Planning and Zoning Commission

David Diaz, Chairman Lake Havasu City Gabriele Medley, Vice Police Facility Chairman 2360 McCulloch Blvd North Suzannah Ballard Lake Havasu City, Arizona Joan Dzuro 86403 Jim Harris www.lhcaz.gov Paul Lehr Tiffany Wilson Matthew Mitchell, Alternate Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting Lonnie Stevenson, Alternate JP Thornton, Alternate Minutes - Final Wednesday, December 20, 2023 9:00 AM 1. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Diaz called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chairman Diaz led the Pledge of Allegiance. 3. ROLL CALL Present: 8- Suzannah Ballard, Joan Dzuro, Paul Lehr, Tiffany Wilson, Lonnie Stevenson, JP Thornton, Jim Harris and David Diaz Absent: 2- Matthew Mitchell and Gabriele Medley As there was one vacancy. Chairman Diaz asked Commissioner Stevenson to take a seat at the dais. 4. CORRESPONDENCE AND ANNOUNCEMENTS Planning Division Manager Chris Gilbert stated the City Council approved several public utility easement abandonments. The December 26. 2023. City Council Meeting has been cancelled. 5. MINUTES ID 23-4069 Approval of the Minutes of the November 15, 2023 Planning & Zoning Commission Regular Meeting (Shelby Hennigan) Commissioner Harris made a motion to approve the Minutes of the November 15, 2023, Planning & Zoning Meeting, seconded by Commissioner Wilson. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye: 7 - Ballard, Dzuro, Lehr, Wilson, Harris, Medley and Diaz 6. PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Diaz provided an overview of the Public Hearing process. Lake Havasu City Page 1 Printed on 1/3/2024 Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - Final December 20, 2023 ID 23-4065 Request for Text Amendments to City Code Title 14, Zoning (Development Code), Sections 14.04.01, 14.04.04, and 14.05.04 to Correct Textual Errors, Replace Trash Enclosure Diagrams, Conform Zoning Map Amendment Protests with State Law, and Clarify Planned Develop Non-Performance Review Process (Chris Gilbert)y Mr. Gilbert explained the current Development Code was adopted in 2016 and Planning Staff has kept a list of edits needed to bring forward in batches for review and approval. This request includes five separate amendments ranging from typographical error corrections, to amendments for clarity, to a correction to be compliant with Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS). One of the corrections noticed on the agenda will not be discussed today and will be brought forward at a later date. He provided an overview of the proposed changes [Displayed PowerPoint]: 1. Section 14.04.01 (Table 4.01-2 Mixed Use) Mr. Gilbert explained this is a minor typographical error on the Mixed-Use Summary Table. In this table, under building frontage and setbacks for the MU-CRW, there is a direction to “See Section 14.02.05.D.4” that should read “See Section 14.02.04.D.4.” 2. Section 14.04.04.E.3 (Figure 4.04-2) This is typographical error. This figure is labeled as “14.04-02“ and should read “4.04-02.” 3. Section 14.04.04.G.3 (Figure 4.04-5) Mr. Gilbert stated the change to replace the dumpster enclosure diagram is more significant and has caused confusion for developers. Section C Refuse Enclosure and Screening, mandates enclosures to be completely screened, but the diagrams referenced do not indicate gates are required. Additionally, there are so many diagrams that it is confusing. The proposed change will replace all of the diagrams with a single diagram. Mr. Gilbert explained he looked through hundreds of diagrams to determine which one best fits the City's code and intent and settled on a diagram of a standard two-container dumpster enclosure, which can be modified to fit multiple dumpsters. The diagram includes an aerial view of the enclosure, as well as a view from the front showing the gates. Bollards are included. The solid metal gates serve to screen the trash from view and will help reduce blowing trash, which can be a big problem. He believes this diagram better reflects the requirements and will be easier to explain. 4. Section 14.05.04.K.5.a This correction is recommended to bring the section in compliance with ARS. The only action requested is to strike one sentence because it does not correctly calculate what the following sentence states need to be done for compliance with State law. The struck Lake Havasu City Page 2 Printed on 1/3/2024 Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - Final December 20, 2023 sentence requires a favorable vote of at least 6 members to approve a Zoning Map Amendment in the case of a Protest Petition, but State law specifies that it be a favorable vote of three-fourths of all members of the governing body, rounded to the nearest whole number. [Displayed ARS Section 9-462.014(H).] The State prescribed formula of three-fourths of the voting members will never result in six votes, but rather four or five. 5. Section 14.05.04.L.6.C Mr. Gilbert explained this section requires all General Development Plans to be re-reviewed by Council if substantial development has not taken place within three years from the date the General Development Plan was approved to determine if the project is still in the public interest. While this was a well intentioned idea, the reality with many large projects is that so much work on design and permitting goes on before construction begins and there are a lot of factors that may cause a delay. Developers