e okay it looks like we have everybody here and we will call to order the study session and the first up is Z2 2413 the LDC text Amendment zoning applications and Eva thank you thank you and good evening chair and Planning Commission as I'm sure you're aware the legislature was very busy and has given us quite a few bills thank you Veronica quite a few bills to deal with the housing shortage in the state we've brought you already adapt reuse accessory dwelling units housing for chickens housing for inoperable vehicles and now we're bringing forward initiation and citizen review of time frames for review of residential projects this is what the bill says but to summarize it for the first administrative completeness review the staff planner has 30 days to complete that review this shouldn't be a problem we normally are much shorter time frame than that for the administrative completeness about 10 to 15 days if it is not complete the staff has to send back a list of deficiencies and the second review staff is limited to 15 days for review this does not apply to historic sites Native American sites but also in right at the bottom there it does not apply to land that is already zoned as a land area development so it doesn't apply to pads and it only applies to residential zonings not all zonings and then after determining that the application is administratively complete we now have a time frame for Town Council to approve or deny the application and that time frame is 180 days it cannot be continued it must be approved or denied and hopefully that won't be a problem we are normally about 3 to four months on this type of application but now we do have a 180-day deadline staff can extend that by 30 days one time and staff may Grant extensions of additional 30 days if the applicant requests it lastly there's a slight change to the protest procedures the language is very similar to what's in code today that if 20% or more of the property surrounding a zoning area they can protest in writing and that would trigger a super majority vote what's new is what's in Red so it's 20% of the surrounding properties excluding government-owned property so we cannot sign a protest against something that's next to government land and tonight just asking for commission to initiate the text am Amendment and to conduct the citizen review again it's 30 days for first completeness review 15 days for second completeness review 180 days for approval or denial by council with some chance of 30 days extensions and then adding into the slight change to the protest that it does not apply to government's Z properties okay thank you Eva anybody have any comments or questions Vice chairman biani thank you chair uh thanks AA so I was just curious you kind of touched upon it so with this rash of bills I mean including this one what's the what's the idea like the staff resources or the impact with all these bills so this one you're saying 30 days doesn't really impact us 180 days doesn't really impact does but when we look at the the multiple bills that have been you know yes forced on you guys how what's the impact the staff on that um well we'll see it's supposed to increase the housing stock we currently get um regularly accessory dwelling unit applications we've always allowed them in the town but this will allow the setbacks to be closer to the neighbors for instance this one shouldn't be a problem but sometimes things do take longer than 180 days if the ranch for instance was all residential zoning I think that one took quite some time so we'll have to see the impact on the time frame adaptive reuse we may or may not see that adaptive reuse is changing commercial structures to residential and that has an affordable housing element attached to it I don't know if there'll be much appetite for that in the town and then we also have the duplex Triplex town home Bill where if you're within a mile of the central business district or on property over 10 acres so on our remaining large sites we may see more of that smaller multifam element based on the new legislation okay yeah thanks I was just curious if it was a hardship on staff as far as how you guys are going to have to delegate time and timelines bringing this all to you is a bit a bit of work but once it's all in there um the only other hardship chairman and vice chairman um lot of the bills it's not Crystal Clear they were written of course by a group of people so once they are in our LDC most of these start January 1st then we'll have to see if we have issues interpreting anything okay thank you thanks chair all right very good anyone else yes please commissioner Fay please AA thank you very much my understanding is that that the the stuff you're presenting is a um a model that that we could actually do something different but we have to do something or we get the model or is that we have to adopt this well we have to what I present is the actual language in the bill the leak sent out a model it had the same language that was in the bill so while we could draft something and the actual ordinance that I've drafted that will go to council is a little different it has the same rules that I just mentioned the 30-day the 15 days 180 days but right now we have all applications lumped together we will now have to pull out residential zoning applications because that's all that this time frame applies to so the model comes out of the league not the legislature um in this case yes the language came from the legislature the league sent out model ordinances that that answers my question thank you very well anything else okay well I think uh I have no problem with it I think that it's good to go um so would this be that I should say we will start the citizen review yes please if you could approve the initiation and then see if uh and the citizen review and see if anybody wishes to speak on the topic okay prior to approving it I asked them if they should speak though yeah yes approve the initiation and then all right see if anybody would like to speak does anyone have any opposition to approval of the initiation seeing none I initiate commencing initiation is there anyone that would like to speak on set an in iation close Okay so I think uh I think we're good to go then all right very good thank you very much thank you chair thank you commission okay be tough to top that one but we'll try with number two gp2 24-02 nz2 24-10 Moda Gabriella point we will bring up Mr Keith chairman M um members of the commission good evening uh my study session case before you tonight as you st you stated is from odera Gabriella Point see if I can get this thing to work here there we go perfect so the site as you have seen in your staff report is located along Higley Road South of Warner and north of the 202 Freeway you can see it on the screen in front of you it's and it's located within the Gabriella Point Commerce Center kind of at the south end of it across the street from that that ala uh School see if I can get to advance okay it's probably Veronica thank you Veronica um so the request uh tonight for for input as this is a study session is concerning the proposed uh General plan Amendment which I'll explain in a second and the proposed pad rezone with some deviations um integration between the commercial and the multif family uses distribution of commercial throughout throughout the site parking along Higley Road and building placement in Orient ation so here's the general plan plan exhibit the request from that standpoint is to change the existing General plan designation on the property from Regional commercial to General commercial and the zoning change that the applicant is proposing is to change the site from Regional commercial zoning uh to mixed use large zoning and that General plan designation of of of General commercial uh the mixed use large zoning district is that's the um designation General General commercial that is required for these mixed juice zoning districts so that's why they're proposing that change and you can see the site down down there at the bottom so as far as the development plan is concerned um the site is 13 1 12 acres in size um and the uses on the site are commercial retail up in the front and you can see those those two pad sites there at the front it says on the development plan they're one-story commercial uses and you can see the parking surrounding uh these two retail pads and then you have a multifam uh portion of the project in the back so at this time we're still in the process of reviewing this project for the first time it's in first review and we don't have um all the information yet that we need we we're through the first review we're going to be asking the applicant to provide us more details and information um specifically with with respect to potential square footages of commercial space um number of residential units height of residential buildings and things like that which is information that we just we just don't have yet at this time so that's why I'm not providing all that that those details to you tonight but you can see the site has they're proposing access off of higgle Road and then there's another access off of Alona Drive which is the street to the south for the commercial and then for the residential portion of the project there is an access off of Alona drive at the mid block and then you will see another access off of Martingale Road at the far northeast corner of the site now please