SET
FORTH IN SECTION 608.E.19.H(2) OR UPON EXPIRATION
OF THE EXTENSION GRANTED BY THE ZONING
ADMINISTRATOR OR AFTER SIX MONTHS FOLLOWING
SALE OR OCCUPANCY OF ALL LOTS IN THE SUBDIVISION
OTHER THAN THE MODEL HOMES, WHICHEVER COMES
FIRST.

(5) FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, THE TERM
"SUBDIVISION" SHALL MEAN ALL OF THE LAND
INCLUDED WITHIN THE PRELIMINARY PLAT SUBMITTED
TO THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

(6) PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF ANY SALES OFFICE PERMITS, A
SITE PLAN SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR VERIFICATION OF
SETBACK CONFORMANCE.

(7) TWO SIGNS ARE PERMITTED. SIGNS SHALL NOT
EXCEED A COMBINED TOTAL OF 32 SQUARE FEET.

(8) ONE SALES OFFICE SHALL BE PERMITTED FOR EACH
MODEL HOME COMPLEX ALLOWED IN ACCORDANCE
WITH SECTION 608.E.19.I.

i. MORE THAN ONE MODEL HOME COMPLEX IN A SUBDIVISION
SHALL BE PERMITTED SUBJECT TO THE ABOVE STANDARDS
AND THE FOLLOWING STANDARDS:




Page 1323
(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 400
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
DUST PROOFED.

(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.

20. PUBLIC UTILITY BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES WHEN NECESSARY
FOR SERVING THE SURROUNDING TERRITORY; PROVIDED, THAT NO
PUBLIC BUSINESS OFFICES AND NO REPAIR OR STORAGE
FACILITIES ARE MAINTAINED THEREIN, ARE PERMITTED IN EACH
DISTRICT.

21. CHURCHES OR SIMILAR PLACES OF WORSHIP, INCLUDING PARISH
HOUSES, PARSONAGES, RECTORIES, AND CONVENTS AND
DORMITORIES WITH NO MORE THAN TEN RESIDENTS ACCESSORY
THERETO, ARE PERMITTED IN EACH DISTRICT, EXCEPT TEMPORARY
TENTS OR BUILDINGS. ATHLETIC ACTIVITIES IN CONJUNCTION WITH
THE ABOVE AND ON THE SAME LOT OR CONTIGUOUS LOTS MAY BE
PERMITTED. ALL CHURCH USES ARE ALSO CONSIDERED “PUBLIC
ASSEMBLY—RESIDENTIAL”, AND ARE SUBJECT TO SECTION
608.E.22.


a. BINGO MAY BE OPERATED AS AN ACCESSORY USE ON THE
PREMISES OF THE CHURCH WHEN CONDUCTED NO MORE
THAN TWO DAYS A WEEK. FUNDRAISING EVENTS LOCATED
ON THE SAME LOT OR CONTIGUOUS LOTS SHALL BE
PERMITTED, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS:




Page 1324
(1) THE SPONSORING, ORGANIZING AND BENEFITING
ENTITIES SHALL BE NONPROFIT OR RELIGIOUS
ORGANIZATIONS.

b. EVENTS HELD ENTIRELY WITHIN A BUILDING OR BUILDINGS
SHALL NOT BE FURTHER REGULATED; HOWEVER, EVENTS TO
BE CONDUCTED WHOLLY OR IN PART OUTDOORS SHALL BE
SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS:

(1) ANY OUTDOOR PORTION OF THE EVENT MUST BE
LOCATED A MINIMUM OF 50 FEET FROM A PROPERTY
LINE ADJACENT TO A RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT
AND A RESIDENTIAL USE.

(2) THE EVENT SHALL NOT BE CONDUCTED BETWEEN THE
HOURS OF 10:00 P.M. AND 5:00 A.M.

(3) THE EVENT SHALL NOT BE CONDUCTED IN SUCH
MANNER AS TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF PARKING
SPACES REQUIRED FOR ANY NORMAL FUNCTIONS OF
THE PRIMARY USE WHICH ARE HELD DURING THE
EVENT.

(4) LIGHTING SHALL BE SO PLACED AS TO REFLECT THE
LIGHT AWAY FROM ADJACENT RESIDENCES.

c. POCKET SHELTERS AS ACCESSORY USES TO CHURCHES OR
SIMILAR PLACES OF WORSHIP, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING
STANDARDS (AND APPLICABLE MARICOPA COUNTY AND CITY
OF PHOENIX HEALTH AND SAFETY REGULATIONS):

(1) A POCKET SHELTER SHALL HOUSE NO MORE THAN 12
UNRELATED PERSONS. A POCKET SHELTER MAY
HOUSE UP TO 20 UNRELATED PERSONS UPON
APPROVAL OF A USE PERMIT IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE PROCEDURES AND STANDARDS OF SECTION 307.
MINORS (AGE 18 YEARS OR YOUNGER) ACCOMPANIED
BY A PARENT OR A GUARDIAN SHALL NOT BE COUNTED
IN THE NUMBER OF UNRELATED PERSONS.




Page 1325
(2) THE CHURCH OR SIMILAR PLACE OF WORSHIP SHALL
BE LOCATED ON AN ARTERIAL OR COLLECTOR STREET
AS DEFINED ON THE STREET CLASSIFICATION MAP. A
SHELTER AT A CHURCH OR SIMILAR PLACE OF
WORSHIP WHICH IS NOT ON AN ARTERIAL OR
COLLECTOR STREET SHALL BE PERMITTED UPON
APPROVAL OF A USE PERMIT IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE PROCEDURES AND PROVISIONS OF SECTION 307.

(3) THE CHURCH OR SIMILAR PLACE OF WORSHIP SHALL
PROVIDE ON-SITE SUPERVISION OF SHELTER
RESIDENTS AT ALL TIMES THAT TWO OR MORE
UNRELATED RESIDENTS ARE AT THE SHELTER.

(4) (DRUG, ALCOHOL, OTHER SUBSTANCE ABUSE, OR
MENTAL HEALTH REHABILITATION PROGRAMS SHALL
NOT BE ALLOWED AS PART OF THE SHELTER SERVICES.
THIS PROVISION SHALL NOT PREVENT THE CHURCH OR
SIMILAR PLACE OF WORSHIP FROM REFERRING
SHELTER RESIDENTS TO OTHER APPROPRIATE
PROGRAMS AT THE CHURCH OR SIMILAR PLACE OF
WORSHIP OR ELSEWHERE, E.G., ALCOHOLICS
ANONYMOUS, WHICH ARE NOT PART OF THE SHELTER
SERVICES.

(5) SHELTER RESIDENTS SHALL NOT POSSESS ALCOHOL,
WEAPONS, OR ILLEGAL DRUGS AT THE SHELTER.

(6) OPEN AREAS SURROUNDING POCKET SHELTER
STRUCTURES SHALL BE SCREENED FROM VIEW FROM
ABUTTING AND/OR ADJOINING PROPERTIES BY
HEDGES, TREES, OTHER LANDSCAPING, OR WALLS.

(7) POCKET SHELTER STRUCTURES SHALL NOT HAVE
DIRECT ACCESS TO ABUTTING AND/OR ADJOINING
PROPERTIES.

(8) POCKET SHELTERS SHALL BE HOUSED IN PERMANENT
STRUCTURES RATHER THAN IN TENTS OR OTHER
SIMILAR TEMPORARY STRUCTURES.

(9) A CHURCH OR SIMILAR PLACE OF WORSHIP SHALL
HOUSE NO MORE THAN ONE POCKET SHELTER.




Page 1326
22. PUBLIC ASSEMBLY—RESIDENTIAL. A USE PERMIT SHALL BE
REQUIRED FOR ALL PUBLIC ASSEMBLY—RESIDENTIAL USES
HAVING VEHICULAR ACCESS TO LOCAL OR MINOR COLLECTOR
STREETS, INCLUDING PRIVATE SCHOOLS AND CHURCH USES.

23. ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION FACILITY, SUBJECT TO THE
FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:

a. A USE PERMIT SHALL BE OBTAINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH
SECTION 307.

b. THE ABOVE GROUND AREA OF LAND OCCUPIED BY THE
ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION FACILITY SHALL NOT EXCEED
THE MINIMUM NUMBER OF SQUARE FEET NECESSARY TO
IMPLEMENT THE REMEDIAL OR CORRECTIVE ACTION.

c. ALL STRUCTURES AND DEVICES CONSTRUCTED ABOVE
GROUND LEVEL SHALL BE SHIELDED FROM THE VIEW OF
PERSONS OUTSIDE THE PROPERTY BOUNDARY BY AN
OPAQUE FENCE CONSTRUCTED OF MATERIALS OF SIMILAR
COMPOSITION AND APPEARANCE TO FENCES AND
STRUCTURES ON NEARBY PROPERTY.

d. OUTDOOR EQUIPMENT INSTALLED AS PART OF THE FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION FACILITY SHALL NOT EXCEED
A HEIGHT OF TEN FEET AND SHALL BE SET BACK FROM THE
PERIMETER WALL A MINIMUM OF THREE FEET FOR EVERY
ONE FOOT OF HEIGHT OVER SIX FEET.

e. AFTER INSTALLATION, NO EQUIPMENT OR MATERIALS
BEYOND THAT NECESSARY TO OPERATE THE FACILITY SHALL
BE STORED ON THE LOT.

f. A PERIMETER LANDSCAPING PLAN SHALL BE APPROVED BY
THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AS
NECESSARY UNLESS AN APPLICABLE APPROVED LANDSCAPE
PLAN ALREADY EXISTS.

g. ANY LIGHTING SHALL BE PLACED SO AS TO REFLECT THE
LIGHT AWAY FROM ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS.
NOISE, ODOR, OR VIBRATION SHALL NOT BE EMITTED ANY
TIME BY THE FACILITY SO THAT IT EXCEEDS THE GENERAL
LEVEL OF NOISE, ODOR, OR VIBRATION EMITTED BY USES
OUTSIDE THE SITE. SUCH COMPARISON SHALL BE MADE AT
THE BOUNDARY OF THE LOT ON WHICH THE TREATMENT
FACILITY IS LOCATED.




Page 1327
h. THE FACILITY SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE
PROVISIONS OF THE FIRE CODE.

i. A PERMIT ISSUED UNDER SECTION 307 SHALL INCLUDE
REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS ON THE OPERATION OF THE
FACILITY TO MITIGATE ANY ADVERSE IMPACTS ON NEARBY
LAND, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO RESTRICTIONS ON
VEHICULAR TRAFFIC AND HOURS OF OPERATION OF THE
FACILITY.

j. THIS SECTION ALLOWS AUTHORIZATION OF ACTIVITIES TO
UNDERTAKE ALL ON-SITE INVESTIGATIVE, CONSTRUCTION,
AND MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES ANCILLARY TO THE
OPERATION OF THE FACILITY. ALL OFF-SITE DISCHARGES OF
ANY SUBSTANCE SHALL BE SEPARATELY AUTHORIZED
PURSUANT TO APPLICABLE LAWS.

k. THE STRUCTURES USED FOR THE FACILITY SHALL NOT
EXCEED A TOTAL AREA OF 5,000 SQUARE FEET.

24. COMMUNITY GARDEN. ACCESSORY SALES OF PRODUCTS
CULTIVATED ON SITE WITHIN TEN DAYS OF HARVESTING SUBJECT
TO APPROVAL OF A USE PERMIT PURSUANT TO SECTION 307. ON-
SITE OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS MAY BE
STIPULATED AS A CONDITION OF USE PERMIT APPROVAL.

25. FARMERS MARKET, SUBJECT TO OBTAINING A USE PERMIT IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 307 AND
SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING STANDARDS: FARMERS MARKET,
SUBJECT TO OBTAINING A USE PERMIT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
PROVISIONS OF SECTION 307 AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING
STANDARDS:

a. NO MORE THAN SIX ONE-DAY MARKET EVENTS IN ANY 30-DAY
PERIOD.

b. HOURS OF OPERATION SHALL BE ONLY BETWEEN 7:00 A.M.
AND 9:00 P.M. THESE HOURS MAY BE RESTRICTED AS PART
OF THE USE PERMIT APPROVAL.

c. NO SIGNAGE SHALL BE PERMITTED.

d. ON-SITE IMPROVEMENTS AND OTHER OPERATIONAL
CONDITIONS MAY BE STIPULATED AS A CONDITION OF USE
PERMIT APPROVAL.




Page 1328
26. CONSTRUCTION FACILITIES AND STORAGE, INCIDENTAL TO A
CONSTRUCTION PROJECT AND LOCATED ON THE PROJECT SITE,
ARE PERMITTED. WHEN SUCH FACILITIES OR STORAGE ARE USED
FOR CONSTRUCTION ON A LOT OR LOTS OTHER THAN THE LOT OR
LOTS USED FOR SUCH FACILITIES OR STORAGE, SUCH USE SHALL
MAINTAIN THE SETBACKS PROVIDED BY THE REQUIREMENTS OF
THIS CHAPTER AND SHALL BE SUBJECT TO SECURING A USE
PERMIT. WHEN SUCH FACILITIES AND STORAGE SERVE A
RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION, ARE APPROVED IN CONJUNCTION WITH
MODEL HOMES BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT, AND MEET ALL OF THE STANDARDS LISTED BELOW,
NO USE PERMIT IS REQUIRED:

a. THE FACILITIES SHALL NOT BE PLACED ON A LOT WHICH
ABUTS, JOINS AT THE CORNERS, OR IS ACROSS A STREET OR
ALLEY FROM A DWELLING UNIT WHICH IS UNDER
CONSTRUCTION OR OCCUPIED AT THE TIME OF SAID
PLACEMENT, UNLESS WRITTEN AGREEMENT TO THE
PLACEMENT IS GIVEN BY THE OWNER OR OCCUPANT OF THE
AFFECTED PROPERTY.

b. ALL OUTSIDE STORAGE SHALL BE SCREENED BY A SIX-FOOT-
HIGH SOLID FENCE OR MASONRY WALL. NO CONSTRUCTION
VEHICLES OR MACHINERY SHALL BE PLACED WITHIN TEN
FEET OF THE SCREEN FENCE OR WALL.

c. ALL SIGNS ON THE FACILITY SHALL FULLY COMPLY WITH
SECTION 705, THE SIGN CODE.

d. ALL FACILITIES AND STORAGE SHALL BE REMOVED WITHIN
THREE MONTHS OF THE CLOSURE OF THE MODEL HOMES.

27. HOME OCCUPATIONS INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ARCHITECT,
LAWYER, OFF-SITE SALES BUSINESSES, ACCOUNTANT, REAL
ESTATE AGENT, TELEMARKETING SALES, AND PSYCHOLOGIST. FOR
PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, OFF-SITE SALES MEANS
PROCESSING ORDERS BY MAIL, FACSIMILE, PHONE, MODEM OR
INTERNET.

a. NO ONE OUTSIDE THE FAMILY RESIDING IN THE DWELLING
UNIT SHALL BE EMPLOYED IN THE HOME OCCUPATION.

b. NO EXTERIOR DISPLAY, NO EXTERIOR STORAGE OF
MATERIALS, NO SIGN, AND NO OTHER EXTERIOR INDICATION
OF THE HOME OCCUPATION OR VARIATION FROM THE




Page 1329
RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE PRINCIPAL OR ACCESSORY
BUILDING, EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED IN SECTION
608.E.3.H.608.E.27.h.

c. NO HOME OCCUPATION SHALL EMIT ODOR, DUST, GAS,
NOISE, VIBRATION, SMOKE, HEAT, OR GLARE BEYOND ANY
BOUNDARY OF THE LOT ON WHICH THE HOME OCCUPATION
IS CONDUCTED.

d. ACTIVITY SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE HOURS BETWEEN 7:00
A.M. AND 10:00 P.M.

e. NO MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT SHALL BE USED EXCEPT THAT
NORMALLY USED FOR DOMESTIC, HOBBY, STANDARD OFFICE,
OR HOUSEHOLD PURPOSES.

f. NOT MORE THAN 25 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL AREA UNDER
ROOF ON THE SITE SHALL BE USED FOR ANY HOME
OCCUPATION.

g. ANY PARKING INCIDENTAL TO THE HOME OCCUPATION SHALL
BE PROVIDED ON THE SITE.

h. HOME OCCUPATIONS SHALL OBTAIN A USE PERMIT FROM THE
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 307
WHEN:

(1) TRAFFIC (OTHER THAN TRIPS BY OCCUPANTS OF THE
HOUSEHOLD) IS GENERATED BY THE HOME
OCCUPATION; OR

(2) THE HOME OCCUPATION IS CONDUCTED IN AN
ACCESSORY BUILDING, INCLUDING AN ADU; OR

(3) THE HOME OCCUPATION IS CONDUCTED AS AN
OUTSIDE USE; OR

(4) MINOR VARIATIONS TO SECTION 608.E.3.C ARE
REQUIRED TO CONDUCT THE HOME OCCUPATION; OR

(5) AN APPLICANT DESIRES AN OFFICIAL APPROVAL OF A
HOME OCCUPATION.

i. A HOME OCCUPATION SHALL NOT INCLUDE, BUT SUCH
EXCLUSION SHALL NOT BE LIMITED TO, THE FOLLOWING
USES:




Page 1330
(1) BARBERSHOPS AND BEAUTY PARLORS.

(2) COMMERCIAL STABLES, VETERINARY OFFICES.

(3) DOG GROOMING.

(4) MASSAGE PARLORS.

(5) RESTAURANTS.

(6) VETERINARY HOSPITALS AND COMMERCIAL KENNELS.

28. NONDAILY NEWSPAPER DELIVERY SERVICE SHALL BE PERMITTED
SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING LIMITATIONS:

a. DELIVERED BULK MATERIALS RELATED TO NONDAILY
PUBLICATIONS SHALL BE TRANSFERRED TO AN ENCLOSED
BUILDING OR SECURED AREA SO THAT MATERIALS ARE NOT
VISIBLE FROM THE STREET OR ADJACENT PROPERTIES
UNLESS FOR PREPARATION OF MATERIALS FOR SAME DAY
DISTRIBUTION. PREPARATION OF MATERIALS FOR SAME DAY
DISTRIBUTION MAY OCCUR ON OR ABOUT ADJACENT PUBLIC
RIGHTS-OF-WAY; PROVIDED, THAT MATERIALS DO NOT
REMAIN IN PUBLIC VIEW FOR LONGER THAN 24 HOURS.

b. MATERIALS STORED FOR PERIODS GREATER THAN 24 HOURS
SHALL BE ENCLOSED WITHIN A BUILDING OR SECURED BY A
WALL OR FENCE OF SUCH MATERIAL, CONSTRUCTION, AND
HEIGHT SO AS TO CONCEAL THE MATERIALS LOCATED.

c. ACTIVITIES RELATING TO AND/OR ACCESSORY TO THE
PREPARATION OF MATERIALS STORED FOR PERIODS
GREATER THAN 24 HOURS SHALL OCCUR WITHIN AN
ENCLOSED BUILDING OR AN AREA SECURED BY A WALL OR
FENCE OF SUCH MATERIAL, CONSTRUCTION, AND HEIGHT SO
AS TO COMPLETELY CONCEAL THE ACTIVITIES.

d. SUCH DELIVERY SHALL BE LIMITED TO TWO BULK DELIVERIES
IN A SEVEN-DAY PERIOD. MORE FREQUENT DELIVERIES
SHALL REQUIRE A USE PERMIT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
PROCEDURES OF SECTION 307.

e. NO TRAFFIC OTHER THAN THAT REQUIRED FOR THE BULK
DELIVERY AND PICKUP SHALL BE ALLOWED BY OUTSIDE
EMPLOYEES. ANY OTHER BUSINESS-RELATED TRAFFIC SHALL




Page 1331
REQUIRE A USE PERMIT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
PROCEDURES OF SECTION 307.

29. THE DISPLAY FOR SALE OF A VEHICLE, WHICH FOR PURPOSES OF
THIS PROVISION INCLUDES TRAILERS, WATERCRAFT OR OTHER
TYPES OF TRANSPORTATION THAT ARE BUILT TO CARRY
PASSENGERS OR CARGO SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING
RESTRICTIONS:

a. NO MORE THAN ONE VEHICLE CAN BE LABELED FOR SALE OR
SHOW ANY INDICATION THAT IT IS FOR SALE AT ANY GIVEN
TIME ON A PROPERTY, WHETHER VISIBLE ON SITE OR
THROUGH SOME OTHER FORM OF ADVERTISING.

b. NO MORE THAN TWO VEHICLES CAN BE SOLD ON A
PROPERTY DURING ANY CALENDAR YEAR.

c. FOR PURPOSES OF SECTIONS 608.A AND B, TWO JET SKIS, A
BOAT OR SIMILAR TYPES OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES THAT
ARE TRANSPORTED ON ONE TRAILER SHALL, TOGETHER
WITH THE TRAILER, BE CONSIDERED ONE VEHICLE.

d. THE OWNERSHIP OF THE VEHICLE(S) MUST BE REGISTERED
TO THE LOCATION WHERE THE VEHICLE IS LISTED FOR SALE.

e. NO VEHICLE CAN BE LABELED FOR SALE OR SHOW ANY
INDICATION THAT IT IS FOR SALE AT AN UNOCCUPIED HOUSE
OR ON A VACANT LOT OR PARCEL.

f. NO VEHICLE CAN BE LABELED FOR SALE OR SHOW ANY
INDICATION THAT IT IS FOR SALE IN CONJUNCTION WITH A
RETAIL OR WHOLESALE VEHICLE SALES DEALERSHIP OR
BUSINESS WITHOUT OBTAINING A TEMPORARY USE PERMIT.

30. FACILITIES FOR HOUSEHOLD PETS, THE MAINTENANCE OF WHICH
IS NOT OTHERWISE PROHIBITED BY STATUTE, REGULATIONS, OR
THE CITY CODE OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX AND WHICH FACILITIES
ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE ORDINANCES OF THE
CITY OF PHOENIX, ARE PERMITTED.

31. GARAGE OR YARD SALES MAY BE CONDUCTED TWICE EVERY 12
MONTHS ON ANY RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTY OCCUPIED BY
A DWELLING UNIT. ANY SALE SHALL NOT EXCEED THE TIME PERIOD
OF THREE CONSECUTIVE DAYS.




Page 1332
32. MATERIALS USED IN CONJUNCTION WITH A HOBBY, AVOCATION,
OR PASTIME, THE USE OF WHICH DOES NOT OTHERWISE CONFLICT
WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ORDINANCE, ARE PERMITTED.

33. PARKING OF VEHICLES IN FACILITIES AND LOCATIONS ON THE
PROPERTY NOT OTHERWISE IN CONFLICT WITH THE PROVISIONS
OF THIS ORDINANCE, IS PERMITTED.

34. PRIVATE TENNIS OR OUTDOOR GAME COURTS AS AN ACCESSORY
USE IS PERMITTED. TENNIS OR OUTDOOR GAME COURT FENCES
OVER SIX FEET HIGH IN REQUIRED REAR YARD OR REQUIRED SIDE
YARD ARE PERMITTED SUBJECT TO A USE PERMIT. TENNIS OR
OUTDOOR GAME COURT LIGHTS ARE ALSO SUBJECT TO A USE
PERMIT.

35. OFFSITE MANUFACTURED HOME DEVELOPMENTS ARE PERMITTED
WITH USE PERMIT APPROVAL PER SECTION 307, AND SUBJECT TO
THE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS PROVIDED IN SECTION 608.F.7.

***

Amend Chapter 6, Section 608.F (Residence Districts—Permitted with Use Permit
Approval Pursuant to Section 307) to read as follows:

F. Permitted Uses with Use Permit Approval Pursuant to Section 307.

1. Boarding house permitted in the R-3, R-3A, R-4, R-4A, and R-5 zoning
districts, subject to a use permit and conditions as outlined in each
respective zoning district.

2. Group home permitted in the R-3, R-3A, R-4, R-4A, and R-5 zoning districts,
subject to a use permit and conditions as outlined in each respective zoning
district.

3. Adult day care home for the care of five to ten adult persons, subject to a
use permit; and provided, that:

a. Outdoor recreation areas shall be screened from adjacent properties
by a six-foot-high landscape hedge, solid fence, or solid wall.

4. Dependent care facility for seven to 12 dependents, subject to obtaining a
use permit in accordance with the provisions of Section 307 and subject to
the following standards:

a. Resident dependents under the age of 12 years shall not be counted
when they are present on the premises.




Page 1333
b. Outdoor play areas shall be screened from adjacent properties by a
six-foot-high landscape hedge, solid fence, or solid wall.

c. Hours of operation shall be only between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.
These hours may be restricted as part of the use permit approval.

d. Nonresident employees may be permitted with the use permit if
necessary to meet state requirements.

e. One parking space shall be provided for each employee who does
not reside at the facility.

f. No signage shall be permitted.

g. The facility shall be subject to Arizona licensing requirements.

5. Environmental remediation facility, subject to the following conditions:

a. A use permit shall be obtained in accordance with Section 307.

b. The above ground area of land occupied by the environmental
remediation facility shall not exceed the minimum number of square
feet necessary to implement the remedial or corrective action.

c. All structures and devices constructed above ground level shall be
shielded from the view of persons outside the property boundary by
an opaque fence constructed of materials of similar composition and
appearance to fences and structures on nearby property.

d. Outdoor equipment installed as part of the final environmental
remediation facility shall not exceed a height of ten feet and shall be
set back from the perimeter wall a minimum of three feet for every
one foot of height over six feet.

e. After installation, no equipment or materials beyond that necessary to
operate the facility shall be stored on the lot.

f. A perimeter landscaping plan shall be approved by the Planning and
Development Department as necessary unless an applicable
approved landscape plan already exists.




Page 1334
g. Any lighting shall be placed so as to reflect the light away from
adjacent residential districts. Noise, odor, or vibration shall not be
emitted any time by the facility so that it exceeds the general level of
noise, odor, or vibration emitted by uses outside the site. Such
comparison shall be made at the boundary of the lot on which the
treatment facility is located.

h. The facility shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Fire
Code.

i. A permit issued under Section 307 shall include reasonable
restrictions on the operation of the facility to mitigate any adverse
impacts on nearby land, including but not limited to restrictions on
vehicular traffic and hours of operation of the facility.

j. This section allows authorization of activities to undertake all on-site
investigative, construction, and maintenance activities ancillary to the
operation of the facility. All off-site discharges of any substance shall
be separately authorized pursuant to applicable laws.

k. The structures used for the facility shall not exceed a total area of
5,000 square feet.

6. Community Garden. Accessory sales of products cultivated on site within
ten days of harvesting subject to approval of a use permit pursuant to
Section 307. On-site operational conditions and improvements may be
stipulated as a condition of use permit approval.

7. Farmers market, subject to obtaining a use permit in accordance with the
provisions of Section 307 and subject to the following standards: Farmers
market, subject to obtaining a use permit in accordance with the provisions
of Section 307 and subject to the following standards:

a. No more than six one-day market events in any 30-day period.

b. Hours of operation shall be only between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m.
These hours may be restricted as part of the use permit approval.

c. No signage shall be permitted.

d. On-site improvements and other operational conditions may be
stipulated as a condition of use permit approval.




Page 1335
8. Single-family attached (SFA) development option is allowed within the infill
development district identified in the General Plan or with use permit
approval for R-2, R-3, R-3A, R-4, R-5, R-4A, C-1, and C-3 zoned properties
within the following boundaries:




a. The SFA development option does not eliminate any redevelopment
area, special planning district or overlays. Where conflicts occur
between the requirements of the SFA development option and
redevelopment areas, overlay zoning districts, special planning
districts, and specific plans, the requirements of the overlay zoning
districts, special planning districts, redevelopment areas or specific
plans shall apply.




Page 1336
Historic preservation designated properties or properties in historic
preservation districts cannot use the single-family attached
development option.

b. Design Requirements. Applicants must provide photographs of the
property surrounding their site and an explanation of how the single-
family attached project architecture would complement and be
integrated into the surrounding neighborhood.

(1) Individual units fronting on street rights-of-way shall provide an
entryway that is either elevated, depressed or includes a
feature such as a low wall to accentuate the primary entrance.

(2) Required covered parking spaces shall not front on street
rights-of-way.

c. Perimeter Landscape Setbacks and Requirements.

(1) Residences that front on arterial, collector, or local street
rights-of-way shall provide a minimum ten-foot-wide landscape
tract or community maintained landscaping abutting the street,
except when within 2,000 feet of a light rail station.

(2) Residences that side on arterial, collector, or local street rights-
of-way shall provide a minimum 15-foot-wide landscape tract
or community maintained landscaping abutting the street.

(3) Perimeter of the development not abutting rights-of-way must
provide a minimum five-foot landscape setback, except that
development adjacent to a single-family residential district or
historic preservation designated property must provide a
minimum ten-foot landscape setback.

(4) Minimum trees spaced 20 feet on center or equivalent
groupings in required landscape setbacks.

Minimum one-and-one-half-inch caliper (50 percent of required
trees). Minimum two-inch caliper or multi-trunk tree (25 percent
of required trees). Minimum three-inch caliper or multi-trunk
tree (25 percent of required trees). Provide minimum five five-
gallon shrubs per tree.

d. Open Space. Only fences to enclose pool or community amenities
allowed within required open space.




Page 1337
e. Attached single-family units in a row shall not exceed a total length of
200 feet without having a minimum 20-foot-wide open area.

f. Parking Requirements.

(1) Within infill development district: 1.3 spaces per efficiency unit,
1.5 spaces per two-bedroom unit and two spaces per three or
more bedroom unit must be provided that are covered or
located within a garage and a minimum 0.25 unreserved guest
parking space per unit must be provided on site.

(2) Within the applicable area that is not located within the infill
development district: Two parking spaces per dwelling unit
must be provided that are covered or located within a garage.
The required spaces for each unit must be located on the lot
that the unit is on. A minimum 0.25 unreserved guest parking
space per unit must be provided on site.

g. Alley Access.

(1) Within infill development district: alley access allowed.

(2) Within the applicable area that is not located within the infill
development district: No alley access allowed if adjacent to
single-family or historic preservation zoning district unless
approved as part of the use permit hearing and all necessary
technical appeals have been approved.

h. Maximum 40-inch fence height allowed in the required building
setback along perimeter rights-of-way.

i. Signage subject to the regulations of Section 705, Table D-1, Single-
Family Residential.

9. Offsite manufactured home developments.

A. Offsite manufactured home development is allowed R-2, R-3, R-3A,
R-4, R-5, R-4A, C-1, C-2, and C-3 zoning districts subject to a use
permit and the conditions outlined below:

(1) Placement for each offsite manufactured home shall be
provided as follows:




Page 1338
(a) There shall be a minimum of twenty feet between
offsite manufactured homes and ten feet between
awnings and canopies. All annexes or structural
additions shall be considered part of the offsite
manufactured home.

(b) There shall be at least forty feet between offsite
manufactured homes on opposite sides of a private
accessway.

(c) No offsite manufactured home, annex or structural
addition shall be closer than eight feet to any private
accessway or private drive.

(2) Each offsite manufactured home space shall have private
outdoor living space of at least 150 square feet. The
dimension of this space shall be at least fifteen feet in width.

(3) For each occupied offsite manufactured home space, there
shall be an enclosed storage locker for yard tools and other
bulky items convenient to the space with a storage capacity
of at least one hundred fifty cubic feet.

(4) All areas not covered by structures or paved surfaces shall
be landscaped and maintained in accordance with the site
plans required under Section 507.

(5) Screening the perimeter of an offsite manufactured home
development by a wall or other approved material may be
required.

(6) There shall be a network of pedestrian walks connecting
offsite manufactured home spaces with each other and with
development facilities.

(7) If storage yards are provided, there shall be a screened
storage yard or yards for boats, recreational vehicles, etc.
Such storage yards shall have a minimum of sixty square
feet of storage space for each offsite manufactured home
space in the development and shall be located so as to not
detract from surrounding properties. All boats and
recreational vehicles shall be parked in the storage yard.

(8) Each offsite manufactured home shall a): be affixed
permanently to the ground or b): have "skirting" around its
perimeter to screen its wheels and undercarriage.




Page 1339
(9) All utilities and the wires of any central television or radio
antenna system shall be underground.

(10) Not more than fifteen percent of the spaces in any one
offsite manufactured home development shall be developed
or used for recreational vehicles.

(11) Development of offsite manufactured home communities
shall be under the Planned Residential Development option
of the underlying zoning district.

(12) Private drives may be used for access to each offsite
manufactured homes only when there is no subdivision of
the mobile home development into individual lots.

(13) There shall be a minimum of five percent of the total area of
the offsite manufactured home development dedicated or
reserved as usable common "open space" land. Common
"open space" lands shall be clearly designated on the plan
as to the character of use and development but shall not
include:

(a) Areas reserved for the exclusive use or benefit of an
individual tenant or owner; nor

(b) Dedicated streets, alleys, and other public rights-of-
way; nor

(c) Vehicular drives, parking, loading, and storage areas;
nor

(d) Required setback areas at exterior boundaries of the
site; nor

(e) Golf courses.

Adequate guarantees must be provided to ensure
permanent retention of "open space" land area resulting
from the application of these regulations, either by private
reservation for the use of the residents within the
development or by dedication to the public, or a
combination thereof.

F. SPECIAL REGULATIONS




Page 1340
1. NO STRUCTURE MAY BE BUILT ON A LOT WHICH DOES NOT FRONT
ON A STREET WHICH IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ADOPTED
STREET CLASSIFICATION MAP UNLESS EXEMPTED BY THIS
SECTION.

2. IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE A HALF STREET NOT LESS THAN ONE-HALF
OF THAT WIDTH PRESCRIBED FOR THAT STREET BY THE STREET
CLASSIFICATION MAP, AND AMENDMENTS THERETO, HAS BEEN
DEDICATED, ANY LOTS FACING OR SIDING ON SUCH HALF STREET
FROM WHICH SIDE THE REQUIRED WIDTH OF DEDICATION HAS
BEEN MADE SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE FRONTAGE ON A STREET.

3. NO PERMIT SHALL BE ISSUED FOR BUILDINGS ON A LOT FRONTING
ON A HALF STREET OF LESS THAN THAT PRESCRIBED BY THE
STREET CLASSIFICATION MAP FOR AN ARTERIAL OR COLLECTOR
STREET OR 25 FEET FOR ALL OTHER STREETS EXCEPT FOR
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED DEVELOPMENT INDIVIDUAL DWELLING
UNITS.

a. FOR DEVELOPMENT UTILIZING AN AVERAGE LOT OR PRD
DEVELOPMENT OPTION OR FOR DEVELOPMENT BUILT UNDER
A PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, A MINIMUM OF
16.58-FOOT HALF-STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY MAY BE PROVIDED
WHEN ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE MET:

(1) THE STREET IS NOT DESIGNATED AS A COLLECTOR OR
ARTERIAL STREET.

(2) THERE ARE NO RESTRICTIONS TO PUBLIC ACCESS TO
THE STREET.

(3) PAVEMENT WIDTH SHALL BE 33.16 FEET FROM BACK OF
CURB TO BACK OF CURB.

(4) PAVEMENT THICKNESS AND DESIGN SHALL BE IN
ACCORDANCE WITH MARICOPA ASSOCIATION OF
GOVERNMENTS’ STANDARDS.

(5) ALL TERMINATIONS SHALL CONTAIN A 40-FOOT-RADIUS
RIGHT-OF-WAY.

(6) THE STREET HAS BEEN CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO
MARCH 19, 1986.




Page 1341
4. THERE SHALL BE NO OUTDOOR STORAGE OF PERSONAL
PROPERTY VISIBLE BEYOND THE BOUNDARIES OF THE PROPERTY
WITHIN ANY FRONT OR SIDE YARD.

5. NO ACCESSORY USE SHALL INCLUDE OUTDOOR DISPLAY OR
STORAGE OF ANY OF THE FOLLOWING LISTED ITEMS WHEN SUCH
ITEMS ARE VISIBLE OR EMIT ODOR, DUST, GAS, NOISE, VIBRATION,
SMOKE, HEAT OR GLARE BEYOND ANY BOUNDARY OF THE LOT ON
WHICH SUCH ITEMS ARE DISPLAYED OR STORED:

a. ANY BUILDING OR LANDSCAPING MATERIALS.

b. ANY MACHINERY, PARTS, SCRAP, OR APPLIANCES.

c. VEHICLES WHICH ARE UNLICENSED, INOPERABLE, OR
REGISTERED TO OR OWNED BY PERSONS NOT RESIDING ON
OR THE GUEST OF PERSONS RESIDING ON THE PREMISES.

d. ANY OTHER CHATTEL USED FOR OR INTENDED FOR A
COMMERCIAL PURPOSE OR ULTIMATE USE ON OTHER THAN
THE SUBJECT PREMISES.

6. SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL (SFI). SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS MAY BE APPLIED IN ZONING DISTRICTS WHERE THE
SFI DEVELOPMENT OPTION IS OFFERED, BUT ONLY WHEN THE
DEVELOPMENT FALLS WITHIN THE INFILL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
IDENTIFIED IN THE GENERAL PLAN, OR WITH USE PERMIT
APPROVAL WITHIN THE FOLLOWING AREAS LOCATED OUTSIDE OF
THE INFILL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT:




Page 1342
MAP 608.F.6. SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL DEVELOPMENT AREAS




Page 1343
a. THE SFI DEVELOPMENT OPTION DOES NOT ELIMINATE ANY
REDEVELOPMENT AREA, SPECIAL PLANNING DISTRICT OR
OVERLAYS. WHERE CONFLICTS OCCUR BETWEEN THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE SFI DEVELOPMENT OPTION AND
REDEVELOPMENT AREAS, OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICTS,
SPECIAL PLANNING DISTRICTS, AND SPECIFIC PLANS, THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICTS,
SPECIAL PLANNING DISTRICTS, REDEVELOPMENT AREAS OR
SPECIFIC PLANS SHALL APPLY.

b. HISTORIC PRESERVATION DESIGNATED PROPERTIES OR
PROPERTIES IN HISTORIC PRESERVATION DISTRICTS
CANNOT USE THE SFI DEVELOPMENT OPTION.

c. DWELLING UNITS. THE SFI DEVELOPMENT OPTION IS
INTENDED PRIMARILY FOR SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED
DWELLING UNITS; HOWEVER, UP TO 20% OF THE UNITS IN A
DEVELOPMENT MAY BE SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DWELLING
UNITS TO ALLOW FOR VARIETY AND EFFICIENCY OF DESIGN.

(1) ANY PROVIDED DETACHED DWELLING UNITS SHALL
COMPLY WITH THE SAME DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
APPLICABLE TO THAT SFI DEVELOPMENT.

d. DESIGN REQUIREMENTS.

(1) INDIVIDUAL UNITS FRONTING ON STREET RIGHTS-OF-
WAY SHALL PROVIDE AN ENTRYWAY THAT IS EITHER
ELEVATED, DEPRESSED OR INCLUDES A FEATURE
SUCH AS A LOW WALL TO ACCENTUATE THE PRIMARY
ENTRANCE.

(2) REQUIRED COVERED PARKING SPACES SHALL NOT
FRONT ON PERIMETER STREET RIGHTS-OF-WAY.

(3) INDIVIDUAL UNIT REAR YARDS SHALL NOT ABUT
PERIMETER STREET ROW OR AN ADJACENT PERIMETER
STREET LANDSCAPE AREA.

(4) ATTACHED DWELLING UNITS CONSTRUCTED IN A ROW
SHALL NOT EXCEED A TOTAL LENGTH OF 200 FEET
WITHOUT HAVING A MINIMUM 20-FOOT-WIDE OPEN
AREA

e. PERIMETER LANDSCAPE SETBACKS AND REQUIREMENTS.




Page 1344
(1) RESIDENCES THAT FRONT ON ARTERIAL, COLLECTOR,
OR LOCAL STREET RIGHTS-OF-WAY SHALL PROVIDE A
MINIMUM TEN-FOOT-WIDE LANDSCAPE TRACT OR
COMMUNITY MAINTAINED LANDSCAPING ABUTTING THE
STREET, EXCEPT WHEN WITHIN 2,000 FEET OF A LIGHT
RAIL STATION.

(2) RESIDENCES THAT SIDE ON ARTERIAL, COLLECTOR, OR
LOCAL STREET RIGHTS-OF-WAY SHALL PROVIDE A
MINIMUM 15-FOOT-WIDE LANDSCAPE TRACT OR
COMMUNITY MAINTAINED LANDSCAPING ABUTTING THE
STREET.

(3) PERIMETER OF THE DEVELOPMENT NOT ABUTTING
RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND ADJACENT TO A SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT OR HISTORIC PRESERVATION
DESIGNATED PROPERTY MUST PROVIDE A MINIMUM
TEN-FOOT LANDSCAPE SETBACK. WALLS/FENCES UP
TO 6 FEET HIGH WITHIN PRIVATE REAR YARDS MAY BE
PROVIDED WITHIN THE PERIMETER SETBACK SO LONG
AS THE REQUIRED LANDSCAPE IS STILL PROVIDED.

(4) TREES SHALL BE PROVIDED IN REQUIRED LANDSCAPE
SETBACKS AT A MINIMUM RATE OF 20 FEET ON CENTER
OR EQUIVALENT GROUPINGS, AS APPROVED BY THE
PDD LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, SUBJECT TO THE
FOLLOWING:

(a) 50% OF THE REQUIRED TREES SHALL BE
MINIMUM ONE-AND-ONE-HALF-INCH CALIPER AT
THE TIME OF INSTALLATION.

(b) 25% OF THE REQUIRED TREES SHALL BE
MINIMUM TWO-INCH CALIPER OR MULTI-TRUNKED
TREES AT THE TIME OF INSTALLATION.

(c) 25% OF THE REQUIRED TREES SHALL BE
MINIMUM THREE-INCH CALIPER OR MULTI-
TRUNKED TREES AT THE TIME OF INSTALLATION.

(5) A MINIMUM OF FIVE FIVE-GALLON SHRUBS PER TREE
SHALL BE PROVIDED.




Page 1345
f. OPEN SPACE REGULATIONS. THE ONLY WALLS/FENCES
ALLOWED WITHIN REQUIRED COMMON AREA OPEN SPACE
ARE REQUIRED POOL SECURITY FENCES AND OTHER
NECESSARY SECURITY FENCES, AS APPROVED BY PDD.

g. PARKING REQUIREMENTS. SECTION 702 APPLIES TO SFI
DEVELOPMENT, EXCEPT WHERE SPECIFICALLY MODIFIED BY
THIS SECTION.

(1) WITHIN THE INFILL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT: ONE (1)
PARKING SPACE PER DWELLING UNIT MUST BE
PROVIDED THAT IS COVERED OR LOCATED WITHIN A
GARAGE.

(2) WITHIN THE APPLICABLE SFI AREA THAT IS NOT
LOCATED WITHIN THE INFILL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT:
TWO (2) PARKING SPACES PER DWELLING UNIT MUST
BE PROVIDED THAT ARE COVERED OR LOCATED WITHIN
A GARAGE.

(3) THE REQUIRED SPACES FOR EACH DWELLING UNIT
MUST BE LOCATED ON THE SAME LOT AS THE UNIT FOR
WHICH THEY ARE PROVIDED.

(4) A MINIMUM 0.25 ADDITIONAL UNRESERVED GUEST
PARKING SPACE PER DWELLING UNIT MUST BE
PROVIDED WITHIN ANY SFI DEVELOPMENT.

h. ALLEY ACCESS AND MANEUVERING.

(1) ALL MANEUVERING FOR ON-SITE PARKING MUST BE
LOCATED ON PRIVATE PROPERTY AND NOT IN PUBLIC
ROW.

(2) ACCESS TO THE SITE FROM A FULLY DEDICATED AND
PAVED ALLEY IS PERMITTED WITHIN THE INFILL
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT.

(3) ACCESS TO THE SITE FROM A FULLY DEDICATED AND
PAVED ALLEY IS PERMITTED WITHIN THE SFI
APPLICABLE AREA OUTSIDE OF THE INFILL
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT IF ALL THREE CONDITIONS
ARE MET, AS FOLLOWS:




Page 1346
(a) THE SITE IS NOT ACROSS THE ALLEY FROM
EITHER A SINGLE-FAMILY OR HISTORIC
PRESERVATION ZONING DISTRICT;

(b) ALLEY ACCESS IS SPECIFICALLY APPROVED AS
PART OF THE USE PERMIT HEARING; AND

(c) ALL NECESSARY TECHNICAL APPEALS HAVE
BEEN APPROVED.

h. MAXIMUM 40-INCH FENCE HEIGHT ALLOWED IN THE
REQUIRED SETBACKS ALONG PERIMETER STREET RIGHTS-
OF-WAY.

i. SIGNAGE IS SUBJECT TO THE REGULATIONS OF SECTION 705,
TABLE D-1, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.

7. OFFSITE MANUFACTURED HOME DEVELOPMENTS. OFFSITE
MANUFACTURED HOME DEVELOPMENT IS SUBJECT TO USE PERMIT
APPROVAL IN THE C-1, C-2, AND C-3 DISTRICTS, IN ADDITION TO
ZONING DISTRICTS INDICATED IN SECTION 608.D; AND SUBJECT TO
THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS:

a. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 703.B DO NOT APPLY TO
OFFSITE MANUFACTURED HOME DEVELOPMENTS.

a. b. THESE REGULATIONS APPLY TO DEVELOPMENT OF A SINGLE
LOT OR PARCEL, NOT TO BE FURTHER SUBDIVIDED.

b. c. PLACEMENT FOR EACH OFFSITE MANUFACTURED HOME
SHALL BE PROVIDED AS FOLLOWS:

(1) THERE SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF TWENTY FEET
BETWEEN OFFSITE MANUFACTURED HOMES AND TEN
FEET BETWEEN AWNINGS AND CANOPIES. ALL ANNEXES
OR STRUCTURAL ADDITIONS SHALL BE CONSIDERED
PART OF THE OFFSITE MANUFACTURED HOME.

(2) THERE SHALL BE AT LEAST FORTY FEET BETWEEN
OFFSITE MANUFACTURED HOMES ON OPPOSITE SIDES
OF A PRIVATE ACCESSWAY.

(3) NO OFFSITE MANUFACTURED HOME, ANNEX OR
STRUCTURAL ADDITION SHALL BE CLOSER THAN EIGHT
FEET TO ANY PRIVATE ACCESSWAY OR PRIVATE DRIVE.




Page 1347
c. d. EACH OFFSITE MANUFACTURED HOME SPACE SHALL HAVE
PRIVATE OUTDOOR LIVING SPACE OF AT LEAST 150 SQUARE
FEET. THE DIMENSION OF THIS SPACE SHALL BE AT LEAST
FIFTEEN FEET IN WIDTH.

d. e. AT EACH OCCUPIED OFFSITE MANUFACTURED HOME SPACE,
THERE SHALL BE AN ENCLOSED STORAGE LOCKER FOR YARD
TOOLS AND OTHER BULKY ITEMS CONVENIENT TO THE SPACE
WITH A STORAGE CAPACITY OF AT LEAST ONE HUNDRED
FIFTY CUBIC FEET.

e. f. ALL AREAS NOT COVERED BY STRUCTURES OR PAVED
SURFACES SHALL BE LANDSCAPED AND MAINTAINED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPROVED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
DOCUMENTS REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 507.

f. g. SCREENING THE PERIMETER OF AN OFFSITE MANUFACTURED
HOME DEVELOPMENT BY A WALL OR OTHER APPROVED
MATERIAL MAY BE REQUIRED AS A CONDITION OF USE PERMIT
APPROVAL.

g. h. THERE SHALL BE A NETWORK OF PEDESTRIAN WALKWAYS
CONNECTING OFFSITE MANUFACTURED HOME SPACES WITH
EACH OTHER AND WITH DEVELOPMENT FACILITIES AND
AMENITIES.

h. i. IF STORAGE YARDS ARE PROVIDED, THERE SHALL BE A
SCREENED STORAGE YARD OR YARDS FOR BOATS,
RECREATIONAL VEHICLES, ETC. SUCH STORAGE YARDS
SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM OF SIXTY SQUARE FEET OF STORAGE
SPACE FOR EACH OFFSITE MANUFACTURED HOME SPACE IN
THE DEVELOPMENT AND SHALL BE LOCATED SO AS TO NOT
DETRACT FROM SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. ALL BOATS AND
RECREATIONAL VEHICLES SHALL BE PARKED IN THE
STORAGE YARD.

i.j. EACH OFFSITE MANUFACTURED HOME SHALL A): BE AFFIXED
PERMANENTLY TO THE GROUND OR B): HAVE "SKIRTING"
AROUND ITS PERIMETER TO SCREEN ITS WHEELS AND
UNDERCARRIAGE.

j.k. ALL UTILITIES AND THE WIRES OF ANY CENTRAL TELEVISION
OR RADIO ANTENNA SYSTEM SHALL BE UNDERGROUND.




Page 1348
k. l. NOT MORE THAN FIFTEEN PERCENT OF THE SPACES IN ANY
ONE OFFSITE MANUFACTURED HOME DEVELOPMENT SHALL
BE DEVELOPED OR USED FOR RECREATIONAL VEHICLES.

l. m. DEVELOPMENT OF OFFSITE MANUFACTURED HOME
COMMUNITIES SHALL BE UNDER THE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT OPTION APPLICABLE IN THE UNDERLYING
ZONING DISTRICT.

m. n. PRIVATE DRIVES MAY BE USED FOR ACCESS TO EACH
OFFSITE MANUFACTURED HOMES.

n. o. THERE SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF FIVE PERCENT OF THE TOTAL
AREA OF THE OFFSITE MANUFACTURED HOME DEVELOPMENT
DEDICATED OR RESERVED AS USABLE COMMON "OPEN
SPACE" LAND. COMMON "OPEN SPACE" LANDS SHALL BE
CLEARLY DESIGNATED ON THE PLAN AS TO THE CHARACTER
OF USE AND DEVELOPMENT BUT SHALL NOT INCLUDE:

(1) AREAS RESERVED FOR THE EXCLUSIVE USE OR
BENEFIT OF AN INDIVIDUAL TENANT OR OWNER; NOR

(2) DEDICATED STREETS, ALLEYS, AND OTHER PUBLIC
RIGHTS-OF-WAY; NOR

VEHICULAR DRIVES, PARKING, LOADING, AND STORAGE
AREAS; NOR
(3)
REQUIRED SETBACK AREAS AT EXTERIOR BOUNDARIES
OF THE SITE; NOR

(4) GOLF COURSES.

ADEQUATE GUARANTEES MUST BE PROVIDED TO ENSURE
PERMANENT RETENTION OF "OPEN SPACE" LAND AREA
RESULTING FROM THE APPLICATION OF THESE REGULATIONS,
EITHER BY PRIVATE RESERVATION FOR THE USE OF THE
RESIDENTS WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT OR BY DEDICATION
TO THE PUBLIC, OR A COMBINATION THEREOF.

***

Amend Chapter 6, Section 608.G (Accessory Uses) to read as follows:

G. Accessory Uses. RESERVED.




Page 1349
1. Facilities for household pets, the maintenance of which is not otherwise
prohibited by statute, regulations, or the City Code of the City of Phoenix
and which facilities are in compliance with all applicable ordinances of the

2. Garage or yard sales may be conducted twice every 12 months on any
residentially zoned property occupied by a dwelling unit. Any sale shall not
exceed the time period of three consecutive days.

3. Materials used in conjunction with a hobby, avocation, or pastime, the use of
which does not otherwise conflict with the provisions of this ordinance.

4. Parking of vehicles in facilities and locations on the property not otherwise in
conflict with the provisions of this ordinance.

5. Private tennis or outdoor game courts as an accessory use. Tennis or
outdoor game court fences over six feet high in required rear yard or
required side yard, subject to a use permit. Tennis or outdoor game court
lights, subject to a use permit.

6. No accessory use of land or structures shall be maintained except as
hereinafter provided or except as may be permitted as a home occupation.

7. No accessory use shall include outdoor display or storage of any of the
following listed items when such items are visible or emit odor, dust, gas,
noise, vibration, smoke, heat or glare beyond any boundary of the lot on
which such items are displayed or stored:

a. Any building or landscaping materials.

b. Any machinery, parts, scrap, or appliances.

c. Vehicles which are unlicensed, inoperable, or registered to or owned
by persons not residing on or the guest of persons residing on the
premises.

d. Any other chattel used for or intended for a commercial purpose or
ultimate use on other than the subject premises.

***

Amend Chapter 6, Section 608.H (General Provisions) to read as follows:

H. General Provisions. RESERVED.




Page 1350
1. No structure may be built on a lot which does not front on a street which is in
accordance with the adopted street classification map unless exempted by
this section.

In any district where a half street not less than one-half of that width
prescribed for that street by the street classification map, and amendments
thereto, has been dedicated, any lots facing or siding on such half street
from which side the required width of dedication has been made shall be
deemed to have frontage on a street.

No permit shall be issued for buildings on a lot fronting on a half street of
less than that prescribed by the street classification map for an arterial or
collector street or 25 feet for all other streets except for single-family
attached development individual dwelling units.

a. For development utilizing an average lot or PRD development option
or for development built under a planned area development district, a
minimum of 16.58-foot half-street right-of-way may be provided when
all of the following conditions are met:

(1) The street is not designated as a collector or arterial street.

(2) There are no restrictions to public access to the street.

(3) Pavement width shall be 33.16 feet from back of curb to back
of curb.

(4) Pavement thickness and design shall be in accordance with
Maricopa Association of Governments’ standards.

(5) All terminations shall contain a 40-foot-radius right-of-way.

(6) The street has been constructed prior to March 19, 1986.

2. There shall be no outdoor storage of personal property visible beyond the
boundaries of the property within any front or side yard.

***

Amend Chapter 6, Section 608.I (Development Regulations) to read as follows:

I. Development Regulations. Following are definitions of terms used in the
development standards tables for each district:

***




Page 1351
2. Dwelling unit density: The total number of dwelling units on a site divided
by the gross area of the site.

a. Under the planned residential development, additional density may
be granted in the R1-10 through R-4A districts (Sections 611 through
619) for detached single-family development by providing site
enhancements from the following list. In R1-10 through R1-6, an
increase of 0.1 du/ac may be achieved for each ten bonus points
earned up to the maximum listed in Table A. In R-2 through R-4A, an
increase of 0.275 du/ac may be achieved for each five bonus points
earned up to a maximum of 12 du/ac. However, at least half of the
bonus points used to achieve densities in excess of seven and one-
half du/ac must be from the architectural design category.
DENSITY BONUS POINTS. ADDITIONAL DENSITY MAY BE
GRANTED BY EARNING DENSITY BONUS POINTS BY
PROVIDING SITE ENHANCEMENTS FROM THE TABLE BELOW,
AS FOLLOWS:

(1) SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT IN THE R1-10
THROUGH R1-6 DISTRICTS (SECTIONS 611 THROUGH
613) MAY EARN INCREASED DENSITY OF 0.1 DU/AC FOR
EACH TEN (10) DENSITY BONUS POINTS EARNED WHEN
ALSO USING THE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT OPTION, UP TO THE MAXIMUM DENSITY
ALLOWED BY THE DISTRICT.

(2) SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT IN THE R-2
THROUGH R-4A DISTRICTS (SECTIONS 614 THROUGH
619) MAY EARN INCREASED DENSITY OF 0.275 DU/AC
FOR EACH FIVE (5) DENSITY BONUS POINTS EARNED
WHEN ALSO USING THE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT OPTION, UP TO THE MAXIMUM DENSITY
ALLOWED BY THE DISTRICT. HOWEVER, AT LEAST HALF
OF THE BONUS POINTS USED TO ACHIEVE DENSITIES IN
EXCESS OF SEVEN AND ONE-HALF (7.5) DU/AC MUST BE
FROM THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BONUS POINT
CATEGORY.

***




Page 1352
b. Under the planned residential development option, additional density
may be granted in the R1-10 through R-4A districts (Sections 611
through 619) for attached single-family and multifamily development,
and under the single-family attached development additional density
may be granted in the R-2 through R-4A districts (Sections 614
through 619) up to the maximum shown in Table B by providing open
space areas beyond the minimum required in each district in
accordance with the following:
ADDITIONAL COMMON AREA/OPEN SPACE. ADDITIONAL
DENSITY MAY BE GRANTED BY PROVIDING ADDITIONAL
COMMON AREA, ABOVE ANY MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS, AS
FOLLOWS:

(1) QUALIFYING DEVELOPMENTS (LISTED BELOW) MAY
EARN: A one percent density bonus for each four percent of
basic common area; or

(a) A ONE PERCENT DENSITY BONUS FOR EACH
FOUR PERCENT OF BASIC COMMON AREA; OR

(b) A ONE PERCENT DENSITY BONUS FOR EACH TWO
PERCENT OF IMPROVED COMMON AREA.

(c) THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
SHALL DETERMINE THE ADEQUACY OF BOTH
BASIC AND IMPROVED COMMON AREAS AS PART
OF THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS. OPEN
SPACE SHALL NOT INCLUDE:

i. PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY.

ii. VEHICULAR DRIVES OR PARKING AREAS.

iii. PRIVATE PATIO AREAS, NARROW STRIPS
BETWEEN OR IN FRONT OF UNITS; OR, IN
GENERAL, AREAS RESERVED FOR THE
EXCLUSIVE USE OF INDIVIDUAL TENANTS.

iv. REQUIRED SETBACK AREAS AT THE
EXTERIOR BOUNDARIES OF THE SITE.

v. GOLF COURSES.

(d) IN NO CASE SHALL THE DENSITY OF THE
DEVELOPMENT EXCEED THE MAXIMUM DENSITY
ALLOWED BY THE DISTRICT.




Page 1353
(2) A one percent density bonus for each two percent of improved
common area.
DEVELOPMENTS QUALIFYING FOR THE ADDITIONAL
COMMON AREA/OPEN SPACE DENSITY BONUS ARE AS
FOLLOWS:

(a) SINGLE-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT IN THE RE-35 AND
R1-18 ZONING DISTRICTS (SECTIONS 609 AND
610), WHEN ALSO USING THE PLANNED
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OPTION.

(b) SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED DEVELOPMENT IN THE
R1-10 THROUGH R-4A ZONING DISTRICTS
(SECTIONS 611 THROUGH 619), WHEN USING THE
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OPTION.

(c) SINGLE-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT IN THE R-2
THROUGH R-4A ZONING DISTRICTS (SECTIONS
614 THROUGH 619), WHEN USING THE SINGLE-
FAMILY INFILL DEVELOPMENT OPTION.

(d) MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT IN THE R1-10
THROUGH R-4A ZONING DISTRICTS (SECTIONS
611 THROUGH 619), WHEN USING THE PLANNED
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OPTION.

(3) Review and determination of the adequacy of common areas,
basic and improved, will be part of development review by the
Site Planning Division of the Planning and Development
Department. Open space shall not include:

(a) Public right-of-way.

(b) Vehicular drives or parking areas.

(c) Private patio areas, narrow strips between or in front of
units; or, in general, areas reserved for the exclusive
use of individual tenants.

(d) Required setback areas at the exterior boundaries of
the site.

(e) Golf courses.

***




Page 1354
8. Allowed uses DEVELOPMENT: Refer to the following tables for uses
allowed in each district and to chapter 2 for definitions of permitted uses.
THE DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS TABLES PROVIDED IN SECTIONS 609
THROUGH 619 INDICATE THE ONLY TYPES OF RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT PERMITTED UNDER EACH DEVELOPMENT OPTION
AND ASSOCIATED DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. THE COMPLETE
LIST OF ALL PERMITTED USES, INCLUDING ACCESSORY AND
TEMPORARY USES, IS PROVIDED IN SECTION 608.C.

***

Amend Chapter 6, Section 609 (RE-35 Single-Family Residence District) to read as
follows:

Section 609. RE-35 Single-Family Residence District

A. Purpose. A basic purpose of these regulations is to foster the creation of living
areas which can assist the establishment of stable, functional neighborhoods. An
established pattern of living in this metropolitan area reflects a tradition of single-
family occupied dwellings which also emphasize outdoor living. Many of these
dwellings are thereby located on relatively large urban or suburban lots.

These regulations provide standards for dwellings built at low and moderate
densities. While the predominant housing type is expected to be single-family
dwelling, provisions are made for alternative housing types within the same density
limits.

B. District Regulations. The following tables establishes standards to be used for
each district in the RE-35 district. Following are definitions of terms used in these
standards: THE DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED IN THESE STANDARDS ARE
FOUND IN SECTION 608.I.

1. Minimum Lot Dimension: The minimum width and depth of lot lines and
where specified, the minimum area of each lot.

2. Dwelling Unit Density: The total number of dwelling units on a site divided
by the gross area of the site. Under the planned residential development
option, additional density may be granted for areas beyond minimum
required in each district in accordance with the following:

a. A one percent density bonus for each four percent of basic common
area; or

b. A one percent density bonus for each two percent of improved
common area.




Page 1355
c. Review and determination of the adequacy of common areas, basic
and improved, will be part of the development review by the Site
Planning Division of the Planning and Development Department.
Open space shall not include:

(1) Public right-of-way.

(2) Vehicular drives or parking areas.

(3) Private patio areas, narrow strips between or in front of units;
or, in general, areas reserved for the exclusive use of
individual tenants.

(4) Required setback areas at the exterior boundaries of the site.

(5) Golf courses.

3. Perimeter standards: Setbacks for structures which are required at the
perimeter of a development. These standards shall apply only to lots which
are created by a subdivision or a project approved under the provisions of
Section 507. These standards shall not apply in the following circumstances:
when contiguous developments are to be developed using the same
development option with the same perimeter standards and are on the same
preliminary plat or are platted concurrently; when the perimeter of a
development is contiguous to a permanent open space, such as a natural
wash, hillside preserve, or existing golf course, the depth of which is at least
forty feet; or when the development was properly platted prior to September
13, 1981.

4. Building setback: The required separation of buildings from lot lines.

5. Maximum height: The maximum allowed height as measured from natural
grade which measurement shall be as in chapter 2

6. Lot coverage: The maximum area of a lot occupied by structures and open
projections as defined in chapter 2

7. Common areas: Required areas in a planned residential development to be
used and enjoyed by residents of a development and either improved in
accordance with the standards in chapter 2 or maintained in a natural state
as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

8. Allowed uses: Refer to the following tables for uses allowed in each district
and to chapter 2 for definitions of permitted uses.




Page 1356
9. Required review: Where a site plan is required, development shall be
according to Section 507 of this ordinance. Development on land for which
neither a subdivision nor a site plan has been approved shall be according
to standards in option (a), subdivision.

10 Required parking: The minimum number of off-street parking spaces to be
provided and which shall be according to Section 702.A.

11. Street standards: The class of street required to provide access to any
parcel or subdivided lot within a development.

ILLUSTRATIONS OF DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS




TABLE 609.A
RE-35 Development Option OPTIONS

(c)
(a) (b)
Standards Planned Residential
Subdivision Average Lot
Development

Minimum lot 150' width, 175' 100' width, 125' None
dimensions (width depth (Minimum depth
and depth) area 35,000 sq. ft.)

Dwelling unit 1.10 1.10 1.15; 1.32 with bonus
density
(units/gross acre)




Page 1357
TABLE 609.A
RE-35 Development Option OPTIONS

(c)
(a) (b)
Standards Planned Residential
Subdivision Average Lot
Development

Perimeter None 40' front or rear, 20' 40' adjacent to a public
standards side street STREET (2); this
area is to be in
common ownership
unless lots front on the
perimeter public street;
20' adjacent to
property line

Building setbacks 40' front, 40' rear, 25' front, 50' total 25' front
20' side front and rear

Maximum height 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30'

Lot coverage 25%, except if all Primary structure, Primary structure, not
structures are less not including including attached
than 20' and 1 story attached shade shade structures: 25%
in height then a structures: 25% Total: 30%
maximum of 30% Total: 30%
lot coverage is
allowed.

Common areas None None Minimum 5% of gross
area

Allowed uses Single-family Single-family Single-family attached;
DEVELOPMENT detached attached; plus (a) plus (a)

Required review Subdivision to Subdivision with Site plan per Section
create 4 or more building setbacks 507
lots

Street standards Public street Public street Public street or private
required accessway (2) (1)

(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for
extensions of street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue
partial dedications.




Page 1358
(2) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as
public street rights-of-way.

C. Special Regulations.

1. Guesthouse, subject to the following conditions:

a. The square footage of the guesthouse shall not exceed fifty percent
of the gross floor area of the primary dwelling unit with a maximum of
nine hundred square feet, except as set forth in subsection b, below.
Any garage area attached to the guesthouse which is more than the
area of a single-car garage shall be counted toward the allowable
square footage of the guesthouse.

b. On lots with more than forty-three thousand five hundred sixty square
feet in net area with a primary dwelling unit of at least three thousand
six hundred square feet in gross floor area, the square footage of the
guesthouse may be twenty-five percent of the gross floor area of the
primary dwelling unit.

c. The floor area of the connecting structure shall be included in the
floor area of the guesthouse.

d. Pergolas and other roofed structures without walls shall not be
considered a connecting structure.

e. Vehicular access to the accessory dwelling unit must be provided
from the same curb (driveway) as the primary dwelling unit, except
that separate access may be permitted from a paved alley.

f. One parking space must be provided for the accessory dwelling unit
in addition to the parking required for the primary dwelling unit.

g. Only one guesthouse is permitted on a single lot.

h. The guesthouse shall be constructed of similar building materials and
in the same architectural style as that of the primary dwelling unit and
shall not exceed the height in feet or number of stories of the primary
dwelling unit.

i. A guesthouse shall not:

(1) Provide more parking than the one required space;

(2) Be advertised for occupancy through any print or electronic
media or through placement of signs on the property;




Page 1359
(3) Provide separate mail service or have a separate address from
the primary dwelling unit; or

(4) Be separately metered for utilities.

