TOWN OF GILBERT

TOWN OF GILBERT 

PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING 

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

OCTOBER 2, 2013 

COMMISSION PRESENT: 

COMMISSION ABSENT: 

Chairman Jennifer Wittmann 

Vice Chairman Joshua Oehler 

Commissioner Brigette Peterson 

Commissioner Chad Fuller 

Commissioner Kristofer Sippel 

Commissioner David Cavenee 

Alternate Commissioner Khyl Powell 

Commissioner Anthony Bianchi 

STAFF PRESENT: 

Director of Development Services Kyle Mieras 

Planning Services Manager Linda Edwards 

Principal Planner Catherine Lorbeer 

Senior Planner Mike Milillo 

Senior Planner Maria Cadavid 

Planner Amy Temes 

Planner Nathan Williams 

ALSO PRESENT: 

Town Attorney Phyllis Smiley 

Recorder Margo Fry 

PLANNER CASE PAGE VOTE 

AMY TEMES S13-06 2 APPROVED 

MARIA CADAVID UP13-12 3 APPROVED 

AMY TEMES UP13-14 3 APPROVED 

MARIA CADAVID Z13-12 3 CONTINUED 

MARIA CADAVID GP13-06 4 APPROVED 

MARIA CADAVID Z13-14 4 APPROVED 

MARIA CADAVID S13-05 4 APPROVED 

AMY TEMES GP13-16 4 CONTINUED 

AMY TEMES Z13-27 5 CONTINUED 

NATHAN WILLIAMS Z13-24 5 APPROVED 

NATHAN WILLIAMS UP13-17 6 CONTINUED 

NATHAN WILLIAMS GP13-13 20 APPROVED 

NATHAN WILLIAMS Z13-23 20 APPROVED 

Planning Commission 

Regular Meeting 10-2-13 

1

CALL TO ORDER: 

Chairman Jennifer Wittmann called the meeting to order at 6:20 p.m. 

ROLL CALL 

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

APPROVAL OF AGENDA 

Chairman Wittmann asked if there were any changes to the agenda. 

Vice Chairman Oehler said that they would be moving Items 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 16 to the Consent 

Agenda. Items 9, 13 and 14 are being continued to the November 6 th Planning Commission meeting. 

Chairman Wittmann requested a motion to approve the Agenda. 

A motion was made by Vice Chairman Joshua Oehler and seconded by Commissioner Brigette 

Peterson to approve the revised Agenda. 

Motion carried 6 - 0 

COMMUNICATIONS FROM CITIZENS 

At this time members of the public can comment on items not on the agenda. The Commission’s response 

is limited to responding to criticism, asking staff to review a matter commented upon or asking that the 

matter be put on a future agenda. 

Chairman Wittmann asked if there was anyone present who wished to speak under those terms. There was 

no response. 

PUBLIC HEARING (CONSENT) 

Consent Public Hearing items will be heard at one Public Hearing. After the Consent Public Hearing, these 

items may be approved by a single motion. At the request of a member of the Commission or Staff, an item 

may be removed from the Consent Calendar and may be heard and acted upon separately. Other items on 

the agenda may be added to the Consent Public Hearing and approved under a single motion. 

Chairman Wittmann opened the public hearing and read the consent items. 

S13-06 - FULTON HOMES AT COOLEY STATION, REQUEST TO APPROVE THE 

PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR 397 SINGLE FAMILY HOME LOTS ON APPROXIMATELY 79 

ACRES OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF RECKER 

ROAD AND GALVESTON ROAD IN THE SINGLE FAMILY – DETACHED (SF-D) WITH A 

PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT (PAD) OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT. 

Move to approve the findings and S13-06, Fulton Homes at Cooley Station, approximately 79 acres 

consisting of 397 single family lots, generally located at the southwest corner of Recker and Galveston 

Roads zoned SF-D with a PAD overlay, subject to the following conditions; 

1. The Final Plat for Fulton Homes at Cooley Station shall be in substantial conformance with 

Ordinance No. 2443, Exhibits 4, Preliminary Plat approved by the Planning Commission at the 



2

October 2, 2013 public hearing and Exhibit 5, Open Space Plan, approved by the Design Review 

Board on September 12, 2013. 

2. The applicant sub-divider has not proposed, as part of the preliminary plat approval process, to 

delineate S13-06 Fulton Homes at Cooley Station Preliminary Plat into two (2) or more final plat 

filing/construction phases. S13-06 is approved as a single phase for final plat filing/ construction. 

When phasing is not indicated on the preliminary plat, the final plat shall be submitted for the 

entire area shown on the preliminary plat. If the applicant desires to establish phases following 

approval of the preliminary plat, a new preliminary plat delineating the phases must be submitted 

and approved. 

UP13-12 - SPRINT: REQUEST TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR 

APPROXIMATELY 0.05 ACRES OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4627 EAST QUEEN 

CREEK ROAD IN THE TRILOGY AT POWER RANCH GOLF COURSE, TO PERMIT A 

WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY/WCF (65 FOOT HIGH FAUX PINE TREE TO 

CONCEAL A WCF ANTENNA) IN THE PUBLIC FACILITY INSTITUTIONAL (PF/I) WITH A 

PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY (PAD) ZONING DISTRICT. 

Move to approve the findings of fact and approve UP13-12, a Conditional Use Permit to allow the 

installation of a 65 foot high faux pine tree to conceal a WCF antenna in the Public Facility/Institutional 

zoning district at 4627 Queen Creek Road in the Trilogy golf course in Power Ranch subject to conditions: 

1. The Project shall be in substantial conformance with the site plan, and elevations/ details shown on the 

Exhibits noted under Attachment No.4. 

2. The 50’x50’ masonry enclosure that defines the leased area to conceal the equipment cabinets shall be 

constructed and finished per the wall standards in Power Ranch as determined by the HOA. Wall 

details shall be specified in the construction documents to be submitted prior to issuance of a building 

permit. 

UP13-14 - GILBERT ASSISTED LIVING; A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A 

CONGREGATE CARE FACILITY, ON APPROXIMATELY 4.8 ACRES OF REAL PROPERTY, 

LOCATED SOUTHEAST OF THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF VAL VISTA DRIVE AND 

MERCY ROAD, IN GENERAL OFFICE (GO) WITH PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT (PAD) 

OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT . 

Move to make the findings of fact and approve UP13-14 Gilbert Assisted Living, a Conditional Use Permit 

to allow congregate living facilities on 4.8 acres of property located southeast of the southeast corner of Val 

Vista Drive and Mercy Road within the General Office (GO) with Planned Area Development (PAD) 

overlay zoning district, subject to conditions: 

1. The Project shall be in substantial conformance with the site plan (Attachment #4). 

Z13-12 -REQUEST TO AMEND ORDINANCES NO. 1597 AND 1956 AND REZONE 

APPROXIMATELY 13.2 ACRES OF REAL PROPERTY WITHIN THE COPPER RANCH 

PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT (PAD), GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH AND EAST OF 

THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF WARNER AND RECKER ROADS FROM MULTI FAMILY- 

MEDIUM (MF/M) WITH A PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT (PAD) TO SINGLE FAMILY- 

DETACHED (SF-D) WITH A PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT (PAD) OVERLAY ZONING 

DISTRICT AND TO AMEND CONDITIONS OF DEVELOPMENT AS FOLLOWS: REDUCE 

LOT DIMENSIONS; DECREASE SIDE AND REAR SETBACKS AND SEPARATION BETWEEN 



3

DWELLING UNITS; AND INCREASE THE MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE FOR TWO-STORY 

UNITS. 

STAFF REQUESTS A CONTINUANCE TO THE NOVEMBER 6, 2013 PLANNING COMMISSION 

MEETING. 

