Attachment D - PHO Application - PHO-1-23--Z-61-21-6.pdf
Extracted text (via pymupdf)
54439 characters
PLEASE RESPOND ELECTRONICALLY TO CHASE HALE 2ND FLOOR, 602-262-4544
To:
Date: May 15, 2023
From:
Departments Concerned
Joshua Bednarek
Planning & Development Department Director
Subject: P.H.O. APPLICATION NO. PHO-1-23--Z-61-21-6 – Notice of Pending Actions
by the Planning Hearing Officer
1.
Your attention is called to the fact that the Planning Hearing Officer will
consider the following case at a public hearing on June 21, 2023.
2.
Information about this case is available for review at the Zoning Counter in
the Planning and Development Department on the 2nd Floor of Phoenix City
Hall, telephone 602-262-7131, Option 6.
3.
Staff, please indicate your comments and respond electronically to
pdd.pho@phoenix.gov or you may provide hard copies at the Zoning Counter
in the Planning and Development Department on the second floor of Phoenix
City Hall by May 22, 2023.
DISTRIBUTION
Mayor’s Office (Tony Montola), 11th Floor
City Council (Stephanie Bracken), 11th Floor
Aviation (Jordan D. Feld )
CED (Michelle Pierson), 20th Floor
Fire Prevention (Aaron Conway), 2nd Floor
Light Rail (Joel Carrasco/Special TOD Only)
Neighborhood Services (Gregory Gonzales, Lisa Huggins), 4th Floor
Parks & Recreation (Natasha Hughes), 16th Floor
Public Transit (Michael Pierce)
Street Transportation Department (Maja Brkovic, Josh Rogers, Alan Hilty, Chris
Kowalsky), 5th Floor
Street Transportation - Ped. Safety Coordinator (Mailen Pankiewicz), 5th Floor
Street Transportation - Floodplain Management (Kristina Jensen, Priscilla Motola, Rudy
Rangel), 5th Floor
Water Services (Don Reynolds, Victor Romo), 8th Floor
Planning and Development (Joshua Bednarek, Tricia Gomes), 3rd Floor
Planning and Development/Information Services (Ben Ernyei, Andrew Wickhorst), 4th Floor
Planning and Development/Historic Preservation Office (Kevin Weight), 3rd Floor
Planning Hearing Officer (Byron Easton, Chase Hales), 2nd Floor
Village Planner (John Roanhorse, Camelback East Village)
Village Planning Committee Chair (Jay Swart, Camelback East Village)
ATTACHMENT D
200 W Washington Street, 2nd Floor * Phoenix, Arizona 85003 * Tel: (602) 262-7131 * Fax: (602) 495-3793
APPLICATION FOR PLANNING HEARING OFFICER ACTION
APPLICATION NO: PHO-1-23--Z-61-21
Council District: 6
Request For:
Stipulation Modification
Reason for Request: Request to modify Stipulation 1 regarding general conformance with the site plan and elevations date
stamped September 2, 2021. Request to modify Stipulation 1.A regarding building height. Request to modify Stipulation 8
regarding signage. Request to modify Stipulation 9 regarding bicycle parking location. Request to modify Stipulation 11
regarding pedestrian pathways. Request to modify Stipulation 14 regarding shared access drives. Request to delete
Stipulation 15 permitting a maximum of one driveway on 44th Street.
Owner
Applicant
Representative
Thomas Ryan Holdings LLC
Rod Jarvis, Gallagher & Kennedy
Ryan Reynolds
505 North 40th Street, Suite #160
2575 East Camelback Road
706 East Bell Road, Suite #103
Phoenix AZ 85018
Phoenix AZ 85016
Phoenix AZ 85022
(602) 690-0754
(602) 717-9979
P: (602) 690-0754 F:
rqjarvis@gmail.com
rqjarvis@gmail.com
ryan.reynolds@rencordevelopment.com
Property Location: Approximately 150 feet north of the northeast corner of 44th Street and Earll Drive
Zoning Map: G-11
Quarter Section: 15-38
APN: 127-07-030
Acreage: 1.15
Village: Camelback East
Last Hearing: CC HEARING
Previous Opposition: No
Date of Original City Council Action: 02/02/2022 230 PM
Previous PHO Actions:
Zoning Vested: R-O
Supplemental Map No.:
Planning Staff: 081866
An applicant may receive a clarification from the city of its interpretation or application of a statute, ordinance, code or authorized
substantive policy statement. To request clarification or to obtain further information on the application process and applicable
review time frames, please call 602-262-7131 (option 6), email zoning.mailbox@phoenix.gov or visit our website at
http://phoenix.gov/pdd/licensetimes.html.
A Filing Fee had been paid to the City Treasurer to cover the cost of processing this application. The fee will be retained to cover
the cost whether or not the request is granted
Fee
Fee Waived
Fee Date
Receipt
Purpose
$1,725.00
$0.00
04/17/2023
23-0028786
Original Filing Fee
Signature of Applicant: _____________________________________________________ DATE: ___________________
Hearing Results
Planning Hearing Officer
Planning Commission
City Council
Date: 06/21/2023 1000 AM
Date:
Date:
Appealed?:
Appealed?:
Action:
Action:
Action:
Planning Hearing Officer application: PHO-1-23 (Z-61-21-6)
3121 & 3125 N 44th Street / APN’s 127-07-030 & 031
Revised Narrative – 44th Street Dental Building
May 1, 2023
Rencor Medical Development, a trusted medical office development company working
in Arizona since 2001, shall be overseeing development of this ±8,150 square foot
dental and surgical building.
This building shall be constructed on what is currently two properties, located at: 3121 &
3125 N 44th Street Phoenix, AZ 85018. The combined total land area of the site is
±39,784sf.
Existing Zoning is currently R-O, and that zoning shall remain with a proposed zoning
Stipulation Modification (zoning case 61-21-6; Ordinance #G-6955). Rod Jarvis, Zoning
Attorney is representing the Owner through this process.
This building is planned to be owner-occupied by two dedicated local dental groups:
Endodontics and Oral Surgery practices. More information about both practices can be
provided.
DesignTank Architects is a progressive architecture and interior design studio that was
established in 2017. They will provide flexible and responsive architectural site planning
and shell building design services. They aim to challenge the expected and push the
limits of possibility to create dynamic and thought-provoking architecture. Their projects
are high design, technically complex, and embrace the built and natural environment.
This Project presents tremendous opportunity to create a unique environment that will
help further establish and differentiate these dental practices as leaders in their fields.
Goals of the Project include: modern architectural that will enhance the area, efficient
use of natural light within the building, a commercial building with strong street presence
along 44th Street, while respecting the neighboring residential behind, maintain a true
medical parking ratio allowing for seamless patient access, and native, drought-tolerant
landscaping.
A preliminary rendering video fly-by of the conceptual dental building has been created
and can be viewed here: https://youtu.be/hBgiJlO51U8
Changes to the approved Stipulations are noted below.
Stipulation Changes (per Ordinance #G-6955):
Proposed changes to the approved stipulations are highlighted and in legislative format
(bold strikeout for deletions; UNDERLINED BOLD ALL CAPITALS for additions).
The rationale for a specific proposed change follows immediately after the specific
stipulation and is in italics.
1.
The development shall be in general conformance with the site plan and
elevations date stamped APRIL 17, 2023 September 2, 2021, with specific
regard to the following and as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
Rationale: The change in the dates for the Site Plan and Elevations is to reflect
the most-recent plans as well as any additional changes as requested by the City
of Phoenix through the Site Plan process.
a.
There shall be a maximum building height of 1 story and 24 15 feet
HEIGHT AS CURRENTLY CALCULATED BY THE CITY OF PHOENIX
ZONING ORDINANCE.
