TO: Chair and Planning Commission
FROM: Dawn-Marie Buckland, Deputy Town Manager
Jeremy Knapp, Community Development Director
Paul Michaud, Senior Planner
DATE: September 18, 2018
CONTACT:
Staff Contact
Paul Michaud, 480-348-3574
End
AGENDA TITLE:
Title
Discussion of Major Special Use Permit Amendment (SUP-18-06)
7125 E Lincoln Drive - Lincoln Medical Plaza
Request
REQUEST
Jamel Greenway L.L.C., the property owner of the Lincoln Medical Plaza, is seeking redevelopment of the existing medical plaza located at 7125 E Lincoln Drive (Assessor Parcel No. 174-64-003B). The proposed redevelopment of this property will be a complete demolition of all existing structures for medical office uses.
Background
MEETING PURPOSE
The primary purpose of this study session is to present updates received since the last meeting, to describe additional material still needed, and to continue to review the application request.
DISCUSSION
The Planning Commission discussed this application at the July 17th Work Session. At that time the Commission expressed comment and/or requested additional information on, with the updated submittal. Below is an update on the project organized by the topics in the Statement of Direction.
• Intensity/Use.
The uses are more defined in the narrative. However, the pharmacy and urgent care use proposed have longer hours, days, and/or no square footage limitations based on the existing stipulations. This may or may not be deemed appropriate.
o The existing stipulations limit the site to one 2,079 square foot pharmacy from Monday through Saturday between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Whereas, the proposal has no square footage limitation and limits use from Monday through Friday between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m.
o The existing stipulations limit the site to one 2,170 square foot urgent care facility from Monday through Friday between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Whereas, the proposal has no square footage limitation and allows this use seven days a week between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.
The traffic/circulation/parking study will need to specifically address these uses and any impact. Also, there are other existing stipulation limitations for pharmacy and urgent care that will require revisiting such as signage, apothecary, and related points.
The narrative now includes information on how the project will incorporate Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) strategies. This includes measures such as security cameras, window/door sensors, after hour security patrols, windows on all four sides of the building, among other items.
• Height/Parapets.
Except for the entry atrium, the Commission generally seemed satisfied with the 36-foot tall maximum building height based on the justification in the applicant’s narrative. The applicant has requested the Commission re-evaluate having the atrium height at 36 feet as this is an architectural expression and serves as the HVAC/mechanical screening. This justification included several points.
o The entire roof area is not at the maximum 36-foot tall height. Except for the entry atrium, the edge of the roof is at the 30-foot tall guideline. A person standing near or on the property line would see the taller parapet.
o The current Class A building standards for medical office is 15-foot floor to floor, with five-foot ceiling space.
o The additional height over the 30-foot height guideline is for roof parapet to screen HVAC/mechanical equipment. The applicant provided reasonable views on the technical and ground area constraints on why the roof is the best option to place the heating/cooling/mechanical equipment.
o There is an additional 6 to 12 inches of roof height to accommodate proper storm water drainage for flat roofs. This is generally one inch for every four feet.
o The site adjoins all non-residential uses, with similar or taller structures in the vicinity up to 48 feet.
The roof parapet was discussed related to how much roof area the parapet will enclose and mitigating its impact through the setback from the roof edge and possible cant. There are two parapet heights. The taller parapet results in the building reaching 36 feet in height and is the parapet that encloses the HVAC units/mechanical equipment. The lower parapet results in the building reaching 32 feet in height and is the parapet nearest to the roof edge. There are no dimensions given on the materials provided, but in scaling the renderings this taller parapet has an approximate 20-foot to 25-foot setback from the roof edge. The overall 36-foot height of the entry atrium acts as the parapet screen for the Lincoln Drive side of the HVAC units/mechanical equipment area. Except at the doorway entries, the lower parapet that results in the building reaching 32 feet in height has an approximate 5-foot to 8-foot setback from the roof edge.
• Viewsheds.
