foreign are we ready okay all right welcome good evening um we're going to go ahead and get started with our study session [Music] um tonight on the study session we just have one item and that is uh the gp2312 and the or so General plan 2312 and Zoning 2304 for the residents at the ranch and I believe Veronica you're on that good evening Mr chairman Commissioners I'm Veronica Gonzalez principal planner and I'll be presenting the residences at the ranch for you so the request is approximately 39 Acres located near the southwest corner of Elliott and power roads this is actually a separate 39 Acres out of the larger 302 acre ranch site that you saw earlier in October where you had made um where you had acted upon the request for a major general plan Amendment so the existing land use on this property is an interesting and unique zoning pattern what I'm intending to show you here is what the initial proposed and new land use and Zoning requests are in relation to that which is existing this was actually the initial proposal made by the by the applicant The Proposal included in minor General plan amendment to go from industrial general office and General commercial to residential 14 to 25 dwelling units per acre residential 15 to 25 dwelling units per acre and General commercial the rezoning component of it included rezoning from light industrial Business Park and General commercial to multi-family medium multi-family high and mixed use large Veronica can have you pulled a mic a little closer to you you're painting out there thanks how's that um however there has been a revised proposal that will be considered this revised proposal as you may recall the the major general plan Amendment and rezoning case that you that you heard back in October it was quite a contentious case and received a significant amount of neighborhood opposition in response to the debt the developer has been working with and talking with Neighbors in the area and has proposed a development that is intended to buffer the res the residents of Morrison Ranch from those less desirable industrial type uses so the revised proposal includes again a minor General plan amendment to go from industrial general office and General commercial to residential 14 to 25 dwelling units per acre and General commercial and the rezoning component would include going from light industrial Business Park and General commercial to multi-family medium mixed-use small and General commercial so on this next slide here is a since the last one was a kind of small and maybe hard to see um hopefully this is a little bit larger so you can see uh in in context um where where those areas are going to be placed within the overall Ranch area and again the intent behind this is to provide a buffer from those future Li uses that were a part of the major general plan Amendment from those existing residences within the Morrison Ranch development and again this is just to give you some context into uh the the entire area as it relates to the um Morrison Ranch and all of the other land uses uh within the area so the property is actually located within two areas within the general plan one is the Power Road growth Corridor the general plan encourages mixed-use developments within growth areas of the Town however higher density residential components of a mixed-use project must be designed as an integral part of the community and create a distinctive living environment and then as we have discussed before it is also a part of the Morrison Ranch character area the land use policy of the Morrison Ranch character area does include does encourage the creation of neighborhoods with a variety of uses and densities so long as they integrate with the overall rural Ranch character of the area so this is the middle for the residences at the ranch did include some preliminary Design Concepts now the site planning and design and building design for for this development will be reviewed under a separate design review application in the future but the applicant has presented some exhibits to illustrate a design concept and staff finds the the proposed renderings very attractive however the zoning request does not include a pad overlay and typically to ensure this type of development or to ensure that future development complies with a certain design concept or theme a pad is needed to guarantee that so that that future development does occur in in accordance with what is shown in the proposed exhibits so today we are requesting input from the commission number one on the proposed minor General plan Amendment and the rezoning that would allow for this type of multi-family and mixed use development within this area and with that I would take any questions from you all right thank you Veronica questions anybody like to jump in yeah Christian biaki thank you chair so Veronica um I think you answered one of my questions when we talked about if mixed juice could be a component of this since we kind of saw this that a couple months ago so it looks like that maybe is part of the revised plan here um was there any discussion or reasoning as to this residential layout or alignment the way it is shown tonight Mr chairman commissioner Bianchi the nor what I'll call the north-south portion of the development which is what would be along the existing Morrison Ranch residents there this is intended as a buffer from those uses and do we know the approximate width of the proposal uh yes so the um the portion that runs north south um the what I'll call the frontage along um along Elliott road is about 440 feet wide okay and then as you go south along that area that length is about 27.71 give or take um the portion of the development that kind of dog legs East West parallel to Elliott road that length is about 1486 1486. and then for that portion that is um parallel to Power Road that is about 345 feet wide okay and do we have any idea yet if is this going to request going to be heard concurrently with the larger industrial and GC or are these going to be handled separately Mr chairman commissioner Bianchi so this is a separate application a separate request from the larger Major General plan amendment that you heard back in October but the intent is for the two to be a Town Council at the same time okay all right thank you chair all right thank you you guys have questions or comments yeah Chris Anderson uh thank you for the presentation I'm assuming there were some meetings with the local residents in the area for this application how do those meetings go with the residents in that area feel more comfortable with having this multi-family buffer between them and the light industrial Mr chairman commissioner Anderson is there have been ongoing meetings and discussions with the app between the applicant and a kind of core group of the Morrison Ranch residents there and so this is the result of those many discussions that they've had there is going to be a follow-up neighborhood meeting where this will then be presented to the larger Morrison Ranch Community as a whole and and that will be in the next couple of weeks we're working on scheduling that at this point okay so I understand the buffer of the multi-family between the single family residential and the like light industrial what's the reason for the multi-family along Elliott what is that supposed to be buffering something or is that just something that the developer is doing to at mix up the use of the entire area is Airman commissioner Anderson that's my understanding that it is uh a component that the applicant has come forward with um as a part of the overall development um I don't know if maybe we would prefer to speak no that's that's fine I think he answered the question yeah yeah thank you questions Fisher Davis did you have any you jump in I am formulating um I guess I just want to be sure I understand the location the location of the multi-family The General commercial along there and whether or not the neighbors are on board with that multi-family along Elliott as well coming into the neighborhood or if commercial was something that was desired I'm just curious if this is where we're gonna I kind of want to know if the neighbors are accepting of this plan or if we're going to see something different after a neighborhood meeting go ahead Sean yeah if you want to turn your mic on there hit the shot hit hit the button sorry there you go that's it it might okay first off let me say we really appreciate working with Veronica on this she has been exceptional in working to get this to where it is today and and so we've appreciated work with staff secondly let me say we really appreciate we have been working with a group of seven neighborhood leaders who are are working with us to try to come up with a plan that works and so those aren't just meetings that we've had those are going to be continued discussions throughout so that by the time this both of these applications get to council will have a package that we're hand in hand working with the neighbors that we can agree to they can agree to and working with staff to make sure this is all done right and so we've appreciated that so yes we are meeting with neighbors and we continue to meet with neighbors and we'll continue to meet with neighbors the issue of the the multi-family obviously the the stuff along the west side we've got that open space and that multi-family that's a two-story multi-family on the top that is intended to buffer that existing uh Morrison Ranch Community there the multi-family along Elliott again was part of the package of of negotiations with the neighbors as a buffer along Elliott the goal is twofold the first is to create a barrier so that the truck traffic that is going to be generated by the industrial does not go North to Elliott road so it creates a physical barrier so that there will be no truck traffic going North to Elliott road but all the truck traffic you'll see the red arrows on this plan will go out to power or over to Warner the second aspect is a visual buffer Elliott they wanted to maintain more of a residential character and not a big truck carrier so you would have not only the commercial along Elliott with restaurants and those type of things along Elliott but then you would have a second layer of multi-family at three stories you'll notice on that plan that would provide that visual buffer so you go from retail to multi-family and then back in the distance further back would be the industrial so it would be a visible visible buffer as well as a a traffic buffer to help maintain Elliott as more of a residential um non-commercial traffic feel that's the intent of that and that is a specific direction that we've had with the neighbors to include that there as late as last night when we met so that's why we have it and that was the the deal that we've cut with the neighbors or worked out with the neighbors thank you yeah commissioner Bianchi yeah thank you I guess I guess my overall Impressions or thoughts are the the density kind of concerns me a little bit um but I understand especially the circulation when you start getting into the site plan and circulation around the site and once you know Public Safety and solid waste weighs in on that but that could be a conversation for another day I do I by the argument I suppose it provides a transition between the uses especially if we have multi-story residential kind of shielding that from the industrial I kind of understand that I don't know I kind of I look at this site plan and it kind of makes me feel like I'm playing that old game of Tetris you know when you're Shifting the shapes and trying to make them to fit I guess this looks like we're just trying to find something a way to yes and get this to fit but um but I can understand the the discussion for it but again the the circulation of the density are still something I'm going to probably see how the discussions go all right anybody else yeah uh commissioner Gage thank you chair um picture that's on the on this there's a little piece of commercial that looks planned out that on our in our packet is not planned out I can't point but you see where the corner is there's a long skinny piece that has buildings on it for commercial so yeah thanks so I'm just wondering is the rest is there somewhat of a plan for the rest of that because it's somewhat narrow where it's against Elliott Road and if you've gone that far do you have some idea how the rest of it's gonna play out the the great question the the commercial at that location is we're trying to create this destination restaurant type row or retail row and I'm not going to go into the whole development plan at the study session but it the goal is to kind of create this pedestrian area between those two red buildings and then you see the two pink buildings which are going to be mixed use first floor retail second third floor multi-family then you got the orange buildings that will also have first floor retail second and third floor multi-family and you'll create this this kind of uh High Street type design Down The Pedestrian area down the center of those areas but the focal point is really