note that Alona drive and Martingale Road are already constructed they were constructed as part of infrastructure improvements as part of an infrastructure PL flat uh for the um Gabriella Point Commerce Center so those roads are already in place um and then here's a pretty picture of the development plan that shows the distribution of use is better the pink obviously is commercial and Retail and they're even proposing some commercial uh uh type of uses on the ground floor of that first apartment building you can see now easily it's easier to see that there's five apartment buildings total and you can also see that there is a connection point from a pedestrian standpoint between the commercial and the residential and I have a perspective drawing in here that will show you uh their current concept that but there are some parking garages kind of in or parking canopies or actually their garages in the middle of the site in the brown and then there are even some Carriage units the smaller yellow I believe those are Carriage units to the north into on the east side of the property and then parking surrounding those buildings and those Apartments really close up to Alona drive so and here's the rendering I was going to show you there's a couple of them and you can kind of see how they have that pedestrian access that would flow in from the commercial into the multif family and here's another and obviously keep in mind these are very conceptual we have not reviewed architectural details that will come later when they submit for a design review application these are just conceptual drawings at this time so um before I move on to the proposed deviations I wanted to to mention that like I stated earlier we are in first review and staff has met with the applicant um prior to the submitt of the application to uh just talk about the general design of the site and we have expressed to them uh a few concerns that we have and I just wanted to bring those up and they're part of the the input that we um are requesting tonight and keep in mind we're still valuating these concerns as well this this input that we're requesting for you tonight and we're not done with that exercise as of as of today so based on the input the comments we have or um concerns we've expressed to the applicant are integration between the commercial and multif family uses um note that um they do have that sidewalk connection um that is currently provided but at this point um staff is a little concerned that um that is not an appropriate level of integration between the proposed commercial and residential and that that can be greatly improved um we're appreciative of that connection but as as stated I think that that can be approve improved upon um as the mixed use large zoning District um envisions a um a situation where you have um a higher level potential a higher level of that connection between uh in level of horizontal integration between commercial and residential obviously we know we're in first review but we would like to see that horizontal integration between the commercial and the residential improved so that it doesn't look like um two separate projects and so that seamlessly fits and works together the second thing is um distribution of commercial throughout the site um per the use design guidelines and I have the section listed in my staff report um retail uses must be distributed throughout the site avoiding segregation of uses um in Pre preliminary meetings staff expressed this concern with the applicants stating that the uses on the ground floor of the apartment building closest to the commercial should have commercial uses that are accessible to the public obviously as of today we don't know whether or not that is the case um but we are going to continue to um um communicate with the applicant concerning that to see if we can figure out uh or if they can uh provide uses in the ground floor of those apartment buildings that will be accessible to the public in addition it was also mentioned that uh commercial and Retail uses along Alona Street should be considered so that we get that greater distribution throughout the site of commercial and it's not all just concentrated to one side of the site um the next item is parking along higgle road now this is a deviation that they're also proposing tonight so per those mixed use design guidelines that I've stated parking is to to be placed within the rear or side of the buildings and not between public or private streets and building frontages with with no more than 5% of parking placed in front of the buildings as you can see on their their development plan they have a lot more than what it appears I believe it's more than 5% I could be wrong of parking that's placed in front of the buildings um and then the last uh thing is building placement and orientation per the mixed use design guidelines buildings must be designed with Frontage onto public streets and direct building access are concentrated toward public streets so with the parking in front of these buildings um at this point in time we don't feel that this is meeting the intent of the design guidelines with such with a lot of parking place between the street and the buildings so those are some of our concerns as of as of right now as of today and like I stated we are still in the process of of reviewing this but as far as the deviations that are that are requested by the applicant they have uh four deviations one of them is concerning the build to line which states that um a minimum of 50% of ground floor building facade or Define permanent outdoor dining area shall be within 10t of property lines of budding streets or pedestrian sidewalks and a landscape tracked which would be the landscape setback along the roadway and then it also states that the front and side setbacks of budding arterial streets are exempt from build two line requirements which means they would still need to at least be 20 fet set back the buildings which they're they're not meeting either of those um the applicant is proposing that buildings can be within within 10 ft um of that but they didn't address the 20 ft so that's something that we're going to have to talk to them more about um driveway restrictions the code as I've stated already um the Land Development code states that you cannot have vehicular Ingress or egress off of an arterial street so the applicant is obviously proposing to have that one entrance off of Higley Road oops sorry I went too fast so there you can see that entrance um the next one is the parking setback parking must be placed to the side or rear of the structures which we are I already talked about which was a concern they are um asking that parking is permitted in front of the structures which in this case would place the parking along higgle Road um and the last one is the tra requirement all all um internal streets and major access ises on a site shall be located within a designated and recorded tract um track track boundaries may be used as property boundaries for determining front and Street setbacks drives within tracks shall be shall conform to mixed use development design guidelines the applicant is requesting that all internal streets and major access aisles not be within a designated and recorded tract so those are the deviations and like I said as of right now we're still analyzing what our level of support will be for these deviations it's an exercise we are still in the process of going through so I just want to present that information to you and get your input on those deviations and our concerns that we have that aren't deviations so as far as public participation is concerned um we had there was a neighborhood meeting held on August 8th and you will notice in your staff report that I wrote down that it was a virtual meeting that's not correct that was a typo so um it was an in-person meeting so I just wanted to correct that um no surrounding property owners residents attended I believe it was just the applicant and our staff and that was it pretty simple meeting um so that concludes my presentation um like I stated earlier on the screen it shows the um six items that we would like your input on tonight so that is all I have for you um if you have any questions for me um I'm happy to answer them but I would love to hear um your input on on what we are requesting thank you very much very nice thank you Keith okay who would like to kick it off with some questions or comments commissioner Gage please thank you chair um Keith are we seeing this earlier than we would normally see most cases it seems like you and the applicant are very far apart and we don't usually see this big of a gap when a case is brought to study session um chairman um commissioner Gage it may seem that that's the case but just the fact that it was um we do usually like to issue first review comments first but in this case the applicant has requested that we come to study session uh at this time frame so that's just my microphone sound like it went off no we we decided to do it before we issue review comments at the applicant's request so okay and if if the residential part is gated there's no real in integration right so I'm I'm just struggling with the mixed use zoning versus doing some commercial and residential zoning and then okay I'll save my next question for so you can you can answer that question first um chairman Mt commissioner Gage so as soon as um let's see we can get