The applicant’s narrative describes the minimal impact on viewsheds. The existing building and proposed building both do not fully meet the Open Space Criteria, but do meet the intent of that provision in massing the tallest part of the structure toward the center of the site. Also, the applicant notes that there is no discernible effect to view corridors. The only view corridor of any note in the sightlines of the building is Camelback Mountain to the southwest, and the height of the proposed building will not interfere with the views of the mountain.
• Setbacks.
The building setbacks meet Special Use Permit Guidelines. Landscape buffer setbacks are described under Landscaping. The applicant has revised the site plan from the prior work session moving the building 5 feet further south such that it will comply with the 40-foot front setback as measured from the 65-foot half width right-of-way.
The site plan also illustrates covered parking, including covered parking along the sides and rear of the site. This covered parking would be setback 4 feet to 5 feet (or closer) from the property line. The applicant has also not provided any elevation views for this covered parking. As this site adjoins non-residential uses, there is no suggested guideline for setbacks to the rear yard and side yards. However, the Planning Commission may wish to evaluate this setback.
• Impact to Adjacent Uses.
The Statement of Direction requires review of how the proposed setbacks, building heights, location of uses, and any other related design aspect of the project may negatively impact nearby properties located outside the subject site with or regarding unwanted noise, light, traffic and other adverse impacts. Of particular concern, is any outdoor employee areas and service uses such as maintenance, trash collection, mechanical equipment (roof/ground), etc. There are no designated outdoor employee areas. As requested at the last work session, the applicant has relocated the trash pickup/storage to the east side of the site. Light and traffic cannot be fully addressed until the applicant submits the lighting plan and complete traffic/circulation/parking study.
• Density and Lot Coverage.
According to the recent site plan, the proposed lot coverage increases from 13.5% to 18.3%, well under the 25% Special Use Permit guideline. The floor area ratio increases from 27.8% to 37%. There are no guidelines for floor area. However, the lot coverage percentage does not appear to include roof overhang and parking canopy coverage. The applicant has been asked to update this information.
• Landscaping/Buffering.
The landscape buffer along Lincoln Drive was discussed. The applicant expressed that compliance with the 50-foot wide buffer measured from the 65-foot half width right-of-way per the Special Use Permit guideline would negatively impact parking and the viability of this project. The existing and proposed landscape buffers are both within the 65-foot half width right-of-way. Measuring from back of curb to the parking space screen wall, the existing landscape buffer varies between 20 feet and 24 feet in width. The landscape buffer on the prior proposed site plan varied between 17 feet and 22 feet in width. In the most recent submittal, the applicant has increased this buffer by 5 feet such that the distance from the back of curb to the parking space screen wall is 22 feet and 27 feet.
Attached is an updated landscape plan from the prior work session. This plan now substantially complies with the Visually Significant Corridor Plan landscape palette for the Resort Living Character Zone. Of note are 8 trees proposed adjoining the proposed perimeter covered parking spaces. There is only 4-foot to 5-foot planter width in this area. Use of trees are encouraged, but maintenance and growth of these trees into the covered parking structure may become an issue. Also, Special Use Permit properties requesting a Major Special Use Permit are encouraged to use the best option in the Visually Significant Corridor Plan. This best option would include having approximately 55% live coverage, incorporation of year-round color, accent walls using with weathered steel sculptural split rail - stone veneer, screen walls that include desert motifs to hide utility boxes or screen parking, incorporating pedestrian seat walls/shade, among other design elements. The plans submitted to date do not clearly show the hardscape material, the parking screen wall along Lincoln Drive, and monument sign details that might address some of these design elements.
• Infrastructure and Utility Improvements.
The drainage statement submitted in early August 2018 incorrectly calculated the "pre" development storm water retention volume. The applicant needs to resubmit the drainage documents, along with water impact and utility information. The Statement of Direction requires that the applicant address and identify the location of on-site retention and identify how the on-site retention may affect parking and circulation. Utility improvements that may have a visual impact or service level impact should be explained and mitigated. Water impact service study, utility information, and hydrology report shall be reviewed.
• Traffic, Parking, and Circulation.
The recent submittal now includes a trip generation for the medical use comparing the existing and proposed use. This statement generally shows that the project will increase traffic about 20-percent more than the existing facility. Although, the difference in the total trips is 14 trips in the morning and 20 trips in the evening. The submittal does not address traffic beyond the subject site, parking or circulation as required by the Statement of Direction.
