Attachment D - PHO Application - PHO-1-24--Z-104-23-8.pdf
Extracted text (via pymupdf)
65889 characters
PLEASE RESPOND ELECTRONICALLY TO TERESA GARCIA 2ND FLOOR, 602-262-7399 To: Date: June 13, 2024 From: Departments Concerned Joshua Bednarek Planning & Development Department Director Subject: P.H.O. APPLICATION NO. PHO-1-24--Z-104-23-8 – 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 July 17, 2024. 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 June 20, 2024. 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 (Joel Asirsan), 2nd Floor Neighborhood Services (Gregory Gonzales, Lisa Huggins), 4th Floor Parks & Recreation (Todd Shackelford), 16th Floor Public Transit (Michael Pierce) Street Transportation Department (Maja Brkovic, Josh Rogers, Alan Hilty, Chris Kowalsky), 5th Floor Street Transportation - Ped. Safety Coordinator (Kurt Miyamoto), 5th Floor Street Transportation - Floodplain Management (Tina 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, Teresa Garcia), 2nd Floor Village Planner (Samuel Rogers, South Mountain Village) Village Planning Committee Chair (Trent Marchuk, South Mountain Village) ATTACHMENT D 200 W. Washington St., 2nd Floor, Phoenix, AZ 85003 ● 602-626-7131 APPLICATION FOR PLANNING HEARING OFFICER ACTION APPLICATION NO: PHO-1-24--Z-104-23-8 Council District: 8 Request For: Stipulation Modification Reason for Request: Modification to Stipulation 34 regarding conceptional elevation review. Contact Information Name Relationship Type Address Phone Fax Email Ryan Larsen- Porchlight Homes Applicant 2915 East Baseline Road, Suite 118, Gilbert AZ 85234 602-206-6211 rlarsen@porchlighthomes.com Yvonne and Miguel Montiel; All Other Property, LLC. Owner 809 North Ridgeview Drive, Phoenix AZ 85253 Ryan Larsen- Porchlight Homes Representative 2519 East Baseline Road, Suite 118, Gilbert AZ 85234 Property Location: Northeast corner of 36th Street and Beverly Road Acreage: 18.52 Geographic Information Zoning Map APN Quarter Section D10 301-20-007C Q01-36 D10 301-20-010J Q01-36 D10 301-20-010G Q01-36 D10 301-20-049B Q01-36 D10 301-20-050 Q01-36 D10 301-20-221 Q01-36 D10 301-20-222 Q01-36 D10 301-20-223 Q01-36 D10 301-23-004C Q01-35 D10 301-23-003F Q01-36 D10 301-20-001 Q01-36 Village: South Mountain 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@phoenix.gov or visit our website at https://www.phoenix.gov/pdd/licensing-time-frames 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 I declare that all information submitted is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I acknowledge that any error in my application may be cause for changing its normal scheduling. City of Phoenix Planning & Development Department Page 2 of 2 Signature: ____________________________________________________ DATE: ___________________ Fee Information Fee Fee Waived Fee Date Purpose $1,080.00 $0.00 05/31/24 PHO (1-2 stipulations) May 30, 2024 Byron Easton Planning Hearing Officer Phoenix Planning & Development Department 200 West Washington Street, 2nd Floor Phoenix, Arizona 85003 Re: PHO Elevation Review - Case No. Z-104-23-8 – Northeast corner of 36th Street and Beverly Road, Phoenix Dear Mr. Easton: Porchlight Homes, the “Applicant” is submitting this request for a housing development located at the northeast corner of 36th Street and Beverly Road in Phoenix. The subject site is approximately 18 gross acres and comprises APNs 301-20-001, 301-20-007C, 301-20-010G, 301-20-010J, 301-20-049Bm 301-20-050, 301-20-221, 301-20-222, 301- 20-223, 301-23-004C, and 301-23-003F (the “Property”). See aerial map at Tab 1. More specifically, the PHO request is the review of elevations, as required by one of their stipulations associated with zoning case no. Z-104-23-8 that rezoned the site to R1-6 BAOD (Single-family Residence District, Baseline Area Overlay District) to allow a single-family subdivision. This zoning case was approved by the Phoenix City Council on April 3, 2024 per Ordinance G-7243, a copy of which is attached at Tab 2. PROPOSAL The conceptual site plan provided identifies 61 single-family residential lots. See Conceptual Site Plan, Tab 3. The Property is accessed via 36th Street. Emergency access is provided on the north side of the Property via a public street stub in the existing subdivision. Approximately 3.9 acres of the Property is devoted to common area open space, which is nearly five times the amount required in the R1-6 District. Open space areas with turf are provided throughout the community and a centrally located ramada and play structure are provided to foster community engagement. Each residence will include a two-car garage and provided parking complies with Section 702 of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance. In addition, the Applicant is proposing a set of elevations for their single-family homes that are in line with the Baseline Area Overlay District and Single-Family Design Review Guidelines, as detailed below. See Elevations, Tab 4. Porchlight Homes has prepared this submittal in accordance with the Single-Family Residential Housing Design Review Development Guidelines and will demonstrate how this project can meet the Standard Approach or Alternative Approach requirements. Herewith please find a narrative justification when the Alternative Approach is selected and demonstration of compliance for the Standard Approach. Please note that the house width for this project is 45’ so requirements for > 40’to 50’ shall apply. 2915 E Baseline Road, Suite 118 Gilbert, Arizona 85234 Office - (480) 813-1324 lpowell@porchlighthomes.com May 30, 2024 Page 2 The elevations include the following elements: I. SUBDIVISION DESIGN (Alternative Approach) (1) Vary building’s relationship to the street. (a) The curvilinear shape of the Highline Canal creates asymmetry in the lot layout and allows for no more than 9 contiguous lots in a row. The presence of a 30’+ hill in the center of the community also creates a visually appealing and unstructured feel to the subdivision breaking up the potential monotony of rows of unvaried lots. All homes will be setback 20’ from the street and min of 26’ to front a garage face. All plans have been designed with an articulated front façade to create an appealable street scene and a varied building relationship with the street. Each home will have a forward-facing garage that is set back a minimum of 8’ from the front façade or porch of the home to create an enhanced staggering effect across the project. Creating a 5ft stagger for one lot in each block would adversely impact the house plan. (b) Streets will be provided as per the Preliminary Site Plan (2) Vary the driveway orientation or location for 25% of the lots in each subdivision. (d) Pavers will be offered as an alternative driveway surface in lieu of concrete driveways. (3) Vary the relationship between buildings. (g) Relationships between buildings will be varied by providing a combined side yard of 10 feet for all lots on each block face, per the submitted Plot Plans. (4) Vary street orientation. (i) Street orientation is designed as short length that minimizes the impact of sequential garages, per the Preliminary Site Plan. II. HOUSING DESIGN (Standard Approach) (a) Three (3) different elevation designs will be provided for each plan; this will yield nine (9) distinctive elevations designs provided within the community. They include Santa Barbara Contemporary, Modern Desert Prairie and Mid-Century Modern. (b) Nine (9) distinct color schemes will be provided which include three schemes per elevation. (c) Three (3) distinctive roof tiles colors will be provided as per the color scheme exhibits provided within this submittal. (d) Exterior accent materials consisting of thin brick, cultured stone and contemporary ledge stone provided as standard materials per elevation. (e) A sand finish stucco texture will be offered within the community. No additional