167857apps.phoenix.gov/ccwebimages/prm/min1954/167857.pdfms. lilia olivarez, secretary to the...

Phoenix, Arizona May 14, 2013

167857

The meeting of the Phoenix Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Awai at 6:00 p.m. in Council Chambers, 200 West Jefferson Street, Phoenix, Arizona.

Present:

Also Present:

Commissioner Tom Awai, Chair Commissioner Andrea Katsenes, Vice-Chair Commissioner Karen Heck Commissioner William Whitaker Commissioner John Montalvo II Commissioner Terry Madeksza Commissioner Nicole Davis Commissioner Justin Johnson

Mr. Alan Stephenson, Acting Deputy Director Ms. Sandra Hoffman, Principal Planner Ms. Aracely Herrera, Planner II Ms. Tricia Gomes, Planner Ill Ms. Lilia Olivarez, Secretary to the Planning Commission

At the request of Chairman Awai, Commissioner Katsenes read the opening statements for conducting General Plan and Zoning hearings.

APPROVAL OF HEARING MINUTES: For correction or approval of the Planning Commission hearing minutes of April 9, 2013.

Commissioner Heck made the MOTION to approve the hearing minutes of April9, 2013. .

Commissioner Madeksza SECONDED and the motion passed.

* * *

Chairman Awai stated some of the items will be taken out of order.

Planning Commission Minutes for May 14, 2013

GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS AND COMPANION REZONING CASES

Item#: Application #: Request: From: To: Location: Proposal:

Applicant: Representative:

1 GPA-LV-1-13-7 Street Classification - Map Amendment minor collector local street South 39th Avenue, south of South Mountain Road Abandon an unused portion of the right-of-way for 39th Avenue David Cisiewski Law Offices of David Cisiewski

Ms. Tricia Gomes presented GPA-LV-1-13-7, an amendment to the General Plan Street Classification Map located on 391

h Avenue, south of South Mountain Road from a Minor Collector to a Local Street. The Laveen Village Planning Committee recommended approval per the staff report for a vote of 9-1. Staff recommends approval per the recommendation of the Laveen Village Planning Committee.

Commissioner Katsenes made a MOTION to approve GPA-LV-1-13-7 per the recommendation

Commissioner Davis SECONDED.

There being no further discussion, Chairman Awai called for a vote and the MOTION PASSED 8-0 (Beletz absent)

* * *

2


Item#: Application #: From: To: Acreage: Location: Proposal: Applicant: Owner: Representative:

4 Z-SP-3-13-1 C-2 PCD C-2 SP PCD 0.03 Northeast corner of 39th Avenue and Happy Valley Road Massage Therapy and all underlying uses. Kyleigh MerritV Curtis Architecture Pederson Group/ J & R Holdings XII LLC Kyleigh Merritt/ Curtis Architecture

Ms. Tricia Gomes presented Z-SP-3-13-1, a request to rezone 0.03 acres located at the northeast corner of 39th Avenue and Happy Valley Road from C-2 PCD to C-2 SP PCD to allow for massage therapy and all underlying uses. The Deer Valley Village Planning Committee did not hear the request. Staff recommends approval with no stipulations.

Ms. Gomes explained that the shopping center is on a long-term Arizona State Land Department lease and the property owner does not have the legal authority to record a public notice against the property.

Commissioner Katsenes made a MOTION to approve Z-SP-3-13-1.

Commissioner Heck SECONDED.

There being no further discussion, Chairman Awai called for a vote and the MOTION PASSED 8-0 (Beletz absent}

* * *

3


Item#: Application #: From: To: Acreage: Location:

Proposal: Applicant: Owner: Representative:

5 Z-47-12-4 P-1 C-2 0.72 Approximately 485 feet west of the southwest corner of 7th Avenue and Indian School Road Future Retail Pad Davis Enterprises - Indian School Plaza, Davis Enterprises - Indian School Plaza, Mark Davis

Ms. Tricia Gomes presented Z-47-12-4; a request to rezone 0.72 acres located approximately 485 feet west of the southwest corner of 7th Avenue and Indian School Road from P-1 to C-2 to allow a future retail pad. The Encanto Village Planning Committee recommended approval 12-2 per staff stipulations. Staff is supportive of this recommendation with one additional stipulation: 6. That 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.

Commissioner Katsenes made a MOTION to approve Z-47-12-4 per the recommendation of the Encanto Village Planning Committee with one additional stipulation as read into the record by staff.

Commissioner Madeksza SECONDED.


......

Stipulations:

1. Vehicular access to the alley is prohibited.

2. The preliminary site plan for development of the site of this rezoning shall include the provision of trees of minimum 2-inch caliper to be planted along the west property line 20 feet on center. The landscape area along the west property line shall be a minimum of five feet.

3. Elevations for the building shall be administratively approved by the Planning Hearing Officer prior to the approval of the preliminary site plan for the development, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

4


4. The property owner shall record a Notice to Prospective Purchasers of Proximity to Airport in order to disclose the existence, and operational characteristics of Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport to future owners or tenants of the property.

5. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the development with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands, landscaping and other incidentals as per plans approved by the Planning and Development Department. All improvements shall comply with all ADA accessibility standards.

6. THAT PRIOR TO PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL, THE LANDOWNER SHALL EXECUTE A PROPOSITION 207 WAIVER OF CLAIMS IN A FORM APPROVED BY THE CITY AITORNEY'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.

5


Item#: Application #: Existing Zoning: Acreage: Location: Proposal:

Applicant: Owner: Representative:

9 PH0-2-13--Z-71-88-7 CP/GCP 70.1 Northeast corner of 67th Avenue and Roosevelt Street 1) Modification of Stipulation 1 regarding general conformance to the site plan. 2) Modification of Stipulation 2 regarding size and spacing of trees. 3) Modification of Stipulation 3 regarding a structure within 1 00 feet of the northern property line. 4) Modification of Stipulation 5.a regarding retail pads along 67th Avenue. 5) Modification of Stipulation 5.h regarding southbound left turns from 67th Avenue to Latham Street. 6) Deletion of Stipulation 5.q regarding the maintenance agreement with the City of Phoenix Street Transportation Department. 7) Modification of Stipulation 11 regarding size and spacing of trees. 8) Technical corrections to Stipulations 5, 5.x, and 5.bb Paul Gilbert - Beus Gilbert Estrella Vista Commerce Center Paul Gilbert - Beus Gilbert

Mr. Alan Stephenson presented PH0-2-13--Z-71-88-7; a request for modification to the stipulations located at the northeast corner of 67th Avenue and Roosevelt Street. This request is approximately half mile north of the request heard last month regarding the street stipulations. The Street Transportation Department and the applicant have worked this issue out on that particular case and the request is to approve per the memo received this evening.

Commissioner Katsenes made a MOTION to approve PH0-2-13--Z-71-88-7 per the memo dated May 13, 2013 from Alan Stephenson.

Commissioner Johnson SECONDED.


......

Stipulations:

1. That the development shall be in general conformance to the site plan date stamped Deoember 1, 2010 NOVEMBER 16, 2012 MARCH 20, 2013, as approved by the Planning and Development Servioes Department. THE STREET IMPROVEMENTS AS DEPICTED ON THE DEDICATION AND EASEMENT EXHIBIT DATE STAMPED DECEMBER 1, 2010, SHALL BE INSTALLED IN PHASE I.

6


2. That a 1 0-foot landscape building setback be provided along the Papago Freeway (1-10). Such landscaping to include minimum 2 112 inch calipor 1 INCH CALIPER 15 GALLON shade trees planted a minimum 2G §.0. feet on center, or in equivalent groupings as approved by the Planning and Development Services Department.

3. That no structure within -+00 ~feet of the northern property line shall have a building facade facing the Papago Freeway (1-1 0), exceeding a length of 350 feet. A minimum separation of 60 feet shall be provided between such buildings.

4. That the facade and roofline treatment, including texture, coloration and building materials, shall be consistent around each entire structure.

5. That the following right-of-way shall be dedicated as part of the following phases or as approved or modified by the Planning and Development Services or Street Transportation Departments:

PHASE 1:

a. Right-of-way totaling 70 feet for the east half of 67th Avenue shall be dedicated from Roosevelt Street to 1-10 Freeway. RETJ\IL PADS ALONG 67TH AVENUE MAY BE DEVELOPED IN PHASE I IF 67TH AVENUE IMPROVEMENTS ARE CONSTRUCTED IN PHASE I.

b. Right-of-way totaling 60 feet shall be dedicated for Latham Street from 67th Avenue to 66th Avenue.

c. The face of curb to face of curb dimension for Latham Street from 67th Avenue to 66th Avenue shall be 40 feet.

d. Right-of-way totaling 80 feet shall be dedicated for Latham Street from 66th Avenue to 63rd Avenue.

e. The face of curb to face of curb dimension for Latham Street from 66th Avenue to 63rd Avenue shall be 50 feet.

f. Right-of-way totaling 80 feet shall be dedicated for 66th Avenue ·from Roosevelt Street to Latham Street.

g. The face of curb to face of curb dimension for 66th Avenue from Roosevelt Street to Latham Street shall be 50 feet.

h. Southbound left turns from 67th A'venue to Latham Street shall be restricted from 7 a.m. to 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. Westbound left turns from Latham Street shall be restricted at all times. Street

7


Transportation Department to approve mitigation measures to enact restrictions.

i. A 50-foot right-of-way radius shall be dedicated at the northeast corner of 67th Avenue and Roosevelt Street.

j. Sufficient right-of-way shall be dedicated to accommodate a flared intersection from 67th Avenue to 66th Avenue on Roosevelt Street.

k. Sufficient right-of-way shall be dedicated to accommodate traffic diversion measure(s) to restrict large trucks at the intersections of 66th Avenue and Roosevelt Street as well as at 63rd Avenue and Latham Street.

