Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout92-198 .-..., \~ :t.c '. . . . I fNDEXEDrl;'i~~CFlI.MFD, 3 ~ .. . , :::92- 29498 e.K 2059 PG 247 OFFICIAL RECORDS OF MOHAVE COUNTY AZ. *JQAH McCALL, MOHAVE COUNTY RECQRDER* 06/02/92 1:45 P.M. PAGE 1 OF 10 NOHAVE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RECORDING FEE 0.00 He RESOLUTION NO. 92-198 A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE MORAVE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN REGARDING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AN AREA PLAN NORTH OF THE KINGMAN CITY LIMITS IN TOWNSHIPS 22 AND 23 NORTH, RANGES 15, 16 & 17 WEST, MORAVE COUNTY, ARIZONA WHEREAS, at the regular meeting of the Mohave County Board of Supervisors held on June 1 1992, a public hearing was conducted to amend the Mohave County General Plan regarding the establishment of an Area Plan for that portion of the unincorporated area of the County north of Kingman, which is being proposed as the LONG MOUNTAIN AREA PLAN, in Townships 22 and 23 North, Ranges 15, 16 & 17 West, west of the AT&SF Railroad, and ' WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission is required to recommend to the Board of Supervisors a County land use General Plan which is designed to conserve natural resources, to insure efficient expenditure of public funds, and promote the health, safety, convenience, and general welfare of the public, and WHEREAS, the Mohave County Planning Ordinance came into existence on September 9, 1965. A county-wide general plan was a part of that document. Under implementation it is stated, "...a detailed plan for each study area should be developed as such " , , .. . ~ '...." <:;: . '1. ~. l . . Resolution No. 92-198 PAGE 2 OF 10 Page 2 BK 20S9 PG 248 (FEE~92-29498) need arises". The authorization of this procedure is in A.R.S. 11-824, wherein it is states, "The board may adopt the county plan as a whole, or by successive actions adopt separate parts of the plan...etc.", and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at their January 8, 1992 meeting, instructed staff to conduct a study and if necessary an area plan for the area located north of Kingman because they had noticed an increase in the number of rezone requests, which led to parcel splits, in their previous two P&Z meetings. The area is more specifically described as follows: TOWNSHIP 22 NORTH, RANGE 15 WEST That portion of Sections 5,6 & 7 West of the A.T. & S.F. Railroad TOWNSHIP 22 NORTH, RANGE 16 WEST Sections 1-11 That portion of Sections 12, 13, 14 & 23 West of the A.T. & S.F. R.R. Sections 15-18 The remainder of this Township and Range has an existing plan. TOWNSHIP 22 NORTH, RANGE 17 WEST Only Sections 1-3, 10-15, 22-24 TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 15 WEST That portion of Section 1, 11, 15, 22, 28 & 32 which do not have an existing plan and are west of the A.T. & S.F. R.R. Sections 2,6,7,11,18,19,29,30, and 31 TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 16 WEST Sections 1-36 .. " ,.0., o ~\ '.('If;. ,,.. . .',:,.'" . , . . Resolution No. 92-198 Page 3 TOWNSHIP 23 NORTH, RANGE 17 WEST Sections 1-3 Sections 10-15 Sections 22-27 Sections 34-36 PAGE 3 OF 10 BK 2059 PG 249 (FEE~92-29498) WHEREAS, Kingman's population is increasing at a more stable rate than most other areas within Mohave County. However, with any increase of population or developmental activity which resembles population growth, a need arises for a more specific and comprehensive land use plan. Kingman's stable growth rate allows for a more controllable and