Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes - 4 August 2004

TOWN OF GILBERT PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, REGULAR MEETING

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

AUGUST 4, 2004

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

COMMISSION ABSENT: Commissioner James Beene, Commissioner Joan Krueger

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

ALSO PRESENT: Vice Mayor Don Skousen, Town Attorney Phyllis Smiley, Town Manager George Pettit, Arizona Republic Reporter Chris Ramirez, Recorder Trasie Johns

PLANNER - CASE - PAGE - VOTE
Mr. Everling - UP04 - 4 - 2 - Continued
Mr. Cronk - S04 - 6 - 2 - Approved
Mr. Milillo - S04 - 8 - 5 - Approved
Mr. Sanks - S04 - 5 - 11 - Approved
Mr. Sanks - UP04 - 7 - 13 - Approved
Mr. Moon - Z04 - 20 - 15 - Approved
Mr. Moon - Z04 - 7 - 17 - 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 Dan Dodge, 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

UP04 - 4 - Use Permit to allow a self - service car wash in the southeast corner of McQueen Road and Harvard Street. The site is located within the Fiesta Ranch Commerce Park and is zoned C - 2 (General Commercial) with a Planned Area Development (PAD) overlay. Matt Everling 503 - 6746

Planner Matt Everling informed the Commission that they were requesting a continuance of UP04 - 4 to be heard at the meeting in September. He explained that the applicant needed to present their site plan to the Design Review Board.

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 Vice Chairman Michael Monroe, to continue UP04 - 4 to the September 1 Planning and Zoning Commission agenda.

Motion Carried 6 - 0.

S04 - 6 - Preliminary Plat for Phases 3 & 4 of Lyon’s Gate, 467 lots on 82 acres with R1 - 5 Single - Family Residential PAD zoning classification, located on the southwest corner of Ray and Higley Roads. Jim Cronk 503 - 6815

Senior Planner Jim Cronk informed the Commission that S04 - 6 was a request for approval of the Preliminary Plat for Phases 3 & 4 of Lyon’s Gate, 467 lots on 82 acres with R1 - 5 Single - Family Residential PAD zoning classification, located on the southwest corner of Ray and Higley Roads. He reminded the Commission that they had already approved Phases 1 & 2 and that the one before them that evening was quite similar. He used the visual aid to point out where Phases 3 & 4 were located on the site plan.

Mr. Cronk reviewed the surrounding area:

Direction        General Plan                 Land Use                Zoning
North        Residential, 5 - 8/                Agritopia                R1 - 7
Shopping Center                Vacant                        C - 2
West                Residential, 3.5 - 5                Vacant                        R1 - 5
East                Residential, 3.5 - 5                Vacant                         R1 - 5
South                Residential, 3.5 - 5                Vacant                        R1 - 5

Mr. Cronk pointed out that the project was located within the Gateway Character Area. He reviewed some of the major guidelines for developing in the Gateway Area:

Deemphasize garages - All garages accessed from a rear alley.
Have lots face the streets - All lots face either internal streets, pedestrian courts or common open space areas.
Design with a grid road system - All streets interconnect at multi - points with no cul - de - sacs. Circulation is designed in a pattern of short blocks to discourage speeding.
Narrow local streets - Internal streets are designed with a 33 foot right - of - way which is paved as the travel - way.
Detach sidewalks - All sidewalks on local streets are detached with street trees placed near the travel - way.
Open space should be very visible - All open space, active and passive, are located on public streets and face many front yards.

Mr. Cronk stated that regarding the zoning ordinance, the plat conformed with the ordinance that was adopted, granting the R1 - 5 zoning for the property. There will be road dedications that are required for both Ray Road and Higley Road. He pointed out that the developer was required to dedicate and build all the way to the intersection, even thought the commercial property was not part of Phases 3 & 4.

Mr. Cronk discussed the layout of the project. He explained that the lot layout was designed to provide access to all the lots by two methods. One method is a short dead - end alley accessing the rear of three lots on each side with a corresponding pedestrian court yard design accessing the front of these lots. The other method is the use of through alleys that provide access to the rear of the lots from both ends of the alley. This last type of lot layout results in the lots facing either a public street or an open space area.

Mr. Cronk reviewed the circulation of the proposal. The road network is a grid system with a series of interconnected streets designed in short blocks. Each area has multiple points of connection with other areas as well as the open space areas. There are two points of access to Higley Road and a single point of access to Ray Road from these phases of development. The internal roadway system is divided into streets and alleys. The preliminary plat needs to clearly state that the streets will be dedicated to the Town while the alleys will remain private and maintained by the HOA.

Mr. Cronk explained how the public facilities and services would be handled in the project. The overall layout has been reviewed for public safety access. The one aspect of public services that will be unique to subdivisions served by alleys is how trash pick - up is provided. In the dead end alleys that access four or six units, each home owner will need to bring their trash cans out to the public street. This is a maximum distance of 150 feet. Where there is a through alley, the trash truck will pick - up trash on one side only. Therefore, in both cases, the plat needs to designate the area where trash cans are to be placed for pick - up.

Mr. Cronk described the open space plan. The total open space for Phases 3 & 4 is 12.6 acres or 15.3% of the site. The recreation facilities included in the open space areas, the trail and sidewalk system, walls, entry features, lighting and landscaping have all been reviewed and recommended for approval by the Design Review Board with conditions. He noted that the conditions were added to the overall conditions and were distributed to the Commission that evening.

Mr. Cronk briefly reviewed the conditions and concluded his presentation. He noted that stipulation 6e should be corrected to state 4′ wide sidewalk. He recommended the project for approval and asked if there were any questions.

Commissioner Shane Leonard referred to the Design Review Board’s requirement for the improvements on the easement and questioned if the stipulation referred to SPR’s approval of the design or SRP approval of having use of the easement.

Mr. Cronk replied that this referred to the SPR 50′ gas line easement that was on the southwestern area of the site. He explained that SRP had agreed to put the trail and some landscaping in the area. He explained that the issue with SRP was the tree placement and their proximity to the gas line.

Commissioner Karl Kohlhoff referred to stipulation 6, where it stated that the dead ends and alleys would be privately owned and maintained and through streets shall be dedicated to the Town of Gilbert. He asked for clarification on whether the trash trucks would be going down the alleys that would be maintained by the homeowners.

Mr. Cronk replied that Commissioner Karl Kohlhoff was correct. He added that although the alleys were private, they would be used for public services.

Chairman Brigette Peterson questioned if the homeowners that were next to the alleys would be responsible for maintenance, or if it would be taken care of by the association.

