e e e e okay well it's 5:30 I'm going to call to order the study session um Eva do you know is commissioner Anderson going to be here chairman I believe he will be here he has not mentioned that he wouldn't make it okay here he is have the record show that commissioner Anderson is in the building all right very good well we will then call it to order and our first item on the agenda is dr24 d24 Aldi Gilbert and Mr Keith Newman chair Simon members of the commission good evening my uh first I can hear some weird feedback okay I won't worry about it then my uh first project before you tonight is um Aldi Gilbert as you stated see if I can get this clicker to work nope won't work there we go perfect thank you so the Aldi Gilbert site um is located at the southwest corner of Arizona Avenue and um Desert Lane as you can see on the screen in front of you um if you will recall this project this site is part of a master site plan let's see if I can get it to move again nope it's not working again okay there we go so the request obviously is for design review uh case to develop a 19423 foot Aldi grocery store um and like I was saying if you the if you recall this site is part of an overall or larger Master site plan um that is 10 acres in size on the site the Aldi site is 3.63 acres and you can see it there up along Arizona Avenue the the overall Master site plan is also contains or consists of a multifam high apartment complex that was approved sometime last year for um a four-story apartment complex the site is zoned um General commercial um the building which I've already stated is little over 19,000 ft in size and you can see that building on the site towards the south end of the site in the parking field to the north the site will have 94 parking spaces there's two access points into this project site one off of Arizona Avenue in that South um West corner and then you have another access off of a shared access point off of that the northeast corner it's shared with the apartment complex um as I I would just like to point out really quick that since this is part of a master site plan you will see that there is a pedestrian connectivity um or connection point between the Aldi that connects the Aldi to the multif family apartment complex and you can kind of see it at that northwest corner of the building um on the you can't see it really that much better on the landscape plan um but that has a sidewalk that goes over the drive a and it leads to an open space area that um the apartment complex will build what you see there on their property some trees and some land landcaping there but then there is a um kind of a little Courtyard on the multif family parcel that has some fire pits and some benches and some hammocks and a lot of trees and things like that that that the public could could uh access if they wanted to so that's kind of how we ensured that the two projects were horizontally um integrated with one another so as far as the landscape plan is concerned um there's um 37.1 % open space and that is all those open space areas are located in the parking lot you have that nice little sidewalk on the North that leads out to Desert Lane with a lot of landscaping um and then Landscaping along the perimeters of the site along Desert Lane and Arizona Avenue of course and of course along the southern boundary as a buffer two rows of trees to the apartment complex that is to the South and I already mentioned the Landscaping along the western boundary that helps kind of integrate this site with the the multif family apartment complex um the building elevations they're approximately 25 ft tall at the midpoint of that slope roof and the roofing is generally flat um with a pitched Tower over that main entryway of the building uh the main materials of the building are ephus um and you have some fiber cement paneling and some masonry veneer and you can see that on these elevations um the elevation that's to the South not South excuse me to the East and you can see on the bottom of the screen is the elevation that is facing the multif family apartment complex and we required that they upgrade that with all of that cement fiber paneling and some of the the stone so that it um has a better um visual appeal next to the apartment complex they do have loading docks back there which are screened with 14t tall Gates because they're within they're closer than 100t to the the residentials uh property but they are screening that with those Gates so that it's not um uh a visual negative if you will um the the materials and colors are all similar and or are complimentary to the apartment complex building and that was one thing that we wanted to accomplish with this uh project so that that actually concludes my my presentation and and the main reason I'm coming before you tonight is because the applicant would like to U move forward with CDs at risk we don't we're in second review right now uh we don't have a lot of concerns with the design of the side or the building but the applicant wanted us to um on their behalf uh ask if if you were okay with them moving forward with CDs at risk so that um includes my presentation and I'm open for any questions that you may have thank you awesome thank you Keith anyone have any questions or comments for Keith uh commissioner Fay please Keith when this came forward before um we had some design stipulations that we did not attach at the time because they would come forward at the design if I recall they were related mostly to parking on Desert Lane um we didn't attach any of them and with the northward orientation of the building it might be a moot point have those been addressed um chairm um commissioner Fay yes they have been addressed because they never the apartment complex decided to eliminate parking along Desert Lane so there will no longer be parking along Desert Lane it's a mood Point yes correct wasn't there another stipulation too I don't remember what it I I believe there was a stipulation concerning that Drive Entrance on the far East Side if I remember of the apartment complex oh you're right um I can't remember exactly what the stipulation was anymore but that has been addressed with the design review of the multif family apartment complex you're right it basically yeah we stipulated that it had to line up with the road and it to the extent it's a to it does okay and and they did receive a technical variance for that okay that addresses all my concerns okay thank you sir any others anyone have any reservations about CDs at risk okay all right right well Keith I'm cool with that too so all good thank you very much I appreciate it thank you sir next up on the agenda item number two Z24 d09 everyone's favorite the LDC text Amendment adaptive reuse Veronica good evening Mr chairman Commissioners uh Veronica Gonzalez principal plannner and um I will be talking to you tonight about initiating a text Amendment and conducting a citizen review to um address adaptive reuse um to make changes uh with regard to recent legislation so we continuously seek ways to improve the LDC as well as making any conforming changes to new legislation um House Bill 2297 uh was signed by the governor April 2024 and this was uh in relation to commercial buildings and adaptive reuse so while the bill has been referred to as an Adaptive reuse bill it's really more of a housing bill um because the Adaptive reuse that they're addressing here is um in in relation to um h multif family housing in particular uh this bill does have some specific requirements that will need to be addressed in our LDC and those requirements include um uh they will need to establish standards that allow multif family development or adaptive reuse on up to 10% of existing commercial office or mixed use buildings um however the town does have the latitude to designate essential commercial and employment hubs where buildings within those areas would be exempt um buildings would need to be on Parcels of at least an acre in size but no more than 20 and 10% of any dwelling units within the those buildings would must be low income housing moderate income housing or some combination of the two and they must remain so for at least 20 years uh parking requirements for these um uh adaptive reuse um may not exceed whatever current LDC ratios are um height and density for any proposed multif family development must be equal to um the highest allowable multif family zoning within one mile of the building to be developed um there is a Max height of five stories unless any portion of that site is within 100 feet of um single family zoning in which case it'll be uh limited to two stories um height of existing commercial office or mixed use buildings uh would be deemed non-conforming if it's uh if the maximum height for the proposed use is less than what the existing height of the building is so in that case it would become almost a legal non-conforming type of situation and then the same thing with the setbacks um any existing setbacks for commercial office or mixed use buildings um would become non-conforming if the setbacks for the proposed use are less than what's already there so these are these are some of the requirements from the bill that we'll be looking to incorporate into the um the LDC um so our request from our request from you tonight is to conduct a citizen review