Planning & Zoning Commission Special Meeting Minutes

December 18, 2002

COMMISSION PRESENT: Chairman Joan Krueger, Vice Chairman Brigette Peterson, Commissioner Shane Leonard, Commissioner Dan Dodge, Commissioner James Beene, Commissioner Michael Monroe

COMMISSION ABSENT: Alternate Commissioner Jayne Abraham, Commissioner Karl Kohlhoff

STAFF PRESENT: Planning Director Jerry Swanson, Planning Manager Linda Edwards, Planner Jill Johanneck

ALSO PRESENT: Town Attorney Kelly Schwab, Town Attorney Phillis New, Town Manager George Pettit, Councilmember Les Presmyk, Recorder Trasie Johns

I N D E X

PLANNER CASE PAGE VOTE
Ms. Johanneck Z02-21 2 Approved
Ms. Edwards GP02-11 8 Discussion Only

< - - - > = deleted text bold = added text in stipulations

CALL TO ORDER:

Chairman Joan Krueger called the meeting to order at 6:05 P.M.

ROLL CALL:

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

APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

Chairman Joan Krueger requested a motion to approve the agenda.

A motion was made by Commissioner Michael Monroe, seconded by Vice Chairman Brigette Peterson to approve the agenda.

Motion Carried 5-0.

COMMUNICATIONS FROM CITIZENS:

Chairman Joan Krueger 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.

Commissioner Dan Dodge joined the Commission at 6:07 P.M.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

Z02-21 - An amendment to the Power Ranch PAD (Planned Area Development) to: a) rezone approximately 175 acres from (R-TH) Townhouse Residential to (R-TH), (R1-5), (Single Family Residential), R-2 (Two Family Duplex Residential), and R-CH (Single Family, Cluster) zoning designations; b) deviate from the 5â?? clear zone requirements within the Trilogy Community; c) to allow for the construction of “casita” units on residential lots, and d) restate and clarify Ordinance No.â??s 1048, 1156, 1187, and 1284 for the continued development of a 2,087 acre mixed-use, master planned community. The site is bounded by Pecos Road and RWCD Canal to the north, Ocotillo Road to the south, Power Road to the east, and Recker Road to the west.

Planner Jill Johanneck informed the Commission that Z02-21 was an amendment to the Power Ranch PAD (Planned Area Development) to: a) rezone approximately 175 acres from (R-TH) Townhouse Residential to (R-TH), (R1-5), (Single Family Residential), R-2 (Two Family Duplex Residential), and R-CH (Single Family, Cluster) zoning designations; b) deviate from the 5â?? clear zone requirements within the Trilogy Community; c) to allow for the construction of “casita” units on residential lots, and d) restate and clarify Ordinance No.â??s 1048, 1156, 1187, and 1284 for the continued development of a 2,087 acre mixed-use, master planned community. She pointed out, using the visual aid, that the site was bounded by Pecos Road and RWCD Canal to the north, Ocotillo Road to the south, Power Road to the east, and Recker Road to the west. She announced that she would be presenting the case as outlined in the staff report.

Ms. Johanneck noted that attached to the staff report were the minutes to the public meeting, which was held on July 2, 2002. She explained that upon Staff review of the minutes and comment sheets and several phone calls received by Staff, they determined that there wasnâ??t opposition concerning the request.

Ms. Johanneck commented that the request by Sun Power Properties constituted the fourth (4th) amendment to the Power Ranch PAD. The applicant had worked well with Staff to develop the amendment and hopefully create a more user friendly document that clearly outlined the development standards within the Power Ranch while adding some flexibility within the Medium High density land use areas for future development. The requested zoning amendment to Power Ranch was in compliance with the General Plan and incorporated the abandonment of Rittenhouse Road and the re-alignment of Pecos Road. She used a diagram to show the realignment of Pecos Road and described how the project would be changed.

Concerning open space, Ms. Johanneck pointed out that the modification to the approved open space plan was minimal. She explained that there will be a change to the amount of open space previously approved, which is a reduction by one (1) acre due to a property line adjustment to accommodate the future commercial uses at the southwest corner of Power and Queen Creek Roads. The existing golf course area was reduced by one (1) acre to reflect this modification.

Ms. Johanneck discussed the future school site. The applicant has worked with the Higley Unified School District concerning the size of the second future school site, to be located in the northern sub-area of Power Ranch. At that time, ten (10) acres had been dedicated within the northern sub-area, with an additional five (5) acres reserved for purchase for the new school facility. Should additional lands be required, the applicant has expressed a willingness to work with the School District for additional property. However, at this time the District is not sure how many acres they will require, and to hopefully eliminate an additional PAD amendment in the future should additional land not be needed, the applicant has chosen to show the school site as fifteen (15) acres, with potential to expand in the future with the loss of residential property. She pointed out the realignment of a collector road that would take place if the school site requested the additional acreage.

