Planning and Zoning Commission

Jim Harris, Chairman Lake Havasu City Suzannah Ballard Police Facility Don Bergen 2360 McCulloch Blvd North David Diaz Lake Havasu City, Arizona Dan McGowan 86403 Gabriele Medley www.lhcaz.gov Chad Nelson Paul Lehr, Alternate Sam Levin, Alternate Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting Matthew Mitchell, Alternate Minutes - Final Wednesday, March 16, 2022 9:00 AM 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Harris called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chairman Harris led the Pledge of Allegiance. 3. ROLL CALL Alternate Member Lehr was seated. Present: 6- Jim Harris, Chad Nelson, Gabriele Medley, David Diaz, Paul Lehr and Suzannah Ballard Absent: 4- Donald Bergen, Dan McGowan, Matthew Mitchell and Sam Levin 4. CORRESPONDENCE AND ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Morris announced that Commissioner Dan McGowan has voluntarily resigned, effective immediately, due to family issues. Staff will work on the replacement for another Regular Member. Mr. McGowan requested Mr. Morris thank the Commission for all years of service and he really appreciates his time while serving on the Commission. Mr. Morris emphasized the importance of the Alternate Members attending and participating in the meetings when called upon. Mr. Morris reintroduced Trevor Kearns, City Planner and stated the Commission may start seeing more of Mr. Kearns, as he may start giving presentations in the near future. Mr. Morris also stated City Council approved, at the last meeting, the Retail Centre General Plan Amendment near Home Depot. 5. MINUTES Approval of Regular Meeting Minutes from February 16, 2022. Mr. Diaz made a motion to approve the Minutes of the last meeting. The motion was seconded by Ms. Medley, and carried by the following vote: Lake Havasu City Page 1 Printed on 4/13/2022 Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - Final March 16, 2022 Aye: 6 - Harris, Nelson, Medley, Diaz, Lehr and Ballard 6. PUBLIC HEARING ID 22-3212 Request for a Preliminary Subdivision Plat for Alianza, at 3070 & 3072 Shoshone Drive, Tract 2257, Block 8, Lots 5 & 6, Creating a 24-Unit Residential Condominium Subdivision in the Residential Southgate District (R-SGD) Mr. Morris thanked the Chairman and presented a PowerPoint slideshow and narrative including some of the following key points: • The subject property is located on the south side of town on Shoshone Drive east of Melrose Drive. • The properties to the west, north, and east are zoned R-SGD and developed as multi- family uses and vacant lots. • The properties to the south are zoned Commercial Southgate District and developed with a mix of vacant lots, a charter school, and commercial uses. [Preliminary Plat Map shown on screen] • The site is currently vacant but building permits have been submitted and Design Review is underway for this project. • The proposed condominium plat will allow the units to be individually owned and they will be part of an association along with the common portions of the development. • The project includes: • 24 residential units with covered parking • Parcel A - Covered Parking, Shared Areas, and Public Utility Easement • Parcel B - Pool and Pool House • The project will have a property owners association to manage and maintain the association improvements. Parcels A and B will be privately owned and the water and wastewater within the subdivision will be installed and maintained by the association. Lee Johnson APL Surveying, stated Mr. Morris explained everything about the property and that he was available for questions; however, there were none. Chairman Harris opened the Public Hearing, hearing none, he closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Morris stated that based on the findings, the Development Review Committee recommends approval of Land Use Action 22-3212, a Preliminary Subdivision Plat for Alianza, at 3070 & 3072 Shoshone Drive, Tract 2257, Block 8, Lots 5 & 6, creating a 24-unit residential condominium subdivision in the Residential Southgate District. Ms. Ballard made a motion to approve [Land Use Action 22-3212, a Preliminary Subdivision Plat for Alianza, at 3070 & 3072 Shoshone Drive, Tract 2257, Block 8, Lots 5 & 6, creating a 24-unit residential condominium subdivision in the Lake Havasu City Page 2 Printed on 4/13/2022 Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - Final March 16, 2022 Residential Southgate District]. The motion was seconded by Mr. Nelson and carried by the following vote: Aye: 6 - Harris, Nelson, Medley, Diaz, Lehr and Ballard ID 22-3213 Request for a Preliminary Subdivision Plat for Site Six at Palisades, at 2830 Palisades Drive, Tract 2226, Block 2, Lot 16, Creating a 4-Unit Residential Condominium Subdivision in the Limited Multiple-Family (R-3) District Mr. Morris thanked the Chairman and presented a PowerPoint slideshow and narrative including some of the following key points: • The subject property is located in