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

Donna Stanley

Informations

• Publié par: Islue
• Nombre de lectures: 29
• Langue: English

Extrait

(These minutes are subject to correction and/or approval on October 4th, 2005.) MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF PINETOPLAKESIDE, ARIZONA HELD th TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 20 , 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 6:30 p.m. Roll call was taken and a quorum established. ROLL CALL:  Present Absent Chairman Stephanie Irwin X Vice Chairman Tim Williams  X  Jim Betts X  Gretchen Forbeck X  Brian Gilbert  X  Georgia Dysterheft  X  Richard Smith X STAFF PRESENT: Paul Esparza, Community Development Director; Jessica Covey, Staff Assistant: Jack Barker, Town Attorney; Kelly Udall, Town Manager; and Bernie St. John, Code Enforcement Officer. 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 SEPTEMBER 6th, 2005: COMMISSIONER BETTS MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION AND THE REGULAR MEETING HELD SEPTEMBER 6th, 2005 th WITH THE MINOR CORRECTIONS NOTED IN THE SEPTEMBER 20 , 2005 WORK SESSION. COMMISSIONER FORBECK 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.

1

Katherine McClellan said she would like to remind the commission their purpose is to protect and enforce the public wishes; it is a state law. She said the public does not feel the Commission is listening and representing them. Ms. McClellan said health, safety and welfare of the citizens is the top priority. She said if the citizen’s feel the laws are not being followed they have the right to question the commission and take legal action. This includes having the Attorney General get involved. Ms. McClellan said the citizens should be able to speak their minds without being inhibited even though the comments may reflect builtup frustrations. She said the public knows how to behave in meetings and if they receive respect they will give respect. She said there must be more common ground between citizens and the Committee. Wolfgang Deburkke said he has been coming to meetings for a long time and the laws are not being followed. Mr. Deburkke read a notice from Article 38443, which said any public officer whom knowingly omits to perform his duty, is guilty of a Class 2 Misdemeanor. Mr. Deburkee said the Commission should spend more time on PUD items to make sure everyone fully complies. Lon Dorsay said he is concerned with several developments, which have taken place and the conditions under which they have taken place. Mr. Dorsay began to speak specifically to the PUD text revision. Chairman Irwin said he could not discuss the PUD text amendment now because there is a later agenda item dealing with text amendments to the PUD ordinance. Mr. Dorsay said he has been asking for a legal opinion on the text amendments for a long time. He said at the last meeting, a legal interpretation was in effect and neither the Commissioners nor the Staff told the public that the legal opinion was in effect. He said he asked Mr. Esparza for a copy of Jack Barker’s legal opinion, but he was told no. He also asked Kelly Udall and Mr. Udall told him the information was clientattorney privilege. Mr. Dorsay then asked the Chairman if he could see the legal opinion so he could be informed. Chairman Irwin asked for Jack Barker’s input. Mr. Barker explained that he believed attorney client privilege was reasonable and under normal law the client has the right to keep attorney discussions private. Mr. Dorsay said he had been involved in many lawsuits and he believes the public is entitled to see the legal opinion. Mr. Dorsay said he and many other people need the legal interpretation in order to be informed and because they are not informed, any action on a PUD change would be illegal, void and inadmissible. Mr. Dorsay said under Title 38 431.09, Declaration of Public Policy, “…notices and agendas be provided for such meetings which contain such information as is reasonably necessary to inform the public of the matters which are to be discussed or decided.” Mr. Dorsay said the legal opinion falls under that category. Lon Dorsay asked the Chairman’s opinion. Chairman Irwin said she would agree with the Town Attorney and the Town Manager that the information is clientattorney privilege. Mr. Dorsay continued reading the declaration and said, “…toward this end, any person or entity charged with the interpretation of this article shall construe any provision of this article in favor of open and public meetings.” Mr. Dorsay said he maintains the Town and Commission are not doing that and any action relative to PUD changes is illegal and void. Commissioner Betts said he was the one who requested a legal opinion from his attorney and he used the information to make his interpretation of the PUD. Chairman Betts said the public is allowed to hear his interpretations and those of the Commission, but he and the Town still maintain a clientattorney privilege. ITEM NO. 5, INTRODUCTION OF THE NEW TOWN CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, BERNIE ST. JOHN: Mr. Esparza introduced Mr. St. John and said he has an impressive history of code enforcement and related experience. Mr. St. John said he comes with a commitment and an  2

