COMMUNITY & NEIGHBORHOOD

SERVICES COMMITTEE

January 29, 2009

The Community & Neighborhood Services Committee of the City of Mesa met in the lower level meeting room of the Council Chambers, 57 East 1st Street, on January 29, 2009 at 9:17 a.m.

COMMITTEE PRESENT	COUNCIL PRESENT	STAFF PRESENT
Dina Higgins, Chairman	None	Natalie Lewis
Dennis Kavanaugh		Debbie Spinner
Dave Richins

1. Items from citizens present.

(See Agenda Item 3.)

2. Hear a presentation, discuss and make a recommendation on the update to the 2025 Parks Master Plan.

Assistant Parks, Recreation and Commercial Facilities (PRCF) Director J.D. Dockstader introduced PRCF Planning and Development Supervisor Andrea Moore, who was prepared to address the Committee relative to this agenda item.

Ms. Moore displayed a PowerPoint presentation (A copy is available for review in the City Clerk’s Office) and reported that in 2002, Mesa voters approved the Parks and Recreation Master Plan as a component of the City of Mesa’s 2025 General Plan. She explained that today’s presentation is a proposed update to the Parks and Recreation 2030 Master Plan and stated that the reason for the five year extension is due to changes in impact fee regulations.

Ms. Moore referenced a document entitled “2002 Target Areas for the 2025 Master Plan” and noted that the circles on the map represent target areas for land acquisition and the development of new park facilities. (See Attachment 1) She stated that since 2002, Mesa has reached only 8% of its Master Plan land acquisition goals and has been unable to develop any of the parcels that have been acquired due to limited financial resources. Ms. Moore added that the City currently has undeveloped park land in nine parcels (1,236 acres) that it cannot afford to develop and maintain.

Committeemember Kavanaugh asked whether staff’s proposed revisions to the Parks and Recreation Master Plan would require the approval of Mesa voters since they approved the original Master Plan.

Ms. Moore clarified that the Mesa 2025 General Plan contains a chapter that reflects the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. She said that was the reason she mentioned earlier in her presentation that the Master Plan was approved by Mesa voters.

City Attorney Debbie Spinner responded that Mesa voters approved the City’s goals and aspirations with regard to the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. She explained that the actual specifics, for example, of not developing a park in one area of the community or locating it elsewhere would not require voter approval. Ms. Spinner added that in her opinion, staff’s proposal would necessitate Council discussion and approval, but not input from the voters.

Committeemember Kavanaugh expressed concern that what is reflected in staff’s proposal is “a major reduction” in the City’s aspirations and “radical surgery” with regard to the goals approved by Mesa voters in 2002. He acknowledged that economic circumstances have changed in the City, but reiterated that “this surgery is so radical that it substantially undercuts voter expectations” relative to the Parks and Recreation Master Plan.

Ms. Spinner assured the Committee that she would research the issue “with that level of specificity” to determine whether it would be necessary for this issue to be brought before the voters. She added that she would communicate her findings to the full Council prior to their discussion of this matter.

Discussion ensued relative to Mesa’s limited capital resources in the near and long-term; that staff has focused their attention on those areas of the community that are most underserved for park facilities; and that the “radical surgery” as referenced by Committeemember Kavanaugh would include, among other things, a reduction in the number of neighborhood and regional parks.

In response to a question from Chairman Higgins, Ms. Spinner advised that if the City intends to change the Parks and Recreation Master Plan to such an extent that it impacts the goals in the General Plan, it may be necessary for the City to initiate a Major General Plan Amendment. Ms. Spinner added that she has not reviewed staff’s proposed revisions in sufficient detail to know whether such action would be required.

Further discussion ensued relative to the fact that in October 2007, staff began working with the Parks Board to revise the Parks and Recreation 2025 Master Plan; that the goal of those efforts was to create a realistic plan reflective of the current balance and priority of parks and recreation in Mesa by 2030; that it is estimated it would cost $90 million to construct basic park amenities at the nine undeveloped park parcels; that the 2025 Master Plan targeted the development of six park acres per thousand population; that Mesa is currently at 3.4 park acres per thousand population and rapidly declining as the population increases and Mesa is unable to open new park facilities; and that the revised Master Plan incorporates the evaluation of Mesa’s current parks (i.e., their condition and the need to replace structures), developing the land Mesa currently owns, and establishing target areas for new acquisition and the development of park property.

