Glendale Planning Commission Unanimously Approves DR Horton Westgate Park Duplex Development with Redesigned Perimeter Plan

Mhm. Good evening and welcome to the Planning Commission meeting of May 28th, 2026. My name is Vern Crow and I am the chairperson of the commission. The Planning Commission is a citizen's body appointed by the City Council. Commission is empowered to make final decisions on certain matters with those being appealable to the City Council. On other matters, the commission acts in an advisory role to the council with the council making the final decision.

You will have an opportunity to address the commission during the public hearing portion of the meeting. Your testimony is appreciated and encouraged. The commission acts from a written agenda and you will need to fill out a yellow speaker card and give the city staff and give it to the city staff if you wish to speak on an item. Copies of the agenda and the speaker cards are located on the table outside the main door. At this time, please be sure to silence your cell phones.

There are seven members appointed to the Planning Commission and at this time I will I will ask the Commissioners to introduce themselves and state the district they are representing, starting from my far right, Commissioner Crow. John Crow, Marana District. Brian Hopper, Suvero District. Tom Cole, Barrel District. Helena Johnson-Vasquez, Choya District. And I'm Vern Crow, and I represent Cactus.

Let the record show that all members of the Commission are present with the exception of Commissioner Gears and Commissioner Ariana. The Planning Commission receives staff assistance and guidance from the Planning Division and the City Attorney's Office. Now, on to the approval of the minutes. I see that there aren't any, therefore let the record reflect such and we will proceed. [clears throat] [cough] Excuse me. [snorts] Mr. Chair. Mr. Vice Chair.

Uh, believe my packet had minutes, believe from the March 26th meeting. I do not have I do not have minutes. Do we not have do we have minutes? Okay, I'll insert that. Mr. Chair, point of order if one of the members doesn't have them, can we still vote on them? Mr. Gruber. Chairman of the Commission, I think it would be up to that member if they're comfortable going forward with the with the vote. Well, I take notes obviously on every I'm familiar with it.

Because I take notes, so that when they do show up, I go back to my notes as to what they are, and I've already gone through it, so I'm I'm comfortable with it. Chair and Commission, even better. Mr. Chair. Mr. Vice Chair. I would move to approve the minutes of March 26, 2026 Planning Commission meeting as written. Second. I have a motion and a second to approve the minutes of the meeting for March 26, 2026. All those in favor? I. Chair votes I. Opposed? Motion carries. Thank you, Mr.

Vice Chair. Miss Dasgupta, are there any withdrawals or continuances this evening? See Chairman there are none. Okay, as there are none, let's move on to the public hearing items. The purpose of the public hearing is to provide interested parties an opportunity to present testimony for the Commissioner's consideration. We will follow the same procedures for each item. And that is I will call the application number, staff will present their report and answer questions from the Commission.

The applicant will be given the opportunity to make a presentation and answer questions from the Commission. Other persons who wish to testify will be asked to do so and answer questions from the Commission. The applicant will have an opportunity for closing comments. Staff will be asked for any final comments on the application and procedural guidance if needed. I will then close the public hearing and ask for a motion prior to further discussion from the Commission.

If you wish to speak on an item, you will need to state your name and address for the record. Please be brief and to the point and avoid repetition. I reserve the right to limit the length of your testimony to 3 minutes. All exhibits shown to the Commission become part of the permanent record and must be submitted for the file. Large groups should designate a spokesperson. Applause and other disruptions that delay the hearing will not be tolerated.

We only have one public hearing item this evening. Our agenda item is case number GPA 25-05 and linked with that is ZON 2515 and I will ask for a vote separately. Mr. Martinez will present the case. Good evening, Chairman Croan and Commissioners. The applicant is proposing a minor general plan amendment from medium-density residential 3.5 to medium-high density residential 8. In addition, the applicant is proposing a rezoning from R1-8 with a PRD overlay to PAD for approximately 10 acres.

