TOWN OF GILBERT PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, REGULAR MEETING

GILBERT MUNICIPAL CENTER, 50 E. CIVIC CENTER DRIVE, GILBERT ARIZONA

APRIL 7, 2004

COMMISSION PRESENT: Chairman Brigette Peterson, Vice Chairman Michael Monroe, Commissioner Karl Kohlhoff, Commissioner Dan Dodge, Commissioner Joan Krueger, Commissioner Shane Leonard, Alternate Commissioner Scott Simas

COMMISSION ABSENT: Commissioner James Beene

STAFF PRESENT: Planning Director Jerry Swanson,        Planning Manager Linda Edwards, Planning Manager Maria Cadavid, Senior Planner Jim Cronk, Senior Planner Mario Mangiamele, Planner Matt Everling

ALSO PRESENT: Town Attorney Phillis Smiley, Town Manager George Pettit, Recorder Trasie Johns

PLANNER - CASE - PAGE - VOTE
Mr. Cronk - Z03 - 42 - 2 - Continued
Mr. Sanks - GP04 - 2 - 3 - Continued
Mr. Sanks - Z03 - 39 - 3 - Continued
Mr. Sanks - S03 - 8 - 4 - Continued
Mr. Cronk - ULDC Amendment - 5 - Approved
Mr. Everling - UP04 - 01 - 9 - Approved
Mr. Mangiamele - Z01 - 9 - 10 - Discussion

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

CALL TO ORDER:

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

A motion was made by Commissioner Dan Dodge, seconded by Commissioner Joan Krueger, to approve the agenda, moving items five (GP04 - 2), six (Z03 - 39) and seven (S03 - to follow item one (Z03 - 42).

Motion Carried 7 - 0.

COMMUNICATIONS FROM CITIZENS

Chairman Brigette Peterson announced that members of the public could comment on items not on the agenda. She stated that the Commission’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 HEARINGS

Z03 - 42 - Approval of an I - 2 PAD rezoning with conditions for 3ǔ acres on the side of Obispo Road in the southeast corner of Guadalupe Road and Arizona Avenue.

Senior Planner Jim Cronk informed the Commission that they were requesting that the item be continued to the next meeting due to a scheduling conflict with the applicant’s representatives.

Chairman Brigette Peterson opened the public hearing.

Mike Higbee, 276 E. Tremaine, Chandler came forward. He stated that he had been at the past two meetings regarding this case and was opposed to the zoning change. He noted that since he had already given the Commission his reasons in the past he would not go through them all again. He requested that the Commission not approve the change in zoning.

Chairman Brigette Peterson explained that they would not be making a decision that evening and would be continuing it to next months meeting.

Cindy Geis, 325 E. Tremaine, Chandler came forward. She reminded the Commission that she had been at the meeting the previous month and was there because she was strongly opposed to the zoning change. She noted that she had done researched in the City Courts for evidence to find out if a mailing was ever sent out for the change in zoning for the Papa Johns location. She could not find any evidence that a letter was sent out and after talking to her neighbors discovered that no one had ever been involved in discussions about the change in zoning for Papa Johns. She added that after talking to the Gilbert residents in El Dorado Estates on the other side of the property; she found out that they had experienced a loss in property values and difficulty in selling their homes because they were next to the Papa Johns location. She discussed how the residents were unhappy about the Papa Johns location and that it wasn’t conducive to being next to a residential development. She provided pictures for the Commission to see that illustrated the resident’s view of the current Papa Johns location.

Commissioner Karl Kohlhoff requested that Ms. Geis provide the name and address of the residents in El Dorado Lakes to the Planning Staff.

George Allman, 710 N. Ithica, Gilbert came forward. He announced that his home was in El Dorado Lakes and that his backyard had a view of the Papa Johns building. He explained that he was concerned about the traffic on the entry street into the Industrial Park and the view of the trucks parked on the site. He hoped that his property value had not have gone down and felt that the proposal was not in sync with the rest of the industrial development. He was opposed because he didn’t like the Papa Johns location and would not want more buildings added that were similar in design.

Steve Luke, 720 N. Ithica, Gilbert came forward. He explained that he had been living there for nine years and had seen the values of the property go down since the Papa Johns was built. He noted that they had a view of South Mountain prior to the building being built. In addition, the noise from the trucks at all hours of the night made it difficult for them to enjoy their backyard. He was opposed to the change in zoning.

Michael Diaz, 730 N. Ithica, Gilbert came forward. He indicated that he had been living in El Dorado Lakes for the past four years. He explained that they had recently placed their home for sale. He pointed out that he was having a hard time selling their home because of the trucks that came by all hours of the day at the Papa Johns location. He added that his home was listed at $490,000, but was told by realtors that he needed to lower the price because of the Papa Johns building. He stated that homes on the other side of El Dorado Estates were easily selling at his original listing price. He was opposed to the new building and zoning change.

Commissioner Shane Leonard questioned how the potential buyers found out about the trucks.

Mr. Diaz explained that when people came through the home, fifty percent of the time there would be trucks going by. He explained that the smell of the diesel fuel and noise was a deterrent to the potential buyers.

A motion was made by Commissioner Dan Dodge, seconded by Commissioner Karl Kohlhoff, to continue Z03 - 42 to the first Planning and Zoning Commission meeting in May.

