Is she she remarried? Okay, thank you all for coming out. I am going to call to order the work session. The first item we have tonight on the agenda is Z25-06 LDC text amendment. And Ashley, she has to come down from the big stage down there. That's amazing. All right. Thank you, chair and commission. This is Z2506. It's a land development code text amendment related to wireless communication facilities. Uh, so tonight, uh, staff is requesting that the planning commission initiate this text amendment. Do you hear the echo? I was going to ask, is that Veronica's computer or so? Somebody has the sound on. This feels reminiscent of 2001 first time team meetings for old-timers. Okay. Yeah, I was going to try and power through. It is a little distracting. So, uh, we're requesting that the planning commission initiate this text amendment tonight and then conduct the citizen review if there is any members of the public that want to comment on this item. Essentially, we're seeking to modify um a number of sections within the land development code. Uh we want to open up our term section in case we identify any definitions that need to be modified. Uh we also want to um look at updating the use regulations within section 3.1. We would like to um update section 5.8 related to wireless communication facilities and then section 6.6 related to design reviews. Essentially the purpose of this is to clarify where uh specific uh wireless communication facility types are permitted, what those development standards look like um and then the application process uh related to wireless communication facilities. Hey Veronica, it's not sorry. Uh so one of the updates that we want to make as we process uh wireless communication facilities oftentimes we'll identify um some things that could be updated to clarify our code. One of the things that we um noticed is that in the section of our wireless communication facilities section of the code it references monopoles. Um whereas in the use table section you can see that monopoles um are not permitted within zoning districts that we anticipate they should be allowed in. So this is just really a cleanup to make sure that this table uh conforms to the wireless communication facility section of the ordinance. Um and then additionally we would seek to update the wireless communication facility section um specifically the categories table. Um as you can see on here as I referenced before um wireless communication facilities um are permitted uh throughout those commercial zoning districts. But this table also specifies um maximum heights that um we'd just like to clarify um you know where the different heights are permitted in different zoning districts. And then additionally, we would like to update the category 3 facilities. Currently, those go through a conditional use permit process. Uh we know that though that that process often relates to um whether or not the use is permitted. However, um as we apply conditional use permits in this specific instance, we're really looking at design of facilities. So rather than have those go through the conditional use permit process, we want to modify that so that it's a design review process just for clarification. Um so again, we would add in section 6.6 six for design review so that we could add in wireless communication facilities as going through the category 3 facilities going through a design review process as opposed to a conditional use permit process. So next steps on this text amendment um if initiated by uh count uh commission tonight will bring this back for a public hearing um before taking it to town council. Uh happy to answer any questions you have um regarding this request. All right, thank you very much. Does anyone have any questions about this request for Ashley? No. It appears as though you've been quite thorough and have informed us sufficiently and everyone is okay. Thank you very much. Okay, then I guess you don't have to go far. Um, and did you covered both of the first two or no? We got to do the second one, right? Okay. The uh second item is once again Ashley and it's Z2507 LDC. Chairman, my apologies. If you can uh just staff needs to be directed that they should initiate. Ah, is there any discussion about whether or not staff should initiate said LDC text amendment in item number one? Staff, please move forward. Thank you. Chairman, if you can also um check and make sure there's nobody in the public that wanted to comment on this. Thank you, Ashley. That was a test. All right. Is there anyone here in the vast array of individuals here at this meeting that would like to speak on the item of the LDC text amendment? Not seeing any indiscriminate motions. I don't believe so. So, staff, please go forward with the LDC with item two. I will be even quicker than the last one. Um so this is Z2507 related to accessory dwelling units and other um text amendment. Um so we're again asking the commission to and tonight to initiate uh the text amendment and conduct the citizen review. We're seeking to amend the terms uh which is located within division 2. Uh it's simply to update the definition of habitable to align with the accessory dwelling unit update. Um, so just by way of background, uh, last year the legislation adopted House Bill 2722 that required municipalities to adopt regulations that allowed for the development of accessory dwelling units on single family lots and we needed to adopt those regulations by January 1st of 2025. So there was a pretty quick turnaround on that. Uh and so as we have started to implement that, we've identified some um items that needed to be uh amended within our code uh section, specifically the terms. Uh the new state statute um indicates that accessory dwelling units um that is 75% of the gross floor area of the single family dwelling um is permitted. And then it defines gross floor area as the interior habitable area of the single family dwelling unit. So staff used this language to develop our ADU code. We had a definition of habitable that existed in our code that we didn't update that doesn't really serve us as we apply it to ADUs. So our current definition of habitable um is a space is a space in a building for living, sleeping, eating, or cooking. bathrooms, toilet rooms, closet, hall, storage, or utility spaces are not considered habitable space. Um, and so we pulled this definition from the building code when we when we incorporated it into our land development code, but as we're starting to review accessory dwelling units, this causes a problem because it is not typical for us to exclude those from the floor area of a residence. So, we are just seeking to update this definition. I don't have one um proposed for you at this time. Um but when we come back for the public hearing, we'll obviously have a definition. But that's the remedy that we're seeking to um move forward. Same steps as the last application. Uh if initiated by commission tonight, we'll be back before you in a public hearing for adoption of the new proposed language and then we'll move on to council. So happy to answer any questions. Other than that, uh just seeking um that initiation and citizen review tonight. Okay. Thank you, Ashley. Does anyone have any questions or reasons why we should not tell staff to move forward with this? Okay. Um, thank you Ashley. I would say then yes, initiate staff and uh do the text amendment and we will move on to item number three. Dr. Oh, good call, Brian. Before I do move on, I just want to check in the public once again to see if there's anyone here who wishes to speak on item number two. Nope. Okay. Thank you. Item three, Z2507 LDC. Just kidding. DR2523 MariZ warehouse and Sandra. Thank you. Good evening, chair and commissioners. I'm here to receive feedback on DR25-23 Maraba's warehouse. Um just looking for general feedback that we receive from most of our design review submittals such as elevations, landscaping, and site design. Um the site is located almost dead center between baseline and southern and then McQueen and Cooper. It is along Houston Avenue. It's also located from our northwest growth area within the East Valley Commerce Center. P A is zoned LI, but it's surrounded by single family residential to the east and southeast. And within that light industrial, zoned um commerce center, you'll find office, light manufacturing, warehousing, and storage yards. Um as previously mentioned, it's zoned light industrial within the East Valley Commerce Center. P A it's approximately 0.66 acres in net site size. Um on the screen now is the site plan. So our the applicant is requesting to build just shy of a 9,500 ft² office warehouse building. The office component is going to comprise of roughly 2,900 ft of office and 6,500 ft² of warehouse. They are meeting their parking requirements as at this time. They're required to have 19 19 spots and they're providing 20 for their development standards. They are in adherence with their development standards that are required per the LDC and they're proposing a little bit more than the the minimum requirement for landscaping. For landscaping, they are providing many drought tolerant plants that are on the Arizona Department of Water Resources low um consumption and drought tolerant plants within our management area. Um they are landscaping they are somewhat limited on landscaping within the SR SRP easement along the eastern property boundary just in case SRP needs to go in. So that's there's a little bit more limited trees in that vicinity just in case work need to be completed at that in those areas. Um on the screen is the elevations for the building. So the south and eastern elevations are those that are going to be most visible to the public whether it's the residential neighbors to the east or along Houston Avenue to the south. While the west and the north elevations, those ones are going to be observations going to be obscured by the building directly to the west. So you would not see much of that elevation. The northern one is generally only going to be viewed by other light industrial uses. Another screenshot of the elevations to include the proposed screen walls and the gate with the context of the proposed elevations. The colors and materials. It's a combination of various metals. They're going to be using stucco and a couple different types of CMU blocks for their masonry wall. and they're primarily going with cool colors and blue accents. Um, this wouldn't be the first building within that commerce center to use those colors. I believe there's at least three other buildings within that area that do utilize those colors as well. And so at this point, if there's any feedback to the site that we could provide the applicant so when they submit for their second review, they were able to integrate it. Thank you. Thank you, Sandra. Does anyone have any questions or comments? Uh, Commissioner Anderson, uh, thank you for the presentation. Looking at the site plan, has fire reviewed this? Um, just looking at kind of the deadend drive that's on the north side of the building in order for fire to get out that looks like it might exceed that 150 ft back up that code allows. says, "Have they put their input on this yet or reviewed it?" They did return it for for corrections for fire access. Okay. Uh that was the only question I had. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. Well, I think it looks pretty good. Um did you need anything else directly from us? All right. Well, thank you very much, Sandra. Okie do. Moving on now to item number 4, DR24-137, Ora Santan, and Sandra's back. Thank you. Had to move really far for that one. Um, again, here to present for Ora Santan DR 24137. So, similar to Maraboba's warehouse, I'm just looking for general feedback for the site. Um, this is the design review component of the proposed general plan and reszoning submitt that we saw last month. Um, during this feedback though, I think it needs to be noted that previously, I believe in the report and in the previous pres presentations, it was talked about how there was a requested fire variance that we were still awaiting feedback on. That review has been completed. It was completed yesterday afternoon and the review the requested dev sorry variance was denied but staff felt that because we don't know the extent of the modifications that will be proposed for this site's design. Um we still would like to receive feedback on it in case it's not completely altered and so it would still be applicable to the proposed design. And then again for the site context um it's within our central 202 core growth area within the val fista square p a um to the north you'll find some multif family high uses at novel you'll see the VA hospital to the west ali and a bank also to the north and then across the way to the west you'll see wco and some hotels to the south um existing zoning is regional commercial but this design review was reviewed with the LDC regulations associated for our mixed use large um requirements. There are some proposed deviations to resoning and those were taken into consideration with this review still remaining within the Val Vista Square P A and just shy of 12 and a/4 acres in size. Um there's going to be three buildings proposed at this time for Aura. Um it's going to be a total of approximately 4,6 461,000 square ft in size. Um the applicant has increased the amount of commercial office space from the previous time that you saw this. Um last time I believe it was around 9,100 square f feet and they are proposing almost 2100 sorry 21,000 ft of office space. Um and then the remainder would be utilized for the residential split between the residential units and the garage spaces. at this time with this current iteration of the plan if they are required to provide 657 spaces but they are requesting a mining minor parking deviation that is permitted through the LDC for mixed use zoning designations with the submitt of a minor parking study with that parking stud they did submit for those specific requests with the current iteration they were able to justify the shared parking with the uses on site having different peak parking times Um, and additionally with the office spaces, they were adhering to the conditions of approval listed in the administrative use permit 2120 by utilizing those 45 spots for some of their office parking. With the site regulations, um, they are requesting instead of adhering to the 10-ft build 2 line, they're requesting 45 for the easements that are present on site. Um with the overall floor space um being the total building area of the proposed development it has increased from the 1.9% to 4.5 but the makeup of the ground floor is I believe 20.63% of the ground floor area when excluding garages. Um they provided very lush landscaping in their proposed landscaping plan. So they're per the P A they are required to use the desert museum trees along market. They are utilizing that but just to make sure it's not a monotonous street frontage they integrated some other trees such as the red push pistache and I believe there's some southern live oaks also in the palisade pedestrian palisade throughout the the parking field. It provides connectivity to Neville through the site and through the main corridor of that it will be lined with thornless mosquite trees. The orangey red colors that you see at the main intersection of those areas, those are going to be red push pistache. And then on each of the parking islands, those are also southern live oak trees. For the elevations are broken up. Um and on this in this presentation in the bottom right hand corner you'll see that I provided a contacts map since there are three buildings. So for building one which is the one closest to the VA hospital or the western most building. That one the elevations you're going to be seeing are the ones are facing market street and the one that would be facing interior to the main entrance drive aisle. So you see the integration of some of the stone veneer along that goes up the center of the building with the red ochre accent colors. And there's various types of CMU block whether it's integrated split face integrated or ground faced or using warm neutral undertone color to paint the stucco and various articulations in the roof line just to create some visual interest. This is building two. So this is the only building being proposed that is 100% um residential in its makeup of use. And this is also the primary site of all of the not all but most of the amenities that are being provided for the residential tenants um including like the pools, fitness center, um barbecues and games that will be in that center courtyard. And again, they're repeating that motif that was shown on building one with the varying articulations, that ochre red, and the different CMU and and um stone elements on the facade. And yet again, this is the building