(TABLED ITEM (From 8/23/11 Board Meeting)):  Adopt Zoning Ordinance 11-09 to (1) amend certain Cochise County zoning districts boundaries from, RU-4 (Rural, one dwelling per 4 acres), to PD (Planned Development District), (2) amend the Cochise County Comprehensive Plan, and (3) approve a master development plan, pursuant to the application of James Lee of Madison Diversified.

MEMORANDUM

TO: Cochise County Board of Supervisors
FROM: Keith Dennis, Senior Planner
For: Michael Turisk, Interim Planning Director
SUBJECT: Dockets MDP-11-01 and Z-11-03 (Madison 1240)
DATE: September 14, 2011, for the September 27, 2011 Meeting
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND REZONING REQUEST
The item consists of two Dockets, MDP-11-01 and Z-11-03, and is a proposal for a 1,240-acre Master Development Plan (MDP) West of Willcox, Arizona. The nature of the proposed development, which would take place in several phases, would include a rezoning of the entire tract to Planned Development District (PDD) in order to facilitate the MDP.

The MDP is proposed as a four-phase development plan. At full build-out, the MDP would include densities ranging from 12 dwellings per acre to one dwelling per four acres, and would include a commercial mixed use area. A maximum density of 1,200 residential units or an equivalent of commercial and residential units has been determined by the Analysis of Adequate Water Supply, dated April 19, 2005.

The subject property is located west of incorporated Willcox, Arizona, along the north side of Airport Road (between Mileposts 10 and 11). The Parcels subject to the Application are: 202-35-002A, 002B, 005, 202-01-009C, 009D, 009E, 202-23-004. The Applicant, James Lee, is represented by David Bohn of Kinetix Engineering.

I. DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT PARCEL AND SURROUNDING USES
Size: 1,240 Acres
Zoning: RU-4 (Rural, 1 dwelling per 4 acres)
Growth Area: D (Rural Growth Area)
Plan Designation: Rural
Area Plan: None Applicable
Existing Use: Grazing Land, Undeveloped
Proposed Use: Rezone to Planned Development District to allow development of a 1,240-acre Master Development Plan

Surrounding Zoning and Land Use
Direction Zoning Use(s)
North RU-4 Marguerite Road, Rural Residential and Undeveloped Land
South RU-4 Airport Road, Rural Residential and Undeveloped Land
East RU-4 Judd Drive, Rural Residential and Undeveloped Land
West RU-4 Rural Residential and Undeveloped Land

II. BACKGROUND
On July 13, 2011, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted unanimously (5 – 0) to forward these Dockets with a recommendation of conditional approval to the Board of Supervisors in two separate motions: the first for Docket Z-11-03, and the second for MDP 11-01. The Commission’s motions included staff recommendations regarding suggested approval conditions.

On August 23, 2011, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on the Docket. The Board tabled the item to a time certain, in order to hold a work session on the proposal.

On September 13, 2011, the Board held a work session to discuss issues surrounding the Madison MDP. The discussion largely concerned the need for cost-sharing on improvements to Airport Road. The Madison traffic study recommended that the Applicant be required to pave the road from the westernmost frontage of the property, east to Hamilton Road as part of Phase 1 traffic impact mitigation. However, as Airport Road has since been scheduled to be paved along this section in the near future, it was determined that the Developer should instead contribute a portion of the costs of these road improvements.

II. PARCEL HISTORY
There are no records of any permits or violations associated with the subject parcels.

In 2005, a previous owner submitted a proposal for an MDP for the same property (called Winchester, Docket MDP 05-01). The report and some of the accompanying materials constitute what might be called the “parent document,” of which the current proposal is a more mature derivation. The project was abandoned in 2006, before being presented to the Commission or Board.The current owner and developer, James Lee of Madison Diversified, then took ownership of the project, to include the tract itself as well as the MDP groundwork, such as the MDP Report, hydrology report, and soils report that had been completed for the Winchester MDP concept at that time.

In 2010, the developer submitted a proposal for a subdivision called “Madison 40” (S-10-01). This was intended to be the first phase of the larger Madison project, a 9-lot subdivision on 40 acres adjacent to Airport Road. The project was subsequently withdrawn, as the developer changed course and decided to revive and pursue efforts towards an MDP that would facilitate and govern the development of the entire 1,240 acre tract.
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Master Planned Communities Defined

A Master Development Plan is defined in Article 4 of the Zoning Regulations as follows:

A master development plan is a duly adopted component of the Cochise County Comprehensive Plan that provides a detailed plan for the coordinated development of a specific area. A master development plan will address, at a minimum: basic densities; specific future land uses and boundaries thereof; the general character, extent, and location of major thoroughfares, collector streets, major drainageways, structures, open space, schools, parks, and community facilities, as applicable, for a designated area of Cochise County (406.01).

