City Council Public Hearing Packet Item 111

CITY COUNCIL REPORT
FORMAL AGENDA
TO:
Mario Paniagua
AGENDA DATE: July 1, 2016
Deputy City Manager
FROM:
Alan Stephenson
ITEM:111
PAGE:
127
Planning & Development Director
SUBJECT: BACKUP INFORMATION TO ITEM 111 - PUBLIC HEARING/ORDINANCE
ADOPTION – REZONING APPLICATION Z-70-15-6 ON THE JULY 1,
2016, FORMAL AGENDA – LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER
OF 28TH STREET AND CAMELBACK ROAD
This report provides backup information on Item 111 - Public Hearing/Ordinance
Adoption – Rezoning Application Z-70-15-6 on the July 1, 2016 Formal Agenda.
THE ISSUE
A rezoning application has been submitted for approval to the City Council for a parcel
located at the southeast corner of 28th Street and Camelback Road.
The application is being made by Jeff LaPour of LaPour Partners Inc., represented by
Paul Gilbert of Beus Gilbert PLLC, on behalf of Jerry Simms of Daily Double.
OTHER INFORMATION
Rezoning case Z-70-15-6 is a request to rezone 4.87 acres from P-1, C-O to PUD to
allow a mix of uses including office, hotel and limited retail with a proposed building
height of 50 feet.
The Camelback East Village Planning Committee heard the request on May 3, 2016
and approved with modification by a vote of 12-6.
The Planning Commission heard the request on June 2, 2016 and approved per the
memo from Xandon Keating by a vote of 6-0.
The application was appealed by the opposition. A ¾ vote of the City Council is
required to approve this rezoning case.
Attachments:
A – Planning Commission Action
B – Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
C – Staff Report Z-70-15-6
D – Petitions of Support
1
REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
June 2, 2016
ITEM NO: 15
DISTRICT NO.: 6
SUBJECT:
Application #:
Location:
Request:
Proposal:
Applicant:
Owner:
Representative:
Z-70-15-6
Southeast corner of 28th Street and Camelback Road
P-1, C-O To: PUD Acreage: 4.87
Planned Unit Development to allow a mix of uses including office, hotel,
and limited retail
LaPour Partners Inc. c/o Jeff LaPour
Daily Double c/o Jerry Simms
Beus Gilbert PLLC c/o Paul Gilbert
ACTIONS:
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
Camelback East 5/3/2016 Approved with an additional stipulation. Vote: 12-6
Planning Commission Recommendation: Approved, per the memo from Xandon Keating
dated June 2, 2016 with a modification to Stipulation 5.
Motion discussion: N/A
Motion details – Commission Heck made a MOTION to approve Z-70-15-6 per the memo
from Xandon Keating dated June 2, 2016 with a modification to Stipulation 5.
Maker: Heck
Second: Montalvo
Vote: 6-0
Absent: Davis, Johnson, Whitaker
Opposition Present: Yes
Findings:
1.
The development proposal is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Map
designation of Commercial.
2.
The proposed design standards provide consistency with other properties along the
Camelback Road corridor and serve to provide adequate protection to adjacent
residential properties.
3.
The proposal will provide additional services and amenities that will serve in
creating additional employment opportunities in a major employment centers.
Stipulations:
1.
An updated Development Narrative for the 28th Street & Camelback Mixed Use
PUD reflecting the changes approved through this request shall be submitted to the
Planning and Development Department within 30 days of City Council approval of
this request. The updated Development Narrative shall be consistent with the
Development Narrative date stamped April 8, 2016 as modified by the following
stipulations.
a. Page 33, Development Standards, 1.e.iii. Maximum Projections: Applicant
shall replace “fifth percent” with “fifty percent” when discussing close
projections.
b. Page 34, Development Standards, 1.h.iv. Off-Street Loading Spaces:
Applicant shall revise the subsection to read, “Off-street loading spaces:
Minimum of one (1) loading space per building and minimum three (3)
loading spaces total. A minimum of one (1) loading space per building shall
meet the size requirements as stated in Section 702. Additional loading
spaces must be a minimum size of 9.5 feet by 18 feet.”
c. Page 44, Design Guidelines, 3.n. Opening Limitations: Applicant shall
revise this subsection to read, “Limit openings (e.g. windows/balconies)
facing the residential homes to the south. No balconies facing residential
homes shall be provided. Any south facing hotel building walls within 150
feet of the southern property line shall not contain guestroom windows.
(See Exhibit M-5; Conceptual Elevations)”
d. Page 48, Building(s) Signage, a. Hotel Building Wall Identification: Applicant
shall add the following provisions to this section:
iv. The area of a wall sign erected over 56-feet in height shall not exceed
one percent (1%) of the area of the overall elevation to which it is attached.
This area shall not be counted against the wall signage which may be
placed on the building below 56-feet.
v. Any wall sign erected over 56-feet shall be located no closer to the
roofline than one-half the vertical dimension of the sign to prevent the
appearance of overcrowding at the top edge of the building.
vi. Any wall sign erected over 56-feet shall be located no closer to the side
of the edge of the building than one-half the width of the largest letter or
element of the sign to prevent the appearance of overcrowding at the edge
of the building.
e. PAGE 28, LIST OF USES, 2.D.III, LOADING DOCK AREAS: APPLICANT
SHALL REVISE HOURS TO 7:30 AM TO 8 PM, MONDAY THROUGH
FRIDAY. APPLICANT SHALL ADD VERBIAGE THAT USE OF
LOADING DOCK AREAS SHALL BE PROHIBITED ON SATURDAYS,
SUNDAYS AND NATIONAL / FEDERAL HOLIDAYS.
f.
PAGE 44, DESIGN GUIDELINES: APPLICANT SHALL ADD A
SUBSECTION T. TO READ, “EAST FACING HOTEL ROOM WINDOWS
SHALL PROVIDE PRIVACY BLINDS LOUVERS OR OTHER WINDOW
SCREENING DEVICES TO PROVIDE ENHANCED PRIVACY FOR
NEARBY RESIDENCES.”
G. PAGE 27, LIST OF USES: APPLICANT SHALL REMOVE THE SECOND
PARAGRAPH ON THE PAGE THAT DISCUSSES INTERPRETATION OF
ANALOGOUS USES.
H. PAGE 27, LIST OF USES, 1. PERMITTED USES, PERMITTED
PRINCIPAL USES: APPLICANT SHALL REVISE SUBSECTION A TO
READ “USES SPECIFICALLY PERMITTED AS SET FORTH IN TABLE
2.”
I.
