all right Ava we're about ready to get started okay of course have the record reflect [Music] all right let's go ahead and call study session to order first item on the agenda is dr22-129 District of Coulee station Keith uh chair Simon members of the commission good evening um so my first Project tonight on the study session as you stated is District at Coulee station see if we can get the clicker to work here okay ah okay so District of Coulee station um and and as you guys know we've we recently brought this before you as a zoning chain for a zoning change and a general plan Amendment so I'm sure you're pretty familiar with where this is located but for those who are not it's located at the North West corner of Recker and Williams Field Road highlighted on the screen in front of you in the village in the Village Center area of Coulee station across the street from our newly constructed verdea Coulee station development so here's some a little bit of a station context map to show you where the site is in relationship to the rest of Coulee station and as you can see it's at the heart right there in the Village Center that's that's cutting the Village Center core is what we call it as far as the request tonight is for a design review approval to establish well this is just the study session for it but the overall request is for design review to establish a commercial and residential Master site plan on 12.24 acres and also to eventually approve the design on two point Seven Acres of the site which is the multi-family portion actually actually you know what I think I messed up that acreage I think it's more like 11 or 10 something I apologize so as far as the site plan is concerned um it's 12 that until net acreage is 12.24 they're they're proposing six 612 units and two four-story building clusters and you can see those on the site plan one with Frontage along Verde Drive in Williams Field and the second one with Frontage along Haskell Street the site will be phased you have phase one is the is the first building there along Williams Field and phase two building is along Haskell and wrecker and then there will be a future retail phase we don't know when that's going to be constructed but some sometime and obviously in the near future and that retail building will contain about 26 000 square feet of freestanding commercial space with as of right now with the Second Story office slash residential component um each one of those phase one and two buildings the residential buildings will have about six thousand six and a about six point six thousand five hundred square feet or so of of commercial space or non-residential space consisting of uh it's in this will be on the ground floor in each of those buildings and you can see how that commercial space is located along Williams Field Road and along Recker Road um hopefully you can see that on your plan and they it consists of some office space and some some kind of co-working space a little bit and kind of a little mini grocery store there's a concept called we walk it's kind of a grocery store-ish type uh use I'm uh in future presentations I'm sure the applicant will explain more about that exactly what that is but overall about 13 and a half thousand square feet of commercial and split up between those two buildings on the ground floor so the interior there's also interior Clubhouse and amenity areas for Resident for the residential buildings and you can see those in the middle of the building clusters they contain pool swimming pool there's two swimming pools and some other lawn area spaces and Gathering spaces in between all these buildings as well other types of amenities that you've probably seen a little bit more detail in your packet um lastly on the site his the on-street parking um they have Orange Street parking off of each one of the roadway frontages um there's I think there's close to about 70 on-street parking spaces some of them are existing along wrecker and Williams Field Road and and the new ones will be on Haskell and Verde Drive and then obviously there's surface parking in the parking lot for the future commercial or retail phase and then there's a garage for each one of those residential buildings where they're about five and a half stories of garage space and that's where the residents will be parking they will enter in off of the entrances off of Recker Road and Williams Field Road for the one parking garage for building two which is phase two building and then the phase one building has an entrance off of Verdi drive and the residents will park in their space and they will enter their you their the residential portion of their building through the parking garage kind of like you would see in like a hotel or a commercial type of environment so that is the site plan the landscape plan is this is our beautiful color picture here um 12.3 percent on-site landscaping and the majority of the Landscaping is is along the street frontages we have a lot of pavers and more of an urban feel and style Street streetscape type design pedestrian friendly design along the street frontages especially along Williams Field and then of course the little Paseo in the middle has a bunch of landscaping in a concrete Trail and then there's some Landscaping in the parking lot for the future retail phase so the building elevations um so as far as our requested input this is the main reason I wanted to bring this case to study session for you tonight so so during first review and and again during Second review staff has expressed concerns about the general design of the proposed residential buildings and I'm going to flip through these sides slides in a minute and show you some other other information and pictures and things but staff is suggesting after doing the reviews that that the buildings these residential buildings be redesigned to further comply with typical neo-traditional design principles that have already been established in the Village Center portion of Coulee station and most notably across the street at the verdia Cooley station Commercial development and I'll show you that in a second the proposed design that they're proposing with the exception of Coulee station Red Brick is a very similar similar to modern designs approved in other developments throughout the town and doesn't comply with the town's unique vision for Coulee station and for the architectural style that has already already exists in the area in the Village Center core in addition the proposed design should differ from some of the residential buildings to the South that you see at the Village at the verdia Coulee station development and so I'll show you those buildings and they should differ from those buildings because this is at the Hard corner of Williams Field and Recker where it's a lot more visible than a lot of these other buildings are so we feel that that corner in these buildings should set a different standard so I'm going to show so these are the the basic 2D elevations that I wanted to show you but this next slide you'll see the renderings so obviously this makes them look a lot better um so as further shown in this perspective drawing which is the view from the Williams Field Road entrance you can really see that the design of the buildings are quite different than what is found in the Village Center area and I'll show you that in a second as they appear to have very different Design Elements when it comes to things such as horizontal movement in the wall planes vertical roofline movement and cornices smaller Tower elements patio their patio designs are different the stylistic material types and ornate detailing are also not as not the same as the other buildings or or at least related this General design with the exception of the red brick is very similar to like I said to modern designs that we see on every week that could be put on almost any other Corner in the town and we feel that it is not unique enough for the Village Center area of Coulee station so this is the rendering on wrecker Road very similar to the one on William Field basically identical so here's some previously approved buildings that are currently constructed of neo-traditional design in the verdia Coulee station development to the South um so this has caused us to make these comments and these buildings fit the vision that we are going for and fits that neo-traditional design element on these buildings that we would like to see more of at the District of Coulee station starting first with what is existing in the Village Center you can see how these buildings set the tone for the design and that we are trying to establish at this intersection I want to call your attention to the larger building in the top right which is a three-story office building which will be right along Williams Field Road and it's set back about 18 to 19 feet from the street and it's right across the street from the building of District a Coulee station that's along Williams Field Road so you can clearly see that what they've designed is not that we would want the proposed buildings to complement more of this design and style and and we don't even though there are different use type we still think it needs to better relate and you can see all these other buildings even though they're one story in their commercial you can see the design tone that has been set you don't see a lot of these materials on the other on the the Verdi at the District of Coulee station buildings and the variety in the design so here's some other buildings that were previously approved at Verdi at Coulee station you can you can see the neo traditional design flare on these buildings the flat Roofing the massing is different the the metal awnings and canopies and I'll show you some more here in just a second so here's some of the apartment buildings that are located in verdia Coulee station kind of to the South that I kind of alluded to earlier so you can see these the even these buildings follow the form and the massing and the general design of of what we're looking for in that neo-traditional design in Coulee station the top right building has not been approved yet but it's it's it's something it's going to be on that south side of Williams Field Road also a little bit further to the West at a hotel that's going to be we're reviewing it now it'll be coming to you in the near future and the other ones are apartment buildings the bottom right hand corner is the Springs at Coulee station which is built and constructed and then the other two photos on the left are Alta at Coulee station which is is under construction now and I think almost completed so you can see um what the kind of look and feel we're going for so lastly this slide shows buildings that are not in Coulee station but still further demonstrate or capture this vision of what neo-traditional architecture is in that division that we're going for as evidenced by all the pictures that I have shown you inside of Coulee station and outside of Coulee station neo-traditional architecture is a contemporary contemporary style that borrows from the past neo-traditional buildings are constructed using modern materials like vinyl brick wood paneling stucco some metal material for awnings and things but the building design is inspired by historic styles some of the design elements that you might see in that we would ask the applicant applicant to further consider on on their buildings include long stretches of flat Roofing which you can see on these buildings with cornice with decorative cornices gate some Gable Roofing as you can see at epicenter that's in the town of Gilbert at Higley and Ray um longer slash wider wall plane masses and you can see that on these buildings how the wall plane masses before there's before there's a horizontal movement change there's a long mass of of of that same wall plane whereas theirs is just there's too much movement um and then also things like cupola's as you can see in the epicenter and um weather veins and awnings that are metal and things like that and other types of materials like that and and some faux mock shutters ornamental brackets ornamental railings um some other you know different window Styles like palladian Windows arched windows and Victorian light fixtures and things like that just to name a few features that we think that we hope the applicant would consider adding to their buildings to make them more along the lines of a tradition neo-traditional design that you can see is already exists in the Coulee station area that is under construction that has been constructed or or is proposed in the future and you'll see some other apartment buildings coming down the line here in the very near future that are along these lines as well so um with that um here's the color materials board really the only materials they have on their buildings are brick and stucco with a little bit of stone veneer um and then the paint colors are pretty much pretty standard um so that is that's my presentation that's the thing I really wanted to to get your input on the most is the proposed residential elevation design the site design we're we're we've gone through this site design many many times already and you guys have seen it where we support this this development we just have some concerns with these elevations that that we would like your input on and and and I will be quiet now and let you guys ask questions if you have any for me thank you all right thank you Keith I think I'd like to start with questions or comments for Keith Mr Johnson yes thank you Keith um I drove by uh the epicenter today and then I drove down Williams Field and I tried to get a sense of Coulee station with this sort of a concept uh I think the epicenter has a very specific signature to it in terms of the way the buildings are articulate they move in out this so-called neo-traditional I consider sort of a flat treatment of the building so I was trying to see under this design driving down does Coulee station really have a unique signature that really now stands out from other areas I'm trying to see it as an area of character but I'm not sure if I agree with you that the so-called neo-traditional creates such a unique character now obviously I was looking at your your pictures and stuff if that is a consistent theme that all the structures along Williams Field have that same feel especially when you pass the monument that says Coulee station all in Brick you know near the shopping center and you move to the West I still see something that needs a little more excitement than this now excitement is kind of a very very uh not a very clear definition but some of these structures you noted from the other structures to me seem to be uh something from a different era as especially the sort of the flat treatment or whatnot so I'm not I'm not so much in agreement that Neo so-called neo traditional uh is is really a design palette that really makes Coulee station unique as opposed to some of the other pallets we had like an epicenter so I'm just throwing that out after driving both by both of these and trying to get in my mind a sense of what is what makes Coulee station station what is the character of that that people want to go to live at you know entertain that and I don't know about other you know kind of things that would attract Louis station but I still sent something was missing from the so-called neoclassical palette for station thank you thank you thank you chairman all right thank you anybody else stranderson I'm going to jump on that bandwagon and agree I if you could go back to the slide of the examples of the multi-family the commercial I mean it's you pointed out it's a different use group it's that type of architecture you really can't apply to residential in a good way where it makes sense from the images that your examples that you're using here I feel that Westbury what's being presented at District Coulee station fits in with this type of architecture uh in terms of the massing the callers epicenter I think I think this project is actually better designed than epicenter I mean looking at that images I remember when this first when this came before us I mean they presented a lot of great 3D illustrations that really sold a product but when you drive through there now it doesn't have that grandness to it it's you know it's I think a lot of it is flat not very exciting other than maybe that main portion with the big epicenter sign on top of it but the other examples that you have as particular this the last slide you had I I feel that this product fits in with that I I agree with the comment on the the roof lines and the cornices I think they need to do a little bit of something different there to articulate a little bit more so it's just not a flat Square um line that's up there but in terms of