TOWN OF GILBERT PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION, JOINT MEETING

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

NOVEMBER 14, 2001

PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PRESENT: Chairman Joan Krueger, Vice Chairman Brigette Peterson, Commissioner Michael Monroe, Commissioner Dan Dodge, Commissioner Karl Kohlhoff, Alternate Commissioner Todd Hanson

PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ABSENT: Commissioner Stan Strom, Commissioner James Beene

DESIGN REVIEW BOARD PRESENT: Chairman Darrell Truitt, Vice Chairman Gary Petterson, Board Member Bob Deardorff

DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ABSENT: Board Member Roxanna Rojo, Board Member John Tomasson, Board Member David Gibson, Board Member Robin Schneider

REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION PRESENT: Chairman Eugene Valentine, Vice Chairman Duncan Thomas, Commissioner Thomas Haug, Commissioner Mary Ellen Fresquez, Commissioner James Iacobazzi

STAFF PRESENT: Planning Manager Maria Cadavid, Planning Manager Linda Edwards, Senior Planner Mario Mangiamele, Planner David Marsh, Planner Jessica Galloway, Community Development Specialist Carl Harris-Morgan

ALSO PRESENT: Michael Dyett, Dyett & Bhatia Urban & Regional Planners, Town Traffic Engineer Bruce Ward, Gilbert Independent Editor Wayne Bryan, Town Attorney Kelly Schwab, Recorder Trasie Johns

CALL TO ORDER:

Planning and Zoning Vice Chairman Brigette Peterson called the meeting to order at 6:07 P.M.

ROLL CALL:

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

APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

Planning and Zoning Vice Chairman Brigette Peterson requested a motion to approve the agenda.

A motion was made by Commissioner Karl Kohlhoff, seconded by Commissioner Dan Dodge to approve the agenda.

Motion Carried 6-0.

PUBLIC MEETING

Unified Land Development Code â?? Joint work session between the Planning and Zoning Commission, Redevelopment Commission and Design Review Board to discuss the proposed Village Center (VC) zoning for the Village Center land use of the Gateway Area and the Heritage District.

Senior Planner Mario Mangiamele informed the audience that the Town Council had approved a year ago a contract with Dyett & Bhatia to look at revising the Unified Land Development Code (ULDC). He explained that due to the strain on the Staffâ??s resources with the General Plan, the ULDC has not worked on as diligently as it was currently. Now that the voters had approved the General Plan, the Staff was working hard on the ULDC. He noted that the new General Plan that was adopted by the Town Council and citizens of Gilbert had two unique areas that they wanted to discuss that evening called the Village Center land uses at Williams Field and Recker Roads and within the Heritage District. He used the visual aid to illustrate the Gateway area, which consisted of about one hundred acres. He pointed out that one of the biggest concerns that the Town was dealing with was that they had the land use, but there werenâ??t any regulatory documents to enforce the General Plan. In speaking with the consultant, Michael Dyett, they decided to go forward to Town Council to look at some amendments to the contract, extending the contract and adding the Village Center Zoning as part of the current ULDC. He noted that they needed to decide how to implement the Village Center land use. He stated that Mr. Dyett agreed to work on this with the Staff and the Town Council approved his contract to include this additional work.

Mr. Mangiamele announced that they had been working hard to enable the new Land Development Code to be ready for public review by January 2, 2002. Additionally, the code was expecting to be adopted by the end of April 2002. He stated that they had been meeting with the stakeholders about every two to three weeks and Staff was providing information and receiving feedback. He noted that they had two different sessions earlier that day for the Village Center with the main stakeholders in the area. He introduced Mr. Dyett to the audience.

Michael Dyett informed the audience that he would be speaking about the Village Center zoning and the Land Development Code update. He announced that there was an outline of the Power Point presentation that he would be giving that evening that was available for the group to use to take notes. He noted that they had spent three hours with stakeholders that enabled them to refine their thinking about the Village Center zoning. He pointed out that he wanted to hear the Board and Commissionsâ?? ideas in order to understand their concepts of the Townâ??s needs. He used his Power Point presentation to outline the ideas that he discussed.