meeting and to uh allow us to initiate a text amendment to address these items in the LDC and with that I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have all right thank you very much Veronica anyone have any questions uh commissioner Everett please what are the criteria um that you guys would use for having an exemption to this um you said there would be certain certain exceptions granted where they they wouldn't have to um provide multif family or be allowed to provide multif family Mr chairman um commissioner Everett I I don't think I understand what your question is Oh I thought You' mention that there would be certain exceptions where where this would not be allowed yes I apologize that is correct um the bill does um provide language that um while existing commercial buildings would be eligible we as the city or I'm sorry we as the town May designate certain commercial or employment areas where those buildings would be exempt meaning they would not be um able to convert or be redeveloped as multif family um without a public hearing process basically okay and I I guess my question on that was what how would you determine what those areas would be um Mr chairman commissioner Everett uh that's part of the process that we'll be going through is evaluating um areas where those um essential commercial and employment hubs would be where we want to preserve um the existing commercial and employment uses okay thank you and just as a clarification um just that if we did not specify that and go through and do that the state would be mandating that people could do it anywhere correct um Mr chairman um yes sort of um you know these are they would have to be um existing buildings on at least an acre in size up to 20 acres but you know given that and the other um requirements or objective standards is what they're being referred to in the bill um yes and and this the the intent of the bill is for this to happen without a rezoning having to having to take place um it still does allow for site plan review and and that type of thing so like a design review um before this board but um a a public hearing to rezone would not be required okay just wanted to clarify that thank you anyone else all right well very good thank you Miss Gonzalez thank you okay that concludes the items on the study session this evening and uh we can now have a discussion on the regular meeting agenda I've been informed uh on the con sent we have two items dr24 62 super light uh block site expansion that is going to be continued um and then number eight is going to be moved to non-consent um there was the council last night had brought up some things so we need to hear about that and then number nine dr24 D68 Gilbert Christian High School athletic building um so since number seven's being continue the other one's moving if does anyone have any reason number nine needed to be removed from consent okay then on the regular agenda um from our meeting number 10 and 11 have to stay 12 is being continued 13 is the general Plan update in the LDC text Amendment so we'll hear that uh and then number 14 Dr 2446 Oasis Church expansion um unless there's anyone here or anyone else has a reason I thought that was one we could move if we desired anyone have any is there anyone in the crowd that was seeking to speak on number 14 scanning the Sea of people I did not see any arms so we will seek to move that one okay well then with that we will conclude the study session sure oh I'm sorry sorry could number 12 also move been sent since it's continuent well I guess yeah I thought we I thought we'd have to vote but yeah we can move that to the consent is that uh Miss Elena are we allowed to move the if it's being uh continued to that date can we move that to consent for the vote she doesn't like it I can see it uh I would prefer that it would be a separate motion so we'll make a motion very good see I knew I was going to get that okay anyway with that we are going to adjourn we have been very expeditious and it's 5:48 we'll be back here in 12 minutes 6 o'clock sharp to start the regular meeting thank you e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e was okay looks like we're getting close if everyone is ready not that I was rushing Our Town attorney okay uh with that I will call the regular meeting to order and we will start with the pl pled of Allegiance please join me I pledge aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic stands one nation under God indivisible repice all right thank you very much Eva could we have a rooll call please commissioner ett here commissioner de Gina here commissioner Simon here commissioner Gage here commissioner Fay here commissioner Davis here commissioner Anderson yeah Vice chairman biani chairman Mt here we have a quarum thank you okay following that we'll work on the approval of the agenda this is what we had just spoken about this in the study session um we are going to move item number 8 from the consent to the non-consent that's the LDC text Amendment the chickens and we will move number 14 The Oasis Church expansion to consent unless there are any in the audience from the public that had input they wanted to speak on number 14 14 is there anyone okay so 14 will be moved to consent then yes that's what you wanted to speak on yeah okay we all right we'll we'll leave it on there then scratch that number 14 will not in fact be put on consent okay so the only thing that'll happen then is number eight we move to non-consent very good okay Communications so this uh number five Communications from citizens this time members of the public May comment on matters within the jurisdiction of the Town 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 uh so at this point if anyone wanted to speak on something that is currently not on the agenda this would be the time I currently do not have any cards um and if nobody else wanted to we will move on to number six the report from Council liaison on current events council member Anderson thank you Mr chairman uh not a whole lot to report for the future uh thank you for all of your uh um participation in the last month and in all the uh electoral process that's gone on here and um especially uh the chairman I'm thankful for the the efforts that you made and uh you did a good job thank you very much for that um I'm not aware of any other items to to share at this time Mr chairman very good thank you and uh thank you for that as well okay public hearing consent all items listed below are considered public hearing consent calendar the commission may by a single motion approve any number of items where after opening the public hearing no person requests the item to be removed from the consent calendar if such a request is made the commission shall then withdraw the item from the public hearing consent calendar for the purpose of public discussion and separate action other items could be added uh but we're not so currently the consent agenda is number seven dr24 d62 super light block site expansion plant upgrade which is shown to be continued to September 4th 2024 and number nine Dr 24- 68 Gilbert Christian High School athletic building Mr Mr chair the number seven will be uh will need a motion to continue separately my apologies very well then we will remove number seven from the consent agenda and the consent agenda now is solely number nine dr24 D68 Gilbert Christian High School athletic field or building do I have a motion on the consent chair I'll make a motion to approve the consent uh agenda including item number nine thank you uh thank you commissioner Simon do I have a second I'll second we have a second by commissioner Davis please vote and we have a unanimous consent approval of the one item okay moving into the public hearing non-consent uh non-consent public hearing items may be heard in a 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 or in opposition to a public hearing item may do so if you wish to comment on a public hearing item you must fill out a public comment form the little forms in the back of the room at the table there um indicating indicating the item number on which you wish to be heard once the hearing is closed there will be no further public comment unless requested by a member of this Commission and since number seven will be rather easy um we'll open up with number seven since it's a continuance if I can get a motion um on that chair I'll move to approve the continuance to September 4th 2024 of Dr 2462 superlock uh super light block side expansion plan upgrade of number seven thank you commissioner Simon do I have a second I'll second that commissioner Fay with the second any discussion nope please vote all right 70 the continuance passes I am going to move to number 10 now because I believe there was a time constraint that the applicant had on that so we'll bring up Z24 d 01 SEC so these corner of Val viston Elliot and uh s please come on up good evening Commissioners it's good to see you all tonight the first item we will be looking at is z241 the southeast corner of Valvista and Elliott the subject site outlined in blue here is approximately 6 acres and located within the larger 12 acre Valvista and Elliot Center Master site plan which is located at the southeast corner of Valvista Drive and Elliott Road the subject site is currently developed