Per the applicant's narrative, the intent of these requests is to develop a fee simple duplex subdivision. Before you is a slide depicting the subject property in a red highlight located here. In addition, one will find the Buena Vida subdivision to the north, east, and south of the subject property, while 91st Avenue and the State Farm Stadium are located to the west.

The applicant conducted citizen participation and public notification procedures in accordance with the city's unified development code. Such citizen participation methods included two in-person neighborhood meetings. The applicant's final citizen participation report is attached to the staff report. The proposed general plan designation and PAD are compatible with the subject property and the surrounding area.

Such propositions seek to provide an appropriate transition of densities and intensities from the single-family houses in the Buena Vida subdivision to the proposed duplexes to the westward areas including the State Farm Stadium, Westgate, and the VAI Resort. Furthermore, this proposition seeks to provide middle housing on a property that is close to employment centers, furthering the goals of the general plan.

And the recommended motions for this evening are to move to recommend approval of GPA 25-05 and to move to recommend approval of ZON 25-15 subject to the following stipulation. Development shall be in conformance with the Westgate Park PA 80 narrative date stamped by the Glendale Planning Division on February 18th, 2026. This concludes my presentation and the applicant and I would be happy to address any questions that you may have. Commissioners, anything for Mr. Martinez? Thank you, sir.

Thanks. Okay, would the applicant or applicant's representative like to come forward to state your name for the record and make any presentation that you feel necessary? Hello. Uh good evening, Mr. Chair. Benjamin Tate with Yuma Spa, 25 Sorry, that was our old address, 2121 East Highland Avenue. Uh on behalf of D.R. Horton, delighted to be here this evening uh to talk to you about Westgate Park. Uh so, as Mr.

Martinez noted, the site's at uh 5204 North 70th Place, so that's on 91st Avenue just west of the state Sorry, just east of the State Farm Stadium. Just over 10 acres. Uh it is zoned currently R1-8 PRD like the rest of the Buena Vida subdivision that surrounds us. Uh so, to our north, R1-8, to our east and south, R1-8, all part of the lower Buena Vida subdivision, and then to our west, obviously the Westgate Entertainment District and State Farm Stadium.

Uh the church that is currently on the site was constructed in 1982, so it actually predates the Buena Vida subdivision that surrounds us on three sides, uh which was platted in the late '80s from '87 to '88, and then started construction early in the 1990s and continued through the through the mid-1990s. Uh as you might suspect, uh, this area has grown significantly, uh, since this church was built and then even the subdivision around it was built.

Uh, and so I went all the way back to the '70s to give you a sense of the evolution of this area. So, the these Uh, the yellow box that you see there represents both our site, uh, and the remnant parcel that is just south southwest of our site. So, that's '76, so '86 you can start to see, uh, some grading happening for the northern part of the subdivision north of Maryland. By 1996, you can see most of it is is now built out, uh, and the church there right in the middle.

By 2006, State Farm Stadium has been built. They've started construction on both the the Westgate Entertainment District and what what was once the Coyote uh, hockey stadium. By 2016, Westgate is now fully built out. Um, the Cardinal Stadium's obviously been there for more than just about a decade, a little bit more than a decade.

Uh, and then by 2026, uh, you can now see that that subdivision south of Cardinals Way, uh, in that short 10-year span has now almost entirely built out, uh, along with the construction of VAI Resort. Uh, so this area's obviously experienced significant evolution since this church was originally built in 1982, uh, and around it and and what that means just in terms of growth patterns and uh evolution. Uh, so what we are proposing, uh, is a 78-home for-sale duplex residential community.

Uh, it's 39 total buildings, so with obviously with each duplex you get two residences. Uh, it we have a 0.41-acre neighborhood park and amenity area, which you can see is almost just inside the entrance, just east of the entrance, uh, at the center of the site there. So, it'll be two-story homes featuring two-car garages, uh, with two different floor plans.

