study. So, Ashley, we've got 508. Is it Can we call the meeting to order? And anyone have a necessarily a problem with that? Okay. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the April Planning Commission meeting. This is the work session. Uh the planning commission also acts as the design review board and between 5 and 6 and later if we need it is going to be the uh study session. The study session is when things that are still in the works and being worked on are going to be presented to the commission for input. Um some of them are legal. Some of them are in the preliminary stages. There is not public comment during the work session. There is a public comment period later during the regular meeting which will come up at 6:00. Um, and there there also isn't time for the applicants or anything to necessarily uh provide input unless it's specifically called for, and I don't think any of it is. Um, does that sound like I'm on the right track here, everybody? Okay, then with that, I will call the work session to order and just add we'll just we we do have some other things like the pledge of allegiance and all that in the regular meeting. This one, we just get right to it. So, with that, I think and somebody here like give me a if I if I do this wrong. Okay. Uh with item one, I think that is the ranch. Thank you, chair, members of the commission. Nicole Russell, senior planner. The development this evening that I am bringing forth is the ranch The ranch development is an approximate 311.18 acre site along the eastern border of the town of Gilbert. The subject site is located along the west side of Power Road spanning from Elliot Road to Warner Road. In 2023, the reszoning and major and minor plan general plan amendment requests were approved by the town. The zoning approval created a planned area development with five zoning districts. The approved zoning districts are as followed follows. Multifamily medium, mixed use, small, mixeduse large, general commercial, and light industrial. The current request is a design review of the master site plan, the landscaping, grading and drainage, elevations, floor plans, lighting, and colors and material for the three phases of development. Generally, when a master site plan comes before the planning commission, it is to set up the general organization and of the development. And if there's pad sites, they will usually come in as separate applications. For the ranch, it is all of the different phases of development at the same time. Here is the approved phasing plan. With the approval of GP2312 and Z23-04, this phasing plan was approved per the approved phasing schedule. Grading on phase 1, 1 1 A and 1B may be constructed concurrently. Phase 1 landscaping must be installed and completed before vertical construction can start on phase 1 A. And once vertical construction has started on phase 1 A, thereafter, vertical construction may start on phase 1B. Phase two cannot start construction with the exception of roadways and utilities until financing is in place. Permitting is completed con and construction is underway on the 13 acres of phase 1A which is the north side commercial and it's ready to frame and and do pads stages. Phase three cannot start construction with the exception of roadways utili and utilities until financing is in place, permitting complete is completed and construction is underway on the 20 acres of phase 1A which is again the north side commercial. Here's what phase the phase one for the open space is. This is this long portion on the west side of the site. The first phase includes the development of an approximate 18.5 acre open space area which will act as a buffer for the residential development to the west side of the site adjacent to the Warner Meadows off of Red Ren Drive. The amenities within the open space area will include trails and benches. The perimeter of the open space area will have white split rail fencing to blend with the other portions of the Morgson ranch as required by ordinance 2872. Subphase 1A is multifamily medium. This phase of the development includes a 20 includes 22 twostory multifamily apartment buildings that house 10 units per building over 14.92 acres for a total of 220 units. The layout of the site is evenly dispersed over the the acreage with parking located adjacent to the buildings and open space adequately dispersed throughout the development. the plan that is up on the the screen. Um I apologize most of these it's easier to see them when they're oriented in the landscape as so north is to the right of the screen. Three primary amenity areas are proposed throughout this phase and are located they are located in the center along the east side and the northwest side of the development. The centrallylo amenity area acts as the primary amenity area for the residents with its pool, spa, poolhouse, barbecue area, and outdoor gaming area. Along the eastern side, adjacent to the industrial zone parcels, the southern part of the screen. Additional amenities will be can be found. These amenities include pickle ball courts, a children's play area, and a dog park. The amenities found along the northwestern side of the site can be found in the amenity center, which includes a communal living room space with fireplace, fitness center, a yoga studio, a game room, and co-working area. The site provides 41% landscaping where 40% is required. The twostory buildings with a maximum height of 35 have two color schemes that incorporate the board and batton siding, stone accents, metal accents, and two roof types, shingle and standing seam metal. Subphase 1A mixed use small is the next phase. This phase of the development includes seven threestory multifamily apartment buildings that range from 28 to 33 units per building over a little over 9 acre site for a total of 215 units. This portion of the development includes six live work units and two commercial buildings totaling a little over 15,000 square feet of groundf flooror commercial as required by ordinance 2873. The orientation of this portion of the development has the buildings mainly grouped in central site with the parking on the perimeter. The main amenity amenity area is located to the southwest of the site. The area amenity area includes a twostory building, a pool, a barbecue area, children's play area, and a dog park. Within the two-story amenity buildings, future residents will have access to a larger living room with a fireplace, a fitness center, a yoga studio, a game room, and a co-working area. The site provides 25 25.6% 6% landscaping where 20 is required. The threestory buildings have a maximum height of 45 ft and have two color schemes that incorporated niha James Hardy sighting, stone accents and metal accents. And the roof types again are shingle and standing seam metal. And these are some of the commercial phases. You'll see this design throughout the development and it's still the same building materials as stated previously. Subphase 1A also includes the mixeduse large. The mixeduse large portion of the project is located south of Elliot Road in between the industrial and internal to the site and the general commercial along Elliot Road. The mixeduse large is comprised of eight 33 plex buildings. one 30lex building with ground floor commercial and five standalone commercial buildings. The total units for this portion of the development are 294. The amenity amenity center and pool area are located in the center of this portion of the development with the parking for the units between the buildings and along the southern border with the industrial portion of along the border border with the industrial portion of the project. The amenity center includes a pool, children's play area, barbecue area, cabanas, and a twostory amenity building. Within the amenity building, future residents will have access to another large area, living room area with fireplace, a fitness center, a yoga studio, a game room, and co-working area. The buildings have one color scheme that incorporates the board and batten siding and the stone accents. stone accents and metal accents and have two roof types, the shingle and the standing seam metal. These buildings will be 37 feet high. And again, these are some of the commercial spaces that will be in the mixeduse large portion. The next phase the part of 1 C this is the general commercial. This phase of the develop Oh, that is not the right section. I apologize. So this portion of the development is specifically limited to not have any auto related uses. This has a plaza in the center with the parking on the west the western and the southern side and the commercial closer to Elliot with the on the screen you can see the this space and this space are part of the mixeduse small and they are facing the direction of this portion of the project to integrate themselves into the design. Here are some of the elevations for that with the same materials as the rest of the project. This portion of the project is predominantly going to be we've got retail and uh restaurant buildings with the parking located towards Elliot Road. You do have some quick service restaurants that are on the corner of Elliot and Power and more of them along Power Road. Here are some of the elevations for this portion. Um, it is difficult to see on these renditions just because they're flat, but the large roof area actually provides a walkway for uh pedestrians and customers along the entire length along here. So, this is a pedestrian corridor that separates the the buildings from the parking area. The general commercial on the southeast corner includes a fueling facility for passenger vehicles in conjunction with a convenience store, a fueling facility for semi-truckss and a ser quick service restaurant, an oil change and an unprogrammed portion which is lot 26 which is spread over 8.3 acres. 8 8.03 03 acres. The proposed design of this portion of the site will follow the theme as the other general commercial portions of the site. Parking is proposed for the uses adjacent to the buildings. This portion of the development backs up to the industrial which includes uh to the west and to the north. The buildings within this commercial area are comprised of the same building materials as the rest of the development. And lot 26, since it's currently unprogrammed on these plans, would need to come back for a design review at a future point in time. And here are some of the buildings that are included in this portion of the project. The industrial portion of the project includes phase 1B, phase 2, and phase three. The industrial is spread over 211 acre and like I just said includes three phases. There are 11 industrial buildings within the industrial area for an overall square footage of 9,23,878 square ft of industrial space. Phase 1B is comprised of three buildings over 70 a little over se 75 and a half acres. The buildings in this phase will range in size from 87,000 square ft to 879,000 square ft. Phase two consists of three buildings over approximately 28 acres. This portion of the plan is located adjacent to Power Road and has buildings ranging in size from 75,000 square ft to 134 square ft. Phase 3 includes five buildings over an approximate a little over 108 acres with an 18.28 acre portion delineated as restricted use which is towards the top of the screen. This restricted use area requires the buildings to be set back 280 ft from the western property line where the project site is adjacent to residential. This portion also has a limited height of 35 ft for the buildings. The other portions of phase three have permitted have an increased height that has been permitted to 65 ft. The buildings in this phase range from 412,000 square feet to 54,000 square feet. The industrial portion of the development is prohibited from directly or indirectly illuminated signage on the western side of the project site within 500 ft of the residential zoning district. Ordinance 2872 provides specific design requirements for this portion of the development, the industrial portion that is. The design criteria applies to buildings within 300 feet 350 feet of any residential zoning district and requires enhanced architectural design that incorporates at least three types of building materials, varied roof lines, and varied roof lines to break up the wall planes longer than 100 ft in length. Here are some of the renderings and one of the elevations of the largest building. The overall design of the buildings is uniform within the industrial area. Parking for future uses will be located on two of three sides of the building with one side designed to accommodate loading docks and semi-truck trailer parking in between the buildings. Buildings three, six, and seven, three, six, seven, and eight have loading docks on both sides of the north. Both the north and the south sides of the building. Employee amenity areas are located adjacent to the corner entrances. The entire industrial portion of the project is providing 15% landscaping which is required by code. Here's some additional elevations of one of the smaller building. And again, they they're pretty much all the same. And here's the phasing schedule again, in case that that was a lot to digest. Staff request general feedback from the commission on this project and the applicant has requested construction documents at risk which staff would support if the applicant is able to address all the third review comments prior to CD submittal. This concludes my presentation and I am available for any feedback that you would like to provide me. Okay. Thank you, Nicole. Did anyone have uh thoughts, comments? Yes, Commissioner Anderson. Uh thank you for that presentation. Uh question and a comment. The question is on the multifamily site, I I know in the LDC there was especially the MFM side there was a requirement where I think it was like 25% of parking had to be enclosed parking or covered parking. I didn't see any garage spaces on there. Do they still have to meet that or has the LDC been amended to get rid of that or was that addressed in the zoning application? Chair Fay, Commissioner Anderson. Um, it's the the site plan that I'm showing you is the open space plan. So, it is a little bit harder to see where the parking is located, but yes, um there are enclosed spaces and I believe there is also covered parking. Um it shows up a little bit different on here because this is like I said the the landscape and open space plan. Okay, thank you for that. And then the comment I had is um the architecture on it. I mean, outside of this this area here, the architecture that they're coming up with is kind of really cool looking. It's interesting. I think it fits well in the area. I think the multifamily M portion of this is kind of lacking. It's kind of blah. I don't think it really fits in well not anywhere with this area but just kind of the whole Morrison Ranch area as well. Is this part of Morrison Ranch? Chair Chair Fay and Commissioner Anderson. No, this is no longer part of the overall Morrison Ranch development. When the applicant came in previously to do the minor general plan amendment and the major general plan amendment, it was withdrawn out of the Morrison Ranch B. Okay. So, they're no longer under their preview anymore. Okay. Correct. Um, still I feel the architecture and the design on this is kind of lacking. Oh, I see the garages now. Okay. Um, I still it it's really lacking especially compared to what's happening around it in this whole overall development. So, I'd like to kind of see if there if they can do something to kind of address that or just make these buildings a little bit more fitting for the area. So, that was it for me. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Anderson. Anyone else? Don't feel pressure because I'm staring. I just want to make sure I not ignoring anyone's input. You want to go? You can go first. Yeah. Thank you for the presentation. I just have a if I may couple really quick questions with regards to um traffic flow in the multifamily phase one along the western edge. It looks like all of that traffic flow is internal to the lot. There's no it basically from either Elliot or from Warner. There's no additional access points into that. Am I correct? Chair Fay, Commissioner Simon. Um I apologize that I could not get the entire site plan on this slide. Um so the multif family has the entrance through the commercial through the mixeduse small and then it also will connect up here. But I believe that is just a not through the the park, but there will be a road through the industrial. I believe that's a secondary access. And I'm assuming this has gone to fire or whoever it needs to go to in order to look at that for access for them. Correct. And they're okay with it. As far as I am aware, yes. Okay. Um, I would agree with Commissioner Anderson with regards to some of the design. I I I like some of the commercial stuff that's in there. I think it's really attractive and and and I don't have issues with it, but some of the multif family is a little bit lacking um for me. And then um yeah, I'll leave it at that. So, can I ask you a follow-up question? Yes. Would you prefer that both the multifamily and and the mixed use build mixeduse small and large buildings uh look more similar to the commercial product? I would like it to look more for the general commercial for that corner where you've got the corner. It looks kind of almost uh I don't know if you call it agrarian or or community. Um, I like that look. And I think that the multif family almost gets there, but it's kind of lacking, I guess. Thank you. Please go ahead. Thank you, chair. Um, I have kind of a a list here of questions and comments, so I'll try and work through them. Hopefully, they'll in an order that will make sense. Um, regarding the multif family, I agree that it's building type B that's bothering me the most that it doesn't have any additional materials or colors. It's I like I like the way it's going and I can understand the simplicity of it, but I feel like it needs something more. I agree it's too plain. Um, and then um let me move on. And then also hopefully staff is looking at the window detailing on the multif family because you can get it a lot of times where it doesn't recess at all and it really makes for a flat like lowquality feel to an elevation long term. So making sure that they are recessing those somewhat and we're getting good detailing on those buildings. Um, as far as the commercial, I didn't have big issues with what was being proposed along Elliot kind of over at the northeast corner. I had a question on what the um that container storage is that's located um up in the northeast portion um up along Elliot. There's two