Well, everything seems to be in order here. So I will call to order the work session here and the first item we have is Z25-11 LDC text amendment and we will have Ashley McDonald presenting. Thank you. >> Thank you chair and commission. I'll get started in just a moment. All right, I will I will be very brief tonight. I have I have a very short presentation for you um on Z2511. This is related to middle housing. It's an LDC text amendment. And what we're asking of commission tonight is to conduct a citizen review um where we receive any feedback from the public that they may um have to offer relative to the the text amendment. Um, and then we will ask commission uh for direction to initiate the text amendment. We're looking to amend section uh 2.0 terms, section 3.0, the base zoning district and use regulations, section 4.0 overlay district regulations, section 5.0 additional use and site regulations, all related to middle housing. Um the the goal of this text amendment is to make changes in conformance with House Bill 2721 that was adopted in uh by the legislature in 2024. Um so just a little bit of background on this. We've been before commission uh related to this item last year. We made um just a a brief text amendment and a general plan amendment to identify our central business district related to this bill. Um but we had until January 1st of 2026 to develop the standards um related to middle housing. And so this is the text amendment that we're now moving forward with. Um but what that bill requires is that we authorize by ordinance regulations allowing the development of duplexes, triplexes, forplexes, and town homes in a couple of different scenarios. One of those is on lots that are zoned single family within one mile of the municipality central business district. So again, last year we identified our heritage district as our central business district. So, this would authorize these types of developments on lots um within one mile of that central business district and including the central business district. Um and then also on 20% of any new development of more than 10 contiguous acres and so that is not um tied to the central business district. That would be anywhere in the town development of 10 uh more than 10 contiguous acres. So if the town does not adopt regulations allowing middle housing in these scenarios, it will be allowed on all lots zoned for single family without limitation. Um so it is it is very important that the town uh follow this legislation and adopt these regulations. Um provisions within House Bill 2721 uh it specifies things that municipalities may not do. That includes um restricting middle housing types to less than two floors. We can't restrict floor area ratios to less than 50%. We can't set regulations um permit reviews or review processes that are more restrictive than those on single family dwellings within the same zoning district. Uh we can't require owner occupancy on structures of on the lot. And we can't require structures to comply with commercial building code or contain a fire sprinkler. And we can't require more than one parking space for unit. So, these are all things that we'll have to address through our code amendment um to ensure that we're complying with this. Um so, next steps, we do not have a draft of this ordinance written today, but with the direction of commission tonight, uh we will begin working on an ordinance um to comply with uh House Bill 2721. Uh we will bring it back before uh study session with planning commission once we do have a draft to receive any feedback. Um and then after that it'll it'll uh come as a public hearing. Um and then ultimately town council uh will hold a study session there as well and then ask for action on the item uh before January 1st. Uh I So I believe that is it for my presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions that you have. Um would ask the commission to open it up in case there's any public here that wants to provide feedback um before we get started drafting that amendment. And then we would ask for direction to initiate the text amendment. Very well. Thank you, Ashley. Well, if anyone has any questions, we can do that and then I will open it up. Does anyone want to ask any clarifying questions? >> Please, Vice Chair Leslie, I have a um this the statement that we can't require um sprinklers. I assume that means we can't require sprinklers if the associated houses don't have sprinklers. But we do have some places where houses have to be sprinkled. Do the the ancillary structures then get sprinkled as well? >> That's something that I think we'll have to continue to um evaluate with our with our legal counsel. Um these bills often um maybe have some vague language or could be interpreted one way versus another. And so I this language that I have up here is direct from the bill. And so we'll need to evaluate, you know, what what we think the intent was. >> Okay. And then the second, I don't know if this is more of a just a general concern, but the idea that we can't require parking for these. I I there's some not everywhere, but there's some zoning or some classifications where I think our parking requirements are inadequate now. And I don't know what that means. Does that mean we have to revisit something else somewhere else? or do we do we have to let it happen and see how it plays out? I'm not sure what the it's it's a it's a concern of mine. I mean, I I don't know that I would want to just stick a parking space on every one of these things, but it's a concern on how that's going to play out for me. I I mean, overall, I'm in favor. It's it's this is the LDC amendment. It's in response to state law. Go run like the wind. But, um I know that that hangs out there to me as a concern. >> Understood. Thank you very much, Commissioner Anderson. >> Actually, thank you for the presentation. Uh, just question. So, I think in there it said uh you can't require these structures to go into uh the building code, IBC code. So, what if there's um I don't know off the top of my head, there's certain things in here in the IRC where what IRC code where once you achieve those, it kind of forces you into the IBC code. So, does that mean you'll have to work with building department to do um um I forget what the term is called for the building codes um kind of amendments to to the building code to reflect that language? >> Chair Monte Commissioner, we will absolutely be working with the building department to understand what be limitations or what types of things we need to write into our code so that we can comply with this and still comply with building code. So, I I don't have an answer for you, but that's certainly something that we'll be working through. >> Thank you. Anyone else? >> Okay. Well, we do have a couple comment cards, so we'll have the public speak and then we can also follow up if there's additional comment um as it relates to uh this. So we have here uh Miss Doris Machado Liddell and Gilbert and wishes to speak please come up and uh state your name and three minutes please. >> Good evening. My name is Doris Michelle Ladell. I'm a Gilbert resident and I also reside and own property in the Heritage District. I'm coming to you today for a citizen review of something that I don't know what I'm reviewing. I did go to the town last week to obtain information regarding this, but I wasn't able to obtain it and so I can't speak on much of anything. This is a citizen review. It's a time for the citizens to know what is going on. We already know what the law is. We know that. We need to know how it's going to affect our property and our zoning and such. I understand with parking that's a concern. It's always a concern, but I hear developers come in all the time and get reduction of parking, shared parking and things like that. So, I hope you consider that when when considering um what is going on. In addition to that, there are, you know, setbacks and all that, but to restrict it to the point where uh people cannot develop their property, these are mostly residential property owners. They're not developers with a lot of money to put sprinklers in the in the property. In my neighborhood, it's been, you know, it's a hundred years old. I live with apartment complexes and they never day one had a pre a sprinkler system and, you know, they're still existing. So, what I ask hopefully is some transparency. When this goes to a study session, the public cannot have any input. when it goes to a study session for council, the public cannot have any input. We cannot go to a a review without any information. It's not right. These reviews need to happen when you have information in front of you that people can review. So I ask in the future and when they say they don't have a draft, they're not working on it, I guess, but why is it here? Once the draft is here, then open it up to a citizen review. Um, I hope that that helps out. Um, and thank you for your time and my property will be affected by this and hopefully for a positive manner. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. Okay, I think that was the only comment on number one. Um, does anyone else have any other further followups? Commissioner Simon? >> Yeah. Um, Ashley, can you clarify because I my understanding is this is you're you're seeking um approval from the commission to uh basically draft the amendment and then open for citizens review. Is that correct? >> Correct. >> We're we're really not even at the citizen review portion yet. You're just looking to us to allow you to do that. So we we kind of hold both hearings at the same or the items at the same time. So we're asking commission to initiate it. Um but at the same time opening it up in case there is public input um on what they would like that draft to look like. Uh so I think that's the intent of kind of grouping these two items is is there input from the community on how this should move forward? um you know are is the community interested in it and then at the same time commission giving us direction that this is something you'd like us to move forward with. >> So who should Dory see in order to be involved in that process? >> Uh she can work with me on that. >> Okay. Thank you. And one clarifying question, this the reason this is here is due to an obligation we have to state law. Is that correct, >> chairman? That is correct. >> Okay. Very good. All right. Well, that's all I had. Anyone else have any other Is everyone okay for us to authorize said citizen review and amendment? Okay, sounds good. Authorization granted. All right. Item number two, Z25-10 LDC text amendment again. And uh this time we'll see Miss Kristen Divine. >> All right. Good evening, commission. Um I am here kind of following in Ashley's footsteps with another text amendment for you. Um I am here for the same reason to conduct a citizen review and to also get your approval to initiate a text amendment. Um my text amendment is not due to state legislation though. It is um pertaining to the Heritage Village Center zoning district. Um over the last year we have been looking into the concept of increasing height within the Heritage Village Center. So that's the text amendment that we are hoping to initiate this evening. Uh just a little bit of background on how we got here and why we're bringing this before you. Uh in 2023, we held a council retreat where a presentation was provided by Urban 3. Um the presentation highlighted the e um the different varying types of development and how that economically affects the town. Uh the council direction at that time was to investigate what increased height could potentially look like within the heritage district. In uh 2025, just a couple months ago, we did provide follow-up information to council at another retreat. Um we provided research on other communities and what they do for height. Um as well as a visual representation of what increased height could look like. Uh the council direction at that point was to continue research and then outreach to additional stakeholders. Um so we have been conducting uh forums with industry professionals, uh different departments within the town. Um, and those conversations are still out ongoing with different stakeholders. Um, this is also needed due to the redevelopment plan. In the redevelopment plan, uh, we highlight the desire for an 18-hour downtown, um, which essentially requires a mix of all uses to sustain that type of development. Increased height could allow for that flexibility. Um, okay. So, I apologize. Uh, my slide with my summary is missing, so I will verbally explain it to you. Um, I'll have more information for you at the study session, which hopefully is coming before you in September, but just as a a rough overview of what we're looking at, the current height permitted in the Heritage District right now in HBC zoning is 55 ft. Uh, we are looking to increase that to 75 ft. If they're located on Gilbert Road, we would still require a step back from 55 to 75 ft. if those HBC parcels are located off of Gilbert Road. We are still looking at 75 feet without a step back. And we are also looking into the opportunity for um bonus incentive items where if you provide specific items and you could also get an increase of 15 extra feet, bringing uh that total height to 90 ft if you are located off of Gilbert Road. Um we are still working through a lot of those details, so I don't have specifics for you, but I will be providing that in our study session when we bring it forward. And again, I apologize for having that information missing from the presentation. And that is all I have for you. Thank you, Kristen. Anyone have any comments or questions? Okay. As such, we do have some comment cards. So, there's a number of individuals who would like to speak. First, I will call Alan Fitzgerald, who has checked that he wishes to speak. Please come up and uh state your name and three minutes, please, sir. >> Oh, one moment, sir, if you could hit the microphone. Red. There's a button on the base of it. >> Oh, the onoff button. >> Yeah, I struggle with that one everywhere. >> They hit it. Yeah. Thank you. >> My name is Alan Fitzgerald. I'm a resident of Gilbert and have been for almost 40 years. I own property in the Heritage District and I'm a stakeholder in decisions that are made concerning uh opportunities for development in the Heritage District. The uh issue in front of us right now uh is so vague. It's really hard to grab a hold of something and say this is a great idea. This is not a great idea. This is what I'd like to see or not like to see. The absence of detail uh will limit my comments. So, I'm going to push the rewind button. I was here two years ago. There was a zoning deviation requested to build a building over the 55 height. That was the Brunette building and that was uh in my mind successfully defeated. And so, we don't have an oversized building on Gilbert Road in the center of the Heritage District. There's a number of of points in here that uh are quite vague and it was mentioned a minute ago about certain stepbacks depending on height without any definition what that is. I'll say very clearly in the core of the Heritage District basically would be Elliot Road and north up to the development where the new hotel area is going in. Uh on Gilbert Road, the heritage district development guidelines were very clear, done by quite a number of people, probably investing a few thousand hours of conversation, debate, disagreement, finalized in an approved plan for the heritage district. I'd hate to see that in a sweep of a general change defeated because that's what we agreed on. That's what we decided was appropriate. And if there is a building that needs the height increase, I think it should be dealt with on an individual case basis through a zoning change for that building in that site for the construction type that it is. This acrosstheboard sweep to change height restrictions is in its sense opposition to the heritage district guidelines. It should not be considered. This should not go forward. We should continue to treat development for height on an individual casebyase basis to see if it fits within the guideline constructs, not necessarily the literal details in the guideline be presented. So, I hope to see more about what's driving this, why this is coming up, what is the building, what is the opportunity, where is it going to be, and how will it influence us stakeholders that own property and buildings in the heritage district. Really do appreciate your time and look forward to more details. Good evening. Thank you very much, sir. All right. Next up to speak, we have Mary Ellen Fresquez. Same thing. Please come up. State your name and you have three minutes. >> Good afternoon, Chairman Munt, Commissioners, and Councilman Lions. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Mary Ellen Frescus. I'm a 30-year resident of Gilbert and a business and property owner in the Heritage District. It isn't always the case that public meetings that address my concerns come to my attention, and I know that they're posted as required by law, but the vigilance required is really daunting. I served on the redevelopment commission. I'm very familiar with the redevelopment commission plan. Yet, last night, I scrolled through it to see that these elements still jump out at me. The themes of the heritage district are pedestrian scale, intimate atmosphere, historic character, and a small town feel. I am not against multi-story building in the heritage district. I support smart growth, and that's why I'm ask what I am asking of you today. I hope you forget forgive the gimmickry approach that I'm going to be using, but I know the three minutes vanishes quickly. And I want to do a quick rundown of building heights in the central business core, the 200 and the 300 blocks. I won't name every business unless you ask me to. But I'm going to start on the northwest side just south of the canal at Bario Queen. It's a single story. Lolos is two stories, the bar two stories. The ice cream place, two stories. Good chicken, two stories. Zimburger, one story. You cross Vaughn to Oreganos, one story. A breakfast place, one story. Pastino's one story. You cross Page Street to Liberty Market, one story. Barbecue Place. And then you go to a possible 75 ft building. Then you go to Norwoods, one building, one story. American Legion, one story. The Convenient Mart and its new building, one story and two stories. You cross the street to the Chamber of Commerce. at the pound's general plan goes and goes back to the redevelopment plan. Redevelopment plan was established in uh approved in 2018 according to the revised statutes title 36 36-1479. If you change substantially change I'm going to read H any proposed modification which will substantially change the redevelopment plan as previously approved by the local governing board shall be considered a new plan and shall be subject to the requirements of this section before it can be approved. And in this regulation in the law, it states that you have to notify each property owner in the heritage district before and tell them initi to uh tell them by mail that this is being initiated. The redevelopment plan is in 2018. The next one is 2028. I don't know when the economic department will start planning for this but it's normally a year and a year and a half process. This is the time this is the place where the public can have input where they are they are aware of what's actually going on. This is basically a circumvention of the laws and how to enforce it. And I know they're going to say well the redevelopment plan is just a guideline. Well, you know, they just used the guideline in order to establish this new proposed text amendment. They established that the it's established to have design guidelines. It's established to have bonds. It's established to have init. There are a lot of things that go into the redevelopment. So, I ask this this should be this should not be initiated. This should be proposed in the redevelopment planning and process. We've waited over 30 years, 40 years, and we still have dirt lots. Two years will not make a difference. We need to have public input. This is a very, very important um document, and that's the redevelopment plan, and it affects everyone in Gilbert. And I thank you for your time. >> Thank you very much. Okay, that was all the comment cards that I have. Is there anyone else that wish to speak on this item? Okay. Well, then we'll bring it up and see if any of the commissioners has any questions or comments as it relates to this text amendment. >> Commissioner Simon. >> Yeah, I'll just comment. Um, you know, we're currently at 55 ft. I think that the Brendep building wanted an additional 10 feet for some screening or something along those lines. I don't remember exactly. Um I I feel like 75 feet in the district is is excessive. I think that we should look at it from a case- by case basis. So I'm not sure that I'm in alignment with this and I think that I probably agree with the residents with regards to going the the process of the RDC. >> Thank you, Commissioner Simon. Anyone else have any comments? And >> I have a question for sure. Go ahead. For uh Kristen, one of the uh I remember if it was one of the goals is that it's an 18-hour day or we're an 18 hour is that um like by design we're going to be from 10:00 a.m. to 2 am. We're you know like New York's the city that never sleeps. We're the city that sleeps from 2 am to 10 a.m. or what what does that mean? >> So, I don't know that I'm the best person to explain it, but we don't have specific times where we're looking at like like you said, like a 10 a.m. to a 2 a.m. type of thing. An 18-hour downtown is really meant to be somewhere where you live, work, and play somewhere where everything is accessible all in one area that operates at different hours of the day, not just your standard 9 to5. Um, so the increased height that we are looking into can benefit that by allowing for multif family mixed with office mixed with commercial where you have one building that has all of these uses together. Um, and I I have all sorts of additional information that I would love to provide you in the study session. Um, but fortunately it just wasn't ready to come before you this evening. >> Okay. It's more just kind of what's implied in that term. So I guess it really doesn't affect I I don't think the the actual matter in front of us though. >> And can you clarify that what staff is asking of us? Is this similar in nature to the item one where this you're asking us to initiate a citizen review to where not only the citizens whom are present today against it that other citizens who may in fact be for it would coalesce and bring all of their input together. Like I just want to make sure the the question of are we sidest stepping a the current redevelopment plan versus are we opening up the conversation where what they're seeking of that would take place. I mean I am not in favor of just blanketing it to say okay now everybody can do the 90 ft or or whatever that might be but I just want to make sure that I'm understanding that this today what we are deciding is what does that mean? >> Yeah sure. So chairman um it it's pretty much exactly the next steps that Ashley explained in her presentation. Um, all we're looking for tonight is for your approval to pursue this text amendment to be able to bring it back before you for a study session and potential vote if that's the way that we go. It will also go to redevelopment commission for their feedback, for their recommendation. It'll go to council for their feedback, their um final vote. Um, so this is really just the first step. We need to be able to bring it for a proper discussion with all the different boards and councils. But like Ashley was explaining, this is also a citizen review with the initiation. So this is the opportunity for the citizens to provide their input. Um but that that this is the in the information that we have at this time. >> And I turned off my mic. And if it were to go forward through those channels that