Attachment C - Staff Report - PHO-1-20---Z-242-81-6.pdf
Extracted text (via pymupdf)
48813 characters
Staff Report: PHO-1-20—Z-242-81-6
APPLICATION:
PHO-1-20—Z-242-81-6
APPLICANT:
Wendy Riddell, Berry Riddell LLC
REPRESENTATIVE:
Wendy Riddell, Berry Riddell LLC
OWNER:
Levine Investments Limited Partnership
LOCATION:
Northwest corner of 32nd Street and Turney Avenue
REQUEST:
1) Modification of Stipulation 1 regarding site plan approval.
2) Modification of Stipulation 2 limiting height to one story.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that this request be approved with modifications as recommended by
the Planning Hearing Officer.
PLANNING HEARING OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Hearing Officer heard this case on August 19, 2020 and recommended
approval with modifications.
VILLAGE PLANNING COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Camelback East Village Planning Committee heard this case on August 4, 2020 and
recommended approval by an 18-0 vote.
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
The subject property is located at the northwest corner of 32nd Street and Turney
Avenue and is approximately 1.40 gross acres. The property is zoned C-O (Commercial
Office District – Restricted Commercial) and is utilized as parking for the medical offices
to the north. The applicant proposes to develop an office building and parking garage on
the property.
The applicant requested modification of Stipulations 1 and 2, regarding site plan approval
and limitation of height to one story. The applicant proposed general conformance to a
conceptual site plan depicting an approximately 5,000-square foot, 26-foot tall office
building and a 15-foot tall two-level parking garage. Access will be provided from
driveways on the parcel to the north. Stipulation 3 requires a 1-foot non-vehicular access
ATTACHMENT C
Staff Report – PHO-1-20—Z-242-81-6
October 1, 2020 Planning Commission
Page 2 of 5
easement on Turney Avenue. There are no requested modifications to this stipulation
and no access is proposed on Turney Avenue.
The proposed office building massing will be concentrated along 32nd Street and away
from the single-family residences to the west. The site plan also depicts a 15-foot
landscape setback on the west side of the site, which will replace an existing 11-foot high
parking canopy and dumpster. This landscape setback will provide additional buffering
between the single-family residential and the parking garage. The applicant stated that
two stories in height is appropriate at this location and represents a better design than
what was previously approved.
PREVIOUS HISTORY
The initial application in Rezoning Case No. Z-242-81-6 requested to rezone
approximately 6.41 acres at the northwest corner of 32nd Street and Turney Avenue.
Staff recommended denial of the request because the proposal would represent a
commercial intrusion into a stable residential neighborhood and any additional
employment should be located in the Village Core. Additionally, staff felt the request
would encourage similar requests along 32nd Street. Neighborhood concerns raised
during the hearing process included concerns that the request was contrary to the Village
Core plan and potential traffic and noise. During the hearing process, the applicant
reduced the acreage of the application from approximately 6.41 acres to 1.41 acres.
On March 8, 1982, the City Council approved the request to rezone the site from R1-6
(Single-Family Residence District) to C-O, subject to stipulations. The applicant stated
that the request would contribute to commercial development on 32nd Street without
detracting from the adjoining residential neighborhood or depreciating property values.
An approximately 50-year old, two story building on the property was removed to
accommodate the proposal. The property was redeveloped with two office buildings and
associated parking.
In 1983, the adjacent parcel to the north was rezoned to C-O in Rezoning Case No.
Z-220-83-6 and subsequently developed with office buildings which remain on the site
today. By 1991, the office buildings on the subject property in this request were
demolished. By 1996, the site was redeveloped with shaded parking to support the
offices to the north.
NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS
Correspondence
Four letters of opposition were received regarding this request. Concerns included the
following:
• Completion of a traffic study (one letter)
• Ingress and egress from the site (one letter)
• Building and parking structure height (three letters)
• Lack of privacy (one letter)
• Negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood’s aesthetic (one letter)
• Negative impact on property values (two letters)
Staff Report – PHO-1-20—Z-242-81-6
October 1, 2020 Planning Commission
Page 3 of 5
• Recommend changing the location of the parking garage, potentially between the
two existing medical offices on the parcel to the north (one letter)
• Recommend reducing the height of the parking garage, potentially building this
structure partially underground (one letter)
• Recommend increased setbacks and enhanced landscaping (one letter)
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION
Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre.
CHARACTER OF SURROUNDING LAND USE
Zoning Land Use
On-site:
C-O
Parking for the adjacent office
buildings to the north
North:
C-O
Offices
South (Across Turney Avenue): R1-6
Single-family residential
East (Across 32nd Street): R1-6
Single-family residential
West:
R1-6
Single-family residential
PLANNING HEARING OFFICER FINDINGS
The Planning Hearing Officer’s recommendation was based on the following findings:
1) The subject property was rezoned to C-O (Commercial Office) in 1981.
