Attachment C - VPC Summary - Z-18-22-1.pdf

City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3
rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary 
Z-18-22-1
Date of VPC Meeting 
June 9, 2022 
Request From 
S-1
Request To 
R-2
Proposed Use 
Single-family residential
Location 
Northeast corner of 19th Avenue and Yearling Road
VPC Recommendation 
Denial
VPC Vote 
5-3
VPC DISCUSSION:
STAFF PRESENTATION: 
Anthony Grande, staff, provided an overview of the rezoning proposal, describing the 
recently annexed location of the request, land use designation, surrounding zoning and 
uses, and the existing and proposed zoning districts. Mr. Grande reviewed the project 
proposal including its site plan and stated that staff recommends approval as presented 
subject to stipulations that address concerns received from the public including privacy, 
traffic, density, and height.  
Keith Greenberg asked for clarification on Stipulation 5 regarding tree caliper. Mr. 
Grande replied by defining caliper size.  
Michelle Gardner questioned how Stipulations 1 and 2 relate to privacy. Mr. Grande 
affirmed that Stipulations 1 through 5 intend to create a buffer and cap density. Ms. 
Gardner inquired about surrounding residents’ opinion.   
Ozzie Virgil inquired about the Proposition 207 waiver; to which Mr. Grande clarified it 
serves to waive the right to litigation in the name of property values.  
Trilese DiLeo asked about how stipulations are enforced and what would happen in the 
case that a developer does not adhere to them. Mr. Grande answered that stipulations 
are included in the same legal rezoning ordinance that is referenced during site plan 
review.  
Attachment C

City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
Applicant Presentation:  
 
Charles Eckert, with Red Hawk Development, introduced himself on behalf of the 
developer. Mr. Eckert displayed the site and its surrounding context and uses, including 
upcoming nearby developments. Mr. Eckert then discussed the neighborhood outreach 
and sign posting timeline, the district’s PRD requirements, and the site plan 
specifications, stating that the project brings necessary diverse housing stock into the 
area. Mr. Eckert also noted that zoning stipulations are strictly conformed to during the 
construction and development process. Mr. Eckert next discussed how the proposal 
addresses issues that arose during neighborhood meetings, including ingress/egress, 
street improvements, parking, and infrastructure.  
 
Questions from the committee: 
  
Trilese DiLeo asked whether the proposed units were to be rented or sold individually 
and if so for approximately how much to which Mr. Eckert responded that the units 
were to be sold individually as condominium units.  
 
Carol Shilliday, the owner of the subject property, estimated that the current market 
value of the proposed units might be around $500,000 - $550, 000 dollars, though she 
stated that it would be impossible to say how much they might cost post-construction 
giving the current market trends and a possible housing bubble. Ms. DiLeo rebutted to 
ask why Ms. Shilliday was considering this development in the first place considering 
this uncertainty.  
 
Mr. Eckert responded by sharing his experience with the changing housing market 
trends in Phoenix, echoing that there is a shortage of housing units notwithstanding. Mr. 
Eckert also added that the basis for this development is the area’s high demand for 
housing in light of large population increases. Ms. Shilliday added to this comment 
stating that construction costs are a major factor in market rates.  
 
Ms. DiLeo relayed that there were concerns from neighbors regarding density, and that 
the role of the Committee is to think about the long-term effects of development, though 
the price projections are appreciated. Ms. Shilliday mentioned two developments 
nearby to her home that are much larger in scope than the proposal.  
 
Ricardo Romero asked about the square footage per unit. Mr. Eckert replied that the 
square footage per unit would be between 1,750-2,200 square feet. Mr. Romero 
responded by reiterating the housing shortage and need for new units.  
 
Michelle Gardner inquired about the sewage infrastructure and whether it was a 
shared development cost. Ms. Shilliday answered that her development team would 
incur all costs related to sewage line installation, which she estimated to be about 1,000 
feet. Mr. Eckert added that the novel sewer line would provide connection opportunities 
for subsequent development. Ms. Gardner asked about current water service from 
wells, and Mr. Eckert confirmed that county property uses wells as a source of water 
currently.  
 
Ozzie Vigil asked to review the site plan once more to ask about an easement on the 
eastern boundary of the property. Mr. Eckert responded that there would be a 10-foot 
required setback from a dividing concrete wall.