foreseeable growth pattern of i, areas located within its sphere of influence and which appear to be undergoing change. The implementation of an area plan is a necessary tool in establishing land uses compatible with the population which will reside within the study area. Moreover, it can be used to accurately regulate the growth pattern by establishing primary growth areas. These growth areas will be the initial location of the most intensive land uses. Most importantly, an area plan allows for the development of a better planned infrastructure by taking into account several elements which are pertinent to determining whether or not the land will support an influx of activity as has been described above. The Ci ty of Kingman has already portrayed a portion of this area, within their General Plan Study, as a rural to medium density development potential. This portion of the Long Mountain Plan is closer to the city limits than the peripheral areas located farther north, and .. ,,' .... . >,..,." '\. . . . . , . Resolution No. 92-198 Page 4 PAGE 4 OF 10 BK 2059 PG 250 (FEE~92-29498) WHEREAS, The plan as presented includes existing subdivisions which will remain at their current lot sizes. These subdivisions are Lake Juniper, Redwing Canyon, Cerbat Ranches, Sunward Ho Ranches and many other metes and bounds subdivisions which this report will call "wildcat subdivisions". These "wildcat subdivisions" have just as much, if not more severe, impact on the landscape and infrastructure than regulated subdivisions. Parcels of land within the "wildcat subdivisions" should be approved for splits only when the plan allows. The plan also proposes a higher density along a proposed extension of North Bank Street and south of Jane Avenue. The density proposed for this area is described as suburban (1 d.u./5 acres). There is one location within this area which a rural density (1 d.u./I0 acres) is being proposed. This area is defined by the roughness of its physical geography. The remainder of the plan depicts the area farther north as rural (1 d. u. /10 acres) and open space. Open space, for the purposes of this plan, will be described as all publicly owned areas where terrain is too steep for development or where drainage issues would have an adverse impact the on the development of land for private developmental purposes, and WHEREAS, the Commission staff, upon the commissions instruction, conducted two public input meetings for the evaluation of the study area. These meetings were conducted at Cerbat Elementary School on " February 6 and March 9, 1992. ,'. ;, , ~'" .' " I, . . Resolution No. 92-198 Page 5 PAGE 5 OF 10 BK 2059 PG 251 (FEE~92-29498) Approximately 35 citizens attended the first meeting and approximately 15 citizens the second meeting, and WHEREAS, at the first meeting, staff presented maps which illustrated specific characteristics or (elements) of the study area. Those elements included the existing zoning, the existing utilities, the existing topography, the existing roads being maintained by the county, the KingmanjMohave County Master Drainage Study and FEMA Flood zones and the proposed extension and establishment of arterials. Members of the planning staff and the public works staff then entertained questions and comments from the public concerning each element of the plan. :oj After lengthy discussion and note taking staff felt comfortable with the public input and set up another meeting at which they presented a compilation of the public's comments and the plan's elements, and WHEREAS, the main theme of discussion, during the