Attachment C - VPC Summary - GPA-RV-1-22-1.pdf
Extracted text (via pymupdf)
28009 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 GPA-RV-1-22-1 Date of VPC Meeting May 9, 2023 Request From Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre (68.93 acres) and Commercial (45.65 acres) Request To Residential 5 to 10 dwelling units per acre (64.52 acres), Residential 10 to 15 dwelling units per acre (31.07 acres), Residential 15+ dwelling units per acre (18.99 acres) and Remove Infrastructure Phasing Overlay (114.58 acres) Proposal Minor General Plan Amendment to allow single-family and multifamily, and an update to the infrastructure limit line Location Northeast corner of I-17 and Circle Mountain Road VPC Recommendation Approval, per the staff recommendation VPC Vote 4-2 VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS: Cases GPA-RV-1-22-1 and Z-8-22-1 are companion cases and were heard together. Eight members of the public registered to speak on this item, in opposition. Staff Presentation: Adrian Zambrano, staff, provided an overview of the Minor General Plan Amendment request including the location of the request and surrounding General Plan Land Use Map designations. Mr. Zambrano provided background on the Infrastructure Limit Line and Infrastructure Phasing Overlay from the North Black Canyon Corridor Plan, noting that the Rio Vista Village was annexed into the City of Phoenix in 2002, after the policies from the North Black Canyon Corridor Plan were adopted in 1999, and that there is a gap in planning efforts. Mr. Zambrano concluded that due to this gap in planning efforts, there is no policy indicating that the Infrastructure Phasing Overlay is to be expanded into any new annexed property. Mr. Zambrano shared the staff findings and stated that staff recommends approval as amended to remove the request for modifications to the Infrastructure Phasing Overlay. Mr. Zambrano then provided an overview of the companion rezoning request including the location of the request, surrounding zoning and land uses, and the General Plan Land Use Map designations. Mr. Zambrano displayed the site plan and elevations for the proposed project and shared that the proposal has received two letters of opposition, three letters with ATTACHMENT C Rio Vista Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary GPA-RV-1-22-1 Page 2 of 9 City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 concerns, and a petition of opposition with 214 signatures to date and summarized the concerns. Mr. Zambrano shared the staff findings and stated that staff recommends approval subject to stipulations. Applicant Presentation: Adam Baugh, representative with Withey Morris Baugh, PLC, introduced himself and provided an overview of the request. Mr. Baugh shared the background of the developer, Bela Flor Communities. Mr. Baugh stated that when the property was first annexed into the City of Phoenix in 2007, the original plan was to build more commercial opportunities. Mr. Baugh shared that there was a development agreement formed to allow commercial development with septic systems, which would normally not be allowed today, and as City management changed, there was no longer a willingness to allow commercial development on septic systems. Mr. Baugh stated that infrastructure has been the property’s biggest obstacle. Mr. Baugh shared that the current zoning would allow 1,579 homes, a retail shopping center, or a combination of the two. Mr. Baugh stated that the property owners had a hope that a future off-ramp would be built somewhere between Anthem Way to New River Road, which never occurred. Mr. Baugh stated that at one point there was a plan that the nearest utility provider, EPCOR, would serve the property and be reimbursed by the City of Phoenix, which has since been cancelled. Mr. Baugh stated that residential can be located on the property but comes with an expensive cost of $13 million for utility line extensions, noting that it is very expensive because of needing to go under the freeway three times for a looped water system, as required by the City. Mr. Baugh added that the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) development has added hope to the property that did not exist before, noting that it adds a major employer in the area that would support residential development. Mr. Baugh shared that the rezoning request allows the property to be master planned rather than coming in piece by piece under the existing zoning entitlements. Mr. Baugh displayed the previously proposed site plan and shared changes made since it was last presented, noting that there is not a development plan for Phase 3 yet due to topographical limitations, and that they are stipulated to come back to the Rio Vista Village Planning Committee for the future site plan and elevations of Phase 3. Mr. Baugh added that the Rio Vista Village Design Guidelines were also implemented into the design. Mr. Baugh stated that the traffic generated from the proposed residential development would be three times fewer daily trips than the daily trips that would be generated with the current zoning entitlements, noting that traffic from the proposed development would be going the opposite direction along the I-17 frontage road than queuing from the school to the north. Mr. Baugh noted that the I-17 frontage road is being widened from two lanes to three lanes, which