Subsequently, the site was developed with single-story offices which remained on
the property until approximately 1991. In approximately 1996, the site was
redeveloped as a parking area for the commercial offices adjacent to the north and
covered parking canopies were installed which remain today. The current
proposal includes the development a of a two-level parking garage at a maximum
height of 15 feet on the majority of the parcel and an approximately 5,000-square
foot office building along 32nd Street with a maximum height of 26 feet. The
proposed development is compatible with the land use pattern in the surrounding
area which includes multi-story office, single-family, and multifamily developments.
There are no proposed changes regarding access to the site and an existing
stipulation prohibiting access from Turney Avenue will be retained. Stipulation 1
requires only site plan approval by the City. The applicant is proposing general
conformance to the conceptual site plan which will establish a mechanism for a
public hearing if significant changes are proposed to the stipulated plans.
Approval of this request is recommended with minor modifications to incorporate
standard language regarding general conformance.
Staff Report – PHO-1-20—Z-242-81-6
October 1, 2020 Planning Commission
Page 4 of 5
2) Stipulation 2 limits buildings to one-story. This stipulation does not quantify the
specific building height and could hypothetically permit a one-story building up to a
maximum height of 56 feet. The proposed office building is located along the 32nd
Street frontage, an arterial street, and is set back at a significant distance from
residences to the west. The proposed two-level parking garage has a maximum
height of approximately 14 feet which is compatible with the scale of existing
residences in the surrounding area. The applicant’s requested modification to limit
building height to 28 feet is more restrictive than the existing stipulation, the
permitted height in the base zoning district, and the height of some existing
development in the surrounding area. The proposed building height will also be
subject to the general conformance requirement described above in Finding No. 1
which identifies the significantly lower parking garage height. Approval of the
request is recommended with a modification to remove the reference to building
stories.
PLANNING HEARING OFFICER RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS
1.
Site plan approval.
THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE IN GENERAL CONFORMANCE WITH THE
SITE PLAN DATE STAMPED JULY 2, 2020, AS MODIFIED BY THE
FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
2.
One-story height limitation.
THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT SHALL BE 28 FEET.
3.
1’ vehicular non-access easement on Turney.
Rights of Way
4.
Sufficient right-of-way to be dedicated by the property owner within one year of
the final City Council action to provide for the following:
a.
A 20’ alley on the north side of the property.
EXHIBITS
A – Appeal Documents (2 pages)
B – Applicant’s Narrative (6 pages)
C – Aerial Map (1 page)
D – Zoning Map (1 page)
E – Approval Letter for Rezoning Case No. Z-242-81-6 (1 page)
F – Sketch Map from Rezoning Case No. Z-242-81-6 (1 page)
G – Proposed Site Plan date stamped July 2, 2020 (1 page)
Staff Report – PHO-1-20—Z-242-81-6
October 1, 2020 Planning Commission
Page 5 of 5
H – Proposed Elevations date stamped July 2, 2020 (3 pages)
I – PHO Summary for PHO-1-20—Z-242-81-6 (6 pages)
J – Correspondence regarding PHO-1-20—Z-242-81-6 (8 pages)
EXHIBIT A
S:\Planning\Rezoning\Hearings\PHO\Appeals\2020\PHO-1-20--Z-242-81-6 Bobby Berland
Opposition.doc
PLANNING HEARING OFFICER APPEAL
I HEREBY REQUEST THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION/CITY COUNCIL HOLD
A PUBLIC HEARING ON: October 1, 2020
CASE NUMBER:
PHO-1-20—Z-242-81-6
LOCATION:
Northwest corner of 32nd Street and Turney Avenue
PHO HEARING DATE:
8/19/20
RECEIVED:
8/25/20
APPEALED BY:
Opposition
Applicant
APPEALED TO:
PLANNING
COMMISSION
10/1/2020
TENTATIVE DATE
CITY COUNCIL
11/4/20
TENTATIVE DATE
APPELLANT NAME AND ADDRESS:
PHONE:
Bobby Berland
3135 East Turney Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85016
602-315-0680
RECEIPT NUMBER:
N/A
REASON FOR REQUEST:
The stipulation that was attached to this zoning case in the early 1980’s to limit the
height of the building on the southern portion of the property, the portion of the
property closest to residences, was clearly important to the rezoning. Undoubtedly,
this was a concession from the rezoning applicant at that time, that the building would
be kept to one story. Now the applicant seeks to take away what was conceded as a
condition of securing the prior zoning. And they do not provide any real reason for this
either, except for their own convenience. It is very important that zoning applicants
not be permitted to offer a concession to secure zoning and then subsequently
remove it, against the wishes of those property owners closest to the affected area.
TAKEN BY:
Eric Morales, Planner II
c:
Alan Stephenson
Joshua Bednarek
Tricia Gomes
Racelle Escolar
Danielle Jordan
Victoria Cipolla-Murillo
Adam Stranieri
Julianna Pierre
Ben Ernyei - Posting
GIS Team
EXHIBIT B
wr@berryriddell.com
Dir: 480-682-3902
July 17, 2020
Via Hand-delivery, to:
City of Phoenix
Attn: Planning Hearing Officer
200 W Washington Street, 2nd Floor
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
Re:
Request to Modify Stipulations / SWC 32nd Street & Campbell Avenue
Dear Planning Hearing Officer:
The purpose of this correspondence is to seek modifications to the stipulations of two
related zoning cases for a property located at the southwest corner of 32nd Street and Campbell
Avenue (the “Site”). We represent Levine Investments Limited Partnership, who have recently
acquired the Site and intend to make much-needed improvements to enhance the building design,
overall circulation and ease of accessibility, which necessitate stipulation modifications to both
zoning cases. The Site, which consists of parcels 163-03-127C; 127D; and -129, is located within
the Camelback East Village and is shown in the aerial below.
