Planning and Zoning Commission

Jim Harris, Chairman Lake Havasu City Lucas Still, Vice-Chairman Police Facility Mychal Gorden 2360 McCulloch Blvd North Doug Hardy Lake Havasu City, Arizona John Kendig 86403 Dan McGowan www.lhcaz.gov Chad Nelson Leo Biasiucci, Alternate Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting Christy Cunningham, Alternate Allen Windholz, Alternate Minutes - Final Wednesday, June 21, 2017 9:00 AM 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Harris called the meeting to order at 9:02 a.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chairman Harris lead in the Pledge of Allegiance. 3. ROLL CALL Present: 9- Lucas Still, Mychal Gorden, Christy Cunningham, Doug Hardy, Jim Harris, John Kendig, Chad Nelson, Dan McGowan and Leo Biasiucci Absent: 1- Allen Windholz 4. MINUTES Approve Regular Meeting Minutes from May 17, 2017 Mr. Still made a motion to approve the minutes as written, seconded by Mr. Hardy, and carried by the following vote: Aye: 7 - Still, Gorden, Hardy, Harris, Kendig, Nelson and McGowan Absent: 3 - Cunningham, Windholz and Biasiucci 5. CORRESPONDENCE AND ANNOUNCEMENTS None. 6. PUBLIC HEARING ID 17-1241 A Request for a Preliminary Subdivision Plat a Replat of Grand Island Estates Parcel “D” Reducing the Lots from 48 to 33 Residential Lots. Mr. Schmeling thanked Chairman Harris and stated that the applicant has asked that this item be pulled from this agenda and placed on the next Planning Commission agenda which is July 5, 2017. The applicant has run into some concerns which may involve changing this plat so the applicants would like a couple more weeks to address their concerns before the Commission reviews this plat. Lake Havasu City Page 1 Printed on 9/6/2017 Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - Final June 21, 2017 Chairman Harris opened the Public Hearing, hearing none, he closed the public hearing. Mr. Gorden made a motion to postpone ID Number 17-1241 to the July 5, 2017 Planning and Zoning meeting seconded by Mr. McGowan and carried with the following vote: Aye: 7 - Still, Gorden, Hardy, Harris, Kendig, Nelson and McGowan Absent: 3 - Cunningham, Windholz and Biasiucci ID 17-1242 A Request for a Preliminary Subdivision Plat Being a Replat of Parcel “A” to include Lot A-1 (1.07 acres), Lot A-2 (3.4 acres), and Lot A-3 (4.5 acres) to Divide Out Existing Buildings and Associated Parking. Mr. Schmeling thanked Chairman Harris and presented a PowerPoint slideshow and narrative including some of the following key points: • Property location and description • The original plat as it was approved • Proposed re-plat of the lots Chairman Harris asked Mr. Schmeling what is the reasoning behind this request. Mr. Schmeling responded he did not know for certain, but he believes that the request for a replat is so that individuals can purchase their own buildings, as well as a portion of the overall development. Chairman Harris opened the meeting to the applicant and asked if they would like to make a presentation. Lee Johnson with APL Surveying represents the owners on this project. His summarized comments include the following key points: • Ownership interest has been shown by occupants of the buildings located in the parcels • Current owners are proceeding with this request to accommodate that interest Mr. Still asked Mr. Johnson if this change will make it possible for development of a bigger building envelope or are there restrictions on that and the occupants just want to own the parcels for the parking purposes. Mr. Johnson explained buildings could not be expanded because minimum parking requirements would not be met if they were allowed to do so. Lake Havasu City Page 2 Printed on 9/6/2017 Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - Final June 21, 2017 Mr. Nelson asked Mr. Johnson if these individual buildings have their own power and water or is it a common power source that powers the whole building where the meters are and everything. Mr. Johnson explained that each building is on a separate power source and each building has its own metering. The only utilities that would still be in the mall association would be the exterior lighting which all go off of one main source. This is with the exception of the JC Penney’s parcel which has their own exterior lighting. In addition, the landscape watering is done through the mall ownership. Chairman Harris opened the Public Hearing, hearing none, he closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Schmeling stated that staff finds that the proposed preliminary plat meets the requirements within Title 13 entitled Subdivisions. Based on the findings, the Development Review Committee recommends that preliminary plat for the replat of Parcel “A” dividing out existing buildings and associated parking be approved with the following conditions: • Easement language shall be provided on the plat for the existing Unisource Energy Services gas facilities in, across and through Parcel A. Mr. Still made a motion to approve ID number 17-1242 a request for preliminary subdivision plat a replat of Parcel A to include Lot A-1, 1.074 acres, Lot A-2, 3.4 acres, and Lot A-3, 4.5 acres, to divide out existing buildings and associated parking to include staffs recommendation, seconded by Mr. McGowan, and carried by the following vote: Aye: 7 - Still, Gorden, Hardy, Harris, Kendig, Nelson and McGowan Absent: 3 - Cunningham, Windholz and Biasiucci ID 17-1238 A Request to Remove APN 107-78-004, Tract 2360, Block 2, Lot 4, 145 