Planning and Zoning Commission Work-Study Session

Transcription

1 Planning and Zoning Commission Work-Study Session Monday, November 5, :30 PM Library Auditorium 7401 E. Civic Circle Minutes I. Call to Order II. III. Roll Call Chairperson Zurcher asked for roll call attendance to be taken. Members present: Chairperson Zurcher, Vice-Chairperson Renken, Commissioner Roberts, Commissioner Yeater, Commissioner Duskey and Commissioner Rutherford. Staff Present: Joe Scott, Planner; Richard Parker, Community Development Director; Kristi Jones, Administrative Support II and Vikie Anderson, Administrative Supervisor. Discussion Items (NO ACTION TAKEN) Upon the application of Viewpoint89 LLC, David Maguire, Agent, the following requests were discussed in detail: 1. PDP A revised Preliminary Development Plan (Plat) on (2) parcels on the north and south side of Pronghorn Ranch Parkway east of Viewpoint Drive comprising one hundred eighty nine (189) total lots on approximately sixty two (62) acres. 2. ZMC A request for a Zoning Map Change from RCU-70 to R1L-10 PAD on the north and south side of Pronghorn Ranch Parkway east of Viewpoint Drive totaling approximately four (4) acres. 3. GPA A request for a minor General Plan Amendment (GPA) from Low Density Residential to Medium-High Density Residential on two (2) parcels on the north and south side of Pronghorn Ranch Parkway east of Viewpoint Drive totaling approximately forty two (42) acres. 4. ZMC A request for a Zoning Map Change from RCU-70 and R1L-10 PAD to R2-PAD (Residential; Multiple Dwelling Units Planned Area Development) on two (2) parcels on the north and south side of Pronghorn Ranch Parkway east of Viewpoint Drive totaling approximately forty two (42) acres. 1

2 Joe Scott, Planner, presented a detailed staff brief including illustrations in a PowerPoint. Due to the amount of citizens present and public interested in the proposed applications, the Staff Brief document will be included as an attachment to the work-study minutes for the record. Dave Maguire, applicant, addressed the Commission. Mr. Maguire introduced the development team that were present and their respective functions: Development Team Members: David Maguire Project Developer Hilgart Wilson (Architecture, Engineering & Environmental Consulting) Darrell Wilson (Project Engineer) Rob Gubser (Project Planner) Paul Haas (Project Manager) United Civil Group Sarah Simpson (Project Traffic Engineer) Cavan Real Estate Vickey Morris Jon Hamel Rob Gubser, Project Planner, Hilgart Wilson, addressed the Commission. Mr. Gubser presented a slide show which included an overview of each application along with illustrations. Mr. Gubser s presentation is included as an attachment in the work-study minutes for the record. Vickey Morris, Cavan Real Estate, Phoenix, addressed the Commission. Ms. Morris discussed the proposed Bungalows project. Ms. Morris stated the Bungalows are hybrid; multi-living experiences which are single-story multifamily living units that are community centered and are self-contained with very high end amenities. She noted that Flagstaff has this housing product and was fully rented in 30 days and there is an additional 132 units under construction. These units are the highest rentals due to the exclusivity and uniqueness of the product. She added that 150 units were just finished in Peoria, and 150 are under construction in Phoenix, and Goodyear is in the pre-development stage. Ms. Morris had illustrations of floor plans and finished products. (The illustrations are within Rob Gubser s presentation which is attached in these minutes.) Dave Maguire re-addressed the Commission. Mr. Maguire stated that he believes the project is a text book case of good planning for this area, keeping low density up against existing homes, high intensity to the south with commercial and the highway; buffering the medium-high density with the developments own single detached neighborhoods on the north; and addressing all the needs for the required infrastructure and improvements. Mr. Maguire 2

3 feels the development is what the Town has envisioned for this location. He noted that the development team of experts was available to answer any questions. Chairperson Zurcher asked for questions from Commission for Staff. Vice-Chairperson Renken asked that once the PAD is in place for the two residential parcels, will there be a requirement for a landscaping buffer or break between the existing Pronghorn Ranch homes and separation from the R2 properties, and if the Commission has the option to suggest additional requirements if needed. Mr. Scott stated that details would be defined in the Preliminary Development Plan and the Commission would have the opportunity to review and provide comments and/or suggestions at that time. Vice-Chairperson Renken asked what the acreage was for the parcels that Cavan are interested in developing. Mr. Gubser confirmed that the southeast parcel is 23.1 acres and the northwest parcel is 16.4 acres. Rick Chase, Fire Marshall, addressed the Commission. Commissioner Roberts expressed his concern regarding the entrances and exits and if they were adequate for additional development, specific to fire emergencies. Mr. Chase stated that the fire department does dictate required water access, and how many ingresses and egresses are needed from communities; however, traffic engineers are the ones that conduct the traffic impact analysis to determine what the impact of additional development will have on the roadways and what improvements will be needed. Vice-Chairperson Renken asked about the two parcels that are zoned RCU-70 and if they could be acted upon separately. Mr. Scott stated that it has been discussed that the two parcels can move forward as two separate Zoning Map Change applications and take action on the parcel that has all information ready for development and hold the other application until data is complete. Commissioner Duskey asked if the intent was to utilize the entire parcel C. Mr. Maguire answered yes the intent is to develop the Bungalow project on the entire Parcel C. Vice-Chairperson Renken asked if the R2 properties were approved, would the 3

