Planning and Zoning Commission

Lake Havasu City Jim Liesen, Chairman Mychal Gorden, Vice-Chairman Lake Havasu City Police Facility Don Bergen 2360 McCulloch Blvd North Doug Hardy Regular Meeting Minutes - Final Lake Havasu City, Arizona 86403 www.lhcaz.gov Dan McGowan Chad Nelson Lucas Still Planning and Zoning Commission Christy Cunningham, Alternate John Kendig, Alternate Allen Windholz, Alternate Wednesday, March 18, 2015 9:00 AM Regular Meeting 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Liesen called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chairman Liesen lead in the Pledge of Allegiance. 3. ROLL CALL Let the record show that Mr. Hardy informed staff that he would not be present. Mr. Windholz was seated. Present: 8- Donald Bergen, Jim Liesen, Chad Nelson, Lucas Still, Mychal Gorden, Dan McGowan, Christy Cunningham and Allen Windholz Absent: 2- John Kendig and Doug Hardy 4. MINUTES Mr. McGowan made a motion to approve the minutes from January 7, 2015, seconded by Mr. Still and carried by the following vote: Aye: 7 - Bergen, Liesen, Nelson, Still, Gorden, McGowan and Windholz Absent: 3 - Kendig, Cunningham and Hardy 5. CORRESPONDENCE AND ANNOUNCEMENTS None 6. PUBLIC HEARING Lake Havasu City Page 1 Printed on 5/6/2015 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes - March 18, 2015 Final ID 15-0107 A Request for a Zone Change From RA (Residential Agricultural) and C-2/PD (General Commercial Planned Development) to M-1-P (Industrial Park) Mr. Schmeling identified the property as 1775 Kimo Circle and presented a PowerPoint slideshow and narrative including the following key points: • Map and description of the general location of 1775 Kimo Circle • Detailed street view map identifying subject property parcels location and sizes • Zoning map displaying subject property and surrounding properties Mr. Still asked Mr. Schmeling what was the purpose of the Planned Development that abuts this property. Mr. Schmeling detailed the history of the Planned Development which included phases. The first phase was heavy commercial with a later phase being a storage element. Some storage was done but not per the original Planned Development and that property was later subdivided and is under different ownership, now the same ownership as the RA parcel. Chairman Liesen asked if the applicant was present and would like to make a presentation. Mr. Lee Johnson of Double R Engineering introduced himself and stated that Stuart presented it well and if the Commission had any questions he would be happy to answer them. Mr. Nelson asked Mr. Johnson what use did he intend for the property. Mr. Johnson replied that right now the owner has a couple of different ideas that he is pushing around and they all fall right in with the industrial zone. One option is storage, another is light industrial. He has not made any decisions yet. The first step is getting it rezoned so he can move forward. Further Commission and staff discussion continued regarding the residential element and potential impacts. Chairman Liesen opened the public hearing. Hearing none, he closed the public hearing. Mr. Schmeling stated Section 14.56.080(B) of the Lake Havasu City Development Code requires findings be met before a property is rezoned. Staff finds that the request meets all review criteria necessary to rezone the property. Based on the findings, the Development Review Committee recommends that land use action 15-0107 (15-00400005) be recommended to City Council for approval. Lake Havasu City Page 2 Printed on 5/6/2015 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes - March 18, 2015 Final Further Commission and staff discussion included the following key points: • Concern for the residential component on the other side of the wash • Concern about placing M-1P next to residential with regard to noise and night activity • Detailed review of the current notification processes • Status of any objections received via phone or mail Mr. Johnson returned to the podium and stated that during the Growing Smarter meeting they only had one person attend the meeting and he was from one of the other M-1P zones to the west of our property. After the meeting I did have a call from two home owners across the street and they were more concerned with how this parcel got access and why they even received a letter. Once I explained we were rezoning a piece of property off Kimo, they had no concerns. Mr. Gordon commented the request is consistent with everything in the neighborhood, the existing M-1P and it would be hard not to go along with the request. Mr. Still stated he would reiterate the same thing, that there is a lot of M-1P, a wash, and then an R-2 zone which is a very good buffer and a better alternative than the current C-2 because of the differences in setbacks. I feel this is the appropriate direction for this request. Chairman Liesen asked if there was additional discussion and/or a motion. Mr. Gorden made a motion to approve the rezoning request of APN 115-19-005A and 115-19-006 from the C-2/PD and RA to the Requested M-1P Industrial Park District, seconded by Mr. Still and carried by the following vote: Aye: 5 - Liesen, Still, Gorden, McGowan and Windholz Nay: 2 - Bergen and Nelson Absent: 3 - Kendig, Cunningham and Hardy ID 15-0109 Request to Remove Tract 2257, Block 8, Lot 12 From the Master Parking-In-Common Plan for Block 8 Mr. Schmeling stated this is a request from Kyle Sullivan, the owner of 3127 Maricopa Avenue, to remove his property from parking-in-common. Mr. Schmeling presented a PowerPoint slideshow and narrative including the following key points: • Map and description of the general location of 3127 Maricopa Avenue • Map of the master parking-in-common plan and location of this property • Ariel photo of the entire block to indicate other uses allowed in the area • Detailed history of how the original parking-in-common plan was supposed to function and changes made