going to be that those two retail buildings or there's two restaurant buildings that you identified and then we tried to mirror that on the other side on the on the east of that or below it to have those restaurant areas as well to kind of create this whole Plaza area where you have lots of restaurants and places to go and sit and have a glass of wine with your your partner or take your kids there to play and eat outside an outdoor dining and kind of create this experience experience in that area and so that the reason we've planned that out is because we've been working with the neighbors specifically of how that area would look and so we've really been focused on how that's going to lay out and look and a lot of the pictures that we'll bring to you next month that we showed to the neighbors last night that literally are wet ink they're that hot off the press we'll show you pictures of what we envision that to be and look like okay thank you thank you I have one other minor comment that's kind of inconsequential but the maps in the narrative are square and North goes to the right can we just we'll correct that thank you it was driving me crazy when I was looking at it Veronica can you remind me um it looks like the um packet has been updated from what we were given previous to the study session with regards to multi-family because I've got multi-family High On That North Edge that's changed to multi-family medium is that correct yeah Mr chairman the initial request that we received did include a multi-family High component and that will be changing that is the part of the request that will be changing as it goes forward to when it comes to the Commissioners for a recommendation so yes what you received in your packet is slightly different than what you're looking at particularly at this slide and remind me again multi-family medium is 15 to 25 dwelling units per acre Mr chairman very close 14 to 25 14 to 25. so we're talking 800 units potential in this 32 Acres um so I'm not great at math but um the um the acreage for I read the numbers last night so can I help you out we I think we came up with about Max of 650 between the two-story and the three-story then we're going to have some in the orange buildings on the second third floor so there could maybe be up to 700 but in reality when you lay out the two-story multi-family to get to a density of 25 and still comply with the town's standards is going to be exceptionally difficult so my guess is you're not going to get near that number so maybe 650 700. I think absolute Max 650 to 700 I think it's going to be far left once you start complying with the town's design standards for multi-family okay especially limited to two-story it's tough to get to 25 at two story okay any other comments or questions yeah commissioner Davis I'd just like to comment that um I appreciate all of these changes it's definitely achieving what I was hoping for for the neighborhood and why I wasn't supportive of it the last time to provide adequate buffering for the residential the existing residential Community the part that I'm struggling with a little bit is we're going to be bringing in these multi-family units and they're next to the industrial I understand that they're coming in and they're going to understand that this is what's going to be built next to them but when you look at the you know and I know these aren't set site plans but when you look at those multi-family along Elliott on that South Side there they've got bay doors right there so I really think design wise that needs to be considered and how we're still creating a livable environment because otherwise you're going to end up with an apartment complex that's not going to maintain over time and stay a quality development because it's a rough situation and not an ideal living condition so I really would like you to make sure that you're looking at those transitions as well to create that living environment that's ideal so that's what I have all right thank you hey vez uh commissioner Faye thank you hello okay uh one of the top three criticisms and it's I'm a hesitant because it sounds like this was worked out with the community but one of the top three criticisms the community had of of the light Industrial Development was traffic um and I was a I wasn't completely dismissing it because it was truck traffic versus car traffic it was on the opposite side of the project from the community but they are trucks and it just seems to me that we're we're inviting a pretty significant traffic Elliott was going to be there wasn't going to be any major truck traffic coming off on Elliott as I recall and now you will have a pretty significant I actually think we're making traffic worse and um well I know we're making traffic worse but I think we we might be making the entire project considerably worse in that regard and I don't know that people are appreciating that and I mean I guess if the fire department signed off on it assuming there isn't connectivity you've got some pretty long runs to get way back especially on that Western leg but you know if the fire department signed off on it I guess that's and then people will have to know what they're buying when they when they rent way down in the far southern end of the left leg my cons or the Western like I'd be concerned if this was coming tonight I'd want to I'd want to talk to some of my citizen contacts because I think that this will actually won't do anything to make traffic better on the rest of the site but it will make traffic worse on Elliott but I don't know that the Morrison Ranch people are quite as aware of I don't know that's that's my thought good thank you emails have anything right I'm going to share my thoughts on this um and we'll see if I can put them out eloquently to make sense they make sense in my head whether or not they come out incense I don't know I agree 100 with commissioner Faye I think that this is actually going to drive additional traffic we we hear continuously traffic traffic let's go on the low end 500 units 500 units versus the little bit of additional industrial that they're going to get on this if we left it I mean you're going to have tons more traffic it's all feeding out to Elliott Road um so it's going to make Elliott Road just that much busier so I have some pretty significant heartburn with that I'd like to see some studies with regards to what the traffic will look like secondly we're looking at a general plan and a zoning on this although the pictures are nice nice to tell a story all we're looking at is what is the max capacity that can be set on this property with regards to the zoning so as much as I appreciate the neighborhood and the community members coming together with the developer and working on this at the end of the day this is up to the developer to actually put what they want to put on that property once we approve the zoning so I'm really hesitant to allow myself down the path of looking at the pictures although they are very very enticing and I like the look of it we're not at that stage it not having a pad filed with it there's nothing locking you into this so that that kind of gives me some angst on it as well um I would say the number one thing that we hear about from residents if I go down the road of commissioner Faye is we have too many apartments in the town of Gilbert we had a five acre piece of land that didn't even go to pre-app on the other side of Morrison Ranch that created a firestorm with some very significant some of them personal attacks with regards to development of additional apartments in the town of Gilbert we have another plan coming tonight that will go to in our general meeting that actually has multi-family on it and yet we're looking for another 39 Acres which by the way happens to be just under the 40 acre requirement to go to a major general plan Amendment so there's some things in my limited knowledge of where we go with development and how we work through things again I do not want to dismiss whatsoever what the developer has done on this I think that this plan looks great I I do wish that this would have been the first iteration or somewhere close to the first iteration and we wouldn't have had to deal with what we had to deal with in October and September and November and December and onward and all of the vile things that were thrown out by some community members that I feel is very unfair attacks on certain individuals with that I will end it by saying I appreciate again what the community has done to step up and attempt to get something in with this much General commercial and retail on that corner additional to the power center that's going in on the north side I have concerns that we would be able to even fill that General commercial or retail in the event that it shows up so so from my perspective right now I think we've made a huge leap forward I do have some concerns I appreciate where it is today again I can't look at the pictures and look at the site plan because that's not before me tonight I'm looking at do I want to put multi-family on 39 Acres that's currently not zoned for that when I have community members continuously reaching out to me telling me don't allow any more multi-family in the town of Gilbert so with that unless anybody else has anything they'd like to add Veronica if you have anything else for us or any other questions no I don't but thank you very much for the feedback appreciated really appreciate that and thank you um with that I don't believe we have anything else on the study session so um we're going to go ahead and discuss the regular agenda items and Eva I'm going to look to you to help me in this because I know that there's been a few things that have changed I believe that we've got so we'll just kind of run down through it we've got Stillwater rivie on which we need to pull to non-consent correct that is correct okay um we've got um Melody Avenue buildings um that's on consent I believe it can stay correct does anybody need um that item pulled all right um Corbell energy storage I believe that item can stay correct all right anybody need that pulled all right from there we're going to jump down to the non-consent items we've got the cobblestone 48. um is there any reason not to push that to uh non-consent do we need to hear on that one Samantha we do need to hear that one yes it has to be so it's going to stay on non-consent um we've got uh Dr No item number 10 um in test in Test the show building sorry I don't know how to say that um and I believe we need to discuss that one as well if I remember Samantha okay so that'll stay on non-consent and then 11 and 12. um we can can we move those to consent or do we need to hear those Samantha here okay so those will stay on non-consent okay um with that we will go ahead and take a break what time is it it's six o'clock let's take a quick five minutes we'll come back at about 10 after and uh start our regular meeting foreign okay I think we're ready to get going all right I'll go ahead and uh cost to order and we will start with the Pledge of Allegiance all rise all right um Eva can I have a roll call please alternate gauge commissioner Davis here commissioner Anderson yeah commissioner Faye here commissioner Blazer here commissioner Bianchi here Vice chairman Mund here chairman Simon here we have a quorum thank you all right so uh we discussed the agenda um and so on the agenda we've got oh let's see if I can keep this straight we have item uh number seven and number eight on the consent agenda moving item number six to non-consent also on non-consent are 9 10 11 and 12. do I have a motion to approve the agenda as a matter of fact chairman you do I'd like to make a motion to approve the agenda with consent consisting of item 7 Dr 22164 and number eight Dr 2248 and the non-consent being 6 9 10 11 and 12. thank you Vice chair I have a motion by the Vice chair to have a second I'll second all right I've got a second by commissioner Davis uh please cast your vote motion carries right with that we'll move on to Communications from citizens at this time members of the public May comment on matters within the jurisdiction of the town but not on the agenda the commission response is limited to responding to criticism asking staff to review a matter comment upon or asking that a matter be put on a future agenda do we have any Communications from citizen outside of anything that's on the agenda not seeing any we will move on to the report from Council aison and is council member September on the line tonight I mean Anderson sorry council member Anderson is sorry sorry councilman Emerson no problem Mr chair um just very quickly um last night we did recognize many Volunteers in the community chairman Simon was there received a certificate for his years of service and and volunteering in the community but I wanted to recognize each one of you also and thank you for the service that you give to the community I I know that it's often goes uh thankless but uh you do a great work in the community two things that we're working on as a council we've got a couple of subcommittees one that's