GP13-06: A MINOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE LAND USE 

CLASSIFICATION FOR APPROXIMATELY 239.4 ACRES OF REAL PROPERTY 

GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF WARNER AND RECKER 

ROADS FROM APPROXIMATELY 91.2 ACRES OF RESIDENTIAL >5-8 DU/AC, 136.1 ACRES 

OF RESIDENTIAL 3.5-5 DU/AC., 3.9 ACRES OF GENERAL COMMERCIAL (GC) AND 8.2 

ACRES OF COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC) LAND USE CLASSIFICATIONS TO 

APPROXIMATELY 67.8 DU/AC. OF RESIDENTIAL 3.5-5 DU/AC. AND 171.6 ACRES OF 

RESIDENTIAL 2-3.5 DU/AC. LAND USE CLASSIFICATIONS, AND; 

Z13-14: A REQUEST TO AMEND THE MORRISON RANCH PLANNED AREA 

DEVELOPMENT (PAD) ZONING MAP AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS BY AMENDING 

APPROXIMATELY 239.4 ACRES OF REAL PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE 

NORTHWEST CORNER OF RECKER AND WARNER ROADS FROM APPROXIMATELY 8.2 

ACRES OF COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL (CC), 3.9 ACRES OF GENERAL COMMERCIAL 

(GC), 91.2 ACRES OF SINGLE FAMILY-DETACHED (SF-D), 37.9 ACRES OF SINGLE 

FAMILY-6 (SF-6),77.2 ACRES OF SINGLE FAMILY-7 (SF-7) AND 21 ACRES OF SINGLE 

FAMILY-8 (SF-8). 

A. Adopt the Resolution and approve GP13-06 a minor General Plan Amendment to change the land use 

classification: and 

B. Make the Findings of Fact and adopt an ordinance for Z13-14, subject to the conditions in the draft 

ordinance. 

S13-05 - PRELIMINARY PLAT – WHITE FENCE ESTATES, SOUTH OF THE SWC OF 

WARNER ROAD & 130 TH STREET. 

Move to approve the findings and S13-05, the preliminary plat and open space plan for White Fence 

Estates, approximately 6.8 acres of residential development consisting of 27 Single Family-6 (SF-6) lots 

and generally located south of the southwest corner of Warner and Higley Roads, subject to the following 

conditions: 

1. The Final Plat and open space plan for White Fence Estates shall be in substantial conformance with 

Attachments 2 and 3, Preliminary Plat and Open Space Plan documents approved by the Planning 

Commission at the October 2, 2013 meeting. 

GP13-16, EPICENTER: REQUEST FOR MINOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO 

CHANGE THE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION OF APPROXIMATELY 22.5 ACRES OF REAL 

PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF HIGLEY AND 

RAY ROADS FROM GENERAL COMMERCIAL TO REGIONAL COMMERCIAL LAND USE 

CLASSIFICATION. 

Z13-27, EPICENTER: REQUEST TO AMEND ORDINANCES NO.1305 AND 2364 AND 

REZONE APPROXIMATELY 22.5 ACRES OF REAL PROPERTY WITHIN THE AGRITOPIA 

PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT (PAD), GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST 

CORNER OF HIGLEY AND RAY ROADS FROM APPROXIMATELY 22.5 ACRES OF 

GENERAL COMMERCIAL (GC) WITH A PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY 



4

ZONING DISTRICT TO APPROXIMATELY 22.5 ACRES OF REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (RC) 

WITH A PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT. 

STAFF REQUESTS A CONTINUANCE TO THE NOVEMBER 6, 2013 PLANNING COMMISSION 

MEETING. 

Z13-24 - REQUEST TO AMEND ORDINANCES NO.1527 AND 1664 TO AMEND THE 

DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND CONDITIONS OF DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE MEDICAL 

CAMPUS PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT (PAD) FOR APPROXIMATELY 63 ACRES OF 

REAL PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF VAL VISTA 

DRIVE AND MERCY ROAD, TO DELETE THE 100 FOOT BUILDING SETBACK BUFFER 

REQUIREMENT ALONG THE NORTH AND WEST SIDES OF MERCY ROAD, EAST OF VAL 

VISTA DRIVE. 

For the following reasons: the development proposal conforms to the intent of the general plan and can be 

coordinated with existing and planned development of the surrounding areas, staff recommends the 

Planning Commission recommend approval to the Town Council for Z13-24 medical campus pad: request 

to amend ordinance nos. 1527 and 1664 to amend conditions of development in the medical campus pad, 

subject to the conditions of the draft ordinance and the following condition: 

1. The Zoning Exhibit and Development Plan shall be in substantial conformance with Exhibit 4 and 

Exhibit 5. 

Chairman Wittmann closed the public hearing. 

Commissioner Fuller requested that they do two separate motions on the consent calendar, one for all of the 

items excluding items 10 and 11 and a separate motion for items 10 and 11 as he needed to recuse himself 

from the vote for those two items. 

A motion was made by Commissioner Chad Fuller and seconded by Commissioner Brigette Peterson 

to approve consent items 9, 12, 13, 14 and 16. 

Motion carried 6 – 0 

A motion was made by Commissioner Brigette Peterson and seconded by Vice Chairman Joshua 

Oehler to approve consent items 10 and 11. 


Commissioner Chad Fuller abstained from the vote. 


to approve consent items 6, 7 and 8. 


PUBLIC HEARING (NON-CONSENT) 

Non-Consent Public Hearing items will be heard at an individual public hearing and will be acted upon by 

the Commission by a separate motion. During the public hearings, anyone wishing to comment in support 

of or in opposition to a public hearing item may do so. If you wish to comment on a public hearing item 



5

you must fill out a public comment form, indicating the item number on which you wish to be heard. Once 

the hearing is closed, there will be no further public comment unless requested by a member of the 

commission. 

UP13-17 -GREAT HEARTS ACADEMY: REQUEST TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE 

PERMIT FOR APPROXIMATELY 8.9 ACRES OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE 

SOUTHWEST CORNER OF QUINN AVENUE AND BASELINE ROAD TO ALLOW A SCHOOL, 

PUBLIC OR PRIVATE, LARGE SCALE IN THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL (GC) ZONING 

DISTRICT, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS OF SITE PLAN, CIRCULATION, AND 

COMPATIBILITY WITH ADJOINING USES. 

Commissioner Sippel excused himself from the discussion due to a conflict. 

Planner Nathan Williams stated that Great Arts Academy was a K – 12 charter school located at the 

Southwest corner of Quinn and Baseline Roads. Mr. Williams noted that the site was zoned general 

commercial (GC) and in that zoning district a large scale charter school or public/private school requires a 

Use Permit for approval. The site is for buildings and is approximately 73,000 ft.² with 45 classrooms, 33 

which will be K – 8 and 12 which will be through 12 th grade. Since it’s a public school it does not have to 

go through Design Review. The circulation has not changed much since it was seen at study session and the 

applicant has submitted a traffic impact analysis and circulation plan which was reviewed by the Town 

Engineer who was present. It has been updated since the study session. The applicant provided more detail 

on the circulation maps which they did not have previously. There is one for the archway which is K – 5 

where the drop off is started at 7:30 AM and they come through the site from the West, circle around the 

open space retention area which is also a ball field, circulate through and then drop off on the northwestern 

portion of the site. The preparatory is 6 – 12 and they start at 8 AM so there is a half hour stagger. They 

enter the same way with double stacking and drop off on the North Eastern side. Planner Williams 

displayed an aerial map and commented that staff had some concerns. There are two access points to the 

site and the one at the northwestern portion is full motion and currently a shared between the remainder of 

the center. He also indicated a right in right out. The Conditional Use Permit requires 4 findings of fact to 

be approved. The major points are going to be traffic, access, circulation etc. One of staff’s concerns is the 

main access point from the Northwest is the only place that a left turn can occur. The Towns biggest 

concern is that the outbound left turn movement is essentially going to create an unacceptable level of 

service for exiting the site at peak hours of the day. The applicant has submitted a revised traffic impact 

analysis which the Town Traffic Engineer has looked at. The site design has not really changed but they are 

now proposing to utilize a cross access agreement with the remainder of the center to exit vehicles out onto 

Greenfield. That still does not meet with approval of the Town Traffic Engineer. Planner Williams said that 

when you force people to turn right out of the site that will create issues on other sites as well as u- turn 

movement and vehicles coming in through residential neighborhoods as well as the adjacent commercial 

and industrial. Staff is concerned about the impact that it will create for surrounding properties. One of the 

four findings of fact is that they not negatively impact the surrounding property and it is a major concern 

for the Town is that the traffic generated from that number of students will create negative impact on the 

surrounding properties. Staff is also somewhat concerned with the parking. Planner Williams indicated on 

the site map where the parking will be for the high school students and noted that the applicant says that it 

is a privilege type of situation and only 32 students are able to park on-site determined by grade level as 

well as first-come first-served basis. Parking requirements for high schools are 7 spaces per classroom 

which is 84 parking spaces for this particular site and although they may not be utilizing 84 in the way they 

are calculating, staff is concerned with students parking on neighboring properties. Staff is recommending 

approval with an approved traffic impact analysis, however, that was under the assumption that through the 

course of time they would have something that the Town Traffic Engineer could look upon favorably but at 

this time the Traffic Engineer is not able to support the project. 



