CAREFREE TRUTH
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION: 1/11/16
TOWN OF CAREFREE
MINUTES of a MEETING of the PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
Chairman Mascha opened the meeting at 5:00 p.m. on Monday, October 19, 2015 in the Town Hall Council Chambers at 100 Easy Street in Carefree.
PRESENT:
Chairman:Al Mascha
Vice-Chairman: Michael Krahe
Board Members:Tom Cross
Dan Davee
Lyn Hitchon
Dick Tatlow
ABSENT:
Scott Sperl
Town Administrator:Gary Neiss
Town Planner:Stacey Bridge-Denzak
Town Engineer:Greg Crossman
Planning Clerk:Bev Peterson
ITEM 1.APPROVAL of MINUTES: meeting of SEPTEMBER 14, 2015.
Commissioner Hitchon MOVED to APPROVE the minutes as submitted.
SECONDED by Vice Chairman Krahe and PASSED unanimously.
ITEM 2.PUBLIC HEARING, discussion and possible action on the following request for a Minor General Plan Amendment.
CASE #:
15-05-GP
APPLICANT:
Jeff King
Keystone Homes
4025 S. McClintock Drive, Suite 209
Tempe, AZ 85282
CASE
LOCATION:
West of the southwest corner of Pima Road and Cave Creek Road, totaling approximately 10 acres.
Tax Parcel Numbers:216-26-177B
216-26-177D
a portion of 216-26-827
ZONING:
Garden Office (GO)
AND
Rural-43, Single-Family Residential
REQUEST:
AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN FUTURE LAND USE MAP from Garden Office (GO) and Low Density Residential (LDR) to Moderate Density Residential (MDR)
Representing Keystone Homes were Rich Eneim, Jeff King, John McGee, and Sandra Welty.
Ms. Bridge-Denzak explained that the separate agenda items for the General Plan Amendment, Rezoning and Preliminary Plat cases are all related to the same development. She addressed each of these requests in the individual written staff reports, and presented the following information encompassing all three cases:
•The policies in place for amendments to the General Plan encourage the transition from less intense to more intense land uses.
•There will be one combined public hearing for the General Plan Amendment and the Rezoning for the RUPD; however, two separate motions shall be made – one for each case. The Preliminary Plat process does not require a public hearing, but public comments will be taken regarding all three requests.
•Surrounding uses to the north and east include SkyRanch, a 54-parcel private airport subdivision with associated townhomes and hangars; Our Lady of Joy, a large church complex; Pima Norté, a 33-unit commercial office complex; and the Heritage, a 50-bed assisted living development. To the south and west is Rural-43 single-family residential zoning, including Stagecreek Estates, an as yet undeveloped 31-lot subdivision accessed from Stagecoach Pass and Windmill Road; and, also accessed from Stagecoach Pass, individual residential parcels and Sun Rock Estates, a 7-lot subdivision that is not yet fully built out.
•The Minor General Plan Amendment request meets the goals, policies and objectives of the General Plan to encourage the transition from less intense to more intense land uses; minimizing the impact on residential uses and encouraging transitions between differing land uses through gradual changes, particularly where natural or manmade buffers do not exist.
•Regarding the Rezone request, the proposed RUPD residential use is considered less intense than commercial Garden Office. Residential uses allowed by the current zoning, generate fewer vehicle trips per day as shown by the traffic impact statement. Westbound left-turn and eastbound right-turn lanes will be added on Cave Creek Road at the developers’ expense.
•The proposed development will benefit Carefree by redeveloping the old, deteriorated Carefree Movie Studios site and providing a desired home product not readily available for current and new residents wishing to downsize or simplify their lifestyle with smaller, low maintenance dwellings that still incorporate premium architecture and a level of finishes commensurate with the high standards associated with Carefree.
•An added benefit to Carefree will be the increased number of residents potentially frequenting local businesses and events, resulting in additional revenue.
•The proposed RUPD zoning standards are:
Zoning
RUPD with underlying R-3 zoning
Gross Area
9.5 acres
Net Area
8.68 acres
# of lots
39
Gross Density
4.1 dwelling units per acre
Net Density
4.5 dwelling units per acre
Open Space
Approximately 3.33 acres (35.1% gross, 38.4% net)
Includes: open space, community landscaping tracts, streets, private driveways, emergency access, public utility easements, utility maintenance access, drainage ways, retention area, detention areas, medians, etc.
North Community
Building Setback Line
25’ wide landscape easement with 3’ wide allowable privacy fence encroachment into easement/right-of-way
East Community
Building Setback Line
10’
South Community
Building Setback Line
10’
West Community
Building Setback Line
10’
Minimum Distance
Between Buildings
8’
Maximum Building Height
24’ from finished grade of building pad
Minimum
Front Yard Setback
8’
Minimum
Side Yard Setback
4’
Minimum
Rear Yard Setback
10’
Minimum Lot Size
52’ X 100’
Minimum Lot Area
5,200 square feet
Maximum Disturbed
Lot Area
100%
Allowable Uses
All uses allowed under the R-3 Zoning District with the following exceptions:
•Assisted Care Facility/Nursing Home
•Dwelling, Multiple Family
•Nursery School
•School
•Supervisory Care
•Features of the proposed subdivision include: added turn lanes on Cave Creek Road; gated entrance with theme wall; no dead-end streets; additional landscape buffer along property lines of southernmost lots; all homes are 1-level with varying facades in a rich desert color palette.
