Staff Report: PHO-2-14–Z-106-50-5 August 12, 2014 ... · Staff Report: PHO-2-14—Z-106-50-5 August 12, 2014 Planning Commission Page 3 of 5 Planning Hearing Officer’s Decision

Staff Report: PHO-2-14–Z-106-50-5

August 12, 2014 APPLICATION: Z-106-50 (PHO-2-14) OWNER: Villa De Paz Homeowners Association APPLICANT: David B. Hall REPRESENTATIVE: David B. Hall LOCATION: Area bounded by Camelback Road on the north, Indian School

Road on the south, 99th Avenue on the east, and 107th Avenue on the west (Annexation 174)

REQUEST: 1) Modification of Stipulation 1 regarding the Villa De Paz

Neighborhood Unit Plan of Development dated May 12, 1973 concerning the northwest corner of 103rd Avenue and Campbell Avenue

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that this request be approved as recommended with modifications by the Planning Hearing Officer. PLANNING HEARING OFFICER RECOMMENDATION: At the June 18, 2014 hearing, the Planning Hearing Officer took the case under advisement. On July 2, 2014, the Planning Hearing Officer took the case out from under advisement and approved the request with modifications. ANALYSIS/BACKGROUND Villa de Paz is a master planned community located on approximately 640 acres between 99th Avenue to 107th Avenue and Indian School Road to Camelback Road. The approval letter for Annexation No. 174 stipulated that zoning be subject to development in accordance with the Villa de Paz Neighborhood Unit Plan of Development. This plan identified the roughly 2.37 acres at the northwest corner of 103rd Avenue and Campbell Avenue as a recreational area. The applicant requests a modification of this stipulation to allow the development of single-family residences on this property. 1. Previous History

• The property was originally entitled in Maricopa County and later annexed into the City of

Phoenix under three different annexation cases (Annexation Nos. 151, 164, and 174).

Staff Report: PHO-2-14—Z-106-50-5 August 12, 2014 Planning Commission Page 2 of 5

The stipulation from Annexation No. 174 stated that the R1-6, R-3, and R-4A zoning be subject to development in accordance with the Plan of Development entitled “Villa de Paz Neighborhood Unit Plan of Development” dated May 12, 1973.

• The recreation center was sold to the Villa de Paz Recreation Association by Southwest

Projects, Inc. on May 7, 1979.

• The Villa de Paz Homeowner’s Association was established in 2007 in an attempt to reduce property taxes on the recreation area. The HOA is “opt-in” and has failed to attract enough participants to support the facility’s costs. Applicants stated that the HOA currently has 13 members and is managed by the Recreation Association.

• The property owners stated that the center is approximately $160,000.00 in debt, is no longer financially viable, and that they intend to close all facilities on July 1, 2014.

• The applicants are in escrow with a developer who intends to build single-family residential homes on the property. They are seeking a modification of Stipulation 1 in order to allow this development to move forward.

2. Neighborhood Concerns

• Residents believe that the stipulation’s intent is to protect the community and property

values within Villa de Paz and that should be enforced.

• Residents believe that the recreational area was “gifted to the community” and must remain a recreational or open space area.

• Residents expressed concern regarding the manner in which the current owners came

to possess the property and the current configuration of the property’s management with regard to the relationship between the HOA and the Recreation Association.

• Residents expressed concern that the Recreation Association’s acceptance of a

private loan from the property owners indicates an attempt to profit from the sale of the property.

• Residents believe that the owners’ statements regarding their intent to close the

facilities are merely threats and intended to bolster support for their request.

• Residents expressed concern regarding potential improprieties in the Recreation Association’s handling of debt, administration of leadership roles, and management of the facility.

• Residents believe that the Recreation Association did not make an adequate effort to

inform the community of the severity of the financial problems the center was facing.

• Residents believe that the Recreation Association could be a viable entity under new community leadership and with potential alterations to the site’s facilities.


Planning Hearing Officer’s Decision

The Planning Hearing Officer recommendation was based on the following: • The property is small and can only accommodate a small number of residential

lots. The proposed development is consistent with the surrounding development pattern.

