July 18, 2002
| Members Present
Ben Barcon Patricia Childs Gary Coley Stephen Elssmann Michael Friess Peter Hemingway Barbara Koffron Larry Litchfield Scott Mardian Herman Orcutt Danny Ortega Judy Pavsek Greg Russell Steve Speer Julie Stiak Darrell Wilson
Members Absent |
Staff Karen Beckley,, City of Phoenix, DSD Carole Borrego,City of Phoenix, DSD Jay DeWitt, City of Phoenix, CED Bob Goodhue, City of Phoenix, DSD Derek Horn, City of Phoenix, DSD Don Jones, City of Phoenix, Law Joe McElvaney, City of Phoenix, DSD Sumeet Mohan, City of Phoenix, DSD Kelly O'Neal, City of Phoenix, DSD Joanne Owens, City of Phoenix, DSD Cindy Stotler, City of Phoenix, DSD John Verdugo, City of Phoenix, Planning
Ex-Officio's Present
Ex-Officio's Absent
Others in Attendance
|
Pete Hemingway, DAB Chairperson, convened the meeting at 3:00 p.m.
MINUTES OF June 20, 2002:
MOTION was made by Larry Litchfield, seconded by Gary Coley, to approve the meeting minutes of June 20, 2002. Motion carried unanimously. seconded
REQUEST FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:
Julie Stiak stated that she would like the proposed hillside ordinace as an agenda item/possible
action at the September DAB meeting. The Hillside Subcommittee is asking the Board for any
additional edits they may have to this ordinance.
DISCUSSION OF SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS:
Executive
DID NOT MEET
Fiscal and Performance Subcommittee
DID NOT MEET
Process and Procedures Subcommittee:
Ben Barcon stated that Mr. Rus Brock, Homebuilders Association, attended their subcommittee
meeting and asked them to consider a proposed draft of some questions to be asked by Development
Services Department staff prior to making any changes to any existing procedures or processes,
along with creating any new procedures or processes. A motion was made to request that TRT
review Mr. Brock’s draft to develop and document a formal procedure for implementing and
modifying new DSD processes or procedures.
The subcommittee discussed the requirement by the City of Phoenix to stamp concrete curbs in private streets. The stamps would read “Private Streets, No City Maintenance.” This is currently a written policy by City Council, which states, “on private streets, the words “private streets, no city maintenance” would be stamped in front of all homes. Since the lots are getting smaller and smaller on homes, the stamps are up and down the curbs.
Darrell Wilson, DAB and Subcommittee member, has been asked to meet with DSD staff and the Traffic and Street Departments to come up with a solution and bring it back to Process and Procedures with a decision.
Technical Subcommittee:
DID NOT MEET
Hillside Subcommittee:
Julie Stiak stated that proposed ordinance revisions for both the Zoning Ordinance, Section 710
and Subdivision Ordinance, Section 3232. The Hillside Subcommittee has been convened for 2½ years
and has sought input from Planning, Parks, DSD staff, and the community on these ordinances.
The ordinances have a lot of attributes from other City of Phoenix departments.
Ms. Stiak requested that the DAB members and public members to review the proposed ordinances. The subcommittee requests that the DAB read through the ordinances. She asked that if anyone had any recommendations please share it with the Hillside Subcommittee members.
Ms. Stiak stated that she has resigned from the Hillside Subcommittee meetings because of new career obligations. Michael Fries, DAB Member, will be the new Hillside Subcommittee Chairperson.
The next meeting will be in September and are welcoming any comments to the proposed revisions. She asked the Board to carefully look over the proposed revisions, as the subcommittee has work very hard for many, many months. This ordinance has not been touched since 1972 so this is the Boards chance to provide some feedback and really make the ordinances meaningful and bring Phoenix up to date.
On-Site Retention/Flood Plain Management:
Carnell Thurman stated that the City Design Team met on Thursday, July 11th, and reviewed a
15-page document that was submitted by the Home Builders Association. This addressed their
concerns and issues with the text. The review has been completed and responded to the Home
Builders Association and are meeting with them on August 9, 2002.
Appeal Hearing
CAMELBACK VILLAS
NEC Camelback & 99th Avenue
July 18, 2002
This hearing was requested to appeal the City Manager’s Representative decision which states:
The appeal request is denied as filed and an alternative is approved as follows:
The existing installed system in Phase I may remain as a public system. Additional work on the
system, including but not limited to backflow prevention devices and check valves, that was
held in abeyance, must be completed. The Phase II water system shall be designed and installed
to current WSD standards, which is public to the property line with master meters at this point
and private within the apartment property. This decision is not intended to prevent the
developer from voluntarily pursuing other alternatives with WSD for possible approval on either
Phase I or Phase II systems.
(Appeal Hearing Summary Attached)
Pete Hemingway:
Let's begin with staff presentation
DAB Members, there is information in your packet towards the back. A letter of June 28, 2002 from Mr. Jeffrey D. Gross in regards to the hearing date and his request for your review.
Derek Horn:
Ladies and Gentlemen, I’m Derek Horn, Development Services Staff Team Leader
for this project. I’d like to give you a brief history of the project.
On February 29, 2000, Development Services gave preliminary site plan approval to the project known as Camelback Villas. That site plan is shown on the board to the right.
This shows the approval for Phase I. Phase I is this line here and everything to the south. What this shows is two entrances to the project. One over here at 101st Avenue and one over here on 99th Avenue. That is how the staff approved it.
Actually in June of 2000 the project was going through Plan Review for the first phase. The concern was that they could not coordinate correctly the offsite requirements for 99th Avenue. Building out those included the entrance on 99th Avenue, as well as SRP canal tiling and other street improvements. So the developer has met with City staff several times to see postponing improvements by 99th,which helps the development of Phase II. This includes the tiling of the SRP canal, the improvements on 99th Avenue, as well as the entrance on 99th Avenue.
On January 31, 2001, there is a meeting that occurred between Vice Mayor Mattox and representatives of the developer. This meeting was generated by the concern for the entrance of 101st Avenue. The concern was that the traffic that was generated by the development would be heavily impacting the neighborhoods to the west of the development.
An agreement was reached at that point where the developer was allowed to keep 101st Avenue as the primary entrance, actually it was the only entrance at that time, to the development until such time as Phase II was built up. Then the agreement was that this entrance here be downgraded to one for emergency vehicle access and service access only. Have the 99th entrance be the primary entrance for this access for this development.
In several meetings this year, culminating with the site preapplication meeting on April 14th, we reminded them of this agreement and it became a City stipulation and that was appealed by the developer and it was heard by the City Manager’s Representative on June 25, 2002.
An agreement was reached where 101st Avenue entrance was retained as the primary entrance for Phase I and still be operating for the development of Phase II.
There was a stipulation put in there by the City Manager’s Representative that an entrance here ( points to the diagram) would be developed and built out before any building permits that were issued for Phase II.
We felt that this is an appropriate stipulation for several reasons:
1) The appearance and concern of safety for the residents of Phase I. With only one entrance on 101st Avenue,
we felt the construction traffic from Phase II would inhibit residential ingress and egress from Phase I
2) Also, it was felt not to subject the resident of the subdivision to the West or any who already
expressed concerns about the traffic or more construction traffic on the one entrance.
3) Also, we felt that Development Services accommodated the customer already by postponing the
improvements on 99th Avenue at this point.
This includes my part of the presentation. Are there any questions?
Darrell Wilson:
Can you clarify the access that you’re getting from Phase I? Is it only 101st?
Derek Horn:
That’s right. Phase I, as it now and it was actually approved, as a site plan after our
agreement to postpone the improvements on 99th Avenue, it is now 101st Avenue. That is current.
Pete Hemingway:
When you said Phase 1, the part of the North segment, is what's there now?
Derek Horn:
This is all Phase I from this line on down (pointing to a diagram). Then the applicant applied
for site plan approval for Phase II (pointing to the diagram).
Darrell Wilson:
Although the access to 99th Avenue is shown below the base line, your saying that it’s not
constructed with Phase I?
Derek Horn:
That’s right. That’s part of that combination that we reached a couple of years ago when the
developer requested postponement or off-site improvements at 99th Avenue for a variety of
reasons. So the final site at submittal shows the 99th Avenue entrance that goes to that.
Darrell Wilson:
The site plan is approved with the site plan of Phase I and Phase II or are you treating it as
two separate site plans?
Derek Horn:
Really the one over here (point to diagram) was approved on February 29, 2000. There is really
only approval for Phase I.
Gary Coley:
And the entrance on 101st is fully developed per the site plan?
Derek Horn:
Yes, it's fully functional.
Scott Mardian:
Derek, can you repeat the safety issue. I'm not sure I understood whose safety .........
Derek Horn:
Right now there are people living in this area. It’s all built out, it’s all C of O, and I
think it’s generally 100% full. So with only this entrance right here (pointing to a diagram),
construction traffic working this area here will be comingleing with people ingressing and
egressing on the southern part. That is one of the safety concerns that we’re concerned about.
Darrell Wilson:
Can you please explain the extent of the improvements on 99th Avenue today?
Walt Cicioni:
There are two lanes of construction.
Darrell Wilson:
On the same issue, the department site plan approval. Was the project stipulated to provide
those offsite improvements on 99th Avenue?
