(These minutes are subject to correction and or approval on June 21, 2005

(These minutes are subject to correction and or approval on June 21, 2005

-

English
12 Pages
Read
Download
Downloading requires you to have access to the YouScribe library
Learn all about the services we offer

Description

(These minutes are subject to correction and/or approval on September 6, 2005.) MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF PINETOP-LAKESIDE, ARIZONA HELD thTUESDAY, AUGUST 16 , 2005, AT 6:30 P.M. IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS. ITEM NO. 1, CALL TO ORDER AND ASCERTAIN QUORUM: Chairman Betts called the Regular Meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Roll call was taken and a quorum established. ROLL CALL: Present Absent Chairman JimBetts X Vice Chairman Gretchen Forbeck X Stephanie Irwin X Brian Gilbert X Georgia Dysterheft X Tim Williams X Richard Smith X STAFF PRESENT: Paul Esparza, Community Development Director; Jim Matteson, Town Engineer; and Jessica Covey, Staff Assistant. ITEM NO. 2, PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Chairman Betts led the Pledge of Allegiance. ITEM NO. 3, CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION AND MEETING HELD AUGUST 2, 2005: VICE CHAIRMAN FORBECK MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION AND THE REGULAR MEETING HELD AUGUST 2nd, 2005 thWITH THE MINOR CORRECTIONS NOTED IN THE AUGUST 16 , 2005 WORK SESSION. COMMISSIONER IRWIN SECONDED THE MOTION AND IT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ITEM NO. 4, PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: Action taken as a result of public comment is limited to directing Staff to study the matter and reschedule for further consideration at a later date. Commission may provide limited response to items that are not on ...

Subjects

Informations

Published by
Reads 24
Language English
Report a problem
(These minutes are subject to correction and/or approval on September 6, 2005.) MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF PINETOPLAKESIDE, ARIZONA HELD th TUESDAY, AUGUST 16 , 2005, AT 6:30 P.M. IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS. ITEM NO. 1, CALL TO ORDER AND ASCERTAIN QUORUM: Chairman Betts called the Regular Meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Roll call was taken and a quorum established. ROLL CALL:  Present Absent Chairman Jim BettsX Vice Chairman Gretchen ForbeckX  Stephanie IrwinX  Brian GilbertX  Georgia DysterheftX  Tim WilliamsX  Richard SmithX STAFF PRESENT: Paul Esparza, Community Development Director; Jim Matteson, Town Engineer; and Jessica Covey, Staff Assistant. ITEM NO. 2, PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Chairman Betts led the Pledge of Allegiance. ITEM NO. 3, CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION AND MEETING HELD AUGUST 2, 2005: VICE CHAIRMAN FORBECK MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION AND THE REGULAR MEETING HELD AUGUST 2nd, 2005 th WITH THE MINOR CORRECTIONS NOTED IN THE AUGUST 16 , 2005 WORK SESSION. COMMISSIONER IRWIN SECONDED THE MOTION AND IT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ITEM NO. 4, PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: Action taken as a result of public comment is limited to directing Staff to study the matter and reschedule for further consideration at a later date. Commission may provide limited response to items that are not on the agenda. Presentations are limited to three (3) minutes. Mr. Betts said all the signin sheets indicated public participation is requested for later agenda items. No one addressed the commission during Public Participation.