texture is required. (f) Front yard landscaping will be provided with 2-24” box trees 25’ apart to provide shade to the sidewalk per the Baseline Area Overlay District May 30, 2024 Page 3 (g) Three standard plans will be offered with each having three elevations to choose from. (h) Each standard plan will have three distinctive elevations that offer specific exterior detailing. • Santa Barbara Contemporary – this elevation will include several arched windows, window overhang affixed with metal rods for a contemporary look, modern front door with a pop of color, sand stucco finish and a “S” profile rood tile. • Modern Desert Prairie – this elevation will include low pitched hip roofs, extended eaves, contemporary ledgestone, modern window overhangs, decorative pop outs, covered front porches and a low-profile flat roof tile with straight edge. • Mid-Century Modern – this elevation will include angled and flat rooflines, stone veneer, modern color blocking and a low-profile flat roof tile with tapered edge. III. GARAGE TREATMENT (Standard Approach) (a) The house width will be forty-five feet (45’) and each home will have a forward-facing standard two car garage door measuring sixteen feet (16’). In addition, 10% of the community will have a side entry garage per the Baseline Area Overlay requirements. (b) All plans have the garage positioned eight feet (8’) or less behind the front plane of a covered porch with the exception of our side entry garage required by the Baseline Area Overlay. (d) Three (3) distinctive garage door designs with raised and flat panels and windows will be provided as per the standard plan elevations. (e) Plan 3 includes a 3-car garage however the third is a side entry garage required by the Baseline Area Overlay requirements. (f) Requirement met. Only one plan has a three-car garage and it is a side entry garage per the Baseline Area Overlay requirement. IV.COMMUNITY SAFETY (Standard Approach) (a) All elevations shall provide front entrances which are visible from the street or adjacent open space. (b) Architectural features such as a front porch and street facing front door clearly delineates the front entry of the home. PHO ELEVATION REVIEW To allow the proposed redevelopment of the Property, the Owner requests the PHO Elevation Review by the Planning Hearing Officer process, including review by the South Mountain Village Planning Committee, as noted in stipulation #34 per Z-104-23-8, which notes: 34. The conceptual elevations for future development (new homes) shall be reviewed and approved, with specific regard to the Single-Family Design Review Guidelines, by the Planning Hearing Officer through the public hearing process, including review by the South Mountain Village Planning Committee, for stipulation modification prior to preliminary site plan approval. This is a legislative review for conceptual purposes only. May 30, 2024 Page 4 Specific development standards and requirements will be determined by the Planning Hearing Officer, and the Planning and Development Department. Therefore, we are requesting this application to satisfy this stipulation above, and to continue development of the single-family residential subdivision. CONCLUSION In order to continue with the development of this subdivision, the elevation review via the PHO process is required. We look forward to presenting the proposed elevations for review. Very truly yours, Porchlight Homes Attachments TAB 1 S/SEC Baseline Rd and 36th St, Phoenix N Aerial Map Baseline Rd Tab 2 Tab 3 Tab 4 Mod E CONSTANCE WAY S 35TH ST PRIVATE RD PRIVATE S 37TH WAY PRIVATE RD PRIVATE RD E BEVERLY RD E VALENCIA DR S 36TH ST PRIVATE RD E FRANCISCO DR PRIVATE RD E HIGHLINE CANAL RD PRIVATE RD S 38TH ST E MELODY DR PRIVATE HIGHLINE CANAL S-1 R-2* R1-10 PUD* R1-6* S-1 R-3* R-3* Planning & Development Department PHO-1-24--Z-104-23-8 Property Location: Northeast corner of 36th Street and Beverly Road 0 225 450 112.5 Feet ´ S 38TH ST S 35TH ST PRIVATE RD PRIVATE S 37TH WAY PRIVATE RD PRIVATE RD E BEVERLY RD PRIVATE RD E CONSTANCE WAY S 36TH ST PRIVATE RD PRIVATE E FRANCISCO DR E HIGHLINE CANAL RD PRIVATE RD PRIVATE E MELODY DR HIGHLINE CANAL S-1 R-2* R1-10 PUD* R1-6* S-1 R-3* R-3* mapservices@phoenix.gov Planning & Development Department PHO-1-24--Z-104-23-8 Property Location: Northeast corner of 36th Street and Beverly Road 0 230 460 115 Feet ´ PHO-1-24--Z-104-23-8 Proposed Conceptual Site Plan Hearing Date: July 17, 2024 PHO-1-24--Z-104-23-8 Proposed Conceptual Site Plan Hearing Date: July 17, 2024 THE PRESERVE AT THE HIGHLINE PHOENIX, ARIZONA 5/30/2024 PORCHLlGHT LINDEROTH ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS PHO-1-24--Z-104-23-8 Proposed Conceptual Elevations Hearing Date: July 17, 2024 PHO-1-24--Z-104-23-8 Proposed Conceptual Elevations Hearing Date: July 17, 2024 PHO-1-24--Z-104-23-8 Proposed Conceptual Elevations Hearing Date: July 17, 2024 PHO-1-24--Z-104-23-8 Proposed Conceptual Elevations Hearing Date: July 17, 2024 PHO-1-24--Z-104-23-8 Proposed Conceptual Elevations Hearing Date: July 17, 2024 PHO-1-24--Z-104-23-8 Proposed Conceptual Elevations Hearing Date: July 17, 2024 PHO-1-24--Z-104-23-8 Proposed Conceptual Elevations Hearing Date: July 17, 2024 PHO-1-24--Z-104-23-8 Proposed Conceptual Elevations Hearing Date: July 17, 2024 PHO-1-24--Z-104-23-8 Proposed Conceptual Elevations Hearing Date: July 17, 2024 PHO-1-24--Z-104-23-8 Proposed Conceptual Elevations Hearing Date: July 17, 2024 PHO-1-24--Z-104-23-8 Proposed Conceptual Elevations Hearing Date: July 17, 2024 ,. ' \ ' •. ·l i ,._ ( ' · J·'-,,· I' ' .. rf• ' 1 .. Hi• I J l , I I, .' ''· ! · ) • ' ' I I l I r I \I ' ·1 I, ' ' 1 , ) t' I f1 / '\: 'i .-.... ......., , .. ,.. __ '" ! I ' t' /1 ) •'· l ' '" , • . ; I I ' I r , ' 1. I,, , ) ) ,., , ., r , ( . ( ' , ,·, .. . ,. l ) 1: \ -- l) )•- · )• 11 s 11 ' ) I I ))) .I I, 9] ,-s:11 1 l \J •• 5, l . \' ' ') ' \ ' . '-'- ""'' , PHO-1-24--Z-104-23-8 Stipulated Elevations Hearing Date: July 17, 2024 ------ -'-,----.----•-----..-l. :;::, : ------------.l___,. ------'- -1 - a ..-L.-..-i,.. 1 - fl'-.. ,r Qij ' - ft ft At •l _, * _,. n.L iii, ' - • an,: ftrt -I -, --- • ; ..-1... .-. .. -- , PHO-1-24--Z-104-23-8 Stipulated Elevations Hearing Date: July 17, 2024 •! ' 1,- , • 1 , i. ,, / ... ... - 11 I I I WI 11 ][ • • PHO-1-24--Z-104-23-8 Stipulated Elevations Hearing Date: July 17, 2024 - 7 I " .1 ._I _ I PHO-1-24--Z-104-23-8 Stipulated Elevations Hearing Date: July 17, 2024 PHO-1-24--Z-104-23-8 Stipulated Elevations Hearing Date: July 17, 2024 PHO-1-24--Z-104-23-8 Stipulated Elevations Hearing Date: July 17, 2024 Planning Commission Hearing APPROVED – March 7, 2024 Page 102 of 116 REZONING CASES 11. Application #: Z-104-23-8 From: R1-6 BAOD (Approved R1-10 BAOD), S-1 BAOD (Approved R1-10 BAOD), and S-1 BAOD To: R1-6 BAOD Acreage: 18.52 Location: Northeast corner of 36th Street and Beverly Road Proposal: Single-family residential Applicant: Adam Baugh, Withey Morris Baugh, PLC Owner: Miguel and Yvonne Montiel Family Trust; All Other Property, LLP; and DK Square Investments, LLC Representative: Adam Baugh, Withey Morris Baugh, PLC Ms. Racelle Escolar stated that Item No. 11 is Z-104-23-8 a request to rezone 18.52 acres at northeast corner of 36th Street and Beverly Road from various residential districts to R1-6 (Single-Family Residence District) in the Baseline Area Overlay District to allow single-family residential. The South Mountain Village Planning Committee recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, with modifications and additional stipulations by a 13 to 0 vote (with one abstention). Staff has no concerns on the proposed modifications for Stipulation Nos. 8 and 12 and added Stipulation No. 33 which was renumbered to 32. Staff does have concerns and proposed modifications for several of the stipulations. These have been addressed in a memo released yesterday, posted online, and received