agenda to encourage citizens to bring their properties into compliance without fear or favor. Mr. St. John said he may not know the formula for success but he does know the formula for failure  you cannot please everyone. He said he would work diligently to meet the charge he had been given. ITEM NO. 6, DISCUSSION, CONSIDERATION AND ACTION RE: PINETOP MEADOW MASTER SITE PLAN. A PROPOSED MASTER PLAN SITE FOR THE 48 ACRE PUD ZONED PINETOP MEADOW AREA. THE PROJECT IS LOCATED SOUTH OF WHITE MOUNTAIN BLVD AND EAST OF PENROD LANE. APN(S) 211 44066C, 006F, 006G AND 008D. THE APPLICANT IS PINETOP MEADOWS, LLC. Commissioner Betts excused himself from this discussion leaving the Commission without a quorum. There was discussion on whether or not to proceed. It was decided to move this agenda item to later in the meeting in expectation of an absent Commissioner arriving later. ITEM NO. 7, DISCUSSION, CONSIDERATION AND ACTION RE: SPR 05216. A SITE PLAN FOR A 9,180 SQ. FOOT RETAIL FAMILY DOLLAR STORE TO BE LOCATED AT 2604 E. WHITE MOUNTAIN BLVD. APN(S) 21143023 AND 21143 008. THE APPLICANT IS TNS, LLC. Mr. Esparza presented the Staff Report on the Family Dollar site. He said the store is a permitted use in the area and the drainage report has been reviewed and approved by the Town Engineer. The proposed exterior would have clapboard siding on all sides and the roof design is flat with a decorative parapet. He said the landscape plan is in compliance and the plan shows the required parking and ADA compliant spaces. Based on the review, Mr. Esparza said Staff would recommend the approval with the following stipulations: ƒAll requirements of the Pinetop Fire Department are met in construction plans. ƒAll outdoor lighting is in compliance with the lighting standards. ƒAll landscape materials are planted as noted in the landscape plan. ƒAll drainage improvements are completed and certified by the project engineer. ƒAll ADOT requirements are met and access permits secured. The applicant’s representative, Loran Trask, approached the Commission and explained the plan. He said it was the same as shown to the Commission in the preview but he had added a cross access point in the parking lot to the adjoining C1 property and he had put a little more landscaping in the parking lot. Commissioner Smith asked if the neighboring property would have highway access or use the Family Dollar access only. Mr. Trask said he didn’t know for sure, but if he were designing that parcel, he would have highway access. Commissioner Forbeck said they are falling under some new regulations and she was happy to see the landscape plan and appreciated the note on the plan that the trees will be protected. Commissioner Betts said he was very pleased at the applicant’s cooperation and treating all four sides of the building, which is above code requirements. Main Street Director, Connie Boggs asked if this would be a second Family Dollar store or if the present one was being relocated. Mr. Trask said the applicant does not give him that information but he does believe if the market can bear both, they would keep both. Katherine McClellan asked if any citizen has come to the Commission and asked for another dollar store and are we going to limit the number of dollar stores that we have in PinetopLakeside. She said these are not the types of businesses the public want here. Commissioner Betts said  3

