Council Subcommittee

MINUTES OF THE GILBERT COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE ON LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, SEPTEMBER 24, 2019, AT 7:00 A.M., ROOM 100, 90 EAST CIVIC CENTER DRIVE, GILBERT, 24ARIZONA COUNCIL PRESENT: Chair Brigette Peterson, Vice Mayor Eddie Cook and Councilmember Jordan Ray COUNCIL ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Town Clerk Lisa Maxwell, Planning Manager Eva Cutro, Senior Planner Amy Temes, Inspections Supervisor Lorrie DeOrio and Development Services Engineer Tom Condit CALL TO ORDER Chair Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:03 a.m. AGENDA ITEMS 1. Approval of the minutes of the September 9, 2019 meeting. Town Clerk Maxwell noted a change in the minutes where agenda item 3 was mislabeled as agenda item 4. A MOTION was made by Vice Mayor Cook, seconded by Councilmember Ray, to approve the minutes of the September 9, 2019 meeting with the change to the agenda item number. Motion carried 3-0. 2. Review of previous discussions. Senior Planner Temes described the method she uses to track the items requiring additional research. She keeps a spreadsheet which includes information on the people contacted and information collected. Section 2.1 Single Family Residential Districts – Three foot Stagger:  Chandler: Staggers the front yard setback lines to achieve a range of six feet or more.  Mesa: No more than 50 percent of homes will be set back the same distance from the front lot line and at least 50 percent of the homes will be set back at least two feet farther than the minimum. This is difficult to track and developers often end up asking for relief.  Casa Grande: Stagger the front setbacks by at least three feet and every third or fourth setback must be staggered.   No requirements: Queen Creek; Peoria; Scottsdale; Colorado Springs, Colorado; Henderson, Nevada; and Mobile, Alabama. With the introduction of side garages there has more variation in setbacks. When all the garages are forward-facing it is helpful to have stagger. The Land Development Code (LDC) can be left as it is with three foot incremental stagger. Senior Planner Temes said the problems arise when builders do not round to whole numbers and they are at the point of building out the final 20 percent of the houses. The other issue that needs to be addressed is there is no definition of stagger and that needs to be added. Stagger is to vary front yard setbacks in increments so that no more than two homes in a row have the same setback. There was a question about Morrison Ranch. Senior Planner Temes said she believed their ordinance was amended to address setbacks. She said at The Bridges their ordinance was amended and they were provided administrative relief. Inspections Supervisor DeOrio said she sees very few setback issues, especially in front yards. There was discussion about how all this information is recorded. Senior Planner Temes said the Techs take the development plan and mark on the plat the setbacks and elevations for each house. Using whole numbers would simplify the process for the Techs. Chair Peterson asked if this was still much of an issue. Senior Planner Temes said it mainly comes up when there are bigger homes that do have side garages. It was decided to use whole numbers for the varying setbacks and add the definition of a setback. Section 2.1 Single Family Residential Districts – Additional Lot Coverage to Encourage Reinvestment/Redevelopment: Senior Planner Temes said this is mainly a concern in older parts of Town where there are no Homeowners’ Associations (HOAs). The goal is for people to improve their homes. She said she was unable to find this addressed in the LDC of any other cities. Senior Planner Temes did find several ways other cities do encourage improvements:  Special Improvement or Redevelopment Districts are created to revitalize or improve older areas.  Most cities apply for grants for neighborhood improvements or home owner incentives.  Facade Improvement Programs.  Fees Waived in Designated Districts.   Could not find any communities that had special provisions in zoning for existing homeowner reinvestment.  Face updates funded through a community tax fund. This is for front facades and not for inside the house or back yard improvements. Vice Mayor Cook said he liked the idea of waiving of the permit fees. Chair Peterson suggested having the program rotate by addressing one neighborhood for twelve months and then another neighborhood twelve months later. This could also be applied to the businesses in the Fiesta Tech district. Do it for businesses in Fiesta Tech. Senior Planner Temes said a sliding improvement district could be implemented with a Planned Area Development (PAD) overlay. This could allow for some flexibility to setbacks and lot coverage. Inspections Supervisor DeOrio mentioned homeowners do have some access to help from the Community Development Program. There are other grants and a facelift fund could be set up for the Northwest Corridor. Vice Mayor Cook said he will have this added to a future Council meeting agenda. Doralise Liddell, Gilbert resident, said the program needs to go further to incentivize people to make improvements. She noted many of the residents in the Heritage Districts rent their houses and are not the homeowners. Administrative Relief: Senior Planner Temes said she gets about 5 requests a year. Something went wrong in the building process or fence was erected in the wrong place. An inspector might not see the problem until after the footers have been poured and it would be an expensive mistake to correct. There are few cities that list their procedures:  Queen Creek – 10% if existing requirement  Peoria – 5% of existing requirement  Jackson WY – 20% of existing requirement Senior Planner Temes said she would like the following to be considered:  