• The existing recreation area was a private recreation area which had diminishing

membership and increasing costs. The applicant stated the pool would be closed and the buildings demolished in the upcoming months. Allowing residences to be constructed would utilize the property.

• The existing development has a mix of one-story and two-story houses. This approval limits the height of new homes in the development.

VILLAGE PLANNING COMMITTEE (VPC) RECOMMENDATION: The Maryvale Village Planning Committee reviewed this request on May 14, 2014 and recommended a continuance to June 11, 2014 by a 10-0 vote. At the June 11, 2014 meeting, the Maryvale Village Planning Committee voted 4-3-2 (4 in favor, 3 opposed, 2 abstaining) to approve the request. DEPARTMENT REVIEW COMMENTS: Archaeology: No known archaeological sites are located within this project area. No archaeological work is necessary for this project. However, if any archaeological materials are encountered during construction, all ground-disturbing activities must cease within 10 meters of the discovery and the City of Phoenix Archaeology Office must be notified immediately and allowed time to properly assess the materials. 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 1695 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. Water Services: The changes to the zoning request does not impact the water or sewer utilities. There are water and sewer mains located in Campbell Ave, 103rd Ave and Minnezona Ave to serve the proposed site. Fire Prevention: Fire prevention does not anticipate any problems with this case. But 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. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential 3.5 to 5 du / acre CHARACTER OF SURROUNDING LAND USE: Zoning Land Use On-site: R1-6 Swimming pool, tennis courts, recreational and open space North: R1-6 Single-Family Residence South: R1-6 Single-Family Residence East: R1-6 Single-Family Residence West: R1-6 Single-Family Residence RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that this request be approved as recommended by the Planning Hearing Officer with modifications as follows: STIPULATIONS:

1) That the County R1-6 NUP, R-3 NUP, and R-5 NUP to City R1-6, R-3, and R4-A zoning be subject to development in accordance with the Plan of Development entitled “Villa de Paz Neighborhood Unit Plan of Development” dated May 12, 1973, enclosed in the report, EXCEPT THE AREA LABELED AS TRACT A ON THE VILLA DE PAZ UNIT IV 4 PLAT MARICOPA COUNTY RECORDER NUMBER BOOK 173, PAGE 44 AS A RECREATIONAL AREA MAY BE DEVELOPED AS A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE USE UNDER R1-6 ZONING REQUIREMENTS.

2) THE HOUSES CONSTRUCTED WITHIN THE AREA SHALL BE ONE-STORY, MAXIMUM 24 FEET IN HEIGHT.

3) THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER RECORD A NOTICE TO PROSPECTIVE PURCHASERS OF PROXIMITY TO AIRPORT IN ORDER TO DISCLOSE THE EXISTENCE, AND OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF GLENDALE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT TO FUTURE OWNERS OR TENANTS OF THE PROPERTY.


ATTACHMENTS: Applicant’s Narrative & Attached Exhibits Approval Letter dated May 5, 1995 Aerial Map Zoning Map Original Sketch Map Proposed Site Plans date stamped April 4, 2014 Original Stipulated Master Plan dated May 11, 1973 Correspondence opposing PHO-2-14—Z-106-50 PHO Summary of June 18, 2014 Maryvale Village Planning Committee Summary Planning Commission Minutes – August 12, 2014 Appeal

City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882

Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary PHO-2-14 – Z-106-50

Date of VPC Meeting June 11, 2014 Request Modification of Stipulation 1 regarding the Villa De Paz

Neighborhood Unit Plan of Development dated May 12, 1973

Proposed Use Single Family Development. Location Northwest Corner of 103rd Avenue and Campbell

