e e only all right with much fanfare I'd like to welcome everybody to the study session and I'd like to call the meeting to order item number one presentation and discussion of the Heritage district wayfinding and place marketing plan hello I am Nicole norren with multi studio and I'll be giving the presentation today about the wayfinding and place marketing project for the Heritage District dist so I am with multi- Studio we are a multi-disciplinary design firm located here in the valley uh where we believe that design collaboration is always in the pursuit of possibility so we're going to show you and bring you along in our process today as to the possibility that we found within this project so just to recap really quickly the scope of this project we are looking at way finding and place marketing for the Heritage District uh the goals of the project were to capture the character of The District while building a flexible and comprehensive signage system to Aid in wayfinding and place marketing to create that um expanded sense of place we know that we are celebrating both the celebrating and balancing both the modern and the historical aspects of the district and we're looking for something that complements and doesn't distract or compete with the existing environment uh the first part of our process uh was an intake integrate and understand phase we looked at a whole slew of documents that have been developed by the town from various design plans to strategic plans to all of those efforts that have been done um to really see how we can align this project and move this forward uh we also did a whole series of robust uh stakeholder engagement so both uh a project team consisting of town staff as well as an external stakeholder group and as well as a general Community survey so we sent out a survey that had over 800 results come back in answering questions everything from what does the Heritage District feel like what does it emulate what are some attributes what are your favorite Parts down to what are the challenges you may come across during your visit to the to the Heritage District why do you come to the Heritage District why do you not come to the Heritage district and also do you know what the Heritage district is um one of the things we asked to was the the naming conventions of downtown Gilbert vers Heritage district and all of that and you'll start to see um some results that came forth from that so we took all of those results and kind of analyzed and synthesized those down into key takeaways and components so while the majority of people do identify kind of downtown Gilbert synonymously with Heritage District we really wanted to lean into the Heritage district from a place marketing perspective because while everybody has a downtown Gilbert has a Heritage district and that's special and that's unique and that needs to be celebrated um another key takeaway came from the wayfinding side of things the number one challenge that people have while in the district is finding parking um so being able to create a system that helps Aid people in that in that effort is something that came to the Forefront and a goal you'll see um come to fruition in the designs um another challenge came about was that people go here during certain times of the day or certain times of the week for one thing and the goal with this project from a place marketing and wayfinding perspective was how can we keep people in the district longer to help them explore all of the things that maybe they didn't know were in the district so from all of that we took all of those key takeaways from everything from the attributes to the types of experiences people are looking for to their visual Reflections does this feel too much too modern does this feel too historic and all of that to P to call us into these four big musthaves that help to guide the project moving forward so we knew that we needed to communicate the character clearly that there was a very large um response to the character within the surveys and within the work uh that we need wanted to visualize the historic stories in perhaps new ways uh that the system did indeed need to be robust and flexible as you continue to grow as businesses continue to kind of move in and things develop it needs to be flexible over time and it also needs to create a sense of place um and help to unify all of the existing motifs that might be happening so we know that there are the Hearn hoop lights we know that there are these um gravings in the in the parking and in the roads there's the the lines and the Swirls and all of that has very rich story to it and how can we help to unify that with this project all of that led to us creating this unifying concept statement um where we've landed is cultivate character so the Heritage district has roots that run strong and deep over the years this Rich history has cultivated Gilbert's unique experience areas brimming with character add texture to the patchwork of historical Agriculture and celebrate the diversity and complexity of the community and its goals to bridge the path and cross-pollinate the future from this written statement we then moved into the visualization of this statement utilizing all of the community feedback our stakeholder group our project Team all of those people kind of came together in various ways to contribute to this mood board uh we did a lot of dot polling exercises visual exercises that led to the selection of these images here uh what we like to do with this mood board is it serves as an alignment Point moving forward within the project it serves as something we can always go back to as we move a little bit in the process come back and check are we still on this point does this align are we still on the right track again it's that kind of North Star for the project moving forward another key component that was developed with this to Aid in the wayf finding is this navigational storytelling we really wanted to enhance the the character of the district and lean in into the stories that are already there so utilizing these three key landmarks within the area help us in that effort we're organizing the way finding system around these three components The Canal at the North the water tower kind of in that middle area and the railway to the South uh these three points are very much landmarks they're not meant to be various districts within very much just a wayfinding device to be utilized when helping to navigate the district we also chose these three because they have a very rich history so there is a very rich history with the canal there is one with the water tower and with the railway all three of those components help create the Heritage District as a whole um one part of this project that we really wanted to um kind of uh exemplify amplify here is that the Heritage district is not just Gilbert Road between vau and Paige right the the more robust where restaurants and activity are it very much goes to Juniper down past Elliot and there is an East and West extension of that as well so being able to utilize the entire district and tell all of those stories was something we really wanted to lean into with this package so we created these series of textures or patterns that you'll start to see show up within the wayfinding to again Aid in that navigation so in the canal looking at everything from water and bike TRS to Mobility which you can start to see in those patterns from the water tower we're looking at everything from the agricultural history to those existing maybe line patterns that are happening within the area um that idea of socialization and Gathering and then in the railway we're looking at the railroad itself as well as its residential connection as well it's connecting between across the tracks right the Heritage District doesn't stop at the tracks it continues so how can we help encourage people to to really know where that where that extends all three of those areas led to the culmination of the Heritage District so looking at the canal the Water Tower and the railway creating those unique character characteristics and patterns from the stories helped us lead into this primary navigational Mark which you see at the bottom of this slide which exemplifies the Heritage District it communicates clearly first and foremost that this is the Heritage district with Gilbert Gilbert as more of that secondary PE again speaking to the aspect that this is a Heritage District well it may be a downtown this is the unique part to this project to this area so you can really see how all three of those pieces together create the Heritage District it's not just one that then led to the creation of a signage system um knowing that one sign can't do it all um and knowing that we are addressing various challenges and concerns based out of the survey and the results in the intake session we needed to create an entire family or system so we have everything from vehicular to pedestrian to Bicycle signs um all scales all different sizes to again reinforce that destination some signs lead you to the destination some reinforce um again to help complement each other in terms of materiality and flexibility you will notice that we are leaning into more of a neutral pallette to again complement the existing vibrant of the area and not compete with it we're using color in a really strategic way to um help sign to those those pinch points that people were identifying like parking bicycle parking services all of those pieces that people are having challenges finding is where we're utilizing our color to help direct them while the rest of the system is a little bit more neutral to provide that really nice base for the entire entirety of the district um because flexibility is important and we know that you will continue to grow we needed to create something that is both um flexible and module so there are various modules that kind of come together to create the content that can easily be changed out if content changes things move location instead of replacing an entire sign you're replacing a singular panel uh color Choice was also important in that regard in terms of the wonderful Sun we have here in