Park Avenue from PD 93-001 by Rezoning the Property from C-1/PD (Limited Commercial Planned Development) to C-1 (Limited Commercial) District. Mr. Schmeling thanked Chairman Harris and presented a PowerPoint slideshow and narrative including some of the following key points: • Property location and description • Current zoning of the property • The original General Development plan as approved in the early 1990’s • Proposed rezoning of the property Lake Havasu City Page 3 Printed on 9/6/2017 Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - Final June 21, 2017 Mr. Still asked Mr. Schmeling why the PD was not changed when the parcel was divided off. Based on Mr. Still’s understanding, a PD is specific and there are parcels where there has to be a pad and there has to be parking. The division of these parcels made that PD impossible to perform on. Mr. Schmeling stated he agrees with Mr. Still’s statement. Once those parcels were divided and sold to individual owners, the owners have the opportunity to come in at that time and ask to rezone the property if it is determined that it is appropriate. This PD has had amendments over the years and at one point, an amendment was to change all of these uses just to restaurant uses and then it was amended back. The City does not typically go in and initiate a rezoning whether the parcels get split or as in this case, from 1993 you could almost suggest that since none of the parcels have developed the PD is no longer appropriate. The City would typically wait until an individual owner came forward and requested a rezoning. Ideally it would be nice if all of the owners came forward with a joint application to rezone the parcels and remove the PD all at once, but if only one application comes through we have to review it on it's own merit. Mr. Still stated that he understands. So the original PD had some verbiage in it, or at least some of the parcels did, with regards to the old McCulloch Corporation having some say. Is that something that the City no longer has to worry about? Mr. Schmeling responded to Mr. Stills question and explained that at this point he has not looked into that, but he and Ms. Garry can see if any conditions from the McCulloch Corporation applies to the PD. Mr. Schmeling further stated that he would suggest that once the property is rezoned and goes through the entire process, ultimately being rezoned by Council, he does not believe that those conditions would apply anymore. Mr. Still addressed Mr. Schmeling and asked if the general plan for these parcels is encumbered by the resort area general plan. Mr. Schmeling stated that he believes this area is resort related if he is not mistaken and the C-1 District is one of the appropriate zoning categories. The parcels can also be rezoned to other designations such as I-B (Island Body Beach). There are several parcels adjacent to this that are zoned Island-Body Beach that would allow for more uses, but in this case the applicant has chosen just to go to C-1. Mr. Kendig addressed Mr. Schmeling and asked what the height limit is if this rezone is approved. Mr. Schmeling stated that the height limitation in the C-1 District is 25 feet and there were no height exceptions on this portion of the PD. There were some height regulations with Lake Havasu City Page 4 Printed on 9/6/2017 Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - Final June 21, 2017 regard to the hotel limiting it to two stories, but there were no height limitations other than the district standards. Mr. Nelson addressed Mr. Schmeling. He asked if there are any parking-in-common requirements on this parcel and if the applicant would have to request to have the requirements removed if they wanted to put a wall up or something like that. Mr. Schmeling stated he did not see any parking-in-common requirements with regards to this particular planned development. If you look at the language when this was approved back in 1993, it implies by the look of the site plan that there is shared parking that these business would share. You have to remember that at that time this was all one parcel with one owner so it was anticipated that the property would be developed by that owner or ownership group. Now that the parcels are divided this is no more than an adopted site plan, so there are no parking-in-common restrictions that he is aware of. Mr. McGowan addressed Mr. Schmeling and asked if all of the other parcel owners are in accord with the rezoning and there are no potential problems there. Mr. Schmeling responded to Mr. McGowan and explained that as part of this process, and he will let the owner and applicant expand on this, they are required to have a citizens meeting before they come to the Commission for review. The applicant notifies the property owners within 300 feet, which includes all of these adjacent owners, and it is his understanding that there were no concerns expressed by any of those owners. That would suggest that the other owners do not have an issue with this parcel pulling out of the planned development. Mr. Gorden addressed Mr. Schmeling stating that the City is an owner of one of these parcels and he would like to know what the City’s long term plan. He knows there has been discussion about getting everything out of this PD, but has there been any discussion internally and does the City have a preference on what happens in this area long term. Mr. Schmeling explained that at this point there have not been a lot of discussion about it. The City