Planning & Zoning Commission

February 21, 2001

Special Meeting Minutes

COMMISSION PRESENT: Chairman Karl Kohlhoff, Vice Chairman Joan Krueger, Commissioner Susan Preiss, Commissioner Stan Strom, Alt. Commisioner Brigette Peterson, Commissioner Dan Dodge, Commissioner James Beene

STAFF PRESENT: Planning Director Jerry Swanson, Planning Manager Maria Cadavid, Planning Manager Linda Edwards, Senior Planner Mario Mangiamele, Senior Planner Dan Fairbanks, Planner Suzanne Gunderman, Planner David Marsh, Planner Shellean Roberts

ALSO PRESENT: Town Attorney Kelly Schwab, Council Member Les Presmyk, Recorder Trasie Johns

I N D E X

PLANNER
CASE
PAGE
VOTE

MS. GUNDERMAN UP00
11
2
APPR.

MS. ROBERTS UP00
14
6
APPR.

MR. MARSH Z00
21
7
APPR

CALL TO ORDER:

Chairman Kohlhoff called the meeting to order at 6:15 p.m.

ROLL CALL:

Ms. Johns called roll and a quorum was determined to be present.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

Chairman Kohlhoff requested approval of the agenda.

A motion was made by Vice Chairman Krueger, seconded by Commissioner Dodge to approve the agenda.

Motion Carried 7-0.

COMMUNICATIONS FROM CITIZENS:

Chairman Kohlhoff announced that at this time members of the public may comment on items not on the agenda. He stated that the Commissionâ??s response is limited to responding to criticism, asking staff to review a matter commented upon or asking that the matter be put on a future agenda. He asked if anyone would like to speak.

No one came forward.

PUBLIC HEARING

UP00-11 â?? A Use Permit to authorize the development of a full-service car wash facility and a minor automotive service center within a Planned Area Development (P.A.D.) with underlying C-2 (General Commercial) zoning. The subject property is located east of the southeast corner of Ray and Cooper Roads, at 615 W. Ray Road.

Planner Suzanne Gunderman stated that this case was a use permit for a car wash and a lube facility in the C-2 (General Commercial) zoning district located east of the southeast corner of Ray and Cooper Roads.

She showed a map of the area which showed the site they were discussing. She stated that in respect to the findings required for granting a Use Permit, Staff did find that this project met the conditions required for a Use Permit. She explained that issues that have evolved out of this project with input from the neighbors that live in the lots to the south were noise related to the car wash facility, the vacuum system and potential noise from outdoor music. The applicant had addressed the noise issues by placing the vacuum in a fully enclosed equipment room. Therefore, she stated that any noise relating to the vacuum would be the noise of items being sucked out of the vehicles, not from the actual vacuum cleaner engine.

In responding to the concerns about music, Ms. Gunderman stated that Staff had stipulated that no outdoor playing of music would be allowed with this use. She added that based on prior conversations, the neighbors and applicant would like to add to this stipulation that no outdoor public address system would be allowed with this use either.

She stated that since this report was published, the applicant had made an effort to meet with the neighbors located immediately adjacent to the project and within close vicinity, across the street facing the project. Some of the comments and stipulation that she addressed were from these neighborhood meetings.

Ms. Gunderman explained that the applicant provided three additional stipulations that they wanted to be added based upon these neighborhood meetings. These included concerns that trees used to buffer adjacent properties along the southern landscape setback could drop leaves into the residentâ??s yards. The request was made to place the trees a minimum of 8â?? from the property boundary so that did not occur. The second stipulation was that the vacuum equipment room be extended to the east to further screen some of the lots from the car wash entrance. She showed a landscape plan and described this location change. She stated that from a site plan standpoint it did not impact the circulation into the car wash.

Lastly, she stated that the third stipulation that the applicant wanted to add could be included in stipulation number two, stating that no public address system be allowed.

With no other issues to address, Ms. Gunderman concluded her presentation and asked for questions from the Commission.

Since there were no questions from the Commission, Chairman Kohlhoff asked the applicant to come forward.

John Reddell, 2401 N. Hayden Rd #112, Scottsdale with Parady & Reddell Architects, Inc. came forward. He stated that they had tried to develop something that would work for their car wash and protect the neighbors to the south. In that process, they had provided a 62â?? landscape buffer instead of the required 20â?? landscape setback. In addition, they had provided an 86â?? building setback instead of the 75â?? required setback. They had moved everything on the property further to the north giving them a large landscape buffer to the south. Through a Work Session with the Design Review Board, they changed the trees to the south to a Brazilian Pepper, which will keep its leaves longer through the year providing a better buffer.

Mr. Reddell explained that the vacuum motor was the noisy part of the vacuum system. They had provided a full enclosure made of masonry where the vacuum motor will be housed limiting noise. In addition, they would extend the building an additional eight feet to the east to assist in screening the car wash entrance from the south. It was kept at a low level (14â??), and with the additional setback, the vacuum equipment enclosure wouldnâ??t be very visible to the neighbors.

Chairman Kohlhoff commended the applicant for putting the building 86â?? from the property line when it was only required to be 75â?? away from the single-family homes.

Chairman Kohlhoff stated that he had four individuals that indicated their opinions; three people stated that they were in favor of the item, but did not wish to speak, and one opposed that did want to speak. One of the people, Scott Irving, 636 W. Dublin St, Gilbert included a letter which stated his approval.

Chairman Kohlhoff asked Tom Ratcliffe, who was opposed to the item, to come forward.

Tom Ratcliffe, 675 W. Dublin Street, Gilbert came forward. He stated that he lived within the 300â?? boundary of this area to the southwest. He commented that he had stated to the proposed builder and to the architect basic complaints about possible problems that had been covered already in the Staff presentation. He wanted to be assured that there would be no way that any vehicle could be driven across the pedestrian tract F, which connected the commercial to the residential property. He stated that John Reddell had assured him that there would be sides dug out so that motorcycles or mopeds would not have access. His other concern was regarding the noise from people using this car wash and asked that they would be prohibited from using car radios. His last concern was regarding riff raff, drug sales and other activities of youngsters, in the rear area of this proposed property. He stated that he was sure it would pass and that he thought it was fine to have it, but he stated that he would call them and the police department if problems did occur.