Avenue VPC Recommendation Approval VPC Vote 4-3-2

VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS: MOTION: Mike Weber made a motion to approve the request as proposed. Al DePascal seconded the motion. VOTE: Motion passed with a vote of 4-3-2 (Opposing: Shapiro, Gonzales, Derie; Abstaining: DuBose, Rochelle) DISCUSIION:Mr. Scott Carpenter, representing the applicant, discussed the details of the case. He explained that the Villa De Pa z Recreation Center and HOA have deteriorated. Mr. Carpenter explained that there are 13 members of the HOA and that there is a decrease in funds to satisfy the continuing and growing maintenance needs of the facility. He elaborated that it was not economically practical to continue the financial support of the facility. Mr. Carpenter explained that it was in the interest and is the right of his clients to pursue the sale of the property for its highest and best use. He explained that a venture that continues to lose money should be able to close its doors and that his clients are finally making sound financial decisions for the property. Mr. Carpenter explained that the applicant would be closing the facility on July 1st and informed the committee that regardless of the outcome of the stipulation modification request under consideration that the facility would be closed. He explained that they will promptly pursue a demo permit to remove the pool, which has been flagged by Maricopa County as a hazard. He also explained that the Villa De Paz Recreation Center and Dust Devil Park were located in the same neighborhood and were redundant recreation opportunities. Mr. Carpenter explained that Villa De Paz Recreation Center is deteriorated, outdated, underperforming, and with inferior amenities in comparison to Dust Devil Park, a newly built and heavily utilized park facility. Mr. Carpenter explained that they were no longer willing to keep the facility afloat and that the applicant should have the right to sell the property with the intent to alleviate them of the approximately $160,000 of debt due to the property and



end the spiral of debt. He explained that it was not fair or fiscally prudent to support a recreation center on the backs of 13 home owners. Mr. DePascal requested clarification of the applicant and HOA’s financial issues related to the Villa De Paz Recreation Center and the depth of the pool. He asked how much money had been spent on repairs in the past. Mr. DePascal requested clarification on the validity of the quick claim deed. Ms. Donna White, the applicant, explained that the assocation spent $30,000 to $40,000 on plaster and deck repairs, plus repairs to the pump, pool tiles, and paint. Ms. White explained that they charge $50 per month for a membership. Mr. Ken DuBose requested clarification about the history of ownership on the property and asserted that it was his understanding that the facilities were the property of the Villa De Paz community. Mr. DuBose explained that although the property is a dying entity, they should have reached out to the neighborhood for input. Mr. DuBose questioned whether there was ever a legitimate effort to communicate to the community that the recreation center was in financial trouble. Mr. DuBose commented that if the recreation center was turned over to the community it would be a challenge to organize the rightful pay back to the applicant the $160,000 needed to wipe the balance sheet clean. Mr. Carpenter explained that outreach is not simple and that it should not be assumed that the applicant has the resources or knowledge to conduct the aforementioned outreach. Vice Chairman Gene Derie requested clarification on the lot size, roofing type, and story/height of the proposed homes. Vice Chairman Derie explained that the previous golf course Planning Hearing Officer proposed red tile roofs which were inconsistent with the existing residences in the Villa De Paz subdivision. The prospective home builder commented that the lot size would be approximately 6,000 square feet and consistent with the neighborhood and what is allowed in the R1-6 zoning district. The prospective home builder said they were amicable to use roofing materials and color palettes which were consistent with the neighborhood and the proposed development would increase neighborhood property values. Mr. Mike Weber asked for clarification on the extent of the HOA membership of the Villa De Paz Recreation Center and whether or not the applicant would stand to profit from the sale of the property. Mr. Carpenter explained that the intent is to sell the property for a value which will allow for the HOA members to clear the balance sheet. Marvin Rochelle asked the potential home builder about the name of the proposed development company and the median housing price of the proposed dwellings. The potential home builder explained that because the project was so early in the process they did not have concrete numbers. Ms. Evelyn Shapiro commented that she was suspect of the legitimacy of how the property owners came into possession of the property and their authority to dispose of the property. She also commented that she was suspect of whether or not a husband and wife can be President and Treasurer of the same association.