in the Commissioners’ packets. She would not go through all the stipulations in detail. They are all outlined in the memo. Staff recommends approval, per the staff memo dated March 6, 2024. Chairman Gaynor called on the applicant and gave him two minutes to speak. Mr. Adam Baugh stated that this case has received unanimous approval by the Village Planning Committee and staff. This is not a question of whether it is compatible. The property is R1-6 and there is land around the R1-6. The proposal is an infill subdivision. It is only 61 lots. It is made up of three different owners. It is less dense than what the General Plan is, and it is the very kind of thing you would expect to see in this area. He wanted to go over some quick stipulation changes. They are in support of the memo recommended by staff, as was amended. Trent Marchuk, the Village Planning Committee Chair sent an email tonight with some suggested changes. Mr. Baugh is supportive of those Planning Commission Hearing APPROVED – March 7, 2024 Page 103 of 116 suggested changes. He is most interested in the following stipulations. He stated that they could ignore Stipulation No. 27, as it was corrected in the memo tonight. Regarding Stipulation No. 31, it was added at the Village to perform a traffic impact study to analyze the flow of traffic along Baseline Road and 36th Street. The applicant is in total support of the necessity of doing that. One of his concerns is he suspects Baseline Road and the volume that is on there today already triggers the warrants. Being a small 61-lot subdivision but having to cover the expense of a full traffic signal is in his opinion an undue burden for such a small infill neighborhood. It will probably drive up the costs beyond what they are trying to accommodate for this area. He simply proposed a minor change that says, rather than be responsible for all, that they be responsible towards a proportionate share of the funding. The second stipulation change he hoped the Planning Commission would entertain, is No. 33. There is a request, not from staff, or the Staff Report, or the applicant or any neighbor, but at the Village, one of the Village members asked that they could add a pedestrian crossing over the canal. There is a suggestion that was added afterwards, stating that they also maintain it, not just install it. There are 10 pedestrian crossings between the applicant and going east. There are another five pedestrian crossings going west of the property. He does not think that any of those are maintained by anybody else but the City or SRP. So, they might be one of the only ones being asked to take on this burden. He reminded them that they are a small 61-home subdivision. He respectfully requested that they would not be obligated to maintain it after installation. They do not mind installing it, but it is a public benefit that they do not need. He thought that the City would do that. SRP does not grant the applicant the obligation to do that. Chairman Gaynor asked Mr. Baugh if he was going to cover all the stipulations. Mr. Baugh responded that he only needed to change two of the stipulations. Chairman Gaynor asked Mr. Baugh to cover Stipulation No. 37. Mr. Baugh stated that Stipulation No. 37 was already addressed in the Staff Report. Chairman Gaynor asked if there were any questions for Mr. Baugh. Commissioner Gorraiz asked for Mr. Baugh to talk a little more about the request for the pedestrian bridge and the number and proximity of the other pedestrian bridges already in the area. Mr. Baugh displayed an exhibit showing the current bridge. It is about 240 feet from their property corner. At the Village, they requested he add another bridge, which he displayed to the left of the current bridge, at the end of the 36th Street cul-de-sac. Those two bridges are approximately 1,400 feet from each other (a quarter mile). He does not have an exhibit for the next one. There is another Planning Commission Hearing APPROVED – March 7, 2024 Page 104 of 116 bridge about 2,000 feet away, to the west. There are about three pedestrian bridge crossings within a half mile of this property. There are 14 in total, between Central Avenue and I-10. Commissioner Gorraiz stated that in the past when the Commission talked about having pedestrian anything, it involves the federal government and SRP. He asked if this is something that can be put in a stipulation. Ms. Escolar responded that this stipulation was added by the Village Planning Committee. Staff is not very supportive of it, but they are accommodating the Village request. As part of the stipulation, it does require approval by SRP. They would have to work with them to get that approved through them. Commissioner Gorraiz stated that they have always made people increase the size of the roadway, but had they ever asked them to be responsible for the maintenance of that roadway, or of anything the Planning Commission requires them to do. Ms. Escolar responded that she contacted SRP to ask about the maintenance and how it is typically handled. What they typically do is they do not maintain these pedestrian crossings. They will have a license agreement with the City to maintain it. With this scenario, if this were to be approved by SRP, the City would also eventually want the HOA to take over the maintenance. That is something that the City would have to work out with the developer. Mr. Matthews read the memo which stated, a good faith effort to engage with SRP. It seems like an unenforceable stipulation, being that the developer could just ask SRP, and that would be a good faith effort. He asked, if the applicant wants to respond; and if he has any qualms with that stipulation just being stricken legally, as part of the recommendation. He asked if it would torpedo key support for the community. Mr. Baugh stated that they are fine with it stricken. The only neighbor who spoke about it, spoke against it. He stated that the applicant wants to be accommodating, but it is not a desire that they voted. The limitation they have is trying to fulfil something that is not on their property and is outside of their control. Chairman Gaynor thought it seems like a hardship. He asked Mr. Baugh to share again how far the other bridge would be. Mr. Baugh responded that the right side, east of them is an existing bridge. The new one is on the other end of the site. There is another one about 2,000 feet away, further west. Chairman Gaynor stated that he would support striking that. He asked to have the stipulations shown again. Planning Commission Hearing APPROVED – March 7, 2024 Page 105 of 116 Ms. Escolar pointed out Stipulation No. 37. Staff does have it struck out. She stated, “and walls” is struck out. Chairman Gaynor stated that he is fine with, “PROPORTIONATE SHARE OF FUNDING.” He called on Mr. Trent Marchuk to come up and speak in favor. Mr. Baugh stated that Mr. Marchuk left earlier, around 7:00 p.m., but he wanted Mr. Baugh to say that he put his comments in email to Ms. Escolar. Ms. Escolar stated that Mr. Marchuk did send an email just after 5:00 p.m. today, asking for some additional updates to the stipulations. She passed around the stipulations to the Commission members and stated that staff does not have concerns with any of the requested updates, except the last one with the approval part in Stipulation No. 35, because it deviates from the standard Planning Hearing Officer (PHO) process. Chairman Gaynor asked who sent this document. He would read it, however, he did not like receiving things at 5:00 p.m., on the day of the hearing. Ms. Escolar stated that Mr. Marchuk asked that Stipulation No. 30, which has been updated as Stipulation No. 29, in the memo, “AND 50”, be added, in reference to the lot number. That would be lots 28 through 39, and 50. Staff has no concerns with that. Mr. Baugh offered to explain for the Chairman. Chairman Gaynor asked Ms. Escolar to