owned parcel is adjacent to the Aquatic Center on the opposite side of Park Avenue. In the event that the application would have come in with all of the owners except for the City, the City would have probably formulated an opinion and more than likely would have pulled out of that planned development. The City does not have any current plans for the development of the site, but if the other owners jump on board with rezoning, the City would probably join in. Mr. Kendig addressed Mr. Schmeling and asked if there is a turn off from the highway into this property. Lake Havasu City Page 5 Printed on 9/6/2017 Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - Final June 21, 2017 Mr. Schmeling explained that the PD actually had a restriction where there would be no highway access allowed once the right-of-way from Mulberry was extended and Park Avenue was developed. That prevents any of these properties from accessing Highway 95. An applicant could approach ADOT and request highway access, but he doubts that would be approved. Chairman Harris opened the meeting to the applicant inviting them to come forward and make their presentation. Mike Dagon, owner of Mohave Realty, is representing the owner of the parcel in this rezone request. He would like to answer any questions that the Commissioners may have. Mr. Dagon stated that he can tell the Commission that he did contact all of the parcel owners and asked every one of them to be part of this application and he was basically told that the other owners would just see how he does with this request. Mr. Schmeling was going to allow all of the property owners to file under one application which was a great service from the City and they all said no. He spoke with everyone with the exception of the hotel owner. He sent correspondence to the hotel owner by email and mail but received no response. Mr. McGowan addressed Mr. Dagon and asked if he knows the amount of property owners involved in this PD. Mr. Dagon responded stating that there are six total owners. The parcel was originally split from five or six acres to five lots and the parcel across the street which is the sixth lot. Mr. Nelson addressed Mr. Dagon. He asked what is planned for this property and if Mr. Dagon foresee portions of the property being walled off or parking becoming an issue. Mr. Dagon explained that luckily all of the pads are an acre or bigger so each use should be able to facilitate whatever they want for their own property. There is no definitive plan right now. They wanted the flexibility to decide what they are going to do. The final outcome of the development will be determined after they know the outcome of their rezoning request. Chairman Harris opened the Public Hearing, hearing none, he closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Schmeling stated that staff finds the proposed rezoning meets all the requirements set forth in 14.05.04(K)(6)(a)(1 & 2) and (6)(c)(1-6). Based on the findings, the Development Review Committee recommends that land use action 17-1238 be forwarded to the City Council with a recommendation of approval rezoning Tract 2360, Block 2, Lot 4 from Lake Havasu City Page 6 Printed on 9/6/2017 Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - Final June 21, 2017 C-1/PD to C-1 Limited Commercial removing Lot 4 from the Planned Development 93-001. Mr. Gorden made a motion to approve a rezone of APN 107-78-004 from C-1/PD (Limited Commercial Planned Development) to C-1 (Limited Commercial), seconded by Mr. Hardy, and carried by the following vote: Aye: 7 - Still, Gorden, Hardy, Harris, Kendig, Nelson and McGowan Absent: 3 - Cunningham, Windholz and Biasiucci ID 17-1240 A Request for a Major Amendment to the Anderson Autoplex Planned Development 07-00200007 in the C-2/PD (General Commercial Planned Development) District to Change the General Development Plan for Lots 6, 11, and 12 from Car Dealerships and Retail/Restaurant to Storage Units. Mr. Schmeling thanked Chairman Harris and presented a PowerPoint slideshow and narrative including these following key points: • Property location and description • Current zoning of the property and surrounding properties • The currently adopted general development plan including table of lots, size of lots and anticipated use of the lots • The height exemption condition that was approved allowing all lots to have a 36 foot height exemption • The proposed development plan for the property Mr. Still addressed Mr. Schmeling and stated that this is a major planned amendment and there is an ordinance attached to it. Are there any other conditions on that ordinance or did the City give up anything when this ordinance went into place? Mr. Schmeling explained that the ordinance has 10 conditions. There was a lot of discussion at the time about traffic impact and the access onto London Bridge Road. There are some height exceptions but relative to the zoning there really were not any additional requests. At that time none of the infrastructure was in and there had been no improvements made. They were required, as they would be in any other development, to create the roadway and provide all of the utilities so those are all available. At the time there was a lot of discussion with regard to those uses and those types of uses and the type of tax generation that they create. Obviously now this is ten years later and many of those sites have not been developed. Mr. Still asked Mr. Schmeling if what the applicant is proposing fits with the condition of the