with a vacated 37,000 ft fitness center that was approved under case z99 d22 the subject site is also surrounded by other commercial uses in zoning districts to the Northwest and South but single family residential does exist and a little sliver to the South and as well to the um to the east there so the request at hand is going to be a three-part pad Amendment the first portion is a rezone of approximately 4.5 Acres from what is shopping center to 4.5 Acres of General commercial uh the reason for the conversion of zoning districts is to accommodate the new storage use uh with the shopping center zoning District they are limited to 75,000 uh square feet to a single user so uh The General commercial zoning District would allow the new storage facility and its accessory structures the second portion of the request is to modify the existing development plan which was approved under KZ 992 2 2 by incorporating a roughly 11,000 ft retail component which will be centralized on site and a remaining shopping center portion and the other adjustment to the development plan will be the addition of four um accessory structures to the storage facilities to the north and south and lastly the applicant is requesting to amend delete um and add establish conditions of development to the planned area development so here on the screen we do have the three uh modifications to the conditions here first we have condition ll in ordinance 1179 which is the striketh through of a pedestrian Plaza outdoor Courtyard and other pedestrian amenities um should be part of the commercial development and the other P portion stricken out there is regarding the um pedestrian uh uh walk or I'm sorry sidewalk or connection that will connect from Elliot Road to the center of of the site the reason why this is stricken through is there is another condition o that was established that also references that connection from Elliott to the center of the site so this is just um a way to clean up this ordinance as we move forward but that portion in the center will remain that any outdoor or any restaurant shall have an outdoor seating area the other part of the condition our Amendment to the condition is the removal of condition J in ordinance 633 which basically states that all development in Dr shall be heard at the Planning Commission as well as Town Council uh we're requesting to strike this through just to follow our current you know procedures and practices that we um have with the town today and lastly is the addition of condition TT which is essentially allowing the established building that is there on site today that vacant Fitness structure to remain um in its current place with that 604 in setback in any new development to come forward would need to meet the base zoning District standards uh which would be 75 ft from that adjacent residential here uh we have that zoning exhibit where you can see along that Eastern property and moving a little bit more to the West we have that proposed General commercial portion that's 4 and2 acres and just to the west of that is that remaining shopping center portion which will have the uh commercial and Retail component um which you'll see on that development plan in just a second so we have that four and a half acres of General commercial and that one and a half acres of leftover shopping center so as we move to the development plan you can see those four new accessory structures to the North and South um as well as the ReUse of that existing um vacant uh facility there as well um with the associated structures uh the new storage facility will total to 39,6 195 ft um which will be located on like I said to the North and South there uh just to the east you can see that proposed retail component uh centralized on site and the other thing I want to mention as well going back to the um proposed stipulations as you can see those proposed um storage structures to the North and South there are meeting the base zoning District setbacks for the 75 um but the existing structure is remaining at that 604 in uh so just wanted to call that out for you as for public participation uh a neighborhood meeting was held in August 17th of last year uh there were no members of the public to attend uh and as of date uh we have not received any Community comment regarding the project uh so with that information uh planning is recommending the um recommend recommending and approval to Town Council for z241 Southeast corner of alviston Elliot as requested and subject to conditions uh and with that I can open up the floor to any questions thank you very much s anyone have any questions or comments for s yes I do uh commissioner Fay please s thank you I'd like to focus in on those uh those two conditions um and particularly LL well actually both of them so Jay they will not come back to us again but that's because it's the new procedures they don't come back to us again for a the follow-up design review they would come back to Planning Commission we just wouldn't bring them to Town Council uh so we're just looking to uh remove this condition just to align with the common procedures now where uh DRS typically are just brought to the commission level and don't need to be approved at Town Council so why why didn't we just remove Town Council and and leave condition otherwise as is uh chairman uh commissioner Fay that that is a great point that is um something we C we can't adjust just to ensure that we are still bringing the project back to um Planning Commission somebody was to say they were grandfathered before the new process I I don't know but that that would seem to me to cover all your basis is if it's literally the intent is not to drop this commission but only to drop Town Council out of it then to say that would be I think a better idea but then let's um L condition LL the way you describe so there's actually two things it does here I understand what you're saying about The Pedestrian path which is addressed elsewhere but the um The Pedestrian Plaza it seems like we're fundamentally changing what was a essentially a public amenity to being outdoor seating for the restaurant um that seems to be a different substantive change that isn't required by by the regulations could you address that a little bit more yeah commissioner uh Fay chairm so going into discussions with the applicant um you know this condition was established uh quite a while back and up until this point there actually hasn't been any kind of um pedestrian Plaza added to the site as an amenity and currently you know the uses out there are a mixture of drive-thru and other commercial uses that um you know necessarily aren't driving that constant um onf foot pedestrian travel throughout the site so we figured with the transition to the um proposed storage facility and what's currently out there The Pedestrian Plaza wasn't necessarily something that was needed on site but we still wanted to ensure that a pedestrian um walkway or um I'm sorry a pedestrian pathway would still connect from the center of the site to Elliot Road so essentially we're saying we we don't really care about this anymore I don't want to say we don't care about it but it's just you know just the way the site has continued to grow and where it is today it isn't something that would necessarily fit on site or align with some of those uses out there today get I mean there's no moral judgment here it sounds like we don't we don't really care that much about this so we're letting it go I yes okay okay I understand thank you I care commissioner F anyone else okay uh sir if you filled out a okay we'll get to the public comment when it's public comment on yes sir and if you could bring the comment card to the ladies over here please okay thank you sir anyone else have any comments okay the applicant wish to speak on that Mr B thank you Adam ba 2525 East Arizona buil more Circle um commissioner fail on the back end of this presentation I have an exhibit that I think will help clarify that question um this is a site that I uh lived next to for many years actually funny enough my first home was just um down the street off of Val Vista but also the first first gym membership I ever had in this town was a 24-hour fitness at this place I don't think they even exist anymore uh the site is presently zoned shopping center today and a shopping center allows this use right now today the reason why we're asking for this zone change is because there's a cap on the number amount of square foot that's otherwise allowed in SC and so the request is simply to go to a GC category that allows us to um exceed that cap let me walk you through the story here um th this site was approved in 1999 built shortly thereafter and op as a gym but at some point in 2019 the gym closed and it's been like this since that time for about 5 years an empty gym and unfortunate part about this type of building though it's purpose-built it's built specifically for a gym with columns in certain ways and designs and so it isn't as easily adaptable to be reused for something else um there's a few few uses that actually work in a big space like this you tend to see them become Charter Schools sometimes you see them become churches and sometimes you see them become um uh indoor storage facilities and we desire to purchase the property we're not the current owners