Mr. Cronk replied that the HOA would maintain the alleys.

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

Greg Davis, Iplan Consulting, 9823 E. Lompoc Ave, Mesa came forward. He stated that he was there on behalf of William Lyon Homes. He didn’t have any thing to add, and asked for the Commission’s approval.

A motion was made by Commissioner Shane Leonard, seconded by Commissioner Karl Kohlhoff, to approve S04 - 6, the Preliminary Plat and Open Space Plan for Phases 3 & 4 of the Lyon’s Gate development for approximately 82 acres on the SWC of Higley & Ray Roads with conditions that were presented that evening.

Motion Carried 6 - 0.

All final plat shall conform to the preliminary plat exhibits approved by the Planning Commission at the Aug. 4, 2004 public hearing.
The final plat shall clearly state that the landscaping in the parkway planter strip shall be maintained by the HOA.
The dead end alleys shall have their trash cans placed next to the public street while the units along through alleys shall have their trash cans placed on only one side of the alley. The CCR’s shall clearly state this requirement.
Final plat shall reflect dedication of rights - of - way for Ray Road from the western edge of these phases to its intersection with Higley Road and dedication of Higley Road from the southern edge of these phases to its intersection with Ray Road which shall be completed at the time of final plat recordation or as required by the Town Engineer. Dedication of Higley and Ray Roads shall extend 70 feet from the centerline.
The final plat shall identify that all dead end and through alleys shall be privately owned and maintained. The through streets shall be dedicated to the Town of Gilbert.
Prior to the issuance of any permits, the applicant shall submit for the Planning Department approval of a revised landscape/hardscape plans depicting:

Street lighting, crosswalks and landscaping on the arterial and collector per specifications shown in the Gilbert Gateway Area - Right - of - Way Improvement Standards and Streetscape Design Guidelines.
The 6′ wide sidewalk to be built within the SRP easement shall be of asphalt and meander within the easement.
A 6′ sidewalk shall be added along the south side of Play Area “A”.
A 5′ sidewalk shall be added along the west side of Play Area “D” and connect within the SRP easement trail.
The sidewalks on both sides of the two entrances from Higley Road, past the entrance features, shall be 4′ wide.
Crosswalks shall be placed on both sides of the entry drives from Higley Road.

Prior to issuance of any permits, the applicant shall submit for Planning Department approval, a revised lighting master plan showing:

The correct series numbers for street lights along Higley and Ray Roads.
The lights in the median on Ray Higley Roads to be the double arm type and those on the promenade to be the signal or double arm type.
The lighting on the sides of Ray and Higley Roads shall be the 12.8′ tall Niland Landscape (Pedestrian) Area Light.
The lights in the median of Ray and Higley Roads and the promenade shall be 29.6′ tall.
The color of all street lights shall Brown Bronze.

S04 - 8 - Preliminary plat, including the open space plan, for The Willows, an 80 - acre residential development located north of the northeast corner of Recker and Williams Field Roads. Mike Milillo 503 - 6747

Senior Planner Mike Milillo informed the Commission that S04 - 8 was a request for approval of the preliminary plat, including the open space plan, for The Willows, an 80 - acre residential development located north of the northeast corner of Recker and Williams Field Roads. He used the visual aid to point out where the project was located.

Mr. Milillo provided a visual aid of the Phasing Plan which showed the four housing types. He described the housing products. He explained that all of the residential lots have amended lot dimensions as part of the Willows PAD. The four types of single - family housing are all accommodated under one zoning district (R1 - 5). Manor Homes are the largest housing product in terms of lot size, but are somewhat less traditional than the three other types of housing. Heritage Homes provide alley loaded traditional housing product. Courtyard Homes are a cluster concept with garage access via stub alleys located at the rear of the dwellings. Ridgefield Homes provide garages recessed behind the living areas of the homes. The Heritage, Courtyard and Ridgefield homes utilize “use and benefit easements”. The following table notes the performance standards for R1 - 5 district as approved in The Willows community. Manor Homes and Ridgefield Homes have direct vehicular access to the local streets while Courtyard Homes are serviced by 24′ - wide private stub street easements. Heritage Homes are serviced by 20′ - wide private alleys. He reviewed the approved zoning standards:

Approved Zoning Standards
Zoning Min. Lot Area Min. Lot Dimensions
R1 - 5 Manors

3,755 s.f.

45′ x 83.5′

R1 - 5 Heritage

3,150 s.f.
32′ x 98.5′

R1 - 5
Courtyard

R1 - 5 Ridgefield

2,730 s.f.

2,800 s.f.
42′ x 65′

48′ x 58.5′

Mr. Milillo provided a graphic of the plat. He noted that the plat was almost identical to the conceptual development plan presented to the Commission and Town Council previously. He pointed out that a few changes had been made: refinements to the street system, such as the area at the southeast corner of the site at the curving intersection of Blue Jay, Wren and Vest Avenue, which was required by the zoning ordinance conditions in the case.

Mr. Milillo described the circulation in the project. He pointed out that the street network for the Willows as currently proposed conforms to the Gateway Area Circulation Plan. Access to the community is provided at two points on Recker Road, at two points on Galveston Street, at the intersection of Blue Jay Drive, Wren Drive and Vest Avenue, and at three points along Vest Avenue. He reminded the Commission that the street layout was a critical point in the zoning case because the Town wanted to maintain some through traffic from Recker Road to Blue Jay along the Vest Avenue alignment which forms the southern boundary of the project. All the street design and improvement issues had been addressed with traffic engineering or through the conditions in the case.

Mr. Milillo discussed the open space plan. The open space system for The Willows is characterized by an integrated, highly visible, 3.5 acre central open space area (the Central Quad). Tree - lined perimeter streets (Recker and Galveston) and local streets combined with the large Central Quad promote a pedestrian friendly community that reflects the principles of traditional neighborhood design. The tract width for landscaping along Recker varies between approximately 50′ and 75′ along the east side of Recker. Along Galveston and Wren is a 25′ landscape tract. The local streets within the project were public streets with 33′ between backs of curb. Behind the backs of curb they will have landscape tracts so there will be tree line local streets with turf areas that were outside the right - of - way.

Mr. Milillo noted that the Design Review Board, upon reviewing the qualitative design of the Open Space Plan for this project, recommended that the Planning Commission approve the open space design subject to conditions requiring compliance with the Gateway Area Right - of - Way Improvement Standards and Streetscape Design Guidelines for Recker Road, a revised plant palette, and a landscape design for the southeast corner of Galveston Street and Recker Road that complies with the Gateway Area Right - of - Way Improvement Standards and Streetscape Design Guidelines for Collector Street intersections. The Board recommended approval of both the quantity and location of open space, site amenities and the landscape plan for all of the tracts. He pointed out that the Commission had received revised conditions with the Design Review Boards stipulations added. He recommended approval of the project subject to the conditions and asked if there were any questions.