Rationale: Although we agree with the single-story limitation, we are
requesting additional height to allow for: a professional modern
medical/dental building with ±12’ foot high ceilings with space above the
ceiling for both mechanical duct work with trusses above, parapet walls for
screening for roof-mounted equipment and the possibility for architectural
embellishments. The clarification for calculation is in case of any changes
to the height calculation subsequent to this PHO request.
8.
There shall be no internally lit signs on the site. PROFESSIONALLY
PRODUCED AND DESIGNED SIGNAGE FOR BOTH OF THE PROPOSED
LOCAL DENTAL PRACTICES SIGNAGE, ORIENTED TOWARDS 44TH
STREET, AND MAY INCLUDE BACKLIT OR INTERNALLY LIT EXTERIOR
BUILDING SIGNAGE AND BACKLIT MONUMENT SIGNAGE. Signage shall be
REVIEWED, approved AND PERMITTED by the CITY OF PHOENIX Planning
and Development Department.
Rationale: There are numerous internally lit signs along 44th Street and
throughout this area. Internally lit signs can be designed such that the lighting is
not intrusive to residential areas, and signage will be placed along the western
elevations of any buildings (those facing residential uses to the east). Additionally,
we seek clarification for the approval of signs.
9.
A minimum of four bicycle parking spaces shall be provided through Inverted U
and/or artistic racks located near THE building(S) entrances for each of the
existing buildings. These BICYCLE parking spaces shall be installed per the
requirements of Section 1307.H. of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, as approved
by the Planning and Development Department. Artistic racks shall adhere to the
City of Phoenix Preferred Designs in Appendix K of the Comprehensive Bicycle
Master Plan.
Rationale: The existing language relates to existing, not proposed buildings, and
placement should be allowed to occur such that access to each building is not
hindered, the design of each building not negatively affected and to allow for the
possibility of one bicycle parking location to meet the needs of both buildings.
11.
Where pedestrian pathways cross drive aisles, they shall be constructed of
decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, PAINTED CROSSWALKS, or
other pavement treatments that visually contrast with the adjacent parking and
drive aisle surfaces, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
Rationale: Requesting to allow painted crosswalks as an option which achieves
the demarcation of the crosswalk and is much easier to maintain.
14.
The developer shall record a cross-access agreement for any shared access
drives along 44th Street, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department, UNLESS through OWNER PERFORMS A RE-PLAT AND/OR LOT
COMBINATION PROCESS, WHEREAS THESE TWO PROPERTIES SHALL
ESSENTIALLY BECOME ONE LARGER PROPERTY AT WHICH POINT A
CROSS-ACCESS AGREEMENT WOULD NO LONGER BE NEEDED.
Rationale: Requesting to allow other options for achieving cross-access
easement(s) and to recognize that a lot combination as an option may negate the
need for a cross-access easement.
15.
There shall be a maximum of one driveway along 44th Street.
Rationale: Through a re-plat and/or lot combination process these two properties
shall essentially becoming one larger property. Through the site plan review
process, the Phoenix Streets Department is recommending two (2) driveways as
depicted on the Site Plan, with the southern-most driveway an ”exit only”
driveway to accommodate refuse collection and fire department maneuvering
requirements.
Mod
Mod
Mod
Mod
Mod
Mod
Del
Z-65-02
Z-3-12
Z-407-84
Z-64-01
Z-266-85
Z-407-84
Z-298-81
*
Z-40-85
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
R-O
R-4
C-O
R-3A
C-O
R1-6
R-O
R-O
R-O
C-O
R1-10
R1-10
HP
R-O
C-O
R1-6
45TH ST
EARLL DR
44TH ST
43RD PL
MULBERRY DR
AVALON DR
CHEERY LYNN RD
FLOWER ST
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
CAMELBACK EAST VILLAGE
CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 6
APPLICANT'S NAME:
APPLICATION NO.
Z-61-21
GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
1.15 Acres
MULTIPLES PERMITTED
* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus
R1-10
R-O
CONVENTIONAL OPTION
4
1/development
* UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
5
N/A
Brendan Morrow
DATE:
9/24/2021
REVISION DATES:
AERIAL PHOTO &
QUARTER SEC. NO.
QS 15-38
ZONING MAP
G-11
REQUESTED CHANGE:
FROM: R1-10 ( 1.15 a.c.)
TO:
R-O ( 1.15 a.c.)
Document Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2021\Z-61-21.mxd
Z-61-21
0.045
0
0.045
0.0225
Miles
N 43RD PL
ALLEY
N 44TH ST
ALLEY
E FLOWER ST
E CHEERY LYNN RD
E EARLL DR
E FLOWER ST
Maricopa County Assessor's Office
Planning & Development Department
PHO-1-23--Z-61-21-6
Property Location: Approximately 150 feet north of the northeast corner of
44th Streeet and Earll Drive
0
120
240
60
Feet ´
N 43RD PL
ALLEY
N 44TH ST
ALLEY
E FLOWER ST
E CHEERY LYNN RD
E EARLL DR
E FLOWER ST
R1-10
R1-10
C-O*
C-O*
R-O*
R-O*
C-O*
C-O*
R-O
R-O
R-O*
R-O*
R-O*
R-O*
C-O*
C-O*
R1-6
R1-6
Maricopa County Assessor's Office
Planning & Development Department
PHO-1-23--Z-61-21-6
Property Location: Approximately 150 feet north of the northeast corner of
44th Streeet and Earll Drive
0
120
240
60
Feet ´
LOT SIZE
PROPOSED LOT COVERAGE
8,246 SF
1,165 SF
BUILDING FOOTPRINT
EAVES/ OVERHANGS
TOTAL LOT COVERAGE
39,784 SF
9,411 SF
(9,411 SF/39,784) = 23.6%
(TOTAL ALLOWED 25%)
TOTAL BUILDING SF
PARKING RATIO ( MEDICAL OFFICE)
REQUIRED PARKING (8,246/200)
PARKING PROVIDED
PARKING RATIO
PARKING RATIOS
8,246 SF
1:200
42 SPACES
47 SPACES
1:175
A201
1
A201
2
A201
3
A201
4
N. 44TH STREET
BLDG SETBACK
20' - 0"
BLDG SETBACK
10' - 0"
BLDG SETBACK
25' - 0"
BLDG SETBACK
10' - 0"
11
25
PROPOSED BUILDING
42 SPACES REQUIRED
47 SPACES PROVIDED
TRASH
8
5' - 5 3/4"
6"
STALL
18' - 0"
AISLE
26' - 0"
STALL
18' - 0"
6"
5' - 0"
TOTAL
8,246 SF
3
260.06'
260.05'
153.00'
153.01'
(4) SPACE
BIKE RACK
12' - 0"
20' - 0"
28' - 1"
2' - 3"
2' - 4"
19' - 6"
15' - 0"
18' - 0"
5' - 0"
30' - 0"
5' - 0"
18' - 0"
26' - 0"
5' - 0"