So, one is a four-bed, two-and-a-half bath at 1,966 square feet, and the other is a three-bed, two-and-a-half bath, just under 2,000 square feet. All of these being two-story with two-car garages. Uh, we're including multiple architectural styles and materials palettes uh, throughout the community so you don't end up with a a a you know, a monochromatic monolithic community.

You've got some diversity when the within the architectural styles to give it a more of a neighborhood feel and a little bit of diversity in the design. Uh, our primary access is maintained from the same access the church has right off of 91st Avenue which is a signalized uh, intersection and it will be gated with a turnaround to allow any cars that accidentally turn into the community room to turn around. We'll also have uh, let's see if this laser pointer works. Yep.

Uh, an emergency only access off of 90th Avenue in that cul-de-sac. That was right of way that was platted when the subdivision was originally platted. So that right of way already exists. So we're simply going to put in a um, decomposed granite a compacted DG path there with landscaping and then a crash gate uh, if fire trucks or other emergency responders would need access through a secondary point of access.

[clears throat] And I think most importantly and this is the reason that I really wanted to give a full presentation this evening is we've made significant site plan changes from that first neighborhood meeting that we had uh, in the summer of 2025 in June of 2025 uh, to our second submittal based on the community input that we got at that first meeting. Uh, so back in June of 2025 we held a neighborhood meeting at the Renaissance Hotel.

Uh, there were I believe 34 people who signed in but if just based on the number of people who showed up who may not have signed in I think we had a close to 50 or 60 people at that meeting. Uh, a lot of conversations with the community about uh, what their concerns were uh, and [clears throat] we could really boil those those concerns down to uh, one one thing but three things that are all uh, related to that one thing and that's the homes that are around the perimeter of the community.

So what you see here is that original site plan in which we had um, single family detached homes around the perimeter of the site with the duplex product uh, in the middle. Almost universally universally from the the neighbors who attended that meeting um there was uh a lot of displeasure or or uh discontent about the homes around the perimeter of the site and three things relating to that and that's proximity views and privacy.

You know homes in and of themselves around the perimeter aren't a bad thing. It's really the impact that those homes have and so that's really what we tried to hone in on is is how can we address that uh in a meaningful way.

Um and all of those three those things boil down to the proximity of the homes, the homes being you know having short yards, being too close to the existing perimeter homes, uh the views and and pri- or privacy issues that creates for second story windows looking down into uh existing backyards and how can we solve for that? So what we did uh was we took those perimeter homes and got rid of them.

Uh and in the place of those homes around the perimeter we put a landscape strip that it I think goes somewhere between 10 and 14 ft wide uh and then a perimeter road that also goes around the perimeter to just completely eliminate that row of homes from uh the outside of the property.

Along with that, because of the way that they're all oriented, there's also no longer a concern about privacy or views because all of the homes will face outward and even with second story windows, if you add the landscape strip, the drive the perimeter road, the driveways of those homes and then what it takes to get to a second story window, we're eliminating that view shed from a second story window into any perimeter homes. And here's just a dimension of what that looks like.

So in some places you can see that landscape tract is 14 ft and other places is 12, a 42-ft perimeter road and then a 20-ft setback from the the curb to the home. So now you're talking about a minimum of 76 ft along the north and south sides of the property and 71 ft along the east side of the property to uh the nearest wall from that existing subdivision.

Uh and in doing so, by eliminating the sing- the detached single family homes, uh we've also reduced the overall number of buildings significantly. So, in the original plan, it was 51 buildings between single family homes and duplexes, and it's now 39 buildings overall. And so, with that in mind, our request this evening is to amend the general plan from MDR 3 and 1/2 to MDR 8, uh and rezone the property from R18 PRD to planned area development to allow the development of this community.

Uh and this just gives you a sense from a couple of different angles of how that sort of looks and feels and fits into that existing property. Uh this is a view of what that would look like from the streetscape on 91st Avenue with our gated entrance right there, and then you can see on the left side of the image the turnaround. Uh and then just a couple of renderings of what the actual product uh that we would be building look like. And then a couple of shots of the interior.

