TOWN OF GILBERT PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, REGULAR MEETING

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

JUNE 2, 2004

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

COMMISSION ABSENT:
Commissioner James Beene,
Commissioner Shane Leonard

STAFF PRESENT:
Planning Director Jerry Swanson,
Planning Manager Linda Edwards,
Planning Manager Maria Cadavid,
Senior Planner Jim Cronk,
Senior Planner Mike Milillo,
Planner Jason Sanks,
Planner Matt Everling

ALSO PRESENT:
Town Attorney Phillis Smiley,
Town Manager George Pettit,
Councilmember Don Skousen,
Town Traffic Engineer Bruce Ward,
Recorder Trasie Johns

PLANNER                    CASE        PAGE        VOTE
Mr. Everling                  S03 - 14           2        Approved
Mr. Sanks                  GP04 - 3           4         Tabled
Mr. Sanks                  Z04 - 3           4         Tabled
Mr. Cronk                  UP04 - 2           4         Continued
Mr. Cronk                  UP04 - 3           4         Continued Mr. Cronk                  Z04 - 15           5         Approved
Mr. Cronk                  Z03 - 44           8         Continued
Mr. Milillo                  GP04 - 4         18        Approved
Mr. Milillo                  Z04 - 8         18        Approved
Mr. Milillo                  Z04 - 12         21        Approved
Ms. Cadavid                  UP04 - 6         23        Approved
Ms. Edwards                  GP04 - 6         24        Approved
Ms. Edwards                  Z04 - 10         24        Approved

< -   -   - > = 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 Karl Kohlhoff, seconded by Commissioner Joan Krueger, to approve the agenda.

Motion Carried 6 - 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 - 14 - Preliminary plat for Power Ranch Neighborhood 9 consisting of 772 single family and multi - family dwelling units on approximately 122 acres within the Power Ranch Development Plan located at the northwest corner of Power and Germann Roads. Matt Everling 503 - 6746

Planner Matt Everling informed the Commission that S03 - 14 was a request for Preliminary Plat approval for Power Ranch Neighborhood 9 within the Power Ranch Master Planned Community with a total of 772 single family and condominium dwelling units on approximately 122 acres. The site is located north of the northwest corner of Power & Germann Roads.

Mr. Everling provided a visual aid of the preliminary plat to show the housing products that were proposed in the subdivision. He stated that Neighborhood 9 proposed a residential subdivision with overall densities within the range of the Power Ranch Development Plan. He pointed out that the subdivision consisted of four different lot types that will accommodate four different housing products. He briefly described the project data:
Product Type        Savannah        Laurel        Regency        Tri - Plex
Zoning        R - CH        R - CH        RI - 5        R - 3
Gross Acres        35ሜ        43ቁ        32ሉ        11ᇿ
Net Acres        32ሯ        39ቘ        30ሀ        10Ǔ
Minimum Lot Size        2,000 sq. ft.        2,000 sq. ft.        5,000 sq. ft.        20,000 sq. ft.
Proposed # of d/u        283        273        75        141
Density        7ቖdu/ac.        6ሯdu/ac.        2ሙdu/ac.        13ሊdu/ac.
Open Space        8ሾ acres        12ᇾ acres        9ቍ acres        4ር acres
% of Total Acreage        29%        36%        26%        9%

Mr. Everling used the visual aid to point out that the Savannah and the Laurel single family residential products would have rear loaded private drives for the garages and the fronts of each unit would face common landscape area. He briefly described the 47 Tri - Plex buildings that had a total of 141 dwelling units.

Mr. Everling discussed the circulation for the plat. Neighborhood 9 is bordered by Power Road to the east, future Pecos Road to the north, Germann Road to the south, with Fenceline Road and Ranch House Parkway to the west. Internal local collector streets, Fenceline Road and Ranch House Parkway, connect neighborhood 9 with other neighborhoods within Power Ranch. The new 122 - acre subdivision will have one access point off Ranch House Parkway and three connections to Fenceline Road. Only one access point will be created off Power Road, and the community will have no connections to the future Pecos Road. Looped and curvilinear local private street designs, including two cul - de - sacs, follow Power Ranch subdivisions layout.

Mr. Everling stated that the open space plan was approved on May 13th. He added that staff had not received any public input on the project and that it had been properly noticed. He referred to page three of the staff report and indicated that the applicant was requesting that the Commission strike a sentence stating “A minimum 6×10 (60 sq. ft.) covered patio shall be required within the building setbacks.” He explained that the applicant requested that this sentence be omitted because the cluster home lots were rear loaded with garages, so there was not any room for a patio. He recommended approval of the project and asked for questions.

Commissioner Dan Dodge questioned if the request to remove the covered patio would be a condition of the zoning.

Mr. Everling replied that this was written in the Power Ranch development plan. However since it was a PAD, the Commission would have the authority to waive this requirement.

Town Attorney Phillis Smiley advised that this was a preliminary plat approval and zoning requirements could not be changed at that time.

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

Todd Wakely, 2020 N. Arizona Avenue, Chandler with Trend Homes came forward. He stated that the products that were proposed were the same as other products that had come before the Commission over the past few months. He added that these were identical to two product lines that they were doing at Cooley Station. He briefly discussed the products and asked if there were any questions.

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 Alternate Commissioner Scott Simas, to approve S03 - 14, the Preliminary Plat for Power Ranch Neighborhood 9 within the Power Ranch Master Planned Community, subject to conditions.

Motion Carried 6 - 0.

Approval of S03 - 14, the preliminary plat for Power Ranch Neighborhood 9, with a total of 772 single family and condominium dwelling units on approximately 122 acres, subject to conditions:

1.        The Final Plat shall conform to Exhibit 2 as approved by the Planning Commission at the June 2, 2004 public hearing.
2.        The landscaping improvement plans for Power Ranch Neighborhood 9 shall conform to Exhibit 3, Preliminary Landscape Plan.

3.        The final plat shall identify the type(s) of streets, public or private (as it applies) and clearly note the entity responsible for ownership and maintenance.

GP04 - 3 - Minor General Plan amendment, changing the land use designation for 12 acres from NC (Neighborhood Commercial) and Residential >3Ǒ - 5 DU/acre to NO (Neighborhood Office) and CC (Community Commercial) at the northeast corner of McQueen and Elliot Roads. Jason Sanks 503 - 6805

Z04 - 3 - Change in zoning classification for approximately 14 acres from (AG) Agricultural to (N - S) Neighborhood Office/Service and (C - 1) Neighborhood Commercial at the northeast corner of McQueen and Elliot Roads. Jason Sanks 503 - 6805

Planner Jason Sanks informed the Commission that staff was requesting that the Commission table GP04 - 3 and Z04 - 3. He explained that staff was working with the applicant on the boundaries of the project and were not sure how long they would need to revise the request. He added that both items would be noticed when they were ready to bring it back to the Commission.

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

Anthony Geppeta, 14300 N. Northsight, Scottsdale came forward. He questioned if the staff was going to try and bring the case forward the next month if everything was completed.

Mr. Sanks replied that based on a change in the request, the staff was not sure how long it would take to revise a traffic study, revise exhibits and hold a second neighborhood meeting.

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 Vice Chairman Michael Monroe, to table GP04 - 3 and Z04 - 3.

Motion Carried 6 - 0.

UP04 - 2 - Use Permit for a tire center on approximately 14 acres in the PSC - 2 (Planned Shopping Center) zone on the northwest corner of Higley and Baseline Road. Jim Cronk 503 - 6815 Staff is requesting continuance.

UP04 - 3 - Use Permit for a Fitness Center on approximately 14 acres in the PSC - 2 (Planned Shopping Center) zone on the northwest corner of Higley and Baseline Roads. Jim Cronk 503 - 6815 Staff is requesting continuance.

Senior Planner Jim Cronk informed the Commission that after advertising the cases they found a condition in the 1982 zoning of the property that needs to be worked out. Therefore, they were requesting that the Commission continue both UP04 - 2 and UP04 - 3 to the next meeting in July.

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 Joan Krueger, seconded by Commissioner Karl Kohlhoff, to continue UP04 - 2 and UP04 - 3 to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on July 7, 2004.

Motion Carried 6 - 0.

Z04 - 15 - Change in zoning classification for approximately 95 acres from Maricopa County R - 18 & R - 35 to R1 - 20 (Single - Family Residential) on the northwest corner of Higley and Queen Creek Roads. Jim Cronk 503 - 6815

Senior Planner Jim Cronk informed the Commission that Z04 - 15 was a request for change in zoning classification for approximately 95 acres from Maricopa County R - 18 & R - 35 to R1 - 20 (Single - Family Residential) on the northwest corner of Higley and Queen Creek Roads. He added that there was a companion annexation case, which would be going before the Town Council on June 8. After the Commission had heard the zoning case both items would go before the Town Council for final action.