too, but this is the side where all the parking garages are. And you'll see different types of the CMU block facing there. Um, I believe it is the ground face that is going to be um lining the pillars between the garages themselves. And then lastly, this is the northeastern most building that has a mix of the office and the residential units as well, continuing to repeat that motif just to create a cohesive look throughout the development. And for more specifics, these are the materials and colors that are being utilized. And then just looking for general feedback on the proposed site design. Okay. Thank you very much, Sandra. Anybody want to kick off any comments or concerns? Commissioner Davis, I see you reaching for that mic. Sure. Thank you. Thank you, chair. Thank you, Sandra. Um I think um my comments really relate to the elevations more than anything else. Um in looking at this, there's a lot of interesting architecture out in that area. Um some, you know, creativity going on. I didn't feel like this is screaming very modern or very, it just seems very kind of very, it's a little dated in my mind. Um, the cornises aren't they seem kind of bulky and a little I don't know, they don't really seem to fit. And then the split face, the use of the split face isn't my favorite either. I feel like there's a lot of interesting building materials out there. Maybe don't just go with all all masonry and stucco that we could introduce something else and make this feel a little bit more updated. Um, and then those areas, and I think you highlighted this in the staff report, those areas, um, where it's the light beige stucco and you've just got the small windows, it those are really blank. When you look at it in the 3D rendering, you can really see how blank that is. And again, in those renderings, it kind of highlights that maybe some additional materiality might be good. Um, those are my comments. Chair and Commissioner, thank you. I do have photos. Um, so the applicant was gracious enough to invite us to go look at two of their projects, one in Tempee and then one in their Midtown Phoenix location. And they use some of the materials in the Midtown Phoenix one. I have a couple photos at the end of the presentation if you want to want me to go with me and I can take a look at them before this comes back. And there you go. And so the like right here is that stone veneer that you see near the bottom of it near the entrance and very similar tone for that beige, the two beiges, the light and the slightly darker one. And then they're not using that wood paneling on our site. Do we have where you see on the because you kind of have a sandstone color on there in some of that masonry work. Is that incorporated in this as well? Um, so there were some differences between the sites. I think they were trying to make it so each of their sites were a little bit different from each other. So those ones are using more of like a red brick versus this one being like more of a like a darker more neutral color palette. Okay. And then when compared to the Tempee one, that one is even darker overall, like a more they have like the darker browns, darker grays, different types of like stone materials in there. So I think this one was them trying to find like a middle ground between the two, but this is me inferring. Okay. Can you go back to that one of those photos that showed that center section? So is that a stone on the front of that? Correct. That is the stone veneer material. And then you've got kind of a metal piece on there that we don't have anything like that. It just seems like maybe some of those details could be worked out and improve this a little bit, make it a little more interesting. So, thank you. Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Davis. Sorry, bl out there. Anyone else? Commissioner Simon, you look Commissioner Simon. Thank you. Thank you, Senator, for the presentation. Thank you, Chair. Um, I appreciate the applicant uh going a little bit further with regards to the ground floor and the additional office space or retail space depending on what that looks like. And I can understand I'm going to call it building two, which is the building in the corner. I don't see building numbers on here, but I I almost feel as though that I mean that being requested that that is 100% residential um with no retail in it or no shared space with regards to retail office. It's almost feel like that that area that faces the large parking lot could almost be used as either office or retail or we could do some type of um I see that they've got a rec center, a fitness center for the leasing of of that building, which I'm assuming is for the residents, but you know, maybe even open that up to one of the big chains to to be able to lease space for a full bottom floor gym um that caters to more than just the residents of this location. But um other than that, I I would agree. I I I I feel like a lot of the developments that we're seeing with these uh multifamilies are coming in um much less attractive, I guess, is probably what I would use than some of the some of the product I'm seeing in in other areas. Um even even from the same developers, and I don't know if we've got uh specific uh requirements within the town of Gilbert that makes it a little bit more tough to to be uh you know, a little more uh interesting, should I say, with the look. Um but outside of that, I don't I don't necessarily have a problem with it. I don't have a problem with the reduced parking that they're requesting. I think with the the mixeduse large on here that you're going to see a shared parking that's going to eb and flow and it almost feels like an overp park situation on this as as it sits. So, um, but I would kind of almost encourage to kick around the the can of that that middle building, the second building on the corner. Is there a possibility of having some retail that faces that large lot? So, chairman, commissioner, thank you for the feedback. Thank you, Commissioner Simon. Anyone else? Uh, Vice Chairman Fay. Yes. Thank you. Thank you for the presentation and thank you for the applicant for for coming tonight. Last time when this came forward, I had the two problems I had were the parking deviation and or not deviation, but the the rounding down and the amount of commercial or how much we were lowering the amount of commercial and what should be a mixed use. Um, it's not that I'm against shared use of parking, it's that I've seen it abused so much in the past and now it's a I think if I remember it's under 2% reduction, which is nominal. That's that's a rounding error anyway. I hesitate a little bit because the shared use is people who leave during the day and people who come to work during the day. It except we only got 4% commercial. It's not like the 20%. If it was 20%, this would be a non non-issue at all. I still think 2% is probably fine. I haven't looked at the gone into the details or anything, but um ordinarily 2% would be fine because it's so little commercial that you're you're joint using. But all right, it's probably still fine. And and so I don't have an objection to that. Going from I think what it was was like 1% commercial to 4% commercial when it really needs a minimum of 20% commercial. It's it's certainly going the right direction. It's more palatable and it is a more not as great of a location to be. On the other hand, doesn't that make an argument for why they should just reszone multif family and bag the the the joint use? I assume that there's other benefits they're pulling out that I haven't haven't looked into. So, it's still a little bit of a heavy lift. It's not as heavy a lift and it may have crossed into the marginally acceptable range of of a downward deviation. Um, but those were those were my two objections. So, the parking is probably gone and the percent commercial is kind of like maybe barely making it, but maybe a little bit of an object, but certainly less of an objection than it was before. Okay, chair, commissioner. Thank you. Okay. Anyone else like to follow up? Vice Chairman Fay Commissioner Okay, I'll just say that I, you know, I remember this from the last meeting um with the parking issues and, you know, for for myself, not not to of course go against Commissioner Davis, but I actually thought it looked kind of cool in the pictures. um those little windows are kind of I don't know penitentiary e but nonetheless um I'm not here to comment directly on that you know just from an appeal standpoint I think that tucked back behind Windco and you know the highway there it is a interesting location and you know it it does seem to um have moved quite a ways in the right direction so I think it's a a a good move. Um, anything else officially from us that you need, Sandra? I think given the circumstances of the presentation for the design review, I think this was excellent feedback and it is much appreciated. All right. Well, thank you very much. Okay. With that, that will conclude the four items that were on our study session and we will move to item number five, discussion of the regular meeting agenda. I'm sure you've all had ample time to pour over the many items we have this evening. Um, looks like on the consent we have items nine, the district at Higgley, 10 and was tabled. I see question for clarification on item 10, Ashley. Is both of them tabled or just the zoning? Uh, chairman, both items will be tabled. Thank you. Okay. And then item 11, the Higgley and Warner NWC. Then on non-consent, we have item 12, Sheffield Place, 13, BC Park, 14, Tuscanany at Gabrielle Point, and 15, Val Vista and Elliot Storage. So within those any commissioners have any desires on consent that things need to be pulled off or conversely if things not currently there should be put on. Chairman, if I may, we uh staff would like to request that item number 13 be um moved to non-consent. Oh, it already is non consent. Ignore me. Yeah, your your wish is my command, Ashley. I've taken care of it. Okay. Uh, Commissioner Anderson, if we do any opposition of putting 15 on consent, the DR case. I was going to I was going to mention the same thing. If Vice Chairman seems okay with it, I think we're pretty good. Okay. So, we can then move item 15 and the rest we leave as is. I also thought item 12 was fairly straightforward. I don't know if anyone has any objections on 12. Yeah. Okay. And I'll also ask in the public whether anyone's here to speak on that prior to the movement. Are you here to speak on number 12? Oh, I'm sorry. I guess I should enter this in public record. Elena, she's an attorney. She's going to get mad at me. Um, I'll tell you what. I'm going to close this because we were just discussing it and then we'll open the real meeting and I'll I'll chat with you and we can coordinate. So based on what what we talked about No, let's let's not no we will we will just reconvene um and we can re rehash that at that point. So okay with that I will adjourn the work session and we will see you all back here in 20 minutes for the real deal. Thank you. Okay, it's now past 6:00 and I am going to call the regular meeting to order. First order of business will be the pledge of allegiance. Please join with me. Thank you very much. And this is my first ask of Ashley in an official meeting since I missed the last one for a roll call, please. Uh, thank you, Chairman. Alternate Commissioner um Wong. Alternate Commissioner Lion. Commissioner D. Graina here. Commissioner Gage here. Commissioner Davis here. Commissioner Simon here. Commissioner Anderson here. Vice Chairman Fay here. Chairman Munt present. Uh Commission we have a quorum. Thank you very much. Okay. Moving on now. We will do the approval of the agenda. And just to make everyone aware that uh in the study session we had discussed the possibility of moving item 15 to consent but we will not. We have a individual here to speak on that. So that will stay the same. Um did we want was there another one we were going to discuss? Do you remember? We talked about it but there was other people on the council who didn't feel it was so no. Okay. So things shall rem remain as written. Okay. Item seven then, communications from citizens. At this time, members of the public may comment on matters within the jurisdiction of the planning commission. Chair, do we need to take a motion on the agenda to leave it as is? I didn't know if it we had to. Okay. Yes, Commissioner Simon. Great catch. Thank you. Uh, do I have a motion? should make a motion to I would move to approve the agenda as written. I'll second. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? If not, please cast. Does it say not voted? Five. Who are the other five people? That's funny. I've never seen that. But the voting 70 motion passes. Those five phantoms don't exist. Please disregard those in the bottom. It's halfway cut off on the screen anyway. So, oh, so it's it's still scheduled as the council. That's okay. That's [Music] Let it be. So, all right. Now we shall move to item number seven, communications from citizens. At this time, members of the public may comment on matters within the jurisdiction of the planning commission. The commission may not discuss items that are not specifically identified on the agenda. Therefore, pursuant to state law, action taken as a result of this public comment will be limited to directing staff to study the matter responding to any criticism or scheduling the matter for further consideration. And I just wanted to clarify this is for citizen input that uh is to discuss things not on the agenda. I do not have any comment cards. Is there anyone here who wish to speak at the meeting about something not on the agenda? Okay. Not seeing anyone. Very well. Moving right along to item number eight, the report from council leaison on current events. Council member Lions. I would just like to bring the attention that uh beginning here shortly we'll be putting up the military recognition banners throughout the heritage district and they'll be u there through the uh Independence Day holidays. So I would encourage you if you run into a veteran when you thank them for their service also ask them about their service and kind of let them know that we care about what they're doing and and appreciate their efforts. So thank you. Thank you very very much Councilman. very important um and something I think that makes Gilbert very unique. You know what we do. So I think that's great. Into the public hearing consent. All items listed below are considered the public hearing consent calendar. The commission may by a single motion approve any number of items where after opening the public hearing, no person requests the item to be removed from the consent calendar. Such a request is made. Commission shall then withdraw the item from the public hearing consent calendar for the purpose of the public discussion and separate action. Other items on the agenda may be added to the consent calendar and approved under a single motion. Uh we left the consent calendar as it is and that consists of item 9 DR24-145 the district at Higgley item 10 GP24-07 KB homes at Cordillera and Z24-9 KB homes at Cordillera and that's been tabled um so that'll remain there to be tabled and DR2506 NWC Higgley and Warner is there anyone here who had any reason they that they did not want those on the consent calendar or wish to speak on those? Okay. Not seeing any. Uh I will open up then to a motion on consent. Uh and sir, if we can take item 10 separately, it will need a motion to be tabled. Oh, it can't just be accepted as written as tabled. Okay. Then we will not take the consent calendar as it is. We will take the consent calendar solely of either item 9 and 11 or do item 10 first whichever thusly you are inclined. Uh chairman I chairman Munt I move to approve the consent calendar with regards to item the consent calendar with regards to items nine and 11 leaving item 10 off this motion. Thank you. We have a motion. Do I have a second? I'll second it. Commissioner Degina with the second. Okay. Please cast your vote. My button to accept the vote is not on the screen. Awesome. Not to fear, we have the hardest working IT man in show business. We'll be backing up in no time. Oh great. Yeah, there we go. Motion carries 70. Now I will entertain a motion for the tableabling of item 10. Chairman Munt, I move to table item 10. Thank you, Vice Chairman. Do we have a second? We have a second from Commissioner Anderson. Please cast your vote. Motion carries on the tableling 7 to zero unanimous. Thank you very much. Now on to the next item, public hearing non-consent. The 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 these public hearings, anyone wishing to comment in support or in opposition to a public hearing item may do so. If you wish to comment on a public hearing item, you must fill out a public comment card, which are