TOWN OF GILBERT PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION, REGULAR MEETING

SOUTHEAST REGIONAL LIBRARY, 775 N. GREENFIELD, GILBERT, ARIZONA

MAY 16, 2001

COMMISSION PRESENT:

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff, Vice Chairman Joan Krueger, Commissioner Susan Preiss, Commissioner Stan Strom, Commissioner Dan Dodge, Commissioner Brigette Peterson, Commissioner James Beene, Alternate Commissioner Michael Monroe

STAFF PRESENT:

Planning Director Jerry Swanson, Planning Manager Maria Cadavid, Planning Manager Linda Edwards, Senior Planner Mario Mangiamele, Senior Planner Geir Sverdrup, Senior Planner Dan Fairbanks, Planner Suzanne Gunderman, Planner David Marsh, Planner Shellean Roberts, Planner Dennis Newcombe

ALSO PRESENT:

Town Attorney Anja Wendel , Town Traffic Engineer Bruce Ward, Recorder Trasie Johns

I N D E X

PLANNER CASE PAGE VOTE

Mr. Marsh GP01-5 2 WITHDRAW
Mr. Newcombe Transit and Pedestrian
Feature Design Elements 3 TABLE
Ms. Gunderman Z00-25 4 APPR.
Mr. Fairbanks GP01-2 15 APPR.
Mr. Fairbanks Z01-02 15 APPR.
Mr. Mangiamele GP01-04 24 DISC.
Mr. Sverdrup GP01-06 25 DISC.

Mr. Fairbanks UP01-7 26 APPR.

CALL TO ORDER:

Chairman Karl 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 Karl Kohlhoff stated that he would like to change the order of the agenda to hear GP01-5 first. He requested approval of the agenda.

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

Motion Carried 7-0.

COMMUNICATIONS FROM CITIZENS:

Chairman Karl 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 was 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.

CONSENT ITEMS

Minutes - Study Session and Regular Meeting minutes of April 18, 2001.

A motion was made by Commissioner Stan Strom, seconded by Commissioner Susan Preiss, to approve the minutes of the Study Session and Regular Meeting of April 18, 2001.

Motion Carried 7-0.

PUBLIC HEARING

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff informed the public that if anyone wanted to speak they needed to fill out a blue slip and bring it to the Commission.

GP01-5 - Amend the land use map of the Gilbertâ??s General Plan by changing the land use designation of an approximately 8 acre site located east of the southeast corner of Greenfield & Baseline Roads from Low Density Residential (L) (0-3 Dwelling Units/Acre) Multi-Use Commercial (MC).

Planner David Marsh explained that GP01-5 was a proposed General Plan amendment to the Town of Gilbert from land use designation of an approximately 8 acre site located east of the southeast corner of Greenfield & Baseline Roads from Low Density Residential (L) (0-3 Dwelling Units/Acre) Multi-Use Commercial (MC). He stated that this item was in conjunction with a rezoning proposal, Z01-05 that would be scheduled for the Planning and Zoning Commission in the future. During the course of review of the rezoning proposal, Staff determined that a General Plan amendment would be required. He showed the map of the site he was discussing. In reviewing the proposal, Staff determined that a portion of the site at Greenfield and Baseline Roads was designated low density residential. Staff therefore recommended that the applicant apply for a General Plan amendment to change that portion of the site to Multi-Use Commercial. That application came in and was scheduled for two public hearings as required by state law.

After the Staff Report was drafted and submitted to the Commission, Mr. Marsh explained that the applicant came forward with some additional information. From their research, the applicant determined that there was a technical error in the map that was used by the Staff. He showed the maps that the applicant studied and explained that one was based on the 1994 General Plan use map that incorporated the amendments that occur over time. He described the zoning around the proposed site. He explained that the applicant had gone back and looked at the original 1994 General Plan map. Only a portion of the site, approximately 10 acres of the 18-acre site was designated as Multi-Use Commercial. He explained that the applicant, by looking through past records, determined that the current General Plan map that the Staff was working on was in error. He showed a visual aid of the area and described the zoning designations of each parcel. Mr. Marsh explained that after researching the issue, Staff determined that the applicant was correct and that when the school site was changed to the Public Facilities Institutional zoning designation, one of the parcels was also changed to Low Density Residential zoning. In error, Town Staff when doing the maps had taken a portion of the site and moved it to a Low Density Residential designation. He explained that there was never any legislative action taken by Town Council to change the General Plan designation on that site. Based on that information, the Staff determined that the entire site was within the Multi-Use Commercial zoning designation. He concluded by stated that Staff was asking the Planning and Zoning Commission to affirm Staffâ??s determination that the entire site was within the Multi-Use Commercial zoning designation and hence a minor General Plan amendment would not be needed.

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff asked the applicant to come forward.

Wendy Redell, 3200 N. Central, Phoenix came forward. She stated they agreed with the assessment that the Staff had given. She thanked the Staff for working through the issue with them.

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff asked the applicant if she would like to withdraw their General Plan amendment.

Wendy Redell stated that was correct.

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff opened the public hearing and asked if anyone would like to come forward. Seeing none, he closed the public hearing and brought it back to the Commission for discussion and action.

A motion was made by Commissioner Dan Dodge, seconded by Commissioner Susan Preiss, to affirm staffâ??s determination that the subject site is located entirely within the Multi-Use Commercial (MC) land use classification as indicated on the 1994 Town of Gilbert General Plan.

Motion Carried 7-0.

Proposed new section to Article III of the Gilbert Unified Development Code (ULDC) involving Transit and Pedestrian Feature Design Elements.

Planner Dennis Newcombe requested that the Commission table this item in order to gather more public input so they could bring forward to the Commission a well thought out ordinance. He asked the Commission to table the proposed new section to Article III of the Gilbert Unified Development Code (ULDC) involving Transit and Pedestrian Feature Design Elements and asked the Commission if they had any comments or questions.

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff asked if anyone on the Commission had any comments or questions for Mr. Newcombe. Seeing none, he opened the public hearing.

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff opened the public hearing and asked if anyone would like to come forward. Seeing none, he closed the public hearing and brought it back to the Commission for discussion and action.