Chairman Kohlhoff closed the public hearing and asked the applicant if he had any comments to add. Since there were not any comments, Chairman Kohlhoff asked the Commission if they had any questions for the Staff.

Commissioner Dan Dodge asked Ms. Gunderman to explain Tract F of the subdivision, the pedestrian access on the southern most part of the property.

Ms. Gunderman explained that this was an 8â?? path to required by the PAD ordinance. The subdivision plat was approved with a tract and a pedestrian access at that point.

Commissioner Dodge asked if the pedestrian access currently existed.

Ms. Gunderman stated that it did, on the subdivision side with a sidewalk already installed, waiting to be connected to the commercial property.

Commissioner Dodge asked if the sidewalk was open to the subject property.

Ms. Gunderman stated that it was open to the subject property.

Chairman Kohlhoff asked the width of this tract.

Ms. Gunderman stated that she was unsure of the exact width and the Ordinance didnâ??t stipulate the tract cross section. Guessing from her site visit, she stated that the width was around 15â??-20â?? wide with landscaping.

Commisioner Brigette Peterson asked if they could put a gate in this area, or if this would be against the Ordinance.

Ms. Gunderman stated that it could be gated with access, but it was her opinion that it would not be in keeping with the General Plan Policies for interconnectedness.

Chairman Kohlhoff stated that they needed to look at this issue in a Work Study, because although it is nice to have connectedness, you need to review it when you donâ??t have any control over who uses it and how it is used. Chairman Kohlhoff asked if they could recommend it to be a meandering sidewalk, instead of a straight sidewalk.

Ms. Gunderman stated that she believed they could address this.

Commissioner Susan Preiss suggested that they put bollards into the ground to stop cars from going through this entry.

Ms. Gunderman stated that this would still allow go-peds, the two-stroke type engines that are popular, to get through, which she felt was the neighborâ??s concern. She agreed that it would stop vehicles from coming through.

Commissioner Dan Dodge stated that this area is already open and that there was nothing in the Use Permit that would affect the traffic going in and out through this tract. He felt that the car wash would not bring more traffic through to the adjacent neighborhood. He also stated that this could be a homeownerâ??s issue that they could address in their association.

Chairman Kohlhoff stated that a meandering sidewalk that was reduced to 6â?? may deter motor traffic as well.

Ms. Gunderman stated that in one of the stipulations that was drafted by the applicant, it would be easier for the planners & review process to give an 8â?? extension to the east of the face of the canopy, instead of when adding an additional 8â??. She suggested that the change to the stipulation be: “project shall extend the vacuum equipment room approximately 8â?? to the east of the vacuum canopy face”.

Chairman Kohlhoff asked for a motion.

A motion was made by Commissioner Dan Dodge, seconded by Commissioner Susan Preiss, to approve UP00-11 subject to Staff stipulations and as amended by Staff, adding stipulation 11 stating that the pedestrian connection on the southern boundary of the property shall have a meandering sidewalk of 6â?? in width.

Town Attorney Kelly Schwab clarified that the Ordinance required an 8â?? sidewalk and that the Commission didnâ??t have the authority without a rezoning amendment to change that to 6â??.

Commissioner Dan Dodge asked if the Ordinance was for the residential zoning area, or was a part of the same P.A.D.

Ms. Gunderman clarified that it was part of the same P.A.D., which was a multi-use zoning case that included this particular C-2 and the residential R1-7 to the south.

Commissioner Dan Dodge clarified that this did specifically state an 8â?? sidewalk.

Ms. Gunderman said that it did.

Commissioner Dan Dodge stated that he would amend the motion striking this additional stipulation.

Tom Ratcliffe stated that the best thing to deter traffic and commercial trucks would be concrete filled 8″ pipes, vertically, 3â?? high at the property line on the applicantâ??s property. He stated that since he was retired and home during the day, he had observed approximately one to two commercial vehicles a week entering into his subdivision, and was concerned these could use the pedestrian tract.

A motion was made by Commissioner Dan Dodge, seconded by Commissioner Susan Preiss, to Approve UP00-11 subject to Staff stipulations and as amended by Staff during the meeting, adding stipulation 13 stating that the placement of bollards to prevent vehicular access on the south pedestrian crosswalk that connects Tract F of adjacent west bank be installed.

Motion Carried 7-0.

The landscape plan shall be revised to reflect Brazilian Pepper, 24-inch box size, as the screen tree placed along the southern perimeter of the site.

Outdoor playing of music or use of a public address system on the site during or after business hours shall be prohibited.

The use of generators, compressors, or any other motors on-site between 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. is prohibited.

Refuse enclosures shall be installed with opaque gates. Gates may not extend into drive aisles when open, and shall remain closed except when refuse container is being accessed.

Ground-mounted HVAC systems and service electrical systems (SES) shall be recessed into the building, or screened from view by a six (6) foot masonry wall and/or landscaping.

Roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall be fully screened by a parapet wall, including any cooling systems (e.g. evaporative coolers). The elevation of the parapet wall shall meet or exceed the elevation of mechanical equipment. To the extent permitted by law, satellite dishes shall be required to be fully screened from public view. Ground mounted mechanical equipment shall be fully screened from public view by a combination of a six (6′) foot high decorative solid wall and dense landscaping.

A cross-access easement agreement shall be executed and submitted to the Town for the driveway between the site and the Albertsonâ??s Cooper Market Place shopping center prior to the issuance of any permit.

The Developer shall create or participate in a Property Ownerâ??s Association and shall produce Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the maintenance of all on and off-site landscaping, for the management and shared use of driveways and parking spaces.

An illumination meter test shall be conducted by the Town prior to issuance of an occupancy permit to ensure compliance with the light and glare ordinance.

Except as modified herein, the project shall be developed in full compliance with the approved site plan marked Exhibit 1, and the set of construction documents, as approved by the Town of Gilbert, prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit.

Trees along the south property line shall be planted a minimum of 8â?? from the property line.

The vacuum equipment room shall be extended 8â?? beyond the eastern face on the vacuum canopy.

Bollards shall be used to prevent vehicular access on the south pedestrian crosswalk that connects Tract F of the adjacent West Bank subdivision.

UP00-14 - A Use Permit to authorize a minor automotive service center within a PSC-1 commercial zoning district. The subject property is located at the northwest corner of Warner and Lindsay Roads.