the yellow cards in the back. Um, 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. First item that we have on non-consent this evening item 12 GP24-06 Sheffield Place Minor GP and Z24-17 Sheffield Place and Miss Nicole. Thank you. Thank you chair, members of the commission, Nicole Russell, senior planner. Tonight I will be presenting the GP 2406 and Z2417 for Sheffield Place. The applicant is requesting a minor general plan amendment to change the land use designation from residential 8 to 14 dwelling units per acre to residential 5 to eight dwelling units per acre and a reszone with a PA AD from multifamily low to single family detached. Also with the P A there are two proposed deviations. one for the allowance of two-story homes along the northern boundary and the allowance of 62% retention on the front of the property where 50% is allowed. Here is an aerial map of the parcel. The property is located approximately a third of a mile to the southeast of the intersection of Gilbert Road and Civic Center Drive. Here's the zoning map showing the surrounding area which is predominantly residential single family. You've got SF35 which is the Laurens Institute for Education to the south. You've got uh residential neighborhood to the east and you've got the Wyatt apartment complex to the north. And on the other side of Gilbert Road, you've got two three different neighborhoods that are a mixture of SF8 and SF6. Here's the develop development plan. The red box shows the deviation request for lots 124 1 through 24 to be twotory. This is a result of a portion of the code that for uh that is states that any residential development that is adjacent to the high density multifamily is limited to one story in size. Um the applicant is proposing two stories throughout the development for cohesion of the design. The applicant is also requesting the 62% incre or 62% retention on the front of the property where the 50% is uh allowed per the code. Here is the project data table showing that um even though the zoning district, the SFD, allows for three stories, the applicant will be limiting limiting the development to two stories and they're requesting the 62% um retention on the front of the property. Here is the single family parking plan. I know that when the um I brought the case to the cases to study session back in December, some of the concerns uh from staff were the on street parking, the location of amenities and open space, and I know the commission was concerned about the possibility of three-story homes adjacent to the residential development to the east. The applicant, as previously stated, has agreed to limit the proposed homes to twotory and the main amenity site has been moved to the central portion of the development as well as the line of homes here was flipped. their orientation which actually provided 10 additional spaces uh within the development on non-trash days and the landscaping is meeting the code at 18%. Here are some um here's the entry gate and proposed monument signage and the colors and materials for that gate and entry monument. The applicant held a neighborhood meeting on June 20th of 2024. It was a virtual meeting. Uh staff was the only member of the public that was at the meeting. And since the writing of the staff report, staff has received seven letters of support from neighbors in the area and six letters of support from businesses within the area. Should the commission choose to forward a approval recommendation to the town council as state is stipulated in the staff report. Staff recommends approval and is open to any questions or comments and the applicant is available for any questions as well. This completes my presentation. Very well. Thank you, Nicole. Anyone have any questions or do we want to have the applicant come up and do a presentation? If you want if you have questions for Nicole first, we can do that too. Commissioner Devina, did you Yeah, thanks for the presentation. Are these all two stories each one of these homes? Chair Monk, Commissioner Dravina. Yes, sir. They will both They will all be twostory homes. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Anyone else? All right. Does the applicant want to come up and present? I believe he does. Very well. Thank you. You can go to this podium right there, sir. And then the same thing, you hit the button on the base of the platform there. Evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. My name is Greg Davis with Plan Consulting here on behalf of uh Continental Properties, the current owner of the property, and Kodnanian Homes, who's the applicant. Um, and we do have a full presentation that we I'd be glad to go through. Uh, however, if there was just a specific item someone had questions about, um, I don't want to waste 20 25 minutes of your time with that. So, I'll leave it at the discretion of the PNZ. Glad to just answer questions or we can talk about uh the whole project, whatever you prefer. Okay. Thank you, sir. Did anyone have any questions for the applicant or have any interest in the possibly 20 to 25 minute presentation? Okay. Yeah, you Oh, Commissioner Davis, please. Um, on the fire sprinkler question, um, because it looks like you still just have the one point of entry, so all of these homes are going to have fire sprinklers. Is that still the case on this one? Mr. Chairman and, uh, Commissioner Davis, that is correct. So, uh, part of the provision of getting the, uh, fire marshall's approval of the project is that every home will be sprinklered. Okay. and that property on the east side that's kind of landlocked tucked into this development. They're still not willing to consider being incorporated into this. You've gone down that road. Mr. Chairman and Commissioner Davis, that is a very long answer I can give to that, but I'll I'll give you the highlights. So, um that project that property is still owned by Stanley Toruson, who was the owner of the original property from the late '9s. He passed away probably about 10 years ago now. and it probably still lives in his name. It's it's been in litigation. The family didn't even know it was there. It was an illegal lot split that was made a long time ago. So, um that property, unfortunately, we haven't ever been able to get a hold of somebody that has control of it. And our understanding is that one day it will be available to one of the family members, but there's so many litigations going on with his business uh enterprises that it may take some time. So, right now it's an illegal lots, but it has no legal access. It's it's a horrible situation for whoever ends up opening it. So, whatever uh whatever happens, whether it's a current project, our project, or future project, it's really important that we do a public access easement to that, which is part of what we're doing here. So, um this project will actually improve uh the use of that property and ultimately we've designed it so that it could accommodate uh a residential house. Now, it's zoned us up 35. Obviously, it's not 35,000 ft. It's only about 5,000 square feet. So it makes a lot of sense if the ownership would incorporate it as part of this project, but we could don't control that obviously. So ultimately it'll have access and so whoever owns it can develop a single family home on it or at least have access to it. That's the best answer I can give you. Unfortunately, I appreciate that. Thank you. That was a very interesting Yeah. part of this. Yeah. Anyone else questions or for both the applicant or for staff? For the applicant. Um, as far as the housing product and the walls, um, the design of the walls and those kind of things. At what stage will those be reviewed and approved? I is the housing product administrative? I guess is. or is it when there's a pre-plat coming through? I just kind of want to confirm because sure with this being a P A and needing to be high quality and all of these twotory homes in here that the quality is going to be really important on a project like this. Sure. Again, uh through the commissioner and our chairman, Commissioner Davis, the product that is being transferred over here is currently being built in Chandler and that's what's available on the slide right there. So, we had the opportunity to have staff out there and see it and and get an exper experience of what that's like just to help set the stage, but the pre-plat is on schedule to be in front of this group on June 4th. So, that'll be that. I don't believe the products part of that. I think that's a separate submittal process. But, by us including these elevations in the presentation as part of the PD, we're setting that expectation of the quality that uh KAB's going to be building on this property. Um, with the fact that some of these homes end up being really visible, you've got big swats of homes that are looking at the back of the other homes. Is there additional attention that will be given to the second floor of those backs of those homes so that they're not looking at blank elevations? Will those be an upgraded elevation? I guess those are some of the things, okay, I'm curious about and and unfortunately, you know, I don't have that answer for you because it's still the zoning stage, but I think you're voicing your uh expectation position and the client is here listening. So, I I can expect that you'll see some of that when it when it comes back to the town for approval. You know, it all kind of ties to the PD and whether or not the quality of this and I think that all lends itself to that. So I think it would have been helpful to kind of have some of that information for this um or to have some of those asurances. So um because that is a concern for me that we end up with something that in you know 20 30 years this is still going to be a high quality development when you're you know putting in homes so close together twotory they can and then we have you know the concern with the parking on the streets and the narrower road width. you know, some of those things that can really deteriorate deteriorate a subdivision very quickly, a neighborhood very quickly. So, that's kind of where I'm I'm at on this is I'm trying to determine is this still going to be a great neighborhood years to come. Is this going to be able to sustain itself as something that's quality and someplace people are still going to want to live? Sure. In the future. So, and and all else we can say to that is obviously Cavanian has a reputation for building quality. They're still in business in the valley. Um, I think Gilbert is probably one of the more difficult places to get product approved because of their level of design that they incorporate and the livability. So, I would say that you can rely on staff to make sure that whatever gets approved here from a design standpoint, whether you see it or not, is going to, you know, stand the test of time. Okay. Thank you. You bet. Thank you, Commissioner Davis. Commissioner Dearina. Yeah, I've got the some of the same concerns that that Wendy has. It seems like it's a fairly crowded development. You got twocar garages and then you have parking in the in the uh driveway. Is there restricted parking on the streets at night and there's some restrictions where they can't park? Is that correct? Um Mr. Chairman and Commissioner uh so there's no restrictions other than like uh recycling, you know, trash day. Everything else is it's works as a public street. Uh, so it's designed to accommodate up to 51 cars on a non, you know, trash day and up 61 without it. And I think it's important to recognize that, you know, the SFD category has specific rules related to guest parking because this is a known issue. And the requirement for this project is 180 spaces. We provide 185 without counting any of the driveways uh or that extra 10 spaces. So when you count those, we have over 300 spaces uh for guest parking, which far exceeds most SFD neighborhoods. So we're really not expecting it to be a dense project. And as far as the density is concerned, the SFD um you know allows a lot more density here at 3,000T minimum lots. We're coming in at about 3850. Uh we could do three stories, we're coming in with two stories. We're meeting the open space regulations. So and we're we're reducing the number of homes by 40% over what's approved today. So, I think that may be more of an optics thing than a reality. As far as this project, what percentage of the footprint covers the 4,000 square foot 4,000 foot lot? You got the uh I guess you you got a range of 2350 to 2765 ft twotory. Obviously, you have about half a little bit more than half of that because you got your garages down below that. uh you don't have a lot of space left for maybe pools and patios and expanded backyards or with play areas for kids and things of that sort. It seems like again it seems a little bit crowded with that size house and that small of a square foot a lot and and Mr. Chairman and commissioner that that is the point of the SFD. It's not meant to be a typical lot where you have every home has a pool in the backyard. It's meant to provide a level of density and intensity that you want and need in your urban core but still allow a single family type of experience. And so that's why the SFD standards which are on the slide there, we're not exceeding any of those. In fact, we have more room than than what's necessary. So from a law coverage standpoint, you're allowed to have 50% lock coverage and we're not going to exceed that. I don't know where we're going to be at, but we're going to be probably 40 to 50%, but we're compliant with those regulations and that's that's what we felt the standard was to meet. Again, it just seems a little bit crowded. Thank you. Understood. Thank you, Commissioner Devina. Anyone else? Okay. And I don't have any public comment cards. Was anyone here wishing to speak on this item? Okay, I don't see any. So then I will close the public hearing and bring it up to the dis then for any discussion or a motion. I would like to point out that uh Commissioner Degravita did say Wendy and it's actually Leslie. So I just wanted to point that out. Yeah. Any comments from commissioners or uh chair? I'm not seeing any comments, so I'll go ahead and uh attempt a motion to recommend approval of GP24-06 uh and Z24-17 Sheffield Place. We have to do separate. Oh, do we have to do separate? Okay. So, I make a motion to approve make a motion to recommend approval of GP24-06. Okay. We have a motion on the table. Do we have a second? I'll second. All right, Commissioner Gage with a second, please. Uh, or is there any other discussion? Otherwise, please cast your vote when ready. Motion carries 52. Chair, I'll follow up with a motion on Z24-17 Sheffield Place to recommend approval of finding the facts and recommend approval town council. We have a motion from Commissioner Simon. Do I have a second? I'll second. Commissioner Gage with the second. Any discussion? And if not, please cast your vote when ready. That motion two carries 5 to2. Thank you very much. On to the next item. Item number 13 GP2404 BC Park and Z24-16 BC Park. And Miss Sandra Good evening again, chair and commission. Um, I'm here to present on GP2404 and Z 2416 BC Park. Um, this was previous seen in the last study session of April's planning commission meeting. Um today the request is to approve GP2404 with the provided conditions in the staff report and also for the approval sorry GP2404 and Z2416 with the conditions in the staff report with an amended condition to item 10 which can be found on page 10 of your report regarding dedications and abandonments for streets such as Sparrow Court with an amended condition that I will go over at the end of this presentation. Um, for the context of the site, this site is located on Power Road just south of Galveastston and north of Williamsfield Road. It is currently zoned um, business park and it is within the Gateway Point Industrial P A. And it also has a general office zoning designation. As part of this general plan request, they the applicant is requesting to change the land use classification of approximately 4.0 acres of the eastern most portion of the BC park plan to general commercial. And this will feed into the zoning request to reszone those acre those four acres to community commercial in order to better serve the existing office and that other portion the western portion of the BC park. There is a requested deviation for this site. Um requesting a zero foot reduction for landscaping when the property line is an is an internal park parking lot or a driveway. Um as this time I have not received comments regarding this item from the public. Um, there was a neighborhood meeting held on May 9th of 2024 prior to the submitt of this project and I believe no residents attended that one. Um, and again the request brought forth today for the approval of GP 2404 and Z 2416 is for the approval of the