A motion was made by Vice Chairman Joan Krueger, seconded by Commissioner Brigette Peterson, to table the proposed new section to Article III of the Gilbert Unified Development Code (ULDC) involving Transit and Pedestrian Feature Design Elements based on Staffâ??s recommendation.

Motion Carried 7-0.

Commissioner James Beene joined the Commission at 6:25 p.m., replacing Alternate Commissioner Michael Monroeâ??s voting power.

Z00-25 - Rezoning of an approximately 345.43-acre property from Maricopa County R-43 (Rural Residential) to Town of Gilbert PAD (Planned Area Development) with the underlying zoning of R1-5, R1-7, R1-8, R1-10, R1-15 and R1-35 (Single Family Residential), and C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) for the development of a mixed use development with an overall density of 2.70 dwelling units per acre. The subject property is located at the northwest corner of Chandler Heights and Higley Roads.

Planner Suzanne Gunderman explained that Shamrock Estates is located within the San Tan area of the General Plan and is designated as Master Planned Opportunities (MPO). With the MPO designation, general target densities could be increased with the attainment of certain design elements or criteria that are listed in the San Tan Plan. She explained that those criteria go up from 1 dwelling unit per acre, so with each attainment of the criteria they are allowed .3 dwelling units per acre increase over the one dwelling unit per acre. With this plan, as outlined in the Staff Report, the applicant is offering design elements which would allow them up to 2.8 dwelling units per acre, which is consistent with the proposed property which is offering a density of 2.7 dwelling units per acre.

Ms. Gunderman showed a visual aid of the layout of the project. One of the major goals of the San Tan Plan is to provide large lot appearance from arterial streets and to cluster all the higher density residential uses towards the center. In the plan, the R1-5, R1-7 and smaller R1-8 are clustered in the center of the project. Mostly R1-10 and R1-15 zoning designations are located along the arterial streets. Adjacent to the southern portion of the project, she explained, there is a county subdivision called Greenfield Acres, which has a 100â?? buffer next to it and the R1-15 lots, which conforms to the San Tan Plan. She explained that the applicant has gone beyond the San Tan requirements by providing a 100â?? buffer plus the 15,000 square foot lots. Adjacent to the west, there are some large custom home lots in Maricopa County. Next to these large lots, the applicant is proposing R1-35 lots, which meets the Bufferyard Policy. She explained that by providing the larger lots on the outside of the property and clustering the smaller lots in the interior, the proposal allows for a larger lot appearance to the subdivision.

In addition, Ms. Gunderman noted that the project is located next to a large area controlled by the Flood Control District, which Maricopa County is currently designing. In working with the Maricopa County Flood Control District, staff is hoping to co-locate major recreational amenities in this area, which is about 320 acres. In assisting the access to this area, the applicant is proposing a 20â?? wide public access easement along the Maricopa County Flood Control District. In addition they are also allowing for another public access point along the northern part of the property by the Sanokai Wash. The trail system is well linked to the park, to the commercial and to arterial streets. Design wise, Staff felt that it met the intent of the San Tan Plan.

The commercial uses, Ms. Gunderman explained, are located on the corner of Ocotillo Road and Higley Road at the north part of the property. In the southern part of the property, a commercial zoning designation is located at Higley Road and Chandler Heights Road. She explained that the project contains a 15.5-acre C-1 commercial parcel proposed at the southern portion and a 7.7-acre C-1 commercial parcel proposed at the northern portion. The San Tan Area Plan showed a commercial corner at Chandler Heights and Higley Road and the acreage of the 7.7 meets the 5% criteria allowed for subdivisions of 160 acre or greater, therefore Ms. Gunderman explained that the plan met the requirement of the San Tan Plan for commercial uses as well.

Regarding the circulation goals of the San Tan Plan, Ms. Gunderman explained that the project should include minimal street lighted local streets and detached sidewalks. As mentioned in the Study Session, she explained that the applicant was not proposing the detached sidewalks. Staff was recommending that they do include detached sidewalks on their collector and local streets.

With respect to the rezoning, Ms. Gunderman stated that the zoning requested is consistent with the MPO designation. As far as the residential development standards, minor deviations were requested for some setbacks, which listed in the Staff Report and they appear justifiable. Staff added a condition that would limit the residential lots around the commercial to single story to prevent future impacts that could occur to these residential lots. Regarding the commercial development standards, Shamrock is proposing to comply with the zoning code. Staff is recommending that the case meet the Bufferyard Policy that required a 25â?? landscape setback, which would give greater ability to meet the retention and buffering needs from commercial to residential.

Ms. Gunderman stated that the applicant has donated an eight-acre parcel to the Chandler Unified School District. This site is designated in the middle of the project and is designated as Residential in the event that the school district should decide not to accept that donation. She explained that a development agreement would be drafted to ensure that the school needs were addressed if the donation would not go through, although it was her understanding that Chandler School District was positively looking to use this donation for an elementary school.

In concluding the presentation, Ms. Gunderman addressed some outstanding issues. There are some engineering and phasing issues with the arterial streets. The Engineering Department stated that it would be appropriate to phase Ocotillo Road improvement until the design of the Sanokai Wash is completed since there had been some talk about some changes that would need to be made based on the location of this alignment. With respect to phasing, they are showing phasing of arterial streets, which generally is not allowed per Town Council policy. Staff recommended that the other phasing requests not be approved with this project.

The last issue that Ms. Gunderman addressed was Stipulation u., which required landscape tracts and perimeter walls to be completed with the final inspection of any Phase 1 dwelling unit. The applicant was concerned about the perimeter wall installation at such an early stage in the project. Sometimes the timing of the developments can not be determined and therefore Staff asked for these perimeter walls to provide for a better streetscape immediately. She concluded her presentation and asked for comments or questions from the Commission.

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff asked the Commission if they had any questions. Seeing none, he asked the applicant to come forward.

Debra Bricker-Goles came forward. She informed the Commission that the project had been in design for several years. She stated that they had worked very hard with the Staff. She explained that they were scheduled to come before the Commission about a year ago when a large portion of the property got condemned by the Maricopa County Flood Control District for their drainage and retention. Based on this change, the applicant had to start the project over and was coming forward with this new project. She explained that they had designed the project with the intent of the San Tan Plan as El Dorado Holdings had played a large part in the planning of the San Tan Plan. She showed a visual aid of the entry monumentation. She explained the visual aid and stated that she felt it was a very pleasing entry and that it demonstrated a rural character.

