TOWN OF GILBERT PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, REGULAR MEETING

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

JULY 7, 2004

COMMISSION PRESENT: Chairman Brigette Peterson, Commissioner Dan Dodge,
Commissioner Joan Krueger, Commissioner Shane Leonard, Vice Chairman Michael Monroe, Commissioner James Beene, Commissioner Karl Kohlhoff, Alternate Commissioner Susan Preiss

STAFF PRESENT: Planning Director Jerry Swanson,        Planning Manager Linda Edwards, Planning Manager Maria Cadavid, Senior Planner Mario Mangiamele, Senior Planner Joseph Moon, Planner Jason Sanks, Planner Leila DeMaree,
Planner Matt Everling,

ALSO PRESENT: Vice Mayor Don Skousen, Town Attorney Phillis Smiley, Town Manager George Pettit, Recorder Trasie Johns

PLANNER, CASE, PAGE, VOTE
Ms. Cadavid, S04 - 7, 2, Continued
Mr. Everling, S04 - 4, 3, Approved
Mr. Sanks, Z04 - 13, 4, Continued
Ms. DeMaree, UP04 - 11, 5, Denied
Ms. Cadavid, Z03 - 44, 8, Approved
Mr. Moon, GP04 - 8, 14, Approved
Mr. Moon, Z04 - 14, 14, Approved
Mr. Sanks, S04 - 2, 16, Continued
Mr. Sanks, GP04 - 3, 18, Approved
Mr. Sanks, Z04 - 3, 18, Approved

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

CALL TO ORDER:

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

ROLL CALL

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

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Chairman Brigette Peterson requested a motion to approve the agenda.

A motion was made by Commissioner Joan Krueger, seconded by Commissioner Shane Leonard, 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.

At 6:05 P.M., Commissioner Karl Kohlhoff joined the Commission.

RECESS TO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

Chairman Brigette Peterson announced that the Commission was going to recess the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing and move to the Board of Adjustment.

ADJOURN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND RECONVENE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION HEARING

At 7:45 P.M., Chairman Brigette Peterson announced that the Commission was going to reconvene to the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing.

PUBLIC HEARING

S04 - 7 - Preliminary Plat for Parcel 4 of Spectrum at Val Vista, containing approximately 138 lots on approximately 18.2 acres with underlying zoning classifications of (R - CH) Single - Family Cluster Home with a (PAD) Planned Area Development overlay located at the southeast corner of Val Vista Drive and the Frye Road alignment.   Maria Cadavid 503 - 6812 Staff is requesting continuance to the July 21, 2004 meeting.

Planning Manager Maria Cadavid informed the Commission that the technical requirements from engineering on the plat document and the drainage report were not addressed adequately by the applicant. Therefore, staff was recommending continuance to the special meeting of July 21, 2004.

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 continue S04 - 7 to the special Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of July 21, 2004 .

Motion Carried 7 - 0.

S04 - 4 - Preliminary plat for Power Ranch Neighborhood 10 and a portion of Neighborhood 11 consisting of 561 dwelling units on approximately 115 acres within the Power Ranch Development located west of the northwest corner of Power and Germann Roads. Neighborhood 10 will consist of six (6) parcels designated Single Family Detached (R1 - 5) and Residential Townhouse (R - TH). The portion of Neighborhood 11 will consist of two (2) parcels designated Single Family Detached (R1 - 7) and Residential Townhouse (R - TH).   Matt Everling 503 - 6746

Planner Matt Everling informed the Commission that S04 - 4 was a request for a preliminary plat for Power Ranch Neighborhood 10 and a portion of Neighborhood 11 consisting of 561 dwelling units on approximately 115 acres within the Power Ranch Development located west of the northwest corner of Power and Germann Roads. He pointed out on the visual aid that Neighborhood 10 will consist of six (6) parcels designated Single Family Detached (R1 - 5) and Residential Townhouse (R - TH). The portion of Neighborhood 11 will consist of two (2) parcels designated Single Family Detached (R1 - 7) and Residential Townhouse (R - TH).

Mr. Everling used the visual aid to discuss the different zoning districts in Neighborhood 10.   He noted that neighborhood 10 will consist of approximately 82.96 acres and will offer three different lot types on parcels A, B, C, D, E and F:
1.        R1 - 5 (5,500 sq. ft. min.) single family detached lots
2.        R - CH (3,640 sq. ft. min.) Z - Lots
3.        R - CH (2,528 sq. ft. min.) detached units in clusters of eight

Mr. Everling indicated that the R1 - 5 designation will consist of 143 lots on approximately 35.18 acres on parcels A & B in the northern section of Neighborhood 10 and will make up approximately 32% of the proposed dwelling units in Neighborhood 10. The typical R1 - 5 lot will be 50′x110′, or 5,500 square feet.

Mr. Everling explained that the Z - Lot product will consist of 118 lots on approximately 23.19 acres on parcels C & F in the central section of Neighborhood 10 and will constitute approximately 27% of the proposed dwelling units within Neighborhood 10. This type of lot allows a portion of the residence to be built on a side yard property line. A 5 - foot “use and benefit easement” (UBE) is recorded on the adjacent property to provide the homeowner next door an area to maintain the portion of the residence along the property line. The typical Z - Lot will be 40′x91′, or 3,640 square feet.

Mr. Everling noted that the Village product will consist of 184 lots on approximately 24.6 acres on parcels D & E in the southern section of Neighborhood 10 and will make up approximately 41% of the proposed dwelling units. The cluster home development standards within the Power Ranch Development Plan affect the Village residential Åœ - pack” product. These cluster pods will maintain the minimum separation of 10 feet between units. Each unit will have a 2 - car garage facing a shared driveway and the front of each unit will face onto a common landscaped area. The typical Village lot will be 32′x79′, or 2,528 square feet.

Mr. Everling used the visual aid to discuss Neighborhood 11, which will consist of approximately 32.67 acres and will offer two different lot types on parcels C & D.
1.        R - CH (3,640 sq. ft. min.) Z - Lots
2.        R1 - 7 (9,100 sq. ft. min.) single family detached lots

Mr. Everling noted that the Z - Lot product will consist of 65 lots on approximately 13.5 acres on parcel C and will make up approximately 56% of the proposed dwelling units in this portion of Neighborhood 11. The same standards apply to this parcel as they do in Neighborhood 10.

Mr. Everling pointed out that the R1 - 7 designation will consist of 51 lots on approximately 19.17 acres on parcel D and will constitute approximately 44% of the proposed dwelling units in this portion of Neighborhood 11. The typical R1 - 7 lot will be 70′x130′, or 9,100 square feet.

Mr. Everling indicated that Neighborhoods 10 & 11 were bordered by Neighborhood 7 to the east, future Pecos Road to the north, Germann Road to the south, with the RWCD Canal to the west. Ranch House Parkway will connect the two neighborhoods to other neighborhoods within Power Ranch. The new 115.63 acre subdivision will have two access points off Ranch House Parkway, with no connectivity to Germann Road. Looped and curvilinear local public street designs, including five cul - de - sacs, follow Power Ranch subdivisions layout.