MDPs, when enacted by the Board of Supervisors, become the guiding policy vehicle for future land use, infrastructure improvement, subdivision development, architectural guidelines, and community facilities within the boundaries of the plan area. Future development within the area must abide by the policies and guidelines proffered in the MDP report; any rezoning that occurs within the MDP boundaries must also be in substantial conformance with the MDP policies. Thus, over the span of the MDP build-out, development in the area will be guided and informed by site specific data as provided in such documents as the MDP policy document proper, as well as soils and hydrology reports, water quality and adequacy analyses, and traffic impact studies. Policies specific to the MDP area are informed by these studies, with a whole, working, planned community being the intended result.

Planned Development District (PDD) Rezoning

As established in Article 15 of the Zoning Regulations, the PDD is an option for developers pursuing an MDP. PD Districts may, in fact, only be established within an approved Master Development Plan area, and development within such Districts must be in substantial conformance with the governing MDP. Master Development Plans need not be followed by a rezoning to a PD District, in other words, but rezonings to PD cannot take place outside the framework of an approved MDP.

As stated above, the goal of an MDP is to define a set of policies and development standards for the plan area, so as to facilitate the development of a planned community, with its own distinct identity and character. The PDD is a powerful tool that developers can utilize to achieve this end. Within the context of an approved MDP, a developer may essentially establish their own Zoning Districts within the plan area, with unique development standards, permitted, accessory and Special Uses, all of which serve, over time, to guide development towards the intended goal. In drafting the MDP report under current consideration, the developer has used the Cochise County Zoning Regulations as a starting point from which to craft these proposed Districts within the MDP area. The Districts proposed within the MDP Report would, upon Board approval, be established as the available zones for future development within the MDP area. These are described in detail in Section IV of the MDP Report, and are briefly described below:

Low-Density Residential (LDR), with 593 acres and lot sizes ranging from 1 acre to 4 acre subdivision plats;

High Density Residential (HDR), 28 acres which could include apartment dwellings, townhomes, zero lot line homes and similar products, with densities averaging one dwelling per 2,500 square feet;

Mobile Home Park (MHP), 32 acres, which would be subject to the development standards for Manufactured Home Parks (Section 1812); and

Mixed-Use District (MUD), 80 acres, which would allow a mixture of high-density housing, commercial and some light industrial uses.

The Madison project will have a capacity of 1,200 residential units, or an equivalent combination of residential and non-residential units.

Comprehensive Plan Amendment

Master Development Plans, when approved by the Board of Supervisors, serve as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and will replace the existing, underlying growth category and plan designations for the property or properties that it addresses (406.02).

Currently the project area carries a “Rural” Comprehensive Plan designation, within a Category D (Rural) Growth Area. The eastern boundary of the plan area borders the Willcox Category B Growth area, which is also the boundary of the Willcox Strategic Plan area. Staff’s position is that, should the MDP be approved, it would be appropriate to re-designate the plan area as a Category B (Community) Growth Area with a “Developing” Plan designation. If approved by the Board of Supervisors as recommended, Condition #2 would make this Comprehensive Plan amendment explicit.

Although the proposal is an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, and although the PD District allows the developer considerable flexibility with regard to development and use standards, the MDP policies as offered in the Report demonstrate a strong foundation in the policies of the Cochise County Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Regulations, and the design standards of Cochise County regarding public improvements. For the benefit of decision makers and stakeholders, staff has separately attached Section IV.E.3 of the MDP Report (“General Administration”). Upon Board approval, these policies will serve as the policy mechanism governing all development in the MDP area, and will effectively establish the MDP area plan policies as an outgrowth of the broader set of policies and regulations of Cochise County. These are attached as Attachment C, and much of the analysis on the following pages will reference these important policy statements.

IV. MDP ANALYSIS
Below is the Planning Department’s analysis of the MDP proposal. The project is analyzed according to three sets of criteria:

? The MDP requirements as set forth in Article 4 of the Zoning Regulations (Section 406);
? The Planned Development District requirements per Article 15; and
? The Rezoning Factors as provided in Section 2208.03.

For ease of reference, we have, where possible, quoted the applicable sections from the Regulations.