okay so here we go this is a good one so I'm not sure exactly where gates are going to be located if any I I I thought I read somewhere in the report in their narrative that there weren't going to be Gates but like I said I haven't gotten that deep into the review yet um so I don't know how that integration is going to happen if there's Gates so yeah I was just looking at the entrance of Alona and it has a turnaround and a median and it's all set up right there to have a gate to be gated um so and maybe it's not going to be but that's the setup correct for a gated entry um chairmont commissioner Gage that looks like it's set up for that that's more we're going to have to get more information from the applicant on that and that's probably going to be a review comment that we make okay so that's TBD on on the gating and how things would be integrated between the commercial and the residential if there are Gates okay and then I just have one last question and when we first talked about the mixed juice zoning and it was almost two years ago um it was I thought I remember hearing staff say it was in an effort to not do so many pads that this new zoning classification would help um so is that still the case is it it seems like this is having trouble fitting Within These new mixed use um development standards um chair M Comm commissioner Gage um that is correct that is one of the reasons why we decided to uh create these mixed use large type and mixed use zoning districts so as I've said we're still trying to work our way through these deviations and and communicate more with the applicant to see if they're all um necess necessary so that's still an exercise we are going through but I do hear you loud and loud and clear about um the deviations and the reason why one of the reasons why we created these mixed use zoning districts was to cut down on the number of deviations um and there are four deviations that are proposed um so that that raises some questions and some concerns I understand that yeah I think on both sides like are these standards that are set like actually appropriate is this the first time we're putting them into action and so right maybe we're going to learn that these don't make sense um or is it on the applicant side I can't say but I'm just curious to see how this all works out okay we we are as well cool I'm done thank you thank you very much commissioner Gage Vice chairman bian did I see you indicate you'd like to speak yeah thank you chairman so Keith I I think commissioner Gage kind of started down that road I'm just curious so if it's regional commercial now and they're they're looking to propose a change to General commercial what's really driving that can they not do this level of intensity or a lessened intensity in the RC and they have to go to GC I guess my concern is you're creating a GC when you've got RC reserved land both to the North and the South of this proposal chairmont commissioner biani what's driving this change or the proposed um General plan amendment in rezone is they can do commercial just fine in Regional commercial it's adding that mixed you that multi family component which is multif family is not allowed in the regional commercial zoning District so the fact that they want to have multif family in the same project that is what is driving the change or them wanting to request the mixed use zoning okay so we're just going to have to determine whether or not this is the obviously the appropriate zoning district and appropriate location for this type of mixed use type development okay yeah that makes sense I just didn't know when we were looking at the mixed use especially the mixed use large if it was able to be done in RC but obviously it can't so that addresses that I guess my second question would be on the parking setbacks and kind of what the staff's concern is on the parking setbacks from Higley are you just looking more to try to activate that Frontage along Higley with with development activity or what um chairm commissioner biani I mean that's the idea behind the mixed use zoning yeah placing the buildings closer to the the roadways activates that street Frontage having them set so far back as they're proposing I don't know what the dimensions and the distances are but that doesn't activate the street Frontage and that's activating that street Frontage is one of the components in the in the mixed use design guidelines that are key for these mixed use zoning districts and we just we don't see that that's being proposed so that's the question okay thanks thank you chair thank you Vice chair commissioner Davis sorry I don't have my mic on one of the pad deviations that you had mentioned was a requirement for the drive Isles to be in a trct and I want to better understand that and what we're wanting to achieve with that versus what the applicant's wanting to achieve yeah um uh chair chair Mt uh commissioner Davis I am not quite sure I'm going to be honest with you I'm not quite sure I have a good handle on that myself okay that's some something I may have to find more information on and come back to you at the next uh when we come back for final hearing as to uh that requirement okay I'm going to be be honest all right I appreciate that um as far as the number of deviations that they're proposing I did have a concern with that what are we getting to offset for the pad what are we getting in quality to offset that and it seems like we're pulling a lot away from the mixed use kind of the standard things you would expect to see where the buildings can be brought to the street you could even have the side street of Alona so you have the chance to bring that and engage that whole corner and make it feel more like a mixed use development and engage I know there's not a lot of people walking up and down Higley Road but you do have a neighbor neighborhoods back in there and you're bringing people out on Alona too and you're engaging that corner so I would like to see it have that feel if they're going for the Mixed use zoning I think it needs to have that feel to it um I think that's all I had okay thank you thank you commission Davis commissioner Simon yeah Keith thank you for the presentation so just a couple of things um I kind of took from the the rendering that there is going to be gated as well which which makes me feel there's no integration between the commercial and the residential the other the other piece of it that I'm looking at is just with regards to to flow traffic flow if I if I go with a gated community the next question I would have would be are there going to be uh crash Gates on um Martingale um if there's a crash gate or or not a crash gate but maybe an entrance only for residents there there may be some some issue with the traffic flow if you don't have the entrance off of Higley Road you've got a right in right out only off of Alona which I think creates another issue with the traffic because now you're going to have people coming off of Higley make a U-turn to get into that commercial development which is going to create backups trying to get into that residential so there's there's things there with with the way that this is set up where I would look at the entrance off of Higley where I think that that's probably acceptable in my mind the way that this is laid out I would would think with regards to the way that we have the mixed use or the way my mind thinks about the mixed use I do like the thought of having commercial on that Alona on the Alona side up against um Alona so you uh integrate that with the rest of the community and push the commercial on the Higley side towards Higley a little bit I don't necessarily have an issue with the way that this is is laid out but I don't know that it's 100% where we were going with the multi multi-use stuff um but there's some questions I think definitely need to be worked out that that traffic flow probably a big one for me um the integration with regards to how that commercial is Flowing with the residential again gated I just don't see the the flow the way that that that true multi uh uh multi-use is is laid out um I think that that is all that I have for now so thank you thank you commissioner Anderson uh thank you for the presentation just a couple of questions for you I'm kind of zeroed in on the driveway restrictions and the parking set pack um just help help me understand the a little bit more because I'm looking at this um in the location you know it's higgle and um and then when you go further up to Higley and Baseline a lot of the restrictions that are in place here that are looking to be deviated are kind of somewhat deviated all the way up there so I mean they they have main main Ingress at egress coming off a Higgly into those shopping centers uh there's buildings commercial buildings that are Froning the street with parking in front it's kind of really similar to what I'm seeing here so what what help me understand what are the differences as to why that was allowed for up by Baseline in those commercial centers um it wouldn't be allowed a little bit fur further south on this site yeah um chairman um commissioner Anderson that that shopping center up along higgling Baseline is more of a traditional Suburban type shopping center it's not really located in that dense of an area obviously there's a lot of mix there's a lot of residential in the area but that's more of a traditional Shopping Center that you'll see on pretty