Mr. Everling noted that the Design Review Board recommended approval of the design of the open space plan for Power Ranch Neighborhood 10 and Parcels C & D of Neighborhood 11 (S04 - 04) on June 10, 2004. He stated that Staff has not received any input from the public regarding this request and it had been properly noticed. He recommended approval of the item and asked for questions.

Commissioner Shane Leonard asked if the appropriate Germann Road improvements would be completed with the project.

Mr. Everling replied that Germann Road would be improved and used the visual aid to point out where the improvements would be made.

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

Greg Davis, 9823 E. Lompoc Ave, Mesa with Iplan Consulting came forward and stated that he was there on behalf of Richman American homes. He stated that they didn’t have anything to add and was available for questions.

Seeing no questions for Mr. Davis, 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 Commissioner Joan Krueger, seconded by Vice Chairman Michael Monroe, to approve S04 - 04, the Preliminary Plat for Power Ranch Neighborhood 10 and a portion of Neighborhood 11 within the Power Ranch Master Planned Community, subject to conditions.

Motion Carried 7 - 0.

Approval of S04 - 04, the preliminary plat for Power Ranch Neighborhood 10 and a portion of Neighborhood 11, with a total of 561 dwelling units on approximately 115 acres, subject to conditions:
1.        The Final Plat shall conform to Exhibit 2 as approved by the Planning Commission at the July 7, 2004 public hearing.
2.        The landscaping improvement plans for Power Ranch Neighborhood 10 and portion of Neighborhood 11 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.

Chairman Brigette Peterson announced that she had a request to take agenda item number nine because it was requested to be continued. She explained that they wanted to accommodate any neighbors that might be in the audience. She verified that the Commission approved of this change.

Z04 - 13 ? Request to amend the Madera Parc Planned Area Development (PAD) by changing the zoning classification for approximately 4 acres from (C - 1 PAD) Neighborhood Commercial to (NCC PAD) Neighborhood Convenience Commercial at the southeast corner of Cooper and Elliot Roads. Jason Sanks 503 - 6805

Planning Manager Linda Edwards informed the Commission that they were asking that Z04 - 13 be continued to the special hearing on July 21 so that they could resolve an access issue.

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 continue Z04 - 13 to the special Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of July 21, 2004.

Motion Carried 7 - 0.

UP04 - 11 - Request for a Use Permit to allow a new San Tan Stake LDS Church to operate on 5 acres within the Gateway Pointe Industrial 2 PAD (Planned Area Development), located at the northeast corner of Wren Drive and Ray Road. The project site is zoned (I - B PAD) Industrial Buffer and (I - 1 PAD) Garden Industrial. Leila DeMaree 503 - 6838

Planner Leila DeMaree informed the Commission that UP04 - 11 was a request for a Use Permit to allow a new San Tan Stake LDS Church to operate on 5 acres within the Gateway Pointe Industrial 2 PAD (Planned Area Development), located at the northeast corner of Wren Drive and Ray Road.

Ms. DeMaree used the visual aid to discuss the surrounding uses:
General Plan        Existing Zoning        Existing Use
North        LI (Light Industrial        I - 1 and I - B        Vacant
East        LI (Light Industrial        I - 1 (Garden Industry)        Vacant industrial land, then proposed RC (Regional Commercial) area, Super Target is currently under construction
South        Residential 5 - 8        R1 - 5 (Single Family Residential)        Ray Road, then Gateway Village Subdivision, Single Family Residential
West        Residential 5 - 8        R1 - 5 (Single Family Residential)        Wren Road, The Gardens subdivision, Single Family Residential
Onsite        LI (Light Industrial        I - 1 (Garden Industry) and I - B (Industrial Buffer)        Vacant

She noted that the proposed project was within the Gateway Character Area and within the Planned Area Development zoning district for Gateway Pointe Industrial Center 2. The General Plan considers the Gateway Area as one of the Growth Areas for the Town of Gilbert. It is also within the Williams Gateway Airport Overlay District. This proposed project is subject to the Right - of Way Improvement Standards and Streetscape Design Guidelines of the Town of Gilbert Gateway Area adopted July 18, 2003.

Ms. DeMaree provided some background information. Staff supported the change in zoning classification for the Gateway Pointe Industrial 2 project that established I - 1 (Garden Industry) and I - B (Industrial Buffer) districts for the site. At that time, staff and applicant agreed that the industrial zoning was consistent with the Town’s General Plan. The owner’s intent was to rezone the property for industrial uses and attract appropriate users. In the applicant’s Project Narrative Report for that case, it was stated that “Circle G has received a fair amount of interest in this site for industrial uses but no specific users have come forward due to the lack of existing industrial zone”. The owner now wishes to develop a church on this site. However, staff continues to support industrial development on the site and that the proposal does not meet the goals and policies of the Town’s General Plan. She added that locating a church in an industrial district does not provide employment for the people in the area. She noted that Staff is concerned that the worship use and its potential accessory uses of outdoor activities and school uses may impact the future use of an industrial area.

Ms. DeMaree explained that a church could be located in the I - 1 and I - B zoning districts through a Use permit process. She recommended denial of the Use Permit request for the church to locate in the industrial buffer and garden industry zoned districts.

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

Greg Davis, 9823 E. Lompoc Ave, Mesa with Iplan Consulting came forward. He stated that he was there on behalf of the owner and applicant, the Church of Latter Day Saints. He understood the reason for the denial since the Town’s Economic Development Department and Planning Department don’t support those because of employment or revenue that would be generated. He explained that the purpose of a Use Permit was to allow for uses that typically may not be allowed in the area. He stated that the Town denial was based on three points: it’s in conflict with the General Plan designation of light industry; it wasn’t consistent with the existing zoning or standards of the ULDC; and it may impede the opportunity for the area to develop industrially as it was designated and zoned.

Mr. Davis noted that the first two reasons for denial were similar. He stated that the area was zoned as light industrial, zoned I - B and I - 1. However, Places of Worship was a category that was a permitted use in those zoning districts subject to a Use Permit. He indicated that they had submitted a site plan application which was under review, which he felt was in conformance with the other standards of the ULDC. Therefore, he didn’t think the staff’s first two reasons for denial weren’t appropriate in this case.

Mr. Davis discussed the third reason that the project was being recommended for denial by the staff. He reminded the Commission that the staff proposed that the church would impede the ability for the rest of the area to develop as it was intended to. Although a church served residents and was residential in design he felt that it operated more as a non - residential use as it is open during peak traffic times, its traffic and circulation needs are more demanding and it required a site plan review. He provided an exhibit that illustrated the area. He pointed out that the total industrial site was 70 acres, across the street was the Vestar power center, and there was 40 more acres that were zoned industrial across the street. He added that the corner was surrounded 270 degrees by residential uses. When the church first approached the owner they found that this was the area that made the most sense from a land planning point of view, providing a transition of use. He stated that industrial and residential uses often don’t mix well. Therefore the church would be a good transition between the uses. Secondly, he noted that the site occupied only 5 acres of the total 70 acres, which was only 3.8%. In addition, Circle G had another 80 acres of industrial property south of Ray Road. He didn’t think that this would impede the economic development of the area. He added that if Circle G thought that the church would jeopardize their ability to develop and sell their land they would not go along with it. He concluded his presentation by asking for questions and introducing a member from the LDS church that was present that evening.