conditions provided in the report with the amended condition of item number 10. Currently, it speaks to the dedication for to Gilbert for Tulsa, rightways, Oak Court, and Sparrow Court. Um, we're requesting that that condition to be amended to the effect that um it reads, "Staff and the applicant shall work towards a condition of approval language that is mutually agreeable and reach an agreement prior to the town council meeting." Um due to from the time the report was written and when the packet was published to this meeting, there have been discussions regarding that specific condition between staff and the applicant. And we want to ensure that we can come to a conclusion that as stated in the condition language is mutually agreeable and achieves a means that protects the interest of the town and will not be detrimental to the proposed development. that is currently in its DR review. And that concludes staff presentation. All right. Thank you very much, Sandra. Does anybody want comments for Sandra now or should we do the applicant? Okay. Is the applicant here and wish to speak? Do you know? Oh, the applicant is present and able to answer questions. Okay. You you can come up, sir. Hello again. Hello again, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. Uh for the record, Greg Davis with Consulting U office located here in Gilbert. And um yes, we had reached out to staff uh trying to resolve some of the rightway technical questions and the way the stipulation was read, we just had some concern about and so we asked for a little more time to work that out before finalized. So staff was uh available to accommodate our request and so uh we are asking that we move forward with that additional language as staff identified and uh I really have nothing else more to add but I'd be glad to answer any questions about the project. Thank you very much sir. Okay. Any questions for the applicant? Okay. And any other? No. All right. Well, is there anyone in the public? I do not have any comment cards. Did anybody wish to speak on this item? Not seeing any. Okay. I'll then close the public comment section. Bring it to the dis for discussion or a motion. I'll make a motion. Commissioner Davis. I'll make a motion to approve GP2404 BC Park. And I'm assuming we do them separate, so we'll do the one. Okay, we have a motion. Commissioner Davis, do I have a second? I'll second. Commissioner Dvina did beat the vice chair, so he got the second. So, we have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Please cast your vote. Motion carries 70. I'll follow up with the second one. Um I'll make a motion for Z24-16 BC Park. Um we have a motion from Commissioner Davis. Do we for approval? Oh, for approval. Approval. Do we have a second? With the conditions. With conditions. Yes. Chairman, can I just clarify? Are we accepting staff's recommended condition change? I'm willing to accept staff's recommended condition change. So the motion so the record reflected the motion is inclusive of said uh recommendations, please. Okay. With that in mind, do I have a second? I'll second it. Commissioner Dearina with the second. No discussion. Please cast your vote. Motion carries 70. Thank you all very much. Next item on the agenda, item 14, Z24-21, Tuscanyany at Gabriella Point and everyone's favorite, Mr. Keith Newman. Uh, chair, I need to recuse myself from this case. Thank you, Commissioner Anderson. Chair Munt, members of the commission, good evening and you are too kind. Uh Chairman Munt, um my project tonight, the only one I have uh before you tonight, as you stated, is for Tuscanany Gabriella Point in the extended yards. It's for a uh the P Amendment. So, um before I go into the request, uh the site um is located um as you can see on the screen at the kind of um at that north or excuse me, souththeast corner of Warner Road and Martingale Road just west of of um Piggly Road. Excuse me, east. I get east west directions messed up all the time. I apologize. So, just east of Higgley Road, um you can see it on the screen. This is part of a larger um um it's surrounded by a larger development called the Gabrielle um Point Commerce Center. Um but this project is about 39 acres in size. So, I'll I'll go over that in just a second. But the request before you tonight is um for a PD amendment to reduce uh common open space uh allowing extended private yards for GL for ground floor units. Um so this isn't this isn't the development plan that's in your packet. It's just a prettier or not necessarily prettier, but it's a a a plan that shows you where the extended yard locations are. So, just wanted to note that um the proposed site um spans of the the west side of the development spans 19 and a half acres and is part of a larger 39 acre apartment complex featuring 760 total units across three and fourtory buildings. The site has two multifamily residential zoning districts. Um the eastern parcel is zoned um multif family medium multif family low, excuse me. With the western portion zoned multifamily medium. The development is governed by conditions and stipulations outlined in the zoning ordinance that was approved on the site as part of a pad in November of 2022. Um, please note that in October 2024, staff did approve similar yard extensions for the eastern half of Tuscanany Gabriella Point in the MFL portion. Um, reducing common open space from 48% to 46%. Which is which is still above the minimum 45% that is required for that zoning district. So, the proposed U P Amendment is, as I already stated, is requesting uncovered groundf flooror yard extensions exp adjacent to covered patios. Um, that they will be classified as private open space uh per the town for all ground floor units. And this will total a total of 137 um uh extended yard areas for these. 137 ground floor units. Um, per the plan in front of you, the proposed extended yard locations, like I said, are illustrated in blue. Um, I do want to mention that, um, actually, no, I'm not going to mention that. I'll mention that later. Um, so the proposed, um, extended yards, here's a diagram that kind of shows you a a kind of a pretty picture, an artist rendering of what they will look like. Um these yards will be surrounded by um 4ft tall view fencing um expanding the private open space for residents. It'll expand it up to 3 feet up to 7 feet in some places um into areas that are currently common open space that are accessible to all residents and that are currently land that has land they have landscaping in those spaces or or in this case will have landscaping as the MFM portion of the development is still under construction. I'm sure you have driven by and you have seen that the MFL portion on the east side of the development is under construction as well and there but there are portions up near Warner Road where the landscaping is complete, the buildings are complete and you can kind of see those extended yards from Warner Road. I'll show you some pictures in a second, but um so let's compare um the the approved condition as I stated as the top graphic shows um the extended yards as they were approved. No extended yards, a bunch of landscaping as common open space. And then you can see the little patios, the overhangs, the private yard space. You can kind of see people sitting there. And then you have the extended yard area where the extended yards will go and then a person on the sidewalk. The below graphic shows kind of an art, like I said earlier, an artist rendering of where those extended yard spaces are proposed to go. Now, this is an artist rendering of like best case scenario. Um, and like I stated, they're about 3 to 7 ft in distance. Um, there are no changes to the site plan, the building design, the unit count, the traffic, parking, or infrastructure on the site except for adding really the only change is to add these 4ft tall uh view fences for extended yards. Um, so I'm going to show you what these yard spaces will really look like. These are pictures that we had taken um of the finished units in the MFL portion of this of the development. So, they already have these, like I stated earlier, they already have some of these yard spaces constructed. These particular ones are the south side of the buildings up along Warner Road that you can't see from the street right now, but they're these spaces are actually kind of small in these pictures. about 3 ft of space extended from their actual concrete patio from their um porches. And then they're about 2 feet and this one, this picture is about 2 ft away from the sidewalk. The next picture is just a different view of that. You can see the sidewalk, the fences in relationship to the sidewalk and the parking spaces. The fencing is a is kind of a wire mesh type fencing, little small squares, uh, where kids can't put their hands through, dogs can't put their noses through, things like that. This is a view of a fence along Warner Road that I took a picture of. I, um, jaywalked across Warner Road and took these pictures, just so you know. Um, and so this one is kind of a little bit larger space. There are some of these along Warner. Those are the largest spaces. the rest of them and some of them along Warner and Martingale are fairly large some of the spaces, but the ones on the interior next to the parking lots are much much smaller. So, there's a limited number of the larger spaces. And here's another view of what those kind of larger extended yards look like. And this is also along Warner Road. And the applicant is proposing similarsized extended yards along Warner Road that you see in these pictures. So, as you know from reading the staff report, staff is not recommending approval of this case as we have several concerns with the applicant's request. The first, as stated earlier, is that the development is governed by conditions and stipulations outlined in the zoning ordinance established through the PAD that was approved in November of 2022. um that allowed for increased building heights on a limited number of buildings within the MFM portion of the development only. And that brought the total um that brought the total open space uh that was approved by town council to 43% where 40% is required by code. With the applicant's request, they are proposing to remove or take away the additional 3% landscaping which was approved as a tradeoff for their deviations to allow additional height on several of the buildings. Um, and that is to propo propose these extended yards. Unlike the MFM portion, the MFL portion of the development on the east side was not subject to additional open space requirements or tradeoffs for deviations or additional building height. Upon approval of the extended yards in the MFL portion, staff specifically advised the applicant that similar yard extensions would not be supported for the MFM side due to prior negotiated conditions and conditions that were approved by council as a trade-off for deviations. So that's our first concern. Second concern is with the proposed extended yards along Warner and Martingale roads, 13 of which encroach into the required 30-foot building setback along those street frontages. And I have this um close-up graphic that shows you where that building setback is. And I show highlight in blue the extended yard spaces that encroach into those building setbacks. And there are 13 of them. The LDC has no provisions permitting private open space or related fencing within building setbacks. Additionally, the reduction of building setbacks along the north and east property boundaries has not been specifically included as part of the applicant's request or nor advertised to the general public. The applicant must reduce the size of these yards to comply with the building setback requirements if you as a planning commission um if it's ultimately approved. While the definition for a building in the LDC states an exception is allowed for walls and fences. It clearly says that staff has consistently ruled that this applies only to perimeter walls and fences, not elements considered extensions of the building, such as these proposed extended yards wi which we consider as extensions of the building. Staff also considers this fencing equivalent to railings which are fences surrounding private balconies and private open space on upper floors which are also extensions of the building. Sometimes you see them just hang just um attached to the side of the building with sometimes they have a they have a little roof over them. That's how we consider these ground flooror yards as well as ext the fencing as extensions of the building just like patios on the second, third and fourth stories of a building. which cannot encroach into a building setback. The last concern that we have is that in approximately 21 locations, the extended yards will back up to the sidewalks next to a that are next to a parking lot. Um, and you can see that in the picture in front of you here on your screen, leaving only about 2 feet of separation between the fence and the sidewalk. This limited space further reduces privacy and restricts the planting of required landscape materials between the sidewalk and the extended yard fencing which per the land development code must be placed in a minimum 3 foot wide planter bed. Since these are extensions of the building, these fence yard areas that 3 feet of landscaping is required. And in these in 21 locations, they have not met that and are proposing only 2 feet or less and may might be a tiny bit less in some spots, maybe 1 ft 9 in in some spots. So these addition this additional landscaping helps buffer the yards from the sidewalk and the nearby parking spaces. And I and you can see on the red line there that I've also highlighted that as well. So you can see in this photo that there's not much space between that sidewalk and that fence. And those extended yards are actually very very small. Um staff does not believe those yard spaces are very functional. Um maybe to have a dog walk in them and that's about it and then and so forth. Um, as far as public participation is concerned, I wanted to make a note of a mistake in the staff report. Um, the neighborhood meeting was actually held on January 29th, not November 20th of 2024. And, um, two residents or surrounding property owners attended the meeting and they had general questions and concerns and concerning the request and and seemed to be fairly supportive. um staff since that neighborhood meeting and since the writing of the staff report has not had any neighbors or surrounding properties reach out to us. Just wanted to make that note. So that kind of concludes my presentation. So we re staff is recommending for reasons in the staff report um that are listed in your report and per the conditions we move to recommend denial to the town council for this request. Um, as stated in the report, if you as a planning commission are inclined to recommend approval, then the conditions in the report reflect development of the site and the deviation deviations requested by the applicant and that will be adopted per an ordinance. Please note, we have added two conditions at the end of your report. conditions P and Q, which would address the encroachment of the extended yards into the building setbacks along Martingale Road and along Warner Road and also the additional landscaping that is needed next to the sidewalks in between the extended yard fences in between the fences and the sidewalks. Um, that is the end of my presentation. So, I would be open for questions if you have any for me. And the applicant uh from Pewan Lake is also here, Reese Anderson, and I'm sure he has a presentation as well. Um, so that's it. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Keith. Anyone have questions for Keith and Commissioner Davis? Thank you, Chair. I do have a question for Keith. Um, those areas where they have the granite, it looks like the landscape material hasn't changed. Is there potential that and maybe you don't know maybe the applicant can address this. Um it seems like in some of the areas they're fairly large and there somebody might put a patio table out there or want to put in pavers or some of those things to make it more usable. Um I guess that's something I'm guessing staff's not supportive of that. But I just I could see that potential. So, I don't know if you know anything about that or if that's something the applicant could address. Uh, chair chair munt, members of the commission, I don't know a lot about that from what the applicant is planning to allow in those spaces. So, you'll have to ask that question of them. But from a staff perspective, we are highly concerned with the types of things that could be placed in those yards, tables, chairs, couches. And I'm sure the applicant will have have a better answer. There might there might be CCNRs that restrict certain things, but we are concerned with um um furniture and things that will be placed in those yards that will that the Arizona sun will destroy in no time and that will make those yards look quite unsightly and weeds and things growing in there. I'm sure they'll have maintenance requirements and things, but I'm sure the applicant can can add as to exactly what though they will allow in those spaces, but we do have concerns with that. I'm sure the applicant heard that and we'll address it. Yes. Commissioner Degavina, is your mic on because you wanted to speak or Okay. So Keith, you know, one question that I have, and this might be too ambiguous, but can you give me an understanding of when the original other side of this was done and this was negotiated in the MFL and MFM, I think the differentiator, but when these trade-offs were happening, was it known in the other ones that these types of sideyards were going to be on. Now I'm talking about the other side. Um, and if so, when they brought it in, did they actually have that and staff took took it and said, "Hey, no, this is too much." You know what what was I guess whatever you can speak to on that for some clarity for me? I would appreciate it. Sure. Chairman, members of the commission, upon the approval of the original PD in November of 2022, um staff and and when we agreed to the deviations and the tradeoffs for the deviations, um we had no knowledge of these future patio extensions. It was not communicated to staff that that was going to be something they would add in the future. As far as the MFL side, like I stated in my my presentation, that's quite a bit different since they have they were originally improved with about 48% open space. The patios reduced it down to about 46% open space. So, we were okay with that. Um, and as far as the landscaping and things in between the sidewalks and those spaces, um, that was kind of an oversight by staff allowing the 2T instead of the 3T. But um no, to answer your question, we did not know that they were going to be proposing these um extended yards when they came in for zoning. If if if we would have known about this and that the we would have asked for a different trade-off or we would have asked for another unique site element or project design element to to offset uh the fact that the landscaping might was going to be more towards 40%. we would have had a different um tradeoff uh to be able to review and approve, but that didn't happen. So, I hope that answers your question. Yeah. Yeah. And then just on the the other one um that's currently constructed, do they have all of these little ones on the inside as well? U chair, members of the commission, yes, these little ones are on the inside adjacent to the parking lot. Okay. They're not on the outsides like along Warner Road or along the eastern property boundary. They're on the inside. It didn't count how many there are that are on the inside that are small like this. I'm I'm assuming it's probably similar numbers to the other to the other project, which which is about 21 or so. Um, so I'm assuming it's about the same. Okay. All right. Very good. Anyone else have questions for Keith before Commissioner Gage? Oh Vice Thank you, chair. Um, so Keith, and maybe I missed it, but can you tell me how many total patios they're looking for? How many would be removed for condition P and how many would be removed for condition Q and what's left? And do you have a graphic showing what is left? Um, Chair Munt, um, Commissioner Gage, so the total number of ground floor patios that they're proposing, if if my numbers are correct, um, and the applicant may have more correct numbers, but I think I I counted them pretty well, I believe, is 137 ground floor patios would have the extended yards. Now, as far as is how many would be left over if they had if uh uh based on the third uh what's what's I'm I'm really bad at math by the way. I'm just going to tell you right now. So, if you take 137, there's about 13, I believe, if I remember correctly, that would be affected by the setback, okay, along um along Warner and Martingale if they were if they had to modify those. Okay. And then the the the smaller ones that are um I know there's people laughing at me that I can't do math. I can hear them. Um ignore them, Keith. It's okay. Yeah, I will. It's no problem. Um as far as the um the patios that are the small three-foot ones against the sidewalk, there's 21 of those. Okay. So So, so you're looking at about 116 left. So that Wait, I have I could also be terrible at math that I'm really bad possible, but I have 103 left over. Yeah, if you combine them all, I think it's about close to that. Okay. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you, Commissioner Gage. Vice Chairman Fay, did you have something? Yeah, Keith, this came for study session one or two or three months ago, pretty recently. um and it was received pretty negatively by by this commission and it doesn't seem like much if anything has changed. What what has changed since this came forward at the study session? Uh Chair Chair Munt um uh Commissioner Fay, it did come before you on March 5th for study session. Okay. And we haven't seen any changes. It's the exact same request. Um we did provide comments to the applicant on certain things to clarify certain things. We didn't necessarily ask them to to change the patio sizes and locations. We just had a lot of clarification uh and and questions, but no, the request is is the exact same since March from the March study session. And just again also clarify when we talk about the the request is to reduce the open space requirement. It's not to also reduce the height. the height they want to stay the increased chairmont commissioner Fay no the height of the buildings is staying the same so it's not to reduce the open space it's not to undo the deal that you worked out it's to undo their part of the deal um chair chair Mont commissioner uh commissioner Fay it's it's to to eliminate the part of the trade-off the additional 3% of open space okay I understand commissioner Simon I just have one question because I feel like what this is is is really splitting pairs on a definition between public open space and private open space and there's really no open space change. Am I missing something? Um Chair Mont, um Commissioner Simon, good. That's that's a good good question. So, even though the area that they're proposing to put these extended yards in, it it was classified as common open space, they only have private open space in their patios that are under the roof. And I can go back to a picture and show you that. Um, thought I had a really good picture. So, this is a good picture to illustrate the only private open space they have now is a minimum 60 square ft patio that's covered. You can see the concrete pad and the door to the the shed. That's the only com private open space, excuse me, that they have. Anything outside of those building walls is common open space that's accessible to anybody in the development. And yes, some of those a lot of those common open space areas are not active open space areas. They're not necessarily going to be used to play or to throw a ball or do things like that. But if you look throughout the town, we have a lot of common open space areas that you can't use like that. I mean, parking lot islands, we count them as common open space area, but no one's going to throw a ball in it and play sports in that. A lot of areas up against the building, yes, they're not usable, but we still count them as common open space. The only private open space is the area within their little patio, which requires is required to be a minimum of 60 square ft. Now, by putting these fences up, they're turning that area that could be accessed by anybody in the community as a benefit to the community in one form or another. You can define, you can define what benefit is, right? But now they're taking that and they're making it private open space. Now it's only usable to people who live in that specific unit and it's not usable for anybody else. Even though you can argue that it's usable in the first place, I get that and I understand that. But now they're increasing the private open space and decreasing common open space. Does that make sense? Hope I didn't um uh confuse the situation too badly, but it is private open space and not common anymore. No, I'm not confused. Um I'll hold my comments. No, I'm not confused. I know it's a hard concept to grasp. I get it. It's not quite as hard as math, but uh Commissioner Gage, do you have more you'd like to interject here? I do, if that's okay with you. Um Keith, so if you take out these Oh, shoot. 34 patios that are within the stepback area and where you need that three feet. Um what is the percentage? Is it still 3% decrease in the overall open space? Um, Chair Mont, Commissioner Gage, I have not. Someone could do that math. I don't know. I don't know the answer to that. I wasn't trying to like test your math right now. I didn't know if the math had like previously been done. It may be a little bit less than three. Who knows? I don't know. Maybe it's 2.5. I I just don't know. Okay. And then the answer to that, um, two more things. One, I I think that fundamentally how we calculate open space in in town is maybe not great because you're right, no one's throwing a ball in a landscape island. Developers don't even want to put those in. They just do because they have to. Um, and I would rather see usable open space verse non-usable open space and see that change to the code, but that's not about um tonight. That's just my own conjecture. Um, but for the east side of the development where it was overlooked that there would only be a two-ft narrow planting strip, was it also do some of those patios also go over the building setback line? Um, Chairmont, Commissioner Gage, um, I believe there are two or three of them along Warner Road for that MFL portion that do go over the building setback line. Okay. So what you're saying is we have allowed it previously and that was our bad and so we're not going to allow it again. Okay, that's correct. Thank you. But and just to if I could clarify when we allowed it, was it the same? Like when they designed it, they said we have these open spaces and they're that and it went through that way or was there any other differentiation between the MFL and MFM that um chairman? I think I I believe it was the same. I don't think there was any necessarily any differentiation. Okay. But like I said, it was an oversight by staff. We're not going to We don't want to allow it on the MF MFM piece. Understood. Okay. Well, very good. Well, with all of that said, I imagine the applicant would like to uh present some if I'm correct, and then we can uh have more questions or comments following that as well. Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, Reese Anderson with Pew and Lake, 1744 South Al Vista, number 217 is my address. If I could just get the I think here it is. Got it. Thank you. So, I heard each of your questions and I'm happy to take them just in order. Oh, thank you. Okay. Thank you, Veronica. So, there we go. That's working great. I'm happy to answer those questions right now, but I think if I can just kind of uh go through the slides quickly, I think I'll address most of those. However, I would welcome your interruption if I miss your question on a particular slide or if I don't circle back to it, if that's a fair approach, Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. So, I'm going to go quickly um where Keith has covered a lot of things. And so, again, you know, the site, this is Gabriella Point in green. We're talking about Tuscany at Gabrielle Point, which we see in red. Our request to you today, just so we're all clear, is to modify stipulation 4. That's the one that Keith showed, and I'll show it again here in a second. And to be clear, we're asking you to delete stipulations P and Q. And I'll explain why. We think that's meritorious. So, you might ask, is this does this appear anywhere else in the town? And the answer is yes. Here on your screen is the a crossing project by the same client, Frankle Family Trust. This is at Williamsfield and Wade. And you can see the ground floor have that same screening material fencing type with plants that are now grown up and around it. So this exists. It's it's handled well. And to Commissioner Davis's question, the maintenance and what you can put out there is handled through the rental agreement. And if someone's not keeping their end of the bargain in that rental agreement, enforcement action happens. But we welcome you to go by the crossing and look at those and you'll see that they're kept clean, they're wellmaintained, etc. So, I think that might answer you that that question, but I welcome an interruption if necessary. Here's another picture again just along Williamsfield and Wade. So, I want to talk a little bit about just the the background here. Chairman Munt, you asked about the history. Town council approved the Tuscanany Gabriel Point case on November 1st of 2022. Then the DRB case was approved on March of 23. And it wasn't until February 28th of 24 that I called Keith Newman and said, "We've got this idea. Our client has this approved at the crossings. We'd like to do it here." So at the time of the zoning and DRB case, this wasn't even on my radar, any of our design team's radar. It came to us in early of 24. And then on March 26, we had a meeting with Ava, Ashley, and and uh Keith to talk about how this could go forward, what it would look like, and we we had some of those same pictures that you're seeing today. Since then, we've had ongoing discussions. That's the history, Mr. Chairman, if that answers that question. So, I want to talk to just about the the history of how we got to Z224, which was Tuskany. This is the zoning map. The yellow is the vertical development overlay. What that led to in the 22 case was additional height on buildings that you see there 14, 15, and 16. I was involved in that personally. And the conversation went like this with Noah Schumer. Ree, we're g we're supportive of the additional height, but you're g you've got additional open space. We want to tie that up with a stipulation. and we said absolutely, Noah, that's the right thing to do because we promised additional open space with that. So, I I don't I think it's just wrong if I could be so bold to try and make a case today that we're going back on what we promised or we're trying to change the deal. Th case was full uh in 22 happened and no one's hiding from it at all. But today we're sitting here in front of you and we're just asking the question, the overarching question for everyone is, is this a good idea? Is this a better experience for the residents that are there? Does it in any way hurt the town overall? And I think the answer is no. There's the stipulation. You saw it again, that six line down. That's what appears in the ordinance 2839 today. And our simple request to you is to change that column on the far right to a 40%. But to Commissioner Simon's question, this is is a change from private I'm sorry, a change technically from common to private open space, but it's not a change in the amount of overall landscaping. It's not a change in the overall. This is what we call passive open space. And honestly, everyone, if I'm throwing a ball next to a window right here or I'm walking in this area on the pictures you saw on the screen from staff, that's grounds for someone calling in a peeping tom. You just shouldn't be walking in those areas. It's not designed to walk in those areas. The active spaces are elsewhere in these site plans. So, what I I share this slide with you just for you for context. On the low side in 22, there was 48% open space. On the medium side, there was 43. You saw this earlier. Again, staff approved in October 22nd of 24. Those yards that you saw on the on the p on the screen that Keith showed, and they they exist today. They're being put in. What did that do to the low side? It gave you 46%. Now, Keith's got more up-to-date photos than me. These were taken a week and a half ago. As you could tell, Keys photos have got more DG put in, etc. So, I ask for a little bit of grace here as I'm a few days behind on current photos. But this is a long Warner interior. I've got a nice John Deere tractor there. Keys pictures had all the DG and the things cleaned up a little bit better. Okay, so here's here's here's the crux of it, everyone. What about the west side? what should be our guiding principles and what are the what are the the concerns that the staff have raised can we just go through those one by one and first of all I would just like to raise raise the guiding principle of consistency and when I look at the section 5.4.1F 4.1F what it says is provide consistent landscape requirements or similarly situated properties. It is it is it not the