much every corner or a lot of Corners throughout the town with the mixed use zoning districts we're trying to create something a little different we're trying to create something that's more urbanized where you do have more focus of pedestrians along the street buildings are closer together you have um the the not requiring or not allowing um uh vehicle access off the streets um it's similar to the pattern that has been created in the in the um footprint that you see for the verdia station development there's there is one entrance on verdia station off of the roadway but as you notice as you go further east all the vehicular access we've limited the access off of those principal arterial streets probably for safety concerns but it's hard to compare this type of development and mixed use development mix use large development to that traditional shurb Suburban shopping center model um a lot of with these mixed use zoning districts there's we've intended them to be located in areas that are like I said more dense more urbanized where you don't have as much vehicular traffic I know that we're an autoc Centric Community I get that I understand that but we want to try to eventually encourage people to to walk more um I know that we're never going to get rid of cars we're never going to get rid of that but at least we can try our best as planners to to uh encourage a more pedestrian oriented environment and having vehicular access off of these roadways can impede that somewhat but this is a totally different situation than what you see at higgle and baseline or a lot of our other shopping centers hopefully that kind of sheds a little bit of light on it um but we're trying to follow that model that more um neotraditional Urban Village model for the Mixed zoning districts to a certain extent like you would see in station where we have limited some access off of arterial streets not all access but some yeah okay thank you that does help explain it I think what what kind of throws the hiccup into these types of zoning cases it's really it's the multif family um because they just don't play well with when you're trying to integrate commercial or retail into them they never have um I think before this use group came into this the new LDC what was it our regional commercial before where everybody was trying to nobody could figure it out you know the apartment guys you know they don't want to play nicely with the retail guys because they need their certain certain needs and vice versa with the retail guys so I just don't know if we'll ever get a true integration of multifam with these types of commercials so there might have to be some you know some some give and take you know if if we want these you know types these types of mixed use communities you know in our town so chairman uh chairm commissioner Anderson I I I can understand your points um this is a new like I said this is a new zoning District we don't I think we only have maybe one other zoning District in the town location in the town that has this mixed use uh large or mixed use type zoning that's been applied to it um but like I said we're trying to create more properties that um are of the model of that uh more urbanized walkable pedestrian friendly environment like like you would see that's like I said in coie stations one of our models we're trying all right thank you commissioner Fay thank you so Keith I I was working my way through the deviations and some of them I was okay with some of them I wasn't quite okay with and but there was a lot of them and it kind of started to really strike me and I think you you kind of danced around this issue in my and this the standard for a rezoning or a plan amendment in my mind is pretty low uh but this is probably one of the first ones I would probably vote against if it was coming for us right now and my opinion is this isn't mixed use um I know there's a coffee shop tucked in there but that's be this is really two Parcels it's it's really General commercial that's up front and and now they're adding a kind of like the Aldi project we had a few weeks ago they're adding a multif family in back they're calling it mixed use and then asking for a whole bunch of deviations that essentially emasculate the benefits of mixed use in our uh in Our Land Development code which makes me think that I I don't know what I'd have to really wait into this that there's some cherry picking of of beneficial standards U it could be the setback or the big one but it it could be other things um and it it makes me suspicious I I need to go through this in a lot of detail if it was coming forward today really what I think should be happening this is just the wrong location and just the wrong design to really qualify as mixed use this looks like a commercial property with a multif family behind it it's we do that all the time it's perfectly fine project in itself um it just it makes me suspicious that we're trying to force this somehow into the mixed use box or we're trying to force this round peg into a square hole and um it it it leaves me with more questions than answers on on that because if you do this as a it needs so many deviations that it really just doesn't qualify in my my opinion so I would I'm a little bit either suspicious or negative and and the main primary reasons you guys have been more professional and detailed and and positive and your the integration between residential and Commercial and all all that kind of stuff the reality is right now this should come as a separate this should be split into two parcels and done as two separate Pro well one doesn't even need to be done but this the bag should be done as a separate project barring that it would it it just raises too many questions for me so sorry that I don't mean to be throwing cold water at you but this this needs a lot more and and I appreciate the applicant wants it to come but you guys ought to occasionally you ought to kind of say no um because it the applicant wants it to come earlier and it just it's leaving us with more questions that that really would have been resolved by a couple more meetings and and hammering out the details that um and I know I guess at the end of the day if they really insist they can't stop it from coming but you yeah you ought to say yeah we said no and they insisted anyway cuz I think this is a I think this needs to come back for input even before it goes for any votes um this is too early to really be getting meaningful input so there's my somewhat negative input thank you thank you commissioner Fay commissioner Davis I just want to say that I Echo commissioner fa comments I think it's some of the discomfort I've been feeling with this I love a mixed juice development it feels forced and I agree with that and the number of deviations are seem to be trying to make it fit something that it doesn't and so I guess I land kind of in the same spot as he does and I just wanted to state that for the record very well commissioner Gage Keith are we going to see this again as a study session item or will we not see it again until it comes up for vote um chair Mt um commissioner Gage sound it sounds like based on what I'm hearing tonight we might need to bring it back for another study session so um once we get more information from the applicant after our first or second reviews there's a good chance we could bring it back if you would like me to bring it back I'll bring it back I think it's a good idea but um it depends on what everybody else would like we can definitely do that thank you commissioner Gage anyone else okay Keith well um you know I look at this and I think this is clearly conceptual um I completely agree that with a leasing office a lounge a fitness center and a coffee shop in red I believe that's intended to make it seem as though that's part of a mixed commercial however a leasing office nobody's going to come off the street and say Hey I want to talk about leasing unless you're going to live there and Lounge um coffee shop fitness center we don't know if that's is that a gym or is that just a fitness center for the um people that live in these departments it does you know being that it's so early I understand that it's probably hard to determine okay what what do we mean by this and that might be why the applicant wanted to bring it in uh but I think that I agree with what you're saying that in a mixed use it should have more flow into it and that it does have the in the current state as it is it does look like two Parcels um and I'm sure that the applicant will work with you to to get that um and you know we'll see where that comes to but uh you know as it stands now with the amounts of deviations it may be prudent to bring it back to a study session thank you um chair chairmont members of the commission um appreciate all your comments and feedback I do want to note that um there is a really uh Moda has done this this apartment company they have a really a really uh a project that you have approved in the past at Higley and Ray that has that more mixed Vibe and feel to it that um that we think would would potentially fit really well on the site uh We've toured that property they have the Loft units commercial on the ground floor residential above and and that is something that um we could be looking at in the future as well and discussing with the applicant to try and potentially incorporate those types of elements on this side as well potentially