Arizona in the heat um as to not have a difference in Sun in making sure that if you change a panel in a year from now it doesn't feel very different than the ones that maybe were have been there for a year or two uh also looking at things that are tamperproof and uh vandalism friendly non-friendly I guess um not having large white spaces large Open Spaces but having clear Coatings that make it very easily to clean they don't become very attractive to people to take with them or vandalize or take apart um making sure that we're we're Prov providing all of that infrastructure another component to this particular uh system was again that place marketing aspect and we really feel like with the entire system we're starting to achieve that but especially with these banners the Banners are already an existing element in the area they are single single sided in a way they're only on the one side of the pole um we are looking at complementing that with a secondary piece again to not only reinforce that offset h of the brand by having having them be offset but also providing an infrastructure for you all for for more place marketing right now um you utilize the Discover Gilbert ones quite uh quite often throughout the year you have the veteran ones you have holiday ones all of that um so we're providing these two panels to not compromise the Heritage District component while also still providing that infrastructure for the more promotional Place marketing pieces they can also serve the function to kind of get people to find new things in the district which you can see along the bottom there in that Discovery section utilizing public art Snippets or destination photography to really help people see the vastness that is in the the district itself this is just a really quick snapshot at all of the signs kind of in context there is a picture of Gilbert Road kind of um blurred in that background just to give you a sense of the vibrancy we're talking about and how these signs will help complement and not compete with all of that uh we want to keep the specialness that is there um this is showing how we are utilizing lighting we are not thinking all of these signs are lit we're looking at these two in particular more of the larger directories that we're looking at placing near parking garages or parking lots those moments where you kind of get where you're going but you need to reorient yourself to get to your destination um and the smaller directory signs which are more along your way along the path they serve more as a reinforcement also looking at color changing lights for the larger pieces that can manually be adjusted to either coordinate with the Hearn lights or the Water Tower or moments like that it gives you that flexibility should you need it or want to utilize it the small ones we're looking at just being a more of a white light to again not compete with the lights in the area another large component of this is the Gateway and arrival sign um looking at historic images there's iconic Gilbert sign across the street um how can we start to create these more arrival moments within the district um this this was a first round of study where we're looking at things that perhaps are in the median that stretches across the street something that maybe goes across the entire Street um looking at various placements um looking at the North and the South End of the district perhaps in the center perhaps all three but a variety of scales this is a second round of development where we're looking again at activating those areas the placement of this is still very much in flux and very much a moving kind of Target as we continue to design uh we're also going to be developing this project in a phased um kind of execution um from a budgetary perspective and the Gateway will be slated more for a phase 2 roll out than a phase one phase one we're really looking at satisfying the primary objectives or the primary concerns that came out of the survey from getting people to the parking getting people through the district and around and discovering those new things whereas phase two will be more so this place marketing effort this additional layer of of um design on top project impact like I said in the beginning we're not looking at just reinfor trying to not reinforce the idea that the Heritage district is just a small strip in Gilbert Road that it is the entirety of Jour Juniper down to Elliot it goes east and west so you can see this project project impact kind of diagram as to where we're looking at signs not this does show all phases of development it doesn't just show the phase one but shows all of the phases and the system can continue to grow again as you grow both in the north Anor the South Anor and Beyond as far as next steps um we are looking at creating um we're working on drawings now and solidifying those location plans for the phase one pieces um there will be a um guidelines document uh that will kind of show how to utilize all of the The Branding elements we've created how those come to life how those can be utilized um as well as a design intent document and drawing set and that is what I have for you today and I'll open it up if you have any comments or thoughts thank you very much does anyone have any comments or thoughts Vice chairman bian please take the bo thank you for the presentation U my first impression is I really like it um I like I think that you did a nice job combining the elements and the landmarks I think it provides consistency throughout the district my one question would be how come we have that raised H rather than just a separate H I know in one of the photos one of the figures you kind of showed there was like look like Gilbert and established dat maybe that's why but I'm just curious for the raised h why the H is offset yeah yeah the offsetting of the H helps to amplify the connecting pieces that bridge together to create the system so it's more of that active movement kind of aspect that we're looking for how the three elements connect okay thank you very well anyone else okay I think it's great too I think uh you know there's a lot of activity down there and that this is going to augment that that well and to help to bring in some good uh interest in the area so thank you very much thank you okay then next we have Dr 23-10 volara commercial EV charging facility and Mr Keith Newman there we go chair M members of the commission um good evening um my uh uh only case on the study session agenda tonight is as you stated is for volara um the volara site is um located off of Guadalupe oh didn't see the word Guadalupe on that map at the bottom it's located off of um Guadalupe Road and and it's called a um Acacia Drive which is which is actually about halfway between um Cooper and McQueen off of um Guadalupe if you know where that big um Dish Network satellite facility is it's just a little bit uh west of that and this is on Lot number um 18 of um of an existing industrial Business Park uh the fiesta Ranch Commerce Park and this is one of the last remaining part that has yet to be developed in this park so as far as um the reason I have brought this to you before uh study session tonight is to for two things to um get your input on the the building um elevations that that have been proposed by the applicant at first review and um and to to uh the applicant would like to move forward with construction documents at risk and we would like to get your feedback on whether or not you feel that is appropriate at this time so as far as the site is concerned um it's a fairly small site it's about 72 acres and as I stated earlier it's located in the fiesta Ranch Commerce Park on on lot 18 um zoned light industrial the site has um one access point off of ACAA drive and you come in off of Guadalupe Road and as you can see on that site plan you turn right into AAA right off of Acacia Drive into the site and there is a controlled gate um access point um and and the site uh has the the basic use of this site is for um uh electrical vehicle charging there are 28 spaces of for commercial electrical Vehicles my understanding is they are fleet vehicles and the public will not have access to this facility it's just for um commercial Fleet type of vehicles to come in here charge their vehicles and then and then they obviously they they'll leave after they're charged um there is a operations building about 456 Square ft and it's kind of up there in that northwest corner of the site it's kind of a little hard to see on the site plan it's to the left of the entrance as you come in and my understanding is that is a a a building for employees to [Music] um there was like couple rooms in there for a break room and things like that things for a place for employees to be able to to uh um uh just relax and do whatever they do on that side I don't know what they do on the site the employees but it's for the employees the applicant obviously um uh in the future can provide a little more information on that but that's all I know for now um the most of these spaces have canopies over the top of them um and and there's a kind of three spaces in front of the building there's um one Ada space and a couple of spaces those will be where the employees Park uh I don't know how many exactly how many employees will be Manning this facility at any given time that's a question for the applicant um but the rest of the spaces 28 spaces will be for those fleet vehicles there will be a block wall all the way around the site um that will be able to screen this site from adjacent uh properties and land owners um just a little bit of landscaping will be on the inside I'll show you the site plan there's about 22% of landscaping and this is the obviously the the more color colorful version of the landscape plan majority of the Landscaping will be on the outside of the perimeter walls along the along the rideways uh and along Princeton Court and Acacia Drive and of course along gu Guadalupe Road as you you've probably driven out there to see the property there is existing Landscaping along Guadalupe Road they're not disturbing any of that Landscaping except for one tree they're going to be removing one tree