(j) Single-family use requirements shall apply to the guesthouse and the
primary dwelling unit as a single unit.

(k) Any guesthouse existing as of (the effective date of this ordinance)
may qualify as "connected to the primary dwelling unit" by being
connected to the primary dwelling unit without meeting the minimum
width requirements.

***

Amend Chapter 6, Section 610 (R1-18 Single-Family Residence District) to read as
follows:

Section 610. R1-18 Single-Family Residence District.

A. Purpose. A basic purpose of these regulations is to foster the creation of living
areas which can assist the establishment of stable, functional neighborhoods. An
established pattern of living in this metropolitan area reflects a tradition of single-
family occupied dwellings which also emphasize outdoor living. Many of these
dwellings are thereby located on relatively large urban or suburban lots.

These regulations provide standards for dwellings built at low and moderate
densities. While the predominant housing type is expected to be single-family
dwelling, provisions are made for alternative housing types within the same density
limits.

B. District Regulations. The following tables establishes standards to be used for
each district in the R1-18 district. Following are definitions of terms used in these
standards: THE DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED IN THESE STANDARDS ARE
FOUND IN SECTION 608.I.

1. Minimum Lot Dimension: The minimum width and depth of lot lines and
where specified, the minimum area of each lot.

2. Dwelling Unit Density: The total number of dwelling units on a site divided
by the gross area of the site. Under the planned residential development
option, additional density may be granted for areas beyond minimum
required in each district in accordance with the following:




Page 1360
a. A one percent density bonus for each four percent of basic common
area; or

b. A one percent density bonus for each two percent of improved
common area.

c. Review and determination of the adequacy of common areas, basic
and improved, will be part of the development review by the Site
Planning Division of the Planning and Development Department.
Open space shall not include:

(1) Public right-of-way.

(2) Vehicular drives or parking areas.

(3) Private patio areas, narrow strips between or in front of units;
or, in general, areas reserved for the exclusive use of
individual tenants.

(4) Required setback areas at the exterior boundaries of the site.

(5) Golf courses.

3. Perimeter standards: Setbacks for structures which are required at the
perimeter of a development. These standards shall apply only to lots which
are created by a subdivision or a project approved under the provisions of
Section 507. These standards shall not apply in the following circumstances:
when contiguous developments are to be developed using the same
development option with the same perimeter standards and are on the same
preliminary plat or are platted concurrently; when the perimeter of a
development is contiguous to a permanent open space, such as a natural
wash, hillside preserve, or existing golf course, the depth of which is at least
forty feet; or when the development was properly platted prior to September
13, 1981.

4. Building setback: The required separation of buildings from lot lines.

5. Maximum height: The maximum allowed height as measured from natural
grade which measurement shall be as in chapter 2

6. Lot coverage: The maximum area of a lot occupied by structures and open
projections as defined in chapter 2

7. Common areas: Required areas in a planned residential development to be
used and enjoyed by residents of a development and either improved in




Page 1361
accordance with the standards in chapter 2 or maintained in a natural state
as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

8. Allowed uses: Refer to the following tables for uses allowed in each district
and to chapter 2 for definitions of permitted uses.

9. Required review: Where a site plan is required, development shall be
according to Section 507 of this ordinance. Development on land for which
neither a subdivision nor a site plan has been approved shall be according
to standards in option (a), subdivision.

10 Required parking: The minimum number of off-street parking spaces to be
provided and which shall be according to Section 702.A.

11. Street standards: The class of street required to provide access to any
parcel or subdivided lot within a development.


ILLUSTRATIONS OF DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS




TABLE 610.A
R1-18 Development Option OPTIONS

(c)
(a) (b)
Standards Planned Residential
Subdivision Average Lot
Development

Minimum lot 130' width, 120' 90' width, 80' None
dimensions (width depth (Minimum depth
and depth) area 18,000 sq.
ft.)

Dwelling unit 1.95 1.95 2.05; 2.34 with bonus
density (units/gross
acre)




Page 1362
TABLE 610.A
R1-18 Development Option OPTIONS

(c)
(a) (b)
Standards Planned Residential
Subdivision Average Lot
Development

Perimeter standards None 30' front or rear, 20' adjacent to a public
10' side street STREET (2); this
area is to be in
common ownership
unless lots front on the
perimeter public street;
15' adjacent to
property line

Building setbacks 25' front, 30' rear, 25' front, 50' total 25' front
10' side front plus rear

Maximum height 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30'

Lot coverage 25% 30%, PLUS Primary structure, Primary structure, not
AN ADDITIONAL not including including attached
10% FOR AN attached shade shade structures: 25%
ADU AND/OR structures: 25% Total: 30%, PLUS AN
ATTACHED Total: 30%, PLUS ADDITIONAL 10%
SHADE AN ADDITIONAL FOR AN ADU AND/OR
STRUCTURES. 10% FOR AN ATTACHED SHADE
TOTAL: 40% ADU AND/OR STRUCTURES.
ATTACHED TOTAL: 40%
SHADE
STRUCTURES.
TOTAL: 40%


Common areas None None Minimum 5% of gross
area

Allowed uses Single-family Single-family Single-family attached;
DEVELOPMENT detached attached; plus (a) plus (a)

Required review Subdivision to Subdivision with Site plan per Section
create 4 or more building setbacks 507
lots

Street standards Public street Public street Public street or private
required accessway (2) (1)




Page 1363
(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for
extensions of street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue
partial dedications.

(2) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as
public street rights-of-way.

C. Reserved.

***

Amend Chapter 6, Section 611 (R1-10 Single-Family Residence District) to read as
follows:

Section 611. R1-10 Single-Family Residence District.

A. Purpose. A basic purpose of these regulations is to foster the creation of living
areas which can assist the establishment of stable, functional neighborhoods. An
established pattern of living in this metropolitan area reflects a tradition of single-
family occupied dwellings which also emphasize outdoor living. Many of these
dwellings are thereby located on relatively large urban or suburban lots.

These regulations provide standards for dwellings built at low and moderate
densities. While the predominant housing type is expected to be single-family
dwelling, provisions are made for alternative housing types within the same density
limits.

B. District Regulations. The following tables establish standards to be used is IN the
R1-10 district. The definitions of terms used in these standards are found in
Section 608.D 608.I.

Table A. Single-Family Detached Development
R1-10 Development Options




Page 1364
TABLE 611.A
R-10 R1-10 Development Option OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum lot width (in the 75' minimum 45' minimum (unless
event of horizontal approved by either the
property regimes, "lot" design advisor or the
shall refer to the width of DESIGN REVIEW
the structure and COMMITTEE Single-
exclusive use area) Family Architectural
Appeals Board for
demonstrating enhanced
architecture that
minimizes the impact of
the garage. (see Section
507 Tab A.2.12.1 B(2)(b)
[sic]))

Minimum lot depth None, except 110' None, except 110'
adjacent to freeway or adjacent to freeway or
arterial arterial

Dwelling unit density 3.0 3.5; 4.5 with bonus
(units/gross acre)

Minimum perimeter Front: 15'; Street STREET (2) (front,
building setbacks Rear: 15' (1-story), 20' rear or side): 15' (in
(2-story); addition to landscape
Side: 10' (1-story), 15' setback);
(2-story) Property line (rear): 15'
(1-story), 20' (2-story);
Property line (side): 10'
(1-story), 15' (2-story)

Common landscaped None 15' average, 10'
setback adjacent to minimum
perimeter streets (Does not apply to lots
STREETS (2) fronting onto perimeter
streets)




Page 1365
TABLE 611.A
R-10 R1-10 Development Option OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum interior building Front: 10'; rear: 10'; Front: 10'; rear: none
setbacks combined front and rear: (established by Building
35', street side: 10'; Code); street side: 10';
sides: 13' total (3' sides: none (established
minimum, unless 0') by Building Code)

Minimum building 10' None
separation

Minimum garage 18' from back of 18' from back of
setback sidewalk for front-loaded sidewalk for front-loaded
garages, 10' from garages, 10' from
property line for side- property line for side-
loaded garages loaded garages

Maximum garage width For lots <60': 2 car For lots <60': 2 car
widths, for lots •60' to widths, for lots •60' to
70': 3 car widths, for lots 70': 3 car widths, for lots
>70': no maximum >70': no maximum

Maximum height 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' (except
that 3 stories not
exceeding 30' are
permitted when
approved by the design
advisor for
demonstrating enhanced
architecture)

Lot coverage Primary structure, not Primary structure, not
including attached shade including attached shade
structures: 40%Total: structures: 40% Total:
50%, PLUS AN 50%, PLUS AN
ADDITIONAL 10% FOR ADDITIONAL 10% FOR
AN ADU AND/OR AN ADU AND/OR
ATTACHED SHADE ATTACHED SHADE
STRUCTURES. STRUCTURES.
TOTAL: 60% TOTAL: 60%




Page 1366
TABLE 611.A
R-10 R1-10 Development Option OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Common areas None Minimum 5% of gross
area

Allowed uses Single-family detached Single-family detached
DEVELOPMENT DETACHED (3) DETACHED (3)

Required review Development review per Development review per
Section 507, and Section 507, and
subdivision to create 4 subdivision to create 4
or more lots or more lots

Street standards Public street, or private Public street or private
street built to City accessway (1)
standards with a
homeowners’
association established
for maintenance OR
PRIVATE ACCESSWAY
(1)


On-lot and common Common retention Common retention
retention required for lots less required for lots less
than 8,000 sq. ft. per than 8,000 sq. ft. per
grading and drainage grading and drainage
ordinance requirements ordinance requirements

Landscape standards Perimeter common:
trees spaced a
maximum of 20 to 30
feet on center (based on
species) or in equivalent
groupings, and 5 shrubs
per tree.

(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for
extensions of street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue
partial dedications.

(2) For single-family, detached development built or subdivided under the subdivision
option prior to June 2, 1999, refer to the subdivision option in table B. FOR




Page 1367
PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, CANAL RIGHTS-OF-WAY SHALL BE TREATED
THE SAME AS PUBLIC STREET RIGHTS-OF-WAY.

(3) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as
public street rights-of-way. FOR SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT
BUILT OR SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO JUNE 2, 1999, REFER TO THE
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF TABLE 611.B.

Table B. Single-Family Detached (Subdivided Prior to June 2, 1999), Single-
Family Attached and Multifamily Development




TABLE 611.B
R1-10 DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, AND
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO
JUNE 2, 1999)

(c)
(a) (b) Planned
Standards
Subdivision Average Lot Residential
Development

Minimum lot 80' width, 94' 60' width, 65' None
dimensions (width depth depth
and depth) (Minimum area
10,000 sq. ft.)

Dwelling unit 3.50 3.50 3.68; 4.20 with
density bonus
(units/gross acre)




Page 1368
TABLE 611.B
R1-10 DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, AND
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO
JUNE 2, 1999)

(c)
(a) (b) Planned
Standards
Subdivision Average Lot Residential
Development

Perimeter None 30' front, 25' 20' adjacent to a
standards rear, 10' side public street
STREET (2); this
area is to be in
common ownership
unless lots front on
the perimeter
public street; 15'
adjacent to
property line

Building setbacks 25' front, 25' 10' front, 35' 10' front
rear, 10' and 3' front plus rear
side

Maximum height 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30'
for first 150'; 1' in 5'
increase to 48' high
and 4 stories

Lot coverage 40% 50%, PLUS Primary Primary structure,
AN structure, not not including
ADDITIONAL including attached shade
10% FOR AN attached shade structures:
ADU AND/OR structures: 40%Total: 45%.
ATTACHED 40%Total: 45%. 50%, PLUS AN
SHADE 50%, PLUS AN ADDITIONAL 10%
STRUCTURES. ADDITIONAL FOR AN ADU
TOTAL: 60% 10% FOR AN AND/OR
ADU AND/OR ATTACHED
ATTACHED SHADE
SHADE STRUCTURES.
STRUCTURES. TOTAL: 60%
TOTAL: 60%




Page 1369
TABLE 611.B
R1-10 DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, AND
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO
JUNE 2, 1999)

(c)
(a) (b) Planned
Standards
Subdivision Average Lot Residential
Development

Common areas None None Minimum 5% of
gross area

Allowed uses Single-family Single-family Multiple-family
DEVELOPMENT detached attached; plus MULTIFAMILY
DETACHED (3) (a) plus (b)
AND DUPLEX

Required review Subdivision to Subdivision with Site plan per
create 4 or more building Section 507
lots setbacks

Street standards Public street Public street Public street or
required private accessway
(2)(1)



(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for
extensions of street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue
partial dedications.

(2) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as
public street rights-of-way.

(3) THE ONLY SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENTS THAT THE
STANDARDS OF THIS TABLE APPLY TO ARE ONES BUILT OR SUBDIVIDED
PRIOR TO JUNE 2, 1999.

C. Reserved.

***

Amend Chapter 6, Section 612 (R1-8 Single-Family Residence District) to read as
follows:

Section 612. R1-8 Single-Family Residence District.




Page 1370
A. Purpose. A basic purpose of these regulations is to foster the creation of living
areas which can assist the establishment of stable, functional neighborhoods. An
established pattern of living in this metropolitan area reflects a tradition of single-
family occupied dwellings which also emphasize outdoor living. Many of these
dwellings are thereby located on relatively large urban or suburban lots.

These regulations provide standards for dwellings built at low and moderate
densities. While the predominant housing type is expected to be single-family
dwelling, provisions are made for alternative housing types within the same density
limits.

B. District Regulations. The following tables establish standards to be used is IN the
R1-8 district. The definitions of terms used in these standards are found in Section
608.D 608.I.

Table A. Single-Family Detached Development
TABLE 612.A
R1-8 Development Option OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum lot width (in the 65' minimum 45' minimum (unless
event of horizontal property approved by either the
regimes, "lot" shall refer to design advisor or the
the width of the structure DESIGN REVIEW
and exclusive use area) COMMITTEE Single-
Family Architectural
Appeals Board for
demonstrating
enhanced architecture
that minimizes the
impact of the garage.
(see Section 507 Tab
A.2.12.1 B(2)(b) [sic]))

Minimum lot depth None, except 110' None, except 110'
adjacent to freeway or adjacent to freeway or
arterial arterial

Dwelling unit density 4.0 4.5; 5.5 with bonus
(units/gross acre)




Page 1371
TABLE 612.A
R1-8 Development Option OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum perimeter building Front: 15'; Street STREET (2)
setbacks Rear: 15' (1-story), 20' (front, rear or side): 15'
(2-story); (in addition to
Side: 10' (1-story), 15' landscape setback);
(2-story) Property line (rear): 15'
(1-story), 20' (2-story);
Property line (side):
10' (1-story), 15' (2-
story)

Common landscaped None 15' average, 10'
setback adjacent to minimum (Does not
perimeter streets STREETS apply to lots fronting
(2)
onto perimeter streets)

Minimum interior building Front: 10'; rear: 10'; Front: 10'; rear: none
setbacks combined front and (established by
rear: 35', street side: Building Code); street
10'; sides: 13' total (3' side: 10'; sides: none
minimum, unless 0') (established by
Building Code)

Minimum building separation 10' None

Minimum garage setback 18' from back of 18' from back of
sidewalk for front- sidewalk for front-
loaded garages, 10' loaded garages, 10'
from property line for from property line for
side-loaded garages side-loaded garages

Maximum garage width For lots <60': 2 car For lots <60': 2 car
widths, for lots •60' to widths, for lots •60' to
70': 3 car widths, for 70': 3 car widths, for
lots >70': no maximum lots >70': no maximum




Page 1372
TABLE 612.A
R1-8 Development Option OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Maximum height 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30'
(except that 3 stories
not exceeding 30' are
permitted when
approved by the
design advisor for
demonstrating
enhanced architecture)

Lot coverage Primary structure, not Primary structure, not
including attached including attached
shade structures: shade structures:
40%Total: 50%, PLUS 40%Total: 50%, PLUS
AN ADDITIONAL 10% AN ADDITIONAL 10%
FOR AN ADU FOR AN ADU
AND/OR ATTACHED AND/OR ATTACHED
SHADE SHADE
STRUCTURES. STRUCTURES.
TOTAL: 60% TOTAL: 60%

Common areas None Minimum 5% of gross
area

Allowed uses Single-family detached Single-family detached
DEVELOPMENT DETACHED (3) DETACHED (3)

Required review Development review Development review
per Section 507, and per Section 507, and
subdivision to create 4 subdivision to create 4
or more lots or more lots

Street standards Public street, or private Public street or private
street built to City accessway (1)
standards with a
homeowners’
association
established for
maintenance OR
PRIVATE
ACCESSWAY (1)




Page 1373
TABLE 612.A
R1-8 Development Option OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

On-lot and common Common retention Common retention
retention required for lots less required for lots less
than 8,000 sq. ft. per than 8,000 sq. ft. per
grading and drainage grading and drainage
ordinance ordinance
requirements requirements

Landscape standards Perimeter common:
trees spaced a
maximum of 20' to 30'
on center (based on
species) or in
equivalent groupings,
and 5 shrubs per tree.

(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for
extensions of street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue
partial dedications.

(2) For single-family, detached development built or subdivided under the
subdivision option prior to June 2, 1999, refer to the subdivision option in table B.
FOR PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, CANAL RIGHTS-OF-WAY SHALL BE
TREATED THE SAME AS PUBLIC STREET RIGHTS-OF-WAY.

(3) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as
public street rights-of-way. FOR SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT
BUILT OR SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO JUNE 2, 1999, REFER TO THE
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF TABLE 612.B.




Page 1374
Table B. Single-Family Detached (Subdivided Prior to June 2, 1998), Single-
Family Attached and Multifamily Development




TABLE 612.B
R1-8 DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, AND
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO
JUNE 2, 1999)

(c)
(a) (b) Planned
Standards
Subdivision Average Lot Residential
Development

Minimum lot 70' width, 94' 50' width, 65' None
dimensions (width depth depth
and depth) (Minimum area
8,000 sq. ft.)

Dwelling unit 4.30 4.30 4.52; 5.16 with
density bonus
(units/gross acre)

Perimeter None 25' front or rear 20' adjacent to a
standards 10' side public street
STREET (2); this
area is to be in
common
ownership unless
lots front on the
perimeter public
street; 15' adjacent
to property line

Building setbacks 20' front, 25' rear, 10' front, 35' 10' front
10' and 3' side front plus rear




Page 1375
TABLE 612.B
R1-8 DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, AND
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO
JUNE 2, 1999)

(c)
(a) (b) Planned
Standards
Subdivision Average Lot Residential
Development

Maximum height 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30'
for first 150'; 1' in
5' increase to 48'
high and 4 stories

Lot coverage 40% 50%, PLUS Primary Primary structure,
AN ADDITIONAL structure, not not including
10% FOR AN including attached shade
ADU AND/OR attached shade structures:
ATTACHED structures: 40%Total: 45%.
SHADE 40%Total: 45%. 50%, PLUS AN
STRUCTURES. 50%, PLUS AN ADDITIONAL 10%
TOTAL: 60% ADDITIONAL FOR AN ADU
10% FOR AN AND/OR
ADU AND/OR ATTACHED
ATTACHED SHADE
SHADE STRUCTURES.
STRUCTURES. TOTAL: 60%
TOTAL: 60%

Common areas None None Minimum 5% of
gross area

Allowed uses Single-family Single-family Multiple-family
DEVELOPMENT detached attached; plus MULTIFAMILY
DETACHED (3) (a) plus (b)
AND DUPLEX

Required review Subdivision to Subdivision with Site plan per
create 4 or more building Section 507
lots setbacks

Street standards Public street Public street Public street or
required private accessway
(2)(1)




Page 1376
(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for
extensions of street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue
partial dedications.

(2) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as
public street rights-of-way.

(3) THE ONLY SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENTS THAT THE
STANDARDS OF THIS TABLE APPLY TO ARE ONES BUILT OR SUBDIVIDED
PRIOR TO JUNE 2, 1999.

C. Reserved.

***

Amend Chapter 6, Section 613 (R1-6 Single-Family Residence District) to read as
follows:

Section 613. R1-6 Single-Family Residence District.

A. Purpose. A basic purpose of these regulations is to foster the creation of living
areas which can assist the establishment of stable, functional neighborhoods. An
established pattern of living in this metropolitan area reflects a tradition of single-
family occupied dwellings which also emphasize outdoor living. Many of these
dwellings are thereby located on relatively large urban or suburban lots.

These regulations provide standards for dwellings built at low and moderate
densities. While the predominant housing type is expected to be single-family
dwelling, provisions are made for alternative housing types within the same density
limits.

B. District Regulations. The following tables establish standards to be used in the
R1-6 district. The definitions of terms used in these standards are found in Section
608.D 608.I.

Table A. Single-Family, Detached Development




Page 1377
TABLE 613.A
R1-6 Development Option OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum lot width (in 55' minimum 45' minimum (unless
the event of horizontal approved by either the
property regimes, "lot" design advisor or the
shall refer to the width DESIGN REVIEW
of the structure and COMMITTEE Single-
exclusive use area) Family Architectural
Appeals Board for
demonstrating enhanced
architecture that
minimizes the impact of
the garage. (see Section
507 Tab A.2.12.1 B(2)(b)
[sic]))

Minimum lot depth None, except 110' None, except 110'
adjacent to freeway or adjacent to freeway or
arterial arterial

Dwelling unit density 5.0 5.5; 6.5 with bonus
(units/gross acre)

Minimum perimeter Front: 15'; Street STREET (2) (front,
building setbacks Rear: 15' (1-story), 20' (2- rear or side): 15' (in
story); addition to landscape
Side: 10' (1-story), 15' (2- setback);
story) Property line (rear): 15'
(1-story), 20' (2-story);
Property line (side): 10'
(1-story), 15' (2-story)

Common landscaped None 15' average, 10' minimum
setback adjacent to (Does not apply to lots
perimeter streets fronting onto perimeter
STREETS (2) streets)

Minimum interior Front: 10'; rear: 10'; Front: 10'; rear: none
building setbacks combined front and rear: (established by Building
35', street side: 10'; sides: Code); street side: 10';
13' total (3' minimum, sides: none (established
unless 0') by Building Code)




Page 1378
TABLE 613.A
R1-6 Development Option OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum building 10' None
separation

Minimum garage 18' from back of sidewalk 18' from back of sidewalk
setback for front-loaded garages, for front-loaded garages,
10' from property line for 10' from property line for
side-loaded garages side-loaded garages

Maximum garage For lots <60': 2 car For lots <60': 2 car
width widths, for lots •60' to 70': widths, for lots •60' to 70':
3 car widths, for lots >70': 3 car widths, for lots >70':
no maximum no maximum

Maximum height 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' (except
that 3 stories not
exceeding 30' are
permitted when approved
by the design advisor for
demonstrating enhanced
architecture)

Lot coverage Primary structure, not Primary structure, not
including attached shade including attached shade
structures: 40%Total: structures: 40%Total:
50%, PLUS AN 50%, PLUS AN
ADDITIONAL 10% FOR ADDITIONAL 10% FOR
AN ADU AND/OR AN ADU AND/OR
ATTACHED SHADE ATTACHED SHADE
STRUCTURES. TOTAL: STRUCTURES. TOTAL:
60% 60%

Common areas None Minimum 5% of gross
area

Allowed uses Single-family detached Single-family detached
DEVELOPMENT DETACHED (3) DETACHED (3)




Page 1379
TABLE 613.A
R1-6 Development Option OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Required review Development review per Development review per
Section 507, and Section 507, and
subdivision to create 4 or subdivision to create 4 or
more lots more lots

Street standards Public street, or private Public street or private
street built to City accessway (1)
standards with a
homeowners’ association
established for
maintenance OR
PRIVATE ACCESSWAY
(1)


On-lot and common Common retention Common retention
retention required for lots less than required for lots less than
8,000 sq. ft. per grading 8,000 sq. ft. per grading
and drainage ordinance and drainage ordinance
requirements requirements

Landscape standards Perimeter common: trees
spaced a maximum of 20
to 30 feet on center
(based on species) or in
equivalent groupings, and
5 shrubs per tree.

(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for
extensions of street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue
partial dedications.

(2) For single-family, detached development built or subdivided under the
subdivision option prior to May 1, 1998, refer to the subdivision option in table B.
FOR PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, CANAL RIGHTS-OF-WAY SHALL BE
TREATED THE SAME AS PUBLIC STREET RIGHTS-OF-WAY.

(3) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as
public street rights-of-way. FOR SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT




Page 1380
BUILT OR SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO MAY 1, 1998, REFER TO THE
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF TABLE 613.B

Table B. Single-Family Detached (Subdivided Prior to May 1, 1998), Single-
Family Attached and Multifamily Development




TABLE 613.B
R1-6 DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, AND
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO
MAY 1, 1998)

(c)
(a) (b) Planned
Standards
Subdivision(3) Average Lot Residential
Development

Minimum lot 60' width, 94' 40' width, 60' None
dimensions (width depth (Minimum depth
and depth) area 6,000 sq. ft.)

Dwelling unit 5.30 5.30 5.54; 6.34 with
density bonus
(units/gross acre)

Perimeter None 25' front or rear 20' adjacent to a
standards 10' side public street
STREET (2); this
area is to be in
common ownership
unless lots front on
the perimeter
public street; 15'
adjacent to
property line




Page 1381
TABLE 613.B
R1-6 DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, AND
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO
MAY 1, 1998)

(c)
(a) (b) Planned
Standards
Subdivision(3) Average Lot Residential
Development

Building setbacks 20' front, 25' rear, 10' front, 35' 10' front
10' and 3' side front plus rear

Maximum height 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30'
for first 150'; 1' in 5'
increase to 48' high
and 4 stories

Lot coverage 40% 50%, PLUS Primary Primary structure,
AN ADDITIONAL structure, not not including
10% FOR AN including attached shade
ADU AND/OR attached shade structures:
ATTACHED structures: 40%Total: 45%.
SHADE 40%Total: 45%. 50%, PLUS AN
STRUCTURES. 50%, PLUS AN ADDITIONAL 10%
TOTAL: 60% ADDITIONAL FOR AN ADU
10% FOR AN AND/OR
ADU AND/OR ATTACHED
ATTACHED SHADE
SHADE STRUCTURES.
STRUCTURES. TOTAL: 60%
TOTAL: 60%

Common areas None None Minimum 5% of
gross area(3) AREA

Allowed uses Single-family Single-family Multiple-family
DEVELOPMENT detached attached; PLUS MULTIFAMILY and
DETACHED (3) (a) single-family
AND DUPLEX attached PLUS (b)

Required review Subdivision to Subdivision with Development
create 4 or more building review per Section
lots setbacks 507




Page 1382
TABLE 613.B
R1-6 DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, AND
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO
MAY 1, 1998)

(c)
(a) (b) Planned
Standards
Subdivision(3) Average Lot Residential
Development

Street standards Public street Public street Public street or
required private accessway
(2)(1)



(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for
extensions of street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue
partial dedications.

(2) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as
public street rights-of-way.

(3) These standards apply only to single-family, detached development built or
subdivided under the subdivision option prior to May 1, 1998. THE ONLY
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENTS THAT THE STANDARDS OF
THIS TABLE APPLY TO ARE ONES BUILT OR SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO MAY
1, 1998.

C. Reserved.

***

Amend Chapter 6, Section 614 (R-2 Multifamily Residence District) to read as
follows:

Section 614. R-2 Multifamily Residence District.

***

B. District Regulations. The following tables establish standards to be used in the R-
2 district. The definitions of terms used in these standards are found in Section
608.I. The single-family attached INFILL development option must meet Section
608.F.6 requirements.

Table A. Single-Family, Detached Development(2)




Page 1383
TABLE 614.A
R-2 Development Option OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum lot width (in 55' minimum 45' minimum (unless
the event of horizontal approved by either the
property regimes, "lot" design advisor or the
shall refer to the width DESIGN REVIEW
of the structure and COMMITTEE Single-
exclusive use area) Family Architectural
Appeals Board for
demonstrating enhanced
architecture that
minimizes the impact of
the garage. (see Section
507 Tab A.2.12.1 B(2)(b)
[sic]))

Minimum lot depth None, except 110' None, except 110'
adjacent to freeway or adjacent to freeway or
arterial arterial

Dwelling unit density 5.0 6.5; 12 with bonus
(units/gross acre)

Minimum perimeter Front: 15'; Rear: 15' (1- Street STREET (2) (front,
building setbacks story), 20' (2-story); Side: rear or side): 15' (in
10' (1-story), 15' (2-story) addition to landscape
setback);
Property line (rear): 15'
(1-story), 20' (2-story);
Property line (side): 10'
(1-story), 15' (2-story)

Common landscaped None 15' average, 10'
setback adjacent to minimum (Does not apply
perimeter streets to lots fronting onto
STREETS (2) perimeter streets)




Page 1384
TABLE 614.A
R-2 Development Option OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum interior Front: 10'; rear: 10'; Front: 10'; rear: none
building setbacks combined front and rear: (established by Building
35', street side: 10'; Code); street side: 10';
sides: 13' total (3' sides: none (established
minimum, unless 0') by Building Code)

Minimum building 10' None
separation

Minimum garage 18' from back of sidewalk 18' from back of sidewalk
setback for front-loaded garages, for front-loaded garages,
10' from property line for 10' from property line for
side-loaded garages side-loaded garages

Maximum garage width For lots <60': 2 car For lots <60': 2 car
widths, for lots •60' to widths, for lots •60' to
70': 3 car widths, for lots 70': 3 car widths, for lots
>70': no maximum >70': no maximum

Maximum height 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' (except
that 3 stories not
exceeding 30' are
permitted when approved
by the design advisor for
demonstrating enhanced
architecture)

Lot coverage Primary structure, not Primary structure, not
including attached shade including attached shade
structures: 40%Total: structures: 40%Total:
50%, PLUS AN 50%, PLUS AN
ADDITIONAL 10% FOR ADDITIONAL 10% FOR
AN ADU AND/OR AN ADU AND/OR
ATTACHED SHADE ATTACHED SHADE
STRUCTURES. TOTAL: STRUCTURES. TOTAL:
60% 60%

Common areas None Minimum 5% of gross
area




Page 1385
TABLE 614.A
R-2 Development Option OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Allowed uses Single-family detached Single-family detached
DEVELOPMENT DETACHED (3) DETACHED (3)

Required review Development review per Development review per
Section 507, and Section 507, and
subdivision to create 4 or subdivision to create 4 or
more lots more lots

Street standards Public street, or private Public street or private
street built to City accessway (1)
standards with a
homeowners’ association
established for
maintenance OR
PRIVATE ACCESSWAY
(1)


On-lot and common Common retention Common retention
retention required for lots less than required for lots less than
8,000 sq. ft. per grading 8,000 sq. ft. per grading
and drainage ordinance and drainage ordinance
requirements requirements

Landscape standards Perimeter common: trees
spaced a maximum of 20
to 30 feet on center
(based on species) or in
equivalent groupings,
and 5 shrubs per tree.

(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for
extensions of street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue
partial dedications.

(2) For single-family, detached development built or subdivided under the
subdivision option prior to May 1, 1998, refer to the subdivision option in table B.
FOR PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, CANAL RIGHTS-OF-WAY SHALL BE
TREATED THE SAME AS PUBLIC STREET RIGHTS-OF-WAY.




Page 1386
(3) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as
public street rights-of-way. FOR SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT
BUILT OR SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO MAY 1, 1998, REFER TO THE
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF TABLE 614.B

Table B. Single-Family Detached (Subdivided Prior to May 1, 1998), Single-
Family Attached and Multifamily Development




TABLE 614.B
R-2 Development Options
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, AND
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO MAY
1,1998)

(c) (d)
(a)
(b) Planned Single-Family
Standards Subdivision(2
) Average Lot Residential Attached (3)
Development INFILL (4)

Minimum lot 60' width, 94' 40' width, 50' None Development
dimensions depth depth site: none.
(width and Individual
depth) dwelling lot:
20'.

Dwelling unit 10.0 10.0 10.50; 12.00 10.50; 12.00
density with bonus with bonus
(units/gross
acre)




Page 1387
TABLE 614.B
R-2 Development Options
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, AND
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO MAY
1,1998)

(c) (d)
(a)
(b) Planned Single-Family
Standards Subdivision(2
) Average Lot Residential Attached (3)
Development INFILL (4)

Perimeter None 20' front, 15' 20' adjacent to 10' for units
standards rear, 10' side a public street; fronting street
this area is to rights-of-way;
be in common 15' for units
ownership siding street
unless lots front rights-of-way.
on the This area is to
perimeter be in common
public street ownership or
STREET (2); 10' management.
15’ adjacent to 10' adjacent to
property line property line.

Building 25' front, 25' 10' front, 35' 10' front Individual unit
setbacks rear, 10' and front plus rear lot: none
3' side

Maximum height 2 stories and 2 stories and 2 stories and 3 stories or
30'* 30’ (5) 30'* 30’ (5) 30' for first 150'; AND 40' for
1' in 5' increase first 150'; 1' in
to 48' high 1' increase to
HEIGHT, and 48' height, 4-
4- stories* story
STORY maximum*
MAXIMUM (5) MAXIMUM (6)




Page 1388
TABLE 614.B
R-2 Development Options
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, AND
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO MAY
1,1998)

(c) (d)
(a)
(b) Planned Single-Family
Standards Subdivision(2
) Average Lot Residential Attached (3)
Development INFILL (4)

Lot coverage 40% 50%, 45% 50%, 45% 50%, 100% FOR
PLUS AN PLUS AN PLUS AN EACH
ADDITIONAL ADDITIONAL ADDITIONAL INDIVIDUAL
10% FOR AN 10% FOR AN 10% FOR AN LOT. 50%
ADU AND/OR ADU AND/OR ADU AND/OR FOR OTHER
ATTACHED ATTACHED ATTACHED PARCELS OR
SHADE SHADE SHADE TRACTS
STRUCTURE STRUCTURE STRUCTURES WITH
S. TOTAL: S. TOTAL: . TOTAL: 60% ACCESSORY
60% 60% STRUCTURE
S.

Common areas None None Minimum 5% of Minimum 5%
gross area (2) of gross area
(2)


Allowed uses Single-family Single-family Single-family Single-family
DEVELOPMENT DETACHED DETACHED (3), DETACHED (3), attached and
(3)
, SINGLE- SINGLE- SINGLE- SINGLE-
FAMILY FAMILY FAMILY FAMILY
attached, and attached, and attached, and DETACHED
multifamily multifamily multifamily (PER THE
PROVISIONS
OF 608.F.6
ONLY) home
occupations
per Section

Required review Subdivision to Subdivision Development Development
create 4 or with building review per review per
more lots setbacks Section 507 Section 507




Page 1389
TABLE 614.B
R-2 Development Options
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, AND
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO MAY
1,1998)

(c) (d)
(a)
(b) Planned Single-Family
Standards Subdivision(2
) Average Lot Residential Attached (3)
Development INFILL (4)

Street standards Public street Public street Public street or Development
required private site: public
accessway street,
ACCESSWAY PUBLIC
(1)
ALLEY, or
private
accessway.
Individual unit
lot: private
accessway,
alley right-of-
way or
driveway OR
PRIVATE
DRIVE (1).

* There shall be a 15-foot maximum height within ten feet of a single-family zoned
district, which height may be increased one foot for each additional one foot of
building setback to the maximum permitted height.

(1) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as public
street rights-of-way. PUBLIC STREETS MAY BE REQUIRED AS A PART
OF SUBDIVISION OR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR EXTENSIONS OF STREET
PATTERNS, FOR CIRCULATION WITHIN NEIGHBORHOODS, OR TO
CONTINUE PARTIAL DEDICATIONS.

(2) These standards also apply to single-family, detached development built or
subdivided under the subdivision option prior to May 1, 1998. FOR PURPOSES
OF THIS SECTION, CANAL RIGHTS-OF-WAY SHALL BE TREATED THE SAME
AS PUBLIC STREET RIGHTS-OF-WAY.

(3) The single-family attached development option must meet Section 608.F.8
requirements. THE ONLY SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENTS THAT
THE STANDARDS OF THIS TABLE APPLY TO ARE ONES BUILT OR
SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO MAY 1, 1998.



Page 1390
(4) THE SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL DEVELOPMENT OPTION MUST COMPLY WITH
THE ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS PROVIDED IN SECTION
608.F.6.

(5) THERE SHALL BE A 15-FOOT MAXIMUM HEIGHT WITHIN TEN FEET OF A
SINGLE-FAMILY ZONED DISTRICT, WHICH HEIGHT MAY BE INCREASED ONE
FOOT FOR EACH ADDITIONAL ONE FOOT OF BUILDING SETBACK TO THE
MAXIMUM PERMITTED HEIGHT.




Page 1391
C. Special Regulations

1. A site plan in accordance with Section 507 is required for all development in
the R-2, R-3, R-3A, R-4, R-4A and R-5 districts except when the
development consists of single-family dwellings on individual lots.

2. Reserved.

***

Amend Chapter 6, Section 615 (R-3 Multifamily Residence District) to read as
follows:

Section 615. R-3 Multifamily Residence District.

***

B. District Regulations. The following tables establish standards to be used in the R-
3 district. The definitions of terms used in these standards are found in Section
608.I. The single-family attached INFILL development option must meet Section
608.F.6 requirements.

Table A. Single-Family Development(2)



Page 1392
TABLE 615.A
R-3 Development Option OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum lot width (in 55' minimum 45' minimum (unless
the event of horizontal approved by either the
property regimes, "lot" design advisor or the
shall refer to the width DESIGN REVIEW
of the structure and COMMITTEE Single-
exclusive use area) Family Architectural
Appeals Board for
demonstrating enhanced
architecture that
minimizes the impact of
the garage. (see Section
507 Tab A.2.12.1 B(2)(b)
[sic]))

Minimum lot depth None, except 110' None, except 110'
adjacent to freeway or adjacent to freeway or
arterial arterial

Dwelling unit density 5.0 6.5; 12 with bonus
(units/gross acre)

Minimum perimeter Front: 15'; Rear: 15' (1- Street STREET (2) (front,
building setbacks story), 20' (2-story); Side: rear or side): 15' (in
10' (1-story), 15' (2-story) addition to landscape
setback);
Property line (rear): 15'
(1-story), 20' (2-story);
Property line (side): 10'
(1-story), 15' (2-story)

Common landscaped None 15' average, 10' minimum
setback adjacent to (Does not apply to lots
perimeter streets fronting onto perimeter
STREETS (2) streets)

Minimum interior Front: 10'; rear: 10'; Front: 10'; rear: none
building setbacks combined front and rear: (established by Building
35', street side: 10'; Code); street side: 10';
sides: 13' total (3' sides: none (established
minimum, unless 0') by Building Code)




Page 1393
TABLE 615.A
R-3 Development Option OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum building 10' None
separation

Minimum garage 18' from back of sidewalk 18' from back of sidewalk
setback for front-loaded garages, for front-loaded garages,
10' from property line for 10' from property line for
side-loaded garages side-loaded garages

Maximum garage width For lots <60': 2 car For lots <60': 2 car
widths, for lots •60' to widths, for lots •60' to
70': 3 car widths, for lots 70': 3 car widths, for lots
>70': no maximum >70': no maximum

Maximum height 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' (except
that 3 stories not
exceeding 30' are
permitted when approved
by the design advisor for
demonstrating enhanced
architecture)

Lot coverage Primary structure, not Primary structure, not
including attached shade including attached shade
structures: 40%Total: structures: 40%Total:
50%, PLUS AN 50%, PLUS AN
ADDITIONAL 10% FOR ADDITIONAL 10% FOR
AN ADU AND/OR AN ADU AND/OR
ATTACHED SHADE ATTACHED SHADE
STRUCTURES. TOTAL: STRUCTURES. TOTAL:
60% 60%

Common areas None Minimum 5% of gross
area

Allowed uses Single-family detached Single-family detached
DEVELOPMENT DETACHED (3) DETACHED (3)




Page 1394
TABLE 615.A
R-3 Development Option OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Required review Development review per Development review per
Section 507, and Section 507, and
subdivision to create 4 or subdivision to create 4 or
more lots more lots

Street standards Public street, or private Public street or private
street built to City accessway (1)
standards with a
homeowners’ association
established for
maintenance OR
PRIVATE ACCESSWAY
(1)


On-lot and common Common retention Common retention
retention required for lots less than required for lots less than
8,000 sq. ft. per grading 8,000 sq. ft. per grading
and drainage ordinance and drainage ordinance
requirements requirements

Landscape standards Perimeter common: trees
spaced a maximum of 20
to 30 feet on center
(based on species) or in
equivalent groupings, and
5 shrubs per tree.

(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for
extensions of street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue
partial dedications.

(2) For single-family, detached development built or subdivided under the
subdivision option prior to May 1, 1998, refer to the subdivision option in table B.
FOR PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, CANAL RIGHTS-OF-WAY SHALL BE
TREATED THE SAME AS PUBLIC STREET RIGHTS-OF-WAY.

(3) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as
public street rights-of-way. FOR SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT




Page 1395
BUILT OR SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO MAY 1, 1998, REFER TO THE
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF TABLE 615.B

Table B. Single-Family (Subdivided Prior to May 1, 1998), Single-Family
Attached and Multifamily Development




TABLE 615.B
R-3 Development Options
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, AND
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO
MAY 1, 1998)

(c) (d)
(a) Planned Single-
(b)
Standards Subdivision( Residential Family
2) Average Lot
Developmen Attached (3)
t INFILL (4)

Minimum lot 60' width, 94' 40' width, 50' None Individual unit
dimensions depth depth lot: 20' width,
(width and no minimum
depth) depth

Dwelling unit 14.5 14.5 15.23; 17.40 15.23; 17.40
density with bonus with bonus
(units/gross
acre)




Page 1396
TABLE 615.B
R-3 Development Options
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, AND
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO
MAY 1, 1998)

(c) (d)
(a) Planned Single-
(b)
Standards Subdivision( Residential Family
2) Average Lot
Developmen Attached (3)
t INFILL (4)

Perimeter None 20' front, 15' 20' adjacent 10' for units
standards rear, 10' side to a public fronting street
street; this rights-of-way;
area is to be 15' for units
in common siding street
ownership rights-of-way.
unless lots This area is
front on the to be in
perimeter common
public street ownership or
STREET (2); management.
15' adjacent 10' adjacent
to property to property
line line.

Building 25' front, 15' 10' front, 30' 10' front Individual unit
setbacks rear, 10' and front plus rear lot: none
3' side

Maximum 2 stories and 2 stories and 2 stories and 3 stories or
height 30'* 30’ (5) 30'* 30’ (5) 30' for first AND 40' for
150'; 1' in 5' first 150'; 1' in
increase to 1' increase to
48' high 48' height, 4-
HEIGHT, and story
4- stories* maximum*
STORY MAXIMUM (6)
MAXIMUM (5)




Page 1397
TABLE 615.B
R-3 Development Options
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, AND
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO
MAY 1, 1998)

(c) (d)
(a) Planned Single-
(b)
Standards Subdivision( Residential Family
2) Average Lot
Developmen Attached (3)
t INFILL (4)

Lot coverage 40% 50%, 45% 50%, 45% 50%, 100% FOR
PLUS AN PLUS AN PLUS AN EACH
ADDITIONAL ADDITIONAL ADDITIONAL INDIVIDUAL
10% FOR AN 10% FOR AN 10% FOR AN LOT. 50%
ADU ADU ADU FOR OTHER
AND/OR AND/OR AND/OR PARCELS
ATTACHED ATTACHED ATTACHED OR TRACTS
SHADE SHADE SHADE WITH
STRUCTURE STRUCTURE STRUCTURE ACCESSOR
S. TOTAL: S. TOTAL: S. TOTAL: Y
60% 60% 60% STRUCTURE
S.

Common None None Minimum 5% Minimum 5%
areas of gross area of gross area
(2)


Allowed uses Single-family Single-family Single-family Single-family
DEVELOPME DETACHED DETACHED DETACHED attached and
(3) (3) (3)
NT , SINGLE- , SINGLE- , SINGLE- SINGLE-
FAMILY FAMILY FAMILY FAMILY
attached, and attached, and attached, and DETACHED
multifamily multifamily multifamily (PER THE
PROVISIONS
OF 608.F.6
ONLY) home
occupations
per Section

Required Subdivision to Subdivision Development Development
review create 4 or with building review per review per
more lots setbacks Section 507 Section 507




Page 1398
TABLE 615.B
R-3 Development Options
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, AND
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO
MAY 1, 1998)

(c) (d)
(a) Planned Single-
(b)
Standards Subdivision( Residential Family
2) Average Lot
Developmen Attached (3)
t INFILL (4)

Street Public street Public street Public street Development
standards required or private site: public
accessway street,
ACCESSWA PUBLIC
Y (1) ALLEY, or
private
accessway.
Individual unit
lot: private
accessway,
alley right-of-
way or
driveway OR
PRIVATE
DRIVE (1).

* There shall be a 15-foot maximum height within ten feet of a single-family zoned
district, which height may be increased one foot for each additional one foot of
building setback to the maximum permitted height.

(1) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as
public street rights-of-way. PUBLIC STREETS MAY BE REQUIRED AS A PART
OF SUBDIVISION OR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR EXTENSIONS OF
STREET PATTERNS, FOR CIRCULATION WITHIN NEIGHBORHOODS, OR
TO CONTINUE PARTIAL DEDICATIONS.

(2) These standards also apply to single-family, detached development built or
subdivided under the subdivision option prior to May 1, 1998. FOR PURPOSES
OF THIS SECTION, CANAL RIGHTS-OF-WAY SHALL BE TREATED THE
SAME AS PUBLIC STREET RIGHTS-OF-WAY.

(3) The single-family attached development option must meet Section 608.F.8
requirements. THE ONLY SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENTS




Page 1399
THAT THE STANDARDS OF THIS TABLE APPLY TO ARE ONES BUILT OR
SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO MAY 1, 1998.

(4) THE SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL DEVELOPMENT OPTION MUST COMPLY WITH
THE ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS PROVIDED IN SECTION
608.F.6.

(5) THERE SHALL BE A 15-FOOT MAXIMUM HEIGHT WITHIN TEN FEET OF A
SINGLE-FAMILY ZONED DISTRICT, WHICH HEIGHT MAY BE INCREASED
ONE FOOT FOR EACH ADDITIONAL ONE FOOT OF BUILDING SETBACK TO
THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED HEIGHT.




C. Special Regulations

1. Adult day care home for the care of one to four adult persons; provided, that:

a. Outdoor recreation areas shall be screened from adjacent properties
by a six-foot-high landscape hedge, solid fence, or solid wall.

2. Boarding house, subject to a use permit and the following conditions:




Page 1400
a. 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.

b. No boarding house 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 boarding house, group home, or community
residence home or center within a residential zoning district.

c. A maximum lot coverage of 25 percent.

d. A minimum of 100 square feet of usable outdoor open space per
bed shall be provided.

e. The lot shall only have vehicular access from an arterial or
collector street.

3. Community residence center, subject to a use permit and the following
conditions:

a. Such center 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.

b. No community residence center 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 or
center within a residential zoning district.

c. Disability accommodation from the spacing requirement may be
requested by an applicant per Section 701.E.3.

d. A maximum lot coverage of 25 percent.

e. A minimum of 100 square feet of usable outdoor open space per bed
shall be provided.

f. The lot shall only have vehicular access from an arterial or collector
street.

4. Group home, subject to a use permit and the following conditions:




Page 1401
a. 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.

b. No group 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 group home, boarding house, or community residence
home or center within a residential zoning district.

c. A maximum lot coverage of 25 percent.

d. A minimum of 100 square feet of usable outdoor open space per bed
shall be provided.

e. The lot shall only have vehicular access from an arterial or collector
street.

5. Group foster home, subject to a use permit.

6. Dormitories and convents shall be permitted as accessory uses to churches
or similar places of worship.

7. A site plan in accordance with Section 507 is required for all development in
the R-2, R-3, R-3A, R-4, R-4A and R-5 districts except when the
development consists of single-family dwellings on individual lots.

8. Dependent care facility for 13 or more dependents and schools for the
mentally or physically handicapped subject to securing a use permit
pursuant to Section 307.

***

Amend Chapter 6, Section 616 (R-3A Multifamily Residence District) to read as
follows:

Section 616. R-3A Multifamily Residence District.

***

B. District Regulations. The following tables establish standards to be used in the R-
3A district. The definitions of terms used in these standards are found in Section
608.I. The single-family attached INFILL development option must meet Section
608.F.6 requirements.

Table A. Single-Family Development(2)




Page 1402
TABLE 616.A
R-3A Development Option OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum lot width (in the 55' minimum 45' minimum (unless
event of horizontal approved by either the
property regimes, "lot" design advisor or the
shall refer to the width of DESIGN REVIEW
the structure and COMMITTEE Single-
exclusive use area) Family Architectural
Appeals Board for
demonstrating enhanced
architecture that
minimizes the impact of
the garage. (see Section
507 Tab A.2.12.1 B(2)(b)
[sic]))

Minimum lot depth None, except 110' None, except 110'
adjacent to freeway or adjacent to freeway or
arterial arterial

Dwelling unit density 5.0 6.5; 12 with bonus
(units/gross acre)

Minimum perimeter Front: 15'; Street STREET (2) (front,
building setbacks Rear: 15' (1-story), 20' rear or side): 15' (in
(2-story); addition to landscape
Side: 10' (1-story), 15' setback);
(2-story) Property line (rear): 15'
(1-story), 20' (2-story);
Property line (side): 10'
(1-story), 15' (2-story)

Common landscaped None 15' average, 10'
setback adjacent to minimum
perimeter streets (Does not apply to lots
STREETS (2) fronting onto perimeter
streets)




Page 1403
TABLE 616.A
R-3A Development Option OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum interior building Front: 10'; rear: 10'; Front: 10'; rear: none
setbacks combined front and rear: (established by Building
35', street side: 10'; Code); street side: 10';
sides: 13' total (3' sides: none (established
minimum, unless 0') by Building Code)

Minimum building 10' None
separation

Minimum garage 18' from back of 18' from back of
setback sidewalk for front-loaded sidewalk for front-loaded
garages, 10' from garages, 10' from
property line for side- property line for side-
loaded garages loaded garages

Maximum garage width For lots <60': 2 car For lots <60': 2 car
widths, for lots •60' to widths, for lots •60' to
70': 3 car widths, for lots 70': 3 car widths, for lots
>70': no maximum >70': no maximum

Maximum height 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' (except
that 3 stories not
exceeding 30' are
permitted when
approved by the design
advisor for
demonstrating enhanced
architecture)

Lot coverage Primary structure, not Primary structure, not
including attached shade including attached shade
structures: 40%Total: structures: 40%Total:
50%, PLUS AN 50%, PLUS AN
ADDITIONAL 10% FOR ADDITIONAL 10% FOR
AN ADU AND/OR AN ADU AND/OR
ATTACHED SHADE ATTACHED SHADE
STRUCTURES. STRUCTURES.
TOTAL: 60% TOTAL: 60%




Page 1404
TABLE 616.A
R-3A Development Option OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Common areas None Minimum 5% of gross
area

Allowed uses Single-family detached Single-family detached
DEVELOPMENT DETACHED (3) DETACHED (3)

Required review Development review per Development review per
Section 507, and Section 507, and
subdivision to create 4 subdivision to create 4
or more lots or more lots

Street standards Public street, or private Public street or private
street built to City accessway (1)
standards with a
homeowners’
association established
for maintenance OR
PRIVATE ACCESSWAY
(1)


On-lot and common Common retention Common retention
retention required for lots less required for lots less
than 8,000 sq. ft. per than 8,000 sq. ft. per
grading and drainage grading and drainage
ordinance requirements ordinance requirements

Landscape standards Perimeter common:
trees spaced a
maximum of 20 to 30
feet on center (based on
species) or in equivalent
groupings, and 5 shrubs
per tree.

(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for
extensions of street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue
partial dedications.

(2) For single-family, detached development built or subdivided under the
subdivision option prior to May 1, 1998, refer to the subdivision option in table B.




Page 1405
FOR PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, CANAL RIGHTS-OF-WAY SHALL BE
TREATED THE SAME AS PUBLIC STREET RIGHTS-OF-WAY.

(3) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as
public street rights-of-way. FOR SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT
BUILT OR SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO MAY 1, 1998, REFER TO THE
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF TABLE 616.B

Table B. Single-Family (Subdivided Prior to May 1, 1998), Single-Family
Attached and Multifamily Development




TABLE 616.B
R-3A Development Options
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, AND
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO
MAY 1, 1998)

(c) (d)
(a) Planned Single-
(b)
Standards Subdivision( Residential Family
2) Average Lot
Developmen Attached (3)
t INFILL (4)

Minimum lot 60' width, 94' 40' width, 50' None Individual unit
dimensions depth depth lot: 20' width,
(width and no minimum
depth) depth

Dwelling unit 22 22 23.1; 26.4 23.1; 26.4
density with bonus with bonus
(units/gross
acre)




Page 1406
TABLE 616.B
R-3A Development Options
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, AND
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO
MAY 1, 1998)

(c) (d)
(a) Planned Single-
(b)
Standards Subdivision( Residential Family
2) Average Lot
Developmen Attached (3)
t INFILL (4)

Perimeter None 20' front, 15' 20' adjacent 10' for units
standards rear, 10' side to a public fronting street
street; this rights-of-way;
area is to be 15' for units
in common siding street
ownership rights-of-way.
unless lots This area is
front on the to be in
perimeter common
public street ownership or
STREET (2); management.
15' adjacent 10' adjacent
to property to property
line line

Building 25' front, 15' 10' front, 30' 10' front Individual unit
setbacks rear, 10' and front plus rear lot: none
3' side

Maximum 3 stories or 3 stories or 3 stories or 3 stories or
height 40'* 40’(5) 40'* 40’(5) 40' for 150'; 1' 40' for first
in 5' increase 150'; 1' in 1'
to 48' increase to
HEIGHT, 4- 48' height, 4-
story story
maximum (5) maximum*
MAXIMUM (6)




Page 1407
TABLE 616.B
R-3A Development Options
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, AND
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO
MAY 1, 1998)

(c) (d)
(a) Planned Single-
(b)
Standards Subdivision( Residential Family
2) Average Lot
Developmen Attached (3)
t INFILL (4)

Lot coverage 40% 50%, 45% 50%, 45% 50%, 100% FOR
PLUS AN PLUS AN PLUS AN EACH
ADDITIONAL ADDITIONAL ADDITIONAL INDIVIDUAL
10% FOR AN 10% FOR AN 10% FOR AN LOT. 50%
ADU ADU ADU FOR OTHER
AND/OR AND/OR AND/OR PARCELS
ATTACHED ATTACHED ATTACHED OR TRACTS
SHADE SHADE SHADE WITH
STRUCTURE STRUCTURE STRUCTURE ACCESSOR
S. TOTAL: S. TOTAL: S. TOTAL: Y
60% 60% 60% STRUCTURE
S.

Common None None Minimum 5% Minimum 5%
areas of gross area of gross area
(2)


Allowed uses Single-family Single-family Single-family Single-family
DEVELOPME DETACHED DETACHED DETACHED attached and
(3) (3) (3)
NT , SINGLE- , SINGLE- , SINGLE- SINGLE-
FAMILY FAMILY FAMILY FAMILY
attached, and attached, and attached, and DETACHED
multifamily multifamily multifamily (PER THE
PROVISIONS
OF 608.F.6
ONLY) home
occupations
per Section

Required Subdivision to Subdivision Development Development
review create 4 or with building review per review per
more lots setbacks Section 507 Section 507




Page 1408
TABLE 616.B
R-3A Development Options
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, AND
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO
MAY 1, 1998)

(c) (d)
(a) Planned Single-
(b)
Standards Subdivision( Residential Family
2) Average Lot
Developmen Attached (3)
t INFILL (4)

Street Public street Public street Public street Development
standards required or private site: public
accessway street,
ACCESSWA PUBLIC
Y (1) ALLEY, or
private
accessway.
Individual unit
lot: private
accessway,
alley right-of-
way or
driveway OR
PRIVATE
DRIVE (1).

* There shall be a 15-foot maximum height within ten feet of a single-family zoned
district, which height may be increased one foot for each additional one foot of
building setback to the maximum permitted height.

(1) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as
public street rights-of-way. PUBLIC STREETS MAY BE REQUIRED AS A PART
OF SUBDIVISION OR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR EXTENSIONS OF
STREET PATTERNS, FOR CIRCULATION WITHIN NEIGHBORHOODS, OR
TO CONTINUE PARTIAL DEDICATIONS.

(2) These standards also apply to single-family, detached development built or
subdivided under the subdivision option prior to May 1, 1998. FOR PURPOSES
OF THIS SECTION, CANAL RIGHTS-OF-WAY SHALL BE TREATED THE
SAME AS PUBLIC STREET RIGHTS-OF-WAY.

(3) The single-family attached development option must meet Section 608.F.8
requirements. THE ONLY SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENTS




Page 1409
THAT THE STANDARDS OF THIS TABLE APPLY TO ARE ONES BUILT OR
SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO MAY 1, 1998.

(4) THE SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL DEVELOPMENT OPTION MUST COMPLY WITH
THE ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS PROVIDED IN SECTION
608.F.6.

(5) THERE SHALL BE A 15-FOOT MAXIMUM HEIGHT WITHIN TEN FEET OF A
SINGLE-FAMILY ZONED DISTRICT, WHICH HEIGHT MAY BE INCREASED
ONE FOOT FOR EACH ADDITIONAL ONE FOOT OF BUILDING SETBACK TO
THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED HEIGHT.




C. Special Regulations

1. Adult day care center, subject to a use permit; and provided, that:

a. Outdoor recreation areas shall be screened from adjacent properties
by a six-foot-high landscape hedge, solid fence, or solid wall.

2. Boarding house, subject to a use permit and the following conditions:




Page 1410
a. 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.

b. No boarding house 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 boarding house, group home, or community
residence home or center within a residential zoning district.

c. A maximum lot coverage of 25 percent.

d. A minimum of 100 square feet of usable outdoor open space per
bed shall be provided.

e. The lot shall only have vehicular access from an arterial or
collector street.

3. Community residence center, subject to a use permit and the following
conditions:

a. Such center 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.

b. No community residence center 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 or
center within a residential zoning district.

c. Disability accommodation from the spacing requirement may be
requested by an applicant per Section 701.E.3.

d. A maximum lot coverage of 25 percent.

e. A minimum of 100 square feet of usable outdoor open space per bed
shall be provided.

f. The lot shall only have vehicular access from an arterial or collector
street.

4. Group home, subject to a use permit and the following conditions:




Page 1411
a. 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.

b. No group 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 group home, boarding house, or community residence
home or center within a residential zoning district.

c. A maximum lot coverage of 25 percent.

d. A minimum of 100 square feet of usable outdoor open space per bed
shall be provided.

e. The lot shall only have vehicular access from an arterial or collector
street.

5. Group foster home, subject to a use permit.

6. Dormitories and convents shall be permitted as accessory uses to churches
or similar places of worship.

7. A site plan in accordance with Section 507 is required for all development in
the R-2, R-3, R-3A, R-4, R-4A and R-5 districts except when the
development consists of single-family dwellings on individual lots.

8. A residential convenience market is permitted as an accessory use to a
multiple-family development, subject to the following conditions:

a. Signage shall be allowed only as part of a Comprehensive Sign Plan
pursuant to Section 705. The Zoning Administrator may approve wall
mounted signage up to a maximum height of 30 feet as part of an
approved Comprehensive Sign Plan.

b. The development shall contain a minimum of 400 dwelling units.

c. The market shall not exceed 1,000 square feet in total floor area
(display and storage) if the development contains less than 850
dwelling units. The market shall not exceed 3,000 square feet in total
floor area (display and storage) if the development contains 850 or
more dwelling units.

d. No parking spaces shall be required or permitted for the market
except for spaces designated for deliveries or handicapped
individuals.




Page 1412
9. Dependent care facility for 13 or more dependents and schools for the
mentally or physically handicapped subject to securing a use permit
pursuant to Section 307.

***

Amend Chapter 6, Section 617 (R-4 Multifamily Residence District) to read as
follows:

Section 617. R-4 Multifamily Residence District.

***

B. District Regulations. The following tables establish standards to be used in the R-
4 district. The definitions of terms used in these standards are found in Section
608.I. The single-family attached INFILL development option must meet Section
608.F.6 requirements.

Table A. Single-Family Development(2)

TABLE 617.A
R-4 Development Option OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum lot width (in the 55' minimum 45' minimum (unless
event of horizontal property approved by either the
regimes, "lot" shall refer to design advisor or the
the width of the structure DESIGN REVIEW
and exclusive use area) COMMITTEE Single-
Family Architectural
Appeals Board for
demonstrating enhanced
architecture that minimizes
the impact of the garage.
(see Section 507 Tab
A.2.12.1 B(2)(b) [sic]))

Minimum lot depth None, except 110' None, except 110'
adjacent to freeway or adjacent to freeway or
arterial arterial




Page 1413
TABLE 617.A
R-4 Development Option OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Dwelling unit density 5.0 6.5; 12 with bonus
(units/gross acre)

Minimum perimeter building Front: 15'; Street STREET (2) (front,
setbacks Rear: 15' (1-story), 20' (2- rear or side): 15' (in
story); addition to landscape
Side: 10' (1-story), 15' (2- setback);
story) Property line (rear): 15' (1-
story), 20' (2-story);
Property line (side): 10' (1-
story), 15' (2-story)

Common landscaped None 15' average, 10' minimum
setback adjacent to (Does not apply to lots
perimeter streets STREETS fronting onto perimeter
(2)
streets)

Minimum interior building Front: 10'; rear: 10'; Front: 10'; rear: none
setbacks combined front and rear: (established by Building
35', street side: 10'; sides: Code); street side: 10';
13' total (3' minimum, sides: none (established
unless 0') by Building Code)

Minimum building separation 10' None

Minimum garage setback 18' from back of sidewalk 18' from back of sidewalk
for front-loaded garages, for front-loaded garages,
10' from property line for 10' from property line for
side-loaded garages side-loaded garages

Maximum garage width For lots <60': 2 car For lots, 60': 2 car widths,
widths, for lots •60' to 70': for lots •60' to 70': 3 car
3 car widths, for lots >70': widths, for lots >70': no
no maximum maximum

Maximum height 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' (except
that 3 stories not
exceeding 30' are
permitted when approved
by the design advisor for




Page 1414
TABLE 617.A
R-4 Development Option OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

demonstrating enhanced
architecture)

Lot coverage Primary structure, not Primary structure, not
including attached shade including attached shade
structures: 40%Total: structures: 40%Total:
50%, PLUS AN 50%, PLUS AN
ADDITIONAL 10% FOR ADDITIONAL 10% FOR
AN ADU AND/OR AN ADU AND/OR
ATTACHED SHADE ATTACHED SHADE
STRUCTURES. TOTAL: STRUCTURES. TOTAL:
60% 60%

Common areas None Minimum 5% of gross area

Allowed uses Single-family detached Single-family detached
DEVELOPMENT DETACHED (3) DETACHED (3)

Required review Development review per Development review per
Section 507, and Section 507, and
subdivision to create 4 or subdivision to create 4 or
more lots more lots

Street standards Public street, or private Public street or private
street built to City accessway (1)
standards with a
homeowners’ association
established for
maintenance OR
PRIVATE ACCESSWAY
(1)


On-lot and common Common retention Common retention
retention required for lots less than required for lots less than
8,000 sq. ft. per grading 8,000 sq. ft. per grading
and drainage ordinance and drainage ordinance
requirements requirements

Landscape standards Perimeter common: trees
spaced a maximum of 20




Page 1415
TABLE 617.A
R-4 Development Option OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

to 30 feet on center
(based on species) or in
equivalent groupings, and
5 shrubs per tree.

(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for
extensions of street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue
partial dedications.

(2) For single-family, detached development built or subdivided under the
subdivision option prior to May 1, 1998, refer to the subdivision option in table B.
FOR PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, CANAL RIGHTS-OF-WAY SHALL BE
TREATED THE SAME AS PUBLIC STREET RIGHTS-OF-WAY.