1
ITEM NO. 5, DISCUSSION, CONSIDERATION AND ACTION RE: APPOINTMENT OF A CHAIRMAN AND VICE CHAIRMAN FOR THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. THE COMMISSION RESERVES THE RIGHT TO ENTER INTO AN EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS THE ELECTION OF A CHAIRMAN AND VICE CHAIRMAN: VICE CHAIRMAN FORBECK MOVED TO CONVENE AN EXECUTIVE SESSION AT 6:35 P.M. COMMISSIONER DYSTERHEFT SECONDED THE MOTION AND IT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.CHAIRMAN JIM BETTS ADJOURNED FROM THE EXECUTIVE SESSION AT 6:45 P.M.VICE CHAIRMAN FORBECK MOVED TO NOMINATE COMMISSIONER STEPHANIE IRWIN AS CHAIRMAN, TO BECOME EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 6, 2005. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS SECONDED THE MOTION AND IT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. COMMISSIONER DYSTERHEFT MOVED TO NOMINATE COMMISSIONER TIM WILLIAMS AS VICE CHAIRMAN, TO BECOME EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 6, 2005. COMMISSIONER GILBERT SECONDED THE MOTION AND IT CARRIED 6 TO 0, VICE CHAIRMAN FORBECK ABSTAINED.ITEM NO. 6, DISCUSSION, CONSIDERATION AND ACTION RE: Z062: A PROPOSED ZONE CHANGE FROM C1 TO PUD IN ORDER TO DEVELOP A 40LOT SINGLEFAMILY PROJECT ON A COMMERCIAL PARCEL ALONG HIGHWAY 260. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 2551 W. WHITE MOUNTAIN BLVD. APN 21224 131. THE APPLICANT IS DEAN ALLEN JASINSKI: Mr. Esparza gave a staff report and said the zoning change is consistent with the General Plan, and Staff recommends the proposed zone change from C1 to PUD. Mr. Esparza said the applicant has chosen to downsize the zoning in order to provide a neighborhood PUD with 30% open space. Mr. Esparza gave a summary of the preliminary idea. Vice Chairman Forbeck asked how many homeowner letters were mailed. Mr. Esparza said about ten notices went out because there are not many Town homeowners in the vicinity. Mr. Esparza said the neighboring county zoning is consistent with residential and commercial property. The applicant, Dean Allen, presented two samples of home styles he envisions for the property. Mr. Allen said he believes he is at 37% open space even though it is a dense, gated community. Mr. Allen said he is receptive to erecting a monument sign on the property, which welcomes people to the community. Project Engineer, Jim Murphy said the plan would be utilizing two types of setbacks: one with a typical detached structure set back and one with a duplex style common wall. Paul Esparza spoke to Jack Barker and he said specifying a zero lot line was not necessary because the common wall scenario is already appropriate under the PUD. Commissioner Forbeck said she believed this PUD would end up under the new Subdivision Regulations. Mr. Esparza said the new regulations would take road width into consideration. The new scenario says public and private roads have to be the same width, but that is probably the only change that will affect this PUD. Jim Murphy said he would like to point out this is a commercial zoned piece of property and the applicant is actually down zoning this site from 20 units per acre to about 4 units per acre. Commissioner Forbeck said she had talked to the White Mountain Land Trust and it is possible to do an easement conveyance on this property to allow for a trail system and  2
reduce the applicant’s tax obligations. She encouraged the applicant to contact the Trust to help the community with a trail system. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS MOVED TO CONVENE A PUBLIC HEARING. VICE CHAIRMAN FORBECK SECONDED THE MOTION AND IT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. There was no public participation. VICE CHAIRMAN FORBECK MOVED TO ADJOURN THE PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONER DYSTERHEFT SECONDED THE MOTION AND IT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. VICE CHAIRMAN FORBECK MOVED TO RECOMMEND THE ZONE CHANGE FROM C1 TO PUD AS STATED IN THE AGENDA. COMMISSIONER IRWIN SECONDED THE MOTION AND IT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ITEM NO. 7, DISCUSSION, CONSIDERATION AND ACTION RE: SPR 05214: CONSIDERATION AND ACTION ON A SITE PLAN AMENDMENT FOR A 6,000 SQUAREFOOT ARCADE, AN EXPANSION TO THE FAMILY FUN PARK. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 4725 W. WHITE MOUNTAIN BLVD. APN(S) 21217 005 AND 21201026. THE APPLICANT IS WAYNE IOVIERO: Mr. Esparza gave a Staff Report and stated in July the Commission approved this plan and the applicant is now requesting an amendment to the plan. Mr. Esparza said the applicant and the Town Planner had a misunderstanding about the exterior treatment. The applicant said he had intended to treat two sides of the building per the code requirements, but it was presented as all four sides being treated. Mr. Esparza provided the Commission photographs of the views from all four sides of the building. Mr. Esparza reminded the Commission that the code requires seventyfive percent of walls visible from a public way to be treated. Mr. Esparza said the applicant will be treating the north and east walls one hundred percent. Mr. Esparza noted that the north and east sides are clearly visible from a public way and must be covered. The south side is the back of the building and it does not technically face a public way because an existing building blocks its view. The west side is Forest Service and it is not considered a public way. Mr. Esparza said Staff believes treating two sides does meet the code criteria. Commissioner Gilbert asked if that was the only change. The applicant confirmed it was the only change. Commissioner Irwin asked how a public way is defined. Mr. Esparza said it is defined as where there is vehicular traffic. Vice Chairman Forbeck said, as the law stands, this is allowable, but it is another example of the need for revised Design Review Criteria. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS MOVED TO APPROVE THE SITE PLAN AMENDMENT WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AS STATED IN THE AGENDA. VICE CHAIRMAN FORBECK SECONDED THE MOTION AND IT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ITEM NO. 8, DISCUSSION, CONSIDERATION AND ACTION RE: Z063: A PROPOSED ZONE CHANGE FROM RLOW TO PUD IN ORDER TO DEVELOP A NEIGHBORHOOD PUD PROJECT ON 13 ACRES WITH SINGLEFAMILY  3
RESIDENCES, MULTIFAMILY RESIDENCES AND COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 4850 W. AND 4900 W. WHITE MOUNTAIN BLVD. APN 21201014 AND 21201015. THE APPLICANTS ARE NAK S. SUNG AND CHUN LEE:Commissioner Irwin excused herself from this discussion. Paul Esparza said the applicant is presenting a multiuse concept with singlefamily, condominiums and commercial areas. He stated this is a concept plan only for the requested zone change, and the formal site plan will require further study. Mr. Esparza said the applicant had given a preliminary presentation at the last Regular Meeting and, with suggestions from the Commission, the site plan had been revised from fiftyfour condominiums to fortyeight, to allow for more buffering between the units and Mountain Gate. Mr. Esparza said the General Plan does allow for a PUD in this area. The current zoning allows for one dwelling per acre, and this change would result in about four units per acre, but the highway frontage is more suitable for commercial rather than singlefamily residential. Mr. Esparza said Staff recommends this zone change with the proper approvals and a site plan within one year. Commissioner Gilbert asked what would be an alternative if Mountain Gate were not interested in joint access. Mr. Esparza said the property has about 439 feet of highway frontage, so it is feasible that two access points can be developed from Highway 260; therefore the applicant would be able to meet the requirements without participation from Mountain Gate. He said the project size would likely trigger a traffic impact study. Chairman Betts clarified that the current decision only concerns the zone change.Neal Thompson introduced Nak Sung and said he loves the area and is motivated to develop this site for himself and his family. VICE CHAIRMAN FORBECK MOVED TO CONVENE A PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONER GILBERT SECONDED THE MOTION AND IT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.No one addressed the Commission. VICE CHAIRMAN FORBECK MOVED TO ADJOURN THE PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONER GILBERT SECONDED THE MOTION AND IT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.Vice Chairman Forbeck said the conceptual drawing shows fiftyfoot roads. Commissioner Gilbert said he believes the proposal meets all the requirements and he is comfortable with the zone change. COMMISSIONER GILBERT MOVED TO APPROVE THE PUD ZONE CHANGE REQUEST FOR Z063 AS STATED ON THE AGENDA WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AND STIPULATIONS, WITH CONSIDERATION FOR SECONDARY ACCESS AND A SITE PLAN WITHIN ONE YEAR. COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS SECONDED THE MOTION AND IT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ITEM NO. 9, DISCUSSION, CONSIDERATION AND ACTION RE: S4705. A TENTATIVE PLAT FOR A 60LOT SUBDIVISION ON 15.24 ACRES. THE PROPERTY IS ZONED PUD. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON YEAGER LANE,
4
WEST OF SUMMER HAVEN AND SOUTH OF LAKESIDE SUMMER HOMES. APN 21229181. THE APPLICANT IS MARK KAHLICH: Paul Esparza gave a Staff Report and said the Town Council passed the rezoning of this parcel from R14 to PUD in April; therefore, this action item only concerns the recommendation of the Tentative Plat. The applicant did have a neighborhood meeting and he is retaining a fifteenfoot buffer between the PUD and Navajo Lane. The proposed t intersection change provides an excellent opportunity to correct major flow issues on Yeager Lane. The change shown on the plan could only be done if a few homeowners agreed to exchange portions of their property. The Town Code does allow for fortyfoot private roads, which the developer has on his plan; he has added eightfoot public utility easements on both sides. Mr. Esparza said the Fire Department was pleased with the revised traffic disbursement, but they wanted to see a total of twentyfive feet from curb to