Attachment C - VPC Summary - GPA-DV-2-19-2.pdf

City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary 
GPA-DV-2-19-2 
Date of VPC Meeting 
May 21, 2020 
Request From 
Preserve / 0-1 or 1-2 residential dwelling units per acre, 
Parks/Open Space – Future 1 residential dwelling units 
per acre, Commerce/Business Park (156.96 acres) 
Request To 
Residential 2 to 3.5 dwelling units per acre, Residential 
3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre, Commerce/Business 
Park (156.96 acres) 
Proposed Use 
Residential, commercial and commerce park uses 
Location 
Northeast corner of Central Avenue and Happy Valley 
Road 
VPC Recommendation 
Approval  
VPC Vote 
11-1 
VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS:
Mr. David Simmons, staff, went over GPA-DV-2-19-2 first, explaining that the 
center of the site is to retain the Commerce Park General Plan Map designation 
and the upper and lower portions of the subject site are proposed to change to 
residential. He explained that this is consistent with the character of the 
surrounding area as the character of this area will be changing in the future.  
Mr. David Cisiewski, with the Law Office of David Cisiewski, PLLC, representing 
the applicant, went over the history of the site. He explained his client’s proposal 
for the three-parcel development plan. He also went over where discussions 
have gone to date with stakeholders in the area. He explained that various 
chemicals had been used on the site directly related to historic uses on the site 
operated by UPCO. He shared in his presentation several slides that the Arizona 
Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) has presented at neighborhood 
meetings prior to this hearing. The slides were color coded and he explained 
each color-coded area depicted on the maps. He went over the water 
remediation facility and well system currently operating on the site to clean up a 
contaminated groundwater plume in the center portion of the site. He went over 
the ADEQ environmental remediation tactics required to date to include soils 
contamination remediation, groundwater pump and treat system and went over 
the Declaration of Environmental Use Restriction (DEUR) documents and their 
requirements and restrictions for the site, which are attached in the appendices 
of the staff report.  
Attachment C

GPA-DV-2-19-2 
Page 2 of 8 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
Mr. Cisiewski also talked about the land use request on the site. He went over 
the open space proposed, which is superior to ordinance standards, he went 
over lot sizes and went over amenity areas within the open space proposed, 
including a robust trail system connecting to the Phoenix Sonoran Preserve. He 
went into great detail about the monitoring well sites on the overall site and 
stated that they cannot be disturbed and that ADEQ was the regulatory agency 
overseeing the clean-up of the soil and aquifer. He went over the public 
participation report and shared with the committee how the proposal had 
changed from the initial plans presented at the initial neighborhood meeting to 
what is being proposed today as a result of citizen concerns and staff’s 
comments. Some of the things highlighted were the decrease in density in Parcel 
1, increased landscape buffers, increased building separation, drainage study 
results were shared, dark skies were addressed, the instillation of a diverter 
island to prohibit right turns out of the subdivision to reduce traffic into the County 
Island, and exhaustive remediation efforts.   He highlighted the water and sewer 
infrastructure being extended as a result of this development as well as the 
roadway improvements required along Central Avenue and Happy Valley Road. 
He went on to talk about the General Plan Amendment case as well and 
highlighted some of the plan goals he thinks relate to this request.  
 
Discussion:  
 
Ms. Ann O’Brien asked the applicant how he was aware of the neighbor’s 
concerns.  
 
Mr. Cisiewski shared that he gained knowledge of the neighbors’ concerns 
through the required public neighborhood meeting process, emails, and phone 
calls.  
 
Ms. O’Brien asked what the price point was to be for the houses proposed in 
Parcel 1 of the proposal.  
 
Mr. Chuck Chisholm stated that due to market conditions, the exact price point 
could not be calculated at this time. However, if the homes were on the market 
today, they would be priced at the mid 400’s for the 2k to 3k square foot plans 
and the mid 500’s for the 3k to 4k square foot plans. He stressed that no homes 
will be built on the site for quite some time.  
 
Mr. Ricardo Romero asked what the acreage is for the open space proposed.  
 
Mr. Cisiewski stated that the open space makes up 27 percent of Parcel 1.  
 
Mr. Keith Greenberg asked if Central Avenue will be improved.  
 
Mr. Cisiewski shared that Central Avenue will be completely replaced with a 
two-land road improved according to City standards with curb, gutter, detached 
sidewalk, landscaping and a multi-use trail.

GPA-DV-2-19-2 
Page 3 of 8 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
Mr. Greenburg asked is water and sewer infrastructure was to be extended 
along Central Avenue and Happy Valley Road.  
 
