Planning and Zoning Commission

Lake Havasu City Lake Havasu City Police Facility 2360 McCulloch Blvd North Regular Meeting Minutes - Final Lake Havasu City, Arizona 86403 www.lhcaz.gov Planning and Zoning Commission Wednesday, September 3, 2014 9:00 AM Regular Meeting 1. CALL TO ORDER The September 3, 2014, regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Liesen at 9:00 a.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL Mr. Kendig took the vacant seat. Present: 8- Donald Bergen, Chairperson Jim Liesen, Chad Nelson, Mychal Gorden, Dan McGowan, John Kendig, Christy Cunningham and Doug Hardy Absent: 1- Lucas Still 4. MINUTES Mr. Bergen made a motion to approve the minutes of the August 6, 2014, regular meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Nelson and carried by the following vote: Aye: 8 - Bergen, Chairperson Liesen, Nelson, Gorden, McGowan, Kendig, Cunningham and Hardy Absent: 1 - Still 5. CORRESPONDENCE AND ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Bergen said there was some uncertainty on the item for 1890 Magnolia Drive as to whether design review would come before the Commission. Can staff address that at this time. Mr. Schmeling said he did not look that up, but several of the new zoning districts do require design review to come back to the Planning Commission. He does not know specifically about the Commercial Health District, but he will report back as soon as he can. Lake Havasu City Page 1 Printed on 10/2/2014 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes - September 3, 2014 Final Mr. Schmeling noted that the Magnolia rezone goes before the Council on September 9, 2014. Also, Clarion is due to come to Lake Havasu City for the General Plan public hearings for the update. The first meeting is scheduled for September 8 from 6:00 to 8:00 p.m. The also have another public meeting on September 9 at 9:00 to 11:00 a.m. Immediately after that, at 11:30 a.m., the General Plan Committee will meet. Yesterday, late in the afternoon, we received our first installment of the Development Code rewrite. Staff will review it and then it will go through the committee and ultimately we will have an update for you. Mr. Liesen said, on the two General Plan meetings, will the content be the same at both meetings? Mr. Schmeling said that is correct; the same content will be presented. Then there will be discussion groups possibly. Mr. Liesen urged the community to attend the meetings because they are very important. 6. PUBLIC HEARING ID 14-0436 A request for a minor amendment to the approved general development plan for Parcel “H” of Grand Island Estates to adjust the required 10-foot side yard setback and zero foot side yard setback to five feet on each side for Lot 32; and reducing the 10-foot rear yard to five feet and reducing the 20-foot front yard to 15 feet on Lot 33. Mr. Schmeling said this is a very similar request to the one the Commission saw back in June. It is again Grand Island Estates, Parcel H, with the typical lot layout. The two lots under consideration, Lot 32 and Lot 33. In June we looked at Lots 27 through 30 and it was decided that it was appropriate to switch those setbacks and there was an easement which had to remain open at that time. He showed the grading plan for the lots. This will be broken down into two separate parcels even though it is under one application. Lot 32 proposes to have the setbacks changed from 10 on one side to 5 on each side. Lot 32 is still vacant and it is next to Lot 31 with an existing house with a zero setback. Mr. Anderson is the applicant and he is asking to have his setbacks changed to 5 and 5. He said that Mr. Johnson, the owner of the corner lot, Lot 33, is asking to reduce the rear setback to 5 feet and also to reduce the front yard to 15 feet. He explained the definition of a reverse corner lot and showed illustrations. Mr. Liesen asked if this is a continuation based on problems with these two lots and some proposed plans which were already in the application process. As further explanation, Mr. Schmeling said he believes that Mr. Johnson owns Lots 33 and 34 and he has not submitted plans to the Building Division, but he has discussed several development options on both of those lots. Lake Havasu City Page 2 Printed on 10/2/2014 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes - September 3, 2014 Final Mr. Liesen asked if this application today is the culmination of meetings between the developer and these owners. Mr. Schmeling said this is a subsequent meeting for Mr. Anderson because the Commission removed his lot from the original application in June since Mr. Anderson was not present and unable to negotiate. Staff could not commit on his behalf. Later, he decided to submit an application. The person who was objecting to the change on Lot 32 was Mr. Johnson who was in attendance at the meeting and decided to get in on that application to get his setbacks changed as well. Mr. Nelson commented that the reason for all of this is that the lot lines were all messed up from the beginning. They were not supposed to have a zero lot line on the south side and the owners of these lots are paying the consequences. In fairness to the applicants, we should pass this. Also, I am passionate about being on this Commission because the reverse corner is going to be a very common issue within the next couple of years. There are many lots in the City that are beautiful corner lots, but you cannot build the builder's model on a reverse corner lot because both setbacks are 25 feet. You can reduce that down to 20 on one side if it is a garage. We need to think about this situation and keep it at the forefront of our minds