(These minutes are subject to correction and or approval on May 6,  2003)
7 Pages
English

(These minutes are subject to correction and or approval on May 6, 2003)

-

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 November 16, 2004) MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF PINETOP-LAKESIDE, ARIZONA, HELD TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2004, AT 6:15 P.M. IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS. 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ASCERTAIN QUORUM Chairman Betts called the work session to order at 6:18 p.m. Planning and Zoning Commission Members Present: Chairman Jim Betts, Vice Chairman Gretchen Forbeck, Luke Smith, Stephanie Irwin, and Tim Williams mission Members Absent: Brian Gilbert (excused) Community Development Staff Present: Paul Esparza, Community Development Director 2. DISCUSSION Commissioner Irwin provided a copy of the Scottsdale Native Plant Ordinance, which will be copied and distributed. thMr. Esparza stated that on November 8 he would be meeting with Jim Matteson concerning a hillside ordinance. Mr. Esparza also mentioned that he had spoken with Rob Terrell concerning tha hillside ordinance and also concerning the Council meeting on November 4 . Mr. Esparza will be meeting with the Main Street Board on Tuesday and will try to get an update on the theater site. Mr. Esparza reminded the Commissioners of the Boards and Commissions Conference in thPhoenix on November 12 . The Work Session was adjourned early to allow some time for the Commissioners to read through the comments received concerning the rezoning of Pinetop Meadow. 3. ADJOURNMENT The Work ...

Subjects

Informations

Published by
Reads 25
Language English
(These minutes are subject to correction and/or approval on November 16, 2004)
MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF PINETOP-LAKESIDE, ARIZONA, HELD
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2004, AT 6:15 P.M. IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
1.
CALL TO ORDER AND ASCERTAIN QUORUM
Chairman Betts called the work session to order at 6:18 p.m.
Planning and Zoning Commission Members Present: Chairman Jim Betts, Vice Chairman
Gretchen Forbeck, Luke Smith, Stephanie Irwin, and Tim Williams
Planning and Zoning Commission Members Absent: Brian Gilbert (excused)
Community Development Staff Present: Paul Esparza, Community Development Director
2.
DISCUSSION
Commissioner Irwin provided a copy of the Scottsdale Native Plant Ordinance, which will be
copied and distributed.
Mr. Esparza stated that on November 8
th
he would be meeting with Jim Matteson concerning a
hillside ordinance. Mr. Esparza also mentioned that he had spoken with Rob Terrell concerning
a hillside ordinance and also concerning the Council meeting on November 4
th
.
Mr. Esparza will be meeting with the Main Street Board on Tuesday and will try to get an update
on the theater site.
Mr. Esparza reminded the Commissioners of the Boards and Commissions Conference in
Phoenix on November 12
th
.
The Work Session was adjourned early to allow some time for the Commissioners to read
through the comments received concerning the rezoning of Pinetop Meadow.
3.
ADJOURNMENT
The Work Session was adjourned at 6:24 p.m.
/s/ Chairman Jim Betts
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF PINETOP-LAKESIDE, ARIZONA, HELD
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2004, AT 6:30 P.M. IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
1.
CALL TO ORDER TO ASCERTAIN QUORUM
Chairman Betts called the meeting to order at 6:31 p.m.
Planning and Zoning Commission Members Present: Chairman Jim Betts, Vice Chairman
Gretchen Forbeck, Luke Smith, Stephanie Irwin, Tim Williams, and Brian Gilbert (arrived at
6:40 p.m.)
Planning and Zoning Commission Members Absent: None
Community Development Staff Present: Paul Esparza, Community Development Director
2.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3.
CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE WORK
SESSION AND MEETING HELD OCTOBER 19, 2004.
Vice Chairman Forbeck suggested that in paragraph 7 of the Work Session, that it should say
COULD
, rather than CAN when referring to Commissioner Williams being able to vote. Vice
Chairman Forbeck moved to approve the minutes of the Work Session and Regular Meeting held
October 19, 2004. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Irwin and carried unanimously.
4.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
There was no public participation.
5.
DISCUSSION/CONSIDERATION/ACTION
RE: SPR 04-203 McDONALD’S
REMODEL
Consideration and action on a site plan review for a 344 square feet addition and
remodel to an existing restaurant building located at 6 E. White Mountain Blvd.
APN 211-24-009B. The applicant is Martinez Management.
Mr. Esparza presented the staff report and stated that staff recommends consideration of the
proposed restaurant addition with the following stipulations:
All requirements of the Pinetop Fire Department are met for a building permit.