Motion Carried 7 - 0.

GP04 - 2 - Request for a minor General Plan amendment, changing the land use designation for 2Ǔ acres from BP (Business Park) to NC (Neighborhood Commercial) at the southeast corner of Lindsay and Pecos Roads.

Z03 - 39 - Request for a change in zoning classification for approximately 10 acres from Maricopa County Rural - 43 to Town of Gilbert (C - 1) Neighborhood Commercial and (I - B) Industrial Buffer with a (PAD) Planned Area Development Overlay at the southeast corner of Lindsay and Pecos Roads.

Planning Manager Linda Edwards informed the Commission that both GP04 - 2 and Z03 - 39 were requested to be continued by the applicant. She pointed out that there was a letter from the applicant in the Commissioners’ packets regarding the items.

Chairman Brigette Peterson opened the public hearing for GP04 - 2. No one came forward. She closed the public hearing.

Chairman Brigette Peterson opened the public hearing for Z03 - 39. No one came forward. She closed the public hearing.

A motion was made by Commissioner Shane Leonard, seconded by Alternate Commissioner Scott Simas, to continue GP04 - 2 and Z03 - 39 to the first Planning and Zoning Commission meeting in May.

Motion Carried 7 - 0.

S03 - 8 - Preliminary Plat for Layton Lakes Phase II, approximately 406 lots on 155 acres with underlying zoning classifications of (PF/OS) Public Facility/Open Space, (R1 - 6, R1 - 7, R1 - 8, and R1 - 10) Single - family residential with a (PAD) Planned Area Development overlay at the southeast corner of Lindsay and Queen Creek Roads.

Planning Manager Linda Edwards informed the Commission that the applicant was requesting an extension to the meeting on May 5.

Chairman Brigette Peterson opened the public hearing for GP04 - 2. No one came forward. She closed the public hearing.

A motion was made by Commissioner Dan Dodge, seconded by Commissioner Joan Krueger, to continue S03 - 8 to the first Planning and Zoning Commission meeting in May.

Motion Carried 7 - 0.

Z04 - 6 - Approval of rezoning to I - 2 with conditions for 3ǎ acres east of the southeast corner of Baseline and McQueen Roads.

Senior Planner Jim Cronk informed the Commission that Z04 - 6 was a request to change the zoning classification of approximately 3ላ acres east of the southeast corner of Baseline and McQueen Roads from (R1 - 43) Rural Residential to (I - 2) Light Industrial. He provided a visual aid of the vicinity map and discussed the surrounding area which was currently zoned Industrial. He explained that the subject property was the only land left in the entire area that didn’t have Industrial zoning.

Mr. Cronk explained that this site was operated by Southwest Concrete. They have operated here for many years.   He pointed out that in a 2002 a variance, from the ULDC requirement that I - 2 zoned land be 660 feet from any arterial, was approved for this site. Code Enforcement had identified several violations of the code under the current zoning. They have deferred any action until the outcome of this case is known.   He added that the request was in conformance with the General Plan for this area. He recommended approval of the zoning change.

Alternate Commissioner Scott Simas questioned if on an I - 2 zoning designation there was an allowance for outdoor storage. He was concerned the property would still be in violation of code under this zoning category.

Mr. Cronk replied that they would revisit the site under the new zoning and identify all the items that need to be brought up to code.

Alternate Commissioner Scott Simas suggested that they rezone the project so that it would be in conformance to code. He questioned if there was a better zoning category that would meet the needs of the applicant.

Mr. Cronk replied that the Staff felt that this was the closest zoning designation that would be applicable to all the different uses on the site.

Commissioner Karl Kohlhoff was concerned about access into the property for police and fire. He asked if there were any dedicated roads that led to the parcel.

Mr. Cronk used the visual aid to show the dedicated access points off of McQueen Drive and Baseline Road providing southern, eastern and northern access points.

Commissioner Karl Kohlhoff questioned if the parcels were all owned by the same owner.

Mr. Cronk replied that Southwest Concrete owned the property north of the subject property, the two properties that were the subject of the application, the properties to the south, southeast and southwest. He pointed out all the parcels on the visual aid.

Commissioner Karl Kohlhoff commented that there should be some way to do a survey document that showed all the parcels under one ownership so that there wasn’t a problem with access in the future.

Vice Chairman Michael Monroe noted that outdoor storage and parking was allowed in the I - 2 zoning district, as long as it was properly screened.

Chairman Brigette Peterson invited the applicant to come forward.

Greg Davis, Iplan Consulting, 9823 E. Lompoc Avenue, Mesa came forward. He announced that he didn’t have a presentation and that the item was a request from the Town to bring the property into conformance. He noted that there were existing easements on the property that secured vehicular access. He added that he would recommend Commissioner Karl Kohlhoff’s suggestions to the owner.

Chairman Brigette Peterson opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wanted to speak on the item. Seeing no one, she closed the public hearing brought the item back to the Commission for discussion and action.

A motion was made by Commissioner Joan Krueger, seconded by Commissioner Dan Dodge, to recommend approval of Z04 - 6, to change the zoning classification of approximately 3ላ acres east of the southeast corner of Baseline and McQueen Roads from (R1 - 43) Rural Residential to (I - 2) Light Industrial subject to staff stipulations.

Motion Carried 7 - 0.

