Attachment D - VPC Summary - Z-8-19-8.pdf

Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary 
Z-8-19-8 
Date of VPC Meeting 
October 13, 2020 
Request From 
S-1 BAOD 
Request To 
PUD BAOD 
Proposed Use 
Landscape contracting, landscape maintenance and 
nursery. 
Location 
Approximately 550 feet east of the southeast corner of 
32nd Street and Southern Avenue 
VPC Recommendation 
No recommendation due to loss of quorum during the 
October 13, 2020 South Mountain VPC meeting. 
VPC Vote 
No recommendation due to loss of quorum during the 
October 13, 2020 South Mountain VPC meeting. 
VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS: 
Z-8-19-8: Presentation, discussion, and possible recommendation regarding a 
request to rezone approximately 14.81 acres located approximately 550 feet east of 
the southeast corner of 32nd Street and Southern Avenue from S-1 BAOD (Ranch 
or Farm Residence, Baseline Area Overlay District) to PUD BAOD (Planned Unit 
Development, Baseline Area Overlay District) to allow landscape contracting, 
landscape maintenance, and nursery. 
One request to speak from a member of the public was received before the meeting. 
A second member of the public indicated during the public meeting a desire to speak 
on this agenda item. 
Mr. Bojorquez, staff, provided a presentation on the proposed Planned Unit 
Development (PUD) case. Staff went over the location of the site, general plan 
land use designation, policy guidance, some of the proposed PUD standards, 
proposed site plan and the recommended stipulations. Staff recommends 
approval, as presented in the staff report. He then invited the applicant to go over 
his presentation with the committee. 
Mr. Jack Gilmore, with Gilmore Planning & Landscape Architecture, introduced 
himself and provided an overview on the history of the property. He indicated the 
location of the property, showed site condition pictures and went over the proposed 
site plan. He proposed modifications to the stipulations presented in the staff report 
by proposing a hedge adjacent to perimeter property lines. He discussed the 
Attachment D

adjacent properties and summarized the public outreach efforts that had been 
conducted, including failed attempts to meet with Mr. Van Buren, an adjacent 
neighbor. The public outreach included interviews with surrounding property 
owners, and he discussed the opposition expressed by an adjacent property owner, 
Desert Care Landscape Resources. He concluded the presentation by addressing 
concerns from adjacent property owners involving a fire on the subject site, stating 
that only one fire had occurred in that site within the last 40 years. 
 
Mr. Brownell stated that he supports the proposal as a PUD and the work 
conducted by the applicant thus far. 
 
Mr. Larios asked the applicant if part of the outreach conducted had involved 
organizations related to health and engagement beyond the city requirements that 
involved local interests. 
 
Mr. Gilmore responded that the property owners had met twice with organizations 
to discuss jobs for the formerly incarcerated but had not heard back from these 
organizations. In addition, ELS offers lots of programs for its employees and hosts 
other events. 
 
Mr. Bojorquez, Staff, provided comments on behalf of Chairwoman Patti Trites who 
was absent from the meeting. The comments stated that several meetings were 
arranged with Mr. Van Buren, an adjacent property owner who had voiced 
opposition to the request, but he did not attend any of these meetings. 
 
Ms. Shepard and Ms. Daniels stated that they support the applicant’s engagement 
efforts thus far. 
 
Chairman Smith asked the applicant to clarify the green waste area and if he 
would consider placing a fence around the green waste area in order to address 
some of the concerns from the public. 
 
Ms. Gilmore responded that there is a proposed 50-foot separation between the 
green waste area and adjacent property lines, thus a wall enclosure would be 
unnecessary if the proposed amendment by him to the PUD incorporates the hedge 
landscaping as described previously. 
 
Chairman Smith asked why this specie of hedge was selected and what the water 
usage of this specie is like. 
 
Mr. Gilmore responded that this specie of hedge is of low water use. 
 
Mr. Bojorquez, Staff, provided an overview of the standards in the Mixed Use 
Agricultural (MUA) zoning district, as this PUD was influenced by the MUA zoning 
district.

Mr. Lee Coleman stated that he has concerns with allergens and air quality, thus 
wonders if this specie of hedge blooms and if the hedge is a native plant species. 
 
Mr. Gilmore responded that this hedge is a low pollination and low water use plant 
specie native to the region, but not the Phoenix area necessarily. He added that the 
hedge proposed would use much less water than the Mixed Use Agricultural zoning 
district standards proposed. 
 