can be making considerable efforts and progress towards construction, but still be forced into a mandatory review. He cited factors such as engineering, utility design, and approval from other jurisdictions as examples of things that may cause delays. In practice, the City hasn't required mandatory reviews and Staff believes it is in the best interest to switch the wording from "shall" to "may." He stated that if the City becomes aware of a project that truly is not performing and has no intention of performing, the decision could be made to bring it back for review after three years to determine if it is in the public interest to keep the plan in place. If a developer has maintained communication with the City, has been making progress with their design, and is actively working with other agencies it doesn’t make sense to have them come back in for an unnecessary review and additional red tape. Staff believes this one word change will help simplify this section of the Code and accurately reflect what the City practices. Regarding the final noticed change, Section 14.05.04.A, Mr. Gilbert stated he was not going to discuss any specifics today, as Staff wants to review it further. This item will come back for discussion at a later date. Chairman Diaz asked for an explanation of the Protest Process referenced in Item 1. Mr. Gilbert explained this section is specific to Zoning Map Amendments. The organization opposed to the project can file a Protest Petition. The petition requires signatures of 20%or more of the property owners within 150-feet of the property, including rights-of-way. The deadline for the petition is 12:00 p.m. 5-business days before the date on which the Council will vote on the amendment. Chairman Diaz asked if all 7 members of the Council are present, including the Mayor, what kind of majority vote is required to pass the protested amendment. City Attorney Lake Havasu City Page 3 Printed on 1/3/2024 Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - Final December 20, 2023 Kelly Garry confirmed three-fourths of the members present would be required. Referencing Item 5, Commissioner Wilson asked how Staff would determine what constitutes a substantial amount of progress on a project. For example, will there be a formula to determine a project's completeness or an outline for developers to follow? Mr. Gilbert explained that Commissioners and Council members could request Staff look into a project to determine if progress is happening. Things considered may include regular communication with Staff, whether they have submitted construction plans, and if applications for grading or site improvements have been submitted. If there has been no communication or applications in three years, then a project might be eligible for review. There would also need to be public interest, which might mean neighbors are requesting a review. He stated that due to today's regulatory environment, it is possible to have viable projects exceed three years. The City is trying to avoid requiring every single project to go through additional review. Commissioner Wilson asked if the public will have a clear interpretation of what defines substantial when they read the Code, whether it be phasing, a percentage of work completed, or a dollar figure. She used the example of a project that has spent $1,000,000 on plans and designs, verses another that may not have spent as much but has made multiple efforts to address design issues. They are both working on the project, so how would that be evaluated? Mr. Gilbert acknowledged that is a good question, explaining the term "substantial" is commonly used in planning documents. Even the Planned Development approvals state "substantial changes" to the approved plan may require additional review. The word substantial allows a project to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. A large commercial project with a budget of $20,000,000 may require review from other government agencies, in addition to City review and approval. The planning and permitting of some large projects can take years, but it still constitutes substantial progress. He explained it is easy to look at a vacant property and think that nothing substantial has been done, but the reality is that there can be a lot of work going on behind the scenes. Specific standards might make it more confusing or cause unnecessary reviews for projects already facing a lot of regulation and requirements. Commissioner Wilson asked what would happen if a developer has not started a project and it has to come back for review. Will they lose the Planned Development approval? Mr. Gilbert confirmed it is possible the Planned Development overlay could be removed. If there is no substantial progress, the Council would have the option to hold a hearing to determine if the project is still a good use for that land. Changing "shall" to "may" will give Lake Havasu City Page 4 Printed on 1/3/2024 Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - Final December 20, 2023 Council and Staff discretion to review only projects that have stalled, rather than require a review of every project. Development Services Director Jeff Thuneman gave an example of a Planned Development project in an industrial area that doesn't get constructed within 5-years. If, during that period, the land around the property is developed with multifamily units the City would have the opportunity to hear from the developer, the