TOWN OF GILBERT PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION, REGULAR MEETING

GILBERT MUNICIPAL CENTER
1025 S. GILBERT ROAD, GILBERT, ARIZONA

JULY 11, 2001

COMMISSION PRESENT:

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff, Vice Chairman Joan Krueger, Commissioner Stan Strom, Commissioner Daniel Dodge, Commissioner Brigette Peterson, Commissioner James Beene, Commissioner Michael Monroe, Alternate Commissioner Todd Hansen

STAFF PRESENT:

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

ALSO PRESENT:

Town Attorney Kelly Schwab, Town Traffic Engineer Bruce Ward, Council Member Don Skousen, Former Mayor Cynthia Dunham, Recorder Trasie Johns

I N D E X

PLANNER CASE PAGE VOTE

Mr. Fairbanks S551 3 Approved
Mr. Mangiamele S555 5 Approved
Mr. Marsh S557 8 Approved
Mr. Gunderman Z01-12 10 Approved

CALL TO ORDER:

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff called the meeting to order at 6:10 P.M.

ROLL CALL:

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

APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff announced that he wanted to move item six on the agenda to the front of the agenda. 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 members of the public could 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.

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff announced that former Mayor Cynthia Dunham was in the audience that evening.

Election of Officers â?? Election of Chairman.

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff asked for nominations for Chairman.

A nomination for Karl Kohlhoff for Chairman was made by Commissioner Stan Strom and seconded by Vice Chairman Joan Krueger.

A nomination for Joan Krueger for Chairman was made by Commissioner Brigette Peterson and seconded by Commissioner Dan Dodge.

Chairman Karl Kohloff called for a vote for Chairman.

Those in favor of Karl Kohloff for Chairman were: Vice Chairman Joan Krueger, Commissioner Stan Strom, and Commissioner James Beene.

Those in favor of Joan Krueger for Chairman were: Commissioner Brigette Peterson, Commissioner Dan Dodge, Chairman Karl Kohlhoff, and Commissioner Michael Monroe.

Joan Krueger was named the new Chairman.

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff announced that Vice Chairman Joan Krueger would be the new Chairman and could finish the meeting as acting Chairman.

Commissioner Dan Dodge requested that Chairman Karl Kohlhoff complete the meeting that evening.

Vice Chairman Joan Krueger agreed to have Chairman Karl Kohlhoff act as Chairman for the remainder of the meeting.

Election of Officers - Election of Vice Chairman.

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff asked for nominations for Vice Chairman.

A nomination for Commissioner Brigette Peterson for Vice Chairman was made by Commissioner Dan Dodge and seconded by Commissioner James Beene.

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff asked if there were any other nominations. Seeing none, he called for a vote for Vice Chairman. He asked for a motion to appoint Commissioner Brigette Peterson to the position of Vice Chairman.

A motion was made by Commissioner Dan Dodge, seconded by Commissioner Michael Monroe, appoint Commissioner Brigette Peterson to the position of Vice Chairman.

Motion Carried 7-0.

CONSENT ITEMS

Minutes â?? Study Session and Special Meeting minutes of May 16, June 13, June 20, 2001; Study Session and Regular Meeting minutes of June 6, 2001.

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff asked for a motion to approve the minutes.

A motion was made by Vice Chairman Joan Krueger, seconded by Commissioner Brigette Peterson, to approve the Minutes â?? Study Session and Special Meeting minutes of May 16, June 13, June 20, 2001; Study Session and Regular Meeting minutes of June 6, 2001.

Motion Carried 7-0.

PUBLIC HEARING

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff announced that they would be moving into the public hearing portion of the meeting.

At 6:30 P.M., Commissioner Stan Strom asked to be excused for the remainder of the meeting. Alternate Commissioner Todd Hanson joined the Commission in place of Commissioner Strom.

Z01-6 - Rezoning of approximately 4 acres from PSC-1 (Planned Neighborhood Shopping Center) P.A.D. to R-3 (Multi-Family 18 du/ac) for residential condominiums, located at the southeast corner of Warner Road & South Islands Drive.

Planning Director Jerry Swanson explained that Z01-6 has been deemed mute since the Council had denied the companion General Plan amendment. Since the law required rezonings to be consistent with the General Plan, the application Z01-6 was mute and did not need to be heard.

S551 â?? Preliminary Plat for KB Home at Baseline & Higley, a 68-lot single family residential subdivision on 12.7 acres in the PAD (Planned Area Development) zoning district with underlying zoning of R-CH (Single Family Cluster Home). The proposed minimum lot area is 3,806 square feet and the project density is 5.3 units per acre. The property is located approximately 550â?? south of the southeast corner of Claiborne Avenue and Baseline Road.

Senior Planner Dan Fairbanks explained that S551 was the companion subdivision to the KB Homes at Higley and Baseline, R-CH PAD. The planned area development was previously recommended for approval by the Planning Commission on May 16, 2001 and subsequently the zoning for the development was approved by the Town Council on June 26, 2001. He explained that the project was a small subdivision with 68 lots on 12.7 acres. The development had a mix of private drives that the homes have access on, and a public street system providing access to the development. The development has a central open space of 1 acre and the homes were developed on the private drives located off of the public street. The applicant, KB Homes, wanted to develop cluster homes within the development. The Staff had reviewed the application and it met all of the requirements of the approved PAD plan. It also met all the requirements of the ULDC subdivision ordinance and there were no outstanding issues with the Staff. He informed the Commission that he could review the amenities package that was approved as a part of the PAD if they would like. He concluded the presentation and asked for questions.

There were no questions for the Staff. Chairman Karl Kohlhoff announced to the public that they needed to fill out blue slip if they wanted to speak. He stated that he didnâ??t have anyone that wanted to speak at the meeting that evening.

Sean Lake, 10 West Main Street, Mesa with KB Homes came forward. He requested that the Commission consider changing the lighting on the public street that went around the central park. He stated that he understood from talking with SRP that the streetlights that would be put in the clusters would be a different design and style than the rest of the Town public street lights that went around the public street. He requested that the Town maintain the public street around the park, but allow them to put in the private SRP dawn to dusk lights, which would match the lights that they would install in the clusters. He explained that it would be a cheaper, more efficient lighting and asked the Commission to allow this change. He stated that they were in agreement with Staff regarding all other issues.