Commissioner Shane Leonard questioned if this was an area that needed an additional church.

Mark Pugmire, 13623 S. 174th Street, Higley, the stake leader in the area, came forward. He responded that the need for the church was great. He presented a map that indicated the areas where their stakes were located and where they needed additional buildings. He added that they had tried to find a place in a residential area and could not find one.

Commissioner Shane Leonard was concerned about the surrounding uses impacting the church site.

Mr. Pugmire replied that their first preference was to be surrounded by residential properties. He thought that there would be some advantages to the industrial surrounding properties and didn’t think that they would be a big impact on these properties either. He added that the church would be there first and would have the ability to work with the new businesses if there was a problem.

Commissioner Dan Dodge questioned if Mr. Pugmeyer had any concerns about any of the allowed uses of the I - B or I - 1 district adjacent to the church.

Mr. Pugmire responded that he would not object to any of the uses that could be placed adjacent to his church. He explained that he would be more concerned if the uses were commercial.

Commissioner Dan Dodge was concerned that the presence of the church may be a detriment on future development of industrial properties. He wanted to make sure that the church would not oppose any future industrial development in the area.

Mr. Pugmire replied that they would not oppose any industrial uses since they were aware that they were in an industrial park.

Commissioner Karl Kohlhoff announced that he was the P&Z liaison to the Economic Development Board. He briefly reviewed the area as it was planned in the old General Plan. He explained that most of the area was Business Park and they had given up some of this in the new General Plan. He was concerned that the employment opportunities were greatly diminishing.

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

Theodore Bushanam, 1351 N. Pleasant Drive #2081, Chandler came forward. He explained that he was going to live in the Gateway Crossing residential area, next to the development. He stated that he was looking forward to the industrial development by his site and was in favor of the employment opportunity. He described how difficult it was to commute and hoped to find employment in the area. He pointed out that there was another LDS church a couple of miles south in the Power Ranch area that he felt was sufficient.

Antoinette Bushanam, 1351 N. Pleasant Drive #2081, Chandler was also present and opposed to the item but did not wish to speak.

Vice Chairman Michael Monroe suggested that they keep in mind what the Economic Development and Planning Staff had stated in their reports. He described how other industrial areas had been disrupted with another use being placed on them that were not compatible. He agreed with the staff’s recommendation to deny the request.

Chairman Brigette Peterson questioned if a church would be allowed in industrial areas in the new LDC.

Senior Planner Mario Mangiamele informed the Commission that the current draft prohibited places of worship in the new employment districts.

Commissioner Dan Dodge didn’t agree with the argument in finding one. He stated that since the code did allow churches in industrial zones he didn’t think that placing this church in an industrial area was a violation. He felt that there needed to be more of an argument why this location was not a good for a church. He thought that it was a stretch to say that the church would be a detriment to the people living in the area. He understood the argument that it could possibly be a determinant to the overall industrial area. He felt that that in looking at the three findings that it met the requirements for approving the Use Permit. However, if they were operating under the new LDC the church would not be allowed in the industrial area. Since they were not operating under this code, he didn’t think it was fair to not allow the church since the code currently allowed churches in industrial areas.

Commissioner Shane Leonard agreed with Commissioner Dan Dodge. He added that if the church was completely surrounded by industrial his opinion might be different. He explained that the church was next to residential and was a good buffer to the industrial park. He could not deny the Use Permit on the argument that was presented by staff. He felt that it was a conforming use and a good buffer.

Commissioner Joan Krueger announced that she would be supporting the staff’s recommendation to deny the project. She explained that in this case the economic development of the area must be upheld. She felt that it was valuable to the Town of Gilbert to uphold this area for industrial and that the church would not have the same benefit to the Town.

Commissioner Dan Dodge argued that Commissioner Joan Krueger’s comments were more valid for a zoning case and that this was an allowed use.

Commissioner James Beene announced that he used to be the liaison to the Economic Development Board. He stated that he also supported the Staff’s recommendation to deny the Use Permit.

Vice Chairman Michael Monroe noted that the buffer requirement was met with the different industrial and residential zoning districts that were in the area.

Commissioner Karl Kohlhoff described how long it took for industrial areas to develop and that they needed to be protected as they will be developed after the residential and commercial areas were in place.

Chairman Brigette Peterson felt that the item did not meet finding number three. She added that they were too limited on industrial areas and did not want to disrupt the seventy acres. She agreed with the Staff’s recommendation to deny the project.

A motion was made by Commissioner James Beene, seconded by Commissioner Joan Krueger, to deny UP04 - 11.

Motion Carried 5 - 2.

Ayes: Chairman Brigette Peterson, Vice Chairman Michael Monroe, Commissioner Karl Kohlhoff, Commissioner James Beene, Commissioner Joan Krueger

Nays: Commissioner Dan Dodge, Commissioner Shane Leonard

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

Planning Manager Maria Cadavid 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. She reminded the Commission that they had continued the item from the last Planning and Zoning Commission meeting to evaluate the impact of the transitional zoning Bufferyard Policy. Also, she stated that the Commission had some questions regarding the traffic impact on the development.

Ms. Cadavid reviewed the changes to the Conceptual Development Plan by referring to the visual aid. She pointed out the applicant had reduced the number of lots they are proposing by three, to 454. One of these lots was eliminated from the southeastern portion of the site facing 178th Street and replaced with an open space corridor. A second lot was eliminated from the alley court lots some of which have their side yards facing 178th Street. The third lot was removed from the Recker Road frontage. The applicant added an open space corridor between the lots backing onto 178th Street and widened the courtyards fronting on 178th Street. The tri - plex units in the northeastern portion of the site were shifted to provide more generous setbacks. To reduce the visual impact of a solid row of two story homes along the west side of 178th Street, half of the units in Parcel D that back to 178th Street will be single story. She explained that the net effect of these changes will be to reduce the impact of the units adjacent to what is now a private access easement for the home owners living on the east side of 178th Street.

Ms. Cadavid reminded the Commission that the main issue from the last meeting was the traffic impact on the County residential properties to the east. She provided an aerial map that illustrated the vacant parcel and the residential that was within the land use designation 5 - 8 dwelling units per acre. She pointed out that another change to the plan was to reconnect the local residential street in the northeastern portion of the site to 178th Street. This will allow traffic accessing this subdivision to only travel approximately 200 feet south on 178th Street. This will likely reduce the number of trips that continue south on 178th Street. It will also provide a way for the residents living east of 178th Street to access the future commercial site without going onto Warner Road where they would need to make a left turn at an un - signalized intersection.