continue reading. Ms. Escolar stated that the next request was related to Stipulation No. 34, which has been updated to Stipulation No. 33. This is related to the pedestrian bridge. It adds, “The developer shall undertake reasonable efforts to work with SRP (Salt River Project) to FUND AND install…”, (adding the “fund and” part). Lastly, Stipulation No. 37, which has been updated to Stipulation No. 35 is asking for the planning hearing officer hearing process include review “AND APPROVAL” by the South Mountain Village. Ms. Escolar stated that typically the standard stipulation for PHO just includes review by the Village, and not approval. It is really semantics because they are a recommending body. Chairman Gaynor asked if Mr. Baugh was comfortable with these changes. Mr. Baugh stated that he was okay. Planning Commission Hearing APPROVED – March 7, 2024 Page 106 of 116 Acting Vice-Chairman Boyd stated that he was not comfortable putting on new stipulations that came in at 5:00 p.m. on the day of the hearing that he has not had the chance to review. He is already on the verge of being a no, from his comfortability with the number of stipulations that are going on a small subdivision and residential areas. This is getting to be a bit ridiculous, the amount we are going through. He thought that the proponent may be better suited bringing these up to Council where they can very easily add them on if they are well-suited at that time. Commissioner Matthews asked if the Chair was entertaining a motion at this time. Chairman Gaynor asked him to proceed. Commissioner Matthews made a MOTION to approve Z-104-23-8, per the staff memo dated March 6, 2024 with the corollary that Stipulation No. 33 in that staff memo be stricken entirely. Acting Vice-Chairman Boyd asked about Stipulation No. 31. Commissioner Hu asked to make a comment. Commissioner Matthews apologized and stated that he would reword his motion. Commissioner Matthews made a MOTION to approve Z-104-23-8, per the staff memo dated March 6, 2024 with the noted revisions in Stipulation No. 31, regarding “ITS PROPORTIONATE SHARE OF”, with Stipulation No. 33 completely stricken, and with “and walls” stricken in Stipulation No. 37. Commissioner Gorraiz SECONDED the motion. Ms. Escolar asked for confirmation. She asked Commissioner Matthews if he asked for the deletion of Stipulation No. 33 or just the update to strike out “and maintain”. Commissioner Matthews stated, regarding Stipulation No.33, the motion was to strike the entirety of Stipulation No. 33. Ms. Escolar asked, him to confirm his motion for Stipulation No. 37. Commissioner Matthews responded, just striking the “and walls”. Ms. Escolar stated that is already reflected in the memos. She stated the motion should be fine. Planning Commission Hearing APPROVED – March 7, 2024 Page 107 of 116 Commissioner Hu commented on Stipulation No. 33, on the memo. Although she agreed that this is not an enforceable stipulation or a challenging one, as a resident of South Mountain, often when they walk around the canal having this pedestrian bridge and having good faith of working with a developer and the community desire to create more walkability and access around a nice multi-use trail, is something very desirable. She hoped that the developer would, in good faith, continue to work with the neighborhood and provide amenities to this area. Commissioner Matthew shared a quick comment to clarify his reasoning for striking Stipulation No. 33. Typically, they try to tie infrastructure improvements like this to the impact that the developer is having. He does not see that connection here necessitating, similar to the traffic light, that the developer would cause such pedestrian traffic to necessitate a bridge at this location. There being no further discussion, Chairman Gaynor called for a vote and the MOTION Passed 8-0 (Busching absent). Stipulations: 1. Tracts “C”, “H”, “I”, and “G”, as generally depicted on the site plan date stamped January 17, 2024, shall be reserved for open space, as modified by the following stipulations and approved by the Planning and Development Department. 2. The undisturbed hillside area (above 10% per the approved Slope Analysis) shall remain undisturbed and be dedicated with a preservation easement except for Lot 27 and development of private accessways as generally depicted on the site plan date stamped January 17, 2024, as approved by the Planning and Development Department. 3. The existing home on Lot 27 shall remain and any improvements to this lot shall be reviewed and approved through a Hillside/Grading and Drainage Plan by the Planning and Development Department. 4. A physical feature (such as retaining wall, rock wall, etc.) shall be provided along the west and south portions of Tract "J", as generally depicted on the site plan date stamped January 17, 2024, to protect the undisturbed hillside area, as approved by the Planning and Development Department. 5. A minimum of three distinct exterior accent materials for each required standard plan within the subdivision shall be provided, as approved by the Planning and Development Department. 6. If fencing is proposed along the perimeter of the site, the fencing shall be a minimum of 75% view fencing, except on Lots 1, 50, 51. 52, and 53 as depicted on the site plan date stamped January 17, 2024, as approved by the Planning Planning Commission Hearing APPROVED – March 7, 2024 Page 108 of 116 and Development Department. Any perimeter fencing requirement adjacent to the Highline Canal is subject to review and approval of SRP. 7. All landscape setbacks shall be planted with minimum 2-inch caliper large canopy drought-tolerant trees, 20 feet on center or in equivalent groupings, with five 5-gallon shrubs per tree, as approved by the Planning and Development Department. 8. A minimum of 10% of the required shrubs, shall be a milkweed or other native nectar species, and shall be planted in groups of three or more AND MAINTAINED, as approved by the Planning and Development Department. 9. The sidewalk along 36th Street shall be a minimum of five feet in width and detached with a minimum five-foot wide landscape strip located between the sidewalk and back of curb and planted to the following standards, as approved by the Planning and Development Department. a. Minimum 2-inch caliper, single-trunk, large canopy, drought-tolerant shade trees planted 20 feet on center or in equivalent groupings. b. Drought tolerant vegetation to achieve a minimum of 75 percent live coverage at maturity. Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and Development Department on alternative design solutions consistent with a pedestrian environment for installing the required plants. 10. Prior to preliminary plat approval, documentation shall be provided that demonstrates participation in the Environmental Protection Agency’s WaterSense certification program, or an equivalent program, as approved by the Planning and Development and Water Services departments. 11. A WaterSense inspection report from a third-party verifier shall be submitted that demonstrates successful participation in the Environmental Protection Agency’s WaterSense certification program, or an equivalent program, prior to certificate of occupancy, as approved by the Planning and Development Department. 12. IN ADDITION TO THE Only landscape materials listed in the Baseline Area Master Plan Plant List CERCIDIUM HYBRID (DESERT MUSEUM PALO VERDE), QUERCUS VIRGINIANA (LIVE OAK), AND PISTACIA X 'RED-PUSH (RED PUSH PISTACHE), MAY BE PERMITTED AS APPROVED BY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AND shall be utilized throughout the subdivision including the front, side, and rear yards of individual residential lots. This restriction shall be included in the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions for the subdivision. Planning Commission Hearing APPROVED – March 7, 2024 Page 109 of 116 13. Landscaping in common areas shall be maintained by permanent and automatic/water efficient WaterSense labeled irrigation controllers (Smart Controller) to minimize maintenance and irrigation water consumption for all on and offsite landscape irrigation. 