because Lake Havasu does not have sidewalks in most areas and no light poles and there is no visual appeal down the street. This issue is going to be very important and we should consider these reverse corner changes from here on out. Back to this situation, this is an idea to correct the issue of the house being built on the wrong side of the lot. Mr. Terry Johnson said he owns Lot 34 & 33. At the last meeting, the idea came up to go 5 and 5 with the setbacks and that was a great idea. That allowed me 5 additional feet versus zero. With that, I was still a little tight so instead of having the back yard on Lot 33, I am going to turn it into a side yard and design the home so that the back yard of Lot 32 will face Lot 34. That will compensate for the loss of airspace. He said he is trying to avoid the 30-foot wall of the house next door. Mr. Liesen opened the meeting to the public. No one spoke. Mr. Schmeling stated that staff finds that Section 14.44.070(G) of the Lake Havasu Development Code requires eight findings be met before a planned develoment is approved or amended. Staff finds that this request meets all eight of the review criteria. Based on those findings, the Development Review Committee recommends that land use action 15.01000001 be approved as proposed for Lot 32 allowing the ten foot/zero foot required side yard setbacks be changed to five foot and five foot and that Lot 33 rear yard setback be Lake Havasu City Page 3 Printed on 10/2/2014 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes - September 3, 2014 Final reduced from the required ten feet to five feet. Mr. Nelson made a motion to approve this action and move forward with the change. Mr. Hardy seconded the motion. Mr. Schmeling suggested that the motion be per staff's recommendation. Mr. Nelson and Mr. Hardy agreed. The motion carried on a unanimous roll-call vote. Mr. Nelson made a motion to approve this action, seconded by Mr. Hardy, motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 7 - Bergen, Chairperson Liesen, Nelson, Gorden, McGowan, Kendig and Hardy Absent: 1 - Still ID 14-0443 A request for a major amendment to the Sailinghawks Phase V (Spa) approved general development plan reducing the number of residential units from 35 to 22 and removal of the spa component, for Tract 2364, Lot 29 located at 1550 London Bridge Road. Mr. Gorden recused himself from this item and Ms. Cunningham took the seat. Mr. Schmeling stated that this 5.36-acre property is Phase 5 of the original Sailing Hawks development which began in about 2000. This section was last updated in 2007. It is on London Bridge Road at the north end of town near North Palo Verde and is a triangular shaped property. The currently adopted plan for this property includes 35 bungalow style units which were limited to 17 feet in height; two accesses off of London Bridge Road, and also an emergency-only exit onto Sunset; a water feature in the middle; and a spa component. The other exception at the time was to allow for the parking and maneuvering areas to be made of decomposed granite instead of the traditional asphalt or concrete. The proposed plan is very similar in nature, but it removes the spa component and it reduces the density from 35 units down to 22 units which are laid out similarly to the existing plan. The property is zoned R-4/PD which allows a 30-foot building height and they have not asked for any exception to the height. It will be a gated community and it only proposes one access off of London Bridge Road with the secondary, or emergency, access from Sunset. The landscape easement along the side is the same and the front area will have more landscaping as opposed to the original plan. Mr. Kendig asked to see the entrance to the site from a distance. Mr. Schmeling said the access point is just off of the corner. He added that years ago, Sunset Drive used to come out and connect to London Bridge Road. That was closed off and made into a landscape island. Both proposals indicate an access just north of that area. He added it is now a better view of traffic than it was. Lake Havasu City Page 4 Printed on 10/2/2014 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes - September 3, 2014 Final Mr. Liesen asked how much of the acreage is lost because of the wash. Mr. Schmeling said he did not calculate that, but it looks like about a quarter of the property. Mr. Mychal Gorden said he represents the applicant and owner. He is working with them on the architectural and landscaping layouts of this project. He gave a little history of the property and the changes that have been made. The new owner believes that the original proposal is not indicative of the market today and wants to get his ideas approved because the site has been sitting vacant for years. This will be a residential project with amenities, landscaping, walls, and open space which will have landscaping and trails. This area will be open to the public and accessible. There is an existing multi-use path along London Bridge Road and that will connect up. This proposal is compatible with the zoning district and the units will be two stories to take advantage of the views. Generally, the units will be fewer and taller, but will be spread out more and will have less of a footprint on the overall site. A couple of neighbors to the east attended the public meeting and expressed a couple of concerns and some constructive criticism. One concern was that the site was graded and never finished so there was dust and sand blowing onto neighboring properties. The request was that we put up the boundary walls to help contain that. Regarding parking and access, we will work with staff to determine the