public, and Staff to determine if the industrial Planned Development still fits the area. Commission Harris agreed with Mr. Thuneman, noting three years wouldn't trigger a property to automatically lose it's Planned Development, rather the review would be compliant or circumstance driven. Ms. Garry stated in the years she has worked for the City this clause hasn't been used. It is a helpful tool to have in the rare situation that a project needs to be reviewed. However, with the current wording, it could be argued that the City should take action and review or revert all Planned Developments that exceed three years. That isn't the City's intent. Chairman Diaz agreed it is good to have the ability to review developments in the toolbox, but this would only apply in rare circumstances. Referencing the changes to trash enclosures, Commissioner Lehr noted these detail have been in place for many years and asked if there was input from the local trash collection company. Mr. Gilbert confirmed there has not been any feedback from Republic Services, but the style of the updated figure is a common design. The diagrams in the Code were not consistent with the written Code that required gates. This change will ensure the text and diagram match. The full enclosure will help with blowing trash, unauthorized dumpster use, vector control, and block trash from view. Commissioner Lehr agreed gates are a good idea, but is concerned the dimensions of the enclosure noted on the diagram is about 3-feet less than what he typically sees in most designs. He would like to see input from the trash hauler to ensure the dimensions shown take into account their minimum size requirements. Mr. Gilbert explained the diagram is meant as an example of a typical double container with gates, but is not intended to be the final design. Each project might be a little different and the point of the diagram is to highlight some of the required features, such as a solid metal gates, bollards, and screening. Lake Havasu City Page 5 Printed on 1/3/2024 Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - Final December 20, 2023 Mr. Thuneman acknowledged Commissioner Lehr's point and suggested the dimensions noted on the diagram could be removed so the design is more universal. Commissioner Harris asked if the change would need to be included in the motion. Mr. Thueman responded affirmatively. Chairman Diaz opened the Public Hearing. Seeing no comments, he closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Dzuro moved the Planning Commission forward a recommendation of approval to the City Council Text Amendments to City Code Title 14, Zoning (Development Code), Sections 14.04.01, Section 14.04.04, and Section 14.05.04, to correct textual errors, replace the trash enclosure removing the dimensions on the diagram, conform Zoning Map Amendment protests with State law, and clarify Planned Development non-performance review process. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Harris. The motion carried by the following vote. Aye: 7 - Ballard, Dzuro, Lehr, Wilson, Harris, Medley and Diaz 7. DISCUSSION ITEM ID 23-4071 Review and Discussion Regarding Possible Design Standards of Metallic Exterior Materials on Commercial Buildings Mr. Gilbert explained the Development Code does not directly address buildings with metal exteriors. Given the changes in technology, they have become more popular nationwide, even in high-end applications. Most of the City has a stucco or adobe style buildings, but metallic siding is a question that has been coming up more frequently. Mr. Gilbert read the Development Code regarding construction materials: "Materials used in constructing and finishing a structure shall be of high quality, adobe, brick, stone, or cementitious materials, durable under desert climate conditions, that display a similar level of quality and architectural interest as materials used in the design of structures adjacent to the proposed structure. Materials may not create shine or create glare that the Director determines will create a risk to traffic safety." He explained there are four styles of metallic sidings that are most common in commercial districts. [Displayed PowerPoint.] Example 1 is what most people would think of when they hear metal building. The siding is full corrugated metal with colors used for highlights. Lake Havasu City Page 6 Printed on 1/3/2024 Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - Final December 20, 2023 Example 2 is constructed of almost all metallic siding, but incorporates modern materials and designs so it looks very unique and interesting. It could be compatible with a variety of uses and environments. Example 3 is a popular style that utilizes a traditional wall structure like brick, stone, or stucco, with a metallic roof frame. Example 4 is an older style that utilized a wainscoting that goes up to the bottom of the windows with metallic siding compromising the rest of the exterior. This example has very low windows so there isn't much wainscoting, but some buildings have higher windows so there is more contrast between the materials. Mr. Gilbert explained that since the Development Code doesn't specially discuss metallic siding, Staff is asking the Commission to discuss the information presented and provide guidance as to whether any of these styles should be considered for inclusion in the Development Code. He noted there are other design features in the Code, such as offsets, bump