Campbell Ave
32nd St
6750 E. Camelback Rd., #100
Scottsdale, AZ 85251
Office: 480-385-2727
www.berryriddell.com
BERRY RIDDELL LLC
July 17, 2020
Page 2
Levine Investments Limited Partnership
Levine Investments is a well-known real estate company based out of Phoenix that holds a diverse
portfolio of iconic Sites throughout the Valley including Uptown Plaza, Buck & Rider, Scottsdale
Highlands, and Flower Child Scottsdale. Their experience both with new developments as well
as revitalization of aging properties makes them perfectly positioned to re-envision this Site.
Zoning History and Site Context
Although the three parcels function as one development, two related zoning cases apply to
the Site. In 1981 an application was filed to rezone the entire Site from R1-6 to C-O. However,
the application was amended before approval to include only the parcels outlined in blue below,
to respond to input from the community.
The approval of Z-242-81 was subject to site plan approval, a one-story height limitation,
and a 1-foot vehicular non-access easement on Turney Avenue. Below is the site plan for the
Z-220-83
Z-242-81
BERRY RIDDELL LLC
July 17, 2020
Page 3
garden-style offices that were presented through this process, although this site currently only
contains parking to support the existing office buildings.
In 1983 an application was approved to rezone the remainder of the Site, shown on the
previous page in green, from R1-6 to C-O for the development of the two-story offices shown
below. This plan is generally consistent with what exists onsite today.
This plan was subject to a number of stipulations that were later modified through the
Planning Hearing Officer process and now include a limitation on height to two stories and 32 feet,
a west building setback of 125 feet, enhanced landscaping, a six-foot masonry wall along the
western property line, and other requirements. In the mid-1980’s, the Site was developed with
BERRY RIDDELL LLC
July 17, 2020
Page 4
office buildings in a layout that is generally consistent with the site plans showed through the two
zoning cases. An aerial of the Site in 1986 is shown below.
However, by 1991 the office building on the southern two parcels, outlined above in red,
was demolished and later replaced with parking to support the two-story medical office buildings.
The current request will allow for a medical office building to be reconstructed on these parcels,
but in a configuration that concentrates the building massing along 32nd Street and away from the
single-family residences to the west, thereby screening the parking and creating a more compatible
design. Additionally, the building façade and landscaping will be redesigned to reflect a more
modern aesthetic, as shown below. The improvements described herein require some
modifications to the existing stipulations, as outlined below. These requests will allow the Site to
be redesigned with more efficient circulation, a modernized façade, and a layout that is compatible
with the surrounding developments.
Current Design
Proposed Improvements
Stipulations
Z-242-81
1. Site plan approval. APPROVAL IS SUBJECT TO GENERAL CONFORMANCE TO SITE
PLAN DATE STAMPED XX/X/XXXX.
BERRY RIDDELL LLC
July 17, 2020
Page 5
Rationale: This stipulation is outdated and this requested change will update it to typical
language.
2. One story height limitation. BUILDING HEIGHT SHALL BE LIMITED TO TWO STORIES
AND 28 FEET.
Rationale: Unlike the previous design, which oriented the buildings close to the adjacent
residences, this design concentrates the building massing closer to 32rd Street, where two stories
in height is appropriate. All of the surrounding zoning districts permit development up to 30 feet
in height. This request represents a better design than what was previously approved and is an
appropriate transition from the existing two-story medical office buildings on Site to the adjacent
residential developments in the vicinity, which vary from one to two stories.
Z-220-83
1. The development shall be in general conformance with the site plan dated March 16, 1984, as
modified by the following stipulations and approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
2. A minimum building setback of 30 feet shall be required along the north property line adjacent
to Campbell Avenue, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
3. Buildings shall be a maximum of two stories or thirty-two feet.
4. There shall be no building constructed within 125 feet of the west property line as measured from
31st Place.
5. A 6-foot block wall of masonry stucco shall be placed along the entire west property line.
6. Landscaping shall be placed on the west side of the above-described six-foot wall along the
front of Lots 16, 17, 57, 58, 59 and the former Roma Avenue.
7. Landscaping will be provided on the east side of the above-described wall for its entire length.
8. The wall will be constructed, stuccoed, painted, and landscaped prior to demolition, or
commencement of construction on site.
9. All parking by construction personnel will be on the property.
10. Ingress and egress will be limited to 32nd Street, and applicant will donate nonvehicular access
easements on the north and west property lines.
