Attachment C - VPC Summary-Info - Z-60-20-8.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-60-20-8
INFORMATION ONLY 
Date of VPC Meeting 
December 14, 2020 
Request From 
R1-8 (Single-Family Residence District) (19.35 acres) 
Request To 
PUD (Planned Unit Development) (19.35 acres) 
Proposed Use 
Planned Unit Development to allow single-family 
residential  
Location 
Northwest corner of 35th Avenue and Carver Road 
VPC DISCUSSION: 
Mr. Paul Gilbert, representative with Beus Gilbert McGroder, introduced the property 
owner, Jeremy Hall, and explained that the company has held this property for four 
years, and that it had existing entitlements for 99 residential units. The current proposal 
of 61 units is a significant compromise from the original approval. The site in questions 
is a former sanding gravel quarry and approved for 19 acres of R1-8 zoning and 40 
acres of R1-18 zoning. He explained that the proposed PUD will only affect the R1-8 
portion of the property. Prior to applying for the PUD zoning, the property owner had 
applied for modification of stipulations through the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) 
hearing process, which included the reduction of residential units from 99 units to 63 
units in response to community concerns, then a further reduction to 61 units offered by 
the applicant. The PHO approved the request with several modifications and additional 
stipulations, and the Planning Commission upheld the PHO recommendation. In 
October, the City Council continued the request so that the applicant could submit a 
request for a PUD, which is why they are here tonight. Mr. Gilbert then presented an 
aerial view and zoning map of the property, outlining the surrounding zoning 
designations, and claimed that there is much denser zoning in the vicinity than what is 
being proposed here. He then provided a comparison between the 1998 Laveen 
Southwest Growth Study Land Use Map and the current General Plan Land Use Map, 
highlighting how much the land use designations have changed over time, especially 
the increased density for the subject property, which is now Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling 
units per acre. The proposed density of this PUD is substantially under what is allowed 
by this designation. He then outlined the main elements of the proposed PUD, including 
permitted uses, accessory uses, design standards, open space, setbacks, and the 
proposal to revegetate the former quarry area so that it blends into the natural desert 
environment. He then addressed concerns regarding the safety of the intersection of 
35th Avenue and Carver Road, stating that the applicant will be working with the Street 
Attachment C

City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
Transportation Department to develop a design that will improve the safety conditions 
there. 
 
Mr. Carlos Ortega asked what the dimensions of the proposed lots will be. Mr. Gilbert 
replied that they will primarily be 60 feet by 120 feet, with the flexibility for narrower lots 
where needed due to the configuration. Mr. Ortega praised the proposed lot size, as 
many recent developments have provided much narrower lots. He then asked what the 
average square footage for these homes will be, and what the expected price point will 
be. Mr. Jeremy Hall replied that it will depend on how many one-story and two-story 
homes will be on the site, but that they can provide a better answer at the next hearing. 
The approximate price range will be from the high three-hundred-thousands to the low 
four-hundred-thousands. 
 
Ms. Cinthia Estela thanked the applicant for working with the community to 
compromise on the proposed density and expressed her excitement for this project. 
 
Ms. Jennifer Rouse asked if there is already a builder for this property. Mr. Gilbert 
replied that there is not. He explained that Virtua is the property owner and that they will 
be selling the property to a builder once the entitlements are in place. Ms. Rouse then 
expressed her concern with the safety of the intersection, as there have been many 
accidents there and the addition of more housing will certainly lead to more safety 
issues.  
 
Ms. Sharifa Rowe asked if there will be any limitations on the number of two-story 
homes allowed on the property, as this is a very scenic area and too many two-story 
homes could block the views. Mr. Gilbert explained that the only restriction on two-story 
homes is along 35th Avenue. All the other lots are up to the ultimate homebuyer. 
 
Ms. Stephanie Hurd asked what the average square footage of a one-story home and 
a two-story home will be. Mr. Hall replied that he would guess that the homes would 
range from 800 square feet to 2600 square feet. 
 
Ms. Linda Abegg asked that the applicant stipulate to a minimum 60 feet by 120 feet 
lots, or a minimum square footage, so that the builder cannot divide the property into 
45-foot-wide lots, which is what is permitted in the R1-8 zoning district. She also asked 
if attached single-family homes will be prohibited in their permitted uses list. Mr. Gilbert 
replied that yes, all homes permitted in the project must be detached. Ms. Abegg then 
emphasized that the stipulations that were crafted for the PHO case should be 
incorporated into this development narrative. 
 
Vice Chair Tonya Glass asked if the committee will only be reviewing and commenting 
on this case or if there will be a vote at some point. Ms. Sofia Mastikhina explained 
that this is a request to rezone to a PUD, which follows a similar process as any other 
standard rezoning case, with an additional hearing before the Village Planning 
Committee for information only. The applicant will be required to return to the VPC for a 
recommendation and a vote before they can move on to Planning Commission. Vice 
Chair Glass stated that, in a meeting with the applicant, they had discussed providing a 
centralized open space that connects to the mountain, which would also remove a 
couple of the houses from the proposal. She asked if any further thought had been 
given to that discussion. Mr. Gilbert replied that the applicant had already done enough 
by removing 38 houses and providing 26 percent open space on the site.

