Attachment B - Staff Report - PHO-1-19--Z-165-06-7-8.pdf

City of Phoenix — Formal (2020-06-24)

Extracted text (via pymupdf) 146642 characters

Staff Report: Z-165-06-7(8) (PHO-1-19)
APPLICATION:

Z-165-06-7(8) (PHO-1-19)
APPLICANT:
Jennifer Hall, Rose Law Group
REPRESENTATIVE:
Tom Galvin, Rose Law Group
OWNER:

Virtua 35th LLC
LOCATION:
Northwest corner of 35th Avenue and Carver Road
REQUEST:
1) Modification of Stipulation 1 regarding general conformance
to the site plan date stamped October 8, 2007 and elevations
date stamped February 20, 2007.
2) Modification of Stipulation 7 regarding the landscape
setback adjacent to 35th Avenue.
3) Deletion of Stipulation 19 regarding conditional
development approval.
4) Modification of Stipulation 27 regarding height of terraced
berms along the quarry cut slope base.
5) Modification of Stipulation 31 regarding raised, vertical
curbs within the R1-18 portion of the site.
6) Modification of Stipulation 37 regarding detached sidewalks
and landscape strips within the R1-8 portion of the site.
7) Deletion of Stipulation 39 regarding one-story homes along
35th Avenue.
8) Technical corrections to Stipulations 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 15, 18,
20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 33, 34, 36, 38, 40.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that this request be denied as filed and approved with modifications
and additional stipulations as recommended by the Planning Hearing Officer.
Attachment B

Staff Report – PHO-1-19—Z-165-06-7(8)
April 2, 2020 Planning Commission
Page 2 of 19

PLANNING HEARING OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
On January 15, 2020, the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) took this case under
advisement. On February 13, 2020 the Planning Hearing Officer took this case out from
under advisement and recommended denial as filed and approval with modifications and
additional stipulations.

BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
The subject property is located at the northwest corner of 35th Avenue and Carver Road
and consists of approximately 59.48 gross acres. The eastern portion is approximately 20
acres and zoned R1-8. The western portion is approximately 40 acres and zoned R1-18.
The applicant’s request would only impact stipulations as applied to the eastern portion of
the site zoned R1-8.

The conceptual site plan depicts a 92-lot single-family detached residential development
at a density of 5.5 dwelling units per gross acre. The proposed layout utilizes a cluster
development design, primarily in blocks of four units oriented towards private drives. The
conceptual site plan depicts a total of 40.47 percent open space. However, the applicant
clarified at the January 15, 2020 PHO hearing that the R1-8 portion would provide a
minimum 26 percent open space, after clarifying the City’s standards for calculating open
space. Amenities will include a tot lot, pool, and open space to be centrally located within
the development.

The applicant requested modification of Stipulation 1, regarding general conformance to
the stipulated site plan and elevations, to accommodate a new site plan for the R1-8
portion of the site. The applicant proposed that the stipulation also be modified to ensure
that the R1-18 portion of the site retain its requirement for conformance with the original
stipulated site plan.

The applicant requested modification of Stipulation 7, regarding the landscape setback
adjacent to 35th Avenue. The applicant requested to decrease the landscape setback
from a 235-foot average and 200-foot minimum setback to a minimum 100-foot setback.
The applicant stated that the proposed site plan shifted units further east to reduce the
number of proposed lots in the hillside areas at the northwest corner of the site. They
stated that the stipulated landscape setback needs to be reduced in order to further
mitigate impacts on the hillside area.

The applicant requested deletion of Stipulation 19, regarding conditional development
approval. The applicant stated that the deletion of this stipulation would not change the
integrity of the project. Additionally, the original rezoning case was approved by
ordinance adoption and the zoning of the site was vested with the adoption of that
ordinance.

The applicant requested modification of Stipulation 27, regarding the height of terraced
berms along the quarry cut slope base, and proposed that the stipulated minimum 8-foot

Staff Report – PHO-1-19—Z-165-06-7(8)
April 2, 2020 Planning Commission
Page 3 of 19

terrace height be modified to permit a maximum 8-foot terrace height. They noted that
reduced terrace heights would be more consistent with the natural environment.

The applicant requested modification of Stipulation 31, regarding raised, vertical curbs
within the R1-18 portion of the sire, arguing that the community will be private and will
implement the City’s standard for private accessways, which depicts rolled curbs.

The applicant requested modification of Stipulation 37 regarding detached sidewalks and
landscape strips within the R1-8 portion of the site. Their proposed modification would
remove the requirement for detached sidewalks and enhanced planting standards.
Instead, the proposal would permit five-foot wide attached sidewalks throughout the
development. The applicant noted that mature trees would thrive in a natural
environment versus a constrained five-foot landscape strip. They also noted that the
proposal would include multi-use trails within the development.

The applicant requested deletion of Stipulation 39, regarding one-story homes along 35th
Avenue arguing that the stipulation language is unclear, and it does not clearly define
what distance or location along 35th Avenue the prohibition would apply to. The
applicant also noted that elimination of the stipulation would allow all buildings in the
development to adhere to the height restrictions for R1-8 zoning.

PREVIOUS HISTORY
On December 15, 2006, the Phoenix City Council approved the rezoning request from S-
1 (Ranch or Farm Residence) to R1-18 (Single-Family Residence) and R1-8 (Single-
Family Residence) on an approximately 59-acre property located at the northwest corner
of 35th Avenue and Carver Road, subject to stipulations.

The applicant’s initial application consisted of both RE-35 and R-2 zoning. The
conceptual site plan depicted a gated, mixed residential community including 22 one-acre
hillside lots (RE-35) with custom homes, 55 townhome units (R-2), and 81 condominiums
(R-2) totaling 158 dwelling units for the site and an overall project density of
approximately 2.6 dwelling units per acre. The custom home lots were to be sold and
developed on an individual basis. The custom home lots would be accessible via 39th
Avenue or through the eastern portion of the site via 35th Avenue. Ingress and egress
along 39th Avenue was intended to be gated since the primary entrance would be from
35th Avenue.

The application was modified and ultimately approved for R1-18 on the western 39.6-acre
portion of the site and R1-8 on the eastern 19.4-acre portion of the site. The stipulated
site plan depicted 121 dwelling units on 59 acres with an overall site density of 2.05
dwelling units per acre. There were no changes to the layout of homes on the R1-18
portion of the site, but the new plan now depicted 99 single-family, villa style units on the
R1-8 portion. The villa concept consisted of four detached units surrounding a central
courtyard with garage access around a shared driveway at the rear of each unit.

Staff Report – PHO-1-19—Z-165-06-7(8)
April 2, 2020 Planning Commission
Page 4 of 19

The eastern R1-8 portion of the site contains the remnants of an abandoned gravel mine
site. The applicant argued that the area was being developed with a higher density
residential product to rehabilitate the damaged site area. The detached villa product was
also viewed by the developer as an opportunity to enhance the residential diversity in the
Laveen area. Additionally, the higher density villa product was supported by staff given
the costly development associated with the mine. The applicant stated that site is risky
regarding development and would have to remove hazardous debris, import dirt to level
the site, and provide infrastructure improvements.

Numerous residents opposed the proposed density on the eastern portion of the site and
spoke in opposition at various meetings and hearings. Approximately 30 emails or letters
were received that discussed context, compatibility, and traffic conditions. Residents
stated that they wanted responsible development and adherence to the general plan of
Residential 0 to 1 dwelling units per acre. Residents also noted that there was a lack of
communication with the community. The applicant stated that it was difficult to reach a
resolution because there was no common ground between the developer and the
neighborhood and he was not willing to decrease the proposed density.

NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS

Correspondence
Ninety-eight letters of opposition were received regarding this request. Concerns
expressed in the correspondence include the following:
• The City of Phoenix needs to enforce Ordinance G-5020, which requires zoning to
be placed back to S-1 (one house per acre) as of 2011. To date no action has
been taken which violated City Zoning Ordinance (83 emails);
• Amend the General Plan to reflect Residential 0 to 1 and Parks/Open Space (83
emails);
• Stipulation 19 protects the neighbors and community from high density
development that does not fit the area (83 emails);
• Proposed density is too high for the area (5 emails);
• City officials and City Council members should advocate for Laveen residents and
consider how residents will be negatively impacted (1 email);
• Approval of the case would indicate corruption between the builder and
government officials (2 emails);
• Two-story development will halt the appeal and devalue the real-estate in the area
(2 emails);
• No notice was received by mail (1 email);
• City signage at the site is hidden, illegible, and ineffective (2 emails);
• The proposal does not address dangerous road conditions on Carver Road (4
emails);
• Density greater than two houses per acre has ruined the rural character of Laveen
(4 emails);
• The subject property is in the path of flood waters (4 emails);

Staff Report – PHO-1-19—Z-165-06-7(8)
April 2, 2020 Planning Commission
Page 5 of 19

• The proposed development will increase traffic, consume resources, and increase
noise (3 emails);
• The applicant is not providing elevations (1 email);
• Any buildings within 200 feet of the eastern property line should be limited to one
story with a maximum height of 20 feet (1 email); and
• The developer should provide an Environmental Impact Study (1 email).

GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
Parks/Open Space – Future 1 dwelling unit per acre, Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units
per acre, and Residential 0 to 1 dwelling units per acre

CHARACTER OF SURROUNDING LAND USE

Zoning
Land Use

On-site:
R1-18, R1-8
Former mine, vacant land

North:
S-1, R1-18 PRD
Vacant land

South:
R1-18, County
Vacant land, single-family
residential

East:
County
Vacant agricultural land, single-family

residential

West:
County
Vacant land, single-family residential

DEPARTMENT REVIEW COMMENTS

Archaeology
The City of Phoenix Archaeology Office (CAO) recommends archaeological survey of the
western portion of the project area to current professional standards. Archaeological
survey is stipulated under the original zoning case (Z-165-06) approved by the City
Phoenix Council on October 10, 2007. Additional archaeological work such as data
testing excavations or monitoring may be necessary based upon the results of the
survey. A qualified archaeologist must make this determination in consultation with the
City of Phoenix Archaeologist.

This work is recommended in order to assist the project proponent in complying with the
State Burial Law, ARS 41-865, and Chapter 8, Section 802[B2] of the City’s Historic
Preservation Ordinance.

Aviation
No response.

Staff Report – PHO-1-19—Z-165-06-7(8)
April 2, 2020 Planning Commission
Page 6 of 19

Fire Prevention
Fire prevention does not anticipate any problems with this case. The site or/and
building(s) shall comply with the Phoenix Fire Code.

Also, we do not know what the water supply (GPM and PSI) is at this site. Additional
water supply may be required to meet the required fire flow per the Phoenix Fire Code.

Floodplain Management
We have determined that the project is not located in a Special Flood Hazard Area
(SFHA) but is located in a Shaded Zone X, on panel 2660 L of the Flood Insurance Rate
Maps (FIRM) dated October 16, 2013. Based on the project information provided, there
are no Floodplain Management requirements to fulfill.

Light Rail
No response.

Parks and Recreation
Parks and Recreation Department would require that the developer/owner dedicate a 30-
foot-wide multi-use trail easement (MUTE) along the west side of 35th Avenue and the
north side of Carver Road and construct a 10-foot-wide multi-use trail (MUT) within the
easement as indicated in Section 429 of the City of Phoenix MAG Supplement.

Public Transit
No comments.

Street Transportation
1. The developer shall provide a primary roadway from 35th Avenue extended to the
western property boundary, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

2. The primary roadway connecting 35th Avenue to the western edge of the property
line shall terminate as a stub street to the adjacent undeveloped land to the west
to provide for a future vehicular connection.

3. The proposal shall eliminate the stipulation related to rolled and vertical curbs.

4. The developer shall dedicate right-of-way as determined by Maricopa County
Department of Transportation (MCDOT) for 35th Avenue and as approved by
Planning and Development Department.

5. The developer shall dedicate right-of-way as determined by Maricopa County
Department of Transportation (MCDOT) for Carver Avenue and as approved by
Planning and Development Department.

Pedestrian Safety Coordinator - Street Transportation Department, Traffic Services
Division

Staff Report – PHO-1-19—Z-165-06-7(8)
April 2, 2020 Planning Commission
Page 7 of 19

The development should include detached sidewalks along Carver Road and along 35th
Avenue. The south side of Carver Road has a canal and restrictive barriers, which would
make it likely for pedestrians to use the north side of the road. The east side of 35th
Avenue is county jurisdiction, making it unlikely for any future development to include
detached sidewalks on the east side of 35th Avenue. The speed limit on both roads is 45
mph but we often receive complaints from residents in this area that these speed limits
are not respected, and people go 15 and 20 miles over the speed limit. This condition is
aggravated by the road slopes and overall darker conditions in this area. Therefore, in
order to provide a safer environment for pedestrians the developer should include
detached sidewalks with a generous landscaped buffer between the sidewalk and the
road.

Water Services
New public water mains required per the Carver Mountain Master Plan. This project falls
within pressure Zone 2S. Anew Zone 2S, 12-inch main shall be required from the existing
12-inch water main east of the proposed project (approximately 2,200 linear feet) within
Elliot Road, west to 35th Avenue, north on 35th Avenue crossing the canal and then
northeast within the Carver Road alignment (north side of canal) and tie into the existing
12-inch main within 27th Avenue. The existing 8-inch main within the Carver Road
alignment west of 27th Ave will need to be replaced by the new 12-inch main. A 12-inch
2S main will also need to be extended north on 35th Avenue along the frontage of the
proposed project. All onsite water will have to remain private, owned and maintained by
the homeowners.

All onsite sewer will have to remain private, owned and maintained by the homeowners.
The closest available sewer is approximately 2,800 linear feet north of the proposed
project. Given topography of the area to reach this available sewer, a private lift station
and private force main will be required. There is another available sewer main within 43rd
Avenue just north of the Elliot Canal but would require crossing several private properties
with the private force mains. Another option is to build a gravity sewer from the proposed
project west along Carver Road to 51st Avenue and then north to Dobbins Road and 51st
Avenue.

