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, October 1, 2014 9:00 AM Regular Meeting 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Liesen called the meeting to order at 9:00a.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chairman Liesen lead in the Pledge of Allegiance. 3. ROLL CALL Let the record show that Mr. Still and Mr. Gorden called Chairman Liesen to inform him they would not be present. Mr. Kendig and Ms. Cunningham were seated. Present: 5- Donald Bergen, Chairperson Jim Liesen, John Kendig, Christy Cunningham and Doug Hardy Absent: 4- Chad Nelson, Lucas Still, Mychal Gorden and Dan McGowan 4. MINUTES Mr. Bergen made a motion to approve the minutes of the September 3, 2014, regular meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hardy and carried by the following vote: Aye: 5 - Bergen, Chairperson Liesen, Kendig, Cunningham and Hardy Absent: 4 - Nelson, Still, Gorden and McGowan 5. CORRESPONDENCE AND ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Schmeling informed the Commission that the sound system is down and there are speakers placed through-out the room strategically enough to capture all the sound but I would appreciate it, just as you did earlier, if you announce the motion first and second and that will help get it in the audio. Lake Havasu City Page 1 Printed on 11/5/2014 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes - October 1, 2014 Final Clarion and Associates, our consultants for both the General Plan and the Development Code rewrites were in town yesterday. They had a meeting yesterday at 2:00p.m.with the sub-committee for the Zoning Code portion of it. It was attended by a member of the general public and the meeting was video-taped and will be available online. They discussed several elements of the first module of the Zoning Code that dealt with the administration portion of the Code as well as the code enforcement, or the enforcement mechanisms of the code. I won’t belabor the details but you can find that online if you choose to. The General Plan portion is scheduled to come to town the very end of October. We are not sure of the date at this point but I am trying not to confuse the two elements because the General Plan is probably going to have more public participation than the Zoning Code portion. They will begin working on module two now for the Zoning Code portion of it. They will be back in town in January for the next scheduled visit. Once we determine the dates I will make the announcement. 6. PUBLIC HEARING ID 14-0506 Reconsideration of 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 ten-foot rear yard to five feet and reducing the twenty-foot front yard to fifteen feet on Lot 33. Ms. Garry stated that in order to do a motion for reconsideration someone from the prevailing side of the last meeting has to make a motion to reconsider. It has to be seconded, and then we can discuss whether or not this item is going to be reconsidered. If that passes then it will go to Stuart to give the report but you have to make a motion immediately before we can go any further. Ms. Garry said now if you have any questions or want to discuss it before you can vote you can certainly do that. If you want to move right on you can vote to reconsider and then we will go in and re-discuss the item. Mr. Hardy made a motion to reconsider with a second by Mr. Kendig. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 5 - Bergen, Chairperson Liesen, Kendig, Cunningham and Hardy Absent: 4 - Nelson, Still, Gorden and McGowan Mr. Schmeling stated that this is an item that you heard at your last agenda and voted to adopt or approve with staff’s recommendations. However, it was made apparent that some individuals as well as one of the applicants were confused as to what actually transpired. I am going to go back and kind of re-live the PowerPoint presentation exactly how it went through. This is for two lots in Parcel H on the island. Mr. Schmeling stated this is a typical lot layout of a property in Parcel H. You have the 20-foot front yard, 10-foot side yard, and 10-foot rear yard setbacks. The two lots in question are 32 and 33. The applicants came to you with a joint Lake Havasu City Page 2 Printed on 11/5/2014 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes - October 1, 2014 Final application asking to have their setbacks modified. Using the grading plan PowerPoint slide, Mr. Schmeling pointed to the arrows indicating where the drainage flow should be. You can see the zero-foot setback on Lot 32 and the 10-foot setback as well as on Lot 33 you can see the 10-foot rear yard, 20- foot front yard, 20 foot front, and the corresponding drainage. The important part was the request was in two parts. One was for Lot 32 to change the side yard setbacks to 5 feet and 5 feet. That portion of the request the Planning Commission adopted and I don’t believe there was any confusion on that portion. The confusion came with Lot 33 on the corner. The applicant requested that the 10-foot rear yard setback be reduced to 5 feet. He also requested that the front yard be changed from a 20-foot setback to 15-foot setback. Next I tried to explain to you the intent of a reverse corner lot, which is maintaining the continuity along the street and this may have been confusing, as this change would essentially pop that house out 5 feet closer to the side street. Of course the findings are the same but this is what was voted on and adopted at the last