14. Pressure regulating sprinkler heads and drip lines shall be utilized in any turf areas to reduce water waste. 15. Natural turf shall only be utilized on individual single-family lots (behind the front yard); required retention areas (bottom of basin), and functional turf areas within common areas, as approved by the Planning and Development Department. 16. A minimum of two green infrastructure (GI) techniques for stormwater management shall be implemented per the Greater Phoenix Metro Green Infrastructure and Low-Impact Development Details for Alternative Stormwater Management, as approved or modified by the Planning and Development Department. 17. Swimming pools on individual single-family lots shall be limited to 600 square feet in size. 18. A public connection to the existing 36th Way stub street shall be provided or the existing 36th Way right-of-way shall be terminated per the City of Phoenix termination standards, as required by the Street Transportation Department. 19. An enhanced connection shall be provided on the southern site boundary to allow for direct pedestrian access to the adjacent Highline Canal. The developer shall construct an 8-foot-wide shaded pedestrian pathway consisting of decorative material such as brick, pavers or alternative material providing at the entryway, as approved by the Planning and Development Department. 20. A sidewalk easement shall be dedicated over a clearly defined pedestrian pathway(s) providing a public connection through the site from the existing 36th Way access point on the northern site boundary to the Highline Canal and the adjacent wash/trail system, as approved by the Planning and Development Department. 21. Replace unused driveways with sidewalk, curb, and gutter. Also, replace any broken or out-of-grade curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps on all streets and upgrade all off-site improvements to be in compliance with current ADA guidelines. 22. All streets within and adjacent to the development shall be constructed with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands, Planning Commission Hearing APPROVED – March 7, 2024 Page 110 of 116 landscaping and other incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and Development Department. All improvements shall comply with all ADA accessibility standards. 23. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and operational characteristics of Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport to future owners or tenants of the property. The form and content of such documents shall be according to the templates and instructions provided which have been reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. 24. If determined necessary by the Phoenix Archaeology Office, the applicant shall conduct Phase I data testing and submit an archaeological survey report of the development area for review and approval by the City Archaeologist prior to clearing and grubbing, landscape salvage, and/or grading approval. 25 If Phase I data testing is required, and if, upon review of the results from the Phase I data testing, the City Archaeologist, in consultation with a qualified archaeologist, determines such data recovery excavations are necessary, the applicant shall conduct Phase II archaeological data recovery excavations. 26. 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. 27. Prior to final site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a Proposition 207 waiver of claims form. 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. 28. BENCH SEATING SHALL BE PROVIDED NEAR THE WESTERN PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION, LOCATED BETWEEN LOTS 39 AND 50, AS DEPICTED ON THE SITE PLAN DATE STAMPED JANUARY 17, 2024, AND AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. 29. A SIDEWALK SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED ALONG OPEN SPACE TRACT D. 30 29. AT LEAST 50% OF THE RESIDENTIAL HOMES ABUTTING THE CANAL (LOTS 28 THROUGH 39, AS DEPICTED ON THE SITE PLAN DATE STAMPED JANUARY 17, 2024) SHALL BE A MAXIMUM OF ONE STORY OR 15 FEET IN HEIGHT, AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. 31 30. THE APPLICANT DEVELOPER SHALL PROVIDE EVIDENCE OF UNDERTAKING REASONABLE EFFORTS TO WORK WITH THE ADJACENT HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION TO THE NORTH, TO CLOSE OFF THE Planning Commission Hearing APPROVED – March 7, 2024 Page 111 of 116 FORMER ACCESS DRIVE EAST OF THE GROVES AT BASELINE SUBDIVISION BY INSTALLING A SOLID 4-FOOT TALL BLOCK WALL WITH A 2-FOOT VIEW FENCE ATOP, AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE PROPERTY SITE AND AT THE DRIVEWAY ENTRANCE ALONG BASELINE ROAD, WITH A LOCKED ACCESS GATE ON THE SOUTH END FOR MAINTENANCE AS NEEDED. 32 31. THE APPLICANT SHALL SUBMIT A TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY TO THE PHOENIX STREETS AND TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT TO DETERMINE THE SCOPE OFFSITE IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED AT 36th STREET AND BASELINE ROAD. A TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS (TIA) SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT. NO PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF PLANS SHALL BE GRANTED UNTIL THE ANALYSIS IS REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE STREET TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT. THE TIA SHALL INCLUDE SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS FOR 36TH STREET AND BASELINE ROAD. IF THE APPROVED TIA DETERMINES THAT A SIGNAL IS WARRANTED AND IS APPROVED BY THE STREET TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT FOR INSTALLATION, THE DEVELOPER SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ITS PROPORTIONATE SHARE OF THE FUNDING AND CONSTRUCTION OF ALL RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ANALYSIS. 33 32. THE SUBDIVISION SHALL HAVE NO MORE THAN 61 LOTS. 34 33. EITHER THE DEVELOPER SHALL UNDERTAKE REASONABLE EFFORTS TO WORK WITH SRP TO INSTALL AND MAINTAIN A PUBLIC PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE SHALL BE INSTALLED ACROSS THE HIGHLINE CANAL AT THE PUBLIC SIDEWALK NEAR 36TH STREET, SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY SRP AND THE CITY OF PHOENIX, OR $50,000 SHALL BE DEPOSITED WITH THE CITY OF PHOENIX TO SUPPORT THE CITY’S CANAL BANK GUIDELINES ENCOURAGING PUBLIC PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES ACROSS THE CANAL. 35. ANY GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN SHALL CONSIDER THE IMPACT OF A POTENTIAL BREACH OF THE HIGHLINE CANAL. 36 34. 33. OUTSIDE HOUSE LIGHT BRIGHTNESS SHALL NOT EXCEED 3,000 LUMENS PER FIXTURE. ON-SITE LIGHTING WITHIN OPEN SPACE AREAS SHALL BE ACCOMPLISHED WITH LOW LEVEL, UNIFORM LIGHTING FIXTURES DISPERSED THOROUGHOUT THE SITE WITH A LUMEN RATING OF 3,000 OR LESS. Planning Commission Hearing APPROVED – March 7, 2024 Page 112 of 116 37 35. 34. THE CONCEPTUAL ELEVATIONS FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT (NEW HOMES) SHALL BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED, WITH SPECIFIC REGARD TO THE SINGLE-FAMILY DESIGN REVIEW GUIDELINES, BY THE PLANNING HEARING OFFICER THROUGH THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS, INCLUDING REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE SOUTH MOUNTAIN VILLAGE PLANNING COMMITTEE, FOR STIPULATION MODIFICATION PRIOR TO PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL. THIS IS A LEGISLATIVE REVIEW FOR CONCEPTUAL PURPOSES ONLY. SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS WILL BE DETERMINED BY THE PLANNING HEARING OFFICER, THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, AND THE GUIDELINES OF SINGLE- FAMILY DESIGN REVIEW. 