No, >> we we >> Ashley, did did I hear what you say we were waiting or we should I'd kick it off? I thought I heard 520, but >> No, we're ready to get going. >> I invented that in my own mind. Very good. Luckily, that's not on the record because we still haven't gotten on to uh kick off the meeting. So, I will call this meeting to order then. Welcome all to the study session. All right. And the first item on the study session this evening is DR25-135 Gilbert Regional Park phase 2 and three. And Miss Abby All right. Good evening, chair and commissioners. Tonight we are discussing DR25-135, the site plan and elevations for Gilbert Regional Park phase 2 and three. This project is in its very first stages and still within the first review cycle. The purpose of tonight's discussion is to gather preliminary feedback on the site and elevations. If I can get the I think I'm using the wrong thing. Perfect. Here we go. All right. Um, the site is generally located at the southwest corner of Queen Creek and Higgley Roads and is zoned public facilities/institutional. The project consists of the remaining 220 acres of the total 258 acre Gilbert Regional Park. Phases two and three include ball fields, multi-use fields, fitness areas, a skate park, a dog park, nature areas, play areas, restrooms, a flex space building, a maintenance/coworking building, and 1,784 new parking spaces. The site is broken into seven zones, and the first shown here are A and B. Zone A is part of phase three and includes the flex house building, multi-use fields, a restroom, and romadas. Zone B is part of phase two and is slated to be the first zone to open. It includes the maintenance building, various shade structures, restrooms, a concession stand, and ball fields. Zone C is part of phase three and includes a climbing structure, multi-use fields, a restroom, and romadas. Zone D is part of phase 2 and includes a bike park, skate park, and romadas. Zone E is part of phase 2 and includes playgrounds, romadas, and a restroom. Zone F is part of phase two and includes a dog park, restroom, and shade structures. The final zone G is part of phase two and includes retention basins, and a disc golf course. The project has 47% landscape coverage total. Some of the trees include but are not limited to mga willow acacia, bubba desert willow, ironwood, blue palo verde, phoenix thornless mosquite, and tepu trees. While Street View did not provide the best examples of the existing restrooms found in phase 1, you can see the similar theme of an angled roof with pops of color was brought into phases two and three. Next, we have the existing um amphitheater found in phase one of Gilbert Regional Park. It has an angular somewhat monolithic design and you can see between the existing site photos and provo proposed elevations on the bottom. This same design has been carried over into phases two and three. The flex house is a 26,800 ft 41 ft tall building which will act as a multi-purpose space. While the idea is cohesive with the existing and proposed angular theme of the buildings found on site, staff is concerned about the overall design. From the elevations, we can see the building rests upon 10-ft stilts and a 16 ft high CMU block. Staff is unsure why the building is being raised or what the plans are for the space underneath. There are also only two sets of double doors on the west elevation which do not convey a sense of entry or welcome. The building also does not have any windows. The bulk of wall materials used are metal wall panels. The maintenance building and co-working space is a 14,640 ft building. It includes internal maintenance parking, a fuel station, dumpsters, storage, wash bays, and service bays. The office portion of the building includes private offices, cubicles, conference rooms, and restrooms. The building is located west of Higgley Road off the main entry on Champions Way. As seen on the flex house, this elevation is also a majority of metal wall panels. Staff is concern concerned with the usage of metal as a primary material and the dark color scheme. Although this site is zone public facility and institutional, staff has made it policy to ensure no buildings in the commercial or industrial zones utilize metal as a primary wall pane material. Staff does not feel this building is as cohesive to the rest of Gilbert Regional Park as it potentially could be. At this time, staff is seeking general feedback on the overall site and flex housemaintenance building elevations. >> Okay, thank you very much. Who wants to kick off some questions or input here for Abby? >> Commissioner Anderson, please. Thank you. >> Uh, thank you for the presentation. Um, the questions I have is it sounds like staff's not too thrilled with the architecture and design of the buildings. So, who's directing the architect on the design from the town's level? I mean, should not whoever that is, are they not telling them kind of, hey, this is like have a typical client architect relationship where architect designs something, presents it to the client. Sounds like you guys don't like what you're being shown. Give feedback, goes back to the architect, they come up with another design. Like, how's this process working? like it it seems like that's not connecting to me right now. >> Thank you chair and commissioner. The project is still within its first review and comments have not been made. So we brought it to forward to study session for preliminary feedback um and try and get some guidance on these elevations. >> So let me ask it this way. So this design process probably started months maybe a year ago. So this isn't the first time you guys are seeing this and you're kind of giving the impression as though you are. So, in from your presentation, it sounds like staff's just not pleased with the design. So, if staff's not pleased with the design, is that safe to assume that whoever the architect is working in with it with the town that that person's not pleased or is that person directing the architect for this? I I guess I'm a little confused as to what's being presented. How did we get to this point if staff's not pleased with what they're seeing? Um, I mean, personally, I I think, you know, it's kind of cool looking. Um, you know, the first building is show looks kind of like uh I I kind of agree that one I'm not too crazy about. It looks like they're trying to be Frank Gary like with it. Um, if if you're familiar with that architect, I'm not a really big fan of him. Um, but the other building, what was the other structure you were showing? That one there. I get Stout's point like you just don't want metal as a primary material on the building. I mean, I think it's a cool looking building and I think, you know, it would look the metal would actually look really cool on it, but if staff's not happy with it, like who's directing them to get to this point? >> Abby, if if you don't mind, I'll I'll jump in. So, um the town has been engaged with this project for, as you as you mentioned, for quite some time. Um having bi-weekly meetings with the development team. we have been um participating in that process but it's been largely you know kind of high level amenities at the park. Um this is the first time that we've gotten this level of detail to review from a planning perspective. Um and and so our our role in that review is ensuring that it is consistent with our design guidelines where um you know kind of prior to the design review submitt. It's been a lot of conceptual discussions um and so we want to make sure that as it moves forward we gain input from from planning commission as well um to kind of align with our our typical comments from a planning perspective. um because we have not participated um in review of this building through those design meetings. It's it there is a large team at the town. Um but this is the first time planning has kind of seen this level of of detail. >> Okay. So is planning not is is there nobody representative of planning um within these design meetings between the town and the architect? >> So we attend those meetings when we're able to. Um, >> okay. Well, I know how busy you guys, you know, your schedule. So, um, I know. Okay. Um, yeah. Well, that's that's my two cents on this and, you know, I'll back whatever you guys I mean, at the end of the day, it's it's your guys's project that you're bringing to the town. Uh, so whatever design decisions you feel are needed, I'll back that. Thank you. >> Thank you, Commissioner Anderson. Anybody else? >> Yes, please. >> Vice Chair, take it away. I >> I kind of held back because I thought Commissioner Anderson is is usually very insightful and goes into aesthetics that I don't understand, but he went right down the path that I was going to. This item that Abby, you did real well. I don't want to take this as a but it seems like this item is primarily a internal communications issue within the staff. I mean, not just planning staff, but the rest of the staff. it it doesn't seem like we we are a legitimate body to solve a a disagreement if staff and and an applicant feel differently. But it if there's a disagreement within staff, that's a city manager issue, I think. And and so if if there is disagreement between the departments, I would I would hope that that would be resolved at the city manager level and brought here when when staff is of a of a mind. Um, so I'm I'm not actually sure where to I I'm supportive of staff, but I'm not even sure really what I think I think I'm hearing what planning staff wants, which is different than maybe what engineering or CIP staff want. And it it sounds like that's kind of hanging out there. >> Uh, Chairman, uh, Commissioner Fay, if I might, I don't know that there's necessarily a disagreement among staff. I think um we have uh you know this is our opportunity to provide some um planning feedback on the design how it complies with our codes. Uh this is this is typically how how projects come through our process. They're kind of developed by the users of that space and then they come through planning and we do our review and then we bring it um before our planning commission and design review board for for feedback to see if we're kind of hitting the mark from a community perspective. So, um I would I would still ask that commission provide um you know typical feedback as if this was uh you know any any project um that we're seeking your input on. >> I the part I think might either I haven't seen it or it isn't the process. We've seen this come through this process before. What I we haven't seen is it come through this process and staff is not in agreement with each other. I either that hasn't happened or this is new. Well, and it might help too if I kind of if I kind of back up and give you a little bit more um perspective and and Abby shared from the be from the beginning that this is very early in our review. We are still within first review. So, we haven't had that that really back and forth with the applicant, but they were eager to hear some feedback um from our planning commission through a study session. >> But in a way, you're the applicant. You're not only just the plan reviewer, you're also the applicant is kind of how I'm looking at it, too. So, it just seems like as the applicant, you're the client. And it doesn't seem like there's been the way the project is presented right now, it doesn't seem like you guys were treated as a client, I guess. You know, it sounds like what's being presented is not what the town wants is kind of how I'm seeing things right now. Yeah. So it's like a different situation compared to like other planning cases that we see. Yeah. So >> sounds a lot like a hair club for men where he's client but he also owns it. >> Okay. >> Anyone else have any comments that they would like um to share? Commissioner Davis. >> Thank you, Chair. Um I just want to add that um I agree with staff that those two buildings could use a little more. I think it's important for the town to set a standard of excellence for buildings. Um, if we're expecting this of the development community, I think it's fair to put those same requirements on ourselves and make sure that the town is, you know, building something that contributes to the whole community. So, I agree with you that those buildings could use a little bit more. So, that's all I have. >> Thank you, chair and commissioner. >> Thank you. Anyone else? Commissioner Lion. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would just like to agree with Commissioner Davis. Um I think there's they both could use a little bit more work, particularly the one without any windows. I think it's a little stark and not sure like the staff was mentioning what they plan to do that with that space under it because they'd probably have to gate it off so people don't go under there. It's kind of an odd shape, but I if if there's any um reasoning that the architect gave for this or if there's a particular vision that they had, it might be helpful for us to understand, but right now without that vision, I'm not really understanding how this fits um for Gilbert. Um also something that staff mentioned, the metal walls. I don't know about you guys, but if you've ever been around metal when it's 115 degrees outside and it's going to be a very hot building and um probably not the best choice for a majority of the material on building. Maybe some accents, but might be something they want to take another look at. Thank you. >> Thank you, Commissioner. Any other comments or questions? Okay. Well, um, outside of some of the, I guess, procedural issues that have come up, the building does look kind of bleak. Um, I don't know if that's by design, if that's hip or something. Um, I'm not really, um, I'm an engineer, so it's hard for me to make any real distinction of what's cool or not. Um, and I think is the building the primary I guess objected piece on this? Like is there comments as it relates to the layout of the retention or anything else or is the town okay with that? Like the general layout of it? >> Thank you, Chair. At this point, the town doesn't have concerns with the layout. It's just mostly the elevations of this building specifically. Okay. Yeah. So, from from my perspective, I think this building could use some work and could, you know, it's going to likely be a very um visual uh representation of that park that is a major showcase for the town. So, I think there's some work we can do and I would agree with that. So, all right. Hopefully that helps, Abby. >> It does. Thank you, chair and commissioners. >> Thank you. Okay, moving right along into DR25100, Harvest Grove Commercial, and the one and only Keith Newman. >> Excuse me, chair. I need to recuse myself. >> Yes, we have a recusal. >> Thank you very much, Commissioner. Uh, Chairman Munt, members of the commission, good evening. Um, so as you stated, um, my case for study session tonight is for the Harvest Grove commercial project. So, the Harvest Grove uh the commercial one of the commercial components of of Harvest Grove, it's highlighted here in red on this site, is at that far northwest corner of the overall 311 or so acre master plan. I'll show you the development plan here in a second, but this site is about 26 over 27 and a half net acres. Um, and like I stated as part of that overall master plan, the Harvest Grove that is still going through the general plan and resoning process. Um, we have a a hearing coming up for that. So that and in middle of December here in a couple weeks. So that resoning has not and general plan amendment have not yet been um uh finally considered by our town council. this project um which is the design review. The applicant obviously has submitted this design review case at risk um if the Harvest Grove overall development does not get approved and I know it's stated in your staff report um uh then this uh project would would not move forward this design review case. So today we're just bringing this before you to get some feedback on the on the design of the site and and the um architectural design of of of the some of the elevations. So I already stated what the request is. Um show you the master plan here, the site plan for this development. Um 27 and a half or so acres. The site which is located at that souththeast corner of Germaine and Val Vista Drive um will have 163,000 square ft of commercial/ retail space. And I have a breakdown in this table of all the different um sizes of all the different buildings. You have the Fry Marketplace. It's about 100,000 square feet will be the anchor to this development. Um, with that Fries Marketplace, there is a um little gas station. There's a gas station component uh with a gas canopy with 16 pumps. They will have the typical uh little a convenience store associated with that gas station about,00 square ft convenience store and that's all to the north there right along Germaine Road. Um, in addition to the Fry Marketplace, um, there will be about 74,000 square feet of shops and pads, there's a total of 11 shops or pad building sites. Uh, those are spread out along Germaine Road and along Val Vista Drive. You can see all those on the site plan. They all range in they range in size from as large as um 12,600 square ft all the way down to a little over 2,000 square ft. So you have some of the shops are already there's a few of them or not the shops but some of the pads are already leased. It looks like two of them are leased. There is a there is a bank and I believe there's a car wash we um also that may have a lease agreement already signed. I'm I'm not sure on that, but I know the bank does. Mountain America Credit Union, um or a commitment at least. Um obviously, um these other pads, they're still uh my understanding is trying to secure tenants for these other pads. Um the elevation designs that you have in the packet show the elevations for for some of these buildings, for the shops, buildings, shops A, B, C, and D. There are designs for those. Um we have the uh designs for um uh the Mountain America Credit Union building and of course the fries. So those are the designs we have at this time. Um this is a part of a master site plan approval as part of the DR case. So those site plans, those designs of the pad sites that we don't have elevations for in the packet moving for today and moving forward, those will have to come in later for their own design review case. If they're less than 5,000 square feet, the building, they can do an admin design review. If not, they will have to come back before you as a planning commission for approval. Um the overall site design, um we're going to stay on this slide. um shows the fries towards the back towards the east side. You have some residential that is proposed to the south of that and there's also some residential proposed to the east. As I stated a minute ago, you the shops designs are all up along the roadway frontages. There are quite a few entrances. There's um two entrances along Germaine Road. There are three two ent three entrances along Val Vista Drive actually one two two on Val Vista. There is an entrance off a few entrances off of Rome Street as well. So the site has ample access. Um very large site. Um so as far as um the design of the buildings is concern. Oh sorry landscaping is concerned. I wanted to show you the landscaping and the open space plan. Landscaping a lot of the landscape a lot of landscaping will be up along the roadway frontages. Um I know that the landscape plan has been included in your packet and of course in the parking areas and as many open space areas as possible. There is 15 a.5% of landscaping on the site and I can really show you that even better where those lo those are located on this open space plan. The minimum standard for landscaping is 15% so they are just a little bit above the minimum requirement uh from a landscaping perspective. Um before we move on to the building elevations, I do I do want to note that um as part of the process staff as the o of the overall master plan, staff has been reviewing and analyzing a traffic impact analysis which this site as part of that overall traffic impact analysis for the whole master site for the whole 311 acres. We do not have an approved traffic impact analysis as of today. Um, so I wanted to let you know that we're still working on that with the applicant and their engineering team. Um, Rome Street, which is the street to the east, um, there will be some changes to Rome Street that they are proposing. So that's something that will be also analyzed in the in the TIA, but I just wanted traffic engineering team wanted me to bring up that the TIA has not yet been approved for this site and for the whole master development and that is all in progress. building elevations. So, these are some of the shops buildings. You have shops A and the design theme of these all of these buildings. We've worked really hard with the applicant and we appreciate all their efforts. Um, the theme of this development is is a more agrarian style of of architectural design. So you can see the pitched roofs, the gable roofs. The building materials um consist of things like standing seam metal for the roofing and for the canopies. You have various styles of block or brick. Um there's board and batten sighting. You have board and batten metal sighting and you also there's some board and batten wood type siding as well. um various um um tones and colors of different bricks and and and um finishes of brick as well. Um but the biggest thing is is the roof roof lines and the roof designs. There's various styles and types of those designs, flat roofing and pitch roofing. So um these buildings um like this shop's building, you can see um how this would look agrarian. um kind of a more modern a little bit modern uh um a little bit of modern theme to it as well. So I'm just going to go through these. Here's the shops a building. These are right up along Val Vista and Germaine right at that corner. So here's another one of those buildings. And this one's kind of unique. It's got this really cool gable type canopy structure that you can see kind of on the south and really show it to you on the west there. So that's that's pretty unique. And then the north elevation will face the street frontage. And these buildings are pushed right up against the street. So you can see a lot of the the agrarian theming that has been designed into this building. And then here's another shops building. Similar but different. Still different. and then the shops DB building. So you can see all the materials and the roof lines and the form of of these buildings are all related to each other. Not identical, but related. And and you can see how that that agrarian theme ties into one building to the next. Here's the Mountain America Credit Union building. So this one has a little bit of a different type of roof design, but you still have a lot of the same building materials and colors, which are similar to these colors. You have a lot of earthy tones. This one has some light green, but you have some some uh kind of like reddish color for some of the brick and some black light black colors and some white. So, this kind of carries through on this Mountain America building as well. A lot of windows in this building, too. So, the next is the Fry Marketplace. Um, we've had quite a a few meetings with the um the architect for Fry Marketplace and the developer to kind of um fi uh fine-tune this building. Um, we're really appreciative of them for working with us on this building. You see this is the north elevation and you can see the agrarian theming in this building. You have the gable roofing. you have kind of a barn door effect on some of the sliding doors um on some of the doors and especially for the area where they keep all the grills and stuff which is kind of you can kind of see it below the where it says sign. So that's kind of that area there and then you have a really cool gable looking canopy on the north side of the building over where that's where you would pick up like your pharmacy. It's like the drive-thru for the pharmacy. And then it's you can't really tell on this design and on these graphics, but you have varying materials. You have some brick, different different finishes of brick and different colors of brick. And then the whitish gray light white color is a board and batten actually board and batton wood siding versus metal siding that's on some of the shops. So these are the and then standing seam metal for the main canopies over the entryways and in the center of the building. Um so um this is the north it's kind of the top image is the north elevation and then the bottom image shows it a little more in perspective and you can kind of see the rear elevation which is on the east side of the building kind of at the same time. So one thing in your packet that I mentioned at the very end is that we wanted to get a little bit of feedback from you on the design of the north, the east and the south elevations. The north elevation faces Germaine Road. The east elevation faces Rome Street and Future Residential. And the south elevation faces Future Residential. They do provide some some varying materials and and parapit wall heights and some canopies and things, but we wanted to get your input on the design. Um, we are about ready to release second review comments and we're going to have a few comments on there asking the applicant to to kind of add a little more articulation on some of these elevations, maybe carry some of the materials from the front of the building to at least that north elevation which faces Germaine Road and then also the rear elevation which is the east elevation. Um, we're going to work with the applicant the best we can to try and make that a little bit more uh attractive facing residential and and I'll show you that. So, this is this is kind of the the east and the south elevations. So, since these do face residential, we'd kind of like them to to try and spruce these up just a little bit more and we would like your input on on how you think that could be done. We have some ideas, but um it would be great to hear your feedback as well. So that's basically Fry Marketplace. Um, okay, I forgot there's the loading dock. Loading dock is screened by a 14t tall wall on the east side. So that is it. That concludes my presentation. And again, um, design of Fry Marketplace on those north, east, and south elevations. We'd love your input. And then also the overall design of the site. get your thoughts on on that design and I'm open for any questions if you have any. Thank you. >> Thank you kindly, Mr. Keith. Who would like to uh open up some questioning? Commissioner Wong. >> Thank you, Chair. Um thank you for the presentation, Keith. It uh this is part of the the big um master plan and still under review or approval process through the town council level. And also the traffic study has not been approved. So I guess can you help me to understand a little bit better the process of we going through this uh case while subject to maybe change depends on the master plan and the traffic study. Is that correct? >> Yes. Um chair m um commissioner commissioner Hang correct. Um, this is part of the overall master plan, part of that that overall reasonzoning case that's still not finalized. Um, and yes, there the TIA is still in progress. Uh, still in process as far as approval is is as it uh of the overall it's going to be approved in conjunction with the overall master plan. the design of this shopping center and the design review case the applicant decided to submit at risk knowing that there's a potential for the overall reasonzoning project to not either a not be approved or not go through or not happen. So that's at their risk and they decided to take that risk and we allow that. Um the design of the shopping center is not going to change from from um from now until the potential approval of the overall master plan. Some of the overall master plan uh design is is potentially going to be changing but this shopping center will not be changing. The design will be as proposed. So if that overall master plan gets approved, the overall zone change for the whole 311 acres, um this applicant will move forward a couple month or two after that and come back before you. But we're not expecting any changes from this design that you see in front of you today. But we just wanted to get this in front of you to to introduce the pro this commercial shopping center to you so that if and when the zone change does get approved that they can move forward pretty quickly. >> Right. >> I hope I hope that all makes sense and I hope I did a good job answering your question. >> It does. But but what it um it so we talked about you know all this access through that uh master plan. We have a lot of discussion about Rome Street >> uh versus Colorado and and without you know clear where we are. Are we fixing that central corridor? Because one of the uh requests you're asking is the back of that Fry building. What's that look? So if that is a main corridor with all the resident going through