you just described into the redevelopment commission, would it come back here then too? >> Yes, absolutely. So um off the top of my head, it will come to you for study session first. It will then go to redevelopment commission for study session. Um it will go to redevelopment commission for recommendation to you for recommendation and then somewhere in their council study session and then council gets the final approval. So it it will go to all three of you for both study session and hearing. >> Okay. So if an individual commissioner is even against this, a vote today is not in fact saying I am for this. I am for if staff wishes to seek that process that I would say I am for that process taking place. >> Correct. Yes. This is a vote simply on the process. It has nothing to do with the numbers that I've provided you. That's all information that we can discuss in a study session or during the hearing. Um, this is just allowing staff to present you more information and to to get resident feedback information that we have. >> Okay. Okay. Anyone else have any other comments requested? You have vice chair. >> And in terms of initiating beginning the the process, I would be all in favor of that except for related to what Yan said. You've already got numbers in this. I mean heights and if it was just we're looking at beginning a process I mean it sounds to me like the process has begun if you already know that we're looking at 75 ft if it's step 55 with step I mean it sounds like at least something's already begun. >> Sure. So chairman vice chair Fay um research has been done just due to direction from the council at the retreat to look into whether increased height is something that they even be favorable towards in the heritage district if it would work for our heritage district. But we've looked into um other communities as a comparative analysis. We've looked into industry experts to get their feedback on different floor heights, things like that. So, we have information to provide to you, but we don't have a draft of a text amendment yet. And we don't have your official feedback on whether or not this is even the right path to go. That's usually what study sessions are reserved for. Um but we can't bring this to for a study session and >> till we formally initiate it. If >> well that's we we have to follow council gave you some marching orders and we have to follow those too in my opinion. Um so all I'm including specifically if it's about new building heights I'm >> all on board. I do agree with yeah uh Commissioner Simon that that those numbers sound a little on the high side for the area but um if it's a little bit of oh we just did some research okay good enough. the the numbers are a baseline that we're working with, but they are conceptual. They they can be tweaked due to direction given by >> the numbers. The numbers don't come from council, right? The idea of looking at height comes from correct. Okay. >> Okay. All right. So then in this case, you then would once again need a yay or nay as to whether or not we encourage you to initiate. Oh >> yes. Oh, chairman or commissioner dearina, you're on the end. I apologize. >> I have my light on so long I forgot what my question was. I I think your answer to commissioner F's question answered part of my concern is that how did this come up? I think you said it came up because the uh the uh council was out for the study session and height issues were discussed. Um, and you mentioned, excuse me, you answer another part of my question is that you said because of those height increases, you could add more availability, I guess, more living units, more parking, more everything. Uh, but I agree with the resident. I I don't think we need to go that high, and I think it should be on an individual one-off basis. So, that's that's my input on this. Okay. Well, then do we have a consensus of what we would like to recommend? I don't know. I I think that I would have to be against approval of moving this forward. I just I feel like 55 ft four stories is plenty in the district. Um at least for now and we've got vacant properties there. If we take it on a case by case basis if somebody wants to come before us and and try to get another 10 ft I think that's fine. Um if RDC is coming up in the next couple of years I don't I just I just really struggle with this and I struggle with this becoming where we've got towering buildings in a very narrow space. So, I just I just struggle with it. I don't I don't feel like it's right for this area. So, >> at the risk of overstepping, I apologize. Um I I have a ton of information that I would be able to provide you for how we got to this concept. Um I just this information isn't included because it's it's an initiation. It's not a study session. I don't have all the information for you. >> Right. >> So, what we're talking about is just in order for you to expend time upon doing something such as this development, I imagine that you would have to have some direction. Is that sort of what we're saying? Um, okay. Let's let me game plan this out then. What happens to council's request to look into this in the event that we do not grant that approval? >> I'm going to defer to Ashley or Elena. I I don't know. >> Just kidding. Uh Mr. care. According to the uh the land development code, it looks like the town council may direct the plan uh planning commission to initiate um and analyze um and make a recommendation for a text code uh a code uh text amendment to the code. Um additionally, you as a body um may also uh initiate consideration of any text amendment. So, um, depending on what you decide here, I imagine we'll, uh, town council will be updated and there is a a provision in the LDC where they can direct, uh, planning commission to go ahead and initiate that. >> Okay. >> Lena, may I ask a question? >> Is it possible to initi um, conduct a second citizen review >> or we only do the one this evening? Um LDC does allow for us to um set out our own process for citizen review. Um like it's been discussed here tonight. Part of that is the overall concept requests to be included in you know in included in the as a stakeholder. Um, and then again, uh, with the multiple hearings, especially with regard to this specific text amendment, they will have another opportunity to to weigh in. >> I have a thought. >> Go ahead. You have some advice, chair. >> Not not for the entire group, but speaking for my I mean, to me, I I think the fact that council wants this is going to if we were voting, it would essentially force my hand. If council wants it, the answer for me is yes. I hope you've heard clearly heard the uh the numbers you've thrown out there are maybe not ones that will be favorably received if they >> loud and clear >> and in the event that we don't have a full consensus what is the appropriate manner with which to proceed do I do a vote or do I just say I guess I don't Elena's wishing that I was on vacation again since I'm putting the hard questions out. >> Can I speak some more? >> Commissioner Simon, nothing would make me happy. >> With all due respect, yeah, please. I My concern with um recommending this move forward would be that it hits the process and somehow gets gets silenced. And and I'm I just I feel like we have a very good heritage district and I think that we have a very good plan for the heritage district. I I would just be very concerned that once this ball starts rolling, it would be very difficult to put it back in the box. And so that's that's my concern and I would much rather take it on a on a case-by case basis. But I don't know if we need to take a vote. I don't know if you can just ma wave your magic wand and make it happen. But I just I want to make myself clear. So >> thank you, Commissioner Simon. Mr. Chair, just to get back to your question, um the LDC uh conceitedly could use a little more information on that account, but it looks like uh the the commission would just directs the planning uh manager to prepare an amendment. Um so it's uh an affirmative um action on your part to or on this panel's part to direct them to do that. absent that they don't have the authority in under uh under this provision. Um but again the count town council can come back and direct planning commission uh to go ahead and initiate text amendment as well. Uh so I I'm not sure I'm answering your question as directly as I'd like but it I I don't think that you need to take any action for her for staff not to do it. It takes affirmative action in order to make that happen. >> Okay. And when when I just want to make one other clarifying point when you say that council can have us like they can direct us to do it, is that what we're dealing with here or is this different? Like I I just I want to make sure if council has directed us to do something and that's something they can do that to me is different than what do I think of this. >> So council has has held um two sessions on the heritage district and through those sessions we received feedback um that this is something that they would like us to look into. All right. Well, how >> Commissioner Davis, please. >> I was just going to say that um I guess where I'm at is I'm okay with initiating this staff has heard the concerns. I think moving I'm willing to hear what the you know proposal will be in the future and there'll be public hearings to discuss further. So that's where I stand on it. Thank you, Commissioner. >> All right, >> we got Kyle up. >> This has gotten difficult. >> Just came to help >> bringing in the heavies. >> Just came to help if I could. >> You are correct. the council at one of the heritage district work heritage district workshops um did talk to staff and direct staff to start looking into additional height in the heritage district and so as part of that process is an initiation with the planning commission council could have directed the planning commission to initiate it but typically our process is and you've seen it several times staff comes in front of the planning commission to initiate it and starts the ball rolling then then we can have all the public hearings in front of the different bodies uh and take it eventually back to council for a for a decision. >> Okay. Okay. Well, I think in regards to similar to echoing the statements of Commissioner Davis on the sense of looking into it, I don't particularly have a problem with saying sure you can look into it, but the input both from the citizens today as well as um ours reflecting the need for it. But I want to make sure that as a body we're at least okay with that as it relates to, you know, Commissioner Simon's position as well. Okay. Well, all right then. I will just fall on the sword and say I I will grant the authorization to look into it, but please note for the record that there are some concerns from us as it relates to this height and that we very much expect to be able to um take all the information both from the citizens and that uh the the other uh design review to be sure that we can make a um a good decision on this. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. Item number three, DR25-54, NWC Val Vista in Queen Creek. And we get graced with the presence of Mr. Sal de Santo. Good evening, chair, commissioners. Good to see you all tonight. The project we'll be taking a look at tonight is DR25-54, the northwest corner of Val Vista in Queen Creek. Taking a look here at the subject site, it is currently parcled off quite a bit, but it's basically going to be this big uh portion at the northwest corner of Val Vista in Queen Creek. The portion outlined in blue is roughly 8.07 07 acres and the total master site plan is roughly 12.95 acres. The entire site is zoned shopping center and is actually bordered by single family residential to the north and to the west just across Val Vista. We also have some vacant land which is going to be or I'm sorry carries the SF35 zoning district and just to the south beyond Queen Creek is some additional shopping center. Before we dive into the current site plan, I think it would be beneficial just to show the previous approval uh back from 2023, which is for the master site plan uh amendment, which also included the Walgreens at the hard corner there. Uh with this amendment, the applicant at the time proposed six pads on the entirety of the site. Uh two of which are existing Walgreens and the storage facility and then four additional pads for future development. of the six, uh, two of the pads are dedicated to drive-through uses, and that's including the Walgreens pharmacy drive-thru. Now, taking a look at the most updated site plan, uh, we can see that there's been quite a bit of changes from the previous iteration to this one. Uh, the most noticeable change is going to be the amount of pads on the site. Uh, as mentioned, the previous iteration had a total of six pads and two drive-throughs. This current iteration is eight pads with, I believe, five drive-throughs. So, some of the most noticeable changes you can see here are other than the increase in buildings is the reorientation of pad A, which has been redesigned to accommodate a uh daycare center, we also see the adjustments along the norththeast corner uh where we have the transition of three commercial uh pads in a row there. And then we can also see the adjustment along Queen Creek Road uh with the addition of the quick uh lube shop which is proposed to be a valvalene. Uh the proposed site orientation raises a few concerns uh with staff due to the proximity of autocentric uses in the shopping center zoning district. uh specifically as I mentioned those three pads up along Val Vista and the transition between the Valvalene and the Walgreens. uh with this because there is a high quantity of autoor oriented uses this limits the amount of um architecture facing the arterial street streets typically um in our commercial developments we'd like to see this um you know high presence of architecture along our street funages and with the um inclusion of these additional pads we have a lot of them in an east west orientation providing the main facades interior to the site Uh with the increased number of pads, we also have some concerns in regards to safety uh particularly vehicular circulation and pedestrian circulation. Uh because the site has been reoriented um with the removal of the centralized parking and more of a independent design for each pads. We want to ensure that there is sufficient pedestrian circulation um or I'm sorry pedestrian safety and vehicular circulation. Uh we particularly see this once again in that uh alignment along Val Vista where those three proposed drive-throughs all carry the same orientation with the drive-throughs wrapping east to west and with the potential stacking into the interior drive aisles on site. And the last um bit we wanted to add just on the site plan um as mentioned it is in the shopping center zoning district. And typically within this zoning district we like to see medium to largecale commercial and office uses that create the ability to spend you know more time on the site and create an engaging experience. And we feel that the implementation and addition of these additional pad sites and their design serves more as independent uses instead of a unified design. Uh another thing I just wanted to add to looking at the site plan is just in regards to setbacks because we are adjacent to residential on the north and to the west. We want to ensure that the 75- ft building setback is met as well as the 30ft landscape to the north and the 35- ft landscape setback to the west. Uh, currently the landscape setback to the west isn't completely met. Um, on that northwest strip, we are meeting that 35, but it does tend to thin down as we move south. Um, getting below that count. So, we'll continue to work with the applicant to ensure the minimum standards are met on site. And now leading into this updated site plan. So this is actually a site plan that was provided to us by the applicant towards the tail end of last week. It has not been formally submitted. Um but you can tell in the design that they've been trying to respond to staff's comments as best as they can. Um they've aligned much of the site similar to the original orientation that was approved with the Walgreens um except with the inclusion of the two pads which are the quick loop shop and one of the drive-thru uh users along Val Vista. We haven't had time to formally review this one, but just taking a quick look at it. We, you know, do appreciate the applicant's uh willingness to add that centralized parking to help create a free flowing design um to help pedestrians navigate to other paths and the also the reorientation of the drive-thru in the north uh east corner. You can see that that drive-thru and the one two pads down now have uh deferring orientation which will help with the vehicular circulation. uh looking at the landscape plan uh the plants uh you know trees and shrubs are very consistent with been what's been proposed with the Walgreens and the storage facility some of the plants are pal verde red push pistache and evergreen elm but the biggest thing to note is along the queen creek street frontage there are various SRP easements which restrict the placement of trees so we'll continue to work with the applicant to ensure they're strategically placed uh on site to meet the quantities ities along the street frontages and again mentioning that that landscape setback along the west property line will need to maintain 35 ft for the entirety. Uh here I just wanted to provide some elevations as context for um the Walgreens that was previously approved as the master site plan requires um the pads within it to share some kind of architectural form. Here looking at the proposed valvalene we can see that it carries um pretty much the same shape but um the colors are a bit varied and the architecture is a bit different. While the materials are consistent, the use of CMU, Ephus, um, metal accents, uh, we just would like to see the applicant try and tie in closer to the Walgreens, um, with the, you know, inclusion of those cooler colors opposed to the warm colors and maybe tying in another additional material. And with that, we are just bringing this um to you all for any questions, comments, but particularly in regards to the overall site design, elevations, and the compliance and intent of the shopping centers zoning district. And I'm happy to answer any questions or take in any comments. Thanks. >> Thank you very much, S. Bring it up here and see. Um I do have a comment card. Does anybody have anything they wanted to ask or comment on with S prior to entertaining the public input? >> Not usually, but uh okay, we have uh an individual. It does not say he wishes to speak, but if you do, sir, and I read this, please come on up. But uh it's from Tim Ler. He is in favor of the item and his comments are, "Let's get this project built. Great developer, great site." >> If you would like to, sir, please. Yeah. Are you Are you Tim Ler? >> Yeah, please come on up to the um podium. That was escaping me. State your name and uh three minutes, sir. >> Mr. Chair, >> if if you could hit the button in the center. There you go. Got it. Little slow here. Sorry. Tim Loker with Hawkeye Development. Um interested in the development and also looking at one of the pads for a client of mine and um we are excited uh want to get going and uh not subject here personally. They need to get going and uh um want to do it here in Gilbert. Uh can't wait forever. um understand everything going on, but uh love to get in there and uh we'll we'll uh uh work with planning and staff and and making sure our pads, but would love to see this going and feel like the the last iteration that the obviously by us, but the last iteration the seller and their architect made or the master development uh feels to us like it it certainly addressed a lot of the issues and we're hopeful it did so that we can uh piggy back our application and and try to catch up and hope for business. >> We can't actually comment on anything you're saying in case that was just clarify. >> Um I don't need to didn't need to speak but in support of the project and I guess there no questions I'll back down. >> All right. Thank you very much Mr. Chair. >> All right. We'll bring it up here then for discussion from the group. Anyone want to kick off possibly criticism of S if you'd like? I don't know what you'd say, but Commissioner Anderson. >> S, thank you for the presentation. Uh, you made a comment during it that you were wanting the I think the colors and materials to tie more into the Walgreens. I didn't see a image in here. So, what type of colors do they have on that wall green? >> Chairman, Commissioner Anderson. So the colors that are proposed on the Walgreens are going to be that Baltic gray and cotton. Um they represent a bit of more cooler tones to the site which also ties into that existing storage facility. Um they also have some nijiha you know fiber cement and various um textures to provide some architectural um change along those those uh facades. So, we were just looking from from staff to see if there was a way to maybe pull in one of these colors or additional materials um to accent the the the built wall greens. >> Okay. Well, they have the reds back and forth on these. Um and I'm assuming the Valene that's probably their prototype that they kind of just all over the place. >> Commissioner Anderson. Um thinking so. I think that's just one of their goal. >> Yeah. Okay. I personally I'm okay with the colors around here. I I'm not a big fan as to when you have these big commercial centers and every single building has the same colors, same materials and everything. It just doesn't create any interest in the project in the area that I feel. So, I'm okay with the colors this way, but if you guys want to kind of go that direction that you're going, that's that's your prerogative. That's fine, too. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Commissioner Anderson. any other input that we'd like to share with the staff as it relates Davis. >> Thank you, Chair. Um, I'll just um say that I um echo some of staff's concerns as far as the pedestrian connectivity and the um vehicular um safety. Um these drive-throughs, some of them will generate possibly a lot of traffic, a lot of um cars backing up. So, I think that needs to be looked at pretty carefully. Um, that site plan that you presented that you just saw, it looked like they were going back to the major A plan that they had in the initial site plan. >> Um, just looks like there's a bit less parking. Um, so that's something for staff to look at and evaluate. I do appreciate that they did that. Um, but I do think that they need to take those concerns to heart and try and make some changes to make this a good center. That's a lot of drive-throughs, a lot of um auto oriented uses right there, and it's not really creating a synergy. I agree with what you said about the SC zoning district and it not really um meeting that intent. So, I support staff on that. Um as far as the building elevations go, um I agree that I don't think all of the buildings need to match each other. I think some ties together if there's, you know, some material that are the same or some forms that are the same, they can nod to each other without being too matchy. So that's where I stand on that. Thank you. >> Great. Thank you. >> Thank you, Commissioner Davis. >> Vice Chairman Fay. >> Yes. Now, I'm not terribly bothered by the change in use or the the additional pads. As long as we make sure the drive valves don't back up out onto the rightway, I'm not actually that bothered by it. I I would not be very sympathetic to the the deviation and the setbacks, particularly against residential communities. It if you need that to get this done, then you're trying to get too much onto this site. other than that one quote which seems like that's kind of the smaller issue but to me that's the one that >> I'm less sympathetic to the my as far as the rest of it I'm not particularly concerned by it might not be what the city originally invested but I mean this is this is where the you know the free market capitalist kind of comes in it's his he's he's putting the money up so I'm I'm not as bothered by that part when it comes forward again thank you >> commissioner dearino I was going to say when I first looked at this project this weekend, I was a little bit concerned going from six pads to and and two drive-throughs to eight pads and five drive-throughs. That's quite an increase. But you said you guys have looked at that if you looked at the safety of the pedestrians. I feel comfortable if you did enough analysis to feel that it's appropriate because that makes it a much more crowded area. >> That's quite an increase. It's more than double on the drive-throughs. Drive-throughs are busy and they take up a lot of space. So that would be as long as you guys have looked at it and feel comfortable, then I guess I'm I'm with it, too. But that kind of stood out when I was reviewing this. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Commissioner. All right. Any other final comments? All right. S, do you have enough information? >> Got everything I need. Thank you. >> That boy. Thank you very much, sir. Okay, moving on to item number four. Discussion of the regular meeting agenda. Uh we're looking at the consent. We have uh 8 9 10 11. Um does anyone have any issues with those consent items? Okay. And then on to the non-consent as it relates to I was told prior to the meeting that item number 14 has been continued. Is that correct? That Ashley >> uh chairman that is correct. Um it didn't receive action at council last night. So we'll need to continue that until November 5th >> and we should put the vote November 5th in the statement then. Okay. Uh, and then we have items 12, 13, and 15 will be the three on non-consent. And I know that I have comment cards on number 13. >> Well, that was the one I was going to recommend for consent, but I guess not. >> So, I guess that's what you get, vice chair. >> That's what you get. >> Okay. Well, I guess that uh it looks like we'll just leave the agenda as is. Sorry, that's the only one you've got comment cards on >> thus far, but I can tell that there's been a bit of a >> expect we got a lot probably coming in >> an in influx of individuals that will take time. So, okay. Well, then very good. Well, with that then I will adjourn the work session and we will take a five minute break and be back here to kick off the meeting at 6:12. Thank you. Okay. Well, it looks like I was a few minutes off on my estimate of five. We went nine. So, I will take this time now and call the regular meeting to order. Uh we will open with the pledge of allegiance. If you would please stand and follow me. All right, Ashley, if I could get a roll call please. >> Alternate Commissioner Wong. >> Alternate Commissioner Lion. >> Commissioner Deg Gravina >> here. >> Commissioner Gage >> here. >> Commissioner Davis >> here. >> Commissioner Simon >> here. >> Commissioner Anderson >> here. Vice Chairman Fay >> here >> and Chairman Munt >> here. >> Uh chairman, we do have a quorum. >> Thank you very much. >> Okay, can move into item number five, which is the approval of the agenda. I'll just entertain a motion. I believe from our discussion in the study session, we've decided the uh agenda would stay the same. So, if anyone has a motion, >> motion to approve the agenda as such. >> We have a motion from Mr. Anderson. Do I have a second? >> What? Before we go any further, can we does the uh motion to approve it as written with the continuation on it or? >> No, we'll just vote to continue. We'll do that. That was Yeah. >> Then I'll second them. >> Okay. Second from vice chair. Everyone, please cast your vote. Motion carries. Communications. Item number six is the communications from citizens. At this time, members of the public may comment on matters within the jurisdiction of the planning commission. Commission may not discuss items that are not specifically identified on the agenda. Therefore, pursuant to state law, action taken as a result of public comment will be limited to directing staff to study the matter, responding to any criticism, or scheduling the matter for further consideration. I have a number of comment cards. Um, two of which uh were were listed as general comment. So, I will read your name um and if if you wish to speak uh please come up and you'll have three minutes. So, Rob Gurian, uh, yeah, Rob, come on up to the podium and, uh, turn on the microphone. There's a button at the base with a kind of face with some lines of volume coming out of it. Hit that and then please, uh, state your name and you'll have three minutes, sir. >> Is that good? >> Yep. Yep. >> Okay. Uh, commissioner and members of the commission, thank you for allowing me to speak. My name is Rob Gaderian. I'm a Gilbert resident and I live in Stonebridge Lakes Estates and I'm here to speak to you about an ongoing issue we've had with 33 North development by Woodside Homes specifically around a common boundary and recent administrative activity. When I last was here at this podium in April to speak to you, there was a dispute over whether our shared property line where the actual shared property line was. That dispute has now been resolved and our existing walls are entirely within our property as we stated. This has been confirmed by multiple surveys and a replat that has been submitted by Woodside Homes last month. At that meeting, Mr. Shawn Terrell from Woodside Homes stood at this very pulpit and promised to quote, "Work this out." And that Woodside Homes wanted to be a good neighbor. Six of you took him at his word and voted to move that project forward. But here's what happened next. Four business days later, Woodside was on site with the mixers running and mortar ready, and they were preparing to stucco the backside of our private walls that they didn't even own. After that, they the town issued them a permit to build a perimeter wall, and they built that knowing and they knowingly crossed the boundary line and attached it to my neighbor's private wall without permission. After that, their contractors graded lots one through six, pushing 10 to 12 inches of dirt over the property line and against our walls, which are not engineered as retaining walls. These are most definitely not the actions of a good neighbor developer. We have given Woodside Homes ample time to work with us on an agreeable solution. There's no need for hurried, rushed, and backroom deals to be made. On May 15th, they submitted an incomplete proposal for a replacement wall, leaving Stonebridge Lakes residents to cover the cost for painting, landscaping, irrigation, wall reconnection, among other costs. This violates the June 2022 stipulations in the plan approval that this commission issued for that site, which clearly states that the developer must cover all costs associated with wall reconstruction. We countered this offer on May 30th. Since then, total silence from Woodside Homes for almost 3 months. Meanwhile, we've learned that Woodside and town planning staff have been exploring alternate solutions without notifying affected residents and are potentially considering building a double wall, which also violates the approval given in 2022. One such proposal includes building a view fence just 16 in away from our existing walls. Let me be very clear. A 16-inch alleyway between walls is a maintenance, safety, drainage, pest, and liability nightmare, and it violates the town's own code and the original approval conditions. To make matters worse, there are still serious deficiencies with the survey and replat submitted by Woodside Homes. My request tonight is simple. Do not allow these major changes that are part of this replat to be approved administratively in secret without affected residents input. Please bring them back before this planning commission in public where they belong. You are clear in the conditions of your 2022 plan approval. Deviating from it undermines the committee's authority and cast doubt on the transparency integrity of the planning and approval process. Thank you. >> Thank you, sir. Okay. The next general comment I have Brandon Martinez. and same thing, sir. Please just state your name and then you'll have three minutes. Thank you. >> My name is Brandon Martinez. I'm actually from the same um housing area Stonebridge um with the same concerns with 33 West. Um we were here before, we spoke before. about this specific housing project and some of our concerns. My personal experience with it has been I have had concerns with the safety of my son who is blind and autistic uh with concerns over things being driven into our neighborhood potentially with scorpion, snakes, things like that. And there are things we actually encountered with this. Um we originally talked about this with the committee um when another builder was looking at building there and there was a plan to mitigate that. uh some things that came actually from this council to say, "Hey, this these are some ways that we can address that." Um when this housing area started coming in or the new developer, I mentioned that their comment was, "Yeah, we'll take care of that. We'll reach out to the committee, see what their recommendations were, and we'll make sure that's addressed." Then less than a week later, they were out tearing down the house, leveling the field, nothing in place to mitigate that. and we've seen scorpions, snakes, those type of things driven into the neighborhood. Now, we have the the same kind of concerns coming in. If we're going to put backtoback walls, the same thing that was uh just mentioned, that's going to create a corridor in there that we can't maintain, doesn't allow access, becomes a fire hazard. The scorpions and things that are already there become more. rodents and things that are already there become more because there's no way for us to address that. Um, looking at the website, um, the ideal candidate for this committee was the ideal candidate will has to have the need for balance between individual property rights and the long-term needs of the community. The candidate should experience actively listening to viewpoints and know how to raise thoughtful questions in a group setting. Um, what I'm asking is is this balance. I'm at a place where I can't do anything about it. You can. So, all I'm asking is let's have that balance. Let's have an open forum. Let's discuss what's going on. Let's discuss the concerns and let's make sure that the safety, financial security, and everything of both parties is addressed. Um, my thing is, I mean, we could do one of two things. We can do the easy thing and we could go into an administrative session and basically rubber stamp things for the builder or we could have an open forum where we can have a discussion and hear both sides. My son in the back, I don't want him being bit by a snake, encountering rats. if he gets stung by something, bit by something, he can't see it, he's autistic, doesn't know to move away from it, and I have safety concerns around that. I want to make sure those things are addressed in what we do when we go forward. Thank you. >> Thank you, sir. And the last comment card we have is a uh Miss Dorise Machado Liddell wishes to speak. Please come up, state your name again and uh three minutes. >> Hello, my name is Dorise Michelle Ladell and I just would like to comment I'm a Gilbert resident. I'd like to comment on a few things. I'd like to comment on the fact that I've brought this up on multiple occasions that the planning commission agenda items need to be placed on the event calendars where the redevelopment commission agenda items are and also the town council. This would give the public the opportunity to know what's going on and have the opportunity to make comments. Right now, you really have to find it and it's hard to find for somebody who doesn't know what they're looking for. I'd also like to ask the town attorney, I know you can't comment, but is the subst is it a substantial change going from 55 ft to 90 ft? Is that substantial? I would also like to say regarding the citizen review. This is the public hearing uh comment, not comment um notification. On this public hearing notification, it says all application of project files may be review or viewed by the public Monday through Friday at the East Civic Center Drive. You can't review anything because there's nothing to review. So, I think that like I said before, if you're going to have a review, know give the public the information on what they're reviewing. I would also like to say um one of the things that is missing and and I appreciate your time and I appreciate listening to the public but I really believe that your duties are provided by the council but I don't and I'm very disturbed that the council can tell you what to do. The council needs to go, it needs to go to the council and then they need to decide. But to basically have the council tell you what to do is kind of um disturbing and I hope you stand up for the people that you're here and I know you will. Um but I just would like to comment on that. So please take that back to the council. Thank you. Thank you very much. Um, as it relates to the, uh, first two, um, comments, um, not to discount Mr. release, but I just wanted to I guess for the first time in my tenure direct staff if I could just get an update of both something about that development and the wall situation. Um because I just I I would take that as that that is a criticism and I would like to better understand both what that situation is and then also what um what function we could have because it sounds almost like it's more of a uh code enforcement versus something that I would you know that we would have any purview but I want to get a better understanding and I don't know if that's just something that you could brief me on or or let me know but or if that's legal, Elena, I don't know. >> That's fine, Mr. Chair. Uh you're within um you're within your perview to request further information. So, we'll take that note. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. >> We'll move to item number seven, report from council leison on current events and uh council member Lions. Do I have anything at this time? No. Thank you. >> Thank you, sir. 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 open consent calendar. Such a request is made, the commission shall withdraw the item for public hearing consent calendar for the purpose of public discussion. and other items on the agenda may be added to the consent calendar and approved. Uh these are our consent calendar consists of items 8 n 10 and 11. Um currently I do not have any comment cards given the high attendance we have. I want to query the crowd to see is there any individuals who had come out this evening to speak on any of the items 8 9 10 or 11 that I did not get a comment card for. Okay then with that being said um I will >> chairman I believe we might have one gentleman here >> always >> oh here I'll I'll read I'll read this I yeah 8 n and 10 8 number eight is S25-01 happy and Higgley number nine is ST24-02 Cottage Lane 10 is DR24-112 Costco fuel expansion and 11 is DR24-141 ranch house court industrial building. Um and and I guess to answer the question of the gentleman is that in the back there should be agendas and there's there's not um there might have been usually there would be but yeah so it the agendas are in the back and if anyone else does not have an agenda um please let someone on the staff on the this side know and we can try to get you >> chairman if I may there is a QR code that you can scan in the back that will take you to the agenda and we also do have a staff member are uh going to print some. So, um we should have some more agendas um in the back shortly. >> Perfect. I'm sure most people are like me with QR codes. That's that's a little too hipster. I I get confused. So, um All right. Well, then um >> Yes, ma'am. >> That's a great question. what she asked about was she said that there was no packets for number 15 which I believe is the same issue Ashley >> chairman that's correct we we did run out of copies and again are making more copies so we should have some of those um brought in in just a moment actually I think I think they might be here >> and in the interim would that QR code also link people to that item as well or is that just the agenda >> I'm not sure >> okay I shouldn't have asked Okay, I think S has some more. So, if anyone else needed um packets, they they will have some there. Um with that, then I think we can entertain a motion for the consent calendar. If I may. >> Yes. Please >> go ahead and make a motion to approve the consent calendar uh consisting of 8 S2501 Happy and Higgley, number 9 ST2402 Cotton Lane, number 10 DR24112 Costco Fuel Expansion, and number 11 DR24141 Ranch House Court Industrial Building. >> Thank you, Commissioner Simon. We have a motion. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Second from the vice chair. Please cast your vote. Motion carries 70. Moving on now to the public hearing. Non-consent. Non-consent public hearing items will be heard at an individual public hearing and will be acted upon by the commission by separate motion. During the public hearings, anyone wishing to comment in support of 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 form indicating the item number on which you wish to be heard. Uh these comment cards are these yellow cards that uh would be in the back. So for anyone who is here to speak, please be sure if I do not have your card to fill one out just so that I do not miss anything. Um, >> once the hearing is closed, there will be no further public comment unless requested by the commission. Starting off here, we will have item 12 consisting of two S24-01, the ranch, uh, and DR24-06, the ranch, and, uh, Miss Nicole Russell. Thank you, chair, members of the commission. Nicole Russell, senior planner development services. The two applications before the commission this evening is the the ranch master site plan, landscaping, grading and drainage, elevations, floor plans, lighting, and colors and materials for an approximate 312 acre site located south of Elliot Road. It is also west of Power Road and north of Warner. There are five zoning districts associated with this development which include the multif family medium, mixeduse small, mixed juice large, light industrial, and general commercial. Here is the approved phasing plan that was approved with ordinance 2872 and 2873 in June of 2023. The first phase of the development will consist of the green open space and the phase 1A consists of the multifamily medium, mixed use small, mixed use large. Since it's not colored on this map, that's why I'm going through this for you. Um, general, commercial, and the 1B phase is the restricted industrial, which I'll go into later in my presentation. 1C is the commercial phase at the corner of Warner and Power. And the second and third phases include the industrial portion of the project. Here is the master site plan that is proposed that is in substantial conformance with the approved development plan associated with both of the zoning ordinance or Z2305 and Z2304 as well as GP2312 and GP2205. Here is the preliminary plat. The applicant is requesting the approval of the preliminary plat for a 37 lot subdivision. Um most of the lots are follow the building lines except for the multifamily medium is one lot. Um part of the mixeduse small. Guess I should point this out for you. So the mixed use the multif family medium is this portion. This would be part of the mixeduse small and this is part of the mixeduse large. Otherwise, the rest of the parcels, the parcels being created would follow approximate building lines and parking. As stated, phase one will be an approximate 18.5 acre uh strip that is along a portion of Ren Drive. Um this is a buffer between the Morrison Ranch community to the west and the proposed ranch development. Some of the amenities that are proposed within this portion of the project would be benches, a multi-use path, and the design of the white split rail fencing that matches the rest of Morrison Ranch. The multifamily medium is approximately 14.92 acres and there will be 220 units which consists of 10 build 10 twostory buildings with 10 units in each building. The project shows a 41.8% open space where 40 is required. You can see some of the amenities they are. You've got pickle ball, playground, dog park. You've got the pool and amenity center there, which is multi-story. Here is one of the two types of buildings for the multifamily medium. This the has two color schemes. This is the first one. It has board and batten siding with stone and metal accents. And there's two roof types. They are shingle and standing seam metal with a max height of 35 ft. Here are some of the renderings provided by the applicant. This shows the buildings a little more distinctly than uh just the elevations that were provided by the applicant. Here is the amenity center and the pool house along the same types of design themes. The next zoning district is the mixeduse small. This is approximately nine acres. There are seven threestory buildings each with 28 to 30 units for a total of 215 units. And amenities include similar to the the mixed or the multifamily medium. There's an amenity center. There's gaming areas, dog park, and they're providing 25.6% landscaping where 20% is required. The mixeduse small, it does have actually live work units. They are here on the oh on the end that you can't really see. I can see it on my screen, but I can't see it on yours. So the these two buildings have three live work units which that consists of commercial office space on the ground floor and the two floors above our living. Here is one of the 28 plex the east stack and a rendering of the other color scheme. Apologize for that. Um and here is the 31 fle plex and these are the commercial spaces. So these commercial spaces they are right here on the end. They actually face the next phase. So they have more of that modern agrarian look to them so that they seamlessly integrate into the mix into the GC portion which is after this one mixeduse large. So this zoning district is 11.77 acres. There's going to be eight threestory buildings each with well seven of the buildings will have 33 units. one will have 30 for total units on this portion of the project is 294 units and there's 38,320 square ft of ground floor commercial as required by 2873. There's also almost 24% landscaping where 20 is required. Uh and on the site plan it is this building and this building and I think there was one more live work unit over here. Um so those are also considered commercial ground floor for the the live work units and there are also the two buildings on this side that actually face power road but they are within the mixeduse large zoning district. Here is one of the 30 plexes as well as the rendering provided by the applicant. The 33 plex. They're very similar in colors and materials. And here are the commercial spaces that will also integrate into the commercial corner I will be going over next. These are the two buildings uh that will be facing Power Road. This is the general commercial corner, the northwest corner. There are four commercial buildings that are approximately 5,000 square ft each. They are oriented around the circular pop plaza for gathering. And just to the this is where the other buildings in the mixed use small are facing this portion to integrate the design. Again, we've got uh the the elevations showing the commercial spaces and their modern agrarian look. And in the study session in April, I know that the one of the items that was brought up by the commission was the loading spaces and the 14t walls. The applicant chose to do a 14ft fence with living um plants and vines on that to mask that from view. The next section is the general commercial. This is the big portion of the commercial. There are um four retail restaurant buildings that are about 6,900 square ft each. There are two