to date • Topography issues and how they can impact the parking-in-common plan • Description of how the parking-in-common plan would function if this property is allowed to Lake Havasu City Page 3 Printed on 5/6/2015 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes - March 18, 2015 Final be removed from parking-in-common Chairman Liesen asked Mr. Schmeling if this property is removed from parking-in-common and the 40% reduction, how does this impact this lot and the neighboring lots. Mr. Schmeling replied that in the past we have honored the parking-in-common master plans as they were originally intended. As you know, over the years we have had individual parcels remove themselves from parking-in-common. Quite often it is the corner lots that are most popular to be removed. More often than not, they are a larger property and provide access to the main street and to a side street. We have never gone back and changed the percentages required. What we have done is anybody who develops within the parking-in-common block, we tell them you build the building if the use is allowed in the district we allow it as long as you meet the parking-in-coming standards and striping. You don’t have to provide anything additional. By voluntarily removing themselves from parking-in-common they will have to provide the correct number of parking spaces based on their development. That is the disadvantage to the owner or applicant. At this point in time, the owner’s letter of intent states that they intend to expand the RV business which is right across the street and potentially have some maintenance bays which would all be allowed in the district, however; they are going to have to provide parking on site to accommodate those uses. Chairman Liesen commented that the building adjacent to the east is not full or busy and you can tell by the number of empty parking spaces. Part of the reason he enjoys parking-in-common is if he rents out to high use tenants, say a real estate office or an insurance office, they have enjoyed the reduction because of the future expansion to the left, which they will no longer have. This could be considered a stunt to their potential build out. Have you received any comment from the owner of this building? Mr. Schmeling replied that he has not received any comments from any of the property owners within the block; however you have to remember the way that we set up this amendment process, or the removal process, is that 75% of the owners within the block were required to sign on the application. The assumption there is that if someone comes in and says “I want to be removed from parking-in-common” that there is a discussion that goes on explaining why he is eliminating himself from parking-in-common. Hopefully the discussion is had at that point and he agrees to sign on the application because I am O.K. with you eliminating yourself from parking-in-common. We don’t witness that discussion so I can’t say that it does occur, but that is the idea behind getting 75% of the owners’ signatures. Further discussion by the Commission and staff included the following key points: • Inquiry as to whether this could be handled with a Planned Development • Concern about limitation of parking for the building next door • Concern regarding the grade of vacant property in relation to the property next door Lake Havasu City Page 4 Printed on 5/6/2015 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes - March 18, 2015 Final • Estimates regarding the total number of parking spaces left if this request is approved • Concern regarding sufficient notice being sent to the owners and that it may not have gotten to the tenants • Review of the process in place for the City to remove multiple existing entrances • Questions regarding the parking lot meeting ADA requirements • Comments that current business owners in the block would lose more parking spaces Chairman Liesen asked if the applicant was present and would he like to make a presentation. No response received (applicant was not present). Chairman Liesen opened the public hearing. Hearing none, Chairman Liesen closed the public hearing. Mr. Schmeling stated that staff finds the application meets the minimum 75% owner confirmation. Further, topography and adjacent development prevent the complete use of parking-in-common as originally intended. Parking-in-common in Block 8 can continue to function in a limited capacity without the use of Lot 12. Based on the findings, the Development Review Committee recommends that land use action 15-0109 be approved eliminating Lot 12 from parking-in-common requirement. Further discussion by the Commission and staff included the following key points: • Comments that temporary use permit or conditional use permit may be a better fit • Concern that the neighbors on the block are not present to confirm they fully understand the impact of this action • Concern regarding moving forward without the applicant present • Suggestion was made to work with the applicant regarding parking lot configuration Prior to any motion being made, Chairman Liesen requested advice from the City Attorney, Kelly Garry, regarding the Commission’s options for taking action. Ms. Garry stated that it is up to the Board to determine whether or not you want to table the item. If you would like to hear from the applicant, if you don’t feel that you are able to make a decision at this point in time without further information. Mr. Nelson made a motion to postpone item 15-0109, amending the parking-in-common plan for Tract 2257 Block 8 by removing Lot 12 as requested by the applicant to May 6, 2015, seconded by Mr. McGowan and carried by the following vote: Aye: 5 - Liesen, Nelson, Gorden, McGowan and Windholz Nay: 2 - Bergen and Still Lake Havasu City Page 5 Printed on 5/6/2015 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes - March 18, 2015 Final Absent: 3 - Kendig, Cunningham and Hardy ID 15-0105 Planning