of those enclosures and it almost looks like it's a 14t wall and it's 46 ft long and it looks like it's going to enclose two portable storage containers with gates or something like that. Can you tell me what those are? Chair Fay, Commissioner Davis, those are the required loading zones for commercial businesses over a certain cumulative size. Um so that was the that was uh the preferred location um because of how that development is that portion of the development is designed um that would provide access without potentially backing up internal traffic in order to back a semitr into that location. Um, in the 14 foot high walls are required by code. Okay. I guess my comment is I think having it up along Elliot Road is not attractive. Um, I don't think the design of it, it's just masonry with a couple of split v split face stripes across it and it's 46 ft long. So, it's essentially like a building and I just I think it's an unattractive entry into off of Elliot. So, I had concerns with location of it. I didn't love the design of the walls. I thought it didn't really lend itself to what the rest of the development is. So maybe if it was designed a little differently, I'd have less issue with it being up on Elliot, but it seemed very utilitarian and didn't really seem to blend with the rest of the development. So that's my comment on that. Would you be opposed to adding additional landscaping to screen it from the street? I guess I'd rather see it relocated behind, but it has to be two other feet from residential, right? Oh, so it can't be by near the multif family either since Okay, since there's one on the adjacent site, how how many of these are required? I believe the four that they have because I didn't notice any on the southern side of the development where all the fast food pads and such are. There is one. I might have missed it and it's not on my plan that I have because they've changed it since then. Okay. It it just seems more way more imposing than a trash enclosure. And I know those are unattractive, but you know, with the gates, it's just really long. And maybe it's the way it's cited. It's that long elevation along. So, I don't know if there's some landscaping or maybe dress up those elevations to maybe look a little more like the rest of the development versus just a masonry wall. That could help. So, and then it seems like with the the buildings up on the northeast side, the commercial buildings, we did a really good job of keeping all of those buildings up at the street and engaging the street. And then we the commercial buildings are all kind of lined up surrounding that um multif family that's between um the commercial and the industrial and then the rear of those all of those elevations. I don't necessarily have issues with those elevations on the front. I, you know, I kind of like the way it's going, but the rear of all of those elevations is completely plain and then you've sandwiched it right up against these really nice, nicely detailed buildings that people aren't really going to see because these other commercial buildings are pushed up against them. I'd rather see those buildings out at the street. And I did appreciate the walkway. I didn't understand that that's what was happening there. And I do like that um that there's that nice walkway, but I just think it's unfortunate that we're losing that engagement with Elliot Road. And then as you go and then we're kind of blocking in that multif family and we're not going to see those buildings really. Um and I'll get back to that one in just a minute. And then as you move further south towards power, I was disappointed to see a drive-thru on the corner. I felt like maybe that restaurant they could be flipped. I just think that's kind of a gateway into Morrison Ranch and it's just even the gas station down on the other corner. We've got the building out at the corner, but here we've got the drive-through lane right at that intersection. I thought that was unfortunate um to see that. It just felt like we were kind of just it's standard um shopping center with all the fast food restaurants out at the street, which I'm okay with is, you know, go for a little further south. I just felt like that corner should be a little more special. Um, and then the multif family, I was hoping to see more of a buffer between that multif family. I know when we saw it before, there was a cross facility with that multif family right there. I was hoping for more of a buffer between that. I'm concerned that long-term quality of life for that for the people living in that apartment complex. It's not going to be great to have a cross facility right next to you. Those are pretty intense. Um, so it just doesn't feel like there's much buffering between those two. And like I said, then it just kind of gets sandwiched between the commercial and the industrial. So that was a concern. Um, with the commercial buildings, I feel like there's a lot of sameness. They all kind of look the same. You almost don't realize as you're flipping through it that they're different buildings. There's slight changes, but I don't know if there could be color variation or a little bit more um detailing that could mix it up a little. I was curious if any of those could end up because often we get prototypes with different restaurants and such that come in. So, I guess would is it possible that we could get something in that's going to completely they'd have to come back to this commission? I would guess if they were going to change it. Chair fake, Commissioner Davis, I would say yes to that. Okay. Um and then related to the industrial um this the last part I promise. Um we didn't have elevations for building three which is the largest building in the development. I couldn't find them in the packet. Um that one is actually going to the south side of or the east side of the building is going to be very visible from Power Road. And that building doing the math is essentially a 20 acre building. So, it's a huge building. I compared it to the Amazon facility in Mesa, which is um that one's just over a million square feet. This one's almost 900,000. So, they're not that different in size. And I think most people are familiar with that building to understand just how big that is. And so, I think that east elevation of that building is going to be really important that we get some wall plane changes to break that up because right now it's just really flat. And then, you know, just making sure that the detailing and the elevations along Power and along Warner are well done because those big buildings can really be imposing. I like that there's the smaller buildings in front of the cross talks for most of it. It's building three that gives me the most heartburn because that's going to be so visible um from as you're coming down. It's going to be such a massive building. So, um, also again there it feels like they could mix up maybe some color palettes and stuff. Everything's the same and that's a lot of the same thing. I think they could even for wayfinding it might be nice to have some different palettes for some of the different buildings that are complimentary or mix up materials or, you know, do something different with entrances for some of the buildings or maybe they get kind of grouped with themes or something just to kind of mix that up. So, I think that's all of it. Sorry guys. Great great comments. Thank you. Going this direction, Commissioner Dear. Yeah, I I got kind of a basic question that that's a huge development. 311 acres and we had 252 pages to go through in our packet. I might have overlooked it. Was there a market study done on this to make sure we have the right mix between multif family, you know, retail, commercial, industrial, so we have what the base is going to be using and utilizing in that area because it's a it's a huge development. and a lot going on. Chair Fay, Commissioner Digraina, um I was not the planner on the reszoning and minor and major general plan amendments. There was not a market study that was requested by staff. Okay. However, I I I was here and I think a lot of the commission was. This was a very thoroughly vetted um It was this was a how do I say it? There was a a very thorough adversarial process. Let's put it on that. The uh the reliance on the fact that there were multiple instant uh a lot of very well-represented strong interests at the table. I don't know if they'll they'll market pull off the industrial type stuff, but um this was a long thoughtout. That's good to hear. Thank you. Okay. I do I do have a couple comments myself. Uh the the biggest one actually is one I didn't catch until uh Commissioner Simon said something. You said that the indust that the multif family has an access out through the industrial out the back through the industrial area. Yes. So that means as part of the um phasing part of phase one it's not that they can build roads and utilities in from phase two and three while they're doing phase one. They're actually required to do that because that access will be part of phase one. Right. That is correct. So I mean that's that probably needs to be spelled out explicitly in a stipulation that the road network or at least key pieces of it must be built with phase one. Chair Fay, that was part of the verbiage that I read for the phasing plan that was approved as part of the ordinance for I believe that was it was either 2873 or 2872. It's specifically required for them to put in the infrastructure and utilities. What what Okay. And if I'm I'm thought it said that they could. I didn't think it said that they had to. Um and if it if it does say that, I'm sorry. I I dropped that mentally off. Um speaking of the phasing plan, um well, the two things. One, I I one thing I look at at a phasing plan is to make sure that the public elements, the required elements get get built simultaneously. if the thing goes bankrupt in the middle, it's not that the people who got in on the beginning are left holding the bag for the drainage basins or the extra access or anything. Um, and I'm a little concerned that all the multif family is way up front and and I I could I could very easily see a situation based on this phasing plan where the multif family comes in, the market doesn't work out, they can't do the industrial, and we're back here two years from now filling in phase three with multif family, which if I, for one, if I'm here, would not be supportive of. I'm speculating a little bit, but it's one of the the weaknesses I see to the current phasing plan. The second I I noticed and and maybe this is overly I noticed when you talked about the phasing plan you kept talking about the financing will be in place. Do we have a mechanism to check that? I mean do we care? Isn't that a applicant problem? They need to pay their taxes and license their cars too but we don't. Chair Fay, that was part of what was approved with the ordinance when the zoning was established. Similarly, if the applicant would like to change that the phasing plan, I believe they'd need to go back through the resoning process. Fair. I just I don't know that we don't really care about that. Chair, you're you're correct. Normally, we don't, but as you had noted earlier, um this this uh the zoning of this project was a very um in-depth coordinated um pro process between um the town, the applicant, and the adjacent neighbors. And so that financing part was a part of the um um the negotiations with the um the neighbors. Then the fact that it's there means that there's at least an impetus on the city to check that it's being done now. Do we have even the resources or do we have the mechanism to check yes, financing is in place and we agree or are we just going to have the applicant say yes, it's in place? Yeah, we'll we'll have to make that a part of the conversation as we get further into the um into the um additional phases of this plan, but there is not a formal process in place for that financing check. And similarly, while I got you here, that we all permits will be in place. I mean, isn't that the law anyway? I mean, do we have to say well the having the permits in place? Pardon me, chair. um having the permits in place was um again another mechanism to make sure that certain phases of the development didn't occur before others did. So what we mean is uh the fa the permits for um phases one and 1A u must be issued and there must be some vertical construction before the industrial phases could be done. But to answer your question, yes, permitting would be required before any vertical construction could take place. So, it's not just that they have to get the permits, but that there's sequencing in the permit. So, they couldn't pull the permits for the entire site all at once, chair. That's correct. So, I I didn't read that necessarily in those stipulations. You might want to tighten that language, too. Unless I'm misreading it. Just if I'm misreading it, you're my my issue is noted. Great. But I I I did not read that in the applicant or what I or the application and what I heard. So, if you're saying they have to get these permits first and they can't get these permits until this is done and they can't get these permits until this is done, you should probably spell those conditions out pretty clearly, more clearly than I than I saw them. Unless I just misread it. Sure. Very uh noted. Um that is uh actually a noted a note on the development plan that is a part of the ordinance um for the um for both or So, I did just misread it. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. That was that was everything I had. Does anyone else have anything to add on onto the ranch? That may be the fastest we've gotten through anything on the ranch, at least at at this stage. Uh, barring anything else, we'll move on to number two. Thank you, Nicole. Keith, come on, man. I think you're up. Chair Fay, members of the commission. Good evening, Keith. Thank you. I'm sorry about talking there. And I'd like to thank you for uh classy making the meeting a bit more classy with your professional style of dress that's that's otherwise dignifying a a base a base event. Um thank you very much. Um members of the chair fair members of the commission, good evening. This this project before you tonight that I have the study session item is for uh the Good Day Car Wash. Um the site for the car wash is located, you can see on your screen in front of you. Um it's located in the I kind of highlighted it or with a red uh boundary. Um it's located south of the southwest corner of Ray and Higgley Roads. Uh it located this is also located in the I'm going to show you in just a second, but it's located in the master plan for Higgley Commons. Um, I'll talk I'll show you that in just a second. We can talk a little bit more about that. But the request before you tonight is for, like I said, a car wash. Um, in design review, it's a 5,500 square ft uh, car wash building. So, like I said, it's in the Higgley Commons um, master site plan. Um, as you recall, Higgley Commons was approved several years ago. It's a kind of a it's a larger master plan community with a mix of mix of uses. To the to the west and north is are some apartment units. You can see two buildings, large apartment buildings. And then along Ray Road are loft units. Um and then you have uh the car wash that's in the far souththeast corner of the site. That site, the car wash site is 1.3 acres. And then there is a um lot six is a s use that I I it looks like some type of drive-through use. I don't know exactly what it is yet. We haven't seen a design for that. But this is this is this lot six and seven, but today we're doing lot seven. Lot six is just shown for for reference only um to kind of complete the master plan. And lot six will come before you at another time for design review case. Um, actually it might not if the building's less than 5,000 square feet, but um, but it's part of this overall 12 and a half acre or so master plan for Higgley Commons. So, as far as the car wash site is concerned, like I said, it's 1.38 acres in size. The site is zoned shopping center. The building's about 5,500 square ft in size, and you can kind of see it there in the middle in the center of the site. Um there are 21 vacuum bays. So as far as the access to the site, there's one access off of Higgley Road and you can see it there at the northeast corner. And then there's also some cross access that goes it can go through to the apartment complex and um to the the west as well. But you see the vacuum bays right as you enter the site. You can kind of loop and circulate out um the of the site from the vacuum bays. But the main entrance to the car wash is along that east or excuse me, west side of the site. You circulate, you drive along the the west side of the site heading south and then there's three pay stations as of right now. Um you can uh you pay go into the car wash, come out on that west side of the building and then head into the vacuum bays. So it's a pretty it's a pretty standard car wash design. Um town staff has uh processed one review of this. um the applicant is desiring to move forward with CDs at risk. That's why we're one of the main reasons we're bringing this before you. Um we have given the applicant those first review comments and there's a few there's a few concerns that we're working through with the applicant um that uh we're hoping to address before we uh can allow them to move on with CDs at risk if you deem that is appropriate. Um, as far as the landscape plan, a pretty simple landscape plan, 37% open space. Um, majority of the landscaping on the site is along the southern boundary and of course along Higgley Road. And there's even some along the north boundary adjacent to that drive aisle that comes into the site to kind of screen the vacuum bays from the drive aisle. And a lot of trees on that southern boundary to screen the use from some residents that that live to the south. There's only like six or seven lots to the south. Um the elevations pretty standard elevations. The building um oops uh generally I messed up on some of the text, but it's about 25 ft tall or so to the to the roof line or to the midpoint of the roof. Um generally some flat roofing with with a pitch tower over the entry. uh kind of a a little curve pitch tower um with some fiber cement paneling and and a little bit of um um CMU and some stucco with white whiteish colors and the blue roofing and some metal paneling. So, just kind of a a a a car wash design that has actually um matches some of the materials of the adjacent uh um apartment complex buildings as well with some of that with that wood fiber cement look and some of the colors also complement the apartment complex. Um