4 traffic analysis become relevant and the improvements to the Parkway be required. Mr. Maguire stated that the TIA has been submitted to staff and upon their review, specific requirements for traffic improvements at various stages. For instance, single-family detached will happen first and then it would be nine months or more before adequate infrastructure is completed to develop the models. The development will be a gradual transition phased out over time. Vice-Chairperson Renken asked Ms. Morris if the Bungalow project moves forward, is there a timeframe for development. Ms. Morris stated that they are highly motivated and would begin immediately if possible, however, understand the development standards that are required by the Town such as landscape, private internal roadways, etc. Typically, the phases of development for this project are run concurrently which can bring the timeframe to nine to ten (9-10) months. Ms. Morris stated that they experienced a high demand for this product type in other areas and they can t seem to build them fast enough. Chairperson Zurcher asked for clarification if there is any developed property within Prescott Valley in a RCU-70 zoning district, or is it merely a placeholder and the zoning would have to be changed to accommodate any project. Richard Parker, Community Development Director, addressed the Commission. Mr. Parker stated that there is one property north of Viewpoint that is a ten (10) acre horse ranch that pre-existed the annexation into the Town and currently remains as a ten (10) acre horse ranch. Vice-Chairperson Renken asked about the traffic study and if all the properties were developed how many access points onto Pronghorn Ranch Parkway would there be. Sarah Simpson, traffic engineer, addressed the Commission. Ms. Simpson stated that they are proposing four (4) at the existing median breaks and two (2) rightin right-out points. Vice-Chairperson Renken asked what possible problems could exist and what would be the plan to minimize any traffic issues. Ms. Simpson stated that the use of deceleration lanes, along with adequate site distance, as well as stop signs utilized in the single-family and medium density areas would address these concerns. She noted that eventually the commercial area, depending upon the size, could require a traffic signal if warranted in the future. 4

5 Chairperson Zurcher asked about the intersection at Pronghorn Ranch Parkway and Antelope Meadows Drive and if the traffic analysis recommended any specific improvements for that intersection. Ms. Simpson stated that as volumes increase, it could warrant a 4-way stop at that intersection or a traffic signal, however, it is all based on volume. Commissioner Roberts commented that he would like to hear more specific data and definite recommendations for improvements in regards to traffic as the project moves forward. Vice-Chairperson Renken asked about the time duration for Town staff to analyze a Traffic Impact Analysis and provide comment. Mr. Parker stated ten (10) working days. Chairperson Zurcher remarked that although Mr. Maguire s development proposal is not unusual, and the renderings of the development do not look out of character for the area, does Mr. Maguire have an opinion as to why his proposal has been aggressively opposed by Viewpoint and Pronghorn residents, and does he feel there was anything different he could have done to calm the fears of those opposed. Mr. Maguire stated that sometimes change is difficult for people and many residents never anticipated higher densities in that area, so maybe going door to door to get factual information out in advance of the first neighborhood meeting could have made a difference. Mr. Maguire indicated that he followed all notification protocol required by the Town and distributed his contact information so he could engage anyone that may have questions via mail, or telephone. He believes he received three inconsequential calls. Mr. Maguire stated that he chose zoning to give the most flexibility, however, never intended to develop high density apartments. He tried to stress the development would be a high quality product with high end amenities and no subsidized housing. The Bungalows are an upscale single-family product that are leased and professionally managed and maintained. In closing, Mr. Maguire stated that he and his grown children and families are vested in this area for the future, and he believes the proposal is appropriate land use with proper transitioning zoning. Additionally, he noted that all traffic concerns will be addressed with the outcome of the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA). He believes the development will be a great addition to the Town and looks forward to working with the Town and bringing the project to fruition. Chairperson Zurcher asked if there were any retailers interested in the commercial area. 5