meeting. The recommendation was for Lot 32 allowing the 10-foot, zero-foot setbacks to be changed to 5 feet and 5 feet. Also, Lot 33, the rear yard setback to be reduced from the required 10 feet to 5 feet setback and there was no recommendation for approval of the front yard to be modified. Now when the vote came about, Mr. Nelson made the motion and had some comments about concerns in-between, then it was seconded. I made it a point to suggest that staff recommendations were what was being voted on. Mr. Nelson left out the staff recommendations. At this point I want to clarify that staff recommendations were what was voted on and what was approved. Chairman Liesen said that was a great summary of what I recall happening, I also recall there was some discussion about the front yard because of the reverse corner nature of this. One of the reasons we talked about bringing it back to the Commission for reconsideration is that I was under the impression and perhaps that is because we didn’t read it as carefully as we should have to notice that, but I was under the impression the front yard was being reduced and apparently it was not. That was part of the confusion on behalf of the applicant and that is why we are back here again, just to make sure it is out in the open and we can get to a conclusion. Any other questions of staff? Mr. Hardy stated it was on the original drawing. I think it is pretty clear what it was supposed to be. Mr. Liesen asked if the applicant was present and if he would like to make a presentation. Terry Johnson stated that isn’t exactly what happened. I felt that you voted for the approval but apparently not after looking at the paperwork a few days later. So that’s why I asked for this to be reconsidered. I think we have two new people, John and Christie who may not be as familiar with Lake Havasu City Page 3 Printed on 11/5/2014 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes - October 1, 2014 Final this. Lucas was very familiar and he recommended it. Pretty much what I am trying to do is turn the house. Right now the house has a front and a back yard. The back yard at one time was reduced due to two lots down the way property lines being flipped accidently. Not the property line but the setbacks. That shrunk the back yard in a sense of vertical mass or air space. I want to switch the back yard to some of the side yard and making the left side more of the back yard. Even though the front has 50 or 60 feet, my intention is not to take the whole 60 feet and pop out the corner but to primarily take out 40 to 30 percent of that run. I don’t want the house sticking out in a nice cul-de-sac either. I understand the concept. Chairman Liesen opened the meeting to the public. No one spoke so Chairman Liesen closed the public hearing. Mr. Schmeling stated staff recommends as we did before, that land use action 15-01000001 be approved as proposed for Lot 32, allowing the setbacks to be changed to 5 feet and 5 feet. Also for Lot 33, for the rear yard setback to be reduced from the required 10 feet to 5 feet. Chairman Liesen asked Mr. Schmeling if his recommendation remains the same as it was before, without addressing this front yard issue of 5 feet? Mr. Schmeling replied correct. Ms. Cunningham made a motion to approve land use action 15-01000001 with staff’s recommendations and allowing the front yard change. Ms. Garry suggested clarifying the motion because the motion was confusing. Ms. Cunningham asked if it is included now, the front yard change is included now, correct? Chairman Liesen states that he thinks Ms. Cunningham’s intent is to add to the staff’s recommendations, the allowance of this 5 foot front yard setback change. You have to form a motion to include staff’s recommendations and that also. I would like to make a motion to approve land use action 15-01000001 be approved with staff recommendations and the allowance of the front yard change of the setback of 5 feet. Mr. Bergen asked to have the motion clarified. Chairman Liesen asked Ms. Gary if the motion was adequate. Ms. Garry responded to let this motion fail. I think you are getting confused by adding in staff Lake Havasu City Page 4 Printed on 11/5/2014 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes - October 1, 2014 Final recommendations. Stuart’s staff recommendations are to approve the request except not to allow those front yard setback changes to be made as requested by the applicant. So if it is your intent not to follow staff recommendations, don’t include staff recommendations in your motion. So Stuart’s recommendation is not to grant the applicant all aspects of what the applicant is requesting. So if you want to approve all aspects the applicant is requesting, then you are just going to approve the applicant’s request. Chairman Liesen stated it was his recollection that we have done this before, added a stipulation to staff’s recommendation. Ms. Garry stated you can go ahead and approve with staff’s recommendations except pull out the portion about the front yard setback, but make it really clear. Chairman Liesen asked if we are adding to the staff recommendations. Sorry for the confusion but her motion was to follow staff recommendations and add one more component. Mr. Schmeling said I think it would be clearer if you just stated, specifically, for Lot 32, the change and for Lot 33, the change. Because then it is obviously different than saying what staff recommends. It clearly identifies