Derek Horn:
Yes it was. That was part of the preliminary approval of February 29, 2000 to provide all
street improvements, as well as the construction of egress on 99th Avenue.
Darrell Wilson:
Did I understand you say earlier that there was communication with the developer to delay
permits.
Derek Horn:
That's right. That occurred in June/July 2000.
Darrell Wilson:
With the City's presumption then that Phase II to develop offsite improvements.
Derek Horn:
Yes. With the improvements, the tiling, the street, and the entrance.
Gary Coley:
Is that a half street developmen? It's not going to be both sides of the street.
Derek Horn:
Half street
Pete Hemingway:
Anymore questions from anybody right now? Ok, thank you. Mr. Gross.
Jeffrey Gross:
Thank you, I’m Jeffrey Gross, Gallagher and Kennedy, 2575 East Camelback, here in Phoenix. I’m
here representing American West Communities, LLC and Millennium Communities, LLC.
I agree essentially with what Mr. Horn told you in terms of the history with one exception, and that __________ would occur in the meeting in the process to ______ 101st Avenue a nd 99th Avenue the traffic over to 99th Avenue.
I don’t think that that is important for purposes on why we’re here. Why we’re here, we’re asking for just limited relief from what Mr. Goodhue’s decision relating to the access. Let me just give you a little bit of the background.
As Mr. Horn told you, 99th Avenue is over here and 101st Avenue is here, Camelback is down here (pointing to a diagram). The Villas at Camelback Crossing is a two phase project, or being contemplated as a two phase project, with the first phase being the Southern half and the second phase being the Northern half.
The first phase came in, got a final plat on that, now that’s fully build out, CO’ed, 98% occupied. The second phase is why we’re here today. Went in to the City of Phoenix to get final plan on the second phase ________________ access rising out of conversations that occurred with Vice Mayor Mattox and different interpretations of those.
At that time the City wanted two accesses on 99th Avenue and the access on 101st Avenue to be closed. Moving on in time, to make a long story short, we met with the County, or my client met with the County, and the County wasn’t prepared at that time to allow two accesses of 99th Avenue. They said you want two accesses on 99th Avenue, in our opinion, continue to process the final plat, the County, in our opinion, was not prepared to allow the two accesses of 99th Avenue and that is why we requested a hearing in front of Mr. Goodhue.
At the hearing on front of Mr. Goodhue, it was our position that we were entitled to the accesses as approved on the preliminary plat and the accesses as approved on the final plat, which would be 101st Avenue. At the hearing we proposed a compromise. The compromise was that we would agree to two accesses on 99th Avenue if the County approved it, if the County allowed it. Because the County has ultimate control over access on and off of 99th Avenue. If the County didn’t approve it, and the County said “no,” which put us in a quandary, because then we couldn’t develop our property because of these access problems, we wanted to go back to the preliminary site plan, which was access on 101st Avenue and access on 99th Avenue.
We started the process of approaching the County to see if they would approve two accesses on 99th Avenue, not Mr. Goodhue’s decision. It contained what I’d like to call _____________. One was that it said, two access on 99th Avenue with County approval. It didn’t say what would happen if the County didn’t approve. The second condition that gave us even more problems was that building permits could not be issued for the development of Phase II until both accesses onto 99th Avenue were constructed and approved by both the City and County.
Because this is a HUD sponsored project and we’re getting FHA financing, with certain deadlines, that causes a problem. We have to have building permits issued by the end of October. In order to be able to construct the accesses on 99th Avenue we had to, go to the County, get their approval, go to SRP and talk to them about the ditch, and that creates a problem. To be able to shut off the water to the ditch and have to wait until January, when SRP shuts off the flow. So, the accesses could mean that this could not be constructed until after January 2003, which would give us major problems with the HUD financing.
We propose another compromise. Another compromise was, issue building permits, but instead of issuing permanent access onto 99th Avenue was built, allows us to construct temporary bridges from the project to 99th Avenue to allow for the construction trucks. SRP had done that in the past, and we have reason to believe they do so in the future. That would solve the City’s concerns about safety of construction traffic coming through 101st Avenue, instead construction traffic would come off 99th Avenue, those over 101st Avenue wouldn’t feel any impact.
Essentially why we’re here. What we’d like is just a minor modification to Mr. Goodhue’s decision and allow us to obtain building permits to begin construction of Phase II with temporary bridges on 99th Avenue. If we don’t get that relief and ___________ situation for everybody. Because if we don’t get that relief, which solves the City’s concerns over safety on 101st Avenue, which solves, we believe,Vice Mayor’s Mattox’s concerns over the construction of Phase II with the folks on 101st Avenue. This project might not be build and ultimately what we might be left with is a half built project with continuing access on 101st Avenue, no access on 99th Avenue and we don’t have affordable housing, which is what this subdivision is about in the first place.
So we’re asking for two things:
First, a modification of Mr. Goodhue’s decision say, the County doesn’t approve the two accesses
of 99th Avenue within a set period of time, within 30 days. Then go back to the preliminary
plat and put a final site plan for Phase II under the preliminary process on 101st Avenue and
22nd Avenue.
The second this is that permanent final access as conditions for issuance of the building permits. We’re asking you to use temporary bridges are ok, until ___________ after temporary bridges on the site.
Pete Hemingway:
Ok, questions. We’re opening it to questions right now.
Herman Orcutt:
Mr. Gross, it is my understanding that your type of problem with the two was the tiling the
canal and putting in the two accesses between 99th by, let’s say occupancy time.
Jeffrey Gross:
I think that that is the compromise that we are willing to accept.
Herman Orcutt:
I think that is your intent to do it. What do you intend to do on this site?
Andy Welch:
My name is Andy Welch, President of Millennium, Inc.
While we prefer the ______________, we’re certainly going to live with the compromise ____________, we have to do that either way. The understanding that the County won’t allow two exits.
I understand that it’s a catch 22, but I assume the County will.
Ben Barcon:
Mr. Gross, have you had any meetings with the County on the project.
Jeffrey Gross:
We have not. We’ve put that off until this issue was resolved. We have prepared a traffic
report for the County. I believe the County may have gone over final report traffic report.
We’re prepared to go. We haven’t had discussions with SRP, as well, using the temporary bridges
canal during the construction phase.
Ben Barcon:
What kind canals are we talking about? What’s the width?
????:
It’s a fairly good size irrigation ditch. About 16 or 18 feet wide.
Pete Hemingway:
About 20 feet in width. It has major flow in there.
Ben Barcon:
Does part of that have to do anything to do with easements or it is just strictly Salt River
Project?
George Croft:
Yes, it’s all Salt River Project.
Pete Hemingway:
Who’s speaking.
George Croft:
I’m George Croft, DNA Engineers, we also have Tom Gulliver, who is the construction manager.
Ben Barcon
So, Mr. Croft, have you had experience working with this kind of easement and this kind of
irrigation canal re-routing?
George Croft:
We have been working with SRP on this easement for quite some time and they are in the process
of doing design work. So the easement part is already in place.
Ben Barcon:
But are you familiar with that process that says that you’ve got to dedicate the land if it’s
going to be relocated. You have to go through the Bureau of Reclamation. It’s quite a lengthy
process just to get that done, not to mention the fact if they wait until January there’s work.
So if you miss the January deadline, they can give you some kind a work around to re-route the
water, charge you $20,000, or whatever the case might be.
Gary Croft:
The easements have been written for the new easements. All paperwork has been submitted to SRP.
Darrell Wilson:
Spoke about oneor two easements. (Could not make out what was said)
Gary Croft:
What we would like to do before construction, before we have residences living there, is to
build a temporary bridge that contractors would use to access off of 99th Avenue while there
doing construction on the whole project. It’ll only be for contractors.
Darrell Wilson:
On the City’s perspective, on the original site plan what is the affect on District 2 as it
relates to egress and ingress to the site. I’d like to know a little bit more about the
background, ___________ in terms of change ________________.
Pete Hemingway:
Now we’re going to have time at the end to ask both parties if you want to get the full picture.
Or if you want to hold that or they can answer that now.
Jeffrey Gross:
Can I answer it now?
Pete Hemingway:
Yes
Jeffrey Gross:
If what we’re proposing is two accesses off of 99th Avenue and once those two accesses are done,
101st Avenue gets just emergency access only. So we’re to two accesses to two accesses.
Darrell Wilson:
I understand that. What is your preference? Obviously that wasn’t indicated on the original
site plan. _________________ access to 99th, with 101st ________________.
Jeffrey Gross:
We are equal to that yes. Of course, as long as ________________. We could be stipulated to
that and as long as the conditional is that building permits will be issued once the temporary
bridges are constructed, the there are some assurances that, that is what is going to happen.
Darrell Wilson:
At the beginning of the presentation, Mr. ________ indicated that there was a doubt on ________
plans _____ that the County would provide and approve the second point of access on 99th Avenue.
_______________ said that you met with the County ___________ expect that.
Jeffrey Gross:
We did have a meeting with the County. I shouldn’t say we, because I wasn’t there. Mr. Welch
was there. At that time the County indicated ____________. I’ll let Mr. Welch address it.
George Croft:
I think because if it doesn’t meet the minimum, just those requirements or to access ____________
I believe it’s a 600 foot minimum standard that they have, so they, in my mind. After the
meeting was over, said they would reconsider _________________ said that City staff was very
helpful _____________________.