PAGES 28 - 29, TABLE 2, 1. GENERAL, PROFESSIONAL AND
MEDICAL OFFICES: APPLICANT SHALL REMOVE “LOCATED ON THE
1ST FLOOR OF OFFICE BUILDING” FROM CONDITION / LIMITATIONS
FOR ACCESSORY RETAIL SHOP(S). APPLICANT SHALL ADD AN
ADDITIONAL CONDITION / LIMITATION STATING “ALL ACCESSORY
USES SHALL ONLY BE PERMITTED ON THE FIRST FLOOR OF ANY
BUILDING.”
J. PAGE 31, TABLE 2, 2. HOTEL: APPLICANT SHALL ADD AN
ADDITIONAL CONDITION / LIMITATION STATING “ALL ACCESSORY
USES SHALL ONLY BE PERMITTED ON THE FIRST FLOOR OF ANY
BUILDING.”
K. PAGE 31, TABLE 2, 3. FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS: APPLICANT SHALL
REVISE THE STANDARDS FOR ACCESSORY AUTOMATED TELLER
MACHINES TO READ, “ACCESSORY FREESTANDING OR ATTACHED
TO THE BUILDING AUTOMATED TELLER MACHINE SHALL BE
ALLOWED ON THE PROPERTY. ANY EXTERNAL AUTOMATED
TELLER MACHINE SHALL BE SETBACK A MINIMUM OF 100-FEET
FROM THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE AND SHALL BE REVIEWED AT
THE TIME OF SITE PLAN DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPROVAL FOR
PROPER LOCATION AND CIRCULATION.”
L. PAGE 31, TABLE 2, 3. FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS: APPLICANT SHALL
ADD TWO ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS / LIMITATIONS THAT READ
“ANY DRIVE-THROUGH FACILITIES SHALL BE SETBACK A MINIMUM
OF 100-FEET FROM THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE” AND “A MAXIMUM
OF ONE EXTERNAL AUTOMOTED TELLER MACHINE OR DRIVETHROUGH FACILITY SHALL BE PERMITTED WITHIN 330-FEET OF
THE WEST PROPERTY LINE.”
M. PAGE 38, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, 2.B.III A), 29TH STREET:
APPLICANT SHALL REVISE SUBSECTION A) TO READ “LARGE
CANOPY SHADE TREES PLANTED 25-FEET ON CENTER OR
EQUIVALENT GROUPINGS.”
N. PAGE 38, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, 2.B.IV B), PERIMETER
PROPERTY LINE REQUIREMENTS (NOT ADJACENT TO A STREET):
APPLICANT SHALL REVISE SUBSECTION B) TO READ “LARGE
CANOPY SHADE TREES PLANTED 25-FEET ON CENTER OR
EQUIVALENT GROUPINGS.”
O. PAGE 44, DESIGN GUIDELINES: APPLICANT SHALL ADD A
SUBSECTION U. TO READ, “NON-REFLECTIVE GLASS SHALL BE
PROVIDED FOR ALL SOUTH AND EAST FACING WINDOWS.”
P. PAGE 44, DESIGN GUIDELINES: APPLICANT SHALL ADD A
SUBSECTION V. TO READ, “AN 8-FOOT HIGH SOLID MASONRY
WALL SHALL BE PROVIDED ALONG THE SOUTHERN PROERTY
LINE.”
Q. PAGE 44, DESIGN GUILDELINES: APPLICANT SHALL ADD A
SUBSECTION W. TO READ, “A 6-FOOT HIGH SOLID MASONRY WALL
SHALL BE PROVIDED ALONG THE EASTERN PROPERTY LINE FOR
THE SOUTHERN 110 FEET OF THE PROPERTY. THE WALL SHALL BE
LOCATED OUTSIDE OF THE REQUIRED LANDSCAPE SETBACK AND
SERVE TO SCREEN PARKING, LOADING, REFUSE AND PUBLIC
AREAS FROM THE ADJACENT RIGHT-OF-WAY.”
R. PAGE 47, 1. ALLOWABLE SIGNS: APPLICANT SHALL MODIFY THE
SECOND PARAGRAPH ON THE PAGE TO READ, “THE FOLLOWING
SIGNS, AS WELL AS SIGNS OTHERWISE PERMITTED BY THE CITY OF
PHOENIX PURSUANT TO SECTION 705, SHALL BE PERMITTED WITH
THE EXCEPTION OF ANIMATED OR ELECTRONIC MESSAGE DISPLAY
SIGNS. ANY AUTOMATED TELLER MACHINE SIGNAGE SHALL BE
LIMITED TO WEST PROPERTY LINE AND WESTERN 300 FEET OF THE
NORTH PROPERY LINE FRONTAGES.”
S. PAGE 48, BUILDING SIGNAGE: APPLICANT SHALL ADD THE
FOLLOWING VERBIAGE TO THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF THE
SECTION, “ANY ILLUMINATED BUILDING IDENTIFICATION SIGNS
ABOVE THE SECOND FLOOR OF EACH BUILDING SHALL BE LIMITED
TO THE NORTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING. ONE IDENTIFICATION SIGN
SHALL BE PERMITTED ON THE WEST SIDE OF EACH BUILDING
WITHIN 100-FEET OF THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE. NO BUILDING
MOUNTED SIGNS SHALL BE PERMITTED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF
ANY BUILDING.”
T. PAGE 50, BUILDING SIGNAGE, D. WINDOW SIGNAGE / GRAPHICS:
APPLICANT SHALL ADD, “NO WINDOW SIGNS SHALL BE PERMITTED
FOR SOUTH AND EAST FACING WINDOWS” TO THE SECTION.
U. PAGE 51, TEMPORARY SIGNAGE, E. INFLATABLES: APPLICANT
SHALL REMOVE SUBSECTION E. INFLATABLES AND RENUMBER THE
REMAINDER OF THE SECTION ACCORDINGLY.
2.
The property owner shall dedicate a 10 foot sidewalk easement along the south
side of Camelback Road for the length of the project, as approved by the Planning
and Development Department.
3.
The property owner shall construct a 5 foot wide sidewalk along Camelback Road
which shall be detached with a minimum five foot wide landscaped strip located
between the sidewalk and back of curb, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department. The detached sidewalk shall begin on the east side of
the existing bus bay and continue for the length of the project.
4.
The property owner shall update all existing off-site street improvements, including
sidewalks, curb ramps and driveways, adjacent to the project to current ADA
guidelines, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
5.
THE PROPERTY OWNER SHALL PROVIDE A DEPOSIT IN THE AMOUNT OF
$435,000 INTO A STREET TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT ESCROW
ACCOUNT TO BE UTILIZED FOR TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES. THESE
FUNDS MAY BE CONTRIBUTED TOWARD THE PURCHASE AND
INSTALLATION OF SUCH DEVICES AS SPEED HUMPS, RAISED
CROSSWALKS (SPEED TABLES), LIMITED TURNING, TRAFFIC DIVERTERS
OR OTHER SUCH TRAFFIC CALMING OR MANAGEMENT TOOLS FOR THE
AREA BETWEEN 28TH STREET AND CAMELBACK ROAD ALONG THE 29TH
STREET, MARIPOSA STREET, 29TH PLACE AND PIERSON STREET LOOP.
DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDS SHALL BE AT THE MUTUAL AGREEMENT OF THE
RESIDENTS ON AFFECTED STREETS AND THE CITY OF PHOENIX STREETS
DEPARTMENT SAFETY AND NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC SECTION,
FOLLOWING THE STANDARD STREET TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT
PETITIONING GUIDELINES. OWNER MAY APPLY FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF
ESCROW FUNDS FROM THE STREET TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT IF
NO FORMAL PETITION HAS BEEN SUBMITTED WITHIN 18 MONTHS FROM
THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR THE 2 PRIMARY
BUILDINGS.
6.
PRIOR TO PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL, THE LANDOWNER SHALL
EXECUTE A PROPOSITION 207 WAIVER OF CLAIMS IN A FORM APPROVED
BY THE CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE. THE WAIVER SHALL BE RECORDED
WITH THE MARICOPA COUNTY RECORDER’S OFFICE AND DELIVERED TO
THE CITY TO BE INCLUDED IN THE REZONING APPLICATION FILE FOR
RECORD.
Upon request, this publication will be made available within a reasonable length of time through
appropriate auxiliary aids or services to accommodate an individual with a disability. This
publication may be made available through the following auxiliary aids or services: large print,
Braille, audiotape or computer diskette. Please contact Nici Wade at Voice (602) 495-0256 or the
City TTY Relay at (602) 534-5500.
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-70-15-6
Date of VPC Meeting
May 3, 2016
Request From
C-O (4.31 acres)
P-1 (0.56 acres)
PUD (4.87 acres)
Request To
Proposed Use
Location
Planned Unit Development to allow a mix of uses
including office, hotel, and limited retail
Southeast corner of 28th Street and Camelback Road
VPC Recommendation
Approval, per staff’s recommendation with modification
VPC Vote
12-6
VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS:
Ms. Samantha Keating introduced the item, noting the location, surrounding zoning,
summarized the design guidelines contained within the PUD Development Narrative
and provided the staff recommendation.
Mr. Paul Gilbert introduced himself to the committee and explained he was
representing the owner of the property, Mr. Jerry Simms in addition to the intended
developer, Mr. Jeff LaPour.
Mr. Gilbert continued by explaining the project included construction of Class A office
space and a boutique hotel. The project is in conformance with the General Plan
commercial land use designation and is outside the boundaries of the Primary Core
Specific Plan. The site is also located within one of the city’s designated employment
corridors.
The site is currently zoned C-O and P-1. The previous zoning cases for the property
contained stipulations limiting height to one-story. There are no other one-story
commercial buildings in the vicinity. The proposal before the committee today would
allow for redevelopment of the site. They have been working on the proposal for over a
year.
The buildings were originally proposed at a height of 68 feet, but with input from the city
and community members, that height was brought down to the current proposal of 56
feet. Additional height is needed to provide for more sustainable and competitive office
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
space. This height is consistent with the height allowed in the nearby Core Gradient.
The Core Gradient also allows multifamily residential at a density of 96.8 dwelling units
per acre, which would be a much more intense land use than what was currently being
proposed.
A traffic report was submitted and approved by the Street Transportation Department.
Three recommendations were made as part of the study:
1)
New stop signs at exits
2)
Install a left turn arrow
3)
“Not a through street” signs placed at the entrances to the neighborhood
Development standards contained within the PUD include lush landscaping, limited lot
coverage for buildings, a significant setback along the southern property line as well as
a reduced setback along Camelback Road to activate the streetscape. The enhanced
southern setback, specifically, helps justify the proposed 56 feet in height.
The proposed design features focus on exceptional design. The buildings will be
located close to the street with a separation between buildings to break up the mass.
The south facades are designed with more solid forms and less glass. While the
property is not located within the Core Center or Core Gradient, they included design
features from the Camelback East Primary Core Specific Plan.
Mr. Rod Jarvis commented that Mr. Peter Drake submitted a list of recommended
stipulations from the neighborhood and asked if Mr. Gilbert had a chance to review the
items. Mr. Gilbert responded that he had not had a chance to see the list, but felt there
was ample time between the VPC meeting and Planning Commission to continue
dialogue with the neighborhood.
Mr. Rick Cole commented that the proposed stipulations were not distributed to the
entire committee.
Mr. Jarvis asked about community outreach efforts. Mr. Gilbert explained that an
original meeting with the immediate neighborhood took place over a year ago. Since
that time, two additional neighborhood meetings took place in addition to walking the
neighborhood and talking with residents individually.
Ms. Karen Beckvar commented that she feels that her role on the committee is to
preserve existing neighborhoods and minimize impacts of new development. PUD
rezoning requests often mask the number of variances that would be needed with
conventional zoning. The proposal is a quality project, but not appropriate for this area.
A hotel use is a 24-hour operation. The parcel is better suited for office use, as
depicted in the Specific Plan. The surrounding properties are all 2 or 3 stories so the
current proposal seems out-of-scale with the area. The Specific Plan calls for a 150
foot setback from single-family residential with a 25 foot landscape buffer. In addition,
other design features from the Specific Plan detail louvers or clerestory windows when
facing residential.
Ms. Beckvar also asked the applicant to clarify if the 58.8 foot height proposed in the
PUD included parapets.
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Mr. Gilbert agreed that the committee has an obligation to protect the neighborhood,
but he felt PUD zoning allows more of an opportunity to accomplish this because the
allowed uses on the site can be limited. Guest room windows have been eliminated
from the two southern wings of the hotel and windows are limited on the south face of
the office building. The planned building height is 56 feet, but the narrative is written to
allow some flexibility for final design.
Mr. Tom O’Malley asked about hours of operation and loading and deliveries. Mr.
Dennis Newcombe explained the narrative restricts loading areas from 6am to 10 pm,
but after additional discussion with the neighborhood, they would be willing to reduce
these hours to 7:30 am to 8 pm. Mr. Gilbert added that outdoor hotel uses would also
be limited to the hours of 7 am to 10 pm.
Nine cards were submitted in support of the item, with five wishing to speak.
Mr. John Armstrong explained that he lived in the first house on 28th Street, directly to
the south of the site. He knew when he bought the property that it was an urban area.
The proposal is beautiful and cannot be criticized from an aesthetic point of view. While
the proposed height is greater than what is existing, he does not believe anyone can
see over the current one-story buildings. The proposed setback along Camelback Road
is a blessing and better than the dangerous situation that exists today. Office and hotel
are preferred over multifamily residential.
Mr. Michael Goldwater stated that he was in favor of the item. He represents a nearby
HOA to the east. The proposed setback is huge, more than what currently exists, and
will provide landscaping and view protection. Houses already back up to office space.