proper distance for the entrance. There will be some on-site parking and all of the units will have sufficient driveway and very large 3-car garages. Another concern was the landscape buffer of trees along Sunset dropping debris, leaves and litter onto Sunset. The owner is willing to work with the neighbors to finalize the landscaping plan. To summarize, this project will compliment Sailing Hawks and staff has recommended approval. Hopefully, you will agree. Mr. Liesen commented that this seems to be a very nature-friendly project. Mr. Gorden agreed that is what they are trying to do. Mr. McGowan expressed concern about the number of parking spaces. Mr. Gorden said there is a big difference is use. Previously, the units were bungalows with no garages and there was a spa component which required parking for public use. Mr. Liesen opened the meeting to the public. Ms. Ann Watson said she lives on Piper Drive which overlooks this area. Her biggest concern is that the center of this property was raised about three feet high in the center during the previous grading. We were told that would be moved but it has been there for years. Will that be moved. Also, will the trees be blocking the mobile home people; trees grow. Also, with two stories, is the height still 17 feet. Lake Havasu City Page 5 Printed on 10/2/2014 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes - September 3, 2014 Final Mr. Ed Cabana said he is the manager for Sunset Mobile Home Park and his concerns were the wall and the trees. The park is an over 55 park and there are a lot of people with lung issues. If trees like palo verdes are planted, they start to flower and everybody has allergies. This is going to be a six-foot high wall to start with and we worry about things growing over it. We have no view because of the dirt being piled up and the way the lot is measured from the northeast corner of Palo Verde which is not fair. Another concern is the lack of parking for the owners and visitors of these units with their "toys". Mr. Liesen asked Mr. Cabana what tree species he would prefer. Mr. Cabana said he would prefer no trees because that would be the safest mode; we would prefer just the wall. Mr. Liesen closed the public hearing. He asked if there is a requirement to have trees? Mr. Schmeling said no, not in that specific location, but there is an overall percentage required by design review. Where they place it on the site is up to them. In this case, it appears that they would easily exceed their percentage. Mr. Liesen asked if design review will be required since this is an amendment to a PD? Mr. Schmeling said design review will be at the staff level for this, yes. In response to a request, Mr. Schmeling described how lot levels are arrived at for every lot in town. Mr. Schmeling said that staff finds that the proposed PD major amendment meets all the requirements set forth in 14.44.070(G). Based on those findings, the Development Review Committee recommends that 14-0443 be forwarded to the City Council with a recommendation of approval changing the adopted general development plan reducing the number of residential units from 35 to 22 and the removal of the spa component. Mr. Gorden described the general condition of the property in regard to max grade and slopes. In response to a question, Mr. Gorden described the proposed plants and trees, and said it will all be indigenous species. Mr. Nelson suggested working with Mr. Cabana and the other people as to what would be appropriate for them. Mr. Kendig asked if the wall could be 5 feet high instead of 6 feet. Mr. Gorden said 5 feet would meet the pool enclosure requirement. Mr. Liesen commented that he has been working on both sides of the counter for about 25 years and I never recall an issue where people did not want more trees, but these concerns are very valid. He said he thought the wall was required to be 6 feet between zones. Lake Havasu City Page 6 Printed on 10/2/2014 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes - September 3, 2014 Final Mr. Schmeling said he thinks the 6 feet is a requirement for separate between multi-family and commercial uses and residential uses; however, there is a section in the code that allows me to grant minor variances and that specifies that walls are included in minor variances. Mr. Liesen made a comparison between these driveways and garages and the ones at Grand Island Estates on the Island and said these appear to be much larger. Mr. Nelson made a motion to approve this action based on staff recommendation, seconded by Mr. McGowan, and carried by the following vote: Aye: 7 - Bergen, Chairperson Liesen, Nelson, McGowan, Kendig, Cunningham and Hardy Absent: 1 - Still Abstain: 1 - Gorden ID 14-0442 A request for a zone change from R-4, High Density Multi-Family Residential, to C-2, General Commercial District, for the property located at 3340 and 3350 Osborn Drive. Mr. Schmeling stated this property is located on the south side of the City and is 2.3 acres in size and is adjacent to Sweetwater Avenue. The zoning in the area is a mixture of C-2, multi-family and across the highway on Maricopa, there is C-1 in the Southgate Overlay District. Staff received a late letter of objection and that has been handed out. I also received a phone call late yesterday which was from a gentlemen who owned an R-1 lot on Gemini and he suggested that he was for the rezoning and upon further conversation, he said he was not concerned about the uses that are allowed in the C-2 district, but the mere fact that R-4 allows 30-foot buildings and C-2 only allows 25-foot building heights, he would gain five feet. The General Plan indicates this strip area as