one side versus the other? They should be similar. Does this concept exist in other districts? I direct you to the uh this is section L of the LDC 3105J. I'll read the language in yellow. private open spaces, including but not limited patios, private yards, courtyards, and balconies, may be counted toward the total required landscape and open space requirement in all mixeduse zoning districts. I admit we're not a mixeduse zoning district, but to say that this concept, this idea is not recognized elsewhere in the code and in the town is not not a fair assertion today. today and we heard you're you're going into the building setback. Until we saw the staff report, that was the first time the staff have ever raised that issue with us. I would argue that that is just an incorrect reading of the code. Plus, these are not attached to the building. I would I would agree with the staff that if I was attaching a wall to the building, it might change its character, but these are not. But look at the highlighted language in red, right out of section 5.29. Maximum height of a wall or fence within the front building setback. Solid open view 4T. It's compliant. The next row down is about the the side. We're we're compliant. This is this is allowed. And the reason I raise that, we'll get to the stipulations in a minute, is that's just an end run around this around this the opposition to try and just stop these from happening. Again, here's the definition of walls and fences I highlight or outlined in red. It excludes you look at the definition of building, excuse me, excludes walls and fences. So, what about the open space? We've talked about that a little bit already. That these blue areas are shaded are where those extended ground flooror yards are proposed. When we do the math, which has been carefully done, we get to 40%. And to shed a little bit more light, commissioners, this side is actually different than the other side. And how is it different? The answer is these are a little bit smaller. Why did you do that, Ree? The answer is obvious. Because we wanted to make sure that we didn't cross over the 40% threshold. If we put them in the same size that's that we have on the low side, we would have crossed over or below is a better way to put it the 40%. So, we actually tugged and pulled with every inch and square foot we could to make sure that we did not cross below the 40%. Interestingly, when you average both sides together with what we're proposing, I come right back to 43. Now, that's not nowhere in the code, but it's just an interesting fact. A picture showing um just an example, that lime green area shows what those will look like. Again, we are not changing the site plan, the building elevations, number of units, traffic, or infrastructure. Here's a picture. Again, this the staff showed, although I think they inadvertently had some old pictures because you can see where I just added the fence. Let me toggle front and back. These don't extend as far out as the pictures that were shown earlier. So zooming in, you can see landscaping again here. I don't want anyone to think that this is landscaping that would be adjacent to that fence would grow up around it like I showed you at the pictures for the crossing. So coming back to this little comparison chart that I created, our request is to go to 40% common open space. But what's the total open space now of both common and private is 43. What's the total open space of comma private after our request? Still 43. Again, our whole project site of common technical common open space would still be at 43% if approved by the council. Here's stipulations P and Q. And let me explain. So, the box in white is a snip taken directly from the staff report. Stipulation P, a minimum of three feet of foundation landscaping must be provided between any sidewalk and the proposed extended yards. That's just it. It's just not necessary and the applicable rule is met and I'll talk about that in just a second. And stipulation Q we believe is an improper extension of the existing rule. Again, I showed you that chart earlier which allows walls and fences to be in the front setback. So, and as you heard the staff say already if the if stipulation P and Q are applicable, they shouldn't have been applied over they shouldn't have allowed it over on the low side. They have they've they've admitted the mistake, but I don't even think it's a mistake. I think what's there is permissible under the rules today. I don't think it's it's necessary to say we made a mistake. I just think it's permissible. Let me show you again. And I showed you that chart earlier and I go back to it, but the staff did not site give us a citation in the staff report as to where they're getting this three-foot foundation. I think I found it in the code. It's section 533 02 and 03. And let me draw your attention to right under the bold language where it says separation from buildings. Parking spaces shall be separated from a non-residential or multifamily building by one of the following methods. It says separated from the building, right? And so here you're you're left asking the question, is this private yard attached to the building? The answer is no. And we've already shown you in the chart earlier that these types of walls are allowed in the setbacks. And so to me, the stipulation P and Q are just not necessary. To me, it feels like the staff are saying, "Hey, uh, we don't like this. We told you not to bring it, but you did it anyhow, so we're going to put some stipulations on you that'll try and, uh, mess up as many as we can." At the end of the day, everyone, we look at this and say, is this a good idea or not? Is it an improvement for the residents that are there? And let me share with you that over the crossing, these ground floor units with these extended yards are some of their most popular. In fact, they're able to rent them for a little bit more because they are so popular. And so here, building on that, uh, our client asked us to do the same. And we we gave you the history on that. So when you balance all this out, you look at all the guiding principles that we have. To me, I think there's a very rational case that we're consistent on both sides, that we're not violating any of the setbacks or foundationbased requirements, that we're meeting the spirit of the law. We haven't pulled a fast one on anyone. We think it's an overall improvement, and we would love to urge your support. We have no known opposition from anyone except in this room. With that, Mr. Chairman, I've probably babbled too long. I turn it back to you. No, sir. It was the perfect amount. Thank you. All right. Questions for Reese or for staff or anything like that. Commissioner Degina, uh you just said something uh at the end that you're able to get a little bit more money for those units that have that extended patio. Is that the main reason for doing it or are there multiple reasons that will benefit the the occupant? So, Mr. Chairman, Commissioner D. Garina, I think that this client recognizes there's always a business reason behind it. That's a that's one we we you just have to recognize. But I don't think that's the real reason. I think that they liked the way it looked. And when it came to us in 24, we said, "Okay, we'll we'll start down that path." But looking over back at the crossing again, they didn't start out renting them for more money. They just became so popular that's what they were able to do. So I to me I think that's I was sharing with you that they're popular in that way but that's not meant to say that's a determining factor. To me I look at it and say my guiding principles are is this a fair request and does it look good as an overall benefit for the residents and does it hurt the town. I'm sorry I belabored the point. That's a fair explanation. Thank you. Yeah. Commissioner Gage. Jeez. Look at that. But I just Wendied you, Commissioner Davis. No identity tonight. Yeah, you're everyone like Whitney. Every woman. Okay. Thank you. So I still going back to those patio areas in the other development where you've done this. Do any of those how some of these extend out beyond and over to in front of a window um that kind of encompasses to the end of the building. Does that happen in that other development where you have that additional space added like what was just shown there? So, let's uh Commissioner Davis, and I know you're not windy. We're going to go right back to the pictures at the crossing. Correct. I think that's where you were asking. So, that's my question. I'm getting back there, and I'm pushing so fast it's not keeping up with me. So, here's here's one here. And I'm seeing it around the ground floor patio area, but I don't see it extend to the windows on this one. Here's another view. Okay. There's here's the third. So on these three limited ones, I would say that they don't. Okay. With the way that they extend there, I understand that the management company will oversee what goes out there, but what is anticipated will be allowed. Is that an area where a table can go out in front of that window? What I mean because essentially with the granite there, it's still passive open space. It's really not usable. So what is the purpose of extending them way over there? Yeah. If they can't put anything out there and it's just DG, it's it's a fair question and the answer is that that there's no provision to take that to a solid surface. It's just not allowed. But it does provide a space for especially uh residents who have pets for that space where they can get out and move around easier. And I think that's the main thrust of it. Certainly, I would think that if if I live there, yeah, could I put a chair, etc., But I couldn't leave it there. I can already put a chair on my balcony, right? That's not the issue. And I think it's just interesting to think too that like if I've got if if I've got this concern, fair concern, how do we address it through the rental agreement? But that same concern exists over on the low side just as equally as much as it does over here. So it can't it can't be a real concern in my opinion. We got to be looking at what else is what's what is the real concern here because we're going to handle it. We've shown we can handle at the crossing. We're showing we're showing that over on the the the east side or the low side. It'll be handled just the same. So, what's the real concern here? Well, I guess this commission's not being asked to look at that other portion and we didn't weigh in on that. So, I I think I would have had these same concerns over there. I would have had these same questions. So, um but I'm looking at this one. So, yep. I guess that's where I wanted clarification is to, you know, is it still passive open space? it's not really usable except there you're going to have to have a lot of cleanup after your pet. Um how that's going to be managed, all of those things also. So I guess I was curious as to what the purpose of extending that out there because it seems like it was extended to allow somebody to use it for something but besides a I mean it doesn't seem like kids are going to really be able to Yeah, m Mr. Chairman, Commissioner, I agree with you. Just the size of the loan, it's not a place to go play catch, right? there's better spaces within that project to go go do those things. To me, I've always thought of this as an amenity. If I had pets or if I just wanted to pace around with my animal right outside. Again, it's not an area where you're going to suddenly put out your lawn chair furniture. That would all be prohibited by the rental agreement. It just seems like maybe those could have been pulled in and we could be asking for less and then we're getting closer to our additional open space. So that was just a question I had for Yeah. to your to your point that um that would that would that's a fair conversation, right? Which is to say on the on the low side again that got administratively approved not before you tonight, but it kind of set the pattern for what things would look like. But the the conversation between us and the staff has never been well can you get to 42 or get to 41. It was just no. And and we so our client respectfully disagrees. And so to commissioner Fay's question earlier which was what's changed your answer is not nothing because we haven't even had those conversations. We we provided clarity on all those questions that we've been asked. We provide additional documents and drawing where we've been asked but no one's have even said let's find let's find some common ground. Okay. Commissioner Gage the real one. Thank you. the one and only. Um I I have driven past the ones at Kulie Station long before I knew that that was related to what you guys are doing here. And I've always liked them. I like that they had the extra spaces. Seen people use them in very tasteful ways. Um, I think that the argument about a couch on a porch is a little um absurd because that's not a conversation that would we would be having in this setting if this was a single family development because the town would understand that the HO HOA would take care of a situation like that. Um, and I fully believe that you guys will handle something that's um unsightly on someone's porch. So, I I think that that's really shouldn't be part of this conversation at all. Um, and it I think it was just a a stretch of an argument, unfortunately, but I I'd find um some value in these spaces, and as a renter, I would find some value in having that little extra space. Um, so I I think that your proposal makes sense. Um, and I think that unfortunately a precedent was set and I know that planners don't like that word, but um, it is what it is. So, you have my support tonight. Thank you, Commissioner. And we we recognize the precedent of 43 and recognized from the beginning when we started these conversations in 24 that it would take a PAD amendment for this side of the project. So, no one's ever shied away from that. Uh we we knew that from the beginning. Thank you. Any other questions? Okay. Uh Commissioner Gage, one more question. Uh sorry, I just thought of this. Um, would you be open to sitting down with staff and looking at the plan and in each individual patio and having a conversation? The answer to that question is yes. Okay. Your your second question, if I anticipate your second question, might be, are you interested in a continuence? Uh, no. And the answer to that is the answer to that and I asked specifically our client was was no. We've been fussing with this for a long time and they're ready to start installing them hopefully. Not trying to be arrogant. So, I hope I didn't jump ahead, but I just wanted to share that what our thoughts aren't. But, you know, me personally, all of you know me. We're absolutely always happy to have a conversation with the staff. I Yeah, I just it doesn't make sense to me that maybe that conversation hadn't been had already that it was just a hardline no. But um I'm I'm not suggesting that yeah you ask for a continuence tonight. Always 100% to the last minute. We're always happy to have that conversation. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions for either party? Okay. Any uh public comment? Um is there anyone here that wish to speak in this? do not have a comment card, but you wish to speak on this item. Do you have a comment card filled out? There's comment cards right there. You can come up and speak, but just grab one. If if you wish to speak, you can come up and then just make sure you fill out the card um for the public record, though. Yeah. So, just just uh and then when you come up, just state your name and your your res. I'm Tom Smith and I'm a resident of Warner Groves. So, I'm right in the back of where all of this is going adjacent to Gab uh Gabriel Point. And my question is um and I don't know if this is uh this is the body to ask this but watching all this development has anybody done a traffic study in this with all this stuff going on either of these parties because I live there and I'll tell you what tried getting past ALA in the morning is a blast and now we're going to have all these apartments. I mean, I know realize I was there and I'm not objecting to it, but I'm just wondering has anybody looked at what the traffic is going to be and we're actually not allowed to respond if that's what you were waiting for, sir. It's just that you have three minutes to comment and then we will discuss it. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. All right. Thank you, sir. Yeah. Yes. And now, yeah, we can now ask Keith and and discuss that. So, um, if if anyone then from questions as it relates to that, um, want to ask Keith, Keith, do are you able to speak at all on what traffic's um, thought is on this door? Do we have traffic here or I guess Oh, wait. Look at that. Ask and you shall receive. Okay. Yeah. Uh, good evening, chair and commissioners. So, um, when this was originally went through reszone, it's actually prior to when I started. So, it was around 2019 2020 when this whole site was and they did a master site that included this development in their assumptions. So, so yes, there has been a a master site traffic study done. Okay. Thank you. All right. Any other questions or anyone else that wish to speak prior? Otherwise, we can bring it back to the dis for our discussion. All right. Well, then with that, I'll close the public comment and bring it back up for discussion and motions. Who wants to kick off the lively discussion? Uh, Commissioner Simon. Thank you. I will uh just make a comment and I'll try to articulate my thought that's running around in my head which is kind of tired right now but um I mean this this to me comes down to some semantics to a certain extent and I understand the logistics behind the um encroachment on the sidewalks and and whatnot. We're not asking to move buildings. I actually do agree with the applicant that um by having this additional space and having um family members that live in apartments and and know the size of those 40 foot 40 ft patios, if you want to call them that, that they have, it's not a lot of space. So, but even by pushing these fences out a couple of feet, if not a little bit more, even if you're not using that space, it gives you what I will call breathing room. And I can see that being very attractive to somebody who's who is living in an apartment. And and as we all know, housing costs right now are very expensive. Um, you know, I think the applicant may have put his foot in his mouth a little bit when he said that that, you know, they could get a little bit more money for it. Um, however, that being said, I would I would not be in disagreement and we all, you know, we we know that that it comes down to dollars and cents and does does the development make sense and if we can get a little bit more to pay for the property, then I mean, I'm I'm not going to tarnish them for doing that. So, I guess from my perspective, I have I see absolutely no no problem with this whatsoever. Are we encroaching on public open space versus private open space? Yeah, sure. Uh, you could argue that, but it's space that's not going to be used. It's space that's going to be sitting absolutely, you know, the the leaves will be blowing and and filling up the the corners and and and whatnot, whether the fence is there or not. And I think by by allowing the fence, you're actually allowing usage of space that otherwise would not be used at all. So, I'll be supporting this. Thank you, Commissioner Simon. Commissioner Davis, you or I'm sorry, uh, Vice Chairman Fay, please. Uh, yeah. So, I I I've got kind of a also a philosophical get my head around it kind of, uh, feeling here. We want applicants and staff to to work things out, to negotiate with other with each other, and to negotiate in good faith. And I can't get past the fact that there was a a for lack of a better term, a deal, a negotiated settlement, and the applicant's coming back and saying, "What's mine is mine, what's yours is negotiable." To me, if they want to have this conversation, they need to go back to the drawing board, take back that increase in height and open space and negotiate from what the code says to do. Otherwise, the president we're talking about is I I think that's nonsense. There hasn't been a president sent. Maybe the city made a mistake in the past or maybe they've changed policy. The precedent is the one I think we're setting here that the applicant can negotiate something with staff, get it, and then say what's mine is mine. What's yours is negotiable because I'm going to go to the council or to the commission and just try to undo the half that we agreed to. um regardless of what the change is, whether it's small, whether it's whatever, if it's if it's positive, if it's small, then they can go back to staff, they can try to work that out. But to come back with just their half the equation is to me is is philosophically wrong. In fact, it's it's kind of almost distasteful to be considering it. I I would actually like to see a code amendment to prevent this type of request from coming forward in the future. That's how much I I think that that this is just wrong to even consider regardless of it's the difference between two and three or it's only two feet. I mean, yeah, it probably is. And there's a lot of times when we don't worry about let's not quibble about that or it's really not hurting anyone. The hurting anyone is that but how is staff going to negotiate with developers next time knowing full well that whatever agreement they reach the developer can say sure. Oh, wait. Nope. Oh, uh, we're coming back in here and we're going to we're going to negotiate or we're just going to try to undo that other side. So, to me, unless the request is to undo all, including the height increase, and to start from scratch with with staff, I I consider this to me, in fact, I I said it last time for the same reason. To me, this is a non-starter. I I would I would never support this request, and that's why I feel so so strongly against it philosophically. Thank you, Vice Chair. Commissioner Davis. Thank you, Chair. Um, I come down a little bit more where Bill does in the fact that I think a PD comes in and we get an increase in quality that justifies the deviations that we grant. If you know they're going to come back and ask for a reduction in that deviation, then what are we getting as an offset? A thing that I thought a lot about is what's the trade-off between public open space, private open space. Is the private open space still uh an increase in quality that justifies that? I don't know that I'm totally convinced that's the case. There is a monetary value to the applicant. I don't think a lot of effort went into trying to minimize the request as much as possible to try to keep some of that open space and I think more effort could have been made there. I also am not willing in this hearing to go against staff's um interpretation with the fencing and whether or not it encroaches because to me that's possibly an additional P A request to encroach into those setbacks. I'm not comfortable sitting here today having just heard this and making that decision without a continuence on that issue. So, I guess eliminating P and Q is a non-starter for me. Um, I haven't been convinced tonight that that private open space is that increased quality that because I don't think that was thought about. I don't think that that, you know, is the purpose of this. I think it's too I don't necessarily disagree that an increase in those areas for those residents is a good or a bad I think it's a good thing but I don't know that the way it is structured I don't know that it's all that like the way that it's bumped out there's not a lot of consistency to it. I like it a lot better in the way it is in the other development. Um it seems kind of haphazard a little bit in some of these. They're not not a lot of consistency. I don't love the way they look. I like the, you know, so I guess with that said, I'm not supportive of this request. Thank you very much, Commissioner Davis. Commissioner Diggerina, I have similar views to Commissioner Leslie Davis, Commissioner Bill Fay. um staff has spent a lot more time on this than us and I I guess my concern is why wasn't this why weren't you able to work this out with staff before it came to us and we see limited aspects of these things and and you guys have a lot of time to work with them on it. You think you if it's if it's that great of an idea and you weren't able to convince staff and I have to go along with staff because they spent a lot more time on it. That's concerning to me that you weren't able to get your points across to them. So again, I'm kind of against your request. Thank you, Commissioner. I guess that brings the merrygoround back to me. Um so I will say that uh first and foremost the most difficult part of this type of a decision is the fact that it on the appearance is a very minor add-on. The semantics of whether it's connected, how it connects. I think it looks fine. I actually as a dog person uh love the idea of being able to have those dogs and if the space if it blends in yeah that's great. Where where I do end up in a quandry is the precedent setting as vice chairman so eloquently uh put it. But if we were moving forward, what does that say? And even though I I don't think it's a huge deal on the back sides, the the really small thin front ones. And granted, this might be another thing of me being not the um ideal candidate for this type of a housing product, but I don't see what having 2 feet of a front yard and then 2 feet of a landscape easement on the other side of that. Um so it's very difficult to say whether or not the question here is simply do I think this is fine? I don't think that it's a huge deal, but the huge deal rears its head when you say does this change the way and the process with which we do a PA a gets established. We acquies to certain needs and then things change. Um I like the continuity of it. I like the idea that it would look similar to the others. Um, but then I also go back to if that is an argument, how is that not an argument at the origin of this when the other one was already done, designed, built, why would we not have said this should be here now? I don't know the answer to that question other than I, you know, and I I talked with the applicant and I I you know, it came up on this one because it works really well on the other, but I don't recollect this being the same type of process on the other one where it was not there and then it was added and it just seemed there's a lot of questions and then the the most fundamental one is if they are encroaching into building setbacks, what is that going to mean? And so I h I I do have concerns there. But that's just trying to clarify my view on this is not simply do I think these yard things are an open space versus private public open space. Can I throw a ball? Can I do that? It's much more nuanced in the sense of I do not want to on this DIS set a precedent that is going to cause a ripple effect of other things down the road um within other projects and also ham you know hamstring the uh staff's ability on negotiating to render them moot in negotiations by saying well yeah this didn't happen and I that causes me some trouble. trouble. So, that being said, I still think that dogs would do very well in there. And if I have a dog that's actually of size, which I know on this body I have voiced before, I didn't want to make it seem I don't like little dogs, but a dog that's at least 70 pounds, you know, you'd want to have some kind of offense. Those little ones probably couldn't get away. They squeezed through this anyway. So, all right. Well, with that, since we have so much consensus and uh belief, um I will shut up and allow any type of a motion or any other further discussion that the commission would like to have. Chair, could I make a motion? Uh, Commissioner Davis, please. Um, I'll put a motion out there to deny Z24-21 Tuscan Gabrielle point as presented. Okay, we have a motion by Commissioner Davis for a denial. Do we have a second? I'll second that motion, please. Vice Chair Fay with the second. Any discussion? Okay. Now, just to clarify here on a denial, a yes vote is saying no. A yes vote is to deny. Okay. Okay. I just wanted to I just wanted to lay that out. I know because I'm good at math, but I wanted to be sure that the rest of us here are familiar. Okay. I was going to ask you that question. So, let's The green button means green means green means deny the application. Red means not to deny. Okay, we have a 42 uh in favor of the motion to deny. That was a there was a moment there where I thought if we end 33, this is going to get awkward and Elena's going to come and get me. So, all right. Thank you all very much. I appreciate it. And with that, we will move to the next item on the agenda which is item number 15, DR24-85, Val Vista and Elliot Storage, and everyone's second favorite behind Keith S. Appreciate that warm introduction, chair. Uh, good evening everyone. Now, S is thrilled to be on the agenda after that. I know. I got to follow up that shot. I want to follow Keith every time. All righty. So, the uh project we'll be taking a look at is DR24-85, which is Val Vista in Elliot Storage. Sorry, just looking for the clicker. All righty. So the subject site outlined in blue here is located at the southeast corner of Val Vista and Elliot Road. Um so the subject area in blue is going to be roughly 6 acres. But the perimeter of the uh scope of work for the proposed storage facility is going to be a 4 1/2 acre portion that's going to be roughly this portion of the site. So back in 20 uh in 24 a reszone and PA amendment came through for the site where we consolidated all the ordinance into one master ordinance along with updating the development plan and reszoning a portion of the property. So this portion to the right where the storage facility is is going to be general commercial and this portion of the site did remain as shopping center. Um, for the site for the storage facility, there is currently a 37,000 foot fitness center that was approved back in 1999 and the structure is currently vacant. So, the applicant is seeking to convert the existing um fitness center into a storage facility which will include um four accessory structures uh two of which will be to the north and two of which will be to the south. Uh and just to add some context of some neighboring parcels, we have community commercial and single family 7 located to the north. Uh we have shopping center and SF6 located to the south. Um single family 6 to the east and shopping center to the west. I did just uh turn the site plan just a bit just so it uh came out clearer on the presentation. So looking at north is going to be um to the to the right here. Um so as I mentioned that primary structure um is already existing and it is uh located closer to that eastern property line. Um so one thing you'll notice too is that primary structure does maintain a setback of 60'4 in. Uh while the general commercial zoning designation requires a 75 ft building setback adjacent to residential. uh because this structure is existing, it was deemed um okay to stay in the PAD and that's actually one of the conditions that was added um that any new structure needed to maintain that 75 ft setback but any existing or current structure would be okay in its given place. Um, as mentioned too, those four accessory structures are associated with that primary, uh, two to the north and two to the south, and they'll range in size from roughly 3900 to 17,750 ft². Um, all these structures are going to be located in a east west orientation, uh, which is to mitigate, you know, those visual impacts to the adjacent single family to the east. Um, and looking at site access, there are already existing access points both on Val Vista and Elliot Road. Uh, there's going to be two on each street there, uh, with one full access and one right in, right out on both of those streets as well. Uh, for the internal networks, the two northeast spine roads are going to remain. Uh but the applicant is proposing to remove some of the existing parking uh just north and south of that um existing uh fitness center which is proposed as the primary storage facility just to align with the new configuration and have that internal um circulating drive and creating space for um you know a sufficient um delivery of goods for any customer that is on site. Uh those drive aisles will be between 26 feet and 30 feet. Uh they will be gated by a 5 1/2 ft tube steel gate system and as mentioned will provide sufficient circulation to all um buildings associated with the storage use. Uh, one other item I wanted to highlight as well is you will see a pedestrian path that's in the norththeast corner that is going to continue into the center of the site and also bring you to the um neighboring arterial as well. And this is something that was laid out in the previously approved PAD just providing not only uh vehicular circulation but also pedestrian circulation on site. Uh looking at parking, the storage facility use requires eight parking spaces on site. Those will all be located um on the west side of the structure adjacent to the office space. And then there'll also be six loading spaces um spread out throughout the site evenly as well. Moving over to the landscaping, I figure it would also be easier to have the overall landscape plan opposed to those cutup sheets that are in your packet. um as it provides you know a clearer image of where some of these species are going to be located and to as where they're already existing in place. Uh some of the trees um that have been