Ms. Bricker-Goles explained that the project was 340 acres and their phasing plan consisted of two phases. She describe phase one and stated that it encompassed 489 lots. She explained that they did not anticipate impacting Chandler Heights Road, since all the traffic would come off of Higley Road. The traffic study that was submitted addressed that just in using the access off of Higley Road, they were still above the optimum. There was not a problem accessing Higley Road with the three different entrances. She stated that it was an ownerâ??s burden to put on the project that they would have to install all the improvements; the landscaping, the arterial roads, the perimeter walls, and the street improvements during phase one. The other problem that they are encountering is the improvements of the landscaping tracts and the perimeter wall. There are some issues with the Sanokai Wash and the drainage. In addition, she explained that the Queen Creek Canal could get relocated further north. She stated that all of these issues in the north impacted the drainage and the retention of phase two. Until these issues were resolved, she explained that they would not know what their finished elevation would be on the southern border. If they installed landscaping and a perimeter wall, there would be a good possibility that it would have to be torn out. She asked for the Commissionâ??s consideration on allowing them to split the arterial road improvements.

The other item that Ms. Bricker-Goles asked for the Commissionâ??s consideration on was with the detached sidewalk issue. She stated that on the internal circulation, the San Tan Area Plan on their goals stated that generally local streets would be improved to rural standards, not requiring curbed, gutter and sidewalks in most instances. Where they were required, they were recommending detaching the sidewalks from the curbs. She explained that throughout the project on the collector roads; they had the detached sidewalks and landscaping which was the intent of the San Tan Plan. On the internal parcels, there was a division of development requirements between the developer and the homebuilder. Typically, the sidewalks were one of the developerâ??s responsibilities. If the sidewalks were detached from the curb, there would be a strip which would be between 3â??-4â?? which would be a raw strip. The first thing that happened, she explained, was when the materials were delivered to the homebuilder, trucks driving over the sidewalk that wasnâ??t stabilized destroyed the sidewalks. She added that she didnâ??t think it was feasible to put the sidewalks in at the time of the infrastructure because they get broken and have to be replaced. She stated that Staff was also requiring them to landscape this strip. Without knowing where the driveways were going to be, since the homebuilders have different plans, they wonâ??t know where to put the landscaping. If they build the detached sidewalks after the homes were built, since the homes were built at different times, each time that they did a sidewalk, different colors and techniques of laying the concrete would make the sidewalks not match. She didnâ??t know what the solution was to doing the detached sidewalks, and if they had to do them, she asked for a deferral until the homes were all built. She stated that she thought the attached sidewalks were what they would prefer to do on the internal parcels.

The other modification that Ms. Bricker-Goles asked for the Commission to consider was on stipulation number U, regarding the 160-foot landscape/drainage tract on the northern boundary. Since they werenâ??t sure where the Sanokai Wash might end up they were required to leave this 160â?? parcel open until this location was determined. If the Sanokai Wash didnâ??t locate in this area, she asked that they be able to use this area for their commercial parcel, which they would like to move the commercial building up against Ocotillo Road. She asked the Commission to withdraw this stipulation if the parcel wasnâ??t needed for the Sanokai Wash. She concluded her presentation and asked for questions or comments from the Commission.

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff stated that he wanted to reserve questions until after they had opened the public hearing. He stated that he did have a number of questions.

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff opened the public hearing and asked if anyone would like to come forward. Seeing none, he closed the public hearing and brought it back to the Commission for discussion and action.

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff stated that in looking at page four of the report, he saw that a major dairy was currently located on their property. He asked when they would vacate that area.

Ms. Bricker-Goles stated that the Shamrock Dairy would move prior to development of this project. She added that the area would be cleaned up and all the tests and studies would be done when they vacated the property.

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff asked why they didnâ??t know what their elevations were at the southwest end of the property. He asked if they could make arrangements with RWCD to excavate the 132â?? to fill in and bring it to a certain elevation.

Ms. Bricker-Goles stated that the problem was with the sheet flow and what the ultimate retention and detention would be. The reason they divided into phase one and phase two was based on what was impacted with the current sheet flow. She explained that the engineers had stated that depending on what ultimately happens with the Sanokai Wash and the Queen Creek Wash would determine what the finished grade on the lots to the south would be.

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff asked if they had discussed this issue with the RWCD.

Ms. Bricker-Goles answered by stating that they had had numerous discussions with RWCD and the Flood Control District. They were told that at this point, it was all under study and that they were moving forward.

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff asked about the map on page 9, and wanted to know if the park proposed was on the Parks and Recreation plan.

Ms. Gunderman stated that the park was on the Town of Gilbertâ??s Parks and Open Space Plan, that was currently under review.

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff stated that it would be in the best interest of the Town to put a recharge facility in this area.

Ms. Gunderman explained that there was a piece of property that was located at the northeast corner of Ocotillo Road and Higley Road that the Town had reserved for recharge. The Town may also pursue discussions with the Flood Control District to utilize some of this piece for the recharge facility as well.

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff stated that it was stated that the residents would get the Town of Gilbert water and asked if Shamrock Estates would be required to water the open space with the reclaimed water.

Ms. Bricker-Goles answered that effluent would not be available when the development was first constructed and that they would need to make alternative means to water the open spaces by converting the water wells on the project to a type that could be used with a backup system.

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff stated that since they had assured the people that they would receive the Town of Gilbert water, he wanted to know if it was under their assured 100-year water supply designation.

Ms. Gunderman answered that she believed it was under the assured 100-year water supply designation.

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff asked how the C-1 commercial corner listed on page twelve fit with Sevilleâ??s two large C-2 commercial parcels on the opposite corners.

Ms. Bricker-Goles stated that according to the San Tan Plan, she understood that all four corners of that area were to be designated as commercial. In the San Tan Plan, Higley Road and Chandler Heights Road was designated to have all four corners to be a conceptual commercial use location and it was signified by being a major arterial intersection.

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff clarified that Chandler Heights Road and Higley Road were major arterials. He asked if they wanted to phase Chandler Heights Road.

