Extracted text (via pymupdf)
24933 characters
STUDY SESSION MINUTES OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHANDLER, ARIZONA November 18, 2020, held in the City Council Chambers, 88 E. Chicago Street. 1. CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL CHAIRMAN HEUMANN called the study session to order at 5:01 p.m. The following Commissioners answered Roll Call: Chairman Rick Heumann Commissioner Robert Klob Commissioner Michael Flanders Commissioner George Kimble Commissioner Gregg Pekau Absent Vice Chairman David Rose Commissioner Matt Eberle Also, present: Mr. Derek Horn, Development Services Director Mr. Kevin Mayo, Planning Administrator Ms. Kristine Gay, Senior City Planner Mr. Benjamin Cereceres, City Planner Mr. Thomas Allen, Assistant City Attorney Ms. Catherine Flores, Clerk 2. AGENDA ITEMS: a. PLH20-0035 BRENNTAG - TANK FARM RECONFIGURATION, Use Permit request to reconfigure a tank farm by increasing the number of chemical bulk storage tanks from 8 tanks to 13 tanks and the addition of an unloading platform station. The facility is located on property zoned General Industrial District (1-2) west of Beck Avenue and south of Chandler Boulevard, located at 6750 W. Boston Street. Background • Zoned General Industrial (1-2) for industrial uses • Zoning Code requires Use Permit approval for chemical bulk terminal plants for wholesale and storage • Use Permit approvals obtained in 1989, 2003, 2012, & 2015 Surrounding Land Use Data North Industrial (PAD) South General Industrial (1-2) across Boston Street East Planned Industrial (1-1) West Southern Pacific Railroad Existing Business O1:1erations Lot Size 5.7 Acres Previously approved# of tanks 8 tanks Planning & Zoning Commission Study Session Minutes November 18, 2020 - Page 2 Proposed total# of tanks 13 tanks # of employees 23 employees Days & Hours of Operation Monday - Friday 6:30 a.m. - 5 p.m. Review and Recommendation Staff would like to note that the addition of the chemical storage tanks that are being requested have already been installed on-site. Planning staff reviewed the request and finds the proposed addition of chemical storage tanks and an additional unloading platform is a compatible land use within the industrial property. As of the writing of this memo, no known complaints or concerns have been voiced by the nearby property owners or business owners to either the applicant or staff. The previous use permits were for chemical bulk storage, chemical re-drumming, and distribution. The previous approvals were specific to the number and size of chemical containers, storage of materials, and site lay-out. The current request is to relocate (1) 20,000 gallon tank, install (1) new 32,000 gallon tank, install (1) new 8,050 gallon tank, install (3) new 10,500 gallon tanks and the installation of (1) additional unloading platform station. Additionally, the height of (1) of the new tanks will be 31 feet. The previous tallest tank was 24 feet. The use of existing walls and vegetation will assist in screening the existing and proposed tanks. Adjacent to the site's west side is the railroad spur that Brenntag uses as part of their operations. Brenntag's rail spur is currently located on their property. The additional unloading platform station will be located on Southern Pacific Railroad's property to the north and west; it is completely closed and screened. Public / Neighborhood Notification • This request was noticed in accordance with the requirements of the Chandler Zoning Code. • A neighborhood notice letter was mailed out in lieu of a meeting due to no residential development in the notification area. • As of the writing of this memo, Planning staff is not aware of opposition to the request. Recommended Action Planning staff recommends Planning and Zoning Commission move to recommend approval of use permit, subject to the following conditions: 1. Substantial expansion or modification beyond the approved exhibits (Narrative, Site Plan and Site Plan with elevations), as kept on file in Case No. PLH20-0035, shall void the Use Permit and require new Use Permit application and approval, unless otherwise amended via conditions herein. 2. Use Permit approval does not constitute Final Development Plan approval; compliance with the details required by all applicable codes and conditions of the City of Chandler and this Use Permit shall apply. Planning & Zoning Commission Study Session Minutes November 18, 2020 - Page 3 3. The site shall be maintained in a clean and orderly manner. 4. The Use Permit is non-transferable to other locations. 