Mr. Dyett explained the ULDC process and how it started in earnest with the Townâ??s adoption of the new General Plan, which set the policy framework. They had been working since the early stakeholders meeting on an outline with anticipation of adoption and going through preliminary drafts with the Town Staff. He noted that there was a schedule available with the completion of the draft and the public review process that followed. He stated that it was important to take the General Plan policies and put the ones that dealt with standards and regulations into the code so that everyone knew what the rules were that applied to a specific land use or site. He pointed out that how they accomplished this for Village Center zoning needed the thoughts of the Board and Commission because there were not any precedents in the code as written.

Mr. Dyett described Village Centers. He explained that Village Centers were intended to build small-town feeling and have livable neighborhoods and walkable commercial districts. In addition, the Heritage District should have a plan and zoning that recognized the historic symbol of the center of Gilbert. He stated that the Gateway area needed to provide a framework for the kind of master planning that was needed so a new “main street” can be a focal point for the larger Gateway community. He added that Village Center zoning should be part of the implementation process as it can facilitate development consistent with the General Plan and the Redevelopment Plan. He stated that zoning could introduce pedestrian-oriented development and mixed activities. It would provide the mixed-use framework that was needed so there wouldnâ??t be the single use zoning that was typically found in a zoning ordinance. He announced that the ultimate goal would be to create vitality, a sense of place and an opportunity for social interaction.

Mr. Dyett discussed what zoning should do and what zoning shouldnâ??t do. He explained that in many cases, people had expectations about carrying out a General Plan that go way beyond what zoning was intended to do. He added that having some common framework for understanding what they wanted to focus on when hearing from them on new zoning would be helpful. First, he stated that zoning specified what uses were permitted, required or prohibited. It may also establish specific limitations on uses. These would be performance-oriented regulations. Performance oriented zoning meant that if they met the performance requirement than you would be permitted as of right. There would be no case-by-case review or public hearing requiring conditions of approval. He explained that zoning prescribed development and design standards. These standards typically controlled height and bulk, street front character, location of parking, buffering and landscaping. The performance standards control how a use performs and relates to the neighboring uses and ensures land use compatibility. Finally, zoning provides predictability. People know with certainty what could be and there was a process that had finality in terms of decision-making. Finally, he stated that it provided the insurance that was needed to carry out the General Plan.

Mr. Dyett pointed out what zoning shouldnâ??t do. He stated that zoning shouldnâ??t regulate architectural design. It could establish a process for Design Review, but it shouldnâ??t regulate the detailed design elements, such as colors and finish materials. Secondly, he noted that zoning doesnâ??t address the public realm: the streetscape, the paving, street widening, infrastructure improvements and parks. Zoning has to make sure through the General Plan process that there was a balance between land use and transportation, but zoningâ??s focus was on the private realm. Zoning shouldnâ??t try to regulate the free market and needed to be sensitive to what standards were imposed in terms of the cost of doing business. He informed the group that in the stakeholders meetings they heard that they needed to provide the flexibility in the Village Center zoning so the developers could respond to the market. Finally, zoning should not dictate what the land uses should be, but how they should carry out the General Plan. He concluded that the focus should be on how to make the Village Center zoning implement the General Plan policy.

Mr. Dyett discussed the normal process for designing a framework for Village Center zoning. He stated that they should think about the specific purposes, analyze the physical characters and geographic differences and access development potential. He announced that those first three steps had already been taken in the work that went into the Gateway Plan and the Historic District Redevelopment Plan. He stated that they needed to now look at the use regulations and design standards to see what the three dimensions were and how flexible the zoning envelope that would be created is within which the architects and engineers could work. After the testing was done, he explained that they needed to prepare draft regulations to see if they met the purposes of the plan.

“Making Village Center Zoning Work” was the next slide in the Power Point presentation that Mr. Dyett discussed. He stated that most important, they needed to build on the consensus that had emerged on the vision for the mixed-use concept and the design ideas that were already in place in the policies for the character areas in the Redevelopment Plan. In addition, they needed to provide clear guidance in the Village Center zoning that would carry out these concepts. He explained that they wanted to articulate choices to give flexibility that was realistic, financially viable and balanced. Zoning needed to balance certainty and flexibility. It needed to provide opportunities of relief where it was needed. Finally, he pointed out that they needed to tailor solutions to Gilbert, to enhance a “sense of place” that they wanted to create.