Chairman Dwight Amery asked staff if they have discussed the legal implications with City legal counsel. Staff explained that it would be prudent to continue consideration of this case based on land use merits and any legal issues regarding the transaction of the property would be handled between the property owner as a separate legal matter. Ms. Donna White, the President of Villa De Paz Recreation Association, explained that she has taken out several personal loans to pay for maintenance and repairs, insurance, as well as electrical, water and sewer bills. She explained that the cost to run the facility is approximately $20,000 per year and the members have contributed countless man hours. She explained that she had put her heart and soul into the facility for 13 years to keep the recreation center afloat. She explained that there was regularly held meetings where the financial situation of the recreation center was discussed and that signs were posted for these meetings for the community to participate. Ms. White explained that she would use these meetings to provide presentations to entice additional membership, with little success. Mr. DuBose explained that he has not seen any meeting signs but that he wasn’t looking for them either. Mr. Jeff O’Toole gave a presentation detailing the opposition to the stipulation modification. He explained that he believes that the Villa De Paz Recreation Center could be financially viable under proper management. Mr. O’Toole also explained that the desire of the original master developers was to provide this parcel as a recreational amenity and that this plan should be retained. He explained that this property was gifted to the current owners and that there should be question about the legality of that transaction. Mr. O’Toole explained that the poor performance of the recreation center was caused by the mismanagement of recreation center’s finances by Donna White. He explained that because of the mismanagement of the recreation center multiple banks were unwilling to loan them the needed money. Mr. O’Toole explained that the Villa De Paz Recreation Association was in violation of 5% annual service fee for 501.C3. He also commented that there should be legal questions about the merger of recreation center and the HOA. Mr. O’Toole commented that the property owners have not legitimately sought out alternative solutions or buyers that could revitalize the recreation center. Mr. Carpenter explained that the property is not a 501.C3. He also explained that his applicant is not exclusively interested in developing 12 homes, rather, they are agnostic to what the highest and best use ends up being. Mr. Carpenter explained that his client is rightful to make sound financial decisions for the property. He explained that the City could potentially purchase the property to take it over and continue the facilities use as a recreation center; however, the City has not shown interest in the property. Deborah Cooper Hammond, 4502 N 106th Drive, explained that she is a business analyst and asked the applicant of her business acumen. She told the committee a story about a time when Ms. White would not allow Deborah and her church group to use her facility. Mr. Fortune, a Villa De Paz Recreation Association member, explained to the committee that the property was inspected by Maricopa County and due to a potential violation and that they padlocked the fence two weeks ago due to safety concerns. Mr. Fortune also pleaded with the committee and the community to help the HOA members modify the stipulation and sell the property to allow them to lift the burden of this recreation center and give 12 new families a home.



Mr. Steve Feldman, 4638 N. 106th Drive, explained that the community is not willing to take on the obligation of that loan and that the community has tried to assist in the past to no avail. Vice Chairman Derie explained that he sympathized with the applicant but thought that the site should be utilized as intended by the original master developer, as a recreation facility. He also reiterated his concern for the design being integral to the existing neighborhood. Chairman Amery explained that the applicant and Villa De Paz HOA members have inherited a lot of debt and feels as though the applicant has made a real attempt to make the recreation center viable. He elaborated that the proposed density is consistent with the adjacent homes and that Dust Devil Park provided better amenities than what the recreation center can provide. Mike Weber made a motion to approve the request as proposed. Al DePascal seconded the motion. VOTE: Motion passed with a vote of 4-3-2 (Opposing: Shapiro, Gonzales, Derie; Abstaining: DuBose, Rochelle)

Planning Commission Minutes for August 12, 2014

24

Item #: 10 Application #: PHO-2-14--Z-106-50-5 Existing Zoning: R1-6 Acreage: 2.37 Location: Area bounded by Camelback Road on the north, Indian

School Road on the south, 99th Avenue on the east, and 107th Avenue on the west (Annexation 174)

Proposal: Modification of Stipulation 1 regarding the Villa De Paz Neighborhood Unit Plan of Development dated May 12, 1973 concerning the northwest corner of 103rd Avenue and Campbell Avenue

