TOWN OF GILBERT PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, SPECIAL MEETING

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

MAY 19, 2004

COMMISSION PRESENT:
Chairman Brigette Peterson,
Commissioner Dan Dodge,
Commissioner Joan Krueger,
Commissioner Shane Leonard,
Alternate Commissioner Scott Simas

COMMISSION ABSENT:
Vice Chairman Michael Monroe,
Commissioner James Beene,
Commissioner Karl Kohlhoff

STAFF PRESENT:
Planning Director Jerry Swanson,
Planning Manager Linda Edwards,
Planning Manager Maria Cadavid,
Senior Planner Mario Mangiamele,
Planner II Jason Sanks

ALSO PRESENT:
Town Attorney Phyllis Smiley,
Town Attorney, Anja Wendel,
Town Manager George Pettit,
Recorder Trasie Johns

PLANNER                    CASE        PAGE        VOTE
Mr. Sanks                  S03 - 8           2        Approved
Mr. Sanks                  S542           3        Approved
Mr. Sanks                  GP04 - 1           6        Approved
Mr. Sanks                  Z04 - 1           6        Approved Mr. Sanks                  GP04 - 2           8        Approved
Mr. Sanks                  Z03 - 39           8        Approved
Mr. Mangiamele                  Z01 - 9         13                              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. Edwards 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 Shane Leonard, seconded by Commissioner Dan Dodge, to approve the agenda.

Motion Carried 4 - 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 HEARING

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 located at the southeast corner of Lindsay and Queen Creek Roads. Jason Sanks 503 - 6805

Planner Jason Sanks informed the Commission that the request was for approval of the Preliminary Subdivision Plat for Layton Lakes Phase II, a 155 - acre single - family residential development located at the southeast corner of Queen Creek and Lindsay Roads. He used a visual aid to point out the site. The site was zoned (R1 - 6, R1 - 7, R1 - 8, R1 - 10) Single - Family Residential and (PF/OS) Public Facility/Open Space with a (PAD) Planned Area Development Overlay.

Mr. Sanks noted that the Layton Lakes PAD was an 832 acre development that straddled the Chandler ? Gilbert Municipal Planning Authority (MPA) boundary, and was generally located at the intersection of Queen Creek and Lindsay Roads. 459 acres of the project was located in Gilbert and lies completely within the Santan Character Area as outlined in the General Plan. The Layton Lakes Phase I Open Space Plan and Preliminary Plat were approved in June and July 2001, respectively. This area consisted of the portion of the PAD located north of Queen Creek Road. The recently approved Phase II Open Space Plan includes the area located south of Queen Creek Road and east of Lindsay Road.

Mr. Sanks used a visual aid of the site to discuss the circulation. He pointed out that access into Phase II occurred primarily through Layton Lakes Boulevard. This is the main loop residential collector that connects the Gilbert (Phases I and II) and Chandler (Phase III) portions of the project. For Phase II, Layton Lakes Boulevard intersects Lindsay Road, Queen Creek Road, Appleby Road, and 146th Street. Secondary collector access occurs at East Regent Drive, just south of the intersection of Queen Creek and Lindsay Roads. The rest of the project maintains a hierarchy of streets with all local street access to either Layton Lakes Boulevard or East Regent Drive. The design follows closely to the PAD design approved at zoning.

Mr. Sanks discussed the open space plan. He pointed out that Phase II of the Layton Lakes Open Space plan featured a wide variety of recreational amenities - both active and passive. One large active park is proposed that will include a double overlay basketball court, a sand tot lot, multi - use turf sports field, and sand volley ball court. Four other pocket parks are distributed around the project, featuring tether ball, swings, picnic tables, and more. Secondary amenities in the open space plan include ramadas, mailbox kiosk design, and directional signage. All structures and amenities will utilize materials that are consistent with the previously approved Phase I Open Space Plan. The Design Review Board approved the Phase II Open Space Plan on March 11, 2004.

Mr. Sanks displayed a color rendering of the landscape plan. He noted that during the rezoning process for this project, the Salt River Project (SRP) determined the need for an electrical substation within the boundaries of the project. SRP and the applicant ultimately decided on a 2ሎ acre site located within Phase II as shown on the plans at the northeast corner of Lindsay Road and Layton Lakes Boulevard.   The substation is appropriately buffered from abutting residential on all sides. It is bound by Lindsay Road to the west, Layton Lakes Boulevard to the south, open space tract T3 to the north, and South Twinleaf Drive/open space to the east. Lot 249 is the closest lot (to the east) and is buffered from the substation by a 37′ open space tract.

Mr. Sanks concluded that the Layton Lakes Phase II Preliminary Plat was consistent with the Town’s Subdivision Regulations, Residential Design Guidelines, approved Development Plan, and Santan Character Area in terms of lot development standards, vehicular and pedestrian circulation, street alignments, open space, density, phasing and land use. He stated that the staff supported the proposal.

Chairman Brigette Peterson requested that the applicant come forward if they wanted to make a presentation. No one came forward.

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 Shane Leonard, seconded by Alternate Commissioner Scott Simas, to approve S03 - 8, the Preliminary Subdivision Plat for Layton Lakes Phase II, subject to conditions.

