Attachment B - Staff Report - PHO-1-19--Z-4-10-6.pdf

City of Phoenix — Formal (2020-05-20)

View PDF Meeting page

Extracted text (via pymupdf) 45987 characters

Staff Report: Z-4-10-6 (PHO-1-19)

APPLICATION:

Z-4-10-6 (PHO-1-19)

APPLICANT:

Rakesh Patel, Hillstone Restaurant Group

REPRESENTATIVE:
Heidi Short, Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP

OWNER:

Hillstone Restaurant Group, Inc.

LOCATION:
Approximately 300 feet east and 160 feet south of the
southeast corner of 31st Street and Camelback Road

REQUEST:
1) Modification of Stipulation 1 regarding general conformance
with the site plan date stamped March 11, 2010 and the
landscape plan date stamped April 8, 2010.

2) Deletion of Stipulation 2.e regarding landscape palette.

3) Deletion of Stipulation 4 regarding a minimum 10-foot
landscape setback along the west property line.

4) Technical corrections to Stipulations 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that this request be denied as filed and approved with modifications
as recommended by the Planning Hearing Officer.

PLANNING HEARING OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
At the February 19, 2020 hearing, the Planning Hearing Officer took this case under
advisement. On February 28, 2020, the Planning Hearing Officer took this case out from
under advisement and recommended denial as filed and approval with modifications.

BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
The subject property is located approximately 300 feet east and 160 feet south of the
southeast corner of the 31st Street and Camelback Road and is approximately 0.36
gross acres. The property is vacant and zoned P-1. The applicant proposes to develop
the site as an additional parking area for the proposed Hillstone restaurant on the parcel
immediately adjacent to the north. The restaurant is proposed in companion case Z-41-
94-6 (PHO-2-19).
Attachment B

Staff Report – PHO-1-19—Z-4-10-6
April 2, 2020 Planning Commission
Page 2 of 7

The applicant requested modification of Stipulation 1, regarding general conformance to
the stipulated site plan, to accommodate a new site plan and landscape plan. The
applicant’s proposed site plan was updated to reflect the smaller restaurant concept. The
applicant stated that they wanted to add conformance to a landscape plan to address
previous landscaping stipulations and depict landscaping throughout the site.

The applicant requested deletion of Stipulation 2.e, requiring the landscape palette to be
consistent with the commercial property to the southeast, because the adjacent property
has an older site plan and landscape palette that is not compatible with the proposed site
plan, building design, and other proposed improvements for the proposed restaurant.

The applicant requested deletion of Stipulation 4, regarding a minimum 10-foot landscape
setback along the west property line, because the adjacent residential properties have
ample landscaping and the existing wall will be supplemented with a second six foot tall
wall for sound attenuation. However, at the PHO hearing, the applicant stated that they
intended to withdraw this request and would provide the 10-foot landscape setback as
stipulated. The applicant also submitted an updated landscape plan depicting the
change.

PREVIOUS HISTORY
On July 7, 2010, the City Council approved the request from R1-6 (Single-Family
Residence) to P-1 (Parking District) per the June 2, 2010 memo from the Planning and
Development Services Director. The memo provided modified and additional stipulations
that the applicant developed to earn the support of an immediate neighbor of the
proposed P-1 parcel.

The applicant proposed a surface parking lot to serve the adjacent commercial property,
Donovan’s restaurant. The restaurant provided on-site parking to meet existing
ordinance requirements, but this parking did not adequately support the actual parking
needs. The request was intended to reduce neighborhood traffic and overflow parking
generated from the existing restaurant. The size and scale of the parking lot was
designed to be sensitive to the neighborhood to the south.

The applicant worked with nearby residents who expressed concerns regarding whether
the use was appropriate adjacent to residential zoning, noisy patrons and employees,
whether the parking lot could devalue properties, and potential impacts of headlights
shining into private yards.

NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS

Correspondence
37 letters of opposition were received regarding this request. Concerns included the
following:
• Opposition to the driveway on 31st Street (34 items)

Staff Report – PHO-1-19—Z-4-10-6
April 2, 2020 Planning Commission
Page 3 of 7

• The driveway on 31st Street should be restricted to emergency access only (two
items)
• Increased traffic in the neighborhood (five items)
• Wall on the south property line (one item)
• Alternative ingress/egress recommendations – second driveway on Camelback
Road or shared entry with the property to the east (one item)
• Negative impact to residents in the community (one item)

13 letters of support were received regarding this request. Points raised in these letters
included the following:
• Hillstone’s positive reputation related to community awareness (2 items)
• The proposed restaurant has a smaller building footprint (5 items)
• The building height will be lower (2 items)
• The new development will provide greater distance between the restaurant and
residences to the south (2 items)
• The proposed ingress/egress will allow traffic to flow easily, without distraction to
the neighborhood (1 item)
• The restaurant will complement the neighborhood (3 items)
• The restaurant will positively contribute to Arizona’s restaurant economy (1 item)

GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre

CHARACTER OF SURROUNDING LAND USE

Zoning
Land Use

On-site:
P-1
Vacant

North:
C-2
Restaurant/Parking lot

South:
R1-6
Single-family residential

East:
C-2
Multi-tenant office building

West:
R1-6
Single-family residential

DEPARTMENT REVIEW COMMENTS

Archaeology
Not archaeologically sensitive.

