HomeMy WebLinkAbout92-323
"
~ \.
~\)'
~~ '
,
.
.DEXED
~:3.~~~,j:':..hiiC..
. ..../
,
-~ ,
';'92- 551.41 EK 2113?G 37
DFFICIAL RECORDS Of MDHAVE COUNTY AI.
~JOAN McCALL, MOHAVE COUNTY RECORGERr
iO/06/92 3:30 P.M. PAGE 1 OF 4
rHJHAVE eGU;.~TY BOARD OF SU?ERUISORS
RECORDING FEE u.oo Me
RESOLUTION NO. 92-323
A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE fl.OHAVE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN BY
CORRECTING THE MC CONNICO AREA PI~ TO ADD OMITTED BASELINE DATA,
MORAVE COUNTY, ARIZONA.
WHEREAS, at the regular meeting of the Mohave County Board
of Supervisors held on October 5, 1992, a. public hearing was
conducted to amend the Mohave County General Plan by correcting
the McConnico Area Plan, which includes the portion of the
unincorporated area of Mohave County, south of the Kingman City
limits, being Sections 25-27 and 33-36, Township 21 North, Range
17 West, and Sections 3-10, 15-22 and 27-34, Township 20 North,
Range 17 West, 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 McCol1nico Area Plan, an element of the Mohave
County General Plan was approved by the Board of Supervisors via
Resolution No. 92-194.
In the preparation of the plan it appears
that some existing and ongoing development projects were omitted
#'
.~, ,..;
tf~J
r ,',,' ,.--~ f
L . -, . ,~
[\ '-<'~
.J
.
.
.
PAGE 2 OF 4
B~ 2118?G 33 (fEE~q~-5514t)
Resolution No. 92-323
Page 2
from
the
baseline
data
and
subsequent
recommendations.
Specifically a commercial and multifamily subdivision. These
subdivisions are part of the Walnut Creek development located
within Planning Unit Two of the plan, and
WHEREAS,
Walnut Creek Estates Commercial,
3022
Tract
received preliminary plat approval via Resolution P&ZC: 89-179 on
September 5, 1989.
Conditional commerc ial zoning was approved
via Resolution P&ZC: 89-180.
Walnut Creek Estates Multifamily
was submitted prior to research for and adoption of the McConnico
Area Plan.
From review of the documentation referenced herein,
it is plainly evident that the projects were omitted from the
McConnico Area plan documentation and from the presentation made
before the Planning & zoning Commission, and
WHEREAS, in a letter to the Planning Commission staff dated
August 26, 1992, William E. Miller, P. E., Holland West, Inc.,
representative for the developer of Walnut Creek, made the
following points:
First, although a statement wi thin the plan
indicated one (1) acre lot subdividing was in process that the
two (2) projects, commercial & multifamily, were not specified
although they were in process before the creation of the plan.
Second, that Planning Area Two should not be entirely residential
and that there should be some allowances for COTI@ercial, business
and multifamily zoning.
Also, that "a gross yield of one (1)
#
~'" .j
E~~'1
t ,~_'
..... ."
h:a
.
.
.
Resolution No. 92-323 Page 3
PAGE 3 OF 4
BK 2118 PG 39 (FEE~92-55141)
unit per acre on the average is acceptable" but leave options for
clustering of units with credit for open space.
Third, he was
concerned that his client nor themselves were contacted of the
area plan proposal, "especially when we had submitted and were in
the process of replatting portions of walnut Creek", and
WHEREAS, the omitted baseline data revolves around tracts
that were in process. If these tracts had been incorporated into
the plan documentation it would have resulted in the following
language: (Old language is ~~. New language is in bold.]
Resolution 92-194, Page 5, paragraph 2, last sentence:
Additional one (1) acre residential lot subdividing, and a
commercial and multifamily tract in the Walnut Creek area is
in process, and
Resolution 92-194, Page 6, paragraph 3, last sentence:
These properties exhibit an abnormally high nitrate level
which has may ~~fr~ dictate average new development that
equates to lot sizes of one (1) acre or more per lot for
"Walnut Creek" developments, a!ld
Resolution 92-194, Page 8, last sentence:
All of the plan area West of Interstate 40 and the McConnico
interchange should be suburban, one (1) acre or larger lot
areas. Provision for limited multifamily may be permitted
if design is such that potential impacts are limited.
Resolution 92-194, Page 9, paragraph 1, last sentence:
As example, Walnut Creek Unit 3 is being processed
designated for community development (one acre lots). It
also should be noted that there are commercial and
multifamily projects in process that will add to and enrich
the existing community.
<II ,
..
. "
.
.
Resolution No. 92-323
Page 4
PAGE 4 OF
BK 2118 PG
4
~o (FEE~92-55141)
Resolution 92-194, Page 11, condition 1:
That the densities of the existing subdivisions, within the
plan area, shall not increase without an approved amendment
to the area plan. This does not affect projects already
slated for review.
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission at their meeting
on September 9, 1992 did recon@end APPROVAL of the request for
correcting the McConnico Area Plan by the inclusion of the above
mentioned baseline data and modified language, and
WHEREAS, the notice of hearing was published in the Kingman
(;3 Standard, a newspaper of general circulation in Kingman, Mohave
i ,.;
\i:J County, Arizona on September 19, 1992, and posted September 18,
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, October 5, 1992, approved and
adopted this amendment to the Mohave County General Plan,
McConnico Area plan, as recommended by the Mohave County Planning
and Zoning Commission and outlined herein.
I::J;~...
t..:':::\.~
I
I" i
..."c.t
[' ~';
.--'
MOHAVE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
~~ /l/?U~/
Lo is J. Hubbard Y Chairman