20' - 0"
5' - 0"
EXIT ONLY
STOP SIGN W/
ONE WAY SIGNAGE
ABOVE
5' - 3 1/2"
9' - 0"
9' WIDTH
10' - 0"
8' - 6"
23' - 0"
11' - 0"
5' - 0"
ENTRY
SUITE 'A'
ENTRY
SUITE 'B'
PEDESTRIAN ACCESS
PEDESTRIAN ACCESS
5' - 0"
5' - 0"
LANDSCAPE SETBACK
20' - 0"
PLANTING STRIP
8' - 0"
SIDEWALK
5' - 0"
12' - 6"
8' - 0"
8' - 0"
40" HIGH PARKING
SCREEN WALL TO
MATCH BUILDING
REF DETAIL 02/A103
40" HIGH PARKING
SCREEN WALL TO
MATCH BUILDING
REF DETAIL 02/A103
ROOFTOP MECHANICAL UNITS
(SCREENED BY ROOF PARAPET)
ROOFTOP MECHANICAL UNITS
(SCREENED BY ROOF PARAPET)
EXISTING 6' TALL CMU
WALL TO REMAIN
EXISTING 6' TALL CMU
WALL TO REMAIN
EXISTING 6' TALL CMU
WALL TO REMAIN
EXIST 6' TALL CMU WALL
ON ADJACENT PROPERTY
EXISTING 6' TALL CMU
WALL TO REMAIN
SIDEWLAK EASEMENT
10' - 0"
40" TALL MTL SLIDING
VEHICULAR GATE
21'-0" LENGTH
REF DETAIL 03/AS103
72" TALL MAG LOCK
PEDESTRIAN
MTL SWING GATE
REF DETAIL 03/AS103
72" TALL MAG LOCK
PEDESTRIAN
MTL SWING GATE
REF DETAIL 03/AS103
40" TALL MTL SWING
VEHICULAR GATE
30'-0" LENGTH
REF DETAIL 03/AS103
5' - 3 3/4"
6' - 9 1/2"
EXIST 6' TALL CMU WALL
ON ADJACENT PROPERTY
FULLY SCREENED
TRASH PER COP
REQUIREMENTS 507
TAB A.II.B.7
REF DETAIL 02/A103
ADJACENT PROPERTY
APN: 127-07-029
ZONING:R1-10
ADJACENT PROPERTY
APN: 127-07-028
ZONING: R1-10
CURB RAMP
1:12 MAX
CURB RAMP
1:12 MAX
CURB STOP
CURB STOP
CURB STOP
ADJACENT PROPERTY
APN: 127-07-034
ZONING: R1-10
ADJACENT PROPERTY
APN: 127-07-032
ZONING: R-O
EXIST 6' TALL CMU WALL
ON ADJACENT PROPERTY
EXISTING 6' TALL CMU
WALL TO REMAIN
16' - 10"
25' - 6"
3' - 9 1/4"
18' - 0"
ACCESSIBLE ROUTE
ACCESSIBLE ROUTE
18' - 0"
10' - 5 1/2"
9' - 8 3/4"
FREESTANDING
FDC STANDPIPE
FREESTANDING
FDC STANDPIPE
40" TALL WALL WITH
MONUMENT SIGNAGE
12' - 0"
9' - 0"
PROPOSED BUILDING
PARKING LOT
ALTERNATIVE PAVING
SURFACE (PAVERS)
PARKING LOT LANDSCAPE
REQ. PER 507 Tab A.II.A.6.1.1
PARKING SURFACE = 19,039 SF
LANDSCAPE REQ = 19,039*.05 = 952 SF
LANDSCAPE PROVIDED = 1,470 SF (7.7%)
SITE PLAN LEGEND
FIRE HYDRANT
PROJECT
SITE
FIRE HYDRANT
N 44TH ST
E. FLOWER STREET
E. CHEERY LYNN
E. EARLL DRIVE
E. EARLL DRIVE
FIRE HYDRANT
96' - 4"
SCALE
SHEET NUMBER
REVISION
DATE
1640 E BETHANY HOME ROAD
PHOENIX, AZ 85016
503.580.5626
DESIGNTANK ©
SHEET SIZE
30" X
PROJECT NUMBER
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
ARCHITECTS STAMP:
CONSULTANT:
CONSULTANT LOGO
C:\Users\TylerKuenzi\OneDrive - DesignTANK\Documents\00 Active Projects\44st Dental Office\07 BIM\2023-0402 44th St Dental Office.rvt
4/6/2023 4:01:53 PM
As indicated
AS102
2023-0323
SITE PLAN
44TH ST DENTAL OFFICE
3121 & 3125 N 44th STREET PHOENIX, AZ 85018
CITY OF PHOENIX KIVA: 23-100
000000
0
40
20
10
5
NORTH
REVISION
DATE
REASON FOR ISSUE
PROJECT CODE
INFORMATION
ZONING DATA
ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER:
ZONING EXISTING:
ZONING PROPOSED:
PREVIOUS ZONING CASE:
SUBDIVISION:
LOT NUMBER:
OVERLAYS:
MAX BUILDING HEIGHT PROVIDED:
BUILDING/SITE DATA
ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION YEAR:
FLOODPLAIN (SFHA):
ACCESS:
127-07-031 & 127-07-030
SUNBEAM 2 LOT 48-50
28 & 29
44th Street Corridor
Specific Plan
19'-6"
1955
NO
PUBLIC STREET
PROJECT TEAM
OWNER:
THOMAS RYAN HOLDINGS, LLC
RYAN REYNOLDS
RENCOR DEVELOPMENT
RYAN.REYNOLDS@RENCORDEVELOPMENT.COM
(602)690-0754
DEVELOPER:
RENCOR MEDICAL DEVELOPMENT
RYAN REYNOLDS
RENCOR DEVELOPMENT
RYAN.REYNOLDS@RENCORDEVELOPMENT.COM
(602)690-0754
PROJECT ARCHITECT:
DESIGNTANK LLC
1640 E BETHANY HOME RD.
PHOENIX, AZ 85016
TYLER KUENZI
TYLER@DESIGNTANKPHX.COM
503-580-5626
ZONING ATTORNEY:
GALLAGER & KENNEDY
ROD JARVIS -rod.jarvis@gknet.com
(602) 530-8036
NORTH PROPERTY
ADDRESS:
3125 N 44TH ST PHOENIX, AZ 85018
APN:
127-07-030
SOUTH PROPERTY
ADDRESS:
3121 N 44TH ST PHOENIX, AZ 85018
APN:
127-07-031
TOTAL ACREAGE:
.913 ACRES - 39,784 SF GROSS
*PER SURVEY
R-O
R-O W/ STIPULATION MOD
Z-61-21-6
STIP MOD ITEMS (1,2,3,4,8,14)
VICINITY MAP
N
SITE
1" = 10'-0"
1 SITE PLAN
NOTE:
•
All new or relocated electric lines 12 kv and
smaller, communications and cable television
and all on premise wiring should be placed
underground in all developments where visible
from streets or adjoining properties. PER 507
TAB A.II.B.7.5:
•
General Comments:Automatic fire sprinkler
shall be required per the 2018 IFC with
Phoenix Amendments section 903.1 For Group
A, B, E, F, H, I M, R-2, R-3 R-4 and S
occupancies. Auto sprinkler systems shall be
installed in accordance with NFPA 13
•
•
Development and use of this site will conform with
all applicable codes and ordinances.
•
This project is located in the city of Phoenix water
service area and has been designated as having
an assured water supply.
•
All new or relocated utilities will be placed
underground.
•
All signage requires separate approvals and
permits.
•
Any lighting will be placed so as to direct light
away from the adjacent residential districts and will
not exceed one foot candle at the property line.
•
No noise, odor or vibration will be emitted so that it
exceeds the general level of noise, odor or
vibration emitted by uses outside of the site.
•
Owners of property adjacent to public right-of-way
will have the responsibility for maintaining all
landscaping within the rights-of-way in accordance
with approved plans.
COP SITE PLAN
GENERAL NOTES
Rencor Medical Development, a trusted AZ medical office development company since 2001, shall be overseeing development of this dental and surgical building.This
building is planned to be owner-occupied by two dedicated local dental groups: Endodontics and Oral Surgery practices. Designtank Architects is a progressive architecture
studio established in 2017. They will provide flexible and responsive architectural site planning and shell building design services.
Goals of the Project include: modern architecture that will enhance the area, efficient use of natural light within the building, a commercial building with strong street presence
along 44th Street, while respecting the neighboring residential behind, maintain a true medical parking ratio allowing for seamless patient access, and native, drought-tolerant
landscaping.