will help traffic congestion coming from the I-17 onto the frontage road. Mr. Baugh shared their neighborhood agreement and proposed additional stipulations. Questions from the Committee: Mr. Sommacampagna asked why Phase 3 is recommended to go through the Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) public hearing process instead of through the rezoning process. Rio Vista Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary GPA-RV-1-22-1 Page 3 of 9 City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 Mr. Baugh responded that the PHO process is the process that it would be heard by the Village Planning Committee. Mr. Scharboneau asked why the request to be removed from the Infrastructure Phasing Overlay is recommended to be removed. Mr. Zambrano responded that after further review, staff determined removal of the Infrastructure Phasing Overlay was not required since the subject site is not located within the Infrastructure Phasing Overlay. Mr. Scharboneau asked why the requested General Plan Land Use Map designations are higher density when the existing General Plan Land Use Map designations contemplated Commercial and Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre, which seems to be more compatible with the surrounding area. Mr. Baugh responded that the General Plan is a policy document and zoning is regulatory. Mr. Baugh explained that the existing zoning is commercial, which allows multifamily residential development by- right. Mr. Baugh stated that the existing General Plan Land Use Map designations do not reflect what the current zoning is. Mr. Baugh stated that their request is mirroring uses and intensity that is already allowed with the existing zoning, which allows a density up to 15 dwelling units per acre. Mr. Scharboneau asked if the applicant agreed that the intent was for the commercial zoning to match with the General Plan Land Use Map designation for the intent of commercial uses and where designated as residential on the General Plan Land Use Map designation, that residential uses would be located in those areas with a density range of 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre. Mr. Baugh responded that he does not agree, adding that he has seen a lot of inconsistencies throughout the City of Phoenix General Plan Land Use Map and has been asked before to amend the General Plan Land Use Map to reflect the existing zoning. Mr. Virgil asked about where traffic would go, adding that the proposal is for a lot of density that would create a lot of traffic. Mr. Baugh responded that traffic from commercial development on the property would either have to go north or south along the I-17 frontage road, similar to the proposed residential development. Mr. Baugh added that the density would be significantly less than what the property is currently entitled to, and that denial of their request would not change the fact that more than 1,500 units could be built using the existing zoning entitlements. Mr. Baugh stated that with the number of recommended stipulations, it would be a very regulated project that would result in a better product than it would under the existing entitlements. Mr. Virgil asked if the property was purchased already. Mr. Baugh responded affirmatively. Jeff Riederer asked about notification to nearby residents and citizen participation. Mr. Baugh responded that they followed City of Phoenix notification and sign posting requirements, and that they were working with a neighbor to the north that has helped communicate everything to other neighbors. Mr. Riederer asked about the outcome of citizen participation. Mr. Baugh responded that the concerns were mostly addressed through the additional stipulations proposed in the neighborhood agreement. Mr. Baugh reiterated that the proposal is about 400 units less than what is allowed to be built under the existing zoning. Rio Vista Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary GPA-RV-1-22-1 Page 4 of 9 City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 Mr. Sommacampagna stated that he appreciates that the applicant took the time to look through and implement the Rio Vista Village Design Guidelines. Mr. Sommacampagna stated that in the residential standards, it recommends different materials and finishes, avoiding a box look, and having desert tone colors. Mr. Sommacampagna stated that he does not believe white Santa Barbara style architecture goes well with the desert tone theme. Mr. Sommacampagna stated that he does like the building elevations for Phase 2. Mr. Baugh responded that it would not be a problem for them to adjust the colors or materials. Mr. Scharboneau asked about the Red Border Letter process. Dawn Cartier, Principal Traffic Engineer with CivTech Inc., responded that the Red Border Letter is a standard process that the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) put in place years ago. Ms. Cartier stated that anytime a project is within a half mile of an ADOT facility, a Red Border Letter has to be submitted that tells ADOT what the project is about, and ADOT reviews it and comments on what they want to see. Ms. Cartier clarified that they have already sent ADOT the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA). Mr. Scharboneau asked what ADOT wants to see. Ms. Cartier responded that the TIA is the most ADOT would ever want to see, and sometimes they just want to see the