materials um colors massing the ins and outs of the product I I feel this would fit in fairly well with it with this area [Music] um you know maybe add a third material of um some sort of like Hardie board or something like that maybe that would help uh to achieve kind of closer to what you're looking for but I mean I I think this product is well you know pretty well designed and fits in with the area thank you okay all right thank you Mr Davis when I looked at the this I to me it's a lot of the same it's it's a lot of Apartments it's a lot of the same architecture the colors aren't that different so I think you know incorporating the neo traditional into it gives some opportunities to create something a little different for the Clusters of buildings so that they can introduce some of those additional elements I think Coulee stations trying to be something and it you know epicenter's been built first and is kind of has some of those elements I agree with commissioner Anderson that there are some flat elements on epicenter that aren't my favorite there's some really cool things and some things that are kind of like but um as far as this goes I think it could be I think that the additional elements could simplify it a little bit I do like that there's a lot happening but I think that some additional elements could be incorporated to break it up and create some something that doesn't look like a lot of the same as you're driving down the road so it also picks up a lot of the forms of what you see further down the road in Coulee station and if this area is supposed to be a little different I think it should be so those are my comments all right thank you everybody else commissioner Faye thank you Keith I'm going to go a little bit of a different direction and some other stuff I found the landscape landscape percentages are something I'm not very inclined to compromise on and I found the landscape percentage is kind of confusing in here they were in one place for for five percent was I think what on your cover letter said is required and wasn't really clear that they were providing five percent but then on the site plan that said they were providing 31 percent I found another place it was 12 percent I did kind of a rough calculation and found it around 12 and a half percent which I think is probably I mean overall I think it's kind of sparse but but probably meets the standard but I found it confusing the way it was allocated throughout the um so when the main applicant comes in I'd probably prefer a little more clarity there and also on the cross sections the um the arterial roadway cross-sections I know there's no 18 inch curbing Gutter and I'm not complete they're there um and I'm not completely clear on on one side it actually shows it but it doesn't account for it in the one side it doesn't even actually look like it has it which the reason you have a PC uh Portland cement curb and gutter is because oils oils are good for the asphalt but they Pond there and then they'll eat away at your asphalt and um and you've already got slightly substandard travel Lanes so I'm not sure if we're kind of doing some and everyone has to kind of manipulate the geometry once in a while to get all the pieces to fit but I'm a little concerned about what else is going to get compromised if you had to kind of scoot around that it could all be there and it's just not really clearly reflected in my mind or it could be that we're we're having to kind of jam the pieces in and shorten this by two inches to make this shorten by two inches so that this fits over here and we've all done that of the bazillion times if you're experienced enough to be sitting up here but then the question to me becomes well what got squeezed out or what are we kind of glossing over so I'd like to see that reflected and where all the pieces are okay okay that's all right thank you anybody else Vice chair yes thank you chair uh I'll just point out that I'm in some agreement on the the layouts I think that at that corner when you show the corner of it it it makes the appearance that it's very different because you see those people hanging out in the top area they're just enjoying life looking out but then when you get down you end up in a monotonous continuation of the same thing from what I can see um and not to say that it's not it's not the same thing but it is something that is very repetitive in comparison to what we're talking about like if we're comparing it to the epicenter where there's a building of a completely different color and so I'm not completely against it I'm just saying if there are ways to make that monotony less monotonizing I would be for it but other than that I like the project foreign I think that's everybody commissioner Blazer you have anything you're good yeah I'll just say I I agree with everything that's been said I don't I don't think I have any anything more to offer all right thank you um yeah commissioner Anderson sorry I just have a quick question I asked so I was looking at the site plan I see some Refuge enclosures over by the shops I'm assuming those are for the shops how's the refuse being treated for the multi-family foreign chair Simon commissioner Anderson so I think I have the floor plans of the garages I believe there's some refuse um compactors in the yes thank you Sean there's some compactors in the garage I thought I had the I thought I had the floor plans for the garages yeah I see them in here I'm just I'm not finding I didn't you know I just put the floor plans of the first floor of the buildings so in in the in the floor plan the first floor area of each parking garage there will be in one of the tucked in one of the corners will be some trash compactors okay yeah is there a recycle area as well in that um that I don't know the answer to do we require recycle or is it encouraged I think it's encouraged it is okay thank you yeah okay yes we do have uh recycling all right thank you yep all right uh Keith I'd just Echo what else have been us up here set up here I'm not too opposed to where it's at today I do feel like there is some monotony once you start looking at the elevation plan um the repetitiveness you know it when it's lined out straight I feel like it it really kind of does it a disservice um but the renderings I'm okay with you know maybe a little bit on the roof line otherwise I don't know that I have any issue with this at all I think that it will look fine in that area so right thank you all right thank you next item on the agenda is Dr 2317 the Arby's and Samantha you are up thank you thank you Commission this is Dr 27 2317 RBS I'm Samantha Novotny planner one this is a study session item tonight the applicant just to summarize the applicants request is for a design review for a limited service restaurant which the proposed user is in Arby's and the design review also includes a future pad um the Arby's include the drive-through and is about 2 000 just 2500 square feet of a building square footage um the request tonight also includes an ask for construction documents at risk so we'll be going over that here's a slide of requested input so just keep this in mind as I go through my presentation I'm looking for feedback on architecture and cohesion with the existing buildings and recently approved buildings you may recall I brought forth a salad and go and shops a pad to the north so you'll see that again on the elevation slide General site layout of the current phase which again is that Arby's and the future phase specific feedback on angled parking and trash the trash enclosure location and then any general feedback you have in advance of that CD is at risk request here is an aerial map showing the parcel as it as it exists today Jermain road is to the South Power Road to the East and city of Mesa to the East and I have some labels there with the neighboring uses it's about 1.8 acres and the Arby's is looking to develop a portion of that at 1.06 so they plan on splitting the lot and having that future pad to the east it's zoned General commercial and is part of the power ranch pad development plan so staff has issued first review comments and I've listed the major ones here one again is to move the trash enclosure out of the landscape setback code does not allow for the trash enclosure in that location so we we did have a conversation before this meeting and they are aware of these major comments so I just wanted to bring it forth to you as you don't get to see the comments all the comments that staff issues they also plan on changing the parking to angled parking so keep that in mind this site will change and will be tweaked staff will be going through more reviews to include these major comments and any of the feedback you have tonight oh um in this slide I show a chart of some of the development standards and in during first review the site does comply with setbacks parking standards those are some of our major standards but again they they do plan on changing the parking we want to make sure they still meet the parking counts and that the site circulates in in a good manner um one thing staff has not had a chance to review yet is the landscape plan and you'll see that in the third row from the bottom it says Landscaping percentage TBD we haven't had a chance to do a comprehensive review so that's forthcoming in the next review and then I also want to note that in oops and that future pad they will be developing on their own in the future so they'll be coming forward with their own design review that's not included in this review it's conceptual at this point just to show that there is still room after the lot split for development to occur um elevations this is their one of their prototypes the it says front elevation that should say south and the side elevation is West and this is one of the things that I was requesting feedback on because um staff just feels that it can better relate to the other buildings in the center and I pulled some images from the existing buildings and as you can see there's a wide range of colors and styles so we just feel like Arby's can stick to their corporate color corporate identity while still complementing the rest of the buildings in the center you know we're looking for for them to pull some colors and materials from other buildings just to show there is a little bit of cohesion rather than standing alone so I did point out that they are requesting CDs at risk and with your uh approval they can apply for CDs at risk after they resolve all of staff's comments and any of feedback you give them tonight um so it's not the case where they can after this meeting just go and apply for CDs at risk they do still have to go through at least one more review to show that they have resolved all these major comments and then it will come back to you for a formal decision a future public hearing and here is that requested input slide again a short and sweet so I'll take questions all right thank you Samantha anybody have questions or comments for Samantha commissioner Anderson uh thank you for the presentation uh on the Colorado Elevations our main caller on here is white and it's finish A1 and then when you go to the color board it has a great tone to it so what's the color is it white or is it gray on our elevations that we'll need to clarify there there's also um that horizontal material that wasn't clear between the colors and materials board and the elevation so I'll make note of what that color is I can't confirm whether it's gray or white at this okay and then on side elevation two where the roof access ladder is does pound LDC allow that to be viewed does it have to be screened in any way I'm sorry commissioner Anderson could you repeat the question on side elevation two on sheet a 2.22 where the roof access ladder is it's external to the building that's the town LDC require that to be screened yes we do that is one of our comments as well to internalize it and in a conversation with the applicant they they understood that that wasn't a problem to do okay and then in terms of the CDs at risk I mean it's it's their risk to take it's not ours uh if they feel that the comments they're getting tonight that they can address in in CDs it's at the end of the day it's it's their risk to take that's why it's called at risk um so those are my comments on this one thank you thank you all right thank you anybody else have comments commissioner Davis thank you chair um I agree on the Rebecca sweater that's some I noticed as well um as far as the color it would be nice to see if you know depending on what that base color is maybe that's the opportunity to tie into those other buildings um I think there should be some cue to the other buildings but generally I was okay with this design besides the roof access ladder anybody else um so not that I'm a subject to expert in color however we did just paint the interior of our house Pure White Sherwin-Williams which it is a little bit of a gray but it is white so it's kind of off-white but a gray depending on the light that you're in so I'm not sure if that does um mix into or fit with what else is there um however from a branding perspective that that may be something that can be addressed on a little bit darker tone to fit in with the rest of the buildings but that's all I have otherwise I'm fine with it all right anybody else have anything Samantha thank you very much okay thank you all right next item on the agenda is item number three Dr 22-48 corbel energy storage and Sal good evening chair and Commissioners Sal de Santo planner one it's nice to formally present to you all tonight the case that we'll be taking a look at is for study session it is for Dr 22-48 Superstition corebell energy storage the subject site outlined in blue here is located at the northwest corner of Ithaca street and Commerce Avenue which is located within the Tremaine Industrial Park the Tremaine industrial park is located between the city of Chandler residential to the West the El Dorado Lakes Golf Community to the north and east and a mix of industrial uses to the South taking a closer look at the Tremaine industrial park we can see the subject site is roughly 3.05 acres and is immutely adjacent to General industrial zoning district and Industrial uses on all four sides The Proposal consists of developing an energy storage facility which would be classified as utilities facilities large scale by Our Land Development code and is permitted within the general industrial zoning District The Proposal includes the entirety of the approximately 3.05 Acre Site to develop a new substation and place roughly 100 outdoor rated modular unoccupiable battery containers or packs on the site I would also like to clarify that the proposed battery packs have been classified as utility cabinets and as such are not subject to the zoning District development standards only accessory structures will follow the base zoning development standards the intent of this project is to provide a new sustainable energy resourcing as well as assisting the existing Corbell SRP substation located to the East and storing energy during low demand periods as well as delivering the energy back to the grid during those high demand periods I would also like to add the youth has received all Associated approvals from the Arizona Corporation Commission when we take a look at the site plan access to the site will be provided on the east side of the property of Ithaca Street and to the south side of the property off of Commerce Avenue a gated internal access Drive will connect both access points from Ithaca Street to Commerce Avenue providing efficient vehicle circulation on the site as previously mentioned 100 battery containers or packs will be placed in organized rows to the North and South sides of the internal drive aisle all battery packs on site will be set upon drilled concrete Piers approximately two feet above grade as the property is located within a floodplain the southeast portion of the site is proposed to be a new substation with Associated equipment that will directly assist the existing SRP substation just to the east three unoccupyable conic storage containers or accessory structures will also be placed along the western border on the site while one substation control enclosure will be located at the southeast portion of the site within the substation security gate enclosure an eight-foot split face and smooth face masonry block wall will be utilized on all four sides of the site in an eight foot internal security fence will be utilized to enclose the proposed substation just to the southeast there in regards to parking parking will not be required on site as the use will not be accessible to the general public battery cabinets and accessory structures are unoccupyable access is only permitted