that would be one thing. But if that potentially move not having that central corridor then you know we don't we don't have that much of say what does the back look like. So that's what I'm trying to get gauge where we are with that uh you know master plan and also the traffic study because again depends on where the traffic stud are they required to modify the signal are they required to have because I see a lot of uh medium break on Vesta at least two I think >> and in a relatively short distance so that is that that's something that part of this uh feedback that are you guys seeking or >> um chairman commissioner hang so we are still working with the applicant on the design of the the residential component of the master of the overall development Rome street is not going that center spine is still going to it's still going to be there changing the location of Rome Street they're not changing any of the medians or median brakes along Val Vista or any of the potential traffic signal locations There's a proposed traffic potential traffic signal at Germaine in Rome. That's not going to my knowledge that's not going to change. But that center spine road, everything you see on this site plan right now will not be changing. That spine road will still be there in the exact same spot. >> Okay. So, it sounds to me the primary uh parameter it's going to be fixed. All you're asking is, you know, the look, you know, architectural. Okay. All right, that's clear to me. Thank you. >> That is correct. You're welcome, >> Commissioner Davis. Please. >> Thank you, Chair. Um, thank you, Keith. Um, I'll start with the site design. Um, I don't have any significant issues with that. I do appreciate that at the arterial corner, we have shops and not a drive-thru. So, that's a really good thing. Um, I think that with Rome going through there, um, Fry has done some, you know, nice buildings recently, um, in the town and I think this one has is off to a good start. Um, but I do think it needs a lot more, particularly on that the north and the east. You're coming down Rome Street, you're going to see so much of that building and there is nothing that doesn't look like a back of a building that has a few things to dress it up. I think it needs to go probably further than other stores that don't have that visibility coming in on Rome. That's a a significant entry into their neighborhood. I would think they would want that to be, you know, dressed up so that it has a better appearance and presence to Rome. Um, also there's not a lot of landscaping buffering it. So, it really is going to be a harsh environment and not pleasing when you enter. And it's pretty close to that entrance. So, I do think that they need to take a look at that. Um, in the packet, we have a design inspiration example in there. And I think what I see there is a lot of warmth with a lot of wood tones and things. So, it's pretty simple. And I'm okay with simple, but I think that it doesn't have the warmth that the rest of the buildings in the center have. Um, and I get they may want to stand out a little bit, but maybe they bring in some of those wood tones and things to kind of warm it up and, you know, step up the design and make it something great because it's a big building. So, um, I think that is all I've got. So, appreciate it. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. No drainage. No. Okay. Yeah, I think uh you know, from what I can tell, the site plan looks good and I like the look of the fries building and I think I would agree that they've done a lot of good work in the recent uh history. So, um no major comments for me, Keith. Oh, Commissioner Line, do you have something, please? Sorry. >> Could I just add one thing really quick, Mr. Chair? Um I know Keith, I've mentioned this a couple times. I'm really big on the selection of trees that are planted in um different >> Commissioner L. Sorry to interrupt. Can Can you I can't really hear you very well. >> Kind of speak up just a little bit, please. Thank you. >> Um I think I mentioned a couple times to you that I'm really big on selecting trees that people are going to thank us for 10 years, 20 years down the line. I see there's 173 palverity trees. I feel like that's a lot of pala trees and nobody's particularly fond of them. And I know that they are the state tree, and I don't mean to disrespect the state tree, but if we could maybe get a little bit more of red push or um evergreen elms mixed in there. I just feel like that's a lot of those little yellow things all over everyone's car. So, um and something with a little bit more shade because those don't really provide much shade. Thank >> Anderson. Go ahead. >> Uh Keith, thank you for the presentation. Just a quick question for you. Looking at the site plan, um in the top left corner of where the fries is in the parking lot, that's where all the EV charges are. Uh one, there's quite a few of them there. What's your thoughts on like the distance of that to the building itself? So, as you know, I mean, just just a ton of EV cars out there these days and say you're going to fry, you want to plug in, uh to have them all kind of coralled in that one corner. Um what's your thoughts on maybe taking a few of those and moving them closer to the building? >> Um Chair Munt, uh Commissioner Anderson, um that's a good observation to be honest. I we I haven't even uh um thought about that uh at all. I knew that they were there, but uh haven't put a lot of thought in as far as the distance from uh those spaces um in relationship to the buildings. So that's something we're not done with this second review yet, so maybe that's something we take a a harder look at. >> Yeah, I think I think that'd be great. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you, Commissioner Anderson. >> Just Commissioner >> Wang. Yes. >> Um since Rome Street going to be there and it going to be one of those uh main entrance going to the residential. Um I I would I would suggest and like to see more shielding from the back of the building of that fries cuz you know nobody want to go home and see a bunch of uh deliver trucks and you know in the back. So maybe some landscape or dress it up in the back. Um just some comments. So >> thank you. Yes, this building does have quite a bit of street frontage, more than most most um fries uh buildings do or or large grocery stores. So, appreciate the comments. >> Very good. All right. Well, I think we're all set then, Keith, unless you need anything else. >> That's it. I think I think we've got it. Thank you very much. I appreciate your your comments and your feedback. >> All right. Moving right along. We have a discussion of the regular meeting agenda. Everybody's favorite part. So as it stands currently we have a consent calendar that consists of item 8 n which is being continued and 10. Um does it >> did you say consent or non-conent? >> Oh I said consent but then I read non-consent. So thank you for the clarification. So the consent happens to be empty non-consent rather consists of eight nine which is being continued and 10. Um, and I don't know. I assume I don't have any comments, but I think they all need to stay. Does anyone else have any thoughts on trying to move anything onto the currently barren consent calendar? No. >> They continued, but it's not worth doing. >> No, it's easier to open it and vote because they'll probably legally want us to do that anyway. So, okay. Everything remains as is then. No exciting action. So that will uh with that we will adjourn the study session and uh we will see everyone back for a fun and exciting 6:00 start to our regular meeting. Thank you. Woohoo. Alrighty then without further ado I'd like to call to order the regular meeting here and first call of the business here will be the pledge of allegiance. Joe, please join me. All right. Thank you. And with that, Ashley, could we please get a roll call? >> Commissioner Wong >> here. >> Commissioner Lion >> here. >> Commissioner Gage >> here. Commissioner Davis >> here. Commissioner Anderson >> here. >> Vice Chair Fay >> here. >> And Chairman Munt >> present. >> We have a quorum. >> Thank you very much. Okay, discussion and approval of agenda. Um I believe we are just leaving the agenda as is. Um so >> I don't think we have to do anything. >> I don't think we do anything. Yeah, as long as there's no changes. So I'll just move right along then. Communications. Uh item six, communications from citizens. At this point, members of the public may comment on matters within the jurisdiction of the planning commission. The commission may not discuss items that are not specifically identified on the agenda. Therefore, pursuant to state law, action taken as a result of public comment will be limited to directing staff to study the matter, responding to any criticism or scheduling that matter for further consideration. I do not have any cards for individuals who wish to speak outside of the agenda items. Is there anyone here that wanted to speak on something not on the agenda? Okay. Very good. Then with that, I will move to item number seven, the report from the council leazison on current events. And uh council member Lions, >> just want to uh encourage everybody to enjoy the holidays. Uh we ask you to be safe and be mindful of uh traffic around town. You notice there's a lot of people walking around looking at their phones while they're doing shopping, trying to navigate, and our police department is doing their best to raise awareness. So I just encourage everybody to enjoy the holidays, be careful, be kind to others. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. Okay, this will take us directly into the meat and potatoes of the public hearing consent. And given that there is no public hearing consent, I won't belabor us all with the reading of everything that goes into the consent. And I will move us directly into 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 a separate motion. During the public hearings, anyone wishing to comment in support or in opposition to a public hearing item may do so. If you wish to comment on a public hearing item, you must fill out a public comment form indicating the item number on which you wish to be heard. Once the hearing is closed, there will be no further public comment unless requested by a member of the commission. On to number eight, we have S25-05NWC of Lindseay and Elliot- pre-plat amendment and Mr. Salanto. Good evening, chair and commissioners. Salato, planner 2. The application that we'll be taking a look at tonight is for S22-01- A or S25-05, which is the northwest corner of Lindsay and Elliot pre-plat amendment. Just to provide a little bit of context to the subject site, the property outlined in blue is the proposed subject site and is roughly 3.63 acres. Uh the subject site is for the development of a 10 lot single family uh residential subdivision which is currently under construction. Uh the subject site itself is directly adjacent to single family residential to the west and the south. Um and directly to the north and the east we have the adjacent canals and just beyond those would be some additional uh single family residential. Uh before diving into some of the details of the application, I thought it would be beneficial to go over the timeline and history of the site just to provide some additional context. Um so back in June of 2022, the original preliminary plat and open space plan for the 33 North residential subdivision, uh which is a subject site, uh was originally approved by the planning commission. Uh fast forward a bit of time in March of 2025, we received the administrative amendment to the open space plan, which is the application we'll be taking a look at today. Uh just after that submitt of the administrative open space plan, we did bring the set of standard plans for the 33 North residential subdivision to the planning commission, which ultimately did re receive approval uh in April. Uh at that time um a few members of the community did um come and speak on the item. Specifically uh the concerns were regarding the accuracy of the property lines that were shown in the previously approved uh preliminary plat. Um specifically it was that the westernmost property line had been incorrectly represented on the existing uh subdivision. Uh meaning that there was at the time shown a shared screen wall and property line uh where in actuality the property line was just a bit to the east creating a bit of an offset of the property line and the existing screen wall. Um, after receiving the information from the surrounding community members that there were some inconsistencies with the originally approved preliminary plat, a certificate of correction was submitted to the town's uh development engineering department um in July of this year to accurately depict the um proposed property line. Um and while this updated plan um did acknowledge one of the issues of the incorrect representation of the property line, uh another issue still remained and it was the fact that the perimeter screenwall was not located on the true property line but rather located on the lots of the Stonebridge Lakes residence which are just to the west. In here, I wanted to provide that original wall and fence plan that was a part of that preliminary plat package. Um, and here along that western border, you can see that a existing wall was to remain on a shared property line. And we fast forward to the updated plan with the corrected um representation of the property line. And this is what the applicant has um brought to you all tonight. Um, unfortunately at this time it doesn't appear that the developer and the neighboring community members have been able to resolve this issue related to a shared wall on a shared property line. Um, so the applicant has decided to pursue a new design in regards to those rear lots um, 1 through six. And here on the plan, I know it may be difficult to see, but that green line shown along the west is the existing screenwall on the Stonebridge Lakes properties. Uh just next to that is a solid black line which represents the true property line and just beyond that to the east is a proposed view fence that is um proposed 3 feet east of the true property line. And each of the lots 1 through six would have individual gates to provide direct access into this new 3-FFT buffer area as well as the east west perpendicular walls going or heading to the true property line. So there wouldn't be any issues related to trespassing from those north south lots. And on the plan, it is