Motion Carried 4 - 0.

Approval of S03 - 8, preliminary plat for Layton Lakes Phase II, a single family residential development, subject to the following conditions:

1.        All final plats shall conform to the preliminary plat exhibit approved by the Planning Commission at the May 19, 2004 public hearing.
2.        The final plat shall identify the type(s) of streets, public or private and clearly note the entity responsible for ownership and maintenance.
3.        Pedestrian access easements noted on the preliminary plat shall be recorded for all active and passive open space tracts and trails upon approval of the final plat by the Town Council.

S542 ? Preliminary Plat for Freeman Farms, approximately 803 lots on 347 acres with underlying zoning classifications of (R1 - 6, R1 - 7, R1 - 8, R1 - 10, and R1 - 35) Single - family residential with a (PAD) Planned Area Development overlay located at the northeast, southeast and south of the southwest corner of Greenfield and Ocotillo Roads.   Jason Sanks 503 - 6805

Planner Jason Sanks informed the Commission that the request was for approval a preliminary Subdivision Plat for Freeman Farms, an approximately 347 - acre subdivision containing 803 single family lots. The property is generally located at the north and southeast corners of Greenfield and Ocotillo Roads. He provided a vicinity map for the Commission to view as he pointed out where the project was located.

Mr. Sanks noted that the original change in zoning classification for this property occurred in February 2001. As part of the approval for this project, a very detailed development plan was approved by Town Council that included a Preliminary Development Plan, Infrastructure Phasing, and conceptual Open Space Plan. The current application for Freeman Farms Preliminary Plat meets or exceeds the zoning proposal in terms of quality design, amenity distribution, density, phasing of improvements, and impact on adjacent residential uses.

Mr. Sanks reminded the Commission that they held a December 3, 2003 Working Session discussion that focused primarily on the alignment of the residential collector (Freeman Farms Road) at its intersection with Ocotillo Road. The applicant originally proposed to offset the alignment of this collector on the north and south sides of the minor arterial. The Planning Commission and Town’s Traffic Engineer cited public safety concerns with this design and the applicant has since realigned the collector into one intersection. This conforms with the PAD approved Preliminary Development Plan and resolves the safety concerns.

Mr. Sanks explained that another concern with the project was water conservation. With the project being 347 acres, a maximum of five acres were allowed to be water intensive, unless the applicant supplied an alternate source of water. The applicant had come forward with just under five acres of water intensive landscaping.   The project meets water conservation requirements.

Mr. Sanks noted that lot size and placement conforms with the zoning approval for the site. All regular lots meet dimensional and square footage requirements. All irregular lots meet width requirements at the required front setback. The far southern tip of this development is zoned C - 2 and will be platted with this development to ensure appropriate dedication and improvement of the Greenfield Road right - of - way with this project. He concluded his presentation by stating that the staff didn’t have any outstanding issues and were recommending approval.

Commissioner Shane Leonard questioned if the Traffic Department or Planning staff were working on acquiring the right of way from Ocotillo road now, since they were not sure what was going to occur with the exception parcel.

Mr. Sanks replied that he spoke with the applicant about the homestead piece and found that they were not interested in dedicated the property at this time.

Commissioner Shane Leonard explained that it could be difficult once the neighborhood was established to bring Ocotillo Road through if there was an unwilling seller. He reminded the staff that he had brought this question to their attention at the working session.

Chairman Brigette Peterson requested that the applicant come forward if they wanted to make a presentation.

Clint Garner, 2550 N. Thunderbird Circle #132, Mesa came forward. He announced that he was the civil engineer for the project. He stated that the land that Commissioner Shane Leonard referred to was not owned by his client. He explained that they had dedicated the land that they owned with the intent that when Ocotillo came through the right - of - way would have to come from the other owner.

Commissioner Shane Leonard questioned if the applicant was providing the half street improvements on their property on the Applebee Road alignment.

Mr. Garner replied that they owned up to Applebee Road which was the midsection line, on the south side. On the north side of Applebee Road was a RWCD ditch.

Commissioner Shane Leonard questioned if he had any discussion with the county residents and how they would feel about what they were doing on the south side of the street.

Mr. Garner responded that they had not discussed this with the county residents. He explained that based on conversations with the Traffic Department staff, they had shortened up the cul - de - sacs so that they wouldn’t have to have any access to the north. Because the canal was between the two projects, they could provide the required widths that they needed for roads on their half section.

Chairman Brigette Peterson opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wanted to speak on the item.

Richard Curtis, 21426 S. Greenfield came forward. He explained that his home, a one acre parcel, was located between Applebee and Ocotillo Road. He pointed out that he was across the street from the proposed project. He was concerned about what they would be doing about the traffic flow on Greenfield Road. He questioned if this would affect his property, which was located on the west side of Greenfield Road. He wondered if they would widen the road and encroach on his property. He was also concerned about the irrigation canal next to his property.

Commissioner Shane Leonard explained that his irrigation provider would be required to either determine if the irrigation was no longer needed or provide the irrigation to him by another means.

Mr. Sanks stated that Greenfield would be improved to be a minor arterial on the applicants half of the street, except for the portion that they have property on both sides of Greenfield. In that case they would improve both sides of the road.