proposed are going to be mulga, ghost gum, Chinese pistache and cathedral live oak. And some of those shrubs are going to be thundercloud sage, green cloud, Texas ranger, Arizona yellow bell, and coral fountain. Another thing I wanted to mention too, per that previously established P A is there is a double row of evergreen elms that were provided along that eastern property line. And the applicant is going to maintain the health of those trees to mitigate any visual impacts between the commercial use and that neighboring residential. Uh moving over to the elevations, we're going to um take a look at these starting at building one uh through building 5. So, we're going to start at the southern portion of the site, which is going to be one of those accessory structures I had mentioned. Um, so with these, it's going to follow the same materials as the primary with smooth face CMU, splitface CMU, and stucco. They're going to be um varying roof lines, uh, recess wall planes, and also the placement of some of these CMU and color blocking will align with that architecture that's seen on the primary as well. And just for context, the colors provided are vanilla shake, charcoal sketch, Huntington gray, and charcoal gray. Here is taking a look at building two, just north of building one. And then here, building three is that primary uh building. So, as I mentioned, it's existing. It does have a more of a desert tone color palette today, but with this update, the applicant is trying to play into the existing colors of materials that exist on site with the financial institution and the Starbucks. So, they're bringing in some of those neutral tones, uh some of those, you know, quieter tones with some of those darker trims along the uh along the roof line. Again, here just showing building four. And another thing um I wanted to mention as well is that building three and four will be connected by a shared roof line. And I do have a document or I'm sorry a um image coming up that kind of shows that transition a bit better for you. Again, building five here showing some of those colors, materials, and placements. And then here um you can see um the transition between building three and building four. They will be using the same colors, same materials, um same roofing, architectural accents, and then like I said, transitioning right into building 3 to make it seem like a, you know, seamless one structure. Um, as for a closer look at the colors and materials, uh, here they are for you on the screen. You can see the various shades of grays, whites, and that iron ore that is represented as that accent color there, which will be on the mechanical screening. And with that, um, staff's recommendation, uh, for the planning commission is to approve the findings of fact and approve DR24-85, uh, Val Vista and Elliot storage. And with that, I'll open up to any questions you may have. Thank you. Thank you very much, S. Well done. All right. Anyone have any questions or comments for S? Everybody seems a bit shell shocked. That's understandable. I do have a question, Vice Chair. And usually Sal, I drill into the county recorder and I look at some of the site history. I didn't do that on this property, but that pedestrian way to the north just kind of is is it is that just a lingering aspect of the way the parcel already is or the a variancy of of old platting or something or is there a deliberate is that deliberately being done here for for some reason? Chair Muntz, Vice Chair Fay. So that pedestrian path um is something that is established from uh previous ordinances and pads. Um going back a ways, I think the vision for the site um is a bit different than the way it did pan out um you know where we are today. And one of those um requirements in that PD was to maintain some sort of pedestrian connectivity um from the arterials to the center of the site. Um, and we felt that that was something that was important to keep in the PAD and the design as we believe this project is going to, you know, help revitalize the site as it's been vacant for for quite some time. So, we just wanted to make sure that that requirement from the PA AD was reflected in the uh development. That that length of property heading to the north and the pedestrian way, they're already there. They are correct. And basically the contract, the the developer is just not messing with it is what I'm correct. And the only change they will be making is they will be so this portion right here is what is existing this pathway and they're going to continue it down south and connect through this section when the future commercial um pad is ready to be developed in the center of the site and they will also be adding that stretch running east west um through the existing commercial but a majority of it to your point u vice chair fay has been constructed Okay. Okay. Anyone else? Commissioner Anderson, I'll jump in seeing how I didn't Everybody up here is probably exhausted from that last one. So, I think this is a huge improvement of what's there now. I mean, as you pointed out, it's been vacant for so long. I used that used to be at LA Fitness I used to go to. I remember I went on vacation. One week I come back and there was a sign that they're closed and I'm like, "All right, well, where do I even tell us that they were shutting down and I had to go find another gym to go to and I go to the Safeway across the street like every Sunday. So, I'm very I see this every day and I'm glad to see that somebody's developing this and improving it. I think the the building design is nice. I think it fits in well with the area or actually enhances the area. I think it's going to be one of the nicer looking buildings there. Uh, so I am glad to see that this one is is going forward and somebody's actually developing it and I think they've um done a nice job with it. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Anderson. I have a story about LA Fitness, too, but I'm going to It became an esport. I announced Mountainside Fitness, but they've been charging me since COVID. I just found that out and I haven't even worked out. Anyway, um any other questions for I mean we're talking four years of just bills, whatever. Five. Um that's the problem. Uh okay then. Is the applicant here and wanted to present at all? Do you know? So I actually Hey, great. We got it right over here. Yeah. All in good time, sir. Hey, good evening, Chair. Uh, commission members, uh, Kelly Ferguson. Uh, I'm the applicant representing the developer. Uh, I'm the architect for the project. Actually, um, I don't have a presentation for you. I'd be glad to answer any questions that you have. I think S did a great job, uh, presenting the project for us. Um, great job working with us throughout the zoning and the design review, uh, phases of this project. Um, made some changes along the way that I think helped the project out, so we're happy with it. Awesome. Anyone have any questions for the applicant? Okay. Well, thank you very much, sir. We do have a public comment card here on this one. And Karen, I'm going to try to I hope I say your name correctly. Karen Goldwer, she can correct when she gets up, but uh she would like to speak if she's in favor of the item. Step up. just state your name probably correctly and your residence and then uh three minutes please. Mr. Chair and planning commissioners, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak and get into the the process of this board. Uh this is my first time here, so thank you for understanding. Um I'm Karen Goldwer. I live in the Sonorin E Vista Homeowners Association which is abing directly to this development. Um, thank you for maintaining the existing mature trees along the back uh of the existing building. Um, and also the lighting I'm concerned about that on the page they're talking about security pole mounted lighting um 14 feet in height and then uh building lights 10t high. On those for I don't know who to talk to on those 14 tall security building lights. I don't know what's existing now. I drove a long time ago, but there's a drive a drive area behind the existing building and then the trees to the community and then the homeowners association houses. Um, so with there's I'm sure the spill effect of those security lights will be taken into consideration for the homeowners. And I don't know if that I'm not assuming anything, so I'm just mentioning it that it's not going to be blinding into their homes on the back side, the dark side if you will, of the uh existing building. Also, the colors. Um, the I like color, but that orange is a little shocking. And I hope that the signage is going to be subtle. I drove by and I wish I had the time to stop and take a picture or go back of an existing public storage facility. Extremely well done in Gilbert. The signing was minimable minimal minimal. the painting, it would just fit into the community where it was situated. So, I don't know. I think on the agenda it says that the signage is not included in this approval. So, I don't know what that entails. Um, the only other thing I have is that there was an original homeowners um, invitation to the public meeting and it was just the big billboard signs and I have issues with those because you can't slam on your brakes on Val Vista or Elliot to figure out who to call about the project to get more information. And when you do slow down or when I did get out and walk, you know, it says call the developer in Beverly Hills. Um, so now the next thing that came out was to the homeowners association that we were sent this staff from the city planning comp department sent a email with all of the exhibits to our property manager and our property manager was diligent enough to send it out to all the homeowners. So if I'm the only homeowner of 177, here I am. Um the issue with the public notice again it's hard to find the bouncing ball in the trail to get to somebody to speak to in person. It says come to the planning department and you can look at the the exhibits and the presentations yourself and there's no way to get to how do you get to the planning department? Where's the planning department? Who do you call? How do you get there? Do you make an appointment? Do you have to have some kind of protocol to get in to see the plans? You don't I guess you just don't drop in. So, with all that being said, um, thank you very much for your time and I appreciate your letting me speak. Thank you. Thank you very much, Karen. And I think that we can probably um speak to the lighting. Uh Sally, if you want just to just to notice because I'm sure that on, you know, we have the phototric uh layouts in the plans, it would probably show the directional lighting and that's partially, you know, by code we do it, but S can articulate that better than I. Absolutely. And thank you for the questions. Uh so in regards to the phototric plan, um a few things that we keep an eye out for are ensuring that the proposed lighting um is within a certain um distance away from any residential. So, if any proposed lighting um that is security or polemounted um and is within 100 ft of residential, they cannot exceed a mounting height of 14 ft. Uh and if I'm not mistaken, I believe some of those security pole lightings on site are already existing from the previous uh development, but any new lighting that is going to be installed on walls must be 15 ft or lower. And any polemounted um lighting as well must be 14 ft um or lower. And just another thing to add too is during the review of our phototric plans, we did review um the foot candles and that is essentially the the light spill to ensure that there isn't um an excess light spill onto property lines. Our requirement is.3 and it looks like adjacent to the uh single family single family to the east, we're not exceeding uh any of the required foot handle percentages. Okay. And then the other concerns you had was the the colors and whatnot, but if if people wanted to discuss that, we can. Um, anybody else have any other questions uh for S before I set him back to the pilots's chair? He has their solo in the front. Okay. Well, thank you very much, S. I appreciate it. Thank you. All right. Well, then with that, I will close the public comment. bring it to the dis for discussion or a motion if anyone is so inclined. Vice Chair Fay, I see a hot mic. I'm not trying to cut off any discussion, but I move to approve DR24-85. We have a motion for approval from the illustrious vice chair Fay. Do I have a second? Second. Second from Commissioner Simon. Discussion. If not, please cast your vote when able. And the motion carries 70. Thank you all very much. Okay. And that will bring us down into the administrative items on the agenda. These items are for the commission's discussion and action. It is to the discretion of the majority of the commission regarding public input requests on any administrative item. Persons wishing to speak on an administrative item should complete a comment card form indicating the item number on which you wish to address. The commission may or may not accept public comment. Given there's nobody here that I believe is anyone here wishing to speak on an administrative item of which there is only the minutes. I don't see anyone. So item 16 is the planning commission meeting minutes. Consider the approval of the minutes of the study session and regular meeting from April 2nd, 2025. And I do have a question being as that I was not here last month. These are now those minutes. He was chair vice chair. Did we clarify whether I vote on this? Elena, I'm gonna put you on the spot just because I don't I remember a discussion and then I remember being confused. Uh Mr. Chair, uh I did review I believe it's town council policy that was adopted by town council and uh it does require a vote from everyone unless you're you've recused yourself because of conflict. Oh, I could make that sticky but okay. And then do I sign it though or would that be vice chair Fay because he was serving as chair? I think it's him, but I I haven't taken a look at what you signed. So we perhaps we can Hold on. Let me just see if it says his name. That'll be easier. Now if it says mine, great. Okay, carry on. Would anyone like to make a motion on these minutes? Chair, I'll make a motion to approve the minutes from the April 2nd. Yes, I'll second that. With all due respect, I'll second that. It's already happened. Slow down. We uh we have a motion from Commissioner SL and a second. Retract Commissioner Drew De Graina and Johnny come lately not second by vice chair. Please cast your vote accordingly. I'm putting a lot of trust in you guys here. I just want you to know. Motion carries 70. Takes us into communications. We do not have an executive session. I will not belabor that point. Item 17, report from chairman and members of the commission on current events. Who's got something? We got a hot mic, Commissioner Degarina, but he's just been hot all night. He can't help himself. It's all right. Well, I personally will make a current event that I want everyone to know that I sacrificed my time. My 8-year-old little league, a Gilbert American little league, they were playing tonight in the playoffs, win or go home. and I got the text that they won 9 to8 in extra innings. And you know, purple Dbacks, let's go. They're now 4-0 when I've missed. I don't know if that's telling me something. Um I don't know if they're going to want me back next week for the rest, but I just wanted to let everyone know that uh Purple Dbacks got a big win tonight. All right. Anything else? No. And we will move over to Miss Ashley for any update from the planning services management. Thank you, chairman. Um, I just want to take a moment to recognize two of our planners on staff. Uh, Keith Newman and Sal Des Santo graduated with their master's degree from Park University over the weekend. A huge accomplishment to do that while they handle a very heavy workload from staff and balance their personal lives. So, um, just huge congratulations to them. Wow. I I I feel naked. We should have brought them flowers like we did for Ava. Um, I'd like to put that on the agenda for next time, but well done, gentlemen. Very proud of you and I think it uh speaks volumes of the great staff we have here. So, thank you. Alrighty, then we'll move into an adjournment of which I there's another one. I don't know if I'm supposed to move to adjourn. We have a motion from Commissioner Simon and a second from the vice chair Fay on adjournment. Is there any discussion? No. Please cast your vote when Ashley's able to catch up with the rapid fire action that we are here on this commission. Bill Fay with a second using Robert's rules and not casting his vote. [Music] It's too late. Wait. Oh, it's Oh, just say I I Okay. V vocal on him. We have a 720 vote. Thank you all very much. Meeting adjourned. Wow, what a fun one. What a fun one.