(3) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as
public street rights-of-way. FOR SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT
BUILT OR SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO MAY 1, 1998, REFER TO THE
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF TABLE 617.B

Table B. Single-Family (Subdivided Prior to May 1, 1998) Single-Family
Attached and Multifamily Development




Page 1416
TABLE 617.B
R-4 Development Options
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, AND
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO
MAY 1, 1998)

(c) (d)
(a) Planned Single-
(b)
Standards Subdivision( Residential Family
2) Average Lot
Developmen Attached (3)
t INFILL (4)

Minimum lot 60' width, 94' 40' width, 50' None Individual unit
dimensions depth depth lot: 20' width,
(width and no minimum
depth) depth

Dwelling unit 29.0 29.0 30.45; 34.80 30.45; 34.80
density with bonus with bonus
(units/gross
acre)

Perimeter None 20' front, 15' 20' adjacent 10' for units
standards rear, 10' side to a public fronting street
street; this rights-of-way;
area is to be 15' for units
in common siding street
ownership rights-of-way.
unless lots This area is
front on the to be in
perimeter common
public street ownership or
STREET (2); management.
10’ 15' 10' adjacent
adjacent to to property
property line line

Building 20' front, 15' 10' front, 30' 10' front Individual unit
setbacks rear, 10' and front plus rear lot: none
3' side




Page 1417
TABLE 617.B
R-4 Development Options
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, AND
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO
MAY 1, 1998)

(c) (d)
(a) Planned Single-
(b)
Standards Subdivision( Residential Family
2) Average Lot
Developmen Attached (3)
t INFILL (4)

Maximum 3 stories or 3 stories or 3 stories or 3 stories or
height 40'* 40’(5) 40'* 40’(5) 40' for 150'; 1' 40' for first
in 5' increase 150'; 1' in 1'
to 48' increase to
HEIGHT, 4- 48' height, 4-
story story
maximum (5) maximum*
MAXIMUM (6)

Lot coverage 50%, PLUS 50%, PLUS 50%, PLUS 100% FOR
AN AN AN EACH
ADDITIONAL ADDITIONAL ADDITIONAL INDIVIDUAL
10% FOR AN 10% FOR AN 10% FOR AN LOT. 50%
ADU ADU ADU FOR OTHER
AND/OR AND/OR AND/OR PARCELS
ATTACHED ATTACHED ATTACHED OR TRACTS
SHADE SHADE SHADE WITH
STRUCTURE STRUCTURE STRUCTURE ACCESSOR
S. TOTAL: S. TOTAL: S. TOTAL: Y
60% 60% 60% STRUCTURE
S.

Common None None Minimum 5% Minimum 5%
areas of gross area of gross area
(3)




Page 1418
TABLE 617.B
R-4 Development Options
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, AND
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO
MAY 1, 1998)

(c) (d)
(a) Planned Single-
(b)
Standards Subdivision( Residential Family
2) Average Lot
Developmen Attached (3)
t INFILL (4)

Allowed uses Single-family Single-family Single-family Single-family
DEVELOPME DETACHED DETACHED DETACHED attached and
(3) (3) (3)
NT , SINGLE- , SINGLE- , SINGLE- SINGLE-
FAMILY FAMILY FAMILY FAMILY
attached, and attached, and attached, and DETACHED
multifamily multifamily multifamily (PER THE
PROVISIONS
OF 608.F.6
ONLY) home
occupations
per Section

Required Subdivision to Subdivision Development Development
review create 4 or with building review per review per
more lots setbacks Section 507 Section 507

Street Public street Public street Public street Development
standards required or private site: public
accessway street,
ACCESSWA PUBLIC
Y (1) ALLEY, or
private
accessway.
Individual unit
lot: private
accessway,
alley right-of-
way or
driveway OR
PRIVATE
DRIVE (1).




Page 1419
* There shall be a 15-foot maximum height within ten feet of a single-family zoned
district, which height may be increased one foot for each additional one foot of
building setback to the maximum permitted height.

(1) 1.3 for efficiency; 1.5 for one or two bedrooms; 2.0 for more than two bedrooms
or for single-family detached. PUBLIC STREETS MAY BE REQUIRED AS A
PART OF SUBDIVISION OR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR EXTENSIONS OF
STREET PATTERNS, FOR CIRCULATION WITHIN NEIGHBORHOODS, OR
TO CONTINUE PARTIAL DEDICATIONS.

(2) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as
public street rights-of-way.

(3) These standards also apply to single-family, detached development built or
subdivided under the subdivision option prior to May 1, 1998. THE ONLY
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENTS THAT THE STANDARDS OF
THIS TABLE APPLY TO ARE ONES BUILT OR SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO MAY
1, 1998.

(4) The single-family attached development option must meet Section 608.F.8
requirements.THE SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL DEVELOPMENT OPTION MUST
COMPLY WITH THE ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
PROVIDED IN SECTION 608.F.6.

(5) THERE SHALL BE A 15-FOOT MAXIMUM HEIGHT WITHIN TEN FEET OF A
SINGLE-FAMILY ZONED DISTRICT, WHICH HEIGHT MAY BE INCREASED
ONE FOOT FOR EACH ADDITIONAL ONE FOOT OF BUILDING SETBACK TO
THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED HEIGHT.




Page 1420
C. Special Regulations

1. Adult day care center, subject to a use permit; and provided, that:

a. Outdoor recreation areas shall be screened from adjacent properties
by a six-foot-high landscape hedge, solid fence, or solid wall.

2. Boarding house, subject to a use permit and the following conditions:

a. 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.

b. No boarding house 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 boarding house, group home, or community residence
home or center within a residential zoning district.

c. A maximum lot coverage of 25 percent.




Page 1421
d. A minimum of 100 square feet of usable outdoor open space per bed
shall be provided.

e. The lot shall only have vehicular access from an arterial or collector
street.

3. Community residence center, subject to a use permit and the following
conditions:

a. Such center 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.

b. No community residence center 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 or
center within a residential zoning district.

c. Disability accommodation from the spacing requirement may be
requested by an applicant per Section 701.E.3.

d. A maximum lot coverage of 25 percent.

e. A minimum of 100 square feet of usable outdoor open space per bed
shall be provided.

f. The lot shall only have vehicular access from an arterial or collector
street.

4. Group home, subject to a use permit and the following conditions:

a. 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.

b. No group 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 group home, boarding house, or community residence
home or center within a residential zoning district.

c. A maximum lot coverage of 25 percent.

d. A minimum of 100 square feet of usable outdoor open space per bed
shall be provided.




Page 1422
e. The lot shall only have vehicular access from an arterial or collector
street.

5. Group foster home, subject to a use permit.

6. Dormitories and convents shall be permitted as accessory uses to churches
or similar places of worship.

7. A site plan in accordance with Section 507 is required for all development in
the R-2, R-3, R-3A, R-4, R-4A and R-5 districts except when the
development consists of single-family dwellings on individual lots.

8. A residential convenience market is permitted as an accessory use to a
multiple-family development, subject to the following conditions:

a. Signage shall be allowed only as part of a Comprehensive Sign Plan
pursuant to Section 705. The Zoning Administrator may approve wall
mounted signage up to a maximum height of 30 feet as part of an
approved Comprehensive Sign Plan.

b. The development shall contain a minimum of 400 dwelling units.

c. The market shall not exceed 1,000 square feet in total floor area
(display and storage) if the development contains less than 850
dwelling units. The market shall not exceed 3,000 square feet in total
floor area (display and storage) if the development contains 850 or
more dwelling units.

d. No parking spaces shall be required or permitted for the market
except for spaces designated for deliveries or handicapped
individuals.

9. Dependent care facility for 13 or more dependents and schools for the
mentally or physically handicapped subject to securing a use permit
pursuant to Section 307.

***

Amend Chapter 6, Section 618 (R-5 Multifamily Residence District) to read as
follows:

Section 618. R-5 Multifamily Residence District – RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL.

***




Page 1423
B. District Regulations - RESIDENTIAL USES. THE FOLLOWING TABLES
ESTABLISH STANDARDS TO BE USED FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS
IN THE R-5 DISTRICT. THE DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED IN THESE
STANDARDS ARE FOUND IN SECTION 608.I. THE SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL
DEVELOPMENT OPTION MUST MEET SECTION 608.F.6 REQUIREMENTS.

1. Development Standards for Residential Uses. The following tables
establish standards to be used in the R-5 District. The definitions of terms
used in these standards are found in Section 608.I. The single-family
attached development option must meet Section 608.F.8 requirements.

Table A. Single-Family, Detached Development (Subdivided on or after
May 1, 1998)

TABLE 618.A
R-5 Development Option OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum lot width (in 55' minimum 45' minimum (unless
the event of horizontal approved by either the
property regimes, "lot" design advisor or the
shall refer to the width DESIGN REVIEW
of the structure and COMMITTEE Single-
exclusive use area) Family Architectural
Appeals Board for
demonstrating enhanced
architecture that
minimizes the impact of
the garage. (see Section
507 Tab A.2.12.1 B(2)(b)
[sic]))

Minimum lot depth None, except 110' None, except 110'
adjacent to freeway or adjacent to freeway or
arterial arterial

Dwelling unit density 5.0 6.5; 12 with bonus
(units/gross acre)




Page 1424
TABLE 618.A
R-5 Development Option OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Minimum perimeter Front: 15'; Street STREET (2) (front,
building setbacks Rear: 15' (1-story), 20' (2- rear or side): 15' (in
story); addition to landscape
Side: 10' (1-story), 15' (2- setback);
story) Property line (rear): 15'
(1-story), 20' (2-story);
Property line (side): 10'
(1-story), 15' (2-story)

Common landscaped None 15' average, 10' minimum
setback adjacent to (does not apply to lots
perimeter streets (2) fronting onto perimeter
streets)

Minimum interior Front: 10'; rear: 10'; Front: 10'; rear: none
building setbacks combined front and rear: (established by Building
35', street side: 10'; sides: Code); street side: 10';
13' total (3' minimum, sides: none (established
unless 0') by Building Code)

Minimum building 10' None
separation

Minimum garage 18' from back of sidewalk 18' from back of sidewalk
setback for front-loaded garages, for front-loaded garages,
10' from property line for 10' from property line for
side-loaded garages side-loaded garages

Maximum garage For lots <60': 2 car For lots <60': 2 car
width widths, for lots •60' to 70': widths, for lots •60' to 70':
3 car widths, for lots >70': 3 car widths, for lots >70':
no maximum no maximum

Maximum height 2 stories and 30' 2 stories and 30' (except
that 3 stories not
exceeding 30' are
permitted when approved
by the design advisor for
demonstrating enhanced
architecture)




Page 1425
TABLE 618.A
R-5 Development Option OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Lot coverage Primary structure, not Primary structure, not
including attached shade including attached shade
structures: 40%Total: structures: 40%Total:
50%, PLUS AN 50%, PLUS AN
ADDITIONAL 10% FOR ADDITIONAL 10% FOR
AN ADU AND/OR AN ADU AND/OR
ATTACHED SHADE ATTACHED SHADE
STRUCTURES. TOTAL: STRUCTURES. TOTAL:
60% 60%

Common areas None Minimum 5% of gross
area

ALLOWED Single-family detached Single-family detached
DEVELOPMENT DETACHED (3) DETACHED (3)

Required review Development review per Development review per
Section 507, and Section 507, and
subdivision to create 4 or subdivision to create 4 or
more lots more lots

Street standards Public street, or private Public street or private
street built to City accessway (1)
standards with a
homeowners’ association
established for
maintenance OR
PRIVATE ACCESSWAY
(1)


On-lot and common Common retention Common retention
retention required for lots less than required for lots less than
8,000 sq. ft. per grading 8,000 sq. ft. per grading
and drainage ordinance and drainage ordinance
requirements requirements




Page 1426
TABLE 618.A
R-5 Development Option OPTIONS
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (3)

Planned Residential
Standards Conventional
Development

Landscape standards Perimeter common: trees
spaced a maximum of 20
to 30 feet on center
(based on species) or in
equivalent groupings, and
5 shrubs per tree.

(1) Public streets may be required as a part of subdivision or development review for
extensions of street patterns, for circulation within neighborhoods, or to continue
partial dedications.

(2) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as
public street rights-of-way.

(3) FOR SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT BUILT OR SUBDIVIDED
PRIOR TO MAY 1, 1998, REFER TO THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF
TABLE 618.B

Table B. Single-Family (Subdivided Prior to May 1, 1998), Single-Family
Attached and Multifamily Development




Page 1427
TABLE 618.B
R-5 Development Options
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, AND
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO
MAY 1, 1998)

(c) (d)
(a) Planned Single-
(b)
Standards Subdivision( Residential Family
2) Average Lot
Developmen Attached (3)
t INFILL (4)

Minimum lot 60' width, 94' 40' width, 50' None Individual unit
dimensions depth depth lot: 20' width,
(width and no minimum
depth) depth

Dwelling unit 43.5 43.5 45.68; 52.20 45.68; 52.20
density with bonus with bonus
(units/gross
acre)

Perimeter None 20' front, 15' 20' adjacent 10' for units
standards rear, 10' side to a public fronting street
street; this rights-of-way;
area is to be 15' for units
in common siding street
ownership rights-of-way.
unless lots This area is
front on the to be in
perimeter common
public street ownership or
STREET (2); management.
10’ 15' 10' adjacent
adjacent to to property
property line line

Building 20' front, 15' 10' front, 30' 10' front Individual unit
setbacks rear, 10' and front plus rear lot: none
3' side

Maximum 4 stories or 4 stories or 4 stories or 4 stories or
height 48' (1) (2) (5) 48' (1) (2) (5) 48' (1) (2) (5) 48' (1) (2) (6)




Page 1428
TABLE 618.B
R-5 Development Options
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, AND
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO
MAY 1, 1998)

(c) (d)
(a) Planned Single-
(b)
Standards Subdivision( Residential Family
2) Average Lot
Developmen Attached (3)
t INFILL (4)

Lot coverage 50%, PLUS 50%, PLUS 50%, PLUS 100% FOR
AN AN AN EACH
ADDITIONAL ADDITIONAL ADDITIONAL INDIVIDUAL
10% FOR AN 10% FOR AN 10% FOR AN LOT. 50%
ADU ADU ADU FOR OTHER
AND/OR AND/OR AND/OR PARCELS
ATTACHED ATTACHED ATTACHED OR TRACTS
SHADE SHADE SHADE WITH
STRUCTURE STRUCTURE STRUCTURE ACCESSOR
S. TOTAL: S. TOTAL: S. TOTAL: Y
60% 60% 60% STRUCTURE
S.

Common None None Minimum 5% Minimum 5%
areas of gross of gross area
area(3)

ALLOWED SINGLE- SINGLE- SINGLE- SINGLE-
DEVELOPME FAMILY FAMILY FAMILY FAMILY
NT DETACHED, DETACHED, DETACHED, ATTACHED
SINGLE- SINGLE- SINGLE- AND
FAMILY FAMILY FAMILY SINGLE-
ATTACHED, ATTACHED, ATTACHED, FAMILY
AND AND AND DETACHED
MULTIFAMIL MULTIFAMIL MULTIFAMIL (PER THE
Y Y Y PROVISIONS
OF 608.F.6
ONLY)

Required Subdivision to Subdivision Development Development
review create 4 or with building review per review per
more lots setbacks Section 507 Section 507




Page 1429
TABLE 618.B
R-5 Development Options
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, AND
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT (SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO
MAY 1, 1998)

(c) (d)
(a) Planned Single-
(b)
Standards Subdivision( Residential Family
2) Average Lot
Developmen Attached (3)
t INFILL (4)

Street Public street Public street Public street Development
standards required or private site: public
accessway street,
ACCESSWA PUBLIC
Y (1) ALLEY, or
private
accessway.
Individual unit
lot: private
accessway,
alley right-of-
way or
driveway OR
PRIVATE
DRIVE (1).

* There shall be a 15-foot maximum height within ten feet of a single-family zoned
district, which height may be increased one foot for each additional one foot of
building setback to the maximum permitted height.

(1) 1.3 for efficiency; 1.5 for one or two bedrooms; 2.0 for more than two bedrooms or
for single-family detached. PUBLIC STREETS MAY BE REQUIRED AS A PART
OF SUBDIVISION OR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR EXTENSIONS OF
STREET PATTERNS, FOR CIRCULATION WITHIN NEIGHBORHOODS, OR TO
CONTINUE PARTIAL DEDICATIONS.

(2) The height limitation of four stories or 48 feet applies to residential uses. FOR
PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, CANAL RIGHTS-OF-WAY SHALL BE
TREATED THE SAME AS PUBLIC STREET RIGHTS-OF-WAY.

(3) For purposes of this section, canal rights-of-way shall be treated the same as
public street rights-of-way.THE ONLY SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED
DEVELOPMENTS THAT THE STANDARDS OF THIS TABLE APPLY TO ARE
ONES BUILT OR SUBDIVIDED PRIOR TO MAY 1, 1998.



Page 1430
(4) The single-family attached development option must meet Section 608.F.8
requirements.THE SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL DEVELOPMENT OPTION MUST
COMPLY WITH THE ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS PROVIDED
IN SECTION 608.F.6.

(5) THERE SHALL BE A 15-FOOT MAXIMUM HEIGHT WITHIN TEN FEET OF A
SINGLE-FAMILY ZONED DISTRICT, WHICH HEIGHT MAY BE INCREASED
ONE FOOT FOR EACH ADDITIONAL ONE FOOT OF BUILDING SETBACK TO
THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED HEIGHT.




2. Development standards for commercial and mixed uses (including hotels
and motels) shall be in accordance with Section 622.E.3 and E.4.

C. Special DISTRICT Regulations FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL AND MIXED USES.
DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL AND MIXED USES
SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH C-1 STANDARDS (SECTIONS 622.E.3 AND
E.4).

1. A site plan in accordance with Section 507 is required for all development
in the R-2, R-3, R-3A, R-4, R-4A and R-5 districts except when the
development consists of single-family dwellings on individual lots.




Page 1431
D. ADDITIONAL Permitted Uses.

1. Adult day care center, subject to a use permit; and provided, that:

a. Outdoor recreation areas shall be screened from adjacent properties
by a six-foot-high landscape hedge, solid fence, or solid wall.

2. 1. Bed and breakfast establishment.

3. 2. Biomedical and Medical Research Offices. A biomedical or medical
research laboratory shall be permitted as an accessory use to a
biomedical and medical research office, subject to the following limitations:

a. The use shall be subject to obtaining a use permit in accordance with
the procedures and standards of Section 307.

b. Entrance to the laboratory shall only be from within the building and
shall not be through doors which open to the outside of the building.

c. No sign or display for the laboratory shall be visible from adjacent
public rights-of-way.

d. Access to a property containing a laboratory shall only be from a
major arterial or arterial, as designated on the street classification
map.

4. 3. Biomedical and Medical Research Offices. A biomedical or medical
research laboratory shall be permitted as an accessory use to a
biomedical and medical research office, subject to the following limitations:

5. Boarding house, subject to a use permit and the following conditions:

a. 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.

b. No boarding house 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 boarding house, group home, or community
residence home or center within a residential zoning district.

c. A maximum lot coverage of 25 percent.




Page 1432
d. A minimum of 50 square feet of usable outdoor open space per
bed shall be provided.

e. The lot shall only have vehicular access from an arterial or
collector street.

6. 4. Branch offices of the following uses are permitted subject to a use permit:
banks, building and loan associations, brokerage houses, savings and
loan associations, finance companies, title insurance companies, and trust
companies.

7. Community residence center, subject to a use permit and the following
conditions:

a. Such center 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.

b. No community residence center 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 or
center within a residential zoning district.

c. Disability accommodation from the spacing requirement may be
requested by an applicant per Section 701.E.3.

d. A maximum lot coverage of 25 percent.

e. A minimum of 50 square feet of usable outdoor open space per bed
shall be provided.

f. The lot shall only have vehicular access from an arterial or collector
street.

8. 5. Copy and reproduction center, subject to a use permit.

9. Dependent care facility for 13 or more dependents and schools for the
mentally or physically handicapped subject to securing a use permit
pursuant to Section 307.

10. Group foster home, subject to a use permit.

11. Group home, subject to a use permit and the following conditions:




Page 1433
a. 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.

b. No group 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 group home, boarding house, or community residence
home or center within a residential zoning district.

c. A maximum lot coverage of 25 percent.

d. A minimum of 50 square feet of usable outdoor open space per bed
shall be provided.

12. Dormitories and convents shall be permitted as accessory uses to
churches or similar places of worship.

13. 6. Hospice, subject to a use permit.

14. 7. Hotel or Motel. The following accessory uses are permitted; provided, that
the entrance to said accessory uses shall be from within the building only
and that no sign or display for the accessory uses shall be located so as to
be visible from a public thoroughfare or adjacent property:

a. Auto rental agency; provided, that there are no more than three
vehicles stored on the hotel property.

b. Child care, for hotel/motel guests only.

c. Cocktail lounges with recorded music or one musician.

d. Convention or private group activities.

e. Gift shop.

f. News stand.

g. Restaurants with recorded music or one musician.

h. Other services customarily accessory thereto.




Page 1434
15. 8. Office for Administrative, Clerical, or Sales Services. No commodity or
tangible personal property, either by way of inventory or sample, shall be
stored, kept, or exhibited for purposes of sale in any said office or on the
premises wherein the said office is located. Seminars shall be permitted as
an accessory use; provided, that they are clearly accessory to the office
use.

16. 9. Office for professional use, including medical center, wellness center, and
counseling services (provided that services are administered or overseen
by a State licensed professional).

a. The following accessory uses are permitted; provided, that the
entrance to said accessory uses shall be from within the building
only, that no sign or display for the accessory uses shall be located
so as to be visible from a public thoroughfare or adjacent property,
and that no more than 25 percent of the floor area can be used for
the accessory uses:

(1) Fitness center.

(2) Massage therapy, administered by a State licensed massage
therapist.

(3) Ophthalmic materials dispensing.

(4) Pharmacy.

(5) Sleep disorder testing with less than a 24-hour stay duration.

(6) Snack bar.

(7) Surgical center, provided there are no overnight stays.

b. The following accessory uses are permitted, subject to a use permit
and provided that the entrance to said accessory uses shall be from
within the building only, that no sign or display for the accessory uses
shall be located so as to be visible from a public thoroughfare or
adjacent property:

(1) Medical and dental laboratories.

(2) Orthotics and prosthetic laboratories.

17. 10. Nursing home, subject to a use permit and the following conditions:

a. A maximum lot coverage of 25 percent.




Page 1435
b. A minimum of 50 square feet of usable outdoor open space per bed
shall be provided.

18. 11. Private clubs and lodges qualifying by law as a nonprofit entity, subject to
a use permit. The use permit is not required if a special permit, according
to Section 647, is obtained. Bingo may be operated as an accessory use
on the premises of the club no more than two days per week.

19. A residential convenience market is permitted as an accessory use to a
multiple-family development, subject to the following conditions:

a. Signage shall be allowed only as part of a Comprehensive Sign Plan
pursuant to Section 705. The Zoning Administrator may approve wall
mounted signage up to a maximum height of 30 feet as part of an
approved Comprehensive Sign Plan.

b. The development shall contain a minimum of 400 dwelling units.

c. The market shall not exceed 1,000 square feet in total floor area
(display and storage) if the development contains less than 850
dwelling units. The market shall not exceed 3,000 square feet in total
floor area (display and storage) if the development contains 850 or
more dwelling units.

d. No parking spaces shall be required or permitted for the market
except for spaces designated for deliveries or handicapped
individuals.

20. 12. Teaching of the fine arts, subject to use permit.

21. 13. Volunteer community blood centers qualifying by law as a nonprofit entity,
subject to a use permit.

***

Amend Chapter 6, Section 619 (R-4A District—Multifamily Residence—General) to
read as follows:

Section 619. R-4A District—Multifamily Residence—General

***

A. Permitted Uses. PRIMARY USES AND ACCESSORY USES ARE PERMITTED
AS INDICATED IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS LAND USE MATRIX,
SECTION 608.D, PLUS THE FOLLOWING:




Page 1436
1. All uses permitted in the RE-24, R-3 and R-4 districts.

2. Same accessory uses and buildings as RE-24.

3. Adult day care center, subject to a use permit; and provided, that:

a. Outdoor recreation areas shall be screened from adjacent properties
by a six-foot-high landscape hedge, solid fence, or solid wall.

4. Boarding house, subject to a use permit and the following conditions:

a. 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.

b. No boarding house 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 boarding house, group home, or community residence
home or center within a residential zoning district.

c. A maximum lot coverage of 25 percent.

d. A minimum of 50 square feet of usable outdoor open space per bed
shall be provided.

5. Community residence center, subject to a use permit and the following
conditions:

a. Such center 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.

b. No community residence center 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 or
center within a residential zoning district.

c. Disability accommodation from the spacing requirement may be
requested by an applicant per Section 701.E.3.

d. A maximum lot coverage of 25 percent.




Page 1437
e. A minimum of 50 square feet of usable outdoor open space per bed
shall be provided.

6. Group foster home, subject to a use permit.

7. Group home, subject to a use permit and the following conditions:

a. 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.

b. No group 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 group home, boarding house, or community residence
home or center within a residential zoning district.

c. A maximum lot coverage of 25 percent.

d. A minimum of 50 square feet of usable outdoor open space per bed
shall be provided.

8. 1. Hospice, subject to a use permit.

9. 2. Nursing home, subject to a use permit and the following conditions:

a. A maximum lot coverage of 25 percent.

b. A minimum of 50 square feet of usable outdoor open space per bed
shall be provided.

10. Dormitories and convents shall be permitted as accessory uses to
churches or similar places of worship.


11. A residential convenience market is permitted as an accessory use to a
multiple-family development, subject to the following conditions:

a. Signage shall be allowed only as part of a Comprehensive Sign Plan
pursuant to Section 705. The Zoning Administrator may approve wall
mounted signage up to a maximum height of 30 feet as part of an
approved Comprehensive Sign Plan.

b. The development shall contain a minimum of 400 dwelling units.




Page 1438
c. The market shall not exceed 1,000 square feet in total floor area
(display and storage) if the development contains less than 850
dwelling units. The market shall not exceed 3,000 square feet in total
floor area (display and storage) if the development contains 850 or
more dwelling units.

d. No parking spaces shall be required or permitted for the market
except for spaces designated for deliveries or handicapped
individuals.

12. The display for sale of a vehicle, which for purposes of this provision
includes trailers, watercraft or other types of transportation that are built to
carry passengers or cargo, shall be subject to the following restrictions:

a. No more than one [1] vehicle can be labeled for sale or show any
indication that it is for sale at any given time on a property, whether
visible on-site or through some other form of advertising.

b. No more than two [2] vehicles can be sold on a property during any
calendar year.

c. For purposes of Subsections a and b above, two [2] jet skis, a boat or
similar types of recreational vehicles that are transported on one
trailer shall, together with the trailer, be considered one vehicle.

d. The ownership of the vehicle[s] must be registered to the location
where the vehicle is listed for sale.

e. No vehicle can be labeled for sale or show any indication that it is for
sale at an unoccupied house or on a vacant lot or parcel.

f. No vehicle can be labeled for sale or show any indication that it is for
sale in conjunction with a retail or wholesale vehicle sales dealership
or business without obtaining a temporary use permit.

13. Dependent care facility for 13 or more dependents and schools for the
mentally or physically handicapped subject to securing a use permit
pursuant to Section 307.

3. SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL DEVELOPMENTS, PER THE PROVISIONS OF
SECTION 608.F.6 AND SECTION 617 (R-4) TABLE B, COLUMN D.

B. Yard, Height and Area Requirements. Except as required by Section 701, the
following yard, height and area provisions shall be required for this district:

***




Page 1439
7. Yards for ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS and detached OTHER
accessory buildings STRUCTURES shall be permitted as in
ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF Section 706.

8. Single-family attached INFILL development must comply with R-4
standards ALL REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO SFI DEVELOPMENT IN
THE R-4 DISTRICT EXCEPT FOR DENSITY, WHICH SHALL BE
PERMITTED PER SECTION 619.B.1.

9. OFFSITE MANUFACTURED HOME DEVELOPMENTS, UPON
OBTAINING USE PERMIT APPROVAL, SHALL COMPLY WITH THE R-4
STANDARDS FOR PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS (TABLE
617.B, COLUMN C) EXCEPT FOR DENSITY, WHICH SHALL BE
PERMITTED PER SECTION 619.B.1

C. Site Plan Required. A site plan in accordance with Section 507 is required for all
development in the R-2, R-3, R-3A, R-4, R-4A and R-5 districts except when the
development consists of single-family dwellings on individual lots.

***

Amend Chapter 6, Section 635 (Planned Area Development) to read as follows:

Section 635. Planned Area Development.

***

C. Use Regulations.

1. Uses permitted. In the planned area development districts only the
following uses are permitted:

a. Single-family detached, duplex, and multiple dwellings; apartment
houses. AS STATED IN SECTION 608.D, RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS LAND USE MATRIX.

b. Other uses as permitted in Sections 608 and 703.A.

c. b. Neighborhood retail uses and other nonresidential uses limited to
those enumerated in the C-1 district may be specifically and
selectively authorized as to type and size only when integrated by
design as an accessory element of the project, and only when located
in an area proposed to be appropriately zoned for said use and
approved as provided below, provided that the development is
planned for more than four hundred dwelling units.




Page 1440
d. Same accessory uses and buildings as RE-24.

e. The display for sale of a vehicle, which for purposes of this provision
includes trailers, watercraft or other types of transportation that are
built to carry passengers or cargo shall be subject to the following
restrictions:

(1) No more than one [1] vehicle can be labeled for sale or show
any indication that it is for sale at any given time on a property,
whether visible on-site or through some other form of
advertising.

(2) No more than two [2] vehicles can be sold on a property during
any calendar year.

(3) For purposes of subsections a and b above, two [2] jet skis, a
boat or similar types of recreational vehicles that are
transported on one trailer shall, together with the trailer, be
considered one vehicle.

(4) The ownership of the vehicle[s] must be registered to the
location where the vehicle is listed for sale.

(5) No vehicle can be labeled for sale or show any indication that it
is for sale at an unoccupied house or on a vacant lot or parcel.

(6) No vehicle can be labeled for sale or show any indication that it
is for sale in conjunction with a retail or wholesale vehicle sales
dealership or business without obtaining a temporary use
permit.

***

Amend Chapter 6, Section 649 (Mixed Use Agricultural (MUA) District) to read as
follows:

Section 649. Mixed Use Agricultural (MUA) District.

***

E. Permitted Accessory Uses. Land in the MUA District may be used as permitted
accessory uses and structures, incidental to and on the same zoning lot as the
primary use, for the following uses:

***




Page 1441
4 Guesthouse, provided that it does not exceed six hundred square feet or
twenty-five percent of the floor area of the principal structure, whichever is
larger. ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT, PER THE PROVISIONS OF
SECTION 706.A.

***

Amend Chapter 6, Section 651 (Baseline Area Overlay District) to read as follows:

Section 651. Baseline Area Overlay District (BAOD).

***

C. Use Regulations. The regulations governing the uses of land and structures shall
be as set forth in the underlying zoning districts except as expressly modified by
the following regulations.

Detached guesthouses are permitted in R1-18 to R1-6 single-family districts,
provided that:

1. The structure shall not exceed seven hundred square feet. A use permit is
required to exceed seven hundred square feet.

2. The minimum lot size is eight thousand square feet.

3. An additional parking space shall be provided.

4. There shall be no more than one guesthouse per lot.

5. The guesthouse shall maintain the same setbacks as the primary structure.

6. The guesthouse shall maintain the same architectural style, color and
building materials as the primary dwelling in order to be viewed as an
accessory to the main unit and not a separate dwelling.

7. A use permit shall be required for all guests homes where the primary
structure existed prior to the effective date of this section of the ordinance.

8. There shall be a minimum lot width of sixty-five feet.

***

Amend Chapter 6, Section 653 (Desert Character Overlay Districts) to read as
follows:




Page 1442
Section 653. Desert Character Overlay Districts.

***

B. Desert Maintenance Overlay (Sub-Districts A and B).

***

4. Permitted uses for Sub-Districts A and B. Land and structures in the
Desert Maintenance Overlay Sub-Districts A and B shall only be used for the
following purposes subject to the standards and procedures in Chapters 3
and 5 of the Zoning Ordinance and the regulations and special standards
set forth herein. In the event there is a conflict these provisions shall prevail.

***

c. AN guesthouse ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT, WHEN
PERMITTED, shall be allowed as a structure subordinate to a
residence. It is to be sited within the building envelope. The SHOULD
HAVE AN architectural character and detailing must be consistent
with the main residence. and should appear to tie in to the main
residence.

***

5. District regulations for Desert Maintenance Overlay Sub-District A.

***

s. Model homes are allowed prior to recording a subdivision plat, subject
to submitting a final plat which shall show the following information for
each model home lot as well as meet other requirements of this
ordinance and Section 608.C.3 608.D.7 of the Zoning Ordinance.

***

6. District regulations for Desert Maintenance Overlay Sub-District B.

***

h. Model homes are allowed prior to recording a subdivision plat, subject
to submitting a final plat which shall show the following information for
each model home lot as well as meet other requirements of this
ordinance and Section 608.C.3 608.D.7 of the Zoning Ordinance.

***




Page 1443
Amend Chapter 6, Section 658 (Deer Valley Airport Overlay (DVAO) District) to read
as follows:

Section 658. Deer Valley Airport Overlay (DVAO) District.

***

C. Regulation Areas: The DVAO District is divided into three separate regulation
areas. When a parcel falls partially into one or more of the regulation areas, the
most restrictive regulation area shall apply to the entire parcel.

***

2. Prohibited uses, Areas 2 & 3: Same as Area 1 and the following:

***

d. Church or similar place of worship; including parish houses,
parsonages, rectories and convents, and dormitories (including all
elements of such as defined in Section 608.E.1 608.E.21).

***

Amend Chapter 6, Section 664 (North Central Avenue Special Planning District
(SPD) Overlay District) to read as follows:

Section 664. North Central Avenue Special Planning District (SPD) Overlay District.

***

D. District Regulations. The following table establishes variations to the current
standards for the R1-10 Subdivision Option. The definitions of terms used in these
standards are found in Section 608.D 608.I. Development standards that are not
listed here shall follow the standards in the R1-10 Subdivision Option, Section 611,
Table 611.B. Variances to these regulations should also consider objectives of the
Special Planning District Plan. To use a development option other than subdivision
requires approval through the rezoning public hearing process, Section 506.B.

***

Amend Chapter 7, Section 701.A.3 (Projections) to read as follows:

***
A. Lots.




Page 1444
***

3. Projections.

a. The following provisions apply to development in the subdivision
option of Sections 604 through 607 AND 619, and IN THE
SUBDIVISION OPTION OF Sections 609 through 618:

***

(2) Closed Projections.

***

(d) The main building in a residence district (WHICH MAY
INCLUDE AN ATTACHED ADU) may project five feet
into the required rear yard for no more than one-half the
maximum width of the structure. WHEN NO PORTION
OF THE PROJECTION EXCEEDS 15’ IN HEIGHT;
THE PROJECTION IS NO CLOSER TO THE REAR
PROPERTY LINE THAN 3’, AND THE PROJECTION
IS NO CLOSER TO A SIDE PROPERTY LINE THAN
ALLOWED BY THE DISTRICT; UNLESS A greater
projection than five feet is subject to obtaining a use
permit IS OBTAINED in accordance with the provisions
of Section 307.

***

Amend Chapter 7, Section 702.F (Special Parking Standards) to read as follows:

F. Special Parking Standards.

***

1. Residential lots.

a. Required parking spaces for single-family and duplex residential uses
may not be located in the required front yard.

b. Spaces in excess of those required for single family and duplex
residential uses may be located in the required front yard. However,
all parking and maneuvering areas within the required front yard shall
not exceed forty-five percent (45%) 50% OF THE AREA OF THE
REQUIRED FRONT YARD, EXCEPT THAT A DRIVEWAY SHALL




Page 1445
NOT BE REQUIRED TO BE LESS THAN 18’ IN WIDTH UNLESS
OTHERWISE STIPULATED BY HISTORIC PRESERVATION.

(1) The area of the required front yard, or

(2) An area equal to the required front yard setback times the
average lot width when the adjoining side property lines are
not parallel. Notwithstanding the above requirements, the
parking and maneuvering area shall not be required to be less
than:

(a) Eighteen (18) feet in width, or

(b) The cumulative width of all front facing garage doors or
carports plus three (3) feet, whichever is greater.

***

Amend Chapter 7, Section 703.B (Landscaping and Open Areas In Multiple-Family
Development) to read as follows:

B. 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 in any district containing a
structure with two FOUR or more dwelling units.

***
Section 706. Accessory Uses and Structures.
Amend Chapter 7, Section 706 (Accessory Uses and Structures) to add language
regarding Accessory Dwelling Units, and revising the existing language to apply
only to other types of accessory structures, and to read as follows:

***

Section 706. Accessory Uses and Structures.

A. No detached accessory structures or swimming pools are permitted within the
required front yard(s) of any residential district.

B. . All detached accessory structures in the side and rear yard, not used for sleeping
or living purposes, are to maintain a minimum setback of three feet from property
lines. Swimming pools are to maintain a minimum setback of three feet from
exterior property lines.

C. All accessory structures located within the required side yard are not to exceed
eight feet in height.



Page 1446
D. On any corner lot contiguous to a key lot, detached structures with a height which
exceeds eight feet must be set back from the street side a distance equal to the
required front yard setback of the adjoining key lot.

E. On any other corner lot no detached accessory building over eight feet high shall
be closer to the side street property line than a distance of ten feet.

F. Detached accessory structures may be constructed on the property line where the
rear lot line is adjacent to a fully dedicated alley.

G. No detached accessory structure located within the required rear yard of a
residentially zoned property shall exceed a height of one story or fifteen feet except
as approved by a use permit in accordance with the provisions of Section 307.

***

A. ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS (ADU)

1. IN ZONING DISTRICTS WHERE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS ARE A
PERMITTED USE, ONE (1) ADU IS PERMITTED PER LOT WHEN A
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT IS ALSO
PROVIDED, UNLESS OTHERWISE PERMITTED BY THE 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.

3. AN ADU MAY BE EITHER ATTACHED TO OR DETACHED FROM THE
PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT, 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, OR AS MAY BE APPROVED BY
HISTORIC PRESERVATION FOR HP ZONED OR DESIGNATED
PROPERTIES. (P)



Page 1447
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.

4. A DETACHED ADU MAY BE LOCATED WITHIN THE REQUIRED REAR
YARD, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING:

a. SETBACKS.

(1) MINIMUM 10 FEET FROM A STREET SIDE PROPERTY
LINE.

(2) MINIMUM 3 FEET FROM AN INTERIOR PROPERTY LINE.

(3) NO SETBACK IS REQUIRED ADJACENT TO A FULLY
DEDICATED ALLEY.

b. HEIGHT. MAXIMUM 15 FEET UNLESS USE PERMIT APPROVAL
FOR A GREATER HEIGHT IS OBTAINED PER SECTION 307.

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. A 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. 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. AN ADU SHALL COMPLY WITH THE LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS
APPLICABLE TO THE PROPERTY.

9. AN 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.




Page 1448
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 OR
ATTACHED SHADE STRUCTURE CONSTRUCTED AS PART OF A
DETACHED ADU SHALL COUNT TOWARD THE GROSS FLOOR AREA
OF THE ADU. ANY ATTACHED SHADE STRUCTURES SHALL COUNT
TOWARDS LOT COVERAGE, BUT NOT GROSS FLOOR AREA.

10. PERMIT ISSUANCE AND RESTRICTIVE COVENANT. PRIOR TO
ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT FOR AN ADU, THE PROPERTY
OWNER SHALL SIGN BEFORE A NOTARY PUBLIC A RESTRICTIVE
COVENANT THAT RUNS WITH THE LAND ON A FORM PREPARED BY
THE CITY ATTORNEY OR DESIGNEE AFFIRMING THAT THE
PROPERTY OWNER SHALL:

a. OCCUPY EITHER THE PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT OR THE ADU,
OR

b. IF THE PROPERTY OWNER RENTS OR LEASES A PROPERTY
WITH BOTH A PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT AND AN ADU TO A
THIRD PARTY, THEN NEITHER THE PRIMARY RESIDENCE NOR
THE ADU SHALL BE RENTED OR LEASED SEPARATELY FROM
THE REMAINDER OF THE PROPERTY, NOR SUB-LEASED.

B. SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ACCESSORY STRUCTURES. THE
FOLLOWING REGULATIONS APPLY TO ACCESSORY STRUCTURES WHICH
ARE NOT USED FOR SLEEPING OR LIVING PURPOSES, 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. PERMITTED HEIGHTS.

a. MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 8 FEET WHEN LOCATED WITHIN 10 FEET
OF A STREET SIDE PROPERTY LINE, OR 15 FEET WHEN
LOCATED ELSEWHERE WITHIN THE REQUIRED REAR OR SIDE
YARD.




Page 1449
b. HEIGHTS IN EXCESS OF 15 FEET, WHEN NOT LOCATED WITHIN
10’ OF 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 3 FEET ADJACENT TO A REAR OR SIDE PROPERTY
LINE, EXCEPT THAT NO SETBACK IS REQUIRED ADJACENT TO A
FULLY DEDICATED ALLEY.




Page 1450
***




Page 1451
C. SWIMMING POOLS.

1. SWIMMING POOLS SHALL NOT BE LOCATED IN THE REQUIRED
FRONT YARD, NOR IN ANY REQUIRED LANDSCAPE SETBACK.

2. SWIMMING POOLS SHALL MAINTAIN A MINIMUM SETBACK OF THREE
FEET FROM PROPERTY LINES, EXCEPT THAT POOLS LOCATED ON A
LOT DESIGNATED “HILLSIDE” PER SECTION 710 SHALL COMPLY WITH
ALL HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, INCLUDING SETBACKS.

***

Amend Chapter 7, Section 708. (Temporary uses) to read as follows:

Section 708. Temporary uses.

***

L. Charitable Drop Box Container Permit. A charitable drop box container permit is
subject to the following:

***

1. An annual permit is required for the following uses or analogous uses:

a. Charitable drop box containers.

***

(9) Permits are not required when the container is in compliance
pursuant to Section 608.E.1 608.E.21.

***

Amend Chapter 12, Sections 1204.C and D (Land Use Matrix) to correct references
of “Single-Family Attached” to “Single-Family Infill”, and to read as follows:

Chapter 12
DOWNTOWN CODE

***




Page 1452
Section 1204. Land Use Matrix.

***

C. 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
1204.D:

***

27. Single-family attached INFILL SUBDIVISION, subject to the following:, PER
THE STANDARDS OF SECTION 608.F.6 AND SECTION 614, TABLE
614.B, COLUMN D, EXCEPT AS MODIFIED BELOW:

a. Historic preservation designated properties or properties in historic
preservation districts cannot use the single-family attached INFILL
development option.

b. Individual unit lot: minimum 20-foot width, no minimum depth.
MAXIMUM HEIGHT: AS PER HEIGHT MAP, SECTION 1202.B.

c. Perimeter standards: maximum ten feet for units fronting street rights-
of-way; minimum 15 feet for units siding street rights-of-way. This
area is to be in common ownership or management, ten feet adjacent
to property line. MAXIMUM DENSITY: AS PER DENSITY MAP,
SECTION 1202.C.

d. Building setbacks, individual unit lot: none. MAXIMUM LOT
COVERAGE: 100 PERCENT PER LOT; OVERALL SUBDIVISION
LOT COVERAGE PER APPLICABLE CHARACTER AREA.

e. Maximum stories: as per height map, Section 1202.C. FRONTAGE
SETBACKS AND REQUIREMENTS: AS PER THE APPLICABLE
CHARACTER AREA; OR, IF LOTS FRONT ON A NEW INTERNAL
STREET OR DRIVE, PER THE REGULATIONS OF SECTION
608.F.6 AND SECTION 614, TABLE B, COLUMN D.

f. Lot coverage per dwelling unit: 100 percent. PERIMETER
STANDARDS (NOT ON A STREET): PER THE REGULATIONS OF
SECTION 608.F.6.

g. Common areas: minimum five percent of gross area. INDIVIDUAL
LOT SETBACKS.




Page 1453
(1) THE STEPBACK REQUIREMENTS OF TABLE 614.B,
COLUMN D DO NOT APPLY TO BUILDINGS COMPLYING
WITH THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT ALLOWED BY THE HEIGHT
MAP, SECTION 1202.B.

(2) INDIVIDUAL LOT FRONT: 10’ OR THE REQUIRED
FRONTAGE SETBACK, WHICHEVER IS GREATER.

(3) INDIVIDUAL LOT SIDE AND REAR: 0’ OR THE REQUIRED
PERIMETER SETBACK, WHICHEVER IS GREATER.

h. Allowed uses: single-family attached and home occupations per
Section 608. PARKING REQUIREMENTS: PER SECTION 608.F.6,
AS THE REGULATIONS APPLY TO THE INFILL DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT.

i. Development review per Section 507. 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. Design: front of units should face right-of-way. No garages allowed to
face pedestrian or side streets. 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.

k. Other requirements of Section 608.F.8 shall apply if not specifically
modified by this section.

***

D. Land Use Matrix.

LAND USE CATEGORIES CHARACTER AREAS
Commerc
ACTIVE Warehous
*** ial ***
USE e
Corridor
Residential Uses
*** *** *** *** *** ***
Dwelling UNIT, Multi-Family
*** p p
MULTIFAMILY




Page 1454
Dwelling UNIT, Single-
Family, Detached
*** p *** np
(INCLUDING DUPLEX AND
TRIPLEX USES)
Dwelling UNIT, Single-
Family and *** p *** np
Duplex, Attached
*** *** *** *** *** ***
SUBDIVISION, Single-
*** np PC27 *** pc27 NP
Family Attached Infill
***

Amend Chapter 13, Sections 1303 (Transect lot standards), 1305.C (Fence
Standards), 1306 (Land Use Matrix) and 1310 (Open Space Improvements) to
correct references of “Single-Family Attached” to “Single-Family Infill”, and to read
as follows:

Chapter 13
WALKABLE URBAN (WU) CODE

***

Section 1303. Transect lot standards.

A. General Lot Standards.

1. Subdivisions shall comply with development standards per this chapter,
including frontage standards, for all existing and newly created lots abutting
public streets, private accessways, and private driveways, with the following
caveats:

a. A development may instead utilize the Single-Family attached INFILL
development option standards per Section 608(F)(8) 608.F.6 and
Section 614, Table 614.B, Column D (except for the density, which is
not restricted) if it meets all three of the following conditions:

(1) The development consists solely of attached SINGLE-FAMILY
dwelling units and allowable accessory uses;

(2) The development is located within the applicable area for the
single-family attached INFILL development option or the Infill
Development District as depicted on the map provided in
Section 608(F)(8) 608.F.6; and

***




Page 1455
2. All developments adjacent to single-family zoning districts shall follow the
same setback and stepback standards as the single-family attached INFILL
development option (Section 614, Table 614.B, Column D); with additional
requirements as follows:

***

B. Transect Setbacks and Lot Standards.

***

Table 1303.2 Transect T4

***

BUILDING HEIGHT BUILDING STEPBACKS
Main T4:2 30-foot
a
Building maximum
T4:3 40-foot
maximum
SFA SFI: 48- Required for SFA SFI as per
foot maximum Sections 1303.A.1 and 2

***

* Lot coverage maximum may be modified for SFA SFI development option.

Table 1303.2 Transect T5

***

BUILDING HEIGHT BUILDING STEPBACKS

***

* a. Lot coverage maximum may be modified for SFA SFI development option.

b. Lot coverage maximum may vary depending on setback requirements when adjacent to
existing single-family residential districts and historic preservation properties or districts.




Page 1456
Table 1303.2 Transect T6

***

Minimum glazing shall apply to commercial building frontages only, as per
Section 1305.B.2. For residential products T4 glazing standards shall apply.

***

* a. Lot coverage maximum may be modified for SFA SFI
development option.

b. Lot coverage maximum may vary depending on setback
requirements when adjacent to existing single-family residential
districts and historic preservation properties or districts.

***

1305. Frontage Standards.

***

C. Fence Standards.

1. T3 and T4.

a. Primary frontages: 40 inches maximum height.

b. Secondary frontages: 72 inches maximum height. For SFA SFI
development: 48 inches maximum height solid fence. Above 48
inches to 72 inches allowed only as a 70 percent open view fence,
unless screening above grade utilities or trash enclosures.

***

Section 1306. Land Use Matrix.

***

Table 1306.1. Land Use Matrix




Page 1457
T6:22
CATEGORY: RESIDENTIAL T6:7
T3 T4 *** T6:
USES T6:15
HWR
*** *** *** *** *** ***
Dwelling UNIT, Multif NP P P P
Dwelling UNIT, Single-Family,
Detached (INCLUDING P P *** NP NP
DUPLEX AND TRIPLEX USES)
Dwelling UNIT, Single-
P P *** P P
Family and Duplex, Attached
***

C. Residential Uses, Land Use Conditions.

***
3. Dependent Care Facility.

a. One to six dependents: standards as per Section 608.D.5 608.E.15.
Use permit required for sSeven to 12 dependents: USE PERMIT,
AND STANDARDS AS PER SECTION 608.E.16.

***

Table 1306.1. Land Use Matrix

T6:22
CATEGORY: T6:7
T3 T4 *** T6:
SERVICES T6:15
HWR
***
Home Occupation
PC PC *** P P
As per Section 608.E.3
*** *** *** *** *** ***
Hotel
NP PC *** PC PC
As per Section 618.D.14 7
*** *** *** *** *** ***
Office, Professional
As per Section 618.D.15 8 and PC PC *** PC PC
16 9
***
T6:22
CATEGORY: T6:7
T3 T4 *** T6:
LOCAL FOOD PRODUCTION T6:15
HWR
Community Garden
UP UP *** UP UP
As per Section 608.F.6 608.E.24




Page 1458
Farmers Markets
UP UP *** UP UP
As per Section 608.F.7 608.E.25
***
T6:22
CATEGORY: T6:7
T3 T4 *** T6:
ACCESSORY USES T6:15
HWR
Accessory Dwelling Unit P P *** P P
Accessory Dwelling Unit—
P P *** P P
Guest
***
Home Occupation
PC PC *** PC PC
As per Section 608.E.3 608.E.27
***
T6:22
CATEGORY: T6:7
T3 T4 *** T6:
INTERIM USES T6:15
HWR
Environmental
Remediation Facility UP UP *** UP UP
As per 608.F.5 608.E.23

Section 1310. Open space improvements.

A. Open Space Guidelines.

1. Parcels zoned T3 are exempt from required public open space
improvements.

2. Open space requirements for developments within the T4, T5, and T6
transects are as follows:

a. For sites of one gross acre or larger, minimum open space of at least
five percent of the gross site area shall be required. For
developments utilizing the single-family attached INFILL development
option standards in accordance with Section 1303(A)(1)(a)
1303.A.1.a., open space shall be provided as required by Section
614, Table 614,B, Column D, regardless of lot size.

***

Table 1310.1 Public Open Space Type Guidelines

***
[table unchanged]




Page 1459
* Single-family attached INFILL developments must provide open
space as required per Section 1310(A)(2)(a) 1310.A.2.a.

***




This publication can be made available in alternate format upon request. Please contact
Angie Holdsworth at (602) 329-5065, TTY use 7-1-1.




Page 1460
ATTACHMENT I


Phoenix Historic Neighborhoods Coalition




HISTORIC FRANKLIN SCHOOL

July 8, 2023
Via Email

jeffrey.barton@phoeix.gov council.district.4@phoenix.gov
racelle.escolar@phoenix.gov council.district.5@phoenix.gov
john.roanhorse@phoenix.gov council.district.6@phoenix.gov
nick.klimek@phoenix.gov council.district.7@phoenix.gov
council.district.1@phoenix.gov council.district.8@phoenix.gov
council.district.2@phoenix.gov mayor.gallego@phoenix.gov
council.district.3@phoenix.gov


Re: Text Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Z-TA-5-23-Y

Staff, Encanto Planning Committee, Planning Commission, and Council Members

Dear Members,

I am writing to you on behalf of the Phoenix Historic Neighborhoods Coalition. As you
know, we are a coalition of people who live throughout the historic neighborhoods within the
share our love of our City's historic neighborhoods to preserve not only the buildings but to also
help stabilize and build strong communities.

Many historic homes have historic guest houses or historic garages that have been
converted to guest houses, so we welcome the impetus of Z-TA-5-23-Y, to create more density
and affordable housing in our city and our historic neighborhoods. We hope that we can suggest
ways that density can continue to be accommodated so as not to upset the fabric of our vibrant
communities.

There are at least three places in the text amendment where the document should be
clarified that Historic Preservation review and policies have not been supplanted with something
new or made optional. We do not believe that the document intends to sideline Historic
Preservation, we would just like to avoid any ambiguity later.





Page 1461
• Section 507 Tab A II.C 8
(c) Individual duplexes (as specified above) shall incorporate Design Guidelines
Section 8.5. DWELLING UNITS ON LOTS ZONED OR DESIGNATED HP ARE
EXEMPT FROM THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 8.5, SO LONG AS THE PLANS
ARE REVIEWED AND APPROVED THROUGH HISTORIC PRESERVATION
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF ANY BUILDING PERMITS.
There should simply be a period after “SECTION 8.5” with the balance of the sentence
(highlighted) removed. The paragraph should then have a new sentence that states: “Any
Dwelling Units proposed on a lot with a historic preservation zoning districts or to
individually designated historic property must be approved in accordance with Section
811.”

• Section 706. (Accessory Uses and Structures)
(A)(3)
(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, OR AS MAY BE
APPROVED BY HISTORIC PRESERVATION FOR HP ZONED OR DESIGNATED
PROPERTIES. (P)
There should be a period after “DWELLING UNIT with the balance of the sentence
(highlighted) removed. The paragraph should then have a new sentence that states: “Any ADU
proposed on a lot with a historic preservation zoning districts or to individually designated historic
property must be approved in accordance with Section 811.”

• Section 702.F 1. (Special Parking Standards)
(b). Spaces in excess of those required for single family and duplex residential uses
may be located in the required front yard. However, all parking and maneuvering
areas within the required front yard shall not exceed 50% OF THE AREA OF THE
REQUIRED FRONT YARD, EXCEPT THAT A DRIVEWAY SHALL NOT BE
REQUIRED TO BE LESS THAN 18’ IN WIDTH UNLESS OTHERWISE
STIPULATED BY HISTORIC PRESERVATION.
There should be a period after “IN WIDTH” with the balance of the sentence (highlighted)
removed. The paragraph should then have a new sentence that states: “All parking spaces,
maneuvering areas and driveways proposed on a lot in historic preservation zoning district
or to individually designated historic property must be approved in accordance with
Section 811.”

In addition, there are at least 11 Special Planning Districts in our city. Some of these
plans were adopted as far back as 1986. This text amendment appears to broadly apply to these
areas without considering the context of each plan and the stake holders impacted. The coalition
is concerned that this action may be a violation of the commitment made to these stake holders
without an appropriate public process to amend each plan.


Page 1462
Thank you for your attention to this matter.


Sincerely,

/S/ Robert C. Warnicke
Robert C. Warnicke
Vice President






Page 1463
Racelle Escolar

From: Abby Wilkymacky
Sent: Monday, July 24, 2023 4:07 PM
To: Racelle Escolar
Subject: I support Phoenix ADUs


Dear Racelle,

My name is Abby Wilkymacky and I’m reaching out as a resident of the City of Phoenix to express my support
for the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment (Z-TA-5-23-Y).

The average cost of a home in Arizona has risen 54.2% in the last two years, while the median income has
increased just 5% since 2019. Where we live affects every aspect of our lives, from access to workplaces and
childcare to healthcare and groceries. Even our life expectancy depends on what ZIP code we live in – there is
a gap of more than 24 years in life expectancy from the healthiest Arizona neighborhood to the least healthy.

These amendments will help increase the housing supply and make more neighborhoods in the City of
Phoenix attainable for more Phoenix residents. Allowing accessory dwelling units in all neighborhoods will help
increase the rentals supply and allow more seniors to stay with families or find smaller units in their current
neighborhoods.

Please forward this message to members of the Planning Commission to convey my support for
approving this amendment.

Kindly,
Abby




Abby Wilkymacky
Founder, Facilitator
abby@mindflowerstudio.com
513-265-0438 (mobile)
Phoenix, Arizona

www.MindflowerStudio.com [mindflowerstudio.com]

@MindflowerStudio





Page 1464
Racelle Escolar

From: Tom Kelly
Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2023 10:00 AM
To: Racelle Escolar
Subject: Letter of support - Zoning Code Amendment for ADUs to be considered at Aug 3rd Planning
Commission Meeting


I am writing in full support of the proposed zoning amendment that would permit the construction of ADUs in single‐
family zoned lots of sufficient size.

ADUs offer a significant new source of affordable housing without materially impacting the neighborhoods around them.

I am hopeful that we will also see real estate tax incentives for those home owners who commit to ADU rental pricing
targeted to low income individuals and families

I am also hopeful that manufactured housing will be broadly permitted. Manufactured housing is an essential supplier of
ADUs (including advanced technologies) given the limited capacity in the housing construction industry, and the need
for simple and expedited processes of plan review and approval.

I recognize that much more will need to be done to address the severe shortage of affordable housing, but congratulate
city staff and elected leadership in making ADUs a significant step forward.

Sincerely,

Tom Kelly
30 E Saint Anne Ave
Phoenix 85042

Member:
Arizona Housing Coalition
PCA Social & Housing Advancement Committee
Valley Leadership’s Housing & Healthy Neighborhood’s Impact Team

Board member:
FSL
South Central Collaborative

Early adopter of manufactured small homes (749 S 2nd St)

Sent from my iPad





Page 1465
Racelle Escolar

From: Amy Schwabenlender
Sent: Tuesday, August 1, 2023 9:54 AM
To: Racelle Escolar
Subject: Support for Phoenix ADUs


Dear Racelle,

My name is Amy Schwabenlender, and I’m reaching out as a resident of the City of Phoenix to express my
support for the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment (Z-TA-5-23-Y).

The average cost of a home in Arizona has risen 54.2% in the last two years, while the median income has
increased just 5% since 2019. Where we live affects every aspect of our lives, from access to workplaces and
childcare to healthcare and groceries. Even our life expectancy depends on what ZIP code we live in – there is
a gap of more than 24 years in life expectancy from the healthiest Arizona neighborhood to the least healthy.

These amendments will help increase the supply of housing and make more neighborhoods in the City of
Phoenix attainable for more Phoenix residents. Allowing accessory dwelling units in all neighborhoods will help
increase the supply of rentals and allow more seniors to stay with families or find smaller units in their current
neighborhoods.

Please forward this message along to members of the Planning Commission to convey my support for the
approval of this amendment.

Sincerely,
Amy





Page 1466
Racelle Escolar

From: Kelly Hatch
Sent: Tuesday, August 1, 2023 2:05 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: August 3, 2023_Planning commission_SUPPORT FOR ITEMS 16 and 17


To whom it may concern:

I am writing to support the following items on the August 3, 2023 Planning Commission Agenda:

Item 16: Z‐TA‐5‐23‐Y (ADU’s): This would positively allow for:
 incremental density/missing middle and affordable housing
 multi‐generational housing
 property owner wealth building through rental opportunities
 aligns with the South Central TOD Community Vision and Plan approved by Mayor and City Council in 2022.

Item 17: Z‐TA‐8‐23‐Y (Parking reductions): This would positively allow for:

 greater utilization of transit systems
 allows for greater density to be built on small infill lots
 promotes development of small lots that could not be developed due high parking requires that cannot
reasonably fit on site
 supports development of affordable housing
 aligns with the Walkable Urban Code
 aligns with transit‐oriented plans including the South Central TOD Community Vision and Plan approved by
Mayor and City Council in 2022.


Kelly Hatch

Kelly Hatch NCIDQ
Senior Associate




o 602.650.7635 c 425.218.5383
Kelly.Hatch@multi.studio
w Multi.studio [multi.studio]





Page 1467
Racelle Escolar

From: Krista Shepherd
Sent: Tuesday, August 1, 2023 1:53 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Cc: Krista.Shepherd@multi.studio
Subject: August 3, 2023_Planning commission_SUPPORT FOR ITEMS 16 and 17


To whom it may concern:

I am writing to support the following items on the August 3, 2023 Planning Commission Agenda:

Item 16: Z‐TA‐5‐23‐Y (ADU’s): This would positively allow for:
 incremental density/missing middle and affordable housing
 multi‐generational housing
 property owner wealth building through rental opportunities
 aligns with the South Central TOD Community Vision and Plan approved by Mayor and City Council in 2022.

Item 17: Z‐TA‐8‐23‐Y (Parking reductions): This would positively allow for:

 greater utilization of transit systems
 allows for greater density to be built on small infill lots
 promotes development of small lots that could not be developed due high parking requires that cannot
reasonably fit on site
 supports development of affordable housing
 aligns with the Walkable Urban Code
 aligns with transit‐oriented plans including the South Central TOD Community Vision and Plan approved by
Mayor and City Council in 2022.

Thank you.
Krista
Resident of District 6, Business location is District 7, Member of the 2025 Plan Phoenix Leadership Committee

Krista Shepherd AIA, LEED AP, NCARB
Principal




o 602.650.7630 c 602.708.4588
Krista.Shepherd@multi.studio
w Multi.studio [multi.studio]





Page 1468
Racelle Escolar

From: Melissa Alexander
Sent: Tuesday, August 1, 2023 2:29 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: August 3, 2023_Planning commission_SUPPORT FOR ITEMS 16 and 17


To whom it may concern:

I am wri ng to support the following items on the August 3, 2023 Planning Commission Agenda:

Item 16: Z‐TA‐5‐23‐Y (ADU’s): This would posi vely allow for:
 incremental density/missing middle and affordable housing
 multi‐generational housing
 property owner wealth building through rental opportunities
 aligns with the South Central TOD Community Vision and Plan approved by Mayor and City Council in 2022.

Item 17: Z‐TA‐8‐23‐Y (Parking reduc ons): This would posi vely allow for:

 greater utilization of transit systems
 allows for greater density to be built on small infill lots
 promotes development of small lots that could not be developed due high parking requires that cannot
reasonably fit on site
 supports development of affordable housing
 aligns with the Walkable Urban Code
 aligns with transit‐oriented plans including the South Central TOD Community Vision and Plan approved by
Mayor and City Council in 2022.

Thank you.
Melissa
Resident of District 6, Business loca on is District 7


Melissa Alexander NCIDQ, IIDA
Principal




o 602.650.7627 c 602.748.5505
Melissa.Alexander@multi.studio
w Multi.studio [multi.studio]





Page 1469
Racelle Escolar

From: Mike Anglin
Sent: Tuesday, August 1, 2023 2:11 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Aug 3, 2023 - Planning Commission - SUPPORT FOR ITEMS 16 and 17

Importance: High



To whom it may concern:

I am writing to support the following items on the August 3, 2023 Planning Commission Agenda:

Item 16: Z-TA-5-23-Y (ADU’s):
This would positively allow for:
• incremental density/missing middle and affordable housing
• multi-generational housing
• property owner wealth-building through rental opportunities
• aligns with the South Central TOD Community Vision and Plan approved by Mayor and City Council in 2022.

Item 17: Z-TA-8-23-Y (Parking reductions):
This would positively allow for:
• greater utilization of transit systems
• greater density to be built on small infill lots
• promoting development of small lots that could not be developed due high parking requirements that cannot
reasonably fit on site
• supporting development of affordable housing
• alignment with the Walkable Urban Code
• alignment with transit-oriented plans including the South Central TOD Community Vision and Plan approved by
Mayor and City Council in 2022.

Thank you.
Mike
Resident of District 5 and employee of business located in District 7


Mike Anglin RA, LEED AP
Senior Associate
he/him



o 602.650.7614 c 520.664.4625
Mike.Anglin@multi.studio
w Multi.studio [multi.studio]





Page 1470
August 1, 2023

Phoenix Planning Commission
200 W. Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003

Dear Phoenix Planning Commission Members:

The city of Phoenix is currently in a housing crisis. In 2022 over 56,000 new
residents arrived in Maricopa County with many relocating to the City of Phoenix.
As the population of Phoenix continues to increase, innovative solutions must be
employed to ensure that adequate housing stock is available for all who choose to
call Phoenix home.

While no single change to current zoning ordinances, building practices, or
development patterns will provide immediate relief to the current housing
shortage; adoption of Z-TA-5-23-Y which allows for increased construction of
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), is a first step in increasing housing supply in
areas and neighborhoods where the current densities would permit.

Increasing construction of ADUs offers many benefits to individual families and
entire communities. ADUs will help to promote multigenerational living on a
single parcel of land. Families will benefit from increased generational
connectivity and strengthened family bonds. With greater construction of ADUs
senior citizens will be allowed to age in place surrounded by a family support
network. Communities in turn will benefit from a stable residential base
comprised of invested neighbors with long-standing neighborhood ties.

Phoenix Community Alliance is fully aware of concerns that have been expressed
regarding proposed revisions in the text amendment. Language in the text
amendment regarding ADUs in designated historic neighborhoods needs further




Page 1471
clarification. Similarly, language regarding the intersection of ADU construction
and home owner associations (HOAs) requires more refinement. While the above
outlined concerns are valid, the benefits of greater adaptation of ADUs far
outweighs the potential side effects of increased ADU construction.

By way of background Phoenix Community Alliance (PCA) is the 40 year –old
business leadership and advocacy organization for greater Downtown Phoenix and
has nearly 300 Members ranging from small non-profit community organizations
to large corporations, from college students to private professionals to start-up
businesses. Our Members work together to create a stronger Downtown for a
better Phoenix through advocacy Committees which focus on the priorities
outlined in the Downtown Strategic Plan.

PCA strongly urges approval of Z-TA-5-23-Y by the Planning Commission and City
Council. Revision of this text amendment is a first step in addressing housing
supply challenges in Phoenix. Families and communities will benefit economically
and socially by providing for increased access to ADUs throughout the City of
Phoenix.




Patrick McDaniel Diane Haller
Advocacy Director Board Chair




Page 1472
RCVD 8/2/2023

7250 N. 16th Street, Suite 302 | Phoenix, AZ 85020
1-866-389-5649 | Fax: 602-256-2928 | TTY: 1-877-434-7598
aarp.org/az | azaarp@aarp.org | twitter: @AZ_AARP
facebook.com/aarparizona




AARP Arizona on City of Phoenix Text Amendments Z-TA-5-23-y and
Z-TA-8-23-Y

AARP Arizona, on behalf of its almost 900,000 Arizona members is excited to support
both text amendments as they will reduce and remove barriers to creating more housing
that is affordable to all Phoenicians.