Commissioner Shane Leonard verified that they wouldn’t be doing improvements on Mr. Curtis’ side of the street, but would be improving the other side of the street. He thought it might be possible for the Town to inquire about improving the other side of Greenfield and would need to acquire around 55′ to do this.

Planning Director Jerry Swanson clarified that the Greenfield Road would be a minor arterial. He explained that the Town standard would be two lanes in both directions with a continuous center turn lane at build out. The applicant would be improving the east side of the road and the homes would not be affected on the west side of the road at this time. He added that the Town did not have any capital improvement plans to expand Greenfield in the current program. Ultimately, it would be built out either by the Town or by private developments. The additional right - of - way would be 22′, not 55′, since the county right - of - way was already at 33′.

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

A motion was made by Commissioner Dan Dodge, seconded by, to Commissioner Shane Leonard to
approve S542, preliminary plat for Freeman Farms, a single family residential development, subject to conditions.

Motion Carried 4 - 0.

Approval of S542, preliminary plat for Freeman Farms, a single family residential development, subject to the following conditions:

1.        All final plats shall conform to the preliminary plat exhibit approved by the Planning Commission at the May 19, 2004 public hearing.
2.        The final plat shall identify the type(s) of streets, public or private and clearly note the entity responsible for ownership and maintenance.
3.        Pedestrian access easements noted on the preliminary plat shall be recorded for all active and passive open space tracts and trails upon approval of the final plat by the Town Council.

At 6:30 PM, Commissioner Joan Krueger joined the Commission.

GP04 - 1 - Minor General Plan amendment, changing the land use designation for approximately 15 acres from Residential >2 - 3Ǒ DU/acre to SC (Shopping Center) at the northeast corner of Lindsay and Ocotillo Roads. Jason Sanks 503 - 6805

Z04 - 1 ? Rezone approximately 80 acres from Maricopa County Rural - 43 to Town of Gilbert (R1 - 6, R1 - Single Family Residential and (C - 2) General Commercial with a (PAD) Planned Area Development overlay at the northeast corner of Lindsay and Ocotillo Roads. Jason Sanks 503 - 6805

Planner Jason Sanks provided a vicinity map for the Commission to view where the project was located at the northeast corner of Lindsay and Ocotillo Roads. He also provided an aerial map so the Commission could see the adjacent land uses. He reviewed the surrounding land uses:

Direction        General Plan Designation        Existing Zoning        Land Uses
North        Residential >2 - 3Ǒ DU/acre        County Rural - 43        Spur Road, then residential
East        Residential > 2 - 3Ǒ DU/acre        Town of Gilbert R - 43        Vacant
South        City of Chandler Residential        County Rural - 43        Ocotillo Road, then vacant and dairy
West        City of Chandler Residential        County Rural - 43        Lindsay Road, then residential
Onsite        Residential > 2 - 3Ǒ DU/acre        County Rural - 43        Vacant

Mr. Sanks discussed the General Plan request. He noted that the project is located with the Santan Character Area and land use designation for the entire 80 acre site is Residential >2 - 3Ǒ DU/acre. The Circulation Map designates Lindsay Road and Ocotillo Road as minor arterials. The proposed 15 acre (SC) Shopping Center is the only commercial land use proposed at this intersection at this time. The City of Chandler General Plan land use designations for property to the west and south is residential. This size commercial project is intended to service the daily needs of nearby residents. Infrastructure is reasonably available and will be provided by the applicant. This amendment is not is conflict with any portion of the General Plan and is consistent with existing policy.

Mr. Sanks described the zoning request. He provided the conceptual development plan visual aid to review.    He explained that the Felty Farms PAD was proposing a residential development with a medium sized commercial corner. The configuration of the commercial parcel optimizes arterial access points and separation from the residential parcel. A local street separates the two land uses, yet provides internal circulation. The residential parcels will consist of R1 - 8 parcels along the northern boundary to buffer the rural residential. The General Plan land use designates property to the north as Residential 2 - 3Ǒ DU/acre for future development. The project will generate 3nj du/acre, which is below the maximum 3ሑ du/acre for the Santan Character Area.

Mr. Sanks discussed the circulation. He pointed out that Lindsay Road and Ocotillo Road will be developed to minor arterial standards as required by the Town of Gilbert and the City of Chandler. The main entrance to the development is designed from Ocotillo Road. This collector will connect with Spur Road, the existing ¼ mile collector along the northern boundary. Secondary entrances are planned with a collector separating the commercial corner and at 148th Street, the ½ mile collector. Internal circulation consists of a combination of short blocks, cul - de - sacs, and private drives. Lindsay Road is entirely within the Town of Gilbert and will be improved with the 70′ ROW for the 1st 300′ then transition back to 65′ of ROW. Ocotillo Road is entirely within the City of Chandler. The Town of Gilbert will pursue an Intergovernmental Agreement with the City of Chandler to allow this development to improve Ocotillo to Chandler specifications. Residential collector streets will be designed with a 66′ ROW.

Mr. Sanks concluded his presentation by stating that the staff was in support of the project and asked if there were any questions.

Commissioner Dan Dodge questioned how the increase of commercial fit into the overall goal of the Santan area to limit the commercial properties within the area.

