I think so. >> They're everywhere. Okay. uh we can get this uh party started here. I will call to order the study session and we will begin with item number one which consists of three items GP2504 Headarters Gilbert and Z2509 and DR2576 all headquarters Gilbert and I think S will come up to present mut Good evening, commissioners. The project we'll be taking a look at first is Headarters Gilbert. All right. Before we jump into some of the documentation, I just wanted to provide a general overview of the associated applications for the project. So, with Headarters, we'll be taking a look at a general plan amendment to change the land use designation from general commercial to residential from to 25 to 50 dwelling units per acre. It'll also consist of a PA AD amendment to remove the subject site from the existing Gilbert town Gilberttown Square P A. And part of that PA AD amendment, the applicant is also requesting uh a reszone of the 6.37 acres from shopping center to multif family high with a PAD. And following that, we'll be looking at a design review for a four-story age restricted multif family development, which would encompass an administrative use permit for a parking reduction. The subject site outlined in blue, as I mentioned, is roughly 6.37 acres and is currently located within the Gilbert Town Square planned area development. It's currently situated just west of Gilbert Road and just south of Warner Road. The subject site is ex uh adjacent to existing multif family just to the west. We have commercial to the south and the east and to the immediate north we have the consolidated canal which is a PFI zoning district and just beyond that we have some single family residential. As I previously mentioned, the applicant is proposing a PA amendment to remove themselves from the existing PA AD to spec uh establish a PA a specific to the headarters project. As part of the amendment, the applicant is requesting the reszone from shopping center to MFH for a 188 unit uh multif family development. I provided the zoning zoning exhibit here just to provide some context to the adjacent properties. We have shopping center to the south and east, multif family medium to the west, PFI immediately to the north and just beyond that SF6 and SF7. As part of that P A process, there are a few proposed uh deviations associated. Uh the first one is a reduction in the landscape setback in the northeast corner from 10 ft to 0 feet. And this is due to the existing property line and its location in the center of a drive aisle and implementing a landscape setback would impede in that drive. >> The second associated with the application is reduction in covered parking and closed parking on site. Our LDC currently reads that one covered parking space per dwelling unit is required with at least 25% of those spaces being enclosed. And the applicant is requesting to amend this language to have a total of 0.8 covered park spaces per dwelling unit with a 21.3% enclosed ratio >> with the associated uh zoning application. We do have a general plan amendment as well as well. The existing existing designation on site is general commercial and the proposed would be residential 2550 dwelling units per acre per acre per acre. The proposed proposal development is designed to achieve a residential density of roughly 29.5 dwelling units per acre which falls which falls threshold. >> Looking at the site plan itself, uh there are two primary residential buildings. Those will be building A and building B. each of those each of four stories in height and located closer to that eastern property line to present a nice street. Uh building A is approximately 69,55 and building B is anticipated to be just over 117,000 ft. Just between these buildings located 6,25T clubhouse. Uh outside of the clubhouse, there are a variety of amenities just to the northeast there. uh which would include some pickleball courts, a swimming pool, a dog park, and some additional amenities in the clubhouse uh itself. To enhance pedestrian uh movement, there are plentiful walkways and sidewalks that have been integrated into the site for on-site connection as well as to the canal paths just to the north. Um, as for the parking spaces themselves, they have been distributed uh distributed along the perimeter of the site as well as adjacent um to the residential buildings themselves. Uh, additionally, I wanted to add that previous approvals also have parking for the subject site. And what I mean by that is a while back the site of what is now cold beer and cheeseburgers in the site for Buffalo Wild Wings did not have enough space to satisfy their parking requirement and at the time were built ac across the street. So the applicant is providing those additional 23 spaces for those commercial users so they're able to meet their parking count while also meeting the demand for the parking uh for the multif family development. Oh, whoa. Spider. Uh, taking a look at the landscape plant. I wanted to mention that one of the main reasons why they are requesting removal from the existing PA AD is due to some strict landscaping requirements that are tied to the uh ordinance, which would be ordinance 617. Uh one of these uh standards is specifically to multif family developments in the requirement to provide a minimum of two trees per dwelling unit uh excluding street trees and perimeter landscaping which would include uh an additional 362 lands uh species on site or trees planted which would become difficult for even keeping the the species alive. And one thing we noticed too is that the Gilbert Town Center does have um quite a bit of landscaping. So staff wants to ensure that the same presence of landscaping is presented on site. Uh the landscaping plan has um a a tree pallet of desert museum palo verde, red push pistache and evergreen elm with the district tree being the Mexican fam palm which is provided. And I just wanted to add that the landscaping buffer just to the south does not look like it's meeting that 10-ft requirement. So, we're still working with the applicant to ensure that all of the additional standards are provided on site. Moving over to the elevations, uh the headarters project incorporates a predominantly stucco walled system supported by accent materials of stone veneer, composite deck board, and metal trim. Uh the selected palette has a total of nine colors intended to complement the building's massing and material transitions. Uh some of these colors include the light brown composite deck board, white French toast, balanced beige and Turkish coffee for the stucco, dark maroon and light tan for the stone veneer and white for the metal accents. Uh the use of the darker tones at the base and the lighter tones above contributes to a balanced transition. The roof line varies along these longer wall planes and the utilization of recess walls and bumpouts also help accent these large massing Uh, another thing to add is that the balconies are all uh screened to that 80% requirement and all maintain a minimum of 60 square ft of private open space. And I'll just go ahead and go through these here for you. And the key at the bottom helps provide a bit better um depiction of where these angles are coming from. And then the last piece here is just the elevations for the associated clubhouse. We can see shared colors, materials as well as those enclosed um parking units as well. So, at this time, staff is requesting input from the planning commission in regards to the removal from the existing P A uh the resoning from shopping center to multif family high and just general comments uh in regards to the site design and the elevations. And that concludes my presentation. I'm happy to field any questions you may have. Thank you. >> Thank you. S could you bring up the last slide just so that okay just so that then as anyone's thinking through it they know what you're looking for. >> Okay. Who wants to kick it off? >> I have a >> Oh, go ahead. Yeah, commissioner. >> I have a question for S chair if that's all right. >> Yes, please. >> Okay. Um S on the um removal from the existing PA. I was curious what the boundary of that existing PA is. It looks like it's the Gilbert Town Square. um and why they're removing it versus modifying it >> and if there's any kind of design guidelines or anything for that town square that this is removing it from. I guess I'm trying to understand why we're removing it from the PD. >> Uh Chair Mont Commissioner Davis. So one of the um so let me back up a little bit. So, as in regards to design guidelines for the town center, Gilbert Town Square P A um that original ordinance 617 adopted associated design guidelines which now um which which means every following development needs to come in alignment with the conditions of the ordinance as well as any associated design guidelines. Uh the design guidelines do have stricter landscape development standards than what we see in the land development code today. um and the applicant has shown a count that is in alignment with our current code and these additional standards create more of um a burden rather than allowing for the development. >> Okay. >> Thank you. Um as far as landscaping, I understand that. As far as like building design, is there any kind of standards that they're >> not having to meet because they're pulling out of that PD or are they still having to >> chair Commissioner Davis? So although they are requesting the removal from the PAD, planning staff is still ensuring that the architecture, landscaping, and the overall design is complimentary to what exists in the uh town square PA. And that's where you see some of those shared um colors, materials, uh shared landscaping species. So while they are removing themselves or requesting to remove themselves, we want to ensure that it plays into the existing environment. >> Okay. Okay. Um, do you want me to just go on with all of my >> Go for it. >> So, um, I guess as far as the has there been I assume they they're working on their neighborhood process. Is there any anticipation that the neighborhood to the west is going to have issues with any of this? Do you know? >> At this time, I haven't heard any feedback from uh actually any of the neighbors associated with um the surrounding neighborhood. So, >> at this time, there hasn't been uh any neighborhood outreach to the >> a couple people who live over that I know weren't happy with the one next to it. So, I don't know if that'll stir up at all. Um because I was I just I guess I'm curious if there's grade changes or anything or lighting or any issues like that that could be a problem with um that neighborhood to the west. Um it is going to be a pretty significant wall of apartments that's going to go in across there. Um, so because it's, you know, one long building. So I guess as far as the Let me kind of go through your list here for overall site design. I was It looks like they have that large retention area that's back in behind the garages along the canal that's hidden by the garages, which is unfortunate. I know it's retention and probably not that usable, but it's going to be not visible or even close to usable when it's hidden like that. So, it seemed like maybe looking at a way to open that up or make it somewhat usable for the people that live there might be nice. Um, and then um let's see what else I had as far as the um elevations go. The the elevations didn't have callouts to where some of these materials were on what we had in our packets. Um so that made it challenging. And then understanding what some of the materials are. I was I didn't fully understand what the white panels are because it looks like they're on maybe the balconies, but also above the windows on the top floor. And I thought I couldn't tell if those were awnings above those on those kind of red portions. Um it looks like maybe there's an awning over that patio, >> but I couldn't tell for sure. It looked like on some of them they had shadowing, some it might just be a pop out. It also seems kind of high above the window and kind of awkward. So, some of those proportions seemed kind of weird to me. Um, some of the placement of materials with stone kind of inset. Um, but those and then I I'd like to see a rendering of this. Um, I think reading them when with these really long buildings, it's hard to understand them and the push and pull in the way that these are actually going to appear. I think a rendering would go a long way on a project like this um to help the board understand the building and what actually is happening. And maybe some of these things aren't a concern once we can see that. But when you're looking at it just straight on like that, I think some of that's kind of the proportions seem a little off to me. So, uh oh, and on the garages, I think those need more work. I don't see that we have a rear elevation