City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
 
PUBLIC COMMENT 
 
Ms. Cyd Manning stated that this proposal is a simple repackaging of the 
underwhelming proposal that had come previously come through the Planning Hearing 
Officer process. She stressed that the applicant is planning to entitle the property and 
immediately sell it off, and that they are not interested in investing in the community. 
She then pointed out that the zoning classification of R1-8 and the General Plan Land 
Use Map designation of Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre should have been 
reverted back to S-1 zoning and Residential 0 to 1 dwelling units per acre, respectively, 
as was stipulated in the original approval letter. The proposed density for this project is 
completely incompatible with the surrounding area, and the zoning map that the 
applicant presented even showed that the nearest equivalent zoning was some way to 
the north, closer to Laveen’s center. She explained that, at the City Council hearing, 
Councilmember Garcia had requested that the applicant file for a rezoning to downzone 
the property to be more compatible with the community – which this proposal is not. 
Further, the community has negotiated at length with the applicant, coming up with an 
executable site plan with R1-18 zoning, which is more compatible with the area. The 
applicant has not been willing to meet them halfway, and this PUD proposal is inferior to 
a conventional zoning case. Further, the stipulations from the PHO case have not been 
incorporated into the development narrative, nor have the Laveen residential design 
guidelines or any guidelines that take into account the topographical features of the site. 
She urged that this proposal be denied. 
 
Mr. Dan Penton asked for clarification on the proposed lot sizes, as the applicant stated 
they would be 60 feet by 120 feet, yet the development narrative lists them as 55 feet by 
110 feet. He then pointed out that the maximum building height was agreed to be two 
stories and 20 feet, yet the narrative lists 30 feet. It had also been agreed that the 
development would have 12 of the 26 percent of open space be usable. He then asked 
if the developer will be conducting a traffic impact study, as this is an area that will be 
highly affected by even a slight increase in residents. 
 
Mr. Phil Hertel expressed his confusion with this presentation, as it was his 
understanding that the zoning reversion was still pending. He stated that this matter 
should be resolved before moving forward with any new entitlements on the property. 
He also stated that the open space should be more evenly distributed throughout the 
property. 
 
Ms. Darcy Meyer stated that she and her family live within walking distance of this 
property, and that this part of Laveen is very different from the rest of the rapidly 
developing areas of Laveen. She stated that all the homes in this area are at least one 
acre in size, and very different from the other, more dense subdivisions elsewhere. She 
also pointed out that the comparable communities that Mr. Gilbert suggested are in 
close vicinity to this site are separated by Carver Mountain, which is a significant 
physical barrier. She stated that the applicant has not been willing to meet the 
community in the middle and compromise to a development that is agreed upon by 
everyone. Further, the applicant has used multiple continuances between hearings to 
discourage the public from opposing this, and the City Council has been refusing to act 
on the zoning reversion. She stressed that the proposal is incompatible with the 
surrounding area and expressed her concern with the increase in traffic at an 
intersection that is already very dangerous.

City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
 
Mr. John Bizdel expressed his concern with this proposal being used as a way to 
circumvent the conventional zoning process and blindsight the community, especially 
given that it has no discernible benefits to the community. 
 
Mr. Scott Johnson stated that he resides less than a half mile from the site, and that 
his back yard view is of the quarry, which is by no means blighted. He stated that this is 
the same plan that the committee heard in January, and that the proposal is just a 
different path to achieve the same goal. The zoning reversion should have already been 
processed in 2011, per the approved stipulations of the case, so Mr. Gilbert’s assertion 
that this will be a downzoning from 99 lots to 63 is misleading, as it should be much 
lower than that per the zoning reversion. He urged that the committee deny this 
application when it comes back for a vote, as it has not changed in any way from when 
they denied it in January. 
 
Mr. Tom Kingston agreed with the previous speakers’ comments regarding this 
proposal and stated that this property is natural and beautiful, not blighted in any way, 
and that he does not understand the urgency to build something there, where it is not 
compatible. 
 
Ms. Charla Fogle stated that the proposed lot sizes are not compatible with the area, 
and expressed her concern with this development posing potential drainage issues in 
an area that is already prone to flooding. 
 
Mr. Mark Fogle expressed his concern with the traffic safety along 35th Avenue and 
Carver Road, stressing that no amount of street redesigning will make this stretch of 
road safer. Adding a development like this to the area will surely make matters even 
worse. 
 
Ms. Lisa Vializ stated that the matter of the zoning reversion must be clarified before 
moving forward with this case, and that the proposed zoning is incompatible with the 
area. The proposal does not incorporate all of the stipulations that were agreed upon, 
and it is simply a different way to try to approve the same plan which the community has 
been consistently opposing for 12 months, and their position has not changed. She then 
stated that Mr. Gilbert’s presentation was inaccurate, stating that there are no 
comparable neighborhoods in the area, and that all of the lots south of the mountain are 
acre lots. The proposed lot sizes of 60 feet by 120 feet are incompatible with the 
character in this area. She then explained that Councilman Garcia had repeatedly 
stated that he would not be supportive of an increase in density here. She urged that 
they move forward with the original zoning case and withdraw this PUD, as it is not in 
the best interest of the community. 
 