I. All geometries submitted to the city of Phoenix shall be in general conformance with exhibit dated November 23, 2010, or as approved by the Street Transportation Department.

m. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the development with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands, landscaping and other incidentals as per plans approved by the city. All improvements shall comply with all ADA accessibility standards.

n. Latham Street to terminate approximately 1 ,950 feet east of 67th Avenue with a 55-foot radius cul-de-sac dedicated within a temporary turn-around easement with Phase 1 of development.

o. Dedicate sufficient right-of-way to accommodate a bus bay (P1256-1 or P1256-2) on the east side of 67th Avenue north of Roosevelt Street.

p. Construct a bus bay (P1256-1 or P1256-2) on the east side of 67th Avenue north of Roosevelt Street.

er. The developer shall oxeoute a maintonanoo agreement with tho oity of Phoenix Street Transportation Department to aooept maintenanoo responsibility for Latham Street boh"loon 67th Avenue and 66th Avenue. This seotion of roadway will be oonstruoted with a minimum of 7.5 inoh full depth asphalt to aooommodate largo truok traffio.

q. The developer shall execute a maintenance agreement with the city of Phoenix Street Transportation Department to accept maintenance responsibility for Latham Street between 67th Avenue and 66th Avenue. This section of roadway will be constructed with a minimum of 7.5-inch full depth asphalt to accommodate large truck traffic OR AS APPROVED BY THE

8


STREET TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT.

Et r. The applicant shall submit paving plans for all major collector and arterial streets within and adjacent to the development to the Street Transportation Department for review.

f s. The applicant shall complete and submit the Developer Project Information Form for the MAG Transportation Improvement Program to Mr. Alan Hilty, (602) 262-6193, with the Street Transportation Department. This form is a requirement of the EPA to meet clean air quality requirements.

st. Right-of-way totaling 60 feet shall be dedicated for Roosevelt Street from 63rd Avenue to 66th Avenue.

t u. Right-of-way totaling 80 feet shall be dedicated for 63rd Avenue from Latham Street to south pf 1-1 0 Freeway bridge.

H v. Right-of-way totaling 60 feet shall be dedicated for 63rd Avenue from Roosevelt Street to Latham Street.

v w. The developer shall dedicate a one-foot vehicular non-access easement along the north side of Roosevelt Street from 66th Avenue to 63rd Avenue and along the west side of 63rd Avenue from Roosevelt Street to Latham Street.

w x. The applicant shall submit a final traffic impact study to the Street Transportation and the Planning and Development Servioes Departments that covers the proposed development on the site after Phase I (Mebane). This final study is to be approved prior to preliminary site plan approval for the Phase II and may stipulate additional improvement requirements based upon the final analysis. Contact Mr. Chris Kowalsky at (602) 495-3697 for further coordination.

PHASE II:

* y. The face of curb to face of curb dimension for Roosevelt Street from 63rd Avenue to 66th Avenue shall be 40 feet.

y. z. The face of curb to face of curb dimension for 63rd Avenue from Latham Street to south of 1-10 Freeway bridge shall be 50 feet.

e aa. The face of curb to face of curb dimension for 63rd Avenue from Roosevelt Street to Latham Street shall be 40 feet.

aa bb. That all curb gutter and sidewalks be constructed on the north half of Roosevelt Street as approved by the Planning and Development

9


Services Department.

6. That all lighting adjacent to Roosevelt Street be low level and turned inward toward the development.

7. That building height not exceed one story, 24.5 feet, within 50 feet of the Roosevelt Street property line.

8. That all site areas not included in the initial phase of construction be kept in a dust-free and weed-free condition.

9. That all landscape areas and building setbacks be measured from any new property lines resulting from additional right-of-way dedications.

1 0. That there be no loading bays facing Roosevelt Street or 63rd Avenue within 100 feet of each property line.

11. That landscaping along Roosevelt include 2-1/2 inch caliper 24 INCH BOX drought resistant shade trees planted 2G !0. feet on center or in equivalent groupings as approved by the Planning and Development Services Department.

12. That if any archaeological materials are encountered during construction, all ground disturbing activity shall cease within 1 0 meters of the discovery and the City Archaeology Office shall be notified and allowed time to properly assess the materials. D

10


Item#: Application #: Request: From: To: Acreage: Location:

Proposal: Applicant: Representative:

2 GPA-NG-1-13-2 (Companion Case Z-2-13-2) Map Amendment Mixed-Use (Commercial/Commerce Park) Residential 5-1 0 40.35 Approximately 1 ,300 feet south of the southwest corner of North Valley Parkway and Sonoran Desert Drive Single-family subdivision Susan E. Demmitt Beus Gilbert PLLC

Mr. Alan Stephenson presented items GPA-NG-1-13-2 and Z-2-13-2 together, but separate motions were required.

GPA-NG-1-13-2 is a general plan amendment and rezoning request for a single-family subdivision located approximately 1 ,300 feet south of the southwest corner of North Valley Parkway and Sonoran Desert Drive. The General Plan Amendment is from Mixed-Use (Commercial/Commerce Park) to Residential 5-10 and the rezoning case is from C-2 MR NBCOD to R-3A NBCOD. Staff is recommending denial based on the following:

• The subject parcel is not compatible with the intensity of uses in the North Gateway Village Core Plan;

• The change in the land use designation and rezoning is not appropriate given the proximity to the North Gateway Transfer Station;

• Approval of this amendment will not allow commercial services to develop and support the dynamic growth proposed by the North Black Canyon Corridor Plan.

Staff recommends denial of GPA-NG-1-13-2 and Z-2-13-2. Mr. Stephenson presented slides representing the development phases of the area. The zoning is R-3 to the north and the transfer station to the south; as well as the surrounding larger residential in the area. There is an existing mine that will continue to operate in the future further to the east of the development. The slide showed the existing Phase 1 that was approved through a previous application next slide showed the second phase of development that Taylor Morrison is proposing to do.

The North Gateway Village Planning Committee voted to approve the General Plan Amendment with a 5-0-1 vote and the zoning application by a 6-0 vote with modified and additional staff stipulations. Representatives from the Public Works Department are here this evening to answer any questions.

A memo from Ms. Tricia Gomes was presented that outlines the stipulations as approved by the Village Planning Committee to be used as a base for deliberation this, evening. For example stipulation #1 has two options; a-is the staff option; a minimum 500-foot building setback and b-village option; a minimum 80-foot building setback.

11


Commissioner Katsenes asked what the setback is as presented to the south of the property.

Mr. Stephenson stated that currently the site plan that the applicant is proposing meets what the village recommended to approve, which is a 50-foot landscape setback and an 80-foot building setback where the single-family homes would actually be located. Staff is recommending denial but the stipulations are there in the event of an approval action. Staff is recommending a 500-foot buffer from the North Gateway Waste Transfer Station.

Commissioner Johnson stated under C-2 zoning, R-3 single-family residential could be done, which is what is being asked for, either way residential can be done on this site

Mr. Stephenson stated that is correct. It could be multi-family residential development today under the existing zoning.

Commissioner Montalvo stated his understanding is that multi-housing is not what is wanted but residential, single-family homes. He believes the city does not want residential near the area because of the Transfer Station and possible odor.

I

Mr. Stephenson stated that is one of the reasons staff is recommending denial because of the proximity to the Waste Transfer Station. It is currently operating at about 25% capacity; but ultimately as that area develops with single-family residential uses, all of the small trash trucks will go there from the north part of the city and off-load for sorting and recycling. The larger trucks; 18-wheeler semi's will haul out to the land-fill in Buckeye. ·

Commissioner Montalvo stated he has been to the proposed area a few times and stated there are more trucks coming from the south side than the north side into the transfer station.

Mr. Stephenson stated the current drive to enter into the transfer station utilizes the 1-17 access road. There is a private road that connects to North Valley Parkway but legally it can only be utilized by the city or the mining operation that is to the east. That .road was put to keep those types of truck traffic off of North Valley Parkway.

Commission Montalvo asked if the city choose to go as far north as possible for the Transfer Station because of concerns of odor complaints from the residents.

Mr. Stephenson stated the city does own land in that area; the land to the south is being planned for a Waste Water Facility and also a future expansion of a Service Center directly east of the subject property and staff is concerned that residents would complain about the odors and noise.

Commissioner Montalvo stated he has been in the area at night and in the mornings. The noise is not loud at night; and also the smell is not bad considering he was there on

12


two windy days. He believes the city needs to spend some time in the area at night. He also asked if a traffic survey has been done.

Mr. Stephenson stated he does not believe a traffic study has been done. Currently the only night time activities at the Transfer Station are the repairing of vehicles in proximity of the proposed residential.

Commission Montalvo asked if the residents to the east and south of this site are complaining about the odor.

Ms. Christine Smith from the Public Works Department stated currently the site is surrounded by vacant property. To the immediate east will be the future Service Center, to the south the Waste Water Treatment Plant. Compared to other locations; there are no complaints.

Commission Montalvo asked if anyone has done some sort of noise survey.

Ms. Smith stated no official survey has been done; there have been employees in the area who have smelled the odors and the sound from the machines do carry, especially at night because it is a quiet area. That is the type of work that will intensify as the Transfer Station becomes busier.

Commissioner Montalvo asked if the only opposition is from the City of Phoenix.

Ms. Smith stated yes, there are only two facilities and it is an expensive asset that they want to protect because of its service to the entire city. In the future it will be processing over one million tons a year; it is hard for people to understand how much traffic, odor and noise will be generated from this site as well as the Service Center.