Commissioner Dan Dodge asked who would maintain the private lights on the public street.

Mr. Lake replied that SPR would maintain their lights through an arrangement with the homeowners association and SRP.

Commissioner Dan Dodge asked what advantages would be for the Town to allow them to depart from the normal street standard.

Mr. Lake answered that this light change would allow for a consistency of the design so there wouldnâ??t be a difference in lighting around the center than the rest of the private courtyard. The Town wouldnâ??t have the continued cost and maintenance of the lights.

Commissioner James Beene asked if these lights were installed anywhere else in the Town.

Mr. Lake replied that they were installed in most of the PADs in the Town with private streets.

Chairman Karl Kohloff asked if there were any other questions. Seeing none, he opened the public hearing and brought it back to the Commission for discussion and action.

Commissioner Dan Dodge asked the Staff to comment on the request for the streetlights.

Mr. Fairbanks explained that the project, as approved through zoning had a public street system, which was in a loop circulation pattern. The Town would maintain the street. The private drives were very decorative and would be maintained by the homeowners association. The Planning Departmentâ??s number one concern was that they maintain the streets as public streets. They did not have a problem with the lighting that SRP would install within the subdivision. He explained that it was an engineering issue that they needed to resolve. He added that they could add a stipulation that ensured that they get a public street with a form of lighting that was approved by the Engineering Department.

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff reminded the Commission that they were approving the preliminary plat and that they could have these issues worked out by the final plat, which would go to the Town Council.

A motion was made by Commissioner Michael Monroe, seconded by Commissioner Dan Dodge, to approve S551, Preliminary Plat for KB Home at Baseline & Higley subject to Staff stipulations, adding a stipulation that would state that private streetlights with the approval of the Town of Gilbertâ??s Engineering Department may be permitted within this development on the public streets.

Motion Carried 7-0.

Except as modified herein, the developer shall comply with all zoning stipulations of Council Ordinance No. 1350, and all site stipulations of the site plan and open space plan approved by the Design Review Board for DR01-38.

The active and passive open space shall provide plant materials, amenities, wall structures, monumentation, and ramada structures as identified on the attached landscape plans and as approved by staff through construction document review.

If approved by the Town of Gilbertâ??s Engineering Department, private streetlights may be permitted within this development on the public streets.

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff announced that Council Member Don Skousen was in the audience that evening.

S555 - Preliminary Plat for Seville, Phase 2 (Parcels 17, 18, 19, and 20), an approximate 136 acre residential subdivision containing 245 single family lots. The property is generally located west of the northwest corner of Power and Riggs Roads.

Senior Planner Mario Mangiamele informed the Commission that S555 was a preliminary Plat for Seville, Phase 2 (Parcels 17, 18, 19, and 20), with an approximate 136-acre residential subdivision containing 245 single-family lots. He explained that Phase 1 of the preliminary plat was approved concurrently with the original zoning in 1999. The project contained 8% of the total number of units that would be platted within the Seville development. The four parcels combined R1-6, R1-7, R1-15, and R1-35 zoning districts. The R1-6 parcel, due to the ordinance stipulations, were required to maintain R1-8 standards with an 8,000 square foot lot and the required setbacks concurrent with the R1-8 zoning. The lots ranged from 7,000 square feet up to over an acre.

Mr. Mangiamele showed a visual aid of the project and described the different parcels within the development. With regards to the circulation of the project, he stated that the arterials had already been dedicated and were in the process of being improved. He explained that they were looking at the internal vehicular circulation for the individual parcels. Parcels 17, 18 and 20 were proposed to be public streets. However, parcel 19 proposes a private, internal vehicular circulation system. Back in March 2001, Shea homes came forward with some amended preliminary plats to make some parcels adjacent to the golf course as private streets. He used the visual aid to show the private streets within the project. He stated that this part of the parcel would have a gated entrance, allowing it to be a part of Parcel 12, which was already approved.

Commissioner Dan Dodge asked if the gated entrance was the only access to Parcel 19. He felt it was a long street for a single point of access.

Mr. Mangiamele confirmed that this would be the only entrance to Parcel 19. He added that due to the R1-35 lot size of the properties on the street, they did not have a problem with the one access.

Mr. Mangiamele described the landscaping. He explained that the applicant was proposing to add some landscaping as noted in the Staff report with 19% common open space. The project would be adding to that figure 17.4 acres to the already approved 194.9 acres of open space. This open space would include landscape tracts on the side of streets, entry monumentation and a neighborhood park. He showed the Commission a visual aid of the open spaces and described the different components.

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff asked if there was public access to the golf course.

Mr. Mangiamele replied that there would be access to the golf course for the residents that live within the neighborhood. He added that the golf course was designed as the central focal point for the development.

Chairman Karl Kohloff asked if the lots adjacent had any rights or ownership to the golf course.

Mr. Mangiamele replied that this would be a question that the applicant would be better suited to answer.

Mr. Mangiamele informed the Commission that the Engineering and Fire Departments didnâ??t have any concerns on the proposal based on the revisions that had been provided. The Chandler School District did not provide any response to the preliminary plat, however it was noted that Chandler School District issues were addressed through the zoning and the dedication of an approximately 16 acre school site one mile west of the parcel. Subsequent to the preparation of the report, he explained that Staff had received two phone calls regarding the project, which were only informational and fact-finding.

Mr. Mangiamele concluded his presentation by making a few amendments to the stipulations in the Staff report. On stipulation b., he explained that it wasnâ??t necessary to be included since it was required by the code that they needed to comply with the preliminary plat. He recommended the deletion of stipulation b. He added stipulation f., which should state the private street cross sections shall be revised to provide for a 28â?? back of curb measurement. He stated that the proposed plat provided for a 33â?? back of curb measurement, so this would reduce this paving to provide compliance and match the improvement plans of Parcel 12 to the north.