difficult to see, but those individual door swings are located on the southern portions of that property. And the ultimate reason why this design was landed upon is the fact that we wanted to as staff ensure that there was no uh development of a double wall as this was a condition of development with the original approval and it's also been a practice and policy with the planning department to deter from these double wall designs. Uh the other purpose to this development is to enclose the rear lots of each of these um Woodside homes or I'm sorry 33 north lots which would be 1 through six. And the last piece of it was to ensure that there was no encroachment onto the Stonebridge Lakes properties. Here we have a another look at this view fence placement. Um, as you can see in that zoomed in image in the circle just to the left, you can see the existing screen wall on the Stonebridge Lakes properties, um, the adjusted property line and then the proposed view fence. Um that proposed view fence was ultimately landed on at a three-foot distance as this three-foot buffer helped establish room for um maintenance as well as the screen wall design providing uh visibility into these these buffer areas. uh because per our code um a double wall is established or occurs when there is an inability to provide room for maintenance uh visibility and safety. So the applicant has provided that screen wall with the associated gates to ensure that it doesn't fall within the realm of a double wall. Uh beyond the fence and wall discussion, there are a couple other pieces associated with this application. Um typically this would be seen as an administrative application with planning and the rest of our development services staff. Um but we wanted to ensure with some of the neighborhood outreach and back and forth communications between staff, developer, and neighbors that we had an opportunity to bring this to the planning commission for a further discussion. Uh but these other changes you will notice have to do with the pedestrian amenities. So to the east in this open space area there is a pedestrian trail that connects to the adjacent canal pathways. Um and the applicant is requesting to incorporate a few more benches and pedestrian amenities in that node. Uh the other component to the application is a residential subdivision uh monument sign which would be located uh to the south of the property and the other piece of it is the inclusion of a pedestrian gate in that northern culde-sac where the previous approval did not have that. Um, as for landscape and planting, the updated open space plan amendment does remain consistent with that original approval with landscape species, plantings, um, and just overall connectivity to those canal paths that staff found very important to the development. Um, in regards to public participation, um, we have received, um, quite a bit of feedback from neighboring um, neighboring community members. Um we've received roughly 10 emails or so in um various phone conversations um regarding the proposed view fence along that western uh boundary. Uh many of the concerns were related to the placement of the proposed view fence and its adjacency to the existing screen wall. um the potential for grading and drainage impacts to the Stonebridge Lakes residents and the uh some additional concerns related to maintenance and access into this new buffer area. Um through these conversations, the neighbors have also let us know that they are still willing to work with a developer to establish a screen wall on the correct property line. Um but to this point it doesn't seem that there has been a resolution made between the two parties. So we are presenting this updated design to help accommodate some of those um issues related to those rare lots. Um and with that staff does approve or I'm sorry does recommend approval of S22-01- A. And I just wanted to ensure I verbally cleaned up some of the items that may have been in the staff report. So initially it stated, I believe, porch light homes, but I wanted to adjust that paragraph um to state that the request to approve an open space plan for Woodside Homes for 10 lots 1 through 10 on approximately 3.63 acres uh located north of the northeast corner of Lindsay Road and Elliot Road in the SF7 zoning district with a planned area development overlay. Uh with that, I wanted to make sure that I adjusted the language in the conditions itself. Um so for a um it now reads that the open space plans for 33 north and construction of the project shall be in substantial conformance with exhibit 5, the complete open space plan package and exhibit 6, the wall placement exhibit. Uh lastly, I wanted to touch on the other conditions that have been proposed in the packet. Uh and it's the fact that moving forward in prior to the issuance of purpose or I'm sorry of permits a plan change is required for submittal with the town of Gilbert development engineering staff and carrying over the condition from the previous preliminary plat that the construction of double walls shall not be permitted. Reconstruction and walls shall be coordinated with the adjoining property owners to mitigate disturbance during construction. All costs associated with said reconstruction shall be the responsibility of the developer. And that concludes uh my presentation. I'm happy to field any questions, comments you may have. Thank you. >> Thank you very much, S. Does anybody have any comments or questions before we move on? I do >> please vice >> s thank you very much for presenting on what's a kind of a convoluted um this is a tough one >> but I I did the maintenance issue between the two walls they the so the new homeowners will have a gate so they can get into that the little buffer zone my understanding is the old homeowners the I should say sorry the spry and young uh neighbors >> um existing uh neighbors um a little bit of of the land is theirs and they can't get into is is the expectation that the new homeowners will be doing that I mean it's not much it's a few inches three six seven inches but is the expectation that the new homeowners will be doing it >> uh chair fay I'm sorry chair munt commissioner fay um at this point we haven't had any um discussion or information in regards to who will be maintaining um that buffer traditionally um with you know the property owner is respons responsible for the maintenance of their own lot. But in this situation, um I don't have the exact answer for you, Commissioner Fay. Uh unfortunately, um as this wall, you know, has been placed inward to that property line for quite some time. And I'm not sure how maintenance has been occurring on that lot until uh this application has come in, but I'm happy to gather some more information for you for for future discussion. >> That's it's not that important. I mean, I assume the farmer has been basically maintaining up to the wall and everybody was, you know, it's old Gilbert. It's >> close enough. Small town. Okay. Thank you. >> Very well. Commissioner Davis, are you >> okay? Commissioner Anderson. >> Uh, thank you for the presentation. I just want to make sure I'm understanding what's being presented right now. And I'm looking at a blowup of the wall. So I guess the first question I have is just to make sure I'm understanding correctly is the developer built a new wall. Correct? This isn't an existing wall. Chair uh man, Commissioner Anderson, a new wall hasn't been built just yet. Uh so the original approval anticipated the sharing of that existing wall on the property line. Uh but it's come to be that that that property line is just east of the existing screen wall. So the developer is requesting to build a view fence along the rears of lots 1 through six to help enclose those lots, limit any kind of spillover into the Stonebridge Lakes residence. >> Let me ask Let me ask a question this way then. So the wall that's there now is existing. When when was that wall built approximately? >> I believe that was built in the mid to late 80s. >> Been there a long time. Quite some time. >> And whoever put that wall in place sometime back then didn't know what somebody screwed up with the property line was and they didn't build it on the exact property line. Is that a correct statement? >> That is correct. At the time the wall was >> So what's being requested now is, hey, let's leave that wall where it is. We know where the true property line is. We're going to build this view fence there and create this 3-ft wide alleyway. Is that what's being presented? >> Correct. >> Okay. Thank you. >> But wait, in terms of an alley, I think it's more because that because the lateral go through and >> I'm using alley as a different term. Okay. So, I mean >> because that's initially what I thought too is we're going to have a three-foot alley all the way. They're they're playing it off nicely, calling it a buffer where I'm looking at as essentially it's an alley, especially if you're going to provide access to it, >> except it's each the the little segment is only the back of each yard. There's a the walls there's lateral walls that cut off. >> So, I'm looking at is there's an existing wall here. They're being proposed to put a view fence here. >> Yep. >> In between is some space that people can access from the new owner's side. So, I'm looking at that as as an alleyway >> except that it's cut off on the >> I think I'm probably going to get yelled at soon by the attorney that we can't have banter back and forth because the minutes won't reflect it. >> But I think the question that we're talking about is in this buffer area, do each of the individual lots one through six represented on this have a little wall that's going that three and a half feet between themselves? So in other words, only individual A who buys lot one would have the ability to maintain that whatever feet that is between whatever his lot pertains. Correct. >> Correct. >> And the view fence is going onto the the new property owner's property away from where the actual property line is. So that within this no man's land >> uh of trench warfare here they will have access to maintain their 2 foot n in the other property owner has access to break through his wall and deal with his 6 in. Is that in essence what we're talking about >> essentially? Yes. So each lot, it's kind of tough here to show. The view fence that is being proposed, as you mentioned, is going to be set back 3 f feet from the existing property line. And this is to ensure that a constant um buffer is maintained throughout that entire stretch. While there is no true access that can span through all the lots, those perpendicular walls will go to the true property line. So there is no crossover between these north south lots. Okay. >> I'm sorry that brings up another qu the >> uh vice chair please. the this the um perpendicular walls >> will go to the true property line >> which is itself 3 to 8 in short of the existing wall. >> Mhm. >> So the it I was saying that these are like little corrals behind each property but they are a little bit like an alleyway because the perpendicular wall won't connect to the existing it'll there'll be a gap. >> Correct. Because the wall currently is situated on the Stonebridge Lakes residence and this would the intent is to bring those walls as close to the property line as possible so that that gap is fairly minor that there wouldn't be the ability for crossover. >> Right. Three three inches. I mean, but yeah, I didn't I did not pick that up till just now. Sorry that put you on the spot. >> No worries. >> Okay. So, in other words, the other property owners could in fact squeeze through the three inches to get themselves to maintain their six inches. Okay. All right. Um any uh Commissioner Davis? >> Um thank you, Chair. I just have one other comment. I could see the potential for somebody who lives in one of these homes 1 through six to want to maybe store some items, garden tools or different things in that three-foot area. I would hope there'd be something in deed restrictions or some sort of disclosure to those homeowners that maybe they shouldn't be doing that because I would imagine the neighbors wouldn't want something like that to take place. But I can see where I mean the view fence is somewhat opaque. I could see where people would might want to stash some things back there. >> So I think that's something to think about and how that can be mitigated. >> Great. Thank you, Commissioner Davis. >> Yes. engage. >> This seems obvious, but was there ever any um discussions with the property owners to build a new wall, like existing property owners build a new wall on the actual property line, giving them a few more inches into their backyard and then taking away all of this confusion. Uh, Chair Munt, uh, Commissioner Gage, so for what planning staff has heard is that the developer and neighboring property owners have been trying to work through a resolution for placing the wall on the correct property line uh, for a shared wall. Uh, but unfortunately at this time there doesn't seem to be um, a a solution uh, between the two parties. Okay. Um, so I know we have uh the developer here as well if they can, you know, speak on some of the previous conversations and how it's got to this point, but um, from what I understand is that there have been, uh, negotiations between the two parties, but they just haven't been able to come to a resolution. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Well, is the developer have a presentation that they'd like to give, please? Uh I don't believe there's a presentation but they are available for questions, comments and etc. >> Okay. Do we want to ask these questions? >> I do. >> Okay. Yeah, please have them come up then. Thank you. >> You got to hit the button on the base. It'll turn red when it's there. >> There we go. Thank you. Uh good evening, commission. My name is Jason Sangs. I'm with Ipine Consulting, 3317 South Igley Road in Gilbert. Uh here to speak uh on behalf and with Woodside Homes uh to kind of try providing some clarity to the points that have been brought up. In its essence, the application tonight is generally as staff said, an administrative function of the town, but due to the involvement with the neighbors and and concerns with the transparency, it's been brought forward as a hearing item, although it's typically administrative. So, but we do want to thank staff for continuing to work with us. Um, and we do thank staff for their support and I think all of these questions that have been raised are good good questions. And so, as we discussed through this and in respect to the neighbors that all have their concerns, we want to make sure we keep coming back full circle to center that this is a request for a plat amendment to allow a view to be built three feet from the existing wall. The existing subdivision has been there since ' 87. That wall is almost 40 years old. And the original sin in this case was that that wall was inadvertently built 4 in into those properties. So when we did acknowledging we did do a survey on this and we were off by 4 in at some level the property line was understood to be underneath the middle of that wall. It turns out that it wasn't. So in common development practice, neighbors would be on both sides of the wall, right? And then you'd have kind of a shared understanding which is common amongst all residences that we would fix the wall if the wall fails or we would all take care of it which is being good neighbors. We also understand that this project came in many many years after the original subdivision and it's you know perhaps it was a nice nice to not have any development on the other side of that wall. So, I think that this subdivision coming in really perhaps wasn't as desirable of a development to happen for the neighborhood. They probably didn't want the neighborhood to this neighborhood to develop. But even that said, the reason why we haven't come to an agreement on simply rebuilding this wall, which was our first that that's what we came in for originally and approved for, this project is permitted and built. These these lots are finished. The roadways are in, the utilities are in, and we've pulled our first permit for a house. So, it's not like a perspective subdivision. It is a real subdivision. It's already in play. The walls we're discussing are also not required by code. You're not required to wall your backyard in. You're not allowed to build a double wall. So, that's what we're up against. We want to provide a useful backyard for our residents. And in that sense, we do want to enclose our yards. People have dogs. People have kids. People have safety concerns. But we can't make our neighbors let us connect to their wall and otherwise just leave like this random gap of 4 8 in. So we have a problem. Um we can't build a double wall. Coming back to that. So what can we do? In working with staff, they wanted a view fence so that we could see through it, not create this weird no man's land. It's still awkward, but it's a solution. We can't force the other neighbors to let us rebuild the wall. We can't do it. We haven't talked to the neighbors, a couple of them, recently because we received demand letters from two of them asking for compensation to the tunes of hundreds of thousands of dollars. The cost of this wall is like 130 grand. The neighbors, if we could come to an agreement, would be getting a free rebuilt wall because the current 40-year-old wall is not in the best shape. And unfortunately for our our prospective new homeowners, it's unsightly. Our homeowners really don't want to look at this 40-year-old wall that's kind of falling apart, but we can't make them let us rebuild the wall. It's on their property. So, our interim solution is we need to move forward. The second part of this is that understandably so, the town of Gilbert is holding our ability to submit housing permits for any of those lots. So, this project has been in limbo for months. This isn't like we just found out last week. It's been six months since we got demand letters from the neighbors. I mean, a 26-point demand letter when they were already getting a new newly rebuilt piece of infrastructure for free. We get it. Clean up, fix the vegetation, don't make a mess, do it right. We get that. But when you get 26 points into this, and then request for all kinds of other compensation, it becomes very difficult. So, we're here tonight to ask you to uh bless our solution. The CCRs will require uh maintenance, no storage in this little gap. I think uh Commissioner Davis mentioned that there will be restrictions. They're required to keep the fence, keep it clean, maintain, try not to touch the 4 in of dirt, but keep their ST clean, excuse me, and uh and maintain this. So, that's where we're at today. We are literally held hostage to this issue. So, please do help us move forward. I'm happy to answer questions. >> Thank you, sir. Anyone have any questions for the applicant? >> Commissioner Wang. >> Thank you, Chair. So, help us to understand. So the they I think the um the way the I guess the easier way is to build that wall >> right >> on the property line move the old wall you know tear down the whole wall and build a new wall on the property line and it's a developers responsibility per coal and the only reason you guys are not doing it is because you can't come to agreement with there's some sort of a demand for compensation Is that the only reason >> uh through the chair? Uh, Commissioner W, that is actually correct. The problem when you have multiple property owners, I know they're all here tonight and I'm sure they're all wonderful people and good neighbors, is that they all have different demands. And so, we've received two demands from different neighbors with a whole litany of things that they all want tailored to them that really don't have that much to do with the wall. I get that there's impacts and there's concerns and I can hear the size. I I understand. and I've worked with neighborhoods my whole life and I understand your concerns, but what we're getting at is that we're literally held hostage from pulling a house permit for a lawfully permitted subdivision and it's finished lots until this wall thing is settled and our settlement is built a view because we have no indication that we can even get let alone all of them. We still have a couple of them that could hold out and if all of them don't agree to be reasonable and allow us to rebuild that wall in the property line, we're going to be stuck forever. Now, what we can do is if we can move forward tonight and get your blessing on this solution, which is the most viable solution, we can still continue to work with the neighbors, but we're going to have to get through those demands. They're I've never seen it. It's like off the chart. And I get why they're asking for it, but it's not normal. And we're asking for a reasonable path forward because the cost of those demands are multiple times the cost of the wall. And the wall's already free to them. So that's where we're at. >> Okay. Thank you. >> And well, and I think and I'll I'll ask this but more as a clarifying that it's not just, you know, that it's that you can't even if you wanted to build your wall, you can't do it because of the non-double wall, too. Like it's so it's it's not just that there's not the agreement. You can't just say, "Okay, I'll put my wall in and we just won't mess with it." Because you'd have that uh gap. So vice chair Yeah. I I just the the characterization that we're holding you hostage. I mean the city permits projects and extracts permit conditions on every single project and developers bind themselves and whereby state law had. So I I don't the characterization in general is just is wrong. And while I think you referred to the original sin as the um the original wall and I and I agree with that, but the original sin of this project was bad surveying by by your surveyor who I I think made a pretty rookie mistake and assume that the line the the the wall was on the uh so there's a and yeah, I'm not blaming any well I am a little bit blaming them but not blaming you but it it has led to a cascade effect of interpersonal fighting that that is the thing we can't get past, but that's not the city holding you hostage. So, I think that's a bad >> to the chair, Vice Chair Fay, I retract that. I apologize. Um, what I'll say is I we simply can't move forward with permits. And if I may, I'll I'll retract that that verbiage. And and you're correct and I and I don't want to mischaracterize that. I'm trying to be um candid and transparent so that we can have thoughtful communication. And I do do the same with the neighbors. I think from the perspective of Woodside is that we're many, many months in. Again, it's not just a delay of a few weeks. We have multiple lots waiting months and months and we don't have any end in sight. It's not like we're this close. >> I get it. You you've got cash and cash flow that's held up and you want to get moving. That's that's fair. We're thick skinned. You don't need to apologize. I just wanted to shift the uh shift the discussion a little. >> Thank you. Any other comments or questions? All right. Well, thank you very much, sir. I appreciate the information. Okay. Then with that, I will open it up to the public comment. And I do have a comment card. Um, and I have Mr. Rob Gdderian and he's opposed the item, wishes to speak and has requested that as a representative uh to other people to have additional time and luckily due to my extreme amount of magnanmity I will grant that and the fact that you're allowed to do it. Uh so you can have 10 minutes sir please come up and uh state your name and address which I think is pretty well known at this time but go ahead and uh 10 minutes. Thank you, commissioner, and members of the planning commission and uh planning staff legal and town council representatives. I appreciate the opportunity to address you again. My name is Rob Garerian. I live at 331 North Riotta Street. I'm one of the eight uh neighbors that border this. I have that wedge-shaped lot there. Um these are the neighbors. Uh we are all in unison. We meet regularly and talk about this. So, they have agreed kindly to let me represent them and the concerns here. I do want to set the record straight on a lot of the things that have been said and some of the questions that have been asked because as has been the case since day one with this case, there are a lot of factual misconceptions. So, I want to set the record straight. I thought I had done this, but I'll I'll do it again uh very clearly. So, Commissioner Anderson, you ask and uh Justin, sorry, Jason alluded to this original sin of this wall being built off the property line accidentally or inadvertently. Uh that is not the case, Commissioner Anderson. I think I have submitted several emails. I've submitted them to the town. We've reviewed them with Salanto. Our asbuilt engineering plans uh for Stonebridge Lakes where we live were approved by the town of Gilbert, your predecessors, in uh March of 1987. In those grading plans, uh you can clearly see a differentiation in the wall designs between uh the southern lots of Stonebridge Lakes and other exterior lots of Stonebridge Lakes. Uh the south side of Stonebridge Lakes borders the Grows of Gilbert and uh Metobrook condos on Burke Street. Um, and the designer and the town approved that the lots on the south side of Stonebridge Lakes be shared walls built intentionally on the property line and the other exterior lots. The other exterior lots of Stonebridge Lakes border the Western canal SRP's right away and then our two lines there of uh what was the Knight property before it was sold to Woodside Homes. Those were intentionally built within our property line. uh because the existing property owner there did not want a shared wall and so that is confirmed on the asbuilt engineering drawings for for Stonebridge Lakes back in 1987. So I want to clear that up. This is not a mistake that our walls were built inside our property lines. Uh they were built there very intentionally and we have paid for them via the purchase of our lot uh originally. So I wanted to clear that up, Commissioner Anderson, and hopefully that answers your question. Um, uh, uh, Chairman Munt, you had, uh, asked questions about will these connecting walls connect? I want to talk about that later on because there's a lot of misinformation and I believe I'm going to use this word strongly, but you've seen me here for eight months in a row for good reason. Uh, I think you're being misled by some of the data that you've seen and these applications. And I'm glad this is still up on the screen. I'm going to talk about this. Um but for the vast majority uh there will be five connecting walls between these six lots. Uh if they maintain and respect our property rights, there is 8 in gap at the back of those. So you have a 65 foot wide lot 3 foot deep. I don't know why we use the word buffer zone. This is just the backyard of their property. There is nothing special about this. This isn't common property. This belongs to the lot owners of one through six. So that's just a buffer zone. And then they do have walls that will have an 8 inch gap at the end before they connect to our wall. And I'll talk about the safety and liability concerns of that. Let me bring up some other issues that I believe where Woodside Homes and their engineering partner EPS have not been forthright in accurately portraying this proposal to you. And it is for these reasons that I'm recommending that you vote against this proposal. Now, uh the first one is the drainage issue. uh Salanto from planning talked about this, alluded to it and made a condition that we need to see some future drainage. Um they have not represented the current and accurate situation on the ground over here. And I have a loud voice. Will you allow me to go over here and point to what what I'm talking about here on the screen? >> Is there a laser pointer? >> Oh, uh >> there might be. >> Maybe if there's Is there a laser in this one? I don't see one. >> Cell may know. >> Cell's really good. Sal's really good with laser. I think there's a little this little green guy. >> Green guy. Okay, >> perfect. >> Whoa. I don't want to point anybody out. >> Does that work? Awesome. Cool. >> So, what EPS Group and this and on behalf of Woodside has presented here is a completely level patch of ground that's 3 feet 8 in wide between their view fence and our existing wall. Uh that's not the case. Our existing grade, which again was approved 40 years ago by your predecessors, uh slopes down. The existing grade is uh below our grade over here and slopes down. Uh this was again intentional because this was farmland uh what is now 33 north was farmland and it was flood irrigated by SRP. So all the water had to drain to the center of that. So that was by design and they have uh been over here compacting and placing 12 to 14 inches of dirt against our wall knowingly over the property line so that they they could make our property match theirs. Okay, let