25% of a dimensional requirement (i.e. a setback);  10% of a quantity (i.e. parking); and  relief provided would be at the Planning Manager’s discretion. There was consensus to allow relief be at the Planning Manager’s discretion. Development Services Engineer Condit said it is important to look for a pattern in request from particular builders. Senior Planner Temes said request in the past had come from different builders and different projects. Section 2.1 Single Family Residential Districts – Casitas and Secondary Dwellings: Senior Planner Temes said these are not the same as accessory structures. She said these can be moved to that section and be denoted as being occupied and non- occupied. She is going to work to see LDC is using the same language as the Building Code and Code Compliance. Councilmember Ray left the meeting. Currently, the Town allows one guest house and one accessory structure. There are also some limitations on the size of those structures. The following are the requirements from neighboring cities:  Phoenix: allows for one guest house which must be attached to primary structure with a maximum of 900 square feet.  Peoria: there is no maximum on the number of guest houses on a property. It is considered an accessory structure and it has no maximum amount of square feet.  Scottsdale: allows for one guest houses which is not an accessory structure and it can be up to half the square footage of the main house.  Chandler: allows one guest house which is considered an accessory use and it is an accessory structure. There is no maximum amount of square footage.  Queen Creek: there is no maximum on the number of guest houses on a property. It is considered an accessory structure and it has no maximum amount of square feet.  Mesa: allows for one guest house which can be up to 30 percent of the square footage of the main house. A casita has no kitchen and it cannot be rented. People are adding kitchens after the building has been inspected. Senior Planner Temes would like to combine these together. If a casita is being rented as a vacation home why can it not be rented to a person. Senior Planner Temes mentioned she has a 1,200 square foot apartment over her garage with an attached workshop and a basement. Not all of the area is livable. Inspections Supervisor DeOrio said a secondary unit should not take up more than half of a lot. There could be exceptions in the Downtown area. Senior Planner Temes said it is important to look at the calculation for storm water runoff that needs to be considered when looking at lot coverage. Vice Mayor Cook asked if that the runoff calculations could be added to the LDC. Development Services Engineer Condit will do some more research on this. Senior Planner Temes will add some language about storm water and having only one structure per lot. There was a question about how the City of Chandler gets around the storm water issue when they do not limit the size of secondary structures. Planning Manager Cuatro said in Paradise Valley the total square footage of all accessory structures cannot be more than half the total square footage of the main house. The main house determines the main use of the lot. Senior Planner Temes will bring back some different scenarios. She will also check with the City of Chandler for some examples and look at the number of requests received for these structures. This generally only affects larger lots. There was consensus to allow kitchens and to call a guest house an accessory dwelling. Section 4.1 Site Regulations: Senior Planner Temes said things have been moved into this section and cross references and tables have been added. This has cut down on inconsistencies in the LDC. She is meeting with the Building Inspection Department and Code Compliance and she will cross-reference the LDC with the Municipal Code. These are the additions:  Encroachments into Building Setback and Interior Building Separation Areas  Projections Above Height Limits  Accessory Structures  Non-occupied Accessory Structures  Occupied Accessory Structures  Animals  Recreation Courts and Fields  Model Home Complexes  Swimming Pools  Lighting  Walls and Fences  Refuse and Recycling  Service Areas  Mechanical Equipment  Underground Utilities  Outdoor Business Storage  Outdoor Retail Sales and Merchandise Display (vending machines, outdoor displays)  Personal Property Storage (mini storage)  Fueling Facilities Section 2.2 Multi-Family Residential: Senior Planner Temes said only Scottsdale lists a minimum lot size. This can be removed and it will not change anything. Section 2.3 Commercial:  Stacked Cars – There are accessory structures since they are permanently anchored into the ground. Chair Peterson noted that the property Vice Mayor Cook had referred to was previous County property and it was grand-fathered in.  Drive Through Canopies – Mesa and Scottsdale refer these and in other cities they are highly encouraged and considered “necessary for climate control.” Senior Planner Temes said it has been an unwritten rule in Gilbert and she would like to add it to the LDC. It is more expensive if the is added after the building is completed. Chair Peterson said these canopies are necessary for Arizona.  Outdoor Business Property – Senior Planner Temes could not find an instance where any jurisdiction addressed this in Zoning.  Dimensions and Stories – Phoenix does list bother dimensions and stories while other cities just list one or the other. Chair Peterson said she finds both are useful and dimensions are more helpful when talking with residents about projects. The next meeting will be on October 15, 2019 at 7:00 a.m. in Municipal Center II, Room 236. ADJOURN Chair Peterson adjourned the meeting at 8:06 a.m. ATTEST: ___________________________ ___________________________________ Chair Brigette Peterson Lisa Maxwell, MMC, Town Clerk