Mr. Cisiewski shard that water and sewer infrastructure will be extended.  
 
Mr. Mark Lewis asked Chairman Joseph Grossman if he would open the floor to 
public comments as many people were waiting to speak.  
 
Chairman Joseph Grossman stated he would open the floor to public comment 
after the committee hears from the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 
(ADEQ) representative and called on her to speak on the environmental issue 
related to the site.  
 
Ms. Laura Malone, representing ADEQ, shared that there are ground water 
contaminates in the aquifer under the site. She shared that this aquifer is in the 
process of being remediated and shared that there are soil caps on the site 
located within Parcel 2 of this proposal. She shared that the soil cap area will 
never be remediated, and the caps serve as a buffer between human contact 
and the contaminates. She shared that UPCO, former operator on the site, is 
fully responsible for the upkeep and remediation of the water well remediation 
system as well as the soil caps. She shared that the additional soils testing that 
was conducted on the norther portion of the site, which encompasses Parcel 1, 
has been cleared for residential uses as the reports came back below rates that 
would exclude residential development. She shared that the area encompassing 
Parcel 2 restricts residential development.  
 
Mr. Ruddell Osborn asked what the surrounding zoning districts were in the 
area.  
 
Mr. Dave Cisiewski shard that the surrounding zoning districts were S-1 and the 
county’s equivalent to RE-43.  
 
Public Comment:  
 
Ms. Julie Bradfeldt started by giving kudos to the applicant for making changes 
to the proposal as a result of public concerns, particularly limiting the first row of 
homes abutting Yearling Road to one story in height. She proposed that Parcel 1 
be slit up into two phases, one of which would act as a better buffer and 
transition from the more rural county homes to the north and the higher density 
proposed in Parcel 1. She shared that many washed are located on the subject 
site and that the enhanced open space proposed was a smoke shield as it 
encompasses all of the wash areas. She is also concerned about sidewalks.  
 
Mr. Robert Hanson, residing at 508 East Yearling Road, has concerns about the 
proposed density in Parcel 1, he went over staff’s comments on the applicants 
first and second PUD narrative review and stated that lot sizes should be 
increased and open space should be decreased in order to ensure the proposed 
homes are more in character with more rural lot sizes to the north in the county 
island.

GPA-DV-2-19-2 
Page 4 of 8 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
 
Mr. Stanly Foreman, residing in Foreside in Norterra, supports the project due to 
the increase in property values this proposal will generate, the commercial 
development this proposal will attract like grocery stores, markets and 
restaurants, the addition of water and sewer infrastructure to the area, amenities, 
and just good growth for the area overall.  
 
Mr. Stuart Hamer, residing on Yearling Road, is opposed to the proposal. He 
recommends a 200-foot buffer between the existing single-family homes to the 
north and the proposed new homes. He is also concerned about an increase in 
traffic.  
 
Mr. Mark Crenshaw, residing at 106 West Yearling Road, is opposed. He shard 
concerns about dust generated from the dirt roads in the area, increased traffic, 
character of the area changing, increase in the urban heat island effect, noise 
pollution and light pollution.  
 
Committee Member Brandon Shipman asked if the neighbors were interested 
in being annexed into the City of Phoenix in order to take advantage of the 
proposed water and sewer infrastructure being expanded to the area.  
 
Mr. Crenshaw stated he would have to collaborate with his neighbors to see if 
they are interested. 
 
Mr. and Ms. Anthony Balduzzi stated they were in support of the project. They 
shared that they are prospective home buyers in the area and the area is 
currently lacking in a product type that suits their needs. They are seeking new 
construction with neighborhood amenities, a sense of community.  
 
Vice Chair Trilese DiLeo thanked the Balduzzi’ s for their comments as it brings 
a good perspective for the committee to consider. She asked how they heard 
about this proposal.  
 
Mr. Balduzzi shared that he is friends with the development team.  
 
Ms. Connie Verno is opposed to the proposal. Density is too high, dead animals 
on road, character of area changing, destruction of animal habitat.  
 
Committee Member Bill Levy stated that Yearling Road residents are on wells. 
This development will bring safe drinking water to the area.  
 
Committee Member Ozzie Virgil shared that he was in the same scenario some 
years ago. He lives on a rural lot and a higher density development was 
constructed across the street from him. He shared that the buffer is adequate 
and makes and incredible difference.  
 
Mr. Al Fuentes, residing west of Central Avenue off of Bridles, shared concerns 
about density, traffic and dark skies.

GPA-DV-2-19-2 
Page 5 of 8 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
Ms. Ann O’Brien asked staff if they consider surrounding zoning in the County.  
 
