All right. Thank you all for coming. I will call to order the study session. We have two items in agenda item number one GP2503 Harvest Grove and Z25-03 Harvest Grove. And we will bring up Keith. And we have a recusal from uh Commissioner Gage. Please note testing. Testing. Okay. Hello. Testing. Maybe if I testing. Yeah, just making sure. Yeah, we can hear the echo in her microphone and my Testing. One, two, three. Our speakers off. testing. Oh, there we go. All right. No worries. Thank you very much. Thank goodness for the IT people of the world, right? All right. Uh, Chair Munt, members of the commission, good evening. Um, my project that I have before you today, my only one is um, Harvest Grove. See if I can get the clicker to work. Not yet. There we go. Did you do that or did I do that? Okay. All right. So, the project site, as you can see on the map in front of you, is located south of the Loop 202 freeway. and the um the area you know the banner um gate the banneros um not banner this is a Mercy Gilbert hospital I get confused by the one up north all the time so the south of the Mercy Gilbert hospital at the souththeast corner of Germaine and Val Vista Drive the S project site is 311 acres and the north portion of it as you can see there's a little blue line on the screen and north the north about 25% of the project or So I don't have the exact acreage off the top of my head is located in the Santan character area and the remainder of the project is sorry the north half is not located in the Santan character area. Excuse me let me correct myself and the southern 75% is located in the Santan character area. So just wanted to give you a little context for where the project site is located. So the request uh that before you tonight or what I'm presenting to you for a study session tonight um is uh a minor general plan amendment onund about 179 acres and the P80 reszone on the over the whole 311 acres and we are requesting some input tonight um based on of course the the two requests we're requesting input on the two requests and your thoughts on that and of course the the deviations that are propo that we're proposing and of course we have some concerns with the project that we're probably get your input on as well. So just to start off the existing and proposed general plan designations on the site on the left I took a snip of our current general plan map. The layer on our map as you can see the whole entire project site is has a has a has a general plan designation of residential two to three and a half dwelling units per acre. The applicant, however, is only proposing to change 179 of that 311 acres uh to different general plan designations. Um the remainder of the property will stay residential two to three and a half. So on that 179 acres that they're changing, 35 of it will be regional commercial. Uh 43 or so acres will be residential 3 and a half to five dwelling units an acre. 38 acres or so will be 5 to eight dwelling units per acre. 35.73 will be 8 to 14 dwelling units per acre. A little over 17 acres is is a higher density range of 14 to 25 dwelling units per acre. And then even higher density than that is the 9.58 uh dwelling units per or excuse me 9.5 acres at 25 to 50 dwelling units per acre. And you can see the the blue line shows the Santan character area boundary. Like I said a minute ago, everything north of that is not in the Santan character area. And you can see on the map the balance of the uses. Um the denser product is to the north, the denser things. And I I'll show you the development plan here in just a second and we'll kind of we'll kind of go through that and break that down. But I just wanted to show you this general plan amendment map so you can see where those designations are located throughout the 311 acre property. The zoning the existing and the proposed zoning existing zoning on the left as you can today the existing zoning is about 242 acres. The part in the darker yellow is zoned SF-35 for lower density residential development. And then about 60, these are rough acres. This is this is approximate. I don't have the exact numbers, but about 68 acres of that is SF15. Again, larger lots. The applicant is proposing to reszone the site and transition the site from this larger lot, lower density type residential that's been approved on this site for a very long time to 35.46 and on the right hand side it shows you where all those zoning districts are located. So up in that non Santan character area in the north 25% you'll see a 35 acre regional commercial piece. you'll there's a multifamily a 17.16 acre multif family medium parcel right along Germaine Road and then as we transition further south you'll see a multifamily high about 9 acres of that kind of uh south of that south and east of that regional commercial. Um there's a a 17.1 acre MFL piece at the very southwest corner. There's 17.92 acres of SFA and this is kind of spread out kind of spread out a uh it's kind of in the north hand north corner and then SFD is kind of spread out a little bit throughout the development and that's about 81.44 acres and then 82 acres of SF6 and then you have 50 acres of of SF8 and those districts districts are spread out. So, as you can see in the non-san character area portion of the development, that top 25% the denser product from a residential standpoint, you see the multifamily medium, the multifamily high, the the SFA in that bluish color right next to the MFM. Um that is um that 17 or so acre, excuse me, a um a 17 acre townhouse type product. Um and then it transitions into single family as it goes south. And then once you hit uh the the Santan character area, you get your larger lots and then there is some smaller lots. There's some single family detached mixed in there as well. But I'm going to go ahead and show you the development plan now. So it will kind of all make sense to you what the applicant is really proposing and how it lays out. So here's the development plan. There is the applicant is proposing 1,759 residential units. Out of those about 1,700 units, 1,033 of them are single family. Got 190 SFA. and those those single family attached units are all of that stuff. And it looks like it's parcel 4 I can see there. It's at the north end right next to the MFM. And then you have 480 units of or homes of of SFD. And that's kind of spread out a little bit more. You can see that kind of along that main spine road a little bit. They um I I like to call them I like to call those ones like row homes that are right there. They're they're they're alley loaded product, but they have access in those alleys and then they they front that collector street and then you have and then there's some other SFD to the south as well and like a pink color. So, it's kind of spread out a little more. And then you have 243 lots that are SF6. you're getting into a little bit larger lot sizes and and there's a breakdown in your your packet that shows uh in those tables that show the lot sizes and ranges of lots in those SF6 and SF8 categories. Um SF8, they have some lot sizes. There's 120 of those lots that that can be up to 10,000 square feet. There's some obviously some 8,000 foot lots. Um and then of course the 6,000 foot lots. So there's a varying mix of of lot sizes that are in um the single family portion. And you can see on the land use plan here um the there's some sprinkled uh in in between like the parcels uh the multi the single family in the middle of the development. You can see there's like purple next to the tan. Those are the larger lots. Those are the lots that are like 8 up to 10,000 square feet and some of them are up to 8,000 square feet on the west side of the development. So that's they're kind of sprinkling in some larger lots in the middle of lots that are a little bit smaller. So, and then uh like I said a minute ago, you have um the single the the commercial piece at that north uh west corner at the corner the hard corner of Germaine Road and um B Vista. As of right now, it's designed as a pretty standard suburban type shopping center. It appears that there's a ger and some pad sites and um but as a whole the overall development as we look at the density of this development as a whole the whole development has about 5.64 dwelling units per acre for the entire development. The area outside of the Santan character area, that portion to the north, that north 25% is about approximately 7.75 dwelling units per acre. The area within the Santan character area is about a little over five dwelling units per acre in the area that's within the Santan character area. So, you can see the varying densities that the applicant is is proposing to create. It gets really dense or more dense, excuse me, to the north and gets less dense as it goes further south, except for there's a a multifamily low parcel down there in the far southwest corner that we don't have a design for yet. And then eventually there is a there's a companion or a a separate application that we're in process of reviewing for neighbor for parcel 10. It's part of a separate request for a neighborhood commercial piece that's not part of this request before you tonight, but we're we're reviewing that at at this time, too. and we don't have a design for it. We don't see a design for it yet. So, that's the development plan as a whole. There's uh three a there's several access points. There's um one access point off of Germaine Road and there's two three access points off of um Val Vista Drive and then one off of um Queen Creek Road. The there is the main uh access to this development will be on that center spine road that's a collector road that curves and you have a lot of homes about 125 homes that front that center spine road and then there's also a a collector that comes it's called Kingird. It comes in off of Val Vista and then tease right into that center collector. The main collector spine road that goes up through the development. The applicant is proposing a modified cross-section with a of a for a collector street that has a large center median about 13 to 15 ft wide. And then it has on one side it'll have it'll have parallel parking on the side where all those row homes are. What I like to call them row homes. It'll have parallel parking and and bike lanes on the outside. And then there's also a certain they have some kind of uh traffic calming techniques that they're trying to employ where they have a landscape island bumpout in certain spots um to kind of help calm traffic. But as in a whole majority of the the app the