Thanks to your overwhelming response to oppose the By Right Housing Bills introduced to our State legislature, none of those bills passed. It is imperative for our elected leaders at the State level to support local zoning, where the best decisions are made for ALL residents. We couldn’t have done it without you!
Update on SB1117-on Monday's agenda for Vote in the Senate
Please call or write every Arizona legislative senator to Oppose SB 1117. See the email from the League of Cities and Towns, outlining the dangers of this housing/zoning bill.
From: Jane Ahern <jane@ha-firm.com>
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2023 4:02 PM
To: Senator Mitzi Epstein <mepstein@azleg.gov>; Senator Lela Alston <lalston@azleg.gov>; Senator Juan Mendez <jmendez@azleg.gov>; Senator Raquel Teran <rteran@azleg.gov>; Senator Eva Burch <eburch@azleg.gov>; Senator Catherine Miranda <cmiranda@azleg.gov>; Senator Brian Fernandez <bfernandez@azleg.gov>; Senator Anna Hernandez <anna.hernandez@azleg.gov>; Senator Theresa Hatathlie <thatathlie@azleg.gov>; Senator Priya Sundareshan <psundareshan@azleg.gov>; Senator Eva Diaz <eva.diaz@azleg.gov>; Senator Christine Marsh <cmarsh@azleg.gov>; Senator Sally Ann Gonzales <sgonzales@azleg.gov>; Senator Rosanna Gabaldon <rgabaldon@azleg.gov>
Cc: Tom Savage <tsavage@azleague.org>; Paulino Valerio <pvalerio@azleg.gov>; Talonya Adams <tadams@azleg.gov>
Subject: League of Arizona Cities and Towns SB1117 Floor Amendment Analysis and Opposition
Good afternoon, Leader Epstein and members, I am reaching out to share some analysis and response from the League of Arizona Cities and Towns regarding the proposed floor amendment to Senator Kaiser’s SB1117.
Unfortunately, this amendment does not address the breadth of issues with this bill. The most significant concern with the bill, even with the amendment, is that it continues to codify "by-right" zoning, which means all rezonings would be completed administratively, without public notification or a public process. This means that any applications to rezone to ANY residential use (i.e., single-family to high-density multi-family, commercial to multi-family, industrial to residential) would be subject to mandatory administrative approvals, without a public hearing or a public process, and without consideration of impacts to infrastructure and the surrounding residents.
Despite the assertion the floor amendment allows public notification to residents, this is not the case. The public notification outlined in the amendment only applies to the ordinance that the city or town must adopt to comply with SB1117. For example, on page 11 of the bill, subsection K adds a new exemption for rezonings from the public notification and hearing process outlined in the current law.
The floor amendment doesn't include the concepts the League was told would be modified in the stakeholder meeting preceding the amendment; and the parking preemption is one example. The language around historic designations does not entirely solve the problem with historic neighborhoods or even apply to historical areas that do not have such a designation. There are many historic neighborhoods and buildings that fall into this category. This leaves these areas unprotected from by-right development, despite the concerns or objections of residents and historic preservation groups. There are also additional changes in the amendment that were never discussed, which are included in our summary.
Lastly, this bill will still implicate Prop 207, by upzoning the entire state in cities above 30,000, which cannot be undone without significant liabilities to the state or cities and towns. And it still removes public involvement in rezoning/development decisions.
For this reason and many others, the League of Arizona Cities and Towns must remain opposed to this bill, due to the severe unintended consequences that will likely result from its implementation. This will bill will negatively impact our residents and the planning and development of our cities and towns. We believe our residents expect us to continue to oppose legislation like this.
Attached please find a summary of the amendment, and a broader analysis of the issues with the bill.
Please feel free to reach out with any questions, and I hope everyone has a great weekend.
SB1117 Overview
▪ Nothing in this bill requires affordability. The bill conveniently relieves developers from any responsibility regarding affordability.
▪ Nothing in this bill removes the existing prohibition against inclusionary zoning.1 This means Arizonans can only (continue to) hope that developers will provide affordable housing.
▪ The bill is based on the fallacy of the “trickle-down”2 economic theory of housing - that increases in the supply of market rate and luxury housing will automatically “trickle- down” to create more affordable housing at some point in the future. This theory is not supported by econometric modeling3 and has not been shown to work.4
▪ While funding for subsidized housing has been proven to work,5 no funding is appropriated under SB1117.6
▪ The bill removes the citizen review process7 and mandates administrative approvals8 of (1) “by right” multifamily developments and (2) “by right” rezonings within a specific timeframe. This includes a mandate to approve of luxury projects that may accelerate gentrification in once-affordable neighborhoods.9
1 The existing prohibition against inclusionary zoning is found in 9-461.16.
2 This “trickle-down” economics theory is also referred to as “supply side” economics, “Reaganomics”, and (by former President George H.W. Bush) “voodoo” economics. More recently, it has also been referred to as “filtering” and “housing as opportunity.” 3 See, e.g., “The Maze of Urban Housing Markets: Theory, Evidence, and Policy” by Jerome Rothenberg et al. For one thing, there isn’t a single unified housing market. To the contrary, supply and demand are different in different price ranges of housing. The "housing market" consists of multiple, non-intersecting submarkets delineated by price.
4 “While there is some evidence new housing production does eventually help lower median rent in the neighborhoods where construction occurred compared to other areas, these effects take decades to surface (Zuk and Chapple 2016; Rosenthal 2014). Worse, by the time such price effects register, large numbers of low-income residents have likely already been pushed out.”
5 The citizen review process is described in 9-462.03 and 9-462.04. Among other things, it address the requirement for a public hearing and requires municipalities to provide the following (at a minimum): (1) Adjacent landowners and other potentially affected citizens must be notified of the application; (2) the municipality must inform adjacent landowners and other potentially affected citizens of the substance of the proposed rezoning; and (3) adjacent landowners and other potentially affected citizens must be provided an opportunity to express any issues or concerns that they may have with the proposed rezoning before the public hearing.
6 See 41-3951 and 41-3958. Even if funding had been appropriated under this bill, there is nothing in this bill that ties funding to constructing affordable housing. Instead, the grant funding would serve to relieve developers of paying impact fees.
