All right, everyone. Thank you all for joining us for another fun, exciting installment of study session. Like to call this meeting to order. And we have one item on the study session this evening. DR25112 SEC Hegley and Aato Retail Center and Sal Des Santo please. Thank you sir. Good evening chair and commissioners. Salanto planner 2. Uh the study session item we'll be taking a look at first here is design review case DR25-112 Higgley and Aatoio retail center. Uh before diving into the plans I just wanted to provide a little bit of overview that in this study session we are just going to be taking a look at the design review package that is anticipated to be moving forward for a formal decision at a later um commission hearing. Tonight we are just looking to receive some general feedback on site plan layout uh the elevations and the applicant uh requesting to submit CDs at risk. Uh so here looking at the overview as I mentioned there is a design review for a threepad commercial master site plan consisting of one user exceeding 75,000 square ft and it's also important to mention that there is an administrative use permit requesting a 12.5% uh reduction in parking. The subject site outlined in blue here is roughly 16.14 gross acres and roughly 13.10 net acres and it is located at the southeast corner of Higgley Road and Aato Road um which is part of the larger 243 acre Marbella Vineyards planned area development. Uh the subject site is currently vacant and is adjacent to single family uses to the east just beyond Wilson Way. Uh and to the south as well as to the west just beyond Higgley Road there. Uh and to the north just beyond Okato we have the town of Gilbert uh recharge facility. Just providing some context to those adjacent uses. I also just wanted to highlight the potential zoning exhibit as there is a application coming later today uh not a part of this preview. Again, this is just the design review information, but I wanted to showcase the potential uh zoning for the site which we can see the three separate pads for this commercial subdivision. Uh taking a look at the site plan. Uh not much has changed uh in regards to orientation since the last time we saw this at the previous study session back in I believe it was November. Um there are three pads, two of which will be located up along Aato Road to the north. One of which is approximately 8,100 square ft and going to accommodate a sitdown restaurant and the other located in the northwest corner is anticipated to be a financial institution roughly 3,000 square feet. Uh the larger commercial anchor is going to be situated closer to that eastern property line but uh centralized there on site. Uh this pad is anticipated to be 128,660 square ft and anticipated to be a target. Uh as for parking, uh parking has been distributed throughout the site um up along adjacent roadways, centralized on site, creating safe and sufficient access to all of the commercial pads. Um, and here is where I just wanted to call out the administrative use permit for the parking reduction. Uh, based off the uses, the total amount of parking that would be required would be 614. With that AUP for the parking reduction, we're looking at a total of 537 spaces. Um, and again, that use permit is reviewed administratively. Uh, as for vehicular access, we do have four different means of access on Higgley Road. We have a full access as well as a right in right out on Okato Road. We also have a right in right out. And then up along Wilson Way to the eastern side of the property, we have another full motion access. As for sight fencing and walls, we are looking at roughly 3 ft parking screen walls up along Okato Road and Higgley Road to screen those parked vehicles. Uh, and we also are integrating an 8 foot tall CMU perimeter screen wall along the eastern property line as well as that southern property line to help assist in some of that v visual mitigation to the neighboring residential properties. Uh, taking a look at the phasing plan for development. Uh, the first phase in pink is all of the horizontal infrastructure. Phase one will incorporate uh grading and drainage on-site and off- streetet um uh infrastructure. We're looking at landscaping here. Uh so basically everything before we start to go vertical on the site. Uh phase two would then be the target major tenant pad. Phase three being pad one in the northeast corner and the last phase being the financial institution in the northwest corner. Uh for landscaping, the tree and plant selections are consistent with other landscaping materials found within the neighboring developments and pad. Uh the landscape plan proposes varied plant selection uh such as desert willow, palo verde, red push pistache, southern live oak, and evergreen elm with some of those accent shrubs being yellow bells, rio bravo sage, blue glow agave, and dwarf olive. Uh and the last time we took a look at this at a study session, we had not met the minimum landscaping planting standards. Uh to this point, all of the landscaping standards on site have been met. Uh moving into the elevations, I wanted to showcase the previous uh design that was shown back in November of last year. Uh the building at this time was roughly 35 ft to the tallest point. Um, and the roof line did vary in height between 24 and 26 ft. Uh, the exterior finishes uh were incorporated, I'm sorry, the exterior finishes were stucco, concrete tilt paneling, bronze aluminum, stone veneer, and concrete form liner. Uh, many of these colors were softer and warmer in tones. And while working through um the review with the applicant, we have been able to increase some of the architectural um features on the on the structure itself. So here are our east and west elevations which face Higgley Road uh and the rear elevation to the east facing the adjacent residential. And then here we have the north and south elevations facing residential to the south and Aato to the north. Here we actually have the updated elevations for the major tenant. So with some of these updates with the complete screening of the RTUs, the roof line has gone up just a bit. The main architectural feature which is that stack stone feature just at the main entries maintains a 35 ft height, but the roof line does jump between 26 26 feet 4 in to 28 feet creating some of that roof line variation. Um, as for materials, the exterior will primary primarily consist of concrete tilt panels finished in fine grain trail dust and calico rock. The building will also incorporate a variety of accent materials such as stack stone, niha panels, board form concrete, textured form liner, and composite paneling colored russet micica, which is that maroon portion just um above the main entry there. Uh, another thing to add, since that previous iteration, they did include a shaded storefront with this canopy system with some new um, architectural accents there to help promote um, a clear sense of entry. And as mentioned, the roof line, although ma maintaining fairly flat design, there has been an increase in variation since that last iteration, which we are happy about. Uh, additionally, the elevations facing the residential have been touched up a bit with that formliner to introduce different textures as well as different cultures to help break up some of that long massing. Um, for the pad one elevations, the architectural design has not changed from the last time you've seen it, but there have been adjustments to the color. Uh that stack stone was incorporating more of a cooler finish, but it is going to be updated to include that warmer tone. Um for that stack stone, we are still working with the applicant to work on some of the elevation along the northern property or I'm sorry on the north side of the structure. Uh we feel that since it does face Aato Road and has strong presence, we want to ensure that there's um more archite um articulation along that facade. um which could be done with, you know, introduction of new material, incorporating another material, uh potential shade canopies or shade features, um or maybe a trellis or a wall plane feature. Um just some of the things that we're thinking from the staff perspective. Um, with that is the end of my presentation. And again, we're here at study session tonight to gather some planning commission feedback about the overall design, the elevations for the commercial subdivision, as well as the permission for the applicant to submit CDs at risk. And I'm happy to answer any questions you all may have. Thank you. >> Very good, S. Thank you, sir. Who wants to kick off with some questions for S? I guess uh vice chair did you want >> go ahead well s this is a design review case I had I had some discussion with staff but it's a design review for a zoning that doesn't exist in fact the zoning is coming up later and and in my opinion is anything but a sure bet why are we bringing a design review when the zoning hasn't been approved yet chair commissioner fay we're bringing this forward at study session again just for some of that preliminary feedback as well as for the applicant to submit CDs at risk. Although we are reviewing the design before the zoning has been um established for the site, it is not atypical to gather some insight um for the design as well as the applicants, you know, risk with submitting these CDs. >> I I mean I get in general, it's not bad to get insight, but I mean this is a public meeting. We notified the public. the public are very interested in this item and it's a little bit of a messed up process that that they're hearing about stuff and and legitimately concerned about stuff that isn't doesn't really even exist yet. Why wouldn't we have just waited until the zoning was was done before we started to do stuff that's based on the zoning? >> Uh, Chairman, Commissioner Fay, uh, looking at applications, we do have the ability to review things concurrently. Um but I think also just looking at it from a timeline um perspective from the you know applicant side as well as the town side. We want to ensure that u we're getting the appropriate feedback and comments for the plans before proceeding forward with the design review. >> I I don't understand that. I mean the timeline is what the timeline is. That's an applicant problem. I don't I don't understand how this one's any different than any other project. I Okay. I guess I I'm I mean I've got a few thoughts, but I'm not even sure if I should bring them up because I don't know that I would necessarily want to bring them up if the zoning isn't in place yet. So, um I'll hold I'll probably hold that. Thank you, S. Sorry if I'm making that uncomfortable. >> No worries, Commissioner Fay. Thank you. >> No, thank you, Vice Chair. I think that the the the question is in the way that we would review something that isn't a sure thing. It's hard for us to say like if we were to say, "Oh, this is a good design. But then in the zoning later we say this is bad. It creates the illusion I think and that's what vice chair is speaking to. Um >> what does one even influence the other? >> Right. Does one influence the other? And I think that's the concern of the discussion. So I think that's something just to be noted that we are still um in the process of even the uh initial zoning case on this and in the meeting coming up and so we should make sure that as we discuss it we have an eye on that aspect of this project is you know as we go. So uh Commissioner Davis did you have some input? >> Sure. Thank you chair. um on that. I agree it's nice to be able to get that feedback on the um elevations and such for the applicants, but again there might be things that the applic that the neighbors bring up that might relate to some of the design issues. So that the applicant needs to understand that some of these comments might evolve as we discuss it. So that's part of the at risk part I guess. Um, as far as um what they proposed, am I understanding pad one, are they coming back with that building? Because you said it's still they're still making changes to it. They're just kind of showing us preliminary elevations on that one. It's the target that we're >> uh Chair Mont Commissioner Davis. So, we are still currently in the design review process for this application. And so we are still going back and forth with the applicant working through some of these review comments um before we bring it back to you where we feel comfortable in the design. Um so there has been like I said some minimal change to those struct that pad one but um internally we are still working with the applicant to ensure that architecture um has made sufficient change that is equivalent to the changes shown on the anchor tenant. >> Okay. the color changes are better than what we saw last time, but I agree with I think I maybe said it last time too that that north elevation along Okato is important um in getting some variation in the wall plane there and making that not look like the backside. Um, as far as um the the perimeter wall along Wilson Way, is it I thought it was unfortunate that it's located out so close to the street and that that because along Wilson Way that's going to be a harsh environment to have that 8ft wall like right next to the sidewalk. Um I didn't know if there's an opportunity along there to move that to the other side of the retention basin um to make sure that that landscaping is actually in a place where people will actually see it and be able to benefit from it. So just something to look at on that. Um [snorts] and then do we have a wall design for what that wall is going to look like, especially if it's going to be up next to the sidewalk? I miss maybe missed it. >> Um I don't believe I have the detail in this. um slideshow, but there has been a detail that has been submitted for the design. So, it is a blend of different textured CMU block. I believe it's ground face and smooth. I believe there's only been one