Posted by TOWN OF GILBERT PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, SPECIAL MEETING
GILBERT MUNICIPAL CENTER, 50 E. CIVIC CENTER DRIVE, GILBERT ARIZONA
JANUARY 19, 2005
COMMISSION PRESENT: Chairman Brigette Peterson, Commissioner Joan Krueger,
Vice Chairman Michael Monroe, Commissioner Shane Leonard, Commissioner James Beene, Commissioner Dan Dodge, Commissioner Karl Kohlhoff
STAFF PRESENT: Planning Director Jerry Swanson, Planning Manager Linda Edwards, Planning Manager Maria Cadavid, Senior Planner Mario Mangiamele,
Senior Planner Mike Milillo
ALSO PRESENT: Vice Mayor Don Skousen, Town Attorney Phyllis Smiley, Town Engineer, Rick Allred Town Traffic Engineer Bruce Ward, Recorder Trasie Johns
PLANNER CASE PAGE VOTE
Ms. Cadavid S04 - 13 2 Approved
Mr. Mangiamele Z01 - 09 4 Approved
Ms. Edwards Z04 - 37 8 Withdraw
Ms. Edwards Z04 - 36 8 Withdraw
Ms. Edwards Z04 - 33 8 Withdraw
Ms. Edwards Z04 - 28 8 Withdraw
Ms. Edwards Z04 - 18 8 Withdraw
Ms. Edwards Z04 - 17 8 Withdraw
Ms. Edwards Z04 - 11 8 Withdraw
Ms. Edwards Z04 - 09 8 Withdraw
Ms. Edwards Z04 - 35 8 Approved
Ms. Edwards Z04 - 23 8 Approved
Mr. Milillo DR04 - 81 9 Discussion
Mr. Mangiamele Z01 - 9 10 Discussion
< - - - > = deleted text bold = added text
in stipulations
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Brigette Peterson called the meeting to order at 6:00 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 Vice Chairman Michael Monroe, seconded by Commissioner Joan Krueger, to approve the agenda.
Motion Carried 6 - 0.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM CITIZENS
Chairman Brigette Peterson announced that members of the public could comment on items not on the agenda. She stated that the Commission’s response was limited to responding to criticism, asking staff to review a matter commented upon or asking that the matter be put on a future agenda. She asked if anyone would like to speak. She informed the audience that there were blue slips that needed to be filled out if anyone wanted to speak.
No one came forward.
PUBLIC HEARING
S04 - 13 ? Preliminary Plat for Eagle Glen II, creating 105 single - family residential lots on 37 acres located at the northwest corner of Lindsay and Ryan Roads. Maria Cadavid 480 - 503 - 6812.
Planning Manager Maria Cadavid informed the Commission that S04 - 13 was a request for approval of a Preliminary Plat for Eagle Glen II, creating 105 single - family residential lots on 37 acres located at the northwest corner of Lindsay and Ryan Roads. She used a visual aid to point out where the project was located. She indicated that the Town Council had approved the General Plan amendment that had reduced the density from Residential>3Ǒ - 5 DU/Acre to Residential>2 - 3Ǒ DU/Acre for the approval of this subdivision. The development proposal was for 105 lots on 37 acres. This yields a density of 2ቆ units per acre. The lot size in Eagle Glen II is 7,500 square feet. The minimum lot size being proposed is compatible with the General Plan.
Ms. Cadavid reviewed the zoning. She noted that Town Council recently approved R1 - 6 (residential single - family) conventional zoning for this property. Therefore, no deviations from the ULDC were allowed. The proposed lots are designed within these standards and lots are larger than the minimum 6,000 square feet allowed under the R1 - 6 zone. She referred to the development standards that were listed in the staff report:
Development Standard Standard ULDC R1 - 6
Lot Area
Minimum Lot Width
Minimum Lot Depth 6,000 square feet
60 feet
100 feet (110 feet backing on arterial)
Lot Coverage 40%
Side Yard Setback 10 feet/15 feet siding onto an arterial street, or where adjacent to commercial/industrial zoned property
Front Setbacks 20 feet
Rear Setback 20 feet*
Building Height 30′ or two stories
Ms. Cadavid discussed the circulation using a visual aid. The entrances to the Eagle Glen II project will be from two access points along Lindsay Road. Entry drive locations meet requirements of Traffic Engineering. A 65 - foot half right - of - way is required for Lindsay Road. The developer will be required to complete half street improvements for the arterial to Town of Gilbert standards. Improvements to Lindsay Road will consist of two lanes in each direction with a striped median. Completion of arterial street improvements is required prior to the issuance of Certificates of Occupancy for any building. A traffic impact analysis that addresses anticipated traffic flow and access points for the project was provided at the time of Preliminary Plat submittal.