Applicant: David B. Hall Owner: Villa De Paz Homeowners Association Representative: David B. Hall Ms. Tricia Gomes presented Item 10, a request to modify Stipulation 1 of Annexation 174 (Z-106-50-5) to develop 12 single family residential lots within the Villa de Paz Master Planned Community. The subject site was located at the northwest corner of 103rd Avenue and Campbell Avenue. This request was the only stipulation modification request as the zoning had already been granted. The request was appealed from the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) by the opposition. The Maryvale Village Planning Committee recommended approval of the stipulation modification as requested by the applicant by a vote of 4-3-2. The Planning Hearing Officer recommended approval per the Maryvale Village Planning Committee recommendation with a modification and two additional stipulations. Staff recommended approval as recommended by the Planning Hearing Officer. Mr. David Hall stated he was the applicant and presented a history and proposed land use for the site. The requested stipulation modification was from the site plan that was transferred from the City to the County in 1973. The request was for the stipulation to remain except for an area that was labeled in Unit 4 of the subdivision as a recreational area to be developed as a single-family residence under the existing R1-6 zoning requirements. The modification was specifically worded to allow for development while retaining the stipulation intact for any other property subject to the stipulation. The plan currently being used was not the official plan listed in the stipulation. Without that particular MNPD, Maryvale Neighborhood Planned Development, it was impossible to define the requirements. Mr. Hall presented a slide of the overall area of Villa De Paz and the master plan that was being utilized as an indicator of what the requirements were. Also shown were the zoning classifications as R1-6. Development had occurred on the Villa De Paz plan in 1973 with a residential unit plan development project called Lauralwood which revised the development standards. In 1985 there was an RUPD on 99th Avenue and Indian School Road which rezoned from single-family to multi-family. In 2004, the City of Phoenix initiated a General Plan Amendment which changed the golf course parcel from Parks Open Space Publicly Owned to Parks Open Space Privately Owned. Also changed was a portion of the land use original parks open space to residential at the northwest corner of 106th Avenue and Campbell Avenue.


25

Mr. Hall continued that the golf course property was separated by the 2.98 acres where the homes start on the north side of the road then open space to the street. In 2008, rezoning case Z-212-08 was approved to allow development of condominiums on the driving range of the golf course. That changed the Villa De Paz plan and the overall density of the development. The 2004 the General Plan clearly showed what was considered Parks and Open Space. The Villa De Paz Homeowner’s Association was established in 2007 in an attempt to reduce property taxes to the recreation area. The HOA was voluntary and had failed to attract enough participants to support the facility’s costs. Mr. Hall stated that the HOA currently had minimal participants managed by the Recreation Association. Traffic and home value concerns had been expressed by the homeowners. Mr. Hall felt that 12 units would not impact any of the traffic. In terms of the property values Mr. Hall presented an existing appraisal on a home on Campbell Avenue 1,860 square feet at about $145,000; another at $160,000 on Mariposa Avenue. The new construction evaluation had a sale price of $165,000 to $180,000. Mr. Hall concluded that it would be a beneficial addition to the community to take a piece of property that was not being utilized and give it its highest and best use to add vitality to the community. Mr. Scott Carpenter stated this was a unique situation because that particular parcel of property should have been owned by a mandatory membership homeowners association where the association could own the property and access its members for funds to maintain the amenities. Instead, the parcel of property with recreational facilities was supported by voluntary members, similar to belonging to a health club, YMCA, etc. Over time it had run its course, there was no economic viability to the recreational use with any members sufficient to pay the operational costs. The current condition was an outdated building next to a drained pool, drained because the necessary up-grades were not met; it was then a governmental requirement to drain the pool. Mr. Carpenter stated the area was a target for vandalism and blight and could no longer be seen as a recreational use. Should the property continue its exiting character or be redeveloped with twelve new homes that would be sized appropriately for the neighborhood. In the process there had been many discussions with a homeowner group called Villa De Paz United. The intended amount to be sold roughly equaled the amount owed to the lenders that had loaned funds to the Villa De Paz Homeowners Association to keep the facilities running. The amenities closed on August 1, 2014; the members who were paying voluntary dues had now ceased to do so. Mr. Carpenter urged the Planning Commission to adopt the recommendation that the PHO Hearing Officer had made, even with the additional stipulations, they were in agreement. In the absence of an alternative plan because of civil claims regarding the underlined contacts, deed restriction, promises between the HOA and the group Villa De Paz United; the decision for the Planning Commission would be to choose blight or twelve new homes.