color proposed for those walls. Um but we're more than happy to continue that discussion to increase that um variety in those wall plans. >> As far as the target design, it's really nice. I really like the way it looks kind of all the way around. I appreciate the glass that they used and just the forms. It's it's a nice building. So, I don't have any comments on that. I think it relates more to that what that presentation along Wilson Way and what's going to be from Aato. And then I'll be curious to hear what the neighbors have to say as well. So, I think that's all I had. >> Thank you very much, Commissioner. Anyone else? Commissioner Simon, please. >> Yes. So, thank you for the presentation. Um, I'm in agreement. kind of odd going a little bit backwards here, but I'm going to make a couple comments just based on what we have in front of us and then take the zoning in a different light. Um, with regards to the property, there's an existing retention basin to the south of this property. It doesn't look like they have any integration into that retention basin whatsoever. Um, I don't know who's managing that retention basin or if it's just going to be left bare desert, but I'd be curious as to who's responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of that retention. >> And just for clarification, Commissioner Simon, the retention we're talking about is the retention on the target side, correct? >> It's it's the south south side of the main building down at the bottom there >> below below that. But it's it is it is not a part of this parcel. It's actually its own existing parcel. Got >> so it it just I mean it looks like it's going to be a forgotten piece of land is where I'm going with this. You're going to you're going to have a nice development. You're going to have a nice residential if this gets developed and you're going to have this little strip of land that nobody's going to do anything with. So that'd be that'd be one concern. Um the other concern if if we if I was looking at this with regards to the design review and the way that the drive-in on the uh what is that the northwest corner um I think I'd want to see double lanes in there if we were really discussing that because it's going to push out into um that entry aisle with regards to the way traffic flows in there. Um, with regards to the building itself and and [snorts] elevation, I have no issue with it. That's all I have. >> Thank you, Commissioner Simon. Commissioner Anderson, >> uh, S, thank you for the presentation. Uh, just small comment I have. I I like [clears throat] the I do like the elevations, but I get I'm kind of getting like a 1970s industrial commercial kind of vibe from it, you know? I think maybe because of the tiltups and all. They did a nice job on the real elevation of playing around with the roof. um parapit lines some. And I think to help the front elevation, I'd like to suggest if you look at the left side, how it's just that long flat line on the top there. If they can maybe break that up a little bit, I think that would help kind of with the adunulation >> um around that roof line. But I mean, I do like the play of the colors and materials. Um I guess not everything from the 70s was totally bad, but thank you, S. >> Thank you. Yeah, 70s retro is back, right? All right. Well, very [clears throat] good. Uh uh Commissioner >> I just have one more question that I just thought of. Um, with regards to the reduction in parking that they're looking for, is that to meet um, open space requirements? >> Uh, Chairman, Commissioner Simon, it is not to meet um any kind of you said landscape requirement. Um it is to we're analyzing a parking study right now just with these big box users that the amount of parking required by code is not necessarily aligned with what they create. Um and with the reduction in the parking it was able to create a um in our opinion a more functional and safer circulation plan and it actually pulled parking uh further away from those neighbors to the south. Is it [clears throat] is is what they're looking for in line with what what staff is starting to see with regards to what we should have versus what is currently written in the code. >> Uh Chairman, Commissioner Simon, I think looking at it, it it is, you know, looking at the initial study, we do see that there are higher vacancy rates with these big box stores. So, just trying to understand as we move forward that we're just not continuing to overbuild parking spaces if they don't serve the need. >> Understood. Thank you, Commissioner Simon. Anyone down on the other end there? No. >> Vice Chair, please. >> S, I wasn't gonna, but but without these parking reductions and the setback reductions on the south side, the the rest of the stuff won't fit, will it? Under our current code, >> uh, Chairmont, Commissioner Fay, so we haven't seen a design that had the complete parking on site since that initial submitt. We have been shown the parking through the request of the AUP. Um but they have been able to showcase the ability to meet what they've provided without the need of those deviations. But the deviation does provide a like I said a safer um design for that specifically that central part of the site in regards to parking and circulation. >> But if we were to put if we were if the AUP wasn't approved which I know that's not us doing that but that's add 70 some odd spots back >> and then there's and the setback wasn't requirement. I mean this this right now would have to go back to the CAD. they'd have to try to put all the pieces in and my gut tells me without reducing pad size or something it doesn't fit. So they ha they're trying to they don't want to reduce the building size obviously. So what they're squ and we're not going to let them reduce open space I don't think so they have to reduce setbacks and parking in order to try to fit the building size they want in order to get the bigger building they want. [clears throat] Correct. >> Uh chairman commissioner f that is correct. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. >> Thank you vice chair. Anyone else? Commissioner Davis. >> Thank you, Chair. Just one more comment related to what um Commissioner Bay just said. I think these um and S, you can correct me if I'm wrong. I think these big box retailers and other retailers have their parking on lockdown. Like they know what they need to function and not be short because they don't want to be short of parking. So, I guess that's where my comfort level is with that is that it's probably is excessively parked if Target is not saying that they need all of those spaces. So that's been my experience with it. But that's all. >> Thank you, Commissioner. Okay. Nothing else. [clears throat and cough] All right. Um I I kind I like the design a bit too. I think there is a question about the you know viability of discussing this prior to the the zoning part. It gives uh the possible illusion of approval. Um, but as for just taking this with a grain of salt from the design, um, I I like what they've done and I do like the roof line, but looking at the the one up right now that, uh, Commissioner Anderson mentioned, that left side that's just flat. That would be good. You could probably put some articulation in that to make it even just balance with the other side some. But, uh, as for from what it looked like, you know, if seen it before, this is better. uh the the point about the parking reduction I I I agree with vice chair that I think it is to you know put more in. However, I I also agree that I know that working with Walmart in the past um on things outside of you know zoning here but in that they would put a dollar amount on the parking spaces and drive to get absolutely as many as possible. Um, now that's changed of course with the, you know, pick up your groceries stuff or whatever um whatever hip young people do now, but that's uh that's beside the point. So I think there is a valid justification. It's just that balance of how much parking reduction is uh necessary. But other than that, I think the design looks pretty good. So anything else you need to clarify more further? S are you good? uh nothing from the design perspective but just ensuring that the applicant is uh granted the permission to submit CDs at risk. >> You know if I did anything on that I would do it contingent upon the decision in the next hearing. >> Understood. >> So I wouldn't be comfortable. Uh does anyone else have input related to how we should structure the CDs at risk? Because I'm I'm open to CDs at risk. I'm like you guys want to throw money at something? You know, God bless America. But at the same time, I don't want that to not be reconciled with the actual actions within the meeting. >> That that hit your mic, sir. >> That ris Yeah. I I assuming everyone's grown-ups. I give CDs at risk like candy. Why not? That's your grown-ups take take your the risk goes way up if the zoning doesn't get approved. >> Yeah. So, um, you know, so I'm comfortable with that as it relates to, uh, the contingency that all zoning and, you know, within this meeting or anything else that would have any bearing upon this is also approved. But is everyone else okay with that? My my opinion has always been on this and we've been doing the CD risk thing for what how I forget how many years. I remember when it first started happening and [clears throat] my business isn't there along without other a lot of people's business. It's not our it's not our duty to tell somebody if they could do something at risk. If they want to take our risk on it's it's up to them to decide whether they can do it. We up here on a board, you know, on the commission, we don't oversee construction documents. So, I don't know why it's being asked of us. It also kind of relieves you guys of that pressure as well. Let's say we, you know, the commission says, "Oh, yeah, you proceed, you know, CD is at risk." And then let's just say something happens and um you know they have to do a whole new redesign you know something pops up and then that puts you guys in a position where the applicant could say well planning commission said we could submit this stuff at risk you know and they said it was okay to do so and now we have to redesign the whole project because something came up. So my my position has always been it's it's up to the applicant and the owner to decide if there's a risk that they want to take. And I don't think it's really our privy to say yes or no. Just it's up to them of whether or not they want to do it. >> Understood. Thank you, Commissioner Anderson. >> All right. You good then, sir? >> Yes, sir. Thank you guys very much. >> Thank you, sir. All right. Very good. Then we will move right along now into the other item which is the discussion of the regular meeting agenda which we've already had some of uh here but looking at the agenda on our consent we have the Albertson's at Lindsay and Warner the Gilbert Pavilion CSP amendment and Gil Banner Gilbert expansion DR25166 and then non-consent item eight is the SEC Higgley and Octal retail center the zoning we were talking about and then nine 9 A B R Popstroke DR and uh N and UP25 and then Z2519 Tuskinia at Gabriella point. Um I think anyone have anything they wanted to discuss as it relates to something on the consent or on the non-consent they would like to move. >> Could we move Popstroke to the consent? >> I personally think that would be okay. But that gets Keith off the hook. No, >> other than the >> sorry >> immense agony of not hearing Keith. >> I should not be a reverend at the Yes, I agree. >> I think we should consider it. Uh yeah, >> can we do that's a good question. >> I know we can do the >> the question um for legal the legal beagle. Um are we able to do a use permit in a consent? >> Yes, you can do that. >> Okay. So, okay. So, we could look at moving that. And I don't believe I I'm pretty pretty sure that the other two have to stay. >> Okay. Well, that's good. Then >> we have >> for right now. No. No. No. And as it relates to uh are you saying like to notify? Yeah. So, if anyone here is here to speak on any items that we're talking about, make sure you fill out the comment cards that are in the back of the room indicating the item number on which you wish to speak. Just so that when the meeting does start, if I see somebody that possibly wanted to speak on this one popstroke, we would not then move it to the consent counter and we would hear it so that we can hear the public input. Um, so just anyone here that's looking to speak, make sure you fill out the the cards prior to uh getting started or during, you know, we'll still allow it, but Okay. Well, very good. Then with that, we can uh conclude the study session. And it's 6:01. So it we we did a short meeting at 5:30 and then we ran long. How about that? Luck of the Irish. So we'll take a fivem minute break and come back for the regular meeting. Thank you. Okay, everyone. Thank you very much. I'd like to call this meeting to order. Uh, first order of business, please rise and join me for the pledge of allegiance. Thank you very much. Could I get a roll call please? >> You can. Uh, alternate Commissioner Wong. >> Alternate Commissioner Lion. >> Uh, Commissioner Deg Gravina >> here. >> Commissioner Gage >> here. >> Commissioner Davis >> here. >> Commissioner Simon >> here. >> Commissioner Anderson >> here. Vice Chairman Fay >> here >> and chairman Munt >> here. >> We have a quorum. >> Thank you very much. Okay, let's discuss the app and approval of the agenda. I know we had a little bit of the discussion prior. I have comment cards here, all of which are for item number eight. Um, and I know we discussed moving 9A and 9B to consent. So, I think that is something that we could do if we were so inclined. Um, so if there's any other discussion or else Make a motion. >> Yeah. >> Chair, I'd like to make a motion to uh move items number 9A and 