Aviation
No response.

Staff Report – PHO-1-19—Z-4-10-6
April 2, 2020 Planning Commission
Page 4 of 7

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.

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 1745 L of the Flood Insurance Rate
Maps (FIRM) dated April 07, 2017. Based on the project information provided, there are
no Floodplain Management requirements to fulfill.

Light Rail
No response.

Parks and Recreation
No trail or trail easement comments.

Public Transit
No comments.

Street Transportation
No comments.

Pedestrian Safety Coordinator – Street Transportation Department, Traffic Services
Division
No comments.

Water Services:
WSD has no stipulations for this modification. The proposed property has water and
sewer that can potentially serve the development.

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: 6-inch ACP within Mariposa Street.

Staff Report – PHO-1-19—Z-4-10-6
April 2, 2020 Planning Commission
Page 5 of 7

Services: No services

EXISTING SEWER
Sewer mains: 8-inch VCP within the alley on the north side of the property.

Services: City map shows No services

REPAYMENT: N/A

VILLAGE PLANNING COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Camelback East Village Planning Committee opted not to hear this case.

PLANNING HEARING OFFICER FINDINGS

The Planning Hearing Officer’s recommendation was based on the following findings:

1. The stipulated site plan depicted 24 parking spaces intended to provide
additional parking for the Donovan’s restaurant that existed on the adjacent
commercial property to the north at the time of the original rezoning (see Finding
#5). The proposed site plan depicts 22 parking spaces intended to service the
proposed new restaurant on the same adjacent commercial property to the north.
The proposed modification reduces the potential impact of parking activity on
nearby residential properties.

2. The proposed site plan depicts a pedestrian pathway on the adjacent commercial
property to the north running east-west from the west property line to the main
building entrance on the proposed restaurant. A pedestrian pathway is
recommended that connects the 22 parking spaces on the subject property of
this request to that pathway to ensure safe pedestrian access from the parking
area to the restaurant. This pathway is also stipulated in related case PHO-2-19—
Z-41-94-6 (see Finding #5). A portion of this pathway may be partially
located within the subject property of this case and therefore the stipulation is
also recommended to be included.

3. Stipulation 2.e requires the landscaping palette to be similar to the landscaping
on the adjacent commercial property to the east. Both the character and size of
this landscaping area is significantly different than that of the subject parcel. The
applicant has proposed new language requiring general conformance to a
landscape plan that is consistent with the landscaping on the adjacent
commercial property to the north that is proposed to include the restaurant that
this parcel will provide parking for. It is desirable to have consistency between
these parcels. Additionally, the proposed plant palette consists of dense foliage
trees such as acacia and ficus that will contribute to screening appropriate for a
parking lot adjacent to residential uses.

4. At the hearing, the applicant stated that they would like to withdraw their request

Staff Report – PHO-1-19—Z-4-10-6
April 2, 2020 Planning Commission
Page 6 of 7

to modify Stipulation 4 regarding a minimum 10-foot landscape setback along the
west property line. The enhanced setback and tree caliper sizes required by this
stipulation are appropriate for a property line that is shared with an existing
single-family home. The stipulation is recommended to remain with minor
revisions to update it to current standard language format.

5. Adjacent to the north is C-2 zoned commercial property which was rezoned in
case no. Z-41-94-6. This property was originally rezoned to allow a restaurant
which was developed and has since closed. The subject property is currently
proposed to redevelop with a newer, smaller restaurant. Modifications to the
stipulations in this case are proposed in case no. PHO-2-19—Z-41-94-6 which
was also heard on this agenda.

PLANNING HEARING OFFICER RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS

1.
That tThe development shall be in general conformance with the site plan date
stamped FEBRUARY 11, 2020 March 11, 2010, and the landscape plan date
stamped FEBRUARY 11, 2020 April 8, 2010, with specific regard to the south and
west landscape setbacks, as approved or modified by the FOLLOWING
STIPULATIONS AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND Development
Services Department.

A.
THE DEVELOPER SHALL PROVIDE AN ENHANCED PEDESTRIAN
CONNECTION FROM THE PARKING LOT TO THE PRIMARY
PEDESTRIAN PATHWAY LEADING TO THE BUILDING ENTRANCE ON
THE ADJACENT COMMERCIALLY ZONED PROPERTY TO THE NORTH.

2.
That tThe development shall provide a minimum 25-foot landscape setback along
Mariposa Street, as approved or modified by the PLANNING AND Development
Services Department and as follows:

a.
Trees shall be placed 20 feet on center or in equivalent groupings,

b.
Minimum 3-inch caliper (75 percent of required trees),

c.
Minimum 4-inch caliper (25 percent of required trees),

d.
Minimum five 5-gallon shrubs per tree.

e.
Landscaping shall be of a similar palette to that of the adjacent commercial
property to the southeast.

3.
That tThe perimeter wall shall be finished face and painted, as approved by the
PLANNING AND Development Services Department.

Staff Report – PHO-1-19—Z-4-10-6
April 2, 2020 Planning Commission
Page 7 of 7

4.
That tThe development shall provide a minimum landscape setback of 10 feet
along the west property line of the parking area, planted with minimum 3-inch
caliper trees, SPACED 20 feet on center OR IN EQUIVALENT GROUPINGS, as
approved by the PLANNING AND Development Services Department.