the north central area of town on Palisades Drive just west of Simitan Drive. • The properties to the west, north, and east are zoned R-3 and developed as multi- family uses and vacant lots. • The properties to the south are zoned Limited Commercial/North Kiowa Overlay (C-1/NKO) District and developed with a mix of vacant lots and commercial uses. [Preliminary Plat Map shown on screen] • The units are currently under construction. • The proposed condominium plat will allow the units to be individually owned and they will be part of an association along with the common portions of the development. • The project includes: • 4 residential units with covered parking • Parcel A -Shared Areas and Public Utility Easement • The project will have a property owners association to manage and maintain the association improvements. • Parcel A will be privately owned and the water and wastewater within the subdivision will be installed and maintained by the association. Lee Johnson, APL Surveying stated, once again Mr. Morris did a wonderful job explaining the project which is a four unit complex on Palisades, and that he was available for any questions. Mr. Diaz asked for the size of the garages. Mr. Johnson stated the garages will be roughly 15X40-42 feet deep. Chairman Harris opened the Public Hearing, hearing none, he closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Morris stated that based on the findings, the Development Review Committee recommends approval of Land Use Action 22-3213, a Preliminary Subdivision Plat for Site Six at Palisades, at 2830 Palisades Drive, Tract 2226, Block 2, Lot 16, Creating a 4-Unit Residential Condominium Subdivision in the Limited Multiple-Family (R-3) District Mr. Nelson asked why this is coming before the Commission. Mr. Morris stated this is a single lot. In order to divide it up to sell the individual units, it needs to go through the Lake Havasu City Page 3 Printed on 4/13/2022 Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - Final March 16, 2022 Subdivision Process, in this case the Condominium Subdivision process. If someone were to own this property by themselves, they could own or rent these units, but if they are going to offer the individual units for sale, then they have to go through the condominium process Mr. Nelson, wanted to point this out for everybody as the Commission will be seeing more of this scenario. It is an interesting way to get more density. The Commission has seen condo plats like this come before the Commission for years. Usually it is a 2-bedroom, 2-bath with a small garage, this is more of large RV garages in every unit. It makes the entering of the property a little strange but it does provide more density and more of what community is asking for. Mr. Lehr made a motion to approve [Land Use Action 22-3213, a Preliminary Subdivision Plat for Site Six at Palisades, at 2830 Palisades Drive, Tract 2226, Block 2, Lot 16, creating a 4-unit residential condominium subdivision in the Limited Multiple-Family District]. The motion was seconded by Ms. Ballard and carried by the following vote: Aye: 6 - Harris, Nelson, Medley, Diaz, Lehr and Ballard ID 22-3209 Request for Multiple Text Amendments to Lake Havasu City Code Title 14, Zoning (Development Code), to: Revise Setback Requirements in the Residential Southgate District and Island Body Beach District; Remove Dwelling, Multi-Family from R-2 District; Prohibit the Display of Cannabis Products or Graphics Visible from Business Exterior; Revise R-M District Standards to Allow Building Height up to 30 Feet Adjacent to Single-Family Zoning; Clarify Encroachment of Non-Habitable, Shade Providing Features into Front Property Line; Revise Non-Commercial Message Sign Standards to Allow 71 Days Prior to a Primary Election; and Clarify Board of Adjustment Consists of 7 Regular Member and Revise Meeting Time Mr. Morris thanked the Chairman and gave a background history of why Staff is asking to come forward with these code changes. It has been over six years since the Development Code was adopted in 2016. Throughout that time, there have been multiple corrections and updates to the code. Periodically staff finds it necessary to make corrections and minor changes to the code to make it work better. These types of amendments have occurred through the life of the 2016 Development Code. Approximately one dozen code sections were amended in 2017, eight in 2018, and five in 2019. Mr. Morris briefly discussed the agenda item which proposes additional changes affecting nine code sections as follows: 1. 14.02.03.J Table 2-12, R-SGD District Dimensional Standard Summary. Corrects the side setback from 10 feet to 3 feet in the Residential Southgate District. When the consultant did the table, they just copied and pasted the wrong information. It has Lake Havasu City Page 4 Printed on 4/13/2022 Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - Final March 16, 2022 always been 3 feet for other things like Residential Southgate. It is very similar effects to the other higher density residential and they have 3-foot setbacks, as opposed to the 10-foot setback. 