Attachment B - Summary - PHO-2-22--Z-206-86-8(7).pdf
Extracted text (via pymupdf)
19379 characters
REPORT OF PLANNING HEARING OFFICER ACTION Adam Stranieri, Planner III, Hearing Officer Bradley Wylam, Planner I, Assisting August 17, 2022 ITEM NO: 4 DISTRICT 7 SUBJECT: Application #: PHO-2-22--Z-206-86-8(7) (Continued from July 20, 2022) Location: Approximately 340 feet north of the northwest corner of Jesse Owens Parkway and Baseline Road Zoning: C-2 BAOD Acreage: 1.93 Request: 1) Deletion of Stipulation 2 regarding general conformance to the site plan submitted. 2) Modification of Stipulation 19 regarding general conformance to the site plan presented to the Planning Hearing Officer on July 26, 1989. 3) Technical corrections to Stipulations 3, 6, 8, 11, 16, and 20. Applicant: Andrew Biskind, TBBG Acquisitions LLC Owner: Herbert and Patricia Dreiseszun Trust Representative: Benjamin Tate, Withey Morris PLC ACTIONS: Planning Hearing Officer Recommendation: The Planning Hearing Officer took the case under advisement. On September 14, 2022, the Planning Hearing Officer took the case out from under advisement and recommended approval with a modification and additional stipulations. Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation: The South Mountain Village Planning Committee opted not to hear this case. DISCUSSION: Benjamin Tate, representative with Withey Morris PLC, provided an overview of the subject site, surrounding uses, and the original rezoning case. He reviewed the proposed conceptual site plan and noted that the 16-unit townhome development consists of eight two-unit buildings. He stated that each building would be two stories in height and include individual two-car garages for each unit. He stated that the developer attended two development pre-application meetings to understand the provisions of the Baseline Area Overlay District (BAOD) and how they impact the site. He stated that the conceptual site plan has Attachment B Planning Hearing Officer Summary of August 17, 2022 Application PHO-2-22—Z-206-86-8(7) been reconfigured to address view corridor considerations while allowing all two- story buildings. Mr. Tate provided an overview of the request language and noted that Stipulations 2 and 19 regarding general conformance to the site plan are redundant. He reviewed the additional stipulation recommended by the Street Transportation Department and noted that the continuance from the July 20, 2022 PHO hearing was to allow follow up with Street Transportation Department staff regarding this recommendation. He reviewed their rationale and to the referenced Ordinance section, Section 507 Tab A.II.E. He stated that the $50,000 in escrow for a HAWK installation recommended by staff is not proportionate to the level of impact of the project on canal bank usage, as described in Section 507 Tab A II.E.2.(2.4.2). He discussed the text and intent of Section 507 Tab A II.E.2.(2.4.2), ARS § 9-500.13., and the legal concept of a ‘proportionality test’ as relevant to ‘Dolan v. City of Tigard’. Mr. Tate stated that the Proximity Central development, located at the northeast corner of Jesse Owens Parkway and the Western Canal, has received preliminary site plan approval for a 243-unit multifamily development and has also been asked to contribute $50,000 in escrow for the HAWK installation. He stated that per the language of Section 507 Tab A II.E.2.(2.4.2), the proportionate share of the two developments is not equal, and his client’s proposed development should be stipulated to a lesser amount. He stated that he believed he would reach an agreement with the Street Transportation Department during the continuance period but noted that the Street Transportation Department reiterated its recommendation. Mr. Tate provided calculations intended to reflect a ‘proportionate share’ of the cost of the HAWK as compared to the $50,000 requested of the developers of the Proximity Central development. He separately compared the number of units, bedrooms, and lot area between the two developments. He then provided a calculation relevant to each of these categories to determine a proportionate share, based on the $50,000 required of Proximity Central. He stated that the proportionate share for the subject site based on unit count would be $3,292. He stated that the proportionate share for the subject site based on bedrooms would be $6,315. He stated that the proportionate share for the subject site based on lot area would be $7,740. Mr. Tate stated that the proposed development has been designed to meet the goals and policies of the BAOD and South Central TOD Policy Plan. He stated that the development will benefit an area with a significant housing shortage. He stated that compliance with the Street Transportation Department recommendation would likely render the project unfeasible. Planning Hearing Officer Summary of August 17, 2022 Application PHO-2-22—Z-206-86-8(7) Adam Stranieri, Planning Hearing Officer, stated that no correspondence was received prior to the hearing and that the South Mountain Village Planning Committee opted not to hear the case. He stated that he has spoken with Street Transportation Department staff and noted that they have not modified their original recommendation regarding the additional stipulation. He agreed that there is a lack of clarity on Section 507 Tab A II.E.2.