Ms. Johanneck explained that correspondence received from Williams Gateway Airport indicated the need for notification for those dwelling units within the ” Airport Overflight Area III”. The applicant had advised that all avigation easements addressing this issue had been recorded for the northern sub-areas, and would be recorded for the Trilogy development as required.

Ms. Johanneck described the requested zoning changes. She used the visual aid to show that Power Ranch was divided into three sub-areas. The area south of Queen Creek Road is referred to as Trilogy, a retirement community. The remaining two phases, north of Queen Creek Road and south of Pecos Road, were noted as the Traditional Neighborhood Developments or the northern sub-areas. With the re-alignment of Pecos Road and abandonment of Rittenhouse Road, an additional area is created north of Pecos, which was intended for C-2 (General Commercial) and I-1 (Garden Industry) development.

As land uses needed reorganization due to the re-alignment of Pecos Road, the intention of the applicant became to modify the approved land use categories to maintain approved densities for this northern sub-area. The elimination of the 32 acres condemned by the Flood Control District would not increase residential densities as commercially zoned property was not calculated as part of residential densities.

Ms. Johanneck explained that the applicant was requesting modifications to the Trilogy area of Power Ranch to include a request to allow R-MDRD (Retirement â?? Medium Density Residential Development) in some areas previously approved for R-LDRD (Retirement â?? Low Density Residential Development). The allowance of variable lot widths (50â??, 55â??, and 65â??) to be commingled within the residential streets of the Trilogy development would provide more variation within the project without an increase in the density, which is consistent with the General Plan and had the support of Staff.

Ms. Johanneck noted that the applicant requested the elimination of the 10-foot landscape tract for those properties located with a side-yard on a corner lot within Trilogy. The intent of this was to create a landscape easement versus a tract and incorporate the extra 10-feet into the ownership of the lots, thereby eliminating the need for Homeowner Association maintenance of the tracts and allowing for larger corner lots. Staff supported this change to allow for larger corner lots and consistent landscape treatments within the retirement community.

Ms. Johanneck described the clear-yard setback. She explained that a previous amendment to the Power Ranch PAD allowed HVAC equipment to be located in the required 5-foot clear zone on the sides of homes behind a screen wall in the Power Ranch sub-areas north of Queen Creek Road. As a matter of equity and the desire of the applicant, it was being requested that this same condition apply to those properties within the Trilogy phase of Power Ranch. Staff supported this request, with the condition that the equipment be permitted only on the side containing a screen wall, and not where there is a side yard gate.

Ms. Johanneck discussed the casita units. She explained that Casita units, which were attached or detached small living quarters usually containing a sleeping area and cooking facilities, are requested as an option on single family lots within the entire Power Ranch development. Casitaâ??s were utilized similar to “granny flats”, where an older adult or parent will live with the family but have a space of their own, or used as a private office for a home based business. She noted that only lots of adequate size and dimension would have this casita option. The casitas would be hooked up to the principal structure utility meter. Use of casitas as rental units would be prohibited. This was stipulated in the Draft Ordinance, and would provide the Town authority to enforce the no-rental policy should there be violations. All casitas shoulc meet the development setbacks for the principal dwelling unit, and elevations should be submitted to the Design Review Board for review and approval prior to submittal of construction documents. Staff supported the allowance of casitas on lots capable of supporting this option.

Ms. Johanneck recommended that the Commission recommend approval to Z02-21 with the stipulation that Development shall comply with the attached Draft Ordinance as presented at the meeting that evening.

Commissioner Dan Dodge referred to the landscape tract and the elimination of the 10â?? tract, and asked how putting each of the tracts in separate ownership would provide consistency.

Ms. Johanneck replied that this was brought to Staffâ??s attention by the applicant. There had been some concern that there were different types of treatments along the tracts. People that live there were assuming that the tracts was their responsibility to maintain and it was the applicantâ??s feeling that allowing the homeowners that ability to do the landscaping and work with the neighbors would make it more consistent.

Planning Director Jerry Swanson further explained that the statement was intended to mean consistent with the adjacent landscaping on the corner lot, as opposed with consistent with every other lot in Power Ranch.

Commissioner Shane Leonard asked what the status was on the plan to bring Pecos Road through.

Ms. Johanneck pointed out on the visual aid where Pecos Road would be realigned in the project.

Commissioner Shane Leonard asked when Pecos Road would be improved off site.

Ms. Johanneck replied that she didnâ??t know outside of Power Ranch the status of Pecos Road.