Mr. Sanks responded that the Santan Character Area guidelines require that commercial development be limited to no more than two corners. He explained that they didn’t have control over the Chandler corners, but that they were currently zoned residential.

Commissioner Dan Dodge questioned if Mr. Sanks had been in contact with the Chandler Planning Department to find out how the other three corners would be developed.

Mr. Sanks replied that he contacted the City of Chandler regarding the designation of the land, but did not discuss how they anticipated it to be developed in the future.

Commissioner Shane Leonard noticed the request to deviate from the ULDC on lot width and depth, and questioned what the reason was for this request. He also questioned what the justification was for decreasing the side setback by 50%.

Mr. Sanks responded that the staff asked the applicant to consider the deviations because the proposed ULDC requirements through conventional zoning would mirror what they were proposing. He pointed out that the lot depth and lot size were exceeding codes as their minimums. He added that this would be in line with what the Town Council had been approving in the past.

Planning Director Jerry Swanson believed that the land to the west and south, although covered by the Chandler General Plan, were unincorporated and would have County zoning at this time.

Chairman Brigette Peterson requested that the applicant come forward if they wanted to make a presentation. No one came forward.

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 Dan Dodge, seconded by Commissioner Joan Krueger, to recommend to the Town Council approval of GP04 - 1, a minor General Plan amendment, changing the land use designation for approximately 15 acres from Residential >2 - 3Ǒ DU/acre to (SC) Shopping Center at the northeast corner of Lindsay and Ocotillo Roads.

Motion Carried 5 - 0.

A motion was made by Commissioner Joan Krueger, seconded by Commissioner Shane Leonard, to recommend to the Town Council approval of Z04 - 1, rezoning approximately 80 acres from Maricopa County Rural - 43 to Town of Gilbert (R1 - 6, R1 - Single Family Residential and (C - 2) General Commercial with a (PAD) Planned Area Development overlay at the northeast corner of Lindsay and Ocotillo Roads, subject to conditions.

Motion Carried 5 - 0.

a.        Dedication to the Town for Lindsay Road rights - of - way that are adjacent to the Project shall be completed at the time of final plat recordation or sooner if required by the Town Engineer. Dedication of Lindsay Road shall extend 70 feet from the centerline for the first 300′ then transition back to 65 feet from the centerline.

b.        Dedication to the Town of Chandler for Ocotillo Road rights - of - way that are adjacent to the Project shall be completed at the time of final plat recordation or sooner if required by the City Engineer. Dedication of Ocotillo Road shall extend 75 feet from the centerline for the first 300′ then transition back to 65 feet from the centerline.

c.        Construction of required off - site improvements to Lindsay Road and Ocotillo Road abutting the Project shall be completed prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy for any unit in the Project.

d.        The Project shall be developed in conformance with the Town’s zoning requirements for the zoning districts and all development shall comply with the Town of Gilbert Unified Land Development Code, except as modified by the following:

Development
Standard         R1 - 6 PAD         R1 - 8 PAD
Lot Width        55′        75′
Lot Depth        115′        100′
Min. Lot Size        6,050 SF        8,000 SF
Lot Coverage        45 % one story,
40% two story        45% one story
40% two story
Front Setback        20′        20′ ? 25′
Rear Setback        20′        20′
Side Setback        10′ x 5′        10′ x 10′

e.        Developer shall create a new Homeowner’s Association (HOA) for the residential development and a Property Owners’ Association (POA) for the commercial development for the ownership, maintenance, landscaping, improvements and preservation of all common areas and open space areas and landscaping within the rights - of - way, as depicted on Development Plan Exhibit A, dated _________, 200_.

GP04 - 2 ? 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. Jason Sanks 503 - 6805

Z03 - 39 ? Rezone 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. Jason Sanks 503 - 6805

Planner Jason Sanks provided a vicinity map of the project along with the General Plan exhibit for the Commissioners review. He noted that the request was 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. He explained that the applicant desires retail uses on the corner 2Ǔ acres and office uses on the remaining 7ǎ acres. C - 1 zoning and a General Plan amendment for an NC designation is proposed for the retail corner. I - B zoning is requested for the office portion of the project. He explained that the applicant intends on building the office development first and the retail development later.

Mr. Sanks explained that the General Plan designation of Business Park designates areas for office and light industrial uses, including high technology and research and development firms. This classification encourages an attractive campus - style environment. Developments within this classification may include employee - oriented, on - site amenities and accessory uses.

Mr. Sanks stated that the site was designated on the General Plan Land Use Map as BP (Business Park). He noted that the Planning and Economic Development staffs found that there was sufficient commercially zoned land on the northeast corner of Pecos and Lindsay Roads to service the needs of both the approved Spectrum Professional Village on the northeast corner, the proposed San Tan Professional Village on the southeast corner, and adjacent residential uses. He stated that staff was recommending denial of the General Plan request in order to preserve the Business Park designation which is often referred to as an “employment district”.

Mr. Sanks reviewed the applicants zoning request. He explained that the request was to change the zoning classification of approximately 9Ǖ acres of land 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.