David Coble, 4350 North 12th Street, Phoenix with Coe & Van Loo Consultants came forward. He informed the Commission that he was representing Shea Homes. He stated that there was one issue that they were concerned with and had discussed with the Staff. Under the preliminary plat, there was a comment that there would be 10â?? tracts adjacent to the lots in Parcel 20, which was a R1-15 zoned parcel. The zoning on that required the tracts to be included on parcels that were R1-10 and smaller. He asked if the Commission had any questions.

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff asked if the people had ownership to the golf course where there was public access.

Mr. Coble stated that he did not think they would have ownership to the golf course.

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff stated that in his community, they did not have any access to the golf course, since the golf course was separate and had its own liability. He asked to have this issue clarified prior to them going to final plat with the Council.

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff asked how they achieved parking for the development with the 32â?? street.

Mr. Coble stated that the street at 28â?? mirrored the street to the north of the project in Parcel 12. He explained that typically the R1-35 lots had larger homes with more parking available off the street, as well as less traffic on the streets.

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff asked where they would park if they had a party.

Mr. Coble replied that they would park on the street if they had a party.

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff pointed out that the 4 â??sidewalk was right against the curb, with a 7â?? landscaping to the property line. He asked who maintained that 7â?? of landscaping.

Mr. Coble answered that the homeowners association maintained the 7â?? of landscaping.

Commissioner Dan Dodge asked for a clarification on the tract for Parcel 20. He stated that there wasnâ??t a stipulation about the tract, requiring action on that issue.

Mr. Mangiamele stated that the last two sentences under Preliminary Plat should be struck. The ordinance only required a 10â?? wide landscape tract up to the R1-10 lots. What was noted in the paragraph was for a R1-15, making it not applicable. Staff didnâ??t add any stipulations at that time since it was an ordinance requirement. He apologized for the misleading information in the Preliminary Plat section on the Staff report.

Commissioner Dan Dodge asked for clarification on the current proposal and change for the street width.

Mr. Coble stated that they were requesting to match the section from Parcel 12, which was approved at 28â?? to the back of curb.

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff stated that he was bothered that the entire right of way was being used for the Fire Department to drive over.

Mr. Mangiamele stated that they needed public access on the private roads for fire apparatus and refuge collection. He explained that they needed adequate legal easement access to the lots.

Town Attorney Kelly Schwab stated that the Fire Department did have to drive over the curbs on the private road, which would provide them access to do this.

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff asked for clarification on the deletion of stipulation b.

Mr. Mangiamele replied that stipulation b. was a mute point since it was a requirement in the ULDC.

Chairman Karl Kohloff stated that it didnâ??t conform to the ULDC because of the length of the street.

Planning Director Jerry Swanson clarified the ULDC language. He informed the Commission that it said “block length”, not “street length”. He stated that it was fairly debatable about when there was a new block created that the actual length of that row of lots cannot exceed 1500â??. In the case of a cul-de-sac street that services property that would be in access of 1500â??, he didnâ??t believe that provision of the ULDC would apply to it.

Planning Director Jerry Swanson asked the Commission to delete stipulation a., since it was also a requirement that didnâ??t need to be repeated.

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 Brigette Peterson, to approve S555, the Preliminary Plats for Seville Parcelsâ?? 17, 18, 19 and 20 subject to Staff stipulations, striking stipulations a. and b, and adding stipulation f. to state that the private street cross sections shall be revised to provide for a 28â?? back of curb measurement.

Motion Carried 7-0.

Developer shall comply with stipulations of Council Ordinance No. 1264, as modified.

Except as modified by the following conditions, the site shall be developed in conformance with the ULDC, and the Preliminary Plat approved by the Planning Commission.

All private streets shall be owned and maintained by a Seville Homeowners Association. Disclosure shall be provided to potential residents regarding the possible costs associated with maintenance of private streets.

Installation of limited access gates leading into Parcel 19 shall be subject to the Fire Departmentâ??s Regulation No. 99-11-22, as modified.

At a minimum, active and passive open space areas shall provide for the following amenities:

1 - Tot Lot (70 play stations)

1 - 16â?? x 16â?? Ramada (lighted)

1 - Trash Receptacle

2 - Picnic Tables

1 - BBQ

1 - Bike Rack (6 loops)

3 â?? Benches

The private street cross sections shall be revised to provide for a 28â?? back of curb measurement.

S557 â?? Layton Lakes Phase I Preliminary Plat, an approximately 300-acre subdivision zoned PAD (Planned Area Development) with an overall density of 3.0 dwelling units per acre. The subject property is generally located north of Queen Creek Road, approximately ½ mile to the east and west of Lindsay Road.

Planner David Marsh informed the Commission that they had extensive discussion on the Layton Lakes project during previous sessions. He described the history of the project and stated that he would give a quick reorientation of the project. He showed a visual aid of the project. The project consisted of 832 acres that straddled the Chandler and Gilbert municipal planning authority boundary. He showed the areas that were in the two different municipalities and described where Phase 1 was located. Phase 1 consisted of 301 units in the Town of Gilbert portion. Phase 1 had 647 single family detached units.

Mr. Marsh explained that the preliminary plat for Phase 1 included all the areas north of Queen Creek Road. He stated that the commercial parcel, Parcel 4 and the townhouse parcel, Parcel 3 would have to come back for a preliminary plat and/or final plat at a later date. In terms of zoning, he stated that Phase 1 included R1-6, R1-7, R1-8, and R1-10 zoning classification. The P.A.D. did allow deviations for building setbacks. There were design requirements, which stated that if the builder wanted to deviate from the ULDC standards for building setbacks, they would have to make design amenities, providing for a more enhanced product.

Mr. Marsh described the lot areas, which ranged from 6,300â?? to 10,600 square feet. The R1-10 zoned units were along the canal and the remainder of the Phase 1 consisted of R1-6, R1-7, R1-8 zoned lots. In terms of vehicle circulation, he explained that they primarily used two arterial streets, Lindsay and Queen Creek Road. In addition, there was a circular collector boulevard that ran throughout the entire portion of Layton Lakes. There were a couple of circulation issues that were yet to be resolved and would be handled in the final plat. He explained the first issue, which dealt with Erin Street. There were some concerns by Staff regarding the lots in the subdivision on Erin Road and the traffic that would be on that road would be increased with the trailhead at the end of the street. Staff had worked with the applicant to try to redesign that area and couldnâ??t find a better plan. Therefore, the applicant had proposed to use traffic calming measures along that portion of Erin Street. They were working with the Town Engineer to get that area approved.