7 The sponsor has indicated the bill continues to require a citizen review process; however, the bill specifically exempts “by right” rezonings and “by right” multifamily projects from the citizen review requirements under 9-462.03 and 9-462.04. See 9-462.03(B) (“EXCEPT FOR MODIFICATIONS MADE PURSUANT TO SECTION 9-462.10, a zoning ordinance that changes any property from one zone to another, that imposes any regulation not previously imposed or that removes or modifies any such regulation previously imposed must be adopted following the procedure prescribed in the citizen review process and in the manner set forth in section 9-462.04); 9-462.04(K) (“EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED, THIS SECTION DOES NOT APPLY TO ANY ZONING ORDINANCE OR PART OF A ZONING ORDINANCE ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 9-462.10.”). In addition to avoiding any notice or hearing requirement, 9-462.10(G)(2) specifically prohibits review by any board or commission – and municipalities cannot require any use permit or amendment to the voter-approved general plan. See e.g., A.R.S. 9- 462.10(G)(2) (“NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW, INCLUDING ANY ORDINANCE OR CHARTER PROVISION, ON OR BEFORE JANUARY 1, 2024, A MUNICIPALITY SHALL ALLOW THE FOLLOWING BY RIGHT: . . . AN APPLICANT TO CONSTRUCT HOUSING PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION WITHOUT THE MUNICIPALITY REQUIRING A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, USE PERMIT OR REVIEW BY A BOARD OR COMMISSION.”)
8 See 9-462.10(B)(2) (e.g.: “AFTER A DETERMINATION THAT THE APPLICATION IS ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLETE, THE MUNICIPALITY SHALL APPROVE THE APPLICATION WITHIN NINETY DAYS . . .”).
9 This bill will allow for the unchecked flow of new market rate residences – but “studies show that market-rate housing development is linked to the mass displacement of neighboring low-income residents.” (Davidson and Lees 2005, 2010; Pearsall 2010).
▪ Any changes to zoning laws in the state will have a layer of protection because of Prop 207, meaning that these laws cannot be undone or modified without diminution of value claims from property owners. This could create significant liabilities for the State.
▪ Allowing wealthy for-profit developers to bypass the public process means they have zero obligation to work with the community and have a “free pass” to ignore the legitimate concerns of the neighborhood.
▪ Eliminating public processes is a simplistic scapegoat that ignores the real impediments to housing: the lack of affordable land zoned for housing, shortages in labor and materials, limited funding for affordable housing, and the boom-bust nature of economic cycles.
▪ This “one-size-fits-all” bill thwarts local planning efforts to create more inclusive neighborhoods, including voter-approved general plans that citizens develop to reflect community goals, such as walkability, sustainability, water conservation, and economic development.
▪ Wealthier areas with private CC&Rs will be protected by the bill.10 As a result, areas without CC&Rs (often the poorer communities) will bear the brunt of this bill.
▪ While the bill creates certain arbitrary exceptions for municipalities under a certain population threshold, smaller municipalities are not exempted from everything under the existing version of the bill. For example, all cities and towns are preempted from establishing requirements for off-street parking and loading.11 The bill also preempts all municipalities regarding requirements for setbacks, yard sizes, and minimum lot coverage. Moreover, all municipalities are prohibited from denying any permit that is necessary for “land development or building construction.”12
▪ The bill severely restricts design review authority.13 These communities will be prevented from preserving the character of their neighborhoods, including historical areas.
▪ Unless cities can make upzoning conditional on providing affordable housing using appropriate incentives, this bill will only serve developers at the expense of existing communities.
Infrastructure Impacts
▪ Arizona has a long history of requiring growth to pay for itself (i.e., impact fees, half street improvements). Municipalities also use their voter-approved general plans to develop impact fees, which are assessed to recover the costs associated with providing infrastructure and improvements necessitated by the development.
10 See 9-462.01(N) and 9-500-49(D).
11 9-462.01(A)(4). The Kaiser outline indicates that a future floor amendment may revise the parking preemption to allow a municipality to require up to 1 parking space per unit. This is an arbitrary number and continues to ignore the fact that a “one- size-fits-all” approach does not work, especially in communities where there is little or no public transportation. Parking requirements should provide flexibility considering a project’s location in relation to transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and the surrounding diversity of land uses.
12 See 9-835(G) (“ . . . A MUNICIPALITY MAY NOT DENY A LICENSE APPLICATION THAT IS NECESSARY FOR LAND DEVELOPMENT OR BUILDING CONSTRUCTION UNLESS THE MUNICIPALITY CONSIDERS THE APPLICATION WITHDRAWN.”)
13 The existing bill refers to populations of 25,000 or more. It is our understanding that a future floor amendment may increase the population threshold to 30,000.
▪ SB1117 ignores these voter-approved general plans and long-term infrastructure plans that help a municipality ensure it has adequate water, infrastructure, and services to serve existing residents and support future growth (e.g., water, sewer, streets, public transportation, etc.)
Water Impacts
▪ Since SB1117 mandates approval and prohibits mitigation requirements that unduly burden developers. SB1117 raises serious concerns about the impacts on water capacity and conservation efforts.
▪ With respect to mandated approvals of “by right” multifamily projects, SB1117 is especially concerning because the current assured water supply requirements do not apply to multi-family projects and build-to-rent housing developments.
Impacts to Schools
▪ SB1117 disregards infrastructure plans and removes the ability of school districts to get notice about proposed projects and plan for the future growth.14
▪ This impedes efforts to ensure there is adequate elementary, middle, and high school capacity to serve new students – and to ensure schools are near applicable neighborhoods.
Environmental Impacts
▪ The bill has several provisions that raise serious concerns about potential environmental impacts.
▪ First, the bill mandates approval of rezonings and multifamily projects, regardless of whether there is adequate public infrastructure and services to support them.
▪ Second, the bill relieves developers from obligations to mitigate the impacts of their proposed developments. Mitigation can only be required if a neighbor15 meets an impossible test (assuming the neighbor would even know about a proposed project because the bill removes public notice and hearings). In particular, the neighbor must present clear and convincing evidence that a proposed project will create an objective16
14 See, e.g., 9-461.01(C)(2) (“The governing body shall . . . consult with, advise and provide an opportunity for official comment by . . . school districts, associations of governments, . . . other appropriate government jurisdictions, public utility companies, civic, educational, professional and other organizations, property owners and citizens generally to secure maximum coordination of plans and to indicate properly located sites for all public purposes on the general plan.”).
15 The right to require mitigation is limited to property owners within the “zoning area” only. "Zoning area" means (1) the area within 150 feet, including all rights-of-way, of the affected property subject to the proposed amendment or change, and (2) The area of the proposed amendment or change. See 9-462.10(B)(2); 9-462.10(D). Note: To protest a rezoning application, surrounding property owner would first need to know about the application. It is unclear how these property owners would know about these applications without public notice or a public hearing.
