Attachment C - PHO Summary - PHO-1-20-Z-14-09-7.pdf
Extracted text (via pymupdf)
19661 characters
REPORT OF PLANNING HEARING OFFICER ACTION Adam Stranieri, Planner III, Hearing Officer Julianna Pierre, Planner I, Assisting November 18, 2020 ITEM NO: 4 DISTRICT 7 SUBJECT: Application #: PHO-1-20--Z-14-09-7 Zoning: R1-10 Location: Northeast corner of 99th Avenue and Southern Avenue Acreage: 38.11 Request: 1) Modification to Stipulation 1 regarding general conformance to site plan date stamped March 24, 2009. 2) Deletion of Stipulation 1.a regarding perimeter landscape tracts. 3) Deletion of Stipulation 1.b regarding interior landscape tracts. 4) Deletion of Stipulation 1.c regarding covered playground equipment. 5) Deletion of Stipulation 1.d regarding covered ramadas. 6) Deletion of Stipulation 1.e regarding open grass areas. 7) Modification to Stipulation 4 regarding view fencing on interior walls. 8) Modification to Stipulation 5 limiting the maximum number of residential units to 126. 9) Deletion of Stipulation 7 regarding dedication of 55-foot right-of-way for the north half of Southern Avenue. 10) Planning Hearing Officer review and approval of elevations per Stipulation 12. 11) Technical corrections to Stipulations 2, 3, 8, 9, and 10. Applicant: Alex Fish, ABLA Owner: Keith Hughes, Prestige Developments, Inc. Representative: Alex Fish, ABLA ACTIONS Planning Hearing Officer Recommendation: The Planning Hearing Officer recommended denial as filed and approval with modifications and additional stipulations. Attachment C Planning Hearing Officer Summary of November 18, 2020 Application PHO-1-20--Z-14-09-7 Page 2 Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation: The Estrella Village Planning Committee heard this request on October 20, 2020 and recommended approval by a vote of 4-2-1. DISCUSSION Elyse DiMartino, representative with ABLA, provided information regarding the history of the site and surrounding zoning and uses. She discussed the proposed site plan, circulation plan, and wall plan. She compared the stipulated and proposed site plans, noting that the proposed plan provides more open space that is evenly distributed throughout the development, increased landscaping, and amenities. She discussed the requests for modification and deletion of stipulations and their associated rationale. Mr. Stranieri asked for clarification regarding future plans along the east property line. Ms. DiMartino stated that the east 172 feet of the site will be acquired by the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) for the planned State Route 30. Mr. Stranieri stated that he was inclined to recommend approval of the applicant’s request for Stipulation 1, regarding general conformance to the site plan, since the proposed site plan depicts increased open space and an improved layout. Mr. Stranieri stated that Stipulations 1.a through 1.e applied to specific tracts on the original plan and that the language is no longer applicable. He stated that he is not inclined to recommend additional sub-stipulations regarding the new open space proposal because the recommendation for general conformance will hold the developer to the percentage of increased open space and general layout as shown in the proposed plan. Mr. Stranieri stated that he had concerns regarding removal of view fencing on side yards adjacent to the Paseo. He noted that the original stipulation would have applied in this location and that the modification would solely apply to the rear lot lines along the retention area laid out in an east-west pattern in the center of the site. Ms. DiMartino stated that providing view fencing in this area will create privacy issues for buyers. Since there will be a path through the Paseo, owners may have concerns about pedestrians who may be able to see into their homes. She noted that the paseo was now adjacent to the smaller side yards of these lots, rather than the larger rear lots on the original site plan. She stated that the proposed Paseo was significantly reduced in width from the original plan and there would a smaller area between the house walls and windows. Mr. Stranieri and Ms. DiMartino discussed the variations in width of the Paseo and activity in those areas. Chris Moore, engineer with Sunrise Engineering, discussed the grade differences in the Paseo, retention area, and home pads. Mr. Stranieri stated that he no longer had concerns regarding removal of view Planning Hearing Officer Summary of November 18, 2020 Application PHO-1-20--Z-14-09-7 Page 3 fencing since the walking path in the Paseo will be so close to the specific homes and the applicant would retain the view fencing along the central retention area. Mr. Stranieri stated that he recommended approval of the applicant’s request