I'm not saying that's going to happen but that's something that we we could be discussing with the applicant in the future as well to try and get it more towards meeting the vision of the mixed use uh type of environment uh that would meet the intent of not only the zoning code but the design guidelines right yeah I think that would be great I think that that's a great example to try to follow if we if we can mix some more of that in okay do you have everything you need then Keith I think so all right very good thank you sir thank you all right with that we'll move into item number three the discussion of the regular meeting agenda from what I understand there is uh a lot of Shifting of chairs within this um I believe that the well I Eva could you remind me of what it is that we were discussing on these certainly chair item 8 super light that is currently on consent shall be moved to non-consent and item nine signature at SanTan Village shall also be moved to non-consent under the non-consent items unless there is anybody to speak on items 10 or 11 they can both be moved to consent so 8 and nine come off of consent 10 and 11 potentially move to consent okay very good then does anyone up here have any issues with 10 and 11 going to consent we do yeah number 11 10's fine for me number 11 I do have questions about agree how do I know that so 10 cuz I told you at dinner yeah I know so 11 you you have to stay and 10 could go 10 could go as far as I'm concerned anyone else is anyone in the vast audience here to speak on number 10 okay well we'll preemptively assume that might be an option but we'll I'll check again when the meeting is started all righty then well with that we will adjourn chair chairman M real quick um I I just wanted to check I did did you guys have item number nine on the consent agenda I believe we're taking that one off okay good and that signature at SanTan yeah okay excellent thank you yeah no yeah we got eight and nine we'll be coming off very good thank you Keith okay then with that I will call to a close the work session and uh we'll take a five minute break and uh kick off the festivities of the regular meeting thank you did you like e e e e e e e e e [Music] check one two check one two okay e e e e e do we should we wait for Ashley or should we okay all right very good with that it's 6:05 so I will call to order the regular meeting and uh first thing we'll do is the Pledge of Allegiance please join me okay Eva could we have a roll call commissioner Everett commissioner D gravina commissioner Simon here commissioner Gage here Commission Fay yeah commissioner Davis here commissioner Anderson here Vice chairman bian here chairman Mt here we have a quarum thank you Eva okay well we're going to move into the approval of the agenda and as discussed on the consent we will be moving number eight and nine off and onto the non-consent and number 10 onto consent I will ask once again if there's anyone in the public that was speaking would like to speak on number 10 okay so we'll have seven and 10 on consent and 8 n and 11 on the non-consent okay now Communications we got to vote on it oh do we yeah here I am so chairman if there are no other other changes I would move to approve the agenda as presented thank you we have a motion for approval from the vice chair I would second his motion thank you commissioner Fay for that second everyone please cast your vote should we do a verbal if we could do a verbal vote all those in favor say I I I oppose okay motion pass is unanimous okay now that we've done that officially Communications uh Communications from citizens at this time members of the public May comment on matters within the jurisdiction of the town the commission may not discuss items that are not specifically identified on the agenda therefore pursuant to state law action taken as a result of public comment will be limited to directing staff to study the matter responding to any criticism or schedule in that matter for further consideration I do not have any comment cards from citizens are there any citizens here who would like to speak on items not on the agenda tonight surveying the crowd I do not see any we'll move on to number six report from Council liaison and uh council member Anderson thank you Mr chairman if I could get Vice chairman bian and commissioner um Everett to join me down at the podium on the yeah I didn't know they'd be arrested this early I hate to is this on yeah I hate to interrupt the uh the well oiled machine up there but uh we have we want to recog ize these two this is will be their last uh Commission meeting and we certainly do appreciate all of their efforts uh the service they've rendered the these are still members of the community they give up their time and their talents to serve on this commission and we greatly appreciate that uh it's because of the decisions and the recommendations that you all have made that make Gilbert one of the top communities in the nation it's where people want to raise a family where people want to start a business and it's because of some of the things that you two have done over the years so thank you very much and as a token of our appreciation we have a couple we have a card for you this is Tony's thank you this is Tom's thank you and we also have a certificate of appreciation for both of you is Tony you g to take a picture of us and Tom thank you let's all look at uh thank you thank you for service we get you thank you okay thank you council member Anderson and once again thank you to commissioner Everett and commissioner bian Vice chair bian who's been my right-hand man my Goose because he's an airport guy it's been a lot of fun okay we will move now into the public public hearing consent all items listed below are considered to be public hearing consent calendar the commission may by a single motion approve any number of items where after opening to the public hearing no person requests the item to be removed from the consent calendar if such a request were made the commission would 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 under those laws we have on the consent agenda item number 7 Dr 2467 Porter Brothers office expansion and item number 10 Dr 24-58 Mission Community Church coffee house I will entertain a motion on that if anyone would like to make it yeah I will second that okay we have a motion from commissioner Anderson and a second from Vice chairman biani please cast your vote motion carries 70 okay moving on to the non-consent non-consent public hearing items will be heard at an individual public hearing and will be acted upon by the commission by a separate motion during the public hearings anyone wishing to comment in support or in opposition to a public hearing item may do so if you wish to comment comment on a public hearing item please fill out a public comment card 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 this commission so the public comment cards are in the back the yellow card so if somebody would like to speak please fill one of those out and bring it up and you can speak during that item's discussion okay then we'll start with item number eight dr2 2462 super light block site expansion plant upgrade and S good evening chair and Commissioners good to see you all tonight the first project we'll be looking at is dr24 d62 no not yet uh super light block site expansion and I may have to turn a little bit just to get a better eye on the presentation cuz our screen is out down here so the subject site super light block uh is situated at the southwest corner of McQueen Road and Baseline Road uh it includes four Parcels totaling roughly 8.8 Acres uh the parcel is Zone General industrial with a planted are area development overlay and is completely surrounded by other industrial zoning District uh districts both General and light um just before diving into this I think a little bit of background is helpful for the site uh just because it was initially annexed into the town of Gilbert back in the mid-70s with one block manufacturing plant on the site uh fast forward to 1999 they amended the site plan uh in the town of Gilbert to bring a second manufacturing plant to the site so the application we'll be looking at is essentially the replacement of that original equipment in that annexation uh with up to uh upto-date inefficient equipment so when we take a look at the site plan here uh the current proposal as I mentioned is to remove out-of-date equipment and replace it with modern and efficient equipment uh the most noticeable update to the site plan is the proposed 23,000 23,300 ft² production building that is located along the southern property line there um the other addition you'll see on site is the new employee amenity uh area which is going to be that break room located along that Western property line and that's going to be roughly 1,600 square ft uh the new production building will be placed in an East West orientation focusing those prominent elevations towards the neighboring industrial uses and the site will include the new production building a curing building and uh manufacturing equipment uh the additions to the site will anticipate roughly 8,300 squ ft um extra footprint there uh and for parking the parking is met on site um with 25 spaces being required and 25 being proposed uh 16 exist on site today and with the addition of this extra square footage nine new spaces have been placed in the northeast corner