PROJECT NARRATIVE
1" = 80'-0"
FIRE HYDRANT LOCATIONS
Lot 28 and the North 30 feet of Lot 29, SUNBEAM UNIT NO. 2, according to the plat of
record in the office of the County Recorder of Maricopa County. Arizona, recorded in
Book 42 of Maps, Page 33.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
PHO-1-23--Z-61-21-6
Proposed Conceptual Site Plan
Hearing Date: June 21, 2023
LEVEL 1
0"
ROOF BEARING
12' - 0"
4
A301
3
A301
32
33
56
37
56
56
56
37
37
37
33
33
33
33
32
32
30
30
30
30
37
37
37
37
(+/-) 21' - 2"
(+/-) 18' - 0"
(+/-) 21' - 2"
PRELIMINARY
PRELIMINARY
LEVEL 1
0"
ROOF BEARING
12' - 0"
4
A301
3
A301
30
36
37
37
37
36
36
30
30
37
37
37
30
37
37
37
37
(+/-) 21' - 2"
(+/-) 18' - 0"
(+/-) 21' - 2"
(+/-) 18' - 0"
14' - 1 3/4"
12' - 0"
13' - 4"
12' - 0"
PRELIMINARY
PRELIMINARY
LEVEL 1
0"
ROOF BEARING
12' - 0"
2
A301
1
A301
30
33
56
33
37
30
(+/-) 21' - 2"
(+/-) 18' - 0"
(+/-) 21' - 2"
(+/-) 18' - 0"
15' - 0"
12' - 0"
PRELIMINARY
PRELIMINARY
LEVEL 1
0"
ROOF BEARING
12' - 0"
2
A301
1
A301
30
33
56
37
37
33
33
(+/-) 21' - 2"
(+/-) 18' - 0"
(+/-) 21' - 2"
(+/-) 18' - 0"
12' - 0"
15' - 6"
PRELIMINARY
PRELIMINARY
SCALE
SHEET NUMBER
REVISION
DATE
1640 E BETHANY HOME ROAD
PHOENIX, AZ 85016
503.580.5626
DESIGNTANK ©
SHEET SIZE
30" X
PROJECT NUMBER
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
ARCHITECTS STAMP:
CONSULTANT:
CONSULTANT LOGO
C:\Users\RyanThomsen\OneDrive - DesignTANK\Documents - Tyler Kuenzi's files\00 Active Projects\44st Dental Office\07 BIM\2023-0402 44th St Dental Office.rvt
5/8/2023 11:12:40 AM
3/16" = 1'-0"
A201
2023-0508
BUILDING
ELEVATIONS
44TH ST DENTAL OFFICE
3121 & 3125 N 44th STREET PHOENIX, AZ 85018
CITY OF PHOENIX KIVA: 23-100
000000
ELEVATION KEYNOTES
30.
EXTERIOR STUCCO SYSTEM (TYP) PER ICC-ES REPORT
ESR-1471 OVER 1 INSULATION BOARD AND WEATHER BARRIER
32.
GOLMEX CONCRETE LOOK EXTERIOR CEMENT WALL PLASTER
33.
EXTERIOR WOOD OR FIBER CEMENT RAINSCREEN WALL
SYSTEM (TYP) PER ICC-ES REPORT ESR-3910
36.
CONTROL JOINT TYP.
37.
SHEET METAL FLASHING AND TRIM
53.
METAL PANEL SCREEN ON STEEL FRAME
56.
HORIZONTAL WOOD SHADE FINS ON POWDERCOATED
ALUMINUM FRAME
0
2
4
8
16
DOOR SCHEDULE
MARK
COUNT
DOOR
COMMENTS
SIZE
WIDTH
HEIGHT
110
1
3' - 0"
8' - 0"
118
1
4' - 2
213/256"
9' - 8 1/4"
119
1
4' - 6
27/256"
9' - 8 1/4"
120
1
3' - 0"
8' - 0"
121
1
3' - 0"
8' - 0"
122
1
3' - 0"
8' - 0"
123
1
3' - 0"
8' - 0"
124
1
3' - 0"
8' - 0"
125
1
3' - 0"
8' - 0"
126
1
3' - 0"
8' - 0"
CURTAIN WALL SCHEDULE
MARK
LENGTH
OVERALL
HEIGHT
AREA
COMMENTS
4' - 0"
10' - 0"
240.0 SF
CW1
8' - 8 3/4"
10' - 0"
87.3 SF
CW2
5' - 1 1/2"
10' - 0"
48.0 SF
CW3
2' - 8 1/4"
10' - 0"
23.6 SF
CW4
5' - 0 1/4"
10' - 0"
47.0 SF
CW5
7' - 2"
10' - 0"
71.7 SF
CW6
5' - 3 1/4"
10' - 0"
49.2 SF
CW7
14' - 0 3/4"
10' - 0"
140.5 SF
CW8
9' - 10"
10' - 0"
98.3 SF
CW9
4' - 0"
10' - 0"
40.0 SF
CW10
15' - 6"
12' - 0"
186.0 SF
CW11
14' - 6 3/4"
12' - 0"
169.8 SF
CW14
14' - 6"
12' - 0"
160.0 SF
CW15
14' - 6"
12' - 0"
180.0 SF
1541.4 SF
3/16" = 1'-0"
1 ELEVATION - WEST
3/16" = 1'-0"
2 ELEVATION - EAST
3/16" = 1'-0"
3 ELEVATION - SOUTH
3/16" = 1'-0"
4 ELEVATION - NORTH
REVISION
DATE
REASON FOR ISSUE
EXTERIOR FINISH SCHEDULE
EXTERIOR FINISH
AREA
LENGTH
HEIGHT
COMMENTS
METAL PANEL
METAL PANEL
69.3 SF
14' - 6"
5' - 0"
METAL PANEL
69.3 SF
14' - 6 1/4"
5' - 0"
METAL PANEL
72.5 SF
5' - 8"
17' - 0"
METAL PANEL
72.5 SF
5' - 8"
17' - 0"
METAL PANEL
75.8 SF
14' - 10 1/4"
5' - 0"
359.5 SF
55' - 2 1/4"
PLASTER
PLASTER
42.7 SF
2' - 11 1/2"
17' - 0"
PLASTER
42.7 SF
2' - 11 1/2"
17' - 0"
PLASTER
42.7 SF
2' - 11 1/2"
17' - 0"
PLASTER
44.3 SF
2' - 7 3/4"
17' - 0"
PLASTER
45.9 SF
2' - 11 1/2"
17' - 0"
PLASTER
213.5 SF
11' - 10 1/4"
17' - 0"
PLASTER
425.2 SF
24' - 3 3/4"
17' - 0"
PLASTER
629.3 SF
36' - 3 3/4"
17' - 0"
1486.4 SF
86' - 11 1/2"
STUCCO
STUCCO
212.9 SF
14' - 11 1/2"
17' - 0"
STUCCO
215.0 SF
14' - 11 1/4"
17' - 0"
STUCCO
244.6 SF
47' - 4 1/4"
5' - 2"
STUCCO
244.6 SF
47' - 4 1/4"
5' - 2"
STUCCO
271.6 SF
18' - 9 3/4"
17' - 0"
STUCCO
400.8 SF
28' - 3 1/2"
17' - 0"
STUCCO
415.5 SF
28' - 5 3/4"
17' - 0"
STUCCO
749.3 SF
145' - 4 1/4"
5' - 2"
STUCCO
751.0 SF
145' - 4 1/4"
5' - 2"
3505.3 SF
490' - 10 1/2"
WOOD SIDING
WOOD SIDING
56.5 SF
4' - 1 1/2"
17' - 0"
EXTERIOR FINISH SCHEDULE
EXTERIOR FINISH
AREA
LENGTH
HEIGHT
COMMENTS
WOOD SIDING
58.8 SF
3' - 6 1/2"
17' - 0"
WOOD SIDING
58.8 SF
3' - 6 1/2"
17' - 0"
WOOD SIDING
61.6 SF
3' - 6 1/2"
17' - 0"
WOOD SIDING
61.6 SF
3' - 6 1/2"
17' - 0"
WOOD SIDING
80.8 SF
4' - 9"
17' - 0"
WOOD SIDING
81.8 SF
4' - 5 3/4"
17' - 0"
WOOD SIDING
82.4 SF
5' - 2 1/2"
17' - 0"
WOOD SIDING
83.8 SF
4' - 1 1/2"
17' - 0"
WOOD SIDING
85.0 SF
5' - 0"
17' - 0"
WOOD SIDING
94.6 SF
5' - 7 3/4"
17' - 0"
WOOD SIDING
96.3 SF
5' - 8"
17' - 0"
WOOD SIDING
96.9 SF
5' - 9 3/4"
17' - 0"
WOOD SIDING
170.0 SF
10' - 0"
12' - 0"
WOOD SIDING
199.7 SF
11' - 9"
12' - 0"
WOOD SIDING
600.4 SF
35' - 7 1/2"
12' - 0"
1969.0 SF
116' - 4 1/4"
Grand total: 38
7320.2 SF
749' - 4 1/2"
0
2
4
8
16
0
2
4
8
16
0
2
4
8
16
PHO-1-23--Z-61-21-6
Proposed Conceptual Elevations
Hearing Date: June 21, 2023
LEVEL 1
0"
ROOF BEARING
12' - 0"
2
A301
1
A301
3780 SF
SUITE A
(+/-) 18' - 0"
HVAC RTU
HVAC RTU
(+/-) 21' - 2"
(+/-) 21' - 2"
(+/-) 18' - 0"
PRELIMINARY
PRELIMINARY
HVAC ROOF CURB
PRELIM.