Ms. Bricker-Goles agreed that Chandler Heights and Higley Roads were major arterials. She stated that they were anticipating phasing Chandler Heights Road because the neighborhood commercial property wasnâ??t intended to be developed until phase three, since they typically came after the residential development. She stated that if the commercial developed prior to the residential, they would improve the road at that time.

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff asked if in their market analysis they found enough rooftops to take care of the entire proposed commercial.

Ms. Bricker-Goles stated that every day she was approached to sell the commercial sites. She stated that they would not market these sites until further notice.

Commissioner Dan Dodge stated that the Town Council had made it pretty clear that they do not want to phase the improvement of arterial roads. He stated that where he grew up in California, he never saw an attached sidewalk in a development and all the issues that the applicant was referring to had been addressed fifty years ago. He stated that he didnâ??t think the convenience of the construction crew was sufficient ground for going against the stated intent in the San Tan Area Plan. The intent of the plan was to bring to this area of Town a different atmosphere and feel and that the detached sidewalks were a significant component of the Plan. He stated that he didnâ??t have a problem deferring the sidewalk until the end of the project, but that he thought it was important to keep this aspect in the plan.

Ms. Bricker-Goles responded by stating that she knew it was Council policy was not to phase the arterial roads, but that it had been done in other cases and therefore she was also asking for an exception.

Commissioner Dan Dodge stated that he appreciated Ms. Bricker-Goles bringing the issue to their attention but that he couldnâ??t support a recommendation to Town Council to allow phasing the roads at this time.

Ms. Bricker-Goles added that if they could make the detached sidewalks work without installing the sidewalks twice and that the finished product was what the Town was looking for, she would be happy do this.

Commissioner Susan Preiss stated that Morrison Brothers Properties was being developed with detached sidewalks and asked Staff to give this information on how they were accomplishing it to Ms. Boles.

Ms. Gunderman stated that since they were requesting more detached sidewalks with developments, she had talked to the Engineering Department and they believed that the issues addressed could be worked out. She referred to Higley Groves and stated that they had done detached sidewalks in that development. She added that they didnâ??t have an actual policy that they were utilizing for these developments and that they recognized the construction problems and knew there were ways to mitigating these issues through the construction process or by phasing the sidewalk improvement. She stated that they could work out these issues at the improvement plan stage.

Commissioner Susan Preiss stated that the Higley Groves development looked like it had been successful with the detached sidewalks.

Vice Chairman Joan Krueger asked for clarification on why the Staff was comfortable with the setback deviations.

Ms. Gunderman explained that the applicant was requesting some modification to the front yard setback to allow for diverse garage placement. Specifically, she stated that a 15â?? front yard setback would be allowed for a detached or recessed garage. Staffâ??s recommendation was to clarify that more by requiring a minimum footage of 35â?? to ensure they get something that was sufficiently addressed. This would allow for a less garage-dominated streetscape. The other deviation was a 15â?? rear yard setback for the R1-5, and R1-7 lots. The code required a 20â?? rear yard setback. Finally, in the lot coverage for the R1-35, the applicant proposed a 15% maximum lot coverage, while 30% was the code. Staff determined that based on the open space that exceeded the minimum requirements for the San Tan area and based on the trail design and good subdivision design, they didnâ??t believe that the deviations would be a detriment to the project. Therefore, the setbacks were in the Staffâ??s recommendation to allow the deviations with some minor modification as mentioned prior.

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff stated that he had a problem with the R1-7 and the R1-5 lots only having 15â?? rear yard setbacks where the code called for 20â??. In looking at the 140 acres in these two categories, he thought it was shortchanging those residents.

Vice Chairman Joan Krueger asked how badly it would affect their project if they werenâ??t allowed this deviation.

Ms. Bricker-Goles stated that on the open space requirement was 14.2%, where the requirement was 10%. On the interior landscaping, the requirements were 7.5% and they were exceeding 11.3%. In addition, on the multiuse trails, they were exceeding 10,000 linear feet, where the requirement was 8,636 linear feet. Therefore, the minor deviation they were requesting on the rear yard setback was mitigated by the large amount of open space give to the people within the project.

Commissioner Dan Dodge stated that the front yard setback deviation was given with a good explanation with the recessed and detached garages. He stated that he was confused with the issue of the lot coverage because the applicant was proposing limiting it to 15% lot coverage. He asked for clarification that the Staff was requiring it to be increased to 30%.

Ms. Bricker-Goles stated that it was an oversight on her part. She stated that it might have been a typo and that it wasnâ??t her intent to cover the lot at 15%.

Commissioner Dan Dodge asked for the justification on the rear yard setbacks that were actually tied to the rear yard setbacks. He asked why there was a need to construct the homes with a minimum 15â?? rear yard.

Ms. Bricker-Goles stated that it was their intent to have some flexibility to give the smaller lots increased square footage in those homes. Typically she stated that they had found that buyers for those types of lots do not want the larger back yards and would prefer to have the square footage. By creating the larger open space, she stated that they were giving the buyer the space they needed instead of putting it in their backyards. She explained that the five feet was a minor thing in a backyard, but was a substantial addition in the square footage of the home.

Commissioner Dan Dodge asked about the dedication of the school site since he didnâ??t see a letter from the school district in the Staff packet.

Ms. Bricker-Goles confirmed that there was a dedication to the school district. She stated that she submitted a letter to the Staff from the school site agreeing to this eight-acre dedication.

Commissioner Dan Dodge asked if the eight acres was sufficient since he thought they needed ten to twelve acres for a school site.

Ms. Bricker-Goles explained that they had offered the ten to twelve acres, but after meeting with the school district, they requested that the school size be reduced to eight acres. With the larger lot configuration in that area and since there was a school site close by; the school district thought the eight acres would be adequate for the elementary school.

Commissioner Dan Dodge asked if they could put a stipulation stating that they put this dedication on the report. Secondly, he asked what would happen to the trail system that ran through the site once it became a school site.

Ms. Bricker-Goles explained that if that land became a school site, they would make an alternative location for the trail. The reason the school site was located in this area was based on the recommendation from the school district.

Commissioner Dan Dodge asked what the height of the tower was on Chandler Heights that was adjacent to the R1-7 lots.

Ms. Bricker-Goles explained that she had some discussions about this tower with American Towers in order to disguise the tower. At this time, she wasnâ??t sure what the height was of the tower.