The redevelopment of the site will be great for the neighborhood and will not decrease
property values.
Mr. Darren Tappen explained that he lives nearby and his property backs onto
apartments. There is no landscaping between his property and the adjoining
development. Revitalization increases the livability of the area and he feels that
developers and neighbors need to work together.
Ms. Ellen Lopez explained that she lives directly adjacent to the property and is in favor
of the project as is her brother who lives to the south. Something will eventually be built
on the site and this is the lesser of the evils. The existing office development is not
benign. The hotel use will have constant security.
Mr. Tim Ronalter stated that he lived to the east of the property. He originally met with
Mr. LaPour over a year ago. He sees both sides, but a convicted murderer currently
lives on the property. If given a choice between the proposal and what currently exists,
he would choose Mr. LaPour’s proposal. He is not thrilled about a 5-story hotel, but has
spoken with Mr. LaPour about putting privacy blinds on the east side of the property and
would like a stipulation added to address this. Traffic will impact 29th Street and he
knows some neighbors are in favor of one-way egress on the street. He would like to
state for the record that Mr. LaPour has agreed to pay for this, but it is up to the
neighbors to start the process.
The following four cards were submitted in favor, but not wishing to speak.
Joan Prior
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Will Mask
Mark Vinc
Jack Fijan
Three cards were submitted wishing to speak with no position marked.
Mr. John Mitchell stated that he lived on Pierson Street in the adjacent neighborhood
and had lived there for 45 years. Mr. Gilbert has previously worked on two cases in the
area. The current development is subdued. The proposal before the committee is a
good development but belongs someplace else. The hotel component should only be
two stories.
Mr. Brett Franklin explained that he had lived in his house for over 10 years. There is
no sidewalk in the neighborhood and a hotel does not belong in the neighborhood.
There are two big issues with the proposal. First, the core plan specifies that high
intensity uses should only be in the Core Center. Second, the General Plan does not
specify this area for a resort hotel. The proposal is the wrong project for the area.
Ms. Myrna Franklin decided she did not wish to speak.
Sixteen cards were submitted in opposition to the item, with four wishing to speak.
Mr. Wendell Goring explained that he is a long-time resident and did not hear about
the request until Thursday. He did not receive notice. The existing neighborhood has
residents of different ages that watch out for each other. The existing zoning is enough.
Change is inevitable, but he is opposed to height and density as it will increase traffic.
Mr. Wally Graham stated that he is opposed to the project. Height should be varied
downward as it moves away from the core. Everything proposed is an exception.
When do we stop and live within the existing zoning regulations? Mr. Gilbert used the
staff report as his reasoning for granting the request, but the staff report does not
address height restrictions in the area.
Mr. Gary Steen stated that he lived on Pierson Street in the adjacent neighborhood and
was opposed to the project. He explained that he has researched the zoning. The
Commercial Office zoning district is meant to be a buffer between residential property
and more high-intensity uses. The PUD is supposed to create a built environment that
is superior, but the existing zoning is just fine. The General Plan states that a change in
land use should only occur when the current land use is not viable, something has
changed and the request is consistent with the area. The existing zoning in place is
already doing its job. The proposed building will cast a shadow on the entire
neighborhood.
Ms. Jacqueline Mitchell explained that she lived about 300 feet south of the project
and will lose her view of the mountain with the proposal. She is opposed to the density
as the neighborhood has only two exits. Putting additional traffic next to the
neighborhood will increase traffic within the neighborhood. A hotel with 160 hotel rooms
is too dense. Developments should stair step down toward the neighborhood. This did
not occur at the Esplanade and people complained.
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Ms. Rachel Loda stated that she is speaking from the heart. There are multiple
schools along 28th Street and she is worried about the safety of children in the vicinity.
There are already traffic bottlenecks and safety issues and this development will make
things worse.
Mr. Neal Haddad from the Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix said that he was
not before the committee tonight to address the project as Jeff LaPour is a good guy.
Instead he was here to ask the committee why they are voting on the project. He hears
people saying that because the project is outside of the Core Gradient, the design
guidelines from the Specific Plan do not matter. Why would we step down buildings
from the Core Center to the Core Gradient to then allow a 5-story building outside both?
This was not the intent of the plan. It is a great project, but for a different area.
Mr. Peter Drake explained that he was on the committee previously, part of the 2006
Specific Plan update and currently served on the Application Review Committee. The
PUD is 36 pages long and will constitute a new zoning district if approved. The
committee members should carefully review the document. The PUD needs further
study. The neighborhood is asking for a continuance as they want more detailed and
specific language added to the document. Previous speakers were correct in stating
that the property is not within the core, but many of the neighborhood recommendations
from the plan went to 32nd Street. All of the design standards should be applied to
properties outside the core.
Mr. Don Eginton stated that attorneys were not always truthful. A core value in the
General Plan stated that every neighborhood should have certainty and development
should reflect the character of the existing neighborhood. The commercial land use
designation allows for various intensities of commercial land use. The intensity at this
site should be office. The project does not fit the urban village model or the standards
from the core plan. The PUD should conform to neighborhood concerns. The VPC is a
planning committee and not a development committee. The current proposal is against
all city plans. The proposed stipulations are weak. The neighborhood has proposed
additional stipulations that should be addressed.
Mr. Bruce Eide stated that he lives about 150 feet away from the property. Previously
he worked with the Esplanade. This proposal is the same type of plan. The core plan
stops at 28th Street with a two-story limit. The proposal before the committee tonight
extends the plan from 28th Street to 32nd Street. The hotel and pool proposed will
bring constant activity and noise. He is opposed to the project because of noise, light
pollution and traffic.
Mr. Paul Barnes explained that he had a lot of history with the core. The commercial
General Plan designation should not be applicable since the site is less than 10 acres.
The subject property was originally rezoned in the 1970s with a limit of one-story. The
applicant does not think that this matters. When will a deal be a deal? We need to
provide certainty to the residents. A 56-foot height should be the maximum peak height
allowed. It is beneficial to sit down with all parties involved. It is not right to run over the
neighborhood concerns.
Mr. Dan Hall stated that he is more against the project as he listened to the discussion
tonight. Many elements have been overlooked. What does the neighborhood gain from
this development? The neighborhood does not need the protection of the PUD as it has
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
protection enough with the existing zoning. While the applicant detailed their outreach
efforts, he was never reached out to personally.
Mr. Craig Fotheringham stated that he lived on 28th Place in the adjacent
neighborhood. He met with Mr. LaPour and tried to understand the project, however,
the project will have a negative effect on his property. Light spillover, lost privacy, noise
and traffic are his primary concerns.
The following four cards were submitted in opposition, but not wishing to speak.