residents will access their neighborhood pods through that center spine road. Um and that will be the main carrier of all the traffic through this whole development. Um, so that is the development plan. So, I wanted to show you really quickly the open space plan. There's about 78 or so acres of open space within the whole entire development, which equates to about 26.4% of common open of open space area. Uh, there's a 2.83 acre central park. I hope I got that acreage right for the central park. And then there's about 4 acres of pocket parks that are spread throughout the whole entire development. So you can see where that central park is. And then of course at the main entrances they have the it looks like they're going to have a landscape nodes at the main entrances to kind of accentuate and create a sense of arrival as you come into the neighborhood. um the circulation plan as I talked about a minute ago, that major collector street running right through the development and and then some feeder roads that come off of Val Vista uh that that tea right into that and and we've already talked about the access, but I just wanted to show you this circulation plan so you can get a better sense for for where the access is coming from. You'll also notice that there is a at the north east corner and the and the the southeast corner, you have this little pink colored road. It's called Coronado Street. Uh that's a major collector road that on our master transportation plan is is calling for that and requiring that to go through. The applicant is proposing it to stop and to kind of a culde-sac if you will. So there will be they're proposing an access point kind of in between the the apartment close to the apartment complex kind of in that town home area that feeds that major collector. And then they're not proposing any access off of that Coronado Street collector that dead ends at the south uh east corner of the project site path and trails plan. Um you can see uh I know it's kind of hard to read this plan being in in a in a portrait mode. It's kind of hard to stretch it and make it fit the screen so you can see it better. But they have a lot of trails and and they're proposing trails uh throughout the throughout the development and a lot of sidewalks. Of course along all the roads they'll have sidewalks. You'll have an 8-ft multi-use path along the main boulevard that runs right through the middle of the development on that that east side of the devel of that road. And then of course sidewalks on along all the road frontages. And the one thing is there's another uh that we ne helped negotiate with the developer is a trail that kind of connects all of those residential parcels on that uh east side of the development. There's a open space corridor that has a trail that that basically connects it from Queen Creek Road all the way up to the north half of the development, a five- foot trail. And then you'll see various trails spread throughout the whole entire development in that red color. So, so lots of pedestrian connectivity and lots of pedestrian access to all neighborhood pods and throughout the development. Here's the phasing plan. Just wanted to show you that really quick and how they're proposing to phase it. Um the they're proposing the the um looks like the commercial and some of the multif family up in that area first and and the stuff along the east side, excuse me, the west side. And then they'll phase it down as it comes to the south. They'll continue building out those phases over time as it moves further south. And of course the infrastructure, the roadways, the major roadways, the the the collector road that runs through the middle and the other collector that tees into it at the north south of that um multifamily high piece will be built in phase one as well so that the neighborhood has sufficient and adequate access. So as far as staff as far as the review is concerned, staff has reviewed this project twice. Um, we've had a lot of meetings with the applicant to um try and massage the plan and to uh um to continue to make this a a viable um highquality neighborhood. But staff does have some concerns and I just wanted to highlight what some of those concerns are and those are um noted in your staff report and probably in a little bit more detail, not too much but some more detail. So, one concern is that the proposal does not we don't feel that it aligns with the Santan character area vision and the goals and the policies. The overall development, as I stated a minute ago, has about 5.64 dwelling units per acre with about 1,700 homes. That is nearly double the adjacent development to the west and a lot of other developments in the area. That development to the west has about 820 homes. It has some commercial pieces, too. That development has about two and a half dwelling units per acre throughout the whole development. So you can see that their density is almost double what they're proposing. The proposed um um area in the Santan character area, as I stated a little bit ago, is about five dwelling units per acre in the Santan character area, which exceeds the about average of about two to three and a half dwelling units per acre average of other master plan communities in the south in the in the um Santan character area. We're in the process right now with our GIS team of coming up with a more hardlined number on what the actual density is within the Santan character area as a whole, but this is an approximate number about two to three and a half dwelling units per acre is what you're going to see in master plan communities throughout the Santan character area. So again, close to double the the density that you see in most areas in the Santen character area is what the applicant is proposing. Um, another concern we have is that the the applicant is proposing to relocate the required collector on the eastern boundary, which is Coronado Street, to the middle of the development. Um, staff is concerned about this for for many reasons, but on a high level, it's required in our transportation master plan to be in that exact location, and it's been that way, established that way for many, many years. And it's also shown in our general plan as a road that is that is supposed to go through all the way. It stretch I can't remember how far it goes to the south. Our transportation folks know that better, but it goes all the way to basically to the hospital. Uh and that provides future access to properties to east of the subject site and people that can north that lives north and south to be able to continue to to um have good access. so they don't they can kind of maybe um get off of Val Vista Road a little bit and and have another way to go north and south. We're also concerned about cut through traffic from Perry High School. We know that high schools traffic can be horrendous and we are concerned without Coronado going through that a lot of those and moving that collector to the center of the neighborhood that that will provide it will further congest the neighborhood and make it that collector um a more unsafe condition than it than than what it needs to be. So we are highly concerned about people not going on Val Vista but taking that cut through right through the middle of a residential neighborhood. Um it happens in other places and it is um not a favorable condition. Uh our next concern is that there are 125 alley loaded and town homes fronting collector streets and um that that collector street is really the only the main access for all of the the rest of the neighborhood. So, we're concerned with the with the safety of residents that live along those um along that roadway and those houses that front their neighborhood, their front doors front that very busy busy collector street. Um the parallel parking is a concern for staff. You have bike lanes on the outside of the parallel parking stalls and the conflict there that that presents itself is very concerning for staff as well. Um, as I stated a minute ago that al alternative cross street uh sex cross-section and I just stated the reasons uh we're we're concerned with the the parallel parking conflict. Um, and we also are concerned about homes only being 10 ft from the sidewalk and about 22 feet from the ride ofway and how that visually looks. We actually have the the the aesthetic design behind that and how it functions. We actually had the opportunity as staff to go to East Mesa and look at a development in Haw Crossing and we they're LAR is building basically the exact same product there that they're going to be building here but the street is much shorter and we were able to see how it's really going to look in real life and we were we we had a lot of concerns. Um, another concern staff has is the single northern reliever access along the east boundary. I talked about it a little bit already. There is no proposed access for some of those neighborhood pods where you have to wind way back in there to a they don't there's no way other way for them to get out of the neighborhood except for on that central collector street. Again, that adds more congestion to that central center collector street. And it would be very advantageous if there was another way to get out of the neighborhood along that eastern boundary of the site, so you don't have to go back through the neighborhood on a very busy congested road. Um, the site design also proposes to uh eliminate the connection of Partridge Drive, which is a collector to the far north to Coronado Street. And that is also on our transportation master plan as a collector that has always been required to go out to from from Val Vista to connect from Val Vista to Coronado and the applicant is proposing to deadend that at their center um uh collector road. So that's a concern. Uh, a couple other concerns um before I end that. Um, there are several locations within the single family parcels that lack convenient conveniently located active space open space amenities. They have a lot of active open space amenities in this development, but in our residential design guidelines, it states that they need all homes need to be within 880 ft of an active open space amenity. And there's certain a few locations in the development where that requirement is not has not been met yet. They've made some strides in that area, but they're not quite there. The last concern is they have a lot of devi they have some deviations. Um we have some concerns with the setbacks from commercial and multifamily next to uh single family. We have concerns with the