one of those Tall Pine trees and then planting a new one and that pine tree is being relocated or if you will um due to the fact that they they needed to move it to uh construct their block wall the screening one of the screening walls in along Guadalupe um here's the elevations and the floor plan on the same sheet for you the what the applicant is proposing now is a and this is one of the things I wanted your feedback on tonight is they're proposing now it's a prefabricated building um that is is is fairly basic in design um a couple awnings in the front you can see that it's it's very it's boxy of course um not a lot of vertical um horizontal movement on the building um so a pretty plain uh basic type of building so through the first review staff has made comments on this building that um concerning our design guidelines that currently right now it does not meet the design guidelines um and so we've raised those concerns that um a temporary looking style prefabricated building does not comply with align with our our employment design guidelines as these design guidelines require that the design of the building um Can it and the the building look more like a permanent structure um we would prefer a siteb built building and that and that the building aligns with the character of the buildings that are in the surrounding area in within the fiesta Ranch Commerce Park um despite the small size of the building uh we feel that there are still some opportunities to be able to provide the articulation and movement or some of those elements that you see on some of the buildings in the area we understand it's a small building and that you're kind of limited on what you can do to a certain extent but if I showed you some of these buildings in the area there some of these elements they may be able to incorporate on this building even though it is small so you can see this is a building right next door to the to the West that has varying parit wall Heights they have movement horizontal movement in the um in the wall ples and some different materials and awnings and glass and things like that so so we're not saying it has to match the buildings around it it just we just want it to better complement them and and here's another building across the street this one's a little harder to see because I was only able to get a street view look at it so you can kind of see what kind of buildings are in this area some of them are warehouses there's not a lot of office that's why this one is the most uh comparable because it is an office building to the West um we have already had a meeting with the applicant to discuss the elevations and they have shown me a conceptual elevation of a kind of in the direction that they're going I haven't had a chance to really analyze it or look at it yet but I just wanted to let you know that the applicant is striving to um improve the building as we speak so we're working with them on that so I just wanted to get your input um so that's the site plan at the end I always like to put that at the end right before um we asked I open it up for questions so that is it there's my two items of input and that concludes my presentation and I'll I would love any feedback that you can provide me on the elevations and and also if if you're okay with the applicant moving forward with with construction documents at risk thank you thank you Keith anybody have any comments or questions uh commissioner commissioner Anderson okay thank you for the presentation um regarding the building I'm I'm kind of okay like I understand the size of it the use I mean it's not a really highly occupiable site uh so I'm okay with the building the way it is but if you're already working with the applicant to address it uh I'm interesting to see what they can do to the building to kind of fit more in line with the LDC um the question I have for you is if you could go to the colored site plan mhm the trash enclosure that's kind of in a weird location pointing in a different direction so if a refuge truck comes in um you know they I'm assuming that's a gate that's spanning across uh vehicular gate is that right that's correct okay so they're blocked off by a vehicular gate so in order them to serve as that container they have to hit the keypad get into the site loop around to face the container pick it up and then leave so what's your thoughts on the uh the location and position of that Refuge enclosure do you think that's adequate um chairm uh commissioner Anderson that is kind of something that we're still trying to work on with our sanitation department uh we're trying to get them to they they kind of the applicant while they were designing the site um um contacted our sanitation department to find out um where it would be appropriate to place it and I think this was one of the initial sites that was mentioned but as we've gone gotten into the design we're we're kind of finding out um that it may not be the best location so we are actively trying to or the is actively trying to work with our sanitation department to potentially come up with another location or even find out whether or not it's even it's even needed since it's such a small building and they're not going to be generating a lot of trash so we're still kind of working through that with our sanitation department okay all right and then in terms of the you know CDs at risk I mean it's it's their risk to take if they feel like you know you guys okay them if they feel like they do it and then when it comes back before us for um approval I know if nobody feels comfortable about the building you know then it's it's up to them you know what happens from there so it's it's their risk to take if they want to do it so thank you all right thank you thank you anyone else commissioner Simon thank you chair um Keith just really quick for clarification purposes out of more out of curiosity you said this is a corporate refueling or charging station is it specific to a specific Corporation or is this they're going to be le in spaces to corporations in general to be able to come in in charge um chair Mt uh commissioner Simon I I'm I'm not exactly sure the applicants here and they can answer that question if if you would like them to I I believe it's just for commercial fleet vehicles I don't know if it's for specific companies but but the applicant can answer that question if if you deem it necessary I don't know it's necessary it's just out of curiosity it's just conceptually seems odd not I'm not sure with with regards to the building and and to your comments I would agree with commissioner Anderson I don't I didn't have an issue with the building at all it's basically in a compound it's not going to be seen it's behind the trees in an enclosure basically so I don't know but if the the applicants working with you on it um I would say proceed forward and and try to get what you're looking for I don't know that it necessarily has to be a site built in my mind because of what it is I mean modular is fine if we need to dress it up a little bit fine um with regards to the Refuge I had the same question with regards to Refuge otherwise um I don't have an issue with the CDs at risk at this point so okay thank you commissioner Simon commissioner ever I saw your hand kind of along the same lines um as far as the vehicles you know I just want to get clarification on what what capacity they're expecting to be at are they expecting it to be completely full uh um what what's the size are the spaces big enough at this point um and then you know if it's full are they going to have people waiting and where would they wait questions like that but I'd be you know I again I would say along with everybody else that moving ahead with CDs at risk is is okay for me okay thank you commissioner Gage please take it away thank you chair um I I'm going to try not to repeat what they said about the building it's fine to me I would just wonder if we couldn't have them move those two air conditioners down cuz I thought it was like an 11ft tall building with a 6ot tall wall and those two air conditioners are at top at the top and we make everybody else screen that stuff so um if there's a way to move those down that would be nice but I I can't imagine that this building is actually going to have it in employees in it very often so um yeah I'm fine with it thank you yes commissioner Fay thank you um to me CDs at risk do require a degree of you've got to be in the ballpark and I think they are that it's close enough you I mean just they don't get a cart blanch because it's their risk but all right they're I have no problem with the the CDs at risk in general the statement that this building is just for the employees is doesn't strike me as terribly credible given I mean my guess is just I I took it at face value when you said it now looking at it two break rooms and two bathrooms and a store just for an employee who's waiting around for I my guess is I don't a buddy of mine who's got an electric car it take some time to charge my guess is this is more like a waiting room where people who are charging are going to hang out I don't know if that changes any of the that essentially it's customers hanging out does that change any of the classifications or anything um but in terms of the building itself it's kind of a semi-industrial area semi-industrial use I don't know that aesthetically it makes any big difference to me um chair um chair M if I may um as far as in and commissioner Fay as far as the the use of the building is concerned we can provide more information on that um for when it comes back to you for um final consideration so I'll definitely try and get that information from the applicant and then we can find out um whether or not those rooms are used as break rooms as offices or or whether or not the people who are charging the vehicles are going in there to hang out get go to a vending machine um we can get more information on that so I'll I'll I'll U make sure that happens thanks thank you Vice chairman biani so Keith I guess my only question was does the Industrial Park have a Property Owners Association that controls any of the Landscaping color pallets or