2. 14.02.05.G Table 2-23, I-B District Dimensional Standard Summary. Corrects the front yard setback from 10 feet to 20 feet in the Island Body Beach District. The typo shows a 10-foot setback when it really should be a 20-foot setback. 3. 14.03.02 Table 3-1, Dwelling, Multi-Family in R-2. Removes Dwelling, Multi-Family from the R-2 zoning district. This is a typo that needs to be fixed. The "P" on Permitted uses means it allows multiple family dwelling units in the R-2 zone. R-2 is meant for two maximum dwelling units. Multiple-Family showing as permitted is wrong as Multi-Family means more than two units. 4. 14.03.03.C.17, Marijuana Business. Adds language disallowing the display of cannabis, cannabis products, or cannabis graphics visible from the business exterior. To meet State Code a few years ago, we had to add some language to the Marijuana Business, this adds additional language that disallows the display of cannabis, cannabis products, or cannabis graphics visible from the business exterior. 5. 14.04.01.A.1 Table 4.01-1, Dimensional Standards for Residential Districts, R-M. Corrects to allow building height of up to 30 feet when adjacent to single-family zoning. The building height has always been 30 feet in height and somehow it was reduced to 18 feet in height with additional height in residential zone. Mr. Morris likened this to an RE zoning district which allows 30 feet in height when adjacent to a single-family residential. There are a number of larger R-M lots that are adjacent to single-family residential. If you limit them to an 18-foot height single story, then it diminishes the value of the development potential of those lots. This brings it back and puts it in light with the previous development code. 6. 14.04.01.A.3 Table 4.01-3 Dimensional Standards for Special Districts, I-B. Corrects the front yard setback to 20 feet in the Island Body Beach District. At one point, Island Body Beach and Agricultural Preservation was combined and they were to call it Conservation Preservation District. When those two base zonings were combined, they used a 50-foot setback. This district was not created and the districts were uncombined but neglected to put Body Beach back to the 20-foot setback as previously approved for that district. 7. 14.04.01.B.1 Table 4.01-4, Yard Area Exceptions and Encroachments. Non-habitable, shade providing features may still encroach 5 feet into the front property line but clarifies that they need to be at least 10 feet from the front property line. Exceptions into encroachments into a front yard- right now it reads non-habitable, shade providing features may encroach 5 feet into the front yard, from the setbacks. A single family residential is normally a 20-foot setback from the property line but clarifies that they need to be at least 10 feet from the front property line, so it can encroach 5 feet for a shade providing structure. That would mean 15 feet from the front property line. We have some zoning districts including the manufacture home Lake Havasu City Page 5 Printed on 4/13/2022 Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - Final March 16, 2022 districts, R-UMS, R-SGD, and R-CHD which have 10-foot front setbacks. In those cases, if we allow a 5-foot encroachment into the front setback, those structures could be as close as 5 feet to the front property line. This puts them really close to the front property line and it seems appropriate to have that setback a little more. Especially in the higher density residential districts, where we are looking for a 10-foot landscape buffer the first 10 feet of the property. It helps to allow the structures to be up close 10 feet from the property line but we are not looking for the structures to be up 5 feet from the property line-that seems excessive. 8. 14.04.08.J.2.A, Non-Commercial Message Signs. Updated to match Arizona State Code Section 16.1019.H, allowing elections signs to be erected 71 days prior to a primary election rather than the current 60 days. This deals with election signs. Arizona State Code recently changed so we are changing to come align with State Code of 71 days. 9. 