Ms. Cadavid stated that there were not any pending engineering issues. The item was originally scheduled for the January 5th hearing, but the Water Conservation Division had not approved it. They have now approved it and the engineering issues had been addressed. The preliminary plat was in conformance with the Town’s requirements. She recommended approval subject to the standard conditions and subject to the recommendation of approval of the Open Space Plan by the Design Review Board.
Ms. Cadavid noted that there was a question regarding the placement of the tot lot on the subdivision. The tot lot is next to the canal and in a flood plain area with a wide green belt for passive and active open space. She used a visual aid to show where the tot lot was located. She indicated that the applicant was not proposing any enclosure of the tot lot from the canal, but the Commission could add a condition if they desired. She explained that the specifics of the design would be conditioned at the Design Review Board open space evaluation. She concluded her presentation and asked if there were any questions.
Seeing no 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. Seeing no one, she closed the public hearing brought the item back to the Commission for discussion and action.
Commissioner Joan Krueger was very concerned about having the tot lot so close to a canal. The other Commissioners agreed that they needed to provide some sort of fencing or barrier between the tot lot and canal for safety.
A motion was made by Commissioner Shane Leonard, seconded by Commissioner Karl Kohlhoff, to approve S04 - 13, the Preliminary Plat for Eagle Glen II development for approximately 37 acres at the northwest corner of Lindsay Road and Ryan Road, with conditions; addition a condition to state that there be some form of constructed barrier between the tot lot and the canal for the purposes of restricting access.
Motion Carried 6 - 0.
Approval of S04 - 13, the preliminary plat for Eagle Glen II, with a total of 105 single - family residential lots on approximately 37 acres, subject to the following conditions:
1. The Final Plat shall conform to Exhibit 2 as approved by the Planning Commission at the January 19, 2005 public hearing.
2. Approval of the Preliminary Plat for Eagle Glen II is subject to approval of the Open Space Plan by the Design Review Board.
3. The Final Plat shall identify the type(s) of streets, public or private, and clearly note the entity responsible for ownership and maintenance.
4. Some form of constructed barrier shall be placed between the tot lot and the canal for the purposes of restricting access to the canal.
Z01 - 09 ? Request approval of Chapter III: Subdivision Regulations of the draft Land Development Code (LDC).
Senior Planner Mario Mangiamele distributed a handout of the revised Subdivision Regulations to the Commissioners. He explained that the document contained changes that had occurred subsequent to the publishing of the packet. He added that the changes were primarily requested by legal counsel to bring the Subdivision Regulations into conformance with state regulations.
Mr. Mangiamele provided some background on the request for approval of Chapter III: Subdivision Regulations of the draft Land Development Code (LDC):
? Comprehensive public review draft of Chapter I: Zoning Regulations released September 9, 2004.
? December 15, 2004, the Planning and Zoning Commission conducted a public hearing and recommended approval of Chapter I: Zoning Regulations and the Official Zoning Map of the draft Land Development Code.
? Chapter III: Subdivision Regulations were released for public review on January 6, 2005.
? The Town’s web site has been updated to include a copy of the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended LDC and draft of Chapter III: Subdivision Regulations. Additional information includes the schedule for meetings and hearings, FAQs (frequently asked questions), general information, and a comment sheet to provide input. Web page: http://www.ci.gilbert.az.us/planning/uldc.cfm .
He noted that the following dates constitute the remainder of the scheduled public meetings and hearings on the Land Development Code:
? 1 - 25 - 05: Public hearing scheduled with Town Council.
? 2 - 1 - 05: Town Council scheduled to adopt new LDC, including subdivision regulations, and Official Zoning Map.