we live in America and we cannot restrict free trade. He said if a use is in the permitted zone, and they meet all the requirements and laws, then they could open another dollar store. Chairman Irwin said the Commission couldn’t restrict people’s rights. Mr. Dorsay said he did not have a chance to look at the site plan, and he does not see any side streets. Chairman Irwin said this item has been on the agenda three times in the past three months. Mr. Dorsay said he would like to see more brick on the building and he does not understand the landscaping. He asked if a twentyfoot natural area would remain on the highway. Mr. Esparza said Staff has reviewed the landscape plan, it is a clearly marked plan and it does meet all the landscape regulations. Joe Russell asked if the flat roof could hold the snow loads. He said he never hears the Commission ask that question. Mr. Trask said the building is absolutely up to code, including snow loads and he brought the structural calculations with him. Mr. Russell asked if there was going to be above ground retention ponds and if so, are they going to line them with river rock. He said the Dollar General put straw in their basins and it is already gone and now it will erode. He thought the rocks would make it look better, too. Chairman Irwin said she did not believe river rocks were a code requirement. Commissioner Forbeck said the only detention basin is in the back left corner and is not in sight of the highway. Mr. Russell said he would like to suggest the applicant provide weed killer, landscape cloth and river rock to maintain a nice look. Commissioner Forbeck said Bernie St. John is in charge of neighborhood enhancement, which would include complaints regarding landscaping violations. Chairman Irwin said the conversation was getting off track and the retention basin is out of sight. Commissioner Betts said we have had the flat roof discussion in the past and he would prefer nonflat roofs but the code allows it. Commissioner Betts said he would like to see that reviewed in the design criteria. Rob Ingels said he believed splitfaced block was one level above cinder block and using a real rock material would be more in line with our forest community. He asked if the color of the clapboard siding was muted green and tan. Loran Trask gave him color samples and Mr. Ingels thought they kept with the community theme. Mr. Ingels said the intensity of the indoor lighting of the Dollar General is excessive and illuminates onto the highway. He suggested the Commission review interior lighting as well as exterior. COMMISSIONER FORBECK MOVED TO APPROVE THE SITE PLAN AS DESCRIBED IN THE AGENDA WITH THE STAFF STIPULATIONS CITED IN THE STAFF REPORT. RICHARD SMITH SECONDED THE MOTION AND IT PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. ITEM NO. 8, PUBLIC HEARING, CONSIDERATION AND ACTION RE: PUD ZONING DISTRICT: PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 16.100, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT IN THE TOWN CODE. THE CHANGES WILL CORRECT CONFLICTING POINTS IN THIS ZONING CODE AND ADD TEXT TO CLARIFY THE BUFFERING AND DENSITY REQUIREMENTS AS STATED IN THE GENERAL PLAN: Mr. Esparza said he reviewed many other PUD districts and the intent of the PUD is to allow cluster development within the same site. Mr. Esparza said Staff believes the text amendments enhance the code, clarify the ambiguity and make it a better code overall. Mr. Esparza said the code differentiates between a Residential Planned Unit Development and a Neighborhood Planned Unit Development. Mr. Esparza referred to the changes noted in the PUD text. Mr. Esparza referred to the Aspen Meadow Site Plan, which shows singlefamily residences on the perimeter lots. He said with the revised language, the perimeter lots  4

bordering residential have a minimum lot size requirement and setback requirements. Also, all buildings must be at least fifteen feet apart. To avoid confusion on the types of commercial allowed in a Neighborhood Planned Unit Development, the commercial uses were written out as retail, restaurant and office. Mr. Esparza said he had been asked to look at a minimum parcel size. He had included a fouracre minimum project area, which needed discussion. Mr. Esparza said the new language now clarifies minimum lot size and buffering requirements of abutting PUD lots. Mr. Esparza said Staff had reviewed the changes and recommends the Commission accept the PUD text changes to present to Town Council for discussion and approval. Mr. Esparza said the PUD is a good ordinance and cited Mountain Gate and Trendwest as working, successful PUD’s that were approved under the intent of the PUD codes. The intent of the code has not changed, only the language. Mr. Esparza invited questions from the Commissioners. There were no questions. COMMISSIONER FORBECK MOVED TO CONVENE A PUBLIC HEARING. RICHARD SMITH SECONDED THE MOTION AND IT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Chairman Irwin reminded the audience that the hearing would only discuss the PUD text changes and not particular developments. Mr. Lon Dorsay approached the Commission and said he wanted to repeat that if the Commission does not release the legal opinion than the public could not intelligently discuss the changes and therefore any approval of the code is invalid. Mr. Dorsay said he reviewed the Minutes from a previous Work Session, and said three Commissioners and Paul Esparza said the existing PUD was confusing and therefore they could not make rulings. Mr. Dorsay said now Mr. Esparza is rushing to make these changes. Mr. Dorsay said the existing code does conform to the General Plan. He said the new PUD changes put the PUD out of conformance to the General Plan. Mr. Dorsay said he had heard there was a special project called the Tejido Study that was being presented at the Town Council meeting. He said the Tejido Study is a comprehensive plan that covers infill development. He said the study could drastically impact the PUD changes. He said there is an infill committee study going on in Tucson, which criticizes the PUD’s abuse of density. Mr. Dorsay said there were several changes that put the PUD out of context with the general plan. The Residential Planned Unit Development has been changed to read, “… without regard to lot areas or immediate density, providing therequiredamount of land is set aside under a common ownership of all the property owners for permanent recreation and open space use.” Mr. Dorsay said the General Plan refers to it as useable space, and changing that one word opens up a can of worms. He said Mr. Esparza said this revision would never allow condos to immediately abut residential zoning. Mr. Dorsay said the General Plan says the PUD is to be used in larger areas. He said the fouracre minimum size could mean two acres are used in open space and parking, leaving two acres to build upon and the code says PUD’s can have twenty units per acre. He said there is nothing to prevent forty units from being built on two acres. He said it would be impossible to have the open space and buffering required under the General Plan. Mr. Esparza said twenty units is a maximum density and he does not know of a single plan that went to the maximum density. There was discussion on how the twentyunit per acre maximum was established. Mr. Dorsay said the General Plan says the target density is three dwelling units per acre. It was stated the twentyunit per acre maximum was adopted into the code from the County regulations. Mr. Dorsay said the PUD was intended for larger projects, that the changes are being rushed and the changes should not be made before the Tejido Study. He said the proposed text changes say the PUD would not adversely affect neighboring properties and he disagreed with that  5