14.05.01.C, Board of Adjustment (BOA). Clarifies BOA consists of seven regular members. Changes meeting time from 6 pm to 9 am. The Code does not specify the number of Board of Adjustment members so this codifies that there are seven regular members and also changes the meeting time from 6 p.m. to 9 a.m. in keeping with the Planning Commission meetings. The time change will not be a huge impact as the Board of Adjustment does not meet as often as the Planning Commission. Mr. Diaz asked about item #8. On private residential property, can someone right now, put up election signs in the front of their home? Mr. Diaz thinks the 71 days prior pertains to businesses, not private residential property. If someone has a private residence, can they put up a sign for a candidate? Mr. Morris read the development code section which states: Signs containing non commercial messages shall be allowed in all zoning districts in according with the following: Duration - signs shall not be erected earlier than 60 days prior to an election (which is being updated to 71 with this request) and shall be removed within 15 days after the primary or special election. Mr. Morris is interpreting that to read all zoning districts within the City, including residential. Mr. Nelson requested to talk more about the R-2 District. Currently what we see in the Permitted Uses Table is that you can have more units in an R-2 lot, 7-units per acre, what are we changing as far as the density? Mr. Morris stated that in the Permitted Uses table, it says Multiple-family is allowed in R-2 zoning district. Multiple family is more than 2 units. R-2 zoning district allows a maximum of two units. Staff is just removing permitted use indicator to be blank, which indicates that use is not an allowed use in R-2 District. It is not changing any development standards for R-2 , it is just removing it from a permitted use in the Permitted Uses Table. Mr. Nelson stated that in the articles in the zoning districts, in the R-2 it does show 7 dwelling units per acre. Mr. Morris stated that the maximum you could have on an R-2 property is 2 units. If you have a small lot or large lot, it is still going to be two units, if you are looking at how much density. Let's say you Lake Havasu City Page 6 Printed on 4/13/2022 Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - Final March 16, 2022 have a quarter-acre lot, you will take 7.5 and divide it by 4 to give you 1.88 or 2 dwelling units. Chairman Harris stated the Commission needs further clarification as this can be misconstrued that we allow 7.5 units on an R-2 property and this is not the case. Mr. Morris stated the table states units per acre and that is not being changed. What is being asked regarding the density is something Staff and the Commission can address at a later date to amend that portion of the zoning code. Today, it is just removing the Multiple Family use from an R-2 zoning district. Mr. Nelson stated if I have a client with a half-acre lot, he is going to want to put 3 dwelling units, instead of two. Mr. Morris stated you would meet the density requirement; however, you would still need to meet the other requirements of the development code. One of the limitations of that zoning code is two units maximum. Mr. Lehr asked if you would subdivide a large lot, would having that density unit help or would that come into play? Mr. Morris stated that the maximum would be 7.5 units per acre and the maximum units on the lot would be 2. Mr. Lehr further explained his reasoning as in when you have an R-2 lot and you want to split it, does this help support that modification. Mr. Morris stated this change would not have an affect on splitting the lot or units per acre. If you have a large enough lot and you can split the lot and still fit two units on each lot, you can certainly do that. Mr. Nelson stated this is going to be confusing if you are reading the Permitted Uses Table and then go over to the zoning districts in the development code. They are going to think that if they have an acre lot that they can build 7 dwellings. Jeff Thuneman, Development Services Director stated that the best way to look at this is that there are multiple areas in the code that address certain sections of the code like setbacks, units per acre, etc. You have to look at this like it is another table that you have to look at. How many dwelling units are allowed in that zone? Another way to look at this is that it is more restrictive than the 7 units per acre section. When you are designing, you always have multiple sections of the code that you must read and, usually, the most restrictive applies. That might help clarify this. The zoning allows 7 units per acre but the table says you are only allowed 2 in the R-2 zone. To Mr. Lehr's point, you have an acre and you want to make 4 lots out of that. You can put two units on each lot which gives you 8 units. However, you would have to go through the lot split procedure. Ms. Medley, made a motion to approve ID 3209 [recommend the City Council approve Land Use Action No. 3209, amending Title 14, Zoning (Development Code), per the Tracked Changes Development Code 2022 document]. The motion was seconded by Ms. Ballard and carried by the following vote: Aye: 5 - Harris, Medley, Diaz, Lehr and Ballard Lake Havasu City Page 7 Printed on 4/13/2022 Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - Final March 16, 2022 Nay: 1 - Nelson ID 22-3211 Review and Discuss Revising the Development Standards for the Residential Uptown Main Street (R-UMS) and Residential Commercial Health (R-CHD) Multi-Family Districts. Mr. Morris thanked the Chairman and stated this is a discussion item that the Planning