9B to the consent agenda and leave the remaining agenda the way it is. >> Second. >> All right, we got a motion from Commissioner Simon and a second from Vice Chair. Please cast your vote. Motion carries 70. Okay, now we will move on to the communications. Uh, this item four is communications from citizens. At this point in time, members of the public may comment on matters within the jurisdiction of the planning commission. Commission may not discuss items that are not specifically identified on the agenda. Therefore, pursuant state law. Action taken as a result of public comment will be limited to directing staff to study the matter, responding to any criticism, or scheduling the matter for further consideration. Uh just please note for those of you in attendance looking to speak that this is a time when you would speak about something that is not an agendaized item. So if your card is for number eight, this is this is a different time. So is there anyone else here that wanted to speak on something that is not on the agenda but just as a public comment like this? Okay. Very good. Then we'll move to item five which is the report from the council leazison. But I know that commissioner or uh council member Lions is not here today. Uh so we will go past that and into the public hearing consent. Uh in the I all items listed below are considered the public hearing consent calendar. The commission may by a single motion. Oh, I guess I should wait to make sure that these >> Okay, very good. The commission may uh I lost my space now. By a single motion, approve any number of items where after opening the public hearing, no person requests the item to be removed from the consent calendar. If such a request is made, the commission shall then withdraw the item from the public hearing consent calendar for the purpose of public discussion and separate action. Other items on the agenda may be added to the consent calendar and approved under a single motion. And so our consent calendar currently is item six DR25149 Elbertson's at Lindsay and Warner Gilbert Pavilion-CSP amendment. long long name. Item number seven, DR25166 Banner Gilbert expansion and then the item 9A DR25141 Popstroke and 9B UP2559 Popstroke >> Mont I'd like to move to approve the consent agenda as written but with the addition of items 9A and 9B. >> All right, we have a motion for approval as written and voted upon. Do I have a second? I I'll second that. But we need to add UP25-60 popstroke on the 9B. There's two uh use permits. >> Oh, I didn't read the second one. Very good catch. See, Commissioner Simon was once the chair, so that's why he has the eagle eye. That was a test. >> I can't take >> And uh yeah, so the 9A and 9B is UP 9B is UP2559 popstroke and UP2560 popstroke. Thank you for that clarification. Okay, motion. Uh, your motion of course included 60. So, >> yeah, mine was by item number 9A and 9B. So, I think we we captured all of >> you. You got it. It was me. Yeah, it was second by Commissioner Simon. Okay, now that we've established that it was my error, that's just fine. Please cast your vote. [snorts] All right. Thank you. Motion carries 70. Onto the public hearing. Non-consent. Non-consent public hearing items will be heard at an individual public hearing and will be acted upon by the commission by a separate motion. During the public hearings, anyone wishing to comment in support or in opposition to a public hearing item may do so. If you wish to comment on a public hearing item, you must first 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 this commission. So, I have a lot of the yellow cards um from those of you in the audience. If there's anyone else out there that is still um here to speak, please do fill out a yellow comment card and you can get it to someone in the staff or bring it up to me. And uh then we will go directly into item number eight, Z2513 SEC Higgley and Aato Retail Center. And we will bring up the one and only Mr. Sal Des Santo. Good evening, chair and commissioners. Uh, Salan Santo, planner 2. Uh, the application we'll be taking a look at tonight is resoning case Z25-13, the southeast corner of Higgley and Aato Retail Center. The subject site outlined in blue is approximately 16.14 gross acres and roughly 13.1 net acres and it is located at the southeast corner of Higgley Road and Okato Road. Uh the site is currently a part of the larger 243 acre Marbella Vineyards planned area development. Here on the aerial map we can help um get our bearings straight as to what uh adjacent uses are next to the proposed site. So to the north, just beyond Okato Road, we have a Town of Gilbert uh recharge facility. Uh just to the east, uh beyond Wilson Way, we have some single family residential. Just to the south, we have some additional single family residential. Uh both of those areas are part of the Marbella Vineyards residential subdivision. And to the west, just beyond Higgley Road, we have a place of worship as well as the Shamrock Estates uh residential subdivision. Uh before diving into some of the zoning aspects of the application, I thought it would be helpful just to share uh the site and its current uh general plan use designation. Uh so just like every other property within the towns of Gilbert, there is a zoning category as well as an associated general plan uh land use designation. Uh so in our 2020 general plan uh we do show that this hard corner at the southeast corner of Higgley and Aato has been dedicated for a commercial user. Uh and on in our general plan it states that the general commercial classification designates areas for the commercial and service needs of residents in the surrounding area which can be accomplished through standalone development or typical master site plan design. uh in the general commercial land use designation, there are also a few corresponding uh zoning categories uh of which [clears throat] general commercial is one of them. We also have shopping center and community commercial. So those uh zoning designations can all take place within the general plan use designation of general commercial. Oh, I'm sorry. Here on the zoning map, uh we can see currently that the site holds a shopping center zoning designation uh which is dedicated to medium to largescale commercial, retail and office development. Uh just to the east we have the Marbella Vineyard's um SF6 zoning category. Just to the south we have the SF7 zoning category. And again to the north we have PFI at that recharge facility. And to the west we have community commercial at that place of worship. and then some SF10 and SF8 on that Shamrock Estates uh portion as well. And that blue hashing you see on the map showcases that the property is within a planned area development which is Marbella Vineyards. Um just another bit of history to add to the site is the Marbella Vineyards planned area development was established back in 2002 and it did incorporate this commercial corner. Uh at that time it was designated as a C2 commercial designation and fast forward to 2005 when the town updated their zoning categories it became shopping center. Uh but since the Marbella vineyards P A has been established this corner has been dedicated for a commercial use. Uh taking a look at the zoning exhibit, uh we can see that proposed general commercial zoning designation on site with the associated P A. Uh you can also see the two proposed pad sites to in the northeast corner and the northwest corner that are going to accommodate a future sitdown restaurant user as well as a financial institution up in that north uh west corner of the site. Uh I also wanted to mention in the zoning exhibit um just to clarify the difference between that 16 acre gross compared to the 13 acre net. Um the net acres for a site is the ability to develop within the means of its property line. Uh but within the town of Gilbert the zoning categories actually carry over to the center of the streets. So that's why you can see that darker shade um along the norththeast and south here where that zoning designation will carry to the center of the street increasing the acreage for the reszone from 13 to 16. Um, as part of the reasoning request from SC to GC, the applicant is requesting to establish some new conditions of development. Uh, as well as incorporating a new development plan for the PD in ordinance as no previous development plan has been established for this commercial site, just a designated zoning district. Here too, I just wanted to identify the two um zoning categories that we're discussing tonight. On the left, we have the shopping center zoning designation and on the right, we have the general commercial zoning district. Uh one of the main reasons for the change in zoning is the fact that the shopping center zoning district limits one user or building to 75,000 square ft where the general commercial zoning district does not. um with the anticipated user being just over 120,000 square feet, uh the up zone was necessary to accomplish that design. Looking at some of the other key differences between the shopping center and general commercial zoning district, we can see there is a difference in height. 35 ft maximum with a two-story maximum in shopping center and 45 ft maximum for the general commercial. Uh the next differences that you'll see is the building setback difference. So the building setback adjacent to residential property stays the same between the SC and GC zoning district. We have a 75 foot building setback adjacent to residential as well as a 25- ft front setback as well as that 20ft um side setback. Where we start to see some additional changes is in regards to the landscape setbacks [clears throat] in the shopping center zoning district um adjacent to residential uses. The landscape setback is 30 ft with non-residential being 15 ft. And in the general commercial, we jump up to a 40ft landscape setback adjacent to residential with a 20ft landscape setback adjacent to non-residential. So taking a look here at the development plan, I wanted to highlight the anticipated design for the site as well as some of the requested deviations as part of the P A process. Uh the first deviation is the reduction in a landscape setback adjacent to residential from 40 feet to 25 ft. Uh the reasoning for this reduction is to help accomplish a a safer and more functional site design especially along the southern corridor. Uh and it helps alleviate some of that without keeping as much parking in that southern property line. Uh, another thing to mention as well, although this is a 25- foot landscape setback, majority of this southern property line will actually be in excess of that setback. 25 being the closest separation between property line and parking stalls. And as we move west, this landscape setback increases, I believe, to around the 120 foot mark. The other deviation I wanted to um bring to your attention is the request for 12 continuous parking spaces without a landscape island. Um in our LDC, this is a requirement in all parking areas that you cannot construct more than eight parking spaces without a landscape island. This 12 space configuration is designed just for the online order pickup stalls here. Um there is going to be 12 spaces in a row and this helps create safer operations for users or visitors to the site. Um and at this time staff has no issues with that 12 spot configuration um as long as the entirety of the site still follows that 1:8 landscape ratio. Um, additionally, um, you can see the major tenant is more or less centrally located on site coming closer to that eastern property line. Uh, and then we have the additional pad one and pad 2 in the northeast and northwest corners which are anticipated to be uh, general retail or sitdown restaurant and a financial institution. As for phasing uh for the proposed project, the first phase is anticipated to be all of the horizontal infrastructure. This could be on-site and off-site improvements, the parking design, grading and drainage, landscaping, and then as we move into phase two is when we'll start to see those vertical developments come to light. Uh phase two is the major tenant which is anticipated to be a target. and phase three, the um retailer or sitown restaurant in the northeast corner is phase three and finally phase four being the financial institution in that northwest corner. As for public participation, a neighborhood meeting was held back in May of 2025. At the neighborhood meeting, uh roughly 150 to 200 surrounding property owners and residents um attended to um provide some comment to the applicant uh about the proposed project. Uh following the email, up until this point, at the time of writing the report and establishing the presentation, we had received 31 emails in opposition of the proposed project and 12 emails in support. [snorts] uh and those emails are included as part of the staff report package as well. Since the creation of this report, uh we have received, I believe, an additional 15 emails in opposition and two emails in support. Uh some of the concerns from the adjacent um neighboring community members are the preference to retain the existing shopping center zoning district rather than upzone to general commercial, the desire for smaller scale commercial developments, um the preference for a traditional grocery and conventional shopping center design rather than standalone product. um the thought that this use did not fit in with the existing uh surrounding neighborhood character. Uh the visual impacts on nearby neighborhoods due to the size, scale, and massing of the proposed buildings. Um the concern that there would be a potential of loss of existing landscaping as part of the development process. Um potential adverse impacts on property values and an opposition to an access point along Wilson Way. We do have some additional um concerns which are increased traffic volumes, trip generation and congestion to adjacent roadways, the anticipated congestion during peak seasons, especially those holiday times of year. Uh the potential for parking overflow onto nearby residential streets, off- streetet loading and loading bays facing residential properties. Concern that the use could create the potential for increased crime in the area. Also concern for potential light pollution affecting the nearby homes as well as sound from operation deliveries and general site activity. Uh the hours of operation associated with the use. Um the fact there are other uses within a vicinity of this site that have similar or the same user and the need or I'm sorry the request for an 8-ft wall along the southern and eastern property lines to mitigate some of those visual impacts. And while we did receive quite a bit of feedback from the community members, when we look at a resoning application, we want to ensure that we're following the four findings of fact. Um, which is to ensure that the zoning amendment conforms to the general plan as amended. The required public notice has been conducted in accordance with applicable state and local laws. All required public meetings and the hearings have been held in accordance with applicable applicable state and local laws. And the proposed resoning does support the town strategic initiative for community livability. Um, and with that, staff does ask for the recommendation to the town council for a recommendation of approval u regarding Z25-13, the southeast corner of Higgley and Aato subject to new um and amended stipulations. And with that, that concludes my presentation and I'm happy to answer any questions you all may have. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you, S. All right. Does anybody want to kick off and ask S questions and then is the applicant here to speak as well? Okay. So, if anyone has questions now for S or you know we can go through the process. What do you guys think? >> Commissioner Davis. >> Thank you, Chair. Um S, what's the maximum height allowed in the um in the SC district versus GC? Is it the same? Uh, Chairman, Commissioner Davis, the height difference in the two zoning districts would be 10 feet. In the shopping center, you are limited to 30 or I'm sorry, a maximum height of 35 ft and two stories. In the general commercial zoning district, you have a maximum height of 45. >> Okay. But it looks like the target building is 35 ft. >> So, the target building itself to its tallest architectural feature will be 35 ft. But the roof line itself where we measure our height too is going to vary between 26 feet and 28 feet which would fall below the shopping center maximum as well. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you S. That was very very well articulated. I just want to say I was impressed. >> I actually even understood it. Okay. Anyone else? >> Okay. Thank you, S. If the applicant wants to come up and present then. >> Yep. They have a presentation for you all. Thank you. >> Thank you. Welcome, sir. Please just state your name for the record and then uh take it away and hit the button on the thing. It'll turn red there. >> Thank you. And just a a second here to get our presentation teed up if that's okay sir. >> By all means. Yep. >> It's ready. And I think if I Oh, it's that one. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Reese Anderson with Pewan Lake. My address is 1744 South Al Vista, number 217 in Mesa. Always a pleasure to be with you. Our client this evening is Simon CRA, who's under contract to buy the property. Um staff [clears throat] did a great job representing to you and and laying out the basic facts of this case. I want to answer just a couple of questions that came up which is that the retention basin immediately south of our property is owned by the Marbella HOA. They they maintain it. They keep it. In fact, in some of my conversations with neighbors that live adjacent to it. I know that they recently replaced some of the trees there. So, I know they're paying attention. Um, [clears throat] of of course at the request of the staff and you saw one of the concerns about a wall was to put our 8ft wall there and so that along that southern property line there is an 8ft screen wall and so [clears throat] to answer that question the other one was about open space in connection with the AUP and there might have been a concern that we're trying to keep above that but but if you look at the staff report the required open space is 15% and provided is 30. I think it's 38.1. Double check me there, but I think it's we're more than double what's required for the open space. So, it's not as if we're trying to do too much. We're just really trying to meet uh the required standards of the operator um and and kind of those industry standards that we see uh throughout the nation. So, this is the site. I'm not I'm going to go quickly here. Just want to remind everybody this site has been zoned commercial since 2002. This is the original zoning ordinance that you can see on the screen. And interesting I found in researching the history of the site I thought certainly we'll find one or two applications. We found none. So it's just been it's just sat empty. Staff went through the zoning and the general plan. I won't I won't belabor that. This is our our request. I do think it's important to note um and I'll focus just on that southern parking setback. Again, parking spaces generally are kind of square. The the property line is curved and remember this is behind an 8 foot wall and then south of us is that landscaping area and then a street. So by my math from our parking spaces to the uh property line on the other side of the street, it's over 150 ft away. So when you when you talk about just meeting the spirit of the law, we've we've well exceeded that. And I commonly asked the rhetorical question this way. I don't mean to be smart about it, but can any of us tell the difference between 140 ft and 120 ft behind an 8ft wall? The answer is no. Staff's asked us to include some additional landscape in the area, which we'll do as part of the DR process. Um, I I won't talk about the northern one um for the parking pickup or the uh grocery pickup. That makes all the sense in the world. You got a canopy, things aren't going to grow and it's just safer for customers and employees. That's all I have to say about that unless there's a question. Um, Commissioner Davis asked about some of the the this development standards. I just want to point out we are even though it's a change to GC, we are developing consistent or greater than the SC district. We've really kept that principle in mind from the very beginning. And so when we talk about the highest point being 35 ft, again, that's below what's allowed in SC, but it's also on the east side next to Higgley Road, furthest away from any residents to the east or to the south. Uh the phasing plan, I won't bore you with any of that. There's circulation. You've seen you've seen that ear earlier. These are some of the renderings. I think they're coming along line with good good improvements. Uh I just wanted to share some good news which was that the uh Gilbert Chamber of Commerce posted a position statement on this. They're fully supportive of the project and when we were there, we shared with them again the the pro the proposed project as well as the proposed deviations and they're they're supportive. This is the copy of what they posted on their website. Um, for what it's worth, the uh, let me back up one. The economic development department here at the town did some analysis. Now, they did that based off of data that we gave them as far as construction costs, number of employees, but I want to draw your attention about twothirds down where it says fiscal impact and the direct impact. This is over a 10-year period, but they're calculating the direct fiscal impact of revenues of a little over 13 million to the town. So, when we talk about just benefits overall, this is also seen as a good thing. So, when I start looking at SC versus GC and I'm starting to weigh pros, cons, difference, etc., I start to say to myself, well, I could take Target retail and put it in one again. And let me let me say if the building's 128 and change, I'm going to round up to 130 just for my simple brain. So, I could take Target grocery and put it in 165,000t building. And I could take Target Retail and put it in one other 65,000 foot, but I'd have the same thing. But we're here. Instead of having multiple loading docks, multiple disruptions, more chances for noise, we've got one located at the far north side, which is where it should be furthest away. So, we think overall when you balance all these things together, including the anticipated economic development, we think it's a a positive thing. So, commissioners, I um we urge your support. We think this is a good thing. We think we found a good balance between the SC, the GC developing mostly to the SC standards. We think it's um [clears throat] we think this is one that deserves your support as it goes up to the council. I'd be happy to answer any questions that you have. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Anderson. Uh anyone have any questions for the applicant? Commissioner Dearina? [clears throat] Yeah, good presentation there. I've got a question on the uh size of the parcel. Typically, when you have an anchor tenant, you have like such as Target, you have multiple retail, you have the anchor tenant and only two other retail parcels there, which makes it less traffic, which was a concern that I saw in the packet that we got at the end of the survey that the biggest concern was traffic and congestion. So, with only two additional uh retail spots there in Target, is that going to create less traffic? So it would rel alleviate some [clears throat] of the concern of the residents there. >> So >> because typically aren't they bigger parcels with more retail? >> So chairman commissioner de Gavina I think you could look at it from multiple angles and so as I as I analyze it the simple answer might be yes but I also want to just recognize that with the CIP project happening at this location where Okato Road is being bridged over the park happening traffic patterns in the area are going to change dramatically. So, but I I asked the question maybe a little bit differently, which is is this going to bring any more traffic than should have been anticipated from a SC district? And the answer is I don't think it'll bring any more. And to your point, I think it can actually bring less. >> Thank you, vice chair. >> Thank you. Thank you. I I so that when I'm looking at a resoning, the two questions I'm I'm usually asking consistency with the general plan and consistency with the neighborhood. And I had concerns about the consistency with the general plan because we're going from SC to GC and then waving or manipulating the requirements that are additional for a GC. But I maybe I misread that. It sounds like you're saying particularly in terms of setbacks on open space, you're meeting all of the SC requirements except for that one little corner. Did I did I hear you correctly? >> So, Chairman, Vice Chair Fay, not only are we meeting the SC standards, we're meeting the GC standards except remember some of those GC standards are bigger. >> You're right. That's what I meant is we're going to GC but not meeting the GC standards. But you're saying we're going to GC, but we're meeting the more restrictive of either of them essentially, >> with the exception of just that southern landscaping setback where where there's a few parking spaces there. And again, we've replaced it with uh a tremend,000 square feet. So the offset is tremendous. So, usually you go to GC, you have bigger setbacks because it's GC. You're meeting all of those setbacks. >> We're meeting the GC >> except except again except for that one little Okay, thank you. That meets my I I didn't quite make those connections. >> I I would say it this way, which is we're meeting the GC setbacks with the exception of height, which we're keeping SC. >> Yes. >> You're meeting the more restrictive of either. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. I I wasn't getting that point, but I am now. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Very good. Anyone else? Commissioner Oh, I thought I saw your hand reaching. Okay. >> Nothing else. Okay. >> Mr. Mr. Chair, if there's questions at the end, I'd love the opportunity to >> Yeah, we'll we'll bring up the the citizens that wish to speak and then you'll have a a moment to come and speak. Okay. All right. All right. Well, then at this point then, let me uh I'm going to open up the public hearing. I have a number of comment cards. Once again, anyone who is here that did wish to speak. If you have not yet filled out a yellow comment card from the back of the room, please do so so I make sure to get you in the mix here. Uh, okay. So, moving to the first card here, we have Stacy Simon, who is opposed to the item and but does not wish to speak. and her comments are, "We need a small community, shops and restaurants like downtown Gilbert, not big box stores. There are three targets within six miles." Next up, we have Michael Simon. He is opposed to the item, does not wish to speak. Please, no reasonzoning, no need, no want, no reason for target. And if I read your name and you have not indicated if you wish or don't wish to speak um this this is for I believe Bonnie Compton as opposed to the item and didn't check. Bonnie, did you want to speak? >> Okay, thank you. [snorts] Next up we have John Haner. Opposed to the item does not wish to speak. Comments are traffic issues, noise and light pollution. Next is Shelley Vagely. Uh oppose the item. Does not wish to speak. Concern over traffic and the entrance off Wilson. We don't need a big box store there. How is this consistent with the feel at the regional park? Next is Kathy Schulman. Opposed the item uh but does not wish to speak. Uh K John Si opposed the item and does wish to speak. K John if you'd like to please come up. >> Yep. Right to there and then just state your name and your address or you know just you know where you live and then three minutes please. >> Yeah. Appreciate it. Uh my name is Kagan Silly. I do live in Marbella Vineyards. Um I do want to add to a little bit of the public participation uh that Sal had described earlier. He made mention there were 31 emails opposing this reszone. I wanted to go in a little bit more detail on that. Uh there was a digital petition that had gone out around May or June of 2025 and I want to read this out loud and I want to tell you how many participants have signed this digital petition. Uh protect our neighborhood oppose GC with PAD overlaying resoning near Higgley and Actio. We the undersigned residents and concerned community members oppose the proposed reszoning of the property of the southeast corner of Higgley and Actio Road in Gilbert, Arizona from shopping center SC to general general commercial [clears throat] GC zoning with a planned area development pad overlay. This proposed change would allow higher intensity commercial development with reduced zoning standards, [snorts] including narrower building setbacks, increased parking allowances, and less stringent landscaping requirements. These changes deviate significant from the original SE zoning and are incompatible with adjacent residential neighborhoods. If approved, the reszoning would lead to increased traffic, noise, lighting, and building massing nearing residential property lines on the south and east. More importantly, it may contribute to diminished property values for homeowners in proximity to the development by eroding the residential buffer and replacing it with less predictable, more intrusive land use. Due to these material impacts, residents are currently reviewing all available legal remedies, including potential litigation and formal appeal under relevant zoning and land land use laws. Please sign below. There are over 500 digital signatures opposing this. Um, I do want that to be taken into consideration. I do want that to be known. Um, S, I believe you do have that too. >> And sir, just so you know, you get when you're speaking on the public forum, you just have your three minutes to say it and it's not uh so S can't respond to you. That's just so you know. That's fine. I appreciate No, you're okay. First time. Thank you so much. >> Thank you very much. All good. >> Okay. Next up, I have Chad Brosman as opposed the item recommended against changing zoning and against the parking reduction. And okay, wish to speak, please go ahead. State your name and your >> Thank you. My name is Chad Brosman. I'm a longtime Gilbert resident over 20 years native and I am also a registered architect in the state of Arizona. I have done similar developments to this very successful Dana Ranch. I've worked on Mesa Riverview. I also worked on Southshore Talon Center. They're successful because they're scaled appropriate. This project is not scaled appropriate. The one thing that I would like to go on record that unfortunately Sal did not mention, I know he can't respond, but the reduction in parking was not mentioned. There there is a request for a 12.5% reduction in parking over 80 spaces uh to make this monster fit on this limited site. They want to further reduce parking. Additionally, if you look at this site plan, one of the entry drives is a residential drive that not only is a residential drive, it abuts the return and cycle of fire station 9 that was built to reduce response times in Southeast Gilbert. adding traffic and congestion and semi-trail delivery, which it doesn't matter whether it's one or two, it's the same number of trucks and and we could ask, has a traffic impact analysis been done? We know traffic is going to increase with the bridge. We know traffic is going to increase with the future phases of the development of the park, and we're all for that. We support that. I don't support increasing response times to the fire station. I don't support having truck traffic, semi-truck traffic, which can't make an easy access in. It has to cross pedestrian thoroughfares into that site. If you look at that site plan, you're asking a semi coming off of Higgley to make a left into into northbound traffic, which is a nightmare. That's why we put the light down further south between Marbella and Shamrock and cross. Then he's got to make a left and a right to get in from that side. or they have to go in again on a residential street with semi-tractor trailers multiple times a week every week for the foreseeable future. Now if we look at the fries down just a mile south that's appropriately sized has multiple back entrances where semi-tra can come in without impeding the flow of traffic uh the parking traffic and pedestrians. This isn't the case there. There there there is no need for this. There there is between six and 10 targets within the 10mi catchment. One is literally 4 and a half miles to the east on Aato. They're successful. I I don't there's not enough associate businesses with this to make this work. Um, you know, if we look at other developments like like I said, the fries down further south, there's multiple other retailers there that fit in that site that make it appropriate. They support each other. The small businesses support the big. You go, you park, you go to one and then go into the other to grab whatever. This is, you can't do that here. The other three corners of this are not, you can't develop those for business uses, for symbol compatible uses. Not to mention that the landscape buffer those houses on Ironside. They face that wall. There's no they're not that that's not the backyard of those houses. They're facing that. Thank you. Appreciate the time. >> Yes, sir. Thank you. Okay. Next up, John Gerkin. Oppose the item and wish to speak. Please, John, come up. State your name and your address in three minutes, sir. >> My name is John Girkin. I've been a resident of of uh Gilbert since 2018. Um I live at uh on Ironside Lane, southern part. When I purchased my home in 2018, I knew I was told it was designated as a as a small shopping center SC. Everybody that built or purchased land in there knew that. Now, I've heard a lot of discussion tonight, but I haven't heard one thing. Why is it good to reszone this to put a target in the middle of our communities? What purpose does it serve? Check the other uh uh six targets within 11 mile radius. None of them are in the middle of communities. So what is the purpose of this? Is it revenue? We haven't had any revenue from that land because it's been that way since forever. vacant. So why hasn't somebody built there? It was mentioned nobody's wanted to. Well, why can anybody in the development services go out and say, "Hey, this we got a lot here. Very good. It's zoned properly." But the point is, someone has to prove to me that we need a large box store on that place. Put yourself in our in our position. Uh Kagan just pointed out one thing here that was that that that uh petition was last year. We haven't had a chance to get it updated, but that's over 500 people. Now there's children in that neighborhood. They're going across streets to go to school, all kinds of things parks. We don't need people coming through our neighborhood. Those streets were built for our residents purpose, not for commercial reasons or from outside communities. So respectfully, I think you should disapprove this because just because a a large developer purchased the land, comes up with a beautifully presented presentation here doesn't mean that it is good for our community. And I just mentioned another thing too on the zoning regulations on purpose and intent. There's a couple items in there. One of them is preserve and enhance property values that you all should take in consideration for us citizens of the immediate community affected by this. Promote and product protect the public health, safety, comfort, and general welfare of the residents. That's us 500 and more. There's thousands in those residents there of the town of Gilbert. You should take care of us. I've rambled on. I appreciate you listening to me, but somebody has to tell me, prove to me why the development services recommended approval without any consideration for us citizens. We deserve the right answers on this. Thank you, sir. Okay. Next up, we have Stephen Gantenbine. Oppose the item and wishes to speak. Stephen, please come up, state your name and address, and uh three minutes. >> First of all, thank you so much for saying my name correctly. Nobody ever gets my last name right. So, big props already. Um, I want to thank the three gentlemen who spoke before me because they said a lot of the points that I wanted to say. So, um, Commission, uh, thank you so much for letting me speak. This is my first time. I'm a little nervous, so I apologize if I sound like an idiot. Um, oh golly. Uh, I first of all, um, as many have mentioned, there are multiple targets within a 10 mile radius of this location. Uh, and Target sales have been declining for 13 quarters in a row. So, should we approve this plan and build a target and sales continue to decline, what's going to happen to the big empty building that's literally across the street from my house? This la this map is mislabeled. Ironside Lane is actually Penetis Drive and I live on Penetis Drive and the influx of uh semis for deliveries to my understanding would that would be right outside my window. Uh the pollution, the noise, the extra traffic. I don't know if you've been on Wilson Way before, but our HOA doesn't even allow us to park cars on the street overnight because they're worried about emergency vehicles getting through. So, allowing semiis to go down this narrow road to get into Target is going to create more of a hazard than us parking on the street in the middle of the night. Um while we understand that this was initially zoned for uh sorry uh >> SC >> GC or Essie um I think many of us of the folks that I've spoken to my neighbors would prefer we uh do something like the epicenter or small businesses or a prominade where you can walk and there's a coffee shop or a a a sub shop or things like that. Um I would also say to add on to the point about the petition is that I was at that meeting and when someone asked how many people are in favor of this of the 150 to 250 people or 200 people that were there only three people raised their hands. So, this is something that's wildly unpopular in in the community. I understand the economic potential of it, but it it is not worth uh creating so much traffic congestion uh hazards for the children that live there, the folks that live there. So, again, thank you for your for your time. I would please uh request that you don't approve this. >> Very well. Thank you, sir. [snorts] Okay. Next up, I haveame Connor opposed to the item. Huge store like Target will bring too much traffic and crime. Andwame, did you want to speak? >> Might as well give it a try. Come on up. Just say your name. You got three minutes. You can say anything you want. It's a public forum, so don't be don't be afraid. >> All right. Just say your name, address, and three minutes, please. >> Um, all right. I'm Quan McConnell. I live at um 3377 is uh Penet Drive. So I'm just right across from where the uh the the store is going to be. Um uh you know when I saw the presentation I didn't see anything about um uh the um the um the um I mean effect in terms of safety and also house prices. So have they considered that because because if because if it will impact our safety and also our property values I don't think that the economic value of of of um of um I mean having to put a store there is going to be worth it because because I mean even if you're getting what 11 uh you know million over a decade or so and the housing values in the area are going down it basically offsets the the um you know the money that that um the city is going to get. So, it's just I mean a question um I was wondering if they had thought about Nelson. >> All right. Thank you very much. All right. [sighs] Next up, uh oh, last but not least, is it Laura and Cynthia Diver opposed to the item? And did you wish to speak? No. Okay. Very good. All right. Is there anyone else that came that wished to speak that had not filled out a card yet? I thought she was getting a card. Okay. She's picking something else up. All right. No worries. All right. Then uh I'd like to invite the applicant u Mr. trans if you want to come back uh to kind of address some of the concerns brought up by the citizens and then after this we can all discuss and ask S any questions as well. Thank you sir. >> Mr. Chairman, thank you for the chance to just share a few thoughts. Um I with the utmost of respect for the digital petition. I think I would have signed it too if under those representations just that the representations made in it were wrong. It's not reduced setbacks. It's not increased traffic. I would just globally say to every one of the valid concerns that were raised by our friends here this evening, would you have the same concerns if it was zoned SC? Would you have a concern about traffic? Would I mean if it remained or if it was an SC development? Let me phrase it better that way. If you have a concern about lighting, the answer should be it should be the same regardless. And those lighting rules apply. If you have a concern about noise, yes, the same rules apply. Do you have a concern about setbacks? Yes. But thankfully under the GC, we're actually bigger. Do you have a concern about height? Yes, that's a again valid concern. But we're meeting the SC district. And in fact, on the side closest to the residents, it's actually lower. We're between the 28 and 26 ft. So I [clears