statement. He said parking is not addressed in the code. Mr. Dorsay said the General Code says PUD’s should go in the Planned Area Development and he said we have seen PUD’s proposed outside of the PAD area. Mr. Esparza said all developments must adhere toall the applicable codes, including the separate parking codes that are established. Mr. Dorsay said there is no provision in the code to eliminate using open space as buffering and therefore allowing mass units against residential zoning. He said by eliminating the previous reference to the original zoning, a developer is allowed to do whatever they want. Mr. Dorsay asked the Commission to postpone action on the item. Mr. Rob Ingels said the PUD has been around along time, but he is uncomfortable with some items. He said he would have preferred more open discussions and Town Hall meetings on the legal interpretation and text changes. He confirmed that the County has the twentyunit per acre maximum in their code and the Town did adopt that from the County. Mr. Ingels said the intensity of use that is used in the PUD is disturbing to the neighbors who have existed under a specific zoning. He said the term open space needs to be more clearly defined. He said, now buffering could be shown as open space and then be turned into a tennis court. Mr. Ingels said he is concerned with the PUD changes and wants to see them postponed until later. He said the changes would diminish citizen protection and help the developer maximize their intensity. COMMISSIONER FORBECK MOVED TO ADJOURN FROM PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONER BETTS SECONDED THE MOTION AND IT CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. Town Attorney, Jack Barker, asked to address the Chairman. Mr. Barker said some of the comments are valid and could be easily incorporated especially if the Commission recommends them to the Council, but he said the Commission should make those recommendations so the Council can make their decision. He said the Council is the only body that can pass ordinances. Mr. Barker said he believed the primary input is that (1) fouracre project size is too small and (2) should we allow for open space buffering as well as developed buffering. Mr. Barker said this is not a “takeitorleaveit” situation. The Commissioners can pass it with recommendations for changes. Commissioner Betts said he was not at all confused by the code, he believes the wording is ambiguous and contradictory, but the intent is clear. He said the code must be changed for that reason alone. Commissioner Betts said he believed PUD projects should be about ten to twelve acres and open space should be defined, but not with words like “meaningful.” Commissioner Forbeck said she also believed four acres may be too small and suggested staggering density be looked at starting at four acre PUD’s. Mr. Esparza said he had looked for staggering in other codes and had not seen it done. Commissioner Forbeck said she disagreed the text amendments had been rushed because they have been before the Commission for weeks. She said an issue such as recreational vehicle parking is not exclusive to PUD’s; it is a problem for all zoning. Commissioner Forbeck said the PUD is very close to having consistency with General Plan. She said she liked the idea of developed buffering and openspace as buffering. Chairman Irwin said the definition is not cited in the PUD because it is defined in the subdivision codes. She said she supports the idea of a graduated density depending on the project size. She said adding the wording would not be difficult and this would alleviate concerns about forty units on four acres. Commissioner Forbeck said the codes are subject to future changes and if a Tejido Study takes place and recommendations are made, then the code can be amended again at that time, but consistency is needed now. Commissioner Betts said the ordinance as it stands now has no validity and we have to do  6