All outdoor lighting is in compliance with the outdoor lighting standards.
Serious consideration for a repaint of the existing roof color by the applicant.
Mr. Abe Martinez, the applicant, stated that he wants to meet all ADA requirements and update
the store. He would like to start immediately and be done before Christmas. There is a décor
package for the interior that utilizes more contemporary colors. Mr. Martinez stated that he is a
resident of Pinetop, it is a growing community and he wants it to show well.
Commissioner Smith asked how serious he was about replacing the current red roof color. Mr.
Martinez will really try to look at it and how it matches the colors that are there. He further
stated that Pinetop has a lot of traffic through it, but Pinetop is not a destination location. People
are passing through on their way elsewhere. As a business, there is one chance to pull them off
the road and the red roof catches their eye. He stated that when he first used the red roof, there
was an 18% bump in business. He said that he would probably look into any repainting in the
spring.
Vice Chairman Forbeck asked if anything would be done with the freestanding sign and Mr.
Martinez stated that nothing would be done with it at this time.
Commissioner Smith moved to approve the site plan review for a 344 square feet addition and
remodel to an existing restaurant building located at 6 E. White Mountain Blvd., with staff
recommendations. It was seconded by Vice Chairman Forbeck and carried unanimously.
6.
PUBLIC HEARING/CONSIDERATION/ACTION
RE: PUD 04-012
PINETOP MEADOW
Public Hearing and a recommendation on a request for a PUD zoning designation
for APN(s) 211-44-006C, 006F, 006G, and 008D. The subject parcels total 48 acres
and are located south of White Mountain Blvd and east of Penrod Lane. The
proposed plan for development includes a mix of retail, professional, commercial
and mixed residential uses. This area is commonly referred to as the Pinetop
Meadow. The current zoning is R-LOW. The applicant is Pinetop Meadow Ltd.
Mr. Esparza stated that four items were submitted regarding the rezoning; a letter from the First
Baptist Church of Pinetop stating their support for the rezoning, a letter from Mr. Jake Struble
who lives along Pine Lake Rd., a statement from Ms. Barbara Teague, and some comments from
Linet Ingels. Mr. Esparza said he would address some of the comments first and then present the
staff report.
In the comments, it was mentioned that the area should be a PAD, which is a Planned Area
Development. The property in question is identified on the General Plan Land Use Map as
Planned Development. Mr. Esparza provided a matrix from the Land Use Element, which shows
the land use designations and any appropriate zoning that could take place in that area.
According to the matrix, Planned Unit Development would be an appropriate zoning for Pinetop
Meadow. The matrix does identify a PAD (Planned Area Development) as a proposed zoning
area, but currently the Town does not have a PAD zoning. Commissioner Smith questioned
what the difference was between a PAD and a PUD. Basically, a PAD covers larger areas (for
example, Torreon).
Mr. Esparza explained that the circled area on the General Plan Land Use map identifying future
growth areas is meant to indicate the center of the area, not the boundaries of the growth area.
The map does identify the Penrod intersection as a future growth area, not to say that future
growth could not occur outside of the circle.
Mr. Esparza addressed some comments concerning the way rezoning is handled. The zoning
regulations, or text map amendment section of the code, identifies that there are certain criteria
that has to be met. As part of the submittal there was a rezoning application that went through
line item and addressed the various issues that are taken into consideration when a piece of
property is being rezoned. That includes presenting some sort of intent or conceptual plan for
the proposed uses on the property. In this case, there is a plan for the upper section primarily
consisting of commercial, retail and professional. On the lower portion, it would consist of
primarily mixed-use residential. There is a section in the code that specifically is called Planned
Unit Development (PUD). Once the zoning is in place, then the PUD criteria is applied. To get
there, Mr. Esparza explained that the zoning and map amendment section of the code which
identifies what has to be discussed and what is intended for the property. Once that has taken
place, then the PUD section of the code, which identifies specific requirements, such as 30%
open space, neighborhood or residential PUD’s, would have to be adhered to. They are required
either a full site plan or preliminary plat. Each section of the proposed PUD would be looked at
under a site plan review in very close detail. They would have to have a preliminary plat for the
subdivision of property which would include open space, the PUD requirements as they read in
the Chapter and, include the Planned Development standards that are mentioned in the Land Use
Element (no more than 20 units per acre, 30% open space, uses and densities compatible with
adjacent land uses, transition areas, etc.). Regarding transitions areas for example, there is R-
LOW at the bottom of the meadow, as well as the east, south, and west. When you look at the
particular residential uses, it does require that the proposed PUD development be at a ratio of no
more than two-to-one (PUD lots bordering R-LOW could be no less than half-acre).
