Attachment C - VPC Summary - Z-22-21-8.pdf
Extracted text (via pymupdf)
16373 characters
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary Z-22-21-8 Date of VPC Meeting July 12, 2021 Request From S-1, S-1 (Approved R1-8 PCD), and S-1 (Approved C-1 PCD) Request To R-3 Proposed Use Multifamily residential Location Approximately 5.26 acres located approximately 375 feet east of the northeast corner of 59th Avenue and Elliot Road VPC Recommendation Approval with a modification and additional stipulations VPC Vote 6-3 DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS: Sofia Mastikhina, staff, provided an overview of the request, including the size, location, current and surrounding zoning and land uses, and General Plan Land Use Map designation. She explained that this case is a continuation of the single-family for rent development which was approved on the property to the north, and that this subject site will provide space for more units, more open space, and an additional vehicular entry on Elliott Road. The remainder of the site to the north is addressed in Agenda Item No. 6, PHO-1-21—Z-14-19-8 and will be voted on separately. She presented staff’s findings, recommendation for approval, and recommended stipulations. Benjamin Tate, representative with Withey Morris, explained that the site in question is 5.26 acres in size and is an additional part of the 249-unit development that was approved on the property to the north. He stated that the addition of this additional acreage will provide the development with frontage onto Elliott Road. He provided some background information on the property, stating that the subject site was always intended to be a part of the development that the committee approved in 2019, but that the developer was not able to reach terms with the property owner in time for the entitlement process. It was only recently that this parcel was able to become a part of the overall development. He explained that additional units will now be provided on the overall site but that, with the additional five acres, more open space is able to be provided, and the overall density for the development has decreased. He provided an Attachment C overview of the main site features such as the frontage elements on Elliott Road including the proposed landscape setback and multi-use trail. COMMITTEE QUESTIONS Robert Branscomb expressed concern with expanding multifamily residential uses in Laveen and the potential hindrance this may cause in creating the Loop 202 high tech employment corridor. Chair Tonya Glass asked if parking areas are included in the open space calculations. Tate replied no, and staff confirmed. Stephanie Hurd stated that the committee has to be careful with approving these types of projects, no matter how nice the elevations may look. She expressed concern with the number of multifamily units in Laveen and the reduction in opportunities for retail that is not just fast food restaurants and other chains. Vice Chair Linda Abegg agreed with the comments regarding expansion of multifamily units in Laveen yet reminded the committee that the majority of this development was already approved in 2019. The addition of these five acres is preferable to create a nice frontage along Elliott Road and a cohesive development, instead of being sold off independently for an ill-fitting project. She also stated that the additional five acres will allow for more open space to be provided. Hurd noted that Laveen did not have as many multifamily units two years ago, when this was approved. Tate addressed the concerns regarding the diminishment of retail opportunities and explained that commercial developers are waiting for a critical mass of rooftops to make sure that there will be enough people to support new commercial sites. He added that he presented this case for the Laveen Citizens for Responsible Development group and received unanimous approval. Chair Glass stated that the community has been hearing about the need for additional rooftops for years, yet no notable commercial development has come to Laveen. Further, schools are not able to accommodate the new units at the rate they are being built, there is no police service, and not enough infrastructure to support it all. Hurd agreed with the Chair’s comments, stressing that Laveen will end up with many more rooftops than they desire and there will be no retail to serve it all. PUBLIC COMMENT Dan Penton stated that the original case was praised by the committee for its design and scale, and that he would much rather see this development while driving from the Loop 202 than a mass of single-family brown rooftops. This will provide a much more desirable appeal with the porte-cochere and split rail fencing along Elliott, which will create a true sense of arrival. The project will be a better fit for this area and will help alleviate potential traffic issues. Phil Hertel stated that this is adding five acres onto an already approved case. Although it is adding multifamily units, the LCRD approved it with a stipulation: that parking be available for guests to park in front of clubhouse area if they are visiting a resident that is having a party in the amenity area. That parking in the front be uncovered, open to guests, and that gated entry be behind it. He asked the committee to include these stipulations