curb. Citizen dissatisfaction with the lot sizes near the existing residential area was another major concern. In order to allow for larger lots near the existing residential area, the Council approved a variance from 30% open space to 27% open space contingent upon the developer enlarging the lots next to the existing residential area. The enlarged lots are shown on this plan. The plan is being reviewed under the current Subdivision Regulations. Mr. Esparza ended his report and asked for questions from the Commission. Commissioner Gilbert asked Mr. Esparza if he had talked to Town Attorney about any of the concerns included in the letter in the packet. Mr. Esparza said he had not discussed it with Jack Barker but he intended to respond to any questions tonight. Mark Kahlich, representing the developer, approached the Commission and said he worked with the Town Engineer, the Town Staff, the Fire Department and the neighbors to come up with solutions to the concerns. Mr. Kahlich said Project Engineer, John Murphy, was given parameters by the various agencies and he developed a plan that meets all the requirements including larger lot sizes, a fifteenfoot buffer and increased street widths. John Murphy said he is currently working with property owners to exchange land for the proposed tintersection. Mr. Murphy asked the Commission and Staff if there were any questions. There were none. Chairman Betts stated the agenda item wasnotas a Public Hearing, but he would listed allow everyone a chance to talk as long as it was not redundant. Ms. Maryann Lober approached the Commission and stated her main concern is the fortyfoot minimum street width. Ms. Lober said she believes the street width is dangerous and violates the fiftyfoot minimum stated in the Town Code. Ms. Lober asked who has responsibility for maintaining the roads. Mr. Esparza said if they are private roads the Town will not accept responsibility, and an HOA would be established to assume maintenance just like any other gated subdivision in the Town that has private roads. Ms. Margie Muhm approached the Commission with a letter from four other homeowners opposing the development. Ms. Muhm emphasized summer residents could not attend all these meetings and were not made aware of the meetings ahead of time. Ms. Muhm said the letter written by the Homeowner Association President was not authorized by any of the homeowners along the meadow. Ms. Muhm said she believes the high density will negatively affect the property values and is asking the developer to come up with a plan to lower the number of homes. Ms. Muhm expressed concern for the drainage issues in the meadow. Vice Chairman Forbeck asked Staff to summarize the overall density of the project. Mr. Esparza said the original zoning called for four units per acre without open space; the Tentative Plat is at 3.94 units per acre with twentyseven percent open space. Vice Chairman Forbeck noted the parcel sizes would  5
have been no less than 10,000 square feet per unit, and they are about 6,000 square feet in this plan with 27% open space. Mr. Esparza said if the applicant had gone with R14 it would have been about five less lots and no open space. Chairman Betts commented that the Town works year round and cannot change the schedule to accommodate summer residents. Mr. Joe Mahon approached the Commission and said he has addressed the Commission twice before on this project. He said he is not directly affected by the development but he is opposed because of drainage, density and developer greed. He asked if the people of Summer Haven and Wonderland Acres are being held hostage. Mr. Mahon said he did not see the uniqueness of the project and is concerned that developers and money are controlling the Town. There was clapping and verbal cheering and Chairman Betts told the audience that he would not allow outbursts. Mr. Lon Dorsay approached the Commission and said he has been in contact with many citizens. Mr. Dorsay complained that there was not enough notice given to the neighbors about this meeting. He said he has been a developer for over twenty years and a PUD is not suitable for this fifteen acre parcel because of fire hazards, parking issues, road safety, density, increased services, lack of school classrooms, and pedestrian safety. Mr. Dorsay said the lot frontage and small cul de sacs did not provide adequate parking. Mr. Dorsay said he was upset that Staff has not recognized the disastrous possibilities of this highdensity development. Mr. Dorsay accused Paul Esparza of ignoring the Town Code, which says the property must conform to prior zoning, and for that reason, Mr. Dorsay believes the subdivision is illegal. Mr. Dorsay said the public was led to believe the area was designated as a PUD in the Master Plan, but he said it is designated as R14, not as a PUD. Mr. Dorsay said the residents are being ignored and insulted because the zoning code clearly does not allow this type of development. Mr. Dorsay said he had engineers review the parcel and he was told with the odd shape and drainage problems, the R14 zoning would only handle about thirty to thirtyfive lots. Mr. Dorsay