Commissioner Shane Leonard referred to attachment four, the traffic circle detail and questioned what the distances and details were since there wasn’t any detail in the attachment.

Mr. Milillo replied that the traffic circles were approximately 105′ in diameter. The Traffic Engineering Division had reviewed them and required the details provided on the graphic. Traffic Engineering had signed off on the diameter of the circle and the diameter of the central island planted in ground covers. In addition they had required all of the pavement markings and signage be per ITE standards and the splitter islands around the four quadrants of the circle to be installed in order to prevent left turns. He noted that traffic circles were not the most common in Arizona, but were common in other places in the country.

Commissioner Shane Leonard remarked that for future reference it would be helpful to have distances and details on the traffic circle attachment. He referred to the southeast corner of the project where Jacana Lane comes to the connection to the school site and questioned why that street bottlenecked down coming into the development.

Mr. Milillo replied that that roadway was the extension of Blue Jay Drive, which was a major collector street located on the east of the intersection. At the time that the project was zoned there was a condition added that stated that the design of the intersection had to be approved prior to the approval of the preliminary plat. Within the last few weeks, the applicant provided the design which showed a bottlenecking down because there was a certain width and number of lanes that were entering the intersection on the east side. The lanes have to enter the subdivision west of the intersection. Traffic Engineering wanted to have the street necked down to a local street. Therefore there was a taper on the small segment of the street.

Commissioner Shane Leonard commented that the street appeared wrong. He understood why it was changed, but it just didn’t appear right.

Mr. Milillo responded that it was an odd intersection, but that after reviewing alternatives, this appeared to be the best solution that addressed most of the issues.

Vice Chairman Michael Monroe commented that he had been involved in the project for some time and the intersection had been discussed many times. He felt that this was the best solution that he had seen.

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 stated that he was there on behalf of Great Western Homes. He agreed to the stipulations. He addressed Commissioner Shane Leonard’s comments. He commented that although the street looked different, the Traffic Engineering Department had approved the intersection. He explained that the objective was to get vehicles at the intersection where the decision making into the project was limited to a normal residential street intersection, not where a collector met a residential street. He added that the street was safer this way and provided an effective way to enter the subdivision.

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

Nick Wood, 400 E. Van Buren, Phoenix with the law firm of Snell and Wilmer came forward. He announced the he represented the Debella family. He used the visual aid to point out the property that the Debella family owned, which was south of the parcel. He explained that the problem had to do with the intersection that they were discussing. He noted that the intersection was recently redesigned because the original design of the road went across their property line. He explained that the way Wren Road was designed, over the objections of his client, was that it brought the extension of the road across his clients property and then down to Williams Field Road. If the road had followed the grid requirements under the Gateway Plan, then they would not have this problem. He pointed out that if they had complied, the road would have taken .9 acres of half street on their property. Because of the changed position of Wren Drive, it now takes up another 2.1 acres. Therefore, they lose 3 acres of land where they would have only lost .9 acres. To add to this problem, as a developer they were required to pay for and improve their half street along the perimeter. In this case, they need to improve and dedicate and entire street, causing their expense to be dramatic. To make matters worse, they would be losing more property with the new alignment of Power Road. He announced that these problems were not of his client’s making and that it was unfair. He provided a graphic of the intersection and didn’t see how the street could comply with the city standards because it didn’t follow the grid requirements of the Gateway Plan if it was a residential street and if it was a collector it didn’t comply with the design and technical standards for development of a collector. Therefore, they didn’t believe that the intersection complied with the requirements of the Gateway Plan or the design standards for safety purposes. He felt that the Commission had several options. The first option would be to continue the project so they could discuss the issue with the applicant. Another option would be to move the project forward with a stipulation, since they were creating an unfair impact on his client, that stated that the applicant contribute to half of the costs that the Debella family would have to pay for the improvements and dedication of the street. He requested that the Commission either continue the project or approve the project with the stipulation that required the developer to contribute to the costs of the dedication of the half street.

Commissioner Dan Dodge clarified that this was not a zoning case and that they would be approving the project, not recommending approval. He explained that the monetary stipulations that Mr. Wood’s was referring to would have had to be addressed as part of the zoning application, which had already gone through in January, 2004.

Mr. Wood thought that they could place stipulations on the preliminary plat in regards to cost sharing. He deferred that decision to the Town’s attorney.

Commissioner Karl Kohlhoff pointed out that the problem was put in place when the school was proposed and the streets were developed. He added that the current proposal was simply matching the half street that was already developed.

Mr. Wood replied that he was correct, but the road should have been placed along the grid line and the developer chose not to do this in order to save four lots.

Commissioner Shane Leonard questioned when Mr. Wood’s client had raised objections to the street alignment.

Mr. Wood was not sure when his client had raised their objections. His understanding was that there had been discussion with the father of the family back in 1999 objecting to the roadway.

Commissioner Shane Leonard pointed out that the half streets were dedicated with the school and all of the utilities were already in place with the road. He asked if the staff had a solution to the problem.

Town Attorney Phyllis Smiley advised that they could not place any condition on a future application. She noted that this would have to be done when the application came in. She explained that the alignment of the road over the Debella’s property was not set in stone. Therefore, when they come in for their zoning they could bring in a design that could be reviewed by the Town. Additionally, she advised that the Commission’s job that evening was not to provide relief to the Debellas, but to approve, continue or deny the plat that was before them. The zoning ordinance that was passed did require the applicant to dedicate portions of Wren Drive and Blue Jay Way that would match the existing roadway.

Commissioner Shane Leonard questioned if the Town had ever cost shared in providing a road in the past where there was a problem such as before them that evening.

Planning Director Jerry Swanson informed the Commission that the Town does not pay for the development of collector and local streets as it has always been the exclusive obligation of the private developer upon whose land that right - of - way falls. In this case, the alignment of the street was set by the sale of property by various property owners to the Higley School District for an elementary school. He explained that the Town was not apprised of the negotiation for the sale of the school property in which the road alignment ultimately followed.

Commissioner Shane Leonard didn’t feel like there was anything that the Commission could do that evening and hoped that they could remedy the situation when the Debella family came forward with a proposal on their land.