Colleen Geretti
Linda Steen
Linda Yau
Lydon Parent
Mr. Paul Gilbert provided a rebuttal and stated that he was in agreement with new
loading hours of 7:30 am to 8 pm. Overall, the proposal was in line with development in
the area as detailed in the staff report. The Camelback Road corridor is an employment
center and the current 1-story buildings are outdated and no longer viable. It was never
the intent of the Specific Plan to limit height as there is additional height past 29th
Street.
The plan shows no access to 29th Street. Many neighbors would like to see the street
closed or a gate installed. Mr. LaPour has told the neighborhood he is supportive of
whatever they want because the project does not need or use 29th Street. Mr. LaPour
has agreed to assist and pay for the abandonment if the neighborhood organizes and
gives direction on what they want.
Hotels can be good neighbors and in this instance will produce less traffic than a
second office building. They will agree and go on the record that they will provide
privacy screens along the eastern side of the hotel.
There is no good reason to not move forward with the case. Additional discussions with
the neighbors regarding their proposed stipulations will occur before the Planning
Commission hearing. Extensive outreach was completed.
Mr. Jarvis asked what the existing zoning would allow for height if the stipulation for
one-story did not exist. Mr. Gilbert responded that C-O zoning would allow 56 feet in
height.
MOTION:
Mr. Rod Jarvis motioned to approve the request per Staff’s recommendation.
Mr. Jarvis explained that he carefully listened to all perspectives and he does not feel
that the case should be continued. However, Mr. Gilbert should continue to work with
the neighbors. Overall, a hotel is a compatible use and can be a good neighbor. Height
should be looked at carefully, but it is accommodated well with the current plan. There
is additional height, but an increased setback. The project will give the neighborhood
additional stability.
Mr. William Fischbach seconded the motion.
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Mr. Fischbach stated that Mr. Jarvis is correct. The additional height and greater
setback is a tradeoff. The proposal is exceptional and would be good for economic
development in the corridor.
Mr. Greg Abbott made a friendly amendment to the motion to add the revised loading
dock hours and the privacy blinds to the recommendation.
Mr. Jarvis accepted the friendly amendment.
1.
An updated Development Narrative for the 28th Street & Camelback Mixed Use
PUD reflecting the changes approved through this request shall be submitted to
the Planning and Development Department within 30 days of City Council
approval of this request. The updated Development Narrative shall be
consistent with the Development Narrative date stamped April 8, 2016 as
modified by the following stipulations.
a. Page 33, Development Standards, 1.e.iii. Maximum Projections:
Applicant shall replace “fifth percent” with “fifty percent” when discussing
close projections.
b. Page 34, Development Standards, 1.h.iv. Off-Street Loading Spaces:
Applicant shall revise the subsection to read, “Off-street loading spaces:
Minimum of one (1) loading space per building and minimum three (3)
loading spaces total. A minimum of one (1) loading space per building
shall meet the size requirements as stated in Section 702. Additional
loading spaces must be a minimum size of 9.5 feet by 18 feet.”
c. Page 44, Design Guidelines, 3.n. Opening Limitations: Applicant shall
revise this subsection to read, “Limit openings (e.g. windows/balconies)
facing the residential homes to the south. No balconies facing residential
homes shall be provided. Any south facing hotel building walls within
150 feet of the southern property line shall not contain guestroom
windows. (See Exhibit M-5; Conceptual Elevations)”
d. Page 48, Building(s) Signage, a. Hotel Building Wall Identification:
Applicant shall add the following provisions to this section:
iv. The area of a wall sign erected over 56-feet in height shall not exceed
one percent (1%) of the area of the overall elevation to which it is
attached. This area shall not be counted against the wall signage which
may be placed on the building below 56-feet.
v. Any wall sign erected over 56-feet shall be located no closer to the
roofline than one-half the vertical dimension of the sign to prevent the
appearance of overcrowding at the top edge of the building.
vi. Any wall sign erected over 56-feet shall be located no closer to the
side of the edge of the building than one-half the width of the largest
letter or element of the sign to prevent the appearance of overcrowding
at the edge of the building.
e. PAGE 28, LIST OF USES, 2.D.III, LOADING DOCK AREAS:
APPLICANT SHALL REVISE HOURS TO 7:30 AM TO 8 PM.
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
f. PAGE 44, DESIGN GUIDELINES: APPLICANT SHALL ADD A
SUBSECTION T. TO READ, “EAST FACING HOTEL ROOM WINDOWS
SHALL PROVIDE PRIVACY BLINDS.”
2.
The property owner shall dedicate a 10 foot sidewalk easement along the south
side of Camelback Road for the length of the project, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
3.
The property owner shall construct a 5 foot wide sidewalk along Camelback
Road which shall be detached with a minimum five foot wide landscaped strip
located between the sidewalk and back of curb, as approved by the Planning
and Development Department. The detached sidewalk shall begin on the east
side of the existing bus bay and continue for the length of the project.
4.
The property owner shall update all existing off-site street improvements,
including sidewalks, curb ramps and driveways, adjacent to the project to
current ADA guidelines, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
VOTE:
12-6 motion to approve per staff’s recommendation with modification passes (Acuna,
Beckvar, Paceley, Sallen, Sharaby and Valenzuela dissenting).
Mr. Danny Sharaby commented that he takes neighborhood sincerity into account. He
believes the neighbor’s claims of not being notified.
Ms. Karen Beckvar explained that she thinks the neighbors have property rights and
she would prefer to see more time given to reach a compromise.
Mr. Barry Paceley explained that he was not comfortable with using a PUD on this size
of property. The proposal was not respectful of the core. He has confidence that what
is proposed is a quality project and Mr. Gilbert will continue discussions with Mr. Drake
and others.
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION & STIPULATIONS:
Staff has no comments.
City of Phoenix • Planning & Development Department
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Staff Report Z-70-15-6
(28th Street & Camelback Mixed Use PUD)
April 21, 2016
Camelback East Village Planning
Committee Meeting Date
Planning Commission Hearing Date
Request From:
May 3, 2016
June 2, 2016
C-O (4.31 acres)
P-1 (0.56 acres)
PUD (4.87 acres)
Planned Unit Development to allow a mix of uses
including office, hotel, and limited retail
Southeast corner of 28th Street and Camelback
Road
Daily Double
Beus Gilbert PLLC
Approval, subject to a stipulations
Request To:
Proposed Use
Location
Owner
Applicant/Representative
Staff Recommendation
General Plan Conformity
General Plan Land Use Designation
Street Map
Classification
Commercial
Camelback Road
Arterial
28th Street
Minor Collector
29th Street
Local
40 to 55-foot south
half street
40-foot east half
street
25-foot west half
street
CONNECT PEOPLE AND PLACES CORE VALUE; COMPLETE STREETS; DESIGN
PRINCIPLE: Locate parking to the rear of a site to create a more pedestrian
environment, when adequate shielding from noise and light can be provided to
adjacent established neighborhoods. On-street parking in some areas may also
promote a pedestrian environment.