Sean Walters, 4734 E. Queen Creek Road, Gilbert with Sun Power Properties came forward. He explained that on the east end of the property they were working with the Town Engineer to do a design of Power and Pecos Roads. He noted that along with the 21.5 acre commercial site at the northwest corner of Power and Pecos Roads they agreed that along with the development of that site they would develop the full right of way of Pecos Road, the entire width of the property. In addition, the Town was committed to the bridge over the RDCD and the EMF, the crossing that was currently in the capital improvement plan for 2004.

Town Attorney Kelly Schwab commented that on the recommended motion, the proposal before them in the development plan was not to rezone any property RCH and R2. The zoning is R-TH. She advised that the motion should read: Move to recommend approval of Z02-21, a request to amend Power Ranch PAD to amend the development standards of the R-TH zoning district to allow for R-CH and R-2 type developments, and approve an amended Development Plan which codifies and clarifies previously approved Development Plans and Ordinances, subject to Staffâ??s recommendations.

Mr. Walters informed the Commission that he wanted to give more background and explain the reasons for requesting the changes that they were requesting. The request for the rezoning portion of the project went back to a year ago when they started talking about the General Plan amendment and the realignment of Pecos Road. At that time, they realized that it changed the layout of the project. He explained that they had a series of previous planned area documents and amendments and the ordinances that went with it. During the review of different projects with different builders, the Staff and builder were having problems because the PAD document was overwritten by an ordinance that was changed by another PAD document that was modified by a later ordinance. Therefore, they spent a lot of time with the Staff to put together the book that took out the conflicts. He explained that they were trying to provide a concise document that was easier to use.

Mr. Walters discussed items that were in the staff report. In the landscape and open space portion, the reduction of open space in the golf course was related to the site plan at the southwest corner of Power and Queen Creek, which was the Albertsonâ??s and associated shops that came in. In order to get the building on the site they needed to slide a property boundary over slightly which was the result in the reduction of open space of an acre. He pointed out on the visual aid where this would take place on the site plan.

Mr. Walters reviewed the issue with the Higley Unified School District. He stated that as part of the development plan they were required to dedicate 42 acres of school sites. They provided 32 acres in one area and 10 acres in another area. Subsequently the school came back and stated that they only needed 22 acres and the applicant decided to develop the additional 10 acres to soccer fields next to the school. He added that they had reserved an additional 5 acres that the school district had agreed to buy at market value. He noted that they could transfer some of the residentially zoned property to the school site if needed and not have another PAD amendment to rezone it.

Mr. Walters described the rezoning. Within the traditional neighborhoods north of Queen Creek Road, they had reallocated the property that was originally there for residential to fit with the new circulation plan. The modification that they were requesting in the Medium High density land use was intended to open up the range of possibility while maintaining the density. Many developers were producing different types of housing products that didnâ??t fit in the development standards. Therefore the modifications made were intended to open the door to flexibility.

Mr. Walters referred to the Trilogy portion of the project and stated that the request to modify from a low density to a medium density was in the southern boundary of the project. The developer, Shea Homes for active adults, had created three product lines on three different lot sizes. As it was previously, the low density had the large lots in the areas and they couldnâ??t develop the neighborhoods as they had been with the mix of property. The request doesnâ??t change the approved unit count or the overall density but allows them to continue with a program of mixed lot sizes and mixed housing products within each neighborhood.

Mr. Walters explained that in the Trilogy development the request to eliminate the landscape tracts came out of requests that they received from the homeowners. Within the Trilogy community, since it was a community without walls, the homeowners were expressing a concern that they had their own landscape yard with a 10â?? strip that was an HOA maintained landscaping strip that was throughout the community clashed with their personal landscape.

Mr. Walters discussed the clear yard setbacks at Trilogy. Without the walls they were initially not having problems with the clear zone ordinance. Subsequently, they were running into confusion as to where the modification applied and didnâ??t apply. Originally they had it approved for the medium high density product where it was the only product with 5â?? and 5â?? side yard setbacks. They were requesting that the HVAC units be placed on the sides of the houses. He pointed out that they would not allow a homeowner to put a gate on the same side of the HVAC unit which would match the standard that was in place in the Traditional Neighborhood. He stated that this would solve a plotting problem that they had.

Regarding the casita issue, Mr. Walters commented that the original Trilogy subdivision had the casitas modeled and built. With review of documents they discovered that they technically werenâ??t approved. Therefore, they were proposing to get those approved throughout the community. What they were trying to do was maintain the existing standards of the residential community. He noted that they tried to write some flexibility into the standards to allow for future products. With the circulation set, he didnâ??t think they would need to amend the land use map in the community again. The last three amendments were the results of circulation changes along Pecos Road. He summarized that they tried to make the document easier for everyone to use.