Mr. Wood clarified that he was not suggesting that they move the road. He explained that there was no alternative design that they could do to the road to comply with the standards that the Town had for road construction. He was concerned that the intersection didn’t comply since they just received the change the previous day.

Commissioner Karl Kohlhoff suggested that when Mr. Wood’s client developed their property that they bring the collector up the property line and work with the intersection.

Commissioner Dan Dodge questioned what Mr. Wood hoped to accomplish if the project was continued.

Mr. Wood replied that they would like to discuss the intersection to make it safe since it would also be used by his client when they develop their property. He added that this would give them an opportunity to discus the expenses that his client would have to pay for the entire dedication and improvement of the roadway.

Mr. Pew came forward. He noted that the situation was neither the making of the Debella family nor the making of Great Western Homes. He agreed that the roadway on the Debella’s family could be discussed when their application came in. He requested that the Commission approve the plat since they did not have time to continue the project. He felt that they could redesign the intersection and it would not affect the Debella property. Therefore, he stated that there was no reason to continue the case as it would not affect the Debella’s property. He added that the intersection had met the approval of the Town’s Traffic Engineer.

Commissioner Shane Leonard asked if Mr. Wood was correct; that the intersection was changed and approved by the Traffic Engineer the previous week.

Mr. Pew replied that he was not sure when the intersection was approved and assumed that Mr. Wood was correct.

Commissioner Shane Leonard referred to the southern portion of the intersection and asked when it would be constructed.

Mr. Pew replied that this would be constructed with the project as it was on Great Western’s property.

Chairman Brigette Peterson closed the public hearing.

Commissioner Shane Leonard asked the staff if they should hold off constructing the southern portion of the intersection until the proposal came forward from the Debella family.

Mr. Milillo replied that Mr. Pew did not refer to the intersection that would have the road that would ultimately go off their property. He used the visual aid to point out what Great Western was responsible for developing.

Commissioner Shane Leonard questioned what would happen to the south section of the intersection that was the point of discussion earlier.

Mr. Milillo replied that normally pavement ends until the other property owner developed his property.

Commissioner Shane Leonard noted that when the Debella family came forward with their proposal they would be able to adjust the road that went through their property.

Planning Director Jerry Swanson commented that Circle G, who was the seller of the property to the school district, was obligated to construct the entire alignment of Blue Jay Avenue all the way to Power Road. He added that none of Blue Jay Avenue was on the Debella property.
Commissioner Karl Kohlhoff suggested that they approve the plat and let the traffic engineers work with the Debellas to run the road through their property.

Vice Chairman Michael Monroe agreed with Commissioner Karl Kohlhoff and that the traffic engineers that work for the Town would be able to come up with a good solution.

A motion was made by Vice Chairman Michael Monroe, seconded by Commissioner Karl Kohlhoff, to approve S04 - 8, preliminary plat for The Willows, subject to conditions that were provided on 8/4/04.

Motion Carried 6 - 0.

Approval of S04 - 8, the preliminary plat, including the Open Space Plan as recommended and conditioned by the Design review Board for The Willows, a single - family residential development, subject to the following conditions:

The final plat document shall conform to the preliminary plat exhibit approved by the Planning Commission at the August 4, 2004 public hearing.
Construction of the project shall conform to the exhibits approved and conditions stipulated by the Design Review Board at the July 15, 2004 public hearing.
The Green Belt Paseos identified on the Open Space Plan shall be a minimum of 20′ in width to accommodate a tree - lined pedestrian path system.
Prior to issuance of any permits, the applicant shall submit for Planning Department approval:
A revised Open Space Plan that complies with Section 2.4 (1 - 11) and figure 4 of the Gateway Area Right - of - Way Improvement Standards and Streetscape Design Guidelines for Recker Road.
A revised plant palette that eliminates the Blue - Leaf Wattle, Weeping Bottlebrush and Mesquite trees and replaces them with Chitalpa, Littleleaf Ash and Mastic trees as required in Figure 10 of the Gateway Area Right - of - Way Improvement Standards and Streetscape Design Guidelines.
A landscape design for the southeast corner of Galveston Street and Recker Road that complies with Figure 9 of the Gateway Area Right - of - Way Improvement Standards and Streetscape Design Guidelines for Collector Street intersections.
Additional lighting cut sheets for streetlights, ramadas and bollards within open space areas.

All amenities shall match those noted in the “Amenities and Materials Plan” submitted with this application.
Prior to final plat approval, the applicant shall submit a revised preliminary plat exhibit for Planning Department approval addressing the following:
Revised tract table identifying the areas for all open space and access - way tracts.
A Roadway Easement to construct the south half of the public roadway on Vest Avenue, including the traffic circle surrounding Tract XX at the southeast portion of the subdivision.
A revised phasing plan that includes Tulsa Street improvements as part of phase 1.
The design of all the traffic circles throughout the project conforming to the following standards: rolled curb in the center and splitter islands per ITE guidelines, raised concrete splitter islands installed on all approaches to prevent left turns, and paving markings and traffic signs per Town of Gilbert standards and MUTCD guidelines.

7. The final plat shall include the following:
Use and Benefit Easement Notes and Details
Private Shared Driveway Easement Notes
Alley Access Easement Notes

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.

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.

Developer of the Willows subdivision shall build full improvements for Vest Avenue, including the circle around Tract XX, within phase 4 of the project.

S04 - 5 - Preliminary Plat for Bella Lago, 13 lots on 5.1 acres with an underlying zoning classification of (R1 - 7) Single - Family Residential with a (PAD) Planned Area Development overlay, located within the Islands PAD at the northeast corner of Sunfish and South Islands Drives. Jason Sanks 503 - 6805

Planner Jason Sanks informed the Commission that S04 - 5 was a request for approval of the Preliminary Plat for Bella Lago, 13 lots on 5.1 acres with an underlying zoning classification of (R1 - 7) Single - Family Residential with a (PAD) Planned Area Development overlay, located within the Islands PAD at the northeast corner of Sunfish and South Islands Drives. He provided a visual aid that illustrated where the parcel was located.

Mr. Sanks reviewed the history of the property. He noted that the original zoning for this PAD was approved in 1983. This 5.1 acre project is located within Parcel 20 of the Islands PAD and was originally reserved as a school site. Later, the development plan changed to a worship facility. Plans for both of these uses have been abandoned and the 5.1 acre parcel is now proposed to be platted and developed for a small 13 lot subdivision. This is compatible with its underlying zoning designation of R1 - 7 PAD. All submitted plans for this request have been reviewed and approved by the Islands Home Owner’s Association. The only outstanding issue with the project is the name of Calypso Drive. The Town’s Addressing Department has requested that this be renamed West Calypso Court.