Planner Shellean Roberts explained that UP00-14 was a Use Permit case to authorize a minor automotive service center within a PSC-1 commercial zoning district, located at the northwest corner of Warner and Lindsay Roads. She explained that the Staff had reviewed the project and believed that it met the findings required for a Use Permit. She explained that the bay doors and the parking were screened through a number of means by screen walls, landscaping, existing buildings and berming. The screening methods that were used would also assist in mitigating any noise that would come from inside the bay doors. In addition, there was a proposed building to the north of the Big â??Oâ?? Tires site, which she showed a visual aid of, that would also assist in mitigating noise that may come from the bay doors. The residential properties were approximately 200â?? north of the site. She informed the Commission that the hours of operation for the project were 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Staff had stipulated that any noise or vibration generation equipment would be prohibited between 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. She concluded that Staff believed the project to meet the requirements for a Use Permit and recommend approval.

Commissioner Susan Preiss suggested that they add that no public address system be used to stipulation number one.

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff asked if there was an approved site plan for the entire acreage.

Ms. Roberts stated that it had just been approved at the Design Review Board meeting the prior week. She informed the Commission that this Board had approved the final site plan for Big â??Oâ?? Tires and the preliminary site plan for the entire commercial center.

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff stated that they needed to look at the north sideâ??s building setbacks because he thought the adjacent property were single-family homes. He stated that the code called for a 75â?? setback between single family homes and commercial sites.

Ms. Roberts informed the Commission that the zoning for the district was PSC-1 and the setback requirement was 60â??.

Chairman Kohlhoff asked the applicant to come forward.

Richard Presto, the architect of Big â??Oâ?? Tires, came forward. He stated that they had a project that was developing just north of the existing Circle K site. With the building oriented east/west, the bay doors would not face the street. They would have a very narrow frontage on Lindsay Road with the building setback farther than it was required by code. He stated that they had gone through a substantial review process with the Design Review Board and had agreed to all the stipulations. He concluded by saying that he thought the project was suitable for approval.

Commissioner Susan Preiss asked if they would have a problem adding a stipulation that stated that there would not be a public address system used on site.

Mr. Presto said that that would not be a problem and that Big â??Oâ?? Tires did not require one.

PUBLIC HEARING

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff asked if anyone wished to speak from the public.

No one came forward, so Chairman Kohlhoff closed the Public Hearing.

Commissioner Stan Strom stated that he thought minor automotive use had to be in C-2.

Ms. Roberts stated that minor automotive uses were allowed in PSC-1 and C-1.

A motion was made by Vice Chairman Joan Krueger, seconded by Commissioner Dan Dodge, to Approve UP00-14 subject to Staff stipulations and amending stipulation number 1 to include public address system.

Motion Carried 7-0.

Outdoor playing of music and public address systems on the site during or after business hours shall be prohibited.

The use of generators, compressors, or any other noise or vibration generating equipment is prohibited on-site between 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.

Refuse enclosures shall be installed with opaque gates. Gates may not extend into drive aisles when open, and shall remain closed except when refuse container is being accessed.

All outdoor storage areas for materials, equipment, and service electrical systems (SES) shall be recessed or fully screened from view by a masonry wall of the same height of the cabinet and landscaping, or by projections of the building.

All S.E.S. panels, utility pedestals and vaults shall be painted to match the primary building color.

Roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall be fully screened by a parapet wall, including any cooling systems (e.g. evaporative coolers). The elevation of the parapet wall shall meet or exceed the elevation of mechanical equipment. To the extent permitted by law, satellite dishes shall be required to be fully screened from public view. Ground mounted mechanical equipment shall be fully screened from public view by a combination of a six (6′) foot high decorative solid wall and dense landscaping.

A cross-access easement agreement shall be executed and submitted to the Town for the driveway between Big O Tires and Pad A and the driveway west of the existing Circle K site.

An illumination meter test shall be conducted by the Town prior to issuance of an occupancy permit to ensure compliance with the light and glare ordinance.

Except as modified herein, the project shall be developed in full compliance with the approved site plan marked Exhibit 1, and the set of construction documents, as approved by the Town of Gilbert, prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit.

Z00-21 - Rezoning of an approximately 459 acre property from Maricopa County Rural-43 to Town of Gilbert PAD (Planned Area Development) with the underlying zoning of R1-6, R1-7, R1-8, R1-10, and R1-15 (Single Family Residential), R-TH (Residential Townhouse), C-2 (General Commercial), and PF / OS (Public Facilities / Open Space) for the development of a mixed use development with an overall density of 3.00 dwelling units per acre. The subject property is generally located at the intersection of Lindsay Road and Queen Creek Road.

Planner David Marsh stated that this project, Z00-21, the Layton Lakes P.A.D., was located at the intersection of Lindsay Road and Queen Creek Road. He stated that it was a substantial project with 460 acres in the Gilbert portion. This was part of a larger P.A.D development that straddled the municipal planning authority boundary between Chandler and Gilbert. This was one of the first projects that required concurrent review from the City of Chandler and the Town of Gilbert.

Mr. Marsh showed a Power Point presentation that the applicant put together for the Commissions review. He showed a map of the property that they were discussing and where the City of Chandler and the Town of Gilbert boundaries were on the map, reviewing the streets that were located in both cities.

He explained the surrounding land use and zoning designations and used the visual aids to show the areas as he talked. Mr. Marsh stated that the site was currently bounded on the east by an existing dairy farm and the recently approved Vista Del Oro (Z99-64) and Vista Dorada (Z00-15) residential subdivisions. Portions of the Spectrum at Val Vista PAD (Z99-65) and rural residential / agrarian uses were located to the north and northwest. The project was bounded to the west by the Eastern Canal, rural residential / agrarian uses, and the City of Chandler portion of proposed Layton Lakes master plan community. In addition, the Chandler Municipal Airport was located approximately 1 to 1 ½ miles from the projectâ??s western boundary. Rural residential/agrarian uses were located to the south of the project boundary, across the Appleby Road alignment and a small RWCD irrigation ditch.

Chairman Kohlhoff asked if the Continental Homes was a normal subdivision.

Mr. Marsh stated that Planning Staff had several conversations with the applicant on this issue. Apparently, Continental Homes had expressed some interest in the property but there was not any record of any proposed or approved project within the Town of Gilbert or through the County.