any other Factor design or are we just are we just um deferring to the town's guidelines for industrial um chairmont uh um Vice chair bian um I don't know the answer to that question I'm going to have to research that and find out okay but as of as of I didn't know if the the industrial Park would have any say in that as far as how the design of the building goes or anything like that yeah that's a very good question and I'm going to have to do some digging on that and provide more information when we come back for public hearing okay but as as of right now um all the the Landscaping uh along the street frontages is is um we're requiring them requiring them to meet code LDC standards but I can find out more about whether or not there's an association and whether or not they have specific standards and whether or not they they are weighing in on uh not only the design but the types of plant materials and things like that so I I can find out more about that okay as far as what the feedback with the other Commissioners I would Echo that as well I mean the top of the building between the perimeter wall and the Landscaping we're probably just going to see the top from the street so if the applicant's working with you on any additional detail maybe towards the top is the best place to put it but um but other than that I don't have a huge issue and same thing with the CD risks I'm fine with that thank you chair thank you Vice chairman well Keith my first question is do you know what level these Chargers are is it a level three um chairm I have no idea I'm I'm going to have to get back with you on that I I would imagine it's a level three which would mean you could charge them within a shorter period of time if it's level two you'll need up like eight hours and so if the idea here is that people will be able to come in um and their level three Chargers then you're probably going to have 30 to 40 minutes dependent on the size of the fleet vehicles Andor Fleet that you're utilizing um and in that case I think I would Echo that this is going to be a break room ask area with bathrooms which I think is prudent we don't need people in the bushes even though there's a beautiful 22% Landscaping there that Ralph Pew has added um but I just I I just think that you know it is going to be something where either people are dropping a car off and then they're going to have to have a shuttle service because otherwise how else or you're going to sit there for a while and then you're going to leave so it I would just be sure to check on that because you don't have any other parking outside of the um electric slots and but other than that the area it's in is great it's a very much needed thing in the uh in the area and uh I think that it fits well in the building I I'd say just keep working on what you're working on but I'm pretty cool too chairm um thank you for much for those uh comments um this is the first facility like this of its kind in the town of Gilbert so it's very unfamiliar um to us as Town staff and we're learning about this type of facility as we go as well so obviously based on some of the comments and questions tonight we have some additional information that we need to track down and we will do that and we will make sure that the final report um addresses all of that information and answers your questions so we appreciate everybody's comments and feedback very good all right thank you Keith thank you okay I believe that that was the last on our study session agenda so we'll move on to number three to discuss the regular meeting agenda so right now we have a consent with the Panda Express on it and then non-consent has 8 9 10 11 and 12 being the text amendments does anyone have anything that they need to have moved off of consent or anything that they think could be moved on can we move the continuance of 9 and 10 to consent I I think we can that's not okay yeah so nine and 10 can move right chairman would anybody have objections if we moved items 8 and 12 to consent unless people have anything some feedback on eight that lines up exactly with what the that leaves on just 11 yeah yeah okay and that's kind of where my mind was at too so unless somebody in the public is anyone here to speak on number eight or 12 okay well that sounds like if that's cool with Eva okay yes we are unaware of anybody wanting those okay heard there's no very well then okay that sounds good uh then with that we will uh adjourn the study session and uh we'll see everybody back in about 15 minutes thank you could e e e e e e e e e okay everyone I believe everyone's ready so we will call the me regular meeting to order and the first order of business will be the Pledge of Allegiance all right could we get a roll call please commissioner Everett presid commissioner de gravina pres commissioner Simon here commissioner Gage here commissioner Fay present commissioner Davis commissioner Anderson here Vice chairman biani pres chairman Mt here we have a quarum very well thank you uh now I'd like to move on to entertaining the approval of last month's agenda if anyone has anything they'd like to say or else a motion last month's agenda approval of tonight I did it again all right yeah I did that last month I want to approve my moves of last month just to see if you guys caught it thank you um I'd like to move on to approval of tonight's agenda if we could please okay chairman uh I would propose that we move we keep item 7D R22 d85 and move items 8 9 10 and 12 to the consent agenda this evening okay we we have a motion is there a second I'll second commissioner Simon seconds so the motion is to keep number seven on the consent and move 8 9 10 and 12 everyone cast your vote unanimous approval okay moving on to Communications at this time do Communications from citizens so members of the public May comment on matters within the jurisdiction of the town but not on the agenda and the commission's response is limited to responding to criticism asking staff to review a matter commented upon or asking the matter to be put on a future agenda I don't have any cards is there anyone in the public that wishes to speak on a matter not on the agenda not seeing anyone we will move on to a report from Council liaison on current events council member member Anderson uh nothing specific Mr chairman except uh happy holidays to everybody yeah thank you very much happy holidays to you as well okay now we'll go 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 if such a request is made the commission shall then withdraw the item from the public hearing consent calendar for the purpose of public discussion and separate action other items on the agenda may be added such as we did tonight so with that being said I don't have any comment cards is there anyone who would like to speak on any of the items that have been moved or were on the consent agenda seeing no one I will then entertain a motion if there is one chair I'll make a motion like to make a motion to approve the consent item agenda which includes item seven the continuance of items uh 9 and 10 consent to approve item 8 and 12 okay do I have a second I'll second it commissioner Fay with the second any discussion all right we'll move to a vote please vote consent agenda has passed 70 unanimous we'll now move on to the non-consent non-consent public hearing items will be heard at an individual public hearing and will be acted upon by the commission by a separate motion during the public hearings anyone wishing to speak or comment in support or opposition to the public hearing item may do so if you wish to comment on a public hearing item you must fill out a public comment form indicating the item number on which you wish to be heard once the hearing is closed there will be no further public comment unless requested by a member of this commission I do not have have any common cards so if there's anyone that would like to speak i' encourage you to go get a card not seeing anyone I will then move on to opening it up to the one item left number 11 z23 d06 LDC text Amendment for Miss Ashley McDonald uh thank you chairman and commission um this is our LDC text Amendment for the parking code um refresh and update I uh went through some of this last month as a study session but I will cover um it uh some of the history again um if you remember back in 2021 when we updated Our Land Development code um we left out the parking section in order to engage a consultant um who would look at our parking and identify uh some best practices that we could Implement um and uh improve that section of the code so we did initiate a contract with Walker consultants in 2020 to um in order to begin that process and they provided us a recommendations um plan of changes that we can consider I shared with you last mon last month that we paired down that um recommendations report to just a couple of items that we felt were um most important to move forward and not in order to allow development to continue within the town um in a couple of areas that uh we've seen continuous requests for um parking changes um so in 2023 June of this year Planning Commission did initiate a text Amendment um through that Walker report uh we got some feedback um on what we could improve in our code but essentially what we thought from Walker Consultants was uh to provide us information on how we can update our code how how we can remove any parking barriers um be Innovative in our approach and take into account um new technologies that might be entering this space um provide some some tools for development opportunities and for staff and then how we might be able to streamline our review process so um through that effort uh Walker Consultants identified a number of um items that we could address that included our parking ratios and parking requirements um design standards for off- street parking opportunities for um parking relief parking standards for new mode types so ride share and EV and then parking ordinance reorganization so as we looked at the report from Walker Consultants we identified a couple of items that we wanted to be part of our phase one um of this parking update um and then a couple of items that we