common um area landscaping uh that they're proposing in the MFH development. They're proposing like 27% where 40% is required. the we have some concerns with minimum lot area reductions in SFA and SFD and then some side landscape setback reductions or or excuse me building setback reductions in SFD, SF6 and SF8. They're proposing to reduce some of those in some of those situations. So those are all of staff's concerns. At this at this current moment um uh we are still working with the applicant to try and resolve some of these concerns. Um, in fairness to the applicant, they have addressed a lot of the deviations. They have reduced quite a few of them. There were a lot more and we have been working with them on trying to uh uh find some middle ground on some of these deviations. So, I just wanted to show you some of these deviations really quick so you have an understanding of what they are instead of me just giving you a brief overview. There is um so some of the deviations in the RC development is next to the side setback next to residential 75 down to 68 feet and then for for a rear setback 75 down to 40. That one's a little more concerning. And then for uh the landscape setback for rear the rear setback on residential, they're going from 40 to 10. That's a that's a pretty pretty big ask. Um, we would like to see more landscaping and a larger buffer between um residential and a commercial development for for um that transition. And then of course there's another deviation in the parking lot near the gas station and the commercial development along Germaine Road where they want to decrease the throat depth of the entrance from 80 ft down to 60 ft. Um I'll just blow through some of these. I already talked about this multif family high deviation from 40, excuse me, it was 45% is what the code requires and it's in the multif family high. They want 27% open space in that multif family high um develop portion of the development. And then another setback deviation in the multif family medium rear single family, they want to go down to 18 ft and that's along the whole southern boundary. There's a transition there between the multifamily medium and the and the town homes. So they want they want less of a a buffer between the town homes and the multif family medium apartment complex and then single family they SFA they want to reduce some of the lot sizes about 400 square feet on this one in SFA but in in fairness to the applicant again they are going above and beyond some of our standards um there is no standard for minimum lot width and depth and they're proposing there to uh to uh establish that and then they also are proposing no taller than twotory building heights in the SFA which which is which is um lower than what the standard requires. Um SFD again some more uh a small a small lot um area dev uh deviation and then they are exceeding standards and in certain parts and certain um alley loaded like the front loaded type products are larger lot sizes. So they they are exceeding our code in certain areas and then a setback deviation as well. And I'll just I'll just go through these quickly. So again, they they are proposing some larger lot sizes up to 8 8,400 square feet in SF6 where it's minimally 6,000 square feet is required. So lot some and then again lot width and depth. They are proposing some larger lot sizes. So so we do appreciate that. SF8 same same deal. They do have some lots that are up to 10,800 ft², which we appreciate, and some larger lot sizes, but then they have the one deviation for a 5ft setback deviation. So, that should be all of the deviations um that the applicant is proposing. And again, we're still working on some of those with the applicant to try and fine-tune some things and to to see if we can maybe reduce some of those or eliminate some of those deviations. The applicant held a neighborhood meeting on February the 27th. It was a open house style type neighborhood meeting. There were six surrounding uh residents or property owners that attended. Um uh and town staff also has received some input from some surrounding developers. The developer for the Gilmore project uh sent us a letter. That project's under construction now. They have some concerns about um the northern portion of the development including the regional commercial and the multif family. They feel that that does not align with the area's established vision. Um they strongly encourage a more true m unique mixeduse commercial development that is better integrated with the surrounding residential properties instead of and has higher architectural quality and more pedestrian uh friendly placemaking areas instead of a traditional suburban suburban shopping center that doesn't really um um have any much integration with the surrounding development. Uh we've also had meetings with the manager of the Gilbert soccer fields to the east of the site and they have we have met with her several times and they have expressed concerns with two two-story homes next to the soccer field. She has some other concerns uh that I haven't put in here that I I will I will include later in a future presentation, but she's concerned with lights and the impact that lights could have the existing light poles on on on two-story homes. and they have some other concerns that we can we can communicate at a later date as well. Um, so that concludes my presentation. Um, I know I've bloiated enough sitting up here. I know you guys are probably uh um ready to move on, but like I stated a minute ago, uh, requested input is the the what what your thoughts are on the general plan amendment and of course the the PA reszone, the deviations and the design of the development plan that the applicant has created. thus far. So, I'm now open to any questions that you may have. Um, thank you very much for for um listening to my long spiel tonight. Thank you, Keith. It's always a pleasure to hear your bloation. Who would like to kick it off for Keith? Commissioner Simon. Thank you, sir. Yeah, I just have a quick question. Uh, Keith, thank you for the presentation. Um, you said the staff has issue with parallel parking. Can you extrapolate on that because I don't understand. Um yes. Um Chair Munt, um Commissioner Simon, um from a parallel parking standpoint, um some of our main concerns with that are the the conflict. Well, first of all, it's it's kind of a visual aesthetic appearance as these homes are so close to the street. Um, a lot of parallel parking um, kind of kind of in our opinion kind of impacts and downgrades a little bit of the visual aesthetic, especially when you have a a home that fronts to the street. You walk out your front door and all you do is all you see is parked cars. That's not a very uh aesthetically pleasing visual as you walk out your your your house. That's number one. Number two is the biggest concern is this cross-section where you have parallel parking and a bike lane on the outside. And you can see in this um graphic I have on the screen, we feel that there's a lot of conflict there with the bikes and the parallel parking. Someone's riding by on their bike. Someone's trying to parallel park. They're not very good at it. They might not see the biker hit a biker or they open their door. They park too close to the green and they and they knock the biker off his bike. So, there's there's some there's some biker and and parallel parking conflicts that are the problem, but it's it's more than just that. Like I said, there's some aesthetic issues involved in it as well. And it makes that street just feel very congested. And of course, you have a lot of cars. This is going to be a very highly traveled boulevard or collector road. And you have that conflict with with people trying to parallel park. And some people, like I said, aren't very good at it. Not everybody has the car that has the automatic parking feature, but I could we can see some some conflicts with all that that high volume of traffic and people trying to parallel park. So, we have some safety concerns with that as well. Does that answer your question? Does that kind of help you understand a little bit? Our traffic team is here as well and they can kind of go into what their concerns with it are, but it's not a normal condition that we see in the Santan character area is as parallel parking along a street. I don't believe it exists really anywhere. Well, on a collective and and it may not exist from a development perspective, but it exists. And so I think that's where I'm I'm tripped up because they're actually going above and beyond in my opinion by actually developing what could look better than say if I drive through Agritopia and there's parallel parking on all of those streets and that's not built that way to handle it. So I when when staff is opposed or has an issue with parallel parking I just feel like from a logic perspective I'd like to know a little bit deeper and I don't know if traffic wants to speak to that but just understand a little better why we're opposed to chair commissioner um yeah our standards don't allow for parallel parking on collector roads due to the the volume of traffic we have as we as you're trying to move the the vehicles through there to have someone stop and pull back and forth in the the travel way. Um local roads, we fully embrace it as long as it meets our standard widths is the plan. Okay, you know what? Those are slower volumes. People are not continuing through. It's kind of understood you're in front of homes to allow the parking. What is the typical speed limit on a collector? 