16 "Objective" is defined as “involving no personal or subjective judgment by a municipal employee or official and being uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark, standard or criterion available and knowable by both an applicant or proponent and a municipal employee or official."
externality17 that has not been mitigated.18 The reason why this test is impossible to meet is because a developer is automatically deemed to have satisfied any mitigation requirement related to water runoff, traffic or parking if the municipality has requirements for grading, drainage and required street improvements under 9-463.05.19 All municipalities have these requirements, which means projects can never be required to mitigate these impacts. Even if a property owner somehow met this impossible test, SB1117 takes it a step farther and specifically prohibits creating any undue burden20 on these “by right” developers.21
▪ Third, landscaping requirements are preempted and prohibited under the current version of the bill in cities above the population threshold (excludes requirements for drought- tolerant trees, plants, and shrubs).22 This prohibition frustrates efforts toward urban heat mitigation. Trees and green space are among community members' most sought-after environmental amenities, and the direct incentives to developers and builders to provide an adequate amount are not always there. Communities should have the ability to require landscaping that:
does not exacerbate regional air pollution challenges (ozone in particular), which could jeopardize access to federal funding and ultimately make Arizona a less appealing state for new investment/business (due to a stricter regulatory environment)
does not exacerbate regional water supply challenges, which could increase the costs and risks of operating a business and investing in Arizona.
is compatible with the desert ecosystem.
does not create significant conflicts with above and below-ground utilities,
construction, etc.
provides enough trees in the appropriate locations to provide shade for
pedestrians, as well as buildings (to improve energy efficiency and conservation).
17 "Externality" is defined as "the effect beyond the property lines of the proposed development on property owners within the zoning area while on the owner's property related to light, noise, odor, water runoff, traffic and parking." "Externality" excludes "any of the effects pursuant to subdivision (a) of this paragraph that are wholly contained within the property lines of the area of the proposed development." "Light" means “the proportion of natural light that a building should expect to receive.”
18 9-462.10(B)(2). The potential impacts of a proposed developments are currently evaluated by city engineers and other professionals.
19 9-462.10(B)(2). Note: Most cities have these requirements, which means all applications in these cities will automatically be deemed to meet the mitigated requirement in #2. As a result, any right to protest would be illusory since owners protesting applications could never meet their burdens of proving #2.
20 Note: Undue burden is not defined.
21 9-462.10(C). 9-462.10(B)(2) (“THE MUNICIPALITY'S IDENTIFIED OBJECTIVE EXTERNALITIES, INCLUDING ANY MITIGATION MEASURES PRESCRIBED BY CODE, ORDINANCE, STANDARD, REGULATION OR OTHER LEGAL REQUIREMENT MAY NOT CREATE AN UNDUE BURDEN ON THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION OF NEW HOUSING UNITS.”). Undue burden is not defined.
22 9-500.49(A); 9-500.49(F)(1). It is our understanding that a future floor amendment may “allow cities to regulate landscaping,” but it is unclear what this amendment will look like. It is also unclear whether such an amendment would have any meaningful impact considering the broad preemptions (e.g., setbacks, lot coverage), mandated administrative approvals, and prohibition against mitigation requirements that “unduly burden” developers. 9-462.10 (describing mandated approval of rezonings and housing projects, including multifamily, in municipalities above the population threshold); 9-462.01(C) (describing preemptions that apply to all cities and towns).
▪ Fourth, SB1117 impedes community efforts to promote walkable, promote accessible communities, and reduce the dependance on vehicles. It preempts and prohibits requirements for sidewalk placement or sidewalk design.23 SB1117 gives developers rights to construct with very with very short setbacks and maximum lot coverage and mandates approval. These rights to build combined with the sidewalk preemption likely means that developers can no longer be required to dedicate a strip of their property for the construction of sidewalks.
23 9-500.49(A); 9-500.49(F)(1) (the preemption applies to cities above the population threshold). Where sidewalks are constructed, municipalities could require compliance with the ADA.
WE NEED YOUR HELP~SB1117 will adversely impact North Central
BOTTOM LINE: SB1117 seeks to remove the voice of citizens in the planning and development process. The bill also guarantees "by right" additional entitlements--like building heights up to 80 feet--without any input or challenge from citizens. It also seeks to remove overview and approval by any municipality as it relates to housing, planning and zoning.
Please contact your Senator today and tell them to vote NO on SB1117. We will tell you how. ACTION IS REQUIRED TODAY and we've made it very easy. More info below.
Why is it so bad? About the bill:
There are a lot of moving parts. Here are some of the egregious concepts in this bill:
mandates approval of multi-family projects without allowing residents to work with the developer to ensure that it meets the needs of the surrounding community
circumvents public processes and general plans that the residents develop, and places all the power in the developers’ hands
allows multi-family developments “by right” in any existing commercial, mixed-use, and multi-family zoning districts
allows multi-family buildings up to 60 ft or the highest allowable height within one mile
projects within two miles of a rail stop can be up to 80 feet in height. This would be most of North Central.
allows developers to ignore zoning districts, zoning codes, design standards, and parking requirements
provides residents zero notice and no opportunity to learn about the project or provide comments
removes Planning Commissions from the process
strips local councils of their zoning authority
At the time of this email, only about 25 people were in support of the bill. They are almost all developers. Some 225 oppose the bill, including: the City of Phoenix; Arizona League of Cities and Towns; City of Scottsdale; City of Glendale; City of Tempe; City of Gilbert; City of Chandler.
THIS IS A CALL FOR ACTION! It will take you less than 10 minutes.Here's what we're asking you to do:
1. Identify your state Senator and locate their email address
2. Draft your email. We've provided you with a simple sample, below.
3. SEND TODAY. Yes, TODAY. This thing is RACING through the Senate.
4. SHARE with your networks.
HERE'S THE SAMPLE EMAIL to your Senator--
Senator:
As a concerned citizen of the State of Arizona, I ask that you vote "NO" on SB1117 on housing and infrastructure.
This bill removes the rights of citizens to be a participant in the planning process and removes any oversight by our elected representatives and their staffs in our municipalities.
The housing shortage is everyone's problem. Stifling the voice of citizens--as this bill provides--does not solve the problem and will likely exacerbate it.
Please vote NO on SB1117.
Thank you.