6

7 Community Development Department 7501 E. Civic Circle Prescott Valley, Arizona Ph Fax comdev.pvaz.net TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FOR: November 5, 2018 Meeting FROM: Joseph Scott, Town Planner DATE: October 20, 2018 RE: Antelope Park- Work-Study Discussion Items STAFF REPORT Applicant/Agent: David Maguire 4121 W. Oraibi Dr Glendale AZ, Current Land Use / Zoning: Low Density Residential / RCU-70, R1L-10 PAD \ Upon the application of Viewpoint89 LLC, David Maguire, Agent, the following requests: 1. PDP A revised Preliminary Development Plan (Plat) on (2) parcels on both sides of Pronghorn Ranch Parkway east of Viewpoint Drive comprising one hundred eighty-nine (189) total lots on approximately sixty-two (62) acres (Exhibit 1, Area A ). 2. ZMC A request for a Zoning Map Change from RCU-70 (Residential; Single Family Rural) to R1L-10 PAD (Residential; Single Family Limited Planned Area Development) on the north and south side of Pronghorn Ranch Parkway east of Viewpoint Drive totaling approximately four (4) acres (Exhibit 1, Area B ). 3. GPA A request for a minor General Plan Amendment (GPA) From Low Density Residential to Medium-High Density Residential on two (2) parcels on the north and south side of Pronghorn Ranch Parkway east of Viewpoint Drive totaling approximately forty-two (42) acres (Exhibit 1, Area C ). 4. ZMC A request for Zoning Map Change from RCU-70 (Residential; Single Family Rural) and R1L-10 PAD (Residential; Single Family Limited Planned Area Development) to R2-PAD (Residential; Multiple Dwelling Units Planned Area Development) on two (2) parcels on the north and south side of Pronghorn Ranch Parkway east of Viewpoint Drive totaling approximately forty-two (42) acres (Exhibit 1, Area C ).

8 Existing Land Use (General Plan 2025) 2

9 Existing Zoning Annexation and Adjacent Subdivisions The subject property for all the requests was part of ANX 98-A comprising 155 acres and annexed into the Town of Prescott Valley by Ordinance No. 474 on August 26, The existing Yavapai County zoning for the subject property was RCU-2A and the new Prescott Valley zoning classification of RCU-70 was adopted (being the most similar to the County zoning). The Viewpoint property was annexed in September The zoning and preliminary development plan for the first six hundred (600) lots in the southern portion of the Viewpoint Subdivision was approved in The Planning and Zoning Commission approved the preliminary development plan/plat for Viewpoint North in 1997, consisting of 1,106 additional lots and providing for 1,986 additional dwelling units. The total approval for the 3

10 Viewpoint project consisted of 1,706 lots and 2,586 total dwelling units. At their January 13, 2003 meeting, the Commission approved a third amendment and the total number of dwelling units was reduced to 2,270 units. Traffic Circulation Generation of the Concept Report discussed additional lanes needed for Viewpoint Drive when the project development exceeds the number of lots and tracts that would allow the construction of approximately 1,320 dwelling units. Total platted lots are 1,464 of 2,270 approved units. The Viewpoint has exceeded the number approved dwelling units indicated by the number of approved single family lots. Condition No. 20 of Ordinance No. 354 also requires said improvements per of the Agreement before any further lots are approved. Land for Pronghorn Ranch was annexed in February At the May 8, 2000 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the rezoning of approximately 640 acres for the Pronghorn Ranch development form RCU-70 to R1L-10 PAD, RS-3 PAD, PL-PAD and approved the related Preliminary Development Plan (Preliminary Plat) for 1,440 residential units subject to a Preliminary Adequacy Determination (PAD) from the Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR). At its regular meeting May 25, 2000, the Town Council considered the proposed re-zoning and voted to approve Ordinance No.486. Previous Land use Zoning Changes 4

11 ZMC Antelope Park Residential (Area A ) An application was filed in February of 2006 by Coyote Springs, L.L.C, requesting re-zoning of approximately sixty (60) acres for the Antelope Park development from RCU-70 zoning (Residential; Conditional Use Permit) to R1L-10 PAD zoning (Residential; Single- Family Limited - Planned Area Development). The Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on said application at its regular meeting on April 10, 2006 and voted to recommend approval of the Zoning Map Change, along with the Preliminary Development Plan for 177 lots for single-family detached dwellings, in that the requested rezoning is compatible with the designation of Low Density Residential as indicated on the General Plan The Town Council considered this recommendation at its regular meeting May 25, 2006, and approved Ordinance No ZMC Antelope Park Commercial (Area D ) Coyote Springs, L.L.C., and Antelope Village L.L.C. jointly submitted a request for a Zoning Map Change from RCU-70 (Residential; Conditional Use Permits) to C2-PAD (Commercial; General Sales and Service - Planned Area Development) on the subject thirty (30) acres generally located at the southeast intersection of Viewpoint Drive and Pronghorn Ranch Parkway, north of State Route 89A. The Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on said application at its regular meeting on November 13, 2006 and recommended approval of the ZMC along with the Preliminary Development Plan. The Town Council approved Ordinance No. 678 at the January 25, 2007 meeting. The ZMC and PDP are in place and can be amended in the future subject to Commission approval. The applicant may take ownership of the easterly 24 acres. Pronghorn Development L.L.C. owns the westerly 6 acres. 5