Commissioner Michael Monroe commended Mr. Walters and the Staff on their hard work on the project and the wonderful presentation on the master plan that was moving in the right direction.

Commissioner Dan Dodge commented that the installation of the HVAC unit as characterized in a community without walls would not be going against the spirit of the policy of a 5â?? clear zone. He explained that as soon as Mr. Walters said that the homeowner had the option of putting in walls he was concerned it was a significant policy departure from what they had looked at in the past. He asked how they would be able to justify this since they would have the issues of safety and access with a wall in place.

Mr. Walters explained that in the second amendment to the Power Ranch PAD when they proposed it in the medium high residential in the Traditional Neighborhood north of Queen Creek they had lengthily discussions with the Fire Marshal and the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Town Council. The Fire Marshall agreed that if it was placed on the non gated side of the house, if there were walls they would be acceptable to the modification. He commented that this would be the same condition.

Commissioner Dan Dodge pointed out that they were dealing with a policy that had been established for them by the Town Council. He thought they would need more justification than from the Fire Marshall to deviate from that policy since it was set by the Town Council for the community for a number of reasons. He could see recommending that they allow the HVAC units in the side yard where there werenâ??t any walls, but since a unit took up 3â?? of that 5â?? clear area, there would only be 2â?? left if there was a wall in place.

Chairman Joan Krueger opened the public hearing and asked if anyone would like to come forward. Seeing no one, she closed the public hearing and brought it back to the Commission for discussion and action.

Commissioner Dan Dodge asked the Staff to comment on the side yard clear zone issue.

Town Attorney Kelly Schwab clarified that it was more than a policy and was an ordinance. She asked for a few minutes to find the ordinance.

Chairman Joan Krueger asked if there was any discussion while they waited.

Commissioner Michael Monroe asked for a clarification on the fencing issue.

Commissioner Dan Dodge explained that the background was that many years ago in the community they had 5â?? and 7â?? side yard setbacks and it was common in the R1-7 zoning district until the Town recognized that this was too small of an area. The issue was that a number of developments were being created where they were placing the HVAC unit in an area which eliminated the access for the homeowner and the fire department. Therefore the Town Council implemented an ordinance that stated that there had to be a 5â?? clear space on the side yard.

Chairman Joan Krueger added that if they encroached on the side yard with the HVAC unit the house next door would be too close to the noisy unit.

Town Attorney Kelly Schwab advised that Ordinance 803 required that the space in any required yard shall be open and unobstructed except for ordinary projections. It stated that mechanical equipment, such as air conditioners, may be constructed with any yard provided that in no case shall said mechanical equipment be nearer than five feet to the property line within a required side yard.

Commissioner Dan Dodge commented that since the ordinance stated 5â?? from the property line, he would recommend to Town Council that they consider that the wall isnâ??t there.

Mr. Walters referred to the discussions that they had on the topic in the past. He clarified that in the medium high density Traditional neighborhood, which were walled, they were approved by both the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Town Council. It was also currently approved in the northern traditional sub areas. He explained that when they discussed this issue with the Fire Marshal and others in the department, it was determined that they would not go over the wall on the gated side, but would go down the unobstructed side if they needed to get to the back of the house. In addition, there was lengthy discussion with the Town Council about the location of the HVAC unit and they determined to have it set back a minimum of 10â?? back from the return wall, as shown in the exhibit, to address the future ability to store garbage cans. They wanted it far enough back from the house so it wouldnâ??t spill the noise out to the street and not move it too far back to the back yard rendering the back yard useless in the summer time for outdoor conversation. He concluded that since they had it currently approved in a walled condition they felt they would be able to apply the deviation down to Trilogy in a non walled development.

Commissioner Dan Dodge stated that this was an excellent example of why they needed to “stick to their guns” on issues because once they let it go once, they would hear it come back. He referred to storing garbage cans and questioned why this would be recommended since this was one of the reasons for the clear zone ordinance because once you put a HVAC unit in you could not get a garbage can past it. If there wasnâ??t a gate there, it would be an enclosed space with a house on one side, a wall on the other side and a return wall on the third side, the HVAC unit on the fourth side with about a 2â?? space.

Mr. Walters replied that in the discussion of the time of Town Council, it was stated that it gave the resident the option to put the gate in there and use it.

Commissioner Dan Dodge clarified that the request was only to put a HVAC unit on an ungated side.

Mr. Walters explained that one side would be gated and remain open to pass through to the back. He added that the document did say on the “ungated side”, but the intention was that the gated side that was installed with new homes as a standard would remain open to the rear yard.

