Attachment B - VPC Summary 2024-05-13 - PHO-1-24--Z-19-22-7(8).pdf

City of Phoenix — Formal (2024-08-26)

View PDF Meeting page

Extracted text (via pymupdf) 20419 characters
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 
PHO-1-24--Z-19-22-7(8) 
Date of VPC Meeting 
July 8, 2024 
Date of Planning Hearing 
Officer Hearing  
July 17, 2024 
Request 
1) Request to modify Stipulation No. 1 regarding
general conformance with the site plan date stamped
March 17, 2022, and elevations date stamped July
11, 2022.
2) Request to modify Stipulation No. 3 regarding
maximum building height.
3) Request to modify Stipulation No. 5 regarding EV
Ready garages and charging stations.
4) Request to modify Stipulation No. 14 regarding the
minimum number of bicycle parking spaces.
Location 
Northeast corner of 39th Avenue and Vineyard Road 
VPC Recommendation 
Approved 
VPC Vote 
6-0
VPC DISCUSSION: 
One member of the public registered to speak on this item, in favor. 
Staff Presentation: 
Nayeli Sanchez Luna, staff, displayed the location of the subject site and noted the 
acreage of the proposal. Mrs. Sanchez Luna summarized the original rezoning request 
noting the original proposal for multifamily development. Mrs. Sanchez Luna concluded 
the staff presentation by summarizing the proposed single-family development and 
added the proposed modifications proposed in the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) 
application.  
ATTACHMENT B

Laveen Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary 
PHO-1-24--Z-19-22-7(8) 
July 8, 2024 
Page 2 of 3 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
Applicant Presentation: 
 
Ashley Marsh, representing the applicant with Gammage & Burnham PLC, began the 
presentation by summarizing the original proposal that rezoned the property to R-2 to 
allow 110 built-to-rent units. Ms. Marsh stated that the current proposal would modify 
the site plan to allow 64 single-family detached homes which was a 42 percent 
reduction in density. Ms. Marsh noted the recreational lawn located on the north portion 
of the site that was added based on community feedback. Ms. Marsh added that all the 
homes would have two car garages in addition to a shared driveway. Ms. Marsh noted 
that the proposal was updated to include fencing for more protection. Ms. Marsh 
displayed the new proposed color palette and elevations and noted the enhanced 
accent materials when adjacent to a public street. Ms. Marsh concluded her 
presentation by summarizing the proposed modifications requested through the PHO 
process and noted that they were no longer requesting to delete any stipulations.  
 
Questions From the Committee: 
 
Jennifer Rouse stated that she appreciated the fencing and recreational lawn but noted 
that the lawn should be centrally located. Ms. Rouse added that that she appreciated 
the changes to the parking and garages because there have been ongoing issues in 
other similar subdivisions. Ms. Rouse voiced her support for the single-family detached 
product and hoped to hear from the community that was going to be directly impacted. 
Ms. Rouse asked if there were any plans for 39th Avenue. Ms. Marsh stated that all off-
site improvements, including 39th Avenue, would have to be completed before the first 
home was built. Ms. Rouse added that the intersection on Vineyard Road was 
dangerous, and it was an accident waiting to happen. Carlos Ortega voiced his 
agreement. Ms. Marsh recognized the ongoing issue on Vineyard Road but noted that 
the original rezoning case had a stipulation that would require the developer to work 
with the Street Transportation Department regarding Vineyard Road.  
 
Francisco Barraza noted that he liked the new proposal and liked having more than 
one accessway into the proposed development. Mr. Barraza stated that the landscaping 
was appropriate and appreciated that the landscape stipulation was not removed. Mr. 
Barraza added that he hoped that the applicant and developer continue to work with the 
Street Transportation Department regarding 39th Avenue and Vineyard Road.  
 
Mr. Ortega stated that the new proposal was an improvement compared to the one 
presented last month. Mr. Ortega added that he would like to have the option for EV 
capabilities in the garages. Mr. Ortega stated that some of the driveways should be 22 
feet long to accommodate larger vehicles. Rebecca Perrera agreed with the concerns 
regarding vehicles spilling onto the sidewalk. Ms. Marsh understood that the concern 
but noted that the driveways were not located along the street, but rather on the rear 
side of the buildings. Ms. Marsh added that only six houses would have driveways 
adjacent to the street. Mr. Ortega asked if the sidewalks would be located on the 
perimeter of the development. Ms. Marsh confirmed. Mr. Ortega added that more 
amenities should be placed on the northern recreational lawn. Ms. Marsh noted that the

Laveen Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary 
PHO-1-24--Z-19-22-7(8) 
July 8, 2024 
Page 3 of 3 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
recreational lawn was primarily for retention purposes.  
 