5.
That nNo pedestrian access shall be provided to Mariposa Street, as approved by
the PLANNING AND Development Services Department.

6.
That tThe existing 6-foot wall setback 25 feet from the southern property line shall
remain, as approved by the PLANNING AND Development Services Department.

7.
That aA 1-foot vehicular non-access easement (VNAE) shall be recorded along
the west, south and eastern property lines prior to final site plan approval, as
approved by the PLANNING AND Development Services Department.

ATTACHMENTS
A – Appeal Documents (2 pages)
B – Applicant’s Narrative (6 pages)
C – Aerial Map (1 page)
D – Zoning Map (1 page)
E – Ordinance G-5523 for Rezoning Case No. Z-4-10-6 (6 pages)
F – Sketch Map from Rezoning Case No. Z-4-10-6 (1 page)
G – Proposed Site Plan date stamped February 11, 2020 (1 page)
H – Proposed Landscape Plan date stamped February 11, 2020 (1 page)
I – Stipulated Site Plan date stamped March 11, 2010 (1 page)
J – Stipulated Landscape Plan date stamped April 8, 2010 (1 page)
K – PHO Summary for Z-4-10-6 (PHO-1-19) (7 pages)
L – Correspondence regarding Z-4-10-6 (PHO-1-19) (66 pages)

- Opposition (45 pages)

- Support (19 pages)

ATTACHMENT A

PLANNING HEARING OFFICER APPEAL
I HEREBY REQUEST THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION/CITY COUNCIL HOLD
A PUBLIC HEARING ON:
APPLICATION NO:
Z-4-10-6 (PHO-1-19)
LOCATION:
Approximately 300 feet east and 160 feet south of the
southeast corner of 31st Street and Camelback Road
PHO HEARING DATE:
2/19/2020 (UA 2/28)
RECEIVED:
3/6/2020
APPEALED BY:

Opposition

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

TENTATIVE DATE
NAME/ADDRESS/CITY/STATE/ZIP
PHONE #
Colleen Geretti
4822 North 31st Place
Phoenix, AZ 85016

602-505-9777
RECEIPT NUMBER:

REASON FOR REQUEST:
This case is a companion to Z-41-94-6. The concern with this case is the proposed
driveway. I would like both cases to remain concurrent.
Taken By: Adam Stranieri

c:
Ben Ernyei – Posting

Benjamin Kim, IS
PDD All

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

ATTACHMENT B

ATTACHMENT C

N 31ST ST
ALLEY
E CAMELBACK
RD
N 31ST PL
E
MARIPOSA ST
PRIVATE
N 30TH PL
Maricopa County Assessor's Office
Planning & Development Department
PHO-1-19--Z-4-10-6
Property Location: Approximately 300 feet east and 160 feet south of the southeast
corner of 31st Street and Camelback Road
0
100
200
50
Feet ´

ATTACHMENT D

N 31ST ST
ALLEY
E CAMELBACK
RD
N 31ST PL
E
MARIPOSA ST
PRIVATE
N 30TH PL
C-O*
R1-6
C-1*
C-2*
C-2*
P-1*
C-2*
R1-6
Planning & Development Department
PHO-1-19--Z-4-10-6
Property Location: Approximately 300 feet east and 160 feet south of the southeast
corner of 31st Street and Camelback Road
0
100
200
50
Feet ´

ATTACHMENT E

ATTACHMENT F

C-2
C-O
C-2
C-1
C-1
C-O *
*
*
CAMELBACK ROAD
32
Z-SP
Z-41-94
Z-119-74
Z-21
Z-239-78
Z-50-97
32ND ST
31ST ST
31ST PL
30TH PL
MARIPOSA ST
APP
See App.
Z-318-85
200
0
200
100
Feet
* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus
APPLICANT'S NAME:
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:
NORTH
7TH ST
24TH ST
40TH ST
32ND ST
16TH ST
BETHANY HOME RD
NORTHERN AVE
GLENDALE AVE
CAMELBACK RD
INDIAN SCHOOL RD
THOMAS RD
MC DOWELL RD
VAN BUREN ST
WASHINGTON ST
48TH ST
56TH ST
64TH ST
SR 51
?¸
?
ñ
Z-4-10
APPLICATION NO.
CITY OF PHOENIX PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF PHOENIX PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Map Document: (N:\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\sketch_map10.mxd) - 3/18/2010
Michael Curley
Z-4-10
0.36 Acres
03/18/10
Q18-34
H-10
R1-6, (0.36 a. c.)
CAMELBACK EAST VILLAGE
6
P-1, (0.36 a. c.)
C-O*
C-1*
R1-6
C-O*
R1-6
P-1
1
N/A
2
N/A