we do have it in escrow um the land and the zoning transaction the transaction will close subject to the zoning being approved but if it's approved by U the Town Council then we would be able to move forward and make these improvements the challenge is when you occupy a gym facility like this with storage you don't need the 200 to 300 parking spaces that surround it and so what do you do when you have this um sea of asphalt around the building and so um just to give you some perspective this is the view from essentially Val Vista looking back towards the building and we think Val Vista has an excellent window opportunity for more retail and so in theory where you're seeing this empty parking lot right here will be a future retail building about 10 to 11,000 square feet or so and then behind that is the um empty gym which we proposed to uh repurpose and do an Adaptive reuse for storage um this is the back of the building and the side of the building today and these are the neighbors homes who live directly behind it um one of the things that occur right now today is anyone can drive around this property um sometimes when you have these empty shell buildings it's an opportunity for for Mischief um I won't tell you what Mr ba did as a teenager but this would have been the perfect spot for me and unfortunately um it is this way and it will be this way until something changes I think you might hear some testimony from Neighbors although I I got a call today from somebody who informed me of things I wasn't aware of including burning mattresses dumping trash and blow um busted windows I hope that with our proposal we can prevent much of that the important thing for you to understand today is that um with this adaptive reuse the closest point of any building to the neighbors is the existing building right now today so our proposal gives you a little bit of idea we'd love to build some new buildings on the North side and the south side of the property where it's essentially just parking lot right now today we'll keep the existing building where it is what you can't see necessarily in this picture but along Val Vista you'll see a little area says future retail building um we've shared some um exhibits and ideas with staff which would be about essentially a 10,000 foot shops building fronting um Valvista dry but for the purposes of what we're doing today you could I just want to highlight the the storage concept this facility will be secured and gated and as a result what Mischief may occur in the property around the perimeter of the building will no longer be um able to be accessed by the public gork teenagers because of a new U fencing that will be installed and will block that area off so essentially why we changing this from shopping center to GC it's really just because of that 70 thou 75,000 square foot threshold and it's that threshold itself that allows us to go forward there's really no other use that would go on the south and the north side of the building um but for these types of uses so it does make good sense as it relates to stipulations it's mostly just a cleanup of the of the code um a lot of this came from staff if we were already in the process of resoning um some of these conditions that were requested for us to change really is just to to address some of the technical items but when I think through um I think The Pedestrian path this is what The Pedestrian path looks like right now in red and that pedestrian path comes down um The Backs side of the properties and then it connects over to the uh West um there is no connection to the drive-thru uh building right there but what we propose to do is actually probably provide a better pedestrian connection movement forward so you'll see the yellow area reflects the new pedestrian connections and that the last arrow on the south side of the property will be this new future retail shops building so in theory the PED connection actually drives you to a point of Final Destination that has never existed on this project before um hasn't really been an emphasis point of Staff when prior people have um built and developed this so now moving forward will at least be able to create that route of travel towards the future retail building instead of the back of the alley or um this building thereby I think closing off the opportunities for teenage Mischief so to kind of wrap it up and just be short it really is the best way to revitalize this empty um Shopping Center building when you think through a purpose-built gym facility that only has half mezanine and a pool and different floors and elevations within it um there's a few uses that really work well in operating that and we're one of the ones that can make it work and given that we don't need the over supply of parking that's on the property today this chance to build these buildings helps um make meaningful use of the property thereby securing it removing some of the Mischief that's happened over there and as you know these buildings tend to be some of the quietest um low traffic generating uses around so as you consider compatibility next door it's probably the most optimal um land use blad there and hopefully this get creates the opportunity for us to to fill in the front side with some new retail that would be perfect along the visibility of alvista road so with that um I'll end the presentation but I know you have um a couple of folks here tonight and we'll stand by for any questions that may come up thank you Mr B does anybody want to ask anything before okay very good we'll move into the public comment I have three cards uh first one is is Mr Todd Watson he is opposed to the item does not wish to speak uh then believe it's John Watson he's opposed to the item does not wish to speak and then Mr Stephen shery I hope shery yes sir okay and he wishes to speak please come on up sir and uh take the podium the mic is still on so um feel feel free uh take three minutes State just state your name for the record and thank you uh my name is Step Cherry I'm in Arizona I've lived here all my life I've lived in Gilbert for the last 27 years me and my wife naen and we've raised our some of our children here and uh we live directly to the east of the proposed site where the storage building would be and for the last five years or so I have been a uh um personal overseer of the trash on that property and reported it numerous times to the city and uh I just get tired of that and uh it isn't just the vandalism but we did drive by there tonight and I did get pictures some more of the plate glass windows are totally broken through I mean you could walk through them right now without and some of them are boarded up and it's just uh the Aesthetics of the place are terrible and we live in the neighborhood adjacent to it and it makes our area terrible and if I were coming like I did 27 years ago to look for a place to live I would drive around I'd say man I'm not living in this junky place and so all the only guarantees we would like to see and I I would like somebody nobody has really kept after it over the last few years maybe because of Co maybe because of whatever I don't know but uh the only time they've ever cleaned it up is when I've complained or the city's done something and even some things that were there five years ago were still there junk and uh uh I would like to see it cleaned up uh that's all I'd like to see and I did talk to this gentleman tonight before coming to the meeting but when I came to the meeting the reason I came to the meeting was because of the public notice that was sent out but the public notice said the meeting is Thursday August 7th um I think that's incorrect this is Wednesday if I'm not mistaken uh I know I'm older but I think I think that that's so I we would have been a little bit confused on the date and times but anyway that's all I have to say I would like just assurances that that place will be clean and I I could see where if the walls were put up and so forth and it isn't just the teenagers I mean there have been truckloads of trash dump behind that building there have been burning mattresses right now there's tires there's all sorts of trash and it just looks terrible and uh even over on the uh south side of the building there's trash and has been there for months uh and and you know I mean I can't expect the city it's not their job to do it but somebody should be responsible for it and I don't think the responsibility has been taken that that's all I have to say thank you very much sir okay with that then is there anyone else from the public that wishes to speak okay uh then up here questions or comments for either s or Mr B in relation to the project okay I was just gonna commissioner Davis um thank you chair um I was just going to state that it seems like development in this location with ating will address a lot of the concerns that Mr Cherry raised hopefully to get this cleaned up and have somebody Contin continuously monitoring it so I feel like this development will do that so thank you commissioner anyone else okay well I'll close the public comment then and bring it up to the dis for discussion or a motion so from a a discussion standpoint Leslie kind of sorry CH Gage already kind of made the point that I was U thinking that that one of the best ways to prevent this messiness is to turn it