5. Compliance with the City of Chandler's Fire Health and Medical Department provisions with regard to the Hazardous Material Management Plan. COMMISSIONER FLANDERS confirmed that they deliver tanker cars to and then they offload the chemicals. He asked staff where the chemicals go from there. BENJAMIN CERECERES confirmed and responded that they go from the railcars to the chemical storage tanks, and then from there they load the barrels and ship them to the locations that need them. COMMISSIONER FLANDERS asked how big the barrels were if they were 55-gallon tanks etc. BENJAMIN CERECERES responded that he would have to check with the applicant as he was not sure about the size. COMMISSIONER FLANDERS said he was just curious as he was involved with chemical storage warehouse over by Basho's warehouse and they had to do certain things. He asked if the tank location was recessed to be able to capture any type of spill. BENJAMIN CERECERES responded that they did have a containment. CHAIRMAN HEUMANN confirmed with the staff that the project has already been reviewed by the Fire Marshall. BENJAMIN CERECERES confirmed that it was the first thing that they had done. He said it was routed to the Fire Dept. to review and comment for any questions or concerns. CHAIRMAN HEUMANN asked if it was true that these tanks had been put in without permission. BENJAMIN CERECERES responded that was correct that they were able to view through aerial images that these tanks had been put-in without permission and had retroactively submitted this project for approval. CHAIRMAN HEUMANN stated that he would not approve any retroactive projects for the applicant if it were to happen again. He added that especially when they are not going through the process on a project regarding hazardous materials. He said he is super concerned that if they didn't do it right and they had an accident a lot of people would be liable for it. He wanted to make sure the applicant was fully aware of this. Planning & Zoning Commission Study Session Minutes November 18, 2020 - Page 4 b. PLH20-0036 GOJCAJ SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENCE, Use Permit request to allow a single-family residence located on property zoned Medium-Density Residential District (MF-1) approximately¼ of a mile north of Chandler Boulevard and ¼ mile east of Arizona Avenue, located at 444 N. Delaware Street. Benjamin Cereceres noted to the Commission and the audience present that in the presentation shown during the Study Session a yellow house was pictured on the property but that home had been demolished and the property lot is currently empty, Background Data • Site is 0.14 acres • Previous residence demolished, currently vacant lot • Zoned M F-1, which permits twelve (12) units per net acre • Due to lot size only 1.68 units can be constructed by right Surrounding Land Use Data North Multi-plex on 3 lots zoned MF-1 South ingle-family residential zoned MF-1 East hgle-family residential zoned SF-8.5 West ingle-family residential zoned MF-1 across Delaware Street across alley Pro9osed Project Data Unit and Lot Size 2,698 Square-Foot house/ 6,081 Square-Foot lot (0.14 Acre) Setbacks Required Provided Front 20 feet to front fa~ade 25 feet, 7 15/16 inches to front fa~ade 20, 7 15/16 inches to covered patio Sides 5and10feet 5 and 10 feet Rear 10 feet 15 feet Lot Coverage 45% 44.4% Site and Building • One-story residence & 5-foot deep front porch Design • Stucco exterior with complimentary trim paint color at pop-outs, aluminum frame windows and doors, rough saw • 88 Square-foot wood beam/trellis covered rear patio • Concrete driveway • 6' CMU concrete wall on sides and rear of property, no fence in front yard General Plan and Area Plan Designations 2016 General Plan North Arizona Avenue, Growth Area 2 Redevelopment Area Plan Low Density Residential, O - 6 du.lac. Planning staff finds the proposal to be consistent with policies of the General Plan and the Redevelopment Area Plan that call for a variety of compatible housing choices and densities. Planning & Zoning Commission Study Session Minutes November 18, 2020 - Page 5 Review and Recommendation The MF-1 District permits a single-family home to be developed with Council approval of a Use Permit. The proposed single-family residence will result in a land use that is consistent with the surrounding land uses. The proposal is consistent with the goals of the General Plan and Redevelopment Area Plan. The applicant has proposed a single level residence which is compatible with the surrounding land uses. The project provides architectural quality that is compatible to the surrounding land uses by providing a gable roof front porch which is a reoccurring theme throughout the neighborhood. Planning staff finds consistency with the General Plan and Zoning Code and recommends approval of the request subject to conditions. Public/Neighborhood Notification • This request was noticed in accordance with the requirements of the Chandler Zoning Code. • The required neighborhood meeting was held virtually on November 10, 2020. No neighbors were in attendance. • As of the writing of this memo, Planning staff received one general inquiry regarding the project and staff is not aware of any concerns or opposition to the request. Recommended Action Planning staff recommends Planning and Zoning Commission move to recommend approval of use permit, subject to the following conditions: 1. Substantial expansion or modification beyond the approved exhibits (Narrative, Site Plan, Floor Plan, Elevations, and materials board), as kept on file in Case No. PLH20-0036, shall void the Use Permit and require new Use Permit application and approval, unless otherwise amended via conditions herein. 