throat] with the utmost of respect and the opinions shared when I really cut through it the uh arguments are against anything to be built there rather than something that's GC. I would respectfully suggest that a single user like Target here with the other out buildings closer to the street is a better solution than having average tenants that with multiple loading docks and multiple dumpsters etc. We think this is a cleaner project, a better project, one that's actually higher quality. And so this is not one where we're trading revenue for anything else. When we look at everything in the totality everything the scales tip in favor of this project at this time. We just think it's better overall. I know that some may disagree with that and I respect those opinions, but that's those are our thoughts on the matter. Mr. Chairman, I I I tried to share some things globally without but if there's something specific you or commissioner would like me to share some thoughts about, would you please let me know? >> Yeah. So, if anyone has any questions now and otherwise we can reserve to to bring you back if needed. But did you Commissioner Davis? >> I'd like to hear from Mr. Anderson on the semi-truck access on Wilson Way and what was looked at and you know what were the evaluations done to make that determination. It does look like it comes in by the fire station and not further into the neighborhood, but could you talk to that a little bit? >> Yeah, h happy to through the chair. So, Commissioner Davis, again, [clears throat] this we we start back with it's SC, right? So, you could always bring a driveway there already. So, that's number one. Number two, it's located directly across from the driveway into the fire station. It was put as far north as possible on purpose. Um, I also want to note that there has been a traffic study done. It's been carefully reviewed by the town's transportation department, and I know Clinton Emry is here. He can speak to that if you'd like him to, but carefully looked at and coordinated with the CIP team to make additional improvements at Wilson and Oato, including improvements at Oato and Higgley. And you may have saw in the stipulations, additional rideway being requested from us that on all the streets. We've we've done that already. And so everything that's been asked of us, we've done to either address, mitigate, etc. So yes, you know, deliveries will come there, right? There's that that will happen, but I also expect deliveries to come down Higgley and Aato also. >> Um, just to follow up, as far as hours for deliveries, I mean, I assume I think Target's open till 10:00. >> Do they get late night, middle of the night deliveries? Do you know? >> I I don't know the answer to that, and I don't want to make something up. Um, I just know that I mean during normal business hours is they are going to operate the store like they do all the others and and of course they want to be respectful to all of their neighbors. >> Okay. Anyone else have any questions for the applicant? >> Yes, sir. Yeah, vice chair. Um, thank you for it. So, right now you've got you could build SC by right shopping center. You're already entitled, right? >> Correct. And you could you would have to meet all of the requirements of SC traffic parking setbacks. If you go to GC some of those requirements increase, >> correct? >> You're already every single requirement here in terms of setback landscaping. You're meeting the more restrictive of either SC or GC. >> Correct. With the exception we've noted. >> Yeah. with that those two little um so any of the the objections any of the I don't understand the object well I don't know that there's a really a valid objection related to setbacks at least or led setbacks or landscaping because they're only going up if anything is a fair statement >> I mean I was I was really concerned about this one not meeting the intent of the general plan but I'm I'm kind of getting on that getting there so you could you could build SC and do almost all of this except for the size of the building you well except for the outbuildings you could do all of this by right now without a reasonzoning >> correct and and so vice chair fates that's what I talked about earlier which is it is possible to design you in my simple explanation a target grocery and a target retail separate them by 10 feet in a covered walkway and you and I would not be having this conversation this evening >> you would you would not have the bank and the restaurant th those two would go away but you could do that >> with the target. >> Sure. >> But it doesn't sound like anyone's opposed to the bank and the restaurant. >> I I I haven't h haven't heard anyone uh oppose that. >> Okay. Okay. I understand. Thank you. >> All right. Any other questions or comments? All right. Commissioner Simon, >> I I I do think it's important to note that the setback that we're discussing is up against that already established retention basin. So although it is up against a shortened or a reduced setback, you're still considerably far away from what would be the road there. Am I correct? >> Yes. Just to add some detail to that. Right. You've got a property line 25 ft of that north of that's a parking space, but south of there you've got 90 plus feet of landscaping in the HOA tract, 50 feet of roadway, and then the houses begin. Okay. Anything else? All right. I think we're good then, sir. Uh if we do need anything else, I I'll let you know and you know, I'll give you I'll grant you the time if there's more questions. >> Thank you, Chairman. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. Well, with that then I will close the public comment and bring it up here to the dis for additional discussion or you know and we can also bring bring S in if anyone has any questions as it relates to staff. So before I to bring it to the dice I guess I should say do we want to ask S anything else? >> Okay well >> I do have a question for S. Okay, S, you do have to get up, bro. >> Get you up for the third time. >> Commissioner Darina, >> uh, S, just out of curiosity, that parcel has been vacant for a long time and and you would probably go out and try to market it to different types of clientele. Was there any kind of demographic study that shows what would work best there? Maybe the smaller retail as opposed to the big box. uh and anything done in that area where you know what works actually best there. Does a big box work better than smaller retail like it was originally zoned for? Uh chairman, Commissioner D. Gravina. So to this point we have not reviewed any um sort of market study that um sort of documentation isn't necessarily required for a zoning or design review application. Um, as far as I know for the history of this parcel, that was mentioned by the applicant as well. It was established as a commercial piece back in 2002 as part of the overlying P A, but since that time, we haven't received any um formal application to develop the parcel. Um, it could be for a number of reasons. It would be more speculation. Um, but we don't have a definitive answer as to why nothing was ever developed in the reasons behind it. >> Okay. All right. Any other questions? All right. S I guess you can sit down for now then. Okay. Well, then I'll bring it back up here for discussion, you know, and or a motion if somebody were inclined, but I feel like we probably have some discussion. Who wants to kick it off? >> Commissioner Simon. >> Yeah, I'll start. Um, first I' I'd like to say I appreciate the community's involvement in this and and um, you know, looking looking at this from a from an SC to a GC perspective. I mean, the applicant's absolutely correct. They could actually build more on this site than what they're actually asking for. Um, you know, you could say, "Well, we'd want smaller. We'd want uh, you know, smaller shops or what have you." You know, every business that you add is going to add traffic. I think the traffic argument is is not really relevant in this situation from my perspective. I mean, there's going to be traffic and once that Alcato Bridge is done, that's going to be even more traffic. It's just it is the way of it. um reading through some of the letters that were sent in, you know, we see resounding themes of uh and I think one of the gentlemen said, "What's the purpose? What's the need?" Um you know, there there is uh something that we hold very dear in in our country and that is personal property rights. and personal property rights allow people to do with their property what they want to do to an extent and we as a town have the ability to say does it fit into what that uh direction should be of the town. Um I I don't know that I see any issue with this. I I I commend the applicant for keeping the elevation of the property low, the setbacks in line. Um, I think this is going to draw a lot less traffic than what [clears throat] the fear may be. Um, and I don't know that I necessarily see this being uh an issue. It is going to be developed. It is going to be developed as a commercial lot, whether that's shopping center commercial or general commercial. I mean, it's all in the size of the building, I guess, if you will. And I don't I don't see there being that much of a difference when I when I boil it down to to that. And and then we start talking about walkability and usability and what what's good use for that piece of property. And and I think that this piece of property um because of the location bodess well for what what is being looked there. It could be, you know, another fry store. It could be another Safeway. It could be another Walmart. It could be what have you. But in in this situation, we've got a developer and a product that's going in that that has proven over time to be a good community member, and I I don't personally have an issue with it. So, I'll be supporting it. >> Thank you, Commissioner Simon. Who wants to rebut Commissioner Simon or agree? Commissioner Davis. Well, actually, um, I concur with a with what Commissioner Simon had to say. Um, I looked up to see how big a fries marketplace is, it looks like it ranges. The small side is 80,000, the large side is size is 126,000 square feet, which is around the size of this. So, a fries marketplace then once you add retail shops adjacent to it, I mean, the mass of it is probably going to end up about the same. I understand the neighbors concern to have more retail opportunities, smaller users in their neighborhood. Um I don't recall if that building that pad one has multiple tenant options that could be. Um so that's unfortunate, but I concur with Commissioner Simon in that, you know, it's really just comes down to the square footage of one user versus, you know, and it has multiple uses within that building. Um, I do appreciate the scale of it is, you know, down lower than 35 ft. 30 feet a typical two-story home. Um, I do really think that they should look at moving that wall along Wilson Way to the inside of that retention area so that your field as you come down Wilson Way, you have landscaping on both sides. I think that's going to benefit the neighborhood in a big way. Um, to not have that wall right next to the sidewalk. Um, I think that's a huge design consideration to benefit the neighborhood. Um, obviously still maintained by the shopping center, but um to have the impact of that landscaping on the outside of that wall. Um, the noise that for the deliveries and such, you know, unfortunately when you get anything else that went there still going to have that circumstance. You look at a shopping center, the Fries Marketplace to the south, there's homes right behind it. They're hearing that as well. And it's unfortunate, but when you're next to commercial, I think even if an 80,000 square foot retail building went in there, they're going to get deliveries, too. And you're going to still hear those things. So, um, so I guess that's where I land. I'm I'm in agreement with Commissioner Simon on that. >> All right. Thank you, Commissioner Davis. [clears throat] Anyone else want to add some input? Okay, vice chair. Okay, thank you. Um, thank everybody. I'd like to thank everyone for a number of very good presentations and and to be to be blunt, sometimes when the public speaks a lot, there's kind of a mixed bag. You guys as a group were a pretty pretty good group of presenters. I don't know if you practiced ahead of time, but um much much better than sometimes. So, I don't mean to be critical of other people, but um as far as the the two waiverss, the uh the well, I I came in actually thinking zoning is usually not a real high hurdle to get over to reszone a property. And I was I was concerned actually about both questions on this one. Um but in terms of the the two waiverss, the uh landscaping between the parking spaces, I have no concern. That's really these drop off spaces under an overhang is not what our land development code was. that that one I think it it's kind of self-explanatory. The other one I don't really have a problem with. That's the width on the of the the little setback wedge on the southern edge of the property. Not so much because the rest of the houses are so far away. That's other people's property and I don't uh really this this property really shouldn't benefit from that. I mean, it's possible someone else could redevelop that. The reason is just because it's such a minimal ask. We are uh I think Mr. Anderson actually is the one who said we're we're trying to square an irregular piece here and we're really only talking about less than half the width of a parking stall to make the parking stall fit. That's that's um I wasn't as on board with it coming in, but I'm I'm I'm not seeing it as a huge lift at this point. [snorts] Um more importantly, and this is something that I misread. This is the reason I thought this was not consistent with the general plan is I misread this property is meeting when you