The waste can remain at the transfer station for the weekends and holidays, also depending on when it is coming in; the level of odor changes because the material makeup changes. It can carry extensively depending on the wind conditions in the area.

Currently the transfer station is working at less than a quarter percent of capacity. The noise is from the ramping up of the machinery; different from the mines which will eventually close; the transfer station will only get busier. This is part of the entire city wide system; it directly services six different villages.

They have been asked by the Mayor and Council to develop a 40x20 diversion program which means the city is to collect 40% more recyclables and other resources out of the garbage. This is going to intensify the operations and have more activity at the site to achieve this goal by 2020.

Commissioner Heck commented that she drove out to the site this afternoon and parked as close to the property line as possible. She was on the east side of the city property. At 3:00 p.m. she could hear the machinery inside. For things that are in a building instead of outside; she was surprised at how noisy it was. For the evenings her main

13


concern about the noise is that the maintenance facility is on the same side; there is not much space between the facility and the property line.

Commissioner Johnson reiterated that under C-2 zoning residential can be developed. It would be great to move forward with a site plan that they could view.

Mr. Paul Gilbert stated that the staff report indicates that the State Land Department is in opposition, this is no longer the case. There is a letter which states they have no objections.

Mr. Stephenson stated that is correct, in the yellow binders to the Commissioners this evening there is a letter from the State Land Department; they own the land north of the subject site. Because of Skunk Creek Wash and 1-17; that parcel will have some access issues as the project develops.

Mr. Gilberts stated that the State Land Department will have that issue no matter what is developed in that area. His client has been meeting with the State Land Department and is in the position to help solve this problem. There is no one in the area in opposition. When they meet with representatives of the city and the Public Works Department they realized that they did not focus on the fact that single-family town homes or condominiums could be built under the existing zoning. Other uses zoned for this property as a matter of right are retail, restaurants, offices, school, churches, hotel, motels, nursing homes and multi-family.

Potentially 609 multi-family units could be built on the site with a minimal buffer of 25 feet. There are proposing a substantial buffer in excess of the 25 feet, although they do not agree with the 500 foot buffer that is proposed. Sonoran Commons Phase I was approved in June of 2012; 30 acres of single-family homes. Staff supported this application based on the need for diversity in the village core. There is still a need for this diversity of housing in the village core. Construction is underway for this Phase I subdivision. ·

Phase II is what is being discussed this evening; they are proposing another 40 acres of single-family homes. This will be 109 homes in Phase II; it eliminates the multi-family and reduces the allowed density by 500 units. Combined with Phase I this creates a 70-acre master plan community with a common wash running through it and the ability to provide a master planned area for all 70 acres. The site plan has 30 percent open space; 12 acres. An important feature to this plan is to the right is the North Valley Parkway; it is adjacent to a little more than half of this property. If this property is not developed then the North Valley Parkway will not be developed in that segment. Reasons to support this request include:

• It support the village residents • It provides a mix of uses • It provides a significant buffer that otherwise would not be provided if the property

does not get re-zoned.

14


There has been significant neighborhood and community outreach with meeting held with the Sonoran Foothills residents, the Dynamite Mountain Ranch, Carefree Crossing and North Gateway. All have submitted letters of support. In addition, they have 50 residential signatures in support and given the number of meetings they have had in the neighborhoods; not one has indicated opposition. Diversity of housing is critical to the success of a village core which offers 500 acres of multi-family by right. They are aware of the North Gateway Transfer Station and believe they have a solution for this property to develop and still protect the transfer station. The existing building is 200 feet from the property line at the closest point and 300 feet from the property line at the furthest point. The city did not provide any exterior buffering for this waste transfer facility next to a very strategic village core piece. Public Works did not go through the zoning process; they were entitled to build this as a matter of right. Property owners did not have an opportunity to register complaints and ensure that proper protections were in place.

Public Works Department solution is to have a 500 foot setback; that would be 40 percent of the site. The city has an obligation to make the use compatible. Mr. Gilbert stated he does not know of another case where the city has asked for a 500 foot setback for anything. 500 feet is significantly more than the buffer required in the city ordinance to separate industrial uses from residential uses. An intense outdoor industrial use such as a salvage yard, which is much more intense, noisy and presumably more odors, the residential setback is only 150 feet. Across North Valley Parkway is the city supported and approved single-family homes adjacent to the Granite Mine; an open mine with no required buffering when the residential was approved.

The Buckeye Landfill is a 100 percent outdoor use; it will eventually be 150 feet above the ground. It has significant noise, dust and odor concerns. A substantial buffer is required for such a use; that is not the use here. There is no reason or logic to require a 500 foot setback. In contrast the North Gateway Transfer System is primarily an indoor use and housed in the latest state-of-the-art building. Reasonable buffering and mediation is appropriate; the city's own research indicates that some of the following should have been incorporated into the transfer station design to make it a good neighbor; irrespective of what develops next door.

• A perimeter six foot block wall • Dense perimeter landscaping • No parking or truck maneuvering within the setback areas • Reasonable hours of operation • Conformance with the city code regarding noise, dust and light

None of these measures were provided. All of the uses and retail uses are entitled to be protected from these noises. They want to help solve the problem and indicate what they are willing to do as an opportunity for the city to secure meaningful and reasonable buffering which eventually must be done no matter what use goes in this location. One of the things that convinced the village planning committee to support this application was the extensive effort that was made to make this compatible. Here are there commitments:

• 1 09 single family vs. 609 multi-family

15


• 50 foot minimum landscape buffer vs. 25 foot buffer • 80 foot minimum building setback vs. 25 foot buffer • Dense landscaping with trees within buffer area • 8 foot backyard wall for homes along southern property line • Single story homes along southern property line • Sound attenuating construction techniques for homes to reduce indoor noise • Public disclosure regarding transfer station operations • Willing to add landscaping (trees) to City's side of the property line • Willing to construct a minimum 8 foot block wall along the entire southern

property line

Involved in the esplanade develop were single family homes on the south side of Camelback Road was next to a tall parking garage. They were required by the city to meet a decibel level of 55, which is the city's standard; if this were adhered to with this project there would not be a problem with the noise. The city ordinance for a recycling center in the C-3 district has the following restriction: "the use shall be operated so as not to emit matter causing unpleasant odors that are perceptible by the average person at or beyond any lot line of the lot containing the use." There are already built in restrictions to protect this adjacent property. They have been very active in proposing stipulations to make this compatible with the adjacent use.

Commissioner Montalvo asked if a 500 foot setback would equal to 15 acres of the property and what is the price per acre.

Mr. Gilbert stated yes it would be and 15 acres would be about one million dollars worth of property.

Commissioner Katsenes stated here concern is for the future resident there and complaints that would ensue. What would be acceptable between the 80 foot and 500 foot setbacks?

Mr. Gilbert stated they believe that 80 feet for a building setback is more than adequate to protect the residents.

Commissioner Davis asked what the economic is difference between the 609 mixed use versus the 1 09 single-family to his client.

Mr. Gilbert stated he is aware of those figures.

Commissioner Davis asked if he know what the existing decibel level currently is. If not, does Public Works know?

Mr. Gilbert stated he does not.

Public Works also did not know.

Commissioner Davis asked for a respond to the city's concern that the transfer station is operating at 25% capacity right now and will obviously continue to grow as the city

16

Planning Commission Minutes for May 14,2013

grows. Also, there are no businesses in the area to service these single-family home residents.

Mr. Gilbert stated putting in these single-family homes will help attract the retail that is needed for the area. Retail does not come first, the homes do.

Commissioner Davis stated would it not make more sense for the both to come in together?

Mr. Gilbert stated at the immediate northwest corner is owned by his client, they have reserved that area for grocery stores and retail development. It is zoned and ready for development as soon as the housing is in. In a sense these two will be happening together. There are no users yet but that is the plan.

In response to Commissioner Davis' first question about the transfer station at only 25% capacity; that is why they are offering all of the buffers. There are currently no walls or landscaping on the city side, they will put those in; and also an 8 foot wall on their side with additional landscaping, and the setbacks. They are preparing for that eventuality of the area growing.

Commissioner Heck asked if these additional stipulations are documented.

Mr. Gilbert stated all of those stipulations were part of the village recommendation for approval

Mr. Stephenson stated it is in the memo in their yellow folders from Ms. Gomes dated May 14, 2013. There are some staff changes to stipulations that were approved by the village and some options for the Commission to consider from the village or staff recommendation. There is also a new Proposition 207 stipulation added. There were some discussions by Mr. Gilbert that were also spoken about at the village about off-site improvements to the transfer station facility; those are not in the memo as stipulation; the city cannot stipulate to off-site improvements, they can only require them to do things on the subject site. This is something Mr. Gilbert and his client would have to work out separately with Public Works.

Mr. Gilbert stated in regards to the question Commissioner Davis asked earlier; they are willing to take lots 5 through 10 that are on the southwest corner, nearest to the 200 foot setback were the transfer station is located closest to the property line, and provide a · minimum 120 foot building setback rather than an 80 foot building setback for those lots. They have also proposed a minimum 50 foot landscape buffer measured from the southern property line with landscaping as provided by the city, although for these same

. lots they are willing to do a minimum of 90 feet for the landscape buffer.