•Will-serve letters have been received from Black Mountain Sewer (Liberty Water) and Carefree Water Company.
•Rural/Metro has reviewed the plans and listed their conditions for approval.
•Citizen Participation requirements have been met; a neighborhood meeting was held on July 9, 2015 at 100 Easy Street, Carefree, with attendees providing input concerning home product, privatization of streets, landscaping, site amenities, and the proximity to SkyRanch Airport.
•The Town published public hearing notices, mailed notices to surrounding property owners within 500’ of the subject site and posted the property as required by Arizona Revised Statutes. No letters or comments in support or opposition were received until today, when letters opposing the request were received from William Kauper, president of the SkyRanch at Carefree Homeowners Association, and Robert E. Schenkel, resident of SkyRanch.
Jeff King, Vice President/General Manager of Keystone Homes, mentioned Almarte, their current ongoing project in Carefree, and said they look forward to introducing this new community.
There were no further questions or comments from the Commission, so Chairman Mascha opened the public hearing for both cases 15-05-GP and 15-06-RZ. The following speakers were heard:
•Derek Van Dyke, resident of SkyRanch, was opposed to the requests. He was concerned about maintaining the standards, goals and objectives of the General Plan and felt the proposed density of the RUPD was too high.
•William Kauper, President of SkyRanch HOA, was opposed to the requests. He spoke about the history of the SkyRanch community and acceptance of the airport by surrounding property owners. He was concerned about sewer issues and the possibility of investor-owned homes being leased. He also felt that the density was too high and did not provide a smooth transition from commercial to residential uses.
•Robert Schenkel, resident of SkyRanch, was opposed to the requests. He referred to two letters he wrote today and delivered to the Planning Department (see attached letters) and said he wanted to reiterate many of Mr. Kauper’s comments. He questioned the public hearing notification process, RUPD as a rezoning designation and, in association with the proposed density, the amount of open space. He felt the underlying zoning of the proposed RUPD should be R1-18 or R1‑10 instead of R3. He said the total acreage does not meet the minimum required for a RUPD. He concluded by asking that Case #15-05-GP be tabled or denied and he asserted that Case #15-06-RZ doesn’t meet the requirements for a RUPD and was improperly noticed.
•Linda Schenkel, resident of SkyRanch, was opposed to the requests. She was concerned that higher density residential developments could “creep” further onto adjacent parcels. She feels that there is a lack of transition between the proposed RUPD and adjacent R1-43 zoning to the west and the southeast, and was concerned about landscape buffers. She pointed out that the 60’ landscape buffer on the south portion of the development was adjacent to property owned by an individual who sold land to Keystone for a portion of this development, thus showing favor to that property owner over neighbors owning other adjacent properties.
•Gordon Pracko, resident of SkyRanch, was opposed to the requests. He said his questions and comments had already been voiced by the previous speakers. He had no further comments.
•Donna Toledo, resident of SkyRanch, was opposed to the requests. She said her questions and comments had already been voiced by the previous speakers. She had no further comments.
•Judy Thordarson, resident of SkyRanch, was opposed to the requests. She had no other comments.
•John Poremba, resident of SkyRanch, was opposed to the requests. He asked for clarification of the 8’ offset along the west boundary of the site. Ms. Bridge-Denzak explained that retaining walls will be located within the 8’ tract, which is not part of the 10’ rear building setback measured from the rear lot lines. Mr. Eneim added that the 8’ wide landscape tract is open and visible to the properties to the west. The privacy wall for the homes is the east boundary of that tract.
In response to a question from Mr. Poremba, Ms. Bridge-Denzak explained that the construction costs for the turn lanes on Cave Creek Road are paid by the developer.
Mr. Poremba asked if there had been any complaints about Almarte, another Keystone development in Carefree. Commissioner Hitchon responded that she is acquainted with several residents, including former Mayor David Schwan, who are all very pleased with it. She commented on Keystone’s willingness to install devices at no cost to the homeowners to correct an unforeseen backflow pressure problems.
Mr. Poremba commented that, if he owned a lot directly west of the proposed development, he would be concerned about the density. Chairman Mascha commented that all of the homes will be single-level; no two-story homes. Commissioner Hitchon added that the Almarte development Mr. Poremba referred to is higher density than Eastwood, the proposed development.
•Robert Schenkel, asked to speak again. He commented that maximum allowed building height is 24’ regardless of whether it is one or two stories., He added that the building pads would be raised from natural grade due to flood zone requirements, so the buildings could possibly be 25’ or higher.