ordinance with regards to the façade requirements in condition number 4. Lake Havasu City Page 7 Printed on 9/6/2017 Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - Final June 21, 2017 Mr. Schmeling responded that from a staff perspective at that time there was some concern about façades only because the code at that time was a little bit lax compared to today’s code. But in today’s code there are enough standards that prevent some of the things from occurring that were not addressed in the City’s code at the time. Chairman Harris addressed Mr. Schmeling and asked if the City gave up any concessions when the ordinance was adopted. Mr. Schmeling stated that he knows there was some discussion with regard to the revenue generation, but he is not aware and was not a party to anything that was given up or exchanged. Mr. Gorden addressed Chairman Harris pointing out that number 10 on the list of conditions points to a development agreement. If the Commission looked at that he is sure that if there are tax concessions or anything else granted on behalf of this plan it would be outlined in the development agreement. He further states that he doesn’t know if the City Attorney can speak to that or anybody else has any other information on what the development states. Ms. Garry explained that there is a development agreement related to those properties and it is a rebate sales tax agreement so over time sales tax is rebated to reimburse for improvements that are made to that property. As far as anything given up, not necessarily, but they are rebating themselves back for infrastructure that was appropriate and approved at that time. Mr. Gorden addressed Ms. Garry and asked if the developer does not build the improvements they do not get the tax credit back. Ms. Garry responded and stated that the property owner already has built all of the improvements so that was all of the infrastructure to the properties that was necessary to get them to the point where they are now. Those expenses have been incurred and they are being reimbursed by the sales tax generated by the properties that exist on those parcels now. Mr. Gorden addressed Mr. Schmeling and asked if when the City amends a PD like this where we are taking 3 parcels out of an existing PD, especially when there is a development agreement tied to that, do the other property owners in the planned development have to agree with it or how does that typically work when we are taking a piece out. Does the City make that decision solely or do the other parties to the planned development have to concur with what is going on? Lake Havasu City Page 8 Printed on 9/6/2017 Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - Final June 21, 2017 Mr. Schmeling explained that if there are individual owners of other parcels they do not necessarily have to concur. They can express their concerns through the public hearing process and the Commission, as well as the City Council can utilize those concerns in decision making; however, in this particular case the Commission has to be careful that we are not removing this from the PD. It is still part of the PD it’s just that the Commission is adopting a different general development plan for these three lots. The lots are staying within the PD. They will still have to abide by all of the conditions except in this case it is recommended that the 36 foot height be changed for these specific lots because in the event that this request is approved, a 36 foot height for a storage unit development would not be appropriate. Chairman Harris opened the meeting to the applicant and asked if they would like to make a presentation. George Sharma, applicant representing his clients who are purchasing the lots, addressed the Commission. His summarized presentation included these key points: • The PD was explained to the applicant and his clients by Mr. Schmeling prior to submitting this application • They are in escrow for lots 5 through 12 • Their vision includes keeping lot number 5 for a future dealership • 3 lots will be utilized to build storage units, or mini man caves • They have an interested party looking at two of the other lots for a boat and toy dealership • The last two parcels are being held in an effort to bring a fast-food chain or restaurant • The developer is not concerned with the height restrictions because they only need a 24 foot height for the storage facility Chairman Harris addressed Mr. Sharma and asked if the purchase of these parcels is contingent upon approval of this zoning change application. Mr. Sharma stated yes. Mr. Kendig addressed Mr. Sharma. He asked if the units are all enclosed and if there is any allowance for outdoor parking. Mr. Sharma explained that there will be a driveway and common parking between the storage units as required by code. He has already built an experiment on London Bridge Road. There were approximately 198 units built and they all sold. He still has people inquiring to purchase these types of units. Based on this, both he and his client thought it would be a great opportunity to build on these parcels which would create more activity on Lake Havasu City Page 9 Printed on 9/6/2017 Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - Final June 21, 2017 that end of the town. Chairman Harris opened the Public Meeting. Dean Baker, owner of Lake Havasu City Properties, addressed the Commission. His summarized statements include the following key points: • Mr. Baker represents Mr. Anderson in the sale and listing