for periodic maintenance and there is no primary structure on site taking a look at the landscape plan it proposes an assorted range of trees and shrubs situated along the Eastern and Southern property lines types of trees provided are amalga Desert Museum Palo Verde thornless Mesquite while some of the shrubs and accent plants include bluebells red emu Bush brake light red Yucca new gold Lantana and Heavenly Cloud Texas Ranger all landscape materials will be evenly distributed distributed along both site entrances and along the Eastern and Southern property lines Landscaping will not be implemented beyond the access points as the entirety of the site will be within a gated yard and will not be accessible to the General Public as previously mentioned there will be no primary structure on site as the unoccupyable battery cabinets are considered utility cabinets the battery packs will be mounted upon drilled concrete Piers approximately two feet above grade and the packs themselves will be roughly seven feet totaling to approximately nine feet in overall height each battery pack row will contain a nine foot medium voltage Transformer placed at the center of each row and I'll propose utility cabinets are painted to be traffic white and silver gray the proposed substation equipment and control enclosure located within the enclosed substation will be roughly 11 feet in height to the roof line and 13 feet in height to the tallest point which is the antenna there the substation control enclosure is also to be painted traffic white and silver gray to match battery and utility cabinets on the site three unoccupiable accessory structures will also be placed on the western portion of the site the storage containers were reviewed as accessory structures and are located within the building envelope and meet the LDC standards for the accessory structures the accessory structures are to be eight and a half feet tall in height and 40 feet in length and again these accessory structures are to be painted traffic white and silver gray the interior substation fencing will be located in the Southeast portion of the site and is proposed to be chain link eight feet in height and to be colored caramel chain link fencing is permitted within the employment zoning districts when they are not visible from the street the fence will be shielded from property screen walls as well as Landscaping along those property lines an eight-foot ornamental roll gate to be colored bronze is also implemented at both site access points along Ithaca and commerce and a third ornamental rogate will be placed at the substation entrance as I mentioned earlier an eight-foot split face and smooth face masonry block wall but will be utilized on all four sides of the property as a screening method and the colors are proposed to be Pueblo and light brown the wall design and proposed colors are also consistent with what is seen from neighboring properties tonight staff is requesting General feedback regarding the project as the applicant is requesting CD submittal at risk and that concludes the presentation and I open it up for questions thank you thank you Sal any questions comments commissioner is an eight-foot wall a standard for a facility like this so have there been any higher walls like gen feet or is eight foot just the standard that it's supplied chair Simon commissioner Johnson the eight foot screen wall is the typical standard um per our LDC and one up industrial use is adjacent to Street or other industrial uses thank you thank you Mr chairman anybody else questions comments commissioner Faye thank you for that um and there's something I'll get to you that's good but a question about the parking we've got plenty of facilities that are not open to the public that that still it's whether it's a public facility or not and whether it's open to the public or two different things so where do the maintenance people who go here park chair Simon commissioner Faye when maintenance is taking place on site it will only take place one to two times a year so there isn't suspected to be you know quite a bit of maintenance on the site but the the plan is when trucks are on site they will just be parked along that Interior Drive aisle to access all the neighboring equipment and I don't think that the particularly for ADA compliance the fact that it's not open to the public isn't the standard I think it's a so private residence does not have to require does not have to comply with Ada but public facilities that even ones that aren't open to the public we've got plenty of facilities that are owned by the firehouses that aren't even open to the public at all that still have to comply with Ada in terms of parking so I'm not sure that I mean it could be and yeah they don't expect to be there more than once or twice a year but I agree yeah I bet they will be regardless I'd take a take a maybe a closer look at that absolutely thank you commissioner faith anybody else yeah I'll just say that I think this is a really good place to put something of this nature in the midst of a lot of industrial uses and actually spiffing it up with a you know eight foot wall is going to look like uh the Taj Mahal in that area and this type of uh use is something that in all likelihood we're going to see more of for energy resiliency so I think this is a good project and uh well done all right anybody else right so I've got nothing else to add to that so appreciate the presentation awesome awesome much appreciated guys all right thanks all right next item on the agenda is item number four and that is z23-05 tracks at Coulee station Keith chair Simon members of the commission hello again um oh I have the wrong case numbers on my screen I apologize that's for a different case but anyways it still tracks a station so tracks at Coulee station is um is also obviously located in Coulee station as the name indicates and it's kind of at the wet at the West End of Coulee station and you can see how the site's highlighted in the in the red and actually call this the home plate parcel just just so you know um on the south side of Williams Field Road along the railroad tracks so and again the Coulee station context map I'm going to show you that this probably every every Coulee station project I bring to you as you can see where it's located on that far west side so the proposed request tonight is for a p80 Amendment um requesting to amend the existing development plan that was approved in around 2006 or 2007 or so and add new deviations to increase permitted building Heights and reduce building and Landscape setbacks on the site which is about 20 a little over 25 acres so the existing zoning as you can see on this exhibit in front of you is multi-family medium with obviously with the it's in the Coulee station pad um and that's not changing all they're doing is adding some additional con uh deviations to the original uh two original ordinances for the height and Landscape setbacks and so forth and I'll I'll show you those more in detail in a second here's the previously approved development plan it's uh it's hard to see it's it's a very old plan and it's you zoom into it you can't get in any more clarity it's it's probably a scanned paper copy so this is best this is the best I have but I just wanted to show you where the site is located and it was originally approved for multi-family and you can see the buildings how they're arranged and where they're located kind of a more traditional multi-family with a some spine roads but obviously they're going to change that and they're changing it proposing to change it to this plan that includes 568 apartment units on a little over 25 acres there's a total of 10 residential buildings um one at five stories which is building six in the top left-hand corner that one's five stories with a wrap around product with the parking garage in the center and then they have a five-story um five four-story buildings all those buildings uh one two three four one or whatever numbers they are up to five our four-story apartment units and then they have four Carriage units on the Eastern along the eastern boundary that are that have garages of course in the bottom and then they have a story of residential above them and the site is about a little over 22 dwelling units per acre and there's two access points one off of um Williams Field Road is the main access and then there's one off of Somerton Boulevard to the South so just a little background concerning Somerton Boulevard to add on the site that you won't find in your information or your packet at this point um is that the developer who is the Frankl family originally submitted a pre-app in 2021 to develop the site but it was determined that in order to properly develop the land for multi-family that Somerton Boulevard to the South needed to be extended along that Southern Property boundary along the railroad tracks all the way to Wade Drive which is the street that heads out to Williams Field on the west side and and this was in order to establish the original vision of a looped Road system in this area that's that was originally envisioned on the original master plan to better ensure higher level of vehicular circulation and relieve some of the pressure of vehicular traffic along Williams Field and wrecker roads prior to the submittal of this application that you're reviewing a noun and staffs reviewing the town negotiated a purchase of the needed right-of-way to build Summerton with the Coulee family through a development agreement which was finalized in December of 2022 and it was recorded earlier this year so as part of that development agreement Town staff and the applicant agreed that a pad Amendment requesting the proposed deviations would be an appropriate zoning planning tool for allowing the additional Building height and reduced building and Landscape setbacks to balance the impact of purchasing Somerton Boulevard which obviously decreased the size of the original site so we felt that doing a pad would would limit the impacts of that so I just wanted to give you a little bit of background about Somerton Boulevard and how it came to be how it came to be extended all the way out to Wade all the way to Wade and then all the way out to Williams Field which which is a huge benefit to this project and to the Coulee station area in general so the here's this for reference only site plan please note that this is not going to be part of the rezone package it's just a reference only type document and you can see the site in more detail you can see the amenity spaces you can see where the parking spaces are proposed to be located so I just wanted to show you that so as far as the deviations are concerned there's there's four deviations at this point so the first deviation is for the um minimum net land area per unit this one's kind of a little odd I usually don't see this in an ordinance but the original ordinance had allowed 17 000 square foot at 25 billion years per acre for per each unit we have to re-crunch some of the math on that and I think this deviation is probably going to be eliminated once we redo some of the math and so we've got to check that one out but for now that's kind of what it is um but the other deviations that are more that are more um impactful are the maximum height for stories for the building at 56 feet and four stories is what's allowed per the vertical development overlay area number uh area four and the applicant would like to go to 69 feet five stories which is permitted as a base as a bonus height per the vertical development overlay District you you can actually go up to like 85 feet and six stories I believe with with the approval of a pad so that's the only way you can get the bonus height that the applicant is requesting is through a pad such as what is proposed before you tonight and town staff is is in support of that um and the other deviation that the applicant is requesting is along that Eastern property boundary um as required for the original Coulee station ordinance 20 feet is required along the Eastern property boundary and the applicants requesting to reduce it down to 10. and and also the landscape set back they're requesting also to reduce it down to 10 from 15 feet and if you notice on the site plan adjacent to those carriage units is Where is the along that Eastern where that eastern boundary is and adjacent to those carriage units is a parking lot for the hotel that's going to be coming before you a Marriott Hotel in the very near future a Town Place Suites and of course um a parking for an apartment complex with some Loft units and things so there's really not a lot of impact to reducing the building set back along the Eastern property boundary and the landscape set back from 20 and 15 feet down to 10 feet so that concludes a major portion of my presentation that's the the applicant did hold a virtual neighborhood meeting in January of 2023 of course no surrounding Property Owners attended and there was a reporter there from the Sun Times and they just asked general questions so we haven't and we haven't since we haven't heard anything from anybody else um so um the requested input tonight is your thoughts on the proposed development plan and on the requested deviations so I'd be happy to answer any questions that you have concerning this proposed pad Amendment and the deviations thank you all right thank you Keith uh Vice chair thank you always a pleasure to ask Keith questions um Keith we we said that those Road improvements needed to be made prior and I may have missed this because I sometimes get add but have they been done now um chair Simon um Vice chairman no they're not completed now there's there's something that will be completed I don't know what the timing for construction is I'm sure the applicant has a better answer for that but the development agreement like I stated was just approved earlier in January earlier this year and I believe those roadway improvements will start uh their construction around the same close to the same time as the apartment complex so am I getting your question right that is correct I was just trying to do the math in my head of oh we can't build this but if we throw something underneath it and stack another four stories then it's okay so that that's fine okay thank you all right thank you uh commissioner Blazer thanks Keith uh maybe I missed it um but along that east side where they're proposing shrinking the setbacks is there a screen wall that will be built there um chair Simon I'm commissioner Blazer yeah I believe we haven't gotten to that level of the review yet since this is just a zoning case we'll find out more during the design review case if there's going to be a wall um I'm anticipating there will be some type of wall but I'm not sure exactly what what type what materials how tall but I'm sure there will be some type of a wall okay yeah it just seems that if they're going to shrink setbacks that would be the spot to do it right yeah thanks you're welcome all right thank you anybody else no commissioner pay you good all right commissioner Anderson I just jump on the deviations I think they're pretty miniscule I agree with you I mean especially on the east side and it sounds like the building height I mean it's allowed per the overall PID right you just have to go through this process yeah so I I I don't say any issues the the deviations that they're requesting they just seem pretty minimal to me thank you Keith thank you all right I would I would agree that's exactly what I was going to say is I feel like the deviations requested are very minimal on this I think it makes sense tucked back in the corner that it is I don't have a problem with with it so unless there's anything else all right thank you Keith thank you all right so uh we'll move into discussion of regular meeting agenda we currently have on the consent agenda we have uh dr-22-141 the Fairfield Inn at Marriott we have dr-22040 the Corbell that's actually continued so we've got the one item on on the consent uh does anybody see a reason to pull that from consent nope all right and then on non-consent uh we have item 11 GP 23-11 Gilbert Spectrum building 3 the zoning of 2302 Gilbert Spectrum building 3 number 12 and then number 13 Dr 22 115 Val Vista and Market Drive drive throughs and then we've got item 14 z22-17 Baseline commercial uh apad and then item 15 and 16 which are both gp23-12 and z2304 the ranch are any of those items able to move to consent uh this evening or without keeping them all on non-consent I think we're keeping them all on non-consent sure I'd be fine with 11 12 and 14 all going to consent unless somebody has some if people have issues of course all right we've got uh I too would be okay with those 11 12 and 14. is there any reason to keep those