12 Review of Work-Study Items 1 & 2 ZMC A request for a Zoning Map Change from RCU-70 to R1L-10 PAD on the north and south side of Pronghorn Ranch Parkway east of Viewpoint Drive totaling approximately four (4) acres (Exhibit 1, Area B ). PDP A revised Preliminary Development Plan/Plat (PDP) on (2) parcels on both south side of Pronghorn Ranch Parkway east of Viewpoint Drive comprising one hundred eighty-nine (189) total lots on approximately sixty-two (62) acres (Exhibit 1, Area A ). Proposal Summary This rezoning request as shown in Exhibit 1, Area B is essentially a clean-up of the existing zoning boundary approved in 2006 to reflect the proposed changes in the Preliminary Development Plan approved with ZMC The added four (4) acres of R1L-10 PAD zoning to accommodate the revised PDP is in conformance with the existing underlying Low Density Residential designation of the General Plan The streets were redesigned to allow for a more efficient utilization of the site and lot configurations. An additional twelve (12) lots were added with the approval of the revised PDP by the Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) to obtain a an updated Certificate of Assured Water Supply (CAWS) for the revised PDP shown on Parcels A & B below. The PDP has been reviewed by Town Staff and Central Arizona Fire and Medical for emergency access. Antelope Park single family neighborhoods are located along the entire north boundary of the site and serves as a buffer to proposed medium-high density and commercial uses closer to the freeway. 6

13 Single-Family Residential The images provided below reflect the housing product that may be constructed in the R1L-10 PAD development parcels. The top row includes homes that would be indicative of the 65 wide lots. The second row would be the 55 wide product. These examples are to illustrate the bulk and size but not the exact elevations and materials. The architectural style of the homes would be harmonious with the surrounding homes in Viewpoint and Pronghorn. Review of Work-Study Items 3 & 4 (42 Acre Portion) GPA A request for a minor General Plan Amendment (GPA) From Low Density Residential to Medium-High Density Residential on two (2) parcels on the north and south side of Pronghorn Ranch Parkway east of Viewpoint Drive totaling approximately forty two (42) acres (Exhibit 1, Area C ). ZMC A request for Zoning Map Change from RCU-70 and R1L-10 PAD to R2-PAD (Residential; Multiple Dwelling Units Planned Area Development) on two (2) parcels on the north and south side of Pronghorn Ranch Parkway east of Viewpoint Drive totaling approximately fortytwo (42) acres (Exhibit 1, Area C ). Discussion The applicant has submitted a concurrent General Plan Amendment and Zoning Map Change request for two (2) parcels on the north and south side of Pronghorn Ranch Parkway east of Viewpoint Drive totaling approximately forty-two (42) gross acres (Exhibit 1, Area C ). The General Plan Amendment, application GPA18-002, is for a minor General Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential (1.1 4 du/ac) to Medium-High Density Residential ( du/ac). The Zoning Administrator has previously determined that the request does not meet the criteria or acreage 7

14 thresholds to qualify for a Major under Section of General Plan The concurrent Zoning Map Change application, ZMC18-007, requests to change the zoning on the 42-acre property from RCU-70 to R2-PAD (Residential; Multiple Dwelling Units Planned Area Development), which is consistent with the proposed Medium-High Density Residential land use designation. The PAD Overlay proposes modifications to the development standards, such as lot dimensions, building height, setbacks, parking and lot coverage and is intended to provide flexibility in design, establish the development character, encourage variation, establish a sense of place, and promote an efficient use of land. General Plan Amendment GPA The Town s General Plan 2025 establishes guiding principles, goals, and policies as a blueprint to guide the Town s development. The updated and revised General Plan 2025 was adopted August 9, 2012 with unanimous vote of the Mayor and Council and after consideration by the Planning Commission at two (2) public hearings. The plan was ratified by the voters at the regularly scheduled municipal election on March 12, Adoption of General Plan 2025 enhances the Council s ability to take advantage of future possible economic development opportunities as the plan represents a fresh snap shot of the Town s characteristics and demography. The General Plan is intended to be a semi-fluid document that can adapt organically to the Town s adopted goals and policies. The current Low Density designation was a result of the General Plan 2020 and subsequent updated General Plan 2025 adopting the land use designation that was appropriate for the underlying RCU-70 zoning district that existed at the time of annexation (ANX 98-A). This was also the case when the adjacent 24 acre commercial property was that was adopted as Community Commercial land use designation in the General Plan 2020 and subsequent updated General Plan The Medium - High Density Residential provides for a residential density range of dwelling units per acre (du/ac). These densities would accommodate attached single-family homes, apartments, townhomes, and condominiums close to employment and service areas, and to buffer low density residential areas. Zoning districts compatible with the MHDR designation include: R1M and R2. The proposed rezoning to R2-PAD (Residential; Multiple Dwelling Units Planned Area Development) is consistent with the Medium - High Density Residential designation. Zoning Map Change ZMC The purpose of the R2-PAD (Residential; Multiple Dwelling Units Planned Area Development) is to provide for development of multiple family residences in areas where a higher density of housing is desirable within the densities of the underlying General Plan designation. Also allowed are all principal and accessory uses and structures permitted in the R1L and R1M Districts, subject to all of the requirements in Article R1L (Residential; Single Family Limited) and Article R1M (Residential; Single Family Mixed Housing), The R2-PAD zoning would allow for a diversity in housing product. The applicant is currently exploring several options, including one to two-story townhomes. The second option would be a bungalow style single-family community. The bungalows would function like a grouping of attached and detached single-family luxury homes that would be akin to a compact single family subdivision offering centralized amenities for residents of the development. In addition, each home would offer the benefit of a privately enclosed backyard, unlike that of a traditional higher density and multi- 8