Standard Note Applies:
Please be advised that capacity is a dynamic condition that can change over time due to
a variety of factors. It is the City's intent to provide water and sewer service. However, the
requirements and assurances for water and sewer service are determined during the site
plan application review. For any given property, water and sewer requirements may vary
over time to be less or more restrictive depending on the status of the City’s water and
sewer infrastructure.

EXISTING WATER
Water mains: No Services

Services: City map shows none

Staff Report – PHO-1-19—Z-165-06-7(8)
April 2, 2020 Planning Commission
Page 8 of 19

EXISTING SEWER
Sewer mains: No Services

SERVICES
City map shows none

REPAYMENT: N/A

VILLAGE PLANNING COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Laveen Village Planning Committee (VPC) heard this case on January 13, 2020 and
recommended denial by a vote of 11-0. The Laveen VPC motion also included a request
that the Planning Hearing Officer recommend to the Planning Commission to initiate a
zoning reversion for the site.

PLANNING HEARING OFFICER FINDINGS
The Planning Hearing Officer’s recommendation was based on the following findings:

1) The subject property of this request includes the entire 59 acres that comprised
the original rezoning case. However, the applicant only submitted plans
addressing the approximately 19.4 acres of R1-8 zoned property on the eastern
portion of the site, adjacent to 35th Avenue. Modifications are recommended to
the applicant’s request to ensure that the existing stipulations on the approximately
39.6 acres of R1-18 zoned property on the western portion of the site are not
modified or deleted. Additionally, the applicant did not submit elevations with the
request. The original stipulations included a general conformance requirement for
building elevations. A modification is recommended to the applicant’s request to
require a future Planning Hearing Officer application for review of conceptual
building elevations.

2) The stipulated site plan depicted 99 detached single-family units arranged in
clusters of two and four, oriented towards common courtyards. There are also
seven free-standing units depicted at the northwest corner of the site partially in
the hillside-designated area. The proposed conceptual site plan depicts 92 units
in a similar cluster-style arrangement. However, the units have been shifted east
on the property, reducing the total massing of development in the designated
hillside areas. Additionally, the homes are not oriented towards courtyards and
instead include larger private driveways in the front yards. There is more open
space preserved in the hillside area in the northwest portion of the site. There is
also more open space adjacent to the private accessways (Tract “A”) which
separates the homes from the streets. Because the homes are closer to 35th
Avenue, there is less open space provided along the east property line. See
Finding #3 for a more detailed description of the recommendation for minimum
open space and Finding #4 regarding the landscape setback on 35th Avenue.

3) An additional stipulation is recommended to require the developer provide a
minimum of 26% open space, of which a minimum of 12% shall be usable open

Staff Report – PHO-1-19—Z-165-06-7(8)
April 2, 2020 Planning Commission
Page 9 of 19

space. The conceptual site plan depicts 40.47% open space. However, there is
no open space exhibit and the applicant indicated that a recalculation was
necessary to adequately represent provided open space in the hillside area,
setbacks, and other locations. The provision of 26% open space is compatible
with the rural character of the surrounding area, consistent with other recent
zoning actions in the Village, and significantly exceeds existing Ordinance
standards.

4) The proposed reduction of the landscape setback on 35th Avenue from 235 feet
(average) to minimum 100 feet accommodates the relocation of some residential
units out of the designated hillside areas, consistent with the City approved slope
analysis. The preservation of the hillside area will contribute to the rural character
of the site and maintain this unique natural feature of the property. See Finding #9
regarding the restoration of the disturbed area on the abandoned gravel mine that
occupies a portion of the remainder of the site.

5) Approximately 2,300 feet to the east of the subject property are the Hangar
Hacienda Units One, Two, and Three subdivisions. These properties are in
Maricopa County jurisdiction. These communities are oriented around an air strip
utilized by residents who own private aircraft. Based on comments from a resident
in this community, the typical flight path runs directly over the subject property of
this request. An additional stipulation is recommended regarding notification of the
aviation uses on these properties for future residents.

6) The subject property is archaeologically sensitive. Three additional stipulations
are recommended which outline the City’s requirements regarding data testing,
data recovery, and archaeological assessments and survey.

7) The public right-of-way along 35th Avenue and a small portion along Carver Road
is in Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT) jurisdiction. There
is also an active drainage project along the roadway. Therefore, additional
stipulations are recommended to acknowledge that MCDOT shall determine the
final width and dedications needed for the portion of right-of-way adjacent to the
subject property. City of Phoenix Street Transportation staff noted that in
discussions with MCDOT staff, MCDOT does not have immediate concerns
regarding the location of proposed retention areas shown on the conceptual site
plan in regard to the drainage project.

8) Original Stipulation 19 states that approval shall be conditioned upon the
development commencing within 48 months of the City Council approval. For
properties with similar stipulations, the Planning and Development Department has
required that a Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) action be pursued to modify or
delete these conditions at the time that development is proposed, if the proposed
development has exceeded the timeframe identified in the stipulation. The
applicant is pursuing this process through their request for deletion of the
stipulation. The modification or deletion of this stipulation through a PHO action is

Staff Report – PHO-1-19—Z-165-06-7(8)
April 2, 2020 Planning Commission
Page 10 of 19

unrelated to the zoning reversion process which is a separate public hearing
process that is described in Section 506 of the Zoning Ordinance.

The applicant’s request for deletion of original Stipulation 19 is recommended for
approval. The current proposal is consistent with the City Council’s original intent
to see the subject property redevelop with a single-family residential land use in
the R1-8 zoning district. Additionally, the request is consistent with City Council
approved General Plan Amendment GPA-LV-1-08-7, which established a
Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per gross acre land use designation on the
approximately 19.35 acres that comprises the R1-8 zoned portion of the property.
Both the proposed conceptual site plan, as modified by this recommendation, and
the existing R1-8 zoning designation are consistent with this land use designation.

9) Original Stipulation #27, requiring terraced berms planted with deciduous trees,
may result in an environment that contrasts with the natural landscape of the
existing hillside in the surrounding area. The stipulated terraced berm
configuration is not consistent with the irregular natural landscape of the existing
hillside in the surrounding area and there are no deciduous trees on hillside
locations in the immediate vicinity. Proposals for fill are commonly intended to
continue and promote a natural slope line, rather than creating terracing and other
unnatural finishes.

There are a variety of alternatives to the stipulated requirement for terraced berms
that may be considered for the site that would result in a more natural aesthetic to
the restored hillside. These include chemical treatments and coloration to remove
or camouflage scarring, hydroseeding of the slope to provide a mixture of natural
grasses and plants which may also stabilize the slope, and roughening the cut or
restored slope to integrate pockets for additional native landscaping.

Modified stipulation language is recommended to allow the applicant to work with
City staff on an alternative approach to restoring the quarry cut slope base to
promote a more natural landscape along the hillside.

10) The provision of detached sidewalks is consistent with numerous City policy plans.
The Tree and Shade Master Plan has a goal of treating the urban forest as
infrastructure to ensure that trees are an integral part of the City’s planning and
development process. Additionally, the City Council adopted Guiding Principles
for Complete Streets seeks to make Phoenix more walkable by promoting a safe
and inviting pedestrian environment that encourages walkability and thermal
comfort. These principles are also expressed and expanded upon throughout the
2015 General Plan.

Staff Report – PHO-1-19—Z-165-06-7(8)
April 2, 2020 Planning Commission
Page 11 of 19

requirements and cross sections for these street types and it may be difficult to
integrate detached sidewalks along both sides of private drives.
A modification of the applicant’s request is recommended to require that detached
sidewalks shall be provided, as originally stipulated, along all streets that are
developed as public streets or private accessways.

11) The Street Transportation Department noted that both original Stipulation 31 and
the applicant’s proposed modified language may create conflicts if the
development is to include both attached and detached sidewalks. The City of
Phoenix standard detail for detached sidewalks along private accessways requires
vertical curbs. Attached sidewalks may be permitted to provide rolled curbs.
Deletion of the stipulation will allow the appropriate detail to be utilized based on
the final configuration of sidewalks at appropriate locations throughout the
development.

12) Original Stipulation 39 required that homes along 35th Avenue would be limited to
one-story. The stipulation did not specify a maximum building height. Additionally,
it is unclear whether the stipulation was intended to apply to the individual units
located closest to 35th Avenue or the entire clusters. The original stipulation may
permit a variety of building heights and locations for height-restricted lots.

However, the intent of the stipulation was to mitigate the impacts of building height
for units closest to 35th Avenue and would have impacted homes at approximately
235 feet (the stipulated average setback in original Stipulation 7). This remains a
valid concern and consistent with the design of other recent projects in the Village.
Therefore, the applicant’s request for deletion of this stipulation is recommended
for denial. An alternative stipulation is proposed that limits maximum building
height to 20 feet for the 12 lots that are located within approximately 235 feet of
35th Avenue. This recommendation is intended to clarify the limitation on building
height and identify the specific lots impacted.

PLANNING HEARING OFFICER RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS

General

1.
That development shall be in general conformance with the site plan date
stamped October 8, 2007, and elevations date stamped February 20, 2007, as
modified by the following stipulations, and as approved by the Development
Services Department.

1.
THE R1-8 DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE IN GENERAL CONFORMANCE WITH
THE SITE PLAN DATE STAMPED NOVEMBER 21, 2019, AS MODIFIED BY
THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, AND WITH SPECIFIC REGARD TO THE
FOLLOWING:

Staff Report – PHO-1-19—Z-165-06-7(8)
April 2, 2020 Planning Commission
Page 12 of 19

A. THE DEVELOPER SHALL PROVIDE A PRIMARY ROADWAY FROM 35TH
AVENUE EXTENDED TO THE WESTERN PROPERTY BOUNDARY, AS
APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

B. THE PRIMARY ROADWAY CONNECTING 35TH AVENUE TO THE
WESTERN EDGE OF THE PROPERTY LINE SHALL TERMINATE AS A
STUB STREET TO THE ADJACENT UNDEVELOPED LAND TO THE WEST
TO PROVIDE FOR A FUTURE VEHICULAR CONNECTION.

2.
CONCEPTUAL ELEVATIONS FOR THE R1-8 DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING HEARING OFFICER
THROUGH THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS FOR STIPULATION
MODIFICATION PRIOR TO PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL. THIS IS A
LEGISLATIVE REVIEW FOR CONCEPTUAL PURPOSES ONLY. SPECIFIC
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS MAY BE DETERMINED
BY THE PLANNING HEARING OFFICER AND THE PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

3.
THE R1-18 DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE IN GENERAL CONFORMANCE WITH
THE SITE PLAN DATE STAMPED OCTOBER 8, 2007, AND ELEVATIONS
DATE STAMPED FEBRUARY 20, 2007, AS MODIFIED BY THE FOLLOWING
STIPULATIONS AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT.

4.
2.
That dDevelopment of the R1-18 portion of the site shall not exceed 22 lots.

5.
3.
That dDevelopment of the R1-8 portion of the site shall not exceed a density of 99
lots.

6.
THE R1-8 DEVELOPMENT SHALL PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF 26% OPEN
SPACE, OF WHICH A MINIMUM OF 12% SHALL BE USABLE OPEN SPACE,
AS APPROVED OR MODIFIED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT.

Site Design

7.
4.
That uUnobstructed pedestrian access (for the purpose of private pedestrian
connectivity internal to the site) between the R1-18 and R1-8 portions of the site
shall be provided, as approved by the PLANNING AND Development Services
Department.

8.
5.
That nNo solid wall in excess of three feet in height as measured from the finished
grade, shall be located on the site (either in private lots or common tracts) except

Staff Report – PHO-1-19—Z-165-06-7(8)
April 2, 2020 Planning Commission
Page 13 of 19

that solid walls greater than three feet in height shall be allowed for the following
purposes, as approved by the PLANNING AND Development Services
Department.

a.
Walls utilized to screen utilities, trash enclosures, or other facilities
generally considered to be visually obtrusive.

b.
Retaining wall.

9.
6.
That nNo more than 60,000 square feet of natural turf area shall be located within
the common areas of the R1-8 portion of the site (this requirement does not apply
to synthetic turf); if provided, common area natural turf should be centrally located
and grouped so as to create one contiguous natural turf recreation area, as
approved by the PLANNING AND Development Services Department.

10.
7.
That a 235-foot (average), 200-foot (minimum) THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL
PROVIDE A MINIMUM 100 FOOT landscaped setback ALONG THE EAST
PROPERTY LINE adjacent to 35th Avenue shall be provided, as approved by the
PLANNING AND Development Services Department.

11.
8.
That a A 50-foot (minimum) landscaped setback adjacent to Carver Road (final
alignment) shall be provided, as approved by the PLANNING AND Development
Services Department.

12.
9.
That tThose portions of spider and jeep trails which are not part of the approved
grading envelopes, access drives, or other necessary site disturbance related to
the proposed development of the R1-8 portion of the site shall be re-vegetated in
a manner consistent with adjacent undisturbed vegetation, as approved by the
PLANNING AND Development Services Department.

Disclosures

13.
10.
That pPrior to final site plan approval, the property owner shall record documents
that disclose to tenants of the site or purchasers of property within the site, the
existence, proximity, and operational characteristics of active agricultural uses
and non-domesticated animal keeping. The form and content of such documents
shall be according to the templates and instructions provided, which have been
reviewed and approved by the City Attorney.

Staff Report – PHO-1-19—Z-165-06-7(8)
April 2, 2020 Planning Commission
Page 14 of 19

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IN MARICOPA COUNTY. THE FORM AND
CONTENT OF SUCH DOCUMENTS SHALL BE ACCORDING TO THE
TEMPLATES AND INSTRUCTIONS PROVIDED, WHICH HAVE BEEN
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY.