working on Communications within the community and the other on ethics and both of these will affect you in one way or another and so as we work on those committees in the next upcoming weeks we'll probably let you know more about that and what we're doing to improve Communications and also to clarify ethics uh as a policy in the in the town so thank you very much Mr chair right thank you councilman all right with that we'll move on to our public hearing consent items all items listed below are considered the public hearing consent calendar the commission may buy a single motion approve any number of items where after opening the public hearing no person requests the item be removed on from consent calendar if such a request is made the commission shall then withdraw the item from the public hearing consent calendar for the purpose of public discussion and separate action other items on the agenda may be added to the consent calendar and approved under a single motion do I have a motion to approve the consent chairman I'd like to make a motion to approve the consent uh item 7 dr22-164 Melody Avenue buildings one and two and Dr number eight dr22-48 Corbell energy storage all right I have a motion by the Vice chair do I have a second well second yeah second by commissioner Faye go ahead and cast your vote and the vote carries 7-0 I don't know if I need to say that do I need to say that all right so um with that we'll move on to the Public non-consent non-consent Public hearing items will be heard at the 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 public hearing item may do so if you wish to comment on a public hearing item 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 and I've got a couple here see anybody rushing to bring me another one so um we're gonna go on to item number six Dr 22-143 and Ashley you are up it's still water review on chair I'm I'm going to recuse myself okay um so commissioner Blazer is uh recusing himself and commissioner Gage are you coming up or alternate Gage sorry we'll call you commissioner at this moment in time all right and this is a design review for the uh 22-143 Stillwater reveal on so thank you chairman um so as you mentioned this is Dr 22134 Stillwater revulon this project is located south of Pecos Road and West of Lindsay Road as outlined on this map in red I would point out that it's about it's set back from those arterial intersections that step back from Pecos Road about 590 feet and then stepped back from Lindsay Road 760 feet so it is really Central to the larger rivulon development the area that's kind of highlighted here in full color that is the the larger rivulon development I will note as you can see on this next slide that a couple of those Parcels that have the red or the white overlay on them those are County islands that are not part of the revulon development but still within kind of the center of this site the property does receive access from revulon Boulevard to the South as the primary act point and then la arbolida which you can be on this aerial image has been constructed on the east side of the site the area is largely zoned business park for the rivulon development with regional commercial farther to the West I will also note that the site is does have the general plan designation of office as well which south of that those County Island pieces those are planned in our general plan as office use as well although any entitlements that they were to bring forward at this point would be within the county the site itself is a 10.3 acre part of that larger 280 roughly master plan development known as revulon the general plan was changed by Town Council earlier this year two residential 20 to 50 dwelling units per acre with an accompanying rezone that rezone the site to multi-family high with a PID there were some deviations that went along with that request as well as approval of a development plan so the map that you see on the screen is the approved development plan that went along with that rezoning that shows one one primary building at the center of the site which is the multi-family portion of it and then just north of that is a garage building so it lacks a lot of detail but this is what we were expecting the development to look like when that rezoning went through so this is the site plan before you today that that commission is considering um as I mentioned La arbolita is on the east side of the property in Riverdale on Boulevard is to the South both of those roads have been constructed and recently are open and accessible to the site when the rezoning went through they were doing the final touches on construction but those are now open um you can see that the this largely matches the development plan with the multi-family being located at the center the garage building to the north what's important to note is there are four points of access to the site as you can see one on La arbolida one on rivilan Boulevard and then two that connect to the rivulon commons office complex just to the West there's also pretty significant pedestrian connectivity in order to have the site integrate with the larger revulon master plan development as I mentioned already there's a single residential building with the garage building as well so the garage building um highlighted there in terms of the development itself there are 353 units proposed it is a five-story building they are meeting their parking requirement with 535 spaces provided a number of those being enclosed and then 267 of those are covered spaces as required by the code the development conforms with the pad standards that were approved as part of the project it meets all setback requirements open space common open space and then it does fall within the maximum height you may recall that when this came through for zoning one of the requests of the applicant was to increase the maximum height up to 65 feet and they are just under that with this proposal today the landscape plan as I mentioned is consistent with what's approved or or it's consistent with what is permitted or required per the code and is also consistent with what is developed with the larger rivulon development LA arbolita and rivilan Boulevard do already have their street Frontage landscaping and saw installed so the Landscaping plan for this development is is really just this multi-family property uh looking at the elevations we saw this in study session I believe I put in your staff report that the study session was in August but that was the rezoning study session the study session for the design review was in October and so these these are very consistent with what was uh viewed at that time which the commission was very supportive of as I mentioned this Falls just under the maximum height the tallest point of the building is 58 feet 6 inches of the larger building and then there are some elevator shafts that that add a little four feet to the top of that with the garage building those are 11 feet 9 inches so um fairly fairly short buildings they've tried to articulate articulate that where they can with some movement in the roof line and then I also want to point out there is a pedestrian connection through that building since it is very long and linear they've got that as highlighted by that orange Square on that bottom image that's a pass-through Paseo so that somebody wouldn't have to walk from the primary entrance of the multi-family building around that they could walk through it East-West elevations we see a lot of those same materials and movement the applicants also provided some renderings to help better understand what that building could look like in terms of colors and materials it's largely stucco brick that fiber cement wood paneling as well I wanted to include this since we talked about it as part of the study session just to see this is the development immediately next door some of those same Rich materials a lot of similar building forms so it is consistent with the with what we see in the area I also wanted to touch on public input because there was no public comment provided in your staff report staff started to get some emails late yesterday and so we did put those into your Dropbox for review so hopefully you had a chance to review those 17 letters but to summarize there was a lot of concerns related to traffic congestion the scale of the building being a five-story building how that fits with the rest of the development both offices and single family I did receive another another email about 30 minutes ago that was not in your Dropbox link so there is one additional gentleman that wanted to express his opposition to it Brent Packer for the record um and since traffic was one of those comments that were brought up in many of those letters I did want to to briefly touch on that the rivulon conducted in 2020 a master traffic impact analysis that went through review I think that was part of the rivulon um the Lakes Office Buildings which is uh just kind of southeast of the um traffic circle where you can see the number 12 on the map I should have highlighted it so when that when that development came in for a design review they went through the exercise of doing this master traffic impact analysis to show us what is the circulation plan how is all of this going to work over the build out of the site and so um I I wanted to just touch on the fact that staff has been kind of using this as we review our projects understanding how everything kind of functions together and how it will flow at full build out and I will also point out that this study anticipated multi-family not just on this property but potentially in some their locations as well so this this master Tia does account for this in planning of the circulation Network with that staff's recommendation is for approval of this project with the three conditions in your staff report and up on the screen I'm happy to answer any questions you have and I know the applicant is here as well great thank you Ashley are there any questions or comments for actually yeah commissioner Anderson Ashley thank you for the presentation what's the height of The Office Buildings there The Office Buildings range in height the rivulon commons Office Buildings I'll have to I'll have to look that up for you but there are some buildings that are you know 50 60 feet tall within the the rest of the building the applicant may have that specific information as well as the height if not I'll look it up while he's giving his presentation okay so just your best judgment do you feel that the proposed Residential Building is in line with the height of the that it's not taller than them chairman and uh commissioner Anderson I do think this is in line with what's expected within the revulon development um one thing that I didn't note in my presentation is that rivilan is within a vertical development overlay district and so we do expect and anticipate higher Heights within this area the office buildings are permitted to go I believe up to 90 feet by right whereas multi-family part of their deviation request was to go to 65 because that is exempt from the what's allowed just that bonus height under the vertical development overlay so we this is very much in line with what we expect in this area and since you asked the question I will I will also just add that really that's more of a zoning issue since since the height is permitted by right under that zoning case okay thank you any other questions comments commissioner Faye actually one of the other common themes I saw and we've seen it in other matters was a lack of public notification and I know sometimes people misjudge what the notification requirements are or sometimes it didn't happen could you address that or could the applicant yeah thank you chairman and commissioner Faye so um in in this development they are required to notify Property Owners within 300 feet of the site and HOAs within 1000 feet the hope is that the HOAs will kind of spread the word amongst their Community um as well since since they have the ability to do that and so the applicant did meet the notice requirements they submitted an affidavit and posted the signs as required per our Land Development code all right thank you that was my question as well so thank you anybody else um thank you Ashley we'll go ahead and ask the applicant if you'd like to come up um and give presentation or go ahead and hit yeah actually yep there you go Adam bought 25 25 East Arizona Biltmore Circle I'll be brief um a couple things that come to mind unlike a zoning case where we had uh two public hearings and a study session and the Dr case a study session this one I think there's been a lot of um public hearings to participate in this process as we have gone forward the case what we've looked at and I think what's within your scope review is to make sure that this development as designed conforms with the PID that was approved last fall the key second consideration is that this development has designed is consistent with the quality of character that's represented in the Riverlawn area so as we've considered how we do the perimeter treatments the Landscaping