Mr. Cronk used a visual aid to point out where the project was located. He reviewed the surrounding area:
Surrounding Land        General Plan        Zoning        Use
North        Residential 0 - 1        R - 43 (MC)        Rural Residential (MC)
South - East        Residential 8 - 14,
Shopping Center (SC)        R - 43 (MC)        Dairy(MC)
West        Residential 0 - 1        R1 - 43 (TOG)        Rural Residential (TOG)
Site        Residential 0 - 1        R - 18 & R - 35 (MC)        Vacant (MC)

Mr. Cronk noted that the General Plan designated the subject site and the area to the north and west as Residential 0 - 1. The area to the south - east is designated Residential 8 - 14. The proposal is to rezone the land and divide the 95 acres into 95 lots. The number of lots proposed within this zoning application will keep this property in conformance with the General Plan density range of 0 - 1 unit per acre.

Mr. Cronk discussed the zoning application. He stated that they were requesting a R1 - 20 zoning district. He explained that they didn’t ask for an R1 - 35 district because there was some subtraction in the total acreage for road dedications, and open space dedications. He stated that if they were to build the full 43,000 square foot one acre lots, the number of lot yield would not approach the one unit per acre requirement. Therefore they were proposing about ¾ acre size lots at about 35,000 square feet each. Their preliminary lot layout shows that this would be the smallest lot that would be proposed. The R1 - 20 zone provides the applicant with additional flexibility with side yard and rear yard setbacks. Therefore the applicant was requesting the R1 - 20 zoning district. He pointed out that this was not a PAD zoning case and therefore they could not place any conditions on the zoning approval.

Mr. Cronk reviewed the circulation plan. He used the visual aid to point out that the site had frontage on Higley and Queen Creek Roads. The applicant would need to dedicate 70′ from center line for Right - of - Way on both arterials. They will need to construct or fund the improvements on both arterials. The design of the access point to Higley is subject to approval by the Town’s Traffic Division.

Mr. Cronk stated that the rezoning request would allow a good transitional residential use at 1nj units per acre on this site between rural residential and future multi - family/commercial uses. He recommended approval of the zoning request with the conditions listed in the staff report. He briefly reviewed the conditions.

Alternate Commissioner Scott Simas questioned what the average size of the lots were on the plat.

Mr. Cronk replied that the minimum lot size was 35,000 square feet and the average lot size would be around 40,000 square feet.

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

Donald Fuller, 1128 E. Greenway, Mesa representing Amberwood Homes came forward. He agreed with the staff’s conditions. He explained that the lot width for an R1 - 20 worked better for the configuration since it was a strange and difficult piece of property to develop.

Vice Chairman Michael Monroe felt that the roadways and connection points for the gated community was very well done. He liked that they had made three connections to the canal, which were placed at good locations. He approved of the site plan.

Commissioner Dan Dodge questioned if the community was gated.

Mr. Fuller replied that it was a gated community.

Commissioner Dan Dodge questioned why the report showed the streets as public.

Mr. Fuller responded that their intent was that the streets would be private with gated access.

Mr. Milillo replied that it was his understanding that they were public streets when he wrote the report. He indicated that they would make that change in the staff report before it goes to the Town Council.

Commissioner Karl Kohlhoff commented that he was not in favor of gated communities because they isolated members of the community. He added that in small parcels, they generally approved of gating them, but that this was not a small parcel. He was concerned that the homeowners would not realize that they would have to maintain the streets and would have higher HOA fees.

Vice Chairman Michael Monroe pointed out that there were only 95 lots on the property and they were used to seeing more homes on this type of acreage.

Commissioner Karl Kohlhoff was concerned about public safety and how the fire and police would get access through the gated community.

Mr. Fuller replied that these homes would be very nice and that the residents would have knowledge of the streets prior to purchasing their homes. He added that some people liked a gated community for security reasons.

Town Attorney Phillis Smiley reminded the Commission that at this point all they were discussing was the zoning and not the site plan issues.

Alternate Commissioner Scott Simas questioned why the applicant was requesting the R1 - 20 zoning district.

Mr. Fuller explained that some of the lots were fairly deep and the frontage requirements on a R1 - 35 would cut the number of lots down so drastically that it wouldn’t be economically feasible to use the property. He added that it had a strange shape and was difficult to develop. Therefore the lots were deeper than an R1 - 35 zoning district since it had a wider frontage requirement.

Duran Thompson, 1833 W. Main Street, Mesa with D&M Engineering came forward. He explained that another reason they were asking for the R1 - 20 zoning district had to do with the setback requirements. In many cases, there was a wide enough lot, but they couldn’t meet the building setback requirement for a R1 - 35 zoning district.
Chairman Brigette Peterson opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wanted to speak on the item.

Patty Rodriguez, 2775 E. Arrowhead Trail came forward. She pointed out that most of the parcels to the west of the property were in the Town of Gilbert and were not all located in the County. She requested that the Commission require the applicant to maintain one - acre lots. She felt that the request was a little unreasonable since the lot sizes were being lowered so drastically. She was concerned that large houses on smaller lots with smaller setbacks would look like a lot higher density. She was concerned that the applicant would place the ½ acre lots next to her property, which was one acre. She felt deceived because at the neighborhood meeting they were told that the parcels would be one acre and now they were requesting R1 - 20. She added that some of the neighbors didn’t get the notice and it was hard to read the sign on Queen Creek Road.

Commissioner Dan Dodge explained that 95 lots on 95 acres could not be one - acre lots because of the roadways and open space. In terms of density, he pointed out that they were getting what they were told, one unit per acre.

Ms. Rodriquez questioned what the setback changes would be in the new zoning district.

Planning Director Jerry Swanson responded that the side yard setbacks in the R1 - 20 and the R1 - 35 zoning districts were 20′. The rear yard setback in the R1 - 35 zoning district was 40′ and it was 35′ in the R1 - 20 zoning district.

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

Planning Director Jerry Swanson advised the Commission and public that the General Plan was the ruling authority on how much density could occur on the parcel. He stated that the Plan stated that there could be no more than one unit per acre. Therefore, the Commission would not be able to approve a subdivision regardless of the zoning that had more density than the General Plan allowed.

Commissioner Dan Dodge had mixed feelings about the project since it was going to be located next to 8 - 14 units per acre property. He was concerned about what the residents of the proposed development would feel about the higher density residential next door. He added that that some transition was necessary and he would have liked to see a medium density project being proposed.

Mr. Cronk pointed out on the visual aid where the 8 - 14 units per acre development would be, along with this shopping center. He indicated that there was a canal between the two developments, which would serve as a buffer.

Commissioner Karl Kohlhoff added that next to the canal was a floodway, which was about 150′ wide.

Chairman Brigette Peterson was told that there was a resident that wanted to speak on the project that just arrived. Therefore, she reopened the public hearing.

Tim Donovan, 2776 E. Majestic Eagle, Gilbert came forward. He pointed out that his lot was to the west of the project. He was concerned about how small the lots would be and how close the homes would be built to his property. He added that he was also concerned about traffic and the size of the streets. He requested that the Commission deny the request.

Chairman Brigette Peterson noted that the subdivision plan was not being discussed that evening and that they were just reviewing the zoning case. She explained that the applicant was requesting R1 - 20 to be able to place 95 lots in 95 acres. She briefly reviewed the setbacks and other items that were discussed earlier.

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

A motion was made by Alternate Commissioner Scott Simas, seconded by Commissioner Joan Krueger, to recommend approval of Z04 - 15, a change in zoning classification for approximately 95 acres from Maricopa County R - 18 & R - 35 to R1 - 20 (Single - Family Residential) on the northwest corner of Higley and Queen Creek Roads, subject to staff conditions.

Motion Carried 6 - 0.

Staff recommends approval of Z04 - 15 with the following conditions:

1.        Dedication to the Town for Higley and Queen Creek 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 shall extend 70′ from center line for the site frontage on Higley and Queen Creek Roads.
2.        Construct of required off - site half section improvements to Higley and Queen Creek Roads abutting the project shall be completed prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy for any unit in the project. The design of the access road intersection with Higley Road is subject to approval by the Town’s Traffic Engineer.
3.        The developer shall create a new Homeowner’s Association (HOA) 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 development plan.

Z03 - 44 - Change in zoning classification for approximately 74 acres from Maricopa County R - 43 to C - 1 (Neighborhood Commercial), R - CH (Residential - Cluster Homes), R - 3 (Multi - Family Residential) and R1 - 5 (Single - Family Residential) on the southeast corner of Recker and Warner Roads. Jim Cronk 503 - 6815

Senior Planner Jim Cronk informed the Commission that Z03 - 44 was a request to change the zoning classification for approximately 74 acres from Maricopa County R - 43 to C - 1 (Neighborhood Commercial), R - CH (Residential - Cluster Homes), R - 3 (Multi - Family Residential) and R1 - 5 (Single - Family Residential) on the southeast corner of Recker and Warner Roads. He noted that there was a companion annexation case that was going to be before the Town Council regarding the property. He pointed out that the streets would be public with a lot of the units having rear access, which would be private. The open space shown on the conceptual plan was over 30% and the density proposed was about 6ǔ units per acre.