on non-consent or I mean on consent on non-consent I said it right the first time yeah unless somebody from the public comes is there any reason why you can't move 13 the Dr case over to non-consent I mean to consent 13 13 is fine with me if I recall correctly when it came before there was quite a bit of comments from but um so I yeah I'm fine it's fine with me sure I have some comments on 13. you have comments on 13. so keep that one off all right um anybody have any issues with 11 12 or 14 moving to the consent agenda do I have any comments from community members or do we have anything from staff that we need to hear on those chair not at this time unless somebody spills fills out a speaker request okay so we'll go ahead and we'll move items 11 12 and 14 to the consent agenda keeping item 13 15 and 16 on the non-consent with that we'll go ahead and close out the study session and we'll be back let's call it at 6 10. we'll come back trying to keep it away from you bro good job man this is like this is like High School my stomach was hurting and all of a sudden I'm like oh good God I knew I should all right Ava you ready Ashley let me go ahead and call a regular meeting to order uh we will start with the pledge allegiance if you could all rise pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all all right can I get a roll call please commissioner Johnson president commissioner Gage commissioner Davis here commissioner Anderson yeah commissioner Faye president commissioner Blazer here commissioner Bianchi Vice chairman Mont here chairman Simon here we have a quorum thank you and uh we will go ahead and look for an approval of our agenda and we've moved items number 11 12 and 14 from the non-consent to the consent uh agenda I don't have any public comment cards on those items unless any have come in and no changes will keep those so I'll look for a motion to approve the agenda gladly chair I'd like to make a motion to move item number 11 GP 23-11 Gilbert Gilbert Spectrum building three number 12 z23-02 Gilbert Spectrum building 3 and number 14 z22-17 Baseline commercial apad from the non-consent to the consent agenda right I have a motion to uh approve the agenda with the movement of 11 12 and 14 by the Vice chair do I have a second second the motion I have a second by commissioner Johnson uh go ahead and cast your vote I forget where that thing is motion carry 7-0 all right we'll move on to commission 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 may respond uh response is limited to responding to criticism asking staff to review a matter commented upon or asking that a matter be put on a future agenda and I don't see any Communications from citizens unless there are any late arrivals all right not seeing anyone move on to report from Council Council liaison uh councilman almost in September September councilmember Anderson thank you Mr chair just one quick item just a reminder that on the 29th of this month is our Memorial Day celebration it'll be here at Town Hall and we certainly like to see you there it's a great opportunity to honor those who have gone before us that's it thank you all right thank you very much with that we'll move on to our public hearing consent agenda items all items listed below are considered the public hearing consent calendar the commission may by a single motion approved by any approve any number of the items where after opening the public hearing no person requests the item to be removed from the 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 with items on the agenda 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 agenda chairman I'd like to make a motion to approve the consent agenda consisting of item 9 Dr 22-141 Fairfield Inn by Marriott the continuance of item number 10 Dr 22-48 corbel energy storage number 11 gp23-11 Gilbert Spectrum building 3 number 12 z23-02 Gilbert expecting Spectrum building three and number 14 z22-17 Baseline commercial apad all right thank you I have a motion by the Vice chair do I have a second all second second by commissioner Faye please cast your vote foreign all right moving on to the public hearing non-consent non-consent public hearing items will be heard at an individual public hearing and will be acted upon by the commission by separate motion during the public hearings anyone wishing to comment in support of or in opposition of the public hearing item may do so if you wish to comment on 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 the first item on the agenda is item number 13 Dr 22-115 Val Vista and Market drive-throughs and just as um Kristen is coming up if you haven't filled out one of these and you'd like to comment on an item please fill it out now sorry Kristen sit on okay all right hi there everyone good evening commission the case I have before you tonight is a design review for two drive-throughs the site is located at the southeast corner of Val Vista and Market just north of the 202. you'll see it outlined here in red the site is approximately 1.5 acres in its own Regional commercial with a p80 overlay there are two pad buildings that are proposed on the site the northern pad is being called pad a and consists of a 3200 square foot drive through restaurant that offers interior service in addition to the drive-through service the southern pad is being called pad B and is a 767 square foot drive through with exterior service only there is a drive-through as well as a walk-up window nope I was not done with this slide I apologize there is one direct access to the site it's found on the southern border um all other access to the site is taken through the proposed user to the east which is the Fairfield that was approved just now on consent the site meets all the required parking for regular size spaces and it's also chosen to utilize compact parking spaces for some of the spaces that are in excess of the required parking count those are found on pad a facing the building or front of the building the landscape for the site includes 26 Landscaping which exceeds the 15 requirement some of the proposed plans include Evergreen Elm red push pistache red Yucca and Lantana all right and the elevations will start with pad a it's a single story building 25 feet tall it consists of Stucco in various shades of brown with a deep red color being used as the accent color the building also utilizes stone veneer to highlight the column and Corner features and the roof line is mostly flat with varying Heights and pitches over the entry points to the building it's currently proposed as a farmer boys as you can see in the picture so padby is a single story building at 22 feet nine inches tall it doesn't currently have a user proposed the building consists of Stucco in various Shades of Gray that complements the user to the east the hotel user they've also included a niche accent material on the the tower column as well as stone veneer along the bottom to complement the pad a building there's a large metal canopy that wraps around the Eastern and Southern elevations and also the canopy over the pickup window in the drive-through all right here is a more close-up picture of the colors and materials the design guidelines for this area encourage the use of natural colors and materials which you'll see found throughout here right and with that we recommend approval of dr22115 Val Vista and Market to drive through subject to conditions if you have any questions I would be happy to answer them all right questions Bishop Davis thank you chair what I wanted to ask about Kristen was the southwest corner of pad B when you look at the landscape plan I think is where you can see it best if you're able to zoom in there I'm trying to understand the drive-through how their drive through and their pickup window works it looks like there's a like some maybe a sliding door that opens right there but there's Landscaping right there it didn't seem like I'm not quite sure how that functions as far as serving somebody in that drive-through Lane um chair Simon commissioner Davis so for the drive-through the pickup window for the drive-through is on the west portion hi this is Brian hi he's fabulous development so he can probably answer this question a little better yes okay so basically we're talking to a couple of coffee users and it would be a double drive through on the north side that goes around into a single drive-through and then the the window is on the I think on the west end there I see that I'm just not seeing how it functions as far as any kind of um it looks pretty far from the car and it looks like it's a door of some kind versus just a window is what I'm trying to under yeah it's just something to take a look at make sure that you're working out those details okay I did like all the glasses pop out like a lot of the other drive-throughs do right right so it was different with the door also versus a window yeah I think I think the idea was kind of like um White Castle which they have up in uh they just have both they have two drive through both with doors where the he can actually come out okay pass it to it so we've been seeing that more and more but okay and then I had one additional comment on the North elevation got that kind of Gap that's happening on that very small short wall it almost looks like it's an area for roof access ladder and I don't I was it looks like it should be connecting across there versus coming down right there yeah I didn't understand the purpose of that Gap if it's intended for some sort of access which we don't want seems like that should be closed up on that small wall yeah and I don't know the answer to that okay I thought Grant was our architect I thought I was going to be here to explain that we have comments that they can't have the exterior root bladder has been drainage and um the there was the proposed user that was partly prototype I don't know I don't think it's for uh yeah because we're just we're not sure who it's going to be so right but is that something that is an access right there or is that uh no it wasn't intended uh it was just part of the design yeah it wasn't intended to be an access lighter no can you state your name I'm sorry I'm Grant I represent the Architecture Firm that um okay thank you I just feel like it's going to be a gap where you're going to see roof equipment and stuff I don't know that it's really doing anything on such a small building so I guess if the other board members agree I could add a condition add a condition to close that Gap yeah would you rather see that just go straight across yeah yeah I don't think that's that would be it yeah so I don't think you'll really see that perceive that orange because it's setting so far back I don't think you're getting the effect that it shows here right I understand so okay yeah commissioner Anderson yeah I got to jump onto this so I'm looking at the elevations in the floor plan as a site plan and there's a lot of inconsistencies happening here that just don't make sense so I'm now seeing what you're looking at so the west elevation is I'm looking at the site playing this left side and I'm seeing with that little sliding glass that little slider is which matches the west elevation and it's right on that far corner of the building and it's also at the corner of with a turning Lane is so how does that function I now see what you're looking at and then you look at the North elevations where that little area is that she had concerned about where there could be a ladder you're showing two doors there on the site plan there's only one door it can just stay on the elevations please thank you and then let's see you got that big parking that canopy that overhangs and we don't see that on the site plan it's just the placement of the building on the site plan with the Turning of the turn lane there's just there's stuff happening that's not matching up with the elevations and it's causing issues here so right now this doesn't look to me that it was fully thought out I mean I believe they're matching if I could see the side point one more time it's hard to tell but there are two doors here it's you know the line thickness it's a little hard to tell and that overhang is also dashed here as a dotted line as part of the patio over here so do I just have an old bad site plan uh I'm not sure if I mean it's shown on this one it's just hard to tell all right so the site plan I have is showing one door on that north side and on the southwest corner of that building there's a sliding door there which matches the elevations and it's right at where that turn lane happens right and the sliding doors intended like a laundromat sliding door where someone walks out the you know so on the elevation the west elevation where that sliding door is is that what you're talking about right that yes okay so that's on the southwest corner of this of the building and when I compare that to the site plan there's gonna be a car parked right at the corner of the turn lane so how does that function so the employees open like they walk out through the doors and just I don't think you're following what I'm getting at you have a turn lane like this and a building here you have a door that's right on the corner here typically the doors are in a flat portion so the car can get parallel to the to the building so you've got the car that's exiting off the site where they're picking up their coffee or whatever I mean the car is underneath the canopy and it's great then they that's where the door is and then they get their drink and then they make the turn from the site plan I look at the door is right at the turn you're seeing the same thing right corner turn yeah and Landscaping in front of it uh I mean on this I I'm a little confused as well the doors so the doors on the corner here they pick up there and then they just come out and exit the properties that access right there and it's Square so the the door's faces West and the door's not exactly on the curb because it's not it's not a typical drive-through window it's a you know like a laundromat sliding doors where the employees walk out the the food or drinks or whatever all right from the site plan I have that door is like right here at that corner typically you see it in the midpoint of the building so a car can get parallel flat to the building the door that I'm seeing on the elevations and the site plan is happening right there maybe we could go back to the building elevation and see that door on the west versus being on the corner so that that's that's all we're talking about right yeah and that's on the west side of the building right basis right that right where that the turn lane is cornering right here yeah after you get you stop there underneath the canopy you get your drink then you will turn out it's right at the turn well it's a couple feet off the curb it's not right at the turn like I don't know why there's such confusion here so let's just keep this going let's get a stipulation for you guys that you need to work that out it doesn't work it doesn't function but the door may have to shift yeah he said it's a shell building you don't have a tenant for the space yet shift the door to the middle of the building and you're fine it doesn't work at that location right now okay we'll look at that the only thing that does is less stacking from from the window to all right working out with staff I mean it doesn't work it's not functional you're good yeah anybody else have questions comments all right um at this point we would go to the applicant if you want to give a presentation on this I don't know if it's necessary at this point um but if there's anything you'd like to give us in addition to what we've got unless there's any other questions up here I mean the only thing I'd say is we've tried to work closely with with everybody to come up with this plan so we've had multiple calls multiple meetings we've worked with the hotel as well to try to create something where we have the hotel they're not using parking during the day then we've got a lunch user who's using lunch then we've got somebody who's using parking in the morning so we really try to think we have a pretty good mix there and we've just taken this building from a couple of the two that we're talking to and they provided us with these this building elevation is what they use it I think they have one of the groups has a number of locations this is their exact footprint they provided us is the reason for having the and you mentioned this so it's kind of a redundant question but is is part of the reasoning for this because of the stacking is there a code that we need to allow for the stacking that needs to happen in order then that's why this door is so far down the building chair Simon the stacking is it's three or four spaces I'm sorry I don't