The applicant did modify the size of the parking spaces as discussed previously. They did not remove the parking spaces nearest the driveway or provide any justification as to why these parking spaces would not create any stacking or other traffic constraints. The Planning Commission were generally supportive of providing more than the six proposed accessible parking spaces and more explanation of the circulation impact related to drop off of persons. These points have not been addressed. The applicant has on many occasions expressed that it is crucial to the feasibility of this project to provide as close to five parking spaces per 1,000 square feet (155 parking spaces).
The revised site plan removed the Andaz access and sign. However, this access and sign may be reconsidered after speaking with the owner of Andaz. There has been no change to the two proposed access driveways onto Lincoln Drive. There was encouragement from the Town to modify this access to a shared driveway. The applicant is in ongoing discussions with neighboring property owners and the Town on this topic.
It is still unclear whether the applicant intends to dedicate the full 65-foot half width of right-of-way along Lincoln Drive. The applicant has concerns that such dedication would result in additional loss of parking spaces. The narrative and site plan conflict. The site plan shows a 65-foot proposed right-of-way and the existing 33-foot wide dedication. While the narrative states Lincoln Drive will have a 40-foot full dedication/easement.
• Signage.
The applicant has not fully provided details on all exterior signage. The Statement of Direction emphasizes review on the impact of project sign location, dimensions, and illumination. Particular attention shall be paid to any building mounted signage. The Commission shall look at the broader signage plan for the whole of this area of Lincoln Drive including proposed gateway signs, identification signs, and Ritz-Carlton and Smoke Tree signage, as well as any Andaz signage that may be re-located to Lincoln Drive. The renderings provide a general visual of the monument signs and building-mounted sign.
• Community Spaces/Public Benefit.
Except for possible incorporation of art, the Planning Commission did not express a strong stance on any provision for public gathering areas, pedestrian amenities, and public art. The applicant should still address this topic in their narrative since it is covered in the Statement of Direction.
• Context -Appropriate Design.
The General Plan policies encourage context-appropriate and responsive building design that mitigates the scale of larger buildings through careful use of building massing, setbacks, facade articulation, fenestration, varied parapets and roof planes, and pedestrian-scaled architectural details. The Planning Commission discussion has focused on screening of roof mechanical equipment and building setback, which the applicant addressed with the recent submittal in moving the taller parapet away from the roof line and moving the building 5 feet further south. An area of some concern was the design of the non-Lincoln Drive facades to provide visual interest. These facades do provide a mix of stone and glass, along with windows at the ground level. There are also trees and other landscaping proposed adjoining these facades.
PUBLIC COMMENT & NOTICING
Mailing notification will be done in advance of the scheduled hearing to all property owners within a radius of 1,500 feet, along with a newspaper advertisement and property posting. There is no required notification for work sessions. To date, no comments have been received to the Planning Division on this application request. Also, the applicant must hold the required Citizen Review Meeting at least 10 days prior to the October 16, 2018 hearing and give notice to property owners within 1,500 feet at least 10 days prior to the Citizen Review Meeting. Noticing will need to start on or about September 21, 2018.
NEXT STEPS
The SOD provides the Planning Commission until October 16, 2018 to act on the application. Staff is concerned that the application may not be ready for Commission action and may need an extension granted by Town Council. The next available work session will be October 2, 2018.
The applicant has been reminded that there are additional information/submittal items needed. These items include a complete traffic-circulation-parking study, updates to the submitted drainage study, utility improvement impact, exterior lighting plan, exterior wall/fence details, and exterior sign plan.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Vicinity Map/Aerial/General Plan/Zoning
2. Application
3. General Plan Policies
4. SUP History/Stipulations
5. SUP Section 1102.2
6. Major Arterial Cross-Section
7. SUP Medical Guidelines
8. East Lincoln Development Area Boundary Map
9. Existing - Proposed Comparison
10. Compliance to SOD
11. SOD
12. Applicant Material
C: - Applicant
- Case File