Right now, we are focused on the Senate; the Arizona House will come later.
INFO about the bill and your legislators
SB1117 Housing; Infrastructure/ Click here to read the amendment
SB1117 legislative memo (attached)
Video for the first Senate hearing
To determine who your state legislators are, click here
Here is roster of the AZ state senators: Use azleg.gov after their name. For example, LALSTON@azleg.gov
How do I find or contact my Legislator?
If you know your legislators, click here for email addresses
If you do not know your legislators:
Click here to find the legislative district you live in by entering your address and zip code located at the upper left corner.When you click on this link you are leaving the Arizona State Legislature website and being redirected to the website for the Redistricting Committee. We have no control over their website.
After you find your district, return to this page and click here. Find the district you are looking for to identify your legislators.
Note: No. Central underwent a redistricting and we are now in District 5. Our senator is Lela Alstone (LALSTON@azleg.gov); our House representatives are Jennifer Longdon (JLONGDON@azleg.gov) and Amish Shah (ASHAH@azleg.gov).
PLEASE: ACT NOW! Collectively, we defeated a similar bill last year. Only with widespread constituent outrage can we do it again.
Please let us know if you have any questions or comments. Thanks for reading.
The North Central Phoenix Homeowners Association (info@ncpha.org)
Neal Haddad, Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix
neal.haddad@gmail.com
Final Decision on Proposed Zoning Change (PUD) at 7th St. and Colter
Final: In November the City of Phoenix City Council moved to approve this proposed PUD at 7th Street and Colter. In spite of the huge support for this multi-family project with minor design changes by the adjacent neighbors and several neighborhood associations, this was approved without any design changes. Councilman Sal DiCiccio refused to meet with any constituents to discuss our concerns. Instead he turned a deaf ear to those living his district, and gave his full support to this out-of-state developer.
Update on Proposed Zoning Change (PUD) at 7th St. and Colter
On September 6th at 6:00 p.m., the proposed PUD at 7th St. and Colter will be heard and voted on at the Camelback East Village Committee meeting. If you haven’t sent in your email/letter of opposition, now is the time to do so. The developer has been seeking support for months via a door to door petition process. We are discovering that some of the information shared by the community canvassers has been misleading, so if you signed this petition, please understand the true details of the project. We would appreciate you noting any misleading information in your letter of opposition.
The Board of Directors of the North Central Phoenix Homeowners Association has unanimously voted to oppose the current design of the proposed PUD at 7th St. and Colter. Efforts to collaborate with the developer to design a more contextual, neighborhood friendly project has produced no results. All the concerns we have (proposed height, density, setbacks and ingress/egress) are the same concerns the City of Phoenix has voiced to the developer. But, to date, there are no substantial revisions or action taken by the developer.
If this project is approved, it will be the tallest and most dense building north of Camelback and set a precedent for any further development in North Central. Note: The photo of the elevations above would be at ZERO setbacks on the east and north at a height is 60 feet. To see more details about this project, please read our earlier post. Windsor Square Historic District, the Murphy Trails Estates NA, Phoenix Mid-Century Modern NA and the Peak NA are all opposed to this proposed PUD.
What can you do?
Please submit a letter of opposition in your own words to the Camelback Village Committee prior to September 6. Unfortunately, we will be asking you to do this 3 times: 1)for the Camelback East VPC; 2) for Planning Commission; 3) for City Council. Every time there is a request to change the underlying zoning it goes through these 3 bodies.
Send your email to the following:
TO: sarah.stockham@phoenix.gov
CC: council.district.6@phoenix.gov
RE: Z-27-22-6 Zola North Central
Salutation: Dear Chairman Swart and Camelback East VPC Members
Some suggestions for content:
This parcel is currently zoned for multi-family development and why does the developer need egregious exceptions in height, density and setbacks vs. what is currently allowed
Ingress/Egress solely off of Colter will create traffic congestion, safety hazards especially in light of the future changes on Colter to be multi-modal.
If approved this will completely change the character of Uptown No. Central with the excessive height and density
The requested zero setbacks will negatively impact the property values of the condos to the east, as well as a exposed parking garage
Collaborative efforts to work with the developer and the developer’s representative have been ignored
We are not against new development but this proposed PUD is in violation of the General Plan and is out of context with the surrounding neighborhood.
Thank you for your continued support in protecting the integrity of North Central.
Proposed Zoning Change (PUD) at 7th St. and Colter
The rezoning request from C-2 (Commercial-2) to PUD (Planned Unit Development is proposed for the property on the Northeast corner of 7th Street and Colter. The proposed plan is to take existing 2 story office building (30’) and build a 5 story (60’) multifamily luxury apartment complex. The underlying zoning allows up to 17 units per acre. The proposed PUD is requesting 78.50 units per acre.
Several neighborhood leaders have met with the zoning attorney and developer’s team to discuss the design changes necessary for us to support this project. Unfortunately, after 2 meetings there has been no response from the developer to date They appear to be moving forward with this extremely inappropriate new development, in spite concerns from the surrounding neighborhood. Typically you see this type of high density multi-family project south of Camelback. Now the developers want to move this to our neighborhood.
We typically have great success collaborating with developers in the past. However, this out-of-state developer and their legal representative have ignored our feedback. It has been 8 months since they first met with the City and they have had plenty of opportunity to revise the design to be more in keeping with our beautiful North Central neighborhood.
As a result, the following letter has been drafted by the neighborhood associations most affected. We ask that you support our position of opposition unless the developer agrees to make changes to the height, density, setbacks and traffic concerns. Please note that the City’s Planning and Development Dept. shares the same concerns about this project.
There will be a virtual (even though we’ve asked for an in-person meeting) neighborhood meeting with their legal team at Snell & Wilmer on:
Wednesday, August 17, 2022 at 5:30 p.m.
Direct Meeting Acesss: https://neighborhoods.azurewebsites.net/zola-north-central
Or to call-in to listen to the virtual meeting: Dial 602-753-0140. Enter Meeting ID 914 3491 4818, then Meeting Passcode 340737
**************************************************************************
Dear Neighbor –
We hope this letter finds you well.
This letter concerns a proposal to build a 60 foot high, 200 unit apartment building on the north-east corner of 7th St and Colter. It is identified as Zola North Central, Zoning Case Z-27-22-6. We are residents in the area of the proposed development as well as neighborhood association leaders who are concerned with several aspects of the initial plans. We think you will share our concerns after reading this letter that explains our opposition.