IV – 1. Compliance with Submittal Requirements for Master Development Plans (Section 406.06)

A. The applicant shall submit a master development plan map, drawn at a scale of either 50, 100, or 200 feet to one inch, or at a scale approved by the Zoning Inspector, and including the following information: (Complies)

1. Title of the development, a legal description of the property, parcel number(s), name of the developer and registered land surveyor or engineer, date of the plan, a north arrow and scale.(Complies)

2. A vicinity map showing the general location of the property, development and any incorporated city boundaries within three miles of the development. (Complies)

3. Boundary lines and ties to at least two section corners or quarter corners and dimensions of plan area boundaries. Section lines and mid-section lines shall be clearly designated. (Complies)

4. Existing land uses, existing zoning status, roads and wash corridors within the designated area and within ¼ mile of the proposed plan area. (Complies)

5. Proposed sizes of the various types of lots or parcels to be developed (acreage or square footage). (Complies)
6. General topography, at 10-foot contour intervals, all drainageways having a contributing drainage area of 150 acres or more, and all flood hazard zones. (Complies, with MDP report exhibits)

7. Major street layout, including: existing major thoroughfares serving, traversing, abutting, or otherwise affecting or affected by the proposed plan area; proposed collector and arterial streets; existing easements and rights-of-way within the plan area. (Complies)

8. If more than one zoning district is proposed, boundaries of the different zoning districts. (Complies)

9. Locations of proposed and existing structures, land use locations, major off-street parking and loading areas, open space, pedestrian circulation systems, bike and/or equestrian trails, public facilities such as schools, and approximate densities. (Complies)

10. General location of utilities, easements and other service facilities (Complies)

11. Intended phasing of the development, if applicable (Complies)

The maps and exhibits described above are included as Attachment B to this Memo.

The Applicant has submitted a Phasing Plan as part of the MDP report. Phase 1 is slated for construction as a Mobile Home Park. Phase 2 is proposed as “Low Density Residential” with an average lot size of two acres. Phase 3 is similarly characterized, with average lot sizes of four acres. Finally, Phase 4 would see the development of the High Density Residential and Mixed Use Commercial areas designated along Airport Road.

B. The Master Development Plan map shall be accompanied by a written report, to be adopted as a part of the Master Development Plan, that includes the following information:

1. Methods of screening and buffering, where incompatible land use configurations necessitate protection for the proposed development or surrounding development (Complies)

The Plan document provides for screening and buffering on Page 32 of the Report, in Section IV.B.6: “At the time of site plan review, all commercial developments shall submit a plan detailing fencing, walls, landscaping, building placement, and other details, which must be in conformance with the PD design guidelines for commercial structures.”

2. Provisions for creation, use and maintenance of open space, recreation areas and preservation of scenic features of the land (Complies)

The developer has included provisions in Section IV of the MDP report (Attachment C) which address the requirements of 406.06.B.2, above:

• “Prior to tentative plat approval for any phase of development, the Applicant shall provide a draft charter for a property maintenance district which will be responsible for HOAs within the Plan area. The draft CC&Rs shall include provisions which obligate the association to maintain all open space, trail system, common areas parks, landscaping in common areas and medians, entry features, and etc within the development. The CC&Rs shall also include deed restrictions enforcing the site development standards proposed within the MDP Area.”

3. General provisions for pedestrian, bicycle and equestrian circulation throughout the development (Complies)

The property maintenance district discussed above would ultimately be responsible for the upkeep of amenities such as described here. The design and construction of these are provided for through the following provision in Section IV of the MDP report:

• “A detailed pedestrian and equestrian circulation plan shall accompany any tentative plat submittal within the Plan area, which generally conforms to the “Pedestrian Circulation Exhibit” accompanying the MDP proposal. The pedestrian circulation system will comply with the standards for Planned Development District Pedestrian Circulation Systems as provided in Section 1503.08.D of the Zoning Regulations.”

4. Statement specifying how roads, State-approved waste disposal, water supply, fire protection, and utilities will be provided, with approximate timing and location, including closest sewer and community waterlines and capacity to serve this development ( Complies)

As demonstrated in Attachment C, policy provisions have been made that will address all of these requirements prior to the undertaking of any development in the plan area. These include the submittal of subdivision plats and commercial permitting which will require all public improvements to be constructed to Cochise County standards, and service commitments from fire and utility service providers.

5. Statement specifying how amenities are to be provided (sidewalks, open space, parks, recreational facilities, streetlights, curb and gutter, landscaping) including approximate timing and location (Complies)

As discussed above, subdivision plats and commercial permits will be submitted for these amenities and infrastructure improvements. The design and construction of these will, according to the MDP policies, meet with County standards for such improvements.

6. Statement of general kinds of development standards intended to be controlled through deed restrictions (i.e., architectural design, building height, construction materials, common area development and maintenance, landscaping, screening and buffering of individual sites (Complies)

As discussed, CC&Rs will be recorded and enforced by the property owners’ association through deed restrictions. In addition to deed restrictions, the Madison MDP policies will themselves govern future subdivision development.