ATTACHMENT G

PROPOSED
4966 SF
RESTAURANT
CAMELBACK ROAD
31ST STREET
MARIPOSA STREET
EXISTING 30'
DRIVEWAY TO BE
REMOVED
EXISTING FIRE
HYDRANT
RELOCATE NORTH AND
WIDEN EXISTING DRIVEWAY
PROPERTY LINE
EXISTING OVERHEAD
ELECTRICAL TO BE
UNDERGROUNDED PER SRP
REQUIREMENTS
EXISTING SEWER MANHOLE
TO REMAIN/ADJUST RIM
PROPOSED
DRIVEWAY
LOADING ZONE
TRASH ENCLOSURE
12
5
3
11
10
9
7
4
3131 CAMELBACK ROAD LLC
A.P.N. 163-12-049
2017-0441702 M.C.R.
ZONING C-2
OFFICE
LOT 8
BRENTWOOD ESTATES
BK. 55, PG. 2, M.C.R.
A.P.N. 163-12-008
SBROCCA ANGELO
2003-0689007 M.C.R.
ZONING R1-6
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
LOT 9
BRENTWOOD ESTATES
BK. 55, PG. 2, M.C.R.
A.P.N. 163-12-009
BAYNE MARIO A/REGINA A TR
2007-0885411 M.C.R.
ZONING R1-6
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
LOT 10
BRENTWOOD ESTATES
BK. 55, PG. 2, M.C.R.
A.P.N. 163-12-010
WILLIAMS MARTHA J/ DENNIS M
2017-0918576 M.C.R.
ZONING R1-6
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
DAMBROSIO JASON/DIMURIA
ASJA M
APN: 163-12-011A
ZONING R1-6
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
JBJM CAMELBACK LLC
APN: 163-12-003B
ZONING C-O
OFFICE
RICHER JOSHUA A
APN 163-12-037
ZONING R1-6
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
BOOKSPAN TODD/TARA
APN 163-12-036
ZONING R1-6
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
KALIL JOHN PHILIP
163-12-035
ZONING R1-6
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
MORRIS SCOTT MICHAEL/HALL
163-12-034
ZONING R1-6
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
4
4
11
6
8
PROPOSED GREASE
INTERCEPTOR
PROPERTY LINE
RECONSTRUCT RAMP
PER ADA AND CITY OF
PHOENIX REQUIREMENTS
10'X20' SVT
10' X 20' SVT
EXISTING
IRRIGATION
PRIVATE
EXISTING
IRRIGATION SRP
EXISTING FIRE
HYDRANT TO
REMAIN
EXISTING
6' BLOCK
WALL
EXISTING SRP
12" IRRIGATION
EXISTING 8" SEWER
5" CURB AND
GUTTER
PROPOSED
PAVEMENT
PROPOSED 2" DOMESTIC
WATER SERVICE
PROPOSED GATE
PROPOSED 6"
SANITARY SEWER
PROPOSED 1" IRRIGATION
WATER SERVICE
33'X33' SVT
PROPOSED
DRIVEWAY
ADA ROUTE
(1:20 SLOPE)
ROOF
OVERHANG
30" VEHICLE
OVERHANG
TYP.
FF= 1206.50
PROPOSED 6' WALL
BEHIND EXISTING
BLOCK WALL FOR
SOUND
ATTENUATION
RESTAURANT
ENTRANCE
PROPOSED 6' WALL
BEHIND EXISTING
BLOCK WALL FOR
SOUND
ATTENUATION
PROPOSED 6' WALL
BEHIND EXISTING
BLOCK WALL FOR
SOUND
ATTENUATION
EXISTING
6' BLOCK
WALL
30" VEHICLE
OVERHANG
TYP.
30" VEHICLE
OVERHANG
TYP.
30" VEHICLE
OVERHANG
TYP.
30" VEHICLE
OVERHANG
TYP.
1600 N DESERT DRIVE
SUITE 230
TEMPE, AZ 85281
PH: 480.951.0517
FAX: 480.951.2353
www.imegcorp.com
MAJ
RR/AM
19000401
GENERAL:
1 4 7 S O U T H B E V E R L Y D R I V E
B E V E R L Y H I L L S, C A 9 0 2 1 2
P 3 1 0 3 8 5 0 3 4 0
F 3 1 0 3 8 5 7 1 1 9
3101 east camelback road
rev
remarks
date
drawn by
pic/pm:
sheet
job no
SEAL:
all designs, ideas, arrangements and plans indicated
by these drawings and specifications are the
property and copyright of the OWNER and shall
neither be used on any other work nor be used by
any other person for any use whatsoever without the
written permission from the OWNER.
written dimensions shall take precedence over
scaled dimensions and shall be verified at the
construction site. any dimensional discrepancy shall
be brought to the attention of the OWNER prior to
the commencement of work
this document is 'NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION'
unless the architect or engineer's signature and seal
appear below
ENGINEER of record:
PROJECT:
REVISION:
RESTAURANT
phoenix arizona 85016
concept
KIVA # 02-3746 CPGD # XXXXXX SDEV# 0400582 Q.S.# 18-34
1
PHO submission
12.06.19
2
Site parking revision
02.04.20
SITE
VICINITY MAP
PROPOSED SITE PLAN
FOR
HILLSTONE RESTAURANT
3101 E. CAMELBACK ROAD
PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85016
SITE DATA
OWNER/APPLICANT
HILLSTONE RESTAURANT GROUP
IMEG CORP
CIVIL ENGINEER
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Q.S.# 18-34
BASIS OF BEARING
PARCEL 2 - SPECIAL NOTES
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
ASP-1
SITE PLAN NOTES
ABBREVIATION LEGEND