Jeffrey Gross:
We have tried to report now that the distances are ok. I think that what happened, we
submitted a traffic study that was based on a _____________ different site plan. That is why
the site plan showed a difference in distances between two access points. The revised site plan
shows that the _________________ distance. If I’m wrong, Mr. Cicioni can correct it. But it
is my understanding of what happened. Now the County would like to accept that plan.
Gary Coley:
We haven’t seen any graphic representation of the two driveway approach on 99th Way. Am I
correct in assuming that mid point drive way that was originally planned would be complimented
by one at the very North of the project.
Jeffrey Gross:
Yes, actually it’s probably 100 feet.
Darrell Wilson:
(Unable to hear him on tape).
Discussion took place between Darrell Wilson, Jeffrey Gross, and Gary Croft that was very difficult to hear on the tape.
Danny Ortega:
If you remove the temporary bridgesm how are you going to get into the area.
Jeffrey Gross:
We could construct three accesses on the north side and in the center. There wouldn't be any
CO's issued until those structures are built.
Pete Hemingway:
Barbara, do you have a question?
Barbara Koffron:
Since there was concerns about it _______________________. … go back to the original site plan.
Doesn’t that leave us with the same quandary as it did before?
George Croft:
Because of the Loop 101 is East of the site, we ______________. The County has to approve this
end. The downside should depend on 99th and 101st if the County ______________. I believe that
the traffic study _______ is only 18% of our traffic goes to the West. __________ coming out
of the freeway and heading out, just finishing the project itself it going to minimize that.
Not as much ___________. But even under the old approved plan there’s not going to be that
much traffic, just because you’re going from 99th or out to 101.
George Croft:
In the worst case, we go back a preliminary site plan that's already been approved by the City of Phoenix.
Pete Hemingway:
But you do have one entrance approved of 99th Avenue, so in the future, could you use that and
still restrict the access off of 101st Avenue.
George Croft:
We have had discussion regarding that with the City of Phoenix and it wouldn’t be a very good
item. There is going to be over 500 apartment units in this entire development. To have one
access that serves the entire development is probably not a good idea.
Pete Hemingway:
Ok
George Croft:
You may ask Mr. Cicioni what he thinks of that.
Pete Hemingway:
Ok, I will.
Larry Litchfield:
I’m looking at a diagram site plan like this and it looks like on the West side of the property
there’s a large parking lot. Is that correct?
George Croft:
Yes
Larry Litchfield:
Is that going to be repositioned if you only go to a 99th Avenue access? It seems like the
intent was that 101st was the primary entrance and you said 500 units and a lot of times at the
apartment projects you get a lot of guests and visitors and they can’t get access and cars get
parked all over the place. Is that going to be switched.
Jeffrey Gross:
Actually, it’s always hard to tell on a piece of paper. The building to the East is actually a
very nice large recreation building. What we really wanted is for people to come in off of
99th and have the dramatic effect of the rec building. With a little bit of parking there for
the guests, and the bulk of the parking that you’re looking at does not flatter the area
property with a lot of cars there at night. With the change in entrances, it won’t really
impact the relationship the parking spots to the units, so I don’t really see it that they’d
want to change that much.
Larry Litchfield:
What was the intent of that parking lot use? For visitors or guests?
Jeffrey Gross:
No, mostly for residence.
Larry Litchfield:
But there’s scattered throughout, right?
Jeffrey Gross:
Yes
George Croft:
But you can see the phase line goes right to the North of the parking area, so that’s already
built.
Gary Coley:
So, assuming that the County allows two entrances, _______ at that point is the West entry
gated with some kind of a key access _________.
Pete Hemingway:
Ok, any other questions at this time, we still have other opportunities later on?
Steve Elssmann:
Question, your site plan is not in violation? Is that correct?
Jeffrey Gross:
Yes
Steve Elssmann:
At what stage did you start building? At grading, I’m presuming?
Jeffrey Gross:
We had building permits issued prior as it was necessary in order to start building.
JeffreyGross:
The building permits are only issued after the temporary bridge _____________ in sequence. A
final site plan is approved and the temporary bridge is up.
Steve Elssmann:
What concession, from your perspective, did the City give you in the first phase relative to
issuing those building permits and ___________ the City ___________. I seem to recall in the
summation in some form of 99th Avenue, and they expected it to be completed.
Jeffrey Gross:
The obligations you have includes _____________ around Camelback and 99th Avenue ________________.
These onsite improvements were all. ___________________. We weren’t able to ask the
contractor ____________________.
Steve Elssmann:
When did construction start? The first phase of construction?
Jeffrey Gross:
October of 2000
Steve Elssmann:
So the window in January of 2001 to shut down ______ was basically _____
Jeffrey Gross:
In a little bit of light I think___________________________. When we first bought the property
the County __________ they had an improvement plan to actually _______________. When we
started it all there it wasn’t really an issue and we didn’t have any control of timing of the
County. We didn’t have any big plans to widen 99th Avenue and make it a really major __________.
That was dropped and the issued on who was going tile the ditch sort of fell a black hole.
???
The process is very long. We actually ________ for four months, and we're still two months out._______
Steve Elssmann:
Did I hear you say that you’re not opposed to receive __________ until the development is
complete?
Jeffrey Gross:
(Unable to hear him on tape)
Steve Elssmann:
What’s the City’s fear? Why do you think they are not interested in issuing building permits,
and so on.
Jeffrey Gross:
The reason I was expressing Mr. Goodhue’s decision was that they wanted to cut neighbors on
101st Avenue from the construction traffic going into 101st Avenue to Phase II to work on. So
what we’re saying is fine. We’ll put a temporary bridge in on 99th Avenue, trucks and traffic
uses that, but there is no reason to _________ all building permits if the rationale was we
didn’t want building things going on in Phase II with the construction traffic coming in on
101st Avenue. So if we bring it on off of 99th Avenue and build a temporary bridge, there is
no reason to withhold building permits. We should be able to start construction because the
residents on 91st Avenue aren’t going to be affected by it.
Steve Elssmann:
Is there anything that needed to be completed? Anything as far as Phase I, 99th Avenue.
Jeffrey Gross:
A half street.
Pete Hemingway:
That was a part of Phase I and my understanding, that was the part that was deferred. They were
allowed to defer to Phase II. That is kind of the timing.
Gary Coley:
So at this point, no improvements on 99th have been done? It’s all going to be a part of
Phase II
Pete Hemingway:
Right
What I’d like to do at this time is hear from the public and then what we’ll do is have an
opportunity or summation from the City Staff and also from the appellant, then at that time we
can open it up for final questions.
I believe at this time we’ve received one card in regards to this appeal. Is there anyone else at this time, before we begin the process?
If not, we’ll hear from Councilman Claude Mattox. He is opposed to the variance permit determination and he’ll be speaking at this time.
Councilman Mattox
Councilman Mattox:
Good afternoon. Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to discuss this. This is
the process that I’ve been dealing with since March of the year 2000. The applicant has
understood my position from that time.
When I was approached, shortly after going into office, about this project being an affordable project, going in my community, going in my neighborhood, I expressed redundantly concern about access at 101st Avenue. At that time, said that that would be a condition of my approval of the bond. That was their need. City Council approved ___________________.
About a year later, they came back to my office, I think it was in January the year 2001, and they had some issues with the form. At that time, they asked if we would agree, (the City), to allow them to go on complete Phase I. As a condition of the building permits in Phase II, be issued that they would complete the plat, and they would do the improvements necessary to close off the 101st Avenue gate.
I have to tell you, I was extremely unsettled over the fact that I felt they had made a commitment to me in the original meeting, that they, for whatever reason, did not conform to that commitment to me. They were back asking for assistance again, so that they could move forward with their project and we, (the City), agreed predicated upon them performing. At this point, they haven’t performed, as you’ve heard. They are still looking for a way to get around this.
My concern is this, the reason that I am concerned about giving them this variance is that they
have already said twice to me they were going to do these things. They have already made
commitments and it’s not just my imagination that these things happened.
My assistant, Pat Severance, is here to corroborate what occurred in the first meeting.
John Wendt is here to corroborate what happened in the second meeting. I’ve had staff that has
been involved, listening to what’s going on, listening to the ________. Now there here today
asking for relief from the decision that the hearing officer has made.
The new twist is that they are now threatening to abandon the project if they can’t do this. Well ladies and gentlemen, January of 01 is when they came to me and at that time said, “if you will allows us to do this as a condition of the second phase, we will go on and do these improvements as part of the first phase.” They are at the end of the first phase, they are asking for relief of the second phase and still haven’t done a thing towards trying to do what they have committed to do.
My concern is that we give them this relief would allow them to put in this temporary bridge. If we give them their building permits, they’re going to move forward on their project and we’re still not going to have bridges, we’re still not going to have the access on 99th Avenue. I’m going to end up with a considerably more upset neighborhood than I’ve had had over the last two years that I’ve been dealing with on this issue.
I would like to think that these people on this development company is someone that we could trust to move forward on this project, predicated on giving them this relief, but my experience has been, what’s the old saying, “burn me once, shame on you, burn be twice, shame on me, burn me a third time, I’m a fool.” I don’t want to be a fool.