Commission Hearing to Receive Public Input on the General Plan Update and Make Recommendation to City Council Mr. Schmeling addressed the Commission and stated that as many of you know, the State of Arizona requires that all communities or cities have a General Plan. They also require that General Plans are updated every ten years. Our last voter ratified General Plan was in 2002. We have had several amendments since then. Obviously, we are a couple of years behind the curve with regard to having a newly adopted, voter ratified General Plan. We hired a consulting firm, Clarion Associates, to update our General Plan. You have all been provided copies of the General Plan. The state also requires that we have two public hearings in two locations, one of which we had last night at the Aquatic Center. These hearings are designed to garner public input which we had last evening and I anticipate more of today. I am going to have Darcie White, with Clarion Associates, give a brief presentation. It won’t be as extensive as last night because I see a lot of familiar faces in the audience. She will not only describe generally speaking the elements of the plan and the changes to the plan, but she will also describe the whole process and what we have been through to date. There was some discussion last evening with regard to participation and the fact that it doesn’t appear that we have had a lot of public participation, however we have and I will let Darcie explain that and some of the things that we have done to encourage public participation. With that, I will introduce Darcie White with Clarion Associates. Ms. White greeted the Commission and stated as Stuart mentioned I will give a brief overview of the General Plan and where we stand today and information about the process. Ms. White presented a PowerPoint slideshow including narrative and information touching on the following elements of the plan: • General Plan Purpose • Current General Plan • New Elements to be Included in the General Plan • Public Involvement Plan • Opportunities to Participate • Opportunities to Follow the Process • Trends and Key Issues • Community Vision (Adopted) • Community Vision (Proposed) • Growth Management • Land Use and Future Land Use Plan Lake Havasu City Page 6 Printed on 5/6/2015 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes - March 18, 2015 Final • Housing and Neighborhoods • Economy • Circulation • Open Space and Recreation • Public Facilities and Services • Community Safety • Implementation Program • Appendices At the conclusion of the presentation Ms. White addressed Chairman Liesen and stated that she will want to circle back to discuss the proposed Vision Statement, but that she would leave the timing of that to the Chairman. Chairman Liesen stated he would start with a question. Since you finished on the implementation program, you mentioned this is going to take six months to a year and there are gaps we have to fill. Can you bring us up to speed on what the implementation process is, this has to be ratified by the voters for example, when will those things occur and is there a procedure we should know about? Mr. Schmeling addressed the Commission and stated that yes there is a procedure. As I alluded to earlier, one of the requirements from the state is that we have at least two public hearings. That is not saying we have to have more, that is just saying we have to have at least two. This meeting qualifies as the second public hearing. The Planning Commission has several options with regard to what direction you want to go today. First, you can decide that the plan is and of itself, a good reflection of the 2002 plan or of the desires of the community and recommend that it go on to Council as it is written. Or, you can make adjustments or changes to it, based on conversations yesterday and other input from citizens and recommend that that go forward to Council. Or, you can decide that there are other issues that need to be addressed with specific direction we can have Darcie go back, look at some of those things and come back at a later date and I would refrain from putting a date on it at this point because we have to do travel arrangements and those kinds of things from Denver. That would be an option and have another hearing at this level. Ultimately, it will go to City Council which has not been scheduled at this point and after Council holds a public hearing with potential public input, potential changes, and votes, once they adopt the plan by a super majority vote we will have to have an election or special election for the voter ratification of the plan. The state says it has to be at least 120 days from the day of the Council adoption of the plan. So that gives it another buffer to get information out to the general public, create an election pamphlet and public notice and do promotional things. That is why Darcie suggested it could take up to a year. I don’t see it taking that long, however it could depending on how many additional hearings we have if any, depending on how much public input we have at the Council level, all those factors. Lake Havasu City Page 7 Printed on 5/6/2015 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes - March 18, 2015 Final Further discussion by the Commission, staff, and Ms. White continued including the following key points: • Requested clarification as to the impact if the voters do not ratify the General Plan • Requested clarification regarding land use categories/uses in Table 3.1 on page 42 • Regarding condominium uses, how do currently entitled projects impact the plan • Clarification regarding the Development Code and zoning in the General Plan • Clarification regarding the General Plan and the Zoning Map • Concern regarding Resort-Related Island uses and known restrictions to prevent achieving the proposed goal • Concern that deeper analysis may be required and asked if it is part of the scope of work • Review