Attachment B - VPC Rec Form - PHO-2-21--Z-111-01-8(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 
PHO-2-21—Z-111-01-8(7) 
 
 
Date of VPC Meeting 
October 11, 2021 
Planning Hearing Officer 
Hearing Date 
October 20, 2021 
Request 
1) Modification of Stipulation 1 regarding general 
conformance with the site plan date stamped April 
10, 2002. 
2) Review of site plans and elevations by the 
Planning Hearing Officer per Stipulation 2. 
3) Deletion of Stipulation 9 regarding the completion 
of the Developer Project Information Form for the 
MAG Transportation Improvement Program. 
4) Deletion of Stipulation 17 regarding 50 percent 
open space being high and dry. 
5) Modification of Stipulation 22 regarding 
architectural character consistent with the Laveen 
Plan. 
6) Deletion of Stipulation 24 regarding corporate 
colors and associated graphics as an accent 
feature. 
7) Deletion of Stipulation 25 regarding pitched roofs 
on commercial buildings. 
8) Deletion of Stipulation 27 regarding windows on 
any facade with a primary customer entrance. 
9) Deletion of Stipulation 28 regarding landscaping 
of surface parking areas. 
10) Modification of Stipulation 35 regarding maximum 
height of service station canopies or drive-through 
canopies. 
11) Deletion of Stipulation 36 regarding canopy 
support pillar size and materials. 
12) Modification of Stipulation 42 regarding a 
maximum of 312 lots. 
13) Modification of Stipulation 43 regarding minimum 
lot widths. 
14) Modification of Stipulation 45 regarding rural mail 
delivery and the use of gang mailboxes. 
15) Modification of Stipulation 46 regarding roof 
treatment variety. 
16) Modification of Stipulation 48 regarding general 
Attachment B

City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
conformance with the site plan dated April 5, 
2002. 
17) Modification of Stipulation 52 regarding a variety 
of at least six different types of roof treatments. 
18) Modification of Stipulation 53 regarding materials 
that would minimize stucco and tile. 
19) Modification of Stipulation 56 regarding 
substantial conformance with view fence pictures. 
20) Technical corrections to Stipulations 10, 23, 33, 
and 38. 
Location 
Northwest corner of 75th Avenue and Baseline Road   
VPC Recommendation 
Denial 
VPC Vote 
8-0 
 
VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS: 
 
Sofia Mastikhina, staff, provided an overview of the request, including its location, 
zoning, surrounding land uses, and proposed stipulation modifications. She then 
presented the stipulated site plan and elevations, and the proposed site plan and 
elevations.  
 
Cassandra Ayers, representative with Beus, Gilbert, McGroder PPLC, provided an 
overview of the request, explaining that it will replace the multifamily residences shown 
on the approved plan with single-family homes, and will also decrease the overall 
density on the site as the original plan would allow 374 units, while the new project 
proposes 173 units. She outlined the proposed open space areas, which exceed 
conventional zoning standards, and total 22 percent of the net lot area. She explained 
that there is also a development agreement that allows the property to use areas along 
the Laveen Conveyance Channel as part of the open space calculations. However, the 
22 percent is exclusive of the channel areas. She then stated that the applicant could 
incorporate some of the design features that the committee’s Vice Chair provided ahead 
of time. She proceeded to outline each stipulation modification request and asked for 
the committee’s recommendation for approval. 
 
Vice Chair Linda Abegg stated that she sent the applicant a list of design elements 
that the Village typically requests in these types of cases and asked if they had brought 
their architect or site design team to discuss incorporating these elements and 
corresponding stipulations. She explained she provides these ahead of the meeting so 
applicants can incorporate them into the design, yet the plans presented do not seem to 
have done so. She outlined the desired design features such as breaking up of building 
mass, mix of accent materials on street-facing facades, and variation in rooflines. Chair 
Tonya Glass asked that all these be included as stipulations since the applicant did not 
incorporate them into their elevations. Vice Chair Abegg agreed and further stated that 
not all of the requests to delete stipulations regarding commercial development to allow 
for marekt flexibility make sense. However, with a stipulation of general conformance to 
the site plan presented, a developer would need to go through the Planning Hearing 
Officer (PHO) public hearing process to update the site plan in order to develop 
commercial, which would allow for the committee to then assess commercial design 
stipulations. She then stated that the Village would like to stipulate to minimum 22-foot

City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
driveways in the single-family portion of the development and that, although the 
applicant indicated they would not be able to accommodate, she feels that this is an 
important aspect that will help prevent blocking of sidewalks, so it will also be stipulated. 
She also stated that Laveen has not approved reduced width lots in recent single-family 
developments, and that they are not supportive of the reduction to 45-foot lot width. She 
added that another way to address the committee’s concerns with lot width is to require 
minimum side yard setbacks to ensure homes have adequate separation between 
them. 
 
Carlos Ortega expressed his concern with the vague nature of some of the applicant’s 
requested stipulation modifications and stated that they should provide specific 
elevations of the single-family homes once they have them. He expressed his 
discomfort with approving vague plans, and that there are no guarantees for good 
design without elevations, unless the applicant were to request a Planned Unit 
Development (PUD) rezone. 
 
