TOWN OF GILBERT PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION, REGULAR MEETING

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

DECEMBER 5, 2001

COMMISSION PRESENT: Chairman Joan Krueger, Vice Chairman Brigette Peterson, Commissioner Michael Monroe, Commissioner Karl Kohlhoff, Commissioner Stan Strom, Commissioner James Beene, Alternate Commissioner Todd Hanson

COMMISSION ABSENT: Commissioner Dan Dodge

STAFF PRESENT: Planning Director Jerry Swanson, Planning Manager Linda Edwards, Planning Manager Maria Cadavid, Planner David Marsh, Planner Jessica Galloway, Planner Brooke Bailey

ALSO PRESENT: Town Traffic Engineer Bruce Ward, Town ttorney Kelly Schwab, Recorder Trasie Johns

I N D E X

PLANNER CASE PAGE VOTE

Mr. Fairbanks S544 2 Tabled
Mr. Marsh S556 2 Continued
Ms. Cadavid S559 3 Approved
Mr. Marsh UP01-12 6 Approved

CALL TO ORDER:

Vice Chairman Brigette Peterson called the meeting to order at 6:00 P.M.

ROLL CALL:

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

APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

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

A motion was made by Commissioner Karl Kohlhoff, seconded by Commissioner James Beene to approve the agenda.

Motion Carried 6-0.

COMMUNICATIONS FROM CITIZENS:

Vice Chairman Brigette Peterson announced that members of the public could comment on items not on the agenda. She 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. She asked if anyone would like to speak. She informed the audience that there were blue slips that needed to be filled out if anyone wanted to speak.

No one came forward.

PUBLIC HEARING

Minutes â?? Study Session and Regular Meeting minutes of November 7, 2001 and Special Meeting minutes of November 14, 2001

Vice Chairman Brigette Peterson requested a motion to approve the minutes.

A motion was made by Commissioner Karl Kohlhoff, seconded by Commissioner Michael Monroe, to approve the Study Session and Regular Meeting minutes of November 7, 2001 and Special Meeting minutes of November 14, 2001

Motion Carried 6-0.

S544 - Preliminary subdivision plat for San Tan Estates, an approximate 161.0-acre Planned Area Development subdivision containing 403 single-family lots. The subject property is located at the southeast corner of Val Vista Drive and Queen Creek Road.

Vice Chairman Brigette Peterson announced that the applicant had requested that S544 be tabled. At a future date, this item will be readvertised and scheduled for a Planning and Zoning Commission hearing.

Vice Chairman Brigette Peterson opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wanted to speak on S544. Seeing no one, she requested a motion.

A motion was made by Commissioner Karl Kohlhoff, seconded by Commissioner Michael Monroe, to table S544.

Motion Carried 6-0.

S556 - Lindsay & Warner Preliminary Plat, an approximately 24.6-acre subdivision zoned PAD (Planned Area Development) with an overall density of 7.92 dwelling units per acre. The subject property is generally located east and south of the southeast corner of Lindsay and Warner Roads.

Vice Chairman Brigette Peterson announced that Staff had requested continuance to a future meeting.

Vice Chairman Brigette Peterson opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wanted to speak on S556. Seeing no one, she requested a motion.

A motion was made by Commissioner Michael Monroe, seconded by Alternate Commissioner Todd Hanson, to continue S556.

Motion Carried 6-0.

S559 - Preliminary subdivision plat for Tangerine Court, an approximate 30.15-acre site zoned R1-20 containing 30 single-family lots. The subject property is generally located 1/4 mile north of Riggs Road on the east side of Higley Road.

Planning Director Jerry Swanson informed the Commission that Planning Manager Maria Cadavid would be presenting S559 since Planner Suzanne Gunderman had prepared the Staff report but was no longer on Staff.

Planning Manager Maria Cadavid announced that S559 was a preliminary subdivision plat for Tangerine Court, an approximate 30.15-acre site zoned R1-20 containing 30 single-family lots. The subject property was generally located 1/4 mile north of Riggs Road on the east side of Higley Road. She explained that the Seville master plan community surrounded the project. She added that the Town Council had approved the zoning and annexation request last October. She explained that the preliminary plat was the next step in the process that had final action by the Planning Commission. She stated that the project was in conformance with the General Plan for the San Tan Area keeping and maintaining the one dwelling unit per acre density.

Ms. Cadavid stated that the project was in conformance with the minimum standards of the R1-20 zoning designation. She informed the Commission that the infrastructure for sewer was not available for the adjacent area yet, but the applicant had agreed to provide a dry sewer line to hook in as soon as the parcels in the Seville project around it came into implementation. The circulation element of the plat was one single residential street that in order to provide variation to the street layout and public safety access, was proposing several turnarounds, which were approved by the Fire Department and Traffic Engineer. Since the development was a gated community, the Traffic Engineer had recommended a deceleration lane off of Higley Road to access the site. The second point of access would be an emergency access to the east of the subdivision that was granted by the Shea Homes developer to the east to provide secondary access as well as pedestrian access for the student population to the school site to the east. Trail and pedestrian connections were provided by a twenty-foot wide pedestrian access adjacent to the future elementary school in the Seville master plan. In addition, there was a twenty foot wide pedestrian access trail that was proposed along the southern boundary within the SRP 65 KB power line. In addition, the project maintained a wider landscaping setback along Higley Road which was a transition element between the wider Seville retention area along the street frontage. The open space was proposed to maintain the tangerine trees that were in existence. She explained that they had routed the project to the Arizona Historic Preservation Office and the Arizona Game and Fish Department and had received a letter from both agencies stating that there were not any significant historic sites on the subject site. She added that the Public Works Department found the project to be compliance with the Non-Per Capital Water Conservation Program. She concluded by stating that Staff recommended approval of the preliminary plat subject to the conditions. She explained that they normally see fewer conditions but since they were using more conventional zoning the specifics of the open space were included in the preliminary plat level.

Commissioner Karl Kohlhoff asked about the dry sewer system and what the mechanism was of changing the septic tanks to the sewers.

Ms. Cadavid replied that the applicant had been in conversation with the engineering manager and he had approved their plan.