Mr. Marsh stated that the key and central element to the project was the extensive open space network. The San Tan Area Plan required a minimum of 15% open space and a minimum of 7.5% internal open space. The open space provided for the Layton Lakes project in the Town of Gilbert portion was 15.1% plus and additional 1% located in small parks within each individual subdivision. He added that the important point to note was that the vast majority of this open space was meaningful open space, not marginal open spaces. He explained the trails and equestrian trails that ran around the project, adding additional buffering. In addition, there was an extensive amount of open space that was based upon a reclaimed water use system that used reclaimed water to form a lake and stream system that was gravity fed throughout the project. This reclaimed water was used for irrigation of the open spaces and provided a visual element. In addition, stream and lake networks also served as a drainage component during severe storms. He stated that this project, through an intergovernmental agreement, would be using reclaimed water from the City of Chandler. He showed the path that it would flow and how it would be pumped, using his visual aids.

Mr. Marsh described that there were three major parks in the development, each with a different theme: an active sports field park with a public trailhead area, an informal play area park with tennis courts and a park with basketball courts and an informal play area. He stated that he emphasized this because the key-unifying element for the entire project was the open space network, with a character that wasnâ??t seen in other projects in the San Tan Area Plan.

In the land use component of this project, the Mr. Marsh explained that applicant was proposing a variety of zoning throughout the project, proposing R1-6, R1-7, R1-8, R1-10 and a small portion of R1-15 , R-TH (town homes), C2 (commercial), with 18 acres in this zoning designation. There would be a regional sewer solution in this project. He used his visual aid to show the path that the sewer lines would run. He also showed on the visual aid where the zoning designations were located in the plan.

Mr. Marsh explained that there was a complication in an area to the south that is called Master Plan Opportunity, however on the ground, the existing land use was rural residential which proposed a conflict with the San Tan Area Plan. Because it was designated Master Plan Opportunity (MP), there was no requirement via the San Tan Area Plan for additional buffering. Staff had worked with the applicant to try to provide a compromise for the no buffer under the existing plan versus what would have been required if it had been designated as rural residential in the San Tan Area Plan. He showed how the applicant had made these changes to their plan to accommodate the needs of the residents by zoning the adjacent properties to R1-15 and that there were approximately 55â?? of buffering outside of the right of way with an additional 12â?? within it.

Mr. Marsh stated that the applicantâ??s proposal had fully complied with the requirements of the San Tan Area Plan in terms of buffering and densities. The key aspect that was left up for the Town and the applicant had to do with the residential zoning designations for the project and the deviations that were proposed. The applicant was proposing deviations as listed in the Staff Report in terms of front and side yard setbacks for the single family residential and the town house product. Some of the areas the Staff had agreed with the applicant in terms lot areas and lot depths for R1-6, R1-7, R1-8 and R1-10 for the 5â?? lot width deviation. Staff was supporting this because they were providing additional depth on these lots. He stated that Staff could not support the deviation as proposed for the R-TH, residential town house district, as it would further reduce an already limited amount of private open space for these lots. The code required 3,600 square feet and the applicant was proposing a minimum lot area of 3,000 square feet which Staff felt was a substantial deviation and the applicant had not justified why they should be granted that.

In terms of residential lot setbacks and lot coverage, Mr. Marsh stated that the applicant was proposing a front and side yard setback deviation for R1-6, R1-7, R1-8, R1-10 and the R-TH units. They were not proposing deviations for the R1-15 units. For the R1-6, R1-7, R1-8, they were proposing to have a front yard setback deviation of 15â??-20â??, where the code required 20â??. Staff was concerned about this because of a recent case where an applicant proposed deviations for enhanced housing product, but when the housing product came before the Design and Review Board they didnâ??t follow through with their promise. He stated that Staff had worked closely with the applicant in this case saying there had to be a clear and explicit link between the proposed deviations and the enhanced housing product. The applicant, in working with Staff, had formulated a set of residential design guidelines that listed explicitly those requirements. So, if a developer wanted that additional setback they could only do this if they do the diverse housing product that was indicated in the Residential Design Guidelines. He summarized what these guidelines were to the Board.

In addition, Mr. Marsh stated that they were also proposing side yard setbacks for R1-6, R1-7, R1-8 zoning designations. They would also like to have side entry detached garages so they could have a 5â?? & 10â?? side yard set backs instead of the code that required 10â?? & 10â?? side yard setbacks. Again, the Staff was requiring that it be tied to the Residential Design Guidelines. In order to get this deviation, they would have to use side entry, detached garages or livable area forward with those design amenities.

Mr. Marsh stated that the applicant had also asked for a front yard set back for R1-10 and a 5â?? side yard setback deviation. Staff was concerned that the deviations for R1-10 was already above and beyond what had been approved by the Town before. He stated that the Staff could not support these deviations, but could support a 25â?? set back deviation only for side entry garages and the 5â?? side yard set back if they do a detached garage set back a minimum of 40â?? from the front property lines. So that would be 10â?? behind the mandated 30â?? front yard set back.

In addition, the Mr. Marsh explained that the applicant had requested front and rear yard set backs for the R-TH product which Staff could not support because this was already reducing an already small private open space for each individual unit.

In terms of commercial zoning, there was a 19 acre commercial parcel located at the northwest corner of Queen Creek Road and Lindsay Road. This was consistent with the San Tan Area Plan, which did permit location of commercial sites at this location. They were proposing all the permitted uses within the C2 district with the exception of those listed in the Staff Report. Staff did not have any objection to this, however, keeping this project at high architectural quality would require a set of commercial design guidelines for this project to be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board, prior to approval of any commercial project.

Regarding water conservation, Mr. Marsh stated that this project had been designed to comply with the new Town Non Per Capita Program and also they would be using the reclaimed water from the City of Chandler.

He showed a visual aid and discussed the phasing stages. He stated that the applicant was proposing to develop the entire Gilbert â?? Chandler Layton Lakes project in three phases. Phase I (2002 â?? 2005) will involve the Gilbert portion of the project north of Queen Creek Road, Queen Creek Road improvements, landscape buffering on both sides of Queen Creek Road, and the community center and park located in the Chandler portion of the project. Phase II (2003 â?? 2006) will involve the Chandler portion of the project west of the RWCD canal. Phase III (2004 â?? 2007) involved all of the project south of Queen Creek Road, which includes both Chandler and Gilbert portions of the Layton Lakes project. Proposed phasing of a project required Town Council approval, and Staff had added several stipulations regarding timing of landscape buffer and street improvements.