of the General Plan amendment process • Concern the projected growth rate figures are too low • Clarification regarding the impact and timing of the MPO plan on the Circulation element • Pros/cons of the value provided by an economic study • Additional projects underway that will help encourage growth, such as the Fields Needs Assessment Chairman Liesen asked Ms. White to present the Vision Statement. Ms. White presented the Vision Statement that is currently included in the adoption draft of the plan. She provided a brief history on how it originated and how it was updated. Following this, she presented the proposed replacement Vision Statement, which is longer and has more detail, more specifics. This was presented to us by Doug Traub, one of the General Plan Review Committee members. After this presentation Ms. White stated that there were a couple of comments made at last night’s meeting to remove the words “a melting pot” and “we will not rest on our laurels”. Chairman Liesen opened the public hearing. Mr. Bruce Hubbard shared his comments and concerns which were centered on the need for a second bridge to the island. Summarized comments included the following key points: • Money should be spent on a second bridge • Reference made to a group formed approximately 10 years ago regarding second bridge and no action taken • Suggested leftover money at end of the fiscal year to be put toward the second bridge • Expected population increase • Access for fire response to homes on the island • Money used for signage is a waste Ms. Diane Klostermeier shared her comments and concerns regarding confusion resulting from the Lake Havasu City Page 8 Printed on 5/6/2015 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes - March 18, 2015 Final meeting March 17, 2015, at the Aquatic Center. Summarized comments included the following key points: • When I brought up the concerns of mixed-use it was not that a commercial development had various types of uses on its commercial property • Mixed-use is changing our General Plan to incorporate residential and commercial on properties that did not formally have that • As the City grows, we will need jobs • Need to promote tourism • Concerns of density increases with references made to the Development Code and General Plan Further discussion by the Commission, staff, and Ms. Klostermeier included the following key points: • Clarification regarding removing old designations in the General Plan and that zoning such as R-2 is still going to have height restrictions • Comments regarding the original intent of the R/UDAT study and the manner in which it is being applied to the General Plan • Developers along the channel can request to eliminate setbacks • People want access to the channel for themselves and visitors • Posed the question that if the citizens reject the General Plan and it reverts back to 2002, will it include the changes that City Council has made to date In response to the concern regarding the General Plan not being approved by the voters, Ms. Garry clarified that it will be just as it is today, nothing will change. If something new isn’t adopted it remains exactly what it is today until something is adopted. Mr. Doug Traub, President of the Convention and Visitors Bureau commented that I have the opportunity to serve on the advisory Committee for the General Plan. First of all, I would like to say that I think Clarion has done a great job. All the changes and corrections that we talked about at the Committee level were reflected in the document. They have been very helpful. There are things I have submitted on my own I have seen minor modifications and what we get when we bring this to the voters is that everybody has had a chance to participate. If it doesn’t get passed then shame on us because certainly there has been a year for all of us to speak up and get involved because if anybody is watching right now you can still go online and you can still take a look at it and I bet they will still look at your comments. I think we have done a great job and I am happy to be a part of it. Mr. Traub continued addressing the Commission with the following topics: • The second bridge and the channel development items will most likely be included in the Economic Development plan that his group is working on and will have put together by the end of October Lake Havasu City Page 9 Printed on 5/6/2015 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes - March 18, 2015 Final • History of the original Vision Statement, the proposed Vision Statement and agreement that the two identified words/phrases should be removed • Reported positive feedback for wayfinding from the 2014 Visitor’s Study report Ms. Vicky Warner commented that the General Plan is vague; there are so many references to ordinances and other items that I couldn’t find. I would like to state a concern for the single family residential, not changing the neighborhoods. Mr. Gordon Groet addressed the Commission and staff with discussion on the following points: • Review of the Growing Smarter legislation requirements with regards to the General Plan update • Requested clarification regarding how the City measured and reported ethnic representation • Inquired why there was no mechanism to self-identify during the process • Inquired how the City provides proof to the state that it has met all of the requirements Ms. Garry clarified that the Growing Smarter plan has an outline of what you are going to provide. It says you must get continuous public participation from all geographic, ethnic, and economic areas of the municipality. This is through the written plan that we came up with. The written plan that we came up with is in accordance with state statutes that outline all of the steps and all of the things that you have to do. Broad dissemination of the proposal and alternatives, which has been done, opportunity for written comments, which of course has been