Mr. Cronk announced that the hearing was properly noticed and they had received several comments and e - mails from neighbors who live to the east across 178th Street. He explained that 178th Street was a non - exclusive vehicular easement on the subject property that had been there for the benefit of the county residents to the east. He added that the road was proposed to be widened and improved as the eastern boundary of the property and both residents would share the improved Gilbert street.

Mr. Cronk noted that the property has the proposed Santan Freeway as its southern border. It is located in the Gateway Character Area. At the work session in April, the Commission reviewed the conceptual development plan and discussed the shape of the commercial site, the residential units located near the freeway, the large number of variations requested from the ULDC and the need to straighten the internal street network.

Mr. Cronk stated that the General Plan designates the subject site as Residential 5 - 8 and Community Commercial. The proposal is for a combination of zones that result in a density of approximately 6ቅ units per acre. The area proposed for commercial use is limited to 9 acres. Both of these are within the General Plan ranges and as a result, the application will be in conformance with the General Plan.

Mr. Cronk discussed the implications of the parcel being in the Gateway Area. In this area of Gilbert, the Council and voters agreed to allow higher density in exchange for creating a “neo - traditional” style development. Goals adopted within the General Plan suggest the characteristics these developments should take. They include: “requiring a range of housing types and densities” “designing with small front yards and visual interest including porches or patios” “varying architecture from one home to the next” “providing recessed, side entry or rear garage access by side driveways or alleys” “design alleys for rear garages” and “design a grid street system”. As directed by the General Plan, Traditional Neighborhood Design Guidelines have been adopted to use in implementing these goals. Many of these guidelines will be dealt with during the design review process. He discussed two major guidelines:

Garage Access: The guidelines recommend that 50% of all units have rear garage access. This proposal contemplates that 87% of its units will be alley accessed.

House/Lot Type Mix: The guidelines recommend that PAD’s over 400 units contain at least four (4) distinctly differently house/lot types. This application meets these guidelines with four different house/lot types.

Mr. Cronk noted that the project falls within the Williams Gateway Airport “Overflight Area III”. This fact requires that proper notice be communicated to all home buyers. In addition the project was adjacent to the Santan Freeway and there would be noise mitigation requirements along with notification to perspective homeowners relating to the noise from the freeway.

Mr. Cronk discussed the requested changes to the ULDC while viewing the conceptual site plan. He stated that access has been an issue that a number of the neighbors have been concerned about. The application for the residential portion has two access points to Recker Road, which had been aligned with development across the street. There will be a future access point to the commercial parcel. There is one access point to the north on Warner and one access point on 178th Street. There are two concerns by the residents about access. First, residents do not want the proposed development to have access rights to the road, as it was currently their private access road. The second issue was that the larger lot sizes were on the southern portion were on the applicants property with more density opposite their homes on the northern portion. The residents would prefer that the lower density, larger lots run the full distance of 178th Street. The points of access have been relocated or consolidated to meet the needs of the Traffic Division. The cut - through road from the commercial site and 178th Street has been eliminated to stop traffic from cutting through this area and to partially satisfy the neighbors concerns.

Regarding the deviations from code, Mr. Cronk indicated that there were not any deviations requested for the C - 1 or the R - CH portions of the property. Mr. Cronk used a visual aid to point out where each zoning district was located on the parcel. He reviewed the deviations that were requested for the R1 - 5 zoning district:

Proposed Development Standards
R1 - 5 P.A.D.
Development Standard        Proposed Minimum Standards for R1 - 5        ULDC Standard for
R1 - 5
Lot Width        45′        50′
Lot Depth        100′        100′
Lot Coverage        60% for single story
50% for two story        40% max
Front Setback         10′ to Living area or Side entry garage
20′ to front loaded garage        20′
Rear Setback        10′        20′
Side Yard Setback        5′         10′
Street Side Yard Setback        15′         15′
Building Height        30′ for 2 stories        30′ or 2 stories
Minimum Lot Size        4,500 sq. ft.        5,000 sq. ft.

Mr. Cronk explained that the General Plan recommends higher densities in the Gateway Area in exchange for neo - traditional designs. These deviations aid in implementing this goal. Staff supports these changes and notes that in the case of the reduced front setback, if a unit has a front accessed garage, the setback is not changed.

Mr. Cronk reviewed the R - 3 zoning deviations. He pointed out that this was a multi - family development. This applicant is proposing to build two - story “triplex” condo buildings with three housing units in each structure. All three units feature a garage and both an external access and an interior garage access. Two of the units are 3 bedrooms and each features living area on two floors, a two car garage, and a private yard. The third unit is a one bedroom unit located above the garage, on one level, featuring a one - car garage and covered patio deck. The units are accessed from the rear via a shared private drive and front/side onto landscape courtyard areas. These units will be integrated into the overall PAD. Therefore several of the deviations below relate to either providing amenities within the PAD but not necessarily on land zoned R - 3 or relocating landscaping areas so as to not isolate the “triplex” owners from the rest of the PAD. He reviewed the requested deviations:

Proposed Development Standards
R - 3 P.A.D.
Development Standard        Proposed Minimum Standards for R - 3        Standard
ULDC R - 3
Lot Area        20,000 square feet         20,000 square feet
Open Space        40% (1)        45%
Perimeter Setback         10′ (2)        20′ - 25′
Interior Setbacks        10′ (3)        20′ between units
Building Height        36′         36′

Mr. Cronk explained that the ULDC referred to traditional apartment buildings in the R - 3 zoning district. However, these units were two story, very residential looking tri - plexes. Therefore they are quite a bit different than what the ULDC intended for. Since the goal was to integrate the different housing units, many of the requirements didn’t seem appropriate as they were written to separate housing types.

Mr. Cronk discussed the open space deviation. He explained that this deviation is to alleviate the requirement to place 40% of the required open space along the street frontage. This requirement is to limit the visual impact that large apartment buildings have along the street. The proposal is very different and placing 40% of the open space along the street would detract from the large internal parks that are proposed. The amount of open space would remain the same; however it will be redistributed where it will be more functional.    He explained that open space would remain next to the arterials, but would not be required within the subdivision.

Mr. Cronk reviewed the swimming pool deletion. A swimming pool will be provided within the PAD. They are asking for the flexibility to locate it outside the R - 3 zoning district so it can be more centrally located.

Mr. Cronk stated that they would not be providing a parking lot as each unit will have a garage, and the public street will provide for guest parking.   Therefore this requirement is unnecessary.
In addition, since it was not a single apartment complex, the main entry feature would not be required. He explained that entry features are being designed for the entire PAD, but not separately the R - 3. Thus this requirement will be satisfied elsewhere within the PAD.

Mr. Cronk discussed the circulation. He noted that Warner Road to the north is a major arterial. The developer will need to dedicate 70′ of R - O - W for the entire length of their property. Recker Road is a minor arterial. The R - O - W dedication will be 70′ for the first 300′ from the intersection and 65′ thereafter.

Mr. Cronk recommended approval of the zoning change. He noted that in conditions one and two he was in error and wrote Queen Creek Road instead of Recker Road. He briefly reviewed the conditions and asked if there were any questions.

Commissioner Dan Dodge asked if 178th Street was a public street.

Mr. Cronk replied that 178th Street was a private easement. He added that the owner of the subject property had granted a non - exclusive vehicular easement to the neighbors to the east. Their access to their houses was on the subject property on 178th Street.

Commissioner Dan Dodge verified that the neighbors were asking that the owner of the street not have access to his own property.

Mr. Cronk replied that he would let the neighbors speak for themselves but that they had indicated to him that they wanted to keep their private road and not have an access point from the development to 178th Street.

Commissioner Dan Dodge questioned why the lots adjacent to the neighbors were not all larger units and why the smaller lots were along the eastern boundary.

Mr. Cronk pointed out that they had placed some of the larger units along the eastern boundary and only had a small area where the tri - plex units were located on the northern boundary. He added that there would be about 40′ of road right?of - way along 178th Street with another 40′ of common HOA landscaping between the edge of the road and the backs of the homes. He added that all of the units could have been developed in the middle density under the General Plan. By mixing three density types, they have a little over half of the larger lots next to 178th Street.

Alternate Commissioner Scott Simas noticed that for every two side yards in the higher density in the R - CH, there were four back yards in the R1 - 5 zoning district.   Therefore in the southern portion there were four backyards that took up the same distance as two side yards in the northern portion.