Ms. Perrera shared her concerns regarding the 18-foot driveways and garages. Ms. 
Perrera noted that it would be best if they could accommodate the 22-foot standard 
length. Ms. Perrera appreciated the time and dedication that the applicant demonstrated 
and for keeping the original landscape stipulations.  
 
Patrick Nasser-Taylor asked why the product had changed from a multifamily 
development to a single-family product. Ms. Marsh noted that the new developer does 
not build build-to-rent or multifamily products. Mr. Nasser-Taylor noted it was odd for a 
multifamily proposal to change to single-family. Mr. Nasser-Taylor asked if all the 
houses would be a minimum of three bedrooms. Ms. Marsh confirmed.  
 
Public Comment:  
 
Phil Hertel stated that they have seen four proposals for this site and that the project 
has improved. Mr. Hertel added that the Laveen Citizens for Responsible Development 
(LCRD) did not have an opportunity to provide an official recommendation, but the 
applicant did present to the group. Mr. Hertel noted that all the garages were located on 
the rear, so the LCRD did not have an issue with the reduction in garage and driveway 
sizes. Mr. Hertel stated that his only concern was the neighborhood located along the 
north and west side of the proposed site. Mr. Hertel added that the neighborhood has 
experience a lot of crime and requested the proposed development be gated. Mr. Hertel 
noted that the applicant has denied the request to gate the single-family subdivision. 
Ms. Marsh thanked Mr. Hertel and the LCRD for their input. Ms. Marsh stated that a 
wall was provided to add extra security, but since this is an infill project, the street will 
remain public. Ms. Marsh reiterated that they modified the proposal to accommodate 
fencing along certain areas.  
 
Committee Discussion: 
 
Mr. Ortega stated that he had concerns with high-speed driving on Vineyard Road. 
Vice Chair Stephanie Hurd asked if a stipulation could be added to include 
speedbumps on Vineyard Road. Mrs. Sanchez Luna stated that speedbumps are only 
allowed on certain roads, dependent on the street classification. Ms. Marsh clarified 
that there was already an existing stipulation to work with the Street Transportation 
Department regarding Vineyard Road. Mr. Ortega noted that the development adjacent 
to the site added speedbumps on Vineyard Road. Mrs. Sanchez Luna noted that a 
stipulation could be added, but that the Street Transportation Department had to review 
and approve it. Vice Chair Hurd suggested contacting the Street Transportation 
Department after this case to voice their concerns regarding Vineyard Road. Ms. Marsh 
reiterated the existing stipulation and agreed to work with the Street Transportation 
Department regarding concerns on Vineyard Road.

Laveen Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary 
PHO-1-24--Z-19-22-7(8) 
July 8, 2024 
Page 4 of 3 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
Motion:  
Rebecca Perrera motioned to recommend approval of PHO-1-24--Z-19-22-7(8). 
Patrick Nasser-Taylor seconded the motion.  
 
Vote:  
6-0, motion to recommend approval of PHO-1-24--Z-19-22-7(8) passed with Committee 
Members Barraza, Nasser-Taylor, Ortega, Perrera, Rouse, and Hurd in favor.  
 
Staff comments regarding VPC Recommendation:  
 
None.

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 
PHO-1-24--Z-19-22-7(8) 
Date of VPC Meeting 
May 13, 2024 
Date of Planning Hearing 
Officer Hearing Request  
May 15, 2024 
1) Request to modify Stipulation No. 1 regarding general
conformance with the site plan date stamped March 17,
2022, and elevations date stamped July 11, 2022.
2) Request to delete Stipulation No. 2 regarding garage
door embellishments.
3) Request to delete Stipulation No. 3 regarding
maximum building height.
4) Request to delete Stipulation No. 5 regarding EV
Ready garages and charging stations.
5) Request to modify Stipulation No. 6 regarding tree
caliper size within the required landscape setback.
6) Request to modify Stipulation No. 7.a regarding
minimum tree caliper size between back of curb and
sidewalk.
7) Request to modify Stipulation No. 14 regarding the
minimum number of bicycle parking spaces.
VPC Recommendation 
Continued
VPC Vote  
7-0
VPC DISCUSSION: 
Two members of the public registered to speak on this item. 
Staff Presentation: 
Nayeli Sanchez Luna, staff, displayed the location of the subject site and noted the 
acreage of the proposal. Mrs. Sanchez Luna summarized the original rezoning request 
noting the original proposal for multifamily development. Mrs. Sanchez Luna concluded 
the staff presentation by summarizing the proposed single-family development and 
added the proposed modifications and deletions proposed by the Planning Hearing 
Officer (PHO) application.  
Applicant Presentation: 
Alex Caraveo, representing the applicant with CVL Consultants, began the 
Attachment B