of the site uh for Access there are two existing access points along McQueen um and the entire site is screened um by CMU block walls and there isn't a need for any landscape update there as for colors of materials although located within a general industrial zoning District the applicant has provided um a varied color palette here you can see um the use of CMU block metal side paneling and standing seam metal uh in various colors uh taking a look here we have the uh break room or employee amenity area the uh proposed structure like I said is located along that Western property line and is roughly 13 ft to the midpoint um it will utilize the integral BR uh integral ground face CMU uh painted Mission white in Palo Verde and it will be accented by PBR metal wall siding um which will be colored almond and you can see that they'll also be utilizing the uh gable roof accent so even though it is an industrial area they are presenting some nice design for um the employees on site uh when we go over to the new production building you can see that it's roughly 32 ft uh in overall height with flat roof lines the main exterior wall material will be constructed of PBR metal uh and the roof will be constructed of standing seam metal the color padet utilizes neutral tones similar to the employee amenity area and the roof will be colored Fern green as an accent there on site just for a better view we have another image of the block production equipment and that will be roughly 58 ft 6 in to the top of that and as per the pad on site this equipment needs to be painted sky blue to blend in you know with the natural sky and help mitigate any um visual impacts to um neighboring community members but what we did want to bring to you all tonight is an updated condition for the project uh in your staff report you do see um a condition H but we are requesting to remove that and replace it with the condition you do see here on the screen uh which reads the application's approval is contingent on the applicant's pending request for a technical variance relating to the town of Gilbert public works at engineering standard 4.1 18.9 point2 deceleration Lanes approval of the engineering plans will not be deemed complete and no building permits shall be issued unless and until the technical variance has been approved and with that I can open the floor to any questions you all may have thank you thank you s anybody have any questions for S okay very good all right uh did did the applicant want to speak at all do you know not tonight I don't know I think we should I think Sean's ready to give a full presentation we know you've been here every month Sean so I'm not Paul Gilbert and I don't feel obligated to stand up and say anything so um I'll be happy to answer any questions this was on consent this is a great project steady session went well so if there's specific things you want us to address we're happy to do that the amended condition I think there was an amended condition that's it yeah yeah okay yeah I don't think I don't have any other questions for you wonderful thank you very much Wonder thank you okay and I don't have any public comment cards so I will a question oh yeah go ahead commissioner Anderson can we bring up that condition back on the screen again please modified one this application so is this saying that um the the app we heard tonight the approval of that is going to be contingent on if they get this technical variance I think it's more of a question for staff I don't know uh chairman commissioner Anderson that is correct so the uh both of these applications um are are contingent so if the technical variance is deemed um denied by engineering staff the project would have to come back to you all for a um another another decision all right so we'll we we'll vote on this tonight chances are is going to get approved but it's kind of in limbo until you find out what's happening with the technical variance correct correct okay I just wanted to make sure I understood all that thank you absolutely we've submitted the technical variance and that is being reviewed right now all indications that everything's should be okay so all all confirmation so we're comfortable with the condition because of the feedback that we've received from the town thus far okay very good all right well then with that I'll close the public comment and bring it up to the dis for any discussion okay ready for motion yeah I I I think it's a great project so I take a motion yeah chairman if you're ready um so I would move to approve Dr 24-16 to uh subject to the amended condition second we have a motion from Vice chairman and a second from commissioner Fay no discussion please cast your vote vote carries 70 thank you moving on to number nine UP24 d43 signature at SanTan Village fense modification and we'll bring up Mr Keith Newman once again um Keith is that monitor working if not you may wish to present from the other Podium it's nice being in like directly in front of you it's awesome uh chairman M members of the commission um the signature at SanTan um village fence modification we wanted you to uh take this off of the consent agenda um and place it on the regular a regular agenda for the purpose of uh continuing this case to the October second Planning Commission hearing um due to the fact that um per the uh requirements of the um Land Development code that were in place at the time in the dev zoning of the site in order to request uh this type of um alternative means of landscape buffering which it says in the code which which in this case would be eliminating a fence along a property line the pro property owner to the north ajoining the property the Fincher Farms development has to provide a has to agree and provide a letter of agreement and that has not happened yet they're still working on it um they just have not provided the letter yet we don't have it in our possession so we respectfully request that this project be continued to a date certain to October 2nd to give the applicant and the fure Farms development to the north more time to work on providing the proper uh agreement letter to the town and that is all I have for you thank you very much Keith thank you okay I do have a comment card so does anyone have any other questions that they wanted to ask of okay and since it's a continuance I assume um that there won't be but I want to give uh Miss Miss Kathleen du booys she uh would like to speak and is opposed to this item please come up to the podium here and uh state your name and address and then you have three minutes uh address you said like physical or you could yeah like to show you're in Gilbert as a res sure sure my name is kathen Bo and I live actually to the north um and I actually am on the HOA board with the fer Farms so I know we've been in negotiations with a lot of the trees and they've been extremely helpful so thank you for that as far as finding out what trees work what trees we don't like so on and so forth um I know our board is really torn on this because they had brought up um the concerns of it becoming like an Alleyway for a little bit of Riff Raff or things like that and we we kind of took that into consideration but what we're struggling with is halfway down our owned walkway there are two six- foot walls separating the two communities and we've had no issues at all now the question that concerned is that now that we're going to have this community with a lot more foot traffic we're we're on the fence of will this truly create the disturbance that they're suggesting it will in the regards that they want to eliminate the wall or will it help our community decipher that this is our property we do not want the extra walkway to become a cumul property for everyone that's over there going to coffee or going to because there's an arena with dicks going there and we're like that is right up against our walkway where they're proposing no wall so we're kind of torn of whether do we want to put ask for a three-foot wall to make sure that it is very defined that this is separate private property and they shouldn't be there or if we say no we just want the full six- foot wall to make it very apparent that this is not a a free walkway for everyone in the community just go back and forth because that butts right up to my home and I am directly behind and that walkway butts right to my back wall so that's why we haven't um gotten back to him just yet because we're deciding whether or not we want the six foot or we could compromise and do a smaller wall but we definitely want a barrier telling people this is private property and it's not communal walkway for everyone that will be visiting that place to become behind my house is a busy street for every person who wants to walk every kid who wants to do anything because right now we don't have that issue and so that was our concern and that's kind of our hang-up is trying to decide so we are opposed to it as far as no wall no separation just let it be free we just haven't come up with what the great solution is so I apologize that it's taking a little bit longer but we don't want to make a rash decision um and we want to take consideration our community's thoughts um so that's fine if if you were requesting a little bit more time because I know we want something there we just we haven't decided quite yet what it would be if that makes sense no very good okay okay you thank you ma'am and I think I would just put the