williamsfield Road and delatore Boulevard buildings so we have a p Amendment and a design review case uh uh that we are showing to you tonight for the first time so here's the existing development plan that's currently um approved for the bellastoria pad like I said about 73 Acres there's about 60 Acres of residential about 11 and a half dwelling units per acre for the whole thing um and then and then you can see the acreages and stuff for commercial and multif family and single family there's about 29 Acres of multif family about 628 Lots approved today and then that 16 acre commercial uh corner so just take a mental uh note there mental screenshot in your brain of parcel B and what it looks like now so what the applicant is proposing to do here's the revised development plan with the piece on the corner and I'm going to show you that um a parcel B development plan in in a larger um context here in a second but I just wanted to let you know that they're increasing the number of units from 628 of multifam total in the whole development that includes parcel C to 691 units so that's about 63 additional units on parcel B than what was approved before which was about 304 and so the net acreage for and here's obviously here's the single family development plan or a single family excuse me I I hypo error I apologize um so here is the development plan the applicant's proposing and if you compare it to the original development plan it's it's a different design which that is why we were bringing it before you because their design that they proposed was not we didn't believe it was in substantial conformance with the original development plan obviously they're increasing the density is going up um a little bit and on the overall density throughout the whole development will be about 12 and A2 now instead of 11.6 because they're increasing it 63 units but the actual s itself is about 22 dwelling units per acre and like I said 367 units which before it was 304 units and you can see on this oh I'll show you the site plan the next one this is the the beautiful picture colored picture here shows it and represents it better in my opinion so you can see the design of the buildings now has completely changed you have this large building along williamsfield Road that's right up against the street Frontage on williamsfield and a little bit along delatore um it's a large building that kind of opens up in the center and it opens up to the amenities and provides a nice view shed right into the amenity Central amenity package that they have there and then there's another amenity off to the left kind of towards the West that you can see through a retention Basin that's along williamsfield Road at that corner so this building is about three stories tall for the most part and then there's portions of it that go to four stories and then you'll see along the other property boundary lines you'll see four um some uh I believe those those buildings are three stories and you'll see um how they're kind of L-shaped along the eastern boundary and along the North Boundary those are Carri twostory Carriage units and there's about n um six of those buildings and then four of the regular apartment buildings and then there's also a parking garage behind the main big building which is called building one and it's a two-story parking garage so all in all 367 units nine total buildings uh the parking garage like I mentioned and 607 parking spaces and there's one unique thing about this parking garage it's pretty open the design of it but it's kind of blocked if you will to a certain extent from williamsfield Road by that larger building so it's kind of screens itself a little bit and then it's also kind of screened from the north to to a certain extent as well from the single family homes that are to the north because of the two-story Carriage units so that's the site plan in in a hole um the landscape plan I know this is kind of hard to see since it's black and white you kind of get a better gauge of Landscaping on this plan a lot of trees around the perimeter and um of course on the street front edes and in the parking lot and the biggest thing I wanted to call to your attention on the landscape plan yes there is about 43% open space common open space area but is on that eastern boundary you have a lot of amenities there's a dog park kind of down towards williamsfield Road you have some grass areas that are serving as retention and kind of active play areas you have a fountain and then you have a pickle two pickle ball courts so they've decided to place all their amenities on the eastern boundary and the reason being for that is because there's a future commercial parcel to the east that will allow the the open space to to integrate with the commercial and create like a really cool unique Plaza SL amenity area that can not only be shared by the residents but but maybe some of the commercial as well we don't know how the commercial is going to develop yet but I can guarantee you that we'll be working with that commercial developer when they come in to kind of create kind of build off of this little open space area and there's also amenities in the center as well so it's not like all the amenities are pushed to the one side they still have amenities in the middle that the residents can access as well so the open space plan like I said about 43% open space and I just wanted to show this to you so you can see where all those Open Spaces are and that's Illustrated in the light green color so 3% more open space than it is what or actually 13% more open space than what is required um the elevations of the buildings here's the large building building one um I know on your screens it may be a little bit hard to see but um the art I can show you on some of the other buildings you can kind of see how the the architectural style is more of a Spanish architectural type style type design with the Arches and the um the clay tile roofing um and you have some hip Roofing in various locations and a lot of movement and wall plane movement and variation in the wall planes as you go around the buildings especially this large building and you can see on these site plans here how much movement there is in the wall planes and the design of the perimeter of the building quite a bit of movement which we are um uh content with so Spanish architectural uh style um whites and tan colors that's pretty typical of Spanish architectural style so I'll just go through these really quick this is one of the smaller buildings along the eastern boundary um here's building three kind of at the northeast corner and I know that these are in your packet as well so hopefully you've been able to to to look at those and then these are the carriage units two stories some flat Roofing and some some kind of um hip Roofing type as well and again kind of more of a flat roof style um with some Stone and things like that it's more Spanish as well and then the parking garage um the parking garage we haven't looked at too deeply yet as far as architectural design and style I mean there's only so much you're going to be able to do with a parking garage from a stylistic standpoint so you do have some arches and things like that um the materials we we're still looking into the materials of the and the design of that um I don't know how um much further we're going to be able to make this comply with Spanish architecture but we're going to take we're in the process of taking a deeper look at that right now but I just wanted to show you what it looks like so that that's the design of the the site and the buildings and so forth and I just wanted to let you know as I close my presentation that there was a neighborhood meeting held on the 20th of November it was a virtual neighborhood meeting and nobody attended res suring residents or property owners that was the fastest neighborhood meeting I've ever been a part of and so tonight I just like to get your input on the the amendment the pad Amendment that's going before you and obviously the design of the site and the what your thoughts are on the Spanish architectural style of the building elevations and that is it if you any questions I'm I'm here to answer them for you thank you very much thank you very much Keith okay who would like to kick us off with any comments related to what Keith is looking for input on oh thank you commissioner Davis I didn't even say anything yet you looked Keith I think the only thing that I was looking at is with the related to the design design of and it's related to buildings 5 through 9 on the North side along hasal they're all exactly the same um I didn't know if there's a way to stagger those buildings a little bit if there's a way to maybe modify maybe the entrances on a couple of them to be maybe with the Arches or something to kind of differentiate the buildings because you're picking up that residential character on the North side the single residence is that are going to be to the north maybe it would be appropriate going to give it a more to scale it a little bit make it seem like it's not all the same building giving it the feel that it's one long building across there so just something to look at but I think that's all I had chairm um commissioner Davis that's a that's a great comment I appreciate that and we will um uh provide that with the applicant okay thank you commissioner Simon all right Keith thank you for the presentation I just have a quick question is Coy state a character area um chair M um commissioner Simon station is not it it doesn't have its own name as a character area but it is part of the Gateway character area it is within the Gateway character area it doesn't it's not like Ki station's its own but it's part of a larger character area which is the Gateway character area so does the Spanish style of this property fit within that character um chairman Mt commissioner Simon the Gateway character area area um standards that are in the general plan do not specify an architectural style or design that's preferred okay if you go and you drive around that area you see different types of architectural design and styles but it doesn't specifically state that these styles are preferred um I do see some architecture in the Gateway character area that does have some Spanish style type designs so I think it would be something that would be appropriate and that would complement other developments that are in the immediate area Okay um your three points of input that you were looking for with regards to the pa the amended pad I actually like the the new plan better than the old plan I think that it flows better with with that area the the site plan I guess um the building designs I'm not super impressed by I I just I'm not I'm they don't look institutional but they look very Bland to me I just not a fan of it it looks very can I use monotone I guess without offending anybody um I I just feel like there could be more there and I feel like across the street coie station there's a lot going on that's very attractive and I feel like this not necessarily would detract from that but sitting right up against Williams Field I feel like you could do something more with that look so just my humble opinion okay thank you chair Simon I'm just kidding regular Simon okay any other Commissioners looking to give some input possibly get a promotion Vice chair I will um Keith thank you I have no aesthetic opinions I'm awful at this so I try to stay away from them and I wouldn't be highly complimentary but I recognize I'm bad at them although it does kind of look like the state mental institution but um the the I I reiterate kind of the same roughly same point I made before as I it relates to hll the road on the North that is as I as I look at the land use that's privately owned will that ultimately get dedicated or will that remain a private road um chair Mt um commissioner Fay um I I'm going to have to get back with you on that I I can't remember if it's um I think it's a public Street if I remember correctly it's it's not now well Keith um Clint or Tom may be able to answer that that would be good if if It ultimately is to be dedicated and it might not be but it probably should be given what I see of the larger development if it is make sure you you've got two two developments and the center line you've got to get that whole dedication with whichever one comes in first um you you can't realistically you can't have the dedication come with the guy who comes in second um so just manage that is what that would be my my guidance is to be be on the lookout for that part okay the rest of it again I'm I'm I'm bad at Aesthetics so it's best that I I just make myself sound ignorant I contribute nothing to the process so thank you that's all my comments thank you and we have Clint Clint uh if he could probably answer that question a lot better than I can um yeah chair commissioner it's uh it's planned to be a private street it's it's planned to be in a trct so it's going to stay in it's going to stay in a trct yeah well then and it doesn't matter it's fine if it stays that way I'm surprised you're doing that I'm surprised it's it's it's because they want to deviate from our standard collector wrote and so um we would prefer that if you're going to deviate from our our standard we'd rather have it in and if they're going to deviate the fire department still going to sign off on this on the deviated plans yeah I think the deviation is just the on street parking collector roads don't have on street parking that I think oh it but I think the width and everything for standard but okay you got that then thank you yeah um chairmont um commissioner Fay um so Pascal Street you know going obviously in front of this project a majority majority of it will be constructed on the at the onset by the development to the north I can't I I can't remember exactly what portion they're constructing but I believe they're constructing the full width all the way to um May might be to the back of the curb I can't remember but we will provide more information on that when we come back at the public hearing and I can tell you exact what's being constructed to the north it's just been a while since I've um um we've reviewed those plans the preliminary plat and so forth that took place for the bellor residential to the north but we can provide more information and more details on that when we come back for the public hearing very good yeah I think that'd be important for the fire to sign off and know that uh commissioner dier Vina Keith you did a great job and explaining the project there I have a minor question since H did come up in in the packet it said there's 33 parking spots on that street but you're saying it's still staying private and they still meet the parking requirement because they need 600 or 571 and with the 33 that they're allowing brings it up to 607 so they're still within the uh the required amount but if it's staying that way it might be a little bit confusing that it's going to be allowed to there to be parked on so that's my question um chairmont commissioner narina um this hasell street the the cross-section is pretty typical you can see it as you go further to the to the West it's the exact same cross-section where street parking is permitted um fortunately for this development they they're providing all their required parking on site the previous apartment complex that was um proposed was actually using that on street parking along hasell to meet their parking requirements this developer opted not to do that um so we're we're we're glad that they're not but uh the residents will be able to use those parking spaces but it's part of the cross-section that we agreed to is part of the pad so it is it is permitted for them to park on on the on street if they would like to but they don't really need to since they're meeting all their parking on site I hope I'm answering your question correctly and providing you information you need if not it was just something that kind of stood out since we were talking about Hass Street and yeah I saw those 33 spots that were allocated for parking but it didn't really matter because you did meet your required they don't need it yeah thank you but it is a good amend it's a good feature for and it's just a cross-section that we've carried through coie station along this whole um North portion of this used to be called station Loop now it's has street it's just a typical cross-section the town is adopted for this collector Road thank you all all right anybody else commissioner line it'll go red there you go I just wanted to Echo Mr just wanted to Echo some of the comments of commissioner Simon um I was curious about how many other buildings in the area follow that architectural style I am not particularly fond of it but you know if it's something that ties into the area I can going forward with it or pursuing that um but yeah like I said I kind of just want to Echo that and not my my taste and it it does have a little bit of a medical office feel to it but it's just my personal opinion um chairmont um commer lion um that's a good question I don't know this number of buildings in the area that use Spanish architectural style it's something I can research and get back with you on when we come back for public hearing I can provide more information on that thank you Keith seems as everyone's gone outside of commissioner Gage do you have anything you'd like to add no okay very good well Keith do you think you have the information that you need I believe so thank you very much all right thank you sir all right with that then covering items one and two we will move to it item number three Z250 LDC text Amendment and bring up Miss Veronica Gonzalez good evening Mr chairman Commissioners um I have before you today a request for citizen review and initiation for um a text Amendment to the Land Development code to address the redel commission so the reason we're requesting this um LDC text amendment is we're looking to add an alternate member to the Redevelopment commission currently their membership is just five regular members and does not include um an alternate member um by adopting this it would allow the commission to um maintain a quum if a commissioner is absent or must declare a conflict or recuse themselves from an item on the agenda so what we request from you is to um conduct a citizen review meeting and initiate the text Amendment and I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have thank you very much Veronica very short and sweet anybody have any questions or comments related to the LDC text amendment I think it is pretty straightforward um and I think it's a good thing I I recognized that there were some issues with this particular thing so uh looks like we are all good with that is that all good for you then I assume you're directing us to initiate the text Amendment yes very good please initiate set text Amendment thank you thank you very much yes that's correct okay with that we finished our agenda for the work session and I'd like to move into item number four and have a discussion of the regular meeting agenda uh on the regular meeting we have the consent of st2 24-1 Gilbert Santan and number nine dr24 d24 Aldi Gilbert and then on non-consent item number 10 GP 2402 and Z2 2410 Moda Gilbert or morda Gabriella point and item number 11 GP 245 Tustin Ranch minor GP and Z24 D12 Tustin Ranch pad Amendment as well as item number 12 UP24 D60 fos Sun Valley or F I don't know exactly so uh I don't know if there's anything anybody would like taking off of consent or if anyone has suggestions to add to I don't believe we can add any based on um our discussions earlier in the uh Monday meeting but anyone have any opinions or should we leave it as is I would would say we leave it as is thank you very much commissioner Simon all right consider that discussion concluded and we will adjourn the work session and find ourselves back here in 27 minutes thank you very much e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e all right we'll get started here in a minute I just wanted to make an announcement to make everyone aware it seems as though you know but if you wish to speak on an item there are yellow comment cards in the back please fill it out indicating the item number number that you wish to speak on and whether you're in favor of or oppose to the item as well as your name and address thank you very much we'll get started here in just a minute or two e e e okay I will now call to order the regular meeting and the first item will be the Pledge of Allegiance please stand with me thank you very much Eva could I please have a roll call commissioner lion commissioner D graina here commissioner Gage present commissioner Davis here commissioner Simon here commissioner Anderson Vice chairman Fay present chairman Mont here we have a quarum thank you all right moving on to item five approval of the agenda we had a discussion during the study session on the agenda and after much deliberation we decided it will stay exactly as it is I will entertain a motion chairman Mt I would make a motion to not mess with the not do anything with the agenda to to move forward with the agenda as written very well thank you Vice chair we will move forward with the agenda as written do I have a second chair I'd like to second that very messy motion thank you thank you for cleaning that up Comm Simon all right we have a second from commissioner Simon please cast your vote that's I don't know that we have to make a motion to not do anything a motion by definition is a okay to do something we have the approval moving on now to Communications first item is Communications from citizens at this time members of the public May comment on matters within the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission the commission may not discuss the items that are not specifically identified on the agenda therefore pursuant the 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 schedule ring the matter for further consideration I'd like to just point out a caveat that that is only for people wishing to speak on items not specifically on the agenda so if you're all here to speak on the agenda um I'm not going to suddenly just Breeze past it so is there anyone here that wish