Mr. John Trujillo stated he is the Acting Public Works Director; they are the property owners adjacent to this proposed site. The city did not choose this site; it did extensive outreach in 2000-2001. They were looking at several sites throughout the city. The reason this site was chosen is because the public overwhelmingly chose it. He read a portion of a report that was done in 2001 to the City Council. "The Dixileta site is

17


located 3 miles north of Happy Valley Road. The advantage of this site includes the proximity to the city's planned North Gateway Water Reclamation Plant and Service Center Maintenance Facility." This is an item that has not been spoken about, the facility is not built yet, there will be a shop on that site with over 100 employees and many pieces of equipment on that site. It report also talks about the distance from existing residential development. As this site was being looked at they came up with several selections steps, one being exclusionary criteria which would be incompatibly land use. If they were incompatible to that existing land use they dropped that site. The definition of that is "area with current land uses that are clearly incompatible with landfill or transfer station operations will be eliminated from consideration." This is the reason they strongly oppose this, they have spent tens of millions of dollars on the infrastructure of this site as well as millions of dollars on the interchange specifically for this site only. The reason this site was chosen is because of the mine to the east. The city was willing to get those mine trucks off residential streets and come directly west to the interchange and get on to the highway.

Also, Mr. Gilbert had mentioned that the city chose this site and would be responsible for the care of the area; in reality the residents would be taking care of this. Fees are generated by residential that pay for this service. As costs go up the fees go up accordingly. It is not the city paying for this but the areas that are impacted by this development. The northeast, northwest and southwest areas of the city are the ones that will be growing within the city boundaries that they look at.

Commissioner Montalvo asked what was there first, the transfer station or the zoning for residential.

Mr. Trujillo stated he does not know; he is only aware of what is in the report.

Mr. Gilbert stated the core village plan was in place at the time this area was selected. All of the uses that can go there were able to at that time. Mr. Gilbert believes they can offer protection to the site that is not there now. There is a potential for some very serious complaints no matter what is built there. In regards to the public choosing this location, they now support this application.

Chairman Awai stated it is the future residents that he is concerned about that will purchase parcels on this site. Zoning exists for a reason, and there is no better . example of why it would apply than in this case. It was made to separate these different types of uses. He cannot support this case.

Commissioner Johnson stated he is aware that the market for homes is pushing for the single-family sites and believes as Mr. Gilbert stated there will be complaints either way, especially if there are 600 town homes there instead of 100 single-family homes.

Commissioner Johnson made a MOTION to approve GPA-NG-1-13-2 per the North Gateway Village Planning Committee recommendation.

Commissioner Montalvo SECONDED.

18


MOTION FAILED 2-6 (Madeksza, Whittaker, Katsenes, Awai, Heck, Davis) (Beletz absent)

Commissioner Heck made a MOTION to deny GPA-NG-1-13-2.


There being no further discussion, Chairman Awai called for a vote and the MOTION PASSED 6-2 (Montalvo, Johnson) (Beletz absent)

* * *

19


Item#: Application #: From: To: Acreage: Location:·

Proposal: Applicant: Owner: Representative:

3 Z-2-13-2 (Companion Case GPA-NG-1-13-2) C-2 MR NBCOD R-3A NBCOD 40.35 Approximately 1 ,300 feet south of the southwest corner of North Valley Parkway and Sonoran Desert Drive Single Family Residential Susan Demmitt - Beus Gilbert PLLC North Valley Sonoran, LLC- c/o Mark Sch Susan Demmitt - Beus Gilbert PLLC

Mr. Alan Stephenson presented items GPA-NG-1-13-2 and Z-2-13-2 together, but separate motions were required.

GPA-NG-1-13-2 is a general plan amendment and rezoning request for a single-family subdivision located approximately 1 ,300 feet south of the southwest corner of North Valley Parkway and Sonoran Desert Drive. The General Plan Amendment is from Mixed-Use (Commercial/Commerce Park) to Residential 5-1 0 and the rezoning case is from C-2 MR NBCOD to R-3A NBCOD. Staff is recommending denial based on the following:

• The subject parcel is not compatible with the intensity of uses in the North Gateway Village Core Plan;

• The change in the land use designation and rezoning is not appropriate given the proximity to the North Gateway Transfer Station;

• Approval of this amendment will not allow commercial services to develop and support the dynamic gro~h proposed by the North Black Canyon Corridor Plan.

Staff recommends denial of GPA-NG-1-13-2 and Z-2-13-2. Mr. Stephenson presented slides representing the development phases of the area. The zoning is R-3 to the north and the transfer station to the south; as well as the surrounding larger residential in the area. There is an existing mine that will continue to operate in the future further to the east of the development. The slide showed the existing Phase 1 that was approved through a previous application next slide showed the second phase of development that Taylor Morrison is proposing to do.

The North Gateway Village Planning Committee voted to approve the General Plan Amendment with a 5-0-1 vote and the zoning application by a 6-0 vote with modified and additional staff stipulations. Representatives from the Public Works Department are here this evening to answer any questions.

A memo from Ms. Tricia Gomes was presented that outlines the stipulations as approved by the Village Planning Committee to be used as a base for deliberation this evening. For example stipulation #1 has two options; a-is the staff option; a minimum 500-foot building setback and b-village option; a minimum 80-foot building setback.

20


Commissioner Katsenes asked what the setback is as presented to the south of the property.

Mr. Stephenson stated that currently the site plan that the applicant is proposing meets what the village recommended to approve, which is a 50-foot landscape setback and an 80-foot building setback where the single-family homes would actually be located. Staff is recommending denial but the stipulations are there in the event of an approval action. Staff is recommending a 500-foot buffer from the North Gateway Waste Transfer Station.

Commissioner Johnson stated under C-2 zoning, R-3 single-family residential could be done, which is what is being asked for, either way residential can be done on this site

Mr. Stephenson stated that is correct. It could be multi-family residential development today under the existing zoning.

Commissioner Montalvo stated his understanding is that multi-housing is not what is wanted but residential, single-family homes. He believes the city does not want residential near the area because of the Transfer Station and possible odor.

Mr. Stephenson stated that is one of the reasons staff is recommending denial because of the proximity to the Waste Transfer Station. It is currently operating at about 25% capacity; but ultimately as that area develops with single-family residential uses, all of the small trash trucks will go there from the north part of the city and off-load for sorting and recycling. The larger trucks; 18-wheeler semi's will haul out to the land-fill in Buckeye.

Commissioner Montalvo stated he has been to the proposed area a few times and stated there are more trucks coming from the south side than the north side into the transfer station.

Mr. Stephenson stated the current drive to enter into the transfer station utilizes the 1-17 access road. There is a private road that connects to North Valley Parkway but legally it can only be utilized by the city or the mining operation that is to the east. That road was put to keep those types of truck traffic off of North Valley Parkway.

Commission Montalvo asked if the city choose to go as far north as possible for the Transfer Station because of concerns of odor complaints from the residents.

Mr. Stephenson stated the city does own land in that area; the land to the south is being planned for a Waste Water Facility and also a future expansion of a Service Center directly east of the subject property and staff is concerned that residents would complain about the odors and noise.

Commissioner Montalvo stated he has been in the area at night and in the mornings. The noise is not loud at night; and also the smell is not bad considering he was there on

21


two windy days. He believes the city needs to spend some time in the area at night. He also asked if a traffic survey has been done.

Mr. Stephenson stated he does not believe a traffic study has been done. Currently the only night time activities at the Transfer Station are the repairing of vehicles in proximity of the proposed residential.

Commission Montalvo asked if the residents to the east and south of this site are complaining about the odor.

Ms. Christine Smith from the Public Works Department stated currently the site is surrounded by vacant property. To the immediate east will be the future Service Center, to the south the Waste Water Treatment Plant. Compared to other locations; there are no complaints.

Commission Montalvo asked if anyone has done some sort of noise survey.

Ms. Smith stated no official survey has been done; there have been employees in the area who have smelled the odors and the sound from the machines do carry, especially at night because it is a quiet area. That is the type of work that will intensify as the Transfer Station becomes busier.

Commissioner Montalvo asked if the only opposition is from the City of Phoenix.

Ms. Smith stated yes, there are only two facilities and it is an expensive asset that they want to protect because of its service to the entire city. In the future it will be processing over one million tons a year; it is hard for people to understand how much traffic, odor and noise will be generated from this site as well as the Service Center.

The waste can remain at the transfer station for the weekends and holidays, also depending on when it is coming in; the level of odor changes because the material makeup changes. It can carry extensively depending on the wind conditions in the area.

Currently the transfer station is working at less than a quarter percent of capacity; The noise is from the ramping up of the machinery; different from the mines which will eventually close; the transfer station will only get busier. This is part of the entire city wide system; it directly services six different villages.

They have been asked by the Mayor and Council to develop a 40x20 diversion program which means the city is to collect 40% more recyclables and other resources out of the garbage. This is going to intensify the operations and have more activity at the site to achieve this goal by 2020.

Commissioner Heck commented that she drove out to the site this afternoon and parked as close to the property line as possible. She was on the east side of the city property. At 3:00 p.m. she could hear the machinery inside. For things that are in a building instead of outside; she was surprised at how noisy it was. For the evenings her main

22


concern about the noise is that the maintenance facility is on the same side; there is not much space between the facility and the property line.

Commissioner Johnson reiterated that under C-2 zoning residential can be developed. It would be great to move forward with a site plan that they could view.

Mr. Paul Gilbert stated that the staff report indicates that the State Land Department is in opposition, this is no longer the case. There is a letter which states they have no objections.

Mr. Stephenson stated that is correct, in the yellow binders to the Commissioners this evening there is a letter from the State Land Department; they own the land north of the subject site. Because of Skunk Creek Wash and 1-17; that parcel will have some access issues as the project develops.

Mr. Gilberts stated that the State Land Department will have that issue no matter what is developed in that area. His client has been meeting with the State Land Department and is in the position to help solve this problem. There is no one in the area in opposition. When they meet with representatives of the city and the Public Works Department they realized that they did not focus on the fact that single-family town homes or condominiums could be built under the existing zoning. Other uses zoned for this property as a matter of right are retail, restaurants, offices, school, churches, hotel, motels, nursing homes and multi-family.