Mr. Marsh explained the other issue that dealt with Queen Creek Road and Lindsay Road, which was the transition between the two municipalities. The ultimate cross section for Queen Creek Road would be six lanes. The Town of Gilbert wanted to build all the lanes in the first phase and the City of Chandler wanted to build four lanes at Phase I. He explained that they would have to come up with a transition design on the west side of the intersection. He stated that they would have to resolve this issue prior to final plat.

Mr. Marsh stated that the remaining issue dealt with the SRP substation. He reminded the Commission that at the February hearing, SRP was present and expressed interest in putting a substation in the Layton Lakes development. They were still discussing the substation and there was still a possibility that it would not be located in the project and could be located in a project to the east or in Chandler. Therefore, Staff had placed a stipulation that if SRP and the developer executed an agreement to locate the substation in the development, then there would be a requirement that a revised preliminary plat would have to be submitted. He concluded his presentation and asked for questions from the Commission.

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

Phillip Miller, 5070 N. 40th Street #240, Phoenix with Commerce Realty Advisors came forward. He informed the Commission that he was representing the Layton Family. He stated that they had enjoyed working with the Town of Gilbert and the City of Chandler to put together an 832 acre master plan community that would not look like it were in two municipalities. He stated that it was a unique project in that there was an intergovernmental agreement for the utilization of affluent water so they could have a lake and stream going through the open space. He described some of the other open space features. With regards to the SRP substation, he explained that they had the ability to provide electricity to the community and surrounding communities at that time, they were just looking into the future with the addition of the substation. He stated that they were working with SPR to get the location worked out.

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.

Commissioner Dan Dodge commented that he had a hard time reviewing the project since they werenâ??t provided the blue lines of the plat. Since it was such a large plat, the miniature copies made it very difficult to review. He asked if the applicant didnâ??t provide them.

Mr. Marsh apologized for this problem and stated that they would make sure the Commission received them in future cases.

Planning Director Jerry Swanson informed the Commission that stipulation number 10 was not necessary and could be stricken.

A motion was made by Vice Chairman Joan Krueger, seconded by Alternate Commissioner Todd Hanson, to approve S557, subject to Staff stipulations, striking stipulation 10.

Motion Carried 7-0.

A revised preliminary plat will required to be reviewed and approved by the Planning & Zoning Commission if the applicant or developer executes an agreement with SRP regarding the location of an SRP substation within the boundaries of the Layton Lakes development.

Lots 41, 69, 70, and 76 of Parcel 2 and Lots 78 & 96 of Parcel 10 shall utilize view fencing.

A 3â?? minimum distance shall be required between the back of curb and any meandering sidewalk.

The Town of Gilbert and the City of Chandler shall approve a transition design for right-of-way improvements on Queen Creek Road west of the intersection of Queen Creek Road and Lindsay prior to approval of any final plat.

Avigation easement information, as identified in Ordinance No. 1328, shall appear in the general notes of any final plat.

Traffic calming design for Erin Lane shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Traffic Engineer prior to approval of a final plat.

All equestrian trails shall be placed within a minimum 10â?? wide public access easement (PAE), via final plat.

A public access trail head shall be provided at the sports field park located at the northwest corner of the project. A public access easement shall be executed via the final plat providing public access to the trail head, parking area, and to trails running parallel to the Eastern Canal.

All proposed street names shall be reviewed and approved by Town of Gilbert Addressing prior to approval of a final plat.

All stipulations and conditions stated in Ordinance No. 1328 shall remain in effect.

Z01-12 - Amendment to the San Tan Ranch Planned Area Development (P.A.D.) to increase the maximum lot coverage from 40% to 45 % for single story homes; to increase the rear yard setback from 15 to 20 feet; and to increase the side yard setbacks from a total of 13 feet to 15 feet for lots located within Parcel 14 of San Tan Ranch, generally located ¼ mile south of Pecos Road on the east side of Napa Lane. The underlying zoning district for Parcel 14 is R1-7 (Single Family Residential).

Planner Suzanne Gunderman explained that Z01-12 was a request for the San Tan Ranch Parcel 14. The request was similar to a PAD amendment for San Tan Ranch on Parcel 7 that was approved by Town Council two years ago. She mentioned an issue that the applicant had with stipulation 7, which was added by Staff, which was different than was approved on Parcel 7. She explained that this stipulation addressed some of the design of two elevations, which have garage fronts in front of the rest of the building. This was a garage style that design which they were trying to move away from since it put the garage out front creating less diversity in the streetscape. What they had been doing in the standard plan architectural reviews was trying to create more diverse garage placement and move the garages back behind the front plane of the livable building area. This project was approved in 1997 and at that time, the requirement for the design review for the R1-7 lots was not placed on that property. Those lots were not required to go through any sort of architectural review for their standard plans.

Ms. Gunderman stated that since the applicant was now coming forth requesting a PAD amendment for greater lot coverage on their single story models, the Staff was attempting to address some of the issues with the garage by requesting that they delete two of their standard floor plans, 1585 and 1849. These would be two plans out of the twelve that they were offering. The applicant didnâ??t agree with the stipulation as it was written and would rather have a stipulation that stated that plan 1849 was only provided in 20% of the total project and they could delete plan 1585. Since plan 1849 was one of the applicantâ??s best sellers, they didnâ??t want to delete the model. Staff was concerned that they would have a problem enforcing the builder to only build 20% since it was a difficult task for the Building Department to enforce. She informed the Commission that this was the only outstanding issue with the project and that there had not been any community comment that she was aware of. She concluded her presentation and asked for questions.

Commissioner Dan Dodge asked if the Commission were to recommend a percentage cap on plan 1849, what number the Staff would be comfortable with.

Ms. Gunderman replied that their desire would be to delete plan 1849, but since they understood this was one of their best sellers, they could understand the need to have some small percentage of this plan. Again, she reminded the Commission that it was very difficult to enforce and it would be cleaner to either allow or disallow the plan in the development from the Building Departmentâ??s perspective.