(+/-) 4' - 6"
8"
PRELIM.
(+/-) 4' - 0"
12' - 0"
PRELIM.
(+/-) 5' - 2"
PRELIM.
(+/-) 4' - 0"
12' - 0"
LEVEL 1
0"
ROOF BEARING
12' - 0"
4
A301
3
A301
3785 SF
SUITE B
3780 SF
SUITE A
HVAC
RTU
HVAC
RTU
HVAC
RTU
HVAC
RTU
(+/-) 18' - 0"
PRELIMINARY
(+/-) 21' - 2"
(+/-) 18' - 0"
PRELIMINARY
PRELIM.
(+/-) 3' - 2"
2' - 0"
PRELIM.
(+/-) 4' - 0"
12' - 0"
PRELIM.
(+/-) 4' - 6"
8"
PRELIM.
(+/-) 4' - 0"
12' - 0"
PRELIM.
(+/-) 5' - 2"
PRELIM.
(+/-) 4' - 0"
12' - 0"
HVAC ROOF CURB
HVAC ROOF CURB
(+/-) 21' - 2"
LEVEL 1
0"
ROOF BEARING
12' - 0"
4
A301
3
A301
3785 SF
SUITE B
3780 SF
SUITE A
(+/-) 21' - 2"
(+/-) 18' - 0"
(+/-) 21' - 2"
(+/-) 18' - 0"
PRELIMINARY
PRELIMINARY
PRELIM.
(+/-) 5' - 2"
PRELIM.
(+/-) 4' - 0"
12' - 0"
PRELIM.
(+/-) 3' - 2"
2' - 0"
PRELIM.
(+/-) 4' - 0"
12' - 0"
LEVEL 1
0"
ROOF BEARING
12' - 0"
2
A301
1
A301
3780 SF
SUITE A
(+/-) 21' - 2"
(+/-) 18' - 0"
(+/-) 21' - 2"
(+/-) 18' - 0"
PRELIMINARY
PRELIMINARY
PRELIM.
(+/-) 5' - 2"
PRELIM.
(+/-) 4' - 0"
12' - 0"
SCALE
SHEET NUMBER
REVISION
DATE
1640 E BETHANY HOME ROAD
PHOENIX, AZ 85016
503.580.5626
DESIGNTANK ©
SHEET SIZE
30" X
PROJECT NUMBER
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
ARCHITECTS STAMP:
CONSULTANT:
CONSULTANT LOGO
C:\Users\RyanThomsen\OneDrive - DesignTANK\Documents - Tyler Kuenzi's files\00 Active Projects\44st Dental Office\07 BIM\2023-0402 44th St Dental Office.rvt
5/8/2023 11:12:43 AM
3/16" = 1'-0"
A301
2023-0508
BUILDING
SECTIONS
44TH ST DENTAL OFFICE
3121 & 3125 N 44th STREET PHOENIX, AZ 85018
CITY OF PHOENIX KIVA: 23-100
000000
3/16" = 1'-0"
4 EW - BUILDING SECTION-2
3/16" = 1'-0"
2 NS- BUILDING SECTION-2
3/16" = 1'-0"
1 NS - BUILDING SECTION-1
3/16" = 1'-0"
3 EW - BUILDING SECTION-1
REVISION
DATE
REASON FOR ISSUE
0
2
4
8
16
0
2
4
8
16
0
2
4
8
16
0
2
4
8
16
PHO-1-23--Z-61-21-6
Proposed Conceptual Elevations
Hearing Date: June 21, 2023
44TH STREET
N 1° 10' W 130.00'
N 1° 10' W 130.00'
EAST 153.00'
EAST 153.00'
EXISTING
BUILDING
N 1° 10' W 130.00'
N 1° 10' W 130.00'
EAST 153.00'
EAST 153.00'
EXISTING
BUILDING
COVERED PORCH
COVERED PORCH
EXISTING
PARKING
APN: 127-07-030
APN: 127-07-031
APN: 127-07-029
(NOT A PART)
APN: 127-07-032
(NOT A PART)
APN: 127-07-034
(NOT A PART)
APN: 127-07-028
(NOT A PART)
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE
20'-0"
SETBACK
153'-0"
25'-0"
SETBACK
260'-0"
130'-0"
130'-0"
40'-0"
10'-0"
10'-0"
10'-0"
10'-0"
44TH STREET
N 1° 10' W 130.00'
N 1° 10' W 130.00'
EAST 153.00'
EAST 153.00'
EXISTING
BUILDING
N 1° 10' W 130.00'
N 1° 10' W 130.00'
EAST 153.00'
EAST 153.00'
EXISTING
BUILDING
WIDEN EXISTING
DRIVEWAY
11 EXISTING
PARKING
STALLS
6 PARKING
STALLS
22 TOTAL PARKING
STALLS (4.85 PER 1,000 SF)
1
PROPOSED SITE PLAN
SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"
2 EXISTING
PARKING
STALLS
3 PARKING
STALLS
NO:
DATE:
DESCRIPTION:
SHEET NO:
KEY PLAN:
SCALE:
2122
DRAWN BY:
DATE:
PROJECT NO.:
CHECKED BY:
08.19.21
3121 & 3125 N 44TH ST
REZONE
3121 & 3125 N. 44TH ST., PHOENIX, AZ 85018
NLS
NLS
BLUE LANTERN
DEVELOPMENT
CITY OF PHOENIX REFERENCE INFO
PRE-APPLICATION #: 21-71
GENERAL NOTES:
A.
ALL CONSTRUCTION TO COMPLY WITH THE PRESCRIPTIVE REQUIREMENTS
OF THE IRC
B.
CONTRACTOR SHALL STAKE, FLAG, AND/OR OTHERWISE MARK LOCATIONS
OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES ACCORDING TO CURRENT APWA COLOR CODES
PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF WORK
C.