Mr. Mangiamele reviewed the primary objectives for the Subdivision Regulations:
? Provide consistency and predictability.
o Common concerns identified by the stakeholder group were the need for regulations that are consistent and predictable.
? Coordinate with the zoning regulations and other Town plans, regulations, and guidelines.
o The Unified Land Development Code (ULDC) contains inconsistent and contradictory regulation with that of other Town plans, regulations, and guidelines. Recent revisions to the administrative review process, adoption of the Commercial Design Guidelines, draft of Employment District Design Guidelines, and draft of changes to the Municipal Code have all been coordinated with the draft LDC. Staff will be updating the subdivision design and development guidelines in the future to maintain consistency of regulatory documents.
? Streamline subdivision regulations.
o Currently, the ULDC includes a mix of policies, standards, guidelines, legal ambiguities, and administrative information, which makes it difficult to use. Internal inconsistencies and unnecessary material have been eliminated.
o Subdivision regulations and engineering design guidelines and standard details have been separately revised. The Town Engineer will be publishing revised standards and details concurrent with the adoption of the LDC. He explained that these were the cross section details and other specific standards that were currently contained in the back of the current ULDC.
o Article 1Ǎ: Subdivision Regulations does not include any substantive changes in regulation from those adopted in the existing ULDC. The subdivision regulations have primarily been reformatted and edited for consistency and to conform to the formatting for the draft LDC.
o The primary differences from the existing ULDC:
? Information has been included for reservation of land for public purpose, as set forth in state law.
? Procedures for appeals of dedications and exactions have been included to conform to state law.
? A new section requiring the continuation of streets in new subdivisions has been included to support circulation goals and objectives identified in the General Plan. This would require streets in new subdivisions to align with streets in adjacent developments.
? Clarification of approval authority for subdivision phasing to the Town Engineer. He explained that this was not clear in the old code.
? Gated facility entrance regulations were included, just as they are included in the base zoning district regulations for all zoning districts, except for single family. They felt that it was more appropriate to include these regulations in the subdivision regulations
? Dedication of right - of - way and easement requirements, appeal procedures, and improvement standards have been included.
? Extended the expiration date of preliminary subdivision plats from 1 year to 2 years. Renewal procedures have been eliminated; if no final plat application has been filed within 2 years, the preliminary plat will expire.
At 6:15 P.M. Commissioner Dan Dodge joined the Commission.
? Clarify Town authority to regulate the subdivision of 2 or 3 lots or parcels.
o Chapter III, Article 1ǎ: Minor Land Division and Minor Subdivision have been drafted to establish a clear set of procedures in the regulation of land division of 2 or 3 lots or parcels. He pointed out that those were identified in the handout. The Minor Land Division was a division of an area of land that was 2Ǒ acres or less into two or three lots or parcels; or it is the division of land for the purpose of financing sale or lease into two parts where the boundaries of such property have previously been fixed by some sort of plat.
o Minor land divisions will be processed administratively, while minor subdivisions will be approved by the Town Council. Neither will require a preliminary plat.
o Minor Subdivision Non - Residential and Minor Subdivision Residential are in this article. The non - residential was a clarification of state statute as well as the policies that the Town has been following regarding the processing of plats. This includes the division of land of any size for the purpose of sale or lease into ten or fewer lots or parcels, whether or not a new street is involved. The Minor Subdivision Residential is the division of improved or unimproved land whose area was 2Ǒ acres or less for the purpose of sale or lease into two or three lots or parcels where a new street was involved.
? Establish a process and regulations for the vacation of rights - of - way and easements.
o Chapter III, Article 1Ǐ: Vacation of Streets and Easements has been drafted to establish a clear set of procedures for the vacation of streets and easements. Town Council has the approval authority on this and there is no appeal process.
Mr. Mangiamele discussed the public input. He noted that they only had one comment, from Mr. Fischer. He felt there needed to be a definition of “vacation”. Staff agreed that this was appropriate since the term was being used uniquely in the code. He pointed out that the last page of the handout that was provided that evening should have the definition of this term.