Mr. Sanks pointed out that the C - 1 zoning request was dependent on approval of the General Plan amendment for NC (Neighborhood Commercial). He explained that if this request was denied, C - 1 zoning cannot be approved for the site. Since the underlying land use designation of the property is BP (Business Park), staff recommended (I - B) Industrial Buffer zoning for the entire site.

Mr. Sanks noted that the PAD zoning request was seeking two deviations from the current I - B standards. No deviations are requested from conventional C - 1 standards. The I - B deviations include:
1.        A reduction in the arterial landscape setback from 35′ to 20.’
2.        Deletion of performance standard #7 stating that “All buildings must be of reinforced concrete or masonry construction. Corrugated metal buildings shall not be permitted.” (ULDC 1ስ.CǓ)

Mr. Sanks stated that staff found that both of these deviations were reasonable considering the neighborhood scale of the development in terms of both building height and architectural style. The office buildings were single - story and have a residential look. A 20′ setback was applied to similar projects located in commercially zoned districts. The performance standard concerning construction types originally sought to avoid metal shed - like buildings. The proposed offices were wood - frame construction, upscale in appearance, and convey the quality development intended for a medical office business park. He questioned if the Commission wanted to view the visual aid of the proposed buildings.

Chairman Brigette Peterson requested that Mr. Sanks provide the visual aid for the Commission to review.

Mr. Sanks provided the elevations for the business park and briefly described the proposed buildings. He stated that the staff was in support of the project, particularly the office portion, but were not in support of the designation on the corner for commercial and the subsequent zoning of C - 1.

Commissioner Joan Krueger stated that the businesses that would be in this zoning district would be geared to the employees in the neighboring offices. She questioned where the nearest similar zoning district would be where they might find businesses such as dry cleaners and sub shops.

Mr. Sanks replied that the employees might go to the proposed retail project on the northeast corner, which was zoned commercial.

Commissioner Shane Leonard questioned if Lindsay and Pecos Roads were designated minor or major arterials.

Mr. Sanks thought they were minor arterials.

Commissioner Shane Leonard questioned what the acreage was on the General Plan designations for the east, south and west of the site.

Mr. Sanks used the land use map to show the Commission that there was approximately 40 - 50 acres of business park in the area.

Commissioner Shane Leonard verified that they were discussing approximately three acres out of a large number of business park acreage.

Mr. Sanks replied that he was correct, they were discussing 2Ǔ acres. He added that they felt that with the recent rezoning on the northeast corner there was sufficient commercial property in the area.

Alternate Commissioner Scott Simas questioned what the northeast corner was designated in the General Plan prior to it being rezoned.

Mr. Sanks replied that the General Plan and the zoning designation were both residential. He explained that they felt that with the shape of the parcel and the arterial road next to it made it acceptable to be changed to an office complex.

Alternate Commissioner Scott Simas asked how many acres were on the northeast corner.

Mr. Sanks replied that it would be about the same size as the proposed project.

Chairman Brigette Peterson requested that the applicant come forward if they wanted to make a presentation.

Sean Lake, 10 W. Main Street, Mesa came forward. He announced that he was there on behalf of Utaz Development. He believed that the proposal was consistent with the spirit and intent of the General Plan. He explained that the proposal was for an office development of approximately 55,000 square feet on the south three quarters of the property. He explained that it was a difficult property to develop because of its shape and location. He noted that his proposal was to take the other quarter of the property and develop it for a commercial use that would be consistent with the employment use. He added that they would like to have commercial uses such as restaurants and dry cleaners that would be readily accessible to the employment districts near by. He felt that this was consistent with the goals and policies set forth in the General Plan. He thought the Commission should support the General Plan amendment for a number of reasons. First, he felt the plan encouraged pedestrian activity. He thought the retail uses would encourage the uses in the office complex. He stated that the commercial uses on the corner would therefore benefit the office uses proposed. He requested that the Commission recommend approval of both the General Plan amendment and the zoning request.

Alternate Commissioner Scott Simas verified that with both pieces that Utaz was developing there would be around 100,000 square feet of office space.

Mr. Lake responded that he was correct.

Alternate Commissioner Scott Simas questioned if the Glenwood Development parcel would be entirely commercial.

Mr. Lake replied that on that four acre parcel they are planning to have a drug store and other retail. He added that they felt this was not enough commercial given the amount of business park proposed for the area.

Commissioner Dan Dodge questioned if the C - 1 zoning district permitted gas stations.

Mr. Lake replied that they would be willing to prohibit this use as a stipulation since they had no desire to build a gas station as it would not be compatible with what they wanted to accomplish on the site.

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.

Commissioner Joan Krueger questioned what the staff had to support the claim that the Economic Development staff supported the Planning staff’s evaluation of the General Plan amendment.

Mr. Sanks replied that he received an e - mail from Economic Development stating that they didn’t want to see Business Park designated land be redesignated for retail uses since they were reserving it for employment uses that would occur in a business park. They also concurred that there was sufficient retail use in the area.

Alternate Commissioner Scott Simas stated that since the property to the north was originally designated as residential and had been changed to allow for 55,000 square feet of office space, he was confused why Economic Development would want to preserve this small space with the additional space added to the north.

Mr. Sanks replied that although the land to the north was designated and zoned commercially, they were building professional offices on the property. He explained that Economic Development did not refer to the additional business park in their analysis.