Planning Director Jerry Swanson informed the Commission that the municipal code required any development to connect with a sewer line if it was available within a specified distance. He explained that when the Seville development constructs the sewer line and it became operational, than the proposed development would be connected.

Commissioner Karl Kohlhoff agreed with Mr. Swanson, but asked where the dry sewer would be located since he couldnâ??t see it on the preliminary plat. He asked if the sewer was located along Higley Road. He asked how the citrus trees would be watered.

Ms. Cadavid answered that the applicant indicated that they had been in conversation with the Water Conservation department and they would be flood irrigated maintaining the existing irrigation system.

Commissioner Karl Kohlhoff asked who owned and operated the existing irrigation system.

Ms. Cadavid replied that the San Tan Irrigation District owned the existing system.

Commissioner Karl Kohlhoff stated that he thought it should be in the stipulations that the San Tan Irrigation District was required to provide the water to the citrus so the Town didnâ??t end up with the responsibility to service the water.

Town Attorney Kelly Schwab informed the Commission that she didnâ??t believe they had the legal authority to require another service provider to provide the water service.

Commissioner Karl Kohlhoff explained that if the San Tan Irrigation District didnâ??t provide the water, than the Town of Gilbert would have to provide the water.

Vice Chairman Brigette Peterson asked if there were any more questions for the Staff. Seeing none, she asked the applicant to come forward.

Scott Ward, 600 W. Chandler Blvd. came forward. He explained that he was the applicant and had some people with him from CMX Group who had worked on the land planning and engineering. He informed the Commission that they had met with the San Tan Irrigation District and used the visual aid to illustrate how they would use the flood irrigation system to water the citrus trees. He pointed out that Seville was a citrus crop that was irrigated by the San Tan Irrigation District. He explained that they had received an agreement from the San Tan Irrigation District. He used the visual aid to show where they would run piped irrigation ditches. He added that they had included in their CC&Râ??s that the citrus trees be preserved in the area. He stated that they were planning on maintaining a couple of rows of citrus as their entry monumentation.

Commissioner Karl Kohlhoff asked what the age was of the citrus trees and what their life expectancy was.

Mr. Ward replied that the trees were between thirty and forty years old and they would live to be sixty or seventy years old. He added that the citrus trees on the proposed property were in excellent condition and that if the trees in the monumentation died they would be replaced with 48″ box citrus.

Commissioner Karl Kohlhoff explained that he wanted to make sure that the expectations of the homebuyers to keep the citrus trees well maintained was met.

Mr. Ward agreed with Commissioner Karl Kohlhoff and added that their intent was to keep the citrus well maintained for the homebuyers.

Mr. Ward used the site plan to discuss the sewer system. He stated that they would be taking a proactive approach by designing a sixteen inch water line that would run from Chandler Heights down the east side of Higley Road. He added that they were looking at putting in a vault and haul concept instead of putting one or two septic tanks as they develop the houses.

Commissioner Karl Kohlhoff asked if there was a sewer line on Higley Road.

Mr. Ward pointed out the sewer lines that were located in the Seville project. In addition, he stated that there would be a sewer line on the west side of the current pavement section of Higley Road.

At 6:25 P.M., Chairman Joan Krueger joined the Commission.

Vice Chairman Brigette Peterson asked if there were any other questions for the applicant. Seeing none, she opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wanted to speak on the item. Seeing no one, she closed the public hearing and brought it back to the Commission for discussion and action.

A motion was made by Commissioner Karl Kohlhoff, seconded by Commissioner Stan Strom, to approve S559 subject to Staff stipulations.

Motion Carried 6-0.

Staff recommends approval of S559 for the Tangerine Court residential subdivision, subject to the following stipulations:

a. Improvement to Higley Road shall conform to the Engineering Standard Detail #21, or as required by the Engineering Department. Construction of all the required off-site half-street improvements to Higley Road that are adjacent to the Project shall be completed prior to a certificate of occupancy for any portion of the Project.

b. Improvement Plans shall include specific information on signage to identify street â??no parkingâ?? restriction, subject to the approval of the Engineering Department.

c. Developer shall create a new HOA (Homeownerâ??s Association) for the maintenance and preservation of all common areas, the private street, and landscaping and improvements within the open space areas and the arterial street right-of-way.

d. A residential Final Plat shall be required prior to the issuance of any permits. Water mains within the site shall be placed in an exclusive 12-foot waterline easement dedicated by the Final Plat.

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

f. Developer shall execute water and sewer buy-in agreements, whereby Developer shall pay for its proportionate share of water and sewer mains prior to Final Plat approval of any phase of the Project. A wastewater study that addresses planned sewer facilities for this project shall be prepared prior to Final Plat approval of any phase of the Project.

g. Developer shall install a dry sewer system to serve all of the homes within the Tangerine Court subdivision. Septic tanks shall also be installed to serve all of the homes, unless a sewer line hookup is available prior to development.

h. Developer shall install the street frontage retention area in accordance with Exhibit 4. Perimeters of the street frontage retention area shall be naturally contoured.

i. Any existing citrus trees located within open space areas that are lost as a result of the construction activities shall be replaced with 48-inch box size trees of the same type.

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

k. A split rail or similar view fence shall be provided along the north and south perimeters of the site adjacent to the public access trails. A concrete header shall be provided along the rear of lots adjacent to the north and south public access trails.

l. The trail easements shall be improved with granite surfacing material as approved by the Planning and Engineering Departments at the time of improvement plan review.

m. Vehicular access barriers shall be installed within the trails located adjacent to Higley Road to deter unauthorized motorized vehicles from entering the easement areas.

n. Any gate provided between the project and the east adjacent school site shall remain unlocked at all times.

UP01-12 - Use Permit to approve the use of shared parking for an approximately 103,000 square foot hockey rink complex and 6,000 square foot restaurant on approximately 9.5 acres. The proposal would reduce the number of parking spaces from the required 575 spaces to 308 spaces. The subject property is generally located east and south of the southeast corner of Gilbert and Warner Roads, immediately adjacent to the Town of Gilbert Civic Center.