Mr. Mangiamele announced that the Subdivision Regulations would be presented concurrently with the Land Development Code for consideration and action by Town Council on January 25, 2005. The Town Engineer would also publish the Subdivision Design Standards and Engineering Details concurrently with the adoption of the revised Subdivision Regulations. He recommended that the Commission recommend approval of Z01 - 09.
Commissioner Shane Leonard questioned if the Commission had seen previous to that evening the revisions that were given that evening. He felt that the addition was quite extensive and was concerned about being able to make a decision since they just received the document.
Mr. Mangiamele apologized and explained that the changes were made based on concerns brought forth by legal counsel. He added that staff did not have the appropriate submittal requirements in the Ordinance. He pointed out that the majority of the additional pages were submittal requirements.
Planning Director Jerry Swanson added that the only thing that had been added were specifics of the size of maps, the scale, the amount of copies and other information that needs to be submitted for preliminary plats and final plats. Although it looks a lot bigger, the information was straight out of the Unified Land Development Code. In the Minor Land Division, Minor Subdivision section they referenced the Subdivision submittals. Although it was listed in the Subdivision Regulations, the section on Minor Land Division, Minor Subdivision references the submittal requirements that were listed in the first section in the material that the Commission received. He explained that although the packet that was given out that evening was a lot larger, it did not contain any new information, just a restructuring in what already existed in the adopted Subdivision Regulations.
Commissioner Shane Leonard referred to 1됚, Dedication of Rights - of - Ways and Easements, the last sentence, paragraph A. which stated that “The Town Engineer shall establish required dedication language for rights - of - way and public easements” and questioned if this was uniform language for all acquisitions so that this language would apply to everything or if it was on a case - by - case basis. He explained that often the Town Engineer would be working with other concurrent utilities and may have to negotiate that language.
Planning Director Jerry Swanson called the Commissions attention to 1됚B, which was Private Utility Easements. He noted that this did not have the same language as 1됚A. Rights - of - way and public easements were Town easements and the Town Engineer would establish standard language for the certificate on the plat, which would be used in every case. He explained that where there were private easements it would fall under subsection B.
Commissioner Shane Leonard referred to the public easements and wondered if the Town Engineer language would apply irregardless of circumstances, or would he have the ability to modify that language as necessary. He provided an example of the Town going to Salt River Project to request an easement and SRP may not like the language that was in there. He was concerned about this possibly happening.
Mr. Swanson deferred the question to Rick Alred, the Town Engineer. He added that their intent was to make it as consistent and uniform in its applicability. He explained that the Town Engineer’s authority would extend to creating different language if he deemed it appropriate
Town Engineer Rick Allred came forward. He explained that they had recently generated new language for all final plat dedications through their attorney’s office. He noted that they were working on standard easement language for the public purpose. He agreed that there were times when a certain easement generated with SRP or RWCD may be different. He explained that if this happens, they just work it out with the attorney.
Commissioner Shane Leonard commented that they added the determination of completeness in the preplat and final plat and limited it to within seven working days. He asked what would happen if they exceeded the seven days.
Mr. Swanson replied that the penalty was not specific. It was the Town’s ordinance objective to have it declared complete or incomplete within seven days as they deemed it to be a reasonable time period. There were times when this would not occur, but the manager attempts to make sure that all of the development review procedures were accomplished within the established time frames. It was their intent to establish some time frame within this code.
Commissioner Shane Leonard agreed that it was appropriate. He was concerned that if the applicant did not receive a denial within seven days they might assume it was approved. He thought they needed to specify what would happen if this notification of completeness didn’t occur.
Mr. Allred explained the procedure. He noted that when things came in over the counter they were quality control reviewed fairly quickly, within the seven day time frame. If they were complete they go into review and if they were incomplete they would be sent back to the applicant.
Commissioner Shane Leonard understood the procedure. He was concerned that if the procedure failed they needed to specify what would happen after the seven day time frame. He felt that if they didn’t specify what would happen on the eighth day they would be open to debate. He thought this might be something to look at before it goes to Town Council.
Vice Chairman Michael Monroe described his experience as an architect working within the Town. He didn’t think that any architect would assume that their project was approved if they weren’t notified from the Town.
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.