Staff recommends approval of Z04 - 6 with the following conditions:

1.        The project shall be developed in conformance with the Town’s zoning requirements for the (I - 2) Light Industrial zoning districts.
2.        Dedication to the Town of 30 feet from center line for Melody Drive right - of - way adjacent to Southwest Concrete’s holdings shall be completed at the time of a final plat recordation or as required by the Town Engineer.
3.         Construction of off - site improvements to Melody Drive abutting Southwest Concrete property shall be completed prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy for any phase of the Southwest Concrete project.
4.        The developer shall execute water and sewer buy - in agreements, whereby the developer shall pay for its proportionate share of water and sewer mains prior to final plat approval.
5.        Water and sewer infrastructure extension is required for any further improvements to the Southwest Concrete property.

DR01 - 100 - Proposed amendment to the Gilbert Unified Land Development Code (ULDC) to add Gateway Area Traditional Neighborhood Design Guidelines to Appendix I.

Senior Planner Jim Cronk informed the Commission that the guidelines were developed as a result of the direction contained in the General Plan. He explained that the Gateway Character Area was generally bounded by: Warner Road on the north, Power Road on the east and by the Southern Pacific Railroad and Pecos Road on the south and west.   Commercial land uses were concentrated on Power Road and in the Cooley Station Village Center at Williams Field & Recker Roads.   Residential uses were planned to change from single - family on the edges of the area to dense multi - family uses at the core.   Some mixed commercial/residential uses were also contemplated in the village center.

Mr. Cronk discussed the policies of the General Plan which included many design policies that described the direction this neo - traditional design should take.   He explained that several of those related to housing development:
·        Require a range of housing types and densities.
·        Design with small front yards and visual interest including porches or patios.
·        Vary architecture from one home to the next.
·        Provide recessed, side entry or rear garages accessed by side driveways or alleys.
·        Design alleys for rear garages.
·        Design a grid street system.

Mr. Cronk explained that the Guidelines for the Gateway Area were divided into several parts.   He noted that the Right - of - Way Standards & Streetscape Design Guidelines were adopted by Council in September, 2003.   He indicated that the request for approval contained the “General” and “Single - Family” Gateway Area - Traditional Neighborhood Design Guidelines. Guidelines for multi - family and commercial design will be forth coming.

Mr. Cronk noted that after developing an initial draft of guidelines, staff had been working for many months with various stakeholders groups to refine the guidelines to proposed version. An internal task force was created with an interdisciplinary group of staff members as well as a Planning & Zoning Commissioner and two Design Review Board members.   Staff worked with the Home Builders Association of Central Arizona to form a subcommittee to review the guidelines over several months.   Staff also met with the land owners within the Gateway Area as major stakeholders in this process.   A copy of the draft guidelines was also sent to the Gilbert Chamber of Commerce for comment.

Mr. Cronk pointed out that during the past several months, several development proposals had been processed by the Town that were within the Gateway Area. In the last several months, staff has been working with developers, including Trend Homes, KB Homes, Elite Homes, Great Western Homes and Williams Lyon’s Homes on 6 different projects within the Gateway Area.   All had largely complied with the draft Guidelines and had received approval from the Planning & Zoning Commission or the Design Review Board for over 5,000 lots.

Mr. Cronk explained that part of the discussion with the Homebuilders Association was to make sure that the document was indeed “guidelines” and not “code”. Therefore, the Staff added an “Applicability and Use of Guidelines” preamble. He explained that this section was similar to the applicability section contained in the recently adopted Commercial Design Guidelines. He added that they specified that the term “shall” would not be used; making sure that everyone was comfortable that they were only guidelines.

Mr. Cronk described the General Design Guidelines.    He explained that these summarized many of the General Plan goals adopted by the Council and approved by the voters.   They covered the various characteristics to be included in the design of any portion of the Gateway Area. In the Neighborhood Design section it included items relating to: 1) Streets, alleys and pedestrian access; 2) Amenities; and 3) Residential product design.   There was a separate section for items relating to Commercial Design. All of these items were designed to foster developments that will implement the Council’s direction expressed in the Gateway Character Area section of the General Plan.

Mr. Cronk explained that most of the discussion with the stakeholders centered around the detailed “Single Family Guidelines”. This section communicated targets/parameters for the proportions and dimensions to be used when developing single - family homes in the Gateway Area.   He explained that it included items relating to: 1) definitions; 2) garage access; 3) means of achieving architectural articulation appropriate for neo - traditional styled housing; 4) sidewalk location; 5) fences/walls; 6) street layout; 7) setbacks and house/lot type mix.

Mr. Cronk noted that the intent of these guidelines was to create an urban design setting with a true mixing of housing types that include characteristics such as placement of buildings closer to the road, design elevations utilizing porches or balconies, having many of the garages accessed from the rear and designed with a grid street system and detached sidewalks through out.

Mr. Cronk reviewed the single most discussed aspect of these guidelines in meetings with the various stakeholders, which was the guideline dealing with garages accessed from alleys. The internal task force and the land owner stakeholders felt strongly about having a guideline that quantified this design measure to approximately 50% of all single - family units in the Gateway Area. He pointed out that the Design Review Board believed this was important to the neo - traditional neighborhood design and for de - emphasizing the presence of garages facing the street.   He stated that the Home Builder’s Assoc. believed this was not appropriate. He noted that the builders he mentioned earlier were already committed to and have been approved for projects that met or exceeded this guideline.