Planner David Marsh informed the Commission that UP01-12 was a Use Permit to approve the use of shared parking for an approximately 103,000 square foot hockey rink complex and 6,000 square foot restaurant on approximately 9.5 acres. He explained that the proposal would reduce the number of parking spaces from the required 575 spaces to 308 spaces. The subject property was generally located east and south of the southeast corner of Gilbert and Warner Roads, immediately adjacent to the Town of Gilbert Civic Center. He pointed out that the use was permitted by the existing zoning, however the type of use was deemed to be commercial amusement and by the parking code in the ULDC it would require a parking at a ratio of one space for two hundred square feet which would result in approximately 544 parking spaces required for the building. He announced that Staff and the applicant had some concerns about providing that amount of parking since they were trying to get away from massive fields of parking because of climatic and aesthetic impact issues. He added that the site had an opportunity to pursue a shared parking agreement with the proposed commercial immediately to the north and the existing Town Municipal Center to the west. Therefore, he felt there was an opportunity to have a reduced parking amount and have a shared parking agreement. In order to do this, he explained that Section 4.3 of the ULDC required that shared parking for mixed use projects and reductions in the number of required parking spaces be approved via the Use Permit process and supported by a parking demand study. He referred to the parking demand study that was prepared by the applicantâ??s civil engineering staff.

Mr. Marsh discussed the findings that the Use Permit needed to meet. The first is that the project was in conformance with the General Plan and its policies. The existing General Plan designation for the site was Shopping Center, which called for meeting the daily commercial needs of the population and trying to enhance the sales tax revenue and eliminate sales tax leakage. Currently, he explained that the closest place to ice skate would be in Chandler. He pointed out that the second finding was that the project should not be detrimental to the persons residing or working in the immediate vicinity, which was based on the compatibility standards listed in the code. In terms of adequate ingress and egress, he used the visual aid of the site plan to discuss how the traffic would flow around the project. He discussed the surrounding area and the possible parking in the adjacent properties.

Mr. Marsh addressed the revised stipulations that were distributed to the Commission that evening. He pointed out the shared drive to the north using the visual aid. He stated that the drive isle was fully off of the subject property and was within the property to the north. He explained that Staff had some concerns about that drive since it was the entrance to the back of the building where the fire and emergency services would be utilized. He stated that since the road was off the proposed property line, the applicant did not have to contribute to the cost of the road. Since the road would be to the benefit of both properties, he explained that they stipulated that the applicant provide an access easement along the full length of the drive isle and that a recorded agreement for access be recorded. In addition, he explained that it was stipulated that shared parking agreements be recorded and that a phasing and improvement plan be submitted for review and approval by the Town Engineer. Finally, it was stipulated that a cost of development agreement be included in order for the Town to make sure the improvements would be built in a timely manner.

Mr. Marsh pointed out that the heart of the use permit had to do with off street parking. In section 4.3 of the ULDC it said that commercial amusement activities were required to provide parking at one space for two hundred square feet. That would result in approximately in 540 spaces. He explained that the applicant was proposing, based upon the parking demand study, to have a maximum of 327 parking spaces on site. Originally, they had proposed a restaurant pad on the location, but Staff had concerns that there would not be ample parking for the hockey rink and the restaurant. They agreed that if the restaurant pad were eliminated, there would be ample parking. Based upon the parking demand study, the peak amount of spaces that would be required at the peak time, from 5:00 P.M. to 8:00 P.M., would be 364 spaces. Therefore they would need an additional 39 spaces off site. Those spaces would be easily provided by the commercial center to the north, which would be built at a later date. Until that commercial property was built, there would be additional parking available at the Municipal Center parking lot. He announced that Staffâ??s opinion was that the shared parking agreement was functional as long as there was a minimum of 327 parking spaces provided.

Mr. Marsh discussed the public input and stated that they had received a call from someone that was concerned about the potential for parking on their local streets, which were located to the south of the hockey rink. He thought that this would be unlikely since people that play hockey would be bringing in a bag that weighed about 40-50 pounds. In addition, he stated that the Town would not have any control over whether people parked there, regardless of the amount of spaces provided. Since the streets were public, he suggested that they use no parking signs to deter people from parking on the streets. He concluded his presentation and stated that the Staff recommended approval of the project with the revised stipulations that were given to the Commission that evening.

Commissioner Karl Kohlhoff asked about the parking study and stated that he was confused since the ITE Parking Generation Handbook called for 624 spaces. He added that the code required 540 and the parking demand study required 364. Finally, he stated that he couldnâ??t understand why they were requiring 327 parking spaces as the minimum.

Mr. Marsh replied that the ITE Parking Generation Manual was based on models and on case studies. For certain uses, such as shopping malls and grocery store centers, there were many examples that they had used the model to build from. Unfortunately, other uses, such as hockey rinks, had very few examples that they had looked at. He pointed out that there was only one example in the ITE Parking Generation Manual and that was for a roller skating rink of 28,000 square feet, which was not the same as a hockey rink with 108,000 square feet. He commented that the applicant and the engineer had provided information that had been gathered from a variety of ice-skating and hockey rinks throughout the United States. In addition, they had compared their proposal and their proposed parking counts and parking demand study to the two other similar facilities in the area in Chandler and Scottsdale. He informed the Commission that the numbers that the applicant was providing for parking was in excess of the two other facilities. In addition, the seating area in the proposed rink was much smaller than the one in Scottsdale where the Coyotes hold their practices. He concluded that the applicant had fulfilled Staffâ??s concerns about providing ample parking.

Commissioner Karl Kohlhoff referred to table three and stated that the table required 364 parking spaces.

Chairman Joan Krueger asked if there were any more questions for the Staff. Seeing none, she asked the applicant to come forward.

Eric Milberger, 7500 Memorial Parkway, Suite 112, Huntsville, AL came forward. He announced that he was the architect for the project. He stated that the project was very unusual and that the codes throughout the country donâ??t follow very well. He stated that when the code looked at a public arena, they were proposing parking requirements that would be adequate for the one large public skating area. This project, he explained, consisted of three arenas. He clarified that two of the arenas would only have 30-50 kids playing on them where the other arena would have public skating. He asked if there were any questions.