7. Statement of the projected population and anticipated impact of the development upon existing regional utilities and community facilities and services including, but not limited to water, electricity, sewer and solid waste disposal, schools and parks, police and fire protection: (Complies)

The MDP policies stipulate that water, wastewater and property maintenance districts or other equivalent bodies shall be formed to ensure adequacy for these resources.

With regard to law enforcement, fire and school district impacts, these impacts are not adequately addressed in the MDP report. However, the requirement for service commitments from such organizations would be incorporated as governing policies of the MDP should it be approved as recommended.

8. Report or narrative assessing adequacy of water supply to serve the proposed development (Complies)

The report containa an Analysis of Adequate Water Supply issued by the Department of Water Resources on April 19, 2005 (See Attachment D). This determination is a vital first step in obtaining a full determination of water adequacy from ADWR. The analysis allows for a capacity of up to 1200 dwelling units, or an equivalent combination of residential and non-residential units.

9. Projected trip generation for the entire project at completion. If projected trip generation is of sufficient magnitude to significantly increase traffic, thereby reducing the level of service on one or more abutting or surrounding streets, or where existing demonstrable traffic problems have already been identified such as high number of accidents, substandard road design or surface, or the road is near, at, or over capacity, a traffic impact study including the following additional information is necessary (Complies, subject to Condition #1):

a. Survey of thoroughfares, existing and planned, within at least ½ mile of the proposed plan area and may extend to collector and arterial streets serving the site.

b. Consolidation of existing traffic data; estimates of future traffic.

c. Trip assignments and their effect on traffic flow along streets serving the site, proposed thoroughfare alignments, capacities, signalization requirements, lanes, intersection configurations, etc.

d. Timing and methods of right-of-way improvements as necessary to serve projected traffic loads.

e. Current level of improvement of major routes serving the site (i.e. built to County standards)

f. An inventory and analysis of off-site improvements to be made, with approximate timing for each phasing.

g. Provisions for controlling access to major streets.

The Applicant has provided a robust initial traffic study that has been revised per the County Transportation Planner comments. The policy provisions in Section IV.E of the MDP report stipulate that traffic-related mitigation recommendations and methods in the TIA will be adhered to as the area develops.

The August 23, 2011 traffic study, prepared by Task Engineering, recommends that the section of Airport Road from the Westernmost frontage of the project area, East to Hamilton Road be improved with a paved surface. The County will instead require an exaction from the developer for on-going improvements to Airport Road, in the amount of $109,016.00 (See Condition #1). The other recommendations of the August 23rd, 2011 traffic study will still be binding on the project.

10. Provisions for water conservation measures such as effluent re-use, recharge facilities, low-flow appliances, deed restrictions governing water use, drought-tolerant landscaping, limitations on irrigation, or others (Complies)

As with other requirements, the policy provisions in Section IV.E of the MDP report will ensure that County-approved water conservation methods will be employed:

• Except as explicitly modified herein, the MDP area shall be subject to the applicable policies of the Comprehensive Plan, related to Master Development Plans, Water Conservation and Transportation. The Water Conservation standards in Section 1820 of the Zoning Regulations shall also apply to all new construction.

11. Soils analyses for any proposed plan area shown on the most recent soil survey (USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service) as containing soils having moderate to severe erosion hazard or corrosivity (Complies)

The Applicant has provided a Soils Evaluation Report as part of the on-site application package. However, more site specific soils analysis will be required as part of the subdivision and permitting processes for future development phases.

12. 3-Dimensional renderings of the development proposal overlaid onto aerials or maps showing the visual context of the proposed development in relation to existing development or staking when appropriate to evaluate impact on views (Waived – Not Applicable)

Section 406.06.C allows the Zoning Inspector to waive requirements of Sections 406.06.A or B where deemed appropriate. The Developer was relieved of this requirement during the application process.

13. Statement of development not to exceed 5 years from approval unless otherwise approved by the Board of Supervisors (Does not Comply – See Condition #10 and Attachment E)

The Applicant has asked for a Waiver to this requirement, citing uncertain market conditions, and the size and scope of the project as requiring a longer period until full build out is reached. The MDP Report projects a 15-year time frame for full development. Attachment E is the Engineer’s request for Waiver from this requirement, and includes the Developer’s rationale for the request. Staff can support the request given the scale and scope of the project. Staff offers the Planning Department recommendation on this matter as Condition #10, which provides a period of just over eight years for development (January 1, 2020), unless otherwise authorized by the Board of Supervisors.