6

Commissioner Powell said that he appreciated staff’s presentation, however, he did not hear anything about 

the quality of the project or the applicant or what they are proposing but staff did make the comment that 

they would make the recommendation to go forward if they could work out the traffic situation. He said 

that he could only assume that staff supported the product. 

Planner Williams said that they do support the product and always support schools where they are allowed. 

He said that they were not able to look at the architecture or development criteria but only does it meet the 

findings of fact. The planning department finds acceptable the way that the buildings are laid out toward 

the street and that they buffer the residential properties to the South but the core issue is that it doesn’t meet 

the findings of fact for safe access and circulation. 

Commissioner Powell said that he has known the Town to go to great lengths to assist other projects 

because they saw the value in a project and he would hope that the Town would extend the same courtesy 

to everyone. If it is a valuable project and could bring a wonderful influence into the community he would 

hope that the Town would find a solution to make this work. 

Chairman Wittmann said that this was the process that every applicant must go through and this is just a 

hurdle that they are trying to overcome. She said that she did not see the Town favoring any applicant over 

another. 

Commissioner Powell said that it seemed a little one-sided and he just wanted to be sure that they could see 

the entire picture. 

Chairman Wittmann invited the applicant to come forward. 

Stephen Earl, Gilbert, AZ came forward for the applicant. Mr. Earl said that he knew that the Town had had 

some poor experiences with charter schools. There are charter school that locate in a strip center or facility 

that is not designed as a school, was not built as a school from ground-up or that do not know how to 

control the ingress and egress and queuing on-site. Mr. Earl said that in Gilbert they have had charter 

schools that back traffic up onto arterial roads because they were not providing proper queuing on the site. 

Mr. Earl said that he would like to introduce to the Planning Commission the CEO of Great Hearts 

Academy, Dan Scroggin, who could present a little bit of the culture. 

Dan Scroggin, Gilbert, AZ, CEO of Great Hearts Academy came forward. Mr. Scroggin stated that they 

had schools across the valley. Five out of the top 10 public schools in Arizona, based on College Board 

scores, are Great Hearts Academy. This site will be part of that family of schools. 100% of the students go 

to four-year colleges and universities and there is a full liberal arts program. There is a long wait list to 

come into the school and Gilbert families want a world-class college prep school. Their schools are highly 

structured with a 10 to 1 student to teacher ratio. The students are highly supervised and were uniforms and 

ties on a closed campus where they have a strong history of traffic control and pattern throughout the 

Valley and all their schools. Their staff is outside monitoring the traffic and all of the families sign an 

honor code and a contract with the school to follow the family handbook which includes the traffic plan 

and these are families that that do what the school says because they want the program. Mr. Scroggin said 

that he could assure them that there would be no backing up onto the street and the families will be highly 

regulated and following the traffic patterns and highly staggered and controlled. Mr. Scroggin asked for the 

Planning Commissions support for their request. 

Chairman Wittmann asked if any of the other academies were located near other public or charter schools. 

Mr. Scroggin responded that they have Chandler preparatory Academy at Warner and Alma School Road 

where there are 11 schools within .3 miles. The preparatory Academy at 56 Street and Indian school has 

two public schools on the same street within half a mile. 



7

Stephen Earl displayed an aerial which showed the project site. He indicated that there was a joint access 

driveway on the West side as well as an access point in the middle. To the east of the property is a street 

called Quinn that goes into the neighborhood to the south, however, the applicant does not have access to 

Quinn but access only to Baseline and Greenfield Roads. He noted that they had a reciprocal access 

agreement with the property owners to the west and noted that there was also a driveway behind the Chase 

Bank. The logical route for people to get out to Greenfield to go north or to go west on Baseline was to take 

the access point that he indicated on the map. Mr. Earl said that they would have five faculty members onsite 

during all peak hour movements both to help children get into the school and to help parents leave. He 

said that they could meter the people going west so that they don’t have a big lineup going through the 

shopping center. Making a left out at Greenfield may be difficult because of the adjacent public school so 

they will tell their parents that if they want to make that kind of left to go south and are really better off 

making three rights by going right to Recker, right down Guadalupe and going back. Mr. Earl said that part 

of the concern that staff is indicated in the past has been that people will leave the facility and make U- 

turns and go west in order to go north on Greenfield or west on Baseline Road. He said that he wanted to 

make it clear that they will control all of the impact of their development on their own site. If there is a 

delay that gets to service level B it will be their parents leaving the site. They will be signing a contract that 

obligates them to go in the routing pattern that the school has asked them to go. There are also a lot of 

children who come in ridesharing situations and that help a lot on the reduction of traffic movement. The 

concern that they will have a great number of cars turning left out of their joint access way is simply not 

correct. They know that it is a normal fear of traffic engineers in that you have a place where people can 

turn left that they will or will try and make left-hand turn setter and safe or make a right-hand turn only to 

make a left U-turn. The applicant’s position is that they have been able to confirm that their parents do as 

they ask and actually form patterns of exiting the site. As far as they know, PM is not an issue as it is not 

the normal PM peak of 4 PM to 6 PM it is really at 3 o’clock so that is not a legitimate problem either 

coming to the site or leaving. AM is during the normal AM. peak. Mr. Earl said the challenge appears to be 

where they are going to leave the site and initially they were not sure that they had the ability to have a 

joint access out across the properties to the west of them to Greenfield and now they know that they do. 

They will not cause any off-site driveway to drop below service-level D because of the traffic that they are 

introducing to the situation. There is the possibility that the intersection of Baseline and Greenfield may 

need to be modified, re-striped to have dual left turns. There is current pavement there where they could restripe 

and then change the signalization to allow more capacity in a left turn movement at Greenfield Road. 

They could absorb the cost of that if that is necessary as the traffic report suggests. The only other 

potentially problematic turn is someone trying to turn left onto Greenfield. They can simply tell parents that 

if they are going south on Greenfield Road they need to go east instead and make 3 right-hand turns or wait 

a great deal of time at that location. Mr. Earl said that they believe that they have the ability on-site to make 

things work. He noted that there are 2000 feet of stacking on-site and that the site was specifically designed 

so that everyone could get into the site and not back up onto any arterial. He said that he believed that they 

were dealing with only the AM peak exit and that they control that by having a number of faculty members 

on-site to control and meter out that traffic. He noted that they have a facility at 56th Street that used to be a 

Motorola plant, which has this exact same set up with a number of faculty members going out to make sure 

that drop offs and exits occur normally. Mr. Earl indicated on the site map where the parking lot was 

located. He noted that it did have 32 spaces and was for high school student parking and was merit-based. It 

was an incentive to get high grades to get one of those 32 spaces. No one is allowed to park off-site and that 

is one of the standards in the booklet that is given to students and parents. If there is an infraction of that 

rule there are consequences that could lead to expulsion. Mr. Earl said that they would be happy to sit down 

with the traffic engineer and figure out any nuances to what they are proposing to make sure that it works 

and that they are not degrading any off-site intersections from normal service levels and that they have 

sufficient queuing on-site to bring their people on-site and that the delays that occur are delays that they 

force their people to make in order to leave at a metered rate so as not to negatively impact their neighbors. 

Mr. Earl displayed an exhibit listing the permitted uses in General Commercial. He noted that the ordinance 

allows charter/public schools on residential property without a Use Permit. If they went down the street into 



8

a residential zone, which was their second choice, they would not be coming before the Commission for a 

Use Permit they would just be able to do it at right. That would not have been right because it would 

introduce a considerable amount of traffic on Recker Road into a neighborhood. Instead, they came to a 

commercial site which does require a Use Permit. He listed the uses allowed without a Use Permit in that 

district and noted that their use is a very quiet use during the day. It does have an issue of traffic morning 

and afternoon but they feel that they can completely control that on-site. 

Chairman Fuller asked for clarification on the 30 parking spaces. 

Mr. Earl said that there will only be sufficient passes given out to the total number of spaces that are there. 

No other passes will be given out. Students will also sign a contract that they will not park anywhere else 

on neighboring properties. 

Chairman Fuller asked how it would work to have staff outside directing traffic. 

Mr. Earl said that he would encourage them to go over and observe the facility at 56th Street in Phoenix 

because it is a rehab in the sense that used to be a Motorola plant but has a very large athletic field and the 

same kind of stacking that is being shown for this project as well as alternate arrival times for younger and 

older children. There are seven faculty members who are outside every day to guide the process to ensure 

that it runs in an organized fashion. Part of the reason that individuals want their children at this school is 

not only for the academics makes but because it is also highly organized so that they have confidence. Part 

of that confidence is showing them that they can get in and out of the site in a controlled fashion. 