to speak on an item or something not currently on the agenda I don't have any comment cards and I don't see anyone therefore we will move on and item seven is a report from our Council liaison uh but council member Lions is not present this evening so we will then move right into the public hearing consent uh all items listed below are considered public hearing consent calendar the commission may by a single motion approve any number of items where after opening the public hearing no person requests the item be removed from the consent calendar if such a request is made the commission shall then withdraw the item from the public hearing consent calendar for the purpose of public discussion and separate action other items on the agenda may be added to the consent calendar and approved under a single motion our consent calendar is comprised of two items however uh we do have a abstention and vote for item number 9 so we are going to do this as two separate motions um so to start with we will do item number eight I'll entertain a motion chairman M I would make a motion to I would move to approve consent item number eight as written all right we have a motion from Vice chairman Fay do have a second I'll second it seconded by commissioner deina all please cast your vote motion carries all right chair as to the next item um I this because they've added a driveway on Arizona Avenue this will require an ADOT permit and I'm employed at ADOT so I'm going to recuse myself for any item for anything about item number nine thank you very much sorry when I recuse myself I have to leave the podium which isn't worth the effort in this case but I'm still going to do it please leave sir and chair I'll make a motion to approve item 9 dr2 24-24 Alia Gilbert all right we have a motion and uh do we have a second I'll second that motion commissioner Davis comes through with the second please cast your vote if you are not Vice chairman Fay all right motion carries Vice chairman Fay you may please return to the Das all right now moving 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 he 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 so the first item on our non-consent agenda this evening is item number 10 gp24 d02 Moda Gabriella point and Z24 d10 Modera Gabriel app point and we will bring up Mr Keith Newman excuse me chair I'm not allowed to I have to recuse myself okay yes we have a recusal from commissioner Gage if you will please vacate no thank you all right thank you chairman M members of the commission good evening so my my next project before you tonight obviously as you stated is the Moda Gabriella Point project um which consists of a a gen minor General plan Amendment and a p8 rezone uh the site as you can see in front of you on the screen is located at the northeast corner uh it's hard to read the the text on this one but of higgle Road and Alona Drive which is basically as you can see is north of the 202 on that um uh east side of the road uh the site is part of a current vacant piece of land that's over 50 acres of about about 40 40 something Acres actually um north of Alona and it's um obviously sitting vacant Farmland the request as I've stated is for a minor minor General plan Amendment on a 10.53 acre portion of the site and I'll show it to you in just a second where that specifically is um and then also a pad rezone over the whole thing with a few deviations um so the general plan amendment that is uh proposed by the applicant as you can see is for the back half of the property so the whole site's about 15 Acres 14.99 that's gross in acreage um the back half of the property which is 10.53 gross acres is the only part that is changing the general plan and they're changing they're proposing to change that from its current classification of regional commercial to residential 25 to 50 dwelling units per acre in the front half of the property which is about 4 .3 4.46 Acres or so is going to stay Regional commercial from a general plan standpoint and they're not changing proposing to change that the zoning exhibit breaks down what is proposing to be rezoned the the whole site right now is zoned Regional commercial the front piece which is 4.46 acres is proposed to be rezoned it's going to stay Regional commercial but it's proposing they're proposing some pad deviations on that front piece and of course on the back piece but so in order to do that they're doing a reone to to to establish a p on the front half the back half which is 10.53 acres is going from is proposing to be rezoned from Regional commercial to multifam high with a p as well and some deviations which which I will go over in just a few minutes so the development plan let's take a closer look at the development plan that is before you today and I have actually the prettier picture right here um that one's a little bit easier to kind of read and understand so the development plan um like I stated before the front 4.46 Acres which is within the regional commercial District along Higley Road will feature a three-story mixed use building this building is anticipated to include approximately 15,000 square ft of commercial space on the ground floor with 44 residential units on the upper two floors a skybridge which you can see on that south portion of it connects it from the commercial to the the residential building is on that um the South corner of that will will provide a little integration from the commercial to the residential building which I'm sure the applicant will probably go into a little bit more detail on I would imagine the rear 10.53 Acres will include four four-story residential buildings you can see them in that yellow color um nine garage buildings and surface parking with parking canopies and you can see the parking canopies are the brown ones the development proposes a total of 335 residential units with an average density of 20 28 dwelling units per acre over the whole Pro the whole project vehicular access will be available from as you can see on the map on the development plan off of Higley Road that's the main access for the commercial and then along Alona drive there will be a a secondary access for the commercial and then one also for the residential where the main access and the gates and so forth are the keypad and so forth and then one off of Martingale Road there will be Gates that will SE separate the front half 4.46 acres from the multif family to the back um there's also an access point to the north through a potential future uh commercial development that will that will be happening hopefully in the future near future please note that um Town engineering staff after reviewing the the project I just wanted to note this and it's not in your report but they have concerns with site access to the proposed Regional commercial um as there is currently one main access off of Higley Road as you can see it there and the secondary access off of Alona will be a little challenging due to the center median and they are concerned with potential u-turns as people go on to Martingale to try and um head back to the commercial piece um and but but and that's really close to that that residential entrance as well off of Alona so I just wanted to mention that um as congestion backs up on Higley we're highly concerned that people will be using Alona drive and making u-turns to get into the commercial so I just wanted to to mention that uh for our traffic department so here is the open space plan oh I messed up on some text on the right hand side I apologize but the site has 27% open space for the multifam high portion what is required by code is 40% so the applicant is asking for a deviation to allow a reduction in that common open space down to 27% just for the multif family High piece the O the regional commercial piece on the front is about 43.4 7% open space where F where 15% is required so as a whole the whole project as a whole the applicant is stating will be 31% open space over the whole 14 or 13.07 I think is the net acreage approximately over that whole project will be about 31% open space so before I move on to Devi the other deviations and so forth and some other information just wanted to show you some site renderings that the applicant has provided to us obviously these are conceptual and none of this architecture has not been finalized the applicant recently has submitted a design review application that we are about ready to start first review on here in the next uh week or so so these these these are just conceptual only at this time just to give you an idea of what the buildings could look like so this is facing Higley Road that's that long the commercial with the residential above this is kind of in the middle kind of in the actually it's still facing the the higgle Road elevation it's just showing what the shops may look like on the ground floor and then here is a shot or a view of that skybridge and then the a little bit of the space in between the Loft unit building and the residential building to the east of it here's another shot that shows you the the sky bridge and the kind of the backside of that commercial building or with the Loft unit building is what we call it with commercial on the back side as well so those are the renderings so just wanted to show you those those pictures before I moved on so some of staff's concerns with this project are um I know you guys have heard this before but I'm going to I'm going to mention it again so one of the staff so one of the concerns and the reason why staff is is is not supporting this project tonight is because of a few things number one is um the loss of regional commercial so the loss of regional commercial land um this proposal converts um RC zoned land um is proposing to convert that from near the Santan freeway to residential which we believe can conflicts with the general plan which is obviously for regional commercial also is the Gateway character area this area which is in the Gateway character area is intended for campus style office office and light industrial uses and Commercial activities that serve the surrounding neighborhoods and communities and not more multifam we prefer that the site remained um RC to fulfill this Vision that has been established on this site for many many years with the creation of the Gateway character area um as the town nears buildout the land use changes from commercial to residential obviously must be carefully evaluated to ensure reasonable and sustainable growth in the Gateway character area development should focus on traditional neighborhoods that integrate commercial employment and Business Park uses introducing additional highdensity residential development on the subject site which there is quite a bit of it in the area which I will show you just a minute in just a minute in towns in towns according to town staff would undermine the Gateway character area intended character and long-term Vision in this immediate area um growth must prioritize the town's economy um in vitality and sustainability while adhering to the established Vision so the loss of regional commercial on this corner is a big deal to the town of Gilbert the next thing is the the amount of multifam in the mediate area and I have a Graphic on this screen looks like Honeycombs but I'll explain what this is there's two nearby multifam developments Tuscany at Gabriella point and Morrison Ranch Apartments Tuscany at Gabriella Point has n 760 units that's basically two comp apartment complexes in one and the Morrison ranch apartments with just 230 unit town home development which is still zoned multif family those have been approved Tuscany at Gabriella point is currently under construction so that results in a total of 991 multifam residential units within a half mile of this the subject site of Gabriella Point um so adding those 991 units to what is proposed the 335 by Moda would mean there' be 1,32 26 multif family units within a half mile um creating the highest concentration of such units in the town in the entire town of Gilbert outside of the coie station Village Center area unlike kolie station that Village Center area which was intentionally planned for higher residential density in a neotraditional Village Center design the site has been envisioned as a less dense area with traditional neighborhoods that integrate with regional commercial and business park near the Santan freeway so this proposed increase in additional density is inconsistent with the vision originally established for this portion of the Gateway character area so in addition um to these two main concerns staff notes that there also is been a market demand study that has been shared with us by the applicant provided to us and it's in packet and I hope you've had the opportunity to read it um as stated in the report the applicant asserts that the site is more suitable for a mixed use development addressing housing shortages and promoting high quality retail rather than a large scale retail development which may not be viable in the current market environment we acknowledge the create that that study but created by rounds Consulting as the Retail Landscape continues to evolve and the housing demand remains high but the study only considers retail sales ignoring other permitted uses like entertainment hospitality and office developments please note that staff has presented the currently vacant portions of Gabriela point to several interested entertainment and Recreation users in recent years who were encouraged who were encouraged by Town staff to engage in discussions with the property proper owner team this interest demonstrates the potential for diverse uses Beyond retail however a staff does not have influence and whether or not those developers choose to speak with the applicant with with the with the property owner um and we cannot influence how those deals move forward um so as it is concerned with housing we are conducting a comprehensive housing assessment or study with Elliot Pollock right now to better understand our current housing stock and develop policies for increased affordability and variety so staff at this time believes at this time that the current rezoning or rezoning more land for highdensity multif family housing is premature until the study is complete especially given that housing issues are Regional and and nearly 1,000 approved or under construction multif family units already exist near the subject site within a half a mile the demand study provided by rounds Consulting does not considered these pending developments further supporting our approach to the rezoning at this time and not supporting the rezoning so given that said there's a few deviations that the applicant is proposing they're proposing on the rear boundary between the residential and the commercial they're proposing a zero foot setback landscaping and building setbacks so that they can have better inte integration between residential and Commercial and then also for the multif family High piece obviously that West boundary they're proposing zero foot setback and for landscape I forgot to highlight the landscape one so that they can have that integration that I'm talking about um otherwise they'd need to provide large setbacks and that integration wouldn't be wouldn't be avail ailable and they're also proposing a deviation to the common area uh Landscaping percentage from 40% down to 27% so as far as public participation there has been one neighborhood meeting that was held on the uh for this site um one surrounding resident attended and expressed concerns with the addition of more apartments and and the potential traffic volumes in the area which we know are are pretty high due to at peak times due to the Ala school and increasing traffic volume volumes in the in the whole that whole area as a whole as well and recently staff has received five um emails from nearby residents who have Express concerns of course with the traffic and they don't want more multif family and are opposed to the development um so per our staff's recommendation we staff is recommending that you uh uh forward a recommendation to the council for denial of the ma of the minor General plan Amendment and that based on the reasons I've stated tonight also that you also forward a recommendation to the Town Council for denial of the re the pa the p rezone as well um I wanted to note before I end my presentation and open it up for questions for myself and I believe the applicant Brennan Ray is here too and I'm sure he'll have a a presentation that he would like to give and answer some questions as well but I just wanted to note there's a modified condition condition F in your staff report talks about the deviations and list what they are um we wanted to note in there and add another column at the very bottom of the one the the table for the regional commercial about the Landscaping percentage we wanted to lock in that 43.4 7% for uh that they're proposing for the commercial the commercial portion of the development the C piece on the front and that concludes my my presentation and um I'm open for questions you have for me but like I stated before the applicant's also here as well so and can answer questions and give his presentation as well at your leisure so that's it thank you thank you very much Keith all right bringing it up anybody have any questions for Keith Vice chairman Fay Keith um there was an addendum on this that addressed the open space Landscaping issue a little bit you know what I'm talking about um chairm um commissioner Fay we just I think what it was is we changed the percentage because in the original report the percentage was wrong is that what you're referring to that's that answers the question I was going to ask is how come it jumped up without substantial changes or without any changes that I could see it's just because there was an error um CH chairmont commissioner Fay yeah sta staff had put the wrong percentage number in the report based on most the most recent updated exhibits okay that aned my question commissioner deina Keith I got you did a good job on explaining the project I got a couple basic questions that skybridge is that implemented because the back half is gated and the front half is not I mean I'm trying to figure out the significance of even having a sky Bridge there uh chairm commissioner um dvina I know the applicant can speak a little bit more about that but that skybridge is providing Ed um and so so for integration so that the residents that live in the residential buildings to the east don't have to cross the busy street or the busy Drive aisle and they can easily cross over to the commercial side of the development I believe they'll be able to cross over I think it's the second floor and they'll be able to go over it drop down from the second floor down to the first floor and go to the commercial without having to put themselves In Harm's Way and cross that busy drive a I know the appc can easily explain more about that than I can but that that's my understanding of why the sky bridge is proposed and I and I wanted to note too that we're looking at having them move that further to the north so that it's better for fire access so a lad truck can access it better so that's something that may come down the pipe in the design review stage too it's moving it a little bit to the north that's a good enough explanation my my second question uh is is on the U let me let me come back to that I got to put my thoughts together on that okay anyone else or do should we let the applicant present all right well thank you Keith we'll have the applicant speak and we'll bring you back if we have any other thank you very much uh okay good we're working all right uh good evening uh chair members of the commission Brenan Ray 2325 East cach here on behalf of the applicant mil Creek residential um we're certainly excited um to talk about um this development it's something that you have seen before in two prior study sessions uh and um we believe that we've been uh as responsive as we can to some of the feedback that we've received as we've gone throughout this process um we believe uh that the T that the design of this reflects um the high quality that is sought after um and we certainly work closely with staff uh having had lots of good discussions not only with planning uh Keith and others on the planning team uh but with the office of Economic Development as well about this site and what it is and what it looks like um and so tonight what I'm going to do is kind of touch on Keith still a lot of my thunder on the design of the development but I think there are some few few key things I'd like to uh highlight as we kind of go through it um but one of the the things at the outset we talk about when talking about this I think it's important to note and you'll hear me say this multiple times throughout the presentation that really what we're focusing on is about 10 acres uh that's really if you drill down into it what we're talking about is is 10 acres and what can happen on that and we would uh at the end uh respectfully ask this commission's recommendation for approval so we're all certainly very familiar with the site what's around it I think as we look at this area and Keith talked about the vision of the area and I've got another slide that I can talk about it but one of the things to note is that this area was certainly envisioned as being uh one of a a non residential type area as you look at it um specifically um you had again looking at the general plan there was some general office that was planned on the uh west side of Higley and then you had the Gabriella point on the east side of Higley um obviously when you look at what's there today um one of the rocks that was dropped in the pond that has caused ripples is a charter school that now exists on the um west side of Higley and so as we as we look at it the Visions changed and um certainly what was once thought that higgle in the 202 was going to be needs to be reassessed and um one of the things that I'll I'll challenge this on is to have a very honest discussion um about what is appropriate for this area uh globally and then specifically when we talk about these 10 acres so again this is where we're trying to get to um that was weird I didn't know that part was there yet I apologize