Mr. David Simmons, staff, shared that yes, staff does consider all surrounding 
land uses.  
 
Mr. John Blue shared concerns about the character of the area changing, wants 
the increased buffer of at least 200 feet, larger lot sizes, limiting the first row of 
houses abutting Yearling Road to 1 story and traffic concerns.  
Committee Member Keith Greenburg would like to see a traffic light placed at the 
intersection of Central Avenue and Happy Valley Road.  
 
Mr. Dave Cisiewski, representing the applicant, shared that the traffic analysis 
did not warrant t traffic light at the intersection for Phase 1. One Phase 2 is built 
out a traffic signal would be required at the intersection.  
 
Ms. Cheri Stevenson, residing on East Yearling Road, is opposed to the project. 
Concerns about character of the area changing, and environmental concerns.  
 
Ms. Laura Malone, ADEQ, shared that additional testing is underway.  
 
Mr. Virgil asked how far Ms. Stevenson’s home is from the site.  
 
Ms. Stevenson stated that she does not know the exact measurement, but her 
horses will be close by.  
 
Ms. O’Brien asked if she lives on Yearling Road.  
 
Ms. Stevenson shared that she does live on Yearling Road.  
 
Mr. Chris Shipley shared that he lives .62 miles from the subject site. He is 
opposed due to the character of the area changing, traffic, public safety and a 
strain on emergency services.  
 
Mr. Greenburg asked who provides emergency services to the county residents 
currently.  
 
Mr. Shipley shared that the County Sheriff provides police services and the City 
of Phoenix provides fire service.  
 
Mr. Bill Verno, residing at 25825 N. 1st Place, is opposed. He has concerns 
about washes backing up and flooding lots upstream, density, buffer size 
proposed and increased traffic.  
 
Mr. Shipman asked Mr. Verno what he knows that a drainage engineer does not 
know in regard to wash modifications.  
 
Mr. Verno stated that the diversion of many washed into one wash would not 
work and a culvert wouldn’t meet the standard. He is also concerned about 
residential being built in Parcel 1 due to environmental concerns.

GPA-DV-2-19-2 
Page 6 of 8 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
 
Ms. Malone, ADEQ, shared that the studies conducted on Parcel 1 has 
determined it is cleared for residential development.  
 
Mr. Greenburg stated that ADEQ does not cut anyone any slack. Their studies 
are science based and the facts are the facts.  
 
Applicants Response:  
 
Mr. Dave Cisiewski went over the landscape setback along Yearling Road and 
showed the actual distance from the existing structures to the north of Yearling to 
the proposed structures to the south of Yearling. He shared that the proposed 
setback is far superior than what is required in the Ordinance for R1-10 and R1-
18 requirements. We went over the comparative development standards table to 
show this to the committee and stakeholders present. He also went over the 
traffic impact analysis.  
 
Chairman Joseph Grossman is pleased to see water and sewer infrastructure 
coming into the area. He reemphasized that the environmental issues associated 
with Parcel 2 ae the responsibility of UPCO, the former operator on the site.  
 
Mr. Cisiewski stated that yes, UPCO is the responsible party.  
 
Chairman Grossman asked what entailed determining the uses in regard to 
contamination levels on the site.  
 
Ms. Malone, ADEQ, shared that toxicology and health effects determine land 
uses in a DEUR, ADEQ has industrial and residential remediation and 
contamination level guidelines in place. Parcel 2 has soil caps. These will not be 
cleaned up, but capped. Residential will never be allowed in Parcel 2.  
 
Vice Chair DiLeo stated that traffic is her biggest concern. She would strongly 
urge a stipulation for a second exit from Parcel 1 through Parcel 2 and a street 
signal at the intersection of Central Avenue and Happy Valley Road when Parcel 
1 is developed.  
 
Ms. O’Brien agrees with Vice Chair DiLeo. She would like to see a traffic signal 
at the intersection at the time of Parcel 1 development.  
 
Mr. Mark Lewis stated that the amount of effort and revisions to the plans proves 
that this applicant has gone above and beyond with negotiations with city staff 
and the neighbors to satisfy their concerns as the plans have changes drastically 
since the initial submittal.  
 
Mr. Greenburg asked what responsibility this committee has to residents outside 
of the City of Phoenix municipal boundary.  
 
Mr. Virgil stated, as for responsibility, we want to be a good neighbor. This is a 
responsibility the committee has.

GPA-DV-2-19-2 
Page 7 of 8 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
 
Chairman Joseph Grossman stated that he appreciates Mr. Virgil’s remarks 
and he concurs. 
 