on those. and it looks like that's all one plane and it's just flat and then we just have a paint color change. >> Um if they could, you know, and I don't see those gables anywhere else in the design. So that was kind of an unusual introduction, too. I don't know that they need that, but um those are my comments. I don't think I had anything else. >> Great. Thank you so much, Commissioner Davis. >> Thank you very much. Who's next? Commissioners uh Anderson, please. >> Uh thank you for the presentation. Uh just a couple questions. Uh what's the reason behind the parking reduction of the covered spaces and then the garages? Why are they requesting that? Uh, Commissioner Anderson, uh, Chairmont. So, I believe the reduction for the proposed parking, um, or the cover to enclose is just to accommodate the various forms of parking that would be required for multif family. uh due to some of the existing uh drainage issues and just the overall configuration of the site, the applicant was looking for a way to accommodate the the various forms of parking that would be required for for multif family. Um with the first iteration of this project, there was a proposed deviation to enclo include zero enclosed and zero covered parking spaces. So, we been working with the applicant to um I've been working with the applicant to make sure that these other forms have been proposed on site. >> Is the applicant from out of state? I mean, to have not have a covered space during the summertime out here is kind of ridiculous to me. >> Mhm. >> U not sure I really on board with that request. uh if I'm understanding the the reasoning for it is they want to reduce it from one to point eight because of drainage issues on the site. >> Okay, that I mean that's something a civil engineer can figure out I would think. >> Um and then I don't know if this is a comment or a question for you guys but how's the town um what's the town's thinking of of the reszone from shopping center to residential? I know that's a really tough area over there. That lot's been empty for a long time. And those restaurants around along there seems like Buffalo Wild Wings is the only one that can stay active there. And this the other restaurants have been in and out. And I know there's a few that are empty there. So >> kind of torn on that one. I think having this type of a use there might reinvigorate that area and >> get some new tenants in those restaurants that will be there long term. So what's what how's the what's the town's kind of opinion on the reszone? Uh, Chair Munt, Commissioner Anderson, so at this time looking at the project, planning staff is generally supportive of the proposed reszone. Um, due to a few reasons, of course, what you alluded to that some of the commercial existing in the Gilbert Town Square area hasn't been um, completely viable. We have seen some some high turnover from some some from some of those commercial uses um, especially for some of those uses tucked back further to the the west. Um and I know just from having previous conversations, a lot of the uh ongoing drainage issues with this location has made it difficult for um commercial development. Um so the introduction of a new form of multif family too, which would be that age restricted 55 plus isn't something that um we have very forms of in the town. So we believe that introducing the um additional residents would help increase the um commercial viability at this corner. >> Okay. Yeah, I kind of agree with that as well. Um, and then we got in the architecture. I kind of agree with Commissioner uh Davis. You know, it' be nice to get some 3D renderings so you could really see like the in-n-outs of the building because when you have a flat elevation like this, especially without any shadow lines and stuff like that, it gets doesn't really give you excited about the architecture. So, if they're able to provide that for the next next time they present, uh, I think that'd be very helpful for them. Other than that, uh, that's all I had. Thank you. >> Great. Thank you. Commissioner Simon, I guess I can't talk tonight. My mic wouldn't work. But um no, S, thank you for the presentation. Um my only comment is um that rear retention basin area it looks like is going to be um uh decomposed granite or stabilized granite back there. I don't see any area for um a pet walk or anything along those lines. There's a couple of areas that are um some artificial turf, but it seems to me that back area could be used as a dog walk or something. And if you've got a uh age restricted community, you're going to have a lot of individuals who probably have small furry pets. So, >> thank you. >> Which of course, we're not generalizing that old people have small dogs. I just wanted to clarify that for the community. >> I may or may not be. >> Yeah. I'm not sure. >> Commissioner Degravina. >> Yeah, good presentation, S. I had the same concern as uh Commissioner Anderson about the 24% reduction in parking, >> and I kind of made an assumption that 55 and above communities drive a little bit less as we get older, >> but that wasn't taken in into account when you agreed to that reduction. I think I'm So, it's I think it's a little bit steep to have a 24% reduction if that wasn't the reason for for doing it. Uh, Chair Munt, Commissioner Dravina. Um, and to your point, planning staff is still um reviewing the provided parking study and administrative use permit. So, we will be able to have additional information to the the total counts. >> Thank you, >> Vice Chair Fay. Thank you. Commissioner Anderson nailed my first two points, the concern about the zoning, and he said everything that needs to be said. Um, I I'm going to kind of pile on the parking. If this was coming before me tonight, I would vote against it just on the parking. I understand they can ask for a significant deviation downward, but that there's I don't see the justification and the drainage concern. I get they're in a flood zone because of the canal, but I don't see the drainage here as being anything complex to work out. And if it's one of the properties that's short on parking, um, this one's going to be a tough one because it's going to either spill over into the the retail across the street or it doesn't really have anywhere to go or it'll be crossing Gilbert. It' just be a mess. I it if they can't fit this without the parking deviation, then they're trying to fit too much onto this property and they need to go back to the drawing board and and try to put something smaller that fits. >> Can I jump in on that? I I think there might be a little miscommunication or confusion on our end regarding they're not asking for a parking reduction overall parking reduction. >> They're asking for both. >> They're asking for reduction in covered spaces and reduction in enclosed spaces, not overall spaces. >> I thought we were asking for both. >> And I can add to that. So there is an administrative use permit right now being reviewed by the planning staff for a overall parking reduction. Um >> there is Okay. which is an avenue in the code too for 55 plus um communities. Um but to your point, Commissioner Anderson, there still is a deviation tied to the P AD amendment that would reduce the amount of covered parking spaces and the enclosed parking spaces. >> So what's the percentage of overall spaces they're requesting to to reduce it by? >> I believe you were throwing out the number 23%. That's the custom park for the garages. I mean, personally, I think we should get rid of that garage requirement alto together in this town, but um so how much are they looking to reduce the overall parking by? >> Roughly 24%. >> Okay. Yeah. Then I'm in line with Commissioner Fay. That's I think that's a huge reduction. >> Yeah. And and to to actually do that the other part of that point, going between garage and covered, I don't really care, but getting rid of covered alto together is not and and I don't say how does drainage covered parking affect drainage. I I don't even make that connection that >> that that's I mean maybe there's a good explanation but cognitively or logic logically there's kind of a stretch for me to to accept that as even the reasoning much less agree to it. So I >> if we're talking about goof playing around with the numbers between garage and covered that's a marketing problem as far as I'm concerned. Getting rid of covered alto together bad idea or significantly reducing the covered and significantly reducing the parking. Both of those are are in the in a significant red flag category for me. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Fay. Okay. Anything else? All right. Uh yeah, I my my perspective is that the uh I I can't for the life of me understand how covered parking creates a drainage issue. So, if the applicant can further explain that, um, that would be a civil engineering marvel that both Bill Fay and I as professional civil engineers have never heard of. Um, I I like the layout, but I also agree that it's hard to really tell. I know there was the little icon on the bottom that showed some of the uh, you know, how the building juts in and out, but >> I it'd be good to see a better rendering of that. But other than that, I like the colors and the things of that nature. As for the zoning itself, I don't know. I I'm going to have to uh research a bit on the economic differential between commercial and a 55 plus community. And you know, I guess comp comparatively to what we have all taken infinite amounts of berating on of going to multifamily, it seems like we're sort of saying we're going to do multif family, but don't worry, they're old. Um whether that's a a good thing or not, I don't know. But nonetheless uh >> and and to clarify, 55 plus is not old. >> No, no. This is a youthful, vigorous citizen community is what we're we're calling. It's not that you get like >> Yes. Yes. >> 60 that you get old. >> Yeah. I I I misspoke. This is an active community. My apologies. they'll have maybe the golf carts won't fit in the parking but nonetheless uh hopefully did that answer all the questions that you were looking for so >> very much so thank you all >> right thank you sir >> that's a very nice owl okay moving on to item number two ST2502 Sheffield Place and Miss Nicole Thank you, chair, members of the commission. Nicole Russell, senior planner, development services. Tonight, we are going to look at the standard plans for Sheffield Place. For those that remember, this is a site that's approximately just as a little bit shy of 15 acres. That's located south and east of the intersection of Gilbert Road and Civic Center Drive. Back in May, the planning commission did hear the reszone request to turn it back from multifamily to single family to allow for a 67 lot subdivision um for an SFD type of development. Here is the approved open space and landscape plan that was presented to the commission as well as the town council several months ago. Here is the final proposed final plat that has not been approved yet. That is part of the reason why the commission is seeing the study session. Um, generally speaking, standard plans um can be approved either after they go to a study session and approved administratively or it can go to a full hearing as you have the members of the commission have seen before. Um since the final plat has not been recorded um staff is bringing this as a study session. So once the final plat's recorded um staff can approve the standard plans. Here is the elevation matrix. The applicant is proposing four different architectural types with three different elevations. The first is the Spanish modern. And I I do apologize. It was hard to get all the colors on uh the screen because there was just so many of them. Um so here's the elevations for the Spanish modern. It does have a lot of the architectural elements such as um let's see, do I have a a red dot? They've got the little outcropping here for Spanish and they've got the red roof tiles. And here is the farmhouse. And this is some of the elevations for that. With the farmhouse, they've got the board and bad siding. They also have um forgive me, I cannot remember the name of the little bit right there at the apex of the roof. And they also have a craftsman. And here are the elevations for the craftsman. There are several different color palettes. I I used the typical ones um for the presentation. Here is the contemporary and here's some of the colors. I apologize. It is 33 pages long and I couldn't fit it all on a few slides. And staff is uh looking for input. Uh no motion is required at this time. And that concludes my presentation and I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Nicole. Who wants to give any questions or input? But no motion. >> No input. >> Commissioner Davis, I'm >> so sorry. Thank you, Chair. Um, as you know, I wasn't supportive of the design of the subdivision, and I made a comment that I wanted to see the rear elevations enhanced. I want to say that I appreciate that it looks like they did that. Um they have nicer rear rear elevations than what we sometimes see. So that was that made me happy to see that. Um I wouldn't be opposed to an enhanced side elevation for lots 144 and 67 along Gilbert Road, but you know, not a sort I needed eye on, but it would be nice if the second floor was because that's right when you drive in. That's what you're looking at. But I really do appreciate they did that. So, I just wanted to note that. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Commissioner Davis. Commissioner Dearina, >> I think when we looked at this, or when I looked at this last time, I thought it was a pretty busy and pretty crowded development, and you've got 67 homes with 3,000 foot lots, even though they're twotory, but you still have 2400 to 2000 square foot homes there. Uh, so it's to me it's going to be a little bit crowded and a little bit busy. But my other concern is that or I shouldn't say concern. It looks like from what we've seen in the packet that each of these homes have a enough space to park two cars in the driveway. Is that correct, >> Chair Mont? Commissioner Degraina. Correct. It is a requirement to have a 20 foot long driveway that can accommodate two vehicles. >> And it looked like there was no additional parking besides the street. >> The parking is dispersed throughout the neighborhood. I apologize. They did not put the parking plan that was approved as part of the pre-plat in the packet, but they do have sufficient parking for what they are required to have. >> Thank you, >> Commissioner Gage. >> Thank you, Chair. Um, on some of these side elevations, it looks like there's nothing around the windows. And I'm I'm on page on the bottom, it says 18 of 46. I don't know which one it is, but um has that all been looked at by staff? >> Chair Mont, Commissioner Gage? Yes. Um part of the reason for asking not asking them to do the architectural treatments around the window is there's literally 10 ft between the houses and didn't feel that that was necessary since it's not going to be seen from the street. However, that being said, if you would like to see architectural treatments around the windows, I can definitely ask the applicant to do so. >> Actually, I' I'd rather see that requirement go away in the code because it doesn't make sense to me either, but I've had to do it before on projects, too. Um, so I don't have any problem with not requiring it. And I think that that mindset is something that we need to think about further for other projects as they come forward. I appreciate that. Thank you. >> Very well, >> Mr. Anderson. >> Uh, thank you for the presentation. Just a quick question for you. Does the Do we still have an I don't know if we still have it or if it was ever in our LDC where on these developments, you couldn't have like the same architectural style next to each other or across the way just to kind of mix it up and so make that the area a little bit more diverse. And it was the same with the colors, too. I remember like a long time ago um when I first got involved with this type of stuff that was I think we were stipulating it but I don't know if that ever made it into the LDC but do we do we have that type of a requirement so you can't have like two Spanish styles in the same right right next to each other or across from each other and the same with the colors and stuff >> chair commissioner Anderson yes that is part of the residential design guidelines so that would be something that when um they are coming in for permit they will show us which ones are going to be on which lot. So, we make sure that they're not going to be adjacent and have two identical homes with the same coloring. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Well, very good. Hopefully that was a good amount of input for you, Nicole. >> Yes. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you very much. Moving right along to item number three. We have the southeast corner of Higgley and Oatil Retail Center. We have Z2513, S2511, and D2512. And we get to welcome our man S back. Hello again, commissioners. Uh, the project we'll be taking a look at is the southeast corner of Higgley and Aato Retail Center. So looking at the case, uh it is going to include a few applications here. So the first one being a uh P A and resoning application from shopping center to general commercial, a design review for a threePAD commercial master site plan consisting of a user exceeding 75,000 square ft. And the third application is an administrative use permit requesting a 12 1.5% uh reduction in parking. Just to provide some context here, the sub subject site is outlined in blue and is roughly 16 acres and located at the southeast corner of Higgley Road and Aatoio Road. The subject site is part of the larger 243 acre Marbella Vineyards planned area development. Uh the subject site is currently vacant and is directly adjacent to single family zoning districts to the east, south, partially to the west with a community commercial to the west as well. And just to the north, we have a public facility institutional zoning district for a town of Gilbert recharge station. As part of the request, as I mentioned, the applicant is seeking to reszone the entirety of the site from shopping center to general commercial. The primary rationale for the reszoning is the shopping center zoning district limits a standalone user or building to 75,000 square ft. The proposed site plan includes a major commercial anchor that would exceed this threshold with an approximately 128,000 um building footprint. At the time, the applicant is not seeking any deviations from the general commercial development standards. The proposed reszoning is just to accommodate the larger user on site. Uh in building off of that, there is no associated general plan amendment as it does currently hold the land use designation of general commercial. Looking at the site plan, there are three pads, two of which that are proposed up along Aatoio Road and one larger tenant that is on the eastern portion of the site up along uh Wilson Way. Pad one is approximately 8,100 square ft and is anticipated to accommodate a sit-down restaurant and pad 2 in the northwest corner is approximately 3,000 ft and anticipated to be a financial institution. The major anchor here is anticipated to be 128,000 square ft and as I mentioned situated closer to that eastern property line. Uh parking has been distributed throughout the site south site with spaces being placed along the perimeters of the site and directly adjacent to the um major entrances. Uh the applicant has also submitted a 12 a.5% parking reduction on site through an administrative use permit and planning staff is currently reviewing that application concurrently with these uh vehicular access to the site is proposed off of Higgley Road. Uh where we'll find two, one of which being a full motion, one being a rightin, right out, one up along Okato Road, which is to be a rightinite out and then a full access point along Wilson Way. Uh the fencing and wall plan includes 3-ft high perimeter screen walls for the associated drive-thru use as well as uh what they're showing 6-ft screen walls along the southern and eastern property line. Uh but per our code commercial adjacent to residential requires an 8ft um CMU screen wall. So we're working with the applicant to ensure that is um provided on the updated set of plans. The project also has an associated uh phasing plan which is to be completed in three phases. Uh the first phase is the pad one development in the norththeast corner uh which would include the construction of the u the building itself along with the on-site and off-site improvements. Uh following that would be phase two which were proposed to see that uh major anchor and that final phase would be the financial institution in the northwest corner. As for landscaping, uh the trees and plants are consistent with other materials found throughout Marbella vineyards and pro provides a pallet of trees and shrubs such as desert desert willow, palo verde, red push pistache and southern live oak. Uh currently the overall landscape count is not currently met but we are working with the applicant to ensure that all the required plantings are provided on site. Moving over to the major tenant elevations, the building will reach an overall height of 35 ft to that tallest point on that architectural feature at the entryway, but the roof line itself will maintain a height between 24t 8 in and 26'8 in. The exterior will be finished with stucco, which the proposed colors are cliff's view and slopes. And this stucco is to be accented by stack stone veneer, concrete tiltup panels, and bronzed aluminum. A raised tower element has also been presented along the storefront along the main entrance to emphasize the main um point of entry as well as a expansive use of large storefront windows to build that natural light. Uh moving over to the north and south elevations, it just provides a um better uh visual to what those elevations might look like. You'll also see the associated canopy here on that north elevation that is not connected to the building, but that is um related to the associated online pickup spaces that are just in that parking field to the north of the structure. And here we have the pad one elevations which is going to be that structure located in the northeast corner. Uh the proposed height is 22 feet to the top of the parapit and it utilizes architectural style and colors found from the major anchor to tie into that overall cohesiveness. Uh the roof line is generally fat flat similar to the uh major anchor with subtle variations introduced from the stack stone and a metal canopy system along the front elevation that wraps into a patio feature to the east or I'm sorry to the west. And at this time staff is just requesting um some input from the planning commission in regards to the proposed zone change from SC to GC. uh general site design and the elevations of the major tenant and pad one building and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. S who wants to kick it off? >> Commissioner Gage, >> thank you. Um S, I know that uh I was in attendance to the neighborhood meeting. Has there been any additional correspondence with the neighbors since that time? Uh, Chair Munt, Commissioner Gage, yes, there's been significant neighborhood uh correspondence. Um, we've received, you know, various emails, calls. Um, since the neighborhood meeting that took place a few months back, um, general concerns are related to, um, the use itself, noise trash odor um parking and I'll be more than happy to provide a complete list of some of those other concerns um, for you, Commissioner Gage. I is there I just want to make sure that there's not going to be anybody that would be able to park along Wilson and walk into the development without going through that driveway there cuz I think that was a concern of the residents. >> Mhm. >> Is that right? There's going to be a whole sixt wall along the east side and south side. >> Correct. So, we're working with the applicant to place an 8-ft solid CMU wall along the entirety of the eastern property line as well as the southern property line. And to your point too, Commissioner Gage, that has been a concern from staff as well that any spillover parking may end up on Wilson Way. So, we are in the process of analyzing the uh administrative use permit and um we'll have some more information for you on a later date. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Anyone else? Vice Chair >> S. Thank you. Um, this this project is firing on all cylinders as far as I'm basically as I'm concerned. This I know I give people a hard time about parking all the time. This is one that should be doing a downward deviation and and so it's it's appropriate. And another thing I look at pretty closely is when there's multiple phasing, multiple phases, when is the infrastructure, when is the common good infrastructure, the drainage and the parking and such getting put And this one they're putting all of the infrastructure or all of the key common good features of the in in phase one. Um so this is a this is with one little ripple. This is exceptional. Um to the south there's a drainage basin which belongs to the HOA. >> Our public outreach reaches across that doesn't it to the neighbors on the other side or does it not does that serve as a disenfranchisement strip? If um Commissioner Fay, so you're asking I'm sorry, just for for clarification on my part. >> When we reach out to the neighbors, we we have a certain geographic or geography that we reach out to distance, >> right? >> The properties to the south. Um I' I've done this where I've uh done a lot split and then made it made a drainage basin just to disenfranchise the neighbors from commenting or forcing a super majority in Scottsdale. Sorry if you're from Scottsdale. Um I'm not I'm not sympathetic to that. So if our our community outreach should be careful to reach across that and I imagine community outreach is going to be the only issue. Um other than that in terms of the engineering and design everything, this this project is great with me. >> Thank you. >> I never would have imagined that you would have done something like that, vice chair, but that's just fine. We learn a lot of new things every day. Anyone else have any input outside of nefarious deeds done by members? Uh, Commissioner Davis. >> Thank you, Chair. Um, thank you, S. Um, I think this is a really a nice project. That target is a really nice looking building. Um, I just had one comment on pad one. I thought the north elevation was pretty blank facing out onto Aato there and those doors don't seem to dump out to a sidewalk or anything. they just kind of dump out into the landscaping. So, um it seems like maybe they could incorporate some of those high windows that they've got on the target or something along that side um to spruce up that north elevation. So, I know there'll be landscaping there, but it's going to start out really small and I think that they could do more on the arterial side of that building. So, that's all I had. >> Perfect. Thank you, Commissioner Davis. >> Very nice. Okay. Well, I think uh that covers everything. All right. Thank you very much sir. >> Much appreciated. >> Okay. Moving right along, we get into item number four, which is the discussion of the regular meeting agenda. And I have my good friend Keith has told me that item nine, which is currently on the consent, is going to be removed because he really wants to do a presentation. So there is there's just one part of that that he wants to present on actually I was saying and uh other than that we have item 8 ST2501 Bellistoria item 10 UP25-25 self-made studios and item 11 DR24137 or a Santan. Anyone have any issues with those on consent currently? >> Can I make a recommendation? >> Yes sir. So on the public hearing, um would it make sense to kind of reorganize the the different uh what we hear first? Because we have one, two, three land development codes and at the very end, Willbrook. Would it make sense to do Will and the item that's coming off consent, have have those guys have their hearings and then they can get out of here and then we could do the LDC text amendments after that? >> That's a really good idea. I think that's what most of the public attention would be. >> Yeah. Yeah. that that would make sense. Maybe that maybe they had put it at the end to try to enhance fatigue and make it easier, but we're going to I'm kidding. Nobody does that. Um, but as for the consent then, is there anything else? Um, and obviously we can't move anything to consent that I'm aware of. Uh, Commissioner Gage, >> I have a question on number eight that I don't know if it requires being pulled off of the agenda. It's more just a question. Should I talk with Abby in our break and then see what we need to do there? I don't know if I'm allowed to authorize side deals of talks, but do whatever you're going to do during said break outside of the purview of what I would authorize. Of course, Elaine's listening. And uh we can decide then if we have to move that one, but other than that possible movement, everything else good. And unless anyone else that's here wishes to speak on any of those items, uh if you are in the vast crowd this evening, please fill out a yellow comment card that is found in the back on the table near the agendas so that uh I would know and then we could move that off. All right, >> chairman. I would make I would move at this point to approve the agenda as written with the exception of moving item nine off of consent and moving it into the public hearing non-consent. >> I think we do that during the next meeting. >> Oh, we do that now. >> Yeah, >> never mind. I mean, I move to never mind. >> Yeah. First of all, I love the enthusiasm and that's why, you know, we have such a great group of commissioners. But for now, I will adjourn the study session and we will be back here in 5 minutes, 6:00 sharp. Um, assuming that Commissioner Gage can have whatever conversation. Thank you. >> I did not cross this. That doesn't take much. Okay, I think we can get started now. Uh, Commissioner Gage is done. Not a problem. Okay, let's get to the main event and I will call to order the regular meeting here and please rise with me for the pledge of allegiance. Thank you very much, Ashley. Could we please get a roll call? >> Uh, Commissioner Wong. >> Commissioner Lion >> here. >> Commissioner D. Graina >> here. >> Commissioner Gage >> here. >> Commissioner Davis >> here. >> Commissioner Simon >> here. >> Commissioner Anderson >> here. Vice Chair Fay >> here >> and Chairman Munt >> here. >> Uh we have a quorum. >> Thank you very much. All right. Now we'll move on to item number five, the discussion and approval of the agenda. And as we had discussed, uh the consent item number nine is going to be removed. Um, I'm also going to then say we could have it go from number nine on the non-consent to number 15 and then come back to 12, 13, and 14. So whether we need to have that put into order, um, I'm my understanding is that item number eight is able to stay. So 8, 10, and 11 would stay on the consent agenda unless anyone out there is looking to speak on those items. All right. So I don't see that. So with that being said, unless there's any other discussion, I would entertain a motion. Chairman, I make a motion to approve the agenda as written, except removing item nine from the public hearing consent and moving it on to the public hearing non-consent. >> Thank you, Vice Chair. Do we have a second? >> I'll second it. >> Second from Commissioner Simon. Please cast your vote. All right, motion carries. Do we need to do a motion to reorder things or can we just do that administratively? >> I'll just call them. >> Yeah, >> call the call item nine and item 15. >> Okay. >> Okay. We will move now to the communications portion and item six, 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 the matter for further consideration. As now, I do not have any comment cards for this section. And is there anyone who wished to speak on items not on the agenda that did not get a comment card filled out? Not seeing any, we will move on to item number seven and the report from the council liaison on current events. Council member Lions, >> we do have coming up next week uh Veterans Day and there will be a car show at 3:00 followed by a uh uh ceremony beginning at 5:00. So encourage everybody to come and become a part of that and uh celebrate those who have served our our nation faithfully. So thank you. >> Thank you. And where is that uh council member? >> The car show is um down by the uh water tower area and I think the uh uh um ceremony is here at the uh complex. >> The complex. Very nice. Okay. Thank you, sir. Now into the public hearing consent. All items listed below are considered for the public hearing consent calendar. The commission may by a single motion approve any number of items where after opening the public hearing, no person requests the item 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 on the agenda may be added to the consent calendar and approved under a single motion. As it stands, our current consent calendar is item 8, ST2501, Bellistoria. Item 10, UP2525, Self-Made Studios, and item 11, DR24137, Orura Santan. I will entertain a motion on the consent. Chairman Munt, I move to approve the consent agenda consisting of items 8, 10, and 11. >> We have a motion from the vice chair. Do I have a second? I'll second. >> Second from Commissioner Degravina. Please cast your vote. >> Okay. Item passes 70 into 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. That being said, we will go to item 9, DR25-52, Gilbert Gateway Commerce Park. and everyone's favorite, Mr. Keith Newman. Um, Chairman, members of the commission, um, Chairman Munt, you are too kind. Um, so, um, Gilbert Gateway Commerce Park um we appreciate you moving this off of the, um, consent agenda, putting it on the non-consent agenda. And the reason we wanted to move this um is to bring up to you a change in um condition number three. So if I can um show you uh condition number three, unless you would like a full presentation, I'm prepared to do either. But I would just the main thing was that we wanted to just revise and change a condition. >> As much as I would enjoy that, Keith, I know for the interest of time, we will just uh stick to that unless everyone else. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Perfect. So at the very back of my presentation, I show the revised condition or the proposed current condition. The original condition, the revised condition. So the original condition is it says uh final approval of the proposed site is contingent upon the approval of the abandonment of the existing of existing Sparrow Court rightway which runs between those two buildings. Um right in the middle splitting the site. Um, so we would like to revise that to just rephrase that to make it more clear to make it more to state abandonment of Sparrow Court in accordance with condition M of ordinance 2950 which is the zoning ordinance that came before it was approved by council. Um, I believe it was in June and it shall be completed prior to building permit issuance. So, Sparrow Court, which runs right down through the middle of the site. Um, I had a graphic right here. So, it's right here down through the middle of the site. That whole thing is not going to be abandoned, which the condition kind of kind of um says it the whole thing is going to be abandoned, but only the culdesac. You can see kind of at the bottom is that that little kind of hatched area where there used to be a culde-sac. The only thing that's being abandoned is the culde-sac. So, we wanted to revise the condition to make it clear that what was approved for abandonment per the zoning ordinance, which is just the culde-sac portion, is the only part that's being abandoned and that that will have to be completed prior to the issuance of a building permit because this little drive that runs through the middle of the site provides secondary access to the storage facility to the south. So that is the only change we wanted to make. Just make the condition a little more clear because it was a little it was a little confusing. So that that's it. Um so we would uh recommend that you approve this project um subject to the revised condition in that I just presented. Thank you very much. >> Thank you Keith. Did anyone have any questions or comments for Keith prior to a vote? I just have one question as it relates to the functional element of abandonment when does that just mean they say okay it's abandoned like or do they have to tear it up and like is there actual are there other I just want to make sure that what we say is going to cover what needs to be done. >> Uh chairman members of the commission um I'm not sure I understand the question if you can kind of rephrase that. What what goes into the abandonment? Like it because the way it says that it'll be abandoned prior to being completed. It almost seems more that it would be it's being abandoned or only this one part is being abandoned. I guess maybe that's a semantics, but it seems as though it was thought through. it. Just the way I read it, it seemed like I don't know if I'm saying I have to do something prior to this, what is that thing I need to do? >> Yeah. Um, chair chairman, members of the commission, I appreciate you rephrasing that. They will have to submit a I believe it's a um and our town one of our engineers Tom Condid is here can answer that probably even better but I think they have I believe they have to submit an uh a right-of-way abandonment um application and go through that process with our engineering department and I believe that will happen at the same time as the CD review in approval if that answers >> yeah that does that answers it that that's good well it it may but it actually sorry The presentation actually created more questions for me. >> Oh, >> because it's actually the public that abandons the rightway. They apply to abandon it. If it's right ofway, they don't actually Well, they don't own the easement. >> And what's wrong with it being rightway? If it's rightway, then it provides access to the property. Why would you abandon it as rightway? Why wouldn't you leave it as right away? Um, Chairmont, uh, members of the commission. So, the slide in front of you shows that that culde-sac bulb. The reason the applicant is