Vice Chairman Oehler said that in his personal experience with schools that have staff metering the parking 

and driving it works fairly well and there is a lot of value in what he has seen. 

Chairman Fuller said that they could decide in two months that they don’t have the budget for staffing so 

they are not having staff do that anymore. He said that he did not believe that that was a condition to the 

Use Permit. 

Mr. Earl said that they were certainly willing to making that a condition to the Use Permit because that is 

exactly how it will work. Stipulating them to have on-site faculty monitors of traffic coming in and out of 

the site would be agreeable to them. He said that they would also agree to submit to the Commission the 

manual that they provide to the parents so that they can see exactly what they require their students and 

parents to do. 

Chairman Fuller said that that would add to his comfort level if it were possible to add that as a condition to 

the Use Permit. 

Commissioner Peterson asked the Town Attorney if they could set conditions on a Use Permit. 

Town Attorney Phyllis Smiley responded that they could. 

Commissioner Peterson said that she believed that the staff that the applicant was referring to were not 

additional staff hired just too direct traffic but would be full time school staff. 

Chairman Wittmann asked if their traffic impact analysis included the school located south on Greenfield 

on the east side of the road. 

Mr. Earl said that the traffic engineering report that they had filed does take into account all background 

traffic including that school. He said that they realize that the elementary school traffic could potentially be 

making left-hand turns onto Greenfield can create difficulty for some of their parents making that same 



9

movement since they are not very far away. However, they believe that they can make it clear that if they 

need to go south on Greenfield, unless you’re moving at a time when it is very clear, you must make righthand 

turns. Their experience has been that their parents do with the school ask them to. 

Chairman Wittmann said that there was also a small charter school one quarter mile from the proposed site. 

Mr. Earl said that he had made an effort over the past couple of weeks to go to that intersection at AM 

peaks between 7:30 and 8:30 and PM peaks at 3:30 PM and the 5:30 PM peak and this is a problem that is 

going to exist in the future, it is not a problem today. Allowing unrestricted movement of parent cars this is 

simply not workable in a charter school environment. 

Chairman Wittmann said that it appeared like the 56th Street local was not located on an arterial street and 

may have access to a residential street before getting onto a collector Street. 

Mr. Earl said that 56th Street is a major collector and used by the entire neighborhood. The movement is 

down to Thomas Road where they are making rights out of the facility down to Thomas and then going 

East or West on Thomas. While it is not on an arterial it is very close to an arterial. 

Chairman Wittmann said that the main exit from the parking area doesn’t appear to be directly on the 

collector but on a residential street before you get to the collector. 

Mr. Earl said that it is actually exiting on 56th Street which is the major collector. He said that they do not 

allow parents to turn left out of that exit. 

Commissioner Cavanee joined the meeting. 

Vice Chairman Oehler indicated the site map and asked if there were two lanes of egress where you could 

be in a right or left lane and not be stacking. 

Mr. Earl said that was correct, there are two lanes, one to go right and one to go left. 

Chairman Wittmann invited the Town Traffic Engineer to come forward. 

Erik Guderian, Town Traffic Engineer, came forward. Mr. Guderian said that in terms of Vice Chairman 

Oehler’s question about the access there is only a single right turn and left turn lane. There is not a dual 

lane where there is a single left turn and right turn coming out onto Baseline. 

Chairman Wittmann asked for Mr. Guderian’s overview on the site. 

Mr. Guderian said that what they have to look at are the numbers and unfortunately they have not seen 

many numbers because the numbers that have been presented in the traffic impact analysis shows that, yes 

they can get their vehicles on-site, it is getting them off site which is the issue. Because Baseline Road is a 

six lane arterial and Greenfield road is a four-lane arterial that will be congested, they had to look 10 years 

into the future to see what sort of impact the site would cause. They do not have the opportunity to make 

those left turns out onto Baseline. Mr. Guderian said that in terms of some of the methodology that the 

applicant says that they will use, there is only a direct access out onto Baseline which is six lanes and will 

have a median in the future. To have the joint access agreement onto Greenfield road, these full access 

driveways are not exclusive to the school site but are shared with the other commercial properties. There 

are two other commercial parcels that will be part of the overall development. It is nice to say that they will 

make their parents make three right-hand turns and then they will get back to wherever they need to go. Mr. 

Guderian said that he would like to show the Commission where the three right-hand turns were located 

and pointed out on the site map that you would need to go all the way over to Higley which is 3/4 of a mile 



10

and then you must go north up to the 60 and come back around or Guadalupe and through so it is 

essentially a two mile detour. In past experience with schools it has shown that once parents are off the 

school site the school has no authority or jurisdiction and it is the Town that must deal with those traffic 

issues. A two mile detour to get back to Greenfield, if you live directly west of the site, is a difficult 

movement to make. Another issue that makes the site difficult is the existing driveways and the way they 

are built. They have various short storage lengths of approximately 40 to 60 feet which is not conducive to 

putting a traffic signal in because you can stack 2 to 3 cars before you start losing efficiency of the traffic 

signal. The major issue that traffic has with the traffic analysis is that it has shown that to get out of the site 

without everyone making a right, the Town has a concern that traffic will try to make U- turns or cut 

through the commercial properties. They may have people monitoring the site, but the way that they have 

the traffic signals coordinated there is a very small window for people to make a left out onto the site. The 

school drop off area for the archway is approximately 150 feet from the driveway and their analysis is 

showing that the queue will extend past and backup any sort of on-site traffic. It is the same thing with the 

preparatory if that is the main point of access to make lefts the analysis is showing that the queue will 

extend past the driveway. Essentially what they are saying is that everyone is going to be making a righthand 

turn. The new analysis that was just received by staff shows that they will have traffic going over to 

Greenfield and there is no way for a monitor to see what sort of stacking is happening at the Greenfield 

driveway because of buildings obscuring their view. The traffic analysis does not show, because they did 

not report it, that the intersection, if they shift the traffic over there, will cause great delays and blocking of 

that driveway and the business access. There was a previous plat on the site for 75,000 feet of medical and 

dental office. Mr. Guderian stated that he wanted to show the comparative trip generations that they were 

talking for different types of land uses that could go on the site and referred to the following chart: 

Mr. Guderian stated that the figures on the chart come out of the traffic study that the applicant has 

prepared and that the site will generate 913 trips which include both inbound and outbound trips in the AM 

peak hour and 654 in the PM when school is getting out. On the previous plat there would be 179 trips in 

the AM peak hour or 1/5 of what the school is generating. With regular office building the numbers would 

be slightly less. They also looked at general retail of a shopping center where the AM peak hour is 

decidedly less and trip generation increases in the PM peak hour. 

Chairman Wittmann asked if the traffic impact analysis study submitted by the applicant did not include the 

school located to the South. 

Mr. Guderian said that was correct. In their previous iterations of the traffic study they were just showing 

access out onto Baseline and so staff really focused on the intersections along Baseline. In the new study 

that was submitted recently the only access point that they really looked at and do not have traffic counts 

for, they assumed some traffic would access on to Greenfield but did not look further south. 



11

Commissioner Fuller said that looking at the exhibit if you go to the proposed school site you have 557 

people coming on and 356 leaving so there are 200 cars that are staying on. He asked if that was correct 

Mr. Guderian said that was correct. Charter schools are relatively new and they don’t have good trip 

generation numbers for those schools so they use the private school trip generation formula. 

Commissioner Fuller said that you have 200 cars staying on 557 coming in and 356 leaving. In the p.m. 

you have 270 coming in and 379 leaving so there are an extra 100 that are leaving in the p.m. so where do 

the other hundred cars go from the a.m. He said that it looked to him that they have 825 coming in and 725 

leaving so how does that work. 

Mr. Guderian said that they were average trip rates that were taken out of their multiple sites. Usually the 

a.m. peak hour is higher because everyone is arriving at the same time especially when there are upper 

levels and have afterschool activities which spread the traffic out in the p.m. 

Commissioner Fuller said that the applicant’s site plan showed an easement to the west and asked how the 

easement affected staff’s analysis and the fact that they can’t shuttle people West through the bank and auto 

repair side. 