wanted to take some more time to to study and so what we're bringing forward tonight is is what we're calling phase one of this parking update um and that is providing some opportunities for parking relief um as well as some reorganization of the parking code um related to uh the new language that we will be adding uh so staff will continue continue to study some of the other items and bring those forward at a at a future time um as we have more information um so parking reductions uh recommended actions from that report is to create parking reduction for mixed use developments uh with administrative approval so we talked about that language last month at study session and and you've uh seen it in the redline draft of the code um that was provided as part of your staff report um and then it was also um recommended that we adopt an ex a more extensive um parking reduction option um and so uh again you've seen that in the draft language where we've provided some additional options for Relief um with a range of approval types depending on the percentage of reduction requested existing Tools in Our Land Development code include shared parking reductions so where uh uses have different peak hours we can offer a reduction currently up to 50% um with sub midle of a study that that shows um how uses operate at different peak times we also have a deferred parking option that currently exists in our code which allows for a deferral of up to 50% of parking the deferral option does not um reduce a parking requirement but it does allow them to um defer installation of all required parking um until such time that it's needed so they still have to have the space for it so the benefits of this is is a little bit more limited than the shared parking option um and then we also have a parking reduction tool within our code where there is a a building that's got unique design or a unique use um we can allow up to 25% of reduced parking and the example that um we typically use is a medical office building that uses a large um cat scan machine for example uh requires a lot of space but um occupancy of that portion of the building is really small so those are some of the tools that we have today in our code uh and so what we're proposing is to offer parking reductions um that's a little bit more Broad in scope it allows some more opportunity for us to um provide relief to different uses um than our current uh shared parking parking deferral and um unique building design options so um with this we've got uh three different relief options there's the administrative relief which would allow reductions between 1 and 10% um 10% is consistent with the rest of the code in areas that we allow administr of relief we also have reductions from 10 to 25% through an administrative use permit um again staff feels as though this is uh fairly consistent with our existing practices um as I described in our previous uh slide of the tools that we currently have available and then uh we also are adding in um reductions from 25% and up to 50% uh could be done through a conditional use permit which would go to Planning Commission for review uh the Walker study also indicated that we um should consider adding uh administrative reduction option for mixed use projects uh earlier um in the year the Planning Commission approved mixed use zoning districts for uh three different categories and so we wanted to add in an opportunity for those to receive um reduction in parking through the design review process to streamline that um because the the intent of that code language is that there is um shared parking um shared use amongst the site good pedestrian connectivity and so um we think it makes sense for them to have a a streamlined process for parking reductions in those scenarios uh there is also the um this is very similar to what was presented previously parking reductions for unique and special circumstances and then the code also outlines parking study requirements um minor parking studies uh would require um a base parking ratio for the uses a mode split reduction for each use um so how many people might be arriving by various means of transportation whether it's ride share bus uh captive reduction so um you know evaluating those that might be on site for shared trips presence factor for each use um and a description of the methodology used for developing these factors and then we've also got requirements for the major parking study the major parking study is required where a conditional use permit um is required through that process so the higher um reduction percentage and what's um different about this to to the minor parking study is that we add in the requirement for parking inventory and occupancy counts for three comparable properties um and then staff would review um those comparable properties before they conduct their uh their complete report and so that's explained here um we also had a recommendation from Walker to uh reorganize some of the code and to consolidate some of the um parking reductions to simplify staff review um we've also through that effort and and through that recommendation considered uh reorganization of the code so we've proposed a deletion of the parking reduction and deferral sections um from 5 33 uh renumbered that section and then moved those items that were deleted into a new um parking deferrals and reductions section in order to create space for that new parking reductions and deferral section uh we Consolidated two other sections related to residential parking um so I mentioned to you last month you might you might see a little bit more red in that Redline version um and that's really because we took some sections and moved them from one area of the code to another uh we also identified through the review a number of scrier Errors um so you'll see some additional red lines in the copy of the parking section um just related to those errors staff did have an additional request that wasn't provided to you in the staff report and that is to add um the following language to a couple of sections within the code it's 5.3.4 a uh and 5.3.4 B this is the parking reduction section and shared parking section um that any parking reduction approval shall terminate if the use or uses change that language did exist in the shared parking um in the deferral section um but doesn't exist in the other two so we want to make sure that we're duplicating that language um with that staff does recommend approval of this um text Amendment I'm happy to answer any questions that you have um and receive any any feedback that you might have okay thank you Ashley does anyone have any comments questions or feedback commissioner Simon Ashley thank you for your presentation can you go back one slide which says any parking reduction approval shall terminate if the use or uses change is that for existing structures or new development if so if a development is to receive approval of a of a um parking reduction whether it's through the admin relief the administrative use permit or a conditional use permit that would terminate if they changed their uses which means they would have to come back to us for us to re-evaluate whether or not um we can still offer a parking reduction uh and we've had some internal conversations because last month at study session the question came up well what happens if um you know the uses do change and and so I think um you know by adding this in we're kind of putting um them on on notice that this won't carry forward and so they will have to the the landlord's Property Owners will have to manage who their tenants are and make sure that they're still in conformance with what that original approval is or they have to come back to us um so that we can re-evaluate that okay thank you Vice chairman bian thank you chair yeah actually I do have a couple questions for you so um so would a prop 207 waiver would that still protect the town if the parking reductions were required or requested um but if they weren't granted at any of the three levels would that cover us for what you require through any zoning application I'm looking at Elena I think she's I think she's unmuting uh um chairman uh commissioner bian um I did hear your question I I I believe that you post it to uh staff earlier this week and uh I I've taken a look at it and um there is a section of code that requires uh that a waiver be uh submitted along with any application for a for a use permit which covers all of our um shared parking deferrals um under existing code I do have a question under this draft if um under the first scenario if it's not an administrative use permit um it doesn't look like the waiver would be required um so that's something I would just definitely want to look at before Town Council and I was hoping that maybe we could amend um the recommendation to include um maybe just an examination of that issue as well for Town Council okay yeah that would definitely be acceptable um and then also Ashley again so if is there an appeal process if any of these three percentage of reductions were denied so perhaps if Council or adjacent users took issue with the requested um reduction yeah chairman M Vice chair bian there is an appeal process for these applications the administrative applications are appealable to Planning Commission um and the conditional use permit is appealable to the council okay and then so do what you've presented tonight does this pretty much follow the recommendations from Walker Consultants or did the town add and add any additional it it does largely follow the recommendations from um Walker they they obviously had quite a few more recommendations that we um elected not to proceed with at this time um for further study but but this is fairly consistent with what they um recommended and the best practices that they saw um in comparable cities but the others you're going to going to wait and evaluate correct yeah and then I guess the last question under parking reductions I think you started to answer this who or how do you determine who uh what use has that unique parking demand is that kind of staff's discretion when you kind of meet with the the applicant on the proposal chairman