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

Donna Stanley

Informations

• Publié par: Endri
• Nombre de lectures: 15
• Langue: English

Extrait

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF PINETOP-LAKESIDE, ARIZONA HELD
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 2005, AT 6:30 P.M. IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS.

ITEM NO. 1, CALL TO ORDER AND ASCERTAIN QUORUM:

Chairman Irwin called the Regular Meeting to order at 6:31 p.m. Roll call was taken and a
quorum established.


ROLL CALL: Present Absent
Chairman Stephanie Irwin X

Vice Chairman Tim Williams X
Gretchen Forbeck X Brian Gilbert X
Georgia Dysterheft X
Richard Smith X


STAFF PRESENT:

Paul Esparza, Community Development Director; Keith Dennis, Town Planner; and Lisa
Figueroa, Staff Assistant.

ITEM NO. 2, PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:

Chairman Irwin led the Pledge of Allegiance.

ITEM NO. 3, CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE WORK
SESSION AND MEETING HELD NOVEMBER 15, 2005:


COMMISSIONER FORBECK MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE
STWORK SESSION AND THE REGULAR MEETING HELD NOVEMBER 1 , 2005
WITH THE CORRECTIONS NOTED DURING THE WORK SESSION. COMMISSIONER
WILLIAMS 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.

Rob Ingels said he would like to thank the Commission for allowing the public to speak and
said he wanted to touch briefly on the citizens’ being interactive with public hearings. He
suggested having interactive types of meetings that will allow the growth of the community
to development more thoroughly through uses of maps and models. He said he has seen
1work sessions where people break up into groups using these tools and models to assist
building a sense of community that would help create compromises. He stated he was
pleased with the densities in the PUDs that have been approved in the Town. He declared
his appreciation of the Staffs’ cooperation on providing information to the citizens of the
Town. He said it’s nice when the Commissioners come together individually as well as
arriving at decisions as the Commission that affect the community.

ITEM NO. 5, PUBLIC HEARING, DISCUSSION, CONSIDERATION AND ACTION RE:
CHAPTER 16.100, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT PUBLIC
HEARING ON THE PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 16.100, PUD
ZONING DISTRICT IN THE TOWN CODE:

Mr. Esparza said the Commissioners have a series of public comments on proposed changes
in the PUD. Mr. Esparza said there is draft dated September 27 that went to the Town
Council on October 6 where the Council postponed action. He said the Council directed
Rob Ingels to organize a citizens committee and there has been one meeting at the Lakeside
Fire Department. He said there have been smaller meetings, but not as a committee where
staff has been present. The Committee did not present a draft to amend the PUD. He said
the attempt was to add what is not in the PUD now and Staff has considered seeking an
outside source to help propose changes, to evaluate new proposals and PUDs that aren’t in
the code now. Commissioner Forbeck asked if a third party would keep momentum and
finish in a timely manner. Mr. Esparza said those meetings need to happen if they are going
to make the necessary changes to the PUD. Commissioner Forbeck said there are good
things in the proposed PUD and said she would like to keep the momentum going.

COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS MOVED TO CONVENE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
COMMISSIONER FORBECK SECONDED THE MOTION AND IT CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.

Mr. Ingels said he saw there were some restrictions bringing consequences and negative
impacts with the new proposal. He said there was strong compatibility in the use of PUD
and in filling empty parcels. He said they won’t attain the same type of standards as the old
PUDs without Planning & Zoning support on behalf of the citizens. He said it is more
important now to have a high standard on project review. He said he appreciated Staff
providing the statistics but said he thinks workshops would be a greater advantage to reach a
solution. Commissioner Forbeck said she has studied public comments and said she sees
contradictions.

COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS MOVED TO ADJOURN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
COMMISSIONER DYSTERHEFT SECONDED THE MOTION AND IT CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY.