(2.4.2), in regard to how to calculate a developer’s proportionate share of costs based on the level of impact of the project on canal bank usage. However, he expressed concern regarding whether it was the appropriate role of the Planning Hearing Officer to effectively issue an interpretation of this Ordinance section as requested by the applicant. Mr. Stranieri stated that the $50,000 required by the stipulation represents approximately one quarter of the cost of a HAWK installation. He noted that the calculations provided by Mr. Tate are based on an assumption that $50,000 is the appropriate ‘proportionate share’ for the Proximity Central development and expressed doubt that this type of calculation was employed to arrive at the number. Mr. Tate responded that the amount requested from the Proximity Central development should be considered to have established a baseline for the developments at this intersection. Mr. Stranieri responded that the Proximity Central development is clearly the largest development at the intersection and that based on this approach, the recommended infrastructure would never achieve 100% funding. He explained that this calculation would result in each of the remaining corners providing less than one quarter of the cost. Mr. Tate argued that Section 507 Tab A II.E.2.(2.4.2) does not specify whether the total contributions of all developments at a given intersection need to provide 100% of the cost of recommended infrastructure. He stated that a HAWK crossing is the most expensive option for this intersection and suggested that $50,000 may not actually constitute 1/4th of the cost for a HAWK crossing. Mr. Tate stated that the HAWK crossing may not be necessary for this intersection due to the amount of traffic and provided examples of locations of existing HAWK crossings. Mr. Stranieri stated that due to the complexity of Mr. Tate’s arguments during the hearing and the fact that he did not have the opportunity to consider this rationale prior to the hearing, he would take the case under advisement to further review it. He noted that he would like to review the remaining elements of the request prior to closing the hearing on this request. Mr. Stranieri stated that he would be inclined to recommend approval of the deletion of Stipulation 2 regarding general conformance to the site plan and noted that this stipulation is redundant of Stipulation 19. He stated that he would also be inclined to recommend deletion of Stipulation 19 which would allow him to recommend a new general conformance stipulation that can be established as a new Stipulation 1 for clarity. Planning Hearing Officer Summary of August 17, 2022 Application PHO-2-22—Z-206-86-8(7) Mr. Stranieri noted that the applicant had done significant work coordinating with Site Planning staff to address design guidelines regarding view corridors and building height in both Section 507 Tab A and the BAOD. He noted that final approval of compliance with these guidelines was not confirmed or approved by the PHO or by adding a general conformance stipulation. However, he stated that he had communicated with Site Planning section staff who agreed that unless the conceptual site plan were significantly modified, these guidelines were unlikely to create any major concerns regarding general conformance to the proposed conceptual site plan. He stated that the Floodplain Management section comment noted that the subject site is partially located within a Special Flood Hazard Area but did not recommend any additional stipulations. Mr. Tate stated that they are aware of the floodplain. Andrew Biskind, applicant, stated that the proposed development has run into a variety of issues during the development process. He stated that Street Transportation Department staff has not been willing to work with them regarding their recommended stipulation and he does not believe staff has a valid rationale to support their recommendation. Mr. Tate stated that Section 507 Tab A II.E.2.(2.4.2) may not necessarily apply to a legislative action, such as a PHO request, but he noted that a State court would likely look for analysis regarding what “rough proportionality” means. He stated that they would look to the City Code to understand how the City calculates a proportionate share as noted in Section 507 Tab A II.E.2.