me let me make sure you have the sequence of events right. July 14th, they filed a revised plat map which acknowledged our property line. October 28th, three and a half months later, Woodside Home employees are over here with heavy equipment placing and compacting dirt against our wall over the property line so that this matches right here and so that this is nice and level. My wife went out because she happened to be home and told the Woodside employee, "You need to remove the dirt from my property line." And instead of saying yes or no, this Woodside employee said, "What do you want? Water to pool up against your wall." Okay, that is not the action and the response of a good neighbor developer. Okay. Um the second misrepresentation here is this distance between the wall and the property line. It is clearly labeled here 3 in. Nowhere on any survey does it show three inches between the property line and the existing wall. I've sent uh all of you in the pictures I I believe uh in my email last week. I've gone over this with S. The property markers are out there. There is at least eight inches of d of distance between the property line and the vertical face of our wall. Okay. The the wall between uh lot number one and lot number two will end 8 in from our wall. Two to three, it will end six and a half because it abuts a pillar in our wall. 3 to four and four to five will be an 8 inch gap in the wall. 5 to six will be about six inches. Okay. So, they are misrepresenting the distance here. And I don't know why they would do that other than maybe with legal they wanted you to think that this wasn't a legal risk and you know a pool fence you have to have a maximum opening of four inches. Maybe they said three because that was less than four. But that's clearly not what's happening on the ground and they are misrepresenting those facts. Okay. Uh I'm not sure again why we're calling this a buffer zone. This is just the backyard uh of these uh 33 North residents. There's nothing special about this. This isn't a common area. It won't be maintained by the HOA. It's just the back part of their lot. I'm not sure with an 8 in gap back there how that meets the criteria of enclosed uh an enclosed backyard any more than a house with a back door would be enclosed. Right? It's still very possible for children, pets, teenagers, debris, trash, water, all to have pure access along this wall between lots one and and and six. They only need an 8 in. If they can squeeze through an 8 inch gap, they're there. Okay, that's twice the amount required uh for a pool safety fence. So, I don't view this as an enclosed uh backyard, although I don't know what legal thinks about that, but I I do know that this creates safety issues for us, liability issues for us if someone was to get stuck back there. And I tragically, I will say that the Stonebridge Lakes neighbors uh on Silverado at the entrance here have had a child drowning in a pool. Uh it's been several years ago, but it's not something that we want to repeat or enable. And with eight inch gaps between those walls, you could easily have a child from lot one exit their gate, squeeze all the way down here. And fortunately, of our eight residents, only one of them has a pool, but it's this middle lot on Vaughn Avenue down here. Uh because they've raised the grade again. Uh that wall no longer meets pool safety standards. Uh that was an issue that was brought up to the town of Gilbert by Rob Flintton, the vice president of Woodside Homes, in an email to town personnel back in February. uh and he recognized that that was a safety issue and requested to to build that wall one course higher to ameliate that issue. Uh that issue apparently on the side of Woodside has disappeared and is no longer an issue. Uh Woodside also did not notify town engineering about the implications of their revised plat map in mid July. Uh I spoke with town engineering uh Mr. McDonald in town engineering less than two weeks ago. had no idea that there was an implication of moving the property line and drainage issues along my fence. Um, so again, I'm opposed to approving this on the hopes that there's a drainage plan because there just isn't. Uh, there isn't a drainage plan possible here that doesn't require me to modify and my neighbors to modify our existing approved grades and drainage and walls. Um, and without that, their dirt will slide onto our property. Water will pull up against our walls and make them even weaker. Uh Woodside knew this was an issue because they were out there in October placing dirt there trying to fix the issue, but they didn't tell the town about that. Uh I again I don't view that as a good neighbor. I want to correct some of the other issues that um Jason brought up. This issue uh is not a 40-year-old issue. As as said uh we have approved asbuilt plans that clearly show the wall was intentionally built within ours. The issue was caused by EPS group's poor survey uh that tried to move the lot. Again, they try to minimize this. Uh the middle of the wall to the property line is 10 in. Okay, 10-in survey air in these modern times is egregious. Okay, and there also is a complaint uh associated with this. So, uh here we are 10 months later. I notified uh Woodside of the property line issue in February. Uh we're not holding them hostage. They presented a solution to us on May 15th. it was not complete. It would have required us to expend several thousand dollars to finish the job. So, we provided a counter offer to Woodside Homes on May 31st 6 months ago plus and we have heard nothing from Woodside Homes. We don't have an an endless list of hundreds of thousands of dollars as Jason alluded to. We did ask for reimbursement of our survey costs. Uh between the eight of us, we have $5,000 in survey costs. We surveyed all eight lots to verify our pro our own property line as EPS was trying to appropriate it. Uh we have some legal fees because we did have to submit a de demand letter. We s submitted a demand letter because Woodside homes started stucking the back of our walls and we had to go intervene. Uh you guys sorry PL uh permitting town of Gilbert has issued two permits to them at least. One to build a boundary wall. Uh, with that permit, they brazenly built that boundary wall over the northwest corner property marker and connected it to my neighbor's wall. Mr. 3, you gave them a grading permit and they brazenly have graded dirt over the property line against our wall. EPS group uh less than two weeks ago on November 21st was out there pounding survey nails into the base of our wall to mark these lot dividing walls. Now, given the history that we've had with Woodside, what do you think they were going to do with survey markers in our wall? They were planning on building those lot dividing walls and not leaving an 8 inch gap. They were going to blow through our property line and connect those to the wall. So, rest assured that we will be erecting temporary barriers along these lot dividing walls that will prevent them from encroaching on our property. We will remove them when construction is complete. Last point, thank you for indulging me. We are open to a suggestion uh a solution. We are unified. Uh we meet regularly. We talk regularly. Woodside has not responded to our proposal from six months ago. Uh we have two main concerns. We no out-of- pocket costs and we want an 8ft wall. We have offered the privilege of moving our wall to Woodside Home for no cost. We are not charging them hundreds of thousands of dollars just to move our wall. There's nothing like that in there. We didn't want them to even proactively pay for our landscaping. We just asked them for a two-year guarantee that if our mature landscaping dies, which could cost thousands of dollars, uh that they replace it in the next two years. We feel that was a very uh fair statement. So, um I I re resent being characterized as part of holding them hostage or not being a good neighbor. We've worked with them extensively. I invited Shant, Terrell, and Carl into my home to explain all these issues on May 2nd. Um, and so we have talked, but they have ceased all communication since May 31st of this year, over six months ago. They have continually misrepresented the facts to you, legal, planning, planning, commission, town. Uh, they're just not telling the truth. That is not a good neighbor. Shantara was at this podium, that podium in April, eight months ago, and said, "We'll be a good neighbor and we'll fix this." Here we are eight months later. I know you're tired of seeing me and hearing from me. Believe me, I'm tired, too. I did ask them to reimburse a lot of my research fees. I have done extensive research on this. I wish that they would have done extensive research on this, and we wouldn't be here in this this situation in the first place. With that, uh, I guess I could just say to Woodside, um, you know, the words good neighbor ring hollow, but we are still willing to demolish our wall and move it to the actual property line as long as we don't have to pay anything out of pocket to subsidize their development. And I think along with that, a fair ask is their shoddy survey work by EPS group forced us to hire our own surveyors. I have a 40-year-old survey. I have a 40-year-old approved plat map. Okay, that show all this. I had to go out and pay for all that. Again, I think reimbursement of those costs is more than fair. My offer to provide the privilege of moving my wall for free is not a eternal one, an infinite one. It has a time limit and I am tired of waiting. Uh 6 months is long enough. I agree. We have never boked at the development here. We've known for 20 years that this was zoned single family 7. We knew this was coming. We don't want to oppose Woodside Homes building there at their 10 homes there. We just don't want it done on our property and at our expense. Thank you. >> Thank you, sir. Okay. Uh just to clarify then, is there anyone else that wished to speak on this item that is here? Um if you did wish to speak, you'll need to fill out a a comment card, sir. And you can do it after, but if you wanted to. Did you want to? >> Yeah, you can. You can speak. We'll just I'll need to comment card. So, you can go you can speak now. Just state your name and your address and then uh you'll have three minutes. But then uh make sure to fill out one of these yellow cards and Rob can show you. But just to have your names for the record because that'll go in. >> Good evening. I'm sensitive to you guys. I've been in done a little construction. Um I've been through the >> sir just to just clarify. Sorry if if you want please state your name first and your address and then just address us um as the commission not uh that please. Thank you. >> Sorry. Um I'm Ed Bailey. I am a property owner along this back wall. I believe it's six six. Um, I um must say that I that I'm sensitive to the difficulties that they may have come up with. But my I guess my biggest question about this whole situation is we'd been down this road before. This this has gone on for over a year and uh we talked about the wall, we talked about the fence um and we've got no response and and I I don't understand how we can get this far on any project and start talking about the fence. I mean, if if if the proper work and ground work was done before anything began, we wouldn't be here. So, I would just reinforce what my uh colleague said. Um, this is the tough problem that we're going to have to work out, but I I don't see how we can work on a project like this and wait 10 months to work on a problem. I appreciate your consideration. Um, but I I that that's the one thing that that sticks in my craw about this. Now, tonight we're worried about problem and and making other people happy and and uh make this thing work. I don't want anybody going broke. I don't want anybody uh taking such a hit on this. But you can't wait 10 months to start deciding what what problems are. I there was I well in the other room I stood at the pulpit about a year and a half ago and I said guys the number one problem in this project is going to be this lousy fence that wasn't I don't believe it was to these guys but and and I said that to the city is um what are we going to take what are we going to do with the fence and here we are 10 months later we've gone on through this time all the discussion and we're right back square one. It's a tough decision, but I wouldn't want to be in your shoes, but it's a problem that has to be solved, and it should have before. And now we shouldn't complicate it by simp simply going back and trying to uh be obligated to to go one way when in fact it should have been taken care of before. And so we leave their we leave our concerns with you. And then I'll I'll write the card. Thank you very much, sir. Okay. Uh then with that, is there anyone else that did wish to speak? Sir, just state your name and then and address and then uh make sure to fill out a card when you're done, please. >> Yes. My name is Herb Shelby. I live on East Vaughn, 708 East Vaughn. As a former developer and as an engineer, I have been very concerned about the way this whole thing has been handled. The elevation on those lots is nearly 18 in above our lot lines. Those ball those walls were never constructed on the back line to take that hydraulic pressure that that land behind us is going to take now that it's 18 in higher. They're strengthly 4inch walls. Not a good situation. And on top of that, they tore up our brand new street on Vaughn as they did the infill. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Okay. Uh with that then I would just say we can uh move to if the applicant would wish to respond, please come on up and have five minutes respond to some of the uh comments, please. Thank you, chair and commission, and thank you to the neighbors for going through their items of concern. Just a few just a few responses um in regard to the original builder wall um and and the discrepancy on the on the survey. The you know, Woodside Homes and EPS Group have both acknowledged the the 4 in to 8 in to 3 in discrepancy on the survey and that's since been corrected and filed. So, that part has been done and it does create a lot of muddy water. That's understandable from the the discourse. We don't have an outstanding civil issue here tonight that we're asking this commission to resolve. We're not asking the commission to resolve any of these civil matters tonight. Uh what we're asking for and we don't have a legal obligation to fill an 8 in gap on a wall or not fill an 8 inch gap on a wall. And we're not asking to build on their property or the privilege of of of constructing a new wall. What we're asking for tonight is to simply be able to build a view fence 3 feet on our own property. Um, and we are asking that this normally be an administrative task, but it's been brought forward as a courtesy to all. And I get that. But, you know, in the same respect, any one of these neighbors could build a 6-ft view fence in their backyard and we wouldn't have to come here tonight. So, I I just I get it. This is the builder doing it. But, I just this is on lot. We're not asking to go on their lot and do something. We're not asking to connect to their wall. It has since been determined and as nice as everybody is, they're well spoken. The gentleman is very well researched. I get it. He's a data-driven gentleman. But all of that said and done still brings us back to the fact that the builder wall is on their property and we can't connect to it. And and it's one thing to say they want to work together, but if I presented the demand letters to you, which we obviously aren't doing, it tells a different story. And that will get settled in a different manner outside of here. And so why haven't we spoken with them? Well, because their demand letter said that we had to go through their attorney's office and not talk to them anymore. We can talk to them through their attorneys, but that just created a quite a barrier. And we said, well, we're going to take the wall off the table and we're going to do a a view per town's suggestion that we have visibility through this gap and we move forward. So, I hope you understand that this is plan B, but I think that plan B is reasonable. So, I hope that helps. >> Thank you, sir. Okay. All right, then. Uh, do we want to have staff? S, did you have any other comments or updates or do we have any questions for S as a followup? I actually do have a question for you, Sal. S, since you already stood up, I'll at least make it worth your while. >> I do, too. Yeah. So my my first question is as it relates to the procedural going forward of permitting and everything else, if the developer didn't want because they're not required to have a wall, they could just pull a permit and plop a house in there now and then the new neighbor would just have to have like a sign on that 8 in that says don't, you know, beware of dog or something. but they could build it right now. Is that am I understanding that correctly? >> Um, Chair Munt, you are correct. And just building off that a bit more, you know, planning staff has been working with the neighbors and the developers for the last few months to try and create a um to establish a resolution that, you know, made both parties um happy with the development. Um I believe we ended up I think we're in review six now. So, we've been through various design um iterations of what this view fence might look like, solid view, how much the uh view fence would be set back from the property line. So, there have been um ongoing discussions um weekly with the the neighbors and the um and the developers to try and resolve this issue as as best as we can. Um, as the developer mentioned earlier, the town has also um held some of these building permits for the entirety of the subdivision until we got to a resolution with this this lot line. Um, unfortunately, we haven't been able to come to that resolution just yet. Um, so the building permits have been released on lots uh 7 through 10 just because there are no, you know, ongoing concerns with those lots and just establishing um the ability to develop on those lots. But to your point, Chairmont, um no walls technically are required on the rear lot. Um this was just a a want from the developer to sort of align with that typical single family residential that we've grown accustomed to here in the valley. And just to clarify, when we say that the lot line has not been, you know, figured out yet, we actually know exactly where it is now. >> Correct. >> But it's more the dispute or whatever conflict. Oh god, I was trying to find a softer word and I went harder. >> That this whatever between where it is, but we know the line is that is where it is. Okay. All right. Vice chair, did you have any? did s my understanding is what's being recommended is there's still the drainage issue let's just that that we're still looking for a new drainage report that's still being revised regardless of what we do tonight is that that's my understanding from the documents >> uh chair uh vice chair fay uh that that is correct so based on the administrative application for an open space plan amendment the required grading and drainage documentation wasn't necessarily required for the what was proposed with the application Um but since that point since the draining or grading and drainage issues have come to light from the neighbors we have made sure that our development engineers have been a part of the reviews. Um and to this point um there doesn't seem to be a um a big issue related to grading grading and drainage with this view fence design. Uh we do have uh Tom Condid here as well with the development engineering team um who may be able to provide a bit more information on that, but from what I've heard, it wouldn't necessarily create a massive issue with the site. >> Okay. Thank you, >> Commissioner Davis. >> Uh thank you, Chair. Um S, one of the um comments made was related to the pool fence standards and the liability of that with one of the lots that had a pool. Um does this fence I assume there's something that can be done with that gate to make that comply with the pool fence requirements, self-closing, locking, whatever that is. Um I guess does this fence meet the like foothold requirements and that kind of thing to create that barrier? Do you know is that an actual concern? Does that fence really not meet that pool fence requirement or is that something that you'd have to look at? >> Uh, Chair Mont, Commissioner Davis, that's something we'd have to look at in a bit more detail from our end just because the conversation of the the pool fence is fairly new to us and given the context, you know, no pools in the area, we're looking at the base fence walls standards and how they can apply for these individual lots. >> It seems solvable. I just it was something that they brought up. So I was curious. Thank you, >> Mr. Wang. >> Thank you. Uh, quick question. So the existing wall and then you got a fence 3 ft and 6 inch away and then you have a 3T lateral fence all the way to the property line that not touching this existing wall. Is that a town requirement or why do we build that blocking separating between the six lot? >> Uh, chairman, uh, Commissioner Hong, the, uh, intended purpose to bring these east walls over to the property line was to mitigate any kind of trespassing issues between the Stonebridge um, Lake, I'm sorry, the 33 North or Woodside Homes development. Um, if these walls didn't connect or travel to the true property line, there would be a an alley that would be accessible from the north of the development all the way to that southwestern corner, which does not pass through. So, if somebody saw that path, thought it was part of the canal trail system that it's adjacent to, could ultimately get trapped in that area. Um, so by providing that view fence and bringing those perpendicular walls, we're creating an opportunity to enclose each of these lots without creating any potential um, safety issues that may occur. >> But with those few inches, you potentially you still having the same problem that you're trying to prevent. Is that all right, >> Chairman? Commissioner Hong, it it is possible. Yes. And what is the minimum width for if if let's say hypothetically if this go through uh both end it's if this is a alley what's the what's the width minimum width for alley um chair commissioner hang I don't know if we have specific standards for the widths of alleys but this three foot um buffer zone or this three-foot separation from view fence to property line was ultimately decided upon because 3-foot is a typical sidewalk width within the town of Gilbert. Um and 3-fifth or 3-foot is also um after speaking with our um fire and building department is a typical buffer zone for for maintenance. So we tried to incorporate a few other standards to try and create as much space as we could in this area. Um but ultimately the 3-foot is what we what we uh landed on from the property line. So it is a constant um three-foot throughout. >> So three foot is the sidewalk in town of Gilbert for residential. I thought it's five. It's might I might be wrong. Minimum. >> I may be incorrect, but I think ADA requires a minimum of 35.5 in. And >> okay, >> everyone in the world rounds up to 36. >> I I think. >> Okay. Thank you. All right. Any more questions, comments, concerns, celebrations for staff? All right, S. Well, I guess uh that's it then. Thank you very much. >> Appreciate it. Thank you all. >> Okay. Well, then uh we'll close the public comment and uh we will bring it up here to the dis for some discussion. Who would like to start the discussing? Okay, great. Uh I will then uh I'll just say that uh this is unfortunate. Um, and I think a number of uh cascading events have taken place that have uh caused it to become quite a quandry where one would hope one would not be. Um, you know, and I I look at this view fence as a cosmetic thing that is meant to try to kind of say, okay, well, we have to get something here. and I understand it. But the eventuality of what I'm hearing um between the grading and drainage, you know, on one side I'll say if this was flood irrigated and it was agricultural, all of the irrigation was up against the current wall. And so any of the stuff that is happening there um would have been happening um for some time. But bes besides that, well, I'm just saying that the water would float and okay, but anyway, so it's been there for a long long time. The wall is very old, 40 years. Um, I won't, you know, speculate on that. I know in my own house, my wall is soaked because I have a garden I thought I could plant and it's completely eroded away. And, uh, I can't imagine what would happen if I did that for 20 years. Uh so I I just see that there's going to be a significant amount of additional unfortunate instances that we are setting ourselves up for. And it is even further more unfortunate in the sense that the authority with which we have to do anything is highly limited. uh we we don't have any right to say no, you can't build here because you need to do this wall. Anything that dealt with a survey that was erroneous is going to have to flow through that. So, it's not even the developers fault per se because they can then attach all of that uh legality into the survey. And at the end of the day, new homeowners are going to move into sites 1 through six and are going to grab a massive bag filled with all of these issues. And I just think it's it's a shame that we uh are are in this situation. Um the other side of that is that what is being proposed in this application, you know, and the fact that it's in the current process now administrative, but it was brought forth to be able to have it all in a public hearing. It we are not up here to adjudicate anything as it relates to drainage. We're not up here to adjudicate anything as it relates to the property lines, the existing wall or anything. What we're being asked is if we want, and this is from the applicant, if we want to build our houses, can we put this view fence on our own yard? And to me, it's it's it's not within our authority from my purview to tell them, "No, you can't. You have to do something else." Um, so long worded answer. I don't I I don't know and I would love any and all input from my illustrious other commissioners to help me to um better understand Mr. Wang. >> I try it's this is a difficult one. I I think I hear this several time, you know, between the surveyor the popular line and I I think the right way is still to the correct way the right action still should be the correct way is to build a wall on the top of your line creating that 3T 6 in or 8 in whatever you want to call it. It's you basically having a no man zone and there the neither does the existing owner and the new owner wants in between those two and I'm looking at some of this lot that if something would have happened to the existing wall the the the owner has to deal with two other property owner on the other side of the wall because you know you need to you know move some dirt or equipment or whatever. And I think we are kind of kicking the can down in the road. Um I I hear there's a lot of kind of back and forth. Um I'm I'm still hoping there's might be a door still knock shot that maybe two party can come together can solve this to do it right once and for all than just kind of fixing this halfway because you know we're building this new fans and then you have a lateral have a few inches and not even touching the wall and I I just I don't I don't feel good about it. That's my two cents. >> Thank you, Commissioner. Mr. Davis. >> Thank you, Chair. Um I agree with what's been said. Um ideally that 8ft wall would be the best thing to do because then you, you know, you kind of fix this long term, you fix the height discrepancy, they get more privacy, all of those things. Um, it's unfortunate that we're here. It's unfortunate that it wasn't found sooner. I don't know where we'd be if this had been found early on. If we'd still be having they'd still would have had disagreements with getting that wall in. I don't know. Um, but again, I think it's going to be confusing for property owners down the road to understand what they can and can't do with that space and that they can't connect to those walls. And I hope some of that information doesn't get lost in the shuffle as these houses sell. But I don't see where we really have the purview because it's a private property rights issue. I don't as a commission see where we have the purview to say that they can't do what they're proposing. Um so I guess that's where I stand. >> Thank you, Commissioner I see your finger on the trigger there. Vice chair. Would you like to >> Yes, sir. Um I I know there's a whole bunch of issues here, but to me there's really only there's two that are I don't know if it's only two or two that are within the purview of of of us. The first obviously is the wall um and and resolving this wall issue. And really it comes down to I think the applicant is saying we're going to step