Parks and Recreation

15.
11.
That tThe developer shall dedicate a multi-use trail easement and construct a
multi-use trail, per adopted standards, along the north side of Carver Road, as
approved by the Parks and Recreation Department.

Archaeology

16.
12.
That tThe applicant shall complete an archaeological survey report of the
development area for review and approval by the City Archaeologist prior to
clearing and grubbing, landscape salvage, or grading.

17. IF DETERMINED NECESSARY BY THE PHOENIX ARCHAEOLOGY OFFICE,
THE APPLICANT SHALL CONDUCT PHASE I DATA TESTING AND SUBMIT
AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY REPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AREA
FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE CITY ARCHAEOLOGIST PRIOR TO
CLEARING AND GRUBBING, LANDSCAPE SALVAGE, AND/OR GRADING
APPROVAL.

18. IF PHASE I DATA TESTING IS REQUIRED, AND IF, UPON REVIEW OF THE
RESULTS FROM THE PHASE I DATA TESTING, THE CITY ARCHAEOLOGIST,
IN CONSULTATION WITH A QUALIFIED ARCHAEOLOGIST, DETERMINES
SUCH DATA RECOVERY EXCAVATIONS ARE NECESSARY, THE
APPLICANT SHALL CONDUCT PHASE II ARCHAEOLOGICAL DATA
RECOVERY EXCAVATIONS.

19. IN THE EVENT ARCHAEOLOGICAL MATERIALS ARE ENCOUNTERED
DURING CONSTRUCTION, THE DEVELOPER SHALL IMMEDIATELY CEASE
ALL GROUND-DISTURBING ACTIVITIES WITHIN A 33-FOOT RADIUS OF THE
DISCOVERY, NOTIFY THE CITY ARCHAEOLOGIST, AND ALLOW TIME FOR
THE ARCHAEOLOGY OFFICE TO PROPERLY ASSESS THE MATERIALS.

Street Transportation

20.
13.
That rRight-of-way totaling 55 feet shall be dedicated for the west half of 35th
Avenue, as approved by the Street Transportation Department. 35th Avenue shall
be constructed using rural streets standards similar to Dobbins Road, as
approved by the Street Transportation Department.

21. That rRight-of-way totaling 55 feet shall be dedicated for the west half of Carver

Staff Report – PHO-1-19—Z-165-06-7(8)
April 2, 2020 Planning Commission
Page 15 of 19

14. Road, as approved by the Street Transportation Department. Carver Road shall
be constructed using rural streets standards similar to Dobbins Road, as
approved by the Street Transportation Department.

22. THE DEVELOPER SHALL DEDICATE RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR 35TH AVENUE AS
DETERMINED BY THE MARICOPA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION (MCDOT) AND AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

23. THE DEVELOPER SHALL DEDICATE RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR CARVER ROAD
AS DETERMINED BY THE MARICOPA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION (MCDOT) AND AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

24.
15.
That aA traffic impact study shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Street
Transportation Department prior to PLANNING AND Development Services
Department preliminary site plan approval. That all right-of-way dedications and
associated infrastructure improvements as recommended by the traffic impact
study shall be installed by the developer, as approved by the PLANNING AND
Development Services Department.

25.
16.
That tThe developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the
development with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median
islands, landscaping, and other incidentals, as modified by these stipulations, and
as approved by the Street Transportation Department. All improvements shall
comply with all AmericanS with Disabilities Act accessibility standards.

26.
17.
That tThe applicant shall complete and submit the Developer Project Information
Form for the Maricopa Association of Governments Transportation Improvement
Program. This form is a requirement of the Environmental Protection Agency to
meet clean air quality requirements.

27.
18.
That pPrior to preliminary site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a
Proposition 207 waiver of claims utilizing the provided template. The waiver shall
be recorded with the Maricopa County Recorder’s Office and a copy shall be
provided to the PLANNING AND Development Services Department for the case
files.

19. That approval shall be conditional upon the development commencing within 48
months of the City Council approval of this change of zoning in accordance with
Section 506.B.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. For purposes of this stipulation,
development shall commence with the issuance of building permits and erection
of the building walls on site.

Neighborhood

Staff Report – PHO-1-19—Z-165-06-7(8)
April 2, 2020 Planning Commission
Page 16 of 19

28.
20.
That bBuilding pad cuts shall be terraced if more than 6 feet in height and treated
with a stain, gunnite, or equivalent finish, as approved by the PLANNING AND
Development Services Department.

29.
21.
That aAll two story homes, within the R1-18 portion of the site, shall be designed
in a manner such that the square footage of the second story floor area does not
exceed 66 percent of the first story floor area does not exceed 66 percent of the
first story floor area, as approved by the PLANNING AND Development Services
Department.

30.
22.
That cConcrete channels shall be designed to look natural in the desert setting
through color, texture, landscaping, or other means, as approved by the
PLANNING AND Development Services Department.

31.
23.
That tThe use of riprap and engineered culverts shall be minimized and, where
utilized, shall be integrated with the desert setting through color, texture, soil
plating, landscaping, or other means, as approved by the PLANNING AND
Development Services Department. To the extent possible, culverts shall be
undersized to allow minor flows (10 cfs or smaller) to cross roadways in their
natural condition.

32.
24.
That wWashes with a one-hundred-year peak flow of 200 cfs or greater shall be
preserved and enhanced with native vegetation as described in Appendix A,
Approved Plant Species List for Sonoran Preserve Edge Treatment Guidelines,
as approved by the PLANNING AND Development Services Department.

33.
25.
That lLots with 2 or more sides abutting undisturbed open space shall be
designed with obtuse angles, rather than right angles or acute angles, as
approved by the PLANNING AND Development Services Department.

34.
26.
That oOn non-hillside lots within the R1-18 portion of the development, all
improvements, including driveways, landscaping, and underground utilities shall
be located within a building envelope occupying no more than 50 percent of the
lot up to a maximum of 20,000 square feet, whichever is less, as approved by the
PLANNING AND Development Services Department.

35.
27.
That a A minimum of three terraced berms with 2:1 fill slopes shall be installed
along the full length of the quarry cut slope base. The terraces shall BE LIMITED
TO A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF be 8 feet tall, minimum, and shall be PLANTED
plated with a staggered combination of 2-inch and 4-inch caliper, drought
resistant, deciduous trees at 25 feet ON center OR IN EQUIVALENT
GROUPINGS to center, as approved OR MODIFIED by the PLANNING AND
Development Services Department.

Staff Report – PHO-1-19—Z-165-06-7(8)
April 2, 2020 Planning Commission
Page 17 of 19

THE DEVELOPER MAY ALSO IMPLEMENT ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS FOR
THE NATURALIZING AND BLENDING OF THE QUARRY CUT SLOPE WITH
THE ADJACENT UNDISTURBED HILLSIDE AREA, AS APPROVED OR
MODIFIED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

36.
28.
That sSolid block walls, except for retaining walls or privacy fencing on individual
lots, shall not be constructed outside of the building envelopes for the R1-18
portion of the site, as approved by the PLANNING AND Development Services
Department. Fencing constructed outside of the building envelope shall be
combination solid/view fencing. In addition, all fencing above the 15 percent slope
line shall be 100 percent view fencing.

37.
29.
That tThe entire 60-acre site shall have no perimeter fencing, as approved by the
PLANNING AND Development Services Department.

38.
30.
That pPrivate roadways within the R1-18 portion of the site shall be provided with
ribbon curbs and colored asphalt, as approved by the PLANNING AND
Development Services Department.

39.
31.
That private roadways within the R1-8 portion of the site shall be provided with a
raised, vertical curb, as approved by the Development Services Department.

40.
32.
That aAll HVAC units shall be ground mounted.

41.
33.
That aAll street lighting and wall mounted security fixtures shall be full cut off
lighting. Fixture height shall be a maximum of 12 feet. Street lighting fixtures shall
be decorative and have a consistent architectural theme, as approved by the
PLANNING AND Development Services Department.

42.
34.
That bBollards shall be used for accent lighting at the primary access, entry
monument, driveways, and trail crossings, as approved by the PLANNING AND
Development Services Department. Photovoltaic energy sources for bollard
lighting shall be provided.

43.
35.
That aAny request to delete or modify these stipulations SHALL be preceded by
A presentation to the Laveen Village Planning Committee (VPC) for review and
recommendation, and notification to the following persons two weeks prior to
presentation at the VPC:

a.
Jon Kimoto, 3216 West Ansell Road, Laveen, 85339

b.
Cyd Manning, P.O. Box 41234, Mesa, 85274

c.
Judy Brown, P.O. Box 41234, Mesa, 85274

Staff Report – PHO-1-19—Z-165-06-7(8)
April 2, 2020 Planning Commission
Page 18 of 19

d.
Christine Dicken, 10827 South 30th Avenue, Laveen, 85339

e.
Richard Birnbaum, 11014 South 35th Avenue, Laveen, 85339

f.
Phil Hertel, 2300 2845 West Broadway Road, Phoenix, 85041

g.
Steven Klein, 6820 South 66th Avenue, Laveen, 85339

44.
36.
That tThe following individuals shall be notified of any and all PLANNING AND
Development Services Department (DSD) meetings which are open to the public.
The applicant shall be responsible for notification to the following via a first-class
letter to be mailed at least two weeks prior to the DSD meeting(s):

a.
Jon Kimoto, 3216 West Ansell Road, Laveen, 85339

b.
Cyd Manning, P.O. Box 41234, Mesa, 85274

c.
Judy Brown, P.O. Box 41234, Mesa, 85274

d.
Christine Dicken, 10827 South 30th Avenue, Laveen, 85339

e.
Richard Birnbaum, 11014 South 35th Avenue, Laveen, 85339

f.
Phil Hertel, 2300 2845 West Broadway Road, Phoenix, 85041

g.
Steven Klein, 6820 South 66th Avenue, Laveen, 85339

45.
37.
That aAll sidewalks, within the R1-8 portion of the site, WHICH ARE
DEVELOPED ALONG STREETS DEVELOPED AS PUBLIC STREETS OR
PRIVATE ACCESSWAYS shall be detached with a minimum five-foot wide
landscaped strip located between the sidewalk and back of curb and shall include
minimum two-inch caliper shade trees planted a minimum rate of 20 feet on
center or IN equivalent groupings along both sides of the sidewalk, as approved
OR MODIFIED by the PLANNING AND Development Services Department. The
landscape strip shall be installed by the developer and maintained by the
homeowners’ association.

46.
38.
That aA mix of two and three-inch caliper trees shall be provided within all
required common open space tracts. With the exception of the open space area
adjacent to 35th Avenue, the species of trees provided shall shade 50 percent of
the area of the open space at tree maturity, as approved by the PLANNING AND
Development Services Department.

Staff Report – PHO-1-19—Z-165-06-7(8)
April 2, 2020 Planning Commission
Page 19 of 19

47.
39.
That only one-story homes shall be located along 35th Avenue.

LOTS 52-61 AND 82-83, LOCATED ALONG 35TH AVENUE AND AS DEPICTED
ON THE SITE PLAN DATE STAMPED NOVEMBER 21, 2019, ARE LIMITED TO
A MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT OF 20 FEET, AS APPROVED BY THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

48.
40.
That aA detailed site plan, landscaping plan, elevations, perimeter fence or wall
plan, lighting plan, and entry monument signage shall be reviewed by the Laveen
Village Planning Committee prior to preliminary site plan approval by the
PLANNING AND Development Services Department.

PLANNING HEARING OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that this request be denied as filed and approved with modifications
and additional stipulations as recommended by the Planning Hearing Officer.

ATTACHMENTS
A – Appeal Documents (4 pages)
B – Applicant’s Narrative (4 pages)
C – Aerial Map (1 page)
D – Zoning Map (1 page)
E – Ordinance G-5020 from Rezoning Case No. Z-165-06-7 (11 pages)
F – Sketch Map from Rezoning Case No. Z-165-06-7 (1 page)
G – Proposed Site Plan date stamped November 21, 2019 (3 pages)
H – Stipulated Site Plan date stamped October 8, 2007 (1 page)
I – Stipulated Elevations (2 pages)
J – Laveen Village Planning Committee Minutes (13 pages)
K – PHO Summary for Z-165-06-7(8) (PHO-1-19) (18 pages)
L – Correspondence (191 pages)

ATTACHMENT A

PLANNING HEARING OFFICER APPEAL
I HEREBY REQUEST THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION/CITY COUNCIL HOLD
A PUBLIC HEARING ON:
APPLICATION NO:
PHO-1-19--Z-165-06-7(8)
LOCATION:
Northwest corner of 35th Avenue and Carver Road
PHO HEARING DATE:
1/15/20 (UA 2/13/20)
RECEIVED:
2/14/20
APPEALED BY:

Opposition

Applicant
APPEALED TO:
PLANNING
COMMISSION
4/2/20
TENTATIVE DATE
CITY COUNCIL

TENTATIVE DATE
NAME/ADDRESS/CITY/STATE/ZIP
PHONE #
Cyd Manning
3220 West Ceton Drive
Laveen, Arizona 85339
480-747-0769
RECEIPT NUMBER:

REASON FOR REQUEST:
The City of Phoenix is in violation of its own Zoning Ordinance and is bound to
enforce Ordinance G-5020--Z-165-06-7. The zoning on this property expired October
2011 and is technically S-1. Stipulation 19 was approved with the original case to
protect the community from the R1-8 spot zoning that was clearly inconsistent with
the area in 2007 and is clearly inconsistent today. Deleting Stipulation 19 is
negligence in enforcement. The Planning Commission & City Council can and should
immediately correct the violation and codify the zoning reversion to S-1 and realign
the General Plan, prior to hearing any requested action on this case. The applicant
states they will sue the City if they don't get what they want regarding deleting
Stipulation 19. No one is above the law.
Taken By: Radesha Williams

c:
Ben Ernyei – Posting

Benjamin Kim, IS
PDD All

S:\Planning\Rezoning\Hearings\PHO\Appeals\PHO Appeal Form.doc

Opposition

Applicant
APPEALED TO:
PLANNING
COMMISSION
4/2/20
TENTATIVE DATE
CITY COUNCIL

TENTATIVE DATE
NAME/ADDRESS/CITY/STATE/ZIP
PHONE #
Lisa Vializ
8921 South 53rd Drive
Laveen, Arizona 85339
602-741-5722
RECEIPT NUMBER:

REASON FOR REQUEST:
The City of Phoenix is in violation of its own Zoning Ordinance and is bound to
enforce Ordinance G-5020--Z-165-06-7. The zoning on this property expired October
2011 and is therefore S-1. Stipulation 19 was approved as part of the original zoning
case to protect the community from R-8 spot zoning. That was clearly inconsistent
with the area in 2007 and is clearly inconsistent today. Deleting Stipulation 19 is
negligence in enforcement. The Planning Commission and City Council can and
should immediately correct the violation and codify the zoning reversion to S-1 and
align the General Plan with S-1 prior to hearing and requested action on this case.
The applicant states they will sue the City if they do not set what they want regarding
deleting Stipulation 19. No one is above the law.
Taken By: Radesha Williams

c:
Ben Ernyei – Posting

Benjamin Kim, IS
PDD All

S:\Planning\Rezoning\Hearings\PHO\Appeals\PHO Appeal Form.doc

ATTACHMENT B

December 9, 2019
Planning Hearing Officer
City of Phoenix
Planning & Development Department
200 West Washington Street, 2nd Floor
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
RE: Request to modify stipulations for Rezoning Case Z-165-06
Dear Planning Hearing Officer:
Rose Law Group pc on behalf of Virtua 35th LLC (the “Owner”) is pleased to request a
Stipulation Modification to Ordinance G-5020 (Case Z-165-06-7) for 58.998 acres of
real property located on the northwest corner of Carver Rd. and 35th Ave. (the
“Property”), APN# 300-11-008V. This request is being made in order to facilitate and
rationalize development on a property that has served as a blighted site for decades.
Although the site has been vacant for over a decade, previous land uses included mining
activity. Unnatural topography and significant disturbance are testament to the site’s
history and can still be seen today. Redevelopment of the Property proposes to
revitalize the scarred areas while protecting those environmental features that still exist.
The Property is located within Council District 7 and the Village of Laveen. Existing and
developing residential communities are located in the surrounding area, including the
property adjacent to the site’s southern boundary, an approximately 96 acre future
residential community. Ancillary roadway and offsite improvements are also
anticipated with the development of this site.
The subject zoning case (Z-165-06) was heard and approved by City of Phoenix Council
on October 10, 2007 after appearing before Planning Commission and the Laveen
Village Planning Committee. The zoning case was approved to rezone approximately
sixty acres of S-1 (Ranch or Farm Residence) to forty acres R1-18 (Single-Family
Residence) and twenty acres R1-8 (Single-Family Residences). In the original
stipulations density per zoning district is stipulated at a maximum of twenty two lots on
the R1-18, 40 acre area, and a maximum of 99 lots on the R1-8, 20 acre portion, for a
total of 121 lots on approximately 60 acres.
The Owner proposes to maintain the intent of the original zoning case by not modifying
those stipulations related to the R1-18 portion, and proposing a similar site plan and
density that was approved, with a more practical, sensitive, and luxury approach on the
R1-8 portion. Connections to the future community to the south, less units overall,
sensitivity and specification on the site’s hillside topography, and trail opportunities are

some of the ways the Property owner has holistically designed the site to respond to the
community and the environment. The proposed lot dimensions have been updated
since the original site plan, but maintains consistency with the conceptual elevations.
This responds to market demand while implementing the luxuries of fee simple lots and
private amenities.
Many years have passed since the rezoning and most of the surrounding area has
changed hands and been partially developed. Subsequently some of the stipulations
imposed as conditions of the zone change are no longer relevant or practical.
Accordingly, the applicant believes that is appropriate to modify Z-165-06 stipulations
and request modifications and deletions as shown below in legislative form. Please note
this request only impacts the R1-8 (eastern +/-20 acres) portion and no stipulation or
site plan modifications are requested to the western +/-40 acres of R1-18.
Proposed Modifications to Ordinance G-5020 (Case Z-165-06-7) Stipulations
1. That R1-8 development shall be in general conformance with the site plan date
stamped October 8, 2007 August 29, 2018, and elevations date stamped
February 20, 2007, as modified by the following stipulations, and as approved by
the Development Services Department.

Modification Rationale: A new site plan is proposed with this application to
facilitate an alternative residential development on the eastern 20 acres. The
proposed development will alter lot design and location but will not amend the
approved density. The site plan considers the future development to the south
and offers connectivity through a shared emergency exit road, as well as
pedestrian linkage. Product elevations are still conceptual and will be finalized
upon engagement from a builder. Until this time, the property owner would
like to maintain elevation flexibility, but is willing to stipulate to lot design.

2. That R1-18 development shall be in general conformance with the site
plan date stamped October 8,2007, as modified by the following
stipulations, and as approved by the Development Services
Department.

Addition Rationale: No change to the R1-18 portion of the site (western 40
acres) is proposed with this application. Therefore, the applicant is willing to
maintain general conformance to the site plan provided in the original zoning
case.

7. That a 235-foot (average), 200-foot (minimum) MINIMUM ONE HUNDRED
(100) FOOT landscaped setback adjacent to 35th Avenue shall be provided, as
approved by the Development Services Department.

Modification Rationale: Several reasons play into the justification of a decrease
in landscape setbacks along 35th Ave. First, the site plan setting this
requirement in the zoning case was purely conceptual and did not elevate the
site plan design to a technical level, including but not limited to parking

requirements, retention requirements, grading, street standards, etc. The
proposed site plan conforms to the technical standards of the City, and
subsequently requires additional space. The site plan has also slightly shifted
east decreasing the landscape setback along 35th Ave. in order to mitigate
disturbance to the environmentally sensitive areas located in the northwest
corner. Other upgrades to the community have been made that have detracted
from the setback along 35th Ave. including garage parking and additional
common amenity spaces. It is worth noting that the stipulated landscape
setback along Carver Road is maintained with this request.

19. That approval shall be conditional upon development commencing within 48
months of the City Council approval of this change of zoning in accordance with
Section 506.B.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. For purposes of this stipulation,
development shall commence with the issuance of building permits and erection
of building walls on site.

Deletion Rationale: As mentioned before the property owner is not a
homebuilder and therefore does not have control of when building permits will
be pulled. It is also likely that the developer of the R1-8 portion will be different
than the builder of the R1-18 area, which is unreasonable to tie both areas to the
same timeline. Additionally, the R1-18 lots lend to custom homesite, where an
individual person could design and build independently. Removing this
stipulation does not change the integrity of the project but allows for flexibility
of timing so a quality developer/person can thoughtfully execute every aspect of
the proposed site plan.

27. That a minimum of three terraced berms with 2:1 fill slopes shall be installed
along the full length of the quarry cut slope base. The terraces shall be 8 feet tall,
minimum MAXIMUM, and shall be plated with a staggered combination of 2-
inch and 4-inch caliper, drought¬ resistant, deciduous trees at 25 feet center to
center, as approved by the Development Services Department.

Modification Rationale: It is likely that the intent of this stipulation was to limit
the disturbance to the area and treat in a way that would blend with the natural
environment. Therefore, limiting the terrace height accomplishes this goal
further.

31. That private roadways within the R1-8 portion of the site shall be provided with a
raised, vertical curb ROLL CURB, as approved by the Development Services
Department.

Modification Rational: The proposed community will likely be private, and
therefore implement the City of Phoenix standard of “Private Accessway.” This
detail depicts a roll curb.

37. That all sidewalks, within the R1-8 portion of the site, shall be A MINIMUM
WIDTH OF FIVE (5) FEET. detached with a minimum five-foot-wide

landscaped strip located between the sidewalk and back of curb and shall include
minimum two-inch caliper shade trees planted a minimum rate of 20 feet on
center or equivalent groupings along both sides of the sidewalk, as approved by
the Development Services Department. The landscape strip shall be installed by
the developer and maintained by the homeowners association.

Modification Rationale: As previously mentioned the site plan approved with
the current zoning case was conceptual and did not take into detail the technical
aspect of implementing detached sidewalks of this magnitude. The proposed
site plan has better utilized the site’s space and has offered attached five foot
wide sidewalks on all major circulation routes, in addition to multi-use trails.
Landscaping has been appropriately planned to maximize areas of shade, while
recognizing the importance of drought tolerant plant species. It should also be
noted that mature trees often thrive in a more natural environment versus a
constrained five foot landscape strip.

39. That only one-story homes shall be located along 35th Avenue.

Deletion Rationale: This stipulation, as written, is unclear and fails to define
homes “along” 35th Ave. and specification of a building height associated with
the stated stories. Additionally, given the proposed lot size and garage option,
any single-story home would have severe square footage constraints. Deletion
of this stipulation will eliminate various interpretations and mandate that all
building heights conform to the zoning requirement (two stories and thirty feet).

The stipulations imposed in 2007 under zoning case Z-165-06 were based on a
conceptual site plan that didn’t consider the environmental and technical constraints of
this unique site. This coupled with the change in market demand, evolving community,
and adjacent residential development, justifies the needs to update and simplify the
subject stipulations. This will result in a thriving and unique community on a vacant
and otherwise blighted site. The proposed modifications reflect an effort to produce an
appealing and sensitive development that aligns with the desires of the City and the
community.

ATTACHMENT C

W CARVER RD
W CETON DR
HIGHLINE
C
ANAL
S 35T
H AVE
Maricopa County Assessor's Office
Planning & Development Department
PHO-1-19--Z-33-165-06-7 Property Location: Northwest corner of 35th Avenue and Carver Road
0
320
640
160
Feet ´

ATTACHMENT D

W CARVER RD
HIGHLINE
C
ANAL
S 35T
H AVE
R1-18*
S-1
R1-18*
R1-18 PRD*
R1-8*
S-1
S-1*
RE-35*
Planning & Development Department
PHO-1-19--Z-33-165-06-7 Property Location: Northwest corner of 35th Avenue and Carver Road
0
320
640
160
Feet ´

ATTACHMENT E

ATTACHMENT F

S-1
PRD
R1-18
S-1
S-1
COU
*
Phoenix City Limits
Z-128-02
Z-111-05
ANX 342
Z-86-01
S-1
MARICOPA
COUNTY
MARICOPA
COUNTY
MARICOPA
COUNTY
APP
R1-18 PRD *
Z-51-05
APP
R1-10 *
Z-79-04
35TH AV
OLNEY AV
ELLIOT RD
CETON RD
(ELLIOT ALIGNMENT)
CARVER RD
04-10-2007
7
C6
Q04-20
LAVEEN VILLAGE
59 Acres
Z-165-06
700
0
700
350
Feet
* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus
APPLICANT'S NAME:
APPLICATION NO.
DATE:
REVISION DATES:
REQUESTED CHANGE:
GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO &
QUARTER SEC. NO.
ZONING MAP
MULTIPLES PERMITTED
CONVENTIONAL OPTION
* UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
FROM:
TO:
CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT:
CITY OF PHOENIX PLANNING DEPARTMENT
NORTH
(N:\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2006\Z-165-06.mxd) 10/9/2007
75TH AVE
67TH AVE
59TH AVE
51ST AVE
43RD AVE
35TH AVE
27TH AVE
BROADWAY RD
BASELINE RD
SOUTHERN AVE
DOBBINS RD
ELLIOT RD
ESTRELLA DR
Z-165-06
LVA URBAN DESIGN STUDIO - ALAN BEAUDOIN
S-1 (59.0 ac)
R1-8 (19.4 ac)
R1-18 (39.6 ac)
S-1
R1-8 / R1-18
59
77 / 77
N/A
100 / 92
12-21-2006
10-09-2007

ATTACHMENT G

PROPOSED SITE PLAN

ATTACHMENT H

STIPULATED SITE PLAN

ATTACHMENT I

STIPULATED ELEVATIONS

ATTACHMENT J

LAVEEN VILLAGE PLANNING COMMITTEE
Meeting Minutes
Monday, January 13, 2020
Laveen Elementary School District Office #59
Laveen Education Center, Building B, Room #101
5001 West Dobbins Road, Laveen, Arizona.

Members Present
Members Excused
Staff Present
Robert Branscomb, Chair
Tonya Glass, Vice Chair
Linda Abegg
Wendy Ensminger
Cinthia Estela
Gary Flunoy
Rochelle Harlin
Stephanie Hurd
John Mockus
Carlos Ortega
Jennifer Rouse
Samantha Keating
Sarah Stockham
Christine Mackay

1. Call to order, introductions and announcements by Chair.

Chairman Robert Branscomb called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. There was a
quorum with 11 members present.

2. Review and approval of the December 9, 2019, meeting minutes.

MOTION

Ms. Stephanie Hurd moved to approve the minutes as presented. Mr. John Mockus
seconded the motion.

Vote
11-0, Motion to approve, with Committee Members Abegg, Branscomb, Ensminger,
Estela, Flunoy, Glass, Harlin, Hurd, Mockus, Ortega and Rouse in favor.

3. Public comment concerning items not on the agenda.
Mr. Jon Kimoto commented that the Pledge of Allegiance was dropped from the
agenda. He stated that the Pledge represents three basic American values: in God we
trust, liberty, and “E Pluribus Unum” (out of many, one). He requested that the
committee reaffirm our tradition and implement the recital of the Pledge of Allegiance.
Mr. Phil Hertel led the committee and audience in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.