Commissioner Karl Kohlhoff asked if Mr. Milberger was willing to stand by their parking study, which stated in table three that 364 spaces were required.

Mr. Milberger replied that they would be providing the additional parking in the shared parking lot that was stipulated in the Staff report.

Commissioner Karl Kohlhoff asked how far people would be willing to walk during their peak scheduled times to get to the ice arena.

Mr. Milberger answered that during the peak scheduled time, there would be three groups using the facility: a hockey group, an in-line hockey group, and a public session. Therefore, he explained that the maximum people they would ever have would be well within the number of 200 parking spaces. During public sessions, when the peak-scheduled times were scheduled, people would not be carrying large bags of equipment.

Commissioner Stan Strom asked if the three arenas were separated or if they could all be opened up to have one big event.

Mr. Milberger replied that they were physically separated and that one arena was not an ice arena but an indoor soccer area.

Commissioner Stan Strom asked if they had special functions where they would have a larger crowd. He stated that if market conditions changed and they built the building with less parking than was required in the code and it was converted to a retail establishment there would not be enough parking. He asked if their use could change in order to increase the amount of people that could attend the events.

Mr. Milberger replied that they had a limitation of 300 seats on an arena and they would need to come back to the Town to make changes in order to increase their seating capacity.

Chairman Joan Krueger asked if the applicant had reviewed the new stipulations.

Mr. Milberger answered that they had reviewed the stipulations and were in agreement with them.

Chairman Joan Krueger opened the public hearing and asked Mr. Bingham to come forward.

Ronald Bingham, 291 E. Sherri Drive, Gilbert came forward. He announced that he was the president of Devon Home Owners Association, which consisted of 135 homes that were located directly to the south of the project. He explained that they were concerned about people from the project parking on their residential streets. In addition, the greenbelt area was located across from one of the entrances and they were concerned people outside of their community would use this area. He asked where the main entrance was located. He asked to have the parking for the project conform to the code.

Mr. Marsh used the visual aid to show where the main entrance was located, facing south on Civic Center Boulevard across from the Devon development.

Commissioner Karl Kohlhoff asked Mr. Bingham to describe how he arrived home from work.

Mr. Bingham used the visual aid to show the route he takes to come home from work.

Chairman Joan Krueger asked if there were any other questions for Mr. Bingham. Seeing none, she asked the next person from the public to come forward.

Harold Sanks, 334 E. Nunneley Road, Gilbert came forward. He agreed with Mr. Binghamâ??s concerns. He stated that he lived on the road that was right across the street from the main entrance of the hockey rink and felt that people would drop off their kids and walk across the street, which would be a safety issue.

Arthur Wirtz, 276 E. Nunnely Road, Gilbert came forward. He announced that he was the third house from the corner and used the visual aid to point out where he lived. He shared that he was very concerned about the major traffic on the street. He stated that the closest house to the project, two houses down from his house, had five children under the age of eleven. He commented that he couldnâ??t believe they were looking at allowing the site to have less parking than was required since people would be parking as close to the entrance as possible. He used the visual aid to show that the front door to the building was closer to the intersection of Nunnely Road than it would be to park on site. He suggested that if they were going to encourage people to park on site, they needed to be sure there was plenty of parking. He concluded by stating that they, as citizens, expected the Commission to use their guidelines to make sure that the parking was adequate and that people parked on site.

Commissioner Michael Monroe announced that from the face of the facade to the property line was 84â??. From the right of way to right of was an additional 80â??. Therefore, he pointed out that it was approximately 164â?? from the building to their community. He thought that it might be pretty slim that people would park in their community.

Mr. Wirtz replied that he thought people would drop off at the front of the building versus going around back of the building to find a parking space.

Commissioner Michael Monroe added that on the north end of the site they would have a maximum of 180â?? to walk to the furthest parking space on site. He pointed out that since the distance was the same to the furthest parking space on site as it was to the residential development, people would be more likely to park on site.

Mr. Wirtz used his pencil on the visual aid to show the distance from the front door to their residential development and than measured the distance from the door to the furthest space. He concurred that the distance to their development was much closer than some of the on site parking.

Commissioner Michael Monroe asked if people could park on Civic Center Drive.

The Staff replied that they could not park on Civic Center Drive.

Alternate Commissioner Todd Hanson suggested that they could alleviate the situation by having parking restrictions. He referred to his neighborhood and how they changed their CC&Rs to disallow parking on the street and could then discourage others outside their neighborhood from parking on the street as well. He supported Commissioner Michael Monroeâ??s comments and felt that it would be far for people to park in their community and walk across a busy street. He asked what Mr. Wirtz would propose to be built on the site if it wasnâ??t the ice arena.

Mr. Wirtz replied that he wasnâ??t against the use; just that he wanted the parking to be adequate.

Commissioner Karl Kohlhoff replied that he thought they could address the issue by adding a stipulation on the use permit with a time deadline to review the project to make sure there was adequate parking.

Ronald Bingham came forward and informed the Commission that they did have restrictions against parking on their streets but didnâ??t know how to implement this since they were public streets.

Commissioner Michael Monroe thanked the citizens for coming forward and sharing their concerns. He agreed with Commissioner Karl Kohlhoff and felt that they should include the additional stipulation he suggested earlier.

Chairman Joan Krueger pointed out that if they built the facility and parking it would be hard to retrofit the situation at a later date if there was a parking problem.

Commissioner Michael Monroe suggested that the stipulation should be included since the applicant could develop the additional parking on the property to the north if needed.

Mr. Marsh replied that he didnâ??t believe they had the authority to make someone build parking spaces on someone elseâ??s property as a condition of a Use Permit without that property ownerâ??s permission.

Commissioner Karl Kohlhoff asked Mr. Marsh to clarify the meaning of stipulation number two.

Mr. Marsh answered that patrons of the hockey rink could use the parking for the commercial piece and patrons for the commercial property could park in the hockey rink parking.