regarding Stipulation 4, because the developer is trying to retain the intent of the view fencing stipulations, but in different locations, relevant to the proposed plan. Mr. Stranieri stated that he was inclined to recommend deletion, rather than modification of Stipulation 5, limiting the maximum number of residential units to 126. He clarified that 153 units, as proposed by the applicant, represents the hypothetical maximum number of units permitted in the zoning district with the Planned Residential Development option and density bonuses. He added that the bonus provisions would be reviewed by the Site Planning Division during the Plan Review process. Mr. Stranieri asked if Ms. DiMartino was aware of the bonus provisions the applicant would propose. Ms. DiMartino stated that she knew the increased open space, detached sidewalks, and landscape medians would be included. Mr. Stranieri asked for clarification regarding Southern Avenue. Ms. DiMartino stated that during the Site Plan Pre-Application meeting, Street Transportation Department staff noted that Southern Avenue will not be dedicated south of the subject site because a future extension of Southern Avenue will not be supported. Mr. Stranieri stated that he was inclined to delete Stipulation 7, regarding the dedication of 55 feet of right-of-way for the north half of Southern Avenue. Mr. Stranieri stated that Stipulation 12, regarding Planning Hearing Officer review and approval of elevations, is language added in cases where the developer does not have elevations or has only limited conceptual elevations. He added that since the applicant has provided the elevations, they have complied with the stipulation. He stated that he would recommend deletion of Stipulation 12 and addition of a stipulation regarding general conformance to the proposed elevations. He added that the elevations showed diversity in home styles with a wide variety of architectural details and features. He stated that the height, design, color, and concepts are consistent with homes in the surrounding area. Mr. Stranieri noted that advisory comments were received from numerous departments consistent with those provided during the Site Plan Pre-Application meeting. FINDINGS 1) The stipulated site plan depicted a single-family residential subdivision consisting of 126 lots at a density of approximately 3.30 dwelling units per gross acre. The design included approximately 5.74 acres of open space (15.05% of the gross project area). Building height, setbacks, and lot coverage were consistent with the R1-10 PRD standards for single-family Planning Hearing Officer Summary of November 18, 2020 Application PHO-1-20--Z-14-09-7 Page 4 uses. The layout included one driveway each on 99th Avenue and Southern Avenue. There was a central landscape tract aligned with the driveway on Southern Avenue running north/south through the center of the development. The proposed conceptual site plan depicts a similar single-family residential subdivision consisting of 153 lots at a density of approximately 4.49 dwelling units per gross acre. The proposed plan includes an increase in open space to 6.10 acres (17.9% of the gross project area). This is greater than three times the existing Ordinance standard and greater than the proposed open space on the original stipulated plan. Differences include two driveways on 99th Avenue and no access on Southern Avenue and interior lots are arranged in an east/west grid pattern, rather than north/south. Additionally, discrepancy in the gross acreage of the project site between the two plans stems from the developer’s acknowledgement of a planned 172-foot wide area of land on the eastern perimeter that will be acquired by Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT). See Finding #10 for a more detailed discussion of this area. The proposed site plan is compatible with the land use pattern in the area and general conformance to the plan is recommended. 2) Original Stipulations 1.a through 1.e addressed the proposed open space on the original stipulated plan. These stipulations required specific regard to the landscape tracts, open space, and some amenities as depicted on the original plan. These stipulations are specific to that plan and do not need to be retained. The recommendation for general conformance to the site plan will control potential deviation from the proposed 17.9% open space. Additionally, the layout is similar with a central north/south paseo/open space spine. The proposed plan also includes substantial improvements to the proposed open spaces including a retention area that provides east/west connectivity, an approximately 0.93 acre amenity space aligned with the primary entrance, and enhanced open spaces at the northwest and southwest corners of the site. Deletion of the sub- stipulations as requested is recommended to accommodate the revised design. 