Planning & Zoning Committee



May, 2009



The Date of this Report has been moved to the Current Month, thus there is no report for April 2009.


LMPOA Response to Rimrock Super Storage ZOA H9031                                 Thu 4/16/2009


Dear Ms. DeWitt,


Reference:  Zoning Ordinance Amendment H9031


Lake Montezuma Property Owners Association and the LMPOA Planning and Zoning Committee have reviewed the referenced material and would like to offer the following comments on behalf of LMPOA.


The communities of Beaver Creek, with the County's help, are very close to completing our Community Plan Revision.  Members of LMPOA serve or are involved with our Community Plan Committee.  Further rezoning from Residential to Commercial, along Beaver Creek Road will not be a feature of the Revised Plan.


Generally we are not in favor of changing the zoning of residential property to commercial, and in those rare instances when we do so, we insist on a PAD which provides some open space and/or other benefits to local residents.  If the P&Z Commission chooses to approve the expansion of this business, then LMPOA requests that a special use permit be issued, rather than changing the zoning to C-2, at this time, which could have future unwanted consequences.


We support the growth of Rimrock Super Storage; however, we cannot support the rezoning of the additional property from Residential to Commercial, in perpetuity, including reduced setbacks.  



LMPOA Planning &Zoning

Steven Sprinz, Chairperson


The P&Z Commission review of this Residential to Commercial Zoning and Setback Change has been moved to June 17, 2009 in Cottonwood.


April 13, 2009 - the Board of Supervisors met in joint session with the Yavapai County Planning & Zoning Commission and representatives from the Sustainable Planning Committee to update progress of the following items:


Staff was asked to develop a template and priority list for Community Plans.  It is not clear if these will be retroactive to community plans currently in process.





In the current iteration of this effort to "reduce the use of Lot Splits", the committee presented two (2) sections and recommends adoption of both. 


Both Sections contain some misleading verbiage.  "The (Option) shall only be allowed in the R1L, RMM, R1 and RCU zoning districts, where no rezoning is requested."  This sentence makes the options difficult to understand.  Section 441 incentivizes Green Development by allowing smaller lot sizes and cluster oriented design (more lots per development than the underlying zoning would normally reflect); based on topography and the inclusion of 9 or more of 12 conservation features and design elements, three of which would be mandatory: Shared wells, Community sewage treatment, and Use of only drought tolerant (xeriscape) landscaping with no turf. 

So, developers have an incentive to adopt many conservation features; namely, more lots to sell per development.


Section 442 incentivizes Sustainable development and the preservation of open space by allowing clustering and groupings of the homes, thereby reducing the cost of underlying infrastructure.  The number (density) of lots remains the same as allowed by underlying zoning, but the lots may be clustered together.


Carol Springer brought up some possible show stoppers. 


  • Each of the Sections refers to land areas not to exceed 640 acres.  What keeps another Developer adjacent to any 640 acre parcel developed using either Section, from also using these sections for development?  The problem being: insufficient infrastructure for several of these developments side by side, and how to prohibit these new rights in such situations.


  • What keeps Developers from using these Sections to realize the maximum dollar gain and then leaving?  Subsequent Construction companies, parcel owners, etc. would then be liable for the costly improvements to adhere to the standards of the Sections.  The County will not be responsible for informing, or disclosing, just enforcing in the event of complaint.




Lot Splits are limited to 5 splits, so the mitigation of splits offered by these Sections may easily be overestimated.  These Sections offer developers a "gift" in a sense; new rights to develop without going through the subdivision process.


Either of these Sections will result in developments with much more County oversight than lot splits, more open space and more highly clustered neighborhoods.  In the case of Section 441, they will be green, as well.


The Sustainable Planning Committee was remanded to address Ms. Springer's objections, and will continue to present these new ideas which, absent organized opposition, will be adopted by the BOS.

� 1967-2009 L.M.P.O.A./ All rights reserved.