Attachment B - VPC Summary - PHO-1-24--Z-56-16-3.pdf

City of Phoenix — Formal (2024-10-16)

View PDF Meeting page

Extracted text (via pymupdf) 4342 characters
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary 
PHO-1-24—Z-56-16-3 
Date of VPC Meeting 
August 21, 2024 
Date of Planning Hearing 
Officer Hearing 
September 18, 2024 
Request 
1) Deletion of Stipulation 1 regarding minimum
landscape setback along the east property line.
Location 
Approximately 320 feet east of the southeast corner of 
19th Avenue and Cactus Road 
VPC Recommendation 
Approval 
VPC Vote 
12-0
VPC DISCUSSION: 
Staff Presentation: 
Chase Hales, staff, presented an overview of the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) 
request and gave a brief refresher on what the PHO process entailed, citing that it had 
been a while since the Committee had heard a PHO case. 
Applicant Presentation: 
Sean Hamill, with United Engineering Group, shared an overview of the site and 
location. Mr. Hamill gave a history of the zoning case and reviewed the stipulation that 
was being requested to be deleted. Mr. Hamill stated that the proposed Family Dollar 
had been built, and that the residual land had been sold and was now looking to be 
developed by his client. Mr. Hamill stated that his team had submitted for development 
pre-app in the summer of 2023 and after several iterations the stipulation was 
discovered. Mr. Hamill stated that there was already a generous setback on other parts 
of the property due to the slope of the hillside, but due to the positioning of the Family 
Dollar Store, there was a bottleneck in which some of the parking stalls and some of the 
proposed amenities would be in the stipulated setback. 
Questions from the Committee: 
Committee Member Sommacampagna asked if the applicant was providing 40 feet of 
setbacks in other areas of the project. Mr. Hamill stated that the required landscaping 
setbacks were certainly met, it was the stipulated setback that created an issue. Chase 
Hales, staff, explained that only 15 feet was required by the Zoning Ordinance. Vice 
ATTACHMENT B

North Mountain Village Planning Committee 
Meeting Summary 
PHO-1-24—Z-56-16-3 
Page 2 of 2 
 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
Chair Matthews asked to clarify that if the stipulation were to be deleted as proposed, 
the setback would revert to 40 feet. Mr. Hales stated that the rear setback that would 
then apply would be 15 feet. 
 
Committee Member Adams asked if proposed multifamily product would be for sale or 
for rent. Mr. Hamill stated that the product would be single family homes for rent. 
 
Committee Member Garbarino asked if there would be a staff report. Mr. Hales 
explained that no staff report is created for PHO requests. 
 
Committee Member Garbarino asked if the setback requirement would be deleted, what 
the greatest landscape distance would be based on the proposed site plan. Mr. Hamill 
stated that he did not have all of the information at hand but could confidently say that 
the distance would be at around 30 feet at a minimum. 
 
Committee Member Carmona asked if a wall or fence would be placed on the eastern 
edge of the property. Mr. Hamill stated that due to the requirement of the Hillside 
Ordinance, there would be no wall along the eastern edge of the property, only a 
retaining wall in the hillside would be used. 
 
Committee Member Garbarino asked if access to the preserve would be provided as an 
amenity. Mr. Hamill stated there would not be. 
 
Committee Member Sommacampagna asked if it was known why the 40 feet was 
stipulated in the rezoning case. Vice Chair Matthews stated that in the original zoning 
case’s minutes with the Village Planning Committee, it was desired to reduce the 
distance from 50 feet to 40 feet. 
 
Public Comments:  
 
None. 
 
Committee Discussion:  
 
None. 
 
Motion: 
 
Committee Member Adams motioned to recommend approval of PHO-1-24--Z-56-16-
3. Committee Member Veidmark seconded the motion.  
 
Vote: 
 
12-0, Motion to recommend approval of PHO-1-24--Z-56-16-3 passed with Committee 
Members Adams, Alauria, Carmona, Garbarino, Jaramillo, Molfetta, O’Hara, Pamperin, 
Sommacampagna, Whitney, Viedmark, and Vice Chair Matthews in favor; none in 
opposition; and none in abstention.