Commissioner Michael Monroe stated that it was already on a good portion of the site and he approved of having the deviation as it was worded carefully. He added that he was familiar with the fire department and how particular they were on things and if they approved of the process he would support it.

Chairman Joan Krueger asked what Commissioner Michael Monroe would think about the people that live next door to the unit.

Commissioner Michael Monroe replied that he could hear the unit 10â?? or 5â?? away. He added that he could hear his neighbors unit and it was 15â?? away.

Commissioner Dan Dodge stated that he was in support of the request other than the one issue. He felt that if they approved it, they needed to send a clear message to the Town Council so they would think about it and not just push through as part of a package.

Chairman Joan Krueger commented that she had a natural aversion to putting people on top of each other, but the market would create the demand. She added that since the Town established an ordinance for a number of reasons and they should uphold it. If they deviate from an ordinance, she felt they needed to do it for a good reason.

Commissioner Michael Monroe recognized that Mr. Walters had worked through a lot of issues with the project and felt that this wasnâ??t a major issue although he agreed that they should point it out to the Town Council.

Commissioner Dan Dodge suggested that they recommend the project and remove that piece they werenâ??t comfortable with. He added that he would be more comfortable since it was a departure from the law and policy of the community that it be addressed by the policy making authority of the community, the Town Council.

Mr. Walters located the deviation as being in Ordinance 1284, approved in June 2000, stipulation rrr: All side yards shall meet the clear zone requirements of Ordinance 803 as modified, except lots within the medium high density land use designation may use clear zone for placement of mechanical equipment on non gate side of lots. Said mechanical equipment shall be set back a minimum of 10â?? to accommodate the location and storage of trash containers.

A motion was made by Commissioner Dan Dodge, seconded by Commissioner Michael Monroe, to recommend approval of Z02-21, a request to amend Power Ranch PAD to amend the development standards of the R-TH zoning district to allow for R-CH and R-2 type developments, and approve an amended Development Plan which codifies and clarifies previously approved Development Plans and Ordinances, subject to Staffâ??s recommendations and modified as follows: The allowance for impingement into the 5â?? clear zone shall be deleted from the recommendation.

Motion Carried 6-0.

Approve Z02-21, a request to amend the Power Ranch PAD, subject to the following conditions:

Development shall comply with the attached Draft Ordinance as presented at the December 18, 2002 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. The allowance for impingement into the 5â?? clear zone shall be deleted from the recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission on 12/18/02.

GP02-11 â?? Prepare recommendation to Town Council for the Gilbert General Plan.

Planning Manager Linda Edwards reminded the Commission that the last time they talked about the General Plan update on December 4 there was quite a bit of discussion regarding the land use categories of Neighborhood Commercial, Shopping Center, General Commercial, and Regional Commercial. The reason there was discussion was that the General Plan update was recommending new information for the size of the building and the acreage for those four categories. There was also input from land owners and other stakeholders and the Staff was recommending that they create another land use category, called Community Commercial that would help with the in between size and intensity of development between Neighborhood Commercial on a five acre piece and Shopping Center on twenty five acres. She pointed out that they had a copy of the modifications in their packet.

Ms. Edwards described the land use classifications. The new Community Commercial land use classification would be for a parcel between five and fifteen acres and would accommodate single user or standalone building under 50,000 square feet. She added that they modified Neighborhood Commercial to be a parcel no larger than five acres. Shopping Center was modified to be a parcel between fifteen and forty acres. General Commercial would be any size. Regional Commercial would be a parcel larger than thirty acres.

Ms. Edwards referred to the land use matrix and noted that there were approximately 35 parcels that were affected because they created the new land use category. In addition, after a close look at the land use plan they realized that the jump between the old land use categories in 1994 and the new one in 2001 there were almost 35 parcels that were marked as General Commercial (GC) as small as one acre. She pointed out that there were 67 parcels that Staff was recommending to be changed to better fit the new classifications. 35 of these were from GC to a different category. The majority of the new ones were because of the Community Commercial category.

Ms. Edwards commented that she would like to discuss what they felt were significant changes on the land use matrix. She referred to item three:

3
E of SEC Higley & Warner
GC/

Cemetery
GC/

Cemetery
Staff is recommending no change because the applicant will need to come forward with a major amendment next year.

She explained that they had worked with the applicant on trying to refigure the property to accommodate residential and it had been unsuccessful. Staff was recommending that the applicant come forward next year with a major amendment to the General Plan.

Ms. Edwards discussed number six:

6
NWC Higley & Ocotillo
SC
NC
In Santan Character Area, scale and intensity of NC appropriate for this location and parcel size. Doug Finney, representative for landowners prefers to maintain SC. Christopher Schmaltz with Gammage & Burnham questions the SC designation when the original GUP-16 requested GC. Further research is required. Letter attached.