Mr. Cronk noted that the Home Builders Assoc. also objected to encouraging each unit to have a porch and/or a balcony. The DRB and land owner stakeholders strongly supported this guideline. In addition, he indicated that all developments recently approved for housing product within the Gateway Area had met this guideline.

Mr. Cronk concluded by stated that with the exceptions discussed previously, there was general consensus on all remaining guidelines by all stakeholder groups. He requested approval of the Guidelines as drafted before the Commission that evening.

Commissioner Dan Dodge questioned why the whole draft of the Guidelines was not being approved that evening since they were just looking at two portions of the Guidelines.

Mr. Cronk replied that the Streetscape Guidelines had already been before the Commission and Council and approved the previous year. He added that the Staff felt it was important to get the Single Family Guidelines to the Commission as soon as possible because that was what most applications were for that were reviewed by the Staff. He was concerned that if they waited, they might be through seventy five percent of the applications prior to the Commission reviewing the Guidelines.

Vice Chairman Michael Monroe was curious if the stakeholders had reviewed the letter that was in the packet and if they were in support of the suggested changes.

Mr. Cronk responded that they had not seen the latest letter, but when they came before the Design Review Board there was a letter from the Homebuilders Association addressing the previous draft. He noted that the previous draft had not changed dramatically from what was before the Commission that evening. He added that the stakeholders were aware that the 50% rear loaded garages were a major issue with the Homebuilders Association.

Vice Chairman Michael Monroe felt that after working with the stakeholders on the draft, he believed that they could review the two elements that were of concern on a case - by - case basis.   He agreed that the Guidelines were appropriate as written.

Commissioner Karl Kohlhoff referred to a section that stated “should” and felt that it was similar to “shall”. He preferred the term “encouraged” over “should”. He questioned who the stakeholders were.

Mr. Cronk replied that the majority of the stakeholders were the landowners, including Mr. Dobson, Mr. Cooley, and Mr. Carlson. In addition they met with the Homebuilders Association, the Gilbert Chamber of Commerce, the Town’s Engineering and Traffic Staff, and representatives from the Planning Commission and Design Review Board. He added that they had two working sessions with the Design Review Board and one working session with the Planning Commission and Town Council.

Commissioner Karl Kohlhoff questioned if the landowners agreed with the Guidelines.

Mr. Cronk replied that the landowners indicated that they supported the Guidelines as written. He added that he failed to mention that if a property was less than twenty acres then the 50% rule didn’t apply, which was requested by the Homebuilders Association.

Vice Chairman Michael Monroe referred to the report on page six under “Neighborhood Design, number 1. Street Alley’s, Pedestrian Alleys” and indicated that it stated “no culd - a - sacs”. He wondered if they had changed the language because on page 10 it mentioned culd - a - sacs could be allowed with a focal point. He suggested that they change the word “no” to “discouraged”.

Chairman Brigette Peterson opened the public hearing.

Erin Patterson, 3200 E. Camelback Road #180, Phoenix with the Homebuilders Association of Central Arizona came forward. She mentioned that they had been working for about nine months on the Design Guidelines with numerous stakeholders. She explained that the reason that they didn’t want the 50% requirement was that they wanted to give homebuilders that option. If the product was selling in the area, she explained that homebuilders would build it. She added that they would like it to be a builder choice issue based on consumer demand.

Vice Chairman Michael Monroe stated that there were areas in the Gateway Area that did have reduced porches and no alleys. He felt that homebuilders sometimes had valid reasons why the porches and alleys were not provided and were therefore approved. He suggested that they leave the Guidelines as written and homebuilders would still have an option to not provide these features and the application would be discussed at a work session with the Commission.

Commissioner Dan Dodge mentioned that there was not a requirement for 50% alley loaded homes, but that it was a guideline. He reminded the audience that this was a character area in which the Commission was trying to establish a neo - traditional character centered around a village community core. He agreed that market demands might change, but there was plenty of opportunity to build other types of homes within the Town. He explained that if they always built what the market demanded at that time it would be impossible to design a character area.

Jeff Carlson, 8800 E. Chaparal with William Lion Homes came forward. He was in support of the Guidelines. After working with the land owners he felt that they needed to be sensitive to what they wanted. He indicated that they were building three projects in the Gateway area consisting of about 3,000 lots, with land costs of about fifty million dollars, development costs of sixty million dollars and the vertical housing costs will be over two hundred million dollars. He felt that this was a huge investment and they believed in what was being proposed. He requested that the Commission hold other builders to the same standards so that they would not be at a competitive disadvantage.

Jeff Cooley, 2357 E. Flossmoor Circle came forward. He stated that he was in favor of the Guidelines and requested that the Commission support them as they were presented.

Chairman Brigette Peterson closed the public hearing and brought the item back to the Commission for discussion and action.

Commissioner Shane Leonard suggested that they use the term “encouraged” instead of the term “should” in the item that Commissioner Karl Kohlhoff brought forward earlier.

Town Attorney Phillis Smiley advised that from a legal standpoint there was a huge difference between the terms “should” and “shall”. She explained that “shall” was an absolute requirement, while “should” was an elective.