In discussing the inter-jurisdictional, Mr. Marsh stated that an intergovernmental agreement between the City of Chandler and the Town of Gilbert was currently being executed to permit the use of Chandler reclaimed water in the Gilbert portion of the project. In addition, there was an outstanding issue between the two municipalities regarding the proper transition of arterial design standards for Queen Creek Road just west of the Queen Creek / Lindsay Road intersection. Staff had placed a stipulation requiring that this issue be resolved prior to approval of any final plat. There was also a concern about the time frame in which the lanes will be constructed between the City of Chandler and the Town of Gilbert. Staff had added a stipulation regarding this issue well.

Mr. Marsh explained that the one regional issue involved was the Chandler Municipal Airport. He commented that the proposed Layton Lakes development was located 1 to 1 ½ miles to the southeast of the Chandler Municipal Airport, immediately adjacent to the Chandler Airport Overlay District, and as such may be affected by aircraft over flight activity. In response to the a request by the Chandler Municipal Airport, Staff has placed notification and avigational easement stipulations which are similar in nature to those required by the Town of Gilbert for developments in the environs of the Williams Gateway Airport. In addition, FCC Guidelines (A/C 5200-33) required a wildlife management plan for all water features within 10,000 feet of runway surfaces on a public airport serving turbine-powered aircraft, in order to minimize conflicts between birds and aircraft.

Mr. Marsh described that one final issue that just came up that day was with Salt River Project. They would need to have a two-acre transmission transformer station somewhere on this project. He showed an intersection where they would like to have it located, but the Staff and applicant would prefer to move it to another area so it wouldnâ??t cut off the interrelated and interconnectedness of the open space and take away from the character of the project. He discussed some other possible areas that they had discussed to place this station. Staff had added a stipulation that the location of the SRP transmission station be resolved between the applicant and SRP before prior to scheduling this item into Town Council review. He stated that the Staff would like to change that to “prior to submitting a preliminary plat”. Due to the late nature of this issue, Staff was willing to give some time to the applicant to resolve this issue. The applicant would prefer that this stipulation would read “prior to a final plat”. The Staff felt that due to the land use nature of this issue that it be resolved prior to submittal of a final plat.

Mr. Marsh stated that Staff recommended approval with the revised stipulations. There were two changes that he brought to the Commissionâ??s attention: “o.o.” adding the SRP stipulation that was just mentioned, and “m.”, which listed the various set backs, in the *** section, it should state, “abutting” instead of “adjacent”.

Mr. Marsh concluded his presentation by stating that the applicant did disagree with Staff on points of R1-10 and R-TH set back deviations and disagreed with the timing on the SRP issue.

Commissioner Stan Strom asked if on item “p.p.: single family residential lots less than 7,000 square feet, shall not exceed 20%”, referring to the matrix in item m., it showed that the R1-6 had 27% of the lots & he wanted to know if it was just a clarification error or make sure there wasnâ??t an inconsistency.

Mr. Marsh stated that this figure came from the Low and Medium Density Guidelines. He said that technically, the Low and Medium Density Design Guidelines do not apply to the San Tan Area Plan because there werenâ??t any low or medium density residential, there was simply rural residential and Master Plan Opportunity. However, Staff and Town Counsil have consistently applied these to the San Tan Area Plan. The applicant had agreed to follow those requirements in making sure that no more than 20% of the lots were less than 7,000 square feet. They were proposing approx. 27% of the lots be R1-6, however they would make sure that a certain portion of the lots would be oversized to meet that requirement. So, the minimum lot area proposed in the R1-6 by this P.A.D. was 6,325 square feet, however overall, the total number of lots under 7,000 square feet would not exceed 20% in order to be in conformance with those Low and Medium Residential Design Guidelines. The applicant had agreed to do this although they were not required to do this.

Commissioner Strom asked how it applied to the R-TH, the townhouse, since it was single family and was an additional 226 lots.

Mr. Marsh stated that R-TH didnâ??t fall into the Low and Medium Density Design Guidelines and that was why the percentages shown in the matrix were only based upon the single-family residential lots.

Commissioner Strom asked where these town homes were considered multi-family.

Mr. Marsh stated that was correct and it was considered multi-family because of the multiple structures, with four or five attached town homes being essentially one structure.

Commissioner Strom stated that he would like to see it more explicit. He asked if this calculation was based only on the portion of the P.A.D. that fell within the Gilbert Planning Area.

Mr. Marsh stated that was correct.

Commissioner Strom asked what the percentages would be if looked at as a single master plan, including the Chandler section.

Mr. Marsh stated that there was a higher number of larger lots within the City of Chandler portion, stating that the applicant could address this question better. He used his visual aids to show the larger Chandler lots commenting that they didnâ??t have the calculations including the Chandler portion.

Commissioner Strom stated that there were two ways to look at this; they were putting all the higher density into Gilbert, or to look at the whole project, which was actually a lower density project.

Mr. Marsh stated that it was important to note that even with the 226 R-TH units that the overall density of the project was 3.0 and the applicant can go up to 3.25, under the San Tan Area Plan. They had chosen not to do this, in order to provide more meaningful open space networks. He concluded that they had fully complied with the San Tan Area Plan and that they had not maximized the density.

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff asked if there was a City of Chandler Planning representative in attendance that evening.

Mr. Marsh explained that there was not, because the City of Chandler had their Commission meeting that evening as well. He added that they had already heard the Layton Lakes Project at the City of Chandler and that it was approved. He stated that he and the Chandler Planning representative talked on a daily basis about this project.

Chairman Kohlhoff verified that they had been in close communication with Chandler through this whole project.

Mr. Marsh agreed that was correct. He stated that there had been at least a half a dozen meetings between the applicant, the Town of Gilbert Staff, the City of Chandler Staff involving multiple departments including Legal Counsel, Water Resources, Public Works, Zoning and Engineering. He stated that the vast majority of issues with the exception of the road transition issue and IGA had been resolved.

Chairman Kohlhoff asked for verification on what the Staffâ??s concerns were.

Mr. Marsh stated that the Staffâ??s main concerns with the project were the proposed deviations, particularly for the R-TH and the R1-10 Zoning designations.