caught me off guard for a second so again this is the plan that we're trying to get to uh and Keith did a good job walking through the details of it I'm going to just touch on a few thing one of the things that Keith mentioned is that the density on the site was 28 Acres that's not correct the density on the overall site is 22 Acres uh and that would be on the entire 14.99 15 Acre Site and so that density actually is within keeping of of the Gateway character area as we look at it um one of the other things that I'll I'll mention briefly is deals about access um and you can see on this clearly that there are multiple points including on the north side of our development you see a kind of a road to nowhere that is planned for a future shared access that will occur from higgle Road and so as we look at it um obviously Higgly and Alona is a lighted intersection um you do have access I'm appreciative of the comment of concern of people making u-turns on Alona drive to be able to get to the access to be get able to get to the commercial I'm not sure why they would do that when there is a direct right turn uh into the development uh we'll construct a Dell Lane as well uh so I'm a little unclear as to why there is because we have direct access to the commercial from Higley as you look at it again looking at this and to kind of answer the question um that commissioner um de gravini asked um we we do have a a overhead pedestrian cross Crossing because what um wasn't maybe not clear is that um this area this site does allow for um the proposed development that we've got there ground floor retail and Loft above that is permitted by Regional commercial I could go build that today if I wanted to that's why again most of my discussion is going to focus on the 10 acres in the back and so what we've got there is ground floor retail two residential floors above um and it is meant to provide access as as Keith alluded to um from the residential portion of the commerci excuse me the residential portion of that Loft living back over to the the rest of the residential development and residential amenities um just touching again on the quality of it really uh excited about this uh and what we're doing this is a representation of another development that mil Creek has worked on but just to give you a little flavor of The Pedestrian scale amenities that we are trying to create as we go through this um the reason for the pedestrian bridge is that as we went throughout this process we were challenged to create something that Gilbert hadn't seen or experienced before uh and we had lots of discussions about what to do to create something different and felt like this was going to be appropriate to where what you'll have then is this um skybridge again that connects the residential to the residential as you look at and this is if you're looking Northbound uh through the site and this this is if you're looking to the South open space um and I think Keith this is actually the wrong presentation that was loaded as I look at it but hopefully somebody can figure that out in the background um but um as we look at it one of the things open space if you recall at the study session at that time we were proposing 20% % open space on the multifam um we were encouraged at that to try to get some more open space to it um and that's the purpose of this exhibit uh was to uh increase the open space to uh show you that we did listen and that we got it to 20 uh 7% I'm going to pause for one minute this is not my presentation that I sent this afternoon apologize okay everybody please bear with us technical difficulties here um but I'm sure we'll get it rectified here shortly for all this technology it's always bound to do something at some point indeed for for for I imagine whatever is within this soon to be unveiled presentation will be very fantastic since it's drawing so much for for for e I know the suspense is killing me too chair I'm sure it'll be well worth the wait I was just getting to the meat of it rock and roll okay chair may I continue carry on sir thank you um so focusing really really getting down to it and thank you for your patience um getting down to it I I really want to spend um the additional time talking about kind of the two staff's two main contentions uh as to why um they should be denied um and and really again the focus should be on 10 acres that's really at the corner of two collectors because as I mentioned we can build by right what is on the Frontage today so if you look at this a little bit closer the one on the left is the regional commercial zoning the one on the right obviously is the vacant land so that you can again clearly understand and see exactly the change that we're talking about focusing it on to on these this 10 acres but before I get too farther and there is a typo on this slide I own that typo um there's not two General commercial designations but as we look at it I think it's important to understand um kind of what the general plan envisioned for this area um and there's approximately rough calculation about 300 acres north of the 202 that's a mix of general office neighborhood commercial General commercial and Regional commercial um and that doesn't even include The General commercial that's south of the 202 and again you can see the site that we're really focusing on changing tonight really being the 10 acres there this slide was paused I was going to get to it I just had some other things before that and so I won't belabor that point but we believe that it actually creates a more viable mixed use development um and that the Gateway character area's goals are actually being satisfied as you see there um one of the things that that staff indicated um was that and was critical of our report was that there Regional commercial zoning allows much more than just the retail uh in Jim rounds uh with rounds Consulting is with me tonight and if you guys have questions of him um by all means he he'd be more than happy to answer them um because as as Jim and I visited about it what they looked at are viable uses because when we talk about entertainment and nothing's materialized quite to the contrary we know where a lot of those entertainment uses have landed over in the SanTan mall area um with Top Golf and Main Event and and popstroke that I believe is coming over there so as we again look at it we don't believe that the loss of 10 acres of commercial is is is significant especially given its location of where we're talking about changing it Keith put this slide up and um we actually kind of see this as as a good thing um because what it shows is there is a demand in the area um for housing there's a need those um existing multif family units are running about 94% occupancy and we know that this area is a desirable area to live there's not a lot of options for single family housing in the area because the land has been developed so there's very few opportunities to provide additional housing in this area we think the comparison to coie station is a little misplaced in that this area adjacent to arterial major arterial adjacent to a freeway actually is an appropriate location for some additional residential density and I think it's important to note too that in spite of in spite of all the good things that this area and the Morrison Ranch area has to offer not only the um existing 991 units that are there but all the single family um it's interesting that in spite of many positive that commercial developers look for um nothing viable uh has been brought forward or discussed um and again there's there's lots of positives to having multif family especially here where we can create an instant customer base um that's within walking of the site there was a recent article um in the Gilbert Sun News and I don't know if you all had the opportunity to see it this was January 29th so just a few days ago where there was a forum that was put on with the economic development directors in the area and they talked about it and um Dan Henderson was quoted in the article of saying housing is an economic development issue it's something that we take very seriously and in discussions with the office of e economic development that I've had um again the serious question that we've got to ask is in spite of having a site that has great access um traffic counts that retailers uh and Commercial developers would want the demographics in the area you're all very familiar with what the demographics are there the quality of the housing everything that in spite of all those positives that would have most commercial developers salivating uh to develop it it still has not developed it and why is that and so I think it's a fair question to ask as we go through it again this is the Jims round report uh I won't go to it into detail but I think there's four things that if we need to get Jim up to to talk more about it that we can obviously we're all familiar with the change in the Retail Landscape the change from brick and mortar to e-commerce and that the impact um there are considerable economic benefits and Community enhancements that this development will bring including the 10 acres um and despite some of these ongoing discussions that we kind of get tired of because there's a lot of noise there still is a housing crisis and a real need for housing in the area so again as we look at it the question that we were asked as we've gone through this is what is the impact of this 10 acre rezone on it again this is the best corner at this intersection uh it is the going home going home Corner Northbound Higley eastbound Warner it is the number one corner at this intersection uh and so yes is the regional commercial zoning appropriate for it yes is it appropriate uh for these 10 acres in the back that really front on to two collectors um we would submit to you that the answer to that is no because as we look at it um and again as we were challenged hey what can the rest of this develop as um mil Creek talked to one of the preeminent designers of commercial development uh Butler Design Group uh Rick's got over 45 years of experience doing commercial developments and certainly has a good feel um of what makes sense and so when you look at this site and what it can be again you've got 30 Acres of commercial uh and over 250,000 Square ft of commercial that can go there and and probably should go there again because of the traffic counts because of the demographics because of all of that stuff so when we look at it and this is again from the round's report we think that this proposed rezone again on 10 acres actually will hopefully help catalyze catalyze uh additional development again it hasn't happened even with what's in the area and so it begs the question what's the appropriate amount um and you can see there one of the things as as we looked at it um and Jim Jim can expound more on it but average household spending of about 40,000 within a 5 mile radius that's a good thing and then when we look at e-commerce and the sales tax that's generated uh through online internet sales that's going to be an additional approximate 1.4 million annually that this that the residents of this this development will generate for the town so thank you for your patience here's what we're trying to get to I'm happy to answer questions I know Jim rounds is here to answer questions if we need to but um we would request your approval all right thank you sir anyone have any questions for the applicant okay thank you thank you anyone have anything else they wanted to bring Keith back up for to discuss in relation to the staff's I I do and maybe even one of the other Commissioners knows I don't care about the breakdown of open space or Landscaping on individual as long as the composite is there or individ but so my understanding is overall we're at right about 30% is that 30 31% is that the and if we want to talk individual Parcels that's fine but the bigger picture to me is the big picture yeah chair if I yeah please go ahead sir yeah Vice chair Fay um so if we were to look at what would be required uh and you aggregate them kind of how Keith did earlier the requirement for the overall site would be 33% % um that's the regional commercial coupled with the multif family if you look at what we've aggregated and as Keith indicates we are proposing 31% so effectively a 2% Delta between what would be required overall versus what we are proposing okay okay yes perfect thank you yeah is it possible to go back to that map of the slide that has the Honeycombs on it with the uh so we could get a better idea I guess it's Higgly and kind of Warner so I could kind of so was there a traffic study done in this also how that's going to increase the traffic on those streets uh through the chair uh commissioner de gravini hopefully I'm saying that right at let's close it's de gravina I'm used to being it mispronounced I apologize for that Brennan get Brennan gets butchered all the time so I apologize for that uh in terms of a of a traffic uh study uh we did prepare and submit a traffic statement uh in connection with it and then one of the things that we were asked to do as we went through was to do a comparison on this site uh relative to um what the the trip generation would be and you can see on there um obviously if this entire 15 Acres uh was to be commercial uh you can see the impact uh on um the in a a 24 hour period and AM and PM you can see the impact we analyzed then that trip generation for what the proposal that is for you today and you can see the Delta um between those two um as I mentioned in part of it um let me get the site plan back up um as part of our requirements as we've gone through this process uh is the requirement to constru con construct and maintain a Dell Lane on Higley Road uh through that access a little bit nor north of Alona um and so um again I I I'm we did look at it from a traffic generation standpoint we know that there's a lot of problems that exist out there today I do have information if you'd like me to go into detail as to that but um I'll just leave it as far as the trip generation for now um yeah it's it's hard for me to make a decision that that's not going to create addition traffic I mean the streets are very crowded and as we have more high density units in that area it's going to get even more crowded so that's a tough one I mean it's so let me try to answer the rest of your question then with additional information so as as we look at this area and and I travel this road frequently not as often as others but we know that the this uh area is impacted by a number of things uh and traffic coming off a higgle and so as you look at it this is designed to kind of have um some blow up some little vignettes so you can see the travel lanes and everything that's occurring um I'll get back to higgling alone in the school site in particular in the impact but again as you look at this development whether it's this or commercial there's a couple of things that I would point out one there already exists today a dedicated right-hand turn lane um south of Alona to be able to get on to Alona so that is taking that would be taking the residential traffic uh commercial whatever anybody that wants to go that way they are moving out of those travel Lanes with the Dell Lane that exists today I've already talked about what's going to happen on the North side as you get through it um and there's kind of a blow up of what's going on there um further as we move to the north there becomes a choke point at Warner and that choke point exists because what people think are three travel Lanes to be able to go through gets restricted down to two um and the reason that is is because of there's no development on the North side and there's not the additional ride of way to create that necessary travel Lane on the north side of Warner I do know that there is a an application that is pending um that's I think it's a design review application uh where hopefully that will be remedied North and that additional ride of way will be granted but because as I understand traffic to be they've got a move it at some point and it just so happens that that choke point exists because of that again you can kind of see there what exists there is some of the rideway um at Higley north of Warner that exists um but you see those stripes there to not allow it again because of the development further to the north when we talk about Higgly and Alona one of the challenge that's faced at this intersection deals with the school it doesn't deal with the traffic on the uh East Side side of the road um because what ends up happening is and you can kind of see here where there's a real conflict deals with the leftand turn lane into the school uh and I've actually visited with Town traffic staff about this particular issue and you can see there that that yellow highlight Northbound left turn Lanes in there's about 364 movements generally when you're over 300 that requires two dual hand left turns the other problem that that exists here is that there is currently only 140 ft of storage whereas typically the town requires about 250 fet of storage so it's kind of it's kind of The Perfect Storm I know in talking with uh Transportation staff and I think Clint Clint's here and I and I talked with Clint about this that um this is uh one one of the top intersections that's on the on the town's um priority um to try to figure out because because while we can send the traffic you've got to be able to receive it on the other side which is going into ala and I know there are discussions of a CIP um project that would come and look at this my understanding and Clint can correct me where I'm wrong that that CIP is tentatively planned for 28 they have some funding available for it now but are looking for additional funding to be able to kick off additional studies and design and ways to improve this intersection this this challenge exists whether we come or not uh and it's something that that the town looks at again as as we look at this um from our perspective we are for anyone wanting to access the residential or access the commercial there are certainly opportunities moving them out of the travel Lanes uh with the Dell Lane onto Alona and then the Dell Lane off of Higley uh into our development hopefully that provides some addition information for you yes thank you um still kind of indicates it's going to be a busy intersection it there's no question that it is and I guess there's no way to compare if it was the number of cars going through there if it was directly what you proposed or if it was commercial on on the back half because we don't know what commercial will be going in there so it's hard to judge how many cars in relation to commercial or high density so I don't know if that was looked at at all either because it's it's hard to do because you don't know what commercial would be going on that back half it it it was through the chair commissioner it was that's this trip generation comparison that you see on here okay the way that Traffic Engineers um look at it uh when it's undevelopable is they look at the acreage and they presume um that all right this type of commercial and this type of setting we can presume a a in this case a gross floor area GFA of a th000 square feet so they would presume that you could get approximately 135,000 Square ft of commercial uh on the entire 15 acres and that's where these figures are are generated from um it's something that not only did our private engineer do but I know the town um in making assumptions uh goes through a similar exercise okay well thank you you went a great detail there MH anyone else have any questions for the applicant before we okay all right then does anyone else have anything else that we would like to ask Keith or staff traffic anything else all right uh then we should note I do not have any comment cards currently is there anyone here that wish to speak on this item sir if you want to speak on the item if you could fill out a yellow comment card and you want to speak on this item oh one moment are you Tyler Jones all right I found it okay please come up Sir um we have Tyler Jones he has opposed the item he wish to speak and and you'll have three minutes and just state your name and your address or if you're a r Gilbert resident yeah good evening Commissioners my name is Tyler Jones I'm a resident of Gilbert I'm also a former Planning Commission member of the town of Gilbert I stand here tonight in opposition to the proposed Madera Gabriella Point multif family project neither the requested plan Amendment nor the zoning change is Justified this area within Gilbert was not intended for dense multif family housing according to the general plan as stated and was previously indicated by staff this area is already the second highest concentration of apartments in Gilbert the project would lead to more congestion right at the corner of one of the town's busiest and most dangerous intersections and further complicate traffic flows with the Ala School across the street this area needs more commercial uses as it is already zoned I hope you will support staff's recommendation to deny the changes let's keep this the town of Gilbert not the City of Gilbert and be thoughtful about how we developed these last few parts of land more Apartments is not the answer thank you all right thank you very much Mr Jones okay then with that I no one else wish to speak on this item I will close the public comment and bring it to the dis for discussion and look to my fellow Commissioners for discussion motions Etc appears as though their presentations have also been sent in error commissioner Simon so um I kind of kicked this one around for quite a bit I struggle with the amount of residential multif family going into this area just because we really don't know what's going to happen with the property to the east obviously it's the 600 and some apartments I think is what we said um 600 and some units going in there to the East and once that's developed you know what what type of Interest could come to this parcel um I think I'd be more interested if we saw more multiuse um on this with regard to along Alona I think that there could be some interesting aspects of office and or retail with Loft above or residential above