Town Attorney Kelly Schwab informed the Commission that they were requiring a shared parking agreement so that they developer would show that they have legal access to overflow parking. She added that they could not require someone to build parking on another personâ??s property.

Chairman Joan Krueger commented that there was not any parking in the commercial property and they were discussing an agreement for parking before the parking even existed.

Town Attorney Kelly Schwab stated that since they were requiring a shared parking agreement in the stipulations and since parking may be developed after the project they could require that they have available parking and might have to make arrangements under the agreement to develop the parking before the commercial parcel was built. She announced that Commissioner Karl Kohlhoff was right.

Alternate Commissioner Todd Hanson suggested that since they might still get parking in the residential development no matter how many parking spaces were built the homeowners should change their CC&Rs and deal with the parking in their own area.

Commissioner Stan Strom asked the applicant if any discussion had occurred with the adjacent parcel to the north on acquiring additional land. He asked if the applicant knew the timing of the additional parcel.

Mr. Milberger informed the Commission that the discussion was open as far as sharing the parking spaces. He added that they were required by an ordinance to share parking. As far as the property adjacent, he wasnâ??t sure what the timeframe was for the project to be built.

Commissioner Stan Strom asked if Mr. Milberger thought it would be problem to get a shared parking easement from the owner.

Mr. Milberger replied that the agreement to share parking would not be a problem.

Commissioner Stan Strom asked if they would be willing to pay for the additional parking if the other owner granted their permission.

Mr. Milberger replied that he couldnâ??t speak for the owner, but the costs had been adding up. He gave an example of how they had taken on the cost of the road since the property next door had not been developed. He pointed out that typical ice-skating rinks had a maximum requirement of 200 parking spaces during their peak times.

Commissioner Stan Strom asked if they had given any consideration to scaling down the size of the building to allow for the additional parking spaces.

Mr. Milberger answered that it was a balance of economics. As they start scaling down the size of the building, which it would have to be reducing the building by a third, it would greatly impact the economics of making the project viable. He added that there were three entries to the building and that was why the parking lots were arranged the way they were. Each entry and parking lot was situated for the different arenas.

Commissioner Stan Strom asked what would happen to the project if they didnâ??t grant the Use Permit that evening.

Mr. Milberger replied that there was a chance that the project wouldnâ??t succeed if the Use Permit wasnâ??t granted.

Commissioner Stan Strom asked why the site was so important for the location of the ice arena.

Mr. Milberger answered that they tried to find a site that complimented the community. He explained that in most areas a recreational facility was a nice buffer facility from typical commercial spaces to the residential areas. He added that they were providing a use that took the area from being not used after 5:00 P.M. to being busy all day and night.

Commissioner Stan Strom pointed out that the Municipal Building parking lot was sometimes busy in the evening.

Mr. Milberger commented that Monday through Thursday they were running hockey practices and activities that would take less than two hundred spaces. The peak times would be Friday nights and Saturdays. He added that their studies showed that these hours would compliment what was already going on in the area.

Commissioner Stan Strom asked what facilities he was using as their models to evaluate their peak hours.

Mr. Milberger replied that this project was their tenth facility that they had built in the United States.

Commissioner Stan Strom asked how many were located in Arizona.

Mr. Milberger answered that they had looked at two other facilities in the area so they could evaluate Arizonaâ??s demographics.

Commissioner Stan Strom asked how many Mr. Milberger ran in Arizona.

Mr. Milberger relplied that he didnâ??t run any facilities, he was an architect. He added that when they evaluated the other ice arenas they found that the one in Scottsdale that held the Coyoteâ??s hockey practices only had 256 parking spaces.

Planning Director Jerry Swanson informed the Commission that they had the authority under Use Permit provisions to specify that after a period of time they could review the use and reconsider whether or not to have construction of additional parking. He stated that they would recommend to the Design Review Board that they eliminate the ceremonial pedestrian entry at the main entrance to the building. He suggested that they provide convenient pedestrian access to the site without making it easy for people to park in the neighborhood and walk across the street, because there would be no pedestrian entry at that point. He recommended that the Commission allow the facility to be fully operational for a year and review the parking demand after that period of time. He explained that they could build into the cross access easement provisions the ability for the Commission to require the owner of the hockey rink to construct the additional parking in a temporary fashion on the property to the north pursuant to their cross parking agreement, if they determine at a public hearing that the parking was impacting the neighborhood.

Commissioner Michael Monroe asked if the applicant would agree to Mr. Swansonâ??s suggestions.

Mr. Milberger reviewed what Mr. Swanson had suggested to make sure he was clear on the stipulations.

Commissioner Stan Strom interrupted by stating that he didnâ??t think they were going in the right direction with their discussion. He added that once it was built, they would not be able to be make the appropriate changes. He asked if the Town had considered granting parking on the Municipal Center lot since they were the other neighbor.

Mr. Swanson informed the Commission that the Town parking lot was public parking and would be available for use by anyone at any time.

Commissioner Stan Strom commented that there would not be a need to require the applicant to build the additional parking since there would be parking at the Municipal Building. He asked how many spaces would be in the parking lot of the Municipal Building.

Mr. Swanson replied that they would be adding another row and a half of parking up to the ultimate street right of way for the Community Development Building as a part of the current contract. The biggest impact on the current parking was that the police facilities were located on the site and the public safety building was under construction and within eighteen months would be complete. All of these police vehicles and parking for the court would be moved south across Civic Center Drive creating ample parking in the public lot.

Chairman Joan Krueger reminded the Commission of the citizensâ?? concerns that the further away the parking, the more likely people would park in their community.

Alternate Commissioner Todd Hanson asked what Mr. Swanson would envision being built on the site if the hockey rink was voted down.

Mr. Swanson informed the Commission that they were being asked to vote only on the shared parking agreement, not to disallow the hockey arena since it was a permitted use. He added that if they voted against the parking agreement, it would be up to the applicant to provide sufficient parking to meet the requirements as determined by the code.

Alternate Commissioner Todd Hanson replied that he understood what Mr. Swansonâ??s comments, but that he was concerned about what would be located at that facility if the parking werenâ??t granted. He suggested that the neighbors be aware that this would be a friendly neighbor considering other uses that might end up being built on the site.