Commissioner Shane Leonard explained that typically attorneys weren’t reviewing the cases, but people that wanted to develop property who might not understand that the term “should” meant it was an elective.

A motion was made by Commissioner Karl Kohlhoff, seconded by Commissioner Dan Dodge, to recommend approval of the Gateway Area - Traditional Neighborhood Design Guidelines: both General Guidelines and Single - Family Guidelines, for the Gateway Character Area.

Motion Carried 7 - 0.

Mr. Cronk verified that this motion included the change mentioned earlier on page six to change the word “no” to “discourage”.

Commissioner Karl Kohlhoff agreed that he wanted that change included in the motion.

At 7:05 P.M., Commissioner Dan Dodge excused himself from the Commission for the rest of the evening.

UP04 - 01 - Request for a Use Permit to allow a 5,375 square - foot auto lube/car wash facility south of the southwest corner of Higley and Baseline Roads. The subject site is zoned C - 1 (Neighborhood Commercial).

Planner Matt Everling informed the Commission that UP04 - 01 was a request for a Use Permit to allow a 5,375 square - foot auto lube/car wash/detail Grease Monkey facility south of the southwest corner of Higley and Baseline Roads. The subject site was zoned Neighborhood Commercial (C - 1). He provided a visual aid of the floor plan and pointed out the proposed office space, three lube bays, two self service auto detailing wash areas, three vacuum areas and an automated self service car wash. He explained that primary access to the site would be a shared access along Higley Road, which was right in and right out only.

Mr. Everling discussed screening on the property. He explained that the project site was surrounded by commercially - zoned parcels. The bay doors complied with the intent of the ULDC by not facing a public street because they were oriented in a north - south direction and were set back a minimum of 115 feet from Higley Road. He pointed out that there would be a six foot perimeter wall on three sides. He added that from the automated car wash bay to the single family residents to the west was approximately 220 feet. The proposed hours of operation will be 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM seven (7) days a week.

Mr. Everling reviewed the condition. He explained that the condition should be omitted since the applicant had provided a revised exhibit which addressed the concern in the condition. He stated that the request conformed to the zoning code and met the required findings for a Use Permit. He added that Staff had not received any comments from the public and the item was properly noticed. He requested approval of the Use Permit.

Commissioner Shane Leonard questioned whether the property to the north was vacant.

Mr. Everling replied that he was correct; it was vacant and not adjacent to the shopping center. He used the visual aid to point out where the site was located and how the site would be accessed.

Commissioner Shane Leonard referred to page four of the staff report and questioned if the site was adjacent to residential on its western edge.

Mr. Everling apologized that the site was not illustrated property in the staff report and that there would be a buffer between the homes and the proposed site.

Chairman Brigette Peterson requested that the applicant come forward for his presentation.

Richard Andrews, 2101 E. Cortez Drive, Gilbert representing Grease Monkey came forward. He explained that Grease Monkey had about 350 stores but did not have any other stores in Arizona. He requested that the Commission recommend approval of the Use Permit.

Chairman Brigette Peterson opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wanted to speak on the item. Seeing no one, she closed the public hearing brought the item back to the Commission for discussion and action.

Town Attorney Phillis Smiley advised that they revise the motion to state that “Move to approve UP04 - 01 to conform with the revised exhibit presented to the Commission on April 7, 2004.”

A motion was made by Commissioner Joan Krueger, seconded by Commissioner Shane Leonard, to approve UP04 - 01 to conform with the revised exhibit presented to the Commission on April 7, 2004.

Motion Carried 6 - 0.

ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS

Z01 - 9 - Discuss proposed Town of Gilbert Draft Land Development Code, Article 4Ǎ: Site Regulations; Article 4Ǐ: Landscape Regulations; and Article 4Ǒ: Supplemental Use Regulations.

Senior Planner Mario Mangiamele informed the Commission that the intent of the meetings on the item was to gain knowledge of the draft as the staff was releasing it to the public for review and comments. He asked the Commission to provide feedback on the draft. He requested that if the Commission didn’t have the binders that were provided to keep the drafts in as they were released that they let him know and he would provide more binders.

Commissioner Joan Krueger commented that she had the binder but not all the copies. She suggested that a hard copy be delivered to the Commissioners.

Mr. Mangiamele pointed out that most recent section of the Draft Land Development Code (LDC) that was circulated for public review and comment included Article 4Ǎ: Site Regulations, Article 4Ǐ: Landscape Regulations, and Article 4Ǒ: Supplemental Use Regulations. These articles were released for public review on March 31, 2004.    He noted that these sections of the draft Code set forth specific development and use regulations for certain uses regardless of where they occur such as drive - through uses, group homes for the handicapped, home occupations, sexually - oriented businesses, temporary uses, and temporary structures. These sections also included site development regulations and requirements for landscaping and landscape maintenance.

Mr. Mangiamele reviewed Article 4Ǎ, the Site Regulations. He explained that this section contained a reorganization and clarification of the majority of the information that currently existed in section 2 of the Unified Land Development Code called General Regulations. He described the primary differences from the existing ULDC. He explained that they reorganized and clarified the permissible building setback and building height encroachments; and swimming pool regulations. In addition, they relocated the accessory building regulations to the respective base zoning district regulations contained in Division 2: Land Use Designations. He explained that currently if they were looking for a structure regulation you would need to look through five different pages that didn’t have any organization.