Mr. Esparza presented the staff report. The PUD zoning standards require that a planned unit
development be proposed in rural or residential zoning district. The proposed density for this
development shall not exceed a 2:1 ratio where the PUD zone is adjacent to residential
properties. The PUD request will conform to the General Plan Land Use Map for future land
uses.
Mr. Esparza stated that the Commission is not approving a site plan and they are not approving a
preliminary plat at this time. The Commission is being asked to consider whether the proposed
uses are acceptable under a PUD.
Mr. Esparza stated that staff recommends consideration of the request for a PUD zoning
designation for APN(s) 211-44-006C, 006F, 006G, and 008D. The conceptual plan is subject to
a formal site plan review or preliminary plat review within one year of a PUD zoning approval
by the Town Council. This request conforms to the Town General Plan Land Use Map for future
development of the 48 acres. The following stipulations are included in the recommendation:
A formal site plan review will be required following a PUD zoning approval by the Town
Council for all phases that are not to be platted as a subdivision.
A preliminary plat will be required for all phases that are included in a subdivision of
land for residential purposes.
All PUD standards including open space, density, buffering, transition and circulation
requirements must be met in all submittal phases.
Mr. Clint Shreeve, the applicant, stated that he feels the development would be beneficial and
would add some economic impetus to the town. He explained that they have water rights and
would use them to keep the proposed lakes full and also to handle the drainage onto the property.
Mr. Shreeve stated that once they have a PUD zoning, then they have the rules and they can hire
a land planner to come with a plan for the area.
Vice Chairman Forbeck reviewed a little of the history of the property. It had a “general”
designation from the County when the Town incorporated. As she understood the general
designation, it was a holding-type of zone, meaning it was to be determined what type of zoning
would be applied to it. When the Town was incorporated, the closest zone to the general zone
was R-LOW. Over the years, it has been looked at being rezoned R1-6, which was not
approved, but then PUD came into existence. In the PUD zoning there is attention to butting up
against lower density residential. Vice Chairman Forbeck stated that she felt PUD was a good
use for the area and also, it is what is designated on the General Plan/Planned Development.
Commissioner Gilbert asked the applicants, Clint Shreeve and Larry Petersen, to expand on their
plans, specifically the uses on the site and circulation. Mr. Shreeve explained that the south
portion would be mixed residential. Along the south part, where it adjoins existing residential,
they might put in acre lots and even possibly a gated community that go out via Pine Lake Rd.
There has to be a minimum of half-acre lots in that area. There would probably be higher
density in the middle. The commercial/retail would be in the upper half.
Commissioner Gilbert asked whether they were definitely intending to match up the single-
family lots up against the existing single-family development. Mr. Shreeve stated that not only
is it in the rules, but they would want to do it anyway.
Vice Chairman Forbeck moved to go into Public Hearing at 7:18 p.m. It was seconded by
Commissioner Smith and carried unanimously.
Mr. Rob Ingels stated that it looks like a project that is moving forward that has a lot of
similarities and merits to what is called for in the General Plan. He stated that there are some
differences between PUD and PAD, which need a lot more clarification before recommending a
rezoning to PUD. Being one of the residential property owners, he was feeling relieved at how
the planned development standards are worded. Mr. Ingels stated that he felt that a planned
development coming into that land on the land use map, would be required to have the half-acre
minimum lot size anywhere it adjoins R-LOW. Mr. Ingels does not see the half-acre lots in what
was presented.
Mr. Ingels stated that conceptually, the idea of having a commercial/residential mixed-use with
an appropriately aligned street grid that might tie into the present intersections of Cheryl and
Spruce on Penrod, as well as creating ability for business access and higher density residential
access on Hwy 260, sounds good. He thinks we have moved a long way in creating what could
be a core or center for a positive project to develop, but there are sufficient drainage concerns
that the plan has to be worked into incorporating those site-specific conditions there. There are
multiple suppositions in a rezoning application that are based on the whole area being a future
growth area. He stated his desire to see more details concerning buffering and transition between
the proposed PUD area and his residential property. Mr. Ingels stated that he would like to have
a chance to be more interactive and working with the clarification of the differences that are in
the present Town regulations of PUD which say that the setback from buildings are five feet.