Rationale: Currently, the only egress from the Site is along 32nd Street and visitors must
cross two lanes of an arterial street not protected by a turn signal. The requested access will allow
visitors to make a right turn out of the Site onto Campbell Ave and then turn onto 32nd Street at a
traffic signal. This condition is safer for the community and for the primarily elderly population
that visits the Site. The primary entrance will continue to be the Roma Avenue alignment, and
access onto Turney Avenue is prohibited.
3. 1' vehicular non-access easement on Turney.
Rights-of-Way
Sufficeint right-of-way to be dedicated by the property owner within one year of the final City
Council action to provide for the following:
1. A 20' alley on the north side of the property.
BERRY RIDDELL LLC
July 17, 2020
Page 6
11. All utilities will be underground.
12. All light standards will be a maximum of 15 feet and lights turned away from adjacent
residential districts.
13. All landscaping will be installed and maintained with appropriate water systems, as approved
by the City of Phoenix Engineer and Landscape Architect.
14. The site will be subject to site plan approval under C-O zoning, as required by the City of
Phoenix.
Right-of-way
15. Sufficient right-of-way to be dedicated by the property owner within one year of final City
Council action to provide for a 15’ x 15’ triangle off Lot No. 17.
16. The rezoning change will not become effective until the right-of-way dedications have been
made, if necessary, and a Supplemental Zoning Map has been adopted.
We respectfully request your approval of the stipulation modifications outlined herein.
Your attention to this matter is greatly appreciated.
Very truly yours,
Wendy Riddell
Current access
Desired additional access
Primary access
EXHIBIT C
N 32ND ST
N 31ST PL
E MONTECITO AVE
N 32ND PL
E TURNEY AVE
E ROMA AVE
ALL
EY
Maricopa County Assessor's Office
Planning & Development Department
PHO-1-20--Z-242-81-6
Property Location: Northwest corner of 32nd Street and Turney Avenue
0
100
200
50
Feet ´
EXHIBIT D
N 32ND ST
N 31ST PL
E MONTECITO AVE
N 32ND PL
E TURNEY AVE
E ROMA AVE
ALL
EY
R-5
R1-6*
R1-6
R1-6
R-O*
R1-6
C-O*
C-O*
Maricopa County Assessor's Office
Planning & Development Department
PHO-1-20--Z-242-81-6
Property Location: Northwest corner of 32nd Street and Turney Avenue
0
100
200
50
Feet ´
EXHIBIT E
EXHIBIT I
Planning Hearing Officer Summary of August 19, 2020
Application PHO-1-20--Z-242-81-6
Page 2
REPORT OF PLANNING HEARING OFFICER ACTION
Adam Stranieri, Planner III, Hearing Officer
Julianna Pierre, Planner I, Assisting
August 19, 2020
ITEM NO: 1
DISTRICT 6
SUBJECT:
Application #:
PHO-1-20--Z-242-81-6
Zoning:
C-O
Location:
Northwest corner of 32nd Street and Turney Avenue
Acreage:
1.40
Request:
1) Modification of Stipulation 1 regarding site plan approval.
2) Modification of Stipulation 2 limiting height to one story.
Applicant:
Wendy Riddell, Berry Riddell LLC
Owner:
Levine Investments Limited Partnership
Representative: Wendy Riddell, Berry Riddell LLC
ACTIONS
Planning Hearing Officer Recommendation: The Planning Hearing Officer
recommended approval with modifications.
Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation: The Camelback East
Village Planning Committee heard this case on August 4, 2020 and
recommended approval by an 18-0 vote.
DISCUSSION
This case was heard concurrently with Item #2, PHO-2-20—Z-220-83-6.
Wendy Riddell, applicant and representative with Berry Riddell LLC, provided
history regarding the approximately 6.4-acre site. She stated that the applicant
proposes exterior improvements to the existing buildings and to build an
approximately 5,000 square foot, 26-foot-high office building and a 15-foot tall
two-level podium parking garage. Updates to the façades of the existing buildings
would incorporate modern style and high-quality materials.
Ms. Riddell stated that they were requesting to modify Stipulations 1 and 2 from
Z-242-81, regarding site plan approval and limitation of height to one story. She
was aware of neighborhood concerns regarding the height of the proposed
development. In her presentation she provided images depicting the sight lines
from the second story of a property at the southwest corner of 32nd Street and
Planning Hearing Officer Summary of August 19, 2020
Application PHO-1-20--Z-242-81-6
Page 2
Turney Avenue to illustrate that the new buildings would have limited impact on
views. She stated that the maximum height allowed in the C-O zoning district is
56 feet and their proposal would create much less of an impact than a building at
the permitted maximum height.
Ms. Riddell stated that they were also requesting to delete Stipulation 10 from Z-
220-83-6, limiting ingress and egress to 32nd Street and requiring non-vehicular
access easements on the north and west property lines. She stated that they are
proposing a secondary driveway onto Campbell Avenue which would be safer for
the community and allow ingress and egress close to the traffic signal at 32nd
Street. She added that their site is the only site at the intersection of 32nd Street
and Campbell Avenue that does not have a driveway on Campbell Avenue.