traffic at an interchange so ADOT can make adjustments or work with the City so that stipulations can be added related to necessary improvements. Chair Lawrence asked if there were any traffic studies at the intersection of the I-17 and Anthem Way or at the intersection of the I-17 and New River Road. Ms. Cartier responded that they did evaluate both intersections in the traffic study and have been working with the City to address comments on the traffic study. Mr. Virgil asked about the size of the build-to-rent units and how much the monthly rent would be. Hudd Hassell, representative with Bela Flor Communities, responded that they would be around 900 to 1700 square feet in size. Mr. Hassell stated that the monthly rent would be at the market rate and would depend on the market at the time. Mr. Virgil asked about the water line location. Mr. Baugh responded that it is located on the west side of the I-17 freeway, three miles to the south through the other neighborhoods. Mr. Baugh stated that they would have to take out their water lines, expand them, put in new water lines, and then bring them up to the north on the west side of the freeway, and then cross under the freeway to reach the subject property. Mr. Virgil stated that the water line that they would be adjusting is pretty new. Mr. Baugh stated that it is undersized because a loop system with a certain pressure capacity for fire safety is required. Mr. Virgil stated that something similar had to occur for a project on Pioneer Road and asked if they could connect to the water line there. Mr. Hassell stated that their looping system would start at Circle Mountain Road and would go to the north so they could have that looping system. Mr. Sommacampagna asked if anyone could tap into the extended water and wastewater infrastructure. Mr. Hassell responded that the City requires that the infrastructure be provided all along the east side of the I-17. Mr. Baugh stated that it Rio Vista Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary GPA-RV-1-22-1 Page 5 of 9 City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 would be a good opportunity for the residents currently in the County jurisdiction to be annexed into the City of Phoenix jurisdiction and receive City water and sewer services and that they would have that opportunity in the future. Mr. Hassell added that one of the proposed additional stipulations is to cap their wells, so they do not use any water in the area and do not draw down the water table. Mr. Holton recommended the residential development be a senior living community. Public Comments and Applicant Response to Public Comments: Josh Weidman asked if Phase 3 would be higher density. Mr. Baugh responded affirmatively. Harmony Brown introduced herself as a neighbor opposed to the project. Ms. Brown asked where the Traffic Impact Analysis is located for public viewing and if it was done after the school was built. Ms. Brown stated she has many pictures to show the traffic congestion. Ms. Brown stated that they only have one way to access their homes and have no back road access. Ms. Brown stated that the proposal would cause safety issues and mass traffic congestion. Ms. Brown stated that traffic on the I-17 frontage road is backed up very often. Ms. Brown stated that the existing zoning from 2007 is not updated and does not reflect current traffic flow. Ms. Brown was concerned about the density. Ms. Brown stated there is no room for expansion of the I-17 frontage road. Ms. Brown stated that there are many acres of land to build on near the TSMC project, and suggested the developer build the proposed development closer to TSMC. Ms. Brown stated that a new on- and off-ramp to the freeway between Anthem Way and New River Road would solve the traffic congestion issue. Tammy Hughes introduced herself as a neighbor from Arroyo Norte in opposition. Ms. Hughes echoed Ms. Brown. Ms. Hughes asked what the master plan is for the traffic. Ms. Hughes stated that there was a transformer that caught on fire two years ago that enflamed the whole desert by Ms. Brown’s house and a horse property. Ms. Hughes stated that there is no fire hydrant around the recreational vehicle dealership and that there are no fire walls around the dealership to keep fire from going into the desert. Ms. Hughes asked what the master plan for fire is. John Dixon introduced himself as a neighbor of 22 years to the north on an abandoned powerline road near the surface mine, in opposition. Mr. Dixon echoed Ms. Brown. Mr. Dixon stated that there were times when he could not get home for over an hour because of the traffic congestion on the freeway and on the frontage road. Mr. Dixon asked what was going to be done with the frontage road north of the subject site. Mr. Dixon stated that the City, County and State do not want anything to do with the frontage road to the north. Mr. Dixon stated that the road never gets patrolled or monitored. Mr. Dixon stated that there are many cars that speed down the road, bicyclists using the frontage road from Anthem Way to New River Road that hold up traffic, and cars that cross the double yellow line in a no passing zone with oncoming traffic. Mr. Dixon stated that the deputy police officer of the district had told him that they do not have the resources to monitor the road. Mr. Dixon stated that only portions of the Rio Vista Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary GPA-RV-1-22-1 Page 6 of 9 City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 frontage road are within City of Phoenix jurisdiction. Mr. Dixon stated that nothing will be done about the frontage road until there is a fatality. Mr. Scharboneau asked if the City of Phoenix has the jurisdiction to do anything with the frontage road. Mr. Baugh responded that the frontage roads are governed by the Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT). Mr. Baugh stated that based on their traffic study, they will have an obligation to widen the frontage road. Mr. Baugh stated that the traffic congestion is occurring because property adjacent to the frontage road has not developed so the infrastructure has not been put in yet. Mr. Baugh stated that the frontage road will be widened as part of the project. Mr. Virgil asked what the size of the water line is. Mr. Hassell responded that the anticipated size is a 12-inch line, which could be as high as a 16-inch line from the tanks to get the right pressure to serve. Eileen Baden introduced herself as a neighbor from New River with concerns. Ms. Baden stated that she has a master’s degree in urban and environmental planning. Ms. Baden requested the project be delayed to the next meeting so more information can be shared. Ms. Baden stated that is has been hard for her to get information on the project. Ms. Baden stated that the frontage road is a regional transportation connection between New River and Anthem. Ms. Baden stated that the frontage road was too narrow and too dangerous for bicyclists. Ms. Baden shared that she had requested perimeter paths to be included in the project for enhanced connectivity and safe pathways. Ms. Baden believed that rural communities deserve active transportation options as well. Ms. Baden stated that biking is the first top activity for kids nationwide and the third top activity for adults after walking and hiking. Ms. Baden stated that good infrastructure for biking needs to be provided since it is one of the top outdoor activities in the nation. Ms. Baden stated that 34% of Maricopa County is obese or overweight according to the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) Active Transportation Plan, emphasizing the need to create safe outdoor activity opportunities in communities. Ms. Baden stated that she would like to use Jenny Lin Road to access hiking trails to Daisy Mountain and requested it not be gated. Ms. Baden was concerned with the noise walls because of the area being located in a scenic corridor. Ms. Baden emphasized important pathway connections due to potential development to the east. Ms. Baden echoed concerns with the I-17 frontage road. Ms. Baden was concerned with wildfires from the north coming south and fire evacuation plans. Ms. Baden emphasized that this is a regional connection and requested more public outreach be done by the applicant and to include the New River community. Ms. Baden commented that dark skies need to be protected, noting that she heard that the Desert Hills community lost their dark skies when Anthem was built. Ms. Baden stated that the area is in a scenic corridor according to the Maricopa County Daisy Mountain/New River Area Plan, emphasizing protection of scenic views. Ms. Baden stated that a trailhead parking area is needed for Daisy Mountain. Ms. Baden was concerned with the transition of density and suggested density be lower to the north and higher to the south. Ms. Baden suggested more community outreach be done. Rio Vista Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary GPA-RV-1-22-1 Page 7 of 9 City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 Brandon Hill introduced himself as a neighbor in opposition. Mr. Hill stated that the proposal would bring new traffic to the area and traffic from commercial development would mostly be from people already living in the area. Mr. Hill stated that frontage road is already overpopulated, and that New River Road is faster to get to Carefree Highway than the I-17. Mr. Hill commented that there are many other residential developments in the area that are already being built and stated that those developments are not being accounted for. Mr. Hill stated that the I-17 and the Loop 101 freeways are a huge traffic jam all the time. Mr. Hill stated each proposed dwelling until will have at least two cars because they are necessary to get to places, emphasizing the added traffic. Angela Faber asked which fire department would serve the proposed development. Mr. Hassell responded that it would be served by the City of Phoenix since the property was annexed into the City. Ms. Faber asked where the nearest City of Phoenix fire station is located. Mr. Baugh responded that there is an agreement between all fire departments that whoever is closer will respond to the fire or medical emergency, noting that it works that way across all jurisdictions. Mr. Baugh stated that they will have to pay impact fees for water, sewer, as well as for public safety, for every one of their dwelling units, clarifying that those impact fees go towards the expansion and build out of new police and fire stations. Ms. Faber asked where the closest fire station is. Mr. Baugh responded that it would be built out per the impact fees. Ms. Faber asked where and when it would be built out. Mr. Hassell responded it would be built out whenever the