IV – 2. Compliance with Applicable Site Development Standards for Planned Development Districts (Section 1503)
MDPs should be designed with the intent to minimize negative impacts to properties adjacent to the development, minimize impacts upon community facilities and services, prevent undue hazards to people or property on or off site from traffic, flooding, erosion, subsidence, soil slipping or other dangers, annoyances or inconveniences and protect the visual and physical character of the site.
1503.01 Minimum Development Area (Complies)
The minimum site area allowed for MDPs is 10 acres; at 1,240 acres, Madison meets this standard.
1503.02 Density (Complies)
Density within a PDD is limited only to what the developer can provide in terms of adequate water, sewer, utility and road infrastructure and improvements. Due to water availability, the proposed development will be limited to 1,200 residential dwellings or an equivalent combination of residential and commercial. Upon approval by the Board of Supervisors, the MDP report policies and regulations would become the governing policy document for the MDP area, thereby codifying the provision of such infrastructure and improvements.
1503.03 Site Coverage and Design (Complies)
The developer has the option of creating site coverage and design standards. Section 1503.03 recommends using development standards from similar Districts for site coverage standards, and the Developer has done so. The proposed PD development standards include provisions for permitted and special uses, accessory uses, setbacks and distances between structures, as well as site coverage standards. More detail-specific design evaluation will occur at the subdivision plat or commercial permit review stage.
1503.04 Setbacks (Complies)
Setbacks for all uses, including site design, building design, screening, landscaping, and open space, are provided to alleviate potential land use conflicts. Again, more detail-specific design evaluation will occur at the subdivision review or permitting stage.
1503.05 Open Space (Does Not Comply - See Condition #8)
Open space is that area of land not occupied by buildings, towers, walls, billboards, or man-made impervious surfaces that is set aside or reserved in perpetuity for the use of the public or the residents of the development. Development under this provision is intended to provide an innovative site planning design in harmony with the natural features and constraints of specific sites, among others. As the Applicant proposes a rezoning to a PDD, a minimum of 50% open space is required for all residential phases, and 10% for non-residential development. The Applicant is asking for a 45% open space for the entire project (See Attachment E). Staff’s position on the matter is that the PDD open space requirements should be met. Condition #8 would require that residential development follow the 50% open space standard, and that non-residential phases follow the 10% open space standard.
1503.06 Non-Residential Uses (Complies)
A predominantly residential MDP District should, according to Article 15, include some provision for non-residential development to serve the residents of the PD. The Applicant proposes an 80-acre mixed use commercial development along Airport Road and the Southeast corner of the MDP site. The developer also proposes a school site and fire station site to serve future residents.
1503.07 Sanitary Sewer and Water Systems (Complies)
Per this Section of the Zoning Regulations, “[n]o building permits shall be issued for development within a PD zoning district until provisions have been made for connection onto community water and sanitary sewer system or some other [ADEQ]-approved waste disposal system.” The MDP report includes policy statements that make such provisions explicit, in that a water improvement district or company would be formed prior to any development taking place. Similarly, a wastewater improvement district would have to be formed prior to a plat submittal. In lower-density phases along the northern portion of the project area, conventional septic systems would be used. Septic systems are allowed under Section 1503.07 “if a community sanitary sewer is not feasible.”
1503.08 Access, Circulation, and Street Improvements (Complies)
The Zoning Regulations indicate that PDDs shall have external access to at least one publicly maintained collector or arterial street and that the site shall be designed to discourage direct access to a predominantly residential street outside of the development. Furthermore, one additional external access to a collector or arterial street improved to minimum County standards is encouraged to improve overall circulation and provide emergency access. The developer has designated Airport Road as the primary access, with secondary access in future phases North to Marguerite Road. The policies of the MDP are written to require the Developer to adhere to mitigation and off-site improvements as recommended in the current and any future traffic analysis.
1503.09 Screening (Complies)
This Section requires that “[s]creening, as defined in Section 1805.02, shall be required along the exterior boundaries of all planned developments where a proposed non-residential use abuts a residential zoning district, unless this protection is provided by other means.” The Applicant has provided regulations and policies within the MDP Report stipulating that screening will be required according to this requirement on Page 33 of the MDP report. The language featured in this Section of the report is taken, as recommended, from existing County Zoning Regulations concerning screening and would require that non-residential uses be screened from residential uses with approved screening methods. The manufactured home park proposed in Phase 1 would, according to the MDP regulations, be subject to the development standards for such uses as found in Section 1812 of the Zoning Regulations. Such standards do include screening requirements as well.
1503.10 Landscaping (Complies)
The developer has included the following statement in Section IV.B of the MDP Report:
• Landscaping for common areas, open spaces and parks will be provided and maintained by the HOAs or designees as applicable throughout the MDP, subject to the Planned Development Landscape standards set forth in Section 1503.10 of the Zoning Regulations;
As a proposed Category B Growth Area, the Madison MDP would be subject to County Regulations concerning landscaping, as set forth in Section 1806 of the Zoning Regulations and Section 1820 (including drought-tolerant landscaping).
IV – 3. Compliance with Rezoning Factors (Section 2208.03)
Section 2208.03 of the Zoning Regulations provides a list of 14 evaluation factors. Where applicable, these factors or criteria form the basis for staff analysis of any rezoning request. In this case, 12 of these apply to the Madison 1240 Planned Development. With Conditions, this rezoning proposal complies with 9 of the 12 applicable factors.