in their recommendation. He then asked what contributions the applicant has made to the school district for the proposed added rooftops. Tate replied that the applicant has not executed a developer assistance agreement yet, but that the developer is reviewing the school district’s proposal of 350 dollars per door. He also stated that the applicant can accommodate additional parking spaces in front of the amenity area but that, due to the overall configuration of the site, they will not be able to be located outside of the security gate area. COMMITTEE QUESTIONS Carlos Ortega asked if the committee can postpone voting on this case until an agreement is reached with the school district and the applicant can redesign the site to accommodate the additional guest parking. Vice Chair Abegg explained that the committee can stipulate the parking as part of their motion but that they cannot stipulate any school district contributions. She mentioned that the school district superintendent had sent her a message that they have a verbal agreement with the applicant and that they don’t expect as many children from this type of development. Branscomb asked if there is a height limitation. Mastikhina replied that staff is recommending a stipulation to limit the maximum building height to 30 feet. MOTION Vice Chair Abegg made motion to approve the request with an additional stipulation that the developer provide a minimum of 24 guest parking spaces in close proximity to the clubhouse amenity area, inside the security gates. Carlos Ortega seconded the motion. VOTE 3-6: Motion fails with committee members Glass, Abegg, and Ortega in favor and committee members Branscomb, Estela, Hurd, Knight, Rouse, and Rowe opposed. Stephanie Hurd stated that the village cannot have more multifamily units and that the committee needs to take a stand against expansion of this land use. Branscomb made a motion to approve the request with additional stipulations that the developer provide a minimum of 24 parking spaces in close proximity to the clubhouse amenity area, and that the maximum building height be 20 feet. Ortega seconded the motion. Stephanie Hurd made a competing motion to deny as filed. Jennifer Rouse seconded the motion. VOTE 5-3-1: Competing motion to deny passes with Committee members Glass, Estela, Hurd, Rouse, and Rowe in favor, committee members Abegg, Branscomb, and Ortega opposed, and committee member Knight abstaining. ADDITIONAL MOTION After hearing Agenda Item No. 6 (PHO-1-21—Z-14-19-8), Cinthia Estela made a motion to reconsider Agenda Item No. 5, Z-22-21-8. Sharifa Rowe seconded the motion. RECONSIDERED MOTION Rowe expressed frustration with the concept of approving this request for additional units simply because 249 units were already approved three years ago on the parcel to the north and made a motion to deny the request so that the developer is held to the previously approved density on that parcel. Gizette Knight seconded the motion. Vice Chair Abegg made a competing motion to approve the request with the following additional stipulations: • The developer shall provide a minimum of 24 parking spaces in close proximity to the primary amenity pool area; • The maximum building height shall be 22 feet; • There shall be a maximum of 35 units. Robert Branscomb seconded the motion. VOTE 4-5: Motion fails with committee members Glass, Abegg, Branscomb, and Ortega in favor and committee members Estela, Hurd, Knight, Rouse, and Rowe in opposition. Carlos Ortega stated that a further reduction in units would be preferable and made a motion to approve the request with the following additional stipulations: • The developer shall provide a minimum of 24 parking spaces in close proximity to the primary amenity pool area; • The maximum building height shall be 22 feet; • There shall be a maximum of 30 units. Cinthia Estela requested to amend the motion to further reduce the unit count to 25. Ortega accepted the amendment. Estela seconded the motion. VOTE 6-3: Motion passes with committee members Glass, Abegg, Branscomb, Estela, Ortega, and Rowe in favor and committee members Hurd, Knight, and Rouse in opposition. VPC RECOMMENDATION & STIPULATIONS: 1. The development shall be in general conformance with the site plan and elevations date stamped April 19, 2021, as modified by the following stipulations and approved by the Planning and Development Department. 2. The front elevations shall consist of a minimum 10 percent non-stucco accent material. 3. The maximum building height shall be 30 22 feet. 4. All sidewalks adjacent to public rights-of-way shall be detached with a minimum 10- foot-wide continuous landscape area located between the sidewalk and back of curb; and shall include 3-inch minimum caliper, large canopy single-trunk shade trees, 25 feet on center or in equivalent groupings; and minimum five-gallon shrubs with a maximum mature height of 2 feet providing 75 percent live cover, as approved by the Planning and Development Department. Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and Development Department on alternative design solutions consistent with a pedestrian environment. 