That is inconsistent with what Mr. Ingels reads in the Planned Development area. As Mr. Ingels
understands the process, there is a public hearing tonight concerning a rezoning, but there are no
additional noticing requirements when a site plan is considered or with a subdivision and he
wanted to know how does he look to protect the property that he feels deserves to comply with
the General Plan. He likes the concepts that are presented, but thinks there are a lot of details
that may involve sitting around a table and coming to a mutual agreement on how it would move
forward. Mr. Ingels mentioned that R-Low zoning is on three sides of the property and the only
commercial zoning is down the highway. That is one major discrepancy of the submission and
what the facts are based on the current plan. Mr. Ingels requested that the PUD not be granted at
the current time, based on the materials presented.
Commissioner Williams mentioned that the part bordering St. Mary’s Church is the
commercial/retail portion. Mr. Ingels stated that the area was zoned R-LOW at that location and
the General Plan states that a transition buffering shall be required where a planned development
touches to residential property. Some discussion was held concerning the R-LOW zoning and
the Commission/Staff stated that the buffering kicks in depending on the actual use of the
adjoining property. The same amount of buffering is not required next to a church as it would be
when it comes up against residential.
Discussion was held concerning possibly supplying courtesy notifications of any upcoming
meetings concerning Pinetop Meadows, such as site plans, etc. Mr. Ingels stated that his overall
conceptual feeling was that we were moving in a very positive direction, but that all the different
aspects (the General Plan and the various land uses) are properly considered before committing
to something that cannot be reversed.
Mr. David Krigbaum stated that this was the best proposal so far for the Pinetop Meadows and
inquired on the sequencing or timeline of the development. He wanted to know if the
commercial would be developed at the same time as the residential. Vice Chairman Forbeck
stated that was not part of a Planned Unit Development. Mr. Krigbaum stated he was primarily
interested in the commercial bringing in tax dollars from the beginning. At this point, the
Commission cannot say what the plans are in regards to a timeline. Mr. Shreeve stated they
would first need a plan and then they could figure out how to phase it. He believes that it would
probably start with the residential portion.
Commissioner Gilbert stated that the PUD does not stop a developer from voluntarily proposing
certain things. Commissioner Gilbert stated that these were the types of discussions where some
horse-trading needs to be done and that there is a lack of communications sometimes. If there is
more dialogue between some of the residents and the applicants, maybe it will not be a “train
wreck” on the night when there is actually a site plan to be approved or disapproved. There is
some more work for the applicants to do in the future.
Mr. Krigbaum stated he would like to see everyone work together as was suggested. It would
hopefully prevent a knockdown, drag-out fight at the time more of the specific details are
presented.
Vice Chairman Forbeck moved to go out of Public Hearing at 7:42 p.m. It was seconded by
Commissioner Gilbert and carried unanimously.
Vice Chairman Forbeck stated that she was comfortable with recommending to the Council that
the property be zoned a PUD, based on their concept, the Land Use Map, the General Plan, and
based on other possible uses of that land. Commissioner Betts added that it was the Commission
who requested the applicants to come back with a request for PUD rather than C-1.
Commissioner Gilbert stated he would feel more comfortable if there was some condition put on
the zoning that there would be the communication and dialogue between the applicants and the
neighbors. Discussion was held concerning the issue and Mr. Larry Petersen stated that the
project is going to be a partnership and he wants it to be a benefit to the town. Discussion was
held on ways to include the interested parties in the development of the area.
Commissioner Williams moved to approve the request for a PUD zoning designation for Pinetop
Meadow, 211-44-006C, 006F, 006G, and 008D from R-LOW, with staff recommendations. Vice
Chairman Forbeck seconded the motion. Commissioner Smith stated he wanted to acknowledge
the presence of two of the Council Members and the Town Manager because of several
comments that were made concerning more coordination and cooperation with the Town
Council. The motion carried unanimously.
7.
STAFF REPORT
Mr. Esparza stated that Dollar General has been issued a building permit, but there is now a
drainage issue that has surfaced.
Next week, Mr. Esparza will be meeting with ADOT concerning the right turn lane that is now
being required from the theater site to the entrance of Lakeside Summer Homes. ADOT is going
to require the Summer Homes to realign their entrance with Yellow Jacket.
8.
ADJOURNMENT
Vice Chairman Forbeck moved to adjourn at 7:52 p.m. It was seconded by Commissioner Smith
and passed unanimously.
/s/ Chairman Jim Betts
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 3
rd
day of November 2004. I further certify that the meeting was duly
called and held and that a quorum was present.
DATED the 8
th
day of November 2004.
/s/ Peggy Opp, Recording Secretary