I so I'm just not really convinced that we need to jump quickly to get rid of what Regional commercial we have left in the town of Gilbert um so I'm hesitant to push forward on this at this time just because I'm I'm curious to see what's going to happen there's there's two apartment complexes going in one right now to the east of this project and then one in the Morrison Ranch the final Morrison Ranch project to the north of Warner um and I think that with those we'll start seeing some interest in these other Regional commercials that are available so I I I think at this time I'm I'm leaning towards not supporting approval thank you commissioner Simon any other discussion Mr deina I was going to say I kind of Mayor commissioner Simon's comments it's a tough one uh there is a housing shortage in Gilbert but there's a housing shortage nationally um traffic is is an issue um so it's a tough one but uh I'm kind of heading towards denial also no and you know and I I I'll just interject that there's a number of items that are discussed that uh like the housing shortage um that definitely exists and there's laws within the legislation that are going to restrict the ability of a body to be able to legislate um or dictate what we want there for things and Parcels that are zoned um for residential and you know there's so there is some reluctance I I understand you know where commissioner Simon's coming from that the you know and the history here that I think all of us were here I'm not sure if commissioner lion was but we had a number of study sessions where originally it was brought in as the mixed use and it was a new zoning characterization we had where you know it it kind of weaves throughout it and it didn't quite meet that you know and through a number of iterations we came back and and I would also point out the design is awesome you know I think they did a very good job but it comes to that fundamental question and I think it's the question that both commissioner Simon and dger V are talking about is the trading of uh The General commercial now I'm not one to say right or wrong um I do know that the Chamber of Commerce is staunchly opposed to any trading I see and I feel what the developer deals with I mean I I understand this is not a situation where they or we as the town of Gilbert are going to selectively say hey we want to put this in here and then it magically happens there are a significant amount of market conditions that take place to where you would even get into this there is a reason why I don't know what that reason is but why the commercial has not gone in yet you do have freeway access you do have the fact that if you put in what is actually Allowed by law traffic is is actually worse with all of that commercial but all that being said then it comes down to like I said there's that fundamental difference and I've met with the developers and talked to them and I've talked to staff and it is a uh it is a difficult one because I do think they it's beautiful beautiful development uh but is it something where you can take and say at this point in time when we have any of the tax issues that are happening that it's um that it's worth because that's more of a decision of is it the best interest of the town and I think that's what we all need to be able to decide and if it is that we think commercial can come maybe but if not you know I I also look at there was one other thing and I guess I don't know if anyone else picked up on it but there was something about the density and there was a discrepancy and I should have asked Keith that but I've closed the public comment so that's too late um you know and with and I think I'll take it back even a step further to that the idea of the character area or whatever the actual classification is I'm an engineer so that's a little different but to have the general office here anyone who's worked in the space of large office right now under the postco conditions understands that it's a very difficult market and that is not something although there is a shortage that shortage is sort of artificially inflated by long-term leases that are going to come up in the very near future or already have so anyway that was just some of my input but I wanted to at least share it to pass it along to everyone I shair if I may please I just want to uh make a comment with regards to the office and I hear this a lot that that the office is not being used I would I would completely agree that class A office is is not being used large office spaces 20 40 50 $100,000 sare fet we're not seeing that move but I think that there's definitely a need for smaller office space you know th000 to 3,000 6,000 square feet and I and I don't know that we have that type of inventory in the town of Dilbert and so that's when I talk about office I'm not really going to the high class A I'm probably looking more of a what I would consider a Class B smaller office space right and I and I think that right there is why we end up in these situations where we get these zoning questions because of the you have a uh you have high interest rates right now that's causing a difficulty for to get financing you're able to finance larger more dense projects multifamilies easier to get a note on and hence a lot of those would come through when you're talking about one two story what is really the need the profitability margin within that unfortunately is not there and that's not to say anyone's good or bad but that's just the nature of the Beast unfortunately commissioner Davis thank you Sher I'll weigh in a little bit here um I think where I've kind of fallen on this all the way through is I feel like um whena went in across the street it really did change the whole character of this Corridor um so I don't know that it lends itself to the feasibility of having so much commercial I feel like the parcel that they've provided for commercial is pretty substantial and could support this very well especially with the additional commercial to the north I feel like there's still viable options to the South for some office to go in there but I agree the large offices are no longer so something that we'll probably see a lot of um I do the area where I kind of stick is the number of Apartments I feel like with Gabriella Point not being it's being constructed but it's not there yet we don't know that impact it is a huge huge development um I'm less concerned about the ones in Morrison Ranch because they are more of a yes they're multif family but they're less apartment like um so I feel like it's a different type of living situation so I'm not really counting that so much so I do have concern about the number of Apartments I feel like it is a little premature and that we don't have that those impacts yet but generally you know do I think it's terrible to have apartments in this particular area no um it is near the freeway I think it Blends well I think it's a beautiful development um I don't think it's going to negatively impact the neighborhoods to the east um I think traffic on Higley Road I mean these arterial roads are built to handle a ton of traffic and they can you know the they can handle it um I don't know that the commercial is going to be that different as far as impacts in the future so I guess that's my struggle as the number of units and the fact that we don't know yet what that impact's going to be but otherwise I don't have a concern so much with this development and losing the commercial in this spot it's just a matter of the impact of the number of Apartments so thank you commission line did you want to jump in on this since yeah there you go sure I'll try to keep my comments brief um I think I I would Echo a lot of what staff said I really um took it to heart the the points that they were making and I'd also like to see the poock report that is still coming I mean I think that would provide a lot of information but even without that I I feel like we really need a compelling reason to move forward with with these these remaining lot you know um we have to be really thoughtful in our approach as we as we reach fill out and I am concerned about the density in that area I have visited that particular intersection when the Ala students are all coming in and it is intense and just thinking of all those apartments and all those people just trying to get to school trying to get to work oh my goodness you know how many light cycles will it take just to get through so until we have a little bit more information I wouldn't feel comfortable but I think even without that information it's just not the right project for me and with all respect to the applicant and the and the presenter than thank you very much commissioner lion okay we've had a a lot of great discussion any more from you uh honorable Vice chair yeah usually I'm one of the more vocal um and that's why I was concerned actually I've I've actually kind of been actually going back and forth in my my mind is over the course of this discussion um but it it fundamentally there's a few pluses and minuses but it fundamentally comes down to the character of the area the high how how much putting this high density in there um versus the free market capitalist nature of the society we live in um but yeah so no I agree I think that that's the that that a development of this sort that has commercial amenities is definitely a very viable product there can be discussions of whether it's the right place and time but then is it whose right is that to impose them but then there's one thing that we're deciding is whether to make the switch and then that's where the difficult decision comes uh at this time but since we're all here I suppose that somebody may have to make a motion so I'll entertain a motion one way or the other by one of my prestigious Commissioners if they're so inclined chair commissioner Simon um are we taking separate motions or are we doing them both in one I would imagine it's separate yeah separate so Char I'll make a recommendation to Town Council to deny uh GP 242 as uh presented all right we have a motion by commissioner Simon uh in denial in agreement with staff is there a is there a second well second that we do have a second from commissioner deina do we have any discussion now okay uh we'll go to vote then is a yes vote is saying I deny correct oh crap could we would you like me to reset that certainly chair just to be clear a yes vote is that we're denying it correct so we hit the green yes okay thank you yeah motion is to recommend denial motion carries 51 okay another motion if someone is still inclined chair I'll make a motion to recommend denial of Z2 24-1 Madera Gabriel app Point as presented by staff we have a motion by commissioner Simon do I have a second I'll second second by Vice chairman Fay any discussion assuming not please cast your vote and once again remember that a yes is denial okay motion carries 5 to one thank you all very much moving on to the next item on the agenda item number 11 gp24 d05 Tustin Ranch minor GP and Z24 D12 Tustin Ranch pad Amendment and we will be bringing up Miss Kristen dine number okay and one moment I'm going to grab a water actually and chairman Kristen Divine is unavailable tonight so Veronica Gonzalez will present okay thank you okay Veronica I apologize I need a water one moment okay please carry on Veron good evening Mr chairman Commissioners um I here to present case z 2412 and gp2 2405 um for Kristen Divine um who who is absent today so the property we'll be looking at tonight is approximately 39.95 Acres located at the southwest corner of Greenfield and posos BRS the request before you is to um change the general plan land use designation of the site from um the existing general office and General commercial to residential 1 to2 dwelling units per acre as well as a rezoning request um which includes a proposed pad Amendment and to rezone um SF 3515 and 10 to single family 15 and 10 with some development modifications um that include um proposed deviations so after the property was annexed in two in 2000 uh the general plan land use designation was established as residential 1 to2 dwelling units per acre and it as such until 2008 when there was a g uh a minor General plan amendment to change the designation uh to community commercial and business park and then in 2020 the designation was changed again to General commercial and general office when The General plan was updated and uh brings it to its current uh land use designation so this brings us to today um and the request before you which is the minor General plan Amendment um to change the land use designation back to the residential uh residential 1 to2 dwelling units per acre to be consistent with the proposed request the rezoning request is to rezone from sf35 sf15 and sf10 to sf5 and sf10 um it is also to amend the development plan as well as amend the pad with proposed deviations to setbacks landscape and lot coverage percentage the previously approved development plan included 76 single family lots uh it was gated and had private streets and did not include a 1.5 acre out parcel um located along Gil uh Greenfield Road the new proposed development plan before you still includes 76 Lots um will still be gated and have private streets but now includes that one and a half acre parcel um two points of access will be provided one at Greenfield Road and another off of Columbus which is along the west property uh West boundary of the property and intersects with posos Road the Columbus access point uh will connect to posos Road um this project does propose um larger lot sizes um and the applicant is requesting certain modifications to development standards within the sf10 zoning District the uh proposed reductions are to the front setback um to 15 ft to liveable 20 ft to the garage and uh reducing the rear setback to 25 ft in the sf5 zoning District the reduced setbacks are 20t to the livable or 25t to the garage in the front um reduce side setbacks of 10 foot for each side and an increase in lot coverage to 40% um in both the zoning districts the homes will be restricted to single story um and the applicant is also requesting a modification to the required 50t by 250 ft um arterial landscape uh uh arterial intersection landscape buffer um the same amount of landscape will be provided it'll just be distributed um along the street front frontages instead of being concentrated at the corner uh as you recall uh this project was brought before you at the November study session some of the feedback you provided was some concern with the rear setback deviations and um that only one access point was provided at that time um how well there was General support for the proposed density to address your concerns the applicant has modified the rear setback request for the sf5 to meet LDC standards and limited all homes to single story they've also increased the sf10 lot de lot deps and have provided two primary access points so we do have a change um to the um staff report that you received um pertaining to condition F and um this is a revised conv condition condition that I have before you here that has been worked between staff and the applicant and the applicant is agreeable to this new language so with that staff is supportive of this project and recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the Town Council approval of the minor General plan Amendment and resoning requests subject to to the conditions in the report with the revised condition F and with that I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have thank you very much Veronica anybody have any questions they'd like to cover prior to having the applicant do a presentation okay thank you Veronica if the applicant is here and would like to come up there you go it's got to go red no do it there you go red is on yes green is not or clear um hey Veron this is not my presentation I'm just kidding the record refle let the record reflect that developers have couldn't resist that one I apologize I she gave me a heart attack earlier today so I owed her a little bit so thank you Veronica uh Sean Lake 1744 Southville Vista Drive here on behalf of uh TriPoint homes who is looking to develop this site we appreciate the opportunity to be here uh this evening and to uh present to you a really is going to be a great project that is located directly west of the LDS temple many of us are familiar with that intersection let me just kind of walk through this site so you can see the the land is currently vacant we currently sit directly west of the LDS temple which is shown on the right hand side of your screen and then the somerset development in and around that vacant land and the and the residential Somerset and Somerset Villas uh to the east of this project with existing um large lot we'll call it County but they're currently in the town uh development to the south of Bonanza and also to the West uh the original development uh and this exhibit really shows it but you'll see the original development that was approved for the existing zoning carved out that little Notch which was the homestead and so when I show you the next plat and some of the acreage the difference between the approved zoning and the approved or the the plat that was approved excluded that Notch so keep that in mind and so when this TriPoint came in to acquire the site they've acquired that Notch so that there is no exception partiel so when we talk about rezoning from R35 to we're talking about that Old Homestead here so that kind of gets that in mind the existing General plan is not consistent with the approved zoning the existing General plan is for General commercial on the corner with general office uh for the balance of the site office that would allow office and light industrial uses um but that's not consistent with the general plan or consistent with the existing zoning on the property we are requesting that the general plan Bri be brought into conformance with not only the existing zoning but the proposed zoning and so that is the request first is for the general plan amendment to go to residential one: two which would be consistent as staff pointed out in their their presentation on the left is the existing zoning as it stands today and has been in in place place for many years you can see along the west side and south side it's wrapped with a with an R15 pad which was to provide a buffer to the residences both to the west and to the South uh with the internal portion being uh an r110 what we are proposing is largely similar to that with a sf15 wrapping both the west and the South sides with the center portion of it as you get closer to the intersection with the SF 10 which is the equivalent to the RS r110 and R r115 uh with the old code we've put side by side the approved preliminary plat on the left you can see with the approved preliminary plat the main access was off of Greenfield Road it had the larger Lots along the perimeter with the 10,000 ft Lots along the inside uh with accesses both to to posos and to uh Greenfield Road on the right is the proposed plan now while we acquired that additional out parcel which was about an acre and a half we kept the same number of lots so the density actually decreases from what was approved because when you keep the same number of lots but you add acreage the density went from 1 97 down to 1.9 homes per acre the main access point is aligned now um Along on Greenfield Road with Grand View Road which was put in when the when the temple and the somerset development went in so that that uh entrance off of Greenfield Road is now aligned with Grand View so that because that's what Traffic Engineers tell us to do um let me go to the next slide as we start to talk about this project as a result of both the study session that we had with the Planning Commission and also a me meeting with the Neighbors at the neighborhood meeting we made changes to the plan to address concerns and and let me just kind of walk through originally we had one Ingress and egress onto this site off of Greenfield Road that's all that would be needed that's all that was required for this gated community that concern was expressed not only by the neighbors but by the commission so an Ingress and egress was added along the west side to Columbus which we dedicating and improving the RightWay for Columbus Road along the west side that will then access out to Pacos road so that's a full you can come in to the project and you can leave the project off of P Co road we also show the in the entrance and exit the Ingress and erress off of maintain it off of Greenfield Road as a result of working with the neighbors the old plan had single story only along the perimeter both along the west and the South Side we moved the entire project to single story which necessitated some of the deviations that we're asking for a little later because we're going to be doing only single story homes as opposed to going vertical they would spread out we are making improvements to Bonanza which is the road along the South so we will be do our North Side improvements which will include a detached sidewalk or trail that we discussed with the neighbors curb gutter sidewalk landscaping and then we will be working with the town on the improvements to Bonanza to that's condition F that staff pointed out to really finish off with a a concrete banding on the south side that minimizes dis disruption to the neighbors to the South and then Mills up and and relays a new road along Bonanza even though we're not accessing Bonanza and we'll add zero traffic to bananza and have no impact upon Bonanza we we were uh working with the town to do that as well one of the changes obviously from the original plan we have less density we have more open space and the average lot sizes increased from what was originally approved um the Lots on the original plan had lots going down to 10,000 square ft our smallest lot is 10,800 square ft so the average lot size went up for the overall project and again as a result of the study session we've remov some of the deviation particularly with set rear yards and made lots a little deeper as well um as a result of the neighborhood meeting we also have a right turn Dale Lane in on Greenfield Road into the project there was a concern about the amount of traffic