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 KB Homes. He noted that the property had been designated for some time to be medium to high density zoning in the General Plan and Gilbert Gateway Plan. He believed that the project was consistent with the goals of the Gilbert Gateway Plan as it had a mix of units in a Neo - Traditional plan. He agreed to all staff’s stipulations. He discussed the issues that were of concern to the neighbors.   He provided a visual aid of the existing homes to the east of the parcel. He pointed out how the homes accessed 178th Street. He explained that they had designed a streetscape along 178th Street to create a buffer from the neighbors to the east. He noted that there would be about 57′ from back of property line to the street that would create a substantial buffer. He explained that they did not carry the R1 - 5 homes all the way up 178th Street because they wanted to transition the residential densities from the corner. He pointed out that the existing home to the north was set back quite a bit which created a greater setback. In addition, they anticipated that the vacant land to the east might be consistent with the Town’s General Plan of 5 - 8 dwelling units per acre. Therefore the proposed property would be consistent with the eastern property. In addition, they wanted to create a street scene that didn’t have the same housing product along 178th Street. He added that the lots to the north sided on 178th street instead of backing onto the street, creating a one to three ratio. He indicated that the lots that back onto the street were 40′ wide and the lots that side onto the street were 80′ deep, plus the street and landscaping. He used the visual aid to point out how the higher density homes on the northern side had less homes backing onto the street. These homes would also have second story clear story windows so that they would not have a visible view to the home that was located across the 178th Street. He felt that this would create a lower impact along with the landscaping, diversity of design, setback and the number of units.

Chairman Brigette Peterson opened the public hearing. She noted that there were seven people that were opposed to the item that didn’t want to speak: David and Gabrielle Hess, 17909 E. Cathy, Higley; Tom Armer, 17909 E. Caroline Lane; Curtis Crisp, 17912 E. Cathy Drive; Carol Gleckler, 17936 E. Caroline Lane; Larry Glecker, 17936 E. Caroline Lane; Cindy Coury - Bradhurst, 17819 E. Cathy Drive; Karen Lee, 17940 E. Caroline Lane.

Ed Baker, 17923 E. Caroline Lane, Higley came forward. He pointed out that his property was located to the east of the proposed development. He wondered what happened to the transitional zoning requirements as stated in Chapter 11ሑ of the ULDC. He referred to the Ryland Homes proposal that did not go forward a few years previous because of their lack of transition to the existing development. He felt that the parcel sizes to the west should not be allowed next to their large lots. He felt that if it passed the traffic would increase to be 3500 vehicles per day on 178th Street, which would have a very detrimental impact to them. He suggested that if this were approved they should remove any access on 178th Street. He was appalled that they would consider so many deviations from the code.

Commissioner Joan Krueger referred to the number of cars that Mr. Baker quoted. She asked how she came up with this number and felt that it was a little high.

Mr. Baker replied that based on the density and access points into the development he came up with 3500 cars that would travel on 178th Street based on 6 trips per day per household.

Commissioner Joan Krueger pointed out that the development had access to Recker and Warner Roads as well. She felt that 3500 cars on 178th Street might be a little high. She referred to the deviations and noted that the case paled in comparison to deviations that they usually see on other cases. She didn’t think that the deviations were out of the question for what the development would bring to the area.   She explained that R - 3 was the best zoning district that they had to describe the product. She added that at the present time Gilbert didn’t have a more appropriate zoning district and the deviations were required to provide the nice product that was being presented. In terms of transition, she noted that the property east of the parcel was designated as 5 - 8 dwelling units per acre in the General Plan. She wasn’t sure what transition Mr. Baker was referring to.

Mr. Baker replied that he understood that the zoning requirements from R1 - 43, which was their current zoning, into a higher density required more transition than what was being proposed.

Alternate Commissioner Scott Simas stated that their goal was to have transition as much as possible. In this character area that was studied and talked about for many years, voted on and approved, their property would have been in the 5 - 8 dwelling units per acre zoning category, if it had been annexed into the Town. He stated that because it was developed as a subdivision in the County they were not a part of the Town. The Town now had set this area into place and by not doing what the character areas asked them to do they would be penalizing the homeowners and everyone that worked on that program. He added that they had denied several items in the past because they were not appropriately transitioned.   He stated that since they were county residents and not Town residents it somewhat mitigates the fact that there needs to be buffering in his opinion.

Mr. Baker replied that at some point in time they might be annexed into the Town and it would be too late to change the zoning at that point.

Commissioner Dan Dodge pointed out that there will be lower direct impact to the north on 178th Street where the higher density exists and a higher impact to the neighbors where the lower density was located. He added that more units would be placed next to them in the lower density units.

Manuel Rivera, 17844 E. Caroline Lane came forward. He used the visual aid to point out where his property was located. He was concerned about the transitional zoning requirements. He asked if the proposed property was annexed into the Town.

Chairman Brigette Peterson replied that the owner had an application for annexation into the Town.

Mr. Rivera questioned if the landscaping would run the whole length of 178th Street.

Chairman Brigette Peterson replied that the landscaping would run the whole length of 178th Street.

Stephanie Crisp, 17912 E. Cathy Drive came forward. She was concerned about the traffic on 178th Street and that this traffic would come down their streets, which were dead end streets. She described how her children walked in the neighborhood and that they would lose this ability. She explained how she tried to get the development annexed and that many of the neighbors were opposed to this.   She was also afraid of security with the new development.

Commissioner Dan Dodge commented that the plan would be for the road to be improved and sidewalks should be included. Signage was also included in road improvements, so he encouraged Ms. Crisp to work with the Town to obtain “Dead End” signs for her streets.

Commissioner Karl Kohlhoff questioned if the streets that her development were on were streets or private easements.

Ms. Crisp replied that the streets were private easements that they maintained themselves. She described how they had paved the streets themselves.

Alternate Commissioner Scott Simas asked if Ms. Crisp was aware of the Gateway Character area.

Ms. Crisp was not aware of the Gateway Character area, just that the density would be increased but transitioned.

Al Schleppe, 17916 E. Cathy Drive came forward. He pointed out where his home was located. He felt that the R - 3 properties would be rentals. He questioned whether the Gilbert ULDC code or the Gilbert General Plan took preference. He described a business plan that he needed to conform to the ULDC. He added that in the code there needed to be a transition area between adjacent properties, especially if they were already in existence.

Chairman Brigette Peterson explained that they used all of the things that Mr. Schleppe referred to. She added that the Gilbert General Plan was used, then the zoning was used and finally the ULDC was used to provide the rules for the zoning and how things were laid out on the property.

Nathan Thurber, 4243 S. Spendor Place came forward. He pointed out the parcel that he was going to purchase. He explained that he was a father of four boys and wanted to raise his family in a country setting. He was concerned about the number of accesses to the proposed development. In driving around most of the communities in the area he found that most of them only had two or three access points and not four like what was being proposed. He asked the Commission to consider removing the access off of 178th Street.

Chairman Brigette Peterson pointed out that they were asking the owner of the property not to use their own road or property.

Commissioner Karl Kohlhoff was concerned about access for public services for safety. He questioned whether Mr. Thurber would want the police and fire departments to use 178th Street in case of an emergency.

Mr. Thurber felt that the access off of Warner and Recker would be sufficient. In addition, there was southern access that could be used in case of emergency.

Commissioner Joan Krueger described the Gateway Character area. She referred to the visual aid of the area for the public to view. She explained that this was a very important part of how Gilbert was going to be developed.

Mr. Cronk noted that the Gateway Character area was bounded by Warner, Power, Pecos and Higley Roads.

Commissioner Joan Krueger pointed out that if their properties were annexed into the Town they would be located in the middle of this area. She explained that the area had development standards that would impact the area around them. She was concerned that the public felt that this was a rural area when there was a lot of development planned to go around them.

Roy Daniel, 17822 E. Cathy Drive came forward. He provided a visual aid of the proposal of Ryland Homes that was done in 1999 on the proposed property. He explained that it had 380 units, which were fewer than what was currently being proposed. Several Council members felt that this was not a good transition and the item was continued. Two weeks later the builder withdrew their application. A couple of years later they amended the Gilbert General Plan amendment and at the meetings they were assured by the Chairman that they would be protected by the ULDC with transitional zoning. He didn’t find anything in the code that indicated that it only applied to members of the Town of Gilbert.

Chairman Brigette Peterson responded that since it was a Town of Gilbert document it applied to the Town of Gilbert residents and the planning area of the Town of Gilbert.

Mr. Daniel commented that the ULDC did not specify that it only applied to Town of Gilbert residents and that it referred to existing developments and R1 - 43 zoning districts. He added that it

required that transitional zoning be applied. He requested that the Commission apply the rules set forth in the ULDC and that they deny the proposal.

Wallace Ashcroft, 4351 S. Splendor Court, Gilbert came forward. He pointed out the parcel that he was purchasing on the east side of 178th Street. He stated that he was a father of three boys under the age of six and was concerned about the traffic along 178th Street. He asked for a fair balance in providing larger lots along 178th Street to create a better transition.

Granison Shines, 12044 178th Street came forward. He pointed out the two acres that he would be moving to on the east side of 178th Street. He was concerned about the traffic on 178th Street. He felt that people would use 178th Street as a short cut since it wasn’t as busy as Warner and Recker Roads. He was also concerned about more crime in the area with the higher density properties.