Potentially 609 multi-family units could be built on the site with a minimal buffer of 25 feet. There are proposing a substantial buffer in excess of the 25 feet, although they do not agree with the 500 foot buffer that is proposed. Sonoran Commons Phase I was approved in June of 2012; 30 acres of single-family homes. Staff supported this application based on the need for diversity in the village core. There is still a need for this diversity of housing in the village core. Construction is underway for this Phase I subdivision.

Phase II is what is being discussed this evening; they are proposing another 40 acres of single-family homes. This will be 109 homes in Phase II; it eliminates the multi-family and reduces the allowed density by 500 units. Combined with Phase I this creates a 70-acre master plan community with a common wash running through it and the ability to provide a master planned area for all 70 acres. The site plan has 30 percent open space; 12 acres. An important feature to this plan is to the right is the North Valley Parkway; it is adjacent to a little more than half of this property. If this property is not developed then the North Valley Parkway will not be developed in that segment. Reasons to support this request include:

• It support the village residents • It provides a mix of uses • It provides a significant buffer that otherwise would not be provided if the property

does not get re-zoned.

23


There has been significant neighborhood and community outreach with meeting held with the Sonoran Foothills residents, the Dynamite Mountain Ranch, Carefree Crossing and North Gateway. All have submitted letters of support. In addition, they have 50 residential signatures in support and given the number of meetings they have had in the neighborhoods; not one has indicated opposition. Diversity of housing is critical to the success of a village core which offers 500 acres of multi-family by right. They are aware of the North Gateway Transfer Station and believe they have a solution for this property to develop and still protect the transfer station. The existing building is 200 feet from the property line at the closest point and 300 feet from the property line at the furthest point. The city did not provide any exterior buffering for this waste transfer facility next to a very strategic village core piece. Public Works did not go through the zoning process; they were entitled to build this as a matter of right. Property owners did not have an opportunity to register complaints and ensure that proper protections were in place.

Public Works Department solution is to have a 500 foot setback; that would be 40 percent of the site. The city has an obligation to make the use compatible. Mr. Gilbert stated he does not know of another case where the city has asked for a 500 foot setback for anything. 500 feet is significantly more than the buffer required in the city ordinance to separate industrial uses from residential uses. An intense outdoor industrial use such as a salvage yard, which is much more intense, noisy and presumably more odors, the residential setback is only 150 feet. Across North Valley Parkway is the city supported and approved single-family homes adjacent to the Granite Mine; an open mine with no required buffering when the residential was approved.

The Buckeye Landfill is a 1 00 percent outdoor use; it will eventually be 150 feet above the ground. It has significant noise, dust and odor concerns. A substantial buffer is required for such a use; that is not the use here. There is no reason or logic to require a 500 foot setback. In contrast the North Gateway Transfer System is primarily an indoor use and housed in the latest state-of-the-art building. Reasonable buffering and mediation is appropriate; the city's own research indicates that some of the following should have been incorporated into the transfer station design to make it a good neighbor; irrespective of what develops next door.

• A perimeter six foot block wall • Dense perimeter landscaping • No parking or truck maneuvering within the setback areas • Reasonable hours of operation • Conformance with the city code regarding noise, dust and light

None of these measures were provided. All of the uses and retail uses are entitled to be protected from these noises. They want to help solve the problem and indicate what they are willing to do as an opportunity for the city to secure meaningful and reasonable buffering which eventually must be done no matter what use goes in this location. One of the things that convinced the village planning committee to support this application was the extensive effort that was made to make this compatible. Here are there commitments:

• 1 09 single family vs. 609 multi-family

24


• 50 foot minimum landscape buffer vs. 25 foot buffer • 80 foot minimum building setback vs. 25 foot buffer • Dense landscaping with trees within buffer area • 8 foot backyard wall for homes along southern property line • Single story homes along southern property line • Sound attenuating construction techniques for homes to reduce indoor noise • Public disclosure regarding transfer station operations • Willing to add landscaping (trees) to City's side of the property line • Willing to construct a minimum 8 foot block wall along the entire southern

property line

Involved in the esplanade develop were single family homes on the south side of Camelback Road was next to a tall parking garage. They were required by the city to meet a decibel level of 55, which is the city's standard; if this were adhered to with this project there would not be a problem with the noise. The city ordinance for a recycling center in the C-3 district has the following restriction: "the use shall be operated so as not to emit matter causing unpleasant odors that are perceptible by the average person at or beyond any lot line of the lot containing the use." There are already built in restrictions to protect this adjacent property. They have been very active in proposing stipulations to make this compatible with the adjacent use.

Commissioner Montalvo asked if a 500 foot setback would equal to 15 acres of the property and what is the price per acre.

Mr. Gilbert stated yes it would be and 15 acres would be about one million dollars worth of property.

Commissioner Katsenes stated here concern is for the future resident there and complaints that would ensue. What would be acceptable between the 80 foot and 500 foot setbacks?

Mr. Gilbert stated they believe that 80 feet for a building setback is more than adequate to protect the residents.

Commissioner Davis asked what the economic is difference between the 609 mixed use versus the 1 09 single-family to his client.

Mr. Gilbert stated he is aware of those figures.

Commissioner Davis asked if he know what the existing decibel level currently is. If not, does Public Works know?

Mr. Gilbert stated he does not.

Public Works also did not know.

Commissioner Davis asked for a respond to the city's concern that the transfer station is operating at 25% capacity right now and will obviously continue to grow as the city

25


grows. Also, there are no businesses in the area to service these single-family home residents.

Mr. Gilbert stated putting in these single-family homes will help attract the retail that is needed for the area. Retail does not come first, the homes do.

Commissioner Davis stated would it not make more sense for the both to come in together?

Mr. Gilbert stated at the immediate northwest corner is owned by his client, they have reserved that area for grocery stores and retail development. It is zoned and ready for development as soon as the housing is in. In a sense these two will be happening together. There are no users yet but that is the plan.

In response to Commissioner Davis' first question about the transfer station at only 25% capacity; that is why they are offering all of the buffers. There are currently no walls or landscaping on the city side, they will put those in; and also an 8 foot wall on their side with additional landscaping, and the setbacks. They are preparing for that eventuality of the area growing.

Commissioner Heck asked if these additional stipulations are documented.

Mr. Gilbert stated all of those stipulations were part of the village recommendation for approval

Mr. Stephenson stated it is in the memo in their yellow folders from Ms. Gomes dated May 14, 2013. There are some staff changes to stipulations that were approved by the village and some options for the Commission to consider from the village or staff recommendation. There is also a new Proposition 207 stipulation added. There were some discussions by Mr. Gilbert that were also spoken about at the village about off-site improvements to the transfer station facility; those are not in the memo as stipulation; the city cannot stipulate to off-site improvements, they can only require them to do things on the subject site. This is something Mr. Gilbert and his client would have to work out separately with Public Works.

Mr. Gilbert stated in regards to the question Commissioner Davis asked earlier; they are willing to take lots 5 through 1 0 that are on the southwest corner, nearest to the 200 foot setback were the transfer station is located closest to the property line, and provide a minimum 120 foot building setback rather than an 80 foot building setback for those lots. They have also proposed a minimum 50 foot landscape buffer measured from the southern property line with landscaping as provided by the city, although for these same lots they are willing to do a minimum of 90 feet for the landscape buffer.

Mr. John Trujillo stated he is the Acting Public Works Director; they are the property owners adjacent to this proposed site. The city did not choose this site; it did extensive outreach in 2000-2001. They were looking at several sites throughout the city. The reason this site was chosen is because the public overwhelmingly chose it. He read a portion of a report that was done in 2001 to the City Council. "The Dixileta site is

26


located 3 miles north of Happy Valley Road. The advantage of this site includes the proximity to the city's planned North Gateway Water Reclamation Plant and Service Center Maintenance Facility." This is an item that has not been spoken about, the facility is not built yet, there will be a shop on that site with over 1 00 employees and many pieces of equipment on that site. It report also talks about the distance from existing residential development. As this site was being looked at they came up with several selections steps, one being exclusionary criteria which would be incompatibly land use. If they were incompatible to that existing land use they dropped that site. The definition of that is "area with current land uses that are clearly incompatible with landfill or transfer station operations will be eliminated from consideration." This is the reason they strongly oppose this, they have spent tens of millions of dollars on the infrastructure of this site as well as millions of dollars on the interchange specifically for this site only. The reason this site was chosen is because of the mine to the east. The city was willing to get those mine trucks off residential streets and come directly west to the interchange and get on to the highway.

Also, Mr. Gilbert had mentioned that the city chose this site and would be responsible for the care of the area; in reality the residents would be taking care of this. Fees are generated by residential that pay for this service. As costs go up the fees go up accordingly. It is not the city paying for this but the areas that are impacted by this development. The northeast, northwest and southwest areas of the city are the ones that will be growing within the city boundaries that they look at.

Commissioner Montalvo asked what was there first, the transfer station or the zoning for residential.

Mr. Trujillo stated he does not know; he is only aware of what is in the report.

Mr. Gilbert stated the core village plan was in place at the time this area was selected. All of the uses that can go there were able to at that time. Mr. Gilbert believes they can offer protection to the site that is not there now. There is a potential for some very serious complaints no matter what is built there. In regards to the public choosing this location, they now support this application.

Chairman Awai stated it is the future residents that he is concerned about that will purchase parcels on this site. Zoning exists for a reason, and there is no better example of why it would apply than in this case. It was made to separate these different types of uses. He cannot support this case.