4. INFORMATION ONLY: Presentation and discussion regarding economic development
opportunities for the Loop 202 corridor.

Ms. Christine Mackay, Community and Economic Development Director, presented on
economic development along the Loop 202 Corridor. She expects high-tech and
advanced services jobs along the Corridor. She explained that the marketing name is
the “South Mountain Technology Corridor” which intends to bring high-wage jobs to the
area. She explained that her office is doing marketing and outreach to get the right
companies and jobs in Laveen.

Ms. Hurd expressed concern that a large technology company had lost interest in
relocating to the area.

Ms. Mackay replied that her office is continuing to reach out to other large technology
companies.

Mr. Flunoy wanted to see more signage stating the name of the freeway as the Ed
Pastor Freeway.

Vice Chair Glass requested to be included in a subcommittee of community members
who meet with the technology companies. She would also like to help draft marketing
language for Laveen.

Ms. Mackay explained that community members can meet with City staff but meetings
with technology companies must remain confidential due to non-disclosure agreements.

Mr. James Hughes inquired if the City was partnering with the County as there is
County-owned land along the Corridor and if the City has education efforts for the
Corridor as well.

Ms. Mackay replied that education is key and that training the workforce is pivotal to
making the area desirable.

Ms. Jane Craig commented that there is a lack of trees along Baseline Road.

Ms. Mackay replied that the City has a capital improvement program to address those
concerns.

Mr. Dan Penton explained that it is critical that the vision for the Laveen Village be
acknowledged and listed existing area assets.

Ms. Mackay responded that she hoped to return the Village Planning Committee within
the first half of 2020 with an update.

6. Z-165-06 (PHO-1-19): Presentation, discussion, and possible recommendation on a
request to modify stipulations of entitlement for a property located on the northwest
corner of 35th Avenue and Carver Road. Request to modify stipulation 1 regarding
general conformance to the site plan date stamped October 8, 2007 and elevations date
stamped February 20, 2007; modification of Stipulation 7 regarding the landscape
setback adjacent to 35th Avenue; deletion of Stipulation 19 regarding conditional
development approval; modification of Stipulation 27 regarding height of terraced berms

along the quarry cut slope base; modification of Stipulation 31 regarding raised, vertical
curbs within the R1-18 portion of the site; modification of Stipulation 37 regarding
detached sidewalks and landscape strips within the R1-8 portion of the site; deletion of
Stipulation 39 regarding one-story homes along 35th Avenue; and technical corrections
to Stipulations 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 15, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 33, 34, 36, 38,
40.

Chair Branscomb elected to hear this item out of order.

1 speaker card was submitted in favor, wishing to speak.

1 speaker card was submitted in favor, not wishing to speak.

28 speaker cards were submitted in opposition, wishing to speak. Ten of those
speakers chose to donate their time to Cyd Manning. Two of those speakers chose to
donate their time to Jon Kimoto. One speaker chose to donate their time to John Knight.
One speaker chose to donate their time to Scott Johnson.

99 speaker cards were submitted in opposition, not wishing to speak.

Ms. Sarah Stockham, staff, provided on overview of the request. She displayed an
aerial map, previously approved site plan, proposed site plan, and briefly reviewed the
request for stipulation modifications and deletions.

Mr. Tom Galvin, with Rose Law Group, explained the history of the case. He stated
that the reason for the request is in response to on-site conditions and to comply with
the Hillside Ordinance. He explained that they are not requesting a change in zoning,
their proposal is less dense than what was originally proposed and that they are
providing twenty-three percent open space. He then reviewed each stipulation
modification and deletion. He explained that the reason to update the dates in
Stipulation 1 is to match the current plan dates. The reason for modification of the
required setbacks along 35th Avenue in Stipulation 7 is that the slope analysis required
that the homes be shifted east to protect the natural hillside feature. He continued that
Proposition 207 renders Stipulation 19 moot. He explained that modifying Stipulation 27
is for safety concerns regarding a terrace height of eight feet or more. He continued that
landscaping and beatification of the quarry is still proposed, but under safer conditions.
He stated that Stipulation 31 with the roll curb requirement violates the City’s current
standard and that the private drives will conform to the City of Phoenix’s standards. He
added that modifying Stipulation 37 to remove the detached sidewalk requirement is to
conform to City standards. He explained that additional trails are offered through
common area open spaces and surrounded by landscaping. Lastly, he explained that
deletion of Stipulation 39 regarding one-story homes along 35th Avenue is necessary to
provide diversity of housing size, style, and consumer choices.

Mr. Mockus inquired if the developer will be bringing in water service to the area and
who will bear the cost of the water service extension.

Mr. Jeff Giles, with Clouse Engineering, explained that they will be working with

another developer to bring in water and sewer services. He added that there might be
some cost sharing between their group and another developer.

Ms. Rouse shared a concern with lighting in the area. She added that the posted speed
limit is too fast and that is a blind turn when rounding the corner from 35th Avenue to
Carver Road. She argued that reducing the landscape setback would be increasing
safety issues.

Mr. Giles stated that the project will be reviewed by the Streets Transportation
Department with the City of Phoenix and Maricopa County.

Ms. Hurd asked if they had conducted an environmental survey report.

Ms. Alisse Caton with Rose Law Group, answered that there will be a soils report
generated later.

Vice Chair Glass stated that drainage is an issue and development on the site could
potentially cause flooding to the north. She stated that the expectation is that the
developer goes above and beyond.

Ms. Estela stated that she wants quality over quantity and to preserve the character of
Laveen.

Ms. Abegg stated that the Committee does not have the power to revert the zoning on
the property. She identified that the site is a special part of Laveen. She stated that she
wanted the elevations to come back to the Village Planning Committee for approval and
that one-story homes along the perimeter is vital. She sought clarification regarding the
open space amounts and how Proposition 207 affects Stipulation 19.

Ms. Samantha Keating, staff, stated that the property is zoned R1-8 with stipulations.
The zoning and stipulations run with the land, and that the property owner has rights to
that zoning designation. She stated that the purpose of this request is to not decide
what the zoning should be.

Mr. Ortega stated that the site should be held to what it was originally zoned.

Mr. Galvin restated that the slope analysis necessitated that they request to change
stipulations. He continued that the request is only for the right side of the property, and
that the proposed zoning is less than what was originally proposed.

Ms. Abegg stated that the Committee could deny the request completely or approve
with modifications and add stipulations the Committee wants.

Public Comment

Mr. John Knight stated that the request is changing the landscape of everything that
was approved. He stated that the project is cancelled, and that the area is a hazard. He
continued that this project puts lives in jeopardy due to the flooding hazard.

Mr. Dan Penton shared that the zoning should have been reverted, and it affects our
land value. He urged the Committee to deny the request.

Ms. Suzee Gelner asked about the tri-plex, the acreage and the size of the lots.

Mr. James Hughes shared concern that the request does not reference the Carver
Hills Storm Drain Plan. He shared that the area floods. He also shared that the 200-foot
setback will help with safety along the dangerous intersection. He urged the Committee
to not change a thing.

Mr. Sandy Hamilton, representing the Laveen Citizens for Responsible Development,
stated that the reversion stipulation is key. He continued that the original owner agreed
to a contract.

Mr. James Parisella stated that he likes one house per acre, and that Laveen is the
last agricultural area that people can build on. He stated that it is quiet, open and does
not have bright lights. He added that his home has been flooded out twice.

John Bizdel asked what they needed to do to initiate a reversion?

Chair Branscomb stated that the process starts here, with whether they recommend to
deny or approve the stipulation modifications.

Ms. Abegg added that Planning Commission is where the reversion process starts.
Rezoning does not happen with the Planning Hearing Officer.

Ms. Keating repeated that the requests is to modify the stipulations. She added that
there is no automatic reversion process, it is a separate process from the request
before the Committee now. She repeated that the zoning is R1-8 and that the applicant
can request to modify the stipulations.

Mr. Phil Hertel stated that the one-minute allotted time for public comment was absurd.
He believed that the applicant misrepresented the amount of open space, which went
from fifty percent to twenty three percent. He requested that the Committee deny the
request until the reversion issue is resolved.

Chair Branscomb asked Mr. Hertel why the Committee approved the project back in
2007.

Mr. Hertel replied that back then the project was tolerable, and now it is intolerable.

Mr. Kimoto stated that the proposed site plan falls short of the current community
quality standards. He recommended the Committee deny the request. He added that
the current site plan shows a repetitive housing layout and believes that the original
plan is achievable. He continued that the only change he agrees with is the roll curbs.
He continued that detached sidewalks were originally requested for pedestrian safety
and shade. Further, he stated that the intent of Stipulation 39 is to avoid a wall along

35th Avenue with two-story homes within the view corridor. Lastly, he added that the
reversion stipulation is a City self-induced problem which they try to cover up with a
band aid. He feels that is sends mixed-messages to the community. He requested four
additional stipulations be added to the request:

1. A minimum of three site cross sections, traversing north to south across the 20-acre
site at one-third points from the east property line at 35th Avenue shall be submitted
prior to City Council approval.

The intent is to provide a line of site illustration to show the visual impact of a forty-five-
foot-high change in elevation.

2. A minimum of two oblique aerial perspectives indicating proposed building and site
improvements from south to north (from Carver Road) and from east to west (from 35th
Avenue) shall be submitted prior to City Council approval.

3. A concept drawing showing the vertical mining cut from the terraced base to summit
shall be provided to illustrate how it will be revitalized and to mitigate vertical height
prior to City Council approval.

4. A detailed site plan, landscape plan, perimeter screen wall/fencing plan and
elevations, entry monument plan and elevations, sign plan, and lighting plan shall be
brought to the Village Planning Committee and the community for review and comment.

Mr. Scott Johnson, president of the Hangar Haciendas Home Owners Association,
stated that his community is a private residential airpark subdivision located to the east
of the subject property. He expressed concern that the project will be impacted by the
flight path. He asked the City to initiate the reversion.

Vice Chair Glass shared that the community concerns are not falling on deaf ears, and
that the Committee hears their concerns.

Cyd Manning stated she is directly by the parcel and that there was a lot of passion
surrounding the project now and in 2007. She explained that the current entitlement
was not brokered by the Village, but rather by Mayor Phil Gordon. She shared that she
felt that the applicant is fast-tracking the case and will not meet with the neighbors, and
that history is repeating itself. She clarified that there was an environmental study done
for the site and no environmental issues were found. She continued that the housing
market does not want small homes. She agreed with Ms. Keating that the request is not
about changing the zoning. She continued that the property has been flipped four times
and that Stipulation 19 was to protect the neighbors and is key to the compromise. She
said that she reviewed the current plan and that the open space is reduced, the
amenities are non-luxurious, and that the applicant is attempting to delete any
stipulation that was put in place to protect the neighbors. She continued that the City
has a policy to act on reversions, the City has no excuse to be in violation and the
current request is like trying to travel on an expired passport. She gave an example of a
General Plan Amendment that was initiated in 2008 that took three months to process.
She stated that when the reversion is completed, she would like to work on a different

project for the site. She continued that the community has worked with other large
developers in the past, and that she would like to go to City Council and support a
future project at this site. She told the Committee that she is aware that they do not
have the final say on the request and that other large land owners are considering the
property. She believes that this case is precedent-setting. She urged the Committee to
deny the request and recommend that the Planning Hearing Officer initiate a zoning
reversion.

Mr. Tom Galvin responded that the City has said that the request is not about a zoning
reversion. They are trying to find a win-win solution. He continued that they met with Mr.
Kimoto and that they have reached out to the community. He explained that they had a
meeting scheduled with Sandy Hamilton. He said that they hear their frustrations with
the City, and if the community believes that the zoning should be reverted they should
take that request to the City. He finished by saying that their request is to modify
stipulations because of the slope analysis and they are not here to fight over a S-1
zoning reversion.

Ms. Caton clarified that there is a slope analysis for the R1-18 portion of the site and
that an additional slope analysis was done for the R1-8 portion. She stated that “hillside”
is any slope over ten percent. She explained that while they are requested a removal of
the detached sidewalks, they are proposing pedestrian trails that lead to amenities such
as tot lots. She stated that she understands the community’s passion and that she
would be happy to discuss any design or aesthetic issues.

Mr. Giles stated that the site will have less runoff when developed and that they are
proposing single-lot single-family detached homes.

Ms. Abegg asked for clarification on the number of garage spaces per unit. She stated
that if the Committee denies the request, there is no comment to the Planning Hearing
Officer. She stated that the Committee likes to amend the stipulations. She suggested
a motion to recommend approval with modifications and a competing motion to
recommend denial. She continued that if the Committee recommends denying the
request the applicant will not return to the Committee with any updated or detailed
plans. She explained that the reason for the stipulation for general conformance to the
elevations dated February 20, 2007 is that the applicant has not provided new
elevations and that the stipulation should not be modified until they do. The site is
unique with custom homes on large lots and the elevations need to be planned with
care to maintain the character. She stated that the modification to Stipulation 39 is to
provide clarity. She continued that the reason for retaining Stipulation 19 is that the
Laveen Village Planning Committee supports the community’s efforts to revert the
zoning. She stated that the reason for the additional stipulation for enhancing the
elevations is that the applicant states that it will be a luxury development but has not
provided elevation details, and the Committee would like to ensure that the elevations
are upgraded. The reason for adding stipulations for open space and the total number
of lots is to that is what is currently being proposed.

Ms. Keating stated that for procedural purposes the Committee should hear one
motion and act on it and should not have two competing motions.

MOTION
Linda Abegg made a motion to recommend approval with three modifications and
seven additional stipulations as follows:

Modifications
1) Modification to Stipulation 1 to maintain that the elevations be in general
conformance with the elevations date stamped February 20, 2007.
2) Retain the existing text of Stipulation 19.
3) Modification of Stipulation 39 to read “Any buildings within two hundred feet of the
eastern property line shall be limited to one-story with a maximum height of twenty
feet.