30 miles per hour. Okay. All right. Thank you. Anyone else? Commissioner Hang. Oh, okay. So, um let's let's stay on that point a little. Um, is that a discussions that maybe consider some share use bike and pedestrians and move the bike lane uh on one side of the street and then move the traveling on the other side because it looks like all this um home is on the west side of that collector and and having a a share use like mixed uh path. Is that a considerations or any talk with that? Um, Chair Munt, um, Commissioner Hang, we we did we have provided the applicant that feedback that we would and our our transportation planning department has, um, uh, suggested and provided a comment early on in the process that they consider and look at moving those bike lanes um to be not adjacent to the um, parallel parking uh, spaces uh right next to the travel lanes to consider a multi-use type situation on the other side of the sidewalk or connected to the sidewalk. Um we haven't received much feedback from the applicant on that. Uh um I I don't think they have much interest in that, but that is something that we have um asked the applicant to consider. Okay. All right. So while we're in traffic, maybe I uh dig a little bit deeper. So assuming the uh density stay as what it proposed, your your trip gen will be the same. What is the benefit moving that major collector for where they propose to further uh further further east to the the transportation master plan? Thank you. Um that's something that we've actually asked the the developer to provide a schematic of okay what's the the benefit of the two locations. They've showed us that it works at Rome but per our master plan we want to see that kind of the circulation and see okay show us that it is actually better. Um the way we're seeing is with Cornonado having that the development along the east side there. pushing it all to the center. Whereas having a local road through the center and then major collector on the side, they can help distribute their traffic better. They can have multiple points of ingress and egress out of the different housing blocks. Right now it's all a lot of securious movement to get to the homes. Um so that is some we have some definitely some circulation concerns there. The nice thing about Coronado, it is at the half mile which does provide a little more separation at the different points of entry in there. Uh you look a little bit farther out how it connects into right now Rome connects into Mercy which is the whole Santan area with the way the freeway came in and how things got developed. We have some traffic issues there that are our own, but putting Rome through into Mercy an already congested area whereas Coronado kind of shifts and goes down and accesses Valvest on a different road. So kind of the overall circulation system appears to be slightly better but it hasn't been a compar comparative analysis has not been provided. Okay. Thank you. Thank you commissioner. Anyone else? Commissioner Davian. Yeah, since we're on that uh topic of uh Coronado and I guess it's 156th Street on the south and Coronado on the north and the developer has uh agreed to pave part of the north and part of the south. That's an actual street on the map that you said is eventually going to have to be paved. Whose responsibility is that going to be since they're not doing their half if that street does go through? Who's going to pick up the tab for that to complete that street? Well, he said it might at some point in time be connected. It'd be the responsibility of the development to put it as it stands per our code, the developer would be responsible for putting in their portions of the street. They're requesting not to put it in with the assumption that it would never go in. Whereas the town stance is that it is on a master plan. Not only would Coronado go all the way through, but Partridge would also go all the way through east west as well. I don't think that but I don't think that's the question. It if it doesn't if it goes in now, it's the developer's responsibility. If it doesn't go in now and this develops and it goes in 10 years from now for I don't think you're going to have the land for it, but then it would be the city's responsibility, wouldn't it? It would be the city's responsibility. And right now the development is not proposing the half street rightaway width to allow so we'd have to shift over to more to Mesa um to put it through and it be on the the town's responsibility and cost. So it's kind of up in the air if that's ever going to be completed. Is that correct? I guess if it doesn't go within with this development per our request then yes it would be up in the air it would ever get connected. Okay, I have just a second basic question. You said that the lower 75% doesn't fit in with the Santan character area and that and you indicated with what you u how you described this northern 25% even fits in less. Was there any discussion on trying to merge those two so they kind of float better together? Uh chairman um Commissioner Diggerina yes that would be our preference. I mean obviously we feel there's too much density in this development. Um we have expressed those concerns that uh that south half is is is way far beyond the density that we typically see in the Santan character area and it doesn't really exist in really anywhere else in in the Santan character area. We have had some of those discussions with the developer of of of trying to uh uh decrease the density, but uh obviously as you can see in the plan in front of you, we're kind of at um um a standstill on that. We're still trying to to to have ongoing and further discussions on that, but um this is the plan that they want to move forward with. So, um, they want that that higher level of density in the north half, but in that Santan character area piece, we would like to see le much less density to be honest with you. Thank you. Can I follow up in just a minute? Um, Commissioner Davis. Um, thank you, Chair. Um Keith, I have a question and maybe transportation as well related to the future expansion of the soccer fields existing and will that be will the extension of Coronado is that desired to go through for future access to that to accommodate the soccer fields in the future? Is it needed for that? Because right now it's kind of ignoring that side of the development is ignoring the soccer fields. Um, I know there there has been conversations with them and with Mesa for their water treatment plant. I know Mesa is interested in having a future secondary access their treatment facility there. Right now there is a fence around the soccer fields. Um, I was part of those conversations but my recollection is it would not the plan is not to connect through there partly also for I know that's be impact on the homes there. Um my understanding is at this time is not to connect. Okay. Vice chair or did or actually Commissioner Wang, why don't you go ahead real quick? Yeah. Um I hear a lot about the Senten character area. Can you can you help me understand a bit better? Is this a requirement for a certain number of drawing unit per acre or is that just a whole area feeling to fit this type of uh density? Uh chair m commissioner wang that that's a very good question. So the Santan character area is is by by goal and by vision create in our general plan sets sets forth goals and policies for creating this whole area and and what we would like it to how we would like it to uh to be developed in the land use patterns and the density. And in that that document it states that um the overall goal is about what the the three and a half two to three and a half million units breaker for the whole Santan character area in order to create that vision of a more I know there's some a lot of urbanization that's happened over the years in the Santan character area but it was originally founded on a more agrarian um there was a lot of farming that happened in that area in the past and to kind of pay homage to the past and to our agrarian historical type roots. We want to make sure that this area and the whole Santan character area is not as dense as certain other areas in the town. Um and so we would like to have a target density of like I stated about two to three and a half dwelling units per acre. And you really don't see anywhere else in the Santan character area where you have all these apartment complex. You don't have a lot of apartment complexes and a lot of higher density residential. You see suburban shopping commercial centers, but it is a goal and a vision to to make sure that that we pay um respects to our agrarian roots to make sure that it has a different character and it feels different. It's a they're guiding principles. It's not like it's a 100% requirement, but it's a guiding principle to help that area maintain a different character than the rest of the town or certain areas of the town. We have the Morrison Ranch character area. We have the Gateway character area. And they all have a certain look and a certain feel. So that's what we're trying to create in the Santan character area. We want it to be different. So unique and different. So it's not really a hard line because you you mentioned two to three and a half because that's a big different two to three and a half and then it's not really a standard or a hot line that you draw. It's just a visions that we want to feel in this area. Uh Chairman, Commissioner Wang, that's correct. It's it's it's a it's a vision that we have and we've been able to maintain that vision for the most part. There could be some spots in the Santank Eric area that that may be a little bit higher on the density range, but town staff has been very successful at making sure that vision stays intact. And that is the goal on this property is to make sure that vision is adhered to or else what's the point of creating a character area. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Vice Chair. Did you have anything? Thank you. Quite a lot. Um, sorry. Um, sorry, Keith. I was making notes all over. So, my comments are going to be and questions are going to be a little disjointed and jumping around here for a for a second. Um, but in terms of the character area, I met with the developer yesterday and I think that they have a different impression of what the character area was, how how it was described kind of more that their impression is that it's more overall. Now admittedly that if that factors in the density of the adjacent soccer fields and water treatment plant that kind of gets a little silly, but I would ask that um we we know before this item comes forward again that we really nail down are we certain our interpretate our city's the town's interpretation is is right. Um or if not, why not um drill into that a little bit? But I I agree with where you're coming from that yeah, this is well density well above the character area. Is it the character area as a whole or for this project is kind of the I think the philosophical debate on that. Is that a fair statement? Um Chair Mont, Commissioner Fay, it's a fair statement. We we are current we've currently tasked our our GIS team with to check to run an analysis on the entire every property in the Santan Carrick area to find out what the densities are on like this is a half section piece of land 311 acres. How does this compare to other properties of the same size? Um and we're looking at that right now. We're trying to find out what that overall density is and and and see I'm we're going to