Ms. Riddell stated that Ethan Buszko, a neighbor who lives adjacent to the
southern parcel to the west, raised concerns about the proposal. She stated that
their request will replace a parking canopy and dumpster located approximately 2
feet from the west property line with a 15-foot landscape setback. She stated
that the parking structure will be setback from the property line and she is willing
to work with neighbors regarding landscaping.
Bobby Berland, a member of the public speaking in opposition to the request,
stated that he lives adjacent to the site. He stated that the proposal negatively
impacts views from his property and is also a quality of life issue. He stated that
the original developer of the property in the 1980s intended to leave the south
parcel as a buffer for the neighborhood. He stated that a two-level parking
structure directly adjacent to residential homes will create safety and security
issues. He added that at such close proximity people may be able to see into his
home.
David Pagano, a member of the public expressing no position, stated that he had
safety and visual impact concerns. He added that the development could create
hiding places for people on the subject property and that security issues should
be considered and addressed.
Mr. Buszko, a member of the public speaking in opposition to the request, stated
that he lives adjacent to the site. He stated that he shared prior speakers’
concerns about safety and privacy. He also expressed concern about the view
down from the development into his yard. He stated that he was open to having
discussions with the applicant about the dumpster, landscaping, and parking
structure design. He added that the impact of the parking structure could be
reduced by partially placing the structure underground or instead building the
garage on the north parcel between the existing office buildings.
Jason Wolf, a member of the public speaking in opposition to the request, stated
that he also had concerns about safety, security, and quality of life.
Planning Hearing Officer Summary of August 19, 2020
Application PHO-1-20--Z-242-81-6
Page 2
Jay Swart, Chair of the Camelback East Village Planning Committee (VPC)
speaking in favor of the request, stated that while it was not required, the
applicant requested that the case be heard by the VPC, and the Committee
voted unanimously to recommend approval as filed. He added that he frequents
the existing offices and it can be difficult to find a parking space at the site and it
would be beneficial to have a driveway onto Campbell Avenue. He stated that
other commercial property owners, specifically the Chop Shop and coffee shop at
the northeast corner of Campbell Avenue and 32nd Street, were supportive of
the development. He stated that Levine Investments Limited Partnership only
recently acquired the subject property and he was pleased to see a developer
building an innovative design at the location.
Noel Tan, a member of the public speaking in opposition to the request, stated
that he lives adjacent to the site. He shared concerns regarding safety. He
stated that he purchased his home in 2018 and was told that the location of the
existing parking lot would remain undeveloped. He stated that he was surprised
when he received the notice regarding the proposed development. He stated
that he would be directly across from the proposed parking garage and was
opposed to the development.
Rick LaManna, a member of the public speaking in opposition to the request,
stated that he lives in the nearby neighborhood. He stated that the location of
the parking garage is the principle problem and will negatively impact the
neighborhood and lower property values. He stated that the City and developer
should maintain a buffer between the residential homes and commercial uses.
Thomas Pandola, a member of the public speaking in opposition to the request,
stated that he lives in the nearby neighborhood. He stated that he had concerns
regarding security, privacy, and a reduction in property values.
William Fischbach, Vice-Chair of the Camelback East VPC speaking in favor of
the request, stated that lives in the nearby neighborhood. He stated that the
proposal is consistent with other commercial properties in the area and is less
intensive than what could be allowed in the zoning district.
Ms. Riddell stated that the site has been zoned for commercial office use since
the 1980s and the proposed development is less intense than what could be
developed on the property. She added that the community is safer with the
development because the property will have regular security patrols and will not
have nighttime uses or parking. She stated that she wanted to work with the
neighbors regarding the landscaping. She stated that there was no opposition at
the Camelback East VPC. She added that Mr. Berland had proposed an
agreement where if the applicant paid him $200,000, he would not organize
opposition against the case.
Planning Hearing Officer Summary of August 19, 2020
Application PHO-1-20--Z-242-81-6
Page 2
Mr. Berland clarified that Ms. Riddell’s statement regarding his proposal was not
true. Ms. Riddell stated that she would not have brought up Mr. Berland’s
proposal if it were not true.
Adam Stranieri asked Ms. Riddell if she was aware of any private agreements
that were made with the neighborhood regarding the subject property of Z-242-
81-6 as a buffer or open space area. Ms. Riddell said she did not know of any
agreement and felt it was a misunderstanding of the original rezoning case. Mr.
Stranieri stated that that the applicant in the original rezoning case was a
construction company who intended to build an office on the site. He noted that
these offices were developed on the site as intended and were only later
removed and replaced with parking canopies. He noted that the current case is
the first request for modification of the stipulations and therefore there is no
record in the City’s files of any such agreement.
Mr. Stranieri stated that the applicant’s request to include general conformance
to the proposed site plan would establish a more restrictive condition than the
current stipulation for site plan approval. He stated that what is proposed in the
plan is an appropriate scale and intensity for a commercial office site along a
major arterial and adjacent to residential uses. He noted that the general
conformance requirement would also establish a trigger for a future public
hearing process if major changes were proposed to the stipulated plans. He
stated that he was inclined to approve the request for general conformance with
the site plan.