15 family developments. Either of the housing types shown would provide for a unique blend of urban and traditional single-family living not currently found in the area. A mix of housing types are intended to: 1. Provide proportional ratios of low, to medium-high density residential products. 2. Support a transition from a high intensity traffic corridor and 24 acres of commercial to a low intensity use. 3. Provide a transitional buffer from the nearby highway and planned commercial parcel. Protects and buffers neighboring residential. 4. Provide compatible land use relationships. A few representative examples of the architectural styles of the various housing types are provided below. These examples are to illustrate the bulk and size but not the exact elevations and materials: 9

16 Preliminary Development Plans In conjunction with a Rezoning, approval of a specific Preliminary Development Plan (PDP) for any development phase will be reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission, or be required as a Condition of Approval to be brought to the Commission for review and approval prior to any development taking place. A Preliminary Development Plan which shall contain necessary written and graphic information describing the general nature of the proposed development as required by the Town of Prescott Valley. A Preliminary Development Plan shall contain, at a minimum, the following information: 1. Relationship of the property to the surrounding areas that will be affected by the proposed PAD. 2. A map showing the street system, lot lines and topography. 3. Proposed pattern of residential and/or commercial land uses, including areas to be conveyed, dedicated or reserved for parks, parkways, playgrounds, school sites, public buildings and other similar public and semi-public uses, and the underlying zoning district. 4. A conceptual site plan for each building site and common open areas, showing the approximate location of all structures, buildings and improvements (except for single family detached units which shall be indicated by lot location only). The site plan shall also indicate the open spaces around buildings and structures. 5. Preliminary plans and elevations of all building types. [These need not be the result of final architectural decisions and need not be in detail.] 6. An off-street parking and circulation diagram indicating the proposed movement of vehicles within the development and to and from the existing thoroughfares. 7. A tabulation of the total number of acres in the proposed project and a tabulation of overall density per gross acre. 8. Agreements or provisions of conveyance which govern the use, maintenance and continued protection of the planned development and any of its open areas. Town Staff and other Agencies including the Fire Marshall will review all plans. If the Commission finds that the Preliminary Development Plan is consistent with the underlying zoning district and the objectives of the General Plan, the applicant shall then prepare and submit a Final Development Plan. The Commission may require that the applicant modify, alter, adjust or amend the Preliminary Development Plan in a manner, and to an extent, as it may be necessary and appropriate to the public interest. 10

17 Civic Engagement The first neighborhood meeting was held at the Transportation Meeting Room of the Humboldt School District, 6411 N Robert Road, Prescott Valley, Arizona on Wednesday August 22, 2018 at 6:00 pm. David Maguire opened with a presentation of the proposal informing the group that a Minor General Plan Amendment, a rezoning application and a Preliminary Development Plan (PDP) for a 129 acre site north of 89A east of Pronghorn Ranch Parkway had been submitted to the Town of Prescott Valley for review. He explained the site location including infrastructure availability. This is the first step in the process. There will be a hearing at the Planning Commission and at City Council. He went on to explain that he was seeking rezoning for higher densities and a downzoning of a portion of the commercial zoning already in place. State Route 89A is a major transportation corridor with significant noise and visual impact. The highway is very visible from the property. Viewpoint Drive is a major arterial that will be widened to 4 lanes in the near future and extended south of 89A to connect to the existing Viewpoint Road through the State land. This location is well suited for higher intensity uses because of the proximity of major transportation routes and the availability of utilities. He explained how this proposal met many of the General Plan 2025 guidelines and policies and was a very logical place for higher density housing choices. An explanation was given of the type of multi-family planned included densities in the range of 6-8du/ac similar to the Garden Homes built by Mandalay at the SEC of Antelope Meadows Drive and Park View. Another potential would be a townhouse neighborhood in the range of 12-14du/ac. It was stated that current market research did not indicate that there would be a market for apartments on this property. The hope is that by reducing the commercial size to be tailored to a grocery store and with the development of the site, there could be a grocery store there within 5 years. It was noted that the single family subdivisions at the north boundary of the site were not part of this application. (the PDP application). These neighborhoods will provide a great transition to the proposed multi-family. It was estimated that there were 300 people in attendance. 331 signatures were counted on the sign-in sheets. Many people could not get in because of the overcrowding. The venue was inadequate for this number of people. The Town Fire Marshal required that the meeting be terminated after about 45 minutes. Mr. Maguire promised a follow up meeting with better information on the multi-family products proposed As a result of the first Neighborhood Meeting, the applicant has modified the submittal based on feedback received from the public during the first of two civic engagement meeting. At the time of initial submittal, the Applicant requested a Minor General Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential and Community Commercial to Mixed Use for approximately 57.5 acres in the middle of the overall Site. The Mixed Use designation would have allowed residential densities up to 30 dwelling units per acre (30 du/ac) and floor area ratios (FAR) up to 1.50, ranging from one- to threestory buildings. A concurrent Zoning Map Change to RS-PAD (Residential and Services) would have been consistent with the proposed Mixed Use land use designation. A second neighborhood meeting was held in the Cafeteria of the Humboldt School District, 6411 N Robert Road, Prescott Valley, Arizona on Saturday September 29, 2018 from 10am to 2pm. An open house format was chosen to better address neighborhood interest and questions on a personal level. There were four stations with identical display boards showing the Conceptual Site Plan, the Proposed Rezoning and Minor General Plan Amendment (GPA) request, Single Family Home Product and Medium Density Home Product. There were 318 attendees who signed the Sign in sheets. Approximately 80 additional people attended but did not sign in. General information was provided regarding the original submittal for a Minor General Plan Amendment and Rezoning 11