Mr. Sanks discussed the zoning. He indicated that the R1 - 7 zoning for this site was approved with the original Islands PAD through Ordinance 360. Amended development standards for the R1 - 7 zoning district were adopted through Ordinance 401. The proposed plat is offering oversized lots with an overall density of 2.6 units per acre. This exceeds the standards required by the approved zoning.

Mr. Sanks described the circulation using the visual aid. He explained that circulation within this development was simple, consisting of one loop road, Calypso Drive, that provided access to all 13 lots. In lieu of a typical cul - de - sac design, this road wraps a landscape tract in the center. Calypso Drive ties into Laguna Drive, with nearby access to South Islands Drive. South Islands Drive is the Islands PAD loop residential collector street that provides access to Warner, Elliot, and McQueen Roads. He added that the Bella Lago development will be built in one phase.

Mr. Sanks reviewed the open space plan. The Landscape Plan blends with the existing landscape improvements within the Islands project. There are two primary open space tracts. One is located at the subdivision entrance with the entry monument. This area will be landscaped with turf, four 36″ box Brazilian Pepper trees, ten 36″ box Wax Leaf Privet trees, and assorted groundcover. The second significant open space tract will be located in the center of the Calypso Drive cul - de - sac. This area will host the mailbox kiosk, more turf, four 36″ box Brazilian Pepper trees, four 36″ box Evergreen Elm trees, assorted groundcover, and decorative boulders. The perimeter of the development will have 24″ to 36″ box trees, patches of turf, and more groundcover. Wall and entry monument design blends with the color and materials theme of the existing Islands development that surrounds the project.

Mr. Sanks recommended approval of the plat and asked if there were any questions.

Commissioner Karl Kohlhoff referred to the last comment on water conservation that stated “This project is exempt from NPCCP water conservation regulations since it underwent its last change in zoning classification in 1984″ and felt that it should be eliminated. He felt that they should emphasis water conservation and that this comment sent the wrong message.

Mr. Sanks replied that they did review the plans according to water conservation and recommended water conserving plants. He added that turf was not the only thing used and that decomposed granite was also used.

Commissioner Shane Leonard questioned what the road width was for Calypso Drive.

Mr. Sanks replied that it would be 50′ for improvement and 41′ for right - of - way.

Commissioner Shane Leonard was concerned about on street parking with one way in and one way out. He referred to lots 1, 2, 3 and 13 and noted that if they decided to have a party they would bottleneck the ingress and egress point.

Mr. Sanks replied that the applicant would like to speak to Commissioner Shane Leonard’s concerns.

Planning Manager Linda Edwards commented that 32′ of pavement for a local street was typical for on street parking.

Mr. Sanks mentioned that the applicant had worked closely with the Islands HOA and that they agreed to the project.

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

Mark Schell, Pridemark Residential, 4535 S. Lakeshore Drive, Tempe came forward. He explained that the Islands had a special set of standards that were approved in 1983 for a local street that required a 41′ right - of - way, which were the same standards that they were complying with.

Chairman Brigette Peterson questioned if the neighborhood would have its own HOA of if it would be under the Islands HOA.

Mr. Schell replied that there would not be a separate sub association; that it would fall under the Islands HOA.

A motion was made by Vice Chairman Michael Monroe, seconded by Alternate Commissioner Susan Preiss, to approve S04 - 5, the Preliminary Subdivision Plat for Bella Lago, subject to conditions provided on 8/4/04.

Motion Carried 6 - 0.

Approval of S04 - 5, Preliminary Plat for Bella Lago, a single - family residential development, subject to the following conditions:

The final plat shall conform to the Preliminary Plat exhibit approved by the Planning Commission at the August 4, 2004 public hearing.
Calypso Drive shall be renamed West Calypso Court on the Final Plat.
The final plat shall identify the type(s) of streets, public or private and clearly note the entity responsible for ownership and maintenance.
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.
Construction of the project shall conform with exhibits approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission at the August 4, 2004 public hearing.
At the time of construction document submittal, the site plan shall include Town of Gilbert standard commercial and industrial site plan notes adopted by the Gilbert Design Review Board March 11, 2004.

UP04 - 7 - Use Permit to allow vehicle rentals at the Fiesta Auto Center (Avis). The site is zoned C - 2 (General Commercial) with a (PAD) Planned Area Development overlay, located within the Fiesta Ranch Commerce Park, north of the northeast corner of McQueen and Guadalupe Roads. Jason Sanks 503 - 6805

Planner Jason Sanks informed the Commission that UP04 - 7 was a Use Permit request to allow vehicle rentals at the Fiesta Auto Center (Avis). The site is zoned C - 2 (General Commercial) with a (PAD) Planned Area Development overlay, located within the Fiesta Ranch Commerce Park, north of the northeast corner of McQueen and Guadalupe Roads. He provided a visual aid that identified which tenants occupied which suites and the proposed spaces that the Avis Rent A Car may use for its vehicle storage.

Mr. Sanks reviewed the history of the site. He noted that this project was part of a lengthy zoning history for the Fiesta Ranch PAD. In 2000, the site underwent a change in zoning classification to C - 2 for the intent of developing auto repair and maintenance uses. In 2002, Planning and Zoning Commission approved UP02 - 10, Use Permit to allow a major auto repair facility at Fiesta Auto Center. Later that year, Review Board approved DR02 - 43, site plan and architecture for the Fiesta Auto center. The Fiesta Auto Center was built in 2003 and has leased three of its five tenant spaces - all for auto - related uses.

Mr. Sanks used the visual aid to point out the surrounding uses:
Existing Zoning        Existing Use
North        C - 2 PAD        Undeveloped, proposed McQueen Auto Center
East        I - 1 PAD        Crown Collision
South        C - 2 PAD        Texaco/Star Mart convenience store with drive - through car wash
West        C - 2, R - 2        McQueen Road, Walgreen’s and strip retail
Onsite        C - 2 PAD        Fiesta Auto Center

Mr. Sanks discussed the findings needed for approval of a Use Permit. He indicated that the subject site is located within a Light Industrial (LI) land use area of the General Plan. The proposed use at this site with C - 2 zoning meets the described uses of the GC recommended land use. Staff believes that this proposal is in conformance with the intent and policies of the General Plan. The vehicle rental facility will provide a useful service to patrons of Napa and surrounding auto repair facilities. Several use permits have already been approved, including this site, to allow auto related uses.