As I said this new choice of abandoning the project, is now much more concerning to me. They seem to be going over every chance they get in this thing, they seem to be throwing out new hurdles and new ways to what I consider to be ways work around this issue. I’d love to see this project completed. I’m sure they would love to complete and get out of here, because I know they’re tired of me. I’ll have to say that I am tired of dealing with them as well. So I’d like to see this completed, but I’d also like to them, one time in this process, perform as they have committed to perform.
You hit the nail on the head, Steve. They made commitments to do things in the first phase, before they could move forward in the second phase and they haven’t done those things. Now they’re coming in to get some relief so they can move forward in their second phase and still not _______ what they had agreed to with me and have agreed to with the City.
Now my understand is, and quite frankly, there is 600 feet on the frontage of 99th Avenue. There is no question, we’ve measured. But it doesn’t fit their center driveway. They would have to offset, but they could do it. They could meet Maricopa County’s requirements, they don’t want to because it takes away from their center driveway. They do not have 600 feet on either side of the center driveway, so they would have to get a variance from Maricopa County. They could do it if they had to.
So I’m asking you, let’s keep their feet to the fire. Let’s make them perform as said they would perform several times and ask that you deny their appeal and ask them to move forward and get this job done so that we can get beyond this. I’m open to any questions.
Pete Hemingway:
Any questions at this time for Councilman Mattox.
Councilman Mattox:
Thank You.
Pete Hemingway:
At this time we'll have summation by staff.
Derek Horn:
I just want to tie up a couple of loose ends here before I go back and address our position.
You know that all site requirements are to be constructed by the developer based on basic
requirements by the City. Many were postponed until the second phase. Tiling or the SRP canal
was required on this project, that you heard testimony that it may have not have been. In your
packet of information, you have a copy of our preliminary report dated February 28, 2000. One
of the stipulations in that report, on page number 4. Also, it’s part of City Code that
irrigation canals adjacent to development be tiled and that’s a section 32.33, Paragraph 9.
The County is aware of the two access issues. The County was represented in the pre-application meeting on April 15, 2002, where that plan was discussed. Even though it’s not certain the County will rule on it, the County has not ruled it out, they’ve not said no to this to meet their standard.
A couple of more things, I want to get back to the stipulation. A presentation was made in June to put a bridge across the canal. We are still having concerns about that bridge as an entrance from 99th Avenue.
The improvements signed were deferred for two years. They are deferred based on them getting constructed to keep up with this project. Also, even temporary entrances are put on ________________ proceeds potential work can be done on Phase II before building. This would include grading, drainage work, and also running sewer and water lines.
The City says one project from last year, we’ve worked many hours and had meetings with the applicant, work with them on the issues and problems that they’ve had. We are enforcing stipulations by the hearing officer and I ask for support City staff of this.
Thank you very much, I appreciated.
Pete Hemingway:
Questions?
Scott Mardian:
Mr. Horn, I've got three questions.
Scott Mardian:
Is the property, East of 99th, is that County property, are there residences there?
Derek Horn:
That is the City of Glendale mostly. It’s different jurisdictions out there. The City has
property west of 99th Avenue which, which was Camelback Villas. It’s a County road
on 99th Avenue. Part of Glendale was also on the East side. Right now most of the East, I
think after the _________________.
Scott Mardian:
This hearing was posted, correct? For anybody at the site, it’s posted, is that right, that
we’re going to have a hearing today?
Derek Horn:
I’ll have to refer to the support staff for that question.
Pete Hemingway:
Was the site posting?
Carole Borrego:
No it was not.
Scott Mardian:
Whatever question or whatever about completing the improvements on 99th Avenue is that if the
permits are not issued they’ll abandon that. There was not bonds posted or anything like that
in 2000 to ensure that the improvements would be made. I’m saying it, but I’m asking. Is that
everybody’s understanding?
Derek Horn:
In some meetings that were held last year between City staff and Michael Curlly, the
representative, there was an agreement to put a bond up for the tiling. To my knowledge it’s
never been done.
Scott Mardian:
OK, it is possible that if the permits those, I’m asking again, that those permits actually
will be not be done until somebody either purchases that property and does the development
themselves or does East of 99th Avenue. Is that reasonable that if these gentlemen don’t
proceed with the development, then the improvements on 99th won’t happen until somebody else
develops either that property or the property East of 99th. Is that reasonable.
Derek Horn:
It would seem so.
Scott Mardian:
Ok, so now, if they’re required to post a bond to do the improvements on 99th Avenue, if their
given their permits and they’re required to post a bond to do the improvements on 99th Avenue.
They get their permits, they go ahead and do the work, but they don’t make the improvements, is
that bond called, let’s say it’s for a quarter of a million dollars, I have no idea what the
work is worth, let’s say it’s a quarter of a million dollars, is that bond called or can they
just continue to renew that bond indefinitely? Is there anyway to get out of it? I’m trying
to figure out, is there a way a bond was posted to do the improvements, is there a way to get
out of doing the improvements?
Derek Horn:
No, the way it works is that, in order to get building permits for Phase II, they would have to
bond for their whole off-site work. It’s a pretty standard procedure in construction. If they
walk away from the project, for whatever reason, a bonding company would have come back and
finish the work.
Scott Mardian:
Ok, I’m not sure if this is you or the Councilman, or Walt, or who, but has that been considered
em to post a bond? Issuing the __________ that they were going to put the temporary in.
Issuing the permits to do the work and requiring a bond to do the work. Has that been
discussed or is that something that the City staff would consider or not consider?
Derek Horn:
Well, it’s been discussed. To get building permits for Phase II, you would have to post bonds
for offsite work.
Scott Mardian:
Thank you.
Gary Coley:
I guess the question that I have would be the bond would be a single driveway improvement
version or double driveway. You have a catch 22 ___________ at this point and could the City
require a bond to cover the two entrance version is obviously going to cost a little more to do
those improvements because of the access on 99th Avenue.
Derek Horn:
I think that the bonds, they have to post bonds according to the approved plans. The plans
show one entrance or two entrances. Say they showed two entrances, the plans were altered
later and approved by the City. Then they would have to construct according to those plans.
Gary Coley:
The City really can’t consider the site plan approval of Phase II with the driveway on 99th
until the County commits that they will approve it or not?
Derek Horn:
We can still approve it by doing preliminary approval. Preliminary approval in this case means
that the site plan is pretty much, according to the codes and ordinances, and they can go forth
and bring in construction documents for plan review. Final site plan approval was given when
building permits were issued, so we can still grant preliminary approval to the plans, showing
both entrances on there. If for some reason it changes later on, the preliminary site plan can
be amended.
Herman Orcutt:
Considering Councilman Mattox’s concerns, wouldn’t those bonds cover that?
Derek Horn:
If Phase II was permitted and they posted bonds, they would, I think that’s the way bonds are
suppose to work. You’re suppose to get all of the offsite work done. It would not include any
onsite work. Part of the entrance is an onsite.
Gary Coley:
I’m trying to understand what the City and Councilman wants at this point. I figure the
organization here wants to do work on 99th first.
Pete Hemingway:
Regardless
Gary Coley:
And then get those permits for Phase II, is that basically what you’re asking to do?
Derek Horn:
What we’re asking in the beginning is that 99th Avenue entrance, not the whole range of offsites,
just the entrance, be constructed to address City and neighborhood issues. We’re not here
asking to get all of the offsite work done before we give them building permits for Phase II,
just on the 99th entrance. The offsites can be constructed along with Phase II.
Gary Coley:
Would not the timing of the irrigation ditch you required be done ______________ portion of
that approved, correct?
Derek Horn:
They need to tile that portion.
Pete Hemingway:
Go ahead Darrell
Darrell Wilson:
The definition of putting offsite improvements _____________. I think that’s a given, isn’t it?
That that would occur. I just want to make sure. There are bond improvements, but any offsite
improvements the City will just assume that’s just going to happen. It didn’t happen.
Derek Horn:
That’s why there were bond requirements before.
Darrell Wilson:
I’m curious about something that ___________ had mentioned early on. He said that the
decision ________________ whether the County did not support second access.
Derek Horn:
We would ask the applicant to work with our staff to come up with, what we consider a
reasonable solution for controlling traffic on 99th Avenue. It’s hard to speculate on that, it
could include signalization on the 99th Avenue entrance to control traffic there. Again, the
County is not moving without the second entrance, north entrance of 99th Avenue.
Darrell Wilson:
If that occurred and the project just consisted of two entrances on 99th and 101st as
originally proposed, how would City staff _______________________.
Derek Horn:
Then 99th Avenue entrance would have to be the primary access, according to the agreement,
which was agreed to by the developer. The County stand would have to ____________ hold traffic.
Darrell Wilson:
So the agreement between ____________ and the developer is really issuing __________ because
that’s superceeding the original site plan. Is that correct? Because the original site plan
appears as though that both entrances had access into the property.
Derek Horn:
That was the first site plan approved. Because of the agreement and the situation, Phase II
approval shows the agreement between the city and the developer.
Darrell Wilson:
One last question, is their primary concern, the City wishes to be able to require that 99th
entrance be approved for the building_________________.
Derek Horn:
The City desires that the 99th Avenue entrance be constructed and fully functional before we
give building permits for the building on Phase II.
Greg Russell:
Is it my understanding that the applicant had been requested a bond but had not done so yet?
If so, when was that request made? What was that request for the bond to encompass.