remember off the top of my head which one one of the users is three the other one is four um but with the double stacking the double drive-through Lanes they they meet the stacking so the door could potentially shift I just we'll we'll have to discuss that okay if we're still talking about the door yeah I would I would say I mean just kind of looking at the stacking if you shift that door you're gonna lose one car length in essence um I will call on my inner commissioner Faye on this one it'll probably wrap out onto that private drive I'm guessing if we get additional cars going so it's you're going to get rap um I don't I don't it depending what you put here I mean if you put a Dutch Bros you're gonna have problems all day long so don't talk to Dutch Bros I guess I don't know but but um you know just kind of depending I'm just kind of looking at this and I'm thinking okay if you shift shift that down like commissioner Anderson say and you're going to lose basically a car length so now we still have the stacking that we need in essence I don't think there's going to be an issue there um so I don't I don't foresee a problem with it but okay all right unless there's any other comments or questions unless you have anything else to add we'll go ahead and close the public here oh commissioner Johnson I'm sorry yes uh in the past uh when we've had food users like this it's been a single use uh now we have a double use and we've discussed in the past the problem of traffic congestion especially in the maiden hours of uses where you have people going in out now once they're they're off valve Vista that's probably not an issue but when you're in a you know a major time let's say towards the early evening and you have both food users people coming through and you know getting in the line or getting in the queue you're expecting people at the reliever valve to be the adjacent property so I mean have you looked at the problem of the highest hours of use when you have two food users right next to each other and people are lining up to try to get in uh and in whether they're they're parking for for the food already but it seems to me you're going to have some question points when you have two food users right next to each other and a fairly tight narrow property thank you Mr chairman thank you Seth sure yeah we've looked at that and that's the coffee user is in the morning I mean very little business at night at all the other user is a hamburger restaurant and their primary business is lunch they do have some evening business but it's not much and the hotel during the middle of the day is not when they have people parked there either people are parked there at night so we really felt we've worked closely with the hotel and both you know with everybody else to feel like we've got a good plan so that it's not going to be congested especially at night all right thank you um and I don't see that we have any public comment on this at this time so we'll go ahead and close the public hearing on this and we'll bring it up to the dice for a conversation and I will open it up for conversation if anybody like to start or a motion if there is one just well chairman homemade Vice um I think that what they've done here with having the different mixed uses that do have different high-use times during the day and next to a hotel that's actually a lot of Forward Thinking so I think that's great and personally I don't have a problem with the door I think that there's possibly that somebody would be walking out and walking around like at a bikini Bean not that anybody wants to actually say that because it might cause ruffling of feathers but I believe that those doors exist right at the corner and the um the servers wander around outside but that's neither here nor there I just wanted to point out there are uses where this type of a layout albeit strange does exist thank you thank you Vice chair anybody else do I have motion I'll make a motion okay commissioner Davis okay I moved to approve Dr 22 115 with the conditions included in the staff report as well as a condition for them to close that gap on the we find it here North elevation to match the wall plane that's already there and finish it the same as far as the door they're going to have to take a look at the landscaping and make revisions as necessary to accommodate the door location so look at the function of that door and just understand that you're probably gonna have some landscape Hardscape requirements that are going to have to be met that's it all right so I have a motion to approve with stipulations as noted do I have a second second emotion I've got a second by commissioner Johnson all those uh excuse me please cast your vote almost and the commission uh it carries motion carry 7-0 so um and actually I just want to make sure that we got those um the stipulations down okay thank you thank you thank you okay we'll move on to gp23-12 the residents at the ranch as well as 16z 23-04 residents at the ranch and Veronica game time chair here chair I'm going to recuse myself okay Mr Blazer would like to recuse himself should we take a vote to accept or deny his recusal all right Veronica good evening Mr chairman Commissioners Veronica Gonzalez principal planner here to present to you case GP 2312 NC 2304 residences at the ranch the subject site is approximately 39 acres and it's located near the southwest corner of power and Elliott roads the site is actually located within the larger 311 acres for the ranch that was acted upon by the Commission in October um this request is just for the 39 Acres as shown on this area though since the study session last month the applicant has updated the rezoning request the minor General plan Amendment Remains the Same though which is to change the land use from industrial general office and General commercial to residential 14 to 25 dwelling units per acre and General commercial the updated rezoning request is now to rezone from light industrial Business Park General commercial General commercial to a multi-family medium a mixed use small mixed use large and General commercial all with the pad overlay the change being the addition of the mixed use large zoning district and the pad overlay so I'm going to orient to you here a little bit north is to the right of the screen that's Elliott Road Power Road along the bottom and then Warner Road on the left side here this is our general plan exhibit here showing you where the locations of those General plan land use categories as proposed by the applicant and here we have our zoning exhibit in this exhibit you can see the location of the new mixed use large zoning category that's now been introduced into the mix and where it is located between the future General commercial and light industrial portions of the larger piece the development plan is for 39 Acres hopefully you can see it it's outlined in pink here and we can kind of see how the two parts now fit together um as I had mentioned earlier the larger employment Industrial Area was acted upon by this commission back in October this 39 acre portion that is currently under review is scheduled to go before the Town Council for consideration in June along with the larger piece a couple of items I'd like to bring to your attention as shown here as you saw on the zoning exhibit in the previous Slide the piece along Elliott road now proposes the mixed use large category instead of the previously proposed multi-family medium which presents a better transition between The General commercial and light industrial zoning categories there I'd also like to note the internal circulation routes shown with the black and yellow dashed lines the black dashed lines indicate the multi-family commercial restaurant retail traffic the yellow Dash lines represents the industrial traffic so all of the multi-family and Commercial traffic will go out to Elliott Road some to Power Road and and down to Warner Road the yellow dashed lines indicates the industrial truck traffic which will use power and Warner Empower roads primarily for access the rezoning request now includes a pad or planned area development overlay Zone the pad overlay State overlay standards as it applies to this project includes a maximum height of 35 feet two stories and a maximum density of 16 dwelling units per acre within the multi-family medium portion no drive-through facilities within The General commercial uh the mixed use small will have at least 15 000 square feet of ground floor non-residential uses and then the mixed use large will have a maximum height of 45 feet three stories and a maximum density of 25 rolling units per acre and then it'll also include some minimum design standards for future development overall the maximum unit count would be about 750 units within the mixed juice large the applicant has proposed a minimum of 15 000 square feet of non-residential uses which is similar to what's proposed with the mixed use small however staff believes the minimum LDC requirement of 20 of the floor area be dedicated to non-residential uses within the mixed use large and you'll see that reflected in the conditions of approval of the amended staff report site Planning and Building design will be reviewed under a separate design review application in the future but the applicant has presented some exhibits to illustrate a design concept for the project and the pad will help to ensure future development comply complies with this design theme the areas then identified 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 where higher density residential components of a mixed-use project are designed as an integral part of the development and create a distinctive living environment and as we all know this is within the Morrison Ranch characters character area as well where the land use policy of the Morrison red character area encourages neighborhoods with a variety of uses and densities as long as they integrate with the overall rural Ranch character of Morrison Ranch staff does believe that the applicant's amended proposal is conducive to a unique living environment and will provide a variety of land uses and housing products the conceptual site plan and it is strictly conceptual it is for illustrative purposes only it's not and is not a part of the rezoning requests that we're considering tonight as I mentioned earlier the site planning and the building design will occur in a future in the future under a separate design review case but I wanted to show you what was envisioned for how this area might develop and I've put into context the conceptual site plan with the overall area again to give you a feel for this is a large site taken as as a whole of the 311 acres to give you some context of the area an in-person neighborhood meeting was held last week on April 25th approximately 54 residents were in attendance there were some questions concerns and comments that related to items such as noise and truck traffic the livability of multi-family next to Industrial uses the market for the multi-family development the landscape buffer along the western boundary and building Heights um a couple of hours before this hearing I did receive a phone call from a coffee shop owner on the east side of Power Road so the Mesa side of Power Road requesting a traffic signal be installed at their property a traffic signal will be installed along Power Road but not necessarily at this particular coffee Shop's location with the change from multi-family medium to mixed juice large along Elliott Road staff does now recommend approval of the mate of the minor General plan Amendment as well as approval of the rezoning request and that concludes my presentation and I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have all right thank you Veronica anybody have any questions Veronica no I have a procedural question commissioner Faye so the original the light industrial the bigger the rest of the 300 acres the more controversial piece we voted on that back in about october-ish it went to council Council fiddled around with it deferred it they took first action and then deferred it again now this is coming when that other piece comes did I hear you say the original approval in October is still going to stand even though this new piece is carved out of it Mr chairman commissioner Faye the recommendation from from this commission will stay it will the case will move forward where we've got it scheduled right now for the June 20th Town Council hearing that case was tabled at the February 21st Town Council hearing so the site the the that application which is 271 Acres now will have to be re-advertised reposted new letters will have to be sent out so it's almost as though it is redoing that part of the process but not redoing it with us just redoing it there Mr chairman commissioner Faye that's correct questions comments comments for Veronica at this point okay um Veronica I'm going to save what I've got I'd like to um have the applicant come up and give their presentation at this time Mr like I'm assuming you'd like to do that um and then we'll go to public comments and answer any questions there so Mr thank you thank you foreign I'll just kind of get started here um I'm going to take you back about six months to my first exposure to this I remember I came to town hall uh on a for a morning meeting with staff and I think a council member may have been there it may have just been with staff and I remember walking in for the morning meeting and the eyes in that meeting of the council or one of these council members and staff were huge very big this is a November meeting and I said what's going on they said did you hear about last night's council meeting and I said no I didn't hear about it there were a thousand slips of people who wish to speak in opposition to this this project and it was filled the chambers it was overflowing it was crazy and I remember thinking to myself boy I'm glad I'm not on that project but here we are since that day six months later we were charged we well first off before I get into that I want to thank staff um Veronica has been amazing to to put it very boldly and bluntly she's been amazing Ava and Kyle have also been very good to work with so we've had a great time working with staff but the neighbors have been exceptional and what I'd like to express a special appreciation to the neighbors and and Stacy who has been kind of leading the charge with us to work with the neighbors to try to put together a deal so back in November and I'll get into this back in November we were charged by the council to go lock ourselves in a room with the neighbors and come forward with the plan and that's what Stacy did he locked himself in the room with some of these neighbors and they worked together to try to identify the issues of concerns that the neighbors had and in identifying those things make changes to the plan to address those issues and over the many months that was done and that plan was presented somewhat to you in a study session but was also presented to staff that plan received a recommendation for a denial on last week and then we locked ourselves in a room so to speak not literally but we locked ourselves in a room with staff to try to come up with a plan to change that as well and so that's how that plan changed from last week to this week to now you have the mixed use plan for a portion of the property to where we are here today and I think for the most part we're in agreement with staff and I'll go over the the only concern that we have regarding to the project so having said that we appreciate everybody working together on this to really come to a meeting where we the last time this was it was the room was full and and there was tremendous opposition but I think there's been a tremendous amount of work uh largely uh thankful for the neighbors and Stacy putting that together and working together to try to come up with something that we can present to this body as well as the Town Council going forward and that's why we're here uh this evening with very few people here so kudos to the neighbors and Stacy on that so let's get started the project is called rant the ranch the name hasn't changed but there has been quite a bit changed and what has changed is largely contained within this 30 Acres not entirely but largely contained within this 39 Acres that were here before the Planning Commission uh this evening and we're requesting that you recommend approval of this so that we can move forward to council so that this 39 Acres can merge up like a puzzle with the larger 200 now 271 acre piece of the ranch and between the two applications the council can hear them both on the same night and vote on both of them together as this puzzle and and and move this forward or or or whatever the council so chooses to do