first input meeting, was solidified by the public, in the second meeting, when they expressed their overwhelmingly desire to keep this area at the current rural density. Staff presented three (3) maps at the second meeting which they felt reflected the concerns relayed by the public. After discussions and presentations the public recommended the most comprehensive/restrictive plan, and " , ,. ...... " . ". f~ . \>~ . r , ." . . Resolution No. 92-198 Page 6 PAGE 6 OF 10 BK 2059 PG 252 (FEEt92-29~98) WHEREAS, one unexpected fact/problem found to be prevalent, via the public input meetings, was some people had not been able to obtain zoning permits for their lots/parcels because their lot sizes were ten acres inclusive of roadway easements and were zoned for ten acre minimum lot sizes exclusive of roadway easements. In other words these people had purchased what they thought was ten acres of usable land but in actuality was nine acres of usable lot and one acre of non-usable public roadway easement. However, the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality is mostly concerned with one acre parcels being exclusive of roadway easements not ten acre parcels. The reason for their concern may be that one acre as regulated is the minimum lot/parcel size which can support both a septic system and a water well. It should be noted herewith, that the approval of this plan is in general compliance with the current growth coordination plan recommended by Mohave County's consultant, Dr. Robert Freilich as one of four alternatives. It is in compliance with the alternative plan the Board of Supervisors APPROVED, on Monday March 30, 1992, as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission on March 11, 1992, and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission at their meeting on May 13, 1992 did recommend APPROVAL of the amendment of the Lonq Mountain Area plan as presented to the public and based on the following conditions: .. " ~ ~, ' , II f\'~.'1 '~-.l , , ~. "1. 1 ': . ' ~. . . Resolution No. 92-198 Page 7 PAGE 7 OF 10 BK 2059 PG 253 (FEE~92-29~98) 1. That the elements of this plan, as presented to the public and as depicted in staff's maps/exhibits, be formally accepted as specific plans or elements of the Long Mountain Area Plan. (See Exhibits) 2. That the densities of the existing subdivisions, within the plan area, shall not increase without an approved amendment to the are plan. 3. That parcels within the Metes and Bounds, (wildcat), subdivisions shall be allowed to split only if the area plan indicates higher densities or with an approved amendment to the area plan. 4. That this area plan be included as part of the consultant's overall growth coordination plan. 5. That the plan's open spaces shall be designated at this time as Mountain Preserves and Parks. 6 . That any interior major arterials be designated as eighty-four (84') foot right-of-ways and public utility easements and any major county highways be designated as one-hundred (100') foot right-of-ways and public utility easements. 7. That any interior minor arterials be designated as outlined in the Mohave County Subdivision Regulations under CLASSIFICATIONS OF ROADWAYS. 8. That the existing Golden Valley Area Plan which exists in a portion of this area adjusted/amended. boundary, plan, be 9. That the existing School District boundary be adjusted to follow the topography and accessibility of this area. 10. Recommend interpretation of existing definitions in zoning regulations with relation to lots/parcels which are greater than one acre inclusive of roadway easements shall be allowed to be buil t upon if the gross acreage meets the zoning designation assigned to the property. Moreover, zoning permits shall be issued to one acre lots/parcels only if they are exclusive of roadway easements. ", , , ~ ; , " L-'I..'f '. , : .