(2.4.2). He stated that any determination of a proportionate share must be based upon the level of impact on canal bank usage as stated in the Ordinance. He noted that there is an idea that development pays for itself, in terms of infrastructure, based on the impact the development has. He stated that the proposed development is not roughly proportionate with the Proximity Central development and that these projects will have disparate impacts on canal bank usage. He stated that there is no situation where it could be found that both developments would require the same amount of funding to be provided towards the recommended infrastructure. Mr. Stranieri took the case under advisement. FINDINGS: 1) The request to delete Stipulation 2 regarding general conformance is recommended to be approved. Staff was unable to determine what site plan is referenced as having been ‘submitted’ in the text of Stipulation 2. Additionally, the stipulation’s requirement to adjust district boundaries appears to have been completed with the approval of companion Rezoning Case Nos. Z-207-86, Z-208-86, and other rezoning cases in the immediate area. As discussed in Finding 2, please note that this Planning Hearing Officer Summary of August 17, 2022 Application PHO-2-22—Z-206-86-8(7) recommendation also includes a New Stipulation 1 that addresses general conformance to the applicant’s proposed conceptual site plan. 2) The request to modify Stipulation 19 is recommended to be approved with a modification and an additional stipulation. The modification deletes Stipulation 19 in its entirety and instead creates a new Stipulation 1 for general conformance, using standard language. There is no change to the applicant’s intent to stipulate general conformance to the proposed conceptual site plan. After a review of the physical case file, staff was unable to find a site plan dated July 26, 1989, as referenced in Stipulation 19. However, other conceptual site plans in the original case file depicted an office complex and retail pad building on the site that did not develop. The property remains vacant. The proposed conceptual site plan depicts a 16-unit multifamily residential development at a density of approximately 9.47 dwelling units per gross acre. Building height is not depicted on the site plan, however the project will be required to comply with all relevant standards and guidelines regarding height in the Canal Bank Design Guidelines, the Baseline Area Overlay District, and its underlying zoning district. The applicant noted that the site plan is intended to prioritize view corridors looking toward South Mountain through building location, consideration of existing building massing to the north, and use of duplex buildings. The proposal is compatible in scale and intensity with existing development in the surrounding area. 3) Following the hearing, the Street Transportation Department provided a revised department comment recommending an additional stipulation requiring the developer to provide $15,000 in an escrow account for installation of a HAWK at Jesse Owens Parkway and the Western Canal. This stipulation is recommended for inclusion. The funds identified will contribute towards installation of an appropriate safety measure at this canal crossing. A HAWK has already been identified as the preferred treatment. STIPULATIONS: 1. THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE IN GENERAL CONFORMANCE WITH THE SITE PLAN DATE STAMPED JUNE 1, 2022, AS MODIFIED BY THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. Planning Hearing Officer Summary of August 17, 2022 Application PHO-2-22—Z-206-86-8(7) 2. 1. That Within 90 days of final City Council approval of this zoning change, a rezoning application SHALL be filed to adjust zoning district boundaries to conform to alignment of the loop road, and to include the existing C-2 zoned property fronting Central Avenue. 2. That development be in general conformance to the site plan submitted, with the understanding that rezoning is required to adjust district boundaries. 3. That The entire development proposal SHALL be subject to the Development Coordination Office PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT site plan review and approval in accordance with Section 511 of the Zoning Ordinance. 4. That Approval SHALL be conditioned upon development of the commercial districts within 24 months and the residential districts within 36 months of City Council zoning approval in accordance with Section 108-M of the Zoning Ordinance. 