so that's why we're here with just the 39 acre project Veronica did an excellent job of outlining what exactly we're doing so I'm not going to read this slide but she did a great job of explaining what we're requesting on this project but the whole project will have a PD overlay so when Stacy and the Neighbors First locked themselves in a room they tried to identify both from public hearing minutes notes and meetings what the primary concerns were the primary concern was the percentage of industrial the amount of open space buffer on the west side there was no really cool factor to any portion of this project no destination area they didn't want to see truck traffic going out onto Elliott Road and they did wanted to have some type of physical vertical buffer to both the neighborhood to the west and also to to the north on Elliott Road and so that was the charge and so let's talk through this this was the original plan that many of you may remember the amount of industrial was 93 with seven percent commercial and very little buffering this didn't work the next plan or old plan that went to the council in November that was the subject of the Thousand speaker cards in opposition was 80 percent industrial ten percent business part and Commercial so a lot more industrial than the neighbors were willing to accept this is the plan of we think that the neighbors well not entirely excited about it they'd love to see less industrial this is something that they were able to get their arms around and and that's the plan that we're bringing before you this evening with 71 industrial and 12 commercial the and you can see how that's broken down so let's talk about some of the specific things on the West Side almost the entire length of that project there is a large open space buffer that will be designed during the design review process for what that's all going to look like but we've we've put that into perspective it's about 12 football fields long because you this is almost going to go from Warner down to Ellet all the way to Elliott so it's a big long open space track that acts as a a distance buffer from the neighbors to the West so that was one of the components the neighbors wanted to see and here's kind of some views we put together some renderings of what that would look like you can see in the lower right hand corner where those perspective or renderings would be looked at from the Morrison Ranch subdivision and what that would look like as you're looking across the open space into the two-story multi-family that would be that first component on the west side of the development the other big component that the neighbors wanted to see in addition to the buffer was a cool destination spot they wanted something unique something different instead of just a big industrial project on 300 acres and that took some effort to try to come up with a plan that would generate not only the the density of people that you need but the also the amount of retail and restaurants and places that these people wanted to go visit they wanted a place where they could walk out of their neighborhood walk across that open space and go sit down and have dinner with their their partner their children their family their friends another couple but they wanted this cool destination area and so we tried to incorporate that into the plan through the use of both the commercial the residential and the mixed-use zoning districts and so that's largely what we're seeing here tonight is what is contained on that 39 acres is that cool destination spot and we've submitted quite a few renderings and elevations that I'm sure you have in your packet of what that area will look like and and what that concept will look like I'll show you a few of them up on the screen here tonight but you can kind of see in the lower right hand corner the red area would be coming off of Elliott Road just at about that Cactus yard intersection so if you can picture Elliott and Cactus yards Lane you'd be coming in and this is what you would see you would see restaurants on either side right in the left you'd be looking into the kind of some multi-family off to the right you would see two-story multi-family over first floor retail kind of that mixed-use Corridor where you would have some open space and really an attractive area with for the people to kind of create that restaurant destination area a restaurant District if you will and made a commitment to build a minimum amount of commercial restaurant retail area to create that that area and so that's part of the pad and the development plan and those commitments to do that as well as all the renderings you can see some of the what that area would look like again if you look at the lower right hand corner this would look straight to the South and what that area would look like to create that really cool area that people could walk to drive to and go visit something different and unique than just a traditional Industrial Development something that they would they would like to have in their our neighborhood here's another perspective a little bit further to the South and what that would look like again very attractive area and working with the neighbors here's an example of the two-story residential over the mixed-use component that we're proposing of first floor a lot of these buildings would be built with 15-foot plate for the first floor retail residential areas some of them will be true mixed use where there is is retail restaurant on the first floor with residential in the next two stories and then as Market really demands on some of the other buildings they'd still have that 15-foot plate first floor so if there was more market for restaurants or retail they could build into that area if there wasn't Market they could use it for residential and then if it the market ever changed in 10 years it could come back to that restaurant or retail as well so the flexibility is designed into the project to allow that one of the other concerns was truck traffic off of Elliott road if you remember the earlier plan had a lot of the truck traffic going to Elliott going to power and going to Warner the neighbors really wanted to preserve that Elliott Road Corridor as more of a residential feel as opposed to the commercial feel and that's why that L-shaped buffer if you will is shaped the way it is with the commercial and the and the multi-family the residential mixed use in that area so you can see and Veronica pointed this out how the truck traffic the yellow is really designed only go to go out to power there will be a traffic signal if you can see that real at this location right now is where it's being proposed obviously that will be reviewed during the site plan process and then the truck traffic would go on out here we've committed to the neighbors that there would be no truck traffic on this and that we would work to with the town to make sure that there's signage so that no trucks go west on Warner Road as well to kind of keep the trucks now the natural truck traffic is going to flow South on power directly onto the freeway and and then go where it's supposed to be going so we think that's a very reasonable request as part of this project there'll be a substantial amount of off-site improvements that would be completed with both Elliott Power and Warner Rhodes which I we think is desperately needed in this area because it's it's not as developed as it should be but this project will help facilitate that other improvements and traffic signals that we've talked about would be made at you know the cactus yards the power and Elliott that mid block that I showed you then power and Warner traffic signals now let's talk about the physical buffering as part of this design that we worked on with the neighbors you can see the industrial was pulled back 870 feet away this two-story multi-family was placed in this area restricted light industrial that's not part of this case here tonight it was put in this area but this two-story multi-family this three-story mixed-use area this General commercial this mixed-use area and then this mixed use area would go in here this would create the visual buffer for the residents they would look and they'd look through this open space but then they'd see this multi-family to physically block that view of the industrial back there but the same concept was provided along Pat or Elliott road so as you're going down Elliott you're not having any of the truck traffic going out to Elliott Road but you would also have the first layer about 300 feet of retail along Elliott road that you would also then have the second layer of development with that mixed use development at three stories up to 45 feet that would create that layer to block along Elliott road so you don't see this industrial complex it would be wrapped around to block it both physically and Visually and that was the concept behind working with the neighbors on that let's skip through that here's some renderings of what that would look through Morrison Ranch buffers from Elliott Road um you can see The General commercial that we've planned along this area is about 281 feet deep this mixed use area would be about an additional 345 feet deep so you're going to be quite a far distance off of Elliott road before you get to any of this industrial zone property with these Heights again here's some renderings of what that would look like here's some examples of that mixed-use large area and the buildings that would be planned in there again that that first floor with the two levels of residential above it potentially residential on the first floor as well some other examples of that mixed use area what that would look like so very attractive comp agreement that we've tried to put together to create really a puzzle of how this fits in now why is this all important to create this destination restaurant Zone restaurant District if you will we've all we've committed to do let me go back to the plan so I can show you we have committed to build 20 000 square feet of restaurant retail in this area 15 000 of square feet of restaurant retail in this area 12 000 square feet of restaurant retail in this area for forty seven thousand square feet of restaurant Boutique retail that's a lot that is a big commitment for a developer to try to make that work because when you say forty seven thousand that's not a big box or a grocery store that small individual restaurant retail spaces and so it's tough to kind of fill that up with Boutique shops that's a lot of retail when we went to staff they recommended denial because they wanted more and so we then offered to add an additional 15 000 square feet in this area here to take it from forty seven thousand to um 47 15 50 57 62 000 square feet which we think is a stretch it is a lot quite a bit of that Boutique retail to go in that area but we were willing to do that because we want to create this destination area and we're committed to doing that um staff and I think this is really the only point that we disagree with staff on is the interpretation of what this means and so that's why we wanted to clarify it with the commission here this evening on the condition and I can't I think it's is it P Veronica is it have I got it right P1 I think that's the correct one but the LDC requires 20 percent of the floor area within the 11 acres to be non-residential use well if you define floor area as the first floor area that would take our commitment of 15 000 up to about 22 000 square feet of additional retail so you'd have about 69 000 square feet of retail in that little area that we're talking about that's restaurant Boutique retail shops non-residential uses that's a lot in that area my understanding is Staff reads this to say the 20 percent of the floor area would be the total floor area so if you have a three-story residential structure say 294 units at an average square foot of say a thousand square feet you're about 300 000 square feet of floor of of floor area you'd have to have 20 percent of that so that would be an additional instead of an additional 20 000 that would be an additional like about 78 000 square feet of retail we think that's over saturation that's way too much and wouldn't be able to do it our concern is if we have to live with it as total floor area as opposed to ground floor area we think it would but too much of a burden of retail in the area too much Supply and it would either not be built and not create that buffer that we're trying to accomplish with the neighbors or it would be built and be vacant and and that's even worse is is to have retail shops built and be vacant I know that because for those familiar with my office is at Val Vista and Baseline at Dana Park it's a beautiful Shopping Center but I'd say 15 to 20 percent of the retail space in that shopping center has been vacant in the 15 years that I've been there we can look across the street to the same developer triple five which built where my office is across the street over here with Gilbert Town Center when you build too much retail and it just doesn't work it remains vacant and it struggles and we see that as you drive across the street here to the West with Gilbert Town Center so just designating it doesn't mean it will get built but building it in an area where there's not enough to support it is even worse because then it just becomes vacant and that becomes even more of a problem so we think we can commit to this requirement of 20 of the ground floor area with that I think we could go ahead and be supportive of the project of the conditions as they're written so we would hope that you would recommend approval of this project in our compromise with staff to have mixed use with a clarification of condition P1 with inserting the word ground and that would give us a total of almost 70 000 square feet of Boutique shop retail non-residential uses in that area we think that's plenty for a half mile retail area that's not even on an arterial arterial corner it's a half mile in so it's mid-block we think that's a ton but we're willing to give it a good effort because we think with this project and the destination that we're trying to create it could survive and we're hopeful that everybody in Morrison Ranch eats and shops and comes here quite frequently so with that and then the residential that we're proposing we think we could make it work so with that I'm sorry I took so long I'm kind of passionate about this project and working on it for about four months I think this this can work and we really want to work with continue to work with staff this board will see the site plans and the design review of each of these parcels and how they will so that this is not the last bite at the Apple that the board has or that the staff has but that will come back with the site plan applications and the drb application so with that I'd be happy to answer any questions but would request your support thank you great thank you Mr Lake any questions for Mr lake at this time no okay all right we'll go oh commissary Anderson um thank you for the presentation can you just clarify I'm looking at the college site plan there's an area called restricted restricted light industrial lipd um can you define what that is what's what's happening on that portion of the site that's restricted I'm trying to go back to that and it's not clicking sorry so oh you did that let's go back to there we go the restricted Li is not part of this application it is part of the major and what that is is it's the ili that you proposed and I know we're not supposed to talk about cases that are not before us but quickly I'll what we've done is we've restricted height and uses uh and development standards in that area to look more like Business Park and have a restricted number of uses so that feels a lot different we've also oriented the docs so that they face East and not West so that has a list of restrictions on that area Okay so the restrictive is part of the other GP zoning case not this one it's at part of the other the other case if I know that I would have asked the question okay thank you all right um I actually have one question now that you're on this slide um it just reminded me of the circulation so we'll it it appears that multi-family that's kind of mid area there um that one or this one no to the left yes that one there yeah it looks like circulation you have traffic on that um that will or could filter out to Warner Road am I incorrect there there is a possibility that that could filter out to that westernmost access on Warner Road that kind of divides our project here and the the Warner I think it's called Warner Commons industrial project here so yes this this project could access here it could access here or could access here and we would we would nail that down during the site plan