ALL REQUIRED SETBACKS TO REMAIN AS PART OF THE EXISTING BUILDING
D.
CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE A WEATHERPROOF AND SECURE PARTITION
AT NEWLY EXPOSED OPENINGS TO PREVENT ENTRY BY UNAUTHORIZED
PERSONS
E.
CONSISTENT BUILDING CENTERLINES ARE CRITICAL TO THE SUCCESSFUL
EXECUTION OF THIS DESIGN. GC TO ESTABLISH CENTERLINES AND
WORKPOINTS AS SHOWN ON THESE DOCUMENTS AND MAINTAIN THEM
CONSISTENTLY THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF THE PROJECT
KEY NOTES:
1.
8
16
32 FT
0
G1-102
PROPOSED SITE PLAN
PHO-1-23--Z-61-21-6
Stipulated Site Plan (Z-61-21)
Hearing Date: June 21, 2023
1
2
3
4
1
3
4
2
1A
PHO-1-23--Z-61-21-6
Stipiulated Elevations (Z-61-21)
Hearing Date: June 21, 2023
NO:
DATE:
DESCRIPTION:
SHEET NO:
KEY PLAN:
SCALE:
2122
DRAWN BY:
DATE:
PROJECT NO.:
CHECKED BY:
08.19.21
3121 & 3125 N 44TH ST
REZONE
3121 & 3125 N. 44TH ST., PHOENIX, AZ 85018
NLS
NLS
BLUE LANTERN
DEVELOPMENT
CITY OF PHOENIX REFERENCE INFO
PRE-APPLICATION #: 21-71
2
4
8 FT
0
A2-102
EXTERIOR ELEVATION
GENERAL NOTES:
A.
ALL CONSTRUCTION TO COMPLY WITH THE PRESCRIPTIVE REQUIREMENTS
OF THE IRC
B.
ALL STUD FRAMING TO BE MAX. 16" O.C
C.
ALL CEILING/SOFFIT FRAMING TO BE MAX. 16" O.C
D.
PROVIDE ADEQUATE BLOCKING OR BACKING AT ALL WALL MOUNTED
CABINETS, SHELVING, AND EQUIPMENT
E.
ALL GYPSUM BOARD INSTALLED OVER WALL AND CEILING/SOFFIT FRAMING,
EXCLUDING INSTALLATION IN WET LOCATIONS, TO BE MIN. 5/8" THICKNESS,
U.N.O.
F.
ALL GYPSUM BOARD INSTALLED OVER WALL AND CEILING/SOFFIT FRAMING
IN WET LOCATIONS TO BE 5/8" THICKNESS MOISTURE AND MOLD RESISTANT
G.
ARCHITECT TO APPROVE LOCATION OF ALL SURFACE MOUNTED DEVICES
PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF GYP. BD.
H.
UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE, ELECTRICAL CONDUITS, PLUMBING LINES,
AND MECHANICAL PIPING SHALL BE CONCEALED AND FRAMING SHALL BE
ADEQUATE DIMENSION TO ACCOMPLISH THIS RESULT WITHOUT
UNNECESSARY CHANGES
I.
ALL WALL/ROOF PENETRATIONS THROUGH EXTERIOR WALL MATERIALS
SHALL BE SEALED
KEY NOTES:
1.
1
3
4
2
1A
47'-11"
19'-0"
65'-3"
66'-11"
28'-8"
9'-7"
36'-7"
18'-3"
19'-11"
7'-4"
12'-0"
7'-4"
12'-0"
7'-8"
12'-0"
7'-4"
12'-0"
PHO-1-23--Z-61-21-6
Stipulated Elevations (Z-61-21)
Hearing date: June 21, 2023
City Council Formal Meeting
Results
February 2, 2022
67
Amend City Code - Ordinance Adoption - Rezoning Application Z-35-17-1 -
Approximately 390 Feet North of the Northeast Corner of 24th Avenue and
Lone Cactus Drive (Ordinance G-6951)
This item was adopted.
68
Amend City Code - Ordinance Adoption - Rezoning Application Z-44-21-2
(Modera Kierland PUD) - Southwest Corner of Paradise Lane and Scottsdale
Road (Ordinance G-6954)
This item was adopted.
69
Amend City Code - Ordinance Adoption - Rezoning Application Z-66-21-2 -
Approximately 600 Feet East of the Northeast Corner of Black Canyon
Highway and Sonoran Desert Drive (Ordinance G-6956)
This item was adopted.
70
Amend City Code - Ordinance Adoption - Rezoning Application Z-65-21-3 -
Southwest corner of 17th Street and Bell Road (Ordinance G-6953)
This item was adopted.
*71
***REQUEST TO CONTINUE (SEE ATTACHED MEMO)*** Amend City
Code - Ordinance Adoption - Rezoning Application Z-47-21-4 - Approximately
400 Feet Northwest of the Northwest Corner of 33rd Avenue and Grand
Avenue (Ordinance G-6952)
This item was continued to the April 6, 2022 City Council Formal
Meeting.
72
Amend City Code - Ordinance Adoption - Rezoning Application Z-61-21-6 -
Approximately 150 Feet North of the Northeast Corner of 44th Street and
Earll Drive (Ordinance G-6955)
This item was adopted.
73
Public Hearing - Amend City Code - Ordinance Adoption - Walkable Urban
Code Expansion and Fee Schedule Update - Z-TA-3-19 (Ordinance G-6962)
The hearing was held. This item was approved per the Planning
Commission recommendation for the reduced applicability area, with
adoption of the related ordinance.
74
Public Hearing and Ordinance Adoption - Amend City Code - Rezoning
Application Z-59-21-2 - Southwest Corner of the 29th Avenue and Bronco
Butte Trail Alignments (Ordinance G-6957)
City of Phoenix
Printed on 2/2/2022
Page 7
CAMELBACK EAST VILLAGE PLANNING COMMITTEE
MINUTES
Tuesday, December 7, 2021
Meeting was held electronically via a video conferencing platform
PRESENT
ABSENT
STAFF
Jay Swart, Chair
Linda Bair
Sofia Mastikhina
William Fischbach, Vice Chair
Ronda Beckerleg Thraen
Greg Abbott
Hayleigh Crawford
Dawn Augusta
George Garcia
Jerryd Bayless
John Czerwinski
Christina Eichelkraut
Vic Grace
Blake McKee
Lee Miller
Ashley Nye
Tom O’Malley
Barry Paceley
Dan Rush
Daniel Sharaby
Craig Tribken
1) Call to order, introductions, and announcements by Chair.
The meeting was called to order at 6:01 p.m. with a quorum of 12 members present.
2) Review and approval of the November 2, 2021 meeting minutes.
Motion
Barry Paceley made a motion to approve the November 2, 2021 meeting minutes. Dan
Rush seconded the motion.
Vote:
12-0: Motion passes with committee members Swart, Fischbach, Abbott, Augusta,
Bayless, Czerwinski, Eichelkraut, McKee, Miller, Paceley, Rush, and Sharaby in favor.
3) Z-61-21-6: Presentation, discussion, and possible recommendation regarding a
request to rezone 1.15 acres located approximately 150 feet north of the
northeast corner of 44th Street and Earll Drive from R1-10 (Single-Family
Residence District) to R-O (Residential Office – Restricted Commercial District)
to allow residential office.
Committee members Nye, Tribken, and Grace arrived during this item, bringing the
quorum to 15 members.
Camelback East Village Planning Committee
Minutes – December 7, 2021
Page 2
Committee member Abbott left during this item, bringing the quorum to 14 members.