You may have been visited in person by petition circulators hired by the developer’s legal counsel asking you to support the project. You need to have more information to be able to make an informed decision about supporting or opposing the development. Several neighborhood leaders have gathered information about the proposed project by:
· Meeting with the legal team representing the developer
· Attending the public neighborhood meeting
· Meeting with the developer’s architect and hired traffic study consultant
· Reading the narrative about the proposed project submitted to the City of Phoenix, as well as the notes written by the City’s Planning and Development staff
· Holding meetings with residents of the Windsor Square neighborhood immediately west of 7th St.
We expressed concerns about the proposed project, some of which were also stated as concerns by the Phoenix Planning and Development staff* and the Phoenix Streets Department+:
1. *Height (60’) and density (189 units on 2.55 acres with 80% lot coverage) is not aligned with the City’s General Plan (adopted in 2015) and is out of character with the surrounding neighborhood.
2. *Set-backs on 7th St. (20 feet), Colter (15 feet), and north and east property lines (0 feet), are not aligned with the City’s General Plan and are out of character with the surrounding neighborhood.
3. +Ingress/egress is on Colter rather than 7th St.
4. *Landscaping is not adequate to meet City standards.
5. Traffic will increase on Colter going east and going west through the existing Windsor Square neighborhood.
6. Units with patios/doors with direct access to Colter will encourage resident parking on Colter.
7. Inadequate guest parking on-site will force parking on Colter.
8. The 5-story parking garage will negatively impact the 2-story multi-family condominiums to the east.
9. The trash compound at the south-east corner of the property will negatively impact the multi-family apartments to the east.
10. A 60-foot tall building within 15 feet of 7th St will block the open view corridor that is typical on 7th St.
11. This type of development is incompatible with projects north of Camelback (uptown). It is more appropriate for development south of Camelback (downtown).
Please understand that the subject property’s current zoning allows multi-family housing. However, current zoning would not allow the height and number of units, among other restrictions, being proposed. Our goal is to require the developer, and the City, to adhere to what the current zoning would allow.
Your voice will be critical to achieving this goal. The following page lists how you can most effectively provide your input.
Thank you for reading this information and carefully considering what you believe to be in the best interest of the neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Windsor Square Special Planning District Murphy Trail Estates Neighborhood Association
North Central Phoenix Homeowners Association Phoenix Mid-Century Modern Neighborhood Association
the PEAK Neighborhood Association
Please do the following to oppose the Zola North Central PUD application:
Read the developer’s initial application on the City of Phoenix website. It provides the details of the proposed development as of July 22, 2022. The URL is:
https://www.phoenix.gov/pddsite/Documents/PZ/Z-27-22%20Zola%20North%20Central%20-%20PUD%20Development%20Narrative%203.30.22.pdf
By August 29th, email the Camelback East Village Planning Committee:
TO: sarah.stockham@phoenix.gov
CC: council.district.6@phoenix.gov
RE: Z-27-22-6 Zola North Central
Salutation: Dear Chairman Swart and Camelback East VPC Members
State your opposition to the rezoning of the property at 7th St and Colter from C-2 (Intermediate Commercial) to PUD (Planned Unit Development).
If you signed the petition, please state why you signed and are now opposing the proposed development.
Your statement could be something like: “After learning more about the proposed apartments I realize the petition circulators misrepresented the negative impact on my neighborhood.” Or, “I felt pressured into signing the petition.”
Include your name and physical address at the bottom.
Opposition to Zola North Central is supported by:
Windsor Square Special Planning District – Mike Freret, mikefreret@gmail.com
North Central Phoenix Homeowners Association – Mary Crozier, info@ncpha.org
Murphy Trail Estates Neighborhood Association – Jackie Rich
Phoenix Mid-Century Modern Neighborhood Association – Sandy Grunow, phxmidcenturymodernna@gmail.com 602-819-1482
the PEAK Neighborhood Association – Larry Whitesell, thepeakna@gmail.com 602-370-8453
Contact one of the neighborhood leaders listed above for more information about the proposed development.
Update on Variance Request ZA87-22 at 6035 N. Central Ave.
Today, a City of Phoenix Zoning Hearing Officer denied the variance request at 6035 N. Central Ave. for an accessory structure in the front yard.
The applicant has 15 days to file an appeal to the hearing officer’s decision to the Board of Adjustment. We will keep you apprised of this zoning case if it moves forward.
Thank you to all those residents who sent in emails of opposition (nearly 100!). We appreciate your dedication and passion to continue to protect the charm and character of North Central Avenue.
Variance Request at 6035 N. Central Avenue
The new property owner at 6035 N. Central Avenue is requesting a variance to allow an accessory building in the front yard. Accessory buildings are NOT allowed in the front yard in ANY residential district in the City of Phoenix.
The Board of Directors of the NCPHA unanimously voted to oppose this zoning case for the following reasons:
In 2004, the neighborhood overwhelming voted to support the North Central Avenue Special Planning District (SPD), an additional zoning overlay protection on all properties siding, facing or backing Central Avenue from Missouri to Northern. The SPD addresses neighborhood preservation issues, improvement and orderly development of the neighborhood.
The purpose of the SPD is to promote public awareness of the unique attributes associated with North Central Avenue and to protect the large lot residential character and the Central Avenue streetscape from adverse future development. The SPD has been in place for 18 years. During that time it has proven invaluable to ensure orderly development along North Central Ave. We can all agree that our neighborhood is special and a point of pride certainly worth protecting. If you are not familiar with the SPD document, we encourage you to review it. You can find it on the City’s website here.
One of the standards of the SPD requires a 40 foot deep building and landscaped setback on Central Avenue. The pending variance request to build an accessory structure within this setback is a clear violation of the intent and spirit of the SPD and the protections it offers.
In order to grant a variance, the applicant must meet 4 State mandated legal tests:
There are special circumstances or conditions applying to the land, building or use of the subject property which do not apply to other similar properties in the same zoning district.
The special circumstances or conditions described were not created by the owner or applicant. The property hardship cannot be self-imposed.
The authorization of a variance is necessary in order for the owner or applicant to enjoy reasonable and substantial property rights. (Background: In other words, without the granting of the variance the property cannot be reasonably used.)
The authorization of a variance will not be materially detrimental to persons residing or working in the vicinity, to the adjacent property, to the neighborhood or to the public welfare.
Please remember that variances stay with the land, not the property owner. If a variance was granted at this site, then future owners could build whatever accessory structure they want, without any public hearing process.