on Greenfield Road we understand so we put a right turn lane into the project so that you can pull out of the flow of traffic into the diesel lane and then safely turn into the project um from that point so that was some of the improvements that we changed with the project as a result of the study session and then working with the neighbors staff went over the list of deviations uh this is kind of a comparison of what was approved today and staff I think already went over so I'm not going to spend a lot of time on this very detailed spreadsheet um and then staff went over the revised condition F which we're agree with the revised condition that we will work with staff um let me point that out on the Improvement to Bonanza Road on the south half typically developers do their half Street improvements we agreed to do that even though we're not access accessing banza road but we also agree as a request of the town to work with staff on finishing off the South half to clean it up so it just doesn't stay that uh uneven edged and we work with the town staff and use our best efforts to work to get through that that would necessitate working with neighbors and doing some improvement plans and then the town who's obligated on the South half would would pay their proportion their share of that Improvement through a reimbursement agreement and that's what condition F refers to so we think this is an overall a very good project consistent with the existing zoning we're asking for a pad for some deviations and then incorporate that out partiel we've reduced the density because we've added more acreage we've increased the amount of open space we've added single story we've maintained those buffers we're doing improvements all around the site um and actually creating a enhancing the fire because along the neighbors to the South they only have access off of Bonanza if a fire breaks out and so we will be dedicating right away and there'll be some fire access off of Columbus so making improvements of the area that we think is beneficial to not only the neighbors but the property own and will be a good project at the end of the day with this large lot uh development so we think this is a great project we think it will fit within the area and is consistent with what's going on that with with what's going on in the area and so we would request your support and I'd be happy to answer any questions thank you very much Mr Lake anyone have any questions they would like to direct at the applicant Mr deina yeah you great detail thank you I was uh trying to go through my packet uh when I was studying it at home and now I don't recall the square footage of these homes or did I overlook that pardon me the square footage of these homes don't I overlook it I'm told by the home builder 3200 to 4,800 Square F feet okay I think it's a great project it looks good I fantastic that it's single story the only concern I have I wish we had more more or less it's the missing middle I mean you got the apartments in the highend you got the gated communities a lot of police and teachers and whatever that can't afford especially with this housing shortage so that would be my only concern you met all the requirements the deviations aren't that uh radical it's nice I just wish there was more towards that missing middle for our upand cominging young people thank you commissioner line uh thank you chair I just have a quick question and I remember when this came up in study session but I didn't have a chance to ask it um I know this is right across from a really iconic site in gilber so you only get one chance to develop a site like this so it's pretty exciting project and um you know a lot of people are going to be really excited about these homes and I don't want to make any assumptions but the location to the temple I think will draw a lot of families or people with grandkids I noticed that in the list of amenities it didn't include any kind of play structures for the kids is that still the case and this is just coming from me I'm a new mother I have one and a halfy old twins and just knowing you need something for all those kids all those families um I just think it'd be something you might consider we we will take in that under advisement and consideration yeah thank you thank you um so this is a question as much for the applicant as it is for the city who is negotiating condition F and I I might be the one who's about to go nuclear here um essentially the new condition f is that the two sides will agree to negotiate the thing that they have been unsuccessfully able to negotiate up until this point and I I guess I don't see any benefit to anyone to kick this down the C kick this down the road either the city is going to have the developer build the other half Street in addition to the Half street that you're required to build or you're not and I don't see what what we're we're all at the table now um why what this is like a giant loose piece and I know there's there's different people on this commission who feel differently about whether how what what we should be doing here or what the city should be doing or the town should be doing but regardless of any of that it seems like we're here now the project if it's I mean it seems to me we almost ought to continue this item and resolve this issue and come back and vote on this item when this is resolved rather than just kicking the can down to we'll negotiate in good faith down down the road because the negotia in good faith is notoriously hard to Define later so and this is as much I'm not you're standing here so you're kind of getting the the dragon's breath but the the the city's off to the side of of you someone and I don't know who exactly was the negotiating part for the city here so it's kind of for both parties I don't see the benefit to to delaying part so item or condition F either either it is or it isn't and I don't see the benefit to having it sit in limbo right now and I'm welcoming I'm can I can I respond to that yes state law according to the um State Statute during a zoning process allows a city or a town to exact right of way for roadway improvements and those things state law through their subdivision regulation which is a different section allows cities and towns to exact not only RightWay but improvements and the way the co the courts have interpreted that is that you do your half street so for example if I develop adjacent to uh Gilbert Road I will do my half Street of Gilbert Road and the person on the other side of the street would do their half and that makes a whole street the town does not have authority to require a property owner through the statute to do a full Street or both sides of the street and so our position is we're happy to voluntarily work with the town to do that and and we've done that I've done that on many projects and I know people have have been involved in projects where the city has come to you said hey you're doing your half Street while you're doing it we'd really like you to do the other side or do it over here and that's when they work Cooperative cooperatively together I had a concern with language that required improvements because I believe that's a violation of state law it's a violation of uh case law and so holding a gun to a developer's head to do something that the town is not allowed to do I have just intrinsic problem with that that's why the language says we'll work with you um on doing it my preference is just not have it I'll work with you but I need a condition to commit to the town that we work with you to develop somebody else or the town's obligation but the town wanted a condition and this was the wording that we came up with so it say and I know I'm not giving the town a chance to speak your position is it was totally fine for you to tell the town to pound sand on this item and you didn't you said here I'll do this I'll I'll play nice or but but you could have just said hey town no no that's not doing that is that correct we we believe we are not obligated to do to do the South half of the road there's nothing that that could obligate us or require us to do that but that's not who Trio is okay I I agree with you you're required to do your half Street I don't know that there's anything that forces you other than a condition if we that to do the usually developers want to jump at this because there's usually a chance to maybe bury some of your fixed costs on the design or something into the city's half of things that that usually it's finan eventually beneficial but um I I agree I don't I don't see a way the city could force you to do this does the city have anyone here who wants to jump in on my I I don't know who negotiated this half for the city so yes hello there uh chair and Commissioners uh Tom conduit development engineering manager we have been working with TriPoint homes for some time on this development plan it is a very unique roadway Network work uh particularly on Bonanza Lexington we also have been working on Columbus uh unfortunately the the timing was such that we couldn't get to that final design and get this agreement in place before bringing this forward to you so that hence the condition uh again I we we believe the new condition is is adequate for us and we believe we can work with the developer um obviously you're making a recommendation to council on the rezoning we hope to be able to get that agreement uh the language of a simple agreement like this worked out in the next month before it it goes to council I think it's a month before we go to council and then the plat forthcoming as well correct yeah what's I'm sorry what about Bonanza what's unique about Bonanza that looks about as un unique as any Road in the town well there were a lot of discussions I'm sorry commissioner Fay um Vice chair Fay um we have that road identified as a collector in our circulation element and there's a whole lot to the story I don't want to get into too much detail but basically when we look at connections through to um Mercy is it Mercy Road um there's no way we can make that connection so we've we looked at it we decided as with us and the developer that it made more sense as a local road again uh these are things that went on over weeks and weeks as we looked at this and tried to figure out how to reconcile the various elements this the other thing is that Bonanza elington on the south side when developed in the county we have 30 feet of RightWay instead of the 33 we would have for a collector or the 25 we would have for a local so just a whole lot of of different things uh going on with this looking at your picture whoever the developer was who and they they did a not great job on that their half Street okay I think I I think I understand I think it it comes back to it um in terms of the my my kicking it kicking it down the road it it really fundamentally and I think he's probably right you could say no no we're not going to do that you can't require us to do that we're open to talking about it and we'll even go one step further we'll even let you do this we agree to negotiate with you is that essentially what I'm seeing that's correct yes sir thank you for letting me let me vent and kind of talk through it I'm sorry if everybody already understood this from the from the get-go and I just delayed the meeting thank you no I I think it was a a good discussion I mean it's it's right I mean luckily nobody's holding guns to heads but we do also have to take into account that we are being asked to acques something here so it it isn't as if there's no considerations being given so I think it's a valid question any other questions no okay thank you Mr Lake I can tell there's been a lot of people here and first of all thank you for your patience if this was your first meeting I hope I hope you're still alive okay we will start we have Tai lur and he is a oppos to the item and wishes to speak SA good evening Commissioners uh thank you for having me again my name is Ty lwer I'm a resident of the town of Gilbert uh I also live in the Somerset Community at 2726 East Wyatt way Gilbert Arizona I also represent the development team that did the somerset development um we've owned the property since the early 90s worked with the town of Gilbert on Greenfield Road improvements posos Road improvements was part of the development team for the LDS temple um and have certainly watched what's happened around this intersection for many many years I did put on the paper that I'm opposed to the project quite honestly I think this is the best use for the property and uh and would love to see this Pro uh this project move forward I think it is the right project for this property and uh and the the applicant is doing many things right as you guys identified in the study session a concern about the tra Transportation plan that's exactly why I'm here tonight what the applicant didn't tell you what the traffic impact analysis that was submitted doesn't tell you and what the town of Gilbert Traffic Engineers that reviewed the site didn't tell you is that probably 80% of the traffic from this site is going to be moving Northbound or westbound so just to give you an idea the closest grocery stores wico Costco Aldi roughly a half mile away or west of the site the Gilbert Public School District boundary eastern boundary is Greenfield Road all of the schools uh courtz Hill Elementary Camp overie High School South Valley Junior High are all west of the site if you look at where people are going for commuting for their jobs heading to the freeway heading to the dignity healthc care Hospital campus heading to rivulon heading to Phoenix Tempe Scottdale all of the other places where jobs are north and west of the site so again I'm trying to paint a picture for you traffic is going to be moving north and west of the site the current Transportation plan as shown on on this exhibit again primarily dumps all of the traffic on Green Field Road and the applicant is only proposing a right in right out on posos road what I would love to see happen for this project is to better balance the traffic in and out of this site by introducing a full movement access a median break in posos road that would allow for not only right in and right out movements but left in and left out movements as well I had a presentation that I wanted to show to you tonight I'm surprised that we're not able to do that but the um part of that presentation would have shown you that the amount of traffic on Greenfield Road while the traffic counts are lower on Greenfield Road than they are on posos road if you look at the traffic on a perlane basis Greenfield Road has two lanes in each Direction south of posos posos road has three lanes in each Direction east and west of Greenfield you would see that there's actually more vehicles per Lane on Greenfield Road than there are on posos road so the more prudent approach the safer approach is to consolidate the traffic to posos Road not Greenfield Road I understand the applicant has put together a plan that uh that shows an entry exit point on Greenfield Road I'm not asking that we remove that but what I would like to see is the applicant put in a full movement access median break on posos road one of the other exhibits I would have liked to shown you tonight is we putting my money where my mouth is we have five access points into to the somerset neighborhood three of them along posos road that have medium brakes two of them along Greenfield Road that allows for full movement access it's helped us disperse the traffic that our subdivision generates and we would like to see this applicant attempt to do the same thing disperse the traffic better balance the traffic on the two arterial roadways by moving to a full movement access on Road thank you for your time I'm happy to answer any questions or concerns that you might have we actually aren't allowed to ask questions but thank you sir appreciate it question after the yeah um and and I was just going to point out that I think in the future if anyone else is doing this I believe you can email things to the town and then it can be included so it's not that it's not allowed it's I think there's a plug-in issue but just as a caveat to that okay moving on now and if I butcher your name I I do apologize I could blame your penmanship but uh Mindy pace and she just says she wishes to speak and has remained Anonymous as to whether she is in favor or against so please come up Miss and uh state your name and your residence three minutes thank you hi I'm Mindy pace and I live just south of where this is going to be in the acre homes we've lived Liv there for Now 26 years and so as you can imagine we've seen a lot of growth in this area um I am really excited about this project I think it it looks awesome I'm we're excited about the single level um I am also concerned about just having we were concerned with with just the one access onto Greenfield Road so I'm glad that they added the other onos I too would love to see a median um where where you could turn left out of there as well um yeah I know uh there's lots of my friends and neighbors that have more to say but I just wanted to my two cents I know coming in off of Greenfield into our neighborhood is always very scary um just trying to turn right and come in there I'm always worried we're going to get rear ended we're always looking behind us um there's several accidents um along there at all times so that's my two cents thanks thank you very much okay moving on [Music] to Becca bickham uh just also she says she wishes to speak hi commissioner um I wanted I'm sorry just please state your name and then your res oh BEC sorry you got it right I'm obliterated um similar to my other neighbors I live uh kind of caddy corner across from Mindy um we've lived here for eight years we love it and I want to say also this is a beautiful plan like I don't have like a fundamental opposing I mean we love our our field but we we know that the improvements are coming and and this isn't I'm not fundamentally opposed to it I want to reiterate the same things that traffic like the the North and the west traffic is where people are going to want to go and for their own residents they're going to be frustrated by what is presented and that's the only reason that I'm opposing it right now their own residents are going to be frustrated because they're going to be trying to go to Costco and they're going to have to go completely around and they're going to try to go to elementary schools and they're going to be really fighting that traffic on Greenfield Road I would really like to see like a deceleration Lane onto Bonanza um I know you guys were talking about Bonanza it is a unique road because it used to be a county Island it was annexed the road Improvement was not part of that plan I was not here during that time but it's it's it's residential so it wasn't a developer who had it like you you notice that that road is horrendous I mean I mean it you have you can vibrate while you talk as you're going down it and so um I'm glad to see that they're working it out but it does need to be it will be impacted I know they said it won't be impacted but it will definitely be impacted and um also when we originally were with them the buffer of the Bonanza Road to the back of their homes was bigger like you can see in that original plan before like there was a lot more green space and green belt space given to merge our neighborhood into theirs like we're Acre Properties and now you see like it's super tight and narrow and at least from what I looked at it's it's going to narrow the street which is already like very narrow for that traffic so um but again like overall I'm I'm happy to see people come in it is a beautiful Community we're EXC for families I also think that there should be something for kids because that's what this area attracts so I'm not fundamentally opposed but I am I just wanted to make sure that those pieces get brought up because they're going to be significant and this is your chance to solve problems that will occur thank you thank you okay we have Reena Schmidt and please come up three minutes state your name and your residence hi my name is Reena Schult and I am at 3472 South 157th way and right into this development that is coming um not going to take too much time other than to just say the traffic on Greenfield is horrendous just like everyone else has said development is beautiful um but the traffic we do hope that something will be done to help us as my neighbor and I were coming there was an accident almost happening right in front of us coming in and out of across where they're going to be building that street coming out so thank you thank you okay we now have Scott archal he is opposed but he does not wish to speak we have Darren Hughes he is opposed and he wishes to speak please come up uh three minutes state your name and your residence sir hello my name is Darren Hughes 3409 South 159th Street I live adjacent to this property and I'm opposed to the rear setback changes and the narrowing of the rideway on Bonanza from 25 ft to 20 ft so when this community and the zoning was first put into place for this parcel many many years ago it was a compromised agreement and the sf15 was a transition and a buffer between the 1 acre home sites and the 10,000 foot home sites and so 35- ft rear saback was put in place the 25t r of way was put in place for that buffer area and just as a point of clarification they're asking for an increased lot coverage I think that's fine they're asking for reduced side setbacks reduced front setbacks I think that's fine as well but you look at the area within their proposed setbacks it's 7600 Square ft and their percent lot coverage can be 6,000 square ft at 40% so why do they need so much extra buildable area when the lot percent coverage won't allow it they'll still have in excess almost 20% over the buildable area within the setbacks if that rear setback could be maintained at 35 ft I would like to ask what the crosssection of Bonanza looks like because there hasn't been a lot of information right now from my property line to the edge of the road it's 29 ft that was an Old County Road probably dirt at one time somebody just came in and put Paving on it Gilbert has done very little to