done, public hearings, which of course has been done, open discussions, communications, programs and informational services in consideration of public comment. I do believe that the City has met all of those requirements. Chairman Liesen closed the public hearing. Mr. Schmeling stated that staff recommends that land use action 15-0105, the Lake Havasu City General Plan, be amended to include the updated Vision Statement and forwarded to City Council for approval. Further discussion by the Commission and staff continued including the following key points: • Clarification requested regarding the suggested motion as written • Clarification requested of additional motion options available to the Commission • Concerns regarding Resort Related Island land use not in alignment with Arizona State intentions • Guidance requested regarding tentative approval pending a work session • Questions regarding impact to the Clarion contract if additional public hearings or work sessions are scheduled Ms. Garry responded to the approval and motion questions and stated if you have certain areas that Lake Havasu City Page 10 Printed on 5/6/2015 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes - March 18, 2015 Final you want to dive into and really discuss with the consultant and the staff and iron some of these out then I’d give that direction now and let those areas be known. Give them some time to go back and try to figure out what resolution you want and how those can be addressed. Then have a work session or have another meeting where you can really discuss those items, you will be educated and they now know what your concerns are and try to hash some of those out. If it is something that you think you could work through, then I would just have a regular meeting and discuss those items and then try to get to the point where you feel comfortable recommending this document to the City Council because ultimately, that is where we want to get to. Regarding a motion, Ms. Garry cautioned before you do a motion, we don’t want to do a ten page motion with all of the issues so if everyone else has any other issues that you would like to discuss at a follow-up meeting which could be a work session or a regular meeting, let’s make sure that they are aware of that and your direction is either going to be to postpone this item until next meeting or to schedule a work session or whatever that may be. That will simplify your motion. Mr. Schmeling responded to the questions regarding the potential cost impact and stated that the potential is really no additional cost because if we have a public meeting we have the ability to have them participate by phone. If they decide or choose to come here and be face to face with us, there is some cost associated with that but I think our contract can absorb it. We had a number of public hearings that we determined up front that would be appropriate and this adds to it, it may adjust the contract a little bit but nothing that we can’t absorb. Chairman Liesen stated I hope that we could make a list amongst the Commission and email it to Stuart by the end of the week so that we can advise Clarion on some of our key items. Perhaps we can keep it to a dozen. I share some of Mr. Still’s concerns in that I don’t like the vagueness, but I understand why we need it. I would at least like to be able to make the ideas in here compatible with the reality of what we have. On this list I would also consider that perhaps we need a little bit more descriptive information in how the density units can apply in different places. I understand that some of these densities were changed so that we could accommodate things like assisted living. That hasn’t come up in discussion and I think that will be explanatory and helpful for the community to understand. Mr. Gorden stated he agrees with the direction and asked Chairman Liesen and Mr. Bergen, who are on the committees, how do they feel where we are at today based on the process that they have been through. Mr. Bergen replied that he thinks we are following very much what we were discussing on the Committee. I would add that as the speaker today brought up a couple of subjects that perhaps there should be a little more detail in the plan regarding the channel. The speaker that brought up the second bridge, that very definitely should be in the General Plan. Over the past several months Lake Havasu City Page 11 Printed on 5/6/2015 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes - March 18, 2015 Final I made seven pages of written comments that I have given to Darcie through Stuart. I have asked that those comments be passed on to Council when we get to that point. I think we are doing the job as it should be done. Mr. Liesen commented that he would agree with that. He was able to attend all but one of the various meetings. I found that the Committee’s composition was diverse and I was happy to see that. We had a broad cross section of people in those meetings. There were agreements and disagreements on various items in those meetings and I think it surprised everyone there. In the end Clarion did a good job of absorbing that and working that through this document, better than I expected. Mr. Still made a motion to table this issue until the Planning Commission has a chance to meet in a work session and bring it back to the Commission at a point after that work session, seconded by Mr. Nelson and carried by the following vote: Aye: 7 - Bergen, Liesen, Nelson, Still, Gorden, McGowan and Windholz Absent: 3 - Kendig, Cunningham and Hardy 7. CALL TO PUBLIC None 8. FUTURE MEETING Wednesday, April 1, 2015. 9. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Liesen adjourned the meeting at 11:40 a.m. _______________________________________________________________ Jim Liesen, Chairman _______________________________________________________________ Diane Libby, Recording Secretary Lake Havasu City Page 12 Printed on 5/6/2015