Mr. Sanks reviewed the egress and ingress of the project. The site has a single driveway that accesses McQueen Road. An additional driveway is located in the rear of the property that provides access to N. Bay Drive, and industrial local street that provides indirect access to Guadalupe Road through the Fiesta Ranch Commerce Center.

Mr. Sanks explained that the original concern staff had was in regards to the parking. He explained that the 69 spaces were provided when the building was constructed. Avis Rent - a - Car will require a maximum of 12 parking stalls at any one time (2 employees, 10 rentals). Napa and Amoco will both be utilizing the Avis Rent - a - Car service and will be required to host the burden of additional parking that is required for the car rental use. In response to this, the applicant prepared a parking analysis that explains how Napa and Amoco underutilize their allocated parking and Avis will use their surplus. This includes what spaces are needed for employees, customers, and rental vehicles as opposed to what spaces are required/provided. There is expected to be 32 spaces available for the two remaining unoccupied suites, 30 of which are required.

Mr. Sanks stated that ten spaces were noted on the site plan for Avis rental vehicle parking. Two of these spaces will be posted with signs for Avis parking only. This ensures their availability at all times. The other eight stalls will be available for Avis parking or customer parking. Avis did not wish to sign all ten spaces because they are not expecting to have ten rental vehicles on site and the eight spaces could be more useful for general parking for the center. However, their rental vehicles will be limited to these spaces.

Mr. Sanks informed the Commission that the vehicle rental facility will be open: Monday - Friday 8:00am to 6:00pm; and Saturday 9:00am to 5:00pm. He concluded his presentation by stating that they were recommending approval of the Use Permit and asked for questions.

Alternate Commissioner Susan Preiss asked for clarification on the parking and where the employees would park if all ten spaces were used by rental cars.

Mr. Sanks replied that the two employee spaces were included in the overall parking analysis for the site and were not part of the ten allocated rental car spaces. He added that Avis did not intend to have more than a couple rental cars on site at a time and should not use all ten spaces.

Alternate Commissioner Susan Preiss questioned what the square foot to parking ratios were for the center.

Mr. Sanks replied that the parking ratio for the center was one space for every three hundred square feet of tenant space.

Alternate Commissioner Susan Preiss asked if the vacant spaces would still be left at the same ratio.

Mr. Sanks replied that the vacant spaces would have the same parking ratio of one to three hundred.

Commissioner Shane Leonard referred to the stipulation that required ten spaces and was concerned that some of the spaces might be taken. He explained that if an inspector came to the site he would expect to see ten spaces since that was what was stipulated in the Use Permit.

Mr. Sanks clarified that the intent of the stipulation was to make sure that only ten spaces were used and that this was a maximum.

Commissioner Dan Dodge suggested that the Commission change the stipulation to state “no more than ten” to clarify the issue.

Mr. Sanks added that they could stipulate that the ten spaces be signed if they wanted.

Commissioner Dan Dodge suggested that they could add a stipulation that three spaces be signed.

Mr. Sanks replied that it was the applicant’s intent to sign spaces one and two for rental vehicles, as shown on the site plan exhibit.

Chairman Brigette Peterson agreed that two spaces were ample in her experience renting cars. She added that this was the number agreed to with the applicant.

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

A motion was made by Commissioner Dan Dodge, seconded by Commissioner Shane Leonard, that having met the required findings the Commission approves UP04 - 7, subject to conditions, amending condition one to state “No more than ten spaces shall be available for rental vehicles. Spaces numbered one and two shall be signed and reserved for said use”.

Motion Carried 6 - 0.

Approval of UP04 - 7, Use Permit to allow vehicle rentals at the Fiesta Auto Center, subject to the following conditions:
No more than ten spaces shall be available for rental vehicles. Spaces numbered one and two shall be signed and reserved for said use.
The ten parking spaces shall be located per the site plan, Exhibit 2.

Z04 - 20 - Rezone 37.32 acres from I - 1 to I - 1 PAD for the Fuller Commercial Center located approximately 700 feet west of the intersection of Cooper Road and Merrill Avenue. Joseph Moon 503 - 6748

Senior Planner Joseph Moon informed the Commission that Z04 - 20 was a request to rezone 37.32 acres from I - 1 to I - 1 PAD for the Fuller Commercial Center located approximately 700 feet west of the intersection of Cooper Road and Merrill Avenue. He indicated that this proposal, along with an additional piece was reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission in 2003. It was subsequently approved by the Town Council to rezone the property from AG to I - 1 Garden Industrial property. He reviewed the surrounding land use using the visual aid:

Land Use Category        Existing Zoning        Existing Use
North        Regional Commercial (RC) & Light Industrial (LI)        (C - 2) General Commercial & (AG) Agriculture         Shopping Center & Vacant
South        Residential (> 5 - 8 DU/ac)        (AG) Agriculture &
(R - 2) Residential         Church & Single Family Residential and Duplexes
East        Regional Commercial (RC)        (C - 2) General Commercial        Developing Commercial
West        Light Industrial (LI)        (I - 2) Light Industrial        Industrial/Manufacturing
On - Site        Light Industrial (LI)        (I - 1) Garden Industrial        Vacant

Mr. Moon explained that the applicant is proposing to rezone the site from (I - 1) Garden Industrial to (I - 1) PAD Garden Industrial to allow minimum lot sizes of ½ acre to accommodate future industrial development. According to the Unified Land Development Code (ULDC), the intent of the (I - 1) Garden Industrial is to provide employment centers and production within a garden type planned development.

Mr. Moon noted that the General plan Land Use Map indicates that the project is located entirely within the LI (Light Industrial) land use category. This designation is intended to provide a variety of light industrial uses, including assembly, light manufacturing, warehousing, offices, contractors’ yards, laboratories, and research and development firms. The proposed rezoning of the 37.23 acre site from (I - 1) Garden Industrial to (I - 1) PAD Garden Industrial, meets the intent of the General Plan Land Use Guidelines.

Mr. Moon discussed the circulation for the project. A Traffic Impact Analysis has been submitted to the Traffic Engineering Department. The study recommends a traffic signal at Cooper Road and Merrill Avenue. The applicant has indicated that a loop road designed to industrial collector standards is proposed through the site that will link Cooper Road at the Merrill Avenue alignment and then north to Baseline Road. The proposed (I - 1) PAD Garden Industrial property will have access to Cooper Road via this industrial collector loop road. A master circulation and drainage plan will be submitted with the preliminary plat. There is an approximately 38 - foot - wide SRP easement along the south property line of the site that is included in the rezoning of all of the proposed I - 1 PAD property.
Mr. Moon recommended approval of the zoning case subject to the conditions and asked for questions.