City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
 
Public Comments: 
 
James Whatley introduced himself as the neighbor directly to the north of the project 
living on county land zoned for one-acre, single-family lots. Mr. Whatley expressed 
concern for the privacy of himself and neighbors adjacent to the east due to the 
proposed height and setbacks of the residential buildings. Mr. Whatley relayed that the 
property should remain at a density of one unit per acre and that the project is merely 
an opportunity for profit.  
 
Lance Little introduced himself as a neighbor to the north on 19th Avenue. Mr. Little 
shared that the subject property should stay true to the character of the county land that 
surrounds it given that none of the neighbors have intentions of selling their property. 
Mr. Little also shared concerns about congestion and traffic, and that the project does 
not consider the lifestyle desired by the neighbors.  
 
Diane Habener introduced herself as a nearby resident. Ms. Habener stated that the 
concerns of the community are not being addressed and that the development process 
is not on par with processes she has been involved with in the past in California. Ms. 
Habener expressed concerns about growing crime and homelessness, density, and the 
need to avoid change.  
 
Applicant Response: 
 
Mr. Eckert first addressed the issue of increased density by stating that 19th Avenue 
was to be widened and that this development was appropriate on an arterial of regional 
significance. Mr. Eckert then addressed the issue of building setbacks by sharing 
measurements that show 80 feet as the smallest distance between existing and 
proposed buildings. Mr. Eckert acknowledged that the project would exist on what was 
formerly a protected county island; however, the proposal will create a buffer between 
uses that is not nearly as intense nor dense as nearby residential projects that have 
already seen approval, as well as provide vital infrastructure to the area.  
 
Floor/Public Discussion Closed: Committee Discussion:  
 
Keith Greenberg shared he is not in support of the condominium project as proposed 
given its surrounding one-acre, single-family uses.  
 
Trilese DiLeo shared that as a longstanding member of the committee she has been 
historically pro-development; however, after recently hearing about a rezoning case in 
which a stipulation regarding a multiuse path was not adhered to, she is hesitant to 
approve the project notwithstanding its proposed stipulations. Ms. DiLeo also shared 
that the project was poorly designed and approval of it is not neighborly.  
 
Brandon Shipman responded to Ms. DiLeo by asking if the basis of her denial was 
solely on issues with stipulation enforcement. Ms. DiLeo answered that in part, yes, her 
denial is based on the inability to guarantee that the stipulations as proposed would 
protect the lifestyle of the surrounding residents who were there first, while changing the 
character of the area.

City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
Chair Joseph Grossman echoed the concern about stipulation enforcement and asked 
for elaboration from staff. 
 
Anthony Grande, staff, shared that stipulations are enforced during site plan review, 
though he is not familiar with the specific case that was previously referenced. Mr. 
Grande also shared that Neighborhood Services is responsible for enforcing violations. 
Ms. DiLeo clarified that the stipulation violations occurred at a property near 39th 
Avenue and Yorkshire Dr.  
 
Ozzie Vigil stated that the project is out of context for the area and that the building 
height is too high.  
 
Brandon Shipman reminded the committee of a recently approved project at 19th 
Avenue and Happy Valley. Mr. Vigil rebutted that that project had a higher by-right 
density, and Ms. DiLeo shared that she would not have approved that project in 
retrospect.  
 
Chair Joseph Grossman reiterated his the concern about stipulation enforcement 
while stating that the project, no longer being under county jurisdiction, is undergoing its 
due process of zoning that is appropriate to the growth of the surrounding area. Chair 
Grossman also relayed that it is important to not infringe on the rights of property 
owners and to allow the expansion of needed of infrastructure.  
 
Michelle Gardner echoed the importance of upholding stipulations. Ms. Gardener also 
added that current construction costs are not likely to ever allow the type of low-density 
development that the current zoning provides for, yet, the project as proposed is too 
dense. Ms. DiLeo responded that she believes there will be no issue developing the 
property with one home per acre lots given nearby development to the north.  
 
MOTION:  
 
Keith Greenberg motioned to recommend denial of Z-18-22-1. Trilese DiLeo 
seconded.  
 
VOTE: 
 
5-3; motion to recommend denial passes with Committee Members DiLeo, Gardner, 
Greenberg, Romero and Virgil and in support and Shipman, Kenney, and Grossman in 
opposition.  
 
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION: 
 
None.