proposing to abandon it as right of way, the just the portion of the culde-sac that pops out and you can see it that's kind of hatched is is so that they can comply with um so that the rideway is not going in between the middle of their buildings and it's not it's an element that's not needed for a turnaround function. So, it'll help them um uh place the buildings where they want to place them and at the shape and size that they're proposing them. >> Oh, so they're not they're not abandoning the hole right away. They're just the hammerhead piece. >> Just the hammerhead piece. And and you can kind of see it hatched on the screen. >> Well, it is, but the whole hammerhead's hatched. I didn't realize you were just talking about the shaded portion. >> Yeah, it's just the shade. Sorry, I should have said the word shaded. It's the shaded portion only, but the whole ride ofway will continue to go through to provide access to the storage facilities. I just got that part. >> No problem. >> Sorry if I didn't explain that correctly. >> It's okay. It's probably just us engineers. >> I should have said the word hatched a shaded instead of hatched maybe. >> Yeah. Okay. Well, very good then. Unless anyone else has any questions or comments. Um I I guess I'll open it up for public comment. I don't have any cards. Is there anyone here that wish to speak on this item? Not seeing any, I will close the public comment and bring it back to the dis and entertain discussion or a motion if we're ready. >> Chairman Munt, I would move to approve item nine with the addendum or the the amendment of the change in language related to the abandonment of the rightway. >> All right, we have a motion. Do I have a second? >> I'll second. >> Second from Commissioner Simon. Please cast your vote. Motion carries 70. Moving right along, we are going to hop to item number 15 in the essence of time and uh S2503 Willowbrook and Miss Kristen Divine. >> Chair, I need to recuse myself. >> Oh yes. And we have a recusal from Commissioner Gage. Right. Good evening, commission. Uh, the case I have for you tonight is for the preliminary plat for the Willow Brook community. Uh, this community is located on 156th Street and Rigs. This is just east of Val Vista. Um, this is the approved development plan for the project. A little bit of history on this project. Um, you originally saw this uh back in August. Um, it was put on the council agenda. It was continued because there was some traffic concerns. Um, it just recently went back to council in October and the reasonzoning for that was approved. So, we are back before you with the preliminary plat today. Uh, the development plan that was approved uh was seen on the screen here. It's zoned SF6. So, the planned area development, it's approximately 26.4 acres with a density of 3.5 uh four five dwelling units per acre. The red dots on the bottom indicate singlestory restrictions on those specific lots. So seen here is the specific preliminary plat consists of 91 lots. Again, that single story restriction is on lot 76 to 91. The minimum lot size requirement is 6,600 square f feet and there's about 18% of open space for the community. Some more specific details on what those lot sizes actually look like. Although the minimum is 6,600 square f feet, most of the lots do range from 6 uh 6720 ft² to 7,575 ft². Um with 53 of those lots exceeding even 7,000 square ft. Um so there was a lot of concerns during the resoning process about traffic and the the desire for a traffic light um which ultimately was not warranted. So, a compromise that was made with the applicant and with staff was to um install this sort of Uturn condition that you're seeing on the screen here. So, instead of putting a traffic light at 156, uh the proposed compromise is to turn right off of 156th with a left turn lane being installed east of the development so that they can then U-turn to go back west down Riggs Road. Um hopefully easing some of that wait time that they're experiencing. the residents off of 156th trying to turn left. All right. And this is just highlighting the open space plan for the community. Um the community is adjacent to an SRP substation. You can see that there's a significant amount of um landscaping that buffers that station from the community um with the amenity space being placed there as opposed to houses. Um there's also an 8ft separation wall between that facility and the community. Um, and then there also is a trail connection that leads out to Rigs Road through the community and connects down to the Marathon Ranch community to the south. Uh, some of the amenities that are included in this development are a pickle ball court, um, ramadas, picnic tables, a play structure, and a swing set. And then this is just highlighting what those two different signs for the community are going to look like. Uh, the primary entry sign is going to be located on Rigs Road, which you can see on the right. And then the 156th Street entrance is going to be um kind of placed on the the wall of the entrance there. Um and you can see that on the left. >> All right. And with that, uh we do recommend approval of the preliminary plat for Willoughbrook. And I am available for your questions if you have them. >> Thank you very much, Kristen. Anybody have any questions or comments for her? >> I do. >> Commissioner Davis. >> Thank you, Chair. Um Kristen, the amenity space that's located kind of on the center in the kind of northeast corner of the site. Um it I mean I'm going to be a little contrary to my normal self here. Um I understand wanting to provide screening for the SRP site there um from this neighborhood to have that buffer. It seems like there's an excessive amount of trees even from their interior streets into their amenity space as far as their pickle ball courts, their playground area. I just I feel like that's it's an extra burden on the HOA. I feel like over the years sometimes these HOAs will just take them out. Um water I know is sensitive right now. It just seemed Is there a reason why it's so has so many trees? Uh, so Chairman, Commissioner Davis, um, that this was how it was originally proposed. Um, I I appreciate the buffering from the substation. I know that the wall is also there, too, but landscaping does kind of help add to that. Um, but no, there was no specific requirement as far as I'm aware of putting them specifically in that location. I just thought maybe they could thin it a little bit out, you know, not right up against the substation, but out in front of their amenity space just to provide visibility into those spaces and maybe just take some of that burden off. They're really, really crammed in there, it looked like, to me. So, >> just maybe an opportunity for them to >> not saddle the HOA with that. >> Yeah. No, we'd be happy. >> It would still look lovely, I'm sure. So, that's just my comment on that. So, I'd be happy to take a look at that. Um, and it is something that sounds like if we we do want to thin those trees out a little bit, we may be able to just do that administratively over the counter to modify the landscape plan. >> Okay. Anyone else? Commissioner Simon, >> I just have one comment and and that is I think I probably raised the most issue with regards to the traffic and and I appreciate um the town and the applicant working together to find a solution that it looks like not necessarily maybe the exact solution the community wanted, but I think that it's a good compromise. So, thank you. >> Yeah. So, Chair Munt, Commissioner Simon, thank you very much. Our traffic team worked really hard to come up with the solution. There was a lot of different alternatives that were thrown out there. Um but until that neighborhood to the north comes in, this is the best option that we came up with. >> Very good. Okay. Um then I do not have any comment cards, but I will open up the public anyone wishing to speak on this item. All right. Not seeing any. I will close the public comment and bring it to the dis for discussion or a motion. >> Chair, >> Commissioner Simon. >> Uh, I was just going to make a motion to approve the findings of fact and recommend approval to the town council. >> Of what? >> Of what? >> Of Aren't we supposed to say the number? >> That's 253. >> Yes. Yes, Willoughbrook. >> Thank you, sir. All right, we have a motion on the table. Do I have a second? >> Uh, chairman, I second chair count commissioner Simon's motion to approve item 15 S25-03. >> Okay, we have a motion for item 15 S2503 Willoughbrook. And we have a second from Vice Chair. Please cast your vote. >> Motion carries. Okay. And I and I only said that because I want to make sure because we went out of order. Somebody can somebody that knows where Commissioner Gage is let her know that she can now return. I'll just wait a minute for her to return before I start the next one procedurally not to cause any issues. Commissioner Gage, thank you for joining us. Okay. Next item on the agenda, item 12, Z25-10 LDC text amendment, HVC development standards. And Kristen, >> it's been so long since I've seen you. Um, okay. Uh, so the project that I have for you now is for an LDC text amendment to the HVC development standards. Um, you've seen largely a lot of this presentation before, so I'll try to kind of move as quickly through it as I can. So, we're not super doubling down on information. Um, but the general request for this is to increase height within the heritage district. Uh, some background as to how we got here. I did go through a handful of council retreats where an urban 3 presentation was provided highlighting the different economic impacts of the different types of development. Um, staff researched different communities to see how they approach height. We provided that information to council at a follow-up retreat. We provided some visual representation and we were asked to kind of keep moving forward, reach out to different stakeholders and see um what increased height could do for our district. Um and for the next two slides, I will hand it over to Mike to kind of touch on the economic impacts. Thank you Kristen. Um chair, vice chair, commissioners, pleasure to be here. Mike Martella, the redevelopment program manager in the office of economic development. So this slide right here in in 2023, Urban 3 completed a comprehensive economic analysis of Gilbert with an emphasis on employment corridors including the heritage district. Their findings underscore a critical point is Gilbert approaches buildout. Gilbert must be strategic with its remaining land. That means encouraging gentle density with a mix of uses, especially in areas like the heritage district um to ensure that the tax base can support both current services and future growth. So this slide highlights Urban 3's findings regarding taxable value by acre in Gilbert in the graphic in the upper right corner. Um and then in the lower left corner it highlights the uh sales privilege revenue by acre and value per acre by building type. Um the brown bar represents the value per acre by building type and the blue bar represents the sales privilege by acre. So when considering the uh current conditions in the heritage district, Gilbert Gilbert mostly falls within that low and medium density um categories of mixed use. Um but this this uh text amendment modifies the 2005 uh policy going from 55 ft to 75 ft which is a increase of 25% over 20 years. Um it really creates opportunities for medium and high density mixeduse developments illustrated in the lower and middle right boxes to maximize both sales privilege by acre and value per acre by building type. So um you know this analysis also shows that mixeduse developments such as the collab and building 313 uh produce uh you know high return on investment in fiscally productive properties in in the district. Why is maximizing value per acre important? So um it's also important to know that Gilbert is uh primarily a residential community. Its operations are largely funded through sales privilege taxes in part because the town does not have a primary property tax and due to that it makes it essential to increase the productivity of its commercial and industry focused areas especially as the town reaches full buildout. So kind of summarize this 25% increase in 25 in 20 years like this proposed tax amendment can have a really meaningful impact on long-term fiscal sustainability allowing Gilbert to maintain the high quality of life for residents and businesses alike. And back to Kristen. Thank you. >> So, in addition to all that information, another driving factor is from our redevelopment plan. In it, we call out the desire for an 18-hour downtown, somewhere where residents can live, work, and play all in the same district. In an area like the Heritage District, parcels are very small. To achieve this goal, you have to build upwards