Mr. Dyett used visual aids to discuss other areas that they had previously worked on with Village Centers and the type of mixed-use cores that they envisioned for the different areas. He discussed the following Village Centers and described their differences and similarities: Fossil Creek Neighborhood, Fort Collins, Colorado; Santa Fe General Plan, Santa Fe, New Mexico; Clovas Agricultural Community, Central Valley, California; Bay Area Alliance for Sustainable Development: Cotati, Cloverdale, Vallejo, Suisun City, Dublin and Fremont; Palm Beach County, Florida: Palm Beach County downtown core and Palm Beach County traditional residential neighborhoods. He informed the group that in Palm Beach County they overly specified traditional residential neighborhoods with a sixty or eighty page zoning code and the project fell apart since it tried to get into design details. The regulations and standards tried to prescribe all the solutions, which they should not have tried to do. He explained that they did not want to try to anticipate all the rules that would apply for major development over a twenty to thirty year period. Instead, he pointed out that they wanted to set a framework and a process that carried out the principals. Zoning should not be able to resolve all of the design details up front.

Mr. Dyett discussed use regulations, which were an important part of mixed use zoning. The ideas that were in Gilbertâ??s Village Center Policies called for ground-floor retail and services, limitations on non-active space, limitations on auto oriented uses, public spaces, and natural features. He noted that in the Heritage Redevelopment area, the public square must be thought of as a Town project as zoning could not create this. On a small scale, along the street fronts, zoning may want to have an incentive base program where they would accomplish plazas and active outdoor space as part of some bonus floor area. Another policy issue, he explained, would be whether they wanted to allow or create incentives for second floor office or residential space, or dictate a minimum density for the second floor space. He stated that he would be very cautious about imposing requirements for second floor space. He thought it would be more important to get mixed use buildings constructed and allow substitution for tenants as easily as they could. He suggested that they have a single uniform parking requirement that might be different for ground floor and upper floor spaces independent of occupancy.

Mr. Dyett pointed out the density and intensity standards. He stated that they had a lot of advice from the stakeholders on the floor area ratios, the relationship of the amount of space that you could build on the site to the site area. The General Plan for the Gateway area had the idea that there be a floor area ratio (FAR) minimum of 1.0 for development, which was very difficult to achieve with the first building if the land costs didnâ??t justify structured parking. He thought it might make sense to allow flexibility through the zoning ordinance so that initial phases wouldnâ??t have to achieve that kind of high minimum as long as the ultimate development plan concept was consistent with the General Plan target for that area. Therefore, as buildings were added the ultimate density would be achieved. Whether they want to have minimum densities and what they were would be a policy issue for commercial, non-residential space, would need to be discussed. He pointed out that for residential densities, the Plan was fairly clear.

In terms of other performance policies, Mr. Dyett informed the group that the policies were fairly clear about creating a main street with “build-to” lines and buildings that line up within the 0-10â?? setbacks. Therefore they wouldnâ??t have large setbacks and auto oriented uses that would break up the continuity. Parking would need to be placed on the side or the rear and should be shared or common. He commented that in the Heritage District, someone could write the Town a check instead of providing parking and the Town would provide public common area parking. He suggested that the ordinance be very clear on when the Town needed to provide the parking after receiving the developerâ??s check. Pedestrian engagement was also an important performance standard in the Village Center zoning. He explained that with zoning they needed to provide for views within spaces through windows or glass doors that would encourage window shoppers and tie the area together. Architectural design elements could also be a part of the zoning ordinance that was important to the Village Center zoning.

Mr. Dyett concluded his presentation by stating that his next step was to listen to the Board and Commissions, to think about what they heard from the Stakeholders and then start writing up some preliminary drafts. He announced that they would be coming back with a preliminary discussion draft for public review that would then be refined. Ultimately, after all the responses were incorporated there would be a code prepared for public review.

Planning and Zoning Vice Chairman Brigette Peterson asked if there were any comments or questions from the Board and Commissions for Mr. Dyett.