said previous Town Planner, Jason Crampton, told him there was no difference between public and private streets in residential communities. Mr. Dorsay said the development would create higher use to Yeager Lane, and the citizen’s tax dollars would be used for the eventual improvement of Yeager Lane, while the developer had already left with the money. Mr. Dorsay attempted to speak about the understaffed police force and affordable housing, but Chairman Betts told him the Commission is not allowed to regard the monetary remuneration to the developer and the police staff was not relevant to this agenda item. Mr. Dorsay said violating the code sets a precedent for future subdivisions. Chairman Betts said the PUD code is being looked at closely and many people interpret the code to say private roads can be fortyfeet with Engineering and Fire Department approval. Mr. Dorsay then cited Navajo County Minutes, which stated James Matteson introduced himself as a representative of Mark Kahlich. He read from the Minutes, which said Mr. Matteson emphasized Bruce Ironside has been doing all the design work for the developer. Mr. Dorsay implied that Mr. Matteson was a paid employee of Mark Kahlich and that creates a conflict of interest because Mr. Matteson is representing the Town on a project with one of his own clients. Mr. Paul Esparza said he had no idea what Mr. Dorsay was referring to because John Murphy is the Project Engineer on the development. Mr. Esparza corrected Mr. Dorsay by referring to the General Plan document, which identifies the said parcel as a medium density area. Mr. Esparza read from the General Plan, 4.134, and stated medium density areas allow PUD zoning. Mr. Esparza said the code does identify road type and the minimum standard allows for a fortyfoot right of way. Mr. Esparza agreed the code is conflicting about the minimum lot size andthatis why it is being reviewed. Vice Chairman Forbeck said the PUD is designed to contain a mixture of dwellings and Staff did follow the guidelines that were outlined. Mr. Esparza said Staff did follow the strictest interpretation  6
of the guidelines by requiring all the lots to be no less than onehalf the size of the density of the bordering neighborhood. He said this PUD borders R14, which is 10,000 square foot minimum, and all the lots in Forest Meadows average 6,400 square feet. Commissioner Gilbert asked if the Town Attorney has ever raised a question about any of the previously approved Planned Unit Developments. Mr. Esparza said Jack Barker has reviewed these documents and none of those issues have surfaced. Chairman Betts agreed the Staff and Commission had done the right thing in allowing fortyfoot roads. Mr. Esparza said another subdivision, the Retreat at Walnut Creek, was also granted fortyfoot roads and is being built as we speak. Vice Chairman Forbeck said impact fees are being planned for early next year and builders would be required to pay impact fees at the time they obtain a building permit. Wolfgang Dubberke approached the Commission and said he had reviewed the definition of a residential street in the Town Code. Mr. Dubberke said when there are utilities in the streets, the streets are supposed to be 60 feet wide. Mr. Dubberke said if the Homeowners Association fails to maintain the streets, the Town would have to accept financial responsibility. Mr. Dubberke said the Town is not conforming to the minimum standards outlined in the code. Chairman Betts said the Commission is allowed the prerogative of accepting a fortyfoot private street if the Engineer and Fire Department deems it is safe. Mr. Esparza said the code definition of a local street says it must be a minimum of twenty six feet between curbs. Town Engineer, Jim Matteson, said interpreting the code is not black and white. He said the right of way for a public street is fiftyfeet and if there are utilities it must be sixtyfeet, but he said private streets are different. Mr. Matteson said the Fire Department’s opinion is the most significant in street width decisions. Mr. Matteson said the Staff, the Fire Department and the Town Engineer suggest no less than twentysix foot width. In this case, the roads are twentyfeet, with four feet of curbing and sixteen feet of PUE’s (fiftysix feet that will be open). The Fire Department reviewed the plan and felt comfortable with a twentyfive foot width, and the developer agreed to change the twenty four feet of pavement and curbing to twentyfive feet. Jim Matteson said the most important safety item on the plan is the improvement of the curve in Yeager Lane to a tintersection. Patsy Hjalmarson approached the Commission and said she is one of the homeowners that would be required to swap property to allow for the intersection. She said she received a letter tonight, dated August 3, 2005, regarding the property swap, but she had not received any notification prior to tonight. Ms. Hjalmarson said the only reason she knows what is happening concerning her property is because Commissioner Irwin had talked to her. Ms. Hjalmarson said she is fearful of the Commission taking any action tonight because she has made no