Mr. Ivan Vializ stated his opposition to this proposal, as it undermines all the work that 
has been done by the community. 
 
Mr. Gilbert stated that he will formulate responses to some of the more detailed 
questions for the next hearing but will provide responses to some of the questions and 
comments posed tonight. He explained that the current zoning on the property allows 
for 99 lots, and that the current site plan shows those 99 lots. Further, staff has provided 
a list of the stipulations from the PHO case to be incorporated into the PUD narrative, 
which the applicant is willing to do. Some of the speakers stated that the applicant is not

City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
willing to meet the community in the middle, but the applicant is reducing the number of 
lots from the approved 99 to 61, which is a significant compromise.  He then addressed 
the comments regarding incompatibility, stating that the proposal is consistent with the 
General Plan Land Use Map designation and, in fact, is much lower than the density 
allowed by it. The envisioned lot size will be 60 feet by 120 feet, and the reason that the 
PUD narrative lists 50 feet by 110 feet is so there is some flexibility for those lots that 
will have an irregular configuration. Other comments were made regarding the lack of 
benefit to the community, whereas the proposal will be covering up rock scarring from 
the gravel mining operation, revegetating the quarry and the trails on the property, and 
providing 26 percent open space on the site. 
 
Ms. Rowe asked for clarification regarding the boundaries of the proposal, as Ms. 
Manning had alluded to a larger area. She also asked for clarification regarding the 
zoning reversion. Ms. Mastikhina explained that the original PHO case included 20 
acres of R1-8-zoned property, as well as 60 acres of R1-18-zoned property, which is 
immediately to the west of the site. This PUD covers only the 20 acres of R1-8 zoning. 
Chairman Branscomb explained that the original case was stipulated to be built within 
4 or 5 years of approval and, if nothing had been built by then, the zoning would have to 
be reverted back to S-1, as a safeguard for the community. 
 
Vice Chair Glass asked that Ms. Mannin provide the committee with the items that the 
community had negotiated with the developer, so that they may review and take into 
consideration. 
 
Ms. Hurd stated that it was her understanding that the city cannot process a zoning 
reversion. She then asked Ms. Manning what she though about the developer meeting 
the community in the middle, as the Planning Commission may decide that the 
developer did indeed meet them in the middle and reach a compromise agreed upon by 
all. Ms. Manning reiterated that the approved ordinance from the original zoning case 
lists the provision for the zoning reversion, which should have been done in 2011 and 
continues to be an open action to be resolved by the city. She explained that the 
negotiations that have occurred between the community and the developer were done 
in good faith with the previous representative from Rose Law Group. The community 
was negotiating up from a density of 0 to 1 dwelling units per acre, while the applicant 
was negotiating down from their approved 99 lots. She stated that they had reached an 
agreement to follow R1-18 standards, which would provide for 80- by 130-foot lots, 
which is more compatible with the area and would also be executable by the developer. 
Ms. Hurd stressed that she wants to support the community, and also stressed that the 
traffic safety matter must be thoroughly addressed. 
 
Ms. Abegg stressed that the commitments made by the developer during the PHO case 
should be included in the PUD, and that the committee make sure that the best possible 
plan is being moved forward through the process. She pointed out that the PHO case is 
still active and asked how the hearing process for this PUD will align with the PHO case, 
as it is unusual to have two active entitlement cases on the same property. Ms. 
Mastikhina explained that the PHO case has been continued by the City Council until 
April, and that the intent of this PUD is to get through the hearing process so that the 
City Council date aligns with the PHO case and a decision can be made on which one is 
the best course of action. Ms. Abegg then asked if the PUD will go on to the Planning 
Hearing Officer or Planning Commission after the Village Planning Committee. Ms. 
Mastikhina explained that it will first come back to the Village Planning Committee for a

City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
recommendation and a vote, after which it will move on to Planning Commission and 
ultimately City Council. 
 
Ms. Rowe asked if the R1-18 portion of the property is still moving forward, or if it is no 
longer being considered as part of the development proposal. Ms. Abegg stated that 
the original zoning case included larger lots on the R1-18 portion and small condos on 
the R1-8 portion. The R1-18 portion is not being changed, just the area that allows 
smaller units. Ms. Rowe asked for future clarification on why the discussion is focused 
on the R1-8 portion of the property if the community had negotiated in the R1-18 
portion. 
 
Vice Chair Glass requested that staff bring in the Maricopa Department of 
Transportation and the Phoenix Street Transportation Department to discuss the traffic 
safety issues on 35th Avenue and Carver Road. 
 
Chairman Branscomb urged that the entire committee thoroughly read the proposed 
development narrative before this case comes back for a vote, as that is where all of the 
development and design standards for this property will be outlined.