Mr. Guderian said that initially the applicant was showing a number of vehicles trying to make a left turn 

out onto Baseline. There just isn’t the available capacity to make those turns so they move those people 

over to the Greenfield driveway and from there they either went south or north on Greenfield. Staff’s 

review of the traffic models that were included in the report show that essentially they just shifted the delay 

from one driveway to the other and that there would be queuing that would occur there. Mr. Guderian said 

that they took all of the left turns away from one next set and essentially moved them over to the other. 

Chairman Fuller asked if there was a scenario that they could propose to the Traffic Engineer where he 

would potentially supports the project. 

Mr. Guderian said that he was hesitant to say no because there may be other options, however, he believed 

that it was very difficult. They have been very upfront with the applicant from day one that a right out 

situation only onto Baseline is not an acceptable solution for the Town because of the long detour and the 

U-turns. They have not seen anything from the applicant to this point that would be acceptable. It would be 

very difficult with the number of trips that they are looking at and the existing roadway network that is 

there to make it work. Mr. Guderian said that they made it possible for staff to go to the charter school at 

56 Street and it was noted that there are some major differences at that site. It exits out onto a three Lane 

Collector Rd. instead of a six Lane arterial and they did witness a few vehicles making a left turn and not 

right turns out onto 56th Street. Traffic can be controlled on-site but once it is off-site that is based on the 

roadway network. This is simply a very difficult parcel to make a school work. 

Chairman Fuller said that he understood that the traffic engineer was not saying “no, there is nothing we 

can do” but that the applicant has not presented anything that would work. 

Mr. Guderian said that was correct. 

Commissioner Fuller said the on-site queuing does seem like something that they could control on-site and 

it appears like they have more queuing than has been seen in the vast majority of sites. He asked if the 

traffic engineer would classify that as a minor issue and that the real issue is the three right turns. 

Mr. Guderian said that the major issue is getting people off site and getting them in the direction that they 

should be going. Without making right turns out onto Baseline in Greenfield the queue begins to back up 



12

and affect the drop-off area. Staff has worked with the applicant in terms of the on-site stacking and they 

have rearranged their site plan to provide more stacking so that is less of a concern. 

Commissioner Powell said that if he was in private enterprise and was faced with trying to make something 

work, you would make it work. He said that medians could be installed to prevent left hand turns or No U- 

turn signs that would possibly make it work. The vacant lot immediately to the East right off from 

Greenfield is zoned GC and will ultimately be built out by someone and that will create the need to have 

traffic coming in off of Greenfield and going off onto Baseline. Commissioner Powell said that it seemed 

to him that in the future in order to make that facility or site work for everyone when it is completely built 

out you might have to have some combining and multiple joint uses of ingress and egresses. They should 

be able to develop a plan that could make this work going forward so that as it builds out it could be 

adapted so that the uses are shared by everyone. He said that he believed there were opportunities to make 

this work. 

Commissioner Peterson said that there had been some talk about doing double left lane turns on Baseline 

and changing the signalization. She asked if that was something that is easily achieved since that is shared 

with Mesa since it is Baseline and Greenfield roads. 

Mr. Guderian said that the actual roadway width is there to make dual lefts turns however, the most 

difficult part would be coordination with Mesa. 

Commissioner Peterson asked if that is something that they would could possibly due to work with Mesa to 

add double left lanes and change the timing of the signal. 

Mr. Guderian said that Gilbert actually controls that and it is under Gilbert’s jurisdiction. 

Commissioner Cavanee said that he agreed with Commissioner Powell in that there was plenty of 

opportunity but perhaps they weren’t there yet. If Gilbert controls that median then maybe there is some 

opportunity to offer the applicant to make some of the ingress/egress a little more palpable once they leave 

the site. 

Mr. Guderian said that currently out on Baseline there is not a median but it is a project anticipated in the 

next 10 years. On sections of Baseline near the existing school there is a section that is not fully built 

because of the farmland. They will have to wait and see what sort of mitigation it will take to make it 

happen. 

Chairman Wittmann said in terms of the surrounding land uses to this particular parcel and the future 

development that may occur she assumed that the traffic impact analysis that was submitted included 

potential future trip generations and build out for those parcels as well and the impact that it may cause to 

the ingress/egress of the driveways on Baseline and Greenfield Roads. 

Mr. Guderian said that they did not take into account those two parcels for in the future. They did have the 

applicant’s traffic engineer take into account the parcels to the North on the Mesa site. 

Chairman Wittmann invited citizens from the public forward who wish to speak on the matter. 

Gary Nelson, Gilbert, AZ, came forward. Mr. Nelson said that he lived in the residential area just east of 

Quinn in the Green Acres subdivision. He said that the biggest concern for him was that on Baseline at 7:30 

a.m. it is very difficult to get onto Baseline to go to work. The traffic is so heavy going west it can take 

them a long time to get across. A lot of people that come out on Quinn, out of their subdivision, will take a 

right-hand turn and then a quick left turn into the small hospital to make their U-turn and come back out so 

that they can go west. Looking at a school where they’re all turning right to come out doubles up the traffic 



13

to Quinn. He and his neighbors feel that they need a stoplight at that intersection because it’s almost 

impossible to get out of their subdivision going to the west if they bring in extra traffic. Mr. Nelson said 

their other concern was students parking along Quinn before they get into the subdivision because their 

parking lots are overloaded. 

Chairman Wittmann invited the applicant back to the podium. 

Stephen Earl said that he highly respected the Traffic Engineer and freely admitted that he was not an 

engineer and so would concede to the position of an engineer who is reviewing the case. With that said, he 

wanted to make a few things clear that he believed that they agree on. He did not hear any dispute that the 

school will not degrade any off-site intersections and that they are committed, if necessary, to improve the 

intersection at Greenfield and Baseline to have dual lefts. Increasing the capacity of that intersection is not 

a significant problem. Whenever you have a use on property the number one thing is “are you going to 

negatively impact off-site facilities” so a main goal of the applicant is to make sure that no other 

intersection where the public was using that intersection would be degraded by virtue of the schools traffic. 

In addition, the PM peak is not the normal PM peak which is roughly 4 o’clock to perhaps 6 PM. The 

school lets out long before that so the PM peak is long before the typical PM peak. The times are staggered 

and they recognize that the challenge is the AM exit from the property; however, it is a problem on their 

property and not affecting anyone else. Mr. Guderian stated that there is a challenge with people leaving the 

site and turning left but based on the fact of knowing where the students are coming from while there are 

some who want to go south the primary access would the North. A right turnout would not be a significant 

degraded movement. Mr. Earl said that they agreed that that movement might be problematic. He said that 

if you have a person standing at the point where opportunities to make a left are allowed they would make a 

left. He said that they also appreciate that the neighbors who use Quinn would like to have a traffic signal 

there and if a traffic signal were proposed there it would allow for safer left hand outs and create breaks in 

the traffic that would make it easier for the school traffic. Mr. Earl said that the primary movement for their 

parents if they really must go north or left is to meter the traffic out. Mr. Earl said that they believe that 

they can make the site work and did not feel that the site is too small for the school. 

Vice Chairman Oehler asked if the numbers that were presented by Mr. Guderian were from the applicant’s 

traffic engineer. 

Mr. Earl said that those were total trips. 

Vice Chairman Oehler asked if the staggering number was taken into consideration. 

Mr. Earl said that technically both aspects of the school would be during the peak in the mornings where 

some would be coming before 8 o’clock and someone be coming at 8:30 AM so you would count both of 

those as a peak but their point was that they were not bringing them there all at the same time but are 

staggering them. 

Chairman Wittmann asked if she heard correctly that the school intends to provide someone to control 

traffic at the full turning access point at Baseline Road so that someone would be standing at the 

intersection controlling traffic. 

Mr. Earl said that they can make a decision if there is an opportunity for a left and if there is a break in 

traffic they may let a few go through otherwise they are metering people who want to get to that 

intersection and metering them out to make a right-hand turn to go out and turn left or to go through. Other 

parents are asked to come to the middle entrance and turn right only. Mr. Earl indicated the site map and 

stated that even though you could make a left they will have cones and a diverter actually built that will be 

a right out only. 



14

Chairman Wittmann asked if she understood that the school is proposing to have someone stand on the 

street corner in the sidewalk area directing traffic. 

Mr. Earl indicated the position that the person directing traffic would be standing. He said that in the future 

there may be a signal at Quinn but there also may be other ways to solve the problem. They are content 

with staff’s condition which is to approve subject to working out the issues because they believed that they 

can. 

Commissioner Cavanee asked to see the aerial map and noted that Mr. Earl had referenced connectivity to 

the South over to Greenfield and yet he did not see it on the flow and could not understand how they are 

getting there. 