The proposed design provides surface parking at the rear of the site with a new detached
sidewalk and associated landscaping along Camelback Road to enhance the pedestrian
experience in and around the site. Several development standards addressing lighting,
noise and uses are included to provide buffering between the buildings, surface parking
area and the adjacent single-family residential neighborhood.
Staff Report: Z-70-15-6
April 21, 2016
Page 2 of 13
BUILD THE SUSTAINABLE DESERT CITY CORE VALUE; TREES AND SHADE;
DESIGN PRINCIPLE: Integrate trees and shade into the design of new development
and redevelopment projects throughout Phoenix.
The standards included within the PUD provide for extensive shading throughout the site
through the use of both vegetative and structural elements. In addition, the development
will incorporate the existing, mature landscaping, where feasible, into the overall
landscape design.
STRENGTHEN OUR LOCAL ECONOMY CORE VALUE; EMPLOYERS (JOB
CREATION); LAND USE PRINCIPLE: Support General Plan Land Use Map and
zoning changes that will facilitate the location of employment generating uses in
each of the designated employment centers.
The proposed rezoning, through both the introduction of the hospitality use and the
additional Class A office space, offers additional employment opportunities within a
designated major employment center.
CELEBRATE OUR DIVERSE COMMUNITIES AND NEIGHBORHOODS CORE VALUE;
CERTAINTY AND CHARACTER; DESIGN PRINCIPLE: Create new development or
redevelopment that is sensitive to the scale and character of the surrounding
neighborhoods and incorporates adequate development standards to prevent
negative impact(s) on the residential properties.
The proposed development is designed to be sensitive to the adjacent residential
neighborhood by consolidating the most significant activity along the arterial frontage.
Development standards providing both significant building setbacks and use restrictions
ensure additional protection to the nearby single-family residences.
Background/Issues/Analysis
SUBJECT SITE
1. This request is to rezone a 4.87 acre site located at the southeast corner of 28th
Street and Camelback Road from C-O (Commercial Office) and P-1 (Passenger
Automobile Parking, Limited) to PUD (Planned Unit Development) to allow for a
mixed use development including office, hotel and limited retail uses.
2. The site is an assemblage of two parcels, both used as professional office
developments. The properties were rezoned to allow the current use in 1974 and
1976, with buildings improvements completed shortly thereafter. The one-story
buildings generally front Camelback Road with surface parking located to the rear of
the site.
3. The General Plan Land Use Map designation for the parcel is Commercial. A
Commercial designation accommodates office, retail, service and multi-family
development at varying scales and intensities. The proposed office, hotel and
limited retail uses are consistent with this designation.
Staff Report: Z-70-15-6
April 21, 2016
Page 3 of 13
The subject site falls within one of the city’s
Major Employment Centers. The
Camelback Corridor provides a dynamic
mix of premier office, high-end retail and
service amenities that is well-served by
advanced utility and telecommunications
infrastructure. The proposed development
will aid in producing additional employment
opportunities in this highly sought after
employment corridor.
4.
SURROUNDING USES & ZONING
5.
North
Property to the north of the subject site is zoned C-1 (Neighborhood Retail) and
RE-35 (Single-Family Residence District) and contains a 3-story office building as
well as open space and lake that is part of the larger Biltmore development.
Staff Report: Z-70-15-6
April 21, 2016
Page 4 of 13
West
Across 28th Street to the west is a 3-story office building development that is zoned
C-O (Commercial Office) and P-1 (Passenger Automobile Parking, Limited).
South
Property to the south of the subject site is zoned R1-10 (Single-Family Residence
District) and is developed with single-family homes.
East
A two-story office development is located to the east of the subject parcel. The
property is zoned C-O/G-O (Commercial Office, General Office option) and C-O
(Commercial Office).
PROPOSAL
6. The proposal was developed utilizing the PUD zoning designation, which allows an
applicant to propose uses, development standards, and design guidelines for a site.
One of the goals of this process is to allow the applicant to develop standards that
respond to the surrounding environment more so than conventional zoning districts
allow. The end result is property rezoned with standards crafted specifically for the
site. Where the PUD Development Narrative is silent on a requirement, the
applicable Zoning Ordinance provisions will be applied.
7. Below is a summary of the proposed standards for the subject site as described in
the attached PUD Development Narrative date stamped April 8, 2016,
Attachment C.
Table of Proposed Development Standards
Standard
Building Height
Primary Use Buildings
Accessory Structures
Minimum Building Setbacks
Street – Camelback Road
Street – 28th Street and 29th Street
Interior - south property line
Maximum Building Setback
Street – Camelback Road
Minimum Landscape Setbacks
Street – Camelback Road
Street - 28th Street and 29th Street
Interior – south property line
Maximum Lot Coverage
Primary Use Buildings
Proposed
58 feet, 10 inches maximum
12 feet maximum
18 feet for 95% of the street frontage
10 feet for 5% of the street frontage
10 feet
110 feet for primary use buildings
10 feet for parking garage and canopies
22 feet
18 feet for 95% of the street frontage
10 feet for 5% of the street frontage
10 feet
10 feet
42%
Staff Report: Z-70-15-6
April 21, 2016
Page 5 of 13
Accessory Structures
Total
Minimum Primary Use Building
Separation
Parking
Hotel
Office
General Retail
Bicycle
Loading
10.5%
89.3%
85 feet (excluding porte cocheres)
1 space per room
3.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of
tenant leasable area
1 space per 300 square feet of floor area
20 spaces minimum
1 per building
The PUD proposes development standards designed to accommodate a four-story
office building and a five-story hotel. The office and hotel buildings have planned
building heights of 56 feet, with a maximum permitted building height of 58 feet 10
inches. A surface lot to the rear of the primary use buildings, in addition to an
underground parking garage, will provide employee and guest parking for the
development. The conceptual site plan included within the Development Narrative
depicts a 115,000 square foot office building and a 96,000 square foot, 160 room
hotel. Maximum lot coverage will not exceed 42% for primary use buildings with an
additional 10.5% lot coverage for any accessory structures, including parking
canopies. Overall lot coverage, inclusive of the underground parking garage, will
not exceed 89.3%.
Staff Report: Z-70-15-6
April 21, 2016
Page 6 of 13
ELEMENTS OF THE PUD DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
8. The development standards contained within the PUD focus on the following three
elements:
Produce an urban, sustainable and pedestrian-friendly development.
Ensure adequate protection to the adjacent single-family residential
neighborhood.
Develop design standards that are consistent with properties along the
Camelback Road corridor, specifically those properties subject the design
standards contained in the Camelback East Primary Core Specific Plan.