•Other residents of SkyRanch who were present and opposed to the requests but did not wish to speak at the public hearing were: Dan Bodnar, George E. Buchner, Michael Cofield, Jeff Comer, Peggy Comer, Irene A. Harlkeroad, Ron Harkleroad, William Heller, Frank Hoppensteadt, Jean Kennedy, John Kierzkowsky, Sarah Kierzkowsky, Cindy Shaw-Thompson, Abby Tucker, Stephany Van Dyke, Susan Wearly, and Mary Ann Zimmerman.
There were no other requests to speak from the public and Chairman Mascha asked for Commission questions or comments:
•In response to a question from Commissioner Hitchon, Mr. Eneim said that they are willing to set the maximum building height at that of the proposed elevations, which are single-story with some elevational treatments to create an interesting street scene. He added that all six elevations have a maximum height of no more than 20’.
•Vice Chairman Krahe asked for clarification about the 8.6 acres Mr. Schenkel cited in his letters as the size of the development, where a 10-acre minimum is required. Ms. Bridge-Denzak responded that, according to the ALTA surveys provided with the application submittal, the correct amount of gross acreage is approximately 9.5 acres. She added that, for any application, the fractional acreage is generally rounded up, so this application does meet the intent of the ordinance. In response to another comment in Mr. Schenkel’s letters, she added that a RUPD is a zoning district. The Zoning Ordinance does not have an overlay option; an RUPD is considered a zoning district which can be proposed in any zoning district. She added that, as a rezoning request, the RUPD application goes under the highest scrutiny of public input.
•In response to Vice Chairman Krahe’s question about the comments in Mr. Schenkel’s letters concerning sewer problems, Ms. Bridge-Denzak said a will-serve letter has been received from Liberty Utilities, and the project is in the process of gaining approval from the Arizona Corporation Commission to expand Liberty’s service area. She added that connecting to the sewer located in the eastbound lane of Cave Creek Road should not place any imposition on SkyRanch residents.
•In response to a question from Vice Chairman Krahe about leasing these homes, Ms. Bridge-Denzak explained that any home in Carefree can be leased, but short-term rentals of less than 30 days are not allowed. Commissioner Hitchon added that time shares are not allowed.
•Ms. Bridge-Denzak commented that the Planning Department views this development proposal as a desirable product that fills a need in Carefree for current residents of larger homes to potentially downsize or simplify their lives while remaining a part of their community. Commissioner Hitchon commented that she knows numerous residents of Almarte who have downsized from bigger homes in Carefree. She added that there are not very many options for people who can no longer maintain larger homes but want to stay in Carefree and this development would meet that need. Commissioner Cross added that downsizing/simplifying is a common topic of discussion among Carefree residents and we do not have enough of this type of product here. He added that a standard R1-35 or Rural-43 single-family residence might not be desirable next to the Pima Norté office condos.
•In response to a question from Commissioner Davee to compare traffic issues under the current and proposed zoning, Ms Bridge-Denzak cited the traffic study submitted by the applicant, which said that if the property were fully developed under the current zoning, there would be a significant traffic increase versus that generated by the development of 39 homes. She explained that non-residential uses typically have a higher trip generation than residential uses. Commissioner Hitchon commented on the low traffic count in her subdivision, which has 139 lots.
•In response to a question from Commissioner Davee about noise, Ms. Bridge-Denzak explained that Carefree’s noise ordinance controls the level of noise throughout the community.
•In response to a question from Commissioner Tatlow about the sewer connection, Ms. Bridge-Denzak said the new development would tie into an existing sewer line in Cave Creek Road that goes west toward Cave Creek and their sewer treatment facility.
Mr. Kauper, President of SkyRanch HOA, asked to speak to that. He said Liberty Utilities will decide where exactly to tie into existing lines, which could be in SkyRanch.
Mr. Neiss asked the applicant’s engineer to speak to the subject and what direction Liberty has given them. John McGee, professional engineer with EPS Group, representing Keystone Homes, said there is an existing sewer line in Cave Creek Road with a manhole to the northwest of the development where they will be tying in directly. There’s no anticipation of crossing Cave Creek Road into SkyRanch.
An unidentified member of the audience asked where the treatment facility was located. Another unidentified member of the audience commented that the sewer line goes down Cave Creek Road a short distance and then goes through SkyRanch to a main line, so the sewage for the 39 proposed homes will go through SkyRanch. Mr. McGee reiterated that the main sewer line is located on the south side of Cave Creek Road and the portion that they will tie into does not cut into SkyRanch. Vice Chairman Krahe asked if it would then cut back into SkyRanch.
Ron Harkleroad, SkyRanch resident, said he sees the Liberty Utilities truck pumping out a sewer pit directly behind his home and that is also where the contractor dumped his sewer from Pima Norté, which was supposed to go further south than the airport. He said they get sewer gas backup and Liberty Utilities flushes it out every three or four months.