TA-5-23:

The City of Phoenix is in desperate need of more units that are affordable. As one of the
largest cities in the nation, and growing, we must work to address these concerns. As
our economy and population have grown, so too have the prices of rent. While we
welcome the growth and prosperity to our city, we must ensure that city residents have
access to stable housing. We’ve watched our population of unhoused grow dramatically
over the last few years, especially amongst the 50+. In our heat, housing is a matter of
life and death.

Accessible Dwelling Units (ADUs), also known as Casitas or Mother-in-Law Suites, are
a great way to combat the over 150,000-unit shortage we have in the city. We also have
evidence that these units, if allowed, will go to those most in need of them. A 2018 study
in Vancouver found that 32% of the residents of ADUs had income that was less than
80% of the regional median income, and 16% had income that was less than half of the
regional median income.

The average Social Security check in Arizona is roughly $1,550 per month, whereas the
average rent in Phoenix is closer to $2,100 per month. People who moved to Arizona in
years past are now being priced out leading to some of the difficulties we are currently
seeing.

From another perspective, ADUs can also allow for older adults, who need care by
family but can’t afford living in a long-term care facility, to have a home to age in place.
There are an estimated 800,000 unpaid family caregivers in Arizona and having more
options to those needing care to be near those providing helps everyone.

TA-8-23:

Regarding the parking requirement changes, AARP policy actually recommends no on-
site parking requirements. Parking requirements create additional barriers to ADU




Page 1473
creation because there is additional land needed and present additional costs. For
instance, depending on the type of parking being built it can range between $2,500 and
$15,000.

Interestingly, we do not require more parking for every additional bedroom created in a
home, thus, AARP believes that ADUs should be treated similarly.

According to a recent AARP Arizona survey, 80% of respondents put increasing rent as
one of the top concerns they had which could prevent them from aging in place. In the
same survey, 90% of respondents said that Elected Leaders should make affordable
housing a priority.

We are seeing everyone including stakeholders, elected officials, and residents all
agree that housing is a major concern. These proposed changes would be a step in the
right direction to allow Phoenix to grow without leaving people, especially older adults
behind.



Sincerely,

Dana Marie Kennedy, MSW

State Director, AARP Arizona




Page 1474
August 2, 2023



Re: ADU and Parking Reform Items Before Your Commission

To Whom It May Concern:

As a Phoenix resident, father of two children, and someone who works in the development and
construction industry, I urge the Phoenix Planning Commission to support text amendments
Z-TA-5-23-Y (legalizing casitas) and Z-TA-8-23-Y (right-sizing parking mandates).

Our zoning code must keep pace with the needs of society. These needs are not static. Indeed, they
are dynamic and always changing. If our zoning code is meant to serve our community and protect
its best interests, then it too must remain dynamic and open to change. Because affordability
metrics, long permitting times, and housing production numbers clearly indicate that the status quo
is not keeping up. This reality demands action.

I am proud to see our city step up to the plate and show leadership by taking a serious look at
zoning reform. Both text amendments before you are critical.

Backyard units give people options, especially for multi-generational families or those who need
more space but cannot move due to an existing job or today’s much higher interest rates. These
same units were once legal in some of our most beloved historic neighborhoods–just take a look
around Coronado, for example. It is time we re-legalize what was once a common sense way to
gently grow and incrementally expand a family’s use of their hard-won property.

PLEASE VOTE YES on Z-TA-5-23-Y to legalize casitas!

Relaxed parking minimums are equally valuable. There is a long and proven literature covering the
many ways high parking ratios negatively impact our communities, but that’s not even the most
important point. Simply put, these requirements driven significant cost, and those costs transfer all
the way down to the monthly rent paid by everyday people. Reducing parking ratios is not a
giveaway to well capitalized developers. Instead, it is a leg up to our neighbors, many of whom rent
either out of necessity or by choice. We need to do everything we can to encourage efficient use of
infill land while reducing the cost to construct infill housing.

PLEASE VOTE YES on Z-TA-8-23-Y to align mandatory parking ratios with today’s needs!

Thank you,
Lucas Lindsey




www.urbnist.com | 2839 E Yucca
Page St.
1475Phoenix, AZ 85028 | @urbnist
Page 1476
Page 1477
Racelle Escolar

From: Dudzik Smith, Katherine
Sent: Thursday, August 3, 2023 8:58 AM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Support for Z-TA-5-23-Y and Z-TA-8-23-Y


Hello,

I am writing in support of the Zoning text amendments suggested by the City of Phoenix staff to allow ADUs and
reduction of parking minimums. Both of these measures will help with the affordable housing crisis that the Phoenix
metro area is experiencing and thus help the homelessness situation. Both of these measures help with creating a
stronger community by allowing more diverse development. Please adopt these zoning text amendments.

Thank you,
Katherine

Katherine Dudzik Smith, AIA, NOMA, LEED AP, NCARB
Senior Design Architect

HDR
20 East Thomas Road, Suite 2500
Phoenix, AZ 85012
D 602.474.7812 M 480.239.6291
Katherine.DudzikSmith@hdrinc.com

hdrinc.com/follow-us [hdrinc.com]





Page 1478
Racelle Escolar

From: pearce@carbon-vudu.us
Sent: Thursday, August 3, 2023 8:07 AM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: ADU Support and less parking


Yes I support the ADU program and less parking c.

Pearce | 602.430.3451 ©2023 OWNERSHIP OF SERVICE ‐‐ All reports, plans, specifica ons, computer documents, field data, notes and informa on prepared
by CARBON VUDU LLC and their consultants shall remain the property thereto. CARBON VUDU LLC shall retain all common law, statutory and other reserved rights,
including the copyright thereto.





Page 1479
August 3rd, 2023


As community organizations led by and serving Phoenix families and community leaders,
we urge the Planning Commission at the City of Phoenix to support text amendments
Z-TA-5-23-Y (legalizing casitas) and Z-TA-8-23-Y (right-sizing parking mandates). These
proposals will help make housing more affordable and attainable across our city,
increase access to jobs and amenities, and save Phoenicians money when we
desperately need it.

Housing is a basic human need and we believe that any hard-working Phoenician should be
able to find safe, stable housing they can afford. We also recognize that our outdated
zoning codes present a huge barrier to affordable and attainable housing. Our city
policymakers have an obligation to act, to ensure no hard-working Phoenician is priced
out of their community.

The two proposals before the Planning Commission and City Council would provide modest,
but important improvements to affordability and livability in Phoenix. They will create a
pathway for our city to stay a place Phoenicians can afford to live, work, and raise families,
while maintaining the visual character and livability of our neighborhoods.


Legalize casitas to expand affordable housing options
Vote YES on Z-TA-5-23-Y to legalize casitas, vital to any affordable housing strategy.

Casitas are among the most naturally affordable forms of housing.
● A new market-rate casita rents for 75% less than a new single-family home.1
● Multiple studies have found the average casita is affordable at between 60% and
80% of area median income.

Casitas provide opportunity to people of all ages.
● Casitas enable seniors to age in place by providing ongoing rental income without
needing to move off their property.2
● Casitas enable multigenerational living on a single parcel, particularly useful for
families who want to live in multigenerational arrangements.3

Legalizing casitas is popular. A YouGov poll of Arizona voters in May-June of this year found
that 73% of Maricopa County residents support allowing owners of single-family houses
to build and rent out casitas on their property, vs. only 18% opposition.4
https://www.sightline.org/2021/08/01/we-ran-the-rent-numbers-on-portlands-7-newly-legal-home-options/
https://www.aarp.org/home-family/your-home/info-2020/accessory-dwelling-unit.html
https://accessorydwellings.org/2016/01/22/adu-multigenerational-families/
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BrOgBvXl9v1q7Z_fFm-tC7uE5fV9FuTF/view?usp=sharing


Page 1480
Right-size parking mandates to bring down housing costs
Vote YES on Z-TA-8-23-Y to align mandatory parking ratios with the needs and budgets of
everyday, hardworking Phoenicians.

Study after study shows parking mandates make housing more expensive.
● Multiple independent, nonpartisan analyses of parking mandates found that on-site
parking adds 15% - 17% to the cost of rent.5 6
● Another study showed that during peak periods 37% of urban residential parking
spaces are unoccupied.7

Relaxing parking mandates enables more homes to be built more quickly.
● Studies of cities that repealed parking mandates in the last ten years found that 60%
to 70% of new homes built there would not have been legal under prior mandates.8

Right-sizing parking mandates are popular. The May-June YouGov poll of Arizona voters
found that 60% of Maricopa County residents support reducing parking mandates, so
long as at least one parking space is provided per home, vs. only 22% opposition.



Phoenicians support bold action to build more affordable housing
With Phoenix facing a shortage of over 163,000 homes, the working residents of our city are
done waiting for action.9 The May-June YouGov poll of Arizona voters found that 55% of
Maricopa County residents believe “building more affordable housing” is important.

The time to act is now. Phoenix’s working families need you to vote YES on text
amendments Z-TA-5-23-Y and Z-TA-8-23-Y.

Signed,

Urban Phoenix Project
Arizona State Senator Anna Hernandez
Arizona State Representative Analise Ortiz
American Institute of Architects
AIA Phoenix Metro
A Permanent Voice Foundation


https://www.sightline.org/research_item/who-pays-for-parking/
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10511482.2016.1205647
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/data/seattles-car-population-has-finally-peaked/
https://www.sightline.org/2023/04/13/parking-reform-legalized-most-of-the-new-homes-in-buffalo-and-seattle/
https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/phoenix-draft-homeless-plan-hopes-portal-advocates-community-gallego-11478370


Page 1481
Carbon Vudu LLC
Carnation Association of Neighbors
CHISPA AZ
Fuerte AZ
Merge Architectural Group
Phoenix Spokes People
RAIL CDC
SoPho Convening
Trees Matter
Unemployed Workers United





Page 1482
ATTACHMENT J




1 August 2023

Chair and Commissioners
Planning Commission
c/o City of Phoenix, Planning and Development Department
200 W. Washington Street, 2nd Floor
Phoenix, Arizona 85003

RE: TA-5-23 (ADUs); TA-8-23 (Affordable and Multi-Family Housing parking reductions)

Mr. Chairman and Commissioners:

Attached with this letter is a correspondence the Neighborhood Coalition (NCGP) sent to all
Village Planning Committees (VPCs) in July regarding the subject text amendments.
NCGP representatives presented on the subject at ten of the 15 VPCs.
Planning and Development submitted to you an addendum to the ADU text amendment. While
we appreciate the effort to improve the TA, the changes have yet to be aired so we wish for a
more fulsome public discussion before embracing the changes suggested.
We continue to stand by our recommendations—amending the ADU TA to improve the clarity
of its impact on historic preservation districts, special planning districts and overlays, and HOAs
and CC&Rs. We also think managing short term rentals (STRs) deserves a greater inspection.
We also believe that the proposed parking reductions to affordable and multifamily housing
projects warrant substantial amendments to be considered viable on a citywide basis. Indeed,
nine of the 15 VPCs voted to deny the reduced parking text amendment as presented to you.
Please consider the recommendations NCGP has offered you for both TAs.


Respectfully,
Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix members and friends
att.




Page 1483
11 July 2023

Chair and Committee Members
Desert View Village Planning Committee
c/o City of Phoenix, Planning and Development Department
200 W. Washington Street, 2nd Floor
Phoenix, Arizona 85003

RE: TA-5-23 (ADUs); TA-8-23 (Affordable and Multi-Family Housing parking reductions)

Chair and Committee members:

The Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix is registered with the Corporation Commission of
the State of Arizona and has continuously been a member in good standing since 1984. Our
members are from neighborhoods across the City of Phoenix.

Background
We understand that our nation is facing a housing shortage and that Arizona and Phoenix have
not been spared from this shortage. NCGP members believe it falls upon all of us to help provide
relief and a sustainable path forward.

In that spirit, members of the NCGP working group gathered to review and discuss the proposed
subject text amendments the City has anticipated to address our housing shortage.

2023 Arizona Legislative Session
This year’s session saw several housing bills make their way through the Legislature without
success. Indeed, NCGP, its members and our partners across the Valley and the state were active
in seeking ‘no’ votes from elected representatives. Ultimately, the bills were either voted down
decisively, on a bipartisan basis, or they failed to make their way to the floor of either Chamber.1


Senate bill SB1117 was denied in the Senate on a bipartisan vote, failing 20 to 9 in March. The bill was then
broken into 3 separate bills: HB1161, HB1163 and SB2536. On the final day of voting in June, SB2536 was defeated
on a bipartisan basis, 19-10. HB1161 and HB1163 failed to get a vote on the House floor, ending the bill sponsor’s
push for so-called ‘zoning reform.’




Page 1484
RE: TA-5-23 (ADUs); TA-8-23 (Affordable and Multi-Family Housing parking reductions) P. 2 of 7
Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix July 11, 2023

We provide this information to let VPC members know that all the text amendments coming
through committees in the last several months--and now this month—can claim origins from
the bills at the state legislature that we are intimately familiar with.
Z-TA-5-23 (Accessory Dwelling Units or ADUs)
Many of us think that ADUs can have a positive impact on the housing supply in our city. Yet, we
believe that there are several elements of the proposed TA that require additional scrutiny. These
are our comments and suggestions.

I. Historic Preservation and other Special Planning/Overlay Districts:

We have great concern that the TA as presented will create confusion and contention between
this ordinance and the ordinances that govern properties of historic significance. Z-TA-5-23-Y
must state that for historic properties, Chapter 8 of the Zoning Ordinance takes precedence over
the design review standards for ADUs. Specifically, the proposed language states:

"(c) DWELLING UNITS ON LOTS ZONED OR DESIGNATED HP ARE EXEMPT FROM THE
PROVISIONS OF SECTION 8.5, SO LONG AS THE PLANS ARE REVIEWED AND APPROVED
THROUGH HISTORIC PRESERVATION PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF ANY BUILDING PERMITS."

The phrase "so long as..." is imprecise and doesn't make it clear that ADUs in historic districts
MUST be reviewed by the HP Office. The proposed language is subject to misinterpretation that a
project may EITHER be approved by the HP Office OR incorporate the Design Guidelines of
Section 8.5 of the TA.

To make it clear that ADUs in historic districts must have HP approval, we suggest the following
language:

"Dwelling units within a historic district and/or with HP or HP-L zoning overlay are subject
to review by the City of Phoenix Historic Preservation Office pursuant to Article 8 of the
Zoning Ordinance. In the event the provisions of Section 8.5 herein, or other ordinance or
regulations are inconsistent with Article 8 of the Zoning Ordinance (Historic Preservation),
Article 8 shall have precedence."

We also believe the proposed TA Section 702.F.1(b) (Special Parking Standards), likewise does not
make it clear that HP approval is REQUIRED for the addition of parking to the front of a historic
property (widening of driveways and curb cuts, etc.), and the language should be strengthened.
The proposed language states:

"Spaces in excess of those required for single family and duplex residential uses may be
located in the required front yard. However, all parking and maneuvering areas within the
required front yard shall not exceed forty-five percent (45%) 50% OF THE AREA OF THE
REQUIRED FRONT YARD, EXCEPT THAT A DRIVEWAY SHALL NOTBE REQUIRED TO BE LESS
THAN 18’ IN WIDTH UNLESS OTHERWISE STIPULATED BY HISTORIC PRESERVATION.”




Page 1485
RE: TA-5-23 (ADUs); TA-8-23 (Affordable and Multi-Family Housing parking reductions) P. 3 of 7
Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix July 11, 2023


We think stronger language is needed to ensure that Historic Preservation regulation takes
precedence over the ADU ordinance by deleting, "Unless otherwise stipulated by Historic
Preservation", and adding the following sentence:

"Any and all changes to driveways, parking and maneuvering areas within a historic
district and/or with HP or HP-L zoning overlay are subject to review by the City of Phoenix
Historic Preservation Office pursuant to Article 8 of the Zoning Ordinance. In the event the
provisions of Section 702.F.1 herein, or other ordinance or regulations are inconsistent
with Article 8 of the Zoning Ordinance (Historic Preservation), Article 8 shall have
precedence."

Third, the proposed amendment Section 706.A.3.b (Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU)) is also
worded in such a way that makes HP approval seem optional.

The proposed language states:

"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, OR AS MAY BE APPROVED BY HISTORIC PRESERVATION FOR HP
ZONED OR DESIGNATED PROPERTIES. (P)"

Instead of using the imprecise phrase, "or as may be approved", the language should be
strengthened as follows to make it clear HP approval is REQUIRED for historic properties:

Delete the phrase "or as may be approved by Historic Preservation..." and add the following
sentence:
“A detached ADU within a historic district and/or with HP or HP-L zoning overlay is subject
to review by the City of Phoenix Historic Preservation Office pursuant to Article 8 of the
Zoning Ordinance. In the event the provisions of Chapter 7, Section 706.A.3.b herein, or
other ordinance or regulations are inconsistent with Article 8 of the Zoning Ordinance
(Historic Preservation), Article 8 shall take precedence."

II. Parking for ADUs

We agree that the amount of the front yard that can be allowed for parking needs to increase
from 45% to 50% for parcels that are approved for an Additional Dwelling Unit. We also know,
based on experience, that on-street parking will become more frequent.

To ensure that property owners in proximity to a property with an ADU is not inconvenienced or
that use of their property is not diminished, on-street parking should be regulated. Please note
that homes subject to Historic Preservation, Special Zoning and Overlay Districts are still subject
to whatever specific regulation(s) applies to those properties per the first consideration in this
position statement.



Page 1486
RE: TA-5-23 (ADUs); TA-8-23 (Affordable and Multi-Family Housing parking reductions) P. 4 of 7
Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix July 11, 2023


Combining on-site and on-street parking concerns, the regulation should read:

“A minimum of 1 parking space shall be available either on-site with adherence to Section
720.F.1 as amended to 50% of the front yard, or on-street parking that must only be in
front of the subject property unless the property is a corner lot and side-street parking is
possible.”

Consideration should also be given to adding language to ensure visibility triangles are
maintained.

III. Short Term Rental

We appreciate the addition of the paragraph in the revised TA requiring a Restrictive Covenant
but do not feel it is strong enough to meet the City’s goal of increasing affordable housing supply
for permanent residents. As currently worded, the Restrictive Covenant will preclude investors
who own residential property from applying for an ADU, but it does not prevent an owner-
occupied property from renting an ADU on a short-term basis. The consequence will have a
negative impact on affordable housing for first time renters (e.g., college-aged adults), and
temporary workers (e.g., traveling nurses), among others.

The Restrictive Covenant paragraph should be revised to add the regulation that ADUs, if rented,
must be for a term of no less than thirty (30) days. The current City of Flagstaff ordinance states:

(a)The property owner, which includes title holders and contract purchasers, shall occupy
either the primary dwelling unit or the ADU as their principal residence, unless the
primary dwelling unit and ADU are allowed to be separately leased or rented in
accordance with subsection G of this Section.

(b)The primary dwelling unit or the ADU that is not occupied by the property owner that is
rented or leased shall be for a period of no less than 30 days.

IV. Homeowners’ Associations/ CCRs

The proposed TA does not address coordination with Homeowners’ Associations or Covenants,
Conditions and Restrictions. By law, these contracts must be honored in addition to municipal
codes and ordinances. This TA should state that applicants for ADUs must comply with HOA and
Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions in addition to the provisions of the ordinance.

Z- TA-8-23 (Affordable and Multi-Family Housing parking reductions)
We understand the desire to relieve what developers perceive as parking ‘constraints.’ We
generally believe, however, that a ‘one size fits all’ approach to parking reductions does not
reflect a thoughtful approach for a city of 517 square miles.




Page 1487
RE: TA-5-23 (ADUs); TA-8-23 (Affordable and Multi-Family Housing parking reductions) P. 5 of 7
Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix July 11, 2023


Any reduction in the current parking space calculations for multi-family housing, in any district
and any price category, will put the burden of parking on public streets throughout the city.
Therefore, any revisions to the current ordinance need careful consideration.

We believe this TA is being rushed through the approval process without such diligence. With the
goal of working together to find suitable solutions, we make observations and propose revisions
to the current ordinance as follows:

I. Parking space calculations for multi-family developments should only be based on
proximity to currently available transportation options. They should never be based on
the rental rates of the units (I.e., luxury, affordable, market rate, low-income/subsidized).
It is discriminatory to believe that people who live in lower-priced housing do not have or
do not want personal vehicles.

II. Because of the cost of apartment rentals, more units of every size are being shared
by two or more people, oftentimes housemates rather than couples. Expecting that no
occupant will have a car, even in TODs and WU code areas, is not based on empirical data.

III. Reducing the on-site parking requirements for multi-family housing might be
appropriate for residents living in the Downtown Core, Transit Oriented and WU Code
districts, yet it is not acceptable to residents living outside of those districts.

Phoenix is the second largest city by area in the United States. Because of the lack of
convenient, reliable public transportation in every Phoenix Village outside of downtown
and within walking distance of light rail, residents depend on personal vehicles to go to
work, to the grocery, and to the entertainment venues clustered in downtown.

Those residents who do not live downtown will also need parking to continue enjoying all
that downtown has to offer. If all the street parking is taken by downtown residents,
commuting patrons will be deterred from attending events.

IV. Include a requirement that visibility triangles must be maintained.
A. Reducing on-site parking to encourage more density with potentially small front
and side setbacks could lead to encroachment on the visibility triangle that is a
necessity to ensure safety.

V. City-wide Multi-family Parking Requirement
A. The base parking space requirement should be 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit.
i. This simplifies the calculation instead of calculation based on size of DU
ii. Maintains the current requirement as the most frequently built size of
unit (1-2 bdrm)
iii. Averages the current requirements (1.25/efficiency; 1.5/1-2 bdrm; 2/3
bdrm)



Page 1488
RE: TA-5-23 (ADUs); TA-8-23 (Affordable and Multi-Family Housing parking reductions) P. 6 of 7
Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix July 11, 2023

iv. It should not be less than the current efficiency DU requirement


VI. Citywide Affordable housing Parking Reduction
A. Delete this provision because it does not consider proximity to alternative to
personal vehicle modes of transportation.

VII. Infill Development District Parking Reduction
A. Delete the calculations entirely
B. Use 10% bonus density incentive

VII. Walkable Urban (WU) Code affordable housing parking requirements
A. Required parking should never be “zero”
B. Parking for handicapped residents should always be required and maintained
C. It should not be expected that residents living in affordable housing in the areas
of the WU Code will not have personal vehicles
D. It should not be expected that residents living in affordable housing in the areas
of the WU Code will never have a guest with a personal vehicle

IX. Passenger Loading Zones within WU Code
A. Also require parking of service vehicles (e.g., repair technicians) that require
more time than the other stated examples
B. Also require parking for renter move-in/move-out vehicles that require more
time than the other stated examples

Process: Lack of neighborhood outreach
In a June 1, 2023, staff report to the City of Phoenix Planning Commission, PDD staff wrote:

Staff obtained input from various stakeholders and held four meetings to review and
request additional input on the proposed text amendment. Stakeholders included
individuals from the following organizations:
• Manufactured Housing Communities of Arizona (MHCA)
• Manufactured Housing Industry of Arizona (MHIA)
• Arizona Department of Housing Board of Manufactured Housing Member
• Affordable Housing/Private Developers
• Arizona State University, Real Estate Development

While we understand that staff feels the need to reach out to industry representatives to
understand their position, so, too does staff need to reach out to citizens and neighborhoods to
understand the issues of the vast swaths of residents who will be impacted by these proposed
sweeping changes to our housing stock.

Does the City of Phoenix think that simply vetting these proposals—changes that can have a vast
impact on the existing population—should only be presented to VPCs?



Page 1489
RE: TA-5-23 (ADUs); TA-8-23 (Affordable and Multi-Family Housing parking reductions) P. 7 of 7
Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix July 11, 2023


Clearly, some VPCs took issue with the speed and confusion of the proposals of the initial two
text amendments when they were presented. It appears six of 15 VPCs did not meet quorum on
the first go-around; yet another VPC did not meet quorum last night.

We ask: How can vast changes to the entire city be vetted by, perhaps, 150 people or less?

Next steps: Approve our recommended amendments
We have pored over these proposals to identify the gaps and looked ahead to stave off
unintended consequences. We’ve shared those with you here. Simply approving what’s been
presented in your packet would be to ignore the serious concerns we’ve presented without
rectifying those issues.

The Neighborhood Coalition looks to make these TAs the strongest and most applicable they can
be. We would be disappointed if members simply approved the proposals “as is” because we
don’t want to see this opportunity squandered for the sake of speed, with all of us missing out on
something that can truly help our city now and in the future.

Respectfully,


Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix (NCGP)
Neal Haddad, President, NCGP; Arcadia Osborn Neighborhood Association
B. Paul Barnes, Vice President, NCGP; AZ APA Distinguished Citizen Planner; former CEVPC chair
Mary Crozier, President, North Central Phoenix Homeowners Association
Sandy Grunow, Co-Chair, Mid-Century Modern Neighborhood Association
Dave Jackson, President, Rancho Ventura Neighborhood Association
Jack Leonard, architect, AIA, NCARB, LEED AP; 2015 General Plan update committee;
former Camelback East and Encanto Village Planning Committees
Michael Phillips, President, Arcadia Camelback Neighborhood Association
Jackie Rich, President, Murphy Trail Estates Neighborhood Association
Larry Whitesell, Co-Chair, The Peak Neighborhood Association




Page 1490
July 28, 2023



Helana Ruter
Interim Historic Preservation Officer
200 West Washington St., 3rd Floor
Phoenix, AZ 85003

Re: Importance of Abiding by City of Phoenix Historic Preservation Ordinance for ADUs

Dear Helana:

Historic preservation ordinances play a crucial role in maintaining the cultural and architectural
heritage of the City of Phoenix. These regulations safeguard properties of historic significance,
and their architectural characteristics including their setting and overall density. The proposed
“ADU ordinance”, Z-TA-5-23 (Accessory Dwelling Units or ADUs), has garnered much attention
for its potential to increase housing supply. While ADUs can be beneficial, it is vital to address
concerns regarding density considerations in order to ensure the coexistence of ADUs with
historic neighborhoods, and in some cases individual historic properties.

I. Protecting Historic Properties:

The City recognizes the importance of preserving its historic districts and properties. It is crucial
to avoid any conflict between Z-TA-5-23-Y and the existing historic preservation ordinances and
other regulations relating to lot coverage, heigh and scale – especially in the historic
neighborhoods. It is therefore imperative that Z-TA-5-23-Y explicitly states that Chapter 8 of
the Zoning Ordinance takes precedence over any new design review standards for ADUs in
regards to properties and neighborhoods listed on the Phoenix Historic Property Register.

To avoid confusion, the language of all proposed regulations pertaining to ADUs should be
revised to state that "Dwelling units within a historic district and/or with HP or HP-L zoning
overlay are subject to review by the City of Phoenix Historic Preservation Office pursuant to
Article 8 of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance. In the event the provisions of Section 8.5 therein or
other ordinance or regulations are inconsistent with Article 8 of the Zoning Ordinance (Historic
Preservation), Article 8 shall have precedence."




Page 1491
II. Strengthening Parking Standards:

The proposed TA Section 702.F.1(b) should be amended to emphasize that HP approval also
pertains to driveways, parking, and maneuvering areas within a historic district or properties
with HP or HP-L zoning overlay. Driveways are often character-defining aspects of properties
that effect the overall character of the site and setting. This revision is necessary to maintain
the integrity and character of historic neighborhoods.

To achieve this, the phrase "Unless otherwise stipulated by Historic Preservation" should be
removed from section 702.F.1 and the following sentence should be added: "Any and all
changes to driveways, parking, and maneuvering areas within a historic district and/or with HP
or HP-L zoning overlay are subject to review by the City of Phoenix Historic Preservation Office
pursuant to Article 8 of the Zoning Ordinance. In the event the provisions of Section 702.F.1
herein or other ordinance or regulations are inconsistent with Article 8 of the Zoning Ordinance
(Historic Preservation), Article 8 shall have precedence."

III. Ensuring Compliance for ADUs in Historic Districts:

The proposed amendment to Section 706.A.3.b of the ADU ordinance requires careful wording
to make it evident that HP approval is mandatory for ADUs within historic districts or properties
with HP or HP-L zoning overlay.

To achieve clarity, the phrase "or as may be approved by Historic Preservation..." should be
removed, and the following sentence should be added: “A detached ADU within a historic
district and/or with HP or HP-L zoning overlay is subject to review by the City of Phoenix
Historic Preservation Office pursuant to Article 8 of the Zoning Ordinance. In the event the
provisions of Chapter 7, Section 706.A.3.b herein, or other ordinance or regulations are
inconsistent with Article 8 of the Zoning Ordinance (Historic Preservation), Article 8 shall take
precedence."

IV: Department Coordination and Permit Streamlining:

There needs to be a concerted cross-departmental effort to resolve any zoning conflicts
between Historic Preservation and conventional standards. Conflicts between various
departmental objectives will constrain the effectiveness of the design guidelines pertaining to
historic and architectural factors. The internal inefficiencies will put more pressure on the
Historic Preservation Office to simply capitulate in deference to the goal creating the more
housing units If the Historic Preservation Officer, and the office staff does not have clear
consensus to balance the objectives to protect the context of the historic neighborhoods, the
overall character of the historic neighborhoods will quickly deteriorate due to the influx of new
housing units.




Page 1492
The zoning ordinance needs to be thoroughly reviewed and conflicting policies addressed
across departments such as Site Development, Site Planning, Parking, Traffic, etc. Property
owners and ADU designers need to have access to a clear flow chart of the regulatory
requirements to achieve the intent of the ADU ordinance with existing historic preservation
objectives and guidelines.

It is crucial to implement these proposed revisions to Z-TA-5-23-Y to ensure the continued
preservation of our city's rich heritage.

Sincerely,




Roger Brevoort
Chair, Advocacy Committee
Preserve Phoenix

cc: Kate Gallego, Mayor
Members of Council
Alan Stephenson, City of Phoenix
Josh Bednarek, City of Phoenix
Kevin Weight, City of Phoenix
Members, Historic Preservation Commission
G.G. George, Phoenix Historic Neighborhoods Coalition
Neal Haddad, Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix
Jim McPherson, Arizona Preservation Foundation
Donna Reiner, Postwar Architecture Task Force of Greater Phoenix




Page 1493
Racelle Escolar

From: jvrich@gmail.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 1, 2023 5:46 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Comments on Agenda Items 16 and 7 (Z-TA-5-23-Y and Z-TA-8-23-Y)


Dear Planning Commissioners,
I am writing this email to urge you to take your time in considering the proposed complex text amendments pertaining to Accessory
Dwelling Units and Reduced Parking Requirements. Do not rush into a decision before you are comfortable that what you are acting on
will not come back and bite you and the city of Phoenix at a later date.

These two text amendments will have a big impact on Phoenix and Phoenicians. They sprung from the Planning Department, were
sent to the Village Planning Committees for their recommendations (all of whom are Council appointees), now you, also Council
appointees, are considering them, and then finally, the Council will act on them. The public’s opportunity to provide input was neither
publicized or solicited. No neighborhood stakeholders were included in their development. While there were articles in the AZ
Republic about the Accessory Dwelling Unit amendment as early as July 3, the first article on the parking reduction text amendment
was on July 19, when all but 3 VPCs had already met and made recommendations. It is also worth mentioning that the agendas for the
VPCs did not identify Z-TA-8-23-Y as reducing required parking although they identified the other amendment as allowing
ADUs. Instead the agenda listed all the sections that needed to be changed so that someone looking at it would have no idea what that
text amendment was actually about.

The only members of the public who have participated in the VPC meetings are people who serve on a different VPC, work for an
industry that would benefit from these amendments, or neighbors and neighborhood groups who accidentally found out about the
amendments. I have been to five VPC meetings, each of which lasted for as long as 3.5 hours, just to be able to speak for 2 minutes
max on each text amendment. (Note, some VPCs allowed more time for members of the public to speak - just not the ones I attended.)
At the meetings I attended, I was not allowed to ask questions. Following public comments, staff often offered a rebuttal to what
members of the public said, and after that the public was ignored - no opportunity for any of us to answer questions that came up or to
respond to incorrect information. It was frustrating.

I have other concerns about the VPC meetings. The packets that were sent to the VPC members online were well in excess of 200
pages. Some packets weren’t sent out until after 3:30 pm the day of the meeting; some VPC members never received a packet; other
VPC members received packets but didn’t read them (perhaps because of lack of time or because of the length). There was a
questionable email conversation about the text amendments that all VPC members were part of and which was potentially in violation of
the Open Meeting Law that was referred to at a VPC meeting by several VPC members. Several of the VPCs did not have a quorum in
June and so learned about the text amendments for the first time in July when they were expected to vote on them.

Some of the Planning Commission members are essentially in the same position as those VPC members who had the least amount of
time to learn about the text amendments. They are hearing staff’s presentation about these complex text amendments on the same
night they are expected to vote on them. Your consideration of the text amendments will be late in the night after considering 13 other
cases. How many hundreds of pages were in your packet? The text amendments alone are a lot of information to digest in an evening.

These text amendments are too important and consequential to be rushed through and there is no compelling reason to do so. I urge
you to take your time and give these text amendments the time and attention that they deserve.

Thank you,

Jackie Rich
Murphy Trail Estates Neighborhood Association





Page 1494
Racelle Escolar

From: Opal Wagner
Sent: Tuesday, August 1, 2023 9:43 AM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Cc: Council District 4; Joshua Bednarek; Helana Ruter; Tricia Gomes; Bradley Brauer
Subject: URGENT: Letter Re: Z-TA-5-23-Y (Item #16 at Aug. 2nd Planning Commission)
Attachments: Gmail - Text Amendment Z-TA-5-23-Y (ADUs).pdf


Dear Planning Commissioners:

I am writing to request that Z‐TA‐5‐23‐Y (the text amendment permitting ADUs in Phoenix) be revised and amended to
clarify that, for ADU applications in historic districts, Phoenix's existing Historic Preservation guidelines supersede the
design standards in the text amendment.

Upon receipt of Z‐TA‐5‐23‐Y as a member of the Encanto Village Planning Committee, I immediately became concerned
about confusing wording in the TA that gives the impression that compliance with the Historic Preservation Office
approval process and guidelines is optional. I immediately called Helana Ruter, the City's Historic Preservation Officer to
let her know of my concerns, which I followed up in a letter with suggested changes to the TA (see attached). I also sent
a copy of the TA to a local attorney involved in preservation matters, who agreed with my assessment of the confusing
wording and deemed the TA "poorly drafted" with regard to historic properties.

At the Encanto Village Planning Committee meeting on July 10th, I presented these concerns to Mr. Chris DePerro, the
author of the TA. Although the purpose of presentation of text amendments to the Village Planning Committees is to
receive the members' feedback to improve the final version, this was not the case, as Mr. DePerro pushed back on every
suggested change, insisting he knew what he was doing based on his many years of experience, stating no changes were
needed. He said the "intent" of the text amendment was that it was subordinate to HP guidelines, while acknowledging
this was not expressly stated in the TA. I told Mr. DePerro I would have to vote "no", since I had to vote on the language
in front of me ‐ not his "intent."

I believe the revisions stated in my letter to Helana Ruter and expressed to Mr. DePerro at the EVPC meeting are
necessary to clarify that the existing City of Phoenix Historic Preservation guidelines supersede the design standards
in the text amendment. Without this additional language and clarification, it is likely the text amendment's wording may
be misconstrued to create the impression that HP guidelines are optional and may be overridden. I am concerned that it
is also unclear whether special planning and conservation districts, zoning overlays and HOAs may be superseded by Z‐
TA‐5‐23‐Y. All these concerns could be laid to rest with a few simple revisions.

I urge you to pass Z‐TA‐5‐23‐Y with the revisions suggested in my attached letter, as well as those suggested by the
Phoenix Historic Neighborhoods Coalition, Neighborhoods Coalition of Greater Phoenix, several of the VPCs and others.
This text amendment is transformational in its nature and, in my opinion, we all need to slow down and take the time to
get it right.

Sincerely,

Opal Wagner
330 W. Coronado Rd.
Phoenix, AZ 85003
520‐444‐5698




Page 1495
Gmail - Text Amendment Z-TA-5-23-Y (ADUs) 8/1/23, 9:25 AM




Opal Wagner



Text Amendment Z-TA-5-23-Y (ADUs)
1 message

Opal Wagner Thu, Jul 6, 2023 at 12:45 PM
To: Helana Ruter
Bcc: Opal Wagner

Dear Helana,

Thanks for taking the time to talk with me this morning about concerns I have with language in the above TA as it
applies to Phoenix's historic districts. I believe the TA as written fails to make it clear that ADUs in historic districts
must comply with the design review procedures and standards of Chapter 8, the Historic Preservation Zoning
Ordinance. To recap, the specific concerns I have are as follows:

1) The proposed amendment to Chapter 5, Section 507 Tab A 11.C 8 (Single-Family Detached Design Review) (p. 6,
Section 8(c) of the TA) does not make it clear that, for historic properties, Chapter 8 of the Zoning Ordinance takes
precedence over the design review standards for ADUs set forth in the TA. The current language states:

"(c) DWELLING UNITS ON LOTS ZONED OR DESIGNATED HP ARE EXEMPT FROM THE PROVISIONS OF
SECTION 8.5, SO LONG AS THE PLANS ARE REVIEWED AND APPROVED THROUGH HISTORIC
PRESERVATION PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF ANY BUILDING PERMITS. ."

I think the phrase "so long as..." is imprecise and doesn't make it clear that ADUs in historic districts MUST be
reviewed by the HP Office. I think the current language is subject to misinterpretation that a project may EITHER be
approved by the HP Office OR incorporate the Design Guidelines of Section 8.5 of the TA. In order to make it clear
that ADUs in historic districts must have HP approval, I suggest the following language:

"Dwelling units within a historic district and/or with HP or HP-L zoning overlay are subject to review by the City of
Phoenix Historic Preservation Office pursuant to Article 8 of the Zoning Ordinance. In the event the provisions of
Section 8.5 herein, or other ordinance or regulations are inconsistent with Article 8 of the Zoning Ordinance (Historic
Preservation), Article 8 shall apply."

2) I believe the proposed amendment to Section 702.F.1(b) (Special Parking Standards) (p. 178 of the TA), likewise
does not make it clear that HP approval is REQUIRED for the addition of parking to the front of a historic property
(widening of driveways and curb cuts, etc.), and the language should be strengthened. The current language states:

"Spaces in excess of those required for single family and duplex residential uses may be located in the required front
yard. However, all parking and maneuvering areas within the required front yard shall not exceed forty-five percent
(45%) 50% OF THE AREA OF THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD, EXCEPT THAT A DRIVEWAY SHALL NOT BE
REQUIRED TO BE LESS THAN 18’ IN WIDTH UNLESS OTHERWISE STIPULATED BY HISTORIC
PRESERVATION.

I think it should be made clear that HP approval is REQUIRED for changes to front yard parking for historic properties
by deleting, "Unless otherwise stipulated by Historic Preservation", and adding the following sentence, "Any and all
changes to driveways, parking and maneuvering areas within a historic district and/or with HP or HP-L zoning overlay
are subject to review by the City of Phoenix Historic Preservation Office pursuant to Article 8 of the Zoning Ordinance.
In the event the provisions of Section 702.F.1 herein, or other ordinance or regulations are inconsistent with Article 8
of the Zoning Ordinance (Historic Preservation), Article 8 shall apply."

3) The proposed amendment to Chapter 7, Section 706.A.3.b (Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU)) (p. 180 of the Text
Amendment) is also worded in such a way that makes HP approval seem optional.

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=dd4dc27c6e&view=pt&search=…g-a:r8968094810990089166&simpl=msg-a:r8968094810990089166&mb=1 Page 1 of 2


Page 1496
Gmail - Text Amendment Z-TA-5-23-Y (ADUs) 8/1/23, 9:25 AM



The current language states:

"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, OR AS
MAY BE APPROVED BY HISTORIC PRESERVATION FOR HP ZONED OR DESIGNATED PROPERTIES. (P)"

Instead of using the imprecise phrase, "or as may be approved", I think the language should be strengthened as
follows to make it clear HP approval is REQUIRED for historic properties:

Delete the phrase "or as may be approved by Historic Preservation..." and add the following sentence:

A detached ADU within a historic district and/or with HP or HP-L zoning overlay is subject to review by the City of
Phoenix Historic Preservation Office pursuant to Article 8 of the Zoning Ordinance. In the event the provisions of
Chapter 7, Section 706.A.3.b herein, or other ordinance or regulations are inconsistent with Article 8 of the Zoning
Ordinance (Historic Preservation), Article 8 shall apply."

As I mentioned this morning, this TA is on the Encanto Village Planning Committee agenda for a possible vote on
Monday, July 10th. I wanted to make the HP Office aware of my above concerns with some of the language of the TA
and how it might be misconstrued to weaken the HP Office's role with regard to ADU approval. If you share these
concerns with any of the TA's current language or have any stipulations to offer, the committee would surely value
hearing from you.

Thanks again for taking the time to hear my concerns and have a great rest of your day.

Sincerely,

Opal

PS I've attached a copy of the TA for handy reference (the highlighting is mine). -O.




Z-TA-5-23-Y_Accessory Dwelling Units-2.pdf
5004K




https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=dd4dc27c6e&view=pt&search…g-a:r8968094810990089166&simpl=msg-a:r8968094810990089166&mb=1 Page 2 of 2


Page 1497



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
***REQUEST TO CONTINUE (SEE ATTACHED MEMO)*** Public Hearing - Amend
City Code - Ordinance Adoption - Parking Reductions for Multifamily
Developments - Z-TA-8-23-Y (Ordinance G-7161)

Request to hold a public hearing on a proposed text amendment Z-TA-8-23-Y and to
request City Council approval per the Planning Commission recommendation which
amends Chapter 2, Section 202 (Definitions) to add definitions for affordable housing,
passenger loading space, passenger loading zone, and revise parking space,
unreserved; amend Chapter 6, Section 608.J (Density Bonus For Low or Moderate
Income Housing); amend Chapter 7, Sections 702.C (Parking Requirements) and
Section 702.E (Modifications to Parking Requirements); and amend Chapter 13,
Section 1307 (Parking Standards) to modify the parking requirements for multifamily,
single-family attached, and affordable housing, and add requirements for passenger
loading zones.

Summary
The intent of the proposed text amendment is to reduce parking requirements for multi-
family developments. Related definitions have been revised and/or deleted, with new
definitions provided as necessary; “passenger loading space” and “passenger loading
zone” has been added for use with the Walkable Urban code, together with proposed
development standards; and parking requirements have been reduced for multifamily
developments as detailed in the Staff Report (Attachment B).

Applicant: City of Phoenix, Planning Commission
Representative: City of Phoenix, Planning and Development Department

Staff Recommendation: Approval of Z-TA-8-23-Y as shown in Exhibit A of the Staff
Report (Attachment B).
VPC Info: Eleven of the 15 Village Planning Committees (VPCs) heard this item for
information only throughout June, as reflected in Attachments C and D.
VPC Action: Fourteen VPCs considered the request. Four VPCs recommended
approval, per the staff recommendation; two VPCs recommended approval, per the
staff recommendation, with modifications; and nine VPCs recommended denial, as
reflected in Attachments C and E.
PC Info: The Planning Commission heard this item on June 1, 2023, for information


Page 1498

only (Attachment F).
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this item on Aug. 3, 2023, and
recommended approval, per the staff recommendation (in the Staff Report) with
modifications, by a vote of 6-2, as reflected in Attachment G.

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




Page 1499
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT




To: Alan Stephenson Date: August 30, 2023
Deputy City Manager

From: Joshua BednarekCx07
Planning and DevJlopment Director

Subject: CONTINUANCE OF ITEM 70 ON THE SEPTEMBER 6, 2023, FORMAL AGENDA
- PUBLIC HEARING - AMEND CITY CODE - ORDINANCE ADOPTION -
PARKING REDUCTIONS FOR MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENTS - Z-TA-8-23-Y
(ORDINANCE G-7161)

Item70, Z-TA-8-23-Y is a request to amend Chapter 2, Section 202 (Definitions) to add
definitions for affordable housing, passenger loading space, passenger loading zone, and
revise parking space, unreserved; amend Chapter 6, Section 608.J (Density Bonus For Low
or Moderate Income Housing); amend Chapter 7, Sections 702.C (Parking Requirements)
and Section 702.E (Modifications to Parking Requirements); and amend Chapter 13,
Section 1307 (Parking Standards) to modify the parking requirements for multifamily, single­
family attached, and affordable housing, and add requirements for passenger loading
zones.

The Planning and Development Department requests the text amendment be continued to
the November 1, 2023, City Council Formal meeting to allow it to be heard by the City
Council, Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning (TIP) Subcommittee on October 18,
2023, before returning to City Council Formal.




Approved:
��nager




Page 1500
ATTACHMENT A

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


ORDINANCE G-

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING PORTIONS OF THE CODE OF THE
CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA, PART II, CHAPTER 41, THE
ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX BY AMENDING
CHAPTER 2, SECTION 202 (DEFINITIONS) TO ADD DEFINITIONS
FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING, PASSENGER LOADING SPACE,
PASSENGER LOADING ZONE, AND REVISE PARKING SPACE,
UNRESERVED; AMEND CHAPTER 6, SECTION 608.J (DENSITY
BONUS FOR LOW OR MODERATE INCOME HOUSING); AMEND
CHAPTER 7, SECTIONS 702.C (PARKING REQUIREMENTS) AND
SECTION 702.E (MODIFICATIONS TO PARKING
REQUIREMENTS); AND AMEND CHAPTER 13, SECTION 1307
(PARKING STANDARDS) TO MODIFY THE PARKING
REQUIREMENTS FOR MULTIFAMILY, SINGLE-FAMILY
ATTACHED, AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING, AND ADD
REQUIREMENTS FOR PASSENGER LOADING ZONES OF THE
PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE TO MODIFY PARKING
STANDARDS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS.

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

follows:

SECTION 1: That Chapter 2, Section 202 (Definitions), is amended to read as

follows:

***

AFFORDABLE HOUSING: RESIDENTIAL OR MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT
PROVIDING HUD OR OTHER ASSISTED LOW- TO MODERATE-INCOME HOUSING,
AS VERIFIED BY THE PHOENIX HOUSING DEPARTMENT; TYPICALLY INCLUDES
DWELLING UNIT(S) COMMITTED FOR A MINIMUM TERM THROUGH COVENANTS
OR RESTRICTIONS TO HOUSEHOLDS WITH INCOMES AT 80 PERCENT OR LESS
OF THE AREA MEDIAN INCOME, AS DEFINED BY THE UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT FOR THE CITY.

***


-1- Ordinance ________

Page 1501
Parking Space, Unreserved: An unassigned parking space that is available to both
residents, EMPLOYEES, and visitors TO THE PROPERTY. UNRESERVED PARKING
SPACES WHICH COUNT TOWARD ANY REQUIRED PARKING MINIMUMS SHALL
NOT BE USED FOR OFF-SITE OR COMMERCIAL PARKING USES.

FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS, UNRESERVED SPACES MAY BE LOCATED
BEHIND A VEHICULAR GATE IF A CALL BOX IS PROVIDED TO ALLOW VISITOR
ENTRY BY RESIDENTS OF THE PROPERTY.

FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS, UNRESERVED SPACES MAY NOT BE
LOCATED BEHIND A VEHICULAR GATE UNLESS THE GATE IS OPEN (OR WILL
OPEN AUTOMATICALLY UPON APPROACH) DURING ALL STANDARD BUSINESS
HOURS.

***

PASSENGER LOADING SPACE: A DESIGNATED SPACE FOR THE SHORT-TERM
USE BY ONE VEHICLE TO STAND DURING PASSENGER PICK UP OR DROP OFF OF
VISITORS, RESIDENTS, OR OCCUPANTS OF THE BUILDING OR USE; OR DURING
DELIVERY OF GOODS TO INDIVIDUAL OCCUPANTS. A PASSENGER LOADING
SPACE MAY NOT INCLUDE ANY DELIVERY OF GOODS OR SERVICE AREAS FOR
COMMERCIAL USES, NOR ANY USE NOT CONSIDERED SHORT-TERM.

PASSENGER LOADING ZONE: AN AREA ADJACENT TO A PRIMARY ENTRY
COMPRISED OF AT LEAST ONE PASSENGER LOADING SPACE, CONSTRUCTED IN
TANDEM (WITH NO BARRIERS IN BETWEEN) FOR USE AS ONE CONTIGUOUS
LOADING ZONE.

***

SECTION 2: That Chapter 6, Section 608.J (Density Bonus For Low or Moderate

Income Housing), is amended to read as follows:


J. Density Bonus INCENTIVES For Low or Moderate Income AFFORDABLE
Housing. In order to overcome a demonstrated deficiency in the supply of housing
for persons of low and moderate income, density bonus incentives are established
to foster the provision of such housing. The bonuses in this paragraph shall apply
to the maximum density for any district and may be in addition to bonuses earned
by the provision of additional open space.




-2- Ordinance ________

Page 1502
1. Applicability. All development LOCATED WITHIN A ZONING DISTRICT
SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 608 providing HUD or other
assisted mixed income rental housing as approved by the Phoenix Housing
and Urban Redevelopment Department AFFORDABLE HOUSING AS
DEFINED IN SECTION 202.

2. Density bonus.

a. One additional conventional unit SHALL BE allowed for every two
low/moderate income AFFORDABLE HOUSING units, provided that
the overall project density does not exceed ten percent beyond that
which would otherwise be allowed.

b. The A DENSITY bonuses in this paragraph AWARDED PER THIS
SECTION shall apply to the maximum density for any district and may
be in addition to A DENSITY bonuses earned by the provision of
additional open space PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 608.I.2.

3. Other requirements. The total number of units within a project shall be as
approved by the Department of Housing. and Urban Development. Further,
the location of any such units shall be consistent with the goals of the City of
Phoenix Housing Assistance Allocation Plan.


SECTION 3: That Chapter 7, Section 702.E (Modifications to Parking

Requirements), is amended to read as follows:


***

E. Modifications to Parking Requirements.

***

3. Reductions. Parking reductions are specified within the specific zoning
districts. The listed zoning districts offer parking reductions:

a. Downtown Core District: No parking required. (Section 643)
DOWNTOWN CODE: PER SUSTAINABILITY BONUS AWARDS.
(CHAPTER 12)

-3- Ordinance ________

Page 1503
b. Warehouse District: No parking required. (Section 645) WALKABLE
URBAN (WU) CODE. (CHAPTER 13)

***

9. Reductions for Infill Development District. THE INFILL DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT, AS SHOWN ON THE GENERAL PLAN, IS SUBJECT TO THE
FOLLOWING PROVISIONS:

a. Within the infill development district, as shown on the general plan for
Phoenix, a development’s on-street parking adjacent to and along the
same side of a public, local or collector street may be counted toward
parking requirements. PARKING REDUCTIONS.

(1) THESE REDUCTIONS DO NOT APPLY TO PROPERTIES
ZONED DOWNTOWN CODE OR WALKABLE URBAN CODE.

(2) NON-RESIDENTIAL USES SUBJECT TO THE PARKING
REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 702.C WITH NO OTHER
PARKING REDUCTIONS MAY REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF
REQUIRED PARKING BY 20%.

(3) MULTI-FAMILY USES SUBJECT TO THE PARKING
REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 702.C WITH NO OTHER
PARKING REDUCTIONS MAY REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF
REQUIRED PARKING BY 50%.

***

c. Use Permit Notice Procedure for Infill OFF-SITE Parking Reductions.
The following additional procedures shall be followed as part of the
infill parking reduction use permit process (in addition to the
procedures required by Section 307):

***

SECTION 4: That Chapter 13, Section 1307 (Walkable Urban Code, Parking

Standards), is amended to read as follows:king Standards


-4- Ordinance ________

Page 1504
Section 1307. Parking AND LOADING standards.

***

B. Required Vehicular Parking.

1. Vehicular parking must be provided for each use in accordance with Table
1307.1 and as follows:

a. Minimum required vehicular parking is the sum of parking required for
each use within a lot.

b. Accessory dwellings in T3 and T4 require one parking space per unit.

c. B. Vehicular parking may be limited to a maximum number of spaces by
parking districts where established.

d. C. Other uses not identified on Table 1307.1 shall follow Section 702
standards.

***

Table 1307.1 Minimum Required Vehicular Parking


T5 T5
USE MEASURE T3 T4 1—5 6—10 T6
Stories Stories

Residential, Single-Family per unit 2.0 n/a n/a n/a
DETACHED

(1) As per Section 702. Additional 25% reduction
when the off-street parking area is located within
1,320 feet from a light rail station when measured in
Residential: Single-Family a direct line from the building, and 10% reduction of
Attached and Multifamily required parking if the development is greater than
1,320 feet from a light rail station. The minimum
required on-site vehicular parking is exclusively for
the patrons of the subject parcel.


-5- Ordinance ________

Page 1505
T5 T5
USE MEASURE T3 T4 1—5 6—10 T6
Stories Stories

PER SECTION 608.F.6, IF DEVELOPING UNDER
RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE-
THE PROVISIONS OF 1303.A.1.A.; OTHERWISE
FAMILY ATTACHED
PER SECTION 702.

0.65
RESIDENTIAL, MULTI- A MINIMUM OF 30% OF THE
PER UNIT N/A
FAMILY (2) REQUIRED SPACES SHALL
REMAIN UNRESERVED.

***

Affordable Housing per unit 0.85 0.75 0.5 0.5

***

***

D. Required SERVICE/GOODS Loading AREAS and Service Bays. THE
FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS APPLY TO SHORT-TERM LOADING AND
UNLOADING OF SERVICE VEHICLES WITH MATERIALS, GOODS OR
EQUIPMENT. PASSENGER LOADING ZONES ARE ADDRESSED IN
SECTION 1307.I.

1. On-site SERVICE/GOODS loading shall be required for all development
as follows:

***

E. Off-Street Parking Location and Access.

1. Parking must be set back from frontages according to Table 1303.2,
except where parking is located underground. PASSENGER LOADING
SPACES/ZONES ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THESE SETBACK
REQUIREMENTS.

***



-6- Ordinance ________

Page 1506
I. PASSENGER LOADING. THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS APPLY TO
PASSENGER LOADING SPACES AND ZONES ONLY. SERVICE/GOODS
LOADING AREAS ARE ADDRESSED IN SECTION 1307.D.

1. REQUIRED NUMBER OF SPACES. PASSENGER LOADING
SPACES SHALL BE PROVIDED AS FOLLOWS:


TABLE. 1307.3 REQUIRED PASSENGER LOADING SPACES

PASSENGER LOADING SPACES
USE TYPE
REQUIRED (2)

CULTURAL OR PUBLIC FACILITY 2

HOSPITAL 3

HOTEL OR MOTEL 3

MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 1 PER 50 DWELLING UNITS (1)

PUBLIC ASSEMBLY 1 PER 50 REQUIRED PARKING
SPACES (1)

ALL OTHER USES 1 PER 25,000 GROSS SF (1)


(1) OR PORTION THEREOF. NO SITE SHALL BE REQUIRED TO
PROVIDE MORE THAN 10 PASSENGER LOADING SPACES.

(2) FOR MIXED USES, THE MINIMUM NUMBER OF REQUIRED SPACES
SHALL BE THE SUM OF THE SPACES REQUIRED FOR THE
INDIVIDUAL USES, ALTHOUGH ROUNDING UP SHALL OCCUR AT
THE FINAL STEP OF THE CALCULATIONS. FOR EXAMPLE, A
DEVELOPMENT WITH 70,000 GROSS SF OF OFFICE SPACE, PLUS
125 MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS, IS REQUIRED 1.4 SPACES
(70,000 SF / 50,000 SF/SPACE), PLUS 1.25 SPACES (125 DU / 100
DU/SPACE), WHICH TOTALS 2.65 REQUIRED, OR 3 PASSENGER
LOADING SPACES.

2. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR PASSENGER LOADING ZONES.




-7- Ordinance ________

Page 1507
A. ACCESSIBLE PASSENGER LOADING SPACES.

(1) AT LEAST ONE ACCESSIBLE PASSENGER LOADING
SPACE SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR EVERY 100
LINEAR FEET OF CONTIGUOUS PASSENGER
LOADING ZONE. HOWEVER, EACH PHYSICALLY
SEPARATE PASSENGER LOADING ZONE MUST
ALSO HAVE AT LEAST ONE ACCESSIBLE
PASSENGER LOADING SPACE.

(2) AN ACCESSIBLE PASSENGER LOADING SPACE
SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 96 INCHES WIDE AND A
MINIMUM 23 FEET LONG.

(3) THE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS AISLE SERVING THE
ACCESSIBLE LOADING ZONE SPACE SHALL EXTEND
THE LENGTH OF THE SPACE AND SHALL BE A
MINIMUM 60 INCHES WIDE.

(4) THE VEHICLE PULL-UP SPACE AND ACCESS AISLE
MUST COMPLY WITH ADA REQUIREMENTS FOR
GROUND AND FLOOR SURFACES AND CANNOT
EXCEED A SLOPE OF 2%.

(5) CURB RAMPS CANNOT OVERLAP ACCESS AISLES
OR VEHICLE PULL-UP SPACES.

(6) A VERTICAL CLEARANCE OF 14 FEET IS REQUIRED
FOR EACH VEHICLE PULL-UP SPACE AND ACCESS
AISLE, AND ALL ALONG ANY VEHICULAR ROUTE
CONNECTING THEM TO A VEHICLE ENTRANCE AND
EXIT, UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED FOR
EMERGENCY/SERVICE VEHICLE ACCESS.

(7) THE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS AISLES SHALL NOT
ENCROACH INTO A TRAVEL LANE.




-8- Ordinance ________

Page 1508
DETAIL 1307.1. ACCESSIBLE PASSENGER LOADING SPACE




B. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR PASSENGER LOADING
ZONES.

(1) STANDARD PASSENGER LOADING SPACES, WHEN
PROVIDED IN ADDITION TO THE MINIMUM
REQUIRED ACCESSIBLE PASSENGER LOADING
SPACE(S), SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED TO THE SAME
STANDARDS AS AN ACCESSIBLE PASSENGER
LOADING SPACE, BUT WITHOUT THE REQUIREMENT
FOR AN ACCESS AISLE.

(2) A CONTIGUOUS PASSENGER LOADING ZONE MAY
BE PROVIDED, WHICH SHALL CONSIST OF TWO (2)
OR MORE LOADING ZONE SPACES PROVIDED IN
TANDEM WITH NO BARRIERS SEPARATING SAID
SPACES, THUS ENABLING VEHICLES TO MOVE
FORWARD THROUGH MULTIPLE PASSENGER
LOADING ZONE SPACES.




-9- Ordinance ________

Page 1509
(3) PASSENGER LOADING ZONES SHALL BE PROVIDED
WITHIN 50’ OF THE MAIN ENTRANCE OF THE USE OR
STRUCTURE THEY ARE INTENDED TO SERVE, AS
APPROVED BY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT STAFF.

(4) PASSENGER LOADING ZONES SHALL NOT
ENCROACH WITHIN THE MINIMUM WIDTH OF ANY
FIRE LANES OR DRIVE AISLES.

(5) PARKING AND/OR STANDING SHALL BE LIMITED TO
30 MINUTES WITHIN A PASSENGER LOADING ZONE,
AND SIGNS SHALL BE INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED
STATING THIS RESTRICTION, AS APPROVED BY PDD
AND STREET TRANSPORTATION.

(6) A PASSENGER LOADING ZONE SHALL NOT BE
LOCATED BEHIND ANY TYPE OF VEHICULAR GATE
OR BARRIER, EXCEPT FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL
USES, WHEN SUCH GATE OR BARRIER IS LEFT
OPEN DURING ON-SITE BUSINESS HOURS.

(7) ON-STREET PASSENGER LOADING ZONES
LOCATED IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ADJACENT
TO THE PROPERTY MAY ONLY BE PROVIDED WHEN
COMPLIANCE WITH ALL OF THE FOLLOWING IS
DEMONSTRATED:

(A) APPROVAL FOR THE DESIGN OF THE
PASSENGER LOADING ZONE HAS BEEN
OBTAINED FROM THE STREET
TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT.

(B) AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT HAS BEEN
OBTAINED FROM THE STREET
TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT FOR ANY
STRUCTURES REQUIRED AS PART OF THE
PASSENGER LOADING ZONE (SHADE
CANOPIES, SCREEN WALLS, SIGNS, ETC.).



-10- Ordinance ________

Page 1510
(C) THE PASSENGER LOADING ZONE DOES NOT
REDUCE OR PRECLUDE ANY REQUIRED
STREETSCAPE OR FRONTAGE ELEMENTS,
INCLUDING THE PROVISION OF REQUIRED
STREET TREES AND SHADE.

(D) THE PASSENGER LOADING ZONE DOES NOT
INTERRUPT A DESIGNATED BICYCLE LANE.

C. PASSENGER LOADING AREA DESIGN GUIDELINES.

(1) PASSENGER LOADING ZONES SHOULD BE
LOCATED INTERNALLY TO THE BUILDING WHEN
POSSIBLE.

(2) PASSENGER LOADING ZONES SHOULD HAVE
PRIMARY ACCESS FROM A STREET, RATHER THAN
AN ALLEY.

(3) PASSENGER LOADING ZONES SHOULD PROVIDE
LANDSCAPED AND/OR STRUCTURAL SHADE FOR A
MINIMUM OF 75% OF THE PASSENGER WAITING
AREAS.

***




-11- Ordinance ________

Page 1511
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 6th day of September, 2023



________________________________
MAYOR



ATTEST:


____________________________City Clerk


APPROVED AS TO FORM:

____________________________City Attorney


REVIEWED BY:

____________________________City Manager




-12- Ordinance ________

Page 1512
ATTACHMENT B




Staff Report
Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment
Z-TA-8-23-Y
June 30, 2023

Application No Z-TA-8-23-Y: Amend Chapter 2, Section 202 (Definitions) to add
definitions for affordable housing, passenger loading space, passenger loading zone,
and revise parking space, unreserved; amend Chapter 6, Section 608.J (Density Bonus
For Low or Moderate Income Housing); amend Chapter 7, Sections 702.C (Parking
Requirements) and Section 702.E (Modifications to Parking Requirements); and amend
Chapter 13, Section 1307 (Parking Standards) to modify the parking requirements for
multifamily, single-family attached, and affordable housing, and add requirements for
passenger loading zones.

Staff recommendation: Staff recommends approval of Z-TA-8-23-Y as shown in the
recommended text in Attachment A.

BACKGROUND
In 2020, City Council unanimously approved the Housing Phoenix Plan to create a
stronger and more vibrant Phoenix through increased housing options for residents at
all income levels and family sizes. The Plan’s primary goal is to create or preserve
50,000 homes by 2030, and increase overall supply of market, workforce, and
affordable housing to address the housing shortage in Phoenix. In order to implement
this goal, nine policy initiatives were identified. Policy Initiative 5 is “Building Innovations
and Cost Saving Practices”. These proposed changes would address concerns that
existing parking requirements are more than necessary, and contribute to the increasing
costs of development, and in turn, increasing housing costs.

PURPOSE
The intent of the proposed text amendment is to reduce parking requirements for multi-
family developments. Related definitions have been revised and/or deleted, with new
definitions provided as necessary; “passenger loading space” and “passenger loading
zone” has been added for use with the Walkable Urban code, together with proposed
development standards; and parking requirements have been reduced for multi-family
developments as further detailed below.

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED TEXT
The proposed text amendment primarily reduces parking requirement for multi-family
development, but in varying degrees based primarily upon location and/or if the housing
qualifies as “affordable” per definitions used by HUD and the City’s Housing
Department. It also introduces a requirement for multi-family developments zoned WU
Code for Passenger Loading Zones, to provide staging zones for rideshare, food
deliveries, and personal package deliveries.

Page 1513
Staff Report: Z-TA-8-23-Y
June 30, 2023


1. City-wide multi-family parking requirements:

The proposed text modifies the standard multi-family parking requirement to more
closely match parking demand identified for multi-family housing as published in the
Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Manual, 5th Edition, 2019. The demand is
identified at 1.21 spaces per dwelling unit, for low rise (up to 2-story) development
not located near rail transit, in a general urban/suburban area. The proposed City-
wide standard requirement is proposed to be 1.25 spaces per dwelling unit, with
30% of parking to remain unreserved (not assigned for a particular unit or person).

Proposed: 100 dwelling units = 125 spaces, of which 38 must be unreserved.
Existing: 100 dwelling units = 150 spaces*, of which 50 must be unreserved.

*For 1- or 2-bedroom apartments. 1.3 required for studio and 2 spaces for 3-
bedroom, but outside of DTC these are not provided in great numbers

2. City-wide affordable housing parking reduction:

The proposed text modifies an existing provision in the zoning ordinance which
provides a density bonus for affordable housing, to add a parking reduction for
affordable housing. The reduction is proposed to be 50%, or 0.625 spaces per
dwelling unit. This is supported by the demand identified for affordable housing as
published in the ITE Manual, 5th Edition, 2019. The demand is identified at 0.53
spaces per dwelling unit, for affordable (income-limited) developments in a dense
multi-use urban area.