38 36. 35. ANY INVASIVE PLANTS SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED BE REMOVED BY THE DEVELOPER AND ANY HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. 39 37. 36. NATIVE MATERIALS, OR SIMILAR MATERIALS, SHALL BE USED FOR ALL EXTERIOR PERIMETER WALL COLUMNS AND WALLS, AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. *** South Mountain Village Planning Committee February 13, 2024 - Minutes Page 3 4) Z-104-23-8: Presentation, discussion, and possible recommendation regarding a request to rezone 18.52 acres located at the northeast corner of 36th Street and Beverly Road from R1-6 BAOD (Approved R1-10 BAOD) (Single-Family Residence District, Baseline Area Overlay District, Approved Single-Family Residence District, Baseline Area Overlay District), S-1 BAOD (Approved R1-10 BAOD) (Ranch or Farm Residence, Baseline Area Overlay District, Approved Single-Family Residence District, Baseline Area Overlay District), and S-1 BAOD (Ranch or Farm Residence, Baseline Area Overlay District) to R1-6 BAOD (Single- Family Residence District, Baseline Area Overlay District) to allow single-family residential. Committee Member Darlene Jackson joined the meeting during this item bringing quorum to 14 members. STAFF PRESENTATION Samuel Rogers, staff, presented the request, the location of the subject site, the surrounding context, the General Plan Land Use Map designation, the policy plans in the area, the site plan, proposed elevations, the staff recommendation, the staff findings, and concluded by presenting the proposed stipulations. Committee Member George Brooks asked about the number of shrubs that would be required to be milkweed or other native nectar species and asked about maintenance. Mr. Rogers explained that a minimum of ten percent of the required shrubs would be required to be milkweed or other native nectar species and stated that the landscape ordinance requires that landscape plans be enforced. Committee Member Greg Brownell asked about the enforcement of the landscape ordinance. Mr. Rogers explained that the landscape ordinance enforcement is complaint driven. Committee Member Brooks explained that he disliked that enforcement of the landscape ordinance is complaint driven. Committee Member Lee Coleman asked for clarification on what a WaterSense inspection entails. Mr. Rogers explained Stipulation No. 11. Committee Member Coleman stated that single-family residential homes do not require a Certificate of Occupancy. Committee Member Tamala Daniels explained that a Certificate of Occupancy is required for single- family homes. Committee Member Brownell asked that Stipulation No. 8 be updated to require the maintenance of the required milkweed or other native nectar species shrubs. Mr. Rogers stated that when writing stipulations there should be a comfort level of compliance by preliminary approval. Committee Member Gene Holmerud asked about people covering up view fencing. Mr. Rogers explained that several lots had been excluded from the view fencing requirement top avoid privacy concerns. South Mountain Village Planning Committee February 13, 2024 - Minutes Page 4 Committee Member Viera asked how the plan is related to Climate Action Plan and heat mitigation goals. Mr. Rogers explained the water consumption, shading, and pedestrian accessibility stipulations. Committee Member Brownell asked if there could be stipulation regarding the elimination of invasive species. APPLICANT PRESENTATION Adam Baugh, representing the applicant with Withey Morris Baugh, PLC., presented the development team, the subject site, the General Plan Land Use Map designation, the surrounding zoning, the proposal, alignment with City of Phoenix policy plans and requirements, the project amenities, proposed elevations, neighborhood outreach, and project benefits. QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE Committee Member Brownell asked to stipulate that walls shall be made of the same materials as South Mountain. Mr. Baugh asked about the type of stone, explained that the development is proposing a block wall, and stated that the stone could be incorporated into the wall columns, monument signs, and retaining wall. Committee Member Brooks asked about the maintenance and number of the required milkweed or other native nectar species shrubs. Mr. Baugh suggested updated language for Stipulation No. 8 to require maintenance of the shrubs. Mr. Rogers explained that a minimum of ten percent of the required shrubs would be required to be milkweed or other native nectar species and stated five shrubs are required per tree. Committee Member Kay Shepard asked why the project is proposing R1-6 rather than R1- 10. Mr. Baugh explained that the proposal is for R1-6 because the proposed lot sizes. Chair Trent Marchuk asked if the project would different if it was R1-10 versus R1-6 and asked if the applicant would be willing to consider R1-10. Mr. Baugh explained that he would have to do an analysis before committing to changing to R1-10 and stated he is willing to do the analysis. Committee Member Holmerud asked about a 1950s Lincoln Continental that was on the site. Mr. Baugh stated it had been removed. Committee Member Busching stated that she would like to discuss the additional stipulations that had discussed with the applicant. Mr. Baugh summarized the additional stipulations. Committee Member Busching stated that the development should be limited to 61 lots and explained the need for a public pedestrian bridge across the Highline Canal. Mr. Baugh stated that the canal is managed by SRP. South Mountain Village Planning Committee February 13, 2024 - Minutes Page 5 Vice Chair Arthur Greathouse III asked about the proposed square footage and price range of the homes. Ryan Larsen, with Porchlight Homes, described the proposed square footage of the homes and explained the homes cost between $560,000 and the low $600,000s. Vice Chair Greathouse asked about studies on the surrounding area. Mr. Larsen confirmed that a market analysis had been completed. Committee Member Brooks asked where the flood water will go once it leaves the property. Jeff Giles, with Clouse Engineering, explained City of Phoenix requirements and explained the water flow. Committee Member Brooks asked how many cubic feet of water is a 100 year flood. Mr. Giles stated that it is somewhere in the range of 400 CFS. Committee Member Brownell stated that there had been issues on another development with flooding and asked if Baseline Road has the stormwater capacity to take on all the water if the Highline Canal overflows. Mr. Giles explained that preliminary grading and drainage had been done, but the full engineering of the site had not been completed. Committee Member Brownell asked if any water is planned to be retained on individual lots. Mr. Giles explained water is proposed to be retained in retention basins. Chair Marchuk asked about any proposed stipulations. Committee Member Brooks explained his main concerns regarding flooding. Chair Marchuk stated that the drainage plan could be required to focus on Baseline Road. Committee Member Fatima Muhammad Roque asked about the grading and drainage of Lot 27. Mr. Baugh explained that Lot 27 would not be altered. Mr. Giles explained that water will flow from Lot 27 to the north. Committee Member T. Daniels explained that homes had been built on 24th Street adjacent to Highline Canal needed a flood wall and asked if a flood wall was proposed. Mr. Giles explained that the need for a flood wall will be determined during the site planning process. Committee Member Busching suggested some potential language for a stipulation regarding the Grading and Drainage report. Chair Marchuk asked about Stipulation No. 8. Mr. Baugh explained that 36th Way would be closed and the stipulation allows for