Ms. Bridge-Denzak called on the Town Engineer, Greg Crossman, to comment. He said the gentlemen in the audience is correct; the sewer line that Eastwood will tie into is in Cave Creek Road, where it goes slightly to the west and then winds into the SkyRanch development. However, Liberty Utilities will analyze the capacity of that system to ensure it can handle an additional 39 homes. He surmised that this 8” line is far enough on the upstream end of the system and will have adequate capacity. He added that Liberty Utilities looked at that already before giving Eastwood a will-serve letter. The Town does not have purview over the sewer system, that is Liberty Utilities responsibility, but as Town Engineer, he will be looking at this closely.
Chairman Mascha asked if anything can be done to help SkyRanch with the problem Mr. Harkleroad mentioned. Mr. Crossman said that sewer systems that are far upstream often have odor issues due to lack of flow instead of too much flow. An additional 39 units could actually help with the situation if odors are generated within the area. He explained that sewage needs more liquids flowing through the pipe to keep the solids moving and prevent odor issues.
Commissioner Davee asked if there is any location other than the one proposed where they could hook into the sewer line. Mr. Crossman said his review of the development shows the proposed location as logical, being the closest and least obtrusive. There really is no other option. In response to an earlier question, he added that the treatment plant that serves all of Carefree is located at the Boulders. Ultimately, it is due to be abandoned in the near future, when that sewage will then flow into the Scottsdale system. He added that some sewage from Carefree already does flow into the Scottsdale system.
•In response to a question from Vice Chairman Krahe, Ms. Bridge-Denzak verified that the 20’ building height mentioned is measured from finished grade.
There were no other requests to speak from the public or comments or questions from the Commission, so Chairman Mascha closed the public hearing and called for a motion on Case #15-05-GP.
Commissioner Cross MOVED to RECOMMEND APPROVAL to the Town Council for Case # 15-05-GP, a request for a MINOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT to the GENERAL PLAN FUTURE LAND USE MAP from Garden Office (GO) and Low Density Residential (LDR) to Moderate Density Residential (MDR) at the location requested.
Commissioner Hitchon SECONDED the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
ITEM 3.PUBLIC HEARING, discussion and possible action on the following request for rezoning.
CASE #:
15-06-RZ
APPLICANT:
Jeff King
Keystone Homes
4025 S. McClintock Drive, Suite 209
Tempe, AZ 85282
CASE
LOCATION:
West of the southwest corner of Pima Road and Cave Creek Road, totaling approximately 10 acres.
Tax Parcel Numbers:216-26-177B
216-26-177D
a portion of 216-26-827
ZONING:
Garden Office (GO)
AND
Rural-43, Single-Family Residential
REQUEST:
REZONE the property to a Residential Unit Plan of Development (RUPD) to permit a subdivision of up to 39 single-family residential lots with a proposed density of 4.1 dwelling units per acre (du/AC).
NOTE:
This request is contingent upon approval of Case #15-05-GP, the amendment to the General Plan Future Land Use Map referred to in Agenda Item 2.
The staff report, public hearing, public comments and Commission comments and questions pertaining to this case were addressed together with the previous agenda item, Case #15-05-GP.
There were no further questions or comments, so Chairman Mascha called for a motion.
Commissioner Cross MOVED to RECOMMEND APPROVAL to the Town Council for Case #15-06-RZ, a request for REZONING from Garden Office (GO) and Rural-43 (single-family residential) to a Residential Unit Plan of Development (RUPD) at the location requested.
Commissioner Hitchon SECONDED the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
ITEM 4.DISCUSSION, consideration and possible action on the following request for a Preliminary Plat.
CASE #:
15-07-PP
APPLICANT:
Jeff King
Keystone Homes
4025 S. McClintock Drive, Suite 209
Tempe, AZ 85282
CASE
LOCATION:
West of the southwest corner of Pima Road and Cave Creek Road, totaling approximately 10 acres.
Tax Parcel Numbers:216-26-177B
216-26-177D
a portion of 216-26-827
ZONING:
Garden Office (GO)
AND
Rural-43, Single-Family Residential
REQUEST:
PRELIMINARY PLAT to subdivide approximately 10 acres into 39 single-family residential lots for a subdivision to be named EASTWOOD.
NOTE:
This request is contingent upon approval of Case #15-06-RZ, the rezoning referred to in Agenda Item 3.
Representing Keystone Homes were Rich Eneim, Jeff King, John McGee, and Sandra Welty.
Ms. Bridge-Denzak said the Commission’s approval of the General Plan amendment and Rezoning requests now allows them to consider the Preliminary Plat request. Her presentation included the following information:
•The preliminary plat provides more details to ensure that the project is viable and meets Town requirements and standards regarding infrastructure, safety and zoning.
•The request is to subdivide 9.5 gross acres, which is 8.68 net acres, into 39 single-family lots zoned RUPD.
•The preliminary plat defines lot and tract sizes. Tracts may contain landscaping, medians, detention areas, open space amenities, etc.
•A utility plan is included in the application submittal which shows the stormwater system. This will go underground through detention and then outflow to the historic outflow point in a wash as shown.