maintain that road other than some patching and maybe some chip ceiling crack ceiling those sorts of things so that is a big concern to get the South half of Bonanza finished but we don't want to narrow it down we also don't want it to be so wide that the cars drive down it as they do right now sometimes going very fast there maybe needs to be some planning some traffic calming to reduce the speed going down and then the traffic on Greenfield so south of posos it goes from three lanes to two lanes and so they're talking about a Dell Lane into their community on Greenfield it is so close to the access onto Bonanza that people are going to get confused they're going to get into that Dell Lane because you're going from three lanes to two and the traffic is being pushed and you just want to get over and there's going to be people darting back into traffic to avoid whatever barrier they put between their entrance of the community and Bonanza thank you very much I want to thank you thank you for your service to our town thank you kindly sir next up we have Connie Dicker and she wishes to speak same thing state your name residence good evening council members I'm Connie Dicker I live off of 157th way I have lived there for over 20 years I've seen it develop and it's all great um I think I Echo what a number of folks with the traffic um I do have a couple of suggestions could it potentially be looked at where that is an exit only going off of Greenfield potentially so or so example like Jake's Ranch for example they have that where it's an exit only off of there so that way they're not coming and going off of there and is there also a way to potentially look at the um posos entrance as the main entrance with Tustin Ranch as you enter there instead of having that be main area off of Greenfield where all the traffic is the other piece is is coming off of Grand View and where that's going to connect um there is so many times where there's accidents potentially happening there because of the way Grand View comes there's also a school bus stop right there and it there's heavy pedestrian traffic going to and from Discovery Park I am adamantly opposed of having that at all off of Greenfield but if there is a concession that we can be made and then I also have thought about could we potentially time the gate I know that the HOA communities do have the ability to time the gate so weekends you could use it but Peak periods no and I also worry about the backup of the traffic turning in and out of the gate um as you're turning in oh I don't know the number to get in and then it's clogged up even worse off of Greenfield so I am opposed unless we can figure out the Greenfield situation um otherwise I uh I think it's great if we can solve for that so my primary would be to have an uh emergency only there but thank you thank you Connie okay and next we have Shan Housley who wishes to speak for for chairperson Mt Vice chair Fay Commissioners thank you for your opportunity to address you uh and thank you for your service to the town of Gilbert I am Sean Housley uh I live at 3470 South 158th place which sits three houses south of Bonanza uh we raised our five children in that home and we bought that a little bit over 20 years ago we love Gilbert and I appreciate your service and your commitment to keeping Gilbert the best place for families I have three requests which I believe the majority of my neighbors share um my three requests are first that the main entrance and exit to and from the Tustin Ranch neighborhood be to and from posos Road not Greenfield second if the town and developer cannot provide the main entrance and exit to and from posos I request that the main entrance and exit be along Bonanza Road and that Bonanza Road be improved to handle the increased traffic and third I request that Bonanza Road not be intersected by the proposed Columbus Road and B and the Bonanza Road not be used as a circulation route from posos Road or the Tustin route to Neighborhood please consider the reasons for these three request first the request that the main entrance and exit uh be from posos posos road is three lanes in each Direction in contrast Gilbert Road is two lanes in each Direction with a very heavily used median you can see from the map that's already up that the distance between Bonanza and Grand View is very short uh people are turning left on Grand View into the median and they're turning left from posos to go north in the median we've already got a pretty dense situation in the median right there let's see both cases of left turns are across traffic and people have become conditioned to Dart out into the median to avoid the cars that are speeding both directions and it's a bit like playing Frogger already I'll point out that our neighborhood has 40 homes uh the proposed development which I actually like like I think it'd be a great use of the land um is going to be a 300% increase in that population in that area uh because they have 80 roughly 80 homes so okay let's see posos Road in contrast being three lanes is more suitable to have a dedicated left or right turn median in the current Center Island in addition unlike Greenfield posos Road is currently has no uncontrolled cross traffic so the segment of posos Road between greenfield and mercy has nothing I mean it's perfectly open to to having uh an intersection there unlike Greenfield which has them all the way up and down Greenfield second if this developer in town are unwilling to make the main entrance along posos I request that the main entrance and exit to teston Ranch be along banza but only if the town and developer work together to improve at least several hundred feet of Bonanza such that it is widened to handle that increased traffic hopefully with a left turn and a right turn dedicated Lanes out of Bonanza so that Vehicles will be able to turn separately in addition I request a controlled intersection at Bonanza and Greenfield to accommodate the additional traffic again this is only if we can't have the primary entrance and exit beond posos furthermore note that Greenfield shrinks from three lanes to two lanes as been previously commented that happens immediately south of the Greenfield and pagos intersection right about where Grand View is it pinches to two lanes and I request that that reduction be moved further south so that Greenfield can remain three lanes until you get south of Bonanza and it sounds like the applicant already has uh been willing to address that with a with a dedicated right turn lane lastly and I'm almost done here I request that Bonanza Road not be intersected by the proposed Columbus Road and that Bonanza Road not be used as a circulation route from posos Road or the testin ranch neighborhood nearly 20 years ago the town of Gilbert agreed with our neighborhood a petition that Bonanza Road should not be used as a circulation route that's why there's some weird unique things that have been mentioned about what happens on the west end of Bonanza and there's no access currently to to the north is because of that petition nearly 20 years ago 2008 I believe okay sir your your 3 minutes has expired so thank you I appreciate your consideration appreciate it okay that uh I believe concludes the comments as it relates to this item unless there's anyone else here that does still wish to speak please let me know okay uh then from the commission's vantage point do we have have questions for either the developer or staff in relation to some of the comments uh commissioner Simon I have questions um but I don't know if we want to give Mr Lake an opportunity to address any thing that was brought up yeah Mr Lake you can come back up I I assume the questions were going to go to him so yeah chairman commission members uh Sean Lake here again on behalf of TriPoint homes we appreciate the opportunity quite frankly we appreciate working with the neighbors we had a neighborhood meeting and we addressed a lot of the comments um a lot of the comments quite frankly were were positive relative to the development um and so we're glad we're glad to hear that and and we believe what we're proposing is a great great project a lot of comments dealt with traffic along Greenfield Road and P Co Road this is a unique area uh as you really the on-ramp and the the road you want to be on from my perspective is Greenfield because that's where the freeway on ramp and off-ramp is uh if you take posos to the West posos doesn't have a freeway on ramp or on ramp so if I'm leaving this community um and I wanted to go to work my preferred option would go to to go to Columbus go take a right turn Movement we all know that a right turn movement onto an arterial street is the safer movement than a left and I don't think adding a left turn movement on to posos makes it safer I think we want to encourage people leaving this community to take a right turn on posos and then take a left at a controlled traffic signaled intersection onto Greenfield then once to Greenfield you can get to Costco off of uh off of Greenfield Road you can get to the freeway you can get to Market Street which connects P or connects um posos and Greenfield with Market Street that goes through to connect that entire area and so quite frankly we think this is a good plan we we're willing to work we're not here doing a pimary plat here that's coming up later so we're really not talking about this but to to bring it up we think the safer movement on posos road given the curve in the road for those of you that have driven on posos road is a right turn lane and we think adding a left turn out at a curved intersection when we want to encourage a more safe tra traffic movement of right turn on posos to a controlled traffic signal intersection to go left on Greenfield is the safer turning Movement we have worked with our own traffic engineer um and and uh they have submitted a traffic statement to the city the the town the town's traffic engineer reviewed it and and approved it the Turning movements that we provide or the access that we provide on Greenfield was also the same access generally in the same location it was previously approved it was just shifted up to a line shifted to the north to aligned us with Grand View Grand View and so we are not proposing something that hasn't been existent since I think that plat was approved in 2008 for some time ago so the access out onto uh Greenfield has been there for some time let me clarify a couple of things Bonanza there was some reference that we are narrowing Bonanza we are not narrowing Bonanza the black top that's there ranges anywhere in width from 22 to 29 feet and so we will be installing our north side and at the end of the day you're going to have a a 29 foot Road there because we'll be adding some black top but we'll be finishing it off with a curb Gutter and a detached sidewalk on the North side and so you're going to have in some locations just about the same black top that kind of crumbles at the edges because it's an older County Road but you will have a mup black top that will be relay with a new a ro that was 29 ft I don't know that we want to go wider than 29 ft of black top that's a neighborhood um cross-section and so we think that's a a good black top width and that'll be a new road with a ribbon Edge hopefully if we can work it out with the town on the south side but on our North Side certainly would have a finished off curb gutter sidewalk Landscaping along the same it's the same width of landscaping along our South Side as the previous plan showed it's just some of that's in right of way where that detou sidewalk is going to go as well and so it will be landscaped in that area rear yard setbacks was also brought up the LDC has a 30ft rear yard setback we're asking for a 30 foot rear yard setback so we addressed um that issue along those perimeter Lots particularly um Landscaping is the same a little wider 2008 I'm just going through my notes here um as far as Shifting the main the entrance to posos Road uh we like having a a movement on posos and on Greenfield Road um that that's our preference that was what was shown on the 2008 plan we think that's a a safe that allows for safe turning movements uh both to posos we quite frankly think think the right in right out on posos is a safer turning movement than adding a full left out at that location But ultimately at the end of the day whether there's a a median cut in the town's median is up to the town I can't force the town to do a curb cut to allow something there it's not needed by the traffic study it's not needed by the analysis but that's the town's decision on what the town wants to do with its Road and its turning moments in its ride of way so with that we think this is a great plan we think this is a good great project it's going to be some really nice homes in a special unique area and quite frankly I think this thing is this place is going to sell out extremely quickly with these uh larger lots and and gorgeous homes and so we think this is going to be a great project and urge your support happy to answer any questions thank you Mr Lake anyone have any questions Vice chair please kick it off and this some of this might be again for the town but I noticed you're the the pre-at you're right about and I I would have the the realignment Grand View I I think is a valuable one uh but you also realigned the north access to to line up with Columbus so one could you still do I mean I mean I I assume you could kind of scoot everything over to the right or to the left but I also have a hard time seeing a full a full access onto posos Road not requiring a signal my my gut tells me warrants are going to require a signal and that that signal would be too close to Greenfield by the way I want to thank everyone for their their comments um especially I think was it Tai the first first person if if there was a template for how to present in front of a commission um boy I wish everyone just nailed it like you did uh and so I'm I'm kind of Surfing primarily off some of his comments about the can we get a an access onto posos or a better access onto Pacos and I don't know that the lining up with Columbus is as versus in the middle of the I don't know that it really matter matters that much where it is but a full access versus a right in right out and whether that would require a signal Tom you got any thoughts or maybe someone oh yeah chair commissioner there's already signal right so usually since there's what 76 homes 76 that would typically be well below the threshold for consideration of of a traffic signal so because you need um egress you need 70 for eight for eight hours or um that's just one warrant though that's one of one of 24 warrants right I'd have a very diff yeah there's there's there's two warrants that deal with with volume and the other one's a 4 Hour um which is like 60 which we wouldn't probably even meet one one hour so you're saying you could put in a full full access without a light right yeah so yeah our our standard allows 660 um there is the curve so you'd have to check sight distance there's some maybe some vegetation around the curve the the trees could create a picket effect and so that would just need to be checked um I know planning doesn't like to remove trees so so that's that's all that needs to be considered and and I don't know how that if you if you push the access further east I don't know how that affects if they'd lose a lot or not but that's probably something they would probably be worried about I think I think I saw the veins in his head when you when you said lose a lot he tried not to react um yeah well that doesn't I mean that doesn't help things but yeah I just don't know that I mean as long as we can maintain that 660 um you could have a full access uh that curve does needs to be look at a little bit closer but there's potential all right then I I would like to Turf that back onto the city the second question that I have is do I is there no improvement on Greenfield associated with this project are we not widening or anything on on so yeah Greenfield is um an A Minor arterial so up North is by them all is a major arterial so that's three lane so right here they're they are going from a six Lane to a four lane facility So Greenfield um further south is just a four lane facility it's already in its final configuration right yeah so they are doing the right turn Lanes which call Improvement hungry when people called it two lanes it's actually four lanes it's two in each Direction correct yeah okay that never mind that answers with the center turn lane if it's already in my if it's already in its final configuration then then I wouldn't expect you to be doing improvements other than maybe some curb alignment and stuff um okay I think that I so the the Greenfield question is answered the posos should you I mean right now or I'm not completely sure about the whole West North and I mean North yes but West because you've got to go East to access the freeway here um or mostly go east to access the freeway um so you're uh is the city open to a full full access on posos but right it wasn't looked at CU it was doesn't um uh propose but it would just be that sight sight distance would be my concern so we're we're open if you can meet our standards then I I mean I get I'm not asking you to shoot a full anal traffic analysis from the h but but yeah if you can meet all our standards we're we're open for full access and just a reminder we still have a preliminary plat that needs to be reviewed so this is something that we could take into consideration as part of the preliminary plat review right I I want wanted to get it out there also okay that that addresses my two two issues very well anyone else commissioner Simon yeah I'll just make comment because I had asked Mr Lake to come up and make some comments which you actually answered the questions that I had and one of the things that I saw in the staff report was the 35 foot setback was for a two-story house for going to on story so that is 30 ft so you're within compliance there and there's no technically no deviation on that um and then the the other piece of it is with regards to the access full access on posos road I I kind of look at it a little bit differently if I was if I was living here and I had to head to Phoenix I would probably take posos to Valvista Valvista to the 202 and then 202 out um so I don't know that I would go North to the 202 at this pot so I probably would access posos there um so I I and and looking at the space I kind of feel like there's definitely enough distance I think in my head and I'm not a traffic engineer so this is just my Layman coming out I guess not lameness but less coming out um but I I I think that there is the possibility to to potentially do um a full access on to Pacos and I think that that should be looked at but I understand we're not looking at the plat here we're just looking at the rezone which which I think this is a great project for this location I like the size of the lots I'm glad you're not trying to force in a bunch of Z zots or something like that um I I appreciate the fact that we're actually retaining some nice siiz Lots in the town of gber so thank you thank you commissioner Simon anyone else I'd like to just commissioner Davis please I'd like to just clarify something there was discussion about Columbus Drive maybe some perception that that that's going to be a road that's going to connect to Bonanza could you provide clarification on that please sure and I'm going to walk very delicately here we are only improving Columbus to our entrance the town is requiring that we dedicate right away for Columbus through to Bonanza and there will be some fire access along through Bonanza but not General access now that's all I'm going to say okay I appreciate that um generally I agree with commissioner Simon um that it's appropriate for this site it's a beautiful development um I don't have any major concerns but again I wouldn't be opposed if they put full access on to posos um I'd probably go that same route to head over to Valvista but um but I am supportive of the project um Mr chairman if if I may just to clarify um some some of the things um for commissioner Davis um regarding Columbus Drive um correct it's only going to be improved to the entrance point to the de to the development um from that point south to B Lexington Bonanza it'll be a roadway easement that will be improved with DG and then there will be a gate at the Bonanza location so there will not be any traffic accessing um the roadway easement for Columbus um at this time um perhaps maybe emergency vehicles if it's needed but um I just wanted to make that clarification I appreciate that thank you bronica commissioner Gage please thank you chair um so I I just want to have asked this question why are you requesting RightWay for Columbus if it's not going to be built into a a road uh Mr chairman commissioner Gage it's a roadway easement that we are asking for from the um the entrance point to the subdivision South to Bonanza Road and that is to allow for emergency vehicles if there is um an accident or something on Bonanza Road that doesn't allow for that um access in that location um the idea is that as the properties are on the West Side um which are currently zoned um general office so the idea is for those to eventually develop um as non-residential that they will then provide the area to complete the road to go North to posos okay but for the time being because we don't know when those would be developed into office space which is not super popular right now um it's just going to be DG for Poss possible emergency vehicles for an area that doesn't have second emergency vehicle access right now and then you're proposing to gate it which would stop an emergency vehicle from actually getting to Bonanza am I understanding that correctly uh you are correct and this isn't an attempt to improve the situation as it is uh from what it is today okay I think I just fundamentally disagree with that request but that's not going to be um a conversation for tonight but I just want to um thank the applicant for being willing to play nice in the sandbox with the improvements on the south half of Bonanza I think that's really nice of you I was happy to see that condition