She explained that Mr. Doug Finney had submitted a letter for the Commissionâ??s review. She commented that they had been unsuccessful in trying to clarify what Mr. Finney believed was the correct land use designation as General Commercial. She stated that the Staff agreed that the original submittal, GPU-15 was approved as Shopping Center (SC). Since it was approved and adopted by the residents as SC, it was the Commissionâ??s decision to determine what the best land use category would be for the parcel. She noted that they had recommended NC and felt that with careful planning there could be uses in Community Commercial.

Ms. Edwards referred to number eleven and twelve:

11
SWC Greenfield & Guadalupe
GC
CC
Existing C-1 parcel, existing home for commercial uses, new CVS pharmacy, planned medical along southern boundary. R 0-1 borders on west and south. NC proposed to reflect parcel size, existing and planned uses, and existing zoning.

12
NEC Greenfield & Guadalupe
GC
CC
Existing C-1 parcel, contains medical offices and the potential of other C-1 uses. Designate as NO to reflect existing uses and zoning, parcel size, and location adjacent to R 1-2. Landowner is concerned NO would restrict uses permitted in the C-1 zoning for this parcel.

Ms. Edwards explained that the applicant was comfortable with Community Commercial for those parcels.

Ms. Edwards described item 33, where they were going to retract a staff initiation for a change of any kind on that parcel since it is 66 acres and would be a major amendment process and this was a minor amendment process.

33
SWC Warner and Gilbert
SC
SC
Staff recommends no

change because the acreage would require a major amendment process.

Ms. Edwards pointed out number 63, which was a new one because of the new category Community Commercial.

63
NWC, SEC, SWC Recker and Elliot
SC
R 2-3.5,

And CC
Each corner contains less than 10 acres. The NWC is a church, therefore R 2-3.5, the 2 southern parcels are vacant and zoned C-1.

Ms. Edwards mentioned number 67, which was new and explained that they were going through a 40 acre annexation and rezoning to modify the boundaries to include a 20 acre site for fire station #7 and a 20 acre site for a church. The Staff was recommending that the residential 2-3.5 be modified for that 20 acre parcel to accommodate the fire house as PFI.

67
E of NEC Greenfield and Williams Field
R 2-3.5
PF/I
20 acre parcel to develop at Firestation #7

The last change that Ms. Edwards pointed out was because they were retracting any change on the 80 acre cemetery parcel they needed to retract J., where there was a proposed text amendment to delete the word cemetery from the land use classification.

J
Text on map

Propose new colors for categories to assist with clarity on smaller maps. Correct symbols for public facilities, add color to Character Area map, delete local streets, delete Cemetery from Golf Course/Cemetery land use category, reorder legend, delete local streets shown as white on the map, complete full interchange at Santan Freeway and Val Vista, change legend title “Town Facilities” to “Public Facilities”

Planning Director Jerry Swanson reminded the Commission that at the last public hearing they were troubled by the transition between Neighborhood Commercial and Shopping Center and felt uncomfortable with the way those proposed classifications would have to be applied to the land use map. Therefore, the Staff went back and spent some time to determine if that was a logical transition going from a 25,000 square foot limit to a 75,000 square foot limit and came to the conclusion that it was a bit of a leap. Given the way the property had been planned and developed in Gilbert they needed an intermediate classification that was intended for uses that were more intense and properties larger in scale than Neighborhood Commercial, but not as large of scale or intense as Shopping Center. Therefore they attempted to draft the language as Community Commercial as an intermediate land use. In addition, they restructured the sizes of the properties that generally the classifications would be applied to and that had resulted in the large number of modifications that were presented that evening. He thought it was important to have the Commission and public understand the genesis of that since it came about as a result of them trying to solve the problem that was posed at the last meeting. He noted that item six was actually about 11.5 acres and if they were to be consistent with the application of the classifications to properties of certain acreage, it would fall into the Community Commercial classification. Therefore Neighborhood Commercial would not be appropriate for a property of that size.

Chairman Joan Krueger informed the Commission that she would like to start at the beginning of the items and address any questions that they might have. She noted that she only had one blue slip which was from Mr. Vanek who noted that he had a letter of intent that she would prefer he speak with Staff about. She referred to number six and stated that after going through the information that they received from Mr. Finney that evening she wanted to make sure they were all clear on the evolution of the item. She described the samples of the documents that were presented by Mr. Finney which mentioned that the property was General Commercial. She verified that regardless of the documents, the parcel ended up in the General Plan as Shopping Center and voted upon by the public as this.