additional commercial buildings. Uh one is this little guy right here and the standalone that's right on the other side of this one. There's also uh four quicks serve restaurants primarily along power and two two commercials and uh two restaurants that are standalone. Here's one of the restaurant elevations and a a rendering from the applicant and some more rendering for what this uh entrance is going to look like with the quick service restaurant elevation and the commercial facing power. This portion is the southeast corner. It's about 10 and a half acres. Um, at this point it's proposed with a convenience store that will have gas pumps, not only for passenger vehicles, but also semi trucks. There's also a quick service restaurant and an oil change. Um, lot 26 is shown on there would need to come in for a separate design review since it's not included as part of this one. Here are the the elevations of what those buildings will look like. It's still incorporated into the overall modern agrarian type of theme with the same uh colors and materials. And the industrial portion, there's 211 acres of industrial. It does include three different phases as well as a restricted area. So the restricted area is in is these two buildings right here. Um it's 18.28 acres restricted by 28 ordinance 2872. There's a required 280 foot setback from the western border. Max height of 35 for the building. No illuminated signage on the west side and enhanced design criteria for the buildings. One thing with the industrial um all lighting on this portion of the project within 100 ft of of the multifamily can be no higher than 14 ft in height for the parking lot. And that also goes for buildings outside of that 100 ft line. The applicant has requested to have an increased height on the buildings or increased height on the lighting for the buildings. Um, so they've asked for they and provided additional lighting findings. It is typical of most industrial development to have security lighting at 25 ft and staff is in support of that that request. And once again, I've got uh the the phasing plan on there in case you don't remember it as clearly as I do all the time. And here's some of the the renderings. Most of the buildings um are very similar with the colorings. Uh and so I I only have one on here for you. The applicant has had four meetings with neighbors. The applicant's also been in regular communication with the neighbors regarding this project. Staff has received 38 letters of objection from surrounding property owners. However, the letters are expressing their concerns over the amount of units um not the overall design of the development. And should the commission find that this is an appropriate design and the preliminary plat is acceptable, staff recommends approval. And I'm happy to answer any questions that you might have. All right. Thank you very much. Does anyone have any questions? Okay. Um Oh, Commissioner Anderson. >> All right. Thank you for the u presentation. Question for you. On the presentation you had, you had a bunch of elevations for a lot of the commercial pads and they were kind of specific to the uses that are going in there. restaurants and I think there was a um oil change place or something like that. So are those buildings going to actually get those unit uses meaning there's tenants lined up for these buildings and essentially once they're built they're just moving in slapping their sign on or those commercial buildings going to have to come back where there's a real tenant involved and they want a brand they want the building to be more reflective of their brand. Chair Mont, Commissioner Anderson. Um, this is the master site plan. So, generally the master site plan establishes the overall design of the site and circulation and such. Um, and there's usually a phase or two sometimes that you'll see complete building elevations and all of that as part of the design review. um with this they have provided floor plans and elevations and all of that for these various buildings. So if they are in the appropriate phase and they get their permit they would be able to build that. As far as signage um a master sign program would need to be applied for and approved before any signage would be permitted on the site. So that'll be another application that comes before the commission. um as far as having to go back through the process if they were going if if an applicant came forward wanting to change the design of any of these buildings, they would have to be in substantial conformance with what could be approved today. Um if they're not going to be in substantial conformance, there would be a different application um process essentially for that. uh because this is the design that was also sort of approved not sort of approved uh the overall layout and design was approved as part of the reszoning applications. Does that answer your question? >> Yes, I believe so. So essentially what's being presented here on the design review portion of the of this application is this is what's being proposed of built and this is what's going to be built. But if something happens down the line where, you know, one of the tenants wants to change the building, you know, or whatever, they're going to come back before us. So, this kind of because I mean, this is a very detailed application uh packet. So, I think it's kind of safe to assume that the master developer does have tenants lined up to kind of move into probably a good amount of these these spaces. Um, I mean, overall, I I really like the design. I think the architects um did a great job on this on this um this site especially with the act history of how we got to this point. Um so I think it's going to be a really nice added feature to that community in that area. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you commissioner vice chair. Yeah Nicole looking through this based on what's already approved. Is there any phase or any parcel throughout the entire property where they're either reducing setbacks, reducing open space, increasing the number, increasing the size, or are they undershooting on on everything or where are they overshooting on anything? Chair Munt, Vice Chair Fay, this application um is not proposing any deviations or changes, reductions um to the overall uh development criteria and the application has been reviewed for ordinance 2872, 2873, the LDC commercial design guidelines, industrial guidelines as well as the mixeduse guidelines. signs. Um, and it's not the proposed request today is not requesting any changes to what would be allowed per the code. >> Thank you, Vice Chair. Uh, Commissioner Dearino, that's a very large development, 311 acres, and it looks like the only residential there is going to be 729 apartments. There's no single family at all in that large development that's very close to Morrison Ranch. Am I correct in saying that? >> Chair Munt, Commissioner Diggerina, you are correct. There is multifamily medium. There is mixeduse small which does have the residential component and there's also the mixeduse large, not single family, just essentially multifamily development. >> But these are going to be all for rent, not to buy. >> That's what I understand. >> Okay. It just I think it's a nice development. I just wish there was some single family in there. A large large area that I think that obviously it's it's probably too late to even consider that at this at this point, but thank you. >> Thank you, Commissioner Gervina. Anyone else? >> Uh Nicole, was the applicant here wishing to speak? Do you know? Yes, the applicant is here and does have a presentation for you. >> Lovely. Chair, commission members, Sean Lake, 1744 South Val Vista here on behalf of Indicap and Colemina. Uh with us here this evening, we have representatives from both those organizations. We also have uh representatives uh design consultants here to answer specific questions because when you get into design, you don't want to hear from Sean. Um but we have representatives to talk about the commercial, residential, industrial, or the landscape uh package if if you have specific questions. And so as as questions come up, we can go there. Uh first off, this is kind of a big deal. Uh this project has been going on for about three and a half years. Um, and we're now getting to the stage of incorporating the zoning which was approved two years ago, a little over. We were hoping to be on the last agenda when you when it was on the agenda and there was a little misstep if you will on the advertisement. So, you you you got to get a sneak peek last month, but we're here this month and we're hoping we're able to move forward with this application. I'm going to go through this really quick because Nicole did such an amazing job. I don't need to be repetitive and I don't need to sit up here and speak to justify my existence. Um, this is a list of what we're here to do. The zoning was approved two years ago. 750 units were approved. Um, we're coming in at 729. That was a a topic of discussion during that zoning process, but it was approved for 750 units and we did come in below that at 725 units. So, we're here to talk about a plat. We're here to talk about open space and site plan and the design. And as specific users come in, if they do want to change from the design, as uh commission members brought up, they'll have to come back through the process if they don't want to comply. This project does comply with the code. It does comply with the zoning. It does comply with the phasing. So, we've made a a great deal of effort to make sure that we're not asking for deviations and we're not asking for anything different than what was approved by this commission and the council two years ago. I'll just go through the the open space on the uh on the west side was a big deal. It's effectively a bunch of football fields that run the length of the property or a mile long. It's a big wide open space. That's phase one. Rarely do you get a developer who will go in and build first phase a monstrous huge open space buffer and that's what they're doing including turf in that area. So the first thing coming out of the ground is going to be that landscape area. Uh that will create a huge buffer for the residential and the industrial as you can see on the north side. A big buffer about 280 feet to 800 feet to the industrial to create a big buffer on that west side I should say. I saw north but top on the west side. So you'll have this big buffer that goes in phase one and it will look something like this uh that the staff already showed you in their presentation. Um we're also here to talk about the commercial site plan. The commercial was another important aspect. staff brought went through each of the aspects of the commercial development, but I'm particularly interested in the commercial that's going to happen up across from what I know as the Field of Dreams or that area there where we're going to have four buildings where we're going to have some restaurants in that area and you're going to have some pedestrian walkability between those commercial restaurant type retail buildings up along Elliot. And then as you go in towards the development along that open space, we've provided a great deal of connectivity, pedestrian connectivity within this project as well as connectivity to the Morrison Ranch. So we're hoping that when this comes out of the ground and we have restaurants and other places to come shop that people within Morrison Ranch will walk through that big 18 acre open space area and come eat or get some ice cream or or just spend a a weekend night. And so we're hoping to get some pedestrian activity um associated with the pedestrian connectivity we're providing the phasing. We are following the phasing. You're we're going to keep using this is kind of the bible of this project is the phasing plan. Um we're keeping holding to that phasing plan and it's very detailed. I'm not going to go into it but many of you remember that phasing on what we agreed to the neighbors and how this would play out. Um we looked at several of the issues and and addressed with staff from the study session uh back in April from this commission and we work with staff to make changes in including looking at the multif family and the elevations and and uh looking at the loading areas and the different types of screen wall as opposed to masonry walls uh vegetative uh screen walls and loading dock areas. So we worked with staff on incorporating some of that stuff. We looked at the signage. This is not approval of the sign package, but you can see the theme that's been pretty consistent throughout to have a really nice sign package um along the perimeter of the development. So, it it represents a very nice high-end uh development that I think we're going to look at at the end of the day and be be uh excited uh to go shop there hopefully and and live and hopefully work as well. So, here's kind of some renderings of what we envision that to be. This would I believe this is along Power Road kind of an entrance into the industrial development. Like I said, I'm not going to go over all the detail that Nicole did. I just wanted to highlight some of the renderings and pictures and stress some of the points that were important to the neighbors as we work through the process over the last three and a half years. Um, like I said, we have design consultants if you have specific questions, but at this time I would request you uh approve this both the both applications of the plat and also the site plan, landscape plan, etc. Uh, and and let this project continue down the path. This is not the end. This is just another step in the development process. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. Anybody have any questions for Mr. Mike? Wonderful comments. Okay. Thank you, sir. All right. Well, I will bring up the uh public comment that we have here. Have a number of cards. Uh the first one, Bares Odu, um does not wish to speak. Um but says, "Please consider the height of the LI. It will block the mountain view from my home. I then have uh Matt Drager and he is in favor of the item and he does not wish to speak. And Blake Hillis is in favor of the item. Uh also does not wish to speak. That was the extent of all the comment cards that I have. Um just out of a courtesy, is there anyone else here that wish to speak on this item number 12 A or B? All right. Not seeing anyone. I will then Is there someone? Oh, did you wish to speak on this? >> I just want to bring up the architect or >> Well, what if and I guess if you wanted to come on up to the podium and then state your name and then you can make your comment. Otherwise, it won't go into the record and so we're not supposed to uh have it that way. So, yeah, just state your name and then go ahead. My name is Mark Kurabi and uh I just want to bring up is that the architect or is that the the applicant or >> I can't I can't honestly >> okay he's mentioned three times or a few times about Morrison Ranch but there is also now another development that was developed two years ago called Warner Meadow. So it's not just about Morrison Ranch. Um the neighbor here his backyard is literally to the backyard with it. So, it's not that we're in favor, we're not disin favor, but there are other communities that back up to the development. So, if just it's just not about Morrison Ranch. Thank you. Thank you, sir. And someone from the staff may want you to fill out a little yellow card. I don't know. I want to make sure that I do everything legal, but I can't force it. Um, okay. With no other public comment, then um I'll close the public forum and bring it up here to see if anyone has any questions concerns discussion or anything else of that nature. Commissioner Simon, I'll just kick us off. Um I uh greatly appreciate the distance that we've come on this having sat on the count uh the commission through the whole uh process. It has been a long arduous process and I appreciate the applicant working diligently to try to come to a uh good end with regards to um the project at hand. Um the site plan, I have no issue with the site plan. And I mean, obviously, we could all dream of things that we would love to put in this space um if we had the millions of dollars that it would take to build there, buy the property, and and go forward. With regards to the approval and the the design review, um I'm I'm actually excited to see this project go in. I think that it is a fresh look on the multifamily, uh the multi-use, and the commercial space. I think it's going to be a nice gateway. So, I'll be voting in favor. >> Thank you very much, Commissioner Simon. Vice Chair. >> Thank you. I I'm actually not a huge fan of the of the the project, but this current iteration, the design review is entire the applicant's entirely asking for what's already approved or less. Um, so this this to me is uh but for community involvement. I almost would have thought this could have gone on consent. That's how straightforward I think it is. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Any other Commissioner Davis? >> Um, I just want to say how much I appreciate how far this project has come. I know I had a lot of comments at the study session. They implemented most of them. Um, just down to two comments, but they're not things that I just they it's not something that we can affect. Um, one is just I still have concerns about that crosstock facility next to the multif family, but I know that's ship sailed. I know that's there. Um they have done um some nice things with the elevations there and I appreciate that and the buffering with the landscaping. Um I'd still love to see that corner not have a drive-thru at Elliot and Power, but um so if you guys decide to reorient that and do something different, that would be great. But I understand that um that's what's coming forward. And it does look like it's changed from a fast food pad to maybe a bank or something like that, which I appreciate. So I'm in support of this as well. Thank you. Thank you. Uh, Commissioner Simon. >> Yeah, just one more thing really quick. I actually forgot to point this out. In the staff report, um, under the background discussion on the dates, um, you mentioned October 5th, 2022, the planning commission held the first public hearing. October 20th, it should be 2022. It states 2020. Uh, the planning commission recommended approval of the GP2205 and Z2205. So, in this in the staff report, the dates just need to be addressed. >> Thank you very much, Commissioner Simon. Commissioner Anderson, >> uh, sounds like we have like glowing recommendations everywhere. So, um, I'm going to go ahead and, uh, make a motion if that's okay. >> Feel free. Yes, sir. >> Get this guy across the finish line. Um for the first one 12A uh approve the findings of fact in S2401 the ranch preliminary plat and open space plan. >> Do I have a second? >> Second. Second from vice chair. Any discussion? Please cast your vote. Motion carries 70. Thank you. >> And then I'd like to continue on for the DR24-06 and recommend approval. >> We have a motion to approve. >> Second. >> Seconded by the vice chair. Please cast your vote. Motion carries 70. Thank you. Okay, moving on then to item number 13, UP25-15, South Anchor Ground floor residential units and Miss Kristen Divine. All right. Good evening again, commission. Uh, the case I have for you tonight is going to be for a use permit for the South Ankor development. This use permit is to permit ground floor residential within the HBC zoning district. Uh, the site is located on Gilbert and Elliot at the northwest corner. It's approximately 2.8 acres. Just a bit of items to touch on before we dive into the presentation. There is a development agreement for this site and within that development agreement, there are some criteria that need to be met. Um, one is which a horizontal mixed use is acceptable as long as uses of commercial and residential are integrated and it's a single phase development. The residential unit count should be 175 to 203 units. Uh the ground floor residential should only be considered for the north, west, and east internal elevations. Um and any elevations on the ground floor that face west shall be of a brownstone style with at minimum front doors facing ash, courtyards, stoops, and or rowike home attributes. All right. So again, the request is for ground flooror residential. Those units will be on the west, north, and internal east elevations to the site. No ground floor units will face Gilbert Road or Elliot Road. Uh the Ash Street ground floor units again are required to be that brownstone style. Uh seen here is the site plan just for some context on the layout of the site. There's going to be two buildings on the hard corner of Gilbert and Elliot is a commercial building roughly 15,000ish square feet. Uh the rest is going to be a residential structure and a parking structure uh wrapped by the residential. The units will consist of studio, onebedroom, and two-bedroom style. Uh right now, it's proposed at 175 units uh again with 14,600 ft of commercial. Those uses are estimated to be a restaurant and retail. Uh between the two uses is a PTO style walkway that will connect the commercial and the residential with patio seating, um lighting between them, uh things to integrate them together. All right. All right. And since we're here to talk about the ground floor residential, this is the floor plan for the first floor. There's 31 ground floor units proposed. Again, there's 175 units in total. Um there is approximately 10,860 ft of residential indoor amenities which are included on the first floor. Um there's 5,470 ft of retail and 3,930 ft of restaurant. All right. All right. And just for a little bit of context, here are um the elevations. At this point, the design review has not gone forward yet. We are still working on a handful of these elevations, specifically um some of the residential and the parking garage elements. Just a 3D rendering to to give you a picture since I know you guys haven't really seen it yet. It goes mostly to RDC. All right. And to be eligible for a conditional use permit, they need to meet four findings of fact. Staff does feel like they have met these four findings of fact. And we do recommend that you recommend approval of UP 2515, the South Anchor site for ground flooror residential. I'm available for your questions. >> Thank you, Kristen. Anyone have questions? They want to kick off with Kristen. Commissioner Davis looked like she did, but she did not in fact. Okay. All right. Once again, thoroughly did everything so well that they're speechless. Um, is the developer or applicant rather here and wishing to speak? >> Um, they do have a presentation if you would like to hear it. >> Would you guys like to hear >> up to you? >> I don't think it's necessary. I'll I'll read go through the public comment and then I'm sure you've prepared a lot and I apologize. I don't mean to sh responsibility here, but uh I'll go in to do the public cards and then if we need additional granular detail uh we can reopen that. Okay. Okay. So, first we have Blake Hillis. No, that was the last one. He's already spoke. So, we go to item three. Okay. We have EP25. Dorise Machado Liddell. She wishes to speak. Uh, please come to the podium. State your name. I'm sure you know this by now. And you'll have three minutes. >> Hello, my name is Doris Mashad Liddell. I am Gilbert resident and I do reside in the Lacy track area right in this area of this project. What I wish to um speak on is the development agreement. The development agreement is an agreement between the town council and the developer and in that I asked for the development agreement and staff did provide that three development agreements. My main concern is factf finding number two. I do not believe that it meets the town council approved development agreement. It requires brownstone design. Brownstone design, not row like brownstone design. According to the development agreement that I have, it states any such west-facing residential living space shall shall be of a brownstone