so, and here's kind of a a rendering of it what it would look like from the entrance off of Higgley Road. And so like I said, like I stated at the beginning, the just wanted some input on the overall design of the site and also the applicant would like to move forward with CZ's at risk. So that concludes my presentation and if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. Thank you very much. Thank you, Keith. Does anyone have any comments or concerns? Yes, Commissioner Anson. Uh thank you, Chair. Uh Keith, thank you for the presentation. Just a quick question for you. On the rendering that you that you showed, is the landscaping going to be that that intense? I mean, that's or was the rendering just kind of flourished up to, you know, make a pretty picture? Um, Chair Fay, Commissioner Anderson. Yeah, this is just a rendering that just shows a conceptual landscape type design. However, if I go to show you the landscape plan, the landscaping along Higgley Road will be pretty pretty retent intense. It's actually required to be that intense with the um the design guidelines for uh the gateway character area along principal arterial roads. So it's it's actually required to have this certain number of trees at this spacing and and and so forth. So it will be pretty intense. Two rows of trees. So it'll be pretty intense. Okay. So it screens it pretty well from Hickley then. Correct. All right. Thank you. Welcome Simon Dearina. Anyone? Okay, Keith. I have no concerns about this one. I had one simple question that I got I asked ahead of time. So, I think you've got guidance. Um, thank you. Um, Chair Fay, members of the commission, one last thing, the question I have for you, though, is and you you would be okay with them moving forward with CDs at risk if they address uh majority of staff's concerns? I I didn't hear the commission meaningfully express any concerns. And if if you're okay with staff concerns, I I would not looking heads going up and kind of Yep. Sounds like Okay, sounds great. Thank you very much. Thank you, Keith. Yep. Okay, so we are at five till the regular meeting begins and we're not even close to getting through the work session. We have a decision to make at this point. Uh, one idea would be we could take a break for a few minutes and then just bull through and keep doing work session and handle these in order and the regular meeting would end up probably beginning at 7 or 7:30. Or we could suspend the work session and do go at 6:00 into the regular meeting and when the regular meet the applicants the regular meeting the called the public would all happen and when the regular meeting is done we could come back to the work session and finish what's left of of the work session agenda. Um, there might even be another way to organize, but those are the two that jump out to me. Um, what are your thoughts? Question. So, I don't see anything on consent. Is there anything on the non-consent that we're moving over that kind of shortens the back half if we were to go that route? Well, we Yeah, I um my take on it after reviewing it is that I was going to ask is does anyone see any reason any of these couldn't be on consent or anyone want to I I would if it was up to me alone, I'd probably put them all on consent. Does item 17 have to come off or stay off consent because we have that email? I don't know if that by itself, unless that person wants to speak. I don't know if that email uh I asked attorney do we have an opinion? Oh, they're here. Okay. Yes, that item will not go on consent. That will be off. Sorry. Otherwise, I Thank you for getting Otherwise, I don't have an issue with those. So, 17 would not go on. Thank you. Um 15 and 16. It was if it was up to me alone, I'd still be fine with it unless anyone else has a an issue. Sheffield Place, I guess, is one. Is that one still on the agenda or is that being Sheffield Place got pulled, didn't it? No. Uh Fon Valley item 13. I think I think 13 got pulled. 14 is on, but didn't Bellistori get pulled? You're right. Sheffield Place is still on 16. No. Um so on the the draft one that came out earlier, Bella I was told Bella story was getting pulled. It's still here, isn't it? It's still on the agenda, but I thought that it was going to be continued. Am I wrong, Ashley? Uh, chairman, we do have members of of the public here for number 15, um, Park View at Morrison Ranch. She Sheffield Place has requested a continuence. Um, so you will need to u move that, make a a motion to move that to a date certain. Um, and then item number 13 has been withdrawn. Okay, so hold on. So 13's been withdrawn. 14 is requesting a continuence is requesting a continuance. So that we'll have to we'll have to vote on 15 16 and 17 all have members of the public who are here to speak on them. I think the answer is going to be no. So I I we have I'm sorry. We have somebody here for number 15 and 17, but we haven't heard on 16. Elleia, I was just going to say I think with in in the interest of the resident members that are here that wish to speak, I would recommend that we move on to the regular agenda and then come back to the study session. That that would be my opinion as well. Anyone else? Oh, I I agree with that because they're kind of set on this happening at 6 and they might have other commitments later in the night. So, people here for study session have other commitments and they're here for 5 to six. I don't Are there people here for study session? Yeah. I I think sorry. So, I think the weight of the consensus is we will take a fivem minute break and then we'll come back and begin the regular meeting and we will catch up to the rest of the study session. Sorry if you're waiting for the study session. That means we're we're pushing you to the back end, but if you're here for the regular meeting, we'll be dealing with that at about 6:00. Mr. Chair, clarification, if we can just have a motion to resess uh study session and then we'll resume after. Is that the the terminology is to reset? Yes. So, we'll just need a motion and a second. Okay. So, I'll motion to recess study session until after the regular agenda items are complete. I'll second that. Um, now this is my first time doing the voting thing. [Music] Do I do that here? She does it. All right, we're missing one. Okay, it looks like everyone has voted. Do I have to do anything? Okay. 61. The motion carries. We will we will reset and come back in let's say five minutes. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for bringing it. But yeah, I knew that was coming. And if if nobody said anything, Okay, ladies and gentlemen, it's after six o'clock. If we could all start rallying. It looks like the commission is in place. Ashley, are you got everybody back? Is most importantly, is Keith back? I don't know that we can do anything if Keith is in fact just kidding. We'll move on without Keith. Thank you everyone for coming. This is the Gil Town of Gilbert Planning and Zoning Commission. Planning and planning and design review commission uh April 2nd, 2025. I'd like to call the meeting to order and begin with the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you very much. Ashley, would you mind taking roll call? Uh, Chairman Hong. Oh, I'm sorry. Commissioner Uh, Commissioner Lion present. Commissioner D Graina here. Commissioner Gage here. Commissioner Davis here. Commissioner Simon here. Commissioner Anderson here. Uh, Vice Chair Fay present. and chairman mint. Chairman, you have a quorum. Excellent. Thank you very much. Next is the approval of the agenda. Uh based on what we talked about at the end of last meeting, I have we have items 15, 16, and 17 on the regular agenda. Uh they are the park view at Morrison Ranch. We actually we have actually 14 15 16 and 17. 14 has been asked to be continued. Uh 15 is uh Parkview at Morrison Ranch. 16 is the Bellistoria pad amendment and 17 is the Woodside homes. I have comment cards from the public who would like to talk about both 15 and 17. Can we put a decision to continue on consent or does that need a separate? Okay. Um I would like to I I would entertain if we want to have a motion to put item 16 on consent and also continue item 14. I guess those are two separate motions if anyone wants to make either of them. I don't think I think we just approved we just approved we just approved the agenda and we get to it when we get to it. Okay. Then we will get to it when we get to it. Uh communications. Communications. We still have to approve the agenda. Oh, so we do have to move to We have to approve the agenda and then once you get into the open session, that's we do that moving around. Okay. So, do you want me to make a motion on the agenda? I think so. Okay. Let me make a motion. I'll make an attempt at it. Uh chair, I'd like to make a motion to approve the agenda with item 13 withdrawn. Um, and then we're going to jump. Uh, item 14 is continuence, so we'll need a separate motion on that. Moving item 16 to the consent and leaving uh 15 and 17 on the non-consent. I think that I think that did it. Second. I'll second. Second. Uh, you have a vote. Okay. [Music] And the motion passes 70. Okay. Then we move now we move on to con communications. I'm trying to stick to this agenda because I know Noah always skips over innocent bystanders. Communication from citizens. At this time, members of the public may comment on matters within the jurisdiction of the planning commission. Uh the the commission board may not discuss items that are not specifically identified in the agenda. Pursuant to state law, an action taken as a result of public comment will be limited to directing staff to study the matter, responding to criticism, or scheduling the matter for further consideration. There will be an opportunity um to speak specifically about the agenda's matter. So when 15 and 17 come up, we'll have specific comment on those items. But if anyone wants to talk about anything else, this is the time. I don't see anyone going once. Going twice. Okay, we're going to close that. Then a report from our council liaison. Welcome. Thank you. I don't have anything at this time. Okay. Well, thank you. Appreciate it. That At this point we have we go to 12 13 public hearing consent. All items below are considered public hearing for consent calendar. Right now there is nothing on consent. Do I need a motion to put item 16 on consent or did our previous motion do that? It already did that. So at this point um I would like to we should if we have anyone who wants to move to for approval of the consent agenda which is just item 16. I'll approve it. You'll make a motion. Make a motion to approve item 16 to go to consent. Is there a second? So, just to be clear, the motion is to approve the consent agenda. Consent agenda which includes item 16 consisting solely of item 16. I'll second that motion. All right. There's a first and a second. All those in favor? Actually, all those either way vote. All votes have been cast. That the consent agenda consisting only of 16 is approved 70. That brings us to the public hearing non-consent. Uh this is the items that we're going to hear hear about and deal with individually. I don't think we have to do anything on item 13. It's been withdrawn. So it is just a gone item. Elena, correct me, but we're just crossing this one off. Uh yes, correct. If you can just read in the uh the message about non-consent items and then we we can move to read the whole Okay. On consent public hearing items will be heard at an individual public hearing and will be acted upon by the commission by a separate motion. During the public hearing, 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 for in case you haven't seen there these little yellow cards in back. Please do so if you haven't already done one indicating the number item on which you wish to be heard. Once the hearing is closed, there will be no further public comment unless requested by a member of the commission or well this commission. Good. We're good. All right. Then item 13 has been withdrawn. Uh item 14, the applicant wishes to continue or the staff or applicant wishes to continue. Is anyone opposed to that idea? Uh quick question. Do we have a continuence to date certain or we just continuing to chair Fay, members of the commission, Nicole Russell, senior planner, the applicant has requested to be continued to the May 7th, 2025 planning commission meeting. Thank you, chair, if I may. Yes. I'll make a motion to approve the continuence of item 14 GP2406 and Z2407 to the May 7th uh planning commission meeting. Now, we have a motion. I'll second and a second. Please cast your votes. All votes are cast. The continuence passes 7 to zero. And that brings us to our first individual public hearing non-conent item. Park view at Morrison Ranch site view landscaping grading and drainage elevations and so forth. Good evening, Chair Fay and members of the commission. My name is Sandra Childers, planner two of the town of Gilbert Planning Department. I'm here to present on DR 2492, Park View at Morrison Ranch. The subject site can be found at the gateway to the Morrison Ranch character area at the northeast corner of Warner and Piggley Road. The current site has the existing zoning of shopping center or SC with the Morrison Ranch P A and the subject site is approximately a 15.86 86 acre site. This proposal was brought forth in December for the entirety of the site for the all of the master site plan. Since then, there have been modifications to the proposal. So, what you see before you is the site plan for phase one of the master site plan and we'll have five buildings on it that compose of approximately 69,000 square feet of building area. I can just move closer. Okay, thank you. Um, of these five buildings are composed of one quick service restaurant on lot six, a fitness center with shops, inline shops to the north of them, and then a residential pad, pad D on lot four, and then also a proposed daycare on lot two. As part of phase one, it will consist of not only the approval of the elevations of the fitness center and shops A's, but the configuration for the lot orientation of lots 6, 4,2, the off-site improvements, the perimeter landscaping, and a portion of the parking field. Um, on this slide, it is supposed to be intended to have the landscape plan on there. I do apologize for the non-inclusion of the item, but the landscaping on this proposal does align with the Morrison Ranch character area plan and the requirements for the appropriate landscape to be used on Higgley Road. You will see that they will be providing their portion of the three rows of PCON trees along the arterial frontage and then also along Bloomfield Parkway. they will be planting the the fantex ash chair trees that are present along bloomfield just to ensure that there is a continuous tree species that is the same throughout just to create that continuous visual impact. Additionally, throughout the site, you will see a variety of trees and ground cover that are going to be surrounding the perimeter and the landscape island such as red push pistach trees, evergreen elms. And then some of the ground cover and shrubs that will be used will be some of like the torch glow via dwarf natal palms total natal palms and then areas that require additional screening beyond the white picket fences that are so characteristic of the Morrison Ranch character area will be the I believe the oleanders that are used in place of more opaque screening mechanisms. Part of the items that were brought forth for feedback in the December study session were regarding the elevation staff and the applicant has worked together. So there were some elements that were increased in their presence on the mountain side one and it was particularly the the cornice size to help integrate some of the materials or the visual linear visual impact of the roof line that is also seen in shops. A what you're seeing on your screen at this moment is the west and south elevations of the proposed fitness center. And this is also a side and rear elevation of the same fitness center. And these were the shop A's where the applicant used the how they used the linear um the cornises on top of the darker gray tone and integrated that more into the fitness center. These are the front and side elevations. And these are the colors and materials that the applicant will be using for these elevations. They're going to be using a combination of warm neutral paint colors with some metal stone veneer, brick veneer, and pre-cast concrete. Um, since the time of writing the report to today's hearing, there have been public comments that were received by staff. The there were five primary concerns that were communicated to staff. Um some of them were related to site circulation and safety impacts on local transportation particularly speeds along Bloomfield. Um a lot of items of the conversations included any if there were any safety measures that could be added to Bloomfield to increase safety for users accessing this site from record road to any other measures that could be used to reduce vehicular risk to continue to foster pedestrian and bike modes of transportation. And there was some concerns communicated that they felt that some of the future users did not fit to appear the character of the Morrison Ranch character area in the area that they're used to. As part of tonight's request is for the design review approval of the master site plan for phase one, the provided elevations for the fitness center and the shops and also to amend one of the approval conditions that was in your packet. It was specifically condition D. The first sentence is the portion that differs from what you saw in your provided packet to include the language corner landscape amenities shall be maintained by the existing R Morrison Ranch property owners association. This is standard within the Morrison Ranch character area for this property owners association to maintain the landscaped amenities that feature the that form a full ring of palm trees at their major intersections. And this concludes staff presentations and I'm open to take questions. I don't go ahead. Yeah. Um thank you for the presentation. Just one quick question. I is the development along Bloomfield Parkway, is that already complete or will the applicant be doing some improvements there at that entrance on Bloomfield? Chair Fay, Commissioner, um for the the road itself for Bloomfield Parkway that is constructed. It is a completely completed street that goes from Higgley to recorder but the portions of the landscaping that that they will be adding as part of their development will be I believe on site and those will be the the fantex ash trees. Um but I don't know if I answered that question correctly. So so my question really is with regards to the second island there you see to the east from Higgley. So you've got one island on Bloomfield and then the second island. Has traffic looked at that with regards to the left turn into that lot. Is there a need for a del lane or because that's a not an arterial, we don't need the del into that. So this was reviewed by our traffic team as well and I believe before we brought to this hearing, it was it met their regulations and policy standards. Okay. I I guess my my comment would be I I would like to see some del there. I just I just feel like and I'm not a traffic expert, but I feel like that's that's a singular lane. It doesn't look like it's wide enough for two cars to get through and you could get some buildup there with traffic coming out of the neighborhood or out of the apartment complex in the morning um and going back in in the evening. So, just like to see that. The second question that I have is with regards to um the materials used for the for the building. It looks as though buildings it looks as though this conforms to the Morrison Ranch and and the already existing Bashes uh uh development that's on that's that's north of this is it pretty much coincide with that development chair commissioner. So this site does utilize similar tones and some of the materials are utilized on that site. There will be somewhat of a design difference while it still adheres to some of the main beats of the Morrison Ranch character area. I think due to them being each contemporary developments of their time, there will be some variation, but overall they do fit into the character area of the overall Morrison Ranch character area. Okay. With regards to the site as a whole, I don't know that I have any issue with it. Um, it looks like those future future uh plots or or um lots that are coming in, the pads that are coming in, they'll they'll they'll give their parking when when they submit those for design review. Correct. And I did not mention this in the review, but currently as part of phase one, they will be providing a portion of the parking field fields. They will be exceeding their parking requirements. I believe they're park. Let me get that exact number for you. I want to say that they are providing approximately 380 85 spots and no they're providing 360 spots. They're required to have 285. So they're over parking right now. Um, for each additional lot, such as any of the ones that are grayed out, they will be required to provide their parking as well and make sure the center as a whole is parked at that 1 to 250 ratio that is permitted for the or required for the shopping center zoning designation. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Simon. Anyone else? Okay, we do have several comment public comment cards. Uh, anyone who hasn't filled one out, you'll get a chance to right now. Uh, I'm kind of mixing them up and in no particular order. I will ask call people if you you want to speak, you don't have to. Uh, the first card I have is from Pete Landers. He is opposed and would like to speak on this. Mr. Chair, uh, if I if I'm Yes, excuse me for interrupting. I believe at this time, uh, the if the applicant has a presentation, this would be the appropriate time. Not sure. Pete, I'm sorry. I guess that first we should ask the applicant if they would like to speak. Chair Fay Commissioners, my name is Laura Ortiz. I'm with Evergreen Development, the applicant for um this proposed project. Um, we've worked closely with staff with with engineering traffic, also with um with planning for about seven or eight months since we first made the application. You may of course remember that we came before you in December to get some feedback. Um, I am here to answer questions. We don't have a separate presentation, but I can answer any questions that you have. Okay. Doesn't wow. Short and to the point. Anyone have any? We'll have a chance if we if we have questions after people speak to to ask you also. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Uh then Okay. Now, Pete, if you'd like to speak, your comments are limited to three minutes per person. Okay. I'm I'm sorry I called you Pete. I should have said Mr. Mr. Landers. That's okay. There you go. Thanks so much. So, I have a general concern about the traffic entering the residential portion. Sure. If you can state your name for the record. Thanks. I'm Pete Landers, resident of Gilbert, Arizona. I currently live on Bloomfield Parkway. I have a concern about the exit onto Bloomfield Parkway from this commercial uh buildout. Uh we already have two major roads. We've got Warner and Higgley Road, which are main arteries on the grid. And the exit onto Bloomfield Parkway is going to essentially drive a fair amount of traffic into the residential community that otherwise could be avoided if we put the traffic out onto Warner and to uh Higgley Road. Uh I did like Mr. Simon's comment about creating a turn lane as a compromise, but preferably I would like to see no egress onto Bloomfield Parkway. We already have quite fast traffic going through the residential neighborhood and this is just going to encourage more traffic into the actual neighborhood setting. in the first proposal or in the first speaker uh I did want to get a clarification. Did at any point in this commercial structure did I hear residential? No. Okay, that was a mis I misheard that then. I thought I had heard something about one of the pads. Okay. So, my proposal would be not to have an egress at all onto Bloomfield Parkway and drive all the traffic out onto Higgley and to Warner Roads and maintain that neighborhood environment that already exists. Uh we already have very fast speed going down that road. Um we're already working with the town trying to figure out ways to slow that traffic down. So, anything that you guys could do to assist us, we would greatly appreciate it. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Landers. The next speaker card I have uh does not want to speak and is opposed to this item. It is Mr. Jim Oor. Uh he just says he is opposed to the exit on Bloomfield Parkway. The next individual uh is opposed to this item and does wish to speak. Mr. Adherald Edold Dan Adderhold, Mr. Adold, Welcome. My name is Dan Adderhold and I live on Blue Hill Parkway and similar to Mr. Landers. I I have the same concern and I don't know that you want to rehear the same concern, but anything that egresses out onto Bloomfield Parkway is going to create a tremendous amount of traffic. And you can just look at the plan that we've seen and and you can, you know, easily understand that we already have enough uh very fast traffic coming down the roads and there are a lot of kids in that area. It's a familyoriented Um, you know, we already have enough trouble with the existing neighborhood people that come through there. If you add this, it's just going to create that commercial traffic coming out onto Bloomfield and, you know, putting people in danger, kids. There's a lot of bicycles. You use those, you know, battery operated um bikes and uh it can be it can be quite dangerous. So any rate I am opposed to that and I propose no egress on field. Okay. Thank you. Thank you sir. Uh the next item uh did not check whether they're but based on the comment I think they're opposed. Did not check if he wants to speak. Mr. Ben Scott. Okay. Joel Ben Ben Scott. Welcome. Thank you, Commissioner. My name is Joel Bencco. I'm a resident on Bloomfield Parkway. I'm the closest house to this uh development, and I share the many sentiments before me that eress onto Bloomfield, the six closest houses all have kids. And I have told my kids to not go out and play in the front yard um just recently because of the amount of traffic that we've seen. And it's scary. I see people going 70 80 miles hour and I know this because I have a LAR sensor that I work with that I have clocked people doing that. So on the top right hand side going from um Bloomfield onto Higgley or sorry Bloomfield onto Higgley Road there needs to be a right turn lane from Higgley onto Bloomfield. Um the the road of Higgley has, you know, 50 miles per hour is very standard to be going. And right now when you're slowing down, every single time I'm looking in my rearview mirror trying to make sure that the car behind me is not hitting me. My wife actually refuses to go out of that exit right at the moment. So I do um think that a stop light would be a good thing and I also think that the right-hand turn lane onto Bloomfield is correct. Um, two more concerns. The the back of the proposed pad, the fitness center. My house looks directly at it, and I just like some clarifications on what that landscaping looks like. Um, and I would also like to understand how tall that building is. When I looked at the elevation profile of the I don't know if we can go back a couple slides, but when I looked at the the backside, there was not any um Yep. One more. Yep. That one right there. So, this is what I'm going to be looking at. And I don't know how you guys would feel if you were looking at this. Um but we came here to get away from this type of look. We moved here two years ago and we have a basically a development that it's all luxury homes and we're going to be looking at this. So, I'm pretty concerned that this is also going to devalue my home value. And then the last one is if I go through it, fitness center 40,000, daycare 10,000 square ft. um retail shops 8,000 7,000 pad and then there's a 2,000 ft² restaurant. My question is where are the other restaurants? There's apartment buildings I'm now going to be looking at right across from me there's hundreds of those and just across um on the other side of uh Warner there's another 8 900 um apartments being developed. Where are the restaurants? That's all I have. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Uh and next I have uh Mr. Beaver. Um he is opposed to this item and does wish to speak. Good evening, commissioners, and thank you for the opportunity to speak. And let me just say I appreciate what you do and I appreciate the chance to be heard and I appreciate the work that planning staff and others have put into this. Sometimes as a resident you feel like you're a little bit late to the party, but this will affect us and the way we live. Um, and so even though I feel late to the party, I feel like it's really necessary to speak. Um, I live on Bloomfield Parkway, uh, a few blocks down uh, I'm sorry, a few houses down from some of the other folks who've spoken. Sir, if you can state your name for the record. Sorry. Michael Beaver and I'm happy to give you any more information. Um our my concern is like the others is the the egress and entrance proposed off of Bloomfield Parkway. Bloomfield is already a frankly a badly abused street. Um you know I'm familiar with the neighborhood. that I ride my bike all over Gilbert and I'm familiar with all kinds of sort of semi-th throughfares through neighborhoods that don't have houses on them. I want to make really clear Bloomfield is completely different in character than these other streets. Bloomfield has houses from one side to the other. This is not a through street that lacks residences already. As some of the folks have uh mentioned, we have people coming through all the time and they may be our neighbors at 50 do 50 m an hour plus. We have a horrible traffic control problem already that needs to be addressed. But if all of a sudden there are people who are uh they find Bloomfield as a reasonable alternative to Warner in terms of going east west, they will use Bloomfield as an east west thoroughfare completely disregarding the 25 mph speed limit which is already happening as I said and just basically turning Bloomfield which has houses from one end to the other into a thoroughfare. this is inappropriate to have an additional commercial ingress egress into a a residential community like this. Um, you know, that's that's the only real objection I can state to this development, but I cannot tell you enough how much things like this are going to change the lives of the people uh that live here. I will just add this if I may. Um already uh I'm sure this commission has approved a number of highdensity apartments uh in Gabriela Point and also in Morrison Ranch around here that are going to triple and uh more the number of people using the neighborhood. It's already a problem. There are already things that need to be addressed. This is going to make it worse. We're going to be back here asking you folks and others for relief of the traffic that's already coming through the neighborhood. Please don't make it worse. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Okay, that is the last of the comment cards I have on item 15. Uh if the applicant would applicant, if you would like, has an opportunity to help us address or deal with some of those comments. Thank you, Chair Fay and Commissioners. again, Laura Ortiz with Evergreen. Um, am I able to move this back and forth or do you need to? No, I got it. So, just to to respond uh to some of the the questions that were raised about the traffic and the infrastructure on Higgley Road right now, what exists in front of the property is two lanes. As part of this project, we will be widening and adding the third through lane. We will also at each of the drive entrances on Higgley as well as at Bloomfield be adding a right turn lane. So to address one of the comments and the questions, there will be a right turn lane that is um from Higgley onto Bloomfield that will help alleviate some of that concern um on on Bloomfield itself. um through the process that we worked with the the Morrison Ranch um DRC as well as staff and traffic engineering that curb cut was um was was proposed for um vehicular access. There's also pedestrian access that comes through there and of course fire access. So, um the intention is that typically when we would look at a center like this, um both the the residents and the town and the developer are looking for um people who are in that center to not have to get out onto the arterial roads and then back into the neighborhood. If they are going into the neighborhood or coming from the neighborhood, they are able to access into and out of our center directly from Bloomfield as opposed to having to go out onto Higgley or Warner and then getting into the site that way. So, we proposed it that way from from the beginning. The traffic study did um study it. Did not have any concerns or issues with that. Um I am sympathetic to to the residents who seemingly have an existing traffic issue on Bloomfield with the cut through traffic. We are developing um we think in the way that this property that was owned SC was intended to be developed and have access. Um I'm happy to answer other questions along those lines with with the traffic questions that were raised. Commission, does anyone have any questions of the applicant? Oh, seeing none. Thank you very much. Thank you. Uh staff, does staff have any additional any information that we need any any absence of anything from staff? Does does commission need anything? Can I ask one question? Yes. And I know that we've and this is for staff. I know that we've covered this in the past and and maybe we've got traffic here. Maybe we can talk that direction. um with regards to Bloomfield and I think Morrison Ranch Parkway we've talked about this with regards to speed um and potential of speed bumps and I know that that has come up a few different times. Can you remind me specifically what it is as to why we're not what we're not doing speed bumps or speed humps on either of those two parkways? Yeah, chair commissioners. Um, so as far as speed, so we do have a town council approved polic policy on uh speed calming. Bloomfield is considered a collector road. So, typically speed humps wouldn't be allowed, but um there is a provision for um for if if it's if the collector is loaded like it this one is, it is eligible for potentially eligible for speed humps, um we would need a a champion um from the community to kind of um collect signatures in in support of speed hump. So we per the policy you require 75% of of the resident's um approval of the of the speed humps and then also uh 100% if if it's in front of your home it requires 100% and then um the town doesn't pay for the speed humps. So someone else would have to either the community or would pay for the speed humps. So, I don't know if that answers your question or not, but Okay. So, just to clarify, we we would need somebody in essence from the community to stand up. We need 75% of all residents to agree to 100% along if the speed hump was in front of their residents. Yeah. And then the residents would have to pay for it, not the town. Right. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Uh are did you already speak, sir? No, I'm sorry. All right. Once it's closed, I'm sorry if you you've had your chance. Okay. Any other questions? Okay. Then, um I will take it back up here to the podium for members to make comments before we vote before we entertain a motion. Sir, if you can close the public hearing. I close the public hearing and bring the item back up to the podium. So, Commissioner Simon. Yeah, I'll go ahead and and lead us off. Um, with regards to the development and the and the site layout, I I don't have an issue with it and I completely understand the residents and and and feel for them. With regards to Bloomfield, I know that we have similar issues um up on Morrison Ranch Parkway. Um, and it's just it's a bigger issue that probably needs to be um somebody step up and I think there's probably people in this community who could do that. Um, but with regards to the access uh ingress egress, I don't I don't have an issue. I like that there's collectors or del lanes off of Higgley. I would probably like to see um a del or a small collector on Bloomfield heading uh westbound on that second island just to give some space for vehicles to get around so so it doesn't get backed up there in the event that there is additional traffic. Other than that, I don't have an issue with with the site. I think it's a nice layout. I think it's going to go with the character of of the the area. Um and and I think that the majority of the traffic, I guess in my mind, is going to be heading out onto Higgley Road and not seeing a lot of it go into the neighborhood. At least I'd like to believe that. So, anyone else? Yes. I'd like to speak to the the landscaping and the elevation question that the the neighbor had. Um I looked at the tree type there and it it looks like it's the red pistach which part of the year is going to be no leaves at all. It's sculptural but it's pretty but it's not going to have any kind of screening at all. So I feel like if we could consider if the other board members agree that a different tree type be selected that actually will screen the buildings. It also seems like the east side of that fitness center could easily be adjusted, the elevation to include that same detailing um where it's kind of um incorporates that kind of rose color um to detail it the same way as it is on the south pretty easily. It just doesn't that tan portion and I'm sorry I don't have the elevation up to speak well about this. Let me pull it up. Um, it seems there's an opportunity to detail it similarly to the east elevation very simply and improve that appearance because it really should have four-sided architecture. So, I'd also would like to see a condition added that they have to improve that elevation as well. This is a good early catch, too, because there's a whole property coming in between, right? And the and I'm not saying that to say that you're going to be screened by the other property. I'm pointing out the people on that other property are going to be looking at the same thing and even closer. Correct. And we don't know when that'll get built. So that too. It it just Yeah. To me it seems like those would be good options to make that a better experience for people. Anybody else? Any thoughts? I I will the the Bloomfield exit. I I I'm sorry. I don't I don't see it. I if we were if that was to not be there, the people from this neighborhood would have to go out onto Higgley, make a left, kind of do a big loop around. The people going from the shopping center east onto Bloomfield would have to go out onto Higgley and then have more room to accelerate if that if that is an issue. Um, and in fact, the people turning right on Bloomfield may even provide a bit of a traffic buffer. I'm sorry, I don't see it. It's seems like it it doesn't address your concerns of preventing this driveway. Is there any other thoughts or do we have a motion? Uh I'm sorry, the public hearing is closed. Thank you. Either any other thoughts or a motion? I make a motion to approve DR24-92 Park View at Morrison Ranch. There is a motion. I'm sorry. Can you restate the motion because I missed what the Did you Motion to approve? Sorry, I missed I missed what it was. Okay. Sorry. There's a motion to approve. There's no second. Do we want to amend the motion to include um the comment about the trees, changing out the trees around that property line? I think we do. I heard some support and I didn't hear any disagreement. Does anyone disagree with that idea? No. Would you have to finish our motion before? You can just withdraw the motion, can't you? Bill, she can just withdraw the motion. Catch you. Okay, I'll withdraw my motion. Um, thank you, Brian. I will motion to approve um DR24-92 Park View at Morrison Ranch with two added stipulations. one to detail the north elevation. Um the middle section to be consistent with what is designed for the east elevation. And the second condition to add would be to change out the red push pistache that's shown on the east side of the property. Work with staff to come up with a tree that will provide some appropriate screening year round. Okay. Yes, I'll make a second. Weren't fast enough. Okay, we have a motion and a second. A motion to approve and amend an amended motion to approve and a second. Any further discussion? Then let's call the vote. All votes have been cast. The motion passes 7 to zero. Thank you very much and thank you for speaking. Sorry it didn't go the way that some people want. Uh next we have item 17 my agenda here. Item 17 SD 2403 Woodside Homes. S, take us away. Good evening, chair and commissioners. It's good to see you all tonight. Uh, so the application I have for you all tonight is going to be SD24-03, uh, which is the standard plan set for the 33 North uh, residential subdivision. But before I get into the presentation, um would you all prefer that I go through the entirety of the presentation or were there specific questions or comments you had about the um the plan set? I can tell I didn't um have any specific questions. Did anyone have any concern or if you could just give us an abbreviated so that we have a background to to talk with because there are some comments on this one. Absolutely. All right. So, as I mentioned, the project is ST24-03, uh, Woodside Homes, uh, which is going to be for the 33 North, uh, residential subdivision. The subject site outlined in blue here, um, is located north of the northwest corner of Lindsay and Elliot roads, and it is zoned single family uh, 7, so SF7. Uh Woodside Homes is proposing three standard plans which will include both singlestory and two-story designs with each plan containing three different architectural styles with floor plans ranging from approximately 3,61 ft to 4381 ft. Uh so taking a look here at the approved final plat. Um it looks like the uh 33 north residential subdivision is going to be on the smaller side with roughly or exactly 10 lots on site. Um and here on the plan you can see that the minimum lot dimensions for each lot are going to be 65 ft wide by 127 ft in length. Um with each lot having a minimum area of 7,000 square ft. So the first elevation here um is going to be for standard plants set uh 1120 uh which is going to utilize the traditional farmhouse architecture. Um here you can see the various elements of a traditional farmhouse design with board and batten siding, flat concrete roof tiles, gabled roof lines, shutters and of course the contract between uh light primary colors with the darker accent colors. Uh moving over to plan set 1121. This is going to be the um twostory traditional farmhouse. Also utilizing, you know, board and bat, flat concrete roof tiles, uh wood columns at the entry, um appropriate shutter design, and um light primary siding with of course those dark accent colors. And here is just going to be a um different option for the um traditional farmhouse for 1121. And then here we have the third traditional uh farmhouse design. Again using board and batten uh white primary uh gabled roofs um columns at the entry and a little bit of stone veneer as well at the base of that entry. And again just a different option here which actually incorporates a um courtyard in the front um front lot of the house. So you can see just in front of the front door, you see that um stone veneer wall that just surrounds the front door creating a little um patio area. Um the applicant has proposed a total of nine color and material schemes with each elevation style providing at least three available color schemes. And on the screen are going to be the options for the traditional farmhouse design, which you can see utilizing uh darker accents with the roof materials, the shutter materials, uh and then utilizing those lighter um shades for the primary bodies. The second architectural style is going to be the modern farmhouse. Um again, utilizing white and dark accents on this elevation. There's actually going to be um a steel seam roof to create a nice accent feature over the main entry while also utilizing that stone veneer on that uh wall plane. Uh here for the 1121 uh modern farmhouse, it's going to be a majority stucco. Um they are going to be placing uh vertical siding in those pitched eaves. Um stone again surrounding um the main entry creating a nice sense of arrival and then also including some uh darkened window treatment uh to create a nice variety for um the entirety of the structure. And again this is just another version of the 1121 modern farmhouse. And then this is going to be the modern farmhouse for standard plan 11:22. Again, utilizing the um standing seam roof. Um some more stone veneer along the entryway. Uh placing that vertical siding inside those eaves. And of course, wrapping that um on all four sides of the building as well. Again, uh here are the three colors or color and material uh selections for the modern farmhouse. And then the last architectural set is going to be the Arizona Ranch. Um, which is a bit different than that farmhouse style you were seeing with the previous two iterations. Um, here you can see the wood trim around the windows, stone veneer at the main entry and wall planes. Um, they're also uh utilizing horizontal siding and um, showcasing some of those tails in the eaves as well. Uh, the Arizona ranch for plant set 1121 again using horizontal siding. Uh we're wrapping that stone veneer uh along the garage as well as the main entry to try and create that um grounding feeling with that heavier material. Um and of course just an appropriate shutter design for the ranch style home. Just the second option here for 1121 and the last option here for 1122. Um, again utilizing horizontal siding, uh, the exposed tails in the eaves, stone wrapping along the front windows at the base and the, um, the entryway of the structure. And again, just showing that courtyard option in the front as well. Uh, here are those Arizona Ranch um, colors and materials. You can see the different variety in the stone options, the nice contrast between uh, lighter colors and those accent colors like the blues and those maroons. And then here is just the elevation megat tricks just so you can see the variety in all the architectural styles. And then also it just helps with some perspectives to kind of create that real life imaging. And then the typical plot plans showing that each home would um fit within the different uh lots within the 33 north subdivision. Okay. And then with that we just have a recommended motion um that you approve the findings effect and ST24-03. Okay. Thank you S. Thank you guys. Does anyone have any questions of S? Yes. Uh thank you chair. S quick question for you. Can you go to the uh farmhouse options plan two like 1121? The traditional farmhouse actually. Yeah, that that elevation's fine right there. Uh the right elevation, those two long windows that low. What are those? What are those? Are those for the dog to look out or I'm curious as to why they're so low like that. Uh, Chair Fay, uh, Commissioner Anderson, and just so I'm aware, you're talking about the windows on the first floor just to the right there. Yeah. I don't know why they are situated so low. Maybe it does create a nice view for uh our our furry friends, but if you'd like, I can uh pass off to the uh applicant if they have any particular answer for you. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Yeah. Yan. Uh, just sorry. Commissioner Simon. Okay. Quick question with regards to I mean we're we're limited lots. We've got quite a few options for the homes. Are there limitations to which homes can go on which lots? I didn't see anything in here. Yeah. So, I apologize for not having it in the presentation, but in the packet, I believe there is the uh lot fit analysis that does showcase the various lots with the various options for the um three standard plan types. And there would be the availability to have every lot developed with the form of these um standard plans. That answer questions. Anyone else? Okay. Does the applicant have anything they would like to say or present? Uh hello, my name is Sean Terrell with Woodside Homes. Thank you for letting me present and share this community with you all. Just to answer that question on those two uh more linear windows. Those are in the kitchen and they fall above the countertop but below the uppers. And so between that would be a cooktop and hood. And that's more of a architectural element within the house in the kitchen and great room. And then I would like to just mention that we have reached out to the HOA and the community manager in the community and worked with them to distribute information to the homeowners on how we would gain access to the community during the land development and construction phase as well as uh lease some space that's offsite where workers can park and gain access to the community without uh you know creating too much traffic through the uh the main streets of the community. We thank you for your time and reviewing this community and hope that we can move forward. Thank you. Thank you, sir. At this point, I have two comment cards of two people who wish to speak on this uh in no particular order. The first comment uh did not check if he wants to speak or not. So, I'll give Oh, we have more than two. Whoever the last one is, sorry, your your last name now. Uh Clarence Threat Threat. Good. That's a That's an awkward name. Did you want to speak today? I'm sorry. I didn't mean to say it awkward. I I didn't mean to say like it's threatening. I I I apologize. That was inappropriate to me. Uh Mr. Threat would like to speak on this and he has checked that he is opposed to this item. Yes. Again, my name is Clarence Street and um we are a black family all across the United States of America and I am opposed to this because of the simple fact when I was notified of the property being built. I got three different notifications about my wall and I told them my wall is my wall and I don't want anybody messing with it because I got gas on the wall. I have electric on the wall and if you go messing with that and there's any type of damage, I want you to pay for it. But I haven't heard anything concerning how they're going to implement my wall into their development. And I think it's very important because I've been a resident since 1989. And when the farm was there, the farm served the community because everybody would walk their kids over there to see the animals. My grandkids love the animals. The peacocks. I'm quite sure you got complaints about the peacocks flying on people's roofs, but the peacocks were all over the neighborhood and they brought a, let's just say, a distinct sound to the neighborhood that people would always ask, "What is that?" Those were the peacocks that lived next door. So my thing is I think we need to come up with some way to appease the neighborhood concerning the walls because they were our walls and some of them are very fragile now because they have been standing what 30 40 years and you know cinder block out here in Arizona doesn't last too long with water hitting on it, wind hitting on it, everything hitting on it and if you go and you move a piece of power equipment against it, it could collapse. So, those are my concerns as far as 33 North. I want some type of uh resolution as far as the wall, as far as the homes that they're building. What are they going to do against that wall? Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Thre. Uh, next is Mr. Gderian who wishes to speak for this speak on this item. He is the uh individual. Your Mr. Gerian, your email was passed out to the members of the commission. Mr. Chairman, Commissioner, members of the commission, thank you for this opportunity to speak. My name is Rob Gadarian. I live in Gilbert. I live in Stonebridge Lakes and my lot of the west side of 33 North. And uh Mr. for Commissioner Simon to answer a question about the lot fit. Page 92 in that packet at the very end lists all the different variations against all the different lots and there are several that don't fit. They're highlighted in yellow. Specifically, if you could review lot number two, which is behind my house, there's only one reduced square foot option that would fit in that lot. So, and uh residents on Riata Street haven't received any notification as to construction parking, and maybe that's because we're not on the the entrance street. Anyway, I want to uh just make you aware of my opposition to today's motion. Uh I don't have any objection to the aesthetics of the plans or the elevations that were proposed rather the lot fit analysis. Uh and that's for the reason that Mr. Threat spoke of which is all the residents on Riotta and Vaughn Street have had their lot surveyed. We've reviewed the build plans for Stonebridge Lakes Estates Unit 2 from 1987 and found that as intended back then, our back wall is actually entirely within the property lines of the Stonebridge Lakes residents and is not a shared wall as claimed by EPS group and their in their Alta survey and the plat map. And I can point you to I included some of the things in my email that justify our surveys. I can point you to the errors in the EPS survey as well too. So I reached out to Mr. Kirk Woodward from uh Woodside Homes on February 21st and verbally alerted him to this. I have heard nothing from them despite a promise to call me back for the last five weeks. So, my attorney has reached out to Woodside Homes last week to send them a letter to make them aware of these facts. So, uh aware that you're not here to solve property line disputes. We will do that uh through all available legal and other means. Hopefully, we can resolve that in an amicable solution fast. But it does bring up some issues with respect to the the proposal today, which is a lot fit analysis. And I'm not sure how you do a lot fit analysis with an ambig ambiguous rear border on lots one through six. Also hearkening back to the approval that the commission gave in June of 2022. Uh the individual privacy walls between lots one through six cannot be connected to our back wall because it would encroach on our property line. So you're going to have an 8 to 12 inch gap between the side walls of lots 1 through six and the rear wall which is on our property. Likewise, you're also going to have a gap along the western canal trail between the perimeter wall of 33 North and Mr. Threat's uh property on the north end of Riata Street, Hearn Street he lives on. Uh you'll have an 8 to 12 inch gap there along the canal. Um, this also affects the drainage plans for lot one because the plan that was approved back in 2022 requires a twocourse retaining wall to be built up against the existing wall which is on our property and we have not given permission to build a retaining wall that would encroach on our property line. So, there's currently no plan for drainage on lot one. There's currently a canal uh a channel if you will because they built up the lot over 12 in on their side uh and then now there's a 12-in gap that runs along our back wall. So um my recommendation and ask to the board is several. Uh one that you delay this approval to not Can I finish the sentence? Good fit sentence. Yeah. Uh uh delay this approval until the property uh line dispute is resolved. And please don't do any administrative approvals to code variations for this without including public input from the affected neighbors. At a minimum the eight lots in Stonebridge Lakes that border this. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Gderian. Uh and third, I have Mr. Martinez who is opposed to this item and does wish to speak. Thank you very much. Um I appreciate you uh hearing what I had to say. Um sorry I was kind of late to the party but I am kind of glad I'm the last person to speak. So um my concerns I don't have so much. I know that there's progress. Um I didn't expect that the farm would be back there come my my lifetime that they would probably be building there and and that's what we're seeing happen. My concern is the communication. Um I didn't hear anything about the build until I got a notice in the mail. Um it had a nice little phone number. It says, "Hey, if you have any concerns, call us." When we had the original plans that came up in 2022 from the previous builder, my concerns were my family's security and safety. I have a son that's autistic and blind. Um, I had concerns about things being driven off of that property onto our snakes. There's a lot of scorpions and things like that and I have a son that could hit a scorpion, pull away because he's blind and doesn't understand, get stung and stung and stung. And I brought that up to the builder. I called the called the builder and said, "Hey, when when the previous builder was there, architectural committee had some suggestions on how we could prevent that." The builder said, "Oh, yeah. I'll reach out to the architectural committee, find out what their suggestions were, and I'll give you a call back, and I never heard about that again until they started moving dirt and and all behind our house." Lo and behold, we had a snake on the back porch. We had things that come across from that field into our h our our uh property and I had concerns for my my son's safety. Um my ask of you is the builder for me has already displayed hey my when when we had a um HOA meeting and the builder came I asked specifically about that. I never got a call back. I had this concern and they said we're already beyond to that point. I don't want another issue to come up where we're already beyond that point. So, what I'm asking from the council is, hey, that we don't approve things unless we have a conversation about it, that we know what's going on, that we don't have concerns about it. Maybe it is a little bit slower process, but it's an involvement and and what I'm asking from you is that that you be my representative because I didn't get that response from the builder. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Martinez. That is all the speaker cards I have on this item. Uh, at this point, would the applicant like to respond to the points made? You don't have to, but if you'd like to. Yes, thank you for those comments. We we are as a builder Woodside Homes working to we want to work to resolve um most of these if not all. I like to just speak with the wall situation. We are trying to uh resolve the wall issue by we would replace that wall and reinstall a code compliant wall that would um you know make sense for the homeowners behind us as well as ourselves. And if there was anything attached to those walls, I think there was comments about some electrical or um gas. I don't know if it's barbecue, we are willing to to work and and reconstruct whatever that is that gets it back to the same state it is right now with a brand new wall. Um so that's not from our perspective that's not a concern. We do need to work on figuring out which survey is correct because there is a dispute on which survey is the correct survey. But whichever one is is right, we'll go with the right one and put a brand new wall for all those homeowners um that's uh structurally sound and uh there's something that's uh on the other side of that fence that we need to uh correct because it would have to be removed when that wall gets replaced, we would do that. Um the comment on the lot fit analysis. Um there is I think one lot that's constrained and there's been structural optionality placed on some of those plans in order to make them fit. So I think one of them has an option that reduces I believe two foot off the back of that house so that it does fit. Um the uh the ability for a homeowner to go in there and buy uh any of those lots on a on any any of those homes on any lots is available, but they'll have to follow through with the design guidelines. And as the as the property gets sold out, the uh the number of lots and number of elevations and the number of color schemes that are available will shrink. And if we get down to the last one or two lots, there's only so many lot so many plans that can fit on those lots. And that's just beating the design guideline criteria for lot fit and and monotony rules. Um so uh you know we want to be a uh a good neighbor and are more than uh willing to work with the homeowners on those walls and we can get that figured out. We need to get that uh survey uh between the survey that we had done and the survey that they had done and get that resolved. Um but we would ask to move forward with uh getting approval to move forward with standard plan uh submitt and keep our process moving forward. But those are uh items that will need to be resolved um you know to be a good uh neighbor and uh be able to deliver homes to future homeowners that can then become part of that community. Thank you. Are there any questions for the applicant? I I do want to say I'm I'm disappointed in the communication from Woodside Homes on this. I mean, I'm I'm understanding the issue, but the the offers and insurance asurances coming up here is really too late. I mean, we're talking not clear on who's necessarily right, but we're talking about six or eight inches. I'm confident this could have all been resolved with a little bit more communication before we got here. Um I mean we'll we'll one way or another we're going to resolve it I think tonight but it it could have been this could have sailed through seamlessly with I think more communication by Woodside. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Um do we need any anything more from staff? I think you can ask a question of anybody at this point. Yeah. Um if you don't I just have a question. I'm looking for a little bit more clarification on this wall wall thing. So, uh, Mr. uh, Gderian, when he came up, he said that it's not a shared wall that the wall is completely on their property. So, does that mean that the wall is a is a property line wall or is it here's a property line, the walls on their side, and there's a gap between their wall, the property line, and then this development? I I think the survey is in dispute. I think is fundamentally his his point that he he believes it's entirely on his property and he's been notified by the homebuilder that it's either partially on his property or even on their property. Okay. So essentially I think we have a survey dispute. Okay. All right. And then the qu the second question I have is I guess for the attorney I didn't answer the question. Should I am I summarizing that correctly? Okay. I got thumbs up. All right. Thank you. And then second question is I guess for the attorney is there anything that we can even do about that or is that not part of this particular case? At this point, with the limited information I have, sir, uh it sounds more of a civil issue between the uh the applicant and the residents. Um that's Yeah, that would that would be my take on it, sir. Well, I I do Alen, if you don't mind, I How can we approve the uh site plan? How can we approve the site the the standard plans? How can we approve the standard plans if we don't actually know the site this if we don't know if the setbacks are met or is that something we can continue until it's resolved? Chairman and commission. Um there is an approved final plat on this property um based on the survey that was submitted to the town. But if that if that's inaccurate, then these then we don't know the setbacks can be met and this whole thing's a moot discussion, isn't it? We we don't know that the um that the survey is inaccurate and so the information before us is that the uh standard plans are compliant with uh the plat and they meet setbacks and lot standards. So for our vote purposes here today, we have to accept the plat as the has the plat recorded? It is. It's recorded as well. So if it we do have a property line issue, then we're going to have to amend that. That would be correct. Okay. Well, we don't amend it. The developer amends it. Has to go through town council again. Yeah. So I think for this purposes we can only really approve the design of the buildings and then as the attorney said it's really a civil issue that between the adjacent homeowners and the developer that they have to work that portion out. Yeah. And and if there is genuinely a a property on dispute, I do not see how you're going to possibly move forward without going to court if you're if there is a genuine I mean it seems like this is an easy one to resolve. Just get a common surveyor out there and communicate a little bit more. think you could probably hammer this one away easily. So, I think what we're coming back to is that's the the property line dispute even with the lot fit potentiality out there is beyond the scope of what we're considering tonight, chairman, that would be correct. Okay. Okay. At that point, I will close the public hearing and bring the matter back up to the podium for discussion. Not that we haven't been discussing it already for a while here. Uh, anyone else have any thoughts or commissioner line? You've been you've been quiet. You've been dearina, you're welcome to talk to. Mr. Chairman, this is a tough one because like you said with the disputed lines, it's it's kind of difficult. But after hearing what you were um saying along with our staff, I think our scope is a little bit more narrow to what we are supposed to consider here. So although it we understand what we're hearing from the from the public, I think our our focus is a little bit more limited. So thank you. I I do actually until Mr. Thre spoke, I I did not realize the I I hadn't looked closely. I I brought my kids to look at the uh the peacocks here when they were little, too. I didn't realize that was the property we were talking about. It that one house on the corner really kind of was. I thought they were going to leave it, but it's already gone now. Uh anyone else or do we want to Does anyone want to make a motion? I'll make a motion. Thank you. Um, I'll make a motion to approve ST24-03, um, Woodside Homes 33 North. Thank you for the motion. Second. Okay, there's a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? Hearing none, I would call for the vote. All votes are cast. The motion carries 61. All right, that that concludes our public hearing for tonight. Thank you all for for come people who came out and for those who spoke. Thank you very much for participating. Uh administrative items. Uh the only administrative items to be considered tonight is the approval of the planning commission minutes. Anyone have any thoughts? I'll make a motion to approve the planning commission minutes of the March meeting. March meeting March 5th, 2025 is written. And we have a motion. Is there a second? Second. And we have a motion and a second. I call for the vote. All votes are cast. The motion passes 70. At that point, uh, community, we had an opportunity to go to executive session. I see no need to go to an executive session and report from chairman and members of the commission on current events. Does anyone have anything to report? Nope. Uh, report from the planning services manager. And this is not Eva. This is Ashley this time. Congratulations, Ashley. It is. Uh, thank you, chairman. Um, I don't have any updates tonight. Just thank you for your time. Thank you, Ashley. Uh, and at that point, a motion to adjurnn. So moved. Do it. I'll second. Yes. All those in favor, please. Not please push or record your votes. Uh, the all votes are cast and we are seven. Oh, for a change instead of our usual 61 to adjourn the meeting. Thank you all for coming to the um public meeting to the main meeting public meeting. We are going to resume the work session the study session that we were in earlier. So and we will take a five minute break for one commission member. Thanks and that is at 7:33. Come on. Maybe. Okay. Thank you all very much. At this point, I would like to reconvene the study session. And I think, apologies, I'm looking now. I think we got through two items. And we are now on item three, the LDC. Oh, the easiest one of the night. I think the LDC amendment chair. Uh is there just a recommend suggestion? Maybe we take that one and move it to the end. Okay. Because I see some expensive attorneys down there and maybe we just kind of want to get through with the people that are here and then we could do the LDC. Push number three and go to number four. Speaking of everybody else, doesn't keeping the attorneys here cost the developers more? Speaking of expensive attorneys, let's go on to item number four. And so item number four is uh Sandra Pleasure seeing you guys again today, chair and members of the commission. Um, again, it's Sandra Childers presenting another case for GP 2408 and Z2420 or at Santan. Um, for this study session item, we're asking for general input on the two submittals, including the general plan amendment and reszoning request, requested deviations, and overall development plan. The subject site is at the southeast southeast of the southeast corner of South Val Vista Drive and East Bagos Road along Market Street. Its current zoning is regional commercial within the Val Vista Square P AD area and its current existing journal plan land use classification is also regional commercial and it is also situated in one of our growth framework areas in the central 202 core. This growth framework area features key landmarks like our Santan Village regional mall and several retail power centers serving as a hub for diverse land uses. As a result, it's well positioned to accommodate those concentrated developments that we see there including commercial spaces, some high-rise offices and some t tour tourism related facilities and business parks. And this area is envisioned within the growth area to prov to provide its thoughtfully integrated processes with u both an amount of retail and office uses in a compact mixeduse design and also with the incorporation of urban amenities to further support the vibrant multifunctional character of this area. So with our proposal today with or at Santam, we are seeing a proposed land change land use from the regional commercial to our highest residential density land use category to residential greater than 25 to 50 dwelling units per acre. It should be noted that in this proposal that the total residential unit count is proposed at 366 units with a gross density of approximately 25.7 dwelling units per acre. So they are on the tail end of this density require range and the proposed zoning is our mixed use large zoning designation. So one of our newer zoning designations and they are also proposing deviations with this submitt um as part of our general plan. It should be noted that we do prioritize the development of mixeduse communities and with the integration of residential and non-residential uses into cohesive, thoughtfully designed environments. And such mixed use developments are defined by their ability to support diverse activities like living, working, shopping, and recreating within close proximity. And so our goal is to have a residents enjoy all these amenities with rather high levels of ease with measurable reductions and traffic impacts and enhances overall livability. Um generally when we see mixed use developments we're aiming to see them being designed in vertically horizontally or through a combination of both approaches. And if horizontal configurations are expect are going to be used, we're expecting them to include all planned land uses to ensure a balanced integration within the project. So with this also proposed general plan amendment and land use, it's still going to be within the Velva Square P A. And as part of the development plan, you're going to see that they're including three buildings that comprise of a total of approximately 460,000 square ft. Of that, the multif family component will be just over 451,000 square ft and the office portion just over 9,100 square ft. As a use mix, we're seeing about 98% as multif family and just shy of 2% as office uses. And also as part of this development, we'll see that they are providing a majority of their amenities within the central building. You'll see the pools, clubhouse, they have outdoor um like barbecue areas, fitness center, and such. And then along the west, just north of the western building, you'll see a dog park amenity center. There are two specific requested deviations as part of this resoning request and it feeds into the proportion that you're seeing being proposed for office versus mix the multif family. So in our LDC code when we're it provides guidance on how to handle any resonings when they're coming from a district different district to a mixeduse designation and one of those is requiring a total of the 20 requiring 20% of the floor space. So floor space the intent of floor space in that context is the entirety of the building. So when we applied that intent with the context of this project, you're going to anticipate just over 92 92,000 square feet of uses that were previously permitted in the regional commercial zoning designation integrated into a proposal. With the requested deviation, there's a change from it being the entirety of the floor space to just the ground floor area. And so when you look at this portion underneath the ground floor area, you will see a deviation of how there's two different calculations. And so with the calculations that were provided by the applicant, they did it with the using the ground floor space, but with the exclusion of the garage spaces that would typically be included in a floor space calculation. So if you're doing this with the intent of the floor space calculation that would be 7.51% of the ground floor space and there is another request to deviation and that is to change the build to line with this request. staff is more favorable towards this deviation request because there are existing conditions on the site um along the frontage where there's numerous easements on there where they cannot move the building onto. So they are op they are moving the building as close to the street frontage as they feasibly can to work with those existing conditions. Um, in addition to the GP and resoning, they are all they also submitted a concurrent design review. And so between all three reviews, there are some outstanding items that may impact the overall design of the project. So of one of those, it is there is a fire variance that would be required to achieve the current building orientations that's being shown. So on this development plan, you unfortunately I think it shaves that out a little bit too much on the the landscape plan, but approximately 6 to 7 ft away from where the building starts. That's where the proposed fire lane is being shown. Um per the fire code, building the fire lanes need to be a minimum of 15 ft away from the building, but no more than 30 ft. Um to allow for enough space for aerial apparatuses to be able to function in those spaces. um variances can be requested for those that are deviating outside of those minimum maximum values. And then as part of the design review as well, um it appears that the applicant is seeking to take advantage of one of the code provisions in the LDC that allows for a request in the reduction reduction of parking up to 10% with the inclusion of a minor parking study. Um so in the provided calculations to staff, we see that in several areas that that has been provided. So staff and the applicant are working through those. Another element that is that does impact this proposal is a previous administrative use permit that was approved for a development just north of the subject site for novel. 