Laveen Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary 
PHO-1-24--Z-19-22-7(8) 
May 13, 2024 
Page 2 of 26 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
presentation by summarizing the proposed changes to the site. Mr. Caraveo displayed 
the proposed single-family residential site plan and noted the enhanced open space and 
centrally located amenity area. Mr. Caraveo added that the proposed development 
would significantly reduce the density in the area. Mr. Caraveo stated that the purpose 
of the PHO application is to remove any stipulations that were no longer necessary for a 
single-family residential development with lower density. Mr. Caraveo summarized each 
stipulation modification and deletion request. Mr. Caraveo noted that the garage 
embellishments and EV Ready charging stations were no longer necessary because 
this was a single-family development. Mr. Caraveo concluded the applicant presentation 
by reiterating that the proposed development will have a lower density and will be 
compatible with the surrounding land uses.  
 
Questions From the Committee: 
 
Francisco Barraza asked for clarification regarding access into the subject site. Mr. 
Caraveo noted the entrance on Vineyard Road. Mr. Barraza asked if each house would 
have a garage. Mr. Caraveo confirmed.  
 
JoAnne Jensen stated that the reduced density had nothing to do with the request to 
reduce the landscaping requirements nor the height limitations. Ms. Jensen asked for 
more reasoning behind the stipulation modifications and deletions. Mr. Caraveo noted 
that the modifications and deletions were necessary for the proposed single-family 
development and the configuration of the site. Ms. Jensen recalled that the original 
rezoning case and stated that she would like to keep the height limitations. Mr. Caraveo 
stated that they were looking for relief to allow for the single-family residential 
development. Ms. Jensen asked if the proposal would provide EV capabilities such as 
wiring in the garages. Mr. Caraveo noted that EV capabilities would not be available. 
Ms. Jensen added that EV capabilities have been required in all rezoning cases within 
Laveen and strongly suggested including wiring in the proposed garages. Mr. Caraveo 
noted that they were trying to limit the cost of development to increase affordability. Ms. 
Jensen voiced her concerns regarding the proposed reduction to the tree caliper size. 
Ms. Jensen stated that the applicant should not rely on a lower density proposal to 
justify the reduction in landscaping. Ms. Jensen noted that shading was still necessary.  
 
Jennifer Rouse asked for the dimensions of the proposed lots. Mr. Caraveo clarified 
that the lots would be 55 feet by 55 feet. Ms. Rouse asked if the garage doors would 
have lighting. Mr. Caraveo confirmed. Ms. Rouse voiced her concerns regarding the 
shared driveways as it could cause a hostile environment. Ms. Rouse asked how wide 
the shared driveways would be and how the established HOA would enforce lighting. 
Ms. Rouse added that there is a large unsheltered population and noted that lighting 
would be very important for this development. Ms. Rouse voiced her support for a lower 
density but was hesitant on the proposed design. Mr. Caraveo noted that the driveway 
would be 18 feet long and each lot would have a two-car garage. Ms. Rouse asked 
what would happen if there were ore cars per household. Ms. Rouse noted that the 
neighborhood would depend on additional parking.

Laveen Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary 
PHO-1-24--Z-19-22-7(8) 
May 13, 2024 
Page 3 of 26 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
Rebecca Perrera stated that she liked the original proposal. Ms. Perrera asked if the 
lower density project would be built for rent. Mr. Caraveo stated that the lots would be 
for sale.  
 
Mr. Caraveo addressed Ms. Rouse’s question by stating that additional parking would 
be available on the accessway.  
 
Chair Linda Abegg asked if there was a requirement to add additional parking on the 
accessway. Troy Hill, with the applicant’s team, noted that they would be required to 
provide two parking spaces per lot. Mr. Hill noted the two-car garage and the driveway. 
Ms. Perrera noted that she was having a hard time visualizing the parking situation. Mr. 
Hill added that they were providing more parking than what was required.  
 
Ms. Jensen stated that she counted 55 additional parking spots on the public 
accessway and asked for confirmation. Mr. Caraveo confirmed. Mr. Hill noted that he 
realized that this type of housing product is not for everyone.  
 