of this property • The property has been vacant for over 10 years • The mall that is adjacent to the property is struggling to remain in business • This rezoning and purchase will give the opportunity to get development moving • The goal is to bring a boat dealership and some restaurants to boost development • As the property sits undeveloped there is no tax revenue being generated Chairman Harris closed the Public Meeting and opened the meeting for staff recommendation. Mr. Schmeling stated that staff finds the proposed rezoning meets all the requirements set forth in 14.05.04(K)(6)(a)(1-2); (6)(c)(1-6). Based on the findings, the Development Review Committee recommends that land use action 17-1240 be forwarded to the City Council with a recommendation of approval of an amendment to the Anderson Autoplex Planned Development changing the general development plan for lots 6, 11, and 12 to allow storage units with a maximum building height of 25 feet within the C-2 District. Chairman Harris addressed the Commission. His summarized comments include the following key points: • He has some concerns over this rezoning request • The mall development has struggled over the course of the last 8-9 years • The property should remain retail • There is concern that the first sight coming into town will be storage units Mr. Still addressed the Commission. His summarized comments included the following key points: • The property was C-2 zoning before it was put into a PD • C-2 zoning would allow storage • He is uncertain the economics in Lake Havasu can support full retail build-out of the area Mr. Nelson addressed Mr. Schmeling and explained that he does not see why the height exception matters. If the developer can go up to 36 feet and they can made a more Lake Havasu City Page 10 Printed on 9/6/2017 Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - Final June 21, 2017 beautiful façade that is 30 feet high instead of 24 feet then why change the height restriction to 25 feet. Mr. Still commented on Mr. Nelson,s statement, adding that the C-2 zoning does not even go up to 36 feet. The 36 feet height restriction was something that was given as part of the PD and Mr. Schmeling is simply taking that away at this point and reducing the height limitation a little more because it is storage. Chairman Harris addressed the commission and stated prior to going to a vote, he needs to explain his position for the record. He is probably going to take an unpopular position, especially based on being a business person here in town. If this was his application he would certainly want it to pass, in this particular case he is representing more of the community than not and he will probably be voting no on this action. Mr. Nelson addressed the Commission and stated that he thinks the overall plan is good. Storage units on their own, no, but the overall plan that this applicant can bring more business to the area adds value. Mr. McGowan addressed the Commission and commented that if the City allows for storage units on the corner to get some of that property used, what’s the next piece of that property going to be. Chairman Harris invited Mr. Sharma, the applicant, back to the podium for clarification. Mr. Sharma addressed the Commission. His summarized statements included the following key points: • The remaining properties will remain intact as the PD stated • The three parcels they are changing will be the catalyst to bring everybody to the area • There will still be another dealership there and the owners of the other parcel will keep another dealership • Two parcels along the highway will remain zoned for fast food restaurants • The remaining two parcels will keep the PD to allow for a boat dealership • The development plan is to make these storage units look appealing from the highway and adjacent streets. Chairman Harris addressed Mr. Sharma and explained that we have no assurance of the developers design plan. A design plan is not a requirement in this proceeding. He further explains that from a business perspective this plan is a no-brainer and the storage units will be a money maker. Keeping the other parcels available for restaurants is a good idea. The rezoning is deviating from the original concept of the PD and if this is approved the Lake Havasu City Page 11 Printed on 9/6/2017 Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - Final June 21, 2017 Commission will be setting a precedent and the other parcels owners will be able to do the same thing. This would potentially lead to the development of more storage units on the other parcels. This is where his concern is. Mr. Sharma responded to Chairman Harris and explained that they own all of the other surrounding parcels and they will not be able to sell the other parcels and direct the buyer to build more storage units. The same situation happened to the Anderson family. When they were trying sell, the property was marketed as a C-2 property. Only after doing their homework did they find that they were unable to develop the parcels as they planned. That is why they are here before the Commission. If you look at the history of the area, the only parcel that is making money is Wal-Mart, but the rest of the people are struggling. This way they will bring more traffic to the area as the storage owners are bringing their toys and boats. Mr. McGowan addressed Mr. Sharma. His summarized comments include the following key points: • Auto dealership rows, like in Las Vegas, draw people because of convenient