1. Compliance with an Adopted Area Plan, Master Development Plan or Comprehensive Plan (Complies)
Although the Madison project is not within an approved Area Plan, if approved, future development within the MDP boundary would proceed in substantial conformance with the approved MDP.

As discussed in Section III of this Memorandum, the MDP includes regulations, development standards and policy statements that would ensure future development is in keeping not only with the Comprehensive Plan policies, but with other County regulations and policies as well.

2. Land Use/Concept Plan (Does Not Comply – See Attachment E and Condition #9)
The Applicant submitted an MDP in accordance with Article 4 of the Zoning Regulations, including an MDP and rezoning application, conceptual site plans, Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA), hydrological report and an MDP map and narrative. A phasing plan is included as well. Although the maps accompanying the proposal satisfy the Article 4 requirements relative to MDP maps and exhibits, Article 22 (Section 2208.03.B.1) requires a more detailed and thorough plan for non-residential uses than what is provided. For rezonings intended to allow residential development, a “conceptual subdivision plat and a statement that a subdivision plat will be submitted within 18 months to 3 years” is required, and the submittal does not include such a plat. The Developer has provided a request to waive the time limit requirements relative to the rezoning as well as the MDP time limit stipulation (See Attachment E). Condition #9 would require the Developer to submit a subdivision tentative plat or development plan for Phase 1 within three years of Board approval.

3. Compliance with Applicable Site Development Standards (Complies)
As the proposal is a rezoning to a PDD, the developer has the option of drafting site development standards for the PD. This the developer has done, and much of the material in the development standards section of the MDP Report is drawn from the Cochise County Zoning Regulations.

There may be instances, as yet unknown, in which the MDP standards do not adequately address site development standards. At the request of staff, the developer has added the following language to the MDP report, stating that development will proceed

…in conformance with the PD District standards (Article 15) and as set forth in Article 18 of the zoning regulations. When any site development standard in article 18 conflicts with these regulations, the MDP standards shall override County standards; where development standards are not mentioned in the MDP standards, the applicable County regulations shall apply, subject to reasonable interpretation by the Planning Director as needed.”

4. Adjacent Districts Capable of Development (Complies)
Adjacent properties would remain capable of development if this proposal were approved.

5. Limitation on Non-Conforming Uses (Complies)
PD Districts are allowed considerable flexibility in terms of site coverage, design and density; the proposed rezoning would not create any non-conforming uses as proposed.

6. Compatibility of Existing Development (Does Not Comply)
The surrounding area is characterized by several rural homesites, large swaths of vacant land and grazing activities. The proposal would create, over time, a development which is largely incompatible with the character of the surrounding area.

7. Rezonings to More Intense Districts (Complies)
This factor evaluates whether a rezoning proposal to a more intensive District will include measures to protect adjacent development. Methods to achieve this end could include transition zones between more and less intensely developed areas, or enhanced screening, buffering or landscaping measures. The size and scope of the Madison proposal, given the varied development types proposed as well as the surrounding area, means compliance with this factor is difficult to achieve. However, there are some methods by which some measure of protection may be afforded.

Along the northern side of the tract, larger lot sizes are proposed which would provide some means of density transition towards the North. The MDP development standards for the Mixed Use Commercial area along the Southeast corner of the property does include provisions for screening and landscaping, and as such some protection may be possible in this area. The manufactured home park proposed as Phase 1 would be developed according to County regulations as set for in Section 1812, and this Section also includes screening and landscaping requirements. Finally, the PDD requirement that residential development include a 50% open space standard will help to alleviate impacts to neighboring properties.

8. Adequate Services and Infrastructure (Complies – See Condition #4)
The developer has submitted an acceptable Traffic Impact Analysis, which includes recommendations for strategies adequate to mitigate traffic impacts created by the development. The Madison MDP report, as discussed, includes policies linking future development to the recommendations in the TIA.

There are instances throughout Cochise County in which public roads in the County maintenance system are not under County ownership. Whenever possible, the County tries to acquire Right-of-Way along such roads in the maintenance system. Airport Road is such a road: that portion of Airport Road that fronts the Madison project area is maintained by the County but is not under County ownership. Staff recommends, as Condition #4, that the Developer acquire and dedicate Right-of-Way along the entire frontage of Airport Road within 90 days of Board approval.