Ms. Cadavid described the buffer policy with regards to the project. She explained that this policy seeks to mitigate the impacts of a proposed development on adjacent uses of different densities or intensities. The policy is a guideline and it recognizes that the needs of the Gilbert community must be met. She went further to state that the Town has articulated its vision for future growth through the General Plan. This site and the land to the east of 178th Street are in the Gateway Character Area are planned as higher density neo - traditional neighborhoods. Persons living east of 178th Street have chosen to live on large lots in a more rural environment. She noted that these lots were created in the County without any formal subdivision process, but this fact does not negate the Town’s General Plan requirements for the Gateway Character Area. She referred to a letter in the staff report that the applicant had provided that described how the proposal had attempted to maximize the intent of the Buffer yard Policies. She noted that since the last meeting there had not been revisions that addressed the neighbors concerns regarding density, however the applicant stated that they had worked with the neighbors since the beginning of the process to provide the best possible plan that they could develop with the density required in the General Plan. She noted that the Town’s Traffic Engineer projected that the maximum traffic that would travel on 178th Street would be between 500 - 600 trips per day. She pointed out on the visual aid that the buffer area along 178th Street would provide 80′ of landscaping beyond the termination of the street. She concluded her presentation by recommending approval with the conditions and asked for questions.

Commissioner Dan Dodge questioned what the landscape buffer on 178th Street would be south of the second access.

Ms. Cadavid replied that the street would be improved by the developer up to the distance that would be specified by the Engineering Department at the time of preliminary plat review.

Commissioner Shane Leonard questioned if 178th Street was a County street or if it was an access easement.

Ms. Cadavid replied that 178th Street was an access easement that was part of the property of the applicant.

Commissioner Shane Leonard questioned if the access easement was provided for KB Homes along with the residents to the east of 178th Street.

Ms. Cadavid replied that it was a non - exclusive easement with the right to use it by the property owners on 178th Street.

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 and announced that he was there on behalf of KB Homes. He stated that the staff had adequately identified the changes to the plan. He briefly discussed the changes that were reviewed earlier by Ms. Cadavid. He reminded the Commission that the main reason the item was continued was to review the Bufferyard Policy. He discussed the Bufferyard Policy that was created in 1988. He stated that when the Policy was created there was some language in it that would be helpful to the Commission in their decision that evening. He read that the purpose was: “to provide adequate and appropriate buffering between land uses depending on two factors; the relative compatibility of the two land uses; and the needs of the community.” He noted that they could not completely reconcile with precision the buffer policy and the Gateway Character Area standards of the General Plan. He explained that they had designed the project at 6.7 units to the acre and met all the design criteria of the Gateway Character Area. He provided an exhibit that illustrated the easement, 178th Street that the County residents to the east currently used. He described the street and landscaping that would be provided. He noted that there would be 57′ of landscape buffer and 23′ of improved roadway. He described how difficult it would be to completely comply with the Bufferyard policy. He stated that the entire west part of the project would have to be 35,000 square foot lots. In order for the balance of the project to comply with the Gateway densities, the densities would greatly exceed 8 units to the acre and the homogeneity of the project would be totally consistent, without any diversity in the product.    He requested that the Commission determine that the buffer area that they had provided answers the preamble of the buffer policy. He felt that the project complied with the spirit and intent by creating a 57′ area of landscaping and it accomplished the needs of the community as it complied with the General Plan. He added that there was a Zoning Administrator opinion earlier that year that indicated that buffer policy needed to be applied to the General Plan category, not the existing zoning.

Mr. Pew described what would happen at the southern end of 178th Street. He explained that they were required to dedicate the entire 40′ right of way from Warner to the southern end of the project. As a practical matter, he felt that the roadway improvements would end 50 - 70′ south of the last entrance on 178th Street. He added that they had not discussed with the Town whether they would be required to improve the road all the way down and would discuss this at a later point. He concluded his presentation and asked if there were any questions.

Chairman Brigette Peterson announced that before she opened the public hearing she wanted to remind everyone that at the end of the last meeting they agreed that they would only discuss new information and review any information through the previous meeting’s minutes. She reviewed the items that were discussed by the neighbors at the last meeting: no use of 178th Street, to leave 178th Street for emergency access only, concerned about safety of the children with the increased traffic, concern for safety of animals, the residents desire to keep the rural feel, poor transition to place high density next to acre plus lots, the new residents would have a lower property value and would bring their property value down, noise and invasion of privacy, the residents stated that traffic would increase to 3500 vehicles per day on 178th Street (the Town Traffic Engineer Bruce Ward felt there would be at the most 600 vehicles per day), three story homes would look down into neighbors yards, higher density would be rentals and more crime, landscape issues on 178th Street, traffic from 178th Street would attempt to use the dead end side streets to cut through, the number of vehicle accesses on 178th Street, Ryland Homes project from 1999 which was withdrawn from the site, the poverty level of the residents living in the high density residential homes, provide larger single family homes all the way down 178th Street, the ULDC transitional requirements.

Chairman Brigette Peterson opened the public hearing. She announced that she had three slips from people who did not wish to speak but were opposed to the item: Ed Baker, 17923 E. Caroline Lane; Debbie Baker, 17923 E. Caroline Lane; and Deanna Daniel, 17822 E. Cathy Drive, Higley.

Michael Fitzpatrick, 13113 S 178th Street came forward. He stated that he was speaking on behalf of his uncle who was a homeowner in the area. His first concern was about the density. His second concern was that with the decreasing water table and the increasing density there would be problems in the future for the residents of Gilbert.

Commissioner Karl Kohlhoff replied that his concern was about fire protection and questioned if they had fire protection with fire hydrants on their streets.

Mr. Fitzpatrick replied that they did not have fire hydrants on their streets.

Commissioner Shane Leonard announced that the company he worked for operated several wells in the area and that the water table had increased as much as 200′ in some of the areas that they were discussing. He added that the Town was very limited in its ability to use ground water when it comes to meeting the demands of new potable use.

Roy Daniel, 17822 E. Cathy Drive came forward. He was concerned about what would happen on 178th Street south of the last entrance.

Chairman Brigette Peterson replied that 178th Street would be dedicated to the Town and they were unclear as to what would be improved.

Mr. Daniel reviewed other developments and their access points. He pointed out that those communities had more dwelling units but had fewer entrances. Therefore, he didn’t think they needed the 178th Street access points. He reviewed the Ryland Home proposal that was presented in 1999 and the lack of access points that were previously proposed. He was concerned about the traffic on 178th Street.

Vice Chairman Michael Monroe replied that there were several factors in determining the required access points. He discussed the width of the streets that were proposed in one of the plans requiring less access points.

Commissioner Karl Kohlhoff was concerned about fire and police access. He added that he would like to see fire hydrants along 178th Street for the fire department to have better access. He explained that this would be a part of the engineering portion that would be determined in the future.

Commissioner Shane Leonard questioned if Mr. Daniel would like 178th Street be paved and improved south of the last entrance.

Mr. Daniel replied that he would like 178th Street to be improved and paved, not left as dirt.