After careful review of the variance request, it is the considered opinion of both the NCPHA and the Special Planning District Committee that the applicant does not meet ANY of the four legal tests. We are actively opposing this variance request and are persuaded the request should be denied.
Additional information: North Central Avenue is the only historical streetscape in the state of Arizona. The ash trees in the City of Phoenix’s right-of-way on both the east and west side of the street are historically protected. The 100+ year old olive trees on both sides of the street have national historic designation. The Murphy Bridle Path, the only linear City park is also historically protected.
Details of the Variance as provided by the Applicant:
The accessory structure will be approximately 1100 square feet and is being referred to by the applicant as a “treehouse”.
The height of the structure will be nearly 29 feet tall and the treehouse compound will extend approximately 60 feet across the west side of the 1.67 acre lot and 15 feet of the front property line. Please note on the site plan that this accessory structure/house will be approximately 10 feet from the existing front fence line, making it very visible from the Murphy Bridle Trail and North Central Avenue, as well as to the adjacent neighbors.
In addition, there will also be a 260 square foot deck, sitting 8 feet high, within 10 feet of the north property line.
According to the contractor, the accessory structure/house will have electricity and air conditioning. As you can see by the drawings, this accessory structure will have doors, windows, a sectional sofa, dining room table and a loft (usage unknown), and a 30 foot long cable bridge and climbing wall.
The main accessory structure is built near 2 trees but not in any tree or its branches.
If you agree with the NCPHA and the Special Planning District committee members to oppose this variance, please send an email to zoning.adjustment@phoenix.gov. Please reference zoning case ZA-87-22 with a hearing on April 21, 2022. Please send your email no later than Wednesday of next week.
Below is a letter from the neighbor directly across the street who has given us permission to share it with you.
Thank you for supporting and protecting our cherished North Central neighborhood.
To the Zoning Hearing Officer:
My name is Kirsten Wright and I reside at 7 W. Berridge Lane, which is directly across the street from the home on 6035 N. Central Avenue, which is requesting a variance. While our address says 7 W. Berridge, we are actually directly on Central Ave. Our address was changed from Central to Berridge when the previous owners installed gates to the home and the driveway was moved to Berridge. I have read several of the letters in support of this project, one of which was written by Brian Hampton, who claims to live directly across the street, however he does not. Mr. Hampton resides on the corner of Central and Bethany Home Rd. Our family resides directly across the street from this proposed project at 6035.
The owner of 6035 has never reached out to us regarding this proposal, and the majority of his letters in support do not even reside on Central Avenue, nor are they direct neighbors.
I am writing to ask you not to allow this variance to proceed. First of all, this project does not meet even one of the four criteria required for a variance.This analysis should be the end of the inquiry, however there are even further issues which should be considered.
First of all, the current owner of 6035 N. Central has significantly thinned and removed a good portion of the bushes in the front of the home. Prior to this, you could not really see into the property, however, now you can see directly into the property and would very easily be able to see the "tree house." Additionally, the owner has attempted to cut down some of the trees directly on Central Ave. A concerned citizen actually stopped the tree removal company from cutting these trees down, as they are City of Phoenix property. These two actions greatly concern me. Should the zoning be changed, there will be nothing from stopping the owner from cutting down these beautiful mature trees which he now claims will shield the "tree house" from view of the street.
I cannot understand why this specific area of the property has been designated by the owner as the appropriate place for this building. There is plenty of additional space that fits within the current guidelines to place this structure. There is absolutely zero need for the "tree house" to be placed within a few feet of the property line and the Bridal Path. I use "tree house" in quotation marks purposely, because this is not what would be considered an actual tree house. This is an 1,100 sq. building, plus a deck. This is not a tree house, it is a structure. There are NO accessory structures allowed in the front yards of any of the residential districts in the City of Phoenix, which is another reason that this request should be denied outright.
Central Avenue homes are a rare and beautiful part of our city. One of the reasons that this neighborhood has been able to maintain its beauty is due to the 40' setbacks on Central. Many people from all over Phoenix walk along Murphy's Bridal path every day. This "tree house" will be an eyesore along this part of the path and would distract from the surrounding beauty of the Bridal Path.
Finally, If this structure gets approved it will become a precedent for other homes to request variances. There will be nothing preventing the building of structures inside the 40' setback. This will greatly affect the beauty and value of the homes on Central Avenue and in the rest of the North Central Avenue Planning District. The Special Planning District is in place for a reason, and its provisions should be enforced.
I implore you not to grant this request for a variance.
Please do not hesitate to contact me should you require any further information.
Regards,
Kirsten Wright
Law Offices of Kirsten Wright, PLLC24 W. Camelback RdSuite A-469Phoenix, AZ 85013
602-361-0943
The NCPHA Opposes Illegal Over Height Walls-UPDATE
April 2022
Recently, the Board of Adjustment agreed with our neighborhood association and disallowed the use of 8 foot walls in our neighborhood. Thank you for your support in maintaining the allowable 6 foot permitted side and rear walls in our residential area. North Central is a lovely neighborhood and is attracting many people who are moving her from out of town and may not be familiar with the City of Phoenix’s zoning requirements regarding wall heights, not only here but in every other residential district in the City.
Let’s continue to keep North Central in compliance with the allowable wall height and use planting material to increase the beauty of your property.
With thanks,
The NCPHA Board of Directors
January 8, 2022
The Board of the NCPHA voted unanimously to oppose side and rear yard walls exceeding the required 6 feet in height. Per the City of Phoenix residential zoning codes, a 6 foot wall is allowed for side and rear yards and must be within the property lines. All wall construction requires a City of Phoenix building permit.
We recently wrote an article about this in our Fall/Winter Newsletter. One of the charming attributes of North Central is that landscaping is typically used to create more privacy or sound reduction. Concrete walls exceeding 6 feet may provide some privacy, however, it creates MORE sound for the surrounding neighborhood. While landscaping softens and absorbs the sound, foliage also adds to our cooler temperatures and lush environment. We do not want to become a concrete jungle. Our property values are based on the green characteristics that have been carefully protected over the last several decades.
We have a zoning case that involves a variance request for over height walls and WE NEED YOUR HELP. If you agree with the Board of the NCPHA that walls over 6 feet will compromise the integrity and character of our cherished neighborhood, please send in your thoughts and comments in opposition of the following zoning variance case..