URBAN & SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
9. Both primary use buildings will be oriented toward Camelback Road with a reduced
building setback of 18 feet in order to provide an urban active streetscape
experience consistent with other urban developments within the vicinity. The
majority of the parking will be provided by an underground parking garage, with a
limited amount of surface parking located to the rear of the site and out of public
view.
10. Like the proposed building setbacks, the proposed street side landscaping areas are
limited to allow the buildings to be located closer to the street. These smaller areas,
however, include enhanced landscaping in order to provide both shade and to
promote a more pedestrian-friendly environment. A minimum landscape setback of
18 feet will be provided along Camelback Road for 95% of the frontage with a
10-foot landscape setback permitted for up to 5% of the street frontage. The
Camelback Road setbacks will be landscaped with a mix of 3-inch and 4-inch
caliper trees that will be strategically placed to shade the planned detached
sidewalk. The 28th Street and 29th Street frontages will be provided with a 10-foot
landscape area that will contain a mix of 2-, 3- and 4-inch caliper trees. All
perimeter landscaped setbacks will also contain six, 5-gallon shrubs per tree to
complete the landscape theme.
Staff Report: Z-70-15-6
April 21, 2016
Page 7 of 13
Landscaping is also planned in the surface parking lot and will cover a minimum of
10% of the parking area. In addition to perimeter and parking lot landscape areas,
additional vegetation will be provided adjacent to building areas that are within 100
feet of the public right-of-way or provide public entry. A 5-foot wide planter or
arcade will enhance the building’s façade and provide additional aesthetic detail to
those traveling in or around the site.
11. Parking spaces will be provided according to the prescribed ratios of the Phoenix
Zoning Ordinance, however, as the Development Narrative details, a shared parking
model will be sought to reduce the required number of parking spaces because of
the numerous transportation options available to users of the site, furthering the
sustainable ideals of the development. Similarly, to encourage utilization of
alternative transportation options, the development standards include a prescribed
number of bicycle parking spaces in addition to working with the city’s Public Transit
Department to provide an updated and architecturally distinguishable bus shelter
along Camelback Road. The updated bus shelter, specifically, will benefit not only
the occupants of the building, but residents of the surrounding community.
12. In addition to the
applicable design
guidelines detailed
in the city of
Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance, the
Development
Narrative proposes
many additional
design standards
intended to activate
the street frontages
of the project and
promote the urban
environment of the Camelback Road corridor. A detached sidewalk along
Camelback Road will connect to internal pedestrian walkways that provide access to
the buildings’ main entrances. The ground level of both buildings will be accented
with a minimum of 30% glazing and differentiated building materials to provide
visual interest. Design guidelines are also proposed to provide a large courtyard
linking the two primary use buildings that will create usable internal open space.
Prescribed standards include providing a water feature, shade trellises, benches,
tables and seating areas.
Staff Report: Z-70-15-6
April 21, 2016
Page 8 of 13
13.
Shading will be provided for
public sidewalks, internal open
space areas as well as the
surface parking lot.
Development standards are
proposed to ensure that a
minimum of 75% of the public
sidewalk and minimum 50% of
the surface parking area are
shaded by either vegetation or
structural shade elements.
Similarly, the courtyard area between the two primary use buildings will contain
trellises, trees and vertical landscaping to shade the exterior open space areas.
14. The Development Narrative details a number of voluntary green elements, ensuring
the project is developed and maintained in a sustainable manner. First and
foremost, the developer intends to achieve Leadership in Energy and Environmental
Design certification for the project, which will serve to benchmark the specific
elements proposed for the project against a global standard. Recycling facilities,
site shading and alternative pavement to promote natural drainage are just some of
the features proposed in the overall design that will further the project’s sustainable
mission.
PROTECTION FOR THE ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOOD
15. The proposed development standards require a 110-foot building setback from the
southern property line for primary use buildings. This enhanced setback will serve
to provide an increased buffer to the adjacent residential properties and will restrict
the majority of the activity to the northern portion of the site. The planned parking
garage and parking canopies will maintain the same front and side setbacks as the
primary use buildings, but will be required to maintain a 10-foot minimum setback
from the southern property line.
16. In addition to the substantial southern building setback, a minimum 85-foot building
separation, excluding the hotel’s porte cochere, will be provided. The building
separation is provided to maintain the view corridor from the exiting residential
neighborhood to the south.
17. The southern setback between the property line and the
surface parking area will be landscaped with a mix of
2-inch and 3-inch caliper trees and 5-gallon shrubs.
Some existing vegetation is already provided on-site,
specifically along the southern property line. Where not
in conflict with the development plan, the existing
healthy, mature trees will be retained and incorporated
into the new landscape design. A similar landscaped
setback exists with the current development on site.
Staff Report: Z-70-15-6
April 21, 2016
Page 9 of 13
18. The conceptual site plan depicts two access points – a main entrance off
Camelback Road with a secondary access point off 28th Street. A standard
restricting vehicular access to and from 29th Street has been provided to limit traffic
to the arterial and collector streets adjacent to the development.
19. Limitations have been placed on the height of security and parking lot lighting to
provide additional protection for the adjacent residences to the south. Any lighting
within 110 feet of a residentially zoned property will be limited to a maximum height
of 15 feet. In addition, any lighting proposed for parking canopies will be required to
be shielded from any adjacent residences.
20. Along with the building and site design features designed for the occupants of the
building, several standards are proposed to provide additional protection to the
neighborhood to the south. Balconies and windows facing residential homes will not
be permitted in those portions of the hotel building closest to the southern property
line. Similarly, occupiable outdoor space above the second floor will only be
allowed in limited areas and not facing the residential zoning district to the south.
21. The Development Narrative proposes to allow general office, hotel and financial
institutions as principally permitted uses with a number of restrictions designed to
ensure compatibility with nearby residential properties. Permitted general office
accessory uses include a small conference center, cafeteria, and day care center.
Retail uses are only permitted on the ground floor of the office building and are
restricted to a maximum area of 5,000 square feet. No alcohol sales are permitted.
22. Accessory uses are also proposed for the hotel and include those uses customarily
incidental to a hotel use. Restaurants, bars, outdoor patios, meeting rooms, fitness
center, pool and gift shops are permitted accessory uses, but again, include use
limitations designed to be sensitive to nearby residences. Restrictions are included
that will limit the location, size and hours of operation of any outdoor patio. Live
outdoor entertainment is not permitted and maximum levels for amplified sound are
specified.