Steven Skousen 17918 E. Caroline Lane, Higley came forward. He stated that the provisions contained in Chapter 11.25c in the ULDC was applicable and needed to be followed. He provided a visual aid of Chapter 11.25c in the ULDC. He noted that the county lots were one acre and the code pointed out that there could be 3 dwelling units per acre as a transition zone. He stated that this was put into law as an ordinance for the benefit of the people who were residing on the existing property. He explained that the code was put in place to provide a well planned community with transitional land uses. He felt that they could implement the General Plan along with the buffer requirements that were supplied in the code.

Planning Director Jerry Swanson informed the Commission that what was in the ULDC published was not ordinance and was never adopted as a zoning ordinance by the Town. He explained that it was adopted in 1988 as policy with the explicit intent of being superceded by other ordinances within six months. He added that some of the ordinances had been adopted and were in the Municipal Code, but the Town never adopted this as a zoning ordinance regulation. He explained that this was mistakenly taken as the adoptive code of Gilbert. He added that the General Plan requirements for the State of Arizona changed since 1988. He explained that they used to plan based on how they zoned properties, but they were now obligated to plan and zone in conformance with the Plan. He reminded the Commission that when they prepared the Growing Smarter General Plan prior to the 2001 adoption that the particular properties where the large county lots existed there was a lot of discussion by the Commission regarding how they should be shown on the General Plan. He noted that the Commission decided to show the General Plan designation, which was 5 - 8 units per acre, on the land use map rather than the existing once acre lots, since there were only a couple of lots.   He noted that the obligations for the Town to develop with the Plan were very firm.

Mr. Skousen pointed out on the visual aid where it stated that it was adopted as Ordinance #1051, Section 1 passed on 7/29/97. Therefore the policy was made a part of the ULDC and needed to be followed. He felt that both the General Plan and the ULDC could be harmonized if they were to increase the density as they travel west from the one acre lots. He added that the ULDC recognized the existing uses, not what was planned for the area in the General Plan.

Chairman Brigette Peterson questioned if the General Plan superceded what the ULDC stated.

Mr. Swanson clarified that the General Plan would supercede the policy that the Council adopted. He stated that the ordinance number from 1997 referred to the overall ordinance that took all of the Town’s policies, regulations, rules, standards and guidelines and placed them in the book. He explained that some things never had an actual ordinance. He felt that this could have been an error and that this should not have been included as part of the ULDC. He added that the Town Attorney found that it was never adopted as an ordinance.

Town Attorney Phillis Smiley advised that the state law required that the zoning conform to the General Plan. In this instance, the General Plan and the ULDC were in conflict and because the General Plan was state law they were required to comply. Therefore, the General Plan would supercede the ULDC especially since the ULDC was never codified and never considered individually. She explained that the ULDC was a policy that was intended to expire in six months.

Commissioner Dan Dodge questioned which section of the ULDC was being referenced by Mr. Skousen.

Mr. Skousen referred to the visual aid listing Section 11.25c of the ULDC. He read that the one acre parcels needed three acre parcels as a transition to higher density.

Commissioner Dan Dodge stated that this section didn’t apply to this case. He read that the section referred to increases that allow density when there was a separation by an arterial street.   He pointed out that 178th Street was not an arterial street.

Mr. Skousen replied that there was another section that would apply, subsection a. He explained that it gave a more conservative description. He added that he was reading the section liberally in what it was attempting to achieve.

Chairman Brigette Peterson announced that she didn’t have anyone else listed to speak, but that she had two letters from Kathy and Steve Tucker who could not be present that evening. One letter was written to the Town Council and one to the Planning and Zoning Commission.

Chairman Brigette Peterson closed the public hearing and brought the issue back to the Commission.

Commissioner Shane Leonard questioned why there were two points of access on 178th Street and what was intended for the southern part of the street past the last entrance.

Mr. Swanson replied that there was no final decision for the actual improvements that would occur on 178th Street and that this would be a subdivision issue which would be decided at a later date.   He noted that in the conditions of approval there was not a requirement in the zoning case for dedication and improvement for 178th Street since it merited more discussion.   He felt that it was appropriate for the Commission to decide if the general points of access were agreeable.

Mr. Pew explained that the other point of access on 178th Street was added in order to relieve some of the traffic on 178th Street. He described how the traffic would flow within the subdivision rather than down 178th Street creating less traffic on 178th Street.

A motion was made by Commissioner Shane Leonard, seconded by Commissioner James Beene, to recommend approval of Z03 - 4 subject to Staff stipulations, providing that the applicant amends a map exhibit to conform to the condition requiring dedication of Warner Road extending 70 feet from the centerline.

Motion Carried 7 - 0.

Staff recommends approval of Z03 - 44 with the following conditions:

a.        Dedication to the Town for Warner and Recker Roads 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’s Engineering Dept. Dedication of Warner Road shall extend 70 feet from the centerline and the dedication of Recker Road shall extend 70 feet from center line for the first 300 feet from its intersection with Warner Road and then 65 feet for the remainder of the frontage.
b.        Construction of off - site improvements to Warner and Recker Roads abutting the Project shall be completed to Town standards prior to the issuance of any certificates of occupancy for any unit or business in the Project or on a schedule approved by the Town’s Engineering Dept.
c.        The applicant shall fund the construction of a noise barrier along its frontage with the freeway per specifications in the Neighborhood Environmental Design Analysis.
d.        The Project shall be developed in conformance with the Town’s zoning requirements except as modified by these conditions. All units in the R1 - 5 and R - 3 zoned areas shall comply with the following standards:

R 1 - 5 DISTRICT
Development Standard        Minimum Standards for R1 - 5
Lot Width        45′
Lot Coverage        60% for single story
50% for two story
Front Setback         10′ to Living area or Side entry garage
20′ to front loaded garage
Rear Setback        10′
Side Yard Setback        5′
Minimum Lot Size        4,500 sq. ft.

R - 3 DISTRICT
Development Standard        Minimum Standards for R - 3
Open Space        40% (1)
Perimeter Setback         10′
Interior Setbacks        10′
(1) Open space in the R - 3 area will be 40% of its net area, with a minimum of 30% open space for the entire PAD.

e.        The applicant shall comply with the following minimum standards for the R - 3 zoned area:
i        Open space placement along streets may be relocated to be internal to R - 3 land.
ii        The swimming pool shall be provided but may be relocated to an open space parcel centrally located within the PAD.
iii        The setback requirement next to single - family which only occurs with R - CH units within the PAD, shall be 10′.
iv        The perimeter landscaping requirement shall apply to areas where the R - 3 acreage abuts Recker Road, Warner Road and 178th Street, but shall not be required for streets internal to the PAD.
v        The requirement for parking lot landscaping shall be deleted.
vi        The entry feature shall be required but may be relocated within the overall PAD design.
f.        Internal public streets shall be built to the Town’s standards and maintained by the Town. Alleys shall be built to Town standards and maintained by the HOA.
g.        The applicant shall create a new HOA (Homeowner’s Association) for the maintenance and preservation of all common areas, recreation facilities, landscaping and improvements within the open space areas and landscaping within the public street rights - of - way.
h.        There shall be a 40′ wide landscape buffer parcel along the east side of the subdivision outside the 178th Street right - of way.
i.        The courtyards separating the alley units in Parcel C adjacent to 178th Street shall be a minimum of 30′ in width.
j.        There shall be at least one landscape break between the southeastern lots backing to 178th Street of at least 40′ in width.
k.        For lots in Parcel D backing to 178th Street no more than two, two - story homes shall be permitted next to each other.