Town Attorney Kelly Schwab suggested that if the parking became a problem in the adjacent neighborhood they could post no parking signs for non-residents.

Mr. Marsh commented that the ultimate traffic of Civic Center Drive would be significantly different than it was at present. Once the commercial developments were developed, the traffic would increase significantly. He added that since the majority of users of the facility would be families with children and that they would not be likely to cross across a collector street when they could park in the parking lot. He added that the parking study that was initially done only required approximately 250-260 parking spaces since they were planning on using 50-100 spaces in the Municipal Building parking lot. Therefore, they asked the applicant to remove this from the parking study but they believed that the parking would be sufficient during the peak hours to park in the Municipal Building parking lot. He added that people would park in the path of least resistance and crossing a busy road would not be appealing for families.

Commissioner Karl Kohlhoff suggested that they delete the drop off parking and instead include parking of 23-24 spaces.

Mr. Milberger replied that they could change the parking, but the concern for the drop off lane came from the Planners.

Commissioner Karl Kohlhoff commented that he would feel more comfortable if there was parking next to the building and that parking was more important than a drop off zone.

Mr. Marsh addressed Commissioner Karl Kohlhoffâ??s comment. He stated that the facility would have a heavy usage of buses and carpoolers. He added that not having the drop off zone would make for a potential problem since they could only unload in the drive isle on the east side of the building which was not safe, or drop off in the parking lot which would not be wise either.

Commissioner Karl Kohlhoff suggested that they put a drop off at the east side of the building.

Mr. Marsh replied that the north/south drive on the east side of the building would be the access drive to the retail area to the north. From a parking and circulation standpoint, they would not want to load main drive isles in the commercial center since it would not make for a safe environment. There would be cars driving from 25 miles per hour next to the loading area, which would not make for a safe situation.

Chairman Joan Krueger commented that Mr. Marsh had appeared to have given the parking situation considerable thought and had come up with what he thought was the best situation.

Mr. Marsh agreed that Staff believed there would be ample parking on site and in the Municipal Building parking lot until the commercial center was built.

Chairman Joan Krueger informed the neighbors that the discussion was a temporary solution of about 18 months to a temporary problem. She asked if they were comfortable enforcing their CC&Râ??s and ensuring that people not park where they were not supposed to.

Ronald Bingham agreed that he would be comfortable discussing the enforcement with their homeowners association.

Commissioner Michael Monroe added that when they moved the front entry and the sidewalk and added a retention area that it would be much more difficult for people to cross over from the residential development to the project.

Commissioner Karl Kohlhoff announced that he would not be able to support the project unless the drop off zone was eliminated and parking was placed in that location.

Chairman Joan Krueger asked if there were any additional speakers in the public that wanted to speak. Seeing no one, she closed the public hearing and brought it back to the Commission for discussion and action.

Commissioner Stan Strom commented that he thought the drop off zone was important especially with all of the traffic in the area. He added that he was uncomfortable approving the project since it was so far under the code. He pointed out that the only reason he would consider the project was that there was parking in the Municipal Building parking lot. He announced that if they were solely relying on the property to the north, he would not approve the project.

Commissioner Karl Kohlhoff asked Mr. Marsh to review the drop off zone and felt that people could come in off the north/south road to drop off their children allowing the other parking to be utilized at the front of the building.

Mr. Marsh replied that the drive would be heavily used and not safe for a drop off zone. He used the visual aid to discuss the location of the drive and how it would connect to Gilbert Road. He referred to a similar drive in a commercial center in another area that was heavily used.

Commissioner Karl Kohlhoff referred to the parking lot on the east side of the street and asked how the children would be walking across the potentially busy street.

Mr. Marsh explained that there would be enhanced paving with landscaping and a raised cross table with enhanced paving clearly delineating the pedestrian versus the vehicular realm.

Chairman Joan Krueger supported Staffâ??s location of the drop off zone and the rationale behind not moving it to the other side of the building.

Vice Chairman Brigette Peterson announced that her first job was in a hockey rink and that she felt the drop off area was located in an ideal location. She reviewed how buses would drive through the facility and that the drop off location was in a good location. She added that she didnâ??t think people would cross the street to park in the neighborhood. She referred to a situation that happened in her neighborhood when people parked on their streets and they had to put signs up to eliminate the use. Once the signs were up, they were able to call the police to tow vehicles and people stopped parking on their streets.

Chairman Joan Krueger commented that the proposed project would be a good use in the area, keeping the area alive in the evening. She added that she was supportive of creative ways to build shopping centers and be creative with their parking. She stated that she didnâ??t want to see Gilbert taken up with asphalt. She hoped they would find more creative ways to prevent them from exasperating the heat island effect and making an attractive community. She agreed to include additional stipulations if needed but concurred with Commissioner Stan Strom in that she didnâ??t know what they could do to alter the parking situation once the building was built. Therefore, she stated that revisiting the situation would be futile. She thought they needed to find a temporary solution and that the long term solution would be in place when the Municipal Center parking and commercial parking was in existence.

Chairman Joan Krueger asked if there were any additional comments or if anyone was ready to make a motion.

A motion was made by Alternate Commissioner Todd Hanson, seconded by Commissioner James Beene, to approve UP01-12 subject to Staff stipulations.

Motion Carried 4-3.

Ayes: Chairman Joan Krueger, Vice Chairman Brigette Peterson, Commissioner James Beene, Alternate Commissioner Todd Hanson

Nayes: Commissioner Karl Kohlhoff, Commissioner Stan Strom, and Commissioner Michael Monroe

Commissioner Karl Kohlhoff announced that the parking did not meet the ULDC of 540 spaces. He added that he could accept the parking study of 364 spaces, not the 327 parking spaces that were stipulated.

Commissioner Michael Monroe agreed with Commissioner Karl Kohlhoffâ??s comments.

Commissioner Stan Strom concurred and added that there wasnâ??t a single project that they would approve without meeting the minimum codes.

Staff recommends approval of UP01-12, the Use Permit for the proposed Gilbert Hockey Rink project, subject to the following stipulations.