3) The applicant’s request for modification of Stipulation 4 regarding view fencing locations is recommended for approval. The modified language addresses the reorientation of the lots in the east/west grid configuration and retains the requirement for rear yards adjacent to open spaces to provide partial view fencing. In the prior plan, this would have applied solely to the rear yards along the central open space spine. 4) Stipulation 5 originally limited the development to a maximum of 126 units consistent with the stipulated plan. The applicant requested to modify this stipulation to permit 153 units. However, 153 units represents the Planning Hearing Officer Summary of November 18, 2020 Application PHO-1-20--Z-14-09-7 Page 5 maximum density permitted by the proposed R1-10 PRD development option. It is not recommended to stipulate to Ordinance standards or hypothetical maximums. This request is recommended to be denied as filed with the stipulation deleted. This will allow the developer to propose a unit count consistent with the zoning designation and pursue potential density bonus points in the PRD option as required to permit the proposed design. 5) The Street Transportation Department indicated no concerns with the applicant’s request to delete Stipulation 7 regarding a 55-foot right-of-way dedication for the north half of Southern Avenue. This request is recommended to be approved. 6) Stipulation 12 requiring Planning Hearing Officer review of elevations was originally established as the conceptual elevations in the original rezoning case were not tied to a specific builder for the project at the time. The proposed elevations include 12 single-story homes with an approximate height of 18 feet and 3 two-story homes with an approximate height of 28 feet. Architectural features and detailing vary between elevations, but include stone veneers, decorative garage doors, windowsills, coach lights, window trim and sills, gable and eave ornamentation, wood siding, and many others. The proposed designs are compatible with existing residences in the surrounding area. The project will also be subject to Single-Family Design Review as a result of the proposed 45-foot lot widths. This stipulation has been complied with through this application and is recommended to be deleted. A new stipulation is recommended to require general conformance to the proposed conceptual elevations. 7) The Floodplain Management Section of the Public Works Department noted that this parcel is in a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). Coordination with this Section is recommended regarding depiction of floodplain boundary limits on the Grading and Drainage plan, potential impacts to the proposed facilities, FEMA approved CLOMR-F or CLOMR submittals, and other considerations. 8) The Parks and Recreation Department noted that current planned trails maps depict a proposed privately owned multi-use trail along the east perimeter of the site that continues east along the north perimeter of the Tres Rios Wetlands. However, ADOT’s proposed project in this location regarding the SR-30, described in greater detail in Finding #10, would preclude the development of a trail in this location. Therefore, an additional stipulation for a trail in this location is not recommended at this time. 9) The Public Transit Department recommends an additional stipulation requiring the developer to dedicate right-of-way and construct a bus bay Planning Hearing Officer Summary of November 18, 2020 Application PHO-1-20--Z-14-09-7 Page 6 and stop pad along northbound 99th Avenue north of Southern Avenue. This stipulation is recommended to be added with additional details to specify design details and landscaping at the transit stop. 10) The applicant’s proposed site plan includes a 172-foot wide area along the east perimeter designated as ADOT right-of-way. They noted that ADOT has acquired (or is in the process of acquiring) this eastern 172 feet of Parcel No. 101-37-007B. This is consistent with the design depicted in ADOT’s Final Location/Design Concept Report (L/DCR) and Appendix B – Plans of the Selected Alternative regarding the proposed SR-30. This area is depicted as containing a potential drainage outfall channel and ADOT right-of-way. Additionally, the Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT) currently owns, operates, and/or maintains three legs at the intersection of 99th Avenue and Southern Avenue and will need to review the TIA/TIS to understand potential impacts and improvements in this location. This comment is made as an advisory note to the applicant and coordination with MCDOT in the planning process is recommended. Finally, it should be noted that the easternmost perimeter property line of the subject site is adjacent to the 91st Avenue alignment. 