instead of outwards, like an area maybe like Kulie Station where you have more of the capability of building um horizontal mixed use instead of vertical mixed use. Uh so what we're requesting is to go from a maximum height of 55 ft and four stories to a maximum height of 75 ft. Um we do currently require stepbacks adjacent to single family residential. Those stepbacks are required above two stories. Um we don't offer any sort of bonus incentives for height. To get increased height right now you would have to go through a pad through the town council or um an administrative relief request to increase height. Um, so what we're proposing again is 75 ft across the entirety of the HBC zoning district. Uh, we would require stepbacks adjacent to residential, keep that requirement. We would also want to incorporate them along Gilbert Road as well. We would want those Gilbert Road stepbacks to start at the 55 ft mark. That would be 1 foot per foot in height. Um, and we would keep the two-story requirement when adjacent to single family residential. Now, we are also asking for a bonus incentive structure for parcels located off of Gilbert Road. If these parcels incorporate a number of items that we will touch on in just a few slides, um they could potentially get an increase in height of up to 90 feet. So, this map here is just highlighting where those different heights can actually go. Uh the purple is highlighting where 75 ft is the maximum. They're not eligible for bonus heights. Uh the red is highlighting where 90 ft could be possible if they do incorporate those bonus items. Um we do have a provision in the proposed text amendment that allows for parcels such as uh this weird weird little guy up here that's kind of like a flag lot. Um although he does touch Gilbert Road, it's not buildable at the build to line. So we we would want that parcel to be eligible for possibly going up to 90 ft as well, which could be determined at the discretion of the planning manager. So for weird parcels like that, we do have a a provision to kind of address those. So those bonus items that we would like to incorporate are uh two different categories. We have a choose one category and a choose two category. The choose one category are more substantial items like underground parking, 10% of excess public parking above what they're required to already put on site and the entirety of the building being developed in non-combustible construction types. If you choose one of those items, you get the increased height you can build up to 90 ft or you can choose two items from the circle on the right. This includes 10% open space and landscaping. In the heritage district, we don't have a requirement for landscaping, so this is a benefit. Um, a certain percentage of art based on the side uh the construction costs of your building. public amenities like rid share spaces, things like that. Um, stepback requirements and sustainability. We chose 75 feet based off of our current development, researching other communities, and also um, developer conversations. Our current development consists of eight structures right now that are approved and/or built that do exceed the 55 ft requirement today. Uh the bottom four do fall within that 75 ft requirement that we are looking to um change the code to. This includes Heritage Park buildings. It includes the university building and the collab. And then you do have a couple that are even taller than that with the water tower of course being the tallest structure we have at 125 ft. U most of these were um established using a P A through the town council. Um but there are a handful like Heritage Park building 8 that were done through administrative relief. These are just two examples of existing buildings that exceed 55 ft. Um, so both of these buildings are four feet tall. We have the collab and we have the university building. The collab is four stories and it is 64 feet. The university building four stories and 70 uh almost 70 ft. So in addition to the community research, we also went on a walking tour of the district because the water tower is always a conversation um of trying to preserve that view of the water tower. So, we wanted to get a pedestrian perspective of where you can see the water tower from today. Um, these are six different vantage points within the district and photos of how the water tower looks from those points. This is one of those points, Gilbert and Vaughn on the southeast corner of how you can see the water tower today with the singlestory development. But if you were to take that development and you would build it to 55 ft, which is allowed by right today, you would then not be able to see that water tower. Um, so you can see that on the left and then the image on the right is just if you happen to add the 20 feet extra that we are requesting to increase the height to what that could potentially look like. So this is just highlighting some of the communities that we chose as comparative communities. We chose them um largely due to their proximity to the Phoenix area. Some of them are benchmark communities, but a lot of them are really just general communities of interest from staff that have worked on the research for this. This is highlighting the heights for those districts. The yellow indicates 55 ft. The green indicates 75 ft. And you can see that there are five of these communities that do exceed um the 75 ft that we're requesting today. Uh so I included one example for you today of those communities. So this is the south end of Charlotte, North Carolina. Uh they allow a maximum height of 50 to 130 ft and they do incorporate a bonus structure which is kind of where we took inspiration from for the bonus structure we're proposing where they allow 75 ft to 300 feet. um we are not requesting anything as crazy as 300 feet. Um but we did get kind of our our structure for the bonus system from them. So in addition to community research, we reached out to a handful of different developers and architects. Uh the main takeaways we took away from that conversation is that building heights have increased over time largely due to accommodate the higher floor to ceiling heights that are being seen with different uses that are popular right now. Um, a lot of those uses are experience-based uses and boutique style class A offices where users are looking for more of a hotel amenity style office feel as opposed to large um, office complexes. So, this slide is just highlighting um, an average of what those different developers and architects um, explain that they're seeing for different floor heights for these uses. For commercial, they're seeing an average of 16 to 22 feet. Office 12 to 16 ft. Residential 10 to 13 ft. for an ideal building height of 75 ft. Once you get over 75 feet, you start encroaching into like a high-rise building code, which is why 75 ft is kind of the sweet spot. Um, the construction requirement for above that gets a little more substantial above 75 ft. So, this is taking those numbers and it's building a concept development. So, right now, our code does allow four stories, uh, but it does have a maximum height restriction of 55 ft. So, if you took those heights from the previous slide and you did a ground floor commercial at 20 ft and you stacked three floors of office above it at 16 ft each, that would bring this building to a total height of 68 ft, which even though it's four stories, it does now exceed our maximum height requirement. So, they wouldn't be able to develop that within the town today without having to go through a reszoning process. Uh, these next couple of slides are just concepts of what a building could look like at these increased heights. So, this is the chamber site. Um the top image is showing a concept development of 55 ft. It's three stories. It's got 53,000 ft of parking, 9,000 ft of ground floor commercial, and 43,000 ft of office and amenities. If you took that and you added two stories to it, the image on the bottom shows that development at 72 feet, uh the parking remains the same at 53,000 with ground flooror commercial of 9,000, but you've then increased your office and amenity space to um almost 73,000 ft. Just that development in a larger context. And we wanted to provide an example of the bonus structure option as well. So this is Von Oak on the northwest corner. The top image shows a four-story development at 55 ft. It's got 82,000 ft of parking, ground flooror commercial at 18,600 ft² with 225,000t of residential and also the incorporation of some town homes along that stretch of oak. Um, if you took that development though and you added three stories to it, your development would then be seven stories at 92 feet tall. that extra 2 feet is allowed due to encroachment for height with parapets and uh mechanical equipment. Uh the parking would then increase to 128,000 ft. Ground floor commercial would remain the same at 18,600 and your residential would increase to 335,000 square ft. Uh this concept doment on the bottom did incorporate underground parking. It did incorporate um excess public parking and it did incorporate landscaping. And this is just that development in a larger context. So this is just highlighting what the different steps are for this project and where we are today. We're currently on step five, which is the planning commission public hearing recommendation. Um from here we will go to town council for a study session on November 18th and from there it'll ultimately go to decision with the town council after that. Uh so redevelopment commission study session feedback. We took this to study session on September 17th. Uh the feedback we received from those commissioners was that they were generally supportive of the increase in height. Um, we did address the distancing from Gilbert Road, uh, for parcels that don't have buildable space 10t from Gilbert Road. Um, how does the height increase impact older buildings? Uh, building permitting would remain the same. The review process is the same. Um, how will parking be managed? Some resident feedback. Three residents did speak um highlighting that the height change should be managed to the redevelopment plan and that if possible the 200 to 300 block of Gilbert Road shouldn't be part of this. So from there we took it to a study session with you on October 1st. A lot of feedback was concerns with parking. Um why is this necessary? What was the feedback from the redevelopment commission? Are there specific users driving this request? Um at that hearing we did have two residents that spoke. the feedback was largely the same. Um, but also they requested the desire to keep 55 ft on Gilbert Road and allow taller buildings elsewhere within the district. So, parking keeps coming up and is a a hot topic when it comes to increasing height. So, I wanted to highlight how we handle parking today. Um, this parking requirement is not going to change within the district. We do allow off-site parking for commercial uses through an administrative use permit process, but to be eligible for that, you have to be a non-residential use. You have to have available vacant parking within 10,000 feet of your parcel. And the parking AUP is only eligible for as we have parking available. So if if a building does come in and it wants to build to 75 ft, if they don't have this available parking within 1,000 ft of their parcel or they're not able to self park themselves, then they they just can't build to 75 ft. They have to be able to develop to what their parcel allows. So, we took this to the redevelopment commission for um their recommendation and the feedback was that um they were overall supportive of it. It received a recommendation approval of 4 to zero. Um there was a little bit of back and forth conversation about whether 90 ft was enough for the bonus height and that maybe 110 ft to 120 ft could be more beneficial when it comes to construction costs and making developments pencil. Um when it came down to voting on it, um their decision was to keep it at 90 ft with the possibility of maybe revisiting increasing that height even further through conversations with the community during the redevelopment plan uh renewal in 2028. Um in addition to that, we do also now have a position statement from the Chamber of Commerce which um provided a letter of support um for the height increase as well which was included in your staff report packet. Um so just to summarize again what we are requesting is an increased height within the HBC zoning district. This creates a more streamlined and quicker process so that per uh projects are not having to go through a uh 6 to 12 month resoning process. It brings the code into better alignment with developments so that four-story developments could come in even though they exceed the 55 ft in height. Uh it does have positive economic impacts and it is consistent with development trends. And for that we do recommend uh your recommendation of approval to the town council and I am available for your questions. >> Thank you very much Kristen. Anyone have any questions for her? >> Commissioner Dervina >> Commissioner great presentation. I'm just a little bit confused on this 55 uh foot requirement with four stories to go to 75 ft. Are we still staying within four stories and what is the maximum number of stories that you guys think is appropriate for this area if we're going above the four stories? >> Sure. So, Chairman, Commissioner Darvina, um we are eliminating the fourtory requirement and we are just keeping it at a height requirement now. So, instead of having a height requirement and the story requirement, we're just doing 75 ft. So, that kind of gives a bit more flexibility on what your floorto floor heights can be and how many stories fit within that 75 ft development. Realistically, you're only adding probably one, maybe two stories to a development with this increase in height. >> So, you are going above the four stories then. >> If the development comes in it, if it's within 75 ft and they can fit six stories, then yes, but they can't exceed that 75 ft. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Any other questions or comments? >> Yeah, >> Commissioner Simon. Um Kristen, thank you for the presentation. I um do have a couple of comments uh questions. Can you go back to this slide that shows um the impacted buildings based on the 75? There you go. That one. Um, so with regards to parking, and I know that this comes up quite a bit, your stipulations in the packet, um, if they choose to want to go over the the 75 ft that get to 75 to 90 ft, you're basically allowing them to choose one or the other. choose one to get to the 75 feet and then or two to get to the 90 feet. >> Sure. So, Chairmont, Commissioner Simon, um what we're requesting is a blanket increase over HBC to 75. So, all HBC projects could go to 75 ft. Those bonus structures to do with increased uh parking capacities. Um that would be to go from 75 to 90 for parcels off of Gilbert Road. So, they can't touch Gilbert Road. >> Okay. I I I guess a a couple of things that that really create hesitation in me and I've voiced pretty significant concerns the last time we talked about this in study session. Um, with regards to increasing height, I understand the complexities behind trying to get through additional height if you need it by request for P A or what whatnot, but I feel like we've talked in length with regards to how office space is not being needed or utilized. We've got the Rivulon that's sitting 80% empty or whatever it is now. Um, and obviously we're excuse me, trying to trying to do forward looking. Um, but what I see is you'll get 20 feet plus on the first floor for, you know, class A restaurant and then you you might get office on the second floor. >> If there's um, and I don't know what you would call it, we'll call it a a deck area for a a third floor restaurant slash patio eating potentially. And then you're going to get residential above that which because I don't see office going higher. Yes, you've got the collab which we continue to go back to the collab and say hey look if we do this we're going to get all of this. >> We have that at Rivolon and we don't we don't have it. So that's where my hard piece is on this, trying to retain what we have in the heritage district, although it is in essence a false downtown, right? Um, so the I have some struggle. If we go to residential, I would almost put a requirement, not a choice, that they go to subterranean parking for the residential if any of the buildings come as in as residential because the lot sizes are so small. I just don't see them being able to sustain any parking that would substantiate >> any type of residential. So then then we're talking retail and office and that's it. Granted, I understand the politics behind, hey, we need to figure out our tax basis. We need to figure out our long-term sustainability of the community and all those things, and that's not our purview on the planning commission. But looking at it from a holistic perspective, this almost feels to me like it's playing politics with, yeah, we'll grant it, but we know nobody's going to come in and build it. So, I just struggle with a lot of different things that are that are in here. I struggle with losing what the Heritage District is and has become. my I do not want it to be a lot of onestory total alcohol sale buildings, right? Um I think that there's there's some great things that can be done in the Heritage District or the HVC, but I feel like this height in my mind when I put a put a practical application to it just doesn't make sense. So that's all I have to say. Thank you. >> Thank you, Commissioner Simon. Any other comments or questions? >> Okay. Well, then I will open up the public comment. I do not have any comment cards. Is anyone here wishing to speak on this item that has not filled out a comment card? All right. Not seeing any public comment. I will close the public portion and bring it back up to the dis for discussion or a motion. >> Commissioner S. >> I'll make a point of point of discussion and and that is from a business perspective. I completely understand needing to find revenue for the community. I get that density and height potentially drives that. Um, I I guess I guess we need to really take a deep dive into what the long-term viability and what we want this downtown area to look like. Um, and if this is where we want to go with it and if this is the right time to do it. So, I just I just I feel like I'm just struggling with this decision because I can see it both directions. So, >> all right. Thank Thank you. Anyone else? Okay. A lot of chatty cathies. Well, then if anyone of you would like to make a motion, I'll go ahead and make it. Uh for reasons set forth in the staff report, move to recommend approval to the town council for Z2510 as requested subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. >> Second. We have a motion and a second. A very thorough, beautiful motion, Commissioner. All right. Please cast your votes. Motion carries 5 to two. Moving right along into item number 13, Z2511 LDC text amendment, middle housing. And we'll bring Ashley down from the high ground over there. And like I say, I love middle housing because it's very Tolkenesque. It sounds like we're going to Middle Earth. >> Thank you, chairman and commission. Um, first I'll apologize to Yan. I think you've heard this presentation as many times as I've given it. Um, so I will try and make this entertaining perhaps. Z2511 is an LDC text amendment related to middle housing. Um, by way of background, uh, the Senate last year, um, as part of House Bill 2721 adopted legislation that requires cities and towns to address middle housing within our ordinances. So by January 1st of 2026, we have to authorize by ordinance regulations that would allow for the development of um what is what is called middle housing and that comprises that's comprised of duplexes, triplexes, forplexes, and town homes. Uh we have to do this on all lots within one mile of our central business district. Last year the town designated the heritage district as our central business district uh related to this bill um so that we could comply with these provisions. Um, we also have to authorize it on 20% of any new development that's 10 contiguous acres or more. Um, so if we don't adopt these regulations before January 1st, middle housing would be allowed on all lots zoned for single family within the town without limit. Um, and so we are moving forward with this text amendment in order to comply with the state law. Uh, as I've previously mentioned through study sessions, House Bill 2721 outlines specific things that cities and towns cannot regulate as part of our our ordinances. Um, specifically that we can't um limit homes or limit these middle housing developments to less than two stories. We can't restrict the floor area ratio of the development. We can't make the permitting and approval process any more um ownorous or restrictive than those of other single family lots within the same zoning districts. Um, we can't require that the owners occupy any structure on the lot. Um, or that they comply with building codes or have sprinklers. And then lastly, we can't require more than one parking space per unit. So, you'll see um through our draft of this ordinance um compliance with these specific items. Um, but it's worth mentioning just as we go through that, uh, that's why you'll see this version drafted the way it is. Uh the the Senate bill or the um bill also defined what a duplex, floorplex, town home, and triplex is specifically. And so in order to comply with those definitions, we've added them to our code. Um they're under the the category of middle housing. So these definitions would apply to middle housing development. um not this wouldn't replace our our typical duplex definition within the code um because of the uni uniqueness of the um bill language in that duplexes for example um can be detached units. That's not typically what we see. And so these definitions would pertain specifically to middle housing development types. Um how we're addressing where these would be allowed is by updating our use regulation table 3.1.2 2 by adding a use category of middle housing that would be permitted in all single family zoning districts. And then it refers on the right hand side of that column to some additional standards where we're adding in a new section to our code related to middle housing. Um, a couple of things to note as it relates to middle housing and our our provision of the code. Uh, as I mentioned, we do have to allow it within one mile of our central business district. uh we wanted to add language that clarified that it has to be located entirely within um that onem buffer area. So um if just the the small corner of your lot is within that one mile area, it wouldn't qualify. The lot would need to be entirely within the the mile area. We also wanted to add a provision that did allow for the development of middle housing within our central business district. That's not a requirement of the statute. Um but given our central business district, uh we thought that it made sense to allow these to um be developed within it as well, not just within the buffer area. And then related to um new development greater than 10 contiguous acres. That's not specific to the central business district. That's across the town. Um the provisions within the bill indicate that it has to be on 20% of new development, but it didn't clarify whether that meant area or number of lots. So our code will do that. it will clarify that it can't occupy more than 20% of the total net area and it can't occupy more than 20% of the lot. So, we're requiring that it meet both of those at the 20%. Uh we're also providing four development standards. Um this ensures that it it complies with that provision that says we can't make it more restrictive or ownorous than other single family developments within the lot. One thing I will point out um related to this is item number four um where we are limiting the number of town home town home units to four. Um there was no limit in the um bill for four. Um however we think this is consistent with um their definition of the forplex. Um we also um indicate in here that town houses are not eligible for accessory dwelling units. um thereby, you know, quadrupling the density in these areas. And then we're also adding in a section um related to the application process just to ensure it's clear uh that folks understand what that application process is. Um for a kind of oneoff middle housing development that's going on a single lot, uh they would go straight to building permit. Um and then that's where it would be verified that they meet all of the de the all of the development standards. For projects that are part of a larger 10 acre or more development, they would follow the same process as the rest of the developments in that unit. So you would see those as a preliminary plat, a final plaid, um standard plans, those would go through that process. I mentioned we can't require more than one parking space per unit. So we've added a use classification of middle housing to our parking section um so that uh we can establish what the parking requirement is for middle housing. We're also adding in our central business district and buffer area map just for clarity um into the code so that we know what area we're talking about when we refer to the central business district. With that, um staff does recommend approval of this text amendment, but I'm happy to answer any questions that you have or take any feedback you might have. >> Thank you very much, Ashley. So, bringing it up here, does