~.1 . < .. ~ , . , . . Resolution No. 92-198 Page 8 PAGE 8 OF 10 BY- 2059 PG 25+ (FEE~92-29~98) ffiIEREAS, the notice of hearing was published in the Kingman Daily Miner, a newspaper of general circulation in Kingman, Mohave County, Arizona on May 17, 1992, and posted May 15, 1992 as required by Arizona Revised Statutes and Mohave County Zoning Regulations. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors, at their regular meeting on Monday, June 1, 1992, approved and adopted this amendment to the Mohave County General Plan, Kingman Area Plan, McConnico element as recommended by the Mohave County Planning and Zoning Commission and outlined herein. MOliAVE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS (~~ JJ /L-UC7-A ~,I Lois J. Hubbard, Chairman " ,~{~.'i"1(,~ ; i. ," "W'I . I I " '-~." .... 1 l I ' 'f _. lX,ISTING SY~?~VIO[O f'RO('CH,rIES (HIGH OU~SltY) . __ f'HQI'OSEO nESTRICTION~ NOt TO f3.( DIVIDED FURTHER IT--';';f-'f..1ll4 ~t:A:'1 -~ ! --1J.l.t.ili'_____ LON G j"1 U U t~ [ A 1 N AREA PLAN G 1 AR/36A-~ ' I RR/SA AR/36A ! ~ I I r I ( ~t , 36 RR/SA +-+ I ' I NORTH J(1"&Mf4' AREA PLAN I I .........- (, ') __ -4 L, \1:'-0 ,.:::Z> CI ~ t.,) o (fI ..000 ",,0 C1"" ....., fJ1.- .;no ..... ..., ~ l"'I "'.. 00 t') I ...., ..0 .... ..0 lXI ...... i~tr-.r---i "e,," -! .~r: l_ () N G M U U N r A 1 N GOr, ,e""" AREA PLAN <0 .AR/36A ! I I I I I r I U .,.,-... 1 36 31 .J6 t 1" ~ -- -P.:'-.. :.. "":;-r=: T. 23N l' J-:'T22^ :" .. .. ~ I>I~I. 'E .ACOC~ I .,Ot..-rA/~ I I - r" ~.. - - .~:-L:='l' ~ ' ~"1"CJ'oI (;lVlr :} 8I?~A8~'-., I. - 1- o':{::.,~".. J -- -- 'r-::~. --r'--- i I ;/{II 'friJLd .- -' -_-~ :-;: ~- ;- 'RR/5A i ~~~~, ~::::l~ l,. i~~~ <' It . /010...0,:,( f-l~IS':"""- j..ll:..j....j. ~I'-i'q,: ~ f"fiff1j , ~?- ,"':'.; :ra._~. i, Ed:iHt~ ~ ~'r.~~/t - .~ " ..:_:..~;>..~-' ~l-o.t=~" ~,.' __'_ J~~'.f'i'T,.. U-Ll ,Wlh.~~r,.n:;, J "'-c--r cc. :..t.....a: - ''', 'Y"l".."..rJ''T'IT"JT ~ !:;>-~~.._. -.~I.... wr;i.~N ? ~M.:a.:..o ~ ~rA;..'i~~"~ 4 ..: ... ;~~ . ~.r ~ ~6;'.. Ai ~ . - e: """,}- Oil , ','on '" _.~.. .0 t . '" - -.. \ "~' .// rrYlf..OOt' ff ~ ., ~ \l \0 f.JNtr .:~ 71l , "R'7, . ~ ,,~, ._ _ ~ ' . . ~ '-'~ ::B;.o :::- lIt :~ := - -. ., ,-- - --.. ':"...' i "'''~' ~- 6'('.oQ::lC'),-o.-,.._ r$'.'(J Ih ~ .':!:.'t. ~ ,;-<~-:;;,::::rr':' i, :;;'-:"'~'I ~L .. r ... ~~.~ ( ~;. _,_~_~_ ~ .,./ -'" I CRt:!'TFr . l= \ :~r-:' .--;', '1': ~l< <. , J'" , . ~ "-r-h~,--./,' j ~f/' - - -"'.1 ."": 16 1. " 15'-,'" 14\1. .:...'..c.:./~;-' ;~ - I ~\l-', +::~~ ~\l\ I"; '::".1~' .'~ ~?- .- -T-' i' ~ -f= - . ,. . - <. ~'~" - 4--=,>- ..:- ,. __. ,~__ \ . (;: I ~ - -,. ,*t .~._ :~~. _.,' ~ -:- !.~ ~~._." ': _~. .. "~/~; - ...,:-:!f._ '~--~,' - " ,-- ,;.,>~~~2~~~:,: :~,:"" I I< '" ?;.;;;", ~".--- 'r ',--.-- '-.- --,., :;~. .. -~-- . ,-". i ~ X,.";, -;.. ......w. '--~ V ,..... ...~-. r:;=:::.".:. 1 I ">' -^'c'iJ n-_'~_~ UtSI PAvtD ROADS - - - -_ ' >-, - . 'ROAD\ 10 Bt PAvtO ----- i5 I ~:~~>.?I>X;.' . ~...:; f;;--'~ :1'11. ?9 I ;~\t UA1~IAIN(O ROADS _'''''....'''1 I, r"''''--' .;;-;"" "':-'; I -, -,,-- ___n_1 -~-- L_-___ ~1": ..., - -' ~~--: . -I=-- .ct~- '-, i- _ 'I ~ /1~vr - ~.~;) _ c n E ~ H .~ E3 !, I .. ~'?: 'r" I L r /2 It ~\l- f- PLAN cc ." :;0:: :E> G'I m "-' o <.'1.... -00 '"00 al .." IV <.1\ ..... 0-.0 .... .." rr1 rr1 .... -0 IV I t-J -0 ..... -0 CQ ....