Mr. Swanson mentioned that the Commission did not need to hold a public hearing for the adoption of Subdivision Regulations. The staff felt that this was appropriate to provide a noticed public hearing for both the Commission and the Town Council. He noted that a lot of people had been notified about the hearing.
A motion was made by Commissioner Dan Dodge, seconded by Vice Chairman Michael Monroe, to recommend approval of Z01 - 9 to the Town Council as amended on 1/19/05.
Motion Carried 7 - 0.
Zoning projects which require a reclassification of zoning districts to comply with the comprehensive revision to the Zoning Code.
Z04 - 37 - Burrows Concrete East, 1559 Melody Avenue from I - 2 to GI,
General Industrial.
Z04 - 36 - Freeman Farms, NEC & SEC Greenfield and Ocotillo Roads, from R1 - 6,
R1 - 7 and R1 - 8 to SF - 6, SF - 7, and SF - 8.
Z04 - 35 - Elliotana Offices, 925 & 943 Elliott Road, from NCC and R1 - 20 to NO
and SF - 15.
Z04 - 33 - TH Ranch, NEC Greenfield and Guadalupe Roads, from R1 - 15 to SF - 15.
Z04 - 28 - Villas at Spectrum, E of SEC Williams Field and Lindsay Roads, from
R - CH to SFA.
Z04 - 23 - Stratland Estates, NWC Higley and Germann Roads, from R1 - 10, R1 - 7,
and R1 - 6, to SF - 10, SF - 7 and SF - 6.
Z04 - 18 - Upper Lindsay Estates, SWC Lindsay and Williams Field Roads, from
R1 - 8 to SF - 8.
Z04 - 17 - Cameron Ranch, SWC 172nd Street and Baseline Road, from R1 - 5 and
R1 - 6 to SFD and SF - 6.
Z04 - 11 - Lindsay Groves, SWC Lindsay and Germann Roads, from R1 - 6 to SF - 6.
Z04 - 09 - Eagle Glenn II, south of the SWC Lindsay and Germann Roads, from R1 - 6 to SF - 6.
Planning Director Jerry Swanson reminded the Commission that there were certain zoning cases that were in progress and had been acted on by the Commission and Town Council since they published the master map back on October 1, 2004. The date of all the information that went into this map was September 25, 2004. Since that time there have been zoning actions that were taken under the existing Unified Land Development Code. He explained that those needed to be brought into conformance with the land use designations districts in the new code. That was the purpose of the agenda item. There are also additional series of cases the will be heard at the next meeting in February that fall under the same circumstances.
Planning Manager Linda Edwards requested that the Commission take action that was three fold: direct staff to take the research effort on; withdraw the zoning cases that would either be readvertised, withdrawn or dropped completely; recommend to the Town Council approval of two cases. She indicated that she had a map if the Commissioners wanted to review any of the properties. She pointed out that the two cases that they were recommending that the Commission move forward were:
1) Z04 - 35, Elliotana Offices, 925 & 943 Elliott Road, from NCC and R1 - 20 to NO and SF - 15. (This will be rezoned by the Town Council on February 15.)
2) Z04 - 23, Stratland Estates, NWC Higley and Germann, from R1 - 10, R1 - 7, and R1 - 6, to SF - 10, SF - 7 and SF - 6. (This has already been approved by the Town Council on January 4.)
Commissioner Dan Dodge questioned why they were removing so many cases from the agenda.
Ms. Edwards replied that in her scurry to meet a deadline she put zoning cases on a hearing ad that needed to make a deadline with the newspaper without the luxury of a full staff because of the holidays. Therefore she did not have the time to do the complete research, so to be on the safe side she advertised all the cases that were in limbo. With further study she realized that a couple needed a correction in the reclassification category, one was on hold, three were already on the map and did not need action taken.
Chairman Brigette Peterson opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wanted to speak on the item. Seeing no one, she closed the public hearing brought the item back to the Commission for discussion and action.
Town Attorney Phyllis Smiley advised the Commission that they did not need to take action on the first item as it was acted on at the last meeting. She thought that they had already initiated the research.