anybody have any comments or questions for Ashley? Vice Chair, take it away. >> Can we go back to that parking slide a little bit more? I know the last time we had talked, we were still fleshing out the answers and my question was, is it one spot per unit or one spot per bedroom? And we were still fleshing that out because the statute said unit, but it looks like you flushed it out and it's essentially one per bedroom. >> It's one space per unit. So, um, each living unit. So, if they're doing a forplex, they would need four. >> But there two spaces per two or more bedroom units. >> Uh um Vice Chair Fay, that u I included just for context the multif family requirement. Um we're just looking at the the bottom line that says middle housing. >> Oh, just the blue. So, so if you've got a two or threebedroom auxiliary unit, I mean, it's kind of a little bit weird to imagine a threebedroom, but you can still only require one parking space for that. And that's part of the statute because that that is pretty much straight out of the statute, right? >> That is correct. >> Uh thank you legislature. Okay, that was my question. >> Anyone else have any praise for the legislature like vice chair? Okay, very good. Well, thank you Ashley. I'll then open up the public comment and uh peruse the crowd for any individual who may have omitted filling out a comment card that would like to speak on this item. Not seeing any, I will close the public comment and bring it back to the dis for any further discussion or praise or a motion. >> Chairman Munt, I make a motion to approve item we're on 14 now, right? No. 13. Item 13, Z25-11 as written. >> I'll second that motion. >> Thank you very much. We have a motion from Vice Chair and a second from Commissioner Davis. Please cast your vote. Motion carries. Moving into, you guessed it, another LDC text amendment. Item number 14 Z2517 LDC text amendment administrative review of preliminary plat and Veronica. Good evening chairman, commissioners. Um tonight I will be propo uh presenting to you um an LDC text amendment to allow administrative review of preliminary plat. Um as we know uh this past legislative session um the governor signed into law house bill 2447. Um among other things this bill does require that all cities and towns review and approve preliminary plots without a public hearing. And the effective date of this would be January 1st of 2026. The language of the bill was um very it was a very small change that made but a pretty impactful one. This uh requirement used to be a may meaning it was at the discretion of the city or town. It is now shall so we are required to do this uh by statute. So the proposed text amendment that we have uh before you tonight um will allow staff to administratively approved preliminary plats and accompanying open space plans. Um however uh we did um hear the concern of the commission and um some residents at our last uh hearing um where we initiated and did the citizen review on this particular text amendment um where there was some concern about um perhaps some transparency of this type of review. So what we are proposing to do here is for preliminary plats and open space plans of 20 acres or more. Those will be will be presented to the planning commission as a study session item to uh to um to get uh comment and feedback from the planning commission. Um, at that point it would still be an administrative approval by staff, but we are still bringing it forward in a public forum for um any concerned citizens to hear the discussion and any feedback you might provide to staff. In addition to that, we did include um an appeal process in there for these admin administrative approvals. Um if there is um a person agrieved someone a member of the count town council uh town manager um the planning manager basically in compliance with our current process for appeals. Anybody who who fits those categories may uh may request an appeal of that administrative approval. That appeal would then come before the planning commission through the typical appeal process, public noticing, public hearing, um all of the good things that we have currently in our code for appeals. So with that, staff is recommending that the commission recommend approval to the PL to the town council. um approval of this proposed text amendment and I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have. >> Thank you very much, Veronica. Anyone have any questions or comments? >> Vice Chair, >> I do. Um two actually. The first one, the appeals, that's the applicant, not a member of the public surrounding the property. Correct. >> Uh Mr. Chairman, Vice Chair Fay. Um, in our our current roles, our current our current LDC on um appeals, there's actually a a list of potential appellants for something like this. Um, one would be the property owner of the property that is to be subdivided. Um, another is a member of council, the town manager, the planning manager, and then the last is a person agreved who has standing on the decision that is made. So there are a number of potential um appellants for this decision. >> Yeah, that would that last category include neighbors. >> The way that LDC um words that says a person who is agrieved and has standing, right? >> So if we were pardon me, Mr. Chairman, vice chair. Um if we were to receive um an appeal request from an adjacent property owner, we as staff would need to review whether or not that particular individual has standing to um to make the appeal, >> right? But unfortunately, that's the question I'm asking is would a neighbor have standing? >> Mr. Chair, um vice chair, excuse me. um those questions are are pretty uh fact intensive and the staff review that she's referring to would actually include the legal department. Um there has been, you know, we would review it in light of recent case law. Um so that is a a a question I I think that that kind of turns on the facts of the case depending on the neighbor. >> I don't I don't think that's true. a a neighbor, someone who's adjacent to the property, a neighbor, would they have standing or not? I don't I don't see that that's Yeah. If you're if we're debating whether someone who's half a mile away, do they maybe hima, but would a neighbor would someone who's adjacent to a property have standing to appeal? Essentially saying, I disagree that you gave the applicant this potentially, >> right? Uh duly noted, sir. Um I don't know of a bright line rule legal rule you're um sir that uh that states that a neighbor has standing per se. >> Exactly. I don't think there is one. And so I that's actually my my kind of beef that feeds one of the public it's a comment a public member made but I I do agree with that >> that this um this is just more of the undermining transparency and and such. So that's that's my concern about the appeals piece. The other piece is and I it's I I think this is a criticism of the legislation, but this is a bad idea. It undermines transparency. It undermines council. It it kind of takes us out of the buffer, the protective buffer that council has. Well, it won't have anymore. Um, this is just I mean I don't I I'm criticizing the legislation here, but I I don't think there's it's like a little bit like arguing against gravity, but overall this is from a local control, from a protecting the political class, from a transparency with the public. This is all around a bad law. And I don't think we have a choice in the matter, but it's resoundingly I don't know that there is anything other than potentially speed and efficiency for the applicant. I don't know that there is anything good about this law. >> Mr. Chairman, vice chair, if I may. Um, thank you for for the feedback. It's it's appreciated. Um, it we can make the assumption that the um reasoning behind this is as you had mentioned for speed and efficient efficiency for the developer. Um, also, um, as you may recall last year, um, uh, mid part of 2024, um, there were some other, um, changes made regarding plats where, um, only certain plats would go before the town council. Um, otherwise, they're all, uh, reviewed by our, uh, development engineering manager. Um, which also have the same um, appeal process on it. So it it appears as though you know there's been a um a trajectory towards this type of thing. >> Yeah. I I I think the development community is the ones writing these laws that the legislature and this is not a criticism of you. We don't have a choice. It's we have to adapt our code to what the ARS says. We're not a sovereign entity. We're a political subdivision. It it is what it is. And I was I I raised more or less the same opposition to the the same transparency and and harm for the polit political subdivision last time too. And so not a criticism of you. We have to do it. And I'm just venting. >> Thank you. Understood. >> Thank you, Vice Chair. Any other comments or questions or criticisms therein? Okay, I'll then open up the public comment. I do not have any comment cards. Once again, I will scan the immense vast crowd to see if any of the many individuals still with us were here to speak on this item. Not seeing any, I will close the public comment and bring it right back here to the dis for additional discussion or a motion. I'd be willing to make a motion to approve um item 14 Z2517 LDC text amendment for administrative review of preliminary plat. >> We have a motion from Commissioner Davis. Do I have a second? >> Second. >> I'll second. >> I got a second from Commissioner Anderson. All right. Please cast your votes. Motion carries 61. All right, that takes us to the end because of course, as you all may remember, we already did item 15 into the administrative items. These are for the commission's discussion and action. It is of the discretion of the majority of the commission regarding public input and requests of any administrative items. And okay, item 16, the 2026 planning commission meetings. We need to consider the approval of the calendar for next year's meetings. Likely subject to change, of course, but uh has everybody reviewed those and checked your calendars to be sure that you will be available forthright? I spent many hours looking at that. So, all right. Well, in that case, I would entertain a motion. >> Chairman Munt, I would move to approve item 16, which I did not review or look at at all uh as it is written. We have a motion from an aloof vice chair. Do I have a second? >> Uh, I'll make a second. I also did not review it. Thank you, >> Commissioner Gage with the second. All right. Please cast your vote whether or not you actually reviewed said meeting calendar. We have a pass item number 17, planning commission minutes to consider the approval of the minutes from the study session and regular meeting from back in October the 1st year of our Lord 2025. Does anyone have any amendments to those minutes? Then I would entertain a motion. Uh, I do not have any amendments, but I I I sometimes I go on tirades and get a little bit aggressive. I'd like to thank whoever writes them for sanitizing and making me look much nicer than I I think I am in person. So, would you please pass along my my gratitude? That is an infinitely difficult job, sir. I don't do it, of course, but that said, uh, Chairman Mont, I move to approve item 17 as they are written. >> Thank you, sir. We have a motion. Do I have a second? >> I'll second it. Second from Commissioner Dearina on the end. Please cast your vote and the motion carries. Minutes approved. Communications time. No executive session. So we will come right back to all of us for a report from chairman and members of the commission on current events. Does anyone have anything of note they would like to discuss? Commissioner Degina. >> Um, this Saturday at the Islands Community Park, which is just south and east of McQueen and Warner, is the Islands car show. And it's kind of fun to walk through. It's free, so they have it annually. Very nice. Anything else? All right. I don't have much other than I just am missing a little league game tonight. So hopefully the mighty muscles are pulling out a big win. We got playoffs coming soon. That's a big deal for anyone who's got, you know, kids of the in my my case the 8 to 10 age. Little league is it's a lot of fun. So go muscles. Okay, then we'll go to item number 19 and back to Ashley for the report from the planning services manager on current events. No updates from me either. >> Okay. Well, because you've all made everything so boring other than vice chair's tirades, we will move right along into uh adjournment or a motion thereof. >> I will make a motion to adjurnn. >> We have a motion. Second, Commissioner Gage on the adjournment of this meeting. And we have a second from the vice chairman. Please cast your votes. I didn't even have to say stop the count and it went through. Motion carries. Thank you all for coming.