Ms. Sofia Mastikhina, staff, provided an overview of the request, including the location,
current and surrounding zoning, and General Plan Land Use Map designation. She
explained that the request is to rezone two existing single-family residences to allow
residential offices. No changes to the properties are currently being proposed other than
the deletion of the southernmost driveway to provide shared access to both sites
through a central driveway between the properties. She stated that the properties are
located within the boundaries of the 44th Street Corridor Residential Office Study, which
designated these lots as appropriate for transition to Residential Office (R-O) uses due
to their size and ability to accommodate parking. She then presented staff’s findings,
recommendation of approval, and recommended stipulations of approval.
Rod Jarvis, representative with Earl & Curley, provided an overview of the request,
explaining that the buildings will remain as they currently are and that there have not
been any neighborhood concerns regarding the request. He stated that the 44th Street
Residential Office Study, which was conducted by the city, lists these properties as a
Level 1 category, which is favorable for conversion to R-O. He also stated that one of
the recommendations in this study was to combine driveways along 44th Street, which
this proposal will do. He then outlined the neighborhood outreach conducted, noting that
a very involved member of the community attended their neighborhood meeting and did
not have any concerns with the proposal.
Barry Paceley praised the proposed conversion to office uses, highlighting the
conformance to the Residential Office Study. He also praised Mr. Jarvis for his outreach
to the community and his client for including detached sidewalks, which this street
needs more of.
MOTION:
Ashley Nye made a motion to approve this case per the staff recommendation. Barry
Paceley seconded the motion.
VOTE:
14-0; Motion passes with committee members Swart, Fischbach, Abbott, Augusta,
Bayless, Czerwinski, Eichelkraut, Grace, McKee, Miller, Nye, Paceley, Rush, and
Sharaby in favor.
4) INFORMATION ONLY - GPA-CE-2-21-8 (Companion Case Z-64-21-8):
Presentation and discussion on a request to amend the General Plan Land Use
Map Designation on 17.82 acres located at the southwest corner of 48th Street
and Washington Street from Industrial and Commerce/Business Park to
Residential 15+ dwelling units per acre.
This item was heard concurrently with Item No. 5 (Z-64-21-8).
CAMELBACK EAST VILLAGE PLANNING COMMITTEE
MINUTES
Tuesday, November 2 2021
Meeting was held electronically via a video conferencing platform
PRESENT
ABSENT
STAFF
Jay Swart, Chair
Dawn Augusta
Sofia Mastikhina
William Fischbach, Vice Chair
Lee Miller
Greg Abbott
Daniel Sharaby
Linda Bair
Jerryd Bayless
Ronda Beckerleg Thraen
Hayleigh Crawford
Christina Eichelkraut
George Garcia
Vic Grace
Blake McKee
Ashley Nye
Tom O’Malley
Barry Paceley
Dan Rush
Craig Tribken
1) Call to order, introductions, and announcements by Chair.
The meeting was called to order at 6:01 p.m. with a quorum of 16 members present.
2) Review and approval of the October 5, 2021 meeting minutes.
Motion
Barry Paceley made a motion to approve the October 5, 2021 meeting minutes. Greg
Abbott seconded the motion.
Vote:
16-0: Motion passes with committee members Swart, Fischbach, Abbott, Bair, Bayless,
Thraen, Crawford, Eichelkraut, Garcia, Grace, McKee, Nye, O’Malley, Paceley, Rush,
and Tribken in favor.
3) Z-61-21-6: Presentation, discussion, and possible recommendation regarding a
request to rezone 1.15 acres located approximately 150 feet north of the
northeast corner of 44th Street and Earll Drive from R1-10 (Single-Family
Residence District) to R-O (Residential Office – Restricted Commercial District)
to allow residential office.
Nate Sonoskey, applicant, requested a continuance to allow more time to meet with the
Chair of the committee to discuss the case. Chair Jay Swart granted the continuance.
Camelback East Village Planning Committee
Minutes – November 2, 2021
Page 2
4) Z-16-21-6: Presentation, discussion, and possible recommendation regarding a
request to rezone 1.55 acres located at the southeast corner of 31st Street and
Clarendon Avenue from R1-6 (Single-Family Residence District) to PUD
(Planned Unit Development) for the Paisley PUD to allow multifamily residential.
Sofia Mastikhina, staff, provided an overview of the request, including its locational
context and surrounding zoning and land uses. She highlighted the proposed
development standards and design guidelines, which were designed to accommodate a
townhome-style multifamily residential development, outlined the community input
received by staff and outlined the main concerns raised. She then provided staff’s
recommendation of approval and recommended stipulations.
Ashley Marsh, representative with Gammage & Burnham, provided an overview of the
request, explaining that the proposal will provide a transition from the commercial uses
on 32nd Street. She stated that the subject site has remained vacant since at least
1969, while the surrounding area has been built out. She presented photos of adjacent
developments to illustrate how the proposal will fit into the surrounding environment.
She also provided an overview of the existing entitlements in the surrounding area, and
the building heights that are allowed by right, some of which exceed the proposed
building height. She then explained that the original proposal consisted of a three-story
building with 34 residential units, and that it had been reduced in response to
community concerns to two stories and 24 units. She then outlined the key deign
features and presented conceptual renderings of the project. Due to community
concerns regarding traffic, the applicant contracted a traffic engineer to conduct a traffic
impact analysis, which concluded that the impact of the proposed development would
be minimal to the neighborhood. She also clarified the number of waste collection bins
that will be placed on the curb for collection. She concluded by providing an overview of
the main development standards, the neighborhood outreach conducted, the proposed
streetscape improvements, and noting that the project had received seven letter in
support.
Hayleigh Crawford asked what were the densities of adjacent properties that weren’t
outlined in the respective presentation slide. Marsh could not provide the specific
densities but pointed out that the adjacent zoning districts allowed high density
multifamily by right. Crawford also asked if the applicant had provided the letters of
support to staff, as the committee had not seen them. Marsh stated that they were
provided to staff within the Citizen Participation Report and were not submitted
separately. Mastikhina stated that she will forward the report to the committee
members immediately for their review. Chair Jay Swart asked that applicants provide
community correspondence to staff separately in the future.
Ashley Nye commended the applicant for their efforts to modify the design based on
community feedback. She stated that the lot would never be developed with six single-
family homes, as platted today, and that the proposed plan would be a much better fit
for the vacant site. She stated that the site design is much more sustainable and that it
will provide much needed housing in the area.
Camelback East Village Planning Committee
Minutes – November 2, 2021
Page 3
Blake McKee asked if the internal streets will be public or private, and what the width of
those will be. Marsh replied that the streets will be private accessways with a width of
approximately 26 feet.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Zachary Spaulding stated that he and his wife purchased their home in the
neighborhood in 2019 and had researched the surrounding zoning prior to the
purchase. He stated that they had been pleased that the vacant lot was zoned for
single-family homes. He also addressed committee member Nye’s comment regarding
the vacant lot not being developed as single-family due to the site not being suitable for
such. He explained that it’s not a matter of single-family not fitting into the
neighborhood, but rather because the previous owner passed away, and it did not have
new ownership for a while. He then stated that the development is still too large for the
area and suggested that the developer split the lot in half and place high density
multifamily on the northern portion, and single-family homes on the southern portion to
provide an appropriate transition. He stated that the housing in the neighborhood is
diverse enough and that they don’t need further diversity in the housing stock.
Russ Gunther, director of the East Clarendon HOA, stated that he was initially not
aware of this development and had not received any of the notification letters, nor had
anyone in his community. He expressed concern with the proposed density and the
strain it will cause to water and sewer infrastructure, which recently had to be repaired
at the homeowners’ expense. He then expressed concern with the traffic generation and
waste collection scheme, stating that most communities in the area have a community
collection bin and do not place individual bins in the street.