and vice chair that that's correct and it is up to the applicant to provide us evidence that they are unique in some way um through their narrative and application we do have conversations with them typically before they submit and and provide information on whether or not we think it's something that they would have a good case for um they provide us that information and then their parking study will evaluate um and hopefully provide us the data to support their argument okay yeah that's I guess that would be my one concern through all this is how as a town do we get strategic or specific as to who or what conditions kind of can request that reduction because I can see anybody coming in and asking for two or 5% reduction and just shave a little money off the cost and just say oh I'm just going to request it so I think that's my concern but if if you guys can use that discretion and and go from there and what you had shown about the termination of uses it can re revert back that gives me a little more Assurance okay thanks Ashley thanks chair thank you Vice chair anyone else yes please commissioner Fay so Ashley um I it's kind of coming off what commissioner bian said but I've dealt with a lot of these and I have this is an area that's Rife with abuse um I I don't know if you remember the expansion of downtown the uh the new Heritage stuff north of the canal and I I went at that pretty hard because I I called baloney on a ton of their shared use I I see I know one traffic engineering firm that seems to just specialize in papering the baloney file as far as I'm concerned so I view these very skeptically the traffic uh the the reductions the parking reductions and even the shared um I'm sorry I see it all the time it's it's an area to cut cost and and frankly once a developer puts it in sells and moves on if we end up with a parking mess it's not his problem to clean up so I'm I'm very skeptical of the entire concept I'm skeptical of the numbers 25 and 50% are pretty high numbers um it's an area that it's one of the few areas I'm not supportive of there being a lot of flexibility I expect there to be pretty significant hurdles to overcome parking reductions and uh be because I've just seen it abused my entire career it's such an easy lwh hanging fruit to abuse um one of the two areas that I have and and I have no faith I I I get what you're saying that if the if the use changes the agreement shall expire I don't think there's a chance in the world that's going to happen I I have no doubt that they'll negotiate something different or or or finagle out of it the idea that if we put in a mixed use or something and the mixed use somehow the use gets somehow Savage sabotage 10 years down the road that somehow we're going to pull someone's operating permit or or somehow un entitle something or or invoke something it yeah maybe if in the latter part of the entitlement process while they're still developing if Things Fall Apart I maybe that would happen but down the road it's just not going to happen um I tried to do it with a school that was just flagrantly thumbing their nose and it and it was a pretty pretty mil it was a school which is sympathetic but I don't think it's going to work um the the place I have so that's that's kind of me just ranting the place I have questions I've dealt a lot with shared and reduced parking requirements I've never dealt with deferred um and I tried to do a little bit of research and there isn't much I'm just taking it based on what you said it lines up with what little research I could find based on the definitions of the word this is going to be we're not going to require them to put in the parking but we are going to require them to save the space where the parking would go which is s they can't just leave it dirt so essentially we're going to say we're going to defer 20% of the parking but we're going to require you to increase the size of your Landscaping because that's where the parking is going to go if the Deferred doesn't work out uh chairman and commissioner that is uh that's existing language in our code and that is how we have um utilized that provision um I can think of one example there's a a medical office building that utilize that and they've got um surface retention basins and so they they demonstrated to us through the design review process um that should they need that parking or should users change um that they could accommodate that if they undergrounded their retention and then and then created um surface parking so it it isn't um that helpful of a tool because you still have to have the space available which is often times what what folks are trying to to um achieve is is to have more more land available so um it is a tool in our code it's not used often because it's it poses its own challenges but that is the idea is there a circum an incident you're ever familiar with where a city or a jurisdiction has invoked the Noe this isn't working we want the parking I my only experience with that provision is here in Gilbert and in my time here we have not no it it doesn't sound common so it it's not surprising you don't have a big enough sample size I know if I read other than the carve out potential carve out for mixed use none of this is necessarily limited to commercial multifam it it it seems to spread across these these potential to do the reductions don't seem to be limited by the type of use either as I read this correct that is correct because we I I could see particularly in some of the industrial you've got a warehous you've got a u automated an autonomous vehicle station that's going to have one dude I you might have some industrial but where we tend to have a lot of problems and where I would expect the most aggressive moving is either mixed use or multif family um I I'd be surprised to see that kind of stuff and if we if we vote for this then this will be sailing out and and we will be I know I'm surprised you guys want this flexibility because you guys are going to be on Ground Zero of of this and not allowing us to buffer you or buffer Council uh chairman and and commission um we didn't differentiate between different users who could who could use this tool um but we do anticipate we will have um some a pretty strict test that needs to be met for for a variety of users um but it was not contemplated that we that we break it out and say this isn't an option for for different use types um meaning multifam um but I I think we've held pretty firm to um parking requirements being met for for multif family development and and I think we would hold that the same but but to your point um you know I think the the warehouse users um storage facility users perhaps depending on their model um medical office is one that we we most consistently see requesting parking reductions um you know those are the those are the ones that we get the most requests for um but I think we would have um you know some some honest conversations with applicants especially of of certain use types if they were proposing a a really large reduction it's my opinion is our multif family parking requirements are inadequate now and I I gave in on something like this in an administrative code years ago and in fact part of the argument in front of council was Bill Fay knows what he's doing and he's tough he can handle us which may have been playing to my flattery and stuff but then the the result was afterwards I had to be tough and was fighting these things every freaking time um so I'm I'm I'm concerned by that that right now particularly if you factor in as as I kind of yelled at Keith that one time sorry um if you factor in some of the street parking and stuff I I already think our multif family is inadequate I mean we and we see it all over the place so I'm I'm concerned by those those factors so thank you thank you commissioner anyone else want to follow that up okay so I guess it's me well I uh looking at this I I I of course also as an engineer have concerns about parking reductions I know that we talked about this in the study session I believe and we had some concerns about the 50% because that does seem extremely exorbitant as to but at the same time I trust that the staff is prepared to put together a test to say no you you know you're not going to make it I just wanted to do you have any indication of what that test would be um commissioner or chairman Mt and commission uh we would require them to submit of course those parking studies the um reductions from 25% up to 50% do require that um major parking study report which includes evaluation of similar sites um so we can compare parking counts at sites that they have um determined to be most similar then staff has an approval of those sites before they can move forward forward with their parking study to to make sure that we're in agreement that those that those sites are comparable to the ones that they're proposing um and then we would evaluate the data that they submit um one of the things that uh we also considered is that our current code does allow up to 50% reductions in a number of scenarios and so that was why that that cap made sense for us um but I would also share that where there are uses or infill sites that are small um where the parking requirement is very small to begin with they're naturally going to have a higher percentage reduction and so we wanted to provide some opportunity especially as we approach um build out and having those smaller infill sites wanted to have a tool available for them to to be able to to see an actual impact from the possible reduction yeah and I think that makes sense for someone that has a requirement of six sites and if they want to drop one or two then you get to a higher percentage pretty quick um and you know the the other question went along with has anybody ever done a deferred parking and and changed that do we have what what is the actual mechanism that would trigger that like is it people call up the code enforcement and say hey bro there's a bunch of cars over here I I think that could play into it having not had that experience um you know I I imagine we would have some internal conversation about when we can when we can ask