process okay and and we're not at site plan at this point but I would assume that that is going to be gated of some sort in order to yeah those are okay all right that's the only question I had that came up and as you were on this screen that that was the question I had at this time so um all right we'll go to uh thank you very much thank you oh I'm sorry commissioner Johnson I I I would like to agree with a developer on revised condition P1 I think uh based on my experience with retail that goes back a couple of decades I think you're correct you can't force to have uh retail extensive retail when the market may not sustain it and you will have vacant properties which will be hard to to basically uh fill so I wanted to agree with you on that position on revised if you want thank you thank you all right thank you thank you Mr Lake um we're gonna go ahead and go to um community members comment committee comment so I'm going to go ahead I've only got a couple here which is quite a contrast from the last time we had a meeting on this so um I'll call you up you've got three minutes um and I've got uh Jennifer Wade I've got you first on the stack here so I'll give you three minutes chair Simon commission members my name is Jennifer wada and I live in the Elliott Groves subdivision of Morrison Ranch thank you for the opportunity to speak this is quite a different situation than the last time I spoke to you about the ranch project I've been a part of the small group of Morrison Ranch neighbors working with Mr Lake and the developers over the last few months to get to a plan that makes this development bearable I'm grateful to Mr Lake Mr Brimhall and the team from comana for their willingness to listen and incorporate changes not just to create a plan that passes the town process but to offer something that actually includes some benefits to the neighborhood and I think we're almost there at the April Planning Commission meeting when the ranch was discussed I heard a number of concerned comments by commission members about the multi-family portion of the plan and I'd like to like to offer some feedback from my neighbors that I've witnessed when we shared the plans with the Morrison Ranch neighborhood Facebook groups which in just our main group alone there's more than 4 500 members there were less than 100 comments and of those comments the overwhelming majority were either neutral or in many cases positive a lot of people said things like looks great or much better there were a number of positive comments about the increase in commercial and the con inclusion of restaurants and other retail places for us to go they were also thankful for the dialogue that had taken place between the developers and some of us residents of the handful of negative comments I read the majority were about the industrial portion people were worried about the amount of semi trucks the noise the truck traffic potentially going West on Warner and it was the same at the neighborhood meeting last week and while yes a few residents wanted to be reassured that the multi-family would be high-end and draw quality residents the majority of concerns were still about the industrial impact so in our experience it's the industrial more than the multi-family that has been the bigger issue with some of the residents keeping a significant non-industrial transition along Elliott Road allows us to maintain separation between the industrial growth on Power and our community and prevents truck traffic on Elliott it also gives us some actual benefits with the commercial and Retail areas yes people in Gilbert are frustrated with the amount of multi-family developments but the one thing our neighborhood hates more than Apartments is industrial that's what always has been the center of the concerns for this project the intensity of the industrial and its uses and the amount of resulting semi trucks so it is only now that there is a lot less Industrial in the plan and some retail benefits that you're not seeing the Uproar that you experienced last fall over the last few months we've had several meetings with Mr Lake Mr Brimhall and the colemana team they made some immediate initial changes and have continued to alter the plan based on ongoing feedback a number of concerns that were presented as recently as the neighborhood meeting last week have been incorporated into the current plan as a result we've seen the number of residents complaining come down significantly with the along with the reduction in the industrial and the increase in the commercial retail this process with the neighborhood is not complete yet there are some loose ends that need to be tied up in order for there to be support for this plan at the Town Council hearing but personally if the current plan is finalized approved and built it's more than I expected and has turned what was a nightmare last fall into something that we might actually get to enjoy thank you for your time all right thank you uh next up I've got Ryan handelsman you have three minutes sir thank you everybody I want to Echo pretty much Jennifer's sentiment here then and yours as well that uh six months ago I probably would have came with a pitchfork and a PowerPoint presentation in 150 reasons why I opposed the project uh as with another hundreds or thousands of people today I took a couple of notes while sitting in the back of the room as to try to articulate best uh what I wanted to say today and I think Jennifer summed it up uh very nicely and I think the word is bearable more palatable uh you know the amount of industrial that we've seen in the original proposed proposal was uh absurd and I think we echoed comment over comment over a comment that we originally felt went unheard and that we want a place that we can go and uh be a be able to support and Patron and whether it be retail or restaurant or what have you and so I don't think if you were to pull any one Morrison Ranch neighbor you'd get any one person that strongly opposes or strongly supports uh in One Direction or the other I think uh Jennifer's word was perfect it's it's it's bearable now I don't think anybody in Morrison ranch or the surrounding neighborhoods understands why we need 71 industrial or Millions upon millions of square feet and that's a question that will remain unanswered and um but like I said I I think the project as it stands now is is bearable I if it go if the plan that's presented today were to get voted on and approved I agree with Jennifer and that I look forward to being able to find a place that I can support and provide uh you know to Patron and small business and support the small businesses there I think it also should go on record and also compliment and say thank you to the council members that might not be here physically tonight but are watching but this whole entire new plan wouldn't be here today without the likes of Kathy tilkey and Al Congressman uh um uh torgenson in helping Shepherd that communication with Sean Lake and Stacy brimwell so in a nutshell I know I just uh probably said everything that Jennifer just said on repeat uh this is a much more palatable plan in our opinion and I believe that if along the way we are able to maintain and this open dialogue with the developer and communication with you and and the town and that certain stipulations are put into play to protect how the entire plan and its whole is developed and what the use cases are for the industrial is to making sure that this is a place that is safe for us and traffic is addressed and all the concerns are addressed I think this would be like I said bearable and and often supported by the majority of the neighborhood but that's on my behalf I obviously I'm not everybody in the community so thank you all right thank you and uh Stacy Brimhall I have uh thank you for your time I'm not a very good public speaker but um just wanted to say thank you to the Morrison Ranch uh neighborhood for working with us um komena and I Langley we've been partners for a long time a little over a year and a half ago we bought a really big farm in the San Tan Valley area I'm that Generation arizonan Love farming and so I was spending most of my time uh on that on a tractor and then comana called and said hey get off your tractor and come help uh and uh came and saw what was going on and and thought Oh no I want to go back to my tractor and uh um but that being said in meeting with the neighbors they were very professional very cordial very kind and willing to listen to us willing to listen to me and um willing to work with me and we made commitments early on uh both me to them that I'd keep my word in them to me that they'd keep theirs and um so I'd like I'd just like to thank um all those that have have worked so diligently on this um in the Morrison Ranch neighborhood and and the Morrison Ranch residences thank you all right thank you you well Mr Lake this is where I would typically ask you if you want to come up and address any of those concerns however it seems as though you've repressed those so or done a very good job of addressing them so with that I will bring it up to the diocese is there any conversation questions for staff or the applicant on this before I close the public hearing yeah commissioner Anderson um can we get that modified stipulation back on the board please Ashley towards the end foreign there we go so is that clearly defined in the LDC the definition of that because projects I've done in surrounding communities they kind of looked at it the same way as Mr lake has been looking at it where for multi a multi-use project it's always been a percentage of the ground floor area and not total area of the of the of the project and I'm leaning towards Mr Lake in his um reasoning for it but I know we can't override how the LDC is written so can you give us a little bit history on the actual definition and how it's interpreted in the LDC chairman commissioner in speaking with Noah month and Samantha Novotny that wrote that section of the code it was not for ground floor because mixed use doesn't have to be in one building it can be on site so that's why it was 20 percent of the total floor area not the ground floor area Okay so if Mr lake is asking for a deviation are we a lot are we able to Grant a deviation for 20 of ground because I do agree with commissioner Johnson where if we have to do 20 of total area that's going to create a lot of commercial space that potentially will never get occupied and then we just have a bunch of empty buildings and undeveloped land and that's that's that should be a concern for everybody chairman commissioner there is a pad so things outside of the Land Development code can be requested however I also want to clarify we're not saying it has to be retail or has to be commercial what we're saying is 20 non-residential okay Mr Davis well I was just going to clarify that could mean Fitness areas amenities for the multi-family that would have to be a lot of area though I mean because I agree with that I was just curious if that was into it chairman commissioner that would not include those areas unless they are open to the public out of curiosity what's the typical square footage of a Fry's Marketplace 75 000. so we're talking a space larger than that in addition to what you're already offering on the 11 acres in addition to that's a lot of space yeah I I I guess I'm my impression is is that through the pad process you can modify that's development standard and so I think the pad does give you that flexibility okay go ahead did you have something yeah I would agree with that I mean that's what pads are for you're creating your own zoning um guidelines certain Land Development code for these type of parcels um so yeah I would agree with that and if we're able to do that deviation and just base it off ground floor area I really think that would benefit everybody including the town if if we were to if we were to do it off of ground floor area of that 11 point Seven Acres whatever it is [Music] what potentially is the total of the ground floor area because then then then we the boat's the question what's the right percentage that we're looking at is 20 the right percentage that that to me of ground floor almost seems a little light if we're looking for a mixed use well if Mr lake is interpreting as 20 that's what's written in LDC let's just stick with the percentage and not goof around with those let's just narrow it down to what are we taking 20 a percentage of are we taking 20 percentage of gross building area or 20 of the ground floor area and to me that it doesn't sound like he's disputing that he just wants clarification that he can use ground floor area he's not otherwise if we do goof around the percentages then that's right we figure out what the gross area is and you can find out the equivalent of percentage so it might be you know two percent or three percent to get closer to that square footage area but you're you're in agreement of the 20 you just want to clarify that it's it's great ground floor area and based upon ground floor area and our estimate of what those buildings would be and again we haven't site planned it yet our estimate would be that it would add an additional 22 800 square feet of non-residential uses in that area in addition to the 47 000 that are on the other three sides which we think is a ton at that area at a half mile location may I apply are wanting the the LDC minimum requirement 20 of the ground of the floor area for the entire square footage is what we're trying to prevent is one single building being the mixed use you know with the ground floor non-residential use and then all other buildings within that area being straight multi-family so we're looking for the mix in more than just one building are we able to stipulate it that way that they can't put it all into one building Mr chairman commissioner Anderson it is not currently stepped that way okay but we could stipulate it up here if everyone was in agreement that is how you want to amend the condition that that is within your purview chairman and we we could add to this that must be minimum LBC requirements at least 20 percent of the ground floor area within the 11.7 and then at the end through addition or through multiple buildings or something to the effect that say we have to do it through multiple buildings could you do it of each building we've got about nine buildings there and to achieve the 22 we're going to be three to four buildings in that nine buildings the way we've kind of laid it out right now again we're going to go through the site plan process so I think when we get to the site plan we can throw the step on the site plan if if we agree to this now can we do this site when they bring the site plan back or do we need to do the stipulation on here Mr chairman the stipulation would need to be here this is the opportunity for us to get that um that assurance that that firmness with it you know with the site plan that's there there isn't an ordinance that is associated with that okay thank you yeah and I would tend to agree with staff I would support them on that to make sure that they don't put it all into one building that it does get distributed out and becomes a boutique kind of area with smaller shops and restaurants that for the residents to visit questions comments commissioner Davis I just want to add um I agree with that I think three to four buildings is fair but I also because what I'm looking at is the fact that there's a lot of commercial in this area that's approved you've got it in Mesa with Gallery parking Cannon Beach coming you've got the fry Center across the street I think it's not reasonable to expect this development to carry that much commercial and have it be viable so I guess you know having said that I think that this is a unique condition that there's so much commercial in the area that it justifies that reduction in how much commercial that they need to have here but I do agree with Savage and I'll be limited to one building I think that needs to be spread out I could see three or four I mean those front buildings but I don't know how viable it's going to be in those back buildings fair enough yeah well and I mean I have a couple of additional questions that I I would like addressed I mean and this is more probably for you Mr lake or for the applicant with regards to um and and I the opportunity to speak with you earlier today so this is kind of a follow-up to our conversation earlier um and just to bring it to light with regards to the L shape looking at this development um if if I were looking at this development with fresh eyes and and the way that it lays out and with the The General commercial already along Elliott Road and coming in and saying okay we want to put residential back here it seems like a