Uh and so, again, in summary, uh what we're requesting is a a rezone and a minor general plan amendment uh to allow the development of a 78 residence duplex community. This is for sale product. Uh we've made significant changes to the site plan to address the concerns of the community, and one of the things that I would highlight is at that first neighborhood meeting back in June of 2025, we had approximately, again, 60 folks uh from the community at that meeting.

We held a second neighborhood meeting back in March of this year to present this new plan. That meeting was also very well attended. I would say in between the folks who signed in and didn't sign in, probably somewhere between 45 and 50 people. Um and just I would say as as a testament to um how well those changes were received cuz we had a a lot of people who were very relieved and and delighted to see the changes that we had made.

Um I would say the the between the number of people who attended that second neighborhood meeting uh and I would I I always hesitant to hesitate to point out the lack of people uh but the um I think it's illustrative of how how much work we've done to address this uh with the number of folks that are attending this evening. And with that, I would be delighted to answer any questions you might have. Commissioners. Thank you, Mr. Tate. Thank you. Okay, I have one speaker card from a Mr. Cates.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members, John Cates. My address is 917 uh West McDowell is my office. I am the adjacent landowner um to with that vacant lot. And I the only reason for speaking is to just get an understanding of the right of way that goes into my lot. It's my only access to the property. And I want to just make sure the width of that right of way is wide enough to get vehicles through, etc. So, I don't know if that's a staff or a a Mr. Tate question. So. Uh Mr.

Chair, members of the committee, yes, uh Mr. Cates and I have been in communication throughout this project and it's been a both a priority of ours and staff's uh to ensure that uh Mr. Cates has access to his property and that anyone who visits it for any future development would also have access. And so, I don't know if we can go back to our presentation for a second. Is that possible? Do I just back up? Uh-huh, there it is.

So, as you can see from from the plan here uh that we have we are showing access from our primary driveway there. Thank you very much, John. Uh and from the property. Um I don't think we've because this is a conceptual plan, I don't think we've dimensioned that access, but I think we are more than happy to provide whatever cross-section or width of access the city would require to ensure that proper turning movements can be made. Okay. Yeah, and I I would just say Mr.

Chairman and members that Mr. Tate and his client have been super collaborative. So, I am in full support of this this proposal. I would just ask that if you could put in the stipulations a width that is would be standard for for cars to get in and out of that property. I want to just make sure that I can access that property and ultimately develop on it it's as planned. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Cayless. Mr. Gruber. Any language?

Chairman, typically that would have been a DR design review stipulation as opposed to part of the general plan amendment and rezone process. Um but if I were to recommend something on this at the um at this minute um the applicant shall uh the applicant shall ensure adequate width of the existing right-of-way to the that connects to the property. Um adjacent property I'm I'm sorry, it's like on the spur kind of a something to that effect.

We can we can formulate something similar to that to ask for the access ensuring that there's the width of the access is for city requirements. Sure. Uh if I may, Mr. Chair. Mr. Gruber. Chair and Commissioners, your pleasure if you would like the applicant's attorney to speak. I think it would be back to you. Uh Mis- Mr.

Chair, uh I think, you know, we are we have no problem with providing whatever the city requires in terms of access and making sure we're meeting the code requirements for access to Mr. Kades's property. Um the code already requires that, so I'm not sure that an additional stipulation is necessary to reiterate something that already exists in the code.

Chair and Commission, without having the code at my fingertips, I I can't say whether, you know, that that is accurate, but certainly um uh seems like what the applicant has presented makes sense, and you could probably feel safe, especially knowing there's a DR process later on where you could uh accommodate this concern. So, we can go with the recommended stipulations plus uh that they meet the adequate provisions for the additional access.