5. A minimum 30-foot landscape setback shall be required adjacent to Elliott Road and shall include large canopy shade trees 20 feet on center or in equivalent groupings between the sidewalk and proposed site development as approved by the Planning and Development Department. Twenty-five percent of the trees shall be minimum four-inch caliper and 75 percent of the trees shall be minimum three- inch caliper. Five, five-gallon shrubs per tree, and additional shrubs or live groundcover, shall provide minimum 75 percent live cover at mature size as approved by the Planning and Development Department. Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and Development Department on alternative design solutions consistent with a pedestrian environment. 6. The developer shall provide a minimum of 25 percent open space, as approved by the Planning and Development Department. 7. Public and private open space areas shall provide a minimum 50 percent shade and a minimum of 50 percent live vegetative cover (shrubs, grasses, or groundcover plants). 8. All uncovered surface parking lot areas shall be landscaped with a minimum 2-inch caliper drought-tolerant shade trees. Landscaping shall be dispersed throughout the parking area and achieve 25 percent shade at maturity, as approved by Planning and Development Department. 9. A pedestrian connection shall be provided between the site and the C-1 portion to the west of the site, as approved by the Planning and Development Department. 10. Decorative rail or similar fencing elements shall be provided along Elliott Road, as approved by the Planning and Development Department. 11. The developer shall dedicate a 30-foot wide multi-use trail easement (MUTE) along Elliott Road and construct a minimum 10-foot wide multi-use trail (MUT) within the easement in accordance with the MAG supplemental detail and as approved by the Planning and Development Department. Where conflicts or restrictions exist, the developer shall work with the Site Planning section on an alternate design through the technical appeal process. 12. The multi-use trail along Elliott Road shall be shaded to a minimum of 50 percent using shade trees at full maturity, as approved by the Planning and Development Department. 13. A minimum of 10 bicycle parking spaces shall be provided through Inverted U and/or artistic racks (in adherence to the City of Phoenix Preferred Designs in Appendix K of the Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan) or “Outdoor/Covered Facilities” for guests located near entrances or amenity areas and installed per the requirements of Section 1307.H. of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, as approved by the Planning and Development Department. 14. The developer shall provide for a 55-foot half street right-of-way dedication for the east side of 59th Avenue from the northern project boundary, extending to Elliot Road. This shall include 37-feet of paving for the east half of 59th Avenue, as approved by the Planning and De elopement Department. 15. The developer shall provide for a 55-foot half street right-of-way dedication on the north side of Elliot Road from 59th Avenue to the existing residential development to the east. This shall include 37 feet of paving for the north half of Elliot Road and additional improvements, as approved by the Planning and Development Department. 16. The developer shall dedicate and provide all right-of-way improvements during the first phase of the project. 17. The developer shall provide conduit and junction boxes at the northeast corner of 59th Avenue and Elliot Road for future traffic signal equipment. The plan is to be submitted to the Street Transportation Department for review and approval. 18. The applicant shall submit a TIA with an associated Signal Warrant Analysis for the intersection of 59th Avenue and Elliott Road. Development will be responsible for the installation of the traffic signal or an in-lieu contribution as defined within the approved traffic warrant analysis. No preliminary approval of plans shall be granted until the study is reviewed and approved by the Street Transportation Department. 19. Existing irrigation facilities along 59th Avenue and Elliot Road are to be undergrounded and/or relocated outside of City right-of-way. Contact SRP to identify existing land rights and establish appropriate process to relocate the facility. Relocations that require additional dedications or land transfer require completion prior to obtaining plat and/or civil plan review approval. 20. The developer shall underground existing overhead electrical utilities within the public right-of-way that are impacted or need to be relocated as part of this project. Developer shall coordinate review and permitting with the affected utility companies. 21. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the development with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, landscaping and other incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and Development Department. All improvements shall comply with the current ADA Guidelines. 22. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33- foot radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials. 23. THE DEVELOPER SHALL PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF 24 GUEST PARKING SPACES DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO THE CLUBHOUSE AMENITY AREA. 24. THERE SHALL BE A MAXIMUM OF 25 RESIDENTIAL UNITS. STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION & STIPULATIONS: None.