•An easement for a water line is shown along lot 11, and, if necessary, an alternative easement is provided on the adjacent property.
•The grading and drainage plan shows the design to detain the 2 hour/200 year event by utilizing two detention basins, one of which will be a usable open space amenity.
•Significant changes of grade exist on the property which will be dealt with by retaining walls that correct drainage flows and fit in aesthetically with the community.
•Landscaping and plant salvage plans are provided.
•Roads within the community are private and offsite traffic improvements include turn lanes in Cave Creek Road at the entrance. These deceleration lanes are a minimum 100’ in length.
•Rural/Metro as well as other utilities have reviewed the plans and signed off on them.
•Overhead 12KV lines along Cave Creek Road will be undergrounded at the developers cost.
•On Lot 11, erosion setback is an issue and engineering showing scour protection will be required for any development in the wash area.
•Significant landscaping will be required associated with the tiered retaining walls.
•Conditions for Approval are listed in the written staff report.
Commission questions and comments followed:
•Commissioner Hitchon commented on subjects brought up at the Citizen Participation meeting concerning grading the site and disclosure of the proximity of the airport.
Chairman Mascha called for public comments:
•John Poremba, SkyRanch resident, was concerned about stormwater drainage flowing into SkyRanch. He commented that SkyRanch already has a drainage problem due to grade changes in Cave Creek Road.
He also was concerned about a precedent being set for higher density and the “cascading” effect on adjacent properties. Commissioner Hitchon said that, historically, the Town considers each project individually and is very conservative about increased density.
Vice Chairman Krahe asked that Mr. Poremba’s concern about stormwater drainage be addressed. Ms. Bridge-Denzak commented that the Town requires that all flow be maintained onsite before it can be dispensed offsite in the historic pattern. Mr. Poremba asked what assurance is there that that will occur. Ms. Bridge-Denzak explained that the preliminary plat procedure does this by providing construction plans and documents for review and approval prior to final plat approval. At his repeated doubts, she assured Mr. Poremba that the drainage plans show that water from Eastwood would not flow over Cave Creek Road into SkyRanch.
Going back to Mr. Poremba’s comments about stormwater drainage, Mr. Crossman said it is his responsibility to review and approve the engineering plans provided by the applicant’s engineers. Based on his review, no water will go north of Cave Creek Road. All water will be retained onsite in the detention basins and metered out at a slow rate into a storm drain that outlets on the west side of the development south of Cave Creek Road. The subdivision will be graded to drain to those basins.
There were no other questions or comments from the public or the Commission, so Chairman Mascha asked for a motion.
Vice Chairman Krahe MOVED to RECOMMEND APPROVAL to the Town Council for Case # 15-07-PP, a request for PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL, with the Conditions of Approval listed in the staff report and below:
EXHIBIT “B”
CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL
15-07-PP
1.As per Section 234 of the Subdivision Ordinance, the Final Plat shall be in substantial conformance with the approved Preliminary Plat and meet the requirements of Sections 235 through 240.
2.All improvements including, but not limited to, streets, storm drainage and water lines shall be constructed as per Town of Carefree and MAG specifications. Pursuant to the Subdivision Ordinance waiver allowance, the private streets terminating in a cul-de-sac shall be allowed to exceed the length of 400 feet and no sidewalks or alleys shall be required.
3.All utilities shall be placed underground including the existing overhead 12 KV and communication lines paralleling Cave Creek Road. The existing overhead lines and supporting utility poles shall be removed from the site and new lines buried along Cave Creek Road right-of-way.
4.The waterline at the southeast corner of Lot 11 is anticipated to be built in an easement adjacent to Lot 11 on parcel APN 216-26-177F. If the waterline easement cannot be acquired on this parcel by the Developer/Applicant, a waterline easement shall be dedicated on the Final Plat within Lot 11.
5.Per the erosion setback requirements as shown on Lot 11, engineering erosion and scour protection shall be required along the eastern property boundary if any portion of the residential structure, patio, or pool (if applicable) is located within the erosion setback.
6.In order to minimize the impact of the two retaining walls at the southwest corner of the property, significant landscaping shall be required to minimize the visual impact of the two tiered walls.
7.A minimum storage length of 100 feet is required for the westbound to southbound left-turn deceleration lane and eastbound to southbound right-turn deceleration lane on Cave Creek Road.
8.All graded slopes shall be rip-rapped with stone that blends into the surrounding environment or be controlled by measures as approved by the Town Engineer.
9.Per the building plans, at facades with proposed veneer, the material shall wrap around corners for a more authentic-looking facade. No two identical elevations shall be placed on adjacent lots or directly across the street from each other.
10.To restrict access, a one (1) foot vehicular non-access easement (VNAE) shall be dedicated along the perimeter of the parcel at the time of the recording of the Final Plat. The subdivision access point as illustrated on the plat shall be excluded from this dedication.
11.The Final Plat shall provide for all public utility easements including, but not limited to, water, electrical, sewer, telephone, natural gas, and cable television service. Such easements shall be dedicated and recorded with the Final Plat.