ATTACHMENT H

10'-0" SIDEWALK
EASEMENT
8'-0" PUBLIC
UTILITY EASEMENT
1'-0" CONTROLLED
ACCESS EASEMENT
25'-0" LANDSCAPE
BUFFER
8'-0" OVERHEAD &
UNDERGROUND POWER
EASEMENT
1'-0" CONTROLLED
ACCESS EASEMENT
16'-0" PUBLIC
UTILITIES EASEMENT
TV
TV
TV
TV
TV
TV
TV
TV
TV
TV
TV
TV
TV
TV
TV
TV
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
W
W
W
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
29
30
32
33
34
74
64
73
72
71
70
69
68
67
66
65
27
28
31
35
PLANT 8'-0"
ON CENTER
1
1
1
1
3
3
4
4
4
5
8
11
11
9
9
3
3
10
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
CAMELBACK ROAD
31ST STREET
1
3" CAL.
3" CAL.
3" CAL.
2
2
6'-0" CMU WALL. SEE SITE PLANS.
OVER HEAD ELECTRIC LINE(O.H.E.). .
EXISTING IRRIGATION LINES AND EASEMENTS.
FIRE HYDRANT -3'-0" CLEAR OF ALL PLANT MATERIAL
CALIFORNIA GOLD DECOMPOSED GRANITE IN ALL PLANTING AREAS
PROPERTY LINE / RIGHT OF WAY LINE
planting key notes
CURB. SEE CIVIL ENG. PLANS.
ACCESSIBLE RAMP. SEE CIVIL ENG. PLANS.
1
2
3
4
6
8
7
9
10
11
FIRE LINE BACKFLOW PREVENTOR - SCREEN
MAINTAIN 3' ACCESS & CLEARANCE PER MAG
STANDARD DETAIL 362.
SITE VISIBILITY TRIANGLE, MAXIMUM MATURE
5'-0" SIDEWALK WITH MAX SLOPE OF 1:20.
5
PLANT MATERIAL HEIGHT IN THE SIGHT VISIBILITY
TRIANGLES IS 24 INCHES
NO TREES IN THIS AREA
TO BE BURIED UNDERGROUND
FICUS PUMILA
CREEPING FIG
PARKINSONI HYBRID 'AZT'
'AZT' THORNLESS PALO VERDE
LITTLE OLLIE DWARF OLIVE
OLEA EUROPAEA 'LITTLE OLLIE'
ASIATIC JASMINE
TRACHELOSPERMUM ASIATICUM
QUERCUS VIRGINIANA
SOUTHERN LIVE OAK
FICUS NITIDA
INDIAN LAUREL FIG
93
15
GAL
(6 @
1.0 GPH)
shrubs
trees
comments
qty
size
common name
botanical name
plant legend
vines
groundcover
emitters
53
STAKE IN PLACE
8.0H., 3.0W., 1.0CAL.
1"
CAL
(6 @
2.0 GPH)
6
STAKE IN PLACE
10.5H., 8.5W., 3.0CAL.
3"
CAL
1.0 GPH)
(5 @
31
10.0H., 5.0W., 2.0CAL.
2"
CAL
(6 @
2.0 GPH)
TRAIN TO WALL
37
5 GAL.
PLANT AT 4' O.C.
1 GAL.
444
inerts
DECOMPOSED GRANITE
CALIFORNIA GOLD
2" MINIMUM IN
ALL PLANTERS
22,059
1/4"
MINUS
2
SF
STAKE IN PLACE
33
STAKE IN PLACE
9.0H., 5.5W., 2.0CAL.
2"
CAL
ACACIA ANEURA
MULGA
1.0 GPH)
(5 @
8
STAKE IN PLACE
9.0H., 6.0W., 2.0CAL.
2"
CAL
SCALE: 1" = 20'-0"
NORTH
0'
20'
40'
60'
1-800-STAKE-IT
(OUTSIDE MARICOPA COUNTY)
CALL TWO WORKING DAYS
BEFORE YOU DIG
602-263-1100
GENERAL:
1 4 7 S O U T H B E V E R L Y D R I V E
B E V E R L Y H I L L S, C A 9 0 2 1 2
P 3 1 0 3 8 5 0 3 4 0
F 3 1 0 3 8 5 7 1 1 9
3101 east camelback road
rev
remarks
date
drawn by
pic/pm:
sheet
job no
SEAL:
all designs, ideas, arrangements and plans indicated
by these drawings and specifications are the
property and copyright of the OWNER and shall
neither be used on any other work nor be used by
any other person for any use whatsoever without the
written permission from the OWNER.
written dimensions shall take precedence over
scaled dimensions and shall be verified at the
construction site. any dimensional discrepancy shall
be brought to the attention of the OWNER prior to
the commencement of work
this document is 'NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION'
unless the architect or engineer's signature and seal
appear below
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
PROJECT:
REVISION:
RESTAURANT
phoenix arizona 85016
concept
of record:
DESIGN ETHIC
l a n d s a p e a r c h i t e c t u r e
7525 EAST 6TH AVENUE SCOTTSDALE, ARIZONA 85251
480.225.7077
FORGING NEW ENVIRONMENTS
of
L.02
L.02
OF 2
19-062
B. PAUL
B. PAUL
REV 1
PHO SUBMISSION
12/06/2019
REV 2
SITE PLAN REVISIONS
02/04/2020
2
G
E
E
E
31
31
29
29
30
30
35
35
33
33
34
34
32
32
27
27
67
67
66
66
64
64
65
65
66
6
72
72
71
71
7
68
68
68
6
67
69
69
69
6
68
70
70
70
74
74
73
73
72
E
E
E
E
G
E
G
2
2
28
28
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
A
E
E
4
NUMBERED TREES ARE
EXISTING - TO REMAIN
NUMBERED TREES ARE
EXISTING - TO REMAIN
6
7
PLANTING ON 30" BERM
FOR SCREENING