design is as determined by the town of uh Gilbert development services agreement whatever my question to staff is where is row like housing in any of these development agreements and I have three of them. I've asked staff to point it out. I have not received anything. I have looked through this. I may have missed it, but I'm asking that staff point out where row light design is in it. It it is a different design. We have older um residential area and it doesn't state that. So I ask that number four change the recommendation and remove row like attributes to brownstone design as required in the development agreement. I don't know if town staff and maybe it's in this agreement and I can't find it where they can change the development agreement. The town council is the only body that can change this development agreement. So I ask that commission ask the town staff to provide the location of row like housing. This is a conditional use permit, but this is about design. So they're putting design in a conditional use permit. It's about allowing um residential units on the ground floor, but they're changing it by adding this design and not going back to the brownstone. So that's what I ask. I ask you as a commission to please ask the question, please provide the direction and also if if the development agreement is going to be amended, then that needs to go to town council and respectfully not the planning commission. I thank you for your time. >> Thank you very much. >> And I have copies if you wish to look that at them. Thank you. Okay. And now we also have Alan Fitzgerald wishes to speak. Please come up and state your name and three minutes. I found the onoff switch. >> Yeah. I'm Alan Fitzgerald, resident of Gilbert for almost 40 years. Uh business owner and a property owner in downtown Gilbert Heritage District. I'm very excited to see a development on this corner. It's been absent of use for far too long. I'm going to miss the Christmas tree guy uh comes to that lot, but uh this is a better solution uh for sure. I don't mean to sound like a broken record, but I have to come back to an absolute foundational point about being a stakeholder in the Gilbert Heritage District, and that is the Heritage Village Center zoning. We're ignoring that. Once again was put together by a number of people who were a varied cross-section of stakeholders in the heritage district for again thousands of hours of effort disagreement argument and finally consensus and approved for our general plan and this is changing that again and we should not allow that. It doesn't suit any enhancement to the heritage district with residential on the bottom floor. The plans clearly states second, third, fourth stories residential ground floor needs to be uh commercial retail. We don't have enough of that in the heritage district and now we've diminished it again. So I would like to ask that we not approve this conditional permit. Um, as you go through this document, it talks very specifically about intending to be within the heritage district uh the heritage village uh zoning and and it is not it's it's breaking that wide open by putting that in the lower level. So, I would like the U planning and zoning commission to look at this. In one of the statements it says that it would further the goals of the heritage district and I have to strongly disagree. It is not further furthering those goals. It is actually corrupting those goals. Love to see the development there. I like to see what's going on. This attribute of that development needs to be disallowed. Thank you very much. Thank you sir. Okay. Um, once again, just to be clear, is there anyone else that wish to speak on this item? Okay, thank you. All right, then I will close the public comment and bring it. Huh? >> The applicant has a chance to >> Oh, that's right. Uh the applicant, if you would like to come up and and I get to at least discuss the comments that were made, I'd like to give you that chance. Thanks to Commissioner Anderson reminding me of my duties. Can you hear me? Yes. Hello, >> Commission Hannah Bleam on with Wy Morris Ba on behalf of Keely Properties. I am not Adam Ba, believe it or not. Um, but he had to run to another hearing. Um, but I just wanted to make a comment about the zoning district, the HVC zoning district that it's in. Um, I do appreciate the support for the development and the enhancement on this corner. Um, I just wanted to note that it is the cup is an option within the zoning district. So, it's not a prohibited use or anything in the zoning district. This is a process that is allowed in the district. So, just wanted to note that. And any I'm happy to answer any other questions. >> Thank you very much, Miss Ble. Anyone have any questions or comments for her at this time? Okay, thank you very much. With that then I will close the public comment portion and bring it up to the dis for discussion or motions. Who wants to kick off some? Commissioner Anderson. >> Uh I have a question for staff. So, can you just kind of um touch upon the the point that the resident made on the wording of row versus brown? Um is there can you just explain that a little bit more and is there any validity to that or is it just semantics? >> So, chair m commissioner Anderson uh the wording for rowike attributes comes from the first rendition of this development agreement. Um it was not amended in the second edition so it does still take effect. It's in section 3.2.4 4 uh two it says at a minimum individual front doors facing Ash Street shall have courtyard stoops or row like attributes. Um there's a couple of other items in there as well. Ash Street shall be oriented such that it provides a vibrant street frontage encouraging pedestrian scale and walkability. Um but that that's a section that it's in. It's in the first version of the development agreement. That was not changed in the second amendment. I think the second amendment is where it specifically says brownstone, but it was supplemental to roike attributes. >> Thank you. Uh, any other questions or comments for staff? No. Okay. Thank you again, Kristen. Anyone else just want to uh have any discussion? Commissioner Anderson. So, now I have a comment. So, um I really love this project. I think it's a great project for that corner. Uh again, I used to get my Christmas trees from that place, too, but I haven't seen him there in a long time. Um but I love the design of this. I love the use of what's happening here. I think this is going to be an awesome bookend for the heritage district where you're on Elliot, you have this, and you travel up and then you have what's being developed in that uh the empty dirt lot there uh north of Bario Queen. So, I think this this is going to be a nice book end. And then what's happening between should now get a lot of foot traffic where there is that one two-story building that's next to the liquor store that for some reason restaurants just can't stay active there. So, I think this will help thrive that business. Um, I think the upstairs on that is empty with business, so it help it should help occupy that building. Uh, so I think this is a great project and um I hope it goes through and gets built. Thank you, Commissioner. Anyone else? >> Yeah, I I'll concur with Vice Chair. I concur with Commissioner Anderson. This is a This corner has been vacant, and I think this is a good use. I think it fits very much with the >> character of the Heritage District and the feel of what we're looking for. And it's north of Elliot, which I think is >> Commissioner Simon. >> Um, so I Quick question I guess first. This this is simply a use permit. We will be seeing this in design review later. Correct. >> I think that goes to development commission design. >> The RDC will do. >> Yeah. Commissioner Simon, the RDC will the deciding factor for this for the design review. >> Okay. So, we're just looking at use. Okay. >> Yes. >> Um with regards to the ground use, I mean where where we're looking that west and north side, they're going to be tucked away. I don't think that they would be good spots for retail, although I agree with the the citizens. I I would much rather see some some more retail on the bottom, something to keep people in the district, but if we're going to have residential in the district, I think that's going to that's going to bolster quite a bit. Um, and I just don't think it's viable to have that what we'll call retailer office tucked behind there. So, I I I like this. I'm not necessarily 100% a fan of the design that's in the packet, but that's looks like it's probably going to be kicked around a bit more. So, it's all I got. Thank you. Anyone else? Or a motion? >> I'll go ahead and motion this one. >> Anderson, did you vice chair have something to I was going to do it, too. So, I'll second what you say. >> All right. Uh, make the finance of fact and approve UP 2515 South Anchor conditional use permit. >> Motion from Commissioner Anderson. Do I have a second? >> I second that. >> We have a second from vice chair. Any additional discussion? Then please cast your vote. Motion carries 61. Thank you very much. Okay. Okay, now moving on to item 14, which as we've discussed in the pre uh or the agenda discussion is going to be continued to November 5th, 2025. If I could get a motion on that. Uh chairman, I make a motion to continue item 14, the Aura Farming Santan uh until November 5th of 2025. >> We have a motion from vice chair to uh move item 14 to November 5th. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> Second from Commissioner Simon. All cast your vote. Motion carries 70. Okay, without any further ado, we will move on to the bell of the ball. Item number 15, GP2501 Willowbrook and Z2502 Willowbrook. >> Excuse me, chair. I need to recuse myself on this project. Thank you very much, Commissioner Gage. Please enjoy the reprieve. You shall be missed. Okay. And for this, once again, we get to see Kristen. So, take it away. Thank you. >> Are you tired of me yet? >> Absolutely not. >> All right. So, the final case I have for you today is a general plan amendment and reszoning for the Willowbrook community. Uh the site is located on the southeast corner of 156th Street in Rigs. This is just east of Val Vista. Uh the request before you tonight is for a general plan amendment from residential 0 to1 dwelling units per acre to residential 2 to 3.5 dwelling units per acre. a proposed reszoning with a PA AD from single family 43 to single family 6. Um some of those proposed deviations will include setbacks and lot coverage percentages. Uh just for some context on the surrounding area again that current zoning right now is SF43. Uh it's currently used as an RWCD adjacent lot. Um they are proposing a zoning of SF6 with a P A. Some nearby zoning are county lots to the west. Um you have SF43 which is going to be retained by RWCD. You have some SF35 across Rigs Road. Um SF15 to the community directly to the south. Um and then just over the canal you have Adora Trails which is a hodgepodge of zoning districts SF6 78. Um kind of a little bit of everything. So the proposed development is going to be 91 lots. It's on approximately 26 acres. Each of those lots is going to be a minimum of 6,600 square f feet. Uh that rough averages out to roughly 3.45 dwelling units per acre. Uh which does meet the intent of the Santan character area, which should not exceed 3.5 dwelling units per acre. Uh for the site, there is 18% of open space proposed. And you can see on this image here, um there are red dots on a handful of the lots to the bottom. Um that's lots 76 through 91. Those lots are all designated to be singlestory to act as a bit of a buffer from the Marathon Ranch community to the south. Uh just for a better picture of what those lot sizes look like. I know this is really small. I'm sorry I didn't think about it when I put it on the screen. Um but the lot sizes are going to range from about 6720 ft to 7,575 square ft. Um 53 of those lot, which is over half of them do exceed 7,000 square feet, which would be the equivalent of an SF7 zoning district. And to touch on the specific deviations that are being requested, I have a couple of boxes here. Uh the boxes in green are going to be items that the applicant is exceeding. Um so for SF6, the minimum zoning, I'm sorry, the minimum lot size is 6,000 square feet. They are proposing a minimum of 6600 square ft. Uh the minimum depth of a lot is 100 ft. They are proposing 120 ft. Uh the maximum height permitted is 30 feet and two stories. Uh they are keeping that with the caveat that lots 76 through 91 as I mentioned earlier um have a one-story restriction on them. Uh they are also exceeding the open space requirement of 10% by providing 18%. And then that brings us to the items outlined in red which are the deviations being requested. Um we have a reduction in the side setback. So typically per code it's 5t and 10 ft. The applicants requesting five feet and five feet. Um they are requesting an increase in lot coverage percentage by 5% for both single story and twotory. So that will be 50% and 45%. And there are um some smaller items asterisked on the right here um that don't really fit in the table but um they are requesting the elimination of the staggering requirement for front uh front home layouts. Uh and then additionally, no additional setback requirement for any lots that side or back up to an arterial or a collector. Um so that would be like lots 10 through 15 backing up to rigs. They would just meet the standard rear setback as opposed to the increased setback that our code would require typically. Uh, and while we're on the deviation page, um, I did want to note that the proposed resoning, it does meet the intent of the Santan character area, we do still have a little bit of concern with a number of deviations that are being requested just because it is vacant land. There is room to work with. It's kind of a blank slate. Um, but yep, thank you. All right, so there's been two neighborhood meetings that have been held for this property. Uh the first one on September 17th, I apologize that should say 24, not 25. Uh we're approximately 62 attendees turned out according to the sign-in sheets. Uh concerns include traffic density, landscaping at the southern boundary, which is adjacent to the Marathon Ranch community, the SF15 zoning district, um and the desire for one-story only homes. In the second neighborhood meeting, uh the sign-in sheets captured approximately 49 attendees. Uh concerns again included traffic, specifically request for a signal at 156th Street, uh density again, and again the request for singlestory homes at minimum at least on the southern boundary. Uh we have received 10 opposition emails to date as well. Um some study session feedback that we received from you in April included uh concerned with the number of deviations. The lot coverage deviation at the time was approximately 10 to 15% higher than it currently is. the applicants reduced that to just a 5% increase. Now, um front and side step back deviations and density and then some of those changes that have been accommodated due to the feedback from neighbors and the commission would be uh a reduction in the number of deviations being requested. Again, that lot coverage deviation. Uh front setback deviation is no longer being requested. The only thing that remains is just that staggering um to not have to require that. Uh and then the addition of single story restrictions for lots 76 to 91 which are on that southern boundary. And with that, we do recommend approval of the general plan amendment and the resoning. Um just with the the caveat that we do still have some some minor concerns with the number of deviations being requested, but support the zoning in general. And I'm available for your questions. >> Thank you very much once again, Kristen. Anyone have any questions that they would like to kick off? Okay. Um I I I'm going to assume the developer is here and would like to speak. >> Yes. >> Okay. Good evening chair, members of the commission. Brendan Ray, 2325 East Camelback here on behalf of LAR Homes. We're certainly excited. Um, personally, I'm excited to be able to stand to stand before you tonight and talk about a single family subdivision. I know you've heard a few this year already. Um but it certainly is exciting to uh to know that the single family market is still alive and is looking to add additional um product uh to the town of Gilbert, especially when the opportunities for single family developments. if we look at everything continued to dwindle as the town approaches buildout. But Lenar went out and sought an opportunity to do this uh entering into agreement with RWCD uh to uh take down this land and provide another great community um consistent with what LAR's done not only in the town but elsewhere. You're all very familiar with the site and we're certainly appreciative of staff's thoroughess of the report of Kristen's presentation. and she certainly stole a lot of what I'm going to say. And so I'm just going to dig into the details a little bit deeper um relative to kind of the neighborhood outreach. Uh and you're going to see a common theme and I'm sure I know there's a number of neighbors here tonight that I'm sure are going to still continue to say some of these same concerns. Um but we did have a neighborhood meeting back in in September of 24. Uh 60 I counted 62 neighbors and then we had a follow-up one. And the reason for that time was we were exploring a lot of options, a lot of ways to figure things out uh including uh how much land did our WCD need if there was an ability for us to expand the site. I could go on about why there was the difference, but ultimately at the end of the day, trying to look at how we could kind of make changes uh with some of the concerns that we heard, recognizing that some of the comments uh relative to traffic um we probably never ever will be able to address unless we're, you know, a considerably considerably substantially less number of homes. And then you can see there on on March 22nd 27th I counted 48 in the thing and I think Kristen counted 49. So maybe we're off there. But again you can kind of see similar concerns to that. So, um I apologize for the graphic, but it's important to note that this was the site plan that was presented at that September 24 neighborhood meeting where we were proposing a total of 116 lots and those lot sizes were smaller than what is before you tonight. We back then we're proposing 45 um by 115 lots. Um we had the entrance further to the north um on 156th Street and you can see there we had a fire access on to Rig's Road. But as we went through and heard uh comments and feedback uh we did make some changes obviously notably reducing the number of lots uh from 116 to 91 increasing the lot size uh to a minimum of 55 by uh 120. And you can see the difference in the lot square footage. Uh substantial increase in that minimum lot square footage. There's a few other key things that I'll point out relative to that March 25 neighborhood meeting. One was moving the uh entrance a little bit further south uh along 156. The other one was providing a rightin ride out access onto Riggs Road. And then I've highlighted along the south because what we did there was increase the depth of those lots. they far exceed the minimum uh that we've put into the uh development standards table tonight. Um so Kristen very accurately pointed out where we are tonight in terms of the number of lots in terms of 18% open space in terms of a one-story restriction along the south and along our western uh edge as um at the south side. And I can go into a lot more details if you'd like relative to this. I know it's not in front of you tonight, but this is the housing product. Um there LAR does a great job and has a good reputation. And these homes um they plan three-story homes. Uh and they will have uh two uh twostory plans. And the square footage of those homes range from 23 roughly 2,300 square foot all the way up to 3,300 square foot. So, a wide range. In terms of garages, that's inevitably a question that sometimes comes up. These are all threecar garages. Um, sometimes it's a twocar garage with a tandem. Uh, the other times it's a twocar garage with a split u singlecar garage uh in the driveway. And you can see that in the lower right hand how that split occurs. So, one of the things that I wanted to touch on is kind of the lot size. I know we're going to talk about a number of things tonight potentially, but I wanted to just to emphasize kind of where the lots are. And I know we're requesting 50 by 120. And the reason that we're not minimum 125 as you see on the screen now is because there are a few conditions uh in this development where uh it's at a knuckle uh or it's at a um end of a lot where we've got a sight visibility triangle that will clip one side of the lot thereby reducing it from the minimum 120 or reducing it from what we are proposing. Uh and that's why we're requesting the minimum is because we might have one side of a lot or the curve up front. you're all very familiar with. Um that doesn't meet that um what the lot sizes that we're proposing on the screen. And so you can see there the mix of the lots. Kristen put up the table. Um that's from the pre-plat, but what that table really boils down to is the average square footage of these homes is about 71 almost 7200 of the lots is about 7200 square feet. The other thing that I know we've we've want to touch on and talk about is kind of cross-sections of what's going on. This is a cross-section of 156th Street looking north. And what you'll see there is there's a lot of existing condition, but when you start over onto our site, obviously you get into um the edge of rideway existing PUE and then landscape and all told. So that what happens with respect to those lots on the west side of 156 in the homes there were a total of about 160 ft. So half a football field uh separates the homes on the south. We were very mindful Marathon Ranch which is the community south of us. They have a pretty good um condition in that they have a 30foot landscape setback um landscape track that runs along their northern boundary. We match that with a 30-foot landscape set back on our side. And as I mentioned, those um lots along that southern side are um deeper. They're 130 ft deep. Um and so we think we're doing lots of good things in that regard. Um as we look at some of the deviations, I know that staff may have a question or two about it, but um as we look at them, we think that we're doing a lot of good things. um well over with a a larger average lot size um with the restrictions that we've got in place exceeding the open space. Uh and certainly the deviations that we're requesting for are something that is certainly consistent uh with other single family developments that the town has approved in the past relative to the slight increase in the lot coverage, the reduction in the sideyard setbacks. Um there haven't been a lot um that have come before this group uh at least under the current makeup and some of you might remember when it was a lot of single family subdivisions. Um but having done a few in the town over my time um the deviations that we are requesting are certainly consistent with other developments that have been built and approved uh within the town. And part of the other reason is that we're requesting these deviations is because as time happens, buyers have different expectations as to what they want in seeing a home. They want homes with larger square footage, uh, which LAR is providing on these larger lots. Uh, and so again, there's a lot more detail that I can go into, um, if we need to. Um, but with that, happy to answer any questions and we would request your recommendation for approval with consistent with staff's recommendation. >> Thank you, sir. Anyone have any comments or questions for Mr. Ray? >> Vice Chair. I do. Thanks, Brendan. Um, I'm sorry. Thank you, Mr. Ray. Uh if I you're you're asking to go down to 6,000 square foot lots, but your actual proposal is considerably larger than 6,000 square