them to make those improvements um but if I think I think if we were receiving a number of of um calls that they're parking on dirt or they're parking on adjacent properties um we would then have an opportunity to start that conversation of does it make sense for you to to build the rest of your parking okay yeah because in some cases I think this is good I think that like we talked about autonomous vehicles and all of the the ride sharing and you know in so in some cases but but I also think that we just had approved that mixed use to have the commercial below and multif family above and that then the street parking there is going to to be some but I'll leave that to staff you know you guys you guys do a good job at that so um just keep that up but other than that you know I I recognize that it's trying to update the code and uh I think you did a pretty good job so yeah commissioner Anderson so correct me if I'm wrong I think on one of the slides for the uh requir well if somebody wanted to request 50% reduction right so they have to go they submit the application of staff staff goes through that's a use permit you guys are making it right that is correct all right so if that's a use permit that gives that means at some point for an approval has to come before the commission right correct if it gets approved they get their 50% so I feel comfortable with that because that gives us a a a layer of security say if a multif family guy comes here asking for 50% I mean we just stop and say no you you're not getting 50% if you want a reduction more realistic so I think that I think that should make you feel a bit more comfortable that we do have a final say once we get into that that top bracket of reduction um and that that's the 20 above 25 then that would okay okay that's yeah the big one big yeah well I think that people will be very weary if they read the public record of commissioner fa's comments before they would try that so anyone else yes commissioner Everett so if they have the Deferred parking are we accounting for that in the grading and drainage as well because all of a sudden you have less permeable surface when you increase the parking and are we able to accommodate the storm water from that I don't know is that something that's considered and deferred uh deferred parking development so chairman and commission um what would happen is if the applicant um so what they've done in the past is they've shown us a site plan that demonstrated that they could provide all parking on their site um if they were to then come and develop the rest of that parking we would request from them revised plans that showed um you know the parking again grading and drainage making sure that they're meeting all of those requirements so staff would review that prior to them just going out and adding those additional stalls um to ensure that they're still meeting all of the requirements all right thank you anyone else very follow question oh yes Vice chairman so Ashley I think some cities have probably looked at getting rid of parking requirements alog together but I my understanding is that's in much denser population centers I don't think would we estimate if staff looked at that that Gilbert is not at that density or pedestrian you know pedestrian or close or mass transit or anything like that yeah chairman and commission we we have not evaluated that um I was actually just reading an article a couple of weeks ago about a city in Texas that got rid of their parking requirements um and and I think those are in places where they've got better access to um Transit and different um you know mode uh or different types of Transportation than we do here and so uh we have not contemplated that at all okay and can you tell me a little more about if you did the 10 to 25% what the administrative use permit process looks like yeah so the administrative use permit process uh the the application submits or the applicant submits that application to staff we route it to our our typical review departments um it'll include uh engineering and our traffic review um and then there is a public notification component of that so we require the applicant to notice Property Owners within 300 feet HOA is within a th000 feet of the request um and then we set a a period of time where they can provide comments to staff um once that comment period has closed staff will evaluate any any feedback that we heard along with the submittal that was made and then issue our decision um that is appealable um as I mentioned to council so um if we did receive any feedback from the public that was opposed to the request and and say staff approved it anyhow um we would notify those people and then they would have an opportunity to appeal the the decision okay thank you I guess my question to the other Commissioners would be are we comfortable at that 1 to 10% having staff's discretion or does that give anybody concern or to week would you want the administrative use permit to apply to a larger percentage or are you comfortable with the percentages that have been called out I guess is my question I suppose we can discuss that if you close the public hearing I suppose I could uh well to close the public hearing we could do that now then there's nobody that would like to speak on this correct I don't have any cards okay with that then I will close the public hearing and I'll bring it up to the dis for discussion and I believe Vice chairman has prompted our discussion to do we have any issue with that lower thresholds or do we want to try to verbi some requirements I don't know if that's a word apologies anyone have any comments on that did you say ver yeah I certainly did it's the text language so I I will it um yeah commissioner bian just kind of nailed right and it's not every commission Anderson hit why I'm not concerned about the big the big one because it has the cup has to come through here anyway and it's not even the lower ones particularly at industrial or even commercial most commercial again ex except for the Heritage District don't really concern me because that that is where we probably should have some some discretion the one that right now seems wrapped up for me is that like I said I already think the multif family or those like zero lot individual town home type configurations are already inadequate and we're turfing some discretion to to lower it around the edges an area that I think will be abused and and this is doubly a double kind of Whammy in my mind because one it's already kind of messed up for the citizens and two 10 years from now when the developer's gone the HOA is fighting they the Facebook pages pop up that say schmuckatelli Acres parking sucks and they've got the and then they're calling the police and then they're coming to council to to speak at the public um to speak at the podium about how Council has to do something about parking in our neighborhood and Council legitimately was like this ship sailed 10 years ago and so I'm trying to head off those problems now and um and and that where're where commissioner biani highlighted the lower threshold and specifically lower threshold in the multif family that the part that kind of stops me and and I would Echo that commissioner Fay because I think as we move towards additional infill versus Green Space development um the the request for this is going to accelerate as it's uh the slice of lots get smaller and you know certain multif family I don't know if there's some language that we could suggest but if anybody has anything from legal ease that we could do I would be in favor of putting something to Halt that or some further restrictions because I I agree that the multif family um it it does get squeezed quite a bit already and you know along just parking that green space and everything else so commissioner Simon would it be fair then just to do a stipulation with with the motion to stipulate that that lower threshold does not not pertain to multif family residential what what's that can we stipulate Land Development code I don't know that's what I'm asking I don't think that that works that's yeah that's the question is whether being a code do we have any ability the answer is have them dra I guess what I'm saying is can we put a stip okay yeah so we're not stipulating but but I guess move to approve with regards to adding maybe ver verbiage that would remove multifam out of that out of that lower bracket does that make sense what I'm trying to say are we approving or are we recommending approval to recommend appr we're recommending to council we're not approving so I think all we could probably really do is we could just recommend any modifications and then it's going to be up to council at the end of the day whether or not they agree or Commendation and and along with that you know that the new mixed use and things would be another one you have any multif family CU I can see it being oh no well this is not just multif family so we're okay um ask a question to commissioner Fay commissioner Fay is it is it really just the multif family you have concerns with and not the commercial or in industrial or certainly not industrial I don't see any of the the big headaches I'm talking about in industrial I don't I don't off the top of my head just it's it's not apparent enough to me in commercial that we're having a problem with it again with maybe a weird exception for the Heritage District because that's but that's not really addressed here so let's kind of put that aside I guess it is multifam or some of those crowded zero town home type uh developments PUD type type stuff but I don't know about the idea of we we recommend approval with a recommended change I don't know if that that necessarily flies I I would our would our idea be to recommend staff make a change and we'll we'll make a recommendation based on the change is that really what we're hanging or is it literally a we recommend approval to council if staff agrees to CH that yeah you're right I don't know that they would there wouldn't be time to actually make chairman yes I try to avoid doing these discussions on the dis but I guess I I share the concerns that commissioner Fay did as