Redevelopment Commissioner Vice Chairman Duncan Thomas asked what the definition was of stakeholders for this activity.

Senior Planner Mario Mangiamele replied that the definition of stakeholders was anyone that had a vested interest. He explained that Staff had identified major landowners or business owners from the Gateway Area Village Center and the Downtown Heritage District Village Center.

Mr. Dyett added that they had discussions with about fifty to sixty people initially consisting of realtors, engineers, architects, business owners, school districts, Chamber of Commerce, property owners, and homeowner associations. He stated that there was a broad invitation letter sent out to encourage as much participation as possible.

Planning and Zoning Commissioner Todd Hanson asked how many landowners were included in the Village Centers.

Senior Planner Mario Mangiamele answered that within the Gateway Area there were two landowners and 100-150 landowners in the Heritage District. He announced that letters were sent out to every landowner in the Heritage District inviting comments earlier that week.

Redevelopment Commissioner Thomas Haug inquired about the landowners opinions based on the letter that was sent out.

Senior Planner Mario Mangiamele replied that he had not talked to the landowners yet about the letter that they had just received.

Mr. Dyett informed the group that the Heritage District Plan reflected what the public wanted based on their participation and comments that were received when the Plan was adopted. He added that they were not changing anything that wasnâ??t already included in the Plan.

Redevelopment Commissioner Thomas Haug commented that he didnâ??t see anything in the presentation that mentioned what the public wanted to see with the Village Center zoning.

Planning and Zoning Commissioner Dan Dodge replied that their opinion was represented in the Plan that Mr. Dyett referred to. He added that he was a part of the Gateway Plan and he heard a lot of information from what people wanted to see which was reflected in the Plan.

Mr. Dyett pointed out that they were not intending to add any new policies or standards to what had been adopted by the Redevelopment Commission.

Redevelopment Commissioner Thomas Haug replied that his interest was in what the landowners thought about the Village Center zoning.

Mr. Dyett explained that they heard from the stakeholders that afternoon an interest in flexibility. He noted that they also wanted to see a difference in the Gateway Area versus the Heritage District. He added that the stakeholders requested that they not subject both areas to the same set of rules and regulations. He commented that the stakeholders also had a lot of interest in certainty and wanted to know what some of the rules were so they could begin talking to financial partners. Another concern of the stakeholders was about the performance oriented approach that meant that there didnâ??t have to be a lot of public hearings and negotiations. He explained that in the Heritage District there were concerns that the regulations shouldnâ??t overly specify solutions because each and every block had its own opportunity. There were also some issues brought up by the stakeholders regarding parking, traffic and other issues that were tried in the past that didnâ??t work. In the Gateway Area, the stakeholders told them that they were getting ahead of things and it was important to have an opportunity to have a public and private dialog.

Planning and Zoning Commissioner Todd Hanson commended Mr. Dyett on his excellent presentation. He asked what the overall level of support was from the landowners and what the overall concern was for the Plan.

Mr. Dyett pointed out that the number one concern of the stakeholders was that they wanted flexibility and they wanted opportunity to participate in the process. He stated that the process provided master planning opportunity within the framework that the new General Plan set out. He added that he felt the stakeholders were in general support of the Village Center zoning.

Planning and Zoning Commissioner Todd Hanson asked when the members in attendance that evening would hear the comments and concerns of the stakeholders.

Mr. Dyett answered that he had tried to relate the comments that he had heard. He added that there would be an opportunity for additional meetings as drafts were prepared. He stated that he wanted to make sure that the new zoning met Gilbertâ??s needs.

Planning and Zoning Commissioner Karl Kohlhoff explained that on the Gateway Plan there was 4,000 acres with 20-30 people every month for about a year working on the Plan itself. He cautioned the group that the 3,900 acres needed to support the 100 acres they were proposing in the Village Center zoning. He asked the group to keep the project in context and felt that the two owners of the 100 acres had a heavy burden, as it was the focus core of the project. He added that he hoped the other 3,900 acres would support their investment.

Mr. Dyett answered that the process that he had in mind would have the opportunity for dialog on the vision. He stated that he thought they needed to have the time to have continued dialog after the code was in place after the first of the year.