from an abandoned to a monitored or to a used property um one of my rules when I condemn a property is we once we condemn it get it down get it flattened don't leave an abandoned building um I the one of the only people I've had die on one of my sites is because we left an abandon building up longer so I mean I think from a well from a variety of other reasons too to be in favor of it but one of them is to help Al amarate the potential blight or mischief issues I wasn't going to give uh Mr B any more credit for his but but the public made the case made the case for him too so I I for that reason alone I would be in favor of this but I was kind of in favor of of it before yeah very good thank you commissioner M Simon I'll just um Echo what commissioner Fay said and and commissioner Davis I I honestly actually would go on record to say I'm not sure that I really am in favor of more storage facilities in the town of Gilbert however I understand that that by right is already available here so we're really just expanding a footprint to be able to allow for more space um but I would agree that by an occupancy in this site it will actually more than likely reduce if not completely eliminate the the uh concerns that have been addressed tonight so I would be in favor of it thank you commissioner Simon Okay well uh if there's no other comments I'll go ahead and make a motion uh motion to approve Z2 uh item number 10 z241 the southeast corner of V Vista and Elliott the reone request to amend the ordinance 633 698722 2975 1179 and 1200 to amend the development plan conditions and development and the reone request I'll stop at that thank you thank you for that very thorough uh motion commissioner Simon do I have a second I'll second commissioner Davis with the second discussion no all right please vote vote carries 7 to zer thank you very much tracking back one we need to go now back to number eight that was moved off of the consent and that is z246 LDC text Amendment and Miss Veronica Gonzalez hello again Mr chairman Commissioners um I will be presenting to you the proposed text Amendment for um backyard foul so our request to you tonight is to make a recommendation to the Town Council to amend the Land Development code uh to address backyard foul a little bit of background uh May 21st 2024 the governor signed House Bill 2325 pertaining to Backyard foul on res presidential properties um you initiated and conducted a citizen review on this issue uh at last month's meeting on July 10th and last night at the Town Council study session um we presented this um proposed text Amendment and did receive a little bit of feedback that I'd also like to get your feedback on as well so this bill regulates foul on Residential Properties and it does require that we make some conforming changes the biggest change that you'll see to the bill is that um it now allows up to six foul on lots that are at least on lots are on Lots up to half an acre or less in size um currently the LDC uh standard is that a property must be at least 6,000 square ft for the keeping of foul and in that case you could have up to five fou in addition to this the bill also allows the town to regulate male foul including roosters and enclosures for the keeping of fou um our current uh LDC allows one Worster for each 20,000 Square ft of lot area and we do propose to maintain that um regarding enclosures um for the keeping of foul um they will be limited in size to no no bigger than 200 square fet and may be located in the side and rear yards as long as at least 20 ft from a neighboring property line um enclosures will have a maximum height of 8 feet except on Lots that are less than an acre in size where the maximum height shall not exceed the height of the fence um the question we received from Council last night pertaining to this um was actually specifically about that 20 foot setback um uh for from neighboring property um the question was if the abing property was um a road or a Canal open space or um some other type of property where there was not a residence on it if um it would be possible to have a reduced setback um I would like to get the the commission's um feedback on that we are considering at this point um allowing in those cases um a setback of 5T for enclosures um which is consistent with our current requirements for accessory structures but this would only be in cases where um that property line is AB budding a Road Canal an open space um and and an open space would need to be a common or public open space so our recommendation to you tonight is that you um provide a recommendation of approval to the council but then again I am also seeking your feedback on the um the change that I brought up just a minute ago and with that I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have okay it never ceases to amaze me um this got all the way up to the governor to make a law about it that we are now spending countless hours and staff time and all you but anyway it's a beautiful thing anyone have any questions for Miss Gonzalez commissioner Davis chairman thank you um my question is if they are if we do you do move forward with a reduced setback with the very A reduced height if it can encroach into that setback um a an open space versus what height they can have on the building set further into the lot commissioner um Mt um commissioner Davis um I just want to make sure I'm I'm understanding your question is that if you um if you agree with a reduced setback of up to 5 feet for an enclosure up to 8 feet or lower than the fence height pardon me I missed that part so 8 feet is the maximum height that they can have in both locations commissioner Davis that's correct okay I apologize I missed that part I'm sorry let me correct that um maximum height of 8 feet unless the property is less than an acre in size and then the height is whatever the the maximum height would have to be less than the fence line so if the fence is only 6 feet tall the the enclosure could not be 8 ft tall it' have to be less got it I apologize I missed that part okay so sorry clarification there chairman if I may go ahead commissioner Simon um clarification there because if if you have a budding to a um a canal and they have a chain link fence that is only 4 feet I mean then keeping it at 4 feet because the fence line is only 4 feet or we going with a standard six foot block fence uh Mr chairman commissioner Simon um that's my understanding um based on the language of the bill um it was not overly descriptive um it just said on Lots less than an acre No taller than the fence line so um making a very quick assumption and interpretation I guess it would be if that was the height of that fence line because that would be the fence 4 feet great questions thank you guys anyone else okay and nobody in the public wanted to speak okay I'm actually surprised I feel like maybe you should be allowed more rooster um I feel like it's somewhat of a chicken sexist thing to only let one rooster but many foul but uh that's not my position governor and her instant Infinite Wisdom said this so okay well with that then if there's no other comment um I guess we could uh have a motion and Mr chairman if I may um would that motion include some support or nonsupport uh for yeah very good I guess that that discussion but it wasn't actually thoroughly um so I guess from a commission Vantage Point how do we feel about currently it says you have to have a setback but now we're saying do we want to make any recommendations to if you are a budding Canal or no residence should we allow a lesser setback what is our opinion on commissioner Davis chairman thank you I think based on the low height I don't have a big issue with a 5 foot set back if it's only 8 feet or six feet it doesn't bother me a whole lot to allow that to get closer that's my thought on it but very well everyone commissioner Everett yeah I don't have a problem with allowing exception in those cases either very good I have a lot of experience in this I had a chicken cop in my yard when we grew up there were no chickens in it me and my friends just played cards in it um my brother now lives there and he has chickens so it works well but uh I think it was about six feet in height so it would conform okay well with that is there a motion chairman I'll make a motion to uh approve item number8 the z246 LDC text Amendment um and a recommendation to approve a reduced setback on properties at but empty lots or canals or Y yada y commercial okay do I have a second I'll second that commissioner Fay with a second any further discussion on the roosters or the fowl okay seeing none please vote motion carries unanimous 7 Z very good thank you thank you Veronica okay moving on now to item number 11 gp23 D13 Cobblestone Express Auto Spa and z23 d11 cob Stone Express Auto Spa uh and Miss Nicole thank you chair members of the commission Nicole Russell senior planner tonight I'll be presenting GP 2313 and z231 for the Cobblestone Express Auto auto spa the request is to a minor General plan amendment to change the land use designation from neighborhood commercial to General commercial and the zone change is requested to change the zoning from neighborhood commercial to community commer commercial for the construction and operation of a car wash here is the subject parcel located at the