Mr. Gene Holmerud stated that he complements the applicant on his outreach. 
 
Member Garcia left the meeting at 7:00pm bringing the quorum to 13 members. 
 
Chairman Smith opened the public comment portion of the meeting. 
 
Mr. Paul Van Buren, a neighbor, introduced himself and stated that he has 
concerns with the dumping of green waste and the accountability of ELS to the 
standards proposed. Green waste should be dumped at another ELS site near the 
Loop 202 freeway, while live plant material should be brought to this site. He 
discussed letters and correspondence that he addressed to the committee, 
including discussion on a fire in the subject site that occurred in late 2019. He 
discussed the operations of the site, ownership history of the property and is in 
favor of the staff recommendation, except that he is not supportive of certain 
elements. He supports moving and/or shrinking the green waste area, describing 
insect-related issues on his property and the storage of equipment on the site. He 
also discussed the attempted meetings with the applicant. 
 
Chairman Smith allowed Mr. Jeff Myers to provide comments after indicating 
during the virtual meeting a desire to address the committee. 
 
Mr. Jeff Myers, a neighbor with Desert Care Landscaping, introduced himself and 
indicated the location of his property adjacent to the site.  He has no issues with the 
proposed PUD but is similarly concerned with the green waste area. He discussed 
green waste issues including a fire that took place on the property and the 
proliferation of rodents. He would support shrinking and/or relocating the green 
waste area, proposing that it would be shrunk to two-thirds of its current size. He 
also addressed a desire for further screening of this site. 
 
Mr. Gilmore discussed the PUD standards proposed and the site plan review and 
approval process for the site. He discussed the green waste grinding and removal 
schedule between January 2019 and September 2020. He added that the City of 
Phoenix would enforce the PUD standards and the pests area a valley-wide issue. 
Mr. Coleman asked for clarification on the citation issued by the Neighborhood 
Services Department (NSD) and what measures are present for dust and vector 
control.

Mr. Gilmore responded that the property had been issued a zoning violation 
citation, thus the PUD proposal would address this issue. He added that dust 
control will be dealt with on the site when the county issues a permit for the site and 
that ELS has never seen a pest infestation on the property. 
 
Mr. Larios discussed the recommended outreach lists created by the committee 
and that no engagement involving health had been conducted by the applicant 
throughout their public outreach process. 
 
Chairman Smith asked committee members for further discussion or a motion. 
 
 
MOTION (Denial) 
Mr. Larios made a motion to deny the case. Ms. Said seconded the motion. 
 
VOTE:  
6-7 Motion failed; Members Brownell, Busching, Daniels, Holmerud, Monge-Kotake, 
Shepard and Shelly Smith in dissent. 
 
Ms. Kassandra Alvarez explained her vote by stating that she has safety-related 
concerns. 
 
Mr. Brownell explained his vote by stating that he supports the project. 
 
Mr. Larios explained his vote by stating that the applicant did not reach out to 
organizations such as South Phoenix Health Start. 
 
 
Ms. Said agrees with the comments by Mr. Larios. 
 
 
 
MOTION (Approval) 
Mr. Holmerud made a motion to approve the case. Ms. Shepard seconded the 
motion. 
 
Chairman Smith recommended an amendment to the motion to include a 5-foot 
tall wall around the west side of the green waste area. 
 
Ms. Shepard did not accept the amendment to the motion to approve and withdrew 
her second to the motion. 
 
Mr. Brownell seconded the amended motion to approve the case, but 
subsequently withdrew his second to the motion due to a misunderstanding. 
 
Members Aguilar, Alvarez, Busching, Larios and Said left the meeting and/or 
became disconnected at 8:07pm.

This reduced the number of members present to 8, with 10 members required for a 
quorum. 
 
The meeting ended after a loss of quorum at 8:07pm. 
 
 
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION & STIPULATIONS: 
 
During the October 13, 2020 South Mountain VPC meeting, a motion was made to 
recommend approval of the case, following a failed motion to recommend denial. It was 
unclear if the motion to approve the case was per the staff recommendation and if it 
included the proposed amendment to the PUD landscaping standards discussed by the 
applicant. A loss of quorum that evening resulted in the meeting ending before any 
other motions or votes occurred.