Design Review Board Vice Chairman Gary Petterson asked if there would be conventional shopping in addition to Gateway Village Center shopping opportunities.

Planning and Zoning Commissioner Karl Kohlhoff replied that there was already conventional shopping in place around the area.

Mr. Dyett added that typically a village center didnâ??t have large-scale retail, but was specialty retail combined with entertainment. He gave an example of Scottsdaleâ??s Fifth Avenue shopping and noted that you would not go there for department store shopping.

Design Review Board Vice Chairman Gary Petterson stated that he was concerned about the Gateway Village Center sitting out in an isolated area.

Mr. Dyett answered that the Gateway Village Center would be determined by what the market would be able to support. He added that they were not trying to have zoning dictate what the solution was. He thought the Village Center zoning would provide a menu and opportunity to realize the idea that the Gateway Plan had described. Therefore the zoning would describe a process and a range of development intensity and density.

Planning and Zoning Commissioner Karl Kohlhoff announced that what he foresaw was an upscale Mill Avenue street like they had in Tempe. He added that there would be 50,000 people in the 4,000 acres in the Gateway area. In addition, the Village Center would be convenient for the 20,000 students at the A.S.U. East campus.

Redevelopment Commissioner James Iacobazzi asked what uniqueness the stakeholders wanted between the Heritage District and Gateway zoning. He cautioned that they be very sensitive to these differences in case the different zoning provided greater opportunities for developers in one area over the other.

Mr. Dyett replied that he would be sensitive to Commissioners Iacobazziâ??s concerns. He stated that the Gateway Village Center was an integral part of the overall Gateway Plan and would succeed based on the success on the overall Gateway Plan and its future was relatively independent to the Heritage District. However, he explained that if the overall perception of Gilbert were enhanced by the success of the Heritage District then the Gateway Area would gain. In addition, he felt that they were sufficiently separated geographically and had very different opportunities so that a zoning decision should not make a difference.

Redevelopment Chairman Eugene Valentine asked if they had worked with the Transportation and Traffic Engineering Departments with regards to the two areas.

Mr. Dyett answered that they had not worked with the Transportation and Traffic Engineering Departments yet. He explained that if the standards were to get into those types of issues they would be meeting with the individual departments. He added that many of the transportation and parking questions were clearly addressed in the planned policy.

Planning and Zoning Commissioner Karl Kohlhoff added that they did an extensive transportation study in the Gateway Area conducted by a professional subcontractor.

Redevelopment Commissioner Thomas Haug asked if they considered multimode transportation.

Planning and Zoning Commissioner Karl Kohlhoff answered that the main street looked like a trolley operation between the main street and A.S.U. East.

Planning and Zoning Commissioner Dan Dodge agreed that they had encouraged this type of transportation in the area.

Planning and Zoning Commissioner Karl Kohlhoff added that they had also looked at a cultural focal point, similar to Gamage or the Chandler Art Center.

Planning and Zoning Commissioner Dan Dodge asked about the difference between the regulations of the mixed use of residential over commercial in the Village Center.

Mr. Dyett replied that some jurisdictions had come up with a base floor area ratio (FAR) and they could go above that to earn additional bonus FAR for doing a number of things. He used the visual aid to describe what FAR meant. He referred to Scottsdale and how they had tried to get the right-of-way dedicated and they offered extra FAR if the businesses offered their right of way within six months. He gave another example of how some bonus FAR was offered in another Scottsdale business for underground parking. He gave several examples of how FAR had been offered by different cities in the past. He added that the incentive based program worked well with Village Center zoning because it was more flexible for the developer.

Planning and Zoning Commissioner Dan Dodge commented that he didnâ??t see the incentive of giving increased FAR in Village Centers as they were trying to encourage this in the first place.

Mr. Dyett explained that they would need to decide what kind of ordinance they wanted to have in Gilbert. They could either have an ordinance that just prescribed and set a series of requirements or an ordinance that provided a flexible approach with some menus, remaining faithful to the Village Center but recognizing that some elements might have some costs associated with them.