Mr. Lake confirmed that the office complex to the north with 55,000 square feet of office space was zoned C - 1.   He added that these offices were under construction and there would only be four acres of retail in this park.

Commissioner Dan Dodge confirmed that they were developing more office space and less commercial. He didn’t feel that there was a strong argument in the staff report against the commercial and felt that an additional 2Ǔ acres would not endanger the business park development. Given that it was on the corner of two arterials would also be a benefit for retail. He was inclined to support the applicant’s request.

Commissioner Joan Krueger agreed with Alternate Commissioner Scott Simas and Commissioner Dan Dodge’s comments. She thanked the Planning staff and Economic Development staff for maintaining the integrity of a plan that they worked hard to approve. She felt that the retail would be a positive aspect for the business park employees.

Commissioner Dan Dodge questioned if there would be additional conditions needed if they approved the General Plan amendment. He suggested that in the future if the staff recommends denial they should provide conditions in case the Commission approves the project.

Mr. Sanks replied that they worked with the applicant on the conceptual development plan to make sure that there was appropriate landscaping between the parcels and the parking areas met code. He stated that they didn’t find any outstanding issues with the commercial portion of the project and they weren’t asking for any deviations on the C - 1 request. The staff didn’t feel that they needed to impose any additional conditions.

Commissioner Dan Dodge reminded the Commission that the applicant had agreed to impose a stipulation requiring that an automotive use not be allowed.

Planning Director Jerry Swanson advised that the Neighborhood Commercial district would be intended for use on small parcels and would be consistent with the NC General Plan designation and would prohibit drive thru uses and automotive uses. He felt that this district would have more appropriate restrictions for what the applicant was intending on the property than the C - 1 designation.

Chairman Brigette Peterson was concerned that restricting drive thru businesses would restrict a Starbucks or dry cleaners that had a drive thru.

Commissioner Shane Leonard wasn’t sure if a drive thru would be appropriate because of the circulation problems.

Commissioner Dan Dodge questioned if the applicant would have a problem substituting Neighborhood Commercial for C - 1 in their request.

Mr. Lake replied that they would like to have a Starbucks as it would be a good use for the area. He added that if they were granted the C - 1 designation, they would need to acquire a Use Permit for an automotive type use.

Commissioner Dan Dodge stated that 2Ǔ acres would be more compatible with Neighborhood Commercial zoning than with C - 1 zoning. He added that Starbucks didn’t need to have a drive thru. He agreed with Commissioner Shane Leonard’s comments and that it would be more appropriate as a pedestrian scale retail development. Therefore he felt that NCC would be more compatible than C - 1.

Alternate Commissioner Scott Simas was in support of the proposal for C - 1. He thought this would provide the appropriate services for the business park and didn’t think a fast food restaurant with a drive thru would be built on this corner.

Commissioner Joan Krueger agreed with Alternate Commissioner Scott Simas and would approve it as requested.

Chairman Brigette Peterson questioned if a drive thru use would have to obtain a Use Permit.

Mr. Swanson replied that under the current code, a drive thru use would require a Use Permit. However, under the proposed code drive thru facilities would be permitted in Neighborhood Commercial, Shopping Center and Community Commercial designations.

Alternate Commissioner Scott Simas asked if this were approved under the current code it would have to abide by the code when built.

Mr. Swanson responded that the zoning would default to the base district in the new code, unless the PAD specified otherwise.

Chairman Brigette Peterson felt that NCC would be an appropriate designation, under the new code.

Commissioner Shane Leonard was still concerned about access if there were drive thru businesses allowed. He didn’t think there was very much room for circulation and that it might be better suited to be pedestrian oriented.

Mr. Lake explained that it was a conceptual plan and that the Design Review Board would have the ultimate approval on the circulation. He explained that if the Commission voted to approve NCC, they would not be allowed to have a drive thru until the new LDC was in place. He questioned why they wouldn’t just approve C - 1 as requested. He added that this will delay the process as they wait for the new LDC to be approved.

Commissioner Dan Dodge questioned if the staff felt that NCC would be the appropriate General Plan category for that type of a zoning use and would remain as Neighborhood Commercial.

Mr. Swanson agreed that NCC would be the appropriate General Plan category.

Chairman Brigette Peterson asked for clarification since the request was to change from Business Park to NC. She wondered where C - 1 was listed.

Commissioner Dan Dodge explained that NC was a General Plan category. The zoning requested was C - 1, which was a more intense use than NCC.

Commissioner Shane Leonard commented that in a short amount of time the new code would not prohibit a drive thru. Therefore, he was not opposed to approving the proposal as requested.

Commissioner Dan Dodge felt that there were a lot more differences between C - 1 and NCC than just the drive thru issue. He explained that C - 1 was intended for larger commercial uses and NCC would be better suited for a small parcel. He added that certain restrictions would be included in the NCC zoning designation that would not be a part of a C - 1 zoning district.   He felt that they should approve the applicants request for the General Plan amendment. In the zoning request, he felt they should modify the applicants request from C - 1 to NCC.

Commissioner Joan Krueger agreed with Commissioner Dan Dodge’s comments.