location and variety • Mailers were sent out to citizens at one time requesting their wish list for retail stores, like Costco • The result of the mailers showed the community’s desire for larger retail stores • The development of storage units in those parcels will only draw those people to the area that are storing their motorhomes and what not at the storage facility • If the remaining undeveloped lots remain undeveloped, it’s a possibility that there will be more storage units built Mr. Sharma explained that they already have a boat dealership interested in moving into one of the parcels because of the potential of the space. The boat sales that are currently going on at one of the retail locations at the mall is currently deviating from the planned development. Mr. Sharma further explained that he has been in Lake Havasu City for 25 years and has built a lot of developments that have been successful. Chairman Harris addressed the Commission and stated the public testimony period is now closed. There is a gentleman in the back wishing to speak so the public testimony portion is being opened again. Dick Anderson, current property owner addressed the Commission. His summarized statements include these key points: • In the 10 years he has owned the property in question, he has had only two offers Lake Havasu City Page 12 Printed on 9/6/2017 Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - Final June 21, 2017 from prospective purchasers • He has been to car dealerships everywhere and they do not want to move to Lake Havasu City • They have entertained and worked with this for years • Mr. Anderson has wanted to sell the property • The property was purchased primarily because he thought it was a good place for his dealership • After 10 years and several million dollars invested, 4 million of which was infrastructure, nobodys want the property • Mr. Anderson is disappointed in hearing the difficulties with rezoning the property • The Anderson Automotive Group has made a tremendous investment in this community • The development plan that was made between Anderson Automotive and the City was a tough agreement that generated once cent of every two cents in sales tax being rebated • The agreement also had a time limit and the City is not going to have to pay more than a million dollars of what was promised to him over a 15 year period Chairman Harris thanked Mr. Anderson and invited Mr. Baker to approach the podium. Mr. Baker addressed the Commission and stated he has reached out to Costco, Target and a few other big box chains in the last year. He has spoken with the higher-ups in their real estate divisions and the stores are not interested in coming here. This was part of his marketing plan, to get somebody into these lots that would be a nice fit for the property. Chairman Harris closed the Public Meeting and brought the meeting back for discussion amongst the Commissioners. Mr. Gorden addressed the Commission. He explained that this is a tough issue dealing with the entry coming into this community. He started off very conflicted about this plan, but was happy to see the applicants plan and vision to maintain the frontage and to maintain a majority of the PD. What he struggles with is what is worse for this town; seeing some high-quality storage units on the property or hundreds of acres of super pads undeveloped and big box retail that is struggling on the gateway into town. The properties have been vacant for some time, so has the majority of the mall complex. We know the mall is struggling and we know big box retailer future is not very bright, and there are a lot of compelling arguments out there that car dealerships may not be a long-term sustainable thing either. Yes, there was a plan and it made a lot of sense 10 years ago, but the plan and the mall has not worked very well for this town. The question is, do we sit and wait for however many years to come or do we try to adjust and come up with the best hybrid Lake Havasu City Page 13 Printed on 9/6/2017 Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - Final June 21, 2017 plan and move forward. That tends to be my standing at this juncture. At some point this town needs jobs, it needs growth, it needs a lot of things. With the applicants plan to bring boat, off-road and other toy dealerships, it is apparent that those are the only types of dealerships that will do well in Lake Havasu in the future. The storage development for the area is not ideal, but where it will be located, tucked in the back, is the best place for it. Mr. Still addressed Mr. Schmeling and asked if this request was to get turned down at the Planning & Zoning level, what is the applicants’ recourse? Does the applicant have to go through an appeals process directly to the City Council? Mr. Schmeling explained that no, being that this is an amendment to a planned development the City Council has the final action on this. So, all of the discussion that occurs today, along with your vote and everything else get brought to the City Council. The City Council utilizes the information from the Planning Commission, as well as the audience participation at their meeting to determine whether or not the request is appropriate. The Council will vote, regardless of the Planning Commission’s vote, and still have the opportunity to vote in the affirmative. Mr. Nelson addressed the Commission. He explained that it does not matter who you are, what you own, or who you know. It is about the recipe that is brought to