I'm wondering just thinking out loud here is if we did proposed reductions like 1 to 10% maybe that was administrative use permit and anything 10 to 50 comes back as a conditional use permit before us I think that way it adds a little more oomph before they start requesting those reductions and if we kind of have a trial period rather than going I do like the tiered system I think there's there's some value to that but I don't want to make it overly burdensome to administrate but I'm wondering if they were to request that if you make it a little more cumbersome maybe they're a little less apt to ask for those reductions and then I understand that I had initial concerns on the the use permit because we have to still meet the find as a fact I'm comfortable with that um but you know usually we always talk about the use permit is you can always pull it back if VI gets out of hand but you're right after the property's developed we can't do anything about it I understand the use permit I think it's probably the best thing in this situation but as in Pre prior cases we have no way to revert that back so um that's just probably what I'd be comfortable with and if this system worked going forward considering this is the first option out of the gate then maybe we come back and look and saying are we comfortable letting planning staff administratively approve it and do the tiers again that's that's my two cents anyone else have any input commissioner Simon can I ask a question to staff am I able to do that at this point I'll allow it okay I appreciate that um Ashley I don't do what what currently when we have projects presented to staff how many deviations on parking are we seeing and where would this fall with regards to what what I mean are we creating I understand we commissioner face at and I understand where commissioner Bon's at I I would agree I see a lot of multif family where we've got you know z z Lots or we've got highdensity multif family where we just doesn't seem like we ever have enough parking and especially now when we've got one-bedroom apartments being shared by four people I mean it's just and not pra or statement but when receive requests for reductions what what are we talking about we talking one a year are we talking every project that comes in we're people are looking for reductions where are we at on that uh chairman and commissioner we probably fielded um inquiries for parking reductions maybe a handful a year it isn't a significant amount um but in terms of applications that we're processing it's much fewer because we don't have the tools in our code right now to address it it it very limit mited scenarios where it is permitted um but we we aren't seeing people regularly asking for reductions there um in scenarios where it's um like I said largely medical office um sometimes Office Buildings we we see the requests um mixed use development we see the requests um because they've got the shared parking tool um but there there aren't a lot of people that um come in um and ask for it like on a on a daily or weekly basis and a followup to that with an administrative use permit If you deny it are they able to appeal it uh they can appeal it would that then come to us it would because you know the the other concern I have is that I don't want to make it to where it creates an inordinate amount of work needless work internally for you if instead of being able to ADM administratively say no don't do this they say no I want to take it all the way to commission and then you have to put the packets put it all out and then they come up here so that that that's one of the only concerns I have is whether by making an adjustment like that we then create a burden of way too many projects that will be coming whether that's going to happen um but and actuallyy you did say they were all appealable correct all three te Ava do you know if administrative relief is what the appeal process is for that I did say that it's appealable to commission but I'm I'm doubting myself I do believe then they would bring it to commission as part of a packet okay okay commissioner Gage thank you chair I just I'm comfortable with staff making that decision between 1 and 10% reduction I think they do a really good job filtering what gets to us to begin with and I I think that they're very capable of making that decision on projects that come through well I think then if somebody wants to make a motion either way we can let the votes determine and if just to clarify if we were to say we recommend approval but changing the administrative use for 10 to 25 so that that's also conditional use is that an allowable motion chairman um staff was looking at changing the language based on your comments this evening um Ashley has written the language but it's the 1 to 10% what if we make that for nonresidential uses only so and Ashley if you want to read the changes please yeah so it would be for parking reductions um if you if you happen to have your Redline copy in front of you um propose reductions between 1 and 10% of the total requirement for off Street parking for non-residential development may be approved administratively by planning manager um pursuant to admin relief um and then we could add similar language to number two propose reductions above 10% and up to 25% of the total requirement for non-residential development and between 1% up to 25% uh for residential development may be approved by an administrative use permit and then we also had a request to include in your motion um to allow staff to make additional changes to conform the draft to current LDC prop 207 requirements no I thought I think that when we were saying that the residential you said that would be an administrative use permit 1 to 25 or uh so one we would modify number two for 1 to 25 to be residential cuz we're removing one 1 to 10% from item number one so then we would just broaden that range on um the administrative use permit for residential or if you're not comfortable with staff reviewing residential reductions at all we could bump that to number three okay I see so the so we could take if we want to just move residential if if if the belief of the commission would be then that would all be conditional use and then yeah I I would say that that would be okay so I guess entertain a motion then with that stipulation and I want to make sure that we clearly annotate that so that we are all in agreement that it's working so if are we then interested in moving that to number three because my understanding is we don't want residential on administrative we want it on conditional that's that's how I feel so are we okay with that from a staff perspective okay then then I'm comfortable making uh emotions for the reasons set forth and a staff report I moved to recommend approval to the Town Council of Z 23-6 with the changes um of the um reduction on residential to move that to number three and the prop 207 and then also is does that also include the change to the use if the change or use changes thank you Elena I had the one additional modification to add um this language any parking reduction approval shall terminate if the use or use changes to 50 5.3.4 A and B I I I think that's a good change I don't know that it'll be immensely effective again I think you're going to politically get it shoved down your throat if we try to implement this but it it's a good change if it works it's like a no trespass Passing sign yep all right so our no so amend that so the motion would just add that would add that reest as well add the language section 5.3.4 A parking recommendations um yada yada any parking reduction approval shall terminate if the use of you or uses Chang okay we have a motion somewhat convoluted but I think we have a motion does anybody like to second that I'll I could do commissioner Fay with the second all right any further discussion not seeing any please vote accordingly awesome all right 6 to one motion passes very well now that'll conclude the non-consent agenda and it will move us into administrative items administrative items are for the commission discussion and action and to the discretion of the majority of the commission regarding public input requests on only administrative items P persons wishing to speak on administrative items should complete a public Comon card indicating the number on which you wish to speak we don't have any of those so we'll go to 13 and we now have what I had jumped the gun to the approval of last month's Planning Commission minutes if anybody has any discussion or amendments to that or possibly a motion chairman I actually do have a couple changes um so in the minutes on study session item number two I'm thinking it should state that we move to initiate the amendment not approve it um and it was a Citizens review so we should probably state that no one was requested to speak so if everyone's okay with that I would move to approve the minutes with that change well we'll see if there's a second a second second from commissioner Simon okay any more discussion no all right please vote once the machines have okay vote passes unanimously 7 to zero thank you all if just to be sure commissioner bian if you could make sure that that adjustment takes place thank you all right now we'll go to the executive session which we do not have and then I'll do a report from chairman and members of the commission does anyone on the commission like to speak or give any form of report not seeing any I will choose to not see any myself either this time thank you all we will then move on to report from the planning services manager Miss Eva um just thank you for a wonderful year and wish everybody happy holidays and we'll see you in the new year that's right we'll see you guys next year that's the end okay now because I've been instructed accordingly I'd like to entertain a motion to close the meeting so moved ah Vice chairman has moved to adjourn the meeting do I have a second second second we have a second from commissioner Everett third everyone please cast your vote on the little Machine Seven votes in motion seven in favor that's unanimous this meeting's been gabbled it's my turn I thought toss what