A motion was made by Alternate Commissioner Scott Simas, seconded by Commissioner Joan Krueger, to recommend approval to the Town Council GP04 - 2, 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.

Motion Carried 5 - 0.

A motion was made by Commissioner Dan Dodge, seconded by Commissioner Joan Krueger, to recommend approval to the Town Council of Z03 - 39, changing zoning 9Ǖ acres from Maricopa County Rural - 43 to (NCC) Neighborhood Community Commercial and (I - B) Industrial Buffer with a (PAD) Planned Area Development Overlay zoning district, subject to conditions.
Motion Carried 5 - 0.

Recommend approval to the Town Council of Z03 - 39, changing zoning of the entire 9Ǖ acres from Maricopa County Rural - 43 to (I - B) Industrial Buffer with a (PAD) Planned Area Development Overlay zoning district, subject to conditions:

A.        Dedication to the Town for Lindsay Road and Pecos Road rights - of - way that are adjacent to the Project shall be completed at the time of final plat recordation or sooner if required by the Town Engineer. Dedication of Lindsay Road shall extend 70 feet from the centerline for the first 300 feet from the intersection of Lindsay and Pecos Roads, and 65 feet from the centerline thereafter and dedication for Pecos Road shall extend 70 feet from centerline for the first 300 feet from the intersection of Lindsay and Pecos Roads, and 65 feet from the centerline thereafter.

B.        Construction of required off - site improvements to Lindsay Road abutting the Project shall be completed prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy for any unit in the Project.

C.        The Project shall be developed in conformance with the Town’s zoning requirements for the zoning districts and all development shall comply with the Town of Gilbert Unified Land Development Code, except as modified by the following:

1.        Arterial landscape setback shall be 20′.
2.        Buildings are not required to be of reinforced concrete or masonry construction.

D.        Developer shall create a new Property Owners’ Association (POA) for the ownership, maintenance, landscaping, improvements and preservation of all common areas and open space areas and landscaping within the rights - of - way, as depicted on the Conceptual Development Plan.

Mr. Lake requested that the staff allow them the opportunity to have both advertised so that the Town Council would have discretion to go with C - 1 or NCC.

Mr. Swanson agreed that they could do this.

ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM

Z01 - 9 ? Discuss proposed Town of Gilbert Draft Land Development Code, Article 4Ǔ: Wireless Communication Facilities and Article 4ǔ: Over - the - Air Reception Devices, Satellite Earth Stations, and Amateur Radio Antennas. Mario Mangiamele 503 - 6877

Senior Planner Mario Mangiamele informed the Commission that this was the eighth work session to discuss the comprehensive revisions to the Draft Land Development Code (LDC). He explained that he was going to discuss the articles that were just released for public review. He pointed out that the most recent section of the LDC that was circulated for public review and comment included: 1) Article 4Ǔ: Wireless Communication Facilities, 2) Article 4ǔ: Over - The - Air Reception Devices, Satellite Earth Stations and Amateur Radio Antennas, and 3) Article 6Ǎ: Use Definitions. Article 6Ǎ: Use Definitions is being re - released concurrently to provide clarity in the review and determination of a use and how that particular use may be regulated. These articles were released for public review on May 4, 2004.

Mr. Mangiamele discussed the Wireless Communication Facilities section, Article 4Ǔ. He noted that the Wireless Communication Facilities outlined and established regulations for development, siting, installation, and operation of wireless communication facilities (WCFs) in compliance with the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996.

Mr. Mangiamele reviewed the primary differences from the existing Unified Land Development Code (ULDC):
1.        Reorganization, clarification, and relocation of:
a.        Use regulations to the respective base zoning district regulations contained in Division 2: Land Use Designations;
b.        Support structure definitions to Article 6Ǎ: Use Definitions;
c.        General definitions to the Glossary of General Terms to be released for public review on a future date; and
d.        Height and setback regulations to Tables contained in Section 4뙯: Use and Development Regulations.
2.        Reorganization and clarification of camouflaging and screening requirements for antennas and      associated equipment facilities. He explained that they looked at the previous Use Permits to determine what was needed in the new code.
3.        Prohibition on building - mounted WCFs.   WCFs proposed to be located on existing buildings are permitted only through integration into the building design. He noted that the current ULDC allowed these, but that they had not seen any proposals for these from the private sector.
4.        Prohibition of Monopoles in the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) and Neighborhood Office (NO) zoning districts while still allowing other types of WCF facilities to serve these areas.
5.        Modification of the existing term Functioning Security Light Pole to Existing Vertical Element, Recreation Field Light Pole. Modification of approval process for these uses to require a Conditional Use Permit in order to effectively minimize possible adverse impacts on adjacent properties.
6.        Prohibition of monopoles with attached flags serving as Alternative WCF Structures designed to conceal and/or camouflage the WCF.
7.        Modification of approval process and regulations for Public Safety Communication Monopoles by limiting the review process to an Administrative Use Permit. He explained that currently any monopole or vertical structure required a public hearing.
8.        Elimination of building setback requirements for equipment cabinets and buildings located on electric substation sites.
9.        Reorganization and clarification of additional submittal requirements for related use permit applications.
10.        Clarification of co - location requirements.
11.        Elimination of 10 year permit term for Administrative Use Permits and 120 - day permit term for temporary (portable) WCFs. Permit terms, limitations, and revocation procedures have been relocated to Article 5ǐ: Use Permits.
12.        Removal of 30 year successive permit term limitation for a Public Safety Communication Tower.
13.        New standards to address the use of Portable Monopoles during special events.
14.        Inclusion of supplemental findings for approval of use permits in order to minimize possible adverse impacts on adjacent properties.
15.        Elimination of surety bonding requirements for new monopoles. Discontinuation of the structure, or violations of code requirements will be addressed through Article 4ǒ: Non - Conforming Uses, Parcel, Structures and Signs and Article 5ሄ: Enforcement.
16.        Over - The - Air Reception Devices, Satellite Earth Stations, and Amateur Radio Antennas

