Attachment B - PHO VPC Summary - PHO-1-23--Z-61-21-6.pdf
Extracted text (via pymupdf)
8260 characters
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-1-23--Z-61-21-6 Date of VPC Meeting June 6, 2023 Date of Planning Hearing Officer Hearing June 21, 2023 Request 1) Modification of stipulation 1 regarding general conformance with site plan and elevations date stamped September 2, 2021. 2) Modification of stipulation 1a regarding the maximum building height. 3) Modification of stipulation 8 regarding signage. 4) Modification of stipulation 9 the location of bicycle parking. 5) Modification of stipulation 11 regarding pedestrian pathways. 6) Modification of stipulation 14 regarding shared access drives. 7) Deletion of stipulation 15 regarding a maximum of one driveway. Location Approximately 100 feet north of the northeast corner of 44th Street and Earl Drive VPC Recommendation Denial VPC Vote 10-2 VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS: Five members of the public registered to speak on this item in opposition. One member of the public registered in support, not wishing to speak. STAFF PRESENTATON John Roanhorse, staff, provided an overview of the PHO request, describing the location, general plan designation, existing zoning district, and the surrounding uses. Mr. Roanhorse relayed the case history, the stipulations, and the process for the PHO Hearing. APPLICANT PRESENTATION: Mr. Rod Jarvis, representing the applicant with Gallagher & Kennedy, introduced himself and provided an overview of the PHO case. Mr. Jarvis stated that the proposal began in February 2021 and was approved with stipulations for the R-O zoning. Mr. ATTACHMENT B City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 Jarvis stated in the time since the initial approval his client wants a new building that was better suited to dental and endodontic practice which included changes to the site and building. Mr. Jarvis stated the changes reflect the neighborhood and provide higher end architecture to improve space on the site and as proposed will be appropriate on 44th Street and is consistent with the R-O zoning. Mr. Jarvis stated that increasing the building height will improve that appearance to accommodate mechanical equipment and building structure and that the building will remain a single story. Mr. Jarvis stated that the stipulations would be adjusted not eliminated to be consistent with the architectural style. Mr. Jarvis shared that any signage would be permitted by the City and meet all illumination requirements. Mr. Jarvis said that the request to eliminate the cross-access agreement was necessary to allow for one building, and the driveways would also be adjusted for this accommodation. Mr. Ryan Reynolds with Rencord, on behalf of the applicant confirmed that one driveway would allow access and one would allow egress onto 44th Street. QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE: Mr. Paceley thanked Mr. Jarvis for his work and asked for confirmation on the proposed building height. Mr. Jarvis responded that the detailed plans have not been finalized so they are requesting 24 feet for height to allow for any architectural adjustments. Mr. Paceley stated that there should be an assurance for the correct and approved height and some additional landscaping should be added on the east side for buffering to adjacent properties. Mr. Jarvis responded that there would be no second level or mezzanine in the building and all lighting would be directed downward, sign lighting will be minimized, and a new 8-foot wall could be added if needed to increase screening. Mr. Jarvis stated that they would introduce more trees in the landscaping to promote buffering to adjacent properties. Mr. Abbot inquired about combining the two lots and what assurance are there to prevent future subdivisions. Mr. Jarvis responded that it would be impossible to build on two lots and joining them would be necessary for this proposal. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Wally Graham, a resident who lives near that site, stated he opposed the proposal and inquired why this PHO request was being presented at the Village Committee Meeting. Mr. Graham expressed concern that the information and the discussion for the proposal may bias the outcome and asked when was the PHO information was provided to the public and if neighbors were notified about the request. Mr. Graham asked when did the Planning and Development Department disseminate information and did it reflect the proposed changes that is before the Committee. Ms. Graham expressed concern about the review process and stated he had reviewed the original proposal. Chair Swart responded that the Village Planning Committee can hear a PHO at the recommendation of the Chair, and he had a request from Mr. Jarvis. Chair Swart stated that the Village Planning Committee is an opportunity to vet proposal and not all PHO’s are heard. Chair Swart referred to staff to clarify when notices and information was disseminated. Mr. Jarvis stated that a meeting notice was sent to neighbors. Mr. Graham responded that the notices were not sent out in a timely manner and many people could not attend the neighborhood meeting on such a short notice. Mr. Graham stated that he has City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 concerns with moving this proposal forward because of the notice and the current process that was not conducted in a timely manner for the public. Bryce Ojoinach a resident who lives near the proposed development stated he opposes the changes and allowing it would be detrimental to the neighborhood. Mr. Ojoinach stated the neighborhood has a character in lot size, appearance and building structures the proposal would create more parking and traffic, an illuminated sign and increased building height would change the look and feel of the neighborhood. Susan Panganiban a resident who lives near the proposed development stated she opposes the project and when it was first reviewed, they did not want a big office building. Ms. Panganiban stated that what is being presented is a drastic change and is not a residential office and expressed concern with security in the area. Ms. Panganiban echoed Mr. Ojoinach’s concerns with the proposal. David O’Malley, a resident who lives near the proposed development stated he opposes the proposal and felt that what is presented was not in the original approval and it appears to be much larger. Neal Haddad with the Arcadia Osborn Neighborhood Association stated he had worked with Mr. Jarvis on the proposal in the past and it was a good residential office project. Mr. Haddad stated the original proposal had a residential appearance and was a great buffer to the adjacent residential area. Mr. Haddad expressed concern that no sketches and drawings were introduced to support the proposal for the height and appearance and the changes as proposed would be out of character. Mr. Haddad stated he was concerned that the neighborhood meeting was conducted in such a short time frame and was not able to get all the information. APPLICANT RESPONSE: Mr. Jarvis stated he reached out to Mr. Haddad and Mr. Graham and did not get a response, so he contacted some of the residents and he was aware that it was late in the process. Mr. Jarvis stated the fact of the matter is that the neighbors want to keep the two existing houses and that is not going to work for the proposed development and that the R-O zoning has already been approved. MOTION: Committee Member Vic Grace motioned to recommend denial of PHO-1-23--Z-61-21- 6. Committee Member Sharon Schmieder seconded the motion. VOTE: 10-2; motion to recommend denial of PHO-1-23--Z-61-21-6 passes with Committee members Abbott, Baumert, Eichelkraut, Grace, Langmade, Miller, Paceley, Schmieder, Fischbach and Swart in favor and Committee Members Langmade and Wilenchik in opposition. STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION & STIPULATIONS: Staff has no comments.