9. Traffic Circulation/ Development Along Major Streets (Complies)
Primary access to the site is North from Airport Road, and South through Marguerite Road. A traffic impact analysis is included in the submittal, and the MDP policy statements make clear that the recommendations in this and future traffic studies will be adhered to.

10. Infill (Not Applicable)
This project is in a Rural plan area, and is therefore not considered to be infill development.

11. Water Conservation (Does Not Comply—See Condition #11)
Provisions for water conservation measures such as effluent re-use, recharge facilities, low-flow appliances, deed restrictions governing water use, drought-tolerant landscaping, limitations on irrigation, have not been addressed in the MDP analysis. The subject properties are not located within an adopted Water Conservation Overlay District; however, all residential and non-residential uses will be required to comply with Section 1820 of the Cochise County Zoning Regulations and the Cochise County Subdivision Regulations governing water conservation measures.

12. Public Input (Complies)
The Regulations require Applicants to send a Citizen Review letter (See Attachment F). The Developer did so prior to submittal, and reports no responses. The Planning Department has received minimal comment from neighbors regarding the proposal: one in favor and one opposing.

13. Hazardous Materials (Not Applicable)
No hazardous materials are proposed at this time. Should any use involving hazardous materials be proposed within the MDP area in the future, hazmat mitigation would be addressed at permitting phases.

14. Comprehensive or Area Plan Policies (Complies)
This factor concerns the compliance with applicable Comprehensive Plan, Area Plan, or MDP policies. As discussed in Section III of this Memo, the adoption of an MDP constitutes a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, and as such, the proposal would comply with this factor.

V. PUBLIC COMMENT

The Department mailed notices to neighboring property owners within 1,500 feet. Staff posted the property on June 27, 2011 and published a legal notice in the San Pedro Valley News-Sun on June 23, 2011. To date, the Department has received one letter from a neighbor opposing the request, and one in support.

VI. WAIVER REQUESTS (SEE ATTACHMENT E)

The Developer has asked for a Waiver to the time limit on development for an MDP, which is supported by staff for reasons previously discussed. The waiver request does not cite a specific regulation, but the requirements of Sections 406.06.B.12 and 2208.03.B.1 are the regulations that apply to the request:

1. Section 406.06B12 (MDP application): Development shall not exceed five years; and

2. Section 2208.03B1: (Rezoning application) Subdivision plat to be submitted within “18 months to 3 years”.

While a general time frame is provided in Attachment E for completion of the Madison MDP, specifics such as to when development would begin, and end, are lacking and are in any case difficult to predict. Section 2208.03.B.1 requires “a statement that a subdivision plat will be submitted within 18 months to 3 years.” Staff recommends, as Condition #9, approving the request, while holding the Developer to the maximum range offered in this Section. This would provide a target date by which development must begin. Staff supports a modification to Section 406.06.B.12 as well, but would prefer not to leave the development schedule open-ended. Rather, staff recommends, as Condition #10, that the Madison MDP achieves full build-out before January 1, 2020, unless otherwise extended by the Board. This condition would provide a target date for completion of the MDP. Any extension of these schedules, or revocation in the event that the target dates cannot be met, would have to be brought before the Board of Supervisors for consideration and action.

Included in Attachment E is the Developer’s request for a 5% overall reduction in open space as required by Article 15. The proposal is to provide 45% open space throughout the entire project area. Staff does not support this Modification request, preferring to uphold the requirement in Section 1505.03, that each residential phase retain 50% open space, and that non-residential phases uphold the 10% open space requirement (See Condition #8).

VII. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

If adopted by the Board of Supervisors, approval of the Madison 1240 MDP proposal would mean that a large area of unincorporated land would develop in an orderly fashion, with hard policies guaranteeing that adequate services and infrastructure will be in place to provide for such development.

In the proceeding Section of this Memo, staff has presented its analysis of the plan, checking the policies and provisions of the MDP Report against the applicable regulations governing the establishment of a MDP, the PDD, and of rezonings generally. Overall, the plan is in substantial conformance with each of these sets of criteria. Moreover, the Developer and Engineer have worked closely with staff to ensure that the MDP report and exhibits also have a firm foundation in the County Comprehensive Plan policies. The development parameters established by the MDP would, in staff’s view, pave the way for a number of subdivisions to be built over time, under conditions favorable to County regulations and policies concerning adequate infrastructure, public improvement standards, open space provisions, densities, water conservation, drainage and development standards.

The Developer has requested a waiver which would allow a longer build-out period for the plan area than what is provided in the County regulations, based in part on the size and scope of the project as well as market uncertainties. Staff generally supports the request, particularly in light of the size and scope of the project.