GP04 - 8 ? A Minor General Plan Amendment request for The Enclave to amend the General Plan Land Use designation on approximately 12.6 acres from Residential > 0 - 1 DU/Acre to Residential > 1 ? 2 DU/Acre for property located at the northeast corner of Higley Road and Houston Avenue.   Joseph Moon 503 - 6748

Z04 - 14 ? A request to rezone approximately 12.6 acres from Maricopa County R - 43 to the R1 - 35 zone for The Enclave, located at the northeast corner of Higley Road and Houston Avenue. Joseph Moon 503 - 6748

Senior Planner Joseph Moon informed the Commission that GP04 - 8 was a request for a Minor General Plan Amendment request for The Enclave to amend the General Plan Land Use designation on approximately 12.6 acres from Residential > 2 - 3 DU/Acre to Residential > 1 ? 2 DU/Acre for property located at the northeast corner of Higley Road and Houston Avenue. He noted that this was a correction from the description in the agenda that listed the current zoning at 0 - 1 DU/Acre. The current zoning district for the property was R - 43 and the applicant was proposing R1 - 35 in case Z04 - 14. He explained that currently the property was undeveloped and the applicant was proposing to develop it with single family dwellings.

Mr. Moon described the surrounding land uses:
GP Land Use Designation        Zoning Designation, Existing Use
North        Residential > 2 - 3.5 DU/Acre        Maricopa County R - 43 / vacant
East        Residential > 2 - 3.5 DU/Acre        Maricopa County R - 43 / vacant
South        Residential > 2 - 3.5 DU/Acre        R1 - 5 PAD / single family homes across Houston Avenue
West        Residential > 2 - 3.5 DU/Acre        R1 - 5 and R1 - 20 PAD / single family homes across Higley Road.

Mr. Moon noted that conventional zoning was requested, as this project is not within a Character Area and no deviations from the R1 - 35 zoning district regulations are requested. There is a companion Annexation request also proposed for this site scheduled for Town Council hearing July 20, 2004.

Mr. Moon informed the Commission that a neighborhood meeting was held on February 9, 2004. There were two members of the public in attendance as well as the developer and Town Staff. Questions were raised regarding overall site design and code enforcement issues. According to the minutes on file, there were no other concerns about the project.   He noted that public notification for homeowners within 300′ and homeowner’s associations within 1000 feet were provided. In addition, notification of the public hearings was placed in three public places, included in a newspaper of general circulation, and a property sign was placed on the site. No public input had been received.

Mr. Moon stated that the applicant was proposing to develop the property with approximately ten single family units. He concluded his presentation by stating that staff was in support of the General Plan amendment and zoning change.

Commissioner Karl Kohlhoff questioned if the applicant intended to have a gate for the property.

Mr. Moon replied that the applicant did intend to have a gate for the property.

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

Denny Barney, 657 N. Tatum Lane, Gilbert came forward. He didn’t have anything to add to the presentation and asked if there were any questions.

Commissioner Karl Kohlhoff questioned what the rest of the area would entail.

Mr. Barney reviewed the surrounding area that was discussed earlier.

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

James Smith, 16932 E. Houston, Gilbert came forward. He informed the Commission that he was not contacted about the project and he was the direct neighbor to the east of the property. He was in support of the project, but concerned about not being notified of this or other projects that had come through in the past.

Mr. Barney stated that he did provide a list with all the neighbors’ names and addresses to be notified and felt that this must have been an error.

Susan Preiss, 3009 E. Millbrae Lane, Gilbert came forward. She stated that she was not informed of the project although she was a neighbor in the Shea Home development.

Mr. Barney stated that Ms. Preiss might have been outside the 300′ required distance, but that her development should have been notified if they were within the 1000′ distance.

A motion was made by Commissioner Dan Dodge, seconded by Vice Chairman Michael Monroe, to recommend to the Town Council approval of GP04 - 8 amending the General Plan Land Use designation on approximately 12.6 acres from Residential > 2 - 3.5 DU/Acre to Residential > 1 ? 2 DU/Acre for property located at the northeast corner of Higley Road and Houston Avenue.

Motion Carried 7 - 0.

A motion was made by Commissioner Dan Dodge, seconded by Vice Chairman Michael Monroe, to recommend to the Town Council approval of Z04 - 14, changing the zoning classification of approximately 12.6 acres from Maricopa County R - 43 to the R1 - 35 zone for property located at the northeast corner of Higley Road and Houston Avenue, subject to staff stipulations.

Motion Carried 7 - 0.

Recommend approval to the Town Council of GP04 - 8 amending the General Plan Land Use designation on approximately 12.6 acres from Residential > 2 - 3.5 DU/Acre to Residential > 1 ? 2 DU/Acre for property located at the northeast corner of Higley Road and Houston Avenue.

Recommend approval to the Town Council of Z04 - 14, changing the zoning classification of approximately 12.6 acres from Maricopa County R - 43 to the R1 - 35 zone for property located at the northeast corner of Higley Road and Houston Avenue, subject to conditions:

a.        Dedication to the Town for Higley Road right - of - way that is adjacent to the Property shall be completed at the time of final plat recordation or sooner as required by the Town Engineer. Dedication of Higley Road shall extend 65 feet from the centerline.

b.        Dedication to the Town for Houston Avenue right - of - way that is adjacent to the Property shall be completed at the time of final plat recordation or sooner as required by the Town Engineer. Dedication of Higley Road shall extend 40 feet from the centerline.

c.        Construction of off - site improvements to Higley Road and Houston Avenue abutting the Project shall be completed prior to occupancy of any unit or building in the Project.

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

At 10:00 P.M. Chairman Brigette Peterson requested that the Commission take a short break. The Commission resumed at 10:15 P.M.

S04 - 2 - Preliminary Plat and Open Space Plan for Felty Farms, approximately 194 lots on 80 acres with underlying zoning classifications of (C - 2) General Commercial, (R1 - 6, R1 - Single - family residential with a (PAD) Planned Area Development overlay at the northeast corner of Lindsay and Ocotillo Roads. Jason Sanks 503 - 6805

Planner Jason Sanks informed the Commission that S04 - 2 was a request for approval of a Preliminary Plat and Open Space Plan for Felty Farms, approximately 194 lots on 80 acres with underlying zoning classifications of (C - 2) General Commercial, (R1 - 6, R1 - Single - family residential with a (PAD) Planned Area Development overlay at the northeast corner of Lindsay and Ocotillo Roads.   He clarified that the project contained 65 acres of residential and 15 acres of commercial property. He used a vicinity map to illustrate the location of the project. He reminded the Commission that they recently reviewed the project with the General Plan amendment and zoning request on May 19, 2004.