be um revised when it came through are there there's improvements or just right away no Bonanza or or Columbus OH I'm Bonanza okay you switched on me see Sor okay oh I stopped myself from going down a path that wasn't going to just please thank you let's not confuse the chair it's been a long night okay anyone else have any comments commissioner lion thank you chair um I just want to thank all the neighbors for coming out I really appreciate all the comments and I think I think we all do and I think that you guys are trying to help us understand the problems that exist and solve them before they become a bigger issue down the road especially some of those traffic issues so um I think you guys know best because you're driving those roads every single day and I'm hoping that we can take all this input and keep working together with the town and see what what comes up the next time we see this case so thank you okay thank you all right well then with that I think we can close the public comment thank you both and we'll bring it up to the dis for discussion or a motion you know I will just point out that I think that we may find ourselves in the predicament of the property rights of a developer to develop something and then the roads being the town's responsibility but then not needing to and in many times we end up in a circular argument that almost makes it appear as though uh there's a deflection happening and uh in in fact it's not the case it's that there's a process as to how and when and what causes and triggers improvements um and I think that this discussion has helped to illuminate a lot of issues that uh will hopefully help to give foresight into the plotting process so but commissioner Gage I see that red light on so please go ahead uh I'd like to make a motion to approve GP 24-5 Tustin Ranch um for the minor General plan Amendment request we have a motion on the table from commissioner Gage do I have a second I will second that and commissioner Davis comes in with the second any discussion further prior to a vote yeah just one thing that um some of the the discussion we we have a couple more State steps in the we've turfed it on to traffic engineering to look at that Northern access that some of the some of the concern was about posos Road there's a couple more steps in the land entitlement process so it's it's not like we're committing today and there's no more steps after this one or there's no more chances to hammer that part down I don't know what the answer will be but there's still time on that part yeah so the clarification is that this is not in fact saying okay the way that this is laid out with the transportation and roadways is not in effect what will be in the final plotting process and we will see that again so just to uh make you allware okay then let's vote all right vote passes now is there a motion for the second portion of it CH I'll make a motion to uh recommend approval of Z24 -12 Tusan Ranch pad Amendment for the zoning we have a motion on table from commissioner Simon do have a second I'll second it commissioner deina with the second any additional discussion not seeing any please cast your vote and the motion carries 70 thank you all very much for coming out very much appreciate the input and I have a feeling we'll see you again thank you all right moving on to item number 12 UP24 60 FF Sun Valley and we will bring up Miss Abby for presentation all right good evening chair and Commissioners tonight we will be looking at case number up 2460 which is an application for a additional use permit for a new wireless communication facility moving forward in this discussion I will refer to that as a WCF uh to keep things concise right oh sorry I control the slides forgot that all right here we have an aerial map uh the subject site uh the parcel is out outlined in blue is located on the Southeast corner of Recker road and Houston Avenue this is part of the Town Meadows planned area development overlay and it is zoned neighborhood commercial the current use of the larger parcel is Guthrie mainstream Services which is a daycare facility for individuals with developmental disabilities here we have the site plan um on the left it is the enlarged and on the right hand we have the dimension site plan um the WCF is proposed to be situated along the northern section of the property ajacent to East Houston Avenue the proposed WCF is a classified or is classified as a Category 3 in the Land Development code short uh LDC for short Category 3 wcf's have a significant in visual impact on surrounding properties due to increased height and fewer requirements for concealment the proposed facility will include 164 ft monopole and Associated ground mounted equipment which will be located inside a 3,150 ft walled enclosure that is 8 ft in height the height of the pole is 60 ft with a 4ft lightning Rod attachment um equaling that 64t total the support structure of the WCF is over 100 ft from the closest res residential use to the north and east and over 300 feet from the closest residential use to the West there are no residentially designated land uses directly adjacent to the south of the subject site however a public facility and institutional zoning District does exist to that southern parcel but the proposed WC c f would be approximately 196 ft away from that zoning district and um on that parcel to the South is Town Meadows Elementary School access to the proposed site is provided from the existing access Drive off of Houston Avenue the proposed WCF will be unmanned and maintained as needed requiring periodic visits by a technician to Monitor and assure adequate operation of the facility on the enlarged equipment plan we can see that all Associated ground mounted equipment will be internalized within the 8T CMU walled enclosure here we have elevations of the tower which does look a bit different from a traditional cellular U or wireless communication facility aenas and other pole mounted equipment will be concealed by the circular metal Shields painted to match the proposed monopole give you all just a second to look look that over all right here we have our required findings for approval the following findings must be met to comply with Town standards and the appro The Proposal meets these required findings we also have additional findings which also must be met to comply with Town standards The Proposal meets these additional findings staff has received 14 comments from the public all in opposition of the project primarily due to health and property value concerns related to a new wireless communication facility 10 were received online from the public comment form we I received two emails and two phone calls in conclusion staff does recommend approval of case up 2460 all right and any questions okay thank you very much Abby do we have any commissioner commissioner Gage please thank you chair uh I'm just have a quick question are we proving just the use or are we also proving this design uh thank you chairman and commissioner Gage it is for the use and the design okay thank you by chair does this um the design the you seem to say I think were you reading code does this aesthetic meet our code thank you chairman and commissioner uh Vice chair Fay I apologize uh yes it does meet code uh you'll see um we provided examples from East Mark and we do have a recently approved um conditional use permit with the same circular design any other questions okay um is is the applicant here to speak on this at all yes I do have the applicant present and she does have a presentation okay thank you good afternoon my name is Tiffany and I'm here on behalf of vertical Bridge which is the wireless communication facility Builder uh for the proposed wireless communication facility so several things that we're going to go over here um benefits to the community the proposed Wireless um telecommunications Tower location itself health and safety and then any questions that you or um the public may have so to start off the benefits to the community um one of the main ones is incre inre coverage in the area this will particularly benefit Highway 60 and the surrounding communities um within the radius it the installation of the wireless communication facility will ensure Public Safety because it'll increase coverage within the area which will allow residents of the community and their guests to have better access to emergency 911 services and the improved e911 triangulation will help determine um where the emergency services are needed if a caller is unable to relay their particular location at the time of an emergency um another benefit here is the expansion of wireless coverage so this site will improve the overall coverage of the um particular carrier and any future carriers that will collocate on it uh in the future and the last benefit here is the the tower height allows for one additional collator to join um reducing the need for future Towers in in the future so here I have a location of where the wireless communication facility is going to go it um I've provided the Latin long as well if needed so the design Tower is a monopole I know that there was some questions as the design of the tower initially we worked with staff um on trying to determine which design would work best for this area initially a stealth design of a monop palm or a monop pine was discussed but it was eventually um determined that that would not be a good fit for the area and then we fell upon the Shroud design which you see before you right now it is designed for the anchor carrier and then one additional carrier to collocate on the structure in the future and then as mentioned before this will prevent or it's a preventative measure to decrease um the construction of towers in the future and the overall proposed height of the tower is 64 ft initially we did opt for a 75t pole because that does fall within the ordinances but we did work with staff and we compromised on the design and the height lowering the height just to decrease the impact the visual impact that it may have had to the area so here is a picture of the compound layout the initial compound size is 45 by 70 ft and there will be a 30 foot wide non-exclusive access and utility easement going onto the main R of way and as mentioned before there is an 8ft CMU wall that will be surrounding the compound and there is a emergency backup generator that will only run um in case of a powder outage and it'll cycle for um 15 minutes once a week and it's no louder than a car driving by so it won't impact nearby residential areas or um the school so as far as health and safety goes there are radio frequency emissions everywhere it goes all the way from your Bluetooth to phones um small cell sites that help in improve 5G 4G network um for your phones baby monitors Wi-Fi and then the macro sites which is the proposed Wireless facility um which just Falls at the 0.1% of the fcc's limit and then we just have a couple couple of um leading health organizations inputs on the effects of the radio frequencies that these macro sites do put out so um there's very little evidence to support any negative health effects um in regards to installing these and agencies like the FCC um which is the Federal Communications Commission and the World Health Organization they set limits on RF exposures to Ure SA safeties and we do follow these um as well as a carrier and some studies um there are just no conclusive evidence that typical exposures from wireless communication facilities um cause harm so I'm here to answer any questions that you guys may have and thank you for your time thank you very much any questions that anybody would like to pose for the applicant this may be for the applicant or maybe my understanding is the discussion about the health effects is beyond the scope of what we're talking about tonight and I can actually clarify that yeah we aren't actually at Liberty nor legally um that that's something that we are not discussing and as like a board we won't we don't have any um purview over that subject so so if you did have questions on that that's not something we discuss thank you chair and just to clarify um not only do you not have the authority but there is an affirmative proh prohibition against that consideration um so uh yeah see that's thank you that's that's just the lawyer putting her paw on me no you couldn't if you wanted to thank you Elena okay thank you very much for your presentation all right we have some comment cards here i' like to give everybody the time to speak so I also recognize you guys have been here a long time and I thank you for staying okay we start with uh Rebecca Wilson she is opposed to I wish to speak she's opposed to the tower design not a stealth pole stealth pole such as a well I'll let you say it yeah it's fine it looks like mine I'm like did I write this but go ahead three minutes state your name in your residence oh if you hit the hit the red button on the base and it'll go red there you go there it is thank you U my name is Rebecca Wilson I live at 4213 East Harvard Avenue in town Meadows I've been there since 2007 um I've seen a lot of development I work in environmental Consulting I actually worked with cell towers for about five and a half years uh several years ago and I've seen lots of different designs um my main concern with this is I think the design is awful for our area I think it's makes our it makes the area look more IND industrial you know she mentioned East Mark well East Mark's a newer community that has a lot of retail involved there's a lot of houses and there's retail right there so I can see how in a community like that that sort of design would fit there it wouldn't be as obtrusive I feel like here it really it just takes away from the visual it's very I mean I drive by here every day my daughter goes to Town's Elementary um I just think it's odd I thought it was strange that they didn't do a monopine or I mean I think a palm tree would probably look a little weird here but but it would be better than a pole with the shrouds it just doesn't blend into anything and it's probably about 35 ft higher than any of the um treeses that are there um my thought was I'm curious why they didn't move it up to attac there's a um there's more industrial properties just to the north of here and then there's a lot of already existing infrastructure to do collocations on um on the transmission lines along rer road and in the vicinity so that's kind of my thought is that I don't I'm not sure why they didn't go for those types of developments that are less intrusive and then um if they in if it insists on going my opposition is really the design um that it should be made something that's actually Blends in thank you for your time thank you very much okay we then have uh Jeffrey Bracken he's oppos the item and does not wish to speak just wanted to make his opposition known uh James Fowler opposed and wishes to speak Mr Fowler please come up state your name and residence and you have three minutes sir my name is James fer and I am a resident of the town of Gilbert and first chair Vice chair Commissioners thank you for your service someone has to do this job and I'm glad it's you um second thing is I'm uh an RF and systems engineer for the federal government so I have experience in these areas and apparently um they're legal prohibitions on some of the things I would discuss but as the first Speaker pointed out um there's a lot of existing infrastructure to the north um she didn't even mention uh the dark fiber that SRP has in the area that could be used for back haul which would would make more commercial space available for other tenants on a tower in a located in a different location the I'm getting old the we already have four Towers in our area that are accessible um because I've measured and I know um and I believe that the presentation by the by the vendor was disingenuous as far as reducing the need for future Towers if we look at the development of 5G and 6G Technologies we're actually just adding more and more Towers in order to handle the increased bandwidth requirements along with increased in devices the a lot of my objections were um also to the location oh the backup generator will also need to be serviced um they run on natural gas which is not available in that area the City of Gilbert for whatever reason didn't put it in in that neighborhood so um that there will be a service truck coming to that site regularly um to provide gas to power the backup generator that's going to be running so there's a little more business going on um right next to an area where there's a school as well as um de developmentally challenged individuals who do occasionally uh escape the confines of theirs and fortunately it's not been a busy area so they remain safe we can discuss traffic concerns right as far as health and safety um yeah while if the Mast fell it wouldn't reach the kids while they're in school at the uh Elementary School to the South um know if I can say some of those same frequencies are actually microwave frequencies and yes you do have to take those things into account thank you thank you sir and I and I'll just uh you know remind that in no way am I restricting anyone's Free Speech if you wanted to talk about um I just meant what we as a board are able to speak on um okay next up we have Aaron Chapman opposed to the item and wishes to speak Mr Chavin please come up three minutes and state your name and address thank you thank you chair Vice chair commissioner staff you guys have God bless you for your endurance at least one question would we allow a man with that type of background to have another round because of his belief you could not speak in something because of what the town attorney had stated I would ask that be done uh myself I am at 4086 East Houston which is directly across from here I've had I've own 4090 East Houston since 2002 uh I've never had a signal problem in that area just for the record additionally I'm in the uh real estate Finance industry since 1997 I was ranked number one in the state of Arizona and number seven in the United States with over a million people that do my job I spoke on multiple stages I've been a guest on over 300 podcasts talking about real estate Finance economics and and the uh the markets I have spoke to thousands of individuals buying real estate in across the country in 30 States I've evaluated thousands tens of thousands of appraisals what I'm here to talk about has to do with the perception of what people will see when they see something like that in that neighborhood or any house they're looking to buy because of my background I've represented American Association of private lenders and think realy to speak directly to members of the United States Senate United States Congress I've sat down with directly the Senate Banking Committee discussed things on property values and one things that I will say is the perception of person buying a home when you have to legally disclose something to this effect and what it is what will happen to the person that might be purchasing that home if you look at studies there's been studies from the National Association of Realtors as well as other organizations that says they could we could have a difference in property values between 8 and 20% my property directly across the street and other properties adjacent have property values in excess of $2 million that could be anywhere from 100,000 to 300,000 that I would endure a haircut for the sake of somebody else's scrolling speed I believe is my belief and you guys correct me if I wrong that the town of Gilbert its elected officials and its citizens are not in the business of taking from others to benefit somebody's scrolling speed so there is probably just on my street alone the ones that would be impacted within 1 to 200 ft of that particular location could see seven figure differences in their property values and a it's not a matter of actual value or opinion of value it's the narrowing of the people that would be interested in purchasing there because we know that economics 101 is supply and demand the demand will drop and a supply of buyers will drop with something like that staring directly across the street thank you very much I appreciate you guys thank you sir okay we have chares Bracken is opposed the item and wishes to speak please come up Miss bra state your name and address and you have three minutes thank you hello I am chariss Bracken my family and I have been Gilbert residents for 36 years and we live on Houston Avenue my comments are concerning this Tower this wireless communication facility on the corner of Houston and reer Road looking at the map let's see the map on the left so you see Town Meadows there and at top of it you see Guthrie mainstream Services that's where the cell tower will be located and as was mentioned that is a daycare for individuals with developmental disabilities that cell tower is actually in the playground of That Daycare Center so those children and those adults that are attend Guthrie mainstream services will be exposed to levels of low levels of RF radiation the whole time there at the daycare center next door to the South just right next door is Town medals Elementary School where 650 students grow learn and play if this permit is approved these children will will be exposed to low levels of RF radiation while they attend school to the north is Houston Avenue and to the east is the town medal subdivision where most of those children live if the wireless communication facility is allowed to be built these same children will be exposed to low levels of radiation while they walk home from school play with their friends eat dinner with their families and while they sleep exposure to low levels of RF radiation 24 hours a day every day for years you may say that the FCC claims it is safe there's a problem with that though the FCC issued safety guidelines in 1996 based on studies done on 220 PB mail no studies done on women no studies done on children and no studies done on long-term exposure in fact in the 39 years since those guidelines were developed a US Government review of the full body of recent science has simply never been done because the FCC has refused to consider new science and has refused to update