Chairman Kohlhoff asked the applicant to come forward.

David Udall, 30 West 1st Street, Mesa came forward. He stated that he was representing the Layton Lakes Project. He stated that present that evening were Darl Anderson, Phil Miller, Michael Martendale, Peter Yachimski, and Howard Cornell. He added that they were all available to answer any questions that the Commission might have. He stated that they made a presentation in a Study Session a month ago and that this was a great project. This had been in the Layton family since 1957 and it had 840 acres under one control. They had committed to make this a first rate project.

Mr. Udall stated that they had had three different meetings with neighbors starting in May, August and January. He read an e-mail from a neighbor, Lynn Cohh:

Dear Mr. Udall,

Thanks so much for arranging the format of the meeting last Wednesday evening to address the neighborhood concerns in such a concise manner. As much as I hate to see all the development out here, it is obvious that the people behind this project have at least listened with some care to those who already live in the area. Again, thank you and please thank Mr. Miller as well.

Mr. Udall stated that Jeff Kurtz, in making his presentation to the Chandler Study Session that evening commented that he had been present at these meetings stated that there had not been an issue raised that had not been addressed in a meaningful way. So, there is not any neighborhood opposition that they were aware of.

He stated that it did pass on consent in Chandler that evening. He added that 5â?? and 10â?? side yard setbacks were the norm. One of the things they have attempted to do was to have uniformity between the two cities.

Mr. Udall stated that there were three issues. The first was letter m., the R-TH front yard setback required by code was 25â?? and rear yard set back was 30â??. He said that they were asking for 20â?? and 20â??. They would like this so that they could incorporate the huge amount of meaningful open space in the plan. He used the visual aid to show the open space and the deviation they were requesting. He stated that they had 16.1 open space, not counting the portion in the center. He stated that they could squeeze it down, but what difference did it make if it was private ownership or public open space. Therefore, he urged the Commission to grant them the 20â?? and 20â?? set backs under the matrix in stipulationm.

The second issued, Mr. Udall stated, was the ** under stipulation letter m., where it stated “5â??&10â?? side yard setback permitted only with diverse housing product as indicated in the Residential Design Guidelines (Appendix H), which include side entry garages, detached garages, or livable area with covered porch, patio or walled courtyard 10â?? forward of the garage.” He explained that the notion behind this was an incentive basis, being that they get a narrower setback if they come with a higher, more quality housing product. Section H described that higher quality housing product. Mr. Udall stated that Staff agreed with all of them except R1-10 and he proposed to delete that second sentence which stated: “5â??& 10â?? side yard setback for R1-10 only permitted with a detached garage recessed a minimum of 40â?? from the front property line.” He stated that the problem was 40â?? from the front of the property line doesnâ??t leave anything but 40â?? for a house. Therefore, they would have to go back to the ordinary Gilbert standards and not include higher quality house. He showed a visual aid of the product enhancement required for side yard setback reductions, shown on page 15 in Section H. He also showed the proposed higher quality houses that they would like to include in this project. He concluded on this point by stating that when they bring an exceptional product that they need the 5â?? and 10â?? side yard setback.

Mr. Udall stated that the third point of contention was found in stipulation o.o., which dealt with SRP. Since they just found out about SRPâ??s requirement that day, he stated that their preference would be to delete this stipulation. Salt River was going to acquire something and that if it is put in as a zoning stipulation, then they would be in a terrible bargaining position. He stated that they had already filed preliminary plats, so the stipulation as proposed by Staff was already void. So, if this passes as proposed they would not be able to process it without coming to some agreement with Salt River Project. He agreed that if the two acres were taken out for SRP, they would not take away from the open space. Therefore, he proposed that they change the stipulation to state, in Phillip Millerâ??s revised stipulation: “In the event the developer or owner elects to provide a two acre transmission station site within the project, then that two acre site should not be located in such a way that the minimum open space on the Gilbert portion of the project provided within the P.A.D. documents was diminished.”

Mr. Udall concluded by stating that this was a 10-12 month process and that he had never been involved in one that had more discussion and cooperation between two cities. He stated that the Staff and community were both excited about the project. He said that they set the standard for the San Tan Area and asked that they be given these three concessions that would make this project go.

Commissioner Dan Dodge asked about the first point, having to do with the R-TH, if Mr. Udall made the same argument with Staff that he made to the Commission.

Mr. Udall stated that Phil Miller had done this.

Commissioner Dodge asked about the second point and whether the exhibit they were shown earlier applied to all the zoning categories.

Mr. Udall stated that was correct, these enhancements applied to all zoning categories.

Commissioner Dodge clarified that the issue on the reduced setbacks on the small lots, was that they needed more space to incorporate these amenities. He assumed that the Staff wasnâ??t supportive of it because of the size of lot enabled them to do this kind of home and incorporate this setback.

Mr. Udall stated that he couldnâ??t speak for Staff, but as they did the numbers, it wouldnâ??t work. They would end up with a 40â?? house if they had a 40â?? setback.

Commissioner Dodge asked what the depth was of the R1-10 lots.

Mr. Udall stated that the depth was 125â??.

PUBLIC HEARING

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff stated that he would open the Public Hearing and that there were three people who had filled out cards regarding this project. One being David Udall, who already spoke. The second being Phillip Miller, the owner, and that he was in favor of the item. The third person was Lyn Oldenkamp with SRP.

Lyn Oldenkamp, representing SRP, came forward. She stated that she was with the Land Department of SRP. She stated that SRP wanted to have the opportunity to work with the Town of Gilbert and with the applicant in developing the property and providing for the necessary electrical infrastructure to meet the needs of the community. She informed the Commission that they had a meeting scheduled for Tuesday, February 27, 2001 with the applicant to discuss areas on the property and the needs of SRP to meet the needs of the community.

Chairman Kohlhoff asked about SRPâ??s lateness of entrance into this project and what the options SRP might have.

Ms. Oldenkamp stated that the SRP Land Department was a reactionary department and they received their directions from the Distribution Planning for a facility of this type. They identify the need of an area at a specific intersection, which happened to be Lindsay and Queen Creek Road. They had flexibility within that identification within a quarter mile of that area and she understood that the Layton property extended a half-mile radius around that intersection. Therefore, a major part of the meeting they will have with the applicant will be to discuss the possible areas that they could move the station to and how they will get to it.