go from SC to GC you gain the size of the building but you lose in terms of more restrictive setbacks and stuff and I thought what they were asking for was the bigger building but still getting the you know have your cake and eat it too. But I I misread that it's the opposite. They they want to meet the more restrictive of of either the SC or the GC. So the the in terms of setbacks, height, that kind of stuff, they're meeting the more restrictive of either, which um which says to me that this is a change that is consistent with the general plan or it's it's not a it's not a huge lift in that sense. [snorts] So in terms of consistency with the general plan, I think this meets it. Um and then Yan Jan said it better than I usually do, but I'm a rank free market capitalist. If Target wants to risk millions of dollars trying to put another target >> [sighs] >> Maybe they're making a good decision, maybe they're making a wrong decision, but it's their property. And and if if Fry wants to try to out bid them, they can take a shot at that, too. But, um, now what I'm what I'm less comfortable with is then the second part of the zoning decision. First is consistency with the general plan. The second is consistency with the neighborhood. Um, and I'm I'm I'm wavering kind of back and forth on this. I I would kind of think that this might be too much to swallow except for the fact if we don't reszone it, we're rewalling we're we're swallowing the the neighborhood. If if you get an SC property in here, you're swallowing 98% of the same the same stuff anyway. They could come in here and build an SC property. I I don't think they would build, but they could build two $65,000 store, 65,000 square foot stores right next to each other. They could do that now without even coming in to to talk to us at all. Um, so I'm I'm I'm still grappling with how I'm going to on that second question of consistency with the neighborhood. I think this does meet consistency with the general plan. Um, so those are my my two cents. >> Thank you, Vice Chair. Anyone else? Otherwise, I mean, I can I can walk through I'll walk through my >> Yeah, Commissioner Anderson. >> It's a question for I guess Ashley or the zoning attorney. Whatever the recommendation unfolds up tonight, uh the recommendation when it goes to town council, what hearing is that on a March hearing or is that go to an April hearing? >> That is set for April. >> April. Okay. I'm just kind of curious as to how fast this moves after us. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Anderson. Okay. Well, I will just walk through, you know, and how I like to look at these things is in an apples to apples. And I recognize the issues brought up. Um, you know, that I I completely agree. You know, as it relates to things like having nice neighborhood shopping, that would be ideal. Um, but I want to make sure that we all understand what the charge of the town is and town staff in aggregating people to come in. I mean, it and I think that the vice chair stated it in free market capitalism. If if there was people that were trying to put those smaller stores in, I I don't believe that the land would have sat vacant for as long as it had. And then along with that along those lines on that vacantness that as we talk about safety, transportation and all of the other things as it relates to traffic all of those things were built into the roadways sizing scoping as it relates to the fire as an SC. When we look at the actual delta between what they're proposing and what they could do with the SC, those figures are not very much different. It's negligible as it stands related to nothing there. Yes, there's going to be an addition. But our job is to look at a zoning change as it relates to what is the delta between what they can do and what they are asking to do and decide whether or not that makes rational sense, not whether or not we like target. That's not our job. I apologize. You know, I just that's not it. And I think that we need to be very clear that these transportation and the other things that have been built into it while this sat vacant, it it doesn't mean that that was a right that all of everybody else deserved because the land owner there deserves to have his or her or its trips, but however you want to look at it, but however many trips will be going in there, they have a right to those. That's their property. the same accordingly that you have a right to not want additional trips. So that applesto apples comparison is how I look at this and when I look at what the developer has done and I look at that in conjunction with the things that we see here as it relates to multifamily and the other things that become very hot button items. we run a risk of becoming an area that developers do not want to come into if we continue to push back on things that make rational sense and as it relates to specifically saying will a big box store create more or less revenue what would be the best thing here from both town's perspective and from revenue you know as for the developer would be to put the new mixed use. We we had developed this new code of mixed use where you could have multif family mixed in with the commercial because that's where you get the most as a per capita dollar per square foot of development. That is where a town would gain the most benefit. But we all know that if multif family comes in that is awful. That's traffic. That's the other things coming and and all of that. So personally, I don't think, and when I say personally, I mean personally as a person looking at the zoning as it relates to my charge as a commissioner, I don't see that what's being asked for here is out of the norm outside of what seems to be preferential um ideiation of what could be there and how much better that could be. And unfortunately uh or fortunately depending on how your vantage point is. That's not my charge or our charge as a board or a commission to dictate to people what they should be putting in there outside of does it meet these criteria and do those criteria that you're asking for if you ask for any reductions. Are those nominal? In this case, I believe they are. All right. Anyone else have any more comments? Otherwise, I'd entertain a motion. >> Okay. I'll make a motion to approve Z25-13 southeast corner of Higgley and Aato Retail Center. >> Commissioner Gage has a motion for approval. Do we have a second? >> I'll second. Second by Commissioner Degravita. Any other discussion? >> Please cast your vote. >> Motion carries 6 to one. I'll remind the uh public that the decorum that was granted you as you spoke, the same respect should be granted for others. If you have questions as it relates to anything else, I'd be happy to answer them, but I will not sit and watch the meeting devolve to yelling. Thank you. All right, moving on. Item number 10, Z2519, Tuscanany at Gabriella Point Pad amendment. And we will bring back Mr. S. Chair. I need to recuse myself from this one. >> Commissioner Anderson will recuse himself. >> [clears throat] >> I don't think we bring an alter. >> No, not in the middle. No, >> I can't read that. Are you the one that this opposite? >> All righty. Hello again, uh, chair and commissioners. Sal Desanto Planner 2. Uh the next application we'll be taking a look at is Z25-9 Tuscanany at Gabriella Point, the PA AD amendment. So the subject site outlined largely in red in the half portion in blue is a roughly 19 1.5 acre parcel within a larger 39 acre multif family development near the intersection of Higgley and Warner Roads. Uh the site is adjacent to Morrison Ranch residential neighborhood uh and the surrounding Gabriella Point Commerce Center which is zoned for future commercial and employment uses. Uh the entire development is currently under construction and will include 760 apartment units across 17 three and fourstory buildings. The project will include 3609 one-bedroom units and 286 two-bedroom units and 105 three-bedroom units. uh which with the larger units will be priarily concentrated on the eastern portion of the site. As for the P Amendment tonight, this multif family project has already been um approved and is in the process of being constructed. Uh but part of that original approval was the condition to allow 43% open space on the multif family medium portion of the site, which is that western half. Uh so the first piece of this P AD amendment is to reduce the common open space from 43% to 40% just in that multif family medium portion of the site to allow extended private uh yards only on the ground floor units. Uh the other request or deviation as part of this application is to allow for the use of view fencing on the ground floor private yards instead of the 80% opaque screen requirement um that is required by code. Uh taking a look at the zoning map, I just wanted to show again the bounds of this property. That multif family medium being on the west side, that multif family low portion being on the eastern side. There is no changes to the zoning designations. Um nothing else is changing on site outside of the requested P Amendments. Here we'll have a better look at what this design would look like. So, all of these uh residential buildings on the western side of the property have these existing extended patios. And with this application, the applicant is requesting to extend these private open space areas um permitted that they do not uh fall into any of the required building uh setbacks which is being maintained up along uh Warner Road to the north. And as I mentioned, it is to reduce the common open space from 43 to 40%. Here I just wanted to provide another illustration or exhibit that just helps visualize what these new ground floor units would look like. On the top there we have that original approval um I believe from 2022 if I'm not mistaken uh which shows the original extend or patio design and just below is that proposed extended patio design with a three-foot landscape buffer between sidewalk and private patio area. So although there is a request for view fencing, there would be landscaping placed within this 3-foot buffer to help um screen these these private areas. As for the justification in regards to these deviations, um initially when this project came through the pipeline for a similar application, it was ultimately denied by the town council. Uh the applicant has decided to reapply with the town for the uh same request for the 40% common open space for the extended private patios. But this time around staff has a better understanding of exactly what amenities are proposed on site and the amount of amenity square footage um on both the MFM and MFL portions of the development. are here on the screen. You can see that there are roughly 26 amenities provided in the multif family development and it creates just over 95,000 square ft of amenity space between the total 39 acres which far surpasses the LDC requirement for multif family amenities. So, taking another look at this, we felt a bit more comfortable considering the amount amenities on site uh the amount of amenities uh square footage as well as in regards to the view fencing uh deviation. There would be that additional landscaping to assist with the screening. As for public participation, there was an original neighborhood meeting that occurred back in January of 2025, and only two uh neighbors were in attendance, and they just had general questions about the development or the project rather. Um and for the reasons set forth in the report as well as the presentation, staff does um ask that the planning commission recommend approval to the town council for Z25-9 Tuscanany Gabriela Point P Amendment for the reduction in common open space and the allowance of view fencing instead of the 80% screen wall requirement. And I'm happy to answer any questions you all may have. Thank you. >> No, S. Thank you. All right, bringing it up here. Anybody want to kick off some questions for S? Commissioner Simon, take it away. >> S, thank you for the presentation. >> Um, if I remember correctly, we approved this previously. Staff was opposed to it, but now staff is in favor of it. >> Okay. >> I think we disapproved it before. >> Maybe it was just me that approved. >> Let's not guys. Okay. got a meeting. Elena's looking at me. Okay. She hears all this grumbling. We need >> Okay. So, uh I I just wanted that was the only question I had. So, thank you. Right. Appreciate it, Commissioner Simon. >> Yes. Thank you. Anyone else? Any questions? >> Vice Chair. Okay. >> Sorry. Sorry. S um so this came this came to us previously and we disapproved it, I think, and then it went to council and they disapproved it as well. And now it's coming back again. U can you as far as I can and you've looked at we've looked at the amenities more but are there any amenities here that weren't there before? uh chair uh commissioner Fay uh at this point in the application I believe the amenity space was there with the original application but from a staff perspective we didn't know exactly what sort of amenities were proposed on type and or on site I apologize so looking at these 26 amenities whether it be you know various pickle ball courts tennis courts basketball courts botchi ball uh sauna is, you know, we felt that these amenities did help in finding an alignment with the requested deviation, >> but they were all there before, I think. Right. Maybe some of the indoor ones you weren't quite sure about, but in terms of the outdoor space and and the amount of indoor, it was all there before, wasn't it? >> That is correct. >> Okay. Um the the screen wall I I um I've gotten some some people it I I don't have an issue with the screen wall that the difference between being able to see through it. The what opaque versus not or whatever we're calling it I don't I don't have as much of an issue with but um the the percent number the the number reductions I think is where we we