A motion was made by Vice Chairman Michael Monroe, seconded by Commissioner Joan Krueger to withdraw from the agenda the zoning reclassifications of:
Z04 - 37, Burrows Concrete East, 1559 Melody Avenue from I - 2 to GI, General Industrial.
Z04 - 36, Freeman Farms, NEC & SEC Greenfield and Ocotillo, from R1 - 6, R1 - 7 and R1 - 8 to SF - 6, SF - 7, and SF - 8.
Z04 - 33, TH Ranch, NEC Greenfield and Guadalupe, from R1 - 15 to SF - 15.
Z04 - 28, Villas at Spectrum, E of SEC Williams Field and Lindsay Road, from R - CH to SFA.
Z04 - 18, Upper Lindsay Estates, SWC Lindsay and Williams Field, from R1 - 8 to SF - 8.
Z04 - 17, Cameron Ranch, SWC 172nd Street and Baseline Road, from R1 - 5 and R1 - 6 to SFD and SF - 6.
Z04 - 11, Lindsay Groves, SWC Lindsay and Germann Roads, from R1 - 6 to SF - 6.
Z04 - 09, Eagle Glenn II, south of the SWC Lindsay and Germann Roads, from R1 - 6 to SF - 6; and to recommend approval to the Town Council reclassification of:
Z04 - 35, Elliotana Offices, 925 & 943 Elliott Road, from NCC and R1 - 20 to NO and SF - 15.
Z04 - 23, Stratland Estates, NWC Higley and Germann, from R1 - 10, R1 - 7, and R1 - 6, to SF - 10, SF - 7 and SF - 6.
Motion Carried 7 - 0.
ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS
DR04 - 81 ? Review and discuss the Draft Industrial/Employment Design Guidelines ? Mike Milillo 503 - 6747
Senior Planner Mike Milillo announced that the item had already been presented to the Design Review Board in a working session, to the Economic Advisory Board and the Gilbert Chamber of Commerce Policy Committee. He provided a visual aid that listed all the design guidelines that had been approved in the past. He noted that the last set of guidelines that were acted upon were the Commercial Design Guidelines which were approved about a year and a half ago.
Mr. Milillo described the process of developing the Draft of the Industrial/Employment Design Guidelines. In May 2004 the Planning Department began meeting with an Industrial Design Guidelines Committee consisting of architects, including a member of the Design Review Board, a Chamber of Commerce representative, an Economic Development Advisory Board representative and a member of Valley Partnership. The Committee was charged with developing a set of design standards for industrial developments (Industrial Design Guidelines) that project a quality public image, yet recognize the functional needs of industry. The Committee met on six occasions. One of the first things that the committee decided was that they wanted to start off with the same format and many of the same guidelines that were utilized in the Commercial Design Guidelines. Since commercial buildings were very different than industrial buildings the committee removed items that did not apply and added items that would apply.
Mr. Milillo discussed the purpose of the Design Guidelines. He noted that the purpose was to communicate with the development community in advance the design expectations for Industrial/Employment projects to facilitate the review process. Industrial/Employment projects are those proposed within the Business Park, Light Industrial and General Industrial zoning districts. He explained that they provide the same types of review comments to architects and their clients and felt that they should be listed in advance so that the development community was aware of them.
Mr. Milillo reviewed the applicability of the Guidelines. He explained that the Guidelines apply to all new industrial and employment developments and their substantial alterations that require approval by the Design Review Board or planning staff. They are also intended for use by staff when Maricopa County requests input on industrial or employment proposals within unincorporated parts of Gilbert’s planning area. These guidelines should be used by developers when designing projects, referenced by the Design Review Board when reviewing projects and by the Town Council when hearing appeals of Design Review Board decisions. These guidelines are also applicable for staff review.
Mr. Milillo discussed the use of the Guidelines. The provisions set forth in this document identify the desired level of design quality for industrial/employment development.
Mr. Milillo reviewed the relationship between the different types of documents that the Town produces. He noted that the Commission was familiar with how they distinguish between the General Plan, the Code and Design Guidelines. He explained that they discussed this at length in the committee and at that Chamber Policy Committee and the Economic Development Advisory Board. He noted that they didn’t use a checklist and that the Guidelines would not appear in some sort of a checklist. When they review projects they would not check off each item that is found in the document. That was not the way that they have used any of the other design guidelines and that would not be the intention for this one. On the other hand, they would look at the guidelines and determine what would be applicable to the types of projects that they were seeing. Some of the guidelines would apply to large projects and others would only apply to small projects.