Commissioner Johnson stated he is aware that the market for homes is pushing for the single-family sites and believes as Mr. Gilbert stated there will be complaints either way, especially if there are 600 town homes there instead of 100 single-family homes.

Commissioner Heck made a MOTION to deny Z-2-13-2.

Commissioner Whitaker SECONDED.

There being no further discussion, Chairman Awai called for a vote and the MOTION

27


PASSED 6-2 (Montalvo, Johnson) (Beletz absent)

* * *

28


Item#: Application #: From: To: Acreage: Location: Proposal:


6 Z-SP-1-13-3 C-2 C-2 SP 24.71 Northeast corner of 1-17 and Thunderbird Road Household Moving Center (rental truck program) for Home Depot Store and all underlying C-2 uses Earl, Curley & Lagarde, P .C-Stephen Earl HD Development of Maryland, Inc Earl, Curley & Lagarde, P.C-Stephen Earl

Mr. Tricia Gomes presented Z-SP-1-13-3; a request to rezone 24.71 acres located at the northeast corner of 1-17 and Thunderbird Road from C-2 to C-2 SP to allow a Household Moving Center (rental truck program) for Home Depot Store and all underlying C-2 uses. The North Mountain Village Planning Committee recommended approval 11-0 per the staff stipulation. The applicant provided more detailed operational characteristics in a memo dated May 14, 2013. Staff was supportive of the memo.

Mr. Stephen Earl stated in order to address the concerns of residents when the center was first zoned for a shopping center, extensive landscaping and wall treatments were put in along the eastern boundary; this also protected the residents from any encroachment from lights, noise or traffic associated with the Home Depot. The mature landscaping has grown and was now a significant buffer. There is also a drainage way that has been used by the residents as a walking and trail area.

Home Depot has requested a Special Permit for a small portion of their site to be allowed to be use as a convenience to their customers to rent small trucks for their purposes. Home Depot has been in the business of providing moving supplies such as dollies, boxes, bubble wrap, etc. It was determined after extensive outreach, three stores in the Phoenix area would be designated for these small accessory uses; which is to allow them to rent to their customers, by internet or in person at the store, a small truck that would require a regular driver's license to drive. The trucks will not be serviced, maintained or fueled at the sites only delivered according to customer order. There would be a limit of about 1 0 trucks.

Mr. Earl presented slides of the trucks that would be used and the parking area. The maximum length of the trucks is 24 feet. The location of the parking for this facility is on the north side of the store; an area rarely used where the small number of trucks could be parked. The entire customer parking is in front of the store. Extensive outreach to the neighborhoods was done; a few people attended and were satisfied with the conditions on how this operation would be limited. They then attended a block watch meeting with about 50 people; there were no significant concerns. They have since visited with the village chair at the site and other interested neighbors who wanted to have the following conditions specifically set forth in writing:

1. "The development shall be in general conformance with the site plan date stamped March 18, 2013 with specific regard to the location of the rental truck program

29


and the operational characteristics set forth below, as approved by the Planning and Development Department:

Mr. Earl clarified that the operational characteristics is the special permit request, this request only adds this one single use to the property. It is an accessory use to the existing Home Depot operation. When all other C-2 uses are stated it simply means that they did not want the regular C-2 uses to be eliminated for the store.

a) The maximum number of rental trucks permitted onsite at any one time is 15. Included within this number may be a few small trailers or vehicle haulers that are requested to be rented with the truck or separately are 6.

b) No semi-trucks or tractor trailer type vehicles may be parked or rented on-site through this program. The trucks being rented have box enclosures up to a maximum size of 26 feet.

c) They can only be parked in the restricted area as shown on the exhibit presented.

d) No box enclosure rental trucks will be permanently stored on-site and will only be delivered when ordered by a customer. Trucks will be removed from the site within 72 hours of customer delivery. These drop-off and pick-up activities occur only during the business hours of the home depot store.

Mr. Earl added that the trucks are brought to the site for a specific customer order then picked up when the customer returns the truck to be taken off site to be serviced, maintained and fueled.

e) No fueling, servicing or maintenance of the trucks will occur on-site.

f) No parking spaces required under the zoning ordinance for the home depot store will be utilized for this program.

Mr. Earl stated that Home Depot does not want to get into the truck rental operations business but just want to have a small number of these trucks available for their customers.

Commissioner Whitaker asked where the trucks were coming from.

Mr. Earl stated that Penske is supplying these trucks and they may come from different locations based on their needs.

Ms. Julianne Bridwell stated her concern is the added congestion to the area with the commercial and contractor trucks and trailers entering and exiting the site. The type of permits that is being requested is opened ended where anything could be added in the future.

30


Ms. Mary Camacho stated she has lived in the area since 1978. The parking lot has a large garden area where the proposed parking site is. Her concern is the traffic congestion.

Mr. John Abroinavage stated the background information that he read earlier stated that there would only be 1 0-15 trucks in the parking lot; yet the trucks are going to be permanently stored elsewhere at a Penske site and only be transported to the store upon a customers request within business hours. He does not believe this can be done; he is concerned of the number of trucks that will be coming in and out of the Home Depot parking lot.

Mr. David Dilgard stated if Home Depot receives this approval then he believes the Lowe's across the street will do so also; he lived behind the Lowe's, there will be that much more congestion and traffic.

Mr. Warren Bare stated this is a safety issue. Large truck and trailers driven by inexperienced drives in an already congested area will be dangerous for children. There are also other small businesses surrounding the Home Depot.

Mr. David Pollach stated he is concerned with the health, safety and welfare of his community. The two large vehicles that will be provided will only be diesel and they have a stronger gasoline odor and make much more noise. The number of trucks to be parked at one time has not been set; Mr. Earl stated maybe eight, the information he read stated 10-15. There will be much more traffic congestion added with the children that attend the workshops on Saturday mornings. The parking space available will be taken with the trucks being parked there.

Mr. Tom Tollison stated he is an attorney and serves as an in-house counselor to UHaul in regards to land use and zoning issues. This application states that the Special Permit granted for this truck rental program includes all underlying C-2 uses which have a variety of uses. If this application is approved this area will turn into a municipality of various uses and operations which will not longer serve the Home Depot store as everyone knows it. This will also allow the program to be an accessory use to the Home Depot store. Home Depot sells a variety of home improvement supplies; this will open up a wide variety of box stores, uses and services that the truck rental program will apply to. If the City of Phoenix does not want to regulate or supply stipulations to Home Depot or Penske, U-Haul wants to be able to do so also. If fairness to all similar situated businesses is not provided, he is opposed to this application.

Mr. Mark Buford stated if the new position of the City of Phoenix is for truck rentals to be unregulated, without meaningful stipulations, C-2 uses and an accessory to the following types of stores but not limited to gardening, paint, construction, pool, lumber, outside storage, home furnishing, decor and appliances; tools and parts, then he and UHaul are onboard. But if this is not the new position of the city then he and U-Haul object to the application. He believes the city should protect the community and ensure that Home Depot and Penske live up to their promises and discussions based on the staff report and include the following stipulations:

31


• No more than 1 0 trucks on site at any one time • The ten truck limit include auto transports and trailers • The trucks are to be permanently stored at an off-site Penske facility to be

brought to the Home Depot store at the customer's request • Upon the customer return the truck is to be moved no longer than 72 hours • Home Depot will utilize no more than the stated surplus parking spaces • Truck rental program rental will not include semi-truck or tractor trailers • The rental trucks will not obstruct loading of fire truck access or fire hydrants • The required parking spaces will not negatively impact the required number of

customer and employee parking spaces • Rental trucks will not be visible from the main arterials or residential

neighborhoods • No commercial truck rentals be dispatched at the Home Depot location

Mr. Larry Derespino stated there are two Exhibit A that describes the parking which is : not consistent. One states 25 spaces the other states much more. Mr. Earl stated that one of the stipulations would be that the truck would be delivered for customer use, he also then said brought to site for specific customer order; that is not stated anywhere in the stipulations. It is briefly stated about removal of the truck after the rental return; 72 hours. This will not be able to be enforced.

Mr. Chris Rudel stated that the bottom left hand corner of the slides presented show a two story above ground, one story below ground self storage facility, which he owns. He has had extensive interaction with Home Depot; they were in opposition to him constructing his building originally and delayed his project by about 18 months. They were able to resolve the issues and have since, for special circumstances, wanted to use the lot area in front of their area for Christmas tree sales; they did agree but then other items are put for sale that were not discussed. He is concerned with the language contained in the city's recommendation which specially states for a household moving center and in parenthesis rental truck program for Home Depot store and all underlying C-2 uses. He does not know what that means and does not want uses later that are currently undefined.

The following cards were submitted in opposition and did not wish to speak.

Gary Buckingham Jason Turcotte Kris Evenson Darryl Jackson Jeff Knollhuff

Mr. Stephenson stated the existing zoning on this site is C-2, that question is not before the Commission this evening; the applicant is not seeking to change this. The statement is recognizing that the site was zoned C-2 in 1993 and will continue with this application. The special permit grants the additional ability to do the rental program if it is approved by City Council.

Earlier today Mr. Earl submitted additional language regarding the operational characteristics that were part of the staff report. The stipulations summarized are 1. A) Maximum number of rental trucks permitted onsite at any one time is 15. Included within this number may be a few small trailers or vehicle haulers that are requested to be

32


rented with the truck or separately. B) No semi-trucks or tractor trailer type vehicles may be parked/rented on-site through this program. The trucks being rented have box enclosures up to a maximum size of 26 feet. C) The parking for these trucks and trailers is restricted to the area of the special permit shown on Exhibit A.