Chairman Brigette Peterson recognized a youth group in the audience that was there from the Church of Jesus Christ Ladder Day Saints.

Mr. Mangiamele discussed Article 4ǔ: Over - the - Air Reception Devices, Satellite Earth Stations, and Amateur Radio Antennas outline and establish regulations for:
?        Small and large satellite dish antennas;
?        Television antennas;
?        Fixed wireless signal antennas;
?        Satellite earth stations; and
?        Amateur (HAM) radio antennas.

Mr. Mangiamele described the public comments that were given to the staff regarding the articles. He noted that the Commission had been given additional comments that evening regarding the articles. He explained that the primary concern that they had heard regarding the articles was in Article 4ᇻd, which discussed the Amateur (HAM) radio antennas. He commented that they were attempting to set forth standards for the radio antennas since currently the Town did not regulate them. He added that they were attempting to regulate the height, location and quantities while providing reasonable accommodation through a waiver process which would be administered by the Zoning Administrator. Some additional concerns that were raised that evening by the public was a definition of terms between an amateur radio antenna versus an amateur radio tower.

Mr. Mangiamele informed the Commission that the articles were released for public review on May 4, 2004 and the deadline for comments regarding the articles is June 4, 2004. However, he mentioned that they intended to work with the stakeholders group and any member of the public that comes forward with comments or questions on any articles in the Draft Code beyond the deadline.

Commissioner Shane Leonard referred to Article 4Ǔ and asked if in the ULDC there were any other places where they required permanent access to a tower. He was concerned that towers, especially cell phone towers could be placed in areas that did not have protected access for ingress and egress.

Mr. Mangiamele replied that to the best of his knowledge the Town had not run into this as an issue. He added that they typically see an easement granted across the private property to allow maintenance access of the facilities. He thought it was a good point that needed to be considered. He was not aware of any place in the existing LDC that required access to these facilities.

Commissioner Shane Leonard referred to Article 4ǔ and questioned if there was a standard for the setback from any of the property boundaries.

Mr. Mangiamele replied that the only location requirement that they felt was necessary was that it needed to be located in the rear half of the lot.

Commissioner Shane Leonard was concerned that if the tower was placed in the back half of the parcel they could be placed adjacent to a neighbor’s fence.

Planning Director Jerry Swanson commented that most of the antennas that were tall required wires for support. Therefore, there would need to be space on the owner’s property to place these wires on their own land.

Commissioner Dan Dodge questioned if the antennas would fall within the setbacks of an accessory structure.

Mr. Mangiamele replied that they needed to address this issue. He didn’t think that the antennas would fall within the accessory structures section.

Chairman Brigette Peterson opened the public hearing.

Joshua Goldsmith, 4188 E. Ravenswood Drive, Gilbert came forward. He announced that he was a HAM radio operator. He noticed that there was not any technical reference made in the Draft Code to the antenna aspects. He wanted to work with Mr. Mangiamele to correct this. He stated that an antenna was different than a tower. He was concerned that they needed to make sure that the language was technically correct in the Ordinance so that he could pursue his hobby. He explained that it was difficult to find a home in Gilbert that allowed him to place an antenna on his property. He described the different towers and antennas that could be used for radio service. He was concerned about the requirement to place the antenna in the back half of the property. He explained that if he had a lot that was very deep he would be forced to run a long cable to his antenna which would waste energy through the wire.

COMMUNICATIONS

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

Commissioner Shane Leonard informed the Commission that ADOT started the first bridge overpass for the freeway coming from the east to west near Power Road between Warner and Elliot Roads.

Chairman Brigette Peterson announced that they had been working on the plans for a possible General Plan amendment for the land south of the Catholic Healthcare Hospital. She noted that these ideas should be presented to the Commission at the June meeting.

Report from the Planning Director on current events

Planning Director Jerry Swanson informed the Commission that they had hired a new planner, Leila DeMaree, who would be starting in June.

Mr. Swanson stated that area south of Riggs Road on both sides of Higley Road had a fair amount of development interest. He explained that they had a regional center planned on the General Plan on the southwest corner. He added that they thought it might be wise to review this area again for the General Plan to determine better land uses around the regional center.

ADJOURNMENT

Chairman Brigette Peterson adjourned the meeting at 8:00 P.M.

___________________________
Chairman Brigette Peterson

ATTEST:

_______________________
Recorder Trasie Johns

Digg this