12.The following note shall appear on the Final Plat, “Residential fire sprinklers shall be installed in all residences.”
13.Rural/Metro Fire Department or current fire protection service provider shall approve any fire hydrant locations and such hydrants shall be part of the Subdivision Infrastructure Improvement Plans.
14.Declarations of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) shall be submitted and reviewed by the Town Council and recorded with the Final Plat.
15.The Liberty Utilities Sewer Main Extension Agreement and Certificate of Convenience and Necessity (CC&N) approval by the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) shall be received and submitted to the Town prior to Final Plat consideration.
16.Pursuant to Ordinance requirements prior to Final Plat consideration, an Arizona Department of Water Resources 100-year assured water supply certificate shall be received and submitted to the Town.
17.Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall obtain the required permits to comply with Maricopa County dust control standards and Arizona Department of Environmental Quality storm water management standards and policies.
18.Pursuant to the Subdivision Ordinance and Subdivision Improvement Agreement, the developer shall give the Town assurance in the form of 110% money or bond in the amount of the engineer’s estimate of the construction cost for the on-site and off-site improvements.
19.The Town’s Subdivision Improvement Agreement shall be executed by the applicant, approved by the Town Council, and recorded with the Final Plat.
20.After approval and prior to recording of the Final Plat, three (3) sets of the following documents shall be given to the Town :
a.The approved and signed Final Plat map.
b.The building envelope exhibit.
c.The approved and signed drainage plan.
d.The approved and signed improvement plans.
e.The approved and signed landscape plans.
f.The approved and signed Subdivision Improvement Agreement.
g.The approved and signed CC&R’s with Design Guidelines.
h.One CAD disk of the Final Plat.
21.After recording, the applicant shall file one copy of the above information with the County, one with the Town of Carefree and retain one copy for their records.
Commissioner Tatlow SECONDED the motion and it PASSED unanimously.
ITEM 5.WORK SESSION - DISCUSSION to discuss initial draft text related to building height limitations for residential, commercial, and Town Center structures.
Ms. Bridge-Denzak presented the staff report, including the following information:
•This work session is a continuation of the August 10, 2015 discussion regarding building height.
•The goal is an open dialogue to hear the Commission’s thoughts.
•In the past, there has been some confusion on the part of applicants concerning cumulative building height. Proposed text amendments would eliminate the term “cumulative building height.”
•“Building height” would be redefined and “design grade” would be added in definitions.
•Additional requirements and clarifications in Article VI INTENSITY SCHEDULE AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, would also address massing, eliminate references to cumulative height and refer to design grade rather than natural or finished grade.
•For office and commercial buildings, a 30’ maximum building height would be allowed and massing would be required for buildings larger than 2,500 gross square feet.
•Grading and drainage regulations in the zoning ordinance also act to control building heights.
Commissioner Cross asked for clarification of the term “massing” and Ms. Bridge-Denzak explained that it was a way of visually separating a large building into blocks, or masses.
Commissioner Hitchon commented that, in the past, commercial buildings were allowed a maximum 30-foot height.
Ms. Bridge-Denzak explained that two form-based code options for Town Center standards were suggested by a consultant, Steve Betts, who is helping to develop the Town Center design to benefit the entire town.
In response to a question from Commissioner Hitchon about the height necessary for support the possibility of a boutique hotel in the Town Center, Mr. Neiss said a critical mass is needed to support the economic model. With limited acreage for horizontal development, the other option is vertical. Also, vertical mass, from a design perspective, allows for visibility to traffic passing outside the Town Center and pique their interest. From an economical perspective, we need that critical mass (number of rooms and customers who patronize businesses) to support the economic model. What is needed is to find a balance with that height. He cited the Optima Building near Fashion Square Mall in Scottsdale as an award-winning 5-story building using massing techniques with gardens and step-backs built into it. Such an iconic building in the Town Center, with landscaping built into it and gorgeous views of Black Mountain, Elephant Butte and Continental Mountain for the guests, could be incorporated into our Town standards.
Commissioner Cross mentioned another example, the Old Sawmill site in Flagstaff, a development where the concept of varying masses is being used.
Vice Chairman Krahe asked if examples or renderings could be provided to better visualize these concepts.
Chairman Mascha asked staff to provide more information at a future meeting for further consideration.
Chairman Mascha asked for public comments:
Jim Van Allen, Carefree resident, provided some of his personal history in the hotel business. He said a boutique hotel would need a minimum of 100 keys (rooms) with an annual occupancy rate of 60% to be profitable. He said the heights being studied for the Town Center would be a significant change and more time should be allowed for public input.
ITEM 6.ANNOUNCEMENTS.
There were no announcements.
ITEM 7.ADJOURNMENT.