Additional Stipulations
1) All sides of each building shall be enhanced with a minimum of 50% non-stucco
material such as wood, stone, brick, etc.
2) The developer shall provide a minimum of twelve percent useable open space
centrally located within the community and a minimum of twenty-six percent total
open space
3) The R1-8 portion shall be limited to ninety-two lots
4) The developer shall provide a minimum of two garage spaces per unit
5) The driveways shall be at least twenty-two feet long
6) Prior to site plan approval, a final site plan, building elevations, detailed landscape
plan, detailed entry monument plan, and perimeter fence plans shall be approved
through the Planning Hearing Officer process with alternate site plans listed below
to be provided:
o A minimum of three site cross sections, traversing north to south across the
20-acre site at one-third points from the east property line at 35th Avenue
o A minimum of two oblique aerial perspectives indicating proposed building
and site improvements from south to north (from Carver Road) and from east
to west (from 35th Avenue)
o A concept drawing showing the vertical mining cut from the terraced base to
summit shall be provided to illustrate how it will be revitalized and to mitigate
vertical height prior to City Council approval
o A detailed site plan, landscape plan, perimeter screen wall/fencing plan and
elevations, entry monument plan and elevations, sign plan, and lighting plan
7) Any request to change, delete or modify stipulations be presented through the
Planning Hearing Officer process.

Carlos Ortega seconded the motion.

VOTE
4-7 Motion fails; with members Abegg, Ortega, Glass and Branscomb in favor;
members Ensminger, Estela, Flunoy, Harlin, Hurd, Mockus, and Rouse opposed.

Ms. Keating clarified that the applicant will need to delete or modify Stipulation 19 in
order to move forward and develop the property.

MOTION
Stephanie Hurd made a motion to recommend denial of the request. She also
requested that the Planning Hearing Officer recommend to the Planning Commission
to initiate a zoning reversion for the site.

Jennifer Rouse seconded the motion.

VOTE
11-0 Motion passed; with members Abegg, Ensminger, Estela, Flunoy, Harlin, Hurd,
Mockus, Ortega, Rouse, Glass and Branscomb in favor.

5. Z-96-06 (PHO-2-19): Presentation, discussion, and possible recommendation on a
request to review and approve conceptual elevations by the Planning Hearing Officer
per Stipulation No. 2 of Rezoning Case No. Z-96-06-7 for a property located on the
southwest corner of 59th Avenue and Southern Avenue.
Four speaker cards were submitted in favor, wishing to speak.
Two speaker cards were submitted in opposition, wishing to speak.
Ms. Stockham, staff, provided an overview of the request and reviewed Stipulation 2
and the proposed elevations.
Ben Tate, with Withey Morris, PLC, reviewed the history of the case and that Stipulation
2 requires the applicant to return with conceptual elevations to be reviewed by the
criteria set forth in the stipulation. He shared that the site plan was approved in October
and that the elevations show variation in color and material. He continued that the
elevations were shown to the Laveen Citizens for Responsible Development and they
are identical to the elevations approved at another project located at 59th Avenue and
Elliot Road.
Vice Chair Glass shared that she did not believe the elevations looked the same.
Mr. Tate replied that this is the single-story version of the elevation, for the property to
the east of the freeway.
Ms. Harlin shared that she thought the west side of the property would be developed
first, and then the east side would be developed.
Mr. Mockus said that when the project was first approved there were roads going
through the entire property. He asked if it will still be one community with connecting
roads.
Mr. Tate replied that there is a common entrance off Southern and that the communities
will have two different names.
Vice Chair Glass commented that the elevations for the project at 59th Avenue and
Elliot Road had been created more thoughtfully.
Mr. Tate responded that he had worked on the project at 59th Avenue and Elliot Road
and assured Ms. Glass that the elevations were the same.
Ms. Abegg reminded the Committee that the request is to evaluate the elevations

based on the criteria included in the stipulation.

Public Comment
Mr. Dan Penton commended that they applicant met with the Laveen Citizens for
Responsible Development and that the elevations are identical to the previously
approved project. He shared that the design looked rural and asked what the density
will be for the project.
Mr. Tate responded that the density will be 11.5 dwelling units per acre.
Mr. Penton asked if there will be a monument entry sign.
Mr. Tate responded that they will have a low agrarian monument that is more like a
boutique hotel.
Mr. Vance Pierce stated that he was surprised by the elevations and that they need
more projects like this in Laveen. He stated that it is good for developers to listen to the
needs of the community.
Ms. Jadestorm Shamsid-Deen stated that she is the founder of a company called
Mir`Ra I.M.A.G.E, Inc, which inspires young adults to find a better future. She stated
that her complaint was that her company’s name was slandered on the Nextdoor
application. She continued that it is the homeowners that help fund education and that
this project does not help the youth. She added that they are ugly one-story apartments.
Mr. Alex Moctezuma shared that he is the vice president of a small home owners
association near 67th Avenue and Dobbins Road. He questioned what the project will
look like in ten years and that the quality of the build is vital.
Vice Chair Glass asked what the price point will be for these units.
Mr. Tate responded that they will be rented in the range of $1,000 - $1,500 a month, the
same as the units at 59th Avenue and Elliot Road. He added that the developer invests
in quality materials and that they project will look good in ten years due to the design
not being trendy.

MOTION
Linda Abegg made a motion to recommend approval.

Jennifer Rouse seconded the motion.

VOTE

11-0 Motion passed; with members Abegg, Ensminger, Estela, Flunoy, Harlin, Hurd,
Mockus, Ortega, Rouse, Glass and Branscomb in favor.

7. Z-115-A-99-7: Presentation, discussion, and possible recommendation regarding a
request to rezone an approximately 4.26-acre site located approximately 325 feet south
of the southwest corner of 67th Avenue and Baseline Road from R1-6 PCD (Approved
C-1 PCD) (Single-Family Residence District, Planned Community District, Approved
Neighborhood Retail, Planned Community District) to C-2 SP PCD (Intermediate
Commercial, Special Permit, Planned Community District) to allow for a self-service

storage facility and all underlying C-2 uses.

Mr. Gary Flunoy left at 9:35 PM bringing the quorum down to 10 members.

Two speaker cards were submitted in support, not wishing to speak.

Four speaker cards were submitted in support, wishing to speak.

Ms. Stockham, staff, provided an overview of the request, noting the location, the
history of the site, previous stipulations and current request. She displayed an aerial
map, previously approved site plan, proposed site plan, and briefly reviewed staff’s
recommendation and stipulations.

Mr. Greg Loper introduced himself and stated that the project is named The Collective.
He stated that members of his team met with the Laveen Citizens for Responsible
Development because they want to be conscientious about community concerns and
design that is compatible with the community. He continued that there will be access to
the site from Meadows Loop East and Baseline Road. He added that the site will be a
place for the community and local businesses to store items.

Mr. Ortega asked about adding a stipulation that addresses what would happen if the
project does not get built.

Mr. Mockus asked if the applicant owned the strip of land going north to Baseline
Road.

Mr. Loper replied that they do.

Mr. Mockus asked what would keep the applicant from developing the property

Mr. Loper responded that the developer has done many projects like this.

Ms. Harlin asked for clarification about Stipulation 16.

Public Comment

Mr. Dan Penton thanked the applicant for working with the Laveen Citizens for
Responsible Development (LCRD) and believes it is a great product for the area. He
asked that the Committee recommend approval.

Mr. Jon Kimoto stated that it is a positive project, it creates a passive buffer between
the commercial parcel to the north and the residences. He stated that the issue is with
the existing wall.

Ms. Keating stated that typically a developer adds a wall and then has a landscaped
setback. She added that there is already an existing wall.

Mr. Phil Hertel stated that the community does not want an extra wall and that the

existing wall will buffer the neighboring residential uses. He requested that his address
be changed as written in the stipulation.

Mr. Vance Pierce shared that he generally likes a storage facility between homes and
the commercial uses to the north and that the homes along the west side have
shallower yards. He would have preferred to see a more “L”-shaped layout to buffer the
residences to the west more.

Mr. Loper responded that the lighting will be wall-mounted, and motion activated except
for the parking lights. He added that they development will keep light shielded from the
residences.

MOTION
Linda Abegg made a motion to recommend approval with one modification and one
additional stipulation as follows:

Modifications
1) Modification to Stipulation 17 to update Phil Hertel’s address to 2845 W Broadway
Road.

Additional Stipulations
1) The development shall be in general conformance with the site plan and
elevations date stamped December 23, 2019 as modified by the following
stipulations and approved by the Planning and Development Department.

John Mockus seconded the motion.

VOTE

10-0 Motion passed; with members Abegg, Ensminger, Estela, Harlin, Hurd, Mockus, Ortega,
Rouse, Glass and Branscomb in favor.

8. INFORMATION ONLY: Presentation and discussion regarding the 2019 Laveen Village
Annual Report.

Not heard.

9. Staff update on cases recently reviewed by the Committee.

No updates given.

10. Committee member announcements, requests for information, follow up, or future
agenda items.

Ms. Rouse urged Committee members to get involved with the budget process.

Ms. Abegg announced that Councilmember Garcia will attend the next meeting.

Mr. Dan Penton announced the 20th Anniversary Laveen Parade will be held on
February 1st and the Laveen Barbeque will be on February 8th.

Vice Chair Glass announced that Reid Butler owns the Sachs-Webster House and is
planning to revitalize the workshop.

11. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 10:10 PM.

ATTACHMENT K

Planning Hearing Officer Summary of January 15, 2020
Application Z-165-06-7(8)
Page 1

REPORT OF PLANNING HEARING OFFICER ACTION
Adam Stranieri, Planner III, Hearing Officer
Julianna Pierre, Planner I, Assisting

January 15, 2020

ITEM 5

DISTRICT 7
SUBJECT:

Application #:
Z-165-06-7(8) (PHO-1-19)
Zoning:
R1-8, R1-18
Location:
Northwest corner of 35th Avenue and Carver Road
Acreage:
59.48
Request:
1) Modification of Stipulation 1 regarding general conformance to
the site plan date stamped October 8, 2007 and elevations date
stamped February 20, 2007.
2) Modification of Stipulation 7 regarding the landscape setback
adjacent to 35th Avenue.
3) Deletion of Stipulation 19 regarding conditional development
approval.
4) Modification of Stipulation 27 regarding height of terraced berms
along the quarry cut slope base.
5) Modification of Stipulation 31 regarding raised, vertical curbs
within the R1-18 portion of the site.
6) Modification of Stipulation 37 regarding detached sidewalks and
landscape strips within the R1-8 portion of the site.
7) Deletion of Stipulation 39 regarding one-story homes along 35th
Avenue.
8) Technical corrections to Stipulations 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 15, 18, 20, 21,
22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 33, 34, 36, 38, 40.
Applicant:
Alisse Caton, Rose Law Group
Owner:
Virtua 35th LLC
Representative:
Alisse Caton, Rose Law Group

ACTIONS

Planning Hearing Officer Recommendation: The Planning Hearing Officer took this
case under advisement. On February 13, 2020 the Planning Hearing Officer took this
case out from under advisement and recommended denial as filed and approval with
modifications and additional stipulations.

Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation: The Laveen Village Planning
Committee heard this case on January 13, 2020 and recommended denial by an 11-0
vote.

Planning Hearing Officer Summary of January 15, 2020
Application Z-165-06-7(8)
Page 2

DISCUSSION

35 cards submitted in opposition to the request, 7 wishing to speak.

5 cards submitted expressing no position, 3 wishing to speak.

Thomas Galvin, applicant and representative with Rose Law Group, stated that the
request is a response to site topography, City requests, and to make the area buildable.
He stated that he met with staff in late 2018 and was instructed to conduct a slope
analysis. He stated that the proposed site plan is based upon the results of the slope
analysis and comments received from City staff. He stated that the new site plan
reduces density and depicts seven less lots than the stipulated plan. He added that
there will be an increase in the amount of open space required. He clarified that, after
conducting research, they determined that of the open space required, 50% was to be
tree coverage. Adam Stranieri asked where the requirement for the tree coverage
originated. Alisse Caton, with Rose Law Group, clarified that this was discussed in a
previous hearing and is not a stipulation. Mr. Galvin stated that in 2007 the rezoning
was approved for 22 lots on the western 40 acres and 99 lots on the eastern 20 acres.
He clarified that no changes were being proposed for the western portion and that the
request only impacts the eastern portion.

Mr. Galvin stated that the modification of Stipulation 1, regarding general conformance
to the site plan and elevations, is intended to update plans for the R1-18 portion. The
modification of Stipulation 7, regarding the landscape setback adjacent to 35th Avenue,
is a direct response to the slope analysis and an effort to protect the natural hillside
features by moving the lots further east. He stated that Stipulation 19, regarding
conditional development approval, should be deleted because the zoning change was
approved in 2007 and any reversion would violate Proposition 207. Stipulation 27,
regarding height of terraced berms along the quarry cut slope base, should be modified
to allow landscaping and beautification under safer conditions. He stated that the
modifications of Stipulation 31, regarding raised, vertical curbs within the R1-18 portion
of the site, and Stipulation 37, regarding detached sidewalks and landscape strips within
the R1-8 portion of the site, are to bring the site into conformance with current City
standards. He stated that Stipulation 39, regarding one-story homes along 35th
Avenue, should be deleted to allow consumer choices and a variety of housing types.
Mr. Galvin concluded that all their changes will provide view corridors with appropriate
connectivity and meet City standards.

Mr. Stranieri asked for clarification regarding the proposal to delete the requirement for
detached sidewalks. Ms. Caton stated that there would be attached sidewalks on one
side of the street and pedestrian trail connectivity between the units that provides
connection to amenity spaces and parking. She added that the proposal is intended to
conform with the City standards, but also wants to entertain doing attached 5-foot
sidewalks in addition to the trails. She clarified that detached sidewalks would not be
able to be provided on the private drives and that would be offset by the provided trails.