Commissioner Dan Dodge asked if she would have a problem adding a stipulation that would notify neighbors that there was a tower located on Chandler Heights.

Ms. Bricker-Goles stated that would be fine.

Ms. Gunderman stated she confirmed with legal council about the stipulation of the dedication of the school site and was informed that zoning stipulations didnâ??t ensure a dedication. She added that they were addressing the issue with the school district with a legal document that would ensure the dedication of this property.

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff asked if Staff had a letter from the Chandler School District since they didnâ??t have it in their packet.

Ms. Gunderman answered that they did have a letter.

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff asked if the applicant would be agreeable to stipulation u.

Ms. Gunderman stated that she thought it would be better to use the word â??ifâ?? required by Engineering, instead of â??asâ?? required by Engineering in stipulation u.

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff asked if the Commission had any other discussion on the detached sidewalks. He confirmed that the Commission wanted to leave stipulations o and p just like they are stated.

Commissioner Dan Dodge stated that he would be agreeable to have the sidewalks phased and asked if they needed to change the stipulations to state this language.

Ms. Gunderman explained that the engineering department didnâ??t see the need to specify the phasing on the sidewalks since they were already doing this with current developments.

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff stated that on stipulation h, he felt that the R1-5 and R1-7 lots were getting short changed. He added that if they allowed it and voted for it, they would be going against the ULDC.

Vice Chairman Joan Krueger stated that despite the argument that she heard from the applicant, she was still suspicious that people would prefer a smaller backyard to increased open space. She stated that she didnâ??t agree this to be the case.

Commissioner Dan Dodge stated that on the R1-5 lots, he would agree with the applicant that the shortened backyards would be all right for the smaller lots. He agreed with the Commission that the larger R1-7 lots should not be changed to allow the deviations.

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff asked if there were any other comments from the Commission. Seeing none, he requested a motion.

A motion was made by Commissioner Stan Strom, seconded by Commissioner Dan Dodge, to approve Z00-25 subject to Staff stipulations; modifying stipulation h to change the R1-7 rear yard setback to 20â??; on stipulation t, the word â??asâ?? shall be changed to â??ifâ??; and the following shall be added to stipulation mm, â??Development and notification of the tower on Chandler Heights Road shall also be disclosed.â??.

Motion Carried 7-0.

a. The Phasing Plan, as depicted in the Development Plan, shall be revised prior to the Town Council public hearing to show completion of the following improvements with Phase 1:

the half streets of Chandler Heights and Higley Roads that are adjacent to the Project;

the easternmost street entrance into the Project off Chandler Heights Road;

the full width of the collector street shown on the west side of Phase 1.

b. Dedication to the Town of those portions of Higley, Ocotillo and Chandler Heights Roads that are adjacent to the Project, which dedication shall extend 65 feet from centerline. Said dedications shall be completed at the time of the Final Plat recordation or as required by the Town Engineering Department.

c. Construction of all the required off-site improvements to the arterial roads that are adjacent or within the Project shall be completed at the same time as construction of any portion of the Project and shall be completed prior to the final inspection approval for any dwelling unit or issuance of certificate of occupancy for the project. Phasing of Ocotillo Road shall be considered due to Maricopa County Flood Control design issues with Sanokai Wash, subject to Engineering Department approval.

d. Developer shall execute water and sewer buy-in agreements, whereby Developer shall pay for its proportionate share of water and sewer mains prior to Final Plat approval of any phase of the Project.

e. A master plan for water, sewer, and drainage for the project shall be reviewed and approved by the Engineering Department prior to the issuance of any permits.

f. Developer shall provide easements and water extensions to the Project as required by the Engineering Department.

g. Developer shall create a new HOA (Homeownerâ??s Association) for the maintenance and preservation of all common areas, landscaping and improvements within the open space areas, arterial and local street rights-of-ways.

h. The zoning for the project shall be R1-5, R1-7, R1-8, R1-10, R1-15, R1-35 (Single Family Residential) and C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial). Said project shall be developed in conformance with the Townâ??s zoning requirements for said districts, except as modified by these conditions. All single family residential lots shall comply with the following standards:

Zoning
Minimum Lot Area (in sq. ft.)
Min. Lot Dimensions (width X depth)

R1-5
5,000
50â??X100â??

R1-7
7,000
70â??X100â??

R1-8
8,000
80â??X100â??

R1-10
10,000
90â??X100â??

R1-15
15,000
115â??X120â??

R1-35
35,000
145â?? wide

Zoning
Minimum Yard Setbacks
Maximum Lot Coverage

Front1
Side2
Rear3

R1-5
15â??/20â??
10â??
15â??
40%

R1-7
15â??/20â??
10â??
20â??
40%

R1-8
15â??/20â??
10â??
20â??
40%

R1-10
15â??/30â??
10â??
30â??
40%

R1-15
15â??/30â??
15â??
30â??
35%

R1-35
15â??/40â??
20â??
40â??
30%

NOTES:

(1)Additional front yard setback requirements:

Front yard setbacks shall be staggered, such that no more than two adjacent lots have the same setback. Front yard setbacks should vary within a range of five feet, with a minimum three (3) foot variation between any adjacent lot.

A 15-foot front yard setback shall be allowed for side entry garages and for attached and detached garages recessed a minimum of 35-feet from the front property line.

(2)Additional side yard setback requirements:

All side yards shall meet the â??clear zoneâ?? requirements of Ordinance No. 803 as modified.

All lots siding onto arterials shall have a minimum 15-foot side yard setback

(3)Additional rear yard setback requirements:

For R1-5, R1-7 and R1-8 lots backing onto arterials or commercially zoned parcels, minimum rear yard setback is 25 feet for single story and 35 feet for two stories. For R1-10, and R1-15 lots backing onto arterials or commercially zoned parcels, minimum rear yard setback is 30 feet for single story and 35 feet for two stories. Minimum rear yard setback for R1-35 lots is 40 feet.