5. That An average landscaped setback of 51 feet for any building and parking area will be provided along Baseline Road and average landscaped setback of 25 feet will be provided along Central Avenue measured from the property line. 6. That Two rows of 24-inch box-sized citrus trees and/or date palms and large areas of flowers will be planted along Baseline Road, 20 feet on center or equivalent groupings as approved by the PLANNING AND Development DEPARTMENT Coordination Office. 7. That There shall be mature landscaping along Central Avenue to include 24-inch box trees spaced a maximum of 25 feet on center or placed in equivalent groupings. 8. That All parking along Baseline Road and Central Avenue shall be screened with landscaped berms, a three-foot wall, or combination thereof, as approved by the PLANNING AND Development DEPARTMENT Coordination Office. 9. That Five percent or more of interior parking shall be landscaped with reasonable distribution throughout the parking area and along the face of the buildings. 10. That No drive-through facility on the site will have its drive-through land facing any public right-of-way with the exception of the new road. Planning Hearing Officer Summary of August 17, 2022 Application PHO-2-22—Z-206-86-8(7) 11. That A pedestrian and bike trail SHALL be provided and maintained along Baseline Road and the loop roadway, the location, width, coloration, and design of which is to be determined by the PLANNING AND Development DEPARTMENT Coordination Office review. That The improvements (sidewalk, etc.) made through the Improvement District SHALL remain and accommodate the intent of this stipulation. 12. That All rooftop mechanical units shall be screened by parapet walls, building walls or enclosed in a mechanical equipment penthouse that shall BE architecturally integrated with the buildings. 13. That Apartment buildings along the north portion of the site shall be limited to two-stories in height. 14. That Signage will be in conformance with the guidelines (recommendations) adopted by the South Mountain Village Planning Committee (the “Committee”) for the Baseline Scenic Parkway, provided: a. Those guidelines are adopted by the time the applicant is ready to install signage; b. The applicant has the opportunity to provide input to the Committee concerning the appropriate dimensions and appearance of the signage; c. The guidelines specifically address signage for commercial shopping centers. 15. That The intersection of Central Avenue with Jesse Owens Parkway is to align with Fremont Drive (one quarter mile point) to the west of Central Avenue or offset no more than a half street width to the south of that alignment. (This is imperative in order to coordinate the traffic signals and minimize delay for traffic on Central AVENUE). 16. That Future signalization of Jesse Owens Parkway and Central Avenue and Baseline Road will be at the expense of the developer. Traffic signals will not be installed until the warrants are met or a need is supported by a traffic study submitted and reviewed by the Streets and Traffic STREET TRANSPORTATION Department. 17. That Right lanes will be required on Baseline Road at Jesse Owens Parkway and on Central Avenue at Jesse Owens Parkway. Planning Hearing Officer Summary of August 17, 2022 Application PHO-2-22—Z-206-86-8(7) 18. That Construction of an internal loop road and bridge over the Western Canal SHALL be provided by the applicant/property owner with cooperation and support by the City of Phoenix in the first phase of development. 19. That the site be developed in general conformance to the site plan presented to the Planning Hearing Officer on July 26, 1989, which is for the property east of the Jesse Owens Parkway and is for a K-Mart development. 19. 20. That Walls or fencing along the north side of the Western Canal shall be offset to reduce scale and bulk and to maximize the safety and security for pedestrians and other persons using the trail along the canal, as approved by the PLANNING AND Development DEPARTMENT Coordination Office. If masonry walls are used along the north side of the canal, they shall be attractively landscaped and maintained and shall be colored to blend in with the surrounding landscaping. 20. THE DEVELOPER SHALL PROVIDE $15,000.00 IN AN ESCROW ACCOUNT TO THE STREET TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT FOR A HAWK INSTALLATION AT JESSE OWENS PARKWAY AND THE WESTERN CANAL, PRIOR TO PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL. Upon request, this publication will be made available within a reasonable length of time through appropriate auxiliary aids or services to accommodate an individual with a disability. This publication may be made available through the following auxiliary aids or services: large print, Braille, audiotape or computer diskette. To request a reasonable accommodation, please contact Les Scott at leslie.scott@phoenix.gov or 602-376-3981 or TTY: 7-1-1.