18 request versus the new proposal. It was explained that the original GPA was for Mixed Use and the new request is for Medium-High Density Residential. In regard to Rezoning, the original request was for approximately 62 acres of RS which allowed up to 30 du/ac. The new request reduces the amount of multi-family to approximately 42 acres at a maximum density of 15 du/ac and a two-story limitation. The original request had also reduced the amount of existing Commercial to 11 acres while the current request leaves the existing 25 acres of Commercial as is. In regard to the Single Family Preliminary Development Plan for the northern portion of the site, it was explained that the applicant will be making a rezoning submittal to clean up the rezoning boundaries to conform to the new configuration of the single family neighborhoods. A more detailed report on both meeting is attached as A. Lists of attendees who signed in for each meeting is available at the Community Development Department. Transportation and Circulation A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) is being completed for the Property based on the proposed land uses. The TIA identifies the required roadway improvements that need to be constructed during the development of the Antelope Park. Development of the Property will dedicate roadways where appropriate for access from abutting roadways and for internal circulation. It is anticipated that streets within the R-2 PAD areas would be private. Upgrades to the existing roadway system will occur with the development of Antelope Park to accommodate traffic generated by this site. This project will offer a widened Pronghorn Ranch Parkway, intersection improvements, and participation in improvements to Viewpoint between 89A and Pronghorn Ranch Parkway. In addition, intersection improvements at Viewpoint Drive/Pronghorn Ranch Parkway will be recommended to accommodate traffic. The widening of Viewpoint Drive from 89A to Pronghorn Ranch Parkway may be recommended during the first phase of development to assist with alleviating existing traffic congestion during the morning and evening peak hours at the SR89A/Viewpoint Drive interchange. See Traffic Exhibit on next page. The minimum study area includes all site access drives and all signalized intersection and/or major unsignalized street intersections within one mile of the development. The study intersections for this TIA are defined as follows: -Viewpoint Drive/SR89A -Viewpoint Drive/Pronghorn Ranch Parkway -Antelope Meadows Drive/Pronghorn Ranch Parkway -Proposed site accesses/prong Ranch Parkway The study s projected time frame shall include the opening year of the development, 5 years after opening and 10 years after opening. Phase I (2020) 190 Single Family Detached Housing Units (parcels A and B) Phase II (2021) 347Multi-Family Housing Units (15 units/acre) (parcel C) Phase III (2022) Multi-Family Housing Units (15 units/acre) (parcel D) Phase IV (2025) 263,000 square feet of Shopping Center (0.25 FAR) (parcel E) 12

19 Grading and Drainage The Property generally slopes to the east and northeast. The ultimate drainage outfall for the site is at the northeast corner of the Property to an existing culvert that crosses under Antelope Meadows Drive. There is minor offsite runoff from the south that will be conveyed across the Property via channels and/or storm drain to the ultimate outfall location. Offsite runoff from the west crosses Viewpoint Drive at two locations and is conveyed across the Property along Pronghorn Ranch Parkway to the ultimate outfall point. Future development on the Property will be graded in a manner that will allow storm water runoff to drain from developed parcels into the streets and from the streets into designated storm water storage facilities. Storm water storage facilities will be constructed to reduce post development runoff exiting to Property equal to or less than existing conditions. Future development will comply with all local, state, and federal storm water regulations. Water/Sewer Water and wastewater services will be provided by the Town of Prescott Valley. The Town is not designated as having an Assured Water Supply. However, the Property does have a 100-year Certificate of Assured Water Supply (CAWS). The Town has made a large investment in order to provide utilities to this area in anticipation of development and there will be some reimbursement to the Town by developers. The Town has an existing 16-inch sewer main in Antelope Meadows Drive near the northeast corner of the Property that extends east and then south to the Prescott Valley Wastewater Treatment Plan (WWTP). The WWTP has the necessary capacity to provide service for future development of the Property. Wastewater flow will be routed through adequately sized sewer lines to connect to the existing sewer line in Antelope Meadows Drive. Additional details for the proposed wastewater system improvements will be provided in the final wastewater report that will be submitted with the Final Development Plan. There is an existing 12 water line stub in Pronghorn Ranch Parkway at the northern parcel boundary and an existing 16 water line at the intersection of 13