agreements with the developer or the Town to swap her property. Mr. Esparza told Ms. Hjalmarson he had no reason to believe she had not received a letter. Mr. Esparza said owner’s agreement to swap property would be a condition of this Plat approval. Mr. Esparza said this PUD could be developed without the tintersection, but the revised intersection is the optimal solution to the dangerous curve on Yeager Lane. Mr. Esparza assured Ms. Hjalmarson he would not present to the Council to take action on something that would affect her property without the proper notice and consent. Vice Chairman Forbeck said this action item is not a Final Plat approval and Staff could never advance the Final Plat for approval to the Council without all those details worked out. Mr. Julian Castillo approached the Commission and said he is concerned with what is happening to the unique Town of PinetopLakeside. He said the plan was supposed to be beneficial for the people, but Yeager Lane doesn’t have shoulders and even school buses cannot pass each other now. Mr. Castillo asked if the developer would be required to develop Yeager Lane before finishing the development. Mr. Castillo told the Commissioners if a child gets killed on Navajo Lane, he would come after the Town and each member of the Commission.  7
Chairman Betts told Mr. Castillo he would not continue the meeting if the speaker and audience did not stop their outbursts. Mr. Castillo began to criticize the Council and Chairman Betts asked him to speak only to the agenda item. Katherine McClellan approached the Commission as said she is a year round resident but she has the same concerns as the seasonal visitors. Ms. McClellan asked what these developments add to the community. Vice Chairman Forbeck said the Commission could not discuss those types of topics, and developers have certain land ownership rights. Ms. Dee Wofford approached the Commission and said safety and density are her main concerns. Ms. Dee cited the recent closure of Woodland Road, stating that school had not begun yet, and Yeager Lane was severely congested. Ms. Wofford asked the Commission to think of how sixty additional families on fifteen acres would affect the roads and traffic. Ms. Wofford said she believes the impact would be detrimental to the neighborhood and does not understand how this development helps the Town. Mr. Harold Harrison approached the Commission and said he has seen PhoenixScottsdale turn into an unsafe place. He warned the Commission “what goes around comes around and if it comes back in a negative way, payback is a bugger.” Mr. Harrison said when a business sold him a lemon, he drove the business out of the community and “what goes around comes around.” Chairman Betts told Mr. Harrison that the Commission does not take kindly to threats and he would have to sit down. Mr. Julian Garcia approached the Commission and said he was opposed to this project because of the density and road congestion and he asked the Commission to vote against the project. Ms. Mary Freeman approached the Commission and said she has been a Town resident for thirtyfive years and she believes the area cannot handle the impact of sixty additional home sites. Mr. James Bomber approached the Commission and said he had asked about the drainage at the previous meeting. He said he had not heard the drainage plan for this Plat and would like to know what is happening. Mr. Esparza said the Project Engineer is here to answer that question. Mr. Rob Ingels approached the Commission and said he was confused about the deviation from the thirty percent open space. Mr. Ingels said it was a discretionary variance by the Council and a special variance was required. Mr. Ingels said the Council did not have authority to make that decision. Mr. Ingels also said the PUD ordinance says it is supposed to keep a neighborhood rural and in all cases a PUD shall complement and harmonize with existing land use in the area. He suggested the Commission seriously weigh the proposal tonight based on the intention of the code. Mr. Ingels said the intent of the PUD is to create permanent recreation area and open spaces and he does not see those in this proposal. Commissioners Forbeck and Gilbert both stated a PUD requires open space only. Mr. Ingels said he was alarmed that the road width issue and traffic impact is only now being addressed. He said he does not believe these concerns have been addressed properly. Mr. Ingels said the meadow has remained a meadow all these years probably because of soil and terrain issues. Mr. John Banker said he was attending the meeting at the request of Lon Dorsay. Mr. Banker said Mr. Matteson represented Stone Pine in the County. Chairman Betts said he would not allow him to continue, as this was not a legal avenue to debate Jim Matteson. Mr. Banker said the developer is making an end run around the normal process by which a lot size gets approved. Commissioner Gilbert asked Mr. Banker to clarify that comment, and asked if he was suggesting the Commission is not following the code. Mr. Banker said the code requires a PUD to follow the lot size of the neighboring properties and that is R14 and that is not being followed. Mr. Banker said the PUD should be a way of structuring the clustering of houses but it should not affect the lot size. Commissioner Gilbert said a PUD does indeed affect the lot size. Mr. Banker reminded the Commission they are required to clarify how this development meets the Town Code. Mr. Mercer Johnston approached the Commission and said he was concerned with the density  8