Mr. Earl said that you can go two different ways one being to access around the back side of the Chase 

bank or go through the parking lot. 

Vice Chairman Oehler said that after staff working with the applicant to come up with the solution what 

happens if they can’t get there. 

Mr. Earl said that ultimately if they can’t get there they will need to come back to the Planning 

Commission or appeal the matter to Council and let them make the decision. He said that they were 

optimistic that if they sit down in a room with the two traffic engineers they can figure out a way to make it 

work as they are committed to the site and wish to open by August. 

Chairman Wittmann said that it seemed as though there were a lot of unanswered questions related to 

traffic and asked if Mr. Earl would be amenable to continuing to the next Planning Commission hearing? 

She said that they were having a special meeting on October 23rd and it could be on the agenda at that 

time. 

Mr. Earl said that if they could have a two-week continuance rather than a month that would be workable. 

Erik Guderian said that if they are talking about staff members at that driveway and some of the volume 

that they are looking at, and trying to direct traffic on a very short driveway that is 60 foot long and not 

stopping incoming traffic as it would then back up onto Baseline. They have 600 inbound vehicles coming 

through that driveway and trying to get people across is going to be very difficult and very busy. It would 

be very hard to direct traffic there. It is not a simple staff matter where they can see an opening in 20 

seconds and quickly send three cars out. It is not going to work like that. 


Commissioner Fuller stated that he would like to see what the proposed solution is before they make a 

decision. He said he would like to give the applicant and staff a chance to sit down together to try to find a 

solution. He said that he believed that they could find a way to make it work and that he really liked the 

use. He said that his preference would be to continue the matter for two weeks to the special meeting. 

Commissioner Peterson said that she completely agreed with Commissioner Fuller. 

Commissioner Powell said that they have the opportunity currently to assist a great cause and if they all see 

the value in it then it was his opinion that they should give the applicant an opportunity to move forward. 

Why delay it because they think there are not enough answers when they are comfortable with whom they 

are in what they’re bringing to the town. They can find the answers and make it work and delaying it for 

two weeks does not bring any value as ultimately they like these kinds of projects. Commissioner Powell 



15

said that he highly suggested that they vote in favor of the request and move the project forward and then 

work collectively to make it work. 

Vice Chairman Oehler said that he appreciated the project coming to Gilbert; however, he would like to see 

how it can be worked out in terms of the traffic. With the ability to come back within two weeks he would 

like to see the case continued. 

Commissioner Cavanee said that he understood the positions on both sides and would like to see them 

move forward but he also wanted the staff to be happy and to believe in it as well. He said he would lean 

towards giving them another shot at a solution, not to say that if they can’t come together the Commission 

could still say yes. He said that he thought they should look at it one more time. 

Chairman Wittmann said that for the most part she agreed with the Commissioners that it was a great use, 

however, she believed there was some difficulties in the site design for this particular location and that 

difficulty revolved around traffic and the impact on the existing on-site traffic and off-site traffic and how it 

coordinates with other schools in the vicinity during the same peak hours. She said that the Use Permit has 

4 findings that must be met and she did not believe the 1 st finding had been met as the traffic poses a 

potential safety issue. She said that she would like to see when the case comes back some input on the 

existing uses that are approved on the site that is not currently built and when it is built in the future how it 

may or may not impact those particular parcels. She said that she could not support the request at this time 

and would support a continuance. 


to continue UP13-17 to the next special Planning Commission meeting to be held on October 23, 

2013. 


Aye – Chairman Jennifer Wittmann 

Aye – Vice Chairman Joshua Oehler 

Aye – Commissioner Chad Fuller 

Aye – Commissioner Brigette Peterson 

Aye – Commissioner David Cavenee 

Nay – Alternate Commissioner Kyle Powell 

Chairman Wittmann recessed the meeting at 8:05 PM. 

Chairman Wittmann reconvened the meeting at 8:10 PM. 

GP13-13 - REQUEST FOR MINOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE LAND 

USE CLASSIFICATION OF APPROXIMATELY 13.3 ACRES OF REAL PROPERTY 

GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF MCQUEEN ROAD AND 

WARNER ROAD FROM SHOPPING CENTER (SC) TO RESIDENTIAL > 2-3.5 DU/AC LAND 

USE CLASSIFICATION, AND 

Z13-23 - REQUEST TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY 13.3 ACRES OF REAL PROPERTY 

GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF MCQUEEN ROAD AND 

WARNER ROAD FROM TOWN OF GILBERT SHOPPING CENTER (SC) WITH PLANNED 

AREA DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT TO TOWN OF GILBERT SINGLE 

FAMILY - 6 (SF-6) WITH A PLANNED AREA DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY ZONING 

DISTRICT. 



16

Chairman Wittmann opened the public hearing. 

Planner Nathan Williams said that the general plan amendment and rezone was 13.3 acres of Shopping 

Center to residential 2 – 3.5. The applicant is proposing SF – 6 PAD zoning. A site map was displayed and 

it was noted that the applicant is proposing a PAD in order to provide a development plan that has 44 

individual detached lots with a singular access point off of Islands Drive across from the existing Lobster 

Trap Drive. The secondary access is on the western portion of the site. The applicant is requesting a PAD to 

solidify the site plan essentially requiring the 44 lots which is a gross density of 3.3 dwelling units per acre 

for the site. There are some issues one being the existing carwash, Classic Car Spa, on 1.7 acres on the 

Southeast corner adjacent to the site and how this use changing from commercial to residential wood 

impact that user. Staff had concerns with it becoming a legal, nonconforming structure on the site. The 

applicant has provided buffers which planner Williams indicated on the site map which are approximately 

75 feet to the property to the East from the property line that would be designated as residential. He 

indicated on the map another area which would provide a 100 foot buffer. One item that has changed since 

the previous study session was a signed letter from the car wash owner that the applicant has provided 

where they have reached an agreement in the sense that the applicant has agreed to do a few things that the 

carwash owner would be happy with. Staff notes that these are not part of the Conditional Use Permit. 

Planner Williams said that a larger issue is do they feel that rezoning and changing the land use designation 

from commercial/residential is adequate for the site. One of the requests from the Commission to help them 

make the decision was “what are some vacant commercial uses within 5 miles of the site?” Mr. Williams 

displayed a color-coded site map that indicated the various parcels and what the zoning categories were and 

what parcels were currently developable. The applicant also provided an aerial site map which displayed 

the area 3 miles around the project site and their zoning categories. Mr. Williams noted that at the 

Southwest corner of Elliott and McQueen that there is vacant employment and commercial land with 

existing Shopping Center (SC) at Cooper and Warner. Planner Williams said that essentially the question is 

does staff support the change from commercial to residential and staff does not. Staff is taking a longerterm 

approach and feels that approach is more consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan 

which would not like to see the commercial loss especially at an arterial intersection into the Town of 

Gilbert adjacent to Chandler. There are two recommendations in the staff report, one is for denial and one 

is for approval of the request. 

Chairman Wittmann said that at this time, based on the exhibit and the application that has been presented 

and the vacant commercial land uses that exist, the recommendation by staff is still for denial and the 

reason is based on the long term and potential use of the property. 

Planner Williams said that was correct. He noted that Economic Development has not been supportive of 

the request. The Gilbert Chamber Of Commerce recently submitted information to staff stating that they 

want to take a closer look at the loss of Commercial/ Residential as they are troubled by the continued loss 

of Commercial. 

Chairman Wittmann asked if their recommendation for denial of the request was based on the long-term 

goals for the entire Town or was it site specific. 

Planner Williams said that he was not prepared to answer that. 

Commissioner Fuller said that this is a part of town that is for the most part already built out and there are 

not a lot of rooftops coming in. You do not want to lose commercial in areas where the rooftops are coming 

but are just not there yet. He commented that there are vacant existing commercial buildings within a mile 

or two or maybe even closer. Why is looking at it long-term when they just don’t see the rooftops being 

added to support the existing commercial zoning. 



17

Planner Williams said that it is built out and there are some struggling commercial centers at Ray and 

Cooper Roads and there is some vacant commercial land around there. Staff feels that there are a lot of uses 

that are allowed in commercial such as charter schools and congregate care etc. that the community needs 

as it grows and demands change. It is not always going to be a grocery store. 

Commissioner Powell asked staff what the projections were as they consider going forward with all the 

unpredictability and uncertainty of things and say “let’s hold this for the future.” What is the projection 5, 

10, 15 or 25 years when it has already sat there for 25 years. 