Mr. Stranieri asked for clarification regarding the height of the proposed
structures. Ms. Riddell stated that the applicant was not using the City’s
definition of height because it can be confusing to the neighbors, so she wanted
to be clear they were talking about height to the maximum point of the structure,
including parapets. Mr. Stranieri stated that he would want the language of the
stipulation to be consistent with existing Ordinance language. Ms. Riddell stated
that they intended to include the parapet in the definition of height. Mr. Stranieri
noted that the applicant’s requested language noted 28-feet in height while the
conceptual site plan showed 26-feet in height. He stated that he did not have an
issue approving as requested as long as the applicant understood that the
stipulations regarding height and general conformance would be interpreted in
the plan review process using the City’s existing definition of height.
Mr. Stranieri stated that he did not hear as much concern regarding the request
or subject property in companion case Z-220-83-6. He noted that the
intersection is of an arterial street (32nd Street) and a minor collector (Campbell
Avenue). He added that all other properties at the four corners have driveway
access to Campbell Avenue. Considering the new square footage and building
massing on the site it would make sense to increase the number of access
points. He added that it is also desirable since the driveway would access a
signalized intersection and an additional driveway on 32nd Street is not possible.
Planning Hearing Officer Summary of August 19, 2020
Application PHO-1-20--Z-242-81-6
Page 2
He also noted that the applicant was not modifying the existing prohibition on
access to Turney Avenue. He asked for clarification regarding the existing,
stipulated non-vehicular access easements (NVAE) on the property. Ms. Riddell
stated that they had no intent to remove the NVAE along the west property line.
Mr. Stranieri stated that he was inclined to retain the stipulation with modified
language regarding the NVAE on the west property line. He stated that the intent
was to prevent the easement from being abandoned without returning through a
public PHO hearing process.
FINDINGS
1) The subject property was rezoned to C-O (Commercial Office) in 1981.
Subsequently, the site was developed with single-story offices which
remained on the property until approximately 1991. In approximately
1996, the site was redeveloped as a parking area for the commercial
offices adjacent to the north and covered parking canopies were installed
which remain today. The current proposal includes the development a of
a two-level parking garage at a maximum height of 15 feet on the majority
of the parcel and an approximately 5,000-square foot office building along
32nd Street with a maximum height of 26 feet. The proposed
development is compatible with the land use pattern in the surrounding
area which includes multi-story office, single-family, and multifamily
developments. There are no proposed changes regarding access to the
site and an existing stipulation prohibiting access from Turney Avenue will
be retained. Stipulation 1 requires only site plan approval by the City.
The applicant is proposing general conformance to the conceptual site
plan which will establish a mechanism for a public hearing if significant
changes are proposed to the stipulated plans. Approval of this request is
recommended with minor modifications to incorporate standard language
regarding general conformance.
2) Stipulation 2 limits buildings to one-story. This stipulation does not
quantify the specific building height and could hypothetically permit a one-
story building up to a maximum height of 56 feet. The proposed office
building is located along the 32nd Street frontage, an arterial street, and is
set back at a significant distance from residences to the west. The
proposed two-level parking garage has a maximum height of
approximately 14 feet which is compatible with the scale of existing
residences in the surrounding area. The applicant’s requested
modification to limit building height to 28 feet is more restrictive than the
existing stipulation, the permitted height in the base zoning district, and
the height of some existing development in the surrounding area. The
proposed building height will also be subject to the general conformance
requirement described above in Finding No. 1 which identifies the
significantly lower parking garage height. Approval of the request is
Planning Hearing Officer Summary of August 19, 2020
Application PHO-1-20--Z-242-81-6
Page 2
recommended with a modification to remove the reference to building
stories.
DECISION: The Planning Hearing Officer recommended approval with
modifications.
STIPULATIONS
1.
Site plan approval.
THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE IN GENERAL CONFORMANCE WITH
THE SITE PLAN DATE STAMPED JULY 2, 2020, AS MODIFIED BY
THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS AND APPROVED BY THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
2.
One-story height limitation.
THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT SHALL BE 28 FEET.
3.
1’ vehicular non-access easement on Turney.
Rights of Way
4.
Sufficient right-of-way to be dedicated by the property owner within one
year of the final City Council action to provide for the following:
a.
A 20’ alley on the north side of the property.
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.
EXHIBIT J
1
Julianna Pierre
Subject:
FW: Development on the SW Corner of 32nd St and Campbell (PHO-2-20--Z-220-83 &
PHO-1-20--Z-242-81)
From: Ashley Porter <ap@berryriddell.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2020 9:03 AM
To: JN Neuman <neumanjn@gmail.com>
Cc: Sofia Mastikhina <sofia.mastikhina@phoenix.gov>
Subject: RE: Development on the SW Corner of 32nd St and Campbell (PHO-2-20--Z-220-83 & PHO-1-20--Z-242-81)
Jeremy,
A traffic study has not been done, as one is not required here with a site plan modification. This is not a rezoning
request.