Commissioner Forbeck suggested the Commission take action, but recommend to the
Council to involve a third party to revise the PUD Code. Chairman Stephanie Irwin said she
thought the public brought up very good issues that may have been overlooked or
sidestepped. Commissioner Forbeck said Mr. Ingel’s idea of public workshops is good.

COMMISSIONER FORBECK MOVED TO RECOMMEND TO THE TOWN
COUNCIL TO NOT TAKE ACTION ON THE PRESENTED PLANNED UNIT
2DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE, AND LOOK INTO HAVING A THIRD PARTY
REVIEW THE TEXT CHANGES AND CONDUCT PUBLIC WORKSHOPS
BEFORE THIS GOES TO PUBLIC HEARING AGAIN. COMMISSIONER
DYSTERHEFT SECONDED THE MOTION AND IT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.

ITEM NO. 6, DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION RE: CHAPTER 16.04-16.36
TOWN SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS PUBLIC HEARING AND ACTION ON THE
PROPOSED UPDATED SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS DRAFT:

Mr. Esparza said the Commission had a discussion on this item November 1 no action was
taken. It was just an opportunity to review the draft. He said this process started months
ago and through grants received they were able to select consultant Loras Rauch who is
present at tonight’s meeting. He said there was a subcommittee organized and they met
periodically and held joint sessions to work on the draft until its’ completion in July. He
said the point last time was to give the public an opportunity to comment and they
forwarded those comments to Ms. Rauch for evaluation. He said Ms. Rauch has provided a
response to those comments. He said there is a Public Hearing scheduled for tonight and
they would go through the draft however the Commission sees fit and those
recommendations will go to the Town Council on December 1.

Commissioner Forbeck had asked for a definition of buffering so Ms. Rauch provided them
with three definitions to choose from. Ms. Rauch said Page 16-40, Item 16.24.030 uses the
terminology. Commissioner Forbeck said it’s also used in sections A and B. Ms. Rauch
asked the Commission if any of the definitions fit better. Commissioner Williams suggested
they combine definitions two and three for buffering. Commissioner Forbeck asked Ms.
Rauch to read the definitions out loud since the public didn’t have copies. Chairman Irwin
said she thought the third definition covered the issue of increased density for the public.
Commissioner Forbeck said she liked the first definition because it included everything. issioner Gilbert said it doesn’t address commercial which is fitting with the code.
Mrs. Rauch said #1 would address PUDs whether they are commercial or residential. She
asked what definition the Commission would like her to use. The Commission decided the
following definition would be appropriate: “An area of land, including landscaping, berms,
walls and fences but not building setbacks, that is located between land uses of different
character or density and is intended to mitigate negative impacts of the more intense use on
residential or vacant parcels.” Chairman Irwin asked Mr. Esparza if he had a chance to look
over the definitions. Mr. Esparza said he agreed with the use of the first definition. Ms.
Rauch said on Page 16-14, Chapter 16.08.050 the modifications are there because no code
can foresee every specific piece of property and it allows for flexibly when it comes to those
modifications. She said the PUD is a rezoning action and through the legislative action they
allow certain modifications to happen in the subdivision code. She said letter “B” allows
what has already been passed. She said she understands the leeriness from the public and
said if letter “D” is added to state: “All modifications to the standards or requirements of
this ordinance shall be approved by the Town Council at a noticed Public Hearing; it will
add time to the development but it may be in the public’s best interest to add that time just
so the public is aware of the criteria or the circumstances within the development.
Chairman Irwin said it does add a layer of protection for the publics’ concerns.

COMMISSIONER FORBECK MOVED TO CONVENE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS SECONDED AND IT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
3
Mr. Ingels said the first buffer definition would be suitable. He said he is concerned the
open spaces along the highway would be affected if a business opened. He said he noticed
the definition did not mention landscaping or fencing between commercial parcels.
Commissioner Forbeck said that is covered in commission zoning site plan approval. Mr.
Ingels said he is concerned of the run off from parking areas and roads and said many
communities have a na