Derek Horn:
I don’t know the exact date. Those meetings were held in the spring or summer of last year.
Greg Russell:
And that bond was for the improvements all along 99th Avenue, or just the tiling, or what was
it for?
Derek Horn:
It was to make sure that the deferred tiling for Phase I was constructed along Phase II, along
with offsite requirements for Phase II. It was to get the offsite improvements for Phase I and
Phase II constructed with Phase II.
Greg Russell:
Thank you.
Pete Hemingway:
Any other questions at this time? Go ahead Darrell.
Darrell Wilson:
Is there an anticipation of 101st Avenue traffic ______________.
Derek Horn:
I cannot answer that. Walt can you answer that?
Walt Cicioni:
(Cannot understand his response)
Pete Hemingway:
Ok, any other questions right now? Thank you, Derek.
Summation
Jeffrey Gross:
Ok, let me just do comments first. We’re not threatening to abandon the property. What we’re
doing is facing realities of construction and the realities of financing. Mr. Goodhue is
requiring something of us that we don’t think that we can do. We can’t get those improvements
constructed on 99th Avenue. The accesses are finally constructed and ready to be accepted by
the County on 99th Avenue and still get the financing under HUD. That’s why we’re here and
that’s why we’re requesting this appeal.
The _________ protects the City from their concerns about safety at 101st Avenue and the neighborhoods concerns about traffic on 101st Avenue. It also protects my clients concerns in getting this financing approved, getting this project built, getting the affordable housing ready for occupancy.
We’re intending to resolve the concerns about the access on 99th Avenue. We’re intending to resolve the concerns about the access on 101st Avenue. We’re attempting to do that in the perimeters of our financing and the perimeters of what we’re required to do by FHA and by HUD. Let me talk a little bit about the bond. When we’re ready to pull building permits on Phase II, the City is going to require a bond. The City didn’t require a bond on Phase I because that was connected with Phase II. If they had required a bond on Phase I
we never would have gotten the building permits. So that just shows you that the bonding requirement was not a requirement when the City issued building permits for phase I. When it comes times to build these two, we’re also required by FHA to provide security for the off site improvements. So that’s going to take time, under the strict requirements of FHA. That’s going to get done.
In terms of the tiling of the ditch, that was a condition in connection with the approval of the preliminary plat or not, I didn’t provide you with all of the information. I think that’s history that we shouldn’t be addressing right now. What we should be addressing is how to get this problem resolved.
It’s a very complicated story of about why we didn’t think that tiling the ditch was stipulation for development of the project. I don’t think it’s worth spending a whole lot of time about in light of the limited relief that we’re really requesting.
The temporary bridge we’re not just suggesting that no building permits vertical construction is the issue until the temporary bridge is up, but that no permits be issued until the temporary bridge is up. If you consider to let us have the temporary bridge up until we’re ready to fill with permanent access. That’s not going to come down. The fact that we called it a temporary bridge doesn’t dictate the length of time that that bridge is going to be there.
Mr. Welch has a financial interest in making this project go forward. Once he pulls permits and starts construction it’s going to happen. He is known for economic or __________ incentive to drop the project in the middle. That temporary bridge is going to be necessary for the construction to proceed. It’s going to stay there during the construction, it’s going to get done.
The last thing that I want to leave you with is that we did submit a letter in connection with the hearing by Mr. Goodhue, the Homeowners Association. The Homeowners Association wants Phase II to proceed.
Councilman Mattox:
That’s not true! That’s not true!
You didn’t get the whole story. After I spoke with them and played both sides of the story he reneged on that. He submitted a letter to the hearing officer that basically stated that he didn’t understand the situation. So I would appreciate if you would quite circumventing what happened.
Jeffrey Gross:
The letter is part of the record. I don’t know whether you’ve got that as part of the record
or not. I will not characterize the letter.
That’s my presentation, _________ is requesting a couple of things and the County says no and we would like to proceed under the preliminary request without having to go back to the City and make further adjustments as to weather there has to be signal at the intersection, what we do with 101st Access, or what the City is prepared to do in connection with one access on 99th Avenue.
We do a preliminary plan that we can improve by the City. We believe that it gives us certain rights to proceed. We’re willing to live with two accesses on 99th Avenue under these circumstances. If the County says no, then we won’t be able to proceed with the preliminary plat.
Another thing that we ask is that instead of permanent access being conditional to permits that it’s simply be construction of the temporary access that we discussed with SRP. SRP is agreed with the principal and we want to get going on this project pending those circumstances.
Pete Hemingway:
Any other questions at this time?
Darrell Wilson:
Twice you’ve addressed your request as being relatively minor. Extended on that was Mr. Goodhue’s
decision. Can you please restate for my benefit the exactly what it is __________ .
Jeffrey Gross:
Let me give you Mr. Goodhue’s decision, page 2 of 4.
Jeffrey Gross:
This is the letter dated June 28, 2002
Jeffrey Gross:
Yes
If you look at the bottom where it says, City Manager’s Representative Decision/Rationale. The decision is the last paragraph on that page which begins:
(Copied from letter)
There shall be two points of ingress/egress off of 99th Avenue, subject to County approval.
The point of ingress/egress off of 101st Avenue shall be restricted to emergency vehicle use
and is to be converted to such use when the points(s) of ingress/egress off of 99th Avenue have
been constructed. Building permits for the structures in Phase II are not to be used issued
until the points of ingress and egress off of 99th Avenue have been constructed and approved by
the County and City.
The County does not approve the two points of access on 99th Avenue that the applicant be permitted to proceed under the approved preliminary plat. Then we would propose a modification of the last sentence of that paragraph that says, “building permits for the structures in Phase Ii are not to be issued until the point of ingress and egress off of 99th Avenue have been constructed and approved by the County and City.”
So we need building permits ___________ permits for Phase II will not be issued until a temporary bridge is to Phase II for construction and access on this construction.
Pete Hemingway:
Any other questions at this time?
Jon Wendt:
Mr. Chair, members of the board, Jon Wendt, Assistant Development Services Director, the
applicant appealed the City Manager’s Representatives decision to have to access components on
99th Avenue. The County and if you look at the written decision he says, “point to the points”
that can be that staffs impression that the County disapproves with the plans __________________.
The applicant is now asking to go back to the original approved site plan, which shows an open 101st. This was never appealed how fast the jurisdiction, ____________ and asks the City, the City Attorney, they ask __________ to expand and appeal at this point to go back and open 101st. Staff hopes to open 101st ________________. I ask the City Attorney to rule that the ___________ on hold.
The original appeal by the applicant was to proceed with construction with temporary bridges and not pull building permits until permanent access on 99th was installed. Now the applicant is asking if the Board rule that this County ____________ approved the accesses that the County denies two accesses, go back and open 101st to __________residential traffic.
What I’m saying is, as an inspection scope appeal, it wasn’t submitted as an appeal to the City Manager’s Representative should now to be allowed to be expanded, stats pulled to open 101st Avenue for the traffic flow for emergencies. That was the appeal when he presented it ___________________.
Jeffrey Gross:
I don’t have the City Ordinance in front of me, but I don’t believe that there is a time limit
to appeal to this Board.
Larry Litchfield:
Yes, there is.
Jeffrey Gross:
Is there, ok.
I raised that in my letter. I raised that issue in my letter in the first paragraph . . .
Pete Hemingway:
Here right now my understanding is our options are:
? Affirm the decision of the Building Official or the Development Services Director
? Remand the matter for further proceedings before the Building Official or the Development Services Director, basically telling you to go back to the Building Official
? Or reverse or modify the decision of the Building Official or Development Services Director
I believe what Mr. Wendt question is, even if we tried to modify, if we said we’d open up 101st
Avenue, we would be going beyond the scope of the appeal because even if we modified it to
allow you to come in off of 101st Avenue, that’s already been decided and is outside the scope
of this appeal. We couldn’t even say that we could allow you to use 101st Avenue as an access
point for vehicular traffic. I guess that’s what essential to what you’re asking us.
Gary Coley:
I have a question to the City Attorney if the language in the paragraph. I’m assuming the
appealed letter is the one dated July 28, 2002 that’s your request. Page 2 of that, in the top
paragraph addresses, in the middle of the paragraph some, I guess understanding, regarding 101st
and 99th?
Jeffrey Gross:
I believe that paragraph starts out ______________ believes the City’s ___________ is no __________
to require closure of 101st Avenue.
Can I interrupt and maybe we can make this whole thing go away?
Pete Hemingway:
Ok
Jeffrey Gross:
What the City if saying is that if the County turns us down and we get one access up at 99th
Avenue and we know it’s not a good idea, but we’re prepared to live with that.
So if that’s done, that bullet should go away.
Herman Orcutt:
I think I’m ready to propose a motion.
Larry Litchfield:
I don’t know if we need discussion first before the motion. We need to take it as a Board.
Pete Hemingway:
Yes, we have open board discussion, then we could craft the motion.
Gary Coley:
I guess under open board discussion, I’d like to hear Mr. Orcutt’s thoughts.
Pete Hemingway:
Before you craft it, let me just ask one question of Councilman Mattox.
Councilman Mattox, since you represent the neighborhood, since I don’t see anybody here from the neighborhood, you’ve been involved in this process, I guess; you’re understanding or your desire is that basically we uphold, there is no room for compromise, I guess.