The 14’-2” to the top of the garage is to the top of the screen wall.
Let me know if you have any additional questions.
Ashley Porter
Planner
BERRY RIDDELL LLC
6750 E. Camelback Road | Suite 100 | Scottsdale, Arizona 85251
480-682-3916 direct | 480-385-2757 fax
ap@berryriddell.com | www.berryriddell.com [berryriddell.com]
This message and any of the attached documents contain information from Berry Riddell LLC that may be confidential and/or
privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not read, copy, distribute, or use this information, and no privilege has
been waived by your inadvertent receipt. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail
and then delete this message. Thank you.
From: JN Neuman <neumanjn@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2020 12:06 AM
To: Ashley Porter <ap@berryriddell.com>
Cc: sofia.mastikhina@phoenix.gov
Subject: Re: Development on the SW Corner of 32nd St and Campbell (PHO-2-20--Z-220-83 & PHO-1-20--Z-242-81)
Ashley,
Thank you for your reply. I understand that the two other businesses have access to Campbell; however, both of those
businesses are much smaller than this development in its current configuration, and in addition to the driveway, you are
proposing to increase the density on the site. You also stated in the letter you sent out to residences that the primary
purpose of providing the Campbell driveway was so that vehicles would no longer have to make an unprotected left-turn
onto 32nd St, which is incorrect. Was a traffic study completed for adding the driveway on Campbell? I would like to see
the traffic study and what assumptions were made in the study. What design year was assumed for your traffic study,
and how many vehicles are assumed to be using the Campbell driveway during peak hour? What is the split between the
driveways, and what is the level of service for the intersection before and after the added driveway? Also was adding a
protected left-turn signal phase for Campbell looked into?
2
While there may be no height limitation with the single-story restrictions, there are economic limitations on the height
of a single-story building. It would not make economic sense for a developer to build a single story building 56-ft tall, so
the cap on a single story effectively created a height limitation too. Also, a single-story building would not have windows
looking down into residential lots, while a second-story building would intrude on neighborhood privacy by putting
occupants of the building at a higher elevation and vantage point.
In regards to the parking structure, while may only be 3 feet higher than the existing parking canopies, the canopies do
not have the presence of a parking structure, so the parking structure is taller while also replacing what is effectively an
umbrella with a building. Does the 14'-2" include that parking structure parapet walls or is that the top of floor elevation
for the second story? There is only surface parking on properties fronting 32nd St from Camelback Rd to the south with
the exception of the property on SW corner of 32nd St and Camelback, which has a parking structure, and Helios, which
has underground parking. My concern with both the two stories and the parking structure is that they do not provide a
good transition or interface with residential properties that are immediately adjacent to the site, which I assume is why
the restrictions were originally placed on the site.
Jeremy
On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 11:38 AM Ashley Porter <ap@berryriddell.com> wrote:
Jeremy,
Thank you for reaching out. We are proposing a full access driveway along Campbell Ave. The driveway will be located
approximately 195 feet from the intersection of 32nd St and Campbell Ave. Each other business at this intersection has a
driveway at Campbell Ave, to provide a safer condition for passing traffic and people visiting the site. Our plan has been
reviewed by the traffic department of the City of Phoenix and no concerns were presented in regard to the additional
driveway.
The previous height limitation on the southern portion of the property is one story, but with no specific height
limitation. The maximum permitted height in the C-O district is 56 feet. We are, instead, proposing to limit the height of
the new office building to 28 feet and the podium parking will be a maximum height of 14 feet, 2 inches – 3 feet higher
than the existing parking canopies.
I truly appreciate your input and am happy to discuss further.
Ashley Porter
Planner
BERRY RIDDELL LLC
6750 E. Camelback Road | Suite 100 | Scottsdale, Arizona 85251
480-682-3916 direct | 480-385-2757 fax
ap@berryriddell.com | www.berryriddell.com [berryriddell.com]
3
This message and any of the attached documents contain information from Berry Riddell LLC that may be confidential and/or
privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not read, copy, distribute, or use this information, and no privilege has
been waived by your inadvertent receipt. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail
and then delete this message. Thank you.
From: JN Neuman <neumanjn@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2020 12:05 PM
To: sofia.mastikhina@phoenix.gov; Ashley Porter <ap@berryriddell.com>
Subject: Fwd: Development on the SW Corner of 32nd St and Campbell (PHO-2-20--Z-220-83 & PHO-1-20--Z-242-81)
Hi,
I received your informational packet on your proposal to remove the stipulations on the development on the SW
corner of 32nd St and Campbell. I would like more information on your proposal, specifically about the added driveway
on Campbell Ave. There is already a traffic problem at 32nd St and Campbell Ave, and by adding a driveway for your
development and enlarging your development, you will be exacerbating that problem. In your letter you said that the
reason for this driveway is to give the option for visitors not to make an unprotected left on 32nd St. This statement is
disingenuous, as all you will be doing is moving where the visitors and tenants make their unprotected left-turn. 32nd
St and Campbell does not have a protected left turn. Also, with the close proximity to the intersection, you will be
increasing the queue of vehicles in the left-turn lane especially during peak hour and likely blocking the through lane on
Campbell Avenue. I would like you to provide your traffic study for this project.