the guidelines a lawsuit was brought against them and the FCC lost on August 13th 2021 the US court of appeals for the DC circuit ruled the Federal Communications Commission ignored scientific evidence and failed to provide a reasoned explanation for its determination that its 1996 RF emission guidelines adequately protect the public the Court ruled that the fcc's guidelines for safety are not evidence-based and can no longer be presented as an assurance of safety the FCC cannot say that going to school and living near a wireless communication facility is safe therefore this Planning Commission cannot claim with assurance that it is safe there is a solution that protects the children of our community and still allows for connectivity move the wireless communication facility to a more appropriate location away from schools and homes image number two Miss I was just going to let you know your three minutes is up so if you could wrap up please I will I am done so see the little red icon that's where the proposal is and go half a mile North and you see where I've circled it all of that there's no homes and there's no schools and that's a half a mile North so I respectfully request that this commission vote to reject this proposal in order to protect our children who are our future and our present thank you thank you very much okay we have I think it's Levi Wallace is in favor favor of this item does not wish to speak uh then I have Shelley Cranford and Shelly wishes to speak please come up and state your name and residence and three minutes thank you okay my name is Shelley Cranford and I live at 4126 East San Pedro uh my husband um is coming back from a business trip so he had me he texted me what he wanted me to say he said my name is Ty Cranford and I live in town Meadows estate for 16 years I have served on the board of directors for the past 10 years and currently serving as president my wife Shel is kind enough to share my voice as my work has taken me out of town today I share an opinion as well as a voice from the community Through people reaching out directly as well as utilizing social media forums directly connected to our neighborhood it is clear that we oppose the 60ft tower that will change the Dynamics of our neighborhood visually as well intrusively from quite a few backyards the commercial property uh where it's proposed is nuzzled in between communities as well as directly next door to an elementary school when the property was deemed for commercial use it was specifically approved with the intent of a daycare facility for the children this would be easy choice for the Town Council to approve this knowing that it is next to an elementary school in the middle of multiple neighborhoods the property prop has since changed to a different business a great business that is not intrusive to anything or anybody and zero issues with the business the concern is a tower that has nothing to do with the business this is is the opposition I understand business and the desire to make money on your property but not by installing an intrusive commercial Tower in an area that does not belong there are multiple areas around town classified as commercial that can erect this Tower and not be issued because it is in the right location respectfully I ask that you deny this request as it does not serve the current business that the property is on and it intrudes to the neighborhoods immensely um that are immensely opposed to this thank you thank you very much much appreciate it don't know that my wife would do that so that's pretty cool okay Jesse Garcia ia uh is opposed to the item does not wish to speak Jamie Platt opposed the item and wishes speak I miss Platt please come up and three minutes state your name and residence my name is Jamie Platt and I'm a resident in town Meadows um Edition um thank you so much for listening to these concerns um first I I have several um reasons why I oppose this Tower first the proposed Tower will be a block and a half out my front door and I don't really want to look down the street and see that um it's highly visible and in my opinion an isore the proposed location of this Tower is in the middle of what at one time was a sleepy bedroom Corridor full of residences and when we bought our home 20 years ago we never imagined that our community Town Meadows nor thege large residential communities of Carol Ray Ranch as well as others um would become a a radiation Corridor and I say this because according to data from um antenna search there are already 59 Towers within a 3 mile radius of my home um these towers include AT&T Sprint Nexel T-Mobile Verizon and various other carriers we do not need another one plac so close to our residential community where there are non-residential options available for for Towers we also do not need the value of our property to be impacted by a highly visible environmental concern it would be of note to mention that there are several homes at the end of my street which will have this Tower really essentially in their backyards and in my opinion that's unacceptable secondly this Tower will be located on the property of Guthrie mainstream who operates a facility for special needs individuals and within very close proximity to another Gilbert Public School Town Meadows Elementary although the argument will be that the tower will be FCC compliant it is important to note that they have conducted zero studies since establishing these guidelines in 1996 which was previously mentioned um the EPA also has the last report they've done on any environmental impact was done in 1986 vulnerable children in Special Needs individuals do not need to be exposed to another Tower emitting radi frequency radiation where there are already as I mentioned before 59 Towers within a 3 mile radius as a parent of children who attend Town Meadows the fact that Guth re mainstream is willing to place this on their property um is a questionable decision um lastly I want to reiterate that this is a longstanding wellestablished community and not an area being newly developed an area which might need additional Tower support the only newly developed Community nearby is a large city of Mesa multifam complex on Baseline and recer and if by chance this Tower is additional support for this complex I feel that the city of Mesa should take on the placement of the tower thank you for your time and consideration thank you very much and then we have Daryl moral is opposed the item um Daryl just he didn't say whether he want to speak but I see him moving forward so hence he does he says why a cell tower on a residential street all right Daryl just state your name in three minutes sir yes I'm darl Morell um and I appreciate your service um and your endurance this has got to be grueling um I live at uh 4112 East Houston Avenue and recer um so I can just the the first house on our street west of Recker or I'm sorry east of Recker this will be this Tower will be the The View out of their front yard it will be and I hate to say it this way but this is one of the ugliest cell tower designs I've seen um especially if you add the second sort of it looks like it should never mind um so this design is completely intrusive I live two lots to the east of this house and again it will be the dominant feature looking out of my front yard um looking at the document that was submitted for this proposal uh it shows the cell towers that were are within a 2m radius of this proposed location I actually spent a while on Google Maps this is the only cell tower that would be on a residential street everything else is on either a major Street like a Baseline and so on this would be the only residential street that has a cell tower and so my question is why would we put a cell tower on a residential street um as you can see in you know the the red area up there um several of us independently looked at where the obvious place would be to put a cell tower up and it's obviously a/4 to 38 of a mile north of the current location where there is a car repair place um a storage place several other industrial industrial areas it makes a lot of sense to put it there it doesn't make sense to put it in our yards thank you thank you sir okay I believe that concludes the public comment it's just a check though as a final check is there anyone else that did not fill out a card that still wish to speak all right very well thank you all very much we we actually can't have a re well I guess from a legal vantage point is an individual that spoke able to speak again if in fact he thought he couldn't he feltch vi v on it was he because he had he had spoke but he didn't think he could mention things because of the restrictions and I said he can say whatever he wants well as long as I don't get in legal trouble all low pleasee come up state your name and take three more minutes sir we're not even going to take three more minutes yeah we're all tired James Fowler live in to Meadows resident of Gilbert no just was going to point out that the testing that they do for RF testing is generally on larger males you can't test on children it's unethical um aside from other things but we do know that um from other tests on animals and things like that that the radiation does have an impact and one of the issues that we have in testing on children as well or even knowing like aspirin and ipren and those things is because children change so much and so quickly developmentally through those years as they're growing but we really just it's so difficult to understand the impact that that's having on them really don't want a lot of these frequencies sorry the frequencies from 1997 are different we've expanded the frequencies and also cover microwave frequencies and stuff now that weren't tested at that time so just remember that some of the CL being made are not as clear as they sound thank you all right thank you very much sir okay then with that I will close the public comment and bring it up to see um if the if we have any other questions or if the applicant wanted to speak to anything outside of the health um but otherwise I can bring it up and we can see if there's questions for you if you'd like to respond to anything um um that was spoken to outside of the health which I guess if you really wanted to you could but just know I can't take it into account okay sounds good thank you um I just wanted to make another note I know that the tower design was something that was of concern to a lot of people as mentioned before we did meet with staff and they um denied the monopine just because there like you guys saw in the presentation that surrounding area doesn't really blend in very well monop um Palm wouldn't really fit into that space either so they had suggested that uh artistic approach to the design um we would be open to exploring a different type of design if if needed but that is the one that was recommended to US based off of previous approvals of conditional use permits so um if that was something you wanted to um address then we we could definitely look into that and work with staff on getting that fixed for you guys thank you and and I I do have a question then since I have you here I why is it that you chose to put it by a daycare like what is like when you do your site sighting what what is it that Drew you to this I mean is there some triangulation of like there's a dead zone or was it just this happened to be an opportune area where they wanted to get some cash so they were like yeah sure you can put this here and it was more expensive to go up the street I want to understand I don't understand that understandable so um as they mentioned there are some surrounding existing Wireless location facilities in that area um our site happens to fall within the center of that so we're kind of closing not necessarily a coverage Gap but definitely offloading some of the um other sites within the area area so um we're in the center of those surrounding sites that have been previously mentioned before and um we do Scout all of we're we're giving a a specific area to put a wireless communication facility and we do Outreach to uh Parcels within that area so we do that via um phone email and then letters as well and then they reach back out to us with their interest in it um so that's kind of how we settled on this particular location it was one of the interested landlords um reaching out to us expressing interest to have that on that on their parcel so interesting and so and then just one more question then I'll let someone else talk but I can't get over the fact that this looks like somebody is cooking marshmallows um I don't know if anyone else noticed that I even made the joke that if you did it you should make the building on the bottom bottom Brown and then a black top so it looks like a s'more right but is are these somewhere else like this design exists personally I have never seen a design like this for a wireless communication facility but as I've mentioned before staff recommended this particular design to us um so we would be open to changing it if needed but yeah that this is what we were given so we agreed to to originally change it from a monop pine to this okay no very good thank you all right thank you commissioner Gage please I thought this personally looked like a d double decker lamp um but I guess everyone's idea of what is Artistic is different this is very ugly and if I lived anywhere near here I would not want this so my vote is a no okay thank you commissioner G commissioner deina I was going to say something similar is that I know people that want to put Billboards up search for certain areas and some times these landowners like the additional cash I look at this is no different than putting a billboard in that same area so I'm opposed to it also thank you I guess I should caveat this with if we don't have questions for the applicant we don't need we can close the okay you do okay one second ma'am I'm sorry commissioner Davis sorry chair I just want to clarify so when you were talking about how you pick your locations um I understand that you know you've determined that there's certain ones that you can't um collocate on in the area is there any leeway in that distance I know you said you're in the center of that area where you're feeling like there's kind of missing coverage is there any what's the the leeway on that as far as it sounds like you just maybe didn't get interest from other property owners in the area and that's settled here but what would be like say it did go to that area where the neighbors had highlighted to the north where you have more commercial you have more industrial um would that site work just as well if there was interest from the property owner would you have been able to make that work it would depend on how close to other existing facilities um the interested landlord would be uh just because we don't want to obviously have them overlap in each other more than they already are um right now where this current location is it's pretty ideal for the search ring that we're trying to uh have that facility built in so uh to answer your question I I don't know that it could move any more than it already is but um yeah that's that's all I can say on that right now thank you and as far as the design goes I am famili familiar with the one in East Mark it's got four of these marshmallows on it um but at least the stick is a different color so it actually does look like you're roasting marshmallows and it's that way further in um it's you know close to some apartments but it's unusual but in this particular location I don't like this design at all so okay any other questions for the applicant or staff commissioner Simon I I don't know if this is a question or a statement maybe it's maybe it's directed at staff maybe it's directed at the applicant but my understanding is that went in with that monopine stealth design as our first option and then staff came back they were like no that doesn't blend in with the surrounding and then they recommended this but they can touch more on that chair and commission thank you um stealth design is required in this zoning District um initially we did have as the applicant stated a 75 foot foot monopine mono uh pine trees in Arizona grow to an average of 30 to 50 ft um we felt that this sort of stealth design would be different and better for the area than just the regular cell tower that you would see normally um we did get it down to 64 ft uh we can make a condition of approval if you would like to remove the shrouds we can work on an alternative design if that is the only issue or we can um continue this okay with that is there any more questions for staff or the applicant all right well thank you both very much I will now officially close the public comment bring it up to the Das for discussion Andor a motion chair if I may commissioner Simon please um I I I I agree with other comments on the Das I don't like this design whatsoever um and if it was being put in my backyard I would not be happy um I've seen the monop Pines be it a little bit tall it probably look much better than this um in this area I don't know that continuing this would really make much of a difference one way or the other because I think that if we were to continue we would need to give some very specific direction to staff and I don't know at this point what that direction would be other than look at alternative designs um and I do know that typically these facilities are I mean as as the applicant stated this is a land owner who's been given an opportunity to potentially lease space on their property for this product so uh you know I mean I'm no specialist can't speak to the health issues or anything that comes along with RF um so I don't I don't know how to go down that road so I I guess I guess where I would sit on this is if it were to be presented as is I would say no just because I am not in favor of the design the rest of it I don't know enough about to really speak to so not only that you can't speak to it sir yeah that just to just to clarify um because Elena is staring right at me there's like laser attorney eyes coming right into my soul and I'd rather not so um you know for me I don't understand personally the the the the reason like if there was a reason in the town of Gilbert that oh my God if we don't have this cell tower you know you know our lives are at risk or we're going to have you know I'm not going to be able to play stupid games on my phone and without that then then there becomes the Aesthetics property values all of the other things not to mention the fact that it's low located in a rather unique area that I don't understand well enough why as a town that's 100% uh a necessity you know and so that you know I I'm with you I don't I don't know that a continuance but it's it's difficult for me to make sense of it based on the information because I'm not finding that catch of why but that being said just wanted to share I will entertain a motion or more discussion if you're so inclined at this late hour I was just going to say chair I think you summed it up perfectly chair if there's normal discussion on I'll attempt the motion please carry on uh chair I'll make a motion to recommend denial of up 24-6 uh fos Sun Valley second that motion got it we have a motion in the negative from commissioner Simon and we have a second from the vice chair do we have any further discussion on the matter I just want to make sure if we press the green it we're denying a yes is a no yes okay please cast your vote all right motion carries for a denial thank you all very much for coming out and thank you all for the interest this evening it's been this is a usually the people are upset with us so we we need to bask in this moment yeah thank you okay moving on now to the administrative items administrative items are for the commission's discussion and action it is to the discretion of the majority of the commission regarding public input requests on only administrative items persons wishing to speak on an administrative item should complete a public comment card form indicating the item number on which you wish to address the commission may or may not accept public comment we go into the communications there is no executive session we have a report from chairman and member of the commission on current events I see commissioner Gage has some current events please I was just wondering if we could discuss the temperature up here it is freezing cold uh no as a matter of fact we will not because it was actually quite comfortable I'd like to pack on to that but if we could get some water bottles that'd be awesome yeah I I guess as as a current event the um refrigerator I had to drink a Sprite um full sugar I think somebody should keep pencil out of our refrigerator so and it's not a disability but I do have what doctors consider a bit of a weight problem and a full sugar soda is not ideal so I just want to point that out to all the members here all right moving on we'll go to item number 15 report from the planning services manager on current events Eva um thank you chair I concur with commissioner Gage's temperature and we'll we'll look into that this is crazy it's one of the only times I've been comfortable wearing my jacket and commissioner Simon is not allowed to say he's cold because he's sunburned from standing outside watching golf all day while I work so okay well then I will now entertain a motion for adjournment if anyone would like I will make that motion we have a motion from commissioner Gage for adjournment and a second from Vice chair please cast your vote Come On Noah it's not ready yet Eva are we going to vote we have to vote on the adjournment I'm I'm I'm about to gavel it there we go okay here we go 70 meeting meeting and journ thank you all very much for this three item meeting I traed you should have asked I would have I would have given it to you it would have looked hilarious to see my jacket it's like the opposite of Tommy Boy not a fat guy in a little coat a little girl in and Abby don't feel bad it's not like you're actually old for one it's better to get it right out of the way you know yeah what she you want it was her first ever presentation say I saw her dinner I didn't know she was I thought she was student was her first