Proposed: 100 dwelling units = 63 spaces, of which 19 must be unreserved.
Existing: 100 dwelling units = 150 spaces*, of which 50 must be unreserved.

*For 1- or 2-bedroom apartments. 1.3 required for studio and 2 spaces for 3-
bedroom, but outside of DTC these are not provided in great numbers

3. Infill Development District (IDD) parking reductions:

The same reduction proposed for City-wide affordable housing is also proposed for
multi-family development within the Infill Development District (IDD). The reduction is
proposed to be 50%, or 0.625 spaces per dwelling unit. This is supported by the
demand identified for affordable housing as published in the ITE Manual, 5th Edition,
2019. The demand is identified at 0.58 spaces per dwelling unit, for low-rise
developments in a dense multi-use urban area located within ½ mile of rail transit.

Proposed: 100 dwelling units = 63 spaces, of which 19 must be unreserved.
Existing: 100 dwelling units = 150 spaces*, of which 50 must be unreserved.

*only reduction currently available is to be able to count adjacent on-street parking.



Page 1514
Staff Report: Z-TA-8-23-Y
June 30, 2023


Non-Residential Reduction
A smaller reduction of 20% is also proposed for non-residential development, since
the reduction was written in such a way to remove the existing “reduction” of
allowing on-street parking spaces to count toward parking requirements. The on-
street parking has conflicted with some proposed bike lanes. This proposed 20%
reduction should meet or exceed the typical amount of on-street parking which could
be counted toward on-site parking requirements.

4. Walkable Urban (WU) Code parking requirements:

The proposed text modifies the existing standard multi-family housing parking
requirements to more closely match parking demand identified for dense multi-family
housing as published in the ITE Manual, 5th Edition, 2019. The demand is identified
at 0.71 spaces per dwelling unit, for mid-rise (3-10 story) developments in a dense
multi-use urban area, within ½ mile of rail transit. The proposed multi-family parking
requirement for development zoned WU Code is proposed to change from a 25%
reduction from City-wide standards, to 0.5 spaces per dwelling unit, with 30% of
parking to remain unreserved (not assigned for a particular unit or person).

Proposed: 100 dwelling units = 50 spaces, of which 15 must be unreserved.
Existing: 100 dwelling units = 113 spaces*, of which 38 must be unreserved.

*For 1- or 2-bedroom apartments. 1.3 required for studio and 2 spaces for 3-
bedroom, but outside of DTC these are not provided in great numbers.

5. Walkable Urban (WU) Code affordable housing parking requirements:

The proposed text modifies the existing affordable multi-family housing parking
requirements to more closely match parking demand identified for dense affordable
multi-family housing as published in the ITE Manual, 5th Edition, 2019. The demand
is identified at 0.53 spaces per dwelling unit, for affordable (income-limited)
developments in a dense multi-use urban area. The proposed affordable multi-family
housing parking requirement for development zoned WU Code is proposed to
change from a 0.5 spaces per dwelling unit to 0 spaces (no minimum required).

Proposed: 100 dwelling units = 0 spaces.
Existing: 100 dwelling units = 50 spaces, with no unreserved requirement.

6. Passenger Loading Zones within WU Code:

This text amendment also proposes a new requirement for passenger loading
spaces/zones, which are pull-out areas for short-term waiting for rideshare vehicles,
meal delivery vehicles, and package delivery vehicles (but not commercial docks or
loading areas). Such services are frequently used by persons living in denser
central urban environments to supplement transit and bicycle transportation. Such
areas should be located on-site but may be located off-street if they do not reduce
required landscaping and pedestrian amenities, and if approved by Street
Page 1515
Staff Report: Z-TA-8-23-Y
June 30, 2023


Transportation. The proposed rates are adapted from standards adopted by the
Town of Eloy, AZ and Chandler, AZ, with development standards provided in
accordance with federal requirements:

PASSENGER LOADING SPACES
USE TYPE
REQUIRED (2)

CULTURAL OR PUBLIC FACILITY 2

HOSPITAL 3

HOTEL OR MOTEL 3

MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 1 PER 50 DWELLING UNITS (1)

PUBLIC ASSEMBLY 1 PER 50 REQUIRED PARKING SPACES (1)



Conclusion:
The proposed changes to parking requirements, generally to reduce parking minimums
for transit-oriented, multi-family, and affordable development, is supported by demand
studies in the ITE Parking Generation Manual. The requirement for passenger loading
zones in WU Code is to support the use of ancillary transportation services often used
by persons utilizing transit or bicycle as a primary means of transportation.

Staff recommends approval of the changes to the Zoning Ordinance as proposed in
Attachment A.


Writer
C. DePerro
6/30/2023

Attachments
A. Proposed Language




Page 1516
Staff Report: Z-TA-8-23-Y
June 30, 2023



EXHIBIT A
Text Amendment Z-TA-8-23-Y:
Parking Reductions for Multifamily and Affordable Housing

Proposed Language:

Section 202. Definitions.
Amend Chapter 2, Section 202 (Definitions) to add definitions for affordable
housing, passenger loading space, passenger loading zone, and revise parking
space, unreserved, as follows:

***
AFFORDABLE HOUSING: RESIDENTIAL OR MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT
PROVIDING HUD OR OTHER ASSISTED LOW- TO MODERATE-INCOME HOUSING,
AS VERIFIED BY THE PHOENIX HOUSING DEPARTMENT; TYPICALLY INCLUDES
DWELLING UNIT(S) COMMITTED FOR A MINIMUM TERM THROUGH COVENANTS
OR RESTRICTIONS TO HOUSEHOLDS WITH INCOMES AT 80 PERCENT OR LESS
OF THE AREA MEDIAN INCOME, AS DEFINED BY THE UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT FOR THE CITY.
***
Parking Space, Unreserved: An unassigned parking space that is available to both
residents, EMPLOYEES, and visitors TO THE PROPERTY. UNRESERVED PARKING
SPACES WHICH COUNT TOWARD ANY REQUIRED PARKING MINIMUMS SHALL
NOT BE USED FOR OFF-SITE OR COMMERCIAL PARKING USES.

FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS, UNRESERVED SPACES MAY BE LOCATED
BEHIND A VEHICULAR GATE IF A CALL BOX IS PROVIDED TO ALLOW VISITOR
ENTRY BY RESIDENTS OF THE PROPERTY.

FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS, UNRESERVED SPACES MAY NOT BE
LOCATED BEHIND A VEHICULAR GATE UNLESS THE GATE IS OPEN (OR WILL
OPEN AUTOMATICALLY UPON APPROACH) DURING ALL STANDARD BUSINESS
HOURS.
***
PASSENGER LOADING SPACE: A DESIGNATED SPACE FOR THE SHORT-TERM
USE BY ONE VEHICLE TO STAND DURING PASSENGER PICK UP OR DROP OFF OF
VISITORS, RESIDENTS, OR OCCUPANTS OF THE BUILDING OR USE; OR DURING
DELIVERY OF GOODS TO INDIVIDUAL OCCUPANTS. A PASSENGER LOADING
SPACE MAY NOT INCLUDE ANY DELIVERY OF GOODS OR SERVICE AREAS FOR
COMMERCIAL USES, NOR ANY USE NOT CONSIDERED SHORT-TERM.



Page 1517
Staff Report: Z-TA-8-23-Y
June 30, 2023


PASSENGER LOADING ZONE: AN AREA ADJACENT TO A PRIMARY ENTRY
COMPRISED OF AT LEAST ONE PASSENGER LOADING SPACE, CONSTRUCTED IN
TANDEM (WITH NO BARRIERS IN BETWEEN) FOR USE AS ONE CONTIGUOUS
LOADING ZONE.
***

Section 608. Residence Districts
Amend Chapter 6, Section 608.J (Density Bonus For Low or Moderate Income
Housing) to read as follows:

J. Density Bonus INCENTIVES For Low or Moderate Income AFFORDABLE
Housing. In order to overcome a demonstrated deficiency in the supply of housing
for persons of low and moderate income, density bonus incentives are established
to foster the provision of such housing. The bonuses in this paragraph shall apply
to the maximum density for any district and may be in addition to bonuses earned
by the provision of additional open space.

1. Applicability. All development LOCATED WITHIN A ZONING DISTRICT
SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 608 providing HUD or other
assisted mixed income rental housing as approved by the Phoenix Housing
and Urban Redevelopment Department AFFORDABLE HOUSING AS
DEFINED IN SECTION 202.

2. Density bonus.

a. One additional conventional unit SHALL BE allowed for every two
low/moderate income AFFORDABLE HOUSING units, provided that
the overall project density does not exceed ten percent beyond that
which would otherwise be allowed.

b. The A DENSITY bonuses in this paragraph AWARDED PER THIS
SECTION shall apply to the maximum density for any district and may
be in addition to A DENSITY bonuses earned by the provision of
additional open space PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 608.I.2.

3. PARKING REDUCTION.

A. FOR EACH AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT, THE REQUIRED
PARKING CALCULATION MAY BE REDUCED BY 50%.




Page 1518
Staff Report: Z-TA-8-23-Y
June 30, 2023


B. A PARKING REDUCTION AWARDED PER THIS SECTION SHALL
APPLY ONLY WHEN NO OTHER TYPE OF PARKING REDUCTION
AUTHORIZED ELSEWHERE IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE HAS
BEEN GRANTED.

3. 4. Other requirements. The total number of units within a project shall be as
approved by the Department of Housing. and Urban Development. Further,
the location of any such units shall be consistent with the goals of the City of
Phoenix Housing Assistance Allocation Plan.


Section 702. Off-Street Parking and Loading
Amend Chapter 7, Section 702.C (Parking Requirements) to read as follows:

C. Parking Requirements. Off-street automobile parking space or area shall be
provided according to the following table, except for large scale retail commercial
uses (see Section 702.D). The parking ratios in the table identify the minimum level
of parking required to serve that use and receive site plan approval.


Type of Land Use Parking Requirements


***




Page 1519
Staff Report: Z-TA-8-23-Y
June 30, 2023


Type of Land Use Parking Requirements


Dwelling Unit, Multi- Total required parking
Family
1.3 spaces per efficiency unit and 1.5 spaces per 1 or 2 bedroom
unit and 2 spaces per 3 or more bedroom unit, 1.0 space per unit of
less than 600 square feet regardless of number of bedrooms

When the required parking is reserved for residents, additional
unreserved parking is required as follows: 0.3 spaces for each
efficiency unit and 0.5 spaces per each 1 or 2 bedroom unit and 1.0
space per each 3 or more bedroom unit.

Exception for unreserved parking: where minimum 18-foot driveways
are provided for individual units, .25 space per each unit.

Unreserved parking shall be distributed throughout the site.

Note: Any unreserved parking spaces required by this section may be
counted toward the total required parking count.

1.25 SPACES PER DWELLING UNIT

A MINIMUM OF 30% OF THE REQUIRED PARKING SPACES
MUST REMAIN UNRESERVED.

Dwelling Unit, Single- 1.3 spaces per efficiency unit and 1.5 spaces per 1 or 2 bedroom unit
Family Attached and 2 spaces per 3 or more bedroom unit, 1.0 space per unit of less
than 600 square feet regardless of number of bedrooms

PER SECTION 608.F.6, IF DEVELOPING UNDER THE SINGLE-
FAMILY INFILL DEVELOPMENT OPTION PER SECTIONS 614-618

2 SPACES PER UNIT IF NOT DEVELOPING UNDER THE SFI
OPTION. THE REQUIRED SPACES FOR EACH DWELLING UNIT
MUST BE PROVIDED ON THE SAME LOT. AN ADDITIONAL 0.25
UNRESERVED SPACE PER DWELLING UNIT MUST PER
PROVIDED ELSEWHERE WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT FOR
VISITOR PARKING.

***

Amend Chapter 7, Section 702.E (Modifications to Parking Requirements) to read as
follows:


Page 1520
Staff Report: Z-TA-8-23-Y
June 30, 2023


***
E. Modifications to Parking Requirements.

***
3. Reductions. Parking reductions are specified within the specific zoning
districts. The listed zoning districts offer parking reductions:

a. Downtown Core District: No parking required. (Section 643)
DOWNTOWN CODE: PER SUSTAINABILITY BONUS AWARDS.
(CHAPTER 12)

b. Warehouse District: No parking required. (Section 645) WALKABLE
URBAN (WU) CODE. (CHAPTER 13)

***
F. INCENTIVES FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING (RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS, SECTION 608.J)

***
9. Reductions for Infill Development District. THE INFILL DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT, AS SHOWN ON THE GENERAL PLAN, IS SUBJECT TO THE
FOLLOWING PROVISIONS:

a. Within the infill development district, as shown on the general plan for
Phoenix, a development’s on-street parking adjacent to and along the
same side of a public, local or collector street may be counted toward
parking requirements. PARKING REDUCTIONS.

(1) THESE REDUCTIONS DO NOT APPLY TO PROPERTIES
ZONED DOWNTOWN CODE OR WALKABLE URBAN CODE.

(2) NON-RESIDENTIAL USES SUBJECT TO THE PARKING
REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 702.C WITH NO OTHER
PARKING REDUCTIONS MAY REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF
REQUIRED PARKING BY 20%.

(3) MULTI-FAMILY USES SUBJECT TO THE PARKING
REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 702.C WITH NO OTHER
PARKING REDUCTIONS MAY REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF
REQUIRED PARKING BY 50%.


Page 1521
Staff Report: Z-TA-8-23-Y
June 30, 2023


***
c. Use Permit Notice Procedure for Infill OFF-SITE Parking Reductions.
The following additional procedures shall be followed as part of the
infill parking reduction use permit process (in addition to the
procedures required by Section 307):
***


Section 1307. Parking Standards
Amend Chapter 13, Section 1307 (Parking Standards) to modify the parking
requirements for multi-family, single-family attached, and affordable housing, and
add requirements for passenger loading zones to read as follows:

Chapter 13
WALKABLE URBAN (WU) CODE
***
Section 1307. Parking AND LOADING standards.

***
B. Required Vehicular Parking.

1. Vehicular parking must be provided for each use in accordance with Table
1307.1 and as follows:

a. Minimum required vehicular parking is the sum of parking required for
each use within a lot.

b. Accessory dwellings in T3 and T4 require one parking space per unit.

c. B. Vehicular parking may be limited to a maximum number of spaces by
parking districts where established.

d. C. Other uses not identified on Table 1307.1 shall follow Section 702
standards.

***

Table 1307.1 Minimum Required Vehicular Parking




Page 1522
Staff Report: Z-TA-8-23-Y
June 30, 2023


T5 T5
USE MEASURE T3 T4 1—5 6—10 T6
Stories Stories

Residential, Single-Family per unit 2.0 n/a n/a n/a
DETACHED

(1) As per Section 702. Additional 25% reduction
when the off-street parking area is located within
1,320 feet from a light rail station when measured in a
Residential: Single-Family direct line from the building, and 10% reduction of
Attached and Multifamily required parking if the development is greater than
1,320 feet from a light rail station. The minimum
required on-site vehicular parking is exclusively for the
patrons of the subject parcel.

PER SECTION 608.F.6, IF DEVELOPING UNDER
RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE-FAMILY
THE PROVISIONS OF 1303.A.1.A.; OTHERWISE
ATTACHED
PER SECTION 702.

0.5
A MINIMUM OF 30% OF THE
RESIDENTIAL, MULTI-FAMILY (2) PER UNIT N/A
REQUIRED SPACES SHALL
REMAIN UNRESERVED.

***

Affordable Housing per unit 0.85 0.75 0.5 0.5

AFFORDABLE HOUSING PER UNIT 0.75 NONE REQUIRED

***


***
D. Required SERVICE/GOODS Loading AREAS and Service Bays. THE
FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS APPLY TO SHORT-TERM LOADING AND
UNLOADING OF SERVICE VEHICLES WITH MATERIALS, GOODS OR
EQUIPMENT. PASSENGER LOADING ZONES ARE ADDRESSED IN
SECTION 1307.I.

1. On-site SERVICE/GOODS loading shall be required for all development
as follows:

***

Page 1523
Staff Report: Z-TA-8-23-Y
June 30, 2023


E. Off-Street Parking Location and Access.

1. Parking must be set back from frontages according to Table 1303.2,
except where parking is located underground. PASSENGER LOADING
SPACES/ZONES ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THESE SETBACK
REQUIREMENTS.

***
I. PASSENGER LOADING. THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS APPLY TO
PASSENGER LOADING SPACES AND ZONES ONLY. SERVICE/GOODS
LOADING AREAS ARE ADDRESSED IN SECTION 1307.D.

1. REQUIRED NUMBER OF SPACES. PASSENGER LOADING
SPACES SHALL BE PROVIDED AS FOLLOWS:

TABLE. 1307.3 REQUIRED PASSENGER LOADING SPACES

PASSENGER LOADING SPACES
USE TYPE
REQUIRED (2)

CULTURAL OR PUBLIC FACILITY 2

HOSPITAL 3

HOTEL OR MOTEL 3

MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 1 PER 50 DWELLING UNITS (1)

PUBLIC ASSEMBLY 1 PER 50 REQUIRED PARKING
SPACES (1)

ALL OTHER USES 1 PER 25,000 GROSS SF (1)


(1) OR PORTION THEREOF. NO SITE SHALL BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE MORE THAN 10 PASSENGER
LOADING SPACES.

(2) FOR MIXED USES, THE MINIMUM NUMBER OF REQUIRED SPACES SHALL BE THE SUM OF THE
SPACES REQUIRED FOR THE INDIVIDUAL USES, ALTHOUGH ROUNDING UP SHALL OCCUR AT THE
FINAL STEP OF THE CALCULATIONS. FOR EXAMPLE, A DEVELOPMENT WITH 70,000 GROSS SF OF
OFFICE SPACE, PLUS 125 MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS, IS REQUIRED 1.4 SPACES (70,000 SF /
50,000 SF/SPACE), PLUS 1.25 SPACES (125 DU / 100 DU/SPACE), WHICH TOTALS 2.65 REQUIRED, OR
3 PASSENGER LOADING SPACES.




2. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR PASSENGER LOADING ZONES.

Page 1524
Staff Report: Z-TA-8-23-Y
June 30, 2023



A. ACCESSIBLE PASSENGER LOADING SPACES.

(1) AT LEAST ONE ACCESSIBLE PASSENGER LOADING
SPACE SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR EVERY 100
LINEAR FEET OF CONTIGUOUS PASSENGER
LOADING ZONE. HOWEVER, EACH PHYSICALLY
SEPARATE PASSENGER LOADING ZONE MUST
ALSO HAVE AT LEAST ONE ACCESSIBLE
PASSENGER LOADING SPACE.

(2) AN ACCESSIBLE PASSENGER LOADING SPACE
SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 96 INCHES WIDE AND A
MINIMUM 23 FEET LONG.

(3) THE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS AISLE SERVING THE
ACCESSIBLE LOADING ZONE SPACE SHALL EXTEND
THE LENGTH OF THE SPACE AND SHALL BE A
MINIMUM 60 INCHES WIDE.

(4) THE VEHICLE PULL-UP SPACE AND ACCESS AISLE
MUST COMPLY WITH ADA REQUIREMENTS FOR
GROUND AND FLOOR SURFACES AND CANNOT
EXCEED A SLOPE OF 2%.

(5) CURB RAMPS CANNOT OVERLAP ACCESS AISLES
OR VEHICLE PULL-UP SPACES.

(6) A VERTICAL CLEARANCE OF 14 FEET IS REQUIRED
FOR EACH VEHICLE PULL-UP SPACE AND ACCESS
AISLE, AND ALL ALONG ANY VEHICULAR ROUTE
CONNECTING THEM TO A VEHICLE ENTRANCE AND
EXIT, UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED FOR
EMERGENCY/SERVICE VEHICLE ACCESS.

(7) THE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS AISLES SHALL NOT
ENCROACH INTO A TRAVEL LANE.




Page 1525
Staff Report: Z-TA-8-23-Y
June 30, 2023


DETAIL 1307.1. ACCESSIBLE PASSENGER LOADING SPACE




B. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR PASSENGER LOADING
ZONES.

(1) STANDARD PASSENGER LOADING SPACES, WHEN
PROVIDED IN ADDITION TO THE MINIMUM
REQUIRED ACCESSIBLE PASSENGER LOADING
SPACE(S), SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED TO THE SAME
STANDARDS AS AN ACCESSIBLE PASSENGER
LOADING SPACE, BUT WITHOUT THE REQUIREMENT
FOR AN ACCESS AISLE.

(2) A CONTIGUOUS PASSENGER LOADING ZONE MAY
BE PROVIDED, WHICH SHALL CONSIST OF TWO (2)
OR MORE LOADING ZONE SPACES PROVIDED IN
TANDEM WITH NO BARRIERS SEPARATING SAID
SPACES, THUS ENABLING VEHICLES TO MOVE
FORWARD THROUGH MULTIPLE PASSENGER
LOADING ZONE SPACES.




Page 1526
Staff Report: Z-TA-8-23-Y
June 30, 2023


(3) PASSENGER LOADING ZONES SHALL BE PROVIDED
WITHIN 50’ OF THE MAIN ENTRANCE OF THE USE OR
STRUCTURE THEY ARE INTENDED TO SERVE, AS
APPROVED BY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT STAFF.

(4) PASSENGER LOADING ZONES SHALL NOT
ENCROACH WITHIN THE MINIMUM WIDTH OF ANY
FIRE LANES OR DRIVE AISLES.

(5) PARKING AND/OR STANDING SHALL BE LIMITED TO
30 MINUTES WITHIN A PASSENGER LOADING ZONE,
AND SIGNS SHALL BE INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED
STATING THIS RESTRICTION, AS APPROVED BY PDD
AND STREET TRANSPORTATION.

(6) A PASSENGER LOADING ZONE SHALL NOT BE
LOCATED BEHIND ANY TYPE OF VEHICULAR GATE
OR BARRIER, EXCEPT FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL
USES, WHEN SUCH GATE OR BARRIER IS LEFT
OPEN DURING ON-SITE BUSINESS HOURS.

(7) ON-STREET PASSENGER LOADING ZONES
LOCATED IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ADJACENT
TO THE PROPERTY MAY ONLY BE PROVIDED WHEN
COMPLIANCE WITH ALL OF THE FOLLOWING IS
DEMONSTRATED:

(A) APPROVAL FOR THE DESIGN OF THE
PASSENGER LOADING ZONE HAS BEEN
OBTAINED FROM THE STREET
TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT.

(B) AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT HAS BEEN
OBTAINED FROM THE STREET
TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT FOR ANY
STRUCTURES REQUIRED AS PART OF THE
PASSENGER LOADING ZONE (SHADE
CANOPIES, SCREEN WALLS, SIGNS, ETC.).



Page 1527
Staff Report: Z-TA-8-23-Y
June 30, 2023


(C) THE PASSENGER LOADING ZONE DOES NOT
REDUCE OR PRECLUDE ANY REQUIRED
STREETSCAPE OR FRONTAGE ELEMENTS,
INCLUDING THE PROVISION OF REQUIRED
STREET TREES AND SHADE.

(D) THE PASSENGER LOADING ZONE DOES NOT
INTERRUPT A DESIGNATED BICYCLE LANE.

C. PASSENGER LOADING AREA DESIGN GUIDELINES.

(1) PASSENGER LOADING ZONES SHOULD BE
LOCATED INTERNALLY TO THE BUILDING WHEN
POSSIBLE.

(2) PASSENGER LOADING ZONES SHOULD HAVE
PRIMARY ACCESS FROM A STREET, RATHER THAN
AN ALLEY.

(3) PASSENGER LOADING ZONES SHOULD PROVIDE
LANDSCAPED AND/OR STRUCTURAL SHADE FOR A
MINIMUM OF 75% OF THE PASSENGER WAITING
AREAS.
***




Page 1528
ATTACHMENT C
Z-TA-8-23: Parking Reductions
Village Planning Committee Summary Results

Information Only Recommendation
Village Recommendations Vote
Date Date
Paradise Valley 6/5/2023 7/10/23 No Quorum N/A
Encanto 6/5/2023 7/10/23 Approval, per the staff recommendation 12-1
Laveen 6/12/2023 7/10/23 Denial 8-0
Central City 6/12/2023 7/10/23 Approval, per the staff recommendation 10-4
Camelback East 6/6/2023 7/11/23 Approval, per the staff recommendation 14-1
Desert View 6/6/2023 7/11/23 Denial 9-0
Rio Vista 6/13/2023 7/11/23 Denial 3-2
South Mountain 6/13/2023 7/11/23 Denial 11-0
Maryvale 6/14/2023 7/12/23 Denial 7-2-1
Deer Valley 6/8/2023 7/13/23 Denial 5-4
North Gateway 6/8/2023 7/13/23 Denial 6-0
Estrella 6/20/2023 7/18/23 Denial 8-1
Approval, per the staff recommendation
with direction that staff and the city
North Mountain 6/21/2023 7/19/23 council to explore additional methods to 12-1-1
help with the production of affordable
housing
Ahwatukee Foothills 6/26/2023 7/24/23 Denial 6-2
Alhambra 6/27/2023 7/25/23 Approval, per the staff recommendation 9-6




Page 1529
ATTACHMENT D




Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
INFORMATION ONLY



Date of VPC Meeting June 5, 2023
Request Amend Chapters 2, 6, 7 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for
multifamily and affordable housing.

VPC DISCUSSION:

Mr. Zambrano shared the parking reductions proposed and displayed an image of a
typical multifamily development with a lot of parking. Mr. Zambrano shared the current
and proposed parking requirement for multifamily development City-wide, affordable
multifamily development City-wide, multifamily development in the Infill Development
District, market-rate multifamily development in the Walkable Urban (WU) Code, and
affordable multifamily development in the WU Code. Mr. Zambrano displayed an
example for each type of multifamily development of a 300-unit complex, having only 1-
or 2-bedroom units, and shared what the difference in the parking requirement would
be. Mr. Zambrano then discussed passenger loading zones, a new requirement
proposed only for sites zoned WU Code. Mr. Zambrano concluded with the timeline for
the text amendment.

Mr. Soronson asked if there are parking reductions proposed adjacent to transit. Mr.
Zambrano responded that transit would be covered under the Infill Development District
and the Walkable Urban Code.
Chair Popovic asked what the current parking requirement is for multifamily. Mr.
Zambrano displayed the current requirement verbatim from the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance.

Roy Wise asked about the intent of this text amendment. Mr. Zambrano responded
that current parking requirements are resulting in overparking. Mr. Wise stated that he
believes the text amendment is trying to force more people to use transit.

Ms. Balderrama asked how the proposed parking requirement was calculated. Mr.
Zambrano responded that the Traffic Services Division conducted a study that showed
the actual parking demand is less than what the current parking requirements are. Mr.
Zambrano added that part of the intent behind the text amendment is trying to
encourage more transit use and acknowledging that not everyone may own a private
vehicle and may rely on other modes of transportation.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1530
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y

Ms. Sepic asked if the proposed parking ratio would apply to four-bedroom units as
well. Mr. Zambrano responded affirmatively, noting that the previous requirement was
two parking spaces per three or more-bedroom unit.

Chair Popovic asked where the distance to a light rail station in the Walkable Urban
Code is measured from. Mr. Zambrano responded that it is measured from the lot line.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1531
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
INFORMATION ONLY

Date of VPC Meeting June 5, 2023
Request Amend Chapters 2, 6, 7 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for
multifamily and affordable housing.

VPC DISCUSSION:

No quorum.

STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION & STIPULATIONS:

No quorum.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1532
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
INFORMATION ONLY


Date of VPC Meeting June 12, 2023
Amend Chapters 2, 6, 7 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning
Request Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for multifamily
and affordable housing.

VPC DISCUSSION:

Committee Member Rouse left during this item bringing quorum to eight.

Staff Presentation:

Mrs. Sanchez Luna provided an overview of the proposed text amendment. Mrs.
Sanchez Luna noted that the proposed text amendment would allow for a reduction in
parking for multifamily and affordable multifamily citywide. Ms. Sanchez Luna
summarized other parking reductions. Mrs. Sanchez Luna presented examples of the
proposed parking reductions. Mrs. Sanchez Luna concluded the presentation by noting
the proposed hearing dates for the text amendment.

Questions from the Committee:

Mr. Nasser-Taylor asked if ADA parking would still be required. Ms. Gomes confirmed.
Mr. Nasser-Taylor asked prompted this text amendment. Ms. Gomes noted that the
text amendment has been in response to legislative and affordability movements. Ms.
Gomes noted that the city analyzed affordability and that is why there were standards
for infill development, the walkable urban code, and city wide. Mr. Nasser-Taylor noted
that it would allow for more units because of the reduction in parking. Ms. Gomes noted
that residents in affordable housing have less vehicles and that more units would drive
down rental costs. Ms. Gomes noted that these would be minimum parking standards.
Mr. Nasser-Taylor noted that Phoenix doesn’t have an efficient public transportation
system to support the parking reduction. Mr. Nasser-Taylor added that existing
multifamily developments do not have enough parking. Mr. Nasser-Taylor asked if a
study was conducted before presenting the new parking ratios. Ms. Gomes stated that
the city utilized ITE data that focuses on traffic counts in order to create the proposal.
Ms. Perrera asked what year the data was collected. Ms. Gomes stated that that
information could be provided at a later date.

Ms. Perrera noted that the parking reduction made sense in infill development if
amenities are in a walkable distance. Ms. Perrera noted that a citywide reduction was

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1533
Laveen Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 12, 2023
Page 2

not feasible. Ms. Perrera added that Laveen did not have sufficient public transit. Ms.
Perrera noted that there should be a reduction in commercial parking rather than
multifamily parking. Ms. Perrera added that she had concerns on data utilized.

Ms. Rouse voiced her agreement and stated that parking would spill onto the street.

Ms. Rubio-Raffin agreed that the city doesn’t have the public transit infrastructure to
support the reduction. Ms. Rubio-Raffin noted that the City of Tempe has an efficient
public transit system. Ms. Rubio-Raffin added that the reduction could reduce the
number of cars.

Ms. Jensen stated that more public transportation infrastructure would be required
before a reduction could occur. Ms. Jensen asked how much overflow parking occurs in
walkable urban code areas. Ms. Gomes noted that the department has been working to
gather the data.

Mr. Chiarelli noted that apartments could start charging for parking which would affect
housing affordability. Mr. Chiarelli asked what would make a housing project affordable.
Mr. Chiarelli added that people that live in affordable housing still have vehicles.

Francisco Barraza noted that a reduction in vehicles per household would not be
attainable. Mr. Barraza stated that downtown development discourages parking, but
other parts of the city cannot accommodate the reduction. Mr. Barraza added that the
proposed text amendment would benefit developers rather than individuals.

Chair Abegg stated that she hasn’t seen a decrease in vehicles with less parking
availability. Chair Abegg asked if existing projects could revise their site plan to reduce
the parking. Chair Abegg asked about the outreach and noted that in-person meetings
are less accessible for the community.

Vice Chair Hurd noted that she has seen multifamily projects with excessive parking
but would discourage filling empty parking lots with more housing. Vice Chair Hurd
noted that the data utilized needed to be evaluated. Chair Abegg noted that the
reduction made sense in some overlay areas but not the entire city.

Ms. Gomes noted that staff has heard similar comments from northern villages. Ms.
Gomes noted that if the text amendment is adopted, all current developments could
utilize the parking reduction. Ms. Gomes noted that existing projects would have to be
evaluated on a case by case basis. Ms. Gomes noted that information only items for
text amendment allow the community to voice their initial concerns prior to
recommendation. Ms. Gomes added that the information is available online and
recommended the committee to promote any input. Chair Abegg noted that the in-
person meetings are not accessible to the entire community. Ms. Gomes stated that the
text amendments have been a respond to City Council requests and legislative
movements. Chair Abegg reiterated that a virtual meeting would increase community
input and accessibility. Ms. Gomes stated that not all facilities have the technical

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1534
Laveen Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 12, 2023
Page 3

capabilities to host hybrid meetings.

Mr. Chiarelli noted that South Mountain has not have quorum in several months. Mr.
Chiarelli added that this prevents community input. Mr. Chiarelli asked what the city has
done to ensure an active committee. Chair Abegg encouraged Committee Member
Chiarelli to contact the City Council. Ms. Gomes voiced her agreement and confirmed
that the City Council is addressing the issue.

Public Comment:

Mr. Hertel stated that ADA parking spaces will be utilized by non-ADA vehicles. Mr.
Hertel added that an efficient public transportation system is required prior to a parking
reduction. Mr. Hertel asked for the purpose behind the text amendment and if any data
was collected to support the reduction in Laveen. Mr. Hertel added that this would result
in modifications to existing approved site plans. Mr. Hertel voiced his opposition to the
text amendment.

Committee Discussion:

None.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1535
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
INFORMATION ONLY

Date of VPC Meeting June 12, 2023
Request Amend Chapters 2, 6, 7 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for multifamily
and affordable housing.


VPC DISCUSSION:

No members of the public registered to speak on this item.

Anthony Grande, staff, provided a presentation regarding the proposed text
amendment to reduce parking requirements for multifamily and affordable housing. He
described the proposed citywide parking requirements for multifamily development and
affordable multifamily development and further described the proposed parking
requirements for the Infill Development District and in the Walkable Urban Code.

Committee Member Sherman stated that the pick-up/drop-off areas should be
encouraged to be on-street to reduce the number of driveways.

Committee Member Olivas expressed concern about the proposal, citing an example
of an affordable housing development with a low parking requirement where there is an
issue with cars parking on the street.

Committee Member Dana Johnson asked for clarification regarding the on-street
parking allowance in the infill district and expressed concern about the proposal from
an equity perspective. Mr. Grande provided clarification that on-street parking would
no longer count toward parking requirements in the infill district.

Committee Member Uss stated that parking is a barrier to providing affordable
housing and that this proposal would open up more parcels for affordable housing
development.

Committee Member Martinez agreed with the example raised by Ms. Olivas, noting
that traffic situation around the development is problematic due to the reduced parking
requirements.



200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882

Page 1536
Central City Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
June 12, 2023
Page 2


Committee Member Gaughan stated that it is important to get families into housing
units and that providing parking makes the units more expensive.

Committee Member Martinez noted that low-income people still own cars. Ms. Uss
replied that the vehicle ownership rate is lower for low-income people.

Vice Chair O’Grady stated that it would be helpful to tour affordable developments
with minimal parking, such as the Native American Connections buildings.

Committee Member Rachel Frazier Johnson asked that staff provide examples of
affordable developments with lower parking requirements for the next meeting.

Chair Gonzales asked for clarification on how the proposal would affect the Downtown
Code. Mr. Grande clarified that it would not change any requirements of the Downtown
Code.

Committee Member Sonoskey asked about maximum parking requirements. Mr.
Grande replied that there were only parking maximums in the Downtown Code, and
this proposal would not change that.

Committee Member Olivas asked about congestion on narrow streets with street
parking. Mr. Grande replied that the Street Transportation Department reviews any on-
street parking to verify the street width is sufficient to handle the parked cars and the
flow of traffic.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1537
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
INFORMATION ONLY
Date of VPC Meeting June 6, 2023
Request Amend Chapters 2, 6, 7 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for
multifamily and affordable housing

VPC DISCUSSION:

No member of the public registered to speak on this item.

STAFF PRESENTATION:

John Roanhorse, staff, provided a presentation the proposed text amendment to
reduce parking, the scope, requirements and adjustments for multifamily development.
Mr. Roanhorse discussed the current parking requirements, the proposal and the
comparative reduction calculations for affordable housing, infill development, Walkable
Urban Code areas and other site adjustments. Mr. Roanhorse displayed the changes
that will include passenger loading zones pull up/drop off spaces for streetscapes. Mr.
Roanhorse discussed the time frame for review for the at Villages, Planning
Commission and City Council.

QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE:

Ms. Schmieder asked about the text amendment as a method of clarifying information
and parking reduction is a significant change and why this being considered as a text
amendment. Mr. Roanhorse responded that the text amendment is a method that allow
the City to adjust an existing requirement. Ms. Schmieder stated that changing the
parking requirements has big implications for neighborhoods and new development. Mr.
Roanhorse responded that a text amendment is changes to
the text of the requirement.

PUBLIC COMMENTS:

None.

STAFF RESPONSE:

None.


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882

Page 1538
Camelback East Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y


COMMITTEE DISCUSSION:
None.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1539
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
INFORMATION ONLY

Date of VPC Meeting June 6, 2023
Request Amend Chapters 2, 6, 7 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for multifamily
and affordable housing


VPC DISCUSSION:

No members of the public registered to speak on this item.

Anthony Grande, staff, provided a presentation regarding the proposed text
amendment to reduce parking requirements for multifamily and affordable housing. He
described the proposed citywide parking requirements for multifamily development and
affordable multifamily development and further described the proposed parking
requirements for the Infill Development District and in the Walkable Urban Code.

Committee Member Hankins asked about the impetus behind this proposal. Mr.
Grande replied that there was interest from the city and stakeholders in reducing
barriers to providing housing.

Vice Chair Lagrave asked if the proposal makes the assumption that people residing
in affordable housing have lower vehicle usage. Mr. Grande replied that he didn’t have
any studies available on the question but will try to provide more information at the next
meeting.

Committee Member Santoro asked if there were studies done that show apartment
buildings with vacant parking spaces. Mr. Grande replied that he would follow up with
more information at the next meeting.

Chair Bowser stated that multifamily housing has different users than single-family,
which could impact the need for parking, adding that he would like to see a requirement
for proximity to transit as part of the proposal.

Committee Member Kollar stated that parking in many apartment complexes can be
very difficult and that he’d like to see studies showing the feasibility of the proposal.



200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882

Page 1540
Desert View Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
June 6, 2023
Page 2


Committee Member Younger asked if this amendment would only affect new
construction. Mr. Grande replied that it was for new construction.

Committee Member Israel asked about the AMI levels included in the definition of
affordable housing. Mr. Grande replied that there will be more information by the next
meeting when there is proposed text.

Committee Member Reynolds stated that low-income families may have multiple
people working and needing parking spaces, which could be an issue.

Committee Member Nowell stated that the proposal could increase demand on
commercial parking lots nearby, potentially leading to issues in the future.

Committee Member Younger asked what the purpose of the proposal was. Mr.
Grande replied that it would eliminate a barrier to providing additional housing.

Chair Bowser stated that there is a general need to reduce parking requirements
across the city because the city is generally overparked, adding that he would like to
see some studies to show the need for this specific proposal.

Committee Member Kollar stated that the 1.25 spaces per unit for multifamily housing
seems low.

Committee Member Israel asked for clarification on the proposed citywide
requirements for multifamily housing compared to proposed requirements related to
transit-oriented areas in the central part of Phoenix. Mr. Grande provided clarification.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1541
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
INFORMATION ONLY


Date of VPC Meeting June 13, 2023
Request Amend Chapters 2, 6, 7 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for multifamily
and affordable housing.

VPC DISCUSSION:

Mr. Zambrano shared the parking reductions proposed and displayed an image of a
typical multifamily development with a lot of parking. Mr. Zambrano shared the current
and proposed parking requirement for multifamily development City-wide, affordable
multifamily development City-wide, multifamily development in the Infill Development
District, market-rate multifamily development in the Walkable Urban (WU) Code, and
affordable multifamily development in the WU Code. Mr. Zambrano displayed an
example for each type of multifamily development of a 300-unit complex, having only 1-
or 2-bedroom units, and shared what the difference in the parking requirement would
be. Mr. Zambrano then discussed passenger loading zones, a new requirement
proposed only for sites zoned WU Code. Mr. Zambrano concluded with the timeline for
the text amendment.

Mr. Virgil stated that developers will try to fit more homes in a development by
removing parking spaces. Mr. Virgil stated that there is never enough parking for
visitors. Mr. Virgil stated that the City wants to push people out of their cars.

Mr. Sommacampagna asked about removing on-street parking in the Infill
Development District. Mr. Zambrano responded that the Street Transportation
Department has had issues with adding bike lanes in certain areas because
developments are counting the on-street parking towards their minimum required
parking spaces.

Mr. Virgil stated that the City does not want people to own cars.

Mr. Zambrano stated that part of the intent of the text amendment is trying to support
multi-modal transportation.

Chair Lawrence stated that this would be a great idea if everything was within walking
distance of the light rail.


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1542
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y

Mr. Virgil stated that he would rather have too much parking than not enough. Mr. Virgil
asked if handicap parking would be reduced as well. Mr. Zambrano responded that
ADA parking requirements would still be the same. Mr. Virgil asked if the ideas for the
text amendments are coming from California. Mr. Zambrano responded that they are
trying to address a number of issues, including the housing shortage and affordability.

Vice Chair Perreira asked Mr. Zambrano could share his opinion on the text
amendment. Mr. Zambrano responded that based on information he has heard, the
current Phoenix Zoning Ordinance parking requirement requires more parking than
what the actual market demand is for parking.

Mr. Virgil reiterated that he would rather have more parking than not enough.

Chair Lawrence stated that he would have to disagree with the parking requirement
supplying more than the actual parking demand. Chair Lawrence asked if Mr. Zambrano
has ever lived in apartment complex in Phoenix. Mr. Zambrano responded he has lived
in apartment complex only in Tempe. Chair Lawrence asked if there was plenty of
parking when coming home at 9:00 PM. Mr. Zambrano responded that he had a
reserved parking space. Chair Lawrence stated that when the parking ratio is 0.5
spaces per dwelling unit, there are not enough reserved spaces for each unit. Mr.
Zambrano responded that the 0.5 spaces per unit ratio is only for the Walkable Urban
Code, which is typically along the light rail corridor. Chair Lawrence stated that he is
okay with the proposal along the light rail, but that other apartment complexes he has
been to have had parking issues. Chair Lawrence added that he has never driven into
an apartment complex before that has had many empty parking spots or an empty
space nearby the unit, which is under the current parking requirements.

Mr. Virgil stated that there is an apartment complex on Union Hills Drive and 35th
Avenue where off-street parking is impossible to find in the complex and people park in
the street, noting that their parking is under the current requirements.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1543
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
INFORMATION ONLY


Date of VPC Meeting June 13, 2023
Location Amend Chapters 2, 6, 7 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for multifamily
and affordable housing.


VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS:

No quorum.

STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:

Committee member Ashley Hare left during the previous item, thus losing quorum.




Page 1544
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
INFORMATION ONLY



Date of VPC Meeting June 14, 2023
Request Amend Chapters 2, 6, 7 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for
multifamily and affordable housing.



VPC DISCUSSION:

No quorum.



STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION & STIPULATIONS:

No quorum.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1545
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
INFORMATION ONLY



Date of VPC Meeting June 8, 2023
Request Amend Chapters 2, 6, 7 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for multifamily
and affordable housing.


VPC DISCUSSION:

No quorum.



STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION & STIPULATIONS:

No quorum.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1546
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
INFORMATION ONLY


Date of VPC Meeting June 8, 2023
Request Amend Chapters 2, 6, 7 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for multifamily
and affordable housing.

VPC DISCUSSION:

Staff Presentation:
Mr. Zambrano shared the parking reductions proposed and displayed an image of a
typical multifamily development with a lot of parking. Mr. Zambrano shared the current
and proposed parking requirement for multifamily development City-wide, affordable
multifamily development City-wide, multifamily development in the Infill Development
District, market-rate multifamily development in the Walkable Urban (WU) Code, and
affordable multifamily development in the WU Code. Mr. Zambrano displayed an
example for each type of multifamily development of a 300-unit complex, having only 1-
or 2-bedroom units, and shared what the difference in the parking requirement would
be. Mr. Zambrano then discussed passenger loading zones, a new requirement
proposed only for sites zoned WU Code. Mr. Zambrano concluded with the timeline for
the text amendment.

Discussion:
None.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1547
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
INFORMATION ONLY

Date of VPC Meeting June 20, 2023
Request Amend Chapters 2, 6, 7 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for multifamily
and affordable housing.

VPC DISCUSSION:

Staff Presentation:

Mrs. Sanchez Luna provided an overview of the proposed text amendment. Mrs.
Sanchez Luna noted that the proposed text amendment would allow for a reduction in
parking for multifamily and affordable multifamily citywide. Ms. Sanchez Luna summarized
other parking reductions. Mrs. Sanchez Luna presented examples of the proposed parking
reductions. Mrs. Sanchez Luna concluded the presentation by noting the proposed
hearing dates for the text amendment.

Questions from the Committee:

Mr. Sanou and Ms. Wallace voiced their disagreement.

Chair Perez stated that the text amendment came from movement at the legislative level.
Chair Perez voiced her disagreement on the proposed text amendment and provided an
example on 67th Avenue and Broadway Road that would be able to reduce parking with
the proposed text amendment. Chair Perez noted that all current projects could revise
their site plan to reduce the number of parking.

Angelica Terrazas voiced her disagreement and stated that the reduction in parking
would make living in the city inconvenient, negatively effecting the population.

Chair Perez stated that Estella did not have the infrastructure nor amenities to support the
reduction. Chair Perez added that the reduction could work in certain areas of the city, but
not the entire city nor Estrella.

Dan Rush stated multifamily development did not have enough parking. Chair Perez
stated that if parking is unavailable, it could allow for alternative forms of transportation.

Ms. Wallace stated that Estrella did not have the public transportation infrastructure or
street infrastructure to support the reduction. Ms. Wallace stated that the population
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1548
needed vehicles and parking spaces. Ms. Wallace reiterated her disagreement and
opposition to the text amendment. Chair Perez noted that families have numerous
vehicles that overcrowd garages and driveways. Ms. Wallace stated that parking garages
could help reduce on street parking and overcrowded driveways.

Ms. Terrazas stated that single-family residences don’t always have families that require
one vehicle. Ms. Terrazas noted that numerous people share one house, requiring
additional vehicles. Ms. Terrazas voiced her disagreement and added that the reduction
was unpractical.

Ms. Wallace noted that a reduction in parking is only feasible to certain social groups who
can afford the reduction.

Chair Perez asked staff about the input that they have received in the northern villages.
Ms. Escolar noted that they have heard similar concerns and were opposed to the text
amendment.

Ms. Terrazas asked for information regarding commercial parking reduction. Ms. Terrazas
noted that a reduction in commercial parking would also have negative effects on the
village. Ms. Escolar stated that the proposed text amendment would not reduce
commercial parking.

Public Comment:

Ms. Groff stated that the proposed text amendment does not affect the parking maximum.
Ms. Groff stated that the idea would be to allow the market demand to determine the
number of parking. Ms. Groff noted that this could lead to shared parking between
developments and parking adjusted to the market.

Committee Discussion:

Ms. Wallace stated that the reduction would allow for zero parking. Mrs. Sanchez Luna
responded that the zero required parking would only be in the Walkable Urban Code and
affordable housing projects.

Ms. Groff added that the lack of parking could reduce rental rates. Mr. Sanou disagreed.

Chair Perez noted that there could be additional revenue if there were rented parking
garages. Ms. Wallace stated that the parking garages should be free in certain areas.

Ms. Wallace voiced her opposition for the proposed text amendment.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1549
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
INFORMATION ONLY


Date of VPC Meeting June 12, 2023
Amend Chapters 2, 6, 7 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning
Request Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for multifamily
and affordable housing.

VPC DISCUSSION:

Mr. Klimek shared the parking reductions proposed and displayed an image of a typical
multifamily development with a lot of parking. He shared the current and proposed
parking requirement for multifamily development City-wide, affordable multifamily
development City-wide, multifamily development in the Infill Development District,
market-rate multifamily development in the Walkable Urban (WU) Code, and affordable
multifamily development in the WU Code. He displayed an example for each type of
multifamily development of a 300-unit complex, having only 1- or 2-bedroom units, and
shared what the difference in the parking requirement would be. He then discussed
passenger loading zones, a new requirement proposed only for sites zoned WU Code
and concluded with the timeline for the text amendment.

COMMITTEE MEMBER QUESTIONS

Committee Members Adams, Alauria, O’Hara and Vice Chair Fogelson expressed
concern over the proposed parking reduction.

Committee Members O’Hara asked if 1.25 spaces per unit is a standard that comes
from a national study or if it focuses on cities such as Phoenix. Mr. Klimek responded
that the ITE study is national and shows 1.23 spaces per unit for suburban development
and 1.2 spaces per unit for urban development. He added that the proposal also
equates to 1 space per resident dwelling plus 0.25 guest spaces.

Committee Member Molfetta stated that the zoning district prescribes the number of
dwelling units permitted on a site so less parking means more units can be constructed.

Committee Member Freeman stated that this provides greater flexibility, that the
parking supply should be specific to the context, and that the current standard is high.
He asked if this will limit the amount of parking that can be provided. Mr. Klimek
responded that this reduces the number of spaces that are required but does not limit
the amount of parking that can be provided.


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1550
North Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-23-Y
June 21, 2023
Page 2

Committee Members O’Hara asked Chair Jaramillo how the proposal was received by
the Planning Commission. Chair Jaramillo responded that the proposal was well
received, will support affordable housing, and he then cited cul-de-sac in Tempe as an
example of an innovative community that would not be permitted in Phoenix.

Committee Members O’Hara stated that cul-de-sac is at a good location with plenty of
students, good access to transit and ASU, and a responsible owner. He expressed
concern that not all owners are responsible, and this could be used to create less
desirable housing products. Committee Members Krentz stated he was involved in
the cul-de-sac project and that half the residents are not affiliated with ASU.

Committee Member Sommacampagna asked if the parking reductions in the Infill
Development District would be allowed by-right and if there were any parking reductions
permitted in the area that require a use permit. Mr. Klimek responded that the parking
reductions are by-right in the Infill Development Area and responded that he wasn’t sure
about the use permit areas.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1551
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
INFORMATION ONLY


Date of VPC Meeting June 26, 2023
Request Amend Chapters 2, 6, 7 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for
multifamily and affordable housing.


VPC DISCUSSION:

Meeting was canceled due to lack of quorum.



STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION & STIPULATIONS:

Meeting was canceled due to lack of quorum.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1552
ATTACHMENT D




Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
INFORMATION ONLY

Date of VPC Meeting June 27, 2023
Request Amend Chapters 2, 6, 7 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for
multifamily and affordable housing.


VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS:

Two members of the public registered to speak on this item.

STAFF PRESENTATION

Samuel Rogers, staff, provided a presentation regarding the proposed text amendment
to reduce parking requirements for multifamily and affordable housing. He described the
proposed citywide parking requirements for multifamily development and affordable
multifamily development and further described the proposed parking requirements for
the Infill Development District and in the Walkable Urban Code.

QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE

Committee Member Adams asked how the parking reductions were determined. Mr.
Rogers stated that he was not aware of how the reductions were determined, but he
would provide the staff report.

Committee Member Keyser stated that surveys have shown that people want mass
transit, but he expects innovation in autonomous vehicles, electric vehicles, or smart car
technology to impact how people interact with cars. Committee Member Keyser stated
that Phoenix could become walkable someday, but the City needs to implements linear
cores. Committee Member Keyser stated that he is shy on this text amendment until we
know the future automobile market trends.

Committee Member Solorio stated that parking minimums have been eliminated
across the country in cities like Buffalo, Seattle, and Portland and in the City of Mesa’s
downtown form-based code. Committee Member Solorio explained that parking will be
determined by the financier based on the product type, so luxury apartments will still
provide parking and developments that serve specialty populations such as veterans,


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882

Page 1553
Alhambra Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-91-22-5


the elderly, or individuals with severe mental illnesses will be able to provide less
parking and thus more units.

Committee Member Fitzgerald encouraged everyone to read the text amendments
very carefully and stated that there is no outreach to the people in neighborhoods.

PUBLIC COMMENTS

John Hathaway stated that there is a law of unintended consequences that is always
present and stated that the increase in luxury apartments being built in Phoenix has
caused the City to be ranked number one in the county for increasing housing rates at
32 percent. Mr. Hathaway stated that he understands the need for affordable housing,
but there will be consequences and explained that places like Portland, Southern
California, or Manhattan are not the same as Phoenix because car ownership is much
higher in Phoenix.

Jackie Rich stated that she would like to see the research that supports the parking
reduction and stated that the proposed text amendment would reduce parking
requirements for luxury units to what is currently required for a studio unit. Ms. Rich
stated that luxury unit residents will likely want amenities like electric vehicle charging
rather than fewer parking spaces and explained people will not walk because the City of
Phoenix is seeing around 100 days with temperatures over 100 degrees Fahrenheit and
because Phoenix is ranked number six in most pedestrian fatalities. Ms. Rich stated that
while some residents in affordable housing developments may not drive, some
residents may have a medical condition that make it difficult to walk and those residents
need easily accessible parking and explained more public transit needs to be available
before this text amendments moves forward.

STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION

None.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1554
ATTACHMENT E




Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y



Date of VPC Meeting August 7, 2023
Request Amend Chapters 2, 6, 7 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for
multifamily and affordable housing.
VPC Recommendation Approval, per staff recommendation, with modifications
VPC Vote 14-0


VPC DISCUSSION:

Staff Presentation:
Mr. Zambrano discussed the purpose of the parking reductions text amendment and
potential benefits. Mr. Zambrano shared the parking reductions proposed and then
shared the current and proposed parking requirement for multifamily development City-
wide, affordable multifamily development City-wide, multifamily development in the Infill
Development District, market-rate multifamily development in the Walkable Urban (WU)
Code, and affordable multifamily development in the WU Code. Mr. Zambrano noted
that the proposed parking ratio for multifamily development City-wide was based on an
average of multifamily parking demand of 1.23 spaces per unit for suburban
development and 1.2 spaces per unit for urban development, per the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE) Manual, which has decades-worth of data based on
studies done in cities throughout the nation where cars were counted and resulted in
these parking ratios based on the actual parking demand. Mr. Zambrano then discussed
passenger loading zones, a new requirement proposed only for sites zoned WU Code.
Mr. Zambrano concluded with the timeline for the text amendment, VPC results,
Planning Commission results, and stated that staff recommends approval as listed in
the staff report.

Questions from the Committee:
Ms. Sepic asked how the City defines affordable housing, noting that the term is often
used politically. Mr. Zambrano responded that development would only qualify as
affordable housing after being vetted through the various programs and meeting the
criteria to be able to qualify as an affordable housing project. Mr. Zambrano added that
the City would not accept a development as affordable housing just because the
developer calls it affordable, and that it would need to go through the programs
necessary to qualify it as an affordable housing project.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1555
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y

Chair Popovic stated that he works for the largest affordable housing developer in the
country and the seventh largest market-rate housing developer in the country. Chair
Popovic stated that parking is the most prohibitive, restrictive and costly element in
housing development. Chair Popovic noted that the costs spent on building parking
cannot be recuperated and it limits affordable housing developers on bringing their
projects to fruition. Chair Popovic stated that his firm recently put in a bid for a Request
for Proposals (RFP) in Tempe for affordable housing, which required over 435 parking
spaces, costing over $15 million to build two parking structures, or $35,000 per parking
stall, and the project died. Chair Popovic emphasized that parking increases costs for
housing development and makes housing less affordable by requiring more parking.

Mr. Goodhue asked where people would park their cars. Chair Popovic responded
that not many people living in true affordable housing projects own cars and the current
parking requirements do not meet the actual parking demand of affordable housing.

Ms. Sepic stated that she is a multifamily operator and thinks it would be wrong to not
reduce the parking requirements. Ms. Sepic stated that one of her clients that is building
a high-rise building in Downtown Phoenix is still building in parking, despite having
minimal parking requirements because it is located right along the light rail. Ms. Sepic
added that based on her experience of operating Class C apartment buildings, most of
the residents in the studio and one-bedroom units did not own vehicles. Ms. Sepic
stated that most of the two-bedroom units had at least one vehicle and the three- and
four-bedroom units that had anywhere from eight to 10 people living in it typically had
two vehicles. Ms. Sepic noted that an average of about one-fourth of parking was
unused for apartment complexes she operated. Ms. Sepic stated that she does believe
there is room to adjust the parking ratios and that she does not believe they should be
kept as high as they currently are.

Mr. Goodhue stated that he moved in 1990 from Seattle into an apartment nearby his
current home and stayed there for a few months, and there was no one parking on the
street. Mr. Goodhue noted that these parking ratios were based on what was required
back in the 1980s and now the streets are covered with cars and are coming into the
adjacent neighborhoods. Mr. Goodhue added that the City of Seattle requires no
parking adjacent to their light rail and someone he knew opened up a business next to a
brand-new apartment complex that had cars parked along the alley that were blocking
the loading bay for the business. Mr. Goodhue agreed that parking ratios should be
looked at to make sure they are realistic but disagreed with reducing the parking ratios
to an extreme.

Chair Popovic agreed that the parking ratios should not be reduced to an extreme,
noting that the parking ratios still do need to be reduced. Chair Popovic reiterated that
many of the parking spaces for his affordable housing developments are unused. Chair
Popovic shared the criteria in order to get the credits for affordable housing.

Mr. Goodhue agreed that parking for affordable housing should be reduced to meet
their demand but expressed concerns with reducing parking for market-rate housing.


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1556
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y

Chair Popovic reiterated the cost of building parking structures. Vice Chair Anita
Mortensen asked if the parking spaces are used once the building is built. Chair
Popovic responded that it depends, but most residents in market-rate studio and one-
bedroom units do not use cars.

Ms. Sepic added that she knows two people her age that do not have a driver’s license.

Chair Popovic agreed, noting that this lowers the parking ratio. Chair Popovic stated
that the younger generation does not want cars.

Mr. Wise stated that he has lived in Arizona for a long time, and it is car-centric.

Ms. Sepic stated that rideshare is another way to get around.

Chair Popovic disagreed that Phoenix is car-centric, noting that it is changing.

Ms. Sepic agreed. Ms. Sepic stated that she is okay with the passenger loading zone
requirement as proposed. Ms. Sepic added that she believes there should be a
reduction to the parking ratios, but not to the extent as proposed. Ms. Sepic
recommended there be 0.5 parking spaces required for each studio unit or one-
bedroom unit, 1.25 parking spaces required for each two-bedroom unit, and 1.5 spaces
required for each three- or more bedroom unit. Ms. Sepic recommended that the
average parking ratio for market-rate housing be 1.75 spaces per unit.

Mr. Soronson asked for clarification that Ms. Sepic recommends the proposed 1.25
parking spaces per unit ratio is increased to 1.75 parking spaces per unit. Ms. Sepic
responded affirmatively. Mr. Soronson asked why Ms. Sepic would recommend
increasing the parking ratio to 1.75 when she just stated that she believes the parking
ratios should be reduced.

Chair Popovic agreed, noting that the current parking ratio is 1.5 parking spaces per
unit for one- and two-bedroom units.

Ms. Sepic stated that she believes the proposed parking ratio of 1.25 parking spaces
per unit for market-rate housing needs to be increased. Mr. Soronson asked again why
Ms. Sepic believes it should be increased when she had just stated that she believes
the parking ratios need to be decreased. Ms. Sepic responded that 1.25 parking spaces
per unit is still too low for market-rate housing.

Chair Popovic disagreed, noting that 1.75 parking spaces per unit is too high and is
above the current requirement of 1.5 parking spaces per unit for one- and two-bedroom
units.

Mr. Soronson concurred.

Ms. Sepic asked if the proposed parking ratio of 1.25 parking spaces per unit was the
average of the current requirement. Mr. Zambrano responded that the parking ratio of

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1557
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y

1.25 parking spaces per unit is the average of actual parking demands per the ITE
Manual.

Mr. Goodhue stated that there was a similar discussion of parking reductions for a
project within the Kierland Commons area which proposed 1.45 parking spaces per unit,
noting that the parking ratio of 1.25 parking spaces per unit is even lower than what was
approved in Kierland Commons. Mr. Goodhue recommended the parking ratio match
what was approved in Kierland Commons.

Chair Popovic disagreed, noting that he believes the parking reduction for that project
should have been more. Chair Popovic stated that from a developer’s perspective, 1.25
parking spaces per unit is more than reasonable.

Ms. Sepic noted that 1.45 parking spaces per unit is a higher ratio than 1.25 parking
spaces per unit.

Mr. Soronson agreed, noting that Ms. Sepic had previously stated that she
recommended a parking ratio of 1.75 parking spaces per unit.

Chair Popovic concurred, noting that it would result in even more parking.

Ms. Sepic recommended that the parking ratios for affordable housing be lower than
market-rate housing. Ms. Sepic noted that the current requirement for a studio unit is
1.3 parking spaces per unit, and most people that live in studio units do not even have a
car.

Mr. Zambrano asked for clarification if Ms. Sepic wanted to keep the parking ratios
broken out based on the number of units. Ms. Sepic responded affirmatively.

Mr. Goodhue asked if Ms. Sepic’s proposed parking ratios are based on traffic
engineering studies. Ms. Sepic responded that it is based on her experience of
operating multiple apartment complexes that had studio, one-, two, three-, and four-
bedroom units. Ms. Sepic reiterated that residents in studio and one-bedroom units did
not have a car.

Chair Popovic agreed, noting that it is a trend that is being seen more often.

Ms. Hall asked if the proposed parking ratio was prepared by traffic engineers. Mr.
Zambrano responded affirmatively, noting that it came from the ITE Manual.

Chair Popovic stated that he agreed with the proposed parking ratios per staff
recommendation.

Ms. Hall stated that most multifamily projects in the Kierland Commons area opt for
PUD zoning so they can reduce their parking requirements, noting that there is a way to
get around it now rather than changing the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance.


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1558
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y

Abram Bowman asked if the proposed parking ratio of 1.25 parking spaces per unit
would simplify the process for developers rather than having the parking ratios broken
out by unit. Chair Popovic responded that some projects have more studios than one-
bedroom units and other projects do not have any studios and have all one- and two-
bedroom units. Chair Popovic stated that the parking ratios do need to be broken out by
unit.

Ms. Sepic concurred. Ms. Sepic added that more three- and four-bedroom units are
needed for families, but they are more expensive to build. Ms. Sepic noted that Arizona
is top five in refugee resettlement and most refugee families have a lot of children. Ms.
Sepic reiterated that the type of housing product needed is three- and four-bedroom
units. Ms. Sepic stated that the information of the parking ratios should have been put in
a graph to better understand the proposal.

Chair Popovic agreed, noting that there are some individuals that may not fully
understand what the parking ratios translate to.

Ms. Sepic concurred, noting that the proposed parking ratio of 1.25 parking spaces per
unit for any type of unit and a 50% reduction of that for affordable housing was
confusing.

Mr. Wise asked if the Committee’s recommended modifications would get to the City
Council if the Planning Commission has already recommended approval of this text
amendment with their own modifications. Mr. Zambrano responded affirmatively, noting
that the City Council members and Mayor would review the results and meeting minutes
of the VPCs and the Planning Commission and would make their own decision based
on that information collectively.

Ms. Sepic stated that if there was a generic parking ratio and an apartment complex
was built with all three-bedroom units, 1.25 parking spaces per unit would not be
enough parking.

Daniel Mazza asked if the developer would just build more parking in that scenario.
Chair Popovic responded that they would not build more than required because of the
cost associated with it.

Mr. Soronson asked if it costs $35,000 per parking stall for surface parking or
structured parking. Chair Popovic responded that surface parking costs $30,000 per
parking stall and $35,000 per parking stall for structured parking. Chair Popovic added
that the cost could go up to $60,000 per parking stall for underground parking on the
first level and goes up from there the further underground it goes. Chair Popovic stated
that almost a third of real estate development costs are related to parking.

Mr. Wise expressed concerns with there being no parking left after the parking
reductions, assuming people will still drive as much as they are now. Chair Popovic
stated that from the data his firm is getting, the trend is to not own a car. Mr. Wise
asked if someone could rent an apartment unit without a parking space. Chair Popovic

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1559
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y

responded affirmatively. Mr. Wise asked what someone would do if they owned a car,
and the apartment complex did not have a dedicated parking space for them. Chair
Popovic responded that they would go somewhere else that did have parking available
for them.

Mr. Soronson stated that there is a project being built with no parking in the City of
Tempe along the light rail.

Mr. Goodhue stated that the City Council would probably focus on the Planning
Commission’s recommendation versus this Committee’s recommendation. Mr.
Zambrano responded that this information may be helpful to the City Council, since the
Plan that was adopted.

Public Comments:
None.

Staff Response:
None.

MOTION – Z-TA-8-23-Y:
Ms. Sepic motioned to recommend approval of Z-TA-8-23-Y, per the staff
recommendation, with modifications. Mr. Bowman seconded the motion.

Modifications listed for clarity:
• Market-Rate Housing City-wide
o 1 parking space per studio unit
o 1.5 parking spaces per 1- or 2-bedroom unit
o 2 spaces per 3- or more bedroom unit
• Affordable Housing City-wide
o 0.5 parking spaces per studio unit
o 1 parking space per 1- or 2-bedroom unit
o 2 parking spaces per 3- or more bedroom unit

VOTE – Z-TA-8-23-Y:
14-0; motion to recommend approval of Z-TA-8-23-Y per the staff recommendation with
modifications passes with Committee members Bowman, Bustamante, DeMoss,
Goodhue, Hall, Mazza, Petersen, Schmidt, Sepic, Soronson, Ward, Wise, Mortensen,
and Popovic in favor.

STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:

None.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1560
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
Date of VPC Meeting July 10, 2023
Request Amend Chapters 2, 6, 7 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for multifamily
and affordable housing
VPC Recommendation Approval, per the staff recommendation
VPC Vote 12-1

VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS:

1 member of the public registered in support, wishing to speak.
1 member of the public registered in opposition wishing to speak.