This one requires immediate attention. Please send in your email(s) no later than Tuesday, January 11th. If you would like to speak in opposition on this case, please send an email to info@ncpha.org and we will send you instructions on how to register via the Webex system.
Zoning Case: ZA-610-21
Hearing Date: January 13, 2021 at 9:00 a.m.
Please send an email of OPPOSITION to zoning.adjustment@phoenix.gov and make sure you reference the Zoning case # above.
Sample letter:
Dear Zoning Administrator:
As a North Central resident, I strongly oppose the illegally constructed over height wall at 5507 N. 2nd Place. This new subdivision was approved to have a 6 foot wall on the south and east side of the parcel, but the owner/developer purposefully added height after getting his certificate of completion.
The property does not meet the four legal tests for a variance approval. This action is clearly self-imposed by the owner/developer. Allowing such enormous walls in North Central will hurt the character and integrity of our neighborhood. Missouri Avenue is a lovely, open and welcoming collector street that does not permit 8 foot walls. Please deny this variance request that will create long-term harm to our neighborhood..
ZA-222-20 Proposed Medical Marijuana Dispensary Appeal Withdrawn
Today we received notification that the applicant, 7th Street Shoppes, LLC, who initially appealed the Zoning Administrator’s decision to deny the variances and use permit for a medical marijuana dispensary at the old Camp Social location, has withdrawn its appeal to the Board of Adjustment. As a result, the original decision of the Zoning Administrator stands.
Thank you to everyone who participated in the opposition to this case. For more information, please refer to earlier updates on our website.
Update on ZA-666-20 at 126 E. Maryland for 3 variances
On December 10, 2020 the zoning hearing officer denied 3 proposed variances to increase the side and rear perimeter walls to 8 feet. In residential zoning, 6 foot perimeter walls are allowed. The hearing officer stated that the applicant did not meet the criteria for obtaining the variances. The applicant’s representative has 15 days to appeal the hearing officer’s decision. Thank you to those who sent emails opposing these variances, as North Central is not a walled/gated community but a neighborhood rich in history and character. The Board of the NCPHA unanimously voted to oppose these proposed variances.
Continuance in Medical Marijuana Dispensary at old Camp Social Location ZA-222-20
The hearing before the Board of Adjustment is now scheduled for February 4, 2021 at 12:00 p.m.
Update on Proposed Medical Marijuana Dispensary at Camp Social
The hearing officer, after taking ZA-222-20 under advisement at the zoning hearing last month, has denied this application for variances and a use permit. The applicant has 15 days to file an appeal. If this occurs, the case will be heard in front of the Board of Adjustment. The hearing officer indicated that the applicant did not meet the 4 state mandated criteria for a variance.
ZA-336-20 Applicant withdraws Use Permit to work with the neighborhood
At today’s zoning hearing, the applicant, Destree Development, LLC, a Verizon representative agreed to Withdraw to Amend the use permit to construct a 65’ monopine at 301 E. Bethany Home Road. After significant opposition by the neighborhood (thank you for your emails!), the applicant has agreed to reach out to the NCPHA and affected neighbors to see if there is a reasonable solution going forward. Since the zoning case was not continued, but withdrawn, there is no future hearing date at this time.
We will keep you posted and we are happy with today’s hearing results.
65' Monopine Cell Tower Proposed for 301 E. Bethany Home Road ZA-336-20
Mock up of what proposed cell tower would look like
The North Central Phoenix Homeowners Association has a long standing history of working with cell companies to keep technology current in our neighborhood, while maintaining our neighborhood character. As a result, all cell equipment is hidden throughout our neighborhood in church bell towers, steeples or behind rooftop parapets.
A 3rd party subcontractor representing Verizon has filed for a use permit to build a 65' monopine at 301 E. Bethany Home Road and reduce the setbacks from the required 150 feet from residentially zoned properties to 60 feet. Would you want one of these erected next to your house? There is significant evidence that these fake cell tower trees significantly reduce property values and make selling your home extremely difficult.
We have asked the applicant to continue the hearing as we believe reasonable and attractive solutions are available. Our requests have been dismissed. To date, there are NO fake cell tower trees within the NCPHA borders and we deserve to keep it that way.
The surrounding neighborhood is very opposed to this and we agree with them. The zoning hearing for this case is set for next Thursday, August 13th at 1:30 p.m. and is the next to the last item on the agenda.
We are opposing this zoning case and need your support to fight this. Below is a draft email. We would greatly appreciate it if you would send in an email ASAP expressing your opposition too. Please address it to zoning.adjustment@phoenix.gov and make sure you add the case # ZA-336-20. Also, if you are a Verizon customer and have not seen a degradation of service, please include that as well. According to the Verizon website, the service they provide in our area is excellent.
To Whom It May Concern,
I strongly oppose the use permit to build an entirely new cell tower at 301 E. Bethany Home Road on the site of Pueblo Nuevo office complex, zoning case #ZA-336-20. This 65-foot cell tower, in the form of a fake metal tree, violates the distance requirements to residential neighborhoods. There is extensive documentation that shows cell towers reduce property values and homes sales suffer when a cell tower is present. They are an eyesore that no one wants in their backyard.
The fact that Verizon has enjoyed 20 years at this location and that the trees on the office complex’s property that they claim are obstructing their signals, is clearly self-imposed.
North Central is a mature, established neighborhood with a 17% tree canopy and we are adding trees to fulfill the City’s goal of a 25% tree canopy by 2030. Trees will continue to be planted and grow in this area. An attempt to compete with real trees by installing a fake one is a losing battle.
For Verizon to put up a fake “stealth” structure (that will not look stealth or tree-like) is not a solution to the future of wireless needs in our City. With the advancement of technology, this old style solution is not suited for the future of our City nor North Central.
I strongly suggest you oppose this use permit until a better long-term solution is available and reasonable to the surrounding neighborhood.
Thank you for your continued support to keep North Central a beautiful, residential neighborhood.
Proposed Medical Marijuana Dispensary at old Camp Social location ZA-222-20-6
New Zoning Case- ZA-222-20- PLEASE RESPOND BY JUNE 1ST.
Three zoning variances has been recently filed to request a Medical Marijuana Dispensary at the Camp Social location at 6107 North 7th St. The variances are required because the proposed location violates the distance requirements to churches, schools and residential neighborhoods. Below are the details.
a. Variance to allow a Medical Marijuana Dispensary Facility in the C-2 zoning district 960 feet from a place of worship. Minimum 1,320 foot separation required.
b. Variance to allow a Medical Marijuana Dispensary Facility in the C-2 zoning district 960 feet from a school. Minimum 1,320 foot separation required.
c. Variance to allow a Medical Marijuana Dispensary Facility in the C-2 zoning district 193 feet from a residential zoning district. Minimum 500 foot separation required.
