The boundaries for the SPD are 12th to 16th streets, from just north of Maryland Avenue to the cult-de-sac streets just north of Glendale Avenue, encompassing approximately 485 properties. Lots range in size from about 6,500 square feet (.14 acres) to nearly 122,000 square feet (2.8 acres), and most are zoned R1-3 or R1-6 single family residential.
The impetus for creating an SPD came in part from a handful of homes in the area being torn down an replaced with larger homes that were jarringly out of character with the rest of the neighborhood.
Squaw Peak Heights is noted for generous lots with smaller, single-story ranch homes built in the late 1940s that are set back far from the sidewalk, creating flood-irrigated, greenbelt front yards. The new homes that have been built upon the graves of the old ranch homes, while not unattractive, are more in keeping with new subdivisions being built in Chandler or Buckeye or Anthem, residents point out. These large, two-storied homes sit much closer to the curb.
The Squaw Peak SPD, which went into effect in August 2006, creates more restrictive front- and side-yard setbacks, and adds public-hearing processes for other significant changes.
The SPD also changed the rear setback to 20 feet from the rear property line on properties zoned R1-6. More than 90 percent of the homes in the new SPD area fall into this zoning category.
Opponents of the SPD argued that it’s not just speculative developers who would be impacted by the new regulations, but also existing homeowners who want to upgrade their own property with a second-story addition, expanded family room or new garage. They stated that no one has the right to tell them what they can and can’t do to their homes, and limiting their redevelopment options could ultimately negatively impact their home’s value.
Members of that small but vocal group of opponents formed the Madison Positive Alliance and filed a lawsuit in civil court challenging not the effects of the SPD, but rather the process by which it was created.
The group contends that, according to the language of the city’s zoning ordinance regarding the creation of an SPD, for the final draft of the SPD to be approved a total of 70 percent or more of the owners of the property within the area proposed needed to agree with its creation. However, the city’s interpretation, and therefore the method that city planning staff used, was one property, one vote.
The key difference here is the word “area.” For example, someone with a 10,000-square-foot lot would be allowed more votes than someone with a 4,000 square foot lot.
When counting by area, “You are only representing your square footage,” explained Katherine Coles, the city planner for the Camelback East Village district, who worked closely with the neighborhood on the creation of the SPD. “Your vote is measured by the amount of land you own.”
The “area” method is what is used to initiate the process for creating an SPD, however, the city then turns to the one-property, one-vote method for final approval of the SPD. It requires 70 percent or more approval of those who actually return the draft with their signature in favor of the plan. In this case, 71 percent of those responding approved it, if counted in the one-property, one-vote method, but only 63 percent of the area property owners were in favor, which means that, under this method, the SPD did not pass.
“The planning department has always interpreted that as one property, one vote,” Coles said. “The judge ... took the same language and applied it different than we had historically applied it.”
The judge also sided with the Madison Positive Alliance that the city did not follow its own guidelines in posting notice and publicizing the hearing at which the City Council discussed and then voted on the SPD. Again, Coles, said, its a matter of interpreting the language of the ordinance.
If the judge’s ruling stands, it would not automatically void all other SPDs in the city that used this same method; each one would likely have to face its own court challenge.
The city has until Feb. 18 to appeal the judge’s decision, and members of the Squaw Peak Neighborhood Association have written a letter to the mayor and City Council urging them to do so.
A letter from Margaret Wilson, assistant chief counsel for the city of Phoenix, was sent in reply, indicating her office had met with the City Council and advised those members of their options, but since it was done in executive session, she could provide no other information on the matter.
“There was nothing wrong with what the neighborhood did,” said Dan Trozzi, president of the Squaw Peak Heights Neighborhood Association. “[We] worked very closely with the city’s Planning Department to follow their guidance and direction explicitly in gaining their support and to ensure every zoning ordinance requirement was met. It is to no fault of the neighborhood that this decision was made.”
The court ruling will no doubt be the main topic of conversation at the annual spring meeting of the Squaw Peak Neighborhood Association, set for 7 p.m. Wednesday, Feb. 4 at Our Saviour Lutheran Church, 1212 E. Glendale Ave.
Current Issue Text 