very odd thing you did a good job earlier today of explaining to me why it is that you're looking for that and I don't know maybe for um other members of the commission or members of the community or just even to have it on record maybe you could address what you did with me with regards to why you're looking to add that additional space the L shape and why we did that well really the L-shaped the the the part along the west side was to create that Visual and physical buffer and distance buffer from the industrial and that's why you see the mixed use restrict the restricted Li and then you transition into that two-story residential and then you transition into that mixed use small area and that creates not only the green space but buildings along that West Side that creates that not only distance but the physical height separation then we took that and we wrapped it around along Elliott and did the exact same thing to push the industrial buildings back south into the site and then create a layer of commercial along Elliott because we want to preserve that commercial along Elliott as you go down which is about 300 feet wide and then the second tier in we created with with staff we compromised with staff to create that mixed use area on that second tier and what that does is create that first level of retail along Elliott and then the second tier or second level of of that mixed-use residential in that area that goes up 45 feet tall and and that screens the industrial in the back to kind of create that protected visual area along Elliott and Cactus yards and the baseball fields so that you're not seeing Stark industrial buildings as you go up and down Elliott in through this neighborhood area we're trying to protect that is that the point that I was that you wanted yes in the additional residential I think is is the other and the additional residential the one of the obviously the big issue was the light industrial and the percentage and so reducing that was a big deal for the neighbors and was was a non-negotiable quite frankly to take and so that's why we brought the percentage down to where it's at today but the other big point was they wanted this uh Resort or this restaurant District this cool destination spot to go and the really the only way you can do that is to create demand so you can provide the supply of it in economics we learned you got to have demand and if you go to Coulee station what makes Coulee station is the density around it you look at downtown Gilbert and what makes downtown Gilbert work is the density around it and so we needed to provide or add some density in this area so that you have people willing to go eat and shop at this specialty area and that's why that residential was so critical to this plan so that we could have those Warm Bodies walking to this restaurant District to eat there to shop there and if you take that away you take away a critical component to make that cool destination spot happen and in working with the neighbors they're like yeah we want this but we're struggle with the the multi-family but we really want this and and that's where it was the give and take in working with this neighborhood group to say okay we're getting a lot of what we want and we like your plan and and to have two people show up here tonight just and I'm not going to say support the word is it was palatable but they're not opposed to the project as it is presented and so we're really trying to do something unique and cool here we need the residential component to make the unique cool place build we need that residential component to screen visually because these multi-family that's gonna be 45 feet tall and that 45 feet tall can screen larger buildings in the back and so you're not going to see it so there's a lot of things that went into this puzzle to make this work and so we would hope you wouldn't just strip out our worst case scenario is is that you know we have to do a hundred thousand square feet of retail on that that mixed use large and it just never gets built and so in that then we don't have the bodies to eat at the restaurants we don't have the visual screening to to protect the The View Corridor along Elliott and we don't have any any buffer you just have a vacant lot that sits there and that to me is or worst case it gets built and it's vacant and and you gotta it'd be you got a situation across the street so that's what we don't want to happen so we think the package all fits together with the revised condition that you've discussed on on the multiple buildings we could live with that and would request your support of that sorry to ramble no that's good and the only last question that I have um and I'll throw it out to you is this open space uh by admission it's quite large is is that who's maintaining that piece of property that would be this so this will be a consolidation of this property that would be an association and associations care of it okay any other questions yeah commissioner Davis I GE portion is going back to it's going still going through Council but that did not include a site plan that was just zoning is that correct Mr chairman commissioner Davis that's correct it was just a development plan so if there are concerns and I'll get into this later but with the crosstalk facility in that location we can address that with the site plan in the future this is just about the zoning and not the site plan we're seeing okay okay thank you thank you I'm sorry I have a follow-up question to that Veronica with regards to because it is a major general plan Amendment the commission already approved it and that's why it doesn't need to come back to us for the Major General plan Amendment for that industrial and it and the council has tabled it so they're waiting to hear back on this is that correct Mr chairman that's correct if at the council hearing the council decides it needs to remember or it wants to remand back the major general plan Amendment they can but um procedurally this will move forward to Town Council in June on June 20th okay thank you any other questions or comments for staff or the applicant uh commissioner this is not for staff the Mr Sharon follow up on your point uh and and the applicant's point uh this afternoon I drove on Elliott from um Higley all the way down to power I could see it I could see the logic and the pieces coming together I can imagine the height and the mixed use and the cool restaurant area so I I'm I'm in support of the logic of how these pieces fall together because I could see it when I drove down Elliott how that would how I would do and how it would buffer the industrial areas and thank you very much Mr chairman all right thank you any other questions or comments for staff for the applicant right not hearing you we'll go ahead and close public hearing we'll bring it back up to the dice for discussion um and or emotion is there any discussion yeah Vice chairman thank you chairman just the only discussion is more of a point um that many times up here we deal with a lot of heated debates and many of those times it's because of a misunderstanding about the process and I think this is a very good Showcase of how the process can and does work it's not always perfect it's not always pretty but to be able to take individuals that are strongly opposed going up and being able to find Common Ground I think is a testament to not only the staff but the individuals throughout the town of Gilbert and I also would like to say that even when it was as heated as it could be it was always very civil and there's not a lot of communities that can say that so I just wanted to make that point that I think this project has come a long way and uh I'm impressed thank you who said yeah Christopher Davis I'll give my thoughts on this I agree um with Vice chairman that was this has certainly been a difficult one um my I think it was my second meeting on this commission when we had that very long night and I was not one of the people that supported it moving forward and my issue was the buffering between the residential and the industrial and I didn't think that that was being provided in the plan that we had in front of us I was hoping Council would address that and take a look at those things and they've done that and it's back here before us with that you know way better buffer and I do appreciate all that's happened between the neighbors and the property owners and developers to get it to this point my concern back in October was the buffering to residential now we're introducing multi-family still residential my concerns are related to the buffering also for that multi-family component so I think on the west side of the property where that's coming you've got the ends of those buildings and you've got that parking area you've got I realize we're not going to have where this is not the final site plan but it gives me some comfort that we've got some buffering to the multi-family I don't want to create a situation where we have a multi-family development that's not very livable that's not you know you're listening to the beeping of people of the vehicles backing up and you're seeing a bunch of storage areas out your third floor window into those areas even if it is off to the side it's not creating a great environment so those are the things that I'll be looking for when the site plans come back I absolutely don't support those mixed use the mixed use large along Elliott having that crosstalk right there I'd much rather see buildings that are more like what's out along Power Road maybe with the the storage areas in the rear a way you know focused away from there so those will be the things that I'd be looking for as far as site plan when it comes in in the future but I do really appreciate that it is super unusual that we have people requesting for there to be multi-family coming in there I like the idea of the mixed use I think that's could really create something cool the elevations are beautiful the renderings um I think it could be a really nice contribution but again when you're designing those site plans I really think you have to pay close attention to those buffers and how you design that industrial and what buildings end up right next to those industrial areas because or what buildings are next to the residential because I just don't think it's good to put a crosstalk facility that close to residential whether it's multi-family or single family so I think we have to think about those people that live in our town as well and so that's what I'll be looking for I guess that's all I've got all right thank you any other comments discussion uh Julian mcmuffs you have comments I was going to make a motion all right let me throw my comments out quick you still have some all right turn my red off thank you um so I I would like to Echo what's been set up here I um like commissioner Davis was one of the um oppositions to the original plan and not because I don't think that the light industrial is needed because I think it's very much needed in the community but I was concerned with some of the buffering and and with all of the commentary from the neighbors I thought that we needed to at least take a look I am um I'm pleased where it's at um I do have some concerns I will look um to the site plan similar to commissioner Davis I'm very concerned with regards to the crosstalk that buffers up against that mixed use I think that it's a really important especially if I think I think that I saw in the staff report that at the community meeting the the price of 200 to 250 a square foot was thrown out for these apartments um 800 square foot apartment that's sixteen hundred dollars that's more than my mortgage um that's a lot for a one bedroom apartment or a loft apartment and and if we're going to be building luxury apartment complexes in the town of Gilbert um or high-end or however you want to State it we need to make sure that we're maintaining the quality of living and I don't think backed up against the crosstalk whether it's a single-family home or an apartment complex is quality of living um in that situation so I'll be looking to that just to see how that comes out and how that that final plan looks um I would definitely be in favor of a stipulation of 20 of the ground floor area on that 11.7 Acres I think that that's reasonable I have some pretty heavy concerns with all of The General commercial that we've got in this area and whether or not retail will be able to sustain it not just on this pad that's being proposed but the other pads that are already there and under development in some form or fashion so I'd hate to see empty and vacant rather than viable and so I I would be in favor of that stipulation I would have loved to seen um some smaller Flex industrial I think that we're missing some of that product here in the town of Gilbert however I know that that was not proposed here it would have just been nice to see some of that and I think that that might have been missed or a missed opportunity on this lot that being said um I'm very much in favor with where this project is now um like I said I was opposed to it originally just because I thought there needed to be some work and I am very pleased with where it's come and provided it comes to fruition I'll enjoy visiting the area so with that unless there's any of the comment commissioner Anderson uh just to jump onto that condition uh for the 20 just want to make sure that it's clear that you know like you said is 20 of the ground floor area but we also want to make sure that we condition that it gets spread all over numerous buildings not the one so question for staff does that condition go to the I'm assuming that condition gets attached to the staff conditions now of the zoning case and not the general plan so we'll just throw it on General plan as is and then when we get the zoning that's when we add that condition yes chairman and commissioner okay thank you thank you for that clarification all right unless there's any other comment um or discussion that needs to be had I will entertain a motion first on the general plan GP 23-12 residents at the ranch chairman I'd like to make a motion to approve number 15 GP 23-12 residence is at the ranch I have a motion to approve by the Vice chair do I have a second second all right go ahead and cast your vote and the motion carries five one all right and do I have a motion uh a motion to approve uh item 16 C 23-04 residents at the ranch or a motion excuse me chairman I'd like to make a motion to approve item number 16 z23-04 residences at the ranch with the stipulation that in stipulation P we insert that the floor is ground floor area and also an additional stipulation at the end that it's multiple buildings all right I have a motion to approve by the Vice chair including stipulations do I have a second second motion second from commissioner Johnson please cast your vote and that motion also carries five one all right chairman yes may I ask you to State who voted in the one just for the minute taker yes so the motion carried 5-1 with commissioner Faye in The Descent on both those two motions okay thank you very much for coming out we really appreciate it um obviously Community involvement is extremely important so moving on to administrative items administrative items are for commission discussion and action at this uh 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 items should complete a public comment form indicating the item number on which you wish to address the commission the commission may or may not accept public comment and I don't see any public comments on any administrative items um no let's go move on the Planning Commission minutes um were in your packet uh consider approval of minutes for study session do I have a motion to approve for April 5th it's all moved I have a motion from commissioner Johnson to approve the meeting minutes for uh April 5th do I have a second from commissioner Davis please cast your vote and that motion carries chairman I think okay it came up I thought there was a missed vote I was going to say okay um we do not have executive session tonight we'll move on to a report from the chairman and members of commission I have nothing to report anybody have anything no all right we'll jump and then uh Ava we'll go to you thank you chair I just wanted to thank staff for all their presentations tonight and especially platter Sal de Santo I believe it was his first time presenting awesome thank you and Sal will expect many many more before you decide to leave to go someplace else [Laughter] we'll get you all trained up so um all right with that we'll go ahead and adjourn our meeting thank you all very much and we will see you uh sometime in June June 7th oh that's right we have a Board of adjustments meeting on May 24th 5 PM oh