Mr. Milillo mentioned that at the Economic Advisory Board and the Chamber they discussed the fact that they were trying to straddle the line between giving good guidance to provide a complete and quality package for design review and also allowing some flexibility. Many of the items that were in there were meant to spark some ideas in the minds of the development community and their architects. He referred to the section on employee amenities and indicated that they were not saying that every industrial building needed to provide an outdoor employee amenity break area. He described industrial parks that had done this well, but noted that not every single building would have this applied to it.
Mr. Milillo stated that industrial buildings were different because of their use. He pointed out that they tend to be larger and boxier buildings. Many of them involved in warehousing and distribution have loading docks and bays. He outlined the section on site design and planning by stating that it included: building orientation, pedestrian and employee amenities, hardscape, the relationship between industrial employment and residential districts, vehicular circulation and parking (encourage the separation from the truck traffic and the public areas), loading areas and accessory equipment (orienting them away from public street frontage), landscaping and grading (providing several examples of drainage facilities that they would find acceptable), lighting (selecting lighting fixtures that compliment the general architectural style of the development and provide security lighting that was affective and attractive.
Mr. Milillo reviewed the section on building design. He stated that it discussed massing and using forms and different types of materials to break up the building mass. The section provides a list of building materials that were acceptable and had been used in previous buildings in the Town. The final section of the Guidelines was on environmental sensitivity. This section was included in the commercial design guidelines. He added that they had received public comment that indicated that they felt it was important to have this section. This section provides examples of how builders can design their buildings to be energy efficient and attractive. He concluded his presentation and asked if there were any questions. He pointed out that they would be bringing the item back the following month where they would ask the Commission to take action on the Guidelines.
Vice Chairman Michael Monroe felt that the Guidelines were very well written. He liked the flexibility and specificity of the guidelines. He also felt the illustrations were helpful.
Commissioner Shane Leonard asked what a cool roof was. Mr. Milillo replied that a cool roof was an environmental term for roofs that have a variety of different materials that were placed on them that don’t absorb the heat.
Commissioner Shane Leonard commented that when it discussed the mitigation of the heat island effects he felt that it should have a stronger approach by suggesting in the body of the design criteria examples of how this could be done. For example, in the Landscape Design section they could add that parking and loading could be designed to help mitigate the urban heat island effect. He wondered if it would be more appropriate to place this in the landscaping guidelines and parking circulation as a goal. He felt strongly that this was something that they needed to address.
Commissioner Dan Dodge suggested that they needed to add information to the heat island effect. He recommended that they provide examples under the bullet of “Mitigate heat island effect” to show developers different methods of how this could be accomplished.
Commissioner Karl Kohlhoff liked the guidelines. He referred to page eight, the relationship to adjacent residential and commercial, and felt that the two points were very well stated and important.
Z01 - 9 ? Modifications to text; various sections of the Land Development Code.
Senior Planner Mario Mangiamele informed the Commission that staff had placed this on the agenda to inform them of changes that had occurred subsequent to their recommendation for approval of the Land Development Code on December 15. Several minor issues were brought forward to staff from legal counsel and the stakeholders. Therefore staff had drafted some changes to the text of the Land Development Code. He stated that if any of the items were of concern they could pass their comments to the Town Council for their hearing on January 25. He noted that the changes that the Commission had recommended had been incorporated into the code and delivered to the Town Council.
