All right, let's get this started. I'd like to call the meeting to order. First order of business will be the Pledge of Allegiance. Please rise and join me. Thank you. Could I get a roll call? Uh Commissioner Wong? Here. Commissioner Lyons? Present. Commissioner DeGravina? Here. Commissioner Gage? Here. Commissioner Davis? Here. Commissioner Simon? Present. Commissioner Anderson? Here. And Chairman Muntz? Here. We do have a quorum. Thank you very much. Okay. We can now move right into Now, we all didn't have our discussion of the agenda at the end of the study session, being that we were devoid of a study session. So, we will now have discussion of the meeting as it stands. We have on the consent agenda DR25135, the Gilbert Regional Park Phase 2 and 3. And on the non-consent DR25112, SEC Higley and Acateo Retail Center. And it's just those two. Does anyone have any reason to remove something from consent or to add, whether staff or commissioners? Okay. Not seeing any major excitement, I will assume that we want to leave it as is. I will entertain a motion. Move to approve the agenda as written. Commissioner Simon Commissioner Simon with the motion. And Commissioner Gage with the second. Please cast your vote. Oh, we don't have the screen up there. I can't tell if my little tile turns. All right, 7-0. Motion carries. Okay. Next item two, communications from citizens. At this time, members of the public may comment on matters within the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission. 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 a matter for further consideration. I don't have any yellow comment cards. If there's anyone in the crowd this evening that wish to speak on an item not on the agenda, um let me know. I don't see anyone. Okay. Very well. Moving on to item three and the report from the council liaison on current events. And Councilman uh Lyons. Uh just encourage anybody who was not at the state of the town address last night to go take a look at the video uh that we have online. Uh gave a good overview of uh the current state of the town and the community. It was well done and uh it was a good time. So, I'd encourage you to go take a look at that. And uh that's all I have at this time. Very good. Thank you, Councilman. All right, then we'll move right into the public hearing consent. All the 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 the separate action. Other items on the agenda may be added to the consent calendar and approved under a single motion. This evening, we have one item, item four DR25135 Gilbert Regional Park Phase 2 and 3. Uh just ask one more time, I don't have any comment cards. Is anyone here to speak on item four, DR25-135? Okay. Very good, then. I will entertain a motion on the consent agenda. Chair, I'll make a motion to approve the consent agenda uh including DR25135 as written. Thank you. We have a motion for approval of the consent from Commissioner Simon. Do I have a second? I'll second. Commissioner Davis on the second. Please cast your vote. Motion carries, 7-0. Moving on to the public hearing non-consent. Non-consent public hearing items will be heard at an individual public hearing and will be acted upon by the commission by a separate motion. During the public hearings, 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 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 the commission. So, if anyone here is uh interested in speaking on this item, please fill out a yellow comment card in the back and uh bring it to the staff up in the front. Thank you. Okay, item five, DR25-112 SEC Higley and Ocotillo Retail Center and the one and only Sal DiSanto. Good [clears throat] evening, Chair and Commissioners. Sal DiSanto, Planner II. And the project we'll be taking a look at tonight is case DR25-112, uh Higley and Ocotillo Retail Center. Uh before summing or before diving into some of the exhibits, I just um just wanted to provide some information as to where we are in the application process and what this application does entail. Uh so, this application is for the design review of a three-pad commercial master site plan at the southeast corner of Higley and Ocotillo, uh specifically with one of these users exceeding uh 75,000 square feet. Uh also wanted to make note of the administrative use permit that is also under review with um town staff uh for a reduction in required parking. To provide some context, the site is located at the southeast corner of Higley and Ocotillo Road. Uh the site is roughly 16.14 acres and it's that one there highlighted in blue. Uh the subject site is directly adjacent to single-family residential to the south and to the east. Uh those sites are part of the Marbella Vineyards uh PAD. Just to the west beyond Higley Road, we do have a place of worship and some additional single-family residential, that being Shamrock Estates. And just to the north beyond Ocotillo Road, we have a Town of Gilbert Recharge Station. I also wanted to make a quick note of the zoning exhibit. Uh as the site and project is going through a few different applications, one being a rezone from shopping center to general commercial, uh just wanted to make note of the updated zoning map because the proposed use of a 75,000 square foot structure um is not permitted in the shopping center district, hence the zoning to general commercial. Taking a look at the site plan, um as I mentioned, the site is intended to service a three-pad commercial master site plan on the 16-acre site. Two smaller pads, pad one and pad two, are located up along Ocotillo Road. Pad one is approximately 8,100 square feet and anticipated to accommodate a sit-down restaurant. And pad two up in the northwest corner is roughly 3,000 square feet and expected to