Council Subcommittee

MINUTES OF THE GILBERT COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE ON LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, JANUARY 10, 2019, AT 7:00 A.M., ROOM 236, 90 EAST CIVIC CENTER DRIVE, GILBERT, ARIZONA COUNCIL PRESENT: Chair Brigette Peterson and Councilmembers Eddie Cook and Jordan Ray COUNCIL ABSENT: None. STAFF PRESENT: Town Clerk Lisa Maxwell, Development Services Director Kyle Mieras, Interim Principal Planner Amy Temes, and Assistant Town Attorney Nancy Davidson CALL TO ORDER Chair Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:04 a.m. AGENDA ITEMS 1. Approval of the minutes of the December 19, 2018 meeting. A MOTION was made by Councilmember Ray, seconded by Councilmember Cook, to approve the minutes of the December 19, 2018 meeting. Motion carried 3-0. 2. Review of previous discussions. 2.104.C.3 Staggering. Interim Principal Planner Temes did some research into how other communities address staggering. Only the City of Chandler has six feet or more for staggers and hard to know what that means. The City of Casa Grande has every third or fourth house needs three feet of stagger but it is hard to know what that means. Other cities encourage varied streetscape in developments. There is a question of how far the garage is from the livable portion of a house. The other concept of staggering has to do with planes of a house. The Gilbert Land Development Code (LDC) has no more than two adjacent lots have the same setback with a three foot variation required for adjacent houses. Potential wording is “front setbacks are required to vary at three foot increments from the base zoning district so that no more than two lots have the same setback.” This would require setbacks in increments of three feet. Another thing to consider is people have four car garages so the fourth garage is generally a side garage. Councilmember Cook asked what the market and the builders in terms of flexibility. Interim Principal Planner Temes said the market wants no regulations. They believe the resident will buy what they can afford and they will buy what is available. Moving things around in a house plan can be impactful because footings and roof truss changes are expensive. Requiring lot stagger is easier way to appease builder. The problem with the current code is it requires increments of six feet. If the stagger distance is reduced to one foot it can longer be seen when driving down a street. Councilmember Cook said he is open to flexibility. Interim Principal Planner Temes said the other option is looking at the percentage of different planes but it is difficult to measure and open to interpretation. Councilmember Cook asked what if staggering is removed from the LDC. Interim Principal Planner Temes said one city requires builders to present the development stagger at time of platting. That is seen as too restrictive for builders. Interim Principal Planner Temes said if staggering is removed builders will maximize their land and there will be no stagger. She does not want to remove it entirely from the LDC. Councilmember Cook asked how long this section has been in the LDC. Chair Peterson said this has been in the LDC since 2005. Development Services Director Mieras said this requirement also creates stagger in the back of development as well. Chair Peterson said the subcommittee will come back to this at a later meeting. Interim Principal Planner Temes suggested addition of a line in the LDC to address side garages. 3. Review and Discussion of Land Development Code Division 1 Article 1. 2.104.D.2 Side Setbacks – The LDC specifies ten feet but it can be less if fire code is met. Chair Peterson said if the LDC is left at ten feet Developers will ask for less. This will remain the same and Developers can change it with the Planned Area Development (PAD). 2.104.F Additional Lot Coverage – There are a lot of questions from buyers and builders with homes that had maximized their lot coverage. It was not possible for them to put a shade sail over pool. If an open air structure is either attached or not attached it was possible to add five percent to lot coverage. The LDC did originally specify the additional five percent only applied to existing residential lots and not new builds but that was removed. Builders are now using the extra five percent. There needs to be a way for lots with existing houses to have a way to add on to their house. The Town wants people to re-invest in their property. Chair Peterson said she believes this is two different things. She likes what is in the LDC but thinks it should only apply to residents with existing homes. She also likes the idea of encouraging people to reinvest in their homes. Interim Principal Planner Temes said she would like to look at options for people who want to add on to their existing home. Councilmember Ray asked why the Town is considered about lot coverage. Interim Principal Planner Temes said it concerns air circulation and percolation. Retention Basins would rise and there would be water in the streets. Coverage includes not only houses but driveways and other hard structures. Table 2.105 Site Development Regulations – This table governs structures including churches, schools, and congregate living homes and its purpose is to blend the structure into the neighborhood. It is confusing. A church could start in the first category. If they expand they could move into the second category. If they want to expand into the third category they could run into problems because they no longer fit into the setback. Interim Principal Planner Temes said she would like to simplify this table. Councilmember Cook said he is leaning toward not changing the table. If there is a request for an increase in setbacks then that can be reviewed. Councilmember Ray said there are only a few people wanting this change. He would like to make it easy for those people to get their changes approved without having to make a request to the Council. He would like to give more authority to the Planning Department and have something to add administrative relief for changes to existing structures or sites. 2.105.A Building Step–back – Interim Principal Planner Temes said she would like to remove this section. Chair Peterson said that is fine for commercial use but schools and churches are protected by state law. She said if someone buys a property and it is not a new construction it should follow the original regulations. 2.105.B Street Frontage Landscape – Interim Principal Planner Temes said she would like to move all landscape references to the chapter on landscapes and not have them scattered throughout each section. Add 2.105.C – Interim Principal Planner Temes said she would like a new section to limit non-residential uses to be located on arterials or collectors. There are currently schools located on arterials and they are causing problems too. 2.106B Accessory Structures – This section does not include guest dwellings which are covered in the next section. Accessory structures are non-livable and examples are a workshop or detached garage. Other cities do not have a similar section for accessory structures in their Code. Accessory structures can be in the side-setback but livable space cannot. Interim Principal Planner Temes said staff is not suggesting any changes. There was a question on whether a table would help. She would like to move this section to a separate chapter to consolidate other extraneous structures such as walls and trash enclosures. There was consensus to do whatever makes it easier to find in the LDC. 2.106.C Guest Quarters – With the recent Airbnb law Interim Principal Planner Temes said she would like to combine guest quarters with other secondary dwellings. Guest quarters are being rented. Councilmember Ray said he is inclined to add a full kitchen to guest quarters. Interim Principal Planner Temes said she would like do more research. Chair Peterson said this can have unintended consequences such as the need for more parking. Councilmember Cook asked about businesses in guest quarters. Development Services Director Mieras said business still have to comply with Town Code. Adding a section concerning businesses and arterial limits in neighborhoods may be helpful. Councilmember Ray asked why the Town is concerned about tennis courts. Interim Principal Planner Temes said a permit is not needed to install a pad. A homeowner could put a tennis court next to their property line and put up lights next to their neighbor’s property. Councilmember Ray said there are other regulations against that scenario. The next meeting will be on January 24, 2019 at 7:00 a.m. ADJOURN Chair Peterson adjourned the meeting at 8:07 a.m. ATTEST: ___________________________ ___________________________________ Chair Brigette Peterson Lisa Maxwell, MMC, Town Clerk