and drainage, but he didn’t think the Commission was listening. Chairman Betts said there is not listening and there is not agreeing. There was no more public participation and Chairman Betts asked the applicant to address any issues. Mr. Murphy said a drainage analysis with recommendations was provided for Town review. Mr. Murphy said there are tracks set aside for water flow, and this development will not negatively affect the current drainage. Chairman Betts asked if any of the current drainage issues would be improved by the development. Mr. Murphy said most of the drainage issues are not located on this parcel. Mr. Murphy said the road right of way width is twentyfive feet of pavement with room on the backside of the curb. Mr. Murphy said a public right of way can carry maintenance issues and with these eight foot PUE’s, there is nothing outside of the roadway that needs to be maintained. Vice Chairman Forbeck asked Mr. Murphy what impact the Yeager Lane tintersection would have on the property owners. Mr. Murphy said the intersection would have a minor impact on lots thirtyfour and thirtyfive, and the developer has agreed to take care of the construction improvements necessary on all sides affected by the construction. John Murphy said the intersection improvements would have to be finished prior to a Certificate of Occupancy. Vice Chairman Forbeck said the developer had talked about waiting to improve the intersection until after the construction traffic is finished. Mr. Esparza said that would be coordinated with Tom Thomas. Mr. Murphy said the Fire Department asked to see twentyfive foot roads, and the applicant is doing that as a condition of approval. Mr. Kahlich said the development would bring the improvement of Yeager Lane in a more timely fashion. Commissioner Gilbert said Staff and the applicant have done their job, but he would like to get more input from the Town Attorney. Commissioner Gilbert said the Commission is trying to do their job by complying with the code he would like more legal advice. Chairman Betts apologized for not scheduling the Town Attorney to be present at the meeting. Commissioner Irwin said about a year ago a developer wanted to put fiftyfive units on this parcel. Commissioner Irwin said she was originally against this sixtylot PUD, but this developer has worked with Staff and the neighbors to overcome many obstacles and five more units is not substantial. Commissioner Dysterheft said she would like to take no action on this item until legal answers could be ascertained. The Commission discussed what type of legal questions needed to be answered. It was stated the definition of a legal street private or public, and underlying zoning and lot size requirement questions. This is not a public hearing so it would have to be rescheduled. COMMISSIONER DYSTERHEFT MOVED TO TAKE NO ACTION ON THIS ITEM. VICE CHAIRMAN FORBECK SECONDED THE MOTION AND IT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Mr. Ingels asked about notification for the next meeting. Mr. Esparza said this was not a public hearing and therefore notice was not required, but given the circumstances he would attempt to give more notice. Vice Chairman Forbeck said the decision was now the Commissioners to make with the proper legal counsel. ITEM NO. 10, DISCUSSION, CONSIDERATION AND ACTION RE: PUD. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT (PUD) IN THE TOWN CODE. THE PROPOSED CHANGES BRING ELEMENTS OF THE GENERAL PLAN INTO THE TOWN CODE:
9
Mr. Esparza gave a Staff Report and said there have been many conflicts in the language of the PUD, and this is an attempt to clean up language and clarify meanings. (Refer to PUD suggested changes document.) Mr. Esparza said the changes do not affect lot size or density. Commissioner Gilbert asked if we could entertain the idea of adding a minimum parcel size for a PUD. Commissioner Williams referred to B.3. a. and b. He asked for clarification on the minimum lot size required for PUD lots that border a residential area but are buffered with open space. Mr. Esparza said the revised PUD language refers to zoning districts not individual lot sizes; therefore the PUD lots bordering the residential area must conform to the bordering residential zoning district minimum lot size (i.e. R14 is 10,000 s.f.) as referred to in B.3. a. and b. Mr. Esparza said open space between the PUD and the residential zoning district would not change the minimum lot size and setback requirements for immediately bordering lots. Commissioner Gilbert said he thinks the PUD needs to be revised as soon as possible, but there are discrepancies and we may have to make more adjustments before final approval. COMMISSIONER IRWIN MOVED TO CONVENE A PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONER DYSTERHEFT SECONDED THE MOTION AND IT PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.Mr. Wolfgang DeBurkkee approached the Commission and said he had talked about this at length at the last meeting and his opinion had not changed. He believes the wording in the PUD should stay the same. Mr. Rob Ingels approached the Commission and said the purpose of a PUD needs to be considered when multiuse site plans are submitted that border lowdensity residential areas. Mr. Ingels said adequate buffering and set back must be a part of the Site Plan Review. Mr. Ingels asked if the PUD zoning code is retroactive, or does a PUD have to adhere to the code that was put in place at the time it was zoned PUD. Commissioner Gilbert said each PUD project is unique and the standards are frozen at the time the project is adopted for the PUD. Commissioner Williams excused himself from the meeting after Mr. Ingels was finished. Mr. Lon Dorsay approached the Commission as said he found the PUD changes confusing and deceptive. Mr. Dorsay said the Zoning codes are established for the health, safety and welfare of the citizens, but the suggested changes do not protect the residential neighbors because there is no minimum lot size. Mr. Dorsay said by striking out one sentence, the Commission would change the entire zoning code for PinetopLakeside. Chairman Betts said the code is ambiguous and needs to be fixed. Mr. Esparza said it would not be possible to have a condominium project with minimum lot sizes. Commissioner Gilbert said condominiums are an example of a performancebased use and therefore they do not require minimum lot sizes. Mr. Dorsay said that would allow for abuse. Commissioner Gilbert said it was his opinion only. Mr. John Banker approached the Commission and asked if the text amendment change was published in the newspaper over fifteen days ago. Mr. Esparza confirmed it had been published in the appropriate time frame. Mr. David Krigbaum approached the Commission and asked if a developer could have any latitude on the thirty percent open space requirement. Vice Chairman Forbeck said all codes could be changes with a Variance or Council approval. She said there is a Variance section in the code, which refers to the process for getting a change. Mr. Krigbaum said the citizens voted on the General Plan because of what was in it at the time; the citizens did not approve the General Plan thinking it was subject to change. Vice Chairman Forbeck said the General Plan is a blue print for the Town’s future, but it is not a static plan. Vice Chairman Forbeck said she did not think the General Plan was being changed at all. Commissioner Gilbert said he wanted legal advise on any changes that may  10
affect density, but he agreed the land use map calls for medium density and medium density allows for a PUD, R14, MH4 or Pad only. Commissioner Gilbert asked if the General Plan indicates some sort of restriction to the phases of build out of a PUD. He asked if a percentage of commercial has to be done before all the residential is done or is it possible for one use to be developed completely, while the other uses are stagnant. Vice Chairman Forbeck said that would be done in a development agreement, similar to the Staff Recommendations for approval and it would be up to the Town Staff to enforce the agreement. Mr. Krigbaum asked what happens if a development agreement is not done and how does the public get input on development agreements. Commissioner Gilbert said a development agreement is made through state law and is established at the time of Plat Review, but he added, contract zoning is often overturned in court. Mr. Krigbaum asked if the Staff did want to use development agreements then would it have to go before the Town Council for approval. Chairman Betts said all these items will require further study before the Commission could take action. COMMISSIONER IRWIN MOVED TO ADJOURN FROM PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONER GILBERT SECONDED THE MOTION AND IT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.VICE CHAIRMAN FORBECK MOVED THE COMMISSION TAKE NO ACTION ON THE PUD CHANGES UNTIL QUESTIONS COULD BE CLARIFIED. COMMISSIONER DYSTERHEFT SECONDED THE MOTION AND IT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ITEM NO.11, STAFF REPORT: Mr. Esparza said the Shadle property did not do a preview tonight because they did not have the documents ready. Chairman Betts apologized to the Commission and Staff for letting the public spend more than three minutes, which resulted in such a long meeting. ITEM NO. 12, ADJOURNMENT: COMMISSIONER DYSTERHEFT MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 10:20 PM. COMMISSIONER GILBERT SECONDED THE MOTION AND IT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Planning & Zoning Commission of the Town of PinetopLakeside, Arizona, held on the 16th day of August 2005. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and held and a quorum was present. Dated this 31st day of August 2005.  PINETOPLAKESIDE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
11