Planning and Zoning Commission

Jim Liesen, Chairman Lake Havasu City Jim Harris, Vice Chairman Donald Bergen Lake Havasu City Police Facility 2360 McCulloch Blvd North Lucas Still Mychal Gorden Regular Meeting Minutes - Final Lake Havasu City, Arizona 86403 www.lhcaz.gov Neil Ott Chad Nelson, Alternate Planning and Zoning Commission Daniel McGowan, Alternate Wednesday, June 4, 2014 9:00 AM Regular Meeting 1. CALL TO ORDER The June 4, 2014, regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman Liesen at 9:00 a.m. 3. ROLL CALL Mr. Nelson took the vacant seat. Present: 5- Donald Bergen, Jim Liesen, Chad Nelson, Lucas Still and Dan McGowan Absent: 3- Jim Harris, Mychal Gorden and John Kendig 4. MINUTES Mr. Still made a motion to approve the minutes of the May 7, 2014, meeting as written. The motion was seconded by Mr. McGowan and carried unanimously. Aye: 5 - Bergen, Liesen, Nelson, Still and McGowan Absent: 4 - Ott, Harris, Gorden and Kendig 5. CORRESPONDENCE AND ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Schmeling said that each member has been given an updated roster and you can see on the roster that there is a vacant position on the Commission because Mr. Ott has moved out of town and has submitted his resignation. Also, we have two terms that expire on July 1, one of which is Mr. Harris and the other is Mr. Nelson and both of them have been notified of that and they can Lake Havasu City Page 1 Printed on 6/18/2014 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes - June 4, 2014 Final reapply if they wish. Also, regarding the General Plan/Zoning Code rewrite, yesterday we received our first installment from the consultant of the first third of the Zoning Code. The contract reads that the Zoning Code is broken down into three parts. The first installment is now ready for staff review and there will be a meeting scheduled in late July. The consultants are scheduled to come to town to give you an update in late July. That meeting has not been scheduled to date, but when it is, I will let you know and they will brief the Council at that time also. Not at that same meeting, but throughout that same day. 6. PUBLIC HEARING ID 14-0293 A request for a minor amendment to the approved general development plan for Parcel “H” of Grand Island Estates to transfer the required 10-foot side yard setback from the southerly side to the northerly side of each lot. Mr. Schmeling stated that this minor amendment is an amendment to the Grand Island Estates PD. It includes five lots within Parcel H. Grand Island Estates was originally approved by the Council back in 1994. This is for the benefit of the audience,andt for the commissioners who were not here at that time. It had several components to it: A residential, commercial, recreational and a resort component. Each residential area was designed to have unique elements. Let's start with the overall plan. On the north end we have a couple of parcels that are designated as resort. We have a parcel specifically designated for casitas and a commercial area. We also have Parcels D and E which were designed for single family residences with traditional setbacks. There was a park or recreational element which has been dedicated to the City. And we have Parcel F which was a townhome, Parcel H which was for patio homes and Parcel I for dual homes. I will further explain those as I go along. The specific area that we are talking about today is Parcel H. A slide was shown indicating the typical footprint which was adopted with the original approval. In Parcel F for example you have a typical 10-foot rear setback with no side setbacks at all and these were called townhomes. Parcel I, similarly, were basically duplexes although they are on individual lots. The Parcel that we are concerned with today is Parcel H and the side setbacks for Parcel H were zero on one side and 10 feet on the other side. Obviously, the next lot would have the same separation. The specific lots under consideration today are Lots 32, 30, 29, 28 and 27. These are the only lots that are submitting for the change and there are a couple of reasons for that. First, you will see that there is a missing lot, Lot 31. A couple of years back, there was a building permit issued on this specific lot and the 10-foot setback was adhered to, but it was on the wrong side of the lot. That was the driving force behind this whole amendment. One other thing to note is that on Lot 27 there is a sewer easement on the right side of 10 feet so there is an applied setback that was not indicated on the grading plan. That is significant because if we were to follow the pattern with the zero lot line, you couldn't have a zero lot line on Lot 27 because there is already an easement there. He showed the approved grading plan which shows the side yard setbacks on the southerly side of each lot. As a result of building permits being submitted, and indicating a setback on the Lake Havasu City Page 2 Printed on 6/18/2014 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes - June 4, 2014 Final wrong side for Lot 29, we had to have a discussion with the property owner, the builder and the association and everyone else involved, and this is the solution we came up with from those discussions. We also contacted the utility company to make sure there was no issue with regard to the existing utilities in the ground; we also contacted the engineer of record to make sure that in the event that we decide to change the setbacks to the other side of the lots that there would be no negative impacts to the grading overall. There were no issues and there is a copy of the engineer's letter within your packet. He showed a photo of the house on Lot 