Councilman Mattox:
No, as I’ve said, I have had considerable times that they have made promises at every one of
the meetings and have not performed any of their promises.
My concern is they’ll make a promise and, again, not perform. I would like to think that they
might, but. My concern is that, again, I’ve already been through this process enough and have
lost confidence in their willingness and ability to perform on these items.
My concern has to do with the fact that I had originally asked that this not go into the
neighborhood. Neighborhoods don’t like apartments and on a material street that would be
perfect for access and egress, but for whatever reason this _________ with 101st Avenue, being
acceptable, even after the applicant had agreed that they would not do that.
So, I _____________ except I don’t have the confidence that they would ___________.
I’d like to bring up another point if I might.
I met with them in January of 01, which means that they had a whole year to deal with this issue to be able to go on and move forward. In January of 02, on the tiling and construction of the bridge, the fact that they’re in the position that they are now, financially. They didn’t perform.
It’s their mistake that this is the point where we’re at. Frankly, I’m just very frustrated that, I believe, this developer has continued to ____________ easily said with what he wants and move forward with his project. Yet, he has to this date not honored that.
Which includes, as you’ve said, ___________ bond that _____________ informed an attorney in this process, ____________.
Scott Mardian:
Could you repeat that please?
Councilman Mattox:
Mr. Currilley, Mike Currilley, and I have met with the City. My understanding is at the
meetings, or at one of those meetings, they agreed to put out the bond regarding the platting
the construction of the bridge. They have yet to do that at this point.
So there’s been a whole series of we’ll do that, we’ll do that but there hasn’t been actually __________. I guess that’s why we’re here. Thank you.
Jeffrey Gross:
Since Councilman Mattox was able to get a last word, and have raised a lot of things, factual
things about what we should have done, what we promised to do, and what we didn’t do, can we
address those things.
Pete Hemingway:
I guess what I’d like to do at this time is proceed with open discussion. If members have that
question, then we’ll address it. I just wanted to get clarification.
Jeffrey Gross:
When it becomes an issue about what we could have done and what we should have done, I’d like
to give an explanation for that, which I believe is a very good explaination from that.
Larry Litchfield:
I believe the chair asked Councilman Mattox for a clarification. What is the Boards pleasure?
We’re in open discussion.
Scott Mardian:
I would like to hear their explanation.
Pete Hemingway:
Ok. If we can keep it relatively brief, we’d appreciate it.
George Croft:
First of all ___________ two and a half years and when you develop in a lot of different
cities, a lot of different counties and states, things are very different. I made a large
mistake on this project. When we got the initial list from the City with the conditions, it
included architectural. The list that came after that did not include it.
Historically my development in Seattle in Colorado, when it was removed it was removed. It is my understanding, from City Staff, that that is not true. The item still should have been considered as a condition. That is essentially why I thought if it had the condition, ______________.
The real issue was __________ material, because the County had agreed to develop the road, had agreed to pave tile the ditch, that was certainly instrumental when I bought the property. So for all of what’s being said that I made a commitment and didn’t do it, it’s just simply that it wasn’t my commitment to make. It wasn’t my obligation or responsibility.
I met with Mr. Mattox in January of 01. I did not, I’ve never met him before that date. I do not know who attended the meeting in March, but it was not me. In January of 01, the County was still in paper responsible to improve the road. My concerns were about trying to speed up that process, not about who paves the ditch.
As we move forward in this development, we cannot ___________ with a bond. Certainly if we had had to put up a bond in Phase I we would have done it to have our building permits.
In the middle of the project when all of this had become apparent, the County was not going to pay this tiling of the ditch. We were in a very bad situation because we’d already closed our financing, which cannot be repaid for fifteen years.
They no ___________ and again this is a non-profit entity that survives all ____________ for my wife and myself and HUD financing and nothing more. We did not have the ability to get that money. City staff was nice enough to allow us to put that obligation onto Phase II. We are prepared and willing to meet the obligation of Phase II. It’s extremely abnormal that we would have to do that obligation before we get out building permits.
The old process is that we put up a bond, which permits us to close out our loan so we have the money to pay for what we’re being asked to do. That’s what we’d like you to ________________.
I’m very sorry that either one thought that I had intended to deceive. I did not. I don’t why we got ________________. What I do care about is that we’re trying to go to affordable housing. We want to see this project move forward. We think it’s a better solution for the people ____________ we have now. I would really appreciate it if you can help me do that.
Pete Hemingway:
Ok. Go ahead Herman.
Pete Hemingway:
I’d like to try a recommendation.
Pete Hemingway:
Ok
Herman Orcutt:
That should be 2.3 ingress/egress off of 99th Avenue, subject to County approval. Point of
egress 101st shall be restricted to emergency vehicle use only, and shall be converted to such
use when the points if ingress and egress off of 99th Avenue have been constructed.
If the County does not approve the second point of egress off of 99th Avenue, the developer shall work with the City staff to upgrade the loan entry off of 99th Avenue to accommodate the increased traffic.
Now, a jump on the number 2. Building permits for the structure in Phase II shall not be issued until a temporary bridge is constructed over the canal and 99th Avenue to provide construction access, strong enough for fire trucks, to serve the construction activities during that time. A C of O will not be issued for Phase II, until all of the off-site improvements has been completed. A bond shall be required before those off-sites prior to the issuance of a permit.
Pete Hemingway:
Patricia
Patricia Childs:
Can we. I don’t know that we can actually do ________________ building sheets to a change.
Pete Hemingway:
We cannot do stipulations and . . . we’ll ask legal council where we can draw the line.
Gary Coley:
As I understand it, our options are:
1. We can deny the request
2. Approve the request
3. Or modify
Pete Hemingway:
The decision of the Building Official.
Gary Coley:
If there is a question on City County, the discussion that Mr. Orcutt just proposed as the
modification of that decision, is that legal.
Don Jones:
Mr. Chariman, I believe that it is within the scope of the appeal _________ in appropriate
modification of the City Manager’s Representative of the City.
Pete Hemingway:
Alright, so it’s in order. Good.
Scott Mardian:
What are the options with sending it back to staff. And if that’s true, because the Building
Official, are they in a standstill, is there no reasonable expectation that another solution
could be worked out. Is that an option and is the Building Official’s opinion that the would
be fruitless.
Pete Hemingway:
Mr. Wendt or staff.
Rick Doell:
This is heard by the City Manager’s Representative and such as City Manager’s Representative
stipulation on the approval of a site reporting on the property, we could add to permit. So
those ordinances are basically taken care of. That should be the essence what Parish Data is
about.
So the system, we would have to have some sort of approval from that ___________, which shows the site and off-site that said yes, go ahead and issue building permits. The City Manager’s Rep has said that we won’t allow, we won’t give approval and issue those permits. So I would actually have to pull the permits until the City Manager’s Reps says.
Scott Mardian:
Say that last sentence again.
Pete Hemingway:
We cannot issue a permit until the building code _____________ are met and any ordinance that
relates that property. This is part of the separate ordinance from the building official.
Until those requirements are met, we are not in power.
Larry Litchfield:
Let me try to simplify this, because I think we’re piling on a couple of different things here
and it’s confusing. What I understand the decision of the City Manager’s Rep was that, no
building permit can issued until either one or two entrances off of 99th Avenue be developed.
It’s subject to County approved. That’s basically what Herman’s initial motion is about.
So with that in mind, no building permit can be issued until an access, and the way that the original appeal stated that the original 99th Avenue access be developed so that the traffic can go off of 99th Avenue. A second entrance would be an ultimate desire, so that 101st Avenue entrance can be closed to emergency vehicles only. That is when the project is all done.
To get a building permit, an entrance off of 99th Avenue is needed. I think what Herman’s motion indicates is that that could be a temporary bridge access , while all this issue with the County be resolved. It sounds like though the appeal to this board is a little premature, because we don’t know if all the issues, if it’s an issue or not with the County. We probably should not be taking this on because we don’t know if the second entrance will or will not be denied by the County.
For one thing, the City says we need an entrance off of 99th Avenue to allow a building permit to be issued. That’s the issue at hand.
Herman Orcutt:
What I tried to do is go beyond that and say, at the end of the job 101st will be closed and
that one way or another we have two entrances off of 99th, but we had one real good one. That
was my intent for the rest of that.
If we hear it, we don’t have to listen to is down the road in a month or two.
Gary Coley:
Am I hearing Rick’s comment to be that regardless of the language that you proposed here they
are preempted from releasing those permits until physical access on 99th is complete.
Rick Doell:
That’s the decision of City Manager’s rep, yes. The Building Code section 106.4.1, this is
part of that section. There’s a building official ______________ for the work described in the
application for a permit. ____________ specifications and other data, file there with, forms
and requirements of this code and other ________________. And it talks about _____________,
the Building Official shall issued a permit, therefore, to the applicant.
At this point the second area ____________ hasn’t been complied to so, therefore, ______________ compliance shown ____________.
Gary Coley:
And Larry’s comment that the appropriate measure is to kick it back to, to have it readdressed.
Pete Hemingway:
You’re saying to back, or you’re saying that you don’t know.
Larry Litchfield:
There are some outstanding issues that have not been resolved yet. I think Herman’s motion
covers that. It goes global and says, ok do this and this, if you can’t do that, then do this
and this. The bottom line there is either going to be one or two entrances off of 99th.