20 the Parkway and Viewpoint. These two water lines will be connected with the construction of this project creating an important link in the overall water delivery system. There may be misconceptions that rental properties would get free water. There are many Development fees charged by the Town in the form of water and sewer capacity fees, meter fees, etc. intended to support operation and expansion of Town infrastructure and facilities. Summary Review Conformance to the General Plan 2025 The proposed amendment to permit Medium-High Density Residential on the Property will advance many of the Goals and Policies of the General Plan. More specifically, the proposed General Plan Amendment meets the following GOAL: LU-A4 Ensure that new development is compatible with surrounding land uses, the circulation network, the availability of public facilities, and with existing development constraints. POLICIES: LU-A4.3 Assure that the type and intensity of land use shall be consistent with that of the immediate neighborhood. LU-A4.4 Establish development patterns that combine residential with other compatible uses in mixed use areas, the Town Center, or near employment centers. GOAL: LU-A7 Provide for a fully balanced residential mix, which includes a wide range of housing by location, type of unit, and price, to accommodate various income levels, family size, age and physical restraints, and addresses both owner and rental households. POLICIES: LU-A7.3 Encourage the provision of adequate housing to meet the needs of families of all sizes. LU-A7.4 Locate affordable housing close to employment centers, including housing for seasonal workers. LU-A7.5 Locate greater residential densities near major employment centers to reduce vehicle miles traveled per capita and help to maintain air quality. Refer to the Circulation and Growth Areas Elements for additional goals and policies related to reducing the dependency on automobiles. GOAL: LU-A9 Residential neighborhoods shall be integrated with central activity focal points to reinforce the sense of community. POLICIES: LU-A9.1 Promote "planned area developments." Future residential areas shall be focused around a community center that should include a school, park, convenience/activity uses and other multi-purpose facilities. Further, the proposed Minor General Plan Amendment meets the following Goals and Policies of the Housing Element (Chapter 5): 14

21 GUIDING PRINCIPLE H-A: PROMOTE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT THAT INFILLS EXISTING CAPACITIES GOAL: H-A1 Encourage housing development that absorbs existing capacities in infrastructure. POLICIES: H-A1.1 Support development that is located adjacent or in close proximity to existing utility and roadway infrastructure. H-A1.2 Support development that builds out existing neighborhoods and master planned communities. GUIDING PRINCIPLE H-B: SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT THAT OFFERS ALTERNATIVES TO TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGN GOAL: H-B1 Promote housing development that accommodates the needs of all households, regardless of income. Antelope Park includes single family home neighborhoods along the entire north boundary of the site. The logical progression of the medium-high density then buffers the single family homes and provides density transitions to the more intense existing commercial zoning and freeway. It is much less desirable for single family homes to be adjacent to commercial properties and freeways. Therefore, this is a great example of appropriate and responsible land use planning and transitional land use. Applications for the proposed Antelope Park are consistent in substance and location with the development objectives of the Town s General Plan Therefore, the proposed Minor General Plan Amendment with a concurrent Zoning Map Change and the R-2 Planned Area Development Overlay are supported by the following conclusions: The proposal will provide for a diversity of housing type that is currently underserved in the Town. The Property has excellent access near the Viewpoint/SR-89A Interchange. The proposal will be compatible with surrounding residential developments, and will provide a transitional buffer between the commercial uses associated with the freeway interchange and the low-density residential districts to the north. The completed project will provide for a high-quality community and would accommodate a diversity in housing to offer lifestyle choices. Additional population/rooftops developed on the Property may help trigger commercial development on the existing C-2 PAD site. Specifically, future development will serve the following objectives of the General Plan: Create new infill development; Create new housing opportunities/choices in a growth area of the Town; Expand public services and infrastructure (roads, water, sewer); and Optimize the use of public facilities proximate to the Viewpoint/SR-89A Interchange. 15

22

23

24

25

26

27 Town of Prescott Valley Planning and Zoning Commission Work-Study Session November 5, 2018

28 Introduction Team Members David Maguire HilgartWilson Darrell Wilson Rob Gubser Paul Haas United Civil Group Sarah Simpson Cavan Real Estate Vickey Morris Jon Hamel

29 Vicinity Map

30 Request Overview 1. PDP (Area A): i. Revised PDP for 62 acres 189 lots 2. ZMC (Area B): i. Zoning map change for approximately 4 acres from RCU-70 to R1L GPA18-002: (Area C) i. Minor General Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium-High Density Residential for approximately 42 acres 4. ZMC (Area C): i. Zoning map change from RCU-70 and R1L-10 to R2-PAD for approximately 42 acres

31 Context Map

32 Existing General Plan

33 Existing General Plan

34 Existing Zoning

35 Existing Zoning

36 History Subject Site was annexed into the Town 1. Overall area assigned RCU-70 zoning 1. Most comparable zoning to County s RCU-2A Rezoned from RCU-70 to R1L-10 PAD acres 2. PDP Lot Single Family Residential RCU-70 to C2-PAD i. 30 acres ii. PDP Commercial Development