31 which shows that it is built to the zero lot line on the left-hand side and there are no openings in that wall. Mr. Liesen said it appears that there is really no change whatsoever to the integrity of the block in doing this and because of the sewer easement, even on Lot 26 there would still be the visual setback because of the easement that is already there. Mr. Schmeling said that is correct. Mr. John Rosenbaum, Arizona Homes said actually, Mr. Schmeling spelled it all out. There is a house on Lot 31 sitting on the left property line; Lot 29 there is one on the left property line and I have spoken with the owners of Lots 30, 28 and 27 and they also all prefer the zero lot line on the left like the other two homes have already done and that solves the problem with the sewer easement at the same time. This is about the only way we can fix this. Mr. Liesen opened the meeting to the public. Mr. Terry Johnson said he and Ellen Gim own Lots 33 and 34. I am just recovering from a health issue and he asked Ms. Gim to speak for him. Ms. Gim said we are the homeowners for Lot 33 and 34 and we did bring some plans showing how this would affect us. Our understanding was that the property line was going to be the way it was originally intended with the settings 10 feet over. It affects us because of our view and my husband has drawn out the plans here (Exhibit A). Should I present this to someone? Mr. Liesen said if you submit it as part of the record, you can give it to Mr. Schmeling, but it becomes part of our records and we can't give it back. Ms. Gim said the overall issue that we have is that all along my husband has been coming to Havasu from California and we have had many, many phone calls about this issue where the lot lines were going to be. The permit was issued anyway. We did get emails from the City saying that yes, that was a mistake and my husband had been working with them because as I said, our concern is for the view, especially the corner lot and how that would affect our view and it would eliminate quite a bit. In the plans we submitted, you can see where in yellow is what we thought our original view was going to be and in red is the view that is quite narrow. Mr. Johnson said there are multiple scenarios and our Plan B on the corner lot was going to be a Lake Havasu City Page 3 Printed on 6/18/2014 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes - June 4, 2014 Final two-story home and on the lot adjacent to it we were going to build a one-story guest home. We would blend the two back yards together without a fence. I anticipate a 20-foot visual or air space setback to the next lot and then when you move Lot 32, then you have a back yard with 10 feet where typically we would have had 20 feet of visual air and we also had the potential of building a 30-foot building and you can see the yellow and red view corridors which is out toward the lake. The view corridors are being blocked and there will be a 30-foot house 10 feet outside the back door. That wasn't the case. The planner before you and our agent, Sharon, knew it. I tried to tell everybody this way before the stakeout and now it continues today because over on Lot 29, a permit has been issued and that home is being built on the wrong side. So it is just going and going and going. I think it is wrong and I oppose this. I don't have an answer on how to resolve it. Ms. Gim said we did try to resolve it by calling and driving out here so many times and it was to the extent that we did have to hire an attorney to help us, David Elston, who could not be here today because he had a family death. We are trying to work with it and that is why he drew a couple plans looking at options, but no matter what options, our view is markedly restricted. We drove by it last night and were really shocked and disappointed to see that another permit was issued even though this hearing was coming up. So the feeling is no matter what, we are just going to proceed. Mr. Johnson said he is surprised the second home was allowed to be built because this hearing should have come first. Now we have two houses applying pressure. Yes, it has to be fixed, but at our expense along with the applicant wanting to build more houses. We basically have had a loss because of this. Mr. Liesen asked if Lot 32 is under construction? Ms. Gi said no. Mr. Liesen said in the interest of compromise, they are asking to flop the 10-foot separation. What if it were split down the middle with 5 feet on each side with the house moving to the middle? Would that be an acceptable compromise? Mr. Johnson said yes, that would be acceptable and definitely a place to start at. Mr. Nelson said then you are suggesting a 5 and 5? Mr. Liesen said I was just wondering if that was a compromise that could work on their behalf. Mr. Nelson said instead of a zero and 10. Can we call the applicant back and ask if that would work? Mr. Liesen said before we do that, let's ask the audience if anyone else wants to speak. Mr. Rosenbaum said on Lot 32, I do not know the owner and I have never discussed it with him, so I would have no idea what his feelings would be. The people I have dealt with own Lots 30, 29, 28 and 27. Mr. Liesen said how are you able to ask on their behalf to move the setbacks on their property if you haven't consulted with them? Mr. Schmeling said I can answer that question. As a result of our discussion and the application as it was submitted for Lot 30, 28, 29, and 27, I contacted the owner of Lot 32 and I gave him the option of being a party to this application. He is not a local resident. He submitted information Lake Havasu City Page 4 Printed on 6/18/2014 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes - June 4, 2014 Final suggesting that he wanted to be a party to this applicant, but there was no discussion and no mention of manipulating the setbacks from anything different from zero and 10 and switching to the other side of the lot. So the 5 foot on each side was never discussed. Mr. Nelson asked if Lot 32 were to be a 5 and a 5, essentially, you have the same building envelope, is that correct? Mr. Rosenbaum said yes. Mr. Nelson asked if that would be a reasonable option for you as a builder? Mr. Rosenbaum said he would like to see the whole thing like that. It would make it simple for everybody. Mr. Nelson said he thinks that is a good solution. Mr. Liesen asked Mrs. Garry what is our leeway in our approval of this; can we make modifications? Mrs. Garry said you are certainly welcome to make modifications; however, I am a little leery of not having the owner of Lot 32 here to respond directly. Mr. Liesen said that was why I asked the question.What if we carved Lot 32 out of the application? Mrs. Garry said yes, you can carve Lot 32 out or do some kind of conditional approval upon them coming back or something of that nature. Mr. Liesen closed the public hearing. Mr. Schmeling stated that Section 14.44.070(G) requires that 8 findings be met before the Planned Development can be amended or approved. Staff finds that the request meets all 8 review criteria necessary to amend this minor amendment to the PD. Therefore, based on those findings, the Development Review Committee recommends that 14-01000001 (ID 14-0293) be approved for Lots 27 - 30 and Lot 32 allowing the 10-foot required setback to be changed from the southerly side of each lot to the northerly side of each lot. Mr. Liesen said a comment was made that some of these houses that are in question for moving the setbacks may already be under construction. Is it possible that permits were issued before the setbacks were established? Mr. Schmeling said that is not only possible, it happened. That was part of this discussion and I can give you a brief history on that. The applicant submitted a building permit request for Lot 29 and it indicated the setback on the incorrect side. That permit was denied and that was what really raised the entire issue. As a result, other than the setback being on the incorrect side, everything was through plan check and was ready for approval. The resulting discussion was that to minimize the impact to the surrounding owners, the lending institution andthe property owners and everything else that was going on that we were reasonably confident that the Planning Commission would come to this conclusion and change that setback. Therefore, we allowed the building permit to go forward. Mr. Liesen said I see nothing wrong with Lots 27, 28, 29 and 30, but I do sympathize with the owners of Lots 33 and 34 as to their impact. It is kind of imposing to have a big stucco wall 10 feet closer all of a sudden. Lake Havasu City Page 5 Printed on 6/18/2014 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes - June 4, 2014 Final Mr. Still said I would agree with you, Mr. Liesen. I think at this time, we aren't hindering anything for the owner of Lot 32 to leave it off of the application. And with the knowledge that the owners of Lot 33 and 34 are gracious enough to even compromise, that could be something we could handle down the road. I am not sure of the best way to propose that or make a recommendation, but I would think a motion to approve what has been recommended for Lots 27 through 30, I see no problem with that at all. I think it is a very good solution, but I think we should leave Lot 32 out. Mr. Still made a motion to approve, as staff has recommended, the change in setback requirements as detailed in land use action 14-0293 with the exception of Lot 32. Mr. McGowan seconded the motion which carried on a unanimous roll-call vote. Mr. Liesen said he hopes that that applicant gets togther with the owner of Lot 32 so he can apply for the same thing to come to a compromise of some sort. Mr. Nelson asked could the owners of Lots 33 and 34 make the application in conjunction with the owner of Lot 32 to go ahead and start that process? Mr. Schmeling said that only the owner of Lot 32 has to apply. If we were amending setbacks on Lots 33 and 34, they would want to be a party to that application, but that discussion has not taken place yet. Mr. Liesen said the minutes will reflect that there is sympathy for all of these people. A motion was made by Still, seconded by McGowan, that this Planning Item be approved. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 5 - Bergen, Liesen, Nelson, Still and McGowan Absent: 4 - Ott, Harris, Gorden and Kendig 7. CALL TO PUBLIC Mr. Terry Johnson said the compromise of 5 feet for Lot 32 is the right idea. The problem is the owner of Lot 32 which already has a narrow lot, taking 5 feet off pretty much makes that lot unbuildable. That is going to present a big problem later on because his lot would have no value. That is my big concern from him because now he is going to be opposing this. Mr. Liesen said we are not allowed to respond during call to the public. 8. FUTURE MEETING Mr. Schmeling said the next meeting is scheduled for June 18, 2014, and we have one item which is a rezoning up on Victoria Farms Road. 9. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:29 a.m. Lake Havasu City Page 6 Printed on 6/18/2014 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes - June 4, 2014 Final ________________________________________________ Jim Liesen, Chairman ________________________________________________ Jean Vinson, Recording Secretary Lake Havasu City Page 7 Printed on 6/18/2014