Attachment C - VPC Summary - Z-41-21-7.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 
Z-41-21-7
Date of VPC Meeting 
September 13, 2021 
Request From 
S-1 (Approved C-2/CP-GCP) (14.56 acres)
Request To 
C-2 HGT/WVR DNS/WVR (14.56 acres)
Proposed Use 
Multifamily Residential Development
Location 
Approximately 615 north of the northwest corner of 59th 
Avenue and Dobbins Road 
VPC Recommendation 
Denial as filed 
VPC Vote 
8-0
VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS:
Sofia Mastikhina, staff, provided an overview of the request, including the location, 
surrounding and on-site zoning, surrounding land uses, and an explanation of proposed 
entitlement. She explained that the current zoning of C-1 (Intermediate Commercial 
District) permits multifamily residential development per R-3 (Multifamily Residence 
District) standards. The request is to add a height and density waiver to allow for a more 
intense development than would otherwise be permitted by right. She then outlined the 
General Plan Land Use Map designation, noting that the site is located within the 
Laveen Village Core, which is intended to be the central focus of the village where more 
height and density are appropriate. She presented the proposed site plan, pointing out 
the two entry driveways, three open space areas, and a height limitation for buildings 
along 59th Avenue of a maximum of two stories. She then presented the landscape 
plan, which includes robust landscaping within a 30-foot setback along 59th Avenue, 
per staff’s request, and the proposed building elevations, which exhibit rural 
architectural elements such as pitched roofs and vertical siding. She concluded her 
presentation with staff’s findings and recommendation, as well as the recommended 
stipulations of approval. 
Manjula Vaz, representative with Gammage & Burnham, presented examples of other 
projects by PB Bell, noting the high quality of the developments. She provided an 
overview of the locational context of the site, outlining the relationship of the site to the 
village core, and noting that the site to the south is planned for commercial 
development, as well as several other commercial developments slated for construction 
along the Loop 202 freeway. She presented information regarding the rezoning case 
that established the commercial zoning on the site and pointed out that the approval 
letter called out the intent of the village core as a high-intensity area with a mix of 
Attachment C

City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
commercial and high density multifamily residential development. She then presented 
the proposed site plan, landscape plan, building renderings and elevations, noting the 
main development features, circulation, pedestrian areas, improvements to 59th 
Avenue, enhanced open space, and enhanced architecture. She also outlined the 
General Plan Land Use and Design policies that are met by this proposal, and the 
development impact fees, contributions of the school district, and property taxes that will 
be generated by this development. 
 
QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE 
Vice Chair Linda Abegg thanked the applicant for working with the committee and the 
applicant in incorporating many of the standards and design features that they 
requested, and thanked staff for the recommended stipulations to ensure that the 
Laveen Core is held to high standards. She stated that although the plan underwent 
many changes, her main concern is that this site is designated for mixed use and the 
request at hand is to increase the height and density yet does not provide a mix of uses. 
She expressed concern over the trend of commercially zoned properties being 
developed with only residential uses and stated that there is no guarantee that the 
property to the south will develop with commercial.  
 
Rebecca Perrera thanked the applicant for their listing of the impact fees that will be 
applicable to this project and paid to the city but stated that ultimately those won’t do 
much for the local community. She explained that the biggest fiscal impact at a local 
level comes from sales taxes and, if Laveen continues to add rooftops without any 
commercial uses, the sales taxes from Laveen residents will go to the communities that 
they have to commute to for their shopping and entertainment needs. She also 
expressed concern with the erosion of commercial properties in Laveen. She then 
asked if the development is designed to discourage mid-block pedestrian crossings, as 
there is a school on 59th Avenue with many students walking to and from every day. 
Vaz replied that the developer is working with the Street Transportation Department to 
ensure sufficient pedestrian safety along 59th Avenue. 
 
Carlos Ortega expressed concern with the applicant’s usage of the word “multi-use,” as 
this is not a mixed-use project. He also expressed concern with the proposed height of 
3-story units and the noise mitigation from the freeway. Although the developer 
incorporated some architectural features, the proposal does not meet the intent of a 
mixed-use core. There is no guarantee that the property to the south will develop as 
commercial, and he is opposed to the proposal at hand. 
 
PUBLIC COMMENT 
Scott Ward introduced himself as the property owner of the parcel to the south and 
stated that he and his development team have been trying to attract businesses to their 
site for several months. He expressed his excitement for this project as it will bring 
sufficient residential units to support the future commercial uses on his property, which 
will come to fruition more easily once the multifamily is developed. 
 
Dan Penton expressed appreciation for the applicant having incorporated the 
community’s desired features into the plan but stated that this proposal does not meet 
the intent of the Village Core, which is to provide a mix of land uses. He explained that 
the proposal means to add high density residential along the freeway corridor, which 
should be an area for new employment opportunities. He then asked if the development 
has considered incorporating affordable units, as affordable housing is something that

City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
the community desperately needs. He requested that the committee deny this case or 
require that the applicant file a PUD to ensure commercial development on the property 
to the south. 
 
Sandy Hamilton asked for clarification on the committee’s position regarding 
multifamily housing, as they had previously made an assertion that they would no longer 
approve such projects yet, just at the previous meeting, they had approved two 
multifamily residential cases. He stated that the land of this subject request could be put 
to better use than for multifamily housing. 
 
Erika Lopez expressed concern over the high density of the proposal, the traffic 
generation, the lack of school capacity for the new units, and the overall impact on the 
neighborhood to the east. She asked that the committee recommend a continuance so 
that the applicant can explore a PUD designation to solidify requirements for a 
commercial portion to support the residential. 
 
Vice Chair Abegg expressed appreciation to the applicant for working extensively with 
staff, committee members, and members of the community to incorporate their 
suggestions into the project. She stated that, nevertheless, the proposal does not meet 
the intent of the Village Core due to a lack of a mixed-use component, and that the 
promise that there will be commercial on the parcel to the south is not enough to justify 
approval of this project. 
 
MOTION 
Vice Chair Abegg made motion to deny the request as filed. Carlos Ortega seconded 
the motion. 
 
VOTE 
8-0: Motion passes with committee members Glass, Abegg, Barraza, Buggs, Ortega, 
Perrera, Rouse, and Rowe in favor. Committee member Hurd experiences technical 
difficulties during the vote and was thus absent. 
 
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION & STIPULATIONS: 
None.