Chairman Kohlhoff explained that he asked that question because in the ten years he had been on the Commission, he had never run into this kind of problem and wanted to use this as a learning process so it wouldnâ??t happen again at this late date on a major project.

Ms. Oldenkamp stated that some of the SRP Staff were working with the Town of Gilbert on the General Plan, with the intention to have it known somehow on the General Plan where SRPâ??s plans were to have future substations or transmission lines. Ideally, in a developed area, there would be a substation at the center of every four miles throughout the valley in a totally developed area.

Commissioner Stan Strom asked what Ms. Oldenkampâ??s preference would be on the stipulation o.o.

Ms. Oldenkamp said that her preference would be to wait until after they had their meeting with the applicant to see what developed from that meeting and provide input to the Town of Gilbert after this.

Commissioner Strom verified that in situations where SRP finds it necessary, they have the power of eminent domain.

Ms. Oldenkamp stated that they did have the power of eminent domain, but that they certainly try to work with the property owner to avoid that necessity.

Commissioner Strom asked if SPR would compensate the owner at fair market value for the site.

Ms. Oldenkamp stated that it would be compensated by fair market value using an appraisal.

Commissioner Susan Preiss noted that in looking at the stipulations, she noticed that the numbering was double marked starting at f.f.

Mr. Marsh stated that they had had some Microsoft bugs and that the printing was not working well with the list of stipulations. He would make sure they were fixed and clarified in the final list of stipulations.

Commissioner Dan Dodge asked the Staff on stipulation m. **, the sentence the applicant wanted to remove which stated “5â??& 10â?? side yard setback for R1-10 only permitted with a detached garage recessed a minimum of 40â?? from the front property line.” He stated that the applicant made a comment that would only allow a home depth of 40â??. He stated that as he read this stipulation, it didnâ??t say anything about the placement of the house, just the placement of the garage. Therefore, he clarified that the house could be brought up to its normal setback and could exceed back to as far deep as permitted by code.

Mr. Marsh stated that he was correct and added that the required front set back on R1-10 was 30â?? and so this stipulation would be at this requirement and the detached garage only to take advantage of the side yard setback deviation would be 40â?? from the front property line.

Commissioner Dodge asked about the R-TH and what the Staffâ??s comments were on this point of contention.

Mr. Marsh explained that the Staff had concerns with the proposed deviations in terms of lot area and setbacks. The rationale being that any deviation in terms of lot area or setback deviations would further reduce an already extremely limited amount of area for any unit. The code required 3,600 square foot lot area for each unit. The applicant was proposing 3,000 square feet. So they would be losing 600 square feet, approximately 20%. Also, he stated that they were proposing front and rear yard deviations that were fairly substantial, going from 30â?? to 20â?? rear yard setback and 25â?? to 20â?? front yard setbacks. Therefore they would be losing 15â?? of front and rear setbacks and additional 600 square feet would be lost in lot area. The justification the applicant made to Staff was based upon the conceptual drawing of the townhouse product and why they want the smaller deviations so they will have more open space. He clarified that the map was only conceptual and it was somewhat misleading because it showed large amounts of open space, but it didnâ??t show the property walls that would run around the project and around each individual townhouse. It also wasnâ??t clear where the property line was for the units; it appeared to have a common open space with an extremely small rear yard. In addition, the front yard was asphalt. He showed a visual aid of the conceptual diagram and explained how they proposed the town homes to be situated. He stated that the applicant had proven to Staff why the deviations were justified for the R1-6, R1-7 and the R1-8 but they hadnâ??t been able to justify these deviations for R-TH.

Commissioner Dodge asked the Staff regarding item o.o., if they would be open to changing this to what Mr. Miller had proposed. He added that he agreed with Staff on the first two points, but that this might be reasonable to change to the applicantâ??s request.

Mr. Marsh clarified that there was not preliminary plat in for review, but that it was in for preliminary plat pre-application review, which was required of all development proposals. He stated that the Staff felt that wherever that transmission station would go would impact this project in terms of visual amenities including where the poles would be and the land use mix of this project. If the open space was taken it would need to be compensated elsewhere and they would like to see those issues identified at preliminary plat. He stated that it was too late to wait until final plat to adjust the open spaces and mitigation measures in terms of visibility. They strongly felt as Staff that these issues needed to be resolved prior to them submitting a preliminary plat.

Mr. Marsh informed the Commission that Guy Carpenter with the Public Works Department, Water Resources Division was available to address any water resource questions.

Guy Carpenter, manager of the Water Resource Division, came forward.

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff asked him if he felt confident on the IGA with the City of Chandler on the affluent on how it would be exchanged and used.

Mr. Carpenter stated that they were very confident on these issues and that they had met early on to discuss the reclaim water use agreement. He stated that he had looked at their reclaim water use agreement that they had worked out with the applicant and they had used the new Reclaim Water Use Rules. He felt confident that it would protect the residents of the new community and the Town of Gilbert from any kind of risk.

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff asked if the reclaimed water would be of the same quality as the water in Freestone Lake.

Mr. Carpenter stated that it did meet the A+ quality standards of the new rules.

Commissioner Dan Dodge asked for clarification on this rating.

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff explained that A+ was the best kind of affluent that you could have out of any plant and that it was accepted for any kind of re-use.

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff closed the Public Hearing and asked the applicant to come forward to state his last closing remarks.

Mr. Udall stated that on the question of the 20â??/20â?? on the townhouses they had made their argument and they agree to the 3,600 square feet, but would like the 20â??/20â?? for the reasons they had outlined. If they concluded not to do this, he asked to withdraw the townhouse exhibit that showed all the open space so they would not be bound by this. He stated that on the question of SRP, this was a major issue because they would be at a tremendous disadvantage with this stipulation included in the zoning guidelines. He proposed to work with the SPR and they would agree not to reduce any of the meaningful open space.

Michael Marendel, the applicant, came forward. He asked that they would not be treated dissimilarly than any other master plan that had been approved by the town. He knew they would work with SRP and that they were sensitive to it being a family instigated zoning case. The property would not be marketed for a period of time, but they wanted to process preliminary plats. Based on other commercial properties around, they might be able to find another location for the transmission site and they should not be required to find it within their boundaries, in case another more suitable area could be found. He added that they would like there not to be a stipulation with this, in knowing they would work with SRP and the Town to resolve this issue.