there's Harmony between this and the balanced riverline there's consistency in character you'll notice that we don't have perimeter walls around this unlike you typically see in other multi-founded amounts because we're trying to blend in with the theming design that's represented in this area the materials uh the uh the articulation the massing the percentage of the materials all those are in harmony with the balance of the overall Park more specifically with the projects that are also pinning right behind us with the new office building that's being proposed and going forward through the process at the end I think the heights are what are permitted within this ordinance they're matching what is otherwise allowed in this area and overall in Harmony and consistent with the character of what you'd expect to see in this intensive Corridor I think to be clear this is an area intended for intensity particularly with the exhibit that actually show but more importantly because of the type of opportunities that can create it so if there are questions regarding design architecture Landscaping gradient drainage those kind of things and with me is the complement of the whole consultant team that can address that if there's questions regarding land use and Zoning I could I'm happy to address it although I think that might have that opportunity Forum might have passed last fall so with that I'm happy to end so you can have an early night but take any questions that you might have all right um thank you Mr ball are there any questions or comments for Mr about this time or the applicant right not hearing any we'll go ahead and open up to public comment I do have two public comment cards um I'm going to go ahead and just call these down so I've got Richard Hall if you'd like to come up to the mic I'll give you three minutes thank you Mr chair good evening my name is Richard Hall and I am a resident of vintage Ranch directly across Pecos from the proposed project I've learned about this project yesterday so I did not I was not reached with the notices that were previously given about it um and I must I'll start by agreeing with chairman Simon I don't believe any additional apartments are needed in Gilbert either the way I see it 353 Apartments should house probably around a thousand people um now 30 of that site is going to be dedicated to outdoor but that outdoor or that common space but that's also going to include an inside building and a pool if any of these thousand people want to get outside on a nice day and go to a park where do you suppose they're going to go probably the closest park which is right across Pecos right into vintage Ranch there is a park right there and my house looks directly at it so one of my concerns is that that Park and all the parks within vintage Ranch are funded and paid for by our homeowners association fees so to have other people coming into our Park using our facilities because they don't have facilities of their own concerns me because we don't need a big influx of people coming in using our playgrounds using all of our everything that we pay for and any damages to any of that property we will also have to pay for and so we don't need that additional traffic coming in and I honestly in this plan I don't see a solution for providing adequate outdoor space for people that want to get outside and spend outside spend time outside on a nice day so I'm concerned about that I'm also concerned about the impact on traffic I'm also concerned about the impact to home values so that's my feedback I am not in favor of this project and I thank you for your time thank you all right um I'm sorry it's is it uh delay very delay I'll give you three minutes go ahead and state your name for us and your residence yeah hit the gray button there you go hi my name is Mary delay I'm also a resident of vintage Ranch and I Echo all the things that Mr Hall just stated and again we just learned of this this week that this development was even planned and I am very active getting out of the community on Pecos Road which is two lanes on each side and the density that these five-story apartments are going to add to our neighborhood traffic which is already difficult to get in and out of our community is something that the Commissioners need to look at more closely and I know she already said that there was a traffic study but nobody asked the neighbors how this was going to impact us and I think the council needs to be sensitive and the commission needs to be sensitive of how this impacts the neighbors thank you thank you very much oh got one more you're hoarding them over there all right so I've got a few more here are there any more before we get keep going can you bring those up um Ashley somebody wants to collect those you can bring them up that's fine thank you all right I will Shuffle these like a deck of cards so nobody knows what order they're in no just kidding all right I've got uh Tony DeSantis Tony if you'd like to come up I'll give you three minutes my name's Tony sanis good evening I live in the area lived there for 20 years I don't know if any of you gentlemen and ladies have been up and down Lindsay Road to see the impact it has caused there's 45 000 cars a day good on Lindsay you're going to add another thousand guys I mean you know I live less than a quarter mile from this project and it's a travesty that everything that's going on around there I wish you people would recommend or even try to consider the people that have lived there and enjoy where they're living but now we're being ousted out the traffic it's a race course up and down Lindsay Road since you guys widened it or since a city widen it it's a race course no police whatsoever you can call them all day long doesn't have any effect on anything it's a it's a tragedy thank you thank you sir all right um I've got uh Elizabeth gandera did you wish to speak it's not marked you have three minutes go ahead and um hit the mic button there it's going to be the gray button on the left okay okay so we live right it's going to be right in front of the apartment complex um we have people out there every night that Park in the dark ends we've had people jump our fence into our yard and I'm having to come out at two three four in the morning because the dogs bark so we don't know if we get the two guys coming in again I've had to call the police various times and we have people racing up and down we have the street cleaner too I I called about that and I guess Deloitte offices have permission for the sweepers and the blowers to be going on at one in the morning I just I don't know and I wrote there so the buildings are two-story buildings the apartment complex is five I don't know what more crap is going to come with those apartments before the road was even open I have videos at home that I can email you guys cars running over signs without the road being open still now speeding up and down people doing drugs on the corner and I have it you know if you guys want the videos I can send them to you and I've called in you can ask the the police station I've called in a couple times so I don't know what all this is going to bring I have three kids right in front of this apartment complex you know the people don't respect there's no respect whatsoever all the trash that people throw in the street come into to the yard to our animals I've had two sick sheep that I've had to take care of and one of them was on the verge of dying from the trash that people throw so I don't know I don't know what else to tell you guys thank you all right thank you Thomas candara did you want to speak oh uh yeah I'm sorry it looked like the same as the other name it can go ahead and state your name yeah wait wait hang on a second I gotta find that's it I live in vintage Ranch can you state your name again for me yes it's Thomas Haskell Kinard k-i-n-a-r-d okay did you turn in a form I didn't see one from you yeah I just brought it up there to you okay go ahead I'm sorry okay uh I live in vintage Ranch in uh and Mr Hall said pretty much everything I'd like to say and that is that uh we have a lot of traffic in our in our natural areas in our green areas that have got the parks in them and we already have that without having the additional Apartments down below uh I firmly believe we have enough apartments in our area um I I think that that five-story building and I heard it mentioned here that this building is is is not any higher than the uh the two-story buildings that are already in there the Office Buildings but it sure feels like they're going to be a lot bigger and a lot taller than those other buildings I'm really concerned about the traffic I'm retired for some years and uh I don't have to get out in the traffic early in the morning except to go to the gym by the time I get out there though there's traffic all over the place it's just busy the light on to get onto Pecos from our development you end up with 30 cars backed up at that light it's we're rural I think of us as Rural and maybe I'm naive about that part but our rural piece is going away from our neighborhood completely so I'd like to see there be no more multi-family put in that area thank you all right thank you and now I do have a Thomas skandera I'm not sure if that's the same I don't know if you'd like to speak you don't have to it's not marked that you wish to speak so yeah I'm guessing it's on okay so the thing is that I lived there my whole my life but the problem is is that like everyone else says there's a lot of speeding a lot of traffic we even have an open water well previously in the the meetings before they said they couldn't do anything about it build a wall or anything not even a fence I've seen people go like probably 50 miles an hour on that 30 mile an hour Zone what did me and my dad have to do we got to put up our own fence every day we just see people go back and forth 50 almost 60 miles an hour and the other thing it's like I have my niece and nephew both of them like they're young kids I don't want anything to happen to them so we have to put up the wall and then even just how people are treating like my family and everything it's not right like they have like they just keep going and going and like just thinking about like how we're gonna have apartment buildings added and even we heard that um there was going to be like a hotel even built down the street too we talked to police and they even said that the crime rates were going to Skyrocket because of this so but just wanted to let you guys know what's going on but thank you for your time thank you I've got a high school Canard is that correct I'm not sure oh that was you that just okay I apologize I didn't catch that correctly um Trent gooder I'm sorry I can't read the last name so apologize for Butcher and go ahead and state your name and you got three minutes sir yeah thank you sorry for the sloppy handwriting no mine's the same so no need to apologize my name is Trent grosarth um I live in the Vintage Ranch Community right across from Pecos Road there as we've had a couple other people from the community talk about I realize that the rezoning has already been approved so I want to talk about the design elements that is what under consideration here I think the number one issue uh really is is when you look at the Vintage Ranch Community and the Allen Ranch Community which are directly across the street they're small communities in the Vintage Ranch Community there's 300 homes 307 units to be exact we have over a Thousand Acre Park something that is a real anchor to that Community I think if you talk to all the residents that really was what draws them to the community and I think it's very evident when you look at the planning for this new design and development there's no park right there's nothing for their residents there's 300 some on units there they're going to be drawn to the Vintage Ranch neighborhood we love people we love our neighbors but um those are amenities that we pay for and we love to share it but we don't want to pick up other people's dog feces you know we don't want uh they're going to we have basketball courts so our residents will have to contend for basketball courts we don't see basketball courts in there in their design we have a pickleball court that will be coming that are ho is adding again we don't see that in their design and I don't believe that they're going to want to open up their amenities to our community if they have a pool I don't think they're going to want it to be a common public pool I don't think they'll want that if they have a gym they probably don't want us in their gym so I I don't I don't think I see the appropriate amenities for their Community for them to stay in their community like I said we love to have people in our area but also those are things that we pay for and we believe should be cared for by our our residents in our area um so I I would petition the the board and the commission here to reject this design go back tell them they need to provide amenities for their people that they can use within their area and you can talk about how big review lawn