Commissioner Dan Dodge asked if all the models that remained were not garage forward models.

Ms. Gunderman confirmed that the rest of the models did not have the garage on the first plane of the building.

Commissioner Dan Dodge stated that he thought she had mentioned that the point of the stipulation was to increase the diversity, but he could understand that they didnâ??t want the garage front model to dominate the streetscape.

Ms. Gunderman clarified that diversity was a design goal, however garage dominate front facades was something the Staff was trying to move away from. She explained that the stipulation was trying to accomplish this change from the garage dominance.

Norm Nichols, 2486 E. Park Court, Gilbert came forward. He informed the Commission that he was representing Fulton Homes. He explained that they had built their models two years ago when they asked for the same variance on parcel 7. Parcel 14 was a second phase of an existing community that was already there. They had already sold 20-30 lots in the parcel not realizing that it also had the same restrictions of the 40%. In the 7,000 square foot lot category, there was no design criteria required for the project, which was why some of the garage dominant plans were offered. The reason they were against the plan 1849 being eliminated was that it was their sales office. He stated that it would be hard to eliminate a plan that people were walking through to buy a home.

Mr. Nichols informed the Commission that they were able to give up an additional 5â?? in the backyard to increase the setback to 20â??. They would also be increasing the side yards from 13â?? to 15â?? and still could not meet the 40% requirement. Predominately in Phase 1, which was Parcel 7, they had approximately 82% single story homes and 18% two story homes. He explained that if they tried to go back to 40%, they would jump to 50-55% two story homes, which was not the standard in San Tan Ranch. He explained the product line and the enhancements that were added to meet the design criteria of the Town. He asked that they restrict plan 1849 and not eliminate it completely. He asked for questions from the Commission.

Commissioner Dan Dodge asked if any of the model 1585 were sold within the project.

Mr. Nichols replied that it wasnâ??t a model home and there were not any contracts in Parcel 14 for plan 1585.

Commissioner Dan Dodge confirmed that the primary reason for keeping 1849 was that it was their sales office.

Mr. Nichols agreed that it would be difficult to close down their sales office, which was model 1849.

Vice Chairman Joan Krueger asked if model 1849 was the best selling home.

Mr. Nichols replied that model 1849 was the second best selling home.

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff asked if there were any other questions for the applicant. Seeing none, he opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wanted to speak on the issue. Since no one came forward, he closed the public hearing and brought it back to the Commission for discussion and action.

Commissioner Dan Dodge stated that he understood the applicantâ??s dilemma and explained that it was fairly supported by the Commission and Town Council to allow for 45% lot coverage instead of the 40% for single-family homes. He stated that the increase to 20â?? rear yard setback wasnâ??t too much of an increase since most families would prefer the additional setback and wouldnâ??t buy the 15â?? rear yard setback anyway. On the side yard setback, it was a total of 15â?? side yard which was the sum of both sides. He stated that he would support this project in that he liked more single story homes versus the big box two story homes. He agreed with allowing some 1849 models, but wasnâ??t sure what the appropriate percentage would be to allow. He added that he didnâ??t think a few of these models in the development would affect the streetscape significantly.

Commissioner Brigette Peterson stated that she lived in a Fulton Home. Her home was the largest single story in her neighborhood and there were many of her neighbors in her area that wanted a larger single story home and couldnâ??t so they had to go to the two-story home. She stated that the 1849 was a popular model and she agreed that it would be a difficult thing to enforce that only a certain number of the model were built.

Commissioner Dan Dodge asked what was the largest single story home that was offered in the development.

Mr. Nichols stated that they had three model homes in the area and each home could be sold equally. The 1849 model was a very unique home in that it was a great room home. He stated that not many builders were building a great room home with four bedrooms. The percentage of the 1849 model home in Parcel 7 was 24% of the total sales.

Commissioner Dan Dodge asked again what the square footage was of the home and what models were available that were larger.

Mr. Nichols replied that the number one selling home that they had was 2137 square feet, which was a four-bedroom home. He asked the Commission to look in their packets to see the lot fit analysis and showed that there were very few homes that were affected by the lot coverage issue. He reminded the Commission that plan 1849 did not have a lot coverage issue, but a garage dominant issue.

Town Attorney Kelly Schwab reiterated the difficulty of enforcing a restriction, whether percent or actual number of plans being built in a subdivision. She stated that it was very difficult logistically since the Building Department approved buildings as they came in and it would be difficult for them to keep track. She pointed out that they would have to rely on the developer to keep tract of the numbers.

Commissioner Dan Dodge agreed with Ms. Schwab and stated that they needed to rely on the developer to be honest. He added that Fulton Homes had been a good developer in the community for many years. He stated that he wasnâ??t comfortable disallowing the building of plan 1849 since it was their model and had built them in the past. He thought they should allow some of them to be built in the neighborhood, without allowing them to build as many of this model as they could sell.

Vice Chairman Joan Krueger commented that she thought it was interesting that they were discussing limiting the model that most people wanted to buy.

Commissioner Dan Dodge replied that there were two different issues, one being the individual home and the other being the streetscape, which buyers donâ??t concern themselves with. Therefore, he felt they needed to consider this for the community.

Vice Chairman Joan Krueger asked if there was some compromise that they could look at in terms of the streetscape.

Commissioner Brigette Peterson informed the Commission that Fulton Homes had already attempted to add diversity in their streetscape with the front porches that they had moved up to the front of the home. She added that they made sure to swap their elevations so garages were beside each other.

Vice Chairman Joan Krueger asked if it might be easier to enforce a streetscape that they dictated where the homes were located to ensure that not so many of the model 1849 homes were built next to each other.

Town Attorney Kelly Schwab informed the Commission that it would be more difficult to enforce the streetscape planning than the number of model 1849 homes being built.

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff stated that he thought it was self-governing and they should allow people to buy the home they wanted to buy. He added that Fulton Homes had done a good job at varying the streetscape.

Planning Manager Maria Cadavid clarified that the model homes were built in Parcel 7 and not in Parcel 14. The request to limit model 1849 to 20% was requested by the applicant. She stated that they had upgraded the product that was originally built in Parcel 7 and provided better articulation and tandem garages. She felt that it was acceptable to Staff to issue the deviations requested. She stated that they kept track of the plans that were built on the plat.