southwest of the intersection of Germaine Road and the Lindsay just a little bit of background on this property in 2005 the entire area let's see if I can do the laser pointer this entire strip was rezoned to Neighborhood commercial for the Lindsey Groves office complex and Commercial future Comm future commercial uses in 2020 there was a a sea store that was approved a convenience store on the property to the north there was a design review as well as three use permits to allow for the fueling station and 24-hour operation and as you can see where the subject property is located is south of where the convenience stores approved and north of the office complex with a place of worship to the east side of Lindsay Road and an apartment complex on the west side of the canal generally a convenience store with fueling station is a typical use that's found in conjunction with a car wash and similar in intensity the proposed amendment to change from neighborhood commercial to General commercial and the companion rezone is a compatible change in the area in which it's proposed based on the surrounding land uses I just showed The General commercial appears to be an in intensification of the land use allowance however the site as previously stated will be adequately buffered from the existing residential to the South which is not on this slide but you can see no you can't see it on that slide either it is to the south of the office complex I apologize for the bad graphic here is a conceptual site plan of what the carash could be Lo or could look like um as you saw on the agenda the design review has been requested a continuance to the October Planning Commission meeting but here's the site plan of what's going to be coming forward at a later point in time the applicant had a neighborhood meeting on November 6th of 202 3 there were no neighbors no public at that meeting staff has received a petition of non- opposition from 10 of the surrounding Community businesses for the reason set forth in the staff report staff asked to recommend approval to the Town Council for GP 23-11 and z23 D GP 23-13 and Z 23-11 as requested subject to the conditions in the staff report this does conclude my presentation I am available for questions and my applicant is available as well and has a presentation following mine very well thank you M Russell anyone have any comments or questions or Nicole commissioner Simon um yeah just really quick is this a it's right in right out only and only one point of Ingress egress the main right in here um it is a right in I'm sorry yes right in right out because it sits further south it it does not sit up against Germaine Road it's South correct correct okay um the aerial photo you can see that there's already a median in place on Lindsay Road for that but there will there is access off of Germain through the convenience store property once that's built okay so the so we're already working in conjunction with the convenience store correct to make sure there's through traffic there okay okay thank you commissioner Simon anybody else okay well we could bring the applicant up and uh let him do a presentation and see if there's any other questions thank you Nicole evening my turn the uh mic on button the base of it there we go yep awesome thank you it's rare for me to be asked to speak up so thank you for your record my name is Paul Gilbert 701 North 44th Street in Phoenix I represent the applicant my planner Kurt voler is here uh I'll be very Frank with you I've got nothing of real substance to add to that very fine and complete report by your staff and therefore unless you have some specific questions I'm very content to arrest our case on that presentation the important facts to focus on are we're here with staff support we're here with neighborhood support we're here with um the no one showed up in opposition at the neighborhood meeting and the use is extremely compatible with the use already approved to the north which is a convenience store with the fueling station all those things I think militate very cently to support this application consistent with the staff recommendation and we are in agreement with all of the staff conditions of approval so I'm going to take my chances and hope my brevity will be rewarded and not recal you with my full 12-page presentation here this evening yeah well no no worries the worst we would do is make you present anybody have any questions for the applicant regarding this project no I think your brevity was uh rewarded well sir well thank you thank you too okay anything else that we wanted to ask I don't have any comment cards and I don't see anyone else that was wishing to speak on this item so with that I'll close the public comment and bring it to the dis for discussion or a motion and I believe we'll need separate motions if there's no discussion I'll go ahead and make a motion yes sir go ahead commissioner yeah good okay uh move to recommended Town Council approval of GP 2313 and minor General plan Amendment we have a motion to approve GP 2313 commissioner Anderson do I have a second all right would second second commissioner Fay got it first any discussion let's not let this affect your votes uh please vote vote unanimous 70 and any other motions for the second item I'll continue uh for the reason set forth in the staff report move to recommend approval to the Town Council for z231 as requested subject to the additions listed in the staff report we have a motion for approval from commissioner Anderson do I have a second I'll second commissioner Gage Quick Draw please cast your vote unanimous 70 thank you all very much okay moving on to number 12 uh this will just because it's continued and and the reason it was continued was so that the uh first those two could go through and then this will be heard um following Council approval as well just for the board's information but uh we will need a motion so I will entertain a motion from anyone willing to do so I'll finish this one up then uh motion continue uh Dr 23170 to the October 2nd 2024 Planning Commission hearing we have a motion from commissioner Anderson do I have a second I'll second commissioner Everett with the second please cast your vote motion carries 70 moving on now to item number 13 gp24 d01 Gilbert 2024 General Plan update and z247 LDC text Amendment and Miss Ashley McDonald thank thank you chairman in commission all right so uh tonight we're requesting a general plan Amendment um to the text of the general plan as well as an LDC text Amendment um to Define Central business district uh just by a little bit of background um this legislative session there were a number of bills that impacted housing we heard from Veronica uh this evening as part of the work session on House Bill 2297 that's adaptive reuse um we've heard a little bit from Ava in previous meetings about accessory dwelling units and then tonight we're talking about uh house build 2721 specifically related to Middle housing so if you hear us talking about uh housing pieces it it uh is a variety of bills that we're looking to address um so similar to Veronica's update uh in May of 2024 the governor signed House Bill 2721 which relates to Middle housing um this bill will become effective on September 14th um and our goal has been to to get some um work started prior to the effective date of that uh when we initiated this we talked a little bit about uh what that work would be and that would be to adopt a central business district within the town um and so we are seeking the commission's um recommendation to adopt a general plan amendment that would identify the Heritage District as our Central business district um and then Define what a central business district is within our Land Development code uh a little more background on what this is House Bill 2721 requires that by January 1st of 2026 a municipality has to uh adopt regulations that will allow for uh duplexes triplexes fourplexes and town homes on um both of these items that I'll I'll cover next on lot zon for single family within one mile of the municipality Central business district and on 20% of any new development more than 10 contiguous Acres within the town uh the legislation also indicates that if a municipality does not adopt such regulations then middle housing is allowed um on all Lots in the town zone for single family without limitation so um staff's first step of course would be to adopt a central business district um we we don't current or we didn't have one um prior and so uh last night Town Council did um uh adopt a resolution identifying the Heritage District as our Central business district so this would allow us to comply with that first bullet point um it also defined what a central business district is and so um this would be how our our code would similarly Define it an area or series of areas designated by a municipality that are primarily non-industrial that attract Community activity and the entire geographic area that we've officially designated as our downtown uh which is why we landed on the Heritage District as our Central business district um we took a look at um just for the commission's information um what that buffer area looks like and those lots that would be impacted by the central business district this information and and how we will uh regulate these Lots we'll