flexibility in the placement of the gate. Mr. Rogers explained the requirements to terminate public streets PUBLIC COMMENT Mark Wright explained he lives adjacent to the development, stated he met with the applicant team, thanked the applicant team for working with the community, stated he is in favor of the project, stated he has lived in the area for 20 years, stated there had been problems with the vacant property, explained his concerns about the stipulation requiring a public bench, stated concerns over the enforcement of what time construction is allowed to occur, and explained that a light will be needed on Baseline Road. South Mountain Village Planning Committee February 13, 2024 - Minutes Page 6 Russel Varone stated that the closure of the driveway that had been historically used to access Lot 27 will a problem and asked about pedestrian access at the 36th Way gate. Mr. Baugh stated there would be pedestrian access at the 36th Way gate. Committee Member Busching stated that the HOA of Mr. Varone’s subdivision should give the accessway to the adjacent homeowners. Committee Member Coleman asked about easements over the accessway. Mr. Baugh explained that the HOA owns the land and there is an existing access easement. Robert Dotterer explained that he had spoken to six of his neighbors, stated they are opposed to developments that will diminish their property values, and stated that if the development diminishes property values the homeowners should be compensated. Committee Member Coleman asked if the list of addresses Mr. Dotterer has supplied all opposed the development. Mr. Dotterer explained that the list contains the homeowners in his subdivision. Committee Member Darlene Jackson asked how much property values would be diminished. Mr. Dotterer explained the cost of his home versus homes on Baseline. Committee Member Busching stated that mountain views are not guaranteed and asked if the applicant how many homes would have their mountain views affected. Mr. Baugh explained how the development team had considered preserving views of the mountain. Mr. Dotterer stated that the home had not gone up in value since he purchased, but the home value had doubled since the original construction. Vice Chair Greathouse asked if the property could appreciate in value due to the new development. Committee Member T. Daniels stated that Mr. Dotterer’s opinion is flawed, echoed Committee Member Busching’s statement that mountain views are not guaranteed, stated when homebuyers pay premiums, explained she can see the mountain from her property further north and with two-story homes in the subdivision, and stated that the home price would appreciate due to the new development. Mr. Dotterer asked if any restrictions on height could be placed on the homes adjacent to the Grove subdivision. Mr. Larsen explained that he does not want to dictate what homes are built. Chair Marchuk stated that he would advocate for lower homes along the Grove subdivision if there was not a larger landscape buffer proposed adjacent to the Grove subdivision. Committee Member T. Daniels asked about the proposed elevations. Mr. Baugh explained that there are three elevations for each proposed floor plan. FLOOR/PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED: MOTION, DISCUSSION, AND VOTE Committee Member Busching summarized the stipulations that should be modified and added. Committee Member T. Daniels stated concerns with applicants not presenting the proposed elevations when the proposals come in front of the committee. Chair Marchuk South Mountain Village Planning Committee February 13, 2024 - Minutes Page 7 stated that a previous case had been required to come back to committee for review of the elevations. Mr. Rogers provided some possible stipulation language. Chair Marchuk asked about a possible stipulation regarding requiring the materials of South Mountain in the walls. Mr. Brownell explained that he would like the materials stipulation on the columns of the walls. MOTION Committee Member Marcia Busching made a motion to recommend approval of Z-104- 23-8 per the staff recommendation with modifications and additional stipulations. Committee Member Greg Brownell seconded the motion. VOTE 13-0-1, motion to recommend approval of Z-104-23-8 per staff recommendation with modifications and additional stipulations passed with Committee Members Aldama, Brooks, Brownell, Busching, Coleman, F. Daniels, T. Daniels, Holmerud, Jackson, Muhammad, Shepard, Viera, and Greathouse in favor and Marchuk abstained. Stipulations listed for clarity: 1. Tracts “C”, “H”, “I”, and “G”, as generally depicted on the site plan date stamped January 17, 2024, shall be reserved for open space, as modified by the following stipulations and approved by the Planning and Development Department. 2. The undisturbed hillside area (above 10% per the approved Slope Analysis) shall remain undisturbed and be dedicated with a preservation easement except for Lot 27 and development of private accessways as generally depicted on the site plan date stamped January 17, 2024, as approved by the Planning and Development Department. 3. The existing home on Lot 27 shall remain and any improvements to this lot shall be reviewed and approved through a Hillside/Grading and Drainage Plan by the Planning and Development Department. 4. A physical feature (such as retaining wall, rock wall, etc.) shall be provided along the west and south portions of Tract "J", as generally depicted on the site plan date stamped January 17, 2024, to protect the undisturbed hillside area, as approved by the Planning and Development Department. 5. A minimum of three distinct exterior accent materials for each required standard plan within the subdivision shall be provided, as approved by the Planning and Development Department. 6. If fencing is proposed along the perimeter of the site, the fencing shall be a minimum of 75% view fencing, except on Lots 1, 50, 51. 52, and 53 as depicted on the site plan date stamped January 17, 2024, as approved by the Planning and Development South Mountain Village Planning Committee February 13, 2024 - Minutes Page 8 Department. Any perimeter fencing requirement adjacent to the Highline Canal is subject to review and approval of SRP. 7. All landscape setbacks shall be planted with minimum 2-inch caliper large canopy drought-tolerant trees, 20 feet on center or in equivalent groupings, with five 5-gallon shrubs per tree, as approved by the Planning and Development Department. 8. A minimum of 10% of the required shrubs, shall be a milkweed or other native nectar species, and shall be planted in groups of three or more AND MAINTAINED, as approved by the Planning and Development Department. 9. The sidewalk along 36th Street shall be a minimum of five feet in width and detached with a minimum five-foot wide landscape strip located between the sidewalk and back of curb and planted to the following standards, as approved by the Planning and Development Department. a. Minimum 2-inch caliper, single-trunk, large canopy, drought-tolerant shade trees planted 20 feet on center or in equivalent groupings. b. Drought tolerant vegetation to achieve a minimum of 75 percent live coverage at maturity. Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and Development Department on alternative design solutions consistent with a pedestrian environment for installing the required plants. 10. Prior to preliminary plat approval, documentation shall be provided that demonstrates participation in the Environmental Protection Agency’s WaterSense certification program, or an equivalent program, as approved by the Planning and Development and Water Services departments. 11. A WaterSense inspection report from a third-party verifier shall be submitted that demonstrates successful participation in the Environmental Protection Agency’s WaterSense certification program, or an equivalent program, prior to certificate of occupancy, as approved by the Planning and Development Department. 