Somehow the 101st Avenue entrance is going to be only for emergency vehicles only.
Ben Barcon:
Can we clarify the access for access. What does that mean? Does that mean a paved drive way,
does that mean curve gutter, half street improvements. I mean, what is the definition.
Pete Hemingway:
What is the definition that the City will accept.
Walt Cicioni:
That has nothing to do with whether the improvements are on the streets. (Cannot understand tape)
Larry Litchfield:
There are two parts to the driveway connection. That which is on private property and that
which is on the City Right of Way.
Ben Barcon:
What would be the hardship to the developer to provide that driveway entrance? I mean we’re
not talking nor are we recommending the improvement of 99th Avenue, put the irrigation
underground. I mean if the City Manager’s Representative says we gotta have a driveway
entrance off of 99th Avenue, then, I mean that’s all we should be discussing.
The fact that he’s putting a temporary bridge, I mean, how you get it is up to you, I guess. But the requirements are that we have a driveway entrance.
Jeffrey Gross:
We’re not saying it’s a hardship to provide a driveway entrance. We’re saying that the timing
of withholding building permits until the final, final entrance has been built, approved, and
accepted by the City and the County, really puts us in a very difficult position with respect
to our financing.
Pete Hemingway:
Because he can’t do that until January.
Jeffrey Gross:
This is a timing issue, not providing the driveway issue.
Pete Hemingway:
You can’t start construction until January 03, and your financing is October 02.
Jeffrey Gross:
Even if we could work around SRP, it’s very questionable to finish the driveway before October.
Larry Litchfield:
Could I ask you how long the onsite construction work is going to take to do all the sewer and
water and grading that you’re going to have to do for the Phase II development? Is it going to
take more
George Croft:
Some of those projects goes days or so. Now when all of the underground utility work is
done ______________
Larry Litchfield:
What is the plan for this project?
George Croft:
In six phases.
Larry Litchfield:
Six Phases for Phase II.
George Croft:
Correct
Gary Coley:
So the timeline to go __________ for Phase I of that phase.
George Croft:
Approximately so.
Steve Elssmann:
Then at what stage ___________________.
George Croft:
(Cannot understand tape)
Steve Elssmann:
How substantially does the site plan change from ___________ entrances.
Jeffrey Gross:
(Cannot understand tape)
Barbara Koffron:
I guess I’m having a hard time with this. You said that was ___________ issue. Their
anticipating a time___________. I don’t understand what the rush is here, why we can’t wait
until, why we can’t get a decision from the County before we stipulate a bunch a stuff
that _________________.
It just seems to me that _____________________, and if I knew what exactly what you were suppose to do and ________________.
Jeffrey Gross:
Because the next time we get financing would be September, and we have an October financing
deadline.
Barbara Koffron:
If you had your two entrances you would have met the requirements of the City Manager’s
Representative.
Jeffrey Gross:
No, we have to construct the entrances.
Ben Barcon:
How long would it take you to construct the entrances?
Jeffrey Gross:
We have to tile the ditch first, then we would have to construct the entrances.
Ben Barcon:
Time frame what are we looking at.
Larry Litchfield:
But it seems like you’re saying that you’re going to get temporary access, why couldn’t have
two temporary access. I mean it’s, something’s not right with the timing.
Jeffrey Gross:
A ____________ isn’t how many temporary accesses, it’s a difference in getting approvals and
moving forward on and finishing the permanent accesses, rather than getting the temporary
access.
Larry Litchfield:
Mr Orcutt, if you could read the beginning of the motion, because I think that covers that.
Herman Orcutt:
It does.
Pete Hemingway:
Go ahead.
Gary Coley:
According that one motion, the temporary access for construction traffic is one thing, because
it’s your liability. Is it ok to have a temporary bridge for the residential traffic.
Jeffrey Gross:
We won’t allow residential traffic on.
Gary Coley:
No, no, what I’m saying did you have two, assuming that you have one in the north for
construction then have another one at the original access point. If that’s a temporary bridge,
is that allowed?
Jeffrey Gross:
People are proposing one temporary bridge just for construction. That would be the midpoint
for sometime later.
Gary Coley:
Until January?
Jeffrey Gross:
Exactly.
Pete Hemingway:
So that would put all the residence traffic over on 101st Street. Which is where it is now.
But if I understand the City’s position, you want everything off of 99th Avenue, now, or 101st
Avenue still be ok until Phase II is built out.
Jon Wendt:
This is ok for Phase I. Phase II (cannot understand tape)
Pete Hemingway:
So before the C of O’s residential occupancy in Phase II.
Jeffrey Gross:
___________________ could if the applicant preferred original approval. The original approval
would have had the access and full improvements on 99th Avenue in the first place.
Where ____________ City _____________ that delayed.
That’s what we originally accept to doing with preliminary site plan approval.
Darrell Wilson:
I guess I’m a little surprised by that having some development experience here in Phoenix.
I’m surprised that the original approval would not have obligated you to the permits approved.
I guess I’d like to hear some City staff clarify for me there was a reason. I thought I heard
earlier that it was an obligation on this property _________.
George Croft:
Again, _________________ history. At the time we had gotten the County for the major road
improvement, so it was a timing issue.
Pete Hemingway:
I believe that was an original stipulation of the City of Phoenix and it wasn’t contingent upon
Maricopa County improving the roadway, if that’s my understanding, in that, they were anticipating
that those improvements and then the City came back and gave you a delay. They were saying you
could delay those improvements until Phase II, so the City accommodated you in delaying it from
Phase I to Phase II.
Derek Horn:
As far as the Phase I approval on February 2000, it outlines the offsite requirements for the
project, with no mention of delays of any accommodations for the county and other issues. That
came up later in 2000.
Darrell Wilson:
So if I understand correctly, all the City is asking right now is that not ____________ resident
be added to that community to add to a traffic burden on 101st. So ____________provided at
99th Avenue, which is on the original site plan would have occurred with Phase I.
Herman Orcutt:
And will occur now, as we talked. Because we don’t issue a permit, an occupancy permit, until
that’s all done.
Jeffrey Gross:
And what the City is really suggesting goes beyond that. They’re saying we don’t even want you
to start putting a shovel in the ground until we have those accesses on 99th Avenue.
Larry Litchfield:
I think they said you could grade onto these onsite utilities. But they just said that you
couldn’t build buildings.
Derek Horn:
I think this is a very big different, though. I’ve got an awful lot of work to do to work on
the project.
Darrell Wilson:
Personally, I don’t think it’s the City obligation at this time.
Pete Hemingway:
Anymore discussion, points, open discussion, issues.
Scott Mardian:
I would like to see the letter from the housing organization, community association. It’s not
a technical deal, but I’d like to know where that letter is.
Pete Hemingway:
Do we have a copy of that?
Councilman Mattox:
The letter from the Neighborhood Association?
Pete Hemingway:
Yes
Scott Mardian:
Can I see both letter’s if there’s two?
Derek Horn:
We have copies of one letter dated June 26, 2002.
Pete Hemingway:
Is that what you were asking to see?
Scott Mardian:
There was a discussion that there were two letters. One letter supporting the development and
one letter in support of the development. Sorry to take your time.
Pete Hemingway:
That’s ok, we want to make the right decision.
Right now, if the Boards ok, we’d like to have Herman read his suggested recommendation or solution and let’s entertain that.
MOTION:
Herman Orcutt:
PART I
There shall be two point of ingress and egress off of 99th Avenue, subject to County approval.
The point of ingress of egress off of 101st Avenue shall be restricted to emergency vehicle use
as to meet the burden to such use for the points of ingress and egress off of 99th Avenue have
been constructed.
If the County does not approve the second egress point off of 99th Avenue, the developer will then work with the City staff to upgrade the loan entry off of 99th Avenue to support additional traffic.
PART II
Only permits for the structure to Phase II, shall not be issued until the developer provides a
temporary bridge egress connecting 99th Avenue to the structure part of Phase II off of 99th
Avenue. A C of O shall not be issued in Phase II, which means Certificate of Occupancy, until
all off site improvements have been completed and approved and then a bond shall be required
prior to the issuance of the building permit for all those offsite improvements.
Pete Hemingway:
Does everyone understand that or have any other questions in regards to that?
Herman Orcutt:
I’d just like to say one thing. I know Claude Mattox pretty well, and I appreciate his
frustration and I can see it’s been a long journey. On the other hand, pragmatically looking
at this, this is an approved project. I think that in everybody’s best interest that it gets
built and that we have a bond on place that requires and accomplishes all of the offsites to be
done. I guess that’s where I’m coming from.
Forgetting about history and saying ok, what we are is what we are. Let’s assume there were no mistakes in the past and things were done for good reasons, let’s solve the problem and get it done. I guess that’s why I’m coming up with this solution.
Pete Hemingway:
Ok, Barbara.
Barbara Koffron:
I have a question, if we went ahead and voted for this, Derek, with the issue that we can’t
issue the permits anyway, regardless of whether we say, because of the conflict ____________
Rick Doell:
If this modifies the City Manager’s Representative decision and that’s basically holding
permits due to requirements on the off-site improvements then we vote on the issue. That’s the
stipulation for the City Managers Representative keeps us from granting permits to construct
the buildings.