outs, and wall plane length requirements that metallic sidings would not be exempt from. These types of features help with aesthetics. Example 2 is a good example of how some of those features could be integrated. Example 3 has a portico to break up the long wall, which is a more subtle example. Example 1, however, does very little to incorporate any of those design features. He reiterated that this is just a discussion today and there is no action or decision to be made by the Commission. Commissioner Harris asked what generated this discussion, as the Code doesn't specifically exclude this type of construction and also asked under what circumstances it wouldn't be acceptable. Mr. Gilbert explained the Code doesn’t describe to what degree its application is acceptable and how to mix it in with the existing stucco and adobe style buildings. Improved metallic construction materials and costs are driving this discussion with developers and there is a large range of how these buildings can look, such as very high end in Example 2, to much more basic in Example 1. Although the Code doesn't exclude metallic siding, it doesn’t discuss the degree to which it can be permitted. Mr. Thuneman explained there is a large variety of types and sizes when it comes to metallic siding. It can include higher end designs as well as shipping container structures. As the code doesn't specify any design requirements and specifically references adobe and stucco-like material, as well as references the design of adjacent structures, it can put Staff in a predicament when trying to review each project to ensure they are applying consistent standards. He said they are trying to get a better understanding of what is acceptable in the Lake Havasu City Page 7 Printed on 1/3/2024 Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - Final December 20, 2023 City to understand if changes to the Code are needed. Commissioner Harris stated he feels like this is a very different issue from shipping containers, especially when it comes to commercial applications, noting metallic siding is a pretty standard commercial application nationwide. He recalled about 20-years ago, the Commission was asked to make recommendations on metal siding being used in residential construction, but the guidelines didn’t apply to commercial use. Mr. Thuneman confirmed that a recommendation was made for residential buildings and not commercial buildings, which is the purpose of the discussion today, as it is becoming more common in commercial applications. Chairman Diaz asked about metal carports in residential zones. Mr. Thuneman responded that metal carports are allowed in residential districts, but there are certain conditions they must meet, such as they must be opened in the front and rear and the sheeting is only allowed to go down to a certain level. Commissioner Wilson asked if a builder could submit plans for a shipping container project, just as they could submit plans for other construction designs using metallic siding. Mr. Thuneman responded affirmatively, noting that he used the term shipping container because it provides a clear visual of a design type. He noted there are building standards that apply to shipping containers so people are utilizing them as a construction material to construct buildings, restrooms, and other things. He explained Staff is trying to determine if the City feels a shipping container building, or other full metal siding building, is something that should be allowed downtown, for example. Or, should there be additional design requirements? Design requirements could include wainscoting, requiring elevation changes or other materials on the front or sides of a building, or a combination of design options. If the Commission feels the Code is acceptable the way it is written, that is okay too. Chairman Diaz asked what the discussion was like during the review of the Nomadic building downtown, as it is a metal building. Mr. Thuneman responded that he was not involved in that particular project so he is not sure what the specific discussion was, but it is a good example. A sample brought to the meeting is from that project. It is a construction type that can be reversed so that the corrugation is inverted, giving it a different look than a typical corrugated panel. Commissioner Dzuro explained it is important to give Staff direction so they have general guidelines for consistency. She does not like the box style (Example 1) but she likes some Lake Havasu City Page 8 Printed on 1/3/2024 Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - Final December 20, 2023 of the new materials and designs they have come out with. She noted that the Code requires bump outs and different features to help give the building character. If the building has a wall that doesn’t face a street or right-of-way, she doesn't see the need to mandate those features on all sides, but the front and sides that are visible need to look nice, which could be accomplished with stucco detailing or wainscoting. Chairman Diaz suggested that the solution may be as simple as adding words to the existing code to touch on some of the comments Commissioner Dzuro made. Mr. Gilbert emphasized this is a discussion item only, so Staff is looking for input to present to City Council. Council may provide direction for Staff to update the code, at which time it will would back to the Commission for further discussion. Mr. Thuneman clarifed that this