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff stated that they agreed that what he stated had merit and that they were just looking out for the best interest of the Town.

Planning Director Jerry Swanson offered a couple of comments in response to the testimony and tried to help reach agreement on some of the issues discussed. The first issue regarding the amended preliminary plat, he stated that the Staff would agree to delete the stipulation o.o., based upon the requirement that an amended preliminary plat would be required if there was a substation site located within the Gilbert portion of the Layton Lakes project. Secondly, the Staff would agree with the applicantâ??s legal counselâ??s offer to stick with all the existing standards for townhouses and to withdraw the non-binding conceptual exhibit and at such time as the development proposal came forward, it would be evaluated as any other proposal. He stated that he was anxious about making decisions based on conceptual plans and hypothetical designs. Third, he stated that should they elect to go along with the applicant and the Staffâ??s recommendation for reduced side yard set backs, they should maintain an actual building separation of 15â??. Therefore they should not have two 5â?? & 5â?? setbacks side by side giving a very narrow tunnel. He recommended that the Commission consider the addition to this language to the setback table.

Commissioner Dan Dodge stated that in regards to stipulation o.o., it was a big issue and that it would need to be taken into consideration. He recommended revision of this stipulation to state “The developer and SRP shall resolve the location of the substation prior to the preliminary plat.” He stated that he thought it would be better to get this resolved rather than having an amended preliminary plat in the future.

Planning Director Jerry Swanson stated that it would be the applicantâ??s risk to have to do an amended preliminary plat if they were in a big hurry to process the preliminary plat knowing it would have to be changed before any final plats could be approved. He added that they might elect to take this risk.

Commissioner Dan Dodge confirmed that this amended plat would then have to come back through the Planning and Zoning Commission.

Planning Director Jerry Swanson agreed that it would have to come back to this Commission because they were the final authority on the initial and the amended plat. He added that it wasnâ??t just an open space issue because it could affect circulation, aesthetics, drainage, adjacent land uses and the location of roadways. Because of these issues, they would need to submit an amended plat.

Mr. Marsh asked for clarification from SRP on the time frame it usually takes them to design a solution because that may impact their project.

Ms. Oldenkamp stated that once the location was determined, it usually takes approximately six weeks to get something designed. The transaction would then be closed within about 90 days.

Philip Miller stated that the issue was that the Town of Gilbert nor the applicant wanted a substation along Lindsay and Queen Creek Road which will affect the intended 75â?? of open space that the San Tan Area Plan had planned for. His concern was that if they move the station off of Queen Creek road and bury it within the community so it wonâ??t deter from the value of this project, it would take much longer to get this done.

Commissioner Dan Dodge stated that if they were to strike item o.o., as recommended by the Planning Director, this would not be an issue for the Commission to address.

Commissioner Stan Strom stated that he had a problem with striking this stipulation. He gave an example of a site at Williams Field and Power that wasnâ??t serviced by sewer and they came up with some concepts of micro septic systems to put a Band-Aid to get it up. He felt that this was a project without power or houses and that this issue was significant for the Commission to address. He further expressed his concerns about future customers in SRP and the significant difference in price that might be added to the customer based upon the location of the substation. He stated that he felt this was a benefit to put the stipulation in and have them negotiate it prior to submitting a preliminary plat.

Planning Director Jerry Swanson stated that when a preliminary plat was given to them that the Commission had the responsibility to ask the question about the services that would be provided in order to support this proposed development. If they were not satisfied at that point that the issue of power had been addressed they may continue the project until they were satisfied.

Vice Chairman Joan Krueger stated that she felt they needed to address this issue prior to the process of submittal.

Mr. Marsh stated that perhaps they could revise the stipulation to read that “the developer and SRP resolve the issue regarding the substation site and direct Staff not to schedule preliminary plat for the Planning and Zoning review until this issue had been resolved, any loss of open space acreage due to the location of the substation be made up somewhere else in the project.”

Vice Chairman Joan Krueger stated that she would be comfortable with this revision to the stipulation.

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff asked if the substation could be located in Chandler, in the fourth quadrant.

Commissioner Dan Dodge stated that regardless of where it ended up, no one wanted to see the substation on a major corner. What he recommended was that they determine the location, regardless of where it ended up, Gilbert or Chandler.

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff explained that he was not concerned about what city it ended up in, but that there would be another option outside of the quarter of a mile radius they were given. He ended by stating that he would be comfortable with the decision the Commission wanted to go with it.

Vice Chairman Joan Krueger asked for a general opinion from the Commission on the set back issues.

Commissioner Stan Strom asked where the codes were listed in the Staff Report.

Town Attorney Kelly Schwab addressed this issue by stating that normally in these Ordinances, if the Commission and Counsel would approve variations to the code, it would become the law for this community. It would cause confusion to include the standard code in the Ordinance if the variation was granted by the Commission.

Commissioner Stan Strom stated that he would rather it stay at 60â?? and 70â??, since they had talked about this recently in some cases that had come forward. In the matrix in the Staff Report it talked about one third of the lots could be 67â?? wide and one third may be 75â?? wide, but it didnâ??t have it in the Ordinance.

Mr. Marsh stated that the tables shown in the Staff Report on page 4 & 5, are indicating what is proposed by the applicant, comparing it to the code requirements. The tables shown in stipulation m. are Staffâ??s recommendations regarding the deviations and the setbacks and lot areas proposed for this project. The applicant is not requesting to follow the one third of the lot guideline as shown in ULDC nor is Staff stipulating this.

Commissioner Stan Strom stated that 115â?? was the market even though the code said 100â??, so in talking about this in the past, they had granted variances for the lots for 120â??-125â?? in depth. With this being 115â??, he questioned whether they should do it.

Mr. Marsh stated that this was almost identical to what was proposed in Vista Del Oro and Vista Dorado and that one of these projects did have deviations and the other one did not. In terms of the lot depths, these all had the same 115â?? lot depths for the R1-6 and R1-7.

Commissioner Stan Strom stated on item p., under the excluded uses, he asked why the adult bookstores and adult theaters were not included.

Mr. Marsh stated that this was an oversight and it could be included as an additional item.

Commissioner Stan Strom asked for clarification on radio and television towers that were also listed as not being allowed as a use.

Digg this