come to you at a future um meeting as we continue to work on what those regulations look like uh our first step again just establishing that Central business district because that needed to be done prior to the effective date of the bill so what we're seeking from the commission tonight uh having provided you with that background is to add to the general plan um in the growth areas framework section um a a sentence or a that indicates that the Heritage district has been identified as our Central business district um pursuant to the new statute uh this section already exists within the general plan and the Heritage district is already identified as a growth area um so this is a a very brief addition to the general plan Amendment um just to again um reiterate that we have a central business district and then with the Land Development code um another very simple update to add to our terms Central Business business district and then we'll refer back to that state statute for the definition the purpose of the request again is for compliance with House Bill 2721 um to allow middle housing within uh property Zone single family within one mile of that Central business district so our first step um is identifying that Central business district but again as I mentioned future agenda item for uh Planning Commission will be um text amendments to adopt specific regulation so staff has about a year and a half to continue to work on those um and bring them back to commission and Town Council for adoption we have taken um this to the Chamber of Commerce public policy committee they have provided a letter of support uh again last night Town Council adopted the resolution identifying the central business district as the Heritage District um we're before you tonight with uh requesting a recommendation on the these two items for the general plan Amendment and the LDC text Amendment um and then we'll take them to Council on August 20th um for them to incorporate or for them to approve hopefully uh then on September 14th it'll become effective so uh with this timeline all of these action items are completed prior to the effective date and then as I mentioned again we'll continue to work on drafting those regulations uh with that staff recommends approval of these two items GP 241 and z247 uh happy to answer any questions you have all right thank you very much Ashley does anyone have any questions for Ashley commissioner Everett I was just curious um how many how many Lots near the central business district or within that one mile area are actually undeveloped at this point there's about 55 undeveloped Lots there are um just under 9,000 total lot um the the statute would not preclude somebody from Redevelopment of of lots that that do have homes on them now um but there are currently about 55 vacant okay thank you anyone else well if there's nothing else then do we have a motion on these commissioner Gage yeah I'll make a motion to approve to recommend gp41 the Gilbert 2024 General plan up okay we have a motion do we have a second I will second it second by commissioner Fay all those please vote motion carries seven nothing okay and do we have another motion for the second item I guess I'll do this one too I'll make a motion to approve Z2 24-7 LDC text Amendment we have a motion do we have a second I'll second that one as well commissioner fav with the second please cast your vote motion carries 70 okay moving on to item number 14 dr24 d46 Oasis Church expansion and Kristen thank you hi good evening commission Kristen Divine senior planner uh the case I have for you tonight is for an expansion to the existing Oasis Church the site is located on Greenfield Road just south of Queen Creek Road it's approximately 5 acres and it was approved in 2014 and at the time included two phases as part of The Proposal phase one was developed and you are now seeing phase two phase two includes adding two classrooms to the existing building totaling approximately 1,600 square ft I've outlined it in the smaller red rectangle on the screen uh and it also includes an addition of a new building at the rear of the site totaling 16547 Square ft outlined in red at the larger Square the new building will have a covered patio on the west elevation that faces the existing tarf retention area and the concept of this Phase 2 that's being proposed generally meets what was proposed during phase one we're just seeing the specifics of it now the site proposes 40% Landscaping with a buffer of trees along the side and rear property line the rear landscape setback requires 25 ft of landscaping but the project has chosen to exceed that requirement by providing a 40 foot landscape buffer instead phase one of the Landscaping included sissu trees in their landscape palette with phase two the applicant has forgotten the use of the sissu trees and instead has proposed a mix of palty and thornless mosquite for many of their buffer trees the Landscaping proposed is complimentary to phase one of the project right see here are the four plans um the one on the left is showing the two classroom expansions for the existing building the one on the right is showing the new building of just over 16,000 Square ft it would consist of an auditorium with a Podium area a Lobby office and storage areas and also restrooms and then again that covered patio that's on the west elevation that opens up towards the existing retention Courtyard area the project includes um the approximate 16,000 ft expansion to the existing Church site the new building is designed to match the existing building and it will follow the same mission style while incorporating similar elements materials and features the primary building material is a cream colored stucco with a desert tone slump block base Spanish clay roof tiles are proposed as well as wood and steel accents and arches into the building design the height of the building is 28 ft 4 in with the bell tower element being proposed at 38 ft the maximum height requirement in this district is 35 ft but per the LDC section 5.2.5 the bell tower is permitted to encroach into that height restriction and then this is just the east and south elevations of that building uh closeup of the colors and materials that are being proposed and then with that we do recommend approval of dr2 2446 The Oasis Oasis Church expansion and I'm available for any questions if you have them oh my gosh I'm off the mic do we have any questions commissioner Gage um thank you chair can you please tell me what the red bubbles were on the elevations so chairman uh commissioner Gage that is actually from the applicants resubmittal um we had addressed comments about where the mechanical equipment sat and they had included bubbles highlighting the areas of the mechanical equipment essentially where that's located in reference to the parapets um it it's just part of their resubmittal that's not actually relevant to the design okay anything else okay um Kristen do you know did the applicant want to um I believe they're here to answer any questions if you have them but there's not a presentation okay all right then I will uh move then to we have a public comment card um Miss Sher Smith is opposed the item and which is to speak um please come up to the uh microphone at the podium here and uh just state your name and address and then uh three minutes please hi I'm Sherry Smith and never been here before so I apologize if I don't do this correctly um so this is my first um I I live at 2475 East Queen Creek Road so I am directly north of the proposed building um I I moved into the property in 2017 which is obviously prior to the 2014 proposal that they're talking about so this is for me the first time when I got the letter in the mail that I learned about the proposal and it seems that um that everybody knows but me about what's going on um so I'm not necessarily opposing um I think I have a lot of questions and concerns because the building will be sitting directly behind my my residence and um I was not expecting this um if you look at the if you the homes that sit on Queen Creek Road um of those homes there's about six between greenfield and then I think it's 164 street um my home sits the farthest back on its property so I have a really large front yard and a really small backyard which makes me very close to the proposed building that they're um proposing so my big question is is how close to my property line because it looks like our single family residen is concerned they're going to be um a lot closer to our property line um to my South Wall which is their side yard um and currently so I actually did live in the home while they constructed the first part of the building and so I watched that building get constructed and I also watched them um put a block wall fence at 2455 they they the church put in a block wall um and made it hot tall to give privacy to 2455 and um my property already has a block wall but um now my next door neighbors's block wall is three blocks higher so they went quite a bit higher to provide um a buffer I guess from the church to the residents and um I would definitely want more privacy and also the way the land sits my my property sits higher than the church so when I walk in my backyard um people in the yard or the lot behind me can completely see me I walk to my block ball fence