Vice Chairman Joan Krueger asked how many models were in the development.

Mr. Nichols replied that they had three homes that were modeled and that there were seven plans available in Parcel 7. In addition, they were adding four additional plans in Parcel 14. Every one of these new plans had the garages de-emphasized. He described how they treat their streetscape. He explained that they changed their homes by pairing up driveways and staggering driveways across the street. They also stagger the fronts of the homes and group the side yards together. In addition, they preplot their elevations to encourage more diversity.

Vice Chairman Joan Krueger stated that with the number of models and the amount of effort that the homebuilder went through to vary their streetscape, she was comfortable allowing 1849 to be built and allow it to be self governing.

Commissioner Dan Dodge stated that he felt it would be all right to go with the applicantâ??s suggestion and allow for 20% of plan 1849 to be built.

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff commented that there was a trend to go to a great room and understood why plan 1849 was such a good seller.

A motion was made by Commissioner Dan Dodge, seconded by Commissioner Michael Monroe, to approve Z01-12 subject to Staff stipulations, modifying stipulation 5 to read Parcel “14″ instead of “7″, modifying stipulation seven to remove 1849 from the first sentence and adding a sentence stating that standard plan 1849 shall be limited to 20% or 25 lots within Parcel 14.

Commissioner Brigette Peterson asked why they were limiting them to 20%. She stated that she thought they werenâ??t going to limit them and agreed with Chairman Karl Kohlhoff that they should leave it to be self-governed. She stated that the applicant agreed to 20% instead of deleting the plan completely.

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff stated that if the motion failed, they could have another motion.

Commissioner Michael Monroe rescinded his second.

Town Attorney Kelly Schwab clarified by stating that Commissioner Dan Dodge made the motion and since Commissioner Michael Monroe rescinded the second, they needed another second on Commissioner Dan Dodgeâ??s motion.

Vice Chairman Joan Krueger seconded the motion.

Motion failed 2-5.

Ayes: Vice Chairman Joan Krueger, Commissioner Dan Dodge Nayes: Chairman Karl Kohlhoff, Commissioner Brigette Peterson, Commissioner James Beene, Commissioner Michael Monroe, Alternate Commissioner Todd Hanson

Chairman Karl rescinded asked for another motion.

A motion was made by Commissioner Brigette Peterson, seconded by Commissioner James Beene, to approve Z01-12 subject to Staff stipulations, modifying stipulation 5 to read Parcel “14″ instead of “7″, changing stipulation seven to delete the words “and 1849″.

Motion carried 5-2.

Ayes: Chairman Karl Kohlhoff, Commissioner Brigette Peterson, Commissioner James Beene, Commissioner Michael Monroe, and Alternate Commissioner Todd Hanson

Nayes: Vice Chairman Joan Krueger, Commissioner Dan Dodge

Except as modified herein, all conditions of Ordinance No. 1073 shall remain in full force and effect.

Lot coverage for residential lots within Parcel 14 of the San Tan Ranch PAD shall be a maximum of forty (40) percent for two-story homes and a maximum of forty-five (45) percent for single-story homes.

The rear yard setback for Parcel 14 of San Tan Ranch shall be twenty (20) feet.

The side yard setback for Parcel 14 of San Tan Ranch shall be a total of fifteen (15) feet, with no side yard setback being less than five (5) feet.

Garages located within Parcel 14 of San Tan Ranch shall be grouped together, and staggered with the garage location of homes across the street.

Adjacent homes (homes next to, or across the street from each other) located within Parcel 14 of San Tan Ranch shall have different house elevations.

Standard plans 1585 and 1849 shall not be built in Parcel 14. Standard plans proposed in Parcel 14 shall mitigate the dominance of the front-facing garage by having livable or porch spaces at the front of the residence. The front of garages shall not extend in front of the livable or porch space.

ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS

Presentation and discussion of Neo-Traditional Design (NTD) and the Gateway Area Plan.

Planner David Marsh informed the Commission that Staff would be happy to provide a digital version of the presentation on a CD. He explained that he wanted to discuss the Neo-Traditional design since at the last Design Review Board meeting, many Board members asked to know more about this type of design. The Staff felt that the Commission might also benefit from this presentation along with the members of the developers and builders that might be in the audience. He added that his presentation was the first step in a long process. He described where the Gateway Area Plan was located.

Mr. Marsh showed a Power Point presentation and discussed the features of the Neo-Traditional Design and the Gateway Area Plan. In the Purpose Statement of the Gateway Area Plan, the plan called for: “Traditional village / neighborhood design concepts based upon the neo-traditional principles” and “Pedestrian / bicycle / transit oriented design”. He added that the Plan didnâ??t define Neo-Traditional Design and that some of the areas were vague. They need to determine exactly what Neo-Traditional Design was and what Gilbert would adopt of this design.

Mr. Marsh explained that there were many different designs within the Neo-Traditional Design. He described the different designs:

Traditional Neighborhood Design (TND) - Duany / Plater-Zyberk

Transit Oriented Design (TOD) â?? Peter Calthorpe

Hybrid design â?? “smart growth” communities

Mr. Marsh showed visual aids of different homes within the Neo-Traditional design. The critical aspect that he brought to the Commissions attention was that all the homes were built with pedestrian scaled development, not auto scaled development. The essential characteristics were the antithesis of post World War II suburban sprawl. It was return to the turn of the century development patterns in urban form with pedestrians being the primary factor, not the automobile. The neighborhood was a basic unit of development.

Mr. Marsh described that there were a couple key concepts for neighborhood development. These key concepts to neighborhood development were:

The neighborhood has a center and an edge.

The optimal size of a neighborhood is a quarter mile from the center to edge.

A balanced mix of activities â?? dwelling, shopping, working, schooling, worshipping and recreating.

Structures building sites and traffic on a fine network of interconnecting streets.

Gives priority to public space and to the appropriate location of civic buildings.

Mr. Marsh showed a diagram of an optimal Neo-Traditional neighborhood. He explained that there was a core, with an edge that was ¼ mile walking distance across. There was a mix of uses, and as you go from the center to the outer edge the density decreases. The open spaces were the focal point of the community, given prominence to the design. There was a clear network of streets in the development.