is but I don't see a park in rivilan for any housing whatsoever I don't see a grass area I don't see a basketball court I don't see pickleball courts I don't see things that will attract them to come into the Vintage wrench area and I think for this reason this is why this should be rejected send it back to the developer to rethink this thank you very much all right thank you I believe the next one is Robert Robert Mitchell I'm not sure if you wish to speak please state your name you have three minutes my name is Robert Mitchell I'm a resident of vintage Ranch as well for several years 12 years now and we do have the large Park we don't see any work for entertainment again like we're talking about one of the things that Gilbert benefits is from the real estate taxes from the property values and something that this density this high density here that's encroaching into the view of the backyards and the streets because it's so high the question was asking for about the design of the unit well the windows aren't all the way to the top on those Office Buildings and even as tall as they are they're not going to be as high as these buildings here there's not enough entertainment there's not to keep these people where they're at and yes they're going to be going in our area as well and because of the real estate taxes going down because the value is going down as well we're going to be negative negatively impacted as well as Gilbert is at the same time we've Lindsay got that ramp on on the freeway it's the only ramp on Lindsay on any freeway we have we didn't get any sound barriers we're gonna have more noise from the Roaring of the cars from here we've got motorcycles just figure just a sheer percentage of people that are in there you know a certain percentage of the people are not mentally stable so the higher density of people the more numbers you're going to get I mean all the things just factor in the trash that comes with it we just don't see the benefit of having that in our neighborhood it's going to be like I said these these uh five-story buildings looking over the first two streets in vintage Ranch are going to be super negatively negatively affected by this and they're going to gather more money just because of the sheer numbers there but as far as the taxes it's not going to impact positively positively for Gilbert like we'd want it for it yeah I really don't think this is something that's good for us the design is not acceptable by us in vintage ranch we're going to be the ones in Back to the most all right thank you and uh last but not least I've got Thomas solorzano I'm not sure if you're still here and wish to speak huh all right um I've got that Thomas is uh opposed crime rate Skyrocket water restrictions will escalate as well all right um I'll go ahead and uh Mr bar would you like to respond to any of those comments nope all right um are there any other questions for the applicant or staff on this before I close public hearing yeah commissioner Gage Park in this plan am I just missing it seems like that's a really popular amenity and if the neighbors are concerned about residents here spilling over into their neighborhoods that might contain some of what they're concerned about excellent question um no we do not have a dog park a couple of things there is an actual linear park that is directly on the north side of us that spans through the entirety of Revlon so that was intentional to be sort of a walking trail park space of someone to walk a pet that would be a spot for them and Our intention is to have some of those canister doggy you know I'm lacking the words but the amenity that facilitates that for pet owners in that area and also I guess to address the biggest question about Park I certainly can appreciate the concern about maybe overloading a park in an HOA in the area but truthfully I think if somebody wanted to use a park they would just drive the two miles up the street to Freestone Park or what is it three miles Maybe where there's a greater variety of Park amenities that could be available to them thank you yeah is that it all right any other questions comments okay we'll go ahead and close public hearing bring it back up to the dice for discussion um anybody have any comments they'd like to start off with no nobody commission somebody's got to start so uh thank you chair I understand when when folks come out especially when we get to the design review cases where we've already seen the general plan we've already seen the zoning we've already seen the uh stipulations and things like that it can be a little frustrating especially if this is your introduction to that process whereas we're just kind of looking more along the designs the facade that sort of thing with the circulation so I understand a lot of the frustration that really isn't before us tonight but things we can consider I know one gentleman did speak about the design and again it is your right especially in vintage Ranch to be able to limit your amenities to folks just in your area I know that requires some level of enforcement as well but I think is overall you know the design is acceptable I think I would look at this and kind of say I'd still maintain my preference to see some roofline articulation I think they staff did state that some had been provided but I think even in doing so we would probably that would just involve adding more height above what's already accepted so that may not be a way to go but um above the current allowance so as far as the town you know the noise and everything that folks were saying I mean that really comes down to being the town's noise ordinance and making sure that's followed but based on the design that's presented to us in the previous times that we've seen this proposal I don't have any problems or serious issues with the design itself to vote against it all right thank you in the comments no commissioner Davis thank you chair um I just I Echo a lot of what commissioner Bianchi said I do like the roofline as is though I think it's a nice design I like the texture under the eaves and under the the patios I think that adds an element of quality that's really going to read well um overall I like the design I remembered from the last hearings that we had that there was that linear path on the North side there will be some amenities I'm sure inside the building with the gym um but generally I was okay with that as far as the height clarification what I heard was that that development is approved for higher Heights but those buildings right next door to it aren't necessarily as tall as this is going to be but the overall area so staff can correct me if I'm wrong on that but I believe that to be the case that it's just this will be taller than those buildings next door yeah that's quite correct yeah correct I just wanted to clarify that um but again I think it's a nice project this the zoning's been established I was supportive of that and I am very supportive of the design that's proposed great thank you any other comments no um I'll just throw out there for myself commissioner Faye I was just going to say um I'll Echo the same the same sentiments I think in this situation because of where the property sits that 300 300 feet is actually within a fairly close density of that site and I think the edge of it was over 500 feet so that initial 300 feet wouldn't apply other than some of those neighbors I think to the south of it with regards to the HOA the the applicant I would assume on this would probably Echo that there is no control once the the notice is sent to the HOA it's the hoa's responsibility to make sure that it gets out to the neighbor so I as much as I um empathize with the situation and not hearing about it until possibly today um that the the applicant doesn't have control over that and we've been through a very lengthy process to get to this point a number of hearings with regards to the zoning and the general plan and and actually approving this into there and today we're looking at the design review and and um you know I mean just a quick note on the traffic I would think that the traffic would probably filter more to the South along the Riverland Boulevard and then hitting hitting Lindsay the 202 or Gilbert to 202 or or pushing over to one of those streets and I understand one of the comments was Lindsey Road you know again unfortunately we are at a state in our town where we are close to build out so we're going to start seeing vertical we're going to see more and more vertical and you know my comment earlier that I made with regards to Apartments it's not necessarily that I am opposed or for apartments it's that I think that they make sense in certain areas in the town and I think this is one of those that that this definitely makes sense especially from an employment Corridor with with density that is needed to support those businesses in that area from a design perspective I I think that I'm I I have no problem with this design whatsoever I think that it it um it fits the executive level of what is probably going to be in that area with some of the other industries that are pulling with the Deloitte with the Isagenix and some of the other businesses that are actually in there which I would argue are not necessarily low paying jobs but then that's that's Hyperbole and and you know for speculation so um my vote on this would would be to approve or recommend approval to council but commissioner Faye I'll throw it over to you you had a comment I think the height common if I heard it was not that they're the buildings adjacent are taller but that the there's an overlay that allows commercial buildings that will presumably sorry if I'm ruining anyone's making things worse here um that commercial buildings could be coming in that are that they by right can go taller than this and I think some of the ones down I think you mentioned Isagenix I forgot the names but some of those ones down around the freeway already might be in that ballpark but I think that's kind of the the tenor of the area um I had I had two well a couple that so that's that's a I don't know that's kind of in the in the expectation realm um my my instinct tells me that 30 open space this does not look like 30 open space but maybe I'm I mean I'm kind of eyeballing it so but you know Tom if you take a Tom if you're anywhere out there if you're listening or if anyone else would just pass it if you take a take a look at that and because this one one of the heartaches I've got is when you design to the absolute minimum standard and this one everything is as tall every setback is as minimal as they possibly can squeeze onto I usually there's one particular developer by poke at usually for packing the maximum onto a site they can and and they did it and they're within standards here it's just they maximized everything uh they possibly could that said it meets the standards and it's already um the the zoning and bad are already there so this is or they're already that that stuff's already approved so um um I don't I don't really see other than for the neighbors to the South I don't really see the traffic argument um and and frankly yeah it is a very rural nature right in there but it's it's sorry it's not going to stay that way it's the landowners and even even the rural landowners are going to start selling and making pretty fair money at it and and people will have a right to develop their property so um Adam there's a little element of begrudging because of how much it's it's kind of maximized but I I'm supportive of where it is assuming that the open space pencils out that's my comment all right thank you any other comments uh actually I just want to make a commissioner Anderson quick correction uh you stated earlier that this would go to council this does not go to council after this for a Dr case so once were you we approve yeah once we approve it it stops here thank you for just to clarify that and so there's no misunderstanding on the audience all right thank you the last item that we the last time this came before us it did go to the council right for zone for zoning right yeah so er does not go to college yeah but the last so the last time was the last time Council saw it yes but there could be an appeal process if it ever got to that point correct yes yeah okay thank you is there any of the comment and if none I'll entertain a motion laughs I'll go ahead and make it uh motion to approve Dr 22-143 Stillwater with rivie lawn I have a motion to approve by commissioner Anderson do I have a second I'll have a commission a second by commissioner Gage um go ahead and cast your vote all right vote carry 7-0 all right thank you all for coming out go ahead Samantha you are up item number nine Dr 2294 Cobblestone number 48. okay yes this is Samantha show yeah okay this is Dr 2294 Cobblestone number 48. I'm Samantha Novotny planner one um case planner for this project the project is located at the northwest corner of Higley and Williams Field the site is in the blue outline and black oh hang on clicker problems okay there we go and the black outlines the master site plan that was approved last