Ms. Edwards replied that she was correct and that many of the projects since the very first presentation to the Planning and Zoning Commission in March until it was adopted in November 2001 had changed. There was a lot of discussion on a lot of the projects and not all original requests were adopted as they were requested in March. She noted that she didnâ??t have any documentation to show the change and that it could be an error.

Town Attorney Kelly Schwab commented that the ultimate document approved by the voters was the General Plan that they had before them.

Mr. Swanson stated that he would be willing to grant Mr. Finney the assumption that he was correct and they did in fact place the Shopping Center designation in error on the General Plan map and that they did make a mistake when they mapped this as the Commission was presented with General Commercial. Regardless of the designation, he explained that it was on the table for the Commission to recommend to the Town Council the appropriate designation of all of the commercial properties within the Town and they may elect to designate it as General Commercial, because it would fall within the size range as General Commercial as recommended being a property of over ten acres. Or, he pointed out that they may designate it as Community Commercial because it was between 5-15 acres if they didnâ??t believe that an unlimited scale of use was appropriate on that site.

Chairman Joan Krueger asked what Mr. Finney wanted the property to be designated.

Ms. Edwards replied that she believed that Mr. Finney would like to see the property designated as General Commercial. She added that they did not change the matrix from NC since the project was under discussion that she would give it to the Commission for discussion and to propose what they felt was the most appropriate designation.

Commissioner Dan Dodge asked if the Staff felt that Community Commercial was more appropriate.

Ms. Edwards responded that they did think Community Commercial was more appropriate.

Commissioner Dan Dodge commented that it seemed reasonable that somewhere along the line the Commission or Town Council might have suggested that the parcel be changed because of its size without being well documented. Irrespective of the history, he thought they needed to determine what was appropriate on that property. He felt that the new category of Community Commercial would suit that parcel well and would not be taking anything away from the owner as it provided a pretty broad scope of development.

Ms. Edwards referred to an 8-9 acre parcel at the southeast corner of Higley and Williams Field Road where they approved a site plan for a 42, 000 square foot anchor with inline retail with a Walgreenâ??s on the corner and three pads. She explained that this would be the type of project that you could put on that size parcel.

Commissioner Michael Monroe stated that it seemed that the only designation that stood out to him was the designation of square footage. He felt this could cause a potential problem for the applicant if an Albertsonâ??s moved in there since they were 55,000 square feet.

Chairman Joan Krueger noted that Commissioner Michael Monroe was only talking about a difference of 5,000 square feet and the Commission would have the leeway to make some decision about it on a case by case basis.

Commissioner Shane Leonard was greatly troubled at the fact that Staff had not presented them with any information to refute what he had from Mr. Finney. He added that this was the second time that they had seen a mapping error in the short time that he had been on the Commission. The first one showed up on the southwest corner of Higley and Williams Field Roads. He noted that they used an opposite argument to disapprove that one. He thought that Mr. Finney had presented a good case to keep the property as General Commercial. Since properties of any size could be designated as General Commercial, he thought that they didnâ??t need to discuss the size of the property as it was irrelevant. He referred to the letter that Planner Geir Sverdrup presented to the applicant on February 21,2001 which was a strong recommendation that staff was in support of General Commercial. He didnâ??t think that anything had changed from that recommendation. He suggested that this site, because of the apparent lack of proof as to what it was or wasnâ??t, be mapped as General Commercial.

Chairman Joan Krueger asked if it had been General Commercial on the current map, would Commissioner Shane Leonard still believe with the new designation that had been created that it should remain General Commercial. She added that they had made alterations to other General Commercial parcels.

Commissioner Shane Leonard replied by asking Staff about removing mini storage facilities in the text change under General Commercial. He noted that this was one of the specific uses that Mr. Finney had brought up in one of his letters. He commented that he wouldnâ??t recommend making a change from General Commercial since there had not been any change.

Commissioner Dan Dodge explained that there had been significant change since all of the categories had been redefined. Whether or not they made an error, he didnâ??t see how that should effect their deliberation as to what was the appropriate use of the property. He thought they should look at the parcel as if it didnâ??t have a designation and decide what was most appropriate. He referred to the other 67 land use changes and how they had determined to make the change based on what was the most appropriate designation.

Commissioner Shane Leonard stated that they knew what the other 67 property designations were before they started and this one had been in question since they started the process.

Commissioner Dan Dodge agreed and asked what not knowing the designation had to do with deciding what was appropriate.

Commissioner Shane Leonard disagreed with that fact that they shouldnâ??t consider whether there was a mistake made and that it was extremely relevant.

Commissioner Dan Dodge agreed that they needed to find out why the error was made and try to eliminate them, but not as that eveningâ??s process.