Ms. Moore highlighted a series of maps contained in the PowerPoint presentation illustrating the current parks and facilities prioritized for renovation (playground replacements, sprinkler upgrades, lighting replacement), future parks on City-owned parcels, proposed revisions to the target areas, and the combined Master Plan targets. She explained that of the approximate 1,000 acres that comprise Red Mountain Park, over 900 acres are undeveloped. Ms. Moore also indicated that staff has not determined the timing for future park development due to the limitations in resource availability. She added that the capital portion of the Quality of Life sales tax has expired and said the City does not have the funding available to pursue Parks bonds.

Ms. Moore also reviewed a document entitled “Original vs. Revised Facility Standards,” which provides a comparison of ratios (acres/thousand population, square feet/person population and field/population) in the 2025 Master Plan and revised 2030 Master Plan. (See Attachment 2)

Additional discussion ensued relative to potential funding sources for park lands and facilities in and around the DMB property.

Committeemember Richins commented that if there is a commitment on the part of Council to work on the Parks and Recreation Master Plan, then it should be revised as realistically as possible. He noted, however, if there is no Council support for the development of parks in Mesa, in his opinion, there would be no point in proceeding through this process.

Deputy City Manager Bryan Raines advised that although Mesa has bond authorization remaining from previous elections for park facilities, the ongoing operation and maintenance obligations have always proven to be the most difficult aspect of implementing any of these plans. He cited, by way of example, that only 10% to 20% of Red Mountain Park is currently utilized, and said that even though Mesa owns the land, the City’s current revenue streams do not support any additional operational commitments beyond what presently exists.

In response to a question from Committeemember Richins, Ms. Moore advised that if the City’s nine undeveloped park parcels were developed, it would cost approximately $1.7 million annually to operate and maintain those sites.

Mr. Raines further remarked that the Parks and Recreation 2025 Master Plan was “a very aggressive Plan” and noted that the revisions reflect significant effort by the Parks Board to become more realistic. He also commented that much of the Board’s work was completed prior to the downturn in the economy in October and November last year and added that the challenges that have arisen due to the economy in recent months may not yet be fully reflected in the Plan.

Committeemember Richins expressed appreciation to the members of the Parks Board for their efforts and hard work with regard to the process of revising the Parks and Recreation Master Plan.

It was moved by Committeemember Richins, seconded by Chairman Higgins, to recommend to the Council that staff’s proposed update to the Parks and Recreation 2030 Master Plan be approved.

Upon tabulation of votes, it showed:

AYES – Higgins-Richins

NAYS – Kavanaugh

Chairman Higgins declared the motion carried by majority vote.

Chairman Higgins commented that this issue would be placed on a future Study Session agenda for Council discussion.

Chairman Higgins thanked staff for their presentation.

3. Hear a presentation, discuss and make recommendations on amending the livestock regulations.

Chairman Higgins advised that she received speaker cards from two citizens wishing to address the Committee regarding this item.

Committeemember Richins suggested that because of the complex nature of this issue, it might be helpful for staff to make their presentation first, after which time the citizens could address the Committee. He stated that former Vice Mayor Claudia Walters worked on the livestock ordinance during her tenure on the Council and explained that he has continued with those efforts. Committeemember Richins thanked City Council Assistant Kathy Macdonald and Assistant to the City Manager Natalie Lewis for their hard work and assistance with regard to this issue.

Zoning/Civil Hearing Administrator Gordon Sheffield displayed a PowerPoint presentation (A copy is available for review in the City Clerk’s Office) and reported that in January 2006, the City Council adopted the Lehi Sub-Area Plan, which included two goals specifically related to livestock. He explained that the first goal was a request to decriminalize livestock regulations by moving penalties from criminal to civil violations (from Title 6 to Title 8) and stated that in May 2008, the Council amended the City Code to do just that. Mr. Sheffield added that the second goal was to amend the livestock Code provisions so that they would be similar to those in other successful rural communities.

Mr. Sheffield advised that staff is seeking direction from the Committee regarding recommendations related to livestock ordinance revisions as follows: A.) Rules for Future Farmers of America (FFA) and 4-H (Head, Heart, Hands and Health) students raising “project” animals, and infant or juvenile animals; B.) Livestock ratios (the number of animals per acre); C.) Minimum lot area threshold; D) Animals listed in the ordinance; and E.) Whether revisions should apply Citywide or be limited to specific areas of the community.