hung our hat early as I did um previously. I I um I anyway that's all. I just wanted to kind of kick that around. Thank you. So, >> I appreciate it, Commissioner Fay. Thank you. >> All right. Very good, Commissioner Davis. >> Thank you. Um, Commissioner Fay raises the question of the amen amount of amenities. What I thought I read in the applicants um narrative was that there were additional amenities added because that's what I was looking for is that offset between um they were taking something away from the PA P A but we weren't getting something in return. >> What I was looking for was something in return. So, I'm hoping that is the case and there are actually new amenities included because if we're just getting the exact same package that we already had, then I don't see where we're getting that additional quality that was promised as part of the PD if we're reducing something. I want to get something to give up something. That's what I was looking for. So, and maybe the applicant can confirm that, but that's what I thought I read in that report was that some of those amenities were added to the basic amenity package. So that's what I'm looking for in order to be able to support it. >> So, uh, Chairman Munt and Commissioner Davis, one of the things that I wanted to just jump in and add, one of the differences that you'll see between the last application and this one is the condition that Sal had up on the screen. Um, that kind of locks in those amenities and that amenity square footage. And so that's something that we've worked with the applicant to ensure that that's something that's guaranteed through the P A for the life of the project. >> And just building off of Ashley's statement, any changes to the amenity design or reduction in said amenity square footage would require the reapproval and review of by town council and yourself. >> Very good. Sam, anyone else? Okay. Did the applicant want to present tonight or >> Yeah, we have Reese here for presentation. >> Double header. Okay. >> Pleasure to be with you again and thank you s for the uh so let me see if I Mr. Chairman M commissioner again to be technical. Rhys Anderson 1744 South Alveista Mesa 85204 on behalf of Franco Family Trust this evening and your understanding the history is absolutely correct. I think the vote was 4-2 and then the council again was split and so you know but the difference the like here's the key differences when the case came before you last time we had stuff along Martingale and Warner that were in the building setback there was disagreement we also had stuff three feet from sidewalks interior to the site there was a disagreement we took a big spoonful of humility and now all of those private expanded yards, meet the setbacks along Martingale, along Warner, we meet everywhere. And not only on this half, but we've also adjusted things on the other half. Remember, the other half was already approved back in October 22. So, not only we do making adjustments here on paper, but on the entire site. So, when you talk about what's changed, there's been some significant changes. Now the the percentages are are still the same that they work out but uh some were eliminated. All of the uh where we did have these extended groundwork they were reconfigured and so I think lots of improvements were made. now to answer the question what changed and so let me see if if um if this will come up if it won't I can speak to it and looks like we have technical difficulties but let let me just explain because I think you can see it in our staff report when in this to go to vice chair Fay and Commissioner Davis when the original P a case was approved and we asked what's our amenity package we gave a list after that approval right and that was based on uh the open space granted at the time. After that approval, we added tremendously more amenities. And if you look at the list, this is world class, very nice. And then in the last few weeks, the staff asked us, give us a square footage for each of these. We provided that to them and that appears now as a stipulation. We're in full agreement with all the stipulations that are there. So, but I want to be precise because I don't want anyone to have a wrong impression. And maybe this goes against this, but at the same time, I want to be very candid with you, which is the amenity package that is there. Remember, this project's almost all the way built. That was part of the DRB. The difference was that our team did not do a good enough job and explaining and talking with the staff where there was a better understanding. That's why you see today agreement between us and the staff because and our fault but we we've we've come to be on the same page but it's clear from the time of zoning till till now the amount and number square footage type of amenities has increased dramatically and also we're meeting all of the required setbacks etc. I hope that answers the two questions that I heard and and I don't need to belabor this more than necessary Mr. Mr Chairman, that's all I have it, but if you have other questions, I'd be glad to answer them. >> All right. Yeah. Thank you very much, sir. Anyone have a question? >> Commissioner Davina, >> excuse me. I got a quick one for you, Mr. Anderson. Um, so the extended yards reduce the open space from 43 to 40%. And that's basically what you're asking for. So, if the town gives you that, you're giving us more amenities on that. Is that kind of the trade-off and the simplest way to describe this? >> It it it is Commissioner Darina through the chair. It's really that simple. And I and I just remind everyone that this is a technical definition, right, of common area open space and we are not eliminating open space, but technically it shifts because it's now behind the fence and therefore it's not available. But again, this is next to someone's unit and candidly folks shouldn't be walking there anyhow. So we think we what we've done is provided a better space for those ground flooror units. And you might have remember that I shared this with the commission last time over at the crossings. That's Wade and Williamsfield where this exists now. And those units are are popular. And you might remember that on your study session, you just saw the tracks project about a month ago over also on Williamsfield. And that has the similar uh configuration there, too. So, we think it's a good thing. We do think it's a good thing. Um, and so that's that's that's really the bottom line. >> I think it's a good fit. All right, vice chair. Mr. Anderson, you said something that doesn't make sense to me. Is so before you weren't meeting setbacks in a few places, so you've moved things. So you do meet setbacks now. >> Vice [clears throat] Chair Fay, I'm going to be little'll be really precise here. We're talking about setbacks of these ground floor yards like where that fence would be because we're not no buildings have moved, right? When you think about what this is and what it's not, no building has moved, no parking's moved, no units increased, not that's all set in stone and built. >> What we're talking about is that along Martingale and Warner, that old plan had a few of those that stuck out into the building set back. >> And and and if you I don't mean to rehash old stuff. We had a different reading of the code, but now we've just said, look, we're going to comply with the bill. So every one of our yards along there complies with the appropriate setback. >> So you've pulled the fences back. >> We pulled them back. >> Pulled them back. >> Now what? But the percentages haven't changed at all. Wouldn't the percentage I mean instead of you you're at 43 right now there's 43, you want to go down to 40. If you're pulling those fences back, wouldn't you you're at 43 and you want to go to 41. I mean wouldn't it change a little bit? you know uh vice vice ch I thought the same thing. I thought okay when the reconfigures what these are we're talking decimals that it it it just doesn't >> it's so small it's within >> it's so small it doesn't matter >> you usually I would recalculate this on you I'd go into the plan but I I didn't catch this >> and to that to that point um I've been very uh what's the right word ser I think of trying to think of a good word for serious synonym for serious when I look at the architect team who's done a fantastic job and looked at every one of these and the staff Half two has gotten out their tools, measured every one of them to make sure that they're compliant. I just zoomed in here so you could see again we the old plan had this is a building three. That's the corner of Martingale and Warner. The old plan had some there on the north side. They're gone. But others inside the team was able to make those a little bit bigger, a little bit longer, but meeting the standards. And so where where it was less than three, they pulled that back but stretched it a little bit left and right. And and they've been absolutely clear they have not uh gone beyond that 40% mark. >> Okay. I I've heard your architects are inspired artists, mathematicians, and gentlemen that they're really just the top tier. >> Well, I'll tell them. Thank you, sir. >> Good. Okay, that that answers my question, sir. Let's keep things rational here. Um but [clears throat] uh anyone else have any questions or comments for the applicant? Okay. Well, very good, Mr. Anderson. Appreciate you, sir. >> Thank you. >> Okay. And uh anyone else want to have anything else to bring up to S or any other comments uh or questions? And then just to clarify, I guess I should. Is anyone here in the crowd? Is it is anyone here to speak on this item that has not filled out a comment card? Okay. Just wanted to make sure. All [clears throat] right. All right. Well, then in that case, we'll close the public hearing and uh public forum and bring it back up to the dis for discussion or a motion, you know. And I'll just I'll just point out that the different this was this was one that confused me too by the same reason. But I remember there was those strips of sidewalk and things that had like it was 2 feet but I'd be 3 feet and it was it at the time seemed somewhat I don't know this is where I don't want to say a word like serious like trite but yet it was by the code and I think that's where the interpretation um you know and as we've worked it out but that that made sense because I was the same way when I looked at it I said okay this looks almost the exact same and what what's changed but I I was able to get that clarification So, any other discussion or any motions? >> Chair. >> Wait, Commissioner Davis, was it a comment or were you going to do a >> Okay, I just I saw your microphone. I didn't want to have >> Commissioner S. Go ahead. >> Um, I will make a motion to approve Z25-9 Tuscan Gabrielle point P Amendment. I appreciate the changes that were made. >> I'll second. >> Motion and a second on the table. Please cast your vote. [clears throat] Motion carries 6 with uh Commissioner Anderson abstaining. Okay, motion carries. Moving along. Commissioner Anderson, if you'd like to come and take your rightful place back up at the so that we can go into our administrative items here. Administrative items are for the commission discussion and action. It is to the discretion of the majority of the commission regarding public input requests on any administrative item. Persons wishing to speak on an administrative item should complete a public comment card form indicating the item number on which you wish to address. Commission may or may not accept public comment. Um, this is the only thing in our administrative items this time is uh the minutes. Item 11, planning commission meeting minutes. Uh, consider the approval of the minutes of the study session regular meeting from February 4th. Anybody have anything they wanted to add or amend to the minutes or else a motion? >> I'll move to approve the minutes from the February 4th, 2026 meeting. >> Motion from Commissioner Davis. >> Second that. Second from the vice chair. Please cast your vote. Motion carries 70. Thank you. Communication. We do not have an executive session, so we'll move to item 12, which is the report from chairman and members of the commission on current events. >> Chairman. >> Commissioner Simon. >> I would just like to have a moment of silent for the loss of Kyler Murray. Just kidding. Just remind that, you know, we don't make little people jokes on the dis. So, um, Commissioner uh, Gage, do you have something to add, please? >> Am I allowed to ask a procedural question right now? >> During during during current events, I guess you could say. >> I mean, where was I? Sorry, did I miss the right time? I Okay, >> kind of wait till next. >> Yeah. So, as a current event, Commissioner Gage is thinking about things deeply. All right. Well, I [snorts] don't have anything major other than Little League season started again. So, I'm pretty pumped and yet a little reluctant given the fact that it's already 90°. I might have to cry. But other [snorts] than that, uh you know, it's springtime in uh in the valley. So, all right. Then, item number 13, report from the planning services manager on current events. Ashley, >> uh you stole my thunder. I was going to mention Little League, too. [laughter] I'm just kidding. Uh, thank you guys for your service tonight and for uh all the time you spend on these cases. It's truly appreciated. >> All right. Very good then. All right. With that, then I guess uh nothing else, we could uh entertain a motion to adjurnn. >> I'll make a motion to adjurnn. >> I will second. >> We have a motion for adjournmentation by Commissioner Gage and a second by the illustrious vice chair. If you would please cast your vote. Brian's button didn't work. Motion carries 70. Thank you all very much for your time and efforts. Meet adjourned. Murray was Oh, >> he was a little Ewok that played for the Cardinals for a while.