Commission heard at the last meeting. Staff initiated this request to review and discuss the development standards for the R-UMS and R-CHD multi-family zoning districts. One intent of these districts is to provide medium to high-density residential development along portions of Mesquite and Swanson Avenues parallel to the McCulloch Blvd “Main Street” area. The districts currently allow multi-level building heights of up to 42 feet with no residential density maximum. Another of the original objectives of these districts is to create a more walkable Main Street by encouraging developments that have a pedestrian connection to Main Street with buildings designed with front doors, porches, and stoops facing the street. Some recent developments and proposals within these zoning districts are not realizing the vision of how the areas are intended to develop. They are not taking advantage of the increased building height and density allowed in these areas. On February 16, 2022, the Planning Commission reviewed and discussed the development standards for the Districts. At the end of that discussion, the Commission asked staff to provide some proposed revised development standards, including potential changes to the following topics: • Density Units/Acre • Minimum Number of Building Stories • Building and Development Form Standards Based on the Commission's direction, Staff has proposed the following four potential amendments: 1. Add a minimum density for units/acre. There is currently no minimum density for the R-UMS and R-CHD zoning districts. The Multiple-Family Residential (R-M) District was the densest residential district before the R-UMS and R-CHD Districts were created. The R-M district has a density range of 10 to 20 units per acre. The R-UMS and R-CHD are intended to be the highest density zoning district within the city. Staff suggests the R-UMS and R-CHD should have a minimum of at least 15 units/acre and no maximum density. 2. Require a minimum of two levels where sufficient building height allows. Added levels will offer opportunity to increase density by providing additional units above the Lake Havasu City Page 8 Printed on 4/13/2022 Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - Final March 16, 2022 ground floor. 3. Require architectural enhancements for the portions of the structures facing the right- of-way. Any building walls over 20 feet long facing the right-of-way shall be broken up using architectural enhancements such as pop-outs, decorative stone, non- habitable porches or stoops, etc. These types of enhancements will help soften the buildings and create a more pleasant streetscape. 4. Require a pedestrian link to the street. Any door facing the right-of-way shall have a sidewalk directly linking the residence to the street. The R-UMS and R-CHD zoning districts are within a block of the McCulloch Blvd commercial areas. A human-scale sidewalk connection will help encourage residents to walk to destinations within the area, reducing traffic and commercial parking along McCulloch Blvd. Staff encourages the Commissioners to discuss these proposals and/or offer additional standards to encourage residential density and excellent design for development in these areas. Staff is asking the Commission for direction on how to move forward. Based on the outcome of this meeting, staff will come back with specific Development Code changes as directed by the Commission. Chairman Harris stated his original concerns from the previous meeting with the word "required" and offered "allow", "heavily suggested", as alternate wording options. He has a hard time with requiring property owners to do something that is relatively new and a little more restrictive than what they were anticipating. Concerned about the previous property owner rights. Mr. Diaz agrees with Chairman Harris but asked how does the Commission tighten up the architectural review part of it. Does "highly recommend" hold any meat on the bone? In his opinion, there are still a lot of questions. Mr. Lehr stated that regarding the minimum building height of being 2 stories, he is wondering if there should be some type of consideration, of some type of percentage where maybe a lower percentage be a single story and a certain percentage be 2 story to break up a monolithic height. Mr. Nelson feels that would be a good compromise. All for having the street connection -even if it is a garage, you can make a man door garage look like a front door. Mr. Nelson thinks 50 to 60 percent of the dwelling units to be two-story or higher is a good compromise. Mr. Morris stated this is a discussion item. Based on the discussion and direction from the Commission, Staff will then put together another agenda item that deals specifically with the code changes. The Commission will make a recommendation that will then go onto City Council for approval/adoption. Hoping to get a code change amendment in the second meeting of next month and onto City Council in the second meeting