FACTORS IN FAVOR OF APPROVAL

1. On July 13, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted unanimously (5 – 0) to recommend approval of these Dockets to the Board of Supervisors.

2. The MDP Report, Plans, Maps and Exhibits generally conform to the Master Development Plan requirements as set forth in Section 406 of the Zoning Regulations;

3. The MDP proposal complies with all applicable requirements for the PDD;

4. The project complies with 9 of the 12 applicable Rezoning Criteria;

5. One neighbor has expressed support in writing for the proposal.

FACTOR AGAINST APPROVAL

1. One neighbor has expressed opposition to the proposal.

VIII. RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the factors in favor of approval, staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors grant conditional approval of Dockets Z-11-03 and MDP-11-03. Staff offers the following conditions of approval for Board consideration:

1. Prior to any development for Phase 1, the Developer shall provide the County with an exaction towards improvement costs along Airport Road, in the amount of $109,016.00. The remaining recommendations of the August 23, 2011 traffic study, as prepared by Task Engineering, shall be binding on the project; future traffic study recommendations shall also be adhered to as the project develops.

2. Upon Board of Supervisors approval of the Madison 1240 Master Development Plan, the tract shall be re-designated as a Category B Growth Area, with a “Developing” Plan Designation.

3. All development within the MDP area shall conform to the architectural guidelines, development standards, and other policies and regulations set forth in the MDP Report, Plan Map, Site Plans and other exhibits provided as part of the Madison 1240 MDP. Where there is any conflict between the MDP regulations or policies and those of the Cochise County Zoning Regulations, the MDP regulations shall take precedent. In the event that a development standard or other regulation is found to be missing from the MDP, such circumstance shall be resolved through the closest applicable Section of the County Zoning or Subdivision Regulations, subject to reasonable interpretation by the County Planning Director.

4. Within 90 days of Board approval, the Developer shall provide dedicated Right-of-Way along Airport Road for the entire MDP area frontage along this road;

5. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the Applicant will provide a letter of intent to serve from a fire/emergency services provider;

6. Prior to the issuance of any land clearing permits, the Applicant will provide a Drainage Report that meets the standards and requirements of the County Highway and Floodplain Department and other applicable State and Federal Laws;

7. The developers shall be required to obtain all other necessary permits and licenses prior to the construction or operation of any use described in the MDP pursuant to local, state, and federal laws and regulations. Any proposed development plan, rezoning or land use that is not deemed to be in substantial conformance with the Madison MDP shall be subject to review by the Planning Department and may require an MDP amendment process;

8. In accordance with Section 1503.05, at least 50% of the gross area of any residential portion of the development shall be retained as open space; at least 10% of the gross area of any non-residential portion of the development shall be retained as open space;

9. Unless allowed by Board of Supervisors action, the Developer shall submit a development plan or subdivision tentative plat for Phase 1 within three years of Board approval, otherwise the Planned Development rezoning may be brought before the Board of Supervisors for revocation;

10. Unless allowed by Board of Supervisors action, the Madison MDP must be fully developed prior to January 1, 2020, otherwise the MDP may be brought before the Board of Supervisors for revocation.

11. All residential and commercial water uses will be required to comply with Section 1820 of the Cochise County Zoning Regulations and Section 412 of the Cochise County Subdivision Regulations;

12. The Applicant shall provide the County a signed Acceptance of Conditions and a Waiver of Claims form arising from ARS Section 12-1134 signed by the property owner of the Madison MDP parcels within thirty (30) days of approval from the Board of Supervisors;

Sample Motions (two are required): Mr. Chairman, I move to approve Docket Z-11-03, rezoning Parcels 202-35-002A, 002B, 005, 202-01-009C, 009D, 009E, and 202-23-004 from RU-4 to the Planned Development District, subject to the conditions as recommended by staff.

Mr. Chairman, I move to approve Docket MDP 11-01, approving the Madison 1240 Master Development Plan subject to the conditions as recommended by staff, and re-designating the area within the Madison 1240 project boundaries as a Category B Growth Area on the Comprehensive Plan Map.

IX. ATTACHMENTS
A. Madison 1240 MDP Report
B. Concept Plans and Exhibits
C. “General Provisions” MDP Policy Statements
D. Agency Comments
E. Waiver Requests
F. Citizen Review Letter and Public Comment
G. Legal Notice

If the Board adopts the Zoning Ordinance, approving the Rezoning and MDP requests, the next step would be for the Chairman to sign the Resolution.

If the Board does not adopt the Ordinance, the 1,240-acre tract will remain as a Category D - Rural area on the Comprehensive Plan Map; the Zoning District boundaries would be unchanged, such that the Madison 1240 tract would remain within an RU-4 Zoning District.

Please return a copy of the signed, recorded Ordinance for the Planning Department files.