ATTACHMENT I

ATTACHMENT J

ATTACHMENT K

Planning Hearing Officer Summary of February 19, 2020
Application Z-4-10-6
Page 1

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

February 19, 2020

ITEM 3

DISTRICT 6
SUBJECT:

Application #:
Z-4-10-6 (PHO-1-19)
Zoning:
P-1
Location:
Approximately 300 feet east and 160 feet south of the southeast
corner of 31st Street and Camelback Road
Acreage:
0.36
Request:
1) Modification of Stipulation 1 regarding general conformance with
the site plan date stamped March 11, 2010 and the landscape
plan date stamped April 8, 2010.
2) Deletion of Stipulation 2.e regarding landscape palette.
3) Deletion of Stipulation 4 regarding a minimum 10-foot landscape
setback along the west property line.
4) Technical corrections to Stipulations 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7.
Applicant:
Rakesh Patel, Hillstone Restaurant Group
Owner:
Hillstone Restaurant Group, Inc.
Representative:
Heidi Short, Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie

ACTIONS

Planning Hearing Officer Recommendation: The Planning Hearing Officer took this case
under advisement. On February, 28, 2020, the Planning Hearing Officer took this case
out from under advisement and recommended denial as filed and approval with
modifications.

Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation: The Camelback East Village
Planning Committee opted not to hear this case.

DISCUSSION

Bill Lally, representative with Tiffany & Bosco, stated that the C-2 site (Z-41-94-6) and
P-1 site (Z-4-10-6) are a combined redevelopment for a new Hillstone Restaurant. He
gave background about the Hillstone Restaurant Group, including their mission and
values. He stated that the existing Donovan’s Restaurant is approximately 11,000
square feet and closer to the residential homes to the south than the proposed new
restaurant building. He stated that the proposed restaurant will be half the footprint of
Donovan’s and will provide two and a half times the amount of required parking. He
added that the proposed restaurant will be more residential in scale and built closer to
the intersection at 31st Street and Camelback Road. He added that the power poles on

Planning Hearing Officer Summary of February 19, 2020
Application Z-4-10-6
Page 2

the site will also be buried. Adam Stranieri asked for clarification regarding the location
of the power poles. Mr. Lally clarified that the power poles run east to west along the
southern boundary of the site. He added that this will not only benefit Hillstone, but also
beautify the neighborhood. He stated that modifications and deletions are necessary to
accommodate the new proposed restaurant.

Mr. Stranieri asked for clarification regarding the height depicted on the stipulated site
plan for the existing Donovan’s Restaurant, specifically the two-story element at the
southwest corner. Rakesh Patel, applicant with Hillstone Restaurant Group, clarified
that the second floor was for office and storage space. He added that the space on the
second floor was not for customer seating.

Mr. Lally stated that an updated site plan and landscape plan were submitted to the
Planning Hearing Officer on February 11, 2020. He added that both plans depicted a
10-foot landscape setback along the west property line of the P-1 zoned parking area.
He clarified that the applicant’s original request asked for deletion of Stipulation 4,
regarding a minimum 10-foot landscape setback along the west property line, but are
now requesting to withdraw their request for deletion of this stipulation.

Mr. Lally stated that he is aware of neighborhood concerns about Stipulation 6,
regarding egress to 31st Street and signage and hours of access for a service driveway.
He stated that the proposed site plan has been modified to create a circulation pattern
that does not encourage traffic to move south into the neighborhood. He stated that it is
logical for patrons of the restaurant to ingress and egress directly from Camelback Road
and that the proposed driveway was unlikely to be used for access to the neighborhood
to the south or to bypass Camelback Road. Mr. Stranieri asked for clarification
regarding proposed driveway movements on 31st Street. He noted that the applicant’s
conceptual site plan and request language address right-turn egress from the site to
31st Street only, while the applicant’s presentation suggests that right and left-turn
ingress is proposed. Mr. Lally stated that they are proposing multiple routes to and from
the site including left and right-turn ingress and right-turn egress on 31st Street.

Mr. Lally stated that there was extensive outreach to the neighborhood. He stated that
over the past nine months there were two mailers, ten meetings, twelve calls and/or text
messages, and fifty emails.