26

Commissioner Beletz confirmed that the property was maintained by an HOA that had not enforced who wanted to use the facilities or who kept paying into the fund thinking that they were going to have a place for recreation. Mr. Carpenter stated the confusing part was that his client was called a homeowners association which created the impression of mandatory membership and dues but was not. Commissioner Beletz inquired who the funds were voluntarily given to from the neighbors who could use the facilities. Mr. Carpenter stated it was paid to the HOA, by its voluntary members; which was then put in a fund to pay for a pool maintenance vendor and upkeep of the property. Also to try to reserve funds for the natural deterioration of items which fell behind and then had to borrow money with currently no funds available Ms. Donna White stated she had been volunteering with the recreation center for the past 15 years. When originally built by the developer it was intended to be supported by an HOA. The developer created a non-profit Villa De Paz Recreation Association, gave the title to the Association, not to the then existing HOA and then dissolved the HOA. In 2007 they started a new HOA to obtain the property tax break. The Recreation Association members pay an annual fee. Currently the HOA had 13 members, which was not enough to pay what was needed to maintain the recreation facility; 150-200 HOA members were needed. The Recreation Association and the HOA have merged but have separate memberships. The community was no longer willing to support maintaining the recreation facility. No persons in opposition at the Planning Commission hearing have supported the recreation association by purchasing a membership. Two others cards were submitted in favor but did not wish to speak. Jim Fortune and Dave White. Mr. Jeff O’Toole stated he was a member of Villa De Paz United which was formed with the neighborhood to have a voice in public meetings. Because there was not an established HOA in the neighborhood they recognized the need for a body to speak on neighborhood issues. Mr. O’Toole stated that the Phoenix Village handbook was specific on stipulations. They were enforceable and were important because it created an expectation level with residents. Villa De Paz United asked the Planning Commission to vote no on the modification of the stipulations. Too many changes had happened to the community which Mr. Hall spoke about on his presentation. The group was challenging the right to sell the property with the modification to the stipulation. Twelve residential lots had not been given nor taxes paid on the lots. Mr. O’Toole continued that they did have an established plan with financial commitment from the community. Mr. O’Toole believed that it was important for the Planning Commission to understand the history to envision the future use. The actual agreement from Southwest Projects, the original developer who built the


27

Villa De Paz neighborhood, established that a recreational association would be created to maintain the maintenance and membership; the actual property was given to the neighborhood. No one who was currently in ownership of the property had paid for the property; the title was quick-claimed. The agreement required the recreation association to raise the on-going costs and remain a non-profit. In order to obtain the title it was required that the recreation area had to be operated successfully for 20 years. Mr. O’Toole continued that the agreement was specific that the association could not sell, assign or otherwise transfer its rights, any attempt to do so would be voided. In 2003 the recreation association attempted to obtain loans to cover some of the outstanding expenses. In 2005 a personal loan was given by Ms. White to the recreation association. David and Donna White were also president and secretary of the Villa De Paz Homeowners Association. As part of that agreement a 5% annual service fee was established on top of the interest rate to the bank. One person made a personal decision to loan money to the recreation association and also be in charge of running the association and obtaining the members fee thus profiting through those transactions. The Villa De Paz group was firmly against the deviation from the master plan and the stipulations. They were also interested in protecting the property value, the uniqueness of the neighborhood and open space. Open space was the Phoenix General Plan’s top issue with neighborhood. Mr. O’Toole stated if a resident signed up to be part of the HOA they had to agree to encumber their property with the debt of past members. Seventeen hundred signatures had been collected around the golf course and over 500 signatures for the specific case. The units that were focused on were one through four because whose were the units that the property had been given to by Southwest Projects. The biggest costs to converting the site to other uses and remain a recreational area would be to ultimately filling the current empty pool. There was a resident who has pledged to cover the cost of decommissioning the pool. Companies had already been to the property to quote the cost of the work to do so. Additionally another 20 residents had pledged $2,500 for restoration of the property. Ms. Deborah Cooper Hammond stated when she had purchased her home 24 years ago there was nothing stated on her deed about an HOA; she had belonged to block watches and was the lead on the 107th Avenue corridor repairs and upgrades group. The recreation center was important to the community because of its open space but had been mismanaged. She had never been approached regarding joining an HOA or participating in the recreation association. Ms. Cooper Hammond agreed with Mr. O’Toole that the property was gifted to the community with the greatest concern of the requested stipulation change that it would set precedence for the other stipulations to soon be removed. Mr. Ken Becht stated in the five and a half years he had lived in Villa De Paz he had never been contacted by the recreation association or HOA. Financial records shown did not coincide with what was being told. Six out of the fifteen years the recreation center had produced a profit.