STAFF PRESENTATION

Mr. Roanhorse, staff, provided a presentation on the proposed text amendment to
reduce parking city wide for residential developments with inclusion of minimum
requirements. Mr. Roanhorse discussed the current parking requirements, the proposal
and the comparative reduction calculations for affordable housing, infill development,
Walkable Urban Code areas and other site adjustments. Mr. Roanhorse displayed the
changes that will include passenger loading zones pull up/drop off spaces for
streetscapes. Mr. Roanhorse discussed affordable housing at the applicability for
parking and demand adjustments that will be made. Mr. Roanhorse discussed the time
frame for review for the at Villages, Planning Commission and City Council.

Mr. DePerro stated that the development of the text amendment was based on many
years of trying to address parking for multifamily development with a nominal city-wide
reduction and reductions for affordable and infill housing and the biggest reduction for
the Walkable Urban Code. Mr. DePerro noted that the staggered approach for parking
was possible. Mr. DePerro explained parking information was obtained from the Institute
of Traffic Engineers (ITE) Parking Manual to determine parking demands and to make it
meaningful and applicable to the city.


QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE

Committee Member Jewett asked if the parking demand we are seeing now is
accurate or is there a margin for adjustment. Mr. DePerro responded that certain
adjustments were made where the calculated demand was 1.23 spaces which was
rounded up to 1.25 spaces to provide a measure of simplification.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1561
Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y

Vice Chair Rodriguez asked what is expected in the future for single family or
commercial developments and will parking requirements decrease overall. Mr. DePerro
responded that there has been a focus on multifamily development and this is unlikely
to change but for now Council is looking to reduce parking requirements Citywide.

Mr. Procaccini asked has there been any consideration for requiring parking
maximums. Mr. DePerro responded that this exists in the Downtown Code but was not
consider for this text amendment because there are different expectations downtown
and there are no plans currently, but it may be applicable for the WU Code in the future.
Mr. Proaccinni asked about the applicability for infill areas. Mr. DePerro responded it
might be possible but it would depend if an infill area were rezoned to WU Code.

Chair Wagner asked about the applicability of 0 parking within the WU Code. Mr.
DePerro responded that the City has invested funds on light rail and other transit
methods and these are encouraged with reducing parking. Mr. DePerro mentioned that
there is a difference between caps and minimums and it is ideal to have some flexibility.

PUBLIC COMMENT

Cory Kincaid introduced himself and mentioned his volunteer work with Perfect
Phoenix and has been involved with parking issues. Mr. Kincaid expressed concern and
has spoken with developers and understands the frustration with parking around the
city. Mr. Kincaid noted the economics of parking and expressed support for the parking
reduction text amendment.

Neal Haddad with the Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix introduced himself
and expressed concerns with the parking reduction. Mr. Haddad stated in some areas
of the city you need access to an automobile and you cannot impose reductions for the
entire city. Mr. Haddad noted that in some villages the distance to stores is far and an
automobile is necessary. Mr. Haddad stated that reducing parking to 0 does not make
sense. Mr. Haddad stated that there is also an issue with providing outreach and getting
information to the public and that the Village Planning Committees was not the best
method. Mr. Haddad expressed that the text amendment was not presented in some
Villages because there was no quorum so the information did not reach the public. Mr.
Haddad stated that the proposed parking reduction will create a big problem all over the
city.

Committee Member Kleinman commented that there are various meeting coordinated
by the city and asked what type of outreach is expected to get more people involved.
Mr. Haddad responded that the Planning and Development should include outreach to
registered neighborhood groups through NSD to get information directly to the public.
Mr. Haddad stated he works with a neighborhood group to disseminate information and
noted that many meetings are not well attended and there has to be a way to get people
involved.

STAFF RESPONSE

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1562
Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y

Mr. Roanhorse responded that there are many issues that have been discussed and
that the City has taken great steps to provide information and has received and
extensive volume of comments and these will be reviewed and considered.

Mr. DePerro noted there is an additional action regarding short term rentals that is not
zoning related, the City Code is being amended to adopt the strictest regulations that
the state will allow for licensing, and this may impact short term rentals and there is
much more happening.

Mr. Cardenas asked for clarification on state requirements and taxation for short term
rentals. Mr. DePerro stated this text amendment is zoning entitlement to allow an ADU
on your property and talks about accessory uses. Mr. Cardenas asked if there is only
one chance for review and will there be an opportunity to make changes in the future if
there are unintended consequences. Mr. DePerro responded from the meeting tonight
the recommendations will be reviewed and the amendment will go to the Planning
Commission for further review and discussion and finally to the City Council for action.

MOTION:

Vice Chair Nicole Rodriguez made a motion to recommend approval of Z-TA-8-23-Y
per the staff recommendation. Committee Member Paul Benjamin seconded the
motion.

DISCUSSION:

Committee Member George noted a situation in Encanto Palmcroft where a developer
wanted to develop vacant lot with reduced parking. Ms. George stated if the
development did occur it would have been detrimental to the surrounding
neighborhoods and there was extensive opposition. Ms. George expressed her concern
and stated her opposition for the proposed text amendment.

Committee Member G. G. George made a substitute motion to deny Z-TA-8-23-Y.

Chair Wagner asked for a second to the substitute motion and no second motion was
received and Chair Wagner stated the substitute motion failed. Chair Wagner stated the
original motion for approval would be considered and asked the Committee for
discussion and no discussion was noted.

VOTE:
12-1; motion to approve Z-TA-8-23-Y per the staff recommendation passes with
Committee Members Benjamin, Cardenas, Doescher, Jewett, Kleinman, Mahrle, Picos,
Procaccini, Searles, Tedhams, Vice Chair Rodriguez and Chair Wagner in support; with
Committee Member George opposed.

Chair Wagner stated that the text amendment does not work for all of Phoenix but does
work for Encanto Village and supports the proposal.


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1563
Encanto Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y

STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION & STIPULATIONS:

None.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1564
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y


Date of VPC Meeting July 10, 2023
Amend Chapters 2, 6, 7 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning
Request Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for multifamily
and affordable housing
VPC Recommendation Denial
VPC Vote 8-0

VPC DISCUSSION:

Staff Presentation:

Tricia Gomes, acting Deputy Director of the Planning and Development Department,
provided a presentation regarding the proposed text amendment to reduce parking
requirements for multifamily and affordable housing. Ms. Gomes described the
proposed citywide parking requirements for multifamily development and affordable
multifamily development and further described the proposed parking requirements for
the Infill Development District and in the Walkable Urban Code.

Questions from the Committee:

Rebecca Perrera asked if any research was done to determine the proposed parking
ratio. Ms. Gomes stated that staff utilized ITE data. Ms. Perrera asked if it was for the
entire country or were there categories. Ms. Gomes noted that there are three
subcategories to evaluate the data. Ms. Perrera stated that Laveen needed parking and
that there is not enough infrastructure to support the reduction. Ms. Perrera stated that
she would like to see a reduction in commercial uses rather than residential. Ms.
Perrera added that the proposed text amendment seems to treat people in affordable
housing differently from other individuals.

Carlos Ortega asked how the parking reduction would benefit Laveen as it continues to
grow. Ms. Gomes noted that the text amendment would apply city-wide and would
make housing more affordable by reducing some requirements. Ms. Gomes added that
the proposed changes are minimums and that some developments provide more than
the required.

JoAnne Jensen stated that the proposed text amendment would treat individuals in
affordable housing differently from market rate housing. Ms. Gomes asked for
clarification. Ms. Jensen noted that the parking rate should be the same for affordable
housing and market rate housing. Ms. Jensen stated that she would not support the text
200 West Washington Street, 3 rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1565
Laveen Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
July 10, 2023
Page 2

amendment.

Francisco Barraza stated that the city has a large footprint and instead of having
sufficient public transit or density, it continues to grow outward. Mr. Barraza stated that
Laveen doesn’t have enough public transit infrastructure to support the text amendment.
Ms. Gomes added that affordable housing developments are typically located along
transit options. Ms. Gomes noted that developers would look at the surrounding
amenities.

Public Comment:

Dan Penton asked for clarification on-street parking and bike lanes. Phil Hertel agreed.
Ms. Gomes stated that developers could utilize on-street parking as part of their
required parking; however, current initiatives have promoted bicycle lanes. Ms. Gomes
explained that the bicycle lanes replace on-street parking. Ms. Gomes added that the
proposed reduction would remove the need for on-street parking by providing a
reduction for on-site parking. Mr. Penton stated that there should be a reduction in
vehicle lanes to provide bike lanes. Mr. Penton added that developers should provide
additional bicycle parking since there is a reduction in auto parking. Mr. Penton added
that the LCRD supports the Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix letter and that
the reductions should be a village-by-village basis. Mr. Penton stated that public transit
needed to be provided before a reduction was approved.

Phil Hertel asked if ADA parking spaces are considered reserved or unreserved. Ms.
Gomes noted that ADA parking spaces are reserved. Mr. Hertel noted that
enforcement would be an issue and Laveen doesn’t have the public transit infrastructure
to support the reduction. Mr. Hertel noted a multifamily development on 35th Avenue
and Southern Road and asked if individuals from the development parked in the
commercial uses, who would enforce the parking situation. Ms. Gomes stated that the
proposed development is probably not affordable and would be at the 1.25 parking
requirement. Ms. Gomes noted that the commercial development can enforce who
parks in their parking lot.

Jack Purvis asked if the reduction would apply to existing or proposed developments.
Ms. Gomes stated that it would be existing and new developments.

Committee Discussion:

Mr. Ortega asked the committee if they would support a standard parking reduction
regardless of affordable or market rate. Patrick Nasser-Taylor stated that this would
negatively impact individuals living in all multifamily developments.

Mr. Penton stated that the LCRD supports the Neighborhood Coalition of Greater
Phoenix letter regarding the parking reduction and that there is a need for pedestrian-
only zones.


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1566
Laveen Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
July 10, 2023
Page 3

Mr. Hertel stated that the committee could vote to recommend denial.

Motion:
Carlos Ortega motioned to recommend denial of Z-TA-8-23-Y. Jennifer Rouse
seconded the motion.

Ms. Perrera asked staff to provide their input on the Neighborhood Coalition of Greater
Phoenix recommendation. Ms. Gomes stated the City’s recommendation would be
approval, but the committee could still recommend a different parking ratio. Ms. Gomes
noted that the passenger loading zones are meant for drop off services such as food or
getting an Uber. Ms. Gomes noted that commercial loading areas are away from the
street and that the passenger loading zones are not meant for commercial loading.

Vote:
8-0, motion to recommend denial of Z-TA-8-23-Y passed with Committee Members
Barraza, Chiarelli, Jensen, Nasser-Taylor, Ortega, Perrera, Rouse, and Hurd in favor.

Staff Comments Regarding VPC Recommendation:

None.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1567
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y

Date of VPC Meeting July 10, 2023
Request Amend Chapters 2, 6, 7 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for multifamily
and affordable housing
VPC Recommendation Approval per the staff recommendation
VPC Vote 10-4

VPC DISCUSSION:

No members of the public registered to speak on this item.

STAFF PRESENTATION
Anthony Grande, staff, provided a presentation regarding the proposed text
amendment to reduce parking requirements for multifamily and affordable housing. He
described the proposed citywide parking requirements for multifamily development and
affordable multifamily development and further described the proposed parking
requirements for the Infill Development District and in the Walkable Urban Code.

QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE
Committee Member Gaughan stated that this proposal could create more resistance
to affordable housing from neighbors concerned about traffic.

Committee Member Sherman stated that the streets belong to the public, anyone can
park there, and streets can be safer with cars parked on the street.

Committee Member Dana Johnson stated that he doesn’t support the reductions for
affordable housing because he doesn’t want to assume residents of affordable housing
don’t own cars, noting that vehicle ownership is still the way people are living in
Phoenix.

Committee Member Uss stated that there are statistics from different organizations
that show lower vehicle ownership rates for low-income people, further noting that
parking requirements historically have been racially discriminatory.

Committee Member Olivas stated that parking is an issue in projects that have used
reduced parking requirements, leading to people parking a long way from their units


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882

Page 1568
Central City Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
July 10, 2023
Page 2


and streets becoming parking lots.

Committee Member Starks asked for clarification on the amount of affordable housing
that needs to be provided to use the lower rate. Mr. Grande replied that the reduced
requirement would only apply to the affordable units.

Chair Gonzales stated that it can be challenging to get funding for projects with
parking requirements that are lower than what’s standard. Mr. Grande stated that he
would discuss the issue with staff internally.

Committee Member Greenman asked whether the city explored the idea of removing
permit requirements for on-street parking for historic neighborhoods. Mr. Grande
replied that he wasn’t aware of any conversations about that option.

Committee Member Martinez stated that she doesn’t see a difference in vehicle
ownership between affordable housing and market rate housing.

Committee Member Greenman asked whether these new requirements would apply
to existing apartments or only new developments. Mr. Grande replied that if a
developer were to add new units to a site and go through a new site plan review
process, the proposed requirements would apply to the whole site.

Committee Member Sonoskey stated that developers should have more tools
available to make this feasible and that more parking could be provided on-street if the
city allowed head-in parking.

Committee Member Sherman asked about the Downtown Code. Mr. Grande replied
that this proposal would not affect Downtown Code and that there is already a bonus
points system for reducing parking downtown.

Committee Member Olivas expressed concern about the process used to approve the
text amendment.

Committee Member Uss asked if the city is planning any further transportation studies
related to this proposal. Mr. Grande replied that individual projects typically do traffic
analysis and provide necessary improvements.

Committee Member Gaughan asked about whether parking is reviewed for individual
development projects. Mr. Grande stated that the focus is on traffic generated for each
use.

Committee Member Panetta asked if there are many variances looking for parking
reductions and if this is approved, will there be more units constructed. Mr. Grande
discussed the requirements of variances and noted that there are projects that don’t
reach their maximum potential due to an inability to provide enough parking.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1569
Central City Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
July 10, 2023
Page 3



Committee Member Sonoskey stated that changing the size of required parking stalls
would also allow more room for parking in garages, which would reduce the amount of
garage space developers need to build.

PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.

MOTION
Eva Olivas made a motion to recommend denial of Z-TA-8-23-Y. There was no
second; therefore, the motion failed.

MOTION
Jeff Sherman made a motion to recommend approval of Z-TA-8-23-Y per the staff
recommendation. Ash Uss seconded the motion for approval.

VOTE
10-4, Motion to recommend approval of Z-TA-8-23-Y per the staff recommendation
passed, with Committee Members Burns, Burton, Gaughan, Greenman, Panetta,
Sherman, Sonoskey, Starks, Uss, and Gonzales in favor; Committee Members
Johnson, Lockhart, Martinez, and Olivas opposed.


STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:

None.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1570
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y

Date of VPC Meeting July 11, 2023
Request Amend Chapters 2, 6, 7 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for multifamily
and affordable housing
VPC Recommendation Approval per the staff recommendation
VPC Vote 14-1


VPC DISCUSSION:

1 member of the public registered to speak on this item in opposition.

Chris DePerro, staff, provided a presentation on the proposed text amendment to
reduce parking city wide for residential developments with inclusion of minimum
requirements. Mr. DePerro discussed the current parking requirements, the proposal
and the comparative reduction calculations for affordable housing, infill development,
Walkable Urban Code areas and other site adjustments. Mr. DePerro displayed the
changes that will include passenger loading zones pull up/drop off spaces for
streetscapes. Mr. DePerro provided information on the Institute for Traffic Engineers
(ITE) Parking Manual to determine suitable parking demands. Mr. DePerro discussed
affordable housing at the applicability for parking and demand adjustments that will be
made. Mr. DePerro discussed the time frame for review for the at Villages, Planning
Commission and City Council.

QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE:

None.

PUBLIC COMMENTS:

Neal Haddad thanked the Committee for the opportunity to speak and stated he wanted
to high light some of the points in the letter provided to the Committee. Mr. Haddad
stated that some developers have had to deal with parking constraints, but the one size
fits all is not an appropriate action for a City as large as Phoenix. Mr. Haddad stated that
parking spaces calculations for multifamily development should only be based on
proximity to public transportation options not on rental rates or affordable rates. Mr.
Haddad noted the text amendment might be appropriate for the downtown area but is


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882

Page 1571
Camelback East Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-5-23-Y

not acceptable to areas outside the downtown areas and that visibility triangles should
be maintained and part of the parking requirements.

STAFF RESPONSE:

Mr. DePerro responded that visibility triangles are required under City Code, and they
are mentioned in the zoning ordinance when they are not covered by intersections.
Nothing regarding visibility triangles has been changed.

COMMITTEE DISCUSSION:

None.

MOTION

Committee member Dawn Augusta motioned to recommend approval of Z-TA-8-23-Y
per the staff recommendation. Committee member Kitty Langmade seconded the
motion.

VOTE:

14-1; motion to approve Z-TA-8-23-Y per the staff recommendation passes with
Committee members Abbott, Augusta, Baumer, Bayless, Beckerleg Thraen, Czerwinski,
Eichelkraut, Grace, Langmade, Miller, O’Malley, Paceley, Wilenchik and Swart in favor
and Committee member Schmieder in opposition.

Mr. Paceley stated the corridor center, high density, light rail are areas where we focus,
and this could be perceived as negative but does support this amendment and votes
yes.

STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION & STIPULATIONS:

Staff have no comments.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1572
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y

Date of VPC Meeting July 11, 2023
Request Amend Chapters 2, 6, 7 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for multifamily
and affordable housing
VPC Recommendation Denial
VPC Vote 9-0



VPC DISCUSSION:

Two members of the public registered to speak on this item, in opposition.

STAFF PRESENTATION
Anthony Grande, staff, provided a presentation regarding the proposed text
amendment to reduce parking requirements for multifamily and affordable housing. He
described the proposed citywide parking requirements for multifamily development and
affordable multifamily development and further described the proposed parking
requirements for the Infill Development District and in the Walkable Urban Code.

QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE
Committee Member Nowell asked about the criteria for units to be considered
affordable. Mr. Grande responded with the definition of affordable housing in the
proposed text.

Vice Chair Lagrave expressed concern that funding for transit projects could run out at
some point. Mr. Grande responded by highlighting the Transportation 2050 plan, which
provides a funding source for transit projects for many years into the future.

Committee Member Israel asked about the applicability to single-family attached
housing. Mr. Grande replied that the changes would apply to single-family attached
developments.

Committee Member Kirkilas asked if ADA accessible parking spaces would be
required for developments with no parking. Mr. Grande replied that it wouldn’t because
it is based on the number of spaces provided. Chair Bowser noted that the
requirement is one accessible space per 25 parking spaces.


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882

Page 1573
Desert View Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
July 11, 2023
Page 2



PUBLIC COMMENTS
Larry Whitesell introduced himself and noted that the NCGP recommends denial of
the text amendment, noting that parking studies are not relevant to Phoenix where
transit is lacking. However, he reviewed several recommended modifications if the
proposal is approved.

Jackie Rich introduced herself and spoke about the lack of transit options in Phoenix,
highlighting the amount of time it would take to travel to the VPC meeting by transit.

STAFF RESPONSE
Mr. Grande stated that residential developments require loading zones, separate from
passenger drop off and pick up, further noting that the text amendment is targeting
transit-rich sections of the city for the largest reductions, acknowledging that transit
options are limited in many areas of the city.

COMMITTEE DISCUSSION

MOTION
Committee Member Rick Nowell made a motion to recommend denial of Z-TA-8-23-
Y. Committee Member Rick Powell seconded the motion for denial.

Vice Chair Lagrave stated that Phoenix is not a walkable city, and he has concerns
about where cars are going to park without enough off-street parking.

Committee Member Powell stated that the text amendment was being rushed and
that the city should focus on WU Code and TOD areas for parking reductions, adding
that reductions for affordable housing don’t make sense.

Committee Member Israel stated that affordable housing has financing issues and
that he would be in favor of affordable housing parking reductions.

Vice Chair Lagrave stated that there is no correlation between affordable housing and
a reduced need for parking.

VOTE
9-0, motion to recommend denial of Z-TA-8-23-Y passed; Committee Members Barto,
Israel, Kirkilas, Nowell, Powell, Reynolds, Santoro, Lagrave, and Bowser in favor.


STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:

None.


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1574
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y


Date of VPC Meeting July 11, 2023
Request Amend Chapters 2, 6, 7 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for multifamily
and affordable housing.
VPC Recommendation Denial
VPC Vote 3-2

VPC DISCUSSION:

Staff Presentation:
Mr. Zambrano shared the parking reductions proposed and then shared the current
and proposed parking requirement for multifamily development City-wide, affordable
multifamily development City-wide, multifamily development in the Infill Development
District, market-rate multifamily development in the Walkable Urban (WU) Code, and
affordable multifamily development in the WU Code. Mr. Zambrano noted that the
proposed parking ratio for multifamily development City-wide was based on an average
of multifamily parking demand of 1.23 spaces per unit for suburban development and
1.2 spaces per unit for urban development, per the Institute of Transportation Engineers
(ITE) Manual, which has data based on studies done in cities throughout the nation
where cars were counted and resulted in these parking ratios based on the actual
parking demand. Mr. Zambrano displayed an example for each type of multifamily
development of a 100-unit complex, having only 1- or 2-bedroom units, and shared what
the difference in the parking requirement would be. Mr. Zambrano then discussed
passenger loading zones, a new requirement proposed only for sites zoned WU Code.
Mr. Zambrano concluded with the timeline for the text amendment and stated that staff
recommends approval as listed in the staff report.

Questions from the Committee:
Chair Lawrence asked for clarification that the current requirement is a minimum of 1.5
parking spaces per unit for 1- to 2-bedroom units and 2 parking spaces per unit for 3- or
more bedroom units. Mr. Zambrano responded affirmatively. Chair Lawrence asked if
the proposed parking ratio is for any number of bedrooms. Mr. Zambrano responded
affirmatively.

Ms. Stockham added that the staff that wrote the proposed text amendment not only
looked at the ITE Manual, which is a mega study of cities throughout the nation over
several decades, but also conducted a study of City of Phoenix projects in terms of the
actual amount of parking most projects provide, and parking variances requested.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1575
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y

Chair Lawrence stated that Phoenix is like no other city in the country. Chair Lawrence
asked for clarification that the multifamily affordable housing example with the parking
reduction would have 100 units with only 63 parking spaces and 19 unreserved spaces,
noting that it is less than the number of units and that there would be no parking spaces
for visitors if everyone in the apartment complex owned a vehicle. Mr. Zambrano
responded that the parking ratio is a minimum standard, and that developers could still
provide more parking than the minimum based on the demand of their clientele. Chair
Lawrence responded that developers would not provide more than the minimum
parking required because they would not have to provide it and they do not want to
provide it. Mr. Zambrano responded that developers would know what their clientele
parking demand is and will know what they will need to provide in order to have a
successful project, which may be more than the minimum requirement.

Ms. Stockham added that she looked at a recent project that the Rio Vista VPC
approved near the I-17 freeway and Jenny Lin Road, which had provided 25 percent
more parking spaces that the minimum required.

Chair Lawrence agreed that people would not be inclined to rent at a certain apartment
complex if they are not able to park their car there.

Mr. Virgil stated that the parking reduction text amendment would negatively impact
apartment rentals as a result.

Mr. Holton asked what the typical dimensions are for a parking space. Mr. Zambrano
responded that they are typically about eight feet wide and 19 feet long.

Mr. Virgil asked if the text amendment would change the minimum parking dimensions.
Mr. Zambrano responded that it would not change those requirements, noting that
parking dimensions are existing requirements in the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance. Mr.
Zambrano added that the text amendment is only changing the minimum number of
parking spaces required. Mr. Virgil stated that everyone that lives in the Rio Vista
Village has a car, and that most households have two individuals that work in order to
afford living there, so each household will typically have two cars. Mr. Virgil added that
there is not any affordable housing in the Rio Vista Village. Mr. Zambrano responded
that the idea of including affordable housing in the parking reduction text amendment
was to encourage more affordable housing. Mr. Virgil responded that people would be
overcrowded in an apartment complex with not enough parking. Mr. Zambrano
responded that the idea behind the inclusion of affordable housing is that parking
spaces take up a lot of land which makes projects more expensive because of all the
land needing to be dedicated to parking. Mr. Virgil responded that it would make more
sense in Downtown Phoenix since there is not a lot of room to build there, but it will not
work in the Rio Vista Village.

Chair Lawrence added that there are parking garages in Downtown Phoenix. Mr. Virgil
agreed, adding that there is a lack of public transit in their area.
Chair Lawrence added that people are not walking a few blocks in the extreme heat
during Phoenix’s summer to go somewhere.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1576
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y

Mr. Virgil stated that projects in Downtown Phoenix may need the extra space to build
projects, but in the Rio Vista Village they do not, and people will need the extra parking
in the Rio Vista Village. Mr. Virgil was unclear why the proposed parking reduction was
City-wide.

Chair Lawrence added that he does not know anyone that lives in Phoenix that does
not own a vehicle since there are other regional and recreational destinations that
require a car to travel to them.

Ms. Stockham stated that she has two employees that do not have cars. Chair
Lawrence asked if they lived in Downtown Phoenix. Ms. Stockham responded that one
employee lives east of Downtown Phoenix and the other lives by Margaret T. Hance
Park. Chair Lawrence asked if Ms. Stockham would agree that reduced parking is
unusual for Arizona. Ms. Stockham responded that there are students that do not have
cars and there is a trend of younger adults that do not want to own cars. Chair
Lawrence stated that he would question the number of students without cars since
Arizona State University (ASU) has a zoo of parking. Ms. Stockham responded that
some students do not have cars because they live in Downtown Phoenix and that is
where their classes are. Chair Lawrence disagreed with a 50 percent reduction for
parking, noting that it would be less than one parking space per home.

Mr. Zambrano stated that the 50 percent parking reduction would not really impact the
Rio Vista Village, because it is specific for the Walkable Urban (WU) Code which is
typically adjacent to the light rail. Chair Lawrence asked for clarification that the parking
ratio of 1.25 parking spaces per unit would be the parking ratio that would apply to their
village. Mr. Zambrano responded affirmatively, noting that it would apply only for
multifamily residential development, and not for single-family homes. Chair Lawrence
asked for clarification that the difference for their village would be 1.5 parking spaces
per unit for 1- and 2-bedroom units and 2 parking spaces per unit for 3- or more
bedroom units versus 1.25 parking spaces per unit for any number of bedroom units.
Mr. Zambrano responded affirmatively. Chair Lawrence stated that it would be
challenging since their village has no other places to park, such as parking garages,
and they do not have street parking. Chair Lawrence added that his HOA does not even
allow street parking and if he has friends that come over, all the cars have to be jammed
into his driveway, or parked on his RV side, which then results in a letter from the HOA
for parking in a landscape area. Chair Lawrence added that his children used to live in
an apartment complex and when visiting them, he could never find a parking space.
Chair Lawrence stated that his son would have to park three blocks away because of
the lack of parking spaces.

Ms. Stockham reiterated that the proposed parking ratios are a minimum and that the
developer that came to the Rio Vista VPC a few months ago knew the area they were
building in and provided 100 more parking spaces than the minimum required. Ms.
Stockham reiterated that more than the minimum number of parking spaces could be
provided, based on the area and the type of people a developer is serving. Ms.
Stockham stated that she had also looked at an affordable housing project and a project
next to the light rail within the Central City Village, which still provided between eight

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1577
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y

percent to 12 percent more parking than the minimum required. Chair Lawrence asked
what the reason is for reducing the parking minimums so much. Ms. Stockham
responded that this text amendment stems from the Housing Phoenix Plan, and that the
construction. Ms. Stockham reiterated that parking is extremely expensive and that
most of the time, a developer is burdened by so much parking requirement, that the first
part of the design in a project is for parking. Ms. Stockham added that parking really
limits development based on how much parking needs to be provided.

Mr. Virgil stated that the residential building would become larger in place of the
removed parking spaces.

Chair Lawrence stated that a developer could also buy a smaller lot, which would cost
less money, and they would be able to get more units on smaller lots, and that it is
being set up to appear as if it costs less.

Mr. Scharboneau asked what the process would be if there is a developer that wants
an exception to the minimum parking requirement. Ms. Stockham responded that one
option would be a shared parking model, such as being located next to a parking
garage, or one could apply for a variance to reduce the required parking and would
have to prove that the lot has a hardship.

Chair Lawrence stated that if a developer chooses to provide less parking, they will
have a hard time selling or leasing units when people find out they would not have a
parking space. Chair Lawrence stated that it would hinder developers on the
performance of their projects if they do not make good decisions.

Ms. Stockham added that most projects are funded with construction loans, and banks
are usually conservative in the amount of money they will lend to developers and would
likely not lend money to a developer that would want to build multifamily residential with
less parking in an area that required more parking.

Mr. Holton asked what had been said regarding projects in the Rio Vista Village. Ms.
Stockham responded that she was providing an example of a developer that was
building a project within their village. Mr. Holton stated that people are coming to
Phoenix for the space because they are tired of being in small spaces.

Chair Lawrence asked if the text amendment language was reviewed by the Law
Department. Ms. Stockham responded affirmatively.

Mr. Virgil recommended looking at the City of Las Vegas because they have a similar
type of development as Phoenix. Mr. Virgil asked if the City looked at parking for the
City of Las Vegas. Ms. Stockham was not sure if Las Vegas was looked at.

Chair Lawrence stated that Phoenix’s environment is pretty brutal to walk in. Chair
Lawrence added that he believes a majority of people in Arizona have a vehicle. Chair
Lawrence stated that he is in the construction industry, and each one of their workers

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1578
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y

living within an affordable housing project would need a vehicle to get to a job site
where construction is happening, which is not within walking distance.

Mr. Zambrano reiterated that the parking ratios came from the ITE Manual, which
comes from professional traffic engineers that did a study of the actual parking demand.

Mr. Holton asked if handicap parking is incorporated in the text amendment. Mr.
Zambrano responded that handicap parking requirements are existing standards that
would remain and are not being changed. Mr. Holton asked about the handicap parking
ratios. Mr. Zambrano responded that he is unsure of the exact parking ratios, but he
believes it is based on the number of dwelling units.

Chair Lawrence stated that handicap parking would not be affected by this text
amendment since it is federally regulated.

Mr. Holton stated that the overall message is a parking reduction, so all parking would
be reduced.

Chair Lawrence asked for clarification that this text amendment is separate from
handicap parking requirements. Mr. Zambrano responded affirmatively.

Mr. Scharboneau asked if it was ever considered to focus on specific areas, such as
Downtown Phoenix, rather than City-wide. Mr. Zambrano responded that there are
some existing parking reductions, such as allowing on-street parking to be counted
towards the minimum required parking within the Infill Development District, and parking
reductions within the WU Code, based on proximity to the light rail, or based on being
located in Downtown Phoenix. Mr. Zambrano added that there are separate parts to the
text amendment, including multifamily City-wide, affordable multifamily City-wide, the
Infill Development District, and the Walkable Urban Code.

Chair Lawrence stated that the part of the text amendment that would affect the Rio
Vista Village would be the multifamily parking reduction City-wide. Chair Lawrence
asked for clarification that the Infill Development District does not come up to the Rio
Vista Village. Mr. Zambrano responded affirmatively.

Ms. Stockham added that the Committee could vote to approve parts of the text
amendment, such as the Infill Development District and the Walkable Urban Code, if
they are okay with those parts of the text amendment but not okay with the other City-
wide parts of the text amendment.

Mr. Virgil asked what the other VPC recommendations were. Ms. Stockham
responded that the Central City VPC and Encanto VPC recommended approval and the
Laveen VPC recommended denial.

Chair Lawrence stated that the City Council will look at the VPC recommendations and
will make the ultimate decision.


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1579
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y

Mr. Holton stated that the VPC should let the City Council see what they are standing
for.

Mr. Sommacampagna asked about the boundary of the Infill Development District. Mr.
Zambrano responded that anything within the boundary allows single-family attached
(SFA) development by-right, whereas anything outside of the boundary within the grey
area on the map allows single-family attached development subject to obtaining a use
permit. Mr. Sommacampagna asked if a development is outside of the boundary within
the grey area on the map, they would be able to obtain a use permit for SFA as well as
have a 50 percent reduction in parking. Mr. Zambrano responded that they would not
be able to get that parking reduction since that would be single-family development, and
the proposed parking reductions are for multifamily development. Mr.
Sommacampagna asked if townhomes such as duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes, if
condo platted, would not be allowed a parking reduction. Mr. Zambrano responded that
a triplex and above would be considered multifamily. Mr. Sommacampagna asked for
clarification that the proposed parking reductions do not affect SFA development.

Ms. Stockham responded that as she understands it, the text amendment would only
allow the 50 percent parking reduction for multifamily development within the Infill
Development District. Ms. Stockham added that the main intent of the map is to indicate
if SFA development is allowed by-right or subject to a use permit, in addition to some
other items related to development.

Mr. Holton asked what by-right meant. Mr. Zambrano responded that it means it is
allowed without having to go through a special process to allow it. Mr. Holton stated
that he wished to make a motion, noting that the parking reduction is not appropriate for
the Rio Vista Village.

Mr. Virgil stated that Mr. Holton could recommend stipulations with his motion.

Mr. Zambrano stated that text amendments do not have stipulations, but they can be
approved with direction, or that portions of the text amendment could be approved.

Chair Lawrence added that Mr. Holton could also make a motion to deny the entire text
amendment.

Public Comments:
None.

Staff Response:
None.

MOTION – Z-TA-8-23-Y:
Mr. Holton motioned to recommend denial of Z-TA-8-23-Y. Mr. Virgil seconded the
motion.



200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1580
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y

VOTE – Z-TA-8-23-Y:
3-2; motion to recommend denial of Z-TA-8-23-Y passes with Committee members
Holton, Virgil, and Lawrence in favor and Committee members Scharboneau and
Sommacampagna opposed.


STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:

None.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1581
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y


Date of VPC Meeting July 11, 2023
Location Amend Chapters 2, 6, 7 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for multifamily
and affordable housing.
VPC Recommendation Denial
VPC Vote 11-0



VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS:

STAFF PRESENTATION

Samuel Rogers, staff, provided a presentation regarding the proposed text amendment
to reduce parking requirements for multifamily and affordable housing. Mr. Rogers
described the proposed citywide parking requirements for multifamily development and
affordable multifamily development and further described the proposed parking
requirements for the Infill Development District and in the Walkable Urban Code.

QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE

Committee Member Coleman asked how the new multifamily and affordable housing
parking requirements are more simple than the previous requirements. Mr. Rogers
stated that while the proposed parking requirements are more nuanced and
individualized for different uses and locations throughout the City, the new language is a
simple ratio rather than a formula with multiple variables. Committee Member Coleman
asked if a five-bedroom unit would have the same parking requirement as a unit with
less bedrooms. Mr. Rogers confirmed that the new parking calculation is based on the
number of units not the number of bedrooms within units.

Chair Daniels stated that a 300-unit multifamily example had been provided during the
info only item during the June meeting and asked if that slide was in the presentation.
Mr. Rogers stated that the slide deck had been updated to use 100-unit multifamily
examples.

Committee Member Viera stated that she is concerned about how the proposal will
impact the underserved population, stated she would like to pause this discussion until
a mobility plan is presented, and stated that the parking reductions assumes that public
transportation is working for everyone.




Page 1582
Committee Member Shepard stated that people can’t live in Phoenix without a car,
stated that the proposal will cause problems, and stated that the proposal will benefit
developers not the general public.

Chair Daniels stated that she had spoken to five developers who stated that they are
not asking for a parking requirement reduction and that they provide more parking than
required on multifamily developments because limited parking can cause safety and
economic issues. Chair Daniels explained that she used to be a regional manager for
apartment complexes and explained she had asked for the 300-unit multifamily example
because apartments have 300-units on average. Chair Daniels stated that the federal
standard occupancy is two people per bedroom and explained that a 300-unit apartment
complex with a mix of studios, one-bedroom, two-bedroom, and three-bedroom units
typically has 1,200 occupants. Chair Daniels explained that if half of the 1,200
occupants drive the proposal would not provide one parking space for everyone that
drives. Chair Daniels stated that if the 300-unit apartment complex located at 19th
Avenue and Southern had been built under the proposed parking reduction, the
residents of the adjacent subdivision that had opposed the development would now
have residents of the multifamily development parking within their subdivision due to a
lack of available parking in the multifamily development. Chair Daniels stated she
charged $25 a month for covered parking when she managed apartments in 1998 and
explained that with the decrease in required parking she expects parking to run $100-
$150 a month due to the small quantity of parking spaces. Chair Daniels explained that,
per the Arizona Landlord Tenant Act, property management companies are required to
provide safety for the residents and stated the parking reduction will cause dangerous
situations for women who must park outside of their apartment community and walk
from their cars to their apartments during the night. Chair Daniels stated that the
proposal is social and economic racism because it affects the underserved and stated
that the Arizona House bill that had included parking reductions for multifamily had
failed. Chair Daniels stated that she supports parking reductions for commercial uses,
but reducing multifamily parking requirements destroys people’s safety and forces
people pay extra to park within their apartment communities.

Committee Member Shepard asked where people with electric cars will park.

Committee Member Coleman stated that parking reductions within the downtown area
already exist and stated he does not know how the parking reduction will work in places
other than downtown. Chair Daniels stated that the South Central TOD Community
Plan identifies areas where the Walkable Urban Code is supported in South Mountain.
Committee Member Viera stated that a mobility plan is still needed.

Chair Daniels stated that parking has already been lost due to the light rail and bike
lanes and now the parking reduction will eliminate even more of the already limited
parking. Chair Daniels refuted a letter that stated an uncovered parking space costs a
developer $10,000 and a covered parking space $35,000 to $55,000 and explained the
actual cost is $2,000 to $2,500 for an uncovered parking space and $10,000 for a




Page 1583
covered parking space. Chair Daniels explained that apartments will charge what they
can, stated that rents do not go down, and explained apartment rates are based on
rates in the surrounding area.

Committee Member Alvarez stated that the parking reductions should not be citywide,
but rather only areas near transit. Chair Daniels added she spent three hours a day on
the bus and had to walk home in the dark when she took transit for three weeks due to
issues with her vehicle. Committee Member Alvarez added that a 10 minute drive can
be a 60 minute transit ride.

Committee Member Viera stated that this proposal is creating more disparity and
mentioned that she and Committee Member Hare needed to leave earlier but this issue
is too important to leave without a vote. Chair Daniels reminded members of the
committee that meetings are until nine o’clock. Committee Member Hare stated she
cannot keep paying a babysitter so she can attend a volunteer job. Chair Daniels
reiterated that if quorum is lost a vote cannot be taken.

Committee Member Fatima Muhammad Roque stated that the parking reduction will
increase danger for people who will have to walk, especially people of color.

PUBLIC COMMENT

Cory Kincaid stated that one own experience should not be projected on others and
explained that 40% of Maricopa County residents do not have a car. Mr. Kincaid stated
that he had met with five builders over the last month and when the land cost is
incorporated into the calculation, structured parking costs more than $50,000 per stall.
Mr. Kincaid explained that one studio apartment is equivalent in cost to five structured
parking spaces and stated that the question is not how much rents will go down, but
rather how much will rents go up. Mr. Kincaid reiterated that the proposal is for parking
minimums not maximum and stated that developers will build what they need as a
development with no parking cannot get financed. Mr. Kincaid added that a lot of jobs
allow individuals to work remotely.

Committee Member Greathouse asked what the demographic are considered
residents in regard to the 40% figure of those who do not own a car. Mr. Kincaid stated
that the 40% was for the entirety of Maricopa County.

Committee Member Shepard stated that everyone subsidizes the light rail and the bus
system whether people use it or not.

Chair Daniels stated that while some people are working remotely, not everyone has
the luxury to work remotely, and the underserved population will be negatively impacted
by the text amendment. Chair Daniels agreed that parking garage spaces are more
expensive and stated that the committee has been pushing to get a text amendment to
allow the Walkable Urban Code, which includes existing parking reductions, to be




Page 1584
utilized in the South Central TOD Community Plan area, so she is surprised the citywide
parking reduction text amendment has been brought to the committee first.

Mr. Valencia explained that the text amendment to the Baseline Area Overlay District to
allow for the Walkable Urban Code to be utilized will be maximized by the parking
reduction text amendment and stated it is unfortunate the parking reduction came first,
but he believed the parking reduction text amendment was also initiated first.

Chair Daniels stated she would like to have the Walkable Urban Code allowed in the
South Central TOD area and in the meantime commercial parking should be reduced.
Chair Daniels added that she thought this proposal would cause a fair housing
discrimination lawsuit to be brought against the City.

Committee Member Jackson asked if the purpose of the parking reduction was to
allow more units to be built. Ms. Gomes summarized the proposal, stated that
affordable developments will not be able to get funding unless the project is near transit
and in close to employment, spoke about the Infill Development District’s transit
availability, and spoke about the transit investment in locations where the Walkable
Urban Code is allowed. Ms. Gomes reiterated that the proposal is for parking
minimums, not maximum and explained that the organizations that provide funding will
require different parking ratios depending on who is being served. Ms. Gomes explained
that the parking reductions are based on ITE (Institute of Traffic Engineers) data,
summarized how data is collected, and explained that the proposed citywide parking
ratio requires more parking spaces than the ITE data would suggest Chair Daniels
stated that in her time working with apartment complexes she has never seen a
multifamily parking lot not full in the evening. Ms. Gomes reiterated that the ITE data are
nighttime counts.

Committee Member Coleman asked if many variances had been requested to reduce
parking requirements. Ms. Gomes stated that variances can be pursued to reduce
parking requirements, but that adds time and costs more money.

Chair Daniels stated that a slum lord will build the minimum amount of parking to take
advantage of the underserved communities and stated that people do not have the time
use light rail as much as people expected.

Committee Member Greathouse stated that Mr. Kincaid made a great point that the
parking reduction is for the minimum number of required parking spaces, not the
maximum and stated that providing less parking will save a lot of money. Chair Daniels
stated that the money saved will not translate into greater affordability of units.

Committee Member Viera stated that this is a food desert and walking a mile in 117-
degree weather to get groceries will not be sustainable.

Chair Daniels reiterated that Arizona Senate Bill 1117, which included ADUs and a
parking reduction, had failed.




Page 1585
Committee Member Jackson asked why the parking reduction is proposed. Ms.
Gomes stated that the parking reduction drives down the cost to provide housing.

FLOOR/PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED: MOTION, DISCUSSION, AND VOTE

MOTION
Committee Member Shepard made a motion to recommend denial of Z-TA-8-23-Y.
Committee Member Viera seconded the motion.

VOTE
11-0, motion to recommend denial of Z-TA-8-23-Y passed with Committee Members
Alvarez, Coleman, F. Daniels, Hare, Jackson, Roque, Shepard, Smith, Viera,
Greathouse, and T. Daniels in favor and Committee Members and opposed.

STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:

None.




Page 1586
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z- TA-8-23-Y



Date of VPC Meeting July 12, 2023
Request Amend Chapters 2, 6, 7 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for
multifamily and affordable housing
VPC Recommendation Denial
VPC Vote 7-2-1


VPC DISCUSSION:

Two members of the public registered to speak on this item.

Committee member Saundra Cole left the meeting during this item, bringing quorum to
10 members.

Staff Presentation:

Matteo Moric, staff, presented the proposed text amendment. Mr. Moric showed a
comparison of current and proposed requirements as part of the text amendment for
Citywide multifamily, affordable housing, Infill Development District, and Walkable
Urban Code projects. Mr. Moric stated in the WU Code areas there would be required
passenger loading zones for rideshare, personal deliveries, etc.

Questions from Committee:

Sandra Oviedo asked about commercial parking. Sarah Stockham, staff, replied that
the only proposed changes were for multifamily projects.

Sandra Oviedo asked about the ADU’s. Ms. Stockham mentioned the parking
requirement reductions only applied to multifamily residential.

Melissa Acevedo asked why the text amendment was being proposed. Ms. Stockham
said this was part of the City Council directive to find ways to address the housing
shortages.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1587
Maryvale Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y


Public Comments:

Larry Whitesell with the Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix spoke on their
position for the text amendment and identified items they found as problems with the
amendment. Mr. Whitesell said Phoenix is unique and is very spread out and a plan to
reduce parking for a city which does not have reliable public transportation will have
problems. Mr. Whitesell had suggestions for improvements to the proposed text
amendment. Mr. Whitesell expressed that it should not be based on the price of the
units but only should be based on proximity to public transportation. Mr. Whitesell also
believed the size of the unit should not be based on the parking calculations. Mr.
Whitesell felt that 1.5 parking spaces is the standard calculation for a one or two
bedroom and felt the infill development district should not be given a parking reduction
but a density bonus. Mr. Whitesell stated the Walkable Urban Code parking requirement
should never be zero and there always should be some parking. Mr. Whitesell said this
does not accommodate ADA and people living in the Walkable Urban Code areas who
have guests. Mr. Whitesell asked the committee to deny the text amendment entirely or
amend per the recommendations he provided.

Jackie Rich said she agreed with Mr. Whitesell and gave an example of how long it
would take to get to the community center by bicycle or bus versus by car.

Staff Response:

Sarah Stockham, staff, stated this is a reduction in the minimum requirements but
would not mean a developer cannot provide more parking. Ms. Stockham added that
affordable housing is based on HUD and to qualify applicants would need to be verified
by the Housing Department.

Motion:

Chris Demarest made a motion to recommend denial of Z-TA-8-23-Y. Ken Dubose
seconded the motion.

Vote:
7-2-1, Motion to recommend denial of Z-TA-8-23-Y passed, with Committee Members
Acevedo, Battle, Demarest, DuBose, Fostino, Valenzuela, Chair Derie in favor;
Committee Members Barba and Norgaard opposed, and Committee Member Oviedo
abstained.



STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:

None.



200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1588
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y



Date of VPC Meeting July 13, 2023
Request Amend Chapters 2, 6, 7 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for
multifamily and affordable housing
VPC Recommendation Denial
VPC Vote 5-4

One member of the public registered to speak on this item, and one member of the
public registered to speak on this item, in opposition.

VPC DISCUSSION:

STAFF PRESENTATION

Matteo Moric, staff, presented the proposed text amendment. Mr. Moric shared a
comparison for current requirements and the proposed changes for citywide multifamily,
affordable multifamily housing, Infill Development District, and Walkable Urban Code
projects. Mr. Moric stated in the WU Code areas there would be required passenger
loading zones for rideshare, personal deliveries, etc.

QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE

Trilese DiLeo asked what “affordable” units meant in the proposal.

Matteo Moric said the Housing Department would verify if a project was providing
affordable units.

Al Field wanted to know if the information applied to only affordable housing units.

Matteo Moric said it would be for multifamily housing citywide.

Trilese DiLeo said there would be a reduction of parking in the affordable units.

Matteo Moric said the WU code properties were mostly along light rail and transit
corridors.


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1589
Deer Valley Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y


Ricardo Romero said always what comes up the zoning projects is traffic or parking
concerns. Mr. Romero said it’s a changing world we live in.

Matteo Moric said the City looked at the requirements per the Institute of Traffic
Engineers (ITE) and the city would require more parking than what that prescribes.

James Sutphen explained the City of Phoenix was over 500 square miles and
wondered about areas like Metro Center and its impacts.

Gregory Freeman provided clarification that the text amendment would not allow
development to lower their parking below the minimum requirement and developers
could provide more, as there would be no caps.

Matteo Moric confirmed this was correct.

Trilese DiLeo said the developer would not be providing less than their required
parking but would still look at market conditions to potentially provide more than what is
required.

Al Field said this was another effort to create a 15 minute city. Mr. Field expressed that
developers reduce the size of the parking and the number of parking spaces and felt
this was an instance of the government’s desire to move you into public transit.

Ozzie Virgil agreed with Al Field and was concerned the size of parking cannot even
open the door of a vehicle. Mr. Virgil noted there was a parking problem at 35th Avenue
and Union Hills where residents have a second vehicle and only one designated for it.
Mr. Virgil indicated there were problems with on street parking. Mr. Virgil also expressed
concerns that developers do what will make more money and would build more units
with less parking. Mr. Virgil felt it was okay for downtown where there is more public
transit. Mr. Virgil felt once you let this reduction happen you will not get it back.

Trilese DiLeo said she used to be the President of the HOA for the complex Ozzie
Virgil was speaking of. Ms. DiLeo said it has ample parking but did not have driveways
on the houses that were built. Ms. DiLeo added one thing developers want is to put
more units on the property and this would be a more creative method to cut cost. Ms.
DiLeo added that when you create a supply and demand problem you would have
communities like LA and New York. If not like those communities she felt we would
need to do something different.

PUBLIC COMMENTS

Sandy Grunow said she was co-chair of a neighborhood association. Ms. Grunow
referenced a 2nd part of concerns for this text amendment. Ms. Grunow mentioned one
size fits all is not appropriate for a city of 517 square miles and felt it should not be
based on rental rates. Ms. Grunow noted that it might be appropriate for Downtown
Code, Walkable Urban Code or transit-oriented districts but not city wide. Ms. Grunow
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1590
Deer Valley Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y


identified a concern with visibility triangles and expressed that base parking
requirements should not be reduced lower than 1.5 spaces per unit. And Ms. Grunow
stated she wanted infill development be given 10% density bonus vs. a parking
reduction.

Jackie Rich stated some parts of the city are harder to get to than others and by driving
it took 30 minutes to get to the meeting and that included a coffee stop. Ms. Rich added
it would take two hours and it would have required being outside for at least one hour.
Ms. Rich said the proposed text amendment assumes people can park on the street
and that will not cause any problems. Ms. Rich added that the text amendment
assumes fewer people need handicap parking and it would similarly reduce the number
of handicap spaces, and it assumes lower income people need fewer cars than medium
or higher end.

Sarah Stockham said the visibility triangles were regulated by the City Code and that
would not be changed.


MOTION:
Trilese DiLeo motioned to recommend approval of Z-TA-8-23-Y per staff
recommendation. Gregory Freeman seconded the motion.

VOTE:
4 – 5, motion to recommend approval of Z-TA-8-23-Y failed with Committee Members
DiLeo, Freeman, Hoffman, and Kenney in favor. Field, Herber, Romero, Sutphen and
Virgil opposed.

Al Field tagged onto what Jackie Rich said about waiting out in the heat. Mr. Field
added the police department is overwhelmed by policing the bus stops. Mr. Field felt
with the text amendment the city was trying to force people to eliminate cars and force
public transportation on them was not a good idea.

Ricardo Romero believed the city is not prepared for this change in the transportation
system.

Trilese DiLeo said there are people who do not have vehicles, and have an option to
buy a vehicle and this option will provide greater flexibility to a developer. Ms. DiLeo
said its more needed in an affordable housing unit versus a luxury apartment. Ms. DiLeo
felt this would take people off the streets and have a snow ball effect and this is a small
piece of it. Ms. DiLeo added that most zoning cases come with concerns of traffic and
she said she did not understand why people were concerned with less cars.

Susan Herber spoke against the motion. Ms. Herber felt this was idealistic and not
practical except for the affordable housing aspect.



200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1591
Deer Valley Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y


Ozzie Virgil felt the reduction in parking would work in some areas and not others,
there’s no real fix-all and believed will realistically people would have to drive out here.
Mr. Virgil could not believe it took like three hours to get to the airport on public transit
from his area.

Gregory Freeman noted the parking reduction would not work for all. Mr. Freeman said
there is a development in Tempe called the Cul-de-Sac which does not have parking
and includes not only younger but older residents without cars. Mr. Freeman said he
wanted the city to have the option.

Trilese DiLeo said it would be important to vote on a denial in order to get a
recommendation.


MOTION
Ozzie Virgil motioned to recommend denial of Z-TA-8-23-Y. James Sutphen seconded
the motion.

VOTE
5-4, motion to recommend denial of Z-TA-8-23-Y passes with Committee Members
Field, Herber, Romero, Sutphen, and Virgil in favor. Committee Members DiLeo,
Freeman, Hoffman, and Kenney opposed.


STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:


None.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1592
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y


Date of VPC Meeting July 13, 2023
Request Amend Chapters 2, 6, 7 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for multifamily
and affordable housing.
VPC Recommendation Denial
VPC Vote 6-0

VPC DISCUSSION:

Two members of the public registered to speak on this item, in opposition.

Staff Presentation:
Christopher DePerro, staff, shared the parking reductions proposed, noting that the
parking ratios were taken from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Manual,
which contains about three decades worth of actual parking counts for multifamily
across North America. Mr. DePerro displayed an example of market-rate and affordable
multifamily development City-wide of a 100-unit complex, having only 1- or 2-bedroom
units, and shared what the difference in the parking requirement would be, noting that
the requirement is a minimum and not a maximum. Mr. DePerro mentioned that many
multifamily projects find out they are a few parking spaces short after going through Site
Planning and accounting for open space, retention, and other required items that take
up space on a site, and it would have been easier to get through the process if the
parking requirement was a little bit less. Mr. DePerro added that affordable housing has
either State or federal money and must qualify through all sorts of programs,
commitments, covenants and other items. Mr. DePerro stated that there is a lot of
vetting that goes on for affordable housing developments in order for them to qualify as
an affordable housing development, such as proximity to light rail, and the parking
reduction would be handled as the affordable housing program prescribes. Mr. DePerro
then discussed passenger loading zones, a new requirement proposed only for sites
zoned WU Code. Mr. DePerro concluded with the timeline for the text amendment.

Questions from Committee:
None.

Public Comments:
Jack Leonard, member with the Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix (NCGP),
architect, and former member of the Camelback East Village Planning Committee
(VPC) and Encanto VPC, stated that he does not think this text amendment was

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1593
North Gateway Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y

thought out well enough. Mr. Leonard stated that he believes the existing parking
requirements are realistic. Mr. Leonard stated that the proposed parking reductions are
a drastic change. Mr. Leonard noted that there is about a half a mile between his home
and the nearest bus stop near 16th Street and Northern Avenue, and his office is at
16th Street and Thomas Road, but it is too hot during the summer to make that half mile
trip to the bus stop. Mr. Leonard stated that Phoenix is car-dependent and that there are
certain areas in the City where parking can be reduced, but not the majority of the City.
Mr. Leonard added that there are too many holes in the text amendment and would
leave neighbors of multifamily developments suffering because of all the vehicles that
will be parked in their neighborhood. Mr. Leonard stated that this text amendment
should not be getting rushed through and it should be looked at more thoroughly.

Neal Haddad, member with NCGP, concurred that this text amendment is a drastic
change. Mr. Haddad stated that six VPCs that have met so far have all denied this text
amendment and they would ask the North Gateway VPC to do the same. Mr. Haddad
concurred that this text amendment has not been thought out, and that parking
reductions would be appropriate in the downtown area and urban core and corridor
areas, but not City-wide. Mr. Haddad added that he does not believe it would be unfair
for the City to reach out to certain neighborhood organizations, noting that people likely
do not believe it is unfair that the members of the North Gateway VPC were appointed
to the Committee. Mr. Haddad stated that people are appointed to many committees
throughout the City, and that they are appointed because of their knowledge and
because the elected officials know the committee members and know their community.
Mr. Haddad added that citizens could have been appointed to a stakeholder group for
this text amendment, noting that it was mentioned before that the City Council did reach
out to certain stakeholders for their opinions and input. Mr. Haddad asked that the
Committee deny this text amendment.

Staff Response to Public Comment:
None.

Discussion:
Chair Julie Read stated that the North Gateway VPC primarily deals with multifamily
development, and that she is not supportive of this text amendment. Chair Read stated
that if minimum parking spaces are reduced for multifamily, it would be detrimental to
their area, because they do not have any mass transit and are not getting any mass
transit anytime soon. Chair Read recommended that this text amendment be denied.

Jeff Johnson stated that he looked at the top zip codes for Phoenix that have the most
cars and found that they are in the North Gateway Village. Mr. Johnson stated that
Phoenix is tied for fourth for the top cities with the most cars. Mr. Johnson mentioned
that a possible solution would be for developers to construct parking garages so there is
less parking spread out over an area. Mr. Johnson stated that he is against this
proposal.

Shannon Simon stated that she was curious why the text amendment was not written
more like the WU Code to reflect the areas where it would be more appropriate to have

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1594
North Gateway Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y

parking reductions. Ms. Simon stated that people need to have a car in the North
Gateway Village and that she cannot support this text amendment.

Mr. DePerro stated that the direction came from the City Council to look at a nominal
reduction City-wide and to tier the rest down based on areas they are located in.

MOTION – Z-TA-8-23-Y:
Vice Chair Michelle Ricart motioned to recommend denial of Z-TA-8-23-Y. Mr.
Johnson seconded the motion.

VOTE – Z-TA-8-23-Y:
6-0; motion to recommend denial of Z-TA-8-23-Y passes with Committee members
French, Johnson, Krieger, Simon, Ricart and Read in favor.

STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:

None.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1595
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
REVISED

Date of VPC Meeting July 18, 2023
Request Amend Chapters 2, 6, 7 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for multifamily
and affordable housing.
VPC Recommendation Denial

VPC Vote 8-1


VPC DISCUSSION:

Four members of the public registered to speak on this item.

Staff Presentation:

Nayeli Sanchez Luna, staff, provided a presentation regarding the proposed text
amendment to reduce parking requirements for multifamily and affordable housing. Ms.
Gomes described the proposed citywide parking requirements for multifamily
development and affordable multifamily development and further described the
proposed parking requirements for the Infill Development District and in the Walkable
Urban Code.

Questions from the Committee:

None.

Public Comment:

Dan Kcocke stated that Arizona State University had conducted a study that concluded
that 10 percent of the entire city is utilized by parking. Mr. Kcocke noted that asphalt has
contributed to the urban heat island effect within the city. Mr. Kcocke noted that the
excessive parking requirements lead to higher construction costs for all development. Mr.
Kcocke added that the current parking requirements impact the developer, renters, and
the city. Mr. Kcocke stated that the hundred of miles of road construction led to higher
costs to individuals and parking does not contribute to property taxes. Mr. Kcocke noted
that renters are not represented in the committee and the parking reduction would be one
piece of the large issue regarding infrastructure and housing affordability. Mr. Kcocke

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1596
stated that parking minimums were introduced in the development 70 years ago and
added that the city has drastically changed since then. Mr. Kcocke concluded his comment
by supporting the text amendment.

Jack Leonard stated that Phoenix is a vehicle driven society. Mr. Leonard noted that bus
ridership has declined and that the hot weather does not help promote public
transportation. Mr. Leonard added that flip developers do not care about affordability and
will reduce their parking. Mr. Leonard noted that the current parking requirements are not
complicated, and the different categories allow for reasonable parking. Mr. Leonard stated
that the reduction in parking and an increase in density would not help alleviate sprawling.
Mr. Leonard added that people renting in affordable housing developments still need
parking. Mr. Leonard voiced his disagreement for the text amendment.

Neal Haddad voiced his agreement with Jack Leonard. Mr. Haddad added that Phoenix
does not have the public transit capacity to support the reduction. Mr. Haddad noted that
public transportation times are not efficient. Mr. Haddad stated that the reduction of
parking would help increase housing affordability.

Leezah Sun noted that there have been some city and state initiatives to increase public
infrastructure. Ms. Sun noted that in a high-density area, a reduction of parking could be
beneficial. Mr. Kcocke noted that affordable housing needs to have high tax credits and
that is achieved by being adjacent to public transit. Mr. Kcocke noted that car maintenance
can negatively affect renters. Mr. Kcocke added that the reduction of parking can lead to
more amenities being accessible.

Committee Discussion:

Chair Lisa Perez noted that there is only one affordable housing project in the Estrella
Village. Chair Perez noted that there are no restaurants, amenities, bus shelters, or other
forms of public transit in Estrella. Chair Perez stated that the blanket text amendment does
not apply to all villages. Chair Perez added that a lot of items have not been considered to
support the text amendment.

Parris Wallace stated that affordable housing developments should not be treated
differently when compared to market rate developments. Ms. Wallace voiced her support
for the text amendment. Ms. Wallace noted that a reduction in parking could lead to more
open space and amenities. Ms. Wallace added that she supports more amenities and
affordable rental rates in exchange for less parking.

Renee Dominguez stated that multiple children require more vehicles. Ms. Dominguez
noted that some families do not let children walk in Estrella. Ms. Wallace added that her
children walk in the neighborhood and if a family has one vehicle, then everyone would
walk. Ms. Dominguez noted that the village doesn’t have the amenities.

Dan Rush voiced his opposition to the text amendment. Mr. Rush stated that it was
counterintuitive to suggest more housing in exchange for parking when most
developments do not have enough parking.

Jennifer Ayala noted that she has lived in an affordable housing development and
employment opportunities were not in close proximity to the development. Ms. Ayala

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1597
added that limiting parking would not help neighborhoods. Ms. Ayala stated that affordable
housing developments did not have enough parking.

Ms. Wallace stated that the text amendment would not eliminate parking. Ms. Wallace
added that the text amendment would make a difference for the future.

Kristine Morris stated that she was opposed to the text amendment. Ms. Morris added
that it places environmental and social issues on the less fortunate.

Motion:
Dan Rush made a motion to recommend denial of Z-TA-8-23-Y. Bill Barquin seconded
the motion.

Vote:
8-1, Motion to recommend denial of Z-TA-8-23-Y passed with Committee Members Ayala,
Barquin, Dominguez, Morris, Rush, Sanou, Serrette, and Perez in favor and Committee
Members Wallace in opposition.

Staff Comments Regarding VPC Recommendation:

None.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1598
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y

Date of VPC Meeting July 19, 2023
Request Amend Chapters 2, 6, 7 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for multifamily
and affordable housing
VPC Recommendation Approval per the staff recommendation with direction
VPC Vote 12-1-1

VPC DISCUSSION:

Four members of the public submitted speaker cards with all wishing to speak. Two
indicated they are in favor, one opposed, and one in favor and opposition.

STAFF PRESENTATION

Mr. Klimek, staff, provided a presentation regarding the proposed text amendment to
reduce parking requirements for multifamily and affordable housing. He described the
proposed citywide parking requirements for multifamily development and affordable
multifamily development and further described the proposed parking requirements for
the Infill Development District and in the Walkable Urban Code. He presented the staff
recommendation to approve the proposed text amendment.

QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE

Committee Member Larson asked for clarification regarding the guest and resident
parking calculation. Mr. Klimek tried to clarify.

Committee Member Veidmark expressed concern over the prospect of an apartment
complex with no parking.

Committee Member Matthews asked staff to confirm that a housing development
without parking would be permitted today if an applicant sought a planned unit
development. Mr. Klimek confirmed.

Committee Member O’Connor asked how the mixed-use reduction in the WU Code
would be applied if this text amendment were approved. Mr. Klimek responded that
the text amendment applies only to multifamily uses and that, in a mixed-use


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882

Page 1599
North Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
July 19, 2023
Page 2


development with commercial and multifamily, a blend of commercial and multifamily
parking standards would be used to calculate the requirement. He added that he is not
certain how the by-right reduction in WU Code mixed-use projects would interplay with
this proposed amendment.

Committee Member Gore asked how parking deters investment in affordable housing
and how the change would support housing construction. Mr. Klimek responded that
parking is expensive to construct and occupies much of the total site area which
thereby reduces the number of units that can be constructed on the site. By reducing
costs and increasing available land area, more units may become viable.

PUBLIC COMMENTS

Ms. Sandy Grunow expressed concern that this reduction is inappropriate city-wide
because there is limited public transit, that the proposed text amendment may impact
visibility triangles at intersections which is a safety issue, and that it is unfair to base
parking requirements on resident incomes. She added that developers will not provide
more parking than required by code.

Ms. Jackie Rich expressed that parking reductions happen all the time and this text
amendment is therefore not necessary, that there is not adequate transit, and that
many individuals who reside in apartments will not give up their cars. She added that
on street parking therefore infringes upon a pedestrian’s ability to safely walk in an area
without sidewalks and the proposed reduction for affordable housing feel punitive. She
acknowledged that some reduction may be appropriate but stated that the requirement
should never be allowed to “go to zero.” She added that she would like more
neighborhood engagement for text amendments and that the proposed text
amendment would allow for developments to provide no ADA parking.

Ms. Nicole Rodriguez expressed support for the amendment, noted that it doesn’t go
far enough, and explained that both parking requirements and auto-oriented
development patterns are costly to renters and builders. The parking requirements
make housing less affordable and the also contribute to the urban heat island effect.
She concluded by stating that the requirements were arbitrary when originally
developed.

Mr. Dan Klocke introduced himself as an affordable housing developer and expressed
his support for the amendment. He cited an ASU study which found that approximately
50 square miles of the city is paved which contributes to the urban heat island effect.
Regarding the impact on affordability, he shared a hypothetical example to
demonstrate how requiring additional parking beyond that which will be used adds cost
to the developer and consumes land area which, together, can make an affordable
housing project infeasible. He explained that many affordable housing projects are
operating on negative profit margins and therefore require multiple financial sources to
make the project work financially. He added that the additional land area required to
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1600
North Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
July 19, 2023
Page 3


provide parking adds to the overall infrastructure cost and long-term maintenance
burden which is the responsibility of the City of Phoenix. He concluded by stating that
the VPC just voted 14-0 to allow Accessory Dwelling Units without any additional
parking.

STAFF RESPONSE

Mr. Klimek thanked the audience for their comments. The proposed amendment
includes minimums, rather than maximum, parking requirements which allows a
developer to provide more parking than required if they desire; he added that he has
seen developers provide more parking than the minimum for projects where they
believe it will improve the marketability of their products. The proposed amendment is
based on empirical data that is used broadly throughout the field of land use and
transportation planning.