City of Phoenix decides to build it. Ms. Faber responded that it has been said that a new fire station would be built out since the other side of Anthem has been built on the other side of the freeway. Ms. Faber stated that the proposed development will be utilizing the Daisy Mountain Fire Department. Ms. Faber asked if impact fees would be paid to the Daisy Mountain Fire Department. Mr. Baugh responded that they pay impact fees to the City of Phoenix, not Daisy Mountain Fire Department, and the City of Phoenix determines how and when they want to spend the impact fees, where the facilities should be located, and how the facilities would benefit their residents and the surrounding area that could be outside of the City of Phoenix jurisdiction. Mr. Baugh clarified that the agreement between the fire departments is beyond the scope of the Village Planning Committee. Ms. Faber responded that a new fire station still has not been built after approval of many different projects. Ms. Faber stated that the fire department does not currently have funds to build a new fire station. Mr. Baugh responded that they would have a requirement to install fire infrastructure all throughout the area, such as fire hydrants and testing pressure. Mr. Baugh stated that fire departments will be able to tap into those fire hydrants on their property boundary to fight a nearby fire. An unknown audience member stated concerns with fire evacuation. Mr. Baugh responded that the existing road is not what it will look like when the project is built. Ms. Cartier stated that ADOT has an evacuation plan and that they must have one for the area. Ms. Cartier stated that when the road is widened, it will have a bike lane and an extra 12 feet of pavement heading to the north or to the south. Ms. Cartier stated that ADOT, under their emergency management plan, can bring in police officers and can take all the vehicles out of a single direction. Rio Vista Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary GPA-RV-1-22-1 Page 8 of 9 City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 Mr. Baugh stated that in addition to the widening of the frontage road and bike lane, there will be a 10-foot-wide multi-use trail along the west side of the property within a 30-foot-wide multi-use trail easement. Mr. Baugh stated that the project is providing the very infrastructure that is lacking. Cyndi Tendick echoed Ms. Faber. Chair Lawrence asked how many units are permitted with the existing zoning. Mr. Baugh responded 1,579 units. Chair Lawrence asked how many units are being proposed. Mr. Baugh responded around 1,000 units. Discussion: Mr. Sommacampagna stated that he thinks this is one of the best options they have given the by-right zoning. Mr. Sommacampagna stated that seeing a project with over 44 stipulations and a neighborhood agreement that is signed is a good sign and that he does not often seen developers going above and beyond. Mr. Scharboneau stated that the Committee makes recommendations to the Planning Commission and that staff has recommended approval. Mr. Scharboneau suggested that everyone that showed up to the meeting should show up to the Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Scharboneau stated that concerns about widening the frontage road should be aimed at MCDOT. Mr. Virgil stated that developers are usually the ones that put in all the infrastructure for new development. Mr. Riederer stated that feels for the residents and understands their concerns with traffic. Mr. Riederer stated that the concerns need to be taken to the next level to the other public hearings. MOTION – GPA-RV-1-22-1: Mr. Scharboneau motioned to recommend denial of GPA-RV-1-22-1. Mr. Virgil seconded the motion. VOTE – GPA-RV-1-22-1: 2-4; motion to recommend denial of GPA-RV-1-22-1 fails with Committee members Scharboneau and Virgil in favor and Committee members Holton, Riederer, Sommacampagna and Lawrence opposed. MOTION – GPA-RV-1-22-1: Mr. Holton motioned to recommend approval of GPA-RV-1-22-1 per the staff recommendation. Mr. Sommacampagna second the motion. Rio Vista Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary GPA-RV-1-22-1 Page 9 of 9 City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department 200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882 VOTE – GPA-RV-1-22-1: 4-2; motion to recommend approval of GPA-RV-1-22-1 per the staff recommendation passes with Committee members Holton, Riederer, Sommacampagna and Lawrence in favor and Committee members Scharboneau and Virgil opposed. MOTION – Z-8-22-1: Mr. Holton motioned to recommend denial of Z-8-22-1. No one seconded the motion, so the motion failed. MOTION – Z-8-22-1: Mr. Sommacampagna motioned to recommend approval of Z-8-22-1 per the staff recommendation, with additional stipulations as proposed by the applicant. Mr. Riederer seconded the motion. VOTE – Z-8-22-1: 5-1; motion to recommend approval of Z-8-22-1 per the staff recommendation, with additional stipulations, passes with Committee members Riederer, Scharboneau, Sommacampagna, Virgil and Lawrence in favor and Committee member Holton opposed. STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDAITON: Staff recommended to remove the request for removal of the Infrastructure Phasing Overlay since the site is not located in the Infrastructure Phasing Overlay area per the map from the North Black Canyon Corridor Plan.