12. IN ADDITION TO THE Only landscape materials listed in the Baseline Area Master Plan Plant List CERCIDIUM HYBRID (DESERT MUSEUM PALO VERDE), QUERCUS VIRGINIANA (LIVE OAK), AND PISTACIA X 'RED-PUSH (RED PUSH PISTACHE), MAY BE PERMITTED AS APPROVED BY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AND shall be utilized throughout the subdivision including the front, side, and rear yards of individual residential lots. This restriction shall be included in the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions for the subdivision. South Mountain Village Planning Committee February 13, 2024 - Minutes Page 9 13. Landscaping in common areas shall be maintained by permanent and automatic/water efficient WaterSense labeled irrigation controllers (Smart Controller) to minimize maintenance and irrigation water consumption for all on and offsite landscape irrigation. 14. Pressure regulating sprinkler heads and drip lines shall be utilized in any turf areas to reduce water waste. 15. Natural turf shall only be utilized on individual single-family lots (behind the front yard); required retention areas (bottom of basin), and functional turf areas within common areas, as approved by the Planning and Development Department. 16. A minimum of two green infrastructure (GI) techniques for stormwater management shall be implemented per the Greater Phoenix Metro Green Infrastructure and Low- Impact Development Details for Alternative Stormwater Management, as approved or modified by the Planning and Development Department. 17. Swimming pools on individual single-family lots shall be limited to 600 square feet in size. 18. A public connection to the existing 36th Way stub street shall be provided or the existing 36th Way right-of-way shall be terminated per the City of Phoenix termination standards, as required by the Street Transportation Department. 19. An enhanced connection shall be provided on the southern site boundary to allow for direct pedestrian access to the adjacent Highline Canal. The developer shall construct an 8-foot-wide shaded pedestrian pathway consisting of decorative material such as brick, pavers or alternative material providing at the entryway, as approved by the Planning and Development Department. 20. A sidewalk easement shall be dedicated over a clearly defined pedestrian pathway(s) providing a public connection through the site from the existing 36th Way access point on the northern site boundary to the Highline Canal and the adjacent wash/trail system, as approved by the Planning and Development Department. 21. Replace unused driveways with sidewalk, curb, and gutter. Also, replace any broken or out-of-grade curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps on all streets and upgrade all off- site improvements to be in compliance with current ADA guidelines. 22. All streets within and adjacent to the development shall be constructed with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands, landscaping and other incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and Development Department. All improvements shall comply with all ADA accessibility standards South Mountain Village Planning Committee February 13, 2024 - Minutes Page 10 23. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and operational characteristics of Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport to future owners or tenants of the property. The form and content of such documents shall be according to the templates and instructions provided which have been reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. 24. If determined necessary by the Phoenix Archaeology Office, the applicant shall conduct Phase I data testing and submit an archaeological survey report of the development area for review and approval by the City Archaeologist prior to clearing and grubbing, landscape salvage, and/or grading approval. 25 If Phase I data testing is required, and if, upon review of the results from the Phase I data testing, the City Archaeologist, in consultation with a qualified archaeologist, determines such data recovery excavations are necessary, the applicant shall conduct Phase II archaeological data recovery excavations. 26. 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. 27. Prior to final site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a Proposition 207 waiver of claims form. 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. 28. BENCH SEATING SHALL BE PROVIDED NEAR THE WESTERN PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION, LOCATED BETWEEN LOTS 39 AND 50 ON THE SITE PLAN DATE STAMPED JANUARY 17, 2024. 29. A SIDEWALK SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED ALONG OPEN SPACE TRACT D 30. AT LEAST FIFTY PERCENT OF THE RESIDENTIAL HOMES ABUTTING THE CANAL SHALL BE A MAXIMUM OF ONE STORY OR FIFTEEN FEET IN HEIGHT. 31. THE APPLICANT SHALL CLOSE OFF THE FORMER ACCESS DRIVE EAST OF THE GROVES AT BASELINE SUBDIVISION BY INSTALLING A SOLID 4’ TALL BLOCK WALL WITH A 2’ VIEW FENCE ATOP, AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE PROPERTY AND AT THE DRIVEWAY ENTRANCE ALONG BASELINE ROAD, WITH A LOCKED ACCESS GATE ON THE SOUTH END FOR MAINTENANCE AS NEEDED. 32. THE APPLICANT SHALL SUBMIT A TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY TO THE PHOENIX STREETS AND TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT TO DETERMINE South Mountain Village Planning Committee February 13, 2024 - Minutes Page 11 THE SCOPE OFFSITE IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED AT 36th STREET AND BASELINE ROAD. 33. THE SUBDIVISION SHALL HAVE NO MORE THAN 61 LOTS 34. EITHER A PUBLIC PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE SHALL BE INSTALLED ACROSS THE HIGHLINE CANAL AT THE PUBLIC SIDEWALK NEAR 36TH STREET, SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY SRP, OR $50,000 SHALL BE DEPOSITED WITH THE CITY OF PHOENIX TO SUPPORT THE CITY’S CANAL BANK GUIDELINES ENCOURAGING PUBLIC PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES ACROSS THE CANAL. 35. ANY GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN SHALL CONSIDER THE IMPACT OF A POTENTIAL BREACH OF THE HIGHLINE CANAL. 36. OUTSIDE HOUSE LIGHT BRIGHTNESS SHALL NOT EXCEED 3,000 LUMENS PER FIXTURE. 37. THE CONCEPTUAL ELEVATIONS FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING HEARING OFFICER THROUGH THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS, INCLUDING REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE SOUTH MOUNTAIN VILLAGE PLANNING COMMITTEE, FOR STIPULATION MODIFICATION PRIOR TO PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL. THIS IS A LEGISLATIVE REVIEW FOR CONCEPTUAL PURPOSES ONLY. SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS WILL BE DETERMINED BY THE PLANNING HEARING OFFICER, THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, AND THE GUIDELINES OF SINGLE-FAMILY DESIGN REVIEW. 38. ANY INVASIVE PLANTS SHALL BE REMOVED BY THE DEVELOPER AND ANY HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. 39. NATIVE MATERIALS SHALL BE USED FOR ALL COLUMNS AND WALL. 5) INFORMATION ONLY: Presentation and discussion regarding a proposed expansion of the Phoenix Central Business District boundaries. Xandon Keating, with the Community and Economic Development, provided a presentation regarding the proposed expansion of the Phoenix Central Business District (CBD) boundaries. Mr. Keating provided the background of the CBD, how CBDs are used, the redevelopment Government Property Lease Excise Tax (GPLET) tool, an overview of Redevelopment Areas, the CBD expansion timeline, and the proposed CBD expansion area. Committee Member Greg Brownell asked for confirmation that it is not possible to have a GPLET for one year. Mr. Keating confirmed Committee Member Brownell’s statement regarding the GPLET duration.