There is no way for staff to significantly reduce parking requirements administratively.
Only two procedural pathways exist to reduce parking: 1) to propose a planned unit
development with custom development standards and commit to the full 6 – 9 month
rezoning process; and 2) to request a variance from the zoning ordinance through a
public hearing process but he cautioned that this process requires that a Zoning
Adjustment Hearing Officer determines there is a hardship related to the physical
characteristics of the lot, and he noted this is uncommon for parking requests.

Regarding ADA parking requirements, he added that this proposed text amendment
does not override ADA which is a federal law and that ADA compliant parking spaces
will continue to be required.

FLOOR/PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED: MOTION, DISCUSSION, AND VOTE.

Committee Member Matthews clarified that ADA requires a portion of all facilities
provided to be accessible so a development that provides no parking would not be
required to provide accessible spaces; however, if some parking is provided then a
share of that would need to comply with ADA. Mr. Klimek agreed and apologized for
the mistake.

Committee Member Matthews stated that he is in support of the request and that
these are parking minimums, not maximums, so developers are free to provide more
parking than required. He stated that most developers will not build projects with zero
parking and that the possibility is being overblown. This will allow a greater variety of
housing options such as more affordable units or car-free options that are currently
restricted by existing parking requirements.

Committee Member Gore stated that 9 percent of the population being car-free is
insignificant and should not drive the proposed text amendment which allows
developments without any parking. He added that it would be helpful if the city could
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1601
North Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
July 19, 2023
Page 4


forecast the impact of this amendment.


Committee Member O’Connor stated that he is not supportive of the request because
Phoenix is not a walkable city and there are other programs, such as GPLETS, to
support affordable housing construction.

Committee Member Perez stated that she is torn but expressed concern that reducing
parking requirements would only have a limited impact on the housing crisis. She
added that a different housing requirement for low-income populations feels punitive.

Committee Member Krentz stated that this text amendment would provide the
opportunity to develop housing with fewer costs and design constraints mandated by
the city. He added that the development community will respond to actual forecasted
parking demands because it only makes business sense to develop something that will
be marketable. At present, staff does not have flexibility to allow for innovation by the
free market.

Committee Member O’Hara stated that he left the Information Only presentation in
June as a “no” but reconsidered the proposal through the lens of Member Krentz and
he indicated that he is now closer to a “yes.” He stated that the market will respond to
demand based on the context of a site.

Committee Member Matthews stated that 10 percent of households not having
access to a car is not insignificant and that providing 10 percent of all developments as
an affordable would far exceed the present construction pattern. The margins for
affordable development are slim and often negative so any reduced cost or increased
yield will have a direct and positive impact on affordable housing production. He stated
that he lives in Moon Valley and frequently uses transit to get downtown and back; he
cautioned his colleagues from assuming everyone is the same as them in their
transportation preferences and socioeconomic needs. Committee Member Gore
agreed that 9% is not trivial but stated that the city should also be building
transportation infrastructure such as transit and bike lanes.

Committee Member Veidmark asked why staff is proposing that no parking be
provided for affordable housing. Mr. Klimek responded that it is in response to many
conversations with affordable housing developers regarding the narrow margins and
empirical data showing that affordable housing generates a lower demand for parking
than other types of housing. He added that the proposed amendment is intended to
provide flexibility by removing a mandate but noted that these are minimum
requirements rather than maximums.

Committee Member Sommacampagna stated that the presentation did not touch on
rideshare which is increasingly augmenting public transportation and reducing the need
for private automobiles. As an infill developer focused on missing middle housing, he
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1602
North Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
July 19, 2023
Page 5


noted that parking is a costly burden and that GPLETs are not viable due to their
complexity and cost. He expressed support for the proposal to promote more small-
scale housing production which benefits most from parking reductions.

Committee Member Alauria noted the amendment makes sense but expressed
concern that the proposal is not based on Phoenix data.

Committee Member Gore stated that just because there are not many pedestrian /
transit commuters in Moon Valley it does not mean that they have the right amount of
surface parking. He asked Member Krentz if there is a significant likelihood of 300-unit
complexes providing zero parking and, conversely if it is more likely that small project
would provide no parking if allowed. Committee Member Krentz agreed.

Chair Jaramillo shared that zero parking is being treated like the gold standard of
what developers will ultimately provide but noted that this will be a minority of total
projects. Affordable housing requires subsidies, and most will still provide some parking
in response to the forecasted needs of the tenants. In 2022, only 16 LIHTC were
issued in Arizona which is too little to meet demand; by reducing cost and space
burdens, more affordable housing projects will become viable. He concluded by stating
that this is not the solution to the housing crisis but is a part of a solution.

MOTION:

Committee Member O’Hara moved to approve the request per the staff
recommendation. Committee Member Matthews seconded the motion.

FRIENDLY AMENDMENT:

Committee Member Perez proposed a friendly amendment to “direct staff and the city
council to explore additional methods to help with the production of affordable housing.

Committee Member O’Hara and Committee Member Matthews both agreed to the
friendly amendment. The motion was revised to include the friendly amendment.

DISCUSSION:

Committee Member Alauria stated that people will continue to use cars but that she
wants to remove excessive parking.

Committee Member Matthews stated that this is a simple risk versus reward scenario
and that the risk that both overblown and acceptable. The risk is that the city will see a
problematic number of zero parking affordable housing complexes is unlikely but would
mean that an abundance of much needed affordable housing projects are being
constructed.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1603
North Mountain Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y
July 19, 2023
Page 6


Committee Member O’Hara and Committee Member Perez thanked Member Krentz
for the developer’s perspective.

VOTE: 12-1-1, motion to approve Z-TA-8-23-Y per the staff recommendation with the
direction provided by Committee Member O’Hara, passes with Committee Members,
Gore, Krentz, Larson, Matthews, McBride, Molfetta, O’Hara, Perez, Sommacampagna,
Veidmark, Whitney, and Chair Jaramillo in favor; O’Connor in opposition; and Alauria in
abstention.

STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:

None.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1604
ATTACHMENT E




Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y


Date of VPC Meeting July 24, 2023
Request Amend Chapters 2, 6, 7 and 13 of the Phoenix
Zoning Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for
multifamily and affordable housing
VPC Recommendation Denial
VPC Vote 6-2


VPC DISCUSSION:
5 members of the public registered to speak on this item, in support.
2 members of the public registered to speak on this item, in opposition.

Staff Presentation:
Matteo Moric, staff, presented the proposed text amendment. Mr. Moric shared a
comparison for current requirements and the proposed changes for citywide
multifamily, affordable multifamily housing, Infill Development District, and Walkable
Urban Code projects. Mr. Moric stated in the WU Code areas there would be required
passenger loading zones for rideshare, personal deliveries, etc.

Questions from Committee:
Vice Chair Fisher asked what data were being used to determine that people living in
low income housing do not have cars. Mr. Moric said that there was no cap on
parking but there was a minimum requirement, and developers could provide at least
the minimum but more if they felt the market demand required it.

Toni Broberg asked why the city was doing this by reducing the number of parking
spaces.

Vice Chair Fisher felt this text amendment was more about density than cost
savings, and that we’d be building more rooftops. Mr. Fisher felt we are not building
enough than is necessary. Mr. Moric said the Zoning Ordinance would still require
development standards for items such as density, lot coverage, setbacks, etc.

Mr. Clifford Mager shared he had no confidence that developers would exceed
minimum requirements if they could monetize more units.

Chair Gasparro said there is a desire to have sufficient parking as a developer.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1605
Ahwatukee Foothills Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y


Mike Maloney noted there were rules in place which were developed over time. Mr.
Maloney asked where these new numbers are coming from. Mr. Moric said it was
determined from the ITE manual and developments in Phoenix.

Ms. Broberg asked if staff researched other cities that have implemented parking
reductions.

Elena Pritchette shared her experience that more and more cities in her travels are
using alternative parking solutions such as automated garages.

Vice Chair Fisher referenced Proposition 400, stating he did not believe legislature
would increase public transit to compensate for the reduction in the parking
requirement.

Mr. Mager asked about if the new rules would apply to the development that was
already permitted.

Mr. Fisher asked on clarity if the reduction would be citywide. Mr. Moric said the 1.25
spaces per unit would apply to citywide. Mr. Fisher said many places in the city were
not designed for street overflow in parking.

Public Comments:
Mr. Dan Klocke said he had been working in affordable housing for many years, and
45% of Phoenicians are renters. Mr. Klocke noted that 8.4% or 47,000 households of
Phoenix do not have cars, about 35% own one car, and almost half have one car or
less. Mr. Klocke shared that the average one bedroom rental in Phoenix is $1300,
and this would chip away at some of the issues we face with affordability. Mr. Klocke
shared that 10% of the city is paved, and shared an example of an affordable housing
project, and with this proposal, would save almost $500,000 in costs, which would
also help develop smaller pieces of land for affordable housing.

Mr. Larry Whitesell stated he would like the committee to reject the proposal, but if
they felt inclined to recommend approval the parking rate should be increased to 1.5
spaces and should be based on affordability.

Mr. Neal Haddad said he was with the Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix
and stated there are two types of developers: those who buy, build and hold and
those who flip properties. Mr. Haddad added that Phoenix is 517 square miles and is
unique, so parking standards for other cities should not apply to Phoenix.

Mr. Ryan Boyd from the Urban Phoenix Project shared that this text amendment
comes down to cost, there are those who do not have a choice on using a car or not,
and that this would provide flexibility for new housing developments.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1606
Ahwatukee Foothills Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y


Ms. Nicole Rodriguez said she was in support of the text amendment, she came to
Phoenix 20 years ago without a car and shared her experience with having limited
vehicles for her family and using public transportation.

Ms. Abbey Tomich said she is unable to afford a vehicle and rides her bike instead
during which time she sees all the extra parking spaces in apartments.

Mr. Derek Tomich said he rides his bike everywhere and he sees parking lots that
are always empty which he felt was a waste of space and the parking surface
increases the urban heating effect, and there is no thing such as free parking. Mr.
Tomich added this would not add to cars on the street or increase street parking and
there would almost never be zero parking even if the requirement was zero parking.

Mr. Mager requested for clarification if the excess parking he observed was for
commercial or residential development. Mr. Tomich stated his observations were
regarding residential.

Vice Chair Fisher asked Mr. Tomich if he could, would he buy a car. Mr. Tomich
stated ideally he would not buy a car and felt if more people used public transit, the
public transit system would get improved.

Staff Response:
None.

Discussion:
Vice Chair Fisher asked Dan Klocke if we have an affordable housing problem in
Phoenix because we have too many cars or because affordable housing does not
stay affordable. Mr. Klocke said we have massive affordable housing problem and
we make decisions based on our smaller communities, and said this would chip away
at the problem.

Vice Chair Fisher said he was having a hard time accepting that the affordable
housing issue is a parking problem.

Ms. Broberg stated her concern the reduction of parking would add to the congestion
on the streets which she further clarified as parking on the streets.

Ms. Broberg asked Chair Gasparro if the developer would reinvest any cost savings
from not providing additional parking spaces. Chair Gasparro replied that with a
reduction in parking requirements a smaller site could be developed, and this not only
benefits the developer but also the City.

Mr. Mager asked if $5000 in cost savings from a parking reduction moved the needle.
Chair Gasparro replied yes, those saving impact a project.



200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1607
Ahwatukee Foothills Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y


Suzanne Sharer said there already is a shortage on parking and developers would
be the only ones benefiting and it is a backhanded way to force people to give up their
cars. Ms. Sharer said to pay for extra parking in their complexes would be a burden
on families.

Vice Chair Fisher felt it was a coupon for the developer, it is an incentive for more
developer profit, and he could be supportive of this for affordable housing projects.

Ms. Broberg said it is going to incentivize people to live in different places based on
what they value if they want additional parking and asked if this was part of the grand
scheme of Housing Phoenix Plan.

Chair Gasparro mentioned this is just part of the solution for a bigger plan.

Mr. Mager felt there was a lack of empirical data.

Motion:
Vice Chair Darin Fisher motioned to recommend denial of Z-TA-8-23-Y. Suzanne
Sharer seconded the motion.

Vote:
6-2, Motion to recommend denial of Z-TA-8-23-Y passed, with Committee Members
Mager, Maloney, Meier, Pritchette, Sharer, Fisher in favor; and Broberg and Gasparro
in opposition.

Motion No. 2 (Advisory)
Vice Chair Fisher made a second motion to provide direction to the Planning
Commission and City Council that while he rejects the proposal as a whole, there are
elements of the proposal he supports.

Vice Chair Fisher motioned to recommend approval of Z-TA-8-23-Y with
modifications to remove the parking reduction for market-rate multifamily residential
citywide, and approve the reduction for affordable housing projects, and sites within
the Infill Development District and the Walkable Urban Code. Toni Broberg
seconded the motion.

Vote No. 2 (Advisory)
6-2, advisory motion to recommend approval of Z-TA-8-23-y with modifications
passes with committee members Broberg, Maloney, Meier, Sharer, Fisher and
Gasparro in support; and Mager and Pritchette opposed.

STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:

Staff has no comments.



200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1608
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-8-23-Y

Date of VPC Meeting July 25, 2023
Request Amend Chapters 2, 6, 7 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for
multifamily and affordable housing.
VPC Recommendation Approval, per the staff recommendation
VPC Vote 9-6


VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS:

Eight members of the public register to speak on this item.

STAFF PRESENTATION

Samuel Rogers, staff, provided a presentation regarding the proposed text amendment
to reduce parking requirements for multifamily and affordable housing. He described the
proposed citywide parking requirements for multifamily development and affordable
multifamily development and further described the proposed parking requirements for
the Infill Development District and in the Walkable Urban Code.

QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE

Committee Member Shultz discussed the urbanization of Phoenix and stated that the
text amendment makes sense in areas that have urbanized.

Committee Member Williams clarified that the reduction is for parking minimums not
maximums and provides more flexibility. Mr. Rogers confirmed that the proposal is to
reduce parking minimums not maximums and discussed how lenders require a
minimum number of parking spaces for different types of developments.

Committee Member Harris asked how the required number of ADA parking spaces is
affected by the parking reduction. Mr. Rogers stated that the number of required ADA
parking spaces is based on the number of regular spaces provided.

Committee Camp stated that the reduction will help with the urban heat island effect,
help promote walkability, and help with transit-oriented development.



200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882

Page 1609
Alhambra Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-91-22-5


Committee Member Malkoon asked if a minimum number of ADA parking spaces will
be provided if there is no regular parking provided. Ms. Stockham stated that if no
parking is provided ADA spaces will not be required, but most projects will not provide
no parking.

Committee Member DeGraffenreid stated concerns about the low-income parking
reduction being discriminatory.

Committee Member Smith stated that a car is needed for low-income individuals’
economic mobility, stated it is unlikely that low-income people will use food delivery
services, and stated that the proposal does not consider the people.

Committee Member Solorio explained that the text amendment allows flexibility to
projects that serve specialty populations, discussed how lower parking minimums had
enabled developments to be built in other jurisdictions, and explained the text
amendment would eliminate the need for low-income developments to pursue parking
variances.

Committee Member Adams stated that City is removing a restrictive number, spoke
about dealing with ratios on her own professional projects, and stated that the parking
reduction would allow the number of parking spaces to be determined on a case-by-
case basis.

Committee Member Mulgado stated multifamily parking lots are full and most
households living in multifamily developments have multiple cars.

Committee Member Fitzgerald discussed walking in extreme heat, discussed a low-
income development that got variances for reduced parking and now rents parking at a
nearby church, and stated that developers wont pay for parking if they do not have too.

Committee Member Malkoon stated that the proposal will be good for developer
profits, spoke about his son who does not drive, spoke about his experience riding the
light rail where he spoke to woman who had a 2.5 hour commute to and from work, and
asked where visitors will park.

Committee Member Solorio stated that banks will not loan money to projects that do
not provide any parking.

Committee Member Harris asked for clarification about where parking requirements
are proposed to be reduced to 0 parking spaces per unit. Committee Member Solorio
stated that parking requirements are proposed to be 0 parking spaces per unit in the
WU Code and for affordable housing. Mr. Rogers clarified that affordable unit parking
requirements are proposed to be reduced 50% citywide.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1610
Alhambra Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-91-22-5


Committee Member Malkoon stated concerns about those struggling being taken
advantage of. Committee Member Solorio that 25% of parking spaces are always
open on projects he has worked on.

Committee Member DeGraffenreid stated that there are likely too many parking
spaces, but the minimum should not be zero. Committee Member DeGraffenreid stated
that he does not trust banks and builders to build parking, stated that cars can be
necessary to commute to well-paying jobs, and stated it is not that hard for
developments that serve special communities to get a variance.

Committee Member Keyser discussed other cities that have been successful with
parking reductions, spoke about rising rents, spoke about the need for personal vehicles
for those that are disabled, and spoke about the need for a parking study.

Committee Member Malkoon asked why luxury developments are not built for
affordable units, stated more money for affordable units is needed, and stated there
needs to be more public-government partnerships.

Committee Member Solorio stated that low-income developments have a fixed budget
and revenue, explained that less parking means more amenities, and spoke about a
failed variance.

PUBLIC COMMENTS

Sterling Sourk stated that potential residents will not move into a complex if there is no
parking and clarified the difference between parking minimums and maximums.

Abby Tomich explained that she rides her bike everyday because she cannot afford a
vehicle, explained that her mother rides the light rail to work everyday, stated that
excess parking is being valued over more affordable housing, and stated the text
amendment does not go far enough.

Derek Tomich explained that he rides his bike everywhere, explained that everywhere
he goes he see empty parking lots that contribute to the urban heat island effect, stated
10% of Phoenix is parking lots, explained that parking is subsidized by the prices of
goods and services, and reiterated that zero spaces required wont equate to zero
spaces provided.

Nicole Rodriguez stated she is in support of the text amendment, discussed parking
and heat, stated that the text amendment is the first step towards parking requirements
that will match demand, stated the text amendment will facilitate infill developments,
explained that parking can cost between $35,000 to $80,000 per stall, and explained the
origins of parking requirements. Ms. Rodriguez explained that she came to Phoenix
without a vehicle and her family now has one vehicle due to the medical costs from
taking care of others.


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1611
Alhambra Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-91-22-5


Wes Ballu stated that there is too much parking in Phoenix, stated that the proposal will
allow for flexibility, and stated this is the first step to making the City more walkable.

Dan Clocky stated that affordable housing is tax credit housing, stated that 87 parking
spaces costs well over half a million, and stated that budgets are capped so more
parking means less units.

Jackie Rich recounted a story told at the Estrella VPC were an individual who was
utilizing affordable housing was grateful parking was provided at her apartment
complex, explained reducing parking will not reduce the number of cars people own,
and added that the future of light rail depends on state legislature.

Neil Haddad stated that questionable people that buy, build, and flip developments are
why parking minimums are a thing, stated that Phoenix does not compare to other
cities, discussed the urban heat island effect and buildings, stated Phoenix is a car city,
explained that the state will not allow sales tax to be used for transit, and stated he
would like to see the studies the parking reductions are based on.

Chair Bryck confirmed that he had received the NCGP letter on July 14.

FLOOR/PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED: MOTION, DUSCUSSION, AND VOTE

MOTION
Committee Member Camp motioned to recommend approval of Z-TA-8-23-Y, per staff
recommendation. Committee Member Shultz seconded the motion.

VOTE
9-6, motion to recommend approval of Z-TA-8-23-Y, per staff recommendation passes
with Committee Members Adams, Camp, Ender, Harris, Sanchez, Shultz, Solorio,
Williams, and Bryck in favor and Committee Members DeGraffenreid, Fitzgerald,
Keyser, Malkoon, Mulgado, and Smith opposed.

STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION

None.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 1612
ATTACHMENT F

Phoenix, Arizona

June 1, 2023

The meeting of the Phoenix Planning Commission was called to order by Acting
Chairman Emilio Gaynor at 6:06 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 200 West Jefferson
Street, Phoenix, Arizona. Commissioners present participated in the meeting both in-
person and virtually from a remote location.

Present: Commissioner Emilio Gaynor, (Acting Chairman)
Commissioner Ryan A. Boyd, (Acting Vice-Chairman)
Commissioner Marcia Busching (Virtual)
Commissioner Pete Gorraiz
Commissioner Gabriel Jaramillo (Virtual)
Commissioner Lachele Mangum
Commissioner Lisa Perez
Commissioner Shannon Simon

Absent: Commissioner Nico Howard, Chairman

Also
Present: Ms. Racelle Escolar, Planner Principal
Ms. Tricia Gomes, Deputy Director, PDD
Mr. Greg Harmon, Planner I
Ms. Vikki Cipolla-Murillo, Secretary III/Council Reporter


At the request of Acting Chairman Emilio Gaynor, Ms. Racelle Escolar, Staff Liaison,
read the hybrid meeting introduction. She welcomed everyone to the Planning
Commission Hearing and stated that all attendees who were participating virtually and
requested to speak would remain muted until called on to speak. Speakers experiencing
audio issues were asked to switch their audio connection to have WebEx call them. She
stated that all individuals speaking virtually at the meeting tonight had contacted staff
within the required timeframe prior to the start of the meeting. Those who did not
contact staff, wishing to speak, were asked to contact her after the meeting to discuss
the next steps and future opportunities to speak regarding any items on the agenda.
She provided her contact information, via phone at 602-534-2864 and email at
racelle.escolar@phoenix.gov, which was also listed on the bottom of the public meeting
notice for the meeting. She asked those attending the meeting from the Council
Chambers to complete a speaker card and provide it to one of the staff members.

***

Acting Chairman Gaynor asked Acting Vice-Chair Boyd to read the opening remarks.

***

Acting Chairman Gaynor asked the audience to follow the General Rules of Order for
the meeting:

Page 1613
Planning Commission Hearing
Approved Minutes - June 1, 2023

16. INFORMATION ONLY: Z-TA-8-23-Y: Presentation and discussion regarding a
request to amend Chapters 2, 6, 7, and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance to
reduce parking requirements for multifamily and affordable housing.

Ms. Racelle Escolar stated that Item No. 16 is an information presentation
regarding Z-TA-8-23-Y, a request to amend Chapters 2, 6, 7, and 13 of the
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance to reduce parking requirements for multifamily and
affordable housing.

Ms. Tricia Gomes, the Deputy Director, presented this item.

Ms. Gomes stated that Z-TA-8-23-Y encompasses parking reductions for
affordable and multifamily housing, including parking reductions for multifamily
developments (City-wide), reductions for affordable housing (City-wide),
reductions for Infill Development District (IDD), and reductions for Walkable
Urban (WU) Code.

Ms. Gomes stated that currently multifamily parking requirements (City-wide) are
based on the number of bedrooms. The current requirement is 1.3 spaces per
efficiency unit and 1.5 spaces per 1- or 2-bedroom unit; and 2 spaces per 3- or
more bedroom unit, 1.0 space per unit of less than 600 square feet regardless of
number of bedrooms. When the required parking is reserved for residents,
additional unreserved parking is required as follows: 0.3 spaces for each
efficiency unit and 0.5 spaces per each 1- or 2-bedroom unit; and 1.0 space per
each 3- or more bedroom unit. It is somewhat long and complex. Staff is trying to
reduce City-wide multifamily parking down to 1.25 spaces per dwelling unit,
regardless of number of bedrooms. Of those spaces, a minimum 30% must
remain “unreserved”, and would not be assigned to any one unit. Anyone could
park there, whether they are a guest or another person living in the development.
She provided an example for a 300-unit multifamily development, having only 1-
or 2-bedroom units:

x Current Requirements: 450 total spaces @ 1.5 per dwelling units,
150 unreserved (part of total) @ 0.5 per dwelling unit.
x Proposed Requirements: 375 total spaces @ 1.25 per dwelling unit
113 unreserved (part of total) @ 30% of required.

Ms. Gomes stated that currently there is no differentiation for affordable
multifamily housing (City-wide). It would be the same parking counts that were
just discussed, per the number of bedrooms in that unit, proposing the same 1.25
calculation. Plus, for affordable housing, there is a 50% reduction, in addition.
She provided an example for a 300-unit multifamily development, having only 1-
or 2-bedroom units, all qualifying as “affordable housing”:

x Current Requirements: (same as City-wide) 450 total spaces @ 1.5 per
dwelling unit and 150 unreserved (part of total @ 0.5 dwelling units.
x Proposed Requirements: (50% reduction) 188 total spaces @ 1.25 per
dwelling unit x 50% and 57 unreserved (part of total) @ 30% of required.

Page 1614
Planning Commission Hearing
Approved Minutes - June 1, 2023


Ms. Gomes stated, within the Infill Development District (IDD), currently you can
only get a parking reduction for multifamily if you are counting on-street parking.
That is for the distance of your project adjacent to the right-of-way. If there is 100
feet of frontage on your property, divide that by 22 feet due to parallel parking,
and that is how many spaces you can count and how many can be reduced for
on-street parking.

For the proposed requirement within the Infill Development District, there is a
50% reduction off that 1.25 parking calculation. This area typically falls along or
near the transit areas, as well. She provided an example for a 300-unit
multifamily development, having only 1- or 2-bedroom units. It is the same as the
affordable housing.

x Proposed Requirements: 188 spaces, @ 1.25 per dwelling unit x 50%

Ms. Gomes stated, for the Walkable Urban Code, the current requirement in the
Zoning Ordinance is 0.5 for market-rate housing per dwelling unit. You get an
additional 25% reduction when you are within a quarter of a mile (1,320 feet) of
the light-rail station, or you get 10% if you are greater than a quarter of a mile
(1,320 feet) from the light-rail station.

The current multifamily parking requirement is with the 25 and 10 %. Staff is
proposing a 0.5 spaces per dwelling unit parking requirement for those located
within the Walkable Urban Code. Of those spaces, a minimum 30% must remain
“unreserved”, and not assigned to a particular unit or the leasing office. She
provided an example for a 300-unit multifamily development, having only 1- or 2-
bedroom units.

x Current Requirements: 338 total spaces @ the 1.5 % for a 1- to 2-
bedroom vs. proposed text amendment
x Proposed Requirements: 150 total spaces @ 0.5 per dwelling unit
45 unreserved (part of total) @ 30% of required

Ms. Gomes stated that for affordable housing, Walkable Urban Code does have
provisions for affordable in the different transects. They are proposing ‘no parking
required within those transects’, for affordable housing within the Walkable Urban
Code. T3 is the only exception because it is very similar to a single-family
development. Multifamily is not allowed in that transect. She provided an
example for a 300-unit multifamily development, having only 1- or 2-bedroom
units, all affordable. There are no parking requirements.

x Current Requirements: (T5 transect example)150 total spaces @ 0.5 per
dwelling units and 0 unreserved (part of total) @ none required
x Proposed Requirements: (T5 transect example) 0 total spaces @ none
required and 0 unreserved (part of total) @ none required



Page 1615
Planning Commission Hearing
Approved Minutes - June 1, 2023

Ms. Gomes stated, in response to that and understanding that passenger loading
zone requirements have been proposed in the Walkable Urban Code, people are
going to be coming to their homes and developments in a variety of different
ways, whether it is light-rail, ride-share, taxis, etc. The City wants to provide and
ensure that there is an area for that drop-off and pick-up for pedestrians
happening on the site.

Ms. Gomes stated that passenger loading zones are a new requirement for sites
zoned WU Code only. They provide designated area(s) for ride-share, pick-
up/drop-off, and personal delivery services (package delivery; meal delivery).
Loading zones are encouraged to locate on site but may be located on the street
when approved by the Street Transportation Department. This is difficult because
there must be room in the right-of-way, depending on the type of street. They are
looking for it to be provided onsite. Accessibility requirements apply per Federal
ADA regulations. The proposal is one passenger loading zone per 50 dwelling
units; so, depending on the number of units, there will be a larger space for a
larger passenger loading zone. Ms. Gomes displayed an example of what that
would look like. The minimum requirement is 23 feet for a parallel parking space
to be able to pull in and backing out of the space. Lastly, she provided upcoming
meeting dates:

x Planning Commission (information): June 2023
x Villages (information): June 2023
x Villages (action): July 2023
x Planning Commission (action): August 2023
x City Council Hearing: September 2023

Acting Chairman Gaynor asked if there were questions.

Commissioner Busching stated that there is a new movement going on to reduce
parking spaces. She asked where the numbers came from and if there were
comparisons done with other cities. She also asked if other cities have
experiences with these numbers. She wanted some background and history
behind the thinking of the numbers.

Ms. Gomes responded that staff derived at the 1.25 number in working with the
Traffic Department and looking at ITE data on suburban and urban developments
for a multifamily.

Commissioner Busching stated that she does not know what ITE is, and she
does not know where all the other parking reductions are, other than the 1.25.

Ms. Gomes responded that staff derived the 1.25 number from the initial review
with Traffic Department staff while looking at their manuel for typical demands for
parking, for these types of developments. Staff’s focus was to reduce the parking
to one space per unit. The 0.25 is for visitors and leasing. That is how they
derived the 1.25. They looked at demand and what they were trying to achieve,
regarding the number of parking spaces per unit.

Page 1616
Planning Commission Hearing
Approved Minutes - June 1, 2023


Ms. Gomes stated that the 50%, reduction within their Infill Development District
today is an allowance that the developer can do. It is a 50% reduction, but it is
only counting those spaces on-street. The Street Transportation Department is
hearing a lot of push-back from communities to have on-street parking, which is
resulting in no longer providing the space for bike lanes or creating conflicts for
bike lanes. They looked at that. It is really to achieve two goals within the City: 1)
to provide the bike lanes, and 2) to offset the parking reduction onsite for
properties. By taking away or modifying those parking reductions for on-street, to
allow for those bike lanes, it is providing that parking reduction onsite. That is
where the 50% comes from.

Ms. Gomes stated that for affordable to zero, Walkable Urban Code, already had
a significant parking reduction. They were directed by City Council to look at
eliminating those parking requirements for affordable, because staff is trying to
focus on the items that are creating additional costs and challenges for affordable
developments.

Commissioner Busching thanked Ms. Gomes and said the information was very
helpful.

Acting Vice-Chairman Boyd stated that he was quite excited to hear this. ITE
stands for Institute of Transportation Engineers. He said it is not just the hippie
bike people, these are the full-on professional, do-all-the-fun traffic, people. He
wanted to add two important points of context. Firstly, these are the minimums.
Developers can and likely will still go above those minimums, as we see in
almost every project. This is just them not being penalized from a legal
perspective, if you wanted to try to do something like a cul-de-sac in Tempe, zero
parking for the units there. There are a few shared parking spots on their
development. It would not be possible in Phoenix without some creative zoning.
Secondly, there are, in fact, neighbors to the north. Prescott has one of these.
Work-force housing has a different parking ratio that is lower than their normal
parking ratio. Flagstaff has an incentive program for their affordable housing that
includes the reduction of parking. These are not new concepts. They are in
Arizona and have been in play before. He was excited to hear how this is going
to go through. It will be interesting to see how this debate proceeds.

Commissioner Perez asked if this goes through the process and gets approved
in September, if there would be a mad rush of all the cases that have been
approved, asking for variances to reduce their parking. Right now, they would all
be stipulated to certain parking spaces. She asked how that would work.

Ms. Gomes responded, if there are current stipulation requirements, whether it is
in a rezoning case or other like that, they would still have to adhere to those
requirements. If they got parking variances, there is a potential that the parking
variance is mute, because the Ordinance could require less. Those were the two
scenarios she could think of, now.


Page 1617
Planning Commission Hearing
Approved Minutes - June 1, 2023

Commissioner Perez stated that they had required in the staff narrative that if it is
reduced, it would just automatically get reduced with it. She asked if she was
understanding correctly. She gave the example of building a multifamily with 200
required parking spaces. Under the new requirements, it would be less,
theoretically. She asked if she would be stuck with the 200, or if it would be
automatically less, or if she would have to get a variance to make it less.

Ms. Gomes respond that if this text amendment were to pass in September and
go to Council in October, it would be effective. So, anyone developing, could
utilize those requirements.

Acting Chairman Gaynor reminded the commissioners that this presentation was
only informational at this time. There were no further questions.

No action was necessary.

***




Page 1618
ATTACHMENT G


REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
August 3, 2023

ITEM NO: 17
DISTRICT NO.: Citywide
SUBJECT:

Application #: Z-TA-8-23-Y (Parking Reductions for Affordable Housing)
Proposal: Amend Chapter 2, Section 202 (Definitions) to add definitions for
affordable housing, passenger loading space, passenger loading zone,
and revise parking space, unreserved; amend Chapter 6, Section 608.J
(Density Bonus For Low or Moderate Income Housing); amend Chapter 7,
Sections 702.C (Parking Requirements) and Section 702.E (Modifications
to Parking Requirements); and amend Chapter 13, Section 1307 (Parking
Standards) to modify the parking requirements for multifamily, single-
family attached, and affordable housing, and add requirements for
passenger loading zones of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance to modify
parking standards for affordable housing developments.
Applicant: City of Phoenix, Planning Commission
Representative: City of Phoenix, Planning and Development Department

ACTIONS:

Staff Recommendation: Approval, as shown in the recommended text in Attachment A of
the Staff Report.

Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
Ahwatukee Foothills 6/26/2023 Information only. Canceled (no quorum).
Ahwatukee Foothills 7/24/2023 Denial. Vote: 6-2.
Alhambra 6/27/2023 Information only.
Alhambra 7/25/2023 Approval, per the staff recommendation. Vote: 9-6.
Camelback East 6/6/2023 Information only.
Camelback East 7/11/2023 Approval, per the staff recommendation. Vote: 14-1.
Central City 6/12/2023 Information only.
Central City 7/10/2023 Approval, per the staff recommendation. Vote: 10-4.
Deer Valley 6/8/2023 Information only. No quorum.
Deer Valley 7/13/2023 Denial. Vote: 5-4.
Desert View 6/6/2023 Information only.
Desert View 7/11/2023 Denial. Vote: 9-0.
Encanto 6/5/2023 Information only. No quorum.
Encanto 7/10/2023 Approval, per the staff recommendation. Vote: 12-1.
Estrella 6/20/2023 Information only.
Estrella 7/18/2023 Denial. Vote: 8-1.
Laveen 6/12/2023 Information only.
Laveen 7/10/2023 Denial. Vote: 8-0.
Maryvale 6/14/2023 Information only. No quorum.
Maryvale 7/12/2023 Denial. Vote: 7-2-1.
North Gateway 6/8/2023 Information only.
North Gateway 7/13/2023 Denial. Vote: 6-0.




Page 1619
North Mountain 6/21/2023 Information only.
North Mountain 7/19/2023 Approval, per the staff recommendation with direction.
Vote: 12-1-1.
Paradise Valley 6/5/2023 Information only.
Paradise Valley 7/10/2023 No quorum.
Paradise Valley 8/7/2023 Approval, per the staff recommendation with modifications.
Vote: 14-0.
Rio Vista 6/13/2023 Information only.
Rio Vista 7/11/2023 Denial. Vote: 3-2.
South Mountain 6/13/2023 Information only.
South Mountain 7/11/2023 Denial. Vote: 11-0.

Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval, per the staff recommendation with
modifications.

Motion Discussion:

Commissioner Boyd made a MOTION to approve Z-TA-8-23-Y, per the staff
recommendation, with modifications to adjust the citywide components to apply to
Alhambra, North Mountain, Encanto, Central City, and Camelback East villages, and
with the adjustment of the WU Code amount up to 0.65 (spaces per dwelling unit).

There was no second on the motion, therefore the motion failed.

There was discussion about the motion and potentially other motions.

Commissioner Busching made a MOTION that the item be sent back to staff for further
work with the notion that it would be brought back before the Planning Commission.

There was some discussion about what direction to provide, however there was no
second on the motion.

Commissioner Busching made a MOTION to approve Z-TA-8-23-Y, per the staff
recommendation, with modifications regarding the following sections as listed in the Staff
Report:

x Section 1 (City wide multifamily parking requirements): Change from 1.25 spaces
per dwelling unit to 1.50 spaces per dwelling unit.
x Section 2 (City wide affordable housing parking reduction): Delete proposed
changes.
x Section 3 (Infill Development District parking reduction): Approve as proposed.
x Section 4 (Walkable Urban Code parking requirements): Change from 0.50
spaces per dwelling unit to 0.65 spaces per dwelling unit.
x Section 5 (Walkable Urban Code affordable housing parking requirements):
Delete proposed changes.
x Section 6 (Passenger loading zones within Walkable Urban Code): Approve as
proposed.

Commissioner Simon stated that she supported the motion except for the change to
Section No. 1.




Page 1620
Commissioner Perez agreed.

Commissioner Simon offered a FRIENDLY AMENDMENT to eliminate changes to
Section No. 1.

Mr. Christopher DePerro (staff) asked for clarification from Commissioner Simon. He
asked if she was proposing to leave the existing Citywide requirement as is.

Commissioner Simon responded, yes.

Commissioner Busching stated that although she was reluctant to agree, because she
supports staffs’ desire to simplify this city wide parking requirements in order to move
this forward, she would accept Commissioner Simon’s amendment.

Commissioner Gaynor SECONDED the amended motion.

There was discussion and clarifications made about the motion on the floor.

Commissioner Jaramillo explained that he did not agree with removing any flexibility for
affordable housing.

Motion details: Commissioner Busching made a MOTION to approve Z-TA-8-23-Y, per
the staff recommendation, with modifications regarding the following sections as listed in
the Staff Report:

x Section 1 (City wide multifamily parking requirements): Delete proposed
changes.
x Section 2 (City wide affordable housing parking reduction): Delete proposed
changes.
x Section 3 (Infill Development District parking reduction): Approve as proposed.
x Section 4 (Walkable Urban Code parking requirements): Change from 0.50
spaces per dwelling unit to 0.65 spaces per dwelling unit.
x Section 5 (Walkable Urban Code affordable housing parking requirements):
Delete proposed changes.
x Section 6 (Passenger loading zones within Walkable Urban Code): Approve as
proposed.

Maker: Busching
Second: Vice Chairman Gaynor
Vote: 6-2 (Boyd and Jaramillo)
Absent: Mangum
Opposition Present: Yes

Proposed Language (Planning Commission recommendation is highlighted for clarity):

Amend Chapter 2, Section 202 (Definitions) to add definitions for affordable
housing, passenger loading space, passenger loading zone, and revise parking
space, unreserved, as follows:




Page 1621
***

AFFORDABLE HOUSING: RESIDENTIAL OR MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT
PROVIDING HUD OR OTHER ASSISTED LOW- TO MODERATE-INCOME HOUSING,
AS VERIFIED BY THE PHOENIX HOUSING DEPARTMENT; TYPICALLY INCLUDES
DWELLING UNIT(S) COMMITTED FOR A MINIMUM TERM THROUGH COVENANTS
OR RESTRICTIONS TO HOUSEHOLDS WITH INCOMES AT 80 PERCENT OR LESS
OF THE AREA MEDIAN INCOME, AS DEFINED BY THE UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT FOR THE CITY.

***

Parking Space, Unreserved: An unassigned parking space that is available to both
residents, EMPLOYEES, and visitors TO THE PROPERTY. UNRESERVED PARKING
SPACES WHICH COUNT TOWARD ANY REQUIRED PARKING MINIMUMS SHALL
NOT BE USED FOR OFF-SITE OR COMMERCIAL PARKING USES.

FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS, UNRESERVED SPACES MAY BE LOCATED
BEHIND A VEHICULAR GATE IF A CALL BOX IS PROVIDED TO ALLOW VISITOR
ENTRY BY RESIDENTS OF THE PROPERTY.

FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS, UNRESERVED SPACES MAY NOT BE
LOCATED BEHIND A VEHICULAR GATE UNLESS THE GATE IS OPEN (OR WILL
OPEN AUTOMATICALLY UPON APPROACH) DURING ALL STANDARD BUSINESS
HOURS.

***

PASSENGER LOADING SPACE: A DESIGNATED SPACE FOR THE SHORT-TERM
USE BY ONE VEHICLE TO STAND DURING PASSENGER PICK UP OR DROP OFF
OF VISITORS, RESIDENTS, OR OCCUPANTS OF THE BUILDING OR USE; OR
DURING DELIVERY OF GOODS TO INDIVIDUAL OCCUPANTS. A PASSENGER
LOADING SPACE MAY NOT INCLUDE ANY DELIVERY OF GOODS OR SERVICE
AREAS FOR COMMERCIAL USES, NOR ANY USE NOT CONSIDERED SHORT-
TERM.

PASSENGER LOADING ZONE: AN AREA ADJACENT TO A PRIMARY ENTRY
COMPRISED OF AT LEAST ONE PASSENGER LOADING SPACE, CONSTRUCTED
IN TANDEM (WITH NO BARRIERS IN BETWEEN) FOR USE AS ONE CONTIGUOUS
LOADING ZONE.

***

Amend Chapter 6, Section 608.J (Density Bonus For Low or Moderate Income
Housing) to read as follows:




Page 1622
J. Density Bonus INCENTIVES For Low or Moderate Income AFFORDABLE
Housing. In order to overcome a demonstrated deficiency in the supply of housing
for persons of low and moderate income, density bonus incentives are established
to foster the provision of such housing. The bonuses in this paragraph shall apply
to the maximum density for any district and may be in addition to bonuses earned
by the provision of additional open space.

1. Applicability. All development LOCATED WITHIN A ZONING DISTRICT
SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 608 providing HUD or other
assisted mixed income rental housing as approved by the Phoenix Housing
and Urban Redevelopment Department AFFORDABLE HOUSING AS
DEFINED IN SECTION 202.

2. Density bonus.

a. One additional conventional unit SHALL BE allowed for every two
low/moderate income AFFORDABLE HOUSING units, provided that
the overall project density does not exceed ten percent beyond that
which would otherwise be allowed.

b. The A DENSITY bonuses in this paragraph AWARDED PER THIS
SECTION shall apply to the maximum density for any district and may
be in addition to A DENSITY bonuses earned by the provision of
additional open space PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 608.I.2.

3. PARKING REDUCTION.

A. FOR EACH AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT, THE REQUIRED
PARKING CALCULATION MAY BE REDUCED BY 50%.

B. A PARKING REDUCTION AWARDED PER THIS SECTION SHALL
APPLY ONLY WHEN NO OTHER TYPE OF PARKING
REDUCTION AUTHORIZED ELSEWHERE IN THE ZONING
ORDINANCE HAS BEEN GRANTED.

3. 4. Other requirements. The total number of units within a project shall be as
approved by the Department of Housing. and Urban Development. Further,
the location of any such units shall be consistent with the goals of the City of
Phoenix Housing Assistance Allocation Plan.

***




Page 1623
Amend Chapter 7, Section 702.C (Parking Requirements) to read as follows:

C. Parking Requirements. Off-street automobile parking space or area shall be
provided according to the following table, except for large scale retail commercial
uses (see Section 702.D). The parking ratios in the table identify the minimum level
of parking required to serve that use and receive site plan approval.

Type of Land Use Parking Requirements


***

Dwelling Unit, Multi- Total required parking
Family
1.3 spaces per efficiency unit and 1.5 spaces per 1 or 2
bedroom unit and 2 spaces per 3 or more bedroom unit,
1.0 space per unit of less than 600 square feet regardless
of number of bedrooms

When the required parking is reserved for residents,
additional unreserved parking is required as follows: 0.3
spaces for each efficiency unit and 0.5 spaces per each 1 or
2 bedroom unit and 1.0 space per each 3 or more bedroom
unit.

Exception for unreserved parking: where minimum 18-foot
driveways are provided for individual units, .25 space per
each unit.

Unreserved parking shall be distributed throughout the site.

Note: Any unreserved parking spaces required by this
section may be counted toward the total required parking
count.

1.25 SPACES PER DWELLING UNIT

A MINIMUM OF 30% OF THE REQUIRED PARKING
SPACES MUST REMAIN UNRESERVED.




Page 1624
Type of Land Use Parking Requirements


Dwelling Unit, Single- 1.3 spaces per efficiency unit and 1.5 spaces per 1 or 2
Family Attached bedroom unit and 2 spaces per 3 or more bedroom unit, 1.0
space per unit of less than 600 square feet regardless of number
of bedrooms
PER SECTION 608.F.6, IF DEVELOPING UNDER THE
SINGLE-FAMILY INFILL DEVELOPMENT OPTION PER
SECTIONS 614-618.
2 SPACES PER UNIT IF NOT DEVELOPING UNDER THE SFI
OPTION. THE REQUIRED SPACES FOR EACH DWELLING
UNIT MUST BE PROVIDED ON THE SAME LOT. AN
ADDITIONAL 0.25 UNRESERVED SPACE PER DWELLING
UNIT MUST PER PROVIDED ELSEWHERE WITHIN THE
DEVELOPMENT FOR VISITOR PARKING.

***

Amend Chapter 7, Section 702.E (Modifications to Parking Requirements) to read as
follows:

E. Modifications to Parking Requirements.

***

3. Reductions. Parking reductions are specified within the specific zoning
districts. The listed zoning districts offer parking reductions:

a. Downtown Core District: No parking required. (Section 643)
DOWNTOWN CODE: PER SUSTAINABILITY BONUS AWARDS.
(CHAPTER 12)

b. Warehouse District: No parking required. (Section 645) WALKABLE
URBAN (WU) CODE. (CHAPTER 13)

***

F. INCENTIVES FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING (RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS, SECTION 608.J)

***

9. Reductions for Infill Development District. THE INFILL DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT, AS SHOWN ON THE GENERAL PLAN, IS SUBJECT TO THE
FOLLOWING PROVISIONS:




Page 1625
a. Within the infill development district, as shown on the general plan for
Phoenix, a development’s on-street parking adjacent to and along the
same side of a public, local or collector street may be counted toward
parking requirements. PARKING REDUCTIONS.

(1) THESE REDUCTIONS DO NOT APPLY TO PROPERTIES
ZONED DOWNTOWN CODE OR WALKABLE URBAN CODE.

(2) NON-RESIDENTIAL USES SUBJECT TO THE PARKING
REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 702.C WITH NO OTHER
PARKING REDUCTIONS MAY REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF
REQUIRED PARKING BY 20%.

(3) MULTI-FAMILY USES SUBJECT TO THE PARKING
REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 702.C WITH NO OTHER
PARKING REDUCTIONS MAY REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF
REQUIRED PARKING BY 50%.

***

c. Use Permit Notice Procedure for Infill OFF-SITE Parking Reductions.
The following additional procedures shall be followed as part of the
infill parking reduction use permit process (in addition to the
procedures required by Section 307):

***

Amend Chapter 13, Section 1307 (Parking Standards) to modify the parking
requirements for multi-family, single-family attached, and affordable housing, and
add requirements for passenger loading zones to read as follows:

Chapter 13
WALKABLE URBAN (WU) CODE

***

Section 1307. Parking AND LOADING standards.

***
B. Required Vehicular Parking.

1. Vehicular parking must be provided for each use in accordance with Table
1307.1 and as follows:




Page 1626
a. Minimum required vehicular parking is the sum of parking required for
each use within a lot.

b. Accessory dwellings in T3 and T4 require one parking space per unit.

c. B. Vehicular parking may be limited to a maximum number of spaces by
parking districts where established.

d. C. Other uses not identified on Table 1307.1 shall follow Section 702
standards.

***

Table 1307.1 Minimum Required Vehicular Parking

T5 T5
USE MEASURE T3 T4 1—5 6—10 T6
Stories Stories

Residential, Single- per unit 2.0 n/a n/a n/a
Family DETACHED

(1) As per Section 702. Additional 25% reduction
when the off-street parking area is located within
1,320 feet from a light rail station when measured
Residential: Single-
in a direct line from the building, and 10%
Family Attached and
reduction of required parking if the development is
Multifamily
greater than 1,320 feet from a light rail station.
The minimum required on-site vehicular parking is
exclusively for the patrons of the subject parcel.

PER SECTION 608.F.6, IF DEVELOPING
RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE-
UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF 1303.A.1.A.;
FAMILY ATTACHED
OTHERWISE PER SECTION 702.

0.5 0.65
RESIDENTIAL, MULTI- A MINIMUM OF 30% OF THE
PER UNIT N/A
FAMILY (2) REQUIRED SPACES SHALL
REMAIN UNRESERVED.

***

Affordable Housing per unit 0.85 0.75 0.5 0.5

AFFORDABLE PER UNIT 0.75 NONE REQUIRED
HOUSING




Page 1627
T5 T5
USE MEASURE T3 T4 1—5 6—10 T6
Stories Stories

***

***

D. Required SERVICE/GOODS Loading AREAS and Service Bays. THE
FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS APPLY TO SHORT-TERM LOADING AND
UNLOADING OF SERVICE VEHICLES WITH MATERIALS, GOODS OR
EQUIPMENT. PASSENGER LOADING ZONES ARE ADDRESSED IN
SECTION 1307.I.

1. On-site SERVICE/GOODS loading shall be required for all development
as follows:

***

E. Off-Street Parking Location and Access.

1. Parking must be set back from frontages according to Table 1303.2,
except where parking is located underground. PASSENGER LOADING
SPACES/ZONES ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THESE SETBACK
REQUIREMENTS.

***

I. PASSENGER LOADING. THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS APPLY TO
PASSENGER LOADING SPACES AND ZONES ONLY. SERVICE/GOODS
LOADING AREAS ARE ADDRESSED IN SECTION 1307.D.

1. REQUIRED NUMBER OF SPACES. PASSENGER LOADING
SPACES SHALL BE PROVIDED AS FOLLOWS:

TABLE. 1307.3 REQUIRED PASSENGER LOADING SPACES
PASSENGER LOADING SPACES
USE TYPE
REQUIRED (2)
CULTURAL OR PUBLIC FACILITY 2
HOSPITAL 3
HOTEL OR MOTEL 3
MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 1 PER 50 DWELLING UNITS (1)
PUBLIC ASSEMBLY 1 PER 50 REQUIRED PARKING
SPACES (1)




Page 1628
ALL OTHER USES 1 PER 25,000 GROSS SF (1)

(1) OR PORTION THEREOF. NO SITE SHALL BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE MORE THAN 10 PASSENGER
LOADING SPACES.

(2) FOR MIXED USES, THE MINIMUM NUMBER OF REQUIRED SPACES SHALL BE THE SUM OF THE
SPACES REQUIRED FOR THE INDIVIDUAL USES, ALTHOUGH ROUNDING UP SHALL OCCUR AT THE
FINAL STEP OF THE CALCULATIONS. FOR EXAMPLE, A DEVELOPMENT WITH 70,000 GROSS SF OF
OFFICE SPACE, PLUS 125 MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS, IS REQUIRED 1.4 SPACES (70,000 SF /
50,000 SF/SPACE), PLUS 1.25 SPACES (125 DU / 100 DU/SPACE), WHICH TOTALS 2.65 REQUIRED, OR
3 PASSENGER LOADING SPACES.


2. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR PASSENGER LOADING ZONES.

A. ACCESSIBLE PASSENGER LOADING SPACES.

(1) AT LEAST ONE ACCESSIBLE PASSENGER LOADING
SPACE SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR EVERY 100
LINEAR FEET OF CONTIGUOUS PASSENGER
LOADING ZONE. HOWEVER, EACH PHYSICALLY
SEPARATE PASSENGER LOADING ZONE MUST
ALSO HAVE AT LEAST ONE ACCESSIBLE
PASSENGER LOADING SPACE.

(2) AN ACCESSIBLE PASSENGER LOADING SPACE
SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 96 INCHES WIDE AND A
MINIMUM 23 FEET LONG.

(3) THE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS AISLE SERVING THE
ACCESSIBLE LOADING ZONE SPACE SHALL EXTEND
THE LENGTH OF THE SPACE AND SHALL BE A
MINIMUM 60 INCHES WIDE.

(4) THE VEHICLE PULL-UP SPACE AND ACCESS AISLE
MUST COMPLY WITH ADA REQUIREMENTS FOR
GROUND AND FLOOR SURFACES AND CANNOT
EXCEED A SLOPE OF 2%.

(5) CURB RAMPS CANNOT OVERLAP ACCESS AISLES
OR VEHICLE PULL-UP SPACES.

(6) A VERTICAL CLEARANCE OF 14 FEET IS REQUIRED
FOR EACH VEHICLE PULL-UP SPACE AND ACCESS
AISLE, AND ALL ALONG ANY VEHICULAR ROUTE
CONNECTING THEM TO A VEHICLE ENTRANCE AND
EXIT, UNLESS OTHERWISE APPROVED FOR
EMERGENCY/SERVICE VEHICLE ACCESS.




Page 1629
(7) THE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS AISLES SHALL NOT
ENCROACH INTO A TRAVEL LANE.

DETAIL 1307.1. ACCESSIBLE PASSENGER LOADING SPACE




B. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR PASSENGER LOADING
ZONES.

(1) STANDARD PASSENGER LOADING SPACES, WHEN
PROVIDED IN ADDITION TO THE MINIMUM
REQUIRED ACCESSIBLE PASSENGER LOADING
SPACE(S), SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED TO THE SAME
STANDARDS AS AN ACCESSIBLE PASSENGER
LOADING SPACE, BUT WITHOUT THE REQUIREMENT
FOR AN ACCESS AISLE.

(2) A CONTIGUOUS PASSENGER LOADING ZONE MAY
BE PROVIDED, WHICH SHALL CONSIST OF TWO (2)
OR MORE LOADING ZONE SPACES PROVIDED IN
TANDEM WITH NO BARRIERS SEPARATING SAID
SPACES, THUS ENABLING VEHICLES TO MOVE
FORWARD THROUGH MULTIPLE PASSENGER
LOADING ZONE SPACES.




Page 1630
(3) PASSENGER LOADING ZONES SHALL BE PROVIDED
WITHIN 50’ OF THE MAIN ENTRANCE OF THE USE OR
STRUCTURE THEY ARE INTENDED TO SERVE, AS
APPROVED BY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT STAFF.

(4) PASSENGER LOADING ZONES SHALL NOT
ENCROACH WITHIN THE MINIMUM WIDTH OF ANY
FIRE LANES OR DRIVE AISLES.

(5) PARKING AND/OR STANDING SHALL BE LIMITED TO
30 MINUTES WITHIN A PASSENGER LOADING ZONE,
AND SIGNS SHALL BE INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED
STATING THIS RESTRICTION, AS APPROVED BY PDD
AND STREET TRANSPORTATION.

(6) A PASSENGER LOADING ZONE SHALL NOT BE
LOCATED BEHIND ANY TYPE OF VEHICULAR GATE
OR BARRIER, EXCEPT FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL
USES, WHEN SUCH GATE OR BARRIER IS LEFT
OPEN DURING ON-SITE BUSINESS HOURS.

(7) ON-STREET PASSENGER LOADING ZONES
LOCATED IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ADJACENT
TO THE PROPERTY MAY ONLY BE PROVIDED WHEN
COMPLIANCE WITH ALL OF THE FOLLOWING IS
DEMONSTRATED:

(A) APPROVAL FOR THE DESIGN OF THE
PASSENGER LOADING ZONE HAS BEEN
OBTAINED FROM THE STREET
TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT.

(B) AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT HAS BEEN
OBTAINED FROM THE STREET
TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT FOR ANY
STRUCTURES REQUIRED AS PART OF THE
PASSENGER LOADING ZONE (SHADE
CANOPIES, SCREEN WALLS, SIGNS, ETC.).

(C) THE PASSENGER LOADING ZONE DOES NOT
REDUCE OR PRECLUDE ANY REQUIRED
STREETSCAPE OR FRONTAGE ELEMENTS,
INCLUDING THE PROVISION OF REQUIRED
STREET TREES AND SHADE.




Page 1631
(D) THE PASSENGER LOADING ZONE DOES NOT
INTERRUPT A DESIGNATED BICYCLE LANE.

C. PASSENGER LOADING AREA DESIGN GUIDELINES.

(1) PASSENGER LOADING ZONES SHOULD BE
LOCATED INTERNALLY TO THE BUILDING WHEN
POSSIBLE.

(2) PASSENGER LOADING ZONES SHOULD HAVE
PRIMARY ACCESS FROM A STREET, RATHER THAN
AN ALLEY.

(3) PASSENGER LOADING ZONES SHOULD PROVIDE
LANDSCAPED AND/OR STRUCTURAL SHADE FOR A
MINIMUM OF 75% OF THE PASSENGER WAITING
AREAS.

***




This publication can be made available in alternate format upon request. Please contact
Angie Holdsworth at (602) 329-5065, TTY use 7-1-1.




Page 1632
ATTACHMENT H


July 6, 2023


I am in full support of Z-TA-8-23-Y as it reflects the true parking need for multi-family
housing versus the current zoning ordinance and supports City Council’s desire to
increase the amount of housing options and homes for our fellow Phoenicians. Too
often we do not think of multifamily development as a place where we would live, but
the reality is almost every one of us were renters at one point in our life. Furthermore, if
we as a community want to provide places for our children to live that are more
reasonably priced, we cannot continue to make it so costly and difficult to build
apartments. These restrictions have led to the enormous rent increases we have
experienced. As a parent with a daughter in an out of town masters program looking to
possibly become a teacher, affordability of housing will guide her decision on whether to
return to Phoenix or not. By reducing the required number of parking spaces, we will
need smaller parcels of land to build the needed housing and reduce the overall cost of
the project. Fewer parking spaces means less asphalt and heat island impact. More
building and less parking increases property tax revenues to maintain our city. Smaller
parking lots means shorter distances between places, reducing traffic and improving
walkability.
I applaud the willingness to make these modifications and immediately look to the next
step. All of the changes being suggested are critical. However, while it is wonderful to
reduce parking requirements on multi-family land, the fact remains there is little to no
land available which is actually zoned to build multi family housing and every re-zoning
case typically takes 9 months, increases costs and ultimately sets us back from
reaching our housing goals. This lack of opportunity drives correctly zoned land prices
higher and higher off setting the great steps hopefully being taken at this meeting to
build more housing. With that in mind I would implore this body in a future step to
consider allowing commercially zoned land along arterials and collectors throughout our
city, especially those with bus or light rail transit, to allow by right T:4:3 zoning and T:5:5
zoning in appropriate places, which will then actually give us land to build housing on.
Thank you for your consideration of this case and I hope for continued progress in the
future.


Dan Klocke
Phoenician




Page 1633
July 19, 2023

200 W. Washington Street, 11th Floor
Phoenix, AZ 85003


RE: Neighborhood Leaders Support Amendments to Reduce Parking Restrictions
Dear Mayor Kate Gallego and Phoenix City Council:

On behalf of myself and the Carnation Association of Neighbors, I am writing in support of proposed Zoning
Ordinance Text Amendment Z-TA-8-23-Y and request that you vote yes to approve this amendment to
reduce the mandatory minimum parking requirements for multifamily, single-family, and affordable housing.
The Carnation Neighborhood is located in the Melrose area of Phoenix between the Light Rail and 7th Avenue
on the east and west and between Indian School and the Grand Canal on the north and south. Our
neighborhood is a diverse mix of single family and multifamily homes. Many people have moved to our
neighborhood in recent years because it is adjacent to major public transit stops, including the Light Rail,
and walking distance to the wonderful businesses in the Melrose District. Just in the past decade, I have seen
many people eschewing car use in favor of walking, biking, taking public transit or rideshares. This
phenomenon will continue, especially if our City builds the infrastructure to support it. I am writing in support
of the proposed text amendment because it will continue to make our community more bikeable and
walkable, it reflects the reality that our residents have more transit options and will help reduce the cost of
building housing in this City.

The historical and empirical evidence has made it clear that minimum parking requirements, especially
around public transit nodes, have led to empty, unused parking lots that make our City less walkable,
bikeable, and livable. Residents in the Carnation Neighborhood and all around our City are looking for
policies that will encourage walkability and make it safe and easy for all of our families to walk and bike in
our neighborhoods. The proposed Text Amendment Z-TA-8-23-Y is a very reasonable step in the right
direction, and I encourage you to vote yes on the proposed text amendment as proposed. Thank you for your
work to make housing more affordable and this City more walkable and transit friendly.


Sincerely,



Ed Hermes
President, Carnation Neighborhood Association
Carnationassociationaz@gmail.com
https://www.carnationassociationaz.com/
480-452-2062




Page 1634
1603 Orrington Avenue Suite 450  Evanston, Illinois 60201  Phone 847.562.9400  Fax 847.562.9401  www. brinshore.com




July 31, 2023

Phoenix City Council and
Phoenix Planning Commission

Re: Support of Text Amendment Z-TA-8-23-Y
Phoenix Scholar House, 2945 N. 18th Pl, Phoenix, AZ
Affordable Housing in Phoenix

To Whom it May Concern,

As developer of the Phoenix Scholar House, a proposed 56-unit mixed-income, multifamily community in
Phoenix, we write in support of Text Amendment Z-TA-8-23-Y for right-sizing parking mandates.

The Phoenix Scholar House has been thoughtfully designed to include 56 rental units that will serve
families making from 30% to 60% of the Area Median Income. While working closely with the City’s
Planning professionals, along with our local non-profit partner Save the Family, we will combine education
and housing to lift families into self-sufficiency and permanently from public assistance.

Because affordable housing has long been a stated as a priority of the City of Phoenix Concept Plan, we
support this Text Amendment’s objective to refresh the outdated zoning codes, which, in effect, will
continually price community members out of their neighborhoods and their city.

 Right-sizing parking mandates have become popular across the country. The May-June YouGov
poll of Arizona voters found that 60% of Maricopa County residents support reducing parking
mandates, so long as at least one parking space is provided per home.

Please vote YES on Z-TA-8-23-Y to align mandatory parking rations with the needs and budgets of
everyday, hardworking residents of Phoenix.

Should you have any questions, or need any additional information, please do not hesitate to call me at
(513) 603-0074 or by email at scottp@brinshore.com.

Respectfully submitted,


Scott Puffer
Senior Vice President
Brinshore Development, L.L.C.




Page 1635
Page 1636
Racelle Escolar

From: Krista Shepherd
Sent: Tuesday, August 1, 2023 1:53 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Cc: Krista.Shepherd@multi.studio
Subject: August 3, 2023_Planning commission_SUPPORT FOR ITEMS 16 and 17


To whom it may concern:

I am writing to support the following items on the August 3, 2023 Planning Commission Agenda:

Item 16: Z‐TA‐5‐23‐Y (ADU’s): This would positively allow for:
 incremental density/missing middle and affordable housing
 multi‐generational housing
 property owner wealth building through rental opportunities
 aligns with the South Central TOD Community Vision and Plan approved by Mayor and City Council in 2022.

Item 17: Z‐TA‐8‐23‐Y (Parking reductions): This would positively allow for:

 greater utilization of transit systems
 allows for greater density to be built on small infill lots
 promotes development of small lots that could not be developed due high parking requires that cannot
reasonably fit on site
 supports development of affordable housing
 aligns with the Walkable Urban Code
 aligns with transit‐oriented plans including the South Central TOD Community Vision and Plan approved by
Mayor and City Council in 2022.

Thank you.
Krista
Resident of District 6, Business location is District 7, Member of the 2025 Plan Phoenix Leadership Committee

Krista Shepherd AIA, LEED AP, NCARB
Principal




o 602.650.7630 c 602.708.4588
Krista.Shepherd@multi.studio
w Multi.studio [multi.studio]





Page 1637
Racelle Escolar

From: Kelly Hatch
Sent: Tuesday, August 1, 2023 2:05 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: August 3, 2023_Planning commission_SUPPORT FOR ITEMS 16 and 17


To whom it may concern:

I am writing to support the following items on the August 3, 2023 Planning Commission Agenda:

Item 16: Z‐TA‐5‐23‐Y (ADU’s): This would positively allow for:
 incremental density/missing middle and affordable housing
 multi‐generational housing
 property owner wealth building through rental opportunities
 aligns with the South Central TOD Community Vision and Plan approved by Mayor and City Council in 2022.

Item 17: Z‐TA‐8‐23‐Y (Parking reductions): This would positively allow for:

 greater utilization of transit systems
 allows for greater density to be built on small infill lots
 promotes development of small lots that could not be developed due high parking requires that cannot
reasonably fit on site
 supports development of affordable housing
 aligns with the Walkable Urban Code
 aligns with transit‐oriented plans including the South Central TOD Community Vision and Plan approved by
Mayor and City Council in 2022.


Kelly Hatch

Kelly Hatch NCIDQ
Senior Associate




o 602.650.7635 c 425.218.5383
Kelly.Hatch@multi.studio
w Multi.studio [multi.studio]





Page 1638
Racelle Escolar

From: Mike Anglin
Sent: Tuesday, August 1, 2023 2:11 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Aug 3, 2023 - Planning Commission - SUPPORT FOR ITEMS 16 and 17

Importance: High



To whom it may concern:

I am writing to support the following items on the August 3, 2023 Planning Commission Agenda:

Item 16: Z-TA-5-23-Y (ADU’s):
This would positively allow for:
• incremental density/missing middle and affordable housing
• multi-generational housing
• property owner wealth-building through rental opportunities
• aligns with the South Central TOD Community Vision and Plan approved by Mayor and City Council in 2022.

Item 17: Z-TA-8-23-Y (Parking reductions):
This would positively allow for:
• greater utilization of transit systems
• greater density to be built on small infill lots
• promoting development of small lots that could not be developed due high parking requirements that cannot
reasonably fit on site
• supporting development of affordable housing
• alignment with the Walkable Urban Code
• alignment with transit-oriented plans including the South Central TOD Community Vision and Plan approved by
Mayor and City Council in 2022.