Mr. Marsh explained that within the neighborhood, there were two aspects or “design levels”. He described the aspects using the Power Point presentation:

Overall urban form and design

Streets â?? network, narrow streets, alleys

Variety of land uses and densities (Mix of Commercial, Multi-Family Residential, and various Single Family Residential types)

Gradation in land uses and densities (More intense, active uses in the center. Density and intensity decreases with distance.)

Interconnectedness â?? hierarchy of space & place

Creation and reinforcement of public and civic place

Design of individual buildings and their orientation with the street

Structures oriented to the street â?? limited setbacks

Pedestrian oriented design and scale

Parking to the rear

Alley loaded garages

Commercial parking fields in rear of buildings

Reflect the architectural heritage of the region

Mr. Marsh described the commercial design within Neo-Traditional Design:

“Verticality” of buildings

Multiple stories

Multiple uses

Close association with the street

Pedestrian orientation & features

Limited on-street parking

Majority of parking in rear, common parking areas, or parking structures

High quality of architectural design and details

Pedestrian oriented â?? pedestrian scale

Outdoor seating and eating areas

Covered walkways, arcades

Courtyards

Signage is proportionate to pedestrian uses and traffic, not automobiles

Mr. Marsh showed pictures of commercial buildings that met the Neo-Traditional design criteria and described their features.

Regarding residential design, Mr. Marsh described the key elements:

Close association with the street

Activity areas to the front of the house

Pedestrian oriented â?? pedestrian design

Mix of housing types and densities

“Granny Flats” â?? ancillary or â??flexâ?? units

Reflect architectural heritage of the area

Treatment of parking & garages â?? alleys

Mr. Marsh showed pictures of residential buildings that met the Neo-Traditional design criteria and described their features.

Mr. Marsh asked the Commission what they thought Gilbertâ??s vision was of Neo-Traditional design. He asked if they thought it was more like the Traditional Neighborhood Development Design, the Transit Oriented Design or some hybrid in between. He explained that it would be the subject of ongoing discussion and development. He stated that they needed to draw upon their own local architectural heritage. He explained that they would need to have ongoing communication from the Design Review Board, Planning and Zoning Commission, Town Council and the Town Staff.

Mr. Marsh explained that the Town Bodies & Staff would need to have continued education & discussion on the Neo-Traditional Design (NTD). They needed to develop and implement a NTD Guidelines to be used in the Gateway area and other areas in the Town that people would want to do this design. In addition, they would need to re-examine and change existing development standards to permit NTD. He explained that most of the architecture and examples that he had shown in the slide show could not be done in Gilbert due to the ULDC standards. The Town would also need to be open to new development ideas and proposals that incorporate NTD principles. In addition, they would need to have ongoing dialogue with development community to encourage innovative development proposals. They would also need to encourage developers not to retrofit existing housing products but come up with new products that would incorporate the NTD principals.

Mr. Marsh concluded by stating that they had challenging but exciting times ahead. This design would requires a new â??mind setâ?? amongst all players. They would need to think â??out side of the boxâ?? and think outside of â??normalâ?? development patterns and development standards. In addition, Mr. Marsh explained that there would be problems requiring creative and collaborative solutions. He gave an example of the difficulty the engineering department might have with narrow streets.

Mr. Marsh stated that the Neo-Traditional Design gave Gilbert the opportunity to be visionary by setting Gilbert apart. It would also create a distinct community and sense of place. It was also an opportunity for Gilbert to be proactive and could use the principals of NTD elsewhere in the Town. It required “Vision” and a clear concept of what NTD in Gilbert will be, so they could communicate with developers to make this a reality. He concluded that it was the first step in an ongoing process. He asked for questions from the Commission.

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff asked how they could get to where you live to where you work in a very mobile society where you change jobs every two years. He added that there was transit in the plan, which was a very questionable thing.

Mr. Marsh emphasized that Transit Oriented Design was only one of the themes in the plan and could or couldnâ??t be used based upon their discussions. He stated that there was a high interest in having a commuter bus loop along the Williams Field Road in the Gateway plan that would go through the urban core. Regarding the opportunity to walk to work, he stated that everyone would not need to get rid of his or her car; this development pattern would permit you to walk to work if it was desired. Since Neo-Traditional Design allowed for a variety of zoning mixes, it allowed people to walk anywhere in the community.

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff asked about verticality and how the elderly would deal with wanting single story homes.

Mr. Marsh stated that there was an emphasis on a variety of residential types within the neighborhood, allowing for one-story homes, two story homes and other types of dwelling units. The important factor, he explained, was that you didnâ??t have to change the part of town you lived in if you wanted to move from an apartment to a two-story home. Also, he stated that vertically concept was found more in the commercial element, allowing for different uses at each level.

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff asked where Laguna was located and if they had alleys in that development.

Mr. Marsh replied that Laguna was located in California and they did not have alleys in that development.

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff asked if alleys were a good use of the land.

Mr. Marsh answered that when they had higher density, alleys were a good use of the land. With 7,000-10,000 square foot lots, it might not make sense to have alleys. He added that they would gain some land from the narrow streets. In the higher densities, the economics come into play and alleys make more sense.

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff stated that in the 1950s and 1960s, they had alleys and they went away from them since that was where the dumping was, they were hard to maintain and there were police problems. He thought there needed to be a hybrid similar to the Laguna project.

Commissioner Michael Monroe asked where the Disney development (Celebration) was located.

Mr. Marsh explained that the Disney development was south of Walt Disney World in Florida.

Commissioner Michael Monroe commended Mr. Marsh on his presentation. He explained that he was an architect and had customers in the past that were confused as to what Neo-Traditional design looked like. He asked for Mr. Marsh to make a CD for him. He added that there was a development in Austin, Texas that was doing a Neo-Traditional Design. Before the development was built, they were 65% sold out. He described this development to the Commission and stated that the alleys were typical of a boardwalk. The alleys served the detached garages and provided an element of open atmosphere space where citizens had barbeques, picnics, baseball and other activities in the street.