Colleen Geretti, President of Brentwood Estates Home Owners Association and
resident of the neighborhood, stated that the modification of Stipulation 6 is
inappropriate and would erode the preservation of the residential neighborhood to the
south. She stated that she submitted a letter discussing Stipulation 6 and opposition
letters from 80% of the homeowners in the Brentwood Estates subdivision, adjacent to
the subject property to the south. She stated that residents are excited at the prospect
of having Hillstone as a neighbor but had serious concerns regarding the driveway on
31st Street. She stated that the existing stipulated one-way service driveway posed
ongoing issues for the neighborhood while Donovan’s Restaurant was in operation.
She explained that employees, customers, and vendors used the neighborhood to enter
the restaurant’s parking area, drop off patrons, and/or park. She shared a graphic with
the applicant and Planning Hearing Officer depicting two proposed alternative access

Planning Hearing Officer Summary of February 19, 2020
Application Z-4-10-6
Page 3

options: a shared entry with the commercial office building to the east or a second
driveway on Camelback Road.

Mr. Stranieri asked if Ms. Geretti could provide any additional information regarding the
driveway on the east property line depicted on the stipulated site plan. Ms. Geretti
stated that the driveway does exist, and Donovan’s Restaurant used the driveway to
access the parking garage at 3131 East Camelback for overflow parking and valet. Ms.
Geretti added that the history of cross-access with this site is why a shared entry on the
east side of the site would make sense as an additional option for the proposed
development. Bryce Johnson, owner with Hillstone Restaurant Group, responded that
there is an existing driveway on the east, but that there was no cross-access
agreement. He stated that he spoke with the owners of the office building to the east
and they rejected the proposal to create any new cross-access driveways and that they
are now forced to close the existing driveway on the east. He added that City staff
stated that they would not allow the developer to build a second driveway on
Camelback Road.

Angelo Sbrocca, a resident of the neighborhood, stated that Hillstone would be an asset
to the neighborhood, but objected to access on 31st Street. He stated that while the
Donovan’s was in operation residents would often see produce trucks and rideshare
vehicles utilizing the driveway. He stated that he would encourage the ownership to
continue working with neighboring office buildings regarding cross-access.

John Kalil, a resident of the neighborhood, stated that the location is a great site for a
restaurant, but was faced with commercial traffic issues while Donovan’s was in
operation. He recognized that Hillstone is proposing a different size and style of
restaurant but feels that signage will not be effective to deter patron traffic on 31st
Street.

Jessica Wilson, a resident of the neighborhood, stated that she is excited to have
Hillstone in the neighborhood, but has concerns with the driveway on 31st Street. She
stated that people will use the driveway on 31st Street and drive through the
neighborhood to avoid congestion on Camelback Road. She asked the representatives
and ownership present why they needed the driveway on 31st Street and if the 94
parking spaces provided will be adequate.

Melissa Glissmeyer, a resident of the neighborhood, stated that the landscaping and
restaurant concept will benefit the neighborhood. She added that the existing P-1 lot is
vacant and an eyesore, so she is thankful that Hillstone decided to extend their parking
into that site. She stated that she understood the restaurant would need a secondary
entrance for fire safety reasons. She stated that she bought her home in the
neighborhood last year and as far as she knew, Brentwood Estates did not have a
home owners association.

Jay Swart, Chair of the Camelback East Village Planning Committee, stated that it is
important to embrace economically viable development while also protecting
neighborhoods. He stated that the Hillstone Restaurant Group is proposing a restaurant
that is conscious of the surrounding community. He stated that the median at 31st

Planning Hearing Officer Summary of February 19, 2020
Application Z-4-10-6
Page 4

Street may restrict people from turning onto that street. He noted that it may be
beneficial for the restaurant to provide brochures that discourage patrons from using the
driveway on 31st Street.

John Fagnani, a resident of the neighborhood, stated that traffic will utilize the driveway
on 31st Street. He added that there will be congestion, despite the median, as people
wait to turn left onto Camelback Road from 31st Street. He stated that he is excited for
the restaurant but noted that traffic will negatively affect the neighborhood.

Josh Richer, a resident of the neighborhood, stated that it will be natural for drivers to
use the neighborhood as a shortcut to 32nd Street.

Mr. Lally stated that he utilized Google Maps to determine the fastest route to the
restaurant, and that the suggested route was always via Camelback Road. He added
that the restaurant and its traffic generation will be vastly different from Donovan’s
because they are significantly decreasing the restaurant size with 24 tables and 24
seats at the bar. Mr. Stranieri clarified that neither seating nor tables are the metric
used to determine the parking requirement. He added that required parking for
restaurants is determined by square footage of dining area. He stated that based on
the size of the proposed restaurant, there would be 38 parking spaces required.

Mr. Lally stated that he believed people will use the driveway on 31st Street to go north
to Camelback Road. He stated that the road should not be restricted because the
dynamic between the restaurant and adjacent properties is not unique. He added that
commercial and residential uses interface along Camelback Road via collector streets
and are not restricted anywhere else. Mr. Stranieri asked for clarification regarding why
staff had suggested a second driveway on Camelback Road was not possible. Mr. Lally
stated that there was a spacing issue created by a flood irrigation line.

Mr. Stranieri asked for clarification regarding the applicant’s submittal for a variance
regarding a reduction in the building setback adjacent to Camelback Road. He asked if
there would be outdoor dining, alcohol, or dancing, or recreation within the outdoor
space. Mr. Lally stated that there would not be any outdoor uses in that space.

Mr. Stranieri stated that other than the remaining questions regarding the proposed
drive-through, he saw no major issues with the proposed site plan. He stated that it was
uncommon to see a modification to reduce intensity and scale on a property adjacent to
a major arterial street.