the table and this will work. The two empty lots next to Anderson will probably not become dealerships. There is potential for this proposed development to bring future development to the area, future jobs, and other things the community needs. Chairman Harris concurred with Mr. Nelson’s statement. Mr. Still addressed Mr. Schmeling and asked a question of staff. Mr. Still believes this is going to be an issue at City Council as well. The commission has provided a lot of good discussion and points for Council to consider. It seems like the main sticking point right now is how it will look when you’re coming into town off the highway. Would it strengthen their argument at City Council if there was an additional condition that had to bring the request back in front of some committee for design review before the development gets constructed? Mr. Schmeling explained to Mr. Still that design review happens as part of the process; however, currently, design review is conducted by staff. The design elements are all outlined in the code and obviously staff follows the code when we review a design plan. The code recently, as you know, was adopted and I think with regard to design review, there are better protections in place right now to make a more appropriate or appealing looking development out of this site and any other. I do not know if it is necessary to go to Lake Havasu City Page 14 Printed on 9/6/2017 Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - Final June 21, 2017 Council to choose for example color palettes and textures and all of that stuff. I think you can leave that up to staff. The height would potentially make a difference if the Commission would have allowed the 36 foot in height as opposed to limiting it to the 25 feet. The Council would have the ability to have the design review come back before Council if they chose to do so. I do not know if it is necessary. Mr. Still made a motion to approve an amendment to the Anderson Autoplex Planned Development 07-00200007 in the C-2/PD (General Commercial Planned Development) District to change the general development plan for lots 6, 11, and 12 from a car dealership and retail/restaurant uses to storage units with staff recommendations including the height, seconded by Mr. Nelson, and carried by the following vote: Aye: 6 - Still, Gorden, Hardy, Harris, Nelson and McGowan Absent: 3 - Cunningham, Windholz and Biasiucci Abstain: 1 - Kendig ID 17-1239 A Request to Rezone APN 120-03-015, A 9 Acre Parcel from M1-P/PD (Light Industrial Planned Development) to I (Industrial) District. Mr. Gorden and Mr. Still were recused from this item. Ms. Cunningham and Mr. Biasiucci were seated. Mr. Schmeling thanked Chairman Harris and presented a PowerPoint slideshow and narrative including some of the following key points: • Property location, description, and size • Zoning map, description and history of the surrounding properties • Request is to remove this 9 acre parcel from the Planned Development and rezone to I (Industrial) District Chairman Harris asked if the applicant indicated what they were going to do at the site, acknowledging they do not need to do so to get the property rezoned. Mr. Schmeling responded yes, it will be used for propane refueling. Chairman Harris asked if the applicant was present and would they like to make a presentation. Mr. Gorden addressed the Commission, stating he is representing the owner on this application. To answer your question Mr. Chairman, the owner is looking to do refueling of propane tanks. They are currently operating a business in town that does propane refueling amongst their other business interests and operate under a special use permit in Lake Havasu City Page 15 Printed on 9/6/2017 Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - Final June 21, 2017 town. I know that their concern is to get it out of their current location and the Fire Department has supported that relocation to a more rural area. Between working with Staff and the owner this property seems to be a good fit. Chairman Harris opened the Public Hearing, hearing none, he closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Schmeling stated that Staff finds that the proposed rezoning meets all the requirements set forth in 14.05.04(K). Based on the findings, the Development Review Committee recommends that land use action #17-1239 be forwarded to the City Council with a recommendation of approval rezoning APN 120-03-015 from M1-P/PD to I (Industrial) District removing the 9 acre parcel from Planned Development 07-00200005. Mr. Nelson made a motion to approve ID #17-1239 a request to rezone APN 120-03-015 a 9 acres parcel from M1-P/PD to I (Industrial) District with staff recommendations, seconded by Mr. Hardy and carried by the following vote: Aye: 7 - Cunningham, Hardy, Harris, Kendig, Nelson, McGowan and Biasiucci Absent: 1 - Windholz Recused: 2 - Still and Gorden 7. CALL TO PUBLIC None. 8. FUTURE MEETING Next Regular Meeting is July 5, 2017, and we have a couple of items at this time. Currently, there are no items for the July 19, 2017 meeting. Chairman Harris stated he is tentative for the July 5, 2017 meeting. Mr. Nelson stated he will not be in attendance for the July 5, 2017 meeting. 9. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Harris adjourned the meeting at 10:48 a.m. _________________________________________ Jim Harris, Chairman _________________________________________ Diane Libby, Recording Secretary Lake Havasu City Page 16 Printed on 9/6/2017