Commissioner Michael Monroe stated that the next concern regarded the Heritage District Plan that the Council talked about and approved. With the commercial area, the building height and the verticality of the buildings would do well in the area. He commented that he would be very open to explore any issues that a developer had if they were considering building in this type of development. He concluded that he was very excited about this plan and the efforts that the Planning Staff had done to put the project together.

Mr. Marsh explained that the National Homeowners Association recently issued a study of the marketplace and determined that between 25-40% of all homeowners would be interested in this type of development.

Commissioner Dan Dodge commented that in the first seven years that he was on the Commission he only saw R1-5 and R1-7 suburban sprawl developments. Over the past three years, he stated that he was excited to see some innovation started in Gilbert, which took a fair amount of work to recognize that it was different and change some of the rules in the ULDC to allow the projects to move forward. He stated that they were showing some insight with the Gateway Planning area, giving some diversity to the community. He asked the Planning Staff to make sure the developers know that they want this type of development in the Gateway Plan and stand firm in making sure they meet the required guidelines.

Mr. Marsh announced that there were some representatives of the Cooley family in the audience. He informed the Commission that they had gone out to Oregon to look at a Neo-Traditional neighborhood. The Cooley family owns a large portion of the Gateway area and they were very excited to use the NTD principals.

Commissioner Dan Dodge stated that he had the opportunity for two years to live in Germany where the verticality was emphasized. He found that there was more accessibility with lots of flats with elevators.

Vice Chairman Joan Krueger stated that Mr. Marsh didnâ??t show any examples of homes in the Arizona climate that were Neo-Traditional. She explained that the building materials were substantially different in order to withstand the heat. She asked what kind of building materials would be used to adhere to the Neo-Traditional Design.

Mr. Marsh explained that the housing products would draw from the architecture of the area and could use whatever building materials were appropriate in the climate. One of the key things of the design, he explained, was that the architecture needed to come from the area. The key features were pedestrian oriented design, living spaces to the front, garages recessed to the rear, porches and balconies and close setbacks to the street. He emphasized that it didnâ??t have to do with a certain type of architecture.

Commissioner Dan Dodge commented that the plan was against the normal way of thinking by trying to increase the density. He explained that the ULDC guidelines were intended to spread the community out and not increase the density.

Mr. Marsh agreed and added that density was a key aspect in the NTD principals. He described how the density would be situated within a development.

Commissioner Michael Monroe informed the Commission that there were a lot of building materials that could be used in the Arizona climate to withstand the heat. He gave examples of different materials and how they could be used. He stated that with the Plan, they would have to come to a compromise with street widths and densities.

Commissioner Dan Dodge stated that with the different densities, they would be able to provide a more economic opportunity for people in the community. He asked if the current project to rewrite the ULDC would incorporate some of the concepts and issues that were discussed that evening.

Mr. Marsh stated that they were considering adding some of these features in the new ULDC. He added that the consultant that they were working with had a great deal of experience in the area.

Discussion of the next Regular Planning Commission Meeting: August 1, 2001.

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff asked the Commission if they wanted to go on vacation or have a meeting in August.

Some of the Commission members asked what was on the agenda for that date in August.

Planning Manager Maria Cadavid explained that the content would be similar to the meeting that evening. She stated that if the meeting were missed in August, it would make for a long meeting in September.

The Commission agreed to have the meeting in August.

COMMUNICATIONS

A report from the Chairman on current events.

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff shared that his daughterâ??s 36-year-old horse died. It was a very hard and emotional experience for him and his daughter.

Commissioner Dan Dodge stated that the horse had been a part of the history of the Town and was a well know site on the corner of Val Vista and Elliot.

Subcommittee Reports.

There were no reports given.

Report from the Planning Director on current events.

Planning Director Jerry Swanson informed the Commission that the Town Council approved the Heritage Redevelopment Plan General Plan amendment which was intended to make the land uses for the downtown area constant with the Heritage District Redevelopment Plan. This was approved to provide for greater building heights on the Gilbert Road frontage and areas to the west. In addition, the Council approved the Pecos Road and Power Ranch General Plan amendment and denied the four-acre retail to multi-family residential in the Islands. The most significant item, Mr. Swanson announced, the Council approved the Revised General Plan for the Town of Gilbert as recommended by the Staff and amended by the Commission. The Council referred it to the ballot for November 6. He explained that until the plan is adopted, they would be operating with the current General Plan.

Mr. Swanson informed the Commission that they would be turning their efforts to the update of the ULDC now that they had completed the work on the General Plan. In addition, they were finalizing the trails standards for the Parks, Open Space and Trails element. The majority of this was included in the General Plan that was approved by the Council.

Commissioner Dan Dodge asked if there were any significant changes from the Plan as the Commission had recommended.

Mr. Swanson replied that they added some acreage to 2 ½ to 3 ½ dwelling unit per acre proposal by Paul Gilbert at the northwest corner of Higley and Riggs Road. The entire area became about 230 acres. The property owner had requested 90-100 acres be changed. The Council wanted to make the entire area higher intensity. He stated that the other change was a small addition of about 8 acres of commercial to the shopping center designation at the southwest corner of Baseline and Cooper Roads. It would make this consistent with the current General Plan.

Commissioner Dan Dodge asked if they would be seeing General Plan amendments until the new General Plan was in effect in November.

Mr. Swanson replied that the Town would not be accepting General Plan amendments until after the vote takes place in November.

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff thanked Senior Planner Geir Sverdrup for all his hard work on the Plan.

Mr. Swanson agreed that Senior Planner Geir Sverdrup had done an excellent job on the plan. He recognized Planning Manager Linda Edwards and described her outstanding job that she had done with the Plan as well. He added that there were so many Staff members that had done an outstanding job on the Plan that it was impossible to name them all.

Vice Chairman Joan Krueger thanked Chairman Karl Kohlhoff for all his hard work as the Chairman over the past year and previous years.

ADJOURN REGULAR MEETING

Chairman Karl Kohlhoff asked for a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:45 P.M.

A motion was made by Commissioner Dan Dodge, seconded by Commissioner Michael Monroe, to adjourn the meeting.

Motion Carried 7-0.

ATTEST:

Recorder Trasie Johns