Karen Scates stated that she has lived in the neighborhood for 32 years and that,
although she understands the need for more housing in the city, it seems like this is
being added at the expense of an existing and already diverse neighborhood. She
expressed her wish for development that enhances and not overwhelms the community.
She explained that a PUD is meant to provide an enhanced built environment, but that
she fails to see the enhancements of this proposal. She expressed concern with the
exacerbation of existing traffic problems.
David Fraijo stated that he has lived in the neighborhood for 45 years and had known
the owners of the subject property. After they passed away, he was heartened to learn
that the property would be developed with six homes. He stated that the proposal is
obscene, even with the height and density reduction, and that it does not fit with the
neighborhood. He urged the committee to listen to the community and to visit the area.
Amy Notbohm stated that the developer’s reduction of units from their initial proposal is
misleading, since the proposal itself is an increase in density from what is currently
allowed. She stated that the existence of higher density zoning districts in the
neighborhood should not be an argument to justify this proposal. She suggested that
the development be modified to detach the sidewalks to increase pedestrian safety and
Camelback East Village Planning Committee
Minutes – November 2, 2021
Page 4
incorporate internal traffic collection so that trash bins are not placed on the street. She
stated that the way to address the housing shortage is not to pack in as many units as
possible on a lot, but rather to pursue creative design solutions that make a
neighborhood better.
Edward McCallum stated that the proposed density is going to have a negative impact
on the local community, and that the proposal does not address the urban heat island
effect or incorporate anything regarding climate action. He noted that the landscaping
standards do not mention water conservation and that there is not enough open space.
Marsh stated that the developer has received feedback from the community and the
committee and reduced their original request by 30 percent, which is not something that
is typical of developers, in her experience. She also stated that the proposal would fit in
well with the existing diversity of housing in the neighborhood, and that all new
infrastructure and improvements to the existing infrastructure will be done by the
developer. She explained that the curbside trash collection is consistent with the trash
collection for the property to the north, across the street from the project. She also noted
that the proposal will provide land use security for the neighborhood, as development
standards such as height and density will be limited to what is proposed and is not
subject to what is permitted in a conventional zoning district. She then addressed
concerns with the streetscape, pointing out that the project will install trees that are
larger than what is required by the city, and that the site was designed with the
pedestrian in mind, with front-facing patio entrances and internal garages.
Crawford expressed frustration with the committee’s lack of participation, and with the
support letters provided by the applicant. She pointed out that many of the individuals in
those letters aren’t residents of the neighborhood, and some live outside of the
Camelback East Village. Marsh explained that the letters come from stakeholders in the
area, and that she had also received phone calls from neighbors in support after the
plan was reduced. She also noted that the majority of the opposition letters were
submitted prior to the plan changing. Crawford asked staff how many of the opposition
letters were received after the plan was changed. Mastikhina replied that, of the 33
letters included in the staff report, seven were received after the height and density
were reduced. An additional five letters in opposition were received in the past 48 hours.
Crawford stated that there are still 12 letters of opposition, even with the change, and
noted that the request isn’t for reduced units, as the developer is still increasing the
entitlement from the existing six residential units to 24 units. She then expressed
frustration with city staff for supporting a proposal despite community opposition.
Vic Grace asked if the traffic mitigation for Weldon Avenue he had brought up at the
last meeting was incorporated into the plan. Otherwise, he would like to include it in a
potential motion. Marsh replied that they had discussed this with the Street
Transportation Department and were told that the city would not be supportive of a
speed bump along Weldon Avenue as it is not currently warranted. She stated that the
developer is willing to contribute funds to build one should the neighborhood petition the
city to construct one.
Camelback East Village Planning Committee
Minutes – November 2, 2021
Page 5
Craig Tribken stated that a three-story development is not appropriate at this location
and that he is against this project. Chair Swart explained that the proposal was
modified to two stories.
Christina Eichelkraut stated that the matter of the urban heat island has come up with
similar past projects and that continues to be a concern with this type of development.
She also stated that many projects come through the process claiming walkability and
pedestrian-friendly design, but they rarely truly are. Traffic studies are important, and
they are scientifically-based, but there is a disconnect between practical application and
actual technical compliance. These studies do not take into account people’s tendency
to cut through neighborhoods to access major streets, or those avoiding a speed bump
and taking residential streets, and so on. Simple traffic generation numbers do not paint
the full picture of a project’s traffic impact, and developers should heed the community’s
feedback on this matter as an additional data source. She also expressed similar
concern to committee Crawford regarding the supposed reduction in units, but from a
different perspective. She explained that she sees it as a negotiation tactic, and that the
developer always wanted 24 units, but started with 34 to give the impression that they
compromised. She also stated that the cost of speed mitigation falls on property owners
and that the committee should at least find a way to hold the developer accountable for
their fair share of the cost, with the understanding that this can’t be stipulated with an
entitlement case.
Nye stated that the purpose of the Village Planning Committee is to come together in a
collaborative and engaging way to achieve a positive outcome for the community and
expressed concern with committee members criticizing other committee members for
not participating in the meeting. She also stated that, from a planning perspective, six
single-family homes aren’t realistic for this property given the surrounding uses, which
include condos, apartments, and offices. She stated that the proposal is consistent with
the existing land uses and would likely have a positive impact on property values.
MOTION
Nye made a motion to approve the request as filed. Chair Swart requested to amend
the motion to include a stipulation that the developer shall work with the Street
Transportation Department to construct a speed hump along Weldon Avenue, and that
the developer shall be responsible for the cost of the speed hump. Nye accepted the
amendment. Vice Chair William Fischbach seconded the motion.
Craig Tribken stated that the density of the project is too high for this small lot.
Linda Bair stated that there was no good faith from the applicant in listening to the
community’s concerns and expressed concern with the use of the PUD district.
Vic Grace expressed concern with the misleading nature of the support letters
submitted by the applicant.
Camelback East Village Planning Committee
Minutes – November 2, 2021
Page 6
Barry Paceley stated that the project is too dense for the area and expressed concern
with the overuse of the PUD district in the village.
Tom O’Malley clarified that just because some committee members don’t ask questions
during the meeting, it does not mean that they are not engaged and participating. He
stated that he has driven out to see the site in person, he has met with developers on
cases and asked questions beforehand, and all committee members put a lot of effort to
thoroughly understand the requests that come before them.
VOTE
10-6: Motion passes with committee members Swart, Fischbach, Abbott, Bayless,
Thraen, Garcia, McKee, Nye, O’Malley, and Rush in favor, and committee members
Bair, Crawford, Eichelkraut, Grace, Paceley, and Tribken opposed.
5) INFORMATION ONLY: Presentation and discussion regarding the 2021
Camelback East Village Annual Report.
Mastikhina presented the items up for discussion regarding updates to the Camelback
East Village Annual Report, which include updating the To-Do List, the cover photo, a
highlighted project, and a new committee group photo. The committee discussed the to-
do list items and provided feedback on additional items that they’d like to include in the
new list. Chair Swart requested that the remainder of the items be discussed at the
next committee meeting.
6) Public comments concerning items not on the agenda.
None.
7) Staff update on cases recently reviewed by the Committee.
Mastikhina provided the following updates:
• Z-26-21-4 (17th St & Glenrosa): Request from R-3 to R-4 for multifamily
development, was approved by the City Council on October 6, 2021.
• Z-36-21-6 (13th Pl & Colter St): Request from C-2 SP to R-3 to clean up zoning
on landscape tracts for a multifamily development was approved by the Planning
Commission on October 7, 2021. It will be heard by the City Council on
November 3, 2021.
• Z-39-21-6 (44th Str & Clarendon Ave): Request from R1-10 to R-O for a
residential office was approved by the Planning Commission on October 7, 2021.
It will be heard by the City Council on November 3, 2021.
8) Committee member announcements, requests for information, follow up, or
future agenda items.
None