something else. He said he doesn’t mean to insinuate it has to be done tonight, but in a timely manner. COMMISSIONER FORBECK MOVED TO RECOMMEND THE TOWN COUNCIL ADOPT THE PROPOSED PUD TEXT AMENDMENTS WITH THE RECOMMENDATION THAT THEY REVIEW DENSITIES IN COMPARISON TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT SIZE, DEFINE DEVELOPED BUFFERING AND CONSIDER USING OPEN SPACE AS A BUFFER. CHAIRMAN BETTS SECONDED THE MOTION. There was discussion. Commissioner Betts said he thought the absent Commissioners might want to be more involved and he is not ready to send it to Town Council. Commissioner Forbeck said the Commissioners would have input on any of the changes being made by the Council. Commissioner Smith said he feels it is time to move it forward and we cannot please everyone. Chairman Irwin said she has mixed feelings and she wants to be sensitive to the issues, but the PUD projects need to move forward. Commissioner Forbeck said we have asked the Staff for changes and they have done what we’ve asked. She said she is confident any changes we recommend to be made before going to Council will be made in a timely, legal manner and the Commission will be kept informed. There were no more questions. THE MOTION PASSED THREE TO ONE WITH COMMISSIONER BETTS OPPOSED. ITEM NO. 6, DISCUSSION, CONSIDERATION AND ACTION RE: PINETOP MEADOW MASTER SITE PLAN: The Commission was not sure on how to proceed since a quorum was still not present for this action item. There was a fiveminute recess. It was decided the item was not listed as Public Hearing, but the Commission would use this time to get feedback from those in attendance. Mr. Esparza said the applicant has submitted a Master Plan and is looking for an endorsement that the plan in on track. He said the applicant held a neighborhood meeting and it went well. The plan has changed from the initial presentation including a second access off the Highway and Penrod Lane. Mr. Esparza said the new development planner is Terry Galloway from Irvine, California and he is here tonight. Mr. Galloway approached the Commission and said he understands there is not a quorum, and therefore, he would like to delay his formal presentation and open up discussion with the public. Mr. Galloway said the PUD was passed last December and the developer wants to meet the oneyear deadline to submit plans. He said it is their plan to submit the preliminary development as the first phase in securing that obligation. Mr. Galloway said he was asked to keep the public informed of the progress and that is one of the reasons for the neighborhood meeting and tonight’s discussion. Mr. Galloway said he is representing the developer and wants to keep a high level of credibility by being very careful with what he is committing to and promising to the Commission and the community. Mr. Galloway said this is still preliminary and nothing is set in stone. He said a similar plan was previously presented and he has revised that plan to address the deficiencies in meeting the Town’s development standards. Mr.  7