Redevelopment Commissioner James Iacobazzi asked if they saw the residential on the upper floors and commercial developments on the lower floor.

Mr. Dyett agreed that residential developments would be on the upper floors and commercial developments would be on the lower floors.

Redevelopment Commissioner James Iacobazzi asked if Mr. Dyett thought the residential developments would be rental or privately owned parcels.

Mr. Dyett replied that he had seen the residential both ways and that they would need a fairly strong condominium market to make the ownership pads work.

Redevelopment Commissioner James Iacobazzi asked what the advantage of having residential over the retail versus offices over the retail parcels.

Mr. Dyett answered that it would provide for a twenty-four hour village center. He added that the people who lived there could help support the restaurants in the evening. Also, they would get different parking demands with the residential as often those spaces were empty during the day.

Redevelopment Commission Chairman Eugene Valentine commented that financially, based on the developers that he had worked with it, was very difficult to work out having residential over retail. He asked what incentives they had used in the past to encourage residential base within the neighborhood that would support the retail.

Mr. Dyett replied that they had offered parking incentives for the ground floor retail uses. They could allow for the retailer to not provide any parking or reduce the parking if they had a shared use with the upper floor for parking. He pointed out that they hadnâ??t used FAR incentives for the retail in the past.

Design Review Board Vice Chairman Gary Petterson asked what the demographics of the people that would be living in the village centers.

Mr. Dyett answered that young singles and the elderly would utilize the housing. Primarily, families would not be likely to live in apartments. He added that he didnâ??t think they should mandate residential space for the only use for the second floor. He thought they should allow some lofts and home offices in these second floor spaces. The buildings should be built with the ability to have the mixed uses as the market dictated.

Planning and Zoning Alternate Commissioner Todd Hanson asked for clarification on the feedback from the developers and landowners and if they were in support of developing the village centers.

Mr. Dyett replied that the developers were active in the planning process that Commissioner Karl Kohlhoff had described earlier. He assumed that they were still in support of the planning that they had been involved in.

Community Development Specialist Carl Harris-Morgan stated that in the Heritage District Redevelopment area the Town would be offering much of the land for the uses. He asked how the incentives would be applicable to these land users.

Mr. Dyett stated that he wasnâ??t aware that the Town owned so much land and they would have the ability to determine how much someone would have to pay in order to achieve the Redevelopment objectives. The Village Center zoning for downtown would try to determine the standards that should be in place. He added that when there was mixed ownership they needed to have a common playing field, such as FAR, heights and setbacks.

At 7:20 P.M. Chairman Joan Krueger joined the meeting.

Design Review Board Member Bob Deardorff commented that one of the issues they deal with when they discuss the requirements versus the incentives would be that they were looking for vitality in the communities. He thought that vitality always equates with diversity. If the requirements were too stringent, then they start to get everything looking the same. However, if they set the bar that was lower and offer incentives than the likelihood would be greater that they would get a greater diversity and mix of uses.

Mr. Dyett stated that in the Heritage District there wasnâ??t a specific fixed architectural style. He added that they wanted to have enough architectural variety as possible, but it was also important to have the pedestrian connections. The zoning should therefore dictate that they provide a pedestrian friendly environment. He agreed with Board Member Bob Deardorffâ??s idea of promoting vitality and diversity.

Planning and Zoning Commissioner Michael Monroe stated that he had been involved the Gilbert Gateway Village Center and they really worked hard to develop the look of their plaza and worked out the details. However, he commented that the Heritage District hadnâ??t developed where the Town Center should go and what should happen around the Town Center. He added that he thought it would hinder the zoning changes that would occur there without knowing where the Town Center would be. He pointed out that it needed to be greatly explored and designed with how Gilbert Road would bring people into the area. He added that there was conflict on where the Town Center should be which has caused the project to slow down.

Community Development Specialist Carl Harris-Morgan replied that they had discussed these issues at the last meeting and would be discussing the issues again at the next meeting.

Planning and Zoning Commissioner Dan Dodge announced that the Gateway Plan had an advantage that the Heritage District didnâ??t have since they started with a blank sheet of paper and were able to come up with some good ideas and propose them. In addition, they didnâ??t have some of the issues that the Heritage District had such as neighbors arguing over the location of the Community Center Plaza. He agreed that they needed to look at both areas as two specific categories allowing for different performance criteria.