year of July 2022. this may look familiar I've brought a different case to study session last December and then there is another case on this agenda that has to do with this site so it'll look familiar the site is a 1.45 acres in the shopping center zoning District it's uh next the next ER in a multi-phase master plan for this entire corner it's part of the Gateway character area the site's building coverage is about nine percent on on the 1.45 Acre Site it's a car wash building just shy of 6 000 square feet with covered parking canopies for vacuum users um at about 6 500 square feet on-site improvements include Drive aisles payment queuing three shaded point of sale stalls internal drainage improvements perimeter landscaping and internal landscaping and you can see from the site plan on the North the building is faced oriented in the East-West Direction with the tunnel entrance on the west and the exit on the east and then south of the building are three rows of shaded canopies for those vacuum users there's about 40 spaces with two special Ada designated spaces and then in the upper left of that image you can see the trash enclosed enclosure on the northwest area that's accessible through the circulation drive that along the western boundary that's proposed to connect with uh the other commercial users the user to the South and and the remainder of the commercial site as the site is in the Gateway character area it is subject to a special right-of-way streetscape guidelines which they do meet um Evergreen species to the West uh it was a piece of feedback from the neighbors um they they wanted more visual screening from the commercial uses and from lighting um so the applicant proposes a a denser planting of those evergreen trees being um I believe it's mulga on the west side and then meeting the streetscape guidelines Chinese Elm and pistache are both required from that list of trees in the special guidelines and that's what they have proposed there um here is a look at the elevations they show 360 architecture and vibrant corporate colors staff likes the design there is one component staff feels that can be improved upon and that would be the blade Wing wall that you see on the left side of the north elevation the right side on the south elevation right now in this image it shows the tippy top height at 25 feet and staff feels that a reduction in that architectural blade just by a little bit down to 23 feet would improve the proportion of the wall to the building size the building scale so the north elevation is proposed as is in the staff report the top elevation and then the bottom shows a two by one reduction so I have a little if you can see that on your screen in the north elevation I reduce it by that two by one and I can Flash that again when we discuss later I can always go back to this slide the entrance tunnel is about 200 feet away from the property line to the West um you can see the west elevation here that's the entrance and then the East Elevation that's the exit and just a glimpse of the shade canopies pretty standard for what you've seen around town a look at the colors and materials we have a CMU block primarily for the building and the corporate Cobblestone blue a flash of the Red Barn that's on that accent Wing wall and the fabric awning is um sort of a play on the Cobblestone blue the applicant held a supplemental virtual neighborhood meeting on November 30th 2022 staff wants to note that this meeting was not a code requirement and they did that voluntarily some of the feedback included impacts for loud noises from the vacuums and the car wash tunnel they wish to see more screening from the commercial uses with Evergreen landscaping and they did have a general positive reception towards commercial uses at this intersection um at this time however no other public comments have been received the applicant did meet the notification requirements and no public comments have been received with that um staff has a recommendation to approve the findings of fact and approve Dr 2294 subject to the conditions listed in the staff report and if staff agrees to add a condition related to the elevations that I talked about earlier D because there are three conditions already so D would be the fourth the red accent blade wall as shown on the elevations exhibit shall be further reduced by two feet in height and one foot in width a revised elevation exhibit shall be reviewed and approved by planning staff before building permit issuance and that's my presentation all right thank you any questions for Samantha yeah commissioner Bianchi thank you chair all right so we kept it on on consent so Samantha you get some questions here um just looking at the site plan I think I just need you to confirm so the vacuums that are in there are they silenced due to the interior housing and they're not at the individual spaces did I read that in the staff report because I tend to worry about noise when it's close by to residential with these types of uses uh chair Simon and commissioner Bianchi the vacuums are at each individual stall okay but I thought I had read that there so there's an interior housing where the motor is for that so it's that's the noise I think is uh reduced at those Bays or those stalls yes I believe so that uh the the bigger housing is in the building but um if you've ever been to one of these car washes um the individual individual hoses are at that particular station so there's no silencing uh okay that sound and I imagine they'll have the air guns too to to blow the air off the water at the Stalls too they haven't confirmed that throughout this review but I imagine that is their business model OKAY typical of their business model and then it looks like the air dryers are the exit is on the east side so that's further away from the residential correct that would be facing Higley Road okay and then with your proposed added condition did you get any feedback from the applicant on that I mean I I imagine it still retains the look and feel of the design and they probably save a little on materials but did they provide you any feedback or give you have any heartburn with that commissioner Bianchi staff worked with the applicant in earlier iterations it was actually taller at 28 feet and we made that suggestion to lower it so they did lower it to 25 feet and um that was a little bit of a late review so um this request it was a not last minute enough um or to not be included in this discussion but uh staff does feel that 28 to 25 is appreciated but just a little bit more would help okay thanks great thank you any other questions for Ashley comments yeah just really quick I've done that same issue thank you chair um what is that little bit more can you go back to that change the elevation that showed the was it two feet yes I'm proposing uh two by one so uh from the top which would be the height is the two feet and the one is the width so let me see if my animation will Flash does that show okay thank you is that all commissioner Davis yeah that's all okay sorry I yeah commissioner Anderson so what's the reasoning for lowering it I mean if they meet the height requirements now what what's the reason for the suggested lowering of that Wing wall yep commissioner Anderson um it's uh purely staff opinion they do meet the height requirements um so they could leave it as is but okay staff just felt that further reduction would benefit the Aesthetics and the proportion to the building okay the scale is the applicant okay with that modification um have you have you brought it up to them yet uh commissioner Anderson uh I did communicate with the applicant I hadn't heard a response okay um from them since all right I'm indifferent I mean I don't know if Lauren it makes it better leaving it same so it's up to staff and uh the applicant if that's something that they want to agree to I'm indifferent I don't know if it does anything Samantha's the applicant here maybe I'd like to address that now damn good evening Justin csm3 design 2645 North 7th Avenue Phoenix Arizona thank you again for the opportunity to be in front of you um very quickly I just want to reiterate um been working diligently with staff on the site plan and the elevations as Samantha mentioned we actually did coordinate with Samantha going from 28 to 25. which we went back to corporate or to Cobblestone team and um they definitely agreed to to that the additional height reduction I actually I apologize if I hadn't seen that that is actually news to me now to actually further reduce that and definitely were not in agreement with that I think reducing from 28 to 25 still keeps the massing we actually reduce the width of the blade as well so you don't get this squatty thing further reducing that now I think it's really going to impact the design so again we met the height requirements with the 28 feet but we understood that their staff had concerns with it so we went ahead and and agreed to go ahead and reduce it by three feet so to answer your question we're not in agreement to further decrease that and again that I can answer any other questions you only have yeah commissioner Davis thank you chair um you've got a location out at Ellsworth and Pecos is that one I've seen that one and I pulled up an elevation of it here and it looks like that one might be the 28 feet is that correct through the chairman um commissioner Leslie good to see you um actually elsewhere within Pecos is um has a c-store component to it actually that one is 40 feet oh okay okay so and and the masking it still works it's a it's a great looking building um so this one at 25 we had a little bit of concerns but it still worked um I think further reducing that would not work um and then very quickly if I may just to answer the question um I apologize um I think it was through the chair um commissioner um Bianchi had regarding the vacuums so our Central Vac system is inside the building it's a masonry with a roof on it that's where the noise if you will generate it from it at the different components of the of the um where the people are vacuuming literally there's almost zero decibels unless you're picking up a penny or something so you you don't actually have individual Motors out at the at the vacuums it's all Central Texas I'm sorry I was trying to be polite and not speak but I may have messed up things I usually don't weigh in on Aesthetics but I actually kind of like that that Wing wall I mean it's it's a little bit of a wacky eccentric feature it's not the one you want your neighbor to have but for a car wash it's kind of got a 60s Tomorrowland at Disney vibe to it I kind of like it I think it's it's a it's a positive feature so sorry if I'm I waited too long to throw that in there and now I sound like an antagonist but um no no go figure I do have one other question though um related to parking as I see it because those those uh vacuum stalls those are not parking space I mean you pull a car into them and you vacuum but that's not parking and I see there are I thought it was one parking space in 188 but now I see it's 288 spots right uh commissioner Faye um through chair Simon the vacuum bays are not considered parking in in the conventional sense the think of the vacuum Bays as an extension of the building footprint right right but for Land Development code purposes we don't count them as parking spaces that's correct yes um I do want to point out there are three open parking spaces uh to the top left that is for employees and visitors to use anyone not using a vacuum Bay and um to the left of that I believe those are the Ada vacuum spaces if if I may actually it's a pipeline that's on here I apologize but um I know that that Samantha has the more up-to-date site plan this is not the latest and greatest because what we actually did in those three spots that you see the first three vacuum spots after the Ada we actually made those the Ada where the two Ada spaces that are shown right now we actually made three standard parking spaces with no vacuums and those account for the parking minimum requirements so I'm not really sure why the the latest and greatest is not on on the presentation so if I hear you correctly there's three non-ada spots and either one or two Ada spots commissioner Fay uh based on the site plan that I have that is correct I will say that the LDC requires only two spaces so they do whatever iteration they have that Mr Macias just described or the version that I have they do meet their parking requirements okay I was checking that this afternoon but I didn't get far enough because I thought this was otherwise a very easy one to approve um and then when I saw two Adas I thought well this is but if there's three spots and two Adas uh okay no problem that that addresses my concern can I jump in on that I just want to so the site plan that's in our packet is is what he's describing so there's three standard stalls on the left and then to the right of those there's two handicap stalls are those handicap stalls for vacuums commissioner Anderson that is correct all right so those Ada stalls according to you are not real stalls they're