Galloway said he had obtained all the codes, and now the plan is in 100% conformance. Mr. Galloway said the density is 9.9 units per acre, but if you take the residential areas only, there is 10.5 to 11 units per acre. The maximum allowable density is twenty per acre and this is a fiftyacre project. Commissioner Forbeck asked if the applicant would consider doing a development agreement to build the commercial in a certain time frame. Mr. Esparza said the Main Street Program is conducting a Buxton study, which will determine what types of businesses will do well here. This may affect the type of commercial buildings being constructed. Mr. Galloway said the applicant has contributed to that study, and they are actively pursuing the commercial proponent to the plan, but they don’t have control over when the area will be ripe for commercial development. He said they have an idea for commercial structures, but if a business wants something different, we want to be able to accommodate them. He said there are several people working on the project that have expertise in retail. Ms. Toni Russell introduced herself as a member of the Fire Department and said the subdivision regulations say they have been adopted, but they have not been adopted. She expressed concern for the deadend roads on the plans, which are to have fiftyfoot, unobstructed turnarounds. She said all streets should be sixtyfeet and they do not appear to be. Mr. Galloway said there is a gated element with privatestreets and fiftyfoot radius cul de sacs. He said the other street areas are called drive isles; they are twentyfour feet, with fourfoot driveway pads. He said the isles are used for access to garage parking only and no parking is allowed on the driveisles. Commissioner Forbeck said all fire department requirements must be met before final plat. Joe Russell said he is concerned about the floodplain in the meadow. Mr. Galloway said there is a floodplain on the site, it is mapped and the site plan addresses all of that. He said there are homes in the flood plain and the developer will work with FEMA to find the best way to build and convey the water out to the street. Linet Ingels approached the Commission and said she could not attend the meeting but she is concerned with the new plan, which is different from the plan she saw when she was first approached about the project. She said her property abuts this area on two sides and she was shown a plan with twentyone, ½ acre lots, and now this plan has thirteen ½ acre lots and more town homes. Ms. Ingels said she was initially concerned with the lot size adjacent to her property, but she overlooked it because she saw there were twentyone ½ acre lots. Ms. Ingels said she did not see why the plan had changed. She cited the General Plan and said when one plan is presented and another is submitted, the concerns regarding the fire department, soil, traffic and listening to neighbors isn’t taking place. She said, she didn’t think the numerous animals in the area must matter to the Town of Pinetop Lakeside. She said earlier reports are now misrepresented and the PUD was granted based on that plan. Ms. Ingels said proceeding with this plan now might not even be legal. She said the General Plan says to prudently guide the growth and redevelopment of the town and the adjacent unincorporated area to ensure the community maintains its high quality of life. She continued, planned development shall be a type and at a density that is compatible with adjacent land uses and all other elements of the regional plan. She continued, preserving sound neighborhoods and future growth should be managed to create an appropriate mix of land uses while protecting surrounding areas. Mr. Galloway said he believed he was being accused of a bait and switch. He said another planner did the original plan and he was asked to review the plan, review the topography, listen to the neighbors and work with the Town requirements to develop a plan. He said the original plan had several deficiencies. The new plan has fewer estate lots because the access point changed. The access point changed, partially because neighborhood feedback said they didn’t want the access point there and also the old plan had a steep entry in a highly vegetated area. He said the new access point parallels the typography, reduces grading of highly vegetated areas,  8

and contains the traffic within the property. To address concerns of neighbors who thought the singlefamily homes were to close to the existing residential, the ½ acre lots were revised to make them deeper. The deeper lots allow the homes to built with more space between the perimeter and the home. He noted that the new plan now has a ½ acre of open space in the lot that is near Ms. Ingels house, rather than developed open space. He said the first plan had mass units next to neighboring lots and now the plan shows duplexes and then triplexes toward the inside of the project. Mr. Galloway and his associates said the new road results in many positive changes for the project. Mr. Galloway said he believes the new plan is much better at addressing the concerns of the neighbors. He said the community would have an architectural styling and they are not proposing less commercial they are identifying it differently. Ms. Ingels said she believed the plan was done to address the minimum legal requirements not as a favor to the neighbors as is being implied. Mr. Rob Ingles said he is concerned with open space definition, traffic problems, primary entrance points and the height of the town houses. Mr. Ingels said the transitional flow sounds more reasonable but maybe there can be room to reconsider the height of the town homes. He also wanted to see the architectural theme Mr. Galloway referred to earlier. Commissioner Forbeck confirmed the ½ lots would be sold as custom home sites and could be twostory. Mr. Esparza said CL Williams would do a traffic study and it would be submitted. The applicant said they hope to be part of the solution for traffic on Penrod. Mr. Galloway said the architectural components would include wood trim, pitched shingle roof, no flat roofs, and more village style commercial. He said each home would have to meet architectural standards. Joe Russell asked about access to the highway other than Penrod, and if a traffic light could be placed at the other access point. Mr. Galloway said a licensed traffic engineer would do the study to determine the feasibility of another traffic light at that point. Julian Castillo said he agreed that a Town Hall was needed to let the people decide if they want highdensity building. He said the developer always wins. He asked where the water was going to come from for all these new projects. Commissioner Forbeck said the Commissioner is not encouraging or discouraging highdensity development. She said the Commission’s job is to address each of the projects that come before the Town. Commissioner Forbeck said developers have rights. The crowd expressed sounds of disapproval. Chairman Irwin stopped the discussion and said we were going to continue to the next agenda item. ITEM NO. 9, STAFF REPORT: Mr. Esparza said he had nothing else to report. ITEM NO. 12, ADJOURNMENT: COMMISSIONER FORBECK MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:05 PM. COMMISSIONER BETTS 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 20th day of September 2005. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and held and a quorum was present.  9

Dated this 29th day of September 2005.  PINETOPLAKESIDE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION /s/ Jessica Covey, Staff Assistant Approved by: /s/ Chairman Stephanie Irwin

10