Chair Abegg added that a stipulation could be added to keep lots 24, 25, 26, 57, 59, 
and 60 should be limited to one story. Chair Abegg noted that there should be wiring 
provided for EV vehicles in the garages. Mr. Hill noted that this is something that is not 
offered. Chair Abegg stated that shading should stay at 75% and that there could be a 
small reduction in the landscaping requirements, but not 100% 1-inch caliper trees. 
Chair Abegg added that 22-foot garage setbacks must be required to accommodate 
larger vehicles.  
 
Carlos Ortega stated that the proposal was incomplete and that it seemed that they 
would worry about the concerns later. Mr. Ortega noted that the previous applicant 
spent hours with the community to address all the concerns. Mr. Ortega voiced his 
support for 22-foot-long garage and driveways. Mr. Ortega voiced his concerns 
regarding shared driveways. Mr. Ortega recognized that the applicant was proposing a 
development with lower density, but it seemed that they were not thinking about the 
buyer. Mr. Ortega asked for the open space percentage. Chair Abegg noted that there 
was18% of open space. Mr. Ortega noted that there needed to be more amenities in 
the development. 
 
Public Comment:  
 
Phil Hertel stated that the proposed PHO request was not presented at the Laveen 
Citizens for Responsible Development (LCRD) meeting. Mr. Hertel noted that there 
were a lot of concerns regarding the proposal. Mr. Hertel added that elevations needed 
to be presented and that a 22-foot garage and driveway needed to be provided. Mr. 
Hertel noted that the landscaping setbacks should not be modified. Mr. Hertel requested 
the case be continued so that the applicant could address the committee’s concerns 
and attend an LCRD meeting.  
 
Dan Penton noted that the previous applicant worked to address concerns regarding

Laveen Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary 
PHO-1-24--Z-19-22-7(8) 
May 13, 2024 
Page 4 of 26 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
traffic. Mr. Penton added the applicant did not seem to care nor address the traffic 
concerns found in the original rezoning request. Mr. Penton stated that the previous 
proposal should have been used as a template and that there needed to be 22-feet of 
driveway. Mr. Penton cited a previous rezoning case that had a stipulation that would 
offer EV wiring to future homebuyers.    
 
Committee Discussion: 
 
Chair Abegg noted that garage door embellishments and 22-foot garage setbacks were 
common in the Laveen community. Chair Abegg asked if the applicant was open to a 
continuance. Chair Abegg added that some of the possible stipulations included, 
enhanced garage doors, height limitations for specific units, wiring for EV, 1-inch and 2-
inch caliper size trees, 22-foot-long garage setbacks, and parking.  
 
Mr. Hill stated that he would prefer to address the issues tonight. Mr. Hill added that he 
could not speak on the 22-foot-long garage setbacks.  
 
Ms. Perrera added that the original multifamily development was more thought out.  
 
Ms. Jensen stated that regardless of housing, it should be a place to live comfortably. 
Ms. Jensen added that the proposal does not look like a comfortable place to live.  
 
Mr. Hill asked if a shared driveway would be something that the committee would 
support. Ms. Jensen voiced her disagreement on a shared driveway. Mr. Hill added 
that the proposal was proposed to lower utility and construction cost, which would result 
in saving to buyers.  
 
Chair Abegg noted that there had been numerous proposals for this site.  
 
Vice Chair Stephanie Hurd stated that the stipulations were not added because the 
previous project was multifamily, they were added because they were standard in 
Laveen.  
 
Mr. Ortega asked what happened to the previous developer. Mr. Hill noted that the 
developer fell through.  
 
Chair Abegg appreciated the lower density but added that there were items that 
needed to be addressed. Chair Abegg asked if the applicant was willing to return to next 
month’s meeting. Mr. Hill and Mr. Caraveo confirmed.  
 
Vice Chair Hurd noted that these items were important to the committee and the 
community.  
 
Mr. Ortega asked if the proposal would be gated. Mr. Hill noted that the proposal would 
not be gated. Chair Abegg added that a private accessway could help enforce street 
parking. Mr. Ortega reiterated the concerns with the proposal. Chair Abegg asked if

Laveen Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary 
PHO-1-24--Z-19-22-7(8) 
May 13, 2024 
Page 5 of 26 
 
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona  85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 
anyone had a motion.  
 
Motion:  
Jennifer Rouse motioned to continue PHO-1-24--Z-19-22-7(8) to a future meeting. 
Francisco Barraza seconded the motion.  
 
Vote:  
7-0, motion to continue PHO-1-24--Z-19-22-7(8) to a future meeting passed with 
Committee Members Barraza, Jensen, Ortega, Perrera, Rouse, Hurd and Abegg in 
favor.  
 
Staff comments regarding VPC Recommendation:  
 
None.