All R1-10 lots backing onto arterials to have a 50-foot minimum rear yard setback.

i. Lots backing or siding onto commercial areas shall be limited to single story.

j. Landscape setback between C-1 and R1-7 or R1-8 shall be a minimum 25-feet and shall be planted with a double, staggered row of evergreen trees with minimum 24-inch box size.

k. Any curb cuts on or local street intersections with Ocotillo Road shall be subject to the approval of the Town Traffic Engineer at the time of Preliminary Plat.

l. Frontage and right-of-way landscaping shall comply with the Streetscape Development Guidelines for District No. 9, or as approved by the Planning Department.

m. The developer shall execute a petition to create a streetlight improvement district for the collector and local streets within the Project.

n. Low-level street lighting shall be provided for the collector and local streets within the Project, as approved by the Town.

o. Sidewalks along local and collector streets shall be separated from street curbing by landscape areas and shall be planted with trees, as approved by the Planning Department.

p. Sidewalks along arterials shall meander slightly and be separated as far as possible from the arterial street curb by landscape areas.

q. The landscape tract located along Chandler Heights Road, which is adjacent to the Greenfield Acres subdivision, shall average 100 feet in depth. R1-7 and R1-8 lots backing or siding onto arterial streets shall be buffered from the arterial street by landscape tracts averaging 100 feet in depth.

r. A minimum 10-foot wide landscape tract shall be provided on the side of lots siding onto local or collector streets, between the public right-of-way and the lotâ??s property line.

s. A minimum of a fifteen (15â??) foot wide landscaped tract shall be provided between the right-of-way and the property line on both sides of all main entrance drives to the subdivision.

t. A minimum 160-foot wide landscape/drainage tract shall be provided along the northern property boundary, as measured from the arterial right-of-way line, if required by the Engineering Deparment and/or Maricopa County Flood District. Said tract shall be utilized for drainage, landscaping, and passive recreation.

u. All landscape tracts and perimeter walls along Higley and Chandler Heights Road shall be completed prior to the final inspection approval for any dwelling unit for the Project. Entry monumentation located at the main entrances off Higley and Chandler Heights Road shall be completed prior to the final inspection approval for any dwelling unit for the Project.

v. All open space areas including landscaping and amenities within each Phase shall be completed prior to the final inspection approval for any dwelling unit for that Phase.

w. A minimum 20-foot wide public access trail easement shall be provided along the western property boundary of the Project. Developer shall install and maintain a multi-use paved trail and landscaping within the trail easement area. Said public access trail shall be completed prior to the final inspection approval for any dwelling unit within Phase 2.

x. A minimum 20-foot wide public access trail easement shall be provided within the approximate 160-foot wide landscape/drainage tract located along the northern property boundary of the Project, as part of the Sanokai Wash public trail improvement. Said easement requirement shall be subject to Sanokai Wash or comparable drainage facility being located on or adjacent to the northern site boundary. Said public access trail shall be completed prior to the final inspection approval for any dwelling unit within Phase 2, or as approved by the Planning and Engineering Departments.

y. Public access and neighborhood trails within the Project shall remain ungated and unfenced.

z. Perimeter fencing shall be limited to privacy wall fencing around individual lots. The sides of local streets or ends of cul-de-sacs shall not be gated or fenced, except for low non-opaque fencing.

aa. Trails shall provided through the Project as indicated in the Development Plan. Said trails shall include benches, shelters, low-level lighting, and significant tree landscaping to provide shade. Special decorative paving (such as stamped concrete, brick, or Bomanite) shall be provided to delineate said path at street crossings.

bb. All subdivided lots shall provide adequate space to accommodate a minimum 8×10 foot (80 sq. ft., minimum dimension of 8 feet) covered patio within the required setbacks.

cc. The maximum number of dwelling units allowed within the Project shall be eight hundred and fifty-one (851) and the maximum density shall be 2.70 dwelling units per acre.

dd. The minimum open space percentage provided with the Project shall be 14.2% of the gross residential site area.

ee. View walls that meet the pool barrier requirements of the Town shall be utilized for all lots backing onto common open space.

ff. Project shall include the recreational and open space amenities described in Development Plan, as well as a minimum of one baseball and one soccer field.

gg. All retention basins shall contain natural design and meandering slopes. No ditch appearance shall be allowed. Open space shall be designated as pedestrian linkages/public access areas. Civil design shall allow for the placement of sidewalks and landscaping materials within open space/public access areas, in the size and amount noted on the Preliminary Landscape Plan.

hh. Entry monumentation, privacy and perimeter walls, ramada design, street lighting, and landscaping shall address the community character goals specified by the San Tan Area Plan. Said plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board as part of the Open Space Program.

ii. The Open Space Program for the Project shall include a street landscape theme for local and arterial streets within or adjacent to the Project. The Open Space Program for the Project shall also include a low-level lighting theme for local streets, as approved by the Town.

jj. All house standard plans shall require review and approval by the Design Review Board. Design Review Board is required prior to the submittal of construction documents to the Community Development Department.

kk. If features of archeological, paleontological, or historical interest are encountered or unearthed during construction of the Project, the Developer shall stop work in the immediate vicinity of such feature, protect it from damage or disturbance, and report promptly to the Town. The developer shall not resume construction in the immediate vicinity of the feature until it is advised by the appropriate jurisdictional authorities that study or removal of the feature or features have been completed.

ll. Cultural resource study results shall be provided to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) prior to any civil design document submittal to the Town. Study results and SHPO response to the study shall be provided to the Planning Department as part of the documentation required to process any Final Plat for the Project.

mm. Sellerâ??s Disclosure statement shall include a statement for purchasers of residential units that the residential unit is located in an area that may be impacted by possible visual and physical impacts associated with agrarian economic activity (specifically, but not limited to dairy operations), that is within close proximity to the development. Development and notification of the tower on Chandler Heights Road shall also be disclosed.

Commissioner Susan Preiss asked to be excused for the next two items on the agenda since she lived in that community.

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff excused Commissioner Susan Preiss and requested that Alt. Commissioner Michael Monroe replace her on the following two items.

GP01-2 - Amend the Multi-Use Commercial (MC) land use designation to Medium High density (MH) residential, 4 - 8 residential units an acre, on 12.7 acres located approximately 550 feet south of the southeast corner of Claiborne Avenue and Baseline Road.

Z01-02 - A request by KB Homes to rezone approximately 12.7 gross acres from R1-43 (Rural) to R-CH, PAD (Single Family Cluster Home, Planned Area Development). The proposed minimum lot size is 3,870 square feet and the project density is 5.3 units per gross acre. The property is located approximately 550â?? south of the southeast corner of Claiborne Avenue and Baseline Road.