There being no additional business, Vice Chairman Krahe MOVED to ADJOURN. MOTION SECONDED by Commissioner Cross and PASSED unanimously. The meeting ADJOURNED at 6:59 p.m.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
By:
Al Mascha, Chairman
ATTEST:
________________________
Bev Peterson, Planning Clerk
****************************************************************************************************
EXHIBIT B
BUILDING CONFIGURATION
I. Town Center buildings designated as “Town Core” and described on Exhibit 1, Town Core Map, shall be designed for occupancy by retail, service, office, or hospitality uses on the ground floor with upper floors also configured for those uses or for residences, and/or multi-family residential uses.
A.Buildings shall comply with the Building Size Standards below:
B.Building Size Standards:
STANDARDS
CONFIGURATION
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
a. Building Height in Stories
1
4
b. Building Height in Feet to highest eave*
30
50*
c. Ground Floor Level in Feet
0
4
d. Ground Floor Height: Ground Level
11
25
e. Additional Floor Height: Other Stories
11
14
*Building height measured in vertical feet from average sidewalk grade along frontage.
C.Single-story buildings shall not exceed 30 feet to highest eave.
D.Additional Building Standards.
1.Buildings will generally maintain a façade rhythm of 20 to 30 feet. This rhythm may be expressed by a change in building plane, stepping portions of facades in and out, utilizing balconies, columns or pilasters that are distinctly set out from the façade or changing types or colors of materials in combination with other techniques.
2.All buildings will be designed and constructed with a distinct base, middle and top. An expression line, setback or other architectural element will delineate the base and top. In buildings which have more than one material, the “heavier” material will go below the “lighter” material.
3.Maximum height requirements do not apply to belfries, clock towers, equipment screening, chimney flues, and similar structures. Such features may be extended up to a maximum of 10 feet or as allowed by the Development Review Board.
4.At least 25 percent of above-grade residential units adjacent to a public street or open space will have balconies that extend at least 5 feet beyond the face of the façade. Balconies may extend over the sidewalk area and right-of-way provided that they maintain at least 10 feet of clearance above the sidewalk and do not substantially interfere with street tree growth. Balconies shall not be used for storage of bicycles that will be visible from the street.
5.Mechanical Equipment. All buildings shall be designed such that no mechanical equipment (HVAC, etc.), except vents and stacks, will be visible from the public right-of-way whether the equipment is located on the ground, exterior walls, or the roof. All vents and stacks will be painted a color to blend with the roof.
6.Properties located in the Town Core Area 1 that are adjacent to Tom Darlington Road or Cave Creek Road shall be designed so that the façade appears to front on each roadway as well as internal to the Town Core.
E.Any property located within 200 feet of the Town’s sundial shall provide a shade analysis to ensure that no new building cast any shadow at any time of the year which impacts the use of the sundial.
F.In a Parking Structure or garage, each above-ground level counts as a single Story regardless of its relationship to habitable Stories.
G.Building Setbacks
Table 2: Town Core Building Setbacks
Front Setback, Primary Facade
2 feet minimum; 12 feet maximum
Front Setback, Secondary Facade
2 feet minimum; 12 feet maximum
Side Setback
0 feet minimum; 24 feet maximum
Rear Setback
3 feet minimum (or 15 feet from centerline of adjacent alley)
Frontage Build out
80%
H.Private Frontage: The architectural element of a building between the public right-of-way and the private property associated with the building. Frontage Types, such as but not limited to arcades, galleries, shop fronts, forecourts, or stoops, combined with the public realm create the perceptible streetscape. Buildings on corner Lots shall have two Private Frontages.
1.Private Frontage shall be required along Easy Street and is not required for buildings located in Town Core Area 2.
2.The following private frontage types shall be incorporated into the building design:
a.Arcade: A facade with an attached colonnade that is covered by upper stories and overlaps the sidewalk. This frontage type is ideal for retail use, but only when the sidewalk is fully absorbed within the arcade so that a pedestrian cannot bypass it. The arcade shall be no less than 12 feet wide to include the sidewalk within 2 feet of the back of street curb.
b.Gallery: A façade that is aligned close to the frontage line with an attached cantilevered roof or lightweight colonnade overlapping the sidewalk. The gallery shall be no less than 10 feet wide to include the sidewalk within 2 feet of the street curb.
c.Shopfront: A facade placed at or close to the right-of-way line, with the entrance at sidewalk grade. This frontage type is conventional for retail frontage and has substantial glazing on the sidewalk with cantilevered roof(s) or awning(s). that may overlap the sidewalk within 2 feet of the street curb.
d.Forecourt: A semi-public exterior space partially within the shopfront, gallery or arcade frontage that is partially surrounded by a building and also opening to a thoroughfare forming a court. The court is suitable for gardens, outdoor dining, vehicular drop-off and utility off-loading.
e.Stoop: An elevated entry porch that corresponds directly to the building entry, with stairs placed close to the frontage line on a building with the ground story elevated from the sidewalk, however, allows for a minimum 8 foot wide sidewalk. This type is suitable for ground-floor residential uses with short setbacks.
I.Access Standards:
1.The main entrance to ground floor suites shall be located within the facade and accessed directly from the street.
2.Entries to the building shall be at grade along the adjacent sidewalk.