Chair and Commission, I think that's legally acceptable. Okay. Commissioner Corrao. I'll hold my comments until we get to discussion Chair. Okay. Commissioners, anything else for Mr. Tate? Mr. Chair. Commissioner Hiriyanna. Yes, uh the extra added stipulation that was just raised here, was that mentioned during public meeting at any point and agreed to at all, or is this just being brought up here, or has staff been aware of it? As far as the right-of-way. Mr. Tate. Uh Mr.

Chair, members of the commission, uh you know, Mr. Tate and I have certainly been talking about this access point uh since the beginning of this case as well as through discussions with staff. Um so I I I would say that if staff was concerned that we weren't providing appropriate or access or dimensions, it would have been raised before tonight. Thank you, sir. Commissioners? Thank you. Commissioner Arellano, are you satisfied? Yes, sir. Thank you.

Okay, the public hearing for case number GPA 25-05 and ZON 25-015 is now closed. Do I hear a motion for GPA 25-05? Mr. Chair. Commissioner Arellano. I recommend approval of GPA 25-05 subject to stipulations staff report. I second. Okay, we have a uh motion and a second to approve GPA 25-05. Now, commissioners, any further discussion?

Chair, just just to echo the comments that the easement or the access point is in the drawing, and um I concur with uh Commissioner Cole that it is it is a requirement. Um so I'm I'm very comfortable that the the access point will be in there in the final. Mr. Chair. Commissioner Cole. I I I echo uh Commissioner Crow's comments. I don't think we need a stipulation.

I do believe the code provides for that easement, provides for the width and length of the access road, uh not only provide for automobiles, but for emergency vehicles as well. So, I I think the code's adequate and the design review process will cover uh Mr. Katus's concerns. Thank you, Commissioner Cole. I agree, but Mr. Gruber, do you agree? Chair and Commissioner, I agree with the comments that were made and also it appears that it satisfied the concerns raised by Mr. Katus, so. Okay.

I'm in good fighting. With that said, I have a motion or a second to approve GPA 25-05 as written. With the stipulations as written, I will now conduct a roll call vote. Commissioner Crow. Aye. Commissioner Hooper. Aye. Vice Chair Cole. Aye. Commissioner Johnson-Vasquez. Aye. Commissioner Ariano. Yes. Chair votes aye. Case number GPA 25-05 has been recommended for approval as written. Mr. Gruber, what are the next steps in the process?

Chair and Commission, your recommendation with respect to GPA 25-05 is not final. The recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council. Thank you, Mr. Gruber. Do I hear a motion for ZON 25-15? Chair. Commissioner Johnson-Vasquez. I motion to approve a ZON 25-15 subject to the stipulations in the staff report. Thank you. Do I hear a second? Second. Commissioners, any further discussion on ZON ZON 25-15? Okay, hearing none.

I have a motion and a second to approve case number ZON 25-15 subject to the stipulations as outlined by staff. I will now conduct a roll call vote. Commissioner Crow. I. Commissioner Gruber. I. Vice Chair Cole. I. Commissioner Johnson-Vasquez. I. Commissioner Arellano. Yes. Chair votes I. Case number ZON 25-15 has been recommended for approval on subject to the stipulation stipulations as outlined by staff. Mr. Gruber, what are the next steps?

Chair and commission, your recommendation of ZON 25-15 will also will be forwarded to council for further consideration. Thank you, Mr. Gruber. Ms. Dasgupta, is there any other business this evening? Chairman and commission members, there are none. Are there any planning staff reports? Uh Chairman, there are none. Commissioners, anything further? Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak on an item not on tonight's agenda?

The next regular meeting of the Planning Commission will be held on June 25th at 6:00 p.m. at the Glendale City Hall, 5850 West Glendale Avenue. If there's no further business, I will now entertain a motion to adjourn. So moved. Do I have a second? Second. [laughter] I have a motion and a second to adjourn. All those in favor say I. I. Hi. We stand adjourned.