foot lot. None of them are actually 6,000 are they? They're in the I what an average of 7100 7,400 something like that. >> Yeah. Through the through the chair, Vice Chair Fay, um sure if we got Kristen's presentation up, she'd put the table up again if we need to. I happen to have the table here in front of me as well. Uh, as I look at the um lot area, I believe our minimum uh lot size is uh 6,875 uh square feet. And as as Kristen indicated, over half of the lots um uh are over 7,000 square feet. Um and so we're far exceeding that kind of minimum requirement. >> Thank you, Vice Chair. Any other comments or questions? Okay, thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Uh we will move into the public comment. Um on the on the cards, as all of you know, you've filled them out. There's a box where it says whether you wish to speak or not. I'm going to go through the ones that did check wish wish to speak and then when I get to the others if for some reason you had not checked the box and you do wish to um we can go through that at that point. So first um Karen Wickens she's opposed the item wishes to speak and her comment is would like street improvements on 156th Street completed before housing. So please come up state your name and then three minutes please. >> Thank you. My name is Karen Wickens. I live in the Marathon Ranch subdivision. We moved out to that area because it's a more rural character and we enjoyed more grass, more space. Um, we're concerned about the number of homes going into Lar Willowbrook subdivision. It's one and a half times the size of the Marathon Ranch subdivision and it's going to increase traffic by quite a bit um at 156 and Rigs Road. On Monday, I was leaving subdivision to go to work. I was the second car in the intersection and it took me seven minutes to turn left on Riggs Road. This morning I left. There were four cars in front of me. It took me 22 minutes to get out onto Rigs Road. The cars are not going 45 miles an hour. They are speeding at least at 55 miles an hour. It's very dangerous. Coming back into the subdivision going eastbound on Rigs Road. I have been almost rear ended multiple times because people won't slow down even though you have your right turn signal on. Um I just it's not um safe for us to be turning left at that intersection without a light. I know they did some traffic studies. If you look at the dates on those studies, some of them were at the end of COVID. People still weren't returning to work. Um, I know some of our neighbors said they saw the camera and the camera was facing down on the ground. So, I think their study said there were 13 cars that left our subdivision in the morning that day, which is not true. So, um, our biggest concern is safety. People leaving the subdivision, taking their kids to school. You know, we all want to get to work and home from work safely every day. Um, if we had larger lots in that subdivision and not allowed the deviations that they're requesting, we would have less homes there and less traffic. Thanks for listening to our concerns. Thank you. Okay, the next up I have Barbara and Barry Chrisman wish to speak and are opposed. Same thing, ma'am. If you could just state your name and then three minutes uh turning on the microphone. >> Good evening uh chairman and commission. I'm Barbara Chrisman and I'm a resident, my husband and I are residents of Marathon Ranch. We are the original homeowners there. Not being residents of our community, I truly appreciate the fact that you uh have read or will be reading the letters that we've sent and also that you um are listening to our input. Anyway, I speak on behalf of a lot of residents who were unable to come tonight because of other commitments. Unfortunately, they wanted to be here but weren't able to attend. We're pleased with the Willoughbrook community home size, which uh I was first given 2400 to 3,400 square ft with a starting price of 700,000, which will support our own home investments um of 1.1 and 1.4 million. And we would want nothing less than that size or that price. I understand from LAR Home's perspective that they want to build as many homes on that piece of property as they possibly can in order to um you know that that that that you would be willing to give them approval for. Uh we appreciate that they have considered our homeowner input, but we hope that you will take the remaining concerns that we have into consideration before voting tonight. the density and I know that there was a concern from the um staff and also at your planning session that there is a concern regarding density within that that development. Every home has an impact regarding the density and traffic. And I ask you to deny reduction deviations to the building code as requested and reszone to at least an SF7 for all lot sizes. And this would keep the development more open and not create a compacted canyon street effect where two-story homes are concerned. A total of 10 feet between homes is also um not acceptable because it's a fire can safety fire safety concern for fire spread and accessing fire. Um traffic safety that was one of our community's major concerns from the very beginning of the traffic study. Um Marathon homeowners and residents 156. This is our only way in and out of this development. We have no other choices. And uh the safety with the traffic on rigs is a great concern especially during rush hour. The Willoughbrook development um will greatly impact those numbers. With 91 homes, uh the only way that they can make a left is coming out onto 156th Street. There's no other way for them to make a left out of that development. Um, in the trafficked impact statement, I noticed the traffic counts for progression and platooning were taken in April of 2022. And as Karen uh stated, during that time, was the formula used for the present traffic counts on rigs for now? Was consideration given to the fact that April 22 was a great number of people still working from home? And also was the housing explosion in Queen Creek and Santan taken into consideration for because that's a major artery to the 10. Since the traffic report and city do not support the traffic light, one way to increase traffic safety is to reduce the number of homes in Willoughbrook. This would actually resolve all concerns density, fire, and traffic safety. So, I respectfully request that you deny um Lenar's request for Z25-01 and 02 Willowbrook and uh instead consider reszoning to a larger SF, maybe seven or higher, and uh not allowing the deviations that they're asking for and keeping more to the building code. I appreciate your thoughtful consideration and careful planning to make this project the best that it can possibly be for everyone concerned. Um, thank you for your time and your dedication to the town of Gilbert. >> Thank you very much. >> Okay, next I have Doug Jensen wishes to speak. My name is Doug Jensen. I'm a resident of Marathon Ranch as well. Uh probably a reoccurring thing that you'll probably hear from most of us is the uh traffic situation coming off of 156th Street. I do appreciate some of the um adjustments that have been made on the properties with the single units, especially where I have good friends and neighbors that back up against uh where the new development uh may may go. Uh part of what I uh am concerned about is uh some of the proposals that we're seeing and I am looking at the actual uh traffic study for the first time tonight. uh the platooning uh that they talk about was based on uh a baseline of April 14th, 2022 uh which is during our COVID rest uh restriction time period. Uh we are seeing also as part of the current existing peak traffic hours uh 13 cars out and 10 cars in during peak hours. I can tell you the validity of this has been uh questioned by all that have seen the report. We don't believe it. We don't believe that can be uh be accurate. We see this at 5:00 a.m. we see 13 cars. Um what I what I'm also wondering too is when you show the actual map, I don't have the ability to pull that up, but of those 91 homes, if anybody wants to go westbound, they must go down 156 Street, which right now is just a two-way street. It does tee into what we call 45 mph road, but as as has been stated, no one's going 45. So to put the egress in there to turn eastbound uh is great. It's a great opportunity for us to get more cars up there, but there's no there's no merging lanes both out of the property out of 156 and there's no lanes coming into 156. So you are taking it at 45 miles an hour breaking trying to turn in really quickly. And what you'll find typically as as I've noticed is people come in fast enough that they're turning and doing kind of a a larger turn which obviously runs into the other type of traffic. So, uh with that being said, uh with the 91 homes and current estimates that I'm seeing right now, we're showing a a total uh volume going out of that property at 44 cars during peak time. uh turning left on 156. And what's one what's left of 156? You've got uh Costco, you've got Walmart, you've got the grocery stores down there, you've got schools to the left. So again, all 91 homes, if they want to go westbound, must turn left on 156. I am asking that we get a new uh study done on the traffic to really take a hard look at this because I don't believe that anybody's in agreement with the numbers that we're seeing so far. And lastly in my 16 seconds, um I also wondered has the city developer conducted an economic impact study on how this development might affect our property values in adjacent neighborhoods. So I wondered if this has been done in other ones where we have 1.1 to I would argue $ 1.5 million homes in a gated community where we've put something like this adjacent to that. Have we seen that? Has it impacted us? because as homeowners, as you can understand, we are certainly uh investing a lot of our our precious uh retirement money into our homes. So, that's it. Thank you so much. >> Thank you. And just as we go through the process, the ding means the three minutes is up. I'd like to allow for the finishing of thoughts. Um and as the uh as as everyone's been doing, but I just wanted to remind everyone that's what that dinging is. and it my job to make sure I stay on track. So, I'm just asking also that when you hear that, just know that it would be good to wrap up as they've done. Thank you. Um, next I have Pasqual and Diane Lant um opposed to the item less density, less traffic, traffic light at 156 and rigs. Uh, and did you want to speak? Okay. Okay. Thank you very much, sir. So, um, just once again, the comments are, you know, the less density, less traffic, and that there should be a traffic light at 156th. Next up, we have Sarah and Chris Latino opposed to the item. And did you wish to speak? >> Thank you, sir. And just once again state your name and then three minutes please. >> Uh chair uh and commissioners. My name is Chris Lutino of city of Gilbert. As my fellow residents have stated we're very concerned about the traffic. Um I wanted to bring a little bit of science into it. Uh basically where the Lenora project exists on 15 or rigs to 156 you're talking about a,000 ft. The average person the other day was clocked I was clocking them at traveling 65 miles per hour which is about 100 95 to 100 miles or feet per second. So we have about 13 seconds to make a decision whether or not we can uh turn left from rig or on 156 onto rigs get up to enough speed to where we are matching traffic speed without causing a collision from the eastbound and westbound traffic lanes. With this consideration, we have 63 residents that have an average of two to three cars per resident. We have a bigger product. Their product is also a threecar garage. Most of us have three and fourcar garages. So, we're going to expect that we're going to have another 180 units of vehicles coming out of that residence. Again, if we do 50/50, we're doubling almost our access to 156 and onto Ricks. The last item I wanted to bring up, which I don't think anyone else is, we've just sustained a a massive increase to our sewage bills for reconditioning reclamation facilities and supply of city water with all these new homes that is just going to impact that even further. Is there any kind of expectation where these new developers are going to somehow help with those costs and help reduce some of our city costs and liability for our city water removal? And thank you guys very much for your time. >> Thank you. Okay, next uh Kaen Marvin uh opposed to the item. Traffic in and out of 156 Street is a major concern. And Kaen, did you wish to speak? >> No. >> Thank you. Uh Matt Wilkins opposed to the item. Did you wish to speak? >> Oh. Oh, that's okay. Did you wish to speak? No, sir. >> Okay. So, just noting that is opposed. Uh, okay. Jeremy Decker, wish to speak, please come up. State your name for the record and three minutes, sir. >> Hi, my name is Jeremy Decker. I reside Marathon Ranch. Uh, I'm going to be the anomaly tonight and I'll just tell you my background is I am the project manager, construction arm of multif family developer. So, I am prodevelopment. I think LAR after the first meeting, came out the second time, they listened. They did a very good job. And quite honestly, I wasn't planning on being here until I saw the announcement and I saw the setbacks. So, everybody talks about the Santan design criteria. I don't really know what it is, but I build things for a living. And I can read when you don't stagger the front and you put the houses too close together. And I'm going to say something not to insult Mr. right way back there. But the way they're laying laying this out, it's going to look like a trailer park. It's going to be a bunch of square houses very up close to the front, maybe decent sized backyards crammed in left to right to get maximum value out of the land for maximum profit. And again, capitalism, I think the vice chair said earlier, I'm about capitalism, too. But we want to maintain property values. You don't build a trailer park in front of our home, the Shea Homes development that's behind us. Adora Trails may have all three of the zoning capacity zones, but majority is sevens and eights. Mr. Zinci across the street has already sold LAR part of his property. He's going to sell to somebody someday later. So, while the SP6 whatever it kind of works and they're exceeding it, I am worried about the future when Mr. Zinci starts selling off his land and someone comes in and tries to squeeze in a five cuz there's a six across the street and there's a six next door. So, while I'm not standing here saying that you need to get a seven, it would be nice, but I don't know if the numbers are going to work. But the setbacks, they need to go away. It creates a neighborhood that is unattractive and does not fit in. I believe the word everybody uses is complimentary. That neighborhood is not complimentary to any neighborhood around us. And I would argue anyone to try and prove that. So the setbacks need to go away. It just is unacceptable for what we're supposed to do. Now the other thing is traffic. Okay, everybody read the traffic data. It's late. The part that caught me is somewhere buried in the middle. There's a statement by the traffic engineer. He said, "We ran the numbers and they came back really bad." And I'm paraphrasing and speaking small terms. So he goes, "So we ran it again and we put some more data in and now it works." The fact that they started out with three, four year old data, red flag to begin with, but then when you in engineering language, but layman speed go, I didn't like the way the math worked out, so I tweaked it. I find that to be unsatisfactory in my way of thinking and in my world, it's always the math. You can't argue the math. Well, I can if your man says he changed the input data and and affected the equation. Okay. The city reviewed the equations. I didn't look at the attachments and we didn't get them. I'm sure they followed what they needed to do. So, in closing, there's too many traffic lights on there, but the city of Gilbert controls the intersection 154th. They control the light at Adora Trails. They can put in a presence sensor and figure out how to time the lights for us. And then, real quick, sorry, one last thought. The speeding Gilbert Police Department, every Sunday morning when I go get my coffee, they must stop seven people in the 30 minutes it takes me to go up there, sit through the drive-thru, and come back. They are running radar every Sunday morning because they know people are not maintaining the speed limit there. I wish they'd run it seven days a week. They only do it every Sunday. So, it's not a secret that Rigs is practically a US highway. So anyway, those are my thoughts. Thank you. >> Thank you, sir. >> Next up, I have Richard and Allison Hair opposed and wishes to speak. Comment. Uh, I cannot attend, but sent an email to Barbara Chrisman to read on my behalf. Barbara, did you read that email or Planning Commission members. Good evening. My name is Allison Hair. Husband Richard and I live at 25448 south of 156th Street. Our property is part of the county island west of the proposed the LAR development and adjacent to Marathon Ranch. We and our neighbors along 156 have concerns about this particular development. First is the traffic study conducted a couple of years ago. Apparently, it reflects only the 91 homes proposed by the NAR using a two-lane road onto Rigs, which is major artery for traffic incoming from Queen Creek, Santan Valley, Florence, etc. doesn't take account of Marathon Ranch average three vehicles per house, the surrounding neighborhoods converging into our rigs peak commute times and really all day. Adding a lane is not going to prevent the inevitable accidents. The proposed entry exit locations for LAR with headlights into our properties is definitely not acceptable either. She's talking about the entrance off of 156th Street. Second is the density of this development. It doesn't match the caliber of surrounding neighborhoods such as Marathon Ranch, Colandria, Custom Homes on 154th Street. I can't see how this will help my property values or those of my neighbors. And finally, what's feasibly studies were conducted on this development and when were they completed? On previous developments in the area, Gilbert was strong in ensuring that they were a fit for the community. Marathon Ranch and the Shea Homes on Val Vista went through many revisions and replaced previous plans. Thank you for your time, Richard and Allison Hair. Okay, thank you. I'm sure Elena's now googling what to do when the chair allows people to speak on other people's behalf. So, I don't know if that was allowed, but I did it. So, oops. Okay, next up, uh Joe Benther. Um opposed and wishes to speak. need traffic light but bus stop issue and I think one story back I'm not sure what that last part says one story back blackout but go ahead you can speak Joe >> my name is Joe Bther and first of all I like to know I buted heads with the gentleman but he said he would change the south part of his uh housing development to one story so I I appreciate that but the only thing I want to say and I'm going to say the traffic again but the only thing I will bad is that that corner is so bad that the school bus couldn't allow kids to get off the bus there. So, we had to allow the school bus to come into a private uh gated community to offload uh the students. I'm not sure where the students for this community would be able to pick up and get on a school bus or or be let out. that that would be my concern because like Doug mentioned earlier, five o'clock in the morning, we wait a few minutes to try to make a left turn out of that community and you're not you're not going out into a meridian, you're going into oncoming traffic. So that's that's my big objection. Thank you. Next up, Ernie Fun wishes to speak referring to the fire. Has the commission developed any disaster evacuation plans for these communities? Okay. Uh, please state your name and three minutes. Ernie. >> Yeah. Hi, thank you. I'm Ernie Fun. I'm resident of Marathon Ranch. So I part Aly I wanted to address the traffic as well because I think there's a community benefit for putting a traffic light there two school right after us when you go westbound there's elementary school and there's a basher high school so in order to slow down the traffic which is currently going at over 55 most of the time uh you if you put in a traffic light it will help to slow it down before it get to the screws. The other thing is if you really insist that you don't want to put a traffic light, a suggestion that I have if you can put no U-turn sign at the intersection at 56 on both eastbound and westbound because that often time also prevent us from making the turn when someone try to make a U-turn and there more and more traffic now making a U-turn for some reason. I don't understand why. Um, regarding the uh fire situation, I read that the Lahana uh fire the reason why there's heavy casualty is because this is a one access row community that they have failed to manage the growth and as a result of that when the natural disaster happened most of the community uh residents cannot get out. So I would like to I I'm not opposed necessary to development. I just hope that maybe you guys can help to develop a evacuation plan for both communities because both communities are going to be heavily dependent on this one narrow 156 street for both access and egress. And in this situation where 150 some family all trying to get out at the same time. uh we need to we need to figure out how to get out because there only one road out. So if you can help us to develop a evacuation plan so that we don't have to see the same disaster in Lahina uh you guys can read it that's a major reason why there such a heavy casualty because of that fire. So thank you for your help. >> Thank you sir. Next up, Ed Brainbeck, opposed to the item and wishes to speak. >> All right, sir. Thank you. State your name for the record and then three minutes. >> My name is Ed Brunbeck. uh Marathon Ranch resident and similar to a lot a lot of my other residents have said is just I'm concerned about the safety uh turning out off 156. Um I read the traffic study as well and when I read it there was no light suggested. Um they did recommend a turning lane essentially that would be stacking up parallel. So we'd basically be competing with each other with who's going left, who's going right. I'm concerned with that scenario in that it's going to block my line of sight if I'm in the right lane looking that way and there's an SUV there. Creates some challenges. Um the traffic going down through there. As we said before, I'd really like to see the data on what the speed is, the average speed is down through there cuz it's marked, you know, as we all know, 45, but somebody mentioned every weekend day or early in the morning, 5:00, 6 o'clock in the morning, there's a police officer sitting there with their lights out, radaring people down through there as early as 6:00 in the morning. So, you can check the records. Um, yeah. Otherwise, I really don't have anything else to to share that hasn't been shared already. So, thank you for hearing us. Thank you, sir. Okay. Next up, Stephen Man >> Marvin. >> Marvin. Okay. Yes. Oppose the item and wishes to speak. Traffic is a major concern. Rigs Road and 156. Uh, so three minutes, Stephen, and state your name for the record, please. Thank you, Chairman Muntton, Council um Commission, sorry. Uh as was basically I have a lot of basically the same concerns as everybody else. Um one thing that hasn't been mentioned about Riggs Road is it is a six-lane road. Okay. I'm a I'm a lifelong resident of Gilbert, born and raised in this area, lived in downtown in the Heritage District. And uh at that time we thought that was a lot of traffic back you know even back in the 80s you know ' 80s and and ' 90s we thought that was a lot of traffic. It's nothing compared to what we're dealing with on Rigs Road today. As was previously mentioned uh Basha High School is uh little less than the probably about a third of a mile from 156th to Val Vista. Um, I can guarantee you at any time of the day when those lights are flashing, maybe one out of a thousand cars are going the 35 mph speed limit. It is just it's just nuts. The reason that people are using our area as a turnaround area um is because of this the amount of traffic. I personally send my daughters down to Calira, which is down at Adora Trails, to make a U-turn there because it's much safer. They can't get out going left. Um so again just a rehash of of kind of the things I'd also like to point out that uh uh you know the the your the recommendation from the from the planning commission is that or the planning uh department is that they're opposed to a signal at 156 unless a signal warranted study shows it as necessary. Um, I think you're hearing really loud and clear from the residents that a study needs to a thorough study needs to be done. Not one, you know, on a day right after Christmas break uh when they when they did it between the hours of 7:00 and 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 and 6:00 p.m. Uh, that's inadequate amount of uh of detail. And as Mr. Decker pointed out, uh, you know, even in in the middle, it's pointed out that uh they had to adjust their numbers. Um, so that that's not uh we question the validity of that. Uh, in closing, I'd you know, I'd like to recommend that uh a further study be done on that. I'm not personally opposed to the uh to the development, although as was pointed out, three cars or even two cars per house, you're doubling the amount of traffic coming out onto a single lane road. try driving down your residential street because that's really what we have of 156 is a is a 24 foot residential street and you're going to try to put that much traffic onto it uh at that point. So just to give it a graphic that way. Um uh while you may have qualified immunity or even indemnity uh from the decisions that that this council presents to the count to the this commission presents to the town council. Uh that doesn't uh alleviate the city from its fiduciary duty to protect his residents. And so I would uh I would make the recommendation that you at least get the right data to be able to make a much more informed decision. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Next up I have Brent Atkinson. He's opposed the item but does not wish to speak. Are you sure, Brent? >> Okay. Uh, we have Joe and Jodie Fello. Do not wish to speak. Didn't say whether you were in favor or opposed. >> I do wish to speak. >> You do? Okay. Please come on up and then just state your name. And three minutes, please sir. >> Um, my name is Joe Freelo. I live at Marathon Ranch as well. Um, just want to point out a couple things that have already been pointed out, but couple questions even for yourselves. What would you do if you lived where we lived? House value. Um, what impact will the new development have? Um, the important part and the fun part about living in Marathon Ranch is yes, we're residents, but amazing neighbors. So, when you think about, hey, less is more. You know, less will still be more. less homes over there, more traffic. Um, so that part of, you know, he was showing 48 49. I can't believe they didn't use the same numbers themselves, but 62, I'm sorry 62 um residents showed up at the first meeting. We only have 63 households. So, if you want to break it down, divide it even by two, you're looking at 35 to 50% participation. And that's why I say, hey, great neighbors, but we don't have more to come out and battle. It's just all the concerns from our little community. So, what can we do in terms of the value of the home? 1.1 to 1.5. You look at that perspective. That was our investment. Now, we're going to bring in basically apartments, what they're going to look like apartments. They're 5 ft apart from each other. you might as well just put them all together and try to figure it out like New York does with just how do I get to the backyard? I'll just go through the house. So, something to consider. And again, the safety, it's a suicide mission. I wish you guys would try that out a couple times a day, 7 days a week. And sometimes heading down to Adora Trails, that throws everything off. Especially if you're running late. I know, don't run late, but holy cow, it's scary. It's scary. And trying to get into the left turn lane as it's going east, you know, rigs. I get in there and I just huddle and try to look behind me like, okay, roll down my window, make sure I'm not going to get taken out. So, all of that leads to what I said earlier. You know, put yourself in our shoes and consider what we're going through. Um, and then take that into consideration. I wouldn't approve that many homes. Thank you. >> Thank you. Okay. Last but not least, uh I have Prescuit and opposed does not wish to speak. Um 156th Street and Rigs can't handle the influx of traffic safely. Did I say that correctly? Okay. Very good. All right. And since we've come this far, I just want to take one more moment to ask, is there anyone else who had not filled out a card that did wish to speak? I want to be sure that we are able to capture all of this prior to Okay, thank you very much. Uh if Mr. Ray wanted to come up and address some of the concerns that these citizens have laid out, please do so. >> Uh, chair, members of the commission, there was quite a few things that I've heard. I will I will punt on traffic for a moment because I feel that given the extensive discussion and the comments that have made about traffic. Uh I believe it only appropriate to have Darn Cardier with Civ who is our traffic engineer who performed the study who reviewed it uh be able to come up and talk because I I felt that some were some comments that I'm certain weren't intended to be disingenuous but we've called into the question a little bit of the validity of the work that that she has done and she's been doing it a long time. I will tell you that while traffic we have had countless discussions with transportation staff uh about this um about access about how everything goes um and we've been put to the test too by town staff as to how we look at it in the analysis but again I will defer that to um Don um if I may. So, there's a couple of other things that kind of touched on safety, and I really want to touch on that. I've heard comments about building fire code. Uh, heard comments about um school bus. Um, this is going to comply with building code. It's going to comply with fire code. Um, there's absolutely no question. And I'll tell you, I've been doing this a long time. And in all the years of doing it, especially doing it with LAR in a single family subdivision of the quality and caliber that these guys are proposing, I've never heard it called the trailer park before, and I've never heard it called apartments. This is a single family subdivision. Uh, make no mistake about it. Lenar is very proud of the work that they do and the work that they've done in Gilbert. and I could um waste a lot of time going through the wonderful communities that they've built not only in Gilbert but in other parts of the valley as well. There was a question and comment about um improvements and and let's talk about 156th. Um as staff had in their presentation the west side of 156 are county um in unincorporated Maricopa County. So the only thing that we have to work with is what is within the city, the town of Gilbert's jurisdiction, and that is the eastern half of 156th. The western half is county. And so if the county residents were so inclined to make a dedication uh to complete the full improvements for 156th, that's something that could be done. I don't know where the town is on a CIP plan uh to go out and start condemning property to fully improve 156th to what it's designed to do. But that's why the condition exists today down 156 at that intersection with us um not being required to but voluntarily putting in a right turn lane to get out. We saw that as a good thing. yet. I heard a comment tonight that said us uh making that additional dedication for that turn lane um is now a bad thing. So, I'm not sure what we do with that. I know there was talk about fire and access and a reference to Lahina and the Maui fires. We have two points of access to this community. Um we have um obviously 156, but then we also have a ride in ride out. Um the streets are public within our community. school buses will be able to drive through our community and effectuate drop off and pick off of children. And so as we look at that, um there was a comment too about um development, what what I refer as impact fees. Um the town uh is going to get more than than um they're getting a lot out of us in impact fees for single family homes. They recently went through an update and effectively doubled the amount of impact fees that the town collects for single family homes. Uh taking it from roughly 14,000 a door to about 30 35,000 a door. So I can assure you that development is paying for itself, paying for its impact to the system as well. Um those were just kind of a a few things that I wanted to touch on. Again, chair, um, with with your permission and and the the commission's indulgence, I would like Don better than I to be able to talk about traffic since, as I was taking notes, I think every single person mentioned traffic and I know that's not per se part of it is part of the request. Um, but I think it's important that we we do have this discussion, but I will chair take direction from you on that particular issue. >> Uh, yeah, please. if I think it would be um behoove us to hear from the traffic. Thank you. >> Good evening, chair, commissioners. My name is Don Cardier. I'm the president and founder of Civetech and I just wanted to walk through the traffic study a little bit because there are a lot of technical nuances in here that have been misconstrued through the comments. uh not all incorrect but just taken in a different context than how they were used in the traffic study. So first our traffic counts at 150 street 56 street and rigs were conducted on January 8th. This is a day school was in session. We counted for two hours in the morning and two hours in the evening which represent the peak hours of traffic on Rigs Road. This is a typical standard. It is what we're requested to do by the town for every study. What we do with that two hours of data is we look at every 15 minutes and we look for what adds up to be the highest hour. We don't get to pick a random hour in there. It has to be the highest hour of traffic. And so in this case uh because it was mentioned I just want everyone to know there was actually 26 vehicles in that morning. One hour leaving, 21 arriving. total of 47 vehicles from Marathon Ranch, 63 households. This would be a very standard number and it actually completely aligns with the numbers that we have also predicted uh for our project here. Um in the evening I would say there were 22 arriving and 34 arriving. This is normal right? In the morning more people are leaving and in the evening more are coming home. So our numbers in the background traffic are based on one of the highest days, January. People in Arizona are here in January. School is in session in January. So just wanted to point out that we're using at 156th Street and Rigs one of the highest numbers. Um Mr. Decker had pointed out something really important and critically important. When we look at this intersection just uh alone without considering what's happening east and west on rigs, it is operating with a very long delay. You're hearing the neighbors complain about that delay. And that delay is is truly uh what they're feeling when they go there today. So what we did is we had some traffic counts on file at 154th and at Adora Trails. They are from 2022. What we did is we looked at the traffic volume east west on rigs then versus the traffic east west on rigs which we have a brand new count from 2025 and we grew all of that. So that 2025 on either side was actually raised up to match the traffic that's already happening on rigs. The reason we did this is because there are traffic signals on either side. And that has to be considered as we're thinking about what happens at 156th. And what we find in the analysis as was pointed out is when we consider those traffic signals and the proper timing of those traffic signals, the delay at 156 can be alleviated. That is what the traffic study is saying is that there is delay there. And if we look at the two signals on either side and what could be done there in the timing, there's the potential to create a lot more of what we call gaps. We stop the traffic on either side. It creates a a gap in the traffic that will allow more than I I did hear it was like six seconds or nine seconds, but more time than that for that exiting vehicle to get out. And that really is the recommendation of the study. So, I I didn't want to go into too much more technical detail unless you have questions, but just to to caveat that I do think what you're hearing is right. I do think there is a fix and that's what the traffic study is mentioning. Did anybody have any questions as it relates to that traffic study? >> Commissioner Degino. >> Yeah. Traffic study was based on currently what's there. Did you take into consideration those 91 lots that are going to add another potentially 180 cars? >> Yes, we did. >> In your analysis >> through the chair commissioner. Yes, we have to. That's a part of the study. So the town requires us to generate traffic, predict traffic for what will be there and add that to the traffic that's already there. In addition, we also have to look at not just what's already there, how much that traffic will grow in the timeline it'll take uh for us to build. So the Willowbrook traffic is in there, the growth of background traffic is in there, the existing traffic is in there. It's all part of the consideration. >> I'm on Rigsville Road quite a bit, two, three, four times a week. That's a very busy street. I've watched it grow in the last 20 years from I think two lanes to six lanes now. So, it's only going to get busier. So, I understand the resident's concerns. >> Yeah, definitely. And I would say that um we have a really high peak hour existing uh on rigs. Uh in the westbound direction in the morning, it's over 2,000 vehicles. That's a lot. And coming home eastbound uh to over 2,000 vehicles and at PM Peak. So I would agree that's that is a significant amount of traffic using an art but it's an arterial street. So >> m just make sure your microphone it's excuse me the town can make adjustments to those traffic signals to allow for that gap. I would have to defer that to the town traffic engineer to answer just because they really are the ones who control the traffic signal and time. >> You mentioned that in your presentation that that's possible. >> That's what we evaluated is whether or not that could be done. >> Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> Okay. Anything else? lively bunch. Okay, thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Does anyone have any other questions, comments, concerns for applicant, traffic engineer, or staff? >> Commissioner S. Yeah, I've got a question for staff. Um, with regards to that 156, you know, obviously I understand now that part of it is county island and we can't do anything there. Um, but looking at the the overhead on that down rigs, we've got collectors both east and west that are island collectors. And so there's no ability to turn uh left out of that community into a center collector lane in order to merge. And I don't know if there's any conversation with regards to alleviating the islands so that you have the ability to use the center lane as a merge. >> Uh good evening chair and commissioners. Um so Rigs is a major collector. So our standard is to uh have the raised median in there and then um there are opposing less and so there would be at this time that's not something we'd be considering if I answer your question correct. Well, it it it doesn't um it almost appears that that that was initially built the way that the road was built and designed is for a light because of the islands, which basically and I'm not a traffic person, so I would give it up to somebody in traffic obviously, but it it seems to me that if you've got lefthand turn um out of wherever onto a busy arterial. Um, you're going to need to either have light for safety in order to manage the traffic or you're going to need to have some sort of merge into traffic. And so by having the island there in my head, >> feel the logically it doesn't make sense because now I've got to if I'm turning left, I've got to cross in essence four lanes of in order to get into a lane. So, just a thought. So, I mean that that that's listening to the the the residents and the community that's here. Um, you know, I mean, I've I've got some quasi issues with the development. not anything that would stop me from from approving the development, but but listening to this traffic issue and looking at overhead and thinking about it myself, thinking, "Yeah, I mean, even if you time the lights correctly, east and west, I mean, if I get a gap of 10 seconds coming from the east and a gap of 10 seconds coming from the west, it's got to line up perfectly so I can get one car out of there." >> Yeah. And if I get a backup of five cars to the resident's point, I'm gonna have 20 20 minutes of backup to get out. And so I'm just thinking from a safety perspective, it would seem logical to me that we would want to do something whether it's allow for a a median merge or put a light in that intersection. >> Yeah. per um town standards, we're allowed so this would look like we're allowed to have full access spacing every 660 feet. So this would look similar every 660 ft this would be allowed. Um and so you know it's not realistic to put a signal in every 660 ft. Um there is um just to answer your question about safety, there is a misconception about traffic signals, whether it's a place that they can uh mitigate safety. Um they're not always a a safety mitigation because if you look down the street to the crash uh history compared to like Adora Trails to this one from a safety perspective, this operates a lot better than Adora Trails does. So, and and the um federal and state guidelines, they give warnings about um if you in kind of instrust signals without meeting these federal and state guidelines that there are uh disadvantages to to placing these including some safety concerns. So that being said and again I'm not traffic so I would say okay yeah we need to to live to those standards but at the same time we need to look at what I would call safety of the community and feasibility >> in in this and so for me there's living under you know I don't you drive down Valve Vista either direction and there's lights it feels every 5t at times. Um, so I'm not saying I'm necessarily saying that I'm an advocate to throw a light in there just to for the sake of having a light, but I'm I think that there needs to be some concession with regards to how are we going to get traffic to flow in a safe manner in and out of this. I mean, and and and and the other subject would be del lanes, which I'm looking at this and it doesn't appear there's del lanes in this plan. So the this traffic piece of it just I'm struggling with because of the residents. So I mean as as far as the community goes, I don't know that I have necessarily an issue other than traffic at this point. So and and and so I guess I would at this point ask that that staff work with the with the developer to figure out how how they can make this a safer transition. And I don't even know if that's something that can be done at this point. But >> thank you, Commissioner Simon. We actually can't take any more public comments, sir. I apologize. >> He was in support of what he was saying. So, >> yeah, I know. Um, okay. Anyone else? >> I had another question for the traffic person. >> Kyle, I think >> back down. >> What's his name, by the way? >> Commissioner Derbina, he had another question. Kyle, sorry. escape too early. >> And please state your name just so that uh that the attendants know. >> Yeah. Glenn Emery with the town of Gilbert, the traffic engineering group. >> Yeah. My question is that did I hear you say that because the traffic signals are so close together that there's no justification for a signal at 156th Street? >> Uh no. Um it's more has to do with the volume on 156th Street. So um hopefully we can all agree that one house wouldn't justify a traffic signal. So the question is how many how what is that volume needed and that's um that's been determined by feds and the kind of the state that's regulates that and that's been adopted by the state. So that's the law of the land. Okay. And then you also made a comparison to I guess accidents at 156 and Adora Trails, but there's a lot more cars coming. That's like comparing apples and oranges. >> There's a lot more cars coming out of Adora Trails than there is out of 156 Street. So I don't know if that data is accurate. >> No, I mean that you know that's a good point, but unfortunately I can't do anything at this intersection to guarantee that there won't be >> that's obvious. I mean, but I think it would add to the safety of that intersection, >> right? But I think just if you go throughout the town whenever you look at a signalized intersection, it doesn't necessarily have a lower crash rate than an unsalized intersection, especially with something with a low low volume like this road. And I realize the residents don't feel like it's a low volume, but comparably to other signalized intersections, you also have county to the west. At some point in time, Gilbert could potentially annex that property and then it's going to start being developed. I would guess uh as everything else in that area, right, >> is being developed. So there will be more traffic on 156. That's a guarantee. It's just a matter, not a matter of if, it's a matter of when, >> right? >> So those taken into consideration when you're looking at the analysis of that? >> Not at this time. It will when that comes in. There is a large parcel to the north, which is probably the more likely side that would generate a traffic signal for consideration. So it sounds like the town of Gilbert's opposed to a traffic signal there. We're not saying absolutely never. We're just saying based on the information we have, based on the development that's planned, there's not a traffic signal planned. Based on the volumes that are generated by these two developments to the south, we have concerns about constructing a traffic signal. Thank you, >> Vice Chair. And before you go, Kyle, it's it's not just volume, it's warrants, right? And volume is sum of the warrants, but there's 20 some odd total warrants, >> right? And and they and they did look at all there's nine warrants. They looked at all nine. >> And if it fails warrants, it needs a light or warrants dictate if it make and you've got a warrant study, right? >> We have a warrant study. >> And how recently was a warrant study done? >> Um, so I know there was talk about the 22 date. I was looking it looked like it was January 25 when they pulled the data >> and the warrant study does not say signal. >> Correct. >> Okay, that's what I wanted. Thank you. Uh the the other point is not a Kyle point. It's and and Brennan touched on this, but it's the only point that I actually I think I can address adequately is one of the points I think it was Mr. Latino made it about the water wastewater. Um the the answer is yes, that every new house has to pay impact fees. I think it's like 20 grand. I mean, it's it's a it's a pretty 25. It's a it's a pretty fair chunk of money that has to go in which goes towards paying for infrastructure improvement basically to grow in the city. It includes water, wastewater. So, the answer is yes, they do pay quite a bit of money to put a new house in. >> It's not going to reduce their cost. >> I'll remind the commission that we need to be uh speaking on the