1. A minimum of three hundred and twenty seven (327) parking spaces shall be provided on the subject site.

2. The developer shall provide the Town with a recorded shared parking agreement and cross access easement with the adjacent commercial parcel prior to issuance of any grading or building permits.

3. The developer shall provide the Town with a recorded permanent access easement for drive aisle and associated sidewalk improvements, for the entire length of the drive aisle immediately to the north of the project boundary, prior to issuance of any grading or building permits.

4. The developer shall provide the Town with a revised site plan indicating improvements to the drive aisle immediately to the north of the project boundary. Said improvements shall comply with Town standards, and shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Engineer prior to issuance of any grading or building permits.

5. The developer shall provide the Town with a recorded agreement, acceptable to the Town Engineer, between the developer and the property owner of the parcel immediately to the north regarding phasing and shared costs of the drive aisle improvements prior to issuance of any grading or building permits.

6. The project shall be developed in substantial conformance with the proposed final site plan listed as Exhibit 2. If the Planning Director or his / her designee determines that a substantial change to the project is proposed an amendment to the Use Permit will be required.

Chairman Joan Krueger called for a five-minute recess at 7:55 P.M.

At 8:00 P.M., Chairman Joan Krueger called the meeting back to order.

WORKING SESSION

Pecos and Recker â??Twinhomeâ?? development â?? R-2 PAD â?? NWC Pecos and Recker â?? Proposed R-2 PAD duplex rezoning within the Gateway Character Area.

Planner David Marsh informed the Commission that the Pecos and Recker â??Twinhomeâ?? development was

being proposed by Fulton Homes. He used the visual aid of the aerial view to show the development, which was located at the northwest corner of Pecos and Recker Roads, located in the Gateway Character Area. He explained that the applicant was looking at pursuing a rezoning on a 40-acre piece of land to rezone to R-2 PAD with a proposed density of approximately 6.7 acres. He explained that the land was designated as Residential 5-8 dwelling units per acre. Since the site was located in the Gateway Character Area, the site called for Neo-Traditional development based upon the policies on the character area and the Neo-Traditional design principals. Mr. Marsh stated that after doing the trainings on the Neo-Traditional design to the Design Review Board and the Planning Commission that the Planning Commission wanted to see the housing product when they were considering the zoning.

Mr. Marsh discussed the housing product proposed for the project. He stated that the Staff felt it was a desirable housing product but that they were concerned that it was not meeting the policies of the Gateway Character Area Plan and the Neo-Traditional principals. He explained that attached housing was encouraged in the residential 5-8 acre dwelling units per acre category. He commended the applicant for coming up with the attached housing unit concepts. However, he pointed out that the overall intent of the Gateway Character Area was for new and innovative housing product based upon the Neo-Traditional development model. He stated that in looking at Neighborhood Residential Land Use Policy #8, it required provision of recessed site entry or rear garages accessed by side driveways or rear alleys.

Mr. Marsh discussed the setbacks. He stated that the setbacks were 13â?? to the house and 18â?? to the garage, promoting an overall garage dominate design, which was contrary to the policies of the Gateway Character Area and Neo-Traditional design principals. The living spaces of the homes should be placed forward, moving the garages to the rear or side of the home. He informed the Commission that they would like to see a significant recess from the front fascia of the living area of the home back to the garage. He used the visual aid to show the garages and how they dominated the streetscape.

Mr. Marsh pointed out that although the housing product was very desirable, it didnâ??t meet policy number eight that he had quoted earlier. Additionally, he announced that policy number seven required provision of narrow streets with separated sidewalks and landscape planters. He stated that the proposed cross-section as indicated appeared to be going with the normal residential street cross-section of approximately 32â?? of pavement. He added that there had been some discussions about having attached sidewalks, which were contrary to the policies of the Gateway Character Area Plan. In addition, a 50â?? wide landscape buffer was required along Recker Road and a varying 20â??-50â?? landscape buffer was required along Pecos Road, which was not shown on the plans. He concluded his presentation by stating that the Staff felt the product was desirable but not appropriate for the Gateway Area Plan.

Chairman Joan Krueger asked the applicant to come forward.

Ed Bull, 702 E. Osborn, Scottsdale came forward. He stated that he was representing Fulton Homes and that Norm Nichols was also present and wanted to speak about the housing product. He informed the Commission that they were trying to design and create an innovative new product. He announced that they were there that evening to ask two questions. First, they wanted to know whether the Commission would like to see the product somewhere in Town. Secondly, he asked if the Commission would be comfortable with the product on the proposed site. He referred to the aerial visual aid of the site and asked the Commission to review the other properties around the property to analyze whether the parcel was a transition parcel and whether the Neo-Traditional design concepts needed to come into play on the piece. He explained that the project was surrounded on three sides by existing non Neo-Traditional development. In addition, the project was at the southern most edge of the Gateway Character area. He used the visual aid to discuss the surrounding area. He pointed out that on the site plan they were proposing short block lengths and that they would continue to work out the details of the site plan with the Planning Staff.

Mr. Bull used the visual aids to discuss the house plans. He explained that there were six floor plans with twin homes attached to each other. In addition there were six different building configurations with three different elevations per floor plan. 50% of the homes had side entry garages. Each of the six building types had one and two story elements where there was a great deal of effort made to do horizontal and vertical movement that was encouraged. He commented that from their perspective, they were hoping that the Commission would like to see the housing product in Gilbert. He asked for some guidance on whether or not the product would be appropriate for the site.