look at are there projects or properties that exceed the 2 to three and a half. We don't know all that information yet. There could be not sure but we would like to maintain that on this property. Um we know there's not a lot of land left in the Santan character area. We get that understand that. Will this project be the lynch pin that pushes it the Santan character area as a whole over that baseline of two to three and a half? I don't know. We're still We'll have to bring some more of that information back to you. Um I I find it hard to believe that it would, but you don't see a lot of developments with this much density in the Santan character area. You don't really see barely any apartment complexes. There may be a few, but not many. We don't see alley loaded product. There may be some, but I don't believe there is in in the Santan character area. So, this is kind of pushing the envelope of of that crystal ball or that vision, as you've heard me say many times, for the Santan character area that we've been able to maintain to make it unique or to make it different than other areas of the town. And we just don't see that this fits the bill as a whole. Understood. Uh, interestingly, as as much as I kind of push back on a lot of these things, the two pieces of this that I have less problem with are the two highest density pieces on the north end. Um, the multif family high is kind of tucked into a commercial kind of fits and uh than the other ones. The other one the other apartment building as I understand it is actually north of the Santan character area. I mean barely, but um so that's that's one or another. Okay. I actually kind of like the central cord, that central spine, that central collector street. I think it's kind of a aestheticyish feature feature. I I've talked to uh traffic engineering about they're using non-standard crosssections. Um the applicant said they're making them bigger, but they've added the on street parking, which adds a lot of dimension. So, I I've asked when this comes forward for real or before this comes forward for real, I'd like to see a real accurate sideby-side comparison of what they're proposing versus our standard cross-section. If if anyone it to me it's a pretty substantial burden to not use a if you're going to narrow or eliminate features on a standard cross-section to get to do that. I mean, I I could get it if you have to weave between an SRP easement and an RWCD canal or something, but in general, narrowing or eliminating features is a pretty high burden to get over. On the other hand, widening, usually it's because you want aesthetic or Morrison Ranch, you want to put in a median. That's that's easier to sell. Um, this one widens, but it also adds on street parking, which adds a lot of feet, a lot more feet, more than the widening they're doing. So something's got to be and I didn't have time to get through the to doing that myself. Um that's the standard features. But then okay then we get to that I I think the central spine is kind of tied to that eastern boundary road Coronado and ordinarily it's in the transportation master plan. Put it in dude. Just do it. You got to pay for your half street. There are two arguments against it from what I see. The first is if you if you look at the mirror image of this project on the other side of Val Vista, on the west side of Val Vista, what they're proposing to do basically for the section mirrors what's on the other side. Um, and not mirrors, but it's it's very similar. or whoever did the development on the west side of Val Vista essentially moved what would be a straight collector half street and did some kind of art I don't say artistic but weavy kind of road that's a little closer to a quarter section or a quarter section um thing and then didn't put in the half street half mile street and then the second uh what was the second piece oh the 156 Coronado alignment it really doesn't go through it. It dead ends about a/4 mile south of this property or it basically dead ends a/4 mile or so south of this property and it it doesn't dead end but it turns west about a quarter mile or so north of this property. So it's not like it's a regional thing. On the other hand, from a regional flow perspective, it kind of should be there. And if it was there one, they're never going to put in the half street without when once they're gone. And it would take the Perry tra the Perry high school traffic load off of that central spine that I think is going to get jammed up in the middle of the afternoon when I mean I remember how I drove as a teenager. It's not wasn't pretty. Um and without that there there's basically no connectivity out of this community to the east which they don't really have to go to anything in the east. There's soccer fields and the water treatment plant and a cemetery, but you some people would at least probably come in and go out that direction I think. Um, so I'm I'm torn about that. I I I I go back and forth on that East Coronado. Um, I I kind of like that that central I don't remember what the name of it is. Uh, the road in the middle, but it doesn't by by itself it doesn't justify to me eliminating Coronado altogether. which which actually um the public meeting or the comment we got the the comments from the soccer field manager don't make any sense to me. Um what's the problem with twotory buildings overlooking a soccer I mean I get if you're overlooking the neighbor's house and you're concerned that they're going to violate your privacy but what's the problem with them overlooking a soccer field? Uh, Chair M, Commissioner Fay, they're we've had brief conversations with them about it, but they're just concerned with with the lights glaring into people's second story type windows and things like that. So, they're concern they're not concerned with what the development's going to do to them. They're concerned with what they're going to do to the development. Yeah, I guess if you want to put it that way. They're concerned they're going to get a lot of complaints. I I guess I can see that. That doesn't seem to me to be the developer's problem. Yeah, I we understand that. Um, we totally understand that. Okay, fair enough. But they're they're they're I mean they're pre-existing and they they don't want to be bad ne they don't want people to think they're bad neighbors or and so forth, but I mean they have some other concerns that we haven't we haven't uh brought forward yet, but we will at another time. But okay. Um open space they they're failing to meet it in some portions, but overall they're still meeting or better. It's just that some of it's too far away is kind of the is that my impression? Yeah. Uh, chairman, commissioner Fay, the only as a whole the neighborhood it's like 26% open space which about what 15% or so is required per the code. So they do exceed it as a development of a whole as a whole. The only portion of the development that does not is the MFH which they want to reduce it from 45% that's required down to like 26% for the MFH parcel only. But as a whole it does meet it. Okay. it it exceeds it. I I got to tell I'm usually not that if if they've if they're making up for it elsewhere on the property, I usually don't from my perspective. I usually don't care that much. Um it's just me, but hey, hey, we'll we'll pay you we'll pay you back two for one if you count some of this stuff a few you know few hundred feet down the road. That to me doesn't seem like a a big a big bad thing to me. Um I'm looking at the various deviations. Um some good, some bad. I'll tell you that that 60 to 80 foot on the throat that that to me seems kind of meaningless. Um it's right by that gas station part. It's a right in right out. That's I would think traffic engineering you guys could work that one out pretty easily. Um the ones on the lot size seem a little or the lot size ones are significant. The lot dimensions I think are kind of meaningless if you're um if you're if if we don't have any set lot dimensions, but we do have a lot a set lot size and they're willing to well we want to deviate down on the lot size and we'll grant you the dimensions. I don't know that that's a a really a I mean yeah you no one's going to put in a 1600 by one foot lot. So granting that those minimum deviations is is not really a I don't know that that's even a a thing. Um the throat I'm not worried about that open space all over the place. Um I made a comment about the um and about the deviations. I don't think the homes the 10 foot or the less than 10 foot. I don't think that that's I I think there are some places where they're talking about going down to under 10 foot but I don't think any of that's along the collector streets. Is it uh Chairman, Commissioner Fay? Um some of those are those those um those single family um detached homes that I like to call the row the row homes. Um they want to go from the setback is supposed to be zero on one side and like five on the other. And what that what that does is that creates a 10-ft or actually a wider space to where they can comply with our our um patio requirements where they need to have like a 6ft deep patio that has a a cover over it. And if they go five feet on one on each side, they can't comply with that standard. So, normally what we see is in these situations, in these types of developments, you'll see the developer go zero on one side, then they'll have 10 on the other and then they can fit the required patio in. In this situation, they won't be able to fit that covered patio. They're actually, they'd actually be proposing, we went to Mesa and saw their homes, they proposing no cover over the patio, maybe like a foot if that, over the entrance door that leads to a sideyard, which is a which is a private open space area. So that wouldn't afford them to be able to do that. I I'm not advocating for any of the downward deviations. Sometimes we can accept, some, sometimes we can't. I I usually actually kind of defer to you guys on that one, but I'm saying that I don't think any of the downward deviations are against the collector street. Are they? Um, Commissioner Fay, I' I'd have to look more into exactly where they where they are. Some of them might be. I think they are. some of those row homes ones are, but the rest of them I'm not I don't remember off the top of my head. I'd have to look into it a little more. Okay. Okay. That um I think it's spread out around the it's spread out throughout the single family. Okay. And I just want to this isn't this is a I this is probably my la this is