Robert Miska, 17939 E. Caroline Lane came forward. He stated that when they become part of the Town it would be too late to create a transitional area between the two developments. He added that no one ever mentioned the Gateway Area Plan. He was informed about the Santan Freeway and the Light Industrial properties that were planned to the east of him, but he was never informed of the high density housing planned in the area.

Allen Perdue, 17804 E. Caroline Lane came forward. He pointed out where his home was located on the east side of 178th Street. He was concerned that they were not a part of the community and that the rules for transitional zoning don’t apply to them. He pointed out that their community was in existence with one - acre lots. He didn’t think that it was appropriate to place six to seven homes per acre across the street from his one home per acre development. He felt that they would have poverty level residents living next to them in the high - density rental homes.

Matt Ulrich, 4554 E. Campbell Court came forward. He stated that he was representing Ulrich Group and Beneficial and they owned the ten acres on the east side of 178th Street. He stated that it was mentioned earlier that the five parcels that Mr. Lake referred to earlier would be annexed into the Town and be 5 - 8 units per acre. He explained that his plan was to sell part of the lots in the R - 43 County zoning and build a home in there as well. He wanted to make sure that the Commission was aware that the homes to the north on the east side of 178th Street would not be high density.

Mark Novad, 17814 E. Cathy Drive came forward. He thought there was a precedence set in 1999 when Ryland Homes came in with a proposal for a development. He felt that the housing down 178th Street was not well planned and should be single family homes all the way down the road.

Mark Lee, 17940 E. Caroline Lane came forward. He stated that they all built their homes because they wanted to live in a rural community. He requested that the Commission require the applicant to place larger homes along 178th Street to provide a better transition. He understood that there was going to be development in the area, just that the higher density be placed away from their homes.

Jack Broadhurst, 17819 E. Cathy Drive came forward. He announced that he had been a police officer for 27 years and that he investigated fatal collisions for a living. He was afraid of what would happen if 178th Street was opened up to the new housing development. He suggested that they provide a police and fire gate only onto 178th Street. He thought many people would use 178th Road as a shortcut to get to Power Road and the freeway creating a safety issue.

Kathy Tucker, 12425 S. 178th Street came forward. She stated that she had lived in her home, which was on five acres, for 20 years. She pointed out her home on the visual aid. She felt that this would lower the value of their home. Since they were Maricopa County residents they were not able to vote on the Gilbert General Plan even though it would affect them greatly. She described how this would change their lifestyles drastically.

Steve Tucker, 12425 S. 178th Street came forward. He was concerned about safety on 178th Street. He referred to the Ryland Homes proposal that only had two access points and felt that this was sufficient. He thought they were being discriminated against because so many more homes were being placed on the north end of the parcel. He asked that the Commission require larger lots against their homes on 178th Street.

Steven Skousen, 17918 E. Caroline Lane came forward. He pointed out his home on the visual aid and noted how many lots were being proposed across the street from their development. He thought that they needed to provide a better transition according to the classifications listed in the ULDC, Chapter 11ሒC. He read from the code “The principal purpose of these zoning districts is to conserve and protect single family residential developments that were suitable and appropriate, taking into consideration existing conditions, including present use of the land, present lot sizes and future land use and needs.” He noted that there was a huge difference in the existing homes and what was being proposed as new housing. He referred to the ULDC 11ሐC where it refers to planned or exiting streets, if collector streets and people have access to that street, that they should not be collector streets to new developments. He pointed out the homes that had direct access to the street. In following the code, he concluded that this cannot be allowed.

Tony Perre, 17833 E. Caroline Lane came forward. He stated that the development south of them, Ashley Heights, has 500 units and only two streets for access. The development west of Recker Road, The Gardens, had a total of 716 units with three access points. He didn’t think that access was needed on 178th Street. He added that the residents in his area had paid the owner to use this road. He asked the Commission to require the applicant to be consistent with access points that were provided in the area for other developments instead of allowing five to six access points.

Deanna Daniel, 17822 E. Cathy Drive came forward. She provided a visual aid of the existing development with the proposed development across 178th Street. She stated that they had paid the owner twice for access to the road. She explained that when they bought their land they were told about the airport and freeway. She asked for better transition between her property and the proposed property. She was concerned about safety on 178th Street.

Chairman Brigette Peterson closed the public hearing.

Town Attorney Phillis Smiley commented that there had been a lot of mention about the transitional zoning and the requirements of 11ሑ of the ULDC. The Zoning Administrator had written an opinion on the subject that they do not have with them that evening. She stated that they had spoken with the applicant and they would like to ask the Commission to continue their decision on the matter until they could read the interpretation and incorporated it into the staff report for a clearer presentation.

Chairman Brigette Peterson requested that they speak with Town Traffic Engineer Bruce Ward in case he couldn’t be with them later. She asked Mr. Ward what he thought the traffic flow might be on 178th Street.

Town Traffic Engineer Bruce Ward stated that they had been working with the applicant for the past couple of months to provide four access point, including 178th Street. In evaluating the normal 9 trips per day per dwelling unit it would come to 4500 vehicles per day. Since most of them would take Recker and Warner Roads, he felt that there would be about 600 vehicles at the most using 178th Street. He felt that there would be easier access at Recker and Warner with a signal at the main entrance. He pointed out where the main access would be off Recker Road.

Commissioner Karl Kohlhoff questioned what the traffic would be at build out on Warner Road. He also wondered what the capacity of the freeway would be.

Mr. Ward replied that they estimated 30,000 to 35,000 vehicles per day on Warner Road. The freeway was estimated to carry 80,000 to 100,000 vehicles per day.

Vice Chairman Michael Monroe questioned if there would be full access on 178th Street and if it would be signalized.

Mr. Ward replied that the access depended on whether there was enough room to get a full access. If it was less than 660′ from the previous access point they would have either a three quarter motion or a right - in and right - out. He added that the only way they would provide a signal was if it meets the warrants based on a manual uniformed traffic devises. He didn’t this would happen, at least not for a long time.

Commissioner Karl Kohlhoff commented that change was inevitable. He stated that he came to Gilbert in 1972 on a two acre parcel on the corner of Val Vista and Elliot. He mentioned that the Gilbert Gateway Plan was a product of over three years of hard work by about 35 people. He explained that the need for this was based on Williams Gateway. In order to support the Gateway Airport and ASU East, who plans to have about 20,000 students, the density would need to increase in the area.

Alternate Commissioner Scott Simas felt that it was important for people in the audience to not assume his position or anyone else’s position based on the questions that they ask. He appreciated the public who had presented their ideas and conducted themselves in a respectable manner. He added that the Gateway Area was worked on for many hours, but it may not be a perfect plan and does have some issues ? just like this case. He commented that it was not inevitable that they would be annexed into the Town as it needed to be requested by the homeowners. He informed the audience that in the past they had supported Chandler residents in a zoning case. He stated that his comment earlier was not meant to be that they were not part of the community, it was meant to be that unfortunately since they lived in the County they were not able to vote on the Character Area. He suggested that the audience continue to be vigilant and the Commission would listen to their comments objectively.

Commissioner Dan Dodge referred to the point that Mr. Swanson brought up in the last case, which was that Arizona State law mandates that the Commission zone property in a manner consistent with the General Plan. He added that they could not zone the property R1 - 15 if they wanted to, it would not be allowed by law. Therefore, since the General Plan required that the project be 5 - 8 units per acre, the current proposal would be consistent at 6 units per acre. He reminded the audience that they were not discussing a site plan or plat and this would be discussed later. He suggested that the staff and applicant make some changes to the site plan before it comes to them as a preliminary plat in response to the neighbors concerns. Based on Mr. Ward’s comments, he didn’t feel that there would be a great impact on 178th Street. He added that he would find it difficult to tell the applicant that they cannot have access to their own property. He questioned what the standards to which 178th Street would be improved to.

Planning Director Jerry Swanson informed the Commission that since it was only a half right of way, it would only be a 40′ dedication. A collector street was normally 66′. He thought that they would only provide a sidewalk on the west side that had frontage improvements. He added that this would be a function of how the drainage would work and where the retention will exist. He stated that it would be a minimum of 24′ paved street with at least a sidewalk on the west side.

Commissioner Dan Dodge questioned if they could place some sort of traffic calming devise on the street.

Mr. Swanson replied that generally they discouraged speed bumps unless it was in an older designed neighborhood where there were homes that front directly on the street. He added that they were a problem for emergency vehicles. He deferred to Mr. Ward’s judgment on the issue.

Mr. Ward commented that their current policy adopted by the Town Council was that speed humps would not be placed on collector roads. He added that there were other alternatives for traffic calming devices that could be used.

Commissioner Dan Dodge noted that there were homes that fronted directly on that road.

Alternate Commissioner Scott Simas questioned the home owners about the payment that was made to the land owner for access to the easement.