Mr. Mangiamele noted that the lighting standards had been relocated from the existing landscape regulations to Site Regulations. Existing height and setback requirements for the light standards had been maintained while the remainder of the light and glare regulations will be relocated to the Gilbert Municipal Code to allow for appropriate nuisance regulation. This was suggested by the legal council and they were currently working on a draft to modify the Gilbert Municipal Code with this.

Mr. Mangiamele stated that they were including an Expansion of outdoor storage regulations for nonresidential uses to include area, height, screening and location requirements. He explained that this would prohibit outdoor business storage in parking lots surrounded by chain link fences and storage in landscape retention areas.

Mr. Mangiamele commented that they were proposing a reorganization, clarification and expansion of mechanical and electrical equipment screening requirements for residential and nonresidential uses to support the Commercial Design Guidelines while avoiding inconsistencies between the documents.

Mr. Mangiamele stated that they added refuse and recycling enclosure standards for location, screening, materials and design had been added to supplement Engineering Standard Details and to support the Commercial Design Guidelines while avoiding inconsistencies between the documents.

Mr. Mangiamele stated that they were including an inclusion of requirements for under - grounding of utilities and the prohibition on overhead utility lines for all on - site electric utility, cable television lines, and all other communication and utility distribution lines.

Mr. Mangiamele noted that the last major change for this section were modifications to fence regulations to require a minimum of 8 foot high separation fences to address single family residential uses adjacent to arterial streets, multi - family districts or uses, or a nonresidential district or use. He explained that in the current ULDC there were sections that stated that a maximum height of a wall for a residential development was six feet and the next page would state eight feet.

Mr. Mangiamele reviewed the Landscape Regulation article, Article 4Ǐ and discussed the primary differences from the current Code. He noted that the existing landscape regulations contained do contain overall area requirements. Those had been lactated to the Base District Regulations, with the exception of those for single family residential which would be relocated to the Subdivision Regulations.

Mr. Mangiamele noted that they were proposing a relocation of minimum street frontage and perimeter landscape area requirements to the development regulation schedules contained in the base zoning district regulations of Division 2: Land Use Designations. Landscape requirements for single family subdivisions will be relocated to Chapter III: Subdivision Regulations.

Mr. Mangiamele added that they were proposing a relocation of parking lot landscaping requirements to Article 4ǎ: Off - Street Parking and Loading Regulations. He reminded the Commission that they had discussed these with a previous release of the draft.

Mr. Mangiamele noted that currently the code didn’t have any specific requirements for the right - of - way median landscape installation nor long term maintenance. Therefore, they were proposing raised median landscape installation requirements to be included to clarify timing and responsibility of installation.

Mr. Mangiamele pointed out that another new concept that was being proposed was the Landscape Bufferyard Requirements, which had been the subject of many of the recent hearings. Landscape Bufferyard Requirements had been reclassified as Side and Rear Perimeter Landscape Areas. The spatial area requirements had been relocated to the development regulation schedules contained in the base zoning district regulations of Division 2: Land Use Designations. Density and size of landscape plant materials had been modified and clarified in this article. He explained that they had found over the years that when the Bufferyards were planted to the standards a good portion of the materials don’t survive because they are over planted.

Mr. Mangiamele stated that Gateway Entry landscaping and Entry Sign requirements had been reorganized and modified for clarification and codification. He explained that these were the signs that were placed on the entry to the Town and were adorned with palm trees and water features. Minimum size, color, and lighting standards for Entry Signs had been added.

Mr. Mangiamele noted that the Streetscape Theme Districts had been modified by adding new Streetscape Theme Tree districts to address the Town’s expanded Planning Area Boundaries. These districts had also been modified by eliminating the requirement of secondary trees, specific shrubs, and groundcovers.

Mr. Mangiamele discussed the last change in the section. He noted that landscape maintenance requirements and enforcement procedures had been reorganized and clarified. He pointed out that there was not a lot of consistancy in the maintenance and enforcement procedures for non residential versus residential. Therefore, they attempted to provide the consistancy to the non residential properties.

Mr. Mangiamele reviewed Article 4Ǒ, Supplemental Use Regulations. He noted that the home occupations were included in that section. He described some of the primary differences from the existing ULDC.

Mr. Mangiamele noted that Group Homes for the Handicapped regulations had been reorganized and clarified. Provisions had been added for the requesting of an accommodation taking into consideration the requirements of the Fair Housing Act.

Mr. Mangiamele stated that they had included provisions for requesting a determination of any requirements of the Code that it is believed to impose a substantial burden on its exercise of its religion under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. He explained that this was recommended by legal council and supported by Staff.

Mr. Mangiamele commented that the existing development policy that prohibited the location of drive - through aisles from facing single family residential neighborhoods had been relocated from the base district regulations to this Article and modified to include separation requirements of drive - through aisles from residential uses. Since the issue was the noise, the Staff felt it was more appropriate to propose a separation requirement from the residential. The existing policy of prohibiting drive - through aisles from facing public streets had been removed because they felt that the issue with screening had been addressed through the design review process.

Mr. Mangiamele stated that they had included use regulations for farm stands that included location, size, use, and sign regulations.    In addition they had included use regulations for animal services to separate outdoor runs and interior boarding structures from residential uses or districts and to prohibit outdoor boarding of animals other than livestock.