Commissioner Shane Leonard referred to condition b, where it stated that “Developer shall complete recordation of easements for pedestrian, bicycle, equestrian, multi - use or other public access trail system by the time of final plat recordation or sooner if required by the Town Engineer.” and asked if this was typical for an industrial property.

Mr. Moon replied that the traffic engineer felt that this would be a heavily used street and that those requirements would be necessary.

Commissioner Shane Leonard asked for clarification that the intent was for a trail system and not for use in the right - of - way. He questioned if they often asked for a trail system easement dedication on industrial property.

Planning Director Jerry Swanson stated that normally a collector street in an industrial project was built without sidewalks and was striped for a bicycle lane. He wasn’t sure why the engineering staff would stipulate it this way.

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

Lonnie McCleve, 721 E, San Pedro, Gilbert with Greenfield Land Development came forward. Regarding item b, he assumed that this meant a bicycle lane since that was what he discussed with the traffic engineer. He requested that the stipulation be eliminated and agreed to the other stipulations.

Commissioner Dan Dodge asked if they could delete stipulation b, since the bicycle lane would be striped in the right - of - way.

Planning Director Jerry Swanson replied that they could delete the stipulation.

A motion was made by Commissioner Karl Kohlhoff, seconded by Alternate Commissioner Susan Preiss, to recommend to the Town Council approval of Z04 - 20 rezoning 37.32 acres from (I - 1) Garden Industrial to (I - 1) Garden Industrial with a (PAD) Planned Area Development overlay for property located approximately 700 feet west of the intersection of Cooper Road and Merrill Avenue, as conditioned, striking condition b.

Motion Carried 6 - 0.

Recommend approval to the Town Council of Z04 - 20, changing the zoning of approximately 37.32 acres from (I - 1) Garden Industrial to (I - 1) Garden Industrial with a (PAD) Planned Area Development overlay, subject to the following conditions:

a. Developer shall create a new POA (Property Owner’s Association) for the industrial portions of the project for the maintenance and preservation of all common areas, landscaping and improvements within the open space areas and public street rights - of - way. Maintenance responsibilities for common areas and open space areas shall be specified on the final plat as approved by the Design Review Board.

Developer shall complete recordation of easements for pedestrian, bicycle, equestrian, multi - use or other public access trail system by the time of final plat recordation or sooner if required by the Town Engineer.

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

(1) The minimum lot size shall be 0.5 net acres.

Z04 - 7 - Amend the Town of Gilbert Unified Land Development Code by amending the glossary to revise the definitions of “Day Care Child” and “Day Care, Home Occupation” and add a definition for “Day Care, Residential” and amending Chapter 1 Land Use Designation, Article VII Land Use Administration, Section 7.52 Administrative Use Permits to allow the operation of Home Day Care, for more than four (4) children in residential zoning districts with a Use Permit. Joseph Moon 503 - 6748

Chairman Brigette Peterson clarified that there was not a Use Permit needed for a Home Day Care as long as they meet the requirements.

Senior Planner Joseph Moon reminded the Commission that Z04 - 7 was brought before the Commission at a Working Session on July 7. He provided history on the case by stating that on February 3, 2004, in response to citizen concerns, the Council directed staff to make a change in the ULDC regarding home based day care. The direction was to amend the Code to allow for up to 10 paid children to be cared for in a home based environment, an increase from the present 4. Town staff from Planning, Building Safety, Fire, Legal and the Town Manager met regarding implementation and subsequent reports and recommendations were presented to the Town Council on March 16, 2004 and March 30, 2004. As a result of the March 30, 2004 Council meeting, a Child Care Safety Work Group consisting of Town staff and interested members of the public was established to review the recommendations. The Safety Work Group met on May 7, 2004 and was able to agree on the requirements and methods of implementation of the proposed Child Care Ordinance.

Mr. Moon pointed out that on July 6, 2004 the Council adopted Ordinance 1581 amending the Building Code to require Daycare rooms at grade level to have swinging exit doors directly to the exterior. In addition a residential smoke/fire detection system, monitored by an offsite alarm monitoring company is required and will be regulated by policy through the Fire Prevention Division.

Mr. Moon noted that the Ordinance allowed the use in any family residential zone down to the R1 - 5 zone and excludes the cluster and multi - family zones.

Mr. Moon briefly went over some of the requirements that Staff was recommending in the Ordinance. He noted that item c. indicated that one employee not residing in the dwelling unit was permitted at any one time. He explained that typically home occupation uses don’t allow for another employee. He corrected item e to state that the masonry walls have a self - latching, not self - locking gate. He pointed out that residential day care facilities were required to be located at least three hundred feet away from any other day care use. He concluded his presentation and asked for questions.

Chairman Brigette Peterson referred to item d. which discussed the identification and questioned what the code restriction was for signage.

Planning Director Jerry Swanson responded that the sign code limits identification in single family residential districts to a street address and a small sign with the residents name. He added that business signage would not be permitted.

Chairman Brigette Peterson questioned if they had received any comments about the six foot high masonry wall.

Mr. Moon replied that staff had not received any comments from the public regarding the six foot high wall, but there was some concern expressed by code enforcement. He explained that they were concerned that older developments that didn’t have a block wall would have an imposition placed upon them.

Commissioner Karl Kohlhoff agreed to this requirement as it mitigates the noise from the playground.

Commissioner Shane Leonard added that this would also provide security for the children.

Commissioner Dan Dodge pointed out that this fence requirement would not make it possible for day care to take place in homes where there were view fences that opened into a common space since an HOA would not permit a block wall.

Planning Director Jerry Swanson clarified that a home occupation day care would not require the block wall. He pointed out that only a residential day care would have this requirement. He referred the Commission to the definitions in the Ordinance.

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

Paul Holler, 3940 E. Park Court, Gilbert came forward. He reviewed some of the attributes of the ordinance. He thought that there were some problems that he felt were important. The HOA and CC&Rs that he was familiar with prohibit most home based businesses. He felt that that limitation would supersede the changes that the Town was now considering. He was concerned about the issues that would arise from this ordinance with the HOA boards. He stated that one of the main concerns was over the correct number of allowed children. He didn’t think that there was a defensible number and that the state didn’t have a better rationale for the number than he did. He agreed that the right number was probably not four, but that ten was too many. He added that as a neighbor he didn’t know if he could tell there was a business next door with four children, but would defiantly be able to tell if there were ten children. He felt that this would have a negative impact on neighbors because of parking and trips per day down their local streets. He felt that this change would negatively impact more people than it will help.