Thank you.
Mike
Resident of District 5 and employee of business located in District 7


Mike Anglin RA, LEED AP
Senior Associate
he/him



o 602.650.7614 c 520.664.4625
Mike.Anglin@multi.studio
w Multi.studio [multi.studio]





Page 1639
Racelle Escolar

From: Melissa Alexander
Sent: Tuesday, August 1, 2023 2:29 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: August 3, 2023_Planning commission_SUPPORT FOR ITEMS 16 and 17


To whom it may concern:

I am wri ng to support the following items on the August 3, 2023 Planning Commission Agenda:

Item 16: Z‐TA‐5‐23‐Y (ADU’s): This would posi vely allow for:
 incremental density/missing middle and affordable housing
 multi‐generational housing
 property owner wealth building through rental opportunities
 aligns with the South Central TOD Community Vision and Plan approved by Mayor and City Council in 2022.

Item 17: Z‐TA‐8‐23‐Y (Parking reduc ons): This would posi vely allow for:

 greater utilization of transit systems
 allows for greater density to be built on small infill lots
 promotes development of small lots that could not be developed due high parking requires that cannot
reasonably fit on site
 supports development of affordable housing
 aligns with the Walkable Urban Code
 aligns with transit‐oriented plans including the South Central TOD Community Vision and Plan approved by
Mayor and City Council in 2022.

Thank you.
Melissa
Resident of District 6, Business loca on is District 7


Melissa Alexander NCIDQ, IIDA
Principal




o 602.650.7627 c 602.748.5505
Melissa.Alexander@multi.studio
w Multi.studio [multi.studio]





Page 1640
RCVD 8/2/2023

7250 N. 16th Street, Suite 302 | Phoenix, AZ 85020
1-866-389-5649 | Fax: 602-256-2928 | TTY: 1-877-434-7598
aarp.org/az | azaarp@aarp.org | twitter: @AZ_AARP
facebook.com/aarparizona




AARP Arizona on City of Phoenix Text Amendments Z-TA-5-23-y and
Z-TA-8-23-Y

AARP Arizona, on behalf of its almost 900,000 Arizona members is excited to support
both text amendments as they will reduce and remove barriers to creating more housing
that is affordable to all Phoenicians.

TA-5-23:

The City of Phoenix is in desperate need of more units that are affordable. As one of the
largest cities in the nation, and growing, we must work to address these concerns. As
our economy and population have grown, so too have the prices of rent. While we
welcome the growth and prosperity to our city, we must ensure that city residents have
access to stable housing. We’ve watched our population of unhoused grow dramatically
over the last few years, especially amongst the 50+. In our heat, housing is a matter of
life and death.

Accessible Dwelling Units (ADUs), also known as Casitas or Mother-in-Law Suites, are
a great way to combat the over 150,000-unit shortage we have in the city. We also have
evidence that these units, if allowed, will go to those most in need of them. A 2018 study
in Vancouver found that 32% of the residents of ADUs had income that was less than
80% of the regional median income, and 16% had income that was less than half of the
regional median income.

The average Social Security check in Arizona is roughly $1,550 per month, whereas the
average rent in Phoenix is closer to $2,100 per month. People who moved to Arizona in
years past are now being priced out leading to some of the difficulties we are currently
seeing.

From another perspective, ADUs can also allow for older adults, who need care by
family but can’t afford living in a long-term care facility, to have a home to age in place.
There are an estimated 800,000 unpaid family caregivers in Arizona and having more
options to those needing care to be near those providing helps everyone.

TA-8-23:

Regarding the parking requirement changes, AARP policy actually recommends no on-
site parking requirements. Parking requirements create additional barriers to ADU




Page 1641
creation because there is additional land needed and present additional costs. For
instance, depending on the type of parking being built it can range between $2,500 and
$15,000.

Interestingly, we do not require more parking for every additional bedroom created in a
home, thus, AARP believes that ADUs should be treated similarly.

According to a recent AARP Arizona survey, 80% of respondents put increasing rent as
one of the top concerns they had which could prevent them from aging in place. In the
same survey, 90% of respondents said that Elected Leaders should make affordable
housing a priority.

We are seeing everyone including stakeholders, elected officials, and residents all
agree that housing is a major concern. These proposed changes would be a step in the
right direction to allow Phoenix to grow without leaving people, especially older adults
behind.



Sincerely,

Dana Marie Kennedy, MSW

State Director, AARP Arizona




Page 1642
August 2, 2023



Re: ADU and Parking Reform Items Before Your Commission

To Whom It May Concern:

As a Phoenix resident, father of two children, and someone who works in the development and
construction industry, I urge the Phoenix Planning Commission to support text amendments
Z-TA-5-23-Y (legalizing casitas) and Z-TA-8-23-Y (right-sizing parking mandates).

Our zoning code must keep pace with the needs of society. These needs are not static. Indeed, they
are dynamic and always changing. If our zoning code is meant to serve our community and protect
its best interests, then it too must remain dynamic and open to change. Because affordability
metrics, long permitting times, and housing production numbers clearly indicate that the status quo
is not keeping up. This reality demands action.

I am proud to see our city step up to the plate and show leadership by taking a serious look at
zoning reform. Both text amendments before you are critical.

Backyard units give people options, especially for multi-generational families or those who need
more space but cannot move due to an existing job or today’s much higher interest rates. These
same units were once legal in some of our most beloved historic neighborhoods–just take a look
around Coronado, for example. It is time we re-legalize what was once a common sense way to
gently grow and incrementally expand a family’s use of their hard-won property.

PLEASE VOTE YES on Z-TA-5-23-Y to legalize casitas!

Relaxed parking minimums are equally valuable. There is a long and proven literature covering the
many ways high parking ratios negatively impact our communities, but that’s not even the most
important point. Simply put, these requirements driven significant cost, and those costs transfer all
the way down to the monthly rent paid by everyday people. Reducing parking ratios is not a
giveaway to well capitalized developers. Instead, it is a leg up to our neighbors, many of whom rent
either out of necessity or by choice. We need to do everything we can to encourage efficient use of
infill land while reducing the cost to construct infill housing.

PLEASE VOTE YES on Z-TA-8-23-Y to align mandatory parking ratios with today’s needs!

Thank you,
Lucas Lindsey




www.urbnist.com | 2839 E Yucca
Page St.
1643Phoenix, AZ 85028 | @urbnist
Racelle Escolar

From: Lorenzo Perez
Sent: Wednesday, August 2, 2023 10:37 PM
To: Racelle Escolar
Cc: Joshua Bednarek
Subject: FW: Planning Commission - Discussion on Reduced Parking Minimums (Multifamily Development
Projects)


Dear Planning Commission,

I’m submitting this email to acknowledge and support the efforts undertaken by the Planning and Development
Department to proactively evaluate and propose reducing required Parking Minimums for Multifamily Residential
Development projects in the City of Phoenix.

It’s no secret that we as a nation are significantly underhoused, especially with affordable and attainable housing. Travel
the state or country and witness the impact in large amounts of under and unsheltered individuals. Several factors
contribute to this reality, some of which are dated development policies that don’t keep up with the times, fail to
consider different contexts in the built environment nor account for evolving market demand conditions. It’s
encouraging to see Phoenix take proactive measures to find solutions to help facilitate new approaches to encouraging
the development of more diverse cost efficient housing. Time is money for developers and having policies in place that
reduce or eliminate the need to pursue time and cost intensive parking reduction variances helps get projects to market
faster at less cost. This is fundamental for establishing affordability as development costs ultimately get passed onto the
user/consumer. City governments are in the unique position to lead efforts such as this to streamline and simplify the
development process.

As a developer, owner and operator of mixed use projects, particularly infill and adaptive reuse projects, I’m proud to
see the City of Phoenix leading this effort and taking proactive action to find workable solutions, soliciting input from
people/firms that develop projects.

As a practitioner in this space, I offer the P&D department and Planning Commission a few points to consider as they
reflect on and continue to work through this process ….

1. I encourage the commission to PRIORITIZE HOUSING PEOPLE OVER PARKING CARS. It is a community and
economic development priority that effects every citizen’s quality of life. If we don’t have an adequate supply of
diverse residential options to house all levels of the workforce, especially the most vulnerable in high value
service roles such as firemen, police officers, nurses, office clerks, teachers, retailers, service workers,
construction workers, tradesman, laborers, grocery store clerks, etc, what kind of city and local economy will we
have?
2. Consider that not all households are the same. Small household formations of 1‐2 people are one of the fastest
and largest growing market sectors in the US that cover all ages of adults. Not all residents can afford cars or
choose not to own one and instead take advantage of transit and rideshare. Developing policy that addresses
the needs of a varied and diverse housing base is critical. This study and proposal is a significant step in that
direction.
3. Having to dedicate less land for parking opens up more space to add diverse housing options and reduce
housing development cost. Increased housing supply delivered faster, at less cost, translates to more available
affordable housing options. Parking is expensive to construct, to maintain and significantly hinders the ability to
develop urban / suburban sites.




Page 1644
4. Requiring less parking reduces the potential to have overparked and underutilized sites that often become
attractive nuisances for illicit activity and become costly burdens to maintain and service during operation,
negatively contributing to a property’s appeal and ongoing affordability.
5. Offering parking reduction incentives to encourage affordable housing is a good idea to attract more
affordable/attainable and attractive development.
6. Encouraging property owners to work together and develop shared parking strategies is something that should
be examined. We’ve had success with our commercial infill projects working with neighbors to use adjacent or
nearby underutilized parking assets to help provide overflow parking for our retail / dining projects. Office and
retail properties are great complimentary evening parking solutions for residential.
7. Less surface parking is a sensitive development sustainability approach to reducing heat island effect from large
exposed parking fields.
8. We are blessed in Phoenix to have large right of way streets. Consider leveraging this existing asset to provide
additional on street parking as an option for multifamily development. Owners and developers would likely
entertain paying a reasonable and proportionate fee to help contribute to the ongoing maintenance of the
streets in exchange for this option in lieu of overinvesting into parking that may or may not get used. In many
cases across the city, we have enough space to accommodate on street parking while maintaining adequate
traffic flow. Many cities across the world utilize on‐street parking as an asset to free up land for more housing.
Phoenix could benefit from this paradigm shift to help generate revenue to assist with the maintenance of
streets while simultaneously helping to incentivize more housing.

Thank you for the opportunity to voice some thoughts on this issue and for taking this important step to build a more
livable city.

Respectfully,

Lorenzo Perez
602.689.0194 Cell
lorenzo@venueprojects.com





Page 1645
Page 1646
Page 1647
August 3rd, 2023


As community organizations led by and serving Phoenix families and community leaders,
we urge the Planning Commission at the City of Phoenix to support text amendments
Z-TA-5-23-Y (legalizing casitas) and Z-TA-8-23-Y (right-sizing parking mandates). These
proposals will help make housing more affordable and attainable across our city,
increase access to jobs and amenities, and save Phoenicians money when we
desperately need it.

Housing is a basic human need and we believe that any hard-working Phoenician should be
able to find safe, stable housing they can afford. We also recognize that our outdated
zoning codes present a huge barrier to affordable and attainable housing. Our city
policymakers have an obligation to act, to ensure no hard-working Phoenician is priced
out of their community.

The two proposals before the Planning Commission and City Council would provide modest,
but important improvements to affordability and livability in Phoenix. They will create a
pathway for our city to stay a place Phoenicians can afford to live, work, and raise families,
while maintaining the visual character and livability of our neighborhoods.


Legalize casitas to expand affordable housing options
Vote YES on Z-TA-5-23-Y to legalize casitas, vital to any affordable housing strategy.

Casitas are among the most naturally affordable forms of housing.
● A new market-rate casita rents for 75% less than a new single-family home.1
● Multiple studies have found the average casita is affordable at between 60% and
80% of area median income.

Casitas provide opportunity to people of all ages.
● Casitas enable seniors to age in place by providing ongoing rental income without
needing to move off their property.2
● Casitas enable multigenerational living on a single parcel, particularly useful for
families who want to live in multigenerational arrangements.3

Legalizing casitas is popular. A YouGov poll of Arizona voters in May-June of this year found
that 73% of Maricopa County residents support allowing owners of single-family houses
to build and rent out casitas on their property, vs. only 18% opposition.4
https://www.sightline.org/2021/08/01/we-ran-the-rent-numbers-on-portlands-7-newly-legal-home-options/
https://www.aarp.org/home-family/your-home/info-2020/accessory-dwelling-unit.html
https://accessorydwellings.org/2016/01/22/adu-multigenerational-families/
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BrOgBvXl9v1q7Z_fFm-tC7uE5fV9FuTF/view?usp=sharing


Page 1648
Right-size parking mandates to bring down housing costs
Vote YES on Z-TA-8-23-Y to align mandatory parking ratios with the needs and budgets of
everyday, hardworking Phoenicians.

Study after study shows parking mandates make housing more expensive.
● Multiple independent, nonpartisan analyses of parking mandates found that on-site
parking adds 15% - 17% to the cost of rent.5 6
● Another study showed that during peak periods 37% of urban residential parking
spaces are unoccupied.7

Relaxing parking mandates enables more homes to be built more quickly.
● Studies of cities that repealed parking mandates in the last ten years found that 60%
to 70% of new homes built there would not have been legal under prior mandates.8

Right-sizing parking mandates are popular. The May-June YouGov poll of Arizona voters
found that 60% of Maricopa County residents support reducing parking mandates, so
long as at least one parking space is provided per home, vs. only 22% opposition.



Phoenicians support bold action to build more affordable housing
With Phoenix facing a shortage of over 163,000 homes, the working residents of our city are
done waiting for action.9 The May-June YouGov poll of Arizona voters found that 55% of
Maricopa County residents believe “building more affordable housing” is important.

The time to act is now. Phoenix’s working families need you to vote YES on text
amendments Z-TA-5-23-Y and Z-TA-8-23-Y.

Signed,

Urban Phoenix Project
Arizona State Senator Anna Hernandez
Arizona State Representative Analise Ortiz
American Institute of Architects
AIA Phoenix Metro
A Permanent Voice Foundation


https://www.sightline.org/research_item/who-pays-for-parking/
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10511482.2016.1205647
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/data/seattles-car-population-has-finally-peaked/
https://www.sightline.org/2023/04/13/parking-reform-legalized-most-of-the-new-homes-in-buffalo-and-seattle/
https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/phoenix-draft-homeless-plan-hopes-portal-advocates-community-gallego-11478370


Page 1649
Carbon Vudu LLC
Carnation Association of Neighbors
CHISPA AZ
Fuerte AZ
Merge Architectural Group
Phoenix Spokes People
RAIL CDC
SoPho Convening
Trees Matter
Unemployed Workers United





Page 1650
Racelle Escolar

From: pearce@carbon-vudu.us
Sent: Thursday, August 3, 2023 8:07 AM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: ADU Support and less parking


Yes I support the ADU program and less parking c.

Pearce | 602.430.3451 ©2023 OWNERSHIP OF SERVICE ‐‐ All reports, plans, specifica ons, computer documents, field data, notes and informa on prepared
by CARBON VUDU LLC and their consultants shall remain the property thereto. CARBON VUDU LLC shall retain all common law, statutory and other reserved rights,
including the copyright thereto.





Page 1651
Racelle Escolar

From: Dudzik Smith, Katherine
Sent: Thursday, August 3, 2023 8:58 AM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Support for Z-TA-5-23-Y and Z-TA-8-23-Y


Hello,

I am writing in support of the Zoning text amendments suggested by the City of Phoenix staff to allow ADUs and
reduction of parking minimums. Both of these measures will help with the affordable housing crisis that the Phoenix
metro area is experiencing and thus help the homelessness situation. Both of these measures help with creating a
stronger community by allowing more diverse development. Please adopt these zoning text amendments.

Thank you,
Katherine

Katherine Dudzik Smith, AIA, NOMA, LEED AP, NCARB
Senior Design Architect

HDR
20 East Thomas Road, Suite 2500
Phoenix, AZ 85012
D 602.474.7812 M 480.239.6291
Katherine.DudzikSmith@hdrinc.com

hdrinc.com/follow-us [hdrinc.com]





Page 1652
ATTACHMENT I
RCVD 6/27/2023




Page 1653
Page 1654
Page 1655
Page 1656
Page 1657
FROM : Robert Maynard

SUBJECT : Parking space

MESSAGE : I just read where the city council will vote to reduce parking spaces for
apartments in various parts of the city. I am very much against this. Parking is an issue around
this city all the time. Look around any school and the residential neighborhoods where the
neighborhood,is inundated with students, and parents cars. Try finding a parking spot in
uptown plaza on the weekends and holidays.
Overall it is a very bad idea. It would have been a good idea if done in the 60s or early 70s but
not now.

Thank you for your public service on the council,
Robert Maynard
524 W. Why Worry Lane
Phoenix, 85021

Email : maynard198@cox.net

AREA : 602

PHONE : 9976640

ADDRESS : 524 W. Why Worry Lane

CITY : PHOENIX

STATE : AZ

ZIP : 85021

Submission ID: 53d14aade3b24416acf98b1c660f80cb

Form Submission On : 7/18/2023 12:24:07 PM

Referer: https://phoenix.gov/district3/contact-district-3
This is Not Spam - This message is sent on behalf of the City of Phoenix.
Please handle appropriately.




Page 1658
1 August 2023

Chair and Commissioners
Planning Commission
c/o City of Phoenix, Planning and Development Department
200 W. Washington Street, 2nd Floor
Phoenix, Arizona 85003

RE: TA-5-23 (ADUs); TA-8-23 (Affordable and Multi-Family Housing parking reductions)

Mr. Chairman and Commissioners:

Attached with this letter is a correspondence the Neighborhood Coalition (NCGP) sent to all
Village Planning Committees (VPCs) in July regarding the subject text amendments.
NCGP representatives presented on the subject at ten of the 15 VPCs.
Planning and Development submitted to you an addendum to the ADU text amendment. While
we appreciate the effort to improve the TA, the changes have yet to be aired so we wish for a
more fulsome public discussion before embracing the changes suggested.
We continue to stand by our recommendations—amending the ADU TA to improve the clarity
of its impact on historic preservation districts, special planning districts and overlays, and HOAs
and CC&Rs. We also think managing short term rentals (STRs) deserves a greater inspection.
We also believe that the proposed parking reductions to affordable and multifamily housing
projects warrant substantial amendments to be considered viable on a citywide basis. Indeed,
nine of the 15 VPCs voted to deny the reduced parking text amendment as presented to you.
Please consider the recommendations NCGP has offered you for both TAs.


Respectfully,
Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix members and friends
att.




Page 1659
11 July 2023

Chair and Committee Members
Desert View Village Planning Committee
c/o City of Phoenix, Planning and Development Department
200 W. Washington Street, 2nd Floor
Phoenix, Arizona 85003

RE: TA-5-23 (ADUs); TA-8-23 (Affordable and Multi-Family Housing parking reductions)

Chair and Committee members:

The Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix is registered with the Corporation Commission of
the State of Arizona and has continuously been a member in good standing since 1984. Our
members are from neighborhoods across the City of Phoenix.

Background
We understand that our nation is facing a housing shortage and that Arizona and Phoenix have
not been spared from this shortage. NCGP members believe it falls upon all of us to help provide
relief and a sustainable path forward.

In that spirit, members of the NCGP working group gathered to review and discuss the proposed
subject text amendments the City has anticipated to address our housing shortage.

2023 Arizona Legislative Session
This year’s session saw several housing bills make their way through the Legislature without
success. Indeed, NCGP, its members and our partners across the Valley and the state were active
in seeking ‘no’ votes from elected representatives. Ultimately, the bills were either voted down
decisively, on a bipartisan basis, or they failed to make their way to the floor of either Chamber.1


Senate bill SB1117 was denied in the Senate on a bipartisan vote, failing 20 to 9 in March. The bill was then
broken into 3 separate bills: HB1161, HB1163 and SB2536. On the final day of voting in June, SB2536 was defeated
on a bipartisan basis, 19-10. HB1161 and HB1163 failed to get a vote on the House floor, ending the bill sponsor’s
push for so-called ‘zoning reform.’




Page 1660
RE: TA-5-23 (ADUs); TA-8-23 (Affordable and Multi-Family Housing parking reductions) P. 2 of 7
Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix July 11, 2023

We provide this information to let VPC members know that all the text amendments coming
through committees in the last several months--and now this month—can claim origins from
the bills at the state legislature that we are intimately familiar with.
Z-TA-5-23 (Accessory Dwelling Units or ADUs)
Many of us think that ADUs can have a positive impact on the housing supply in our city. Yet, we
believe that there are several elements of the proposed TA that require additional scrutiny. These
are our comments and suggestions.

I. Historic Preservation and other Special Planning/Overlay Districts:

We have great concern that the TA as presented will create confusion and contention between
this ordinance and the ordinances that govern properties of historic significance. Z-TA-5-23-Y
must state that for historic properties, Chapter 8 of the Zoning Ordinance takes precedence over
the design review standards for ADUs. Specifically, the proposed language states:

"(c) DWELLING UNITS ON LOTS ZONED OR DESIGNATED HP ARE EXEMPT FROM THE
PROVISIONS OF SECTION 8.5, SO LONG AS THE PLANS ARE REVIEWED AND APPROVED
THROUGH HISTORIC PRESERVATION PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF ANY BUILDING PERMITS."

The phrase "so long as..." is imprecise and doesn't make it clear that ADUs in historic districts
MUST be reviewed by the HP Office. The proposed language is subject to misinterpretation that a
project may EITHER be approved by the HP Office OR incorporate the Design Guidelines of
Section 8.5 of the TA.

To make it clear that ADUs in historic districts must have HP approval, we suggest the following
language:

"Dwelling units within a historic district and/or with HP or HP-L zoning overlay are subject
to review by the City of Phoenix Historic Preservation Office pursuant to Article 8 of the
Zoning Ordinance. In the event the provisions of Section 8.5 herein, or other ordinance or
regulations are inconsistent with Article 8 of the Zoning Ordinance (Historic Preservation),
Article 8 shall have precedence."

We also believe the proposed TA Section 702.F.1(b) (Special Parking Standards), likewise does not
make it clear that HP approval is REQUIRED for the addition of parking to the front of a historic
property (widening of driveways and curb cuts, etc.), and the language should be strengthened.
The proposed language states:

"Spaces in excess of those required for single family and duplex residential uses may be
located in the required front yard. However, all parking and maneuvering areas within the
required front yard shall not exceed forty-five percent (45%) 50% OF THE AREA OF THE
REQUIRED FRONT YARD, EXCEPT THAT A DRIVEWAY SHALL NOTBE REQUIRED TO BE LESS
THAN 18’ IN WIDTH UNLESS OTHERWISE STIPULATED BY HISTORIC PRESERVATION.”




Page 1661
RE: TA-5-23 (ADUs); TA-8-23 (Affordable and Multi-Family Housing parking reductions) P. 3 of 7
Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix July 11, 2023


We think stronger language is needed to ensure that Historic Preservation regulation takes
precedence over the ADU ordinance by deleting, "Unless otherwise stipulated by Historic
Preservation", and adding the following sentence:

"Any and all changes to driveways, parking and maneuvering areas within a historic
district and/or with HP or HP-L zoning overlay are subject to review by the City of Phoenix
Historic Preservation Office pursuant to Article 8 of the Zoning Ordinance. In the event the
provisions of Section 702.F.1 herein, or other ordinance or regulations are inconsistent
with Article 8 of the Zoning Ordinance (Historic Preservation), Article 8 shall have
precedence."

Third, the proposed amendment Section 706.A.3.b (Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU)) is also
worded in such a way that makes HP approval seem optional.

The proposed language states:

"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, OR AS MAY BE APPROVED BY HISTORIC PRESERVATION FOR HP
ZONED OR DESIGNATED PROPERTIES. (P)"

Instead of using the imprecise phrase, "or as may be approved", the language should be
strengthened as follows to make it clear HP approval is REQUIRED for historic properties:

Delete the phrase "or as may be approved by Historic Preservation..." and add the following
sentence:
“A detached ADU within a historic district and/or with HP or HP-L zoning overlay is subject
to review by the City of Phoenix Historic Preservation Office pursuant to Article 8 of the
Zoning Ordinance. In the event the provisions of Chapter 7, Section 706.A.3.b herein, or
other ordinance or regulations are inconsistent with Article 8 of the Zoning Ordinance
(Historic Preservation), Article 8 shall take precedence."

II. Parking for ADUs

We agree that the amount of the front yard that can be allowed for parking needs to increase
from 45% to 50% for parcels that are approved for an Additional Dwelling Unit. We also know,
based on experience, that on-street parking will become more frequent.

To ensure that property owners in proximity to a property with an ADU is not inconvenienced or
that use of their property is not diminished, on-street parking should be regulated. Please note
that homes subject to Historic Preservation, Special Zoning and Overlay Districts are still subject
to whatever specific regulation(s) applies to those properties per the first consideration in this
position statement.



Page 1662
RE: TA-5-23 (ADUs); TA-8-23 (Affordable and Multi-Family Housing parking reductions) P. 4 of 7
Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix July 11, 2023


Combining on-site and on-street parking concerns, the regulation should read:

“A minimum of 1 parking space shall be available either on-site with adherence to Section
720.F.1 as amended to 50% of the front yard, or on-street parking that must only be in
front of the subject property unless the property is a corner lot and side-street parking is
possible.”

Consideration should also be given to adding language to ensure visibility triangles are
maintained.

III. Short Term Rental

We appreciate the addition of the paragraph in the revised TA requiring a Restrictive Covenant
but do not feel it is strong enough to meet the City’s goal of increasing affordable housing supply
for permanent residents. As currently worded, the Restrictive Covenant will preclude investors
who own residential property from applying for an ADU, but it does not prevent an owner-
occupied property from renting an ADU on a short-term basis. The consequence will have a
negative impact on affordable housing for first time renters (e.g., college-aged adults), and
temporary workers (e.g., traveling nurses), among others.

The Restrictive Covenant paragraph should be revised to add the regulation that ADUs, if rented,
must be for a term of no less than thirty (30) days. The current City of Flagstaff ordinance states:

(a)The property owner, which includes title holders and contract purchasers, shall occupy
either the primary dwelling unit or the ADU as their principal residence, unless the
primary dwelling unit and ADU are allowed to be separately leased or rented in
accordance with subsection G of this Section.

(b)The primary dwelling unit or the ADU that is not occupied by the property owner that is
rented or leased shall be for a period of no less than 30 days.

IV. Homeowners’ Associations/ CCRs

The proposed TA does not address coordination with Homeowners’ Associations or Covenants,
Conditions and Restrictions. By law, these contracts must be honored in addition to municipal
codes and ordinances. This TA should state that applicants for ADUs must comply with HOA and
Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions in addition to the provisions of the ordinance.

Z- TA-8-23 (Affordable and Multi-Family Housing parking reductions)
We understand the desire to relieve what developers perceive as parking ‘constraints.’ We
generally believe, however, that a ‘one size fits all’ approach to parking reductions does not
reflect a thoughtful approach for a city of 517 square miles.




Page 1663
RE: TA-5-23 (ADUs); TA-8-23 (Affordable and Multi-Family Housing parking reductions) P. 5 of 7
Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix July 11, 2023


Any reduction in the current parking space calculations for multi-family housing, in any district
and any price category, will put the burden of parking on public streets throughout the city.
Therefore, any revisions to the current ordinance need careful consideration.

We believe this TA is being rushed through the approval process without such diligence. With the
goal of working together to find suitable solutions, we make observations and propose revisions
to the current ordinance as follows:

I. Parking space calculations for multi-family developments should only be based on
proximity to currently available transportation options. They should never be based on
the rental rates of the units (I.e., luxury, affordable, market rate, low-income/subsidized).
It is discriminatory to believe that people who live in lower-priced housing do not have or
do not want personal vehicles.

II. Because of the cost of apartment rentals, more units of every size are being shared
by two or more people, oftentimes housemates rather than couples. Expecting that no
occupant will have a car, even in TODs and WU code areas, is not based on empirical data.

III. Reducing the on-site parking requirements for multi-family housing might be
appropriate for residents living in the Downtown Core, Transit Oriented and WU Code
districts, yet it is not acceptable to residents living outside of those districts.

Phoenix is the second largest city by area in the United States. Because of the lack of
convenient, reliable public transportation in every Phoenix Village outside of downtown
and within walking distance of light rail, residents depend on personal vehicles to go to
work, to the grocery, and to the entertainment venues clustered in downtown.

Those residents who do not live downtown will also need parking to continue enjoying all
that downtown has to offer. If all the street parking is taken by downtown residents,
commuting patrons will be deterred from attending events.

IV. Include a requirement that visibility triangles must be maintained.
A. Reducing on-site parking to encourage more density with potentially small front
and side setbacks could lead to encroachment on the visibility triangle that is a
necessity to ensure safety.

V. City-wide Multi-family Parking Requirement
A. The base parking space requirement should be 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit.
i. This simplifies the calculation instead of calculation based on size of DU
ii. Maintains the current requirement as the most frequently built size of
unit (1-2 bdrm)
iii. Averages the current requirements (1.25/efficiency; 1.5/1-2 bdrm; 2/3
bdrm)



Page 1664
RE: TA-5-23 (ADUs); TA-8-23 (Affordable and Multi-Family Housing parking reductions) P. 6 of 7
Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix July 11, 2023

iv. It should not be less than the current efficiency DU requirement


VI. Citywide Affordable housing Parking Reduction
A. Delete this provision because it does not consider proximity to alternative to
personal vehicle modes of transportation.

VII. Infill Development District Parking Reduction
A. Delete the calculations entirely
B. Use 10% bonus density incentive

VII. Walkable Urban (WU) Code affordable housing parking requirements
A. Required parking should never be “zero”
B. Parking for handicapped residents should always be required and maintained
C. It should not be expected that residents living in affordable housing in the areas
of the WU Code will not have personal vehicles
D. It should not be expected that residents living in affordable housing in the areas
of the WU Code will never have a guest with a personal vehicle

IX. Passenger Loading Zones within WU Code
A. Also require parking of service vehicles (e.g., repair technicians) that require
more time than the other stated examples
B. Also require parking for renter move-in/move-out vehicles that require more
time than the other stated examples

Process: Lack of neighborhood outreach
In a June 1, 2023, staff report to the City of Phoenix Planning Commission, PDD staff wrote:

Staff obtained input from various stakeholders and held four meetings to review and
request additional input on the proposed text amendment. Stakeholders included
individuals from the following organizations:
• Manufactured Housing Communities of Arizona (MHCA)
• Manufactured Housing Industry of Arizona (MHIA)
• Arizona Department of Housing Board of Manufactured Housing Member
• Affordable Housing/Private Developers
• Arizona State University, Real Estate Development

While we understand that staff feels the need to reach out to industry representatives to
understand their position, so, too does staff need to reach out to citizens and neighborhoods to
understand the issues of the vast swaths of residents who will be impacted by these proposed
sweeping changes to our housing stock.

Does the City of Phoenix think that simply vetting these proposals—changes that can have a vast
impact on the existing population—should only be presented to VPCs?



Page 1665
RE: TA-5-23 (ADUs); TA-8-23 (Affordable and Multi-Family Housing parking reductions) P. 7 of 7
Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix July 11, 2023


Clearly, some VPCs took issue with the speed and confusion of the proposals of the initial two
text amendments when they were presented. It appears six of 15 VPCs did not meet quorum on
the first go-around; yet another VPC did not meet quorum last night.

We ask: How can vast changes to the entire city be vetted by, perhaps, 150 people or less?

Next steps: Approve our recommended amendments
We have pored over these proposals to identify the gaps and looked ahead to stave off
unintended consequences. We’ve shared those with you here. Simply approving what’s been
presented in your packet would be to ignore the serious concerns we’ve presented without
rectifying those issues.

The Neighborhood Coalition looks to make these TAs the strongest and most applicable they can
be. We would be disappointed if members simply approved the proposals “as is” because we
don’t want to see this opportunity squandered for the sake of speed, with all of us missing out on
something that can truly help our city now and in the future.

Respectfully,


Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix (NCGP)
Neal Haddad, President, NCGP; Arcadia Osborn Neighborhood Association
B. Paul Barnes, Vice President, NCGP; AZ APA Distinguished Citizen Planner; former CEVPC chair
Mary Crozier, President, North Central Phoenix Homeowners Association
Sandy Grunow, Co-Chair, Mid-Century Modern Neighborhood Association
Dave Jackson, President, Rancho Ventura Neighborhood Association
Jack Leonard, architect, AIA, NCARB, LEED AP; 2015 General Plan update committee;
former Camelback East and Encanto Village Planning Committees
Michael Phillips, President, Arcadia Camelback Neighborhood Association
Jackie Rich, President, Murphy Trail Estates Neighborhood Association
Larry Whitesell, Co-Chair, The Peak Neighborhood Association




Page 1666
Racelle Escolar

From: jvrich@gmail.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 1, 2023 5:46 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Comments on Agenda Items 16 and 7 (Z-TA-5-23-Y and Z-TA-8-23-Y)


Dear Planning Commissioners,
I am writing this email to urge you to take your time in considering the proposed complex text amendments pertaining to Accessory
Dwelling Units and Reduced Parking Requirements. Do not rush into a decision before you are comfortable that what you are acting on
will not come back and bite you and the city of Phoenix at a later date.

These two text amendments will have a big impact on Phoenix and Phoenicians. They sprung from the Planning Department, were
sent to the Village Planning Committees for their recommendations (all of whom are Council appointees), now you, also Council
appointees, are considering them, and then finally, the Council will act on them. The public’s opportunity to provide input was neither
publicized or solicited. No neighborhood stakeholders were included in their development. While there were articles in the AZ
Republic about the Accessory Dwelling Unit amendment as early as July 3, the first article on the parking reduction text amendment
was on July 19, when all but 3 VPCs had already met and made recommendations. It is also worth mentioning that the agendas for the
VPCs did not identify Z-TA-8-23-Y as reducing required parking although they identified the other amendment as allowing
ADUs. Instead the agenda listed all the sections that needed to be changed so that someone looking at it would have no idea what that
text amendment was actually about.

The only members of the public who have participated in the VPC meetings are people who serve on a different VPC, work for an
industry that would benefit from these amendments, or neighbors and neighborhood groups who accidentally found out about the
amendments. I have been to five VPC meetings, each of which lasted for as long as 3.5 hours, just to be able to speak for 2 minutes
max on each text amendment. (Note, some VPCs allowed more time for members of the public to speak - just not the ones I attended.)
At the meetings I attended, I was not allowed to ask questions. Following public comments, staff often offered a rebuttal to what
members of the public said, and after that the public was ignored - no opportunity for any of us to answer questions that came up or to
respond to incorrect information. It was frustrating.

I have other concerns about the VPC meetings. The packets that were sent to the VPC members online were well in excess of 200
pages. Some packets weren’t sent out until after 3:30 pm the day of the meeting; some VPC members never received a packet; other
VPC members received packets but didn’t read them (perhaps because of lack of time or because of the length). There was a
questionable email conversation about the text amendments that all VPC members were part of and which was potentially in violation of
the Open Meeting Law that was referred to at a VPC meeting by several VPC members. Several of the VPCs did not have a quorum in
June and so learned about the text amendments for the first time in July when they were expected to vote on them.

Some of the Planning Commission members are essentially in the same position as those VPC members who had the least amount of
time to learn about the text amendments. They are hearing staff’s presentation about these complex text amendments on the same
night they are expected to vote on them. Your consideration of the text amendments will be late in the night after considering 13 other
cases. How many hundreds of pages were in your packet? The text amendments alone are a lot of information to digest in an evening.

These text amendments are too important and consequential to be rushed through and there is no compelling reason to do so. I urge
you to take your time and give these text amendments the time and attention that they deserve.

Thank you,

Jackie Rich
Murphy Trail Estates Neighborhood Association





Page 1667
Racelle Escolar

From: jvrich@gmail.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 1, 2023 5:55 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Comments on Agenda item 17: Z-TA-8-23-Y


Dear Planning Commissioners,
I am writing with regards to Z-TA-8-23-Y concerning reductions in parking requirements for multifamily housing.

First of all, I find it surprising that in Z-TA-5-23-Y, which would allow Accessory Dwelling Units, one covered parking space per dwelling
unit is required, while for multi-family housing according to this text amendment, it is acceptable to have .5 parking spaces per unit or
even zero.

The proposed reductions in required parking spaces may work in some parts of town where light rail is nearby, where stores and
services are nearby, and in seasons when the temperatures are moderate. However, it is difficult to imagine that residents living in
parts of the city like Laveen, Desert View, Estrella Mountain, Ahwahtukee, in neighborhoods that are miles from light rail or convenient,
reliable bus service will benefit from the proposed reduced parking requirements. Taking away required parking will not reduce vehicle
ownership. It will mean that apartment residents must park in the streets and walk to and from their cars. On street parking is less
convenient, less safe, less secure than parking in an apartment complex.

It is also difficult to imagine that living within a quarter mile of the light rail would allow people who live in affordable housing to go
entirely without cars and justify zero required parking. A quarter mile is a long way to walk in extreme heat even for young people in
good health. It would be more arduous for everyone else, particularly people who are disabled with mobility problems. There is a
reason that ADA parking spaces are the ones that are closest to entrances to stores and offices - persons with mobility issues can’t
move very far - certainly not a quarter of a mile to get on light rail.

In addition, there are very few grocery and other retail stores, doctors’ offices, and other services that are located along the light rail.
Relying on Light Rail also can limit where one can work, as some jobs require the mobile flexibility that, at this time, only a car can
provide.

It has been argued by affordable housing providers that people living in affordable housing don’t have cars and their parking lots are
half empty. That isn’t true, which you can check out by looking at street view on Google maps. Itt has been argued that developers
will provide more parking than the requirement if that is in the best interest of their prospective tenants. My experience as a neighbor
engaged in land use decisions for more than 20 years, is 9 out of 10 developers will meet the minimum requirements and not go
beyond them in order to maximize their profits. Only the rare developer cares about creating a quality development that benefits the
tenants and the neighborhood.

Thanks to the recently adopted Prop 400 that will be going on the ballot in November, there is no funding allocated to expanding the
light rail system. So in our best case scenario and Proposition 400 is passed, the light rail will not, in the foreseeable future, serve the
communities on the edge of Phoenix. If this is all the light rail there will be, do the proposed reductions in parking requirements in this
text amendment still make sense?

Thank you,

Jackie Rich
Murphy Trail Estates Neighborhood Association





Page 1668



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
***REQUEST TO CONTINUE (SEE ATTACHED MEMO)*** Public Hearing - Amend
Phoenix City Code - Ordinance Adoption - Chapter 10, Article XVI - Short-Term
Vacation Rental (Ordinance G-7156)

Request to hold a public hearing on a proposed amendment to the City Code sections
10-193 through 10-197 and adding sections 10-198 through 206 to Chapter 10, Article
XVI related to Short-Term Vacation Rentals to incorporate Arizona Revised Statute
(A.R.S.) 9-500.39 requirements for obtaining a Short-Term Rental (STR) Permit.

Summary
In 2016, the Arizona Legislature removed the ability of local jurisdictions to regulate
short-term rental units and required that the use be treated the same as any long-term
residential use of a property. Due to significant negative impacts based upon the
experience of residents living around these short-term rental uses, the Arizona
Legislature enacted A.R.S. 9-500.39 authorizing municipalities to create provisions for
registrations of short-term vacation rentals. The City of Phoenix adopted Short-Term
Vacation Rental Ordinance (G-6653) to implement the requirement for STR owners, or
designees, to register each STR rental property with the City of Phoenix, so that
responsible party contact information was available if there were problems resulting
from a particular short-term rental unit.

In 2022, the Arizona Legislature approved Senate Bill 1168 (SB1168) amending A.R.S.
9-500.39, which authorized cities and towns to create a very limited permit/license
process to help gather better data regarding short-term rentals with minimal
modifications to the ability to regulate these types of uses. The proposed amendment
establishes a STR permit application process and owners/designees are required to
comply with the new application process. Under the new enhanced penalty structure,
any owner who operates a STR without a permit is subject to a civil sanction of up to
$1,000 per month. As part of SB1168, STR owners/designees must also meet specific
operating requirements outlined in the proposed ordinance (Attachment A) prior to the
issuance of a permit/license as a condition for operating a short-term rental property.
SB1168 limits the permit fees that can be charged to cover staff administrative costs to
review permits, administer the program and for enforcement. It also requires that the
City approve or deny a permit (based on state established criteria) within seven (7)
days or the permit is deemed approved.


Page 1669


Summary of Short-term Rental Requirements
Owner/Designees of short-term rentals must meet to the following requirements:
· Apply for a STR permit/license.
· Meet all permit/license operating requirements.
· Register for a Transaction Privilege License and register with Maricopa County
Assessor's Office for taxing purposes.
· Provide the name, address, telephone number and email address of the owner,
emergency contact and designee (if applicable).
· Provide notice to neighbors of intent to operate a STR.
· Maintain $500,000 liability insurance.
· Conduct background checks on renters.
· Owner's/Operator's may appeal a denial, non-renewal or suspension of a
permit/license.

City is subject to the following:
· Permit/license must be approved or denied within seven days.
· Charge a permit/license fee and renewal fee up to $250.
· Impose civil penalties.
· May suspend a permit/license if an owner is found guilty of three minor violations or
one significant violation within one year related to the operation of the STR.

Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment to the City Code sections 10-
193 through 10-197 and adding sections 10-198 through 206 to Chapter 10, Article XVI
related to Short-Term Vacation Rentals to incorporate Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.)
9-500.39 requirements for obtaining a STR Permit.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee heard this item on June
21, 2023, and recommended approval by a vote of 4-0.

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




Page 1670
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT



To: Alan Stephenson Date: August 24, 2023
Deputy City Manager

From: Joshua Bednarek�
Planning and Development Director

Subject: CONTINUANCE OF ITEM 71 ON THE SEPTEMBER 6, 2023 , FORMAL
AGENDA - PUBLIC HEARING/FORMAL ACTION· AMEND PHOENIX CITY
CODE - ORDINANCE ADOPTION - CHAPTER 10, ARTICLE XVI - SHORT­
TERM VACATION RENTAL (ORDINANCE G-7156)

Item 71, Amend Phoenix City Code - Ordinance Adoption - Chapter 10, Article XVI - Short­
Term Vacation Rental is a proposed amendment to the City Code sections 10-193 through
10-197 and adding sections 10-198 through 206 to Chapter 10, Article XVI related to
Short-Term Vacation Rentals to incorporate Arizona Revised Statute (A.RS.) 9-500.39
requirements for obtaining a Short-Term Rental (STR) Permit.

Staff requests the item be continued to the September 20, 2023, City Council Formal
Meeting to allow additional time for interdepartmental coordination.




Approved:




Page 1671
ATTACHMENT A


Sec. 10-193. Definition

In this article, unless the context otherwise requires:
A. DIRECTOR MEANS THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OR HIS OR HER DESIGNEE.

B. EVENT CENTER MEANS A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY IN WHICH:

1. A GUEST WHO DOES NOT INTEND TO STAY AT THE PROPERTY OVERNIGHT IS REQUIRED
TO PAY RENT, ADMISSION, COVER CHARGE, DONATION, OR OTHER SIMILAR FEE TO
ACCESS ANY PORTION OF THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY; OR
2. THE SALE OF ALCOHOL OR OTHER PRODUCTS OR SERVICES OCCURS ON THE
RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY; OR
3. BEING USED AS ASSEMBLY, GENERAL, ASSEMBLY HALL, PUBLIC ASSEMBLY-ACTIVE
RECREATIONAL, PUBLIC ASSEMBLY-ENTERTAINMENT, PUBLIC ASSEMBLY-GENERAL,
PUBLIC ASSEMBLY-RESIDENTIAL, OR PUBLIC ASSEMBLY-SPECTATOR AS DEFINED IN
SECTION 202 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE.

C. HEARING OFFICER MEANS THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL APPEAL HEARING OFFICER DESIGNATED BY
THE DIRECTOR TO HEAR APPEALS OF DENIAL OR SUSPENSION OF A SHORT-TERM RENTAL
APPLICATION OR PERMIT.

D. NEIGHBORING PROPERTY MEANS A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY ADJACENT TO,
DIRECTLY AND DIAGONALLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL. FOR A
MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING, ALL RESIDENTIAL UNITS ON THE SAME FLOOR AS THE
SHORT-TERM RENTAL.

E. NONRESIDENTIAL USE MEANS USE THAT IS PROHIBITED IN A RESIDENTIALLY ZONED DISTRICT.

F. Online lodging marketplace means “online lodging marketplace” as defined in A.R.S. § 42-5076.

G. Online lodging operator means “online lodging operator” as defined in Section 42-5076, Arizona
Revised Statutes.

H. OWNER MEANS ANY PERSON WHO, ALONE OR WITH OTHERS, HAS TITLE, LEASE, OR INTEREST IN
A PROPERTY, DWELLING UNIT, OR PORTION THEREOF, WITH OR WITHOUT ACCOMPANYING
ACTUAL POSSESSION THEREOF, AND INCLUDES ANY PERSON WHO AS AGENT, EXECUTOR,
ADMINISTRATOR, TRUSTEE, OR GUARDIAN HAS CHARGE, CARE, OR CONTROL OF THE PROPERTY,
DWELLING UNIT, OR PORTION THEREOF.

I. Short-term rental means “vacation rental” as defined in Section 9-500.39, Arizona Revised
Statutes. ANY INDIVIDUALLY OR COLLECTIVELY OWNED SINGLE-FAMILY OR ONE-TO-FOUR-
FAMILY HOUSE OR DWELLING UNIT, OR ANY UNIT OR GROUP OF UNITS IN A CONDOMINIUM OR
COOPERATIVE, THAT IS ALSO A TRANSIENT PUBLIC LODGING ESTABLISHMENT OR OWNER-
OCCUPIED RESIDENTIAL HOME OFFERED FOR TRANSIENT USE. “SHORT-TERM RENTAL” DOES NOT
INCLUDE:




Page 1672
(I) PROPERTY THAT IS CLASSIFIED FOR PROPERTY TAXATION UNDER A.R.S. § 42-12001;
OR

(II) ANY UNIT THAT IS USED FOR ANY NONRESIDENTIAL USE, INCLUDING A SPECIAL EVENT
THAT WOULD OTHERWISE REQUIRE A PERMIT, RETAIL, RESTAURANT, BANQUET SPACE,
OR OTHER SIMILAR USE.

J. SPECIAL EVENT MEANS A RETAIL, RESTAURANT, BANQUET SPACE, OR USE THAT IS EITHER
PROHIBITED IN A RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT OR A USE THAT REQUIRES A LICENSE OR
PERMIT FROM THE STATE, THE COUNTY, OR THE CITY OF PHOENIX.

K. Vacation rental means short-term rental.

L. SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT MEANS A PERMIT ISSUED TO A PROPERTY OWNER WHO INTENDS
TO OFFER TO RENT THE PROPERTY AS A SHORT-TERM RENTAL.

M. Verified violation means a finally adjudicated finding of guilt or civil responsibility for violating
any State law or local ordinance APPLICABLE LAW OR ORDINANCE relating to THE use of the
property for short-term rental purposes.

Sec. 10-194. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR – DUTIES
UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED, IT SHALL BE THE DUTY AND RESPONSIBILITY OF THE DIRECTOR TO
ADMINISTER THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMITTING PROGRAM; AND PURSUANT TO THIS DUTY THE
DIRECTOR SHALL:
1. ISSUE, RENEW, DENY, OR SUSPEND SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT AS REQUIRED BY THIS
ARTICLE.
2. DESIGNATE A HEARING OFFICER TO HEAR APPEALS OF THE DECISION TO DENY OR SUSPEND
THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT.
3. COORDINATE WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS TO SUPPORT THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS
CHAPTER.

Sec. 10-195. SHORT-TERM RENTAL; PERMITS FOR VACATIONS RENTALS REQUIRED
A. IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR ANY OWNER TO RENT, OR OFFER TO RENT, A SHORT-TERM RENTAL
WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING AND MAINTAINING IN EFFECT A CURRENT, UNREVOKED, AND
UNSUSPENDED SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT.

B. IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON TO KNOWINGLY OCCUPY A SHORT-TERM RENTAL THAT DOES
NOT HAVE A CURRENT AND UNSUSPENDED SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT.

Sec. 10-196. NEW SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT; PERMIT RENEWAL; FEES
A. ANY PERSON DESIRING TO OBTAIN A SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT SHALL SUBMIT AN
APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ON THE FORM PROVIDED
BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR THAT PURPOSE.

B. THE APPLICATION SHALL BE ACCOMPANIED BY A NON-REFUNDABLE FEE OF $250.




Page 1673
C. A PERMIT ISSUED PURSUANT TO THIS ARTICLE SHALL EXPIRE ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF THE
SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT ISSUANCE.

D. THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL OWNER/DESIGNEE MUST SUBMIT AN APPLICATION TO RENEW THE
SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT A MINIMUM OF 15 WORKING DAYS BEFORE THE PERMIT EXPIRES
AND PAY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT A RENEWAL FEE NOT TO EXCEED
$250. IF A PERMIT RENEWAL APPLICATION IS SUBMITTED 15 WORKING DAYS AFTER THE
EXPIRATION DATE, A NEW SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT MUST BE FILED UNDER SECTION 10-
197.

Sec. 10-197. SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT APPLICATIONS; CONTENT
A. EACH APPLICANT FOR A SHORT-TERM RENTAL PERMIT SHALL SUBMIT, AS APPLICABLE, THE
FOLLOWING:

1. THE PHYSICAL ADDRESS OF THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY PROPOSED TO BE USED AS A
SHORT-TERM RENTAL.

2. THE NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE NUMBER, AND EMAIL ADDRESS OF THE OWNER FOR
WHICH THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE IS TO BE ISSUED.

3. THE NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE NUMBER, AND EMAIL ADDRESS OF THE OWNER’S
DESIGNEE.

4. THE NAME, ADDRESS, 24-HOUR TELEPHONE NUMBER, AND EMAIL ADDRESS OF THE
INDIVIDUAL WHO WILL SERVE AS THE EMERGENCY POINT OF CONTACT.

5. PROOF OF VALID TRANSACTION PRIVILEGE TAX LICENSE.

6. EVIDENCE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE APPROPRIATE TO COVER THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL IN
THE AGGREGATE OF AT LEAST $500,000 OR EVIDENCE THAT EACH SHORT-TERM RENTAL
TRANSACTION WILL BE PROVIDED THROUGH A PLATFORM THAT PROVIDES EQUAL OR
GREATER PRIMARY LIABILITY INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL.

7. EVIDENCE OF THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL IS REGISTERED WITH MARICOPA COUNTY
ASSESSOR’S OFFICE IN ACCORDANCE WITH A.R.S. § 33-1902.

8. A SIGNED AGREEMENT TO COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND
ORDINANCES.

9. IF THE APPLICANT IS AN INDIVIDUAL, PROOF OF LAWFUL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED STATES.

10. ANY OTHER INFORMATION AS THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MAY
REQUIRE TO VERIFY INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT.

B. AN APPLICATION MUST BE FILED FOR EACH DWELLING UNIT WITHIN A PROPERTY WITH
RESIDENTIAL USE.




Page 1674
C. THE DIRECTOR MUST EITHER APPROVE OR DENY THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL APPLICATION OR
RENEWAL WITHIN 7 DAYS OF RECEIVING THE APPLICATION. THE APPLICATION IS DEEMED
DENIED IF THE APPLICATION IS NOT APPROVED WITHIN 7 DAYS AFTER THE PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT RECEIVES THE APPLICATION.

Sec. 10-198. EMERGENCY CONTACT; RESPONSE TIME; UPDATE REQUIRED
A. IF REQUIRED BY A POLICE OFFICER, FIREFIGHTER, OR CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, THE
PERSON LISTED AS THE EMERGENCY CONTACT MUST BE ON THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL
PREMISES, OR BE AVAILABLE BY PHONE OR TEXT, WITHIN 30 MINUTES AFTER RECEIVING THE
REQUEST. FAILURE OF THE PERSON LISTED AS THE EMERGENCY CONTACT TO BE ON THE
SHORT-TERM RENTAL PREMISES, OR BE AVAILABLE ON THE PHONE OR BY TEXT, WITHIN 30
MINUTES AFTER RECEIVING THE REQUEST BY THE POLICE OFFICER, FIREFIGHTER, OR CODE
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, IS A VIOLATION OF THIS ARTICLE.

B. IF THERE IS A CHANGE TO THE EMERGENCY CONTACT SHOWN ON THE PERMIT APPLICATION,
THE OWNER OF A SHORT-TERM RENTAL MUST IMMEDIATELY UPDATE THE CONTACT
INFORMATION TO THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

Sec. 10-199. ADJACENT PROPERTIES NOTIFICATION REQUIRED
A. THE OWNER OR OWNER’S DESIGNEE MUST SEND, BY CERTIFIED MAIL, A NOTICE OF INTENT TO
OPERATE A SHORT-TERM RENTAL TO ALL NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.

B. THE NOTICE OF INTENT TO OPERATE A SHORT-TERM RENTAL MUST BE SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR
TO THE FOLLOWING:

DEAR [NAME],

THIS LETTER IS TO INFORM YOU THE PROPERTY OWNER AT [ADDRESS] PLANS TO MAKE THE
PROPERTY AVAILABLE FOR SHORT-TERM RENTAL USE. THE PERMIT NUMBER FOR THE
SHORT-TERM RENTAL IS [XXXXXXXX]. THE 24-HOUR EMERGENCY POINT OF CONTACT FOR
THIS PROPERTY IS [NAME]. HE/SHE CAN BE REACHED AT [PHONE NUMBER] AND [EMAIL] IF
YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS, PLEASE CONTACT [NAME OF THE PROPERTY
OWNER OR AGENT] AT [PHONE NUMBER/EMAIL]

[OWNER’S NAME]

C. BEFORE OFFERING A SHORT-TERM RENTAL, THE OWNER OR OWNER’S DESIGNEE MUST SUBMIT
TO THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AN ATTESTATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH
THE NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT AND THE FOLLOWING:

1. MAILING RECEIPTS SHOWING THE REQUIRED NOTICES OF INTENT TO OPERATE A SHORT-
TERM RENTAL WERE DELIVERED OR ATTEMPTS TO DELIVER WERE MADE.

2. A COPY OF THE NOTICE OF INTENT TO OPERATE A SHORT-TERM RENTAL.

3. THE NAME AND CONTACT INFORMATION OF THE PERSON ATTESTING TO COMPLIANCE
WITH THE NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENT.




Page 1675
D. THE OWNER OF THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL MUST PROVIDE TO THE PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT A REVISED NOTICE OF INTENT TO OPERATE A SHORT-TERM
RENTAL IF THERE IS A CHANGE TO THE OWNERSHIP OR EMERGENCY POINT OF CONTACT
INFORMATION FOR THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL. THE REVISED NOTICE OF INTENT MUST BE SENT
PURSUANT TO REQUIREMENTS IN SUBSECTIONS (A) AND (B) OF THIS SECTION.

Sec. 10-200. CRIMINAL BACKGROUND VERIFICATION
OFFERING A SHORT-TERM RENTAL, THE OWNER OR OWNER’S DESIGNEE MUST SUBMIT TO THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT A VERIFICATION THAT BOTH THE OWNER AND OWNER’S
DESIGNEE ARE NOT REGISTERED SEX OFFENDERS, HAVE NOT BEEN CONVICTED OF ANY FELONY ACT
THAT RESULTED IN DEATH OR SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY, OR ANY FELONY USE OF A DEADLY WEAPON
DURING THE 5 YEARS BEFORE THE PERMIT APPLICATION DATE.

Sec. 10-201. DISPLAY OF PERMIT AND PERMIT NUMBER
A. THE OWNER OR OWNER’S DESIGNEE OF A SHORT-TERM RENTAL MUST DISPLAY THE LOCAL
REGULATORY PERMIT NUMBER ON EACH ADVERTISEMENT FOR A SHORT-TERM RENTAL THAT
THE OWNER OR OWNER’S DESIGNEE MAINTAINS.

B. A COPY OF THE PERMIT MUST BE DISPLAYED WITHIN 10 FEET OF THE PRIMARY ENTRANCE
INSIDE OF THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL.

Sec. 10-202. SUSPENSION OF PERMIT; GROUNDS; NOTIFICATION
A. THE DIRECTOR MAY SUSPEND A PERMIT FOR UP TO 12 MONTHS FOR ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:

1. THREE VERIFIED VIOLATIONS WITHIN TWELVE MONTHS, EXCLUDING ANY VERIFIED
VIOLATIONS BASED SOLELY ON AN AESTHETIC, SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL, OR VEHICLE
PARKING VIOLATION THAT IS NOT A SERIOUS THREAT TO PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY.

2. ONE VERIFIED VIOLATION THAT RESULTS IN OR CONSTITUTES ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:

a. A FELONY OFFENSE COMMITTED AT OR IN THE VICINITY OF A SHORT-TERM RENTAL BY
THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL OWNER OR OWNER’S DESIGNEE.

b. A SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY OR WRONGFUL DEATH AT OR RELATED TO A SHORT-
TERM RENTAL RESULTING FROM THE KNOWING, INTENTIONAL, OR RECKLESS
CONDUCT OF THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL OWNER OR OWNER’S DESIGNEE.

c. AN OWNER OR OWNER’S DESIGNEE KNOWINGLY OR INTENTIONALLY HOUSING A SEX
OFFENDER, ALLOWING OFFENSES RELATED TO ADULT-ORIENTED BUSINESSES, SEXUAL
OFFENSES OR PROSTITUTION, OR OPERATING OR MAINTAINING A SOBER LIVING
HOME.

d. ANY ATTEMPTED OR COMPLETED FELONY ACT, ARISING FROM THE OCCUPANCY OR
USE OF A SHORT-TERM RENTAL, THAT RESULTS IN A DEATH, OR ACTUAL OR
ATTEMPTED SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY.

e. AN OWNER OR OWNER’S DESIGNEE KNOWINGLY OR INTENTIONALLY ALLOWS THE
USE OF A SHORT-TERM RENTAL FOR A SPECIAL EVENT.




Page 1676
Sec. 10-203. APPEAL
A. THE DIRECTOR MUST PERSONALLY SERVE OR MAIL BY CERTIFIED MAIL THE DECISION TO DENY
OR SUSPEND A PERMIT OR PERMIT APPLICATION TO THE OWNER, OWNER’S DESIGNEE, IF ANY,
AND EMERGENCY CONTACT PERSON AS SHOWN ON THE PERMIT APPLICATION.

B. AN APPLICANT OR OWNER OF A PERMIT MAY APPEAL THE DENIAL OR SUSPENSION OF A
PERMIT TO THE HEARING OFFICER WITHIN 15 DAYS OF RECEIVING THE DECISION TO DENY OR
SUSPEND A PERMIT OR PERMIT APPLICATION.

C. THE HEARING OFFICER WILL SCHEDULE A HEARING WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER RECEIVING THE
APPEAL FILED UNDER SUBSECTION B. THE HEARING OFFICER MAY REVIEW RELEVANT WRITTEN
EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY FROM THE APPELLANT, THE CITY, AND THE PUBLIC. THE HEARING
OFFICER WILL RENDER A DECISION WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER THE HEARING.

D. THE HEARING OFFICER’S DECISION UNDER THIS SECTION IS FINAL. THE APPELLANT MAY AT ANY
TIME WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER THE HEARING OFFICER HAS RENDERED HIS OR HER DECISION, FILE
A SPECIAL ACTION IN SUPERIOR COURT TO REVIEW THE HEARING OFFICER’S DECISION.

E. AN APPEAL DOES NOT OPERATE AS A STAY OR SUSPENSION OF A PERMIT.

Sec. 10-204. SHORT-TERM RENTAL; PROHIBITED USES
A. RENTING, OR OFFERING FOR RENT, A SHORT-TERM RENTAL FOR THE FOLLOWING USES IS
PROHIBITED:

1. A NON-RESIDENTIAL USE;
2. HOLDING SPECIAL EVENT THAT REQUIRES A PERMIT OR LICENSE PURSUANT TO A CITY OR
TOWN ORDINANCE OR STATE LAW OR RULE;
3. OPERATING A RETAIL BUSINESS, RESTAURANT, BANQUET HALL, OR SIMILAR USE;
4. HOUSING SEX OFFENDERS, OR ALLOWING SEX OFFENDERS TO OCCUPY THE SHORT-TERM
RENTAL;
5. OPERATING OR MAINTAINING A SOBER LIVING HOME;
6. SELLING LIQUOR, ILLEGAL DRUGS, OR PORNOGRAPHY;
7. OPERATING A NUDE OR TOPLESS DANCING;
8. OBSCENITY;
9. ADULT-ORIENTED BUSINESS;
10. AN EVENT CENTER;
11. IN AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT; OR
12. ANY OTHER USE PROHIBITED BY A.R.S. § 9-500.39

B. RENTING OR OFFERING TO RENT A SHORT-TERM RENTAL WITHOUT A VALID SHORT-TERM
RENTAL PERMIT AND A VALID TRANSACTION PRIVILEGE TAX LICENSE ISSUED BY THE STATE OF
ARIZONA IS PROHIBITED.

C. RENTING A SHORT-TERM RENTAL TO A SEX OFFENDER IS PROHIBITED.




Page 1677
D. RENTING A SHORT-TERM RENTAL WITHOUT CONDUCTING A SEX OFFENDER BACKGROUND
CHECK ON EACH GUEST IS PROHIBITED. THE OWNER MUST MAINTAIN THE EVIDENCE OF
COMPLIANCE FOR THE PRECEDING 12 MONTHS AND MAKE IT AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION BY A
CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER.

Sec. 10-205. STANDARDS AND OPERATING REQUIREMENTS
A. TO ENSURE THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL OCCUPANTS AND THE
PUBLIC, THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL MUST HAVE THE FOLLOWING SAFETY EQUIPMENT:

1. A WORKING SMOKE AND CARBON MONOXIDE DETECTION AND NOTIFICATION SYSTEM
MUST BE MAINTAINED AS REQUIRED UNDER NFPA 72.

2. A PORTABLE FIRE EXTINGUISHER IN THE KITCHEN AND ANY AREA WITH AN OPEN FIRE
SOURCE SUCH AS A STOVE, FIREPLACE, OR GRILL.

B. THE OWNER OF THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL MUST DISPLAY THE CURRENT NAME, PHONE
NUMBER, AND EMAIL ADDRESS OF THE OWNER, OWNER’S DESIGNEE, AND EMERGENCY POINT
OF CONTACT IN A CONSPICUOUS PLACE WITHIN 10 FEET OF THE PRIMARY ENTRANCE OF THE
SHORT-TERM RENTAL.

Sec. 10-206. ENHANCED PENALTIES
A. THE REMEDIES HEREIN ARE CUMULATIVE AND THE CITY MAY PROCEED UNDER ONE OR MORE
SUCH REMEDIES.

B. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER PROVISION OF THIS CODE, AND EXCEPT FOR VIOLATION IN
SUBSECTION C., ANY SHORT-TERM RENTAL OWNER WHO CAUSES, PERMITS, FACILITATES, AIDS
OR ABETS ANY VIOLATION OF A PROVISION OF THIS ARTICLE OR WHO FAILS TO PERFORM ANY
ACT OR DUTY REQUIRED BY THIS ARTICLE IS SUBJECT TO A CIVIL SANCTION AS FOLLOWS:

1. FOR THE FIRST VERIFIED VIOLATION WITHIN TWELVE MONTHS, ONE NIGHT’S RENT FOR THE
SHORT-TERM RENTAL, UP TO $500.

2. FOR THE SECOND VERIFIED VIOLATION WITHIN TWELVE MONTHS, TWO NIGHTS’ RENT FOR
THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL, UP TO $1,000.

3. FOR THE THIRD AND ANY SUBSEQUENT VERIFIED VIOLATION WITHIN TWELVE MONTHS,
THREE NIGHTS’ RENT FOR THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL, UP TO $3,500.

C. IN ADDITION TO THE PENALTY IN SUBSECTION B., ANY OWNER WHO RENTS OR OFFERS TO RENT
A SHORT-TERM RENTAL WITHOUT A PERMIT IS SUBJECT TO A CIVIL SANCTION OF $1,000 PER
MONTH.

D. NOTWITHSTANDING SUBSECTION C. OF THIS SECTION, IF A PERSON OBTAINED A PERMIT
WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER RECEIVING THE COMPLAINT THAT NOTICES THE VIOLATION OF
SUBSECTION C., THE COURT SHALL DISMISS THE COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATING SUBSECTION C.
WITHOUT IMPOSING A CIVIL PENALTY.




Page 1678
E. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER PROVISION OF THIS CODE, THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL OWNER,
AGENT, OR RENTER WHO CAUSES, PERMITS, FACILITATES, AIDS, OR ABETS THE USE OF A SHORT-
TERM RENTAL IN VIOLATION OF ANY PROVISION OF THIS CODE IS SUBJECT TO CIVIL SANCTION
AS SET FORTH IN SUBSECTION B. OF THIS SECTION.

F. ANY SHORT-TERM RENTAL OWNER, AGENT, OR RENTER WHO CAUSES, PERMITS, FACILITATES,
AIDS, OR ABETS ANY VIOLATION OF ANY PROVISION OF THIS ARTICLE OR WHO FAILS TO
PERFORM ANY ACT OR DUTY REQUIRED BY THIS ARTICLE IS GUILTY OF A CLASS 1
MISDEMEANOR.




Page 1679

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

66 item(s)