record if you are going to please. Thank you. But go ahead. I just meant to make sure that it's being recorded. >> All as I said is that the impact fees aren't going to reduce the existing homes in that area. It's going to cover the cost of the the future and the expense of what's currently going in and they're always going up and they're expensive. It's just part of the >> what his concern was. >> Excuse me. I know I can't speak >> then please. Um, we have to continue and it's not it's nothing against anyone but I don't I don't have >> right now we're going to stop and then talk about this in 3 months and >> can you at least take two seconds. >> So >> I can't but I can't stop you from yelling it. So >> there's a lot of traffic on rigs count rigs and the school bus. God forbid that the school bus >> Okay, sir. That's not the issue in front of us. That's not the issue in front of us tonight at all. >> It's okay. And I and I and I respect the emotions and wanting to speak and I hope that we can cover it. And >> when is a problem? >> Did anyone else have any other comments that they would like to address? Okay. Well, then I'll close the public comment, bring it up to the dis for further discussion. Um, you know, I I I myself want to be sure that we're clear on, you know, what we are voting on and I I recognize the the issues as it relates to traffic and I believe there are some significant limitations as to uh vice chair spoke about warrants. I think if if we were to take now and the traffic we are describing is already a problem that is a theme across Gilbert of any development that comes in traffic is said to be an issue. We have very large roads that cost a significant amount of time and money to maintain. The town has to take these things on and the processes that are set up in order to be able to create when and if lights are warranted are based upon engineering principles and a significant amount of work goes into that and I completely understand and respect all of the comments as it relates to traffic. The problem that we are going to run into as a planning commission is we will not have the authority to just say we think this has that even based on all of the emphatic discussions that we've been able to have. We can't particularly say don't you can't do it. You need to put a light in. Um, if there are safety issues and things like that, I think a further study or things may be warranted. But I just want to be sure that we level set that developments come in that I 100 respect all of the property rights from everybody that is speaking. But at the same time, there are property rights of the individual who owns the land that is being developed. Granted, it it looks more as if it's a big brother thing because it's a developer and then it's the town that is reviewing it, but I just want to be sure that we do not lose sight of the fact that a significant amount of time, effort, and work and analysis goes into this. Now, I just want to say about the traffic. Now, we can get into discussing a little more about the development density and things of that nature. uh just because we're dealing with the minor plan amendment and a reszoning and I just wanted to be sure that as we're getting later into the evening that we try to keep ourselves focused on what that is and be able to effect effectively make decisions based on what we are deciding. Um, and that's not meant to discount. That's just meant to say if at the end of the day there is a problem there. And I don't discount that. I had a my daughter went to Payne Elementary. This would have been back I don't want to age myself too much or her, but it was a while ago probably before that earlier traffic study. And it was even the queue of cars that I would see sitting um in pickup and drop off was immense. So, I I I totally understand the concerns um as it relates to traffic and I think we can hopefully address that. But just wanted to bring that around, bring it back and then let now any other u discussion from commissioners as to the thoughts as it relates to um you know the the layout and the uh minor general plan uh amendment we're talking about. Well, good. Everyone's fine. Yes. Commission Commissioner Davis. >> Thank you, Chair. I'll kick things off, I guess. Um, as far as the traffic goes, I am going to defer to the town um on their um best judgment and best practices as far as how they're going to look at that. Um, I agree it does sound like there's a bit of a problem there. I think as things develop um to the west um I know it's county land, but that can often change quickly if um somebody decides they want to sell to a developer. Um I think there's going to come a time where a light probably is going to end up there. Um it just might not be at this time. Um, as far as my comments the last time we talked about this, I was um I had um comments on the number of deviations that the applicant was asking for and they have reduced that quite a bit. Um the reductions that they're asking for now with the five foot side setbacks and the um not having the staggered lots. I initially kind of was concerned about those things. Um, I appreciate that the applicant provided the product and showed us what that's going to look like. Um, looking at the footprints of those homes, I don't think you're going to perceive the lack of staggered setbacks. You've got those side entry garages. That's going to narrow up the front of that house. I think you're going to perceive more variation than there um actually will be. Um, it'd be great if they can still work in some of that. Um, it breaks up the streetscape, makes it a nicer community. on the five- foot setbacks. We have those all over our town and there's some really lovely communities that have five foot setbacks. I live in one of them. So, um I don't think that it's going to be a problem. It also allows you to have a little bit bigger house which is going to be able to, you know, allow a home that's a little larger, increases values of the property and that kind of thing. So, it's kind of a a give and take thing. There's some negatives to it, but there's also some positives to it. So, I'm not really struggling too much any longer with those items. It's also not unusual to see a transition in zoning as you move towards an arterial street um to see that there's the R R10 lots um to the south and then you're going to the R16 um to the north. That's not so unusual to see that lot size go down. I appreciate the changes. I would not have been supportive of what came in in that initial meeting last September. Um, this is a big improvement. I appreciate that those lots are also still bigger than what um the R16 requires. So, I'll be supporting this project. >> Thank you, Commissioner. Who's next? Vice Chair. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, it's I I know I was shutting down the convers or the side conversation, but fundamentally I agree with it. um it wasn't the right time to have it, but the the problem is the traffic problem is really rigs. Not I don't think this the contribution of this property is is uh is not that significant. I actually would go one step further in terms of the light. I don't think we I mean it's it's warranted or it's not. I don't think this I don't think the the public or really anyone has any say in it. That's a pretty academic engineering discussion. If it's required, then I don't care how much the developer doesn't want to pay for it, you got to. And if it's not required, you don't have to. Um, the underlying problem with rigs is, I think, beyond the scope of what we're going to be talking about tonight. But I I think you've I hope city staff has got some pretty clear feedback that you've got a growing uh problem both public perception uh on Riggs Road itself. Uh I do still kind of have a density problem. Not so much the within the uh 6,000 square foot lot. I don't remember what we're calling it. Zoning district six or zoning six. We're above that. We're comfortably above that. The problem we're not at six yet. We're at 43 right now. We're going from 43 to six. That's a pretty big swing. And well, I mean, and a big swing happens, but for this area, it's going from one of the highest lot sizes to well, unless you count on the other side of the canal, the smallest lot size. So, that that to me is the for for this area, it's going down to a very lot small lot size for this area. Um, interestingly, one of the lesser made points tonight, so it's I'm probably shouldn't get hung up on that too much. Uh, but that's that's where I stand. Thank you, Vice Chair. Commissioner Simon. >> Yeah, I'll think I should probably make a comment because I did bring up the the traffic and and I and as much as I do feel it is an issue here. I mean, just from a feeling perspective and listening to the community, I also feel we don't have control of it, we have to keep focused on what is at hand. Um, from a density perspective, I think this might be a little bit tight. Um, however, I you know what what are you going to pull back one or two lots, maybe three lots? I mean, you're not going to get a lot off of this, even if you keep it at the the zoning um that it is, I believe, if I do my numbers correctly. So, um I appreciate the fact that the that the builder has agreed to, uh keep one-story lots against the existing homes. I think that that's very generous of them. Um, and I believe um that that uh you know once this is developed it will actually enhance the area rather than detract from it. So I don't think it's going to reduce the home prices but I mean that's a crystal ball question as well. So, >> Commissioner Darina, >> yeah, the I think the developer fills all the requirements for that area and I don't think I know it was brought up quite a bit about the reduction of of the existing homes at Marathon Ranch or not the reduction, the reduced price potentially. I don't see that happening. It's not I I've been involved in real estate for quite a long time. It's not gonna I don't think it's going to happen. And that's not a trailer park type product. It's 6,000 plus square foot lot with a decent size home. And Lenard does build a decent product. I don't think that should be your concern. So it's we need more of that size so we could have people that work here in Gilbert protect us. Our cops, our teachers have a place to live. Not everybody could afford a 1.5 or $1.2 million home. So I don't that's not a concern of mine and I don't think it should be a concern of the residents that brought that up. I think it's a decent product. We need more of that in Gilbert. Everything that we talk about, I should say most of the things that we've talked about in the past is all high density. At least we have a residential uh comp uh component going in and I think uh it's going to be fine. It's not going to uh reduce your your values. >> Thank you, Commissioner Commissioner Anderson. No deep thought. Okay. Well, I I will I I will come out then and just as it relates to the design, um and as Mr. Ray knows, I probably would be happy to pile on and say that it's too too dense and you could do something, but I think that the work that had been done as it related to an acquiescence of some size requirements, I think these are goodiz homes. I think they're bigger than mine. Not to say much since uh planning commission actually does not pay but it uh I think they are going to be nice but I think that it's a critical element of how we can help to assimilate these types of situations into the fabric of the community. And I and I just use this as the sense of if I'm a person and I own this land which once again I'm much poorer than that so I do not. But had I and all of the descriptions of the problems that exist and I very much empathize with everyone about the traffic because I had I went through the process of having a daughter learn to drive and have to try to teach her how to turn onto uh these three-lane roads where everybody speeds. But the point of contention that I always run into is that if I own the land and I say I want to do this and the problem is brought up that well wait a minute everybody out here is speeding. We then are taking and putting upon me that other people are committing what essentially are crimes and my life has to be impeded by the fact that they are doing that. And I it does not mean that I discount it as an argument, but I just try to look at it from the perspective of both the town, the citizens neighboring, the individual property owners, as well as anyone else that's going to be traveling in that area. I think putting the implications of people that are driving too fast or not paying attention and causing accidents is um it's a dangerous uh assertion that somehow uh I or in this case the developer should be held accountable for that. I think the town does have accountability and I think that's part of why the police are out there and I don't have any insight into how the police operate. Um because I'm clearly not a criminal either. But I just wanted to say in the work that's been done usually I would be the first to say this could use some work and in essence it has. I mean, the developer had reduced it, moved it up to where I think it's essentially actually a pretty good size. I think you could possibly whittle out, I don't know what the exact math would be, but let's assume you could chop off five of these lots to make it an SF7, which was sort of where what we had heard. Um, I I think that a significant amount of the issues are still going to exist and that what what I would want to be able to do is to parlay whatever decision that we as the governing body here do make to also add on to that regardless that I want to point out that I have concerns um about that traffic and I think that that goes into the fact that there's a very unique situation with the county owning the other half of the road. Not just this land over here is county, but like even if the town said, "Yeah, guys, you really have to do this." They would only have not only the ability or the obligation, but they would not have the right to do anything on that other side of the road because it would be county land. And so unless we then have the ability to go convince the county they need to pay to do the same thing at the same time, which if anyone pays attention to any talk of taxes or anything else in the well, I'd say near history, but pretty much ever um nobody likes that. So who in the who in the county is going to go out and advocate, yeah, we need to do a $10 million bond because we need to put in this road. I just I don't know. And so I I I just wanted to point out the complexity and from um you know a systems engineering basis of how do you take all of these connectivities and put them I just want to make sure we don't put too much upon just the developer because I think they did do a pretty good job. Um could there be more and could there be more warranted? Maybe. And I think maybe that's something where we could possibly put a stipulation um for a a more advanced study. And I by no means am questioning the traffic engineering study. I I do happen to be a civil PE, but I that's why I brought Bill Fay, vice chair, because he's a better engineer than me since I um am just good-looking. So, I just want to point some of those things out. And now I will take and at least entertain um a motion or if not then I'll probably have to start asking Elena legal questions and I know she's going to not want to hear that. Commissioner Davis. >> Chair, I will um I assume I need to make these as separate motions, separate votes, but I would um move to approve GP25-01 Willowbrook. >> Okay, we have a motion for item 15 GP2501 Willowbrook. Do I have a second? >> I'll second it. >> We have a second from Commissioner Dearina. Do we have any discussion? Well, fine. I'll ask then. I do have discussion, Elena, as it relates to concerns that we may share with the community as it relates to this traffic coming out on 216th. What legal rights do we have within requesting that the developer do something in the way of further enhancing what the current position is if it's found to be warranted or how do we determine if it's warranted? I'm not sure I'll be able to answer your question directly, sir, but um I believe that there may be other uh opportunities later in the process um to further evaluate the traffic and maybe lean on staff to confirm that for me. um if there's an opportunity at the preliminary or the preliminary or plat review stage. Um but I I' I'd like to phone a friend if I could. >> No. And that's okay. And and I I recognize and I wanted to at least broach the subject with an understanding that from a procedural vantage point and from an authority vantage point, I don't know if we actually have that ability. But I wanted to put that out onto the record to at least show that um I do believe that it it may it may be something that we need to look at. So, but also that's just my opinion. So, all right. Well, then we have a motion and a second. Any other discussion? All right. Cast your vote. Okay, we had the one recusal from Commissioner Gage. Motion carries. 6. Then with that, do we have uh a second? Z2502 will work the request to reszone. Do we have a motion on that? Yes, chair. I'll make a motion to approve Z2502 as written. >> We have a motion from the vice chair to approve. Do we have a second? >> I will second that. I also note that this is a recommendation to city council. They'll be the final decision makers on this. So, >> thank you. I was going to say that because I'm the chair, but thank you. Um, all right. Any other discussion? We have a second then um from Commissioner Davis. Do we have any other discussion? All right. Please cast your vote. All right. Motion carries. And so just to echo that sentiment for everyone that came out, I want to make sure that I point out that from the planning principles as it relates to this, that is what we are currently voting on and did vote on. The concerns that you have are very valid and I would encourage to continue and bring them up with the council who will have more authority with which to actually effectively work with that. Thank you. Okay, moving on to administrative items. Administrative items are for the commission discussion and action and is at the discretion of the majority of the commission regarding public input request on any administrative items. Persons wishing to speak on an administrative item should complete a co public comment form indicating the item number on which you wish to address and the commission may or may not accept public comment. So the only item in the administrative items currently is item 16, the planning commission meeting minutes from the July 9th, 2025. We would like to consider the approval of these and of course this was when Vice Chair Fay was a steady hand at the lead here. Um but uh has everybody reviewed them and have anything to say? Otherwise, a motion. Chair, I make a motion to approve the the minutes. >> We have a motion from Vice Chair Fay to approve minutes. Do we have a second? >> Motion to approve with gratitude to Commissioner Anderson who keeps me on track. >> Yeah. >> Every time I say something random, it's >> like the game the game of telephones. It's going to be like, who's keeping him on track? Am I going to be that keep on track soon? >> Commissioner Fay. Nope, not that one. No, go read that part. >> That's right. This is we're a collective group of helpers. So, we have a motion. Do I have a second? >> Second it. >> Second from Commissioner Agarvina. Please cast your vote. Motion carries 70. All right. Here. Actually, you're going to need to sign those. That's right. Where am I at? Item 16. Okay. Now, we're on the communications. Um, let's go to the back. Planning Commission. Okay, that's the executive session. We don't have anything. We'll go to item 17, the report from chairman and members of the commission on current events. What do we got? >> I got a question. >> Yes, sir. I got a question for staff. And I've been meaning to ask this for some time and I keep forgetting and probably came up tonight and it goes back to the uh increase in our water bills. So my understanding is increase was to help pay for construction and repair of existing facilities. Is that fee a permanent fee or is that a temporary fee? So once everything once you have your funds in place or things repaired, do does that fee go away? >> I'll answer it council's perspective. We're going to review it in two years. It's intended just for the repairs at this time frame, >> but our intent is to review every two years and make sure that it's in line with what's going on. And we do have a study session coming up that's going to be looking at the rates because they're significantly higher than what we anticipated. >> So, in two years, you'll re-evaluate it and let's just say you you raised the funds and a lot of repairs were done and >> then there would be theoretically there would be a reduction then. Okay, that that helped >> because this is specifically to address some some deficiencies that we found during inspections. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So, it's an unplanned repair. >> Okay. Thank you for that. >> Mhm. >> And in relation to that, I'd like to point out it is much higher and they just did a new system that you need to pay for and it was hard to find out how to switch said system. And I got a notice saying, "Bro, you didn't pay us. We're going to turn off your water." And I'm like, "Come on." But I was take I took care of it and everything's under control. But I just wanted to put that out there that everything is fine. >> Just one other thing on that too that came up last night at the council meeting is that they're not going to turn off your water if there if there's an issue. Yeah, except for you. I mean, you were you were the exception we we put in there. But yeah, no, they're not going to do that. They recognize the challenges with the switch over. >> Perfect. Yeah, I figured with me. Yeah, I'm a special case. Mine should have been shut up. >> I I do have a question also. I get those emails about board and commission vacancies once in a while, which I usually just because obviously I've got a seat on the preeminent board and commission of in the town of Gilbert, but uh I noticed there's one for the town of town of Gilbert for this commission that came up. Is there a vacancy or is there is there people who are getting turned over here in the near future? >> Chair and commission member, I can answer that. Um so our alternate positions are one-year appointments. So the vacancies were for the the alternate positions. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yeah, vice chair, you are not in fact allowed to leave. So enjoy. >> You have nothing to worry about at this time frame. >> Yeah, >> I do have a history of being the last guy to figure out. >> All right. Well, then other than that, I don't have any other major current events other than it's hot. Hopefully it gets cooler soon. So, uh, then we'll go to item number 18 and a report from the planning services manager on current events. Ashley. >> Uh, thank you, chair and commission. It's, um, late, so I will keep it brief. Um, just a reminder that our September planning commission meeting was moved from the first Wednesday to the second Wednesday of the month. Um, so that'll be on the 10th. Um, and then also, I think this might be the first opportunity that I've had to embarrass Kristen. Um, she passed her AICP exam. Um, and I think this might be her first hearing since she did that. So, I just want to recognize her for that. Um, very big feat. >> All right. So, like Pinocchio being a real boy, now she's a real planner. Very nice. Okay. Well, thank you all very much. This has been fun. Um, I hope you all have a great evening and uh >> do I need to I almost forget. Am I supposed to do a vote? Yeah. >> Yeah. Let's >> motion to adjurnn. >> We have a motion to adjurnn from commissioner Simon. >> Second. >> Second from Vice Chair Fay. If you could please cast your vote. >> Thank you all. Motion carries. Good evening.