the changes and then we will know what gets approved. Chairman Liesen asked Ms. Cunningham if she wanted to modify or withdraw her motion. Ms. Cunningham said she would like to withdraw her motion to approve land use action 15-01000001. Mr. Hardy asked for clarification, that this is not the front of the house anyway, it is the side yard. Mr. Schmeling said as with any reverse corner lot, the front of the lot is determined by the width, the narrower of the two sides which is the one on the main street, not the cul-de-sac. You are right. However, that doesn’t prohibit someone from facing the house either direction depending on the size and shape of the lot. Mr. Hardy said which is the minimum of 20 feet for the front of the house. Mr. Schmeling said the minimum in this case if you change that will be 15 feet. You have to remember that at this point you are only dealing with the develop-ability of a vacant lot. There is no house plan in play, we don’t know what direction the house is going to face. He could face it either direction, he has a right to do so. I am saying you are dealing with a 65-foot by 90-foot lot. Ms. Garry requested Mr. Schmeling quickly explain exactly what the applicant is requesting and what parts of that you are recommending for approval and which parts you are not recommending for approval. Lake Havasu City Page 5 Printed on 11/5/2014 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes - October 1, 2014 Final Mr. Schmeling stated the two lots that are involved in this request are Lot 32 and Lot 33. The grading plan eloquently illustrates the setbacks with the dashed line. It shows the 10-foot side yard, the zero-foot side yard on Lot 32. The request for Lot 32 was to change it to allow for 5-foot setbacks on each side. *Ms. Garry said so that is it for Lot 32 and in line with what we did for 31, 30, and 29. I don’t think there is any misunderstanding of what is going on right there. Now the other part of the request is where we are running into all the confusion. Mr. Schmeling said the other part of the request is for Lot 33 and the grading plan dash marks indicate the setback or the building envelope and once again they show zero on this side, which is not a question, they show 10 feet in the rear and 20 feet along both fronts. The applicant has requested to reduce this yard from 10 to 5 and he has asked to reduce this yard from 20 to 15. Very simply stated. Staff has recommended as proposed for Lot 32, 5 and 5. Staff has recommended for Lot 33 only a portion of his proposed request. We recommend approval of the 5 foot in the rear but not to approve the 5 foot in the front. Mr. Bergen stated the explanation we just received from staff seems to be appropriate. It makes sense to me and I would move for approval of that as recommended by staff. Chairman Liesen asked Mr. Bergen if he did not want to deal with 5 foot front yard. Mr. Bergen said correct. Ms. Garry requested to give the Commission one more thing to consider. Now you know what staff’s recommendations are. Staff is making a recommendation based on planning methodology. What they would typically recommend or approve on a normal lot. However, in this circumstance we know there was a mistake made on one of the further up lots and that is why we have seen this domino effect down. The applicant is saying that that has had an adverse effect on his lot and that is why he is asking for the recommendation to not only change the side yard but also to change the front setback. Although staff is recommending that they wouldn’t approve that front side yard to be changed or to go with what the applicant is requesting, you as the commission can take into consideration other things such as settlement of a claim or an adverse impact into consideration when you are deciding whether or not to grant this applicant his request. Chairman Liesen stated we have a motion on the floor do approve staff recommendations and only staff recommendations. Is that right Mr. Bergen? Mr. Bergen stated that is correct. Lake Havasu City Page 6 Printed on 11/5/2014 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes - October 1, 2014 Final Chairman Liesen asked if there is a second. Mr. Hardy seconded the motion. Mr. Kendig asked Mr. Schmeling what was your reasoning, without going into a lot of detail of not wanting that to happen on Lot 33? Would it not look right? Mr. Schmeling replied that when it comes to corner lots, there are two types of corner lots. A standard corner lot and a reverse corner lot. This is what is called a reverse corner lot whereby the attempt is to maintain continuity along both streets. Somebody that would drive by for example would see a front yard or all these houses sitting back at this dashed line. The same holds true for this direction, if they drove down the street they would see the continuity of those homes all sitting at that same distance. It goes to a beautification of the area, front yard setback continuity. If it were approved as proposed by the applicant this home would bump out an additional 5 feet and it would not only look out of place but it would also change the view or the landscape if you will, driving down that street. That is the idea behind the reverse corner lot. Mr. Kendig stated the whole thing remains then as to which direction the builder faces the house. Is that what it comes down to? Mr. Schmeling clarified that the applicant can still face the house either direction. However, the impact