discussion would not apply to buildings in the Light Industrial or Industrial Zoning Districts, only commercial districts. If any changes were to be made. Commissioner Harris suggested doing it based on zoning districts, noting he wouldn't want to see a box type building on main street because it is more of an industrial application. However, it may be something that can fit into a different commercial area on a case-by-case basis Commissioner Lehr agreed, noting metal can be a great material and can give the designer some options to work with. Reading through the Materials and Color sections, he noted it feels a little dated and almost too prescriptive. The opening paragraph needs more of an intent added to it. It seems difficult to quantify a project based on adjacent buildings. The City has done a pretty good job up to this point because there has been a tendency to use stucco-like materials and natural colors, but this could be an opportunity to allow more creative designs and architecture, like Nomadic. He suggested considering how the first paragraph reads to allow metal and other materials. Commissioner Dzuro recommended removing "adobe, brick, stone, or cementitious materials" from the Materials section, which would remove the material specificity, but leave the other sections intact. Mr. Gilbert agreed that change made a lot of sense and asked if the Commission had an opinion on shipping containers. Commissioner Wilson explained that a shipping container isn't held to the same standards as a normal structure, nor are they built to maintain weight and occupancy. She doesn’t feel the Commission intended to recommend them as an acceptable building material during this discussion. Several Commissioners verbally agreed with her. Lake Havasu City Page 9 Printed on 1/3/2024 Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - Final December 20, 2023 Mr. Thuneman stated that verbiage could be changed in the Materials section that could give Staff better direction as to how to evaluate a design based on adjacent structures, such as mandating materials must be predominately similar in color or material, which would allow Staff to request wainscoting or brick on the front to maintain the neighborhood's character. Mr. Gilbert agreed. Commissioner Harris stated there is room for modification, without being too restrictive. Mr. Thuneman agreed, noting that is the intent. Staff wants to address new materials in a way that the Code won't need to be changed when new technology comes out. Mr. Gilbert noted that shipping containers are becoming a significant issue and the City is starting to get a lot of questions about them. Mr. Stevenson asked if it was comments or complaints from the public about Nomadic that spurred this conversation. Commissioner Wilson noted that Nomadic may have been one of the things that led to the conversation. The Code wasn’t clear enough to state they couldn't do a full metal building, nor did it prescribe how it could be done. Staff is looking for clarity so they can provide consistent, clear answers when these types of questions come up. Commissioner Ballard feels this is also a zoning issue and asked how infill buildings in C-1 and C-2 Zoning Districts would be evaluated. Mr. Gilbert confirmed any requirements specific to a zoning district or overlay would still apply. Commissioner Dzuro noted the Code also references adjacent buildings, so the look of the neighborhood can be considered when looking at infill buildings. Commissioner Lehr explained that holding a property owner to the standards of what their neighbor did is way too restrictive. There is a place for a building like Nomadic. Whether an individual likes the style or not, architecturally it has a place in the community and it makes one think about design. One thing that hasn't been discussed is how deep lots with a developed building in the front and room for building in the rear might fit into the equation. Additionally, different views, such as from the main street verses an ally or side street, should be taken into consideration. He noted there are some creative design options for shipping containers that could fill a design need in a case like that, so he wouldn't rule them out entirely. Mr. Gilbert responded that typically, improved facade is required for surfaces facing streets, public rights-of-way, and directly adjacent residential. Surfaces facing allies or Lake Havasu City Page 10 Printed on 1/3/2024 Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes - Final December 20, 2023 other commercial areas may have a lesser facade. Commissioner Wilson believes the Commission's suggestion to Council is to direct Staff to change and clarify some of the verbiage in the Development Code. Chairman Diaz agreed, noting that it will help Staff and Commissioners provide better, more precise answers to the public when questions about metal buildings come up. 7. CALL TO PUBLIC Chairman Diaz provided an overview of Call to Public and opened Call to Public. Seeing no comments, he closed Call to Public. 8. FUTURE MEETING Mr. Gilbert advised the next regular meeting will be Wednesday, January 3, 2023. There are two items on the schedule. 9. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Diaz adjourned the meeting at 10:02 a.m. _________________________________________ David Diaz, Chairman _________________________________________ Shelby Hennigan, Recording Secretary Lake Havasu City Page 11 Printed on 1/3/2024