my last point, but it's kind of a minor one. We keep referring to the Mesa plant. I think it's a joint plant, isn't it? Mesa brought the most money to it, but I think Chandler, Gilbert, Mesa, they all I mean there's a reason it's here. I think all the cities use it, don't they? Uh, uh, Chair Chair, um, Vice Chair Fay, what? So, excuse me. What are you talking about again? The plant, the water treatment plant. The water treatment plant. It's not just a Mesa plant. I think they're the the administrators of it because they brought the most money to it. But I remember I was running capital improvement in Chandler when it was being built and we were contributing money to it and I think I assume Gilbert was too. Vice Chair Fay, to be honest with you, I'm not I'm not even sure. I don't know much about that plant at all. All I know is it's there. It's all I know about it. It's not I don't think it's just I don't think it's Mesa's plant. I I mean, clearly it's quite a ways from Mesa. It's Town of Gilbert's plant, but I don't know who also what what else feeds into that jurisdiction. It's a joint plant. It's um I think that interesting the the Coronado is getting built by the cemetery. They're kind of the ones who lead the need it the least. Um yeah, that that resolved that's all my comments and questions. All right. Thank you. Um, I know that, uh, we all had a lot of questions and I just wanted to note that the developer was here. It's not standard to bring them up. However, if there's questions that you felt they might be able to better answer, I wanted to at least address that opportunity. Does anybody opposed or would anybody like to have the developer explain any of this? I don't need it. Sorry. I think maybe just to answer Commissioner Fay's question with regards to the setback or the frontage on the on the collector there. Yeah. And and I if and I'll just I I'll just put two things out and Keith and then we'll give u Mr. Ray a moment. But when we talk about the density of this parcel, I just want to understand, are we looking at it as the whole parcel including this commercial on top or is it saying that everything south of the Mason Dixon line there is in the Santan and therefore that's the density? Um, chair, um, we looked at the density as as that 5.64 includes the commercial, includes everything. It's gross acreage of everything. I mean it would the density if you included just the residential I I don't I haven't crunched those numbers so I don't know what it would be included the commercial too because I know we've talked a bit about the character area but then there's the top 20 30% of the site that I just want I I wanted to be sure I had a clear picture of that. Um, so the layout the road it sounds like a a major lynch pin of this is both the developers contention that they don't want that collector there then moving it in. How much of the uh disagreement I or how would you like to say it? If the middle road was not in fact a collector and it was set up with the setbacks low lesser and the alleyway homes and things like how much does creating a collector next to these exacerbate what would be the problem or would it not be a problem if it was not a collector? Does that how can it not be a collector if the other I'm saying that if they actually had to put in that other road it would still be it would still I guess that's a question would that still be a collector chair munt um yeah there's two different issues of the overall size one kind of the densities Keith was mentioning but then also the circulation so having cornado would open up some more circulation to the east um we recommend this being a a smaller road then allowing it be more of a local road, trying not to encourage more of those reduced traffic things. Um that way they could have the on start parking there and so that would alleviate a lot of our concerns, but it depends on what's the cross-section they were trying to go for here, right? And if they want to maintain that wide full large cross-section collector style road here, we'd still have our concerns about our standards and meeting our standards and safety concerns with those. Right. Understood. Okay. Thank you. Um, yeah. I you know the the question that I have too is just and I'd want clarity on when this comes forward would be just you know a very intensive illustration on a traffic study of what this is going to impact and I know that the developer has talked about it and that would likely be a part of it. But I I just really want to understand with a cemetery and no traffic coming from the fields and a waste and a water treatment plant. um no traffic will be coming directly from that other side which leaves then the high school which you know they are American citizens so we can't denigrate them like Vice Chair Fay for being a hoodlm but nonetheless I want to understand how many of those trips would come out um because I don't think many will come from the uh cemetery or the fields and whatnot but nonetheless I also then just wanted to bring Um, Mr. Ray, just to answer that question and then if there was any other question that could help us as we, you know, do this because it seems like a pretty big issue to me of the the roadway and everything. Thank you, chair, members of the commission, Brennan Ray, 2325 East Camelback. Thank you for the opportunity. I will um I will address the question that was asked relative to Collector Road. First and foremost, um, with respect to, uh, setbacks or deviations, we are not requesting any for those homes, uh, the alley homes that front on the collector, nor to the town homes. Uh and in response to uh the comment about you know um staff was um there's been so many discussions going on on things that sometimes things get lost in the details and and and our setback for those alley homes uh the ones on the west side of Rome Street is not 10 feet uh it is actually 15 feet uh and so we have increased those setbacks. Additionally, in that particular area wanting to separate private from public open space, um we have u put we're going to put a low fence there as well. Um and so with respect to the to the setbacks, we are not or deviations. We are not requesting any for any of those collector roads. We've tried to minimize uh it and tried to design that road in such a fashion consistent with other developments. Uh we've taken the good and the bad from other developments relative to this collector road. Uh someone mentioned Agritopia. We're all aware of Morrison Ranch and homes running on to collectors in Morrison Ranch as well. Uh and tried to create a a better way to do things uh with respect to um Rome and how these homes front on to it. Um, similarly with the bike lanes, I know we've we've talked a bit about that. Again, focusing on the alley homes and the impact that that community might have. We know very well that there's parallel parking that exists uh within the town uh exists in Kulie station on Williamsfield Road where you have parallel parking, a bike lane and two lanes of traffic on a very busy arterial street. I know that that condition of of parallel parking, bike lanes and collectors is not unique to what we are proposing here. I know for example it exists in downtown Chandler as well. And so again as we look at the design of it trying to keep safety at paramount that's why we've designed it recognizing that we do have homes fronting on to it. We've designed it with um pop outs um and very purposefully designed those to where they will throw it down to slow the traffic. Um we are as concerned about safety on the road as the town is and believe that um again with homes fronting on to it, not only the alleys but the town homes that we're doing that. Additionally um we are providing a multi-use path um contrary to what uh was indicated uh in your plans on the cross-section plan. There is an 8-foot multi-use trail um path that exists on the west side, excuse me, on the east side of Coronado. Coronado of Rome Street. And so again, hopefully that kind of addresses the question about safety, security of those homes that front onto Rome Street relative to setbacks and stuff like that. Um, happy to uh answer any additional questions that you feel are necessary as you guys consider this. Thank you, sir. Anyone else have any clarifying you want while we have him? All right. Well, very good. Thank you, Mr. Wright. Appreciate it. Um, well, this is study session, so I think, you know, given what we've said thus far, and I recognize that as they're working through it. Uh, but in closing, does anyone else have any additional guidance? Commissioner Davis, please go ahead. Thank you, Chair. Um, I just asked a question earlier. I do have a few things, um, I wanted to note. Um I um echo a lot of what Commissioner Bay said about the Santan character area just um as far as my position on that. Um one thing that I don't think we really got into is why there's not an access point provided on the south end to Coronado like there is on the north. I think that would be really important. I think everything being funneled over to that collector, it's a lot. And I think that's get I just I think there needs to be another reliever on that east side, whether that be the street going all the way through or at a minimum that we see that at both ends that somebody could go that direction to get out of their neighborhood um and not having to just all be pushed over to that um collector street. I have mixed feelings on the houses facing the collector. I think all of the things that they've added with the parallel parking and the um bumpouts for landscaping, those things will slow people down and I think that's necessary if you're going to have houses facing that. I would prefer to see those houses pulled back a little bit. I do appreciate they've added a low wall to separate those homes, but um so I I think some of those mitigating factors to reduce speeds are necessary if you're going to have houses facing that street. Um, so I think those are some good things. Um, but I can see where they're concerned that there's a lot happening. A kid runs out, there's a car in the way, there's a bicycle bike bicyclist coming. You've got, you know, a lot of activity happening, but hopefully that's slowing down traffic and makes it for a better situation. Um, and let's see. As far as the reductions that they're requesting, I'm never huge on asking for a whole bunch of deviations. Um, I'd like them to be really thoughtful about which deviations they ask for and to show us what we're getting to offset those deviations in the quality of the overall development. So, I really think we need to be getting great quality to offset any deviations that they're requesting. and I think they should show that to us. So, um, with that, I think I covered my comments. So, thank you. Thank you very much, Commissioner Davis. Vice Chair FY, I think. I I addressed all my details, but uh, it just in kind of a closing. Um, there's a lot going on on this one, and there's a lot of open open-ended pieces on this one. I put a lot of difference on state on on staff opinions and expertise, but I'm also a pretty radical free market libertarian capitalist that gives a lot of difference to the landowner. And I think I mean if if you bring it to us in this condition, we'll decide. But I think we'd all like to the extent able you guys, you know, it looks like there's a lot of work to do on this before it comes forward. Uh there's there's a lot of pieces that are still not not fitting into the the puzzle. So, good luck before it comes forward. If it if it comes forward like this, we'll decide. We just I think I I speak for the group. We'd rather not. We'd rather we'll decide, but we'd rather decide something that's more focused if possible. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Chair, Commissioner Hang. kind of closing um there are a lot of talk about the density and the senten character area and all this I'm just leave it as it is I do have the pressure to read the traffic report there are quite a bit of comments uh between the town uh traffic engineers um about the access point on that main corridor uh collector um on Queen you have four traffic signal within half a mile and that's a lot and putting that access point over there the left turn uh base it's really short that need to worked out. So there are a lot of detail in terms of traffic. Uh you know encourage the developer work out with the the town staff. Um you know our town is getting more and more congested with the traffic with more population. That's just the nature it is. And we have an opportunity in here to to make this not only work for the existing um resident but also the future resident as well. So I strongly encourage to work out some of those detail when this push forward. Uh in terms of on street parking, I'm not a big fans of putting a bite right next to on street parking. It exists in a lot of area including some of those uh arterial but the character of the cyclists are different. usually are more mature uh experienced cyclists on the arterial street but here we're talking about neighborhood with kids and family and and those are immature cyclists so you know I encourage to maybe look at alternative uh crosssections you know look for you know share path bike link and uh um pedestrians uh sidewalk uh and then put the uh on street parking and traveling on one side. So, uh that's my my two cents. Thank you, Commissioner White. Well, Commissioner Diggerina, you want to close out? He said enough. Perfect. All right. Well, we've uh gone extraordinarily over. Um I I'll just echo the sentiments that I think that there's some work to do. However, I want to say that nobody mentioned that. I don't believe that there's any commercial here and they took an added commercial, which we usually take the flogging stick to developers for changing anything and that they actually added commercial. So, I just want to get that onto the record that uh they did that and that that gets into, you know, and Vice Chair Fay had said that there's there's trade-offs and we all understand that. And so as looking at this, I think there's been some acquiescence of that. Um, but at the same time you know, with the issues that exist and the st, you know, the standoff or the the differences of opinion between the staff and the developer, I hope they can, you know, massage some of those out like a fine piece of clay. But I will say this that in the fear of anyone else deciding to take that road as a collector, um, at least in my demographic, if I drive down and there's a bunch of bike lanes and people parallel parking and the scooters flying all around, I avoid that like the plague. So that might be part of what their traffic dampening is is by making it so that um, yeah, I I I just I happen to be like George Carlin. Anyone going slower than me is an idiot. Anyone faster is a maniac. And so I I tend to stay out of these types of areas. But that being said, I will uh move on from this agenda item. Thank you all very much and thanks to the developer representative um for showing up to help some clarity here. And we'll move on to item number two in the discussion of the regular meeting agenda that uh of course for our many fans online of note that we're a little bit late on. So on the agenda, we have the consent of item six, Sheffield Place and item seven, the Mogul Payne Middle School broadleaf tree. Um I know that uh Commissioner Davis uh has to recuse herself from number six or not recuse, I'm sorry, has requested to remove item six from consent. She does not need a presentation or um any of that but just has some statements has an opinion. Yeah, she will be heard. Um so that is going to be removed and then I know on the regular agenda we have eight and nine are the LDC text amendments and there was some discussion that we can move that. Is there anyone here in the sea of individuals here in the chambers that would wishes to speak on either the text amendment items eight or nine through the clamoring? I do not see anyone. So we may be able to or is anyone against moving those to the consent like at a wedding you got to speak now or I think those are those are two very straightforward. They're in response to state law changes that it seems to me they're killer made for consent unless someone has a problem with them. Okay. And then with item seven as a continuence, is that allowed to just stay there then or do I have to remove that as well and then make a motion on to continue it. See Elena, she's those attorney wheels are turning now. I think to be consistent, I've asked that it be done separately. Okay. So, well, if that's the How long is this one going to keep, I guess, till July 9th? Do we just keep continuing that once a month or can we just put it when we think it's going to happen? That's what we're doing it, but we're doing it by the rules. So, everything's off consent and then the LDC is on. So, we're doing a full inversion. I'm talking about future agenda instead of July and August continuing it till the next meeting. Could we stay on task? We're only talking about this agenda, vice chair. Thank you, sir. All right. Well, with that then I will adjourn this study session. Thank you all for your input and participation and we will take a very brief 5 minutes to stretch and enjoy some water and we'll see you back here for the regular programming. Thank you. Nobody else. No. All right. Now that we are all back and ready for action, I will call to order the regular meeting. Uh oh, wait. Ashley's not here. I'm going to retract my calling to order because I think she needs to watch. No, it's you can see Keith here. Oh, Keith is a problem. It has to do with additional bloation outside of the No, no. I'm just I'm just picking on Keith because he knows I love him. Thanks for joining us. Okay, now that the fearless leader has arrived, I will call this meeting to order. Uh, first item of on the agenda will be the pledge of allegiance. Please rise and join me. Thank you all. May I please get a roll call? Alternate Commissioner Hong, I'm here. Alternate Commissioner Lion. Uh, Commissioner Deg Graina here. Commissioner Gage here. Commissioner Davis here. Commissioner Simon here. Commissioner Anderson. Vice Chair Fay. Yeah. And Chairman Munt. Vice Chair steals my jokes here. I we have a quorum. Thank you. Thank you very much. All right. Moving on next to the approval of the agenda which we discussed at length and we'll be doing a uh full inversion. So item six and seven that are currently on the consent will be moved from the consent and item eight and nine will be moved to consent from non-consent. So, unless there's any further discussion, um, chair, I move to Do I have to do a motion for this? Yes, please. I move to remove six and seven from consent and to move eight and nine onto consent. Thank you, Vice Chair. We have a motion. Do I have a second? Second. Second from Commissioner Simon. Please cast your vote. Motion carries 70. Okay. We now have communications. Communications from citizens. At this time, members of the public may comment on matters within the jurisdiction of the planning commission and the commission may not discuss items that are not specifically identified on the agenda. Therefore, pursuant to state law, action taken as a result of public comment will be limited to directing staff to study the matter. responding to any criticism or scheduling the matter for further consideration. That being said, we do have one card here. Um, Cody Burr, and he just would like to speak. So, Cody, please come up. You can hit the button and then uh take three minutes, sir, or state your name and and your uh place of residence. Sounds great. Uh, my name is Cody Burr. I'm a resident of Gilbert. I live uh 1385 East Chestnut Lane about a quarter mile on the souththeast corner of the Harvest Grove potential development. Just wanted to come and kind of share some additional insight that I just kind of want to put in the back of your minds as you consider approving or denying that project. So, right now, Gilbert ranks uh 100th out of the 100th largest cities uh in park access. So, US with only 65% of residents living within a 10-minute walk to a park below the national median of 75%. And before I continue, I'm not some hippie- dippy save the trees dude. Very much drill baby drill. But I think there's got to be a balance maintained between all the development that's going on in Gilbert right now and with what Gilbert used to be, the Gilbert that I grew up in, all the farmland, growing up on a dairy, growing up on a farm, it was all the heart of Gilbert. And right now only 65% of Gilbert residents uh residents live, you know, within a 10-minute walk of a park or even any even type of open land. And so as I started to look into the main general plan that was approved in 2020 for Gilbert, I started finding a lot of things that contradicted the plan that's proposed here. And I know Keith and some of the other members of the um plan came forward and mentioned some of those staff concerns and whatnot. That kind of