Mr. Stranieri stated that the deletion of Stipulation 2, regarding conditional approval, and
Stipulation 3, regarding zoning being vested with final site plan approval, could be
accurately characterized as an administrative action. He added that the conditions of
the stipulations were met with the development of Donovan’s Restaurant and adoption
of the Supplementary Zoning Map, which vested the C-2 zoning.

Mr. Stranieri stated that Stipulation 5, regarding the existing oleander hedge along the
south boundary of the site, would not be enforceable since the hedge no longer exists.
He asked if the applicant intends to establish general conformance to a landscape plan.

Planning Hearing Officer Summary of February 19, 2020
Application Z-4-10-6
Page 5

Mr. Lally stated that was correct. He added that they wanted to conform to landscaping
that was agreed upon with the neighborhood. Mr. Stranieri stated that he had concerns
about the landscape plan because it only depicted one-inch caliper trees, which do not
meet Ordinance requirements. He added that this will have to be enhanced to include
two-inch caliper trees during the landscape review process to meet the Ordinance
standard of 60% one-inch and 40% two-inch caliper trees.

Mr. Stranieri stated that the Street Transportation Department submitted
recommendations regarding a minimum 25-foot wide driveway along 31st Street,
enhanced pedestrian connection from the southern parking lot to the building entrance,
and a 30-foot wide driveway along Camelback Road.

Mr. Stranieri stated that he received 46 pieces of correspondence within the 24 hours
prior to the hearing, 37 of which were received after close of business the day before.
He stated that he would like more time to review the material and review the ingress
and egress concerns raised by the speakers with a traffic reviewer. He stated that he
also wanted to speak with the Street Transportation Department regarding any traffic
calming options regarding the proposed driveway on 31st Street. Because of these
reasons, the PHO stated that he would take Z-41-94-6 (PHO-2-19) under advisement.

Regarding Z-4-10-6 (PHO-1-19), Mr. Stranieri stated that he had no issues with the site
plan or landscape plan. He stated that he was inclined to recommend approval of the
deletion of Stipulation 2.e, regarding the landscape palette, because the palette of the
adjacent office building is not appropriate for the site. He stated that he was inclined to
recommend denial as filed of the deletion of Stipulation 4 since the applicant intends to
retain the stipulation.

Mr. Stranieri asked if the applicant would prefer both cases to be taken under
advisement. Mr. Lally stated that he wanted to keep the cases together. For this
reason, the Planning Hearing Officer stated that he would take Z-4-10-6 (PHO-1-19)
under advisement as well.

FINDINGS

1) The stipulated site plan depicted 24 parking spaces intended to provide
additional parking for the Donovan’s restaurant that existed on the adjacent
commercial property to the north at the time of the original rezoning (see Finding
#5). The proposed site plan depicts 22 parking spaces intended to service the
proposed new restaurant on the same adjacent commercial property to the north.
The proposed modification reduces the potential impact of parking activity on
nearby residential properties.

2) The proposed site plan depicts a pedestrian pathway on the adjacent commercial
property to the north running east-west from the west property line to the main
building entrance on the proposed restaurant. A pedestrian pathway is
recommended that connects the 22 parking spaces on the subject property of
this request to that pathway to ensure safe pedestrian access from the parking
area to the restaurant. This pathway is also stipulated in related case PHO-2-

Planning Hearing Officer Summary of February 19, 2020
Application Z-4-10-6
Page 6

19—Z-41-94-6 (see Finding #5). A portion of this pathway may be partially
located within the subject property of this case and therefore the stipulation is
also recommended to be included.

3) Stipulation 2.e requires the landscaping palette to be similar to the landscaping
on the adjacent commercial property to the east. Both the character and size of
this landscaping area is significantly different than that of the subject parcel. The
applicant has proposed new language requiring general conformance to a
landscape plan that is consistent with the landscaping on the adjacent
commercial property to the north that is proposed to include the restaurant that
this parcel will provide parking for. It is desirable to have consistency between
these parcels. Additionally, the proposed plant palette consists of dense foliage
trees such as acacia and ficus that will contribute to screening appropriate for a
parking lot adjacent to residential uses.

4) At the hearing, the applicant stated that they would like to withdraw their request
to modify Stipulation 4 regarding a minimum 10-foot landscape setback along the
west property line. The enhanced setback and tree caliper sizes required by this
stipulation are appropriate for a property line that is shared with an existing
single-family home. The stipulation is recommended to remain with minor
revisions to update it to current standard language format.

5) Adjacent to the north is C-2 zoned commercial property which was rezoned in
case no. Z-41-94-6. This property was originally rezoned to allow a restaurant
which was developed and has since closed. The subject property is currently
proposed to redevelop with a newer, smaller restaurant. Modifications to the
stipulations in this case are proposed in case no. PHO-2-19—Z-41-94-6 which
was also heard on this agenda.

DECISION: The Planning Hearing Officer took this case under advisement. On
February, 28, 2020, the Planning Hearing Officer took this case out from under
advisement and recommended denial as filed and approval with modifications.

STIPULATIONS

Planning Hearing Officer Summary of February 19, 2020
Application Z-4-10-6
Page 7