2. Use Permit approval does not constitute Final Development Plan approval; compliance with the details required by all applicable codes and conditions of the City of Chandler and this Use Permit shall apply. 3. The site shall be maintained in a clean and orderly manner. 4. The Use Permit is non-transferable to other locations. COMMISSIONER KLOB said during the presentation staff had mentioned architectural popouts but he did not see any on the elevations. BENJAMIN CERECERES responded that they were in the garage itself COMMISSIONER KLOB responded that he had seen those but not on the windows or the sides and back of the house and asked the staff if that was enough to meet the code. Planning & Zoning Commission Study Session Minutes November 18, 2020 - Page 6 BENJAMIN CERECERES responded after the staff's review they felt that it was enough to meet the design guidelines. COMMISSIONER KLOB responded that he wanted the applicant to do some additional popouts to stay in tune with similar homes in that surrounding area. He said it would be a minor cost to bring it to comply with some of the homes they have approved as well. He added that the design of the home was not conducive to using the rear yard, they have to go to the bedroom to get to the backyard. He said it was just a design critique, not anything they could do anything about. He continued other than that it was a good use for space. COMMISSIONER FLANDERS said he agreed with COMMISSIONER KLOB and that it would give it a little more character. CHAIRMAN HEUMANN said he completely agreed with the comments especially on the north side elevation shown in the packet is pretty weak. He said the south side has a lot going on but the north side doesn't have anything. He said if they could speak to the Applicant and the architects about adding something, He said it was a great project and it is part of the silk stocking area. He continued that there are some challenging houses along the street and he was glad to see something being done. c. PLH20-0012 VILLAGES AT CHANDLER, PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PDP) for site layout and architectural design. The 8.99-acre site is located at the southeast corner of Riggs and Gilbert Roads. Background • At the October 21, 2020 Planning and Zoning Commission hearing, Commissioners voted to continue the Preliminary Development Plan to allow the applicant time to present to the Design Review Committee to address the following items: o Increasing the quality and revising the design of the proposed units to ensure the aesthetic does not quickly appear dated o Enhancing the quality and aesthetic of the proposed perimeter walls and entrance gates • The applicant presented at the November 4th• 2020 Design Review Committee where they received further refined guidance to provide the following: o Increased fa<;ade relief by use of color and projecting and recessing surfaces o Increased building articulation by increasing windows, molding, and materials beyond stucco such as lap siding, tiles, etc. • The applicant has revised the exhibits to meet the previously mentioned guidance. Pronosed Project Data Proposed • Multi-family dwelling units • 108 Units Development • 12 dwelling units per acre Site Design • "Attached rental-home community" • 50 1-story duplex structures Planning & Zoning Commission Study Session Minutes November 18, 2020 - Page 7 • 3 2-story triplex structures • Coordinated access with adjacent commercial • Single-story buildings adjacent to neighborhoods • Two-story buildings adjacent to commercial only • Perimeter view fencing • 24,158 sq. ft. of shared open space, 135 sq. ft. per bedroom Open Space • Pool, barbeques, ramadas, outdoor workout stations, dog park, and passive seating areas • Private yards, 196 - 390 sq. ft. Parking • 196 parking spaces required • 197 parking spaces provided Review and Recommendation Seeing that the applicant has made revisions in line with the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission and Design Review Committee, staff, recommends approval. Recommended Actions Preliminary Development Plan Planning staff recommends Planning and Zoning Commission move to recommend approval of the Preliminary Development Plan, subject to the following conditions: 1. Development shall be in substantial conformance with the Development Booklet, entitled, "Villages at Chandler" and kept on file in the City of Chandler Planning Division, in File No. PLH20-0012, modified by such conditions included at the time the Booklet was approved by the Chandler City Council and/or as thereafter amended, modified or supplemented by Chandler City Council. 