goes against the um I guess the original plan that was voted on. Um but I would like to say that the Santan character area was designed to preserve our sonoran and rural rural agricultural roots in 2000 and and there was 6,400 acres of ag land in the SCA and now there's only less than 2,000. And so by losing another 311 acres, where are we going to draw the line? We have to draw the line somewhere and we had that hard stop in the 2020 um general plan. And so what's the point of making a general plan and setting up these different character developments if by the time push comes to shove, it's just kind of like, well, what's another little bit? What's another little bit? And then sooner we know it, we don't really have much land left. we don't really have much of our character of our culture or anything like that left. And so that's kind of what I want to bring up. Uh the goal in SCA 1.8 is to encourage development of aggra of aggra business and support existing agricultural uses. Um I'm not saying we have to completely shoot down the plan, but I'm saying maybe a portion of that acreage can be made into some type of park, maybe a lake, some fishing, all that good stuff. uh and just a place to take some good walks and to not overly congest Gilbert. I mean it feels like every single inlet of land is being developed into multif family. And so I'm finding uh myself along with many other Gilbert residents as you look on you know the Facebook, Instagram, all the other different social medias where these different projects are being like proposed or hey new development starting all the comments are just like why are they tearing up like the heritage of what made Gilbert Gilbert and um and I know that the they already addressed some traffic and infrastructure concerns and whatnot, but I would really look into that general plan And there's um at least 12 different points of hard contention that goes against the general plan that would um it just doesn't it doesn't align. And so that's kind of my main my main reason I've just come before you guys today just to kind of revisit that general plan, put it against the plan that was proposed and then really see if this is what's really necessary for Gilbert. Is more multif family necessary for Gilbert or would it be more flourishing as we continue to have more of those spaces where we could have the family roots that Gilbert grew up on? You know, being able to to enjoy the the you know where we grew up. And so that's kind of my my main thing. That's all I had. All right. Thank you very much, sir. Anyone else had wished to have any communications? I only had the one yellow card. Okay, very good. Thank you. Moving on to item number five, report from the council leaison on current events. And I noticed that council member Lions was not here. Was there any I'm online? Oh, I'm online. He's in the matrix. Sorry about that. I'm in the matrix. All right, sir. That's perfectly all right. Take it away. No, I I don't have any message at this time other than the fact that I'm here. So, thank you. Thank you, Councilman. Appreciate it. Okay, now we'll move on to the public hearing consent calendar. All items listed below are considered the public hearing consent calendar. Commission may by a single motion approve any number of items where after opening the public hearing, no person requests that item be removed from the consent calendar. Such a request is made, the commission shall withdraw the item from the public hearing consent calendar for the purpose of public discussion and separate action. Other items on the agenda may be added to the consent calendar and approved under a single motion. You'll note that we did both of these actions today. So into item first item we have on the consent calendar is item 8 Z2507 LDC text amendment and item number nine Z2504 LDC text amendment. So with these I will entertain a motion for approval of the consent calendar. Uh, Chairman Munt, I move to approve the consent agenda now consisting as revised now or as amended now consisting of items eight and nine. We have a motion. Do I have a second? I'll second. Second from Commissioner Simon. Please cast your vote. All right. Motion carries unanimously. We will now move inverted back to item number six. Well, actually, I'll tell you what. Let's do item seven first since it's a simple continuence. Um, Chairman Mont, I move to continue item 7. We have a motion for continuence of UP24-5T Mobile School SL-WCF Broadleaf Tree to July 9th, 2025. Do I have a second? Second. Second from Commissioner Simon. Once again, please cast your vote. on fire. Unanimous 70. Item number six, S24-06 Sheffield Place. This is a request to approve preliminary plat and open space plan for K Hovian homes. 66 67 home lots and approximately 10.97 acres generally located southeast of the intersection of Gilbert Road and Civic Center Drive pending a resoning to single family detached SFD with a planned area development pad overlay. Uh I know that uh Commissioner Davis had something she would like to say on this and I will also open it to anyone else if uh you do. But thank you chair. I just wanted to state that I pulled it from consent because last month um when we saw the zoning case for this um I was not supportive of the project. Um my um biggest concern related to the allocation of the open space. Um therefore I'm not going to be supporting the preliminary plat and open space plan. All right. Thank you commissioner. Anyone else have any input? Yes. I Commissioner Davina. Yeah. Thank you Chair. I feel the same way. uh last month I wasn't able to support it. Uh my concerns I felt it was a very crowded development and uh for those reasons I can't support it today. Thank you. Thank you sir. Um for the interest I'm going to open up the public hearing just to do that and confirm. Is there anyone here that wishes to speak on this item? Um Sheffield Place. Okay. Well then very good. I will then close the public hearing and then bring it back up and we'll continue our discussion. Uh, Vice Chair Fay, so last month I we jokingly I I referred to it as my calibrated eye. I looked at this and said, "Man, there's no way this is 20 or 19% open space." Um, I drilled pretty hard into it. It's It is 19%. I um I don't like the way it looks. It looks kind of tent Hell's Kitchen tenement, but it does meet the uh it met the standard. I still have a lot of concerns about the parking, but I think my concern is really with the way city code allows parking to be calculated. Um, I think this is going to be a mess in terms of parking and particularly the uh the garbage parking that they get 10 more spaces on non-parking. Now, that's going to be a that's going to be a disaster, but I don't think they're counting those 10 spaces as part of their minimum. I think that's in addition. I think to to some degree what their answer would be is legitimately if you think that's so bad we're just going to write it off and I think they could do that. I think that this is a poster child for why in some narrow circumstances the city's land development code related to parking is is too narrowly drawn. But that said, um, they made it as is my So, it's a I I go back and forth, but I think it's a I I'll I may have to hold my nose, but I I would vote for it probably. Thank you, Vice Chair. Anyone else? Okay. Well, in in that case, um, I will open it up for a motion, whichever way anyone feels. I'll make a motion to approve S24-06 Sheffield Place Preliminary Platin Open Space Plan. We have a motion for approval from Commissioner Gage. Do I have a second? I'll second. Commissioner Simon coming through with the second. Any further discussion from anyone? Not seeing any. Please cast your vote. narrow four to three squeaks by pass. Very good. Thank you all very much for the input. Back to the agenda where we will move on to the administrative items and we'll just move on to the first item 10 planning commission minutes. consider the approval of the minutes of the study session and regular meeting from May 7th, 2025. Uh, I have those minutes here. I think they're all in our packets. Hope everyone had a chance to review them. Does anyone have any comments or amendments that they felt were required? If not, I would entertain a motion. Chair, I'll make a motion to approve minutes as written. We have a motion for approve from Commissioner Simon and a second from the vice chair Fay. Please cast your vote. Motion carries 70. Back to the unanimous consensus building. All right, we'll move into the communications. There is no executive session, so we will have a report from chairman and members of the commission on current events. Does anybody have anything they would like to share? Good. All right, doing great. We will move then straight on to item 12, the final item on the agenda, which is the report from the planning services manager on current events and Miss Ashley. The only report I have is that this is Ava's last week um officially. So, uh we just want to thank her once again for her leadership and mentorship over the years. I don't remember there being cake. It can't be official until there's cake and flowers. I Yeah, I I would I don't know if I'm if if this is a chair has to do this. I would like to move that we extend a permanent invitation that she be invited back for the dinner and I mean the meeting too. She's a member of the Gilbert. She can always come to the meeting but that that we extend that there's a special line on the agenda that Ava can come to the dinner beforehand. This is this gets into much different budgetary a lotments than the chair is willing to uh interject his authority into at this point. Uh, I have some fundamental, you know, uh, beliefs in that arena, but, uh, nonetheless, yes, thank you very much. And please enjoy the flowers from several months ago when we thought it was your last day. Um, and don't forget that those flowers did exist. They did. Yeah. I just want to put that on the public comment for the many people viewing this on YouTube later down the road in perpetuity that they know flowers were delivered because we uh, we do love Ava. So, thank you very much. All right. Well, then with that, do I need a motion for This has been contentious. I don't know. I'll make a motion to We got a motion from Commissioner Simon for adjournment. Adjournment. And we have a second from the vice chair. If you could all please cast your vote. I can raise my gavl. We got a six to one. Still a high note. Great meeting. Thank you all very much. always difficult. No, it wasn't me.