Mr. Stranieri asked for clarification regarding the percentage of open space being
provided. Mr. Caton stated that the overall open space of the R1-8 and R-18 portions

Planning Hearing Officer Summary of January 15, 2020
Application Z-165-06-7(8)
Page 3

would be 23%, but the open space in the R1-8 portion would be 26%. She stated that
the open space calculations include both active and passive open space. Mr. Stranieri
stated that the calculation exceeded 5 times what is required in the Zoning Ordinance
and asked if the applicant understood that the calculation would not include any
perimeter landscape setbacks. Jeff Giles, with Clouse Engineering, stated that the 26%
of open space in the R1-8 portion of the site took into account the hillside areas and a
portion of the landscape setback. However, Mr. Giles noted that there were some areas
that were not included in the calculation due to the slope of the site, but could still be
considered open space per the City’s definition.

Linda Abegg, a member of the Laveen Village Planning Committee, stated that she
shared the same concerns as the community regarding Stipulation 19. She also stated
that she had concerns regarding the removal of general conformance to elevations
without the applicant proposing new elevations. She stated that the Laveen Village
always wants to see elevations come through the Planning Hearing Officer process.
She stated that the general conformance could remain with prior elevations or an
additional stipulation could be added that elevations have to come back through the
Planning Hearing Officer process. She stated that the Laveen Village also recommends
a standard for maximum one-story buildings along arterials. She stated that there are
concerns regarding having taller buildings along 35th Avenue, especially with the blind
corner. She also stated that the usable open space was 12% and the total open space
was 26%. She stated that the enhanced open space should be stipulated to ensure that
the open space is centrally located in the community and not only the mountainside.

Mr. Stranieri stated that the subject property of the current PHO is the same as the
entire property of the original rezoning case and includes both the R1-8 and R1-18
portions. He noted that the legislative edit submitted by the applicant takes out the
requirement for conformance to elevations without providing new plans. He stated that
concerns about materials and other design elements could be addressed in a future
PHO hearing at the time that the applicant proposed conceptual building elevations.

Phil Hertel, a member of the Laveen Citizens for Responsible Development (LCRD),
noted that his name and address are outdated in Stipulations 35 and 36, regarding
notifications. He stated that his address has changed and should be updated in the
stipulation. He stated that the applicant did not meet with the LCRD and the applicant
did not receive community input during the official meeting. He stated that he also had
concerns about Stipulation 19 and that the site should be reverted back to S-1. He
stated the community is supportive of development in the area, but that the item should
be continued or denied until the reversion is addressed.

Dan Penton, a representative from the Laveen Community Council, stated that the area
is unique and the proposed development would have a negative impact on the agrarian
character and heritage of the area. He stated that the Laveen Southwest Growth Study
and Laveen Residential Design Guidelines represent the values of the community and
guidelines for future growth in the area. He stated that the intent of these documents
should not be overlooked and that the proposed development is incompatible with the
area. He stated that the reversion matter should be handled first, before the item
moves forward.

Planning Hearing Officer Summary of January 15, 2020
Application Z-165-06-7(8)
Page 4

Dave Blake, a member of the community, stated that he is a native of Phoenix and also
supported the reversion. He stated that the City should revert the zoning because the
area was never developed. He stated that the area is unique and does not need high
density development.

Tami Blake, a member of the community, stated that most of the properties in the area
are developed with approximately one home per acre. She stated that she often rides
horses and expressed concern regarding the impacts of the proposal on her ability to
continue riding in the area. She noted that this is one of the last areas in the City that
hasn’t had higher density residential development crammed in and that the area should
instead be preserved as is.

John Bzdel, a member of the community, stated that there is an ethical dilemma. He
stated that City employees have a duty to prevent improper government action. He
stated that the process failed in 2011 because the zoning never reverted to S-1. He
stated the second process failure was the acceptance of the PHO case without noting
that the zoning was never reverted. He stated that the case should be taken under
advisement to speak with the City’s Law Department because the ethics policy
violations need to be addressed.

Jon Kimoto, a member of the public, stated that the proposed site plan falls short of the
design quality expected in Laveen. He stated that the proposed plan is a grid that
attempts to impose a flat land subdivision upon a unique hillside situation. He stated
that the proposed plan does not take into account the contours, views, and drainage
issues of the site. He stated that the stipulated plan addressed the distinctive aspects
of the area and had a more attractive entry feature. He added that there was a
significant landscape buffer on the previous plan and there are now concerns about the
height of homes along the perimeter of the subdivision. He stated that there were also
concerns about the terraced berms along the quarry cut slope base. He stated that the
applicant’s proposal could decrease the height of the terraced berms and negatively
impact the safety of residents in the area. He also stated that the City should revert the
zoning and the case should be heard before the correct judicial body. He also stated
that the addresses of those named in Stipulation 35 and 36 should be updated.

Scott Johnson, a member of the public and president of the Hanger Haciendas
Homeowners Association, stated that Hanger Haciendas is a private residential airport
community located 2300 feet east of the subject property. He stated that the subject
property has changed hands several times since 2007 and he wants to ensure that the
developer is aware of the project’s proximity to a private airport. He stated that the
community is 38 lots on 65 acres with 30 aircraft based there. He stated that flights
typically land to the east and take off to the west, placing aircraft at low altitudes in close
proximity to the subject property. He added that the application should never have been
accepted because the zoning was never reverted. He stated that just because the
reversion was missed before does not mean that it should be overlooked now. He
stated that the application should be denied and the reversion initiated.

Planning Hearing Officer Summary of January 15, 2020
Application Z-165-06-7(8)
Page 5

Stephanie Hurd, a member of the Laveen Village Planning Committee, stated the VPC
is a vital link between the community and City decision makers. She stated that Laveen
has one of the biggest areas of undeveloped land in the City of Phoenix and the
community wants development, but also wants the area to retain its character. She
stated that the area should be kept at low density and the developer should take the
community’s wishes into account. She stated that she agreed with the community and
felt the case should be put on hold until the reversion issue is addressed.

Cyd Manning, a member of the community who was involved with the original rezoning,
stated that she is affected by the site every day because she can see it from both her
back and front yards. She stated that contrary to the applicant’s materials, the area is
not blighted and there are no known environmental issues. She stated that the market
does not want small homes in the Laveen area. She stated that the property has been
flipped numerous times since the original rezoning case. She stated that the proposed
plans are uninspired with no view corridors. She stated the City is in violation of
Ordinance G-5020 which approved the rezoning and should have initiated the reversion
in 2011. She stated that when she requested the City to take action on the reversion
she was told that there was no time or resources to process the cases with reversion
stipulations. She stated that once the reversion is taken care of, she and other
members of the community are willing to sit down with the developer to discuss possible
development.

Mr. Galvin stated that the stipulated site plan does not reflect S-1 zoning and that the
property is not zoned S-1. He stated that their case is not requesting a zoning change
and instead requesting modifications and deletions to stipulations. He clarified that he
did not reject a meeting with the LCRD, but could not meet due to scheduling issues.
He stated that the LCRD also cancelled a planned meeting. He stated that the
applicant is willing to work with the community, but it is impossible to revert back to S-1.
He stated that the area is also a patchwork of land under the City of Phoenix and
Maricopa County jurisdictions. He stated that the City of Phoenix land has more dense
zoning, while land under the County has remained less dense. He stated that the City
is also changing, specifically this area which may become a technology and
employment corridor in the future. He stated that he respects residents who want to
maintain their agrarian lifestyle, but the City should also provide affordable housing for
those wishing to live in Phoenix. He added that the City would not be able to revert the
property due to legal issues.

Ms. Caton clarified that when they stated the site plan responded to environmental
issues they meant the plan was a direct reflection of the slope analysis. She stated that
they have worked with an engineer to address the technical feasibility of the plan. She
also stated that the applicant is working with the developers to the south and their site
plan works in tandem with the proposed site plan.

Mr. Giles stated that Stipulation 27 required berms be a minimum of eight feet in height,
but he noted that there may be a safety issue for hikers or kids in the neighborhood if
the berms are higher than eight feet. He stated that the modification of Stipulation 31 is
intended to allow for drainage considerations. He stated that some areas will require

Planning Hearing Officer Summary of January 15, 2020
Application Z-165-06-7(8)
Page 6

vertical curb while others require rolled curb, but those decisions would all be engineer
driven.

Mr. Stranieri asked for clarification regarding how the proposed unit types compare to
the stipulated detached villas. Mr. Giles said that the product footprint has not really
changed. The product has four homes clustered together, but without a courtyard. Mr.
Stranieri clarified that the stipulated elevations did not specify if they were specifically
for the R1-8 or R1-18 portion of the site. He stated that since the development was the
entire site, the elevations are required for conformance for the entire site. Ms. Caton
stated that the community would most likely not want a villa product on the 40 acres of
R1-18. Mr. Stranieri agreed and stated that it would most likely be custom home lots.

Mr. Stranieri stated that the proposed minimum 100-foot landscape setback on 35th
Avenue is over 5 times what is required by the Ordinance. He stated that the reduction
will allow the units to be placed farther away from the hillside areas. He stated
Stipulation 27 regarding terraced berms was intended to restore the disturbed hillside.
However, there was no background information in the case file to determine the origin of
the requirement for terraced berms with deciduous trees. He stated that a geotechnical
report would identify what the appropriate slope is to stabilize the hillside. He stated
that he could not confirm that 2:1 is the appropriate slope as stipulated and no existing
report was found. He stated that a native landscaping palette along with some
treatment to allow restoration of the natural aesthetic of the hillside would be most
appropriate. He stated that additional flexibility should be introduced through
consultation with Planning and Development Department staff, submission of a
geotechnical report, and review of any proposed alternatives.

Regarding Stipulation 19, Mr. Stranieri stated that the current request is not a reversion
hearing and he does not have the authority to initiate a reversion during or as a
recommendation of the current PHO request. He stated that the current request solely
involves the applicant’s request for stipulation modifications and deletions. He clarified
that the original rezoning was approved by ordinance adoption and the zoning was
vested with the adoption of that ordinance. He clarified that the rezoning case was
accompanied by a General Plan Amendment (GPA), approved by the City Council,
which updated the General Plan Land Use Map designation for the subject property to
correlate with the requested zoning. He stated that GPAs are appended to the City’s
General Plan Map upon adoption and that he did not know of any process or procedure
to revert these requests. He added that if a Proposition 207 lawsuit was raised it would
not be heard under a municipal zoning hearing like the PHO, but rather in a court of law.

Ms. Manning stated that there was a letter written by a Village Planner in 2008 that
initiated an action to amend the General Plan, which was heard by the Planning
Commission and ratified by City Council on October 15, 2008. Mr. Stranieri said that he
would look into the history of this additional GPA and how it related to the base zoning
case.

Mr. Stranieri stated that Stipulation 31, regarding vertical curbs, correlated with the
requirement for detached sidewalks throughout the subdivision. He stated that the
Street Transportation Department recommended deletion of the stipulation because

Planning Hearing Officer Summary of January 15, 2020
Application Z-165-06-7(8)
Page 7

there are existing technical details and engineering requirements for the different types
of streets in the development. Curb types will be engineered depending on the type of
street. Further, based on the conceptual site plan, some of the proposed streets may
be developed as private drives which would allow rolled curbs.

Mr. Stranieri stated that the City has been consistent with its recent policy plans and
long range planning activities to focus on shade, heat island mitigation, and pedestrian
safety in new developments. He added that the City’s Tree and Shade Master Plan,
City Council adopted Guiding Principles for Complete Streets, and the 2015 General
Plan all expand upon the principles regarding urban forestry and walkability. He noted
that detached sidewalks may not be able to be implemented on the portions of the right-
of-way between the clusters of homes which may be developed as private drives. He
stated that the originally stipulated detached sidewalks should be provided along all
streets developed as private accessways and public streets, consistent with the original
approval and City policies.

Mr. Stranieri stated Stipulation 39 lacked detail regarding the maximum building height
and which homes the restriction may apply to. He added that “adjacent to 35th Avenue”
does not give much context to the placement of homes given the stipulated 235-foot
landscape setback and primary entry feature. He stated that a more appropriate height
restriction could be implemented to identify a maximum building height and apply the
restriction to houses within a specified distance from the east property line.

Mr. Stranieri stated that the site is archaeologically sensitive and additional stipulations
were warranted regarding City requirements for archaeological data testing.

Mr. Stranieri stated that the Street Transportation Department also indicated that 35th
Avenue is in Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT) jurisdiction. He
added that additional stipulations should be added to identify MCDOT’s jurisdiction and
ability to approve the final improvements. He stated that these stipulations would not
conflict with existing right-of-way dedication stipulations because of the jurisdictional
issue.

Mr. Stranieri stated that the Street Transportation Department had concerns regarding
how the site plan proposes access from 35th Avenue and travel through the site to the
west perimeter. He stated that a vehicle would need to make three to four turns to
access the proposed future connection to the west. Ms. Caton stated that she had
spoken with the Street Transportation Department and that they had come to a
resolution regarding the connectivity. Mr. Stranieri stated that revisions may be made to
the site plan due to the stipulations recommended by the Street Transportation
Department. He stated that the recommended stipulations would be appropriately
placed in conjunction with a general conformance stipulation to allow for flexibility to
accommodate an appropriate street layout.

Mr. Stranieri stated that he was aware of the Laveen VPC meeting on Monday night and
that there were 99 speaker cards submitted. He stated that there was over two hours of
discussion and that a summary of the meeting was not yet available. He noted that he
had also received more than 90 pieces of correspondence on the case. He stated that

Planning Hearing Officer Summary of January 15, 2020
Application Z-165-06-7(8)
Page 8

he would like more time to review all of this material. Because of these reasons, the
PHO stated that he would take the case under advisement.