um be the location of a financial institution. Uh the third site is going to be that major tenant there up along that closer towards that eastern property line um for a Target user and the anticipated square footage is roughly uh 128,660 feet or square feet, I apologize. Um as for parking, parking has been distributed evenly throughout the site. Site, you can see those spaces up along uh property lines, uh street frontages, as well as centrally located around the site, uh which does serve uh access to all the proposed pads in the master site plan. Um as I mentioned, there is that administrative use permit for that 12 and 1/2% parking reduction, uh which would bring the overall count from 614 spaces to 537 space reduction. Um as for fencing and walls on site, you will see 3-ft tall CMU screen walls up along the street frontages, Ocotillo and Higley, just to provide some of that screening for those parked vehicles, as well as an 8-ft screen wall adjacent to the residential on the south side, as well as the residential on the east side. I know in the study session, we did discuss um the potential, you know, removal or redesign of that wall up along that eastern property line um just to create some better, you know, street visibility without the wall being right on the frontage. Um but taking a look at our code and the placement of perimeter screen walls, the only two options are to place them either at the property line or at the building setback. And in this situation, would be a 75-ft building setback. Essentially, you know, removing the wall from the site. So, working with the applicant, we figured that having that 8-ft wall um is still a good visual mitigation measure for those neighbors to the east. Um as for vehicular access, there are four different access points here on site. Uh there is going to be two along Higley, one being a right in, right out, the other being a full access point. On Ocotillo, we'll also have another right in, right out. And then over along Wilson Way on the east side of the property, there will be another full access motion. Um for phasing of this development, the applicant is proposing it in four different phases. Uh the first phase being all of the horizontal infrastructure on site incorporating parking spaces on and offsite improvements such as landscaping, access points, diesel lanes. Um basically everything on site except for those vertical structures. Uh following phase into phase two would be the major tenant being the Target building. Uh phase three would be pad one up in that northeast corner, which is that sit-down restaurant. And then the final phase being the financial institution in the northeast corner. I'm sorry, northwest corner. Uh looking at the landscape plan, the tree and plant selection is consistent with existing developments in the area, as well as the landscaping species required for the street theme. Uh the site is within the street theme district of number 16, which requires evergreen elm and palo verdes, which have been proposed on the site. Uh the landscaping has been proposed up along street frontages and parking areas um foundationally adjacent to the building. Um and the other thing I just wanted to mention in regards to the landscape plan that was a part of the rezoning process is the reduction in the southern landscape setback adjacent to residential. Uh per the general commercial standards, it would require a 40-ft landscape setback. Uh with that deviation, the applicant has requested a 25-ft landscape setback. And even though the landscape setback has shortened, uh that really only impacts the parking spaces in the north. This doesn't have a beeper. Uh in the northeast corner, I'm sorry, the southeast corner of the site. Um those parking stalls located along that southern stretch, that 25-ft setback really impacts that area only. And as we move to the west closer to Higley Road, that 40-ft landscape setback per the zoning district is met and exceeded as we move further uh west. Looking at the major tenant elevations, the maximum height for the structure is roughly 35 feet and that's to the tallest architectural point and that's going to be that tower feature um right next to the main entry there. Uh but the roofline actually maintains a height um between 26 feet 4 inches and 28 feet, which is below the height requirement for the general commercial uh zoning district. The exterior will be um primarily consist of concrete tilt panels finished in fine grain, trail dust, and calico rock. Uh the building will also incorporate a variety of accent materials including stack stone veneer uh colored golden honey. There'll be Nichiha panels colored in vintage cedar wood. There will be board form concrete and some textured form liner also colored fine grain and distillery. Uh staff believes that the variation in colors and materials introduce visual interest along these wall uh these longer wall plans, especially those those views adjacent to the residential properties. Uh the roof design as well is predominantly fat flat with uh parapet uh along the perimeter. The raised tower element and highlighted with stack stone, uh which I mentioned would be positioned by that main entry point. Uh the overall color palette incorporates earth and desert tones and also includes an expansive storefront um canopy system as well as larger windows to allow some of that natural light into the structure. Here, just providing um those additional elevations on the north side and the south side. North side facing Ocotillo Road, south side facing the um residential subdivision. Here, just giving a better look at some of those proposed colors and materials on the on the building. And just some some renderings to help create um you know, a better perspective