Senior Planner Dan Fairbanks informed the Commission that he wanted to present GP01-2 and Z01-02 together. He stated that between the two cases, he was going to present a very brief Power Point presentation on cluster developments. Based on concerns and questions that he had received from the public, he thought it would be beneficial to present some information on cluster developments.

Mr. Fairbanks explained that GP01-2 was a General Plan amendment to amend the General Plan from Multi-Use Commercial to Medium High Density Residential. If approved, the change in the land use designation would change the Town Policy on the 12.7-acre site from intensive retail uses to single-family uses at 4-8 units/acre.

Mr. Fairbanks showed the site plan and described the surrounding land uses. Adjacent to the west was the Tone Baseline development with a mix of lot sizes zoned R1-7 and R1-5. Traveling further south into the subdivision were some larger R1-8, R1-10, and R1-20 properties. To the south of the proposed development was the Carriage Lane 10 subdivision with different components; the adjacent lots are 50â?? wide, with 70â?? wide lots and larger to the south. He explained that many of the lot widths in the proposal were similar to ones in the surrounding properties. To the east, there was a county property that was designated as Multi-Use Commercial. To the north of the site was a very large 70-acre parcel that was planned for very intensive office and retail uses, with 1.4 million square feet of commercial uses in the Baseline 130 development. He reminded the Commission that the Safeway center had already been approved and would go under construction in the next three months. There were two applications for commercial centers adjacent to this property.

Regarding the analysis for the General Plan amendment, Mr. Fairbanks stated that in terms of compatibility Staff believed that this land use was compatible with the adjacent residential and the commercial development. The size and shape of the property lent itself well to a cluster type development with a central open space amenity. Staff believed the size of the site at 12.7 acres could accommodate a homeowners association that could ensure the long term maintenance of the private streets and the open space.

Mr. Fairbanks explained that the neighbors had a number of concerns with the traffic in the area. Based on Staffâ??s discussions with the traffic-engineering department, the intersection of Claiborne and Baseline would be signalized in the future. In addition, there would be a signal at Houston and Higley Roads. In terms of the impact of this type of development, the neighborhood in the area had about 687 homes. He explained that the proposal was for an additional 68 homes, which was approximately 10% of what currently existed in the neighborhood. Mr. Fairbanks identified that the applicant had worked with the Gilbert School District, but at that point did not have an agreement for any contribution to the school district.

Mr. Fairbanks showed a Power Point presentation describing cluster developments; how the Town regulated these developments; and what the Townâ??s objectives were in terms of quality. In the presentation, Mr. Fairbanks identified that the R-CH ordinance was adopted in May of 2000. He also reminded the Commission that the Council had recently adopted the Medium High Density Framework Guidelines. He explained that in the Commissionâ??s packet, they had a breakdown of each of the components from the Medium High Density Framework Guidelines and how the applicant responded to these objectives.

Mr. Fairbanks showed some pictures of existing cluster type developments and compared the proposed project to the existing developments. He explained that most of the pictures had higher densities that what was being proposed in the project. In addition, the applicant had improved upon the design used at Cooper Commons in Chandler by incorporating concepts from the Medium High-Density Guidelines; street trees; sidewalks; and more creative perimeter walls.

Mr. Fairbanks identified the details of the site plan. He stated that it was a 12.7-acre site. The applicant had incorporated was a 40â?? landscape setback on Claiborne, which was mostly trees and decomposed granite. The zoning provisions for the site would provide for a 20â?? setback for a single story home and a 30â?? setback for a two-story home from the adjacent commercial sites. In addition, there was an eight-foot wall proposed to provide a better separation from the commercial. The homes would have a minimum of 15â?? rear setback within the interior of the development. He showed the visual aide of the development and described the setbacks on the perimeter lots.

In looking at the cluster, Mr. Fairbanks explained that there was a looped public street that would be installed by the developer and maintained by the Town of Gilbert. He explained where the sidewalks would be located in the project. He concluded by asking for questions from the Commission.

Commissioner Dan Dodge asked if the Gilbert Public Schools supported the application.

Mr. Fairbanks replied that he talked that day with a representative from Gilbert Public Schools and stated that they had not come to an agreement with KB Homes, but that they were hopeful that they would come to a conclusion well before the project came to Town Council.

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff asked if there were any other questions from the Commission. Seeing none, he asked the applicant to come forward.

Sean Lake, 10 West Main Street, Mesa with KB Homes came forward. He stated that Greg Davis, the architect for the project, and Chris Lindahl with KB Homes were also in attendance that evening to answer any questions that the Commission might have. He commented that he appreciated the nice job that Mr. Fairbanks did on his presentation. He pointed out that the pictures shown didnâ??t display the things that his project would have. The pictures showed the things that had been done with cluster developments in the past and that they intended to make many corrections to what had been done.

To understand the character of the project, Mr. Lake stated that he wanted to point out a couple of issues related to the pictures that were shown. With respect to the gravel that was shown, he stated that they had worked with Staff to develop a more attractive streetscape with the proposed landscape and trees. In addition, the main area in the courtyard was significantly wider with a landscape median, opening up the area substantially. He clarified that the pictures that were shown in the Power Point presentation were not what they were proposing in that project.

Mr. Lakes reported that since the last hearing, they had met with the neighbors on May 7th and had an attendance of 30-40 people. He informed the Commission that they had copies of the minutes of that meeting. In addition, Mr. Lake stated that they held another neighborhood meeting on May 15th. He passed out the minutes of that meeting to the Commission and informed them that there were five people in attendance at that meeting. Issues that were discussed at the first meeting were general issues; density; design and character to what existed to the south. He explained that the neighbors wanted something that was compatible to the south. Also discussed at the first meeting were General Plan issues and the zoning issues. The second meeting was focused on design and quality of open space, theme walls, and the entry momunentation. Mr. Lake explained that he presented slides of the project during the meeting. He commented that he thought the meetings went well.

One of the issues that was brought up with the neighbors, Mr. Lake explained, regarded improvements of Claiborne. He stated that there were some misunderstandings on this issue. The neighbors thought that in doing the project, they would be improving Claiborne in front of the commercial parcel to the north. As a result of the meeting, he stated that he contacted the Tones that own the property to the north to see if they would dedicate the right of way for Claiborne. He explained that if the Tones agreed to dedicate the road when they were improving their section of Claiborne that they would also put some temporary pavement down in front of the Tonesâ?? commercial property. He added that he would not like it to be a stipulation, in case the Tones decided not to dedicate their right of way.