Norm Nichols, 9140 S. Kyrene, Tempe with Fulton Homes came forward. He informed the Commission that they had been looking for a high-density product for a couple of years. He stated they had seen the builders do a Z-Lot configuration, a pod, hammerhead or cluster type home and they did not want to represent one of these types of homes. He added that they wanted to provide a better product that would enhance the streetscape. He commented that they offered the buyers more privacy, more function and an entirely different street scene than they would have in a cluster. He announced that they had a 45% lot coverage with a lot that was 86â?? wide by 80â?? deep, 8â?? by 8â?? setback on each side, a back of patio setback of 15â?? to the back of the house at 23â??, the front setback was 18â?? to the front of a forward facing garage and 21â?? from the front of the garage to the back of the sidewalk. He commented that he thought the project would feel more like a single-family home than a cluster home because of the very usable backyards. He mentioned some suggestions that Planning Director Jerry Swanson gave to them in a previous meeting. He explained that Mr. Swanson suggested that they include swing in garages, which they changed their plans to have all garages swing in. This enabled them, at Mr. Swansonâ??s advice, to pair up the driveways and eliminate a driveway. This also created an interesting street scene with a maximum street length of six buildings. He described the streetscape and used the visual aid to show the product and its layout on the street. He commented that they also added some single story elements. He used the visual aid to discuss the single story elements on the different house plans. He discussed the amenities of the project in order to illustrate the type of community they were trying to accomplish. He concluded by stating that he felt the project was a great transition into the Gateway Character Area.

Commissioner Stan Strom commended the applicant on their presentation. He asked if they could vary the models based on what the market demanded.

Mr. Nichols agreed and added that they had six floor plans ranging from 1,450 to 1,900 square feet. He stated that they would preplot the footprints of the homes so they would know ahead of time where the swing in garages would be placed.

Commissioner Stan Strom announced that he liked that the applicant had created a plan that gave more room in the backyard and staggered the elevations.

Commissioner Michael Monroe complimented the applicant on the beautiful presentation. He added that he loved what they did with the streetscape. He stated that he had concerns about the setbacks that Mr. Marsh discussed along the two roads since it wasnâ??t in the site plan. He asked when the setbacks would be included in the site plan and if they would be asked to grant the different setbacks at a later date.

Mr. Nichols addressed Commissioner Stan Stromâ??s comment about the backyard and stated that the setback from the back of the patio was 15â?? and 23â?? from the back of the house. Regarding the setbacks, he stated that on Pecos Road there was a 20â??-50â?? requirement, which they had met. He explained that they were having a hard time meeting the setback requirement on Recker Road. He described the seven buildings that they would lose in order to have the required setback. He stated that since Recker Road dead ended at Pecos Road they couldnâ??t understand the purpose of the setbacks on a dead end road. He stated that although they initially didnâ??t provide the required setbacks they would work with the Design Review Board, Staff and the Commission on these issues. He explained that with the landscaping they had 45â?? from the back of the sidewalk to the wall. In addition, he stated that they had a 15â?? right of way.

Commissioner Michael Monroe commented that he didnâ??t have a problem with the elevations and the garages. He added that he knew a lot about Neo-Traditional design since he was an architect and that he thought that how everything was broken up in depth throughout the façade across the street, it didnâ??t pose a problem for himself.

Mr. Nichols thanked Commissioner Michael Monroe for his comments. He stated that he understood Staffâ??s position on trying to enforce the ordinance but that they wanted to get a feeling from the Commission on whether they liked the product and if they felt it might work at the proposed site.

Commissioner Stan Strom commented that he didnâ??t think that they needed a shared driveway on every other house. He added that if they picked one building per six, they would have some nice elevations and the plans merit consideration with it. He thought it looked like an estate house elevation rather than the Z-lots. The biggest thing he liked about the density was that they had 42-45% lot coverage. He concluded that he thought the product would be a great concept that would be well suited in Gilbert.

Chairman Joan Krueger announced that she was looking for as much creativity as possible and was happy with the look of the project.

Commissioner Karl Kohlhoff described the Character Area element that was handed out to them about the Gateway Area. He read that the first page, 3.1 stated that Village Center Design policies, number one criteria required classic mixed-use pedestrian oriented village center surrounded by traditional residential neighborhoods. He stated that it was a stretch for him to think that the proposed project was close enough to the village center in order to enable it to be pedestrian oriented to the center. He described the area around the project with the high school to the east and the standard designed subdivision to the south. He thought that the project was a tremendous asset to the area to use it as a transition from what was outside the Gateway Area to the village center in the Gateway Area. He stated that he supported the project and liked the neighborhood park in the middle of the project. He referred to page three, 3.8 and the residential land use policies, number four stated that they needed to allow for single family attached and detached in residential densities of 5-8 dwelling units per acre. Since the proposed property was within the required density and because of all the items he listed earlier, he concluded that he would support the project.

Alternate Commissioner Todd Hanson asked if the product was being built anywhere else in Gilbert.

Mr. Nichols replied that the project before the Commission was new, created for the area.

Chairman Joan Krueger commented that she thought the project could serve as a transition into the Gateway Character Area. She agreed with Commissioner Karl Kohlhoff in that the project had so many good elements and she would like them to adhere to as many of the Gateway elements as possible.

Commissioner James Beene announced that he also liked the product and that they would have to debate whether they liked the product at the proposed location. He asked for direction from Staff and the Director as to whether this project would fit in the area since it was at the end of the Gateway Character Area. He asked why Pecos Park I & II and Chandler Ginning wasnâ??t included in the Neo-Traditional design.

Planner David Marsh replied that Chaparral Estates was rezoned and platted prior to the adoption of the Gateway Character Area. He added that Pecos Park I & II had the same conditions. He stated that Chandler Ginning and Highland Five came in after the Gateway Area Plan was adopted. Although the Staff had a good understanding of what it meant for the village center and the area around it, they did not fully grasp the true intent of the Neo-Traditional design. He explained that the zoning therefore went through, the plat came in and then they started to do more research as to what Neo-Traditional design was. He described some of the features of Neo-Traditional design that they tried to achieve with the zoning that was approved with setbacks that didnâ??t fit within this design. Since that time, he informed the Commission that they had done much research on Neo-Traditionalism and had formed a Neo-Traditional Planning Committee within the Planning Department. He stated that they were in the process of putting together guidelines for the community so that they would not have the same situation they had encountered with Chandler Ginning and Highland Five.

Mr. Marsh explained that regarding the project, the housing product was desirable and they wanted to see in the Town of Gilbert. He informed the Commission that in the Gateway Character Area element of the General Plan the purpose statement talked about providing traditional village neighborhood design concepts based upon the Neo-Traditional