Issue A – FFA and 4-H students raising “project” animals, and infant or juvenile animals

Mr. Sheffield reported that at the present time, the City Code does not make an additional allowance for infant or “project” animals. He explained that staff proposes that if an owner of a one-acre lot has two head of livestock (the current allowable standard) and one of the animals gives birth, the infant would be allowed to stay with the mother until it is weaned for up to one year.

Committeemember Richins said that it was his understanding of the 4-H program that students are given the opportunity to raise and sell a “project” animal and that it is not the intent of the program that students keep the animals for an indefinite period of time.

Mr. Sheffield highlighted staff’s recommendations (Citywide) for infant animals and “project” animals under the FFA and 4-H programs as follows: 1.) An accommodation would be made for a one-year period of time until the animal is weaned; and 2.) A Code allowance would be provided for one “project” animal per lot on three-quarters of an acre or larger.

In response to a question from Committeemember Richins, Mr. Sheffield clarified that per staff’s recommendation, the “project” animal would not count against the City’s current requirement of two head of livestock per one ”full” acre. He also noted that it would not be necessary for a student to obtain a special license to raise the “project” animal and added that the use would be extended as an additional privilege on the lot.

In response to a question from Chairman Higgins, Mr. Sheffield stated that at the present time, “project” animals are only permitted on one “full acre” parcel, but not on lots within the R1-35 zoning district. He noted that staff’s recommendation would allow that to occur, unless the CC&Rs of the resident’s homeowners association prohibited such a use.

Committeemember Richins indicated that swine, which are considered “project” animals, are not currently included on the City’s list of allowed animals, but would be included in the future.

Issue B – Revising Livestock Animals per Acre Ratio

Mr. Sheffield advised that the existing Code allows two head of livestock to be kept on one “full” acre (43,560 square feet) parcel and explained that for each additional head, an additional one-half acre is required. He further stated that the Code does not distinguish between large and small animals (i.e., a goat would be counted the same as a horse). Mr. Sheffield also provided a comparative analysis of animals/acre ratios in nearby communities. (See Attachment 3)

Mr. Sheffield highlighted the following options that staff considered regarding this issue:

• Keep the existing ratio (two head per acre).

• Slight increase to ratio (three head per acre).

• Tiered system, which would permit ratio increases through the issuance of a license.

• Large increase to ratio (eight head per acre on Citywide basis).

• Develop an “Equestrian” Overlay District for Lehi and similar livestock-oriented areas. with a higher livestock ratio than the remainder of the City.

Mr. Sheffield advised that it is staff’s recommendation to keep the existing ratio and stated that property owners would have the option to apply for a Special Use Permit (SUP) if they wished to increase the ratio.

Discussion ensued relative to the SUP process, which was enacted by the Council in 2002; that an individual applies for an SUP through the Board of Adjustment and requests a ratio that is applied to the property on a case-by-case basis; that through the Board of Adjustment public hearing setting, neighbors can offer input regarding the application; that the permit can be revoked for failure to comply with any provision designated as a condition of approval; and that eight SUPs have been approved Citywide.

Committeemember Richins noted that he has received inquiries from many Lehi residents regarding an “Equestrian” Overlay District and requested that City Attorney Debbie Spinner provide an overview of this option as it relates to Proposition 207.

Ms. Spinner responded that the privilege to have animals on a person’s property is not a zoning right, but a permitted use under Title 8 of the City Code. She explained that if the City created a zoning overlay, it would establish zoning rights that run with the land. Ms. Spinner stated that if such an overlay district was implemented, a person could file a Proposition 207 challenge if the overlay changed the individual’s zoning rights; that for the challenge to be successful, the person would have to prove that the City is adding to his or her land use rights, which would occur as a result of the overlay district, that it would cause a reduction in the individual’s property value and that the risk to the City with such a scenario would not be very high. She added, however, that if the City established an overlay district and the Council made changes to the overlay district, there would be more significant Proposition 207 challenges because the Council would be restricting a right previously given under the overlay district. Ms. Spinner further commented that Proposition 207 is a relatively new statute and has never been interpreted by the Court.