91st Avenue falls within MCDOT jurisdiction and therefore permits for the roadway improvements will be handled by MCDOT. This is also provided as an advisory note and additional coordination with MCDOT on this issue is recommended. DECISION: The Planning Hearing Officer recommended denial as filed and approval with modifications and additional stipulations. STIPULATIONS 1. That The development shall be in general conformance with the site plan date stamped SEPTEMBER 28, 2020 March 24, 2009, with specific regard to the following, as MODIFIED BY THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS AND approved by the PLANNING AND Development Services Department: a. perimeter landscape tracts b. interior landscape tracts c. covered playground equipment in landscape tract 6 d. covered ramadas in landscape tract 6 Planning Hearing Officer Summary of November 18, 2020 Application PHO-1-20--Z-14-09-7 Page 7 e open grass areas in landscape tracts 1, 6, and 7 2. THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE IN GENERAL CONFORMANCE WITH THE ELEVATIONS DATE STAMPED SEPTEMBER 28, 2020, AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. 3. 2. That The development shall include detached sidewalks with a minimum five-foot wide landscaped area situated between the sidewalk and back of curb. The landscape area shall include a minimum of two-inch caliper shade trees placed 20 feet on center exclusive of driveway/roadway crossings, as approved by THE PLANNING AND Development Services Department. 4. 3. That A total of six (6) benches a minimum four-foot in length shall be located in the common open space areas, as approved by the PLANNING AND Development Services Department. 5. 4. That The interior REAR walls OF INTERIOR LOTS directly abutting OPEN SPACES landscape tract six shall consist of a four-foot block wall with two-foot view fencing, as approved by the PLANNING AND Development Services Department. 5. That the maximum number of residential units shall not exceed 126. 6. That In the event archaeological material is 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. 7. That right-of-way totaling 55 feet shall be dedicated for the north half of Southern Avenue. Roadway geometry shall be reviewed and approved by the Street Transportation Department. Additional or less right-of-way may be required upon final design, as approved by the Development Services Department. 7. 8. That Right-of-way totaling 55 feet shall be dedicated for the east half of 99th Avenue, as approved the PLANNING AND Development Services Department. 8. 9. That A 25-foot by 25-foot right-of-way triangle shall be dedicated at the northeast corner of 99th Avenue and Southern Avenue, as approved by the PLANNING AND Development Services Department. Planning Hearing Officer Summary of November 18, 2020 Application PHO-1-20--Z-14-09-7 Page 8 9. 10. That The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the development with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands, landscaping and other incidentals as per plans approved by the PLANNING AND Development Services Department. All improvements shall comply with the ADA accessibility standards. 10. 11. That The applicant shall complete and submit the Developer Project Information Form for the MAG Transportation Improvement Program to the Street Transportation Department. This form is a requirement of the EPA to meet clean air quality requirements. 11. 12. That the conceptual elevations shall be approved by the Planning Hearing Officer through the public hearing process prior to Development Services Department final site plan approval. This review is for conceptual purposes only. Specific development standards and requirements will be determined by the Development Services Department. 12. PRIOR TO PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL, THE LANDOWNER SHALL EXECUTE A PROPOSITION 207 WAIVER OF CLAIMS IN A FORM APPROVED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. THE WAIVER SHALL BE RECORDED WITH THE MARICOPA COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE AND DELIVERED TO THE CITY TO BE INCLUDED IN THE REZONING APPLICATION FILE FOR RECORD. Upon request, this publication will be made available within a reasonable length of time through appropriate auxiliary aids or services to accommodate an individual with a disability. This publication may be made available through the following auxiliary aids or services: large print, Braille, audiotape or computer diskette. Please contact the Planning and Development Department, Tamra Ingersoll at voice number 602-534-6648 or TTY use 7-1-1.