3.Access to upper story suites or dwelling units shall be through a street level lobby and/or corridors accessed directly from the street.
4.Pedestrian access to the interior building from the public sidewalk may be through a paseo or courtyard of up to 20 feet in width.
*******************************************************************************************
Article I.RULES AND DEFINITIONS
Section 1.02Definitions
(16)BUILDING, HEIGHT: The vertical distance of a building or structure measured from the structure’s design grade elevation, at any individual point within the building footprint, to the highest point of a roofline.
RENUMBER DEFINITIONS
(25)DESIGN GRADE: The lowest finished floor grade of an existing or proposed building or structure.
RENUMBER DEFINITIONS
Article VI. INTENSITY SCHEDULE AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Section 6.02Additional Requirements and Clarifications
(1)Building Height and Massing, Residential:
(A)No part of any principal structure may shall rise more than twenty-four (24) feet above natural and finished its design grade directly below.
(B)No wall of any principal structure shall exceed a height of more than twenty (20) feet without a significant physical, architectural, or visual break. Such physical break shall be a minimum of four (4) feet in width.
i.Massing: All residential buildings or structures greater than two thousand (2,000) gross square feet shall be composed of at least 3 visual building masses of differing heights or planes.
(C)The cumulative height shall not exceed thirty (30) feet measured from lowest natural grade under the structure (principal building, accessory structure, retaining wall) to the highest parapet or roof ridge. Accessory structures more than fifty (50) feet from the principal structure shall be measured separately. For buildings that have sloped site conditions the Development Review Board may approve a maximum cumulative height exceeding thirty (30) feet.
(D)No part of any accessory structure shall rise more than sixteen (16) feet above design natural and finished grade directly below.
(E)No part of any accessory airplane hangar structure shall rise more than twenty (20) feet above design natural grade directly below.
(F)The cumulative height of any accessory structure including detached garages and guest houses shall not exceed eighteen (18) feet measured from the lowest natural grade under the structure to the highest parapet or roof ridge.
(G)This section shall not apply to amateur radio transmission towers in excess of twenty-five (25) feet for which Conditional Use Permits have been issued.
(H)A chimney shall rise no more than three (3) feet above the highest parapet or roof ridge.
(I)In the R-3, GO, and Commercial zoning districts roof screen walls up to four (4) feet in height will not be included in the height or cumulative height calculations only if they are located a minimum of fifteen (15) feet away from the edge of the roof or building parapet.
(J)Buildings, structures, or any portion thereof, exceeding a height of twenty (20) feet above natural grade shall not be erected or structurally altered within five hundred (500) feet of the projected center line of an airport runway or landing strip for a distance of one thousand (1,000) feet from the end of the runway. Beyond a distance of one thousand (1,000) feet from the end of the runway or landing strip, buildings, structures, or any portion thereof shall not be erected to exceed a height that would interfere with the takeoff or landing of a plane with a glide angle of one (1) foot vertical for every forty (40) feet horizontal. Such glide angle is computed as beginning at a point on the extended center line of the runway two hundred (200) feet beyond and at the same elevation as the end of the runway pavement.
(K)Barriers to clear unobstructed vision at corners of intersections Structures, vegetation, and other improvements on corner properties immediately adjacent to intersections shall be limited to a maximum height of two (2) feet above the established elevation of the nearest street line. This limitation shall extend for a distance of thirty (30) feet along both the front and side lot lines, measured from the point of intersection of the said intersecting lot lines or as approved by the Zoning Administrator. This limitation shall apply to the height of fences, walls, gateways, ornamental structures, hedges, shrubbery, and other fixtures.
(2)Building Height, Office and Commercial:
(A)The height of any office or commercial building or structure shall be no more than thirty (30) feet measured from the design grade.
(B)Massing: All office or commercial buildings or structures two thousand and five hundred (2500) gross square feet or greater shall be composed of at least 3 building masses of differing heights or planes. Such building masses shall vary in height vertically by a minimum of three (3) feet from any adjacent mass or masses.
********************************************************************************************************************
STAFF REPORT – PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
MEETING DATE: January 11, 2016Agenda Item #: 2
SUBJECT:
Planning and Zoning Commission Work Session: Planning Department update regarding an upcoming building height text amendment including new standards specific to Town Center.
ATTACHMENTS:
♣Exhibit “A”: Revised Draft Article VI. Intensity Schedule and Development Amendments
♣Exhibit “B”: Draft Option A Form Based Code for Town Center with associated Diagram
SUMMARY:
The intent of this work session is to conclude the conversation regarding building height requirements in the Zoning Ordinance. This topic was discussed at the August 10 and October 19, 2015 Planning and Zoning Commission Work Sessions. Staff would like to solicit feedback for discussion and possible inclusion into Final Drafts to be presented at a text amendment public hearing.
Members from the public in attendance who have a question related to the discussion are requested to allow the Commission to discuss the topics first and then be recognized by the Chairman prior to asking their question.
PUBLIC PROCESS:
The above items are for Commission discussion only, and no action is required at this time.