part of the footprint so you're missing an ADA Style on site somewhere so if you have three parking spaces those are the parking spaces to meet code right to the right of that you have two Ada vacuum stalls which do not count towards LDC parking counts so we need to get an ADA stall on here somewhere correct um commissioner Anderson that is correct okay so that's something that he'll have to get addressed when he goes into CDs we can he's aware of it through the chair commissioner Anderson if if in fact um again we look at it from a standpoint of the overall parking one per 25 and I understand the town doesn't consider those as parking spaces plus we always want to provide make sure that the some of the vacuums are accessible so that's why we have two but if you want a condition to have actually one of the three standard spaces to be idea it's ADA requirements it's code required yeah I mean take LDC out of it all together once you start dealing with Ada that's what's required in that that stall to be in there so you're aware of it correct so if you can maybe get that on there when you submit for CDs correct okay they'll pick it off during plan review at that point I don't think we need to condition it or stipulate it that much more eloquently Nails kind of my confused dance around the issues thank you right anything else for staff for the applicant no all right thank you we'll go ahead and uh I don't have any Community comment cards for this so we'll go ahead and close the public hearing at this point unless there's a somebody in the community bring up the dice for conversation and or emotion maybe I like to start yeah chairman I'll just say that you know in regards to the comment on the height of the wall I actually have no problem the way it is and I'd be in favor of emotion the design is is of course meeting the Ada standards um and I know some other people said that all right thank you Vice chair uh commissioner Bianchi yeah I would say similar to Vice chairman Mont I understand stats request on the reduction but I look at it and they've already reduced it once the height requirements already met so as commissioner Anderson said you know you can kind of take it either way but we I don't think we need to condition that if that's the commission's purview in regards to the noise I mean we've got what a 35 foot landscape setback plus the addition of a smaller CMU on that west side near that drive aisle so that kind of addresses a lot of my concerns especially when we talk about noise with residential areas behind that but other than that I'd be I'd be in favor of approval thank you oh thank you anybody else chairman then seeing no other comment I'd like to make a motion to approve dr22-94 Cobblestone number 48. as designed with ADA requirements which of course need to be met anyway thank you Vice chair and I'm assuming that's without reduction of the wall further okay so I have a motion by the Vice chair do I have a second the motion second the second from commissioner Faye will go ahead and cast vote soon and the motion carries 7-0 thank you okay Samantha I think we do this time I'm just kidding uh Samantha we got Dr 22-160 uh is that pronounced intussis in Texas I believe it is intersis it's an old name from a very old development from 1994. all right thank you okay this is Dr 22 160 indices shell building I'm Samantha Novotny planner one um this is our site here in red um it is just south east and east of Arizona Ave and Baseline Road in the fiesta tech Industrial Area this is part of our Northwest growth area it's the majority of this place is zoned light industrial and the blue shows that it's part of an approved master plan that's kind of a blue purple color and the site is labeled there and outlined in red um I just want to show the staff recommendation for now we'll come back to it there are two conditions that I'm going to talk about um that came up a little last minute so I'll be diving into those um as I said it's part of the Northwest growth area the site is 5.6 gross Acres the building is oriented uh in the East-West Direction similar to the last building with access along Fiesta Boulevard and that access is shared with the existing buildings to the South the general site layout includes a large parking area to the north of the building with a circulation drive that continues to the west and connects to a secured truck loading area and then also leads again to the existing buildings to the to the South which makes sense it's part of a master plan the site plan shows 22 loading Bays that's on the south side of the building with a 70 foot wide Drive aisle to service the semi-trailer vehicles that are expected to enter and exit each Bay um the loading area is proposed to be screened with an eight foot screening wall on the west and south and because the east side is adjoining the street Frontage code requires the screen wall to be a little taller at 14 feet for full screening okay this is the landscape plan attached to the staff report so this is what you saw in your packet I want to spend some time talking about the landscape plan because it has to do with the two conditions that staff would like to propose related to the plan there is a revised version and I'm going to show you that in a second so this is just what's in your staff report some background there was a master plan for signage and Landscaping that was codified in an ordinance special to this area back in 1983. it doesn't specifically require Turf but the master plan shows hand-drawn hand colored Turf implying that this was the intended preference for the area and it makes sense if any of you have ever driven through this area there's a very specific Turf aesthetic so fast forward a little bit to today and this proposal includes a complete overhaul of that Frontage landscape removing the turf and replacing with xeriscape drought tolerant plants and design methods and at this time staff is supportive of that move but we didn't want to be in violation of the 1983 ordinance so we felt some Assurance was needed from the Property Owners Association in the form of an authorized authorization letter that's a pretty typical of our application requests it was understood earlier in the review that the fiesta Tech POA was okay with the Landscaping changes but it turns out last minute that they did want to keep some of the turf and maintain that cohesive look in the fiesta Tech area rather than breaking it up um this is the revised landscape plan showing Turf in the first 30 feet of Frontage but there's a catch though the state's Water Management plan for Phoenix prohibits plants that are not in the low water use list in the public right-of-way um this doesn't mean that the subject site can't have turf they certainly can have it if they want but it has to be within the limits of the property lines so their plans uh have a label saying that they are going to grade the entire site and propose to reinstall the grass that however is not allowed in the right-of-way so to keep the case moving forward staff has two conditions Turf shall be separated from other landscape areas by a six inch wide concrete header that's pretty standard and number eight though is um just specifically calling out that we need to see a revised landscape plan showing that there is no Turf in the right-of-way and they need to submit that to planning staff for review and approval before the building permit issuance so they won't need to come back to Planning Commission for this review it'll just be administrative um here's a look at the elevations the building is about 44 feet tall to the parapet and 36 feet to the flat roof surface concrete tilted panels are proposed and the facade design includes color changes variations in the roof lines and metal canopies at the doorways and entries and although the southern elevation where the loading bays are is internal to the master site plan they still attempted to incorporate roofline and color changes which staff appreciates and then you can also see entry the entry and windows on the North elevation are recessed and defined with canopies and movement wall pop outs I think that really helps provide a sense of arrival for those in that north parking lot and also where the employee amenity area is located uh the color palette is a neutral kind of gray and keeps consistent with the adjoining building to the South the applicant ensured also that the screen walls since they are going to be taller eight feet and 14 feet utilize the two colors from the main building to match and bring bring it all together and kind of give it a two-tone look here's a quick look at the floor plan it truly is a shell building the only internal rooms you see there are an electrical room roof access and fire Riser room and then a quick flash to the photometric plan in your in your staff packet the applicant is requesting additional lighting height which the code does allow for as long as you the Planning Commission or design review board agree that the additional findings have been met staff doesn't have any concern with this and recommends that the findings have been met but that is up to the discretion of the drb and those reasons and explanations from the applicant are listed in the staff report um so here's my recommendation again approve the findings of fact and approve Dr 22 160 into this shell building subject to the conditions listed in the staff report along with these two added conditions related to the landscape plan that I discussed earlier any questions thank you any questions for Samantha commissioner Bianchi sorry thank you chair um so Samantha so would you agree that the colors and the materials propose are consistent with the other buildings within the master site plan uh commissioner Bianchi yes I would agree so there is a an administrative design review that um they're proposing to modify um parts of the Southern building that's not part of this review but I'm also the case planner for that so I'm making sure that all of it kind of looks cohesive and ties together okay and then the second question I had it was in the site plan narrative I noticed that they were saying that they're going to move and put the the drive entry as part of that they're going to abandon a 48-foot Pue easement um is utility access still provided or are they just relocating that drive access but maintaining at least Pua Pue access I'm wondering are they abandoning the public utility easement as part of this uh commissioner Bianchi that is a great question um I may defer to the applicant to answer that okay my name is Jonathan shui DLR group 6225 North 24th Street Phoenix Arizona I'm the architect on the project but I can speak to the Civil design as well basically in order for the shared drive to work we and to be adequately separated from the vehicular parking lot we shifted it South um so all of the pues that were a little bit north of here the whole utility system is being relocated to this South Drive you can see a 12-foot water Pue um and there's a sewer Pue that tails off and goes to the building too but my understanding is that they were abandoning all the pues surrounding the previous drive and moving the utilities they had to to the new drive so there's maybe no infrastructure within that Pue and you're just going to install it in the new one as part of that yes our civil team coordinated uh with the utility providers in the area to confirm that um there was nothing that needed to be removed or relocated okay thank you for that clarification I just saw that when you were going to abandon that race yeah they abandoned quite a few okay thank you but they're very old that lot has been empty for a very long time okay thanks any other questions for Samantha yeah uh commissioner Davis thank you chair um Samantha it's my understanding with the adwr the water low water list if something's existing it can stay and it looks like that Turf is already in that location have they looked at or maybe this isn't something they've had time to look at and being able to maintain it and not grade it all out of there and maintain the turf that's there to keep that look along the street and then the areas like where they replaced the driveway maybe that isn't Turf but it's revegetated with other more xeriscape yeah chair Simon commissioner Davis um Jonathan and I had many last minute conversations about um what could be done and what the options were and you are correct if the turf and Landscaping is not touched it's not subject to current regulations um but in in looking through the plans and having some discussions with John it does look like they will be knocking down quite a bit of what's existing due to her grading purposes and so the grass could not be reinstalled it could within property limit just not in the right-of-way okay thank you any questions John is there anything else you'd like to share with us or are you good on this one um I just want to say the owner is uh not he doesn't want the turf really we were told to put it in because of a map that they found in 1983 that looked like grass so he has no problem removing it from the Pue and installing