This would be the aerial Exhibit A that is enclosed in the packets; it is more specially drawn versus the conceptual diagram. D) No box enclosure rental trucks will be permanently stored on-site and will only be delivered when ordered by a customer. trucks will be removed from the site within 72 hours of customer delivery. These dropoff and pick-up activities occur only during the business hours of the home depot store. E) No fueling, servicing or maintenance of the trucks will occur on-site. F) No parking spaces required under the Zoning Ordinance for the Home Depot store will be utilized for this program. In addition, the Home Depot store will still have to comply with the fire code which addresses where parking can be outside related to these activities.

Commissioner Heck stated in comparing the Home ,Depot on Thunderbird Road to the one on Camelback Road; item C for Thunderbird does not include "trailers".

Mr. Stephenson stated for clarification this can be added.

Mr. Earl stated Home Depot does not want to open the doors for other C-2 uses that are unacceptable. This request is only about one use; it must be by a special permit but if the underlying uses are not mentioned it will eliminate the ability to have the store at the site. This language must be inCluded. The number of trucks was said to be 15 because of the large parking lot; a pilot program that was done had five trucks for eight months and there have not been any complaints. There are more spaces than trucks so they can come in and leave without having to back up. The other two Home Depot applications have been limited to 1 0 trucks, if the Planning Commission would like to be consistent with all three applications they can also change it to ten trucks for this site; this is a limited service opportunity for Home Depot customers, it is not designed to be anything else. Rather than having to come back through the site the trucks can drive directly to the frontage road through the access road. The only reason the trucks would come through the neighborhood is because one of the neighbors rented a truck.

In terms of the number of trucks coming back to the Home Depot parking lot; there are not peak period uses, only during the day and working hours. There will be a maximum of two or three trucks moving at any one time. They have been careful to limit this program with stipulations.

Commissioner Heck asked if there are specific instructions or guidelines regarding the entrance and exits. Will there be signage?

Mr. Earl stated yes, the place where the rentals will take place is the tool area. Customers will be lead out to the truck with instructions to exit through the access road and when returning where to park.'

Commissioner Katsenes asked if any complaints were received at this site during the pilot program.

33


Mr. Earl stated they did not have any. When meeting with the neighbors at the meetings they were not even aware of the pilot program.

Commissioner Whitaker asked if this was program was happening in other cities in the valley or state.

Mr. Earl replied no; these three stores have been specifically identified as appropriate for this use. It is not meant to be a Home Depot accessory use at every store. Across the country certain Home Depots have been identified where customer traffic suggests those locations would be a good place for this program.

Commissioner Katsenes made a MOTION to approve Z-SP-1-13-3 per stipulations in the applicant's memo dated May 14, 2013. In addition to the language that Mr. Earl mentioned for 1.d.

Commissioner Johnson SECONDED.

Mr. Stephenson clarified that the language mentioned is the first stipulation; item D and language can be added regarding trailers in item C. Mr. Earl also mentioned about the maximum number of trucks to be 10.

Commissioner Katsenes confirmed to include the number of trucks to change from 15 to 10.

There being no further discussion, Chairman Awai called for a vote and the MOTION PASSED 8-0(Beletz absent).

* * *

Stipulations:

1. The development shall be in general conformance with the site plan date stamped March 18, 2013 with specific regard to the location of the rental truck program and the operational characteristics SET FORTH BELOW, as approved by the Planning and Development Department:

a. THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF RENTAL TRUCKS PERMITTED ONSITE AT ANY ONE TIME IS +a 10. INCLUDED WITHIN THIS NUMBER MAY BE A FEW SMALL TRAILERS OR VEHICLE HAULERS THAT ARE REQUESTED TO BE RENTED WITH THE TRUCK OR SEPARATELY IS 6.

b. NO SEMI-TRUCKS OR TRACTOR TRAILER TYPE VEHICLES MAY BE PARKED/RENTED ON-SITE THROUGH THIS PROGRAM. THE TRUCKS BEING RENTED HAVE BOX ENCLOSURES UP TO A MAXIMUM SIZE OF 26 FEET.

34


c. THE PARKING FOR THESE TRUCKS AND TRAILERS IS RESTRICTED TO THE AREA OF THE SPECIAL PERMIT SHOWN ON 'EXHIBIT A'.

d. NO BOX ENCLOSURE RENTAL TRUCKS WILL BE PERMANENTLY STORED ON-SITE AND WILL ONLY BE DELIVERED WHEN ORDERED BY A CUSTOMER. TRUCKS WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE SITE WITHIN 72 HOURS OF CUSTOMER DELIVERY. THESE DROP-OFF AND PICK-UP ACTIVITIES OCCUR ONLY DURING THE BUSINESS HOURS OF THE HOME DEPOT STORE.

e. NO FUELING, SERVICING OR MAINTENANCE OF THE TRUCKS WILL OCCUR ON-SITE.

f. NO PARKING SPACES REQUIRED UNDER THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE HOME DEPOT STORE WILL BE UTILIZED FOR THIS PROGRAM.

35


Item#: Application #: From: To: Acreage: Location: Proposal:


7 Z-SP-2-13-5 C-2 C-2 SP 13.18 Southwest corner of 99th Avenue and Camelback Road Household moving center for Home Depot Store (rental truck program) and all underlying C-2 uses Stephen Earl - Earl, Curley & Lagarde PC WAB Depot ZA, LLC/Camelback Phoenix, Co. Stephen Earl - Earl, Curley & Lagarde PC

Ms. Tricia Gomes presented Z-SP-2-13-5; a request to rezone 13.18 acres located at the southwest corner of 99th Avenue and Camelback Road from C-2 to C-2 SP to allow a Household Moving Center (rental truck program) for Home Depot Store and all underlying C-2 uses. The Maryvale Village Planning Committee recommended approval 9-0 per the modified staff stipulation. The applicant provided more detailed operational characteristics in a memo dated May 14, 2013. Staff was supportive of this memo.

Mr. Earl stated that this case is identical to the one previously heard except that this Home Depot store is along 991

h Avenue and Camelback Road. The Home Depot store has an extensive setback because of a facility on the property controlled by the city. The location of where the trucks will be is also near the tool center. These are not required parking spaces; this Home Depot has more than sufficient parking spaces to meet all code requirements. The parking is not visible to the neighborhoods or directly from 991

h Avenue; there is significant landscaping along both streets. Stipulation 1.A. also states the limit of trucks to 1 0; it is consistent with the other applications. Stipulation 1.8 and C are identical. Stipulation 1.D. states for trucks to be removed within 24 hours. This is because in working with the management company for the shopping center this parking area is not like the prior case that is away from other businesses on the property. This time frame was agreed upon. The neighborhood that they spoke with stated they have already used the services.

Mr. Eric Anderson stated he lives within walking distance of this Home Depot. The parking area is not an issue with him; he is concerned about the renters of the trucks. Wide turns must be taken to exit onto Camelback Road.

Mr. Tom Tollison stated as with the prior application there is no stipulation or discussion about what is going on with the Penske truck company. Most people know that Penske does household do-it-yourself moving from house to house. They also do large commercial leasing. There is no discussion of commercial leasing here, are they going to be contracted to commercial contractors or purely consumer.

Mr. Mark Buford stated the following stipulations that he spoke about previously are that there be no more than 1 0 trucks at this site and be permanently stored off-site. He was at this location eight hours ago; there were 8 trucks and 5 pieces of towing. The trucks were no where near area 1 or 2; they were near the frontage area at least 50 yards from

36


the locations. By the condition of the vehicles he viewed today he believes they have been parked for much longer than the given time.

The following submitted cards in opposition and did not wish to speak.

Jeff Knollhuff Darryl Jackson

Gary Buckingham Jason Turcotte

Mr. Earl stated these are the items that have been discussed this evening; to place into permanent stipulations that are part of the case. The ones mentioned are the very ones that are being worked on. In terms of the location of the parking that was viewed; this location is a part of the pilot program and the parking area will change upon approval of this application. In working with the management company it was asked for the trucks to be moved away from where they were to these locations; closer to the store near the tool center. Home Depot will be informed of the change as part of this application. Again, the reason for the number of spaces is so the trucks can pull through moving forward rather than backing up. The trucks are far less visible from ggth Avenue and not visible to the neighborhoods. The primary reason for this program is consumer driven, that is not to say that a contractor would not be allowed to come in and rent a truck. Home Depot will not be asking customers if they are contractors. The trucks were moved closer to ggth Avenue to exit from ggth which is a safer movement than exiting from Camelback Road and to not go through the parking lot.

Commissioner Katsenes made a MOTION to approve Z-SP-2-13-5 per stipulations in the applicant's memo dated May 14, 2013.

Commissioner Heck SECONDED.

Mr. Stephenson asked if the Commission wanted to add the same language in letter d. "will only be delivered when ordered by customers."

Chairman Awai confirmed yes.

There being no further discussion, Chairman Awai called for a vote and the MOTION PASSED 8-0 {Beletz absent).

* * *

Stipulations:

1 . The development shall be in general conformance with the parking plan date stamped March 21, 201 a MAY 8, 2013 with specific regard to the location of the rental truck program and operational characteristics SET FORTH BELOW, as approved by the Planning and Development Department:

37


a. THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF RENTAL TRUCKS PERMITTED ONSITE AT ANY ONE TIME IS 10. THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF SMALL TRAILERS AND/OR VEHICLE HAULERS THAT ARE REQUESTED TO BE RENTED WITH THE TRUCK OR SEPARATELY IS 6.

b. NO SEMI-TRUCKS OR TRACTOR TRAILER TYPE VEHICLES MAY BE PARKED/RENTED ON-SITE THROUGH THIS PROGRAM THE TRUCKS BEING RENTED HAVE BOX ENCLOSURES UP TO A MAXIMUM SIZE OF 26 FEET.


d. NO BOX ENCLOSURE RENTAL TRUCKS WILL BE PERMANENTLY STORED ON-SITE AND WILL ONLY BE DELIVERED WHEN ORDERED BY A CUSTOMER. TRUCKS WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE SITE WITHIN 24 HOURS OF CUSTOMER DELIVERY. THESE DROP-OFF AND PICK-UP ACTIVITIES OCCUR ONLY DURING THE BUSINESS HOURS OF THE HOME DEPOT STORE.