commercial-nodal and high-density residential. Traditionally, when we look at these areas for rezoninig from residential to commercial we look at potential impact to neighboring residential properties. In this case, I don't see that to be a huge issue given what the applicant has stated in his letter. He is proposing storage units; however, I would stress that this is just a request for a rezone and all of the C-2 uses would be available to him or any future owner. Mr. Liesen asked about the large R-1 property nearby. Mr. Schmeling said it is a City-owned parcel. He explained that several years ago staff was asked to do an inventory of all the City parcels. At that time, each department reviewed those parcels and determined the possible uses. This parcel was not claimed by any of the departments; therefore, we could dispose of it. He explained the procedure for selling City property. Mr. Liesen noted that these are two separate properties and a utility easement runs between them. Has the applicant explained how he is going to deal with any issues with that easement? Lake Havasu City Page 7 Printed on 10/2/2014 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes - September 3, 2014 Final Mr. Schmeling said he has not, but he might be prepared to explain that if you ask him. Mr. Liesen said the elevation difference along these lots is substantial. Has anyone asked about that. Mr. Schmeling said the one phone call he received mentioned that, but he has not seen a survey for these lots. Mr. Liesen said further along on Sweetwater there are three more storage projects. Has staff had any complaints with residential being so close to storage units? Mr. Schmeling said he is not directly involved with Code Enforcement, but he does recollect a few complaints over the years, but that was more of a lighting issue. Mr. Mychal Gorden said he is a consultant to the property owner. This property is adjacent to an existing storage facility and others down Sweetwater and there is an assisted living facility nearby and a single family neighborhood in the area. The intent is to build a high-qualtiy indoor storage facility consistent with the nicer storage facilities. There are a lot of uses in the R-4 zoning district that would have a lot more impact to the residential area than this proposal does. These include religious facilities, multi-family dwellings and group homes. All of those things could be built on this property just by following the standard application process. The R-4 zone does allow up to a 30-foot height limit. If a good site plan and access to the facility is planned well, the impact to the neighborhood are less than what they could be. He said the neighborhood meeting was held in August and the immediately adjacent property owner was there are he voiced some concerns and presented some letters from other property owners. Other letters were received in support of the project. He showed some views of the property for more clarity regarding the surrounding area. The owner does have a proposed, preliminary site plan showing the intent for the property. He mentioned the slope of the property, the easement between the two lots, and that it will be an indoor storage facility that will have sufficient landscaping for a buffer between the other uses in the area. The layout of the project will mitigate the effects of lights from traffic and inside the facility, the amount of traffic, and the noise. The did a small study into property values in the area and the history does not show a decrease in value of surrounding property. People are still continuing to build single family homes even with the existing storage facilities and multi-family developments in the area. The owner intends to start on this facility as soon as possible and does that should ease the concerns of the other C-2 uses which are available. Mr. Liesen opened the meeting to the public. Mr. Justin Felish said he is the property owner next to this project. He expressed concerns about future development by another owner and possibly having a bar right next to his house, the impact on property values, possible light pollution, why this could not be built on other larger properties which are available at this time, where the justification is to change this to commercial property rather than the multi-family zoning which it is now, and the Lake Havasu City Page 8 Printed on 10/2/2014 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes - September 3, 2014 Final fact that more traffic will be generated in the area with a storage project. In response to a question, he said he would prefer to see an Osborn Estates built there. That would increase property values and keep it more of a residential area. Mr. Nelson said that with the size of those two lots, there could be up to 45 dwellings. He said that since he is a real estate agent, property values is one of his concerns and noted that it appears that storage units have less impact on home prices than multi-family dwellings do. Mr. Kendig mentioned that there is a noise issue from assisted living homes which could be built on R-4 property, there is an outboard motor repair facility which makes a lot of noise, and he would agree that a storage facility would be less noisy than either of those uses. Mr. Liesen said he is going to ask the applicant if the owner has explored the feasibilty of an Osborn Estates or a multi-family development. He asked Mr. Felish if access were restricted to Sweetwater only, would that lessen the concerns. Mr. Felish said with two lots there, one could become something other than storage. Mr. Liesen asked if there is a requirement that these two lots be tied together. Mr. Schmeling