Planning and Zoning Commissioner Michael Monroe agreed with Commissioner Dan Dodge in that both districts would have completely different issues requiring different zoning criteria.

Design Review Board Chairman Darrell Truitt agreed that they needed to have fewer regulations in order to create more diversity. He stated that in the past Gilbert had had too many regulations, which would not be successful at all in the concept of the Village Center.

Planning and Zoning Vice Chairman Brigette Peterson agreed with Board Member Bob Deardorffâ??s comments about the vitality and diversity. She thought they needed to be very flexible and look “outside the box” in looking at each area differently.

Planning and Zoning Commissioner Mary Ellen Fresquez commented that she received the letter Senior Planner Mario Mangiamele discussed earlier asking for comments since she was a landowner in the Heritage District. She stated that she didnâ??t believe that the letter made any sense at all and she was curious as to what the comments would be from the other landowners. Although she is involved in the Redevelopment Commission, she found the letter hard to understand. She added that she didnâ??t think the letter communicated effectively what the process was about.

Mr. Dyett thanked Commissioner Mary Ellen Fresquez for her comments and added that they would try to do a better job in the future.

Planning Manager Linda Edwards described the letter that Commissioner Mary Ellen Fresquez received and was referring to. She explained that she received the letter since she was a property owner within the Heritage District. She stated that 503 letters went out to all property owners or residents of properties within the Heritage District. That letter was meant to say that the General Plan was passed and included a new land use category called Village Center and that the Town was going forward with new zoning to accommodate that land use category. She added that the letter stated that a stakeholders group was put together and would be meeting soon and asked the recipient to call the Staff for comments and questions that they could include in the stakeholder meetings.

Design Review Board Chairman Darrell Truitt suggested that if they wanted comments, they should provide hypothetical questions and choices for the public to understand.

Mr. Dyett stated that they assumed that the General Plan and Redevelopment Plan provided a lot of guidance for the public to understand.

Redevelopment Commission Vice Chairman Duncan Thomas noted that there was a lot of criticism on the Downtown Village and he explained that they had not determined its location because there was still land to be acquired by the Town. They had not pinpointed where the Village Center would go since they were still looking at a lot of different proposals. He added that the potential roadway alignment could change all their plans. Overall, he stated that it was a pretty small area and it had been keeping them very busy.

Redevelopment Commissioner Thomas Haug pointed out that they needed to work with versatility and flexibility.

Planning and Zoning Commissioner Dan Dodge asked if Mr. Dyett saw the process as implementing a single district or subdividing the districts into different zoning districts within the village centers.

Mr. Dyett replied that he predicted four zoning districts; two for the Village Gateway Area, one for the Heritage District Village core and one for Village Residential. He added that they would need to determine if they wanted an additional zoning district for the residential area around the core of the Heritage District Village Center.

Planning and Zoning Commissioner Dan Dodge clarified that the core of the Heritage District Village Center would also allow for residential development.

Mr. Dyett agreed that the core would allow for residential development, but it would have ground floor uses in the Village Residential zoning district. He used the visual aid to describe how the new code could have zoning designations that related to the colors as shown on the land use map. He added that there could also be several zoning designations within each color on the map.

Planning and Zoning Vice Chairman Brigette Peterson asked if Senior Planner Mario Mangiamele had any additional closing comments about the policy direction.

Senior Planner Mario Mangiamele stated that there was a schedule that showed the overall plan of when the discussions would take place and the schedule of the code drafts and expected ordinance adoption.

Planning and Zoning Commissioner Dan Dodge asked if the comments from the meetings would be available for the Board and Commissions to review.

Mr. Dyett stated that there would be a summary on the web of these discussions and their progress.

ADJOURNMENT

Planning and Zoning Vice Chairman Brigette Peterson requested a motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:45 P.M.

A motion was made by Commissioner Dan Dodge, seconded by Commissioner Karl Kohlhoff to adjourn the meeting.

Motion Carried 6-0.

ATTEST

Recorder Trasie Johns