Mr. Sanks reviewed the plat. He pointed out on the visual aid where 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.

Mr. Sanks noted that the Design Review Board recommended approval of the Felty Farms Open Space Plan on June 10, 2004, subject to several conditions. He pointed out that the Commission was given revised conditions that evening. He briefly reviewed the conditions:
1.        All final plats shall conform to the Preliminary Plat exhibit approved by the Planning Commission at the July 7, 2004 public hearing.
2.        Prior to final plat approval APPLICATION, the applicant shall submit a revised preliminary plat exhibit for the Planning Department approval addressing the following:
a.        The applicant shall provide a trail connection from Narrowleaf Court to the multi - use trail and tot lot area.
b.   The applicant shall provide two additional light poles along the multi - use trail on the west side of Roca Street in locations reviewed and approved by Planning Staff.
c.   The applicant shall provide two light bollards in both 20′ wide breaks between lots 165 - 166 and 183 - 184.
d.        The applicant shall lower the height of light poles in open space tracts to a maximum height of 14′.
e.        The applicant shall construct E. Narrowleaf Drive all the way to S. Porter Street with the residential phase of development.
f.        The applicant shall redesign S. Heritage Drive to curve into E. Narrowleaf Drive instead of intersecting at a right angle. THE DESIGN SHALL BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE TOWN TRAFFIC ENGINEER.
G.        THE APPLICANT SHALL PROVIDE A 10′ LANDSCAPE MEDIAN AND ALTERNATE PAVING SURFACE AT THE ENTRANCE OF NARROWLEAF DRIVE ON LINDSAY ROAD. THE DESIGN SHALL BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY TOWN PLANNING STAFF.
H.        THE APPLICANT SHALL PROVIDE RIGHT TURN LANES FROM BOTH ARTERIALS AT ROCA STREET, NARROWLEAF DRIVE, AND FICUS WAY.
I.        THE APPLICANT SHALL REDESIGN 146TH STREET TO ALIGN WITH ITS EXTENSION SOUTH OF OCOTILLO ROAD. THE DESIGN SHALL BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE TOWN TRAFFIC ENGINEER.
3.        THE APPLICANT SHALL SUBMIT A REVISED GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN AND REPORT FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE TOWN ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT.
4.        The final plat shall identify the type(s) of streets, public or private and clearly note the entity responsible for ownership and maintenance.
5.        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.

Mr. Sanks described a concern that was brought up by planners in Chandler. He explained that the land to the south was currently in the City of Chandler. The right of way of Ocotillo is within Chandler’s government boundaries. They were seeking to amend this, annex the roadway and improve it to Chandler’s standards. At a point when it is allowed, they plan to de - annex the roadway back to Chandler with their standards and improvements on it.

Mr. Sanks explained that the applicant approved of the stipulations with the exception of one. He indicated that the staff was seeking to have the collector loop road that buffered the commercial site from the residential site improved with the residential phase of development. He stated that the staff felt that the loop road provided enhanced circulation for the residents, connecting the southern portion of the site with the western portion of the site. The applicant had proposed to eliminate the loop road until the commercial development comes and just provide improvements to a short collector that Mr. Sanks pointed out on the visual aid. On the other hand, staff felt that the loop road needed to be built to provide circulation and to minimize the nuisance to the residents when the road was built. He concluded his presentation and asked if there were any questions.

Commissioner Shane Leonard questioned why they would annex a road and then de - annex the road. He suggested that they improve it according to Chandler’s requirements.

Mr. Sanks explained that the Ocotillo Road alignment was currently in Maricopa County. Chandler cannot annex the property because it doesn’t have any abutting incorporated land. Therefore any improvements to Ocotillo Road would go through Maricopa County and their standard. He explained that they were seeking to have the road improved to the Chandler standard so that it would be compatible later on.

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

Paul Gilbert, 4800 N. Scottsdale Road #6000, Scottsdale came forward. He discussed the summary in the staff report that was reviewed earlier. He stated that the neighbors did not oppose the project. He clarified that they might need to do the project in several stages. He explained that they had just been given new stipulations earlier that day. He stated that they agreed to new stipulations 2g and 3. Regarding stipulations 2h and 2i, they would like to modify the wording slightly; rather than being required to do the right hand turn lanes, they would like to have the flexibility with meeting with the Town’s Traffic Engineer to discuss the issue. He was concerned about stipulation 2e. He pointed out on the visual aid the portion of the loop road that they would not like to develop because they didn’t feel that this was necessary. He pointed out where they would propose a change in the road. He explained that they wanted to change the road because they had a traffic engineer report prepared that stated that if the road connected as proposed there would be a substantial amount of cut through traffic coming from Lindsay to Ocotillo Road. He added that the staff requested that the road be there because it facilitates access to the open space, although they were required to not put homes next to Lindsay Road and make the area open space because of the concern to have the buffer between the arterial and residential homes. Therefore they would have the same situation that they were requested to change at the other corner. Furthermore, if the road goes through there would be commercial traffic going into the residential streets. He pointed out the cul - de - sacs that were adjacent to the open space area. He felt that there was full access to the open space throughout the site and did not require the loop road to be added. He requested that stipulation 2e be deleted since the road was not needed and would be a detriment to the residents. He referred to stipulation f and stated that they couldn’t comply with both e and f since they were contradictory conditions.

Planning Director Jerry Swanson stated that it appeared that they had two sets of information which collided, both having the affect of dramatically effecting the subdivision plat. He didn’t believe the Commission or the staff was prepared to conduct this level of a discussion given information that wasn’t all thought through. Therefore, he stated that the staff would recommend that they continue the item until the special meeting on July 21st, so that they could have an opportunity to discuss the issue with the engineers.

Chairman Brigette Peterson agreed and stated that she would like to at least have a traffic engineer present if they were going to get into a discussion about deleting roads.

Mr. Gilbert agreed to continue the item to the special meeting on July 21st.

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 James Beene, seconded by Commissioner Karl Kohlhoff, to continue S04 - 2 to the special meeting on July 21.

Motion Carried 7 - 0.

GP04 - 3 ? Request for a minor General Plan amendment, changing the land use designation for 21 acres from NC (Neighborhood Commercial), Residential >3.5 - 5 DU/acre, and Residential >5 - 8 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 ? Request for a change in zoning classification for approximately 25 acres from (AG) Agricultural and (NCC) Neighborhood Convenience Commercial 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 GP04 - 3 was a request for a approval of a minor General Plan amendment, changing the land use designation for 21 acres from NC (Neighborhood Commercial), Residential >3.5 - 5 DU/acre, and Residential >5 - 8 DU/acre to NO (Neighborhood Office) and CC (Community Commercial) at the northeast corner of McQueen and Elliot Roads. He added that Z04 - 3 was a request for a change in zoning classification for approximately 25 acres from (AG) Agricultural and (NCC) Neighborhood Convenience Commercial to (N - S) Neighborhood Office/Service and (C - 1) Neighborhood Commercial at the northeast corner of McQueen and Elliot Roads. He reminded the Commission that they had continued this item at a previous meeting and held another neighborhood meeting. He noted that there was a small difference in the acreage proposed because part of the property already had a General Plan designation suitable for the zoning request.