As far of the Staff Report, Mr. Lake stated that they agreed to all the stipulations as stated in the report, with two modifications. He said that he thought the project was an excellent diverse project that met the goals of the R-CH zoning. He added that he thought the project was compatible with the properties around the project. On condition M., he stated that since the pavement within the project needed to be maintained by the homeowners association, he asked that they change it to state the pavement material on the internal private drive shall incorporate special pavement treatments as approved by the Design Review Board. Since there were different materials that could be used, he didnâ??t want to limit it to concrete pavers, since that was a very expensive treatment to for the homeowners to upkeep over the years. The other stipulation that he asked to be modified was stipulation s, which he asked to have the sidewalls located to the rear of the property. This would create a more open feel within the development. He explained that Staff had asked to bring the walls up to 20â?? of the front of the home, which was more of a traditional single-family design. He asked the return walls to be located 20â?? from the rear. Typically, he stated the homes were 60â??-65â?? deep and these walls toward the back of the homes would open the area by creating a greater visible area. He asked that stipulation s be modified to state that the word front be changed to the word rear.

Mr. Lake stated that they would come to an agreement with the school district prior to the case going to the Town Council. He stated that he understood the importance of this and would make sure that it was taken care of soon. He concluded by asking for questions or comments form the Commission.

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff asked if there were any questions from the Commission. Seeing none, he explained that he would open the public hearing for the General Plan amendment first.

He opened the Public Hearing for GP01-2 and asked Steve Shibley to come forward.

Steve Shibley, 955 E. Windsor, Gilbert came forward. He stated that he didnâ??t think they should approve the proposed development. With the commercial development that Gilbert needed, he didnâ??t think the change would bring income to the Town by turning it into cluster homes. He asked the Commission to take the economics into consideration when reviewing the zoning case.

Bob Giambelluca, 2859 E. Melody Lane, Gilbert came forward. He informed the Commission that they did have two meetings with Mr. Lake at the recommendation of the Commission from the last hearing. He stated that although he wasnâ??t able to make the second meeting, he was in attendance at the first meeting. He explained that he wanted to give the general consensus of the people that were in attendance at the first meeting. He stated that if it was similar to the homes that were to the south and west, than why couldnâ??t they classify it as the same, which was Medium Density Residential. In addition, the neighbors wanted to know when Claiborne would be widened, by how much and how far would the road be widened. He explained a situation that happened to him where he had to wait for a school bus, which couldnâ??t move because of some trucks in the way. He stated that he had to wait five to ten minutes because the street was so narrow that no one could move. His concern was that with another 68 homes, they would have an increased traffic problem. Everyone at the meeting was also concerned with the additional traffic that this cluster development would bring. He added that with all the young children in his neighborhood, he was also concerned for their safety with all the additional traffic.

Moutos Helwani, 3146 E. Desert Lane, Gilbert. He asked if they would be incorporating any type of childrenâ??sâ?? playground in the open space. He stated that he was concerned that if they put 68 homes next to their subdivision, the children would end up using their recreational amenities, increasing the already high use of their facilities. He asked if the other commercial property across Baseline was located in Mesa or Gilbert.

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff stated that the 160 acres on the north side of Baseline and Higley Roads was in Gilbert.

Keith Vaughan, 140 S. Gilbert Road, Gilbert representing Gilbert Public Schools came forward. He stated that after looking at the parcel, it appeared to be a very difficult parcel to develop into commercial. He informed the Commission that he had worked with the applicant and had just that evening come to an agreement. He stated that he anticipated that they would have a written agreement prior to the case going to Town Council.

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff asked if anyone else from the public wanted to speak on the zoning issue. Seeing none, he asked the applicant to come forward if he wanted to respond to the neighborsâ?? comments.

Sean Lake stated that in addressing the issue about keeping the parcel designated as retail, it would be very difficult to do so since it was isolated and had very little frontage. In looking at the commercial that was going to be placed on Higley and Baseline Roads, he stated that he felt the commercial needs would be met in that area.

Mr. Lake explained that that the project was classified as Medium High Density instead of Medium Density because of the way the density was calculated. He explained that the density of the project to the south was about 4.7 units per acre. Standing alone, that would not comply with the Medium Density plan. However, when you add the larger lots to the east and south, the overall density drops down to 3.5 units per acre. That was why the larger development of 640 homes could be within the Medium Density zoning designation. The proposed project at just over 5 units to the acre couldnâ??t be classified as a Medium Density plan since it toped off at 4 units per acre.

Mr. Lake stated that they were trying to work with the Tones to dedicate the part of Claiborne that extended to Baseline. He again explained that they would put down some temporary pavement in front of the Tonesâ?? property if they would agree to it.

Regarding the amenities within the project, Mr. Lake explained that they had approximately two acres that they would use for open space in the center of the project. This open space would have ½ acre of turf for a ball field. In addition, they had incorporated ramadas and barbeques so the people in the development would have an area for recreation. He concluded by asking if anyone had any questions.

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff asked for discussion or a motion from the Commission.

Commissioner Dodge stated that his questions were regarding the zoning case.

A motion was made by Commissioner Dodge, seconded by Vice Chairman Krueger, to approve GP01-02.

Motion Carried 7-0.

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff opened the public hearing for Z01-02. He announced that he had one person that didnâ??t wish to speak that had filled out a slip in favor of the item; Ronald Boerst, 1445 N. Rochester Dr., Gilbert.

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff asked if anyone would like to come forward. Seeing none, he closed the public hearing and brought it back to the Commission for discussion and action.

Commissioner Dan Dodge asked the traffic engineer if he knew what the schedule was for the light at Claiborne and Baseline Roads and if there was a possibility of moving it up on the priority list.

Town Traffic Engineer Bruce Ward came forward. He stated that he had a design proposal to signalize Claiborne and 48th Street off Baseline. He explained that he was trying to move the project along quickly for construction. He stated that the primary reason for doing the signal soon was that 48th Street would be going across the bridge over the freeway in Mesa and that this intersection would soon become very busy.

Digg this