Stephanie Hurd asked the applicant to consider revising their building design to look 
more like the developer’s project named 23 North, which is much nicer. She asked who 
she would need to talk to ahead of the meetings to ensure applicants come to the 
meetings with a high-quality design. Chair Glass reiterated that the applicant had the 
opportunity to update their building design after meeting with the Vice Chair and 
receiving the committee’s list of desired design elements, but they decided not to 
incorporate them. Ayers replied that they can take a look at the committee’s requested 
stipulations, discuss them with the developer, and work with the committee on 
incorporating them. 
 
Vice Chair Abegg asked if the applicant is willing to accept a continuance to be able to 
work with the committee on these matters, as the time frame between this meeting and 
the PHO hearing is very short. Ayers replied that they would prefer to take the 
committee’s stipulations and continue moving through the hearing process. 
 
PUBLIC COMMENT 
Lewis Smith asked the applicant what the approximate price range of the townhome 
units will be. Chuck Chisholm, with the development team, replied that similar units in 
their 23 North development are being sold in the $350,000 range. He added that he 
considers the Laveen location to be superior, and prices will likely affect that. Smith 
expressed concern with two-story buildings blocking view corridors along the west side 
of 75th Avenue, and with the impact of this development on the Laveen School District. 
He then asked if the new developer will be responsible for maintaining the drainage 
channel on the west side of 75th Avenue. Chisholm replied yes. 
 
Phil Hertel expressed his concern with the applicant’s assertion that the density will be 
reduced, because they are still maximizing the density in the commercial portion of the 
development. He also stated that 45-foot-wide lots absolutely should not be approved, 
setbacks should be added, and minimum 22-foot driveways should be incorporated to 
ensure consistency with other Laveen developments. He stated that many of the 
community’s desired design features were not included and that a continuance should 
be granted to allow the applicant to work with the community on improving their design. 
 
Daniel Penton expressed his concerns with the increased traffic generation along 75th 
Avenue and Baseline Road, insufficient guest parking in the townhome project, the

City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
small single-family lots and driveway lengths, which will cause on-street parking and 
congestion, and the building design. He stated that the townhome design is very 
institutional and not unique to the Laveen character. He suggested the applicant modify 
them to be more consistent with a rural or modern farmhouse architectural style. He 
also expressed concern with the lack of single-family home elevations and stated that 
this case still has a lot of work ahead of it. Ayers explained that the single-family 
elevations were not required as part of this process, and that they will be presented later 
on in the process. She stated that the applicant is ready to move forward with the 
process with the additional design stipulations outlined by the committee. 
 
Vice Chair Abegg stated that this case should not move forward without additional 
work with the community, but, understanding the PHO process, she would like to ensure 
that all of the committee’s stipulations in the case of an approval are put on the public 
record. 
 
1ST MOTION 
Vice Chair Abegg made a motion to deny the case as filed, and approve with 
modifications and additional stipulations as follows: 
• Approve modification to Stipulation No. 22 with the following additions: 
o That all elevations shall incorporate at minimum three of the following 
building materials: native stone, burnt adobe, textured brick, wood (when 
shaded by overhangs or deep recesses), slump block, ceramic tile (matte 
finish), stucco and exposed aggregate concrete, as approved by the 
Planning and Development Department with a minimum 25% non-stucco 
materials on street facing elevations. 
o All garage doors shall have decorative embellishments such as window 
panels, added materials surrounding the door, or trellises, as approved by 
the Planning and Development Department. 
• Deny requested deletion of Stipulation No. 28, which should remain unchanged, 
as additional trees should be encouraged. 
• Deny requested modification of Stipulation No. 43, as lot width should not be 
reduced. 
• Deny requested deletion to Stipulation No. 46, as roof overhangs should remain 
unchanged. 
• Deny requested modification to Stipulation No. 53, approve with the modification 
that all street-facing elevations shall have a maximum of 75 percent of stucco or 
primary building material. 
• Additional stipulation for minimum 22 percent open space. 
• Additional stipulation for minimum 22-foot driveway depths. 
• Additional stipulation for maximum one story homes on west side of 75th 
Avenue. 
• Additional stipulation for minimum 5-foot side yard setbacks for single-family 
homes. 
• Additional stipulation regarding multifamily portion of development:  
• Reduction of building mass shall be achieved by using a combination of the 
following techniques: 
o a. Variation in the roofline and form; 
o b. Use of ground level arcades and covered areas, protected or recessed 
building entrances; 
o c. Vertical elements on or in front of expansive blank walls;

City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
o d. Use of pronounced wall plane offsets and projections; 
o e. Use of focal points and vertical accents; 
o f. Inclusion of windows on elevations facing streets and pedestrian areas. 
Carlos Ortega seconded the motion. 
 
VOTE: 
2-6: Motion fails with committee members Barraza and Buggs in favor, and committee 
members Glass, Abegg, Hurd, Knight, Ortega, and Rouse opposed. 
 
2ND MOTION 
Vice Chair Abegg made a motion to deny the case as filed and requested that it be 
continued to allow the applicant to work with the committee on updating the design. 
Jennifer Rouse seconded the motion. 
 
VOTE: 
8-0: Motion passes with committee members Glass, Abegg, Barraza, Buggs, Hurd, 
Knight, Ortega, and Rouse in favor.