Mr. Mangiamele reviewed the following matrix of the changes (Commissioners comments listed below matrix):
Attachment
# Contact Comment Land Development Code Location Staff Recommendation
No attachment Staff Staff discovered discrepancy between articles in different chapters All Articles within Chapter I: Zoning Regulations Added “Chapter I” to footer to differentiate from other chapters of the LDC
2 & 3 Staff / Stakeholders Tree planting requirement for multi - family developments too dense. Section 2둼: Site Development Regulations (Table 2둼: Site Development Regulations ? Multi - Family Residential Districts); Section 2둼CǏ Reduced the amount of trees from 2 to 1 tree per dwelling unit
4 Legal Legal discovered discrepancy Section 4됛: Swimming Pools Deleted swimming pool regulations. Current section in ULDC will not be repealed at the time of adoption of the LDC. Staff will edit LDC after adoption to include existing regulations
5 & 6 Staff Clarification of stacking space required based on staff comments Section 4: Drive - Through and Take - Out Facilities; Table 4: Drive - Through Facility Stacking Space Requirements; Glossary of General Terms Relocated dimension requirements to Section 4AǍ: General; Removed footnote from table as definition already existed in Glossary of General Terms; and General term for Stacking Space modified for clarification
7 Staff Staff discovered discrepancy Section 5됗Dህ Added subsection providing authority to the P&Z Commission to hear appeals on minor land divisions ? result of drafting Subdivision Regulations
8 Staff / Legal Legal discovered discrepancy Section 5됝: Redevelopment Commission Changes to comply with ARS, as drafted
9 Staff / Legal Legal discovered discrepancy Section 5: Civil Hearing Officer Changes to ARS reference
10 Staff Clarification required based on stakeholder comments Article 6Ǎ: Use Definitions Manufacturing and Assembly, Artisan; Manufacturing and Assembly, Light; and Manufacturing and Assembly, General have been modified for clarity and distinction of use.
11 Staff Clarification required based on draft of Subdivision Regulations Glossary of General Terms Added definition for Vehicular Non - Access Easement ? result of drafting Subdivision Regulations
12 Staff Clarification required based on stakeholder comments Glossary of General Terms Provided clarification to Business Property to distinguish from personal property definition.
13 Staff Clarification required based on draft of Subdivision Regulations Glossary of General Terms Added definition of Residential and Nonresidential Minor Subdivision
Commissioner Shane Leonard referred to table 2둼 and stated that it specified one tree per twenty linear feet, but the common space was adjusted to one tree per dwelling unit. He wanted to make sure that they had intended to have two different criteria. He was referring to the section on Site Development Regulations Multi - Family Residential Districts, Landscaping: Perimeter and Public Street Frontages on page four to the top of the next page.
Mr. Mangiamele replied that this was correct. He clarified that this was a minimum requirement for perimeter and street frontage landscaping and that this was a separate requirement from what was required per dwelling unit.
Commissioner Karl Kohlhoff referred to the Pecan trees in Morrison Groves and asked if those were supposed to be twenty feet apart under the new requirements.
Mr. Mangiamele replied that this section was trying to establish a minimum quantity of trees, not stating that they needed to be planted every twenty feet. This was included for staff to be able to figure out how many trees would be required in that frontage.
Commissioner Karl Kohlhoff explained that a Pecan tree at full growth needed more space otherwise it would impede their growth.
Commissioner Dan Dodge clarified that this requirement was only for multi - family development.
Commissioner Karl Kohlhoff was still concerned about making a requirement to place trees twenty feet apart.
Commissioner Dan Dodge asked for clarification on the comments made regarding Section 4됛: Swimming Pools.
Town Attorney Phyllis Smiley advised that Arizona state law provides that if a municipality had enacted a swimming pool barrier ordinance prior to the adoption of the state law than the municipal ordinance may stand. If any changes to the ordinance were made, than any pool barrier ordinance must be at least as stringent as state law. Therefore, if the ordinance in the ULDC were repealed along with the rest of the ULDC than anything that were adopted as part of the zoning code would have to be as stringent as state law, which this ordinance was not.
Commissioner Shane Leonard referred to Article 6Ǎ: Use Definitions and noted that coming up with a definition for Artisan could not have been an easy task.
Mr. Swanson replied that they took advantage of a published glossary of common planning terms published by the American Planning Association which included in their opinion the best examples of definitions from ordinances around the country. He noted that many of them were local Phoenix area references, such as Glendale, where he was in charge of writing the Zoning Code.
After discussing all the items in the matrix, Mr. Mangiamele summarized that he heard a concern about the requirement for tree spacing of twenty feet.
ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Brigette Peterson adjourned the meeting at 7:25 P.M.
ATTEST:
Recorder Trasie Johns