|
ITEM 4 |
Planning & Zoning Commission Memorandum Development Services Memo No. PZ22-016
|
Date: |
November 16, 2022 |
To: |
Planning and Zoning Commission |
Thru: |
Kevin Mayo, Planning Administrator David de la Torre, Planning Manager |
From: |
Harley Mehlhorn, Planner |
Subject: |
PLH22-0031 Dobson Town Place - Medical Office |
Request: |
Preliminary Development Plan (PDP) Amendment to modify a stipulation to allow for 100% Medical Office on an existing office development |
Location: |
North of the northeast corner of Alma School and Queen Creek Roads |
Applicant: |
Dennis Newcombe, Senior Planner, Gammage and Burnham, PLC |
|
|
|
Proposed Motion: |
Move Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval of Preliminary Development Plan Amendment, PLH22-0031 Dobson Town Place - Medical Office, allowing 100% Medical Office on an existing office development, subject to the conditions as recommended by Planning staff. |
Background Data: |
- Approximately 5.6 acre site
- Subject site zoned Planned Area Development (PAD) for Commercial Office in 1997 under the Carino Estates masterplan
- PDP approved for Commercial Office in 2006
- Initial PDP had a stipulation limiting tenant space for medical office to 40% due to concerns regarding parking
|
Surrounding Land Use Data: |
North |
PAD Single Family |
South |
PAD Commercial |
East |
PAD Single Family |
West |
Alma School Road, then PAD Single Family |
|
Proposed Business Operations (for Use Permit) or Proposed Development (for PDP) |
Total Building Square Footage |
43,968 sq ft |
Existing Parking |
253 Spaces |
Parking required for 100% Medical Office |
294 Spaces |
Requested reduction |
41 Spaces |
|
Review and Recommendation: |
The subject site was rezoned in 1997 under the Carino Estates zoning case, which required the commercial aspects of the development to come back through for a PDP. The PDP for the subject case was filed in 2005 and approved in 2006 under case number PDP05-0029 Dobson Town Place. The PDP exhibited five buildings to be used for a split of medical and general office, which is what exists today. The PDP features a stipulation regarding the split of medical and general office due to parking concerns, reading: "6. A maximum of 17,800 square feet may be used for medical uses (40% of the total square footage)." This stipulation was imposed to ensure that the site could contain its parking. The applicant is requesting herein to remove that stipulation and allow for 100% medical office with a contingency plan for additional parking if required. Per the provided parking demand study, which reflects existing site conditions and is used for the calculations above, the site currently has 253 spaces, going to a full medical use would require 294 if code were to be met at 1 space / 150 square feet. Staff finds the requested parking reduction of 41 spaces to be reasonable in context. Firstly, the parking ratio for general office has, since the approval of the 2005 PDP, been amended from 1/200 to 1/250, thus reducing the parking burden that general office is taking on the site and allowing more room for medical. Secondly, the applicant has provided a parking analysis which concluded adequate parking per the demand as provided by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). Lastly, the parking reduction is, even by hard code standards a minimal reduction as code allows the Zoning Administrator to administratively reduce up to 40% of required parking in certain cases. Even with 100% medical uses within the center, the parking reduction of 41 spaces is only a 13% reduction. This case must be heard by Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council due to the aforementioned stipulation. All other stipulations of PDP05-0029 are to remain. Upon staff's request, the applicant has provided a parking contingency plan (enclosed as an attachment to this memo) that serves as a failsafe should the reduction yield a result in which adequate parking is not provided for the intensity of 100% medical uses. The plan proposes the construction of 34 additional spaces which would nearly meet 100% of the requirement. Further, as a part of the contingency, a passenger drop off/loading space may be entertained as a further way to reduce the burden of parking which by code offers a 10% reduction. A stipulation is proposed herein which states that the applicant must submit an updated parking analysis and that upon any externalities or negative impacts on surrounding developments, the Zoning Administrator may require the parking contingency plan to be constructed. Staff has reviewed this proposal and finds it consistent with the General Plan and the existing zoning. |
Public / Neighborhood Notification |
- This request was noticed in accordance with the requirements of the Chandler Zoning Code.
- A neighborhood meeting sign was posted on the site and on social media via NextDoor.
- A neighborhood meeting was held on October 26, 2022, at which no residence attended.
- As of the writing of this memo, Planning staff is not aware of any concerns or opposition to the request.
|
Recommended Conditions of Approval |
Planning staff recommends Planning and Zoning Commission move to recommend approval of the Preliminary Development Plan amendment, subject to the following conditions:
- Stipulation number 6 in case PDP05-0029 Dobson Town Place shall be eliminated, thus allowing 100% medical uses within the existing office development. All other stipulations approved in case PDP05-0029 Dobson Town Place shall remain in effect.
- The applicant shall submit an updated parking analysis which reflects the used inventory of parking one year from the date of Council approval. Said analysis shall be reviewed by staff through an Administrative Design Review application.
- Should the analysis indicate the need for additional parking, the additional spaces and a passenger drop off area as outlined in the Development Booklet under "Parking Contingency Plan" shall be constructed.
- Should the analysis indicate that the existing amount of parking is sufficient for 100% medical uses in the center, staff reserves the right to require an additional parking analysis to be reviewed through an Administrative Design Review application in the future should parking concerns arise.
|
|
|