28

The following submitted cards in opposition but did not wish to speak. Steven Feloman Mike E. Barron Kitty Moore Jerry Moore Jane Schwertfager Lisa Barron Penny Pulz Commissioner Awai stated for the record Mr. Carpenter was his HOA’s attorney and did not benefit in anyway in this case. Chairwoman Katsenes reiterated that the Planning Commission was charged in considering the land use and zoning. Mr. Carpenter stated that Mr. and Mrs. White tried to save the recreation center with no ulterior motives; they had put their funds on the line to make the recreation center viable. Bad decisions may have been made but was irrelevant for the land use issue of the case. Mr. Carpenter believed that six homes would be better than blight. If the City of Phoenix did not want the property to be used as requested but remain a recreation center it should use its power of dominate domain and pay the fair value; but do not take the property through the zoning process by making sure that the land owner could not use it for its highest and best use. Commissioner Beletz asked who the landowner was. Mr. Carpenter stated the owner was an Arizona non-profit corporation called the Villa De Paz Homeowners Association. Commissioner Beletz asked if there was a promissory note. Mr. Carpenter stated the homeowners association owed David and Donna White over $160,000. The HOA owner of the property had agreed to sell the property to a home builder who would build the 12 homes requested by the applicant. Commissioner Beletz asked if the 20 years conditions were met. Mr. Carpenter stated they were, from 1979 to 1999. The developer’s intent might have been for the recreational parcel to be deeded to the community which had to be an entity to be deeded to. Commissioner Beletz commented if the homes were sold the funds should be split up among the residents of Villa De Paz. Chairwoman Katsenes reiterated the focus of the Commission and confirmed the ownership of the property. Commissioner Beletz stated he was giving his opinion and if the Chairwoman wished to dismiss him she could do so. Commissioner Heck made a MOTION to approve PHO-2-14—Z-106-50-5 as


29

recommended by the Planning Hearing Officer. Commissioner Awai SECONDED. Commissioner Johnson made a SUBSTITUTE MOTION to deny PHO-2-14—Z-106-50-5. Commissioner Johnson believed that preserving open space inside the City of Phoenix was extremely important and felt the Villa De Paz community deserved that. Commissioner Beletz SECONDED. Commissioner Whitaker stated he would support the denial motion because of the open space issue and appeared it belonged and should stay with the community. Commissioner Johnson stated there were options to work with the community which did not seem the developer had done. There being no further discussion, Chairwoman Katsenes called for a vote and the SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED 2-5 (Heck, Katsenes, Awai, Davis, Whitaker) (Montalvo and Madeksza absent) Chairwoman Katsenes called for a vote on the original motion and the MOTION FAILED 3-4 (Whitaker, Davis, Johnson, Beletz) (Montalvo and Madeksza absent) Commissioner Johnson made a MOTION to continue PHO-2-14—Z-106-50-5 for 60- days without fee. Commissioner Beletz SECONDED. Commissioner Whitaker asked if the third motion was possible since motions had been made and asked if the case could be sent to the City Council without a recommendation. Ms. Gomes stated both motions failed therefore another motion could be made and a recommendation from the Planning Commissioner to the City Council was required. Commissioner Davis commented that much information had been presented and could not be involved in the dispute of ownership of the property. There were other processes that the applicant and neighbors would have to go through to resolve those issues. Chairwoman Katsenes stated that staff had recommended approval on the case and agreed with Commissioner Davis that the neighbors would have to work out a separate solution in regards to the ownership of the property. Villa De Paz Homeowners Association was the listed as the owner as far as the Planning Commission was concerned. She believed this was an appropriate use. Ms. Gomes asked the Commission to clarify what was expected of the applicant and