Chairman Brigette Peterson stated that this went well beyond their purview and the neighbors would need to discuss this with the owner.

Alternate Commissioner Scott Simas responded that this impacted whether they had a right to the property.

Chairman Brigette Peterson commented that this would be an issue between those residents and the owner.

Alternate Commissioner Scott Simas recommended that the residents follow up on this issue and talk to him after the meeting.

A motion was made by Commissioner Joan Krueger, seconded by Vice Chairman Michael Monroe, to continue Z03 - 44 to the July 7 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting.

Motion Carried 6 - 0.

Commissioner Dan Dodge questioned if they continue the item if it was assumed that they discuss the whole case again or if they could discuss just the new items.

Planning Director Jerry Swanson advised that it was the discretion of the Commission to determine if they wanted to reopen the public hearing or just open it for a limited purpose, discussing new information. Or, he stated that they could start all over again.

Commissioner Joan Krueger suggested that they not require everyone to repeat everything over again at the next meeting and just discuss the new information at the meeting.

Chairman Brigette Peterson agreed that they could discuss any new information and review the information stated through the use of the minutes of the meeting. She thanked the homeowners for coming and participating in the system.

At 9:00 P.M. Chairman Brigette Peterson requested that the Commission take a short break. The Commission resumed at 9:10 P.M.

Vice Chairman Michael Monroe left the Commission for the evening and did not return after the break.

GP04 - 4 - Minor General Plan amendment, changing the land use designation for 23 acres from Residential >14 - 25 DU/acre to NO (Neighborhood Office) at the northwest corner of Val Vista Drive and Frye Road. Mike Milillo 503 - 6747

Z04 - 8 - Change in zoning classification for approximately 23 acres from (R - 4) Multi - family Residence to (NCC) Neighborhood Convenience Commercial at the northwest corner of Val Vista Drive and Frye Road. Mike Milillo 503 - 6747

Senior Planner Mike Milillo informed the Commission that the request was for the Commission to recommend approval of the Spectrum at Val Vista Parcel 3 Minor General Plan amendment to change the General Plan Land Use Category from Residential >14 - 25 du/ac to Neighborhood Office for approximately 23 acres located at the northwest corner of Frye Road and Val Vista Drive. In addition there was a request for the Planning and Zoning Commission to recommend approval to change the zoning designation on an approximately 23 - acre site from Multi - Residential (R - 4) to Neighborhood Community Commercial (NCC) in the Spectrum at Val Vista Planned Area Development located at the northwest corner of Frye Road and Val Vista Drive. He pointed out where the property was located on the visual aid. He pointed out surrounding land uses and Zoning Districts:
Existing Land Use Category        Existing Zoning

North:        (R - C) Regional Commercial         (C - 2) General Commercial with a PAD overlay
East:        Residential > 5 - 8 DU/ Acre         (R - 3) Multi - family Residential
South:        Residential > 5 - 8 DU/ Acre        (R - 2) Duplex
West:        Residential > 2 - 3Ǒ DU/ Acre         (R1 - 6) Single - family Residential with a PAD overlay

Regarding the General Plan analysis, Mr. Milillo stated that the General Plan amendment will change the land use designation on approximately 23 acres from Residential >14 - 25 du/ac to Residential >1 - 2 du/ac in order to conform to the existing residential land use in this neighborhood. The existing land use category would accommodate zoning districts ranging from R - 3 to R - 4. The proposed land use category is appropriate for the small - scale single story office uses and complexes adjacent to existing or planned neighborhoods. It is a transitional classification between residential and more intense commercial uses and can buffer residential uses from arterial streets.

Mr. Milillo provided a visual aid of the General Plan land use map of the area. He stated that the applicant asserts the Neighborhood Office designation is the ideal land use for this property as it adjoins existing single - family residential to the west and provides opportunity for office/employment uses. The successful development of the Kohl’s project to the north and the intense commercial and industrial uses adjacent to the freeway on Val Vista create an opportunity for a parcel of this size to be developed for small single - story office development. Although staff originally expressed concern related to the General Plan goal of maintaining a balance and diversity of housing types, we find the applicant’s argument compelling, as noted in the zoning discussion below, and support the requested minor General Plan amendment.

Mr. Milillo discussed the zoning proposal. The existing zoning on the subject property is R - 4 Multi - family Residential. This zoning would accommodate between 340 and 500 apartment units. Staff analyzed this request and identified three main concerns with the rezoning: (1) the potential loss of multi - family dwelling units within the Spectrum at Val Vista PAD and their replacement with the proposed employment uses as well as the additional potential loss of multi - family units as a result of the re - alignment of Pecos Road at Parcel 12; (2) concern that this request does not meet the General Plan goals of maintaining a balance of housing types, providing a variety of employment opportunities with easily accessible retail and service uses and to provide appropriate locations for multi - family residential uses that does not adversely impact lower density residential neighborhoods and; (3) the impact on the sustainability of the commercial and specialty retail uses in the area with the loss of multi - family units.

Mr. Milillo explained that in response to these concerns, the applicant notes that the re - alignment of Pecos Road affects two parcels within the Spectrum; Parcel 11 and Parcel 12. Prior to the re - alignment of Pecos Road, Parcel 11 could be developed with 239 high - density dwelling units on 14ቖ acres with a density of 15Ǖ du/ac. Parcel 12 allowed for 302 high - density dwelling units on 18ቍ acres with a density of 16ᇺ du/ac. The re - alignment of Pecos Road would increase the size of Parcel 11 by 0ሒ acres and would allow for 4 more high - density dwelling units. Parcel 12 would decrease in size by only 0Ǒ acres with a loss of only 8 high - density dwelling units. While the Pecos Road re - alignment does result in a net decrease of 4 dwelling units, the re - alignment does not affect the overall density within Spectrum. The applicant goes on to note that even with the loss of the approximately 23 acres of high - density acreage and potentially 336 apartment units with this rezone and general plan amendment request, approximately 70 acres remain for the development of high - density residential land uses within the Spectrum.

Mr. Millillo commented that the applicant responded to staff’s second and third concerns by agreeing that balance and diversity are important to successful planning and development, but arguing that this concern should be at least partially alleviated by the fact that the subject requests would not result in a significant reduction of multi - family residential densities within the Spectrum. There will still be approximately 70 acres allotted for high - density residential uses providing a variety of housing types. Another factor to consider is that the future auto mall, commercial uses and specialty retail uses proposed within the Spectrum and the vicinity are regional in nature and will be supported not only by people living and working in Gilbert but people from Queen Creek, southeast Chandler, and other communities in the southeast Valley. The applicant argues further that the loss of between 340 and 500 apartment units would not significantly impact the overall success of this large commercial and retail area.

In addition, Mr. Milillo stated that the owner/applicant believes that there is a demand for office space in this area and that the rezoning and general plan amendment proposed for the subject property will not negatively impact the Town with regard to General Plan goals and planning principles in general.    He commented that staff agrees and finds that the development of this site into a high - quality office development will complement the Spectrum in terms of design, landscaping and interconnectivity to adjacent developments and will also allow for the opportunity for Gilbert residents to live and work within the Spectrum community. Staff has added a condition requiring pedestrian connections to neighborhoods and future transit service in conformance with the Town’s Long - Range Transit Plan. He recommended that the Commission recommend approval of the items.

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

Ralph Pew, 10 W. Main Street, Mesa came forward. He announced that he was there on behalf of W Development. He agreed with the staff recommendation and agreed to the stipulations. He noted that the one element in the Spectrum PAD that was missing was neighborhood office and urged the Commission’s support.

Commissioner Dan Dodge was concerned about the loss of multi - family residential. He thought that Gilbert was becoming a community in which the service workers could not afford to live in. He asked if there was a plan to make up for this loss in other areas of the Spectrum PAD.

Mr. Pew replied that there were not any other parcels that could be changed to multi - family. He added that what was proposed for the multi - family in the PAD was 70 acres and approximately 1000 units.

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

Wayne King, 2729 S. Butte Lane came forward. He noted that his property was directly west of the development. He was in favor of the application and thought that it was a better use for the Town. He discussed the other multi - family housing that was available in the area. He questioned if the office complex was proposed to be single story. He was concerned about security and requested that the retention area be placed along the west property line if possible to provide more space between their properties. He added that he would like the parking to be placed as far from the fence as possible and not allow carports to be placed along the west boundary. He asked if it was possible to require landscape in the retention area to make it more secure. He questioned when the next public hearing would be held regarding the case.

Mr. Swanson replied that the item was scheduled for the July 6, Town Council hearing.

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

Alternate Commissioner Scott Simas suggested that Mr. King attend the Design Review Board hearing regarding his concerns.

A motion was made by Commissioner Karl Kohlhoff, seconded by Alternate Commissioner Scott Simas, to recommend to the Town Council approval of GP04 - 4, a Minor General Plan amendment.

Motion Carried 5 - 0.