Planner Williams said that he did not have any of those projections. 

Commissioner Powell said that the question was presented to stimulate the thought that if it hasn’t 

developed in 25 years why would the Town think that it would develop in the next 25 years. There are 

some major arterials that just do not attract commercial build outs. They just don’t. He said that he had a 

hard time understanding sometimes when the Town takes these positions. 

Commissioner Cavanee stated that the last commercial interest in this property was in 2007. He asked if 

staff knew when the adjacent corners, one on the north and one on the northwest were built. 

Planner Williams said that he believed that they were developed when the Islands was built back in the 90s. 

Commissioner Cavanee said that he heard that one of the reasons that staff was recommending denial was 

because it was contrary to the General Plan and asked how the General Plan fit in that area. He said that he 

imagined that it was a revenue type of comment and asked for clarification. 

Planner Williams displayed an exhibit of the subject site which was approved by The Design Review in 

2007 to show what was approved at that time. Currently 8% of the Towns land is commercial and looking 

back to March it was 8 ½%. In 7 months they have lost ½% of commercial land. Some of those decisions 

were supported by staff and some weren’t but staff believes that an arterial intersection, gateway corner 

into the Town is an important piece to the Town and for commercial to remain commercial. In terms of the 

goals and policies of the General Plan which are pointed out on page 4 of the staff report, staff believes that 

this particular parcel was placed on the General Plan for a reason and should remain as such. 

Chairman Wittmann invited the applicant to come forward. 

Sean Lake, Pew and Lake LLC, Mesa, AZ, came forward representing the applicant. Mr. Lake said that this 

property was originally designated commercial in 1984 when the Islands development was going in. Since 

that time they have been looking for a commercial opportunity. Mr. Lake said if you look at the shopping 

center to the North you can see that it is mostly vacant and the property manager for that property owner is 

excited about additional rooftops because the additional rooftops will help with the existing vacant 

commercial. The North corner is largely a vacant center which is anchored by Goodwill and the Northwest 

corner where the CVS is located, that shopping center has a lot of vacant space as well. There is plenty of 

supply of commercial, just not enough demand. The request before the Commission currently is to change 

the General Plan from Shopping Center (SC) to Residential 2 – 3.5. Mr. Lake said that later on they will 

follow a preliminary plat and also an open space plan. The preliminary plat will go to the Planning 

Commission and the open space plan will go to the Design Review Board. This is a land use decision. What 

is a reasonable land use for this property owner at the site? Mr. Lake displayed the development plan and 

noted that it was 44 homes on approximately 13.3 gross acres. Lot sizes are roughly 65 x 100 where the lots 

directly to the South are 45 x 100. They’ve tried to present a plan that is not controversial and does not 

push the envelope but are simply larger lots than currently exists there on the South side currently. At the 

study session the question was asked “what is going to develop in this area that will change the 

demographics that will add more demand that will meet the supply of existing commercial?” They did a 



18

study of evaluating how many residential lots are undeveloped and available for development in the area. 

On a 2 mile radius there are 8 residential lots for a home so there is a potential for 8 additional homes on 

vacant lots that are available. It is fair to say based upon this type of analysis that there is not going to be a 

whole lot of demand or homes that will be built in the area. The area is built out from a residential 

standpoint. Mr. Lake said that they have also done a study of the existing retail buildings and there is over 

1,000,000 ft.² of vacant retail space within 2 miles of the subject site. With additional demand you can then 

help to fill up some of that supply. There is already more commercial there then needs to be built today so 

why add more to and already glutted market of retail buildings. Mr. Lake indicated an exhibit that Staff had 

requested for analysis of vacant land within a 3 mile radius of nonresidential land. Mr. Lake said that at the 

inception of the project they felt it was important to work with the Homeowners Association. They went to 

that HOA and came up with what they felt was a very good plan and received a letter of support from the 

Homeowner’s Association which stated that they hoped that their efforts in working with the Town Council 

and the Planning Commission that the Town will grant a change of zoning for that area from shops and 

retail to residential. The HOA believes that this is a reasonable use for the property. After the last study 

session the applicant had another neighborhood meeting and had the support of the neighbors at that 

meeting. They also worked with the carwash owner and received a signed letter of support from him based 

on an agreement that the applicant would do certain things for him to help mitigate the sound that is 

generated by his site for their homeowners. Based on the things that they have agreed to do with that 

agreement the carwash owner did remove his opposition and support the project. Mr. Lake indicated the 

site map and stated that they had agreed to establish a no build easement along the property adjacent to the 

carwash. What they tried to do was visualize that if the homes were built first and the car wash second 

which is typical, what would the carwash owner have to have done as far as setbacks and then took that 

number and built the setback into their property and created a no build easement over that area so that the 

effect is the same separation whether they went first or he went first. They are also building in an 8 foot 

sound wall to bring the noise level within an acceptable standard that is below the ambient noise of the 

roadways in the adjacent area. They also put in landscape buffers and the nearest lot on the East side would 

be approximately 77 feet and over 100 feet on the South side so they have created the separation. Another 

issue that was brought up at study session was is it safe the way it accesses onto Island Drive and they 

believe it is. Mr. Lake indicated the traffic signal on the site plan and noted that the traffic should be 

accommodated. Based upon what they have presented to staff with the supply and demand dated that has 

been provided and working with surrounding property owners on a reasonable land use they believe that 

what they propose is reasonable. Mr. Lake said that they would request that the Planning Commission 

support the General Plan modification and also rezone it to an R16 PAD. 

Commissioner Fuller asked how the no build easement will be documented. 

Mr. Lake responded that they will be noting the no build easement on the plat itself and in addition one of 

the agreements that they made with the carwash owner is that they will be providing notice of the proximity 

to the carwash in the public report and have a separate letter that is signed by the homeowner noting the 

proximity of the carwash so that they are aware of it. He noted that when he said no build area he meant no 

homes. 

Commissioner Fuller said that the notices that they give to the homeowner are only effective to the initial 

homeowner and on a resale they would not have notice of that because it is not a recorded document other 

than the plat. 

Mr. Lake stated that it will be recorded on the plat and that area would be owned by the HOA. 

Chairman Wittmann said if the case gets approved in the preliminary plat is processed and something 

happens between that and final plat and they have a new user that comes in and decides to build the SF- 6 

and doesn’t include the easement how do they protect the Town and the residents with the agreement that 

they made. 



19

Mr. Lake said that what they could do was incorporate the conditions that they made with the carwash 

owner dealing with separation and the no build area as a condition. Assuming someone else ends up 

developing the property they would be happy to add a condition stating that they will work with staff on a 

no build easement during the preliminary plat stage. 

Commissioner Powell said that on page 6 of the staff report it is titled School District Comments and says 

that staff has received a signed donation agreement from the proposed homebuilders and the Chandler 

Unified School District with regard to the subject. Commissioner Powell asked Mr. Lake what that meant. 

Mr. Lake said that it means that the property owner has agreed to voluntarily work with the school district 

on contributing per unit to the school district. 

Commissioner Powell asked if that was the only way that they could get them on board was through this 

method. 

Mr. Lake said no, every home builder that he’s ever worked with within the Town of Gilbert has reached 

the same agreement. 

Commissioner Fuller said that it is not just the Town of Gilbert it is valley wide. 

Chairman Wittmann stated that most schools have a standard fee that they request from the homebuilders 

as a contribution to the school to help build up the school for capacity and it is school district wide. 

Mr. Lake said that school impact fees were struck down by the courts 15 years ago so school districts 

decided to work with developers on a “voluntary” contribution and ever since then all homebuilders have 

voluntarily agreed to pay to the school district a contribution to help with that school area throughout the 

state. 

Town Attorney Phyllis Smiley asked the Commission to bring it back to what is in the purview of the 

Commission. 

Chairman Wittmann said that she believed that it was because it is in the staff report and that is the purpose 

of the discussion. 

Ms. Smiley said that it is not under the Towns jurisdiction to dictate what the applicant does with the 

school district it is just for information. 

Commissioner Powell said that he understood that and he was just trying to gather information. He asked 

Mr. Lake if he chose not to voluntarily contribute to the school would he still receive the support of the 

school. 

Mr. Lake said they have met with the school district and they do have capacity in that area. 

Chairman Wittmann invited anyone who wished to speak on the item to come forward. 

Les Presmyk, Gilbert, AZ, came forward in favor of the request. Mr. Presmyk said that this was his 

neighborhood and he had lived just north of the subject property for 28 years and watched the area develop. 