comment that it sounds like they can't do it unless there's an approval from the Fincher Farms HOA so you kind of hold the cards okay all right I will then unless Keith you wanted to okay I will then close the public comment and bring it back up to das for discussion or a motion CH chairman you said stop sorry is that um you said that they can't that that the applicant can't do it without the hoa's approval is that true or is that is that's what from what my understanding that Keith said is that in order a condition of approval of this is having a letter from so it is actually a requirement not a not a and I'm not saying it's a good it's not a good thing in fact I my only question on this one I would have left it on consent my only question was do they have the support of the adjacent but is it a requirement um chair chairman M um commissioner Fay the the I I know I've talked to you about the zoning on this site before that it's subject to the ulc um the old Land Development code that was in place in 1999 there's a specific section in the buffering section of the code that requires the wall that specifically says that they have to have an agreement from the adjoining property owner okay fair enough thank you I I didn't remember I didn't remember that part about the no worries okay very good so I think the the motion is to continue October 2nd yeah okay uh I would be got that hot mic you might as well um uh commissioner I would make a motion to continue item UP24 d43 to the October meeting okay we have a motion to continue to October 2nd do I have a second second second from Vice chairman biani please cast your vote okay motion carries this will be on the agenda next month thank you all right that then brings us to item number 11 Z24 d04 bellastoria pad Amendment and Deja Vu we're going to bring back up Mr Keith Newman um I don't have a clicker do I chairman M members of the commission uh yes back before you again it's my show tonight I guess huh so um I just B Storia P Amendment um I can give a full presentation if you would like but I know that it was pulled off the consent agenda originally for some questions concerning the conditions of approval so I can either give you a full presentation or we can just jump straight to to the conditions of approval and I'll I'm I'm going to punt to the applicant on questions about the conditions of approval it's up to you however you want me to handle it I'm fine with giving a full presentation it's up to you okay I personally don't know that that's necessary but I know that some of the contingent on the right side might have had some questions on this did you guys want a full presentation it was really my question started to get into the conditions and there's just a lot of yeah a lot of questions we repeat the same looks like a lot of conditions they actually repeated turn your turn your mic on just in case sorry it looks like there's a lot of conditions it's actually the same conditions repeated several different places in the in the uh the report but I've got there's a lot of changes and commissioner Gage was that your concern as well um I had a question on the change of the setbacks from 250 to 20 I think it was on on Power Road okay all right anyone on the other side want a full presentation okay I think we could just start with the conditions and then if for whatever reason it warrants it we can go back in thanks ke excellent thank you yeah the applicant can come up and just state your name and then uh my name is Corey Hosea thank you uh chairm and members of the commission go ahead yeah just happy uh happy to get uh this project back on uh in front of you and uh happy to answer any questions you may have okay commissioner Fay I'll start then um so of the there the original conditions and then we've got the changed ones here so we're only going to talk about the changed ones uh item C changes it changes the the dedication requirement from um or adds there that it's not effective the date of the ordinance but at the time of the recording of the final plat why that change is important or does that create the potential since you don't have to change the F you can go to pre-plate and stay in a pre-plate stage for a very very long time potentially yeah we're actually we have pre-plate in right now we should we're hoping to be we we're hoping to have our pre-plate in front of you next month but once you get that you could sit at that status for years without going to Plat couldn't you uh yeah I suppose you could so that that could leave this thing dragging on in a in a gray Zone if I'm not mistaken this could leave this dragging on for years which is I think what the original point of this condition was to not have it drag on for years I could I could see your point I could see your point there definitely that's obviously not our attention we we would like to bring this back and go to you know pre-at final plant right away well fair enough but you went through the active step of actually saying you want that changed in your so I mean it's important to somebody it's important enough to go through the steps of changing it and I I don't have as far as I know there's not a set timeline and I don't know that we need necessarily one but but the the timeline that says something like this won't just drag on forever seems like a reasonable yeah I'm trying to just give me a second I'm read through this and make sure get my head straight on why we we made the change because do we have a time frame on when the re the reversion of the zoning could occur I know that's in there too don't know yeah I don't know either yeah going back I I'm I'm not I don't remember off the top of my head exactly why we made the change but okay well let's table that one for a minute let's go down to item d uh D you and I understand why you would want this change you have certain this this project has certain offsite requirements every project does have certain off-site improvements they're required to do correct and if the city were to come in and do those improvements ahead of time for you normally you would reimburse the city for doing those improvements you want that removed so if the city city does them ahead of time you just get them for free well no because the the offsite improvements that are required her are only required due to the improvements to the to the pars themselves so the the offsites that need to be done won't need to be done if we're not building if we don't uh improve the the parcels then why are we going through the effort of getting rid of I mean this this literally if Gilbert constructs the improvements required by this ordinance as part of their Capital Improvement prior to the development of the property you'll reimburse so you're saying that well that won't happen we we brought it up uh we brought it up because there is there are no improvements that we were that we were doing that are required by a capital Improvement then Keith I would want to see that annotated um because it looks like this this this condition change to condition looks like we're hoping the CIP comes in ahead of time and we don't have to pay for it yeah yeah I I get where you're going with that but that's not the case here okay if if that's annotated that's fine with me I mean I did see that the turn lanes and stuff but I don't imagine the city would possibly build those turn Lanes unless why would they do that so I I I did not see this possibility until now as long as it's annotated I'd be okay with that yeah and that was the only reason for the change then in items EF and G uh originally everything was tied development uh Milestones are tied to the parcel or SE or to several parcels and now everything is you're changing it to uh required when the the vehicle access so it's not tied to parcel B not tied to tied to parcel C and D although there's other places where you tie things specifically to parcel D and and Keith I've seen it happen before where we've got a development that comes in and we tie all of the offsites or requirements to a specific parcel and then that parcel is the very last thing that gets built and in fact it's sitting out there waiting to get built because there's a whole lot of offsites on it which means there's a whole lot of overhead and it looks like that's what's Happening Here the reason we wanted to make the change is because there's already at williamsfield and power williamsfield is already improved per se it's got It's got street lights it's got DG it's got sidewalks so we didn't want to come in and and make adjustments and tear that up without the uh commercial and multif family Parcels being I guess I would say final design and approved by uh by the council and and and the chair which kind of makes sense we don't want to do it we don't want to jump the gun on that stuff but that's not what it says I think in the conditions here I think the conditions say that we don't have to do it until we start building so final design maybe that's maybe that's the same thing other than in G where we we take the requirement away from the property and put it onto parcel D that that one so so enf I I see where you're going with it I wasn't aware of the that part so I could live with enf I think unless anyone else has an issue G I think we're we're pegging all of the significant requirements on I have no problem with the 1,900 ft thing that's I'm assuming that's something that we've worked out in the engineering it's