Chairman Brigette Peterson closed the public hearing.

Commissioner Shane Leonard questioned what constituted adult day care since it wasn’t listed in the definition section.

Mr. Swanson replied that it was defined in the code and that there weren’t any changes proposed, so it was not called out in the ordinance.

Commissioner Shane Leonard asked what the definition was for day care adult.

Mr. Swanson read the definition for adult day care: “The care, supervision and guidance of an adult or adults over the age of 18, unaccompanied by guardian or custodian for periods of less than 24 hour per day in a place other than the adults own home.”

Commissioner Shane Leonard questioned what would happen if you were between the ages of 13 and 17.

Commissioner Dan Dodge felt that children between the ages of 13 and 17 would not count within the restriction of ten children. He noted that the prior age of 14 was stricken and wondered why it was changed.

Town Attorney Phyllis Smiley advised that the reason it was changed from 14 to 12 was to conform with state law. She added that much of what was in the ordinance was in conformance with state law. She noted that Arizona law defined a child as 12 or younger. She thought that the 13 to 17 year olds were not covered in the law because it was not anticipated that they would need daycare.

Chairman Brigette Peterson commented that it sounded like a business issue and that there weren’t enough viable businesses that provided for day care for 13 to 17 year olds.

Commissioner Dan Dodge felt that they should count them as adults if they weren’t counted as children. He felt that for the purpose of day care they should change the adult definition to state 13 years old instead of 18 years old. He thought they should fit into a category somewhere.

Town Attorney Phyllis Smiley advised that the problem with this was that a lot of the regulations they were requiring the home day cares to conform to state licensing requirements. For that group for 13 to 17 she didn’t think there were any state requirements for licensing. Therefore, they would be creating a situation where they were requiring them to get a license that doesn’t exist.

Vice Chairman Michael Monroe agreed with Town Attorney Phyllis Smiley. He discussed the process in acquiring a state license and how involved it was. He didn’t think they could add something to their ordinance that adds to the requirements of state law.

Commissioner Shane Leonard was concerned about additional children in the house between the ages of 13 - 17, since they weren’t regulated, and the impact that would have on fire safety. He stated that he had heard that fire codes were based on occupants in the home and not on the age of the children.

Vice Chairman Michael Monroe agreed with Commissioner Shane Leonard’s comments, but didn’t agree to supercede Arizona state law.

Town Attorney Phyllis Smiley informed the Commission that there were also provisions in the International Fire Code and the building codes that address the issues of home base day care. The standards that were required for safety and fire were outlined in the code referred to children up to age 12 and adult day care over the age of 18. She explained that once a child reached a certain age it was assumed that the child would be able to take care of themselves in an emergency situation.

Alternate Commissioner Susan Preiss questioned if there was a clause that discussed special needs children.

Town Attorney Phyllis Smiley replied that special needs children were referenced in the building code ordinance that was adopted in Ordinance 1581.

Alternate Commissioner Susan Preiss asked if the number of children includes the number of children that belong to the day care provider. She felt that ten children was lot. She asked if there was a square foot ratio to the number of children that were in the home.

Town Attorney Phyllis Smiley responded that the home owner’s children are not included in the ten permitted. She added that state licensing requirements were square footage per child.

Chairman Brigette Peterson agreed that ten children was a lot to care for, but the state law allowed it.

Commissioner Dan Dodge clarified that one adult care giver could only watch five children by state law. Therefore, there would need to be another paid adult in the home to care for the other five.

Commissioner Dan Dodge noted that there was a typographical error in the last line on item d.

A motion was made by Commissioner Dan Dodge, seconded by Vice Chairman Michael Monroe, to recommend approval to the Town Council of Z04 - 7 to amend the Unified Land Development Code by amending the glossary to revise the definitions of “Day Care Child” and “Day Care, Home Occupation” and add a definition for “Day Care, Residential” to allow home daycare providers to provide service for up to 10 children and to allow for one additional home based business employee necessary to meet the child/caregiver ratio as required by the State.

Motion Carried 6 - 0.

CONSENT ITEM

Minutes ? Special Meeting Minutes of June 16, 2004 and Regular Meeting Minutes of July 7, 2004.

Chairman Brigette Peterson noted that in the special meeting minutes from June 16, the Town Attorney’s name needed to be changed to Phyllis Smiley.

A motion was made by Commissioner Dan Dodge, seconded by Vice Chairman Michael Monroe, to approve the Special Meeting Minutes of June 16, 2004 and Regular Meeting Minutes of July 7, 2004.

Motion Carried 6 - 0.

COMMUNICATIONS

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

Chairman Brigette Peterson thanked Commissioner Shane Leonard for speaking at the new residents social. She noted that it was a success with about forty residents in attendance. She announced that there would be another one coming up on the third Saturday in October and asked if anyone was interested in speaking at that meeting.

Chairman Brigette Peterson reported that the 12th annual super conference for the Arizona Water Law was being held August 12 and 13. She asked if Commissioner Shane Leonard was planning to attend the conference.

Commissioner Shane Leonard stated that he was and would give a report after he attended the conference.

Update on Unified Land Development Code revision

Planning Director Jerry Swanson announced that all of the text for proposed revisions to the code were on the web site available for public comment. He stated that this would close toward the end of the month. He added that they were in the process of formulating the details for the public participation sessions, public hearings and study sessions with the Planning Commission and the Town Council. He stated that Planning Manager Linda Edwards was going to be working on some of the mapping issues that attend to adopting a new code and reclassification of the entire Town to the new zoning districts. He indicated that they were getting close to finalizing the dates and locations for five public comment sessions. He urged one or two Commissioners to be at these sessions.

Subcommittee Reports

There was no report given.

Report from the Planning Director on current events

Planning Director Jerry Swanson reported that the Town Council adopted a resolution that repeals the 1986 resolution that adopted a variety of things including: transitional zoning and the buffer yard policy. He explained that the resolution stated that it was “repealed by implication” in that the Town had done everything that the resolution stated they were supposed to do and so these actions had rendered the 1986 resolution mute.

Mr. Swanson informed the Commission that Town Manager George Pettit had just returned from a three week management program at Harvard University. He noted that this was sponsored by the Arizona City Management Association and he was selected as the state representative.

ADJOURNMENT

Chairman Brigette Peterson adjourned the meeting at 8:25 P.M.

Chairman Brigette Peterson

ATTEST:

Recorder Trasie Johns

Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes - 4 August 2004

Recently Commented

Archives by Tag

Recent Entries