He noted that there were established commercial areas that are within a mile of the subject property that 

represent every department store and every grocery store that ever come to the area. They needed to set 

aside the idea that they would ever get a grocery store on that corner. The ABCO that was built on the 

northeast corner in the early 90s was the highest grossing grocery store in their entire chain until the Fry’s 



20

was built at Cooper and Warner and basically because of that competition ABCO went out of business. 

There is a Safeway a mile south and a Target a mile to the west and Albertsons is three miles away. They 

are not going to see a grocery store there. In the staff report they make the comment that other uses such as 

entertainment, congregate care facilities, churches and schools could come to the corner or are allowed in 

the SC zoning. As nice as those uses may be, churches and schools take it off the tax base. In terms of 

congregate care facilities, a mile to the north there is a care facility on the northwest corner of Guadalupe 

and McQueen. There was one of those proposed at Lindsay and Williams Field and the reason it never 

developed was because the neighbors came forward and said they did not want it and produced all the 

horror stories and killed the project. That was a perfect place for it. The idea of putting a congregate care 

facility on the subject corner would be difficult at best. Mr. Presmyk said that as much as he agreed that 

this is a gateway commercial parcel and as much as over his career of 16 years on the dais that he has tried 

to protect commercial properties, at the same time they need to realize that there are some commercial zone 

properties that all the opportunities have bypassed them. As Scott Morrison said a few years ago when he 

asked for rezoning and down zoning of a parcel in Morrison Ranch “all the crazy money did not come to 

this parcel a few years ago and so why would they ever expect it to develop commercially.” Mr. Presmyk 

said that he would use that same argument currently for this parcel. Six years ago there was a commercial 

plan proposed for this site and that was before the downturn in the recession and all the crazy money that 

was being spent and used for this kind of development did not come to this parcel. Mr. Presmyk said that 

this is a good use for this parcel which has sat vacant for almost 30 years. He said that he thought that it 

was time to recognize that just because they have some land that is zoned commercial they really need to 

look at what this parcel will do and this proposal is a good one for the neighborhood. There is plenty of 

commercial in that area and they do not need to save this for the future. 


Commissioner Fuller said that he did not see that the demand was going to be there to justify keeping this 

for shopping center use. He said that he would be supporting the General Plan zoning change. 

Commissioner Cavanee said that they talk about doing these projects on a case-by-case basis and this is one 

of those that perhaps you look at in a different light. In the end you must look at the specific conditions and 

the time for this property as a commercial property has passed. He said that he would lean in the direction 

of supporting moving ahead and letting the project be developed. 

Commissioner Powell said that he was in favor of allowing the rezoning principally because private 

property is private property and should not be controlled beyond its highest and best use and if the highest 

and best use cannot be achieved it is not fair to the property owner to continue to restrict him from using his 

property to his best interest. Government serves a purpose but not when it begins to infringe on an 

individual’s property rights. 

Vice Chairman Oehler stated that the open 8 lots really shows that they are already built out in this area and 

trying to get more rooftops in there would be tough. He said that he would be in favor of the change. 

Chairman Wittmann said that she agreed with the other Commissioners, however, she would want to 

stipulate that the no build easement be a stipulation as part of the zoning case to be held for any future uses 

to protect the Town. 

A motion was made by Commissioner Chad Fuller and seconded by Commissioner Kyle Powell to 

recommend to the Town Council approval of GP13-13, to change the land use classification of 

approximately 13.3 acres of real property generally located at the southeast corner of McQueen 

Road and Warner Road from Shopping Center (SC) to Residential >2-3.5 DU/Acre land use 

classification. 



21

Motion carried 7 - 0 

A motion was made by Commissioner Chad Fuller and seconded by Commissioner David Cavenee 

that for the following reasons: the development proposal conforms to the intent of the general plan 

and can be appropriately coordinated with existing and planned development of the surrounding 

areas, and all required public notice and meetings have been held, the planning commission moves to 

recommend approval to the Town Council for Z13-23 a request to amend ordinance no. 429 and 

rezone approximately 13.3 acres of real property within the Islands Planned Area Development 

(PAD) and generally located at the southeast corner of McQueen Road and Warner Road from 

approximately 13.3 acres of Shopping Center (SC) with a Planned Area Development (PAD) overlay 

zoning district to approximately 13.3 acres of single family residential 6 (SF-6) with a Planned Area 

Development (PAD) overlay zoning district, subject to the following conditions:1. The Zoning Exhibit 

and Development Plan shall be in substantial conformance with Exhibit 3, Exhibit 4 and Exhibit 5. 

2. The 35’ proposed no build easement along the east and southern boundary of the property be 

incorporated into the preliminary and final plats for the property. 


A. Recommend to the Town Council denial of GP13-13, to change the land use classification of 

approximately 13.3 acres of real property generally located at the southeast corner of McQueen Road 

and Warner Road from Shopping Center (SC) to Residential >2-3.5 DU/Acre land use classification; 

AND 

B. FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL DOES NOT CONFORM 

TO THE INTENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN AND CANNOT BE APPROPRIATELY 

COORDINATED WITH EXISTING AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OF THE SURROUNDING 

AREAS, AND ALL REQUIRED PUBLIC NOTICE AND MEETINGS HAVE BEEN HELD, THE 

PLANNING COMMISSION MOVES TO RECOMMEND DENIAL TO THE TOWN COUNCIL 

FOR Z13-23: a request to amend Ordinance No. 429 and rezone approximately 13.3 acres of real 

property within the Islands Planned Area Development (PAD) and generally located at the southeast 

corner of McQueen Road and Warner Road from approximately 13.3 acres of Shopping Center (SC) 

with a Planned Area Development (PAD) overlay zoning district to approximately 13.3 acres of Single 

Family Residential 6 (SF-6) with a Planned Area Development (PAD) overlay zoning district. 

If the Planning Commission determines that it is supportive of the requests under GP13-13 and Z13-23, the 

following motion is recommended. 

A. Recommend to the Town Council approval of GP13-13, to change the land use classification of 

approximately 13.3 acres of real property generally located at the southeast corner of McQueen Road 

and Warner Road from Shopping Center (SC) to Residential > 2-3.5 DU/Acre land use classification; 

AND 

B. FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL CONFORMS TO THE 

INTENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN AND CAN BE APPROPRIATELY COORDINATED WITH 

EXISTING AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OF THE SURROUNDING AREAS, AND ALL 

REQUIRED PUBLIC NOTICE AND MEETINGS HAVE BEEN HELD, THE PLANNING 

COMMISSION MOVES TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE TOWN COUNCIL FOR Z13-23 

a request to amend Ordinance No. 429 and rezone approximately 13.3 acres of real property within the 

Islands Planned Area Development (PAD) and generally located at the southeast corner of McQueen 

Road and Warner Road from approximately 13.3 acres of Shopping Center (SC) with a Planned Area 

Development (PAD) overlay zoning district to approximately 13.3 acres of Single Family Residential 6 



22

(SF-6) with a Planned Area Development (PAD) overlay zoning district, SUBJECT TO THE 

FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 

1. The Zoning Exhibit and Development Plan shall be in substantial conformance with 

Exhibit 3, Exhibit 4 and Exhibit 5. 

2. The 35’ proposed no build easement along the east and southern boundary of the property 

be incorporated into the preliminary and final plats for the property. 

ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS 

Minutes – Consider approval of the minutes of the Study Session and Regular Meeting of September 4, 

2013. 

A motion was made by Commissioner Chad Fuller and seconded by Vice Chairman Joshua Oehler to 

approve the minutes of the Study Session and Regular Meeting of September 4, 2013. 


COMMUNICATIONS 

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

Commissioner Peterson commented that the special meeting will be held on October 23, at 6:00 p.m. at the 

Southeast Regional Library. Gilbert Digital is doing a very good job of getting the word out about all the 

ways that you can access information about the Town of Gilbert. There is another Operation Welcome 

Home on Tuesday, October 22 nd at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers for a couple of members of the 

military. 

Report from Council Liaison 

No report was given. 

Report from the Planning & Development Services Manager on current events. 

Planning Manager Linda Edwards stated that the new home permits for September were 115. 

ADJOURNMENT 

Chairman Wittmann adjourned the meeting at 9:05 p.m. 

___________________________ 

Chairman Jennifer Wittmann 

ATTEST: 

___________________________ 

Recorder Margo Fry 



23

TOWN OF GILBERT

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?