back so that it's like a little disenfranchisement zone. We're going to I I use the analogy it's like in the 70s when your parents separated you in the back seat from your sister that you get that one quarter of the back seat. You get that one quarter of the back seat and nobody touches the middle in the I I I don't like it but I don't know that we can stop it uh or or should necessarily. Um the other one I and with respect to the the chairman that um I don't know that drainage is I think drainage is probably a and I think it's going to be a bigger problem to resolve on this one than than or maybe Tom's actually I know Tom's smarter than I am so he probably is got something in mind and I'm I'm having a hard time getting my mind around it a little bit but my understanding is these pro properties have basically been draining onto the farm for the last 40 years. I don't think the farm probably restricted its deed in any way. So, I don't know that the new property owners have to accept the drainage off the property. So, I don't I don't know that that particularly given that the negotiations over the wall have broken down. I don't know that um that's going to be a simple resolution. But, um Tom, my understanding is there's a new drainage report coming in and you've got that one. So, the baton is passed as far as um I don't I don't know what the answer is, but I think you got some I think you got some problems to work through there. Um those those are the two that are kind of sticking in my cro the drainage one I can refer to Tom with the guidance to Good luck with that. the wall itself. I'm still just man, this is just a pain. And and I'm I'm still not altogether okay with the gaps that I'm sorry, Salad, when I taught you earlier, I did not mentally make the connection that the lateral walls, the east west CMU walls wouldn't go all the way. They they'd pierce the alleyway, but they wouldn't go all the way. And if there's an 8 in cap, I is it even an enclosed backyard at that point? That's that's kind of the part I'm I'm grappling with. Usually I do a lot more research. Well, I do a fair amount of research, but usually I come mentally to a a stronger conclusion and I've kind of gotten knocked off my uh positions on some of these things based on tonight's stuff. So that's what I'm grappling with. Chairman, >> thank you. Vice Chair Fay, um, you know, I I agree. I don't I don't I don't even like the idea of putting the side wall or the east west walls between them in. However, I don't know that as property rights that I'm able to say you can't do this. Um, or that and I should say I have the I have the right to say anything I want. Um, it's whether or not that I feel like that that authority is something that should be granted to a body to tell a property owner that they don't have that right. Um, there's a fundamental the fundamentalist in me. Um, anyone else? Commissioner Wang, >> since I don't get to sit here too often, so I might have take the opportunity. It sounds to me is the developer is ready to build a wall, tear down the old one, build a wall with no cost to the existing homeowner, but they just don't want to pay for anything extra other than the construction of the wall and the design of the wall. and the existing owner rightfully so that you know spend some money on the survey and engineering and all this to try to correct you know whatever in the past but the thing is like you know other commissioners saying you know developer has right to build right now they if they go pull a permit you know build a house there's nothing we can do about it and you will not get any extra compensation anyway and also you get the get the new wall. So again I I would like to see you know maybe two party come to a resolutions and do things right not only just for today but also for the future owner as well because one day if you decided to sell your house or you know pass it to your you know children or you know then you get this gap um it going to be confusing. So that's my two cents. Thank you. >> Thank you, Commissioner. Anyone else want to throw something in or else to do a motion as it relates? We're not very good radio broadcasters with our dead air here. May I ask a question? >> Yeah, Commissioner >> S. If you don't mind, is there a requirement for a home builder to have an enclosed backyard? >> Are you asking S the question? Because then I'd have to reopen. >> Oh, no. S, please sit down. Look at you see you see the attorney's eyes right the gaze upon me. >> So but I think I can answer that that there's not a requirement. >> Okay. >> That they can build the house without a wall and that the town does not require a wall. We just see them everywhere because >> that's what people want. >> We like to have our own little boxes. Got >> Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Wang. >> Yeah. So, it sounds like they can today they go ahead and go build but just without the wall. And today we are approving or or disapproving the wall or the fence, whatever you want to call that. And but either way, it wouldn't stop the developer to to build That's my understanding >> because they already have the law. They already have the improvement on the street and everything. So >> well and and the way that I look at this is more in the sense of like the prisoners dilemma in the sense of if if look at the two actions there's we say okay no we we're going to fight fight you can't do this view fence then they're going to build lots >> or they're going to find something else you know that that'll happen but they could just build somebody's going to buy this house move their family in there then you know their kids will be in the backyard playing ball and the ball goes goes into that 8 in no man's land and then then the disputes are going to move into animosity between these homeowners >> theoretically >> well not over the fence I'm saying in the >> but I'm just saying that the the action of doing nothing I feel creates just as much if not more issues than putting a view fence in >> chairman if if I may, um they do have an approved open space plan and wall plan. Um and so in order to move forward and develop anything different than what's on that plan, there does need to be an amendment made to it. Um so they that's why we're holding those permits because there is an approved plan that they can't build to. >> Oh, so okay. So the approved plan they are unable to construct due to the correct. So, they need something that changes that. But if we were to say, "Okay, we don't like this wall," then the developer has to go back. They could just submit a plan that says, "We're not building a wall." >> Correct. >> Okay. >> Can I ask a clarifying question? Sure. >> So, the existing plan would float those sidewalls out to 48 in off that back property line because they can't put in the parallel wall. So, essentially in that case, we have we don't have enclosed yards for pets and kids. So then they're coming in and putting in this fence, which a homeowner, I guess, could come in and do on their own to kind of create that enclosed space. Is that correct? That's correct. >> Okay. Chair, I'd like to make a motion. >> Sure. >> Um, I guess with the caveat that I hope that they continue to have discussions and work through this wall issue and put in the 8ft wall because I think that's the best long-term solution for everybody, both sides of the fence. Um, sorry. Um, but I guess, um, my motion is to approve it with the staff conditions as S read read into the record. >> Thank you, Commissioner Davis. We have a motion on the table. Do they have a second? >> I'll second. >> We have a second from Commissioner Gage. Any other discussion or comments? >> Okay. Please cast your votes. Car. Okay. A yes. V would be approving the fence that they propose >> the amendment that's in front of us for the defense. Yes. >> Okay. >> Thank you. All right. vote carries five to two. I would like to point out that um this was you know and nothing into the developers or nothing against but I will say that Mr. Gaderian and the neighbors put together an extremely comprehensive and compelling amount of information and I will just echo that I really hope that there can be a amicable resolution and I want that on the record that uh that that I think they've done a lot and that they were put in a bad position by um the original survey. So um thank you all for coming and uh we appreciate your time. Moving on, item number nine, we have Z25-12 LDC text amendment, international headquarters. This is shown to be a continuence to January 7th, 2026 meeting. Uh so I'll just entertain a motion on that continuence. >> Chair chair, I will u move to continue that until the future meeting. >> We have a motion from the vice chair. Do we have a second? >> Second. Second from Commissioner Wong. I assume there's no discussion. Please cast your vote. Motion carries 70. On to item number 10. Z25-16 LDC text amendment preliminary grading permit applications and the worldrenowned Tom Condit. Uh chair and commissioners I'll try and make this brief. Um it's this is an LDTC text amendment. It's similar. Um, no I do not have one. Uh, it's similar to what uh what you heard u previously last month with respect to other LDC text amendments, but this one is just slightly different. Um, with the passage of that house bill, all of us, the cians and towns are required to uh authorize the staff to review and approve at risk submittals for preliminary preliminary grading and drainage permits. Now, just a little bit of background on this. the town engineering staff in Gilbert from uh Albert Pinetta has been with us for I think 37 or coming up on 38 years now. He informed me that ever since he started with the town, we have allowed at risk grading. It just has not been codified. So, uh what this what this does for us is it just puts it into our LDC that we actually do what we've been historically doing. Uh but here's just a little bit of background. This is the actual house bill that was enacted into law that number three talks about at risk submittals for preliminary preliminary grading and drainage. So it just codifies our current approach authorizing that work allowing us to establish fees establishing uh some minimum criteria related to the applications and plans uh allowing revocation of permits for various reasons and making uh technical and conforming changes. So we've been the next steps uh if you approve this is to go on to a council study session and a council hearing and our request is that you approve Z2516 at risk grading and drainage program and if you have any questions. >> Thank you very much Tom. Anyone have any questions for Tom on this item? >> Yes. Thank you Tom for being brief. Um, I used to be the guy who issued these things and I did give them out pretty freely. I mean, we're all grown-ups and and earthwork is pretty forgiving. You can always redo it. It's not like concrete. But I will tell you, every single time that the at risk got invoked, like the risk, the developer always came back and the first thing was to fight about I don't want to do it. Um, so when you present to council, make sure you beat the drum that this is at risk. If if something changes, that's their risk and they're the and then be good to it. You know, sorry, you got to sorry guys, you took the risk, you roll the dice, you pay the price. Let's make sure you you're beating that drum a little bit. Okay. >> Absolutely. >> Thank you. Just as more of a warning than a question. >> Thank you. >> Warning shot. All right. Anyone else have any questions or comments? or well I guess I should open up the public and uh check is there anyone here that would wishes to speak on this item? I'm not seeing anyone. Um any other questions or should Tom go sit down? >> You sure? >> I'll make a mo. >> Okay, Tom. >> My motion is to Before I make the motion, Tom, when I said warn, I didn't mean I'm warning you. I meant hey, heads up. this is what happens. So like you're not bad. Uh with that chair chair, I would like to make a motion to approve item 10, the land development code text amendment as written. We have a motion on the table for item 10. Do we have a second? >> I'll second. >> We have a second. Please cast your vote. Motion carries 70. Thank you. Under the administrative items and we'll go to item 11, the planning commission minutes. Let's consider the approval of minutes of the study session and regular meeting of November 5th, 2025. Anybody read them and have any adjustments they would like or make a motion? Chairman, as long as reading them is not a pre precursor of doing this, I'd like to make a motion to approve item 11. We have a motion from the vice chair. Do I have a second? >> I'll second. >> Second, uh, of course from Commissioner Gage. Please cast your vote. Motion carries 70. All right. communications do not have an executive session and we will go to item 13 and a report from the chairman and members of the commission on current events. What do we got? Commissioner Lion or Commissioner Wang, you got something? You guys are up here. You got a voice. Beat that drum. You notice you can say anything. You see what the vice chair does in the meeting. Just let it rip. Okay. Well, well then I'll make a motion that, you know, the last meeting I missed a little league game for the mighty muscles and uh you know, since my return to coaching, we've gotten ourselves into the championship game tomorrow night. So, if anyone's out around Crossroads Park, you want to come out and watch grown men yell at 8-year-olds, that's where you want to be. So, you know, and my other son is also in his championship at uh at the at the later hour. They play until like 10 o'clock at night and it was very cold. So I would just say please bundle up because even my Wisconsin blood was out there uh shivering in my spring coat last night. So all right, that's it for me. Uh then let's go to uh Ashley to see if there's any report on the planning services manager. >> No current events, but this is our last meeting of the year. So um just thank you for your service this year and I hope everybody has a wonderful holiday. >> Very good. Even you. Vice Chair. Okay. Well, then with that, uh, I guess I'll do a vote to adjurnn. >> Or a motion if one. >> I'll make a motion to adjurnn. >> I'll second the motion. >> We have a motion. Commissioner Gage and a second from the illustrious vice chair. Please cast your vote on the adjournment of this good meeting. Motion carries 70. Meeting adjourned. Thank you all very much. I'm trying to have like a few