and help visualize some of the movement of this building. Uh as for pad one, this building is proposed to be 22 ft in height to the top of the parapet and is designed to reflect the architectural style and material and color palette of the primary anchor building. Uh the exterior will primarily use stucco complemented by stack stone, accents of concrete tilt-up panels to add additional texture and depth. Uh the roofline will also maintain a general generally flat design uh with subtle in with subtle [clears throat] variations introduced by those stack stone elements. Uh there will also be a metal canopy system planned along the south side of the elevation to those storefronts as well as a response to the study session feedback. The applicant has um proposed some shade canopy above those those windows up along Ocotillo Road just to create some more um movement along that wall plane. Again, here's just some renderings. There on the left side we can see the internal view and then on that right image we can see that um perspective along Ocotillo Road with the additional uh shade canopy above those windows. As for public participation, uh a neighborhood meeting was held back in May 15th of 2025 where roughly 150 to 2 or 200 um community members did attend the meeting. Um we have also received roughly 56 emails in opposition to the project and roughly 14 emails of support. Um some of the comments from the community, I tried to get them in the screen as best as I could here, but they tend to pertain to um retaining the existing shopping center zoning district, the desire for smaller scale commercial options, uh the preference for a traditional grocer, the um the fact that the proposed use does not fit in with the surrounding neighborhood character, uh potential visual impacts on neighboring communities, uh potential loss of existing landscaping, adverse impacts on property values. Uh there was some opposition to the access point along Wilson Way as well. Uh just a couple more here. Um there was some concerns related to increased traffic volumes generation and congestion on adjacent roadways. Uh anticipated congestion during the peak seasons, particularly holidays. Uh the potential for overflow parking onto nearby residential streets, off-street loading areas and bays facing the residential properties. Uh concern for a potential increase in crime, um light pollution into nearby homes, uh noise and sound impacts from operations and deliveries, um similar uses existing in the in the vicinity, and the request for the 8-ft screen wall along the residential boundaries of the site. Um with all of that information, uh staff does recommend approval to the planning commission for case DR25-112 uh subject to some conditions of development. Uh particularly the ones to note are the general commercial corner um at Higley and Ocotillo shall have a minimum southern landscape setback of 25 ft. No other portion of the southern landscape setback shall be less than 25 ft. Um another deviation I did forget to mention on the site plan um is in reference to number five here. Uh this deviation is the request to have 12 continuous parking stalls without the use of a landscape island and this would just be for their online order pick-up stalls beneath the canopy in the northeast corner of the site. And again, that would just be subject to that location. All other parking areas would follow the one to eight uh ratio for parking spaces and landscape islands. Uh another condition we did add to the design review package is the design review approval is contingent on the town council's decision regarding the related rezoning application and the project may only proceed as approved if town council grants the required land use entitlements. And the final condition that was added to the report is that all outstanding traffic related comments shall be addressed with the building permit submittal. And that concludes my presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Thank you, Sal. Does anyone have any questions they'd like Sal to answer? Commissioner Anderson. Sal, thank you for the presentation. Um I just want you to absolutely confirm that that wall on the east side is 8 ft. So, if you look at sheet L1 L1.0, it does call it out as an 8-ft solid wall, uh but when you scroll down to sheet CLS2, it's calling it out as a 6-ft solid perimeter wall. So, I just want to make sure we're there's not going to be some switch once they get into construction out there. Uh Chairman Commissioner Anderson, uh thank you for catching that. Yes, so we did speak with the applicant and that wall proposed along the southern property line is going to be 8 ft in height. Uh we did speak about that. That was just a typo, but it is going to be an 8-ft tall wall along that southern property line. Okay, thank you. And then on the Target over by the loading area, it appears as a compactor there that's exposed. Is there a reason why um there's a standard Gilbert has a standard detail for compactors for enclosing them. Is there a reason why that's not enclosed? Uh Chairman Commissioner Anderson, I don't have a exact answer for you as to why that is exposed. Uh we can um maybe work in a condition or take a look at the the design and see if we can incorporate that internally or get that screened, uh but I don't have a true answer as to why it is just exposed there. >> Probably just missed. All right, I I will [clears throat] condition I once we get to the vote, I am going to condition that that thing get screened mainly because it is facing Wilson. There's a um there's a drive opening there, so it's going to get a lot of visual appearance. So, that definitely needs to get screened in. Um other than that, you know, I I I think the architecture is is nice. I think it fits in well there. Um those were the only questions and comments I had. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Anderson. Thank you, sir. Anyone else? No? Okay. Do you know I I think the applicant is here. I'm not sure if if they wish to speak or present, but um please feel free to come up, Mr. Anderson. Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. Reese Anderson with P and Lake, 1744 South Val Vista number 217. I I really don't have anything else to add. I do want to confirm for the record it is an 8-ft wall. We apologize for the typo. And then um >> [clears throat] >> Commi- Commissioner Anderson, we're checking on the whether it's a compactor there. I thought it was three just loading bays. And if you're seeing that as a compactor, you know, we just need to comply with whatever those screening requirements are there in the code. But um >> [clears throat] >> so, we accept that condition. The um other conditions of approval that are there, we have no objection to them. We fully support them. As you can see, we're here tonight without any opposition. We we'd urge your support. Anyone have any questions for the applicant? Commissioner Anderson. Not a question, it's just a comment. So, yeah, if you look at Target's floor plan, it does call it out as a compactor. So, there is a standard detail that the town has for compactors that everybody complies with. So, as as long as they're all okay with that. I think I think that would be caught up in the kind of catch-all condition that says compliance with town codes. So, to to your point, I >> We're going to add it anyways just to make sure. Yeah. Thank you. Anyone else any questions, comments, deliberations? Okay. Thank you, sir. Uh open up the public comment. I don't have any cards. Is anyone here wishing to speak in favor of or in opposition to this item? All right. Not seeing any then. Uh I'll Well, I guess I could close the public comment and then before I just bring it up here, is there any other questions you guys would like to offer to Sal? Just to bring Sal back up. No? All right. Very well, then I'll close the public, bring it to the dais for a discussion um and or a motion uh keeping in mind that we do have the condition as it relates to that compactor and you know, and maybe the way that it is if it's in in fact not meant to be a compactor, um but it is called out, maybe it was a copy and paste, but either way, if there is a compactor, it'll you know, we'd have to add that it will um comply with that code as Commissioner Anderson was speaking. Yeah, I I suspect it is a compactor because there's only three other trash enclosures on the site for the retail. So, I mean, if they were anticipating those, it just doesn't meet the it wouldn't even suffice that. So, it's definitely a compactor. >> Okay. Just based on the volume you're saying. Okay. Yeah. All right. So, then if we, you know, any other discussion, questions, or stuff, you know, we'll have dais or else a motion. I can go ahead and make that motion if there's none. So, recommend not recommend. Yeah, recommend approval of 25-112 southeast corner Higley and Ocotillo retail center subject to the conditions of the staff report plus the addition of the compactor meeting standard uh the town of Gilbert standard detail for enclosing compactors. We have a motion from Commissioner Anderson. Do you have a second? Second. >> Commissioner Simon flying in with the second. Any other further discussion? Very well. Please cast your vote. Motion carries 7-0. Thank you all very much. Moving on to the next item, we move into administrative items. These items are for the commission discussion and action. It is to the discretion of the majority of the commission regarding public input requests on any administrative item. Persons wishing to speak on administrative items should complete the public comment form indicating the item number on which you wish to be or to address. The commission may or may not accept public comment. Given that item six, the planning commission meeting minutes from March 4th, 2026 meeting is the only item on the administrative items, I will ask the crowd, does anyone wish to speak on these? Okay, not seeing any. I will entertain a motion or any discussion of amendments that you may have seen when reading these in your packet. Chair, I'll make a motion to approve as written. We have a motion from Commissioner Simon to approve the planning commission meeting minutes as written. Do I have a second? I'll second. Second from Commissioner Davis. Please cast your vote. 6-1 Razor-thin margin. Passes. Next up, communications. We do not have an executive session, so we will move on to item seven, report from chairman and members of the commission on current events. Does anyone have anything exciting they'd like to talk about? Wow. Okay. Well, just be careful cuz it's hot. I know it's Easter weekend, so don't let candy melt become a big mess. Yes, Commissioner Simon. >> everybody to root for U of A to win and Illinois to lose on Saturday. Then we need to add Yukon to win, men and women. I did get my MBA from Illinois, so I'm going to not comment on that. All right, a very good. Well, thank you all very much. We'll move to item number eight, which is the report from the planning services manager on current events. That's Ashley. No updates for me. Thank you all. As anticlimactic as that was, I'm sure that we're all excited to go into the next item, which is entertaining a motion for adjournment. So moved. We have a movement from Commissioner Simon to adjourn. Second. >> Second from Commissioner DeGroot Vina. Please cast your votes. Motion carries 7-0. Thank you all very much. Have a great month. See you next month. Meeting adjourned. No, I didn't