38


Item#: Application #: From: To: Acreage: Location:

Proposal:


8 Z-85-A-97-2 C-2 PCD C-2 SP PCD 15.13 Northeast corner of Black Canyon Freeway and Carefree Highway Household moving center (rental truck program) for Home Depot Store and all underlying C-2 uses Stephen Earl- Earl, Curley & Lagarde, PC Home Depot USA, Inc c/o Erika Strawn Stephen Earl- Earl, Curley & Lagarde, PC

Ms. Tricia Gomes presented Z-85-A-97-2; a major amendment to the Tramonte PCD to rezone 15.13 acres located at the northeast corner of Black Canyon Freeway and Carefree Highway from C-2 PCD to C-2 SP PCD to allow a Household Moving Center (rental truck program) for Home Depot Store and all underlying C-2 uses. The North Gateway Village Planning Committee recommended approval 6-0 per the staff stipulation. The applicant provided more detailed operational characteristics in a memo dated May 14, 2013. Staff was supportive of this memo.

Mr. Earl stated the difference with this case is that the north end of the store was the location of the truck parking for the pilot program. At the neighborhood meeting the residents just to the north stated the trucks were visible from the street and asked if they could be moved to a location where they cannot see them. The area behind the store is the new location for the trucks and they are there now. These will need to be backed up to be moved; which will be done by Home Depot employees. Mr. Earl stated he agreed with the maximum number of trucks allowed on this site would be 10 and all of the other conditions that have been amended by the Commission this evening.

Commissioner Heck asked if this parking area interferes with fire access.

Mr. Earl stated it does not; it was specifically designed, the trucks are parked outside the fire lane; this was determined before the trucks were moved to the new location.

Mr. Michael Shardy spoke about the heavy traffic congestion and does not see how it will get much better by adding these types of trucks. If the trucks are delivered to the Home Depot why not have the trucks delivered to the customers home. He confirmed that the pilot programs are not located in Scottsdale or Tempe.

Mr. Gary Buckingham stated he is the General Manager of U-Haul at the Deer Valley and 1-17 location. At his center they go to great lengths to provide a safe environment for their customers in dispatching and returning trucks. He has experienced unpredictable customers dropping off trucks and driving on the lots in different manners. He has noticed the trucks at the Home Depot parked at the western parking lot believing a customer probably dropped the truck off there. It cannot be predicted where a customer will leave a truck parked when returning it; even with signs posted with

39


instructions. The area is congested on a daily basis. He has also witnessed the number of trucks being over 1 0 parked.

Ms. Lupe Munoz stated her concern is the truck traffic and the inexperienced drivers because of the children that are at the Saturday morning programs provided by Home Depot.

Mr. Stephenson stated this request comes before the Commission the same as the others. The special permit will only grant this additional use to be allowed as an accessory to the Home Depot. The special permit section of the ordinance allows for a household moving center that includes truck rentals to be approved via the special permit process. That would be available to other property owners if they had a number of home improvement type stores or household moving center stand alone use. This can be done in C-2 with a special permit.

Mr. Stephenson stated he could speak to the U-Haul representative separately if they would like to implement something similar for themselves and what those requirements would be.

Mr. Tom Tollison stated his investigation shows that Penske Truck Rental is happening all over the valley at Home Depot locations. Gilbert, Queen Creek and Glendale; currently under C-2 uses this is not permitted. At this and the other locations the applications are broad to allow commercial uses that are household moving uses. Further clarification on the commercial use as a stipulation is needed. How can the city be sure that no complaints have been filed against the Penske truck rental at these three locations discussed this evening and how will the stipulations be enforced.

Mr. Mark Buford stated after seeing the other two cases approved he is happy because that gives him the ability to speak to locations they had not in the past because of the zoning ordinances. If Home Depot can do this he will also be back asking for his location to be approved. Mr. Buford presented pictures showing examples of truck parking. There are trucks parked on both sides of a fire hydrant; there are also storm drains near and gas mains across from where the trucks will be parked. There are also four foot tall barriers that can be easily mowed over. There is only 28 feet between the truck and building; if someone was to not park correctly, the fire lane would be impeded.

Mr. Stephenson stated in terms of the exhibit just handed to the Commission, the applicant would have to comply with all the fire code requirements; a generic area is shown where the trucks could be parked having a fire hydrant near.

Ms. Parvl Batela stated many of her coworkers are disappointed today with the approvals. She is happy because this will make her job easier and knows that she will be granted the same consideration, fairness and unanimous approval that Home Depot has received when she comes in with her application for a U-Haul dealership at a C-2 zoned property at Ace Hardware.

The following cards were submitted in opposition and did not wish to speak:

40


Jeff Knollhuff Jason Turcotte Darryl Jackson

Mr. Stephenson stated for the record that zoning is site specific; there is no guarantee with any application. What he discussed on record was that he would work with U-Haul if they found locations and could apply under the same type of conditions that Home Depot and Penske has done this evening. If there are neighbors in opposition or other issues that materialize the Commission or the city is under no obligation to approve any site specific request based on what was heard this evening.

Mr. Earl clarified that these three sites seen this evening are in the City of Phoenix. He did not specifically ask Home Depot if they had programs in other cities in the valley because those zoning requirements differ from the City of Phoenix. He informed Home Depot the only way to do this is with a special permit which is unique to each site. The fact that one location might be approved did not guarantee all would be; that is why they went through the entire neighborhood process and the villages where they received support for each store. In this particular case the neighbors did ask for the trucks to be moved to be less visible.

Commissioner Katsenes made a MOTION to approve Z-85-A-97-2 per stipulations in the applicant's memo dated May 14, 2013 with additional language in letter d. to state "will only be delivered when ordered by customers."



* * *

Stipulations:

1. The special permit authorized activity shall be in general conformance with the site plan date stamped March 11, 2013, with specific regard to the location of the rental truck program and the operational characteristics SET FORTH BELOW, as approved by the Planning and Development Department:

a. THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF RENTAL TRUCKS PERMITTED ONSITE AT ANY ONE TIME IS 10. THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF SMALL TRAILERS AND/OR VEHICLE HAULERS THAT ARE REQUESTED TO BE RENTED WITH THE TRUCK OR SEPARATELY IS 6.

b. NO SEMI-TRUCKS OR TRACTOR TRAILER TYPE VEHICLES MAY BE PARKED/RENTED ON-SITE THROUGH THIS PROGRAM THE TRUCKS BEING RENTED HAVE BOX ENCLOSURES UP TO A MAXIMUM SIZE OF 26 FEET.

41



d. NO BOX ENCLOSURE RENTAL TRUCKS WILL BE PERMANENTLY STORED ON-SITE AND WILL ONLY BE DELIVERED WHEN ORDERED BY A CUSTOMER. TRUCKS WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE SITE WITHIN 72 HOURS OF CUSTOMER DELIVERY. T~ESE DROP-OFF AND PICK-UP ACTIVITIES OCCUR ONLY DURING THE BUSINESS HOURS OF THE HOME DEPOT STORE.



42


OTHER BUSINESS

Item#: Initiation:

10 Presentation and Initiation of a text amendment to study second hand/used merchandise sales requirements- add back in the use permit requirement and/or other changes to enhance the compatibility of these types of uses.- Alan Stephenson (5 minutes)

Mr. Alan Stephenson presented an initiation of a text amendment to ?tudy second hand/used merchandise sales requirements- add back in the use permit requirement and/or other changes to enhance the compatibility of these types of uses. This particular issue rose out of some concerns that have been expressed by neighbors in the Thunderbird Road and 71

h Street area. There is an existing shopping center that previously had an AJ Grocery Store and now is proposed for a Goodwill location. The neighbors are concerned about the second hand sales and used merchandise. They have requested that the city look at putting back the use permit requirement that was previously removed in November as part of the Text Amendment to streamline the zoning ordinance process. That was the Special Permit/Use Permit discussion to make this a by-right use with a quarter mile spacing requirement. Vice-Mayor Gates has requested that staff look into this particular issue and then work on specific recommendation to bring back to the Commission at a future date.

Mr. Gober Plucker stated before the use permit was removed for second hand merchandise stores the community had a voice. That was taken away in November when the use permit requirement for this use was removed. Councilman Nowakowski voiced his concern. Within a few months their neighborhood learned that Goodwill had entered into a 15 year lease to take over a space that used to be the AJ Grocery Store. Within 4 days there were 550 people meeting with Councilman Gates. Within 1 0 days 2500 had signed a petition requesting the city to reinstate the use permit.

Ms. Jolene Capparelle stated the neighborhood has rallied quickly on this issue. Their right to a hearing was taken away and it is important to be able to see if something is compatible in ones neighborhood and voice to be in favor or oppose; they do not want to see overcrowding of these types of stores in any area of Phoenix.

Commissioner Katsenes made a MOTION to ini,tiate the initiation of a Text Amendment to study second hand used merchandise sales requirements.



* * *

43


There being no further business to come before the Commission, Chairman Awai adjourned the meeting at 8:51 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted,

Lilia Olivarez Secretary to the Planning Commission

44

167857apps.phoenix.gov/ccwebimages/prm/min1954/167857.pdfms. lilia olivarez, secretary to the...

Documents