is still going to be the same. If it is 5 foot of the side of the house or 5 foot further forward from the front of the house you are still going to get that visual impact. When I am coming down the street I see all these houses set in a nice little row and then I see all of a sudden this one pops out 5 feet. That is the impact. Ms. Cunningham wanted to make a comment about the last meeting and the discussion about the reverse corner lots and I think it was fairly extensive, is that the impression that the Board got? So from my view it seems that the reverse corner lot is something that is going to be discussed as an issue for a long time when people are trying to build on those lots. Is that not what was talked about last time? From my perception this gentleman had a choice made not by his own doing and in this particular lot, if it is approved, are we setting a precedent? My perception is that he, without any plans and requirements that it seems I would look at his situation and I would say that he should be allowed this because of the situation he was put in. But that is just my perception of the perfection of the planning idea. I think he should be allowed the individuality because he was forced into it. I would like to refer back to the last meeting and the last discussion we had about it, I think there was a lot of clarification that was done then. I am not sure I would make a second as it stands. Lake Havasu City Page 7 Printed on 11/5/2014 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes - October 1, 2014 Final Mr. Hardy stated that being a builder here the reverse corner lots are always a challenge here. I mean it is a known fact that if you are going to build on a reverse corner you are going to have that challenge. Chairman Liesen asked Mr. Schmeling to show it on the grading plan to clarify due to it being slightly misleading because of the scaling issue. I tend to agree with both the planning principle of keeping things in line on a reverse corner lot and I also understand Mr. Hardy’s idea that these are a constant issue, because they are. I also know that this particular development has a string of model homes so the floor plans are relatively constant and similar. I have been in this neighborhood before, I didn’t have any problem before with the 5 foot allowance and I don’t have a problem now, and I felt like Lot 33 should get a little bit of lenience because of that air mass violation in the back yard to his view. I am glad that we were able to work out the flip of the setback between 32 and 33. I just wish we could give some allowance to this particular one on 33. I don’t see a precedent here because it is a private subdivision. Chairman Liesen said we have a motion on the floor by Mr. Bergen is to do staff recommendations the way they stand. Mr. Bergen made a motion to approve with staff recommendations and only staff recommendations. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hardy. Motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 3 - Bergen, Kendig and Hardy Nay: 2 - Chairperson Liesen and Cunningham Absent: 4 - Nelson, Still, Gorden and McGowan Chairman Liesen clarified that what passed were staff recommendations only and did not have the 5 yard side change on Lot 33. Mr. Schmeling asked if because it passed 3 to 2 it is not a majority of the seated members. Is that all it takes in this particular instance on reconsideration? Is there any difference? Ms. Garry replied no, it is O.K. Chairman Liesen stated he hopes this will clarify all the confusion we have had so far. ID 14-0507 A request for a conditional use permit to allow open outdoor storage in the C-2, General Commercial District, at 1590 Industrial Boulevard. Mr. Schmeling stated this is a property located at 1590 Industrial Boulevard. It is zoned C-2, it is currently developed located at the corner of Industrial Boulevard and Kiowa. You can see the site has a building on it. It actually has a couple of uses on the property. The proposed site plan by the Lake Havasu City Page 8 Printed on 11/5/2014 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes - October 1, 2014 Final applicant is to add outdoor storage. Essentially fencing off an area and dedicating parking spaces for whatever types of vehicles, outdoor storage with the gated fence. The property currently has some paving for parking spaces. You can see they have parking spaces here to accommodate the other uses but it is underdeveloped at this point. The applicant is just requesting for gated open storage in the C-2 District which requires a conditional use permit. Chairman Liesen asked if there are any questions of the staff. Hearing none, he asked if the applicant was present and would like to make a presentation. Dan Campbell of Roman Construction and I am representing Peter Perl who is in Los Angeles right now. This piece of property used to be a storage yard. Peter bought it about 7 years ago and has maintained it very well. We have 70% of the area in question right now paved. There is just a little portion left in rock. What we are proposing to do is to put an automatic entrance gate at the south driveway on Kiowa for people to swipe in and swipe out. We have security cameras on site already. Frontier is south of us which already has a slatted block fence and we will meet the rest of the building codes that the City requires for storage yards. For now what we would like to do is take that yard and with open storage being what