30

staff during the 60-day continuance in order to ensure more information would be given. Commissioner Johnson asked to see a neighborhood meeting with the applicant to discuss use of the property. It did not seem as that had been done. There were no compromises at the present time. Mr. Carpenter stated the limited amount of time at the hearing did not allow time for the entire history of the case and stated they would honor the Commission’s request and meet with the neighbors and do whatever it would take to move forward. There had been many meetings and sufficient conversations. A meeting was cancelled a week before by the Villa De Paz United group with Councilman Valenzuela’s office. The challenge was that the property was in escrow and the owner would sell to whoever would be willing to pay the selling price. Chairwoman Katsenes confirmed with Commissioner Johnson that he would request one neighborhood meeting to discuss the options for land use. Chairwoman Katsenes encouraged the neighbors not to re-discuss the financial issues of the case to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Davis asked for clarification from staff if the case was denied could that recommendation move forward to City Council where the final determination would be made. Ms. Gomes stated that was correct however, the previous motion to deny failed. Mr. Alan Stephenson stated the current motion was to continue for 60-days and was seconded. A substitute motion could also be made to reconsider the denial motion that was already voted on. The substitute motion would take precedence over the first motion to continue for 60-days. Commissioner Heck stated she would be making the substitute motion to approve which was the original motion she had made. Ms. Gomes stated that was correct, any substitute motion could be made. Commissioner Whitaker asked if the same motion could be made again in the same hearing. Mr. Stephenson stated yes because the motion did not pass and therefore had no effect. Commissioner Heck made a SUBSTITUTE MOTION to approve PHO-2-14—Z-106-50-5 as recommended by the Planning Hearing Officer. Commissioner Awai SECONDED. Commissioner Beletz confirmed if the process was according to the Robert Rules of Order.


31

Ms. Gomes reiterated that the first two motions had failed and currently there were another two motions on the floor. Commissioner Davis believed the concern was to have no action to send to the City Council and would rather send as a denial so the case could be revisited. Commissioner Heck stated as a reminder if someone had a question regarding any of the rulings there was a process to go through. Ms. Gomes confirmed whatever recommendation was made and someone disagreed an appeal within 7 days could be made and a full public hearing would be heard at the City Council hearing. Chairwoman Katsenes asked if the Planning Hearing Officer heard the history of the case. Ms. Gomes stated they did and approved the case with a modification to the stipulation and added two stipulations. Commissioner Whitaker stated he would be voting against the approval because of the 500 plus documents from the community in opposition. There being no further discussion, Chairwoman Katsenes called for a vote and the MOTION FAILED 3-4 (Whitaker, Davis, Johnson, Beletz) (Montalvo and Madeksza absent) Commissioner Johnson asked if the continuance vote failed could someone motion to deny. Mr. Stephenson stated yes. Chairwoman Katsenes called for a vote on the original motion and the MOTION FAILED 1-6 (Whitaker, Heck, Awai, Davis, Johnson, Beletz) (Montalvo and Madeksza absent) Commissioner Johnson made a MOTION to deny PHO-2-14—Z-106-50-5. Commissioner Beletz SECONDED. There being no further discussion, Chairwoman Katsenes called for a vote and the MOTION PASSED 4-3 (Heck, Katsenes, Awai) (Montalvo and Madeksza absent)

* * *

Documents

Staff Report: PHO-2-14–Z-106-50-5 August 12, 2014 ... · Staff Report: PHO-2-14—Z-106-50-5 August 12, 2014 Planning Commission Page 3 of 5 Planning Hearing Officer’s Decision