Issue C – Minimum Lot Threshold

Mr. Sheffield reported that Mesa currently requires a “full” acre (43,560 square feet) of land before a livestock privilege is extended and explained that the City has an SUP option available that would allow such a privilege for properties of a lesser amount. He stated that the Board of Adjustment has approved SUPs at three subdivisions in the City (30^th Street and Broadway, 39^th Way and University, and 83^rd Street and University).

Mr. Sheffield explained that this issue is primarily one of compatibility with County regulations and noted that in its zoning ordinance, Maricopa County permits “corrals and stables for the keeping of livestock” as an accessory use within the R1-35 zoning district. Mr. Sheffield stated that the ordinance does not specify a minimum threshold for allowing livestock, although by permitting an accessory use, it is implied that livestock would be allowed on a 35,000 square foot lot. He further indicated that when these lots are annexed by Mesa, the ability to keep livestock on a 35,000 square foot lot is no longer permitted because it is considered a privilege and not a zoning right, although the situation can be rectified by the owner applying for an SUP through the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Sheffield added that although there is no guarantee, every application that has gone to the Board of Adjustment has been approved.

Mr. Sheffield further referenced a series of maps contained in the PowerPoint presentation illustrating the impact Citywide if the minimum lot threshold were lowered to 35,000 square feet in order for a livestock privilege to be extended (residential lots of one acre or more; residential lots greater than 35,000 square feet; Lehi area; the Citrus area, Northeast Mesa and Desert Uplands; and Central South area).

In response to a question from Committeemember Richins, Ms. Spinner clarified that if, for example, the Las Sendas CC&Rs did not allow residents to keep livestock in the community, even if the City of Mesa modified its livestock regulations to permit livestock on a 35,000 square foot lot, it would not be permitted within that subdivision.

Mr. Sheffield stated that with regard to Issue C, staff recommends that the City keep the SUP option in order to retain flexibility and ensure neighborhood involvement. He stated that there may be certain unintended consequences by lowering the threshold to a 35,000 square foot lot on a Citywide basis such as the smaller lots not having the necessary infrastructure in place normally associated with livestock (i.e., trails).

Issue D – Updating Animals Listed

Mr. Sheffield explained that this issue relates to the list of animals in the Code that are regulated under the livestock provisions. He stated that it is staff’s recommendation to update the list and broaden the categories somewhat (i.e., horse-like animals, which include zebras).

Mr. Sheffield stated that one item he failed to mention was staff’s recommendation that the Board of Adjustment, as a regular policy, impose a five-year time limit on SUPs. He explained that the purpose of the regulation is not to extend an indefinite zoning right to a property, but instead allow individuals to come back to the Board on a five year basis to show that they are complying with any provisions designated as a condition of approval for the SUP. Mr. Sheffield added that if a person who was approved for the SUP sold the property, the new owner could apply for an SUP if they wanted the zoning right to continue.

Chairman Higgins expressed concern that a property owner who has already applied for an SUP would be required in five years to pay an additional $1,500 to go through the process once again. She suggested the following alternatives: 1.) when a property is sold, the SUP would go with the owner and not with the land; or 2.) if a property owner was cited for numerous code compliance violations, the person could lose the SUP.

Mr. Sheffield responded that it may be appropriate for staff to conduct an analysis regarding the possibility of imposing a separate fee schedule for renewals of SUPs that have time limits.

Committeemember Richins expressed support for a reduced fee and stated the opinion that charging a person $1,500 every five years to renew an SUP would not be appropriate.

Responding to Chairman Higgins, Ms. Spinner acknowledged that there have been questions with regard to whether a zoning right given by an SUP could be limited to one owner. She stated that in the last five years, she has become aware of several legal cases that have indicated that the zoning right could be placed with the owner as opposed to running with the land. Ms. Spinner added that in her opinion, such a procedure could be accomplished if that was the goal of the Council.

Chairman Higgins stated that she would prefer to see an SUP that goes with the owner that would include a caveat, for example, that if there were a certain number of code compliance complaints within a five year period, it would be necessary for the property owner to come back before the Board of Adjustment to review the SUP. She stated that such a regulation would prevent property owners who are maintaining their property and animals from being penalized.

Committeemember Richins stated that although he would not mind seeing a slight increase in the livestock ratios, he is familiar with a counting method used by Norco, California that counts small animals differently than large animals. He said he would recommend that such an option be included as part of Mesa’s livestock regulations, if his fellow Committeemembers concur.