CONSISTENCY WITH AREA DESIGN STANDARDS
23. Originally adopted in 1991, with an update in 2006, the Camelback East Primary
Core Specific Plan provides guidance on land use, transportation, infrastructure
investments and desirable design features for properties within the defined Core
Staff Report: Z-70-15-6
April 21, 2016
Page 10 of 13
Center and Core Gradient. The Core Center is generally bounded by Piestewa
Freeway, 26th Street, Camelback Road and Highland Avenue whereas the Core
Gradient generally extends from the boundaries of the Core Center to Medlock
Drive, Campbell Avenue, 16th Street and 28th Street. While the subject property is
not included within the plan’s defined Core Gradient, it is adjacent to properties on
the west and north that are subject to the policy and regulatory provisions outlined in
the plan.
24. Due to the proximity of the subject property to the Core Gradient, the proposed
development incorporates several of the plan’s prominent elements including
streetscape enhancement, improved pedestrian circulation, underground parking
and promotion of alternative transit.
25. The Camelback East Primary Core Specific Plan also includes a set of design
guidelines that aim to provide open spaces and pedestrian linkages, encourage
architectural excellence with a pedestrian focus and to preserve established view
corridors by minimizing visual clutter. The design guidelines included within the plan
apply to all new development within the Core Center and Core Gradient areas.
Several design standards included within the PUD are taken directly from the
specific plan. These include a detached sidewalk, shaded pedestrians connections,
restriction on surface parking as well as the addition of bicycle parking and active
pedestrian outdoor space. Inclusion of these design features serve to create a level
of consistency among existing and future developments within the Camelback Road
corridor.
STREETS AND TRAFFIC
26. The Street Transportation Department has indicated that a ten foot sidewalk
easement and detached sidewalk will be required along Camelback Road adjacent
to the property to comply with the City’s Complete Streets Policy. The detached
sidewalk will begin on the east side of the existing bus bay and continue for the
Staff Report: Z-70-15-6
April 21, 2016
Page 11 of 13
length of the project. Stipulations have been added addressing these requirements
as well as a stipulation regarding improvement of all streets within and adjacent to
the overall development to current ADA guidelines.
27. A Traffic Study for the project was submitted to the Street Transportation
Department. The study determined that the existing street improvements are
sufficient to accommodate the level of traffic proposed.
MISCELLANEOUS
28. The Water Services Department has noted that existing water and sewer services
exist in the vicinity of the project site. Capacity will be verified during site plan
application review.
29. The City of Phoenix Floodplain Management division of the Street Transportation
Department has determined that this parcel is not in a Special Flood Hazard Area
(SFHA), but is located in a Shaded Zone X, on panel 1745 L of the Flood Insurance
Rate Maps (FIRM) dated October 16, 2013.
30. Development and use of the site is subject to all applicable codes and ordinances.
Zoning approval does not negate other ordinance requirements and other formal
actions may be required.
Findings
1.
The development proposal is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Map
designation of Commercial.
2.
The proposed design standards provide consistency with other properties along
the Camelback Road corridor and serve to provide adequate protection to
adjacent residential properties.
3.
The proposal will provide additional services and amenities that will serve in
creating additional employment opportunities in a major employment centers.
Stipulations
1.
An updated Development Narrative for the 28th Street & Camelback Mixed Use
PUD reflecting the changes approved through this request shall be submitted to
the Planning and Development Department within 30 days of City Council
approval of this request. The updated Development Narrative shall be
consistent with the Development Narrative date stamped April 8, 2016 as
modified by the following stipulations.
Staff Report: Z-70-15-6
April 21, 2016
Page 12 of 13
a. Page 33, Development Standards, 1.e.iii. Maximum Projections:
Applicant shall replace “fifth percent” with “fifty percent” when discussing
close projections.
b. Page 34, Development Standards, 1.h.iv. Off-Street Loading Spaces:
Applicant shall revise the subsection to read, “Off-street loading spaces:
Minimum of one (1) loading space per building and minimum three (3)
loading spaces total. A minimum of one (1) loading space per building
shall meet the size requirements as stated in Section 702. Additional
loading spaces must be a minimum size of 9.5 feet by 18 feet.”
c. Page 44, Design Guidelines, 3.n. Opening Limitations: Applicant shall
revise this subsection to read, “Limit openings (e.g. windows/balconies)
facing the residential homes to the south. No balconies facing residential
homes shall be provided. Any south facing hotel building walls within
150 feet of the southern property line shall not contain guestroom
windows. (See Exhibit M-5; Conceptual Elevations)”
d. Page 48, Building(s) Signage, a. Hotel Building Wall Identification:
Applicant shall add the following provisions to this section:
iv. The area of a wall sign erected over 56-feet in height shall not exceed
one percent (1%) of the area of the overall elevation to which it is
attached. This area shall not be counted against the wall signage which
may be placed on the building below 56-feet.
v. Any wall sign erected over 56-feet shall be located no closer to the
roofline than one-half the vertical dimension of the sign to prevent the
appearance of overcrowding at the top edge of the building.
vi. Any wall sign erected over 56-feet shall be located no closer to the
side of the edge of the building than one-half the width of the largest
letter or element of the sign to prevent the appearance of overcrowding
at the edge of the building.
2.
The property owner shall dedicate a 10 foot sidewalk easement along the south
side of Camelback Road for the length of the project, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
3.
The property owner shall construct a 5 foot wide sidewalk along Camelback
Road which shall be detached with a minimum five foot wide landscaped strip
located between the sidewalk and back of curb, as approved by the Planning
and Development Department. The detached sidewalk shall begin on the east
side of the existing bus bay and continue for the length of the project.
4.
The property owner shall update all existing off-site street improvements,
including sidewalks, curb ramps and driveways, adjacent to the project to
current ADA guidelines, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
Staff Report: Z-70-15-6
April 21, 2016
Page 13 of 13
Writer
Samantha Keating
April 15, 2016
Team Leader
Josh Bednarek
Attachments
Attachment A: Sketch Map
Attachment B: Aerial
Attachment C: 28th Street & Camelback Mixed Use PUD date stamped April 8, 2016
60
70
65
2575
63
67
64
66
62
3010
2930
PRIVATE
2920
2850
2910
5108
2910
2730
0%
E CAMELBACK RD
2901
0%
2929
0%
N29T
HST
2845
2801
2912
2902
2747
4829
4828
37%
4826
2920
2930
E MARIPOSA ST
2777
4823
4821
4822
4822
4821
2901
N28THST
4819
2909
2917
NHPL
4813
2802
NTHP
28
L
4814
4811
4802
4808
2828
2834
2844
2902
2912
29T
2918
4802
2808
2728
2734
4801
E PIERSON ST
2738
2733
Legend
ALLE
Z-70-15
Y
2933
2801
2809
2817
2825
2833
2841
2901
2818
2824
2838
2848
2902
2909
2917
2929
2910
2920
2930
Signed Petition
2727
150' Petition Area
2728
2734
Existing Parcel
2802
2810
2738
I
Preliminary Petition Map for Z-70-15
0
150
300 Feet
Map prepared by City of Phoenix, Planning & Development Services Dept 6/9/2016
2934