Mr. Mangiamele noted that cemeteries had been included to regulate locational and minimum area requirements while also identifying appropriate accessory uses.

Mr. Mangiamele stated that they reorganized and clarified regulations for sexually - oriented businesses while also providing appropriate reference to existing Gilbert Municipal Code regulations.

Mr. Mangiamele commented that the reorganization, clarification, and expansion of temporary use regulations based on a use classification system so that uses may be identified in Article 6Ǎ: Use Definitions. Regulations had been included to address duration, frequency, interval between uses, setbacks from residential uses, and dust proofing measures. Special events were also recognized in this section for ease of use while providing appropriate reference to regulations that will be contained in the Gilbert Municipal Code. He added that the legal council was working to modify the Gilbert Municipal Code to address special events and business licences.

Mr. Mangiamele added that clarification and expansion of regulations for temporary structures to include construction trailers, sales trailers, storage containers, classroom and religious assembly structures. Revised regulations included limitations on use, locational criteria, and time duration of use. Temporary classroom and religious assembly structures will require additional findings to be made through the Administrative Use Permit process.

Mr. Mangiamele informed the Commission that when the staff report was written they had not received any comments, but had recently been sent a couple comments. He distributed these comments to the Commission. He reviewed the comments that addressed the current release. The first comment was from a homebuilder that was concerned about the light and glare criteria that were established in the site regulations. He explained that the intent of the light and glare regulations was to address non - residential and multi - family uses. He felt that they needed to clean up the applicability of that section so that it didn’t appear to address the single family residents.   The last comment was from Mr. Holler who identified some concerns over screening of mechanical and electrical equipment, located in the Site Regulations. Some of his concerns were that they were attempting to regulate landscaping in the site visibiliy triangles where the transformer boxes might pose as much of a burdon to the driver in terms of site visibiliy. This was an issue that he would address with the Traffic Engineering Department. Another concern that Mr. Holler had regarded applicabilty in landscaping, ensuring that the Town had responsibiilty to maintain their landscaping similar to residential and non - residential developments.

Mr. Mangiamele concluded his presentation and asked for questions.

Alternate Commissioner Scott Simas clarified that in the landscaping requiremnts the intent was to minimize the density of plants where they might not survive.

Mr. Mangiamele replied that they were changing the requirements. He explained that currently it required a certain number of trees and shrubs per lineal foot. They had modified those regulations to be based on a square foot area calculation. Overall the tree and shrub count would be reduced without reducing the buffering of non compatible uses.

Alternate Commissioner Scott Simas commended the staff on this issue. He explained that as a previous landscape maintenance contractor he could attest that within six months of the development being finished half of the plants were removed. He thought this would save everyone a lot of time and money.

Commissioner Shane Leonard referred to the change in Supplemental Use Regulations, number six and asked if the reason outdoor animals were prohibited was to prohibit cats and dogs because of noise. He felt that they would get the same amount of noise with a cat or dog than with a sheep or other livestock. He suggested that they be specific with what they regarded as livestock and might want to add a definition.

Mr. Mangiamele replied that the current code did define livestock and that they could review this definition.

Commissioner Shane Leonard referred to the Gateway Entry Landscaping, number one. He questioned if they would have more than one corner that was inbound, in which case they would want to require entry monuments on both corners.

Mr. Mangiamele responded that the intent would be when there was an arterial intersection the signage requirements would be on the inbound traffic, where the landscape requirements would be on both corners.

Commissioner Shane Leonard suggested that if they were going to have entry monuments they might want to consider exit monuments. He added that there were a lot of areas in the Town that they didn’t have jurisdiction over. For example, the SRP power line easement was very limited on what could be done in that area. He thought it might be beneficial to add a section that listed areas such as government easements, right - of - ways and entitlements that the Town didn’t have jurisdiction over.   He felt that the draft was very well done.

Commissioner Karl Kohlhoff referred to page seven, Lighting Standards, number three where it stated that a maximum of 25′ for all areas for parking lot and security lighting and questioned of this number was correct.

Mr. Mangiamele stated that this was correct and wasn’t changed from the current Code.

Commissioner Karl Kohlhoff approved of this. He referred to page 14, under General Industrial, “said fence shall be 8′ in height and located on the property line”, and questioned if the property were adjacent to an SPR existing substation that had a fence that was 9 ½’ if the new fence would be required to match the existing height. He questioned what it meant in 4a, Prohibitions, section 4210 where it prohibited razor wire.

Mr. Mangiamele replied that there was a section on fencing in the Town’s Municipal Code that prohibited razor wire and electric fencing throughout the Town.

Commissioner Karl Kohlhoff explained that he had industrial property that was fenced with barbed wire with razor wire on the top that deterred criminals. He was concerned that he was in violation.

Mr. Mangiamele replied that he would need to research this item.

Commissioner Karl Kohlhoff referred to page twenty, where it discussed evergreen trees for the side and rear landscape area and stated that three were required for 1000 square feet. He explained that when the trees were fully grown they would buffer an adjacent use, but when they start out they might consider two rows of trees and alternate them giving a better effective visual buffer.

Planning Director Jerry Swanson commented that the actual location of the planting of the trees would be approved by a landscape plan. He thought the staggering of the landscaping was a common technique which allowed for a visual screen without crowding the trees. He explained that the current standard was linear and made no distinction by the depth of the landscape area. In the new Code it was changed to a per thousand square foot standard, which would be an improvement.