it is in the area already, there are two yards just south of us, we would like to use that area for open storage. A couple years ago we had planned on putting a building on that site and we still may put another commercial building on that site. For now, for the minimum amount of cost to the owner so he could get some revenue off the property, is just to use open space storage for now. Chairman Liesen asked if on the Kiowa side what kind of fencing or screening material might you be using. Mr. Campbell replied they would be putting up what the City requires which is a 6-foot fence with barb wire coming back on it with slats. Chairman Liesen asked if there are any other questions of the speaker. Hearing none, he asked if anyone in the audience would like to speak on this topic. Hearing none, he closed the public hearing. Mr. Schmeling stated staff finds that the proposed conditional use permit meets all the requirements set forth in 14.44.050 (G). Therefore, based on the findings the Development Review Committee recommends that land use action 14-0507 be approved with the following conditions. 1. Applicant must meet all the Building Code and Fire Department requirements. 2. Applicant must have a sight obscuring wall around the perimeter of the property as was addressed by the Commission. Chairman Liesen stated those conditions will be important because of the Fire exit rules and the Lake Havasu City Page 9 Printed on 11/5/2014 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes - October 1, 2014 Final fencing and everything else. Ms. Cunningham made a motion to approve item **14.44.050 (G) with staff recommendations and the following conditions including: Building Code requirements; Fire Department requirements; sight obscuring fence; proposed outdoor storage is limited to motorized vehicles, boats, trailers, and/or campers; and the storage of raw/hazardous materials is prohibited. Mr. Kendig seconded the motion. Motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 5 - Bergen, Chairperson Liesen, Kendig, Cunningham and Hardy Absent: 4 - Nelson, Still, Gorden and McGowan ID 14-0508 A request for a zone change from P-1, Public Lands and Facilities, to M-1P, Industrial Park District, for the 36.72 acre property located at 7051 Whelan Drive. Mr. Schmeling stated the City owns a piece of property at 7051 Whelan Drive. It is just south and east of the airport. At one time the entire site was designated for the North Wastewater Treatment Facility. We have divided that parcel into two pieces. The front one has the existing wastewater facility and all the accessory things that go along with it. The rear portion is the portion we are talking about today, the flag lot, 36.72-acres. This entire property is zoned P-1 as you can see. We are asking to have the rear portion rezoned to M1-P for the purpose of allowing all industrial uses that are allowed in M1-P District. Chairman Liesen asks if there are any questions of staff. Hearing none, he opens the item to the public hearing. Hearing none, the public hearing is closed. Mr. Schmeling states staff finds the proposed rezoning meets all the requirements set forth in 14.56.080 (B). Based on the findings, the Development Review Committee recommends that land use action 14-0508 be forwarded to the City Council with a recommendation of approval rezoning the property from P-1, Public Lands and Facilities, to M-1P, Industrial Park District. Mr. Bergen made a motion for approval with staff recommendations and the motion is seconded by Mr. Hardy. Mr. Bergen made a motion to approve 14-0508 with staff recommendations. Motion was seconded by Mr. Hardy. Motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 5 - Bergen, Chairperson Liesen, Kendig, Cunningham and Hardy Absent: 4 - Nelson, Still, Gorden and McGowan 7. CALL TO PUBLIC Lake Havasu City Page 10 Printed on 11/5/2014 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes - October 1, 2014 Final None. 8. FUTURE MEETING Mr. Schmeling stated there are no items for the meeting date of October 15, 2014 due to advertising issues. There are two items that will make it for the November 5th meeting. Mr. Bergen stated he should have mentioned this when we were talking about the minutes. I had a question regarding the Magnolia Design Review plan. I know it went to the Council on September 9th but I am still waiting for an answer as to whether design review plan comes before the Commission. Mr. Schmeling responded that he was sorry, he had committed at the last meeting to look that up and I will look that up and get that information to you. As a matter of fact, I will send it in the email when we cancel the meeting and I will also mention it at the next meeting in my beginning presentation. 9. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:42 a.m. *Ms. Garry referenced the previous action by the Commission in September regarding the actual application for setback changes of lots 27-30. That application specified reversing the side yard setbacks. Correction of this statement is to be made at the November 5, 2014, Planning Commission meeting. **Ms. Cunningham’s motion for approval was stated using 14.44.050 (G) which is the code section. The item the motion was made for is ID 14-0507. _______________________________________________________________ Jim Liesen, Chairman _______________________________________________________________ Diane Libby, Recording Secretary Lake Havasu City Page 11 Printed on 11/5/2014