said if they come in with a proposal for both lots, that would be required; however, there is nothing in the rezoning portion of this request that requires a lot tie. Mr. Bergen asked Mr. Felish if he was aware of the surrounding zoning when he purchased his property. Mr. Felish said he was and his expectations were that it would be a residential area. Mr. Liesen said, for the record, he let Mr. Felish speak for more than three minutes because he was representing several people. Mr. Liesen closed the public hearing. He asked Mr. Gorden if the owner explored the possibility of developing this as an R-4 property. Mr. Gorden said that was looked at, but to make if feasible, it would need to be a high-density project of townhomes or condos and the owner is not interested in that type of development. Regarding access, the project would work with access off of either Osborn or Sweetwater. He said with the way this project is laid out, the lots would have to be tied together. Mrs. Garry said that requiring lots to be tied is not something that is typically done with a rezoning request. The fact that the applicant is providing a site plan is just to give an idea of the intent. Ms. Cunningham asked for further explanation of the lot tie. Mr. Schmeling said that would not Lake Havasu City Page 9 Printed on 10/2/2014 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes - September 3, 2014 Final occur until the owner comes forward with a development proposal through the design review process. Traditionally, those conditions can be made as part of a PD where there is a site plan and you are holding the developer to specific entitlements. However, with a rezone, at the end he will have two lots that are both zoned C-2. Mr. Schmeling stated that staff finds the proposed rezoning meets all the requirements set forth in 14.56.080(B). Based on those findings, the Development Review Committee recommends that land use action 14-0442 be forwarded to the City Council with a recommendation of approval rezoning the property from R-4, High Density Multi-Family, to C-2, General Commercial, zoning district. Mr. Nelson asked if it is possible to approve this with the condition that they have to come back before the Commission if the project is different than this storage facility? Mrs. Garry said she would advise no. The applicants are doing you a favor by providing an illustration of what they want to do, but a lot of time when there is a rezone request, someone is just asking for possibilities. The reason we don't want to put a lot of restrictions is that the applicant has probably not spent a lot of money at this time doing all the planning and everything they need to do to fully develop that site. To tie them to something else is not fair at this time. Ms. Cunningham made a motion to approve 14-0442 as recommended by staff with the condition that access be from Sweetwater Avenue. The motion was seconded by Mr. Nelson. Mrs. Garry requested that the applicant be given the opportunity to agree with that motion and condition. Mr. Gorden said he understands the condition, but obviously we would prefer to work with staff to find the best alternative, but it does work from Sweetwater, so we can agree. Mr. Bergen said he does not agree with rezoning this to commercial next to single family with no buffer. If it had been for just the property to the east of the utility easement, that would be okay, but to include the part to the west of the utility easement immediately adjacent to the single family residential, I do not feel is proper and I cannot vote for this. Mr. Liesen said he understands Mr. Bergen's point; however, the R-2 district is a buffer. That property owner built a single family home on the R-2 lot. Mr. Nelson commented that he would much rather have a storage project next to him than multi-family. However, this storage project does have a wall around it with landscaping. Mr. Schmeling said on a commercial development, the landscaping requirement is that 10 percent of the site be landscaped. The only hard landscaping requirement is along rights-of-way, so they would be required to provide a minimum of a ten-foot landscape strip along both Osborn and Lake Havasu City Page 10 Printed on 10/2/2014 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes - September 3, 2014 Final Sweetwater, not traditionally along a side property line. Mr. Nelson said all people will see is a wall with trees and nobody will be looking into other properties. Ms. Cunningham said she lives downtown with storage properties around her and she has taken the same perspective that those projects affect the area minimally. The R-4 area would attract more traffic and more people. The motion carried on a roll-call vote of 6 to 1 with Mr. Bergen voting no. Ms Cunningham made a motion to approve 14-0442 as recommended by staff with the condition be from Sweetwater Avenue, seconded by Mr. Nelson, and carried by the following vote: Aye: 6 - Chairperson Liesen, Nelson, McGowan, Kendig, Cunningham and Hardy Nay: 1 - Bergen Absent: 1 - Still Abstain: 1 - Gorden 7. CALL TO PUBLIC None. 8. FUTURE MEETING September 17, 2014 @ 9:00 a.m. Mr. Schmeling said there are no items for the September 17, 2014, agenda, so that meeting will be canceled. However, two applications have been submitted, one for a rezone and one for a conditional use permit, that will come before you on October 1, 2014. 9. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:47 a.m. ______________________________________________________ Jim Liesen, Chairman ______________________________________________________ Jean Vinson, Recording Secretary Lake Havasu City Page 11 Printed on 10/2/2014