just the alignment of the street uh or street light compared to the adjacent street lights so I'm assuming that's just something we've worked out but um but the T pag tagging everything the approval to parcel D instead of the property um means that the rest of the project can do can can move forward without meeting this condition the reason we had that in there is because we didn't want to um essentially we didn't want to put a street light in where there was no development going on yet so that's really strictly related to the street light that goes in that location that par D is the only one that triggers the warrant it is oh okay okay that went a lot faster than I thought it was going to I thought that was going to be a challenging um so other than we need to figure out um what's the what's the deal with item C and and wanting to Peg it to the platting instead of the ordinance uh tie tie things to the platting and the ordinance it seems like the ordinance is the right thing to have it on and we're we're getting away from that if there's a good reason I off the top of my head it seems like this allows it to just hang out there and I don't know what zoning we're in right now um if we're in agricultural it would not make it would make a lot of sense if you pre-plant and and then leave it there for a long time because it doesn't change your tax status until you plat it well I think I guess if I look back on this we the the reason we have that that in there is because we usually do those uh dedications at the time of fin final plat so it just only made sense to have them done in conjunction with final plot good job Keith I see you jumping up um chairm commissioner Fay and and also um I agree with Cory we wanted to tie it to the final plat versus tying it to the effective date of the ordinance that would give them virtually no time to complete the improvements whereas tying it to the final plat gives them time to complete the improvements I know you said that could take 20 years for them to file the final plat I in this case I I don't believe that's going to happen but that gives them virtually no time because the effective date of the ordinance is 30 days after Council approves it so we for whatever reason Town engineering staff didn't think that was something that we wanted to do okay they would rather tie it to the final plat versus the effective date of the ordinance um which is more typical I've seen tying it to the final plat versus an ordinance the zoning ordinance staff is cool with that I'm fine with it yeah I mean usually I would see the applicant come because they they know when they're that they want to Hip Pocket a potentially big amount of time staff doesn't have that incentive if you're if staff is advocating for it too it it answers my objection yeah chairman commissioner Fay um uh Town engineering staff is is comfortable with that I wish Tom condet was here to be able to answer some questions but he's he's not available at the moment so but but we're comfortable with it okay thank you chairman M that answers my questions well very good thank you commissioner Fay and commissioner Gage did you want to follow up any questions on that yeah and this might be for Keith um the change in the landscape um required at the intersection why was that ever 50 by 250 um chairman commissioner Gage so so you're talking about the intersection of power in williamsfield road yeah um so that was a deviation request by the applicant uh for the for the original pad um the reason that was approved was because we wanted to create a More neotraditional streetscape Design um something more urbanized where you know Focus uh is placed on the pedestrians on the street we want to be able to get the buildings as close as possible to that intersection and having that 50x 250 inhibited that um but there's going to be if if you could see um some of the exhibits that were shown during that original rezone show it they're going to provide a ton of landscaping and a plaza kind of at that corner as well that would kind of um take the place of that 50x 250 to a certain extent but this allows the buildings to be placed closer to the street creating that more urban pedestrian um neotraditional Urban feel that we're kind of go trying to go for in this Gateway character area in this portion of Gateway character area anyways maybe not in others but in this portion yeah and I'm I'm okay with what they're trying to do that makes sense I just didn't understand how it was originally 50 by 250 that's excessive um um is that just old chairman commissioner Gage I guess I understood misunderstood your question then yeah um that original that original standard of 50 by 250 at at arterial to arterial Corners um is kind of the opposite they they wanted to get buildings further away and like create like and most of the time intersections let's just call it like it is they're not very attractive for the most part so that was a way for the town to be able to make intersections um kind of more of a highlight of an intersection with a lot of landscaping and cool maybe Hardscape features instead of instead of um just an afterthought oh so it's um some old it's an old code standard that's been around for as long as I can remember I mean that way before I got here it was approved but it was designed to kind of beautify intersections but in this case in this situation there's still going to have that beautification with a ton of landscaping in like a little mini Plaza at the corner but have buildings closer to the corner right I agree with what they're trying to do I think it's way better than a 50 by 250 it would just end up to be a DG area with some half dead shrubs in it eventually so um I'm okay with it I just thought that was a really weird thing to have in there in the first place sure I can understand that in some places it makes sense and some places it may may not as much but uh but in this situation we felt it made made sense to reduce it but in most intersections of the Town it beautifies the intersection which are usually an afterthought those Corners right that's the that's the concept in my mind I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder here it's subjective right um okay that was my question that's it okay thank you commissioner Gage does anyone else have anything else there's still a lot of stipulations that we could okay yeah I'll read them now okay and I don't see anyone I'll scan the Myriad of people that are remaining and see if anyone had a public comment I don't have a card okay well in that case I will close the public comment and uh bring it up to the Das for any further discussion or a motion okay are you okay okay well chairman if you're ready for a motion um that I would move to approve Z24 d04 um subject to the conditions in the staff report thank you we have a motion from the vice chair do I have a second I'll second we have a second oh my gosh what's commissioner Davis spaced your name out terrible okay everyone please cast your vote Brian cast it again I think they reset it thank you okay and the vote carries unanimous 70 thank you very much all right that concludes the items within that next we'll move into the administrative items administrative items are for the commission discussion and action just do the discretion of the majority of commission regarding public input requests on any administrative item person persons wishing to speak on an administrative item should complete a public comment card and indicating the item number uh wishing to address so item 12 is the Planning Commission minutes we'd like to consider the approval of the minutes of the study session and regular meeting on August 7th 2024 and if anyone has any amendments to that or else a motion chair I'll make a motion to approve the minutes as written we have a motion from commissioner Simon to approve the minutes do I have a second I'll second commissioner Davis with the second okay please cast your vote vote carries unanimous 7 to zero moving into Communications there is no executive session so we'll move to the report from the chairman and member of the commission on current events who's got something okay oh I thought commissioner Simon had one well I'll just say that uh if you had not noticed it's still very hot be sure to drink water okay then and also a big thank you to commissioner Everett and vice chairman bian once again on the public record it's been a lot of fun best wishes and best luck I know you'll miss us okay item 14 report from the planning services manager on current events Eva thank you chair I would just like to Echo your sentiments to thank all of you for your volunteering but especially to commissioner bian and commissioner Everett tonight on their last meetings and I look at our Council leaon to pick us some wonderful new Commissioners but thank you again for all your service okay very good we vote on that to vote whether we're thankful for Tony oh no he's allowed to go we could we could I'd like a motion on whether we actually appreciate Tony no um okay well I'll entertain a motion to see how it plays out I think it's worthwhile uh I'll I'll then entertain a motion to adjourn the meeting if so okay we have a motion to adjourn from Vice chairman do I have a second I would second the motion second from commissioner Fay please cast your vote to adjourn Vice chairman bian's last meeting vote carry 70 meeting adjourned collect clack cuz that's your trend