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

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 ...

Informations

• Publié par: Arza
• Nombre de lectures: 25
• Langue: English

Extrait

(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