Commissioner Karl Kohlhoff referred to page 24, on the Streetscape Theme Trees section, and questioned if they would grandfather what was already in place.

Mr. Mangiamele replied that in the majority of the Town, the plantings were consistent with the theme trees that were proposed in the new Code.

Commissioner Karl Kohlhoff referred to page twenty eight, number two “Determine of Violation: a.Barren areas of twenty lineal feet”, and questioned if they would be flexible on this requirement.

Mr. Mangiamele replied that this was taken from the regulations that were negotiated three years ago when the Landscape Maintenance Enforcement was adopted.

Commissioner Karl Kohlhoff was concerned about the desert landscaping where there was granite between desert plants. He felt that some homeowners associations would have a problem with this requirement.

Planning Director Jerry Swanson clarified that this section stated that “where they were shown as landscape on the plan”. He noted that this did not apply to areas that were shown as decomposed granite or other non vegetated surface.

Commissioner Karl Kohlhoff referred to page thirty one where it discussed home occupations and questioned if people could sell cars in front of their homes. He referred to a home in his neighborhood that had different cars placed on their property to sell on a daily basis.

Commissioner Shane Leonard commented that they might need to have a business license in order to sell this many cars.

Planning Director Jerry Swanson pointed out that at the top of page 32, it stated that “there shall be no signs, display of merchandise or stock in trade.” He noted that if the cars were identified as being for sale, they would be in violation of the code.

Mr. Mangiamele responded to Commissioner Karl Kohlhoff’s earlier question regarding the razor fencing. He noted that in section 42됞 identified fences, barbed wire and electric as being unlawful to erect except when constructed in an industrial zoning district when the fence would not be adjacent to other zoning districts or visible from arterial streets; when constructed in temporary construction sites; upon determination of finding by the Council that erection of such a fence is necessary for the preservation of the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the Town.

Commissioner Shane Leonard commented that when the Town was addressing a personal use this would be applicable, but in a case where they didn’t have this jurisdiction they might want to clarify it in the Code.

Appoint two Commissioners to work with a staff team in developing a Neighborhood Plan for the area south of the Mercy Hospital CHW and between Val Vista Drive to the west, 154 St to the east, and Germann Road to the south. This study may conclude in the proposal of a major General Plan amendment in 2004.

Planning Manager Maria Cadavid informed the Commission that the area that they were proposing future land changes was located between Val Vista Drive to the west, 154 St to the east, and Germann Road to the south because of the Mercy Hospital. She explained that the Staff wanted to be prepared to respond to the proposals that would be forthcoming. She requested that two Commissioners participate in the discussions. She explained that the scope of the study would be to address land use designations and circulation elements with a very light survey and evaluation of the economic value of the existing properties based on the assessors office data. She added that they would be working with the Traffic Engineering Department, and with Councilmember Les Presmyk. In the future they would be inviting stakeholders to be involved in the process. She indicated that the intent was to work hard and fast for a short period of time and be able to have a proposal by June 1, which was the deadline for any major General Plan amendments. She stated that the schedule for the meetings had not yet been established and it would depend on when everyone was available.

Chairman Brigette Peterson announced that Commissioner Shane Leonard and she would like to be on the team.

Reappointment of Commission Member Leonard to Gilbert Economic Advisory Board.

Commissioner Shane Leonard informed the Commission that due to scheduling conflicts he was not going to be able to continue his term nor be reappointed to the Gilbert Economic Advisory Board.    He added that his appointment wasn’t up until June. He requested that Commissioner Karl Kohlhoff fulfill his term and then the reappointment would take place in June.

Commissioner Karl Kohlhoff announced that he would be interested in filling the position.

Town Attorney Phillis Smiley suggested that they put the item on the agenda again in June since Commissioner Karl Kohlhoff’s term on the Commission was up in June.

Chairman Brigette Peterson appointed Commissioner Karl Kohlhoff to be a liaison to the Gilbert Economic Advisory Board.

Minutes - Working Session and Regular Meeting Minutes of March 3, 2004

A motion was made by Commissioner Joan Krueger, seconded by Vice Chairman Michael Monroe, to approve the Working Session and Regular Meeting Minutes of March 3, 2004.

Motion Carried 6 - 0.

COMMUNICATIONS

Report from the Chairman and members of the Commission on current events.

There was no report given.

Update on Unified Land Development Code revision

There was no new report given since it was on the agenda earlier that evening.

Subcommittee Reports

There was no report given.

Report from the Planning Director on current events

Planning Director Jerry Swanson announced that on March 30 the Town Council gave direction to the legal council to make some revisions based on the Planning Commission’s suggestions on the sign ordinance. This would come back to the Council the following Tuesday for adoption and clarification of some questions that remained regarding enforcement. He added that they suggested a square footage limit of 10,000 square feet, based on a recommendation from the Commission.

Mr. Swanson informed the Commission that the Town set a new record in March for single family building permits, with 562 permits. He added that their budget average was 290, which the current fiscal year budget was based on. He felt that some of that was attributed to the higher density single family units coming to construction.

ADJOURNMENT

Chairman Brigette Peterson adjourned the meeting at 8:10 P.M.

ATTEST:

Recorder Trasie Johns

Digg this