Herman Orcutt:
My understanding, I did modify that stipulation by saying in support of the temporary bridge.
Based on that, permits can be issued.
Don Jones:
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Doell is essentially correct. This Board has the right and power to state
one of three grounds, the pertinent one being, an alternative method of complying with codes or
ordinances, requirements should be approved because the standards set forth below are met. The
alternative approved shall be on the agreed person to demonstrate that the standards are met:
A) Special circumstances or conditions applied that this permit application and
B) Authorizing the alternate methods as necessary for the preservation and in joining the
substantial property rights
C) Authorizing the alternate method will not be materially detrimental to persons residing or
working in the vicinity to adjacent property to the neighborhood, or to the public welfare in
general
D) Authorizing an alternate method as complying with the intent of the subject code or ordinances
or authorizing the alternate methods will not lesson any life safety requirement, any traffic
safety requirement, any fire protection requirement, any structural integrity or any capacity
or required sewer, water, or drainage system.
Larry Litchfield:
So maybe if I could put Herman’s? Are you going to make that a motion?
Bob Goodhue:
In your motion, you say _____________ and Certificate of Occupancy, now Certificate of Occupancy
there’s various types of occupancies. There are conditional certificates of occupancy says you
can occupy before 6 months before a C of O is issued. So the intent is without the conditional,
the intent is not to allow occupancy, my recommendation is just say full occupancy.
Larry Litchfield:
1. The first thing that they need to do is put in a temporary bridge to take the construction traffic off of 101st Avenue.
2. They then need to go to the County and get the one or two access issues resolved.
3. They need take out a grading permit and all the other on-site utilities and get that done.
4. Then they can take out building permits to build, but then they cannot occupy until the 99th Avenue main entrance or
entrances are installed and all other off sites are complete.
Greg Russell:
I still think it’s important to have a bond.
Larry Litchfield:
The bond is automatic. They have to do that anyway.
Pete Hemingway:
Why don’t you put it in a form of a motion and then we’ll see if we can get a second, then we’ll
proceed from there.
MOTION:
Herman Orcutt:
I move in regards to 99th Avenue and Camelback that there be two points of egress and ingress
off of 99th Avenue subject to County approval. The point of egress and ingress off of 101st
Avenue shall be restricted to emergency vehicle use as to be converted to such use for the
points of egress and ingress off of 99th Avenue have been constructed.
If the County does not approve the second point of egress, that the developer shall work with the City staff to upgrade the entry upon 99th Avenue to accommodate all the traffic that will be entering and exiting this property.
The building permits of the structures (Phase II) shall not be issued until the developer has constructed a temporary bridge across 99th Avenue to the Phase II construction area to allow for construction traffic.
Occupancy will not be issued in Phase II by the City, until all of the off site improvements have been completed bonding is required for the issuance of permits for all off site work, which includes the exits or entries from 99th Avenue.
Pete Hemingway:
Do we have a second?
Judy Pavsek:
I second the motion.
Pete Hemingway:
Ok, we have a second.
Any other discussion on the motion? Questions?
Julie Stiak:
There has been such an issue in this case. Is it imperative to add Larry’s step by step account.
It’s been two years to develop the 99th Avenue access way and I think that this is very
important. I don’t think that we should ever have to hear another appeal on this issue. I
want to make sure that we have it this documented.
What we expect of this applicant, has taken up some valuable time. I think it’s a very worthwhile project. I’m glad to see that you’re trying to get HUD housing in this area. I wonder if we shouldn’t add that as a stipulation. Larry identified it very clearly what needs to take place and that the 99th Access Way needs to be done one way the other whether the County approves it.
Gary Coley:
Larry is your synopsis of the process explicit in the process or just to be added.
Larry Litchfield:
If it doesn’t work that way it’s going to fall apart. This becomes a function of that motion
or annex to that motion.
Gary Coley:
Am I correct in assuming that the text of all our discussion on record by way of interpretation
of the motion will be in consideration of other issues?
Don Jones:
Mr. Chairman it would be better if we restated the motion, by reason of utilizing everything
else.
Pete Hemingway:
Do we restate it, or do we amend it or would we just withdraw that motion, or do we just restate it. Add to the motion, is that ok?
Don Jones:
Yes
AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION:
Larry Litchfield:
An amendment to the motion would be:
To describe a step by step approach that the applicant would have to take to make the resolution work.
1) Secure the proper permits and approvals to put in a temporary bridge off of 99th Avenue to the construction
area to eliminate traffic off of 101st Avenue.
2) Go to the County and secure approval of denial of the two access points.
3) Obtain building permits for the buildings you want to do in the six phases that you’ve got.
4) Construct the accesses or access off of 99th Avenue and that is before occupancy takes place in any
part of Phase II.
Don Jones:
Mr. Chairman you can accept the amendment, vote on the amendment, and vote on the whole thing.
Pete Hemingway:
Ok, do I have a second on the amendment.
Julie Stiak:
Second the amendment.
Pete Hemingway:
We have a second on the amendment. Do we have any discussion on the amendment?
Greg Russell:
I’d like to make one comment about it. The temporary bridge needs to be stipulated as the “only
construction access to the property”. I think that is pretty important to the neighborhood.
Gary Coley:
Larry, can you offer that?
Pete Hemingway:
Ok, Larry do you accept this?
Larry Litchfield:
Yes
Julie Stiak:
Seconded the motion.
Pete Hemingway:
Ok, are we all clarified on where we are? We’re voting on the amendment first. Any further
discussion on the amendment?
Ok, all in favor of the amendment to the motion which outlines the specifics of the requirements say I (all in favor), any opposed (no).
No we’re back to the original motion with the stipulations that Larry made.
Any further discussion on our original motion with the stipulations? Would anyone like to hear the motion again?
Ok, with that, we’ll have a vote on the motion.
All in favor, raise your hand: 13
All opposed: 2
Ok, this is the decision.
Barbara Koffron:
Is this the decision or is that the motion?
Pete Hemingway:
That is it, that is the vote on the motion.
Did you have a question, Barbara?
Barbara Koffron:
No, I thought we were voting on another type of motion. I would have not supported this. I am
really opposed to this.
Gary Coley:
Would you like to revote on this?
Barbara Koffron:
Yes
Pete Hemingway:
Does everyone understand that we’re voting on the motion to approve . . .
Gary Coley:
Mr. Chairman, can I call for a recount?
Pete Hemingway:
Ok, let’s call for a recount then. This is the actual motion what we’re going to require with
the stipulations or requirements for the construction to proceed on this Villas at Camelback.
All those in favor, please raise your hand, per the motion: 8
All those opposed, please raise your hand: 7
We’re missing one. Did anybody obstain? Someone didn’t vote. Let’s do it again, I must have missed counted.
All those in favor? Why don’t we just do roll call just to make sure.
John Augustine - Absent
Ben Barcon - No
Patricia Childs - No
Gary Coley - Yes
Steve Elssman - No
Michael Fries - Yes
Peter Hemingway - No
Barbara Koffron - No
Larry Litchfield - Yes
Scott Mardian - No
Herman Orcutt - Yes
Danny Ortega - No
Judy Pavesk - Yes
Greg Russell - Yes
Steve Speer - Yes
Julie Stiak - Yes
Darrell Wilson - Yes
MOTION PASSED WITH 9 IN FAVOR AND 7 OPPOSED
Pete Hemingway:
This did pass 9 to 7.
Gary Coley had a question about the Parish Data Systems Appeal asking where the Boards position was on this. Mr. Don Jones asked Carole Borrego, Secretary III, if the attorney’s representing Parish Data had been informed about the hearing. Ms. Borrego stated that she called the attorney’s office to inform them of the date and time of the hearing but did not send them notification. Mr. Jones responded by saying there are no rules stating that they had to be notified in writing.
MOTION was made by Gary Coley to table the Parish Data Systems appeal until a future meeting, seconded by Herman Orcutt. Motion carried unanimously.
Discussion/Information/Possible Action on Nominations and Election of 2002-2003 Development Advisory Board Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson:
Mr. Coley nominated Mr. Herman Orcutt for Chairperson.
Mr. Barcon then suggested that the Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson serve a second term on the Board.
MOTION was made by Gary Coley to retain Peter Hemingway as Chairperson and Herman Orcutt as Vice Chairperson for the next term,seconded by Greg Russell. Motion carried unanimously.
CALL TO PUBLIC (NO BOARD DISCUSSION):
None
ADJOURNMENT:
MOTION was made by Pete Hemingway, seconded by Gary Coley, to adjourn the July 18, 2002 DAB Meeting. Motion carried unanimously.
Session adjourned at 5:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted:
Rick Doell, P.E.
Deputy Director, Building Official
Minutes Prepared by:
Carole Borrego, Secretary III
| c: |
Board Member Mayor Skip Rimsza City Council Members Mr. Fairbanks Mr. Washington City Clerk Mr. Lyons
|
Mr. Wendt Mr. Doell Mr. Dolasinski Mr. Goodhue Ms. McKinley Ms. Beckley Mr. Bunyard Mr. Fleming Mr. Horne Mr. Kienow Mr. Mundy |
Mr Parks Ms. Reed Mr. Singbush Ms. Stotler Mr. Thurman Ms. Owens
|
Last Modified on 10/05/2002 10:02:08