2. Landscaping plans (including for open spaces, retention, rights-of-way, and street medians) shall be approved by the Planning Administrator. 3. All mechanical equipment, including HVAC, utility meters, etc. shall be screened from view by material(s) that are architecturally integrated and consistent with the proposed buildings. 4. Signage shall substantially be as shown within the submitted Development Booklet and shall follow all applicable criteria of the City of Chandler Sign Code. 5. Preliminary Development Plan approval does not constitute Final Development Plan approval; compliance with the details required by all applicable codes and conditions of the City of Chandler and this Preliminary Development Plan shall apply. 6. The site shall be maintained in a clean and orderly manner. Planning & Zoning Commission Study Session Minutes November 18, 2020 - Page 8 7. Landscaping plans (including for open spaces, retention, rights-of-way, and street medians) shall be approved by the Planning Administrator. 8. The landscaping in all open-spaces shall be maintained by the property owner or property owners' association, and shall be maintained at a level consistent with or better than at the time of planting. 9, The landscaping in all rights-of-way shall be maintained by the adjacent property owner or property owners' association. COMMISSIONER KLOB said in the development packet it showed the old elevation and he wanted to make sure it was updated before it went to Council. He said as in his original comments for this project, it is very linear and he was okay with the applicant to work with staff to create more movement on the building. He said also said some of the sidewalks are extremely linear. He said if they could jog maybe every 50 to 75 feet. He continued that he didn't want to create a stipulation on how far it would have to be but something longer than the south end of the site> He said the sidewalk goes from Gilbert Road to the homes in a straight run so he wanted some push and pull on that and the buildings. He said because the buildings are in a grid-like pattern. He continued that as far as the elevations go he likes the general direction. He said that if they go to number 1 on the plan. He pointed out the concern he had on the rear elevation is that it's very static and flat in the back-end. He said that if they pushed the units two feet apart it would help create the separation and maybe the overhang gets wider. He repeated that he would let staff work with the applicant directly on that. He said that something just needs to give the rear elevation something as this is backing into someone's front so he wants to give it some pizzaz there. He said even though they have done a pretty good job in the front. He said that the only concerns in the front he had on this one is on the legs on either side of the entry tower feel a little thin and tall but if they could drop the headline down a bit or maybe make the legs a little bit wider would make the mass of that entry a foot or two wider. He said just minor tweaks on that would help quite a bit. He continued to plan 2. He said it was the same thing; the same type of comments on the rear. He said on the massing on the front elevation it doesn't bother him as much but what is helping it is the projecting metal roof helps draw your eye down so the rough doesn't' look like it is up on stilts. He said on plan 4 which is the two-story, He said he liked what they have done there between some of the massing and a lot of colors. He said they have created the illusion of movement in the building on the rear elevation and liked the direction they had taken it. He said he also liked the bedroom popouts. He said the only thing is the same thing he has commented on is the massing in the front but with some minor tweaking he thought it would be great. He said the only other thing that he has a challenge with is because the two end units have a high level of design in character. He said the one in the middle looks plain because they have done such a good job on those. He didn't know if there was a way that they can make the entry for that a little wider or dress it up. He repeated that all these things are that staff could work with the applicant on. He said in regards to the garage on the rear elevations on the site plan backs up to the front elevations to some of the units. He said the comment he had is the same as what he had for the Planning & Zoning Commission Study Session Minutes November 18, 2020 - Page 9 single-story units. He said they are very plain and static on the back end and maybe they can pop out the little gable that is