Mr. Brandon Shipman stated that he appreciates all of the public comments. 
However, after hearing from the representative from ADEQ he has no issues with 
the environmental concerns voiced tonight. The shared that the by the applicant 
limiting the first row of houses along Yearling to one story he is supportive of the 
proposal.  
 
Mr. Russell Osborn stated that this committee represents Deer Valley, not the 
City of Phoenix as a whole. He shared that the committee should treat all County 
island residents as our neighbors as they are in Deer Valley proper as well. He 
stated that he is opposed to the proposal and the land should stay zoned S-1.  
 
Mr. David Simmons, staff, shared that when property is annexed into the City of 
Phoenix, it is typically zoned S-1 as a place holder. As the area develops, 
applicants submit rezoning applications. He shared that annexed land rarely, if 
ever, stays S-1 as it develops.  
 
Mr. Ricardo Romero stated that traffic is his number one concern and the traffic 
signal should be implemented during the construction of Phase 1.  
 
Mr. Simmons shared that the traffic impact analysis has already been reviewed 
internally by the Streets Department. The Streets Department concluded as part 
of their review that a traffic signal is not warranted at the intersection of Central 
Avenue and Happy Valley Road at the time of Phase 1 construction. Phase 2 
construction would warrant this requirement due to increased traffic flows. Mr. 
Simmons explained to the committee that this would not be a stipulation that may 
hold weight as they case move through the entitlement process It would most 
likely be removed at Planning Commission.  
 
Ms. Michelle Gardner asked the applicant if the committee were to propose a 
lower density zoning designation, would the project still be profitable?  
 
Mr. Bill Levy shared that he had reached out to the Streets Department about 
roadway improvements along Happy Valley Road. He learned from his 
conversation that private development spurs roadway improvement and if this 
project were to fail the roads will not be improved. He also asked many of the 
surrounding neighbors about their water quality in their wells. He learned that a 
lot of people in the area have tainted wells. The water line extension would allow 
many of these people to access safe drinking water. Because of these things Mr. 
Levy shared that he is supportive of the proposal.  
 
Ms. O’Brien asked staff is S-1 were, in fact, a place holder zoning designation 
after annexation.  
 
Mr. Simmons, staff, stated that S-1 is a place holder for annexed land.

GPA-DV-2-19-2 
Page 8 of 8 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
Mr. Mark Lewis shared that he sees 2.5 acre lots next to master planned 
communities all the time. These two types of developments can coexist with one 
another. However, he acknowledged the stakeholder concerns for the record.  
 
Mr. Shipman stated that the committee’s responsibility is to the Deer Valley 
Village. He believes this proposal will better the village. He is in support of the 
proposal.  
 
Vice Chair DiLeo asked if stipulating to the traffic light is out of the question.  
 
Mr. Cisiewski, representing the applicant, stated that he will reach out to the 
Streets Department to see if they can incorporate the traffic signal at Phase 1 of 
the development rather than waiting for Phase 2 to develop.  
 
Vice Chair DiLeo asked the applicant if he would be opposed to a second exit.  
 
Mr. Cisiewski shared that there are currently three access points to serve Parcel 
2 and parcel 3. Topographical constraints restrict them from considering an 
additional exit from Parcel 1 through Parcel 2. A large wash runs between the 
two areas.  
 
Vice Chair DiLeo stated that keeping the land S-1 wouldn’t make sense. A 
transition is needed between the Commerce Park uses in Parcel 2 from the rural 
county lots to the north. The density proposed in Parcel 1 is a natural transition 
between the two.  
 
Chairman Grossman shared that one-story homes along Yearling is not in the 
narrative and this will need to be included in the motion as an added stipulation.  
 
Mr. Keith Greenburg stated that he would be in support of a motion for approval 
if the one-story limit was added for the first row of houses abutting Yearling 
Road.  
 
Vice Chair Trilese DiLeo added that she would be in support of a motion if it 
included the added stipulation that a street signal be added at the intersection of 
Central Avenue and Happy Valley Road at the time of Phase 1 construction.  
 
MOTION: Ms. Ann O’Brien motioned to recommend approval per staff’s 
recommendation for General Plan Amendment Case No. GPA-DV-2-19-2.  
Committee member Mr. Brandon Shipman seconded the motion. 
 
VOTE:  11-1, motion to recommend approval passed, with Committee 
Members Grossman, DiLeo, Gardner, Greenberg, Kenney, Levy, Lewis, 
O’Brien, Romero, Shipman and Virgil in favor. Mr. Russell Osborn 
dissented due to the increased density and character of the area changing.