The Board of the North Central Phoenix Homeowners Association has voted to oppose these variances due to the violations of the minimum distance requirements to churches, schools and residential homes.
A variance is a request to allow a deviation from a development standard required by the Zoning Ordinance. There are four (4) state statutes that required four (4) conditions to exist on the subject property for the variances to be approved. The applicant does not satisfy any of the four statutes and therefore, the NCPHA strongly opposes this variance request.
This is not a show of support or opposition to the business nature of medical marijuana dispensaries. This clearly is a show of opposition to the applicant not meeting the requirements of the four State statutes.
For more information on the requirements for Variances, please click here.
3. Since the onset of COVID, all City meetings are now held virtually. If you would like to have your voice heard on this matter, please send an email to zoning.adjustment@phoenix.gov and reference ZA—222-20 no later than June 1st. Below is a sample email.
4. The zoning hearing for this case will be on June 4, 2020. If you are available and can participate virtually, we would greatly appreciate it. Instructions on how to do so will be send in a separate email.
Sample email:
To: Zoning.adjustment@phoenix.gov
Re: ZA-222-20-6
I strongly oppose the variance requests regarding the placement of a medical marijuana dispensary at 6107 N. 7th Street. The fact that this location violates the minimum distance requirements to churches, schools and residential neighborhoods is a self-imposed hardship by the applicant. There are other locations available that do not violate the minimum distance requirements. These special circumstances or conditions are created by the applicant. The authorization of this variance will be materially detrimental to people residing in the area and to the public welfare in general (churches, schools and neighborhoods). There are no special circumstances or conditions that apply to the land or building that do not apply to other similar properties in the same zoning district. The authorization of this variance is not necessary in order for the applicant to enjoy reasonable and substantial property rights, as there are other locations available that do not violate the minimum distance requirements.
As a result, since the applicant DOES NOT satisfy the 4 State statutes needed for the variances to be granted, I respectfully request that these variances be denied.
Sincerely,
Your name
THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONTINUED SUPPORT!
More Information on the Medical Marijuana Dispensary Zoning Case-Time Sensitive
We appreciate your emails of opposition to the 3 variances requested for the potential medical marijuana dispensary at 6107 N. 7th Street (the old Camp Social site). If you have not sent in your email yet, please do so before June 1st. For more detailed information on ZA-222-20 and how you can have your voice heard, please click here.
The zoning hearing is scheduled for Thursday, June 4th at 1:30 p.m. Please read the directions below to participate.
Per the most recent COVID guidelines, the Zoning Adjustment Hearing Meeting will be held virtually, via a video conferencing platform.
The public may listen to the live meeting by calling 602-666-0783 and following the below steps:
Enter meeting access code 628861399#
Press # again when prompted for the attendee ID
Members of the public may also observe the virtual meeting by visiting this following link and registering on the website.
If you wish to provide a written comment or speak at the meeting, please submit a request to: zoning.adjustment@phoenix.gov at least 48 hours prior to the start of the hearing. Please indicate the item number you wish to speak on (Item#14*). Staff will provide you further instructions on the process for public comment during the virtual meeting. Staff will make every effort to accommodate requests to speak submitted beyond the 48-hour period. Due to the added demands of facilitating the virtual environment for the public, applicants and other staff members, we cannot consider any request less than six business hours before the start of the meeting / hearing.
Notes:
Agenda items may be taken out of order.
Anyone wishing to address an agenda item must complete a speaker card.
Comments may be limited due to time constraints and to ensure all viewpoints are heard.
*Please note that this is the 6th item on the afternoon agenda. The agenda items may be taken out of order and there is no way to predict the time this will be discussed.
If you have any questions or concerns, please contact us at info@ncpha.org. Another reminder will be sent out next week.
ZONING CASE ZA-222-20 HAS BEEN CONTINUED. Due to the high level of opposition to the location of the Medical Marijuana Dispensary, the applicant has requested a continuance. The new hearing date is July 9, 2020.
Thank you for your emails and letters of opposition to the 3 variances to dismiss the minimum distance requirements to schools, churches and residential neighborhoods.
We will keep you informed of further meetings and hearings.
Thank you for your support!
RE-ZONING CASE #Z-50-19 - 110/120 W. Northern Avenue Update!
Dear Neighbors,
We are so happy to share that after many collaborative meetings with the neighborhood and the developer, that the R-10 residential zoning has been retained. The developer has created a new project that will keep the density appropriate with the underlying zoning requirements.
We thank those neighbors who shared their concerns and constructive feedback. We also appreciate the willingness of the developer to create a project that will enhance the neighborhood.
Construction of new single family homes will begin shortly.
Zoning Update - 7019 N. Central Avenue, The William F. McElroy House
This is an update on the status of the proposed historical overlay to 7019 N. Central Avenue, the William F. McElroy home.
The William F. McElroy House circa 1936
On August 21st, the Historic Preservation Commission voted to continue this case until October 21st. The Commission stated they needed more information from the scheduled demolition hearing scheduled for October 1st, before they could proceed with designation of the historic overlay.
As a result, all other scheduled meetings are due to be continued as well. On August 22nd, the Alhambra Village Planning Committee voted to continue this until October 22nd.
We expect both the future Planning Commission and City Council meetings will also continue this agenda item until after the Historic Preservation Commission renders their decision in late October.
We want to thank you for your letters of support to the historic overlay and opposition to the demolition of this rare American Colonial Revival that adds to the exceptional character of our North Central neighborhood .
Have a safe and happy Labor Day weekend and we will continue to keep you apprised of future meeting dates.
For further information visit our website at ncpha.org or send us an email at info@ncpha.org.
Thank you for your support!
Zoning Update - 7019 N. Central Avenue, The William F. McElroy House~~December 5, 2019.
Many thanks to those neighbors who attended the City Council meeting yesterday afternoon. The historic overlay, initiated by the City of Phoenix to the William F. McElroy House, was approved.
The vote was 6-3 to support the overlay. Here is the voting record:
YES
Mayor Gallego, Vice Mayor Guardado, Thelma Williams, Laura Pastor, Debra Stark, Carlos Garcia
NO
Sal DiCiccio, Michael Nowakowski, Jim Waring