A motion was made by Commissioner Karl Kohlhoff, seconded by Commissioner Joan Krueger, to recommend to the Town Council approval of Z04 - 8, the rezoning for the Spectrum at Val Vista Parcel 3, subject to staff conditions.

Motion Carried 5 - 0.

Staff recommends the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend to the Town Council, approval of the Minor General Plan amendment (GP04 - 4) and the rezoning (Z04 - for Spectrum at Val Vista Parcel 3, subject to the following conditions:

a.        All of the conditions and requirements of Ordinance No. 1209 as amended by ordinances No. 1285, 1373, 1431, and 1539 shall remain in full force and effect, unless otherwise amended by the conditions below.

b.        Direct pedestrian connections shall be provided to the adjacent neighborhoods to the west and to the future mass transit service along Val Vista Drive.

Z04 - 12 - Amend the required side yard setbacks on a 45 - acre parcel zoned R1 - 5 from 10′ and 10′ to 10′ and 5′ at the northwest corner of Chandler Heights and Higley Roads. Mike Milillo 503 - 6747

Senior Planner Mike Milillo informed the Commission that Z04 - 12 was a request to amend the required side yard setbacks on a 45 - acre parcel zoned R1 - 5 from 10′ and 10′ to 10′ and 5′ at the northwest corner of Chandler Heights and Higley Roads. He reviewed the surrounding land uses:
Surrounding land uses:
Direction        General Plan Designation        Existing Zoning
North:        Residential >2 ? 3Ǒ du/ac.        R1 - 7 and R1 - 8 PAD
East:        Residential >2 ? 3Ǒ du/ac.                 R1 - 7 and R1 - 8 PAD
South:        Residential >2 ? 3Ǒ du/ac.        R1 - 7 PAD
West:        Residential >2 ? 3Ǒ du/ac.        R1 - 7 and R1 - 8 PAD

Mr. Milillo pointed out that this residential project was located in the center of the 344 - acre Shamrock Estates PAD. The subject 45 - acre parcel is currently zoned R1 - 5, Single - family Residential with a PAD Overlay. The approved subdivision plat for this parcel includes 163 lots on approximately 45 acres. The applicant proposes to amend the approved PAD to modify the side yard setbacks on the R1 - 5 lots to accommodate a wider variety of housing product on the already platted development.

Mr. Milillo discussed the project data:
Gross Site Acreage:        45ǐ ac.
Existing Zoning:        R1 - 5 PAD
Proposed Zoning:
Approved Density         Same as Existing
2ǐ du/ac
Minimum front yard dimension        15′
Minimum side yard dimension
Minimum rear yard dimension        5′ and 10′
15′
Minimum lot size        5,000 sq. ft.
Number of Units Proposed:        163 dwelling units

Mr. Milillo noted that the R1 - 5 PAD zoning on this parcel was approved with minor deviations from the Code required R1 - 5 development standards. The 5,000 sq. ft. lot size provided is the minimum size required by the Code. The approved front and rear yard setbacks are 5′ less than the Code requires. As noted above, the applicant is requesting amendments to allow for side yard setbacks of 5′ and 10′ instead of 10′ and 10′ on this parcel. The reason for the request is to allow for a 35′ - wide housing product to be built on the R1 - 5 lots instead of a 30′ - wide housing product. A 35 - wide product would allow for larger, higher value homes to be constructed with greater variety (i.e. more single - story homes). The applicant feels strongly that the proposed housing product will be a more appropriate fit with the surrounding planned homes within Shamrock Estates.

Mr. Milillo announced that staff finds the requested reduction in the side yard setbacks from 10′ to 5′, a 5′ reduction on one side of the house, is a minor deviation and will be mitigated by the benefits of having a wider variety of homes in this subdivision. In addition, the deviation will be limited to one subdivision in the center of Shamrock Estates PAD and will have no impact outside of this master planned community. He recommended approval of the request and asked for questions.

Commissioner Dan Dodge commented that generally when they were asked to allow deviations there was a benefit to the community. He questioned what the benefit would be for the community in this request.

Mr. Milillo replied that the benefit would be that there would be a wider variety of housing products to be built on the lots than would otherwise be possible. He added the applicant had made other changes that didn’t require deviations from the code, such as increasing the depth of the lots.

Planning Director Jerry Swanson commented that this was an unusual circumstance because the applicant didn’t ask for the deviation in the original proposal, like everyone else had. He pointed out that this was the new proposed standard that would be in the new Land Development Code if it adopted as proposed.

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

Tom Blake, 6720 N. Scottsdale Road, Scottsdale representing Taylor Woodrow Homes came forward. He stated that it wasn’t originally requested because it was an oversight. He requested that the Commission approve the request.

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 Karl Kohlhoff, to recommend to the Town Council approval of Z04 - 12, subject to conditions.

Motion Carried 5 - 0.

Staff recommends approval of Z04 - 12, the amendment to the Shamrock Estates PAD, subject to the following conditions:

a.        All of the conditions of Ordinance No. 1357 approved in rezoning case Z00 - 25, shall remain in full force and effect, unless otherwise amended by the conditions below.

b.        This 45 - acre Project as defined in Exhibit A, shall be developed in conformance with the Town’s zoning requirements for the R1 - 5 zoning district, except as modified by these conditions. All R1 - 5 single - family residential lots in the Shamrock Estates PAD shall comply with the following standards:

Zoning        No. of Lots        Min. Lot Area
(sq. ft.)        Min. Lot Dimensions        Lot Coverage        Building Setbacks
Front*        Side**        Rear
R1 - 5        163        5,000        50′ x 100′        40%        15′ ? 20′
19′ to garage        5′ & 10′        15′

*        Front yard setbacks shall be staggered, such that no more than two adjacent lots have the same setback. Front yard setbacks should vary within a range of five feet, with a minimum three foot variation between any adjacent lot. For R1 - 5, R1 - 7, and R1 - 8 lots, a 15 - foot front yard setback shall be allowed for side entry garages and for attached and detached garages recessed a minimum of 35 - feet from the front property line.

**        All side yards shall meet the “clear zone” requirements of Ordinance No. 803 as modified. All lots siding onto arterials shall have a minimum 15 - foot side yard setback.

***    For R1 - 5, R1 - 7, and R1 - 8 lots backing onto arterials, minimum rear yard setback is 25 feet for single story and 35 feet for two stories, and for lots backing onto commercially zoned parcels, the minimum setback is 25 feet.

UP04 - 6 - Use Permit for a helipad in conjunction with the Mercy Gilbert Medical Center facility. The helipad will operate on 4,225 square feet area of phase I for this facility which encompasses 30ሔ acres at the northeast corner of Val Vista Drive and future Hospital Access Road. The site is zoned (C - 2) General Commercial with a PAD overlay. Maria Cadavid 503 - 6812

Planning Manager Maria Cadavid informed the Commission that UP04 - 6 was a request for a Use Permit for a helipad in conjunction with the Mercy Gilbert Medical Center facility.   She provided an exhibit, which illustrated the location of the hospital, which was located next to the freeway. She also provided a visual aid of the General Plan map, which addressed the growth areas for the Town. She explained that next to the freeway the Town was anticipating the most intense development and employment opportunities. She reviewed the surrounding land uses:

Existing Land Use Category        Existing Zoning

North:        Santan Freeway and RC (Regional Commercial) beyond        (C - 2) General Commercial with a PAD overlay
East:        Residential > 0 - 1 DU/ Acre         R - 43 Maricopa County
South:        Residential > 0 - 1 DU/ Acre        R - 43 Maricopa County
West:        SC (Shopping Center)        (C - 2) General Commercial with a PAD overlay

Ms. Cadavid indicated that the staff would be coming to the Commission with a proposal to initiate some further analysis of the southern area adjacent to the hospital boundaries. She provided a visual aid of the site plan that was approved with the processing of the Phase 1A, which was under construction. She noted that Phase 1B would be the helipad accessory use and was necessary for the function of the hospital.

Ms. Cadavid reviewed the findings necessary for the Use Permit. She discussed the ingress and egress. She pointed out that the helipad site is proposed on the rear of the hospital. Vehicular access is provided off of Hospital Access road per the circulation layout already approved with the rezoning case. Pedestrian accessibility will be available from the emergency room to the helipad site. The Town’s Traffic Engineer has no comments on the proposal, and the Arizona Department of Transportation also doesn’t have any comments for or against the use at this time. In addition, the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration does not object the proposal and have imposed conditions that include ingress and egress requirements according to their standards.

Ms. Cadavid discussed the second item that constitutes the compatibility standards, which is the off street parking. She pointed out on the visual aid that the site plan depicts over 10 parking spaces for ambulances between the emergency room and the helipad site.

Ms. Cadavid stated that the utilities will be available to the site upon completion of the hospital which constitutes phase I of the project.   Regarding the screening and buffering, Ms. Cadavid noted that the immediate surrounding uses are commercial and will not be impacted by this use. The helipad will be located to the northeast of the hospital and adjacent to the freeway. The helipad site will be screened by the perimeter wall of the project recommended to be 20′ height by the Neighborhood Environmental Design Analysis.