there, add some color, -and create a little something with what is there. He said he felt it would help that back end quite a bit. He said that the color palette was missing for the stone and metal roofing information and wanted to make sure it was included before it goes to Council. He said he liked the colors shown on the rendering and if they went through with that it would be fine. He said in regards to the gate, he wanted them to take that with the continuity. He knows the gate going out to Riggs Road is an exit only but wanted to have the same repeating design on it for continuity. He said his challenge was the sign. He felt the sign does not give this development justice. He said he didn't know if they could pull the sign package out and work on it a little bit more and shared it was a comment he had made previously as well. He said that a couple of bands of gold trim does not say anything to the architecture and it did not have any pizazz to it that both the development and the neighborhood justify for it. He would like more work to it to pull some of the architecture into the sign/monument a little more. COMMISSIONER FLANDERS said he agreed with a lot of the comments COMMISSIONER !(LOB made. He said one housekeeping item that he had was to have the applicant incorporate the metal roofs on the color boards so they know what color they are, what material and manufacture are. He appreciated what the developer and architect have done as far as the design goes. He said it was a great direction they have taken. He said one thing he would like to add is an additional stipulation to add some stone veneer and he would allow staff to work with the applicant on this. COMMISSIONER KIMBLE confirmed that the revised plans are what they are looking at in the packet for the project. COMMISSIONER PEKAU asked regarding the revised plan if there was a chance that they could add a vertical popout element on it that would help show separation on the units on the rear elevations for this and the second plan. He said that when he first saw this it looked like sunglasses; it was just very uniform. He said it would be one thing to help break it up; it would be his recommendation for plans 1 and 2. He said for plan 4 it would be a similar comment. He asked if it would be possible to do a vertical pop out halfway up on the right and left elevation to mirror what they did on the rear elevation. He said where they have the lines going across creating a delineation between the two units, something that would help break up the middle of the big wall. KRISTINE GAY asked for further clarification. COMMISSIONER PEKAU clarified that it was the side elevation left and right to match something along with the horizontal pop out in the rear elevation in the middle; something that goes across to break it up a little bit. He said he was impressed with the changes the applicant had made. Planning & Zoning Commission Study Session Minutes November 18, 2020 - Page 10 CHAIRMAN HEUMANN said he agreed with the comments COMMISSIONER J<LOB had made on the sign. He said that over the years he is a big sign guy and felt the sign was a little week for a subdivision like this. He said he felt that it was a bit of an afterthought more than anything else. He said that they had made a Jot of comments, "work with staff, work with staff .. " and his best comment would be on that is if they are not working with staff and working with the clear direction that was given to them tonight that maybe -they will need to come back to meet with Design Review Committee again but he doesn't want to be in a situation where they compromise what has been done. He said it was super important that his project looks really good starting with the entryway and what COMMISSIONER PEl<AU noted on the side elevations and what COMMISSIONER !(LOB said about the linear. He said getting some movement there will help quite a bit and wanted to be clear as they are doing all these stipulations to work with the staff He said if staff felt it wasn't up to the level they want then he would like it to come back. *d. CANCELLATION OF THE DECEMBER 2, 2020, AND DECEMBER 16, 2020, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING Recommendation Due to management of cases, Planning staff is recommending cancellation of the December 2, 2020, and December 16, 2020, Planning and Zoning Commission hearings. Proposed Motion Move to cancel the December 2, 2020, and December 16, 2020, Planning and Zoning Commission hearings as recommended by Planning staff. 3. BRIEFING ITEMS: None 4. MEMBERS COMMENTS/ANNOUNCEMENTS None 5. CALENDAR The next study session will be held before the regular meeting on Wednesday, January 6, 2021, in the Chandler City Council Chambers, 88 East Chicago Street, Chandler, Arizona. 6. ADJOURNMENT The study session was adjourned at 5:33 p.m. <-····/ 2 ·~ Rick Heumann, Chairman Kevin Mayo, Secretary \ I '