Chairman Higgins concurred with Committeemember Richins’ suggestion and said there is a difference between, for example, one bison and two pigmy goats.

Mr. Sheffield responded that staff preferred not to pursue the counting method (two goats equal one horse) and determined that it would be more appropriate to consider a point system. He stated that the concept of the point system would be that the size of an individual’s property would equate to a certain number of points; that each animal would be assigned a certain number of points (i.e., horse – 2 points, goat – 1 point); and the property owner could have any combination of animals on the property as long as it did not exceed the number of points the land would allow.

C.K. Sato, 1240 East Lehi Road, a long-time Lehi resident, expressed support for the rural atmosphere in Lehi and said that it has been an important element in the community for many years. He stated that he is addressing the Committee as a private citizen and offered the following input with regard to Issues A-D: Issue A – Agrees with staff’s recommendation. Issue B – Agrees with staff’s recommendation. He expressed opposition to a Lehi overlay district that would allow eight head of livestock per acre; stated that the density of Lehi is higher than it was when Lehi came into the City in 1973; and noted that the SUP provides flexibility. Issue C – Prefers the 35,000 square foot lot size for two head of livestock per acre for the Lehi area. Issue D – Agrees with staff.

Ernie Frazee, 960 East Lehi Road, a representative of the City of Mesa Livestock Committee, highlighted his group’s recommendations with regard to Mesa’s livestock regulations. (See Attachment 4) He commented that the Livestock Committee is comprised of members from every area of the City in which livestock is permitted.

Discussion ensued relative to the fact that per Mesa’s current zoning ordinance, in the R1-43 district, there must be a primary use on the property (i.e., a residence) before an accessory use is allowed (i.e., corrals, barns).

It was moved by Committeemember Richins, that staff be directed to amend the City’s existing livestock regulations as follows: Issue A – Infant and “Project” Animals – That infants of larger animals be allowed on 35,000 square foot lots and above (R1-35 zoning district); that students be allowed to raise a “project” animal, including swine; that no licensing requirements would be necessary; and that the student must be a member of an established program (i.e., FFA or 4-H). Issue B – Revising Animals per Acre Ratio – That the City implement a point system (as previously outlined by Mr. Sheffield); and that if individuals want to increase the amount of livestock on their property and they demonstrate the ability to care for the animals, they be permitted to apply for a Special Use Permit. Issue C – Minimum Lot Threshold – That the minimum lot threshold to allow livestock be reduced to 35,000 square feet; and that the City acknowledge in the livestock regulations that the allowance to permit livestock would not supersede the CC&Rs of the person’s homeowners association; Issue D – Updating Animals Listed – That the listing remain “as is” and that staff clarify the listing administratively as necessary.

Chairman Higgins inquired if staff has “gotten the word out” that there would be a Citywide reduction in the minimum lot threshold to 35,000 square feet.

Mr. Sheffield suggested that as part of the motion, staff would develop the proposed livestock regulations and bring them back to the Committee for further input prior to the ordinance being presented to the full Council. He explained that the additional time would provide staff the opportunity to apprise Mesa residents that the Council is considering the above-referenced options.

Assistant to the City Manager Natalie Lewis assured the Committee that if the City proposes to make changes to regulations that would impact residents in a particular neighborhood, staff would conduct outreach to solicit their input in this regard.

Chairman Higgins seconded the motion.

Committeemember Kavanaugh stated that he has reservations with regard to the point system; is of the opinion that the Code needs to be clarified; and does not support increasing the amount of livestock per acre.

Chairman Higgins called for the vote.

Upon tabulation of votes, it showed:

AYES - Higgins-Richins

NAYS - Kavanaugh

Chairman Higgins declared the motion carried by majority vote.

Chairman Higgins thanked everyone for the presentation.

4. Adjournment.

Without objection, the Community & Neighborhood Services Committee meeting adjourned at 10:36 a.m.

I hereby certify that the foregoing minutes are a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Community & Neighborhood Services Committee meeting of the City of Mesa, Arizona, held on the 29^th day of January, 2009. I further certify that the meeting was duly called and held and that a quorum was present.

_________________________________________

LINDA CROCKER, CITY CLERK

pag

(attachments – 4)