Mr. Sanks used the General Plan land use exhibit to discuss the surrounding land uses:
General Plan Designation        Zoning        Existing Land Use
North        Residential >3.5 - 5 DU/Acre        R - 2        Single - family homes (North Shore neighborhood)
East        Residential >3.5 - 5 DU/Acre,         R - 2        Single - family homes (North Shore neighborhood)
South        NC (Neighborhood Commercial), SC (Shopping Center)        C - 1, AG        McDonald’s Restaurant, ARCO fueling facility, then Elliot Road, then Oasis at the Islands retail/office project
West        CC (Community Commercial)        PSC - 1        McQueen Road, then undeveloped, proposed Venice of Gilbert retail/restaurant/office project

Mr. Sanks noted that a neighborhood meeting was held on September 16, 2003. There were approximately 30 members of the public in attendance. At that time, the applicant proposed a request for C - 2 zoning on the entire site. This zoning would have allowed a hotel which caused great concern for the neighbors of the North Shore neighborhood. Following this meeting, the applicant deleted the hotel from their proposal and changed their request to C - 1 for the project. A second neighborhood meeting was held on February 18, 2004 and the neighbors were more agreeable with the revised proposal and had minor concerns with buffering and building height that will be worked through on a site planning level with a future Design Review Board application. Following further discussions with staff, the applicant amended their C - 1 request by further buffering the North Shore neighborhood with a strip of N - S zoning along the perimeter of the north and east sides of the project. This helped to further buffer impacts of commercial activity on those residents sharing a property line with this project. Representatives of the North Shore Home Owner’s Association have expressed support for the proposal of N - S and C - 1 zoning.

Mr. Sanks provided the zoning exhibit and noted where the zoning designations would be located. He explained that when they worked with the applicant to modify the exhibit they recommended that they continue the same pattern of Neighborhood Office to buffer the residential area. Since Islands Drive aligned on the south side of Elliot Road they would most likely have the road align on the north side and therefore would not have any buildings next to the residential area. He explained that the strip of NS next to the residents wasn’t placed there because of the road, and possible parking prior to the building that would be built on the corner. He concluded his presentation and asked for questions.

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.

Chris Butler, 1387 W. Park Ave, Gilbert came forward. He represented the Home Owner’s Association Board. He was concerned about the buildings that would be placed next to their property. He explained that the zoning did not force the issue of placing Islands Drive next the residential properties and therefore he was concerned about not requiring the zoning designation of NS next to the residential properties. He added that the homes only had a five foot buffer on the side of their homes and would be at risk if the NS designation wasn’t placed next to them.

Commissioner Joan Krueger agreed that some mitigation should be provided to the residents from the commercial.
Commissioner Shane Leonard questioned if there was a specific width that they should describe in the zoning change.

Planning Director Jerry Swanson replied that if it was the Commission’s desire they would develop a legal description off the center line of Island Drive and extend it north until it intersects with the NS boundary. Everything to the east of that to the property line would be NS. He added that there were no legal advertising requirements since it was a less intense use.

Commissioner Dan Dodge agreed that Mr. Butler made a good point since they couldn’t guarantee that the road would be placed next to the residential development. He added that there needed to be a buffer from the C - 1 area.

A motion was made by Commissioner Dan Dodge, seconded by Commissioner Shane Leonard, to recommend to the Town Council approval of GP04 - 3, a minor General Plan amendment, changing the land use designation for approximately 21 acres from NC (Neighborhood Commercial), Residential >3.5 - 5 DU/acre, and Residential >5 - 8 DU/acre to NO (Neighborhood Office) and CC (Community Commercial), with the condition that the NO (Neighborhood Office) on the far east of the site be continued down east of the center line of Islands Drive to encompass the eastern boundary of the site.

Motion Carried 7 - 0.

A motion was made by Commissioner Dan Dodge, seconded by Commissioner Joan Krueger, to recommend to the Town Council approval of Z04 - 3, a change in zoning classification of approximately 25 acres from (AG) Agricultural and (NCC) Neighborhood Convenience Commercial to (NS) Neighborhood Office/Service and (C - 1) Neighborhood Commercial at the northeast corner of McQueen and Elliot Roads, subject to staff conditions; adding a condition to state that the current area zoned AG at the far east of the subject property shall be changed to (NS) Neighborhood Office/Service east of the alignment of Islands Drive.

Motion Carried 7 - 0.

Recommend approval to the Town Council of GP04 - 3, a minor General Plan amendment, changing the land use designation of approximately 21 acres from NC (Neighborhood Commercial), Residential >3.5 - 5 DU/acre, and Residential >5 - 8 DU/acre to NO (Neighborhood Office) and CC (Community Commercial) at the northeast corner of McQueen and Elliot Roads; and

Recommend approval to the Town Council of Z04 - 3, changing the zoning classification of approximately 25 acres from (AG) Agricultural and (NCC) Neighborhood Convenience Commercial to (NS) Neighborhood Office/Service and (C - 1) Neighborhood Commercial at the northeast corner of McQueen and Elliot Roads., subject to the following conditions:

a.   Construction of off - site improvements to McQueen Road and Elliot Road abutting the Project shall be completed prior to occupancy of any building in the Project.

b.        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.
c.        The current area zoned AG Agricultural at the far east of the subject property shall be changed to (NS) Neighborhood Office/Service east of the alignment of Islands Drive.

CONSENT ITEM

Minutes ? Special Meeting Minutes of May 19, 2004 and Regular Meeting Minutes of June 2, 2004.

A motion was made by Commissioner Joan Krueger, seconded by Vice Chairman Michael Monroe, to approve the Special Meeting Minutes of May 19, 2004 and Regular Meeting Minutes of June 2, 2004.

Motion Carried 7 - 0.

COMMUNICATIONS

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

Chairman Brigette Peterson announced that they had a special meeting on July 21st.

Update on Unified Land Development Code revision

Planning Director Jerry Swanson informed the Commission that they were about to release a couple new sections and were reviewing the sign code. He stated that they were still on schedule to have public meetings that summer and have hearing dates in the fall.

Subcommittee Reports

There was no report given.

Report from the Planning Director on current events

Planning Director Jerry Swanson announced that they just received a notice of the 2004 Boards and Commissions Conference scheduled for Friday, November 12. He recommended that the Commissioners place it on their calendar and let them know if they wanted to attend.

Mr. Swanson reported that the Town issued 504 single family permits the previous month. He stated that they had the designation of being the fastest growing city in America. In addition, he announced that Gilbert had a larger percentage of married couples per population than any other community over 100,000 in the nation.

ADJOURNMENT

Chairman Brigette Peterson adjourned the meeting at 10:55 P.M.

ATTEST:
Recorder Trasie Johns

Digg this