FINDINGS

1) The subject property of this request includes the entire 59 acres that comprised
the original rezoning case. However, the applicant only submitted plans
addressing the approximately 19.4 acres of R1-8 zoned property on the eastern
portion of the site, adjacent to 35th Avenue. Modifications are recommended to
the applicant’s request to ensure that the existing stipulations on the
approximately 39.6 acres of R1-18 zoned property on the western portion of the
site are not modified or deleted. Additionally, the applicant did not submit
elevations with the request. The original stipulations included a general
conformance requirement for building elevations. A modification is
recommended to the applicant’s request to require a future Planning Hearing
Officer application for review of conceptual building elevations.

3) An additional stipulation is recommended to require the developer provide a
minimum of 26% open space, of which a minimum of 12% shall be usable open
space. The conceptual site plan depicts 40.47% open space. However, there is
no open space exhibit and the applicant indicated that a recalculation was
necessary to adequately represent provided open space in the hillside area,
setbacks, and other locations. The provision of 26% open space is compatible
with the rural character of the surrounding area, consistent with other recent
zoning actions in the Village, and significantly exceeds existing Ordinance
standards.

4) The proposed reduction of the landscape setback on 35th Avenue from 235 feet
(average) to minimum 100 feet accommodates the relocation of some residential
units out of the designated hillside areas, consistent with the City approved slope
analysis. The preservation of the hillside area will contribute to the rural
character of the site and maintain this unique natural feature of the property. See

Planning Hearing Officer Summary of January 15, 2020
Application Z-165-06-7(8)
Page 9

Finding #9 regarding the restoration of the disturbed area on the abandoned
gravel mine that occupies a portion of the remainder of the site.

5) Approximately 2,300 feet to the east of the subject property are the Hangar
Hacienda Units One, Two, and Three subdivisions. These properties are in
Maricopa County jurisdiction. These communities are oriented around an air
strip utilized by residents who own private aircraft. Based on comments from a
resident in this community, the typical flight path runs directly over the subject
property of this request. An additional stipulation is recommended regarding
notification of the aviation uses on these properties for future residents.

7) The public right-of-way along 35th Avenue and a small portion along Carver
Road is in Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT) jurisdiction.
There is also an active drainage project along the roadway. Therefore, additional
stipulations are recommended to acknowledge that MCDOT shall determine the
final width and dedications needed for the portion of right-of-way adjacent to the
subject property. City of Phoenix Street Transportation staff noted that in
discussions with MCDOT staff, MCDOT does not have immediate concerns
regarding the location of proposed retention areas shown on the conceptual site
plan in regard to the drainage project.

8) Original Stipulation 19 states that approval shall be conditioned upon the
development commencing within 48 months of the City Council approval. For
properties with similar stipulations, the Planning and Development Department
has required that a Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) action be pursued to modify
or delete these conditions at the time that development is proposed, if the
proposed development has exceeded the timeframe identified in the stipulation.
The applicant is pursuing this process through their request for deletion of the
stipulation. The modification or deletion of this stipulation through a PHO action
is unrelated to the zoning reversion process which is a separate public hearing
process that is described in Section 506 of the Zoning Ordinance.

The applicant’s request for deletion of original Stipulation 19 is recommended for
approval. The current proposal is consistent with the City Council’s original intent
to see the subject property redevelop with a single-family residential land use in
the R1-8 zoning district. Additionally, the request is consistent with City Council
approved General Plan Amendment GPA-LV-1-08-7, which established a
Residential 3.5-5 dwelling units per gross acre land use designation on the
approximately 19.35 acres that comprises the R1-8 zoned portion of the property.
Both the proposed conceptual site plan, as modified by this recommendation,
and the existing R1-8 zoning designation are consistent with this land use
designation.

Planning Hearing Officer Summary of January 15, 2020
Application Z-165-06-7(8)
Page 10

9) Original Stipulation 27, requiring terraced berms planted with deciduous trees,
may result in an environment that contrasts with the natural landscape of the
existing hillside in the surrounding area. The stipulated terraced berm
configuration is not consistent with the irregular natural landscape of the existing
hillside in the surrounding area and there are no deciduous trees on hillside
locations in the immediate vicinity. Proposals for fill are commonly intended to
continue and promote a natural slope line, rather than creating terracing and
other unnatural finishes.

There are a variety of alternatives to the stipulated requirement for terraced
berms that may be considered for the site that would result in a more natural
aesthetic to the restored hillside. These include chemical treatments and
coloration to remove or camouflage scarring, hydroseeding of the slope to
provide a mixture of natural grasses and plants which may also stabilize the
slope, and roughening the cut or restored slope to integrate pockets for additional
native landscaping.

10) The provision of detached sidewalks is consistent with numerous City policy
plans. The Tree and Shade Master Plan has a goal of treating the urban forest
as infrastructure to ensure that trees are an integral part of the City’s planning
and development process. Additionally, the City Council adopted Guiding
Principles for Complete Streets seeks to make Phoenix more walkable by
promoting a safe and inviting pedestrian environment that encourages walkability
and thermal comfort. These principles are also expressed and expanded upon
throughout the 2015 General Plan.

Therefore, the applicant’s request to delete this requirement and instead stipulate
a 5-foot sidewalk width is recommended for denial. However, the street layout
on the proposed conceptual site plan may require the utilization of both private
drives (between units) and private accessways (Tract “A”). There are different
technical requirements and cross sections for these street types and it may be
difficult to integrate detached sidewalks along both sides of private drives.
A modification of the applicant’s request is recommended to require that
detached sidewalks shall be provided, as originally stipulated, along all streets
that are developed as public streets or private accessways.

11) The Street Transportation Department noted that both original Stipulation 31 and
the applicant’s proposed modified language may create conflicts if the
development is to include both attached and detached sidewalks. The City of
Phoenix standard detail for detached sidewalks along private accessways
requires vertical curbs. Attached sidewalks may be permitted to provide rolled
curbs. Deletion of the stipulation will allow the appropriate detail to be utilized
based on the final configuration of sidewalks at appropriate locations throughout
the development.

Planning Hearing Officer Summary of January 15, 2020
Application Z-165-06-7(8)
Page 11

12) Original Stipulation 39 required that homes along 35th Avenue would be limited
to one-story. The stipulation did not specify a maximum building height.
Additionally, it is unclear whether the stipulation was intended to apply to the
individual units located closest to 35th Avenue or the entire clusters. The original
stipulation may permit a variety of building heights and locations for height-
restricted lots.

However, the intent of the stipulation was to mitigate the impacts of building
height for units closest to 35th Avenue and would have impacted homes at
approximately 235 feet (the stipulated average setback in original Stipulation 7).
This remains a valid concern and consistent with the design of other recent
projects in the Village. Therefore, the applicant’s request for deletion of this
stipulation is recommended for denial. An alternative stipulation is proposed that
limits maximum building height to 20 feet for the 12 lots that are located within
approximately 235 feet of 35th Avenue. This recommendation is intended to
clarify the limitation on building height and identify the specific lots impacted.

DECISION: The Planning Hearing Officer took this case under advisement. On
February 13, 2020 the Planning Hearing Officer took this case out from under
advisement and recommended denial as filed and approval with modifications and
additional stipulations.

STIPULATIONS

General

A. THE DEVELOPER SHALL PROVIDE A PRIMARY ROADWAY FROM 35TH
AVENUE EXTENDED TO THE WESTERN PROPERTY BOUNDARY, AS
APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

Planning Hearing Officer Summary of January 15, 2020
Application Z-165-06-7(8)
Page 12

4.
2.
That dDevelopment of the R1-18 portion of the site shall not exceed 22 lots.

5.
3.
That dDevelopment of the R1-8 portion of the site shall not exceed a density of 99
lots.

6.
THE R1-8 DEVELOPMENT SHALL PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF 26% OPEN
SPACE, OF WHICH A MINIMUM OF 12% SHALL BE USABLE OPEN SPACE,
AS APPROVED OR MODIFIED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT.

Site Design

8.
5.
That nNo solid wall in excess of three feet in height as measured from the finished
grade, shall be located on the site (either in private lots or common tracts) except
that solid walls greater than three feet in height shall be allowed for the following
purposes, as approved by the PLANNING AND Development Services
Department.

a.
Walls utilized to screen utilities, trash enclosures, or other facilities
generally considered to be visually obtrusive.

b.
Retaining wall.

9.
6.
That nNo more than 60,000 square feet of natural turf area shall be located within
the common areas of the R1-8 portion of the site (this requirement does not apply

Planning Hearing Officer Summary of January 15, 2020
Application Z-165-06-7(8)
Page 13

to synthetic turf); if provided, common area natural turf should be centrally located
and grouped so as to create one contiguous natural turf recreation area, as
approved by the PLANNING AND Development Services Department.

11.
8.
That a A 50-foot (minimum) landscaped setback adjacent to Carver Road (final
alignment) shall be provided, as approved by the PLANNING AND Development
Services Department.

Disclosures

14. THAT PRIOR TO FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL, THE PROPERTY OWNER
SHALL RECORD DOCUMENTS THAT DISCLOSE TO TENANTS OF THE SITE
OR PURCHASERS OF PROPERTY WITHIN THE SITE, THE EXISTENCE,
PROXIMITY, AND OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF ACTIVE AVIATION
USES IN THE HANGAR HACIENDAS UNITS ONE, TWO, AND THREE
SUBDIVISIONS LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 2,300 FEET TO THE EAST OF
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IN MARICOPA COUNTY. THE FORM AND
CONTENT OF SUCH DOCUMENTS SHALL BE ACCORDING TO THE
TEMPLATES AND INSTRUCTIONS PROVIDED, WHICH HAVE BEEN
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY.

Parks and Recreation

Archaeology

Planning Hearing Officer Summary of January 15, 2020
Application Z-165-06-7(8)
Page 14

19. IN THE EVENT ARCHAEOLOGICAL MATERIALS ARE ENCOUNTERED
DURING CONSTRUCTION, THE DEVELOPER SHALL IMMEDIATELY CEASE
ALL GROUND-DISTURBING ACTIVITIES WITHIN A 33- FOOT RADIUS OF
THE DISCOVERY, NOTIFY THE CITY ARCHAEOLOGIST, AND ALLOW TIME
FOR THE ARCHAEOLOGY OFFICE TO PROPERLY ASSESS THE
MATERIALS.

Street Transportation

21.
14.
That rRight-of-way totaling 55 feet shall be dedicated for the west half of Carver
Road, as approved by the Street Transportation Department. Carver Road shall
be constructed using rural streets standards similar to Dobbins Road, as
approved by the Street Transportation Department.

22. THE DEVELOPER SHALL DEDICATE RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR 35TH AVENUE AS
DETERMINED BY THE MARICOPA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION (MCDOT) AND AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

23. THE DEVELOPER SHALL DEDICATE RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR CARVER AVENUE
AS DETERMINED BY THE MARICOPA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION (MCDOT) AND AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

Planning Hearing Officer Summary of January 15, 2020
Application Z-165-06-7(8)
Page 15

24.
15.
That aA traffic impact study shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Street
Transportation Department prior to PLANNING AND Development Services
Department prior to Development Services Department preliminary site plan
approval. That all right-of-way dedications and associated infrastructure
improvements as recommended by the traffic impact study shall be installed by
the developer, as approved by the PLANNING AND Development Services
Department.

Neighborhood

Planning Hearing Officer Summary of January 15, 2020
Application Z-165-06-7(8)
Page 16

37.
29.
That tThe entire 60-acre site shall have no perimeter fencing, as approved by the
PLANNING AND Development Services Department.

38.
30.
That pPrivate roadways within the R1-18 portion of the site shall be provided with
ribbon curbs and colored asphalt, as approved by the PLANNING AND

Planning Hearing Officer Summary of January 15, 2020
Application Z-165-06-7(8)
Page 17

Development Services Department.

39.
31.
That private roadways within the R1-8 portion of the site shall be provided with a
raised, vertical curb, as approved by the Development Services Department.

40.
32.
That aAll HVAC units shall be ground mounted.

a.
Jon Kimoto, 3216 West Ansell Road, Laveen, 85339

b.
Cyd Manning, P.O. Box 41234, Mesa, 85274

c.
Judy Brown, P.O. Box 41234, Mesa, 85274

d.
Christine Dicken, 10827 South 30th Avenue, Laveen, 85339

e.
Richard Birnbaum, 11014 South 35th Avenue, Laveen, 85339

f.
Phil Hertel, 2300 2845 West Broadway Road, Phoenix, 85041

g.
Steven Klein, 6820 South 66th Avenue, Laveen, 85339

a.
Jon Kimoto, 3216 West Ansell Road, Laveen, 85339

b.
Cyd Manning, P.O. Box 41234, Mesa, 85274

Planning Hearing Officer Summary of January 15, 2020
Application Z-165-06-7(8)
Page 18

c.
Judy Brown, P.O. Box 41234, Mesa, 85274

d.
Christine Dicken, 10827 South 30th Avenue, Laveen, 85339

e.
Richard Birnbaum, 11014 South 35th Avenue, Laveen, 85339

f.
Phil Hertel, 2300 2845 West Broadway Road, Phoenix, 85041

g.
Steven Klein, 6820 South 66th Avenue, Laveen, 85339

47.
39.
That only one-story homes shall be located along 35th Avenue.

Upon request, this publication will be made available within a reasonable length of time
through appropriate auxiliary aids or services to accommodate an individual with a
disability. This publication may be made available through the following auxiliary aids or
services: large print, Braille, audiotape or computer diskette. Please contact the
Planning and Development Department, Tamra Ingersoll at voice number 602-534-6648
or TTY use 7-1-1.

$77$&+0(17/
The contents of this attachment will be a
separate attachment in the City Council packet