37 Previous PDPs

38 Request Overview 1. PDP (Area A): i. Revised PDP for 62 acres 189 lots 2. ZMC (Area B): i. Zoning map change for approximately 4 acres from RCU-70 to R1L GPA18-002: (Area C) i. Minor General Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium-High Density Residential for approximately 42 acres 4. ZMC (Area C): i. Zoning map change from RCU-70 and R1L-10 PAD to R2-PAD for approximately 42 acres

39 Zoning Map Change

40 PDP Request

41 Single Family Home Product Examples

42 Request Overview 1. PDP (Area A): i. Revised PDP for 62 acres 189 lots 2. ZMC (Area B): i. Zoning map change for approximately 4 acres from RCU-70 to R1L GPA18-002: (Area C) i. Minor General Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium-High Density Residential for approximately 42 acres 4. ZMC (Area C): i. Zoning map change from RCU-70 and R1L-10 PAD to R2-PAD for approximately 42 acres

43 Minor General Plan Amendment Acres 2. Low Density Residential to Medium-High Density Residential 1. Density range from dwelling units per acre 2. Accommodate various residential product type 1. Single-family homes 2. Townhomes 3. Apartments 4. Condominiums 3. Compatible Zoning Categories R1M and R2 Existing Proposed

44 Zoning Map Change 1. RCU-70 and R1L-10 PAD to R2-PAD acres 2. R1L-10 reflects area change from new PDP 3. R2-PAD in conformance with requested General Plan land use category

45 R2-PAD Proposed Development Standards 1. Specific PAD standards based on product type 2. Up to 15 dwelling units per acre 3. Limit to 2 stories (30 in height) 4. For sale or leasable units 5. Development will require a PDP and Final Development Plan

46 Support 1. Appropriate Land Use Planning 1. High Intensity Traffic Corridor acres of C2 Commercial Zoning 1. Large lot residential not appropriate adjacent to intense uses 2. Step down in intensity of uses 3. Buffers existing and future single family development 2. RCU-70 = Classified as a rural zoning district 1. Not intended for urban areas of the Town 3. Creates a diversity of housing product 4. Responsive to the vacancy rate in Prescott Valley 1. Need for greater housing types 5. Meets Multiple Goals and Policies of the Adopted General Plan 2025

47 Infrastructure & Improvements Water Served by the Town 100-year Certificate of Assured Water Supply for Single-Family PDP Recently received reissuance for all parcels Existing water lines in Pronghorn Ranch Parkway at Viewpoint and at the northern boundary Water lines will be connected creating an important link Development fees will be charged Reimbursements will be collected Sewer Existing sewer main in Antelope Meadows Drive PV WWTP has adequate capacity to accommodate Antelope Park Grading and Drainage Slopes east/northeast Ultimate outfall is at northeast corner of the site Grading will convey water to storm water facilities

48 Phase 1 Traffic Viewpoint Dr Single Family Homes Medium-High Density Add right and left turn lanes C A Single Family Homes Lengthen right turn lane Commercial Medium-High Density Widen Viewpoint Dr to 4 lanes Review signal timing

49 Phase II Traffic Viewpoint Dr Single Family Homes Medium-High Density C B A Single Family Homes Add right and left turn lanes Medium-High Density Commercial

50 Phase III Traffic Lengthen storage lanes Viewpoint Dr Add right and left turn lanes Single Family Homes Medium-High Density Widen Pronghorn to 4 lanes C B A Single Family Homes F E Commercial Medium-High Density

51 Phase IV Traffic Viewpoint Dr Dual left turn lanes Single Family Homes Medium-High Density D E F C B A Single Family Homes Medium-High Density Signalize Commercial Add right and left turn lanes Evaluate Interchange

52 Civic Engagement 1 st Meeting (August 22, 2018 Transportation Meeting Room Humboldt School District) General overview of the project in a presentation format Included the previous request to rezone portion of the C2 commercial and all of the RCU-70 to RS- PAD Approximately 331 signatures on the sign-in sheet Due to overcrowding, Fire Marshall terminated the meeting 2 nd Meeting (September 29 th, 2018 Humboldt School District Cafeteria) Saturday - 10am to 2pm General overview of the project in a small group format (4 total stations) Provided an overview of the project and the associated changes based on previous feedback 318 signatures on the sign-in sheet, with approximately 400 people in attendance Adjacent Neighborhood Contact Two weeks ago - Mailings to adjacent property owner along the northern boundary (first two streets) Last Friday Expanded the mailing and contact list

53 Product Examples - Townhomes

54 Cavan Real Estate - Bungalows

55 Cavan Real Estate - Bungalows

56 Exterior Images

57 Floor Plans 2 Bedrooms 1 Bedroom 3 Bedrooms

58 Interior Images

59 Amenities

60 Summary and Questions