Commissioner James Beene stated that the Commission was failing to consider that the error was brought up by Mr. Finney and they discussed it in terms of an error and what they had at the time was Shopping Center and Neighborhood Commercial. He thought they should give Mr. Finney the opportunity to give his input on whether he wanted Community Commercial.

Planning Director Jerry Swanson informed the Commission that they were recommending to the Commission that they not make any final recommendation that evening. Because of the magnitude of the change of adding an entirely new classification and applying it to properties they needed to provide expanded notice and another public hearing allowing people to speak. He recommended that they do this at the January meeting. He stated that they would notice that meeting if the Commission concurred.

Commissioner Shane Leonard appreciated Commissioner Dan Dodgeâ??s and Chairman Joan Kruegerâ??s comments. He discussed what Higley Road would be and what Ocotillo Road might be and considering the fact that there wasnâ??t going to be a water park on Mesaâ??s property, coupled with what the residential would be on the southeast and the southwest corners of Ocotillo, he thought something larger than 50,000 square feet would be warranted.

Chairman Joan Krueger suggested that they needed to look at the item again in three weeks. She thought it was a great start on the input and the discussion on what they needed to consider. She stated that she wanted to move on to other items on the list. She asked if there was any discussion on items 11 and 12.

Commissioner Michael Monroe liked the Community Commercial designation and thought that this was appropriate for items 11 and 12.

Chairman Joan Krueger mentioned item 33 and verified that they were leaving that as it was currently designated.

Ms. Edwards replied that she was correct and that they were recommending no change because of the size of the parcel.

Commissioner Dan Dodge questioned why they wouldnâ??t be changing it because it would require a major amendment and he thought that was what they were doing in that process.

Ms. Edwards replied that the statutes didnâ??t declare text amendments or annual updates as major amendments. They do give each municipality the option to create that language for minor and major plan amendments and the Town created that which was in the General Plan. She explained that any change in non-residential would become a major amendment if it was larger than 40 acres.

Mr. Swanson added that they already had the one major amendment for the year and the Town Council adopted it the previous evening. He explained that this process, although they were expanding the notice to mirror what would be required for a major amendment process, there was technically nothing in the annual update that would make it a major amendment, according to Gilbertâ??s General Plan definitions. If they were to redesignate an 88 acre parcel that would make it a major amendment and the law said they could only do one hearing for major amendments a year. He noted that they already did the one major plan amendment for 2002.

Chairman Joan Krueger asked if there were any comments about the items between 33-63. She noted that the items between 33 and 63 that now say CC were new since December 4. She suggested that they review the items for the next public hearing in January. She asked if there were any additional comments or questions.

Commissioner Shane Leonard asked about the text and if it was the intent to allow mini storages to be in General Commercial since it was stricken from the text.

Ms. Edwards replied that the land use was taken out of General Commercial since they didnâ??t want to restrict if from occurring in Shopping Center or Community Commercial. The zoning code would more clearly identify appropriate uses in each of the zoning districts. She noted that they didnâ??t have for the General Commercial classification whether or not they should be located at arterials or freeway intersections. She thought they should add that General Commercial properties should be located at the intersection of arterials. She explained that a General Commercial user of over 75,000 square feet would generate the type of traffic and users that would need great access to arterials.

Commissioner Shane Leonard referred to item six and asked what Ocotillo would be.

Mr. Swanson replied that the Town Council adopted a General Plan amendment to the circulation element that showed Ocotillo extending after significant community debate. He reminded the Commission that the neighbors compromised to concur that the road could be shown on the General Plan as extending for the two mile stretch, but should not be developed as an arterial. Instead, they requested that it be developed as a two lane major collector, which is what would be developed when the fronting properties develop.

Commissioner Shane Leonard asked if they were to include in the General Commercial category that they needed to be located on arterials that would more than likely affect his decision on whether it should be General Commercial or Community Commercial.

Mr. Swanson added that they believed it was too specific now that they had scale as a more defining element in the classifications. He didnâ??t think they needed to list uses that werenâ??t major anchors or other examples since it was a specific use that would be found in a zoning code.

Commissioner Dan Dodge stated that it was his understanding that use descriptions in General Plan land use categories were illustrative as opposed to zoning categories that were definitive.

COMMUNICATIONS

A report from the Chairman and members of the Commission

Chairman Joan Krueger informed the Commission that the Redevelopment Commission was making a recommendation to the Town Council for a plan that they received from the Design Assistance Team. She stated that she had a copy of it if anyone wanted to see it.

Subcommittee Reports

There was not a report given.

Report from the Planning Director on current events

There was not a report given.

ADJOURNMENT

Chairman Joan Krueger adjourned the meeting at 8:05 P.M.

ATTEST:

Recorder Trasie Johns

Digg this