45 parking spots were required to be situated on the subject site for Aura because they were or I'm sorry novel was not able to meet those requirements. So they were deferred to this site. Again, we're still working with the applicant to figure out how we can fit those on the site. Um, that is the conclusion of staff's presentation, just requesting input for the general plan amendments and the reasoning request, requested deviations, and overall development plan. And I'm here to answer any questions or any clarification points I may provide. Thank you. Um, back up to the commissioners. Any questions? I have a couple quick question. So, am I understanding correctly and and maybe maybe this is something that we need to readress with regards to the new zoning. Um it appears to me that they're requesting basically 10% of what we would be requiring for commercial on the mixed use. Um chair fay commissioner. So if you're looking at the ground floor space it would be less than 10%. Um if you're using it in the intent of the code it would be just around 7.5%. If you're looking at it with the actual required percentage, um it would be 1.9% of the overall development being provided for non residential uses. So in the code, it doesn't specifically state ground floor or entire square footage. It we're we're going at it from the intent. Is am I understanding that correctly? Let me see. uh chairman and commissioner Simon, the code specifies that it's floor area. Staff has interpreted that to mean the total floor area um as opposed to just the ground floor. So if you look at the the total floor area of all floors of that multifamily, uh the amount of uh non-residential use that they're providing amounts to about 1.9%. I I think we may need to readress that because in my mind when I think of the the multiuse or or the classification that we're going at, we're looking at the ground floor as commercial or office and then going up as residential. Kind of in my head, that's how I'm thinking of it. So, not that I disagree with where staff is coming from on it, but I think that there's enough ambiguity there that we may maybe need to get some clarity or or go go with a clarity. So, maybe that's something we needed to discuss for future. Um because I feel like it's come up a couple times now where where staff is going one direction and the developer is going another direction and we kind of get into this back and forth on that. So, I don't know if the rest of the commission agrees, but I kind of feel like maybe we should look at that down the road. Um, the the the other the other piece of this that that I would like to see and understanding that that this is development kind of became secondary to the Santan area. Um, I I do think that there could be some some use for additional ground floor office or ground floor retail. um in this location. I think there there could be some argument and I've had conversation with the applicant with regards to the the traffic flow in this area and there is technically no traffic flow back there right now, but I think once the development kind of comes in, there will be more traffic. So potentially there could be more. I mean that's obviously a crystal ball question, but I'd like to see maybe going back to look at, you know, how can we maybe get a little bit more office or retail on the ground floor. Otherwise, I I don't know that I necessarily have any issues with the reszone of this. I think that it makes sense in in this area. I know that we're trying to retain as much commercial as we possibly can, but with a mixed use and and going at that ground level, um if we were able to bring in maybe some more retail, more office in there, I think I'd be okay with it. Thank you, Commissioner. Thank you, Chair. Um, Commissioner Simon said pretty much what I've been thinking. There's a lot of retail out in this area and I can see the need to retain some of it, but I don't know that it needs to be all of it. So, I concur with what he had to say. Thank you, commissioners. Anyone else? Yes. Ju just a quick clarification on the parking staff is in agreement with a 10% reduction at this moment. Um we I believe we have not been provided a minor parking study if I recall correctly and so at that time we would need that to be provided to be the form of justification for that minor parking um sorry for that parking reduction. Um, so at this time we're kind of in the middle ground waiting for more information before making a determination for in support or um opposed to that proposal. My only concern that's a pretty busy area down there and you know parking is has always been an issue with me. I just think need to look at that a little bit more closely. Quick question with regards to parking. You just reminded me of a of a point that I that I or a question that I had. Are they looking for a reduction in parking because there's going to be shared parking with the the the retail office and residential on that? Is that kind of the thought process here? From my understanding, it's kind of a multi-pronged challenge. Um, so by default, just before you get any development there, you're already going to have a base line required. 45 parking spaces are required to be provided for novel regardless of what goes there. Um, so there's already that baseline. Then you have a combination of things depending on what kind of development you're doing, how you're trying to orient it. Um, so there are a combination of things like if they are trying to make sure that you know maybe the the amount of viability that the other uses can have in proportion to the amount of parking they could have while still making the um the multif family unit counts pencil out for them. So it just it balances. I think it's a combination of uses, parking ratios, and overall financing of the overall project. Um, but to go back to one of your other points with could see more uses on the ground floor. Um, one of the key reasons that the novel project AUP got approved was because there was justification with other uses having off- peak hours. So that could feed into that if there was enough ground uses potentially. I'm not saying that would be something that staff would support or oppose, but it it could help their justification if they had uses that had differing peak hours for their parking. That that parking was one of my two questions. I think you roughly nailed it. That mixed use inherently has the ability to maybe get some synergy. These guys park a lot in the day. These guys and that's what a parking study's for. When you're cutting your mixed juice down to 1.9%, it becomes a hard cell for me to to say that we're going to get the benefit of synergy and and reduced parking when we're not really going to do the mixed use that I mean that 1.9% is going to drive nothing in terms of parking, which means that you probably need to just default to the regular parking plus 45, which you're already essentially obligated to. So that's um I think I I was kind of dovetailing off of off Commissioner Simons with all due respect position um and even maybe expanding a little bit on that one. Does anyone else have any other comments on this one? Lisa, you've been quiet all night. I I will I will say that that the 1.9% or down to the the 9% of the ground floor area I think is is a bit of a stretch of an interpretation in my mind. It's I do appreciate that there hasn't as far as I can tell there has not been a lot of interest in this property. Um I use the VA hospital right there and I was telling someone just this week that when I go to the VA there's sometimes I go to the grocery store or Costco or something. I didn't realize this road even went through. I go out onto Val Vista around and over and I'm literally going to that that same place. So, I can see why there's if we're really focusing on retail, I don't think this is a viable viable site, but other commercial applications there might be or it might be that it's just not this property's time yet. The the area is growing. Um, I I mean I'm I'm a the idea of getting a little bit further away from some of the commercial applications I'm not necessarily adverse to, but this much of a stretch and then calling it mixed juice, this much of a change and then calling it mixed juice seems like too big of a stretch to me. It's the deviation's too great, I think, is my opinion. Does anyone else have any other thoughts? I didn't mean to take over, but it just seemed like everyone else was was done talking. Okay, Senator, do you have the uh information you need? Thank you for the fe feedback. It does provide adequate direction. Thank you. Thank you. Have a good night and I probably will see you one more time tonight. Oh, you will. Okay, then uh the next item is Lar Willibbrook as I see it on the Lenar Willoughbrook. Item five. Oh, and we have a requested recusal on this one. Yes, I have to recuse myself from this project. One, two, three, four, five, six. We still have six members. Or do we do we call up the alternate for we don't call up the alternate now for this one, right? Okay. And there she goes. Okay. Then at this point, we have item five, Lenar Willoughbrook. All right. Good evening, commission. Uh, the case I have up for you for study session tonight is going to be for a general plan amendment and a reasonzoning request for um a project called LAR. Uh, Willowbrook is the name of the proposed community. It's located on Riggs Road and 156th Street. This is just east of Val Vista. So, we're looking at South South Gilbert here. Right. The proposed request is to um amend the general plan from residential 0 to1 dwelling units per acre to residential 2 to 3.5 dwelling units per acre. As a note to that, it does meet the uh intent of the Saintan character area. They're also requesting a resoning of the property from SF43 to SF6 with APAD. And um I will be discussing the proposed deviations which will include setbacks and lot coverage. Right. And this is just a brief snapshot of some of the surrounding zoning for the property. The subject property is highlighted in uh red. Uh just east of that is um an SF43 piece that is currently operated by RWCD. Um, just east of that is the RWCD canal. Um, to the south, it says SF5 on this picture. I apologize. It is actually SF10. To the west are county, it's a county island. They're roughly acre properties. Um, and then you have a handful of different zoning districts around that. So SF7, SF35, SF6. Uh, you kind of have a compilation of everything going on here. All right. Then seen here is the proposed development plan for the community. Again, the proposed zoning is SF6 with a PD. It's approximately 91 lots on roughly 26 acres. Uh they're proposing 18.1% open space and 3.45 dwelling units per acre. As a condition of the Santan character area, you cannot exceed 3.5 dwelling units per acre. So they are within that requirement. And as part of the requested deviations, I've highlighted a couple things here. So the the items highlighted in green are items that the applicant is exceeding our expectations in. um where a minimum lot depth is 100 feet per the code. The applicant is proposing to increase that to 120 feet. Um they are also requesting to add in building separation requirements of 10 feet whereas our current code doesn't require it at all. Um and not listed on the screen is the landscaping. They're proposing roughly 18% whereas 10% is the minimum. And then highlighted in red I've included what the requested deviations are um less than what our code currently calls out. So, we're requesting some reductions in front setbacks, 10 foot from livable porch or side entry garage to the property line. Um, and then a reduction in side setbacks. Instead of five and 10, we're proposing five and five. And then an increase in lot coverage. So, one story would go from 45% to 55%. Two story would go from 40% to 55%. And some additional deviations that aren't listed specifically on this table are um the elimination of staggering requirements for front setbacks. And then also to remove the stipulation of increasing side and rear setback requirements when adjacent to arterial roads, collector roads or other zoning districts. It would just be the the standard side and rear setback instead of the increased amount. All right. So for this project, we've had two neighborhood meetings. The first one was held on September 17th, 2024. Uh there were approximately 62 attendees according to the sign-in sheets. Uh their concerns at that time included traffic density, landscaping at the southern boundary, um which is adjacent to an existing community called Marathon Ranch and the desire for one-story only homes across the entire site. The second neighborhood meeting was held on March 27th, just this past Thursday. I don't have a count for that one yet. I I would estimate that the count was probably pretty similar to the previous meeting, if not maybe a little bit less. Uh concerns at that time were kind of narrow down a little bit more to include traffic. Um the neighbors are very adamant about wanting a signal at 156th Street uh density and a request for singlestory at minimum on the southern boundary of the site. So some changes that have been made since the first neighborhood meeting have been um modifying the request for reszoning from SFD to SF6. Originally the plan was proposed at 116 lots. It is now 91 lots. Um the lot depth has been increased along the southern border and the landscaping that exists along the northern border of Marathon Ranch which is about 30 ft is being matched along the southern border of this property bringing that whole landscape area to approximately 60 ft. And then some changes that have been made after the second neighborhood meeting that we had um was the agreement to convert the southern boundary of the site to single story only. So, it won't be single story throughout the entire site, but they the applicant is willing to add in that condition to have it along the southern border. All right. And then just to sum up, um staff is at this time generally supportive of the request to reszone to SF6. Uh we do have some concerns about the deviation requests. Just because this is vacant property, you have a blank slate to work from. Um you're you're choosing the resoning district. So, we're not we're not overly supportive of the deviation requests, but the reasoning is um agreeable to us at this time. and I'm available for your questions. Okay, thank you very much. Does anyone have questions for Kirst Kristen? Thank you, Commissioner Simon, for kicking us off. I feel like I need to talk tonight. Kristen, thank you for the presentation. Um, my my really my only concern on this is I I don't have a problem so much with any of it. My only concern is the one deviation where they're asking for 10 foot livable porch or side entry garage. Um I just feel like I'd like that a little bit more closely defined. I mean I don't know that I necessarily have an issue if there's a 10 foot from a livable porch or that. But I don't like the thought of possibly a side entry garage with no space there. So other than that I I don't have an issue with this. I don't think at all. Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Simon. Anyone else? Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Um, just a couple of things on the the number of deviations. I feel like I'm not really seeing anything super special about this to justify the number of deviations that they're proposing. I can see to accommodate single story an increase in the in the lot coverage for single story. I think increasing it for twotory to 55% is excessive. Those are going to be some massive two-story homes when you're adding I mean to need that kind of footprint for a two-story usually you need less. So I I'm not supportive of that. But especially since the neighborhood is wanting to see single story here I could see some deviation to accommodate that um to give them that flexibility. Um um I guess that's really all I had to say. Otherwise, I don't have issues with the R6. Thank you, Commissioner Davis. Anyone else? Uh, okay. I I um have a couple uh I it's two deviate the lot coverage, which actually kind of is a matter of the setbacks. U not really. So, it looks like we're really kind of packing them in. Uh as and and yeah, I understand that the the maximize, but it seems like it's just too packed in. And the way they're doing that is by maximizing lot coverage and kind of squeezing them a little tighter. And I don't think it's necessarily it's close but not supported by the area and probably uh too much. The other one the other point I have it's not really a for the I'm glad that they're willing to work with the single story on the southern end and maybe maybe in that area we would entertain the deviation but not throughout the entire property. the idea of the public's I'm strongly opposed to the public's desire to see a light at the northern end. Either it's warranted or it's not. And it traffic control is not in my opinion subject to public opinion or public vote. Um if it's needed, it's needed. There's there's more or less one person who decides do we need this? And you know that even even council itself really shouldn't be vote weighing in much less the the public should not be weighing in on whether a light is needed. So Cher Fay on that one. Um this project has only gone through one review and uh traffic is going to be reviewing next signal warrant document. It hasn't been received at this time. Exactly. That to me is the only consideration that gets any weight. I don't want it to go to staff's head here, but but the the public I mean we could if we had a mass Morrison Ranch level packed house here all weighing pounding with torches and pitchforks for that traffic light. It it really isn't part of the discussion as far as I'm concerned. Okay. Anyone else? Commissioner Davis already spoke. Yeah. Was there something that indicated the square footage of the homes going on these lots? Is it I like it that you're taking one dwelling unit per acre and having a few on that. We need more of that middle a missing uh middle for people to buy smaller homes or you know not one acre properties in these big developments but it looks like it's a little bit packed. I mean the 6 foot 6,000 foot lot is not big especially for a one story which I'm in favor of. Two stories obviously the footprints a little bit smaller. So is there any idea what site these homes are going to be? Sure. So, Chair Fay, Commissioner Davina, um I know that the applicant is still working through a couple of the models. They are here. If you wanted to to have them elaborate on that, um I don't remember the specific numbers off the top of my head. I apologize. Like I said, I like the idea of of more homes, you know, going from one per acre to a few, but then you don't want it too packed. I mean, 6,000 square feet is not a big lot, and depending on the square footage of the homes, it could be look a little bit overbuilt. So, thank you. Okay. Then um I think we've Sorry, Brandon. This is a work session. I don't think we question to the specific question about how what the square footage of the homes were. Oh, okay. If you if we want it, chair, members of the commission, I always thought that if a specific question was asked that the staff didn't know. No, I understood I didn't didn't connect it and I thought since you weren't wearing a tie, you weren't here to present tonight. Correct. I'm not here to present tonight. So you don't see me. I'm not here. Uh through the chair, Commissioner Degraina, the square footage of the homes are 2400 to 3,400 square f feet. That's a pretty good size home considering a garage and patios and that kind of thing. It's going to cover a good portion of that 6,000 square foot lot. So it's going to be a little bit looks like it be a little bit cramped in there. So be my that would be my big concern. Thank you very much. All right. Thank you all. Does anyone have any last questions? And okay, I think you have the input. Kristen, thank you. Thank you very much. Okay, next item is item six, BC Park. And we're back to Sandra again. Is it Sandra or Sandra? You know what? That's a trick question. Oh, okay. Um, depending on what side of my family you're going to get a different answer. My mom's side, it's Sandra because they're from the south and my dad's side's from England. So, it's going to be Sandre. They did the reverse, ought to be concerned. Either way. Okay. Thank you very much. All right. I'm here for the last time tonight to present on another study session item for GP 2404 and Z2416 BC Park. Um, similar to the last request, just requesting any general feedback for the general plan amendment, resoning request, um, the requested deviations, and the overall development plan. So the subject site is off of Power Road just south of Galveastston. It currently the entirety of the site has BP zoning or business park and it's landed use classification as general office. So uh in this request they're not asking to do a general plan amendment for the entirety of the site. They're only looking to do an amendment to approximately 4.05 05 acres of the site to change its land use classification to general commercial and the associated reasonzoning for community commercial with a PAD overlay that is an existing PA overlay with amendments to the the standards and then also applying those same requested deviations to the already existing business park zoned remainder of the property and that I believe would be 7.4 net acres and about 9.4 gross acres in the development plan. It's it's one of our bubble plans. So allows for a little bit more flexibility for the developers in the submittal. The aim of this is also to allow for flexibility in the community commercial site. So it could attract uses that could help support the western portion of the site and also the existing medical office. I believe there's a hospital there, an academy, and whoever's visiting that storage facility to the south of it. Um, at this time regarding the portion to the west, we've had pre pre-application regarding a proposed development on that portion of the site, but we have not had any formal submitts. Um, there's only one requested deviation and that is to reduce the landscaping stepback for both the community commercial and the business park. with that it would be a proposed reduction to a zero foot or zero feet reduction when the property line is internal to a parking lot or driveway. Um so on the just west of where the community commercial transitions to business park um there is a light dashed line that jotss down between the first building area. So that would probably be where that would be optimized as well if there's no plats to combine those lots. And at this point for additional context, it is generally supported by staff. They had additional steps for this with it being located along Power Road with getting approvals through the city of Mesa for that right away because there are requested devi um abandonments, dedications and general a little bit of a realignment. And then there's also some private um access agreements that needed to occur and to be recorded. but they got um all of the requirements from the city of Mesa and those approval notifications from them to proceed forward with their request as well. And at this time, I'm open to answer any questions regarding this proposal. Okay. Thank you, Sandra. Um anybody have any I'll start on this side. Anyone have any commission any points? I I have no concerns about this this particular one. Does anyone have any concerns they would like or issues or guidance? This what this is why you want your the problem is you have to stay later, but this is another reason why you want your things at the end of the night when Yeah. No, anything's fine. Um, so I don't see any concerns or objections. I I had no particular concerns with this, particularly given the location. Um, but I so I I don't think anyone has any concerns. Well, thank you for your time and have an excellent evening. Hopefully, it doesn't last too much longer with this hearing. Thank you. All right. So, next item is number seven, Desert Sky Park phase 2. S Alrighty. Hello again. Uh the study session item we'll be looking at is DR25-07 uh Desert Sky Park phase 2. The subject site uh Desert Sky Park is situated on the north of the northeast corner of Power Road and POS Road. The site includes four parcels totaling approximately 107 acres, all of which are zoned uh public facility, institutional. The conceptual master site plan along with phase one for Desert Sky was approved back in 2019 with phase 1 spanning 29 acres and the expansion of phase 2 anticipating 78 acres. The subject site is adjacent to vacant shopping center to the north, city of Mesa residential to the east, the East Maricopa floodway to the west, and just beyond that, Kulie Station. Um, and to the south we have the Gilbert Public Training Facility, which is also uh zoned PFI. Um, as I just mentioned, phase one was previously developed and included several key amenities, including an access drive off Power Road, which leads to a parking lot, a lake feature, and four multi-use fields. The current proposal aims to expand and complete Desert Sky Park through the development of additional amenities. Uh, the expansion would include nine multi-use fields as well as one championship field with grant stands and supporting infrastructure located the south of the existing multi-use fields. At the north end of the site, proposed features include eight pickle ball courts, two tennis courts, two volleyball courts, and one basketball court. Courts such as those for pickle ball and tennis will be equipped with appropriate safety fencing and netting, which will undergo further review with the planning staff. Beyond recreational fields and courts, uh the proposal incorporates additional amenities such as playgrounds, splash pads, restrooms, shade structures, walking and bike p bike paths, trail heads, and gathering spaces. Uh as for parking, um the expansion of Desert Sky phase 2 far exceeds the parking requirement, which would be 474 spaces, and they're providing 1,022 spaces. um that existing parking area um is centrally located on site near those four multi-use fields and four more parking areas are proposed with the second phase. Two being located on the north and two being located on the other uh the southern portion of the site um providing direct access to all those amenities. Um, access to the parking areas will be provided by a 28 foot wide two-way drive aisle which will be provided along the entirety of the perimeter of the park. And there will be direct access from Power Road from three access points, one of which is existing and two that are proposed more in that norththeast portion of the site. Uh, it was a bit difficult to try and get all those landscape uh, exhibits onto the presentation. So, I just figured I'd provide you with the um open space uh plan just to kind of give you the um general idea of where all the landscaping is going to be proposed. Since it is a park, majority of the site is going to provide uh landscaping. Uh but the subject site is located within the gateway character area and because of this must align with the uh standards established in the streetscape design guidelines. Uh the landscape plan aligns with said guidelines by proposing a varied uh pallet of trees and shrubs um which are included in the design guidelines and these trees include Chinese pistache, evergreen elm, Texas olive and southern live oak while some of the shrubs include red bird of paradise, Rio bravo sage, blue bells and yellow bells. Um all the landscaping materials will be evenly distributed along street frontages, perimeter boundaries of the site, parking areas and placed essentially throughout the entirety of the site. Uh with the site being PFI, it far exceeds the open space requirement giving 67% on the site. Um as for um structures, the park will feature a range of varying vertical structures including maintenance buildings, restrooms, grandstands. um each designed to have, you know, uh functionality and provide um aesthetics. The restroom structure, which you're seeing on the screen right here, there are a couple of them in the park and they'll range between 12 to 14 ft in height, will be constructed of groundface CMU and will be accented by a metal paneling system that will be located above doorways. Uh here is going to be the central pavilion area, which incorporates a restroom and a storage component. Again, they'll be constructed of the groundface CMU accented by the metal paneling and will incorporate the um flat roof line design. And also, if you notice in these elevations, each of these structures um has a steel shade canopy above all publicly accessible structures. Uh these canopies will range in height from roughly 25 ft to 29 height and will feature a distinctive curving design that enhances functionality but also adds some visual um interest. Uh here on the screen are going to be the grand stands that are associated with that championship field. Um they're going to be located on the east and west side west sides of the championship field and we'll have an overall height of 35 ft. Um the exterior sides of the grandstands facing away from the field will be primarily um constructed of groundace CMU while the interior sides will feature uh pre-cast concrete forming the stadium seating themselves. Um, above that will be a press box that will be constructed using metal paneling and will be accented with aluminum storefront windows. And on the top you'll see those overarching canopy systems that again that will create shade for um, you know, players on the field as well as the individuals sitting in the seats. The last elevation I have here is just the maintenance building. Um, again using the ground face CMU and will be roughly 18 ft tall. And here I just provided some renderings just to create a better perspective of what these may look like in the park. Um but as for colors, the restrooms, maintenance buildings, grandstands, and canopies are all proposed to be this um shade of beige to match what's already existing in the park. Um but while you know a variety of structures have been proposed, planning staff uh does have some recommendations to include some additional architectural features um such as maybe incorporating a varying roof line or introducing a new color or material just to add some visual interest um for these buildings since they will be utilized quite a bit by the uh patrons of the park. And again just another image of the grandstands here. And uh for the colors themselves, I like I'd mentioned they're proposing um CMU um for all of the structures that will utilize earth tones. The ground cover again will be utilizing earth tones and a lot of the um vertical structures such as ramadas uh will be utilizing various shades of red to create an accent. Um, but there are still some amenities that we are uh uncertain of the colors which are going to be, you know, sports courts, some of the custom fencing on site. So, we'll be seeing those colors and materials come through these next few um review uh periods. And here just a closer look at some of those colors and materials. And uh we are just requesting general feedback on the park as a whole. And um of course just some comments on the provided elevations. And with that, I'll conclude my presentation and open the floor up to any questions or comments. Thank you, S. Anybody reaching for their Mr. Davis? I see you reaching. I think it looks beautiful. Excellent. Mr. Anderson, uh, just a question for you. I know it's a DR case. I just have an off offsite uh question for you. For these types of facilities, these generate revenue to sustain its own maintenance or does town have to set aside certain amount of money in the budget to maintain these types of parks? Chair Fay, Commissioner Anderson, I'm not 100% certain, but I believe the town has some set aside some funds for the construction of this park, but I'll pass it off to I guess for the construction of the park, but once it's constructed, who's paying for the maintenance of this thing? Does this thing generate revenue to cover those costs, or is town tax dollars going to continue paying for this thing? Chairman and Commissioner, I I don't know all of the specifics, but I do know that there are user fees associated with renting the facility. Um, and I imagine for some events they may be ticketed events. Um, but we can certainly look into that into that a little bit more and provide you some information. It was just a curio. It's a DR case. It has nothing to do with it. It's just a curiosity question. Other than that, I'm going to go Commissioner Davis and say it's a beautiful park that, you know, people will play on. [Laughter] Sal, I'm gonna, you know, I try to stay away from when you when you can't match your socks, you try to stay away from too much aesthetic decisions to start with. But if if the city messes this up, the city owns it. And whereas a normal case, if the city if the developer messes up, the city ends up owning it. So, you want to get it right. In this case, if the city messes it up, the city owns it anyway, and the city has to fix it. So, I'm I'm less concerned and and it doesn't look bad to me to start with, but as my wife has pointed out, I'm not a good judge of these things, but thank you. Anyone else? Thank you, Jerry. Okay, so I think you got pretty resounding thumbs up there on that. Appreciate it all. Thank you. And then that that was our last item other than I believe we skipped the LDC amendment. Is that a fair? Yes. Uh, and who had the LDC amendment? I'm looking back. Veronica, this is a just this is a a thing that's being initiated because state law is changing again, right? Uh good evening, chairman, commissioners. That's correct. Um, as you may recall last year, um, House Bill 2297 regarding, uh, adaptive reuse and multif family, uh, was approved. Uh, this legislative session, um, the legislature is, um, making some changes to what was approved, uh, last year. And, um, the bill is still moving through the process at this point. Um so we wanted to initiate and do the uh citizen review tonight uh because we have a very short time frame um to be able to adopt the changes that have most likely going to be um signed into law. Um the the bill does have an emergency clause um included with it. Um so this is a preemptive effort to get the ball rolling on that. Excellent. Essentially, the law the law is about to change and we're not going to have time to respond to it or we're going to have short time to respond to it. So, we want to open this up now. Kind of like bending your knees in basketball getting ready, right, chairman? That's correct. Does anybody have any input here? I during our Monday night meeting I kind of you know tell them to yell at our intergov and tell them that hey if if anytime the legislaturator's doing things that uh are going to have a basically effective on signature or real fast hey the the intergovs at the league need to lobby to hey regardless of the position at least give us time to respond but it sounds like this one has 30 days in it. Uh chairman that's correct. Um I will say um in defense of our innergov um that the emergency clause had did have initially a much shorter time frame. Um we did express concern about that. Um I I don't know if it was particularly our intergov or if it was maybe a a coordinated effort of other intergovs but um they have looked at a longer time frame or if we knew an attorney down there at the league. So um does anyone have any input on on this item? I I'm not surprised we don't have a lot. My my take is we don't really have a choice here. So, go team go. Excellent. Thank you. And with that, I think we reached the end of the night. Um and I don't and since this is back to the work session, I don't even think we need a motion to adjurnn, right? We just so let it be written. So, let it be done. I was just enjoying all of the wise words coming from Lisa tonight. Okay, talk now. Thank you all. If I hit and broke that, that would be just the just the end. Thank you all for your time. I can't even