some low water use grass like plants in the in the public right away thank you what what is the right of the town if they've got um this plan from 1983 with regards to grass and whatnot in us moving more towards xeroscape with water situations that we've had as of late what type of power do we have or is there I'm chair Simon that's a great question um if the ordinance was very obvious and and had a strict provision in there that required Turf then we would have to go with the ordinance but in examining the documents it's a little gray so in talking with staff internally um we felt that there there could be an argument made for moving away from the turf because it wasn't laid out so obviously in in those zoning ordinance and um this is the direction that the town is headed our water conservation team I don't want to give out any spoilers but they are looking into a program of um grass removal turf removal rebates so they're looking to encourage businesses and residents you know compensating them for removing Turf and being sensitive to our water conservation issues and um as planning staff currently we do support the move um but the the the the dance was a little weird we just needed some Assurance uh from the fiesta Tech POA that they would be okay with this being the first project to remove the turf completely it's going to change the look of the area the town doesn't mind that but certainly maybe private parties would have minded that so we wanted to have a letter of authorization saying that they were okay with that okay um one more question with regards to Natural Turf versus artificial turf does some of the regulations and whatnot passed through the state does that apply to commercial as well cheers I'm in yes it does uh the I worked with the water conservation team and looking through the plan it's called The Phoenix fourth management plan and it uh calls out industrial users not being allowed to use plants in the right of way that are not on their preferred list um but with regards to artificial turf that certainly is something that can be utilized would it kind of uh alludes to my condition here I tried to keep it vague enough that Turf shall be removed it's up to the applicant what they want to fill in with that space in the right-of-way it just can't be in the right of way so they can put in Turf if they want a artificial turf okay yeah I just I I mean obviously you know stepping in with regards to you get this whole other argument with you know existing developments and and what what they're trying to accomplish within their existing development and then private property rights and being able to develop it to today's standards versus 40 years ago so thinking out loud so all right any other questions or comments great not hearing aid um I don't have any common cards from the public on this one so we'll go ahead and thank you very much both um we'll close the public hearing bring it up to the dice for any um conversation um and or emotion commissioner Anderson if there's no conversation I'm ready for a motion go for it uh motion to approve Dr 22-160 with added two conditions seven and eight as presented by staff all right motion to approve by commissioner Anderson second by commissioner Faye we'll go ahead and cast vote and motion carry 7-0 thank you we'll move on to the last item on the regular meeting agenda items number 11 and 12. I'm assuming we're going to do these together um hey the GP General plan 2210 Higley industrial to Commercial and the zoning 2209 Higley industrial commercial and Samantha I was starting to get comfy I thought I was done it's okay third third one's a charm okay GP 2210 and z2209 Higley industrial to commercial you saw this as a study session last December in 2022 I'll go through this really quickly because this would have been on the consent agenda but there were some minor tweaks to the conditions and we just needed to officialize it and bring it forth on the dice to get it on record um here we are again at Higley and Williams Field the red outline is where this rezoning and GP amendment is taking place and in the blue outline again is that Master site plan um the proposed General plan amendment is to go from industrial to General commercial and the rezoning is from light industrial to shopping center just showing you um how the site has parceled out there's the quick trip that was approved with the master site plan a self-storage cup conditional use permit and design review that is on hold uh we're looking for a second review that should be coming up soon then we've got the Cobblestone which you saw two cases ago and then this this site in red here's a look at the general plan the light industrial is where the self storage is going to remain and then General commercial to the South so the uses and the switchover is is compatible again the zoning going from light industrial to shopping center and all of the zoning to the South is shopping center so we feel this is a compatible fit public participation there was a neighborhood meeting last February 2022 six members of the public attended plus the development team this was the first neighborhood meeting so there this was a good opportunity for a first look and they had a lot of questions and concerns uh the applicant held another neighborhood meeting on December 15th and that was optional no members of the public showed up to that meeting just the development team uh and then you saw this last December um you had two pieces of feedback having making sure the uses are consistent on-site and the adjoining land and then of course ensuring proper access is provided to the proposed use to the West which so far is going to be a self storage um this is our recommendation for the reasons set forth in the staff report moved to recommend approval to Town Council for GP 2210 and z2209 subject to conditions listed in the staff report and two modifications to conditions I and J with I there is a little bit of a rewording which we ran through our legal office and we're okay with that and Jay is being struck out completely so very minor revisions and staff is okay with what we have presented forth questions all right thanks Samantha any questions for Samantha commission Miyaki take your chairs so Samantha um I don't have any problems with the request I was just more curiosity so you said we're going to see the light industrial is that remaining for the for the storage unit we we seem to be kind of doing this in a piecemeal fashion for this parcel I'm surprised since it's all going to Industrial to commercial is it that just because of different Property Owners or I'm wondering why it wasn't just done kind of in one case currently um commissioner Bianchi it it does seem to be piecemeal but that is kind of the nature of Master site planning and this particular property owner likes to go really fast so hence why you're seeing multiple cases um kind of come in back to back and um yeah and then so the self storage do we think that's going to remain Li since it's I mean it's up against the railroad tracks or commission I think that will be commercial as well uh we it is going to stay Li and Self Storage is an allowed use but needs a conditional use permit okay thank you thank you chair all right thank you any other questions all right not seeing any uh do you would you like to comment no all right um I don't have any public comment cards on this um so we'll go ahead and close the public hearing on it bring it back up to the dice any discussion or a motion the only point of discussion is that I feel like we should have had Ralph Pugh have to talk a little bit because he's my favorite orator at Planning Commission what would you like me to reopen but it's closed already so um and it is getting late so unless there's any other discussion I'll make a motion so looks like there isn't any so with that I will make a motion and do these have to be done separately or together separately I think separate of course I'd like to First make a motion to approve GP 22-10 Higley industrial 2 commercial and that's what the recommendation we need the recommendation on that as per the recommendation of Staff or do I need to read them I think I think we're good there correct uh chair the recommendation the two edits will be read with the zoning okay perfect thank you so I've got a recommendation of approval by the Vice chair for GP 22-10 um Higley industrial to commercial do I have a second uh commissioner Bianca I've got a second go ahead and cast votes on that and that carries 7-0 of motion on the zoning on that well yeah it looks like you do sir I'd like to make a motion to approve z22-09 Higley industrial commercial with the stipulation of removal of stipulations I and J and the addition of developer shell record easements benefiting the POA for cross access including pedestrian bicycle multi-use and trail system purposes as determined by the final plat at the time of final plat recordation or earlier if required by the town Engineers such easements shall be open to public access and use I have a motion to approve item 12 by the Vice chair to have a second second by commissioner Faye go ahead and cast your vote and that motion carries 7-0 thank you very much all right we'll move on to administrative items or for the commission discussion of action and action it is to the discretion of the majority of the commission regarding public input requests on any administrative item persons wishing to speak on administrative item should complete a public comment form indicating the item number on which you wish to address the commission may or may not accept public comment and I do not have any public comment cards so we'll jump uh Planning Commission minutes the minutes were in the packet and I will entertain emotion or if there's any corrections we need chairman if you're ready for a motion I would move for approval of the minutes for March 1st as presented I have a motion to approve by commissioner Bianchi second by Vice chair please cast your vote motion carry 7-0 uh move on to Communications um we don't have an executive session report from the chairman only thing I would like to say is last night they did um recognize volunteers I got to go because I'm the chair for some reason of this body but I would like to recognize each one of you and thank you all for your volunteerism to the town of Gilbert um it is uh a pleasure to work with each and every one of you so thank you very much so um and then I'd also like to note a pat on the back that I actually went to vote on everyone that I was supposed to and not called for real call so I'm getting it I was actually going to say that chairman I was actually quite impressed well I've been practicing all week no just kidding all right um playing service manager Ava do you have anything for us I would like to recognize that our chair called for every vote I mean actually like to um introduced two new faces at our audience I think many of you know Erica Prater by name she was our planning Tech she's often the first Contact for many of our applicants and she was very good at getting you all the information you needed for every hearing she's now been promoted to planner one and you'll see her soon at the microphone I'd also like to introduce Nicole Russell she is our newest planner our senior planner she started with us on Monday and comes to us after about 15 years in the public sector in Mojave and Clark counties and she also served as a planning commissioner in the town of Prescott awesome that's great well congratulations Erica and Nicole welcome and did you say 550 or 15 one five one five okay wow you age very well so all right with that thank you very much um we will see you all next month may wait it's in here I just can't read it without my glasses May 3rd I think uh no oh yes the 11th we do have um and you all can jump in virtually I think the link was sent out today um I will be here so if any of you want to come and join me for five minutes you're more than welcome what's that yeah yeah oh that's a good question I heard Keith was bringing cookies but yeah so Ava the thing that we have next week it gets it's going to get another date right that we don't know when that date is it's being continued is that what's going on with that um it's up at chairman commissioner it's up in the air right now it may be canceled completely but we'll have to give you an update on that once we know for sure okay can you just remind me again how those things run like you don't send out packets to us we have to go in there with clear heads and not have any knowledge of what's being presented right is that how that works [Laughter] I know we're supposed to have an executive session beforehand so yes you will get an exam if if it does move forward you will get an executive session and there will be a packet with reports sent out do we get the packet before we show up and we review it like a few days beforehand yes just like you do for the regular Planning Commission hearings okay thank you thank you all right well we will talk to you next week but we'll see you on May 3rd have a great night thank you everybody