In addition, I do not agree with the proposal to eliminate the one-story height limitation for Z-242-81. This not only
adds density to the development and exacerbates the ingress and egress traffic issue but it also puts a 2-story office
development in close proximity to a residential neighborhood. The reasons for the previous height stipulations still
exist, to provide a buffer between a development of this type of single family residential properties.
Sincerely,
Jeremy Neuman
August 16th, 2020
To Julianna Pierre (Phoenix Hearing Officer),
I am writing to you to state my case regarding the upcoming deliberation of the
proposed changes and stipulations listed in Applications NO. Z-242-81-6 (PHO-1-20)
and NO. Z-220-83-6 (PHO-2-20). As we discussed in our previous correspondence, I
recently purchased the property on 3114 E Turney Ave in late July. My fiancé and I
chose this to be our home as the surrounding neighborhood’s character and aesthetic were
just what we were looking for. We quickly made ourselves at home and began home
improvement projects to address any issues that we noticed. One of our primary concerns
was maintaining our privacy, which seemed manageable at the time given that the only
adjacent property that we needed to address in that regard was the commercial lot to the
east. We intended on managing our privacy by adding trees or bushes to our east and
northeast wall of our property to obscure the view between our property and the
commercial lot.
However, shortly after purchasing our home, we were approached by a neighbor
that introduced herself and notified us of the proposed changes to the adjacent
commercial lot, specifically those listed in Z-242-81-6, which left my fiancé and I at a
loss for how this would impact our home. Firstly, we believe that the aesthetic of the
neighborhood would be negatively affected by the modifications of the stipulations listed
in Z-242-81-6, as our property and our nearby neighbors’ would have a drastic shift in
the surrounding view from what we currently enjoy to a large display of concrete sparsely
covered by landscaping. Secondly, our originally conceived landscaping project would
hardly address a towering two story garage unless we planted a considerable amount of
mature trees to immediately address the issue, greatly reducing the available space in our
own backyard. Lastly, the impact on the value of the nearby properties could potentially
be severe as future buyers may be extremely off-put by the proposed modifications,
should they be executed to completion; although we are sure that the commercial
investors would attempt to reassure us that their modifications would only serve to
increase the nearby property values.
In an effort to maintain an optimistic attitude toward the proposed changes of the
adjacent commercial lot to our home, I am prepared to offer ideas that may satisfy the
desires of both parties. The most simple solution would be to plan the construction for a
podium style garage on the lot to the north where both medical offices currently stand,
which could possibly be built between the two medical offices (adjacent to one of the
current entrances) or parallel to the medical offices on their western side. Although this
suggestion would most likely result in a smaller podium style parking garage, I noticed
that the existing amount of parking, at a total of 222 spaces, exceeds the “required” 215
spaces that the project calls for, which would result in a smaller garage possibly off-
setting the lost spaces from the new 5000 sq ft office proposed on the northwest corner of
Turney and 32nd street. In effect, this option may net an increase in available parking in
an amount still exceeding the 215 required spaces.
However, if there are no other good alternatives for the location of the proposed
podium style garage, I ask to please consider whether it is possible for the structure to be
built either partially below the ground level of the current parking spaces (where the
second level of parking would be at the current ground level or slightly elevated) or if the
currently proposed side yard setback be increased from 15ft to 30 ft. Additionally, in an
effort to further preserve privacy, I would recommend an adequate amount of
landscaping around the sides of the parking structure/office facing the residential areas
and/or possible fixtures on the sides of the garage to limit the view of those parked inside
the structure into the neighboring properties.
Overall, I believe that the proposed modifications of the stipulations listed in Z-
242-81-6 in its current state may yield a result that could become a great detriment to the
neighborhood by disturbing the community’s aesthetic, residential privacy, and property
values. With careful consideration, I am offering the genuine compromises that I listed
above in order to address some of my concerns and perhaps the concerns of my
neighbors. I am confident that you will take the concerns of my fiancé and I, as well as
our neighbors’, into careful consideration and implore you to reflect upon the reality that
once these proposed changes are completed, they are unlikely to be undone in the future.
Thank you for taking the time to listen to what I have to say, it is greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
Ethan Buszko
1
Julianna Pierre
From:
Thomas Pandola <tpandola@hotmail.com>
Sent:
Tuesday, August 18, 2020 1:13 AM
To:
PDD PHO
Subject:
Z-242-81-6
Follow Up Flag:
Follow up
Flag Status:
Flagged
I purchased the property at 3121 E Turney on 8‐14‐2020. I am very concerned that the construction of the
proposed project will devalue my home.
1
Julianna Pierre
From:
Thomas Pandola <tpandola@hotmail.com>
Sent:
Tuesday, August 18, 2020 1:16 AM
To:
PDD PHO
Subject:
One Story Height Limit
Follow Up Flag:
Follow up
Flag Status:
Completed
The homeowners believe that Z‐242‐81‐6 should be restricted to one story.