Ms. Cadavid reviewed the signs and exterior lighting requirements. She indicated that due to the helipad ground location the lighting is limited to ground mounted around the pad per FAA requirements. Although the master sign plan has not been submitted for the hospital, the applicant in his narrative does not address signage proposal with this use.

Regarding the hours of operation, Ms. Cadavid stated that the helipad may be used at any time of the day. However, its location between the hospital building and adjacent commercial uses (north and west), and tentative flight path (use of the freeway corridor) will minimize any impact on residential uses to the east.   Based on the analysis, she announced that staff supported the Use Permit.

Commissioner Dan Dodge questioned when the helipad would go into operation.

Ms. Cadavid replied that the hospital was to be completed by January of 2006 and the helipad should be built at that time.

Commissioner Dan Dodge asked if they knew an estimate of the departures and arrivals from this facility.

Ms. Cadavid responded that the trips would be determined by need. She deferred the question to the applicant.

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

Ralph Pew, 10 W. Main Street, Mesa representing Catholic Healthcare West came forward. He wasn’t sure how many flights the helipad would have. He pointed out that this was an ideal location for a helipad since it was in the middle of the site, buffered by surrounding buildings. He added that the flight pattern would follow the freeway to mitigate the noise.

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 Karl Kohlhoff, to approve UP04 - 6 for a helipad as part of the Gateway Medical Campus proposed at the southeast corner of Val Vista Drive and the future alignment of the Santan freeway.

Motion Carried 5 - 0.

Staff recommends approval of a Use Permit to allow the operation of a helipad in conjunction with Mercy Gilbert Medical Center subject to the following condition:

1.        The construction and location of the helipad shall be in general conformance with the Site Plan included as Attachment 2.

GP04 - 6 - Minor General Plan amendment to change the land use designation of approximately 1 acre from Residential >1 - 2 DU/Acre to (GO) General Office east of the northeast corner of Greenfield and Guadalupe Roads. Linda Edwards 503 - 6750

Z04 - 10 - Change the zoning classification for approximately 1 acre from (R1 - 20) Residential to (NCC) Neighborhood Convenience Commercial east of the northeast corner of Greenfield and Guadalupe Roads. Linda Edwards 503 - 6750

Planning Manager Linda Edwards provided graphics of the site and the surrounding uses. She briefly described the surrounding uses:
GP Land Use Designation        Zoning Designation, Existing Use
North        Residential 1 - 2 DU/acre        R1 - 20, church parking lot and back yard of one single family residence (Carriage Parc Estates)
East        (U/TR) Utility/Transportation Corridor        AG, Eastern Canal
South        (P/R) Parks/Retention        PF/OS, Guadalupe Road, then Riparian Area
West        Residential 1 - 2 DU/acre        R1 - 20, church
On Site        Residential 1 - 2 DU/acre        R1 - 20, single family residence and horse pasture

Ms. Edwards provided a graphic of the home to the north of the proposed parcel. She noted that a neighborhood meeting was held on September 23, 2003. There were two members of the public in attendance representing homeowners associations. The public recommended the buildings be limited to one - story, cross access be permitted with the church to alleviate parking problems on Quinn Avenue, and landscaping along the canal be friendly to horses. She pointed out that there was only one residential parcel that was next to the proposed development. She added that the home was set back over 100′ from the property line.

Ms. Edwards used a visual aid of the existing structure to discuss the proposal to add two more office buildings on the site. She provided a visual of the church to the west and the parking lot that backed onto half of the property line.

Ms. Edwards discussed the General Plan amendment request. The site is designated on the General Plan Land Use Map as Residential 1 - 2 DU/Acre. The proposed land use designation of General Office designates areas for medical, professional, general or service - type office uses. This one - acre parcel is surrounded by a canal on the west, a minor arterial and Riparian area on the south, a church parking lot on the west and north, and by the church parking lot and 1 residence on the north. The proposed office use for this parcel is an appropriate low intensity use for this infill parcel and provides an acceptable transition from surrounding land uses.   Therefore staff was recommending approval of the amendment.

Ms. Edwards reviewed the rezoning request. She noted that the following standards apply to the NCC zoning district: A 20′ landscape setback and a 25′ building setback is required when adjacent to R1 - 20. A 20′ landscape setback is required along Guadalupe. A building height of two stories or 30′ is permitted.

Ms. Edwards pointed out that the property was currently partially developed with a single - family residence and a horse pasture. Guadalupe Road along the southern boundary is a minor arterial and is fully improved with sidewalk, 2 lanes in each direction and a center turn lane. The intent of (NCC) Neighborhood Convenience Commercial zoning is to provide for convenience shopping and easy access to basic services for the immediate neighborhood. The NCC district limits hours of operation to 8 am to 10 pm Monday through Friday and reduced hours on the weekend. Liquor stores and gas stations are prohibited. The intended use of office is permitted. A two - story structure with a maximum height of 30 feet is permitted. Staff does not have a concern with this height adjacent to the existing R1 - 20 zoning district and notes that the existing home adjacent to the north is set back more than 100 feet from the property line. The proposed NCC district is in conformance with the proposed General Plan land use designation of General Office.

Ms. Edwards reviewed the public input. She noted that she received a phone call from the adjacent neighbor, Ms. Bowman. In this conversation she expressed her concerns over noise from car doors, there would be lights that would spill from the property into their back yard, it would prohibit views from the Ripterian Exhibit, garbage could collect in the area and she was concerned that her property value would go down. In addition, she was concerned that other uses besides office would be permitted that would have a greater impact.

Ms. Edwards stated that they supported the proposed General Office General Plan designation and NCC zoning district designation for this project.

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

Richard Andrews, 2101 E. Cortez Drive, Gilbert came forward. He announced that he was representing the property owner, Stacy Brimhall, which he stated needed to be corrected on the staff report. He discussed the neighborhood input and added that there was one additional issue that they were still working on, a parking issue that currently existed in the neighborhood that attended the church. He explained that they were going to propose a cross access easement to the church. He requested that the Commission approve the project and that they agreed to the conditions.

Alternate Commissioner Scott Simas questioned if Mr. Andrews had spoken to the church about this issue.

Mr. Andrews replied that they had discussed it with the church and they had letters from the church indicating that they support this and would work with them to supply this easement.

Chairman Brigette Peterson opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wanted to speak on the item. She announced that Henry and Kathleen Bowman, 2763 E. Pegasus Street, were no longer present that evening but that they had filled out a slip stating that they were opposed to the item because of invasion of backyard privacy, and that it promotes noise pollution.

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

A motion was made by Commissioner Dan Dodge, seconded by Commissioner Karl Kohlhoff, to recommend to the Town Council approval of GP04 - 6.

Motion Carried 5 - 0.

A motion was made by Commissioner Dan Dodge, seconded by Commissioner Karl Kohlhoff, to recommend to the Town Council approval of Z04 - 10, changing the zoning of approximately 1 acre of land from (R1 - 20) Single Family Residential to (NCC) Neighborhood Convenience Commercial, subject to conditions.

Motion Carried 5 - 0.

Recommend approval to the Town Council of Z04 - 10, changing the zoning classification of approximately 1 acre of land from (R1 - 20) Single Family Residential to (NCC) Neighborhood Convenience Commercial, subject to the following condition:

a.         Developer shall create a Property Owner’s 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. Maintenance responsibilities for common areas and open space areas shall be specified on the approved site plan or final plat.

ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS

Minutes - Regular Meeting Minutes of May 5, 2004.

Alternate Commissioner Scott Simas announced that he had one correction on the minutes. On page 13 at the top he made the motion to recommend denial, but he was listed as one of the “nay” votes.

Chairman Brigette Peterson recalled that the two nay votes were Commissioner James Beene and Commissioner Shane Leonard.

A motion was made by Commissioner Joan Krueger, seconded by Commissioner Dan Dodge, to approve the regular Meeting Minutes of May 5, 2004, changing the nay vote on Z03 - 42 from Alternate Commissioner Scott Simas to Commissioner James Beene .

Motion Carried 5 - 0.

COMMUNICATIONS

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

Chairman Brigette Peterson reminded the Commission that they had a special meeting in two weeks. She asked where it would be located.

Mr. Swanson replied that he thought it was scheduled in Room 300.

Update on Unified Land Development Code revision

Mr. Swanson reported that there was not any update since the last meeting.

Subcommittee Reports

There were no reports given.

Report from the Planning Director on current events

Planning Director Jerry Swanson announced that Lila DeMarie started on staff earlier that week as a Planner 1.   He stated that she would be a terrific addition to the staff.

ADJOURNMENT

Chairman Brigette Peterson adjourned the meeting at 10:05 P.M.

___________________________
Chairman Brigette Peterson

ATTEST:

_______________________
Recorder Trasie Johns