in May. Lake Havasu City Page 9 Printed on 4/13/2022 Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - Final March 16, 2022 Mr. Nelson asked for clarification that we are trying to have units 10 feet off the sidewalk. Mr. Morris affirmed and stated Staff is looking for 60 percent of lot frontage to have more of a human connection to the street, with a 20 to 25-foot setback for any garage or automobile storage facing the street. Ideally encouraging garages on side or rear of building. Mr. Nelson added that one thing to consider during design review is that air conditioners and other utilities like that not be visible from street. Mr. Diaz gave an example about one of the newer 4-plex projects on Swanson with the rear doors, which goes against what Staff is trying to accomplish. How did that conversation go with the developer. Mr. Morris stated that is an example of what the development code allows. That project met all the requirements. If we have something in the language that is more clear and enforceable, staff has more leg to stand on. Chairman Harris suggested to soften the requirement and offer encouragement. Ms. Ballard stated that if you reduce that from required to encourage, that will allow anyone who is not encouraged to move forward with out any modifications at all. Chairman Harris stated that they may not do any improvements at all and leave it vacant. The Commission discussed the 50 or 60 percent or more of height requirement proposal. Mr. Morris reminded the Commission of the Planned Development option available in all districts, which is a way to ask for exceptions. Let's say this gets approved and we require a certain number of stories or a certain architectural detail and someone wants to come forward with a project with some exceptions, they can come before the Commission which will go before City Council who will then decide if this project warrants exceptions to the development code. Mr. Lehr asked if the Planning Commission ever been part of the Design Review process. Chairman Harris stated that is the position of Staff to provide that direction when they come to the counter with the application. Mr. Morris stated that at this point the City does not require Design Review to come forward before the Planning Commission or City Council. About 10 years ago or more, with larger developments, Design Review was required by the Planning Commission and in some cases City Council but the Code was changed to get away from that. If there is a Planned Development rezone with a specific architectural element or elevations associated with that rezone, then that is per say Design Review by City Council because they are approving that architectural elevation and site plan. When the property developer comes in with Design Review they would have to substantially meet that approved plan. Lake Havasu City Page 10 Printed on 4/13/2022 Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - Final March 16, 2022 Mr. Nelson asked if it was possible to have a workshop for the Planning Commission on Design Review. The Planning Commission should give the Staff the tools they need so they do not have to jump through so many hoops to get these things approved to be concurrent with what is best for the City. Ms. Medley as if we go with a percentage option, how do we implement that? Mr. Morris stated Staff would have to fine tune that and bring back with proposed language. Chairman Harris stated that from his perspective, some of the things discussed might be a mute point as, other than the one single story development that has been referenced, these properties are now at a value that the highest and best use is to go vertical. Chances are that is what is going to happen. Mr. Morris stated that in recent discussions with developers, it seems from their stand point on the cost for return, they can get their cost back much quicker on a two-story versus a three-story. 7. CALL TO PUBLIC Marcella Lehr commenting on last presentation to the Commission, stated something she did not see was green space. Is there any green space required for the human element of the link between the proposed development and people meandering throughout the main street area, even onto the supermarket. Very much in favor of developing Swanson and Mesquite. We already have an example of higher density on the Mesquite side below Smoketree. Only thing she can see from a human element standpoint is making it a little more shady for people to walk and have that human link as we develop that economic anchor to secure the businesses that are making their livelihood on Mainstreet. 8. FUTURE MEETING The next Regular meeting is scheduled for April 6, 2022. Four items will be presented. 9. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Harris adjourned the meeting at 10:01 a.m. _________________________________________ Jim Harris, Chairman _________________________________________ Maria Hart, Recording Secretary Lake Havasu City Page 11 Printed on 4/13/2022