and can see over it so um because I sit it's so high up so I see directly into them and they can see directly to me and into my house and bedroom windows that all are south facing for me so because I I this is the first time I saw their plan and um no I'm I think that I'm I I think that they're amazing neighbors as far as where their front church building is they're very respectful and I think that's um awesome and I don't have a problem with their church I think my concerns are um lighting um like big lights parking um lot lights in my backyard and um how close to my property line they're going to be um and I think those are my biggest concerns thinking and if you look at the people around if you I know I'm just one neighbor but I am the neighbor that this is affecting um it's my entire house it's my entire lot that the building will sit right by so I think just you know when I purchased a lot thinking this is this is single family residence um I'm a realtor and so I understand like zoning and when I'm selling lots to people and talking about HOAs and and things that protect a homeowner when they buy the land um giving somebody that confidence um that's kind of what's important to me is to be like I feel I should be really protected by um the current zoning and stuff so if I had maybe some reassurance or something protecting or if you're like hey no they're totally within the zoning they can be that close to your lot they can build of building that big and that's just what I have to deal with and you know I will I understand but that's kind of my my concerns coming forward thank you very much Mr Smith um did Kristen did you want to address some of those uh comments and concerns yes thank you chairman um so h a handful of the concerns um I'm going to kind of list off the ones I had taken note of um starting with the building location in reference to the northern residences [Music] um the building is located approximately 115 ft from that Northern property line the required building setback for that zoning district and non-residential use in a residential zoning district is 25 ft um so they're far exceeding the location of the building itself from the property line um the parking spaces are obviously closer um but they are not within the landscape setback which is 25 ft from the side um so you do have that 25t landscape buffer and then the parking spaces start um and then also the photometric so in regards to the lighting uh because the site is so close to existing residential and is zoned residential the parking lot lighting cannot exceed 14 ft um and even then we do look at the lighting foot candles at the property lines and it is not exceeding zero past that Northern property line um and I believe those are the the two zoning concerns that I can respond to and can you discuss uh in any capacity the wall situation in the last iteration of this was there a part of the plan that had a wall that was inordinately higher than the existing for her property so chairmont I I don't have any information on the wall I apologize um it wasn't part of this sub middle because it's already existing um I'd be happy to look into it and get get back to the resident and if you guys needed more information okay anyone else have any other questions or follow up on that commissioner Evert were you okay no sorry I was genuinely clearing my throat um just I'm a landscape architect and so I look looking at the plan I mean just maybe reassure you a little they do have that double row of mosqu trees between your property and the church and with the the lights being 14 ft I think that's going to provide quite a bit of screening and help with the privacy but I don't know if that's necessarily my place but I just for my my point of view I think that'll help with that thank you commissioner commissioner Davis thank you chair I would just encourage the property owner to definitely work with staff work with the the church to see about that wall and see if there's anything that they can do for you to raise that so that'd be something you would work on privately but I would encourage you to do so the we're not in the public hearing portion she's asking if she can ask a question on that no we can't actually it's a we go through the public comment and if you have additional questions I'd be happy to speak with you afterwards just to give you more information if you're looking for that it's just just procedural that's all that okay um but I I would Echo that that especially if during um another phase there was a wall that had been built somehow um by the applicant that uh if it's really three blocks higher that I think would be something that would probably be better served to be contiguous along the entirety of the uh property commissioner Gage thank you chair um Kristen can we ask that the applicant put some of the shields on the back of the parking lot lighting that is up against these homes to the north I'm just looking at the cut sheet for the parking lot lighting it doesn't look like there's any shields on them is that something we can do sure so chairman commissioner Gage um I I'm not familiar with parking lot lighting and whether Shields typically go on that but I it could be a condition that's added if that's something that you suggest if I can jump in the the cut sheet does say it's a dark sky compli full cut off so it it is doing what you're requesting oh okay thank you sure thank you okay anything else any reason that I should not close the public hearing okay thank you Kristen all right with that I will close the public hearing and bring it to the dis for discussion uh or a motion chairman I'll move um to approve Dr 2446 The Oasis Church expansion we have a motion by commissioner Davis do I have a second a second we have a second commissioner Gage any more discussion okay please cast your vote motion carries 70 thank you and thank you Miss Smith for your comments okay that concludes the agendized items we will move now into the always fun administrative items and we'll go straight to number 15 which is the Planning Commission meeting minutes and that would be if you've all had a chance to review these we have three different sets um number 15 is the minutes from June 5th 24 does anyone have any issues with those minutes or else a motion I move that we approve the minutes from item 15 planing commission minutes June 5th 2024 yeah June 5th 2024 we have a motion from commissioner Everett I will second second commissioner Davis please vote and the next item was the joint Planning Commission and Redevelopment Commission meeting minutes uh from June 11th 2024 item number 16 any issues or else a motion I'll make a motion to approve the joint Planning Commission and Redevelopment commission minutes from June 11th 20124 we have a motion for commissioner Davis do have a second second commissioner Simon with the second please cast your vote it not is it not possible to abstain on I wasn't present so I was going to abstain but there's no button for that all right fine forget it that is a good question commissioner Fay uh chairman um no you still vote unless you see an error or anything the minutes your just just voting that the minutes read correctly if I wasn't there I don't know that they're correct or not so wouldn't wouldn't if I wanted to abstain on a vote isn't that possible only uh only if you have a conflict um perhaps so if I have no idea which way should I vote for or against I can only encourage you to vote your conscience but um I you we need to redo the vote so you can vote no since you don't know you can vote that there's no grammar or uh spelling errors exactly well the vote has been cast it's unanimous moving on to item number 17 Planning Commission meeting minutes from July 10th 2024 of which I was not present and now we are going to be in the same cond drone do I have a motion I will move to approve the Planning Commission meetings meeting minutes from July 10th 2024 we have a motion on the table from commissioner Davis do I have a second I'll second commissioner ever with a second please cast your Vote or discussion on abstention unanimous well done okay moving on to the next is the communications we do not have an executive session so we'll go straight to the report from chairman and members of the commission on current events anyone it's pretty hot outside be sure to drink lots of water it might be hot again tomorrow okay report from the planning services manager on current events Miss Eva thank you chairman I just want to take this time to thank all the Commissioners for their service to the town and remind that four Commissioners terms are coming to a close and then I encourage you all to submit applications to continue thank thank you thank you very much and uh you cannot abstain from that commissioner Fay oh that's a good that's a Planning Commission joke all right with that we'll adjourn thank you all very much or wait do I need a vote vote okay I got I got hit with the legal beagle let's let's somebody make a motion I'll make a motion to adjourn commissioner Simon with the motion commissioner Davis the second on adjournment that's right because because last meeting when you uh voted against it so we do need to vote we have seven votes cast motion carries six to one one dissenting vote thank you all very much have a great evening e